LT. James Cater Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 I play the German side a lot because i like having to fight against the odds (that i also like their armored vehicles is another thread). That being said, a shiver runs down my spine whenever i suspect a Firefly is about. Even in a ferocious firefight with other tanks, a Firefly will receive immediate attention. Needless to say it doesn't always work and the result is one less tank. In one scenario, One Firefly accounted for 2 Tigers and 2 Panthers before being knocked out. It went a long way towards ensuring that my lines would eventually be overrun. You can scoff at pretty much all the other American and British tanks(well to an extent), but you must keep the Firefly in mind at all times. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Other Means Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 Originally posted by LT. James Cater: I play the German side a lot because i like having to fight against the odds in that case, you're playing the wrong side. you've got to win the armour war & the Germans are best equiped for that. any tank can kill a firefly but it takes a firefly to kill some the the uber armour. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rexford Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 Firefly APDS should not be used, or the amounts should be radically decreased, cause the stuff was inaccurate and would often/usually fail to penetrate anything and everything if it did hit. There are tests against the Tiger 100mm and 80mm plates where 17 pdr APDS penetrated at a relatively low velocity and failed at much higher velocities. Against Panther, APDS is much too effective in CMBO. First off, the quality factor should be a function of plate thickness and projectile diameter, so instead of 0.85 against 17 pdr hits (APCBC and APDS) it should be about 0.95. Secondly, the APDS is too inaccurate and too irregular in penetration really be effective a whole lot. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FM Paul Heinrik Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 The Churchill VII is a bad boy too. I know the Firefly can dish it out but the Churchill can take some punishment. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LT. James Cater Posted July 1, 2004 Author Share Posted July 1, 2004 Originally posted by Other Means: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by LT. James Cater: I play the German side a lot because i like having to fight against the odds in that case, you're playing the wrong side. you've got to win the armour war & the Germans are best equiped for that. any tank can kill a firefly but it takes a firefly to kill some the the uber armour. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete H Posted July 1, 2004 Share Posted July 1, 2004 Rexford, thanks for the useful suggestions here. I play UK normally and though its good in gaming terms to have such tank killers, in a simulation sense I do not feel that I am being forced to adopt the 'stealth' approach to taking out Tigers, etc. that the Allies were forced to use in reality. And playing as Germans ......! Even accepting a degree of exaggeration re. Tiger / Panthers in post war accounts, I feel they are being killed too readily. Main question: does CMAK represent 17pdr capability more accurately in your view? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rexford Posted July 1, 2004 Share Posted July 1, 2004 Originally posted by Pete H: Rexford, thanks for the useful suggestions here. I play UK normally and though its good in gaming terms to have such tank killers, in a simulation sense I do not feel that I am being forced to adopt the 'stealth' approach to taking out Tigers, etc. that the Allies were forced to use in reality. And playing as Germans ......! Even accepting a degree of exaggeration re. Tiger / Panthers in post war accounts, I feel they are being killed too readily. Main question: does CMAK represent 17pdr capability more accurately in your view? British and American tests with 17 pdr APCBC show that the round will not penetrate the Panther glacis even when the armor is of lower quality, and even at 0 and 200 yards range. So the Panther glacis quality should probably be about 0.95 against 17 pdr ammo. CMAK and CMBB make Panther glacis quality problems a random event that mostly occurs with Panther G's made during 1944 and 1945. Not every Panther has a deficient glacis, which accurately models what firing tests suggest. 17 pdr APDS is too accurate and too effective when it hits in CMBO. I have not looked at how it works in CMAK. Lorrin 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Other Means Posted July 1, 2004 Share Posted July 1, 2004 Originally posted by LT. James Cater: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Other Means: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by LT. James Cater: I play the German side a lot because i like having to fight against the odds in that case, you're playing the wrong side. you've got to win the armour war & the Germans are best equiped for that. any tank can kill a firefly but it takes a firefly to kill some the the uber armour. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John D Salt Posted July 1, 2004 Share Posted July 1, 2004 Originally posted by rexford: Firefly APDS should not be used, or the amounts should be radically decreased, cause the stuff was inaccurate and would often/usually fail to penetrate anything and everything if it did hit. [snips] 17-pdr APDS inaccuracy has been commented on before, but I can't recall anyone ever criticizing the penetration performance. What's your source for this, please? All the best, John. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Tittles Posted July 1, 2004 Share Posted July 1, 2004 I recall reading that its performance against sloped armor was inferior. I cant recall where. But its inaccuracy should limit a player to 1-2 rounds to adjust for its poor accuracy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rexford Posted July 2, 2004 Share Posted July 2, 2004 Originally posted by John D Salt: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by rexford: Firefly APDS should not be used, or the amounts should be radically decreased, cause the stuff was inaccurate and would often/usually fail to penetrate anything and everything if it did hit. [snips] 17-pdr APDS inaccuracy has been commented on before, but I can't recall anyone ever criticizing the penetration performance. What's your source for this, please? All the best, John. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rexford Posted July 2, 2004 Share Posted July 2, 2004 Originally posted by Mr. Tittles: I recall reading that its performance against sloped armor was inferior. I cant recall where. But its inaccuracy should limit a player to 1-2 rounds to adjust for its poor accuracy. 17 pdr APDS was actually much better than U.S. 76mm HVAP against sloped armor, due to higher penetration (when it worked) and lower slope multipliers. Against a 100mm plate at 55 degrees, 17 pdr APDS would be resisted with an equivalent vertical thickness of 275mm while U.S. 76mm HVAP would be resisted with 345mm. Since 17 pdr APDS outpenetrates U.S. 76mm HVAP by a wide margin, 17 pdr APDS will be more effective when it works. In British tests with 17 pdr APCBC and APDS, 90% of the APCBC fell within a 4.1 minute distance of the mean point of impact, while 90% of the APDS rounds fell within a 11.5 minute distance. At 800 yards, the 90% distances relate to 0.95m for 17 pdr APCBC (90% of constant aim shots from 0.48m below to 0.48m above mean impact), and 2.68m for 90% of APDS (from 1.34m below to 1.34m above mean impact). For the same range estimate, 17 pdr APCBC would have some significant advantages. There is an interesting thread on the AFV News site that deals with the relative inaccuracy of 17 pdr APDS. I will try to get the address and date of the posts. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rexford Posted July 2, 2004 Share Posted July 2, 2004 Go to following site and thread for an interesting discussion of 17 pdr APDS problems and solutions: http://www.activevr.com/afv/cgi_bin/web-bbs/webbbs_config.pl/read/52422 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John D Salt Posted July 2, 2004 Share Posted July 2, 2004 Originally posted by rexford: [snips] U.S. firing trials against three Panthers Isigny firing test report with shot by shot appendix is on following site, U.S. Army Test 3: http://www.geocities.com/mycenius Excellent site, and new stuff to me. The references to PRO piece numbers in the discussion board referenced in another of your posts gives me something to look out for next time I visit, too. Thanks for both. If only everyone could post accurate references to authoritative sources to back up their arguments... All the best, John. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Tittles Posted July 2, 2004 Share Posted July 2, 2004 http://web.inter.nl.net/users/spoelstra/g104/firefly-i.htm An interesting report. I would assume they are firing APCBC at the panther. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Tittles Posted July 3, 2004 Share Posted July 3, 2004 http://www.glcoupar.freeserve.co.uk/battleoflingevres1944/wd30co.htm This report demonstrates that the situation could benefit the firefly. The situation being close terrain and defending. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sirocco Posted July 3, 2004 Share Posted July 3, 2004 With regard to the accuracy of APDS, or Super Velocity Discarding Sabot*, as I believe it was originally called, there's an interesting passage in Baverstock's 'Breaking the Panzers'. It relates to 6pdr AT gun usage, but it might be relevant also to the 17pdr: "I now realise why we missed and carried on missing our target, as we set a range on the gun's range scale which should not have been done with this Sabot ammunition. ... we were not instructed, as we should have been, to fire them with our range scales set at 'T', i.e. no range..." Apologies if this has been mentioned before, or if it's completely irrelevant. * A useful introduction to terminology: http://www.battlefront.co.nz/Article.asp?ArticleID=324 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rexford Posted July 3, 2004 Share Posted July 3, 2004 Originally posted by Sirocco: With regard to the accuracy of APDS, or Super Velocity Discarding Sabot*, as I believe it was originally called, there's an interesting passage in Baverstock's 'Breaking the Panzers'. It relates to 6pdr AT gun usage, but it might be relevant also to the 17pdr: "I now realise why we missed and carried on missing our target, as we set a range on the gun's range scale which should not have been done with this Sabot ammunition. ... we were not instructed, as we should have been, to fire them with our range scales set at 'T', i.e. no range..." Apologies if this has been mentioned before, or if it's completely irrelevant. * A useful introduction to terminology: http://www.battlefront.co.nz/Article.asp?ArticleID=324 No, it is new and is much appreciated. The British did not prepare new gun sights or range tables when APDS ammo was given out, but told the troops to use a certain fraction of the range for APCBC ammo. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sirocco Posted July 4, 2004 Share Posted July 4, 2004 The book covers the SS counterattack at Rauray at the beginning of July. As I recall, the unit involved, the 49th ID, had plenty of APDS for their 6pdr's. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rexford Posted July 6, 2004 Share Posted July 6, 2004 Originally posted by Sirocco: The book covers the SS counterattack at Rauray at the beginning of July. As I recall, the unit involved, the 49th ID, had plenty of APDS for their 6pdr's. When the U.S. First Army tested 57mm APDS rounds against captured Panthers in France (July 1944, see mycenius site for test report), using British made APDS that the U.S. had limited supplies of from D-Day through the end of the war, they had trouble hitting the targets and could not determine effective penetration ranges. Mycenius report can be accessed at: http://www.geocities.com/mycenius See test report #2. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rexford Posted July 6, 2004 Share Posted July 6, 2004 John Salt, Please see new topic which I posted on 17 pdr APDS failures when penetration far exceeded effective resistance. Lorrin 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Tittles Posted July 6, 2004 Share Posted July 6, 2004 (2) On this basis all twenty-two (22) rounds of 76mm HVAP, T4, and all twenty-three (23) rounds of 17pdr APCBC hit the target. Only one (1) of eight (8) rounds of 76mm APC, M62, which fell short attempting to hit the nose, failed to hit the target. Forty-two (42) rounds of 17pdr SABOT were fired and only 57% [24 rounds] were hits. More rounds of 76mm APC, M62 were not fired since its accuracy had been well established in previous firing in the U.S. by two members of the board. This is from mycenius site. The tests appear to be at 200, 400 and 600 yards. The tests were performed by qualified English gunners. Its evident that this ammo (while it may have been a substandard lot) is very innaccurate. The test states that for the other ammo/weapons, its possible to hit particular parts of the targets (turret, bow, etc). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royal_Dragoon_Guard Posted July 16, 2004 Share Posted July 16, 2004 Originally posted by LT. James Cater: I play the German side a lot because i like having to fight against the odds (that i also like their armored vehicles is another thread). That being said, a shiver runs down my spine whenever i suspect a Firefly is about. Even in a ferocious firefight with other tanks, a Firefly will receive immediate attention. Needless to say it doesn't always work and the result is one less tank. Are you playing defensive? or are you on a rare German counter-attack against the British etc. If you're defending, even if heavily outnumbered, then a Firefly is just another "tommy cooker" if you get in the first shots, and you should. But if you're attacking, well that Firefly is very dangerous indeed, and the reverse is often the case! Perhaps this explains why the Germans nearly always came a cropper themselves in 1944 in Normandy, (now my home incidentally), because they sufferred the same problems we did! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sirocco Posted July 16, 2004 Share Posted July 16, 2004 Originally posted by Mr. Tittles: The tests were performed by qualified English gunners. Its evident that this ammo (while it may have been a substandard lot) is very innaccurate.There does seem to be a question mark over correct sighting being used: "Insufficient firing was conducted with 76mm HVAP projectile with 17pdr APCBC and 17pdr SABOT propellant to determine definite sight settings for a conclusive accuracy test." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rexford Posted July 18, 2004 Share Posted July 18, 2004 Originally posted by Sirocco: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mr. Tittles: The tests were performed by qualified English gunners. Its evident that this ammo (while it may have been a substandard lot) is very innaccurate.There does seem to be a question mark over correct sighting being used: "Insufficient firing was conducted with 76mm HVAP projectile with 17pdr APCBC and 17pdr SABOT propellant to determine definite sight settings for a conclusive accuracy test." </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.