howardb Posted August 7, 2000 Share Posted August 7, 2000 I'm having major difficulties with these pesky Fireflies. My Tigers are getting knocked out at 1800 meters. How did the Tiger stand against the Firefly, was the Firefly able to knock out a Tiger at that distance? How common was that? I have to revise my tactics a little Nothing was hull down or anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgdpzr Posted August 7, 2000 Share Posted August 7, 2000 Absolutely! The 17pounder was by far the best allied ATG of the war, at least for the western allies. If you look at the penetration statistics of the gun (click enter when you have selected a Firefly) you will see its lethality. No German tank is safe from the weapon, especially when firing tungsten rounds (not sure about the frontal armor of the Jagdtiger, though). The only drawback of the weapons versus the German guns, was that it was reportedly less accurate. I don't think that is modeled in the game, however. ------------------ "Sometimes you eat the bar and sometimes the bar eats you. Take it easy, Dude." -- The Stranger The Dude abides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DesertFox Posted August 7, 2000 Share Posted August 7, 2000 Using APDS [Armour Piercing Discarding Sabot] the 17pounder [Firefly gun] was able to defeat the Tiger I armour as it is modelled in CM right now [basically 100mm hull and turret front] at ranges up to 1800 metres. If you look at the Tiger thread the Tiger turret front modell needs a little bit tweaking here to reflect the effective turett front armour it really had. Using APCBC [Armour Piercing Capped with Ballistic Cap] the 17 pounder wasn´t able to defeat the Tiger I frontally until below 400 metres. In Ken Touts book "A fine night for tanks" there is a first hand account which mentions NOT getting a penetration frontally on a Tiger I when engaging it at eight, repeat eight!, metres with ABCBC. So you don´t have a 100 % chance to suceed here To frontally engage a Tiger with a Firefly was suicide. Allied tankers were trying to get a flank shot at the Tiger or any other german tank. Common allied practice was first to blaster the monster with HE and AP out of the 3 other 75mm Shermans of the platoon to force the Tiger Commander to button up and then to come in for the KILL with the Firefly. BTW: To NOT frontally engage any enemy tank at all is something you really should consider. It enhances the survival rate of your tanks dramatically. Hunt for his weak flanks and you almost ever will suceed, regardless which tank you are engaging. Helge ------------------ Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate! - The DesertFox - Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com WWW: http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
howardb Posted August 7, 2000 Author Share Posted August 7, 2000 Thanks for the replies. Helge: that was the answer I was looking for. It might be in order to tweak a couple of small things in this great game after what I've read in the forum, nothing big just like I said a little <tweaking>. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Formerly Babra Posted August 7, 2000 Share Posted August 7, 2000 In a particular scenario there is a Firefly armed exclusively with HE ammo which can consistently take out a Tiger at 300 yds or so. I've played it so many times it's not a fluke. I'm having trouble getting my head around that one. ------------------ It's a mother-beautiful bridge and it's gonna be THERE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DesertFox Posted August 7, 2000 Share Posted August 7, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It might be in order to tweak a couple of small things in this great game after what I've read in the forum, nothing big just like I said a little<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Right. The sign that we end up in these discussions that occasionally are almost nitpicking is actually a good sign, since it shows BTS that: a) We love this game and We aren´t able to find something more important so that we start whining at relatively minor matters. Helge ------------------ Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate! - The DesertFox - Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com WWW: http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dittohead Posted August 7, 2000 Share Posted August 7, 2000 Also the VC firefly has up to 8 rds of Tungsten and the IIc 2 rds. Not sure if the load out varies like AP or HE. Not sure how available the rds were for british tanks. Seems like an awful lot considering US tankers had to fight to get tungsten rds. And they can only have up to 5 rds for M4-76. Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pascal DI FOLCO Posted August 7, 2000 Share Posted August 7, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by howardb: I'm having major difficulties with these pesky Fireflies. My Tigers are getting knocked out at 1800 meters. How did the Tiger stand against the Firefly, was the Firefly able to knock out a Tiger at that distance? How common was that? I have to revise my tactics a little Nothing was hull down or anything.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Indeed my Tigers have been repeatedly blasted by Fireflies in all my attempts at Villers-Bocage. The distances were more like 300m, and it seems that one of the main advantage of the Flies was a faster turret, so the Tigers lost when dueling. It was also a surprise to me, I knew the 17pdr was able to defeat Tigers but thought that I could blow them faster...it's definitely not the case ------------------ PDF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TP_Bomber Posted August 7, 2000 Share Posted August 7, 2000 You might just be lucky using the Firefly. I am in a PBEM game right now and had my Firefly set up just perfect for a 200 meter flank shot at a Panther. My crack Brit Firefly crew hit the Panther in the tracks imbolizeing it. The Panther was able to swing the turrent around, and take 2 shots at my Firefly blowing him to bits on the 2nd shot. The Firefly was still reloading during all of this! So much for a crack crew. BTW the Panther crew was veteren. Why does it take so damm long for a Firefly crew to reload when a Panther has time to take 2 shots? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatAWilson Posted August 7, 2000 Share Posted August 7, 2000 TP_Bomber: I am at risk of talking out of my butt here but I'm sure others will be very happy yo correct me if I'm wrong. To make a Firefly they really had to squeeze that 17 Pdr into a Sherman. I don't know what the inside of the tank looked like but it's quite probable that it was very cramped which would lead to a slow reload time. The Panther OTOH was built with its gun in mind so operating it would probably be more efficient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dittohead Posted August 7, 2000 Share Posted August 7, 2000 Plus after every shot I believe the crew has a spot of tea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henri Posted August 7, 2000 Share Posted August 7, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The DesertFox: We aren´t able to find something more important so that we start whining at relatively minor matters. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Right: it really cheeses me off to see that the little drive wheels on the tanks don't rotate! . Fer cryin' out loud, how can the tracks advance without the wheels rotating? This is so unrealistic . I bet no one ever saw a real WW2 tank advance without its wheels rotating! What's next, flying tanks? It ruins the whole game for me... , especially since I saw the videos for WW2online; THEIR wheels rotate, so this game is MUCH more realistic than Combat Mission! And I bet Fionn has been exploiting this when playing against newbies Since Charles didn't say that he is gonna fix this, it proves that BTS doesn't care about its customers. Henri Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted August 7, 2000 Share Posted August 7, 2000 Shhh Henri, Most newbies are blisfully unaware that if wheels rotated my King Tigers would be as vulnerable as Stuarts . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted August 7, 2000 Share Posted August 7, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Using APCBC [Armour Piercing Capped with Ballistic Cap] the 17 pounder wasn´t able to defeat the Tiger I frontally until below 400 metres.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Helge - I believe this is incorrect. Two sources: 1) "Tiger I Heavy Tank" by Jentz, Doyle, Sarson (New Vanguard). p.17-18. "The data presented [in the 17pdr penetration table] was found in an STT secret document dated April 1944: It is obvious that the 17pdr firing APCBC rounds could defeat the frontal armour of the Tiger I at most combat ranges for tank vs. tank actions in Europe." The table lists penetration range for the 17pdr vs. the Tiger I at 1900 yards (turret and driver front plate) and 1700 yards (nose). 2) "Sherman" by Hunnicutt (Presidio). p. 565. 17 pounder APCBC armor penetration is listed as: 140mm @ 500 yards 130mm @1000 yards 120mm @1500 yards 111mm @ 2000 yards Of course there is always some fudging and wiggle room with these numbers, due to differing hardness and quality of test plates used by different nations, and differing definitions of "successful penetration". But these numbers are so clearly superior to the Tiger I's unsloped armor (roughly 100mm max on the hull, about 120mm on the turret, apparently) that a little fudging won't save the Tiger here. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In Ken Touts book "A fine night for tanks" there is a first hand account which mentions NOT getting a penetration frontally on a Tiger I when engaging it at eight, repeat eight!, metres with ABCBC. So you don´t have a 100 % chance to suceed here<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> There was likely a side angle present here. Even just thirty degrees angle-off would be enough to account for this phenomenon completely. Side angles are enormously important in armor combat, especially when the armor is "undermatched" (i.e. thick compared to the diameter of the incoming shell) as it would be in this case. * * * Formerly Babra - I'll check into the HE-killing-Tigers thing. Might be a bug. Was this from the front? Side? Can you give me more details? Charles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DesertFox Posted August 7, 2000 Share Posted August 7, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>1) "Tiger I Heavy Tank" by Jentz, Doyle, Sarson (New Vanguard). p.17-18. "The data presented [in the 17pdr penetration table] was found in an STT secret document dated April 1944: It is obvious that the 17pdr firing APCBC rounds could defeat the frontal armour of the Tiger I at most combat ranges for tank vs. tank actions in Europe." The table lists penetration range for the 17pdr vs. the Tiger I at 1900 yards (turret and driver front plate) and 1700 yards (nose).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Charles, Ahhh, that´s a new one for me. Actually I was referring to the data presented at David Honners site. Due to his sources front turret penetrations with APCBC would be a little bit difficult at 1800 metres. However fiddling around with all these pen data is no easy task. The Tiger definitively wasn´t invincible. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>There was likely a side angle present here. Even just thirty degrees angle-off would be enough to account for this phenomenon completely. Side angles are enormously important in armor combat, especially when the armor is "undermatched" (i.e. thick compared to the diameter of the incoming shell) as it would be in this case<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Might be so...it´s quite a while that I have read Touts book. However the reason why I remembered this part was that it was an account of a british officer who participated in the defeat of Wittmanns ill conducted [without flank security] charge at 8th August 44 near St.Aignan de Cramesnil. BTW: 5 out of 8 Tiger Is were burning crap at the end of the day due to british Fireflies that caught the Tigers in their flanks. Helge ------------------ Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate! - The DesertFox - Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com WWW: http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aussie Smith Posted August 8, 2000 Share Posted August 8, 2000 In reference to the Firefly rounds per minute issue - the summation of a cramped firepit is true. The Firefly was restricted to using the existing turret ring of the Sherman - which was designed for a short breach 75mm - the 17lb'er at Bovington in the UK demonstrates the size of the breech required for this weapon - and having crawled all over a Sherman I can testify that the breech needed the turret extension created at the rear of the Firefly Turret just so the 17lb'er could fit - reloading was a real bitch. Furthermore we need to remember that the Firefly had a crew of 4 not 5 so the demands on the crew and by extension (under battle conditions) an increase in crew fatigue would be an issue that would contribute to accuracy and rate of fire. Still - The Brits had a weapon (albeit it not perfect) that was mobile (but ****ful against infantry ) but could and did defeat the best tanks Germany could provide - if Big Time has modelled this effect into the rnds per min cycle of the Firefly I'm impressed. I wonder if they have modelled the slower turret traverse of the Firefly though? The bracing for the overlong barrel meant strengthening of the turret drive train in the Sherman which consequently had an impact on turret rotation. On a final note - it is testimony to the power and reputation of this Gun (with a tank built around it) that made German Panzer units add into their ToC any captured 17lb'ers or Firefly's - unlike the Standard Sherman's which more often than not ended up as Pill-boxes - The 17lb'er deserved its reputation - as did the Tiger - but that is another story (Tunisia beckons ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike the bike Posted August 8, 2000 Share Posted August 8, 2000 Flying tanks - but of course there are flying tanks!! Check out http://www.history.enjoy.ru/t27.html right at the bottom of the article. OK - so "tank" is being a bit generous This is a great site for those unfamiliar with Russian WW2 equipemnt and wanting to check out what might appear in CM* soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Lakowski Posted August 8, 2000 Share Posted August 8, 2000 Below is info from the game and my 1950 Ordnance Board report on penetration. <PRE> CM US 57mm 500m 1000 0' 91mm 70mm 30' 78mm 63mm Cm Br 6pdr 0' 91mm 70mm 30' 78mm 63mm CM Tung 0' 141mm 112mm 30' 112mm 90mm Ordnance Board 6 lb APCBC 500yards 1000 yards 0' 115mm 92mm 30' 106mm 85mm Ordnance Board 6 lb APDS 0' 165mm 146mm 30' 132mm 116mm 17lb APCBC 0' 165mm 146mm 30' 132mm 116mm 17lb APDS 0' 250mm 232mm 30' 208mm 191mm 60' ? 148mm </PRE> [This message has been edited by Paul Lakowski (edited 08-07-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GriffinCheng+ Posted August 8, 2000 Share Posted August 8, 2000 Tigers always have a tough times against Firefly, especially VC version. Definitely first shot always help but due to the "very slow" turret of Tiger IE it would need a little more luck to survive. I am not sure about the fire rate but most of the time, the 2nd shot from a Firefly kills. Spoilers below... Villers-Bocage : Tigers! scenario is especially tough against Firefly VCs since TacAI always use M5 half-tracks, crews and infrantries to distract your tigers and the Fireflies (plus Cromwell VII sometimes) move in and get the 1st shot kills at long range (>400m). One solution proposed by somebody else is, keep your tigers flanks and rear protected by buildings. However, in Villers Bocage operations, my Tigers are more successful against Firefly IIc when they get into hull down position. Both are very interesting and I may write more about it later in the CM Scenario area. In the meantime, search for Henri's excellent discussion of Villers-Bocage in USENET. Griffin @ lunch. ------------------ "+" is just the beginning. Expect to see "GriffinCheng76", "GriffinCheng(105)" or "GriffinChengA3E8" more should Forum problems occur again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts