Blenheim Posted June 15, 2001 Share Posted June 15, 2001 OK, let´s solve this dispute in a Steel Beasts Shell fest !!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalin's Organ Posted June 15, 2001 Share Posted June 15, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blenheim: OK, let´s solve this dispute in a Steel Beasts Shell fest !!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Good grief - who bought this moron along??!! this is a CM forum!! But if ayone wants to then fine - Fireflys vs Tiger 2's - bags I the Fireflies and lots of forests and hills Or, alternatively, 17 pdrs vs 88mm PAK's, since that's what the original question was about..... [ 06-14-2001: Message edited by: Stalin's Organ ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Fox Posted June 15, 2001 Share Posted June 15, 2001 Good post Dan, nofink like a bit of real life evidence. Medinine showed that by that time the 8th Army completely had the wood on the Afrika Corps. In fact even with 6pdrs they seemed to do Ok vs Tigers. In CM you seldom see AT guns in the numbers they were employed by the British. Some brit inf Bn had up to 12 AT guns in the desert, add to that the AT regiments at divisional level and you have a fair bit of AT defence. In CM it may be gun vs tank but in reality it was guns. Comparing the Firefly and the Tiger is apples and oranges. Anyway why would a Firefly be pinging away at a MkIV you only need a Stuart or Daimler for that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalin's Organ Posted June 15, 2001 Share Posted June 15, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox: In fact even with 6pdrs they seemed to do Ok vs Tigers. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Except that everyone else was talling about Tiger 2's - Konigs Tigers, Pzkpfwgn VIB, etc., NOT the Tiger 1 that was used in Africa..... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> In CM you seldom see AT guns in the numbers they were employed by the British. Some brit inf Bn had up to 12 AT guns in the desert, add to that the AT regiments at divisional level and you have a fair bit of AT defence. In CM it may be gun vs tank but in reality it was guns. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Cough, splutter....in CM I regularly see 3-4 AT guns to a company of infantry, and it's hte AT guns that I watch out for - 'cos they're harder to see until it's too late! <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Comparing the Firefly and the Tiger is apples and oranges. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Exactly - a point lost on smoe people! <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Anyway why would a Firefly be pinging away at a MkIV you only need a Stuart or Daimler for that <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> For the same reason the Tiger is pinging the Firefly - it's a free shot!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rexford Posted June 15, 2001 Share Posted June 15, 2001 Folks think that 6 pounder AP was just fine against Tiger, it wasn't. If shots had too much penetration they shattered, which is evident from test data in Jentz. 6 pounder penetrated Tiger at range where shatter failure odds were minimal. 17 pounder AP knocking out Tigers at 1500m does not rule out shatter failures at other ranges, it indicates that at that range the shatter phenomena didn't occur cause penetration was outside shatter range. At close range 17 pounder could shatter fail against mantlet armor on Tiger I. Brits had wonderful 17 pounder ATG, Germans had 88L71 which was worlds better. Brits had backwards facing Archer, Germans had armorless Nashorn (with mild steel plates, if one can call them that). A couple of well camouflaged Marders and Firefly is toast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalin's Organ Posted June 15, 2001 Share Posted June 15, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rexford: A couple of well camouflaged Marders and Firefly is toast.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Oh gosh - well how about a couple of well-camoflaged 50-57mm AT guns to KO any tank in WW2?? Oh..one other question - did any German guns have shatter gaps vs allied armour?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freak Posted June 15, 2001 Share Posted June 15, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stalin's Organ: Oh..one other question - did any German guns have shatter gaps vs allied armour?? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Not sure but I don't think so. German ammo AFAIK, was made better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Robertson Posted June 15, 2001 Share Posted June 15, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rexford: 17 pounder AP knocking out Tigers at 1500m does not rule out shatter failures at other ranges, it indicates that at that range the shatter phenomena didn't occur cause penetration was outside shatter range. Guns at Medinine were opening up at 400 meters and getting one shot kills on German Tanks, I would never rule out shatter gap but, it seams that such things were very varible. Also I was under the impression that the 17pdr solid round was considerably less likely to shatter fail At close range 17 pounder could shatter fail against mantlet armor on Tiger I. Brits had wonderful 17 pounder ATG, Germans had 88L71 which was worlds better. Depends what you class as better, we have a 17pdr gun in the DLI museum it is pretty compact you could tow it with a light vehicle. The 88 on the other hand was a very much bigger weapon even in it pure AT gun guise. If you want to compare the guns only the 17pdr was a very much better gun, for its size it fired a shell with much greater power than that of any other nation. It imparts the same energy to its round as the German long 75. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coe Posted June 20, 2001 Author Share Posted June 20, 2001 If the 17lbr as an AT gun was much better than the 88mm why didn't the germans try to produce the 17lbr... was the 75mm Long better than the 17lbr? By better I mean smaller, can be carried around easier, better profile, better penetration values at various distances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Lakowski Posted June 20, 2001 Share Posted June 20, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Freak: Not sure but I don't think so. German ammo AFAIK, was made better.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> All AP projectiles will shatter , its just a question of reaching the right [ or wrong] angle of impact and striking velocities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freak Posted June 20, 2001 Share Posted June 20, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Paul Lakowski: All AP projectiles will shatter , its just a question of reaching the right [ or wrong] angle of impact and striking velocities.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think the early ap shatter flaw in higher muzzle velocity guns was disguised by the lower muzzle velocity of the 75mm sherman. When higher muzzle velocity sherman 76 was introduced, the shatter problem was discovered when 76 sherman ap failed to penetrate 100mm thick Tiger IICRC. I am not fully sure on this, but this is what my memory recalls. Wasn't there a fix this situation of the 76mm ap shell? AFAIK, german ap ammo shell did not have this flaw. (flaw in ap shell)? Again, this is off the top of my head, and I am trying to recall rexford posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted June 20, 2001 Share Posted June 20, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Freak: Wasn't there a fix this situation of the 76mm ap shell? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The combat mission penetration model has less penetration for the us 76mm than you would get by the plain formular applied to speed, weigth etc of the projectile. Charles introduced that to model the scatter problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Lakowski Posted June 21, 2001 Share Posted June 21, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Freak: I think the early ap shatter flaw in higher muzzle velocity guns was disguised by the lower muzzle velocity of the 75mm sherman. When higher muzzle velocity sherman 76 was introduced, the shatter problem was discovered when 76 sherman ap failed to penetrate 100mm thick Tiger IICRC. I am not fully sure on this, but this is what my memory recalls. Wasn't there a fix this situation of the 76mm ap shell? AFAIK, german ap ammo shell did not have this flaw. (flaw in ap shell)? Again, this is off the top of my head, and I am trying to recall rexford posts.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The fix to shatter problem was supposed to be softer caps put on the penetrator ...It was the blunting of the tip that change the shatter problem... In modern AP shots [ for auto cannons] they is no APCBC just AP with a windscreen with either a blunt or sharp nose under the windscreen depending on what you want to penetrate. Modern APFSDS are all blunt/ flat tips, because at that velocity all metals will shatter at the tip, even if they are 700 VHP WC or modern DU/WHA rods. The harder the penetrator the higher the thresh hold so , for the velocities they choose , the german ammo survived because it was harder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts