Last Hussar Posted May 13, 2003 Share Posted May 13, 2003 From what I understand a 'standard' Sherman would have problems KOing a Tiger. The 17 pdr on the Firefly however was a different proposition. Col Eadie's quote re the Staffs Yeomanry illustrates this '...they [the Germans] will drive ... out of range of my 6 pdrs [about 1000 yrds], make a quick plan...They will form up their squadrons ... then drive straight for their objective. What they do not know is I have 3 troops of Fireflys' (Carlo D'Este, Decision in Normandy, pp139-140). This is effectively what happened, and the Germans were hammered, with the germans not expecting such a powerful response. The British were keen to disguise the Fireflys- even ordering the extra gun length be painted white so from a distance they looked like 'standard' Shermans. The advantage that Shermans did have was the US economy was untouched and larger, so could produce at a ratio of 5:1 to the German tanks. The reason why Tigers were such a defensive tank was their unreliability. A statioary tank is a dead tank. This combined with their weight, making movement difficult, especially across bridges, meant that it was easier to use them as SP Pill boxes than tanks. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lcm1947 Posted May 13, 2003 Author Share Posted May 13, 2003 Yeah I bet that shocked the German's when they first came up against the puny Sherman tank or so they thought and it turned out to be a Firefly. With the Tiger being such a big beast and all the negative things that came with that I am surprised that they even used them in the Western Theater. You'd thought they'd do extremely well in Russia. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rexford Posted May 13, 2003 Share Posted May 13, 2003 Originally posted by lcm1947: I've no doubt that it is correct since BFC seems to have their facts pretty much down but I would love to know who or why they would do that? I mean that doesn't make any sense unless somebody just wanted a slower 76mm over a faster more powerful one. It must had sometime to do with the barrel or breach on existing equipment. I suppose anyway. HE shells are used for two things, one is placing rounds close to an enemy on the ground with accuracy and a large blast area, the other is hitting things on the fly with accuracy and the blast isn't as important. Sherman 75mm HE would be great against ground targets where a slow velocity and large HE burst are desirable. Or you are trying to hit an 88mm Flak 36 on the fly and the gun is in the open (but if the range is too high a higher velocity would be better). To put HE directly on a target on the fly, such as an ATG shield, or through the slit on a bunker, or any number of other uses, high velocity and small HE do fine. Panther fired HE at 750 m/s, Tiger II at 700 m/s, 75L48 at 550 m/s, which is quite a bit below the muzzle velocity for their APCBC. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rexford Posted May 14, 2003 Share Posted May 14, 2003 Originally posted by lcm1947: Yeah I bet that shocked the German's when they first came up against the puny Sherman tank or so they thought and it turned out to be a Firefly. With the Tiger being such a big beast and all the negative things that came with that I am surprised that they even used them in the Western Theater. You'd thought they'd do extremely well in Russia. Using Tigers in France helped spread the Tigerphobia that could gain psychological benefits in terms of indecision and anxiety whenever a German tank was spotted or suspected. Tigers were also excellent killing machines, as Wittmann showed. Regarding Fireflies, they produced a terrific blast which gave away their position right away, and I read where their gunsights needed adjustment on a daily basis or errors could creep in. In the same vein, using APDS messed up the accuracy of follow-up APCBC shots. Tiger ammo, until late in the war, gave off relatively little smoke or flash (I forget which). There are reports where Tigers and Panthers hidden in a woods with camouflage could not be detected by British tank forces unless the camouflage was knocked away by the gun blast. Tiger sights, gun and ammunition produced one of the most accurate weapons of WW II, with very little shot to shot scatter. The Russians report 1000m to 1500m knockouts of 76.2mm field guns in prepared positions on the first shots by Tiger. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rexford Posted May 14, 2003 Share Posted May 14, 2003 Originally posted by Last Hussar: The British were keen to disguise the Fireflys- even ordering the extra gun length be painted white so from a distance they looked like 'standard' Shermans. The advantage that Shermans did have was the US economy was untouched and larger, so could produce at a ratio of 5:1 to the German tanks. Once a Firefly fired, any questions regarding the type of Sherman were immediately answered. The noise and blast and flash were probably never confused with 75mm armed Shermans. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted May 14, 2003 Share Posted May 14, 2003 Originally posted by rexford: In the same vein, using APDS messed up the accuracy of follow-up APCBC shots. Could you elaborate on that? Was there sabot material left in the barrel? Tiger ammo, until late in the war, gave off relatively little smoke or flash (I forget which). There are reports where Tigers and Panthers hidden in a woods with camouflage could not be detected by British tank forces unless the camouflage was knocked away by the gun blast. The history channel Tiger show has a lot of Tigers firing and all of them have surprisingly low firing signature. Hm, I should make mpegs from all that stuff. (Especially on the turn rate footage to annoy the hell out of those people who think the CMBB turn rates are in any way accurate...) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GenSplatton Posted May 14, 2003 Share Posted May 14, 2003 Wow, I clicked this thread by accident but glad I did. Very entertaining. p.s. I have an inate power to reduce ANY tank to a smoldering ruin... as long as it's one of mine. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dandelion Posted May 14, 2003 Share Posted May 14, 2003 Yes Red, you really should. And distribute to those less fortunate who do not have access to History Channel. Regardless of the quality of the program, pictures are always interesting to study. Regards Dandelion 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rexford Posted May 14, 2003 Share Posted May 14, 2003 Originally posted by redwolf: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by rexford: In the same vein, using APDS messed up the accuracy of follow-up APCBC shots. Could you elaborate on that? Was there sabot material left in the barrel? Tiger ammo, until late in the war, gave off relatively little smoke or flash (I forget which). There are reports where Tigers and Panthers hidden in a woods with camouflage could not be detected by British tank forces unless the camouflage was knocked away by the gun blast. The history channel Tiger show has a lot of Tigers firing and all of them have surprisingly low firing signature. Hm, I should make mpegs from all that stuff. (Especially on the turn rate footage to annoy the hell out of those people who think the CMBB turn rates are in any way accurate...) </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lumbergh Posted May 15, 2003 Share Posted May 15, 2003 Originally posted by rexford: Mickey Mantle, the greatest centerfielder ever, was also number 7, that no zero's in front. Hello, Willie Mays??????? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dandelion Posted May 15, 2003 Share Posted May 15, 2003 What's a centerfielder? Anyway, the number 7 is a lucky number in all christianity. That's why, e.g., we have seven "seas" although quite impossible to explain geographically. Any other number would have brought bad luck. So, 7 appears in folklore and popular superstition throughout the christian world, though not always with outspoken connection to the origin in religion. Wittman was highly superstitious. Like many tankers, pilots and modern athletes. He used ritualistic behaviour before battles and brought along items, totem-like or amulet-like, for good luck and protection. I have no idea if he got to choose his own organisational number. If he did have the option however, I am sure it would have been 7. Interestingly, the other German media ace of the war - the pilot Rudel - was not superstitious. He used no amulets or charms, no lucky numbers and he did not pray. His combat record is about as unreal as Wittmans, but he survived the war. And wrote a bad book about it afterwards too. Regards Dandelion 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rexford Posted May 16, 2003 Share Posted May 16, 2003 Originally posted by Lumbergh: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by rexford: Mickey Mantle, the greatest centerfielder ever, was also number 7, that no zero's in front. Hello, Willie Mays??????? </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silvio Manuel Posted May 16, 2003 Share Posted May 16, 2003 Originally posted by Dandelion: Anyway, the number 7 is a lucky number in all christianity. That's why, e.g., we have seven "seas" although quite impossible to explain geographically. Any other number would have brought bad luck. So, 7 appears in folklore and popular superstition throughout the christian world, though not always with outspoken connection to the origin in religion.7 is big in the Mayan's Tzolkin calendar/diagram of galactic energy. They have 13 "baktuns" of approx. 394 years in length, and the middle or 7th baktun is the most sacred, it covers ~748 to 354 BC, when the Buddha lived amongst other stuff (I can't recall the other significant events). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lcm1947 Posted May 16, 2003 Author Share Posted May 16, 2003 I hate asking and showing my ignorance but hey that's never stopped me before so here goes. What does APDS and APCBC stand for? OK rexford I get it now, I think. So they chose more velocity over HE since the 76 mm was meant to be a tank killer and infantry targets were secondary? Ok that makes sense. Thanks. Dandelion a centerfielder is a baseball player thats plays center field. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpl Carrot Posted May 16, 2003 Share Posted May 16, 2003 APDS - Armour Piercing Discarding Sabot APCBC - Armour Piercing Capped Ballistic Capped Rexford has a thread somewhere that talks about the whole familiy. Here we are [ May 17, 2003, 04:11 PM: Message edited by: Cpl Carrot ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Last Hussar Posted May 17, 2003 Share Posted May 17, 2003 Originally posted by GenSplatton: p.s. I have an inate power to reduce ANY tank to a smoldering ruin... as long as it's one of mine. Ah- you copy my minatures gaming technique then! I seem to be quite successful at BFBO- I think it's because someone (something) else is rolling the dice- I seem to attract '1's. On the psychology factor of Tigers I understand there is a Solo board game where, until identified, every tank is a Tiger, every gun is a 88. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lcm1947 Posted May 17, 2003 Author Share Posted May 17, 2003 Hey Cpl Carrot thanks for explaining the abbreviations and I was going to go over and look at that site you referred me to but it doesn't work. Could you try giving it to me again or telling me what it is so I can go take a look. I am getting very interested for the first time in the various ammo, shells etc from WWII and would like to start studying up on them. Like I believe I said earlier I used to be big into reloading rifle ammo years ago and did a lot of target practicing and shooting so this subject has caught my attention. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpl Carrot Posted May 17, 2003 Share Posted May 17, 2003 Try it now. I had one too many http's 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lcm1947 Posted May 18, 2003 Author Share Posted May 18, 2003 That worked, thanks Cpl Carrot. I'll read up on that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.jpg.525c3074f15ffbc476077149c8967218.thumb.jpg.c5f92e9896850f51eb67f42dae2c0450.jpg)
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.