Jump to content


Ordnance vs AGF: Pershing Part 2


  • Please log in to reply
132 replies to this topic

BravoTwoOne #21 Posted Jun 01 2014 - 03:01

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 8096 battles
  • 59
  • Member since:
    12-19-2011

And the arguments continue to this day. Starting towards the end of the Cold War, there were several proposed vehicles that never pleased everyone, and so they didn't go anywhere.

 

In the 1980's there was an RDF (rapid deployment force) light tank that looks a lot like the ELC in the game. It was supposed to have only two crewmen, but the interesting thing was it's "burst" firing. The high velocity gun (75mm? 76mm?) fired three rounds in a burst. The idea was that all three rounds would hit in about the same spot and bulldoze their way through the Soviet's armor.

 

Then another big one was the Armored Gun System. I remember that one being shopped around in the 1990's. It had a crew of three and an auto-loading 105mm gun.

 

Now we have the Stryker-based Mobile Gun System, basically a 105mm on an eight-wheeled armored car chassis, that is not supposed to fight tanks but support infantry units. (If I recall correctly, It only carries 18 main gun rounds.)

 

I remember some heated discussions during my times at Ft. Knox between the "heavy" tank guys (MBT70/M60A3/M1) and the "light" tank guys (Sheridan/RDF/AGS/MGS/etc...) so I can only imagine what was going on between the Ordnance folks and the ground forces folks back in the 40's.

 

During one of my tours there, I was at the Armor & Engineer Board, a unit that tested ground equipment coming in to the Army and the Marine Corps. Besides the things that the military was developing, we were to test a lot of other vehicles and contraptions being pushed by manufacturers in the hopes that the Army would buy a bunch of them. Thank goodness most of them never made it through the testing procedure, but unfortunately some did, like the Gamma Goat amphibious truck and the Goer cargo truck, a couple of the biggest lemons ever foisted on the US military.

 



S842 #22 Posted Jun 01 2014 - 04:04

    Captain

  • Players
  • 52631 battles
  • 1,213
  • Member since:
    03-02-2013

View PostJohnWulf, on Jun 01 2014 - 01:02, said:

Because it would terribly unbalance the tank within the Tier it operates...

 

This is a false argument.  The Firefly with the 17 pounder is supposed to be coming (but taking a long time doing it).  Apparently this is not felt by WarGaming to unbalance the game, so neither would an American M4 with a better gun.



Meplat #23 Posted Jun 01 2014 - 04:09

    Major

  • Players
  • 6774 battles
  • 7,831
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    11-27-2012
The Goat was hilarious.  two stroke, three jug Diesel that would induce hearing damage pretty quickly at cruise, it was as "amphibious" as a paper bag (it'd kind of float, but you'd better have some oars and PFD's.).

S842 #24 Posted Jun 01 2014 - 04:30

    Captain

  • Players
  • 52631 battles
  • 1,213
  • Member since:
    03-02-2013

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Jun 01 2014 - 03:47, said:

This is more for S842 than OlPaint. We've been doing this a few years. We have full-time historians whose job includes digging in the archives for information, and a good budget for book-buying. Not wishing to be too condescending, but It takes something being a lot more obscure than 'easy to find on the Internet with a brief Google search' for us to be unaware of it. In the case of the M4/T26 combo, we even leaked the garage icon for it (the one I linked to above). I find the idea that we may need to be 'informed' of an obvious series of vehicles such as the M4/T26 or the Israeli series to be a little insulting, and tend to react to such suggestions with a little sarcasm.

 

This game has a service life of a few years left in it yet. It's obvious that there are a number of vehicles and lines yet to be implemented, the (in)famous ones being the British lend-lease line and 'real-world' TD line. I can understand some disappointment that such vehicles may not have been implemented yet, but I think it's a reasonable conclusion that they haven't been implemented because we have specifically chosen not to implement it yet, not because of any ignorance or omission.

 

I am sure that there are numerous members that will be happy to hear your response to posts regarding up-gunning the M4.

 

I'm surprised you feel insulted by my referencing Wiki.  There are plenty of other sources I could have also used, but Wiki provided a good enough summary, and if accurate it is as good as any.  I might add that internet research is not my only means of becoming informed on the subject of tanks, ergo my visits to tank museums such as Bovington (U.K.), Bastogne (Belgium), Royal Museum of the Armed Forces and Military History (Belgium) and a few American museums, and a number of my own books on the subject.  Not that I want to compare myself to those whose job it is to research for this internet game, but no since getting your knickers in a twist either.



Monkeyfume #25 Posted Jun 01 2014 - 04:32

    Captain

  • Players
  • 14174 battles
  • 1,218
  • [PHNXS] PHNXS
  • Member since:
    11-14-2012

View PostThe_Chieftain, on May 31 2014 - 13:02, said:

 

Hmm. With all our research, we never knew that such a thing existed. I wonder how we missed it and that nobody else has brought such a thing to our attention before?

1bsNTTx.png?

 

EDIT: Nevermind, already posted.


Edited by monkeyfume, Jun 01 2014 - 04:41.


1SLUGGO1 #26 Posted Jun 01 2014 - 04:44

    Major

  • Players
  • 24725 battles
  • 10,198
  • Member since:
    02-23-2012

View Postmonkeyfume, on Jun 01 2014 - 04:32, said:

1bsNTTx.png?

 

If you read the other posts in the thread, you will understand.

 

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Jun 01 2014 - 02:47, said:

This is more for S842 than OlPaint. We've been doing this a few years. We have full-time historians whose job includes digging in the archives for information, and a good budget for book-buying. Not wishing to be too condescending, but It takes something being a lot more obscure than 'easy to find on the Internet with a brief Google search' for us to be unaware of it. In the case of the M4/T26 combo, we even leaked the garage icon for it (the one I linked to above). I find the idea that we may need to be 'informed' of an obvious series of vehicles such as the M4/T26 or the Israeli series to be a little insulting, and tend to react to such suggestions with a little sarcasm.

 

This game has a service life of a few years left in it yet. It's obvious that there are a number of vehicles and lines yet to be implemented, the (in)famous ones being the British lend-lease line and 'real-world' TD line. I can understand some disappointment that such vehicles may not have been implemented yet, but I think it's a reasonable conclusion that they haven't been implemented because we have specifically chosen not to implement it yet, not because of any ignorance or omission.

 

When is sarcasm not condescending and not inappropriate?

 

Customer ignorance of day to day operations of any company is hardly any reason to feel slighted, when it is generally the fault of the company that the customer is ignorant.  Name a single business where this is not true.  Such talk discourages feedback and customer suggestions.  I do not think I need to go to any length to explain why this is a bad thing.



SFC_Storm #27 Posted Jun 01 2014 - 06:52

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 15366 battles
  • 3,855
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

I was always Curious. Can someone tell me why the Spershing was made vs the T32?

 

If we wanted a heavy Pershing why did we make Spersh and T32? What was the relative timeline in all of this?

 

 



SFC_Storm #28 Posted Jun 01 2014 - 06:55

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 15366 battles
  • 3,855
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostS842, on May 31 2014 - 20:04, said:

 

This is a false argument.  The Firefly with the 17 pounder is supposed to be coming (but taking a long time doing it).  Apparently this is not felt by WarGaming to unbalance the game, so neither would an American M4 with a better gun.


But the 17 pounder has been found to be not much better at all than the 76mm.

 

I do think the 90mm m3 160 Pen gun would be fine...TBH the M4 Derp was far more game breakingwith 2400 DPM 150 Pen and 350 Alpha. I never used the M4 Derp and now wish I had. I used the M4 before we used gold rounds and ruined my Wn8 in it :) I used real HE



Legiondude #29 Posted Jun 01 2014 - 07:58

    Major

  • Players
  • 20522 battles
  • 23,193
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    08-22-2011

View Postbugwar, on May 31 2014 - 14:11, said:

Ya know, I thought that the infighting among generals went out with the Civil War.

Guess it just went from the front page news to hiding in back channel squabbles.

Get yourself a copy of Armored Thunderbolt and read all about the shenanigans going on in american tank development back then.

 

View PostSFC_Storm, on Jun 01 2014 - 00:52, said:

I was always Curious. Can someone tell me why the Spershing was made vs the T32?

 

If we wanted a heavy Pershing why did we make Spersh and T32? What was the relative timeline in all of this?

The timeline is a bit muddled. It seems something like:

- December 1944: Recommendation for a new heavy Pershing tank in the manner of the M4A3E2 Jumbo

- January 1945: 1 T26E1 and T26E3 converted to E4. T26E1 convert undergoes gun tests

- February 1945: T26E3's arrive in Europe. Heavy Tank T26E5 approved(T26E5 would later be re designated as a medium)

- March 1945: Converted T26E4 arrives in Europe. Medium Tank T26E4 project approved. Heavy Tank T32 project approved. T26E5 project recommended greater armor

- June 1945: T26E5's produced and tested, compares favorably to T26E3 but requires delicate offroad driving to protect the suspension. T26E5 project died with the war.

- January through June 1946: T32 pilots completed and tested

- January 1947: T26E4 tests completed, project ends with lack of hostilities and issues with the gun.

 

Mainly the T26's were investigations on potential improvements for the M26 Pershing. Due to the timing of it's construction, T32's developments are bundled with the T29 series as investigations to the nuances of heavy tank technology



SFC_Storm #30 Posted Jun 01 2014 - 08:05

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 15366 battles
  • 3,855
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

"The policy of the Armored Force was that the M-4 medium tank was already in large production and was the one tank that could be delivered in quantity for the operations in 1944. Therefore they felt that the first priority on development should be the elimination of the bugs from the M-4 tank to make this vehicle as effective as possible on the battlefield"

 

This exact reasoning was why the T95 was passed up and IMO a stupid reason. Well it made sense for the war vs Germany because we relied on numbers.

 

But for the T95 era we were badly outnumbered by USSR tanks and so should have just focused on quality.

 

I see a pattern over and over of the US to accept "Meh" equipment on the ground. I know the USAF never got anything close to "Meh" as an acceptable solution. Its just funny how adequate numbers alone was often a reason not to build better weapons.

 

We being such an industrial power honestly couldnt build Devers his 250 M26`s while filling orders for M4`s as well? The T95 program only found 12 Plants to make its Glass Armor and Advanced modern techniques and could have easily built them in tandem with M60`s/M48`s but they seem to had same attitude. I understand if it was hurting production of the main stay tanks but IMO 250 Pershings or 12 Plants @ 4 tanks a month wasn`t gonna shutdown our pipelines.

 

I do respect the Ruskis for making extreme creations and going with them a lot more than us it seems



SFC_Storm #31 Posted Jun 01 2014 - 08:09

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 15366 battles
  • 3,855
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostLegiondude, on May 31 2014 - 23:58, said:

Get yourself a copy of Armored Thunderbolt and read all about the shenanigans going on in american tank development back then.

 

The timeline is a bit muddled. It seems something like:

- December 1944: Recommendation for a new heavy Pershing tank in the manner of the M4A3E2 Jumbo

- January 1945: 1 T26E1 and T26E3 converted to E4. T26E1 convert undergoes gun tests

- February 1945: T26E3's arrive in Europe. Heavy Tank T26E5 approved(T26E5 would later be re designated as a medium)

- March 1945: Converted T26E4 arrives in Europe. Medium Tank T26E4 project approved. Heavy Tank T32 project approved. T26E5 project recommended greater armor

- June 1945: T26E5's produced and tested, compares favorably to T26E3 but requires delicate offroad driving to protect the suspension. T26E5 project died with the war.

- January through June 1946: T32 pilots completed and tested

- January 1947: T26E4 tests completed, project ends with lack of hostilities and issues with the gun.

 

Mainly the T26's were investigations on potential improvements for the M26 Pershing. Due to the timing of it's construction, T32's developments are bundled with the T29 series as investigations to the nuances of heavy tank technology


Yes but wasnt the T32 basically a longer Pershing with greater Armor and thicker Mantlet? Instead of Spershing using Welded Mantlet why not just use a T32`s Turret to begin with?

 

I just dont understand how the T32 and T29 were bundled at all together....Did they share anything? Because the T32 to me looks like a longer Pershing.


Edited by SFC_Storm, Jun 01 2014 - 08:09.


Legiondude #32 Posted Jun 01 2014 - 08:21

    Major

  • Players
  • 20522 battles
  • 23,193
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    08-22-2011

View PostSFC_Storm, on Jun 01 2014 - 02:09, said:

Instead of Spershing using Welded Mantlet why not just use a T32`s Turret to begin with?

Because the Super Pershing you're thinking of(The one sent to Europe) was a field modification, and other than having external mechanisms to handle the 90mm T15 it was essentially a T26E1 turret-a medium tank turret.

 

View PostSFC_Storm, on Jun 01 2014 - 02:09, said:

I just dont understand how the T32 and T29 were bundled at all together....Did they share anything? Because the T32 to me looks like a longer Pershing.

The T29 series(when I say "T29 series, I mean T30 and T34 as well) were built on Pershing components as well, T32 was just the most obvious about it because the project demanded it use as many parts as possible. The T32's legacy was that studies in it's transmission and engines would be used to further the T30 and T34 projects and eventually set the technology foundation for 50s era vehicles

 

Here's what Hunnicutt says

Quote

As described earlier, the T29, T30, T32, and T34 series of tanks were used to evaluate numerous experimental components after World War II. Although too late for the war for which they were designed, they provided invaluable service in developing these components for later tanks. Much of the work which made the early AV-1790 engine and the CD-850 transmission a reliable power package utilized these tanks. Later, they were used in development of other power train components such as the XT-1400 transmission which was tested in the T30


The_Chieftain #33 Posted Jun 01 2014 - 08:54

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 13764 battles
  • 9,916
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

View Post1SLUGGO1, on Jun 01 2014 - 04:44, said:

 

When is sarcasm not condescending and not inappropriate?

 

 

I would react more or less the same way if I handed a non-functioning weapon to the armorer and the first thing he does is ask me if I had taken the weapon off 'safe' before pulling the trigger. There have been plenty of things which have stumped me in this forum, but they are rarely things which are common knowledge amongst tank enthusiasts. I like to think I'm somewhat competent at my job, and that people would make that assumption about me.



S842 #34 Posted Jun 01 2014 - 15:02

    Captain

  • Players
  • 52631 battles
  • 1,213
  • Member since:
    03-02-2013

View PostSFC_Storm, on Jun 01 2014 - 07:55, said:


But the 17 pounder has been found to be not much better at all than the 76mm.

 

I do think the 90mm m3 160 Pen gun would be fine...TBH the M4 Derp was far more game breakingwith 2400 DPM 150 Pen and 350 Alpha. I never used the M4 Derp and now wish I had. I used the M4 before we used gold rounds and ruined my Wn8 in it :) I used real HE

There is no research showing equivalency of the 76mm and 17 pounder.  The 17 pounder was substantially better than the American 76 mm and about equal to the 90 mm in penetration .  Rather than post up the statistics, I will let you do some investigation of your own.  But logically, British would not have gone through the trouble of installing the 17 pounder, rather than the available 76 mm, if there was not a great advantage.  Nor would the Americans have re-gunned 100 Shermans to the 17 pounder (following the Battle of the Bulge), as they already had 76mm gunned Shermans.  Penetrative powers of the various guns will change substantially with the type of ammunition, its quality, and if one is test firing on un-sloped or sloped RHA.



Kyphe #35 Posted Jun 01 2014 - 15:25

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 315 battles
  • 843
  • Member since:
    01-27-2012

View PostS842, on Jun 01 2014 - 16:02, said:

There is no research showing equivalency of the 76mm and 17 pounder.  The 17 pounder was substantially better than the American 76 mm and about equal to the 90 mm in penetration .  Rather than post up the statistics, I will let you do some investigation of your own.  But logically, British would not have gone through the trouble of installing the 17 pounder, rather than the available 76 mm, if there was not a great advantage.  Nor would the Americans have re-gunned 100 Shermans to the 17 pounder (following the Battle of the Bulge), as they already had 76mm gunned Shermans.  Penetrative powers of the various guns will change substantially with the type of ammunition, its quality, and if one is test firing on un-sloped or sloped RHA.

 

Okay I am going be very polite while I do this as you are new to these parts and don't know better yet.

http://forum.worldof...-tests-firefly/

follow that link and read about the very research you say has never been done.

 

What you need to really understand is that you are very very late to the party, every point you made has been done to death already.

 

You may find others in these forums a little more intolerant to grandiose and inaccurate statements like you have just come out with.

 

The britsh did prefer the 17pdr to the 76mm, well at least the 3in of the M10 was swapped out for it when ever possible, but the advantages are simply not as marked as the general population like yourself have been lead to believe.

 

btw I am a brit, in case you were thinking US ego

 


Edited by Kyphe, Jun 01 2014 - 15:27.


Walter_Sobchak #36 Posted Jun 01 2014 - 16:12

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 236 battles
  • 5,140
  • Member since:
    11-22-2010

View PostSFC_Storm, on Jun 01 2014 - 03:05, said:

"The policy of the Armored Force was that the M-4 medium tank was already in large production and was the one tank that could be delivered in quantity for the operations in 1944. Therefore they felt that the first priority on development should be the elimination of the bugs from the M-4 tank to make this vehicle as effective as possible on the battlefield"

 

This exact reasoning was why the T95 was passed up and IMO a stupid reason. Well it made sense for the war vs Germany because we relied on numbers.

 

But for the T95 era we were badly outnumbered by USSR tanks and so should have just focused on quality.

 

I see a pattern over and over of the US to accept "Meh" equipment on the ground. I know the USAF never got anything close to "Meh" as an acceptable solution. Its just funny how adequate numbers alone was often a reason not to build better weapons.

 

We being such an industrial power honestly couldnt build Devers his 250 M26`s while filling orders for M4`s as well? The T95 program only found 12 Plants to make its Glass Armor and Advanced modern techniques and could have easily built them in tandem with M60`s/M48`s but they seem to had same attitude. I understand if it was hurting production of the main stay tanks but IMO 250 Pershings or 12 Plants @ 4 tanks a month wasn`t gonna shutdown our pipelines.

 

I do respect the Ruskis for making extreme creations and going with them a lot more than us it seems


What makes you think that the US was not focused on quality?  Also, how was the T95 all that better than the existing M48 series?  Part of the reason the T95 program was ended in 1958-60 was because it was deemed that it did not offer enough of an improvement over the existing M48.  Instead it was deemed more feasible to put a diesel engine and 105mm gun into an improved M48 and call it "M60."  Then, the US Army decided to do what you suggest, focus on quality over quantity and they wasted an entire decade trying to develop the MBT70.  Meanwhile, the "adequate" and "meh" M60 stayed in service for 30 years, proving itself to be an effective and reliable vehicle in various conflicts and countries around the world.



The_Chieftain #37 Posted Jun 01 2014 - 18:04

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 13764 battles
  • 9,916
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

View PostS842, on Jun 01 2014 - 15:02, said:

There is no research showing equivalency of the 76mm and 17 pounder.  The 17 pounder was substantially better than the American 76 mm and about equal to the 90 mm in penetration .  Rather than post up the statistics, I will let you do some investigation of your own.  But logically, British would not have gone through the trouble of installing the 17 pounder, rather than the available 76 mm, if there was not a great advantage.  Nor would the Americans have re-gunned 100 Shermans to the 17 pounder (following the Battle of the Bulge), as they already had 76mm gunned Shermans.  Penetrative powers of the various guns will change substantially with the type of ammunition, its quality, and if one is test firing on un-sloped or sloped RHA.

 

You bring up two different points here.

 

The first is "why did the US order conversion of four score tanks to 17pr?" The honest answer is "I don't know" and.I have not seen any documentation explaining it. The only two reasons which make sense are either field trials or politics. There was no practical reason to introduce such a small.sample of foreign (as in non-standard) equipment and supplies. Certainly nothing which would indicate.a.US conclusion that 17pr was particularly superior to 76mm.

 

The second question is "why did the UK not.accept 76mm Shermans (except for a few specific instances) and instead.built Fireflies." Several reasons come to mind, but, again, I have not seen any documentation on the matter and will defer to the Brit researchers. Two which immediately.come to mind are commonality with other British systems, and the fact that Firefly could enter service faster than 76mm tanks could be made available. There may also have been a philosophical difference. The US procurement system did not like half-measures, not did they like less accuracy even at the cost of greater punch. The British may have balanced that differently.



Kyphe #38 Posted Jun 01 2014 - 20:32

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 315 battles
  • 843
  • Member since:
    01-27-2012

I think once the britsh had adopted the 17pdr towed gun they would want a commonality just as they did with the 2 and 6 pdr.

 

The exception ofc converting said 6pdrs to 75mm but by that time they themselves had lots of 75mm Sherman and lee/grants. 75mm ammo was inexpensive, available in huge quantity whilst also being markedly superior at anti personnel work which had been recognized as vital.

 

76mm US had no such clear cut advantage in any area, nor I suspect was it's ammunition going to be markedly cheaper to procure.

 

This is even more relevant with 3in and the Achilles as it is crewed by anti tank artillery units who would be familiar with the 17pdr and would certainly prefer a commonality of ammunition and parts.

 

And that is before we even get to the balance of trade and the war debt, the more the UK did for itself the less it would owe. The britsh would be hoping for adoption of the 17pdr by the us to claw back a bit of that debt.

 

National bankruptcy is not a pleasant prospect.

 

 



S842 #39 Posted Jun 01 2014 - 23:08

    Captain

  • Players
  • 52631 battles
  • 1,213
  • Member since:
    03-02-2013

View PostKyphe, on Jun 01 2014 - 16:25, said:

 

Okay I am going be very polite while I do this as you are new to these parts and don't know better yet.

http://forum.worldof...-tests-firefly/

follow that link and read about the very research you say has never been done.

 

What you need to really understand is that you are very very late to the party, every point you made has been done to death already.

 

You may find others in these forums a little more intolerant to grandiose and inaccurate statements like you have just come out with.

 

The britsh did prefer the 17pdr to the 76mm, well at least the 3in of the M10 was swapped out for it when ever possible, but the advantages are simply not as marked as the general population like yourself have been lead to believe.

 

btw I am a brit, in case you were thinking US ego

 


Really Kyphe, condescension is unnecessary.  It matters not how long I have been on this forum, just as your lack of playing the game is irrelevant, as well as one's nationally.  The statistics do not change.

 

However, you could do with better reading comprehension.  What I said in my post above was, "The 17 pounder was substantially better than the American 76 mm and about equal to the 90 mm in penetration", and you then refer me to accuracy tests - of which I have this to say.  The 17 pounder APDS (a tungsten cored penetrator round), was less accurate, but it could penetrate not just Tiger I and Panther, but also King Tiger.  The American 76mm could do none of these things at similar ranges. 

 

Put yourself in an M4 facing the Germans.  You could fire your 76mm gun, make repeated frontal hits and not penetrate.  OK, your gun was accurate, but you are dead.  Now you are in a Firefly, maybe your APDS round is not as accurate, but a hit is a penetration and continued life.

 

It is important to realize that both the American tungsten cored penetrator (HVAP) and the British tungsten cored penetrator (APDS) were in very short supply or unavailable.  Shermans had a few rounds or none, British load out with APDS was 6%.  The vast majority of rounds fired were the normal armor piercing ammo, called APC (Armor Piercing Capped) by the Americans, and APCBC (Armour Piercing, Capped, Ballistic Capped) by the British.  However, in all cases the 17 pounder penetration was superior - APDS was vastly superior.  Here are the penetration numbers in millimeters at both 500 and 1000 meters (that you failed to research) against RHA (rolled homogeneous steel) sloped 30 degrees.

 

                                                                                              500m                      1000m

76mm APC  (Armor Piercing Capped)                                   109 mm                    92 mm

76mm HVAP                                                                           139                          127

 

17 pounder  APCBC                                                               130                          119

17 pounder  APDS                                                                  204                          185

                                                                                

 

 



The_Chieftain #40 Posted Jun 02 2014 - 01:06

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 13764 battles
  • 9,916
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

View PostS842, on Jun 01 2014 - 23:08, said:


Really Kyphe, condescension is unnecessary.  It matters not how long I have been on this forum, just as your lack of playing the game is irrelevant, as well as one's nationally.  The statistics do not change.

 

However, you could do with better reading comprehension.  What I said in my post above was, "The 17 pounder was substantially better than the American 76 mm and about equal to the 90 mm in penetration", and you then refer me to accuracy tests - of which I have this to say.  The 17 pounder APDS (a tungsten cored penetrator round), was less accurate, but it could penetrate not just Tiger I and Panther, but also King Tiger.  The American 76mm could do none of these things at similar ranges. 

 

Put yourself in an M4 facing the Germans.  You could fire your 76mm gun, make repeated frontal hits and not penetrate.  OK, your gun was accurate, but you are dead.  Now you are in a Firefly, maybe your APDS round is not as accurate, but a hit is a penetration and continued life.

 

It is important to realize that both the American tungsten cored penetrator (HVAP) and the British tungsten cored penetrator (APDS) were in very short supply or unavailable.  Shermans had a few rounds or none, British load out with APDS was 6%.  The vast majority of rounds fired were the normal armor piercing ammo, called APC (Armor Piercing Capped) by the Americans, and APCBC (Armour Piercing, Capped, Ballistic Capped) by the British.  However, in all cases the 17 pounder penetration was superior - APDS was vastly superior.  Here are the penetration numbers in millimeters at both 500 and 1000 meters (that you failed to research) against RHA (rolled homogeneous steel) sloped 30 degrees.

 

                                                                                              500m                      1000m

76mm APC  (Armor Piercing Capped)                                   109 mm                    92 mm

76mm HVAP                                                                           139                          127

 

17 pounder  APCBC                                                               130                          119

17 pounder  APDS                                                                  204                          185

                                                                                

OK, you apparently -do- have some reading ahead of you.

 

Some background threads to go through, both my OP and the subsequent discussions.

http://forum.worldof...man-armor-pt-1/

http://forum.worldof...man-armor-pt-2/

 

http://forum.worldof...y-tests-firefly (Linked above)

http://worldoftanks....Hatch_Firefly2/

http://worldoftanks....Hatch_Firefly3/

 

That should avoid your re-hashing old arguments.

For example..

Quote

(that you failed to research)

Quoting 17pr penetration tables on this subforum is somewhere akin to interjecting into a discussion between calculus professors at MIT by demonstrating the solution of a quadratic equation. Every now and then it's nice to be reminded of some basic principle, but it's probably a reasonable bet that they already are aware of quadratic equations. You're apparently making a fairly fundamental wargamer error by looking at AT gun penetration tables, picking the highest number, and saying that was the best.

 

We already know that 17pr penetrates an extra inch of metal using regular ammo. So what? Tankers in WWII were shooting up Panzers (amongst other things) on the battlefield, not Excel tables. Go beyond the figures, and look at the practical application thereof. 

 

That a 17pr APDS could, in theory, penetrate a King Tiger, makes a nice footnote. It also apparently is an irrelevant capability as there is no indication that it ever happened. Maybe no KT ever met a 17pr with APDS. Maybe one did, but it got the shot off first because Firefly was so god-awful laid out inside. Maybe one did, but the APDS didn't penetrate as the tables said they should (Damned RNG). Maybe one did, but the APDS round which basically couldn't hit the broad side of a barn (Well, the front of a barn, at least, which is about KT-sized) managed to miss.

 

Don't get me wrong, I never claim that 17pr was not an effective weapon. I merely point out that there's a whole hell of a lot more to it than penetration tables, and that taken holisitcally, 17pr is neither markedly superior, nor a panacea to the problems of dealing with German cats, even for Shermans.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users