Jump to content


Ordnance vs AGF: Pershing Part 2


  • Please log in to reply
132 replies to this topic

Xlucine #41 Posted Jun 02 2014 - 02:03

    Major

  • Players
  • 7663 battles
  • 7,603
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    03-03-2011

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

 

You know he has over 15k battles, right?



S842 #42 Posted Jun 02 2014 - 03:00

    Captain

  • Players
  • 53202 battles
  • 1,213
  • Member since:
    03-02-2013

Thanks for all the reading material Chieftain, I never before had you so involved with my posts which is nice.  They corroborate what I have already said about penetration.  The 17 pounder APCBC was superior to the 76 mm APC in penetration, not substantially,  and both are accurate.  The 17 pounder APDS had substantially greater penetration (more than the American 90mm too) than the 76 mm guns HVAP, but started to have accuracy problems beyond 1,000 yards. 

 

I never implied that penetration was the sole measure of the worth or effectiveness of a gun, as one has to weigh the pros and cons of different attributes.  You obviously (from your opinions in the links you provided) feel that the 76mm was overall just as effective as the 17 pounder.  Also obviously, I look at the same data and feel that I would rather face the Germans with a 17 pounder. 

 

However, my original posting had nothing to do with a pissing match over one gun versus the other.  I was only questioning why the 17 pounder, and 90 mm with Pershing turret, was not available for the M4 in game.  You made clear that, thank you very much, you are well aware of American M4's being re-armed with 17 pounders and the 90 mm prototype.

 

So are they coming, and if so when?  (because if I turn a corner at Ruinberg, and a heavy is sitting there, I sure would like to have either of these guns to the current 76mm and inaccuracy problems at 1,000 yards won't matter.)



S842 #43 Posted Jun 02 2014 - 03:02

    Captain

  • Players
  • 53202 battles
  • 1,213
  • Member since:
    03-02-2013

View PostXlucine, on Jun 02 2014 - 03:03, said:

 

You know he has over 15k battles, right?


and I have how many?  Which is irrelevant.

 



favrepeoria #44 Posted Jun 02 2014 - 03:12

    Captain

  • Players
  • 32357 battles
  • 1,718
  • [RATM] RATM
  • Member since:
    06-08-2011
Then why make that statement before as the discussion had nothing to do with in game play

S842 #45 Posted Jun 02 2014 - 03:21

    Captain

  • Players
  • 53202 battles
  • 1,213
  • Member since:
    03-02-2013

Favrepeoria,

 

 

Did you read all the posts?  I was saying to Kyphe that the number of battles is irrelevant, length of time is irrelevant, one's nationality is IRRELEVANT.  They have no bearing on the discussion.



The_Chieftain #46 Posted Jun 02 2014 - 03:34

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 14015 battles
  • 9,920
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

View PostS842, on Jun 02 2014 - 03:00, said:

The 17 pounder APDS had substantially greater penetration (more than the American 90mm too) than the 76 mm guns HVAP, but started to have accuracy problems beyond 1,000 yards. 

 

Also obviously, I look at the same data and feel that I would rather face the Germans with a 17 pounder. 

 

So are they coming, and if so when?  (because if I turn a corner at Ruinberg, and a heavy is sitting there, I sure would like to have either of these guns to the current 76mm and inaccuracy problems at 1,000 yards won't matter.)

 

I'd argue that it started having accuracy problems at under 500 yards if British testing gave it a 50% chance to hit a Panther's turret and recommended against its use at all over that range.

 

You don't explain, though, why it is that you would prefer the 17pr. What is 17pr likely to achieve on the battlefield that 76mm could not? Neither could reliably punch through the front of a Panther at combat ranges. Neither had much chance against a King tiger. Both were perfectly capable against Pz4, Tigers, etc.

 

There is a very, very narrow set of circumstances in which 17pr has a noticeable advantage over 76mm. And for that, you're increasing your signature, have a slower lay onto target, slower rate of fire, less accuracy, less ammo, (for a little while, almost no HE), and, in Firefly, you also drop a crewman and machine gun. If both tanks were available at the same time (which wasn't the case, which is the true merit of Firefly), it would be an eyebrow-raiser to take the 17pr, I think.

 

as for when it's in game, that's for the revs to figure out. The 3d models are made, it's a matter of their slot in the release timeline.



S842 #47 Posted Jun 02 2014 - 04:46

    Captain

  • Players
  • 53202 battles
  • 1,213
  • Member since:
    03-02-2013

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Jun 02 2014 - 04:34, said:

 

I'd argue that it started having accuracy problems at under 500 yards if British testing gave it a 50% chance to hit a Panther's turret and recommended against its use at all over that range.

 

You don't explain, though, why it is that you would prefer the 17pr. What is 17pr likely to achieve on the battlefield that 76mm could not? Neither could reliably punch through the front of a Panther at combat ranges. Neither had much chance against a King tiger. Both were perfectly capable against Pz4, Tigers, etc.

 

There is a very, very narrow set of circumstances in which 17pr has a noticeable advantage over 76mm. And for that, you're increasing your signature, have a slower lay onto target, slower rate of fire, less accuracy, less ammo, (for a little while, almost no HE), and, in Firefly, you also drop a crewman and machine gun. If both tanks were available at the same time (which wasn't the case, which is the true merit of Firefly), it would be an eyebrow-raiser to take the 17pr, I think.

 

as for when it's in game, that's for the revs to figure out. The 3d models are made, it's a matter of their slot in the release timeline.


In game, I believe that the 17 pounder would be an advantage and certainly the 90 mm would.  The game software could give the APDS a different accuracy rating and signature.  The 76 mm APC round and the 17 pounder APCBC were both accurate, APCBC with more penetration, and each may be close in signature.  APDS inaccuracy would likely be no more a handicap than many of the in-game Russian guns that are also inaccurate.  Furthermore, there are so many city battles in the game where inaccuracy and signature are not problems, but penetration and damage is vital.

 

I would see the 90mm with the Pershing as superior - not having such inaccuracy/signature issues, and the damage (alpha) would be better.  On other threads a number of members have thought this would make a fine premium tank, although I personally would prefer it not to be.  I would see gun values akin to the Hellcat.  Some members say this would unbalance the game, but I don't think it would any more than the ARL with 212 pen does.

 

Anyway, thanks for all the links, it really was good reading and you did a good job pulling the research together.  I also enjoy your videos.



Kyphe #48 Posted Jun 02 2014 - 07:19

    First lieutenant

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

View PostS842, on Jun 02 2014 - 00:08, 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.

 

Actually your length of time here on the forums is quite relevant as I tried to made clear in my post. You see you were making strong statements from a position of relative ignorance and I was simply trying to make you aware of that fact before people start taking offense and jumping on you which has happened before. If you had read a little more and been more familiar with these forums before you posted, you would have already known that people here have been privy to more in depth knowledge that generic publicized penetration tables.

 

take your pick

http://mr-home.staff...ies/ww2pen3.pdf

 

These forums you understand have been around for several years, dealing with the particular subject of armored warfare. Knowing this a reasonable person like yourself would do well to assume the basics had all been covered in that time, People here have gone far further than such basics, into talking about the metallurgy of different brinell scale hardness of various manufacturing process for a simple example. Yet for some reason you did not assume this, rather you casually assumed that people here did know such basic information. You make statements like (failed to research) which I believe some would consider to be condescension though unintentional.

 

As for my amount of games you are right that is irrelevant. This is my US account, WG enacted a policy of to play to post so I had to install the US client and play 20 games as I was locked out of my own threads.

 

http://forum.worldof...r/kyphe-445192/ this is my EU profile.

 

One can draw a parallel here as if you had been around here longer you may have already known this and not made such a simple error, that is all I am trying to say.

 

My British nationality was simply preempting any thoughts of national bias, If I came out my full genealogy and invited you for tea with my Irish family then that would be irrelevant lol

 

But anyway, I am sure you have started to appreciate the level these forums are at and I hope you enjoy yourself with the fascinating information you can find here.

 

All the best mate.

 

 

 

 


Edited by Kyphe, Jun 02 2014 - 08:00.


sehmnn #49 Posted Jun 02 2014 - 08:19

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 4076 battles
  • 39
  • Member since:
    07-03-2011

Something I noticed about this discussion of the M4/T26 with the 90mm and the Firefly is that no one seems to have mentioned a tier. Up gunning like that, and upping the turret size, armor, and hitpoints for the M4/T26, would pull them up a tier or two I would think. The M4 is Tier V, the Jumbo and the E8 are Tier VI, up gunning with the Firefly I think would end up a Tier VI not too bad, but the m4/T26 with the 90mm would be more likely a Tier VII. Now you're on par tier wise with the Tiger, which seems to be a good yardstick since it is contemporary with the standard 75mm M4. Problem now is the tier spread for matchmaking.

 

At Tier VII a 90mm armed Sherman is going to be slow, less maneuverable, and have thinner hull armor than anything it's going to meet at it's tier, much less the Tier IXs it would have to face. It's questionable how useful a 90mm Sherman would be against a Tiger, it not much of a question how useful it would be against an E-75 or an IS8 (not to mention an M103).

 

Not saying they are a bad idea, far from it, I would love to see them in game. I think it's important to look at the whole picture if game play and introduction is being discussed. (Yes, I realize the majority of the discussion was about the real world vehicles, but their game introduction and merits were mentioned.)


Edited by Evil_Closet_Monkey, Jun 02 2014 - 08:24.


Kyphe #50 Posted Jun 02 2014 - 09:29

    First lieutenant

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

I think the 90mm armed Sherman was considered as a premium and so it would have special MM, if the version with the M26 turret is used it would be a hull down monster at T7, the Pershing mantlet is made of bounconium alloy.

 

There were a few ideas to put 90mm in Sherman, the m26 turret is just one of them, one wonders if McNair opposed the specific m26 turret idea or was simply reiterating his long standing opposition to the 90mm on any platform.

 

even the M36 was canned until re suggested as a bunker buster.



S842 #51 Posted Jun 02 2014 - 09:45

    Captain

  • Players
  • 53202 battles
  • 1,213
  • Member since:
    03-02-2013


 

Kyphe,

 

You should have played Darcy in "Pride and Prejudice".  You make his condescension absolutely appealing.



Xlucine #52 Posted Jun 02 2014 - 09:50

    Major

  • Players
  • 7663 battles
  • 7,603
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    03-03-2011

View PostKyphe, on Jun 02 2014 - 09:29, said:

I think the 90mm armed Sherman was considered as a premium and so it would have special MM, if the version with the M26 turret is used it would be a hull down monster at T7, the Pershing mantlet is made of bounconium alloy.

 

M45 =/= M26



S842 #53 Posted Jun 02 2014 - 11:05

    Captain

  • Players
  • 53202 battles
  • 1,213
  • Member since:
    03-02-2013

I have been wondering why the 17 pounder APDS (with a tungsten penetrator core) showed inaccuracy at the Isigny test firing not seen at the Ballercy test. The British explained it as due to the ammunition supplied for the test as being sub-standard, not proof tested and therefore it would not have been released for use.  However, perhaps the problem was systemic, and if so why?  Was there something about the British production or design that caused the inaccuracy?  The Chieftain theorizes about an possible oscillation.  If the tungsten core was not precisely centered in the round, I can see why it might develop a wobble in flight, as one side of the round would be heavier than the other.  While some evidently thought the problem was the sabots hanging onto the tungsten and discarding at different times, X-rays of the APDS showed that the real issue was the 1 "centering of the tungsten round in the sabot shoes and ...being balanced.  Any imbalance will manifest itself ...in a barrel "jump"."  I have a little difficulty believing a misalignment of the tungsten core would cause muzzle jump - a wobble developing during flight seems more plausible.  However, if this was the reason then solutions could have been improved production of the shell,  perhaps combined with an effective muzzle brake.  Since the 17 pounder anti-tank gun continued to be used through the Korean war, and the first 250 Centurions were armed with it, I wonder if this problem was fixed, but I can find no sources on this.  Certainly the APDS round for the follow-on 20 pounder does not appear to have an accuracy problem. 

 

Edit:  Here is an answer from the Chieftain from a posting on 09/08/11:

 

"The British approved a modification to the APDS Marks I, II and III in early 1952 after trials in 1951 which added a sleeve to the rear of the sabots. This 'considerably improved' their accuracy when fired from the 17pr. ...

 The cause of the destabilization is irrelevant. If it was caused by poor sabot design, a funny shape of the projectile, or dodgy centre of gravity, the thing kept missing (And yes, we know it was ultimately sabot design)."

 

1 From a discussion of APDS Slope Effects, Combat Mission Archive #3

 

As to the 100 American M4's converted to the 17 pounder gun following the Battle of the Bulge, here is an interesting document on details and timing of the conversion:

 

http://freespace.vir...efly/usnew.html


Edited by S842, Jun 02 2014 - 15:15.


S842 #54 Posted Jun 02 2014 - 11:12

    Captain

  • Players
  • 53202 battles
  • 1,213
  • Member since:
    03-02-2013

View PostEvil_Closet_Monkey, on Jun 02 2014 - 09:19, said:

Something I noticed about this discussion of the M4/T26 with the 90mm and the Firefly is that no one seems to have mentioned a tier.

I meant to but got involved with so many other details in my postings, that I forgot it. 

 

Certainly, I would leave the tier 5 M4 as is, but I could see the M4A3E8 and M4A3E2 tier six tanks being up-gunned.  A case could also be made for making a 90 mm gunned M4 model a tier 7.  So pretty much agreement there.



Kyphe #55 Posted Jun 02 2014 - 11:44

    First lieutenant

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

View PostS842, on Jun 02 2014 - 10:45, said:


 

Kyphe,

 

You should have played Darcy in "Pride and Prejudice"  You make his condescension absolutely appealing.


HaHa i actually played Darcy once, the women loved it

 

Also if you click these links you will see I am far from contesting the merits of the 17pdr, if anything the reverse.

 

http://forum.worldof...ost__p__6462978

 

http://forum.worldof...haracteristics/

 

I think what has not been considered in the 17 vs 76 question is the fact that you rarely get one on one tank battles, the firefly for example would be a pair of tanks with a pair of 75mm Sherman, so even if you had say a 50% chance of hitting a panther with one shot at 1000yds, a pair of firefly firing 2 shots a piece would still have a decent chance of hitting it.

 

Also the HE for the 17pdr was fixed quite quickly where as I am not sure if the HE for the 76mm was improved as much.

 

Personally all things considered I would take the 17pdr as to me it gives a bit of leeway in terms of what will the Germans throw at us next, and ofc I believe it was better at bunker busting than the 76mm which was a role it spent much more time doing than tank killing. If i had the choice I would probably use the S53 85mm for better HE performance and have the full platoon converted then make SVDS for it.

 


Edited by Kyphe, Jun 02 2014 - 12:04.


Walter_Sobchak #56 Posted Jun 02 2014 - 16:52

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 236 battles
  • 5,140
  • Member since:
    11-22-2010
Does anyone have figures for the weight and effectiveness of the HE rounds for the 17lbr, 76mm and the 90mm?  It's funny, just about every book has some sort of table for gun penetration, but few list details for tank HE rounds (explosives weight, fragmentation range, etc). 

Priory_of_Sion #57 Posted Jun 02 2014 - 17:00

    Major

  • Players
  • 14866 battles
  • 6,761
  • Member since:
    11-08-2011

View PostWalter_Sobchak, on Jun 02 2014 - 11:52, said:

Does anyone have figures for the weight and effectiveness of the HE rounds for the 17lbr, 76mm and the 90mm?  It's funny, just about every book has some sort of table for gun penetration, but few list details for tank HE rounds (explosives weight, fragmentation range, etc). 

Those facts aren't cool enough to be in books. All I can find is projectile weight which I bet you can too(in Hunnicutt, aka the Gospels).



S842 #58 Posted Jun 02 2014 - 23:12

    Captain

  • Players
  • 53202 battles
  • 1,213
  • Member since:
    03-02-2013

Without me this thread would have been ---- no-where-ville!

                                        "         "       "     ---- a bird looking for a worm!

                                        "         "       "     ---- a dog lost in high weeds!

 

Come on!  BRING IT!  I'm ready.

 



Walter_Sobchak #59 Posted Jun 03 2014 - 03:12

    Major

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

View PostKyphe, on Jun 02 2014 - 06:44, said:


HaHa i actually played Darcy once, the women loved it

 

Also if you click these links you will see I am far from contesting the merits of the 17pdr, if anything the reverse.

 

http://forum.worldof...ost__p__6462978

 

http://forum.worldof...haracteristics/

 

I think what has not been considered in the 17 vs 76 question is the fact that you rarely get one on one tank battles, the firefly for example would be a pair of tanks with a pair of 75mm Sherman, so even if you had say a 50% chance of hitting a panther with one shot at 1000yds, a pair of firefly firing 2 shots a piece would still have a decent chance of hitting it.

 

Also the HE for the 17pdr was fixed quite quickly where as I am not sure if the HE for the 76mm was improved as much.

 

Personally all things considered I would take the 17pdr as to me it gives a bit of leeway in terms of what will the Germans throw at us next, and ofc I believe it was better at bunker busting than the 76mm which was a role it spent much more time doing than tank killing. If i had the choice I would probably use the S53 85mm for better HE performance and have the full platoon converted then make SVDS for it.

 


I suppose if someone made a venn diagram where the two circles are "people that really like tanks" and "people that like Pride and Prejudice", I might be that tiny point where the two circles barely touch. 



The_Chieftain #60 Posted Jun 03 2014 - 04:37

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 14015 battles
  • 9,920
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011
I sure as he'll would not be. They tried to make us read it in secondary school. I got about three chapters in before giving up and going with Animal Farm




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users