Jump to content


Common Myths debunked.


  • Please log in to reply
636 replies to this topic

Destin65 #1 Posted Jul 30 2015 - 05:23

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 10495 battles
  • 171
  • [1CAN] 1CAN
  • Member since:
    07-15-2013
I was reading an article earlier titled "Common Myths about WWII" that was posted on the FTR site and contained some rather brazen and loosely-based "historical" facts. In the introduction it even states that The Chieftian "WGA's historian" even signed off on the article as being legit.

Are you serious? Let's debunk this...

"Myth: German tanks in general, and Tigers in particular, were impervious to Allied guns.
Fact: Tigers were vulnerable to even Shermans armed with 75mm guns."

STOP RIGHT THERE.  First, the question does not contain a range gauge. Second, it fails to mention the fact that the 75mm gun could only pen the Tiger from the side or rear at a range of 100 meters or less. A Sherman would have been knocked out 2,000 meters before ever having that chance as a Tiger could penetrate the Sherman at 2,100 meters, taking out critical components and bringing it to an immediate halt.

"The longer 76 mm gun (superior in AP performance to the Soviet 85 mm gun, which could handle Tigers just fine) had no problem with Tigers or Panthers."

True, as long as they were within 600m and 500m, respectively, on average in order to have any hope. So if you had a meeting of a T-34 paired with a Sherman and a Tiger I tank, one of the two would be knocked out before either one could start moving. The second would be knocked out well before they could close to within 1500 meters, some 1,000 meters short of being able to penetrate the Tiger I.

And now we know the real reason WG designed cage-style maps measuring a paltry 1k by 1k at the largest and with no open range areas and visibility reduced to 445m in contrast to the real thing comprising tens of thousands of meters and view ranged limited only by the weather and terrain.

So in keeping with the Chieftain's rules that there be no opinion-based information here, I decided to shoot down the wholly opinion-based article he was name-dropped in. Feel free to fact-check my information, but do not use Russian-based sources. Every other Allied nation ran penetration tests on the tanks. Hint, hint.

Edited by Destin65, Jul 30 2015 - 05:24.


joegunn43 #2 Posted Jul 30 2015 - 05:35

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 6747 battles
  • 264
  • Member since:
    03-31-2013

View PostDestin65, on Jul 30 2015 - 04:23, said:

I was reading an article earlier titled "Common Myths about WWII" that was posted on the FTR site and contained some rather brazen and loosely-based "historical" facts. In the introduction it even states that The Chieftian "WGA's historian" even signed off on the article as being legit.

Are you serious? Let's debunk this...

"Myth: German tanks in general, and Tigers in particular, were impervious to Allied guns.
Fact: Tigers were vulnerable to even Shermans armed with 75mm guns."

STOP RIGHT THERE.  First, the question does not contain a range gauge. Second, it fails to mention the fact that the 75mm gun could only pen the Tiger from the side or rear at a range of 100 meters or less. A Sherman would have been knocked out 2,000 meters before ever having that chance as a Tiger could penetrate the Sherman at 2,100 meters, taking out critical components and bringing it to an immediate halt.

"The longer 76 mm gun (superior in AP performance to the Soviet 85 mm gun, which could handle Tigers just fine) had no problem with Tigers or Panthers."

True, as long as they were within 600m and 500m, respectively, on average in order to have any hope. So if you had a meeting of a T-34 paired with a Sherman and a Tiger I tank, one of the two would be knocked out before either one could start moving. The second would be knocked out well before they could close to within 1500 meters, some 1,000 meters short of being able to penetrate the Tiger I.

And now we know the real reason WG designed cage-style maps measuring a paltry 1k by 1k at the largest and with no open range areas and visibility reduced to 445m in contrast to the real thing comprising tens of thousands of meters and view ranged limited only by the weather and terrain.

So in keeping with the Chieftain's rules that there be no opinion-based information here, I decided to shoot down the wholly opinion-based article he was name-dropped in. Feel free to fact-check my information, but do not use Russian-based sources. Every other Allied nation ran penetration tests on the tanks. Hint, hint.

The myth that they were impervious to Sherman was because oftenly, the tigers would engage the M4's across open areas, and there, at long range, it WAS impervious, and it could knock out the enemy tanks. However, within 500m or less, the Sherman could have the upper hand.



hedshot56 #3 Posted Jul 30 2015 - 05:37

    Major

  • Players
  • 13132 battles
  • 2,086
  • Member since:
    05-08-2011

View Postjoegunn43, on Jul 29 2015 - 23:35, said:

The myth that they were impervious to Sherman was because oftenly, the tigers would engage the M4's across open areas, and there, at long range, it WAS impervious, and it could knock out the enemy tanks. However, within 500m or less, the Sherman could have the upper hand.

Give me Primary sources for this and I'll believe it. Otherwise, no, a 75mm, and even a 76mm armed Sherman was unlikely do have the upper hand against a Tiger unless the numbers of the Sherman was far greater. "Fury" was just a movie.



K_Sikorsky_HBXVSTi #4 Posted Jul 30 2015 - 06:03

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 6417 battles
  • 488
  • Member since:
    07-13-2011

View Posthedshot56, on Jul 29 2015 - 23:37, said:

Give me Primary sources for this and I'll believe it. Otherwise, no, a 75mm, and even a 76mm armed Sherman was unlikely do have the upper hand against a Tiger unless the numbers of the Sherman was far greater. "Fury" was just a movie

 

Any battle which allowed the Tiger to be flanked by the enemy made it extremely vulnerable. The Tiger flourished in long range, open field battles because the gun and it's frontal armor. If the Tiger was in a mountain range or in a city, out flanking a Tiger would not be hard because there is a lot of terrain and obstructions that the faster, more agile Allied tanks could use for cover and get behind the Tiger without said Tiger seeing it. The armor at the rear of the vehicle was pretty thin when compared to the rest of the tank, so a 76mm could easily get through and hit the engine.

 



Crucible #5 Posted Jul 30 2015 - 06:05

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 11967 battles
  • 788
  • Member since:
    03-28-2011
Except it never was just one Sherman against a single Tiger. Shermans rolled around at platoon strength, and in numbers, the 75mm gun was effective enough to knock out Tigers. Five tanks closing on you from even 1000 meters is a lot for even a Tiger to chew on.

__PARA__ #6 Posted Jul 30 2015 - 06:08

    Captain

  • Players
  • 27553 battles
  • 1,072
  • Member since:
    08-12-2012
You're talking about myths, yet your only further perpetrating them.

The_Chieftain #7 Posted Jul 30 2015 - 06:47

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 10032 battles
  • 9,556
  • [WGA-A] WGA-A
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011
There is a different between impervious, and somewhat vulnerable. Real life doesn't care about armor values. Tigers could be knocked out by 37mm if it was hit enough times in enough places. (A unit of M3 lights managed it in North Africa)

Legiondude #8 Posted Jul 30 2015 - 07:23

    Major

  • Players
  • 20134 battles
  • 22,998
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    08-22-2011

View PostDestin65, on Jul 29 2015 - 23:23, said:

True, as long as they were within 600m and 500m, respectively, on average in order to have any hope. 

Going by WWII B&G's calculations, M1A1 could handle a Tiger's hull head on up to about 1250 meters, and from the side to 2500 meters



Slayer_Jesse #9 Posted Jul 30 2015 - 07:39

    Major

  • Players
  • 26527 battles
  • 9,050
  • [SAKU] SAKU
  • Member since:
    08-31-2013

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Jul 30 2015 - 00:47, said:

There is a different between impervious, and somewhat vulnerable. Real life doesn't care about armor values. Tigers could be knocked out by 37mm if it was hit enough times in enough places. (A unit of M3 lights managed it in North Africa)

 

Right, game mechanics dont account for things like armor weakening with repeated hits, mobility kills (Tracks dont magically repair themselves) or loss of crew morale. Tiger 131 was knocked out due to a turret ring jam that was fixed with a sledgehammer.

 

It's important to make the distinction between impossible and improbable.



PUNISHER989 #10 Posted Jul 30 2015 - 07:58

    Major

  • Players
  • 26501 battles
  • 3,778
  • Member since:
    03-20-2013

View PostCrucible, on Jul 30 2015 - 07:05, said:

Except it never was just one Sherman against a single Tiger. Shermans rolled around at platoon strength, and in numbers, the 75mm gun was effective enough to knock out Tigers. Five tanks closing on you from even 1000 meters is a lot for even a Tiger to chew on.

 

The tigers didn't roam alone either, the Germans created the tank battalions in the first place.

AKA_The_Titan #11 Posted Jul 30 2015 - 08:25

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 25785 battles
  • 391
  • [RELIC] RELIC
  • Member since:
    04-26-2012

View PostLegiondude, on Jul 30 2015 - 01:23, said:

Going by WWII B&G's calculations, M1A1 could handle a Tiger's hull head on up to about 1250 meters, and from the side to 2500 meters

 

Wait, M1A1 as in, an Abrams? Wut? I don't know where the heck you're pulling those numbers out of, but you're wrong. Just flat out wrong. M829 rounds can penetrate 540 mm of RHA at 2,000 m. The maximum armor on a Tiger is what, 100 mm? An Abrams would eviscerate a Tiger from any distance pretty much all the way to the horizon.

Gwennifer #12 Posted Jul 30 2015 - 08:35

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 9630 battles
  • 815
  • [DOGGO] DOGGO
  • Member since:
    12-28-2010

View PostAKA_The_Titan, on Jul 30 2015 - 01:25, said:

 

Wait, M1A1 as in, an Abrams? Wut? I don't know where the heck you're pulling those numbers out of, but you're wrong. Just flat out wrong. M829 rounds can penetrate 540 mm of RHA at 2,000 m. The maximum armor on a Tiger is what, 100 mm? An Abrams would eviscerate a Tiger from any distance pretty much all the way to the horizon.

 

No, the 76mm M1A1.

KarlvonC #13 Posted Jul 30 2015 - 08:53

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 66478 battles
  • 148
  • [HARM] HARM
  • Member since:
    02-07-2011

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Jul 30 2015 - 15:47, said:

There is a different between impervious, and somewhat vulnerable. Real life doesn't care about armor values. Tigers could be knocked out by 37mm if it was hit enough times in enough places. (A unit of M3 lights managed it in North Africa)

 

I agree with the Chieftans Statement wholeheartedly  But could those Same 37mm engage a tiger at the tiger's maximum range and defeat it?  no chance in hell. Max range of a 37mm is 2000 Yards / 1828m     Where as a Tiger1 with its 88 L 56  (heat) can shoot out to 3000 m

compared against The M1A2 76 mm gun it could penetrate some 98 mm (3.9 in) of unsloped face hardened armor plate at 2,000 meters (2,200 yd) using M62 APCBC ammunition and the 75 mm?

The gun on the original M4 was the short-barreled medium-velocity 75 mm M3 gun. When it first saw combat in North Africa in late 1942 against the Panzer III and Panzer IV, the Sherman's gun could penetrate the armor of these tanks within 1,000 yd (910 m)

So if a tiger 1 decided to engage a sherman at range it would win Hands down because the sherman would have to close to 910m  before it could have a chance of penetration

the question is how many tanks would be destroyed before they get close enough to engage?

Does this reflect what happens in game? Not a chance. In this game everyones in close.everyone can pen everyone else

 


Edited by KarlvonC, Jul 30 2015 - 09:10.


Razavn #14 Posted Jul 30 2015 - 09:11

    Captain

  • Players
  • 35285 battles
  • 1,194
  • Member since:
    04-24-2011

View PostKarlvonC, on Jul 30 2015 - 07:53, said:

 

Agreed   But could those Same 37mm engage a tiger at the tiger's maximum range and defeat it?  no chance in hell. Max range of a 37mm is 2000 Yards / 1828m     Where as a Tiger1 with its 88 L 56  (heat) can shoot out to 3000 m

compared against The M1A2 76 mm gun it could penetrate some 98 mm (3.9 in) of unsloped face hardened armor plate at 2,000 meters (2,200 yd) using M62 APCBC ammunition and the 75 mm?

The gun on the original M4 was the short-barreled medium-velocity 75 mm M3 gun. When it first saw combat in North Africa in late 1942 against the Panzer III and Panzer IV, the Sherman's gun could penetrate the armor of these tanks within 1,000 yd (910 m)

So if a tiger 1 decided to engage a sherman at range it would win Hands down because the sherman would have to close to 910m  before it could have a chance of penetration

the question is how many tanks would be destroyed before they get close enough to engage?

Does this reflect what happens in game? Not a chance. In this game everyones in close.everyone can pen everyone else

 

 

What you said doesn't reflect what happens in real life either.

 

This just in, a sniper rifle has more range and stopping power than an assault rifle/pistol/etc, this obviously means that the sniper rifle is the superior weapon and is obviously the firearm we should equip all troops with.

 

On a flat featureless plane with an M4 and Tiger starting 3 km apart than yes the Tiger will almost certainly win. If you take into account mobility, reliability, gun flexibility (more an issue with the Panther than Tiger though), ease of manufacture, etc things start to look a hell of a lot better for the M4.


Edited by Razavn, Jul 30 2015 - 09:12.


Legiondude #15 Posted Jul 30 2015 - 09:13

    Major

  • Players
  • 20134 battles
  • 22,998
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    08-22-2011
And just because it can reach 3 km, doesn't mean it can hit at 3km. Jentz gives the chances at that range with PzGr39 at less than 20% in a combat scenario

KarlvonC #16 Posted Jul 30 2015 - 09:17

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 66478 battles
  • 148
  • [HARM] HARM
  • Member since:
    02-07-2011

View PostLegiondude, on Jul 30 2015 - 18:13, said:

And just because it can reach 3 km, doesn't mean it can hit at 3km. Jentz gives the chances at that range with PzGr39 at less than 20% in a combat scenario

 

View PostRazavn, on Jul 30 2015 - 18:11, said:

 

What you said doesn't reflect what happens in real life either.

 

This just in, a sniper rifle has more range and stopping power than an assault rifle/pistol/etc, this obviously means that the sniper rifle is the superior weapon and is obviously the firearm we should equip all troops with.

 

On a flat featureless plane with an M4 and Tiger starting 3 km apart than yes the Tiger will almost certainly win. If you take into account mobility, reliability, gun flexibility (more an issue with the Panther than Tiger though), ease of manufacture, etc things start to look a hell of a lot better for the M4.

no arguments from me



Zinegata #17 Posted Jul 30 2015 - 09:17

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 9558 battles
  • 5,380
  • Member since:
    07-27-2010

You guys do realize that the US Army encountered the Tiger I a grand total of three times to begin with, yes? And to quote the Chieftain - In one encounter the Shermans beat the Tigers, in a second encounter the Tigers beat some Pershings, and in the third encounter the Tigers were being loaded into rail cars so it wasn't really a fair fight.

 

The Tiger was in fact a complete non-factor during the war.

 

By the way, the average engagement range was just over 500 meters. Somebody in fact tried simulating the Fury battle which was fought at this range using the Squad Leader simulation system (whose designers are notoriously pro-German) and yet the Shermans won on the first shot by a 75mm hit that went through the front.

 

The guy who tested this out was so upset - claiming that the Shermans had lucked out on a 10% chance of hitting and killing - that he gave the Tiger a second life. At which point the Tiger knocked out a grand total of one Sherman before getting killed again.

 

The Tiger in fact was not that great of a tank armor-wise. Its front was only slightly thicker than the effective front armor of the Sherman.


Edited by Zinegata, Jul 30 2015 - 09:21.


KarlvonC #18 Posted Jul 30 2015 - 09:22

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 66478 battles
  • 148
  • [HARM] HARM
  • Member since:
    02-07-2011

View PostZinegata, on Jul 30 2015 - 18:17, said:

You guys do realize that the US Army encountered the Tiger I a grand total of three times to begin with, yes? And to quote the Chieftain - In one encounter the Shermans beat the Tigers, in a second encounter the Tigers beat some Pershings, and in the third encounter the Tigers were being loaded into rail cars so it wasn't really a fair fight.

 

The Tiger was in fact a complete non-factor during the war.

  the thing is you missed my point totally. this isnt about the tiger. Its about Gun ranges. And clearly the Germans had the advantage.

A good Example is the Warfare in North Africa  before El Alamien.  The 88 Flak Gun could  outrange and out damage every gun of the time.The british had  to close range to about 500m with thier 2 pounders before they could engage a 88..   (They Couldnt even do that cause the Matilda MK2s ,valentines,crusaders and 2pdr ATG didnt carry any HE in the early stages of the desert war Just AP)Meanwhile the rest of thier Troops are KIA


Edited by KarlvonC, Jul 30 2015 - 09:33.


_RUDOLF_ #19 Posted Jul 30 2015 - 09:31

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 7833 battles
  • 548
  • Member since:
    11-29-2014

View PostDestin65, on Jul 30 2015 - 04:23, said:

I was reading an article earlier titled "Common Myths about WWII" that was posted on the FTR site and contained some rather brazen and loosely-based "historical" facts. In the introduction it even states that The Chieftian "WGA's historian" even signed off on the article as being legit.

Are you serious? Let's debunk this...

"Myth: German tanks in general, and Tigers in particular, were impervious to Allied guns.
Fact: Tigers were vulnerable to even Shermans armed with 75mm guns."

STOP RIGHT THERE.  First, the question does not contain a range gauge. Second, it fails to mention the fact that the 75mm gun could only pen the Tiger from the side or rear at a range of 100 meters or less. A Sherman would have been knocked out 2,000 meters before ever having that chance as a Tiger could penetrate the Sherman at 2,100 meters, taking out critical components and bringing it to an immediate halt.

"The longer 76 mm gun (superior in AP performance to the Soviet 85 mm gun, which could handle Tigers just fine) had no problem with Tigers or Panthers."

True, as long as they were within 600m and 500m, respectively, on average in order to have any hope. So if you had a meeting of a T-34 paired with a Sherman and a Tiger I tank, one of the two would be knocked out before either one could start moving. The second would be knocked out well before they could close to within 1500 meters, some 1,000 meters short of being able to penetrate the Tiger I.

And now we know the real reason WG designed cage-style maps measuring a paltry 1k by 1k at the largest and with no open range areas and visibility reduced to 445m in contrast to the real thing comprising tens of thousands of meters and view ranged limited only by the weather and terrain.

So in keeping with the Chieftain's rules that there be no opinion-based information here, I decided to shoot down the wholly opinion-based article he was name-dropped in. Feel free to fact-check my information, but do not use Russian-based sources. Every other Allied nation ran penetration tests on the tanks. Hint, hint.

 

The question is , where they able to get close enough to a Tiger 1 without being one shot ?



_RUDOLF_ #20 Posted Jul 30 2015 - 09:38

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 7833 battles
  • 548
  • Member since:
    11-29-2014





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users