33 replies to this topic

[Cragger]

Hitman1386, on Sep 18 2011 - 01:23, said:

The 17 Pounder had a longer barrel. So it had more hitting power than the 76mm. So I should do more damage. Reguardless of caliber. Nothing will change my mind on this subjuct.The 17 Pounder was a better gun & should do more damage.

7.5cm L/100 L/70 L/48 L/43 all do the same damage per shot. Your opinion and the developer's opinion and design don't always align.

[Dominatus]

Hitman1386, on Sep 18 2011 - 01:23, said:

The 17 Pounder had a longer barrel. So it had more hitting power than the 76mm. So I should do more damage. Reguardless of caliber. Nothing will change my mind on this subjuct.The 17 Pounder was a better gun & should do more damage.

Once again, British soldiers in combat reported APDS shells doing far less damage despite having superior penetration compared to APCBC shells. Also, longer barrel doesn't mean more damage in this game. Exampl: 8.8cm L/56 and L/71 both do same damage.

Will_of_Iron, on Sep 18 2011 - 01:47, said:

I'm hoping against all hope that the Churchill will use it. There is also a modified premium British Sherman called the Firefly that used it.

Basic Churchill (tier 5 heavy) woun't have it. Black Prince (tier 6 heavy) will.

[Tupinambis]

Cragger, on Sep 18 2011 - 01:54, said:

7.5cm L/100 L/70 L/48 L/43 all do the same damage per shot. Your opinion and the developer's opinion and design don't always align.

Oh... I thought the L/100 and L/70 did have a slight damage boost over the 48 and 43.
Granted, this seems to be a very big exception to the general rule...only other exceptions I can think of are the damage difference in the JT's 12.8cm guns, and how the Pershing does more damage per shot than the T-44.

Anyway, the damage per shot seems to have more to do with tier balance than actual shell size. The 17lber will make for a fine gun in the tiers that will probably end up using it [tier 6], even with its low alpha.

[Dominatus]

Tupinambis, on Sep 18 2011 - 02:07, said:

Oh... I thought the L/100 and L/70 did have a slight damage boost over the 48 and 43.
Granted, this seems to be a very big exception to the general rule...only other exceptions I can think of are the damage difference in the JT's 12.8cm guns, and how the Pershing does more damage per shot than the T-44.

Anyway, the damage per shot seems to have more to do with tier balance than actual shell size. The 17lber will make for a fine gun in the tiers that will probably end up using it [tier 6], even with its low alpha.

The L/70 and L/100 have the same damage, although it is more than the L/48.

Same with the 88mm L/56 and L/71. Same damage with both of them, although the L/100 has slightly more.

What does this mean? Barrel length des not relate to damage.

[Doggzillen]

Here is the thing, we have all these guns that were tested and not even fielded that are available with other tanks, why not the 17 pounder? It was also tested by Americans.

If they make the Firefly a premium tank, Ill probably never spend another cent on this game. The devs axe German tanks for fair play and just say to have fun, then they go and do BS like use the historical value of the tank to determine how much the tanks return each game. These are two completely competing ideas, which in the end just screw certain tank lines. Either stick with the idea of making it fair, or dont. Choose one damn side.

[smokey04b]

Longer gun = more velocity = greater pen. BUT not necessarily greater "damage" to the tank (in game terms, at least). Because the penetrator in a sabot round is significantly smaller than the diameter of the barrel it makes a little hole and unless you get an ammo rack is more likely (irl at least) to kill or incapacitate the crew rather than cause catastrophic damage to the tank. Something i don't think the damage system of the game calculates.  Besides, any APDS or other sabot type rounds are going to be gold rounds and except for thel konisch fanboys and clan wars how many of us shoot gold in random matches?

[Dominatus]

One thing you will have to consider. How does the Sherman Firefly relate to British tank development? It doesn't. Same with the Achillies. How does it relate to American development? It once again doesn't.

The Firefly wasn't developed from the Crusader or the Valentine or Matilda, and didn't get developed into the Comet or Centurion.
It was technically developed from the American line, but it was unrelated to American development otherwise. The M4 armed with a 76mm was built because of issues when engaging German tanks. The 17 pdr likely told the US that that would be a good idea, but it tecnelogically unrelated.

[Zergling]

Dominatus, on Sep 21 2011 - 21:58, said:

One thing you will have to consider. How does the Sherman Firefly relate to British tank development? It doesn't. Same with the Achillies. How does it relate to American development? It once again doesn't.

The Firefly wasn't developed from the Crusader or the Valentine or Matilda, and didn't get developed into the Comet or Centurion.
It was technically developed from the American line, but it was unrelated to American development otherwise. The M4 armed with a 76mm was built because of issues when engaging German tanks. The 17 pdr likely told the US that that would be a good idea, but it tecnelogically unrelated.

Arming the Sherman and Wolverine with the 17 pounder was solely a British job. For the Firefly at least, the reworking of the turret was fairly extensive.

[Dominatus]

Zergling, on Sep 22 2011 - 01:01, said:

Arming the Sherman and Wolverine with the 17 pounder was solely a British job. For the Firefly at least, the reworking of the turret was fairly extensive.

Pretty much. M10 might have been easier since it was larger (I think) and open topped.

[Ogopogo]

Dominatus, on Sep 22 2011 - 01:34, said:

Pretty much. M10 might have been easier since it was larger (I think) and open topped.

From Wikipedia.


"The 17 pounder required a counterweight fitted behind the muzzle brake on its long barrel. This gave the Achilles a distinctive appearance compared to the M10 and there were attempts to disguise this by painting the brake and counterweight.
The only other change carried out on the Achilles was the addition of 17 mm (0.67 in) thick armour plates welded to the front and sides of the M10 to increase armour protection, as well as a 20 mm thick shield fitted to the top of the turret to provide protection from overhead threats that resulted from the M10 having an open top turret."

[AmurTiger]

Probably because the Americans specifically rejected and resisted adoption of the 17 pounder when it was offered/suggested by the UK because they wanted an American designed gun in the tank. UK still modified some when they got to the island of course but that was very much 'after sale'.

Oh and with regards to the damage argument going on it could be that the devs base damage on the weight of the shot in which case the 17 pounder would do quite nicely with a heavier round then both the Russian F-34 and the German 7.5cm.

[shapeshifter]

Hitman1386, on Sep 18 2011 - 00:42, said:

Well the Americans did use the 17 Pounder.


The Royal Canadian Armoured Corps used it. Were Americans, North Americans.

Really when the british tree comes out the Canadian Ram II should be moved under it.

Canadian forces operated under British/joint command, not american.

[Mow_Mow]

I would imagine they would change the crew and flag too...

[Hitman1386]

shapeshifter, on Sep 23 2011 - 06:20, said:

Really when the british tree comes out the Canadian Ram II should be moved under it.

Canadian forces operated under British/joint command, not american.

Yes I know & agree. My uncle was a Sheerbroke Fusilier. Again, it was a joke. Its from a comment Patton made about the Canadian 2nd Corp. He said that the Canadain are the best troop Monty has & their Americans. (North Americans) Get it?