Okay... I am seeing a lot of German armour lovers around trying to peddle misinformation

[RoReaver]

So lets have some fun by taking the time to watch a video by someone who actually did their research on comparing German vehicles to US ones.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNjp_4jY8pY

Next time I see a dude claim "The Sherman M4 couldn't pen the side of a Tiger 1 in real life!" I'll take to explaining the penetration capability of the short 75 mm gun, as the 76 would go straight into the tiger 1's front and, depending on range, go right out the back, at standard combat ranges and how the Tiger 1 would be ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ itself profusely to be caught side on by anything with a gun beyond the Russian 45mm gun.

Only things the germans had that were nominally invulnerable to fielded allied tanks were the Jagdtigers and Sturmtigers (to a degree). Everything else got horrifically wrecked by either AP or HE methods (the Russians used 152 mm bunker buster shells vs King Tigers to great effect). Guess what lads? Neither of those two are in the game. Oh and the Jumbo was as problematic to the Germans as the King Tiger was to the allies, that's why you see towed pak 128 mm guns and towed 17 pounder AT guns with rather exotic ammunition types (am not aware if they actually deployed the 77mm HV in towed configuration).

[Ulater]

Originally posted by author:

as the 76 would go straight into the tiger 1's front and, depending on range, go right out the back

76 mm sometimes failed over 50 meters in quite a few reported cases in Normandy, and the projectile had about enough power to go through the front, nevermind making it through the crew compartment.

Same thing with Panther, 76 mm was incapable of penetrating the mantlet over 200 meters and glacis at all.

Originally posted by author:

Oh and the Jumbo was as problematic to the Germans as the King Tiger was to the allies,

http://the.shadock.free.fr/sherman_minutia/manufacturer/m4a3e2jumbo/M4A3E2_50.JPG


Took all of 9 hits.

[RoReaver]

Originally posted by Ulater:

76 mm sometimes failed over 50 meters in quite a few reported cases in Normandy, and the projectile had about enough power to go through the front, nevermind making it through the crew compartment.

Same thing with Panther, 76 mm was incapable of penetrating the mantlet over 200 meters and glacis at all.

Reports? The video takes you through all the documentation for his claims so how about you do the same? Oh and if a gunner was shooting the strongest part of the tank's turret armour when they were trained, back then as far as I recall, to shoot for the center of mass (IE top hull lower turret) then the respective tank commander had a troll gunner.

Oh and just as a aside: The 76 mm in Normandy... wasn't the american 76... it was the 76.2, IE the 17 pdr. The US tank corps had a significant issue with the american 76, it is even mentioned in the video I linked, namely that they didn't want it thinking the longer 75 mm would do. The only reason the US has the E6/E8 in the game as a option is because while the divisions in Normandy opted not to bring those shermans with them they did keep them in reserve.

Originally posted by Ulater:

http://the.shadock.free.fr/sherman_minutia/manufacturer/m4a3e2jumbo/M4A3E2_50.JPG


Took all of 9 hits.

So it took over a minute of firing at that tank to kill it assuming you meant a King Tiger (nominal combat reload speed of about 10-15 s, yeah it was that bad). And that looks like a mobility kill not a hard kill (every single hatch is popped, suggests everyone at least got out of the tank which wouldn't happen in a hard kill situation).

[Quax]

US propaganda show pushed by allied fanboys

[RoReaver]

Originally posted by NeoGeo:

US propaganda show pushed by allied fanboys

Backed up by military documents and reports? My my, aren't you hopeful.

[Quax]

yes, US got the best Tanks as we all know, german where crap....and so on...

We had that all already.
May read or watch " deathtraps" docu on youtube ...US tanker talking about the "famous" "Superior" sherman.

[RoReaver]

Originally posted by NeoGeo:

yes, US got the best Tanks as we all know, german where crap....and so on...

We had that all already.
May read or watch " deathtraps" docu on youtube ...US tanker talking about the "famous" "Superior" sherman.

Deathtraps is a memoire... one only idiots take as factually correct. Anything else? Besides proving that you don't watch things you don't agree with? :D (German tanks had overall better guns up until the 76 mm and the long 90 mm popped around)

[Varenvel The Festive Dinosaur]

Originally posted by The Romanian Reaver:

So lets have some fun by taking the time to watch a video by someone who actually did their research on comparing German vehicles to US ones.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNjp_4jY8pY

Next time I see a dude claim "The Sherman M4 couldn't pen the side of a Tiger 1 in real life!" I'll take to explaining the penetration capability of the short 75 mm gun, as the 76 would go straight into the tiger 1's front and, depending on range, go right out the back, at standard combat ranges and how the Tiger 1 would be ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ itself profusely to be caught side on by anything with a gun beyond the Russian 45mm gun.

Only things the germans had that were nominally invulnerable to fielded allied tanks were the Jagdtigers and Sturmtigers (to a degree). Everything else got horrifically wrecked by either AP or HE methods (the Russians used 152 mm bunker buster shells vs King Tigers to great effect). Guess what lads? Neither of those two are in the game. Oh and the Jumbo was as problematic to the Germans as the King Tiger was to the allies, that's why you see towed pak 128 mm guns and towed 17 pounder AT guns with rather exotic ammunition types (am not aware if they actually deployed the 77mm HV in towed configuration).

I am sorry to say , but 75 short was not able to penetrate , and as much as i love historicans not "all" know all the facts , problem was not just 75 was "lower vielocity" , tiger 1 armor was also one of tanks who had hardened steel armor , hardening was done for a reason as lower caliber , lower vielocity rounds would just shatter when hit it , and it was problems even 17 pounded faced , but larger caliber and higher vielocity made that problem apear at very long ranges

Not to say 75 short barrel even at perfect angles would not penetrate tiger , even at side unless it was really close , maybe not point blank but quite close (and dont even bringup experimental shells who were not used at that time period)

But yes sherman with short barrel with dose of luck could knockout tiger 1 on 1 when it ambushed tiger

But if we are speaking in RTS scenario , "gun vs gun armor vs armor , speed vs speed" sherman would lose 95% of time unless it was ambush

i see others also historicans claim sherman did not catch on fire as often and its just "a myth" , but statistics of army and combat shown early shermans did catch on fire more then any other ww2 in whole war

[Fenris]

i hope he does meen the long 76 mm, as far as i know there was a sherman that fired 25 round in to a Tiger 1 from 5 m away and the Tiger dit not give two ♥♥♥♥♥, then the tiger fired back and shot through the turret, i know that the sherman 76 (W) was greate but i am not so sure about the older shermans with the shorter gun

[Ulater]

Originally posted by author:

Reports? The video takes you through all the documentation for his claims so how about you do the same? Oh and if a gunner was shooting the strongest part of the tank's turret armour when they were trained, back then as far as I recall, to shoot for the center of mass (IE top hull lower turret) then the respective tank commander had a troll gunner.

If you like him so much, I would have expected you read his articles on US guns vs german armor.

Or if you want something more serious, WW II ballistics: Armor and Gunnery from Rexford, Livingston and Bird.

Or generally, any book on the subject.

76 mm failed outrageously enough to make it into more mainstream historical work considering how americans were initially very satisfied with the firing tests in USA and calculations that put the penetration of both Tigers and Panthers at considerably longer ranges than they could achieve in combat.

Originally posted by author:

So it took over a minute of firing at that tank to kill it assuming you meant a King Tiger (nominal combat reload speed of about 10-15 s, yeah it was that bad)

Pic is from 1945. Considering how likely would be that a Jumbo met a King Tiger, I would presume it was most likely some kind of assault gun, probably Jagdpanzer IV.

And you can see the penetration in the mantlet. It killed one crewmember, and rest bailed out.

Originally posted by author:

Backed up by military documents and reports? My my, aren't you hopeful.

No, it is not backed by military documents and reports.

Originally posted by author:

(German tanks had overall better guns up until the 76 mm and the long 90 mm popped around)

KwK 42 and 43 are far better guns than either of these.

[RoReaver]

Originally posted by The Dragon Who Sold The World:

I am sorry to say , but 75 short was not able to penetrate , and as much as i love historicans not "all" know all the facts , problem was not just 75 was "lower vielocity" , tiger 1 armor was also one of tanks who had hardened steel armor , hardening was done for a reason as lower caliber , lower vielocity rounds would just shatter when hit it , and it was problems even 17 pounded faced , but larger caliber and higher vielocity made that problem apear at very long ranges

1. Claim was inability to breach tiger side armour.
2. Every single tank from the Panzer 1 / Stuart 1 up until the Maus/T-95 were ostensibly made with hardened steel armour.
3. Only low velocity shells that shattered on a more frequent basis were early was 76.2 mm shells from the T-34 due to less than ideal manufacturing conditions. High velocity shells were more prone to shattering

Originally posted by The Dragon Who Sold The World:

Not to say 75 short barrel even at perfect angles would not penetrate tiger , even at side unless it was really close , maybe not point blank but quite close (and dont even bringup experimental shells who were not used at that time period)

http://www.theshermantank.com/wp-content/uploads/M3-gun-data-image.png
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/Tiger1-2002-Picz/Armor_Scheme_Tiger1.png
Notice the penetration on the HVAP round? Yeah it was rare as tits on a fish but so where Tiger 1s on the western front.

Originally posted by The Dragon Who Sold The World:

But yes sherman with short barrel with dose of luck could knockout tiger 1 on 1 when it ambushed tiger

Considering tanks tended to roll around in units of 4-5 individual tanks? And that in general those tigers were sufficiently rare to where there weren't units of 4-5 tigers active on the western front? I'll let you guess what would happen.

Originally posted by The Dragon Who Sold The World:

But if we are speaking in RTS scenario , "gun vs gun armor vs armor , speed vs speed" sherman would lose 95% of time unless it was ambush

Woefully incorrect considering the combat ranges for the shermans ingame are about 1000-1200 yards and even with the stubby 75 that HVAP round would significantly bother a tiger.

Originally posted by The Dragon Who Sold The World:

i see others also historicans claim sherman did not catch on fire as often and its just "a myth" , but statistics of army and combat shown early shermans did catch on fire more then any other ww2 in whole war

A burned out tank is a destroyed tank. If you had the option to shoot a enemy tank until it burns but not the option to capture it then you would do so to prevent the enemy from recovering the tank and reparing it.

[RoReaver]

Originally posted by Ulater:

If you like him so much, I would have expected you read his articles on US guns vs german armor.

Or if you want something more serious, WW II ballistics: Armor and Gunnery from Rexford, Livingston and Bird.

Or generally, any book on the subject.

76 mm failed outrageously enough to make it into more mainstream historical work considering how americans were initially very satisfied with the firing tests in USA and calculations that put the penetration of both Tigers and Panthers at considerably longer ranges than they could achieve in combat.

Odd how they'd go back to the 76 in Korea. Odd.

Originally posted by Ulater:

Pic is from 1945. Considering how likely would be that a Jumbo met a King Tiger, I would presume it was most likely some kind of assault gun, probably Jagdpanzer IV.

And you can see the penetration in the mantlet. It killed one crewmember, and rest bailed out.

Nice story. How's the hatch over the penetration hole open then? If anyone's gonna die it is the dude behind it. Smells like AAR BS considering that gun mantlet penetration is marked as 7 in your own image.

Originally posted by Ulater:

No, it is not backed by military documents and reports.

It is, go look son.

Originally posted by Ulater:

KwK 42 and 43 are far better guns than either of these.

If they could ever get their proper rounds (the APCR ones specifically). Otherwise the 42 is about as good as the 76 in penetration capacity (more useful beyond that point due the higher amount of explosive filler) while the 43... without APCR was nominally the same as the long 90 mm (I am talking about the Super Pershing gun specifically).

[Varenvel The Festive Dinosaur]

Originally posted by The Romanian Reaver:

Originally posted by The Dragon Who Sold The World:

I am sorry to say , but 75 short was not able to penetrate , and as much as i love historicans not "all" know all the facts , problem was not just 75 was "lower vielocity" , tiger 1 armor was also one of tanks who had hardened steel armor , hardening was done for a reason as lower caliber , lower vielocity rounds would just shatter when hit it , and it was problems even 17 pounded faced , but larger caliber and higher vielocity made that problem apear at very long ranges

1. Claim was inability to breach tiger side armour.
2. Every single tank from the Panzer 1 / Stuart 1 up until the Maus/T-95 were ostensibly made with hardened steel armour.
3. Only low velocity shells that shattered on a more frequent basis were early was 76.2 mm shells from the T-34 due to less than ideal manufacturing conditions. High velocity shells were more prone to shattering

Originally posted by The Dragon Who Sold The World:

Not to say 75 short barrel even at perfect angles would not penetrate tiger , even at side unless it was really close , maybe not point blank but quite close (and dont even bringup experimental shells who were not used at that time period)

http://www.theshermantank.com/wp-content/uploads/M3-gun-data-image.png
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/Tiger1-2002-Picz/Armor_Scheme_Tiger1.png
Notice the penetration on the HVAP round? Yeah it was rare as tits on a fish but so where Tiger 1s on the western front.

Originally posted by The Dragon Who Sold The World:

But yes sherman with short barrel with dose of luck could knockout tiger 1 on 1 when it ambushed tiger

Considering tanks tended to roll around in units of 4-5 individual tanks? And that in general those tigers were sufficiently rare to where there weren't units of 4-5 tigers active on the western front? I'll let you guess what would happen.

Originally posted by The Dragon Who Sold The World:

But if we are speaking in RTS scenario , "gun vs gun armor vs armor , speed vs speed" sherman would lose 95% of time unless it was ambush

Woefully incorrect considering the combat ranges for the shermans ingame are about 1000-1200 yards and even with the stubby 75 that HVAP round would significantly bother a tiger.

Originally posted by The Dragon Who Sold The World:

i see others also historicans claim sherman did not catch on fire as often and its just "a myth" , but statistics of army and combat shown early shermans did catch on fire more then any other ww2 in whole war

A burned out tank is a destroyed tank. If you had the option to shoot a enemy tank until it burns but not the option to capture it then you would do so to prevent the enemy from recovering the tank and reparing it.

Penetration statistics prove sherman 75 short would struggle with german side armor of tiger 1 , unlike most german tanks it had actualy decent armor exept lower compartment where tracks were , but im not entirely sure if allied gunners knew about that flaw

HVAP round myth is so well trenched into historicans mind its mind boggling

https://www.scribd.com/document/268875795/Sherman-Tank-Myths-Hyper-Shot-HVAP-or-APDS-Was-Not-Feasible-for-the-75-mm-on-the-Sherman


http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=157591

"The Ordnance Department had been testing HVAP projectiles since spring 1942, but the US didn't recognize until after Normandy that existing 75 mm and 76 mm/3" APC ammunition were inadequate against heavier German tanks, and tungsten--imported from China--was in short supply and needed for other purposes such as machine tools. 75 mm HVAP was not fielded, but 76 mm/3" HVAP was developed quickly thanks to earlier testing (the first 76 mm/3" T4 rounds were in ETO by September 1944), but even the T4 could not reliably penetrate the Panther's glacis at combat ranges (the same is true for 17 pdr APCBC and APDS, for what it's worth...). An improved version of the 76 mm/3" projectile, the T4E20, was standardized as the M93 in early 1945.
"

When we are speaking of this time period HVAP was not avalible to any tanker even if it was avalible it was very scarce munition as it was 76mm who recived it the most despite they were the least used gun caliber in Allied arsenal at that time

And when it was isued , it was almost exvisivly isued to antytank batalions and tank destroyers , as well as AT guns , rarely ever to tanks

Not to say that amunition was not avalible in this year the game takes place

[RoReaver]

Originally posted by The Dragon Who Sold The World:

Originally posted by The Romanian Reaver:

1. Claim was inability to breach tiger side armour.
2. Every single tank from the Panzer 1 / Stuart 1 up until the Maus/T-95 were ostensibly made with hardened steel armour.
3. Only low velocity shells that shattered on a more frequent basis were early was 76.2 mm shells from the T-34 due to less than ideal manufacturing conditions. High velocity shells were more prone to shattering


http://www.theshermantank.com/wp-content/uploads/M3-gun-data-image.png
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/Tiger1-2002-Picz/Armor_Scheme_Tiger1.png
Notice the penetration on the HVAP round? Yeah it was rare as tits on a fish but so where Tiger 1s on the western front.


Considering tanks tended to roll around in units of 4-5 individual tanks? And that in general those tigers were sufficiently rare to where there weren't units of 4-5 tigers active on the western front? I'll let you guess what would happen.


Woefully incorrect considering the combat ranges for the shermans ingame are about 1000-1200 yards and even with the stubby 75 that HVAP round would significantly bother a tiger.


A burned out tank is a destroyed tank. If you had the option to shoot a enemy tank until it burns but not the option to capture it then you would do so to prevent the enemy from recovering the tank and reparing it.

Penetration statistics prove sherman 75 short would struggle with german side armor of tiger 1 , unlike most german tanks it had actualy decent armor exept lower compartment where tracks were , but im not entirely sure if allied gunners knew about that flaw

HVAP round myth is so well trenched into historicans mind its mind boggling

https://www.scribd.com/document/268875795/Sherman-Tank-Myths-Hyper-Shot-HVAP-or-APDS-Was-Not-Feasible-for-the-75-mm-on-the-Sherman


http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=157591

"The Ordnance Department had been testing HVAP projectiles since spring 1942, but the US didn't recognize until after Normandy that existing 75 mm and 76 mm/3" APC ammunition were inadequate against heavier German tanks, and tungsten--imported from China--was in short supply and needed for other purposes such as machine tools. 75 mm HVAP was not fielded, but 76 mm/3" HVAP was developed quickly thanks to earlier testing (the first 76 mm/3" T4 rounds were in ETO by September 1944), but even the T4 could not reliably penetrate the Panther's glacis at combat ranges (the same is true for 17 pdr APCBC and APDS, for what it's worth...). An improved version of the 76 mm/3" projectile, the T4E20, was standardized as the M93 in early 1945.
"

When we are speaking of this time period HVAP was not avalible to any tanker even if it was avalible it was very scarce munition as it was 76mm who recived it the most despite they were the least used gun caliber in Allied arsenal at that time

And when it was isued , it was almost exvisivly isued to antytank batalions and tank destroyers , as well as AT guns , rarely ever to tanks

Not to say that amunition was not avalible in this year

HVAP =/=APDS.
The APDS was a British thing for the 17 pdr and couldn't hit the broad side of a barn at 500 yards (the 17pdr was a smooth bore gun as far as I recall).


So HVAP was rare in Normandy? How common were Tiger 1s?

The HVAP => antitank battalion thing is a common myth. It was so sparse 2-3 shells per tank per month, I believe, was the norm. Doesn't matter what sort of tank it was btw.

[Varenvel The Festive Dinosaur]

Originally posted by The Romanian Reaver:

Originally posted by The Dragon Who Sold The World:

Penetration statistics prove sherman 75 short would struggle with german side armor of tiger 1 , unlike most german tanks it had actualy decent armor exept lower compartment where tracks were , but im not entirely sure if allied gunners knew about that flaw

HVAP round myth is so well trenched into historicans mind its mind boggling

https://www.scribd.com/document/268875795/Sherman-Tank-Myths-Hyper-Shot-HVAP-or-APDS-Was-Not-Feasible-for-the-75-mm-on-the-Sherman


http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=157591

"The Ordnance Department had been testing HVAP projectiles since spring 1942, but the US didn't recognize until after Normandy that existing 75 mm and 76 mm/3" APC ammunition were inadequate against heavier German tanks, and tungsten--imported from China--was in short supply and needed for other purposes such as machine tools. 75 mm HVAP was not fielded, but 76 mm/3" HVAP was developed quickly thanks to earlier testing (the first 76 mm/3" T4 rounds were in ETO by September 1944), but even the T4 could not reliably penetrate the Panther's glacis at combat ranges (the same is true for 17 pdr APCBC and APDS, for what it's worth...). An improved version of the 76 mm/3" projectile, the T4E20, was standardized as the M93 in early 1945.
"

When we are speaking of this time period HVAP was not avalible to any tanker even if it was avalible it was very scarce munition as it was 76mm who recived it the most despite they were the least used gun caliber in Allied arsenal at that time

And when it was isued , it was almost exvisivly isued to antytank batalions and tank destroyers , as well as AT guns , rarely ever to tanks

Not to say that amunition was not avalible in this year

HVAP =/=APDS.
The APDS was a British thing for the 17 pdr and couldn't hit the broad side of a barn at 500 yards (the 17pdr was a smooth bore gun as far as I recall).


So HVAP was rare in Normandy? How common were Tiger 1s?

The HVAP => antitank battalion thing is a common myth. It was so sparse 2-3 shells per tank per month, I believe, was the norm. Doesn't matter what sort of tank it was btw.

they were not rare , that shell not existed at that time on battlefield as it was not even in europe , not even it was "leaving" america yet, it was being field tested in america just like jumbo did(but developers added it for balancing reasons) , jumbos did not arive at that time at all , only half of jumbos who were produced arived in 10 11 and 12 month of year 1944

17 pounder APCR ammo had a flaw in design , it was not foult of the gun

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2998207/posts

"First, recall the timeline for the second test conducted at Isigny, using first shipment of HVAP ammunition to be rushed to ETO – the test that really demonstrated the under-performance of the very best that was in the near-term pipeline for US tankers. The test firings began on 20 August. The preliminary report was written on the 22nd, and the final report became available for distribution on the 30th of August."

yes , August of year 1944

[Ulater]

Originally posted by author:

Odd how they'd go back to the 76 in Korea. Odd

How is that relevant?

They packed majority HVAP load-outs against russian tin-cans.

Originally posted by author:

Nice story. How's the hatch over the penetration hole open then? If anyone's gonna die it is the dude behind it. Smells like AAR BS considering that gun mantlet penetration is marked as 7 in your own image.

You know there are 2 people on that side of the tank, and that hatch is commonly reffered to as commanders cupola?

http://the.shadock.free.fr/sherman_minutia/manufacturer/m4a3e2jumbo/M4A3E2_48.JPG

Another one.

Originally posted by author:

If they could ever get their proper rounds (the APCR ones specifically). Otherwise the 42 is about as good as the 76 in penetration capacity (more useful beyond that point due the higher amount of explosive filler) while the 43... without APCR was nominally the same as the long 90 mm (I am talking about the Super Pershing gun specifically).

Distance 100 250 500 750 1000

KwK 42 185 179 168 158 149

76 mm M1 125 121 116 111 106

90 mm 206 201 193 185 178

KwK 43 232 227 219 211 204


Penetration in milimeters, I used the conventional ammunition with best penetration for 90 mm gun.

HVAP ammunition that was practically non-existent until august, and even then it was about 2 shells per tank-destroyer and supplied to towed guns, is irrelevant.

Originally posted by author:

It is, go look son.

I looked.