Ordnance vs AGF: Pershing Part 2
Дата: 02.06.2014 03:06:41
S842, 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
The_Chieftain: 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)
The_Chieftain: 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.
Ordnance vs AGF: Pershing Part 2














