Sherman Firefly 17 lbr (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding


engineer -> Sherman Firefly 17 lbr (7/24/2019 2:17:22 AM)

My first search on the forum didn't turn up anything on this, but maybe I missed a phrase.

The anti-armor on the Sherman Firefly is 120, but it's armed with a 17 lb AT gun that is listed at 138 anti-armor in the gun section.

I know WitP AE isn't a panzerkrieg, but the allied tanks seem to mix 75 mm, 76 mm, and 17 lb main armament into a single lump.

BillBrown -> RE: Sherman Firefly 17 lbr (7/24/2019 4:22:47 AM)

So what is the question?

engineer -> RE: Sherman Firefly 17 lbr (7/24/2019 5:48:06 PM)

An observation that leads to question, whether getting to finer points in the AFVs is within the otherwise meticulous attention to detail AE gives to the other aspects of the scenario?

About the only two places where I can see this being very telling in game play would be if the course of play led to big campaigns in Australia or mainland Asia (India early game or China late game) between the Western Allies and Japan. Manchuria will usually be a Soviet romp unless an earlier win by Japan makes it moot.

inqistor -> RE: Sherman Firefly 17 lbr (7/24/2019 8:26:40 PM)

I'm not sure if Fireflies were ever used outside ETO. Maybe after Germany surrender? In which scenario it is used?

However, I see that somehow CS variant have the same penetration, as normal tank model, but CS was armed with 105mm howitzer.

engineer -> RE: Sherman Firefly 17 lbr (7/24/2019 11:23:42 PM)

There is a pretty wide swath of AFVs with 110 - 160 mm penetration in the 75/76 mm category.

120 mm is a pretty generous assessment for the M3 gun on the Sherman. The 110/120 ratio is about right for the lower muzzle velocity M2 gun on the Lee/Grant. The Chaffee had an M6 75 mm that was a bit shorter than the M3. However, the penetration values were roughly equivalent to the M3.

The M10 had an M7 76 mm gun. It was essentially a reworked 3" AA gun put to work as an AT gun. It should have a bit more penetration that M3, but more like 10-15% instead of 33%.

The M18 had a totally different 76 mm gun that had more penetration than the M7.

The 105mm howitzer close support tank only had a bit more than half the penetration M3 gun unless a special HEAT round was in the load out.

For confusion sake, the Type 3 Japanese tank also had a Type 3 75 mm gun. It could penetrate the Sherman frontal armor at close range (100 m or less) and the side armor at considerably longer ranges, but 120 mm is again generous.

My bad on confusing the Sherman V and Firefly. The Sherman V was just an export version of the M4A4 tank and equipped with the M3 gun.

Probably the more interesting interplay on armor and guns is on the earlier Japanese tanks, 2 lb/37mm, 6 lb/57mm, and UK/Stuart/Grant/Lee interactions.

This is going to manifest most strongly in open field engagements (think a hypothetical Australian invasion scenario) where engagement won't be at point blank range.

inqistor -> RE: Sherman Firefly 17 lbr (7/25/2019 1:06:01 PM)

Penetration depends mostly on muzzle velocity. The longer the gun, the greater speed, the better penetration. Panther mounted still 75mm gun, and it had better penetration, than 88mm of first Tiger (below 2000m).

My understanding is that ANTI-ARMOR value is compared with enemy ARMOR value, for calculating penetration (squads have 0 penetration). There is no front/back/side difference. Since Japanese tanks have quite low armor, difference between 75mm guns probably doesn't matter.
And PENETRATION value is only used against ships. Tanks probably never shot against them, so this value is unnecessary anyway.

engineer -> RE: Sherman Firefly 17 lbr (7/27/2019 12:57:14 AM)

The more I dig into this the more I'm becoming convinced that stock data is suspect, but it won't make much difference in game play. One interesting tidbit is that the 220 mm anti-armor of the Pershing reflected an HVAP shot that was prototyped but never issued overseas. So a lower value there is appropriate.

However, your point about the armor values of Japanese tanks is the key bit. It seems to me that the game impact is earlier in the game. The two key questions are whether the 37 mm/2 lbr guns on early war tanks & TOE have enough power to defeat medium tank armor (they certainly defeat the IJA light tanks)and how does the long 37mm & 47mm on the later IJA tanks tank do against the early war Allied AFVs. T-34, Shermans, Grants, Lee's would roll over IJA armor but the Type 3 medium tank might at least draw some blood in a maneuver battle where they could get side shots in.

Page: [1]

Valid CSS!

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI