Referring to the Tiger battle in the film Fury, I thought too many of the Tigers shots deflected or missed... now obviously its a film so a certain amount of lucky shot, narrative licence has to be allowed but even so, seemed a bit naff to me. At the distance on the film, apx 500-1000yards the Tigers 88mm should've been able to pretty much punch through anything.
What I found more unbelievable was War Daddy's tactics to defeat the Tiger. By simply rolling all 3 Shermans slowly towards it to attack head on he didn't come across as the experienced and respected leader he was supposed to be. Given the situation of being caught in the open against a prepared Tiger, if he couldn't retreat and call in air power or manoeuvre around it I'd have thought his best option would be to move around the field while they were in their retreated, out of line of sight position, then send 1 tank forward while the other 2 attempt to flank either side, forcing the Tiger to turn and engage one so that the other 2 could attempt a side or preferably rear shot.
17 pounder VS. 88mm
Re: 17 pounder VS. 88mm
You aint gettin me on no plane fool!
-
FreakyDude
- Corporal
- Posts: 391
- Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:31 pm
- Location: Canada
Re: 17 pounder VS. 88mm
This is a bad arguement but i agree there are a lot of ignorant people that believe the ******** put out by Sherman fans.
At an distance within a mile a Tiger will penetrate a Sherman.
ALL the information I have seen has a Sherman within 400 yards to penetrate the soft spots ( rear, sides etc ) but that shot is not a gaurantee of penetration.
The Sherman was an ok medium tank for Africa but as an MBT it was outclassed in every respect when you compare it against the Tiger with one exception, production numbers.
For those that argue the Sherman & T-34 won WWII, I call ** as it was the air force that won the day for the allies.
At an distance within a mile a Tiger will penetrate a Sherman.
ALL the information I have seen has a Sherman within 400 yards to penetrate the soft spots ( rear, sides etc ) but that shot is not a gaurantee of penetration.
The Sherman was an ok medium tank for Africa but as an MBT it was outclassed in every respect when you compare it against the Tiger with one exception, production numbers.
For those that argue the Sherman & T-34 won WWII, I call ** as it was the air force that won the day for the allies.
A Joke is a very serious thing
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Re: 17 pounder VS. 88mm
Tiger shooting King Tiger,rare footage from the BLACK FORREST area .enjoy
No penetration, the Sherman was not available to the crews yet.
http://youtu.be/Y3EbHdJvh-w
No penetration, the Sherman was not available to the crews yet.
http://youtu.be/Y3EbHdJvh-w
Last edited by Saxondog on Fri Nov 14, 2014 6:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Changed video link.
Reason: Changed video link.
Urban dictionary-SAXONDOG-derogatory term for anglosaxon people
-
SovereignZuul
- Corporal
- Posts: 453
- Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2012 11:50 pm
- Location: Connecticut, USA
Re: 17 pounder VS. 88mm
No video's found at that link Saxon.
My Build Thread: http://www.rctankwarfare.co.uk/forums/v ... 22&t=10204
Re: 17 pounder VS. 88mm
I did not save the change to public,sorry guys.
http://youtu.be/Y3EbHdJvh-w
http://youtu.be/Y3EbHdJvh-w
Urban dictionary-SAXONDOG-derogatory term for anglosaxon people
-
doc larsson
- Staff Sergeant
- Posts: 829
- Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2012 5:05 pm
Re: 17 pounder VS. 88mm
i thought a 17pdr was called a firefly and us had none !?
