Slitherine

Hi PIP, it seems that the 17 pounder isnt very efficient against tanks esapcially stug / tiger and Royal Tiger. Maybe to change a little? regards.

Imo the 17 pounder is a killer! You wont get those Tigers and King Tigers from the front, but at least from the sides. In combination with half tracks or trucks they are very mobile and can easily be placed where you need them to get a shot from the side. I think the only problem can be the map design if it does not allow you to flank and maneuver.
Imo the gun is ok as it is right now.
But I really dont know why you have problems killing StuGs with it?

Greetings...

dickesKind wrote:Imo the 17 pounder is a killer! You wont get those Tigers and King Tigers from the front, but at least from the sides. In combination with half tracks or trucks they are very mobile and can easily be placed where you need them to get a shot from the side. I think the only problem can be the map design if it does not allow you to flank and maneuver.
Imo the gun is ok as it is right now.
But I really dont know why you have problems killing StuGs with it?

Greetings...

Agreed

I think in real life, the fire from the 17pdr could take out a Tiger I with a front shot, but I'm not sure at what distance. Not at maximum range, for sure.

dickesKind wrote: I think the only problem can be the map design if it does not allow you to flank and maneuver.

Or the opponent. Agreed with everything else too. 17pdr is a great weapon if used right.

Hi, Sutg in movement of course. But stugs are very strong too. I think even from the side, its not obvious to drestroy those big tanks. Seems easier in "combat mission" "Battle for normandy for instance which have a more realistic balistic and kowlandge about weapons. But its not the same game of course. Try to evuluate with a panther before a 17 pounder and you will see that life is short according to the distance of course! But range of fire was not so far than in the far east of russia. In normandy and of course in Bulge Tiger and royal Tiger havent the adavantage of far shoot. It was why they loose too much tiger and panther in Normandy!! And I dont speak about Bulge were using Royal Tiger was a nonsense, a stupudity and so german loose all there TigerII for nothing! They cant move and fired insuch countries.
I have not discover all the sides of the game so maybe I am wrong about...
Thanks for reply and will see in BA russia differences! I am waiting for that of course so take time to make a good product without bugs. Good products need time!
Regards.

jcb989 wrote:I think in real life, the fire from the 17pdr could take out a Tiger I with a front shot, but I'm not sure at what distance. Not at maximum range, for sure.

A 17 pounder could definitely take out a king tiger from the front let alone a regular tiger. The M36 Jackson could too and it's 90mm was no where near as powerful as the 17 pounder. Experts have argued as to which was the most powerful AT gun of WW2. The general consensus is that the long 88 on the king tiger was 1a to the 17 pounder 1b and some folks have it the other way around. Whatever the long 88 is rated in the game, the 17 pounder should be at the same rating. The long 75 on the panther comes in a distant 2nd to the aforementioned guns for pure penetrative power.

The 17 pounder and the firefly are one of the biggest disappointments in this game, it's in game performance is closer to that of the 75 that comes on the panzer IV. Also the regular sherman 75 should not have a problem penetrating a panzer IV from any angle. While the panzer had more kick to its gun, neither tank had enough armor to offset their respective guns. German tanks also had slow rotations to their turrets, in the game everything turns its turret as fast as a Sherman could, that is not accurate. Heck, I still haven't gotten used to stugs turning and killing me before I can get off one shot when I'm in a perfect ambush position. A stug crew jumped from behind would get so many hits by a single sherman before it could turn that the crew would probably bail before or simply run away in the direction it was pointing.

One last note in regards to guns in the game. BTW, I love this game and am not trying to trash it. I don't play anything else anymore. But that said, some improvements would not hurt. The marder is completely out of scale. It's too big and the gun it carries appears to be something like a 210mm, it should just be sporting the same thing the panzer IV has. Perhaps given the fact that they were based on such small vehicles the 75mm looks huge in photos. maybe the programmers forgot that they were based on tiny little panzer 2 tanks.

bar91 wrote:Hi, Sutg in movement of course. But stugs are very strong too. I think even from the side, its not obvious to drestroy those big tanks. Seems easier in "combat mission" "Battle for normandy for instance which have a more realistic balistic and kowlandge about weapons. But its not the same game of course. Try to evuluate with a panther before a 17 pounder and you will see that life is short according to the distance of course! But range of fire was not so far than in the far east of russia. In normandy and of course in Bulge Tiger and royal Tiger havent the adavantage of far shoot. It was why they loose too much tiger and panther in Normandy!! And I dont speak about Bulge were using Royal Tiger was a nonsense, a stupudity and so german loose all there TigerII for nothing! They cant move and fired insuch countries.
I have not discover all the sides of the game so maybe I am wrong about...
Thanks for reply and will see in BA russia differences! I am waiting for that of course so take time to make a good product without bugs. Good products need time!
Regards.

True, but this is already a very good product. It could be sensational and great if feedback is taken into account. The information I wrote about in the previous post is readily available just about anywhere. So a little more research can go a long way.

I agree the 17pdr had a punch. and have seen photos an talk in books of it penetrating a Tiger I...But...A KT....Don't think so.
None was lost from a penetrating shot to the glacis on any known incidents, photos, etc...take a look at this thread on another forum. Quite interesting. Especial the test the Russkies did. NOT COMBAT
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 7&t=195351

k9mike wrote:I agree the 17pdr had a punch. and have seen photos an talk in books of it penetrating a Tiger I...But...A KT....Don't think so.

I agree...

seen some pretty nice scars on them...but, no KT has ever been knocked out from the front Glacis strike...atleast none that I have ever heard from.
Shoot...just look at what the Russkies threw at it...About as likely as trying to take out a Jagdtiger from the front...

Many interesting replies but dont forget a tank can be destroyed from many ways. Many tanks were leave by their team in 90% good state. So, its not necessary to hit the "front glacis" to stop a huge tank. A simple molotov coktail will be usefull for example. A good explosive munition too because, the turret, the optical system and tube were not so strong. Some hits dont go through the tank but make the weapon unusefull (system or tube).
Just hope that the 17 pdr and firefly tank will have better performances in futur.
BA is a very good game otehrwise. Waiting for the russian front...

Good point...I was mainly speaking from a shear strike kill type point. but, all good...I too hope that it is improved abit...still think it is abit weak in this game.

k9mike wrote:I agree the 17pdr had a punch. and have seen photos an talk in books of it penetrating a Tiger I...But...A KT....Don't think so.
None was lost from a penetrating shot to the glacis on any known incidents, photos, etc...take a look at this thread on another forum. Quite interesting. Especial the test the Russkies did. NOT COMBAT

How did the glacis become the sole focus of the discussion? I'm not going to either dispute or validate something in a blog. All I know from years of reading and research is that allied troops had become resourceful and were accustomed to taking these monsters out FROM THE FRONT by scoring hits in known weak spots. Not even a KT could survive a sherman 75mm or 57mm ATG shot to the drive sprocket/track area. A tank that tries to move after one of its tracks has been taken out will turn in compromising directions. It has also been well documented that the panther had a prominent shot trap on the lower edge of the mantlet. The fact that the G model included a revised "chin" on the gun shield is proof enough that the Germans were forced to recognize the problem. There is even a well documented case in Normandy of a Stuart scoring a kill on a tiger 1 by firing HE into its gun barrel which almost blew the turret off the tiger.

But back to the point, a 17 pounder could easily penetrate a Tiger 1 from the front, glacis or mantlet it didn't matter. The photo in your link shows a KT knocked out by US troops with a penetration in the front of the turret next to the gun shield. It had to have been a 76mm shot. So if a 76mm can destroy a KT from the front, then by all means a 17 pounder most definitely posed a big problem for a KT.

bar91 wrote:Many interesting replies but dont forget a tank can be destroyed from many ways. Many tanks were leave by their team in 90% good state. So, its not necessary to hit the "front glacis" to stop a huge tank. A simple molotov coktail will be usefull for example. A good explosive munition too because, the turret, the optical system and tube were not so strong. Some hits dont go through the tank but make the weapon unusefull (system or tube).
Just hope that the 17 pdr and firefly tank will have better performances in futur.
BA is a very good game otehrwise. Waiting for the russian front...

Exactly, there was literally more than one way to skin a cat. There is no question that Germany lead the way in regards to quality of ATG penetrative capability. This was due in part to their attention to detail low tolerance high quality manufacturing in gun, ammunition, and optics. Ironically, if they had applied a lesser standard to the gun platforms themselves, they might have been able to capitalize by putting more of those awesome guns on higher numbers of simpler vehicles. Imagine the panther gun on a simple easy to produce vehicle like the T-34 or the Sherman. With their advantage in tactics, Germany would have definitely made the allies pay a much higher cost for victory.

The KT, Tiger 1, and Panther were over engineered, over complicated, under powered, and unreliable machines. Germany's early successes centered around sherman type tanks that were cheaper and simpler to make, maintain, and use. Tanks like the panzer 3 & 4. Taking into account the fact that panthers and tigers took so long to manufacture, so difficult to maintain, and were so unreliable. They certainly must be seen as a complete failure from the standpoint that they did not provide a satisfactory return on the investment that was made on their development and deployment. On average a KT could be counted on to operable 2 of every 10 days it was in the field. A regular Tiger and Panther 3-4 days of every 10 in the field. Those are atrocious numbers for machines that required so much effort to field.

Germany would have done much better with the Daimler panther which was a closer copy of the T-34.

Back to the point, the 17 pounder needs a healthy upgrade in this game.

Hi Pips, do you think you can make something upon the british frirefly and 17 pounder?

I think it's unlikely we would change it significantly at this stage - there is too much potential to unbalance existing missions, but I will get Iain to take a look.

FWIW I was playing Axis the other day an a couple of emplaced 17pdrs did a pretty thorough job on my attacking armour, so I must confess I don't see the problem

Cheers

Pip

Hi PIP, you will do the best for the game anyway!

I love the 17pdr. It can take on Panzer IV's at range and kill them, Panthers with flank shots at Range and anything at point blank.

There are definitely no plans to make it any more effective!