Behold, the Littlejohn Adaptor: Combat Mission Final Blitzkrieg  

Wait a sec, why would that be case? We can send stuff faster than its terminal speed, am i missing something here? I distinctly remember something about diamond shapes forming in supersonic flow of jet and rocket engines.

tiger panic intensifies

qf 6 pounder>gen 3 german tanks

​@@jerrysmooth24This is a 2pdr.

@@forcea1454 i know

it's not a normal Daimler, it has a squeeze bore littlejohn adaptor, it greatly increases the velocity of the round

The tiger 1 didnt really have good armor, all flat

iirc the velocity profile or squeeze bore rounds resembles a cliff

Wikipedia claims a decent accuracy of 25% There's also an old warthunder thread with penetration testing charts showing values for out to 1500yards (1.3km) where it drops off to 45mm and 60mm between the variants. (If you want to find the aforementioned thread, it's named " LittleJohn Adapter for the Tetrach and Daimler" under the old forums url for warthunder's forums)

In CM, the round goes out without any noticeable deviation, but obviously the penetrative power drops off. In real life... well, no one picked up the squeeze-bore principle after WW2, which tells the whole story really

Muzzle Velocity

it's basically functioning on a similar principle to a sabot but before they could make reliable sabots, if the projectile is smaller than the barrel the velocity increases

Iirc, the Littlejohn squeezes the 2-pounder (40mm) projectile down to around 30mm, gaining much of the extra energy from the extra volume of the 40mm casing compared to the smaller diameter tungsten alloy core.

The Tiger I's frontal armour is effectively 101-110mm thick given the angle of the armour. That is definitely not impervious to later war Allied and Soviet anti-tank guns... as evidenced by the fact the Germans felt the need to build the even more heavily armoured Tiger II.

Bruh, I thought the myth about Tiger I “toughness” was already populary debunked, It's like you missed five years worth of argument about Tiger I. German's box-like hull sucked, short-barreled 75 mm could penetrate its front armor from 500 m, and that was when german industry still intact and when they still used a good steel. Tbh, I don't know how the Tiger I got that reputation, the Allied force on the Western Front hardly ever confronted it in any significant number and the Soviet on Eastern Front had a bigger guns that could easily penetrate it.

@@usuallyhapless9481 Also important to note is that many late-war Tigers (both historically and in-game) were built with over-hardened steel, leading to the effective protection provided by the armor being very poor (as it would shatter upon any hit). Historically, this resulted in IS-2s and Soviet artillery literally cracking German tanks open with direct HE hits, and in-game it causes German tanks to be penetrated by even 75mm Shermans and 76mm T-34s frontally.

@@Rifin-pu2hb lol when the soviet tanks even made it to the front that is so many broke down before even engaging the enemy thats why soviet tank losses were so high it wasn't that the germans had super tanks the soviet tanks just constantly broke down and then the germans blew them up the soviets also later war also had a like 5-1 numbers advantage and still usually managed to lose 2-3 tanks for every german tank lost

@@usuallyhapless9481 Yes, the first calibres fielded by the Allies that began to turn that corner were, for the Western Allies, the British 17pdr (76mm long gun) which finally achieved a balance of raw size and punching power, coupled with developments in APCR and APDS. For the US, we didn’t really achieve dominance until the 90mm was finally mounted on a chassis, first with the M10, and then the Pershing in the closing months of the war. So much so, that the US began adopting the British ‘Firefly’ with its 17pdr/76mm long gun until the Pershing finally made its debut. The Russians were actually ahead of us in developing and mounting their 85mm and then 100mm guns. Up to that point, our calibre of ordinance was long lamented by our troops as being inadequate. Just consider the story of a Tiger I during the Kursk battles, which, while receiving extensive damage, nevertheless sustained over a 100 hits from various RU ordinance, but still made it out with the crew alive and essentially unharmed! Just a fluke of a ‘debunked myth’? Yes, the 90mm and British 25pdr were already in the field before the advent of those vehicles but only as static ordinance. As I just mentioned, it was widely lamented by our troops at the time, that the Allies were woefully behind the Germans on AFV capability, and it wasn’t until the closing months of the war, that the Pershing became the first, Western-Allied MBT to be considered on a par with the Tigers and Panthers. In fact, the British answer (the Centurion) didn’t even make it to the field before the war’s end. Everything the Allies did in tank development was oriented towards the destruction of German heavy tanks such as the Tigers. That was the measuring stick. As I said before, there’s a reason why these tanks were so feared and why they evoked such intimidation that it was generally considered necessary to field at least three Shermans to every one Tiger or Panther, with the understanding that whichever one of those three was the unlucky one to have to face off against the front of the German AFV was expected to be ‘collateral damage’; ie. bait! The hope being that the other two would at least be able to get around the sides or rear in the meantime where they actually stood a ‘chance’ of making a kill-hit. **Why would such tactics have been considered necessary if a hi-velocity 40mm could be expected to consistently punch through the frontal armour at 100yds?** Something doesn’t add up to the historical reality. Consider Michael Whitman’s rampage in Normandy (prior to his being killed): the only thing that finally stopped his Tiger on that day was a US ATG (I believe a 76mm) that was fired at almost point-blank range, but did that crew fire at the main body, believing the 'myth' of it invulnerability and thereby to knock it out? No, they *purposely* targeted the tracks due to their expectation of what little chance they had, even at that range, with that calibre, of actually taking out the Tiger. **If a specialized 40mm could pull it off at 100yds, why were they worried?** One can protest all the mathematical prowess of analysis one wants, but the testimony and actions of the Allied troops at the time…let’s just say they weren’t stupid or dupped! As to the development of the Tiger II, that wasn’t a German reaction; it was their armaments ministry having the foresight to realise that they had to stay ahead of the game in terms of development. It wasn’t difficult to appreciate the benefits of melding the Tiger’s fearsome capabilities with the Panther’s sloping armour. Also, consider how far beyond a 40mmm or 2pdr I’m writing about here! Given the reputation the Tiger I had, let alone the II, it stretches credibility to think of a 40mm, albeit hi-velocity, able to mount such a *consistent* threat; the odd, critical hit perhaps, yes, but again, if that were the case, then **what was everyone at the time so afraid of? Are we claiming to be smarter than those troops who actually fought these things?** If it’’s not the modelling of the Tiger’s armour, then it’s the modelling-capabilities of this 40mm.