Author Topic: New Tank (Read 1228 times)

Klum25th · « **on:** July 26, 2005, 05:04:22 PM »

Could we have this when we redo the Tanks.

Maybe add the Rocket pads on Top of the Sherman for more destructive options.

38ruk · « **Reply #1 on:** July 26, 2005, 08:36:20 PM »

hitech would have a headache everytime someone started playing , and wondered why their shots just bounce off most of the time , but they get hit once and their toast . Not a flame or nothing , but it would be hard pressed against a panser , tiger or t-34 one on one . 38

Ohio43 · « **Reply #2 on:** July 27, 2005, 07:24:55 AM »

I agree, for realism sake, that adding the Sherman would be cool, but, realisticly, no one would use it..as stated above, it was totally outclassed and no one would grab it when other non perked tanks are much better. Even the T-34, a good tank, compared to the sherman, isnt even being used.

Furball · « **Reply #3 on:** July 27, 2005, 01:47:33 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ohio43
I agree, for realism sake, that adding the Sherman would be cool, but, realisticly, no one would use it..as stated above, it was totally outclassed and no one would grab it when other non perked tanks are much better. Even the T-34, a good tank, compared to the sherman, isnt even being used.

add the Sherman and Sherman Firefly at the same time. That way you get an American and a British tank, one competitive in the MA, both good for scenario's.

buzkill · « **Reply #4 on:** July 27, 2005, 02:33:44 PM »

if it's an underdog, give it 2 drones....just a thought:rolleyes:

Raptor · « **Reply #5 on:** July 27, 2005, 03:11:03 PM »

make it so the t34 can penetrate a tiger's armor from behind at 100yds and sherman at 50

Klum25th · « **Reply #6 on:** July 27, 2005, 04:18:49 PM »

Sherman Tanks could destory Tigers and Panzer but had to get behind the tank to do it. To me the Sherman would be good for like Realistic settings. Put the Japanes tank in the game to and then the sherman wont be the worst tank in the game.

Tho I think the Tiger armor is too strong. I get behind a disable tiger with a T34 and shoot hit reend over and over and they all bounce off. im no more than 10 yrds behind it close enough for a shell to penatrate the armor.

killnu · « **Reply #7 on:** July 27, 2005, 04:40:22 PM »

was the pershing tank WW2?

Lye-El · « **Reply #8 on:** July 27, 2005, 04:48:53 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Klum25th

I get behind a disable tiger with a T34 and shoot hit reend over and over and they all bounce off. im no more than 10 yrds behind it close enough for a shell to penatrate the armor.

And you want a Sherman? I believe it was also know as a Ronson (lighter) because it lit up the first time, every time.

zorstorer · « **Reply #9 on:** July 27, 2005, 05:09:38 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by killnu
was the pershing tank WW2?

Should have been out sooner than it was (Jan 45) but Patton decided the sherman was more mobile, which in fact it was not. Off road the Pershing had a lower ground pressure which pretty much equates to off road mobility, something that Patton didn't get I guess.

Klum25th · « **Reply #10 on:** July 27, 2005, 06:34:12 PM »

Since we have the M8 then y couldn't we have the Sherman. I dont care if it lights up like a match, I want to drive and shoot others with a freakin sherman. And the only other game i know that has a Sherman tank is in BF1942. but its not realistic. I want realism. I think the Sherman can take on the panzer and the tiger, but i know the sherman wont do well against them but i know it can kill them. Me and some of my friends in h2h were in M8s and took out a tiger. Only 1 out of 3 of us were killed, and the M8 only has a 37mm, but the Sherman has a 75mm.

Raptor · « **Reply #11 on:** July 27, 2005, 06:34:46 PM »

lots of info in this thread
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=27119&highlight=arlo

Raptor · « **Reply #12 on:** July 27, 2005, 06:38:32 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by zorstorer
Should have been out sooner than it was (Jan 45) but Patton decided the sherman was more mobile, which in fact it was not. Off road the Pershing had a lower ground pressure which pretty much equates to off road mobility, something that Patton didn't get I guess.

do you have a film or SS? Cause the only place you can get a hit on a tiger with even a t34 is the tracks.

AmRaaM · « **Reply #13 on:** July 27, 2005, 10:57:20 PM »

I read once that the loss rate ratio of Shermans to Tiger and panthers was like 6:1 in favor of the T&Ps.

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #14 on:** July 28, 2005, 12:49:16 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Lye-El
And you want a Sherman? I believe it was also know as a Ronson (lighter) because it lit up the first time, every time.

Patton didnt decide which tanks were used.
In fact he warned the army about the tanks.

among other reasons
another reason we didnt have many larger and heavier tanks was size and the ability to transport them.
In as much as much of the material was transported by rail.
Seems the larger tanks wouldnt fit through any of the train tunnels we had stateside at the time.