DD sherman

[VooWho]

Will since everyone wants a different type of sherman how about we give them the things that fighters and bomber have, gun and bomb pakages. Will for Sherman, or for other vehicals they have the coice of choosing different main guns that they could carry, or sideskirts/sand bags, or they could have the DD sherman floats. I would love to see all shermans, but how about have 1 sherman with different pakages you could choose from. The sherman barely changed in looks during WW2, the only differences was the guns they carried.

 


If you look at each version, the outside of the sherman tank look almost the same, just barely any differences. The only differences is the tracks and gun mounted on it.

[Geeb 2]

just makin shure this one doesn't get lost

[Latrobe]

we need more tanks all together all i ever see at tank battles are panzers, tigers, and T-34s. there were british tanks in ww2 and american tanks not just russian and german

[the_spud]

Pretty much the only tanks I see in gv battles are panzers, sometimes tigers. I rarely see T-34's, probably because their slow reload time can put you in a bad way when you are in a major battle. I think we need a bigger variety of tanks, it can be kinda dull when everybody is using the same tank.

[dragon25]

Originally posted by VooWho
Will since everyone wants a different type of sherman how about we give them the things that fighters and bomber have, gun and bomb pakages. Will for Sherman, or for other vehicals they have the coice of choosing different main guns that they could carry, or sideskirts/sand bags, or they could have the DD sherman floats. I would love to see all shermans, but how about have 1 sherman with different pakages you could choose from. The sherman barely changed in looks during WW2, the only differences was the guns they carried.

 


If you look at each version, the outside of the sherman tank look almost the same, just barely any differences. The only differences is the tracks and gun mounted on it.

agree...This option would give tankers more sayas to how gv's would and could B used in MA ops. I like the whole idea

[toadkill]

the only problem with that though, is that you cant perk a gunpackage. so if you wanted a perked version of the tank, (firefly maybe) you would have to make a whole different tank anyway

[Treize69]

Is the M4A3(76)W HVSS the same thing as the M4A3E8 "Easy Eight" Sheman? Certainly looks similar.

I've been wishing for the Easy as a perked American tank for a long time. I remember seeing it at Knox and drooling. It certainly looks a lot more menacing than a basic M4 does.

Would be cool to have a basic version of the Sherman as a non-perk and the Easy Eight as a perked one. Maybe both the Easy and the Firefly, so in scenarios the Brits can use one and the Yanks the other.

M4A3E8 could also be used in an early Korean War setup (pre-jets) too.


Mid-production M4A3 (For comparison)


M4A3E8

[frank3]

Originally posted by SMIDSY
but they were much better protected than the LVTs.

I doubt it, the LVT's would be able to shoot back in the water.

[SMIDSY]

Originally posted by frank3
I doubt it, the LVT's would be able to shoot back in the water.

i dont think they would actually fire their guns from the water. if they did, it was probably because they either used 75mm howitzers or 37mm AT guns, both of which would be useless for any tactical (tanks) application in AHII.

[taylortanklover]

Originally posted by toadkill
i know that sherman has been brought up every month for all of eternity. but badgering people sometimes gets things done.

as subject says. i would like a DD sherman, they had thier problems, but an amphibious tank would give CVs a chance to participate in gv battles. instead of bombing things.

i think u r right the only reason i think it comes up every month is cause it is a great tank exsept for the armor of course, but it is a fast, easy to control, and mass produced tank! that type of sherman and shermans with roket launcher, flamethrower, dozer, the m4a3 sherman, mine destroyer (sherman crab), and the sherman firefly of the british!

[Bogie603rd]

Shermans stink, History Channel and all these other historical resources "hail" the M-4 Sherman. Fact is, the sherman was side-swiped wreckage. Everyone thought the sherman was the main sight on the battlefield, well, here is something you didn't know:

It took up to 4 M-4 Shermans to take out a tiger on the battlefield, although it had 90 MM guns. The T-34 was actually better than the M-4 for having more armor, better revolving guns, and better engines. In-fact, some comparisons show that the T-34 was better than the M-4 because of its manouverability!

M-4 was pretty much target practice for the germans. It's almost as if your putting another M-8 in here, except this one has a little more bang.

[taylortanklover]

okay, okay, stop right there only reason it took 4 shermans to take out a tiger is because the tiger had a flak 8.8 on it and the tigers armor was 4 inches compared to the sherman 1.5 - 2 inch armor! have u ever watched the military channel's top ten tanks? surprisingly the t-34 hade the same sized cannon as a sherman the sherman came in 1st and sherman came in 10th! at least it came in the top ten the t-34 had slightly less produced then the sherman, because where the factories where! to replace 100 shermans took only 48 hours! to replace 100 tigers took like a year! the sherman's motor was the ford V8 motor 500hp! ow, excuse me the t-34/76 the actual t-34 hade a 76.2mm- sherman has a 75mm, not that much of a deference the last t-34 was the t-34/85 with an 85mm cannon, this type was used to counter attack the tiger 1 & 2 and the panther additions! the t-34/76's engine was a V-2-34 V-12 500hp so the mobility is tided! but the t-34 went slightly faster than the sherman do to each others hieght!

[Bogie603rd]

Sherman stinks, period. I dont give a rip what the history channel says, their a bunch of back-stabbin liars. They screwed up my families history and never even thought of sending compensation funds! Meanwhile their busy tearing up the shelves to say that "our widdle sherman is the best tank out there. Mr. ford made the best engine for it and that's why its #1".

Forget the dumb sherman! If the T-34 is about the same as the sherman then we dont need one! Besides, the T-34 has way more armor and the Sherman, as you said, only had 1.5 inches of armor. I say "no" since the sherman was the same as the t-34, just less armor.

(Come on guys, you have a tank with more armor and you want one with less? What does this compare to? Oh right, the B-29. You guys keep asking for a more powerful bomber known as a "B-29", and yet you want weaker tanks?? WHAT IN GOD'S GREAT EARTH IS WRONG WITH YOU?!?!)

[taylortanklover]

If u think about it hard enough the t-34 and M4 sherman r really a close mach but the t-34 is slightly better with it's gun, hieght, speed is barely better. mobility with rivers trenches and that it is equallie matched! but the sherman was the most widely used tank ever the americans, british, french, and eventually the russians got to it!

[Bogie603rd]

^^^Read what I just said^^^