Author Topic: what we need is more cool vehicles!  (Read 2659 times)

Offline E25280

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3475
      • http://125thspartanforums.com
what we need is more cool vehicles!
« Reply #45 on: August 23, 2006, 08:01:18 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by taylortanklover
wow, wait i maybe on 5 forum delay here! but the M1A1 Abrams is the U.S.'s secondary tank now the main battle tank right now for the U.S. is the new and improved and exteamly technilogicly advanced M1A2 Abrams with a 360 few camera and all new types of computers in it it is like a super computer tank!
I thought that the improved command and control devices on the M1A2 were upgrades to the existing system and on a small minority of tanks . . . perfectly willing to stand corrected if not the case.
Brauno in a past life, followed by LTARget
SWtarget in current incarnation
Captain and Communications Officer~125th Spartans

"Proudly drawing fire so that my brothers may pass unharmed."

Offline taylortanklover

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 554
what we need is more cool vehicles!
« Reply #46 on: August 24, 2006, 10:49:59 AM »
no,no no, no, no! They were not upgades they are completely new systems the M1A1 abrams was a upgrade of the M1 abrams from the '70s!!:aok :p :D :cool:

Offline Lye-El

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1466
what we need is more cool vehicles!
« Reply #47 on: August 24, 2006, 02:21:56 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by taylortanklover
but the cool thing is the sherman is easy to be matenenced then any of the germen tanks (i think even the russian tanks!),


Yeah, it was cool that they could haul a destroyed Sherman back. Wash out the blood and brains, put new wiring in, weld a plug in the hole in the turrent,  and paint the inside, and give it to the next noob crew. Then point and say "The German armor is that way, see if you can kill what your predessors could not".


i dont got enough perkies as it is and i like upen my lancs to kill 1 dang t 34 or wirble its fun droping 42 bombs

Offline taylortanklover

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 554
what we need is more cool vehicles!
« Reply #48 on: August 24, 2006, 02:36:58 PM »
no actually, if a sherman was hit and inoperatabale but not destroied, the could fix it up and it will be running again in no time! the actual cool thing is if a sherman was destroied it could be replaced with in 48 hours for the germans it took like a month! the less we hade to deal with them!:D

Offline FrodeMk3

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2481
what we need is more cool vehicles!
« Reply #49 on: August 24, 2006, 03:20:45 PM »
Taylortanklover, I'm sorry it took awhile to get back with the answer to that question I asked you. The Germans called the sherman the "ronson",
after a popular cigarrette lighter. In many accounts, one hit was enough to brew up a M-4. What I would ask you to do is, look at more resources(read some of the excellent bio's and tech materials that you can get at most local bookstores and online websites). You might drastically change your opinion of the Sherman.

     -Frode

Offline taylortanklover

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 554
what we need is more cool vehicles!
« Reply #50 on: August 24, 2006, 03:42:51 PM »
nope, ur wrong about the matireal part! i remember that the germans did not call it that but some thing else that related to a lighter! Sence the M4 hade an auto-mobile engine it's fuel is what a car takes and that is highly flameable (more flameable than desiel!), and along with it's very thin armor so uselly one hit would light it on fire! that is why the germans named it after a lighter! But on aces high a t-34 agains a panzer 4 one hit to eather of them and u r back to the tower, even though the panzer 4 has a weaker gun than the T-34 they both can only take one hit! So if u put a sherman in there it wouldn't change the total hits taken to destroy it!:D :cool: :p

Offline mentalguy

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 667
what we need is more cool vehicles!
« Reply #51 on: August 24, 2006, 04:11:58 PM »
Almost all the tanks in WW2 (both Axis and Allied) ran on petrol.


The M1-A abrams runs on petrol.
PFC. Corey "Mentalguy" Gibson
USMC

Offline taylortanklover

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 554
what we need is more cool vehicles!
« Reply #52 on: August 24, 2006, 07:03:43 PM »
the abrams runs on jet fuel it has a weird jet engine! and the abrams canburn everyhthing for fuel! Even poop!:D

Offline E25280

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3475
      • http://125thspartanforums.com
what we need is more cool vehicles!
« Reply #53 on: August 24, 2006, 10:24:41 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
Taylortanklover, I'm sorry it took awhile to get back with the answer to that question I asked you. The Germans called the sherman the "ronson",
after a popular cigarrette lighter. In many accounts, one hit was enough to brew up a M-4. What I would ask you to do is, look at more resources(read some of the excellent bio's and tech materials that you can get at most local bookstores and online websites). You might drastically change your opinion of the Sherman.

     -Frode
The tendancy for early M-4s to "cook off" easily was due to inadequate ammo storage in the crew compartment.  Note I said "early".  Once identified, they moved the location of ammo storage, added armor plate, and/or began using water-protected storage systems (depending on variant).  That is to say, by mid to late war, the Sherman was in reality no more prone to cook off than any other contemporary tank.

As for looking up resources and such, I suggest comparing to contemporary designs (1941-42).  Look up technical data rather than "bios" or personal experiences, as these are by definition more opinion than hard fact.  Keep in mind it was designed before the Americans knew anything about the Tiger or Panther.  The Germans were fielding Pzkw IIIs with 37mm and 50mm guns, and PzkwIVs with low velocity 75mm howitzers at the time.  Against these it was more than adequate.  Thus to say the Sherman was a bad tank would mean you have to say the Spitfire MkI was a bad airplane.  Overtaken by technology is not the same as a "bad" design.

Could it go toe-to-toe with a Panther?  Of course not.  Thus it acquired a poor reputation.  But, neither could the T-34/76 stand up to a Panther.  A T-34 (or just about any other tank) would cook off when hit by the long 75 too.  Yet the Sherman acquired a reputation as dog and the T-34/76 the reputation of "the best tank of the war".  That should tell you how useful reputations are.

Brauno in a past life, followed by LTARget
SWtarget in current incarnation
Captain and Communications Officer~125th Spartans

"Proudly drawing fire so that my brothers may pass unharmed."

Offline taylortanklover

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 554
what we need is more cool vehicles!
« Reply #54 on: August 25, 2006, 08:24:26 AM »
in the beginning u never said early!

Offline taylortanklover

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 554
what we need is more cool vehicles!
« Reply #55 on: August 25, 2006, 08:26:13 AM »
and the sherman "cooked-off " through at least more than half of the war, until the M4A3 sherman came it never happened!

Offline EagleDNY

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1514
what we need is more cool vehicles!
« Reply #56 on: August 25, 2006, 10:55:44 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
Taylortanklover, I'm sorry it took awhile to get back with the answer to that question I asked you. The Germans called the sherman the "ronson",
after a popular cigarrette lighter. In many accounts, one hit was enough to brew up a M-4. What I would ask you to do is, look at more resources(read some of the excellent bio's and tech materials that you can get at most local bookstores and online websites). You might drastically change your opinion of the Sherman.

-Frode


In any WW2 era tank, anything powerful enough to get through the armor was likely to kill crew anyway.  The Sherman was designed for infantry support more than tank killing, and was designed to be mass-produced quickly by American automakers.  The Sherman's engine is actually 5 6-cyl GM truck engines arranged in a Star-shape around a common crankshaft, which meant they could start production without even having to gear up new production lines.

Any WW2 (even the Tiger) hit by a large shell was in for a bad time.  Even if you don't penetrate the armor directly, the energy transfer from a 75, 88 or 90mm shell hitting your tank can cause any number of interesting effects that turn the monkeys inside into a bloody mess.  

EagleDNY
$.02

Offline taylortanklover

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 554
what we need is more cool vehicles!
« Reply #57 on: August 25, 2006, 11:11:08 AM »
u r wrong cause the shermans engine wass a ford 500 horse power it was not of a gm truck i have a book to prove it!

Offline captkaos

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 178
what we need is more cool vehicles!
« Reply #58 on: August 25, 2006, 11:17:47 AM »
For all those people who do not understand the Sherman Tank, please read:

It was said that the U.S. had matched the superior quality of the German tanks only by superior quantities of American tanks. And this was largely true. The Sherman did not fare well in tank-to-tank slugging matches with their giant German counterparts-shells often harmlessly bounced off the thick German armor. Interestingly enough, before entering the war, the U.S. did develop some extremely heavy tanks, but later switched to lighter tanks for the following reasons.  
 
The U.S. tanks had to be transported by ship from Detroit, across a vast ocean to land amphibiously on enemy shores. This reality placed great limitations on the size and weight of the tanks. Especially with the frequent U-boat sinkings, the number of U.S. ships was dropping, and the bigger the tank, the fewer a ship could carry.  
 
Another factor that faced the U.S. was moving their armor over bridgeless streams. The U.S. Air Force was targeting enemy bridges as a means of disrupting enemy supply lines, etc. Once these bridges were destroyed, U.S. tanks would have to cross the streams on temporary bridges. Heavy tanks could not have crossed, but the lightweight and nimble Shermans could.  
 
Also, while the Tiger and Panther were made bigger and more powerful than the Sherman was, they were comparatively slow and ponderous. The German tanks were often used as pill-boxes, forced to become immobile and fire at oncoming armor. On the other hand, the Sherman was designed for deep thrusts into the enemy's rear, where it would destroy supply installations and communications. This demanded great speed and minimal fuel consumption.  
 
But perhaps the greatest reason behind the success of the Sherman was its reliability-maximum performance and minimum care and replacement. General George Patten recognized this when he declared, "In mechanical endurance and ease of maintenance our tanks are infinitely superior to any other". This factor played out on the battlefield, allowing the Sherman to out-run, out-maneuver, and ultimately out-fight the Tiger and Panther.  
 
With about 50,000 produced in all variations, the Sherman was the most widely produced tank during the war. The five major variants of the M4 to the M4A4 were designated by the hull and engine used. Although powerful and proven, its high center propeller shaft gave the hull a tall profile. Suspension was a rugged and simple design, known as VVSS (Vertical Volute Spring Suspension), with three units (or bogies) on each side, and each with two road wheels. The transmission was 5-speed forward plus reverse. Early production M4's had a 3-piece front transmission cover, and a cast one-piece steel turret mounting a 75mm main gun. For added protection, oblique armor plates were added to the turret, hull sides and just in front of the forward hull hatches. Production of the M4 began in July 1942, five months later than the cast hulled M4A1. One of the most powerful variants of the M4 Sherman was the 105mm howitzer equipped version, which provided valuable fire support for the U.S. Army and Marines as well as extensive use in anti-tank operations.

Offline taylortanklover

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 554
what we need is more cool vehicles!
« Reply #59 on: August 25, 2006, 11:21:58 AM »
yan, maybe later when i have the time!:o