M4 sherman!

[VooWho]

The only reason why no one wants the Sherman is because theres no tanks that it can compete with in AH. How about we add more sucky tanks instead of the ultimate tanks of the war. How about we get a Sherman, Panzer III, Matilda, Crusader, those other russian tanks, those crappy japanese tanks, those crappy Italian tanks, and all those other tanks. If we had more of these tanks, then the Sherman would have more tanks in its class. If we get more tanks like the tiger, panther, and those big prettythang German tanks, then we well never see anything like the sherman in the game, because people well say this "It won't match up to the Tiger" "Its has a crappy gun" "It has thin armor" "Its too slow" "Its got no competition" blah blah blah. If we get say the King Tiger then there is no hope for anymore tanks as though "Nothing can compete with it" Add the Sherman it won't kill us to have a sucky tank.

[Meatwad]

I wouldnt mind having a Matilda II or a Crusader III (perked maybe?)

[E25280]

Originally posted by Nemeth
althou having a allied tank wold be nice... the M-4 Sherman is nothing more than a large metal casket...
this would be how many shots it would take to take down a M-4...
pnzr - 1-2 shots
tiger - 1 shot (anywhere)
t-34 - 1-2 shots
m8 - 3-6 shots
the only reason the m-4 was good was because of the number made...
alone the m-4 is worse than the m-16
and last but not least, the only version of the m-4 I would want is the firefly, other wise it would be the official GV hangar queen...

I do not understand your reasoning.  How many shots does it take to kill the current Pzkw IV?

pnzr - 1-2 shots
tiger - 1 shot (anywhere)
t-34 - 1-2 shots
m8 - 3-6 shots

And the only difference between that and firing against the T-34 is with the slope on the T-34, you are more prone to get a richochet.

As for the snub 75mm on the standard M-4, it would be about as effective as the T-34's 76mm gun, but with a higher rate of fire and better visability.  (It also had a more effective HE round, but I doubt that would be modeled.)  Add on the .50cal AAMG on the Sherman, and I would take it over the T-34 on most occasions in AH.

The only reason the modeled Pzkw IV has any advantage on the standard Sherman is the better gun.  That is due to the fact that the we have the (H) model IV, i.e. a late war variant.  If the Sherman were modeled to its later variants, it would probably be the E8, which had a gun equal to the IV (H), or the Firefly, which had a gun superior to even the Tiger in terms of armor penetration.

Model an early war Pzkw IV(C) through (E), and it is inferior to the standard M-4.  Model a mid-war (F) or (G), and they are about identical.

The standard M-4 is an early-to-mid-war, medium tank.  Because it couldn't go toe-to-toe with late war and heavier tanks, it was a dog?  LMAO, people.

[titanic3]

lol, we can use it as a scout tank like the M8 or we can use it to immobilize the enemy gvs by shooting their tracks.

[Denholm]

Why aim for tracks when you can clearly see their heads?

[Debonair]

M-36 jackson = pwn
M-36b1 = M4

[Flame 2 the boy]

personally im a fan of the m4...but i do also realize that it would get slaughtered almost instantly if left in the open. however, it would make the game more realistic. And those of u that dont want the sherman just dont drive it. But dont cry when i blast you away.

Flameboy

[sparow]

Hi chaps,

I agree with many of you. The problem is that armour in AH started with very good, very late war models.

In an ideal world we would have at least a medium and a heavy tank of each Allied and Axis country - maybe not the Japanese, French and Italian - but certainly, German, Russian, British, and American for each period, Early, Medium and Late War, what would give us lots of room to play with balance and perks. A minimum of 24 models is a lot to ask...

How would I solve it? It's simple: Panzer III and Matilda for Early War, Sherman (Firefly), Panzer 4 and T34 for Mid War, all + Tiger (perked) for Late War! Only two new models and a downgrade, if you consider the Pz III and the IV shared basically the same chassis, with less armour, less power and a smaller gun, for the III!

This setup would be just enough to let us have more realistic Special Events, and historical maps.

Just my €0,02 cents,

Sparrow
249 Sqn RAF "Gold Coast"

[VooWho]

Originally posted by sparow
Hi chaps,

I agree with many of you. The problem is that armour in AH started with very good, very late war models.

In an ideal world we would have at least a medium and a heavy tank of each Allied and Axis country - maybe not the Japanese, French and Italian - but certainly, German, Russian, British, and American for each period, Early, Medium and Late War, what would give us lots of room to play with balance and perks. A minimum of 24 models is a lot to ask...

How would I solve it? It's simple: Panzer III and Matilda for Early War, Sherman (Firefly), Panzer 4 and T34 for Mid War, all + Tiger (perked) for Late War! Only two new models and a downgrade, if you consider the Pz III and the IV shared basically the same chassis, with less armour, less power and a smaller gun, for the III!

This setup would be just enough to let us have more realistic Special Events, and historical maps.

Just my €0,02 cents,

Sparrow
249 Sqn RAF "Gold Coast"

Now thats a plan for AH. I like it. Gives us tanks from all time periods.

[Brenjen]

There were many late war models that were tough, the Tiger wasn't what I would consider a "late war" tank, mid war maybe for the accumulation of decent numbers of them, but the first production model was available in July of 1942...mid war for the Germans, early war for the U.S.

 A King Tiger was destroyed by a Pershing near the end of the war, so it's clear the gun on the Pershing would get the job done even on the German "super heavies" (not counting the one of a kind specialty tanks like the Maus). I am with the poster (Sparow?) who says put in tanks that require as little modeling as possible. That's what I was saying about the Firefly, it can serve as more than one tank with minor changes.

 You could have later model T-34's with changes in the gun package available, it's little things like that, that could add variety with minimal effort.

 I seriously doubt that HTC is going to add anything more powerful than the Tiger in the foreseeable future, like the Jagdtiger, Sturmtiger, Elephant, Jagdpanther etc. etc. I would like to see a Panther added, but an allied heavy tank that can stand a chance against the Tiger in open field would be sweet too.

[Meatwad]

I wouldnt mind seeing towable AA/AT/howitzer guns, but the about of tone needed to code that into the game would be too time consuming as this current time

[Martyn]

Cromwell? Comet? Pretty please...

[Martyn]

Originally posted by sparow
Hi chaps,

I agree with many of you. The problem is that armour in AH started with very good, very late war models.

In an ideal world we would have at least a medium and a heavy tank of each Allied and Axis country - maybe not the Japanese, French and Italian - but certainly, German, Russian, British, and American for each period, Early, Medium and Late War, what would give us lots of room to play with balance and perks. A minimum of 24 models is a lot to ask...

How would I solve it? It's simple: Panzer III and Matilda for Early War, Sherman (Firefly), Panzer 4 and T34 for Mid War, all + Tiger (perked) for Late War! Only two new models and a downgrade, if you consider the Pz III and the IV shared basically the same chassis, with less armour, less power and a smaller gun, for the III!

This setup would be just enough to let us have more realistic Special Events, and historical maps.

Just my €0,02 cents,

Sparrow
249 Sqn RAF "Gold Coast"

Amen!!!

Armoured cars too? the 222, 232, 234?

[bzek74]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_VIII_Maus

Looks like this could have been the winner!

[Spikes]

wish we had that 1st tank thing.....was really hard to kill from air.....too much armor....easy for panzer + tiger...but still