The Iosif Stalin 2 (IS-2) & Tiger II (King Tiger)

[E25280]

You want an American tank, that's all good, but please request those pathetic-excuses-for-competitive-WWII-armor in a seperate thread.  It insults the superior German and Russian armor of the time when you mention them in the same thread

Please name a WWII 30 ton tank to which an M4A3(76)w was not competitive.  I would like to know your definition.

[BigPlay]

Actually what I think is needed before any tank be added is a seprate arena just for GVer's . Make it difficult if not impossible to spawn camp and a limited assortment of aircraft, say Il2, Stuka and maybe a couple of others. TT can be a joke at times with the spawn campers and the never ending bombing not really giving a chance to a guy who wants to just GV fight. Nothing worse than driving all the way back to a Vbase to land a couple of dozen kills to be bombed or ambushed right at the vbase. Just my tought.

[FLOTSOM]

Please name a WWII 30 ton tank to which an M4A3(76)w was not competitive.  I would like to know your definition.

well how about in the words of a German soldier


"The German soldier of World War II felt no hatred for the individual French soldier, or the British Tommy, or the Ami, as we called them then. The French were pitied because of their lousy leaders and the fact that they were forced to fight with over-aged weapons; the British were respected as good fighters under lousy commanders, and the Americans, well we didn’t really know what we should think about them, they were to new in the business of war. The Russians were hated with a red-hot passion because every one of us had seen what they did to German POWs. The tankers of the British empire forces, and the American tankers were looked at with pity, because they were sent into battle in “rolling coffins”t that even a 50mm gun could and did blow away. All those of us who had been in tank battles felt sorry for them, because they had a lousy chance to survive, Only when they had a massive number of tanks on their side did they have a chance. Personal valor is fine, but at least your own people must give you a chance to survive. One Panther against one M-4 equals four dead Amis and a pile of rusting junk. Often, the Brits and the Americans were referred to as ”the comrades of the different APO number”. That held true for army personnel; any airman was hated with the same passion as we hated the Russians, because of what they did with their bombs. Yeah, yeah, I know; go figure it"

this is a part of a brief essay written by a Wehrmacht soldier.

that even the 50mm gun that was being used in the very beginning of the war could easily kill a Sherman shows that it would be out gunned in any GV engagement in AH.

unless all heavier tanks were perked and restricted in some manner and other comparable tanks (such as the panzerIII or early panzer IV) were placed in the game as the more common rides the Sherman would be like flying the stuka against a flight of P51D's. but i am all for adding the earlier versions of other tanks as well as other types of GV's. just crank up the cost and reduce the availability of the monster rides and it will balance out to some cool GV battles.

i know and understand that AH currently has the m8 m3 and jeep, but these have other benefits to them that a tank just doesn't have. the abilities of these vehicles to carry troops and supplies is the main purpose of them. the antiaircraft rides, well i guess just their category kinda gives away why they are useful.

but a tank that cant either out gun, out run or out maneuver anything it comes up against is just a rolling kill for anyone looking for free points. the Sherman would in 99.9% of its engagements die quickly and players would quickly stop bothering to use it.

http://home.att.net/~w.tomtschik/WW2OBindex.html this is where the complete essay can be found.

FLOTSOM

[BigPlay]

well how about in the words of a German soldier


"The German soldier of World War II felt no hatred for the individual French soldier, or the British Tommy, or the Ami, as we called them then. The French were pitied because of their lousy leaders and the fact that they were forced to fight with over-aged weapons; the British were respected as good fighters under lousy commanders, and the Americans, well we didn’t really know what we should think about them, they were to new in the business of war. The Russians were hated with a red-hot passion because every one of us had seen what they did to German POWs. The tankers of the British empire forces, and the American tankers were looked at with pity, because they were sent into battle in “rolling coffins”t that even a 50mm gun could and did blow away. All those of us who had been in tank battles felt sorry for them, because they had a lousy chance to survive, Only when they had a massive number of tanks on their side did they have a chance. Personal valor is fine, but at least your own people must give you a chance to survive. One Panther against one M-4 equals four dead Amis and a pile of rusting junk. Often, the Brits and the Americans were referred to as ”the comrades of the different APO number”. That held true for army personnel; any airman was hated with the same passion as we hated the Russians, because of what they did with their bombs. Yeah, yeah, I know; go figure it"

this is a part of a brief essay written by a Wehrmacht soldier.

that even the 50mm gun that was being used in the very beginning of the war could easily kill a Sherman shows that it would be out gunned in any GV engagement in AH.

unless all heavier tanks were perked and restricted in some manner and other comparable tanks (such as the panzerIII or early panzer IV) were placed in the game as the more common rides the Sherman would be like flying the stuka against a flight of P51D's. but i am all for adding the earlier versions of other tanks as well as other types of GV's. just crank up the cost and reduce the availability of the monster rides and it will balance out to some cool GV battles.

i know and understand that AH currently has the m8 m3 and jeep, but these have other benefits to them that a tank just doesn't have. the abilities of these vehicles to carry troops and supplies is the main purpose of them. the antiaircraft rides, well i guess just their category kinda gives away why they are useful.

but a tank that cant either out gun, out run or out maneuver anything it comes up against is just a rolling kill for anyone looking for free points. the Sherman would in 99.9% of its engagements die quickly and players would quickly stop bothering to use it.

http://home.att.net/~w.tomtschik/WW2OBindex.html this is where the complete essay can be found.

FLOTSOM

That is why I have voiced many times against bringing the M-10 or M-18 in. They have no battlefield survivability.

[E25280]

well how about in the words of a German soldier
<snip>
One Panther against one M-4 equals four dead Amis and a pile of rusting junk.
<snip>

You see, though, this is exactly why I said

Please name a WWII 30 ton tank to which an M4A3(76)w was not competitive.

The claim is that the Sherman was not competitive.  It absolutely was competitive against like-sized tanks.

Your author compares them to a Panther, which is regarded in many circles as the best overall tank of the war -- and a tank that is 50% bigger than the Sherman.  A tank more comparable to the Panther would be the Pershing, not the Sherman (which, by the way, would certainly also be a "competitive" tank vs. the German/Russian heavies).

So, if his definition of a "bad tank" is that it couldn't compete with a heavy tank, then he should have felt equally sorry for any Russian driving a T-34 or any of his own countrymen using the PzkwIV. 

50mm round could kill it? Yes, and it could also kill the T-34 and PzkwIV.  The reference to "blowing it away" likely refers to the early Shermans where the inadequate ammo protection caused many of them to catch fire -- a deficiency that was later remedied, but the reputation never went away.

If I could find the correct WWII magazine hidden in my attic, there was an article in there where US intel interviewed German POWs that had served on both the east and west fronts.  This was in September 1944 IIRC, and there were about 300 interviews.  Part of what came out was that the Germans rightfully admired the T-34 for it's simplicity and effectiveness of design (and that they always had plenty of them), but then said that in their experience, American armor held up to anti-tank fire better than the Russian tanks.

Then there what this Red Army tanker who used lend-lease Shermans has to say.
Here is the link

Overall, this was a good vehicle but, as with any tank, it had its pluses and minuses. When someone says to me that this was a bad tank, I respond, "Excuse me!" One cannot say that this was a bad tank. Bad as compared to what?

Which is exactly what I keep asking.  It is quite an interesting read, and he is quite candid about some of the Sherman's shortcomings, but:

I want also to add that the Sherman's armor was tough. There were cases on our T-34 when a round struck and did not penetrate. But the crew was wounded because pieces of armor flew off the inside wall and struck the crewmen in the hands and eyes. This never happened on the Sherman.

So in conclusion, there is no reason to expect the Sherman would do any worse in the game than the current PzkwIV or T-34/76, which makes any argument against adding it on the grounds of it being "uncompetitive" quite silly.

[FLOTSOM]

So in conclusion, there is no reason to expect the Sherman would do any worse in the game than the current PzkwIV or T-34/76, which makes any argument against adding it on the grounds of it being "uncompetitive" quite silly.

the Sherman had a bigger profile weaker gun and thinner armor with less slope. it does not compare to the other light tanks currently in the game.

i have read that Russians essay before, its a good read. but the Russian 76mm gun of the t34 and the panzer 75mm had better penetrating power at long range that did the Sherman 75mm. the Sherman was just poorly equipped in its standard main gun. as time went on changes were made, they up gunned some to a 90mm and some even up to a 105mm self propelled artillery. but the standard Sherman of which you speak just could not go toe to toe with the other tanks currently on the AH GV list.

i am not saying that the Sherman does not have its place, but if you pit the Sherman against the common tanks currently in the game the Sherman would die quickly.

the main gun of the Sherman is weak and does not have the stand off killing ability of these heavier gunned tanks. the guns of the t34, panzer IV and the firefly would just rip them up at long range. the Sherman would not be able to get close enough to one of these tanks for its weak main gun to be effective before the enemy tanker had pounded it with multiple shots.

this is why i said that the heavier tanks would need to be perked and/or restricted. otherwise the Sherman riders would have no fun with it. they would easily be out gunned or out run by the tanks in current use. might just as well use the m8 against them instead, your odds of getting a lucky shot before getting killed are about the same.

i am all for adding every GV that saw even a moments action during WWII. but the problem is that most of them would be a waste of programing time for the HTC staff. they would create and model these GV's and then the players would never bother to use them. Unless the current tanks were restricted these lighter tanks would just get ripped apart.

do not misunderstand me, i am all for adding these tanks to the game. but there must be a way to level the playing field or it wont be fair or fun for those that would try to use it.

FLOTSOM

[E25280]

the Sherman had a bigger profile weaker gun and thinner armor with less slope. it does not compare to the other light tanks currently in the game.

Wrong, wrong and wrong.

Dimensions:
PzkwIV(H):  Length : 8.15 meters / Height : 2.68 meters / Width : 3.33 meters
T-34/76 (Model 1942):  Length : 6.75 meters / Height : 2.45 meters / Width : 3 meters
Sherman:  Length : 5.84 meters / Height : 2.74 meters / Width : 2.62 meters

So the Sherman is shorter and narrower, only marginally taller than the IV, and less than .3 meters (about a foot) taller than the T-34.  So it isn't so much "bigger" that it is at any disadvantage vs. the other two. (Center of gravity, perhaps another issue, but irrelevant to the point).

Armor:
PzkwIV(H): 
Hull Front (Upper) : 80mm @ 80°
Hull Front (Lower) : 80mm @ 76°
Hull Sides (Upper) : 30mm @ 90°
Hull Sides (Lower) : 30mm @ 90°
Hull Rear : 20mm @ 82°
Hull Top : 12mm @ 0° - 5°
Hull Bottom : 10mm @ 0°
Turret Front : 50mm @ 80°
Turret Mantlet : 50mm @ 60° - 90°
Turret Sides : 30mm @ 64°
Turret Rear : 30mm @ 75°
Turret Top : 15mm @ 0° - 7°

T-34/76:
Hull Front (Upper) : 45mm @ 30°
Hull Front (Lower) : 45mm @ 30°
Hull Sides (Upper) : 45mm @ 50°
Hull Sides (Lower) : 45mm @ 90°
Hull Rear : 45mm @ 45°
Hull Top : 20mm @ 0°
Hull Bottom : 20mm @ 0°
Turret Front : 70mm @ 60° & Round
Turret Mantlet : 40mm @ 30° & 90°
Turret Sides : 52mm @ 70°
Turret Rear : 52mm @ 70°
Turret Top : 20mm @ 0°

Sherman - Standard M4 (i.e. 1942 version to compare to the T-34)
Hull Front (Upper) : 51mm @ 34°
Hull Front (Lower) : 51mm @ 34° - 90°
Hull Sides (Upper) : 38mm @ 90°
Hull Sides (Lower) : 38mm @ 90°
Hull Rear : 38mm @ 80° - 90°
Hull Top : 13mm @ 0° - 7°
Hull Bottom : 19mm - 25mm @ 0°
Turret Front : 76mm @ 60°
Turret Mantlet : 89mm @ 90°
Turret Sides : 51mm @ 85°
Turret Rear : 51mm @ 90°
Turret Top : 25mm @ 0°

Sherman M4A3(76)w (i.e. the March 1944 version I suggested a comparison against initially).
Hull Front (Upper) : 64mm @ 43°
Hull Front (Lower) : 51mm - 108mm @ 34° - 90°
Hull Sides (Upper) : 38mm @ 90°
Hull Sides (Lower) : 38mm @ 90°
Hull Rear : 38mm @ 68° - 80°
Hull Top : 19mm @ 0° - 7°
Hull Bottom : 13mm - 25mm @ 0°
Turret Front : 64mm @ 45° - 50°
Turret Mantlet : 89mm @ 90°
Turret Sides : 64mm @ 77° - 90°
Turret Rear : 64mm @ 90°
Turret Top : 25mm @ 0°

The PzkwIV's front hull armor is thicker, but had virtually NO slope at all.  The Sherman's is actually THICKER than the T-34's, and has a 34 degree slope vs. the T-34's 30 degree.  The turret front and mantlet even on the 1942 version of the Sherman are thicker than either the T-34 or the IV.  The T-34 has an advantage to sides and rear on the hull, but the turret is the same, and the Sherman has a clear advantage over the IV in these areas.

Heck, why do you think people complain about the Firefly's armor?  It is no more armored than any other Sherman would be.  It is simply better than most give it credit for -- because they "know" the reputation, and not the data.

As for the gun: The T-34's 76mm gun was quite a poor performer given its size, as were many Soviet guns.  The 75mm M3/L40 gun on the Sherman was the equal of the Soviet 76.2mm F-34 / L42 using standard AP rounds.  This is why both the Soviets and the US started upgrading their armament when the Germans started deploying heavier tanks in numbers.  The Soviets upgraded to the 85mm gun, and the US to the 76mm gun, which again were very comparable in hitting power (very quick reference), and outperformed the KwK 40 on the PzkwIV(H).

So a "standard" Sherman will either have the punch of the game's T-34/76 or T-34/85 depending on whether it is a 75mm version or a 76mm version, and have armor comparable to both the T-34 and the IV.  In other words, it will be quite competitive against the current set of non-perked tanks, even without the massive firepower of the Firefly.  To say anything different is to simply ignore the data in favor of popular myth.

(All referenced data taken from this site.)

[BigPlay]

You want an American tank, that's all good, but please request those pathetic-excuses-for-competitive-WWII-armor in a seperate thread.  It insults the superior German and Russian armor of the time when you mention them in the same thread

agreed 

[BigPlay]

As for the gun: The T-34's 76mm gun was quite a poor performer given its size, as were many Soviet guns.  The 75mm M3/L40 gun on the Sherman was the equal of the Soviet 76.2mm F-34 / L42 using standard AP rounds.  This is why both the Soviets and the US started upgrading their armament when the Germans started deploying heavier tanks in numbers.  The Soviets upgraded to the 85mm gun, and the US to the 76mm gun, which again were very comparable in hitting power (very quick reference), and outperformed the KwK 40 on the PzkwIV(H).


By the time any real number of Shermans were equipped with the 76mm gun (only 100 Shermans that landed at Normandy had 76mm guns) the Germans already had tanks with better performing main guns than the KwK 40 and the KwK 40 could still kill a Sherman at range. I agree with the last post that the 75mm Sherman would end up being targets. Also not until late in the war were the proper ammo protection actually achieved. Simply welding steel plates over the areas in question didn't do much more than improve moral for the crews. I respect your knowledge but I feel you are very wrong in your statements regarding the Sherman. I have read many books on armor battles and everything I have read about the Sherman was bad from the German point of view with exception on how many there were. Same reference to the T-34. There were never an end to them.


wikepida quote

The Sherman's armor was effective against most early war tank guns. The frontal thickness was 91 mm for the gun mantlet, 76 mm for the turret front, and 63 mm for the front of the hull. The Sherman's frontal armor was designed to withstand the lower velocity 50mm Kwk 38 L/42 gun, which was a common German anti-tank gun and the gun on the Panzer III medium tank during the North African Campaign in 1942. However, the Sherman's armor, while good for an early war tank, was inadequate against the German 75mm KwK 40 L/48 used by the later Panzer IV's, the higher velocity 75mm KwK 42 L/70 used by the Panther tank, and the infamous 88mm KwK 36 L/56 used on the Tiger tanks. It was this deficiency in its frontal armor that made the Sherman very vulnerable to most German anti-tank rounds in 1944.

[E25280]

I'm not sure where you think I am "wrong" about the Sherman?

I have not claimed nor will I claim that the Sherman was any match for the Panther or any other heavy tank.

The assertion I am addressing is that the Sherman was "uncompetitive" to its true contemporaries, which are medium tanks, not the heavies.  You are not going to find a medium tank that was able to withstand the firepower of the Panther's 75 or the Tiger's 88 -- not the Sherman, not the T-34, and not the PzkwIV(H).

So, why is it the Sherman is poo-pooed but the T-34 and PzkwIV are being held up as superior?


By the way, the welded plates were added in '43 and wet stowage introduced in February '44.  I suppose that is "late" in the war, but fairly quick given the US's late entry.  Source.

[FLOTSOM]

I'm not sure where you think I am "wrong" about the Sherman?

I have not claimed nor will I claim that the Sherman was any match for the Panther or any other heavy tank.

The assertion I am addressing is that the Sherman was "uncompetitive" to its true contemporaries, which are medium tanks, not the heavies.  You are not going to find a medium tank that was able to withstand the firepower of the Panther's 75 or the Tiger's 88 -- not the Sherman, not the T-34, and not the PzkwIV(H).

So, why is it the Sherman is poo-pooed but the T-34 and PzkwIV are being held up as superior?


By the way, the welded plates were added in '43 and wet stowage introduced in February '44.  I suppose that is "late" in the war, but fairly quick given the US's late entry.  Source.

i may have been to harsh in my choice of words, i will correct that now if possible.

i apologize if you took what i said to mean you were wrong, you are not wrong in the sense that a sherman belongs in the game.

my only point is that the panzer in the game and the t34 are both up gunned already (maybe unrealistically so in actual performance) and to add the sherman with the weaker gun would be leading the lamb to the slaughter.

i just dont want them to put it in so that it was butchered every time it was upped. i would just want to see the playing field equalized, upping the cost of perks or some other form of restrictions that will bring these into play in a manner that makes them fun for the player.

FLOTSOM

[HighTone]

King Tiger 

[E25280]

i may have been to harsh in my choice of words, i will correct that now if possible.

i apologize if you took what i said to mean you were wrong, you are not wrong in the sense that a sherman belongs in the game.

my only point is that the panzer in the game and the t34 are both up gunned already (maybe unrealistically so in actual performance) and to add the sherman with the weaker gun would be leading the lamb to the slaughter.

i just dont want them to put it in so that it was butchered every time it was upped. i would just want to see the playing field equalized, upping the cost of perks or some other form of restrictions that will bring these into play in a manner that makes them fun for the player.

FLOTSOM

We do have the T-34/76, so there is one early version of the three mediums already.  It is certainly more of a challenge to use than the perked tanks, but that is part of the fun.

I personally would love to see both the 75mm and 76mm versions of the Sherman (i.e. '42 and '44 versions), and a IV C or D with the KwK 37 / L24.  These would add variety to the vehicle set (especially in the EW and AvA arenas, where variety is sorely needed), and since they are based on chassis already in the game, should be somewhat easier to implement.  And they would still see use in the LWAs, just as the T-34/76 does.

[BigPlay]

I'm not sure where you think I am "wrong" about the Sherman?

I have not claimed nor will I claim that the Sherman was any match for the Panther or any other heavy tank.

The assertion I am addressing is that the Sherman was "uncompetitive" to its true contemporaries, which are medium tanks, not the heavies.  You are not going to find a medium tank that was able to withstand the firepower of the Panther's 75 or the Tiger's 88 -- not the Sherman, not the T-34, and not the PzkwIV(H).

So, why is it the Sherman is poo-pooed but the T-34 and PzkwIV are being held up as superior?


By the way, the welded plates were added in '43 and wet stowage introduced in February '44.  I suppose that is "late" in the war, but fairly quick given the US's late entry.  Source.

My point is that like Flotsom said " it wouldn't be competitive in here" . Tigers in here are killed by panzer's at close ranges, but from distance it's very hard for a panzer to kill tigers. In midwar where there aren't Fireflys eny usually negates the other side from upping Tigers. I can sit at range and kill all the panzers and T-34's I want until I get bombed all the while taking hits from them without damage. It would be that way for a 75mm Sherman against a panzer. From distance the panzer has an advantage. I just don't think a 75mm armed Sherman would make an impact. A 76mm would.

[Babalonian]

IMO the Sherman would of been competitive early in the war, but I honestly think it was a competitive early-war tank that didn't see most of it's action until the mid to late time period of the war.  By that time it was nowhere near to superior, and was only situationaly competitive at best against mid to late-war era German and Russian tanks.

If we saw a lot more Sherman variant introduced it would be good in that it would highlight the variants that were on steroids.  But to make more Sherman variants see some actual use in the game, I think you would need to introduce a bit of early to mid-war era German armor (and maybe Russian).  STuGs (IIIs & IVs), Panzer IIIs (& early IVs), this would give most of them (the Sherman variants not on steroids and likely un-perked) something to fight that wouldn't be a few notches superior.


NOW, back on topic (  ), the Iosif Stalin 2 (IS-2  ) & Tiger II (King Tiger  ).
*wink* *wink*
*nudge* *nudge*