Author Topic: The Basic M4 (Sherman)  (Read 28907 times)

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Re: The Basic M4 (Sherman)
« Reply #135 on: March 25, 2009, 03:28:44 AM »
And the Panzer has a thicker armour.
But in 1942 you had many lighter variants in service. The main battletank in N-Africa on the axis behalf would not have been the 75mm Panzer or?
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Re: The Basic M4 (Sherman)
« Reply #136 on: March 25, 2009, 03:32:51 AM »
Oh, getting to the fine Centurion again, did you know this:
"Mk 3 Centurion Type K ,British Army number 06 BA 16, later devolved under Contract Demand 2843 to the Australian Army, who gave it registration number 169041, was involved in a nuclear blast test at Emu Plains in Australia in 1953.

It was placed about 500 meters from the device being detonated and left with the engine running. Upon return to the tank for subsequent examination it was found to have been pushed away from the blast point by about 2 meters and that its engine had only stopped working because it had run out of fuel. Antennas were missing, lights and periscopes were heavily sand blasted and the cloth mantlet cover was heavily carbonised but the tank was able to be driven away from the site. Had the tank been manned, it is unlikely that the crew would have survived due to the shock wave created by an atomic blast.

169041, subsequently nicknamed The Atomic Tank, was later used in the Vietnam War and is now located at Robertson Barracks in Palmerston, Northern Territory. Although other tanks were subjected to nuclear tests, 169041 is the only tank known to have withstood atomic tests and subsequently gone on for another 23 years of service, including 15 months on operational deployment in a war zone"

That's what I call armour. Top that with a Panzer  :devil
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline BaDkaRmA158Th

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2542
Re: The Basic M4 (Sherman)
« Reply #137 on: March 25, 2009, 04:28:47 AM »
169041 is the only tank known to have withstood atomic tests and subsequently gone on for another 23 years of service, including 15 months on operational deployment in a war zone"



Wow... :rock
~383Rd RTC/CH BW/AG~
BaDfaRmA

My signature says "Our commitment to diplomacy will never inhibit our willingness to kick a$s."

Offline BigPlay

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1044
Re: The Basic M4 (Sherman)
« Reply #138 on: March 25, 2009, 01:16:09 PM »
Oh, getting to the fine Centurion again, did you know this:
"Mk 3 Centurion Type K ,British Army number 06 BA 16, later devolved under Contract Demand 2843 to the Australian Army, who gave it registration number 169041, was involved in a nuclear blast test at Emu Plains in Australia in 1953.

It was placed about 500 meters from the device being detonated and left with the engine running. Upon return to the tank for subsequent examination it was found to have been pushed away from the blast point by about 2 meters and that its engine had only stopped working because it had run out of fuel. Antennas were missing, lights and periscopes were heavily sand blasted and the cloth mantlet cover was heavily carbonised but the tank was able to be driven away from the site. Had the tank been manned, it is unlikely that the crew would have survived due to the shock wave created by an atomic blast.

169041, subsequently nicknamed The Atomic Tank, was later used in the Vietnam War and is now located at Robertson Barracks in Palmerston, Northern Territory. Although other tanks were subjected to nuclear tests, 169041 is the only tank known to have withstood atomic tests and subsequently gone on for another 23 years of service, including 15 months on operational deployment in a war zone"

That's what I call armour. Top that with a Panzer  :devil


The Centurion was a post war tank, so comparing it to a panzer is rather pointless considering that the panzer was designed before the war. My question is why would they test a tank that wasn't going to be scrap and then reuse it. I would imagine that the thing was very radio active after the test. Makes no sense to me.

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Re: The Basic M4 (Sherman)
« Reply #139 on: March 25, 2009, 06:09:52 PM »
My point on the Centurion was to counter the claim that the Germans were generations ahead in tank design late in the war. The Centurion is a 1944 design and starts leaving the line in 1945. Compare it with what the Gerries were making at the time, - there is no generation gap, if anything the British design is ahead. It was to stay on and keep the banner as the finest tank in the world for some good 15 years or so. And the Centurion III that survived so fine is rolling on in...1948? Improved Centurion, nothing radical. Less difference perhaps than between the start and end of a Spitfire or a 109....
Now, that 1948 armour also made what is probably the finest combat record of any tank in the Israeli war of 1973. Put the Russkies to shame....
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline Die Hard

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2205
Re: The Basic M4 (Sherman)
« Reply #140 on: March 25, 2009, 08:52:03 PM »
My point on the Centurion was to counter the claim that the Germans were generations ahead in tank design late in the war. The Centurion is a 1944 design and starts leaving the line in 1945. Compare it with what the Gerries were making at the time, - there is no generation gap, if anything the British design is ahead. It was to stay on and keep the banner as the finest tank in the world for some good 15 years or so. And the Centurion III that survived so fine is rolling on in...1948? Improved Centurion, nothing radical. Less difference perhaps than between the start and end of a Spitfire or a 109....
Now, that 1948 armour also made what is probably the finest combat record of any tank in the Israeli war of 1973. Put the Russkies to shame....


By that token the King Tiger was a 1943 design, with production starting in January 1944, almost two years before the Centurion. The German 1944/1945 deigns were never produced due to the destruction of Germany. Had Germany not folded in 1945 we might have seen the true German contemporaries to the Centurion: The E-series of tanks. Preproduction prototypes of some E vehicles saw action in the last days of the Third Reich.

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/entwicklung-series-standard-series.htm

I wonder how the Centurion would have staked up with the E-75 Tiger IIC, or even the E-50 Panther II. Both would have entered production in 1945.







Prototype E50 Panther II with the old turret. (Notice the new running gear and hull)




What the production model would have looked like with the new turret and 88mm.

It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence.

-Gandhi

Offline dirt911

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 435
Re: The Basic M4 (Sherman)
« Reply #141 on: March 25, 2009, 10:11:38 PM »
y dont we just add it then well atleast have it i like basic sherman and many others do so why not

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Re: The Basic M4 (Sherman)
« Reply #142 on: March 26, 2009, 08:35:09 AM »
Nice Gerry tanks.
The Panther was a pain for battlefield maintenance though, while the Centurion was completely the opposite.
Armour, speed, firepower similar I guess.
But from RL, surviving a Nuke 500 m away as well as 2 tanks destroying a whole division of T-65's and stopping an advance with a strength of even more, I'd put my bucks on the Centurion :D
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline Die Hard

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2205
Re: The Basic M4 (Sherman)
« Reply #143 on: March 26, 2009, 10:44:42 AM »
That's not a Panther. It doesn't have the Panther's engine, gear box, wheels or tracks. The E50 Panther II would have better armor, a much better gun (same 88mm as the King Tiger), a 200kW IR night vision searchlight and sight, optical range finder and gun stabilization. Front armor was 125mm, turret front was 150mm, while sides and rear were 60mm and top was 30mm. All this and it still weighed five tons less than the Centurion Mk. II. The heavier E75 would completely outmatch the Centurion.

The 46 ton Soviet IS-3, which was in service in spring 1945 was also markedly superior to the Centurion and even the E50 in terms of armor. Gun mantlet was 200mm and front armor was 120-160mm. It also carried a very powerful 122mm main gun. The Centurion Mk. II was good, but it wasn't stellar in any way. The Centurion was very upgradable however and stayed competitive for a long time.
It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence.

-Gandhi

Offline BigPlay

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1044
Re: The Basic M4 (Sherman)
« Reply #144 on: March 26, 2009, 11:00:40 AM »
Nice Gerry tanks.
The Panther was a pain for battlefield maintenance though, while the Centurion was completely the opposite.
Armour, speed, firepower similar I guess.
But from RL, surviving a Nuke 500 m away as well as 2 tanks destroying a whole division of T-65's and stopping an advance with a strength of even more, I'd put my bucks on the Centurion :D


 

Well the Centurion was a great tank however designs like the King Tiger still would have been able to kill it without any trouble and as diehard states there were designs that would have made life very hard for the centurion to shine if in fact they had a chance to fight one another. As far as combat records go I wouldn't put much stock in Korea or Vietnam. I doubt that any of these foes had any competent tank training to combat the forces against it. If you watch the History Channel's 10 greatest tanks the centurion wasn't the top tank.

Offline E25280

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3475
      • http://125thspartanforums.com
Re: The Basic M4 (Sherman)
« Reply #145 on: March 26, 2009, 11:27:58 AM »
If you watch the History Channel's 10 greatest tanks the centurion wasn't the top tank.
Yeah, it was the T-34!
 :rolleyes:



<<=== crawls back into hole.
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 ScatterFire

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 97
Re: The Basic M4 (Sherman)
« Reply #146 on: March 26, 2009, 01:53:49 PM »
Yeah, it was the T-34!
 :rolleyes:



<<=== crawls back into hole.
I loved the reason they gave why the Abrams wasn't:  It had never been in a fight against something that was its equal, so they couldn't give it the title of "best".

 :rofl
Scatter1:
With bullets of rubber and armor of tissue I throw myself at my enemy.

Law of Devine Intervention:
All skill is in vain when an Angel pees in the touchhole of your musket.

Offline BigPlay

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1044
Re: The Basic M4 (Sherman)
« Reply #147 on: March 26, 2009, 02:31:57 PM »
I loved the reason they gave why the Abrams wasn't:  It had never been in a fight against something that was its equal, so they couldn't give it the title of "best".

 :rofl


by the way the Leapord is what I understand to be the worlds best tank besting the Abrahms

Offline Die Hard

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2205
Re: The Basic M4 (Sherman)
« Reply #148 on: March 26, 2009, 02:54:49 PM »
The Leo 2 is very good indeed, but choosing between the heavy western tanks is really subjective. In my opinion there is little to choose between the Leo 2, Abrams, Challenger II and Leclerc as far as combat effectiveness is concerned. Though the Abrams is clearly the most combat tested of the lot.
It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence.

-Gandhi

Offline BigPlay

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1044
Re: The Basic M4 (Sherman)
« Reply #149 on: March 26, 2009, 03:21:25 PM »
The Leo 2 is very good indeed, but choosing between the heavy western tanks is really subjective. In my opinion there is little to choose between the Leo 2, Abrams, Challenger II and Leclerc as far as combat effectiveness is concerned. Though the Abrams is clearly the most combat tested of the lot.


well I watched a show that compared the 3, correct to say that there is most likely little difference between the 3. That being said the Abrams main gun is German made. Just knowing first hand how anal the Germans are about everything lends me to believe the narrator of the show.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2009, 03:25:00 PM by BigPlay »