Author Topic: Pyro/Nate: Could you add another tank type please? (Read 2926 times)

Nashwan · « **Reply #45 on:** July 07, 2000, 05:32:00 PM »

Jigster, I think the APDS round was preffered from mid 44 on in the 17pdr.
Prjectile muzzle velocity 1204 m/s
projectile mass (penetrator) 3.71 kg

BigJoe · « **Reply #46 on:** July 07, 2000, 05:46:00 PM »

LOL SnakeEyes, You got that right!

fdiron · « **Reply #47 on:** July 08, 2000, 12:06:00 AM »

The Panther's 75mm gun actually had better armor penetration than the Tigers 88mm. Both could easily slice through Shermans and T34s though. There is a recorded case of a Tiger 1 destroying a T34 at 4 miles. Wow. I dont believe the M4 Shermans had a special gun sight for the APDS round, they just had to "guesstimate". Also, the M1 tank used today was inspired by a Sherman tank commander, Gen. Abrahms.

Jigster · « **Reply #48 on:** July 08, 2000, 07:24:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by fdiron:
The Panther's 75mm gun actually had better armor penetration than the Tigers 88mm. Both could easily slice through Shermans and T34s though. There is a recorded case of a Tiger 1 destroying a T34 at 4 miles. Wow. I dont believe the M4 Shermans had a special gun sight for the APDS round, they just had to "guesstimate". Also, the M1 tank used today was inspired by a Sherman tank commander, Gen. Abrahms.

I'm almost absolutely sure that it was actually a Tiger II (The 88 on the Pz VI was very poor at range) and the tank that was knocked out at 4 miles was a M4A3 Sherman.
I know it happened on the Western front after the Normandy Invasions.

- Jig

Jigster · « **Reply #49 on:** July 08, 2000, 07:42:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nashwan:
Jigster, I think the APDS round was preffered from mid 44 on in the 17pdr.
Prjectile muzzle velocity 1204 m/s
projectile mass (penetrator) 3.71 kg

Righto but you must consider, for comparison purposes every tank had APCBC rounds at one time, so that the results are accurate when looking at different guns. In other word, the avergae brute force the gun has.

Also, not all tanks had APDS, APCR and HVAP, depending on supplies and the unit's usage, but the APCBC rounds were always there, and in much greater numbers.

I just don't think the 17pdr would be of much good use in AH because of the limit on HE shells, with the exception of maybe a towed gun or an Archilles.

The 76L54 gun would prolly be the best to work with because of it's wide usage, while still keeping away from the lousy 75L38 gun.

I think AH has proven the tanks need a good rounded-out capability in all areas, such as the PIV series. I Guess it would change once an SP gun comes around but nearly all are open-topped so air attacks would kill them easy. Only bet is a Sherman 105, and would really be good if it had some HVAP rounds (but that goes against my beliefs on modeling

)

- Jig

pzvg · « **Reply #50 on:** July 09, 2000, 02:10:00 PM »

Actually development of the M1 was the result of the total failure of the MBT 70 project, which suffered heavily from too many gadget disease,coupled with the hard data on the M-60 series tanks shortcomings,
(as demonstrated by the Isreali's in '73 war,the hard way) American tanks are always named after US general officers, and Gen Abrams had just passed away, and was widely acknowledged in the US army as a "tanker's tanker"
FYI from an old DAT
(Dumb bellybutton Tanker and proud of it)
Nothing says CYA! like a 120mm

------------------
pzvg- "5 years and I still can't shoot"

humble · « **Reply #51 on:** July 09, 2000, 03:35:00 PM »

only concrete ref i've read is in user manual for Panzer Commander...mentions a tiger 2 kiling a T-34 at 4.5 kil.

Jigster · « **Reply #52 on:** July 10, 2000, 01:30:00 PM »

Btw for anyone who stil has Steel Panters check out http://www.geocities.com/~slhq/

Get the OOB files he's got their, they make the game a million times better to play with infantry. Also recommend the new icons and sounds. Oh yeah and get SP v1.2 patch

If anyone's interested in an E-mail game lemme know

- Jig

Yeager · « **Reply #53 on:** July 10, 2000, 02:28:00 PM »

Forcing the M4 series on American tankers was the great silent scandal of WW2 armor.

The Pershing could have been deployed in strength prior to the landing at Normandy but the fear of disrupting the mass produced M4s
kept the development of Pershing to a trickle.

Hundreds if not thousands of US tank crewmen paid for this decision with their lives.

Yeager

Jigster · « **Reply #54 on:** July 27, 2000, 05:28:00 PM »

<punt>

- Jig
------
"Just sayin..." -- Pasha

Pongo · « **Reply #55 on:** July 27, 2000, 05:54:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Torquila:
Lets give the Russians and the yanks T-34 and Sherman, but give the germans the "elephant" with 380mm cannon

Only german armour with a 380mm gun was a Bismark class Battleship.

Karnak · « **Reply #56 on:** July 27, 2000, 06:15:00 PM »

Too balance with the PnZ IVh that we have, I think these two would be good:

T-34/76
M4 Sherman

About the Sherman being a scandal forced on US Tankers, my Tank buff friend (ex M1A1 Platoon commander) says that if he had been a US tanker in WWII, he wouldn't have given a rats bellybutton about the patriotism involved with US boys using US designed tanks. He would have wanted the US to license the T-34 design from Russia like we did the Merlin engine from the Brits. He considers it a travesty that US soldier were forced to drive M4s into battle.

As far as tanks go, he agreed with my assesment of a fair three way mix, e.g. PnZ IVh, M4 Sherman and T-34/76. He did say that given the choices he would always take a PnZ IVh if he wanted to be Axis (funny that) and a T-34/76 if he wanted to be Allied in this mix.

Sisu
-Karnak

Staga · « **Reply #57 on:** July 27, 2000, 06:24:00 PM »

SturmTiger,
380mm mortar.
Ammunitions 14(+1 in barrel) weight was ~350kg

[This message has been edited by Staga (edited 07-27-2000).]

Jigster · « **Reply #58 on:** July 28, 2000, 02:02:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak:
Too balance with the PnZ IVh that we have, I think these two would be good:

T-34/76
M4 Sherman

About the Sherman being a scandal forced on US Tankers, my Tank buff friend (ex M1A1 Platoon commander) says that if he had been a US tanker in WWII, he wouldn't have given a rats bellybutton about the patriotism involved with US boys using US designed tanks. He would have wanted the US to license the T-34 design from Russia like we did the Merlin engine from the Brits. He considers it a travesty that US soldier were forced to drive M4s into battle.

As far as tanks go, he agreed with my assesment of a fair three way mix, e.g. PnZ IVh, M4 Sherman and T-34/76. He did say that given the choices he would always take a PnZ IVh if he wanted to be Axis (funny that) and a T-34/76 if he wanted to be Allied in this mix.

Sisu
-Karnak

Which is why I push for a M4A3E2-76 Sherman

It's armor and 76mm would make a great balance between the PzIVH and the T-34/76c(perhaps a little to much). And if not the E2, then the Sherman 105 close support tank

I believe all the stats are above

- Jig
-------
Your plane may be faster then my tank, but my tank will run over your plane.

pzvg · « **Reply #59 on:** July 29, 2000, 09:51:00 AM »

You know the one thing I find amusing is folks extolling the virtues of the PanZerkampfwagenV (G) (guess what the caps in it mean)
and it's awesome 75mm gun

uh, guys the pzIVH has the same gun, and both of them, (not to mention anyother tank)
just well and truely suck against aircraft.

(pzvg,who wants his Panther very badly,but would like a wirblwind to protect it from spit drivers)

------------------
pzvg- "5 years and I still can't shoot"

Author Topic: Pyro/Nate: Could you add another tank type please? (Read 2926 times)

BigJoe