Author Topic: How about a Sherman Tank? (Read 5588 times)

frank3 · « **Reply #105 on:** April 17, 2003, 01:45:07 PM »

can have those sandbags too??

AdmRose · « **Reply #106 on:** April 17, 2003, 11:20:09 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by fdiron
Also, the Tiger II broke down at least 4 times enroute to the testing grounds.

The reason for this is that the Tiger II was significantly heavier then the Tiger I, however, the Germans decided to use the same engine in the II model as the I. Putting 70,000 kg of weight on the same engine that didn't even do a good job of moving 53,000 kg wasn't exactly a shining moment in the German war effort.

Pongo · « **Reply #107 on:** April 18, 2003, 12:39:27 AM »

Sherman!
But only after they fix the armour game.

Arlo · « **Reply #108 on:** April 18, 2003, 04:38:54 PM »

Arlo · « **Reply #109 on:** November 08, 2004, 02:13:50 AM »

Woof baby! - Oddball

You got more damned sandbags on your tank than Goring has boyfriends! Get those @#$@ bags off that &#$%@ tank you @#$*&^ p#$$y! - Patton to a tank commander who decided he needed alot more extra protection.

I find soldiers who drive Sherman tanks sexy! - Betty Grable

frank3 · « **Reply #110 on:** November 08, 2004, 06:32:59 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Arlo

Battlefield 1942?

Talking about light/fast tanks, we now have the T-34 in aces high!

Pongo · « **Reply #111 on:** November 08, 2004, 11:41:08 AM »

The M4a3 75 would be a fine tank in AH2.

Shuckins · « **Reply #112 on:** November 08, 2004, 06:09:35 PM »

M-26 Pershing...faster than the Sherman...much heavier firepower...far superior armor protection.

And YES...it did see combat in the last months of the war.

Howsomever...the M-18 Hellcat might well fit the AHII arena better than the Pershing.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #113 on:** November 08, 2004, 06:13:28 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Shuckins
M-26 Pershing...faster than the Sherman...much heavier firepower...far superior armor protection.

And YES...it did see combat in the last months of the war.

Howsomever...the M-18 Hellcat might well fit the AHII arena better than the Pershing.

LOL

No way is M26 faster than a Sherman, it has basically the same 500hp ford V8 but weighs over 10 tons more. The M26 had such a poor power to weight ratio that Shermans were actually preffered in Korea.. A whole 45 tons on 500hp is not too great, even the Tiger I is better with 55 tons and 700hp.

What I would have been intreted to see was the Germans putting their new 1000hp fuel injected engines in the 45 ton Panther. This was almost ready by he end of the war and wouyld give it a power to weight ratio of modern MBT...

Arlo · « **Reply #114 on:** November 09, 2004, 02:20:13 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Shuckins
M-26 Pershing...faster than the Sherman...much heavier firepower...far superior armor protection.

And YES...it did see combat in the last months of the war.

Howsomever...the M-18 Hellcat might well fit the AHII arena better than the Pershing.

Yeah yeah .... and we shoulda modeled the B-29 instead of the B-24. It's a wonder the A6M series was ever modeled.

Howitzer · « **Reply #115 on:** November 09, 2004, 10:10:27 AM »

Its kinda funny this thread has been brought back up now.. I was just reading "Citizen Soldiers" by Ambrose, and I was actually going to pose a question in another thread (which I may do anyway), but in that book he lists the T-34 as the best overall tank of the war. But it seems that the turret moves slow, it has crappy low-gear power especially up hills, has no pintle gun, and terrible visibility. With the Panthers and the Tigers sporting bigger guns why would this tank be held in such a high regard?

I do think the Sherman would be cool, but I'd be almost scared that it would be cannon fodder for all the panzers/tigers roaming around. In that book Ambrose states that the accounts of the battles list shermans only equal to tigers in a 4 to 1 ratio. And sometimes the tiger even wiped the floor with all 4 shermans with ease. Apparently it also had a great tendency to catch fire, which made me chuckle cus its a huge chunk of metal. Maybe if we got a formation of Shermans like you can with bombers. LOL

humble · « **Reply #116 on:** November 09, 2004, 10:25:43 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak
715,

That sounds pretty accurate, except that it is entirely possible to never penetrate the Panther's armor at long range with the Sherman.

Firefly would be a different story.

The Sherman was designed as an infantry support tank and then used as a medium tank. It had no business doing so. /B]/QUOTE]

Actually thats not true, the sherman was designed as a "tank". Two factors came into play, the1st was doctrine which controls how a weapon is utilized. The US used its tanks primarily as offensive weapons vs enemy. specialized Tank Destroyer battalions were attached to each armored division and in theory they were utilized against enemy tanks.

Now the second and more critical issue was the gun itself. The sherman was originally designed with a high velocity 75mm however the army procurement process was controlled by artillery officers...the high velocity gun wouldnt meet the 7500 rd minimum 'combat life" and was replaced by a low velocity gun that would.....wonder how many shermans even got 750 rounds off in combat:(

Pongo · « **Reply #117 on:** November 09, 2004, 10:47:41 AM »

Same price was paid by the Hispano and the 50 cal. Both were built heavy to tollarances that would allow 10s of thousands of rounds to be expended befor it wore out. If they had been built lighter to last 3000 rounds (which is still alot for a fighter) they could have been lighter and had much higher rofs.

Stephen Ambrose said that the T34 was the best tank of the war because he doesnt know what he is talking about.

Howitzer · « **Reply #118 on:** November 09, 2004, 12:50:59 PM »

Well it sounded like he was stating it from gathered information... was curious if anyone else had heard anything of the sort. It is also funny that you bring up the topic of the durability of the vehicles. Apparently according to Ambrose's facts around the August 44' time frame the panzer divisions were losing the majority of their vehicles to breakdowns due to overuse and poor durability. He specifically mentions the amount of miles the tracks were rated for compared to the shermans.

We don't have to deal with the whole durability thing in AH so maybe our views are different. But forget about the Sherman, bring us the King Tiger LOL

Arlo · « **Reply #119 on:** November 09, 2004, 06:43:26 PM »

Oh hell yeah. Since all the best tanks were made by the Germans we should model nothing but German tanks until we have all the German tanks then when that's done, 2 or 4 years from now, maybe we can add another non-German mbt.