Author Topic: How about a Sherman Tank? (Read 4585 times)

LtHans · « **Reply #15 on:** December 01, 2001, 06:35:00 PM »

I would rather have a place to use the vehicles before we get any new ones. We REALLY need a part of the game where the army can play army agains the enemy army.

HTC even mentioned doing the army as a seperate arean with different terrain and other large changes to the software to do it justice. What we have now is not working so well for an army game.

You do lose alot of interaction between the air and ground though. Still, after watching how badly WW2 Online works as a combined arms sim, it might be a better idea. I don't think anybody else has tried it yet so you cannot predict it's effect.

Hans.

Arlo · « **Reply #16 on:** December 16, 2001, 10:51:00 PM »

[ 12-16-2001: Message edited by: Arlo ]

brady · « **Reply #17 on:** December 17, 2001, 12:49:00 AM »

As much as the thought of adding another US unint makes me want to hurl...Wait have I said this before...hmmmm...

I think that the Sherman is as likely a candate for adation as any other probably more so than some, do to a few factors it has a 50cal AA MG, a decent ammo load, decent spead comparable gun to our panzer (depending on model, either worse or in the case of the 17 pounder way better). O and it is US

You know what would be cool is a British varent of the Sherman.. hey why not a firefly?...then maby we could get a Panther

I would love to see some Russian armor but for the most part they are devoid of AA guns.

Arlo · « **Reply #18 on:** December 17, 2001, 02:00:00 AM »

Click the pic and check out the link. Some fairly decent data on all the Sherman variants used during the D-Day invasion.

715 · « **Reply #19 on:** December 18, 2001, 09:59:00 PM »

I'm curious about the real life surviability of the Sherman vs Tiger or Panther. Warbirds has both the Sherman as well as Panzers, Tigers, and Panthers. On several occasions I have put two dozen shells into a Panther (at long range into frontal armor) with no effect while the first, or occassionaly second, shot from the Panther makes my Sherman a smoking hole in the ground. Then I reversed and drove a Panther- one or two shots from me and other Panthers are smoking holes in the ground. Is this accurate modeling? If so, and if AH does similar modeling, then what use would the Sherman be?

Karnak · « **Reply #20 on:** December 19, 2001, 12:26:00 AM »

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.

brady · « **Reply #21 on:** December 19, 2001, 01:09:00 AM »

The 17 pounder on the firefly had a comperable performance to the 7.5cm KwK L 70 main aramenent of the Panther. The Panther howeaver had a much heaver and well sloped armor. The Panther was a better tank over all compared to the Tiger, and the King Tiger was the Most formadable of all, howeaver the Panther possesed a better balence of spead armor and leatheality.

In general one can say the Sherman was a reliable,mass produced way to get US tankers in to combat so they could make the ultimate sacrafice. I read whear it generaly took 5 Shermans to every Panther.

Comparing the Sherman to the Pzkfw IV is howeaver a diffeerent story. The MA on the German Pzkfw IV, the 7.5cm KwK L 48 had a comparable performance to that of the 76mm Sherman MA ( not the 75mm, it was superiour to this gun) the armor protection on the Sherman and the Pzkfw generaly speaking was about even, that is to say each could kill the other with out to much dificulity. the Sherman howeaver was a much bigger target.
This general comparision does not factor in the Jumbo, or the British firfly.

As I have stated above, I think that the Sherman would be a logical addation as a next choice for a GV, it would be a good match aganst the Pzkfw IV, and it has a decent AA MG, It would be nice to see a British paint Job though.

I hope that at some point we could get a Soviet tank, the T 34 did more to end the war than the Sherman did, it howeaver has no AA gun

It is good to want our favorate rides but I think we (I) nead to be objective about what we try to back for addation to the MA.

eddiek · « **Reply #22 on:** December 19, 2001, 01:25:00 AM »

I would rather see the T34-76 or -85 in AH. Either was more of a match for the German armor than the Sherman was. I watched a D-Day special on the History Channel a month or two ago, and they interviewed a guy who was there. He said they asked for volunteers for the Shermans, took them out, let them fire a few rounds (I think he said less than a dozen a piece) and sent them into battle. He said it was not uncommon to see a whole group of tanks get wiped out by the Tigers, not only because of the inferiority of the Sherman, but because of the inexperience and lack of training of the tank troops.

Arlo · « **Reply #23 on:** December 19, 2001, 08:21:00 AM »

T-34'd be a good addition as well. I'd like to see them both so Eastern and Western fronts could be better represented on the ground in scenarios.

K West · « **Reply #24 on:** December 19, 2001, 11:15:00 AM »

I personally would rather see the T34/35 first.

Maybe followed by the British Centurian?

and then the M-26?!!?

Sancho · « **Reply #25 on:** December 19, 2001, 11:39:00 AM »

amen to the T-34. and an IS-2 perkie.

hazed- · « **Reply #26 on:** December 19, 2001, 12:07:00 PM »

sherman M4 for use against our pnzr I think would be best.

once we HAVE panthers/tigers/t34s etc in AH then we can worry about the shermans effectiveness.

Buzzbait · « **Reply #27 on:** December 19, 2001, 09:27:00 PM »

S!

Firefly would be superior to the MKIVH. The 17lber on it is a better weapon with much more velocity and penetrative power.

Shermans did not fare well versus Panthers but it is important to remember that Panthers were not available in large numbers.

Many of the Werhmacht Panzer divisions only had MkIV's in their tank battalions. Only one of the two tank battalions in either the better equipped Werhmacht or SS Panzer divisions was equipped with Panthers. The other battalion had MkIv's. Both Werhmacht and SS Panzer Grenadier divisions only were equipped with battalions of Self Propelled Guns. (StgIII's) No tanks at all.

The Tigers were even more rare.

Only 4 battalions of Tigers were in service in Normandy in June of 1944. Of these, only a small fraction were the 'King' Tiger.

Contrast that with the Allied side, where even U.S. Infantry divisions often had an attached battalion of Shermans. All the U.S. and British Corps had attached battalions of Shermans, Churchills or Tank Destroyers which were assigned to any division conducting an attack.

-tronski- · « **Reply #28 on:** December 20, 2001, 10:37:00 PM »

I'd vote for the T-34/76-85.

The lack of a AA gun might be worth all the "the AAMG on the T-34 is overmodeled" whiney comments!

Tronsky

Jack55 · « **Reply #29 on:** December 21, 2001, 05:48:00 PM »

British Centurian just missed WW2 action. Germans should have been thankful for that. The M26 almost missed the war. I'd rather see the M4. They did well against T34s in Korea, and there were almost 50,000 of them. There was similar number of T34s made. That's my second choice.