M4A3(76)W - first impressions

[AWwrgwy]

By that kit it looks like the main improvement from an ergonomics standpoint is a large increase in the number of ready rounds as compared to the T-34/76, delaying the need to open up the boxes that make up the floor.  Still leaves the commander, gunner and loader shuffling awkwardly around unless there are seats keeping their feet off the floor.

Some of the ready round stowage in a T-34/76:



From:  http://www.g503.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=82&t=160725

I see a room for @ 15 rounds so they wouldn't need to go digging in the "suitcases" as soon as speculated.

I can't get over they stored rounds like that as the "armored" storage in early Shermans was one reason they "brewed up" so easily before wet stowage was introduced.


wrongway

[Karnak]

The AH 3D model has a seat for each.

[Pongo]

Wrongway,
that is a T34 85.
But fantastic shots.  The 76 was way smaller in the back of the turret.

After the ready rounds, you have to pull rounds out of those lockers.
Everyone interested should look at all the shots in the link and read the guys descriptions.

[Pongo]

Wrongway,
that is a T34 85. (you can really tell in the outside shot)
But fantastic shots.  The 76 was way smaller in the back of the turret.
If you have 15 ready rounds, and 3 different kinds of ammo carried, how soon do those boxes down below start to matter, pretty quick. You probably had 5 AP rounds before you had to start digging. Not as big a deal in WW2 as it likely is in an AH spawn vulch.  What the crews likely did was show how elite they were by stacking ready ammo around base down in the cases, which of course makes the tank very vulnerable to any penetration of the hull.
(Image removed from quote.)
After the ready rounds, you have to pull rounds out of those lockers.
Everyone interested should look at all the shots in the link and read the guys descriptions.

[Karnak]

Those are some nice T-34/85 interior shots.

I count 16 ready rounds, 12 in the rear of the turret and 4 on the sides.

[GtoRA2]

Wow you guys, nice work shutting down someone who clearly was talking out of his rear.


It's guys like him who always spout the Sherman myths.

[gyrene81]

Wow you guys, nice work shutting down someone who clearly was talking out of his rear.

It's guys like him who always spout the Sherman myths.

And you know less than anyone here. So either contribute something intelligent or shut it.

20 rounds per minute for the M3 75mm gun was the expected rate of fire for the gun before it was adopted to use in the tank, that is not the sustained rate of fire experienced by crews in the Shermans during combat.

[Karnak]

gyrene81 does know a lot about the subject, he just comes on really strong.  He is right about the difference between theoretical and what was actually obtained. 

[WWhiskey]

gyrene81 does know a lot about the subject, he just comes on really strong.  He is right about the difference between theoretical and what was actually obtained. 

that's all fine! but at 48 he knows at best, nothing more than me, or any other tanker that has studied!
 so to be little and or berate someone else for not knowing the actual rate of fire, of a Sherman, under duress is complete Bull!
I spent time in the Fulda gap in M -60s at a survival time of less than six minutes just like most every other tanker at the time, so I don't need to be lectured on the reload time of a Sherman that he never saw any more than in a history class or a PLDC class with an over exuberant staff sergeant than I did And to say he new more about the difference in a sherman, would be like the fact that he new that an M1A1 was  the resulting factor in lowering the number to 8 to 1 from 6 to 1!
 a lot of people in this game are aware of and or served in some type of military action at some point! He needs to chill out a bit and understand that he is not the only one to ever see combat, to ever see the enemy, to ever have a clue!That said <<S>> for Whatever he did do, now call it a day and go Find something else to howl at the moon for!
P.S. try not to eat to much while K9 lee acknowledging the earths natural satellite.

[Nemisis]

First off, won't be perked with the T-34/85. All the M4 has is rate of fire. That and the armor is only about 3/4's of the way up on the scale between the panzer and T-34/76.

As for my first impression of it:

Good tank, will probably replace the panzer. I think the rate of fire is likely a big reason, seeing as the panzer has a lower silouette and is much better for ambushes. And the final thing that sticks out in my mind is that the olive drab blends in even better than the firefly's green.

[Pongo]

I think ample evidence was provided by gyrene himself that at the very least, he doesn't know what he thinks he knows.
But he does seem to know something.
His worst offence here was in dragging this thread off of a fundamental truism. That the game has to assume a typical ROF for these vehicles, and should or should not the 76 be slower then the 75.
The game cannot likely introduce the ROF by crew quality concept, but they could introduce a sustained fire fatigue concept, Sort of like the G limit for tanks.
By the time you have fired 15 rounds straight the ROF could cut in half.  That cannot be to hard to implement, and would be a great limiter for the magazine fed flack tanks as well.

[SmokinLoon]

I think ample evidence was provided by gyrene himself that at the very least, he doesn't know what he thinks he knows.
But he does seem to know something.
His worst offence here was in dragging this thread off of a fundamental truism. That the game has to assume a typical ROF for these vehicles, and should or should not the 76 be slower then the 75.
The game cannot likely introduce the ROF by crew quality concept, but they could introduce a sustained fire fatigue concept, Sort of like the G limit for tanks.
By the time you have fired 15 rounds straight the ROF could cut in half.  That cannot be to hard to implement, and would be a great limiter for the magazine fed flack tanks as well.

Im willing to bet it is no different than having a Wirby, Ostwind, vehicle mounted MG's, etc, etc, with an unlimited firing time.  Either coding a "break" in the reload process is beyond the game's capability, HTC's "coaders" do not know how to code such a thing, or HTC's coaders do not want to commit the time needed to coad such a thing.   

[gyrene81]

I think ample evidence was provided by gyrene himself that at the very least, he doesn't know what he thinks he knows.
But he does seem to know something.
His worst offence here was in dragging this thread off of a fundamental truism. That the game has to assume a typical ROF for these vehicles, and should or should not the 76 be slower then the 75.
The game cannot likely introduce the ROF by crew quality concept, but they could introduce a sustained fire fatigue concept, Sort of like the G limit for tanks.
By the time you have fired 15 rounds straight the ROF could cut in half.  That cannot be to hard to implement, and would be a great limiter for the magazine fed flack tanks as well.

Pongo I didn't drag this thread anywhere...I over reacted to your dismissive remark regarding the "human variable", and I'm going to try not to over react to your further beligerent remarks.

Yes the 76mm should have a slower rate of fire than the 75mm by a second or two, assuming it has the same auto-eject function which I have not been able to establish one way or the other. Typical sustained rate of fire listed for the 75mm per the books, was established prior to use as the main gun in the Sherman tank...in that prior life, there were no space confinement issues for the crew to deal with as is found in a tank turret. Ammunition was easily handled on open ground, therefore making 20 rounds per minute an easily achievable mark. As you probably know from having served as member of a tank crew, a tank does not offer such amenity, the loader is the sole person handling the ammunition, while the gunner maintains sight on target while controlling the turret and main gun, and the commander maintains visual on the battle field watching for other threats. Even at a mere 20lbs each, those rounds had to be handled with two hands until the projectile was placed in the breech.

Based on those facts, there is no way for a tank crew in a Sherman tank to reach or maintain such a high rate of fire; however as I stated previously, HTC cannot model the rate of fire based on anything less than what the books say or they would be accused of guessing.

[Pongo]

Im willing to bet it is no different than having a Wirby, Ostwind, vehicle mounted MG's, etc, etc, with an unlimited firing time.  Either coding a "break" in the reload process is beyond the game's capability, HTC's "coaders" do not know how to code such a thing, or HTC's coaders do not want to commit the time needed to coad such a thing.   

It is just priorities, and play balance. Every platform in the game has access to its entire ammo load with no chance of breaking or slowing down. Introducing it for one type of platform would only start a problem, not end it. A Cruiser cannot exhaust its 5 inch gun fire at full rate either. None of these weapons were ever designed for the sustained fire they take in the game.  Its just a question of where do you start and how important is it to the game.

[Pongo]

Pongo I didn't drag this thread anywhere...I over reacted to your dismissive remark regarding the "human variable", and I'm going to try not to over react to your further beligerent remarks.

Yes the 76mm should have a slower rate of fire than the 75mm by a second or two, assuming it has the same auto-eject function which I have not been able to establish one way or the other. Typical sustained rate of fire listed for the 75mm per the books, was established prior to use as the main gun in the Sherman tank...in that prior life, there were no space confinement issues for the crew to deal with as is found in a tank turret. Ammunition was easily handled on open ground, therefore making 20 rounds per minute an easily achievable mark. As you probably know from having served as member of a tank crew, a tank does not offer such amenity, the loader is the sole person handling the ammunition, while the gunner maintains sight on target while controlling the turret and main gun, and the commander maintains visual on the battle field watching for other threats. Even at a mere 20lbs each, those rounds had to be handled with two hands until the projectile was placed in the breech.

Based on those facts, there is no way for a tank crew in a Sherman tank to reach or maintain such a high rate of fire; however as I stated previously, HTC cannot model the rate of fire based on anything less than what the books say or they would be accused of guessing.

Oh yes you did.
"In real life everything varies, so?
A given tank is inherently able to maintain a quicker rate of fire. The game reflects that, the question is how accurately."
Wish I had a nickel for everytime someone spouted without a clue. 

I wasn't dismissive or any other missive. I just asked what you meant. The game has to assume a typical rate of fire. What I said was not rude and should not have been unclear. Your whole participation in the discussion was rude, unclear and misinformed.

Like I said before, obviously no apology is forthcoming from your or thanks for informing you on something you seem to care deeply about.
But at least don't restart or try to rewrite what actually happened here.