M4A3(76)W - first impressions

[Soulyss]

alright. i'll keep searching. thank you anyways though <S>

I'm pretty sure it varied a little from tank to tank but I think this article get's the basics right.

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/Zeiss_Optics.htm

[gyrene81]

I've been able to find what the optics devices look like on the outside...but the actual view I can't find.

WWII Swedish Panzer sight

[Pongo]

Reload times in real life vary...the book can say one thing but, tank crews have a way of "optimizing" things to give themselves as much of an edge as they can. Training and experience make a big difference.

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.

[dirt911]

Oh well it will get perked guarantee i have been trying to get people to grab the 75mm more.But they seem to refuse.All i really bring out  is the 75mm, I love the thing.However i do know that if it is not seen more the 76mm which wouldn't be worth any price,will get one.

[BigKev03]

One thing that is left out of the game currently that I think had a significant impact on historical engagements was the sighting systems and optics used.  I'm not familiar with the intricacies of the two systems, the U.S. sight was at least similar to what we have in the game currently, the Germans used a different system that I believe was superior in some regards.

Sadly I don't have specific details but those are my recollections. 

Yes you are correct the germans had far superior optics and could zero in on allied vehicles at ranges beyond the capability of the allies.  I think as the war started to end the allies were catching up but still they had a way to go.

BigKev

[321BAR]

soulyss thank you sir. <S>

ok if people will argue over realistic loading times then allow the veteran GVers who kill alot to get a faster reload and have that faster reload vary over tank style...

[E25280]

On rate of fire:

This are the reload times for the tanks in Aces High, a tank fires one shot every...

M4 (75 &76): 3.6s
Sherman VC: 7.2s
T-34/76: 8.2s
T-34/85: 6.8s
Panzer IV: 5.4s
Tiger I: 6.3s

Real world data seems to get a bit more difficult than armor or penetration data. About every serious source I've read so far states (if at all) that the Sherman had a much higher rate of fire than German heavy tanks (Tiger, Panther, King Tiger), which of course makes perfectly sense considering the guns the latter ones carry.
However, I'm wondering (yes, just wondering, not suspecting or knowing) if the Panzer IV's ROF is in line. The gun & ammo is comparable to the 76mm, and yet it's ROF is far lower, and just marginally faster than the Tiger

Maybe someone can provide additional details?

One of the primary strengths of the Sherman that is often overlooked is the superb ergonomics for the crew.  The turrets on the Shermans were very spacious compared to most of their contemporaries.  I'm not very familiar with the inside of the PzkwIV's turret, but I imagine the longer gun made it relatively cramped considering it was designed with a very short 75mm howitzer in mind -- the same way the Firefly with the large 17lbr suffers compared to other Shermans.

That being said, I found this link to a page of a book.  This is the part that I found interesting.  It is quoting the Army's official position at the time on the 75mm gun vs. the 76mm gun.  I bolded the part relating to the discussion of rate of fire:

The 76mm gun M1 as a tank weapon has only one superior characteristic to the 75mm gun M3.  This superior characteristic is in armour penetrating power.  The 76mm gun will penetrate on an average of one inch more armour than the 75mm gun M3 at the same range.  The high explosive pitching power of the 76mm gun is inferior to the 75mm gun.  The 76mm HE shell weighs 12.37lb and has a charge of .86lb explosive.  The 75mm HE shell weighs 14.6lb and has a charge of 1.47lb explosive.  The exterior ballistics of the 76mm gun are generally less satisfactory for a general purpose Medium Tank weapon than the 75mm gun.  The 76mm gun has an extremely heavy muzzle blast, such that the rate of fire when the ground is dry is controlled by the muzzle blast dust cloud.  Under many conditions this dust cloud does not clear for some eight to thirty seconds.  The presence of this heavy muzzle blast makes the sensing of the round extremely diffucult for the tank commander and gunner . . . The characteristics of the complete round of the 76mm gun makes it possible to stow only approximately 70 per cent as many rounds of ammunition in the Medium Tank M4 for the 76mm gun as can be stowed for the 75mm gun M3.  The great length of the 76mm round slows the loader and somewhat slows the rate of fire. . . If the 76mm gun as adopted for all Medium Tanks in a division then insofar as the attack of all targets except enemy armor is concerned a handicap has been imposed on the Medium Tank . . . It is believed that a fairly good percentage of 76mm guns should be included in a Medium Tank unit for the purpose of giving it a sufficient share of the additional penetrating power obtainable with the 76mm gun.

It isn't very specific on how much the loader was slowed, but it does stand to reason that it wouldn't be quite as fast as the 75mm gun.

[gyrene81]

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. 


Here is a picture that is supposed to be the inside of a Tiger showing the breech of the main gun.


This site has some interesting photos of the inside and outside of a Panzer IV Ausf H/J (?)
http://panzerivuniverse.phelpscomputerservices.com/Album0000023.htm

Tiger gunners vision block and part of the main gun breech.


Nice view of the loaders side of the breech in a Panzer IV


Interior of Panzer IV turret from gunners position

[Pongo]

soulyss thank you sir. <S>

ok if people will argue over realistic loading times then allow the veteran GVers who kill alot to get a faster reload and have that faster reload vary over tank style...

and ace pilots to see farther? and canadian pilots braver? where would it end?

[Pongo]

Are you trying to say, with your picture of a PIV and a Tiger, that the 75mm Sherman, should have the same typical rate of fire as the 76mm Sherman?
Cause really, I am sure you need the nickels, but earning them by speaking like an idiot and then asking for a nickel when people don't understand your blather would be kind of unfair.

[Karnak]

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.  [/img]

Pongo's statement made perfect sense.  I don't know why you think it is wrong.  Ergonomics matter and while training can speed a process up despite poor ergonomics for the task, the same kind of training will also speed of the same task set in a more ergonomic environment.

Examples of ergonomic issues in WWII are all over the place.  American fighters are generally excellent in cockpit layout to make the pilot's job easier in combat, but the P-38 was poorly laid out in that regard.  The BMW engined Fw190's cockpit was a masterpiece while the Bf109's has serious shortcomings.  These things have consequences.  I recall reading an account by an American P-38 pilot who fought in the Pacific Theater.  They were completing a mission where they had escorted B-24s and thought they were well clear of where any Japanese fighter might be, so they had settled down into cruise settings.  A Ki-61 dove down and set a B-24 alight and then climbed away into the clouds while the P-38 pilots tried to get back to combat power.  By the time they could the Ki-61 was too far away to catch before it got to safety.  The P-38 pilot said he blamed himself for relaxing and going to cruise settings when it took so long to go to combat settings.  By contrast, in a BMW engined Fw190s all you had to do to go to combat settings from cruise settings was push the throttle forward.

[KG45]

I've had limited time to play last few weeks, but as a dedicated GVer, I've driven the the rocket armed tank pretty much exclusively since it appeared. the fast rotating turret and fast reload times are great advantages, and seem to go a long way toward making up for whatever deficiencies the tank has.

that said, the new M4s and its relationship in gameplay to other tanks need to be taken in context with the porked modeling of the GV game in general.

[Lusche]

Examples of ergonomic issues in WWII are all over the place. 

One of those would be the Jagdpanzer 38(t) (Hetzer). A very clever design, very cost- & and resource efficient (and a rare exception from the "bigger is better" school of thought). A fine tank destroyer by it's combat stats. Small structure, easy to conceal, powerful gun...
But for the crew, it redefined "cramped". For example the gun breech opened on the right side, yet the gun was placed on the right side of the vehicle making reloading much more difficult than necessary.
 

[gyrene81]

Are you trying to say, with your picture of a PIV and a Tiger, that the 75mm Sherman, should have the same typical rate of fire as the 76mm Sherman?
Cause really, I am sure you need the nickels, but earning them by speaking like an idiot and then asking for a nickel when people don't understand your blather would be kind of unfair.

You have never been inside of a tank, let alone loaded and fired one. No point of reference for any of this discussion so talking like you actually know something shows the full scope of your ignorance. The point of the photos was to give someone like yourself a minor visual reference as to what a loader on a Panzer or Tiger crew would be looking at so you might have a clue what you're talking about next time you chimed in one an intelligent discussion.

Pongo's statement made perfect sense.  I don't know why you think it is wrong.  Ergonomics matter and while training can speed a process up despite poor ergonomics for the task, the same kind of training will also speed of the same task set in a more ergonomic environment.

Chiming in for Pongo is not a good idea on your part. My first comment was based on the speculation that was rising as to what actual reload times would have been...nothing more. Didn't require someone with a complete lack of intel to chime in with ignorance.


As for the ergonomics issue...that is a valid point however ergonomics can be overcome by experience. T-34 is a good example of that. The crews that lived through a few engagements learned quickly how to overcome the less than ideal space limitations inside the turret. The inside of a Panzer turret though not as spacious as a Sherman was designed with just as much efficiency. The book will tell you what the expected rate of fire would be under ideal conditions with a trained crew, but a combat experienced crew can and will exceed that. Point is there is no way for the game to reflect anything but what is written...not experience, individual capabilities, ergonomics or anything that deals with the human element. I'm late for work otherwise I'd expound... 

[Pongo]

gyrene.

Well, I am not a panzer ace like you.
But I have in fact been in many tanks.
M60, Leo 1, M1, Chieftain. But that wouldn't be necessary to see that you are an idiot.
More importantly to this debate.  I can reason.
The game presumes typical performance for many things that would be variable in actual use.
HP for every engine is just typical. For two engines that would expect to be identical they will be different to some extent for every single one. Due to maintenance, how hard they were run the previous day etc. Given the different drags on different airframes due to small things like damage and dirt and different markings.
One armourer does a different head space on his 50 cals that gets a little higher rate of fire. No two units in this game should be identical.
Why decide that is important for one little capability of one unit? The reload of Sherman.
No two Panzer IVHs would every actually reload in exaclty the same time in real life because time is a real number. So its just a matter of precision.
Yet that doesn't concern you.
All you care is that we not try to decide if the typical reload speed of a sherman 75 would probably be quicker then the typical reload speed of a sherman 76.
The "tricks" they used to speed up rate of fire in shermans contributed to them being called ronsons.
But you really haven't added a bit to this debate except blather and insults. But that is fine, I suspect that like as is the case with reasoning and explaining my position, I can insult a lot better then you as well.