1 perk for m4a3-76?

[Karnak]

The K/D matrix pretty conclusively shows the T-34/76 to be superior to the M4A3(75).

[715]

The K/D matrix pretty conclusively shows the T-34/76 to be superior to the M4A3(75).

Really?  I must be reading it wrong then.  The T34/76 column shows lower K/D than most of the corresponding values in the M4A3(75) column (except vs the T34/76 and, strangely, the M4A3(75)).

[Belial]

The t34-85 Hvap round is far more effective than the m4a3-76 round at any distance for killing a Tiger.


Combined with it's speed and turret traverse it is a better tank.

Sure the m4a3-76 is a panzer killing machine, but it's like throwing snowballs at a Tiger unless your point blank and even then some ricochet.

[SmokinLoon]

The t34-85 Hvap round is far more effective than the m4a3-76 round at any distance for killing a Tiger.


Combined with it's speed and turret traverse it is a better tank.

Sure the m4a3-76 is a panzer killing machine, but it's like throwing snowballs at a Tiger unless your point blank and even then some ricochet.

I challenge you to find me a legit source showing the penetration abilities of the T34/85mm HVAP surpassing that of the standard AP from an M4A3(W) 76mm at longer ranges.  So far, I have not found one single chart that displays any advantage for the 85mm HVAP beyond (actually somewhere prior to) 1000m, or 1094 yards, and up close (500m) the advantage is hardly worth mentioning compared to the 76mm AP of the M4A3.  The HVAP round really shows its advantage at less than 500m vs the standard 85mm AP, the HVAP gains 30mm more armor penetration at 100m, and the advantage slowly declines until around 800 yards, Im guessing.  The gaps in all the charts I've read are too big to show the exact cross over from advantage to disadvantage for the HVAP.   

One online source shows the following stats for armor penetration:
M4A3 76mm AP: 500m = 104mm; 1000m = 83mm; 1500m = 67mm; 2000m = 54mm

T34/85mm HVAP: 500m = 107mm; 1000m = 76mm; 1500m = 54mm; 2000m = 39mm
T34/85mm AP: 500m = 100mm; 1000m = 81mm; 1500m = 71mm; 2000m = 65mm

Now compare the Tiger's armor to those ranges and you'll see that the T34/85mm's gun is no better off vs a Tiger, unless almost point blank range with HVAP, compared to the M4A3(W) 76mm's AP.

As far as the T34/85mm being a "better" tank, that is matter of opinion in every which way but loose.  The quick reload times of the M4A3 is not to be over-looked, like-wise, the speed of the T34x is an often over-looked attribute.  Roll the dice, and play the yardage.  The T34's frontal armor will be its ultimate saving grace in a stand off pot shot battle.  To me, comparing the effectiveness of the penetration capabilities is a moot point, they are too similar.  It is the other attributes of the tank that will stand out instead based on what the role is that is needed to be filled and/or the mission that needs to be accomplished.

FWIW, it is one of those two tanks that I take %90 of the time in the MA.   

[Nemisis]

The t34-85 Hvap round is far more effective than the m4a3-76 round at any distance for killing a Tiger.


Combined with it's speed and turret traverse it is a better tank.

Sure the m4a3-76 is a panzer killing machine, but it's like throwing snowballs at a Tiger unless your point blank and even then some ricochet.

I've one shot killed a tiger from the front at 500yds. I wouldn't really call that "point blank" since its better to get in close when fighting the heavy armor. Hell, I've gotten hits on a tiger at 1500yds or so; didn't really do anything, but they didn't ricochet either.

[fudgums]

I've one shot killed a tiger from the front at 500yds. I wouldn't really call that "point blank" since its better to get in close when fighting the heavy armor. Hell, I've gotten hits on a tiger at 1500yds or so; didn't really do anything, but they didn't ricochet either.

video please

[Belial]

I guess there's no arguing with you guys and your charts...


I mean It's my first day in a gv

[Lusche]

I guess there's no arguing with you guys and your charts...


I mean It's my first day in a gv

Aren't you the one that even doubted tank rounds are losing energy over distance?

[Nemisis]

Don't have a film Fudgums, I accidently downloaded the wrong patch and had to re instal AH (I don't back up my films). However, I have been using auto record, so if I ever have the fortune of having that happen again, then I will have a film.

[GtoRA2]

When talking 76MM Sherman's, you do not need to add the W, since all 76MM gunned Sherman's where built wet, with the improved later hulls.

The 75 Sherman's could be wet or dry depending on the build date.

Unlike a lot of US weapons, the A1 A2 A3 etc designations for Sherman's do no indicate later models, but different Engine types.

[Nemisis]

GtoRA2, you must remember that a lot of M4's were officially up gunned to the 76mm cannon. And the M4A2 was an export model.

[SmokinLoon]

When talking 76MM Sherman's, you do not need to add the W, since all 76MM gunned Sherman's where built wet, with the improved later hulls.

The 75 Sherman's could be wet or dry depending on the build date.

Unlike a lot of US weapons, the A1 A2 A3 etc designations for Sherman's do no indicate later models, but different Engine types.

Hmm...  thought the hull and turrets had a hand in the new designations, too?

[E25280]

Hmm...  thought the hull and turrets had a hand in the new designations, too?

There were some hull variations between in the original M4A1, M4A2 etc. designations, but that was because of process used (A1 used a cast vs. welded hull) and engine (A4s had longer hulls due to the size of the engine).  A1s, A2s, A3s, etc. were all rolling off assembly lines at the same time.

Some things like turret and suspension modifications could get an "E" designation of some sort, the best known of which would be the "E8" designation that had the HVSS suspension, 76mm gun and somewhat upgraded armor.

Wiki has some decent background info:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_Sherman_variants

[GtoRA2]

GtoRA2, you must remember that a lot of M4's were officially up gunned to the 76mm cannon. And the M4A2 was an export model.

True, but I dont think these saw any real combat. It was very cramped stuffing the 76 into the smaller 75 turret. And if I recall right, they didnt really start doing it until late in the war. I am not sure how mant T23 turrets were removed from hulls on p

 As trivia, the Shermans used in Kelly's Heroes are 75mm Shermans, (A3s I think) with 76MM guns installed. I bet the loading speed with the 76 in the smaller turret is way longer too.

[Nemisis]

How would having less room affect how fast you can shove shells into the breech to such a degree that the load time would be "way" longer? I could see it taking maybe 40-60% longer to load a shell, but it won't be like the T-34/76.