« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: Pyro and HTC  (Read 955 times)

Offline Yeager

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10167
Pyro and HTC
« on: December 24, 2002, 03:24:05 PM »
Thanks for the revisions to the GV physics.  You have made them like a breath of fresh air, and way fun :)

My all time personal favourite is the M26 Pershing (of which 200+ found their way into combat before wars closing).  I am saddened by the extreme negligence by which the Army chose to produce and introduce this tank before the end of the war.  Many, many good men were maimed and killed as a result of the mass produced yet inferior M4s falling to superior German armor but that is the pure ugliness of it.  No taking it back.

This tank, the M26, would make the most awesome allied perk tank.

Also, the T-34/85 and M4A3(76) would complete the neccessities.

Thanks for this latest patch, err......um version.  The new P-51D cockpit is a strong indicator of the strides the art department has made in quality (which was damned good to begin).  The new planes, especially the JU-87, are always so welcome and appreciated especially by me.

Keep doing what you do and I will as well.

Thanks to all of you,
Merry Chrsitmas and enjoy.



edit: corrected
« Last Edit: December 25, 2002, 06:47:48 AM by Yeager »
Logged
"If someone flips you the bird and you don't know it, does it still count?" - SLIMpkns

Offline GRUNHERZ

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13413
Pyro and HTC
« Reply #1 on: December 24, 2002, 04:49:45 PM »
Its the M26 Pershing and they fought from March to May 1945, they saw no combat in pacific. It was a decent tank, a bit better than Tiger I but generally not considered as good as Panther.

I have to disagree with a 76mm Sherman. It would make the Panzer IV useless in AH because of similar firepower but has the potent AH GV style .50cal AA gun, this way it would be used much more as it will survive the AH unrealistic plane attacks better.  

A better alternative would be the M4A3(75)w. Weaker main gun, but more surviable to air attack. The T34/85 should be included as well. It has again similar firepower to Panzer IV but better armor and mobility, but no AA. This way you could choose Panzer IV for good all around capability, The M4A3(75) in a tougher air environment and the T34/85 for good Tiger hunting ability in a pinch because its faster than either Panzer IV or Sherman but no AA defense.
Logged

Offline AKDejaVu

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5049
      • http://www.dbstaines.com
Pyro and HTC
« Reply #2 on: December 24, 2002, 09:58:41 PM »
"A breath of fresh air" is an understatement.  The ground war has been revitalized.  The improvement to accelerations (especially hill climbing ability) and the addition of the Tiger have made the ground war fun again.

Grunherz, I disagree about the sherman.  Its my understanding that the armor on them was not as good as the Panzer IV (this is something I remember hearing... not based on any real data) and the guns are about the same.  The .50 on top would only make a difference if it is also able to point straight up.  Right now people are starting to realize ALL tanks have a weak spot.  

AKDejaVu
Logged

Offline GRUNHERZ

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13413
Pyro and HTC
« Reply #3 on: December 25, 2002, 08:42:47 AM »
Sherman has similar side armor to Panzer IV with armor skirts. M4A3 has somewhat better frontal armor, because of slope. The AH GV .50cal is much more powerful than even the wierdly powerful AH GV 7.92mm gun.  If they both had the same capability in main armament nobody would ever use Panzer IV.  This way we assure some variety and well see Panzer IV, Sherman, and T34/85.  Plus the 75mm sherman will allow for much better scenarios because the 76mm came only in summer of 1944 while shermans with 75mm were active since late summer of 1942.
Logged

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
Pyro and HTC
« Reply #4 on: December 25, 2002, 10:02:47 AM »
I agree with GRUNHERZ on this.

The Panzer IV H, M4A3(75mm) and T-34/85 would make a great set of three top free tanks.  What makes them great is that they make the player choose weaknesses and strengths.  The player cannot simply take the one that is best in all or most ways.

That is the reason I vastly prefer AH's B-17G and Lancaster MK III as a heavy bomber set over WBIII's B-17G and B-24J.  There are strong advatages and disadvantages to the Lanc and B-17G and those force the player to make sacrifices in order to get the good performance in the area they feel matters.  The B-17G and B-24J don't force those decisions.

I think the Panzer IV H, M4A3(75mm) and T-34/85 are ideal to do the same thing with the tanks we will most often see in the MA.  In addition to that they are all useful scenario tanks.  A Panzer IV F and a T-34/76 would not be hard to add later.
Logged
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Yeager

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10167
Pyro and HTC
« Reply #5 on: December 25, 2002, 10:22:17 AM »
I really dont ecpect the M26 anytime soon -if ever.  Im just saying I like the look of that bad muther and wanted to put my endorsment on it.  Im probably the only one that ever will.

I have to agree on the M4 76 vrs 75 though.  I however, get a chubb when discussing the russian 76 and as such like the fact that the M4 eventually was upgunned to a similar performing rnd.

In PE, the M4 with the 76mm is the best chance against any of the German armor, thats what I prefer there and as such would love to see here although it most likely wont happen anytime soon as the M4 with the 75mm is the obvious choice for reasons GRUNZ stated so damned eloquently.

I am certain some Pershings did make it to the Pac but I cant say if they ever fired a shot in anger.  Will look into it.
Logged
"If someone flips you the bird and you don't know it, does it still count?" - SLIMpkns

Offline hazed-

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2467
      • http://combatarena.users.btopenworld.com
Pyro and HTC
« Reply #6 on: December 25, 2002, 09:01:46 PM »
Didnt they start to use sandbags fixed to the outside of the tank to improve its chances of survival? I seem to recall seeing it.

reading all the recent posts on tanks and their guns I suddenly remembered seeing pictures of a sherman with sandbags actually attached to the tank and i just wondered about it.It led me to the conclusion that either:

The armour was useless and the tank crews used anything they could attach to the tank to improve their chances.
or
The armour wasnt bad,often shells penetrated, but the margin was so close that even a sandbag on the outside of the tank could stop a shot enough to warrent the extra weight.

Maybe the crews just 'felt' better with them on? the psycological edge they needed to function? would they carry loads of extra weight on a tank whos principle weapon is speed and numbers and slow it down by doing so, if the sandbags did nothing?

well whatever the reason lets have M4 PERK sandbags!   j/k :D
« Last Edit: December 25, 2002, 09:12:31 PM by hazed- »
Logged

Offline batdog

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1533
      • http://www.dasmuppets.com/
Pyro and HTC
« Reply #7 on: December 25, 2002, 09:45:56 PM »
I think the "extra" armor was for those magnatic anti tank thingys the Germans used. A sand bag wouldnt make a bit of difference to a 88L/LL or 75LL.

The Sherman had MANY draw backs. A weak 75mm main gun. A high profile that was coupled w/streight armor on the sides ie NO slop. It also used GASOLINE engines.... they take a hit and go up in flames, possiably frying the crew or sufficating them w/the patrolem smoke.

The Sherman was a easily mass produced tank... thats it. It wasnt designed for crew survival.

FatBat the Ex-xBAT
Logged
Of course, I only see what he posts here and what he does in the MA.  I know virtually nothing about the man.  I think its important for people to realize that we don't really know squat about each other.... definately not enough to use words like "hate".

AKDejaVu

Offline Yeager

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10167
Pyro and HTC
« Reply #8 on: December 26, 2002, 01:08:21 PM »
GRUNZ, FYI:

I did read in a book titled "British and American Tanks of WW2"
that the M26 did see action in the capture of Okinawa.  Didnt say how many or any other details on that action however.
Logged
"If someone flips you the bird and you don't know it, does it still count?" - SLIMpkns

Offline Beefcake

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2285
Pyro and HTC
« Reply #9 on: December 27, 2002, 12:42:11 AM »
From what I've read, the M26 was not well liked by it's crews. It suffered from many flaws and often failed in the field. Many crews perfered the M4A3 HVSS to the M26. Personaly I hope we see them both though.
Logged
Retired Bomber Dweeb - 71 "Eagle" Squadron RAF

Offline Dowding (Work)

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 627
Pyro and HTC
« Reply #10 on: December 27, 2002, 05:50:16 AM »
How about a KV-II? Had a 122mm gun if I remember rightly - would make a great town killer? :D

The IS-II would make a great perk Russian tank.
Logged

Offline Yeager

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10167
Pyro and HTC
« Reply #11 on: December 27, 2002, 08:30:28 AM »
Beef.

Just look at the a M4 sitting next to a M26 and tell me you would rather be in a M4.  When it comes to tanks, like so many other things in life (wink, wink), BIGGER IS BETTER.    LOL

Dowding.

Yup.  Nice choice.  HTC could be in business introducing (at their current rate of Im guessing at around 14 to 18 new/variant  introductions per year) for about 15 more years before they run dry on all the machines used in WW2.

« Last Edit: December 27, 2002, 08:33:52 AM by Yeager »
Logged
"If someone flips you the bird and you don't know it, does it still count?" - SLIMpkns

Offline Imp

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 269
Pyro and HTC
« Reply #12 on: December 28, 2002, 04:58:55 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Dowding (Work)
How about a KV-II? Had a 122mm gun if I remember rightly - would make a great town killer? :D

The IS-II would make a great perk Russian tank.


KV2 had 152mm gun (similar to a 152mm howitzer?)
Logged

Offline BGBMAW

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2288
Pyro and HTC
« Reply #13 on: December 28, 2002, 06:23:27 PM »
Read the Book called "Death Traps"..its about the Maintance Captain for the 3rd Army...Excellent book...he saw more busted up Shermans then any other human in the world...

Very sad to see our military ship off such an inadiquate tank..and just used the plethora of humans and Iron to overwelm the Krauts....


Merry New Year
Love BiGB

xoxo
Logged

Offline Beefcake

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2285
Pyro and HTC
« Reply #14 on: December 28, 2002, 07:52:26 PM »
Yeager I'd rather be in an M24 Chaffe! You can't hit what you can't catch. :D Ok Ok, yes, if we got an M26 I would perfer to drive it rather than a M4. But I would drive the M4A3HVSS over the M26....that thing just looks sweet. :)

On a side note, if we get the M26 can we get an M18 Hellcat to go with it? That thing is scary.
Logged
Retired Bomber Dweeb - 71 "Eagle" Squadron RAF
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
« previous next »