Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Arlo on June 19, 2004, 02:03:12 PM
-
Nuff said. ;)
-
Sherman has weak gun and 1 shell will kill it. I say if your gonna get a tank that will be destroyed by 1 shell, get the m-18 Hellcat
(http://www.model-news.com/tank/m18hellc/m18tot.jpg)
Speeds up to 45mph and a 76 mm M1 gun
-
Jeep
-
There were several diferent models of Shermans, weak, short 75mm gun or long, hi-velocity 76mm gun; generic-model, weak armor, Easy-Eight, better armor, or Jumbo, best armor (plus whatever troops in the field welded, piled or taped on).
I forget if the Firefly had the 76mm gun or some other, but it's said Michael Wittman (Tiger ace) would have pulled back, and not been killed, if he had known Firefly's were in the area.
Which model US tank-destroyer sported the 90mm gun, was that the Jackson?
-
Originally posted by Rasker
There were several diferent models of Shermans, weak, short 75mm gun or long, hi-velocity 76mm gun; generic-model, weak armor, Easy-Eight, better armor, or Jumbo, best armor (plus whatever troops in the field welded, piled or taped on).
I forget if the Firefly had the 76mm gun or some other, but it's said Michael Wittman (Tiger ace) would have pulled back, and not been killed, if he had known Firefly's were in the area.
Which model US tank-destroyer sported the 90mm gun, was that the Jackson?
Sherman armor was as good or better than that of the Panzer Mk.IV.
The Jumbo, or Assault Sherman was up-armored considerably. However, speed and maneuverability suffered.
Firefly was armed with 17 pounder and very dangerous to German armor.
Someone mentioned the M-18's speed at 45 mph. It was actually 65 mph on prepared roads.
The M-36 Jackson was armed with the 90 mm gun, as was the M-26 Pershing heavy tank (later reclassified as a medium tank). However, the M-36 was an upgunned M-10, albeit on a later type of M4 chassis. Any one of the these (Sherman Firefly, M-18, M-36 or M-26 could kill the Tiger I from just about any angle.
My regards,
Widewing
-
We neeeeed these too
T-34/76 (early war variant with short barrel 76mm gun)
(http://www.military-info.de/wk2/t34.jpg)
T-34/85 (mid-late war variant with long barrel 85mm gun)
(http://www.battletanks.com/images/T34-85-1.jpg)
'nuff said
:)
-
Originally posted by Raptor01
Sherman has weak gun and 1 shell will kill it. I say if your gonna get a tank that will be destroyed by 1 shell, get the m-18 Hellcat
Speeds up to 45mph and a 76 mm M1 gun
This ain't no "uber-argument." :D
-
Yes the T34 & Sherman would be an awesome addition to the GV line up!
But you can't forget :aok
(http://www.ltnb.lu/~sgillen/wirbelwind.jpg)
-
Don't need any more stinkin' wussy AA guns. M16 and Osty is enough; fast firing, very accurate, weak armoured AA, and slow to fire, less accurate, well armoured AA side by side.
-
I'd like to see an Early war tank, later war, perk tank and amroured car for each of Russia, UK, USA and germany:
Germany:
Tiger 1 (perk)
Pz IVH (later war)
Pz IIIF (earlier war)
SdKfz 232 (armoured car)
USA
M26 (perk)
M4A3 (later war)
M4A1 (earlier war)
M8 (armoured car)
Russia
IS-2 (perk)
T-34/85 (later war)
T-34 (earlier war)
BAZ (amphibious armoured car)
UK
A34 Comet (perk)
A27 Cromwell or Cavalier (later war)
A15 Crusader (earlier war)
Humber MkIV (armoured car)
-
Maybe 2 Shermans.. one with a 75mm gun and the other with either the long barrelled 76mm or the 17-pounder.
And a T-34.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Don't need any more stinkin' wussy AA guns. M16 and Osty is enough; fast firing, very accurate, weak armoured AA, and slow to fire, less accurate, well armoured AA side by side.
Hey maybe YOU don't, but thier is plenty of us who would like to see couple new vehicles on the battlefield.
Besides, what do you care......... most just want to fly anyways right?
Since this is a "flight sim" or so I've been told:rolleyes:
Which is so funny, cuz everyone that knows us LTAR's say we are SOOOOOOOOOOOO easy to kill, whats the big deal then if we get our T34's & Wirbelwinds ?
-
Panther;) .
omg i drool at the though of a king tiger or jagdpanther(http://www.djgibbon.co.uk/forum/smilies/drool.gif)
-
if we ever get the king tiger we will allso need a B29 with a Abomb load out so we could actually kill it
:D
-
British Sherman Firefly 17 pounder pleeeeeeeeaaaase :)
(http://freespace.virgin.net/shermanic.firefly/icmarkdrawing1.jpg)
T-34 and PnzrV would be nice too! :) PnzrV Panther is gorgeous and has been one of my favourite tanks but could you see many differences to performance/armour than the PnzrIV?
-
Hey maybe YOU don't, but thier is plenty of us who would like to see couple new vehicles on the battlefield.
Besides, what do you care......... most just want to fly anyways right?
Since this is a "flight sim" or so I've been told
I would actually be agreeing with you if you had asked for a MBT. Instead, you've asked for another brand of stinkin' AA.
But really, coming from an LTAR I shouldn't have ever expected more. So yeah, it is my fault.
-
For the moment, we have enough american units in the game. T-34/76 to the game before adding any more american GVs, please.
-
No. Sherman. First Allied MBT for the game. It will happen. :D
-
Chi-Ha (Transport Vehicle)
Dailhatsu (Transport Boat)
Hanomag (Transport Vehicle)
KubleWagon (Taxi Car)
Wespe (2-Man Tank)
-
I've never seen a more useless list suggested for AH. Ever. ;)
-
In the short term I feal the 76mm M4A3, would be the best overall adation for AH.
1) It is very clsoe to the Pannzer IVH we have now in the game in terms of Gun efectivenss vis a vis their abaility to kill one another, and they are prety much equily vulnerable in terms of their comparative armor values relative to the Main Arament guns they have.
2) The Sherman has an efective AA Weapon on it, the T34 does not, while I would rather see a T34, it's lack of an AA gun makes it very undersiable.
3) The Sherman was widely used in prety much every theater of the war, including the Russian front, this would make it a great adation to scenearious, events, and to the CT.
You simply get more the modeling effort for the whole comunity by doing a Sherman at this time.
-
Brady! Bless you! I may even recant on the Cant. :D
-
lol:)
-
These would be my choices:
Sd.Kfz.234/2 Puma
Sd.Kfz 251 Halftrack
M4A3E8 Sherman
Sherman Firefly Vc
T-34/85
(brady: note no AA vehicle.;) )
-
Matilda
T35/85
KV-1
Staghound MkIII
sherman firefly
Tiger II with porsche turret
-
Originally posted by Turbo11
Chi-Ha (Transport Vehicle)
Dailhatsu (Transport Boat)
Hanomag (Transport Vehicle)
KubleWagon (Taxi Car)
Wespe (2-Man Tank)
:rolleyes:
and for the allies lets add a motorcycle with a side car! transport troops 1 at a time to an enemy field:p
-
Originally posted by Karnak
These would be my choices:
Sd.Kfz.234/2 Puma
Sd.Kfz 251 Halftrack
M4A3E8 Sherman
Sherman Firefly Vc
T-34/85
(brady: note no AA vehicle.;) )
Why have two up-gunned late-war Shermans when you can have a Cromwell or Cavalier with a 17pdr and more armour?
-
Because Shermans are cooler (and were WAY more numerous). :D That and the vast majority of American tank freaks, deep down, want to fight the Battle of the Bulge more than anything (and probably not an insignificant number of Eurpoean tank freaks). From D-Day to the fall of Germany ... more Shermans made tracks on European soil than any other western front MBT.
There are many tanks that some could claim were better. There are a few tanks some could claim "had a significant impact." But on the western front ... there is not a MBT (granted, various chassis and setups) that anyone can claim was used more by the allies.
The M4A1 (first accepted in February 1942) # made: 6281
The M4A2 (first accepted in April 1942) # made: 8053
The M4A3 (first accepted in June 1942) # made: 1690
The M4A3E2 "Jumbo" (June 1944) # made: 254
I'd recommend the A1 or A2 to be the first allied MBT followed by the T-34 for the Eastern front. Then later add the Jumbo Sherman as a perkie tank for the allies.
-
Not sure what the Firefly has to do with with American Tank freaks. One late war Sherman seems perfectly adequate and the late war British cruiser tanks are much more fun! :)
-
Originally posted by Turbo11
Chi-Ha (Transport Vehicle)
Dailhatsu (Transport Boat)
Hanomag (Transport Vehicle)
KubleWagon (Taxi Car)
Wespe (2-Man Tank)
The Wespe is a self propelled artillery piece, think 105MM.
-
Replicant
The Panther is a way more effective tank then the Panzer IV. They are not even in the same ballpark. Almost nothing is, other then the T-34 85, the JS series, the Comet (that was the late war Brit 17pounder tank?) and the US M26.
The Panther is better then the tiger 1 in most regards.
The 75mm gun on the Panther has much higher penetration then the one on either the tiger 1 or Panzer 4. The 88mm gun on the Tiger being a shorter barreled then on the later Tiger 2 and Jagpather.
The frontal armor on the Panther is better then the Tiger 1, Sherman, and T-34.
The Tiger one has an advantage in side armor over the Panther, the Panther was very vulnerable to side shots, even from the 75 on a Sherman.
From the front, the Tiger and panther were almost un-killable by anything short of the US 90mm, 17 pounder and the Russian 85.
Our 76 was an OK gun, worked well on everything but the Tigers and Panther, but it could fail at point blank to the front of those tanks.
The US 76 was a Naval 3 inch gun.
A bit of trivia, it has an APCR round that was more effective then the solid shot round but the APCR round was only issued to tank destroyer units early on, so the Sherman’s with the 76 were not as effective as the tank destroyers like the M10 and M18 with the same gun.
There is almost no difference between any of the early Sherman’s, the M4, M4a1 and A2 and A3 are all effectively the same tank with different motors or slightly different options. the armor and gun is the same.
The Tiger and Panther were more mobile over mud and rough terrain then the Sherman due to their much wider tread.
If the only tank the Sherman had to face was the Panzer 3 and 4 it would have been a OK tank. It was outmatched in just about every way by the Tiger and Panther. it's only edges being the stabilized gun, and reliability.
You want to know just how bad it was for American tankers? Pick up Belton Y. Coopers Death Traps.
I would love to see a Sherman, but would like it to be the best, the M4A3E8, the one with the long 76, and the HVSS tracks and a big ford V8, making it the best of the Sherman’s for firepower and mobility.
I would love to see a Panther as well but it would have to be another perk ride.
We really need the T-34 and the Sherman.
-
Rino, Wespe is a 2-man tank, 1 person controls the vehicle, and 1 person controls the cannon.
-
Gtora2, thanks for the comments. Although I realise how good the Panther was in real life I was uncertain how it would be superior to the PnzrIV considering the similarities between performance/armour to the Tiger I and PnzrIV. What I'm trying to say is would we notice a distinctive difference between the PnzrIV and TigerI in AH. By the sounds of it the main gun should be enough to kill the Tiger but at what sort of ranges? The sloping frontal armour would definite be an advantage against the PnzrIV but any ideas vs the TigerI?
Which JS are you on about?
-
Originally posted by Turbo11
Rino, Wespe is a 2-man tank, 1 person controls the vehicle, and 1 person controls the cannon.
Actually, Rino is right, unless you are talking about some other "Wespe." It was an open-top Self-Propelled Artillery vehicle (sporting a 105mm gun).
Info is here (http://users.swing.be/tanks.tanks/complet/636.html#551)
As for the T-34/85, it's main gun was not able to penetrate Tiger and Panther frontal armor at long ranges. A main reason for this was the poor AP manufacturing in the Soviet Union. I stil want a T-34/85, but I prefer that it is the 1944 version with the faster turret (the '43 had a slow turret).
-
"Wittmann in Villers Bocage"
On 13th June 1944, a week after D-day, following a drive from Beauvais under repeated air attack, 2nd Kompanie of sSSPzAbt 101 led by Michael Wittmann had 6 Tigers located in the area of Hill (Point) 213 ahove Villers Bocage. His orders were to stop the advance of the 22nd Armored Brigade of the British 7th Armored Division (the famous 'Desert Rats') from advancing through the township, outflanking the German line and gaining the road to Caen. Wittmann's company hidden behind a hedgerow spotted the enemy column, which passed him at a distance of 200 meters. At about 8:00am, Wittmann attacked the British column on the main road, while the rest of his company (4 Tigers as one brokedown) attacked the British forces around Hill 213. Soon after, Wittmann destroyed Sherman Firefly and Cromwell IV and headed south to attack the rest of the enemy transport column. After knocking out 8 half-tracks, 4 Bren Carriers and 2 6 pdr anti-tank guns, Wittmann reached the crossroad with the road to Tilly-sur-Seulles. At the crossroad, he destroyed 3 Stuart tanks from recon unit and reached the outskirts of the town of Villers-Bocage. While in town, Wittmann destroyed 4 Cromwell IV tanks and single half-track and turns into Rue Pasteur. Following up the street, he knocked out Cromwell IV and Sherman OP tank, reaching the main street of Villers-Bocage. At the end of Rue Pasteur, Wittmann's Tiger was hit by Sherman Firefly from B Squadron and he decided to turn back as being too far forward without any infantry support and in a build-up area. He turned in the direction of Caen to join the rest of his company. On his way back, Wittmann's Tiger was attacked by another Cromwell IV, which he destroyed as well. Back at the Tilly crossroad, British soldiers from 1st Rifle Brigade opened fire at Wittmann with their 6 pdr anti-tank gun, immobilizing his Tiger. Wittmann and his crew managed to escape on foot towards the Panzer Lehr positions 7km away near Orbois. The rest of his company at the Hill 213, destroyed the rest of the A Squadron of 4th County of London Yeomanry Regiment ("Sharpshooters") including 5 Cromwell IV and Sherman Firefly, while capturing 30 men. During this short engagement, Wittmann's company destroyed 4 Sherman Firefly, 20 Cromwell, 3 Stuart, 3 M4 Sherman OP, 14 half-tracks, 16 Bren Carriers and 2 6 pdr anti-tank guns. Wittmann's attack was followed by another one by Tigers of Hauptsturmfuehrer Rolf Moebius' 1st Kompanie of sSSPzAbt 101 and Panzerkampfwagen IV tanks from Panzer Lehr but was repulsed by anti-tank guns from 22nd Armored Brigade. Following day, British withdrew from the town leaving it to the Germans, who occupied it for next two months. The British drive on Villers Bocage and Caen was stopped cold by Wittmann's attack and following actions.
IMO the tiger1 was the best tank of the war. The king Tiger (tigerII?) was good, but it lacked the manuverablity the tiger had and same goes for the jagdpanther i think. In the right a Tiger could inflict damage only seen by people who spawn camp all day long like topgunz.
-
Replicant
The gun on the panther would be a bad threat to the Tiger at ranges 2000 yards and closer I bet. (maybe even longer)
I will have to go look through some books, but it was more effective then the gun on the tiger one by a good bit and almost as good as the 88MM KWk 71 gun on the Tiger 2.
By Js I meant Joe Stalin, the JS 1 2 and 3 though I only think the 1 and 2 saw action. They could give the Panther a scare and the Tiger 2 a run for the money.
Emodin, I agree the 85MM russian gun was not as much of threat, but more so then the US 76.
B17Skull12
I am not sure what you are saying here?
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Replicant
The gun on the panther would be a bad threat to the Tiger at ranges 2000 yards and closer I bet. (maybe even longer)
I will have to go look through some books, but it was more effective then the gun on the tiger one by a good bit and almost as good as the 88MM KWk 71 gun on the Tiger 2.
By Js I meant Joe Stalin, the JS 1 2 and 3 though I only think the 1 and 2 saw action. They could give the Panther a scare and the Tiger 2 a run for the money.
I've been in a JS2M (122mm cannon) but there's a bit of uncertainty whether it actually saw service though in WW2? Do you have any information regarding this? I have some photos from inside the tank and some external too.
-
I willhave to check tonight. Most of my books are in storage :(
I think the King Tiger was a better tank the JS 1 and 2, but I would be the Russian had 2 or 3 JS tanks for everyone 1 Tiger 2.
-
IIRC, a couple of JS2s saw combat right before the end of the war. The problem with that beast is the fact that it barely carried any rounds (28).
GtoRA2, which armor books do you have on the T-34s (all versions)? I'm looking for some good ones, but I'm unsure which l ones have an unbiased opinion.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
B17Skull12
I am not sure what you are saying here?
just adding to the thread and voicing a opion on WW2 tanks.
-
Yep, emodin, I am talking about another Wespe, looks nothing like that one.
-
Ok during world war II we didn't have an all-can-do tank. The sherman was only there to help protect the infantry and take out light to medium denfensives. Now when the shermans would see a tank what they were to do is to call up an tank-destory like an M10, or M18, or even better the M36, this are not tanks they are "Gun Motor Carriages" lightly armed, fast moving things, they had armour to were to protect them from small arms fire but nothing big at all. most of them had less then an inch of armour, that is why the hell cat went so fast. They were to shot and get there buts out of there.
The M10
1943 - USA M-10 Gun Motor Carriage
Mounted on M4A3 Sherman Chassis.
Armament: 1 - 3 “ converted AA gun
1 - 0.5" AA MG
Engines; 2 - GM, 375 hp, 6 cyl., diesel
Speed; 30 mph
Range: 198 miles
Crew: 5
Weight: 30 tons
M18
1943 - USA M18 Gun Motor Carriage "Hellcat"
Armament: 1 - 76mm gun
1 - 0.5" MG AA
Engine: Continental, 9 cyl., radial air-
cooled, gas, 340 or 400 hp
Speed; 55 mph
Range; 105 miles
Crew: 5
Weight; 17 tons
M36
1943 USA Gun Motor Carriage M36 "Slugger"
Mounted on a M4A3 Sherman Chassis.
Armament: 1- 90mm gun in new turret
1- 0.5" MG AA
Engine; Ford GAA, V-8, gas, 500 hp
Speed: 30 mph
Range; 150 miles
Crew: 5
Weight: 31 tons
Beleave it or now the USA was designing a heavy tank as the world went to the end, THIS SUCKER IS HUGE.
(http://www.battletanks.com/images/T-28-1.jpg)
-
out of all the american tanks, tank destroyers and other ground vehicles... why the HELL did they add an M8 to Aces High? sure it can disable a panzer's turret with 1 shot, but takes atleast 6 shells to destroy the thing. no matter where you hit it. And only place on a Tiger that the shell doesnt bounce off is its track, and I have used 40+ hits on a tiger's tracks from point blank range with no effect.
-
Ahem ... anyway ... as anyone can see, the Shermie is the pick for the western front. Obviously the T-34 for the Eastern. And it's not like these 2 can't be modeled at the same time. Not that I'd wanna swamp Pyro and HT and all but tank modeling's bound to be easier than plane modeling (well, I hope so anyhow - no FM to work out - just get the speed, armor, punch and cosmetics).
Cool to see some real hardcore Allied armor freaks here that think their particular favorite uber-armored something or other deserves to be modeled ahead of the Shermie because it had 2 examples made before war's end or because it was the first to mount a 1000 mm mega-destroyer particle beam cannon and could roll at 2 mph or maybe it was the Ferrari of tanks and could actually outrun a shell fired at it. But you know that I know that you know that I know that it's the Shermie, baybee. Shermies vs. Panzers. It works. Use tactics. :D
-
Studebaker truck.............. with trailer
Camo netting and slit trench when deployed. Takes # secs to deploy
Load outs options
Trailer
8 double rocket rails (16)
or
5" field gun
or
88 mm field gun
or
37mm field gun
or
field supplies.
Truck Bed
32 x 185mm katyusha rockets
or
# x 5" shells, AA, HE,
or
# x 88mm shells, AA, HE, AP,
or
37mm ammo, HE, AP etc
or
# x troops (more than 10)
or
GV supplies
-
M-18, Sherman, T-34 would be more at home on the current, somewhat cluttered terrain of AH II than the Tiger is. The M-18 and T-34 especially would prove to be difficult, elusive targets.
Beefing up the tank selection would probably increase business for HTC. This might also spread out the player numbers on an otherwise crowded map.
Regards, Shuckins/Leggern
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
M-18, Sherman, T-34 would be more at home on the current, somewhat cluttered terrain of AH II than the Tiger is. The M-18 and T-34 especially would prove to be difficult, elusive targets.
Beefing up the tank selection would probably increase business for HTC. This might also spread out the player numbers on an otherwise crowded map.
Regards, Shuckins/Leggern
I think it's only a matter of time before we get new GVs. Afterall the new terrain eye candy; trees, roads, bridges, tunnels etc., weren't introduced just for aircraft and to me would point towards the inclusion of more GVs etc. Hope we see some shortly! :)
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
M-18, Sherman, T-34 would be more at home on the current, somewhat cluttered terrain of AH II than the Tiger is. The M-18 and T-34 especially would prove to be difficult, elusive targets.
Beefing up the tank selection would probably increase business for HTC. This might also spread out the player numbers on an otherwise crowded map.
Regards, Shuckins/Leggern
I've been trying to sing this song to HTC for some time. I honestly believe if they make the game more diverse and immersive they will attrack another segment of players. Lets face it, HTC is in the business to do one thing {just like any other business} make money!!
I know we'll get some of the flyboys having a fit over the fact there may be more GV's in the game and their argument that AH is a "flight sim" not a GV game {then you need to read the front page of HTC website} "Attack by Land, Sea or Air"
Let's face it, we all spend our $15 a month {not to mention ISP costs} to participate in the game and do what WE the players enjoy. Fly bombers, dogfight in fighters, drive a boat or GV, run supplies, man the guns, whatever. But just as the BBS is filled with "What planes I would like to see" in AH, there should be many more roles to play IMO.
For instance, you have some guys that enjoy resource managment, from troops to supplies to whatever. Other guys like to dive right in and furball in fighters, others like to do GV's and ships.
I just think it's a shame we have umteen million people in the US alone and all we can muster in the game at any one given time is approx 2-300 players:(
We already have a bizillion "fighter" squadrons with a new one croping up each week {which is great} BUT, how bout we have entire GV divisions, bomber groups, CV groups, resource groups, AA battaries, mobile artilary.
Right now as it is, it seems to be either a big furball over a base somewhere, a spawn camping GV battle {between Panzers & Tigers, because there's really no other choices} or bombers {dive bombing at times :rolleyes: } leveling an airfield or GV base.
Maybe all of this is just a waste of time, who knows but I have a feeling if we had a lot more roles for people to play you would start attracking some fresh blood into the game.
My 2 cents
-
I do not have any specific books on the t-34.
I have some great ones on the Tiger and Panther from Schiffer.
Pricey but well worth the money.
I have found finding decent books on tanks is fairly hard.
-
what we need are personal weapons, satchel charge, bazooka, submachine gun and option to lead a squad that hops out of an M-3 or off the back of a tank. Don't need the eye-candy, little stick figures will do, so long as we have the combat mechanics.
-
Originally posted by Rasker
what we need are personal weapons, satchel charge, bazooka, submachine gun and option to lead a squad that hops out of an M-3 or off the back of a tank. Don't need the eye-candy, little stick figures will do, so long as we have the combat mechanics.
oh lordy I'd love to sneak up on an ostwind and hose the crew down with a tommygun.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
The 75mm gun on the Panther has much higher penetration then the one on either the tiger 1 or Panzer 4. The 88mm gun on the Tiger being a shorter barreled then on the later Tiger 2 and Jagpather.
75L70 of Panther and 88L56 of Tiger E were having pretty similar performance; 75L70 had bigger muzzle velocity but 88 had heavier shell.
http://www.kolumbus.fi/staga/scans/pen_germany.gif
-
Hmmm what about some self-propelled artillery and assault guns. Likes the Sturmmorser Tiger well even tho.... only 18 were produced.....The wespe, StuG III StuH42.
-
Staga
Thanks for the chart, good stuff.
The 75L70 has a decent edge really close but at long range you are right, they are very close.
Interesting.
-
how bout we have entire GV divisions, bomber groups, CV groups, resource groups, AA battaries, mobile artilary.
Would Make AHII the cream of the crop and more realistic for a WWII sim.
Attack by Land, Sea or Air"
See above ^
We need more GV's all around MBT, AA, transports(Studebaker truck.............. with trailer) and above all we need more (GV divisions, bomber groups, CV groups, resource groups, AA battaries, mobile artilary). Once we begin to see more of these types AHII will be a true WWII sim.
:aok
-
Im looking for a BMW R-75 with sidecar. Ten at a time let out the troop from sidecar and take a base :D
RHIN0
-
Now you guys are talkin' :aok
-
AH needs the panther, sherman, and T34
throw in a King tiger and jagdpanther for the bribe HT;)
-
Originally posted by B17Skull12
AH needs the panther, sherman, and T34
throw in a King tiger and jagdpanther for the bribe HT;)
AH doesn't need a Panther, King Tiger or JagdPanther. AH already has a Panzer and Tiger. AH needs some ALLIED ... NON-GERMAN MBTs. The Sherman/Panzer match is a fairly decent one. No need to add every uber-tank Germany developed just yet.
Give the Allies the Shermie and the T-34.
Later possibly a Jumbo Shermie unless there's a Japanese tank modeled in which case the Allied tank to match it should be the Stuart.
Are you following this? :D
-
Arlo seems to be the only reasonable person here:lol
-
nah he is just mad they put bomb after bomb in my tiger and still could kill me until the vh came up. and i was DISABLED NO LESS!:D
-
Nostalgia. :D
-
PUNT~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!!
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Nostalgia. :D
(http://i230.photobucket.com/albums/ee225/AWMac/clever.jpg) :D
-
Bring your issues with you wherever, Bronkie. ;) :aok
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Bring your issues with you wherever, Bronkie. ;) :aok
Arlo there are no "issues", like you, I'm just having a bit of fun. There was no antagonistic intent. I am sorry if it came off that way.Thought you'd have recognized that.
Ahh well carry on.
-
Wow..
-
this will be closed now. WTFG!
-
Well, to serve purpose, we could talk about Shermie and T34 variants we still want modeled. Hint hint. ;)
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Well, to serve purpose, we could talk about Shermie and T34 variants we still want modeled. Hint hint. ;)
Nice deflection attempt. You punted a 3 year old thread. Yay you!
-
Holy crap, Mashie. If I'd known all it took to knot your panties was to punt this old thread I'd done it long ago just for kicks.
What's with the negative vibes? Woof!
(shakes head)
Just glad to see the addition. I campaigned for it for a long time. Looking forward to giving it a try someday.
:D
*Lock it, baybee. No crisis. No hysterics.
-
I was very happy to see that HVAP rounds were added to the T-34. Barring the T-34-85, those were the best possible solution to the T-34 being useless.
I am puzzled at the choice of the Firefly instead of the 'vanilla' Sherman, unless they looked at what happened to the T-34 and decided it wouldn't see any use with the 75mm.
-
Originally posted by Urchin
I was very happy to see that HVAP rounds were added to the T-34. Barring the T-34-85, those were the best possible solution to the T-34 being useless.
I am puzzled at the choice of the Firefly instead of the 'vanilla' Sherman, unless they looked at what happened to the T-34 and decided it wouldn't see any use with the 75mm.
My thoughts, exactly. It's a balance issue. Create the variant with the closest equal bang to the Panzer. They still have room to whip out the vanilla variant if it's asked for by enough players (dunno if that'll ever happen).
What do you think of a "Battle of the Bulge" ground scenario featuring the Firefly variant? Think that'd float?
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Holy crap, Mashie. If I'd known all it took to knot your panties was to punt this old thread I'd done it long ago just for kicks.
What's with the negative vibes? Woof!
(shakes head)
Just glad to see the addition. I campaigned for it for a long time. Looking forward to giving it a try someday.
:D
*Lock it, baybee. No crisis. No hysterics.
Would you relax? :D
-
That would seem to make sense Arlo, but the Firefly appears to be closer to the Tiger than the Panzer in terms of performance.
I'd have to look up the 75mm guns specs, but I do think that nobody would have used it if it were modeled with the 75mm, simply because of the Tiger. That is exactly what happened to the T-34 - it was almost literally impossible to kill a Tiger in a T-34 no matter what the circumstances were, so just the possibility of running into a Tiger kept the T-34 in the hangar.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Would you relax? :D
I'm not the one presenting an "unrelaxed" persona here. ;)
-
Originally posted by Urchin
That would seem to make sense Arlo, but the Firefly appears to be closer to the Tiger than the Panzer in terms of performance.
I'd have to look up the 75mm guns specs, but I do think that nobody would have used it if it were modeled with the 75mm, simply because of the Tiger. That is exactly what happened to the T-34 - it was almost literally impossible to kill a Tiger in a T-34 no matter what the circumstances were, so just the possibility of running into a Tiger kept the T-34 in the hangar.
Gotcha. Still glad to see the Shermie. More depth and a logical addition. Fills a lot of historical gaps for events. And I can get off my Shermie soapbox now, I suppose.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
I'm not the one presenting an "unrelaxed" persona here. ;)
Oh contrare! Touche *****cat! and all of those Tom & Jerry french mouse sayings. :D
-
Yeah. Ok. You came here to be cool. Yay you back. :cool: :D :lol
-
Couple of things to keep in mind with the Sherman Family,
First the entire budget to develop the M4 was roughly 36,000. It was one of the greatest tragedies to the US Armor Corps.
The ordance department was limited to 30 tons, and essentially had to work with hand me downs and left over equipment.
The first M4 and M4A1 Shermans used Wright Cyclone Aircraft Radials as their powerplants since that was all that was availibile. Aircraft engines are not condusive to Armoured Warfare. They would foul plugs from idiling and overheat frequently.
It was not until the M4A2 that the Diesel was seen (M4A2 only Marine, Russian and UK use) then the standard M4A3 which was the Ford GAA-8 (Esentially the Rolls Merlin missing 4 cylinders). M4A4 used the Chrysler Multibank but also did not see US Army use but, became the Firefly modeled in the game (it also has a longer hull to accept the multi-bank)
They had to use the original 75 in the M4 and A1 family and did not recieve the 76 until later on.
The Sherman taken against it contemporaries (Panzer 1,2,3 and Pre-Ausf-H Mark 4's) was matched equally to it. From Mk4 Ausf H and up, it was woefully outclassed by the other tanks on the field. Including the M4A3E8 with the 76 and HVSS "wider suspension"
The Sherman stregnths was it tracks lasted 1000 of miles longers than the German conterparts,plus it had easier maintainabilty.
Further US Armoured Doctrine showed the Sherman was not to be used for any Tank vs Tank warfare. That is what Tank Destroyers (i.e. M-18's M-36's using the 90mm and light armoured hulls) were for.
US Tankers suffered among the highest casulties among any, and their bravery facing grossly superior equipment should never be forgotten.
My Grandfather and his crew with their M4A1 and earlier M3 Stewart
(http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c261/rstel/sherm2.jpg)
Tanks were for infantry support