Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Klum25th on July 26, 2005, 05:04:22 PM
-
Could we have this when we redo the Tanks.
(http://www.members.shaw.ca/junobeach/images/juno-4-8.1-Sherman%20tank.jpg)
Maybe add the Rocket pads on Top of the Sherman for more destructive options.:aok
-
hitech would have a headache everytime someone started playing , and wondered why their shots just bounce off most of the time , but they get hit once and their toast . Not a flame or nothing , but it would be hard pressed against a panser , tiger or t-34 one on one . 38
-
I agree, for realism sake, that adding the Sherman would be cool, but, realisticly, no one would use it..as stated above, it was totally outclassed and no one would grab it when other non perked tanks are much better. Even the T-34, a good tank, compared to the sherman, isnt even being used.
-
Originally posted by Ohio43
I agree, for realism sake, that adding the Sherman would be cool, but, realisticly, no one would use it..as stated above, it was totally outclassed and no one would grab it when other non perked tanks are much better. Even the T-34, a good tank, compared to the sherman, isnt even being used.
add the Sherman and Sherman Firefly at the same time. That way you get an American and a British tank, one competitive in the MA, both good for scenario's.
-
if it's an underdog, give it 2 drones....just a thought:rolleyes:
-
make it so the t34 can penetrate a tiger's armor from behind at 100yds and sherman at 50
-
Sherman Tanks could destory Tigers and Panzer but had to get behind the tank to do it. To me the Sherman would be good for like Realistic settings. Put the Japanes tank in the game to and then the sherman wont be the worst tank in the game.
Tho I think the Tiger armor is too strong. I get behind a disable tiger with a T34 and shoot hit reend over and over and they all bounce off. im no more than 10 yrds behind it close enough for a shell to penatrate the armor.
-
was the pershing tank WW2?
-
Originally posted by Klum25th
I get behind a disable tiger with a T34 and shoot hit reend over and over and they all bounce off. im no more than 10 yrds behind it close enough for a shell to penatrate the armor.
And you want a Sherman? I believe it was also know as a Ronson (lighter) because it lit up the first time, every time.:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by killnu
was the pershing tank WW2?
Should have been out sooner than it was (Jan 45) but Patton decided the sherman was more mobile, which in fact it was not. Off road the Pershing had a lower ground pressure which pretty much equates to off road mobility, something that Patton didn't get I guess.
-
Since we have the M8 then y couldn't we have the Sherman. I dont care if it lights up like a match, I want to drive and shoot others with a freakin sherman. And the only other game i know that has a Sherman tank is in BF1942. but its not realistic. I want realism. I think the Sherman can take on the panzer and the tiger, but i know the sherman wont do well against them but i know it can kill them. Me and some of my friends in h2h were in M8s and took out a tiger. Only 1 out of 3 of us were killed, and the M8 only has a 37mm, but the Sherman has a 75mm.
-
lots of info in this thread
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=27119&highlight=arlo
-
Originally posted by zorstorer
Should have been out sooner than it was (Jan 45) but Patton decided the sherman was more mobile, which in fact it was not. Off road the Pershing had a lower ground pressure which pretty much equates to off road mobility, something that Patton didn't get I guess.
do you have a film or SS? Cause the only place you can get a hit on a tiger with even a t34 is the tracks.
-
I read once that the loss rate ratio of Shermans to Tiger and panthers was like 6:1 in favor of the T&Ps.
-
Originally posted by Lye-El
And you want a Sherman? I believe it was also know as a Ronson (lighter) because it lit up the first time, every time.:rolleyes:
Patton didnt decide which tanks were used.
In fact he warned the army about the tanks.
among other reasons
another reason we didnt have many larger and heavier tanks was size and the ability to transport them.
In as much as much of the material was transported by rail.
Seems the larger tanks wouldnt fit through any of the train tunnels we had stateside at the time.
-
Originally posted by Klum25th
Tho I think the Tiger armor is too strong. I get behind a disable tiger with a T34 and shoot hit reend over and over and they all bounce off. im no more than 10 yrds behind it close enough for a shell to penatrate the armor.
Maybe not. I read of an account in the Book "Up front" by Bill Maulden of the cartoon Willie and Joe in Stars and stripes of an encounter of 3 mobile anti tank guns firing and hitting repeatedly on a single tiger and causing no damage.
the tiger turned its turret and destroyed all 3 with 1 round each
-
Since we have the M8 then y couldn't we have the Sherman
It is impossible to destroy a Tiger with an M8's 37MM, even at point blank range.
I read once that the loss rate ratio of Shermans to Tiger and panthers was like 6:1 in favor of the T&Ps.
I saw on an old Discovery channel show once (can't remember the name of it) that if 4 Shermans engaged one Tiger, only 1 Sherman would survive. It was pure quantity vs. quality - there were simply just more Shermans. They could be replaced easily whereas the Tiger was a valuable commodity. Had the Germans had Tigers in amounts equal to Shermans the war might have turned out differently.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Patton didnt decide which tanks were used.
In fact he warned the army about the tanks.
among other reasons
another reason we didnt have many larger and heavier tanks was size and the ability to transport them.
In as much as much of the material was transported by rail.
Seems the larger tanks wouldnt fit through any of the train tunnels we had stateside at the time.
His main goal for armored forces was to bypass and avoid enemy armored units.
Also the M26 only put on 7 tonnes from the M4A3. The height was reduced and armor was made much thicker. The M4A3 was 103" wide at the tread (without sand shields) and the M26 was 138" wide (over the sand shields) Also the T23 (later to become the M26) was in trial production in mid 1943.
-
didn't Wittmans tiger take 17 hits or something before it finally got destroyed?
-
Originally posted by AdmRose
It is impossible to destroy a Tiger with an M8's 37MM, even at point blank range.
Sorry but your wrong, atleast in AH. I have single handedly taken out a tiger in an m8. It's a cheap shot but it works. get going full throttle in 1st gear, hop to your 50cal turret, use your rudders to turn and keep turning around a tiger so he can't get a shot off. use the 50cal to pop his track (was down to i belive 108 rounds out of 500 when the track poped), climb up under his turret range on the non-tracked side. When tracked, he can't lower his turret far enough for a shot thus he is stuck. keep pumping 37mm AP shells into his belly armor and he will blow in about 25 shots. that is, shooting the same spot over and over.
mabey i just got lucky but i killed the tiger1 by myself in an m8 with only 3 busted out tires to show for it. he was shooting at me via his pintle gun while i circled him.
Never say something is impossible :)
-
Its very possible to kill to kill a Tiger with a M8. If we had the sherman take half of 25 shots and wala, theres how many shots to kill a tiger.
-
we need sherman with flametrower
-
Originally posted by zorstorer
His main goal for armored forces was to bypass and avoid enemy armored units.
Also the M26 only put on 7 tonnes from the M4A3. The height was reduced and armor was made much thicker. The M4A3 was 103" wide at the tread (without sand shields) and the M26 was 138" wide (over the sand shields) Also the T23 (later to become the M26) was in trial production in mid 1943.
That was part of the overall strategy used by the american forces. From the grand strategy of operation "Cobra" right down to the small unit level of "fire and movement"
Or as Patton used to say "Hold em by the nose and kick em in the arse" Whereas once part of the force is used to keep the enemy pinned and busy while another part is used to penetrate the flanks or soft areas and outflank to the rear.
While Patton because he was considered Americas leading Tank expert at the time helped develop the strategy he called it "Blitzkreig with a few improvements" It wasnt his alone.
Nor was it the decision of Patton as to what types of tanks were used. that was up to Marshal and the high command. Remember Patton was only a 2 Star even at the Casablanca landings.
Patton did warn of the dangers of the Sherman. for exactly the same reason the soldiers called them "Ronsons" or "Purple heart boxes".
It would make sence to use the Shermans for what you discribed inasmuch as they were so fast Much as Cavalry was used getting around to and disrupting the rear areas. while using the heavier tanks and Mobile AT guns to take on the Panzers & Tigers head on if need be. Using the right tool for the right job.
(I've always wanted to try somethign similar in the game using M8's to get around the front line defending tanks and into the rear either to the town or keeping re- upping tanks busy and delaying them comming to the spawn area while our own tanks engaged & destroyedthe enemy armor but there isnt enough
co ordination/ Co operation in the MA for it to be possible. Perhaps somone with a large enough squad can give it a try and let me know how it works out)
when the Shermans did take on Panzers they used speed and numbers to their advantage. Getting in close and mixing it up with the german armor formations making it difficult for them to hit and difficult for them to hit without shooting each other
-
Originally posted by AdmRose
It was pure quantity vs. quality - there were simply just more Shermans. They could be replaced easily whereas the Tiger was a valuable commodity. Had the Germans had Tigers in amounts equal to Shermans the war might have turned out differently.
Agreed. Part of the problems with the german armor is they were over engineered (much like most of todays products)
Magnificent and easily the superiour weapon. Just too difficult to keep repaired.
And once they broke down the Germans often had to abandon them cause they couldnt easily fix em. Which culd be a big probem if you get stuck fighting during a retreat.
Whereas the shermans even if half destroyed were fairly simple to repair clean out the body parts left there by its previous occupants and could quickly be put back into service.
-
The Sherman was deployed and the Pershing delayed for the simple reason of economics, by, of course, the War Production Board. The Sherman was fast, cheap, and easy to manufacture. The idea that the Allies got only the best weapons is completely false. Often, therest of the Allies relied on the Russian position that quantity has a quality all its own. A lot of weapons were chosen on the basis of cost and ease of manufacture.
The main reason for a tank back then was NOT to engage enemy tanks, but rather to support infantry in attacking infantry and fortified positions. Tank destroyers, ike the Hellcat, ere intended to take on tanks by using speed, maneuverability, and a large gun specifically intended and designed for use against heavy armored vehicles. Tanks were not made tough to just to fight other anks, but to survive being attacked by tank destroyers and artillery.
Patton knew all along the Sherman was outclassed, and would have preferred the Pershing had he been able to get them. His tactic of bypassing enemy armor was developed because he could ill afford to take them on if he could avoid it. He would have still preferred to bypass them if possible, but he would not have been forced to do so if he'd had plenty of Pershings and Hellcats to take on Panzers and Tigers with. Only a fool would prefer the Sherman over the Pershing, and only a fool would attack Tigers nad Panzers head on with Shermans if he could avoid them. Patton was no fool. And he despised wasting men and equipment.
-
I'd prefer a Sherman over a Hellcat...didn't the Hellcat only have like an inch of armor on it?
-
To each his own. The Hellcat didn't have a lot of armor. It was designed to fire once, or maybe twice, from cover, and then move quickly. That's why it was the fastest vehicle of its type for a long time. With the Hellcat, you depend on stealth, firepower, and speed. The Sherman is not fast enough to get away, and simply cannot reliably kill German armor without getting in close behind it. The Hellcat CAN kill German armor reliably, and can move fast enough to be a very difficult target. A Tiger or Panzer can easily just shrug off Sherman gunfire until it can hit the Sherman. That's not an option when they face a Hellcat. Either the Hellcat or the Sherman is likely to be a one shot kill for a Panzer or a Tiger, but only the Hellcat is likely to kill a Panzer or Tiger with one shot.
You could get good enough to snipe Tigers and Panzers with a Hellcat and kill them. You simply can't do that with a Sherman.
-
Maybe I'm dense...but didn't the Hellcat and Sherman both have 76MM guns?
-
The late model Sherman (with 76 in the model designation) had the 76MM gun, but it was not exactly the same as the M18 Hellcat's 76MM gun, the Hellcat's gun had different rifling. Some Shermans got the fast rifling version of of the 76MM as well.
Shermans more commonly had the M3 75MM gun, at least until 1944. There were of course other versions of the Sherman with other guns. Most people associate the Sherman with the 75MM gun and not the 76MM gun in the later models.
-
Originally posted by Klum25th
Sherman Tanks could destory Tigers and Panzer but had to get behind the tank to do it. To me the Sherman would be good for like Realistic settings. Put the Japanes tank in the game to and then the sherman wont be the worst tank in the game.
Tho I think the Tiger armor is too strong. I get behind a disable tiger with a T34 and shoot hit reend over and over and they all bounce off. im no more than 10 yrds behind it close enough for a shell to penatrate the armor.
I thought that the notion of shermans being able to destroy tigers if they hit them in the right spot was a myth spread to increase morale amoung the tank crews who had to potentially face the tiger.
-
Originally posted by pellik
I thought that the notion of shermans being able to destroy tigers if they hit them in the right spot was a myth spread to increase morale amoung the tank crews who had to potentially face the tiger.
Nope, Tiger has one weak point - its ass.
Have to hit it point blank from behind.
-
deja vu
-
Wouldnt the m36 "slugger" be a better choise . I was in use in 1944 I think.
-
Originally posted by Klum25th
Its very possible to kill to kill a Tiger with a M8. If we had the sherman take half of 25 shots and wala, theres how many shots to kill a tiger.
So...you're saying a Sherman can fire...12X and (hopefully) kill a Tiger? The only fly in that ointment is that it prolly takes 1.5 minutes for those 12 rounds to go out, while an AVERAGE guy in the tiger will have you ranged in 3--and 1 hit will kill the Sherman. Aside from that, Tiger will kill you easily at 2500 yards, while even PANZERS often ricochet at that range. ALSO, Sherman only went 25mph--same speed as Tiger or Panzer. At least T34's weak gun had 35 mph engine pushing it around. I agree, if Sherman was introduced I'd prolly try it a few times, before spewing a string of profanities that would make a sailor blush. and going back to Panzer. It's also my understanding that firefly was never REALLY introduced, aside from a few tests that Brits did. One other tank that might produce some interest, cant remember exact name--it was used in 1942 in North Africa before Sherman was introduced--was called General Lee, or something---had a 37mm turret, with a fixed 75mm main gun (had to turn tank to aim)--lol, stood about 12 feet tall, but it DID kill some tigers and Panzers---fascinating book on our trials and tribulations in North Africa, called An Army at Dawn--danged good book--High level incompetence literally THREW away thousands of U.S. lives
-
Originally posted by bj229r
It's also my understanding that firefly was never REALLY introduced, aside from a few tests that Brits did.
Production. Firefly production seems to have reached some 2139 vehicles between January 1944 and April-June 1945. Only statistics until February 1945 are available so I do not know the precise date when they stopped being converted at this point in time. This figure comes from the RAC Progress Report on June 1945. There are some problems with the figures. The US Army had some 80 Fireflies completed for its own use by the war's end, with another 20 partly built. These were converted in the UK, but may or may not have been included in the total of 2139. There is some talk, that some may have been converted post war in the Netherlands and Belgium, but no real facts have come forward to confirm this theory.
Originally posted by bj229r
One other tank that might produce some interest, cant remember exact name--it was used in 1942 in North Africa before Sherman was introduced--was called General Lee, or something---had a 37mm turret, with a fixed 75mm main gun (had to turn tank to aim
(http://www.davidpride.com/Israeli_Armor/images/IL_Armor_04_298.jpg)
Thats the Grant
-
COOL picture Furball! (mebbe I was thinkin of the TV show, or the fact that we had a tank named after a yankee general:rofl )
Anyhow, I think the gun on that tank was more an anti-tank rifle, which might make it stronger than the Sherman's pea-shooter.
-
Originally posted by Furball
(http://www.davidpride.com/Israeli_Armor/images/IL_Armor_04_298.jpg)
Thats the Grant
The Lee and the Grant were both M3 medium tanks, and looked very much the same. In fact, they were different names applied to different versions of the same tank. I remember that the more angular turret was on the Grant, and the more curved one on the Lee -- but I'll have to defer to the real gurus for details.