Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: toadkill on August 02, 2006, 02:03:44 PM
-
i know that sherman has been brought up every month for all of eternity. but badgering people sometimes gets things done.
as subject says. i would like a DD sherman, they had thier problems, but an amphibious tank would give CVs a chance to participate in gv battles. instead of bombing things.
-
If thats the Sherman that tried to float across the channel on D-day, wernt those an almost complete failure?
-
they did not function properly because of the bad weather. the principle of floatation that they used was displacement. and for that to work, no water can get inside the "skirt", but the large waves swamped them. since we dont have bad weather or waves, in our world they will function properly. if they were to be added, the "skirt" could be deployed via the GEAR command. the gun could not be fired in the water due to the skirt extending a couple feet above the actual top of the tank.
-
Not to nitpick a good idea (we NEED Allied tanks, any way we can get them!!!) but wouldn't the DD tanks be even slower in the water than the LVTs are??
(http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/GreatBritain/GB-ShermanDD-1.jpg)
(http://www.corazzati.it/dd-sherman_fotobn2.jpg)
(http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/GreatBritain/GB-ShermanDD.jpg)
-
they only failed on omaha beach. the reason they failed was because they tried to compensate for the current, which made their sides face the waves causing them to capsize. they must have missed day one of boating school. nearly all the DD tanks on the other normandy beaches functioned well, especially on gold beach.
-
Originally posted by Treize69
(we NEED Allied tanks, any way we can get them!!!)
that was exactly my point with this post. i figured we could kill 2 birds with one stone.
-
DD tanks were reported to move at 4 MPH, thats almost half the speed of LVTs.
i got that off wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duplex_Drive
-
but they were much better protected than the LVTs.
-
It would be vulnerable until it was feet dry. I imagine a 303 would have no problem sliceing through the canvas. One or two holes may not be too bad, but more than that would flood the whole thing.
-
I dont think AH is coded for leaks- the flotation skirt would either be there or not.
Probably be set to collapse at a certain damage level.
-
well, the DDs at gold beach had little trouble with leaks it would seem, so i dont think small bullet holes will be much worry.
-
oooohhhh, this sounds like a great idea!!!!!!
:aok
-
the bullet holes only matter if they are close to or below the water level. chances are though, a bullet that entered into the water from a .303+ caliber rifle is traveling at high velocity. a bullet with a high velocity will almost indefinately vaporize once it hits the water. i would say the biggest threat to a DD tanks skirt (below water level) would be a guy with a 9mm luger swimming around the tank.
-
I was watching mythbusters. They tested if water could deflect bullets like they do in the movies. They shot a bunch of different caliber rounds into the water at a realistic angle, and nearly all of them fell apart. Mind you, they shot at the water from nearly point blank range, and they determined that if you were 5 ft under the water and someone was shooting a 9mm at you at an angle, that you were safe.
50 cal, if i remember actually disintegrated into a hundred tiny harmless pieces.
edit: And this was in a calm swimming pool, not the ocean with a current, and undertow.
-
I'd like to see an allied tank or two as well, but not this one. I'd think the Sherman Firefly variant would actually get more use in general. I'm not sure that I personally ever felt a need for more GV participation from CVs.
The 'Calliope' variant could be fun, too. That's the one with rocket racks over the turret. Would make quick work of a town or hangars
Not saying it's wrong, just not how I would prioritize.
-
Will since everyone wants a different type of sherman how about we give them the things that fighters and bomber have, gun and bomb pakages. Will for Sherman, or for other vehicals they have the coice of choosing different main guns that they could carry, or sideskirts/sand bags, or they could have the DD sherman floats. I would love to see all shermans, but how about have 1 sherman with different pakages you could choose from. The sherman barely changed in looks during WW2, the only differences was the guns they carried.
(http://www.strategyplanet.com/commandos/images/sherman_11_big.jpg)
(http://www.strategyplanet.com/commandos/images/sherman_12_big.jpg)
(http://www.strategyplanet.com/commandos/images/sherman_13_big.jpg)
If you look at each version, the outside of the sherman tank look almost the same, just barely any differences. The only differences is the tracks and gun mounted on it.
-
just makin shure this one doesn't get lost
-
we need more tanks all together all i ever see at tank battles are panzers, tigers, and T-34s. there were british tanks in ww2 and american tanks not just russian and german
-
Pretty much the only tanks I see in gv battles are panzers, sometimes tigers. I rarely see T-34's, probably because their slow reload time can put you in a bad way when you are in a major battle. I think we need a bigger variety of tanks, it can be kinda dull when everybody is using the same tank.
-
Originally posted by VooWho
Will since everyone wants a different type of sherman how about we give them the things that fighters and bomber have, gun and bomb pakages. Will for Sherman, or for other vehicals they have the coice of choosing different main guns that they could carry, or sideskirts/sand bags, or they could have the DD sherman floats. I would love to see all shermans, but how about have 1 sherman with different pakages you could choose from. The sherman barely changed in looks during WW2, the only differences was the guns they carried.
(http://www.strategyplanet.com/commandos/images/sherman_11_big.jpg)
(http://www.strategyplanet.com/commandos/images/sherman_12_big.jpg)
(http://www.strategyplanet.com/commandos/images/sherman_13_big.jpg)
If you look at each version, the outside of the sherman tank look almost the same, just barely any differences. The only differences is the tracks and gun mounted on it.
agree...This option would give tankers more sayas to how gv's would and could B used in MA ops. I like the whole idea
-
the only problem with that though, is that you cant perk a gunpackage. so if you wanted a perked version of the tank, (firefly maybe) you would have to make a whole different tank anyway
-
Is the M4A3(76)W HVSS the same thing as the M4A3E8 "Easy Eight" Sheman? Certainly looks similar.
I've been wishing for the Easy as a perked American tank for a long time. I remember seeing it at Knox and drooling. It certainly looks a lot more menacing than a basic M4 does.
Would be cool to have a basic version of the Sherman as a non-perk and the Easy Eight as a perked one. Maybe both the Easy and the Firefly, so in scenarios the Brits can use one and the Yanks the other.
M4A3E8 could also be used in an early Korean War setup (pre-jets) too.
Mid-production M4A3 (For comparison)
(http://www.usarmymodels.com/AFV%20PHOTOS/M4%20SHERMAN/M4%20Sherman%20Front%20Left.jpg)
M4A3E8
(http://www.usarmymodels.com/AFV%20PHOTOS/M4A3E8%20SHERMAN/M4A3E8%20Sherman%20Left%20Side.jpg)
-
Originally posted by SMIDSY
but they were much better protected than the LVTs.
I doubt it, the LVT's would be able to shoot back in the water.
-
Originally posted by frank3
I doubt it, the LVT's would be able to shoot back in the water.
i dont think they would actually fire their guns from the water. if they did, it was probably because they either used 75mm howitzers or 37mm AT guns, both of which would be useless for any tactical (tanks) application in AHII.
-
Originally posted by toadkill
i know that sherman has been brought up every month for all of eternity. but badgering people sometimes gets things done.
as subject says. i would like a DD sherman, they had thier problems, but an amphibious tank would give CVs a chance to participate in gv battles. instead of bombing things.
i think u r right the only reason i think it comes up every month is cause it is a great tank exsept for the armor of course, but it is a fast, easy to control, and mass produced tank! that type of sherman and shermans with roket launcher, flamethrower, dozer, the m4a3 sherman, mine destroyer (sherman crab), and the sherman firefly of the british!
-
Shermans stink, History Channel and all these other historical resources "hail" the M-4 Sherman. Fact is, the sherman was side-swiped wreckage. Everyone thought the sherman was the main sight on the battlefield, well, here is something you didn't know:
It took up to 4 M-4 Shermans to take out a tiger on the battlefield, although it had 90 MM guns. The T-34 was actually better than the M-4 for having more armor, better revolving guns, and better engines. In-fact, some comparisons show that the T-34 was better than the M-4 because of its manouverability!
M-4 was pretty much target practice for the germans. It's almost as if your putting another M-8 in here, except this one has a little more bang.
-
okay, okay, stop right there only reason it took 4 shermans to take out a tiger is because the tiger had a flak 8.8 on it and the tigers armor was 4 inches compared to the sherman 1.5 - 2 inch armor! have u ever watched the military channel's top ten tanks? surprisingly the t-34 hade the same sized cannon as a sherman the sherman came in 1st and sherman came in 10th! at least it came in the top ten the t-34 had slightly less produced then the sherman, because where the factories where! to replace 100 shermans took only 48 hours! to replace 100 tigers took like a year! the sherman's motor was the ford V8 motor 500hp! ow, excuse me the t-34/76 the actual t-34 hade a 76.2mm- sherman has a 75mm, not that much of a deference the last t-34 was the t-34/85 with an 85mm cannon, this type was used to counter attack the tiger 1 & 2 and the panther additions! the t-34/76's engine was a V-2-34 V-12 500hp so the mobility is tided! but the t-34 went slightly faster than the sherman do to each others hieght!
-
Sherman stinks, period. I dont give a rip what the history channel says, their a bunch of back-stabbin liars. They screwed up my families history and never even thought of sending compensation funds! Meanwhile their busy tearing up the shelves to say that "our widdle sherman is the best tank out there. Mr. ford made the best engine for it and that's why its #1".
Forget the dumb sherman! If the T-34 is about the same as the sherman then we dont need one! Besides, the T-34 has way more armor and the Sherman, as you said, only had 1.5 inches of armor. I say "no" since the sherman was the same as the t-34, just less armor.
(Come on guys, you have a tank with more armor and you want one with less? What does this compare to? Oh right, the B-29. You guys keep asking for a more powerful bomber known as a "B-29", and yet you want weaker tanks??:huh WHAT IN GOD'S GREAT EARTH IS WRONG WITH YOU?!?!)
-
If u think about it hard enough the t-34 and M4 sherman r really a close mach but the t-34 is slightly better with it's gun, hieght, speed is barely better. mobility with rivers trenches and that it is equallie matched! but the sherman was the most widely used tank ever the americans, british, french, and eventually the russians got to it!
-
^^^Read what I just said^^^
-
i have one last thing to say about the sherman being BETTER than the t-34 is that it could be an amphibious tank or just a ground tank! the t-34 was a city area tank the sherman was a cross-country tank! the sherman could be equiped with a flamethrower, rocket launcher, mine destroyer thing, hedge row cut into thing, or dozer to push stuff out off the allies' way! the t-34's only known equiption was a flamethrower!
-
What good would that do against computerized gun batteries and a bunch of steel? Plus, the trees or shrubs here dont catch flame. There is literally no difference that would present an advantage of the sherman vs. t34. If you want a big gun on an amphibious tank, use the LVTA. It has a 75 MM gun.
-
maybe we want a FASTER amphibiuos tank! :cool: :furious ever think of that???:rolleyes: :furious :rofl :aok :t :aok
-
I just read the Sherman DD did around 5 mph in the water though.
The LVT's do 10 (or 15?)
However, if the Sherman is about the same as the T-34 I'd drive it!
I just love the T-34's speed, and has a reasonable armament.
And to 'not add it because it's no good' is no argument, we have the B5N, is that any better than other aircraft?
No, but it's historically correct to add it.
-
I won't bother with all the quoting for sake of time (gonna be a book anyway), but to answer some of the items the two of you said:
First, don't go by the History Channel for much other than "that sounds interesting, I wonder if its true." Their top 10 tanks were a joke. They actually stated that the T-34's "high velocity" 76mm gun was able to penetrate the frontal armor of the German Tiger at range. That alone tells you how much they fact-checked that particular program.
Second, the T-34 does NOT have "way more armor" than the Sherman. What it does have is better slope and a lower silloette, which made it harder to spot, and harder to hit squarely, which meant more propensity for a round to richochet off instead of penetrate -- at least for the lower calibre German guns of 41-43. By '44 the 75mm and 88mm guns cut through the T-34s as readily as they did the Shermans.
The 76mm Soviet gun and the snub 75mm were about equal IIRC. The Sherman benefited from a much roomier turret which meant a much higher rate of fire, and had much better visibility for the crew.
The T-34s were inadequate by 1944, hence the upgrade to the T-34/85. The 85mm gun was a very good gun, and made the T-34 leathal again.
IMO neither tank deserves its reputation. The T-34 built up it's reputation as an "uber-tank" because when introduced in late 41, the Germans had nothing to compete. The PzkwIII of the day had a 37mm gun (some upgraded to 50mm) that were inadequate to take out the T-34. Most Pzkw IVs still mounted low-velocity howitzers for direct infantry support. Thus, in tank vs tank battles, the T-34 did dominate for a time until the Tigers, upgunned PzkwIVs and Panthers were on the field in enough numbers to counter. By that time, the T-34 was already the darling of the Soviet tanker, and couldn't be blamed for losing against the German heavies.
Well, you know what, the Sherman was introduced in 1942, and at that time was better than the Pzkw IIIs and IVs as well. But tank vs tank battles of any scale did not occur until 1944 in Normandy. At that time they faced upgraded PzkwIVs, Panthers and Tigers. And these tanks made short work of the Shermans, just like they did on the East Front against the T-34. But, since the majority of the American servicemen did not see action until Normandy and after, their impression of the Sherman was that it was inadequate, a death trap, etc. and couldn't stand up to German armor. Hence the reputation.
One final thing that did hurt the Sherman was US armored doctrine. The Shermans were supposed to be direct infantry support vehicles, and were not supposed to fight tank-to-tank combat (but try to tell that to the guys in the field!). In this way they were similar to the early German PzkwIVs. The US instead designated tank-destroyers for the roll of tank-vs-tank combat. In practice it did not work well, but that was the doctrine. The snub 75mm gun was not designed to be an effective tank-killer, but was adequate to take out the lighter-armored PzkwIIIs and IVs the designers new the Germans had. They did not contemplate the Tiger or Panther. (Even the high-velocity 76mm guns on the tank-destroyers were inadequate for these when hitting the front, which goes to show the US did not foresee very heavy tanks).
So, the Sherman is only a "bad tank" insomuch as the M-60 is a "bad tank" because it can't stand up to the M1 Abrahms. Armored innovation simply out-paced it. But, it did what it was designed to do, did it effectively, was easily produced, was mechanically reliable, and was easily modified to fit a variety of rolls (dozer, crab, calliope, DD, etc. all based on the M-4). "Reputation" is a tricky thing to base assessments on, because they are often proved wrong when looked at objectively.
-
Thanks for the In-Detail description of the differences. Yet I am still led to believe it was a bit harder to kill the T-34 then it was to kill a sherman. You just said it yourself, the T-34 was designed to ricochet the oncoming AP and HE shells. The sherman apparently did not have this design (Which shows in the pictures above). That's why I don't want it, it's another tank to the list with no real features that would make a good "Tank vs. Tank" vehicle. The majority of AH these days uses tigers anyways to wipe out enemy fields. Why do we need another tank that would do nothing on the field wars?
We already have the M8 (Which is faster than the T-34 or M-4) and the LVTA. Which by the way, fires a 77MM HE (Or 70 MM.)
And frank, I know that the b5n isnt a good plane, yet I believe it was part of the original plane count.
-
Originally posted by Bogie603rd
Thanks for the In-Detail description of the differences. Yet I am still led to believe it was a bit harder to kill the T-34 then it was to kill a sherman. You just said it yourself, the T-34 was designed to ricochet the oncoming AP and HE shells. The sherman apparently did not have this design (Which shows in the pictures above). That's why I don't want it, it's another tank to the list with no real features that would make a good "Tank vs. Tank" vehicle.
Ever hear of the SEA arena. Would be great for in there.
The majority of AH these days uses tigers anyways to wipe out enemy fields.
Not to be snotty but how would you know what the tiger was doing in the MA. Most are used by campers and defenders.
Why do we need another tank that would do nothing on the field wars?
See my above SEA comment.
We already have the M8 (Which is faster than the T-34 or M-4) and the LVTA. Which by the way, fires a 77MM HE (Or 70 MM.)
Way off here boyo, 37 mm for the M-8.
And frank, I know that the b5n isn't a good plane, yet I believe it was part of the original plane count.
What has "part of the original plane count" got to do with it. It was put there for a reason. I bet HT knew it would be of little use in the MA. On the other hand though SEA it gets used in almost every pac set up.
Personal comment incoming .
1st Sherman needs to be introduces just on historical points.
2nd Sherman should have diff models IE Firefly and EASY8
Bogie your a decent guy. But your starting to get a Mr. superior attitude, very unbecoming.
Bronk
Edit : The lvt has a low velocity 75mm cannon. Only use is building take downs and light armor gv.
-
Way off here boyo, 37 mm for the M-8.
I was talking about the LVTA, it has the 70 MM, not the M8.
-
the t-34 hade sloped armor, witch was made to reflect any on coming shells, but the sherman had kindof the same design. I am in my tanks of world war 2 book, and the book says the t-34/76 hade .78 in. thick armor in the hull, and 2.04 in. in the hull so the front armor made slanted i guess really worked! The t-34/85's armor was like a tiger I's armor, 3.93 (hull) & 3.54 (turret), the second t-34 was made to be the counter tank of the tiger I, tiger II, panther I and, panther 2s. remember with the first t-34 the armor was 2.04 in. and the sherman's was 1.5-2 in.!:D :p :) ;) :rofl :lol
-
Originally posted by Bogie603rd
I was talking about the LVTA, it has the 70 MM, not the M8.
Thats why i edited my post.
Edit : The lvt has a low velocity 75mm cannon. Only use is building take downs and light armor gv.
Also from HTC web page AC/vehicle info...
lvt4a
Country of origin: USA
Crew: Single-seat
Type: Vehicle
Armament: 30 cal M2
50 cal M2
100x75 mm HE <------------
No comments on the rest of my post ?
Bronk
-
on ground is the main point with the speed factor the lvt is real slow on ground but the sherman is fast!
-
Originally posted by Bogie603rd
Thanks for the In-Detail description of the differences. Yet I am still led to believe it was a bit harder to kill the T-34 then it was to kill a sherman. You just said it yourself, the T-34 was designed to ricochet the oncoming AP and HE shells. The sherman apparently did not have this design (Which shows in the pictures above). That's why I don't want it, it's another tank to the list with no real features that would make a good "Tank vs. Tank" vehicle.
The T-34 is also harder to kill than the PzkwIV. The standard Sherman in AH game terms would have about the same armor as the PzkwIV (maybe a smidge better from the front), the same power gun as the T-34, but with faster rate of fire and better visibility. Add on top of that a .50 cal pintle gun (vs. none for T-34 and the pea-shooter for the Panzer), and it is IMO sufficiently different vs the current tanks to warrant modeling.
Variants of the Sherman might not vary much in the armor category (exception of the Jumbo if it were modeled), but in armament there would be large differences. A Firefly variant, for example, would replace the AH "T-34 - powered gun" with a "Tiger - powered gun". An Easy-8 would have a gun approximately equal to the PzkwIV. A 105mm Assault-gun version would be nice for taking down buildings, and if it had a limited amount of HEAT ammunition, could be quite deadly vs. tanks as well. The Easy-8 may be a bit too close to the PzkwIV(H) for modeling in AH, but any of the others offer variety.
Originally posted by Bogie603rd
The majority of AH these days uses tigers anyways to wipe out enemy fields. Why do we need another tank that would do nothing on the field wars?
I'll just back up Bronk on this one. In the MA you see at least 4 times the number of PzkwIVs as you do Tigers, and you see as many Ostwinds as Panzers. T-34s and M-8s are more rare, but I still see them every time I play. Plenty of room in the ground game for more armor.
-
Whats with all the tards punting old topics lately?
what? do you like all the b29 & crap repeats? or are you just too lazy to hit last post bttn?