Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: taylortanklover on August 14, 2006, 12:28:13 PM
-
what we need is the M4 sherman main battle tank of world war 2:D :aok!
also the M3 stuart! but mainly the sherman cause u can equip it with alot of stuff like a flamethrower, roketlauncher, a mine destroyer, or a dozer! we als o need the amphibiuos landing craft, D.U.K.W., if u live in a city that has a large body of wate ru may see them driving around, here in Pittsburgh, P.A., they r called just dukwy tours, if u have call of duty 2: big red 1 in the begining of operation: husky (invasion of italy) u start off on a .50 cal of one when the guy gets killed! Aso, on the M5 halftrack, we need to be able to chose between the .50 cal or 75mm cannon, either way it still carries tropps or supplies! We need the germans' halftrack, Panther tank and the tiger 2 (king tiger to the allies)! last we all the other U.S. tanks!:furious :aok :cool: :)
-
Sherman would be pwned.
-
all of those cool vehicles would u want any of those?
cause they where the best vehicles og that time on the western front and north africa!;) :) :cool: :lol :D
-
You need to read "An Army At Dawn". Your "North Africa opinion" will change drastically.
-
what is that a book or a article what is that?
-
A book that anyone with WWII intrigue should read.
-
ow, but there is the internet and, the military channel!
i just got into world war 2 and war stuff in may and i know half of the stuff of world war 2 and a few other wars! i know like all of the tanks and vehicles in world war 2 i know most of the current stuff! the only thing i need to polish a bit is my knolage of aircraft that is about it and i am a beginner!:furious :rofl ;) :) :p :aok :t :lol :D :cool:
-
Reading your dribble makes my head hurt.
-
can i be in a squad some one? i just don't go in the online arenas! i am always in the offline practice! i can go in the the 8 player i belive!
-
Originally posted by bongaroo
Reading your dribble makes my head hurt.
Drivel? This isn't drivel, it is someone new that has had the same "fire" when we first started. It is the whole package that sweeps you off of your feet, and you want to add "insight" etc.
-
What we need is a tank killer, like the SU-100, or JagdPanther. What is the use in having a perk tank(Tiger), if you can't kill the thing without swamping it under an avalanche of other tanks, bombs, or as in most cases both.
the Tiger is nigh invulnerable to any other tank outside of 800, and unless you drop a 1000Lb'er right on the turret you might as well have wasted it. The thing takes bomb damage like water on a ducks back. The 88mm in the Tiger is like the finger of God, any hit and you wind up in the tower. The only thing that I can think of that is as untouchable in the MA is the Me-262. Sure some one gets lucky and they land the magic BB on a 262, but flown right no one can touch it. Hell I killed one with a Spit I ONCE with a lucky deflection shot that torched the port engine.
Perk the Tiger to the standard of the 262, or give us a tank killer like the SU-100.
-
Originally posted by Iron_Cross
What is the use in having a perk tank(Tiger), if you can't kill the thing without swamping it under an avalanche of other tanks, bombs, or as in most cases both.
uh...
uhm...
I think that is the point. Pay points, get massive armor, and a massive gun. What would be the point of using perks to get a fragile armored vehicle?
Your complaint about perk costs per vehicle is also a bit misguided. A 262 takes a bunch of perks because the ENY goes from 5 to 60 in aircraft. There is much less disparity in ENY between armored vehicles. There's not enough to create a wide spread. Therefore, you'll always make less perks in GV's. I've found the number of sorties needed to up a 262, a Tiger, and ar234 to be about the same.
It's also alot easier to up an ENY 40 ride (mossy) and vulch the crap out of la7s than it is to get in an M8 and reliably & quickly pop heavier armor.
-
hold on hold on! when did the ME 262 come into the conversation?:huh :confused:
-
I believe it came in the post before yours. You post a lot of smilies too. They scare me.
-
DUDE IS HYPER!:furious :rofl ;) :) :p :aok :t :lol :D :cool:
I think a M4 with the flamethrower option would be badoscar i'd like to lite a tigger up with that.
an M5? i think he ment M3, either way, with the 75mm option, lmao, i can see it now, panzer sees wut may be an easykill, he comes ridin up out in the open m5 driver spots him and wheels around tword the emy panzer, teh panzer drive lets out a cackling laugh of evil i he "knos" that halftrack pitiful efforts to save itself are in complete vain when just as he is about to pull trigger, KERPOW, "wtf!?" "my tuuret! wth?! u $@#&!" lmao
but why have the 75mm variant when u can have the 105mm howitzer? sure there's only 8 rounds but still...105mm!!!
-
Originally posted by Yoshimbo
an M5? i think he ment M3,
You may already know this, but there was an M-5 version of the halftrack, built by International Harvester I believe (M-3 was a White design). Basically the same in function, different engines, I believe, and the M-5 had the 50cal mounted toward the side instead of near the middle IIRC.
There was also an M-5 "improved" version of the M-3 Stuart light tank.
(What does this add to the conversation? Absolutely nothing! :D )
-
try to describe any world war 2 vehicle and i will most likely know the answer! try me!:cool: :t :furious :p :( :mad: :D :cool: :lol :rofl
-
and the m-5 and m-3 had the .50 cal. in the same spot for ur information!:cool: :p :rofl :aok :D
-
Originally posted by E25280
You may already know this, but there was an M-5 version of the halftrack, built by International Harvester I believe (M-3 was a White design). Basically the same in function, different engines, I believe, and the M-5 had the 50cal mounted toward the side instead of near the middle IIRC.
Correct, the M5 was built by International Harvester. The main difference being, that the IH version had homogenous 5/16" armour on its rear bed, and rounded rear corners. The rest of the halftracks (which were in fact designed by White based off their early M3 Scout Car series) had armour of 1/4" face hardened plate which was bolted together with 3/8" countersunk bolts. The down side to these was that a round strike on the bolt would send the stud and nut flying into the interior of the vehicle....
The Halftracks carried a very wide variety of weapons. From the 75mm howitzers deployed on M2 chassis to provide anti-tank firepower in North Africa, to the late war designed M-16 which features quad.50's. All in all, it is a nice design, but extremely thin skinned.
On a note, the Israeli's are still using the Halftrack chassis with a turbo diesel supplementing the original White 160AX gasoline engine (think flat head 6), and it is in service to this day, albeit not as an APC, but as a utility vehicle.
-
M26 Pershing with 90mm gun to deal with Tigers
(http://www.battletanks.com/images/M26_Pershing_-3.jpg)
-
a tank to take care of a tiger needs to have a good gun (this one has a more powerful gun by 2mm), thick armor (this one only has thick armor on the turret not in the hull though (2 in. hull; 4 in. turret)) u need to have thick armor in the hull 2! and it needs to be slightly faster then a tiger in driving speed and turret turning speed! :furious :aok :cool: :p ;) :aok ;) :aok
-
but still if u like fire lighting a tiger in flames with a flamethrower, would be the best!
-
Taylor,
The power of a gun isn't measured by millimeter's, it's the charge in the round and what type it is. Millimeter is just the diameter of the round. For example, a 40 MM HE round is less likely to penetrate armour then a 40MM AP round.
To my knowledge anyway.
-
Originally posted by nirvana
Taylor,
The power of a gun isn't measured by millimeter's, it's the charge in the round and what type it is. Millimeter is just the diameter of the round. For example, a 40 MM HE round is less likely to penetrate armour then a 40MM AP round.
To my knowledge anyway.
Correct --
Best examples to illustrate are the 75mm gun on the Panther and the British 17lbr gun(76mm IIRC) both had more armor penetration power than the 88mm on the Tiger I.
-
alright, i know that! but AP rounds r for against armor persiong rounds and HE rounds r for artillary or destroying buildings or something like that!
-
This 88mm mounting monster halftrack would be just fine vs a Tiger, and in the anti-aircraft role would give the GVs and base defenders a chance against bombers. This is the next vehicle we truly need:
(http://show.imagehosting.us/show/1548593/0/nouser_1548/T1_-1_1548593.jpeg) (http://www.imagehosting.us/index.php?action=show&ident=1548593)
EagleDNY
$.02
-
Originally posted by taylortanklover
try to describe any world war 2 vehicle and i will most likely know the answer! try me!:cool: :t :furious :p :( :mad: :D :cool: :lol :rofl
Uh....it's green, has tracks and a gas engine, lights first time, every time.
-
k, be more spacific! u r describing any u.s. medium or lighttank okay! either the sherman or stuart, alright?
-
okay, i have to edmit that that german halftrack with a 88 is cool and that but can it still carry troops like the m-3 halftrack or what ever with a 75mm cannon?
-
No, the 88mm mounting takes up the space that the troops would normally be sitting in. I'm thinking of this more as a multi-role vehicle - artillery support, one helluva mannable anti-aircraft gun (finally), and if your slick enough, a tank killer.
It would sure add a lot of interesting possibilities - more than any other single vehicle I can think of.
EagleDNY
$.02
-
that is cool, but what we need is a personel carrier that can carry troops and a cannon! mainly for getting ride of those aa guns, soft guns, and some times tanks!
-
I love it when guys don't realize they're being made fun of. :noid
-
Originally posted by OOZ662
I love it when guys don't realize they're being made fun of. :noid
Like you Ooz?:p
Just yanking your chain don't hurt me!
-
Ehh this:
"what we need is the M4 sherman main battle tank of world war 2"
MAIN?
Wouldn't that rather apply to the Panzer series or at least the T-34.
Anyway, I am a Sherman candidate, especially for the Firefly version, and for an Allied side as well, a newer T-34 as well as the COMET!
-
Originally posted by taylortanklover
what we need is the M4 sherman main battle tank of world war 2:D :aok!
also the M3 stuart! but mainly the sherman cause u can equip it with alot of stuff like a flamethrower, roketlauncher, a mine destroyer, or a dozer! we als o need the amphibiuos landing craft, D.U.K.W., if u live in a city that has a large body of wate ru may see them driving around, here in Pittsburgh, P.A., they r called just dukwy tours, if u have call of duty 2: big red 1 in the begining of operation: husky (invasion of italy) u start off on a .50 cal of one when the guy gets killed! Aso, on the M5 halftrack, we need to be able to chose between the .50 cal or 75mm cannon, either way it still carries tropps or supplies! We need the germans' halftrack, Panther tank and the tiger 2 (king tiger to the allies)! last we all the other U.S. tanks!:furious :aok :cool: :)
Holy headache, Batman! That poor writing makes my eyeballs bleed!
-
taylortanklover, I highly encourage you to look into getting a perscription of ritalin, your as hyper as a 4 year old on crack
-
hey, shush i have adhd i can not help it and i type fast do i make alot of mistacs, but i have a big list of world war 2 vehicles, personally i love them all!
-
hey, and as long as we have 2.5 million planes and 1,000 vehicles why does every one want more planes when we have so many there r like 2 million and actually we only have like 10 vehicles compared to the 1000 planes we have i just want more vehicles!
-
Try valium :p
-
Originally posted by taylortanklover
hey, shush i have adhd i can not help it and i type fast do i make alot of mistacs, but i have a big list of world war 2 vehicles, personally i love them all!
Heres some BASIC help. Medication is your friend (and english class)
10 Ritalin
20 Spell Check
30 GOTO 10
-
Originally posted by Angus
Ehh this:
"what we need is the M4 sherman main battle tank of world war 2"
MAIN?
Wouldn't that rather apply to the Panzer series or at least the T-34.
Anyway, I am a Sherman candidate, especially for the Firefly version, and for an Allied side as well, a newer T-34 as well as the COMET!
Giving TTL the benefit of the doubt, he could have meant "main battle tank" the way the M1A1 Abrahms is a "main battle tank" in the modern era. Maybe. Poor writing style at least makes it a possibility.
Even if that is not what he meant, the M-4 Sherman was certainly the most commonly used tank by the Americans in particular and the West Front in general. Its production far outpaced anything the Germans had, and was eclipsed only by the T-34 series. These facts would qualify it as a "main" tank by any definition.
-
thank you!:aok First of all i do take medicine for my ADHD but it does not work some times! Just that like every single allied country (U.S., British, French(for the time we liberated them), and eventually, even the russians!) sometimes IF we were defeated the germans used it! but the cool thing is the sherman is easy to be matenenced then any of the germen tanks (i think even the russian tanks!), but the solid point is that the sherman was produceed more than any other tank in WW2!!!!:p ;) :) :D :cool: :furious :rofl :p :p
-
Taylortanklover, Here is a quiz for you:
What was the German nickname for the Sherman, and how did it get it?
(Anybody feel free to answer)
-Frode
-
they called it a rolling grave i belive!
-
wow, wait i maybe on 5 forum delay here! but the M1A1 Abrams is the U.S.'s secondary tank now the main battle tank right now for the U.S. is the new and improved and exteamly technilogicly advanced M1A2 Abrams with a 360 few camera and all new types of computers in it it is like a super computer tank!
-
Originally posted by taylortanklover
wow, wait i maybe on 5 forum delay here! but the M1A1 Abrams is the U.S.'s secondary tank now the main battle tank right now for the U.S. is the new and improved and exteamly technilogicly advanced M1A2 Abrams with a 360 few camera and all new types of computers in it it is like a super computer tank!
I thought that the improved command and control devices on the M1A2 were upgrades to the existing system and on a small minority of tanks . . . perfectly willing to stand corrected if not the case.
-
no,no no, no, no! They were not upgades they are completely new systems the M1A1 abrams was a upgrade of the M1 abrams from the '70s!!:aok :p :D :cool:
-
Originally posted by taylortanklover
but the cool thing is the sherman is easy to be matenenced then any of the germen tanks (i think even the russian tanks!),
Yeah, it was cool that they could haul a destroyed Sherman back. Wash out the blood and brains, put new wiring in, weld a plug in the hole in the turrent, and paint the inside, and give it to the next noob crew. Then point and say "The German armor is that way, see if you can kill what your predessors could not". (http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/spezial/Sarge/Whatever_anim.gif)
-
no actually, if a sherman was hit and inoperatabale but not destroied, the could fix it up and it will be running again in no time! the actual cool thing is if a sherman was destroied it could be replaced with in 48 hours for the germans it took like a month! the less we hade to deal with them!:D
-
Taylortanklover, I'm sorry it took awhile to get back with the answer to that question I asked you. The Germans called the sherman the "ronson",
after a popular cigarrette lighter. In many accounts, one hit was enough to brew up a M-4. What I would ask you to do is, look at more resources(read some of the excellent bio's and tech materials that you can get at most local bookstores and online websites). You might drastically change your opinion of the Sherman.
-Frode
-
nope, ur wrong about the matireal part! i remember that the germans did not call it that but some thing else that related to a lighter! Sence the M4 hade an auto-mobile engine it's fuel is what a car takes and that is highly flameable (more flameable than desiel!), and along with it's very thin armor so uselly one hit would light it on fire! that is why the germans named it after a lighter! But on aces high a t-34 agains a panzer 4 one hit to eather of them and u r back to the tower, even though the panzer 4 has a weaker gun than the T-34 they both can only take one hit! So if u put a sherman in there it wouldn't change the total hits taken to destroy it!:D :cool: :p
-
Almost all the tanks in WW2 (both Axis and Allied) ran on petrol.
The M1-A abrams runs on petrol.
-
the abrams runs on jet fuel it has a weird jet engine! and the abrams canburn everyhthing for fuel! Even poop!:D
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
Taylortanklover, I'm sorry it took awhile to get back with the answer to that question I asked you. The Germans called the sherman the "ronson",
after a popular cigarrette lighter. In many accounts, one hit was enough to brew up a M-4. What I would ask you to do is, look at more resources(read some of the excellent bio's and tech materials that you can get at most local bookstores and online websites). You might drastically change your opinion of the Sherman.
-Frode
The tendancy for early M-4s to "cook off" easily was due to inadequate ammo storage in the crew compartment. Note I said "early". Once identified, they moved the location of ammo storage, added armor plate, and/or began using water-protected storage systems (depending on variant). That is to say, by mid to late war, the Sherman was in reality no more prone to cook off than any other contemporary tank.
As for looking up resources and such, I suggest comparing to contemporary designs (1941-42). Look up technical data rather than "bios" or personal experiences, as these are by definition more opinion than hard fact. Keep in mind it was designed before the Americans knew anything about the Tiger or Panther. The Germans were fielding Pzkw IIIs with 37mm and 50mm guns, and PzkwIVs with low velocity 75mm howitzers at the time. Against these it was more than adequate. Thus to say the Sherman was a bad tank would mean you have to say the Spitfire MkI was a bad airplane. Overtaken by technology is not the same as a "bad" design.
Could it go toe-to-toe with a Panther? Of course not. Thus it acquired a poor reputation. But, neither could the T-34/76 stand up to a Panther. A T-34 (or just about any other tank) would cook off when hit by the long 75 too. Yet the Sherman acquired a reputation as dog and the T-34/76 the reputation of "the best tank of the war". That should tell you how useful reputations are.
-
in the beginning u never said early!
-
and the sherman "cooked-off " through at least more than half of the war, until the M4A3 sherman came it never happened!
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
Taylortanklover, I'm sorry it took awhile to get back with the answer to that question I asked you. The Germans called the sherman the "ronson",
after a popular cigarrette lighter. In many accounts, one hit was enough to brew up a M-4. What I would ask you to do is, look at more resources(read some of the excellent bio's and tech materials that you can get at most local bookstores and online websites). You might drastically change your opinion of the Sherman.
-Frode
In any WW2 era tank, anything powerful enough to get through the armor was likely to kill crew anyway. The Sherman was designed for infantry support more than tank killing, and was designed to be mass-produced quickly by American automakers. The Sherman's engine is actually 5 6-cyl GM truck engines arranged in a Star-shape around a common crankshaft, which meant they could start production without even having to gear up new production lines.
Any WW2 (even the Tiger) hit by a large shell was in for a bad time. Even if you don't penetrate the armor directly, the energy transfer from a 75, 88 or 90mm shell hitting your tank can cause any number of interesting effects that turn the monkeys inside into a bloody mess.
EagleDNY
$.02
-
u r wrong cause the shermans engine wass a ford 500 horse power it was not of a gm truck i have a book to prove it!
-
For all those people who do not understand the Sherman Tank, please read:
It was said that the U.S. had matched the superior quality of the German tanks only by superior quantities of American tanks. And this was largely true. The Sherman did not fare well in tank-to-tank slugging matches with their giant German counterparts-shells often harmlessly bounced off the thick German armor. Interestingly enough, before entering the war, the U.S. did develop some extremely heavy tanks, but later switched to lighter tanks for the following reasons.
The U.S. tanks had to be transported by ship from Detroit, across a vast ocean to land amphibiously on enemy shores. This reality placed great limitations on the size and weight of the tanks. Especially with the frequent U-boat sinkings, the number of U.S. ships was dropping, and the bigger the tank, the fewer a ship could carry.
Another factor that faced the U.S. was moving their armor over bridgeless streams. The U.S. Air Force was targeting enemy bridges as a means of disrupting enemy supply lines, etc. Once these bridges were destroyed, U.S. tanks would have to cross the streams on temporary bridges. Heavy tanks could not have crossed, but the lightweight and nimble Shermans could.
Also, while the Tiger and Panther were made bigger and more powerful than the Sherman was, they were comparatively slow and ponderous. The German tanks were often used as pill-boxes, forced to become immobile and fire at oncoming armor. On the other hand, the Sherman was designed for deep thrusts into the enemy's rear, where it would destroy supply installations and communications. This demanded great speed and minimal fuel consumption.
But perhaps the greatest reason behind the success of the Sherman was its reliability-maximum performance and minimum care and replacement. General George Patten recognized this when he declared, "In mechanical endurance and ease of maintenance our tanks are infinitely superior to any other". This factor played out on the battlefield, allowing the Sherman to out-run, out-maneuver, and ultimately out-fight the Tiger and Panther.
With about 50,000 produced in all variations, the Sherman was the most widely produced tank during the war. The five major variants of the M4 to the M4A4 were designated by the hull and engine used. Although powerful and proven, its high center propeller shaft gave the hull a tall profile. Suspension was a rugged and simple design, known as VVSS (Vertical Volute Spring Suspension), with three units (or bogies) on each side, and each with two road wheels. The transmission was 5-speed forward plus reverse. Early production M4's had a 3-piece front transmission cover, and a cast one-piece steel turret mounting a 75mm main gun. For added protection, oblique armor plates were added to the turret, hull sides and just in front of the forward hull hatches. Production of the M4 began in July 1942, five months later than the cast hulled M4A1. One of the most powerful variants of the M4 Sherman was the 105mm howitzer equipped version, which provided valuable fire support for the U.S. Army and Marines as well as extensive use in anti-tank operations.
-
yan, maybe later when i have the time!:o
-
Originally posted by taylortanklover
u r wrong cause the shermans engine wass a ford 500 horse power it was not of a gm truck i have a book to prove it!
See link below:
Chrysler A57 (http://www.elchineroconcepts.com/Big%20Engines.htm)
I was wrong - it was a Chrysler, not a GM 6-cyl motor. That's not to say they didn't use different engines, it just goes to show that they designed a tank that could be produced quickly by US automakers....
EagleDNY
-
ow, wait u r right for the last part of the war in the begining to 3/4 of the war the sherman got heavier so that means it needs a stronger engine!
-
When you read more, you'll see that the M4 series had alot of changes through it's life, to cope with changing conditions on the battlefield. It tried several different Powerpack options(like the A57, The Ford GAA, There was a twin GMC 6-71 diesel used in the M4A2, I believe) and the Armament changed as the war progressed. It went from a L/39 75mm to the long 76mm, as well as the 105mm assault variant. But, up till the end, the predominant variant had the short 75.
If this was what was incorporated in the game, Where you could get taken out with a frontal shot at 1500-2000 yrds., and you would have to close to within 500-750 to kill anything else, It would probably wind up a hangar queen. Remember, AH2 does not take maintenance or range into account, and #'s are determined by whoever wishes to spawn it, so those advantages are negated.
Picture this: TT on the Trinity map, you spawn in, you have 8 other M4's there....and you are opposed by at least as many pzIV's, Tigers, T-34's, all superior tanks. You try, and try, and try, but without 30-40 people spawning M4's, you are outclassed. That would be if it is modeled correctly.
This is why you see people asking for the M-26, With it's thicker armor and 90mm gun, would be an even 1-vs-1 match. Now, I could see some use for the over-turret rockets, or the 105mm Howitzer equipped varriants, would be handy knocking down a field town, or FH's or VH's, It would probably become a favorite in that context. My .02$
-Frode
-
Originally posted by taylortanklover
the abrams runs on jet fuel it has a weird jet engine! and the abrams canburn everyhthing for fuel! Even poop!:D
Turbine, and it doesn't run on sewage. Besides it would plug the fuel filters.
-
yea a sherman was destroyed after a tiger (it might have been a king tiger im not sure) shot a shell through a building and if you want a new tank get something big like the panzer maus although it was never produces this thing was BIG it had a 128mm cannon its armor was 240mm thick and weighned in at 188 tons! i cant post pics for some reason if i find out how i will post a pic of one
-
Originally posted by Meatwad
Heres some BASIC help. Medication is your friend (and english class)
10 Ritalin
20 Spell Check
30 GOTO 10
AAAUUGGHHHHH!!!!
Basic. Now my brain is bleeding. Bad Meatwad. BAD! :eek:
-
Originally posted by baron7
yea a sherman was destroyed after a tiger (it might have been a king tiger im not sure) shot a shell through a building and if you want a new tank get something big like the panzer maus although it was never produces this thing was BIG it had a 128mm cannon its armor was 240mm thick and weighned in at 188 tons! i cant post pics for some reason if i find out how i will post a pic of one
in my book it says u r defeanatly not tlking about the king tiger it says the armor of its turret is 180mm (in U.S. 7 in.!1) and it still hade the 88 for a gun! u could be talking about the panzer V Ausf D or G but the armor is close to that of a tiger and the gun is like a gun of a sherman (75mm). that is about it!
-
Taylor, since baron is using your exact punctuation style (which is to say, he uses no punctuation) I would have thought you could translate better what he meant. Let me attempt a more understandable version . . .
originally posted by baron7, but fixed by E25280:
Yeah, a Sherman was destroyed after a Tiger (it might have been a King Tiger, I'm not sure) shot a shell through a building.
If you want a new tank, get something big like the Panzer Maus. Although it was never produced, this thing was BIG! It had a 128mm cannon, its armor was 240mm thick, and weighed in at 188 tons! I can't post pics for some reason - if I find out how, I will post a pic of one.
Better? He is NOT referring to the Panzer V "Panther", but the Panzer VIII "Maus." Try this site:
http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz7.htm
And , by the way . . .originally posted by taylortanklover:
the panzer V Ausf D or G but the armor is close to that of a tiger and the gun is like a gun of a sherman (75mm).
Aside from both firing a shell 75mm in diameter, there really is no similarity between the Sherman's snub 75mm and the Panther's 75mm KwK 42 L/70 (which was in fact a better AT gun than the Tiger I's 88mm gun).
Now, please -- take a grammar class, both of you!
-
i like the destroyed picture of it!
-
Alot of discussions regarding Sherman vs T-34 in this thread, so seemed appropriate to post this link here. I thought it was an interesting read, from a Russian who used a Lend-Lease Sherman during the war. Note the comparisons he makes to the Russian tanks -- I found especially interesting the comments about the higher tendency of the T-34 to have secondary ammo explosions vs the Shermans.
Enjoy.
http://www.iremember.ru/tankers/loza/loza1.html
-
k what i do not under stand is why is there a picture of a weird guy on it?
-
Originally posted by taylortanklover
k what i do not under stand is why is there a picture of a weird guy on it?
:rofl :rofl :rofl You funny!
Perhaps your reading comprehension skills match your typing skills -- that is the Russian tanker who is interviewed for the article. I don't find him to be particularly weird looking.
If you have ever heard of Patton's idea for tanker uniforms, in terms of weirdness it beats the picture in the article hands-down.
-
well he just has weird bagy pants!
-
someone take the keyboard from this retard ^^^^^^^^^^
-
M-26, M-18............
the M-26 perked?
and the open topped M-18 unperked?<------sounds about right to me.
-
hey u ********** read steve's signature! i think he is really right there!
-
i type fast but softly, so when i hit a key it does not read it on the text! so do not pick on me any more just for dumb type-os, u ****** ******s!
-
You talk big for a newer fellow on these boards Taylor, take my advice and calm down or you might see your welcome run out quite fast. You actually kinda remind me of Todd420/Autopilot...
-
Originally posted by taylortanklover
no actually, if a sherman was hit and inoperatabale but not destroied, the could fix it up and it will be running again in no time! the actual cool thing is if a sherman was destroied it could be replaced with in 48 hours for the germans it took like a month! the less we hade to deal with them!:D
Yes...after they had hosed off the remains of the previous inhabitants:huh
-
Does the term "Troll" occur to anyone?
-
Originally posted by taylortanklover
i type fast but softly, so when i hit a key it does not read it on the text! so do not pick on me any more just for dumb type-os, u ****** ******s!
Did anybody say anything about about your lack of capitalization or sentence structure? Does your Mom know you type with those fingers?
-
SHADE!!!
Autopilot returns!!!
-
Originally posted by Meatwad
SHADE!!!
Autopilot returns!!!
:lol BURN HIM!
-
Originally posted by nirvana
:lol BURN HIM!
I got the mob rounded up for the fun. I even got my custom made hydro turbine powered torch with the candle light power of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. (WOOT!) And my special pitchfork with shooting blades that get replaced after being shot. In additon, it is capable of hitting those runners from 100 yards out.
Brought to you by *Revoulutionary Mob weapons R'us*
-
Originally posted by taylortanklover
nope, ur wrong about the matireal part! i remember that the germans did not call it that but some thing else that related to a lighter! Sence the M4 hade an auto-mobile engine it's fuel is what a car takes and that is highly flameable (more flameable than desiel!), and along with it's very thin armor so uselly one hit would light it on fire! that is why the germans named it after a lighter! But on aces high a t-34 agains a panzer 4 one hit to eather of them and u r back to the tower, even though the panzer 4 has a weaker gun than the T-34 they both can only take one hit! So if u put a sherman in there it wouldn't change the total hits taken to destroy it!:D :cool: :p
Wrong. It WAS nicknamed the "Ronson Lighter" BY THE GERMANS, or the "Tommycooker" by the British.
Originally posted by taylortanklover
u r wrong cause the shermans engine wass a ford 500 horse power it was not of a gm truck i have a book to prove it!
Wrong. The M4A2 of which EagleDNY referred to, HAD the GM 6046 2x6 engines. The M4A4 had the Chrysler A57 5xL6 engines in a star pattern. Only the M4A3W, M4A3E2 "Jumbo" and the M4A3E8(76)W "Easy Eight" had the Ford.
Originally posted by E25280
Best examples to illustrate are the 75mm gun on the Panther and the British 17lbr gun(76mm IIRC) both had more armor penetration power than the 88mm on the Tiger I.
Close enough Brauno, the Q17 pounder was 76.2mm.
Originally posted by justfreds
someone take the keyboard from this retard ^^^^^^^^^^
So true.
-
Fellas, I've seen taylortanklover posting on other threads on the AH boards, and I've noticed the sherman get mentioned in those, too. Now, alot of people on those threads have been thinking troll, somebody even mentioned his spelling is similiar to HiTech's, and that he might be trolling in a shade. Fine...but, why the fixation with the M-4? If I may, I would like to hazard a guess that (1.)If it is HTC, and he's either polling/feeling the water about a specific vehicle, like the M-4, MAYBE that means that one is in the works.(2.)He might want to do another GV(My guess is, it's easier to model than an airplane, kinda to give us a bone while working on Combat Tour, and he's looking for info/input to help.(3.) ttl is what he seems, and really needs a stern talking-to by the Board Moderator...:t
Draw your own conclusions...:eek:
(P.S...Not that I would mind seeing the sherman in the game, But not in the guise of some overmodeled P.O.S. that is nothing like the original.)
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Wrong. It WAS nicknamed the "Ronson Lighter" BY THE GERMANS, or the "Tommycooker" by the British.
Wrong. The M4A2 of which EagleDNY referred to, HAD the GM 6046 2x6 engines. The M4A4 had the Chrysler A57 5xL6 engines in a star pattern. Only the M4A3W, M4A3E2 "Jumbo" and the M4A3E8(76)W "Easy Eight" had the Ford.
Close enough Brauno, the Q17 pounder was 76.2mm.
So true.
okay is it just me or did a guy that drove a sherman (american), said that the americans called it a romnsen, and the germans the tommycooker (they spoke it in german we just translated it)!!!!! i am not that stupid u dumb-dumb!
-
Originally posted by taylortanklover
okay is it just me or did a guy that drove a sherman (american), said that the americans called it a romnsen, and the germans the tommycooker (they spoke it in german we just translated it)!!!!! i am not that stupid u dumb-dumb!
You are wrong. GO get an edumacation and stop posting. You know NOTHING.
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
Fellas, I've seen taylortanklover posting on other threads on the AH boards, and I've noticed the sherman get mentioned in those, too. Now, alot of people on those threads have been thinking troll, somebody even mentioned his spelling is similiar to HiTech's, and that he might be trolling in a shade. Fine...but, why the fixation with the M-4? If I may, I would like to hazard a guess that (1.)If it is HTC, and he's either polling/feeling the water about a specific vehicle, like the M-4, MAYBE that means that one is in the works.(2.)He might want to do another GV(My guess is, it's easier to model than an airplane, kinda to give us a bone while working on Combat Tour, and he's looking for info/input to help.(3.) ttl is what he seems, and really needs a stern talking-to by the Board Moderator...:t
Draw your own conclusions...:eek:
(P.S...Not that I would mind seeing the sherman in the game, But not in the guise of some overmodeled P.O.S. that is nothing like the original.)
:huh what the hell did u just say? english please!
okay i may have fished out some of it and those i agree but i am just a normal person with special abilaties (adhd and like to hear my self talk), but i have the same rights as everyone else so stop picking on me!
-
Originally posted by taylortanklover
:huh what the hell did u just say? english please!
We're seeing through your BS.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
You are wrong. GO get an edumacation and stop posting. You know NOTHING.
i hate u get a life!
-
and u don't know me!!!!!! now stop being mr. bully i wish u would get some sence of niceness!
-
Push the edit button and put multiple quotes in one reply will ya for ONCE!
Edit: Before, I smack you back to first grade which seems to be only one or two grade levels away so it shouldn't be to hard.
P.S. Shermans sucked in tank to tank.
-
how about no i won't because u r beinging a basstard!
-
Originally posted by taylortanklover
in my book it says u r defeanatly not tlking about the king tiger it says the armor of its turret is 180mm (in U.S. 7 in.!1) and it still hade the 88 for a gun! u could be talking about the panzer V Ausf D or G but the armor is close to that of a tiger and the gun is like a gun of a sherman (75mm). that is about it!
He's not talking about a Tiger, King Tiger, Panther, or anything of the sort.
He's talking about the Maus.
(http://www.mark-1-tank.co.uk/jpgs/kubinka-71-maus-421b.jpg)
(http://www.mark-1-tank.co.uk/jpgs/kubinka-71-maus-420b.jpg)
-
that's one big fat tank:eek:
good grief like a 60 ton block o' steel with a gun welded to it:lol
-
Originally posted by Yoshimbo
that's one big fat tank:eek:
good grief like a 60 ton block o' steel with a gun welded to it:lol
It's a Panzerkampfwagen VIII Maus. Try closer to 188 tonnes, with a 128mm main gun, and 75mm coax. Planned top speed: 20kph, actual: 13kph. They were planned for a 150-200 tank production run, but only 9 were in various states of completion when the war ended. Front armor was 200m, 180mm sides, and 160mm rear. The turret had a beefy 240mm front, and 200mm sides.
Never saw combat. The V1 prototype didn't even have a working turret. It was sabotaged by the Germans & later captured by the Russians. The V2 prototype broke down on the way to Berlin for the last ditch defense, and the crew destroyed it. The one in the pic is the V1 prototype hull, with the working V2 turret, courtesy of the Russians dragging them home and cobbling it together for testing.
Woulda been absolutely useless on offensives... but would make a pretty mean mobile pillbox.
-
that is half the size of my kitchen! and my kitchen is very big! (alot bigger than a normal kitchen!)
where did u get that picture?
How dumb where they to order 150-200 at the final stages of the war? man and how dumb can they be to have that thick of armor? did it travel like at 2 mph :lol? they were worse then the first world war 1 tanks!!!!!!:lol
-
(http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n305/tanklad/th_Sturmmoser_Tiger_WEB.jpg) (http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n305/tanklad/Sturmmoser_Tiger_WEB.jpg)
(http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n305/tanklad/th_Sturmmoeser_APG-1.jpg) (http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n305/tanklad/Sturmmoeser_APG-1.jpg)
(http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n305/tanklad/th_sturmtiger.jpg) (http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n305/tanklad/sturmtiger.jpg)
this is my favorite armored tank thing! (of germans!)
38 cm cannon cool! 25 mph top speed! look for it at http://www.battletanks.com
-
(http://coolmusic.no.sapo.pt/private/retard.jpg)
-
:rofl
-
(http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n305/tanklad/th_M42_Duster-3.jpg) (http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n305/tanklad/M42_Duster-3.jpg)
(http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n305/tanklad/th_M42_Duster-4.jpg) (http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n305/tanklad/M42_Duster-4.jpg)
(http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n305/tanklad/th_M42_Duster-1.jpg) (http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n305/tanklad/M42_Duster-1.jpg)
(http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n305/tanklad/th_M42_Duster-2.jpg) (http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n305/tanklad/M42_Duster-2.jpg)
the u.s.'s ostwind like thing the M42 SP AA Gun System "Dunster"
and my favorite u.s. artillary like thing, vehicle with armor, the m12 (if u have call of duty: finets hour, this may look fammiliar!)
(http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n305/tanklad/th_M12_SP_Gun-3.jpg) (http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n305/tanklad/M12_SP_Gun-3.jpg)
(http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n305/tanklad/th_M12_SP_Gun-21.jpg) (http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n305/tanklad/M12_SP_Gun-21.jpg)
(http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n305/tanklad/th_M12-4.jpg) (http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n305/tanklad/M12-4.jpg)
(http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n305/tanklad/th_M12_SP_Gun-1.jpg) (http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n305/tanklad/M12_SP_Gun-1.jpg)