Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: BBBB on March 21, 2007, 12:10:06 PM
-
What do you think it's impact will be? Other than speed I do not see where it is going to make much of an impact. The .50 on top will be nice against air targets. Unless they perk the Panzer I think it will be used less than the T34. But it is still cool to see in the game.
http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=201401
-BB
-
Is that .50 different from the other pintle .50s?
-
I think it'll be almost useless against panzers, unless we get info that proves me wrong.
I think that against T-34s it will also be useless unless fired from directly behind (a rare instance in this game), as the sloped armor makes even panzer rounds bounce straight up.
All in all, unless they perk the panzer (it could happen) it will go the way of the T-34: hangar queen.
Will be cool to have lighter tanks, though. Scenarios and such could use them.
-
Depends of what verison of the Sherman we get. Hopefully its the FireFly
Though no more well-armoured than most M4 versions, the 17 pounder anti-tank gun offered far better performance than the standard 75 mm gun which had been chosen for the infantry support role. Even using the regular APC round it could penetrate the front armour of a Tiger I at up to 1,000 meters; with the more advanced rounds that became common towards the end of war, the APCBC and then the APDS it could penetrate at over 2,000 meters. The principle disadvantages of the Firefly were its low rate of fire (about half the rate of a 76mm Sherman) due to the cramped nature of the turret and the need to reload a gun turned on its side, and the very large and bright muzzle flash of the 17-pdr gun.
The effectiveness of the Firefly resulted in German tank crews being under instructions to eliminate Fireflies first before dealing with the regular M4 tanks.
GENERAL DATA
Formal Designation Cruiser Tank Sherman VC "Firefly"
Type Medium/Cruiser Crew 5
Length /hull (m) 7.85/6.45 Barrel Overhang (m) 1.40
Width (m) 2.67 Height (m) 2.74
Combat Weight (kg) 32700 Radio Equipment No.19
FIREPOWER
Primary Armament 76.2mm ROQF 17-pounder Mk.IV or VII Ammunition Carried 77
Traverse (degrees) Hydraulic (360°) Elevation (degrees) -5° to+20°
Traverse speed (360°) 15 sec. Sight Mk. 3/1
Secondary Armament 1 x .30 cal. M1919A4 MG (coaxial) Ammunition Carried 5000
Speed on/off road 40 km/h Trench Crossing (m) 2.4
ARMOR PROTECTION
Armor Detail Front Side Rear Top/Bottom
Hull 51mm@45°-90° 38mm@90° 38mm@70°-90° 13-25mm@0°
Superstructure 51mm@34° 38mm@90° - 19mm@0-7°
Turret 76mm@60° 51mm@85° 64mm@90° 25mm@0°
Mantlet 38&89mm@90° - - -
-
One hit should decimate a Sherman regardless of the location struck. My late grandfather worked with a Sherman commander in WWII. He said right before the Battle of the Bulge, in one day, he hopped into 7 different Sherman's and lead the charge on 5 Panzers. After the 5 panzers were dispatched, there was no resistance. The Armored Column stopped for a resupply and saw roughly 100 Shermans burning or finished burning on the landscape.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
I think it'll be almost useless against panzers, unless we get info that proves me wrong.
have you ever found any info that proved you correct?
ack-ack
-
People who immediately discount the M4s as paper mache vehicles need to stop reading anecdotal accounts of xxx person or about Michael Wittmann, and start looking at armor and penetration values.
There are many variants of the M4 that are a match for our T-34, Pz.IVH, and yes *GASP* the Pz.VIE.
Any version with the higher velocity 76mm or 17lbers will, depending on the ammunition modeled, by more than a match for the IV and T-34, and fully capable of taking on the VIE at all but long range frontal engagements.
I have no idea how much fidelity has been put into the ground vehicles, their armor values, or the penetration values of different guns and ammunition; but coming from a game that takes those values as religion and takes all available and authentic historical data as its basis for its modeling, I'm fairly comfortable that it would also be in the case here.
Edit: I realize that of all the wwii holy truths, the idea that the Tigers were invulnerable death stars and that Shermans were Ford Pintos with a 75mm gun attached, is probably even more sacred and widespread than "MUSTANGS WON TEH WAR!" and such, so, take that for what its worth.
-
M-8 is a match for a panzer.... if you know how to use it.
-
The reason "most folks" say the Sherman was no match (and FYI nobody's calling them paper mache) for the enemy is because the representative sherman, the early model that saw most of the fighting in Europe, was undergunned to the point of suicide-charges, 4 or more crews sacrificing their lives pointlessly so 1 other crew can get behind a single enemy tank and MAYBE disable it, if that 1 crew was lucky.
The up-gunned versions came later.
Sure, you can get an up-gunned version of the T-34 with a -- what was it? -- 85mm gun? But it wasn't representative of the T-34s as a whole.
For the shermans, the representative version would be the early one.
-
Originally posted by moot
Is that .50 different from the other pintle .50s?
No..but the .50 hits much harder against aircraft. More so then what the Tiger and Panzer are packing...
-BB
-
Don't the german tanks have 7.65mm? The fiddy cal would definitely be an improvement. I've got more kills in LVT pintle guns than I do in panzers, because that 50cal works well.
-
what about the Sherman Calliope? thatd own lol
but the FireFly could stop troops for capping and stuff or light trees on fire to eliminate enemy cover :)
-
Originally posted by Raptor
M-8 is a match for a panzer.... if you know how to use it.
CIRCLE STRAFE! Seriously, works great in the M8 vs. any tank, especially the Tiger with its slow turret rotation speed. You can drive the M8 in circles around the tank and just keep putting those 37mm rounds into the engine.
ack-ack
-
That was much easier back before the attack of the trees. Now it is a bit harder.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
The reason "most folks" say the Sherman was no match (and FYI nobody's calling them paper mache) for the enemy is because the representative sherman, the early model that saw most of the fighting in Europe, was undergunned to the point of suicide-charges, 4 or more crews sacrificing their lives pointlessly so 1 other crew can get behind a single enemy tank and MAYBE disable it, if that 1 crew was lucky.
The up-gunned versions came later.
Sure, you can get an up-gunned version of the T-34 with a -- what was it? -- 85mm gun? But it wasn't representative of the T-34s as a whole.
For the shermans, the representative version would be the early one.
I hate to be the one to add facts,
but the M4A1(76) was rolling off the assembly line in December of 43. This vehicle was not the wet ammo storage version. Those (M4A3(76)W were rolling off in March of 44. Both of these versions saw combat in Europe to include the Normandy campaign.
the M4A3E2 Jumbo was being delivered in June of 44 for the express purpose of engaging the Siegfried line. They particpated in assaults to include operation market garden. They had as much as 50% more armour to protect them for frontal assaults on fortified positions.
Sherman VC (aka Firefly) was being delivered in March 44 based off conversions of M4A3 and and M4A4 tanks. General Alexander (in PRO file WO 204/7433, dated 29th March 1944) stated that the Firefly was a weapon that “I badly need for the successful prosecution of my campaign.” That is March of 44 and we have yet to invade Normandy, as he is referencing the Italian pushes.
Krusty, read Sherman: A History of the American Medium Tank by RP Hunnicutt. It is an excellent reference on the Sherman.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Sure, you can get an up-gunned version of the T-34 with a -- what was it? -- 85mm gun? But it wasn't representative of the T-34s as a whole.
Actually, by 1944 it is pretty representative and by '45 was the main frontline Red Army tank. The T-34/85 was built in the thousands.
-
the sherman is the reason the germans won the war.
:rolleyes:
-
Going from the discussions held back when the T-34 first came out, I think the 75mm version was built in greater numbers.
If I may go off on a tangent here...
Here's the problem: We started off with 2 of the best tanks in the war, the Panzer 4 and the Tiger. That creates a problem. What can you add that won't totally be outclassed by these?
Hypothetically, say our T-34 had the 85mm. Say we get the Firefly (which was rare, if I remember the arguments against it??) with the gun that can kill a tigr in 1 hit through the front armor...
We've started down a slippery slope where we can't ever add the "weaker" but more common earlier tanks because they just won't ever by able to kill a panzer or a tiger. What if we added a Japanese tank? Can you imagine if we added the M-8 today, in the world of T-34s, Panzers, and Tigers? If it wasn't already in the game, it would never be added. We've set the starting bar so far up that we can never add the things that are below the bar.
I just worry that we'll never get a GV that's below this bar, which has been raised so high.
End tangent.
-
Further info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_Sherman_tank
-C+
-
Originally posted by john9001
the sherman is the reason the germans won the war.
:rolleyes:
Gut gestellt
-
"I just worry that we'll never get a GV that's below this bar, which has been raised so high."
In MA? It would be useful in scenarios, though.
-C+
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Here's the problem: We started off with 2 of the best tanks in the war, the Panzer 4 and the Tiger. That creates a problem. What can you add that won't totally be outclassed by these?
Hypothetically, say our T-34 had the 85mm. Say we get the Firefly (which was rare, if I remember the arguments against it??) with the gun that can kill a tigr in 1 hit through the front armor...
We've started down a slippery slope where we can't ever add the "weaker" but more common earlier tanks because they just won't ever by able to kill a panzer or a tiger. What if we added a Japanese tank? Can you imagine if we added the M-8 today, in the world of T-34s, Panzers, and Tigers? If it wasn't already in the game, it would never be added. We've set the starting bar so far up that we can never add the things that are below the bar.
I just worry that we'll never get a GV that's below this bar, which has been raised so high.
End tangent.
I say you could add what ever you want now that we have EW, MW, and LW arena. Perk'em. Right now the T-34 is the king of tanks in the EW, problem is T-34 vs T-34 is dependant all on luck (at least for me anyway). I think I remember when the Tiger was released and the cry from the crowd is that the Panzer was dead.
and I think I read on one of those sites today there were 2500 Fireflys built, not exactly rare
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
I hate to be the one to add facts,
but the M4A1(76) was rolling off the assembly line in December of 43. This vehicle was not the wet ammo storage version. Those (M4A3(76)W were rolling off in March of 44. Both of these versions saw combat in Europe to include the Normandy campaign.
the M4A3E2 Jumbo was being delivered in June of 44 for the express purpose of engaging the Siegfried line. They particpated in assaults to include operation market garden. They had as much as 50% more armour to protect them for frontal assaults on fortified positions.
Sherman VC (aka Firefly) was being delivered in March 44 based off conversions of M4A3 and and M4A4 tanks. General Alexander (in PRO file WO 204/7433, dated 29th March 1944) stated that the Firefly was a weapon that “I badly need for the successful prosecution of my campaign.” That is March of 44 and we have yet to invade Normandy, as he is referencing the Italian pushes.
Krusty, read Sherman: A History of the American Medium Tank by RP Hunnicutt. It is an excellent reference on the Sherman.
Thanks for bringing that over. Facts remain there are any number of variants that were produced in large numbers and saw combat, that are a match for the Ausf H and T-34 (which I assume is a 43) on equal terms. An M4A3(76) would tackle a Tiger in the same way the Ausf H would; with difficulty. They could go further and give us a lightly perked Firely.
-
The Sherman was a "raw, mass produced machine" with not close the engineering tolerances of the Tiger, Panzer 4. The T34 series (the 34/85) was in use up until 1989. The Tiger could have been a MBT for most countries until at least 1975.
The Sherman was a pile of cow dung, regardless of the "Firefly". It's armor was a joke. I'd believe a Vet THAT FOUGHT IN COMBAT with it, before a fast-food eating author. No exaggerations are needed on the Sherman.
-
Karaya, dont poopoo on the Sherman man... I'll have to send the BoxCat after ya...
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/874_1174512403_eatu.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Airscrew
Karaya, dont poopoo on the Sherman man... I'll have to send the BoxCat after ya...
I just deal in the world of FACTS. ;)
-
Sherman VC Firefly.
Gonna put hurt on the other tanks, even if it lacks "take it".
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
Krusty, read Sherman: A History of the American Medium Tank by RP Hunnicutt. It is an excellent reference on the Sherman.
If it's not in Wikipedia, Krusty won't read it.
ack-ack
-
The Sherman became a tank on par with the Panzer IV once the 76mm/17lber gun was mounted, and wet ammo storage was included.
It is true that the early Shermans had two fatal flaws in Europe. An obsolete cannon (75mm cannon was based on a World War 1 French field gun), and ammo storage prone to catastrophic explosion.
However, the reality of tank combat in Western Europe is a much different picture than the statistics would lead on. The average distance of tank to tank combat was a mere 400 yards. During the Battle of the Bulge, during many fights in towns and villages, the fighting took place at less than 50 yards. At these ranges, the first tank to get off a shot is the one that survives.
Secondly, Shermans did not regularly blow up when hit. Usually a round would penetrate the armor, kill a crewman or two, and the surviving crew would abandon the tank. Recovery teams would come in after the battle, patch the hole, scrape out the flesh of the deceased, and the tank could be reused.
Thirdly, Sherman tank losses in some cases had nothing to do with the tank itself. Due to a shortage of tank crewmen, some infantry were given a crash course in operating the M4. Tanking is like flying, its the crew that makes the big difference. These tanks operated by infantrymen were quickly lost.
So after the initial fatal flaws were fixed in the Sherman, it became a capable tank. The U.S. decimated North Korean T-34s with it in the Korean War. The Israelis also had a very high kill ratio with the Sherman in their subsequent wars.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Going from the discussions held back when the T-34 first came out, I think the 75mm version was built in greater numbers.
34,780 T-34/76 tanks were built in 1940 through 1944 and another 22,559 T-34-85s in 1944–45.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
The Sherman was a "raw, mass produced machine" with not close the engineering tolerances of the Tiger, Panzer 4. The T34 series (the 34/85) was in use up until 1989. The Tiger could have been a MBT for most countries until at least 1975.
The Sherman was a pile of cow dung, regardless of the "Firefly". It's armor was a joke. I'd believe a Vet THAT FOUGHT IN COMBAT with it, before a fast-food eating author. No exaggerations are needed on the Sherman.
You are as crass as you are ignorant.
-
Originally posted by quintv
You are as crass as you are ignorant.
Quintv, no need for that, we can have fun with this and discuss it without slinging mud
-
Originally posted by quintv
They could go further and give us a lightly perked Firely.
1.It is the firefly we are getting.
2.perk??? Good gun but armor is lacking a bit, so I'd say it balances out.
Bronk
-
Yes, I think it'll get popped early and often. Probably won't need a perk.
-
Originally posted by Bronk
1.It is the firefly we are getting.
2.perk??? Good gun but armor is lacking a bit, so I'd say it balances out.
Bronk
Its going to be able to take a Tiger out from a significant range, from almost any angle.
Either give it a -1c like light perk, or lower the cost of the Tiger.
-
Originally posted by quintv
Its going to be able to take a Tiger out from a significant range, from almost any angle.
Either give it a -1c like light perk, or lower the cost of the Tiger.
I can take out tigers with a panzer at "significant range", and I'm not that good.
You want to perk the panzer also?
Just make eny close to the tiger.
Bronk
-
ahh n/m.
This is AH2.
-
Originally posted by quintv
What range and what angle with the L/48?
Not that I was really expecting this game to have anywhere near the fidelity of others with it comes to ground vehicles.
On the same lvl ground. Further than the firefly 1k.
With elevation beyond sight hash marks.
Bronk
-
Someone quoted that the firefly had 2 different ammos, one being way more powerfull.
Give the basic one for free, and perk the advanced ? that would make sence with the whole "perk the gun packages" stuff.
my 2 cents
-
Originally posted by Noir
Someone quoted that the firefly had 2 different ammos, one being way more powerfull.
Give the basic one for free, and perk the advanced ? that would make sence with the whole "perk the gun packages" stuff.
my 2 cents
Ahh forgot about that. Good point.
Bronk
-
Actually, there were many varients of the Sherman that had as good or better armor than the T-34 series or the Panzer IV series. It was up gunned and up armored in many different variations in the war, at least a dozen, if not more... just as the T-34 and Panzer IV were. All 3 were still in service in 1945.
It certainly was not a "heavy tank" and so any comparison to a Tiger is silly to start with, just as is any Sherman comparison to a Pershing or a JS-2.
-
Originally posted by Noir
Someone quoted that the firefly had 2 different ammos, one being way more powerfull.
Give the basic one for free, and perk the advanced ? that would make sence with the whole "perk the gun packages" stuff.
my 2 cents
The "special ammo" was APDS, the first sabot round. It is more powerful than your standard AP round because it is lighter and therefore gains much more velocity with the same charge. The "sabot" falls away as the round leaves the barrel, and a much smaller, but very dense (tungsten I believe?) core travels on to the target at an extreme velocity.
Even without APDS, the 17 pounder gun was an excellent anti-tank gun, I believe on par with the long 75mm gun the Germans mounted on the Panther. With the sabot round it was without equal.
-
Originally posted by quintv
You are as crass as you are ignorant.
and what shades are you? I know, and it cracks me up.
Ignorant? I believe you just showed everyone who is more ignorant and crass. Why? Because, the M4 regardless of Mounted Cannon, had chitty armor. You can put a Flak88 on a Sherman, it's armor will still be a weak point.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
and what shades are you? I know, and it cracks me up.
Ignorant? I believe you just showed everyone who is more ignorant and crass. Why? Because, the M4 regardless of Mounted Cannon, had chitty armor. You can put a Flak88 on a Sherman, it's armor will still be a weak point.
No weaker than your average PzkwIV.
-
Shermans armor was on par with Panzer IV. Jumbo Sherman had armor better than a Tiger 1, maybe even better than a Tiger II.
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
Shermans armor was on par with Panzer IV. Jumbo Sherman had armor better than a Tiger 1, maybe even better than a Tiger II.
That is extremely inaccurate.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
That is extremely inaccurate.
You got that right.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
You got that right.
I'm afraid you both have it wrong.
In some respects the M4A3E2 Jumbo was better armored than the King Tiger.
This tank was engineered as an "assault tank" and carried very thick armor. Its specially designed turret was better protected than the that of the King Tiger. 180mm on the front, 150mm on the sides and rear. Compare that to 180mm on the front and 80mm on the side and rear of the Tiger's turret.
Let's look at the hulls...
Jumbo Sherman: 100mm on the upper front, 140mm on the lower front.
King Tiger: 150mm on the upper front, 100mm on the lower front.
On the sides of the hull (above the suspension), the King Tiger had 80mm and the Jumbo had 76mm.
Only in the rear did the Tiger II have significantly better protection at 80mm vs 38mm for the Jumbo. The Tiger II was also better protected on the lower sides, behind the suspension.
So yes, the Sherman Jumbo was better protected than the Tiger I, and virtually on par with the Tiger II accepting better turret armor and inferior rear armor. Most Jumbos had the front armor sandbagged, giving it the equivalent of another 25mm of armor. About half of the Jumbos were field modified, installing the M1A2 76mm gun with HVAP ammo. That gun and armor combination meant that this Sherman was quite able to slug it out with a Panther toe to toe with a reasonable expectation of winning.
All of that taken into account, only 254 Jumbos were built and delivered. Another factor not to be ignored was the fact that the Jumbo weighed 42 tons, about 25% heavier than the standard M4A3, and was much slower and less maneuverable.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
The T34 series (the 34/85) was in use up until 1989. The Tiger could have been a MBT for most countries until at least 1975.
Yeah, either of which would have really had those M60A3 and T-72 crews quivering.:rolleyes:
-
Thanks for that info Widewing.
Even though the King Tiger had slightly thicker armor, maybe the Jumbo Sherman had one more benefit. I've seen at least one Soviet report mention that the armor on the King Tiger was unacceptably brittle due to the poor metalurgical procedures in its creation (due to the lack of a certain hardening agent).
When the Tiger II was produced it compensated by using Steel, Vandadium, and Boron. All offered similar properties but in the large thick plates as used on Tiger II the heat treating process led to very strong but brittle armor. Tiger II's had lots of problems with spalling and inferior quality welds breaking.
-
Originally posted by Airscrew
Quintv, no need for that, we can have fun with this and discuss it without slinging mud
Can I fling poo at Karaya? :D
(http://www.falkon.net/fling_poo.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Stoney74
Yeah, either of which would have really had those M60A3 and T-72 crews quivering.:rolleyes:
M60? :rofl T34/85 WAS a MBT. No ghey smilie needed. They were reliable, well armored, good suspension, speed and had a good range on the Main Gun. Not too shabby for a 40 year old design.
-
Originally posted by Sketch
Can I fling poo at Karaya? :D
(http://www.falkon.net/fling_poo.jpg)
Hey bro, I'll give you a holler this weekend.
-
Don't our airborn divisions still use the sherman as its the only air "droppable" tank we have in our inventory?
-
Originally posted by Karash
Don't our airborn divisions still use the sherman as its the only air "droppable" tank we have in our inventory?
SHERIDAN... and I think they retired the rest of those to the NTC.
-
M551
Very unique main gun too.
-
Military Channel had an interesting discussion on the Sherman vs. the Tiger and Panthers.
The American intent was to produce more war materials than the enemy could. We could waste Shermans to the tune of 4 or 5 to each Tiger/Panther destroyed. Though the German tanks were built to higher detail, it took much longer and more resourses to build them. The Shermans were built on the same factory lines as cars and were massed produced in the same fashion, as cars. Until the "Ronson" Shermans saw action, we thought these tanks were fast enough to get reasonable kill ratio. The point was to destroy their tanks faster than they could replace them.
Reality set in and upgrades in armor and firepower were ordered.
The Show demonstrated how it took 4 shermans to take out 1 Tiger, BUT the Shermans were not totally lost as many were repaired in the field using parts from unrepairable Shermans. Tigers were individually built and had to have hand made replacement parts.
Use in the game should follow along the same lines as RL usage. i.e. teamwork. 1 Sherman is unlikely to get 97 kills as easily as a Tiger does.
AS IT SHould BE
IF YOU WANT REASONABLY CLOSE TO REALITY SITUATIONS, ATTEND THE SPECIAL EVENTS. They attempt to recreate WWII situations.
You ain't gonna find WWII reality in the Arcade Main Arenas. FYI:O
-
Stega,
You miss the fact that we aren't getting an American Sherman. We are gettinga vastly upgunned British Sherman.
-
Originally posted by Stegahorse
The American intent was to produce more war materials than the enemy could.
Not really. American armor doctrine was that Tanks (read, M-4 Sherman) were for infantry support (hence the excellent snub 75mm gun) wheras dedicated Tank-destroyer units (ex. M-10) would battle enemy tanks. This was similar in doctrine to the early Wehrmacht, who used the PzkwIV as infantry support and the PzkwIII as the anti-armor main battle tank.
But the US found that theoretical roving TD units look good on paper, but in reality the poor infantry-supporting Tank is usually found slugging it out with enemy armor. The other shortcoming was that the development of an effective tank destroyer lagged behind the deployment of the Sherman. There were already signs the planned 57mm AT gun armed TDs would be inadequate, and so were scrapped without a replacement.
-
Originally posted by Widewing
I'm afraid you both have it wrong.
In some respects the M4A3E2 Jumbo was better armored than the King Tiger.
This tank was engineered as an "assault tank" and carried very thick armor. Its specially designed turret was better protected than the that of the King Tiger. 180mm on the front, 150mm on the sides and rear. Compare that to 180mm on the front and 80mm on the side and rear of the Tiger's turret.
Let's look at the hulls...
Jumbo Sherman: 100mm on the upper front, 140mm on the lower front.
King Tiger: 150mm on the upper front, 100mm on the lower front.
On the sides of the hull (above the suspension), the King Tiger had 80mm and the Jumbo had 76mm.
Only in the rear did the Tiger II have significantly better protection at 80mm vs 38mm for the Jumbo. The Tiger II was also better protected on the lower sides, behind the suspension.
So yes, the Sherman Jumbo was better protected than the Tiger I, and virtually on par with the Tiger II accepting better turret armor and inferior rear armor. Most Jumbos had the front armor sandbagged, giving it the equivalent of another 25mm of armor. About half of the Jumbos were field modified, installing the M1A2 76mm gun with HVAP ammo. That gun and armor combination meant that this Sherman was quite able to slug it out with a Panther toe to toe with a reasonable expectation of winning.
All of that taken into account, only 254 Jumbos were built and delivered. Another factor not to be ignored was the fact that the Jumbo weighed 42 tons, about 25% heavier than the standard M4A3, and was much slower and less maneuverable.
My regards,
Widewing
WW
I see it as this. The Jumbo's armour was rolled and cast steel in the following amounts:
Hull (rolled sides only)
100mm on the front upper slope 47deg slope
140 to 114mm front lower slope 0 to 56deg slope
76mm upper sides 0 slope
38mm lower sides 0 slope
38mm rear 10 to 22deg slope
Turret (all cast)
178mm Mantlet 0deg slope
150mm front 12 deg slope
150mm sides 6 deg slope
150mm rear 2 deg slope
Both versions of the Tiger had forged and rolled face hardened steel. A much better set up for armour plating. In some respects it is considered 75% better than cast armour. Both Tigers had the following for armour.
Tiger I
Hull (rolled face hardened)
100mm front 9deg - 25deg slope
80mm sides 0 deg slope
80mm rear 0 deg slope
Turret
120mm mantlet 0deg slope
100mm frnot 10deg slope
80mm sides and rear 0deg slope
Tiger II
Hull (rolled face hardened steel)
150mm upper front 50deg slope
100mm lower front 50deg slope
100mm sides 25deg slope
80mm rear 30deg slope
Turret
150mm mantlet 13 to 45deg slope
180mm front 10deg slope (changed after 51st turret)
80mm sides 21deg slope
80mm rear 20deg slope
The beauty of the set up on the Tiger II vs. both the jumbo and the Tiger I is that the mantlet was not the only cover on the front. The Tiger II's also had a frontal armour plate behind the mantlet which effectively raised the frontal turret armour to 330mm thick. In a hulldown position, the Tiger II is much better all around in it's armour protection frontally and on quartering shots.
It is my opinion that the Tiger II is extremely better armoured than the jumbo, owing to thicknesses, angles of armour and the fact that the armour is a better quality than the jumbo's. As for the Tiger I, I still feel that while less thick, the armour is better quality and has a better ability to withstand any punishment than that of the jumbo.
-
Agree Bodhi
-
Bodhi, I can't accept your information. It directly contradicts what I've read. German armor grew increasingly brittle as the war proceeded. Maybe in a laboratory it was exceedingly strong.
Heres more sources stating the Jumbo was an excellent tank
Retrofit kits with the 90 mm gun were also mated to the M4 Jumbo giving the Americans one of the best Allied tanks overall, with frontal armor superior to the Tiger and the one of the most powerful allied guns
Tiger II armor quality tests
Not only was the metal of shoddy quality — a problem not peculiar to the Tiger II, as the war progressed the Germans found it harder and harder to get hold of the alloys needed for high quality steel — but the welding was also, despite "careful workmanship", extremely poor. As a result, even when shells did not penetrate its armour the spalling was horrid and the armour plating unfailingly cracked at the welding seams when struck by heavier shells, rendering the tank inoperable.
-
Originally posted by Airscrew
Right now the T-34 is the king of tanks in the EW...
REason? Its the only blinkin Tank in EW! No wonder its king if it has no opposition part from LVT's and M8's! :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Stegahorse
The American intent was to produce more war materials than the enemy could.
This is the type of non-sensical argument historians make when attempting, with 20/20 hindsight, to determine why the U.S. didn't build a "better" tank to combat the German tanks. It also takes no account of the priorities and decisions made by the War Production Board during the war. It would be interesting to see the original specification for the Sherman. I haven't read it, but I would anticipate that it makes no mention regarding the "ease of manufacture" of the tank. Not to mention that given the casualties sustained by U.S. armor units were so heavy that some opportunistic Congressman would have used this same argument when the war profiteer "witch-hunt" was conducted after the war concluded. The Sherman was designed to match U.S. Army Armor doctrine, period. Whether or not that doctrine was flawed given the capability of German tanks is an entirely different argument.
-
Great work on the Shermie!!!
I personally don't care if it's under-gunned, overated or under-armored. It's a new veh and I'll take it :D
P.S. I still want my Wirbelwind;)
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
It is my opinion that the Tiger II is extremely better armoured than the jumbo, owing to thicknesses, angles of armour and the fact that the armour is a better quality than the jumbo's. As for the Tiger I, I still feel that while less thick, the armour is better quality and has a better ability to withstand any punishment than that of the jumbo.
Armor quality wasn't especially good according to British tests of the "Royal Tiger" and the Panther Ausf G.
"The rolled armour proved brittle and flakey, while the brittle nature of the roof plates made them vulnerable to HE and close air bursts." The hardness of the frontal armor was tested by the Russians at 262 on the Brinell scale. Hardness for the typical US cast armor was 248 (M3A5 turret) to 256 on the Brinell scale (M4A3 turret) according to Rowland and Boyd.
Inspection of Panthers and Tiger II types by the US Army Engineers from the Office of the Chief of Ordnance showed that the armor frequently cracked when hit by APCBC and HVAP. Some were discovered to have cracks that were previously welded.
Specific data on the type of rolled armor plate used on the Shermans can be found in - Welding of Armor: Summary of Ballistic Shock Test Results on 1-1/2 Inch Homogeneous Armor 'H' Plates Welded with Austenitic Electrodes and Tested at Aberdeen Proving Ground during the Period from 1 October 1942 through 31 March 1943.
My regards,
Widewing
-
The Show demonstrated how it took 4 shermans to take out 1 Tiger
If memory serves me right, this tactic was devised during the Africa campaign after the Allies suffered heavy losses to the Panzers. It was the commanders and tank crews in the field that devised these tatics because 1 on 1, the Sherman was clearly no match with the panzer. After all, Medium tanks intended for infantry support were never meant to go up against heavier tanks. These tactics were not Army doctrine of that time, nor was it the original tactic the tankers learned. It was learned and adapted in the field, not by training, but by experience.
Now lets concider the not so good aspects of the Tiger I and King Tiger (Tiger II) Heavy tanks. The best attribute of these two Tanks was long range, open ground attacks.
Though the Tiger tank, both I and II, were very powerful and extrememly difficult to take out, they were also very tempermental. Mechanical problems would most likely be the death of a Tiger and in a lot of cases, engine problems ended a Tigers advance. Some Tigers burst into flames due to fuel system problems.
Cross country performace was disappointing. Slow and not able to manuver across soft ground made them ineffective in battle. Both the Tiger I and King Tiger were limited to terrain that could handle the shear size and weight. Most bridges were off limits and the amount of fuel they used resulted in many being abanded by the crews. They were so complex that manufacturing was slow, which is the reason for the low numbers turned out and subsequent lose of the tanks.
Tiger I - 1140 built (including prototypes)
King Tiger - 485 built
Panzer III and IV - 24,000
Panther (Panzer V) - 4,800
M4 Sherman (All varients) 51,496
T26E3 Pershing - 2,350 between 1944 and 1945 - to bad only 20 out of the 200 issued to units saw combat during the ETO.
Now lets talk about the APSD tank round: It was not the weight of the round as was stated here. Being the first Sabot round is correct though. In escense, it is a kinetic-engery penetrator. There's lots of info on Sabot ordinance out there, so I won't go into the mechanics on how they work. There was another type of AP round that made use of a cone shaped warhead, similar to a hollow point bullet, and was very effective against WWII era armor.
What ever the case though, I think the Sherman in the game is going to be an easy kill.
-
The Tiger and Tiger II had superior maneuverability compared to the Sherman because they had the ability to lock one track and rotate in place. The Sherman couldn't do this. In tank combat its necessary to keep the front of the tank pointed at the most dangerous threat.
According to Stephen Ambrose's book "Citizen Soldier", while the Sherman's turret could rotate faster than the Tiger's, the Tiger's turret had more stability and better optics.
-
Maneuverability and maneuvering in my example are totally different. Tigers had extreme difficulty maneuvering in areas where the Sherman didn't.. I.E, a Sherman can maneuver through small towns or on narrow roads with much greater ease then a Tiger.... Speed was also a huge factor. Still, the Sherman could not stand up to a tiger alone!!!!!
-
I think the Panzer will continue to be the most used tank after a few weeks.
Why?
B
e
c
a
u
s
e
:
It has a pintle gun.
It should have faster reload times than the 17 pounder in the Firefly.
-
WW,
While I agree with you that at the end of the war (45) the German armour did definitely suffer from lack of materials, I can not as a whole agree that it was inferior in 43 or towards late 44. The Tiger II was produced and delivered prior to the Normandy invasion, the western front lost most of their Tiger II's in the retreat due to one major issue... mechanical break downs due to the strain placed on the transmission by the weight of the vehicle.
There are many proven cases where German Armour withstood tremendous beatings and the crew survived. Hardly the case if it was all spalling. I respect your opinion and information, but still feel that the Germans produced better armour until supply difficulties proved insurmountable.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
I respect your opinion and information, but still feel that the Germans produced better armour until supply difficulties proved insurmountable.
Bodhi, you keep taking thoughts out of my mind. Stop now or, someone may think "I" am "you". :noid
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
The Sherman was a "raw, mass produced machine" with not close the engineering tolerances of the Tiger, Panzer 4. The T34 series (the 34/85) was in use up until 1989. The Tiger could have been a MBT for most countries until at least 1975.
The Sherman was a pile of cow dung, regardless of the "Firefly". It's armor was a joke. I'd believe a Vet THAT FOUGHT IN COMBAT with it, before a fast-food eating author. No exaggerations are needed on the Sherman.
The 'Tiger' tank suffered from too many mechanical problems to still be in service, plus, the Firefly was a heck of a lot better at firepower because of the addition of the 17 Pounder... though the lousy armor protection was basically the Same.
Check this link for Information on the Tiger
http://www.wwiivehicles.com/germany/tanks-heavy/pzkpfw-vi-e.asp
-
The US made excellent mechanical tanks -- reliable, mobile, and technically innovative in many areas and that was certainly not the case with many countries. Germany was a mixed bag from a reliability standpoint, and Hitler led German armor development into too many types with too much weight and cost/resources.
The Brits didn't make a "adequate" tank until about the Cromwell (Sherman was still generally superior) and a good tank until the Comet. Reliability was the major shortcoming, though there were others in the key performance areas. The Centurion was, of course, the final result of lessons learned and a great tank post war.
The Russians, of course, had the JS, KV and T34 variants which had some initial shortcomings but were functionally reliable, mobile adequate to well armed and had good room to grow. Training, tactics, radio communications tended to be the major shortcomings.
The Sherman was considered an excellent tank in the desert war when it was first introduced around El Alemein in late 1942 against tanks like the Panzer III and Infantry support variants of the Panzer IV. Entirely competitive in all aspects, even gun and armor. Unfortunately, after about 1942 Germany's next generation tanks and upgrades to the Panzer IV were considerably advanced in firepower and armor.
As it has already been pointed out, our lack of response to these new developments was primarily doctrine, and I've read where that was laid at the feet of Patton. We could have invaded Europe with Pershings (or at least a lot of Pershings in the mix), and with upgunned Shermans (like the 76mm variants) from the very beginning, certainly in Italy, with more foresight IMO. There was no technological hurdle to overcome. Frankly, I'm surprised North Africa and Italy didn't provide more of a wake up call, though I guess it was figured we would just "do it right" with the tank destroyers, etc. after Overlord.
Charon
-
I know hitech and the crew know better, but we need the pershing in here, even it was thought to have worse armor than panthers, which is another tank we are mising, and a point i havent seen metiond, the americans had gyro stbilised guns and the germans didnt, that meens run and gun baby!!!:aok
-
Ironically, the Pershing had poor reliability. It used the M-4s drive train, though the Pershing was significantly heavier.
I saw an exhibit in the Patton Museum which displayed the M-26 Pershing. Right behind the Pershing was a fan belt. It said that due to an improper fan belt, Pershings tended to overheat and this caused either 7 or 13 of them to be lost in combat!
-
That may be but it was common for new tanks to have mechanical troubles. Most of them had something that needed tweaking or fixing. Thats the nature of heavy vehicles.
-
even today this happens....no REAL way to fix it