Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: NEARY on November 26, 2008, 09:58:53 PM
-
The M4 Sherman Was one of the most widely produced tank of the war, It was one of the many causes for Germany's Defeat. While yes we do have the Firefly we need the regular sherman. We have no real American Tanks. You could say we have the m8 but it is not really a tank, it is an armored car. Without the Sherman the outcome of the war may have changed dramatically.
I say the This tank should be added, it may not have been as good as the tiger or panzer but it was a very important tank. While Yes i do believe that we should add planes like the a-26,he-111,yak 3, and so on should be added first the M4 should eventully be added.
(http://i337.photobucket.com/albums/n400/mrcog_photos/48th%20Scale%20Armor/Allied%20WWII/M4%20A1%20Sherman/100_1325.jpg)
-
It was one of the sole causes ...
:huh
-
It was one of the sole causes for Germany's Defeat.
I think my brain just imploded.
I honestly couldn't read your post past this point. Though, I read it about 5 times to make sure a read it correctly, so unfortunately I didn't save any time.
-
I think my brain just imploded.
I honestly couldn't read your post past this point. Though, I read it about 5 times to make sure a read it correctly, so unfortunately I didn't save any time.
:rofl I completely forgot what his wish was.
-
The M4 Sherman Was one of the most widely produced tank of the war
and that was the only reason it was any good, it was great because of the sheer numbers, it didnt stand a chance in a 1v1 with a german tank, whats wrong with the firefly? its the same thing with a BETTER gun on it.
-
lol i misphrased that.
anyway please tell me what you think
-
i think it would be interesting to have the m4. even though we have the firelfy we need it for midwar, early war
-
Bit of deza vu, Yes, i want it, it played important roles. :aok
-
and that was the only reason it was any good, it was great because of the sheer numbers, it didnt stand a chance in a 1v1 with a german tank,
So I assume, to be consistent, you hold the same opinion of the Russian T-34?
-
No, the T-34 was actually BETTER than many of the tanks it faced. The Sherman wasn't.
-
No, the T-34 was actually BETTER than many of the tanks it faced. The Sherman wasn't.
T-34 was thouroughly trounced by the same tanks that trounced the Sherman. If your definition of a bad tank is any tank that can't go toe-to-toe with a Tiger or Panther, then every non-Tiger or Panther tank is crap, including and especially the T-34.
-
it would be nice to add it for nostalgia, but you would have to up it in formations of 3 like the bombers in order to accomplish anything in the field. that accomplishment i believe would just be living long enough to to be a distraction so that someone in a panzer could get out of the spawn without getting camper shot.
No, the T-34 was actually BETTER than many of the tanks it faced. The Sherman wasn't.
its only advantage was that it attacked in mass, you could only kill so many before they eventually got around you or you ran out of ammunition. just like the Russian soldier, when you throw 100,000 bodies in a mass wave attack against a numerically inferior foe it does not make your soldiers superior because they eventually over run a position. the human wave attack is only considered a tactic by tyrants and communist nations. the same applies to armor or any other kind of combat as well.
if you disagree with this philosophy then i suggest you review the stats for the number of destroyed t34's as opposed to the number of destroyed panzer mark IV or the panther(haha) or the tiger VI during the battle of kursk. if you really want to understand the roll of the t34 a little better than just from the Russian propaganda read this
http://www.historynet.com/battle-of-kursk-germanys-lost-victory-in-world-war-ii.htm (http://www.historynet.com/battle-of-kursk-germanys-lost-victory-in-world-war-ii.htm)
keeping in mind that this was taken from field reports to their immediate commander in the field as daily after action reports, not from reports that were publicized or used to report directly to the high command. no need for propaganda when the boss can look out the window to see how many tanks are in the driveway, right?!
(by the way don't just read the front page, its 4 pages long so to get the complete story read it all, or for just the quick facts read page 2.)
but in case you feel it unnecessary to bother to read the article here is just a small summary paragraph on the last page
"Waffen SS formations’ records of their Eastern Front operations were not declassified until 19781981. By that time, many of the major works about the Eastern Front had already been published. Later authors accepted the accounts of the battle as given in the earlier books and failed to conduct additional research. As a result, one of the best known of all Eastern Front battles has never been understood properly. Prochorovka was believed to have been a significant German defeat but was actually a stunning reversal for the Soviets because they suffered enormous tank losses."
so yes in my opinion the t34 was trash, if it didn't have massive numbers it wouldn't be remembered today.
FLOTSOM
-
So I assume, to be consistent, you hold the same opinion of the Russian T-34?
what FLOTSOM said :devil
but seriously everything ive seen or read about both the t 34 and sherman is that they were most effective because of numbers, other than that the german tanks were far superior, yes the t34 had the new sloped armour, but it was still the numbers that was the deciding factor
-
The US M4 Sherman did just fine vs the Pzr IV and other German armor in Normandy where the ranges were shorter. These blanket statments regarding the US M4 Sherman 75mm cannons as "suckage" need to be thrown around more carefully. Stop being so absolute. On paper yes... but there were far more factors in play than just what was on paper for stats.
In AH2.. based on the way HTC has modelled the current tanks... a Jeep would be able to knock out the US M4 Sherman w/ the 75mm by driving in front of it. ;)
-
What I mean by 'better' is not compared to the German tanks, but to the Sherman in general. The T34 wasn't exactly top of the line, sure. But which would you rather crash into a Tiger head on? And if I remember, the T34/76's gun was marginally better performing than the M4's standard 75mm. No drastically, but just enough to be noticeable. That, and it wasn't a TALL bellybutton NEON SIGN OF A TANK.
That means it was shorter.
-
macerxgp, the argument isnt the gun, its the armor, sherman was kind of a death trap, t34 at least had a revolutionary kind of armor
-
That's what I said, dangit! I said the gun was only SLIGHTLY better. And yes, I DID say the armor, and silhouette were improvements over the Sherman.
-
macerxgp, the argument isnt the gun, its the armor, sherman was kind of a death trap, t34 at least had a revolutionary kind of armor
Do some reading. Might change your mind.
Linky (http://www.iremember.ru/content/view/85/19/lang,en/)
I want also to add that the Sherman's armor was tough. There were cases on our T-34 when a round struck and did not penetrate. But the crew was wounded because pieces of armor flew off the inside wall and struck the crewmen in the hands and eyes. This never happened on the Sherman.
The only thing "revolutionary" about the T-34's armor was the slope. Look at the front armor of the Sherman -- sloped. The Sherman's hull armor was actually slightly thicker than the T-34s as well.
All in all, quite comparable tanks. I find it to be simply silly that the reputations differ by such a large degree.
-
Most of the reason the T-34 has the reputation it does is it was initially facing the Panzer III with the L/42 gun when it first saw service. Against that the M4 would have done OK too, but it didnt see service until the Panzer IV was the primary German tank.
-
I believe there were upwards of 50,000 Shermans made during WWII.
It is really a no brainer that it should be added.
-
Love to see it added. :aok