Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Arlo on November 30, 2001, 12:35:00 PM
-
This is bound to be a repeat request. I wonder how hard it would be to model a Sherman? It could suffice for a British tank too .... plenty served. *ShruG*
It'd be great for scenarios. :)
-
Personally, I would prefer a faster light tank like a M24 chaufee. In AcesHigh people don't wanna wait for ever to get to the action, to find that its all over when they get there :p
[ 11-30-2001: Message edited by: Hammerhead ]
-
Hammerhead,
Your request was already granted. The M8 has the same firepower as the Chaffee, about the same armor and is faster than the Chaffee was. I also like the Chaffee, I thought it was a neat small tank but hardly a real battlefield contender in a tnak battle. It was a good semi hard scout though.
(http://www.13thtas.com/mav13sig.jpg)
-
Which is what I was thinking. Even though it paled in comparison to a Tiger, the Sherman would at least be a main battle tank and while an extra 15 mph is nice, I hardly think it'll make getting into the fight THAT much quicker. Terrains designed for land combat will achieve that much more efficiently. Also, variants would span the vehicle from early to late war.
Personally I like the Stuart .... but I think the Sherman is a more practical addition to the game at this point. (http://www.multimania.com/manuel57/images/novion-porcien_sherman_1.jpg)
[ 11-30-2001: Message edited by: Arlo ]
-
Maverick, the M24 Chaffe has much better armament than an M8.
The M8 has a 37mm gun.
The M24 has a 75mm gun. This was developed from the same cannon used in B25Hs.
-
That it did ... 75 mm M6. The Sherman (well, most variants) had a 75mm m3 ... twice as many rounds ... and armor that was 4 times as thick. At the sacrifice of 15 mph or so. Also ... the Chaffee didn't come out until April, 1944 - which cuts it out of N. Africa camps. I'll take the Sherman. :)
-
As much as admiting that another US unit should be added makes we want to hurl all over my keyboard, I think the Sherman is a likely contender solely based on the fact that it has a AA gun. the T34 would be a better tank but it has no AA gun, I think that this fact alone is going to be a limiting factor governing the adaption of all future AH vehicals.look at the M8, the Puma is a much better AC but it has no AA gun,theirfore we get the M8.
M24 would be cool though.
How about a Firefly, instead of your run of the mill Sherman?
-
Nearly all fireflies never carried a .50cal MG, they only had the 7.62mm Browning as roof MG.
-
How about a T-34 since we have a lot of american stuff already and the poor russians have so little :) The T-34 was the greatest tank of WW2 IMO. SO great that some nations still have late versions of it in their inventory today!!!!! plus with our Panzer IV already it would be perfect for Eastern Front tank battles which is where the tank war was REALLY fought. That's where the Tiger was able to use it's superior range to it's advantage. A lot of where the tank battles in the Soviet Union were foughter were on Steppes, look at the game Il-2 for expample, perfectly flat land perfect for tank battles. I'd like to See Tigers Vs. T-34s and Kv-1s someday :D
-
oh plus some will argue that the T-34 is useless cause it doesn't have a gun on the roof. To tell you the truth I honestly don't care about a AA gun. Oh wow 1 7.62 mm machine gun RUN IN PHEAR ENEMY PLANES! even 1 12.7MM would be weak against a plane. All it needs to do is dive bomb or fire rockets/large caliber guns and your royally screwed
-
That's fine too. Just a decent opponent to the Panzer IV. It'd be nice to have some better ground combat line-ups for scenarios.
And later on down the road ... when there's a Spanish Civil War planeset ... some T-26s, BT-5s, Panzer Is and IIs and L-3s. ;)
-
S!
Canadian Fireflys had mostly .50 cals.
-
Soviet I would tend to agree, i just don't think HTC will agree, why esle would we get the M8 instead of the Puma?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ:
Maverick, the M24 Chaffe has much better armament than an M8.
The M8 has a 37mm gun.
The M24 has a 75mm gun. This was developed from the same cannon used in B25Hs.
Grun,
Yup yer right. That's what I get for relying on a "senior moment" instead of looking it up on the book I have on a shelf right behind my puter chair! :(
(http://www.13thtas.com/mav13sig.jpg)
-
Here's a pretty neat online resource for those of us who are book-poor (no offense, I envy someone who's managed to collect a nice resource library. :)
OnWar.com (http://www.onwar.com/tanks/)
-
I would rather have a place to use the vehicles before we get any new ones. We REALLY need a part of the game where the army can play army agains the enemy army.
HTC even mentioned doing the army as a seperate arean with different terrain and other large changes to the software to do it justice. What we have now is not working so well for an army game.
You do lose alot of interaction between the air and ground though. Still, after watching how badly WW2 Online works as a combined arms sim, it might be a better idea. I don't think anybody else has tried it yet so you cannot predict it's effect.
Hans.
-
(http://www.normandy.eb.com/normandy/week3/images/onormay231a4.gif) (http://www.normandy.eb.com/normandy/week3/sherman01.html)
[ 12-16-2001: Message edited by: Arlo ]
-
As much as the thought of adding another US unint makes me want to hurl...Wait have I said this before...hmmmm...
I think that the Sherman is as likely a candate for adation as any other probably more so than some, do to a few factors it has a 50cal AA MG, a decent ammo load, decent spead comparable gun to our panzer (depending on model, either worse or in the case of the 17 pounder way better). O and it is US :)
You know what would be cool is a British varent of the Sherman.. hey why not a firefly?...then maby we could get a Panther :)
I would love to see some Russian armor but for the most part they are devoid of AA guns.
-
Click the pic and check out the link. Some fairly decent data on all the Sherman variants used during the D-Day invasion. :)
-
I'm curious about the real life surviability of the Sherman vs Tiger or Panther. Warbirds has both the Sherman as well as Panzers, Tigers, and Panthers. On several occasions I have put two dozen shells into a Panther (at long range into frontal armor) with no effect while the first, or occassionaly second, shot from the Panther makes my Sherman a smoking hole in the ground. Then I reversed and drove a Panther- one or two shots from me and other Panthers are smoking holes in the ground. Is this accurate modeling? If so, and if AH does similar modeling, then what use would the Sherman be?
-
715,
That sounds pretty accurate, except that it is entirely possible to never penetrate the Panther's armor at long range with the Sherman.
Firefly would be a different story.
The Sherman was designed as an infantry support tank and then used as a medium tank. It had no business doing so.
-
The 17 pounder on the firefly had a comperable performance to the 7.5cm KwK L 70 main aramenent of the Panther. The Panther howeaver had a much heaver and well sloped armor. The Panther was a better tank over all compared to the Tiger, and the King Tiger was the Most formadable of all, howeaver the Panther possesed a better balence of spead armor and leatheality.
In general one can say the Sherman was a reliable,mass produced way to get US tankers in to combat so they could make the ultimate sacrafice. I read whear it generaly took 5 Shermans to every Panther.
Comparing the Sherman to the Pzkfw IV is howeaver a diffeerent story. The MA on the German Pzkfw IV, the 7.5cm KwK L 48 had a comparable performance to that of the 76mm Sherman MA ( not the 75mm, it was superiour to this gun) the armor protection on the Sherman and the Pzkfw generaly speaking was about even, that is to say each could kill the other with out to much dificulity. the Sherman howeaver was a much bigger target.
This general comparision does not factor in the Jumbo, or the British firfly.
As I have stated above, I think that the Sherman would be a logical addation as a next choice for a GV, it would be a good match aganst the Pzkfw IV, and it has a decent AA MG, It would be nice to see a British paint Job though.
I hope that at some point we could get a Soviet tank, the T 34 did more to end the war than the Sherman did, it howeaver has no AA gun :(
It is good to want our favorate rides but I think we (I) nead to be objective about what we try to back for addation to the MA.
-
I would rather see the T34-76 or -85 in AH. Either was more of a match for the German armor than the Sherman was. I watched a D-Day special on the History Channel a month or two ago, and they interviewed a guy who was there. He said they asked for volunteers for the Shermans, took them out, let them fire a few rounds (I think he said less than a dozen a piece) and sent them into battle. He said it was not uncommon to see a whole group of tanks get wiped out by the Tigers, not only because of the inferiority of the Sherman, but because of the inexperience and lack of training of the tank troops.
-
T-34'd be a good addition as well. I'd like to see them both so Eastern and Western fronts could be better represented on the ground in scenarios. :)
-
I personally would rather see the T34/35 first.
Maybe followed by the British Centurian?
(http://www.military.cz/panzer/England/centurion_1.jpg)
and then the M-26?!!? :)
(http://www.sos.state.mi.us/history/mag/extra/tanks/images/m26.jpg)
-
amen to the T-34. and an IS-2 perkie.
-
sherman M4 for use against our pnzr I think would be best.
once we HAVE panthers/tigers/t34s etc in AH then we can worry about the shermans effectiveness. :)
-
S!
Firefly would be superior to the MKIVH. The 17lber on it is a better weapon with much more velocity and penetrative power.
Shermans did not fare well versus Panthers but it is important to remember that Panthers were not available in large numbers.
Many of the Werhmacht Panzer divisions only had MkIV's in their tank battalions. Only one of the two tank battalions in either the better equipped Werhmacht or SS Panzer divisions was equipped with Panthers. The other battalion had MkIv's. Both Werhmacht and SS Panzer Grenadier divisions only were equipped with battalions of Self Propelled Guns. (StgIII's) No tanks at all.
The Tigers were even more rare.
Only 4 battalions of Tigers were in service in Normandy in June of 1944. Of these, only a small fraction were the 'King' Tiger.
Contrast that with the Allied side, where even U.S. Infantry divisions often had an attached battalion of Shermans. All the U.S. and British Corps had attached battalions of Shermans, Churchills or Tank Destroyers which were assigned to any division conducting an attack.
-
I'd vote for the T-34/76-85.
The lack of a AA gun might be worth all the "the AAMG on the T-34 is overmodeled" whiney comments! :)
Tronsky
-
British Centurian just missed WW2 action. Germans should have been thankful for that. The M26 almost missed the war. I'd rather see the M4. They did well against T34s in Korea, and there were almost 50,000 of them. There was similar number of T34s made. That's my second choice.
-
No no i want something fast like a Hellcat. But it wouold be more sensible to get an M4 105mm. Twould add more to gameplay.
-
S!
Actually if we are talking gameplay, then an indirect fire weapon is the way to go.
A M7 105mm Priest. Would enable GV's to take fields under fire from 5 miles away with spotting.
-
Eddiek, that was 3 rounds a piece, and then they were sent out to battle. The only reason they killed a panther was to get 3 or 4 on them....it'd kill 2 or 3 then the 4th would finally take it out.....it's pretty sad when you think about it.
-
eddiek
Actually it was mostly due to the inferiority of the Sherman, when even the 76mm couldnt reliably penerate a Tiger I front from within as close as 100 meters nothing the Sherman did mattered much. And the side armor of Tiger I isnt much thinner than front. And we wont even discuss sherman armor here at all. American tankers were by and large well trained and brave men who knew their eaquipment and weapons. Their tanks and Army beaurocrats let them down.
The fact is it was a tragedy that the USA didnt have technically better tanks in service than the sherman by June 1944, thousands of americans died needleslly. It was a good tank in late 1942, just as the Bf109G was good plane in late 1942 but by 1944 things were much different.
-
Experienced Sherman tankers (survivors) started making a habit of sandbagging their armor. I'm not sure exactly how effective it was. The Sherman is still an equal match for the Panzer IV and that was the German tank that had the greatest numbers. One last point in it's favor is the fact that it would be the logical choice for the western theater. It was used by the U.S., Great Britian and it's colonial forces and the Free French.
The T-34 would still be the choice for the eastern theater.
-
But M4 105 could do fight other GVs at the same time.
-
I do not know how many of you have this link, but it has many specs on not just american tanks, but mostly all the tanks of each country during the war. http://onwar.com/tanks/usa/index.htm (http://onwar.com/tanks/usa/index.htm)
-
The 105mm variant was an infantry support weapon, not intended for tank to tank combat.
*ShruG*
Nor was it a common variant.
The standard M-4 would be an even match-up for the Panzer IV. What's wrong with even?
:D
-
Originally posted by Arlo:
Experienced Sherman tankers (survivors) started making a habit of sandbagging their armor. I'm not sure exactly how effective it was. The Sherman is still an equal match for the Panzer IV and that was the German tank that had the greatest numbers. One last point in it's favor is the fact that it would be the logical choice for the western theater. It was used by the U.S., Great Britian and it's colonial forces and the Free French.
The T-34 would still be the choice for the eastern theater.
Arlo, you should read Death Traps by Belton Y. Cooper, Presidio Press. He was a Lt. in charge of liason with the 3rd armored division maintenance dept. Cooper compiled combat loss reports at the front, traveled to the rear, acquired replacements and took them back to the front. This book follows the 3rd armored from D-Day through the end of the war and gives a good clear account of mechanized warfare in western Europe. It also gives a good account of the "Tragic Inferiority of the M4 Sherman Tank" in most all tank catagories to the German armor. From gun size, muzzle velocity, armor type (I believe M4 had rolled v.s. Panzer cast), weld of armor, ground bearing pressure of the tracks, suspension type to engine horse power. In all catagories the M4 was inferior to all main battle tanks the Germans had on line. The book also describes how during a demonstration sometime in Jan. 44' at Tidworth Downs of the M26 which was being geared up for production in the states was put on the back burner due to one fellow named Patton. He had a command moment and insisted that all production be geared to the Sherman for various eronious reasons, namely that the Sherman was lighter than the Pershing, despite the fact that the Pershing had a lower ground bearing pressure(wider tracks) and a stronger engine.
He states near the end of the book that he compiled the loss reports for the division after it was over and came up with "of 158 M5 light tanks, we lost more than 100%. Of a total of 232 medium tanks (including 10 M26 pershings), 648 were totally destroyed in combat and 1,100 needed repairs. Of these 1,100, approximately 700 had been knocked out in battle. This meant that we lost 1,350 medium tanks in combat, or a total loss of 580%."
-
Just read your post Lizard. Thats absolutely shocking. I knew the Sherman was a 'bad' tank, but never realised so many were destroyed in combat. I assume that many or most were repaired (minus the crew) after being hit.
-
I've got Cooper's book too. It's a very good read. He goes into detail on how they repaired M4s and returned them to battle after cleaning out the gore. If they didn't burn, he said they could usually be repaired. Fire ruined the temper of the armor plate amoungst other things. The Third Armored division (i think that's the one he was in) was so short of tankers, they were being given infantry replacements. The maintenance battalion would give them minimal training and send them off to fight. These poor guys usually didn't last more than a few days. He was very critcal of US leadership for fielding the M4 that was used in Normandy. Apparently, he was a first hand witness to Patton's rejection of the M26, which occured well before the invasion. He also mentions that the low velocity 75mm cannon was specified by the artillary corp for extended barrel live. Since M4s were not ment to fight other tanks, armor penetration was of secondary importance. The M4 did reportedly have a very good HE round for its size.
-
Yep,
He also wrote of a mechanic that had a novel way to fix penetrations. If the mech could find the AP round that did the penetration, usually still inside the tank, He would cut off the tip, weld it in the hole, grind it off smooth and repaint it.
He also said the Germans would if they could shoot repeatedly shoot stopped tanks till they started burning so as to put them out for good. The book also has a picture of a Tiger that a Pershing caught from the side. They fired 3 shots into it point blank till it fired up. It burned for 3 days. Looks like a 8 foot blow torch coming out of the hatches.
As to the Super pershing, it sported a 90mm T15E1. They test fired it on a knocked out(from the side) but not burned jagdpather.
He states, "When it hit the target, sparks flew 60ft in the air...The 90mm projectile penetrated four inches of armor, went through a five inch final drive diferential shaft, the fighting compartment, the rear partition of the fighting compartment, pentrated a four and a half inch crank shaft of the engine and the one inch rear armor plate, and dug itself in the ground so deep we could not locate it."
WOW!
-
Does the book mention the fate of the crews whos tank had been hit? Always been curious as to whether or not tank crews had a chance to escape.
-
Originally posted by fdiron:
Does the book mention the fate of the crews whos tank had been hit? Always been curious as to whether or not tank crews had a chance to escape.
Unfortunately, the title of the book probably gives you the answer.
-
Actually, the early model of the M4s were cast .... but still, I defer to the book (even without having read it yet). Rechecking my online sources (online sources? Bah! I need more books!) the phrase I misinterpreted as "equal" was "same class".
Still, I think the Sherman would be a good ... and logical ... addition. Beats anything currently in the Allied GV set so far, and it's place in WWII history, bloody as it is, is significant.
Add the T-34 as well =0)
And if the game ever reaches towards the REALLY early sets, there's even more German, Soviet and U.S./Allied (face it, alot of U.S. armor was sold all over) I'd like to see modeled. Stuarts and Lees (Grants), T-26s and Panzer I and IIs.
No, I'm not really trying to promote "Armor High". ;)
Ok ... ok .... *ShruG* :cool:
Originally posted by Lizard3:
From gun size, muzzle velocity, armor type (I believe M4 had rolled v.s. Panzer cast), weld of armor, ground bearing pressure of the tracks, suspension type to engine horse power. In all catagories the M4 was inferior to all main battle tanks the Germans had on line.
-
Originally posted by O'Westy:
I personally would rather see the T34/35 first.
Maybe followed by the British Centurian?
You mean T34/85, right? ;)
As to the Centurian, only a few (maybe 12) evaluation vehicles made it into the warzone before the German surrender, and none saw combat. Things are better with the M-26, as it saw its first combat in February of 1945 at the Remagen bridge. Post war evaluation placed the M-26 neatly in between the Tiger I (Mk.VIE) and the Tiger II (MK.VIB) along with the Soviet IS-2. This is in terms of armor protection and gunpower, excluding mobility, which was not a strong suit of the Tigers.
Some other gentlemen have been discussing the Sherman and the M-24. In general, the M-24 was to replace the M-5 Stuart. Being slightly more mobile, better protected and armed with a lightweight 75mm gun, the M-24 stood a realistic chance of killing all but the heaviest German tanks. Indeed, it would prove to be a spectacular "breakthrough" vehicle, able to exploit a breach faster than all of its comtemporaries. It was the best light tank to see service during the war, and by a significant margin too.
Other vehicles that might be worth a look (American) are the M10, M18 and M36 Tank Destroyers. Special attention should be paid to the capabilities of the M18 Hellcat, which was probably the deadliest TD to see service during the war. Capable of road speeds exceeding 60mph (virtually all had their mechanical governors disabled by their crews, gaining 5 mph), armed with the powerful M1A1 76mm gun firing HVAP ammo, German tankers say that it was the most feared armored vehicle on the western front.
It was nearly impossible to successfully engage the Hellcat once it was moving. Moreover, it had a gyro-stabilized gun (in the vertical axis) thus making it very accurate while racing along at high speed. Its downside was its very light armor. Virtually any hit, from 50mm AP on up would penetrate. Nonetheless, the M18 maintained a rediculous kill ratio of nearly 20:1.
On the other hand, we have the M36 Jackson (also called "Slugger" by its crews). This was an M10 TD (armed with the 3" converted anti-aircraft gun), fitted with a new turret packing the M2 or M3 90mm gun. M10s and M36 TDs were built on the M4A2 chassis, with a new hull design offering a lower silhouete and better sloping of the armor. This allowed for thinner armor without loss of protection. As a result, the M10/M36 was lighter, and hence, faster and more maneuverable than the Sherman. Unfortuantely, all TDs had open-top turrets, making the crew vunerable to airbursts and infantry thrown grenades. Of course, the original concept of the TD did not include fighting infantry. However, many American combat officers insisted on using TDs as tanks, a role for which they were neither designed nor well equipped. Late war versions of the M36, specifically, the M36B2, had an armored roof added to the turret, with about a 3 inch gap all around to maintain good visibility (one advantage of the TD over the tank was its far better outward visibility). U.S. Army doctrine said that Tanks do not fight tanks. Therefore, the tanks that the U.S. employed during the first years of the war were designed to fight infantry. Tank Destroyers wer supposed to fight tanks. Unfortunately, someone forgot to inform the Germans. :D
Later experience in Italy and the ETO reversed Army doctrine and thus was the T26/M26 developed.
By the way, I finally purchased a new computer. My old 233 system was not capable of running the AH software at anything close to an acceptable frame rate. Now, I have all the bells and whistles needed with a 1.7 Gig processor, 256 meg, 400 MHz RAM and a 64 Meg nVidia G force video card. I will soon be found floundering about in the general arena. Please allow me the dignity of surviving for more than 5 minutes. ;)
My best to all,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Lizard3:
Arlo, you should read Death Traps by Belton Y. Cooper, Presidio Press. He was a Lt. in charge of liason with the 3rd armored division maintenance dept. Cooper compiled combat loss reports at the front, traveled to the rear, acquired replacements and took them back to the front. This book follows the 3rd armored from D-Day through the end of the war and gives a good clear account of mechanized warfare in western Europe. It also gives a good account of the "Tragic Inferiority of the M4 Sherman Tank" in most all tank catagories to the German armor. From gun size, muzzle velocity, armor type (I believe M4 had rolled v.s. Panzer cast), weld of armor, ground bearing pressure of the tracks, suspension type to engine horse power. In all catagories the M4 was inferior to all main battle tanks the Germans had on line. The book also describes how during a demonstration sometime in Jan. 44' at Tidworth Downs of the M26 which was being geared up for production in the states was put on the back burner due to one fellow named Patton. He had a command moment and insisted that all production be geared to the Sherman for various eronious reasons, namely that the Sherman was lighter than the Pershing, despite the fact that the Pershing had a lower ground bearing pressure(wider tracks) and a stronger engine.
Cooper greatly overestimates Patton's influence. I have seen no evidence to indicate that the T26/M26 was delayed whatsoever. If you follow its development path, you will see that it took no longer than the M-24 did from testing to production, to combat.
As to the M26 powerplant: It used the same Ford V8 that powered the lighter M4A3 Shermans. Note that the M26 was rated as being 6 mph slower (road speed) than the M4A3 Shermans as should be expected when that 500 hp engine has to push another 6-7 tons of steel down the road. As it was, the M-26 suffered many more breakdowns in the drive train, indicative of being underpowered and by extention, over-stressed.
Issues with the Sherman where generally addressed during the war. Increased armor protection in the form of weld-on plates over vital areas was a commonplace field fix, and was incorporated during production as well. Patton received the majority of the up-armored M4A3E2 "Jumbo" Shermans with better armor than the Tiger I. Most of these were later refitted with the M1A1 76mm gun mounted on the M4A3E8. Wet ammo storage helped reduce the tendency to "brew up" after being hit. Another issue mentioned was
the inferiority of the 75mm gun. No doubt, it was not terribly effective at killing tanks. Yet, you must remember, it was not designed to kill tanks. Yes, the 76mm seemed not to be much of an improvement. However, there are good reasons for this. Tank units generally did not get the limited supply HVAP ammunition, which was reserved for TD Battalions. Hence, 76mm Shermans were saddled with lower capability AP and APC ammo. Not only that, but the 76mm HE shell had a far thicker casing, and hence, a much smaller bursting charge. So, the 76mm was less effective against soft targets as well. It is important to understand that the Sherman tank suffered more from poor doctrine than from any defect in design. Any argument that categorically states that the Shermans were inferior to every German tank is a red herring. In 1942-43, it was superior to all but the Tiger I in a faceoff. Many, including myself, would argue that the Sherman was clearly a better tank than the Mk.IV throughout the war. When one considers that the Mk.IV made up the bulk of German armor, this becomes even more significant. Secondly, the majority of Shermans knocked out in combat were not killed by German armor, but by anti-tank guns and shaped-charge infantry weapons, such as the Panzerfaust. Indeed, the standard PaK 40 75mm anti-tank gun could penetrate any allied tank at a range or 500 yards (up to 143mm of rolled homogenous armor at a 30º angle). So, even the mighty M26 was at risk.
As to cast or rolled armor: Germany and the U.S. used both. There are advantages to cast armor, such as being able to vary thickness as necessary. Typically, the Panther used rolled armor, welded with lap-joints. So did later models of the Sherman, but cast armor was still used on the final drive cover. The turret and hull of the M26 was cast. Likewise was the hull of the M10 and M36 TDs.
Whereas the later M36 used a cast turret, the M10 employed a welded turret. In practice, it made little difference in combat as long as the quality of the welds was good.
I have not read Cooper's book, but I suppose I will have to. Based upon what you have stated, it appears to me that Cooper has a axe to grind. Moreover, taken out of context with German losses, it is easy to portray American tank losses as incredibly severe. Inasmuch as the American forces were nearly always on the attack, it should be understood that losses will reflect this. Compare German armor losses at Bastogne to American armor losses out of context, and you might draw the conclusion that German tanks were easy to kill. ;)
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Widewing:
"Cooper greatly overestimates Patton's influence."
Agreed. Actually, I think Cooper's account of the Patton veto is probably an example of recounting rumor as fact. Cooper doesn't say that he personally witnessed the event, it makes no sense anyway, and, as you say, objectively it doesn't seem to have happened.
"It is important to understand that the Sherman tank suffered more from poor doctrine than from any defect in design."
Also agreed. Although our tank destroyer doctrine could have been disasterous for us, fortunately it was not. Ain't no question but that the better guns went to the TDs.
"Many, including myself, would argue that the Sherman was clearly a better tank than the Mk.IV throughout the war."
In fact...does anyone actually dispute this?
"I have not read Cooper's book, but I suppose I will have to."
You should. It's an excellent book, "must" reading for armor people. Cooper has gotten a little bad publicity for his account of the Patton veto of the M-26, but otherwise his observations are informed and revealing. I don't think you can fault him for hating the Sherman. One-on-one, or even Many-on-one, there's no doubt that the Sherman v. Panther match was bound to be ugly for the Americans, and that's mostly what he saw in 3d Armored.
And, by the way....since we're discussing tanks in AH, where rare hot-rod late-war aircraft are the rule, rather than the exception....and since someone has stayed in character by observing that there actually were a dozen Centurions on the continent at the end of the war....I would like a JS-III for my tank. Perk it, if you wish.
- oldman
-
Heres something you will find VERY interesting. When the soviets captured a Tiger II, they did testing on it. The metal quality was so extremely poor, that a T34/76mm could penetrate its frontal armor from within 500meters. Also, the Tiger II broke down at least 4 times enroute to the testing grounds. The reason for the poor armor was due to the lack of a certain element (the name escapes me now) in the composition of the armor.
-
Originally posted by Arlo:
Actually, the early model of the M4s were cast .... but still, I defer to the book (even without having read it yet).
Hehe, thats why I said "believe". I wasn't sure which was who's, just that he thought the Germans was better. Sorry for the confusion :)
-
Thats simply not true about the Tiger II "test", German armor steel remained top quality and vastly superior to Soviet material up until last Panzer production in March 1945.
The only fault late in the war was slight tendency on SOME tanks for thinner armor to crack when hit.
That "test" is just some more Soviet propaganda lies. They lied a lot in "tests" of captured enemy equipment, nobody wanted to give Stalin and his bunch bad news.
-
You think? I thought Patton was a bit of a spoiled brat who got his way most of the time. Also being a "stickler for regulations", I can also see him putting his foot down for the Sherman as our tanks were not supposed to engage enemy tanks per regulations.
When the comparision at Tidworth Downs occured, the M4 sherman didn't use the Ford engine, it used a R975 Wright nine-cylinder air-cooled radial engine. Running this engine at idle speeds insured fouled plugs as it was an aircraft engine designed for a constant higher speed. Also, even with the higher horsepower Ford engine being in both tanks, the ground bearing pressure of the M26 was half that of the M4's. This being critical to offroad fighting Cooper felt it was a critical flaw.
Cooper wrote that he got the story of the demontration and Pattons rejection of the M26 from some of the 3rd armoured maintanence people detailed to help out with the demonstrations. He also sites specific points in the argument between Patton, Rose and others enough that it sounds like at least 2nd hand if not 3rd hand knowledge. I may be a dolt, but given Pattons history I would give it credence.
Originally posted by Widewing:
Cooper greatly overestimates Patton's influence. I have seen no evidence to indicate that the T26/M26 was delayed whatsoever. If you follow its development path, you will see that it took no longer than the M-24 did from testing to production, to combat.
As to the M26 powerplant: It used the same Ford V8 that powered the lighter M4A3 Shermans. Note that the M26 was rated as being 6 mph slower (road speed) than the M4A3 Shermans as should be expected when that 500 hp engine has to push another 6-7 tons of steel down the road. As it was, the M-26 suffered many more breakdowns in the drive train, indicative of being underpowered and by extention, over-stressed.
Issues with the Sherman where generally addressed during the war. Increased armor protection in the form of weld-on plates over vital areas was a commonplace field fix, and was incorporated during production as well. Patton received the majority of the up-armored M4A3E2 "Jumbo" Shermans with better armor than the Tiger I. Most of these were later refitted with the M1A1 76mm gun mounted on the M4A3E8. Wet ammo storage helped reduce the tendency to "brew up" after being hit. Another issue mentioned was
the inferiority of the 75mm gun. No doubt, it was not terribly effective at killing tanks. Yet, you must remember, it was not designed to kill tanks. Yes, the 76mm seemed not to be much of an improvement. However, there are good reasons for this. Tank units generally did not get the limited supply HVAP ammunition, which was reserved for TD Battalions. Hence, 76mm Shermans were saddled with lower capability AP and APC ammo. Not only that, but the 76mm HE shell had a far thicker casing, and hence, a much smaller bursting charge. So, the 76mm was less effective against soft targets as well. It is important to understand that the Sherman tank suffered more from poor doctrine than from any defect in design. Any argument that categorically states that the Shermans were inferior to every German tank is a red herring. In 1942-43, it was superior to all but the Tiger I in a faceoff. Many, including myself, would argue that the Sherman was clearly a better tank than the Mk.IV throughout the war. When one considers that the Mk.IV made up the bulk of German armor, this becomes even more significant. Secondly, the majority of Shermans knocked out in combat were not killed by German armor, but by anti-tank guns and shaped-charge infantry weapons, such as the Panzerfaust. Indeed, the standard PaK 40 75mm anti-tank gun could penetrate any allied tank at a range or 500 yards (up to 143mm of rolled homogenous armor at a 30º angle). So, even the mighty M26 was at risk.
As to cast or rolled armor: Germany and the U.S. used both. There are advantages to cast armor, such as being able to vary thickness as necessary. Typically, the Panther used rolled armor, welded with lap-joints. So did later models of the Sherman, but cast armor was still used on the final drive cover. The turret and hull of the M26 was cast. Likewise was the hull of the M10 and M36 TDs.
Whereas the later M36 used a cast turret, the M10 employed a welded turret. In practice, it made little difference in combat as long as the quality of the welds was good.
I have not read Cooper's book, but I suppose I will have to. Based upon what you have stated, it appears to me that Cooper has a axe to grind. Moreover, taken out of context with German losses, it is easy to portray American tank losses as incredibly severe. Inasmuch as the American forces were nearly always on the attack, it should be understood that losses will reflect this. Compare German armor losses at Bastogne to American armor losses out of context, and you might draw the conclusion that German tanks were easy to kill. ;)
My regards,
Widewing
-
Sherman was never as good a PanzerIV after the PzIV Ausf. F2, the difference in anti-tank firepower was simply too great in the Panzers favor that it overcame any advantage the Sherman migh have had. Plus PzIV had a vastly superior shilouette, which is something people often overlook. Reliability was Sherman's advantage although Panzer IV was very reliable as well much more so than Tiger and Panther. PzIV could kill the Sherman outside the range where Sherman could kill Pz IV. Sherman had thicker side armor though, however when fitted with schurzen, as were nearly all Ausf. G-J PzIV, the Panzer nearly has the same thickness.
Sherman was a very numerous and very reliable tank, it was just not a very good one.
-
Originally posted by Oldman:
Originally posted by Widewing:
"Many, including myself, would argue that the Sherman was clearly a better tank than the Mk.IV throughout the war."
In fact...does anyone actually dispute this?
- oldman
I would :) The Sherman may have had better maintanence and constant air superiority, but tank for tank I don't think the Sherman was any better if as good as the MkIV. I'm not a tank expert and I wasn't there but I would tend to agree with the man who was there from D-day to the end and who's business was knocked out tanks. Not to mention his engineering degree.
Gun, Armor and mobility, about the only thing that I can see that the M4 had over the MkIV was its power turret traverse. The MkIV had a manual traverse which was much slower to bring to bear than the Shermans.
:)
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ:
Sherman was never as good a PanzerIV after the PzIV Ausf. F2, the difference in anti-tank firepower was simply too great in the Panzers favor that it overcame any advantage the Sherman migh have had. Plus PzIV had a vastly superior shilouette, which is something people often overlook. Reliability was Sherman's advantage although Panzer IV was very reliable as well much more so than Tiger and Panther. PzIV could kill the Sherman outside the range where Sherman could kill Pz IV. Sherman had thicker side armor though, however when fitted with schurzen, as were nearly all Ausf. G-J PzIV, the Panzer nearly has the same thickness.
Sherman was a very numerous and very reliable tank, it was just not a very good one.
I'll agree that there was a gap in terms of gun power, although that was rectified with the introduction of the M1A1 76mm gun in later Shermans. However, that was the only advantage. With the addition of the spaced "Schürzen" armor, it would seem that the Mk.IV had closed the armor gap, but it didn't. The "Schürzen" served only to protect against shaped charge weapons, such as the 2.75 in. Bazooka rocket. The intent was to detonate the warhead away from the main armor. This worked until a delayed fuse was developed for the rocket. Yet, in terms of adding protection against APC and HVAP, it was virtually useless. Being just 5mm thick (3/16"), and not being hardened armor, but rather mild steel plate, it provided little assistance in keeping out the standard anti-tank ammunition then in use. You can find photos where the "Schürzen" was penetrated by rifle caliber bullets.
As to silhouette, this is another case of perception rather than reality. A typical Sherman stood 9 ft tall, with a Mk.IVH measuring 8'7". What adds to this perception is the fact that the Mk.IV is nearly a foot wider. If you believe that the Sherman has a high profile, what does the fact that the Mk.V Panther was more than a foot taller than a M4A4 do to redress this thinking?
One last point. Seeing as most tank to tank engagements took place at ranges less than 1,000 yards, the Mk.IV was at risk of suffering a first shot KO by any Sherman. Typically, at 1,000 yards, the 75mm M61 APC round could penetrate about 3" of rolled homogenous armor, inclined at 30º. While it could not penetrate the frontal armor of a Panther, it could certainly punch through a Mk.IV. In most instances on the western front, individual tank battles were often decided by who got on the trigger first.
Understand that I'm not trying to justify the poor choice of gun fitted to the Shermans. Like nearly everyone else, I feel that the doctrine in place at the time was seriously flawed. Nonetheless, the Sherman was a robust, reliable and remarkably adaptable design. On the other hand, the chassis of the Mk.IV proved to be highly adaptable as well, albeit underpowered and utterly terrible on soft ground with its narrow tracks (Germany never figured out how to design a track that was as durable or effective in mud as those on American vehicles). Having entered service in 1936, the Mk.IV was an elderly design by 1944, and could not be upgraded adequately to deal with the larger, more powerful tanks being encountered on both the west and east fronts.
Indeed, it was not possible to add additional armor as the chassis was overloaded as it was.
Of course, we know that the basic Sherman chassis continued in service, being upgraded in both armor and weaponry until we see the Israeli Super Sherman with its powerful 105mm gun that was capable of killing any tank in existance in the late 1970s. Some Mk.IVs found their way into Syria via France, and fought against the Super Shermans and Centurians on the Golan. However, their slow speed and weak armor led to their being dispatched with ease.
Looking back to Korea, we find M4A3E8 Shermans taking on T34/85 and T44 tanks with considerable success. Here at least, the Shermans had the better quality ammunition.
Whereas the Mk.IV had reached the limits of its development by 1944, the Sherman had not and would go on to prove itself for another 30 years. Without question, by 1944, the Mk.IV was well on its way to being a well armed, yet obsolesent relic.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Every figure I have seen on the Sherman 75mm APC gives a very poor 66mm-70mm penetration at 500meters. The frontal armor of PanzerIVs was at least 50mm on the Ausf F, and 80mm on the Ausf. G, H, and J. The H and G had a base of 50mm but they almost always carried a 30mm applique armor from the factory.
Shilouette is not just about heigth its about proportion and shape. Just draw yourself two tanks OF EQUAL HEIGHT on a piece of paper one very upright and "stacked" like a Sherman and one more flat and sread out like PanzerIV, which one looks taller and stands out more? Thats what shilouette means, thats why US tankers said even Panthers were better in this way compared to Shermans even though Panthers are at least as tall or taller than Shermans.
I never read of PanzerIV having having floatation problems, It was always a very light tank never even coming close to 30tons. I dont have my references here to be exact but IIRC the track width and contact patch were nearly the same as on Sherman.
I think we can all agree that all Shermans had severe floatation issues untill the adoption of duckbills and then HVSS suspension. Just from a logical standpoint It would make sense that PanzerIV had better floatioan than the much heavier Sherman given simmilar track width and contact patches.
But to your general comment that Germany couldnt design a track that was effective in mud and slush as American designs. I must take offense to this. Tiger I, Tiger II, and Panther all substantially heavier vehicles had FAR SUPERIOR floatation to any VVSS Sherman. This was one advantage all allied tank crews hated about the German tanks. You see they were told that Shermans were more mobile and manuverable than heavy german tanks, but this was not the case. I have read various reports of Shermans being unable to traverse ground just recently passed by even by 67 ton TigerIIs. The Shermans just sunk in and drowned. In fact this was one of Shermans greatesed weaknesses compared to german tanks and this was the main reason for the complicated adoption of HVSS so late in Sherman production.
Shermans great advantage was good reliabilty, the fact there were 50,000 of them, their brave crews good fighting spirit, US artilery superiority, and the USAAF.
-
OK, here's what Cooper says: "The original Mark IV had a short barreled gun similar to the 75mm M2 on our M4's; its muzzle velocity was fifteen hundred feet per second. THese had been replaced on the PzKw IV by a 75mm KwK41 gun with a much higher mussle velocity (three thousand feet per second), The Mark IV was a smaller lower-profile tank that weighed only twenty-two tons compared to our M4's thirty-seven and a half tons. It had four inches of armour on the verticle part of its glacis plate and a wider track than the M4,which enabled it to negotiate soft ground more easily than the M4 could.
In the meantime, we began to recieve the M4A1 medium tank with a long-barreled 76mm gun with a mussle velocity of 2,650 feet per second. Considering that the penetrating capacity of the projectile varies as the square of the muzzle velocity, even the Mark IV out gunned both the M4 and the M4A1."
He goes on to compare the M4's with the Mark V's, but we all know how that one went.
-
I just cant believe that an entire evaluation report would be falsified to appease Stalin, grunhertz. Why would Stalin need to be fed lies? The IS3 was either about to be produced or being produced at the time of this test. I personally think the Tiger II was a poor machine.
-
Tiger II was very good, the new long 88mm gun was the most poweful weapon (Jagdtigers 128mm nothwithstanding) to see service in WW2. It was more or less invulnerable to frontal attack. Side armor was thicker than all but heavy tanks frontal armor. It was slow andthe final drives were overtaxed. The 88 could have been competitive into the late 1950s. The JS3 had the same underpowered gun as as the JS2, this 122mm weapon had only the AP performance of a good 75mm cannon. The JS3 was a terrible design in actuality, armor and shaping were fantasic but that made it nearly useless in combat. It was too cramped had no commandsers visiblity (only a singles scope). Its complex nose welds cracked during roadmaraches (god knows what would happend if hit by enemy fire). A T34 76mm gun has performance slightly better than a Shermans 75mm. A sherman can do some 66-70mm at 500meters.
[ 12-29-2001: Message edited by: GRUNHERZ ]
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ:
Every figure I have seen on the Sherman 75mm APC gives a very poor 66mm-70mm penetration at 500meters. The frontal armor of PanzerIVs was at least 50mm on the Ausf F, and 80mm on the Ausf. G, H, and J. The H and G had a base of 50mm but they almost always carried a 30mm applique armor from the factory.
I suspect that you need to look at better data, such as that available from the Aberdeen Proving Grounds.
For the M3 75mm gun, the following types listed with penetration at 500 and 1,000 yards, against rolled, homogenous armor plate inclined at 30º from vertical.
M61 APC: 84mm @ 500 yds, Up to 72mm @ 1,000 yrds. MV= 2020-2030 fps.
M-61 APCBC: 100mm @ 500 yrds, 93mm @ 1,000 yrds. MV= 2,325 fps.
Standard AP: 76mm @ 500 yrds, 63mm @ 1,000 yrds. MV= 2,300 fps.
For the old M2 gun found on the M3 medium:
Standard AP: 60mm @ 500 yrds, 53mm @ 1,000 yrds. MV= 1,860 fps.
For comparison's sake, here the same data for the M1A1 gun fitted to later Shermans and the M18:
HVAP: 158mm @ 500 yrds, 134mm @ 1,000 yrds. MV= 3,110 fps.
Armor on the Mk.IV Auf J was as follows.
80mm on the hull and superstructure front
at 15º and 0º respectively.
30mm on the sides and rear at 0º.
50mm on the turret front at 0º, and 30mm on the sides and back at 15º.
Not much when you consider that the armor on the Sherman was progressively upgraded until the M4A3E8 HVSS (and VVS) and M4A3E2 where it easily exceeded that of the Tiger 1 and Panther (more than 50% thicker than the 100mm turret front armor on the Panther).
Check this out:
ARMOR PROTECTION M4A3E2 (254 made) and M4A3E8 (exact number uncertain) HVSS, with T23A1 turret.
Hull front: 114-140mm @ 34-90°
Hull side: 38mm @ 90°
Hull rear: 38mm@68-80°
Superstructure Front: 102mm @ 43°
Side: 76mm @ 90°
Turret front: 152mm @ 78°
Side: 152mm @ 84°
Rear: 152mm @ 88°
Mantlet: 178mm @ 90°
Here's the same data for the Panther:
Hull front: 60mm @ 35°
Hull side: 40mm @ 90°
Hull rear: 40mm @ 60°
Superstructure front: 80mm @35°
Side: 50mm @ 60°
Rear: 40mm @ 0°
Turret front: 110mm @ 79°
Side: 45mm @ 65°
Rear: 45mm @ 65°
Mantlet 100mm @ rounded
Here's the same for the Tiger II:
Hull front: 100mm @ 40°
Hull side: 80mm @ 90°
Hull rear 80mm @ 60°
Superstructure front: 150mm @ 40°
Side: 80mm @ 65°
Rear: 40mm @ 0°
Turret front: 180mm @ 81°
Side: 80mm @ 69°
Rear: 80mm @ 69°
Mantlet: 100mm @ Saukopf
Now go back and have a gander at the M4A3E8 again. This Sherman has better protection in several areas. Who'd have guessed....
So, how does the M4A3E8 stack up to the Panther? Pretty good, I'd say.
Let's compare their guns @ 2,000 yards:
Penetration @ 2,000 yards, 30° inclined armor.
M1A1 firing HVAP: 99mm
KwK 42 L/70 firing HVAP: 106mm
Damn near dead even. Except for one detail. The M4A3E8 Sherman can kill the Panther if it hits it anywhere besides the turret front and mantlet. On the other hand, the Panther must avoid the Sherman's turret and penetrate
the hull at the side or rear, probably not being able to get through the frontal armor at all. Making matters worse, refit depots were welding on 1 inch (25mm) thick plates to the sides of many later Shermans, just as they did for the early models. To kill one of these late war Shermans, you'd need an L/71 88mm to get through the frontal armor at 1,000 yards! These M4A3E8 (called the "Easy Eight") and M4A3E2 (Jumbo) Shermans were better protected than the M26.
For reference, the Soviet 122mm on the IS-2 could penetrate the Tiger II anywhere at 1,500 yards firing HEAT, and at 1,000 yards firing APCBC. Likewise, the American M3 90mm could penetrate the Tiger II anywhere out to 1,500 yards firing HVAP (3,350 fps).
Shilouette is not just about heigth its about proportion and shape. Just draw yourself two tanks OF EQUAL HEIGHT on a piece of paper one very upright and "stacked" like a Sherman and one more flat and sread out like PanzerIV, which one looks taller and stands out more? Thats what shilouette means, thats why US tankers said even Panthers were better in this way compared to Shermans even though Panthers are at least as tall or taller than Shermans.
So you agree that it really boils down to perception, right? U.S. tankers, like those anywhere else always felt too exposed.
I will be including a cobbled up image comparing various tanks, with views from the side and from the front. Draw your own conclusions.
(http://home.att.net/~historyzone/Comparetanks.GIF)
I never read of PanzerIV having having floatation problems, It was always a very light tank never even coming close to 30tons. I dont have my references here to be exact but IIRC the track width and contact patch were nearly the same as on Sherman.
I think we can all agree that all Shermans had severe floatation issues untill the adoption of duckbills and then HVSS suspension. Just from a logical standpoint It would make sense that PanzerIV had better floatioan than the much heavier Sherman given simmilar track width and contact patches.
Typically, early VVS Shermans had a ground pressure of 13.7 psi. However, virtually all Shermans in France had the duckbill conversion and the HVSS models were arriving in large numbers within a few months. Ground pressure for the HVSS Shermans was just 11.0 psi. The Mk.IVH comes in at 12.9 psi. My point was that Germany never developed a track design that had anything more than a fraction of the life of those on American tanks. Moreover, as the Brits determined in actual testing, the German tracks obtained very poor traction in mud, in comparision to the Sherman, and that relates to more than simple floatation.
But to your general comment that Germany couldnt design a track that was effective in mud and slush as American designs. I must take offense to this. Tiger I, Tiger II, and Panther all substantially heavier vehicles had FAR SUPERIOR floatation to any VVSS Sherman.
Nonsense. Ground pressures for the Mk.VIE and Mk.VIB are 13.9 psi and 13.7 psi, respectively. Whadda ya know, equal to or greater than the VVS Shermans. The Panther was somewhat better at 12.7 psi.
This was one advantage all allied tank crews hated about the German tanks. You see they were told that Shermans were more mobile and manuverable than heavy german tanks, but this was not the case. I have read various reports of Shermans being unable to traverse ground just recently passed by even by 67 ton TigerIIs. The Shermans just sunk in and drowned. In fact this was one of Shermans greatesed weaknesses compared to german tanks and this was the main reason for the complicated adoption of HVSS so late in Sherman production.
Ever do any off-roading? Its common for the second vehicle to bog down in the tracks of another which proceeded it. In light of the fact that the Tiger II had the same ground pressure as an old VVS Sherman, I have to assume that this was the same situation.
Shermans great advantage was good reliabilty, the fact there were 50,000 of them, their brave crews good fighting spirit, US artilery superiority, and the USAAF.
When the Sherman first came into service it was adequate for the time. However, as German tanks increased in armor and gun power, the Sherman was always on the back side of the "catch-up" curve. Finally, in late 1944, early 1945, it caught up. Unfortunately, an awful lot of Allied tankers paid the price of the U.S. Army's crash course in modern combat tanks and doctrine. Combat is not the best place to receive an education.
My regards,
Widewing
[ 12-30-2001: Message edited by: Widewing ]
-
114mm for the sherman M4A3 front armor??????
Your data is ridiculous.
Every M4A3 had only a 2.5 inch frontal plate. Where you get 114mm is beyond me?
Are you confusing it with the 46ton Jumbo? You are saying that the limited production unreliable 46ton heavier than M26 Jumbo assault tank had standard armor of M4A3. Thats damn desperate.
The M4A3E8 had no armor improvement over standard M4A3.
Most Shermans DID NOT have duckbills, in fact it was exceedingly rare and actually a bit ineffective because they tended to fall off. HVSS were rare anyway.
You are saying that M4A3 has better armor in many areas than TigerII, listen to yourself.
The 76mm was garbage and in no way compared to either 17lbr or Kwk42L70, it was inferior to the 75mm L48 of the PanzerIV.
Your idea that Sherman could withstand frontal fire from the Panther is beyond me. Its really interesting that your wild examples read exactly reverse of every recorded combat of Sherman vs Panther. You are saying that it was Sherman that could withstand fire, but that the Panthers had to go for side shots. Are you drunk?
And Again M4A3E8 was just an M4A3 with HVSS it had no thicker armor.
Yes they did weld on extra 1 inch plates on the glacis in the field, sometimes even two, why would they do that if Shermans were frontally invulnerable to everything but an 88L71?
Widewing your last post has so many innacuracies Im just gonna give up, I dont have the nerve to deal with it.
I am done with this thread as it has clearly degenerated beyond logic with your delusions about the Sherman impregnable super armor battleship. You are beyond help, I feel sorry for you.
Bye Bye.
-
My, I wasn't aware that you were such an accomplished amazinhunk. You ignore everything which addresses most of the roadkill you posted earlier. Instead, you get downright nasty over the Easy Eight (also ignoring the armor details of the M4A3E2, which clearly shows it to be better protected in the turret and rear superstructure than the big boogieman Tiger II).
Now, I admit I was more than vague in defining what Shermans had the heavy armor, which I have already corrected after I re-read the post.
So let's discuss the Easy Eights.
Records reportedly exist in the archives of the U.S. Army Ordnance Museum at the Aberdeen Proving Ground, and technical (maintenance and part catalog) manuals were issued for an unspecified number of M4A3E8 tanks manufactured to M4A3E2 armor standards, including the 152mm thick T23A2 turret. All were manufactured at the Fisher Tank Arsenal. All were HVSS models, which could better handle the increased weight. Unlike the Jumbo, these did not have a lower final drive ratio. Only one source gives a number of 438 built. I can find that nowhere else.
you will be able to be verify this by checking the following:
Sherman - A History of the American Medium Tank, by R.P. Hunnicutt.
Could Hunnicutt be wrong? Maybe, but I know of one former tanker who swears that he saw up-armored Easy Eights in Korea and there are mentions of them in maintenance reports dating back to July of 1945. The only thing that I am dissatisfied with is getting verifiable data as to the number made. Fisher Tank Arsenal records are hopeless according to the folks at the Army Ordnance Museum. Which bothers me becuase so many historians have used the records and taken them at face value. It may interest you to know that the museum believes that one of their E8s has upgraded armor, but the guy I spoke with couldn't tell me much more. The tank is parked along a road on the base. As of September 11, the museum is closed to non-military visitors.
Why was I inquiring? I was, and still am involved in researching some material for an author.
In March of 1945, the supply of 76mm HVAP ammo was such that it was being issued to units operating the M4A3 tanks with the M1A1, M1A1C and M1A2 76mm guns. Likewise, at least 235 of the M4A3E2 Jumbos were upgraded to the M1A1 gun, which by the way was not "a piece of garbage", and is still in service today in the Serbian and Croatian armies on their remaining M18s.
Gun Test data was taken directly from published sources.
In the future you would do well to keep the rude behavior and nasty comments to yourself. Unless, of course, you prefer to generate heat rather than light.
My regards,
Widewing
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ:
114mm for the sherman M4A3 front armor??????
Your data is ridiculous.
Every M4A3 had only a 2.5 inch frontal plate. Where you get 114mm is beyond me?
Are you confusing it with the 46ton Jumbo? You are saying that the limited production unreliable 46ton heavier than M26 Jumbo assault tank had standard armor of M4A3. Thats damn desperate.
The M4A3E8 had no armor improvement over standard M4A3.
Most Shermans DID NOT have duckbills, in fact it was exceedingly rare and actually a bit ineffective because they tended to fall off. HVSS were rare anyway.
You are saying that M4A3 has better armor in many areas than TigerII, listen to yourself.
The 76mm was garbage and in no way compared to either 17lbr or Kwk42L70, it was inferior to the 75mm L48 of the PanzerIV.
Your idea that Sherman could withstand frontal fire from the Panther is beyond me. Its really interesting that your wild examples read exactly reverse of every recorded combat of Sherman vs Panther. You are saying that it was Sherman that could withstand fire, but that the Panthers had to go for side shots. Are you drunk?
And Again M4A3E8 was just an M4A3 with HVSS it had no thicker armor.
Yes they did weld on extra 1 inch plates on the glacis in the field, sometimes even two, why would they do that if Shermans were frontally invulnerable to everything but an 88L71?
Widewing your last post has so many innacuracies Im just gonna give up, I dont have the nerve to deal with it.
I am done with this thread as it has clearly degenerated beyond logic with your delusions about the Sherman impregnable super armor battleship. You are beyond help, I feel sorry for you.
Bye Bye.
-
Originally posted by fdiron:
I just cant believe that an entire evaluation report would be falsified to appease Stalin, grunhertz. Why would Stalin need to be fed lies? The IS3 was either about to be produced or being produced at the time of this test. I personally think the Tiger II was a poor machine.
LOL fdiron it seems you have little knowledge of the methods used in the soviet union. Stalin killed 6 million of his countrymen so you can bet he was hearing only the information that was pleasing to him.
It was a widespread practise in the factories of the USSR that they made false production numbers and specs, which were exchanged with the resellers of the product, in which way both got twice the amount of money from the central government even as there were no goods made in reality, or even then very poor grade. They built and sold things on paper to insure the income.. Nobody bothered to work really or develop anything so the economy got into a standstill. There are still a few finnish built paper factories and cities in russia that haven't been upgraded since the soviets invaded the finnish ground. In fact, they are the only places in the world where you can still find pieces of the old finnish architecture. In a very bad shape though of course.
-
Found after about 2mins of searching: M4A3E8 (http://www.onwar.com/tanks/usa/fm4a376w.htm)
-
You know that data is bogus since it gives the M4A3E8 weight as 33650KG which is 34 tons, but it quotes the armor thickness of the M4A3E2 "Jumbo" assault tank which weighed close to 47tons. You see thick armor is very heavy.
Thats the problem with these wild delusions.
Sorry but I cant let this misinformation poropagate.
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the problem here is Widewing is comparing post-war Shermans to Tigers. I could be wrong, and I don't really care. :) Just think you guys got your wires crossed somewhere. The Germans did call it the Ronson after all.
-
Still looking for other sources that use different references... the best I've found so far is a qoute on M4 repair depots:
"When the applique armor was added on the hull sides, it was welded in place along the top and sides, but not at the bottom. These plates (one on the left side and two on the right) were added at about the same time as the additional plates that were welded in front of the drivers' hoods and also the armor patch on the right front of the turret. Also about this time the later transmission housing was included, the newest casting having 4.5in of armor with a sharper profile to reduce the vertical area."
This would tend to support that at least the later transmission housings were considerably thicker than the earlier 2.5" ones found on earlier Shermans.
-
Sure seems like OnWar.com (http://www.onwar.com/tanks/) went to alot of trouble just to propogate a rumor about the Sherman tank. ;)
Well, here's another site that went out of it's way to post specific statistics on the Sherman and claims the "easy eight" at just over 33 tons:
The M4 (http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/UnitedStates/mediumtanks/M4/M4.html)
Granted ... it didn't mention armor thickness. Oh, the shortcomings of the internet!
[ 12-30-2001: Message edited by: Arlo ]
-
Alas ..... seems other online sources give varying armor thicknesses for the "Easy 8".
This site (http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/1975/m4a3e8.htm) puts the upper hull armor thickness at 63.5 mm and the lower at 108 mm to a little above 50mm.
Ah, the joy of searching for technical data on the internet. :) *chuckle*
All in all, I still say some variant of the Sherman would be nice .... Jumbo or not.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ:
You know that data is bogus since it gives the M4A3E8 weight as 33650KG which is 34 tons, but it quotes the armor thickness of the M4A3E2 "Jumbo" assault tank which weighed close to 47tons. You see thick armor is very heavy.
Thats the problem with these wild delusions.
Sorry but I cant let this misinformation poropagate.
I can see that this site used Hunnicutt's book for reference. They even scanned in some of the line drawings. The differing weight between the M4A3E2 and M4A3E8 may relate to the majority of the Easy Eights. But, you would think that he would include both, but he doesn't do so in his book either. My understanding is the M4A3E8 "Special" (for a lack of a better term) weighed in at nearly one ton more than the Jumbo.
I scanned a line drawing of this beast, and I have placed it alongside the standard M4A3E8 and a 76mm M4A2 for comparison. Note the different turret (T23A2) and the absence of the side hatches. Again, draw your own conclusions.
(http://home.att.net/~historyzone/M4comparison.GIF)
My regards,
Widewing
-
Yes M4A3E8 upper hull thicknes was 2.5 inches which is 63.5mm, its not 100mm or whatever these bogus fantasy sources say. The only steel applique side armor on shermans were three one inch thick plates welded on to cover the ammo storage in the hull sides. This practice was later almost totaly discontinued when (W) wet water/glycol jacketed ammo storage was introduced in the M4A3.
There were a few M4A3E8 (not really called that in WW2 BTW)with field modifications fitting added steel plates to the upper hull. Some were even cut off from destroyed german tanks. Some even had emergency army issue up armor kits that added some extra armor plates to the final drive housing and hull superstructure. But none of this was standard and none of it was representative of any normal M4A3 Sherman armor.
M4 Sherman was extremly vulnerable frontally to Panther fire out in excess of 3500 meters. Sherman could not destroy Panther at those ranges. Even 76mm shermans, even with HVAP. Panther is better than Sherman. Its that simple, American Shermans never had or even gained parity. The British Firefly achieved armament parity in the anti-tank role. As for the "Jumbo", well they had very very very good armor, but they weighed between 42-47 tons (sources vary), the vast majority of the only 250 built NEVER got the 76mm and had to use the anemic 75mm and they all had the VVSS suspension with duckbill track. They also broke down trmendously often, had greatly reduced mobility, far worse floatation, were underpowered and very rare.
I find it very sad that some internet sources say that all 50,000 Shermans had the Jumbo armor thickness.
[ 12-30-2001: Message edited by: GRUNHERZ ]
-
Is there a picture of this special M4A3E8?
As in a WW2 picture.
[ 12-30-2001: Message edited by: GRUNHERZ ]
-
I found this data table on the web.
Tank (attacker)- Failure Distance - Tank (defender)
JS2 - Fails @ 1500M vs Panther D
Panther D 75mm - Fails @ 400M vs JS2
JS2 - Fails @ 200M vs Tiger II
Tiger II - Fails @ 1200M Vs JS2
Sherman M4A3E8 - Fails @ 1500M vs Panther D
Panther D - Fails @ 1600M vs Sherman (M4A3E8)
Sherman M4A3E8 - Fails point blank vs Tiger II
Tiger II - Fails @ 2500M vs Sherman (M4A3E8)
Comet - Fails @ 1500M vs Panther D
Panther D - Fails @ 1500M vs Comet
Comet - Fails @ 500M vs Tiger II
Tiger II - Fails @ 2500M vs Comet
Pershing - Fails @ 2000M vs Panther D
Panther D - Fails @ 600M vs Pershing
Pershing - Fails @ 1300M vs Tiger II
Tiger II - Fails @ 1800M vs Pershing
See it yourself -
Penetration Table (http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/UnitedStates/mediumtanks/MediumTanks.html)
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ:
Is there a picture of this special M4A3E8?
As in a WW2 picture.
[ 12-30-2001: Message edited by: GRUNHERZ ]
I have yet to find one specifically labeled as such.
By the way, Hunnicutt (or whom ever) was mistaking when they identified the turret as the "T23A2". There was no such turret. Only the T23E2 fits the description (used on the Jumbo too, I believe).
My regards,
Widewing
-
Yep thats my problem with it too widewing, ive never seen one not even in Hunnicuts giant Sherman book. Maybe it was just a paper project, If Hunnicut doesnt show a picture of it. Because he has just about every type of variant ever made in his in depth type specific books. I love the Pershing book, it even has details and pictures of a nasty "Jumbo" Pershing.
Thats why I doubt a Jumboed HVSS was ever made. They should have made A Jumbo HVSS Firefy, that would be a neat tank though still too heavy unreliable and underpowered.
-
That was never in contention to begin with. Comparisons between the Sherman and the PzKpfw V Panther don't apply in regards to adding the Sherman (or a variant of) to the AH GV set right now. There still may be some disparity between the Sherman and the PzKpfw IV .... but not as great of one. And even with it not being a perfectly even matchup, what's the sense in not adding the Sherman based on that? How many other GVs in the game come even as close as the Sherman? How many planes are a perfectly even matchup (granted, there's more flexability to take advantage of your vehicles strengths in air combat versus ground combat)?
Why not add the M4 .... and when AH adds the Panther, then the Jumbo Sherman would be a logical addition as well.
Add the T-34, for that matter.
But ..... let's be sure there's some terrain with some cover. :)
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ:
M4 Sherman was extremly vulnerable frontally to Panther fire out in excess of 3500 meters. Sherman could not destroy Panther at those ranges. Even 76mm shermans, even with HVAP. Panther is better than Sherman.
[ 12-30-2001: Message edited by: GRUNHERZ ]
-
Im all for adding some type of representative Sherman or any other GV.
Im a bit confused, did I give the impression I was against addding it?
-
With all the left and right turns over technical statistics of various tanks it's hard to see where you stood on the actual thread subject. :)
-
Originally posted by Widewing:
I found this data table on the web.
Tank (attacker)- Failure Distance - Tank (defender)
JS2 - Fails @ 1500M vs Panther D
Panther D 75mm - Fails @ 400M vs JS2
JS2 - Fails @ 200M vs Tiger II
Tiger II - Fails @ 1200M Vs JS2
Sherman M4A3E8 - Fails @ 1500M vs Panther D
Panther D - Fails @ 1600M vs Sherman (M4A3E8)
Sherman M4A3E8 - Fails point blank vs Tiger II
Tiger II - Fails @ 2500M vs Sherman (M4A3E8)
Comet - Fails @ 1500M vs Panther D
Panther D - Fails @ 1500M vs Comet
Comet - Fails @ 500M vs Tiger II
Tiger II - Fails @ 2500M vs Comet
Pershing - Fails @ 2000M vs Panther D
Panther D - Fails @ 600M vs Pershing
Pershing - Fails @ 1300M vs Tiger II
Tiger II - Fails @ 1800M vs Pershing
See it yourself -
Penetration Table (http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/UnitedStates/mediumtanks/MediumTanks.html)
My regards,
Widewing
The table is somewhat misleading in it's layout. By just looking at the table one would assume the tank in the left column is the one being shot at by the tank in the right column when in fact the opposite is true. It's very interesting that with 76mm HVAP ammo the Sherman takes out the Panther from 1500m while the Panther can knock out the Sherman from 1600m... not that it implies anything resembling parity. ;)
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ:
Yep thats my problem with it too widewing, ive never seen one not even in Hunnicuts giant Sherman book. Maybe it was just a paper project, If Hunnicut doesnt show a picture of it. Because he has just about every type of variant ever made in his in depth type specific books. I love the Pershing book, it even has details and pictures of a nasty "Jumbo" Pershing.
Thats why I doubt a Jumboed HVSS was ever made. They should have made A Jumbo HVSS Firefy, that would be a neat tank though still too heavy unreliable and underpowered.
I called a few people I know asking about this tank. No one had ever heard of it, and one of these guys was a maintenance officer with the 10th Armored. However, I did get the name and phone # of an elderly gentleman who was an Army liaison with the Baldwin Locomotive Works and spent some time at Grand Blanc. It's a bit too late to call him this evening, but I will try tomorrow.
Perhaps, just perhaps, I can get some facts beyond published data, which frequently cannot be relied upon, as we have seen.
BTW, I would love to get my hands on Hunnicutt's Sherman book. All I have is 34 photocopied pages and a request to verify some of the facts. This is proving much harder to accomplish than I expected when I took on the task. In this case, I have been trying to find people or reports that can shed light on a specific engagement (Battalion sized) and the specific Sherman models involved. So far, I have found that this unit had at least 4 different models at any given time. Moreover, some of these had been so extensively modified at repair depots that no one can be sure what version they originally were. For example, one Sherman has two completely different serial numbers! What did they do, weld two different halves together!!?? Probably a typo. Since there aren't any photos of the tanks in question, it may not be possible to identify the manufacturer or the specific version.
Anyway, I've gone through every armor resource I have and I can't find a single photo of an up-armored Easy Eight, that can be confirmed as being built that way. I have seen two where plates were obviously welded on the glacis, and sides. But, this clearly looks like depot level stuff and not factory work. Moreover, these do not have the T23 turret as did the jumbo. Well, maybe tomorrow will bring something of use. This guy lives somewhere in Maine as he has a 207 area code.
My regards,
Widewing
-
The field up armored HVSS models existed, no doubt. I really love those Shermans they look great. But were quite rare.
-
I found this little gem whilst looking about, rather interesting:
"An important variant of the M4 was the M4A3E2 Jumbo assault tank. This modified vehicle was heavily armored (although all initial production models were equipped with the 75mm). Few (254) were factory built, however Ordnance workshops of the US First and Third Armies successfully modified many M4s in the field to Jumbos (between January and March 1945 the Third Army alone produced 108 of these "ersatz Jumbos," it appears that about 100 additional were produced in 1944). Allocation of the Jumbo varied. Usually they were found in the armored divisions, although some First Army separate tank battalions also had them. Normally there was no more than one "Jumbo" per company, although some divisions organized them as a complete company within the battalion."
Link (http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/usarmy/tanktypes.asp)
-
I have never seen from any source a claim that the Panther (any model) and the Comet had armour and gun parity. Which is what that table says.
Certainly no version of a 76mm sherman and the Panther have gun and armour parity.
The table is very suspect.
I hope we get the M4a3(75) and the T34-85....
-
Heres an interesting fact- Most tank combat on the Western front took place at less than 400 yards. Thats not very far at all. Also, I will try to dig up the report on the Tiger II.
-
Well a number of those figures are higly suspect.
For example the Comet has VERTICAL 100mm thick frontal armor. The Panthers gun can easily penetrate that at over 1500 meters.
The Comets gun is the 77mm OQF gun, this is basically a compact shortened version of the 17lbr gun. It fires the same ammo but the gun tube is considerably shorter. Its a bit less powerful than the 17lbr gun, but its easier to mount, a compromise of sorts.
Even more suspect is that the chart says the M4A3E8 and Panther are almost identically vulnerable to each other, one failing at 1500 and the other 1600. Just for the sake of argument assuming equal gun power (its not), the Panthers vastly better frontal armor would give it an enormous advantage over the Sherman. The Panthers armor is both thicker and more steeply sloped.
And this chart says that the Comets shortened sub 17lbr gun fails against the TigerII at 500 meters, while the JS2s 122mm fails at only 200 meters. The Soviet 122 had the same AP power as the Panthers 75 and as the full 17lbr gun.
Another thing. If this Comets gun is so powerful vs TigerII (fails 500meters), why does the chart say it fails against Panther at 1500meters, when the M4A3E8 gun also fails against Panther at 1500mters. Yet the M4A3E8 on the chart fails against TigerII at ZERO RANGE. The comet fails at 500 meters.
Really that chart strikes me as being rather fanciful. Very bogus and useless.
-
The Pz Kpfw Tiger Ausf B heavy tank (also called the Sd Kfz 182 "special purpose fighting vehicle type 182," according to unified designation system used by the Germans), was developed by "Henschel" under the leadership of its chief designer Erwin Anders. It was in mass production from January 1944 up to May 1945. The tank weighed 69.4 tons, and had a power-to-weight ratio of 10.08 h.p. per ton. The hull and turret were made of rolled homogenous armor plate with low to medium hardness. 487 vehicles were produced in total.
Photo 1. King Tiger #502 at the NIIBT proving ground. "Glory to Korobov" is written on the gun barrel in recognition of the commander of the 2nd battalion, 53rd Guards Tank Brigade.
Photo 2. King Tiger #502 at the NIIBT proving ground.
The first "Tiger-B" tanks captured by Soviet forces were sent to the Chief Armored Vehicle Directorate's (GBTU) Armored Vehicle Research and Development proving ground (NIIBT) at Kubinka for comprehensive study. There were vehicles numbered 102 and 502. The very movement of these tanks to the loading station under their own power revealed numerous defects. At 86 kilometers, the left idler wheel went out of commission (when the bearings failed), as well as the left drive sprocket (when all the mounting bolts sheared). The high temperatures at the time, which reached 30 degrees Celsius (86 F), turned out to be too much for the cooling system. This led the right engine block to overheat and to continual overheating in the gearbox. The tank was repaired, but after that the right side running gear had completely failed. It was replaced with one scavenged from another tank, but this one almost immediately went out of commission again when the drive shaft roller bearings failed. Besides this, time and again it was necessary to change the track's elements, which were constantly breaking (cracking) due to the tank's colossal weight, especially when the vehicle was turning. The design of the track tensioning mechanism hadn't been completely perfected. As a result, the tension had to be adjusted after every 10-15 km of travel.
Photo 3. The hull and turret prior to testing.
In the end, both captured vehicles were delivered to the NIIBT proving ground, where vehicle #102 underwent further maneuverability tests. This testing encountered severe obstacles connected with the extremely low reliability of the chassis elements, engine, and transmission. It was determined that 860 liters of fuel was sufficient for 90 km of movement over an dirt road, even though the vehicle's manual indicated that this amount of fuel should have been sufficient for 120 km. Fuel consumption per 100 km was 970 liters instead of the 700 liters according to this same (captured) manual. Average rate of movement along the highway was 25-30 km/h, 13.4-15 km/h along an dirt road. The average speed when moving over rough terrain was even worse: 6-7 km/h. The maximum speed, given as 41.5 km/h in the tank's technical documentation, was never even once achieved in the maneuverability tests.
Photo 4. The hull and turret during testing.
In order to obtain an objective evaluation of the tank's armor protection, it was decided to subject to shell fire the hull and turret of the captured vehicle with turret number 502. Most of the systems and assemblies were removed for further study. The tank's armament was sent to the ANIOP for study.
The live fire tests were conducted in the fall of 1944 at Kubinka, during the course of which the following results were obtained:
"1. The quality of armor on the "Tiger-B" tank, in comparison with the armor on the "Tiger-I," and "Panther," tanks, as well as early production "Ferdinand" self-propelled gun, has sharply deteriorated. The first individual impacts caused cracks and spalling in the armor of the "Tiger-B" tank. Groups of shell impacts (3-4 shells) caused large-scale spalling and fractures in the armor.
2. Weak weld seams appeared characteristic of all hull and turret joints. Despite careful workmanship, the seams held up to shell impacts significantly worse than they did in analogous constructions on the "Tiger-I," and "Panther," tanks, as well as the "Ferdinand" self-propelled gun.
3. Impacts of 3-4 armor-piercing or high-explosive fragmentation shells from 152, 122, or 100 mm artillery pieces caused cracks, spalling and destruction of the weld seams in the tank's 100-190 mm thick frontal armor plates at ranges of 500-1000 metres. The impacts disrupted the operation of the transmission and took the tank out of service as an irrevocable loss.
4. Armor-piercing projectiles from the BS-3 (100 mm) and A-19 (122 mm) gun completely penetrated when impacting the edges or joints of the "Tiger-B" tank's front hull plates at ranges of 500-600 metres.
5. Armor-piercing projectiles from the BS-3 (100 mm) and A-19 (122 mm) gun completely penetrated the "Tiger-B" tank's front turret plate at ranges of 1000-1500 metres.
6. 85 mm armor-piercing projectiles from the D-5 and S-53 gun failed to penetrate the tank's front hull plates or cause any structural damage at distances of 300 metres.
7. The tank's side armor plates were notable for their sharply unequal durability in comparison with the frontal plates and appeared to be the most vulnerable part of the tank's hull and turret.
8. The tank's hull and turret side plates were penetrated by armor-piercing projectiles from the domestic 85 mm and American 76 mm guns at ranges of 800-2000 metres.
9. The tank's hull and turret side plates were not penetrated by armor-piercing projectiles from the domestic 76 mm guns (ZIS-3 and F-34).
10. American 76 mm armor-piercing projectiles penetrated the "Tiger-B" tank's side plates at ranges 1.5 to 2 times greater the domestic 85 mm armor-piercing projectiles."
Here, for fans of the "King Tiger," it should be said that the 122 mm D-25 tank gun mounted on the IS-2 tank was the direct descendent of the A-19 gun-howitzer. Basically, these guns were different in their breech blocks (the D-25's was semi-automatic) and in a few technical details not affecting their ballistics. Consequently, the armor penetration capabilities of both guns were the same. In addition, the 100 mm BS-3 field gun and the D-10 tank gun, mounted on the SU-100, also had the same armor penetration capabilities.
Photo 5. Penetrations in the front hull armor.
Photo 6. Penetrations in the side hull armor. Penetration #32 was made by a 122 mm sharped armor-piercing projectile at a range of 1500 metres.
During lab tests of the "Tiger-B" tank's armor, conducted at TsNII-48, it was noted that there had been an "evident gradual decline in the quantity of molybdenum (M) in the German T-VI and T-V tanks, and a complete absence in the T-VIB. The reason for replacing one element (M) with another (V, vanadium) must obviously be sought in the exhaustion of their on-hand reserves and the loss of those bases supplying Germany with molybdenum. Low malleability appears to be characteristic of the "Tiger-B's" armor. An advantage of domestic armor, as is well-known, is its high malleability; German armor has fewer alloys and is therefore significantly less malleably."
A comment should also be made here. More malleably armor results in a smaller number of secondary fragments when penetrated (these fragments intended to kill crew and to damage tank controls), and, besides this, the armor has a smaller chance of cracking.
Photo 7. The front armor of the turret. Penetration #23 was made by a 100 mm armor-piercing projectile*. Penetration #25 was made by an 88 mm armor-piercing projectile that went completely through the tank (see photo below) at a range of 400 metres.
* Perhaps a misprint. The hole #23 seems to me closer to the 76 mm calibre rather then 100 mm. I suppose it was made by an American 76 mm projectile - Valera.
Photo 8. The rear part of the turret. The exit hole of the 88 mm projectile is visible.
During testing of the weapon, the German KwK 43 tank gun gave good results in both armor penetration and accuracy, practically the same as the Soviet 122 mm D-25 gun on the IS-2 tank. At a range of 1000 metres, the following projectile impact deviations from the aiming point were observed: 260 mm in the vertical, and 210 mm in the horizontal. In comparison, for the IS-2 tank's D-25 gun the average projectile deviation from the aiming point did not exceed 170 mm in the vertical and 270 mm in the horizontal during stationary firing at a range of 1000 metres. The penetration capability of the 71-caliber long 88 mm KwK 43 gun, with its muzzle velocity of 1000 m/s for its armor-piercing projectiles, was 165 mm at a 30 degree impact angle at 1000 metres. In particular, the "Tiger-B" projectile went completely through the turret of its "colleague" at a range of 400 m. But in high-explosive power, the 88 mm projectile was 1.39 times inferior to the 122 mm high-explosive fragmentation projectile.
Photo 9. The right side of the turret.
Photo 10. The left side of the turret. Impact #43, made by a 122 mm high-explosive shell, caused the armor to fracture.
The final report of 16 February 1945 on the "Tiger-B" tests, stated the following:
"The frontal hull and turret armor is low quality. Non-penetrating damage (dents) in the armor caused cracking through the armor and large scale interior spalling. The side plates were notable for their sharply unequal durability in comparison with the frontal plates and appeared to be the most vulnerable part of the tank's hull and turret.
Shortcomings:
The chassis is complex and is not durable.
The steering mechanism is complex and expensive.
The side running gear is extremely unreliable.
The radius of action is 25% inferior to the "IS"-tanks.
The ammunition (except in the turret recess) is awkwardly located.
The excessive size and weight of the tank do not correspond to the tank's armor protection and firepower."
Pic 11. The armoring scheme and type of armor plate joints for the King Tiger. Taken from the report on the testing of the tank at the NIIBT proving ground in 1944.
Translated by:
Douglas Rauber
Sources:
"Tankomaster" #6 1999.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This page belongs to the Russian Battlefield
Source = http://history.vif2.ru/library/bookshelf/weapons/weapons7.html (http://history.vif2.ru/library/bookshelf/weapons/weapons7.html)
-
Well lets start with a few problems.
The Soviet 100mm was much more powerful in the AP role than the 122mm. The only reasons it was not adopted in the JS2 was its comparative rarity at the time and the 122mm vastly better HE charge. The russians knew this in WW2, why does the report lie?
Then this one is typical of Soviet lies when comparing enemy weapons to siviet ones:
"During testing of the weapon, the German KwK 43 tank gun gave good results in both armor penetration and accuracy, practically the same as the Soviet 122 mm D-25 gun on the IS-2 tank."
This is simply a lie, the Soviet 122 is not even in the same class when it comes to AP performance as is the KxK43L71. This is not a point of debate in any way its simply a fact. The 122 was rougly equal to the Panthers 75mm in AP.
The whole report is typical Soviet style, Ill let the others here rip it uas as they notice other oddities.
Dont trust the Soviets when it comes to weapons testing.
-
If you click on the link I provided at the bottom of the report, it even has pictures of the holes that the shells made. How could those have been faked?
-
The whole article is called "Was the King Tiger really King"
Its typicall Soviet and Russian feeling of inadiquacy thing. Its not fake tank with holes no, but its also not all honest.
Its not like they didnt test it, I just suspect their words. It just happened so often in the Soviet system. Thats all.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ:
The field up armored HVSS models existed, no doubt. I really love those Shermans they look great. But were quite rare.
Well, I have some very good info on the Jumbo Easy Eights.
I called Mr. Glendenning this morning (9 AM here on the east coast). My friend had already given him the heads-up that I would call, apparently last evening. So, he had some time to gather his thoughts and papers together.
Here's what he could tell me:
1) Only 4 or 5 "Jumbo" Easy Eights were built. Moreover, they were modified from M4A3E8s that were on the production line. These were requested by the Army as test vehicles for the purpose of determining if the new HVSS chassis would better handle the increased weight than the VVS chassis. Initial testing was performed at the Fisher plant facility. After this, they were transferred to the Army. Mr. Glendenning believes that they went to the ETO for combat trials. It was possible to build these tanks because there existed 4 or 5 T23 turrets which were cast for the Jumbo program, but never used. Glendenning says that the serial numbers of these tanks will be hard to isolate as they were taken at random from the production line. By and large, Mr. Glendenning is working from memory and cannot be absolutely certain of much more than what he saw being built.
2)Here's where the 438 Jumbo M4A3E8 number comes from, I think.
Glendenning recalls that Fisher prepared approximately 400 - 500 appliqué armor kits for the Easy Eight. These included face hardened plates for the glacis, hull and sides. He recalls that the front plates were 3.00 inches thick (about 78mm). There were prefabricated plates for the mantlet and rolled, some kits contained curved plates for the turret sides. Plates for the side supperstructure were about 1 inch thick. Glendenning says that these were shipped to the Army's depots in late 1944, early 1945. He has no idea if they were distributed in the ETO, but figures that they probably were.
However, he also believes that many of the Jumbo modified M4A3E8 Shermans ended up in Israel, where they were converted with new turrets and again rearmed with 105mm guns.
So, that should be the end of the mystery. Reports of up-armored Easy Eights can be accounted for by depot upgrades in theater using the kits. No doubt that the upgraded Shermans were rude surprise for the German tankers who encountered them. Nonetheless, even if every kit was installed (probably not), and even if we add in all of the original Jumbos, the total number of up-armor Shermans was small enough that their effect on the outcome of the war was probably limited to localized engagements. Especially when one realizes that most of the Easy Eights didn't get into combat until after February of 1945 anyway. Too few, too late to matter much.
My regards,
Widewing
[ 12-31-2001: Message edited by: Widewing ]
-
Check out this monster Assualt Gun, which was under development during the last year of the war. The T-28 reportedly carried up to one foot of armor in the front glacis. It was armed with the new 105mm gun. Weighing in at 95 tons, the five prototypes were terribly undepowered, not able to reach 10 mph. Nonetheless, I can imagine the horror of a JagdTiger crew if they found this behemoth waddling towards them. Of course, they could simply jump out and escape on foot. :) It was cancelled when the war ended. Must have been the American concept of the Maus. :eek:
(http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/UnitedStates/heavytanks/usht-T28-a.jpg)
See U.S. Heavy Tanks (http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/UnitedStates/heavytanks/HeavyTanks.html) for additional photos.
Read more about it at:
T28 article (http://www.missing-lynx.com/gallery/modern/dmt28.htm)
My regards,
Widewing
[ 12-31-2001: Message edited by: Widewing ]
-
There is a T28 down at Fort Knox, its a huge beast. It is so heavy it has 2 treads per side.
-
The Israelis never had any uparmored M4A3E8. In fact the vast majority of Israeli Shermans were M4A1 cast hull types. Many of course had HVSS, but HVSS does not mean solely M4A3E8. The M51 Isherman the one with the French 105mm gun were all cast hull HVSS types with no extra armor. For what its worth your friend is entirely mistaken in this area.
As for up armor kits the army did make a bunch of new glacis applique plates for M4A3 thype hulls but from what I know they were all one inch thick plates. The only curved side plates for the turret were again one inch thick plates to be mounted on the right side of some early Sherman 75mm gun turrets. This was needed to cover up a thin armor area because the cast armor was ground away from the inside to clear a new turret traverse gear. Later 75mm turrets incorporated thicker casting in this area and you can see a tiny overhang in the right front turret area.
The army also had a kit to improve armor on T23 style turrets. This consisted of a flat one inch thick plate assemmbly that was bolted/welded to the front quarters of the turrets. I have never seen or heard of any army kit to up armor the mantlet of a T23 turret.
But whatever our disagreements there certainly were official and unoffical attempts to uparmor the Sherman in late 1944 early 1945. The expedient Jumbos were a part of this. But of course they were exceeedingly rare and came in too late to have any real effect. The Sherman was still very much outclassed however by the Panther.
The Pershing largely closed the gap but even the US army considered it inferior to Panther, go figure. Thats from Hunnicuts Pershing book.
T28/T95 are pretty damn cool, the also had an "assault" tank named the Tortise, it mounted a 32lbr gun.
It really wasnt like mouse, mouse was inteded as a, gasp, combat tank whereas T28 and Tortise were fortress assault tanks.
Anyyway any of these huge supertanks were wasteful beyond belief and would have been killed by airstikes where possible.
BTW the Garmans drew up plans for a "tank" powered by four U-Boot engines that mounted turrets from a Cruiser or Pocket Battleship.
:rolleyes:
-
Rocket-tank.
-
Originally posted by Widewing
Well, I have some very good info on the Jumbo Easy Eights.
Too few, too late to matter much.
My regards,
Widewing
[ 12-31-2001: Message edited by: Widewing ]
Like the Me-163!!!
Model it NOW!
Sakai
-
Putting a Sherman in this game would be the equivalent of straping a gas can to your back and begging someone to shoot at you. T-34 and Tiger were the best tanks of WWII, IMHO.
-
It's not just MA anymore, bloke. Like it or not, the Sherman was the big boy for the Western allies for a long time and it would be just the ticket to help the ground portion of both Classic events and TOD. The T-34 would do the same for Eastern front oriented scenarios and events.
MA has all it needs. Time to get serious about modeling what historically fought against each other for TOD and events. TYTYVM ;)
-
Arlo you are right. With the Sherman and the T34 AH's arena and scenarios would much better. We have so much hangar queens and so few tanks.
A better ground war would bring many more customers to HTC.
-
Originally posted by brady
Soviet I would tend to agree, i just don't think HTC will agree, why esle would we get the M8 instead of the Puma?
Maybe because Puma was so rare?
I don't see much scenario value for Puma, I guess only few hundred were made. M8 is good choice. Maybe SPW 232 or PSW 234/1 would be good choices for germans.
-
Originally posted by Buzzbait
S!
Firefly would be superior to the MKIVH. The 17lber on it is a better weapon with much more velocity and penetrative power.
Shermans did not fare well versus Panthers but it is important to remember that Panthers were not available in large numbers.
Panther was about as common as PzKpfw IV late in the war. (1944)
-
True ... Panthers were indeed around in significant numbers by the time of Normandy.
Still, the Western allies need something with more substance. And once again I point to the Sherman. It's better than anything in the current AH inventory as far as Western Allied armor is concerned. Jumbo and Firefly variants could be added as perkie rides.
And for the Eastern front allies ... there's still nothing I can think of better than the T-34.
-
i want a jeep. With a 50 caliber in the back. Maybe the top speed of 95 to 100 mph. :)
Well hell just make one that says a stolen Cadillac with 50 calibers
sticking through the windows:p :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
-
I've been pushing for a Sherman Calliope for awhile now. Main gun with rockets would be a good equalizer to Tigers and Panzers.
-
Reason 103 to add the Shermie, Baby. Woof.
-
(http://www.100thww2.org/support/174.jpg)
-
can have those sandbags too??:)
-
Originally posted by fdiron
Also, the Tiger II broke down at least 4 times enroute to the testing grounds.
The reason for this is that the Tiger II was significantly heavier then the Tiger I, however, the Germans decided to use the same engine in the II model as the I. Putting 70,000 kg of weight on the same engine that didn't even do a good job of moving 53,000 kg wasn't exactly a shining moment in the German war effort.
-
Sherman!
But only after they fix the armour game.
-
(http://images.ea.com/eagames/official/bf1942/armies/usa/popup_usa/usa_02.jpg)
-
Woof baby! - Oddball
You got more damned sandbags on your tank than Goring has boyfriends! Get those @#$@ bags off that &#$%@ tank you @#$*&^ p#$$y! - Patton to a tank commander who decided he needed alot more extra protection.
I find soldiers who drive Sherman tanks sexy! - Betty Grable
-
Originally posted by Arlo
(http://images.ea.com/eagames/official/bf1942/armies/usa/popup_usa/usa_02.jpg)
Battlefield 1942? :)
Talking about light/fast tanks, we now have the T-34 in aces high!
-
The M4a3 75 would be a fine tank in AH2.
-
M-26 Pershing...faster than the Sherman...much heavier firepower...far superior armor protection.
And YES...it did see combat in the last months of the war.
Howsomever...the M-18 Hellcat might well fit the AHII arena better than the Pershing.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
M-26 Pershing...faster than the Sherman...much heavier firepower...far superior armor protection.
And YES...it did see combat in the last months of the war.
Howsomever...the M-18 Hellcat might well fit the AHII arena better than the Pershing.
LOL
No way is M26 faster than a Sherman, it has basically the same 500hp ford V8 but weighs over 10 tons more. The M26 had such a poor power to weight ratio that Shermans were actually preffered in Korea.. A whole 45 tons on 500hp is not too great, even the Tiger I is better with 55 tons and 700hp.
What I would have been intreted to see was the Germans putting their new 1000hp fuel injected engines in the 45 ton Panther. This was almost ready by he end of the war and wouyld give it a power to weight ratio of modern MBT... :)
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
M-26 Pershing...faster than the Sherman...much heavier firepower...far superior armor protection.
And YES...it did see combat in the last months of the war.
Howsomever...the M-18 Hellcat might well fit the AHII arena better than the Pershing.
Yeah yeah .... and we shoulda modeled the B-29 instead of the B-24. It's a wonder the A6M series was ever modeled. ;)
-
Its kinda funny this thread has been brought back up now.. I was just reading "Citizen Soldiers" by Ambrose, and I was actually going to pose a question in another thread (which I may do anyway), but in that book he lists the T-34 as the best overall tank of the war. But it seems that the turret moves slow, it has crappy low-gear power especially up hills, has no pintle gun, and terrible visibility. With the Panthers and the Tigers sporting bigger guns why would this tank be held in such a high regard?
I do think the Sherman would be cool, but I'd be almost scared that it would be cannon fodder for all the panzers/tigers roaming around. In that book Ambrose states that the accounts of the battles list shermans only equal to tigers in a 4 to 1 ratio. And sometimes the tiger even wiped the floor with all 4 shermans with ease. Apparently it also had a great tendency to catch fire, which made me chuckle cus its a huge chunk of metal. Maybe if we got a formation of Shermans like you can with bombers. LOL
:D
-
Originally posted by Karnak
715,
That sounds pretty accurate, except that it is entirely possible to never penetrate the Panther's armor at long range with the Sherman.
Firefly would be a different story.
The Sherman was designed as an infantry support tank and then used as a medium tank. It had no business doing so. /B]/QUOTE]
Actually thats not true, the sherman was designed as a "tank". Two factors came into play, the1st was doctrine which controls how a weapon is utilized. The US used its tanks primarily as offensive weapons vs enemy. specialized Tank Destroyer battalions were attached to each armored division and in theory they were utilized against enemy tanks.
Now the second and more critical issue was the gun itself. The sherman was originally designed with a high velocity 75mm however the army procurement process was controlled by artillery officers...the high velocity gun wouldnt meet the 7500 rd minimum 'combat life" and was replaced by a low velocity gun that would.....wonder how many shermans even got 750 rounds off in combat:(
-
Same price was paid by the Hispano and the 50 cal. Both were built heavy to tollarances that would allow 10s of thousands of rounds to be expended befor it wore out. If they had been built lighter to last 3000 rounds (which is still alot for a fighter) they could have been lighter and had much higher rofs.
Stephen Ambrose said that the T34 was the best tank of the war because he doesnt know what he is talking about.
-
Well it sounded like he was stating it from gathered information... was curious if anyone else had heard anything of the sort. It is also funny that you bring up the topic of the durability of the vehicles. Apparently according to Ambrose's facts around the August 44' time frame the panzer divisions were losing the majority of their vehicles to breakdowns due to overuse and poor durability. He specifically mentions the amount of miles the tracks were rated for compared to the shermans.
We don't have to deal with the whole durability thing in AH so maybe our views are different. But forget about the Sherman, bring us the King Tiger LOL :aok
-
Oh hell yeah. Since all the best tanks were made by the Germans we should model nothing but German tanks until we have all the German tanks then when that's done, 2 or 4 years from now, maybe we can add another non-German mbt. :D
-
Arlo.
If they added a m4a3 75 with its stabilized gun..it would be a great tank in the game. It would just have lots of trouble killing Panzers and T34s at range. It would be a fabulous town destroyer and would be very resiliant to air attack.
So not a great anti tank tank. But in AH we can allways mix it in with friendly tigers and Panzer IVs, so who cares that it wont be the best tank dueling tank out there, it will certainly be the best base destroying tank out there.
Befor they add anymore tanks though. They have to fix it so that a T34 can instantly and always kill a Tiger with a tail shot from < 100 yards..
If the tiger gets out manuvered it has to pay the price..
Right now its kind of silly and has no basis in reality. I have seen 4-5 10 ft shots into a Tigers rear from a T34 and the tiger wasnt killed. That is just silly.
-
Grunherz,
The M4A1 had a maximum sustained top speed of 21 mph, with a short term top speed of 25 mph. The M-26's maximum sustained top speed was 25 mph, with a short term top speed of 30 mph.
Later models of the Sherman, specifically the M4A3, had a maximum sustained top speed of 26 mph, with a short term top speed of 30 mph.
It appears we were both right...and both wrong.
Yo Mama! ;)
Regards, Shuckins/Leggern
-
Originally posted by Howitzer
Well it sounded like he was stating it from gathered information... was curious if anyone else had heard anything of the sort. It is also funny that you bring up the topic of the durability of the vehicles. Apparently according to Ambrose's facts around the August 44' time frame the panzer divisions were losing the majority of their vehicles to breakdowns due to overuse and poor durability. He specifically mentions the amount of miles the tracks were rated for compared to the shermans.
We don't have to deal with the whole durability thing in AH so maybe our views are different. But forget about the Sherman, bring us the King Tiger LOL :aok
1st,
The sherman had a different track system (rubber instead of steel traction pins). This hampered them in many ways but provided longer lasting tracklife...also tracks were reversable.
2nd,
Germans didnt have any type of vehicle recovery system for either combat or breakdown. This resulted in two problems, all combat loses were final & vehicles werent systematically canibalized for parts. The US shermans broke down and died at a much higher rate but each combat command had an integrated recovery function. Damaged vehicles were either repaired or canabalized (often within 24 hours)....one instance I remember was 17 tanks "destroyed" were sent into action next day (with three man crews BTW) and 15 were dead again by 3PM. Average life expectancy of a sherman tank crew member in August of 1944 wasless than that of a luftwabble "baby seal"....
-
Originally posted by humble
2nd,
Germans didnt have any type of vehicle recovery system for either combat or breakdown. This resulted in two problems, all combat loses were final & vehicles werent systematically canibalized for parts.
Might want to re-check that statement. Look for bergpanzer and Famo halftracks in your search.
-
Originally posted by humble
2nd,
Germans didnt have any type of vehicle recovery system for either combat or breakdown. This resulted in two problems, all combat loses were final & vehicles werent systematically canibalized for parts. The US shermans broke down and died at a much higher rate but each combat command had an integrated recovery function. Damaged vehicles were either repaired or canabalized (often within 24 hours)....one instance I remember was 17 tanks "destroyed" were sent into action next day (with three man crews BTW) and 15 were dead again by 3PM. Average life expectancy of a sherman tank crew member in August of 1944 wasless than that of a luftwabble "baby seal"....
The germans had a phenominal tank recovery system. I dont know where you got an idea to the contrary.
-
Perk the oddball variant (100 perkies). Plays loud music and shoots paint ... pretty pictures. Has a pipe stuck on the barrel. Make it just as easy to kill but give it a 10% hit bubble. ;)
Just for fun, baby. :D
(http://jollyrogers.info/images/kellys_heroes/woof.gif) (http://jollyrogers.info/images/kellys_heroes/shermans.wav)
-
Originally posted by Pongo
The germans had a phenominal tank recovery system. I dont know where you got an idea to the contrary.
Maybe humble was confused by the fact that you can't recover the vehicle if you don't own the ground. No tank recovery method works when you're retreating.
shubie
-
Originally posted by Pongo
The germans had a phenominal tank recovery system. I dont know where you got an idea to the contrary.
It's actually very well documented that they did not have an integrated vehicle recovery doctrine. All US armoured divisions had a maintanence & recovery function integrated directly into each combat command that "harvested" damaged/disabled tanks on a daily basis. There was no such german equivelent doctrine on either front. Obviously it's tough to recover tanks when you lose the ground. However a significant number of shermans were recovered from active battlefields and the recovery teams were often under fire. The only reason the allies were able to win the ground war in europe was because of this systematic recovery. Allied tank loses exceeded 250% of the total number deployed in theater....so the "average" sherman was destroyed and reused 2.5 times.
The recovery system was so well run that crew loses were often the limiting factor. By late 1944 many crews had 1 or 2 infrantry conscripts and often tanks were sent into battle with 3 man crews. Obviously the germans had recovery vehicles and maintanence companys as well however they had no similiar operational doctrine. A great many damaged or disabled german tanks were simply left behind even when recovery was possible.
-
The M-26 was faster than the M4 only on flat, hard surfaces and it did that with gear ratios. As soon as it came to climbing hills the M4 would easily out pace it. We use M60s in Korea now because it climbs hills better than the faster M1.
IIRC the slow bellybutton Churchill climbed hills faster than the M4 did. Speed on a flat road and actual combat speed are often two different things.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
We use M60s in Korea now because it climbs hills better than the faster M1.
We use M60s in Korea because the M1 is better used elsewhere, like an active combat area. The Marines do like the M60 better though because its easier to haul around on ships.
-
Originally posted by humble
It's actually very well documented that they did not have an integrated vehicle recovery doctrine. All US armoured divisions had a maintanence & recovery function integrated directly into each combat command that "harvested" damaged/disabled tanks on a daily basis. There was no such german equivelent doctrine on either front.
I am getting a VERY different reading on that from detailed histories on the Kursk battle, Normandy, and unit history of the 503rd heavy panzers.. :rolleyes: In fact Rommel received practically no replacement tanks in Normandy, they had tanks only because of the the work of the tank recovery teams. That *they didn`t have the doctrine* stuff smells to me.
-
I know for a fact that the Germans did a very good job on tank repair/recovery under Rommel in N-Africa.
-
Originally posted by humble
It's actually very well documented that they did not have an integrated vehicle recovery doctrine. All US armoured divisions had a maintanence & recovery function integrated directly into each combat command that "harvested" damaged/disabled tanks on a daily basis. There was no such german equivelent doctrine on either front.
Bull sneeze they didn't. 358 recovery tanks were modified from Pz IV, V and VI chassis from '43 to '45 at the factory. Plus every tank had tow rings and hawsers as standard equipment. If a recovery tank wasn't available, and someone was crazy enough, they'd tow the thing away under fire if need be. The Germans were very adept at recovering their tanks, repairing them, and getting them back into the fighting. Although they prefered to use enemy tanks as recovery tractors, or dedicated vehicles, they'd readily use a Panther or Tiger to drag a knocked-out tank back to a repair facility. Panzer Commander (Hans von Luck) and German Tanks of World War II (S & R Hart) are rife with examples of this. If needs be I can quote chapters from both books verbatim. Me thinks you haven't been reading much about German armor. If they left tanks behind it was generally for one of three reasons. Either it was damaged beyond repair (engine or gun hits), there wasn't enough time to grab it before being over-run, or they didn't have the fuel. In Normandy alone too many tanks took hard hits and required abandonment, simply because fixing it meant fighting back through enemy lines to grab the thing and tow it to the rear. The later in the war you go, the more abandoned tanks you'll find due to a lack of fuel. Donctrine had little to do with it. The Allies were advancing rapidly, Germany didn't have much fuel reserves after early '44, and it wasn't worth lives to tow back tanks you couldn't fuel or fix in time for the next attack. If there was a chance at recovering a Pather, PzIV, or Tiger they'd usually take it. If not? They'd abandon it, the same as any other army.
As for the original thread, I'd readily agree to a Firefly or an M4A3 Sherman. I'd also love a Hellcat for drag-racing and an M7B1 (M4 chassis) Priest for manned arty work. More exotic jobs, like the M42, Wirblewind, and IS-2, would be fun too. I just don't see a real need for 'em.
-----------------------
Flakbait [Delta6]
(http://www.wa-net.com/~delta6/sig/unsuperv.gif)
-
Again your missing the point, your own comments highlight the issue. They modified vehicles in 43-45 and utilized enemy vehicles as tractors. German Tactical doctrine didnt address the issue of vehicle recovery...just that simple. Common sense dicatates that smart field commnaders would do everything possible to maintian unit integrity and no self respecting tanker wants to become infantry. The facts are simple and straight forward, american armoured divisions had an integrated organized recovery capability with dedicated vehicles, officers and staff that systematically scoured the battlefied and recovered & refurbished american armour. The germans didnt and many sources highlight that as a distinct reason for the maericans ability to absorb tremendous losses and still maintain offensive pressure on the germans. Thats simply the reality....
-
I think you have a misconception about the importance of doctrine in warfare. Cavalry needed ferriers and armour needs mechanics. The maintanence of vehicles is obvious and manditory. It makes perfect sense in a combat enviornment that all "reasonable" attempts to salvage vehicles would be made.
However "doctrine" in a far different animal. The french actually had more tanks than the germans (and better ones overall). However, the germans had a better combat doctrine for utilizing armour in warfare. If you look at the eastern front, the germans had a superior artillery doctrine, in fact no axis position was ever defeated while its organic artillery was in place and operational.
The american doctrine gave it 3 distinct advantages over every other army in the world.
1) It had the best artillery in the world (not individual guns but capability)
2) It had the best supply capability in the world
3) It had the best replacement capability in the world
A significant part of that replacement capability was the recovery and resuse of destroyed armour as a matter of doctrine. American armour fought in combat commands. This is subtely different than other doctrines. As an example an american armoured division is attacking a german infantry division....
On Monday CCB attacks supported by artillery and CCA...Tuesday CCA attacks...wed CCB attacks...now the german commander has in his mind inflicted 40% casualties on monday, 30% Casualties on Tuesday and 25% casualties Wed...this is 95% attrition (divide by 2 and you've attrited the allied division by 40%+. In his mind the americans are approaching a stage where they are combat ineffective. Further he's suffered 30% attrition and has expended a significant % of combat stores.
The americans continue to attack thursday & friday and the german division surrenders...simply unable to win the war of attrition. This happened again and again July/August/September/October 1944. It was also an integral part of the eventual victory in the "battle of the bulge". The fundemental strength of the american army in WW2 was in its doctrine...not its weapons systems...
-
(http://jollyrogers.info/images/kellys_heroes/gimme_Shermie_baby.gif)
-
(http://www.americanrhetoric.com/images/patton.JPG)
click (http://www.americanrhetoric.com/mp3clips/newmoviespeeches/moviespeechpatton.mp3)
-
(http://www.tankdriverbook.com/images/slideshow/slideshow20.jpg)
This is the first tank crew of U.S. 3rd Army to reach the Rhine in the breakthrough at Andernach. Aboard the tank are: Cpl William Hasse, Palisades Park, New Jersey; Pvt. Marvin Aldridge, Burlington North Carolina; T/4 John Latimi, the Bronx, New York; Cpl. Vincent Morreale, Trenton, New Jersey; and Cpl, Sidney Meyer, the Bronx, New York. 11th Armored Division. 41st Tank Battalion. March 9, 1945. Photo courtesy of The 11th Armored Division Association.
-
(http://www.tankdriverbook.com/images/slideshow/slideshow29.jpg)
11th Armored Division tanks seen on the Autobahn in Bavaria, April 19, 1945. Because they were so heavily defended, these roads were seldom used for fighting. Photo courtesy of The 11th Armored Division Association.
-
(http://www.tankdriverbook.com/images/slideshow/slideshow31.jpg)
CCA armored column fording the Muhl River at Neufelden Austria with the help of A56ENG. May 4, 1945. Photo courtesy of The 11th Armored Division Association.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
The germans had a phenominal tank recovery system. I dont know where you got an idea to the contrary.
A German document from North Africa gives detailed instructions for organizing a workshop platoon in a two-battalion tank regiment (which normally would not have this unit). In this case, a good illustration of how flexible German organization can be, personnel was obtained for the platoon by breaking up the battalion headquarters repair sections of the two battalions. This platoon was smaller than the workshop platoon designated by the pre-war organization for a tank regiment of three battalions, and was to operate in place of the battalion headquarters repair sections, under direct regimental command. The platoon was to serve as a link between the workshop company and the company repair sections. Like the latter, it would handle work requiring less than 4 hours. In attack, it would follow the central axis of advance, keeping in close touch with the workshop company's recovery platoon.
The light workshop platoon was to work on brakes, gears, and clutches of PzKw II's; on damaged gear-mechanisms of PzKw III's; and on valve defects in all types of truck and tank engines, except PzKw III's and PzKw IV's. Also, the platoon was to repair electrical and fuel systems; salvage and tow wheeled vehicles; repair wheeled vehicles; perform autogene welding and soldering work; and charge and test batteries and electrical apparatus.
http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/tankmaint/index.html
Since this thread is still kicking....
There is a huge difference between the organic capability and mission statements of the German and american combat maintanence units. German units were designed primarily to repair disabled/damaged vehicles. As a whole german armor was much less reliable then american armor and required greater basic maintanence...it was also much more complicated. American armor while inferior in many ways was much easier to maintain and also was designed to be much easier to canabalize. So the american army went into combat with a preconfigured "canabalization" policy far far different then any army it faced. The americans sustained far greater loses [tank](by %)while maintaining combat integrity then any army in the world.
-
(http://petcaretips.net/linus_great_pumpkin_letter.jpg)
This picture was taken in 1966 just moments before Linus would realize there would be no great pumpkin:
(http://petcaretips.net/GreatPumpkin.jpg)
Hey when you gonna start fly'n again?
-
Originally posted by soda72
(http://petcaretips.net/linus_great_pumpkin_letter.jpg)
(http://petcaretips.net/GreatPumpkin.jpg)
Oh ye of little faith. I've moved. Hitech is only six miles down the road now. Hehehe. Weekly pilgrimage ..... with Scotch. (And you KNOW the Shermie fits his plans for TOD, baybee. Woof!) ;)
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Oh ye of little faith. I've moved. Hitech is only six miles down the road now. Hehehe. Weekly pilgrimage ..... with Scotch. (And you KNOW the Shermie fits his plans for TOD, baybee. Woof!) ;)
Well at least you can bring your case to them personally :)
Do you plan on going to the con?
-
I always plan to. May actually make it this time. :)
-
(http://www.olive-drab.com/images/id_m4a1e8_full.jpg)
-
(http://www.olive-drab.com/images/id_m4_sherman_full.jpg)
I plan to skin one with the name "Great Pumpkin" ;)
-
Bout the only Shermans that would make a difference would either be the British modified Firefly Shermans with the 17 pounder gun, or the US Shermans up gunned with high velocity 76mm cannon. M4A3E8s would probably stand a chance too.
The short barrelled 75 Shermans would probably be ignored for lack of hitting power.
Dan/CorkyJr
-
I'm a scenario man, Tiff. :D
-
While the Sherman was a 'big chunk of metal' it was often filled with gasoline which, when ignited, caused the tank to burn quite well.
The Panzers ran on diesel and were tough to ignite.
-
Originally posted by DaYooper
While the Sherman was a 'big chunk of metal' it was often filled with gasoline which, when ignited, caused the tank to burn quite well.
The Panzers ran on diesel and were tough to ignite.
:eek:
The German tankss used gasoline, not diesel, in their tanks.
-
Originally posted by DaYooper
While the Sherman was a 'big chunk of metal' it was often filled with gasoline which, when ignited, caused the tank to burn quite well.
The Panzers ran on diesel and were tough to ignite.
German tanks ran on gasoline and light up just as easy as any gasoline tank. Where did you get the idea that they ran on diesel?
-
The Panzer IV Ausf. G had a Maybach HL 120 TRM 12 Cylinder diesel engine. I had erroniously assumed that the Germans would have standardized their panzer fuel.
Further research shows that they had not. The Tiger ran on petrol as did the PzKpfw I Ausf A and the PzKpfw III. It is a reasonable assumption that the PzKpfw II followed suit.
Thank you for bringing this to my attention.
P.S. I think the movie Patton suggests that the German armour runs on diesel. Shame on me for believing anything out of Hollyweird .
-
Originally posted by DaYooper
The Panzer IV Ausf. G had a Maybach HL 120 TRM 12 Cylinder diesel engine. I had erroniously assumed that the Germans would have standardized their panzer fuel.
Nope
http://www.wwiivehicles.com/germany/engines.html
-
Originally posted by DaYooper
While the Sherman was a 'big chunk of metal' it was often filled with gasoline which, when ignited, caused the tank to burn quite well.
The Panzers ran on diesel and were tough to ignite.
Been there. Discussed that. I see addendum added, though. Shermie, baybee. Not because it's the bestest. There's a better reason. ;)
-
Argh ..... follows ....
-
(http://www.cellinifinegifts.com/fmaircraftimages/fm_shermantankb.jpg)
-
(http://www.ww2incolor.com/gallery/albums/us_army/mine_clearing_sherman.jpg)
-
(http://www.ww2incolor.com/gallery/albums/us_army/calliope.jpg)
-
(http://www.ww2incolor.com/gallery/albums/us_army/abt.jpg)
-
(http://www.aberjonapress.com/catalog/sh/images/m4a3medtank2.jpg)
-
I too would like to see the sherman or one of it's variants introduced into AHII, I would really like to see the Panther introduced, but any vehicles to change the ground scenarios would be great I.M.O.
-
When added, can we get ammo load out options like AP and HE, AP or HE, or flame thrower
and For "Pylon" options:
minesweeper - if mines are ever brought to AH that is
rockets - good for attacking towns, fields, etc.
Duplex Drive - make the sherman available from carriers if duplex drive is equipped, and have it spawn about 7000 yards from shore where they were launched into the waterby LCT's on D-Day. With this option there would be 2 propellers added, so it would be faster than an lvt but restricted to how far away from shore it can go (since depths are not modeled).
Rhinoceros HedgeRow Cutter - model it so that sherman equipped with this can go through all bushes and shrubs modeled in the game like grass.
in tank vs tank battles the sherman would have a big disadvantage in AH (the quantity over quality ruling wouldnt really work as well in the game as in real life).
I think the above options would make it more appealing so it would not be a hangar queen.
(http://img96.exs.cx/img96/8343/m4flame9ja.jpg)
(http://www.members.shaw.ca/junobeach/images/juno-4-7.2-Sherman%20DD%20tank.jpg)
(http://www.southeasthobbies.com.au/img/calibre35/35003.jpg)
-
(http://www.thetankmaster.com/IMAGES/AFV/SHERMAN/sherman_001.jpg)
-
Can we get minefields?
-
Originally posted by Schaden
Can we get minefields?
I'd suggest one perkpoint per anti-personel and ten per anti-tank. And perking this attachment at 20:
(http://www.military.cz/panzer/tanks/usa/sherman/image/sherman_4.jpg) ;)
-
Holy moly it's Arlo!!
You still tryin to get the Shermie in the game Arlo?
I too would like to see the Sherman and of course the Wirbelwind, but hey.
I don't think HT can ignore the growing number of players that enjoy ground vehicles in AH. Now before everyone starts flaming GV's and claiming that they suk or their an afterthought, keep in mind that there is an ever growing number of guys/gals that like to use them.
I fully realize that AH is geared toward flight combat and don't want to see any aspect of that go away, however the game I believe is what you make it and GV's play a pivitol role.
If you wanna fly FLY if you wanna drive DRIVE have fun with it:aok
-
Trucks suck!
;)
But damn do I want a Shermie, baybee! Woof!
Hiya, Moil! I live just south of HTC now. :D
-
Well kewl, tell um I said Hi:D
-
Hey ... I've got an idea! How about a Sherman tank?! :D
-
Sherman...Firefly would be nice ;)
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Hey ... I've got an idea! How about a Sherman tank?! :D
And a Panther:aok
-
Originally posted by Slash27
And a Panther:aok
Blegh. There's two German tanks already.
Shermie, baybee! :D
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Shermie, baybee! :D
If you like being dead. After a few times getting blown up and not being able to kill anything it becomes a hanger queen that won't be used by all the people that want them.
-
(pssssst .... you don't really die in Aces High)
And that argument has been used on many planes and vehicles that made it into the game that some of us players don't seem to have a problem enjoying .... and enjoying repeatedly.
Granted ... some of us are into the historical aspect of the game. Believe it or not, there is one. :D
* It's not all about the MA anymore than it's all about any one thing at all. Step away from the box. * ;) :aok
-
Keep dream'n
-
Hey. Me and HT are like *this* now. *Ahem* :D
-
Sherman Firefly is a good match for a PZ (better gun) and therefore could also kill a Tiger.
Bring the Shermie ;)
-
Even T34 makes Sherman look like a P.O.S.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Sherman Firefly is a good match for a PZ (better gun) and therefore could also kill a Tiger.
Bring the Shermie ;)
bingo :aok
-
I have to agree with Arlo But the main reason is that it's part of history and it has been in all the main battles of WWII. I say bring on the Sherman:aok
-
I think our main reasons match. But I also like "Kelly's Heros." ;)
-
RGR that SIR
:aok :aok I kinda liked that show too:aok
-
Originally posted by Arlo
I think our main reasons match. But I also like "Kelly's Heros." ;)
Unperked Sherman M4A3 with the standard short barrel 75
Perked Sherman Firefly with the 17 Pounder Cannon. (Any tank that can kill Michael Wittmann's Tiger and at least two others at the same time,one Firefly gunner, Joe Elkins, getting all three, is worth having for the Allied iron fans)
I'd throw in the T34/85 perked for the Russian armor fans
-
[size=8]SOLD![/size] :D
-
:aok :O :aok
-
People have still not figured out how good the M4A3 75 would be in the game. Gyro and 50 cal on the roof.
-
Okay, we need some new AWESOME GVs in this game to even things out. I LOVE GVs, the fact that you can fly fighters and drive a Tiger I, in the same game, really makes Aces High GREAT. I personally REALLY like the Sherman. Its my 3rd favorite tank, (First being the King Tiger, second being the T-64) and i would love to see one in the game. Personally, i would like an early war variant, simply for asthetic reasons. I DO like that old fashioned look. I think those pylon options would be great, including the hedge cutters, amphibious options, and the flame thrower, but no rockets. That makes taking out towns way to easy. As long as you hit the button real quick, even if a tiger pops up and shoots you, you have probably already taken out half the town by the time the round hits you. Thats too easy. I also think that the gun should be realistically weak. There have been countless stories about Shermans driving right up to tigers, firing 3 to 4 rounds point blank, and nothing happening. The tiger fired one, and the Sherman was incinerated. That should hold true in the game. I think that is a good trade off, for the ability to drive through all trees, and shoot fire. Well, thats my two cents.
-
Originally posted by Lye-El
If you like being dead. After a few times getting blown up and not being able to kill anything it becomes a hanger queen that won't be used by all the people that want them.
But, i will say, even though i want one, id say theres a 90% chance that i will only use one once, (not because they will suck, but because i only use German vehicles)
-
Originally posted by Reynolds
I also think that the gun should be realistically weak. There have been countless stories about Shermans driving right up to tigers, firing 3 to 4 rounds point blank, and nothing happening. The tiger fired one, and the Sherman was incinerated. That should hold true in the game. I think that is a good trade off, for the ability to drive through all trees, and shoot fire. Well, thats my two cents.
Not all Sherman guns were weak. The Firefly's British 17- pdr gun (76mm) could knock out a Tiger at almost 2,000 yards while the M4A2 Sherman with the short barrel 75mm gun could not penetrate at any distance. I dont know right now how the U.S. 76mm found on the M4A4's performed against German tanks but it wasnt as powerful as the British 17-pdr.
-
True. Im speaking mostly of the American Short Barels.
-
"The Firefly's British 17- pdr gun (76mm) could knock out a Tiger at almost 2,000 yards "
That's a lot.
Not much mentioned is that the Sherman could drive quite long on just one set of tracks. And on soil it doesn't really sound so "tanky", - not so much clangy noise. (Oh yeah, have seen them driving and shooting :D)
These are factors that matter in wars, but not so much in AH, - except the noise perhaps.
(http://freespace.virgin.net/shermanic.firefly/icmarkdrawing1.jpg)
(http://tanxheaven.com/ljs/fireflyljs/9908-Sherman-VC-Firefly,Ursel.JPG)
-
Personally, i like the short-barrels. theyre prettier! :D
-
Naaa, long ones are mean :D
-
The versatile tanks would still have the short gun I guess.
Both Shermie and the Churchill were in the group of Hobart's funnies.
If we had some of those, as well as mines, AH would really be getting into an area where nobody else is.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/M4a4_flail_cfb_borden_2.JPG)
-
Reynolds
the T-64 is NOT a WW2 tank. It is 15 years too late as it is a 1960s tank.
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Reynolds
the T-64 is NOT a WW2 tank. It is 15 years too late as it is a 1960s tank.
I never said it was. I just said it was one of my favorite tanks. I am perfectly aware of when the T-64 was made, i was just listing all of the tanks i like regardless of when they were made.
-
Originally posted by Angus
The versatile tanks would still have the short gun I guess.
Both Shermie and the Churchill were in the group of Hobart's funnies.
If we had some of those, as well as mines, AH would really be getting into an area where nobody else is.
Well, AH is ALREADY in a league of its own, but adding those things... id love it, it would make playing so much more fun, but then when i went on vacation, i would suffer from withdrawl from not playing!
-
Originally posted by Reynolds
Well, AH is ALREADY in a league of its own, but adding those things... id love it, it would make playing so much more fun, but then when i went on vacation, i would suffer from withdrawl from not playing!
Hehe, yes indeed. Most of us have that problem. In my case it is best described with snappyness, and then wife locks me inside the computer room for AH playing :D
And yes, - AH is already in a league on it's own. Best online WW2 flight sim :cool:
-
See, i have to use my dad's computer when he isnt busy, (AND HES ALWAYS BUSY!!!) and its a sucky computer, so i cannot fly most aircraft, and cannot sustain fire for more than three seconds, with three second intervals, so even when i have AH in front of me, i still suffer from withdrawl!!!
-
So ... like ... lotsa Shermie fans. Cool. :D
-
Well, yeah, i like it, but im a King Tiger guy! (Which would the most uber-est perk tank in the game if we got one!)
-
Well, the Firefly can open the Tiger up like a can of beans at 2K, so I guess they'd have to perk it too ;)
There would be other allied ones interesting as well of course, - Late Soviet tanks, and late UK and Brit ones.
-
Can a Firefly take out a KING Tiger??? Lots more advanced armour on THAT baby. It would be invinceable except by Stuka Bombs!!! AWESOME!!! But would take like... 500 GV perks?
-
I don't think there was any tank that could handle the 76mm AP.
But I'd have to look.
For a King Tiger, - less range.
BTW, I have one account of a Tiger falling for a Spitfire :D
Since the attack was logged and the tank found later at the location, all charred (It caught fire), with "BRAVO RAF" scribbled into the soot, the most likely thing to be possibly wrong would be the tank type.
-
I think maybe at VERY close range the Firefly might take the King Tiger (Mind you, i know next to nothing about the firefly) but at distance, the King TIger is pretty damn safe... unless you run outa gas!
-
Originally posted by Reynolds
the King TIger is pretty damn safe... unless you run outa gas!
unless you have one of the many mechanical breakdowns, or encounter a bridge not strong enough to support you... :D
-
Yeah, those where shizz economically, but hell, when you got in a fight, id take that Kitty any day! Purrrrrr tiger, purrrrrrr...
-
But this isn't about the Tiger. It isn't about the uber. It's about a tank that saw service in every theater on every front under the flag of all of the "big three" allies. A tank that Patton built his rep on. And ... woof .... a tank that helped Kelly and his gang rob a bank. ;)
Don't hit me with those negative vibes. :aok
-
Originally posted by Reynolds
I think maybe at VERY close range the Firefly might take the King Tiger (Mind you, i know next to nothing about the firefly)
Then you shouldn't put down what you know nothing about.
King Tiger had max armor of 180mm or so in the front. Sides were about 80mm, which is no more than the Tiger I.
17 Pounder firing an APDS round (granddaddy to modern-day Sabot rounds) could penetrate 213mm armor at a range of 1000 meters.
Because of the slope of the armor in the front of the King Tiger, I don't know if the round would ricochet rather than penetrate, but a side or rear shot would destroy the TigerII easily at range.
Firefly would have to be perked, but I would love to see it. I would love even more to see as many variants of the Sherman as we have 109s or Spits, just to make it interesting. Personal favorite is the 105mm assault version for base blasting, with HEAT rounds for the pesky vehicles it would run into.
-
Originally posted by E25280
Then you shouldn't put down what you know nothing about.
King Tiger had max armor of 180mm or so in the front. Sides were about 80mm, which is no more than the Tiger I.
17 Pounder firing an APDS round (granddaddy to modern-day Sabot rounds) could penetrate 213mm armor at a range of 1000 meters.
Because of the slope of the armor in the front of the King Tiger, I don't know if the round would ricochet rather than penetrate, but a side or rear shot would destroy the TigerII easily at range.
Firefly would have to be perked, but I would love to see it. I would love even more to see as many variants of the Sherman as we have 109s or Spits, just to make it interesting. Personal favorite is the 105mm assault version for base blasting, with HEAT rounds for the pesky vehicles it would run into.
I dont know the Firefly, but i KNOW my kitty-cat. The King Tiger has sloped armor which makes a front shot and side shots from certain agles ricochets, as well as certian side shots to the turret ricochets as well. Though a shot to the rear is a GARUNTEED hit, as well as anything from above. So, thought the gun on the firefly is powerful, the armor's... facets? on the King Tiger make landing the shots hard. Also, im not sure about this, but i beleive the King Tiger had either ridges or reactive armor. I beleive it had one, but i cannot remember which. Either way, its hard to kill.
-
There was but a handful of King Tigers, thousands of Shermies.
While the Shermie was not as heavily armed as many German tanks, once it had the 17 pdr, it is one of the best Gunned tanks of WW2. It is also faster and more maneuverable than the King tiger, as well as endurance is a lot more.
The King Tiger had some problems. Such as being underpowered, Too heavy, Steering control problems, short legged etc.
(all factors that wouldn't do too much in AH, but we aint getting no King Tiger anyway ;))
-
Oh, and BTW, not all King Tigers had the same turret. Only 50 sloped turrets I'm afraid.
-
Yeah, my kitty had her problems, but with the sloped turret, enough gas to go somewhere, she PPPPUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRRRRREEE EEEEDDDDDD!!!!!!!!!!! :D:aok:D
-
Purr on this one ;)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cd/Comet_tank_1.jpeg)
A good match for the Tiger. 17 pounder gun, 102mm armour with a turret mantle and ammo is protected, and goes 50kph.
1200 made before the wars end, and saw service in the ETO
-
I still love my Kitty more.
-
Originally posted by Reynolds
I dont know the Firefly, but i KNOW my kitty-cat. The King Tiger has sloped armor which makes a front shot and side shots from certain agles ricochets, as well as certian side shots to the turret ricochets as well. Though a shot to the rear is a GARUNTEED hit, as well as anything from above. So, thought the gun on the firefly is powerful, the armor's... facets? on the King Tiger make landing the shots hard. Also, im not sure about this, but i beleive the King Tiger had either ridges or reactive armor. I beleive it had one, but i cannot remember which. Either way, its hard to kill.
Never said they weren't hard to kill. I said the 17lbr was up to the task.
And, oh, by the way, sloped armor was hardly unique to the King Tiger. Check out the T-34 -- heck, look at the front of the Sherman. Slope. So, yes, it helps, but hardly makes it impregnable.
The Tiger did not have reactive armor. If you are referring to the zimmerit coating, it was anti-magnetic to prevent AT mines from being attached by infantry. It didn't help one iota against your basic kenetic round.
-
No, it was some sort of revolusionary armor that "reacted" to enemy shells, reducing the amount of damage done to the tank... and i know it doesnt make it impregnable, but it DOES make it damned hard to kill. Personally, i would say the King is the hardest tank to destroy in that whole era.
-
Shermans would be vulnerable, but how about this for a suggestion. When you up a Sherman you get a couple of drones like bombers. This would accurately simulate the numbers advantage the Allies had and would make for fascinating tank battles..
-
Originally posted by Reynolds
No, it was some sort of revolusionary armor that "reacted" to enemy shells, reducing the amount of damage done to the tank... and i know it doesnt make it impregnable, but it DOES make it damned hard to kill. Personally, i would say the King is the hardest tank to destroy in that whole era.
I call BS. Post some evidence. If you know your "kitty" so well, it shouldn't take you long.
-
Purrrr :D
-
Originally posted by E25280
I call BS. Post some evidence. If you know your "kitty" so well, it shouldn't take you long.
It wasnt standard on all of them. more of a prototype thing. I cannot remember what exactly it was, so researching it would be hard. all im saying is, it had a lot of very powerful armor.
-
Originally posted by Reynolds
It wasnt standard on all of them. more of a prototype thing. I cannot remember what exactly it was, so researching it would be hard. all im saying is, it had a lot of very powerful armor.
Somebody is wrong and won't admit it, methinks.
Nothing wrong with being wrong. Something wrong about not admitting it. Just makes you look silly.
(About this time someone like Bruno or Angus will come in with some obscure reference that will make me eat crow . . . )
-
No, im just saying they some experimental armor that made killing it a biatch!
-
Originally posted by Angus
Purr on this one ;)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cd/Comet_tank_1.jpeg)
A good match for the Tiger. 17 pounder gun, 102mm armour with a turret mantle and ammo is protected, and goes 50kph.
1200 made before the wars end, and saw service in the ETO
Was going to ask if that was the Comet since you didn't post the name.
But I see from the .jpeg path that it is.
-
Originally posted by Reynolds
No, im just saying they some experimental armor that made killing it a biatch!
:rofl :rofl :rofl
At least you are persistent.
-
Course! Read my signature:
IM A TARD!!!
-
Originally posted by E25280
:rofl :rofl :rofl
At least you are persistent.
Reynolds said
IM A TARD!!!
And an honest one at that.
:D
Bronk
-
Bronk what happen to the avitard ????:confused: :huh :cry
and how are things going??
-
Originally posted by red26
Bronk what happen to the avitard ????:confused: :huh :cry
and how are things going??
Avitard was skuzzified. :cry :cry
Other than that :aok
Bronk
-
Hey, id rather be a persistent tard than cowerdly genious!
-
Reynolds
My post was nothing personal your sig just struck me as funny.
Bronk
-
Oh i know. I took it not one bit personally! :D
-
Originally posted by Arlo
This is bound to be a repeat request. I wonder how hard it would be to model a Sherman? . :)
What for another "soft" gv? !
you got the Jeep, wich is kind of convertible Sherman , enjoy it!
-
Hey Reynolds were ya from are you from here or across the pond from us?????:aok
-
Originally posted by ghi
What for another "soft" gv? !
you got the Jeep, wich is kind of convertible Sherman , enjoy it!
Get out of here. Quietly. :D
-
Originally posted by red26
Hey Reynolds were ya from are you from here or across the pond from us?????:aok
<----- Hawaii.