Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Hans on April 16, 2000, 06:06:00 PM
-
The next tank should NOT be better than the current Panzer IV-H. With such a small stable of vehicles to choose from, the other vehicles of a type should all have benefits and drawbacks compared to the other vehicles.
A T-34 is better in every way over a Panzer IV. It is faster, better armed and has more armor.
A Panther is the same. Faster, Bigger gun, More armor.
Now, a Sherman tank isn't like this. It is faster, but weaker armed and armored. With that in mind you don't always have to drive one. A Panzer IV is good too, just not as good in all areas. The two become a good counterpoint to each other since neither is better in all areas to the other.
Hans.
-
The Sherman is not much faster, maybe 1 or 2 mph, not enough to be a factor. The Panzer IV is all around better. The T-34/76 was built in large numbers and is a good historical matchup for the MK IV. If the Sherman is added to the game, no one will want to drive it, not so the T-34. IMHO
--ra--
-
I think it depends on which Sherman you model.
Give me one the one with the British 76.2mm and 100mm armor, and I will gladly drive it over the Panzer.
There are good and bad ones.
-
Uh, no....the Sherman is faster than the Panzer IV.
The Panzer has a speed of 25mph. The Sherman is 30 or 35mph depending on which source you read.
-
Personally I'd like to see a "Rat Patrol" type jeep next. Faster and more manuverable than the M16 halftrack. Good for scouting routes and chaseing down halftracks.
The biggest thing however i'd like to see is something that will make planes think twice about diveing in on armoured columns.
Currently F4u's don't even think twice about takeing out a single halftrack.
I'd also like to see mobile 88's for those low bombers. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
As to the Sherman, bring it on.
------------------
Maj Ghosth
XO 332nd Flying Mongrels
(http://www.ropescourse.org/cghosth.jpg)
[This message has been edited by Ghosth (edited 04-17-2000).]
-
The PzIvH should out gun any 76mm T34.
If they modeled the optics right they should be somewhat inferior to the Pz. It is faster, but is harder to shoot out of while moving. It may well have no radio...
The PzIVh is acctualy supperior but the refinments that make it so are hard to model in a game like this. Its bigest advantage would be better killing power.
------------------
Pongo
The Wrecking Crew
-
Historically the 88mm was next to useless against fast moving targets below 9000ft(can't traverse quick enough).
What you really want is a quad 20mm mounted on a tank chassis. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Originally posted by Ghosth:
The biggest thing however i'd like to see is something that will make planes think twice about diveing in on armoured columns.
Currently F4u's don't even think twice about takeing out a single halftrack.
Oh, it is easy, Bring on the Wilberwind (I think it is spelled like that). Was a FlaK german vehicle, based on a PzIV chassis, lightly armored, but it had 4 20mm cannons (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif). Yeah, really those Hawgs and Tiffies would think twice before diving in a formationm with 2 or 3 of these.
The drawback is that they had same speed than PzIV, so you pay in speed the trade in armor and firepower. I think is a fair trade (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif).
-
Hmmm. All good points, but it seems you need something that can take out strafers and etc rather than a Sherman. Now that Ive seen you can control tanks, im getting me a sub (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) bbl.
Dein.
------------------
"Never fly head to head when your opponent is (1) Bigger than you. (2) Has better weapons than you (3) Has better armor than you do (4) Has kicked your arse before."
-
My 2 cents worth....
Having served in Shermans for 4 years (M4A2E8) I can comment on a few things.
The Sherman would do over 30 mph (reached over 40 mph downhill once, but threw a track) on roads especially, but only in high (5th) gear. Most of the time was spent in 3rd gear going cross country at speeds between 20-25 mph. Using 4th gear was a stepping stone to get the transfer case into almost an overdrive state. It usually took about 3-4 weeks to train a Sherman driver how to shift from 2nd gear to 3rd gear as it was an incredibly difficult feat. The driver had to sit down and actually lower his seat (low and away from his periscope), use TWO hands to pull the floor mounted shift lever (at his right side) backwards, then double clutch several times. It would ALWAYS grind into gear, even with the double clutch and until a driver got the rhythm, many times it would simply roll to a stop as the driver let the RPM's drop too low to permit the transfer case to slip it into 3rd from 2nd. The rest of the shifts were the same, but nowhere as challenging. Sometimes, we used to cheer when a new driver actually learned how to make this transition consistently.
The gun was the 76 mm with a coaxial mounted 30 cal. It was gyroscopically stabilized so one could fire "on the move" with a stable gun platform. We used to engage targets on the MTR at about 600-800 yards while moving, but the preferred firing mode was from a stopped position. The Sherman used "power traverse" which could rotate the turret 360 degrees in 17 seconds. It had a manual horizontal wheel backup system, placed at the gunner's right hand, but it would take almost 2 1/2 minutes to get the turret around 360 degrees. Having served with a lot of vets who went through WWII in Shermans (75 mm Mk4), they would always comment that the German armor did not have power traverse, especially the Tiger. The result was that one of their major tactics was to hunt in two's and to keep moving laterally to the Tiger while firing, so as to stay ahead of his traversing speed with the 88 mm. They also said that their 75 mm's would simply bounce off Tigers at 800 yards, so they always tried to get around their rear though high speed maneuvering in attempts to get a rear aspect shot, which was the most vulnerable part of the Tiger.
Just some ramblings from an old Sherman warrior. Hope they help.
Badger
Sherman (M4A2E8) & Centurion
Group 3 Gunner (RCAC)
Group 2 Driver Mechanic Tracked (RCAC)
Group 2 Signaler (RCAC)
CC and Trooper Leader Instructor
wow....that sure was a long time ago. You guys are stirring up a whole bunch of old and hidden memories. Some good, some bad.
-
I would like to see a mobile 88 too.
To use both for tanks and aircraft.
Is it true that the famuse 88 was developed by the swedish firm bofors and let over to kruppverk, that owned a third of the stock in bofors?
Givin you a hint on a good 40mm to, made by the same firm. Would rock in a quadraset.
"come, come Hog, got a suprise for YA!"
------------------
<Bends down and bows to the ground:Callin out!>
"OH, OGD! Help me now to punish the Rooks and Bishops that are after my Body and want to shoot it full of both 7.7, cal"50 and 20mm! Please preserve the nice paintjob on my 205, keep my wep always goin and load my guns with Fresh ammunition, the fuelgaugemeter in the middle, May my fellow Knights call 6 and cover my weak spots in times during T&B, May the infideling Hawg go away forever from AH! (and if not, make it a undermodeled Lawndart!)". <Right Airlon, Left Elevator, Engine and Rudder.>
Crabofix "fishslap"
Flygflottlj.19(Lento R5)"swedish Gladiators"
-
Having a .50 for AA work will make a big difference.
------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations
Perfect plans, aren't.
-
I'd like to se a T-34/76. That could be turned ito a T-34/85 at a later date. A Whirblewind (I certainly misspelled that), with its 4 20mm cannon, would be a great addition for AA.
Sisu
-
Wirbelwind or Ostwind would be cool, but don't forget that they have an open top. If we get into supervehicles, the Kubelblitz or the Chaffee with dual Bofors would be cool.
------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations
Perfect plans, aren't.
-
The addition of clip fed weapons(Wirblewind and Ostwind) would change things a little too.
------------------
Pongo
The Wrecking Crew
-
What i would definetily like to see is some big AA guns, not Anti-air, but Anti-armor, so u could drive it via a jeep with a hitch to the site, then use the gun to shoot hardened targets like a base, or hanger. that would be cool (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/eek.gif)
-
Flakpanther, 2 37mm AA guns on panther hull,
that would hurt a lot (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
P.S. can also bother the hell out of tanks,halftracks, and sheep.
------------------
pzvg- "5 years and I still can't shoot"
-
Pongo - no-one in his right mind shot from a moving tank hoping to hit even close to target. Gun stabilizers came well after WW2 plus suspension compare to modern tanks was so crude that I'd read somewhere that if WW2 tanks were to be used today they would be deemed to be unsafe for the crew...
------------------
-lynx-
13 Sqn RAF
-
I would like to see a Grant! :-) Of course an 88 would be nice also.
As for a Sherman, I will drive that also.
----------
daddog C.O.
332nd Flying Mongrels (http://www.ropescourse.org/flying.htm)
(http://www.ropescourse.org/cdaddog.jpg)
-
Hans....
Some additional information for you on the real WWII world of the Panzer IV.
On February 7th of 1944, few remaining Panzer IV tanks from the 5th SS Panzer Division "Wiking" spearheaded the attempt to breakout from the Cherkassy Pocket against largely superior Soviet force. During the breakout, SS-Untersturmfuehrer Kurt Schumacher commanded two Panzer IVs, which counterattacked a Soviet tank company destroying in the process some 8 T-34 tanks. On the next day, Schumacher alone engaged another Soviet tank company and during both actions destroyed some 21 Soviet AFVs. For his achievement, he was awarded the Knight's Cross.
On the afternoon of June 11th of 1944, the 8th Company of the 12th SS Panzer Regiment (12th SS Panzer Division "Hitlerjugend") counterattacked the attempt by Canadian 6th Armored Regiment (along with support units) to capture the area of Le Mesnil-Patry. The 12th SS Panzer Regiment commanded by SS-Obersturmfuehrer Hans Siegel destroyed some 37 Shermans, while losing 2 Panzer IVs and forcing Canadians to retreat.
SS-Unterscharfuehrer Willy Kretzschmar, who commanded Panzer IV of the 5th Company of the 12th SS Panzer Regiment (12th SS Panzer Division "Hitlerjugend") destroyed some 15 Allied tanks during the Normandy battles, including the heavy fighting at Caen area.
By the way, a footnote. The 6th Canadian Armored Regiment referred to above is actually the 1st Hussars, Royal Canadian Armoured Corps, my old unit. I remember sitting through regimental history classes and being told that June 11th at Le Mesnil-Patry was often referred to as the "Black Day" of the regiment due to the licking it took against the Panzer IV's.
-
Badger, can you tell me about the Centurion? I'm pretty interested about post war tank development.
What kind of gun did it have at first? I know it had 105 mm L7 at later marks. ANd was the gun stabilized and did it have night fighting equipment early on?
------------------
jochen
Geschwaderkommodore
Jagdgeschwader 2 'Richthofen' (http://personal.inet.fi/cool/jan.nousiainen/JG2) (Warbirds)
jochen
JG 2 'Richthofen' (Aces High)
I want to believe! Fw 190F-8 / G-8 / A-5 to Aces High!
If you ever get across the sea to England,
Then maybe at the closing of the day
The bars will all be serving German lager
Which means we won the war - hip hip hooray!
-
Hello -lynx-
Originally posted by -lynx-:
Pongo - no-one in his right mind shot from a moving tank hoping to hit even close to target. Gun stabilizers came well after WW2 plus suspension compare to modern tanks was so crude that I'd read somewhere that if WW2 tanks were to be used today they would be deemed to be unsafe for the crew...
With all due respect, this is not quite correct. I didn't think it sounded quite right, so I checked with a local "vet" who is an expert in the Sherman and WWII equipment in general. He landed at Normandy with the 6th Canadian Armored Regiment (1st Hussars), my old unit, using Shermans with the gyrostablized master weapon.
Both he and a separate source stated that the elevation gyrostabilizer was tested in April, 1941, first introduced on the 37mm guns of the light tanks, and introduced into the production M3 medium tank in January, 1942. Tests indicated that it resulted in 60% hits when the vehicle was moving at 10mph. The stabilizer was available on even the first models of Shermans, and reportedly gave it a distinct advantage over the German Mk IV.
The crews were instructed to destroy the device if the tank had to be abandoned. Despite the tests and the official position, most crews interviewed preferred to fire from a stable (halted) position.
To add personal experience, I have fired hundreds of APDS and APSH rounds from an M4A2E8 Sherman in motion on the MTR at speeds of 10mph to 20mph. I found it highly effective for targets at less than 1,000 yds. I actually got a few hits out to 1,500 yds, but although I'd never admit it to fellow gunners, it was pure luck. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Anyway, it would be nice to see this capability designed into an AH game variant Sherman. Obviously it would help mitigate the advantage that the Panzer IV had over the Sherman and would make for some very realistic and interesting tank battles. The Sherman's main tactic of course would be to stay in motion using the gyrostabilization to return fire against stationary Panzer IV's, very similar to the 1944 engagements.
Regards,
Badger
By the way, as an aside, night vision equipment first appeared on German optics in the late 1930's. This also was not a post WWII invention either and was actually installed on Panther V's I believe, for combat trials.
[This message has been edited by Badger (edited 04-19-2000).]
-
Badger-
The Sherman I referred to above was the Firefly Sherman, with the "17 pounder" British gun. Reference material I can find states that it was a match, barely, for the Panzer IV. Does that match with anything you heard or experienced? If so, the Sherman is the perfect next tank for AH.
-
Hi kieren....
I agree with you. I think it would barely be a match for the Panzer IV and yet if people worked together in troops (fire teams) with this variant against Panzer IV's, it could be quite a lot of fun. Of course, AH would have to model some of the things about the Sherman that would permit it to utilize any advantages it had. If that were the case, then I too would like to see the Sherman as the next tank modeled.
Why not hear what the guys that actually fought with them had to say about them.
"From Middle East AFV Technical Liaison Letter 25 16 December 1944
Sherman 17 Pdr (Ic) (Firefly)
About 100 of those are now in the theatre and issues have been made to 2nd and 7th Armd Bdes as well as 5th Can and 4th N.Z. Armd Bdes. Operational experience is scanty but certain points have already come up: -
The ammunition bin in the co-drivers compartment is of such a size and construction that it cannot be removed from the vehicle without removing the turret. This operation is necessary in order to carry out repairs to the right hand front steering brake. M.W.E.E. have a project for investigating and suggesting a remedy and it appears probable that it will be necessary to make this bin of bolted instead of welded construction so that it can be dismantled and removed piecemeal.
R.A.C.T.D. have also hid some experience with Sherman Ic and have brought up a number of points. Their remarks, suggested remedies and comments by HQ R.A.C. have been circulated to all holding units and are reproduced as Appendix "A".
2nd Can Armd Regt of 5 Can Armd Bde have the following user comments:-
The crew found the turret space rather confined. This did not interfere with efficiency in action but it proved very tiring as there is less room for "relaxation" than in the normal Sherman. Considerable practice is required in crew drill for the handling of amn. The driver plays an important part in this. The same regt gives the following operational account.
1. This regt received 4 Sherman Ic Firefly Tks, during a lull in battle, on 5 Oct 44.
2. After some discussion, it was decided to allot them all to one sqn, on the basis of one per tp. Since the tp ldr normally leads his tp in the sort of close country in which we are now operating, it was decided that the 17 pdr Shermans would be given to the Tp Sgts. (Sqn org - 4 tps each 3 tks).
3. Instr was commenced as soon as the kit had been checked. One offr and one sgt had just returned from a 17 pdr course at RACTD, having been flown both ways, and, in addition, a very competent sgt-instr from RACTD was attached to the Regt. It was not possible to incl firing in the brief trg progam.
4. On 14 Oct the 17 pdr tks saw their first action when this sqn provided close sp for an inf bn (H & PE) in an advance beyond SCOLO RIGOSSA. In the first afternoon this force gained approximately 1500 yds against stubborn resistance. Although the 17 pdr tks were kept rearmost in their tps, they were called upon to shoot up many houses and dug-outs, and the HE shell was found to be about the same as the 75mm. In the opinion of one tp sgt it "seems to knock out the back wall of the house"
5. An opportunity to observe its hole-punching capabilities came late in this first afternoon. One of the tp cpls spotted a Panther at about 300 yds range. He indicated it to his tp sgt and meanwhile fired one round of 75 mm AP at it. The tp sgt's gunner reports that as he laid the 17-pdr on the Panther, its turret was swinging slowly towards him and, as be fired, was still roughly 30 degrees off. Four rounds of 17-pdr AP were fired, all scoring direct hits. The Panther did not brew up, our own inf patrols, fearing recovery by the enemy, set fire to it during the ensuing night.
6. The remains of this tk may be seen at BULGARIA (mr 656045). There are two clean holes in it and three "gouges". One hole is in the side of the gun barrel, approx 3 in from the mantlet; since there is no hole out the other side of the barrel, and judging from the angle of penetration about 60 deg from normal) it seems probable that this AP round entered the turret via the breech of the gm. The other hole is in the side wall of the turret."
-
Hi jochen....
Great to be flying (tanking) with you post our WB experiences......... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Anyway, to answer your question about the Centurion. My memories of Centurions are more vague as I spent far less time in them as opposed to the M4A2E8 (76mm) Sherman. It did have the British 105 gun, which had just been upgraded in the summer of 1963, from the 84mm (20 pounder) master weapon system. The 105 was incredibly potent when engaging targets at longer ranges than the Sherman. Yes, the gun was stabilized and we also had infrared night vision aids.
I wanted to clear something else up in general. As I pointed out in an earlier message pertaining to gyroscopic stabilization for firing the master weapon on the move, this was NOT as post WWII innovation. In a similar vain, infrared was also used in WWII, particularly on German equipment. I have plagiarized some material from George Parada acknowledging full credit here for his research as follows:
"German Infrared Night-Vision Devices - Infrarot-Scheinwerfer
In 1936, AEG was ordered to start the development of infrared night-vision devices and in 1939, first successful prototype unit for use with 37mm Pak 35/36 L/45 anti-tank gun was constructed. In autumn of 1942, unit for use with 75mm PaK 40 L/46 anti-tank gun was constucted and was also mounted on Marder II (Sd.Kfz.131).
In mid 1943, first tests with infrared night-vision (Nacht Jager) devices and telescopic rangefinders mounted on Panther started. Two different arrangements / solutions were created and used on Panther tanks.
Solution A - Sperber (Sparrow Hawk) was made up of one 30cm infrared searchlight (with range of 600m) and image converter operated by the commander - FG 1250. From late 1944 to March of 1945, some Panzerkampfwagen V Panther Ausf G (and other variants) mounted with FG 1250, were succesfully tested. From March to April of 1945, approximately 50 Panthers Ausf G (and other variants) mounted with FG 1250, saw combat service on the Eastern Front and Western Front. Panthers with IR operated with SdKfz.251/20 Uhu (Owl) half-track with 60cm infra-red searchlight and Sd.Kfz.251/21 Falke (Falcon). This solution could be easily mounted on any type of armored fighting vehicle.
Solution B - Second more complicated arrangement / solution was "Biwa" (Bildwandler), which provided driver, gunner and commander with one 30cm infrared searchlight (with range of 600m) and image converter. Various variants of Panthers were converted and mounted with "Biwa". It was reported that tests were successful, but there is very few combat reports from the Eastern or Western Front.
Various units received IR Panthers including 116th Panzer Division (3rd company of 24th Panzer Regiment, Western Front, Summer of 1944), Sixth SS Panzer Army (Hungary, early 1945), Panzer Division Muncheberg and Clausewitz. One combat report is by a veteran of 1st SS Panzer Regiment of 1st SS Panzer Division "LSSAH", who states that few Panthers equipped with infrared night-vision devices possibly from 116th Panzer Division were used in 1944/45 during the Ardennes Offensive. In April of 1945, Panthers equipped with IR equipment (solution B) joined Panzer Division Clausewitz and in mid April near Uelzen destroyed entire platoon of British Comet cruiser tanks. Also on April 21st of 1945, same Panthers overran an American anti-tank position on the Weser-Elbe Canal.
In addition, it is reported that single unit equipped with Jagdpanthers also received and used infrared night-vision devices.
Crews of infrared night-vision devices mounted vehicles were also armed with MP44 assault rifles fitted with infrared night-vision device - Vampir (Vampire)."
-
Yikes! Those guys had guts to be that close to a Panther.
Great stuff, Badger. Keep it coming!
-
T 34 with a 76 mm is a even match for a mk IV. A sherman even with a 76mm is easy meat for a mk IV with its great 75mm. The only shermans that could compete are the firefly and the jumbo conversion. I bet we get a sherman first.
-
I'm sorry gents - I feel overwhelmed with all the data/dates/names about operational use of stabilized guns/night vision optics etc in WW2 tanks...
I do not at all say that all of the above was not available/developed/designed etc at the time what I'm saying that from that point of view (however rudimentary) ICBMs and cruise missiles were widely used by Germany as well as jet fighters by the US, Britain and Germany...
Gun stabilizers? <badger>: "...Despite the tests and the official position, most crews interviewed preferred to fire from a stable (halted) position..." I wonder why? Did they really prefer to stop the tank (instantly creating a fat juicy target) to fire their gun or did they actually prefer to take the risk but to get a chance to destroy the enemy with that shot no matter what the "official position" was on the subject? Somehow I do not think that those brave men were bent on suicide...
Lots of staff was developed/used in WW2 - including radars and helicopters. But can we really even compare all that stuff to what's working today? Sherman with gun stabiliser and whatever else is as close to, say, M1 (with actually _working_ gun stabiliser) as a 262 is to, say, F15.
Lets just keep to the stuff that was out there fighting the enemy on the front lines in every day battles and not what could have been used if some ideal laboratory conditions existed.
And while we're at it - there's no hourly charges in AH - bring on engine problems, gunjams, 30% 109s crashing while landing due to crap landing gear etc.
Otherwise Ki84, if introduced, would be a uberplane it was _not_ in real life. Mind you - it could have well been - if the engines were performing and reliable etc but it was not!!! Same goes to all tank guns stabilizers...
------------------
-lynx-
13 Sqn RAF
-
I'm starting to think Badger needs to have his own forum.
Keep up the posting Badger I'm enjoying the tank information.
<S>
Mox
The Wrecking Crew
-
What mox said. Very interesting reading badger. Nice to hear from a guy who knows firsthand the in's and out's of tank warfare.
-
Hi -lynx-......
Thanks for the feedback. It appears that I'm not communicating the issue well, for that I do apologize.
Originally posted by -lynx-:
Gun stabilizers? <badger>: "...Despite the tests and the official position, most crews interviewed preferred to fire from a stable (halted) position..." I wonder why? Did they really prefer to stop the tank (instantly creating a fat juicy target) to fire their gun or did they actually prefer to take the risk but to get a chance to destroy the enemy with that shot no matter what the "official position" was on the subject? Somehow I do not think that those brave men were bent on suicide...
Lots of staff was developed/used in WW2 - including radars and helicopters. But can we really even compare all that stuff to what's working today? Sherman with gun stabilizer and whatever else is as close to, say, M1 (with actually _working_ gun stabilizer) as a 262 is to, say, F15.
Lets just keep to the stuff that was out there fighting the enemy on the front lines in every day battles and not what could have been used if some ideal laboratory conditions existed.
Sorry partner, I was trying to point out exactly the opposite. It wasn't my attention to get into a whole bunch of techno babble with figures and data, but rather talk about the real world. Also, I don't recall anywhere attempting to equate the capabilities to the M1 Abrams of the Gulf War era. To reiterate, this was not laboratory conditions, but rather actual "tank to tank" combat from the moment that the allies landed at Normandy on June 6th. To borrow your phrase, this really is "the stuff that was out there fighting the enemy on the front lines in every day battles". That's all that I was trying to say, albeit badly.
The gyro stabilization that was built into the Sherman M4 and was indeed used quite effectively against Panzer IV's and particularly later on against Tigers. The system built into them was exactly the SAME gyro stabilizer I personally fired from on the M4A2E8 version. Just to make sure that my memory hadn't completely faded, I dug out my old gunnery log book and checked for my MTR 'fire and movement' scores. I had achieved an average of 83% first round hits at ranges from 600-1,200 yards using this system with APDS. I telephoned my local friend (1st Hussars, RCAC) who landed at D-Day and used this same gyro equipment in combat and he said "there's no way he would have ever wanted to take on Panzer IV's and Tigers without the ability to fire on the move". He also said that this was simply because most of his "tank to tank" engagements during the war tended to be up close and personal, under 1,500 yards. This was primarily due to the nature of the countryside (forested, hedge rows and hilly) where an enemy vehicle either waited in ambush till you were real close, then opened fire, or, both of you simply appeared in the open and surprised each other without any warning. This is reinforced separately with the example of the actual combat report from Italy above that stated "One of the tp cpls spotted a Panther at about 300 yds range. He indicated it to his tp sgt and meanwhile fired one round of 75 mm AP at it. The tp sgt's gunner reports that as he laid the 17-pdr on the Panther, its turret was swinging slowly towards him and, as be fired, was still roughly 30 degrees off. Four rounds of 17-pdr AP were fired, all scoring direct hits" Note: 300 yards!!!!! I think many people often get confused about WWII tank warfare in France because they are so used to reading and seeing videos of the Arab/ Israeli wars of the 60's and 70's plus the Gulf War in the early 90's. They see lots of flat open tank engagements at extreme range distances.
"Did they really prefer to stop the tank (instantly creating a fat juicy target) to fire their gun....". Well, one just doesn't really stop the tank in the open. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) You take up a fire position, either "hull down" or preferably a pre-cursor "turret down". If caught in the open, you always ran like stink in high gear (usually 3rd) for the nearest cover that fitted the first two criteria. Guess what, while you're running, you returned fire on the move using your gyro stabilizer, even if he was out of range from a pragmatic point of view. It would sure as heck make him think about his own cover before he fired again. The reason a gunner PREFERS to be stopped is because he knows two things. First, he'll probably be in a safe fire position protected against incoming AP from his turret ring and below and second, while stopped his ability to engage at long ranges out to 3,000 yds plus is a given. Unfortunately, these long ranges also yielded less kills due to the superior German equipment, especially Panthers and Tigers.
Anyway, sorry for rambling again, plus I've been down these roads before with these kind of academic discussions. I have them daily with my CFO who's always trying to convince me that numbers tell the truth. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) I'll just leave it at that and we'll try to remember that AH is just a game, but if the Sherman is introduced as the next vehicle, play balance will need to be maintained so that it has some survival chance against the Panzer IV. My bottom line point is simply to give the Sherman what it indeed utilized daily from D-Day onward, that being the ability to fire on the move using it's superior cross country speed combined with an in-close (1,000 yds or less) steady gun platform. Sure, lots will bounce off their armor, but it will be one heck of a fun fight.
By the way, to some degree the Panzer IV already mimics gyro stabilization by accident. When moving in it within AH and looking through the sighting telescope, the game sight is far too stable, some of which is due to the flat graphics terrain. In a real tank moving across country, this sight pattern without stabilization is bobbing around so much you actual get motion sickness. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) The current Panzer IV is close ( perhaps still somewhat a little too giggly) to what I used to see exactly in a gyro stabilized Sherman M4 system.
Regards,
Badger
-
Thanks mox and hblair.....
Appreciate the positive feedback. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
I was starting to get a feeling I was overstepping my bounds and setting myself up for a flame fest of some sort. That's what usually happens when a thread or topic hog like I've been lately gets loose. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
I guess my passion for armor got the best of me as I really do have an affinity for those old beasts I used to lumber around in. Although I am a real world pilot, as is my wife, with some Zlin aerobatics training, I've never got into as many iterative and interactive threads about planes, as I have about tanks since AH released the ground portion of the game.
Glad you have found the research and anecdotal experiences enjoyable.
I will try to tone back a bit. I promise. Well.....maybe. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Regards,
Badger
-
See this thread posted earlier about the Sherman: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/Forum1/HTML/002684.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/Forum1/HTML/002684.html)
-
Tone it back? Are you nuts? You are a rare treasure trove of factual and anecdotal information, and you're worried you might offend? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/eek.gif)
I say the more the better!
-
Thanks badger - I should, probably, stand corrected (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
The point I was trying to make (albeit badly (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)) was that we get it far too easy in many ways - flat (more like desktop flat) terrain, never a mechanical problem etc. At least HTC did away with a laser guided bombs from 35,000 feet...
The main whine against this type of realism in WB was the hourly charge "...I'm paying $2/hour and I don't want no engine problems..." In AH I feel the stuff like bouncy terrain, gunjams etc would add greatly to immersion in (virtual) reality. And it seems not that difficult to add but I'm no programmer either so Pyro would probably correct me on this too (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
Many so called uber-rides weren't that brilliant in RL - there was not enough time to test/polish all the innovations before they were put to test in combat.
BTW, my "turret experience" is limited to 14.5mm (unstabilized) MG and I could hit nothing on the move - it was bouncy...
------------------
-lynx-
13 Sqn RAF
-
Too cool..whens the book coming out Badger? I'll buy a copy ! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Originally posted by -lynx-:
Pongo - no-one in his right mind shot from a moving tank hoping to hit even close to target. Gun stabilizers came well after WW2 plus suspension compare to modern tanks was so crude that I'd read somewhere that if WW2 tanks were to be used today they would be deemed to be unsafe for the crew...
Sorry lynx I didnt see this till now.
The suspension of the german tanks was much better at firing on the move then the russians modified cristy suspension on the t34. Also the crew layout in the PvIv using a 3 man turrent allowed the vehicle to have a dedicated comander not a loader-commander or a gunner-commander like many russian tanks. It was still no where near equivilent to the US gyro units but the russian suspension was worse. The US army and anyone usesing shermans had access to Gyrostabalizers. Most of the tanks were equiped with them, some crews might have disconected them (they made the guns buck arround in transit)but they were certainly in widespread and effective use.
A later post compares the sherman to the pzIV. The firefly certainly overpowers the pziv from a gunpower and armour stand point. The firefly while not gyro stabalized has a considerable (2000 yrd?) stand off capability vs the pziv. The 76mm armed shermans have a similar fire power to the pziv, but the m4a3 series are better armoured and faster.
The 75mm armed shermans are offensivly inferior to the pziv but have superlative anti personel capability.
HTC is unlikly to introduce the panther or tiger tanks to the game. They over power single allied tanks quite signifigantly.
The wide open ranges of AH would be heaven for the heavily armed and armoured german tanks. Better than any real enviroment they encountered. no heat haze no dust just dead shermans and t34s as long as your ammo holds out.
The only tanks that could stand up to them where introduced so late as to open the panther II can of worms...
Nice posts badger.
When you served in shermans did they call them grizzlies in canadian service?
------------------
Pongo
The Wrecking Crew
-
My orginal thinking behind asking for a Sherman was I wish for the main battle tanks to be modeled first.
The Sherman (hopefully a 76mm gun armed version).
The Cromwell III
The Panzer IV (done)
The T-34/76.
I again want to point out that I don't want the next tank to be superior to the Panzer IV, just different. Some areas better, some worse. With fighters you can change tactics to use your plane's good points and avoid its bad points. I doubt the same is true with tanks, espeacially with the lack of terrain features to hide in.
The Sherman seems to be the best choice because of the thing's speed advantage over a Panzer IV. In this game...speed is nice. Even with the new spawn points, it is still a long haul to an enemy base. I would like to see a faster, but weaker tank. That has "Sherman" written all over it.
Hanz.
-
Originally posted by Hans:
.......I would like to see a faster, but weaker tank. That has "Sherman" written all over it.
Hanz.
Personally in conclusion, I think Hans is 100% correct.
Regards,
Badger
[This message has been edited by Badger (edited 04-23-2000).]