Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Nemisis on February 05, 2010, 08:42:54 PM
-
OK, just a hypothetical, but which do you think would have a larger impact and in what way on AH? And would it be good or bad. Assume the 76mm sherman is just a bit below the M4, and the Panther is perked at half that of the tiger.
-
I'd like to see a straight M4 or the M4A1, which were the main models used by the US until after 1944. This for use in special events.
-
Panther would have larger affect on MA. I REALLY would have liked to have seen 76mm instead of Firefly
-
If both were included into AH, the Panther would very likely see more action, seeing as it is, IMO, a better tank, even if it is perked. If anything, it would have to be equal or very slightly less, than the Tiger I's perk price. Faster than a Tiger I, and with a deadlier gun.
"The main gun was a 7.5 cm Rheinmetall-Borsig KwK 42 (L/70) with 79 rounds (82 on Ausf. G) with semi-automatic shell ejection. The main gun used three different types of ammunition, APCBC-HE (Pzgr. 39/42), HE (Sprgr. 42) and APCR (Pzgr. 40/42), the last of which was usually in short supply. While it was of only average caliber for its time, the Panther's gun was one of the most powerful tank guns of WWII, due to the large propellant charge and the long barrel, which gave it a very high muzzle velocity and excellent armor-piercing qualities. The flat trajectory also made hitting targets much easier, since accuracy was less sensitive to range. The Panther's 75 mm gun had more penetrating power than the main gun of the Tiger I heavy tank, the 8.8 cm KwK 36 L/56, although the larger 88 mm projectile might inflict more damage if it did penetrate.".
Maybe a slightly higher perk price...
If you don't have the perks, chances are, people would take the T-34 out instead of the 76mm Sherman. Though I will not discredit the 76mm Sherman completely. Although slower than a T-34, I believe it has a faster turret. I am having a bit of difficulty in tracking down the turret speed of the T-34-76 and -85 variants. Someone, please tell me if I am right or wrong here.
For fighting each other, the 76mm Sherman would have to be at close range to kill a Panther.
"The higher-velocity 76 mm M1 gun gave Shermans anti-tank firepower at least equal to most of the German vehicles they encountered, particularly the Panzer IV, and StuG. However, with a regular AP (Armor Piercing shot) ammunition (M79) or APCBC (M62) shells, the 76 mm had a chance to knock out a Panther only at close range with a shot to its mantlet, or with a shot to its flank. At long range, the Sherman was badly outmatched by the Panther's 75 mm gun, which could easily penetrate the Sherman's armor from all angles. This contributed to the high losses of Sherman tanks experienced by the U.S. Army in Europe."
The Panther could pivot turn, while the Sherman could not, but the Sherman has a faster turret.
Sherman:
"The M4 was criticized by its crews for inability to pivot turn (turn in place), limiting its usefulness in urban warfare against pivot turning Panthers. This deficiency was partially compensated by the faster traverse of its turret."
Panther:
"The first Panthers, the Ausf D model, had a hydraulic motor that could traverse the turret at a maximum rate of 360 degrees in 60 seconds independent of engine speed. This slow traverse speed was improved in the Ausf A model with a hydraulic traverse that varied with engine speed, with a maximum rate of 360 degrees in 15 seconds if the engine was running at 3000 rpm. With the engine at 1000 rpm, the maximum traverse speed was 360 degrees in 46 seconds. A hand traverse wheel was like in any other tank, Axis or Allied, provided for the Panther gunner to fine tune the aim. This arrangement of the turret traverse mechanism was a slight weakness, as traversing the Panther's turret rapidly onto a target required close coordination between the gunner and driver (to rev up the engine to maximum speed). By comparison, the M4 Sherman turret traversed at up to 360 degrees in 15 seconds and was independent of engine speed, which gave it an advantage over the Panther in close-quarters combat."
The Panther has it's fair share of shortcomings though.
The commander of the PanzerLehr Division, Gen. Fritz Bayerlein made these comments about the weaknesses of the Panther tank in the fighting in Normandy:
"While the PzKpfw IV could still be used to advantage, the PzKpfw V [Panther] proved ill adapted to the terrain. The Sherman because of its maneuverability and height was good...[the Panther was] poorly suited for hedgerow terrain because of its width. Long gun barrel and width of tank reduce maneuverability in village and forest fighting. It is very front-heavy and therefore quickly wears out the front final drives, made of low-grade steel. High silhouette. Very sensitive power-train requiring well-trained drivers. Weak side armor; tank top vulnerable to fighter-bombers. Fuel lines of porous material that allow gasoline fumes to escape into the tank interior causing a grave fire hazard. Absence of vision slits makes defense against close attack impossible."
Ardennes Offensive
"The Panther once again demonstrated its prowess in open country, where it could shoot its victims at long range with near-impunity, and its vulnerability in the close-in fighting of the small towns of the Ardennes, where there were heavy losses. A status report on January 15, 1945 showed only 97 operational Panthers left in the units involved in the operation, out of 282 still in their possession. Losses were 198 Panthers listed as total write-offs."
Against T-34's:
"After much development work, the first T-34-85 tanks entered combat in March 1944. The production version of the T-34s new 85 mm gun proved to be ineffective against the Panther's frontal armor, meaning the Soviet tank had to flank the Panther to destroy it, while the Panther's main gun could penetrate the T-34 at long range from any angle. Although the T-34-85 tank was not quite the equal of the Panther, it was much better than the 76.2 mm-armed versions and made up for its quality shortcomings by being produced in greater quantities than the Panther. New self-propelled anti-tank vehicles based on the T-34 hull, such as the SU-85 and SU-100, were also developed. A German Army study dated October 5, 1944 showed that the Panther could easily penetrate the turret of the T-34-85 from the front at ranges up to 2000 m, and the frontal hull armor at 300 m, whereas from the front, the T-34-85 could only penetrate the non-mantlet part of the Panther turret at 500 m. From the side, the two were nearly equivalent as both tanks could penetrate the other from long range."
All in all, the Panther would definitely be seen far more in the MA than the 76mm Sherman and quite possibly, the T-34-85 and Tiger I in defense of a Vbase against gv's. As stated above, people will likely take the T-34-76 out instead of the 76mm Sherman when low/no perk points. With the Sherman's turret speed, it would probably be easier to track a fast moving M3 vs the T-34's. However, the addition of the 76mm Sherman would add that "variety" that a lot of people seek and it isn't a completely helpless tank. Would make for some interesting fights, T-34-76's vs 76mm Sherman's. At the very least, it would make for more accurate SEA type missions. Both would be good additions to the game regardless.
This is were I gathered the info off of:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_Sherman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panther_tank
-
I REALLY would have liked to have seen Firefly
???
We have the Firefly.
-
lol my post deserves a Fail. I would REALLY have liked to have seen a 76mm Sherman instead of Firefly
-
The 76mm version would have been simmilar to the T-34/85's (I think, may have the wrong model) gun. It would be like a panzer speed, T-34/76 with the 85's gun. And would probably be perked at 1 if the T-34/85 is perked at 2.
-
Although slower than a T-34, I believe it has a faster turret. I am having a bit of difficulty in tracking down the turret speed of the T-34-76 and -85 variants.
I read somewhere that the T34-76 turret was entirely manual, i.e. the commander released two locking pins and manually slewed the turret by pushing on it. Does anyone know if that is true? If it is the traverse rate depends on how much Wheaties(TM) the commander had for breakfast. My book* on the T34-85 says the traverse was also manual until an electric drive was added in late 1944.
*T34-85 Medium Tank, Zaloga & Kinnear, Osprey
-
I read somewhere that the T34-76 turret was entirely manual, i.e. the commander released two locking pins and manually slewed the turret by pushing on it. Does anyone know if that is true? If it is the traverse rate depends on how much Wheaties(TM) the commander had for breakfast. My book* on the T34-85 says the traverse was also manual until an electric drive was added in late 1944.
*T34-85 Medium Tank, Zaloga & Kinnear, Osprey
Manual usually means hand cranked via gears, not pushing on it. Gear ratios would normally be such that the crew member's strength, within reasonable limits, would be a non-issue I'd think.
-
That's why I was asking, the description I read implied actual manual slewing, no gear. The gear was just for fine control after the locking pins were engaged. This description came from the web by someone who got to ride in (and drive) a restored T34-76, so who knows.
-
I've heard that, too -- that a T-34's turret could be rotated quickly by disengaging it, grabbing hold, and rotating it (no crank or gears) for coarse, quick movement.
-
Books. Buy them.
(http://www.ospreypublishing.com/images/books/covers/mainpageimages/9781846031502-th2.jpg)(http://www.ospreypublishing.com/images/books/covers/mainpageimages/9781846031496-th2.jpg)(http://www.ospreypublishing.com/images/books/covers/mainpageimages/9781846032929-th2.jpg)
Answers or more questions?
:noid
wrongway
-
Do you like to kill perfectly fine, and NOT DYING threads?
Oh and,
"For fighting each other, the 76mm Sherman would have to be at close range to kill a Panther."
I think the 76mm cannon would have been simmilar to that of the T-34/85's cannon (could have the wrong model, or even the wrong tank though). So it would only have to get as close as the 85 would. And its all depending on where the shot is taken at. Shots can be made at a tigers rear that would be suicide from the front.
But I have no doubt that the Panther would have a bigger impact on the game. And if its gun has better penetrating power than the tigers's (I didn't know that. Thanks for informing me) , it would have to be perked near, or above the tiger.
-
Do you like to kill perfectly fine, and NOT DYING threads?
Me?
I'm just trying to show you your answers are out there if you know where to look or take the time to do so yourself.
wrongway
-
Hey Wrongway,
I'm just curious, does that "Panther vs Sherman" book indicate the Sherman's crew might be more effective if they just dismounted and engaged the Panther at close quarters with multiple bazooka's? :)
-
Oh, sorry wrong way. From here it looked like you were saying we should read those, and that if we did, we wouldn't start threads like this.
And thats smart cthulhu, get out of whatever protection you have, and use a bazooka. If bazookas were more effective, why not just mount those on a tank then?
-
Oh, sorry wrong way. From here it looked like you were saying we should read those, and that if we did, we wouldn't start threads like this.
And thats smart cthulhu, get out of whatever protection you have, and use a bazooka. If bazookas were more effective, why not just mount those on a tank then?
Since you've apparently bored Wrongway away, I'll respond for both of us Kiddo. WW is a man of few words. He knows what he's talking about, and like many of us he has little patience for post wh**e's, so he offered up some factual enlightenment for your consumption. You can do with it as you please.
Now, regarding your question about bazookas. The painful reality is that, in the vicinity of Panther's (or God forbid, their larger brethren), the Sherman was often little more than a noisy, thin-skinned, 9-foot tall tank of gasoline, full of soon-to-be dead men. (If you have any doubts, I can refer you to a vet I once met who was a corpsman. He distinctly recalled pulling THREE different (very dead) crews from the same Sherman.)
My comment to WW was somewhat in jest, but only slightly. Given a choice between wearing a big noisy thin-skinned flammable kill-me costume with a dismal kill ratio against German armor, vs taking your chances with the infantry, well, the infantry does sometimes have it's advantages.
As far as mounting bazooka's on a tank, ponder this silliness (although not technically a rocket projectile):
(Yes, that IS the loader standing in the background. What you can't see is the officer attempting to "motivate" him into battle at gun point :lol)
(http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/3838/huhrv.png)
We can only surmise that the driver's helmet is an essential part of the front armor. :rofl
-
OK, just a hypothetical, but which do you think would have a larger impact and in what way on AH? And would it be good or bad. Assume the 76mm sherman is just a bit below the M4, and the Panther is perked at half that of the tiger.
The Panther would have much more impact. Better tank all the way around.
I've been "wishing" for this tank from the beginning.
-
I think both tanks would make an impact on the game. The Panther of course would be the first choice due to the better gun and slightly better armor. But the 76mm Sherman would be a worthy opponent. The 76mm could penetrate the Panther if the range was close enough from the front and without a doubt from the flank. Either tank would be fine with me. Though the Panther would be vulnerable to the IL-2 due to the thin top armor on the rear deck.
-
Il-2's piss me off. They're like gnats buzzing around up there.
-
As stated above, people will likely take the T-34-76 out instead of the 76mm Sherman when low/no perk points.
Not really. The only thing the T-34/76 has on the 76mm Sherman is speed. Armor is comparable. The 76mm gun on the Sherman was the equal of the Russian 85, so firepower would go to the Sherman. Optics I imagine would also be better than the soda-straw you seem to be looking through on the T-34s. The Sherman would probably have a .50cal AA mount, compared to a big fat nothing on the T-34s. Could be modeled with a gyrostabilized gun, so you wouldn't have that comparatively huge gun bounce to contend with when trying to fire on the move. No smoke rounds for either T-34 . . . smoke rounds were available for both 75mm and 76mm armed Shermans.
Unless you were in a situation where the extra speed is critical, I think people would find an unperked 76mm armed Sherman very appealing. Armed with the 75mm gun, which was about equal to the Russian 76, and it would still be a matter of preference, although again I think the Sherman's benefits outweigh the speed advantage of the T-34 in most situations.
-
Agreed. Personally, the .50 cal would do it right there for me. Hate Il-2s, they're just a bad aircraft. Would give a better chance of a pilot wound than a .30, and it gives you infinitly better chances than the nothing the T-34's have.
-
Oh, sorry wrong way. From here it looked like you were saying we should read those, and that if we did, we wouldn't start threads like this.
And thats smart cthulhu, get out of whatever protection you have, and use a bazooka. If bazookas were more effective, why not just mount those on a tank then?
:rofl :rofl
Oh and on a side note, WrongWay, I actually have 2 of those books, quite interesting imo.
-
E25280
You got me there. :salute I was thinking about it's speed and silhouette. Compared to the T-34, the Sherman sticks out like a sore thumb. But as you stated, there are benefits the Sherman has over the T-34. I COMPLETELY forgot about the pintle gun the Sherman would have. *sigh* As for the Sherman having smoke rounds vs the T-34's, how many actually use them? I have, personally, yet to see anyone use them. Maybe in TT, they are used, but I've never gone to TT for a scrap. Probably should, but me thinks my lack of gunnery skills with a tank, will quickly see me littering the landscape with my shots, then eventually, my own tank. :rofl
The .50 cal on the Sherman would prove very useful against attacking aircraft. I've been successful with the M3's .50 cal, though I'm usually smeared by someone else shortly after. :lol
If both were put in, well, seeing as I have yet to activate my account, I would take the Sherman for a spin the moment my account was activated. If my account was still what it was (prior to real life kicking my arse resulting in deletion), then it would be the Panther first, the Sherman. When I don't have enough perks or don't feel like using them, it would definitely be nice to roll something other than the T-34-76 or the Panzer IV. I would still love to see that T-34-76 vs 76mm Sherman fight. If both are equal in skill, I would put perks on the Sherman.
-
Not really. The only thing the T-34/76 has on the 76mm Sherman is speed. Armor is comparable.
T34 had sloped armor, and is definitely superior to the Sherman. The Germans didn't call the Sherman "Tommycooker" for no reason.
-
I'd like to see a straight M4 or the M4A1, which were the main models used by the US until after 1944. This for use in special events.
Sherman Jumbo with 76mm MG.
-
Id like to see another Soviet Armored Vehicle like the SU-100...Huge gun and sick armor. Cant remember if itr carried the 85mm or 122mm. Feel free to correct me guys.
-
Not really. The only thing the T-34/76 has on the 76mm Sherman is speed. Armor is comparable.
Armor might be comparable from the front, as that is the only place the sherman's armor appears to be slanted. The T34s armor is slanted on the sides as well giving it an advantage, also I believe the angle of the armor on the t34's front is more effective than the sherman's (sherman's is a bit steeper as opposed the the t34 45º angle)
-
Armor might be comparable from the front, as that is the only place the sherman's armor appears to be slanted. The T34s armor is slanted on the sides as well giving it an advantage, also I believe the angle of the armor on the t34's front is more effective than the sherman's (sherman's is a bit steeper as opposed the the t34 45º angle)
You are completely correct. I guess the poster was comparing armor thickness rather than slope, which is to his own undoing. Slope is what made the -34's armor effective, at least when compared to the "Tommycooker".
-
Id like to see another Soviet Armored Vehicle like the SU-100...Huge gun and sick armor. Cant remember if itr carried the 85mm or 122mm. Feel free to correct me guys.
100mm gun was found on the Su-100; the Su-85 had a 85mm gun and the Su-122 had a 122mm gun; simplicity for the designation of assault guns.
So far as the 76mm Sherman vs. Panther topic: I'd rather see a 105mm Sherman variant and the base 75mm version as the Firefly fills the 76mm Sherman role well enough for the game; the Panther would be unique as an AH model, plus it was significant to the war (not that is a criteria for addition to AH), but mostly it will add dimension to Scenarios.
-
T34 had sloped armor, and is definitely superior to the Sherman. The Germans didn't call the Sherman "Tommycooker" for no reason.
They gave it that name because it caught fire easily. Not because it was easy to kill. The Panzer was about as likely to catch fire after having its armor penetrated fewer times on average than the sherman was. And if the issue is armor, its better than the panzer. The sherman actually has SOME slope to it.
For me, the real attraction is the 76mm cannon, and the .50 at a lower cost than the firefly and possibly the T-34/85.
-
You are completely correct. I guess the poster was comparing armor thickness rather than slope, which is to his own undoing. Slope is what made the -34's armor effective, at least when compared to the "Tommycooker".
By the time the 76mm Shermans were widely available, wet stowage of the ammunition made the Sherman no more likely to burn than any other tank. The same German guns that were ripping the Shermans to shreds were doing just as well if not even better at mauling Soviet T-34s.
Side armor for the T-34/76 is sloped on the hull, but the sides of the turret are virtually identical to the Sherman, the slight slope of the T-34/76 not being much more effective than the rounded Sherman armor. Add to that the notoriously poor quality of Soviet steel, and yes, I would still call the armor comparable, and give an edge to the Sherman when taking fire from the front. And that's before the later '44 versions of the Sherman that had an extra half inch of front hull armor, something the T-34/85s did not enjoy.
Try this link (http://www.iremember.ru/content/view/85/19/lang,en/) to see what at least one Soviet tanker thought of lend-lease Shermans vs. the domestic offerings.
-
Saw the Panther in a low budget war movie yesterday. Didn't know what it was. :salute
-
E25280 made a good point. The Germans were shredding both T-34's and Shermans with ease (after the initial 1941 debacle with the T-34's). The argument is silly. The introduction and improvements of on the Sherman with the 76mm version makes it a very competitive tank. Further while it carries sloped armor, the Panther is very killable by a 76mm armed Sherman, as are most other tanks.
That said, I have always liked the Panther.
-
I think both tanks would make an impact on the game. The Panther of course would be the first choice due to the better gun and slightly better armor. But the 76mm Sherman would be a worthy opponent. The 76mm could penetrate the Panther if the range was close enough from the front and without a doubt from the flank. Either tank would be fine with me. Though the Panther would be vulnerable to the IL-2 due to the thin top armor on the rear deck.
If ........ The simple fact is that fewer then 100 76mm armed Sherman's landed at Normandy of which I am sure many were disposed of rather quickly. Also the AP ammunition that this gun used was always in very short supply even to the last days of the war. Most of this game involves standoff range shots of which the Sherman is vowfully at a disadvantage. Any Sherman IMO would be a waste in any arena and not even competitive within the current tank set. Since the 76mm armed version ( the only one worth a dam)would not be included in EW or MW. The Panther would be in MW as well as the main arena. One other thing is the Panther's armor is much more then slightly better. It's night and day better.
-
Actually E252980, the sherman's armor was increased to compensate for the reduction in armor slope when the made the change from welded to cast hulls. The seams were weak spots in the armor. At least this is what i gather from reading multiple web pages.
-
By the time the 76mm Shermans were widely available, wet stowage of the ammunition made the Sherman no more likely to burn than any other tank. The same German guns that were ripping the Shermans to shreds were doing just as well if not even better at mauling Soviet T-34s.
Side armor for the T-34/76 is sloped on the hull, but the sides of the turret are virtually identical to the Sherman, the slight slope of the T-34/76 not being much more effective than the rounded Sherman armor. Add to that the notoriously poor quality of Soviet steel, and yes, I would still call the armor comparable, and give an edge to the Sherman when taking fire from the front. And that's before the later '44 versions of the Sherman that had an extra half inch of front hull armor, something the T-34/85s did not enjoy.
Try this link (http://www.iremember.ru/content/view/85/19/lang,en/) to see what at least one Soviet tanker thought of lend-lease Shermans vs. the domestic offerings.
Well remember, the armor here isn't "crappy". We don't have to worry about the quality of armor vs in WW2. So the T-34 actually has better armor quality here than in actually did in real life. I found that link to be an interesting read and it would seem Dimitry really liked the Sherman.
I'm curious to how fast they would make each of the tanks. The Sherman did 25-30 MPH while the Panther did 34-29 MPH. Of course, it varied with each variant, but I still wonder. :headscratch:
-
Well remember, the armor here isn't "crappy". We don't have to worry about the quality of armor vs in WW2. So the T-34 actually has better armor quality here than in actually did in real life. I found that link to be an interesting read and it would seem Dimitry really liked the Sherman.
I'm curious to how fast they would make each of the tanks. The Sherman did 25-30 MPH while the Panther did 34-29 MPH. Of course, it varied with each variant, but I still wonder. :headscratch:
Fair point on the armor. In game I seem to have no more trouble killing T-34s as Fireflys and vice versa, so going by that, we can probably assume that would continue to hold true with any other Sherman.
In regards to the speeds, I think they do a fairly good job at using best-available published maximum speeds. What is a little "gamey" about AH is that all of our ground is apparently hard as concrete since nothing seems to suffer any kind of "off road penalty" to that top speed.
-
would have to make more, and straiter roads for that to work.
-
If ........ The simple fact is that fewer then 100 76mm armed Sherman's landed at Normandy of which I am sure many were disposed of rather quickly. Also the AP ammunition that this gun used was always in very short supply even to the last days of the war. Most of this game involves standoff range shots of which the Sherman is vowfully at a disadvantage. Any Sherman IMO would be a waste in any arena and not even competitive within the current tank set. Since the 76mm armed version ( the only one worth a dam)would not be included in EW or MW. The Panther would be in MW as well as the main arena. One other thing is the Panther's armor is much more then slightly better. It's night and day better.
100 landed at Normandy is irrelevant to the discussion as about half of Shermans produced in late '44 and '45 were equipped with 76mm guns.
I have no idea where you get the idea AP was scarce for this gun. It wasn't. HVAP was scarce, but that is true of all specialty ammunition.
Not sure how you can say it wouldn't be competitive when it has already been stated that it would be nearly equal to the T-34/85 and is in every way equal if not superior to the PzkwIV we have in game, both of which are used in abundance in the LWAs.
-
There was a 76mm M4A2, so could be a MW tank. It would be equivelant to the T-34/85, wich is definatly superior to the panzer IV.
-
There was a 76mm M4A2, so could be a MW tank. It would be equivelant to the T-34/85, wich is definatly superior to the panzer IV.
1944 isnt considered MW
Fighting against Panther tanks in Normandy quickly demonstrated the need for better anti-tank firepower, and the 76 mm M4s were deployed to First Army units in July 1944. Patton's Third Army started with 75 mm M4s and accepted 76 mm M4 Shermans only after the Battle of Arracourt against Panther tanks in late September 1944.[24]
High Velocity Armor Piercing (HVAP) ammunition, standardized as M93, first became available in August 1944 for the 76 mm gun. The projectile contained a tungsten core penetrator surrounded by a lightweight aluminum body, which gave it a higher velocity and more penetrating power. However, this new projectile was still unable to penetrate the glacis plate of the Panther tank although it could penetrate the turret mantlet of the Panther at longer ranges than standard ammunition; it brought the U.S. 76 mm gun closer in performance to the British 17 pounder using standard APC ammunition. Because of tungsten shortages, HVAP rounds were always in short supply. Distribution was prioritized to U.S. tank destroyer units; most Shermans carried only a few rounds and some units never received any.
-
penetration panther vs different opposing tanks, and allied tanks vs panther
http://dietmagic.tripod.com/panther.html
-
100 landed at Normandy is irrelevant to the discussion as about half of Shermans produced in late '44 and '45 were equipped with 76mm guns.
I have no idea where you get the idea AP was scarce for this gun. It wasn't. HVAP was scarce, but that is true of all specialty ammunition.
Not sure how you can say it wouldn't be competitive when it has already been stated that it would be nearly equal to the T-34/85 and is in every way equal if not superior to the PzkwIV we have in game, both of which are used in abundance in the LWAs.
Here's some info on the ammo needed to compete with the the panther and Tiger. Regular AP was inept against these types. Also The T-34/85 did have better armor then the M4 Sherman. I don't have my penetration charts in front of me but standoff penetration between the two guns I would say the T-34/85 has an edge .
Because of tungsten shortages, HVAP rounds were always in short supply. Distribution was prioritized to U.S. tank destroyer units; most Shermans carried only a few rounds and some units never received any.
100 76mm equipped Shermans does matter to me since it was introduced with only 10 months of the war remaining. By then the Panther already had 2 model upgrades .
Now maybe in the game it will have all tungsten ammo . Then it would be competitive., but as stated if you want to add another tank then at least add one that will at least span a couple of arenas . The 76mm armed Sherman would only be available in the LW arena and IMO would not really do much to enhance that arena.
-
Oh, sorry wrong way. From here it looked like you were saying we should read those, and that if we did, we wouldn't start threads like this.
And thats smart cthulhu, get out of whatever protection you have, and use a bazooka. If bazookas were more effective, why not just mount those on a tank then?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/34/Ontos.jpg)
Sup.
They gave it that name because it caught fire easily.
That was only true of the early Shermans that hit the beaches in Africa and some of the ones in Normandy. Shortly thereafter they were modified with "wet storage," where the ammunition was kept in water-filled bins, and that solved the burning problem.
The 76mm armed Sherman would only be available in the LW arena and IMO would not really do much to enhance that arena.
On the other hand, it wouldn't be terribly taxing to add.
The 76mm gun Sherman was a formidable tank, but since the Tiger was in the game and there was a clear need for a non-perked ride that could waste Tigers, it's clear to see why HTC just cut to the chase and added the Firefly.
-
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/34/Ontos.jpg)
Sup.
That was only true of the early Shermans that hit the beaches in Africa and some of the ones in Normandy. Shortly thereafter they were modified with "wet storage," where the ammunition was kept in water-filled bins, and that solved the burning problem.
On the other hand, it wouldn't be terribly taxing to add.
The 76mm gun Sherman was a formidable tank, but since the Tiger was in the game and there was a clear need for a non-perked ride that could waste Tigers, it's clear to see why HTC just cut to the chase and added the Firefly.
Because the 76mm gun was not all that effective against Tigers and frontal shots on the Panther. Since we have no Panthers in the game that's not an issue. The British 17lber was able to defeat a Tigers armor. So I would guess that's why it was added rather then a 76mm armed Sherman.
-
HVAP was scarce, but that is true of all specialty ammunition.
HVAP ammo wasn't really scarce due to lack of number of rounds in theater. The shortage was only in tank units because the HVAP rounds were given to anti-tank artillery and tank killer units as priority and then whatever was left was given to the tank units. Same reason why these kind of rounds were also in short supply for UK tank units.
ack-ack
-
Because the 76mm gun was not all that effective against Tigers and frontal shots on the Panther. Since we have no Panthers in the game that's not an issue. The British 17lber was able to defeat a Tigers armor. So I would guess that's why it was added rather then a 76mm armed Sherman.
Isn't that what I just said?
-
Isn't that what I just said?
Sorry you did there in the end.
-
There were NO 76MM shermans used on June 6th.
They were first used in Operation cobra, M4A1 Cast hulls.
They didnt stop producing cast hulls for welded ones either, the cast and welded hull tanks were built at different locations. The Naming sceme is not to designate new models either, its to indicate what Motor/hull type the M4 had.
M4 Radial Welded hull. (some composite hulls as well) (no 76MM)
M4A1 Radial Cast hull (76MM by mid 44)
M4A2 twin Deisel Welded (76MM by mid 44)
M4A3 Welded (76MM by mid 44)
M4A4 A57 Multibank (5 car motors one crank) welded. 75MM gun only.
Some units even late in the game in Europe wanted to keep their 75MM shermans because it was better agaist german infantry.
-
There were NO 76MM shermans used on June 6th.
They were first used in Operation cobra, M4A1 Cast hulls.
They didnt stop producing cast hulls for welded ones either, the cast and welded hull tanks were built at different locations. The Naming sceme is not to designate new models either, its to indicate what Motor/hull type the M4 had.
M4 Radial Welded hull. (some composite hulls as well) (no 76MM)
M4A1 Radial Cast hull (76MM by mid 44)
M4A2 twin Deisel Welded (76MM by mid 44)
M4A3 Welded (76MM by mid 44)
M4A4 A57 Multibank (5 car motors one crank) welded. 75MM gun only.
Some units even late in the game in Europe wanted to keep their 75MM shermans because it was better agaist german infantry.
I will find the source where I read it and post it for you.
-
I will find the source where I read it and post it for you.
Yeah when you post about how I am right you can mention any Zolaga's books on the Sherman.
Like Armored thunderbolt or M4 (76) in combat.
Hint though, they were in England, but no one wanted them.
-
There were NO 76MM shermans used on June 6th.
They were first used in Operation cobra, M4A1 Cast hulls.
They didnt stop producing cast hulls for welded ones either, the cast and welded hull tanks were built at different locations. The Naming sceme is not to designate new models either, its to indicate what Motor/hull type the M4 had.
M4 Radial Welded hull. (some composite hulls as well) (no 76MM)
M4A1 Radial Cast hull (76MM by mid 44)
M4A2 twin Deisel Welded (76MM by mid 44)
M4A3 Welded (76MM by mid 44)
M4A4 A57 Multibank (5 car motors one crank) welded. 75MM gun only.
Some units even late in the game in Europe wanted to keep their 75MM shermans because it was better agaist german infantry.
This from the all expert web site under M4 Sherman.. I have a book or 2 at home that support this and will post the books name and author when I get back home.
Beginning in 1944, some Shermans mounted the higher-velocity 76 mm M1 gun giving them anti-tank firepower comparable to the Soviet T-34/85 and many of the AFVs it encountered, particularly the Pz III, Pz IV, and StuG vehicles. The 76 mm armed vehicles first saw combat in Normandy, where half the German tanks encountered were the 45-ton Panther. With a regular APBC ammunition the 76 mm could reliably knock out a Panther only with a shot to its flank. Firing later HVAP ammunition
-
Yeah when you post about how I am right you can mention any Zolaga's books on the Sherman.
Like Armored thunderbolt or M4 (76) in combat.
Hint though, they were in England, but no one wanted them.
Heres one that I know I read about the Shermans in. I will post the quote when I get home. I just remembered the books cover and searched for it on line. It is rather basic but does have some good penetration charts regarding not only the Tiger's gun but other tanks that the Tiger faced.
Tiger 1 Heavy Tank 1942-45 (New Vanguard)
~Tom Jentz (Author), Peter Sarson (Illustrator)
A
-
This from the all expert web site under M4 Sherman.. I have a book or 2 at home that support this and will post the books name and author when I get back home.
Beginning in 1944, some Shermans mounted the higher-velocity 76 mm M1 gun giving them anti-tank firepower comparable to the Soviet T-34/85 and many of the AFVs it encountered, particularly the Pz III, Pz IV, and StuG vehicles. The 76 mm armed vehicles first saw combat in Normandy, where half the German tanks encountered were the 45-ton Panther. With a regular APBC ammunition the 76 mm could reliably knock out a Panther only with a shot to its flank. Firing later HVAP ammunition
Without a date this proves nothing.
-
Heres one that I know I read about the Shermans in. I will post the quote when I get home. I just remembered the books cover and searched for it on line. It is rather basic but does have some good penetration charts regarding not only the Tiger's gun but other tanks that the Tiger faced.
Tiger 1 Heavy Tank 1942-45 (New Vanguard)
~Tom Jentz (Author), Peter Sarson (Illustrator)
Oh yeah? I have that one as well, what Page number?
I am sure I can find the pages in the books I listed in a few minutes, I would trust Zolaga over Jentz on Shermans.
-
Oh yeah? I have that one as well, what Page number?
I am sure I can find the pages in the books I listed in a few minutes, I would trust Zolaga over Jentz on Shermans.
My understanding is that Jentz is one of the best armor scholars around. I have read that more then once. I believe that the 76mm armed Shermans did not see tank on tank combat until Operation Cobra a few weeks or so after the invasion but that was a breakout operation designed to breakout of the hedgerow region and was postponed for a couple of weeks due to weather restricting air support. Also considering that most if not all panzer divisions were held back and didn't reach the region in strength until the first week of July makes sense that that was to be their first exposure to combat. Make no mistake they did land on the beaches of Normandy. Maybe not in the first of second or 10 wave but that doesn't mean that they didn't land there. Like I said, from what I have read only 100 or so were on the invasion ships during the landing.
-
Like I said, from what I have read only 100 or so were on the invasion ships during the landing.
According to Zaloga in his book, all of the M4s initially deployed in Normandy throughout June of 1944 were the 75mm equipped Shermans (pages 129-131), while the 76mm wasn't deployed until July 1944 when some First Army units started to accept them (page 166).
If there were 100 or so 76mm Shermans sitting in the invasion ships, all they did was take up valuable space.
ack-ack
-
My understanding is that Jentz is one of the best armor scholars around. I have read that more then once. I believe that the 76mm armed Shermans did not see tank on tank combat until Operation Cobra a few weeks or so after the invasion but that was a breakout operation designed to breakout of the hedgerow region and was postponed for a couple of weeks due to weather restricting air support. Also considering that most if not all panzer divisions were held back and didn't reach the region in strength until the first week of July makes sense that that was to be their first exposure to combat. Make no mistake they did land on the beaches of Normandy. Maybe not in the first of second or 10 wave but that doesn't mean that they didn't land there. Like I said, from what I have read only 100 or so were on the invasion ships during the landing.
So what Jentz books are you talking about? What pages as well since Jentz doesn't do indexes. (WTF)
I have his 2 on the tigers, one on the Panther, plus the speilberger books on the Panzer 3, 4 and Panther.
The 76MM M4A1 Sherman first saw combat in Europe on July 25 1944 on the second day of the Cobra Offensive. They sat in warehouses in England unwanted because the US Army didnt consider the Panther a real threat until after D-Day. Page 16 of M4 (76MM) Sherman Medium Tank 1943-65 by Zaloga.
Acks Page number is from Armored Thunderbolt, also by Zaloga.
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
-
Operation Cobra was part of the Normady campaign. It was the American breakout from Normandy. Saying the 76mm Sherman was used in Normandy is not the same as saying it was used on D-Day.
Regards,
Hammer
-
Operation Cobra was part of the Normady campaign. It was the American breakout from Normandy. Saying the 76mm Sherman was used in Normandy is not the same as saying it was used on D-Day.
Regards,
Hammer
Go back and read his posts, he is saying D-Day. Besides I am not the ignorant one here, I gave dates and book references. Operation Cobra was almost 2 months AFTER June 6th.
-
According to Zaloga in his book, all of the M4s initially deployed in Normandy throughout June of 1944 were the 75mm equipped Shermans (pages 129-131), while the 76mm wasn't deployed until July 1944 when some First Army units started to accept them (page 166).
If there were 100 or so 76mm Shermans sitting in the invasion ships, all they did was take up valuable space.
ack-ack
take up valuable space? What space? Space for more 75mm Shermans? All the reference material I have read say the first Shermans to be fitted with 76mm guns was introduced into the production lines in February of 1944. Now considering that the Americans were stockpiling 75mm armed Shermans long before the 76mm came on line. It would make sense that only a small number of 76mm Shermans were mixed in with the standard 75mm Shermans for the D-Day landings.
Now ...again speculation. I would have to say the the allies knew they would have trouble with the German tanks, why up-gun a Sherman with a British 17lber gun and with a 76mm gun if your current tanks could do the job. The first documented action for the 76mm armed Shermans was in July of that year, a few weeks past the landings. Since the Germans didn't deploy their panzer divisions for 2 weeks after the landing and some up to 4 weeks it would make sense that no real armor battles took place with the 76mm Shermans until operation Cobra. That being said below is more information on the 76mm Shermans indicating that indeed there were 76mm Shermans available for the Normandy landings. There is more information out there that supports the fact there were 76mm Shermans that landed in Normandy then not. All you have to do is look.
Quote;
Sherman tank with 76mm gun:
To increase firepower the Ordnance Department developed the 76mm gun M1 and M1A1, starting in July 1942. Tests showed that the existing M4 series turret was too small to accommodate the extra length of this weapon and the turret of the T20/T23 medium tank was adopted and suitably modified. The 76mm gun installation was standardised and introduced in production lines from February 1944 and vehicles so fitted were available in time for the Normandy landings and subsequent combat in NW Europe. Suffix '(76mm)' indicated vehicles with this gun. A modified 76mm gun M1A1C or M1A2 with muzzle-brake was later introduced.
-
Look not a single page number or book title?
No page numbers? I really want to know about the Jentz book that talks about shermans. Are you sure you read them? Really sounds like you have never cracked a good book on the Sherman.
-
Go back and read his posts, he is saying D-Day. Besides I am not the ignorant one here, I gave dates and book references. Operation Cobra was almost 2 months AFTER June 6th.
Yes read back, who other then ground troops did any Sherman that landed on D-Day fight. No German panzer divisions were there for the Shermans to fight. Operation Cobra was scheduled for July 18th, but weather delayed it until the 24th. You gave me book pages to one book . I have posted many other internet sources. How many people here have the book you are quoting from, my guess is very few. All anyone interested in this topic has to do is google it. They will find many many reference sources to anything from board gamer web sites to online WW2 forums that all indicate that in fact 76mm armed shermans were in Normandy . Did any see combat until operation Cobra? No! But no mention anywhere does it say that had to specifically ship out 76mm Shermans just for operation Cobra or hold any back until then.
-
No page numbers? I really want to know about the Jentz book that talks about shermans. Are you sure you read them? Really sounds like you have never cracked a good book on the Sherman.
I just gave a number of internet related information on the topic and all you can do is keep referring to Jentz. I have a job and am not at home but only a few hours of the day. So I haven't pulled up the page number of said book, big deal. My world doesn't stop to run home and look up pages just for you so you can then tell me the author doesn't know what he's talking about. Like I said, the information is all over the internet and I have posted the quotes that I found. Now your one book is all I seen out of you. I have over 300 books on WW2 many are out of production and are rather rare. Now is everything in these books gospel? No, many contradict themselves so when I see the same thing written over and over again and then see 1 guy who says different who am I to believe?
I have a business that revolves around aviation, naval and armor from ww1 to present. I have spoke with many authors at book signings and at symposiums. I have maybe 40 signed books as well. So I have read a few books and have spent the better part of my adult life with my nose in a book or attending a related event. I also have a very extensive autograph collection many received in person. So I have also engaged in conversation regarding first hand accounts of many a veteran. I have spoke to nobody in regards to the Shermans in question so have no first hand accounts of this topic, but then again neither have you. I can say this . WW2 history has long been a hobby of mine and has become a business. My passion for the subject has afforded me more insight then the average follower . All I can do is post what information I have come across. Maybe instead of trying to force someone to produce the evidence wanted you should simply search for it with an open mind yourself. As stated.... if anyone wanted the truth all they would have to do is google it and read for themselves what has to be said regarding the topic. All of them can't be wrong.
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #2
-
See Rule #2
-
and is he the end all on Sherman history? I doubt it. I also never said I was an authority, I was quoting many different sources not one.
He has far more credibility then you, that's a fact. Bad sources and then not supply pages numbers for other supposed sources. I am still waiting on the Jentz page numbers and books.
At least supply those, you mentioned them.
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #2
-
See Rules #2, #4
-
See Rules #2, #4
-
Yes read back, who other then ground troops did any Sherman that landed on D-Day fight. No German panzer divisions were there for the Shermans to fight. Operation Cobra was scheduled for July 18th, but weather delayed it until the 24th. You gave me book pages to one book . I have posted many other internet sources. How many people here have the book you are quoting from, my guess is very few. All anyone interested in this topic has to do is google it. They will find many many reference sources to anything from board gamer web sites to online WW2 forums that all indicate that in fact 76mm armed shermans were in Normandy . Did any see combat until operation Cobra? No! But no mention anywhere does it say that had to specifically ship out 76mm Shermans just for operation Cobra or hold any back until then.
There were no 76mm Shermans that took part in the Normandy landings, none were on the invasion ships sitting offshore. I've already posted my source information so I'm not going to post it again.
The First Army didn't receive the 76mm Sherman until July of 1944 (source listed in previous post) and the 3rd Army didn't start to receive them until later September of 1944.
Even though there were sufficient numbers of the 76mm Sherman to start fielding units prior to the Normandy landings, standard US Army doctrine at the time emphasized the importance of the infantry support role of the tank. The HE round used by the 76mm Sherman was much weaker than that of the HE round for the existing 75mm Sherman. As such, many US Armored Division commanders initially didn't accept the 76mm Sherman. This was probably the main reason why the 76mm Sherman did not take part in the Normandy landings.
It wasn't until the 75mm Sherman started to encounter German Panther tanks that finally convinced US Army commanders that better main gun was needed, which resulted in the 76mm Sherman finally being deployed in July '44. The Third Army still held out with the 75mm until they got chewed up by Panthers during the Battle of Arracourt, only then did the Third Army started to deploy the 76mm Sherman.
take up valuable space? What space? Space for more 75mm Shermans?
If the 76mm Sherman were on the invasion ships like you claimed and since they weren't used during the invasion, yes, all they did was take up space that could have been used for resources needed for the invasion landing. Since we've already shown that there weren't any 76mm Shermans that took part in the Normandy landing and didn't land on mainland Europe untill July of 1944, it's a rather moot point.
All the reference material I have read say the first Shermans to be fitted with 76mm guns was introduced into the production lines in February of 1944. Now considering that the Americans were stockpiling 75mm armed Shermans long before the 76mm came on line. It would make sense that only a small number of 76mm Shermans were mixed in with the standard 75mm Shermans for the D-Day landings.
Yes, by the time of the Normandy landings there were sufficient numbers of 76mm Shermans to start deploying them to front line units. However, as I explained earlier in this post, US Armored Division commanders were hesitant about accepting them due to the weaker HE rounds it used.
Now ...again speculation. I would have to say the the allies knew they would have trouble with the German tanks, why up-gun a Sherman with a British 17lber gun and with a 76mm gun if your current tanks could do the job. The first documented action for the 76mm armed Shermans was in July of that year, a few weeks past the landings. Since the Germans didn't deploy their panzer divisions for 2 weeks after the landing and some up to 4 weeks it would make sense that no real armor battles took place with the 76mm Shermans until operation Cobra. That being said below is more information on the 76mm Shermans indicating that indeed there were 76mm Shermans available for the Normandy landings. There is more information out there that supports the fact there were 76mm Shermans that landed in Normandy then not. All you have to do is look.
The US Army never tested the 76mm Sherman against the Panther, all they did were tests against armored plating that suggested that the 76mm gun was adequate for their needs. Had they tested it against the captured Panthers they had, they would have found out that the 76mm could not penetrate the glacis plate at any range and only the center of the mantlet at 100 meters. Unfortunately, 76mm Sherman crews found this out the hard way when they encounted the Panther in July of 1944.
Sherman tank with 76mm gun:
To increase firepower the Ordnance Department developed the 76mm gun M1 and M1A1, starting in July 1942. Tests showed that the existing M4 series turret was too small to accommodate the extra length of this weapon and the turret of the T20/T23 medium tank was adopted and suitably modified. The 76mm gun installation was standardised and introduced in production lines from February 1944 and vehicles so fitted were available in time for the Normandy landings and subsequent combat in NW Europe. Suffix '(76mm)' indicated vehicles with this gun. A modified 76mm gun M1A1C or M1A2 with muzzle-brake was later introduced.
The above shows nothing other than a brief development history of the 76mm Sherman and not its deployment history.
ack-ack
-
Maybe instead of trying to force someone to produce the evidence wanted you should simply search for it with an open mind yourself. As stated.... if anyone wanted the truth all they would have to do is google it and read for themselves what has to be said regarding the topic. All of them can't be wrong.
If you're going to present something as fact, it is incumbent on you to provide the information (sources) that back up those facts you've presented. So far, you've failed in that and instead try and wow us with bona fides that amount to basically you having a few books and autographs.
ack-ack
-
Operation Cobra was part of the Normady campaign. It was the American breakout from Normandy. Saying the 76mm Sherman was used in Normandy is not the same as saying it was used on D-Day.
Regards,
Hammer
BigPlay made the claim that the 76mm Sherman did take part in the invasion and that a 100+ were loaded up on the invasion ships.
ack-ack
-
booohoooo. No page numbers It cant be true. So the internet is a bad source. Whatever. Continue to swim in your own filth, You are always so confrontational when someone has another point of view, you must be a kid.I am done with attempting to converse with you. It's rather pointless.
who cares what you believe. The sliver of my time I'm willing to give you starts and stops in this forum. Not one molecule of you has any impact on what I own and what I don't own so any speculation about me is and remains in your head. Also why post links up when a simple subject search will suffice. My guess is I'm right about you being a youngster. Too much petty immaturity from you to indicate anything else. (personal attacks, name calling, a constant need to denounce any and all posts that shed any other light then yours)
My guess in your 20's somewhere. No grown man would make a childish reference to his Glock as you have at the bottom of all your posts. I also doubt that you own one but is nothing more then another kid laying claim to anything and everything he wants but can't have. But go ahead and tell me you don't have one you have 20.
I'm glad to see that you settled on a Jeep logo for your avatar instead of a Ferrari. At least I can even believe you have a Jeep.
Can you try and not resort to insults and personal attacks in this thread? I've noticed that in every single thread you've posted in, as soon as someone starts to question your "facts" or sources or has proven you incorrect, you resort to childish insults and personal attacks while at the same time trying to play the 'hurt martyr'.
I, like GtoRA2, seriously doubt you've even read anything on the Sherman like you've claimed as so far all you've done is post incorrect information.
ack-ack
-
See Rules #2, #4
-
See Rule #2
-
Wow Ack, I think that is going to leave a mark.
Good posts, my references all back up everything you posted.
-
See Rules #2, #4
-
See Rule #2
-
BigPlay made the claim that the 76mm Sherman did take part in the invasion and that a 100+ were loaded up on the invasion ships.
ack-ack
Concur. I thought perhaps he used this quote
Beginning in 1944, some Shermans mounted the higher-velocity 76 mm M1 gun giving them anti-tank firepower comparable to the Soviet T-34/85 and many of the AFVs it encountered, particularly the Pz III, Pz IV, and StuG vehicles. The 76 mm armed vehicles first saw combat in Normandy, where half the German tanks encountered were the 45-ton Panther. With a regular APBC ammunition the 76 mm could reliably knock out a Panther only with a shot to its flank. Firing later HVAP ammunition
and interpreted "Normandy" to mean D-Day. I was attempting to point out they were not synonymous.
Regards,
Hammer
-
I know, how funny is this guy? I won't blame his behavior on his age either, Mensa is far better at debate and he is what 17?
Yeah, I know. The last debate I got into with him, he resorted to putting down the town I live in instead of trying to support his argument.
ack-ack
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #2
-
See Rule #2
-
Everyone just stop breakin' rules, you're gona get the thread locked :cry. See, you even made my smiley cry.
-
Everyone just stop breakin' rules, you're gona get the thread locked :cry. See, you even made my smiley cry.
The only person that is going to get this thread locked is the person that couldn't support his arguments without resorting to childish insults and personal attacks.
ack-ack
-
All I'm saying is that I see some edits on everyone involved. Just asking for you guys not to screw my thread.
-
Show one post from me in this thread in which I've hurled any sort of personal insult. You can't, so stop crying.
ack-ack
-
I'm not saying you were using personal insults, but....
See Rule #2
-
See Rule #2
See Rule #2
I'm not saying you were using personal insults, but....
I'm sorry Nemisis, but I have to back Ack-Ack on this. "Rule #2- Threads should remain on topic, do not "hijack" topics." It's Rule #4 that is for flaming, insulting, etc, etc. I hope Skuzzy doesn't think I'm trying to be a "back seat moderator". :noid I'm just defending Ack-Ack on this one. He merely made two post that were off topic.
"Standard Army doctrine at the time emphasized the importance of the infantry support role of the tank, and the high explosive round was considered more important. Hence the 76 mm M4 was not initially accepted by various U.S. Armored Division commanders, even though a number had already been produced and were available. All of the U.S. Army M4s deployed initially in Normandy in June 1944 had the 75 mm gun.[21]"
"Fighting against Panther tanks in Normandy quickly demonstrated the need for better anti-tank firepower, and the 76 mm M4s were deployed to First Army units in July 1944. Patton's Third Army started with 75 mm M4s and accepted 76 mm M4 Shermans only after the Battle of Arracourt against Panther tanks in late September 1944.[24]"
Both quotes I used were from Wiki, which states above, that the 76mm M4's were deployed to First Army units in July 1944. This would mean that they were not deployed during D-Day. Nothing in the wiki page indicates that they were used prior to this date. This would put the 76mm Sherman as a LW era tank.
"The M4A1 Sherman first saw combat at the Second Battle of El Alamein in October 1942 with the British 8th Army"
It would be the 75mm Sherman that would be seen in MW and LW arenas.
"Panthers were supplied to form Panzer Abteilung 51 (Tank Battalion 51) on 9 January, and then Pz.Abt. 52 on 6 February.[65]"
"The first production Panther tanks were plagued with mechanical problems. The engine was dangerously prone to overheating and suffered from connecting rod or bearing failures. Gasoline leaks from the fuel pump or carburettor, as well as motor oil leaks from gaskets easily produced fires in the engine compartment; several Panthers were destroyed in such fires. Transmission and final drive breakdowns were the most common and difficult to repair. A large list of other problems were detected in these early Panthers and so from April through May 1943 all Panthers were shipped to Falkensee and Nuernburg for a major rebuilding program. This did not correct all of the problems, so a second program was started at Grafenwoehr and Erlangen in June 1943."
This would easily make the Panzer a MW/LW arena tank.
Overall, I still feel the Panther would make the biggest impact in the game, as it would span MW and LW arenas while the 76mm Sherman would be restricted to LW. It would be perked (likely) equal, if not slightly higher, than the Tiger I because of it's deadlier gun, slightly higher speed (5 MPH faster) and excellent armor.
EW: 1939-1941, MW: 1941-1943, LW: 1943-1945. Is this how HTC measures the arena time line? I did a search check, but it turned up 11 pages of squat. And no, I can't tell by the planes that are in each arena because I havn't been to EW or MW arenas. My account is not active, so I can't just log in the check what planes were in each arena. Otherwise, I could see what plane was in each arena and google their respective deployment times for myself. :aok
-
oh, rule 2 is hijack. Sorry Ack-Ack, I was thinking rule 2 was insulting thing. IDK what I thought rule 4 was. I was a little slow there.
Sorry again sir.
-
So where exactly is the thread debate loacated at the moment?
-
The only person that is going to get this thread locked is the person that couldn't support his arguments without resorting to childish insults and personal attacks.
ack-ack
lol it looks as if you posted a few yourself.
I wouldn't have responded to you but one your last post about me attacking your home town was not true. My post was in responce to you posting how nice the beaches are in El Segundo with a propaganda picture include.It had nothing to do with any previous post. I merely was clarifying that.
To avoid getting banned I will not make anymore posts on this topic. I see that nothing more can be said from my end other then something that will result in getting banned. Let's just agree to disagree.
-
EW: 1939-1941, MW: 1941-1943, LW: 1943-1945. Is this how HTC measures the arena time line?
The exact cut offs are a matter of some debate, but your guess is as good as any. The PzIV(H) I believe was a mid '43 version and is found in MW, so that may be an indication . . . or could just be an indication that we need more GVs (as in the EWA, where by all rights a T-34/76 should probably be a perked tank rather than the only offering).
I don't think anyone would dispute that the 76mm Sherman would be LWA only. A 75mm version would be needed for MWA use.
Not sure whether the Panther would be MW, though. As your post showed, the '43 versions were riddled with bugs that took some time to work through. May as well make the version in game a "debugged" '44 version and simply make it LW only. Already have the perked Tiger in MW, no real "need" for another perked tank there.
-
So where exactly is the thread debate loacated at the moment?
Lots of proof posted for no 76MM Shermans being in combat until late July 44.
No proof at all posted about them being on the Beach on D-Day.
If you are interested in Sherman's Angus, you should try and get a copy of Armored Thunderbolt by Zaloga, its a really interesting read.
Either tank would add Value to the game, I lean towards the Sherman myself though. It would be easy to model other models of it. New turrets, etc.
-
I'm with e25280. Better to have a working '44 model than a '43 model with the steering being modeled as broken.
Would love to see a Panzer III ausf J for EW use, and a Panzer III ausf N (75mm cannon firing HEAT rounds), but not sure where it would fit in, MW or LW.
-
I'm with e25280. Better to have a working '44 model than a '43 model with the steering being modeled as broken.
Would love to see a Panzer III ausf J for EW use, and a Panzer III ausf N (75mm cannon firing HEAT rounds), but not sure where it would fit in, MW or LW.
Panzer IIIs and Early war Shermans would be fun. Its a very good match up.
-
Panzer III ausf J (early war model) wouldn't have a 75 you know. Would have a 50mm cannon.
-
Panzer III ausf J (early war model) wouldn't have a 75 you know. Would have a 50mm cannon.
Yeah the long 50MM isn't a bad gun.
-
Not at all, was used throughout the war. You don't see that kind of use with something unless it works. I was just making sure you didn't think that because the N had a 75, the others would too.
Can't tell with people all the time.
-
Lots of proof posted for no 76MM Shermans being in combat until late July 44.
No proof at all posted about them being on the Beach on D-Day.
If you are interested in Sherman's Angus, you should try and get a copy of Armored Thunderbolt by Zaloga, its a really interesting read.
Either tank would add Value to the game, I lean towards the Sherman myself though. It would be easy to model other models of it. New turrets, etc.
Agree to everything. But bear in mind that the Firefly was here and there when the action got thicker. The war had its 10 months to go...all on the mainland.
An odd angle here....how about the Italian campaign? That would set up an interesting scenario I think.
-
I am late on posting to this and as others have posted my thoughts in their own words I will say this. The Panther would have the biggest impact on the game. As desinged the Panther is about the best combination of speed, armor, and firepower you could get out of a tank in WWII. In fact post WWII tank design was heavily influenced by the Panther and is still influenced today. The 75mm gun of the panther was a beauty with its high muzzle velocity and could kill any tank it met on the battlefiel. The sloped armor of the Panther made it a tough kill. Granted it had thinner armor and it still could be killed by other tanks. Speed was good but the unique suspension made for a smoother ride which made shooting on the move a big advantage. For those reasons the Panter would be a big game changer.
BigKev
-
Do not forget that it's flaws (unreliability) would not be modelled in AH.
The gun is pretty much close to the 17 pdr BTW.
-
Same with all vehicles and planes, we don't have to worry about random breakdowns. If we did, it would have a much smaller impact, especially if it were a MW variant.
-
We would certainly be more touchy about perk rides with historically modelled breakdowns/flaws.
-
If historic breakdowns were modeled, and they put the Panther in, you would spend more time blowing your own tank up then killing anyone else's(just like the German crews had to, to keep the broken down tanks out of enemy hands since they were always on the retreat). Their loss's due to breakdowns were ridiculous. If the do model it they should model the armor weaker then it shown on paper due to the German steel sucking really bad as well.
I wonder what influence on modern design bigkev is talking about, I can't think of a single thing that was really innovative on the panther.
No one copied the crappy suspension.
No one uses a five man lay out anymore.
No one puts the motor in the back and then tranny and difs in the front. (Because a drive shaft through your fighting compartment makes your tank taller, hence the panthers height).
The gun was great but was surpassed by bigger guns on all the big nations tanks.
The Centurion, T44 and M26, had far more bearing on future tank designs. The Panther was an overly complicated waste of resources. It's main saving grace is its looks and great gun.
-
I know, its just a beautiful tank isn't it? I mean come on, just look at it:
(http://www.historyofwar.org/Pictures/panther_I_panzer_V_ausf_G_cologne.jpg)
-
I wonder what influence on modern design bigkev is talking about, I can't think of a single thing that was really innovative on the panther.
No one copied the crappy suspension.
No one uses a five man lay out anymore.
No one puts the motor in the back and then tranny and difs in the front. (Because a drive shaft through your fighting compartment makes your tank taller, hence the panthers height).
The gun was great but was surpassed by bigger guns on all the big nations tanks.
The Centurion, T44 and M26, had far more bearing on future tank designs. The Panther was an overly complicated waste of resources. It's main saving grace is its looks and great gun.
The Panther was a major influence on French and German postwar tanks. The Panther's influence on the AMX50 is especially obvious.
(http://www.achtungpanzer.com/images/amx50.jpg)
Especially the engine deck, the sprockets and the tracks are strongly reminiscent of the German design style. The AMX had nine overlapping tyred road wheels each side on a double torsion bar suspension. The much admired German overlapping design had been motivated by a shortage of high quality rubber, necessitating large road wheels to lower tyre tension, which then were made overlapping to better distribute the load pressure. As France would have no trouble obtaining rubber of the desired quality, this feature was superfluous and therefore the road wheels were made smaller. The transmission was derived from the ZF of the Panther. The engine was a modified Maybach HL295 12 cylinder of 29.5 litres, using fuel injection combined with spark ignition. The AMX 50 was the grandfather of all French postwar MBTs including the current LeClerc.
The Panther's influence on the design of the Leopard I is also obvious.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1a/Leopard_Vorserie_Prototyp_II.jpg/800px-Leopard_Vorserie_Prototyp_II.jpg)
And the Leopard I is the granddaddy of the current breed of German and American tanks trough the MBT-70 project.
We've been over this GtoRA2... Don't make me copy & paste from that older Panther vs. Sherman thread! ;)
-
Interestingly the Panther was so superior to allied armor in 1944 that British, Canadian, French and American units used captured Panthers as a stop-gap measure until better allied tanks became available.
(http://www.achtungpanzer.com/images/cuckoo_1.jpg)
-
The Panther was a major influence on French and German postwar tanks. The Panther's influence on the AMX50 is especially obvious.
(http://www.achtungpanzer.com/images/amx50.jpg)
Especially the engine deck, the sprockets and the tracks are strongly reminiscent of the German design style. The AMX had nine overlapping tyred road wheels each side on a double torsion bar suspension. The much admired German overlapping design had been motivated by a shortage of high quality rubber, necessitating large road wheels to lower tyre tension, which then were made overlapping to better distribute the load pressure. As France would have no trouble obtaining rubber of the desired quality, this feature was superfluous and therefore the road wheels were made smaller. The transmission was derived from the ZF of the Panther. The engine was a modified Maybach HL295 12 cylinder of 29.5 litres, using fuel injection combined with spark ignition. The AMX 50 was the grandfather of all French postwar MBTs including the current LeClerc.
The Panther's influence on the design of the Leopard I is also obvious.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1a/Leopard_Vorserie_Prototyp_II.jpg/800px-Leopard_Vorserie_Prototyp_II.jpg)
And the Leopard I is the granddaddy of the current breed of German and American tanks trough the MBT-70 project.
We've been over this GtoRA2... Don't make me copy & paste from that older Panther vs. Sherman thread! ;)
Your points are arguable, and neither of those tanks counts as modern designs.
There is nothing of the design in any real modern tanks that I can see.
You have any info to go with the image? I really doubt the allies used the Panthers very much like that, to unreliable. I have read of the Russians doing it, but the Russians also liked the 76MM M4A2 a lot.
-
If historic breakdowns were modeled, and they put the Panther in, you would spend more time blowing your own tank up then killing anyone else's(just like the German crews had to, to keep the broken down tanks out of enemy hands since they were always on the retreat). Their loss's due to breakdowns were ridiculous. If the do model it they should model the armor weaker then it shown on paper due to the German steel sucking really bad as well.
I wonder what influence on modern design bigkev is talking about, I can't think of a single thing that was really innovative on the panther.
No one copied the crappy suspension.
No one uses a five man lay out anymore.
No one puts the motor in the back and then tranny and difs in the front. (Because a drive shaft through your fighting compartment makes your tank taller, hence the panthers height).
The gun was great but was surpassed by bigger guns on all the big nations tanks.
The Centurion, T44 and M26, had far more bearing on future tank designs. The Panther was an overly complicated waste of resources. It's main saving grace is its looks and great gun.
Plenty of holes in this.... For the day the suspention offered the tank with a much smoother ride reducing crew fatigue not to mention the ability to shot on the move, complicated, yes but the benefits it offered was superior to most allied designs. Late war allied tanks were finally up gunned enough to handle the panthers armor. I haven't read a lot about the quality of the armor in the last days so can't make a comment about that. You have to remember that the tank was designed at a time when all of it's design advances were new and better. Most problems transmission were worked out by the G model and by then drivers knew how to drive the tanks to avoid mechanical problems.
The gun was good enough to handle most if not all tanks it crossed with exception of a couple of heavy soviet tanks but by the time these soviet tanks showed up most tank fighting was done at close quarters. The larger soviet caliber guns were mainly low velocity and 2 part ammo. slow to load and not that impressive. The best soviet gun was their 100mm and it was never manufactured enough to be installed into very tank.
Automatic loaders now do the job of a WW2 loader so there is no need for the 5th man also many other WW2 tank designs have evolved into front engine placement and tranny layout because of it.
Most if not all German design was very complicated but to say that the Panther was a waste is a little over the top. Ernst Barkman and Max Wunsch would not agree with you and they killed many soviet and allied tanks with the panther and survived the war. Ernst Barkman said that if not for the Panther he wouldn't be alive today.
Tanks were blown up in the last days of the war but you would be surprised on how many damaged tanks were recovered
up until then so saying that German tank crews just blew their tanks up when broken down is not true.
-
Your points are arguable, and neither of those tanks counts as modern designs.
There is nothing of the design in any real modern tanks that I can see.
Name one tank from the 1940s that fit that criteria... It's a moot point. The "DNA" of the Panther evolved into postwar designs that evolved further. However there is one point I'd like to make: You mentioned the Panther was "overly complicated"... Tell me, are "real modern tanks" medium-weight, simple and cheap, or are they heavy, gas-guzzling, complicated and expensive? Yeah... The Panther was the M1 Abrams/Leopard II/Challenger/LeClerc of its day and it blasted M4s and T-34s like they were Iraqi T-55s.
You have any info to go with the image? I really doubt the allies used the Panthers very much like that, to unreliable. I have read of the Russians doing it, but the Russians also liked the 76MM M4A2 a lot.
That particular Panther served for three months with the 4th Battalion of 6th Coldstream Guards Tank Brigade, North-West Europe in late 1944 and early 1945. The Free French scavenged every Panther they could and operated a force of Panthers until the late 1950s. In 1944 the Panther was not more unreliable than any other tank its size.
-
The failed was influenced by a combination of elements from the Tiger, the Panther and the US M4. It's hardly the defining influence on French tank design, having been cancelled after five prototypes.
The Leopard I has some external resemblance to the Panther (more so in the photo of the prototype you have used :lol), but it was built to a completely different design and combat philosophy, favouring mobility and firepower over the heavy armour of the Panther. Its revealing that the Leopard was almost five tonnes lighter than the Panther...
-
The AMX-50 was the base for further postwar tank development in France.
A prototype is where any design influence is most easily recognized.
The Panther was designed to fill the role of a medium tank despite weighing more than most heavy tanks at the time. The suspension was designed to give superior ride comfort and stability cross-country at high speed. The Panther had a higher top speed than most medium tanks at the time, including the M4 Sherman. The Panther had an excellent anti-tank gun; better in fact than the Tiger's 88. Its design is all about mobility and firepower.
Even in the later mark Leopard I the Panther's influence is obvious.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/Leopard1_cfb_borden_2.JPG)
-
The failed was influenced by a combination of elements from the Tiger, the Panther and the US M4. It's hardly the defining influence on French tank design, having been cancelled after five prototypes.
The Leopard I has some external resemblance to the Panther (more so in the photo of the prototype you have used :lol), but it was built to a completely different design and combat philosophy, favouring mobility and firepower over the heavy armour of the Panther. Its revealing that the Leopard was almost five tonnes lighter than the Panther...
The reason the lighter armor was selected was because the new MBT's main guns were able to shoot hollow projectiles or shaped charges which could defeat thick armor , they felt there was no reason to produce a heaver tank when the armor was able to be penetrated by these projectiles. Everything evolves including MBT's and to say that the Panther's design features were followed to the T is not what I believe Diehard meant. Tank warfare changed and so did tank designs and philosophies , even the soviets MBT's changed in design and philosophy with the T-55 which was lighter then the comparable NATO contemporaries. The soviets soon abandoned building heavy tanks in favor of tanks with better mobility.
-
Even in the later mark Leopard I the Panther's influence is obvious.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/Leopard1_cfb_borden_2.JPG)
Obvious? :huh
Looks more to me like the suspension of this:
(http://www.m18hellcat.net/_/rsrc/1229093534598/Home/hello/m18hellcat.jpg)
and a turret from this
(http://armor.kiev.ua/wiki/images/d/db/M10_Tank_Destroyer.JPG)
than anything like this
(http://www.badassoftheweek.com/panther-ausfg1.jpg)
and the leopard I prototype here:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/Leopard_1_Schnittmodell.jpg)
looks quite a bit more like this:
(http://www.miniatures.de/vehicles/t-34-85-medium-tank.jpg)
or this:
(http://www.wwiivehicles.com/usa/tanks-heavy/m26-heavy-tank-pershing/t26e-heavy-tank-01.png)
or this:
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3005/3010846929_acfc79ec4b.jpg)
than this:
(http://www.peachmountain.com/5star/images/AberdeenProvingGrounds/20060509_2154_NSengupta_AberdeenProvingGroundss.jpg)
in my opinion.
So, no, I don't think it's influence is "obvious" at all. Quite the contrary, you could pick any number of WWII and post-war tanks that seem to have more in common with it than the Panther.
-
Kinda a close up shot, but still, I can see a little resemblance between the leopard and the panther, but you are right.
-
That's the "Prototype 1", one of three designs that competed for the contract. The prototype that won the contract and entered production as the Leopard I was the Porsche "Prototype 2" which I posted on page 8.
-
Automatic loaders now do the job of a WW2 loader so there is no need for the 5th man also many other WW2 tank designs have evolved into front engine placement and tranny layout because of it.
LOL, maybe you should just bow out of this now. Die hard is here, and he atleast can back his arguments with references and knows his stuff.
US tanks don't use Auto loaders, as far as I know the only western 'tank' that does is the S Tank. Westen tanks have a four man crew, Commander, gunner, loader, driver. The bow gunner/radio operator was dropped from most designs in the late 50s because the gun was a weak spot in the hulls frontal armor.
Only the russians really use auto loaders.
:lol :lol :lol :huh
-
Obvious? :huh
Looks more to me like the suspension of this:
(http://www.m18hellcat.net/_/rsrc/1229093534598/Home/hello/m18hellcat.jpg)
and a turret from this
(http://armor.kiev.ua/wiki/images/d/db/M10_Tank_Destroyer.JPG)
than anything like this
(http://www.badassoftheweek.com/panther-ausfg1.jpg)
and the leopard I prototype here:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/Leopard_1_Schnittmodell.jpg)
looks quite a bit more like this:
(http://www.miniatures.de/vehicles/t-34-85-medium-tank.jpg)
or this:
(http://www.wwiivehicles.com/usa/tanks-heavy/m26-heavy-tank-pershing/t26e-heavy-tank-01.png)
or this:
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3005/3010846929_acfc79ec4b.jpg)
than this:
(http://www.peachmountain.com/5star/images/AberdeenProvingGrounds/20060509_2154_NSengupta_AberdeenProvingGroundss.jpg)
in my opinion.
So, no, I don't think it's influence is "obvious" at all. Quite the contrary, you could pick any number of WWII and post-war tanks that seem to have more in common with it than the Panther.
Most tanks after WW2 went to cast turrets like the ones you pictured. I am not sure but I would imagine that building cast turrets would need a larger manufacturing facility then welded steel turrets as well as a longer production process. We all know the limited manufacturing capabilities of the German war machine so I also would imagine that designs had to go hand in hand with manufacturing capabilities.
-
Name one tank from the 1940s that fit that criteria... It's a moot point. The "DNA" of the Panther evolved into postwar designs that evolved further. However there is one point I'd like to make: You mentioned the Panther was "overly complicated"... Tell me, are "real modern tanks" medium-weight, simple and cheap, or are they heavy, gas-guzzling, complicated and expensive? Yeah... The Panther was the M1 Abrams/Leopard II/Challenger/LeClerc of its day and it blasted M4s and T-34s like they were Iraqi T-55s.
That particular Panther served for three months with the 4th Battalion of 6th Coldstream Guards Tank Brigade, North-West Europe in late 1944 and early 1945. The Free French scavenged every Panther they could and operated a force of Panthers until the late 1950s. In 1944 the Panther was not more unreliable than any other tank its size.
I really don't see it.
The good features of the Panther were common in other tanks. The gun was great but, the 17 pounder, us 90MM and russian 100 were all pretty good.
No one copied the suspension? Why is that? (you don't need all the wonky road wheels to make a tank ride well, torsion bars and shocks work pretty well, just look at (the M26, m46, m47 m48 m60 , and m1 not to mention all the modern German, and brit designs.)
Not a single tank after the war used power packs in the back drive train in the front. (The reason being the drive shaft makes the tank taller and more complicated. Every German tank of the war has this flas, the Leopord 1 does not. It is far closer to a M26 or Centerion in design.)
The Engine was nothing special, everyone came up with their own engine designs after the war.
Now if you want to argue that german tactics changed tank design then I will agree, the Cent and M26 are direct results of the Germans doing tanks better, just like the Panther and Tiger are results of the russians doing it better first.
You got me on the french, and I hadnt heard the other unit, do you have a link or a book reference it sounds like an interesting read. The french even have a few of the Panthers they fought with in museums.
-
Most tanks after WW2 went to cast turrets like the ones you pictured. I am not sure but I would imagine that building cast turrets would need a larger manufacturing facility then welded steel turrets as well as a longer production process. We all know the limited manufacturing capabilities of the German war machine so I also would imagine that designs had to go hand in hand with manufacturing capabilities.
Casting takes less time then welding and is cheaper.
-
LOL, maybe you should just bow out of this now. Die hard is here, and he atleast can back his arguments with references and knows his stuff.
US tanks don't use Auto loaders, as far as I know the only western 'tank' that does is the S Tank. Westen tanks have a four man crew, Commander, gunner, loader, driver. The bow gunner, radio operator was dropped from most designs in the late 50s because the gun was a weak spot in the hulls frontal armor.
Only the russians really use auto loaders.
:lol :lol :lol :huh
. A simple wiki search will provide you with the info, here is a clip
Autoloaders are often implemented in an attempt to save on tank size. The T-64 is an example of this. The current generation of tanks using autoloaders (Russian T-90, Japanese Type 90, Chinese Type 98, French Leclerc) all weigh between 45–55 tons. Tanks that do not use autoloaders tend to weigh in the 55–70 ton range (American M1A2 Abrams, German Leopard 2, British Challenger II).
No need to continue to make remarks about knowledge. I am positive that my position in life is far advanced to yours so lets just stay on topic.
-
Casting takes less time then welding and is cheaper.
Maybe if you have the facilities to cast turrets, I did not mention anything about money. If you can't do castings then you have to resort to other procedures.
-
. A simple wiki search will provide you with the info, here is a clip
Autoloaders are often implemented in an attempt to save on tank size. The T-64 is an example of this. The current generation of tanks using autoloaders (Russian T-90, Japanese Type 90, Chinese Type 98, French Leclerc) all weigh between 45–55 tons. Tanks that do not use autoloaders tend to weigh in the 55–70 ton range (American M1A2 Abrams, German Leopard 2, British Challenger II).
No need to continue to make remarks about knowledge. I am positive that my position in life is far advanced to yours so lets just stay on topic.
LOL so basicaly like I said with the Japanese and french thrown in, but all the other real Western powers don't use them.... and you had to search wiki for this? The reason for the 4 man crew is pretty clear and the tanks with auto loaders generaly have 3 man crews. :rofl
-
Maybe if you have the facilities to cast turrets, I did not mention anything about money. If you can't do castings then you have to resort to other procedures.
What major power didnt have factories advanced enough to do big castings?
Well other then the germans?
Cost is a huge part of tank design, and is taken into acount on all aspects of the design.
-
What major power didnt have factories advanced enough to do big castings?
Well other then the germans?
Cost is a huge part of tank design, and is taken into acount on all aspects of the design.
Russians, Americans. T-34 had a cast turret as well as the Sherman. 2 tanks that were produced early during WW2. I once again made no remark to casting turrets as advance technology, just the facility size to accommodate this procedure. Both of these countries factory's that manufactured tanks were not limited in size and not under constant bombing. I would imagine that a very large foundry would be needed to pour molten steel into casts right there at the factory. Not to say the Germans didn't have large foundries but moving a cast turret from a foundry to an assembly area was not a luxury the Germans had so having a foundry right at the tank factory would have been a required component in casting tank turrets.
-
LOL so basicaly like I said with the Japanese and french thrown in, but all the other real Western powers don't use them.... and you had to search wiki for this? The reason for the 4 man crew is pretty clear and the tanks with auto loaders generaly have 3 man crews. :rofl
You also forgot the Chinese. From my understanding all western MTB's have autoloaders planed in their next model . Also other AFV's from the US already use autoloaders it's just now the MTB's do not.
-
Only reason why most Western armies are going to be using an autoloader in the next generation of tanks is that planned 140mm main gun that most will use requires it.
ack-ack
-
Only the russians really use auto loaders.
New model german tank has as semi auto loader. Give you 2 secs to stick something in (can't remember what it is) along with the shell.
-
New model german tank has as semi auto loader. Give you 2 secs to stick something in (can't remember what it is) along with the shell.
Is it as Ack says cause of the 140MM gun?
Any links? All I have heard about is the Cancelled leopard 2 project.
-
New model german tank has as semi auto loader. Give you 2 secs to stick something in (can't remember what it is) along with the shell.
I believe that is a case with all autoloader systems to allow for the clearing of short rounds.
ack-ack
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6nlvii-bP0
-
Well yes, but I was saying it doesn't load a full round in, you have to load the propellent or something in along with the shell. It still has a driver, gunner, commander, and a loader.