Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Lusche on May 18, 2010, 12:28:01 PM
-
is likely to become the new "standard". It's perk free and has same ENY as the Panzer, but it seems to be clearly superior.
It's cannon is at least on par in terms of penetration, but the 76(w) has a 50% higher rate of fire (a huge advantage you almost can't overate). And of course, it retains the rather surprising strong armor we have witnessed in the Sherman VC before.
And after almost a week in game, the first numbers are supporting this subjective assesment:
(http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/4866/firstimpression.jpg)
No wonder I see less and less Panzer IV's on the battlefield....
-
Hmmm, if it keeps that pattern it is likely to be perked slightly higher than the T-34/85 or the T-34/85 is likely to be unperked.
-
this is understandable lusche, but what if it's just because it's new and people are trying it out? many people love the tank. and this also doesnt include spawn camping etc. i just watched in a GV battle 1 pnzr and no shermans being camped by at least 5 sherman 76 and me in a 75. these pnzrs upped over 30 times with no exxageration. wish i filmed to back it up. Actually, you were there in the tiger at the base... i think i turreted you after you shot my calliope top off. although you are right in its reload time superiority but i have no trouble killing them now that i know its armor weaknesses. It could also be the fact that people know where to shoot to kill a panzer and not the shermans...
-
this is understandable lusche, but what if it's just because it's new and people are trying it out?
This usually has the opposite effect, lower K/D. People trying all sorts of things wuth the new toy to see what it can do, players that rarely or never drive tanks hopping into it for a few sorties, and so on. Also the Shermans do have the same hull as our old Firefly, so they aren't really any "new" weaknesses to spot in the armor.
Also the numbers are just supporting things I had noticed. And the higher 50% ROF is really a huge advantage.
-
I think the T-34/85 and the M4A3(76)W should both be lightly perked. They both have some very good traits.
Cross country speed: t-34
rate of fire: m4
Armor penetration: M4= t-34 w/ap < t-34 w/hvap
armor: with its invincible turret I score this one for the m4
Miscellaneous wins for m4: 5 cal pintle, default color scheme, depression angle on main gun
Miscellaneous wins for t-34: haul armor, difficult to kill with IL2 , HE damage, turret speed
In all I think the M4 and T-34/85 as modeled are comparably deadly and survivable and both warent the light perk price that is currently on the T-34/85.
-
This usually has the opposite effect, lower K/D. People trying all sorts of things wuth the new toy to see what it can do, players that rarely or never drive tanks hopping into it for a few sorties, and so on
Also the numbers are just supporting things I had noticed. And the higher 50% ROF is really a huge advantage.
yeah you shot my argument to dust there. i have to agree. just to clarify for no possible misunderstanding lusche i posted that with little thought to armor or gunnery etc that was posted in the other thread. i posted about the stats only. :aok
-
The M4a3(76) has a different hull than the Firefly. The Firefly's hull is closer to that of the M4(75). The hull on the 76 has nothing protruding so it is completely flat.
-
It is very surprising.
That a tank with the gun of a Panzer IVh but better ammo available,
the armour of a T34(a bit better maybe) speed between a PIV and a T34 and a 50 cal on the roof would be a great tank in this game.
Very very surprising.
In a world not filled with Panthers and King Tigers, its a very very good tank.
Its profile issues are not a problem in this game, and its reliability and mobility are not benefits.
And its sexy.
-
It's my favorite!
-
Take a real close look at the front of this Panzer...should be a more common occurrence in AH when a Sherman 75mm fires at it:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-783-0117-113%2C_Nordafrika%2C_Panzer_IV%2C_Turm.jpg)
-
The gun destroyed?
-
I think he meant more along the lines of although several rounds hit, none of them fully compromised the armor.
-
Interesting.
That gun is 75mm, how many of those scuff marks do you suppose are 75mm.
And how many of them will be sherman rounds in April 1941..
They are likely 2pdr rounds. So how many front shots will the AH Pz IV survive from an Ostwind?
-
Given my dim recollection of such things, wasn't the Sherman refered to as "The Steel Coffin" as it was pretty much dog food when put up against German iron? Or was that only after the advent of Panthers?
-
Given my dim recollection of such things, wasn't the Sherman refered to as "The Steel Coffin" as it was pretty much dog food when put up against German iron? Or was that only after the advent of Panthers?
it was referd (by the germans) as a Ronson.
-
it was referd (by the germans) as a Ronson.
I doubt the Germans knew what a Ronson was ;)
Or you may just confuse the Brits with the Germans :D
-
I think that the armor on the 76mm sherman is a bit on the to hard to believe stage. What I mean is I hit one broad side 5 times with another 76mm and nothing. Finally someone else hit him and killed him. I actually prefer the 75mm of the panzer over the 76mm gun of the sherman. However, the armor is near what the firefly was or still is. Reload speed is off the chart and that is a huge advantage. I will need to test it some more and see what it can do.
BigKev
-
in the "76"I rarely kill another Sherman with one shot, mostly three shots to get it!
panzers on the other hand go down first shot most of the time,
IT normally takes three shots to get me from what I have seen, I got taken out by a tiger today, his shot was glancing along the right side and i was at about 40 % angle from him on the side of a hill as well, only showing the one side. he killed me in two, that seems to be normal from what i have seen.
to kill the tiger I have to get its turret first, that can take from 1 to 3 shots, the reason I think the "76" wins, is the fact that i can hit him three or four times before he can get guns on unless he sees me first!
The rapid fire of the new Sherman is the #1 thing about it, as far as I can tell
-
Given my dim recollection of such things, wasn't the Sherman refered to as "The Steel Coffin" as it was pretty much dog food when put up against German iron? Or was that only after the advent of Panthers?
This misconception was a direct result of the action at Kasserine Pass, almost 100% of M4A's was due to german 88mm dual purpose guns not enemy tanks....
-
I don't think it was such a misconception.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gExUJ-CMTvM&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gExUJ-CMTvM&feature=related)
Sherman with a hole in the front of the turret looks like an 88mm...2:44 in]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ms6hFclOGm0&feature=related[url]
Sherman with a hole in the front of the turret looks like an 88mm...2:44 in
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ms6hFclOGm0&feature=related[url)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BLZGjwFzmU&feature=related[/url]
I believe the term the Germans used was "Tommycooker".
-
Again the issue isn't the Shermans capabilities as a tank but a clash of doctrine. The Americans (and Germans for that matter) initially viewed Tanks primarily as infantry support weapons (hence the short barrel 75mm on the early PZIV). The Germans integrated an armored AT/dual purpose capability in their armor in the PZIII and the PZVI early on in the war while the Americans had separate vehicles and units (M-10, TD Battalions) for that role. The Germans also utilized the concept of the true AT weapon well before anyone else. The Allies lost most of their armor in Africa to the 88mm and other AT weapons then other tanks. If you actually listen to the clips U attached it highlights that the Germans attacked with PZIV's and were met by british M4A's that quickly knocked out most of the PZIV's and forced the germans to deploy its Tigers. You'll also notice the mobile 88mm dual purpose guns prominently shown early on.
The M4A3 was a perfectly fine tank for its time and perceived role and will stand up very well vs its contemporaries. It is not however a heavy tank or a weapon designed to engage in tank on tank combat vs enemy heavy tanks.
-
On rate of fire:
This are the reload times for the tanks in Aces High, a tank fires one shot every...
M4 (75 &76): 3.6s
Sherman VC: 7.2s
T-34/76: 8.2s
T-34/85: 6.8s
Panzer IV: 5.4s
Tiger I: 6.3s
Real world data seems to get a bit more difficult than armor or penetration data. About every serious source I've read so far states (if at all) that the Sherman had a much higher rate of fire than German heavy tanks (Tiger, Panther, King Tiger), which of course makes perfectly sense considering the guns the latter ones carry.
However, I'm wondering (yes, just wondering, not suspecting or knowing) if the Panzer IV's ROF is in line. The gun & ammo is comparable to the 76mm, and yet it's ROF is far lower, and just marginally faster than the Tiger
Maybe someone can provide additional details?
-
On rate of fire:
This are the reload times for the tanks in Aces High, a tank fires one shot every...
M4 (75 &76): 3.6s
Sherman VC: 7.2s
T-34/76: 8.2s
T-34/85: 6.8s
Panzer IV: 5.4s
Tiger I: 6.3s
Real world data seems to get a bit more difficult than armor or penetration data. About every serious source I've read so far states (if at all) that the Sherman had a much higher rate of fire than German heavy tanks (Tiger, Panther, King Tiger), which of course makes perfectly sense considering the guns the latter ones carry.
However, I'm wondering (yes, just wondering, not suspecting or knowing) if the Panzer IV's ROF is in line. The gun & ammo is comparable to the 76mm, and yet it's ROF is far lower, and just marginally faster than the Tiger
Maybe someone can provide additional details?
the rate of fire of the "76" is almost 2 to 1, combine that with the turret speed and you can get three rounds on target before the first tiger round as long as he doesn't see you, if you get behind him, you might get four!
that's a lot of hits before the tiger even gets a chance to range you, the tiger is also under pressure from being hit and likely to miss more so than the Sherman in my opinion, that gives the Sherman three or four shots to kill the turret and all day long to finish it off!
on the other hand, if the tiger has you in his sites, your probably toast unless he misses,, always go for the turret first on the tiger if you can, this buys precious time,
in the tiger shoot low against the Sherman or into the side plates, the sloped armor is stronger than you think, try to hit flat spots in the armor, a shot into the turret doesn't seem to do much of anything at any range and is just wasted time, time he suddenly has on his side as he can shoot back before you can fire again! if you are using the tiger correctly, you should be at a range well beyond his ability to kill you tho he may still get your turret, some of the maps we use are much more friendly to the tiger than others, as in clear field of vision, if there is a lot of trees and cover, the tiger is not nearly as effective as you must get in close to see your enemy and will be very vulnerable to return fire, I very rarely up tigers at another spawn as well, I use them as defensive weapons with a good bit more success, and on high ground as often as I can!
-
My expectation would be that the 75 sherman would fire faster then the 76 sherman, the round is noticably bigger on the 76, I do not know that the T23 turret would make up for that.
Pyro has Hunnicut which I presume would have rate of fires for the tanks. But it is quite a feet of engineering if the two tanks actually have the same rate of fire with longer shells using the same turret ring size.
I know where to ask though...
-
The Germans also utilized the concept of the true AT weapon well before anyone else. The Allies lost most of their armor in Africa to the 88mm and other AT weapons then other tanks.
The M4A3 was a perfectly fine tank for its time and perceived role and will stand up very well vs its contemporaries. It is not however a heavy tank or a weapon designed to engage in tank on tank combat vs enemy heavy tanks.
1: I think the Russians "utilized" the AT gun well before the Germans when the KV-1 could destroy 20 German vehicles and 3 could kill 50 (23 i think were pnzrs and there were 2 artie units that the germans used as AT weapons due to the fact that German artillery guns were the only things able to kill T34s and KV-1s) in 1941 and early 1942 :aok
2: the in game M4 has some flaws in its design at the momentthat gives the Sherman three or four shots to kill the turret and all day long to finish it off!
in the tiger shoot low against the Sherman or into the side plates, the sloped armor is stronger than you think, try to hit flat spots in the armor, a shot into the turret doesn't seem to do much of anything at any range and is just wasted time, time he suddenly has on his side as he can shoot back before you can fire again!
if you are using the tiger correctly, you should be at a range well beyond his ability to kill you tho he may still get your turret,
few things here.
1: if its the 75mm sherman the turret of the tiger especially IN THE FRONT is off limits! yet ive turreted tigers with the 75mm sherman firing at its front. (pyro stated this will be fixed in a new patch)
2: Yes the sloped armor is stronger than one would think, but the sherman turret is near impenetrable even to 88's (even if theres 89mm of armor and the turret on the sherman's are circular. I'm sorry but when a 75mm sherman can turret me and i cant turret a 76mm at approx the same ranges i dont think thats accurate.
3: agreed agreed and agreed to the last part :aok
-
The 88mm Tiger round should be able to penetrate the front side of a Sherman turret...just not right next to the barrel mount....2:51 into the last video I linked shows that. The range may be in question though since street fighting in tanks was shorter range than open battlefield. One of the other videos specifically shows the aftermath of a short range open field tank battle between Panzer IV's and Shermans...more Shermans were lost than Panzers.
Reload times in real life vary...the book can say one thing but, tank crews have a way of "optimizing" things to give themselves as much of an edge as they can. Training and experience make a big difference.
-
One thing that is left out of the game currently that I think had a significant impact on historical engagements was the sighting systems and optics used. I'm not familiar with the intricacies of the two systems, the U.S. sight was at least similar to what we have in the game currently, the Germans used a different system that I believe was superior in some regards.
Sadly I don't have specific details but those are my recollections.
-
Pyro stated in another thread that the M4A3 had an armor bug in the turrets.
soulyss, could you possibly find those specifics? you got me interested and i cant find them.
-
Pyro stated in another thread that the M4A3 had an armor bug in the turrets.
soulyss, could you possibly find those specifics? you got me interested and i cant find them.
Was just on my here to post Pyro's comment. :)
Found a bug in the Shermans that is putting additional armor behind the gun shields. This will be fixed in the next version. Avoid shooting them in the gun shield for now.
As far was the optical systems, I don't have anything on shelf in the way of a book that I can thumb through. I originally looked into it years ago when I got into playing a tank game called "Panzer Elite" and just found various web sites and such.
-
alright. i'll keep searching. thank you anyways though <S>
-
alright. i'll keep searching. thank you anyways though <S>
I'm pretty sure it varied a little from tank to tank but I think this article get's the basics right.
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/Zeiss_Optics.htm (http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/Zeiss_Optics.htm)
-
I've been able to find what the optics devices look like on the outside...but the actual view I can't find.
WWII Swedish Panzer sight
(https://www.mainemilitary.com/productcart/pc/catalog/mpanzersight.jpg)
-
Reload times in real life vary...the book can say one thing but, tank crews have a way of "optimizing" things to give themselves as much of an edge as they can. Training and experience make a big difference.
In real life everything varies, so?
A given tank is inherently able to maintain a quicker rate of fire. The game reflects that, the question is how accurately.
-
Oh well it will get perked guarantee i have been trying to get people to grab the 75mm more.But they seem to refuse.All i really bring out is the 75mm, I love the thing.However i do know that if it is not seen more the 76mm which wouldn't be worth any price,will get one.
-
One thing that is left out of the game currently that I think had a significant impact on historical engagements was the sighting systems and optics used. I'm not familiar with the intricacies of the two systems, the U.S. sight was at least similar to what we have in the game currently, the Germans used a different system that I believe was superior in some regards.
Sadly I don't have specific details but those are my recollections.
Yes you are correct the germans had far superior optics and could zero in on allied vehicles at ranges beyond the capability of the allies. I think as the war started to end the allies were catching up but still they had a way to go.
BigKev
-
soulyss thank you sir. <S>
ok if people will argue over realistic loading times then allow the veteran GVers who kill alot to get a faster reload and have that faster reload vary over tank style... :aok
-
On rate of fire:
This are the reload times for the tanks in Aces High, a tank fires one shot every...
M4 (75 &76): 3.6s
Sherman VC: 7.2s
T-34/76: 8.2s
T-34/85: 6.8s
Panzer IV: 5.4s
Tiger I: 6.3s
Real world data seems to get a bit more difficult than armor or penetration data. About every serious source I've read so far states (if at all) that the Sherman had a much higher rate of fire than German heavy tanks (Tiger, Panther, King Tiger), which of course makes perfectly sense considering the guns the latter ones carry.
However, I'm wondering (yes, just wondering, not suspecting or knowing) if the Panzer IV's ROF is in line. The gun & ammo is comparable to the 76mm, and yet it's ROF is far lower, and just marginally faster than the Tiger
Maybe someone can provide additional details?
One of the primary strengths of the Sherman that is often overlooked is the superb ergonomics for the crew. The turrets on the Shermans were very spacious compared to most of their contemporaries. I'm not very familiar with the inside of the PzkwIV's turret, but I imagine the longer gun made it relatively cramped considering it was designed with a very short 75mm howitzer in mind -- the same way the Firefly with the large 17lbr suffers compared to other Shermans.
That being said, I found this link (http://books.google.com/books?id=IULV2RLYahkC&pg=PA6&lpg=PA6&dq=rate+of+fire+76mm+sherman&source=bl&ots=W0cpjAsEhJ&sig=7Hiv6D3ZDw63sWCNarN2p4_t7Eg&hl=en&ei=W5L0S7vJDoyIswOKs62IBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CC8Q6AEwBg#v=onepage&q&f=false) to a page of a book. This is the part that I found interesting. It is quoting the Army's official position at the time on the 75mm gun vs. the 76mm gun. I bolded the part relating to the discussion of rate of fire:
The 76mm gun M1 as a tank weapon has only one superior characteristic to the 75mm gun M3. This superior characteristic is in armour penetrating power. The 76mm gun will penetrate on an average of one inch more armour than the 75mm gun M3 at the same range. The high explosive pitching power of the 76mm gun is inferior to the 75mm gun. The 76mm HE shell weighs 12.37lb and has a charge of .86lb explosive. The 75mm HE shell weighs 14.6lb and has a charge of 1.47lb explosive. The exterior ballistics of the 76mm gun are generally less satisfactory for a general purpose Medium Tank weapon than the 75mm gun. The 76mm gun has an extremely heavy muzzle blast, such that the rate of fire when the ground is dry is controlled by the muzzle blast dust cloud. Under many conditions this dust cloud does not clear for some eight to thirty seconds. The presence of this heavy muzzle blast makes the sensing of the round extremely diffucult for the tank commander and gunner . . . The characteristics of the complete round of the 76mm gun makes it possible to stow only approximately 70 per cent as many rounds of ammunition in the Medium Tank M4 for the 76mm gun as can be stowed for the 75mm gun M3. The great length of the 76mm round slows the loader and somewhat slows the rate of fire. . . If the 76mm gun as adopted for all Medium Tanks in a division then insofar as the attack of all targets except enemy armor is concerned a handicap has been imposed on the Medium Tank . . . It is believed that a fairly good percentage of 76mm guns should be included in a Medium Tank unit for the purpose of giving it a sufficient share of the additional penetrating power obtainable with the 76mm gun.
It isn't very specific on how much the loader was slowed, but it does stand to reason that it wouldn't be quite as fast as the 75mm gun.
-
In real life everything varies, so?
A given tank is inherently able to maintain a quicker rate of fire. The game reflects that, the question is how accurately.
Wish I had a nickel for everytime someone spouted without a clue. :rolleyes:
Here is a picture that is supposed to be the inside of a Tiger showing the breech of the main gun.
(http://www.achtungpanzer.com/images/tigint.jpg)
This site has some interesting photos of the inside and outside of a Panzer IV Ausf H/J (?)
http://panzerivuniverse.phelpscomputerservices.com/Album0000023.htm (http://panzerivuniverse.phelpscomputerservices.com/Album0000023.htm)
Tiger gunners vision block and part of the main gun breech.
(http://bp2.blogger.com/_CbwnjooteyI/R1Wh2pRpzVI/AAAAAAAACI4/O7m_k3meTIA/s1600-h/6976_e_2.jpg)
Nice view of the loaders side of the breech in a Panzer IV
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2598/3813639021_6df728071d.jpg)
Interior of Panzer IV turret from gunners position
(http://lh5.ggpht.com/_o1VK70DwQoQ/R5VrxlBhbFI/AAAAAAAAARk/qntzR4vLFpU/PB200396.JPG)
-
soulyss thank you sir. <S>
ok if people will argue over realistic loading times then allow the veteran GVers who kill alot to get a faster reload and have that faster reload vary over tank style... :aok
and ace pilots to see farther? and canadian pilots braver? where would it end?
-
Are you trying to say, with your picture of a PIV and a Tiger, that the 75mm Sherman, should have the same typical rate of fire as the 76mm Sherman?
Cause really, I am sure you need the nickels, but earning them by speaking like an idiot and then asking for a nickel when people don't understand your blather would be kind of unfair.
-
In real life everything varies, so?
A given tank is inherently able to maintain a quicker rate of fire. The game reflects that, the question is how accurately.
Wish I had a nickel for everytime someone spouted without a clue. :rolleyes:[/img]
Pongo's statement made perfect sense. I don't know why you think it is wrong. Ergonomics matter and while training can speed a process up despite poor ergonomics for the task, the same kind of training will also speed of the same task set in a more ergonomic environment.
Examples of ergonomic issues in WWII are all over the place. American fighters are generally excellent in cockpit layout to make the pilot's job easier in combat, but the P-38 was poorly laid out in that regard. The BMW engined Fw190's cockpit was a masterpiece while the Bf109's has serious shortcomings. These things have consequences. I recall reading an account by an American P-38 pilot who fought in the Pacific Theater. They were completing a mission where they had escorted B-24s and thought they were well clear of where any Japanese fighter might be, so they had settled down into cruise settings. A Ki-61 dove down and set a B-24 alight and then climbed away into the clouds while the P-38 pilots tried to get back to combat power. By the time they could the Ki-61 was too far away to catch before it got to safety. The P-38 pilot said he blamed himself for relaxing and going to cruise settings when it took so long to go to combat settings. By contrast, in a BMW engined Fw190s all you had to do to go to combat settings from cruise settings was push the throttle forward.
-
I've had limited time to play last few weeks, but as a dedicated GVer, I've driven the the rocket armed tank pretty much exclusively since it appeared. the fast rotating turret and fast reload times are great advantages, and seem to go a long way toward making up for whatever deficiencies the tank has.
that said, the new M4s and its relationship in gameplay to other tanks need to be taken in context with the porked modeling of the GV game in general.
-
Examples of ergonomic issues in WWII are all over the place.
One of those would be the Jagdpanzer 38(t) (Hetzer). A very clever design, very cost- & and resource efficient (and a rare exception from the "bigger is better" school of thought). A fine tank destroyer by it's combat stats. Small structure, easy to conceal, powerful gun...
But for the crew, it redefined "cramped". For example the gun breech opened on the right side, yet the gun was placed on the right side of the vehicle making reloading much more difficult than necessary.
-
Are you trying to say, with your picture of a PIV and a Tiger, that the 75mm Sherman, should have the same typical rate of fire as the 76mm Sherman?
Cause really, I am sure you need the nickels, but earning them by speaking like an idiot and then asking for a nickel when people don't understand your blather would be kind of unfair.
You have never been inside of a tank, let alone loaded and fired one. No point of reference for any of this discussion so talking like you actually know something shows the full scope of your ignorance. The point of the photos was to give someone like yourself a minor visual reference as to what a loader on a Panzer or Tiger crew would be looking at so you might have a clue what you're talking about next time you chimed in one an intelligent discussion.
Pongo's statement made perfect sense. I don't know why you think it is wrong. Ergonomics matter and while training can speed a process up despite poor ergonomics for the task, the same kind of training will also speed of the same task set in a more ergonomic environment.
Chiming in for Pongo is not a good idea on your part. My first comment was based on the speculation that was rising as to what actual reload times would have been...nothing more. Didn't require someone with a complete lack of intel to chime in with ignorance.
As for the ergonomics issue...that is a valid point however ergonomics can be overcome by experience. T-34 is a good example of that. The crews that lived through a few engagements learned quickly how to overcome the less than ideal space limitations inside the turret. The inside of a Panzer turret though not as spacious as a Sherman was designed with just as much efficiency. The book will tell you what the expected rate of fire would be under ideal conditions with a trained crew, but a combat experienced crew can and will exceed that. Point is there is no way for the game to reflect anything but what is written...not experience, individual capabilities, ergonomics or anything that deals with the human element. I'm late for work otherwise I'd expound... :lol
-
gyrene.
Well, I am not a panzer ace like you.
But I have in fact been in many tanks.
M60, Leo 1, M1, Chieftain. But that wouldn't be necessary to see that you are an idiot.
More importantly to this debate. I can reason.
The game presumes typical performance for many things that would be variable in actual use.
HP for every engine is just typical. For two engines that would expect to be identical they will be different to some extent for every single one. Due to maintenance, how hard they were run the previous day etc. Given the different drags on different airframes due to small things like damage and dirt and different markings.
One armourer does a different head space on his 50 cals that gets a little higher rate of fire. No two units in this game should be identical.
Why decide that is important for one little capability of one unit? The reload of Sherman.
No two Panzer IVHs would every actually reload in exaclty the same time in real life because time is a real number. So its just a matter of precision.
Yet that doesn't concern you.
All you care is that we not try to decide if the typical reload speed of a sherman 75 would probably be quicker then the typical reload speed of a sherman 76.
The "tricks" they used to speed up rate of fire in shermans contributed to them being called ronsons.
But you really haven't added a bit to this debate except blather and insults. But that is fine, I suspect that like as is the case with reasoning and explaining my position, I can insult a lot better then you as well.
-
gyrene.
Well, I am not a panzer ace like you.
But I have in fact been in many tanks.
M60, Leo 1, M1, Chieftain. But that wouldn't be necessary to see that you are an idiot.
More importantly to this debate. I can reason.
The game presumes typical performance for many things that would be variable in actual use.
HP for every engine is just typical. For two engines that would expect to be identical they will be different to some extent for every single one. Due to maintenance, how hard they were run the previous day etc. Given the different drags on different airframes due to small things like damage and dirt and different markings.
One armourer does a different head space on his 50 cals that gets a little higher rate of fire. No two units in this game should be identical.
Why decide that is important for one little capability of one unit? The reload of Sherman.
No two Panzer IVHs would every actually reload in exaclty the same time in real life because time is a real number. So its just a matter of precision.
Yet that doesn't concern you.
All you care is that we not try to decide if the typical reload speed of a sherman 75 would probably be quicker then the typical reload speed of a sherman 76.
The "tricks" they used to speed up rate of fire in shermans contributed to them being called ronsons.
But you really haven't added a bit to this debate except blather and insults. But that is fine, I suspect that like as is the case with reasoning and explaining my position, I can insult a lot better then you as well.
I'd give your nickel back but as it stands you still owe me money...school tours to the museum don't count.
Unlike yourself I wanted to do some more research before saying anything further about the loading times since unlike yourself I am not a munitions expert that remembers off the top of my head how much weight difference there is between 75mm and 88mm AP. Perhaps you can enlighten us all with your wealth of information on optimal loading times for each tank...
-
gyrene81,
Pongo is, as I recall, ex Canadian Special Forces.
-
Well loading speed depends on the speed of the loader.In AH i hate all my loaders they load guns slower than a snail running a foot-race, :cry.The average crew in WW2 most likeley could reload even the 88mm's on the Tiger 1/Tiger 2 around 3-4 seconds reloading (does not count oushing shell from the door on side of turret).
-
gyrene81,
Pongo is, as I recall, ex Canadian Special Forces.
And? That's like Air Force Special Forces...they don't know tanks. If the discussion on modern combat infantry weapons, no problem...but it's not.
Well loading speed depends on the speed of the loader.In AH i hate all my loaders they load guns slower than a snail running a foot-race, :cry.The average crew in WW2 most likeley could reload even the 88mm's on the Tiger 1/Tiger 2 around 3-4 seconds reloading (does not count oushing shell from the door on side of turret).
I would tend to somewhat agree...the Firefly and T/34 76 seem too slow...Tiger is borderline, the AP round weighed 16 or 22 lbs depending on which type after seeing pictures of the gunners position...and assuming the ammo racks are in the same position as a Panzer IV...4 to 5 seconds theoretically should be possible. 8.2 seconds shown for the T/34 76mm, is more like the time it took to load a 105mm in an M60.
-
Karnak, just an infantry guy. But thanks.
Gyrene,
Do you think the 75mm Sherman and the 76mm Sherman would have the same rate of fire with the same crew? Given that the 76mm is a much longer round. But that it is fielded in a different turret.
Everything else your saying is just slobber. Say something about the subject.
Your shaming your name sakes with this nonsense. If you know nothing about the question then just stay out of it.
-
And? That's like Air Force Special Forces...they don't know tanks. If the discussion on modern combat infantry weapons, no problem...but it's not.
You have been pretty quick in making assumptions about a player supposed knowledge level in this threat as well.. ;)
I would tend to somewhat agree...the Firefly and T/34 76 seem too slow...Tiger is borderline, the AP round weighed 16 or 22 lbs depending on which type after seeing pictures of the gunners position...and assuming the ammo racks are in the same position as a Panzer IV...4 to 5 seconds theoretically should be possible. 8.2 seconds shown for the T/34 76mm, is more like the time it took to load a 105mm in an M60.
Pure shell weight is only part of the equation. Total ammo weight can be different for two shells of the same weight. Also length of the round (in combination with general ergonomics/working room), the round being one part or having two seperate ones, as well as what kind if breach action the gun has. And early T-34's didn't even had a dedicated gunner, the commander had to fill that role in addition to his commanding duties.
-
gyrene,
If you doubt the reload speed of the T34 76, you should learn something of it.
First issue, 2 man turret.
Second issue, No turret floor, the crew had to shuffle around on the ammo crates to load. Including stepping over the open lids if they never got them closed.
Compressing those ergonomic problems into a slow rate of fire, even though, obviously if the loader has a round in his hand he can load that 76mm as fast as any other gun is a good idea.
I am surprised that an expert like you didn't know those commonly held facts on the T34 76mm turret design.
I guess you really are just an internet searching idiot. You really should bow out of this discussion if you not only do not know anything, but do not realize that you do not know anything.
-
gyrene,
If you doubt the reload speed of the T34 76, you should learn something of it.
First issue, 2 man turret.
Second issue, No turret floor, the crew had to shuffle around on the ammo crates to load. Including stepping over the open lids if they never got them closed.
Compressing those ergonomic problems into a slow rate of fire, even though, obviously if the loader has a round in his hand he can load that 76mm as fast as any other gun is a good idea.
I am surprised that an expert like you didn't know those commonly held facts on the T34 76mm turret design.
I guess you really are just an internet searching idiot. You really should bow out of this discussion if you not only do not know anything, but do not realize that you do not know anything.
Ammo crates?
Really?
wrongway
-
Karnak, just an infantry guy. But thanks.
Gyrene,
Do you think the 75mm Sherman and the 76mm Sherman would have the same rate of fire with the same crew? Given that the 76mm is a much longer round. But that it is fielded in a different turret.
Everything else your saying is just slobber. Say something about the subject.
Your shaming your name sakes with this nonsense. If you know nothing about the question then just stay out of it.
gyrene,
If you doubt the reload speed of the T34 76, you should learn something of it.
First issue, 2 man turret.
Second issue, No turret floor, the crew had to shuffle around on the ammo crates to load. Including stepping over the open lids if they never got them closed.
Compressing those ergonomic problems into a slow rate of fire, even though, obviously if the loader has a round in his hand he can load that 76mm as fast as any other gun is a good idea.
I am surprised that an expert like you didn't know those commonly held facts on the T34 76mm turret design.
I guess you really are just an internet searching idiot. You really should bow out of this discussion if you not only do not know anything, but do not realize that you do not know anything.
You fired the first round...and speaking off internet search idiots...ammo crates? :rofl This really looks like ammo crates on the floor to me
(http://www.wwiivehicles.com/ussr/tanks-medium/t-34/t-34-76-medium-tank-ammunition-stowage-01.png)
All things being equal, same exact crew between the 75mm Sherman and the 76mm Sherman with the T23 turret firing Armor Piercing Capped ammunition...75mm with a 6.79Kg projectile and 76mm with a 7.0Kg projectile...the crew should be able to load the 75mm somewhere around .7 seconds faster than the 76mm. Neither would have been capable of under 4 seconds. It's not just due to the length of the round, shell weight and breech operation are also factors. Even though the larger T23 turret was used on the M4 chassis, it didn't significantly improve the loaders mobility. The VC Firefly 76mm should not be nearly 4 seconds slower than the 75/76mm Shermans and nearly 2 seconds slower than the Panzer IV...unless the crews were historically known to be inept...which I doubt. The T/34 76 reloads at 8.2 seconds when it should be closer to the Panzer IV and veteran T/34 crews said they could fire faster than the Panzers but that's not acceptable evidence. Whether or not they were talking about firing the 3.0Kg APCR round or the 6.3Kg HEAT round I don't know.
The Tiger had AP rounds that had projectiles weighing approximately 16lbs and 22.5lbs...the T/34 85mm fired an AP projectile that weight 9.2Kg...the only thing that would stop the crew from being able to reload as fast as the Tiger would be the location of the ammo racks...the turret had plenty of space for the gunner to operate.
You should stick with Canukian history...much less to know.
-
Why do you keep giving projectile weight and do not use total round weights? After all, the loader doesn't not just load the projectile?
And where do you get the 0.7s difference in loading time from?
-
Why do you keep giving projectile weight and do not use total round weights? After all, the loader doesn't not just load the projectile?
And where do you get the 0.7s difference in loading time from?
Projectile weight is the only thing given in any tables...total weight with the shell isn't shown.
The .7 seconds is derived from taking into consideration the added weight, shell length and ammo rack configurations...I probably should have shown it as ~.7 since it could be higher or lower...1 to 2 lbs added weight would not significantly increase the time. Do you have a better idea or some documentation that would say differently?
-
Projectile weight is the only thing given in any tables...total weight with the shell isn't shown.
In other words: Insufficient data ;)
The .7 seconds is derived from taking into consideration the added weight, shell length and ammo rack configurations...I probably should have shown it as ~.7 since it could be higher or lower...1 to 2 lbs added weight would not significantly increase the time. Do you have a better idea or some documentation that would say differently?
"taking into consideration" = This very precisely looking number was just something you guessed?
It seems you make very strong claims with not really more background knowledge that I have. Seems you are guessing the same way as we do. You just present your conclusions in a ... "stronger" way.
-
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b4/T-34-85_interior_Parola_Tank_Museum.jpg/800px-T-34-85_interior_Parola_Tank_Museum.jpg)
Sigh.
You could just admit your clueless now or do I have to make this really ugly.
-
the M61 APC round for the 75mm weights 19.92 pounds and is 26.3 inches long.
For comparison the 76mm M62 weighed 24.8 pounds and the 17pdr APCBC weighed 35 lb.
While the two projectiles(m61 and M62) weigh similar amounts the 76.2mm goes 792 meters/second vs the 75mm at 588 m/s.
It is all that powder, leading to a longer case that makes them harder to handle in the tank, and slows down rate of fire.
Just from internet searches, wiki will tell you the round designation, then searching that will show this data pretty quick.
-
I should have said about the picture, this is a T34 85 but the 76 is the same. Look at how long those boxes are, you have to open it, pull a round out that is full length of that box and then close the box? and load th round, if the turret traverses you have to shuffle around on those boxes and hope you closed them all.
Most experts like gyrene know all this, he is just being coy and doesn't want to explain things to us that we cannot understand.
-
You fired the first round...and speaking off internet search idiots...ammo crates? :rofl This really looks like ammo crates on the floor to me
(http://www.wwiivehicles.com/ussr/tanks-medium/t-34/t-34-76-medium-tank-ammunition-stowage-01.png)
All things being equal, same exact crew between the 75mm Sherman and the 76mm Sherman with the T23 turret firing Armor Piercing Capped ammunition...75mm with a 6.79Kg projectile and 76mm with a 7.0Kg projectile...the crew should be able to load the 75mm somewhere around .7 seconds faster than the 76mm. Neither would have been capable of under 4 seconds. It's not just due to the length of the round, shell weight and breech operation are also factors. Even though the larger T23 turret was used on the M4 chassis, it didn't significantly improve the loaders mobility. The VC Firefly 76mm should not be nearly 4 seconds slower than the 75/76mm Shermans and nearly 2 seconds slower than the Panzer IV...unless the crews were historically known to be inept...which I doubt. The T/34 76 reloads at 8.2 seconds when it should be closer to the Panzer IV and veteran T/34 crews said they could fire faster than the Panzers but that's not acceptable evidence. Whether or not they were talking about firing the 3.0Kg APCR round or the 6.3Kg HEAT round I don't know.
The Tiger had AP rounds that had projectiles weighing approximately 16lbs and 22.5lbs...the T/34 85mm fired an AP projectile that weight 9.2Kg...the only thing that would stop the crew from being able to reload as fast as the Tiger would be the location of the ammo racks...the turret had plenty of space for the gunner to operate.
You should stick with Canukian history...much less to know.
Actually the muzzle blast (generate dust cloud) created visibility issues for both the firefly and 76mm sherman that effected time between shots under most circumstances and is actually reflected in some of the numbers. It's not just the time to load the round but the time to reacquire the target...
-
I should have said about the picture, this is a T34 85 but the 76 is the same. Look at how long those boxes are, you have to open it, pull a round out that is full length of that box and then close the box? and load th round, if the turret traverses you have to shuffle around on those boxes and hope you closed them all.
Most experts like gyrene know all this, he is just being coy and doesn't want to explain things to us that we cannot understand.
I thought they'd fixed that in the /85 and that its turret had a floor that rotated with it. Guess not, or not in all cases.
-
Actually I did to, I thought the 85 had a turret basket, wiki says that was an 85 but I do have my doubts.
-
Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if that were actually a /76 or an incomplete /85 or a hybrid restoration.
-
All things being equal, same exact crew between the 75mm Sherman and the 76mm Sherman with the T23 turret firing Armor Piercing Capped ammunition...75mm with a 6.79Kg projectile and 76mm with a 7.0Kg projectile...the crew should be able to load the 75mm somewhere around .7 seconds faster than the 76mm. Neither would have been capable of under 4 seconds. It's not just due to the length of the round, shell weight and breech operation are also factors. Even though the larger T23 turret was used on the M4 chassis, it didn't significantly improve the loaders mobility. The VC Firefly 76mm should not be nearly 4 seconds slower than the 75/76mm Shermans and nearly 2 seconds slower than the Panzer IV...unless the crews were historically known to be inept...which I doubt.
Read a book. (http://books.google.com/books?id=SOTDzoncMroC&pg=PA67&lpg=PA67&dq=rate+of+fire+m4+sherman&source=bl&ots=xdP0-299GH&sig=MKCzG85gN1qi14pkwi4TlcLScmw&hl=en&ei=LMT1S67uGob-tQOg56SIBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CDkQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q&f=false) The listed ROF of the M3 was 20 rounds per minute. The ROF for the 76mm M1 was 15-20 rounds per minute.
Or at least look at Wiki. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Firefly) The page lists the various things they had to do to the Sherman just to get the 17lbr to fit, which means less space and degraded ergonomics. And then there is this part:
The 17 pounder travelled 40 inches back as it absorbed the recoil of the blast.
Compare that to this statement in the book I linked.
Maximum recoil length on the 75mm main gun topped out at 14 inches, with the normal recoil length proving to be only 11 5/8 inches
And i've seen several unsourced statements in other forums that the typical rate of fire of the 17 lbr was half that of the US 76mm M1 for reasons of the poor positioning of the gun inside the tank combined with length of round, more cramped conditions and relatively long recoil time.
-
In other words: Insufficient data ;)
"taking into consideration" = This very precisely looking number was just something you guessed?
It seems you make very strong claims with not really more background knowledge that I have. Seems you are guessing the same way as we do. You just present your conclusions in a ... "stronger" way.
Ok I'll play the game Lusche. Not insufficient data, just reflective of the data I have of which all I can do is repeat. ;)
Projectile weights for the U.S. 75mm and 76mm are cartridge weights...the rest I'm not positive of and full dimensions I'm still researching since all I have are copies of data tables without the full publication. Information I used several years back for another purpose.
Appears that Pongo stumbled across some data in wikipedia that I did not bother looking at since it is not usually considered a reliable source...but I'm guessing validity depends on who's doing the talking...and who's doing the intardnet searches around here.
I've actually stumbled across some footage that should somewhat support the fast reload times on the 75mm Sherman tank as reflected in AH (although 3.6 seconds is still extremely fast). Start at 4:04 on this clip and watch carefully.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXh1bnO9qDo&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXh1bnO9qDo&feature=related)
Then watch episodes 3/5 and 4/5.
But it's from the history channel so take it for what it's worth.
Actually the muzzle blast (generate dust cloud) created visibility issues for both the firefly and 76mm sherman that effected time between shots under most circumstances and is actually reflected in some of the numbers. It's not just the time to load the round but the time to reacquire the target...
I thought the discussion was reload times, not the variables that are not or cannot be replicated in AH. If the muzzle blast is being reflected in the reload times of the tanks...the Tiger should be one of the top two slowest.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBfv4uT5Mfg&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBfv4uT5Mfg&feature=related)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59VPY3xiUNg&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59VPY3xiUNg&feature=related)
Read a book. (http://books.google.com/books?id=SOTDzoncMroC&pg=PA67&lpg=PA67&dq=rate+of+fire+m4+sherman&source=bl&ots=xdP0-299GH&sig=MKCzG85gN1qi14pkwi4TlcLScmw&hl=en&ei=LMT1S67uGob-tQOg56SIBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CDkQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q&f=false) The listed ROF of the M3 was 20 rounds per minute. The ROF for the 76mm M1 was 15-20 rounds per minute.
Or at least look at Wiki. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Firefly) The page lists the various things they had to do to the Sherman just to get the 17lbr to fit, which means less space and degraded ergonomics. And then there is this part:
Compare that to this statement in the book I linked.
And i've seen several unsourced statements in other forums that the typical rate of fire of the 17 lbr was half that of the US 76mm M1 for reasons of the poor positioning of the gun inside the tank combined with length of round, more cramped conditions and relatively long recoil time.
Read more than that...and the 20 rounds per minute for the M3 was "optimal maxium"...which does not reflect the 3.6 seconds that occurs in AH. But then the video I posted for Lusche, shows the empty shell gets auto ejected...and 10 rounds standing upright inside the turret, known as "ready rounds"...so what do you want to believe?
-
Holy cow! are we really talking about 4/10nths of a second reload time?, the 76 should be slower than the 75,,, by maybe 2/10nths of a second! now insult my knowledge of the inside of a tank please!It is hard to believe this conversation is still ongoing!
This sounds more and more like my time, back in the day a bit I will admit, when we were standing outside a bar trying to figure out how many marines were going to fit in an army ambulance!
The answer is as it was,, still not as many as just got hurt!
-
Holy cow! are we really talking about 4/10nths of a second reload time?, the 76 should be slower than the 75,,, by maybe 2/10nths of a second! now insult my knowledge of the inside of a tank please!It is hard to believe this conversation is still ongoing!
This sounds more and more like my time, back in the day a bit I will admit, when we were standing outside a bar trying to figure out how many marines were going to fit in an army ambulance!
The answer is as it was,, still not as many as just got hurt!
It's actually longer than that but, with that said, I'll leave you geniuses that have never manned a combat tank to enjoy the movie clips and when you're done you can gather back here and pat each other on the fanny to celebrate your infinite wisdom.
The reload times in AH are not fully reflective of real life but what is in the books is all HTC can work with.
-
gyrene81,
What the hell is your problem? You are being massively insulting and dismissive, making massive assumptions about people's knowledge, not posting any supporting evidence or experience of your own and twisting people's words into things they didn't even say.
Grow up, man.
-
Read more than that...and the 20 rounds per minute for the M3 was "optimal maxium"...which does not reflect the 3.6 seconds that occurs in AH. But then the video I posted for Lusche, shows the empty shell gets auto ejected...and 10 rounds standing upright inside the turret, known as "ready rounds"...so what do you want to believe?
I don't even know what you are trying to say anymore. 20 rounds per minute = 1 round every 3 seconds. Based on that, one shot every 3.6 seconds seems reasonable, and I don't believe anyone has disputed that. What was in question is whether the 76mm gun should have the same rate of fire or something slightly slower. Reason dictates it should be somewhat slower, although how much is still open.
You are the one that made this erroneous statement:
All things being equal, same exact crew between the 75mm Sherman and the 76mm Sherman with the T23 turret firing Armor Piercing Capped ammunition...75mm with a 6.79Kg projectile and 76mm with a 7.0Kg projectile...the crew should be able to load the 75mm somewhere around .7 seconds faster than the 76mm. Neither would have been capable of under 4 seconds.
So having seen the film, are you now admitting you were dead wrong?
-
It's actually longer than that but, with that said, I'll leave you geniuses that have never manned a combat tank to enjoy the movie clips and when you're done you can gather back here and pat each other on the fanny to celebrate your infinite wisdom.
The reload times in AH are not fully reflective of real life but what is in the books is all HTC can work with.
I am just wondering how you decided that nobody but you have ever been inside a tank?
the difference between 15 and 20 rounds per minute is 1 second, 15 rounds = 1 round every 4 seconds 20 rounds =1 round every 3 seconds
20 rounds is faster than the Read more than that...and the 20 rounds per minute for the M3 was "optimal maximum"...which does not reflect the 3.6 seconds that occurs in AH. But then the video I posted for Lusche, shows the empty shell gets auto ejected...and 10 rounds standing upright inside the turret, known as "ready rounds"...so what do you want to believe?
your words!
3.6 should lean more to the slow side of 15 to 20 rounds since 3.5 would be halfway! now for aces high if the 75 fired every 3 seconds and the 76 fired every 3,6 wouldn't that show a reduced rate of fire close to the stated amount posted in this very thread?
-
Just so we have a full evidence trail.
"Quote from: Pongo on Yesterday at 04:28:34 PM
In real life everything varies, so?
A given tank is inherently able to maintain a quicker rate of fire. The game reflects that, the question is how accurately.
Gyrene.
Wish I had a nickel for everytime someone spouted without a clue.
"
That his how your lesson in how stupid you are started gyrene.
Now you don't want to play anymore.
"Appears that Pongo stumbled across some data in wikipedia that I did not bother looking at since it is not usually considered a reliable source...but I'm guessing validity depends on who's doing the talking...and who's doing the intardnet searches around here.
"
I didn't get that data from Wikipedia, it was from an online posting of a US Army wartime test comparing the US 76mm and Brit 17 lbder ammo. Is that a reliable source? The phyical dimensions of such rounds are not hard to find. That was 2 minutes work.
I gather, by your attempt to discredit all information provided to you here that you will not man up and apologize to me for your ridiculous slight.
You truly are a disgrace to the name you carry here, but I gather you are used to that.
Pongo.
-
back on topic.
E25280
"The listed ROF of the M3 was 20 rounds per minute. The ROF for the 76mm M1 was 15-20 rounds per minute."
That sounds right, the 76 is not huge like an L70 round or a 17lb round, but its longer enough that it would have some impact.
Karnak, about the T34 85, I guess not, or not according to this kit and Steve Zaloga, who knows a bit about it.
(http://missing-lynx.com/images/34a.jpg)
-
By that kit it looks like the main improvement from an ergonomics standpoint is a large increase in the number of ready rounds as compared to the T-34/76, delaying the need to open up the boxes that make up the floor. Still leaves the commander, gunner and loader shuffling awkwardly around unless there are seats keeping their feet off the floor.
-
I think there may be a seat for the commander missing due to the cut out, and one for the loader hidden behind the breach.
Just having a dedicated commander is a huge improvement.
-
By that kit it looks like the main improvement from an ergonomics standpoint is a large increase in the number of ready rounds as compared to the T-34/76, delaying the need to open up the boxes that make up the floor. Still leaves the commander, gunner and loader shuffling awkwardly around unless there are seats keeping their feet off the floor.
Some of the ready round stowage in a T-34/76:
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2688/4478233294_156fe9526a_b.jpg)
From: http://www.g503.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=82&t=160725 (http://www.g503.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=82&t=160725)
I see a room for @ 15 rounds so they wouldn't need to go digging in the "suitcases" as soon as speculated.
I can't get over they stored rounds like that as the "armored" storage in early Shermans was one reason they "brewed up" so easily before wet stowage was introduced.
wrongway
-
The AH 3D model has a seat for each.
-
Wrongway,
that is a T34 85.
But fantastic shots. The 76 was way smaller in the back of the turret.
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2751/4478251844_f2de0c9651_b.jpg)
After the ready rounds, you have to pull rounds out of those lockers.
Everyone interested should look at all the shots in the link and read the guys descriptions.
-
Wrongway,
that is a T34 85. (you can really tell in the outside shot)
But fantastic shots. The 76 was way smaller in the back of the turret.
If you have 15 ready rounds, and 3 different kinds of ammo carried, how soon do those boxes down below start to matter, pretty quick. You probably had 5 AP rounds before you had to start digging. Not as big a deal in WW2 as it likely is in an AH spawn vulch. What the crews likely did was show how elite they were by stacking ready ammo around base down in the cases, which of course makes the tank very vulnerable to any penetration of the hull.
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2751/4478251844_f2de0c9651_b.jpg)
After the ready rounds, you have to pull rounds out of those lockers.
Everyone interested should look at all the shots in the link and read the guys descriptions.
-
Those are some nice T-34/85 interior shots.
I count 16 ready rounds, 12 in the rear of the turret and 4 on the sides.
-
Wow you guys, nice work shutting down someone who clearly was talking out of his rear.
It's guys like him who always spout the Sherman myths.
-
Wow you guys, nice work shutting down someone who clearly was talking out of his rear.
It's guys like him who always spout the Sherman myths.
And you know less than anyone here. So either contribute something intelligent or shut it.
20 rounds per minute for the M3 75mm gun was the expected rate of fire for the gun before it was adopted to use in the tank, that is not the sustained rate of fire experienced by crews in the Shermans during combat.
-
gyrene81 does know a lot about the subject, he just comes on really strong. He is right about the difference between theoretical and what was actually obtained.
-
gyrene81 does know a lot about the subject, he just comes on really strong. He is right about the difference between theoretical and what was actually obtained.
that's all fine! but at 48 he knows at best, nothing more than me, or any other tanker that has studied!
so to be little and or berate someone else for not knowing the actual rate of fire, of a Sherman, under duress is complete Bull!
I spent time in the Fulda gap in M -60s at a survival time of less than six minutes just like most every other tanker at the time, so I don't need to be lectured on the reload time of a Sherman that he never saw any more than in a history class or a PLDC class with an over exuberant staff sergeant than I did And to say he new more about the difference in a sherman, would be like the fact that he new that an M1A1 was the resulting factor in lowering the number to 8 to 1 from 6 to 1!
a lot of people in this game are aware of and or served in some type of military action at some point! He needs to chill out a bit and understand that he is not the only one to ever see combat, to ever see the enemy, to ever have a clue!That said <<S>> for Whatever he did do, now call it a day and go Find something else to howl at the moon for!
P.S. try not to eat to much while K9 lee acknowledging the earths natural satellite.
-
First off, won't be perked with the T-34/85. All the M4 has is rate of fire. That and the armor is only about 3/4's of the way up on the scale between the panzer and T-34/76.
As for my first impression of it:
Good tank, will probably replace the panzer. I think the rate of fire is likely a big reason, seeing as the panzer has a lower silouette and is much better for ambushes. And the final thing that sticks out in my mind is that the olive drab blends in even better than the firefly's green.
-
I think ample evidence was provided by gyrene himself that at the very least, he doesn't know what he thinks he knows.
But he does seem to know something.
His worst offence here was in dragging this thread off of a fundamental truism. That the game has to assume a typical ROF for these vehicles, and should or should not the 76 be slower then the 75.
The game cannot likely introduce the ROF by crew quality concept, but they could introduce a sustained fire fatigue concept, Sort of like the G limit for tanks.
By the time you have fired 15 rounds straight the ROF could cut in half. That cannot be to hard to implement, and would be a great limiter for the magazine fed flack tanks as well.
-
I think ample evidence was provided by gyrene himself that at the very least, he doesn't know what he thinks he knows.
But he does seem to know something.
His worst offence here was in dragging this thread off of a fundamental truism. That the game has to assume a typical ROF for these vehicles, and should or should not the 76 be slower then the 75.
The game cannot likely introduce the ROF by crew quality concept, but they could introduce a sustained fire fatigue concept, Sort of like the G limit for tanks.
By the time you have fired 15 rounds straight the ROF could cut in half. That cannot be to hard to implement, and would be a great limiter for the magazine fed flack tanks as well.
Im willing to bet it is no different than having a Wirby, Ostwind, vehicle mounted MG's, etc, etc, with an unlimited firing time. Either coding a "break" in the reload process is beyond the game's capability, HTC's "coaders" do not know how to code such a thing, or HTC's coaders do not want to commit the time needed to coad such a thing.
-
I think ample evidence was provided by gyrene himself that at the very least, he doesn't know what he thinks he knows.
But he does seem to know something.
His worst offence here was in dragging this thread off of a fundamental truism. That the game has to assume a typical ROF for these vehicles, and should or should not the 76 be slower then the 75.
The game cannot likely introduce the ROF by crew quality concept, but they could introduce a sustained fire fatigue concept, Sort of like the G limit for tanks.
By the time you have fired 15 rounds straight the ROF could cut in half. That cannot be to hard to implement, and would be a great limiter for the magazine fed flack tanks as well.
Pongo I didn't drag this thread anywhere...I over reacted to your dismissive remark regarding the "human variable", and I'm going to try not to over react to your further beligerent remarks.
Yes the 76mm should have a slower rate of fire than the 75mm by a second or two, assuming it has the same auto-eject function which I have not been able to establish one way or the other. Typical sustained rate of fire listed for the 75mm per the books, was established prior to use as the main gun in the Sherman tank...in that prior life, there were no space confinement issues for the crew to deal with as is found in a tank turret. Ammunition was easily handled on open ground, therefore making 20 rounds per minute an easily achievable mark. As you probably know from having served as member of a tank crew, a tank does not offer such amenity, the loader is the sole person handling the ammunition, while the gunner maintains sight on target while controlling the turret and main gun, and the commander maintains visual on the battle field watching for other threats. Even at a mere 20lbs each, those rounds had to be handled with two hands until the projectile was placed in the breech.
Based on those facts, there is no way for a tank crew in a Sherman tank to reach or maintain such a high rate of fire; however as I stated previously, HTC cannot model the rate of fire based on anything less than what the books say or they would be accused of guessing.
-
Im willing to bet it is no different than having a Wirby, Ostwind, vehicle mounted MG's, etc, etc, with an unlimited firing time. Either coding a "break" in the reload process is beyond the game's capability, HTC's "coaders" do not know how to code such a thing, or HTC's coaders do not want to commit the time needed to coad such a thing.
It is just priorities, and play balance. Every platform in the game has access to its entire ammo load with no chance of breaking or slowing down. Introducing it for one type of platform would only start a problem, not end it. A Cruiser cannot exhaust its 5 inch gun fire at full rate either. None of these weapons were ever designed for the sustained fire they take in the game. Its just a question of where do you start and how important is it to the game.
-
Pongo I didn't drag this thread anywhere...I over reacted to your dismissive remark regarding the "human variable", and I'm going to try not to over react to your further beligerent remarks.
Yes the 76mm should have a slower rate of fire than the 75mm by a second or two, assuming it has the same auto-eject function which I have not been able to establish one way or the other. Typical sustained rate of fire listed for the 75mm per the books, was established prior to use as the main gun in the Sherman tank...in that prior life, there were no space confinement issues for the crew to deal with as is found in a tank turret. Ammunition was easily handled on open ground, therefore making 20 rounds per minute an easily achievable mark. As you probably know from having served as member of a tank crew, a tank does not offer such amenity, the loader is the sole person handling the ammunition, while the gunner maintains sight on target while controlling the turret and main gun, and the commander maintains visual on the battle field watching for other threats. Even at a mere 20lbs each, those rounds had to be handled with two hands until the projectile was placed in the breech.
Based on those facts, there is no way for a tank crew in a Sherman tank to reach or maintain such a high rate of fire; however as I stated previously, HTC cannot model the rate of fire based on anything less than what the books say or they would be accused of guessing.
Oh yes you did.
"In real life everything varies, so?
A given tank is inherently able to maintain a quicker rate of fire. The game reflects that, the question is how accurately."
Wish I had a nickel for everytime someone spouted without a clue.
I wasn't dismissive or any other missive. I just asked what you meant. The game has to assume a typical rate of fire. What I said was not rude and should not have been unclear. Your whole participation in the discussion was rude, unclear and misinformed.
Like I said before, obviously no apology is forthcoming from your or thanks for informing you on something you seem to care deeply about.
But at least don't restart or try to rewrite what actually happened here.
-
*poop* wacky double posting again... :huh
-
Reload times in real life vary...the book can say one thing but, tank crews have a way of "optimizing" things to give themselves as much of an edge as they can. Training and experience make a big difference.
I said that...
In real life everything varies, so?
I over reacted to that due to my view of it being dismissive and rude. Subsequent comments were also understandably the same.
You didn't inform me of anything...especially after the comment about me being an internet search idiot, when you proved without question being exactly what you accused me of.
I guess you really are just an internet searching idiot. You really should bow out of this discussion if you not only do not know anything, but do not realize that you do not know anything.
Questions?
My question to you, based on what you have learned about the T-34, Panzer and Sherman trying to prove me wrong in some way...accounting for the ready racks in both tanks do you think the 76mm Sherman should have a reload time close to the T-34/76mm?
-
T34/76 had a two man turret so it is less capable in that regard. Also the injury rate was extraordinarily high for the loader in the T-34/76 due to the poor ergonomics. They were literally beating the bushes for smaller left handed guys to serve in that capacity...
-
It is just priorities, and play balance. Every platform in the game has access to its entire ammo load with no chance of breaking or slowing down. Introducing it for one type of platform would only start a problem, not end it. A Cruiser cannot exhaust its 5 inch gun fire at full rate either. None of these weapons were ever designed for the sustained fire they take in the game. Its just a question of where do you start and how important is it to the game.
Quite true. I understand the dilemma, but couldn't one make assumptions and educated guesses based on legit printed sources, testimony from those experienced in said weaponry, and common sense? Those who have fired a belt fed MG, or a larger crew served weapon should be able to comment on reload times. There are loads of film on the internet showing reloads of the Browning M1919 .30 cal MG, Browning .50 cal MG, MG34 and MG42, and I bet if one were to dig deep enough there just might be a film or two of the 3 AA platforms firing away (M16, Wirblewind, Ostwind).
I seem to remember a film of a Wirby with a loader standing inside the turret, being handed ammo on a "clip" from an assistant loader on the ground shuffling back and forth from stacks of ammo crates. If the clips (not magazines, but rather an actual "strip clip" in which the ammo was slid off one end into a fixed magazine) held 10 rounds of ammo, an educated guess would allow for a slight hesitation (1-2 seconds?) every 40 rounds to compensate for that assistant gunner having to shuffle from crates to gunner and a gunner having to fumble with reloading. In any case, I doubt anyone can argue that constant fire of 3000 + rounds is an accurate rendition of the Wirby's ability.
Anyone who has fired an M60, M249, or other belt fed MG can attest to the 50 or 100 round belts used and how quickly the gunner or gunner/loader can reload the weapon. Obviously, the times would be different between a crew served MG with a designated gunner and loader, vs a gunner who had to reach back and grab the belt or box and reload himself. For the vehicle mounted MG's, either a 50 or 100 round box of ammo was used, just determine which standard to go by and implement a "reload" delay of a few seconds.
The M16 AA platform was fed via drums of 200 rounds, then perhaps a hesitation (3-4 seconds due to heft) at 800 rounds fired to swap out drums? There were 2 loaders for the M16.
Start with the gv's, then move onto the aircraft with MG's for defense (or not), but as it is using a wirby is no different than playing Space Invaders at the arcade 30 years ago, just hold the trigger down and fire until you hit. :) I believe that this is one area of realism than can be dealt with. If HTC prides itself with its aircraft sim experience and all the effort that goes into that, then implementing a reload time into certain weapons shouldnt be all that difficult, but I'm not a coader so what do I know. :)
-
^ +1
there are always diferences between the specs and what is possible under combat conditions, one of the most jaw-dropping examples ive seen was footage of a british army (black watch iirc) 81mm mortar team attacking dug in iraqi infantry positions outside basra during iraq war at night. the specs say 15-20rpm, but this squaddie who was built like an ox must have been getting close to 60rpm. the 2 guys feeding him could barely open the crates quick enough. never seen anything like it.
-
T34/76 had a two man turret so it is less capable in that regard. Also the injury rate was extraordinarily high for the loader in the T-34/76 due to the poor ergonomics. They were literally beating the bushes for smaller left handed guys to serve in that capacity...
You're right about the ergonomics Humble...I've always admired the veracity of those Russian tank crews. At 6ft tall I would be bruised from head to toe trying to operate inside that turret...getting in and out was bad enough. Wasn't the average height of a Russian soldier something in the neighborhood of 5ft 7in at that time? There weren't a lot of fat men pressed into service by Stalin at that time.
It took some digging and I'm looking for more concrete evidence but...If the T-34/76 in AH is the one with the hexagonal turret that was larger than its predecessors and was fitted with the F-34 main gun...the F-34 gun had a semi-automatic breech, which when fired would eject the spent casing, similar in function to the Sherman 75mm M3 L/40 gun...the ammunition bins were covered with some sort of matting to keep them from opening accidentally...I'm assuming they could accidentally pop open when stepped on...the tank commander aimed and fired the main gun while the loader/gunner loaded the gun...3 or 4 "ready" rounds would be on the floor by the loaders feet and 6 more rounds were stored near the commander. With a two man operation and even in cramped quarters the reloading time on the T-34/76mm should be faster than is modelled in AH.
As for the 76mm M1 gun used in the Sherman, it was the same gun used in the M-18 tank destroyer with a similar breech mechanism as the M3 75mm gun...tracing the lineage of the guns it turns out the M1 was a new gun at the time which was created by modifying the breech of the M3 75mm to 76.2mm caliber and attaching the barrel of the M7 used in the M-10 tank destroyer which used an M5 3in anti-tank gun that had a documented 12 round per minute rate of fire. I have yet to find anything that specifies the rate of fire for the M1 gun other than that.
Smokinloon...HiTech views anything that is quoted from individuals who used the equipment as "anecdotal evidence". The specifications used in AH comes from historical military documentation...it keeps people from doing a lot of "second guessing" the decisions made.
-
Gyrene.
Dont read the thread looking for some mean thing I said to you 10 posts later to justify how you behaved for the whole thread.
Here is a news flash for you, the only things I have learned in this thread is that your are a fool and they didn't put a turret basket in the T34 85.
every other point of discussion in this thread I came into it with.
If now you want to compare th T34-76 and the Sherman 76 reload times. and of course base it only on the ready racks because the game has no concept of that then we can have that discussion.
There is a document on line somewhere where in the US army ord people evaluate a T34 76 that the russians gave them for that purpose in 1942.
See if you can find it. It may even be linked in from this site.
In a game that doesnt really model any of the design deficiencies of the T34 76, Pyro just abstracted them to a slow rate of fire.
I am fine with that. There is no soft ground or snow or cost based spawn rates to show some of its strengths either.
But no, I do not think that a T34 76 should be able to maintain anything like the sustained fire rate of a Sherman 76. Maybe if we got the Sherman 76 W, that storage scheme might be slower if the wet storage impacted round access times. But I do not know what exactly that implementation looked like off the top of my head. I doubt it was as fancy or as quick as the blast doors in an Abrams.
-
Any crew in any vehicle could leave any number of rounds sitting around un-stowed, it is hard to attribute some advantage to one particular vehicle that way.
-
Whatever you say Pongo...your expertise in armored warfare is obviously far greater than mine regardless of the 4 years I spent living it. I bow to your 1337 greatness on the subject.
Maybe you should look at that 1942 U.S. Army evaluation again...it was based on the T-34/76A L-11 main gun and not the T-34/76B,D,E,F that had the hexagonal turret and F-34 main gun. Curiously the AH wiki on the T-34/76 has a jpeg image on it labeled T1341943 which would make it the T-34/76D,E,F model with the larger turret, not the earlier A or B models. In either case if Pyro "abstracted" the rate of fire, then all of the arguments about documented what have you are void since it is a "guess" and in AH world with consideration of how the M1 main gun in the 76mm Sherman came to be, both it and T-34 should have similar "abstracted" rates of fire instead of the nearly 5 seconds of disparity that exists now.
-
So for the record. you feel that the 2 man turret 1942 T34 is more like the 76mm T23 turreted Sherman than it is like the 2 man turreted 1943 T34.
That is very interesting.
So.
Do you think the 76mm sherman and the 75 mm sherman should have the same rate of fire in the game?
again..
Do you think the 76mm sherman and the 75 mm sherman should have the same rate of fire in the game?
-
So for the record. you feel that the 2 man turret 1942 T34 is more like the 76mm T23 turreted Sherman than it is like the 2 man turreted 1943 T34.
That is very interesting.
No sir, I feel that the 1943 T-34 is more like the T23 turreted Sherman than the 1941 or 1942 T34s are and according to this:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/wiki/index.php/T-34 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/wiki/index.php/T-34) and based on the turret traverse speed, the 1943 version is the version modeled in AH even though the ammo loadout is based on the earlier models.
Do you think the 76mm sherman and the 75 mm sherman should have the same rate of fire in the game?
again..
Do you think the 76mm sherman and the 75 mm sherman should have the same rate of fire in the game?
No I do not, the 76mm should be between what is currently modeled and the T-34/85 and not just because of the dimensions of the ammunition. And the T-34/76 should be slightly faster than it currently is.
-
oh toejam, hes right :huh. Never noticed that about the T-34 ammo load out. Ty Gyrene81.
-
My assertion has always been simple. The length and weight of the round of the 76mm must be harder to handle then the 75, it must load slower.
You have ridiculed that. Now you seem to accept it.
Amazing.
Coming from a back ground where every one you knew was in the same tank and some could load faster then others, it is logical to start with the assumption that all these vehicles are similar and the crew is the biggest factor.
The crew is a huge factor, but the vehicles where alot different from each other, and something like the two shermans having significantly different rounds to handle could impact it alot. Some tanks had two part ammo,(is2), some had very long rounds, some had different sized crews.
It is hard to establish what someone doesn't understand when they charge around like you do, but it is pretty clear you understood none of this and thought your experience in a modern MBT was the most relevant thing and directly transferable to this issue. As the game abstracts out the crew quality or the laxness of their discipline in ammo storage it was not really relevant, without period knowledge of the vehicles we are talking about.
Now you have some relevant period information to start adding to your MBT expertise, imagine how useful you will be in these discussion.
I have interacted with ex armour guys on the web at times, and they are indeed the most knowledgeable about the practical application of these vehicles. But they have also done some staggering research into the history of them.
I honestly do not think you have done so. You seemed to know almost nothing of what WW2 tanks were like.
I at least have shot a TOW missile at a sherman 76, so I guess that makes me the resident expert at them. And I have seen T34/85s in operational emplacements, so I guess I am probably the resident expert on them as well.
-
No sir, I feel that the 1943 T-34 is more like the T23 turreted Sherman than the 1941 or 1942 T34s are and according to this:
Not sure why you would say this. The Sherman still has a three man turret, and the T-34 is still a 2 man turret regardless of the increase in size.
This site (http://www.armchairgeneral.com/rkkaww2/weapons/art_tanks.htm) shows a chart with its source footnoted. It shows the rate of fire of the F-34 gun for the T-34 at 5-10 rounds per minute. Our roughly 8 second reload time would translate to 7.5 rounds per minute, which is right in the middle.
And here (http://www.battlefield.ru/en/tank-armaments/98-supplemental-information/355-specification-penetration-soviet-tank-guns.html) is another site that lists the "practical rate of fire" as 4-8 shots per minute.
More / better sources anyone has would be appreciated!
-
You are truly living up to the S. Korean meaning of the word pongo...no doubt at all.
My assertion has always been simple. The length and weight of the round of the 76mm must be harder to handle then the 75, it must load slower.
You have ridiculed that. Now you seem to accept it.
English comprehension must not be your strong suit any more than actual tank operations...I never did totally disagree with your idea and I think both have a much faster than realistic rate of fire, however the differences in weight and length of the ammuntion aren't great enough to make them the sole determining factor as you were trying to make it. Adding the T-23 turret only added extra space for the gun, it did not significantly increase the space for the crew which is illustrated by the fact that it fit inside the same hull space as the orginal turret, which you also later tried to assert as the reason it had superior firing capabilities over the T-34/76. And after you so kindly necro bumped a similar discussion from 8 years ago, I'm not totally surprised your tune is what it is, you haven't learned anything more in that time period.
I at least have shot a TOW missile at a sherman 76, so I guess that makes me the resident expert at them. And I have seen T34/85s in operational emplacements, so I guess I am probably the resident expert on them as well.
How quaint...resident expert by virtue of distant viewing. I've fired Dragons, TOWs, LAWs, 105mm, 155mm, 175mm and 8 inch howitzers, 90mm and 105mm tank guns at a multitude of objects...guess that makes me the resident gun bunny. What was the last tank you served as a crew member in again?
As to the rest of your diatribe...wrap your little skull around this:
The Russian 76.2mm AP weighed 15.4lbs at 21 inches...used in the T-34/76 F-34 main gun (automatic ejection).
The 75mm (3inch) M61A1 AP round weighed 19.92lbs at 26.29 inches...used in the M4A1 and M4A3 75mm M3 main gun (automatic ejection).
The 76mm (3inch) M62 AP round weighed 23lbs at 33.62 inches...used in the M4A1E4, M4A1E8, M4A2 and M4A3 76mm M1 main gun (automatic ejection).
Ready rounds, stationary position, 2 man gun operation (i.e. gunner and loader)...why would the T-34/76 reload time be nearly 5 seconds slower than both of the Shermans when the ammuntion is shorter and lighter?
-
Ready rounds, stationary position, 2 man gun operation (i.e. gunner and loader)...why would the T-34/76 reload time be nearly 5 seconds slower than both of the Shermans when the ammuntion is shorter and lighter?
Do you have any sources that says it fired any faster? From what I found, the in-game ROF for the T-34/76 seems reasonable.
-
Not sure why you would say this. The Sherman still has a three man turret, and the T-34 is still a 2 man turret regardless of the increase in size.
This site (http://www.armchairgeneral.com/rkkaww2/weapons/art_tanks.htm) shows a chart with its source footnoted. It shows the rate of fire of the F-34 gun for the T-34 at 5-10 rounds per minute. Our roughly 8 second reload time would translate to 7.5 rounds per minute, which is right in the middle.
And here (http://www.battlefield.ru/en/tank-armaments/98-supplemental-information/355-specification-penetration-soviet-tank-guns.html) is another site that lists the "practical rate of fire" as 4-8 shots per minute.
More / better sources anyone has would be appreciated!
Armchair general dot com? That's a board gaming site...although very interesting not a reliable source. The battlefield dot ru site is interesting. Nice find.
Interesting footnote on there:
The practice rate of fire of the T-34 was 3–5 shots per minute due to unsuccessful ammo layout.
In answer to your question sir, the T-34 model 1943 had a slightly larger turret than it's predecessors and the F-34 main gun had a breech/loading mechanism similar in function to the Sherman...also the tank commander performed as the gunner in combat situations.
Do you have any sources that says it fired any faster? From what I found, the in-game ROF for the T-34/76 seems reasonable.
No sir and I pretty much agree after looking through that last site you linked. However, similarly I believe the 75/76mm Shermans should have a slower rate of fire, not 3.6 seconds. One question still remains though, what besides inexperienced crewmen would cause such a slower rate of fire in a gun that operated similarly to the M3 Sherman gun? 1 man firing the gun, 1 man loading, a number of rounds in "ready racks", semi-automatic breech/loading mechanism, similar size and weight ammunition, stationary firing stance...smaller turret space means shorter distances to reach ammunition...under combat conditions 1 or 2 seconds should be all the difference there is.
-
Oh its so nice to see,
Little gyrene considering the issues he called me clueless for considering such a short time ago.
Hes still pretty clueless and not asking any questions so still a long way to go.
But the little padi wan is on the road to wisdom!
Seems like it was only a 4 day golf weekend ago that he really knew nothing at all about ww2 tanks, but he had a burning interest for sure...(hey wait..it was only a 4 day golf weekend ago!)
Some people cannot be taught with a hug, they need the rod.
Gyrene, some day, when you have learned allot more about the evolution of Tanks, some clown will say something so stupid that you have to respond, remember me, and how I burned all that bull shhh1t off of you.
Now you think the same thing as me, and your don't even remember your stupid self from last week. If you met last week gyrene, you would flame yourself.
Isn't the internet wonderful?
-
Armchair general dot com? That's a board gaming site...although very interesting not a reliable source.
The table is sourced:
"Otechestvennye bronirovannye mashiny. XX vek" : nauchnoe izdanie v 4-kh tomakh/ Solyankin A.G., Pavlov M.V., Pavlov I.V., Zheltov I.G./ Tom 2. "Otechestvennye bronirovannye mashiny. 1941-1945" , Moscow, Exprint, 2005 "
Although I have no idea if the source is reliable, the table is certainly not based on pure speculation.
No sir and I pretty much agree after looking through that last site you linked. However, similarly I believe the 75/76mm Shermans should have a slower rate of fire, not 3.6 seconds.
Hunnicut's reference work on the Sherman seems to disagree, as do Army manuals. One shot every 3.6 seconds is less than 17 rounds per minute, which is slower than the theoretical maximum of 20 rounds per minute. Again, if there is a reliable source that contradicts this, then I would agree it should be slowed. In the absence of contradictory evidence, I would think we have to rely on those manuals.
One question still remains though, what besides inexperienced crewmen would cause such a slower rate of fire in a gun that operated similarly to the M3 Sherman gun? 1 man firing the gun, 1 man loading, a number of rounds in "ready racks", semi-automatic breech/loading mechanism, similar size and weight ammunition, stationary firing stance...smaller turret space means shorter distances to reach ammunition...under combat conditions 1 or 2 seconds should be all the difference there is.
Now you are asking for speculation rather than sourced reference materials. We have sourced references that seem to support the in-game rates of fire, and I would think this is what should be used in a game like AH.
But if you want to go into speculation, I would say you have a few faulty conclusions. First is assume since there are two people physically operating the gun means they have the same amount of room. They couldn't physically fit a third person into the T-34's turret, and it was cramped for the people who were there. The Sherman's turret was comparatively "roomy" even with the commander present. Second, although both had "Semi-automatic breech mechanisms", we don't have some of the particulars in terms of recoil length/time for all weapons, which could have an impact on ROF. Third, let's take a look specifically at those ready rounds you reference -- not all ready rounds are created equally. The Sherman book I linked earlier showed a picture of the ready round bin, which is in the floor of the turret basket, presumably directly below the gun for very easy access by the loader, who needs only reach down for them. The T-34, as stated earlier in the thread, had no turret basket. This book (http://books.google.com/books?id=a-QlhQlYZXQC&pg=PA41&lpg=PA41&dq=ready+rounds+T-34/76&source=bl&ots=wMqdBuNh8T&sig=_aMX6ztofqIWZmpgeRJ1lVURI5o&hl=en&ei=N3oATI-BEoGENvDfzDs&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBkQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false) in the Firepower section (pg 41) states that in the T-34/76 there were three ready rounds on the hull side near the loader's feet and six more ready rounds on the opposite wall near the commander. So in a more confined space, to access the ready rounds, the T-34 loader needed to twist and bend down to the floor or reach around the commander/gunner to get the rounds, vs. the Sherman loader simply reaching down at presumably arms length to get them.
So, speculating, the Sherman's loader seems to have a very large advantage even when talking only access to the ready rounds. After the ready rounds are gone, we are back to bins in the floor with matting over them vs. the Sherman's racks (a good picture in the earlier link).
So to me it seems the disparity of rate of fire makes sense given both the documentary evidence presented so far and the ergonomics involved.
-
Does Hunnicut rate the 75 and 76 with the same ROF?
I do not have a copy. I know Pyro does though.
-
Hunnicut's reference work on the Sherman seems to disagree, as do Army manuals. One shot every 3.6 seconds is less than 17 rounds per minute, which is slower than the theoretical maximum of 20 rounds per minute. Again, if there is a reliable source that contradicts this, then I would agree it should be slowed. In the absence of contradictory evidence, I would think we have to rely on those manuals.
Now you are asking for speculation rather than sourced reference materials. We have sourced references that seem to support the in-game rates of fire, and I would think this is what should be used in a game like AH.
Quite the contrary...but Pongo seems to think Pyro is guessing
In a game that doesnt really model any of the design deficiencies of the T34 76, Pyro just abstracted them to a slow rate of fire.
I am fine with that. There is no soft ground or snow or cost based spawn rates to show some of its strengths either.
I have consistently stated the only thing HTC can go with is what is documented in the books regardless of all other factors.
-
Does Hunnicut rate the 75 and 76 with the same ROF?
I do not have a copy. I know Pyro does though.
I don't own a copy myself, but have found several places where his books are used as source material and have found other forums where owners of the book quote him, like this one. (http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=113&t=119317&sid=6e9487a1daffa4792b6b0ec722029a5a) About half way down is this quote:
"According to Hunnicutt (and that would likely mean that the data is based on US and UK manuals), the maximum rate of fire was:
M4A3 75mm: 20 RPM
M4A3 76mm: 20 RPM
M4A3 105mm: 8 RPM
Sherman VC (Firefly): 10 RPM
However, that seems to be a theoretical figure based on the capabilities of the gun."
Think I'll check out the local library this weekend and see if I can acquire a copy to verify for myself.
-
I don't own a copy myself, but have found several places where his books are used as source material and have found other forums where owners of the book quote him, like this one. (http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=113&t=119317&sid=6e9487a1daffa4792b6b0ec722029a5a) About half way down is this quote:
"According to Hunnicutt (and that would likely mean that the data is based on US and UK manuals), the maximum rate of fire was:
M4A3 75mm: 20 RPM
M4A3 76mm: 20 RPM
M4A3 105mm: 8 RPM
Sherman VC (Firefly): 10 RPM
However, that seems to be a theoretical figure based on the capabilities of the gun."
Think I'll check out the local library this weekend and see if I can acquire a copy to verify for myself.
What you are finding as the ROF for the 75mm M3 , 105mm M4 Howitzer (M101A1) and QF 17pdr are the highest evaluated rates of fire for the guns in their configurations prior to being adapted to tank use...i.e. towed artillery. For the 76mm M1 gun as I stated earlier it is a marriage of the barrel from the M7 76mm used in the M10 Tank Destroyer which in itself was a modified version of the M5 anti-tank gun, and a modified M3 breech system...the M1 76.2mm gun was also used in the M18 "Hellcat" Tank Destroyer. If there is a listed ROF for the M1 76mm gun, it will probably be based on the M18 Hellcat.
-
Is there any difference in preformance between the M7 and the M1? Or was it just something to ease production?
-
"Quite the contrary...but Pongo seems to think Pyro is guessing"
?
I think he took info from a book somewhere, what do you think he did, stop watch crews in battle and average it?
Sorry, I said think in relation to you, which is a huge reach.
-
Picked up a great book on the M4a2 76w today.
Great pictures of the interior, but hard to see how the loading would compare with the 75mm versions. Sure looks cramped though.
-
Picked up a great book on the M4a2 76w today.
Great pictures of the interior, but hard to see how the loading would compare with the 75mm versions. Sure looks cramped though.
That should be an interesting read, mind if I ask what the title is?
-
The M4a3(76) has a different hull than the Firefly. The Firefly's hull is closer to that of the M4(75). The hull on the 76 has nothing protruding so it is completely flat.
The hull is the same . Drive train is the only thing different the horizontal volute spring suspension or hvss . The 76 came in both cast and welded hull . gyrene with an April 1941 date I doubt that any of those are from a 75mm . When first introduced in the desert the m4 was hailed . It finally gave the commonwealth forces a tank that could stand toe to toe with the Pzkw IV F . and the PzkwIII G and better . The germans referred to it as a Tommy cooker . The allies called it the ronson .All of this led to the wet ammo storage .
-
The soviets have had issues with turret ergonomics since WW2. T-34 was so bad that loaders had to be left handed and 5'8" or under and still had serious issues with having the left hand/arm caught in the recoil. Lot of 1 armed ex tankers in the USSR...
-
Other then M4a2 I do not recall the title, its at home.
The tank they crawled around looked like the post war Canadian ones. It was at some musem in silicone valley, it is in great shape and even has 4 of the 5 thompsons in the vehicle.
-
M4a2 sherman part 2
Armor Photogallery #16
I didnt know that the lump at the end of the 76mm gun when there is no muzzle break is a temporary cover over the threading for the muzzle break because they were back ordered.
-
I am deliberately bumping this topic for a cool diagram I found that looks like it came from a soviet book or something.
(http://a.yfrog.com/img252/5845/18972.jpg)
Neat look at how the loader must do his job
-
I had a go in the 76 over the past couple days, it's great fun! I would like to see a few more tanks in AH2.
-
Hey, at least they finally put in the HVAP rounds for the T-34-76... I squeaked and moaned for literally years about that.
Wasn't successful with my argument that the ready rounds should increase the rate of fire for the first 4 shots either :).
One of these days I'm going to come back and just enjoy myself... I find myself trolling the forums more and more lately.
-
Hey, at least they finally put in the HVAP rounds for the T-34-76... I squeaked and moaned for literally years about that.
Wasn't successful with my argument that the ready rounds should increase the rate of fire for the first 4 shots either :).
One of these days I'm going to come back and just enjoy myself... I find myself trolling the forums more and more lately.
i dont even remember the time that the 34/76 didnt have HVAP... it was so long ago. i do remember the untweaked T34/76 of days of old which was the best tank to use. i used to be able to up a 34 and run streaks of 5-10 easily because of the armor and gun being to powerful in the version it first came out. :lol
-
I alwasys used the 76 before the M4A3's came out. Then the M4(76) brought a tank with T-34 armor and a panzer's gun.
-
M4, a personal fave. Hard to see in the greenery and great gunnery platform. Now if y'all could put the M1A1 powerplant in them and get the speed of an M8, that would be great ! :old: