Now you've done it....you're gonna get Tank-Ace's panties all bunched in a wad and we're gonna get spammed as to why AH needs the Panzer III over anything else. Thanks.
BTW, I agree with adding the Crusader
ack-ack
What sort of penetration does the 6lber have. That article says it could compete with the long barreled 75 armed Panzer IV (I am guessing Panzer IV F), but that strikes me as unlikely for a 57mm gun.
What sort of penetration does the 6lber have. That article says it could compete with the long barreled 75 armed Panzer IV (I am guessing Panzer IV F), but that strikes me as unlikely for a 57mm gun.
+1 for the Mk III, but only after we add some more usefull stuff like a Churchill Mk III or IV and Mk V, and maybe a Cromwell, if we want to go British.
-1 for the Mk I and II, at least untill we get some stuff for it to fight that won't beat it into the ground (*cough*Panzer III*cough*)..
..... sorta perfect sense. Depending on the models in question, the Panzer III would still beat on the Crusader, but at least the Crusader would have a chance to hit back, what with the 30mm turret armor on the Ausf J.
And the primary reason for Allied AA would be AVA, I'm guessing?
If thats the case, -1. It gets even less use than the EW and MW arenas, where updating the SdKfz 251 and getting a /17 or a /21 would be about as beneficial and would be quicker.
If AvA had more use, and there were more GV setups in FSO, I'd be with you completely on this. But really, this seems like putting the cart before the horse.
Since there are no allies vs axis in the MA's, that leaves scenarios as your primary argument here, and it SEEMS that when theres a GV setup, the allies tend to have air superiority. North Africa would be an exception, and the axis might (just took a big AP history exam, feeling too lazy and tired to check wiki) get a good GV buster with the Ju-87G-2 for that setup as well, although the axis are also lacking in the AA department in that one too (if we're being historical).
We get more GV use, hell yes, I'd want the crusader AA.
I dont need to say anything else, Panzer III NOW.
And I certinally want the Panzer III, and I don't know about justifying it above EVERYTHING else, but I can certinaly justify it above the Crusader, and perhaps even most of the other GV stuff we could add, at least from a non-LWMA-centric view point.
Panzer III lead the German Blitzkrieg across france, Africa, and Russia. It would be able to fight the T-34 without requiring a strech like letting Panzer IV F2's into an EW scenario, and depending on the cutoff date for EW, even the Panzer III L might make it in, and would be the Panzer IV of the EW arena (T-34 would become the Panther, and the KV-1, if we ever get it, would be the Tiger I).
Also, StuG III.
Anyway, off topic there.
even $15 a month would help ...
No offense to you guys, butcher or Tank...buut....why more EW tanks? Almost no one tanks in EW, and if you up one in LW you will get 1 shotted from 8k out by a panzer F....Or strafed by more planes with 20mm...Scenerios? yeeaah....buuut Scenerios are once every few months, so we would probably use it 2-3 times a year? Is it worth the time, effort, and money right now, over planes, etc.? Eeeh, not IMO however I would like some more mid or late war tanks! I love tanking don't get me wrong, but EW 1 ping and youre in the tower tanks just don't sound fun to me...Not to mention how many shots it would probably take to kill any tank we have now (not including the M18 or M8). Oh well, that's my thoughts :salute
No offense to you guys, butcher or Tank...buut....why more EW tanks? Almost no one tanks in EW, and if you up one in LW you will get 1 shotted from 8k out by a panzer F....Or strafed by more planes with 20mm...Scenerios? yeeaah....buuut Scenerios are once every few months, so we would probably use it 2-3 times a year? Is it worth the time, effort, and money right now, over planes, etc.? Eeeh, not IMO however I would like some more mid or late war tanks! I love tanking don't get me wrong, but EW 1 ping and youre in the tower tanks just don't sound fun to me...Not to mention how many shots it would probably take to kill any tank we have now (not including the M18 or M8). Oh well, that's my thoughts :salute
wouldn't be any harder than taking out a wirby. Easier to turret? Yes, kill? No.
You do know you can strafe wirbles and blow them up now with 50cals right?
This thing has an armored roof and I believe the driver is in a separated area, therefore even if your turret is taken out you could still drive away and resupply.
One advantage that the Crusader AA II would have in AH, is it looks like it would be much harder to kill without ords/tankbustersGood article. Numbers compared to our German flack productions is a non issue. :aok
(http://www.militarymodelling.com/sites/1/images/article_images/PB25May07_003.jpg)
Here is a great writeup on the Crusader III AA units: http://www.militarymodelling.com/news/article.asp?a=3277 (http://www.militarymodelling.com/news/article.asp?a=3277)
Just did some offline tests. A6M3 could easily turret the Whirbel but not kill it. Mosquito VI could kill it, though it usually took a couple of passes. The first one I killed died on the first pass from the Mossie, but the A6M3 had already shot it up badly.
Are you diving straight down? i've killed a few wirbs while diving almost straight down on them, usually I will turret them with a Hurri or such then dive straight down on top of the turret, usually grants a kill.No, I generally attack in a way that at least give me a chance to significantly outlive my victim. :p
Could you post some info about the 6-pounder guns armor-piercing abilities plz?
If it could penetrate about 75-80mms at 1km, then this tank could be quite useful as filling the gap between the panzer4F and the m8, also some north africa events would be kick awesome.
I dont know anything about it tho, just speculating.
Here's a penetration table for it:
AP for Mk III Gun: 500 meters it penetration 81mm
APDS Sabot: 500meters it penetrates 130mm, 1000 meters 119mm, 1500meters 101mm
Source Western Allied Tanks 1939-45, David Porter, 2009
In Africa it used the AP round, however for sicily and such it used APDS sabot
| IN 43 Cal Gun Mks 1-3 | Weight kg | Muzzle Velocity m/s | Penetration at 460m and 30º in mm | Penetration at 920m and 30º in mm |
| Shot, AP | 2.8 | 820 | 73 | 62 |
| Shot, AP (HV) | 2.8 | 850 | 81 | 68 |
| Shot, APC, Mk 8T | 2.8 | 850 | 72 | 63 |
| Shot, APCBC, Mk 9T | 3.2 | 790 | 68 | 60 |
| IN 50 Cal Gun Mks 1-3 | Weight kg | Muzzle Velocity m/s | Penetration at 460m and 30º in mm | Penetration at 920m and 30º in mm |
| Shot, AP, Mks 1 to 7 | 2.8 | 890 | 82 | 71 |
| Shot, APC, Mk 8T | 2.8 | 890 | 78 | 67 |
| Shot, APCBC, Mk 9T | 3.2 | 830 | 87 | 73 |
| Shot, APCR, Mk 1T | 1.8 | 1,080 | 109 | 90 |
| Shot, APDS, Mk 1T | 1.47 | 1,235 | 131 | 117 |
| Shell, HE Mk 10T | ~3 | 820 | - | - |
| US AP M70 | 2.85 | 850 | 81 | 64 |
| US APCBC/HE M86 | 3.3 | 820 | 81 | 64 |
I also read that accuraccy was terrible with the early APDS rounds, should that be modeled as well?I would say that it should be, yes.
I would say that it should be, yes.
So just a LOT of shell dispersion? Thats really the only way I can see doing it,Probably the easiest way to do it. Is that not the way in which it was inaccurate?
though it would open the door to something I'd rather not see.What is that?
Well, I'd rather not see all guns having dispersion of shells, as it would make everyone less effective at range, which is where the Tiger II, Panther, and Tiger I gain most of their advantage, and some tank are going to have a hell of a time hitting anything at more than 1000m.
Here's a penetration table for it:
AP for Mk III Gun: 500 meters it penetration 81mm
APDS Sabot: 500meters it penetrates 130mm, 1000 meters 119mm, 1500meters 101mm
Source Western Allied Tanks 1939-45, David Porter, 2009
In Africa it used the AP round, however for sicily and such it used APDS sabot