Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: 800nate800 on April 30, 2013, 10:17:17 PM
-
Armor (T26E3) Upper hull = 100mm
Lower hull and turret sides= 76mm
armament 90 mm Gun M3
70 rounds
Secondary
armament 2 × Browning .30-06
5,000 rounds
1 × Browning .50 cal.
550 rounds
Speed 25 mph (40 km/h) (road)
5.25 mph (8.45 km/h)(off-road)
-
Plus 1 :aok
-
-1
Ton of vehicles are needed to fill the roles of EW and MW first for scenario purposes.
-
Bring Chiha to Aces High!
Uh Oh, it's -1... :uhoh
-
Bring Chiha to Aces High!
Uh Oh, it's -1... :uhoh
We need the Type 97 Chi-Ha - this way we can have ground vehicles during FSO and scenarios on the Pacific front. Why let the ETO have all the fun? :D
-
+1 to all ground vehicles I probably won't drive the chi-ha though as it is a death trap in WOT lol
-
A whole 20 of them saw combat in WWII.
-
-1
Ton of vehicles are needed to fill the roles of EW and MW first for scenario purposes.
I would be inclined to agree, if vehicles were ever used for scenarios, etc.
+1 to the original request from me, fwiw!
-
+1
-
Why not ask for the Super Pershing instead?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/M26_Super_Pershing.jpg)
ack-ack
-
2 built. :D
http://www.3ad.com/history/news/super.pershing.1.htm (http://www.3ad.com/history/news/super.pershing.1.htm)
http://www.3ad.com/history/wwll/special.photos.htm/super.pershing.htm (http://www.3ad.com/history/wwll/special.photos.htm/super.pershing.htm)
-
2 built. :D
http://www.3ad.com/history/news/super.pershing.1.htm (http://www.3ad.com/history/news/super.pershing.1.htm)
http://www.3ad.com/history/wwll/special.photos.htm/super.pershing.htm (http://www.3ad.com/history/wwll/special.photos.htm/super.pershing.htm)
But saw combat, with one scoring a kill on a Tiger II in the famous "Duel at Dessau" during WW2.
ack-ack
-
But saw combat, with one scoring a kill on a Tiger II in the famous "Duel at Dessau" during WW2.
ack-ack
As mentioned in the references posted. However, Dale used to have a thing about how many saw combat not just if one saw combat once. :D
-
As mentioned in the references posted. However, Dale used to have a thing about how many saw combat not just if one saw combat once. :D
The Super Pershing saw more than one engagement during the war. Belton Cooper, in his book "Death Traps", recounts another engagement the Super Pershing had when it destroyed a German vehicle (Cooper couldn't see what was hit) while on the move. Anyway, I should have put on the [sarcasm] tags on my posts to avoid any potential accidental catches as I'm way past my limit.
ack-ack
-
I probably won't drive the chi-ha though as it is a death trap in WOT lol
:bhead WOT is not modeled realistically
-
:bhead WOT is not modeled realistically
you think I don't know this???? lol its not a sim like AH but an arcade game basically
-
you think I don't know this???? lol its not a sim like AH but an arcade game basically
I played WOT for 15 minutes and prefer Aces High's vehicles instead, one shot in the right area will kill a tank - not something that has hit points and is unrealistic.
-
Both are very unrealistic in their own respects.
-
The Super Pershing saw more than one engagement during the war. Belton Cooper, in his book "Death Traps", recounts another engagement the Super Pershing had when it destroyed a German vehicle (Cooper couldn't see what was hit) while on the move. Anyway, I should have put on the [sarcasm] tags on my posts to avoid any potential accidental catches as I'm way past my limit.
ack-ack
Ain't your thread, hence ain't your lure. ;)
-
:bhead WOT is not modeled realistically
dude, wot developers have mentioned more than 1k times that they are not a simulator but a game. they adjust game parameters as they see fit according to their own statistics and not based on fact.
actually a good portion of all the tanks were little more than napkin drawings.
semp
-
actually a good portion of all the tanks were little more than napkin drawings.
semp
yes very ture here there are some exceptions but not as many as I would like "Cough T28 Prot. cough"
:banana:
-
We have super tanks in the game now. I would rather see the panzer MKIII the Stug III & IV & the Hetzer 38 along with an English tank before more uber tanks. The assault guns like the Stug III was the most numerous armor vehicles in the German Army in WWII.
-
We have super tanks in the game now. I would rather see the panzer MKIII the Stug III & IV & the Hetzer 38 along with an English tank before more uber tanks. The assault guns like the Stug III was the most numerous armor vehicles in the German Army in WWII.
give me the 230mm railroad gun instead please.
-
i just use the panther as a sub for the M-26. works pretty good for now.
-
+1
-
What was that WW2 tank destroyer they had on sons of guns last week? Didn't it have a 90mm gun?
-
What was that WW2 tank destroyer they had on sons of guns last week? Didn't it have a 90mm gun?
M36 Slugger
had a 90mm F3 cannon 4.3 inches or frontal armor at about a 80-70 degree slope very formitable tank back in the day topspeed was close to that of an m4
-
M36 Slugger
had a 90mm F3 cannon 4.3 inches or frontal armor at about a 80-70 degree slope very formitable tank back in the day topspeed was close to that of an m4
The M36 "Jackson/Slugger" didn't have 4.3 inches of frontal armor.
Front: 1.5 inches
Side: .75 inches
Turret Front: .75 inches
Turret Side: .75 inches
Mantlet: 3 inches
And the main gun was a 90mm M3 cannon.
ack-ack
-
That M3 was on par with the 88mm L/56 wasn't it? I remember a while back reading something along the lines that they needed to make new shells because the ones they had wouldn't fair to well with panthers/tigers - I do know some of the newer shells were issued to all 20 of the super pershings, it had some very nice penetration tables, able to take on a Panther at 1000 yards and penetrate the front upper hull without any issues.
-
That M3 was on par with the 88mm L/56 wasn't it? I remember a while back reading something along the lines that they needed to make new shells because the ones they had wouldn't fair to well with panthers/tigers - I do know some of the newer shells were issued to all 20 of the super pershings, it had some very nice penetration tables, able to take on a Panther at 1000 yards and penetrate the front upper hull without any issues.
Yes, the M3 was on par with the 88 mm KwK 36 L/56 main gun which were on the stock Pershings. The Super Pershing sent to the ETO was equipped with the 90 mm/70 caliber T15E1 main gun, which had a higher muzzle velocity (3,850 ft/s compared to 2,700 ft/s for the M3) and there was a second Super Pershing that was equipped with the 90mm/70 caliber T15E2 main gun that used a two piece round.
Was reading that in the Korean War that the M26 completely outclassed the T-34/85 with its 90mm HVAP that could penetrate the front glacis armor and go completely through the T-34/85 and exit out the rear, while the Easy-8 Sherman was an equal match to the T-34/85. Only reason the M26 was withdrawn from Korea because of automotive problems encountered in the mountainous terrain became a liability problem.
ack-ack
-
spefications from wiki here Ack-ack
9–108 millimetres (0.35–4.3 in)<<<note the 4.3inches of armorthats probably the front end housing but still 4.3in none the less
Speed
42 km/h (26 mph) (road)
Weight
29 tonnes (32.0 short tons; 28.5 long tons)
Engine
Ford GAA V-8 gasoline
450 hp (336 kW)
-
We need the Type 97 Chi-Ha - this way we can have ground vehicles during FSO and scenarios on the Pacific front. Why let the ETO have all the fun? :D
Your Sherman can shoot down my Chi-Ha at 3.0K yards! :t
-
Your Sherman can shoot down my Chi-Ha at 3.0K yards! :t
I rarely ever drive a sherman :furious
-
Seriously??? Me thinks people give WAY too much credit to the Pershing. It was more on par with the Panther than the Tiger, and it was certainly not on par with the King Tiger.
Oh, and the Pershing is #48 on the list of gv's to be added.
No.
-
Seriously??? Me thinks people give WAY too much credit to the Pershing. It was more on par with the Panther than the Tiger, and it was certainly not on par with the King Tiger.
Oh, and the Pershing is #48 on the list of gv's to be added.
No.
One of the issues is also the fact German tanks suffered from very POOR armor at the end of the war, sabotage was often done to tanks with poor welding during the production. Another thing is - consider when the M-26 came out - the Germans have pertty much lost the war, all the good tank crews were gone.
Only a handful of good tankers were left, to compare the M-26 with anything is frankly hogwash.
I would much rather see the Su-100 or Su-85 along with other RUSSIAN tanks that seen far more action in the war then something that managed to destroy a tank or two at most.
-
Seriously??? Me thinks people give WAY too much credit to the Pershing. It was more on par with the Panther than the Tiger, and it was certainly not on par with the King Tiger.
Oh, and the Pershing is #48 on the list of gv's to be added.
No.
Oh well, the great authority on AH GV warfare has spoken. :rolleyes:
-
Oh well, the great authority on AH GV warfare has spoken. :rolleyes:
Not claiming to be THEE authority, just pointing out some things some of the gamers may want to think about before wasting one of their three wishes. In terms of AH, the Pershing and the Panther would be on equal footing because poor quality and untrained/inexperienced crews are not modeled. So yeah, comparing the two makes perfect sense in terms of AH.
Like the above post mentioned, the Su-100 or Su-85 would be a more legit gv to add in terms of armor, they actually made a few dents in German inventory and themselves were dealt their backside a few times by the Germans. It would be far more prudent to add in those than the M26. Heck, even the KV-1 makes more sense that the M26.
So give the side of your head a quick jolt with the palm of your hand and stop rolling your eyes, it adds nothing to the thread.