Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: brady on August 06, 2002, 06:23:54 AM
-
Now rumor has it we may see the Sherman or the T34 in the near future. I seriously doubt that we will see the T34 since it has no AA MG, althought the T34 was a beter tank, In AH whear 7mm bulits can disable tanks the lack of AA mg's is a serious concern. So this post will focus on the formentioned tanks. First some raw numbers.
Lets look at the Guns:
76mm M1A1c (see chart)http://www.wwiivehicles.com/html/usa/guns.html
7.5cm kwk 40 L48(see chart)http://www.wwiivehicles.com/html/germany/guns.html
Now the rest of the story:
PzKfW IVH(see chart)http://www.wwiivehicles.com/html/germany/pzkpfw_iv.html
M4A3(76)W(see Chart)
http://www.wwiivehicles.com/html/usa/m4_sherman.html
Ok after you all have a look at that HUGE amount of info:) Try and answer this simple "?" Would you perk the Panzer IVH?, If so why? or rather are they basicaly so simmilar that one could call the two a "fair" match.
-
Yes, I think they are quite equal vehicles.
Sherman has higher profile...but it also has faster turret rotation. Gun/armor performances are quite similar.
-
Agreed, add a panther or something and perk it. Either that or add some Italian or Japanese armor and give a ton of perk points for the schmuck that decided to use it.
-
Originally posted by brady
Ok after you all have a look at that HUGE amount of info:) Try and answer this simple "?" Would you perk the Panzer IVH?, If so why? or rather are they basicaly so simmilar that one could call the two a "fair" match.
1) I would not perk the PzIVH until there has been a complete remodel of the GV damage model. The way things are now, the Ostwind should be perked, nothing else.
2) If the gv damage model is reworked I would perk the PzIVH IF (and only if) the ground looks the way it does now. The PzIVH and the M4A3 (76) w is evenly matched at distances below 1000 yards. Above 1000 the M4A3 will not be able to hit the PzIVH in a "normal" engagement, and its gun will have problems with penetration. The way things look right now, it is too open for the M4A3 to have a chance. If we would have more woods, depressions, houses etc to make the ground more...you know..more real, then there would be no need to perk the IV, because the M4 can use that terrain to get in close to the PzIV.
3) Just realized when typing (2) that we need to have the correct sight for the PzIVH, right now we have an american gunsight in a German tank...thats kinda silly.
-
By the way, if you're going to look the stats of these two guns, remember that US gun tables has bit better penetration than should in comparison to german gun tables.
This is because in US tests it was enough to see light through a crack of armour, while german tests required complete penetration.
Therefore if US guns would be required complete penetration, those wouldn't penetrate as much in comparison to german guns as stated.
-
Another point to be loked at are the "special" AP rounds. The higher penetration figiures at various ranges are obtained from rounds that were limited, that is to say they only had a few on board. Theirfore these are not what you could consider normal values.
-
German tankers were actually supplied with high performance ammo. US tankers had to steal it from tank destoyer battalions. The official US Army policy on tank use was criminal.
All in all the 85mm of the T34, the 76mm of the Sherman and the long 75mm Panzer IV were roughly equal with the Panzer IVs gun being the best of the three and having the best optics.
However the best tank gun of WW2 bar none was the 37mm of the Ostwind.. :p
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
German tankers were actually supplied with high performance ammo. US tankers had to steal it from tank destoyer battalions. The official US Army policy on tank use was criminal.
All in all the 85mm of the T34, the 76mm of the Sherman and the long 75mm Panzer IV were roughly equal with the Panzer IVs gun being the best of the three and having the best optics.
High performance German ammo in 75mm? Which is this?
You've missed out the (76mm) 17 pdr, the best of the lot ;)
Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Discussion forum at: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/
-
Tony,
By high performance ammo I think he means better ammo.
Germans had better shells in general than US or Soviet (especially better than soviet :>).. if you would put up same sort of guns on a line and validate the best one with typical ammo.
17pdr isn't anymore in the same class as previously mentioned guns :)
It's more in the class of 75L70 KwK 42
So you'd have to put FireFly together with the Panther.
btw. brits does also have quite loose requirements for penetration :>
-
Well Tony lets say PzGr40/42 for the KwK42/L70 of Panther.
As for Firefly thats is indeed a special case availabitly vehicle. Anyway there was a reason the Bitish spent so much time camouflaging that extra barrel lengh. :D
-
Germans didnt use Pzgr 40/42 (wolfram core rounds) in 75L48mm or better in west front. It wasn't simply needed to deal with tanks of western allies. All of this rare ammo went directly to the main front in east.
Western allied tankers had better Tungsten round availabilty especially after late 1944. TD battalions having best supply of these rounds.
Normal tankers had maybe 1 or 2 for emergency situations...like when facing Panther at short range.
About 76L51 armed M4a3...it surely didn't have trouble penetrating front of PzKpfw IVhs over 1000yards. Even at 2000yards it can get clean penetration to PzKpfw IV front turret. Ofcourse this is same vice versa. Germans had better optics no doubt. (able to use sights as range measuring device, while US tankers had to use "braketing" shots to estimate range)
-
Gun performance about equal.
AP+ on the Allied 76L51 better than the AP+ on the German 75L48.
Pz IVH = much better sight and optics, in terms of both quality and design.
Tony Williams - I've got some interesting documents you may want a look at...it's a 'tactical primer' for 75L48 AP+ vs. the mantlet of the IS-2 and IS-2m issued to German AT and Pz gunners late in WW2. Apparently part of the mantlet was a 'weak spot' at cloer ranges using tungsten AP with the 75L48. As soon as I get home and near a scanner...
Overall the 76L51 armed Sherman is a little better than the Pz IVH I'd say. Better mobility, a little higher silhouette but once you have the cast frontal hull Sherman with the 76L51 (i.e. M4A3E8) the bottom line is that a M4A3E8 has a noticably better chance of surviving a frontal 75L48 hit at 1000m than the Pz IVH has of surviving a 76L51 hit at 1000m.
If rarity matters at all, the first Sherman modeled should be the M4A2 with the 75L38 MA and the first T-34 modeled should be the T-34/76C. Then you'd have the most common 75/76mm armed MBT for Germany, UK, USA, USSR.
Mike/wulfie
p.s. Yep Tony the 17 Pdr. was a real hot one. Pz training manuals from 1944 onward instructed Pz gunners to engage the lone Firefly of a British Sherman troop first in any/all engagements.
-
But is it really fair to compare the easy8 with the PzIVH? Wouldnt a more fair comparrison be easy8-PzV?
And why is everyone so hung up on Shermans anyway. It would be much more interesting to have the M36.
The M36 would eat the PzIVH alive (although the crappy US optics does make it at least somewhat interesting) and it could hold its own vs the Panther and Tiger I.
---
If you added the T-34/76C and the M4A2 you would effectively add two hangar queens. You would also add two 1942-type tanks (if my memory serves me correct) this would be a bit unfair since the PzIVH is a 43-type tank.
The M4A2 would be a disaster (since it did not have wet stowage). The T-34/76 would be a disaster (since it had a crappy gun, a two man turret and abysmal optics).
Better would be the M4A3 (76) w and the T-34/85.
Best would be the M4A3 (76) w and the M36 Jackson for the yanks. The Pz V and the StuGIIG for the Krauts and the T-34/85 and the SU-100 for the Commies.
Now THAT would be awesome to have.
-
In a perfect worl Hortland:) Althought GV's seam to me to get a lot of use in AH and their even seam to be some definate devotie's to the GV arm, I feal AH tends to view it as a side show.
So bearing that In mind I bet we see only one tank added to AH in the near future(1.11 hopefully) as far as I can tell the closest match for the Panzer IV H we have is the M4A3(76)W.
Personaly I think a T34 would be great but it has no AA MG, this would suck.
A posable fly in this seamingly good choice for adation is this....HTC neads a perk GV. If HTC were to add the 75mm guned Sherman he could posably rationalise the perking of the PAnzerIVH. Add on top this a new realistic sight for Panzer IVH, possable special AP rounds. and we could see a cheaply perked Panzer IVH. Why Cheap.... the 303's on the spit MK I can still imobalise you......
-
Perking any variant of the PzIV is laughable. A 75mm Sherman has the advantage of the 50cal turbolaser air defense system. It's sole disadvantage would be AP performance.
-
GRUNHERZ, I would tend to agree, In fact when I heard HTC was thinking of adding a Sherman and Perking the Panzer IVH, I LOL so hard I think I hurt somthing. That is why I started this thread.
-
Add the IS-2, and perk that. The Panzie 4's shells will bounce right off the front of it :) The IS-2's 122 MM cannon will...well...you know...to the Panzie 4 :) Sure the IS-2 only has 28 rounds of ammo...if you want a lot of ammo, add the T-70...360 rounds of 40 MM ammo (I think its 40 MM).
Food for thought
-
In no way can I see any justification of perking the PnZ IV H.
The M4A3, PnZ IV H and T-34/85 are good matches.
- PnZ IV H has moderate speed, moderate armor, a good gun and very light AA.
- M4A3 has moderate speed, moderate armor, a weak gun and light AA.
- T-34/85 has good speed, good armor, a decent gun and no AA.
That looks like a good variety of choices, none standing radically above the others.
Panther V G should be added as the first perk tank.
-
.. and all those three would have a low alt Spitfire come strafe them, knock the tracks, turret and engine out, and leave it to become a big pile of junk.
...
Sorry for the hi-jack, but without the armour severely toughened up, or granted immunity from small arms fire, no amount of tanks will make GV battles interesting, since no one will use it, and just take an Ostwind as an anti-GV + anti-aircraft + structure attack vehicle.
:(
-
Kweassa,
I agree that the armor model is lacking, but that is a different subject. I think nearly everybody who has posted in this thread feels that tanks are not as tough as they should be.
But this thread was about tanks, how they compared and perking the PnZ IV H.
-
It's cool Karnak,Kweassa, and you are both on the money, He appoligised for Hijacking, but he has a point, Any perk tank will always be at the mercy of aircraft theirfore any perk tank should be chep imo.
Or maybe some day AH will adress the issue that every plane in AH is virtualy an effective anti tank platform, I think it would be cool to have planes like the Il-2 and other decated anti tank plane Huryy IID the only types capable of inflicting heavy damage on tanks other than those with bombs or rockets. much as it was in the real world.
-
Originally posted by wulfie
Overall the 76L51 armed Sherman is a little better than the Pz IVH I'd say. Better mobility, a little higher silhouette but once you have the cast frontal hull Sherman with the 76L51 (i.e. M4A3E8) the bottom line is that a M4A3E8 has a noticably better chance of surviving a frontal 75L48 hit at 1000m than the Pz IVH has of surviving a 76L51 hit at 1000m.
Both will get clean frontal penetration from 1000m I would say. So it doesnt much matter. What matter most is who will hit first. And that would be most likely PzKpfw IVh with equal crew skill.
Why?
-PzKpfw IVh gunner has much taller target. (thats axis where corrections in aim are made)
-Because better sights less bracketing is needed.
I think PzKpfw IVh would be superior at longer ranges. Where Sherman gunnery becomes very hard.
About better mobility. Sherman was quite prone to bogging in...not having very good offroad mobility until wider tracks were installed. (in e8 for example)
If you compare ground pressure you will see PzKpfw IVh is much better.
Tiger and wide track easy eight HVSS (with wide tracks) included for comparison.
PzKpfw IVh 0.88kg/sqcm
M4a3(76)W 1.06kg/sqcm
PzKpfw IVe 0.98kg/sqcm
M4a3e8 HVSS 0.77kg/sqcm.
Sherman is faster on roads tho.
This thread was about PzKpfw IVh and a4m3(76)W, right?
I agree easy eight would be better than PzKpfw IVh in many cases. But thats completely different variant.
IMHO a4m3(76) is better match.
You are right that either wouldn't be historically correct counterpart for IVh.
So IMHO T-34/85 would be better choice.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
In no way can I see any justification of perking the PnZ IV H.
The M4A3, PnZ IV H and T-34/85 are good matches.
- PnZ IV H has moderate speed, moderate armor, a good gun and very light AA.
- M4A3 has moderate speed, moderate armor, a weak gun and light AA.
- T-34/85 has good speed, good armor, a decent gun and no AA.
That looks like a good variety of choices, none standing radically above the others.
Panther V G should be added as the first perk tank. [/B]
Hello, Karnak.
Those would be also historically best choises. Backbones of each nations armored forces in 1944.
I agree regarding Panther G. Panthers were almost as numerous as PzKw IVh in late 1944. And best tank of ww2 afterall. :) JS-2 might be also good perk...those reload times would be frustrating. 2rpm :D And ofcourse Sherman Firefly.
-
Shermans were overrated. Comparing a 75mm to a 76.
Masher
-
they didnt call early shermans Ziipo for nothing--they lit up every time
-
Why not model the M-3 Stuart? It's a great representation of early war armor and lighter armor such as that fielded by the Japanese and Italians. Would make for better scenarios. Also,
if they could model the MkIV Pzkfw with the .5 cm gun it would mirror many of the early and Desert models. Seems to me that would not require too much work. Thus, you'd have a broad range of armor selections for scenarios.
Sakai
-
No MK IV had 5 cm gun's.
Your thinking of the PzKfW III.
-
That's right! Thanks for that correction, it's been so long since I looked at armor, but you know, they look alike.
;-)
If you had a III, and a Stuart along with that IV you'd have an excellent representation of most of the armor from the war, no?
Now, shouldn't there also be a self propelled gun? Like an M7 or a Wespe? That would make the base raiders happy.
Sakai