Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Jester on December 18, 2002, 11:44:30 PM
-
Isn't the TIGER 1 a "little" fast? I drove it tonight and noticed it had the same top speed as the PANZER IV - 25mph.
Not that I am complaining. :D
-
Its not so much that the Tiger is fast, its that you're realizing how slow the PnZ IV H is.
The PnZ IV H, M4 and Tigers were all about the same at 24-25mph.
The T-34 and Panther V G were much better at about 35mph.
-
That extra 10 MPH would makew the T-34 a great choice for a second unperked tank :)
J_A_B
-
T34/85 armor values:
Hull Front, Upper 45, 90, 47, 60
Hull Front, Lower 45
Hull Sides, Upper 45, 60
Hull Sides, Lower 45
Hull Rear 30, 47, 45
Hull Top 20-23
Hull Bottom 18, 20, 22
Turret Front 55, 90, 45-75
Turret Sides 55, 75
Turret Rear 50, 60, 75
Turret Top 20
Now it does not give angle of slope so those are realy better than they seam.
The realy important figures are the Top Armor ones, with top armor that thick(which is almost the same as the Tigers 25mm) they would be mostly imune from 50cal strafing.
Personaly my only objection the the T34 over the Sherman is the lack of an AA gun, the T 34 is such a better tank, i would realy like to see it over the Sherman, howeaver in AH whear the Plane GV interface is kinda unrealistic the lack of an AA MG might be a bad thing.
-
If you want to get technical, its overmodeled for speed across country. It could only attain the speed we have in AH on good roads.
Road 38km/h
Cross-Country 10-20km/h
-
in wbs the terrain adds drag to the vehicles. Unless on prepared surfaces. At a set speed planes get gear damage when off runway.
It would be awesome to add that to AH.
It would be good as well to add gear damage unless on prepared terrrain in excess of a certain speed.
But hey they climb a hill now :)
Thanks HT..............
-
The T34-85 would be an excellent tank in AH. No AAMG..great flat land speed..a bit bouncy in cross country speed. Not as good a sights as the german tanks but great gun(simular to the Armour piercing capability of the Panzer IVH but with the High Explosive ability of the Tiger I) That dash mobility would be very very interesting...
Very very very pretty tank.
-
Agreed! I thought for sure the T-34 would be the next tank, due to our need for it in scenario's.
-
T-34/85 is a very good looking tank. By far the best looking Allied tank of WWII.
(http://www.wwiivehicles.com/images/ussr/t_34_85_07.jpg)
(http://www.wwiivehicles.com/images/ussr/t_34_85_08.jpg)
-
If we gonna have TIGERS running around all over the place I would like to have one of these:
M-36 JACKSON Tank Destroyer
90mm main gun
-
OH yea, Karnak the PANTHER was a MUCH better looking tank than the T-34. ;)
-
The Jackson (M36) is nice, but it has the problem of an open-top design which would allow all those nasty enemy fighters a chance to kill the gun with straffing passes (killing the crew). And since American Tank Destroyers didn't have that much armor, 20mm cannons would probably eat it for lunch.
If you are looking for a good American tank, I would suggest the Sherman Jumbo 76. It has enough armor to shrug off a lot of damage, and if it came with special AP rounds (APBC/APCR/ect), it would be able to threaten the heavies.
Personally, I'd love to see the T-34/85.
-
Originally posted by Andijg
OH yea, Karnak the PANTHER was a MUCH better looking tank than the T-34. ;)
I did say Allied tank.:p
-
There were some 50,000 Shermans in WW2, 200 total were Jumbos and all of them except some 76mm field modified ones had the useless 75mm. Pretty much the only WW2 tank more rare than the 76mm Jumbo is the Maus... :D
-
Originally posted by Pongo
The T34-85 would be an excellent tank in AH. No AAMG..great flat land speed..a bit bouncy in cross country speed. Not as good a sights as the german tanks but great gun(simular to the Armour piercing capability of the Panzer IVH but with the High Explosive ability of the Tiger I) That dash mobility would be very very interesting...
And, IIRC, a limitation that it shared with other Russian armor -- only the command vehicles had radios. For example, in 1944, Russia produced 10,449 T-34/85 tanks, but only 134 T-34/85 command tanks; in 1945, production was 12,110 and 140 respectively, and in 1946, production was 22,609 and 274 respectively.
The lack of radios was one of the reasons that the Russian pilots liked the P-39 -- it had four radios; you could keep in touch with your wingmen, your squadron leader, ground control, and ground formations, without having to tune back and forth.
-
thought id repeat an answer i gave ealier in another thread in here...........
I think theres a fairly good reason to keep the axis tanks as the 'top gun' in AH as tanks are introduced.
By this i mean generally on the battlefields the German tanks were superior in firepower but inferior in numbers.
AH should try to reflect this i feel.Otherwise if we add now the latest 1944-45 allied tank buster we will see the tiger suddenly become nothing special! rather than have it appear as unusually durable/Tough opponent like it was when the allies came up against them, it will seem just like any other tank.
I feel we really need to let the tiger have its time in the limelight.
Shouldnt we first experience the panzer IV vs sherman M4 fights as the norm with the odd perk tiger appearing to strike a bit of dread into the fights?
If we suddenly add the firefly or M10 , fairly rare compared to shermans etc, we will see just the arcade like tiger vs m10 slogging fights.We know these engagements were less common but we would see it constantly in AH.
Id like to see what a sherman is like first and then see how much better the m10 or firefly is LATER.
The t34 for the same reason I think should be added after the sherman so we have the western front simulated before the eastern one as we have less of the eastern front planeset.
If I could choose some tanks these are what i would like and why:
American Sherman M4 .....The main/most common tank for the allies.(OR british version of same tank)
British Matilda tank ........For desert warfare with the panzer IV (very durable! but weak gun)
German armoured car ....to have parity with allies M8 or M3
Russian T.34................... for Eastern front model set
Japanese and British Light tanks from asian theatre or pacific (US light tank chafee?)
If during the addition of these tanks HTC decide to add something rare for the allies like the tank destroyers that can penetrate the tiger Id hope HTC introduce the even more formidable King tiger (with appropriate high perk cost) so the Axis can field another formidable tank but it costs them resourses just like the real ones did.
anyone else agree this would be a good way of doing it?
-
Agree with you Hazed.
To keep the TIGER "Special" as it was on the battlefield it should be perked so to keep it's numbers down. (CT ESPECIALLY). Otherwise the Panzer IV (Main tank of the German Armored Forces) is going to just become another Hangar Queen with only Tigers running around.
I would suggest the following simple formula:
Any Armored Vehicle with a gun above 76mm be Perked (except for Howitzers).
TIGER 1
KING TIGER
T-34/85
M36 JACKSON
Any at 76mm or below not be perked:
ALL AVAILABLE NOW
T-34/76
M4 SHERMAN
PANTHER
KV-1
M10 ARCHER
M18 HELLCAT
This would keep the number of Tigers low, as per history, plus it would also add the excitement of never knowing when a Tiger is going to pop out of the blue during a fight.
-
Originally posted by Andijg
Agree with you Hazed.
To keep the TIGER "Special" as it was on the battlefield it should be perked so to keep it's numbers down. (CT ESPECIALLY). Otherwise the Panzer IV (Main tank of the German Armored Forces) is going to just become another Hangar Queen with only Tigers running around.
I would suggest the following simple formula:
Any Armored Vehicle with a gun above 76mm be Perked (except for Howitzers).
TIGER 1
KING TIGER
T-34/85
M36 JACKSON
Any at 76mm or below not be perked:
ALL AVAILABLE NOW
T-34/76
M4 SHERMAN
PANTHER
KV-1
M10 ARCHER
M18 HELLCAT
This would keep the number of Tigers low, as per history, plus it would also add the excitement of never knowing when a Tiger is going to pop out of the blue during a fight.
Pardon my vulgarity, but that's idiotic.
The Panther's 75mm gun is vastly better than the T-34/85's 85mm gun. The Panther is faster, better armored and better armed. Leaving it free and perking the T-34/85 would be utterly stupid.
Perk Tanks (bold already added):
Is-2
M-26 Pershing
Panther V G
Tiger I
Tiger II
Free Tanks (bold already added):
Churchill Mk VII
M4A3 (75mm)
M4A3E8 (76mm)
Panzer IV H
T-34/76
T-34/85
-
dito
-
M4A3E8 should be perked. Only at end of war did close to 50% of Sherman carry 76mm.
T-34/85 should be perked. Vast majority of T-34 to see combat were T-34 M42 and T-34 M43 (both with medium velocity 76mm).
Assuming that 'perking' a unit is based on rarity.
Nonperked - (these MBTs/TDs made up over 70% of the 1942-1945 armored forces of the relevant Nations)
Pz IVH
StuG IIIG
M4 Sherman (75mm) (for U.S. and U.K.)
M10
T-34 M43
Cromwell (U.K.)
Moderate perk cost -
T-34/85
M4 Sherman (76mm)
M18
Large perk cost -
Pz VG
Pz VIE
M36
Sherman 'Firefly'
Huge perk cost -
Pz VIB
JPz V
IS-2
M26
Those perk listings take into account rarity and performance both.
Not perking the T-34/85 in the MA would cause some problems. No one would have any reason to drive the Sherman (75mm), T-34 (76mm) - the 2 most common Allied MBTs of WW2 by a huge margin (assuming they weren't already in Churchill VIIs, see below).
Not perking the Churchill VII? It's got better armor than the Pz VIE and a decent 75mm cannon.
But the biggest problem is the MA itself in terms of how to handle different era MBTs. You need to understand how the vehicles would interact. With this 'perk table'...
"Perk Tanks (bold already added):
Is-2
M-26 Pershing
Panther V G
Tiger I
Tiger II
Free Tanks (bold already added):
Churchill Mk VII
M4A3 (75mm)
M4A3E8 (76mm)
Panzer IV H
T-34/76
T-34/85"
...the Churchill VII would dominate the non-perk MBTs. Not a single one of those non-perk MBTs can penetrate the Churchill VII frontally with their MA. The Churchill VII can penetrate the Pz IVH fairly easily at 500m, and can penetrate every other non-perk vehicle a fair (~50% of hits) amount of the time frontally at 500m.
Moreso than with aircraft, I think rarity would need to play a large part of what is perked.
When dealing with a 'historical' arena, sorting out the 'when and how much' for GVs becomes alot easier.
Mike/wulfie
-
That's your opinion Karnak, no need to get nasty about it. If you don't like my suggestion put up a better argument rather than just being rude.
When I was listing which should be perked and which shouldn't - it was just a suggestion to get the idea going. I was refering to something more like Wulfie has put up. A "Perk Scale" more or less for the tanks. (Great list BTY Wulfie !)
BTW, You need to read your tables again in you think the T-34/85 shouldn't be perked and the PANTHER should. Maybe like Wulfie said - they should be slightly perked - in a class between the Heavies and Mediums.
-
Andijig,
You are correct. My appologies.
wulfie,
That doesn't make sense either. The Ostwind isn't perked. The La-7 isn't perked. The Spitfire F.Mk IX isn't perked. The N1K2 isn't perked. The Ki.67 isn't perked. The C.205 isn't perked.
If numbers or relative frequency of appearance were the sole governing factor in whether a unit is perked or not all of the above would be perked.
The main consideration that HTC seems to give in determining a unit's perk status is how powerful it is. The T-34/85, M4A3E8 and Churchill Mk VII simply aren't powerful enough to warant perking.
In the MA it is irrelevant that the M4A3 (75mm) and T-34/76 were much more common. Those units, like Spitfire Mk Is, Bf109E-4s, P-40s and A6M2s, are primarily scenario units.
In the case of the Churchill Mk VII, it is very slow and its gun is pretty poor on penetration capability. Those factors balance out its good armor value.
-
I assume the Sherman was at least FASTer than panzer? If it went 35 or so....guys would drive it for thsat reason..might kill m8 interest tho
-
Karnak M4A3 with HVSS was extremly rare and only appeared in late 1944 early 45, this was the final Sherman variant.
If any Sherman is done it should be a M4A3 75(w), the best and latest 75mm VVSS variant, otherwise nobody would ever use Panzer IV again because a 76mm Sherman would have similar firepower and much much better AA. So one would have a choice between surving planes a bit better or better AP punch. Similarly with T34/85 you would have the option of a bit more speed and armor but no AA, while still same AP firepower as Panzer IV. A 75mm Sherman would alse enable accurate scenarios from 1942 to 1945.
-
The Panther should be a higher perk then the Tiger 1. And the T34-85 should probably not be perked at all.
The T35-85 and the Panther are not equivilent...
The panther is a far more powerfull tank.
The Panther has better front armour then the tiger..A beter anti tank gun and greater speed.
The T34-85 gun is equivelent to the Panzer IV vs armour and the Tiger vs HE targets. It has weaker armour. but greater speed. And no AAMG at all.
The Panther is nearly as impervios to air attack as well. The T34 is not.
I still hope the next tank we see is a T34-85. High ENV value but not perked. Basically it has to flank a tiger to kill it..but gets there much quicker and can flank kill from a meaningful range.
The Panzer IVH
-
I think the best way to use the perk system is to try to produce more engagements between the lesser tanks.
ie
t34/76
sherman M4 75mm
Panzer IV H
Matilda
use a perk system where if the tank was rare then it costs perks to field it:
ie
Tiger I
Panther V
T34/85
Firefly
M30
etc
this way generally you will see shermans and matildas etc vs panzer IVs and perhaps the german 75mm assault tank (cant remember its name)
BUT every now and then you will see a nasty tiger appear and it will start to hurt those shermans etc.
Then the Allied players will pay some perks for a specialised tank like the firefly (always should be cheaper than tigers etc as there were more produced) to tackle the tiger problem.
I really would like to see this sort of thing in AH. Id also like to see a lot more use of fast armoured cars for scouting which was the whole point of them. Use the cheap armoured cars to check out the enemy, then bring up the armour to attack. If its stopped by a heavy tank then bring up your own heavy to tackle it whilst your countrymates try to outflank with the cheaper tanks.
The other day me and my squadie straccop had a small taster of a combined assault, using the panzer to scout ahead as the tiger covered from a distance.With a few others around it was great fun. Id like to see even more of this but with proper allied vs axis vehicle set so we can have some great looking battles.
-
No Pongo, the Pz VIE and Pz VG shouldn't be perked at all.
After all, both can be knocked out by the MA of and Sherman and/or any T-34.
I'll wait about 5 posts and add "when hit in their flank armor" if you don't mind. :)
Mike/wulfie
-
The problem with perking the M4A3E8 and T-34/85 is that the Panzer IV H is a better tank than either of them, though it is arguable in the case of the T-34/85.
Both of those tanks would be useless as perk units. The Panzer IV H has a better gun than either, and unlike the T-34/85 it has some AA defense.
The T-34/76 and M4A3 (75mm) have such crappy guns that players might as well take an M8 for all the effect they'll have on other tanks.
You have to remember that the German superiority in tanks quality didn't appear until 1943. Before 1943 the British and Russian tanks were superior. Forcing the British (Matilda) and Russian (T-34/76) 1942 tanks to confront the 1944 German tanks might satisfy American impressions of German tanks, but those impressions were formed in late 1944 when we were using Shermans against Panthers and Tigers.
If the T-34/85 is to be perked, then perk the Panzer IV H and add the Panzer IV F and a 1942 Panzer III.
bj229r,
Nope. The M4 Sherman has a top speed of 26mph. For a fast tank you need to look to the T-34 or Panther V G.
-
wulf..
that is how anti tank guns are used...Sorry if it hurts your feelings.
Hazed..
your list of rare tanks doesnt include any rare ones.
5000 panthers
2000 tiger ones
probably 5000 or more T34-85s.
The Matilda is totaly out clased by all those tanks. Slower(walking speed). a pathetic 40mm gun
Keep it like it is. Non perk tanks should be roughly the same in capablility as the Panzer IVh. The two that are are the T34-85 and the M4a3 75. They provide excellent trade offs vs the Panzer IV. and leave room for real heavy hitter tanks as perks.
-
In AH a 76mm Sherman will make the Panzer IV useless because they will have rougly the same AP/HE capability, same speed, and mobility while the Sherman will have vastly better AA defense. RL Sherman weaknesses like awful shilouette and terrible cross country and floatation will not exist in AH.
I suggest this.
A 75mm Sherman.
An 85mm T34.
As for German tanks being inferior to allied tanks before 1943 thats somewhat misleading. Most allied tanks lacked something truley neccesary for a succesful WW2 tank. The T34 had no radios, 2 man turret and no commanders vision cupola. The KV had no radios, a terrible turret crew layout with three crew but only effective as two men, and again no commanders cupola. All the French tanks had a one man turret, this made them almost useless operationally in WW2 battles. The British had too many tank types. The various Cruisers were too lightly armored and lacked good turret crews, the early churchill was an outdated near stepchild of WW1 with massive armor and weight but with a 2 pounder gun in the turret and a limited traverse howitzer in the hull. The Sherman appeared in late 1942 and fixed almost all those deficiencies, but by that time Germany allready had Panzer IV with L43 and L48 75mm and not to mention Tiger I which just entered combat.
But ever since Panzer III Germany had all those things a 5 man crew, radios, full vision cupolas, adequate armor, speed, mobility, and very good reliability to boot. Their greatest weakness was armament of 37mm or low velocity 75mm. The 37mm on Panzer III was soon replaced by a medium length 50mm and then by a very long 50mm that was prolly the equal of many 75mm. The Panzer IV got a longer 75mm L43 by the F2 model and then the awesome L48 late G models.
So you see German tanks were not all that at a disadvantage in actual battles. On paper yes they looked weaker, but battles were not fought on paper.
-
Pongo there were only 1350 or so Tiger I, and 475 Tiger II, and some 75 Jagdtigers.
-
GRUNHERZ,
Hmm. I'd think the Panzer IV H's gun's AP performance was markedly superior to the Sherman's 76mm gun's.
The other points you make are accurate certainly.
Pongo,
Here are production numbers for the T-34/85 (at least the numbers I could find):
1943: 283
1944: 11,778
1945: 7,230
-
Ive seen a 1900 number for Tiger Is..but what ever its not rare. I agree with you about the sherman. The 75mm one..with a gyro and 50 cal roof gun and the extra speed of an M4 A3 model.
Would be a great tank in this game.
As would the T43-85
And the distinction between them and the Panzer ivh would be a great ballence in the MA.
That makes the M4a3e8 a light perk tank as it has more speed and armour then the Panzer IVh with a 50 cal to boot yet equivilent gun.
The IS2m would be a perked about the same. Same speed as a panzer iv but very slow rate of fire and few rounds..Only two hits to kill a hanger though and very resistant to air atack and frontaly resistant to 88mm attack even. With a 50 cal aamg..
Very cool tank if you can keep resupplied.
Panther would just do it all. Probably an 80 point perk. Pershing would be abit more expensive then a tiger..because of the 50 cal on the roof.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
wulf..
that is how anti tank guns are used...Sorry if it hurts your feelings.
Nah my feelings aren't hurt at all.
A little annoyed about the total waste of my free time spent on what I thought was an attempt at a constructive discussion is all.
'That is how anti tank guns are used'?
In idea situations, maybe. I guess your idea of a battlefield situation has alot more 'ideal situations' than most others idea.
I mean, by your reasoning, the Germans were fools to bother with getting 75L48s onto the battlefield.
After all, the 50L60 could easily penetrate the flank of the T-34.
And acccording to you, this was an easy thing to accomplish.
By your reasoning, there is no cause for the 'gun vs. armor' race that took place during WW2.
Apparently MBT designers were all idiots as well. Flank shots were so easy to come by they should have never made the grave error of making flank armor weaker than frontal armor. After all, the MBT crews were powerless to stop AT crews from scoring hits on the flanks of their vehicles.
Here's a clue for you: frontal armor mattered because well trained MBT crews did a fair job (or better) of keeping that thicker armor pointed towards the most severe AP threats they were facing. Talk to anyone who is well educated on the subject and they will say the 6 Pdr. AT was insufficient in terms of penetration when dealing with the Pz VIE. The assumption was/is that your AT weapons had better be able to penetrate the best armor of the AFVs they were facing. This was the entire idea behind the constant 'gun vs. armor' race of WW2. I am in shock that this even needs explaining.
Your 'argument', an out of the blue "Yes, but the 6 Pdr. could penetrate the *flank* of the Pz VIE" is akin to my saying that the Bf 110G is superior to the Spitfire IX in air to air combat...because the firepower of the Bf 110G can destroy the Spitfire in .25 seconds and the reverse is not true.
I'd be an idiot for saying that though. I'm discounting the ability to bring firepower to bear against the opponent.
You are discounting the ability of an AFV crew to *ever* avoid exposing their flank.
Alot of German PaK were knocked out because they couldn't easily penetrate the frontal armor of the T-34 at medium ranges. I guess they were all just incompetent. After all, all an AT weapon needs to be capable of to be effective on the battlefield is the ability to penetrate the flank armor of an opposing AFV.
Gee. I guess Pz VIBs weren't all that threatening after all. By your reasoning every AT gun and MBT deployed MA in service with the Allies at the time of the Pz VIBs arrival at the front could penetrate the side hull armor of the Pz VIB ~40% of the time at ~500 meters.
Mike/wulfie
-
Tank production numbers from German Tanks of WW2...
1942
Pz II: 276
Pz III: 2605
Pz 35t:195
Pz IV: 994
Pz VI: 77 (production started in June)
1943:
Pz III: 315
Pz IV: 3023
Pz V: 1845
Pz VI: 643
1944:
Pz IV: 3125
Pz VI (70): 766
Pz V: 3784
Pz VI: 623
Pz VIB (king tiger): 376
1945:
Pz IV: 357
Pz IV (70): 442
Pz V: 401
Pz VI: 0
Pz VIB: 87
Totals (just for giggles)
1942: 4287 tanks
1943: 6009 tanks
1944: 9161 tanks
1945: 1724 tanks
Total numbers also include command, flakpanzer (late '43 on), and recovery vehicle production.
-----------------------
Flakbait [Delta6]
Delta Six's Flight School (http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6)
Put the P-61B in Aces High
(http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6/sig/veggie.gif)
-
The 76mm on Sherman was equal to 75/L48 when both used best available AP ammo. They are quite similar with normal ammo as well.
The gyro stabilized sight never worked except on the proving grounds in ideal conditions.
Operationally the Panther was much better and more useful tank than Tiger I due to better gun, front armor and overall mobility. Tiger I only had better side/rear armor and lower shilouette.
I dont at all understand this argument between wulfie and pongo. What are guys trying to say?
-
Wulfie.
You really really really dont get it.
YOu started out lieing and now your just babeling.
As no western tanks could really stand up to the tigers..and they were typically brilliantly employed. The small profile of the 6 pounder made it more likley to be in the right place at the right time. And although it was not very powerful(even against the flank of a tiger) it was powerful enough.
You tried to correct me about 6 pounder kills I presented. You try to say they are rare. They were not. It was very common for tanks to be killed by mediam caliber anit tank guns. thats whey medium calibre anti tank guns were so popular.
The 50mm l60 stayed in service for the whole war for the same reason. It was not employed to engage frontaly.
Your a very narrow minded fellow.
Maybe play some simulations where these types of weapons are used and you will come to understand why they were effective in the war. Right to the end of the war.
The medium anti tank gun was just as important as the heavy anti tank gun. more usefull in some terrains...
-
"I dont at all understand this argument between wulfie and pongo. What are guys trying to say?
"
Im not sure what its about either. I said somewhere that alot of tigers where killed by 6 pounders..
He tried to lie that away..he tried to ridicule that away.
Hard to figure out where he is going now. I guess his mom never disagrees with him about WW2 and he doest know how to carry on a discusion with someone that does...
Why so many medium anti tank guns were kept in service till the end of the war is a bit beyond him..
-
Originally posted by Pongo
The Panther has better front armour then the tiger..A beter anti tank gun and greater speed.
Only from the front; if you can get a shot at the side or rear armor of a Panther, it's a lot more likely to die.
-
Hmm Shiva thats exactly what he said.... :D
-
hmmm, how's this thread gone from 'the tiger being to fast' to 'Panther's better than the t34, t34 is better than Panther', and which should be the next perk tank.
anyway, how about a British Comet tank?
It was quite fast
-
The intitial thread was answered. The tiger is the correct speed.
Comet would be ok. No faster then a Panther or a M4a3E8. About like an M4a3e8 in game terms I would think. But no 50cal on the roof.
-
Originally posted by Andijg
Agree with you Hazed.
I would suggest the following simple formula:
Any Armored Vehicle with a gun above 76mm be Perked (except for Howitzers).
TIGER 1
KING TIGER
T-34/85
M36 JACKSON
Any at 76mm or below not be perked:
ALL AVAILABLE NOW
T-34/76
M4 SHERMAN
PANTHER
KV-1
M10 ARCHER
M18 HELLCAT
Actually there was major difference in gun performance between the all too many Shermans with the short, low velocity, 75mm gun, and the fewer ones with the longer and higher velocity 76mm gun I think tankers grabbing the weaker Shermans should probably be *paid* perk points for taking these into action against a tiger or T34/85 :)