Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Yeager on December 24, 2002, 03:24:05 PM
-
Thanks for the revisions to the GV physics. You have made them like a breath of fresh air, and way fun :)
My all time personal favourite is the M26 Pershing (of which 200+ found their way into combat before wars closing). I am saddened by the extreme negligence by which the Army chose to produce and introduce this tank before the end of the war. Many, many good men were maimed and killed as a result of the mass produced yet inferior M4s falling to superior German armor but that is the pure ugliness of it. No taking it back.
This tank, the M26, would make the most awesome allied perk tank.
Also, the T-34/85 and M4A3(76) would complete the neccessities.
Thanks for this latest patch, err......um version. The new P-51D cockpit is a strong indicator of the strides the art department has made in quality (which was damned good to begin). The new planes, especially the JU-87, are always so welcome and appreciated especially by me.
Keep doing what you do and I will as well.
Thanks to all of you,
Merry Chrsitmas and enjoy.
edit: corrected
-
Its the M26 Pershing and they fought from March to May 1945, they saw no combat in pacific. It was a decent tank, a bit better than Tiger I but generally not considered as good as Panther.
I have to disagree with a 76mm Sherman. It would make the Panzer IV useless in AH because of similar firepower but has the potent AH GV style .50cal AA gun, this way it would be used much more as it will survive the AH unrealistic plane attacks better.
A better alternative would be the M4A3(75)w. Weaker main gun, but more surviable to air attack. The T34/85 should be included as well. It has again similar firepower to Panzer IV but better armor and mobility, but no AA. This way you could choose Panzer IV for good all around capability, The M4A3(75) in a tougher air environment and the T34/85 for good Tiger hunting ability in a pinch because its faster than either Panzer IV or Sherman but no AA defense.
-
"A breath of fresh air" is an understatement. The ground war has been revitalized. The improvement to accelerations (especially hill climbing ability) and the addition of the Tiger have made the ground war fun again.
Grunherz, I disagree about the sherman. Its my understanding that the armor on them was not as good as the Panzer IV (this is something I remember hearing... not based on any real data) and the guns are about the same. The .50 on top would only make a difference if it is also able to point straight up. Right now people are starting to realize ALL tanks have a weak spot.
AKDejaVu
-
Sherman has similar side armor to Panzer IV with armor skirts. M4A3 has somewhat better frontal armor, because of slope. The AH GV .50cal is much more powerful than even the wierdly powerful AH GV 7.92mm gun. If they both had the same capability in main armament nobody would ever use Panzer IV. This way we assure some variety and well see Panzer IV, Sherman, and T34/85. Plus the 75mm sherman will allow for much better scenarios because the 76mm came only in summer of 1944 while shermans with 75mm were active since late summer of 1942.
-
I agree with GRUNHERZ on this.
The Panzer IV H, M4A3(75mm) and T-34/85 would make a great set of three top free tanks. What makes them great is that they make the player choose weaknesses and strengths. The player cannot simply take the one that is best in all or most ways.
That is the reason I vastly prefer AH's B-17G and Lancaster MK III as a heavy bomber set over WBIII's B-17G and B-24J. There are strong advatages and disadvantages to the Lanc and B-17G and those force the player to make sacrifices in order to get the good performance in the area they feel matters. The B-17G and B-24J don't force those decisions.
I think the Panzer IV H, M4A3(75mm) and T-34/85 are ideal to do the same thing with the tanks we will most often see in the MA. In addition to that they are all useful scenario tanks. A Panzer IV F and a T-34/76 would not be hard to add later.
-
I really dont ecpect the M26 anytime soon -if ever. Im just saying I like the look of that bad muther and wanted to put my endorsment on it. Im probably the only one that ever will.
I have to agree on the M4 76 vrs 75 though. I however, get a chubb when discussing the russian 76 and as such like the fact that the M4 eventually was upgunned to a similar performing rnd.
In PE, the M4 with the 76mm is the best chance against any of the German armor, thats what I prefer there and as such would love to see here although it most likely wont happen anytime soon as the M4 with the 75mm is the obvious choice for reasons GRUNZ stated so damned eloquently.
I am certain some Pershings did make it to the Pac but I cant say if they ever fired a shot in anger. Will look into it.
-
Didnt they start to use sandbags fixed to the outside of the tank to improve its chances of survival? I seem to recall seeing it.
reading all the recent posts on tanks and their guns I suddenly remembered seeing pictures of a sherman with sandbags actually attached to the tank and i just wondered about it.It led me to the conclusion that either:
The armour was useless and the tank crews used anything they could attach to the tank to improve their chances.
or
The armour wasnt bad,often shells penetrated, but the margin was so close that even a sandbag on the outside of the tank could stop a shot enough to warrent the extra weight.
Maybe the crews just 'felt' better with them on? the psycological edge they needed to function? would they carry loads of extra weight on a tank whos principle weapon is speed and numbers and slow it down by doing so, if the sandbags did nothing?
well whatever the reason lets have M4 PERK sandbags! j/k :D
-
I think the "extra" armor was for those magnatic anti tank thingys the Germans used. A sand bag wouldnt make a bit of difference to a 88L/LL or 75LL.
The Sherman had MANY draw backs. A weak 75mm main gun. A high profile that was coupled w/streight armor on the sides ie NO slop. It also used GASOLINE engines.... they take a hit and go up in flames, possiably frying the crew or sufficating them w/the patrolem smoke.
The Sherman was a easily mass produced tank... thats it. It wasnt designed for crew survival.
FatBat the Ex-xBAT
-
GRUNZ, FYI:
I did read in a book titled "British and American Tanks of WW2"
that the M26 did see action in the capture of Okinawa. Didnt say how many or any other details on that action however.
-
From what I've read, the M26 was not well liked by it's crews. It suffered from many flaws and often failed in the field. Many crews perfered the M4A3 HVSS to the M26. Personaly I hope we see them both though.
-
How about a KV-II? Had a 122mm gun if I remember rightly - would make a great town killer? :D
The IS-II would make a great perk Russian tank.
-
Beef.
Just look at the a M4 sitting next to a M26 and tell me you would rather be in a M4. When it comes to tanks, like so many other things in life (wink, wink), BIGGER IS BETTER. LOL
Dowding.
Yup. Nice choice. HTC could be in business introducing (at their current rate of Im guessing at around 14 to 18 new/variant introductions per year) for about 15 more years before they run dry on all the machines used in WW2.
-
Originally posted by Dowding (Work)
How about a KV-II? Had a 122mm gun if I remember rightly - would make a great town killer? :D
The IS-II would make a great perk Russian tank.
KV2 had 152mm gun (similar to a 152mm howitzer?)
-
Read the Book called "Death Traps"..its about the Maintance Captain for the 3rd Army...Excellent book...he saw more busted up Shermans then any other human in the world...
Very sad to see our military ship off such an inadiquate tank..and just used the plethora of humans and Iron to overwelm the Krauts....
Merry New Year
Love BiGB
xoxo
-
Yeager I'd rather be in an M24 Chaffe! You can't hit what you can't catch. :D Ok Ok, yes, if we got an M26 I would perfer to drive it rather than a M4. But I would drive the M4A3HVSS over the M26....that thing just looks sweet. :)
On a side note, if we get the M26 can we get an M18 Hellcat to go with it? That thing is scary.
-
M26 was on Okinawa but they did not see action, they just did gunnnery and other practice and then the war ended. Would be interesting to have them fight against 5 ton japanese light tanks. Even more fun was the use of Stalin III in Manchuria, when they werent falling apart at the weld seams on road marches.. :D
M24 Chaffe would be a cool little tank, rougly same firepower as 75mm Sherman, 20mm or so armor and good speed. But I'd rather have a Puma, its faster, way cooler looking and prolly even better AP punch with its 50mm but no AA.
Pershing is much better than any Sherman, it had 90mm gun, way better armor, and infinitely better shilouette. However it used the same ford V8 engine with 500hp like Sherman but carried some 10+ tons more weight so it was a very sluggish tank. This really hurt it in the hilly terrain of Korea where many tankers indeed preffered the M4A3E8 - but then they were only facing T34/85 and such with second rate crews and not Tigers or Panthers with nasty east front veterans in them.
-
Cc that GRUNZ. good info
Im building the new Tamyia 1/35 Pershing as we speek :)
Xlent model....highly reccomend this one if you like that genre of kit building. I sure do
Beef,
When I was a kid (maybe 16), me and a bunch of my friends used to frequently visit the Fort Lewis Military Museum. Well, one day there was a new display. A M24 Chaffee. Very nice little tank.
Anyway, the hatches were all welded closed but I had a good mind (back then) and decided I would look under the tank to see if there was an escape hatch. Naturally there was and sure enough, it WAS NOT WELDED CLOSED, and if fact was AJAR HEHE.
As you might imqagine we spent several days visiting the museum.
The inside of that Chaffee was quite well preserved and we found the periscopes and installed them. It was funny watching people walk up to that tank and see them looking at us as we swiveled the scopes around watching them. God that was fun.
I seem to recall the turret was locked or I am certain we would have been swiveling that damned thing around. A dead give-a-way, lol. Anyhow, we made off with the periscopes and my buddy Lee found the damned main sighting scope with a battery pack that illuminated the reticle. We made off with that too. Lee's dad was the getaway driver one splendid summer evening. We thought we were the hot toejam. Lee's dad was a GI and he promptly reported us to the CDC and they came and took the scopes back. We were not punished in any way. The next time we went to the museum that damned escape hatch was welded closed tighter than a frogs bellybutton in water.
Man, what a memory, thanks :)
-
excellnet yeager..im gealous...
-
ahh remenids me of the time we found an open hacth on the B-52....at the AF Musuem at Hurlbert AFB ...they had left this hacth open on the tail gunrs position.. and the vulcan cannon was still there..and they left a box of the 20 mill shells..and....owell ..nevermnd....i was Dreamn...heheh:)
-
By late 1943, the need for a 90mm gun armed tank reached the point that a requirement for one was issued. By this time, the T25 with HVSS suspension and the T26 with torsion bar suspension were under test. In September 1943, limited production of the T26 was ordered. The T26 had many features developed in the T20 Project including torsion bar suspension, wide center guided tracks, and a fluid drive automatic transmission.
The first T26s, officially Medium Tank T26E1 reached Europe in January 1945. Their first combat occurred in February. Other combat usage was on Okinawa in the Pacific in May 1945. In May 1945 the T26E1 was officially adopted as the M26. 2,350 were built between 1944 and 1945. At first identified as a heavy tank, it was reclassified as a medium. By the time the Pershing appeared, the war was all but won by the Allies. American tanker moral was low with a feeling of technical inferiority by this point. The Pershing was a superior design that restored flagging American moral.
Looks like the Devil Dogs had it on Oki....