Author Topic: Sherman and M-10 (Read 831 times)

Defcon0 · « **on:** March 06, 2006, 02:03:45 PM »

I think adding at least the sherman, and perhaps M-10 would be great. I was happy when the t-34 came into play,but it's still russian.We need a U.S. and /or British main battle tank. Now of course the sherman was'nt anything fancy, however you could also add the M-10 and perk it slightly. Just an idea from a fighter pilot that loves to GV it sometimes. I think the purely GV guys would love it and keep bringing them back every month.

SMIDSY · « **Reply #1 on:** March 06, 2006, 03:21:49 PM »

this has been adressed before. the idea of a sherman (particularly the vanilla gunned ones with the 75mm gun) has been nearly universally unapealing. also, the M-10, while seeming to create balance, would not be very effective as it was obsolete by 1944. a better choice would be the M-36 jackson. if the HTC decides to add the sherman (they wont), it will probably be the sherman firefly or the upgunned sherman with the long-barreled 76mm.

E25280 · « **Reply #2 on:** March 06, 2006, 03:32:28 PM »

Sherman Firefly would solve three problems with one stone - er, tank. It is (mostly) American design (US Happy), served only in Brittish forces (Brits Happy), and would add a second perked tank (need something else to spend perks on, same for bombers, but that is another thread).

Yes, perked I say. That Brit gun was IIRC the first gun to use a Sabot round, and could kill Tigers quite handily.

SMIDSY · « **Reply #3 on:** March 06, 2006, 03:36:55 PM »

why would the firefly be perked? no need man. i still say go with the great equalizers: tank destroyers.

E25280 · « **Reply #4 on:** March 06, 2006, 03:53:19 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by SMIDSY
why would the firefly be perked? no need man. i still say go with the great equalizers: tank destroyers.

The Firefly essentially became the premier tank destroyer with the 17 pounder. It had armor penetration power that was as good or slightly better to the German 88mm guns. That is why I say perked to about a third of the Tiger. Its firepower would be as deadly as the Tigers, but the tank itself would be armored more or less like the PanzerIV.

BlueJ1 · « **Reply #5 on:** March 06, 2006, 04:29:57 PM »

Im tired of these threads. I so want to see some of these things. Just get very repetitive very fast.

gofaster · « **Reply #6 on:** March 07, 2006, 03:38:12 PM »

Even if we don't get a Sherman, at least give us something besides 4 tanks.

Tank destroyers would be sweet!

SMIDSY · « **Reply #7 on:** March 07, 2006, 06:57:08 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by E25280
The Firefly essentially became the premier tank destroyer with the 17 pounder. It had armor penetration power that was as good or slightly better to the German 88mm guns. That is why I say perked to about a third of the Tiger. Its firepower would be as deadly as the Tigers, but the tank itself would be armored more or less like the PanzerIV.

on paper it was about equal to the 88. however, because it used Sabot rounds, it had even greater penitration power than even the mighty 75mm fitted into the panther (which was more powerfull than the 88 fitted into the tiger I [but not the tiger II])

sullie363 · « **Reply #8 on:** March 07, 2006, 09:55:29 PM »

I'll take an M26 Pershing please.

SMIDSY · « **Reply #9 on:** March 08, 2006, 04:26:01 AM »

pershing was not all that great. besides, it barely saw any combat (and dont show that history channel vid of it in combat).

E25280 · « **Reply #10 on:** March 08, 2006, 10:27:02 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by SMIDSY
pershing was not all that great. besides, it barely saw any combat (and dont show that history channel vid of it in combat).

IIRC only about 300 ever made it to Europe and most never saw action. I have a reference to 4 prototypes being available at Remagen bridget in March of 1945.

Sherman, Firefly, Panther, StGIII, Hetzer, or even Tiger II before the Pershing IMO.