New 76mm Sherman M4a3

[Kenne]

except that i said frontal armor penetration only... this is crucial if facing a PnzrIVH with a 76mm or 76.2mm. The 3 inch actually had a better chance of destroying a tank from the front than the 76mm M1A1

i no what u said, but armor is armor.
and 90mm armor is 90mm of armor, and the stats for both these guns are neck in neck in penetration
of 90mm of armor at 1km.

90mm is the normal frontal armor of the PkW4...

now u up that to 100mm of the Tiger, and 120mm/sloped of the Panther, and all bets are off!

[321BAR]

i no what u said, but armor is armor.
and 90mm armor is 90mm of armor, and the stats for both these guns are neck in neck in penetration
of 90mm of armor at 1km.

90mm is the normal frontal armor of the PkW4...

now u up that to 100mm of the Tiger, and 120mm/sloped of the Panther, and all bets are off!

ever think of distance kenne? yes i understand the 90mm armor can be penetrated. I'm stating a fact that the 3inch has more punch than the 76mm and that the M18 traded this punch along with armor to get the 60mph max speed and the high maneuverability that it was known for...

[E25280]

ever think of distance kenne? yes i understand the 90mm armor can be penetrated. I'm stating a fact that the 3inch has more punch than the 76mm and that the M18 traded this punch along with armor to get the 60mph max speed and the high maneuverability that it was known for...

The armor penetration capabilities of the 76mm M1A2 used on the M18 and M4(76) series of tanks were virtually identical to the 3" M7 used on the M10.  It was a newer design and lighter than the M7, but the ammunition was interchangable AFAIK.

I think you are confused with the Comet's "77mm" 17lbr vs. the 76mm 17lbr found on the Firefly and Achilles.  That was a true trade of capability for size/weight.  The two guns fired the same projectile, but the "77mm" version (called that to prevent confusion from the 76.2mm 17lbr) had a smaller case/less powder and therefore less punch.

[321BAR]

The armor penetration capabilities of the 76mm M1A2 used on the M18 and M4(76) series of tanks were virtually identical to the 3" M7 used on the M10.  It was a newer design and lighter than the M7, but the ammunition was interchangable AFAIK.

I think you are confused with the Comet's "77mm" 17lbr vs. the 76mm 17lbr found on the Firefly and Achilles.  That was a true trade of capability for size/weight.  The two guns fired the same projectile, but the "77mm" version (called that to prevent confusion from the 76.2mm 17lbr) had a smaller case/less powder and therefore less punch.

then i was wrong... i only have read that they traded the 3" for the 76mm for weight and and lost the frontal armor punch the 3" had vs the 76mm

[E25280]

then i was wrong... i only have read that they traded the 3" for the 76mm for weight and and lost the frontal armor punch the 3" had vs the 76mm

AP rounds don't care if the armor it is striking is on the front, side, rear, top or bottom of an object, so your statement makes no sense.

The M18 had only a half inch of frontal armor vs. 2 inches on the thickest part of the M10, so maybe that is where you are confused about trading weight for frontal armor. 

[Ack-Ack]

105 wasn't used as much or as well as the 76mm and 75mm

The 105 mm Howitzer Motor Carriage M7 (Priest) was used extensively but not as a tank destroyer because that was not its intended role.  It was primarily designed to fit the mobile artillery role in which it saw much use.  Each US armored division had 3 battalions of M7 Priests to act as mobile artillery to support the armored operations.


ack-ack

[GtoRA2]

actually this is not true... the M-18 has less frontal armor punch with its gun and less armor... but the M18 makes up for it with speed...speed...oh and speed. 60mph max speed on the M18 vs the M10 at 32mph... M10 was actually developed on the M4A1 hull. The M18 used the M1A1 76mm gun vs the M10's 76.2 (3") M7 main gun.

The guns had the same performance. Look it up in a decent reference. Anything by Zaloga will do.

[GtoRA2]

The 105 mm Howitzer Motor Carriage M7 (Priest) was used extensively but not as a tank destroyer because that was not its intended role.  It was primarily designed to fit the mobile artillery role in which it saw much use.  Each US armored division had 3 battalions of M7 Priests to act as mobile artillery to support the armored operations.


ack-ack

They were later replaced by Sherman 105s because the open hulled M7s were easy to take out with Arty, at least I am pretty sure. I don't think they were all that rare as someone else suggested.

[321BAR]

The 105 mm Howitzer Motor Carriage M7 (Priest) was used extensively but not as a tank destroyer because that was not its intended role.  It was primarily designed to fit the mobile artillery role in which it saw much use.  Each US armored division had 3 battalions of M7 Priests to act as mobile artillery to support the armored operations.


ack-ack

yes i know this but i was talking about tank destroyers. apologies for not stating that

[speak]

Check out this link.   Has multiple ideas that could be implemented for a stronger GV assortment.   

http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/UnitedStates/selfpropelledguns/selfpropelledguns.html

[dirt911]

I am glad to see the M4A3 being added,it is a great tank and wil be a great addition to AH.However I still have a question,When will it be released?