Edit | Leave a Comment | Favorite
More Like This: (Beta Temporary Feature)
User Comments:
thesnakeofjake commented at 2011-03-28 04:26:29 » #671436
A fixed casemate, sherman based tank destroyer. That's just awesome :D
2 Points
Flag
A fixed casemate, sherman based tank destroyer. That's just awesome :D
2 Points
Flag
Anonymous commented at 2011-03-31 02:20:21 » #675423
Low mobility? you know nothing of the Sherman. It was the third fastest armoured vehicle of the war and the second fastest tank. It had a higher survival rate than the T-34 and the Russians knew it. (Using movies to propagate a false belief in their troops that the really good, but limited lend-lease equipment they received was inferior to their own.)
The Sherman's gun was fine except for being too short, causing it's shells to be 'lobbed' rather than hit at higher velocity. Not to mention the myths regarding German armour in the Bocage. Here's the facts. Allied intel figured out that 50% of the German armour in France was medium tanks. They figured it wouldn't be too much trouble to fight a bunch of Panzer IVs. Well, guess what? Germany and the Allies used different systems to classify a tank. The Germans used Guderian's system. Meaning Gun calibre determined class, while we used Weight. This means, the 75mm armed Panzer V Panther tank was classes as a Medium tank for the Germans and Heavy for the Allies.
The Allies only knew about there being 50% medium tanks present in france. They didn't realize that 40% of all armour present in the country and nearly 70% of the armour in the area they intended to invade were Panther tanks, whose 75mm gun actually had a higher velocity and thus more armour penetrating power than an 88mm gun mounted on a tiger tank. Combine this with the fact that Panthers were more reliable and almost as fast as the Sherman, then the enclosed space and the fact that there were enough infantry wielded anti-tank weapons to arm every Wehrmact soldier in France with two or three of them each (This includes various grenades, Molotovs, Panzerfaust, Panzerschrek, Teller mines and more.) you end up with a situation where even a modern Abrams tank would be put in a very difficult, if not impossible position.
8 Points
Flag
Low mobility? you know nothing of the Sherman. It was the third fastest armoured vehicle of the war and the second fastest tank. It had a higher survival rate than the T-34 and the Russians knew it. (Using movies to propagate a false belief in their troops that the really good, but limited lend-lease equipment they received was inferior to their own.)
The Sherman's gun was fine except for being too short, causing it's shells to be 'lobbed' rather than hit at higher velocity. Not to mention the myths regarding German armour in the Bocage. Here's the facts. Allied intel figured out that 50% of the German armour in France was medium tanks. They figured it wouldn't be too much trouble to fight a bunch of Panzer IVs. Well, guess what? Germany and the Allies used different systems to classify a tank. The Germans used Guderian's system. Meaning Gun calibre determined class, while we used Weight. This means, the 75mm armed Panzer V Panther tank was classes as a Medium tank for the Germans and Heavy for the Allies.
The Allies only knew about there being 50% medium tanks present in france. They didn't realize that 40% of all armour present in the country and nearly 70% of the armour in the area they intended to invade were Panther tanks, whose 75mm gun actually had a higher velocity and thus more armour penetrating power than an 88mm gun mounted on a tiger tank. Combine this with the fact that Panthers were more reliable and almost as fast as the Sherman, then the enclosed space and the fact that there were enough infantry wielded anti-tank weapons to arm every Wehrmact soldier in France with two or three of them each (This includes various grenades, Molotovs, Panzerfaust, Panzerschrek, Teller mines and more.) you end up with a situation where even a modern Abrams tank would be put in a very difficult, if not impossible position.
8 Points
Flag
Anonymous commented at 2011-03-31 02:24:02 » #675426
Quick clarification^
It sounds like I said the Panther was more Reliable than a Sherman. I just meant it's more reliable period. The Sherman was easily the most reliable vehicle and it was easy to make working ones from patch-worked parts leftover from knocked out vehicles.
2 Points
Flag
Quick clarification^
It sounds like I said the Panther was more Reliable than a Sherman. I just meant it's more reliable period. The Sherman was easily the most reliable vehicle and it was easy to make working ones from patch-worked parts leftover from knocked out vehicles.
2 Points
Flag
Monolith commented at 2011-04-16 20:41:02 » #697345
*yawn*
Fanboys these days don't even get a good joke even if it shits on their head then leaving a phone number to call for more.
Lets face it, a casemat design is not desireable in closed quarters like woods, citys and difficult terrain for mobility reasons as you have to move the entire fuckin tank and the sherman gun they used the most as shown on this picture ( not the elongated firefly one ) was reported to be merely an annoyance to tanks.
Get the joke!?
1 Points
Flag
*yawn*
Fanboys these days don't even get a good joke even if it shits on their head then leaving a phone number to call for more.
Lets face it, a casemat design is not desireable in closed quarters like woods, citys and difficult terrain for mobility reasons as you have to move the entire fuckin tank and the sherman gun they used the most as shown on this picture ( not the elongated firefly one ) was reported to be merely an annoyance to tanks.
Get the joke!?
1 Points
Flag
Anonymous commented at 2011-04-22 02:16:57 » #704130
I unno... Normandy was pretty bad for the Germans I recall...
the Allies armed their tanks with.... squadrons of rocket firing Typhoons ... he he...
but the tankers would have loved this design !
the big turret holes makes for easy bail outs !
1 Points
Flag
I unno... Normandy was pretty bad for the Germans I recall...
the Allies armed their tanks with.... squadrons of rocket firing Typhoons ... he he...
but the tankers would have loved this design !
the big turret holes makes for easy bail outs !
1 Points
Flag
Anonymous commented at 2014-07-12 05:00:56 » #1567350
@#675423
The T-34 was a lighter tank, weighing in at 26.5 tonnes, compared to the Sherman's 30.3 tonnes.
The T-34's armour plating was superior to the Sherman's, due to its sloped design, and overall greater thickness.
The T-34's F-34 cannon fired higher calibre rounds at a greater velocity than the Sherman's M3 L/40.
The T-34's 500 HP engine and lighter weight allowed it to travel up to 53 km/h.
The Sherman's 400 HP engine allowed it to travel at a maximum speed of 40 km/h.
The T-34's maximum operational range was 400 km, in comparison to the Sherman's measly 200 km.
The T-34's Christie suspension proved superior to the Shermans' VVSS, which was replaced by HVSS in later models.
There's a good reason why the Americans were desperate to deploy the M36 and M26. It's because the M4 Sherman was an inferior tank compared to Panzer IVs, let alone T34/76s.
2 Points
Flag
@#675423
The T-34 was a lighter tank, weighing in at 26.5 tonnes, compared to the Sherman's 30.3 tonnes.
The T-34's armour plating was superior to the Sherman's, due to its sloped design, and overall greater thickness.
The T-34's F-34 cannon fired higher calibre rounds at a greater velocity than the Sherman's M3 L/40.
The T-34's 500 HP engine and lighter weight allowed it to travel up to 53 km/h.
The Sherman's 400 HP engine allowed it to travel at a maximum speed of 40 km/h.
The T-34's maximum operational range was 400 km, in comparison to the Sherman's measly 200 km.
The T-34's Christie suspension proved superior to the Shermans' VVSS, which was replaced by HVSS in later models.
There's a good reason why the Americans were desperate to deploy the M36 and M26. It's because the M4 Sherman was an inferior tank compared to Panzer IVs, let alone T34/76s.
2 Points
Flag
1