Bruceov Posted February 27, 2003 Share Posted February 27, 2003 Did the Russians regun the Sherman with a 76.2. I am unsure what gun I am getting if I buy a sherman in this game. Also is the armor on the sherman as good as a t34m43 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted February 27, 2003 Share Posted February 27, 2003 The Shermans in CMBB are armed with either the 75mm/L38 or the 76mm/L54 that they came over on the boat with. As far as I can tell, there is not an option for a Sherman equipped with a Russian gun of any variety. I suppose it is possibile that somewhere on the East front Shermans were rearmed with Russian 76.2mm guns. If so, I have never heard of it, and all of the pictures I have seen of lend-lease Shermans show them with either American 75mm or 76mm guns. Cheers 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
offtaskagain Posted February 27, 2003 Share Posted February 27, 2003 The shermans gun is as good or better than the T-34s (76.2mm variety). The 85mm is basically the same as the American 76mm gun, but with better HE. Frontal armor on the sherman is just as good, but the T-34s sides are alot better, though that doesnt really mean a lot. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruceov Posted February 27, 2003 Author Share Posted February 27, 2003 Thanks 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SgtMuhammed Posted February 27, 2003 Share Posted February 27, 2003 Remember to that when the Soviets were using large numbers of LL tanks they were doing so because they need them in a hurry. It would be a luxury to have the time to refit the main armament. Even with guns of similar caliber there is still a ton of work involved. By the time they had the time they really didn't need to use lots of other people's armor since they had plenty of their own. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted February 27, 2003 Share Posted February 27, 2003 Another thing to consider when comparing a Sherman 76 with a T34/85 is that the Sherman has a larger profile by quite a factor and is therefore easier to be hit when targetted. Regards Jim R. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John D Salt Posted February 27, 2003 Share Posted February 27, 2003 Originally posted by sGTGoody: Remember to that when the Soviets were using large numbers of LL tanks they were doing so because they need them in a hurry. It would be a luxury to have the time to refit the main armament. Even with guns of similar caliber there is still a ton of work involved. By the time they had the time they really didn't need to use lots of other people's armor since they had plenty of their own. Despite all of which, I believe that a Russian-gunned version of the Sherman existed under the designation of M4M -- see pp. 217 of Zaloga & Grandsen. Quite what the point was is beyond me, as the only advantage the F-34 seems to have over the M3 is the availability of an APCR round. No wonder messrs. Z. and G. describe the variant as "not widespread". All the best, John. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
engima2003 Posted February 27, 2003 Share Posted February 27, 2003 The lend lease tanks which are in the game, did the commies ever actully use them in battle? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Gallear Posted February 27, 2003 Share Posted February 27, 2003 Yes, some of the "elite" Guards units were equipped with them - such as the 3rd Guards Tank Corps at Bagration 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted February 27, 2003 Share Posted February 27, 2003 Originally posted by engima2003: The lend lease tanks which are in the game, did the commies ever actully use them in battle? Assuming this tank wreck was not the result of a collision with a reindeer, I guess the answer is 'yes'. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
engima2003 Posted February 27, 2003 Share Posted February 27, 2003 looks like it collided with a reindeer to me 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted February 27, 2003 Share Posted February 27, 2003 The RSPCA would be shocked. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
engima2003 Posted February 27, 2003 Share Posted February 27, 2003 yep definitally 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lumbergh Posted February 27, 2003 Share Posted February 27, 2003 Originally posted by Andreas: Assuming this tank wreck was not the result of a collision with a reindeer, I guess the answer is 'yes'. Attacked by German mine-lemmings. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted February 27, 2003 Share Posted February 27, 2003 Interesting picture. What the hell is poking out of the barrel? Looks like someone stuffed a sock in it! One other thing, judging by the length of the gun tube I'm guessing it's the 76mm armed Sherman yet there's no muzzle brake. Were some made without a muzzle brake? Regards Jim R. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted February 27, 2003 Share Posted February 27, 2003 Jim, the picture is only the thumbnail from my 'Beobachtungsabteilung' site (link in my sig). The 'sock' is a round that came out of the barrel. The picture was taken in AG North sector, probably Ssinyavino/Mga area. I believe it is a standard 75mm gun on this one. According to my grandfather the tank lost a duel with a howitzer battery, but that maybe 'Landsergarn'. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SgtMuhammed Posted February 27, 2003 Share Posted February 27, 2003 Yes there were 76's without the muzzle brake. They were ofter refered to as the 76 long (with MB) and short (without) even though the barrels were the same length. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted February 28, 2003 Share Posted February 28, 2003 Russian liked the Sherman 75s, loved the Sherman 76s. Reliable vehicles. Softer U.S. armor was less likely to spall from non-penetrating hits. Those 3-man turrets were a luxury comapred to the cramped 2-man T34-76s. And anyone who played CMBO would know the utility of the 75's 'American Smoke' shell! That's the only thing I miss from CMBO, smoking-out Panthers and tigers. There are photos of Sherman 76s in Berlin, so I can assume they saw some VERY heavy fighting. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CombinedArms Posted February 28, 2003 Share Posted February 28, 2003 Fighting with the T-34 does make you appreciate some of the good points of the Sherman. Aside from the smoke, the ability to kill a StugIII frontally with the Sherman75 is a very welcome quality. What suprised me the most, however is how closely analogous the Sherm75 and T-34/76, and later the Sherm76 and the T-34/85, actually are. One area where the Russians seem to have trumped the Yanks is that once they committed to the 85mm gun, they committed wholeheartedly and ended up making about 20,000 such tanks, whereas the Sherm76 was always in short supply in the West. My one question about the Shermans on the Ostfront is their tendency toward bogging. Was that a serious problem given the by-turns rugged-icy-boggy Russian terrain, or did the Ruskies find work-arounds? I'm guessing they didn't get many Easy-8s. Also, why DIDN'T the T-34s get smoke rounds? A bit of smoke can sure help survival chances when you're trying to manuever toward a close-in flank shot on a Panther. In general smoke seems to be in short supply in the Russian arsenal, as represented in CMBB. [ February 27, 2003, 05:23 PM: Message edited by: CombinedArms ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted February 28, 2003 Share Posted February 28, 2003 I did hear the Russian were absolutely appalled by the Sherman's tendency to slide on ice. The U.S. had the same trouble (there are a lot of photos of Shermans and M10s overturned next to icy roads during the Bulge battles) but didn't know any better. The Russians could compare them to T34s that actually stayed in place on an icy road. [ February 27, 2003, 05:28 PM: Message edited by: MikeyD ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SgtMuhammed Posted February 28, 2003 Share Posted February 28, 2003 Most of the traction problems with the Sherman came from using the narrow all metal traveling treads. They had versions of the treads with better traction but many tanks in the Ardennes lacked them because it was a "quiet" sector. I don't know if the good track got shipped to the Soviets though. Even with the good tread, however, the 34's wider treads would have given it better performance. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.