Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I think it should simply made historical with no scripts for this or that.

USA should be able to produce more tanks and more AFs than Germany. Just look at the link I produced, this double and trippled them in production.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 74
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Rolend:

Yes US and English tanks sucked compared to German and Russian tanks, there just is NO disputing this fact.

Apart from it not being a fact?

Shermans were damned good tanks - they had better armour than most german tanks even in 1944 (Pz 3's and 4's), better mobility, with hte 76mm they had a better gun and with hte British 17 pdr Tigers and Panthers were about as vulnerable to them as they were tothe big cats.

Russian tankers far preferred the Sherman to T34's - T34's were uncomfortable, unreliable and less well protected!

In what way does that = sucked? </font>

Link to post
Share on other sites

That’s why the allies withdrew and called in the air force when they came up against anything bigger than a Panzer IV. The Allies also had some heavier tanks like the M10 and M34 these were produced in similar numbers to the panthers/Tigers etc. Most armoured regiments of the time would consist of a mixture of light/medium and heavy tanks with battalions of really big ones being held back in reserve, normally at divisional level.

Tank against tank the Germans usually won. Trouble was it was very rare. It was normally tank (German) against tank + Anti Tank plus Artillery (air spotted) and Fighter Bombers.

Someone else might confirm this, but most armies of the time did not like armour against armour battles. If your tanks meet enemy tanks you would withdraw and bring up your anti tank guns.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok maybe the word 'sucked' was too strong and missleading. The Sherman was a fine tank for what it was meant for, Inf support. It was fast, the turret turned quickly and it was easy to produce and repeair. However tank vs tank, I am sorry there is NO way that you can convince me that it was near as good as a T-34, Panther or Tiger in a head to head fight. It used gasoline instead of diesel so it burned like crazy. Its armor was thin all the way around and its main gun could not penatrate a Tigers front armor even if in close range.

Personally if I was a tanker and I had a choice between riding in a confortable tank that burned at a drop of a hat, had poor armor protection with a short ranged and under powered gun to one that was misrable to ride in but had good armor protection and a gun with good range and power, I think I would take the sore butt and the better chance to live smile.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Rolend:

Personally if I was a tanker and I had a choice between riding in a confortable tank that burned at a drop of a hat, had poor armor protection with a short ranged and under powered gun to one that was misrable to ride in but had good armor protection and a gun with good range and power, I think I would take the sore butt and the better chance to live smile.gif

Then you would have chosen wrong.

Besides, the choice is really between you and your buddies sitting in five halfway decent tanks or you sitting in one ubertank while your buddies get shot. Then you getting shot later.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Rolend:

However tank vs tank, I am sorry there is NO way that you can convince me that it was near as good as a T-34, Panther or Tiger in a head to head fight. It used gasoline instead of diesel so it burned like crazy. Its armor was thin all the way around and its main gun could not penatrate a Tigers front armor even if in close range.

Shermans used diesel and petrol - indeed all Shermans sent to the USSR were diesel versions, bot 75 and 76mm gunned ones.

All German tanks used petrol of course.

the T34-76 was cramped and unreliable. The T34/76 had only a 2-man turret where the commander was also the gunner, amking for a high workload in combat.

The Sherman's armour to the side (38m) was pretty much the same as the Panther's (40mm)

The Sherman's front armour was initially 50mm at up to 56 deg from vertical vs 45mm at up to 45 deg for the T34. This later increased to up to 100mm for the Sherman, and 47mm for the T34!

It's Turret armour was always almost exactly the same as the T34's - from 76mm to 90mm in most versions, moreover the armour was of better quality.

Burning Shermans did so because of their ammunition, not because of their fuel, and what's more T34's were exactly the same! There's an account of a Russian tanker who bailed out of his Sherman and expected it to explode and kill him like a T34 would - but it didn't - he put it down to more stable ammo - more likely it was wet storage.

You can read it here , about 1/4 the way down. Near the bottom he also notes that Sherman armour is tougher than T34 armour in htat it does not flake when hit.

This guy fought in both T34's and Shermans - he has no doubt at all which was better!

Link to post
Share on other sites

So you are basing your opinion on one Russian tanker, you want me to drag out dozens of US tanker storyies and what they thought of the Sherman VS the German tanks, I will do it if you really want me to but we both know what they will say. Heck every interview I have ever seen involving US tankers in WWII basicly said the same thing.

"We were told we had the best tank in the world, sadly we found out this was far from the turth, one hit from a German tank at long range and we were out, it took several hits form Shermans and had to be at close range before we could knock the German tank out."

Not knocking Russians but personaly I would take the word of MANY US tankers over a lone Russian, besides even you stated that the Shermans that the Russians had were differant then the US Sherman. Plus the bigger gun and heavyer armor arrived on the Shermans in the late part of the war and US tankers were facing fewer and fewer German tanks.

On the note made about me and five buddies facing the lone German tank, frankly if I was in one of the 3 or 4 tanks that got destoryed by that lone German before he was taken down I don't think I would of been so thrilled that 'we got that German' and you just proved my point, as that is what it took to knock out that lone tank.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No Lars I don't recall reading it, thanks for the heads up I will have to look at it. I prefer the written history to the movie/TV, History chanel views, I think you can get more indepth information reading. Even with a series like World at War, which was a very fine series there was just to much detail for them to do more then glance over most subjects.

Oh and yea poke away I was way over board with the sucked comment smile.gif The Sherman really was a fine weapon for the reasons I mentioned, and honestly I don't think US doctrin really thought the Sherman would have to be used in tank vs tank role much. They meant it to be more of direct Inf support and it was the perfect tank for that. Also the Sherman is always mentioned when talking about US vs German tanks as there were just so many of them but there were many other US and British tanks then just the Sherman.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Rolend:

So you are basing your opinion on one Russian tanker, you want me to drag out dozens of US tanker storyies and what they thought of the Sherman VS the German tanks,

How manhy of those US tankers also spent time fighting in T34's?

"We were told we had the best tank in the world, sadly we found out this was far from the turth, one hit from a German tank at long range and we were out, it took several hits form Shermans and had to be at close range before we could knock the German tank out."

Yep - sounds fair to me - but that dioesn't make the Sherman rubbish - it means it was grossly overhyped and the troops predictably disappointed by its actual performance.

Not knocking Russians but personaly I would take the word of MANY US tankers over a lone Russian, besides even you stated that the Shermans that the Russians had were differant then the US Sherman.

No they weren't - they were M4A2's with 75mm guns. I'm note sure which version of het 76mm's were sent.

However 8000 M4A2's were produced, of which about 2500 went to Russia. all were Diesels, the rest served with the anglo-americans.

Plus the bigger gun and heavyer armor arrived on the Shermans in the late part of the war and US tankers were facing fewer and fewer German tanks.

and so? Same applies for the Russians!

On the note made about me and five buddies facing the lone German tank, frankly if I was in one of the 3 or 4 tanks that got destoryed by that lone German before he was taken down I don't think I would of been so thrilled that 'we got that German' and you just proved my point, as that is what it took to knock out that lone tank.

More mythology - the Allies lost 5 tanks for every big cat destroyed - but they did NOT lose 5 tanks to destroy every big cat! Most allied tanks were lost to anti-tank guns and possibly infantry actions.

The Russian Battlefield article gives tactics for how the Russians would try to kill a Tige with 2 tanks, without losing any.

[ June 28, 2006, 03:24 PM: Message edited by: Stalin's Organist ]

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Panther was undoubtedly the best tank of the war, but it's a good question whether the Germans should have producted it, as opposed to continuing production runs on long-gunned Mark IV's, and Stug IIIs. The cost to retool for the Panther was high, and within some limits, any tank in an ambush is often better than a great tank in the open. Vis. the Israeli-refurbished Shermans in '67.

FWIW, the T34 was a great tank for 1940, but showing its age by '45, even with the 85mm gun upgrade.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am suprised they could fit it in. I thought they looked at putting a much bigger gun in the Sherman and thought they would have a hard time getting anything much larger in the turret, or maybe it had something to do with the turret system itself, been a while since I read up on that aspect.

By the way when you follow that link to the book Steal Victory you will see a recommend reading list and one was named "Death Trap." You may disagree with my view on the Sherman but I think a lot of people tend to agree with my point of view.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, "Death Trap" tends to sell a lot of books.

Stalin has a good point though, not all Sherman losses were due to uberkitties. The more mundane things like AT guns, mines, panzerfausts, or just sliding off a mountain road tend to get overlooked.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey THANKS Stalin that was a nice artical. Those pictures just seem so strange, after seeing tons of pics from WWII Shermans with it's small gun it just seems so 'strange' to see that huge gun. I have this picture in my head of the turret turning the wrong way and the entire Sherman falling over on its side LOL.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

when it comes to the USA, it's nothing but insults.

-Legend

Well, one thing that is a compliment to the US, is that their readiness goes up when the Germans DOW a country. In reality that did not happen : the US did absolutely nothing when Germans walked all over Europe.

It was only after the US got attacked themselves that they got intrested.

So don't say that the US is treated bad in the game : they come out as heroes, compared to what really happened !

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
Originally posted by dicedtomato:

SC2 does a poor job of modeling the U.S. military. The U.S. had a limited (but still large) number of divisions compared to Germany and Russia, but those divisions should have better firpower, mobility and logistics. SC2's tech system doesn't really account for this, because everyone can and does reach the same tech levels eventually.

Here's my idea. Increase the number of air fleets and tank groups in the U.S. force pool. America should have lots of MPPs to spend. Give it lots of expensive, high-firepower toys to build.

Diced Tomato

We tried to match the forcepools to what they had historically as well as balance them out with the force pool numbers available for all other combatants.

Now if you are looking at the 1939 campaign the game design allows you to make the choice on how you wish to build up your forces and that includes how you choose to build up your economy as well. If it is a question of this all being automatic then it is simply a matter of disagreement between what is desired and how I've modeled the game, and that is certainly fair enough, but essentially the fate of the US is in your hands where you can build it up however you wish.

Granted each game will be different due to the random element but if you look at the actual US OOBs from the war in most cases you will not be far off from what the US had historically by 1944.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...