Click here to access the Tanksim website |
The Web's #1 BBS for all submarine and naval simulations! |
04-10-06, 12:23 PM | #16 |
Ace of the Deep
Join Date: May 2005
Location: U-52
Posts: 1,270
Downloads: 2
Uploads: 0
|
i doubt what they were up against were some elite T34s! I think by Korea russians had some much better battle tanks.
We haven't even adressed the fact that Sherman was such a juicy target, with such a high profile. That can't be cureb by upgrade, neither can the inferior suspension. |
04-10-06, 01:42 PM | #17 | |
Ocean Warrior
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Connecticut, USA.
Posts: 2,794
Downloads: 25
Uploads: 0
|
Quote:
Something like 40,000 Shermans were built. We won by numbers not by quality. |
|
04-10-06, 01:45 PM | #18 |
Navy Seal
|
It's more the fact that it was the main tank unit and the Americans won. In the public mind, the association means that they won "by" this tank rather than "with" it.
That said, it's always true that it's not the tank but the crew that really counts. And there were some remarkable Sherman drivers, too |
04-10-06, 01:50 PM | #19 | |
Ocean Warrior
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Connecticut, USA.
Posts: 2,794
Downloads: 25
Uploads: 0
|
Quote:
I don't know of any American panzer aces. Who were they? |
|
04-10-06, 01:50 PM | #20 | |||
Eternal Patrol
Moderator Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,572
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
|
Busting Tank Myths: T-34, M4, and MkIV Compared
Quote:
Today they can still be seen in the Israeli Armoured Corps Museum in Latrun (check The Avon Lady's website)
__________________
RIP Abraham |
|||
04-10-06, 01:58 PM | #21 | ||
Navy Seal
|
Quote:
There were men like Lafayette Pool though, give your guys some credit :P http://www.3ad.org/wwii_heroes/pool_.../pool_home.htm |
||
04-10-06, 02:24 PM | #22 |
Ace of the Deep
Join Date: May 2005
Location: U-52
Posts: 1,270
Downloads: 2
Uploads: 0
|
Wham. 100mm. |
04-10-06, 03:08 PM | #23 | ||
Lucky Jack
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Dr Who rest in peace 1963-2017. To borrow Davros saying...I NAME YOU CHIBNALL THE DESTROYER OF DR WHO YOU KILLED IT! |
||
04-10-06, 03:35 PM | #24 |
Ace of the Deep
Join Date: May 2005
Location: U-52
Posts: 1,270
Downloads: 2
Uploads: 0
|
did IS 3 (JS3) ever fight in WW2? seems like a perfect predecessor of russian classic main battle tank.
If I remember right, they just showed them at victory parade in berlin in 45. Monster! |
04-10-06, 03:41 PM | #25 | |
Lucky Jack
|
Quote:
__________________
Dr Who rest in peace 1963-2017. To borrow Davros saying...I NAME YOU CHIBNALL THE DESTROYER OF DR WHO YOU KILLED IT! |
|
04-10-06, 03:44 PM | #26 |
Ensign
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Whitby, Ontario
Posts: 234
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
|
After the 100mm-gunned T-34 prototype was deemed unviable for service, the Soviets decided that if they wanted a 100mm-gunned medium tank, they'd have to build a new design, and so the T-44 was was born. Based on cancelled pre-war plans for an advanced T-34M, the T-44 had a similar turret design to the T-34/85, but an all-new, more heavily armored hull. The T-44's hull design was later used for the T-54/T-55 series. The T-44 never saw action, and it had numerous mechanical problems, so much that production was actualy halted before T-34/85 production, and only 2,000 were built. In the end, both tanks were replaced in production by the T-54, although the T-44s were later upgraded to the mechanical and fire control standards of the T-55 and remained in service until the mid '70s.
__________________
Si vis pacem, para bellum - If you want peace, prepare for war. "Those who turn their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't" |
04-10-06, 03:50 PM | #27 | |
Lucky Jack
|
Don't forget about this one -
Quote:
__________________
Dr Who rest in peace 1963-2017. To borrow Davros saying...I NAME YOU CHIBNALL THE DESTROYER OF DR WHO YOU KILLED IT! |
|
04-10-06, 06:54 PM | #28 | |
Ocean Warrior
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Connecticut, USA.
Posts: 2,794
Downloads: 25
Uploads: 0
|
Quote:
|
|
04-10-06, 10:58 PM | #29 | ||
Navy Seal
|
Quote:
I learned about him from playing a mission in Combat Mission, actually. At the rist of over-stating - the Americans, like all others in the war, had their share of aces. I think the frequent post-war focus on German "uber-legends" is a bit skewed :hmm: |
||
04-10-06, 11:09 PM | #30 | |||
A-ganger
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: UCLA, Los Angeles
Posts: 73
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
|
Whoops, I forgot to mention the Sherman's high profile, making it an easier target. It also had a gyrostabilizer, which let is fire on the move better then other tanks. However, firing on the move was still an inferior method, so the gyrostabilizer was only useful sometimes.
Quote:
When the T-34 was designed, it was by far the best (it entered service well after the war began). When the Sherman was designed, it was adequate. However, the Sherman was designed later in the war. The actual abilities of the tanks are quite similar. The MkIV had rather poor cross-country ability, but the Sherman had decent off road mobility. The late model Shermans had improved HVSS suspension, and excellent off-road ability on par with the late T-34s (which were actually worse off-road then the mid T-34s due to added weight from the new turret and gun). Quote:
There really was a fast sweeping German blitzkrieg machine. Poland, France, and Barbarossa are clear examples of this. The early German tanks had good road-movement ability, a useful component in a blitzkrieg (off-road comes in mainly in tactical situations). Remember, though, that the operational speed of mechanized units is corrolated with tank speed, but there are other factors. The panzer and motorized divisions were able to move fast enough to cause confusion behind enemy lines, and to surround units. Also note that the operational speed of a 'fast' large unit would be considered quite slow compared to its individual vehicles. Quote:
__________________
Neutrino 123 |
|||
|
|