NCOIC
|
|
« on: July 12, 2009, 02:00:51 am » |
|
Interestingly the Sherman had a stabilizer for it's gun. It was supposedly a bitch to learn how to use well and was disabled by most crews but when used correctly it apparently worked fairly well. It might be a nice little upgrade fer an armor doctrine for improved accuracy when shooting on the move. I'll let others work out where it may fit in best if at all but it is a cool thing to think about
NCOIC out
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
| spinn72
|
|
« Reply #1 on: July 12, 2009, 03:44:25 am » |
|
the Sherman was a very heavily modified tank overall anyway, and there are already enough Variations.
Sherman -> Mine Fail, 75mm gun version, 17 pounder version (british), Flamer version.
I don't think we need any more.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
| GDWhite
|
|
« Reply #2 on: July 12, 2009, 05:43:23 am » |
|
I don't think we need any more.
I don't think that's what our forefathers would have said with the Nazis breathin' down their necks. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Baine
Steven Spielberg
 Posts: 3713
|
|
« Reply #3 on: July 12, 2009, 05:45:10 am » |
|
I don't think we need any more.
I don't think that's what our forefathers would have said with the Nazis breathin' down their necks. I think they would. Mine at least  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Mysthalin
Tired King of Stats
 Posts: 9028
|
|
« Reply #4 on: July 12, 2009, 06:55:46 am » |
|
I want a sherman AVRE.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Malevolence
Donator
 Posts: 1871
|
|
« Reply #5 on: July 12, 2009, 06:56:41 am » |
|
I want a Sherman 105 tbh.
ShermHoWitzer, it's a SheHW! :p
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Akranadas' Greatest Hits, Volume 1: Vet has nothing to do with unit preformance. We are serious about enforcing this, and I am sure you all want to be able to have your balance thought considered by the development team with some biased, sensationalist coming into your thread and ruining it. |
|
|
| Glaze
|
|
« Reply #6 on: July 12, 2009, 08:17:29 am » |
|
I want a Sherman Tiger, RAHR!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Glaze (US)!
I am also...
Glazerman (PE)
Glaza (CW)
|
|
|
| BeRzErKeR
|
|
« Reply #7 on: July 12, 2009, 08:55:27 am » |
|
I want a Sherman Tiger, RAHR!
Lol, a tiger with the good old 75mm turret... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Mysthalin
Tired King of Stats
Posts: 9028
|
|
« Reply #8 on: July 12, 2009, 10:16:00 am » |
|
Other way arround. Sherman with the good old 88 mm cannon ^^.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
| simpson02
|
|
« Reply #9 on: July 12, 2009, 11:47:11 am » |
|
I think the devs should concentrate on getting others things done before this is implemented, the RE doctrine is pretty rubbish at the moment with the vast majority of doctrine choices not yet completed, please put the upgun for the churchill in soon!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
| DasNoob
|
|
« Reply #10 on: July 12, 2009, 12:37:19 pm » |
|
It will be in the next patch.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
DISASTER AVERTED... IM A MOTHER FUCKING GENIUS! You have DasNoob who uses the mod as COHTV
|
|
|
Sharpshooter824
I <3 Aloha
EIR Veteran Posts: 775
|
|
« Reply #11 on: July 12, 2009, 01:11:04 pm » |
|
yay for 75mm upgun in next patch  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Rawr
|
|
|
| NCOIC
|
|
« Reply #12 on: July 12, 2009, 01:26:35 pm » |
|
Ok file some of the remarks under . Duh! I want existing stuff finished too! This was just a testing ot the waters so to speak. And about sherman variants I think the stabilizer was standard but usually not used. But it supposedly was functional if kludgy. it is my hope that that there will be constant additions to EIRR all the time and while not in the near future this might be something that will be added at a later date. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
gamesguy2
Honoured Member
Posts: 2238
|
|
« Reply #13 on: July 12, 2009, 04:06:28 pm » |
|
Other way arround. Sherman with the good old 88 mm cannon ^^.
The 17 pounder on fireflies was much better than the 88 on tigers. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
| GDWhite
|
|
« Reply #14 on: July 12, 2009, 09:21:48 pm » |
|
I think the devs should concentrate on getting others things done before this is implemented
I fully agree, but having the ability to mod every single aspect of CoH is something that should not be taken for granted. It'd be awesome to see each and every possible modification, that is at least historically accurate, on every available thing. Change isn't bad, hillbillies. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Malevolence
Donator
Posts: 1871
|
|
« Reply #15 on: July 12, 2009, 09:43:17 pm » |
|
The 17 pounder on fireflies was much better than the 88 on tigers. That was more due to the gun sight than the gun itself. They were pretty similarly effective in terms of the actual weapon, if I remember right (with the 88 on the King Tiger being basically unrivaled, but the sights holding it back). EDIT - Turns out the guns are all basically the same thing, with the Tiger having a slightly worse gun, though most of the penetration varies widely based on ammunition type. An APCR loaded into a KT's gun would penetrate almost twice as effectively as a 17 lber loading an APC round at 1000 meters for instance. All of which was total and complete overkill against any tank in the allied Arsenal, mind you. If it could hit the target, a KT could probably double-hole a Sherman at 3 kilometers. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 12, 2009, 09:52:08 pm by Malevolence »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
brn4meplz
Misinformation Officer
 Posts: 6952
|
|
« Reply #16 on: July 12, 2009, 10:19:10 pm » |
|
I just want a Russian IS-2 Puts a round clean through a Panther front to back from 1500 meters(of course with a 2 part shell system and 3 rounds a minute it better do something fantastic)
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
He thinks Tactics is a breath mint Wow I think that was the nicest thing brn ever posted! the pussy of a prostitute is not tight enough for destroy a condom  |
|
|
gamesguy2
Honoured Member
Posts: 2238
|
|
« Reply #17 on: July 12, 2009, 11:55:02 pm » |
|
The 17 pounder on fireflies was much better than the 88 on tigers. That was more due to the gun sight than the gun itself. They were pretty similarly effective in terms of the actual weapon, if I remember right (with the 88 on the King Tiger being basically unrivaled, but the sights holding it back). EDIT - Turns out the guns are all basically the same thing, with the Tiger having a slightly worse gun, though most of the penetration varies widely based on ammunition type. An APCR loaded into a KT's gun would penetrate almost twice as effectively as a 17 lber loading an APC round at 1000 meters for instance. All of which was total and complete overkill against any tank in the allied Arsenal, mind you. If it could hit the target, a KT could probably double-hole a Sherman at 3 kilometers. No the 88 worse than the newer German 75mm guns(like the one on the panther) and the 17 pounder as well as the American 90mm. And the allies had better ammo, the Germans pretty much used only HE because they couldn't manufacture the specialty ammo due to supply issues. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Malevolence
Donator
Posts: 1871
|
|
« Reply #18 on: July 13, 2009, 12:25:04 am » |
|
Armor Penetration Tables, 30* offset
88mm/L56(Tiger), APCBC -
Range|Penetration
500 m|110 mm
1000 m|99 mm
1500 m|91 mm
2000 m|83 mm
Ordnance QF 17 Pounder, APCBC -
500 m|140 mm
1000 m|130 mm
1300 m|120 mm
1800 m|111 mm
8.8 cm/L71(Tiger II), APCBC -
500 m|185 mm
1000 m|165 mm
1500 m|148 mm
2000 m|132 mm
Tiger I 8.8cm is a bit worse than British 17 Pounder is a bit worse than Tiger II 8.8cm, exactly as I said it.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
RikiRude
Donator
Posts: 4376
|
|
« Reply #19 on: July 13, 2009, 12:31:21 am » |
|
you guys are dorks ^_^
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
 Killer344: "Repent: sory no joke i just had savage diorea" ... or a fat ass cock sucking churchill being stupid |
|
|
|
