Roll over allies, roll over

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[Duckordie]

Ciwawa

I bet you 100000$ (That you will Donate to FL)
That Pershing WAS used on WW2, and it killed some Panthers...

whana bet?! 

[DasNoob]

can we kinda have this this mod based on real life in World War 2. King Tigers where really not in the war so it shouldn't be in the war, Tigers where few, panthers there was good amount but cost more and masses of the panzer 4 was far greater, There was 20 some Pershing in WW2, Shermans where in great numbers but should be equal to the Pz. IV.

Avaliblity did that.
I miss it.

Lies if that were the case the devs would have kept it right?   

[Tkaudi]

its to bad that the defense isn't adding two cups of sand to the bucket and attacks taking 1 cup out, we would see much more variation this way, and be able to enjoy a much more varied experience...

[snipes]

u guys seriously believe that 2.0 was going to come out after this war? eir never realeases early or on time

[M4 Sherman]

I think it should change daily like allies attack one day and axis attack the next...or keep it as it don't change anything.

[Flack]

can we kinda have this this mod based on real life in World War 2. King Tigers where really not in the war so it shouldn't be in the war, Tigers where few, panthers there was good amount but cost more and masses of the panzer 4 was far greater, There was 20 some Pershing in WW2, Shermans where in great numbers but should be equal to the Pz. IV.

Go take a piss! "1,500 Tiger II were ordered, but the production was more than halved by Allied bombing and total production reached only 487 units. Where 308 reached the front before 1945." And there were even more Tigers. Panther, not so many. Panzer 4's more. Sherman's equal to the the Panzer 4's? Have you been drinking? The shermans were lighted on fire as easily as hitting it. "Tommycoockers"

[M4 Sherman]

There were 5,500 Panthers made (Not all of them reached frontlines)

They say about 3,000 Tigers were made (All the Tigers)

They say about 50,000 Panzer IV's

They say about 55,000 Shermans

There were more than 20 Pershings but not as numerous as Tigers.

[CatinHat]

out of those King Tigers how many of those where sent to the East Front... a lot more then the west front

The M26 Pershing tanks where sent to the 3rd and 9th Armored Division

[CaptWildstar]

This is kind of getting off topic guys

but im no moderator

hmm not to say but your wrong it was 8500 Pz4s and 1500 tigers and im not sure on the panthers. Pz4s were not made as fast shermans and if they did have 50000 they would have a had better chance at winner the war rite 

[DerangedFerret]

Wow. Quit posting bullshit production numbers. Don't pull these out of your ass, give us some sources so we can stop arguing over who has it right.

Armor thickness would be nice, too.

And armament. WITH SOURCES.

HERE
http://forums.europeinruins.com/index.php/topic,3865.msg64218/topicseen.html#new

Now go solve your differences

[CatinHat]

2 Sherman tanks from my allied friend and one of my Pershing tanks couldn't even take down a Panzer IV skirted

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Sherman's equal to the the Panzer 4's? Have you been drinking? The shermans were lighted on fire as easily as hitting it. "Tommycoockers"

Regular Shermans were roughly equal to the Panzer IV, though the advanced variants were superior. The sherman had no more issues with fire than any other tank.

2 Sherman tanks from my allied friend and one of my Pershing tanks couldn't even take down a Panzer IV skirted

The 2.0 Shrek patch will fix this

[lordofchaos]

2 Sherman tanks from my allied friend and one of my Pershing tanks couldn't even take down a Panzer IV skirted

yeah my p4 was invincible that game

[salan]

u guys seriously believe that 2.0 was going to come out after this war? eir never realeases early or on time

seriously minehold, we don't have to agree with the devs, or each other, on anything actually.. but we shouldn't be posting shit like that slammin it ... because we're all here still...

[acker]

Flack, do you actually study tank design, or do you play too many video games? The Sherman was superior to the Panzer IV. Yes, that's right, superior.

Logistics:

The Sherman was several times more reliable than the Panzer IV, and could use both a gasoline and a diesel engine. The Sherman was easier to mantain than the Panzer IV, and the Sherman was also much easier to manufacture than the Panzer (in fact, the easiest tank to manufacture barring the T-34). The Panzer IV doesn't even win a consolation prize for ease of production. Also, the German army suffered a chronic spare parts problem for their vehicles due to a lack of standardization, which led to...issues, to say the least. The Americans didn't.

Mobility:

Both tanks are about the same. The early VVSS suspension system for the Sherman was about as good as the suspension system for the early Panzer IV. The switch to 23" HVSS later in the war keeps the Sherman's suspension on par with that of the Panzer IV. The Sherman's tracks also lasted several times longer than the tracks for the Panzer IV.

Crew Safety:

According to Hayward's Firefly book (pg90), in Normandy, the Sherman burned 82% of the time when hit. However, the Panzer IV burned 80% of the time when hit, a 2% difference. As wet storage became more and more prevalent, the Sherman burn rate went down considerably from this. In terms of penetration, the Sherman needed 1.89 penetrations to burn, and the Panzer IV needed 1.5. So, the Sherman was safer than the Panzer after all. I'll discuss penetration later.

Do you know why they called the Sherman the "Ronson" and not the Panzer? Because the Panzer never faced 88s in the Desert War. Artillery knocked out the majority of tanks in the early war, and the Sherman was no exception.

Armor:

Believe it or not, the Sherman had more armor than the Panzer IV. Not only that, but its armor was better distributed across the frontal plate. The Sherman had fewer shot traps, and better slope/distribution of armor over the frontal arc. Not only that, but the Sherman was far easier to up-armor than the Panzer IV. Later Sherman models had over 80mm of armor, and the Jumbo Sherman had 152+mm of frontal armor. Which is, by the way, enough to take a point-blank 88mm shot and live to tell the tale. What does this mean in terms of penetration? It took 1.55 shots to knock out a Sherman, and 1.2 shots to knock out a Panzer IV on the Normandy front.

Weapon Systems:

M4 Sherman 75mm penetration: 76mm at 1000 yards.
Panzer IV turret frontal armor: 55mm.

In other words, the Sherman could knock out a Panzer IV at 1000 yards without upgunning (and, of course, vice versa for the Panzer 75mm HV). However, the Sherman turret traverse is both faster, smoother, and has better fine movement control than the Panzer IV's turret. The Sherman is also equipped with gyroscopic stabilization, which is something the Panzer IV never had. In other words, all other things being equal, the Sherman will get the first shot off. I haven't even mentioned the 76mm HV gun for the Sherman yet (which puts penetration around par with the 75mm HV, useful for fighting Panthers), or HVAP ammo (which owned Panthers, though the ammo itself was limited). If one wants to compare the combat capability of later versions of the tanks, the Sherman got stronger and stronger while the Panzer IV got weaker and weaker. As previously stated, the Jumbo Sherman could take 88mm rounds, let alone 75mm HV rounds, which put the Panzer IV in question in about as much trouble as a 75mm Sherman vs. a Tiger. Later Panzer IV versions lost their power turret traverse, and had to resort to manual turret traverse. Which was very, very bad.

Utility:

Sherman is far better here. It's 75mm cannon has a better HE shell, and both the 75mm and the 76mm cannons have a far better selection of ammo (including the almost-illegal WP shell). The Sherman's turret ring is big enough to fit a 105mm gun (ask the Israelis, they did it) in (or, in a situation relevant to WWII, the 90mm or 17-pounder). The Sherman incidentally, could mount anything from a 105mm howitzer to a flamethrower in its chassis. Not only was its weapon systems more adaptable, the Sherman did everything but fly (DD tanks). The Panzer IV loses out here.

Incidentally, the 75mm gun for the Shermans could, and was, used as an indirect fire weapon (yes, the Sherman was designed, however intentionally or unintentionally, as an artillery piece as well as an infantry support tank).

Training:

From late 1943 onwards, the average Sherman crew was better trained than the average Panzer crew. Like everything else German of this time period, Germany had exactly 2 types of tank crews by this time: a small percentage of elite crews like Whitman or Skorzeny, and a large percentage of badly-trained recruits. Due to a shortage in material, fuel, ammo and more fuel, German recruit drivers were generally forced to train on obsolete tank chassis running on coal gas, wood fuel, or other non-petroleum generators. Gunnery practice was limited due to ammo shortages, and battalions received their tanks piecemeal, which limited tank familiarity. Practice maneuvers were few and far between above, and even on, the battalion level due to fuel shortages. By mid 1944, gunners didn't receive enough ammo to calibrate their guns before being sent into action.

The USA, by 1944, could and did give tankers a minimum of 52 weeks of training prior to combat. Practically all the tankers practiced in multiple division/corps-level maneuvers with live ammunition. And fuel was most definitely not a problem.

Unless the American tanker was fighting against one of the Axis tank gods (yes, they were godlike, imagine CS players with wallhacks and aimbots), he stood a very good chance of winning against a Panzer IV.

So, yes, the Sherman was superior to the Panzer IV. Though, when the Sherman attacked anything larger than a Panzer IV...Sherman massacre*. Why the hell they didn't upgun before D-day (they could have upgunned all landing/following Shermans to 90mm gun with 82mm of armor, but didn't), I have no fucking idea. Next thing you know, they'll be claiming that the Kar was more accurate than the Garand...*sigh*.

*Actually, in most cases, no. If anyone needs details, ask me later. Or post in WW2 Forums.

[DerangedFerret]

Sherman wins

[Days of War]

Speaking of the Sherman as an indirect fire weapon, in the Korean War they used the Easy Eight Shermans as indirect artillery fire.

Should be able to do that in EiR.

[CenturionA41]

acker: That was a great write up! I am not a person to post on forums but in this instance I must say thank you.

[acker]

I am not the person to thank in this situation, though I appreciate it. Most of this information is from T.A. Gardner of WW2 forums. He's a World War Two buff, mind you.

http://www.ww2f.com/weapons-wwii/12399-panzer-iv-vs-m4.html

He writes a lot on the subject of Planes, Tanks, and Infantry.

[AmPM]

Actually, the Panzer 4 of the time, the Ausf H would be superior to all 75mm Shermans of the time, as well as equal in all combat abilities to the Sherman 76mm.

The Sherman was more reliable, however had a massive profile allowing for it to be easily spotted. Armor on both was fairly equal as well.

In all cases, most tank fights were determined more by who hit first, and who was in prepared positions. The STuG for instance was one of the best AT weapons of the day, capable of knocking out anything other than a Sherman "Jumbo", Churchill or Pershing from almost any visible range.

Of course this whole argument is stupid, since the PaK 38 shouldn't even be in game, it was almost completely replaced by the PaK 40 75mm gun in 1942. The PaK 40 was easily capable of knocking out allied armor at any range. In 1944 we should also be seeing the feared PaK 43, long 88mm AT gun. This could knock out any allied tank at any visible range. Its the same weapon that is mounted inside a Jadgpanther or Kingtiger.

Though the above post by Acker is accurate regarding the early war in the desert, this is comparing the 75mm Sherman to the Panzer IV Ausf D and F1, not the long barrel F2/G or H. Both of the earlier models were from 1940 and took part in the Battle of France. The F2/G and H were both superior to any Western armor until the invasion of Normandy. The Eastern front is a completely different subject, needless to say, the Panzer IV had a better gun than the T34 76mm but lacked the reliability or armor. Of course there is a reason the majority of german big cats were on the East Front, they could chew up Russian armor units all day long. Again though, the best tank killers were self propelled guns and towed ATGs.