Login

russian armor

M26 Pershing

PAGES (9)down
30 Jul 2014, 19:05 PM
#121
avatar of Frencho

Posts: 220

Affe I edited the battle of the bulge & Operation Queen wikipedia articles, stating that 35 Tiger Is engaged the enemy during the offensive, when actually it never happened :p

30 Jul 2014, 19:10 PM
#122
avatar of Affe

Posts: 578

jump backJump back to quoted post30 Jul 2014, 19:05 PMFrencho
Affe I edited the battle of the bulge & Operation Queen wikipedia articles, stating that 35 Tiger Is engaged the enemy during the offensive, when actually it never happened :p


Wikipedia only uses sources from books:
^ Jump up to: a b MacDonald (1993), p. 594
2.Jump up ^ Zaloga (2007), pp. 84, 89
3.Jump up ^ MacDonald (1993), pp. 577–578, 593
4.Jump up ^ Zaloga (2007), pp. 9–12
5.Jump up ^ Zaloga (2007), 48–61
6.Jump up ^ MacDonald (1993), pp. 390–392, 397–406, 546–547
7.Jump up ^ MacDonald (1993), pp. 406–407
8.Jump up ^ Zaloga (2007), p. 61
9.Jump up ^ Zaloga (2007), pp. 28–30
10.Jump up ^ MacDonald (1993), pp. 323–328
11.Jump up ^ MacDonald (1993), pp. 397–404, 593–594
12.Jump up ^ MacDonald (1993), pp. 392–397, 409–411
13.Jump up ^ Zaloga (2007), pp. 16–18
14.Jump up ^ MacDonald (1993), pp. 411–412
15.Jump up ^ MacDonald (1993), pp. 413–414
16.Jump up ^ MacDonald (1993), pp. 409–411
17.Jump up ^ Zaloga (2007), p. 64
18.Jump up ^ MacDonald (1993), pp. 421–424
19.Jump up ^ MacDonald (1993), pp. 492–488;476–477; 481
20.Jump up ^ Zaloga (2007), p. 65
21.Jump up ^ MacDonald (1993), pp. 506–510; 424–428
22.Jump up ^ MacDonald (1993), pp. 510–515
23.Jump up ^ Zaloga (2007), p. 67-69
24.Jump up ^ MacDonald (1993), pp. 428–429
25.Jump up ^ MacDonald (1993), p. 440
26.Jump up ^ MacDonald (1993), pp. 444–448; 463
27.Jump up ^ Zaloga (2007), pp. 69–76
28.Jump up ^ MacDonald (1993), pp. 473–474
29.Jump up ^ Zaloga (2007), p. 76
30.^ Jump up to: a b Zaloga (2007), pp. 76–77
31.Jump up ^ MacDonald (1993), pp. 516–518
32.Jump up ^ Zaloga (2007), pp. 82–83
33.Jump up ^ Mayo (1968), p. 324
34.Jump up ^ MacDonald (1993), pp. 558–565
35.Jump up ^ MacDonald (1993), p. 577
36.Jump up ^ Zaloga (2007), pp. 86–88
37.Jump up ^ MacDonald (1993), pp. 587–591
38.Jump up ^ Zaloga (2007), pp. 88–89
39.Jump up ^ Zaloga (2007), pp. 89–90
40.Jump up ^ MacDonald (1993), pp. 597–602
41.^ Jump up to: a b MacDonald (1993), pp. 594–595
42.Jump up ^ Zaloga (2007), pp. 91–92
30 Jul 2014, 19:20 PM
#123
avatar of coh2player

Posts: 1571

Affe, from 'Sledgehammers' a study on the use of Tiger Tanks in WW2 (my PDF); It identifies only the 501st SS and the 506th as actually taking part in combat action (so I remembered correctly).

Operation WACHT AM RHEIN
Both of the heavy tank battalions that took part in the Ardennes offensive,namely SS-Heavy Tank Battalion 501 and Heavy Tank Battalion 506, were equipped with new King Tiger tanks.


Probably only a handful of American tanks—possibly as few as 20—were destroyed by these two heavy tank battalions during the Ardennes Offensive. This was due to a number of factors: first, only a portion of each heavy tank battalion managed to make their way forward to engage the enemy, especially during the initial stages of the offensive; also, during those initial stages, the Americans committed little of their own armor. These aspects of the situation make the contribution of the heavy tank battalions difficult to judge. Whatever their contributions, it is doubtful that those accomplishments sufficiently offset the loss of 25 King Tigers.


Wiki should not be taken at face value; way too many errors and relentlessly edited by anyone.
30 Jul 2014, 19:25 PM
#124
avatar of coh2player

Posts: 1571

Operation Queen was not part of the Ardennes offensive. It was part of the earlier Siegfried line campaign.
30 Jul 2014, 19:25 PM
#125
avatar of Affe

Posts: 578

Operation Queen was not part of the Ardennes offensive. It was part of the earlier Siegfried line campaign.

I know. But Tiger II was used there as well against the US Army.
30 Jul 2014, 19:28 PM
#126
avatar of Affe

Posts: 578

Probably only a handful of American tanks—possibly as few as 20—were destroyed by these two heavy tank battalions during the Ardennes Offensive. This was due to a number of factors: first, only a portion of each heavy tank battalion managed to make their way forward to engage the enemy, especially during the initial stages of the offensive; also, during those initial stages, the Americans committed little of their own armor. These aspects of the situation make the contribution of the heavy tank battalions difficult to judge. Whatever their contributions, it is doubtful that those accomplishments sufficiently offset the loss of 25 King Tigers.


Wiki should not be taken at face value; way too many errors and relentlessly edited by anyone.

Probably...........Possibly...........Maybe..............your source doesnt Sound much better.
30 Jul 2014, 19:35 PM
#127
avatar of coh2player

Posts: 1571

No, it's a lot better than wikipedia as it was a published study.

30 Jul 2014, 19:43 PM
#128
avatar of Affe

Posts: 578

100% PROOF OF TIGER I IN THE BATTLE OF THE BULGE:
AN AMERICAN SOLDIER VETERAN REMEMBERS:

Thomas Macdonnell:

1 Tiger I vs 2 Shermans:

Watch how a single Tiger I destroyed 2 Shermans in the early days of the battle of the Bulge:

http://youtu.be/rBNZbsVIJvg?t=7m22s
30 Jul 2014, 20:06 PM
#129
avatar of coh2player

Posts: 1571

^

American AARs and veterans are infamous for confusing Panzer IV with Tigers.

301st did not participate in the Ardennes offensive:

schwere Panzer-Abteilung (Tiger/Fkl) 301 with 29 Tiger Is received word on 15 December 1944 that they were to be attached to the 9. Panzer-Division. They assembled in Niederaussem to entrain for transport which was scheduled to begin on 20 December 1944. On 22 December 1944 members of the unit Stab went into the Eifel to establish contact with the HQ of the 9. PD, which was scheduled to relieve the 2. PD fighting near Celles. However, before the rail transport of the Tigers could happen, all of the rail lines had been destroyed so on 25 December 1944 301 was released from it's attachment to the 9.PD. The Tigers were unloaded and 301 moved to Nörvenich where it became an Army Group reserve of the LXXXI. Armee-Korps.


This leaves the Tigers Is of 506th, which are so few as to be inconsequential and probably invisible to the overall battle.

jump backJump back to quoted post30 Jul 2014, 18:47 PMAffe

s.Pz.Abt. 506: 41x Tiger II, 6x Tiger I
9. Pz.Div. with s.Pz.Abt.(Fkl.) 301: 29x Tiger I
31 Jul 2014, 13:57 PM
#130
avatar of varunax

Posts: 208



This isn't true, the Easy Eight had decent armour, but nothing like the 4 - 5 inches of the Jumbo.


jump backJump back to quoted post30 Jul 2014, 17:57 PMAffe

The normal M4 Sherman had 51mm frontal armor.
The M4A3(76)W E8 "Easy Eight" had 64mm frontal armor.
The M4A3 E2 "Jumbo" Sherman had 102mm frontal armor.(Same like Pershing)
The M36 "Jackson" had 38mm frontal armor.(like wolverine)
The M18 "Hellcat" had 13mm frontal armor.


Where is Katitof getting that information? Seriously. The Easy Eight never had that kind of armor strapped to it. It might have had a bit of extra armor welded to the front (over the crew hatches and on the side covering the ammunition storage), but hardly enough to make it 102mm of steel.

There was a "Jumbo 76" (as I've gotten use to calling it in my Men of War days) that was a Sherman Jumbo armed with a 76mm gun. But the Easy Eight never had 102mm of frontal armor.


M4A3E8 "Easy Eight":
A famous derivative, the M4A3E8 or "Easy Eight", first produced by Detroit Arsenal factory, had a 47 degree sloped glacis with large hatches, wet ammo bins, full up-armored sides, new HVSS suspensions, a revised turret with the long 76.2 mm (3 in) gun fitted with a muzzle brake. They were designed on British specs (local denomination "Sherman AY"), and were produced from March 1944 to April 1945, with 4542 units total. Many had upper side skirts protections. They were fast, with the Ford V8 500 hp, giving 47 km/h (29.2 mph) , gasoline, giving a range of 161 km (100 mi), for a 475 l/100 km (201.94 gal/mi) consumption. The glacis armor was upgraded to the "Jumbo" standard, with 178 mm (7 in). These saw action in the latest phases of the conflict in Europe and in the Pacific. The "Easy Eight" was retained in service long after the war and saw service in Korea and Vietnam as well as in many foreign armies. The Israeli modified this model to such extent (M50/51 "Super Sherman") was active service until the late 80s.


source: http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/US/M4_Sherman.php

I don't really care if they make this game exactly like real life WW2. I just think adding the Jumbo is unnecessary because the Easy Eight is better than it and its successor. It's like wanting to add in the M3 Lee tank when we have the M4 Sherman.

The Pershing makes a lot more sense but I can understand people thinking it may be overpowered, but any tank in this game can go from OP to absolute shit with a change of a few stats.
31 Jul 2014, 14:16 PM
#131
avatar of Kreatiir

Posts: 2816

I am always amazed of how many war historians there are on this forum.
31 Jul 2014, 14:30 PM
#132
avatar of Affe

Posts: 578

jump backJump back to quoted post31 Jul 2014, 13:57 PMvarunax








source: http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/US/M4_Sherman.php

I don't really care if they make this game exactly like real life WW2. I just think adding the Jumbo is unnecessary because the Easy Eight is better than it and its successor. It's like wanting to add in the M3 Lee tank when we have the M4 Sherman.

The Pershing makes a lot more sense but I can understand people thinking it may be overpowered, but any tank in this game can go from OP to absolute shit with a change of a few stats.

Your source is BS.
Your site was written by absolute noobs.
Here are the real and complete armor datas for easy eight and Jumbo:

M4A3(76)W E8 HVSS Sherman:
Hull Front (Upper) : 64mm @ 43°
Hull Front (Lower) : 51mm - 108mm @ 34° - 90°
Hull Sides (Upper) : 38mm @ 90°
Hull Sides (Lower) : 38mm @ 90°
Hull Rear : 38mm @ 68° - 80°
Hull Top : 19mm @ 0° - 7°
Hull Bottom : 13mm - 25mm @ 0°
Turret Front : 64mm @ 45° - 50°
Turret Mantlet : 89mm @ 90°
Turret Sides : 64mm @ 77° - 90°
Turret Rear : 64mm @ 90°
Turret Top : 25mm @ 0°

M4A3 E2 "Jumbo" Sherman
Hull Front (Upper) : 102mm @ 43°
Hull Front (Lower) : 114mm - 140mm @ 34° - 90°
Hull Sides (Upper) : 76mm @ 90°
Hull Sides (Lower) : 38mm @ 90°
Hull Rear : 38mm @ 68° - 80°
Hull Top : 19mm @ 0° - 7°
Hull Bottom : 13mm - 25mm @ 0°
Turret Front : 152mm @ 45°
Turret Mantlet : 178mm @ 90°
Turret Sides : 152mm @ 85°
Turret Rear : 152mm @ 90°
Turret Top : 25mm @ 0°

THE lower part of the fronral armor didnt Play any role.only the upper part is important.


31 Jul 2014, 14:44 PM
#133
avatar of varunax

Posts: 208

Lol, do you even know what those numbers mean?

Those look like the specifications of the Easy Eight before they put Jumbo armor on.

Sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about. I even listed a source to back up what I was saying so unless you got something better to prove Easy Eight's never got a Jumbo armor upgrade, I wouldn't go around calling what I say is BS.

Just the fact that the Easy Eight uses the HVSS means the tank can be fitted with more armor than the Jumbo. The Jumbo doesn't use HVSS meaning it's limited to what it can do and equip. It's a slow hulky piece of crap.

Here's another source fyi: http://www.brittonpublishers.com/Files/M4A3E8_76.pdf

Superstructure(Upper Hull): 102mm@47°

Really gettin' derailed from the topic but I hate ignorant posts.
Vaz
31 Jul 2014, 15:02 PM
#134
avatar of Vaz

Posts: 1139

Considering we have Soviets fighting side by side with Americans, I think we can throw all the pinpoint historical facts out. Relic has mad a WWII sandbox of sorts with this game. There are little used tools and frequently used tools in here. We experience battles that are not even close to what really happened. We are not playing out WWII with every match, this is a WWII themed game. Whatever was made for WWII should be equally viable to be placed in here, whether or not it saw frequent combat. It's the players decision to determine what gets used.
31 Jul 2014, 15:11 PM
#135
avatar of All Aces

Posts: 29

I am always amazed of how many war historians there are on this forum.


Agreed. I'm learning so much lol.
31 Jul 2014, 15:12 PM
#136
avatar of The Soldier

Posts: 218

Unless the Easy Eight currently in the game is supposed to mimic the 102mm of armor that it got MUCH later in the war, then the Jumbo is still viable.

EDIT:
Just looked, and comparing the regular Sherman's armor to the Easy Eight's, I think it already does. Yay. :P 160 armor vs. 215 armor - pretty significant difference. Bump down the armor on the Easy Eight to 180, reserve a higher number, like 250, for the Jumbo should it be added in (300 (equivalent to the Tiger) seems like overkill).

Doing that will solve 2 problems - the survivability of the Easy Eight compared to the regular Sherman, and also makes the Jumbo have something over all the other tanks in the US arsenal.
31 Jul 2014, 15:39 PM
#137
avatar of Affe

Posts: 578

jump backJump back to quoted post31 Jul 2014, 14:44 PMvarunax
Lol, do you even know what those numbers mean?

Those look like the specifications of the Easy Eight before they put Jumbo armor on.

Sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about. I even listed a source to back up what I was saying so unless you got something better to prove Easy Eight's never got a Jumbo armor upgrade, I wouldn't go around calling what I say is BS.

Just the fact that the Easy Eight uses the HVSS means the tank can be fitted with more armor than the Jumbo. The Jumbo doesn't use HVSS meaning it's limited to what it can do and equip. It's a slow hulky piece of crap.

Here's another source fyi: http://www.brittonpublishers.com/Files/M4A3E8_76.pdf

Superstructure(Upper Hull): 102mm@47°

Really gettin' derailed from the topic but I hate ignorant posts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_Sherman

Armor
......
Late war M4s, including the M4A3E8, had an upper glacis plate of 64 mm sloped at 47 degrees from vertical.[42] The lower hull was 51–108 mm thick and sloped at 56 to 0 degrees from vertical, respectively.

There is no late war easy eight with 102mm front armor.
The only US tanks with 102mm front armor are Pershing and Jumbo. Easy eight never had 102mm frontal armor. All sources i found via Google say 64mm front armor for easy eight.
31 Jul 2014, 15:51 PM
#138
avatar of CookiezNcreem
Senior Strategist Badge
Donator 11

Posts: 3051 | Subs: 14

You can all be assured there will be a heavy tank for the US.

I just stole a brummbar,and when it died,the announcer said,"We just lost a heavy tank"

Meaning they recorded a heavy tank voice. Meaning its CONFIRMED. THE US HAS HEAVY TANKS,SOMEWHERE!!

Im pretty sure they wouldnt record that voice just for stolen vehicles.

31 Jul 2014, 16:03 PM
#139
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17568 | Subs: 8

You can all be assured there will be a heavy tank for the US.

I just stole a brummbar,and when it died,the announcer said,"We just lost a heavy tank"

Meaning they recorded a heavy tank voice. Meaning its CONFIRMED. THE US HAS HEAVY TANKS,SOMEWHERE!!

Im pretty sure they wouldnt record that voice just for stolen vehicles.



Its almost as if they have foreseen that one day allies might steal abandoned german heavy tank and use it for themselves!

Also, by your logic, its confirmed soviet maxim will eventually get an upgrade to become a heavy tank, because that is what kubelwagen screams when it gets shot by one.
31 Jul 2014, 16:05 PM
#140
avatar of varunax

Posts: 208

jump backJump back to quoted post31 Jul 2014, 15:39 PMAffe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_Sherman

There is no late war easy eight with 102mm front armor.


A wiki source, really?

The in-game Easy Eight is supposed to mimic a Jumbo with 215 armor vs a Sherman with only 160 armor. It's pretty obvious considering the armor difference.

A pre-Jumbo Easy Eight has nearly the same armor as a regular Sherman (2 inches). Do you not get it yet? There's barely any difference between the Easy Eight with 60mm of armor vs a Sherman with 50mm of armor. The stats you keep posting are Pre-Jumbo Easy Eights that are no different than regular Shermans. Yet in-game there's a huge difference. Put two and two together and what do you get? Oh right, you get an Easy Eight Sherman with Jumbo armor.

Do the math pls.
PAGES (9)down
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

Board Info

154 users are online: 154 guests
71 posts in the last 24h
485 posts in the last week
1429 posts in the last month
Registered members: 26973
Welcome our newest member, leiaezimmerman
Most online: 1221 users on 25 Feb 2020, 12:03 PM