Re: M26 Pershing
 

Then i'll try to count on teamwork.

Re: M26 Pershing
 

I´m rather concerned about these kids, that never came out of their Tiger and now tell us that everything´s well balanced and realistical. The Tiger never was such an invincible Monster....

Re: M26 Pershing
 

Offtopic: I always wondered what that meant....

Re: M26 Pershing
 

you see the perfect choice or desicion only after you made the wrong choice.

Re: M26 Pershing
 

45,000Shermans and 44,000 T34's during WW2.

It is a common mistake for those quoting production figures on Shermans and T-34's to forget that production on T-34's didnt end til 1956 in Czechlovakia(sp?) and Poland.
Sherman production ended IIRC about 1949.

The Tank Destroyer concept proved to be a disaster for the Americans. The concept was fine on paper but the problem was the Germans werent content to only engage the tank destroyers. Way too often the tanks found themselves faced with German tanks who didnt understand or care that American tanks werent supposed to engage the German tanks. Tank Destroyers were too few in numbers and at first didnt carry a potent enough gun. And too often tank destroyers found themselves being used as tanks and as fire support guns for infantry.

And as I have said before you already have 3 vehicles capable of countering a King Tiger. The Firefly, the M36 and the M10 Wolverine. All were based on the Sherman and couldnt go head to head with a Tiger or Tiger II but they could kill it in r/l with a shot to the side or rear. Problem in the game is the gun performance on the three currently is disappointing at best against a Tiger or Panther. Also M36 and Firefly should be as rare a spawn as the Tiger and die if hit by a Tiger or Panther but their guns should be much better.

Re: M26 Pershing
 

I wouldn't mind seeing the heavier late-war tanks for the Allies treated similarly to Tigers, but that still won't solve the problem of balance. If you start a map with the Axis having 1 Tiger, 2 StugIIIs, and 1 PIVd, and the Allies start with 1 Sherman 105, 1 M36, and 2 Shermans, the Axis will end up winning, all other things being equal. Even if you implement the system where M36s and Tigers are treated similarly, but Tigers can kill in 1 shot, whereas the M36 needs at least two or three in the front armor to kill, you're still screwed as allies. Why? Because the Tiger will blow everyone away in one shot. Sure, they may get in a few good shots on the Tiger, but the Tiger either won't die, or if it does, it'll take at least 3 of those 4 enemy tanks with it because it'll just one-shot them. At that point, the REMAINING Axis tanks come rolling along and mop up the opposition or at least cause significant damage.

You'd still need the numerical superiority of Allied armor to balance things out, I think, as long as Allied armor is vulnerable to Tigers 1-shotting pretty much everything they field.

Re: M26 Pershing
 

anything on a sherman chassis is 1 shot vunerable from most of the long barrel tanks of the axis. what it comes down to is, there are many things that can kill the sherman chassis variant easily, while there are few things that can kill the tiger easily, in game now.

Re: M26 Pershing
 

/rant
Killor, once again you demonstrate absolutely NO knowledge of weapons or their procurement...not to mention the ability to stay on topic in a particular thread. Considering you have no experience with any of the weapons, or weapon systems, you are talking about leads me to believe you cannot possibly make an assessment of the Pentagons weapon procurement capabilities. In other words, too much hot air. And, frankly, having REAL experience with three of the five you mentioned, and countless others you know nothing about: Shove it.
/rantoff

Anlushac, I read that there were 40 M26's in theater (Deathtraps has that figure). There is also much information about Pershings to be had in that particular book. There's more than a couple stories about Pershing crews taking down moving Tigers at 1,000m with a single flank shot. But a Tiger equivalent? Not really (Panther equivalent is more accurate...I doubt the Panther would have penetrated the M26's mantlet, either...and you can balance it with superior optics and stab in US tanks by the end of the war). But then again, the US didn't have a "heavy tank" until the M1 really. The M-60? Well, it's adequate, but I wouldn't equate it to a "Tiger" of its day. The real developments until the 3rd generation of tanks (M1's and such) was in ammunition. And late war US ammunition was quite good IMO.

The US won the war with artillery (to a degree)...see a Tiger, call for fire on it, a DIVARTY shows up...game over. Next Tiger please. BUT for the sake of argument I think if you had M-26's AND M4A3E4 Jumbo's around...well...it'd give a Tiger something to worry about.

And also, King Tigers IMO were no where near as threatening, or as cool, as Tiger's. They had so many mechanical problems they were combat ineffective before they could even finish the road-march. This and Germany's rather poor logistics ensured no parts were coming forward to fix'em.

As for the Shermans...at Normandy the percent of Shermans killed was something like 400% (I'll have to dig that number out). You know why? 'cause each knocked out (that doesn't mean the crew was killed but that's always a possibility) was repaired and sent back. So, the German's actually couldn't just knock out a Sherman...chances were it would be fixed and sent forward again.

Re: M26 Pershing
 

So, I am thinking the US needs its more modern tanks...but really it's all about artillery there.

Re: M26 Pershing