In depth analysis of M4 weaknesses

In depth analysis of M4 weaknesses (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> SP:WaW Training Center

Message

Goblin -> In depth analysis of M4 weaknesses (4/26/2003 9:08:40 PM)
LMAO!! That would take all freakin' day!! LOL! Goblin:D :p :D :p :D :p :D

sztartur2 -> (4/26/2003 10:55:52 PM)
Are there any?:) Artur.

Belisarius -> (4/26/2003 10:57:33 PM)
Analyses, artur? Not that I know of. :p Weaknesses? As Gobbo said..... :D

Irinami -> Not In-Depth, but... (4/26/2003 11:31:59 PM)
1.) Remember the M4 is: --a.) A medium tank--not a heavy. --b.) An infantry support tank--not an armor-buster. That will cover most of peoples' problems. Armour too light to fight Katz? Well duh. It's not meant to; that's what the ATG's are for. Gun doesn't penetrate enough armour? Again, duh. It's not meant to. 2.) Huge sillhouette. Not horizontally as much as vertically, which makes it stand out against a true horizon or any sub-horizons all the easier. I understand some of the reasons for this tall tank, but it's still a problem. Hm... that's all I know.

Goblin -> (4/27/2003 2:16:11 AM)
What Irinami is trying to say is that it blows. (blows up too ;)) Goblin:D

Orzel Bialy -> Re: Not In-Depth, but... (4/27/2003 8:54:26 AM)
Hmmm....so it was a badly designed (big / thin armor / poor gun)tank brought into being by an outdated concept(infantry tanks)? Yeah...I would definitely put it in the "Blows" category! :D

WhiteRook -> What the? (4/27/2003 9:15:16 AM)
[COLOR=darkblue][SIZE=3]Ok guys lets remember that the M4 helped win the war no matter what faults it had! You can thank your lucky stars for it, other wise you would be goose stepping![/SIZE] [/COLOR] :D

Belisarius -> Re: Not In-Depth, but... (4/27/2003 9:33:50 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Irinami [B --b.) An infantry support tank--not an armor-buster. [/B][/QUOTE] cough cough ....yeaaa riiiiight... too bad there wasn't better tanks around for armor-busting until the M26 came along :) Stopgap measure anyone?

stevemk1a -> (4/27/2003 9:44:33 AM)
Hey, the M4's biggest advantages IMHO were that it was hella reliable and there were LOTS of them ... a King Tiger is pretty scary on paper, but if the transmission fails on the way to battle (fairly common occurence) it's useless! The biggest strike IMHO against the M4 is the inexcusable delay in the introduction of the 76mm armament ... :mad:

Belisarius -> yep (4/27/2003 9:53:24 AM)
reliance in numbers, that's what Shermans are all about ;) And some sturdiness on that... my my ... as for the Katz, transmission was a problem. In about 6 months or so. :rolleyes: Tigers sorted out almost all of their powertrain problems in the first months of field use. After that, they became pretty reliable machines. Panthers are another matter....took alot longer to straighten out the bends and quirks of the suspension/transmission but they, too, came to be reliable machines. A bit demanding in maintenance, but reliable. :)

Irinami -> (4/27/2003 9:55:36 AM)
Nobody said the concept of the infantry support tank was a good one. Kind of like the concept of the Bradley. Have you SEEN the organization for a Bradley Platoon? It'll give you a freaking headache just reading it! You have half of 2 squads in 4 different bloody vehicles! (Well, almost.)

Belisarius -> (4/27/2003 9:57:32 AM)
OK, suddenly I can't edit my text? :confused: All I get is a blank field with all text in the grey background areas. Agh.. first "on" should be a "to"..... Second row, first "in" shoud be a "for".... then I'll get my point acroess I think :p I'll lay off the beer for now...

stevemk1a -> maintenance and reliability... (4/27/2003 10:27:28 AM)
I guess it usually takes about 500 or so vehicles to iron out all the bugs ... only problem is that less than 500 Koeningstigers were made, and about 1500 Tiger I's, and about 5000 Panthers (as well as less than 400 Jagdpanthers). All of them were undeniably sexy (to those of us that love tanks ... :D ) but also high maintenance and expensive (suprise, suprise :D ) 40, 000 or so M4's were built ... and, (small comfort to the M4 crews) as Stalin said: "quantity has a quality of it's own" :p

Irinami -> Re: maintenance and reliability... (4/27/2003 11:13:33 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by willy [B]All of were undeniably sexy (to those of us that love tanks ... :D ) but also high maintenance and expensive (suprise, suprise :D )[/B][/QUOTE] o/~ Kat-scratch fe-ver, deer-deer, daow! :D :D :D :D :D

WhiteRook -> Whew! (4/28/2003 9:11:06 AM)
[COLOR=deeppink]Whew, boy am I glad you said that Willy, I was worried that I was the only one that thought that the "Panther" was the sexest armor on the battlefield....[/COLOR] :D

Goblin -> (4/28/2003 9:17:07 AM)
It really is sexy! Oh... Oh... OH... OHHHHH!!!!:eek: :p Goblin

WhiteRook -> (4/28/2003 1:06:24 PM)
[COLOR=darkblue][SIZE=4]LTIP![/SIZE] [/COLOR] ;) :D ;)

Frank W. -> (4/28/2003 7:24:10 PM)
M4 was better than jagdtiger or kingtiger. take a value for money thinking !! how long does it take to build one of the german heavies ? how much probs they had w/ breakdowns ?? how often they couldn�t go on time to front because they were stuck or had engine probs ? which tank had a better escape change ( speed and agility ? ). i agree the normal tiger ( though this one was classed as a heavy tank so not directly comparable ) and panther were better than any M4 variant ( with the later HVSS 76mm gun variants were better than any Pz. IV ! ). do you know that the sherman could turn it�s turret double as fast as a tiger 1 ? okay, the turning rate of the M4 tracks was not that good...

Frank W. -> (4/28/2003 7:25:47 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Irinami [B]Nobody said the concept of the infantry support tank was a good one. Kind of like the concept of the Bradley. Have you SEEN the organization for a Bradley Platoon? It'll give you a freaking headache just reading it! You have half of 2 squads in 4 different bloody vehicles! (Well, almost.) [/B][/QUOTE] who cares ? with iraq and such enemies it seems to work....

Voriax -> (4/28/2003 7:46:01 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Frank W. M4 was better than jagdtiger or kingtiger. take a value for money thinking !! how long does it take to build one of the german heavies ?[/QUOTE] I dunno. Longer than it takes to build the 5 Shermans needed to knock one German heavy out???? [QUOTE] how much probs they had w/ breakdowns ?? [/QUOTE] After the initial prototypes and early production runs? Not that much actually. And many of their problems come from the fact that Germans had to build their tanks with limited supplies and under bombing raids, a thing US tank builders didn't have to deal with. [QUOTE] how often they couldn�t go on time to front because they were stuck or had engine probs ? [/QUOTE] See previous. Oh and it would be the Sherman that 'd be more likely to stuck, after all even though German tanks were heavier they did have rather small ground pressure due to wide tracks. [QUOTE] which tank had a better escape change ( speed and agility ? ). [/QUOTE] Shermans speed was pretty much the same as German tanks, 40-45 km/h road speed. Until the HVSS shermans the German tanks were probably more agile, at least some US tankers seemed to think so. [QUOTE] do you know that the sherman could turn it�s turret double as fast as a tiger 1 ? [/QUOTE] True, but as long as the Tiger isn't surrounded this isn't an issue. A sherman would have to drive across Tiger's line of sight at max speed and at the distance of about 200 meters before the gun isn't able to track fast enough. Voriax

Belisarius -> (4/28/2003 7:57:46 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Frank W. [B]who cares ? with iraq and such enemies it seems to work.... [/B][/QUOTE] Yep. In GWI, Bradleys accounted for more tank kills than the Abrams' :cool:

Belisarius -> (4/28/2003 8:00:47 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Frank W. [B]i agree the normal tiger ( though this one was classed as a heavy tank so not directly comparable ) and panther were better than any M4 variant ( with the later HVSS 76mm gun variants were better than any Pz. IV ! ).[/B][/QUOTE] Even Grants were better than a PzIV with the L/24 gun. :p HVSS shermans are probably better than any PzIV, except for optics.

Vetkin -> (4/28/2003 9:15:50 PM)
There is nothing wrong with Shermans. Just don't place them in front of the big tanks in an open field and they should be OK hehe :D I don't think it's possible at all for example; for 10 Tigers vs. 10 Shermans to engage in an open field with a Sherman surviving. However, a platoon of Tigers can easily be killed by a platoon of Shermans that shoot & scoot... Well, maybe... I dunno... Tigers ARE pretty tough however you think of them. And oh yeah turret speed doesn't actually matter much in SP:WAW hehehehe All I saw on CNN in Tikrit, the place of the "final battle" were abandoned but fully functional T-55s, various BMPs of all kinds and some BRDMs... I don't think a Bradley would have a difficult time destroying these antiquated equipment. Where were the Iraqi MBTs??

Raskolnikov -> M4 lovers go home (4/28/2003 10:13:37 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by WhiteRook [B][COLOR=darkblue][SIZE=3]Ok guys lets remember that the M4 helped win the war no matter what faults it had! You can thank your lucky stars for it, other wise you would be goose stepping![/SIZE] [/COLOR] :D [/B][/QUOTE] The actual contribution of the M4 to winning the war was pretty slim - yes, it was the main western allied tank, but it didn't possess any super-special qualities. If any tank won the war it was the T-34; the biggest contribution made by any western vehicles to victory was not in a combat role, but the impact of the 30,000-plus jeeps and trucks shipped to the Soviet Union.

WhiteRook -> Re: M4 lovers go home (4/29/2003 3:11:28 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Raskolnikov [B]The actual contribution of the M4 to winning the war was pretty slim - yes, it was the main western allied tank, but it didn't possess any super-special qualities. [COLOR=blue]Your right it did not. And to clear the air - your all correct, as an MBT it sucked. But as a medium tank it was as good as any other countries give or take certain factors, we all know them.[/COLOR] [COLOR=blue]The main point for me is that it was an American tank, I'm an American, I would take an American tank over any other any day.[/COLOR] :) [COLOR=green]We could debate the pros and cons until the next century, people are passionate about their choice of armor, just look back through the many=many threads that deal with this![/COLOR] [COLOR=green]As of me, well I'll stick with the Easy8, just wish that they had developed the Pershing sooner! [/COLOR] :D

Scharfsch�tze -> (4/29/2003 3:40:01 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by willy [B]Hey, the M4's biggest advantages IMHO were that it was hella reliable and there were LOTS of them ... a King Tiger is pretty scary on paper, but if the transmission fails on the way to battle (fairly common occurence) it's useless! The biggest strike IMHO against the M4 is the inexcusable delay in the introduction of the 76mm armament ... :mad: [/B][/QUOTE] Absolutely. I thought lowly of the M4 until I battled lots of them in a Normandy game against Jess. Sure those were the 76mm variants, but my own 75mm PAK had difficulties penetrating their armour at medium range. Despite a slight height advantage for the ATGs. And that was in SPWaW. In real life, any german formation would have considered itself fortunate to have tons of Nebelwerfer ammo, hordes of 75mm PAK, legions of SS with Panzerfausts and the occasional KT to crush any advance.

Goblin -> (4/29/2003 3:47:01 AM)
Of course, in real life you didn't often have five 88mm rounds simply bounce off an M4 either. I have seen this uncountable times in the game. I have seen pictures where German rounds went through BOTH sides of the M4 they hit. Goblin

Scharfsch�tze -> (4/29/2003 4:26:32 AM)
Sure as sure, Goblin. Still, the late-war models aren�t too shabby, they earned their "Ronson" nickname well before the improved models came to the front. Britain was lucky to have a channel between itself and the continent, while the US has a whole ocean to cover up learning curves;)

Belisarius -> (4/29/2003 4:31:27 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Goblin [B]Of course, in real life you didn't often have five 88mm rounds simply bounce off an M4 either. I have seen this uncountable times in the game. I have seen pictures where German rounds went through BOTH sides of the M4 they hit. Goblin [/B][/QUOTE] BOTH sides AND the entire engine block as well. :D

Goblin -> (4/29/2003 4:42:37 AM)
Yep. Goblin ;)

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.375