Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

In depth analysis of M4 weaknesses

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> SP:WaW Training Center >> In depth analysis of M4 weaknesses Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
In depth analysis of M4 weaknesses - 4/26/2003 9:08:40 PM   
Goblin


Posts: 5547
Joined: 3/29/2002
From: Erie,Pa. USA
Status: offline 		LMAO!! That would take all freakin' day!! LOL!

Goblin:D :p :D :p :D :p :D

_____________________________

http://www.spwaw.com/phpBB2/index.php
Post #: 1
- 4/26/2003 10:55:52 PM   
sztartur2


Posts: 672
Joined: 7/24/2002
From: Budapest,Hungary
Status: offline 		Are there any?:)

Artur.

_____________________________

"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.", Sun Tzu

(in reply to Goblin)
Post #: 2
- 4/26/2003 10:57:33 PM   
Belisarius


Posts: 4041
Joined: 5/26/2001
From: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: offline 		Analyses, artur? Not that I know of. :p

Weaknesses? As Gobbo said..... :D

_____________________________


Got StuG?

(in reply to Goblin)
Post #: 3
Not In-Depth, but... - 4/26/2003 11:31:59 PM   
Irinami

 

Posts: 746
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Florida, USA
Status: offline 		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.

_____________________________



Newbies!!
Wild Bill's Tanks at Munda Mini-Campaign. The training campaign for comb

(in reply to Goblin)
Post #: 4
- 4/27/2003 2:16:11 AM   
Goblin


Posts: 5547
Joined: 3/29/2002
From: Erie,Pa. USA
Status: offline 		What Irinami is trying to say is that it blows. (blows up too ;))

Goblin:D

_____________________________

http://www.spwaw.com/phpBB2/index.php

(in reply to Goblin)
Post #: 5
Re: Not In-Depth, but... - 4/27/2003 8:54:26 AM   
Orzel Bialy


Posts: 2664
Joined: 4/4/2002
From: Wisconsin USA
Status: offline 		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

_____________________________


(in reply to Goblin)
Post #: 6
What the? - 4/27/2003 9:15:16 AM   
WhiteRook

 

Posts: 276
Joined: 4/9/2002
From: Minneapolis, MN
Status: offline 		[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

_____________________________


(in reply to Goblin)
Post #: 7
Re: Not In-Depth, but... - 4/27/2003 9:33:50 AM   
Belisarius


Posts: 4041
Joined: 5/26/2001
From: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: offline 		[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?

_____________________________


Got StuG?

(in reply to Goblin)
Post #: 8
- 4/27/2003 9:44:33 AM   
stevemk1a


Posts: 855
Joined: 3/30/2002
From: Penticton B.C.
Status: offline 		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:

_____________________________


(in reply to Goblin)
Post #: 9
yep - 4/27/2003 9:53:24 AM   
Belisarius


Posts: 4041
Joined: 5/26/2001
From: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: offline 		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. :)

_____________________________


Got StuG?

(in reply to Goblin)
Post #: 10
- 4/27/2003 9:55:36 AM   
Irinami

 

Posts: 746
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Florida, USA
Status: offline 		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.)

_____________________________



Newbies!!
Wild Bill's Tanks at Munda Mini-Campaign. The training campaign for comb

(in reply to Goblin)
Post #: 11
- 4/27/2003 9:57:32 AM   
Belisarius


Posts: 4041
Joined: 5/26/2001
From: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: offline 		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...

_____________________________


Got StuG?

(in reply to Goblin)
Post #: 12
maintenance and reliability... - 4/27/2003 10:27:28 AM   
stevemk1a


Posts: 855
Joined: 3/30/2002
From: Penticton B.C.
Status: offline 		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

_____________________________


(in reply to Goblin)
Post #: 13
Re: maintenance and reliability... - 4/27/2003 11:13:33 AM   
Irinami

 

Posts: 746
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Florida, USA
Status: offline 		[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

_____________________________



Newbies!!
Wild Bill's Tanks at Munda Mini-Campaign. The training campaign for comb

(in reply to Goblin)
Post #: 14
Whew! - 4/28/2003 9:11:06 AM   
WhiteRook

 

Posts: 276
Joined: 4/9/2002
From: Minneapolis, MN
Status: offline 		[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

_____________________________


(in reply to Goblin)
Post #: 15
- 4/28/2003 9:17:07 AM   
Goblin


Posts: 5547
Joined: 3/29/2002
From: Erie,Pa. USA
Status: offline 		It really is sexy! Oh... Oh... OH... OHHHHH!!!!:eek:

:p

Goblin

_____________________________

http://www.spwaw.com/phpBB2/index.php

(in reply to Goblin)
Post #: 16
- 4/28/2003 1:06:24 PM   
WhiteRook

 

Posts: 276
Joined: 4/9/2002
From: Minneapolis, MN
Status: offline 		[COLOR=darkblue][SIZE=4]LTIP![/SIZE] [/COLOR] ;) :D ;)

_____________________________


(in reply to Goblin)
Post #: 17
- 4/28/2003 7:24:10 PM   
Frank W.

 

Posts: 1958
Joined: 10/18/2001
From: Siegen + Essen / W. Germany
Status: offline 		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...

(in reply to Goblin)
Post #: 18
- 4/28/2003 7:25:47 PM   
Frank W.

 

Posts: 1958
Joined: 10/18/2001
From: Siegen + Essen / W. Germany
Status: offline 		[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....

(in reply to Goblin)
Post #: 19
- 4/28/2003 7:46:01 PM   
Voriax

 

Posts: 1719
Joined: 5/20/2000
From: Finland
Status: offline 		[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

_____________________________

Oh God give Me strength to accept those things I cannot change with a firearm!

(in reply to Goblin)
Post #: 20
- 4/28/2003 7:57:46 PM   
Belisarius


Posts: 4041
Joined: 5/26/2001
From: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: offline 		[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:

_____________________________


Got StuG?

(in reply to Goblin)
Post #: 21
- 4/28/2003 8:00:47 PM   
Belisarius


Posts: 4041
Joined: 5/26/2001
From: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: offline 		[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.

_____________________________


Got StuG?

(in reply to Goblin)
Post #: 22
- 4/28/2003 9:15:50 PM   
Vetkin

 

Posts: 710
Joined: 7/21/2002
From: Philippines
Status: offline 		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??

_____________________________



Decoy, Invite, Entrap, Destroy.

(in reply to Goblin)
Post #: 23
M4 lovers go home - 4/28/2003 10:13:37 PM   
Raskolnikov

 

Posts: 52
Joined: 4/12/2002
From: London, England
Status: offline 		[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.

(in reply to Goblin)
Post #: 24
Re: M4 lovers go home - 4/29/2003 3:11:28 AM   
WhiteRook

 

Posts: 276
Joined: 4/9/2002
From: Minneapolis, MN
Status: offline 		[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

_____________________________


(in reply to Goblin)
Post #: 25
- 4/29/2003 3:40:01 AM   
Scharfschütze

 

Posts: 538
Joined: 8/27/2001
From: Germany
Status: offline 		[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.

(in reply to Goblin)
Post #: 26
- 4/29/2003 3:47:01 AM   
Goblin


Posts: 5547
Joined: 3/29/2002
From: Erie,Pa. USA
Status: offline 		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

_____________________________

http://www.spwaw.com/phpBB2/index.php

(in reply to Goblin)
Post #: 27
- 4/29/2003 4:26:32 AM   
Scharfschütze

 

Posts: 538
Joined: 8/27/2001
From: Germany
Status: offline 		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;)

(in reply to Goblin)
Post #: 28
- 4/29/2003 4:31:27 AM   
Belisarius


Posts: 4041
Joined: 5/26/2001
From: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: offline 		[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

_____________________________


Got StuG?

(in reply to Goblin)
Post #: 29
- 4/29/2003 4:42:37 AM   
Goblin


Posts: 5547
Joined: 3/29/2002
From: Erie,Pa. USA
Status: offline 		Yep.

Goblin

;)

_____________________________

http://www.spwaw.com/phpBB2/index.php

(in reply to Goblin)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> SP:WaW Training Center >> In depth analysis of M4 weaknesses Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.219