Darkest Hour: Normandy 1944
- Thread starter Michael Wittmann+
- Start date
Shermans were supposed to be used against infantry, at least that is my understanding. As an infantry support tank it would be fine. Although panzerschrecks in bocage would seriously ruin a Sherman troop commander's day, let alone running into Panthers. Knowing Tankman, I would be very surprised indeed if there weren't plans for an allied Tank Destroyer such as the M-10 in the pipeline (the clue's in his name
)
As regards CarpX - we have the R-35 and the BT-7 (and a couple more of early war tanks in the pipleline) and they more or less balance each other out. Basically, they are equally ****e, so R-35 vs BT-7 = IS2 vs Tiger. The only real difference being that infantry now have a chance of scratching enemy tanks without PF's. This means that the PTRD can actually be used in the role for which it was originally designed and some of the axis methods of infantry taking out tanks (I won't say what) also work better.
Oh, and the BT-7 goes like shiat off a shovel. (that's 'very fast' for those not familiar with English slang )
)As regards CarpX - we have the R-35 and the BT-7 (and a couple more of early war tanks in the pipleline) and they more or less balance each other out. Basically, they are equally ****e, so R-35 vs BT-7 = IS2 vs Tiger. The only real difference being that infantry now have a chance of scratching enemy tanks without PF's. This means that the PTRD can actually be used in the role for which it was originally designed and some of the axis methods of infantry taking out tanks (I won't say what) also work better.
Oh, and the BT-7 goes like shiat off a shovel. (that's 'very fast' for those not familiar with English slang
)
Upvote
0
lol yeh i was aware of the BT-7's speed i'm looking foward to that, and yeah most allied tanks were meant for infantry support. so as i said before don;t exopect to be facing a tiger on even terms but at the same time the shermans wont be ****.
i'm looking foward to that, and yeah most allied tanks were meant for infantry support. so as i said before don;t exopect to be facing a tiger on even terms but at the same time the shermans wont be ****.
Upvote
0
Dear ModDevs! Do you plan to make your masterpieces work perfectly with Armored Beasts mutator??? I mean for example the level design and balancing done while keeping in mind all the changes (improvements in the matter of fact) added by AB 2.05.
Upvote
0
yeah it should be beacuse with this mutator tank battles are more far realistic than default RO. For turret and hull armor factors and for penetration tables real values are used, instead of abstract numbers used in RO. Then results are fine tuned to some degree to get historically correct results (some armor is angled, some can be of different quality, so armor factor can be different than simple armor thickness). For example Russian armor is of high hardness, this can cause worse pefrormance in T-34 hull (thin plates) or better performance in IS-2 turret (thick cast). Penetration changes with range smoothly, not in steps. This mean that you'll get a bit more penetration from 10m than from 40m.
Upvote
0
The sherman helped alot to win the war because it was made to be easy for front line repairs so they could pull the engine out or parts of the body and quickly change them or repair it unlike most germans tanks that where to much hardwork and technical to repair on the battlefield. It was also made to be factory friendly so it could be mass produced in a very short amount of time, again rather then the technical german tanks.
An example of this would an Ikea table that is easy to setup right out of the box and broken parts can be fixed or changed quickely, unlike a victorian mahogany table
An example of this would an Ikea table that is easy to setup right out of the box and broken parts can be fixed or changed quickely, unlike a victorian mahogany table
Last edited:
Upvote
0
we are testing with an integrated version of AB mutator and its all working fine so far. that is all I am going to say.
Upvote
0
I agree, many of the benefits (as stated above) of the Sherman were not noticable in tank to tank combat, especially with the Panther or Tigers.
Upvote
0
Really, against infantry, especially in urban environments I'd definately pick the Sherman above the Tiger.
Upvote
0
urban combat = no need to be fast
In urban combat you want to have heavy protection on as many sides as possible. You want the infantry to be able to keep up with you and you want to be able to manuver well.
Tiger can do all of above except manuvering.
In urban combat you want to have heavy protection on as many sides as possible. You want the infantry to be able to keep up with you and you want to be able to manuver well.
Tiger can do all of above except manuvering.
Upvote
0
The slow traverse would be a definite disadvantage in urban combat as would the "bridges and sewers collapsing under your weight" scenario. On the other hand, the ability to drive through most houses is neat, if not actually modellable in RO.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Slow moving will disadvantage any tank in urban areas against troops. Armored vechicals in Iraq need to be fast when going through Urban areas and stoping or slowing down can come with trouble. When a tank is in a Urban area troops is a must to defend the tank no matter what armor you have on the tank.
Upvote
0
This is definately not true for urban assaults. Those US vehicles are in hurry because there is no active war going on there, the action went into guerilla warfare phase, so the main danger for them are IED (if a bomb planted near roads is called by that name?). Russians used same tactic with their BTRs in Chechnya few years ago, not sure how do they drive nowadays.
But if you look at video footage of a real assault, you will see slow going tanks, BMPs etc. Hurrying in this scenario will take you into trouble even faster.
But if you look at video footage of a real assault, you will see slow going tanks, BMPs etc. Hurrying in this scenario will take you into trouble even faster.
Upvote
0
Yes i have watched hundreds of videos of tanks, jeeps in Iraq and they all drive fast so bombs in cars dont get them. They rly only go slow where they are going on partol. anyway sort of going offtopic
Upvote
0
aahhh (leans back in seat and crosses arms behind head)
tankman really knows how to end a boring (and useless) discussion about urban tank combat
tankman really knows how to end a boring (and useless
) discussion about urban tank combat
Upvote
0
yeh i believe he majored in "how to end boring convo's" at college...also thought you mite enjoy this
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Hey Tankman, I've got a question. I've never been inside a tank before, so I am wondering from looking at the beutiful render you made...how does the hull machine gunner see what he is aiming at? Is there a scope somewhere near the MG that lets him see where the MG is aiming? Is there a periscope like what the driver has? Or does he have to stick his head out of the hatch above him? (that last one sounds unlikely) I'm just wondering, because I don't see from the 3d render how the gunner could see what he is shooting at. Thanks in advance.
Upvote
0