Jump to content


The End of the M4(75)


  • Please log in to reply
212 replies to this topic

Meplat #41 Posted Aug 11 2013 - 01:52

    Major

  • Players
  • 6743 battles
  • 7,831
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    11-27-2012

View Postfavrepeoria, on Aug 11 2013 - 01:39, said:

Would be hard to balance a super Sherman. Because of when the gun was made it would have pen like a tier 9 with a terrible fire rate. Since the premiums tend to follow historical specs it would be hard to say that the gun should have tier 7 med level of pen.

I doubt WG would even put that much logic into the decision.  It'd probably branch off more along the lines of "We need more Chinese tanks for the asian market" or "We need to find a way to flesh out other lines, first"..

SMScannonfodder #42 Posted Aug 11 2013 - 02:13

    Major

  • Players
  • 24613 battles
  • 2,719
  • [B_I_A] B_I_A
  • Member since:
    04-29-2011
Great read Chief, interesting about the development about the 76 before there was a demand for it.

Necrophore #43 Posted Aug 11 2013 - 05:05

    Major

  • Players
  • 29570 battles
  • 3,931
  • [LONER] LONER
  • Member since:
    02-19-2012

View PostDJGK, on Aug 10 2013 - 22:52, said:

Also, I was here after the M4 got a "NERF" ... could you really shoot HEAT rounds and seriously still make money?
Yes. While the HEAT party was in full swing, it seemed like WG was running back to back to back sales on premium ammo, so many players were able to stock up on hundreds or thousands of rounds at a discount. There were also many weekend specials giving the M4 bonus credits. While the ammo sales made it almost impossible to lose money, the bonus weekends practically guaranteed big profits even with full HEAT loads. As OP as the M4 may have been even during normal play, WG made it worse by making the tank to go-to choice for both padding stats or farming silver.

ImSolo #44 Posted Aug 11 2013 - 05:57

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 18897 battles
  • 10
  • [MMIMM] MMIMM
  • Member since:
    01-28-2012
Nice bit of history there...Speaking of which when will we see the "Super Sherman" as a Tier 7 Preme tank???

Meplat #45 Posted Aug 11 2013 - 06:08

    Major

  • Players
  • 6743 battles
  • 7,831
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    11-27-2012

View PostNecrophore, on Aug 11 2013 - 05:05, said:

Yes. While the HEAT party was in full swing, it seemed like WG was running back to back to back sales on premium ammo, so many players were able to stock up on hundreds or thousands of rounds at a discount. There were also many weekend specials giving the M4 bonus credits. While the ammo sales made it almost impossible to lose money, the bonus weekends practically guaranteed big profits even with full HEAT loads. As OP as the M4 may have been even during normal play, WG made it worse by making the tank to go-to choice for both padding stats or farming silver.

Just adding-
Wasn't unusual to see both sides mostly made of M4's with a smattering of Pz4's and maybe a couple arty during those "tier 5" event weekends..

dorgunr70 #46 Posted Aug 11 2013 - 06:31

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 24937 battles
  • 11
  • [9_CAV] 9_CAV
  • Member since:
    08-19-2012
Several US Army tankers fighting in Shermans told me the same thing when interviewed for a book I wrote: The 75mm HE would blow up inside a house killing the occupants, the 76mm round was capable, like the Panther round, of exiting the back wall of the building before exploading. Two said they prefered to fight infantry with the 75mm, especially in towns, so that "myth" might originate with the users. The 105mm tank was intended to be an "assault gun," assigned in small quantities to each tank battalion for both indirect fire (organic arty) and busting the tough nuts with direct fire. The M7 Priests attached to tank battalions were called assault guns in US units and the 105mm Sherman was its replacement late in the war. The 75mm had its fans in the armored units but by wars end field conversion of standard M4A1s with a crammed in 76mm mounts was progressing widely in units of 3rd Army.

This thread brings up that in WOT the Sherman is in need of some historical facelifts: The current M4 should be called by its proper designation which should be M4A1 (becaise of the cast hull). The welded hull M4 could be created to illustrate the ballistic difference of the cast vs. welded  hull. The M4A2 diesel used by the USMC, British, Russians, and French should be added to illustrate the different attributes of this type of engine pack (twin engine, you can drive on one to make less noise and save fuel). Add the M4A4 (Sherman V) with Firefly option to the British tree and note that this version had a multibank engine with multiple fuel systems running gasoline and was the reason the Brits always mention the flammability (more fuel lines to hit) while most yank tankers do not (exception: Belden Cooper who had to retrieve dead tanks with dead tankers in them more than almost anyone). The US Army thought so higly of the M4A4 that it was happy to give almost all of them to the Allies as fast as they could be rebuilt and sent overseas. Wanna bet if they knew it was more prone to engine fires, especially if you shreded the interior of the engine bay with solid shot? Provide the 75mm version of the M4A3 (wet) as it was common in WWII and all you have to do is degrade the E8 suspension and turret/gun to put it in the game. Oh, and fix the damn camo choices. The standard fall-back camo color to use on a US Army OD tank was black according to the camoflage field manual. Most US camoflaged tanks in the ETO after D-Day (most were never camoed) are black and olive drab so add that choice to the exterior colors. The M4A1s used by the USMC in New Britain were black and olive drab too so this was not just in the ETO. The Germans and Chinese get accurate looking colors and designations, why not the US Army?. Why do research if it doesn't make it to the game, eh?

Regardless, thanks for the history update on the 76mm. Much appreciated.

FPSGHoST808 #47 Posted Aug 11 2013 - 07:38

    Major

  • Players
  • 8053 battles
  • 4,383
  • Member since:
    11-26-2012

View PostiDeFy, on Aug 10 2013 - 22:19, said:

TL ; DR
M4 was a cool tank and wasnt as bad as people say.
Apart from the fact that it was called "cooker" because it caught fire easy and roasted its crew alive...

Zickefoose #48 Posted Aug 11 2013 - 08:09

    Captain

  • Players
  • 8331 battles
  • 1,188
  • [BT] BT
  • Member since:
    01-13-2012

View PostDJGK, on Aug 10 2013 - 22:52, said:

Good Read. TY

Also, I was here after the M4 got a "NERF" ... could you really shoot HEAT rounds and seriously still make money?

Just like 90% of all other gold rounds... if you dealt damage on every shot and didnt waste any rounds. Then yes, you would make credits while firing HEAT.

FPSGHoST808 #49 Posted Aug 11 2013 - 08:16

    Major

  • Players
  • 8053 battles
  • 4,383
  • Member since:
    11-26-2012

View Postdorgunr70, on Aug 11 2013 - 06:31, said:

  Provide the 75mm version of the M4A3 (wet) as it was common in WWII and all you have to do is degrade the E8 suspension and turret/gun to put it in the game.
Not sure what you mean by "nerfing" an easy 8 chassis and adding it to the game...

Meplat #50 Posted Aug 11 2013 - 08:20

    Major

  • Players
  • 6743 battles
  • 7,831
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    11-27-2012

View PostFPSGHoST808, on Aug 11 2013 - 07:38, said:

Apart from the fact that it was called "cooker" because it caught fire easy and roasted its crew alive...

When you stow ammo unsafely or in excess of what the racks will hold, that kind of stuff happens.
Having a tank that can double as artillery encouraged overstowing.

FPSGHoST808 #51 Posted Aug 11 2013 - 08:25

    Major

  • Players
  • 8053 battles
  • 4,383
  • Member since:
    11-26-2012

View PostMeplat, on Aug 11 2013 - 08:20, said:

When you stow ammo unsafely or in excess of what the racks will hold, that kind of stuff happens.
Having a tank that can double as artillery encouraged overstowing.
I said FIRE, not Armageddon in the ammo rack

Meplat #52 Posted Aug 11 2013 - 08:31

    Major

  • Players
  • 6743 battles
  • 7,831
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    11-27-2012

View PostFPSGHoST808, on Aug 11 2013 - 08:25, said:

I said FIRE, not Armageddon in the ammo rack

Most of the fires in M4's were propellant related, not fuel.

The fuel system was no more or less armored than other tanks of the era, nor did it use a more "flammable" fuel.

Wolcott #53 Posted Aug 11 2013 - 11:07

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 15
  • Member since:
    12-30-2012

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Aug 09 2013 - 19:46, said:

Posted Image
A 76mm gun to a basic M4. Premium tank anyone?

zikumelas #54 Posted Aug 11 2013 - 12:28

    Private

  • Players
  • 2046 battles
  • 1
  • [CRBSC] CRBSC
  • Member since:
    06-22-2011
Any ideas as to what tanks were built in the tank plant in Cleveland Ohio?

stavro375 #55 Posted Aug 11 2013 - 13:01

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 7935 battles
  • 363
  • Member since:
    03-09-2013

View PostMeplat, on Aug 11 2013 - 08:20, said:

When you stow ammo unsafely or in excess of what the racks will hold, that kind of stuff happens.
Having a tank that can double as artillery encouraged overstowing.
From what I've heard, the introduction of wet ammo storage went a long way to reducing propellant fires.
@"Armageddon in ammo rack"
It's mentioned in one of the Operation Think Tank videos (I'm sorry, I forgot which one...) that the main source of fire in a tank was the ammunition propellant being ignited -- AP round impacts hull armor, friction from the hull heats it to extreme temperatures, and if it hits an ammo rack it *ignites* the propellant.

raikunten #56 Posted Aug 11 2013 - 13:50

    Private

  • Players
  • 4196 battles
  • 6
  • [QRF1] QRF1
  • Member since:
    11-04-2012
the m4 is no joke especially with the 105mm but realistily the 76mm for those military people listening is the ideal cannon because its ability to fire rapidly and penn was all the us needed it for besides the m4 sherman like all med tanks according to the us ar (united states army regulations) was to be infantry support so the normany things is them following mandate but the 105mm in a scenerio(game basis) is a better gun!

raikunten #57 Posted Aug 11 2013 - 13:52

    Private

  • Players
  • 4196 battles
  • 6
  • [QRF1] QRF1
  • Member since:
    11-04-2012
the us army has and has all used jp-8 fuel because its highly not flamable fuel source!

Theodore #58 Posted Aug 11 2013 - 13:53

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 884 battles
  • 516
  • Member since:
    12-05-2010

View PostWolcott, on Aug 11 2013 - 11:07, said:

A 76mm gun to a basic M4. Premium tank anyone?

You have a better choice, M4A3E4.
http://www.drostrup....leder/G045c.jpg

a1fox3 #59 Posted Aug 11 2013 - 15:53

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 31990 battles
  • 1,059
  • [CXT] CXT
  • Member since:
    07-21-2010
And not 1 mentioning of the M4 with the M26 Turret and 90mm gun. Unlike other nations only having some tanks just on paper they actually made this tank.
Im not gona find a pic and place it here but the M4 with the M26 Turret with 90mm gun pic can be found here in the first pic.
http://forum.worldof...m-premium-tank/
Also I dont want it to be a premium tank but like other nations at T6 having better pen. and damage than the M4A3E8 they need to add the 90mm to the Easy Eight.

Edited by a1fox3, Aug 11 2013 - 15:54.


Goo_Fung_Yu_Tu #60 Posted Aug 11 2013 - 16:46

    Private

  • Players
  • 754 battles
  • 1
  • Member since:
    08-01-2013
There was a "tank scandal" that Eisenhower was active in suppressing. I have never, in all my studies on World War 2, EVER caught more than a passing reference to this issue in but a few books. Never have I seen a definitive book addressing the scandal but Ike was upset because, as with so many other things the public wasn't told (and should NOT have BEEN told) the fact was that our tanks couldn't stand up to German tanks on a one for one basis. Nor were they told, en masse about their nickname as Tommy Cookers or Ronsons. The M4 was a creative medium design in it's initial day but time and tide moved fast in the war. The tank doctrine of the US was always a "mixed arms" doctrine. That means air supremacy attained, fighter bombers then moving in along with massed artillery and massed tank formations to overwhelm superior technology in smaller numbers (not that the German tank was so very perfect technologically but it was big and THICK). In the end "it was the prerogative of a great nation to choose to build large numbers of lighter tanks to combat small numbers of larger ones", in combination with other arms. That was a quote I took from a book about armored warfare.
The TRUE tank scandal is not about the 75mm vs. the 76mm gun or the fitting of an appropriate turret to HOUSE the 76mm. The REAL scandal is that the British equipped the Sherman with the 17 pounder and a new turret to fit, called it the Firefly and, if it and it's mates got off a few shots first, the Tiger was beaten. The USA, a far greater industrial power than Great Britain, which was known for making second rate equipment (compared to the USA or Germany) REFUSED to adopt the Firefly. They could have easily switched off from 75 or 76 mm Sherman production, but claimed it would bog down production instead. Yet by switching from the 75 to the 76 they were doing just that anyway. US production of the Firefly for it's own divisions would have placed a powerful tank in the field, in numbers that would have given the tankers a first shot chance of beating a Tiger and, certainly, a Panther. That the government chose NOT to produce Fireflys is the true tank scandal. Britain could do it, with it's limited production abilities, but the (THEN) industrial giant of the planet refused to do so.

Edited by WoostusJones, Aug 11 2013 - 16:48.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users