Jump to content


Common Myths debunked.


  • Please log in to reply
636 replies to this topic

Vanagandr #41 Posted Jul 30 2015 - 17:15

    Major

  • Players
  • 24993 battles
  • 3,622
  • [-G-] -G-
  • Member since:
    04-22-2011
When Allu makes his way out of CR/D just to call you an idiot, you know you've done something impressive[ly dumb]

mattscooby #42 Posted Jul 30 2015 - 18:45

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 31570 battles
  • 1,600
  • [KLUB] KLUB
  • Member since:
    12-31-2010

ok make it simple, get an open field flat, hard ground,1500 meters, too give both tanks mobility and space too move.

1 side, Sherman m4, the other side tiger . who will win? 1 tank on 1 tank, both 100 % functioning. both will skilled crews.



Daigensui #43 Posted Jul 30 2015 - 18:57

    Major

  • Players
  • 24632 battles
  • 29,033
  • [KANCO] KANCO
  • Member since:
    11-09-2012

View Postmattscooby, on Jul 30 2015 - 10:45, said:

ok make it simple, get an open field flat, hard ground,1500 meters, too give both tanks mobility and space too move.

1 side, Sherman m4, the other side tiger . who will win? 1 tank on 1 tank, both 100 % functioning. both will skilled crews.

 

Irrelevant. You wouldn't get such conditions in war, and trying to pump up Tiger's chances is just masturbatory fantasy making.

dave1y #44 Posted Jul 30 2015 - 19:05

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 70719 battles
  • 459
  • [MSF12] MSF12
  • Member since:
    05-16-2011

View PostDestin65, on Jul 29 2015 - 23:23, said:


And now we know the real reason WG designed cage-style maps measuring a paltry 1k by 1k at the largest and with no open range areas and visibility reduced to 445m in contrast to the real thing comprising tens of thousands of meters and view ranged limited only by the weather and terrain.
 

 

And now we know the justification that WG uses when they designed cage-style maps measuring a paltry 1k by 1k at the largest and with some occasional open range areas and still have visibility reduced to 445m because their servers can't handle anything approaching reality that was comprised of tens of thousands of meters and view range limited only by the weather and terrain.

 

ftfy



Saga #45 Posted Jul 30 2015 - 19:08

    Captain

  • Players
  • 43311 battles
  • 1,592
  • Member since:
    04-21-2011
Mmmmm...Russian M4 Sherman...future premium?

Wyvern2 #46 Posted Jul 30 2015 - 19:14

    Major

  • Players
  • 35817 battles
  • 3,124
  • [_D_] _D_
  • Member since:
    06-08-2011

Why the hell did WG remove negreps, is it so people could spew nonsense all over the forums like OP did and only see the upvotes?

The Sherman was a threat to the Tiger within 600m's when armed with a 75mm gun according to Tigerfibel, Tigers basically had less armor than a KV-1e, roughly the same as a Churchill and almost the same frontal armor as an M4/Up-armored Cromwell. Nobody would really consider the latter two "well armored", despite being fair enough in their own weightclass, so I don't see why the Tiger should be considered such especially when it weighs over 56 tons and the nearest allied heavy tank in weight, the IS-1/2, has significantly better armor. The Churchill VII, weighing ~40 tons has more armor than the Tiger. That said, yes, Tiger does have enough side armor to be invulnerable to normal AP on small caliber guns from most angles, making it "better" than the Panther in that respect.

 

This isn't even considering the almost complete lack of actual Tiger on Sherman engagements, something Zine has already gone over in good length, or the error in judging the 76mm's effectiveness vs the Tiger(or the effectiveness of other guns for that matter)



cashdash #47 Posted Jul 30 2015 - 19:17

    Major

  • Players
  • 5143 battles
  • 7,254
  • Member since:
    03-31-2013

View PostSaga, on Jul 30 2015 - 13:08, said:

Mmmmm...Russian M4 Sherman...future premium?

 

Doubtful, unlike in other instances there would be no appreciable difference between a premium M4A2 Sherman and the regular M4 Sherman.



dave1y #48 Posted Jul 30 2015 - 19:18

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 70719 battles
  • 459
  • [MSF12] MSF12
  • Member since:
    05-16-2011

I'll go with this...

https://www.youtube....bed/zQvnIPihy1U


Edited by dave1y, Jul 30 2015 - 19:18.


dave1y #49 Posted Jul 30 2015 - 19:23

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 70719 battles
  • 459
  • [MSF12] MSF12
  • Member since:
    05-16-2011

sry please delete me


Edited by dave1y, Jul 30 2015 - 19:23.


acosnil #50 Posted Jul 30 2015 - 19:30

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 3332 battles
  • 697
  • Member since:
    06-30-2013

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Jul 30 2015 - 05:47, said:

There is a different between impervious, and somewhat vulnerable. Real life doesn't care about armor values. Tigers could be knocked out by 37mm if it was hit enough times in enough places. (A unit of M3 lights managed it in North Africa)

 

An M8 greyhound did it too.

 

 

View PostZinegata, on Jul 30 2015 - 08:17, said:

You guys do realize that the US Army encountered the Tiger I a grand total of three times to begin with, yes? And to quote the Chieftain - In one encounter the Shermans beat the Tigers, in a second encounter the Tigers beat some Pershings, and in the third encounter the Tigers were being loaded into rail cars so it wasn't really a fair fight.

 

The Tiger was in fact a complete non-factor during the war.

 

By the way, the average engagement range was just over 500 meters. Somebody in fact tried simulating the Fury battle which was fought at this range using the Squad Leader simulation system (whose designers are notoriously pro-German) and yet the Shermans won on the first shot by a 75mm hit that went through the front.

 

The guy who tested this out was so upset - claiming that the Shermans had lucked out on a 10% chance of hitting and killing - that he gave the Tiger a second life. At which point the Tiger knocked out a grand total of one Sherman before getting killed again.

 

The Tiger in fact was not that great of a tank armor-wise. Its front was only slightly thicker than the effective front armor of the Sherman.

 

 

Three times in Europe. I have to assume they ran into them in Africa and maybe Italy as well.

 

 

View PostKarlvonC, on Jul 30 2015 - 08:47, said:

 

What about Villiers Bocage? what about engagements with the Commonwealth forces?

 

 

Think of it this way: At 2000 meters an M4 Sherman in your average gunnery sight would be small, and he'd have to patiently wait there. Statistically encounters between tanks- which was already the minority of what destroyed tanks- were exceedingly rare at distances above 1000 meters, and below 1000 meters most occurred from 700 to 400 meters.

 

 

And one region, of one country with highly unusual geography isn't exactly a good example to bring up. The metric is that while the Panther fought competently on the defense, the M4 Sherman performed about three times as well on the offense. The same can be said for the Tiger 1, roughly speaking.

 

 

View PostSlayer_Jesse, on Jul 30 2015 - 12:08, said:

 

"The Tiger was in fact a complete non-factor during the war."

 

You need to qualify that statement. It was, for the Americans. I'm sure the Russians felt differently.

 

 

 

The Soviets didn't even realize the Germans had the Tiger till months after it's introduction.

 

 

View Postmattscooby, on Jul 30 2015 - 17:45, said:

ok make it simple, get an open field flat, hard ground,1500 meters, too give both tanks mobility and space too move.

1 side, Sherman m4, the other side tiger . who will win? 1 tank on 1 tank, both 100 % functioning. both will skilled crews.

 

 

M4 Sherman wins. Assuming the Tiger crew doesn't panic after a WP round is fired, duping them into thinking the tank is on fire, and bail out, they're blinded with a smoke round before repeated HE rounds kill them via concussion.

 

 

View Postdave1y, on Jul 30 2015 - 18:18, said:

 

 

Human testimony is unreliable when you're trying to capture the big picture. The only people who weren't scared shitless of getting in a tank were either lying, dead, or a mechanic. Yes, tanks were safer than being infantry, and yes, the US actually had the highest survival rates for crews, but statistically every round penetrating a tank was killing someone.



EnsignExpendable #51 Posted Jul 30 2015 - 20:12

    Major

  • Players
  • 23745 battles
  • 17,792
  • [SGLE] SGLE
  • Member since:
    04-22-2011

View Postcashdash, on Jul 30 2015 - 13:17, said:

Doubtful, unlike in other instances there would be no appreciable difference between a premium M4A2 Sherman and the regular M4 Sherman.

 

I'd welcome a tier 5 Soviet med premium that isn't complete garbage though. Or they could always give it the M1A1 and make a tier 6 premium Sherman.


Edited by EnsignExpendable, Jul 30 2015 - 20:13.


cashdash #52 Posted Jul 30 2015 - 20:21

    Major

  • Players
  • 5143 battles
  • 7,254
  • Member since:
    03-31-2013

View PostEnsignExpendable, on Jul 30 2015 - 14:12, said:

 

I'd welcome a tier 5 Soviet med premium that isn't complete garbage though. Or they could always give it the M1A1 and make a tier 6 premium Sherman.

 

Come on, the Mat IV's not that bad.

Wyvern2 #53 Posted Jul 30 2015 - 20:25

    Major

  • Players
  • 35817 battles
  • 3,124
  • [_D_] _D_
  • Member since:
    06-08-2011

View PostEnsignExpendable, on Jul 30 2015 - 20:12, said:

 

I'd welcome a tier 5 Soviet med premium that isn't complete garbage though. Or they could always give it the M1A1 and make a tier 6 premium Sherman.

 

Mod 1 and Rudy are both stellar, Mat 4 is meh and i dont own a T-34/85M, but i cant say the soviet med prems are "bad" per se.

EnsignExpendable #54 Posted Jul 30 2015 - 20:51

    Major

  • Players
  • 23745 battles
  • 17,792
  • [SGLE] SGLE
  • Member since:
    04-22-2011

View Postcashdash, on Jul 30 2015 - 14:21, said:

Come on, the Mat IV's not that bad.

 

It's complete trash even if you shoot APCR exclusively. The Churchill III is better in literally every single way.



cashdash #55 Posted Jul 30 2015 - 21:07

    Major

  • Players
  • 5143 battles
  • 7,254
  • Member since:
    03-31-2013

View PostEnsignExpendable, on Jul 30 2015 - 14:51, said:

 

It's complete trash even if you shoot APCR exclusively. The Churchill III is better in literally every single way.

 

It's got 610 HP on a tier 5 medium with pref MM, and unlike the Churchill it has mobility and gun depression. It's not a great Tier 5 prem but it's hardly garbage.

Edited by cashdash, Jul 30 2015 - 21:07.


StrelaCarbon #56 Posted Jul 30 2015 - 22:37

    Captain

  • Players
  • 19738 battles
  • 1,775
  • Member since:
    04-03-2011
The Matilda IV is a truly glorious seal clubber, though I will admit it's pretty useless against Tier 6s. Or AT 2s. 

LeuCeaMia #57 Posted Jul 31 2015 - 03:33

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 11553 battles
  • 626
  • Member since:
    03-18-2011

View PostStrelaCarbon, on Jul 31 2015 - 05:37, said:

The Matilda IV is a truly glorious seal clubber, though I will admit it's pretty useless against Tier 6s. Or AT 2s. 

 

I find that the AT-2 can be dealt with by shooting through the tracks into the side hull, bypassing the skirts.

 

Dat 1.7 aim time and 14 degrees of depression makes the Matilda IV just so enjoyable.



Legiondude #58 Posted Jul 31 2015 - 06:40

    Major

  • Players
  • 20134 battles
  • 22,949
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    08-22-2011

View Postcashdash, on Jul 30 2015 - 13:17, said:

 

Doubtful, unlike in other instances there would be no appreciable difference between a premium M4A2 Sherman and the regular M4 Sherman.

Well there was enough to justify adding a M4A2 to the British Tree



Life_In_Black #59 Posted Jul 31 2015 - 06:47

    Major

  • Players
  • 23126 battles
  • 10,676
  • [KGS] KGS
  • Member since:
    10-29-2011

View PostLegiondude, on Jul 31 2015 - 01:40, said:

Well there was enough to justify adding a M4A2 to the British Tree

 

Did somebody say we need more Shermans? I know a great way to add more Shermans into the game! Just make a check or money order payable to......

EnsignExpendable #60 Posted Jul 31 2015 - 14:23

    Major

  • Players
  • 23745 battles
  • 17,792
  • [SGLE] SGLE
  • Member since:
    04-22-2011

View PostLegiondude, on Jul 31 2015 - 00:40, said:

Well there was enough to justify adding a M4A2 to the British Tree

 

Isn't that an M4A4?




2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users