Yeah, I've seen a few of your prototypes in the old Luft n Chill server way back, and a few that you've posted.
Some odd stuff to say the least.
@ThePrototype
I have a tendency of disappearing from stuff randomly
But I've been better, finally had motivation to build a plane, tease it to the public, then upload it in the same month.
@ThePrototype
Hey,
@ACEPILOT109
@LancasterAce
The desc is in the works, but the ppane is fully flyable without any neccessary controls. Just make sure to use trim controls, and fly it like you'd fly a bomber.
Well, taking inspiration from a Ju 288 and not knowing how exactly to meld a round nose into a square fuselage created this pretty decent bomber.
@jamesPLANESii
The one true tail-less plane I've made, I used air brakes configured to be yaw brakes.
It needed near-constant attention, but after a bit if flying, ir was easy enough to understand
I would, if not for one of the reasons of the 109-018 being cancelled by the development of the 109-003
Not saying I won't or anything, but a good number of engines in design were cut due to the 109-003
@ThePrototype
Oh heck, man am I bad am remembering stuff...
Alllllriiiight, lemme see... okay, first thing that I have stable ground; the choice of Sherman against the Tiger 1.
I chose the M4A1 as it likely would of been one of the first Shermans to encounter the Tiger H1 in North Africa.
Other variants of the M4 Sherman such as the standard M4A2 I believe (And even I take what I say with a grain of salt) didn't see combat in the US Army until several dozen where converted into DD Shermans, but were sent over to several of the US' allies during Lend Lease.
Now the M4A3 did see widespread use as it was the prefered variant of the M4 Sherman from June of 1942 to June 1945. But I doubt in my personal opinion too many variants of the M4A3 ended up in Africa at the same time as Tiger H1s late 42.
Now, lemme keep reading, and skip over that lil below the belt comment annnnd the Tiger H1 and it's improvements. The Tiger 1 did see upgrades to it's reliability and other odds-and-ends, but these were pretty insignificant since any major improvememts would require reworking the already complex Tiger 1, and rebuilding existing Tiger 1s would require steel that was in horrifically short supply.
By 1944 and 45, literally every German tank was suffering so bad from the steel shortages, that steel had to be replaced with soft alloys. The Panther for example, by 1945 had it's sloped armor effectiveness decreased a noticeable amount due to the inability to make them with just steel. (I can't necessarily recal which metals were used to replace steel, but lets just throw Magnesium in there just because)
Now, compare that to the the M4 and variants. The M4 Sherman was a fairly simple tank, and I bet if you went another notch or two down in simplicity and you'd get the Bob Semple. It was easy to modify the M4 Sherman, especially so when compared to the Tiger 1. From rubber extenders on the tracks all the way to making the hecking tank float, the M4 was extremely versatile.
Now, lets not forget the US powerhouse of an economy!
The US had a large economy with many sources of steel to feed into the M4, from mines across the world to the spare pots and pans people had in cabinets. There was virtually never a shortage, since ya know... there tens of thousands of the M4 built overall, and that's not including other tanks like the M10 Wolverine, M18 Hellcat, and whatever you call the M36.
So yeah, aside from the US using the Konami code to boost it's economy, the M4 had the advantage of versatility.
Also,
yus, you actually saw this!
Alrighty, I'm very glad to get your opinion on this debate, and well, you left a lot to read over.
Mmmkay, so a point that stood out to me first was comparing the M4 to the Tiger, and how they served completly dofferen roles.
Now, I 100% agree with you on this, as having the M4 and Tiger 1 fight is like throwing a brick and block of clay at each other. While one has a very specific method of use that consitently works, the other can be molded and shaped into many forms that it can work effectively in.
Now, the only reason I did this was because very WW2 fanperson has done this at least once before in a debate, and I didn't really wanna be left out.
Now the second thing that I noticed that I'd like to point out is the survivability after the armor is penetrated;
As noted in the cons, specifically the M4A1 was chosen for the argumemt as it came out the same year as the Tiger H1; 1942. While later M4 variants did carry wet ammo stores, for the first year or two the ammo was still kept dry, and was very prone to catching fire after being hit. It also didn't help when crew haphazardly threw extra ammo into any space they could.
But this doesn't mean they'd catch fire instantly. They likely slowly started to cook off, and by the time British and American researchers (or whatever) came along to tally them for case studies, they'd be burned out, and probably have been for a day at least.
And the final thing that stood out was you mentioning armor;
Yes, the M4 did have fair armor on it, 50mm sloped at 55°. This gave it roughly 80-90mm of effective armor, and that could really bounch shells from short barreled Panzer IIIs, Panzer IVs, and StuGs.
But, the canon on the Tiger 1, the 8,8 cm KwK 36 L/56 with it's PzGr.39 standard shell could penetrate this armor at ranges well beyond the firing range of the M4s 75mm gun M3.
Now, I must clarify I'm not saying the M4 is bad, I just wish to poibt out it wasen't the greatest tank ever. Much like every tank of WW2, it had a fair number of flaws, and a number were not solved until the war was pretty much over. Although, I'd still rather being put in a B-17 mid-42 over a Sherman
@Pilotmario
Wasen't the KV-2 a failure in combat situations normal KV-1 and T-34 tanks encountered? but I must agree. Not much can withstand a 152mm shell
@CRJ900Pilot
Or simple aim for the turret ring. That's what I usually do, and it works well enough.
The T-34, yeah, that's pretty much how it was for a bit. While it was 45mm of armor, o2t wasen't quite invincible like you say. Some of the 7,5 cm PaKs could take the front if the hull wasen't traversed greater than 25°. And that has happened before. I've heard stories of whole Sherman rew surving after a 88mm PzGr.40 (I assume it's the .40) went straight down the middle of the M4
@InternationalAircraftCompany
Only if other logistics like soldiers/crew, ammo, cost, and fuel wasen't considered.
Just imagine the kind of strain 50 thousand Tiger 1s would put on a country economy when compared to M4s. It would be pretty disastrous
@Roswell
Lots of stuff was planned to work on paper, but failed off. Take the Valiant, the British tank that was so bad the commander could even bear 13 miles in it. It was planned as a sorta offensive tank in case the home island got invaded, but that never happened, and the tank was a failure nonetheless.
But hey, you're entitled to an opinion on this as much as I am.
@Roswell
There are likely a hundred videos about this, I know.
The Sherman, unlike the Tiger, was more of a war winning tank. It wasen't meant to take on tanks exceptionally well when alone, but could really only in large numbers consistently. The Tiger was more-or-less designed differently, being able to hold it's own alone against many tanks, but preferably supported by infantry and at longer ranges.
@Roswell
That doesn't suprise me one bit. There were likely countless plans built around plans, that were also built around plans.
Afterall, a fair number of German documents were destroyed at the end of the war
@BACconcordepilot
T-34s, yeah they were unbelievably rugged, but pretty efging crude. I heard of some T-34s having gaps large enough in their armor to fit someone's hand.
And you do you bud.
@KidKromosone
I haven't heard of an AA Maus, but I have heard of a AA E-100.
The Flakzwilling E-100, mounting two 8,8 cm cannons in an Adler turret I believe
@BACconcordepilot
Oh yes, I highly recommend you read up on that.
Heck, read up on just about everything of WW2! But... that might take a while, so start small.
@KidKromosone
Not the only one. The M10/M36 did have pretty decent armor for an open-topped tank destroyer, at a time when every other one was paper thin, and it's gun was pretty terrifying to Panzer IIIs and IVs
@RailfanEthan
That's an interesting opinion, in my opinion. Not too many peeps recognize the M10/M36. It's usually just M4 spam and Pershings on the US side. Also, the M10 became the Achilles when the British mounted that neato 17 Pounder to it
@RailfanEthan
Of course it doesn't. Of course the Tiger would be outpaced by a Sherman, but on something like thick or deep mud, it's likely the Tiger 1 could outpace a Sherman because of the woder tracks
@BACconcordepilot
That and it had numbers.
And it wouldn't suprise me if there are more Sherman models than Tigers.
Afterall, it would just be like real life!
@BACconcordepilot
Sure, it wouldn't hurt to look.
@ThePrototype
Yeah, I've seen a few of your prototypes in the old Luft n Chill server way back, and a few that you've posted.
Some odd stuff to say the least.
@ThePrototype
I have a tendency of disappearing from stuff randomly
But I've been better, finally had motivation to build a plane, tease it to the public, then upload it in the same month.
@ThePrototype
Heyo @ThePrototype
Hey,
@ACEPILOT109
@LancasterAce
The desc is in the works, but the ppane is fully flyable without any neccessary controls. Just make sure to use trim controls, and fly it like you'd fly a bomber.
Will do
@LancasterAce
Oh yeah, it for sure does.
@Mumpsy
thanks yous
@DepressedTortoise
Danke @AdlerSteiner
Well, taking inspiration from a Ju 288 and not knowing how exactly to meld a round nose into a square fuselage created this pretty decent bomber.
@jamesPLANESii
no...
@BACconcordepilot
Just remind me to do so, then I'll tag ya
@ACEPILOT109
ah crap, I was gonna build this...
But then I also say I'm gonna build something
The one true tail-less plane I've made, I used air brakes configured to be yaw brakes.
It needed near-constant attention, but after a bit if flying, ir was easy enough to understand
It's a pretty decent modification to say the least
@CptJacobson
Just make sure to do the appropriate modifications, and it's yours to use.
@CptJacobson
You can, but not exactly as it is. Repaint and modifications would be necessary, especially with how old it is.
@CptJacobson
Thank you!
@AdlerSteiner
I would, if not for one of the reasons of the 109-018 being cancelled by the development of the 109-003
Not saying I won't or anything, but a good number of engines in design were cut due to the 109-003
@ThePrototype
Thanks!
@ThePrototype
It's been cancelled, sorry
@LancasterAce
Um, I haven't left? I just left a few basically dead servers.
@yogertdog
Crap I can't spellcheck
Don't worry, I'm still working on the other two stages.
As soon as they're finished, I'll upload it.
@LancasterAce
Oh heck, man am I bad am remembering stuff...
Alllllriiiight, lemme see... okay, first thing that I have stable ground; the choice of Sherman against the Tiger 1.
I chose the M4A1 as it likely would of been one of the first Shermans to encounter the Tiger H1 in North Africa.
Other variants of the M4 Sherman such as the standard M4A2 I believe (And even I take what I say with a grain of salt) didn't see combat in the US Army until several dozen where converted into DD Shermans, but were sent over to several of the US' allies during Lend Lease.
Now the M4A3 did see widespread use as it was the prefered variant of the M4 Sherman from June of 1942 to June 1945. But I doubt in my personal opinion too many variants of the M4A3 ended up in Africa at the same time as Tiger H1s late 42.
Now, lemme keep reading, and skip over that lil below the belt comment annnnd the Tiger H1 and it's improvements. The Tiger 1 did see upgrades to it's reliability and other odds-and-ends, but these were pretty insignificant since any major improvememts would require reworking the already complex Tiger 1, and rebuilding existing Tiger 1s would require steel that was in horrifically short supply.
By 1944 and 45, literally every German tank was suffering so bad from the steel shortages, that steel had to be replaced with soft alloys. The Panther for example, by 1945 had it's sloped armor effectiveness decreased a noticeable amount due to the inability to make them with just steel. (I can't necessarily recal which metals were used to replace steel, but lets just throw Magnesium in there just because)
Now, compare that to the the M4 and variants. The M4 Sherman was a fairly simple tank, and I bet if you went another notch or two down in simplicity and you'd get the Bob Semple. It was easy to modify the M4 Sherman, especially so when compared to the Tiger 1. From rubber extenders on the tracks all the way to making the hecking tank float, the M4 was extremely versatile.
Now, lets not forget the US powerhouse of an economy!
The US had a large economy with many sources of steel to feed into the M4, from mines across the world to the spare pots and pans people had in cabinets. There was virtually never a shortage, since ya know... there tens of thousands of the M4 built overall, and that's not including other tanks like the M10 Wolverine, M18 Hellcat, and whatever you call the M36.
So yeah, aside from the US using the Konami code to boost it's economy, the M4 had the advantage of versatility.
Also,
yus, you actually saw this!
Alrighty, I'm very glad to get your opinion on this debate, and well, you left a lot to read over.
Mmmkay, so a point that stood out to me first was comparing the M4 to the Tiger, and how they served completly dofferen roles.
Now, I 100% agree with you on this, as having the M4 and Tiger 1 fight is like throwing a brick and block of clay at each other. While one has a very specific method of use that consitently works, the other can be molded and shaped into many forms that it can work effectively in.
Now, the only reason I did this was because very WW2 fanperson has done this at least once before in a debate, and I didn't really wanna be left out.
Now the second thing that I noticed that I'd like to point out is the survivability after the armor is penetrated;
As noted in the cons, specifically the M4A1 was chosen for the argumemt as it came out the same year as the Tiger H1; 1942. While later M4 variants did carry wet ammo stores, for the first year or two the ammo was still kept dry, and was very prone to catching fire after being hit. It also didn't help when crew haphazardly threw extra ammo into any space they could.
But this doesn't mean they'd catch fire instantly. They likely slowly started to cook off, and by the time British and American researchers (or whatever) came along to tally them for case studies, they'd be burned out, and probably have been for a day at least.
And the final thing that stood out was you mentioning armor;
Yes, the M4 did have fair armor on it, 50mm sloped at 55°. This gave it roughly 80-90mm of effective armor, and that could really bounch shells from short barreled Panzer IIIs, Panzer IVs, and StuGs.
But, the canon on the Tiger 1, the 8,8 cm KwK 36 L/56 with it's PzGr.39 standard shell could penetrate this armor at ranges well beyond the firing range of the M4s 75mm gun M3.
Now, I must clarify I'm not saying the M4 is bad, I just wish to poibt out it wasen't the greatest tank ever. Much like every tank of WW2, it had a fair number of flaws, and a number were not solved until the war was pretty much over.
Although, I'd still rather being put in a B-17 mid-42 over a Sherman
@Pilotmario
@Pilotmario
Wasen't the KV-2 a failure in combat situations normal KV-1 and T-34 tanks encountered?
but I must agree. Not much can withstand a 152mm shell
@CRJ900Pilot
Unless the kitty finds it's way into the home of an IS-2, then kitty is food
@marcox43
Who needs a 50mm when you have a 20mm autocannon?
@Destroyer5713
I'd rather put money on the Pz II J
@Destroyer5713
Or simple aim for the turret ring. That's what I usually do, and it works well enough.
The T-34, yeah, that's pretty much how it was for a bit. While it was 45mm of armor, o2t wasen't quite invincible like you say. Some of the 7,5 cm PaKs could take the front if the hull wasen't traversed greater than 25°.
And that has happened before. I've heard stories of whole Sherman rew surving after a 88mm PzGr.40 (I assume it's the .40) went straight down the middle of the M4
@InternationalAircraftCompany
Well obviously it would!
But not on the economy.
@Roswell
Only if other logistics like soldiers/crew, ammo, cost, and fuel wasen't considered.
Just imagine the kind of strain 50 thousand Tiger 1s would put on a country economy when compared to M4s. It would be pretty disastrous
@Roswell
Oh, neat! Yeah I've seen that video. It gave a good idea of what tank was the best, and I couldn't agree more with his final opinion.
@Roswell
Lots of stuff was planned to work on paper, but failed off. Take the Valiant, the British tank that was so bad the commander could even bear 13 miles in it. It was planned as a sorta offensive tank in case the home island got invaded, but that never happened, and the tank was a failure nonetheless.
But hey, you're entitled to an opinion on this as much as I am.
@Roswell
There are likely a hundred videos about this, I know.
The Sherman, unlike the Tiger, was more of a war winning tank. It wasen't meant to take on tanks exceptionally well when alone, but could really only in large numbers consistently. The Tiger was more-or-less designed differently, being able to hold it's own alone against many tanks, but preferably supported by infantry and at longer ranges.
@Roswell
That doesn't suprise me one bit. There were likely countless plans built around plans, that were also built around plans.
Afterall, a fair number of German documents were destroyed at the end of the war
@BACconcordepilot
I feel I should do a bit of a study on the T-34, see how that goes.
@KidKromosone
yeahhhhh
Just look up "Flakzwilling 8.8cm auf E-100"
@KidKromosone
T-34s, yeah they were unbelievably rugged, but pretty efging crude. I heard of some T-34s having gaps large enough in their armor to fit someone's hand.
And you do you bud.
@KidKromosone
I haven't heard of an AA Maus, but I have heard of a AA E-100.
The Flakzwilling E-100, mounting two 8,8 cm cannons in an Adler turret I believe
@BACconcordepilot
Oh yes, I highly recommend you read up on that.
Heck, read up on just about everything of WW2! But... that might take a while, so start small.
@KidKromosone
I should refer ya to the echo chamber segment, but whatever
Peeps have their opinions, so I'll let it slide
@KidKromosone
Not the only one. The M10/M36 did have pretty decent armor for an open-topped tank destroyer, at a time when every other one was paper thin, and it's gun was pretty terrifying to Panzer IIIs and IVs
@RailfanEthan
That's an interesting opinion, in my opinion. Not too many peeps recognize the M10/M36. It's usually just M4 spam and Pershings on the US side. Also, the M10 became the Achilles when the British mounted that neato 17 Pounder to it
@RailfanEthan
Of course it doesn't. Of course the Tiger would be outpaced by a Sherman, but on something like thick or deep mud, it's likely the Tiger 1 could outpace a Sherman because of the woder tracks
@BACconcordepilot
That and it had numbers.
And it wouldn't suprise me if there are more Sherman models than Tigers.
Afterall, it would just be like real life!
@BACconcordepilot
I have a feeling you didn't actually read any of that
@KidKromosone
No probs, I guess.
@Thespirtusraptorfan