However, I'm referring to rifle-caliber 7.62mm weapons. 7.62x51mm NATO and 7.62x54mmR, two very common military rifle cartridges, have about 1000 joules over .50 Action Express.
And by nuclear, biological, and chemical threats, I am referring to the ability for the weapon to be able to operate in an environment with high radiation, bio weapons such as anthrax, and chemical weapons such as poison gas. If you drop a nuke on it, even a 300kt warhead (smallest warhead commonly employed), it will likely vaporize it.
However, nukes are often employed for impressive blast effect, and are mostly airburst weapons. In this scenario, it could survive a 300kt blast at a distance of 850m. And by survive, I mean "able to be towed out and repaired", because the shockwave would have killed whoever was in there.
@General360 I forgot to mention that Sherman tanks in the Israeli Army knocked out T-55 and T-62 of the Arab coalition that tried to kill Israel, failed, and got decimated.
I must clarify that the Sherman tank saw iterative improvements over the production cycle, including improvements in ergonomics, firepower, engine power, suspension, armor, and tracks.
The British simply had a lack of tank-building industry and a good design, being completely underfunded throughout the interwar period.
The Soviets realized the nature of the conflict, and given the heavy losses incurred during Operation Barbarossa, sought to replace and then expand their forces. Thus, production was prioritized for a large quantity of adequacy. @General360
The Paternian Army does acknowledge these flaws, but feel the advantages in lower profile, reduced weight, reduced crew requirements, and upgradability offered by these turrets outweigh the drawbacks.
Given that the Victoria is a massive vehicle with a sizable frontal profile, and incredible weight, the potential benefits are fairly substantial. The frontal profile is significantly reduced, especially if the machine is hull-down. And where standard Victoria weighs 70 tons, this weighs 50.
The commander is provided a separate wide-angle camera atop the turret, in addition to the one on the RCWS.
As for complexity, the automatic loader is a refinement of those employed on previous M23 Chariot, M120 SPG, and M55 Ardent II. While the M23's carousel system had significant issues with the autoloader, the M55's elevator system did not, and its system was employed by the M252 FSV with success. We simply built a new turret around this system. @PINK
@EternalDarkness In Hawaiian and other Polynesian languages, "mako" means "shark". In fact, it would be the Maori (indigenous New Zealanders) variant which would be used for the name of the shark species.
While factory M4A3E2 had the 75mm general-purpose gun, it came with a T23-inspired turret, the T23 turret being used on machines armed with the 76mm anti-tank gun.
It's one of the few cases where American TDs actually did their job as intended; rush to halt an enemy counter-offensive that broke though the line.
As for the flammability of the Sherman, it was no more flammable than other tanks. However, only the Sherman would receive wet ammo storage, which significantly reduced instances of fire.
And the Sherman, of any WWII tank, was perhaps the safest, except for early tanks which lacked a loader's hatch (they added one later). The hatches are large and spring-loaded, so opening them is easy and getting out from them is easier. Given that the average casualty rate for Infantry was 17%, and tankers at 3% (of which half that number came when they weren't in the tank, such as sentry duty or getting shot evacuating a burning tank), my bet goes to tankers living. @cobalT
@PhantomBladeCorp Basically, Panther isn't the glory tank everyone thinks it is. Yes, it has a big gun and thick frontal armor. What the Allied crews did not know was how much the German crews suffered because of their vehicles.
And as it turns out, the single deciding factor which determined who won a tank duel was who shot first. Most shots were against the flank, where the Panther's armor was about as thin as the Sherman's side. Of course, a Panther was more likely to win a tank duel over a Sherman in WWII simply because the Panther was more likely to be defending, and defenders typically have an inherent advantage.
Such is the advantage that even prewar antitank guns could knock out a Panther, provided the gun or the machine armed with it it is employed defensively.
Take a look at Arracourt. Allied air power was virtually limited to a US Army field artillery observer who decided to lash bazookas to his plane.
The Sherman tanks of the 4th Armored Division, 3rd Army were armed with 75mm guns, and were decidedly outnumbered 4-1.
Tally? Over 100 dead panzers and StuGs, including many Panthers, and another 100 disabled and abandoned tanks, in exchange for 25 tanks and 7 self-propelled guns (likely referring to 76mm GMC M18 Hellcat). And these Shermans had 75mm guns.
The 75mm M3 is basically a lengthened 75mm M2, which was regarded well as an anti-tank gun. In fact, the M3 Lee/Grant series features a 37mm gun because the Infantry wanted it for infantry support; at the time, there were more types of shell available for the 37mm anti-tank gun than the 75mm field gun, such as canister.
The 75mm M2/M3/M6 is basically a modified M1897 field gun, an American copy of the French Canon de 75 modele 1897. In fact, the M1897 field gun armed the M3 tank destroyer, which was basically that on top of an M3 half-track. The Canon de 75 modele 1897 would be employed as an anti-armor weapon by both the Allies and Axis forces. The Germans employed it as Pak 97/38, placing it on a Pak 38 carriage meant for a 50mm anti-tank gun, and gave it HEAT ammunition.
In fact, the US Army always wanted the Sherman to have a hole-puncher. The 3-inch gun proved unworkable due to weight, so was modernized into 76mm M1. This gun was mounted to Sherman in August 1942 (keep in mind Tiger was but a mere rumor and Panther didn't exist yet). This mount proved unsatisfactory. By 1943, they managed to stick the T23 turret on Sherman, and this was satisfactory. By May 1944, 200 76mm-armed Shermans were available in England for D-Day.
And nobody wanted them. Simply put, the 75mm has been doing just fine. In Italy, they have encountered machines such as Brummbar, Panther, and even Ferdinand. In each encounter, the 75mm M3 has been successful in engaging them.
The Panther had many weaknesses compared to the Sherman, besides mechanical reliability.
Firstly, commander's position. The position is intruded by the presence of unnecessary features, such as a separate submarine-like periscope for use when turret down (as if standard tank periscopes weren't enough), the hatch open and closed too slowly (although the open protected position was good), and a long rod extended into his position for an azimuth indicator so that the commander knows where the gun is facing relative to the vehicle. Which is fine, except that the alternative is looking down and seeing what the hull position looks like.
Now the gunner. He only has one sight, a narrow field of view telescopic sight of adjustable magnification, between 2x and 5x. This is appallingly bad visibility for the gunner. Even the T-34-85, a tank widely considered as spartan in features and rudimentary in construction, has a separate wide-angle periscopic sight. And the Sherman has
@cobalT I have a few things the Sherman could do that the Panther couldn't.
1) Acquire targets quickly
2) Engage targets quickly
3) Peek ridgelines WoT-style
4) Work
5) Not light on fire
6) Passing the "oh God the tank is on fire" egress test.
The Paternian Army is one of the factions in the Paternian War, also known as the Second American Civil War, the other being the Southern Confederacy.
By 1941, the front lines have been settled, and the Paternians could now focus on building the logicustucs infrastructure to take over the South. And they wanted a tank with a 75mm gun.
First in line was M3 Lee. A fairly poor design, and requiring a large crew, but a good basis for improvement.
Then came M4 Sherman. The reason why most Paternian Sherman tanks had the 75mm gun was because of its adequate anti-armor performance and excellent HE round; Confederate armor was few and of poor quality, and the 75mm could easily defeat the M3 Stuart, M2 Light tanks, Vickers Mk. E, and even M1917/Renault FT in service.
Some were fitted as tank-killers with a 76mm gun in the small turret, but this was not a popular modification. A revised turret from the T23 prototype was installed and this proved superior.
105mm howitzers were installed on many vehicles, and were very successful. HEAT ammunition was available but never issued, as the armor threat was low and the HE shell could rip apart something like a Stuart or Mk. E. @PhantomBladeCorp
Permission to recreate? I'm going to install standard small turret with 75mm M3, to recreate what most Paternian Shermans were armed with. @PhantomBladeCorp
@DragonAerotech Yes. In fact, I do have a high-efficiency turbine pack somewhere here. Comes in 1x, 2x, 5x, 10x, & 20x power. The only factor is that the are eerily quiet, so much so that you could hear the airflow around the airframe.
Alternatively, modded and practically infinite fuel is the order of the day, and is allowed. More convenient.
Plenty of aircraft options available as well from other factions. IRL aircraft are allowed, provided that it was available during said time period. Current time period changes, although is typically during or after the jet age.
We talk more often on Discord. Here's the server invite. Lasts forever.
The scopes are for use with slug rounds. Basically, a giant bullet.
Some slugs need a rifled barrel, where others can use a standard smoothbore barrel. Accurate to 150m. @PhantomBladeCorp
@Supercraft888 Np!
@JakeTheDogg Quad Vulcan?
@EnderSharky Thanks!
However, I'm referring to rifle-caliber 7.62mm weapons. 7.62x51mm NATO and 7.62x54mmR, two very common military rifle cartridges, have about 1000 joules over .50 Action Express.
And by nuclear, biological, and chemical threats, I am referring to the ability for the weapon to be able to operate in an environment with high radiation, bio weapons such as anthrax, and chemical weapons such as poison gas. If you drop a nuke on it, even a 300kt warhead (smallest warhead commonly employed), it will likely vaporize it.
However, nukes are often employed for impressive blast effect, and are mostly airburst weapons. In this scenario, it could survive a 300kt blast at a distance of 850m. And by survive, I mean "able to be towed out and repaired", because the shockwave would have killed whoever was in there.
+1Yep. @Bobplanes322
Thanks! @GrOuNdZeRo
@Supercraft888 Np!
Nice heli. Lemme guess, based off the Mi-28, with a Fenestron rotor.
Pretty cool design.
Nice! @Dllama4
@FlyingFanatic lol
@General360 Actually, it's the M50 and M51 Sherman.
The M50 Sherman had the gun of the AMX-13-75, which in its own right a copy of the Panther's 75mm gun.
The M51 Sherman had a shortened GIAT 105mm cannon (from the AMX 30) loaded with HEAT ammo.
The only Sherman tanks referred to as "Super Sherman" by the Israeli military was those armed with the 76mm M1.
@General360 I forgot to mention that Sherman tanks in the Israeli Army knocked out T-55 and T-62 of the Arab coalition that tried to kill Israel, failed, and got decimated.
@General360 Perhaps. I get a bit fed up when people tell me that the Panther is the best tank of WWII.
To this date, I know of no Panther tank that knocked out a T-55.
Thanks!
I must clarify that the Sherman tank saw iterative improvements over the production cycle, including improvements in ergonomics, firepower, engine power, suspension, armor, and tracks.
The British simply had a lack of tank-building industry and a good design, being completely underfunded throughout the interwar period.
The Soviets realized the nature of the conflict, and given the heavy losses incurred during Operation Barbarossa, sought to replace and then expand their forces. Thus, production was prioritized for a large quantity of adequacy. @General360
The Paternian Army does acknowledge these flaws, but feel the advantages in lower profile, reduced weight, reduced crew requirements, and upgradability offered by these turrets outweigh the drawbacks.
Given that the Victoria is a massive vehicle with a sizable frontal profile, and incredible weight, the potential benefits are fairly substantial. The frontal profile is significantly reduced, especially if the machine is hull-down. And where standard Victoria weighs 70 tons, this weighs 50.
The commander is provided a separate wide-angle camera atop the turret, in addition to the one on the RCWS.
As for complexity, the automatic loader is a refinement of those employed on previous M23 Chariot, M120 SPG, and M55 Ardent II. While the M23's carousel system had significant issues with the autoloader, the M55's elevator system did not, and its system was employed by the M252 FSV with success. We simply built a new turret around this system. @PINK
@Supercraft888 It is heavily inspired by the F-15.
@EternalDarkness Np! Gotta love the helicopter update. Brought life back into the old Trojan.
@EternalDarkness In Hawaiian and other Polynesian languages, "mako" means "shark". In fact, it would be the Maori (indigenous New Zealanders) variant which would be used for the name of the shark species.
@Potkuri I feel the pain. :(
@DogeMaster14 This vehicle is the E8 variant.
While factory M4A3E2 had the 75mm general-purpose gun, it came with a T23-inspired turret, the T23 turret being used on machines armed with the 76mm anti-tank gun.
Could use some detail. But other than that, wonderful build.
Now I'll go find the Finn so that someone can look at the Buffalo and say it's good.
Because for the most part, nobody liked the Buffalo. Except for the Finns.
@Liquidfox Thanks.
@Flash0of0green Thanks!
@PyrusEnderhunter That looks more ISFOS than actual ISFOS tanks.
@PyrusEnderhunter Built a new tank.
The results of El Guettar tell me otherwise.
It's one of the few cases where American TDs actually did their job as intended; rush to halt an enemy counter-offensive that broke though the line.
As for the flammability of the Sherman, it was no more flammable than other tanks. However, only the Sherman would receive wet ammo storage, which significantly reduced instances of fire.
And the Sherman, of any WWII tank, was perhaps the safest, except for early tanks which lacked a loader's hatch (they added one later). The hatches are large and spring-loaded, so opening them is easy and getting out from them is easier. Given that the average casualty rate for Infantry was 17%, and tankers at 3% (of which half that number came when they weren't in the tank, such as sentry duty or getting shot evacuating a burning tank), my bet goes to tankers living. @cobalT
Credit goes to PhantomBladeCorp for the hull. @CRJ900Pilot
@PhantomBladeCorp And thanks.
@PhantomBladeCorp Basically, Panther isn't the glory tank everyone thinks it is. Yes, it has a big gun and thick frontal armor. What the Allied crews did not know was how much the German crews suffered because of their vehicles.
And as it turns out, the single deciding factor which determined who won a tank duel was who shot first. Most shots were against the flank, where the Panther's armor was about as thin as the Sherman's side. Of course, a Panther was more likely to win a tank duel over a Sherman in WWII simply because the Panther was more likely to be defending, and defenders typically have an inherent advantage.
Such is the advantage that even prewar antitank guns could knock out a Panther, provided the gun or the machine armed with it it is employed defensively.
Take a look at Arracourt. Allied air power was virtually limited to a US Army field artillery observer who decided to lash bazookas to his plane.
The Sherman tanks of the 4th Armored Division, 3rd Army were armed with 75mm guns, and were decidedly outnumbered 4-1.
Tally? Over 100 dead panzers and StuGs, including many Panthers, and another 100 disabled and abandoned tanks, in exchange for 25 tanks and 7 self-propelled guns (likely referring to 76mm GMC M18 Hellcat). And these Shermans had 75mm guns.
Yeah.
@PhantomBladeCorp Not really.
The 75mm M3 is basically a lengthened 75mm M2, which was regarded well as an anti-tank gun. In fact, the M3 Lee/Grant series features a 37mm gun because the Infantry wanted it for infantry support; at the time, there were more types of shell available for the 37mm anti-tank gun than the 75mm field gun, such as canister.
The 75mm M2/M3/M6 is basically a modified M1897 field gun, an American copy of the French Canon de 75 modele 1897. In fact, the M1897 field gun armed the M3 tank destroyer, which was basically that on top of an M3 half-track. The Canon de 75 modele 1897 would be employed as an anti-armor weapon by both the Allies and Axis forces. The Germans employed it as Pak 97/38, placing it on a Pak 38 carriage meant for a 50mm anti-tank gun, and gave it HEAT ammunition.
In fact, the US Army always wanted the Sherman to have a hole-puncher. The 3-inch gun proved unworkable due to weight, so was modernized into 76mm M1. This gun was mounted to Sherman in August 1942 (keep in mind Tiger was but a mere rumor and Panther didn't exist yet). This mount proved unsatisfactory. By 1943, they managed to stick the T23 turret on Sherman, and this was satisfactory. By May 1944, 200 76mm-armed Shermans were available in England for D-Day.
And nobody wanted them. Simply put, the 75mm has been doing just fine. In Italy, they have encountered machines such as Brummbar, Panther, and even Ferdinand. In each encounter, the 75mm M3 has been successful in engaging them.
The Panther had many weaknesses compared to the Sherman, besides mechanical reliability.
Firstly, commander's position. The position is intruded by the presence of unnecessary features, such as a separate submarine-like periscope for use when turret down (as if standard tank periscopes weren't enough), the hatch open and closed too slowly (although the open protected position was good), and a long rod extended into his position for an azimuth indicator so that the commander knows where the gun is facing relative to the vehicle. Which is fine, except that the alternative is looking down and seeing what the hull position looks like.
Now the gunner. He only has one sight, a narrow field of view telescopic sight of adjustable magnification, between 2x and 5x. This is appallingly bad visibility for the gunner. Even the T-34-85, a tank widely considered as spartan in features and rudimentary in construction, has a separate wide-angle periscopic sight. And the Sherman has
@IamD That is true.
However, slapping on more armor is always an option, and was frequently done.
@cobalT I have a few things the Sherman could do that the Panther couldn't.
1) Acquire targets quickly
2) Engage targets quickly
3) Peek ridgelines WoT-style
4) Work
5) Not light on fire
6) Passing the "oh God the tank is on fire" egress test.
Neat. I like the barrel shroud.
First.
@KillShot86 Same.
@Halphas Ah. Perhaps the fictional inspiration for the North Point?
Is the heavy cruiser the one you mentioned would be derived from the North Point?
Hah. My double-barrel is more advanced because of it's boxlock action.
When you open the breech, it automatically cocks the weapon.
Well I'm going to try. @PhantomBladeCorp
@PhantomBladeCorp Thanks.
On the other hand, I don't think anyone really did a good original Sherman turret.
What do you think of the back-story? @PhantomBladeCorp
lol good luck @AdrianFlyingAce
Thanks. It's for an RP.
The Paternian Army is one of the factions in the Paternian War, also known as the Second American Civil War, the other being the Southern Confederacy.
By 1941, the front lines have been settled, and the Paternians could now focus on building the logicustucs infrastructure to take over the South. And they wanted a tank with a 75mm gun.
First in line was M3 Lee. A fairly poor design, and requiring a large crew, but a good basis for improvement.
Then came M4 Sherman. The reason why most Paternian Sherman tanks had the 75mm gun was because of its adequate anti-armor performance and excellent HE round; Confederate armor was few and of poor quality, and the 75mm could easily defeat the M3 Stuart, M2 Light tanks, Vickers Mk. E, and even M1917/Renault FT in service.
Some were fitted as tank-killers with a 76mm gun in the small turret, but this was not a popular modification. A revised turret from the T23 prototype was installed and this proved superior.
105mm howitzers were installed on many vehicles, and were very successful. HEAT ammunition was available but never issued, as the armor threat was low and the HE shell could rip apart something like a Stuart or Mk. E. @PhantomBladeCorp
Permission to recreate? I'm going to install standard small turret with 75mm M3, to recreate what most Paternian Shermans were armed with. @PhantomBladeCorp
The IS-7 would like to have a word with you. @PhantomBladeCorp
Glad you found it useful! @DragonAerotech
@DragonAerotech It's available on PC.
@DragonAerotech Yes. In fact, I do have a high-efficiency turbine pack somewhere here. Comes in 1x, 2x, 5x, 10x, & 20x power. The only factor is that the are eerily quiet, so much so that you could hear the airflow around the airframe.
Alternatively, modded and practically infinite fuel is the order of the day, and is allowed. More convenient.
Plenty of aircraft options available as well from other factions. IRL aircraft are allowed, provided that it was available during said time period. Current time period changes, although is typically during or after the jet age.
We talk more often on Discord. Here's the server invite. Lasts forever.
https://discord.gg/YDMnJfU
@DragonAerotech 14 factions, of which 6-8 are active. The moderator does take things into account well, often on build quality.
@MadBomber Makcoink.