Jeeps_Guns_Tanks Posted October 9, 2016 Author Report Share Posted October 9, 2016 So we are talking the same backlots the A-team and Dukes of Hazard were filmed on? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donward Posted October 9, 2016 Report Share Posted October 9, 2016 So we are talking the same backlots the A-team and Dukes of Hazard were filmed on? Basically, yes. Think this one is a WB production as well, the production quality and props/effects during the "combat" scene - and the M2 mocked up to look German @ ~4:47 Nice find, man. Also I always dig the 1940s Average Joe actor voice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeeps_Guns_Tanks Posted October 10, 2016 Author Report Share Posted October 10, 2016 Security on the March: With the Sherman Tank Tank and AFV News posted a link to a fascinating YouTube video covering march security of mechanized units, the film is from 1942 or early 43. This Army training film is almost a half an hour long, and it’s really interesting. The film takes place somewhere in the US, probably on a Hollywood backlot, the Desert Training Center was pretty close so getting the tanks to Hollywood wouldn’t be hard. At times the film is clearly using special effects, and that lends more credence to it being in Hollywood. The film covers security while a tank platoon moves around not directly in combat. It covers night movement, camouflage when stopped and gives tips on being stealthier in your tank. The tanks used are all early, but not super early since they are not DV tanks, but still have shorty gun mantlet and no telescopic sites, M4A1 75 tanks. The tanks also have full turret baskets, with the 12 unprotected ready rounds, and no armor over the sponson ammo racks or the turret cheek add on armor. Its possible training tanks did not have these features removed like tanks slated to see combat. The Official War Department Training film’s number is, T.F. 21 2035, and I want to make sure and thank Jeff Quitney for putting it up on YouTube! I had never seen it before so it was a real treat. He has a lot of other good content up on YouTube so check it out. Now let’s talk about the contents of the Training Film. Right off the video starts off with a M4A1 driving by on a dirt road, it going at a good clip, and you can just make out another M4A1 trailing behind it at a few angles. The next shot shows a tank crew in front of their M4A1 going over a map with commander, and it just keeps getting better. I took well over 100 screen caps watching this film. These are the five things that need to be kept in mind at all times to make a road march safe. 1.Advanced prep 2.Alertness 3.Concealment 4.Dispersion 5.Firepower The enemy’s goal in an ambush would be to get to the main body of the column, and the film talks about how they should move to be prepared for an attack. At this point the film focuses on the actions of a single five tank platoon in the main body of the column, and then covers each of the five steps previously mentioned, and how that platoon would do them. 1. Advanced Preparation: Because good prep makes for smooth operations. · Be ready for gas, liquid vesicant detector paint, this pain, turns green to red when vesicant gas droplets touch it. A large square of this stuff was painted on the front of the tank. Then the decontaminator stored in the tank could be used to spray down the tank. The crew was also issued gas masks, and this was the time to make sure they were in working order. · Check the tanks readiness out. The Commander needs to check the tanks fuel level personally. The Crew, checks the engine out, checks the tracks, and checks out the ammo load. Do not leave with an empty ammo rack if ammo is available. Main gun rounds should be clean and undented. · Platoon leader review whole route on the map with all tank commanders. Cover all points of interest along the route, likely ambush spots, landmarks, areas of good cover for rest points etc. Each tank commander will then pass all this info along to all his crewmembers, ensuring they can all fill in for each other. If one tank has to fall out for any reason, its crew knows the whole route and plan. 2. Alertness: Because surprise is the enemy’s best weapon, always be on guard for attack, air or ground, · Every man in each tank turret is an air observer, the Tank Commander should always be looking around the tank, scanning the ground and air, and looking back. The Co-Driver should be watching the flanks, because the Driver is watching the road. The gunner and loader should be using their periscopes, all scanning for an attack. · The crewmember in the turret hatch needs to be alert, so when the commander is tired and needs to take a break, the gunner or loader will swap places with him. The Commanders position, no matter who is manning it has to be ready to receive signals from the platoon or company commander and pass them on, be they flag, or hand or radio. He also has to be able to see a messenger that needs his attention. The Loader should help the commander tend the radio, and the crew should listen to the radio to keep informed. 3. Concealment: Keeping a 32 ton tank as hidden as possible! · Dust is bad. You can’t hide tanks in a dust cloud, so don’t drive on soft dusty shoulders if you’re on a road. Even if that shoulder is shady, and will make the tank more pleasant inside, the dust can be seen for miles. Sometimes it can’t be avoided, but try to do so as much as possible. Line formation is best for use in places dust cannot be avoided. Driving at a slower speed can help minimize dust as well. · Shielding Terrain is to be taken advantage of anytime it won’t produce large amounts of dust. · Shade is ok is it does not make extra dust, and can help hide you from air observation. · Your goggles can reflect light for miles; if you’re not wearing your goggles store them in the tank. If they are needed to protect your eyes, they should be covering them. This applies to any shiny object. · Do no silhouette your tank on a hill or high ground. Drive around the base of the hill. If you have to drive on a hill stay below the crest. 4. Dispersion: Bunching up is bad, if you are to close one artillery round, or bomb can damage multiple vehicles. · Bunching up like a bunch of cows with their tails in the breeze is bad. This makes you a big target. · Proper daylight spacing is at least 75 yards between tanks. If visibility and terrain allow, you can have more than 75 yards, but never less. In hilly terrain it is easy to bunch up, keep your eyes on the tank in front of you if it starts slowing down; you will have to as well. · Falling Out. If your vehicle has to fall out for some reason, engine troubles, or some other issue, make sure you pull far enough off the path to not cause a bottleneck on the path, and slow the rest of the column. Make sure and signal the column and platoon so they know what is going on. Don’t try and catch up, wait for a halt, then retake your position. Fall in with the rear guard until the halt. 5. Firepower: A Sherman tank packs a lot of punch, keep it ready, it’s your ace in the hole · The main gun should be trained out and ready, but not loaded. The lead tank and the next in line keep their main guns aimed straight ahead. The third tank in line keeps its gun trained out to the right. The fourth tank keeps its gun trained out to the left. The fifth tank will have its main gun traversed to the rear. · M2 .50 anti-aircraft guns should be kept half loaded, so they can be quickly brought to bear on any attacking aircraft. To keep the column covered, alternating tank commanders look forward and to the rear during air attack. · Do not halt, during an air attack. Your tank is much harder to hit when moving. Even if you have good concealment, do not stop. When a plane is sighted signal the rest of the column, close all hatches but the commanders, alternate the .50 AA guns and engage the aircraft. · Report the results of any air attack up the chain of command. TCs report to Platoon Leaders, Platoon Leaders to Company Commanders, etc. Halt security: Units on the move have to stop, for human reasons or mechanical ones. There are two kinds of stops a unit on the march will make. The short ten minute halt, to check the tanks out, for the crews to stretch their legs, no major maintenance will be taken on these short halts. On the long halt, the tanks can be repaired if anything major popped up and refueled, and the crews could get some chow. Security rules and things to note on the short halt: · Check the ground, where the tank will be parked, make sure the tank won’t get stuck. Back into a spot so you will not have to back out if the tank needs to move out in a hurry. · First Echelon Tank Maintenance check the tracks, tighten the the end connectors, check the motor out, lube as needed. · Review the course, check out the route the column is taking on the map, and review it with your crew and the rest of the platoon. · Be Alert, post guards, at least two from each crew. One man must always be on the platoon leader’s radio. · Disperse on the halt, in the same pattern as on the move; each tank is still responsible for covering the area they were covering with their main gun. Use any cover available on the halt to conceal the tanks as best possible from air or ground observation. Spacing cannot be less than 75 yards. · Each tank will have the commanders .50 manned. · When pulling out, each tank keeps its spacing, and does not stop on the road to form up. Security Rules and things to note on the long halt: · All the rules for a short halt apply · You can pull further from the road on a longer halt. A guard has to be posted near the road to receive any signals though. · Dig Prone Shelters, you might not be able to get back into the tank in a surprise air raid. · Eat while you work, you never know how long the halt will be. · Take more time to conceal the tanks, cut or break off tree branches and use them to break up the tanks lines. Rake the tanks tracks leaving the road away. · Use shade and any local cover to hide the tank, move the tank as the shadows used to hide them move with the sun. · If no cover can be found, use the camo net. · Some camo is better than nothing Special Rules for night marches: · Stop, for both concealment, and to prevent bunching up. · Do not fire, unless you are sure you are spotted. · Turn off your marker lights, the video doesn’t say this, and they used models in the film, but I think it’s a safe assumption. · No light, not even a smoke, and smoking is bad anyway, mkay. … Now for some thoughts on the film, it is really very interesting for several reasons, and the quality is very good. The main reason it’s interesting is the look at prewar combat, or pre air superiority march doctrine. The attention paid to defense from air attack would not be pushed nearly as much even by the Italian campaign and would be almost an afterthought by Normandy. Later films probably pushed very carefully searching for well concealed AT guns and infantry that the lead and flank scouts may have missed. It is also interesting how gas attacks and preparation for them is first thing they cover. I’m sure shortly after most unit got in combat they ended up losing or discarding most gas related gear, and I can’t ever recall seeing a man carrying a gas mask case or a square of the gas detecting paint on any vehicles in combat photos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeeps_Guns_Tanks Posted October 10, 2016 Author Report Share Posted October 10, 2016 That'll go up on the Sherman tank site with a ton of pics Monday after work. I'm tired and going to bed now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FilthyCasual Posted October 11, 2016 Report Share Posted October 11, 2016 Donward, DogDodger and Walter_Sobchak 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogDodger Posted October 11, 2016 Report Share Posted October 11, 2016 Psh. The GM-powered Shermans could run with two and a half-fifths of their engines knocked out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meplat Posted October 11, 2016 Report Share Posted October 11, 2016 Psh. The GM-powered Shermans could run with two and a half-fifths of their engines knocked out. I once drove a (stripped) 49 Plymouth to the junkyard, it's engine running on four of six jugs. It still would pull to 50 MPH, albeit with a fantastic amount of noise and smoke. I later got a '54 M37 to run by chiseling the remains of the four dead plugs into the cylinders, and blowing their failure out the exhaust, as the engine came to life with a rebuilt carb (and ignitor, and wiring, and battery,and the sump full of aeroshell 100 oil).. No kidding though, those old Chrysler flathead sixes are one of those things that will likely survive the heat-death of the universe, and amuse far future mechanics with their simplicity and durability. Belesarius 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belesarius Posted October 16, 2016 Report Share Posted October 16, 2016 If you get a spike in traffic from FB, that might be my fault. I was clubbing a wehraboo on MZWs FB page. Jeeps_Guns_Tanks 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeeps_Guns_Tanks Posted October 16, 2016 Author Report Share Posted October 16, 2016 LOL I seem to have pissed off a lot of WT players. LOOK AT THIS! how awful! they are saying WOT is the best tank arcade on the market?!?!?!?!?! this ishttp://www.theshermantank.com/ this literally makes me mad at who ever wrote this! I have tried WOT before and it stinks! well, it doesn't matter, but Like23More More621 Comments (39) test_dudeUser With higher tier (or low tier derps) itsfun with friends 3 Sep, 17:381 ROOKIE101User well, I couldn't stand it myself. but that's just me but my point is "WT- the poorly done, but pretty copy of WT" how can they say WT is poorly done?!?! 3 Sep, 17:392 test_dudeUser Idk 3 Sep, 17:421 RheinbergUser srsly i start laughing when i saw that guy says "Wot HD is beautiful", and i cant stop until i finished all the bullshits he wrote, IS HE REALLY NOT DOING SOME KIND OF ADVERTISING FOR WG? 3 Sep, 20:122 test_dudeUser WoT does look great on medium and higher though 3 Sep, 23:211 ROOKIE101User who me? 4 Sep, 06:212 MatsKurwaUser at least we don't have to endure tv commercials for WT. 3 Sep, 17:425 FlakEaterUser thing is, he has a point. put bluntly, yes. but still 3 Sep, 17:451 UhxohrUser Well, what is copied from WoT exactly ? It has tanks, yeah, that's about it, wow, much copy.. Oh and also maybe objectives that you have to capture, just like in thousands of other games x) The health system is differentThe physics, how the tanks drive, is different,The damage system is different,The spotting/camouflaging is different, (hiding in a bush doesn't prevent your tank from being rendered on other player screens...)The shells physics is different,The way the battles play are different (talking about combined arms battles here)The graphics are differentetc etc etc. Also WT copied World of Tanks so much that it didn't even have tanks in the first place x) I have nothing against WoT, but these games have nothing alike. 3 Sep, 18:158 FlakEaterUser he said arcade 3 Sep, 19:221 Iron_physikUser even the AB mode is differentthe only thing that is similar to WoT is:-there are tanks-enemys are marked red 4 Sep, 07:511 FlakEaterUser ...what does that have to do with anything? 4 Sep, 08:170 Iron_physikUser You replied with the comment he said arcade to a comment that showed the differences of WoT to WTand I added this little extra info about the AB section. 4 Sep, 08:250 FlakEaterUser listen here, if you want just arcade WoT is like a quarter as annoying as WT is. playing this for arcade is buying an minivan and only using it as a storage space. you are missing out of what the point of it really is 4 Sep, 08:540 Iron_physikUser then tell me what the point isall you do right now is telling everyone who clearly shows the difference of WoT to WT and you say: thats not the point. im just listing all the differences. 4 Sep, 09:000 FlakEaterUser the point of this game over WoT is realism, or gaijins idea of it anyway 4 Sep, 09:220 USA_man_2014User We're better, it's a Clear shot, and we ARE IN NO WAY, SHAPE OR FORM like WoT 3 Sep, 18:126 KuroiOtoriUser Well they kinda forgot that War Thunder isn't an arcade game from the start and they seem to ignore that Gaijin wills to make boat, tanks and ships in the same game while being the most realistic as they can (Gaijin realistic) 3 Sep, 19:244 LaisyUser This. War Thunder is not develop with arcade gameplay in mind, WoT is. Its like comparing a cleaver with a bread knife, same genre but design for different purpose. The "copy of WoT" is something I can't agree with though. 3 Sep, 20:381 _ReKterin_O_User Wot is the best arcade game... There is nothing wrong about it, however WT is offering more than pew pew arcade fest 3 Sep, 20:111 ROOKIE101User I have nothing against WoT, but to say WT Is poorly done... 4 Sep, 06:051 gradeCunderCUser Israel got power of jesus to protect them 3 Sep, 20:380 herecreeperUser Honestly I don't hate WoT. I played it, and I just did not like it. However, some people do like it, and that is completely fine, just don't say a realistic game is a copy of an arcade game... 3 Sep, 21:211 ROOKIE101User I don't hate WoT either, my point is why or how can they say WT is poorly done? 4 Sep, 06:063 Terror610User This guy has problems with his head I think 4 Sep, 01:131 ROOKIE101User oh sorry bro, no offence if you play WoT. 4 Sep, 06:072 Terror610User @ROOKIE101 I mean this guy who wrote WT is WoT's copy 4 Sep, 07:341 ROOKIE101User oh phew! I thought you meant me 4 Sep, 07:373 BlazeWingbreakerUser What a fucking shill 4 Sep, 01:241 Iron_physikUser Do you have a direct link to that statement? 4 Sep, 06:251 ROOKIE101User yes here http://www.theshermantank.com/tag/sherman/ its farther down, "#60 The Sherman Tank Site Glossary: Because sometimes words are confusing" 4 Sep, 06:532 DoctorErisUser The author is a lame ass that hasn't played WT at all. His statement about WT shouldn't be taken since he has no proof of his statements 4 Sep, 07:182 ROOKIE101User Amen! 4 Sep, 07:252 Iron_physikUser "Casting the whole hull from Molten Steel" one of his statements on the earlier shermans.this guys is propably some kid.he makes alot of mistakes. 4 Sep, 08:020 RAF27680User I left a little "kind" comment on his page ^^ 4 Sep, 07:391 Iron_physikUser me to http://www.theshermantank.com/glossary/60-the-sherman-tank-site-glossary-because-sometimes-words-are-confusing/#comment-9950 (send your link to that comment) 4 Sep, 07:480 RAF27680User I don't see yours :/And i dunno how to send that link i just written in the white square on the bottom of the page 4 Sep, 08:141 Iron_physikUser “WT – The poorly done, but pretty copy of WOT that includes airplanes.” Did you ever played Warthunder? Or why do you wrtite this BS claim? Warthunder is not a copy of World of tanks, Warthunder even has not a single gameplay mechanic that can be compared with WoT.when you are trying to write such an “informative” Blog then correct this small mistake. warthunder is superior in the technical area to WoT.the engine WoT uses is veery old and it struggles with the never models and maps. Then warthunder is far ore realistic than WoT.You have a realistic dammage model that does not use hitpoints, it uses modules instead. So when the ammorack gets hit the tank blows up, when your crew gets killed the tank counts as destroyed, when you start burning and you dont have FPE you burn out.the shells do have the correct penetration numbers and the correct HE fillers to do dammage.the driving physic is also more accurate than WoT (only 1 feature is missing, its regenerative steering) So stop spreading misinformation and correct that post ASAP. thats my comment. 4 Sep, 08:173 ROOKIE101User it has to be authorized by him personally...so you probably won't see it ever 4 Sep, 18:48 EnsignExpendable 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeeps_Guns_Tanks Posted October 17, 2016 Author Report Share Posted October 17, 2016 Here's an updated WT review, since I have played it now. War Thunder: An ok Copy/Twist of WOT with an Air Element Ok, I’m going to admit, I had some bias going in, but the game was better than I thought. I’m still playing it, though really not enjoying it, much like I tried it when it was in early Beta and just had planes. The plane models were very nice, and still are, though many are inaccurate in big ways it was nice to see them go to the trouble to put cockpits in the game, it never struck me as all that much more realistic than WoWP, though it was clearly the superior product of the two. I have high standards as far as airplane games that want to be considered simulators, and WT really doesn’t cut it, simply put, their flight models in many cases just suck and don’t match history. I also know some people involved with the game modeling who said they strait up picked and chose their sources for model info based on how they wanted the game to work. When I want a online flightsim with realistic models, I’ll go back to the best, AcesHigh, by Hightech Creations. The game may be ugly, but the flight models are top notch, no some BS based on a bad Russian flight ‘sim’. So then ground forces came out, and I heard so many unkind things about it, coupled with a very toxic forum experience, I never felt the need to try it. All the stories about how bad it was were enough for me. This became a slight problem when I couldn’t get one of them to do the review for me. So, I decided to download it and have a look. The game is easy to jump into, the looks, interface, and controls are all pretty much the same. WT does have more game modes then WOT, and offers “realistic battles”, and “Tank Simulator battles”, but one this is for sure so far, is none of it is as fun as WOT. Though the game has some nice features that WOT does not, in some cases, these features highlight their WT teams lack of attention to detail. The cool features that stand out are the ability to look at internal modules on the tanks, and being able to preview anything on the tech tree. Something WOT took years to have. The other is the window that pops up to show the damage done when round penetrated the tank. Some of the models are very pretty, and the game overall, looks pretty good, though a lot like a few year old FPS game. Yes, this is with every option set to max. The game also looks a bit cartoony overall as well. Popping off the co-ax and roof machine guns can be fun though. The things I don’t like are glaring; the way the game plays is annoying. Driving the tanks around feels like work. It’s not a smooth fun thing to do in like in WOT. It’s a frustrating effort, often requiring more correction than is fun, and makes it hard to maintain any speed. The faster the tank is the worse it is. This was described as ‘cow on ice’ syndrome, and until you’ve played it, it’s hard to image just how bad the tanks in War Thunder drive. This was an instant turn off in the when your test driving a tank, and when in an actual game, and there is some lag, it is a game killing disaster. I want the tanks to be fun to drive, and since WOTs latest physics update, they made the tanks realistic enough to make driving just challenging enough, but kept the fun factor very high. The tanks in WOT feel right to me, granted I’ve never driven a tank, but I have spent a lot of time four wheeling jeeps, and the way WOT feels when one track has better traction feels right. I know someone who’s played WOT, WT and driven real tanks, and he came up with the ‘cow on ice’ term for WT and mainly plays the air portion of the game. Another thing is I don’t like is respawns, I like the short WOT battles, I like running a game, getting knocked out and then writing something. Or fixing dinner, or watching TV with my wife, I don’t like to have to commit more time to the game. This was one of the things that really made me fall in love with WOT, 15 minutes at most, and my average is like 5 minutes, I’m aggressive. So War thunder is doing better than I thought, and even though I don’t really enjoy it, I bought the Firefly bundle, so I’ll play it enough to get a really good feel for the game, but it’s not something I’ll jump into for a relaxing thing to do after work. Ok, so now onto the Sherman tanks and Vehicles based on the chassis, and like WOT, there are a lot of them, and a lot of model problems. War Thunder Lee/Sherman Models. Medium Tank M3 Lee: This model is pretty good, nothing glaring stands out, the base model has the shorter M2 gun with counter weight, so the stabilizer is there, and the counterweight is also on the 37mm gun mount indicating it had the stabilizer for that gun installed as well. I love how the site for the 75mm gun actually moves with the canon like it should, showing at least whomever modeled this tank understood how it worked. I love how you can use both guns and the 37mm turret is fully functional. It has both bow .30 calibers installed, indicating a early production Lee, and other than the suspension seeming to be a little squished down, the model looks great. The WOT Lee is an early HD model, and is not as good, but they are close. There are no real problems with the x-ray view with this model either. If I have a minor complaint, it’s the tracks not fitting the sprocket very well. Medium Tank M4A1 Sherman: This model is not as good as the M3 Lee, the final and transmission housing looks off a little, and the welds on the lifting hooks on the front of the hull are overdone. Some of the tools don’t look right and the rear hull proportions seem off, but it’s not a bad model. It is much better than the WOT M4(M4A1), since theirs doesn’t even really make sense. They get away with that being an arcade game with all kinds of what if and inaccurate tanks, mostly German granted, but all nations have a few. The X-ray view has no glaring flaws as either, so this model is another win for WT. Medium Tank M4 Sherman This model is great on the outside, it shows an D-Day era M4, really the same tank as the M4A1, but with a welded upper hull instead of cast, with all the quick fix upgrades to help resolve some of the problems the tank had with ammo fires and known weak spots. It has the cheek armor on the turret, the armor added in front of the drivers hoods, and the armor over the sponson ammo racks. In real life these additions had some internal changes that went with them. The ready rounds around the base of the turret were removed, and are still present in the x-ray view. There should also be a small exhaust deflector mounted in the rear and the things just look a little off there. WOT has no corresponding Sherman really, so we can’t really compare, but this is a nice model for sure. Medium Tank M4A2 Sherman This model is pretty good but has more glaring problems as well. Fisher produced many small hatch M4A2 tanks that would look the M4 more than this later production M4A2. This model is of a late production M4A2 75 dry tank with a large hatch hull, but with the old improved dry ammo setup. The turret should also have at least the cheek armor cast in, and probably a high bustle, and the turret in the model doesn’t seem to have either. Then there is the X-Ray on this one, it shows the radiator in the completely wrong place, and still has the ready rounds around the base of the turret. In real life, most of these tanks went to the Soviet Union as lend lease. Medium Tank M4A1 (76)W Sherman This model is really well done, with just a few flaws. It should have rubber chevron tracks, and the fenders are wrong, like the wrong ones Dragon used on their M4A1 76W model. It also has a cover over the hull blower vent between the hatches, that shouldn’t be there. It also has all the steel barstock welded to the mantlet for the canvas cover, which was not done until much later in the war. The .30 caliber co-ax machine gun is sticking to far out as well. Still, great model on the outside and no problems with the x-ray model either. In real life this tank saw widespread use starting with Operation Cobra. Medium Tank M4A2 (76) W Sherman This model has some issues, first off the huge glaring ones, it’s a wet storage tank, all factory 76 tanks were, yet this model has the sponson ammo rack armor in place, when it was not installed on these tanks. It has the mantlet cover the M4A1 (76)w model has the mounting bars for, and some tanks sent to the Soviet Union apparently had them so this is a nice feature, though the color seems, off. They got the motor type right in the x-ray view, but the radiator location is hilariously wrong. Other than these glaring problems, it’s a nice looking tank. Medium Tank M4A3 76 W HVSS Sherman This model is really nice on the outside, representing a great example of a Korean War era Easy 8. The model looks great except for the package shelf, it doesn’t look right. The real problem with this model is the engine compartment in X-ray view. They have the twin diesel 6046 in place, when it should be a Ford GAA V8. They did get the radiator in the right place, but it’s a tad small. This is a more accurate M4A2 (76)w then the modeled M4A2 (76)w. Since the WOT M4A3 (76)w HVSS tank has not gone HD, this one wins hands down. It even has the post war torsion bar assisted engine bay grill doors. Medium Tank M4A3 (105) This model is messed up pretty bad. The Hull is ok, but it has the post war engine deck hinges that should not be there. The place this model really goes wrong is the turret. They have a poorly modified low bustle turret, whoever modeled this didn’t know all M4/M4A3 105 tanks has special turrets with two ventilators, and they were all high bustle turrets final general 75mm turrets. On the X-ray view they got the size and location of the 105 ammo storage all wrong, and the tank has an GM 6046 twin diesel instead of the proper Ford GAA, though, they did get the radiator in the right place for a change, though it’s still to small! Assault Tank M4A3E2 Jumbo/M4A3E2 76 A decent model, though the suspension appears to be a little to compressed, it may just be me but all the Shermans WT seem to be a little compressed, maybe they don’t like the environment. The only glaring thing wrong with the model that stands out to me is the little machined spots in the gun mount on the turret are flared back, when they shouldn’t be, but this is minor. The only flaw is the tracks seem to be spaced to far out from the hull, almost like it has the E9 mod. It’s also missing the exhaust deflector, and the rear hull area is not a strong point on any of the Shermans in the game. X-ray view still has a GM 6046 in place of the correct GAA, and the radiator is the right size and in the right place! The 76 version is the same model with a different gun. 3-inch Gun Motor Carriage M10 This model looks like a pretty decent model of a mid-production M10 TD. It has the proper 6046 exhaust at the rear hull. The X-ray model is where the issues show and this is an amusing problem, this model has the Ford GAA when it should have the 6046, and the radiators are to small. 90-mm Gun Motor Carriage M36 This model is not as good as the M10, the turret doesn’t look quite right. On X-ray this did finally get the right motor in, but the radiator is still to small. 17pdr M10 Achilles 65th Reg This model looks pretty good, though I would have to really look over Achilles Photos to find any major flaws on the exterior. The X-ray model has one amusing flaw, it has the Ford GAA that should be in all the M4A3 tanks, and their GM6046 should be in this tank! Sherman IC Firefly (Premium) There is nothing really wrong with this model, at least nothing major, the armored cover for the hull machine gun looks a little off, but not to bad. Everything else seems right at first glance, even the X-ray view everything is correct. This is a very nice looking IC Firefly, the rarest version of the C tanks. I liked it enough to buy it. It has the add on armor for the sponson ammo racks, the add-on on cheek armor, and all the extra boxes the British added to their Shermans, it is missing the extra hull mounted fire extinguishers. Sherman VC Firefly This model is a little off, they got the wheel spacing for the longer hull right, but it has a lot of crap on the hull I’ve never seen in pictures before. It does have the external fire extinguishers the Ic lacks. It also does not have the proper A57 Multibank motor, and the radiator is in the wrong spot, even though they put the bulge in the upper rear deck for it. Other than these flaws, the model is ok. . . . I would say, after looking the models over, the modelers have never heard of the Sherman Minutia site. I would also say they don’t know the difference between the high bustle and low bustle 75mm turrets. They also don’t know the actual sizes of any of the components inside the tanks. My overall take on War Thunder has changed a little, I still thing they borrowed far more than most rabid fans will admit. They game also has serious flaws if you like fun, but that’s just my initial impression, I’ll play several hundred games and see how I feel then. Depending on feedback, I'll post it with a bunch of screen shots monday or tuesday. Meplat and Belesarius 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meplat Posted October 17, 2016 Report Share Posted October 17, 2016 The thing I like about WT tanks is that is has Shermans. (plural). None of them drive like any tank I've ever driven, but they banned me for posting original P-38 docs and going "What the fuck folks". So my input on armor would likely get a similar response. The P-38 thread may still exist, I can't be bothered to look for it. FilthyCasual 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted October 20, 2016 Report Share Posted October 20, 2016 Jeeps_Guns_Tanks 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FilthyCasual Posted October 21, 2016 Report Share Posted October 21, 2016 They included add-on armor as a late tier modification on 4 of the Sherman models fairly recently (M4A2, M4A1 76 W. M4A3 76 W, Firefly), though it's only track/drive wheels w/ no sandbags, etc... not sure if there's any glaring errors in placement. T___A 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T___A Posted October 22, 2016 Report Share Posted October 22, 2016 Hey Jeeps did any of the Shermans use a liquid cooled engine? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeeps_Guns_Tanks Posted October 22, 2016 Author Report Share Posted October 22, 2016 Hey Jeeps did any of the Shermans use a liquid cooled engine? Yep, all but the R975 powered M4 and M4A1 had engines that required a Radiator. The M4A2 and M4A3 had the radiator at the back of the hull, and the M4A4 had it at the front of the engine, between the crew spaces, and motor, and the driveshaft passed through the radiator. At one point the A57 Multibank had 5 separate belt driven water pumps, but this was to failure prone so on the improved A57, they installed one big pump to service all five of the motors banks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeeps_Guns_Tanks Posted October 22, 2016 Author Report Share Posted October 22, 2016 They included add-on armor as a late tier modification on 4 of the Sherman models fairly recently (M4A2, M4A1 76 W. M4A3 76 W, Firefly), though it's only track/drive wheels w/ no sandbags, etc... not sure if there's any glaring errors in placement. Thats a cool feature, but US forces used sandbags and concrete and steel more often than just plain track shoes. They look like British tanks, since they used tracks more extensively. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meplat Posted October 22, 2016 Report Share Posted October 22, 2016 Thats a cool feature, but US forces used sandbags and concrete and steel more often than just plain track shoes. They look like British tanks, since they used tracks more extensively. Have some radiator, for an air-cooled radial mill. They've fixed this, but WT is bad about implementing absurdly wrong things and "fixing" them over time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoooSeR Posted November 3, 2016 Report Share Posted November 3, 2016 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnsignExpendable Posted November 16, 2016 Report Share Posted November 16, 2016 "Russians always beat Prussians" Bronezhilet 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeeps_Guns_Tanks Posted November 16, 2016 Author Report Share Posted November 16, 2016 LOL very nice! Man, they have that M4A2 76w stocked! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walter_Sobchak Posted November 16, 2016 Report Share Posted November 16, 2016 A Sherman tank equipped with log? Nothing could defeat such a combination. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnsignExpendable Posted November 16, 2016 Report Share Posted November 16, 2016 Is that a 76 mm gun? It looks too short. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeeps_Guns_Tanks Posted November 16, 2016 Author Report Share Posted November 16, 2016 Yeah, it's just and odd angle the big ventilator on the back of the turret is a big giveaway Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walter_Sobchak Posted November 25, 2016 Report Share Posted November 25, 2016 Canadian Sherman tanks. I like the Pz IV tracks on the turret of the Firefly. LoooSeR, EnsignExpendable, Collimatrix and 1 other 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnsignExpendable Posted November 25, 2016 Report Share Posted November 25, 2016 I guess now I know what to do with all these spare PzIV track links I have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.