Credit to PhantomBladeCorp for the M4A3E8, which I based this off of. The M4A3 Sherman, with the original turret and 75mm M3 gun. A machine which has been wrongly derided as ineffective, even in this configuration, thanks to the recent rise of Panzer fanboys who define World War II tanks as either "Über Deutsche Technik" or "target practice", and who take the words of a particular American tank mechanic in all the wrong ways.
The M4 Sherman, even with, or rather because of, the 75mm gun, is one of the best tanks in World War II. The right balance between economy, logistics, innovation, simplicity, firepower, and protection. A machine so advanced that no other nation could copy it to the inch, yet so economical that America could afford to literally give tens of thousands of them to its allies. A tank with German quality, and Soviet quantity.
Now that I've pissed off all the Panzer fanboys, I shall now proceed to defend myself from the onslaught, and teach them that their beloved Panthers and Tigers are overrated pieces of crap. "Oh, the Sherman lights up when hit!" they screech at the top of their lungs, to which I say "Yeah, but the Panther lights up when you drive it too fast." This particular machine is in Paternian Army service, training in the Mojave Desert.
Specifications
General Characteristics
- Predecessor M4A3E8 Sherman 'Easy Eight'
- Created On Windows
- Wingspan 10.7ft (3.3m)
- Length 20.7ft (6.3m)
- Height 12.5ft (3.8m)
- Empty Weight 47,670lbs (21,622kg)
- Loaded Weight 48,246lbs (21,884kg)
Performance
- Wing Loading 11,952.6lbs/ft2 (58,357.6kg/m2)
- Wing Area 4.0ft2 (0.4m2)
- Drag Points 11644
Parts
- Number of Parts 489
- Control Surfaces 0
- Performance Cost 2,385
@Pilotmario What are the controls?
@Pilotmario ah.
@WorldClassMods To the contrary.
@Pilotmario I swear you copied that off Wikipedia.
@WorldClassMods Airplanes are notoriously fuel inefficient as cargo aircraft. However, as passenger aircraft, they are reasonably efficient, comparable to hybrid cars when fully loaded.
The principal advantage of cargo aircraft is their speed and their accessibility. Planes are among the fastest forms of transportation; the fastest trains are not much faster than the slowest transport planes. Principally, they are far less constrained by infrastructure or geography, with many types only requiring a short stretch of dirt to takeoff and land from.
While a few are capable of carrying very heavy loads, their value comes from their high speed and the ability to go virtually anywhere with a suitable clearing. Regularly shipping cargo by aircraft is among the most expensive forms of transportation.
@Pilotmario how about planes?
@WorldClassMods That causes a lot of wear and tear on the tank's tracks and suspension.
Tracked vehicles have a tendency to tear up roads and tanks are notoriously fuel inefficient. Yes, a train on its own will consume more fuel than a tank. However, a train can carry hundreds of tons of cargo, passengers, and anyting per mile at speed, for much less fuel than if the material was moved by other means.
The only cargo mover which I could see as more fuel efficient is a large, fully-loaded cargo ship.
@Pilotmario or you can just drive the tanks to the front.
@WorldClassMods That is true.
However, the problem at hand is with the technical limitation of transportation. Anyways, rail is how most armies transport their tanks to the front when available.
@Pilotmario still gotta worry about American/British/Russian air strikes though.
@WorldClassMods Trains can tow hundreds of tons of cargo. The strongest flatbed cars can hold at least 150 tons.
If you absolutely, positively, must shift a large, constant flow of cargo anywhere, look no further than a train.
The problem with trains, is the inflexible infrastructure.
@Pilotmario the train would break down.
@WorldClassMods A train.
@Flash0of0green there was the Crab Flail tank, one of the so-called "Hobart's Funnies" that helped on D-day, which was equipped with just that.
@Pilotmario how do you ship a 100-ton super-heavy tank across land?
Yeah, but a Sherman is easier. Much easier. @WorldClassMods
@Pilotmario I think logistics used to ship other tanks cough cough, Tiger, panther, Sherman, cough cough wouldn't work for a Maus. No form of logistics would.
@Pilotmario oki
@PyrusEnderhunter Tigers were more reliable because although they suffered from the same issues as Panther, they often had the means to overcome it. That is, with a skilled crew.
Other than that, they were quite reliable, provided that you accommodated your logistics for a 60-ton tank.
@Pilotmario yeah
@PyrusEnderhunter I also feel Tigers are overrated.
Their primary value was psychological; the mere fact that it exists and that it is as powerful as it is claimed is enough to put fear into Allied troops. The instances where they did actually appear merely reinforced this perception.
Most Tiger tank sightings in combat were in fact lighter vehicles such as the Panzer IV; both tanks featured a boxy hull and turret in addition to a long-barreled gun with muzzle brake. At a glance under less-than-ideal visibility, it is easy to see how they could be confused.
@Pilotmario I'm more of a Tiger fan. Panthers have a little too many problems for my taste.
@Pilotmario I wonder what it would look like with heavy vickers machine guns... Or and mine clearing flail.
@Pilotmario ok thanks :)
@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.