My primary recommendation would be that the locations of the forward Mk 85 gun mount and the Mk 29 box launcher should be reversed. @AverroesIndustries
Basically an M4 with lengthened barrel, extended but not full length Picatinny handguards, and most importantly, a continuous-recoil system designed by Jim Sullivan, not unlike the system used on the Ulitmax LMG.
Jim Sullivan was part of Stoner’s design team for the AR-15. @Carbonfox1
@satanplane Except that artillery of that capability has worse accuracy than a stromtrooper shooting at Han Solo, and the degree which the Land Yamato is balanced is also questionable.
@satanplane It's a massive arty target and would probably get seriously by the Imperial Japanese Navy's land Yamatos, but even the Waffletractor E-100 can find a building or hill big enough to hide it, and while a Land Yamato could delete half it's health, the Waffle could delete all of its health.
@satanplane Tbh, it's pretty difficult to balance something with many extremes.
This thing has a turret with less armor than a laundry machine, and is bigger than the house you'd usually find one in.
However, it could drop pretty much everything in one go.
I think they figured that they'd rather replace it with a new machine with a different character, than change an existing vehicle and possibly alter the character which made it appealing.
@Rodrigo110 Well the original got almost a hundred, and the maker basically got the equivalent of 13 upvotes on that through this, so I figure it passes.
@MrVaultech Of course the Tiger had a much bigger gun than any WWII-era Sherman.
As for the casualty count, I’d say you’d rather be in Armored Corps than anywhere else involving shooting.
The US Army lost 1,470 tankers throughout the entire conflict, a 3% casualty rate.
Approximately a third or a half of these casualties happened outside the tank; likey on sentry duty or gunned down after getting out of a tank.
It’s not the greatest tank ever, most certainly. But as far as options in World War 2, you can’t go wrong with a Sherman.
For the sake of argument, I chose the M4A2 and M4A3 Sherman families and the Tiger E. The M4A2 and A3 were the most common variants, and would be prudent to use the latest variants which saw wide service. It would be imprudent to compare less common early variants after all.
I wouldn’t compare your quality of builds from when you first started, after all.
The many flaws the initial Shermans had were largely solved by early 1944. The base M4A3 began production in 1942. The wide-track modification to the 75mm began production in February 1944. The M4A3(76)W began production in March 1944. I believe by the time the M4A3(75)W was made, it would feature wet stowage.
Remember, D-Day was in June 6, 1944. And the performance of the Sherman tank was considered excellent by all contemporary records.
I don’t thing the Tiger’s many flaws were rectified to any degree. It didn’t have a wide-angle gunner optic to help acquire targets, the ergonomics was sub-optimal, and the maintenance never got any easier. At least it got an illustrated manual which was something most people wouldn’t mind reading.
@Killguymonster I presume what you are talking about is the M416 from PUBG.
The M416 in PUBG is a renamed HK 416 to avoid potential copyright issues; HK is a registered trademark by Heckler and Koch, and using it without proper permission is easy grounds for a lawsuit. The HK 416 itself is an improved M4 Carbine in order to make it more suitable for use with special forces.
As a matter of fact, it was originally named the HK M4 during development, but changed the name to avoid a copyright suit by Colt, which owned the M4 trademark. While Colt lost the lawsuit from Bushmaster regarding the trademark, I presume that HK felt it would be easier to change a name than to pay lawyers for a court case.
@MrVaultech There is no best tank of World War II. What is the best option for someone may perhaps be the worst option for another.
And if I had to point out one tank that could be a certifiably good option for most participants in WWII, that would be the Sherman.
It would serve in the rocky deserts of North Africa, the forests of Germany, the jungles of New Guinea and Burma, the frozen steppes of Russia, and the sands of Pacific atolls. Few tanks could boast such a wide variety of service, perhaps the Valentine and the Matilda to a lesser extent (the Soviets never warmed up to the Matilda, but loved the Valentine).
But where it served, it served with distinction and with adoration from its crews. The crews weren't afraid to criticize it; it had tendencies for rollovers at times due to its height, and the drafty interior when the engine was running served to turn it into a refrigerator in the cold.
But the combination of armor, mobility and firepower in a spacious, ergonomic, and reliable platform won more fans than haters among the crews. They could trust it to not only take it to the fight, but to fight well. A machine perhaps not built by tankers, but one built with them in mind.
And no better testament to this other than its long and illustrious postwar service around the world, be it the jungles of South Asia, the mountains of Korea, and the deserts of the Holy Land. Where it went, it gave a good impression, even when it was thoroughly outclassed by much newer and better designs.
@MrVaultech To compare the Tiger and the Sherman is comparing apples to oranges; they're both tanks, but two very different tanks, evolved to meet different requirements.
And as it turned out, the Sherman was probably the better tank. The frontal armor was comparable; while the Sherman's frontal armor was about half as thick as the Tiger's, it was given a generous slope that bring it to relative parity. It would have done much good to give it a bigger gun, but statistics complied by the American, British, and Soviet armies indicate that it did reasonably well with what it had.
In the event the armor is penetrated, the Sherman is perhaps the best tank to be in. Granted, it's still a very bad situation, but the Sherman made it far less so. The machine's ergonomics were excellent, and the large, spring-loaded hatches were placed conveniently above the normal crew position. This was no accident; those who designed them could draw upon decades of experience with ergonomics in automobiles. And while a tank is a monster compared to a car, the one driving it is likely to be the same.
And while early Shermans were just as prone to fires as other tanks, only the Sherman tank would improve upon these measures; ammunition would be stored in the vehicle floor and thus out of the line of fire in the event of a penetration. And if the ammunition was ruptured, it would be surrounded in a water-glycerol mixture.
If the Tiger had any tangible advantage over a Sherman, it would be mainly psychological; their presence is often significantly overreported in reconnaissance reports. After all, the more common Panzer IV shared many common characteristics; a boxy hull with an angular turret sporting a long-barreled gun with a muzzle brake. Add the fog of war, and you've got yourself a case of mistaken identity. Not disastrous perhaps, but certainly notable.
@MrVaultech The Tiger and Sherman are made to different doctrines.
The Tiger is a heavy breakthrough tank. It is designed to carry thick armor and a big gun to smash through more heavily defended areas. A machine kept in reserve most of the time, the relatively high maintenance requirements were not a factor. It was a specialized machine, brought forth for a certain task.
Problem was, the Tiger was used as a brigade-level fire support weapon, a medium tank with more armor and firepower. And unsurprisingly, the maintenance problems that would not have been as severe a factor, were in fact such.
The Sherman was a proper medium tank. A balanced platform, suitable to crush anything the infantry can't handle. More firepower and armor than a heavy tank, but with greater strategic mobility than a heavy tank. This of course includes enemy armor, something even the Tank Destroyer manual states.
In their words for when they are attached to US tank divisions, "Since the armored division can meet strong armored attacks with effective organic weapons, tank destroyers may execute secondary missions on rare occasions, even when a hostile attack or counterattack is imminent."
The "effective organic weapons" of an armored division just so happen to be tanks. And the tanks the US Army would have is the M4 Sherman. And even as early as August of 1942, there were trials to fit the 76mm M1 on the Sherman tank. However, while the arrangement was workable, it was clearly a stopgap measure, and the Armored Corps certainly didn't want to settle for a stopgap measure when they could easily get a proper tank with a 76mm gun.
Which they got by mid-1943, and production shifting to this new design. The M4 with the 75mm was still manufactured until the end of the war for Lend-Lease countries that wanted the 75mm as well as the US Marine Corps, which never fought tanks that could challenge the 75mm M3. By May 1944, 200 of these 76mm-armed Shermans were available in England, ready for D-Day.
The fact they weren't brought along, as well as the lack of any HVAP ammo for the 76mm, is indeed a significant oversight. Even if the 75mm had proven that it could deal with the threats and a new weapon to complicate logistics somewhat, it would still have been prudent to have brought them anyways.
@RocCrafter101 The missile is capable of flying into a particular something 1,200 miles away. In all these cases, the targets were within this distance from the launchers.
However, its eyes can see far less, and the Iridian Air Force was tasked with providing them sight.
Thing is, Paternian air defenses are pretty solid. Essentially, they were a shot in the dark.
My primary recommendation would be that the locations of the forward Mk 85 gun mount and the Mk 29 box launcher should be reversed. @AverroesIndustries
+1Paneling. @doge
@Strikefighter04 Also, your authority over members was quite limited.
It was a rogue member who got Simplelandia in a war you never wanted.
So yeah.
+3@DeathStalker627 I know a lot of countries make the G3, licensed or otherwise.
Nah, the semi-fictional Sullivan M25 SAR.
Basically an M4 with lengthened barrel, extended but not full length Picatinny handguards, and most importantly, a continuous-recoil system designed by Jim Sullivan, not unlike the system used on the Ulitmax LMG.
Jim Sullivan was part of Stoner’s design team for the AR-15. @Carbonfox1
@Aeroman77 gIT GUd
@ThomasRoderick Np!
Thanks! @Texasfam04
@Coolfungame I was referring to a video game.
The FN SCAR, AR-15, and AK platforms in real life are all good. They hit hard, shoot straight, and are quite lethal in their own right.
I wouldn't want to get shot at by any firearm, and those are atop the list I don't want to get shot at with.
Thanks! @Aeroman77
+1@ZackAttack5050 Neat.
@satanplane Except that artillery of that capability has worse accuracy than a stromtrooper shooting at Han Solo, and the degree which the Land Yamato is balanced is also questionable.
@RocCrafter101 suddenly nuclear bunker buster crashes through
@satanplane It's a massive arty target and would probably get seriously by the Imperial Japanese Navy's land Yamatos, but even the Waffletractor E-100 can find a building or hill big enough to hide it, and while a Land Yamato could delete half it's health, the Waffle could delete all of its health.
@RocCrafter101 Idk. I don't think dying from radiation burns is fun.
@satanplane Tbh, it's pretty difficult to balance something with many extremes.
This thing has a turret with less armor than a laundry machine, and is bigger than the house you'd usually find one in.
However, it could drop pretty much everything in one go.
I think they figured that they'd rather replace it with a new machine with a different character, than change an existing vehicle and possibly alter the character which made it appealing.
@Dllama4 Ah.
@satanplane Ahh, the Waffletractor E-100.
How I hated dealing with this.
@AircraftoftheRedStar It's still on console WoT I believe.
Couldn’t they be moved to the other side of the ship? @Feanor
@RocCrafter101 Or or or
You could not give a 2nd lieutenant the ability to start World War III.
Shouldn’t the runway be angled the other way?
@RocCrafter101 Or get it deleted by Paternian 155mm howitzers while forming up in a rear staging area.
@RocCrafter101 It also has neither the range to hit anything of value, nor the accuracy to hit anything if the range permits.
Heck, a 120mm mortar team could easily knock it out.
@RocCrafter101 Pershing II batteries are under the command of a captain or major.
@YuukaNeko It's this gun.
@YuukaNeko Actually I think you've seen it.
@YuukaNeko Neat.
I did have a revised Colt 9mm SMG for you if you needed.
Do you want a Second Lieutenant to start World War III? Because that's how you get Second Lieutenants starting World War III.
@YuukaNeko Sure! I've got a revised version of this in the works tho.
@Rodrigo110 Well the original got almost a hundred, and the maker basically got the equivalent of 13 upvotes on that through this, so I figure it passes.
@Rodrigo110 It's a reskin.
I’d still rather have a SCAR though. @Abdknight
@Dllama4 Ikr.
@BlyatMan Hello.
@MintLynx Ever since I made my MP5 build.
This takes me back to Counter-Strike.
Well the gray to blue full-auto AR is based off the M4... @Abdknight
I've got many newer gun builds I think would do this better.
Matter of fact, I could update the old Rocker.
@Line That means it can't be fired. Firing pin in the hammer was filed down and the hole where the firing pin protrudes was filled with hot steel.
Barrel was plugged with hot steel, and the chamber faces welded up to prevent loading of live cartridge.
Such weapons in Paternian service are marked such with blue-painted grips. This example is a post-service modification for display purposes.
This particular weapon has since been deactivated for training purposes. @Line
@PyrusEnderhunter lol
@MrVaultech Of course the Tiger had a much bigger gun than any WWII-era Sherman.
As for the casualty count, I’d say you’d rather be in Armored Corps than anywhere else involving shooting.
The US Army lost 1,470 tankers throughout the entire conflict, a 3% casualty rate.
Approximately a third or a half of these casualties happened outside the tank; likey on sentry duty or gunned down after getting out of a tank.
It’s not the greatest tank ever, most certainly. But as far as options in World War 2, you can’t go wrong with a Sherman.
For the sake of argument, I chose the M4A2 and M4A3 Sherman families and the Tiger E. The M4A2 and A3 were the most common variants, and would be prudent to use the latest variants which saw wide service. It would be imprudent to compare less common early variants after all.
I wouldn’t compare your quality of builds from when you first started, after all.
The many flaws the initial Shermans had were largely solved by early 1944. The base M4A3 began production in 1942. The wide-track modification to the 75mm began production in February 1944. The M4A3(76)W began production in March 1944. I believe by the time the M4A3(75)W was made, it would feature wet stowage.
Remember, D-Day was in June 6, 1944. And the performance of the Sherman tank was considered excellent by all contemporary records.
I don’t thing the Tiger’s many flaws were rectified to any degree. It didn’t have a wide-angle gunner optic to help acquire targets, the ergonomics was sub-optimal, and the maintenance never got any easier. At least it got an illustrated manual which was something most people wouldn’t mind reading.
@Killguymonster I presume what you are talking about is the M416 from PUBG.
The M416 in PUBG is a renamed HK 416 to avoid potential copyright issues; HK is a registered trademark by Heckler and Koch, and using it without proper permission is easy grounds for a lawsuit. The HK 416 itself is an improved M4 Carbine in order to make it more suitable for use with special forces.
As a matter of fact, it was originally named the HK M4 during development, but changed the name to avoid a copyright suit by Colt, which owned the M4 trademark. While Colt lost the lawsuit from Bushmaster regarding the trademark, I presume that HK felt it would be easier to change a name than to pay lawyers for a court case.
+1@MrVaultech There is no best tank of World War II. What is the best option for someone may perhaps be the worst option for another.
And if I had to point out one tank that could be a certifiably good option for most participants in WWII, that would be the Sherman.
It would serve in the rocky deserts of North Africa, the forests of Germany, the jungles of New Guinea and Burma, the frozen steppes of Russia, and the sands of Pacific atolls. Few tanks could boast such a wide variety of service, perhaps the Valentine and the Matilda to a lesser extent (the Soviets never warmed up to the Matilda, but loved the Valentine).
But where it served, it served with distinction and with adoration from its crews. The crews weren't afraid to criticize it; it had tendencies for rollovers at times due to its height, and the drafty interior when the engine was running served to turn it into a refrigerator in the cold.
But the combination of armor, mobility and firepower in a spacious, ergonomic, and reliable platform won more fans than haters among the crews. They could trust it to not only take it to the fight, but to fight well. A machine perhaps not built by tankers, but one built with them in mind.
And no better testament to this other than its long and illustrious postwar service around the world, be it the jungles of South Asia, the mountains of Korea, and the deserts of the Holy Land. Where it went, it gave a good impression, even when it was thoroughly outclassed by much newer and better designs.
Watch this, and come back with your thoughts.
@MrVaultech To compare the Tiger and the Sherman is comparing apples to oranges; they're both tanks, but two very different tanks, evolved to meet different requirements.
And as it turned out, the Sherman was probably the better tank. The frontal armor was comparable; while the Sherman's frontal armor was about half as thick as the Tiger's, it was given a generous slope that bring it to relative parity. It would have done much good to give it a bigger gun, but statistics complied by the American, British, and Soviet armies indicate that it did reasonably well with what it had.
In the event the armor is penetrated, the Sherman is perhaps the best tank to be in. Granted, it's still a very bad situation, but the Sherman made it far less so. The machine's ergonomics were excellent, and the large, spring-loaded hatches were placed conveniently above the normal crew position. This was no accident; those who designed them could draw upon decades of experience with ergonomics in automobiles. And while a tank is a monster compared to a car, the one driving it is likely to be the same.
And while early Shermans were just as prone to fires as other tanks, only the Sherman tank would improve upon these measures; ammunition would be stored in the vehicle floor and thus out of the line of fire in the event of a penetration. And if the ammunition was ruptured, it would be surrounded in a water-glycerol mixture.
If the Tiger had any tangible advantage over a Sherman, it would be mainly psychological; their presence is often significantly overreported in reconnaissance reports. After all, the more common Panzer IV shared many common characteristics; a boxy hull with an angular turret sporting a long-barreled gun with a muzzle brake. Add the fog of war, and you've got yourself a case of mistaken identity. Not disastrous perhaps, but certainly notable.
@MrVaultech The Tiger and Sherman are made to different doctrines.
The Tiger is a heavy breakthrough tank. It is designed to carry thick armor and a big gun to smash through more heavily defended areas. A machine kept in reserve most of the time, the relatively high maintenance requirements were not a factor. It was a specialized machine, brought forth for a certain task.
Problem was, the Tiger was used as a brigade-level fire support weapon, a medium tank with more armor and firepower. And unsurprisingly, the maintenance problems that would not have been as severe a factor, were in fact such.
The Sherman was a proper medium tank. A balanced platform, suitable to crush anything the infantry can't handle. More firepower and armor than a heavy tank, but with greater strategic mobility than a heavy tank. This of course includes enemy armor, something even the Tank Destroyer manual states.
In their words for when they are attached to US tank divisions, "Since the armored division can meet strong armored attacks with effective organic weapons, tank destroyers may execute secondary missions on rare occasions, even when a hostile attack or counterattack is imminent."
The "effective organic weapons" of an armored division just so happen to be tanks. And the tanks the US Army would have is the M4 Sherman. And even as early as August of 1942, there were trials to fit the 76mm M1 on the Sherman tank. However, while the arrangement was workable, it was clearly a stopgap measure, and the Armored Corps certainly didn't want to settle for a stopgap measure when they could easily get a proper tank with a 76mm gun.
Which they got by mid-1943, and production shifting to this new design. The M4 with the 75mm was still manufactured until the end of the war for Lend-Lease countries that wanted the 75mm as well as the US Marine Corps, which never fought tanks that could challenge the 75mm M3. By May 1944, 200 of these 76mm-armed Shermans were available in England, ready for D-Day.
The fact they weren't brought along, as well as the lack of any HVAP ammo for the 76mm, is indeed a significant oversight. Even if the 75mm had proven that it could deal with the threats and a new weapon to complicate logistics somewhat, it would still have been prudent to have brought them anyways.
@BaconRoll lol
@RocCrafter101 So we have "fussing with AG groups" versus "moving a slider."
Paternian aircraft are objectively easier to fly because of their simplified controls. That is, standard aircraft controls and the VTOL slider.
I can guarantee you, moving a slider and controlling throttle is far easier.
Your force has been improving, most certainly. I mention this.
But your forces have a long way to go.
@RocCrafter101 The missile is capable of flying into a particular something 1,200 miles away. In all these cases, the targets were within this distance from the launchers.
However, its eyes can see far less, and the Iridian Air Force was tasked with providing them sight.
Thing is, Paternian air defenses are pretty solid. Essentially, they were a shot in the dark.
@RocCrafter101 I did mention that build quality improved substantially, but is still worse than Paternian quality.