@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.
In the Paternian Navy, cruisers are distinguished by being surface combatants that can host an admiral's command staff.
Thus, the North Point-class is still a cruiser. The Salem-class (modernized North Point and Honolulu-class ships) have four Phalanx guns (two on each side), three Mk 45 Mod 4 systems (three on centerline), a pair of 8-round Mk 29 Sea Sparrow box launchers, and about 40 HSLAMs in deck-mounted ABL systems.
Thus, the North Point is a cruiser on account of the fact that it is a surface combatant that can host an admiral's command staff.
Oh the Salem’s are fitted with Aegis Combat System and can fire SM-3 anti-ballistic missile missiles that can also hit satellites in LEO. Most use the SM-2 or SM-6 though.
The San Antonio’s can only use the original SM-1s in addition to HSLAM-1 from the Mk 27 and Mk 13 rail launchers. @KerlonceauxIndustries
@KerlonceauxIndustries The San Diego-class is considered by some as a battlecruiser. We don't classify it as such because our designation system doesn't have a designation for battlecruiser. It's simply classified as a guided missile cruiser, although you'd be correct to call it a battlecruiser on account of its size and capabilities.
It’s completely fictional and pertaining to a role play where that in fact happened.
Of course Canada has neither the capability nor indicated any willingness to level Moscow. They’re more than happy to let the UK or US to do that. @StarKnight697
@RocCrafter101 Even if it did work, the performance would be deficient as an aircraft and a submarine.
The requirements for a submarine are pretty much the exact opposite of an airplane, so any design of this sort would be heavily compromised at best. Still, quite an impressive thing if you made it even work.
@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.
@RocCrafter101 I see.
I made few, if any, criticisms of the Iridian Navy.
I simply stated that they are a defensive green-water navy.
@Stellarlabs We took it to another RP.
@InternationalAircraftCompany To trigger them.
No problem! @Baldovino
@InternationalAircraftCompany Eh.
@Adlerkrieg Neat.
Thanks for the heads up! @Texasfam04
@CRJ900Pilot Thanks!
Sure! @KerlonceauxIndustries
@RocCrafter101 It's a cruiser.
In the Paternian Navy, cruisers are distinguished by being surface combatants that can host an admiral's command staff.
Thus, the North Point-class is still a cruiser. The Salem-class (modernized North Point and Honolulu-class ships) have four Phalanx guns (two on each side), three Mk 45 Mod 4 systems (three on centerline), a pair of 8-round Mk 29 Sea Sparrow box launchers, and about 40 HSLAMs in deck-mounted ABL systems.
Thus, the North Point is a cruiser on account of the fact that it is a surface combatant that can host an admiral's command staff.
Lovely cruiser you have there.
Thanks! @50Airworks
Thanks! @MadBomber
@MadBomber Holy crap you're alive!
@KerlonceauxIndustries You forget that the ships would not even be in service by the time the Aurora comes along.
Oh the Salem’s are fitted with Aegis Combat System and can fire SM-3 anti-ballistic missile missiles that can also hit satellites in LEO. Most use the SM-2 or SM-6 though.
The San Antonio’s can only use the original SM-1s in addition to HSLAM-1 from the Mk 27 and Mk 13 rail launchers. @KerlonceauxIndustries
@KerlonceauxIndustries Well I would not exactly consider a heavy cruiser an even match against a battleship.
Unless the North Point has either W33 Mod 1 or W79 Mod 2 nuclear shells in her magazines.
In which case the Kronshtadt will probably be obliterated in a blaze of atomic fission.
@KerlonceauxIndustries The San Diego-class is considered by some as a battlecruiser. We don't classify it as such because our designation system doesn't have a designation for battlecruiser. It's simply classified as a guided missile cruiser, although you'd be correct to call it a battlecruiser on account of its size and capabilities.
Thanks! @AstonMartin145
@BoomBoss17 Thanks!
@SledDriver lol
Would "analysis of wrecked Kestrels" be under "Federation" section?
Still, looks good anyways. @Dllama4
Are the parking brakes intuitive to use? @Dllama4
This isn't World War II.
@Baldovino Neat.
@Tully2001 Noted. I probably should have established the setting more.
Thanks! —pls updoot— @AverroesIndustries
I used the Roleplay tag. @Delphinos
It’s completely fictional and pertaining to a role play where that in fact happened.
Of course Canada has neither the capability nor indicated any willingness to level Moscow. They’re more than happy to let the UK or US to do that. @StarKnight697
@KerlonceauxIndustries Thanks!
@JoshEraDix2345 Thanks!
@InternationalAircraftCompany lol
@JoshEraDix2345 Sure.
@YuukaNeko I just realized something. All your latest builds have suppressors.
@YuukaNeko Thanks!
Thanks! @AverroesIndustries
@RocCrafter101 Even if it did work, the performance would be deficient as an aircraft and a submarine.
The requirements for a submarine are pretty much the exact opposite of an airplane, so any design of this sort would be heavily compromised at best. Still, quite an impressive thing if you made it even work.
@Irobert55 That would not be realistic.
@PyrusEnderhunter You can have all the information of the world, but nobody's going to read it if the format sucks.
@DeidaraEnterprises We're pretty good at it.
@PyrusEnderhunter Its very poorly formatted.
As for this thing...
polishes realism bat