+9 quintillion!!! I love Shermans!!! Just need the M4A6 too.
1 Like
Sherman III/IV is a Sherman IV(M4A3) hull, but the turret is straight off of a Sherman lll(M4A2) so it is half represented in game
2 Likes
This is wrong actually.
The vehicle is actually an Sherman III (M4A2) turret, on top of a large hatch Sherman IB (M4 105). Which means:
- It’ll lose 3 km/h top speed.
- More importantly it’d lose 100hp, as it has a different engine entirely.
Will Gaijin ever fix it? Probably not, because they hate nerfing premiums.
5 Likes
My favorite Sherman.
I think they generally don’t like making changes.
So far the J2M5 with the 30mm Type 5 also hasn’t got their missing 20mm Type 99-2 cannons.
1 Like
cough cough T-34E STZ cough cough
If Russia has a significantly better version of their main 4.0 tank (much higher armor and much smaller weakspot) than there is no reason for the US to be different.
Well slightly, the wetness (water) is the main thing that stopped shrapnel. Whether it would still work after a hole is punched through by said shrapnel is questionable.
Duckbill extenders would be a better analogy however this would make a good modification as well. I would also add single piece lower hull with it.
Sherman IB is a M4 76 not M4 105 dude. I understand the Sherman lll/lV is an amalgamation of Gaijin’s creation but they won’t give it a weaker hull that loses them money’s
Nope, a Sherman IA is the M4 76. A Sherman IB is a 105. I don’t believe any A variants of the standard M4 were built.
2 Likes
I stand corrected. I remembered A as 75, B as 76, C as QF-17
What are you talking about? It did not function as a heavy tank nor is it more recognisable. When people think Sherman they think of the European front and therefore the M4A3. Also the M4A3 mainly replaced the M4A2 during the Pacific campaign. There was no good reason for the M4A2 to have been added over the M4A3.
5 Likes
outside of fuel, yes, most Shermans mainly the A1s and A3s, the ones that used the kit bashed Chrysler engines (ones seen on the A4s which are just 4 smaller car engines slapped together), the wasp engine (plane engine A1) and the A3s used gasoline to power their tanks, VS the A2 which uses diesel of which was already in high supply due to most of the ships being diesel as well
1 Like
im down but can we get these tracks i like the wway they look on shermans +1
Spoiler
2 Likes
I fail to see difference between it and ingame M4A2
?
Me when reading is hard.
M4A3 (75) is going to have a higher mobility thanks to its Ford GAA V8. It can get a possible access to experimental rounds like blunt AP M338 (T148), a 75mm round capable of penetrating T-34’s UFP.
M4A3 (75) is literally the most iconic and numerous Sherman model. Nothing’s wrong with having more Shermans in the US tree.
10 Likes
even when using JDM or is this just historical
Just historical.
1 Like
Different hull, different engine, different turret. Performance-wise it’s more mobile and very slightly better armoured, plus the ammo racks are located in a safer position which reduces the chance of ammo rack detonation. The ready rack would also likely allow for a slightly faster reload.
But the main thing is this is the US Army Sherman variant, with more produced than any other Sherman model. Between the two, the M4A2 is an insignificant footnote in the Sherman’s history.
For a simpler comparison, the differences of the M4A3W and M4A2 are mostly the same as the differences between the M4A2 (76) and M4A3 (76) W.
5 Likes
Here’s a follow-up comment. Even in-game, it is still capable of penetrating the T-34’s UFP according to @FlipAllTheTables’ calculation and graph in his post:
Below is a graph of how it would perform in-game compared to the M61 APCBC. The red line represents the M338, and the blue line represents the M61. The X-axis shows the angle in degrees, and the Y-axis shows penetration in mm of actual thickness. Relative thickness is irrelevant in this graph.
As shown, the M338 penetrates about 49 mm at 60 degrees, while the M61 penetrates about 40 mm at 60 degrees.
For reference, the T-34’s UFP is 45 mm at 60 degrees. The M338 succeds in penetrating the T-34’s UFP, whereas the M61 fails to do so.