We already have wet stowage vehicles in game. It’s all the 76mm Shermans.
Those dont have wet stowage ingame, they have the ammo racks in the correct places, but they are just normal ammo racks with none of the added armour that wet ammo stowage offered.
While wet ammo stowage did not work as intended, it was still able to absorb shrapnel at least one time without detonating the ammo.
I can’t say no to more M4s! Hopefully this one can stay at rank 3.
The M4A3 75 could be given some additional bells and whistles to make it more distinct. Idk if these were already brough up, but grousers and a twin 50 cal were both mounted experimentally, which could be implemented as modifications.
5 Likes
I’d strongly disagree. The whole point of the M4A3W is it was the most common M4 variant- picking a couple one-off conversions over the thousands of standard-configuration vehicles negates the purpose of the vehicle entirely.
That being said I’m not advocating for an exclusively factory-stock vehicle. As mentioned in the suggestion, I’d like to see both add-on track armour and duckbill track extenders. Both were very common field modifications that would be advantageous in-game.
2 Likes
Same here, I find these sorts of modifications to be very interesting, but they should not be researchable upgrades, nor should they be combined alongside one another onto the same vehicle. That being said, I would have no problem seeing them represented individually, perhaps as a premium or battlepass vehicle.
1 Like
Actually, I think that’s a fair point and I can kinda agree with you on that.
These experimental mods can be spared for separate versions.
I don’t see why they didn’t add it already? It was the most widely used Sherman increment by the US lol
2 Likes
Generally, it can be said that the M4A2 Sherman in the Pacific Theater is far better recognized due to its presence as a sort of “heavy tank” for the Japanese forces, and as such I don’t blame Gaijin for choosing it over the M4A3.
Well yeah but personally I think they should at least include the most widely used and produced too as it’s just as important as the most popular.
1 Like
Fair enough, just saying that it’s understandable why we haven’t seen it already.
Would you know which turret the M4A3(105) uses in-game? Cause I don’t know how I missed that it’s likely the same as the 75…
Pretty sure it’s high-bustle D78541 casting modified for Sherman (105) tanks.
All large hatch Sherman’s have wet stowage. If it’s not modelled correctly that’s a historical issue that needs to be bug reported. That’s what the W stands for in M4A2 (76) W, M4A3 (76) W, etc.
+1
- Large hatches does not mean Wet Ammo Stowage
- I agree, the W does refer to Wet Ammunition Stowage
What I am saying is that there is more to Wet Ammunition Stowage than merely the placement of the racks. Ingame the racks are in the correct location for wet stowage, but the rest of the wet ammuniton stowage system is missing.
The bins were lined with a water/glycol mixture that was found to be useful for catching spall and shrapnel. this is the part that is missing ingame.
Currently there is no difference between shooting a “Dry” ammo stowage Sherman in the lower racks and shooting a “Wet” ammo Sherman in the same spot.
With the recent introduction of Spall Liners I feel like a modified version of the system would work well for properly modelling Wet Ammunition Stowage. with it catching some spall, before becoming ineffective against future shots.
Regardless, more on topic. I agree that the M4A3 (75) W would probably be a good tank to have, being the ultimate 75mm Sherman.
If it had HVSS as well then it would also be an interesting side-grade to the M4A1 (76) W and T14
1 Like