Nice speed chart but not good for choosing armor classifications.

Panther F,

I have to respectfully disagree! It does come into play, Lets say you have a Tiger 1 for example that is twice as fast as a Sherman or Panzer III it is going to be a significant advantage on the IR battle field IMHO

The Blitz

Thanks for being so respectful! It's a rare quality around here. Yes, if a Tiger is faster on the IR battlefield than a Sherman and is supposed to be rated as a 'heavy' it will have an advantage.

But, it's not supposed to be so why is it? So a medium Sherman uparmored (according to the rules governing armor classification) will be classified as a heavy due to it's armor and weight, not by it's speed.

HTH

I gotcha you, understood!

To remove ourselves from this "VOTE" for a minute [sm=lol.gif] as a true Sherman-aholic Ethan, wouldn't the fact that the Jumbo would have the HVSS bother you any? I have everything to make a Jumbo but the lack of the VVSS always stops me.

I would think that the Thunderbolt as a heavy would be more accurate. I guess as time passes I'm becoming more of a rivet counter than I really wanted to.

Just A Thought!

I have gotten knocked for my M36/M10 TD for not having the correct suspension. I wanted them and I built them. I am as accurate as I can be but without a conversion kit it is what it is. I am willing to make allowances so I can build the armor I love. At the SCAT field we go by general consensus. I am scratch building a Jagdtiger that will have the TBU mounted so it can be hit on all sides. I polled the fellows in the club and that is what we came up with. Though you could not penetrate from the front I don't care because I want to build it. I think it depends on the people you battle with to truly determine the class you will run it in. Just my thoughts.

Max

I'd love to see your M36/M10 if you get the chance to Max. Are you casting the turrets? I'm not critizing the effort, just asking. If I had that turret to make a M36B1 I would have to ignore my cringe factor and build it.

BTW, as we speak I am working on the A3 hull(s) to make either 2 out of the 3 tanks I want next with the Sherman chassis. The M4A3E2, M4A3E8 Thunderbolt or the M36B1.

If you go on SCAT's website you can see them. http://web.mac.com/ksoc/S.C.A.T./Welcome.html. I take no offense. I just felt real limited if I stayed too accurate.

Max

Thanks for the link. I guess there is a limit to our expectations, huh? [8D]

The turret I used I purchased from one of our club members. It is an old Maxx Traxx unit. Very hard to find. If I can figure out how to post pictures I will put some biuld pics on a different thread.

Max

Build pics are always appreciated!

Let me know if you need any help posting them!


Jeff

I am content to let the HVSS issue lie in order to build different versions to my tastes. I tell everyone that you are supposed to look from the hull up. When VVSS is available, the Pacific sherman gets fixed first. Till then I will keep building.

Cool.

Just getting a few select opinions on that issue so that when I do build one of my own there's some that feel the same.

Have it run a little slower than a stock Sherman, and let it fight as a heavy (for IR combat purposes).

I say build all the early Sherman and tank destroyer variants you like. That may inspire someone to come out with a true VVSS conversion set if they see that there is a market for them. I know there is a demand for it but actually seeing peoples scratch builds and the seriousness of thier work and desire for the kit may be what convinces such an undertaking.

Just my 2 cents,
Nick

Yep, you are right Nick.

just posting what I have beeen told and explained by the experienced RC tankers I have met.
told wrong? please clarify [&:]

Panter F, I am just curious, where do you do your IR battling?

The Blitz

MACV in Northern Indiana. A very informal group who are using a slightly modified version of the RCACN rules. We do not tech every tank at every meet and only if there appears to be a problem.

Maximum fun factor and very low stress level. Been at it now for over 3 years.

Another 2 cents.

An operating VVSS conversion set was announced at http://rctankhq.com/THQ/index.php?topic=94.0

At around the $400.00 for six bogies, idlers and sprockets this upgrade requires super build seriousness. Tracks are extra, the announcement stated.

I would not vote to give 9 laser tag hits to US Army Shermans or Allied tank destroyers. I would suggest that the Sherman's current laser tag 5 hits be dropped to 3 hits to better reflect their sad and courageous WWII loss rate. Seems a stretch (of WWII history) to rate a 75 or 76mm gunned Sherman a heavy tank.

Firefly excepted, that might rate a vote for heavy.

Hi John, it's not really the gun caliber like on a Firefly or a tank destroyer, but armor thickness. I'm with you on giving the amount of particular hits on a tank vs actual history, but it's Tamiya's design and only until they (or we) can change it to make it closer to historical accurate then it is stuck that way.

I mean, what Sherman would really take one hit from a Tiger and survive? And if you do place an American tank destroyer on the battlefield, then due to it's light armor in the turret it would have to be a light tank.

The Firefly and the standard Shermans must be mediums, just to be closer to being fair against German heavies. The uparmored Jumbo due to weight and armor thickness would be a heavy.

HTH

Hi,

Now this should be fun. Let the games begin.

In regards to the Tamiya TBU free for all games and they are great fun/events, using the Tamiya recommended hits makes sense (9 hits for the cats and 5 hits for all Shermans).

For games that take into account the historical performance of the AFV; games that use WWII tactics and from that point of view; all Shermans should be down graded to 3 hits (when going one on one and head to head with Tigers and Panthers).

I base that proposal on WWII facts that we all know about.

And the staggering loss rate of all types of WWII Shermans when facing Axis armor one on one in France and North Western Europe.

The Jumbos, Easy 8s and Pershings were knocked out just as easily as the older thinner armored M4s.

But the increased fire power of those improved weapon systems did kill big German tanks and lead the way for successful allied ground battles in the closing months in the war for Europe.

But Army records show that most Sherman loses (and Axis armor losses) were due to mines, artillery and aircraft attacks and of course IF games do not reflect those hazards.

Your probably right about the Firefly, but I still contend it did have the best capability in a one on one fight against a big German tank, like found in the Tamiya IF games.

It's fighting capabilities perhaps came closest to being an allied heavy tank. Check with ace tank commander Michael Whittman.

All components work together to establish a classification, and remember the 40's US Army did not field a heavy tank in WWII (and downgraded the Pershing from heavy to medium).

The Jumbo was not classified a heavy tank and tactics from the era had the TD going head to head with the large cats anyway and not the Shermans, if events permitted.

The TD, early in the war, brought heavier AP firepower and speed to the fight. The weight classification isn't germane to how they were fought, because the half track with a 75mm gun was perhaps the most lethal TD of the era and of course carried little in the way of armor. But again tactics and speed gave the TD crew a survival edge.

In regards to the Jumbos and Easy 8 these are the facts:

"The Easy 8s major improvement (not thicker armor), was the complete redesign of the tank's suspension. Battle experience had proved the short life of the original vertical volute spring suspension on the late models M3s was due to the tank's increasing weight (due to bigger guns required bigger heavier turrets, etc.) and the need for larger heavier tracks (again, not thicker armor)".

The "Super Sherman" M4A3E8 did became the standard tank of the 3rd and 7th US Armies in Europe, but around Dec of 44, so that happened very late in the war.

The new heavier Shermans still could not compete on a One-on-One basis, with the big German tanks (Panthers and Tigers) nor with the new T34-85s if it had to, but it soldiered on (into Korea) and did it's job because of tactics, a vast manufacturing, supply and logistics system and the training/dedication of the crew.

But the Jumbo/Easy 8 was still a medium tank like the Pershing M-26 when compared to the enemies AFVs.

Thus Shermans should not get 9 hits and I recommended all Shermans be down graded to 3 hits. What do you think, DAK?

I think the DAK Sherman drivers fan club is just looking for a battlefield edge; one that is not deserved and historically is in no way accurate.

Take a look at my little ugly (but lovable midget) medium weight Easy 8 Sherman tank parked next my nasty/mean medium weight Panther.

No way is the fat Easy 8 a heavy main battle tank.

The Sherman was designed to be a little dude so it could travel over landing beaches and European bridges.

The Easy 8 and Jumbo are just over weight, but that does not make them heavy weight fighters. Sorry Sherman dudes, facts are facts.

Jumbo had thicker armor on the front than Tiger and Panther, so it "could" take more hits, and it was also angled for even better incoming-round deflection. I think its surviveability and where it fits in with whichever army's tanks that define its "class". If the Pershing was the "heaviest" tank that the US had in WW2 then it should be considered "Heavy", and because of the Jumbo's increased armor and weight (it was as heavy as the Pershing). If a regular ronson is considered medium, than the Jumbo has to be considered heavy... you only get 3 options

Do you see now why Panther F how the speed chart comes in play! Most of my tanks are German so I would be battling against the fricken Jumbo when I drive up to Phoenix, Its all about being fair if he can't fly around the battle field, I would step up to the challenge and battle against the Jumbo with 9 hits! If we are in Danville of course not, but just for some battle balance on the fun battle day, lets give it a try!
Oh pcomm1 you left out one other very important reason for the size of the Sherman tanks, getting them on & off ships and fitting more into the cargo hold!

I know it wasn't directed to me, but I can see down grading the Sherman to 3 hits if they have more numbers on that side! Say its 5 Shermans and 2 Pershing verses 3 Tigers and 2KT's ect.... so the total number of hit taken per side is more equal

Some kind of mix like that it would be cool to try, not sure historicaly but would we have to do that to our Panzer III if you take that aproach or was it armor that much heavier?

The Blitz