![]() So the gunner searched with the non magnified main prism of his periscope and then aimed with the 1.44! magnification inset m38 telescope that was built into the periscope. The sight for the main armament in these early shermans was integrated into the gunners periscope. What do you think about this, forum? Should anything be done?Īnd they have granted this M4a1 similar optics to what a Panzer III had, but that is simply not the case. The M4 meanwhile has to be flanked in order to take it out of commission. In my opinion, the M4A1 is a much better opponent balance-wise, as you can at least shoot it's tower just like a T-34, or destroy it's transmission by aiming at the unsloped part at the bottom. However, it's much easier to take out a Pz.III on a Sherman than the other way around. However, it can shoot from cover that's too high for a Pz.III.Īccording to the BR the machines are equally good. The Sherman is larger, and thus is an easier target. The Pz.III meanwhile struggles at 500m with both APC and APCR. APCBC shells also have a high chance of knocking out all crew members. In order to take out a Pz.III, the Sherman needs at least 1km between them if using APCBC ammo, ~750m if using AP. The PzIII has almost no slopes and ~70mm armour everywhere, and at close range everyone aims at the unprotected driver's viewing port.Īnd yes, the Sherman is very easily killed if flanked, but same goes for almost any tank. It's tower has about 100mm armour or more. ![]() It has 50mm of sloped frontal armour, which makes it have anything from 78mm to 90mm up front (there are some bits of not sloped armour, but you have to aim carefully/be extremely lucky to hit them). I'd say that the M3 is better, simply because it's able to penetrate and one-shot kill almost any German armour, while KwK39 needs to be aimed carefully at specific weak points to deal damage, unless you're using APCR, which is only useful for taking down crew. The PzIII's KwK39 has good ballistics and a faster reload time, however the Sherman's M3 has higher caliber, and thus packs quite a punch. The Sherman's turret also rotates faster, even if it's not mobility in general. Even though the Pz.III's top speed is higher than Sherman's, the latter seems to accelerate faster, and thus, move at 38 km/h much more often than the Pz.III. These are the criteria based on which I'd like to compare these tanks. In my opinion, a medium tank should be mobile, while carrying a good cannon and being able to survive some frontal hits. However, I'm pretty sure that the only difference is armour. Plus it looks awesome.Īlso, I only own the first Sherman, the M4A1. The Pz.III L and M are pretty much the same tank, the M version is just supposedly protected against HEAT rounds and AT rifles. In this thread I'd like to compare the supposedly equal machines, both have a BR of 3,7. Or at least it's not intended to be a whine.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |