What is so weak?
T-34s stand head to head with P4Fs, exept at very long range. They may have had worse ammo, but it still kills the Axis quite well.
why are we talknig about russian tnask when thsi is about sherman tanks?:confused: :confused: :confused: some1 jsut clarify this for me plz some1:confused: :confused:
Its called continental drift. See every year the moon gets farther from the shopping chains that are strangling the privately owned and operated car washes of middle America, which lost its values long before the earth was created.
Things got off topic, its really easy to do. At least we aren't talking about sociology or something completely unrelated.
Lol. True. Were talk about the russian ammo nd the brits and ever so that we can deside wat the sherman ammo was.
I hear that T-34 tanks are supposed to have crossed the Bering Straits in prehistoric times, eventually evolving into M26 Pershings in America... :)
Anyway, back on subject (sort of) am I to understand that the tank guns are completely scaled within FH? So that, even though the map itself is only about 1200m square, you scale down the ranged damage and such? Why isn't this true with small arms as well?
can someone summarize this entire thread in one sentence? thanks
Sherman tanks: realistic or not realistic? Devs swear that they are realisticly modelled based on armor values and penetrations, but some dissenters think that the bf1942 engine is making the sloped armor cut the damage in half to the front, and they think that the gun may be too strong.
I think the front armor needs looking at. Thats it though.
All i think is that it is fine. all that is needed to be done is remodel the sherman and make it look ten times better.
It already looks 10x better than T-34, and that's just plain wrong :(
I think the sherman really needs to be remodeled. the t-34 turret is fine just the hull of it. i also say that the m41 t-34 turret can stay on russian 1941 maps just at 43 and above change the turret. but the sherman needs a whole remodel