gunnergoz

My strong recollection from several sources is that the US planners basically only saw utility in the DD tanks and were minimally interested in anything else, which later proved to be short sighted. Again, the army and its not invented here syndrome...but the army did go ahead and eventually adopt some of these ideas and used them in the ETO after D-Day, you are correct.

Still, it seems to me, if they can put in heavy towed AT, there's no reason not to include something as ubiquitous as the M2 105mm howitzer. For that matter, let us have the US 105 and 75 pack howitzers, the former for the infantry regiment cannon companies and the latter for the airborne scenarios. Heck they already have 99% of the M2 built into the M7 model... It would make for some really interesting scenarios and there are plenty of historical incidents to make them about.

Slick. I'll have to try it sometime, thanks for mentioning it. As it is now my IPad is always next to my PC with the game manual up...

I do know that if the unit intends to fire, the action list on the lower left will say "aiming" and not "spotting" at least for the gunner. Makes me think that the gunner "thinks" he cannot aim, perhaps due to the tree in the way.

I'd vote for it, definitely.

I guess I'm just hung up on this "death trap" terminology. It makes it sound like the tank was useless, that operating it in a combat environment was suicidal. It's hyperbole and not a useful description when assessing the value of the thing. A little short sighted is being generous. Some of these planners were fools IMHO. No question that the army brass of the era was backwards looking. Recall that the doctrines were written before WW2 and the army went into the war using them right up to and including D-Day. Experience in other theaters? Please. The army wouldn't even listen much to its own veterans of amphibious assaults in the Pacific who were brought over to give advice to the Overlord planners. They could have had some amphibious vehicles, like amtracs, but rejected them. They only grudgingly accepted "funnies" like flails, flame tanks and mine rollers. It was tough even to get them to accept the 76mm gun for the Sherman. These high level officers making these decisions were dinosaurs and their thinking was very influential for far too long. As for the times, well it was different and pressure on the army to change things built up slowly. By the time there was sufficient momentum behind bigger guns and better tanks, the war was almost over in the ETO.

Can't say I've seen that happen but it is very cool that it does. Perhaps I haven't seen it because I play more on Veteran level where the first aid is "instantaneous" - possibly you play on a more realistic setting, where it takes more time to service the wounded.

The Sherman was an evolutionary result of tank designs based on the realities of the late 30's, hurriedly upgraded in time for WW2; T5 medium, M3 medium, to M4, hence my comment. Best in the world in '42 and '43? My vote would be for the T34 there as a more modern design in '41, although it's superiority was soon eclipsed by the fact of the Sherman's 5-man crew. As for the reference to WW1, I was not saying the M4 was a WW1 design, rather it was an outgrowth of the way the army branch chiefs looked at tanks in general as support to the infantry, not as offensive weapons on their own right. That legacy remained well into WW2, with the result that they had to come up with TD's to deal with enemy tanks, because our own tanks were supposed to be used for either infantry support or for exploitation of a breakthrough, not for fighting other tanks. And, in fact, the Sherman proved to be excellent in both the support and exploitation roles it was designed for. Where it fell short, as we all know, was as a tank-killer.

I think the game basically describes its casualties as those wounded unable to move any longer, but of course there is a wide range of reasons they may not be able to move on their own...e.g. their legs are blow off or they could simply be concussed out of sensibility.

Sounds about like the loss rate of infantrymen in some of the infantry divisions...they replaced their frontline GI's several times over during the course of the war. Not much armor on a GI, either. Thank goodness for us that the GI's and tankers made the most of what they had then, eh? They were fighting not only an enemy in front of them but a military bureaucracy that was certain it had all the answers...too bad the questions they were answering were from back in WW1. The Sherman was a legacy of that thought process, having been originally conceived to be resistant to 37mm AT fire...when the other guys were already fielding 50 and then 75mm AT guns. It did fine against Mk IV's but the Panther and Tiger were real headaches that could only be taken out at a cost to yourself. BTW its been a while since I read the book - where and when was the M12 incident said to have taken place and with which AD?

I used to think the game over-modeled killing effects since I often see more dead than wounded on the battlefield. Now that I'm hearing about how effective buddy aid is, I may have to re-visit the issue. I don't think I'm treating enough of my wounded so I have more KIA's as a result. I know, it sounds cruel, but war is heck you know and we have a mission to accomplish!

It's worth looking into given the circumstances you describe. Seems to me at least.

Too often the casualties are still under fire and I'm loath to risk another team to tend to them. Makes one really appreciate the wartime medic...

Didn't seem to hurt the Red Army any during the war...their opponents lost! Must have been the sight of all those crimson banners coming at them.

Senior moments are he//, aren't they? I earned mine so I just try to enjoy them.

The 2nd Armored Division after the Normandy breakout got itself mixed in with retreating elements of the 17th SS division on a French road one night and some M7's got to go toe to toe with German armor and AFV's, including a 150mm Hummel which was knocked out after leading a charge down the road in an effort to break through the Americans around them. The M7 was never intended for this kind of work but it managed to come through, although I'll bet there were a lot of soiled skivvies afterwards.

For this decision we have the hidebound army brass at branch level to thank. These were the same hair shirts who in their wisdom decided that tanks were not for fighting other tanks, that one needed tank destroyers for that purpose. So the army went into the war with a mish-mash of lights, mediums and towed and SP TD's. Some efforts were made to design a workable heavy tank (the M6) but even though hundreds were produced, the decision was made that they took up too much space on the cargo ships and it was considered best to just keep shipping Shermans and TD's. The GI's at the pointy end of the stick made do with what they had, but a more rational development and procurement approach would have served the GI far better than the rigorous adherence to this now disproven doctrine that restricted what could be designed and fielded for far too long. The army finally wised up after the war and redesignated the M26 from heavy to medium and then finally just decided to call it's grandsons (M48's and M60's) main battle tanks by the 1960's.

The early Sherman was most vulnerable to brewing up because of exposed ammo stowage in the early models. Additional armor was added on as production advanced (it can usually be seen on the sponson sides covering the ammunition stowage areas, commonly one welded plate on one side and two on the other.) Later models had wet stowage, with water jackets around the ammo, which was mostly moved to the turret floor as well. Those alterations helped reduce the fire hazard, at least long enough to let crews get out. But make no mistake, any tank or AFV will burn if the ammo, hyraulic fluid or fuel ignites as a result of a penetration. And, has been noted, post war analysis showed the Sherman to be little worse than its opponents as far as fire risk went, particularly as modernized ones went into service. The German tanks brewed up just fine too - if you could get a sufficient penetration. There is amazing war footage now on video of a Panther dueling an M26 in the streets of Cologne at the end of the war and the Panther can be seen to brew up quickly and fiercely after the M26 penetrated the upper hull. AFAIC the game models tank vulnerabilities quite well. What seems to be distorted somewhat is the wartime and postwar discussion of the matter and this has left a legacy which does not tell the whole story. Contemporary wartime US and UK journalists jumped on the stories telling of the "Ronson" and pressure grew in the US to do something when mothers started writing the army about what they were hearing. The army knew it had problems and probably might have even moved more slowly than it did, were it not for some of the domestic pressure it was getting thanks to the news stories.

We can't and that is one of the reasons that BFC is looking into the issue. If the FO in fact can't see the fall of the spotting rounds, why would he call for fire for effect instead of calling check fire?

If you want to play with TRP's, try the Le Desert scenario as American defender. It comes with several TRP's that you can position as you like before you start the game; you can use them as either traditional artillery TRP's or as ambush foci. It is a fun scenario and very rewarding if you can figure out how to clobber Jerry on his way in and then ambush the survivors when they come down the main drag looking to take the town.

Interestingly, the Israelis, admittedly no one's fools in the military smarts department, bought up every one of those "death traps" they could get their hands on and over the years used them brilliantly against their opponents. Even an obsolete Sherman, armed with a more capable gun (ironically, a French copy of the Panther's long 75mm), was more than a match for 1950's era Soviet built tanks in the hands of the Arab armies. So was it vulnerable? Yes. Not the best out there? Yes. A good war fighting tool in the right hands? Most definitely. If one wants to talk about "death traps" lets focus on the M5 light. Now there was a tank past its prime. I still can't figure out for the life of me why it was still in service in 1944, with its puny 37mm and meager armor. The Army upper echelons had all these doctrines and theories about how to use lights and mediums and TD's but in the end, the GI's had to use what they had on hand to win a victory and sometimes their worst enemy was their own Army brass. I'd take my chances in a Sherman, but an M5 light...no thanks.

I personally haven't seen any changes in MG ROF (in numbers of bursts per minute) at all. It is conceivable that there are slightly longer bursts (more rounds per burst) but the numbers of bursts per minute seem pretty consistent to me. If this is the case, it would please me if they upped the numbers of bursts per minute or, better yet, made the bursts longer when the gun and its crew were in dire straits. I would think an MG crew about to get bayoneted would be pressing that trigger for all its worth.

No one is denying the vulnerability of the Sherman, that I can see. All that is being said that it was a tool put to the task and it served its role. They made 50,000 of them and a lot of those got used up, no question. But to simply call it a death trap is too simplistic because it implies the tank had no utility other than to kill its crews. It was in no way inferior to the Pz IV and that was its opponent as often as not, yet no one calls the Pz IV a "death trap." When surprised by a Panther, Tiger or other large bore AT weapon, the Sherman had better duck and cover or outmaneuver the enemy and hit them where the Sherman's gun could do some good. It was not the best tank on the battlefield but it had its strengths and the men who had to crew them, made the most of those strengths and a lot of them paid the ultimate sacrifice for its shortcomings. Sure, a boatload of M26's in June '44 would have been nice but the Army made the decision to save the shipping space for larger quantities of Shermans. Right or wrong, tankers had to live and die based upon such decisions and enough of them did survive to defeat the German tanks in the end, inferior Sherman or not. Re: the 155 as a hedgerow sniper, consider that the weapon was usually found in the rear, where most heavy artillery was sited. It had no business being up on the front line in the bocage and was never to be found there from any incidents I've heard of. There were plenty of M4's and TD's up front to do what you describe. It served a far more useful service laying down suppressive, offensive and final protective fires for the doggies on the front line, not to mention doing counter-battery work as required. That's where the gun shone and that's where they kept it until, under specific conditions, it became useful as a direct fire bunker buster...but never against the front aspect of a bunker that still had it's "teeth" because that would have been truly suicidal since the M12 had almost no defensive armor.

I wonder if such a scenario would even be much fun...enormous map, scattered troops, limited mobility, limited visibility, mostly just surviving shellings day after day. Perhaps some of the Bastogne crossroads defense scenarios might work - more variety of troops and equipment and denser spacing of assets.

The 25 pdr was in part intended for direct fire IIRC, with its turntable mount enabling quick changes of direction. It wasn't an AT gun but with its solid shot AT round it could defend itself if it had to. For that matter, US 105mm howitzers had a HEAT round for self defense in a pinch.