Erwin.Rommel

refuted? really? PS: the anger of the turret armor is not right either

The position of the turret seems a little behind

Is there any official response to this problem of M36?which AP is right?the Oct's or the Nov's? just in my further test at Oct, the AP of M36 achieved the partial penetration on the upper front hull of panther at 1300m, this is far beyond the M77 can do, only T33 can achieve this.

Acording to the US's test, the T30E16 only can penetrate the panther's upper hull front at 470yards, but the T33 APBC can achieved this at 1300 yards, maybe the BFC give the T33 APBC to M36 at Oct?

No, these are different bugs, the exploding AP is not related to the penetration value. For the M36, I suppose, the different penetration value is caued by different ammo that maybe the BFC's mistake.

No,that's not true. the 90mm T30E16 HVAP(APCR) first been delivered to ETO with the T26E3 tank in operation Zebra

I just test the M36 vs panther and Kingtiger, used the same test map, when I set the time in Oct, In about 200m,Every AP that hit the upper hull front achieved the penetration, when vs Kingtiger, the AP penetrated the lower front hull at about 600m. However, the I set the time to Nov, Dec, Jan, The AP rounds can not achieved any penetration in the same place of armor. I also oberseved that the ricochet AP rounds of Oct will not exploded when hit the ground, but the AP rounds of Nov Dec Jan exploded in the same situation. So I guess the M36 used M77 AP rounds in Oct, and used M82 APCBC in Nov Dec and Jan, because compared to the M82, the solid M77 AP can better deal with the slope armor plate. Am I right,BFC?

Emm....seem I failed to attach the picture in my topic, anybody tell me how to insert the picture in the post that from other album? the pictures of comparing the tank is also in the attachment. m4A1.rar

Just we can see from the picture, In the game, compare to the real one , the right side of the turret is too vertical . since sherman 76 is my favorate tank in WW2, I real hope I can get a accurate model. so any chance we get a little fix?

I upload the save of the replay, at 29:23-29:20, the JPIV's 75mm round Ricochet from the Jumbo's upper front hull then hit the ground and explode, the explosion injury the US FO at hundreds of metres. test 001.bts

"Ricocheting APHE will not explode where it finally lands (the fuse is considered damaged)" This is an important fix which was specifically mentioned in the readme of the 1.01update of CMRT(also in CMBN).

I test all the rounds with charge, it happen in all of them.

I recall in the latest update of CMBN and CMRT, the AP shell(with charge) will not explode when hit the ground after ricochet from enemy armor, and this is one of the very important improvement in the new update. But in the CMFB, this improvement is missing, the ricochet again explode when hit the ground and hurt infantry in a very long distance. So, a Bug?

also the minor shade issue with the PZIV's schurzen I noticed before(steve promise to fix in the next patch) still exist with the 3.0 update see the link and picture below http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=114602

When I turn the shade on, the the shadows on the vehicles disappeared when it be seen from some angel. these issues exist both in CMBN 3.0 and CMFI 3.0(with the new 3.0 shade hotfix), but not exist in the CMRT, the old shader fixer(the one that installed with the mod tools) don't have this issue. See the photo below turn shade on, shadow disappear turn shade off, shadow appear