World's Toughest Sherman?

[ClarkWGriswold]

I think the Yanks may be employing King Tigers, cleverly disguised as Sherman 105s.

[Sgt Schultz]

How many casualties, and how many yellow and red dots on the damage panel?

That was one lucky crew.

[Spinoza]

Angel Dust

[dieseltaylor]

Not a good result in terms of game realism.

[Lt Belenko]

I think the Pz IV was firing the paint rounds. It makes really pretty colors.

[dpabrams]

I am playing a PBEM game where a single Cromwell IV has taken 3 direct hits to the turret and hull from a Shreck and continued with no damge to the main gun and mobility. Finally a 4th Shreck round killed it.

[YankeeDog]

*Shrug*. After you play this game for a little while, you realize that you can see just about anything happen, once.

Now, if you re-run the turn several times, and the Sherman survives more than once in a blue moon, then we have something to talk about.

To cite a similar example, in a game I just finished a couple of days ago, I was able to jump a Puma with a Greyhound, point blank range and near perfect rear aspect. The Greyhound starting pumping shells into the Puma, getting at least a half dozen rear aspect hits. But no KO -- the Puma slowly rotated its turret around, until finally it shot and KO'd the Greyhound with one shot. The Puma ended the encounter immobilized, but apparently otherwise OK (couldn't tell crew casualties on the Puma, though obviously at least the gunner was still OK).

Needless to say, I was a bit miffed and wondered if something might be off. To be sure, the behind armor effect of the 37mm is limited, but 6+ fully penetrating hits through the very thin rear armor? I had saved the game before calculating the turn, so after I had finished the battle, I went back and re-ran this encounter five times. In the five re-runs, not once did the Puma survive long enough to get a shot off at the Greyhound; the best result for the Puma was surviving 4 hits before brewing up. This was enough for me to conclude that the initial result was just a case of colossally bad luck.

Basically, sh*t happens. I do think it's good to make note of unusual events like this and post them here as they could indicate a modeling problem that needs to be fixed. But before we all run to pull the "BFC, fix er do sumfink" alarm, I think it would be a good idea to re-run the situation a few times and make sure it's not an outlier result.

Finally, I would also note that it's not that hard to find anecdotes of stuff like this happening in the real thing. Extremely rare, to be sure, but every once in a while a tank crew just gets extremely lucky and their tank remains operational despite multiple penetrating hits. So it's not necessarily unrealistic for things like this to show up in the game, every once in a great while.

[Mad Mike]

Just to ask the obvious:

Are you sure the Pz IV used AP rounds? Those are quite some explosions on the Sherman, could be HE??

If it were indeed AP rounds: Tough luck, basically. :eek:

I tend to agree with YankeeDog, this could and should probably happen from time to time .. as long as it doesn't happen to me .

[slysniper]

*Shrug*. After you play this game for a little while, you realize that you can see just about anything happen, once.

Now, if you re-run the turn several times, and the Sherman survives more than once in a blue moon, then we have something to talk about.

To cite a similar example, in a game I just finished a couple of days ago, I was able to jump a Puma with a Greyhound, point blank range and near perfect rear aspect. The Greyhound starting pumping shells into the Puma, getting at least a half dozen rear aspect hits. But no KO -- the Puma slowly rotated its turret around, until finally it shot and KO'd the Greyhound with one shot. The Puma ended the encounter immobilized, but apparently otherwise OK (couldn't tell crew casualties on the Puma, though obviously at least the gunner was still OK).

Needless to say, I was a bit miffed and wondered if something might be off. To be sure, the behind armor effect of the 37mm is limited, but 6+ fully penetrating hits through the very thin rear armor? I had saved the game before calculating the turn, so after I had finished the battle, I went back and re-ran this encounter five times. In the five re-runs, not once did the Puma survive long enough to get a shot off at the Greyhound; the best result for the Puma was surviving 4 hits before brewing up. This was enough for me to conclude that the initial result was just a case of colossally bad luck.

Basically, sh*t happens. I do think it's good to make note of unusual events like this and post them here as they could indicate a modeling problem that needs to be fixed. But before we all run to pull the "BFC, fix er do sumfink" alarm, I think it would be a good idea to re-run the situation a few times and make sure it's not an outlier result.

Finally, I would also note that it's not that hard to find anecdotes of stuff like this happening in the real thing. Extremely rare, to be sure, but every once in a while a tank crew just gets extremely lucky and their tank remains operational despite multiple penetrating hits. So it's not necessarily unrealistic for things like this to show up in the game, every once in a great while.

Amen, this is so true. Plus one of the reasons I like the game so much. I love it when you know what to expect, but every once in awhile the game with give you the unexpected.

the game is not broken, I think it is funny , how many will jump to that conclusion when something happens to them one time.

Not that the game is perfect, but until you see similar issues many times, then its time to investigate what might be going on.

example: the over performance of pistols in the game, it becomes clear when you see a 5 man crew with pistols become a very powerful fighting force within the game.

[dieseltaylor]

*Shrug*. After you play this game for a little while, you realize that you can see just about anything happen, once.

Now, if you re-run the turn several times, and the Sherman survives more than once in a blue moon, then we have something to talk about.

To cite a similar example, in a game I just finished a couple of days ago, I was able to jump a Puma with a Greyhound, point blank range and near perfect rear aspect. The Greyhound starting pumping shells into the Puma, getting at least a half dozen rear aspect hits. But no KO -- the Puma slowly rotated its turret around, until finally it shot and KO'd the Greyhound with one shot. The Puma ended the encounter immobilized, but apparently otherwise OK (couldn't tell crew casualties on the Puma, though obviously at least the gunner was still OK).

Needless to say, I was a bit miffed and wondered if something might be off. To be sure, the behind armor effect of the 37mm is limited, but 6+ fully penetrating hits through the very thin rear armor? I had saved the game before calculating the turn, so after I had finished the battle, I went back and re-ran this encounter five times. In the five re-runs, not once did the Puma survive long enough to get a shot off at the Greyhound; the best result for the Puma was surviving 4 hits before brewing up. This was enough for me to conclude that the initial result was just a case of colossally bad luck.

Basically, sh*t happens. I do think it's good to make note of unusual events like this and post them here as they could indicate a modeling problem that needs to be fixed. But before we all run to pull the "BFC, fix er do sumfink" alarm, I think it would be a good idea to re-run the situation a few times and make sure it's not an outlier result.

Finally, I would also note that it's not that hard to find anecdotes of stuff like this happening in the real thing. Extremely rare, to be sure, but every once in a while a tank crew just gets extremely lucky and their tank remains operational despite multiple penetrating hits. So it's not necessarily unrealistic for things like this to show up in the game, every once in a great while.

My problem with your explanation YD is that from all that I have read on tanking in WW2 crews bailed when they got hits registering. I should make clear I am not suggesting that crew would bail when sat in a major tank but the MO for Shermans was if you got hit once by a major blow you bailed because the next shot would be fatal.

For Tiger II crews a major hit would need to be a relative term, frontal hits being faintly concerning but hits to the rear very worrisome. Anyone floating around in smaller vehicles will have much lower standards as what calibre is a minor problem.

For Puma crew penetrating hits from the rear is a near panic situation and it is crew reaction rather than the how long before the vehicle blows up is the concern. The crew morale area does seem a trifle wayward. Incidentally the Puma has a rear facing driveable position so is somewhat better off than most in terms of being surprised. I wonder if this is modelled.

However if the radio-operator says hey boys there is a Greyhound behind us firing one might believe they have the extra time to evaluate their chances of swinging around the turret and shooting their enemy. Now if they correctly evaluate 10mm armours chance of defeating 37mm cannon at close range correctly they will realise that odds are bad and either they drive like buggery or bail. Given the rest of YD's experiments it suggests that bailing was a good idea as they lost 80% of the tests.

There is an additional point that the Greyhound gunner probably knows that the turret is where the humans are and where the gun is and a good place to aim rather than the diesel engine block. I have a nasty suspicion that the game models centre of target even when for a human at close range shooting the vitals seems sensible. Perhaps YD can quantify how many were hull hits and the range and version number.

From playing Version1 I speak as a man who nailed two members of a Sherman crew with separate hits from an 88mm decapitating the TC and then the radio operator that replaced him and poked his head out of the tank. All in the space of a minute which finally resulted in my 88mm dying to the Sherman.

It seems to me that there are problems with casualties in tanks vapourising so that the remaining crew fight on as though nothing untoward is happening to their morale OR their physical ability to carry on at the same speed. Two dead bodies in the turret basket I think would make the job awkward for the gunner. At least in CM*1 we had a stunned effect.

Incidentally YD refers us to a good point:

In the five re-runs, not once did the Puma survive long enough to get a shot off at the Greyhound; the best result for the Puma was surviving 4 hits before brewing up. This was enough for me to conclude that the initial result was just a case of colossally bad luck.

YD has not proved it is colossal bad-luck as it might be as common as 1 in 10. It is a very valid case for more testing. : )

[Vanir Ausf B]

YD has not proved it is colossal bad-luck as it might be as common as 1 in 10. It is a very valid case for more testing. : )

Be sure to let us know what your results are

[c3k]

Hmmm. That looks like an outlier. :)

What kind of ammo did the PzIV have left? More importantly, what did it USE?

It would be interesting to see what the damage status was on the Sherman and how it changed with each hit/penetration.

Savegame?

Ken

[Lee_Vincent]

I had a StuG get 6 penetrating hits on an M10 at point blank range, after which the M10 calmly rotated its turret and killed the StuG with a single shot.

[dieseltaylor]

I think YD could provide the game and relevant turn ... to as many wh are keen to find out what is going on.

Lee - what Version are you playing?

[YankeeDog]

@diesel:

Sure... If you really want the save game turn I might still have it. Or, it would be quick to set up a test -- range was something like 20m.

5 runs with more or less expected results afer the outlier was enough for me to decide my time was better spent elsewhere, like actually playing, or testing things that are more clearly problematic, such as pistol accuracy/lethality.

But if you want to take it on and do a more extensive test, knock yourself out.

[ClarkWGriswold]

I'll have to go back and re-watch the turn to determine what ammo the PzIV was firing. At this range, I really don't think it would matter all that much. Especially since all of the hits were penetrations (the 5th was a partial).

I won't know what it looked like from the American side until the game is over, but I didn't see a single red cross pop up.

[Tarquelne]

I'd wondered why "Tis but a scratch." and "It's just a flesh wound!" were included in the 1.10 "voices" files.

N.B.: The "heavy target tank" folder has "There can only be one!"

"It would be interesting to see what the damage status was on the Sherman and how it changed with each hit/penetration."

Yeah... and I'd like to see behind the target tank. Were the shots going right through the tank, or was the crew (or whatever bits were left) continuing to operate with a few extra 75mm shells rattling around in there with them?

[black_prince]

In war extraordinary things happened and having completely unexpected things happen in CMBN (so long they are rare occurences) actually gives the game a more authentic feel. However, I would have to agree with DieselTaylor that the crew behaviour is pretty hard to justify and iirc Steve did concede that this is something that may need to be looked at. I suppose in this situation it is possible that the crew may judge it to be preferable to remain inside the tank -if there is no fire- until it has reversed back into cover. Something tells me that the Tac AI isn't that sophisticated though.

[BadgerDog]

Great video .. thank for posting it ...

Has to be an April Fool's joke.. It is April 1st ... right?

Regards,

Doug

[ClarkWGriswold]

For what it's worth, my PzIV hit it once more at the beginning of the following turn (ricochet off the turret), then drove off, as I'd issued orders for it to move elsewhere. Even after a 7th hit, the tank still appeared to be operational, I'd seen not a single casualty cross, and the crew had not bailed out when I lost sight of the vehicle.

[ClarkWGriswold]

The game finally ended (I got my ass handed to me, thanks to nearly indestructible American tanks) so I was able to capture this from the American perspective.

Video available

[BadgerDog]

The game finally ended (I got my ass handed to me, thanks to nearly indestructible American tanks) so I was able to capture this from the American perspective.

Thanks for the video, but I'm confused ...

Are you saying you lost because every American tank with a Veteran crew, rested and +1 leadership behaved with this kind of toughness and tenacity? :confused:

.. or, was this an anomaly, in an otherwise regular match where you win some and lose some of these types of engagements ...

Just curious ...

Regards,

Doug

[ClarkWGriswold]

The toughness of this tank was an anomaly, but the American tanks were able to consistently get off the first shot, even while on the move, even buttoned with dead commanders, while my Panzer IVs that were sitting still with perfect lanes of fire sat and did nothing.

So, it's not that the American tanks were all indestructible, it's that most of my own armor never even got off a shot.

For what it's worth, I replayed this turn three times to see what would happen. All three times the Sherman was destroyed within two hits. Two of the three times it brewed up/exploded on the first shot. So, basically very, very, very, very bad luck on my part, I guess. <shrug>

[dieseltaylor]

Good to see the video. No doubt that there is a problem with morale modelling in tanks.

The manual traverse of the 105mm may be correctly modelled in that it takes 30 seconds for 180 degrees which is slower than the other Shermans. Gander does not list HEAT as a shell type in his Tank Detail book. It is in the game.

Gander shows in his book an engine plate that confirms the reverse speed of a Sherman at 3mph. That is an M3A3 76mm.

[BadgerDog]

Good to see the video. No doubt that there is a problem with morale modelling in tanks.

I think that might be a giant leap to conclude .. :eek:

If not, then someone tell me which Shermans I should be selecting as my grunts freak out with the first round hit, usally putting their head between their legs and kissing their a$$ goodbye, refusing to get a grip and engage much of anything after that ...

So, I don't think it's a general problem as described, but rather something in the code sequence that went on the for that event.

Just my opinion based upon my own experience using Shermans in CMBN(CW)....

Regards,

Doug