!@&!@*%##!! Shermans stink!

[CrapGame]

I was playing Chance Encounter for the first time last night. I was the Americans, and was slowly advancing three Shermans with a lot of infantry support through the woods on the right side of the map. The infantry moved into a couple of houses, and as soon as the three Shermans approached the end of the woods, I put them in unbuttoned HUNT mode. Within 2 turns, 1 StuG in the center clearing in the German resistance line had smashed all three of the Shermans - only getting killed by the third Sherman in a simultaneous death similar to one of the AARs. I could see it was "Hull Down", but my Sherms were partially hull down themselves. My fourth Sherman quickly got killed in a duel with another StuG that came out of the woods on the German right, which in turn got the kiss of death right square in the lips from a 'Zook in a second story window at a range of 161 meters. My last Sherman, the "+" version, got its TC killed, and had to hide to recover from shock. The last StuG was killed in an unknown fashion by a US infantry squad that close assaulted the buttoned up vehicle from behind, while it fired on my troops in the church. It was really neat to see the grunts run up to the back of the vehicle, see them crouching around the rear of the vehicle, and the next sound was the hatch opening. There was no explosion, and after watching the film from every angle, I can't tell what they did to kill it. But there were no survivors from the crew. CMOH for those GI's for sure. Does the StuG have one of those mortar projectors?? My question is this - WHY CAN'T SHERMANS, UNBUTTONED OR NOT, HIT ANYTHING OTHER THAN BUILDINGS???

[Mattias]

Real life situation:

The newly arrived conscript tries to get his shooting straight.

Series after series of three shots land all over the target.

Adjusting the sights after each series doesn’t do much as there are no real concentration to adjust.

The NCO in charge of the shooting tries his best to help out, adjusting, suggesting changes etc.

But to no avail, there is not much of an improvement.

"What is this crap!?" The conscript exclaims in frustration.

Now the NCO look seriously at our little conscript, then at the target, then back, slowly stroking his chin. With a thoughtful look in his eyes he says:

"You know it might be that the problem lies with the triggerpuller..."

Our conscript slowly nods his head, wondering what the bloody hell a triggerpuller is.

Don’t know why, just came to think of that story...

My Shermans work just as they should by the way, StuG´s all ablaze. At least those of the AI

M.

[Rommel]

Well i have no large story to tell, but I've played that mission on allied side couple times, Problem is the stug was probably waiting there for your shermans, so it was ready for you while your guys prob came very close but still appeared one after another, anbd had to stop, then aim fire, then check your fire.

But also i've seen if the germans don't take this type of strategy, the 3 stugs, which take longer to aim than shermans, are swiss cheese.

[CrapGame]

Mattias -

The AI must be a one sided trigger-puller, as although I might pick the target, in CM it is the AI that pulls the trigger for both sides... unless, that is, your CM is different from the rest of us non-ubermen...

Rommel, I didn't realize the targeting speed was that different. Another lesson learned. When my Sherms came out of the woods, they were lined up in a diamond formation, with two in the front, separated by 10 meters or so of scattered trees, and one in the back, about 10 meters behind. That StuG lit up all three! He couldn't even be targeting all of the Sherms at the same time. That means that at least one of them had undisturbed fire at that StuG for some time...a lot of good that did it.

[Guest L Tankersley]

Remember, a StuG is a low-slung assault gun while the Sherman is a tall beast. There's a lot more of the Sherman to hit, particularly if the StuG is hull down. Ambush is the StuG's forte.

Leland J. Tankersley

[Iguana]

Well, in defense of the Sherman, while playing the Americans in Reisburg the other day, one of my Shermans took four, yes four, shots from an '88 on the hill. All were ricochets. The Sherman also fired four shots, the last one taking out the '88. I sat there and watched with my mouth hanging open as shot after shot bounced off my Sherman. Another of my Shermans took out the second '88. This one was supressed by machine gun fire, so it never shot back. After that, it was just a mopping up exercise.

-Doug

[CrapGame]

I must admit, that I have had some good luck with Shermans against the AT guns, but as soon as there is any type of tank versus tank battles, including multiple vehicles versus one of the enemy, the Sherman really doesn't fare very well. I am definitely a member of Fionn's Sherman Hater's Club. It must have been an awful experience to be a WWII tanker knowing that you were going to run up against the superior German machines without any Jabo support.

[killmore]

In your opinion guys is average T-34 (1944 model) better then average Sherman 1944 model?

[K_Tiger]

I think, the Sherman against a hidden Stug or Hetzer hase noch chance..The Stugs have a very low Siluette (in the contrast of the very high Shermans) and on larger removal, are considered them with their better optics in any case. German crews required in the cutting around the 2 shot per hits (according to removal)

[Mattias]

Well, CrapGame my post was mostly an humorous side as I interpreted your question to be likewise.

My experience, you see, is that I am having a very hard time outmanoeuvring the Shermans in pretty tight spot as this 1x1 km map.

And when they spot me, which they do with seemingly ubermen... speed, they rotate and fire very quickly... And yes, they hit and hit again.

I´m definitely not in the Sherman hating club after having played with them in CM. For a very good real world reference try Ken Tout´s "TANKS!"

There is a lot of healthy (in what must be the ultimate meaning of the word) respect for the Germans but the Shermans do not seem to be such crappy rides that they are often made out to be.

It is a reality after all that no matter how good your tank is you will get shot up by a inferior but better led tank almost any day of the week.

But when your life is at stake in every engagement you no doubt are extremely sensitive to weaknesses of your own equipment.

Still I havn´t read any accounts of the Pz IV being bashed to any comparable extent for not being able to engage a JS-II frontally. Something that pretty much amount to same as the Sherman vs. German heavy´s situation.

M.

[This message has been edited by Mattias (edited 11-23-99).]

[Zamo]

CrapGame, You seem to have hit it on the head. The Sherman is a weak tank. The Sherman was at best, marginal. It's total weight was dictated not by tactical concerns but by dockside crane capacity. So armor was marginal by mid-war standards.

Nonetheless, it was a good tank, not a great tank, but a good tank. It's all a matter of how it's employed. You mentioned that your tanks advanced in a "Diamond" formation. When I played that scenario, I paid no attention to any formation at all. I sent three tanks (including the plus) to the left and two to the right of the road. My two tanks on the right got nailed by the Stug's as soon as the got to the edge of the woods at the top of the hill: Blam, Blam. I suspect this is exactly where you got drilled. However, my heavy section raced at speed for hull down positions at the base of the ridge on the other side town (where the Stug's where). Then I had them creep up and zap all three Stugs quicker than greased lightening from hull down positions. End of Stugs.

The problem I had was in the heavy woods just to the left of the Stugs. There is a victory point there and I had a reinforced platoon assault it and the siezed it but were counter-attacked and eventually were wipped out. I ended up barely holding my position and commited my reserve infantry platoon who vanquished the fell foe and enabled us to gloriously triumph and decimate the Hun completely.

[dumbo]

Although the shermans were fairly naff in terms of pure stats I seem to recall reading a book by a russian tanker who rode in lend lease shermans who praised its comfort level vs the T34.

Now I know comfort doesnt sound like much but I think it has an affect on the crews performance over the whole battle.

Still I dont think there is any doubt that pound for pound the Russians were way ahead of the US/Brits in terms of tank designs and in my reading I come away with the impression that the german armours succeses against the Russians were down mainly to superior crew training than equipment.

[Mattias]

On the subject of relative perceptions of tanks, in this case Russian tanks.

http://www.history.enjoy.ru/index.html

After visiting this excellent Russian armour site I came out with a new look on Russian armour, and one I now believe to be more correct.

For example, regarding the T-34...

When comparing the newly designed T-34 with a Pz-III the Russians finds the former to be so clearly inferior technically that they actually contemplate withdrawing it from production to redo the design.

The US gets a chance to run a T-34 through its paces in 1941/42 and comes up with a range of very revealing facts that goes a long way in giving a little more "down to earth" representation of the tank.

Great page! Anyone who doesn’t already know the story of the T-34-57 tank killer tank has a lot to learn there

M.

[CrapGame]

Mattias,

Indeed I apologize for the coarseness of my reply. I was (and still am) steaming over the butchering of Oddball and the other 2 "Ronsons" with Moriarity and his gypsy comrades in them by the enemy.

Let me explain further: I wasn't doing any spectacular maneuvering, just moving them up the scattered trees on the left-edge of the woods on the right of the American side of the map. There are what appear to be two "trails" through there. I had them in a rough "diamond" formation, 2 in front and 1 in back, and they "hunted" to the edge of the woods in unbuttoned mode. They squeaked through the edge of the woods, where they were immediately spotted by the buttoned (repeat BUTTONED!) StuG which turned and incinerated the Sherms. (similar tactic to another post, I see) I am in no way complaining this is "unrealistic" - in fact, I have never had so much fun getting my ass handed to me by a PC in my life - but merely that I thought the StuG would have at least been hit (not necessarily killed) once by the Sherman not initially being shelled. Chalk it up to bad luck, I guess.

Is Tout's "TANKS!" an encyclopedia of sorts, or more of a historical work? I think I might have to pay a visit to my arch-nemesis Amazon and check it out...

I also raced my other two up the left side of the field, but stopped at the two houses by the wall. I didn't think that they would be able to get hull down at the bottom of the ridge in front of it. Something new for me to try.

Anyway, again my apologies, and I am off to try to take the fatherland for the forces of democracy.

[Iguana]

Well, this by itself doesn't mean much, except that I seem to have good luck with Shermans. I am now playing (for the 1st time) the Chance Encounter scenario. I have played through six turns so far. On the fourth turn, two of my Shermans took out two Stugs. Two shots, two kills. On the fifth turn, after about 45 seconds, a third Stug showed itself. One of my Sherman's fired and got a hit, but no visible effect. At the beginning of the sixth turn, my Sherman shot again and killed the Stug, crew and all.

Maybe I'm just lucky, but I'd rather be lucky than good.

Long live the Sherman.

[This message has been edited by Iguana (edited 11-23-99).]

[Mattias]

CrapGame,

Being on a first name basis with Oddball and the guys myself I understand share your frustration completely!

No offence take and none intended on my part

One thing that definitely goes for me is the fact that I am not very skilled at interpreting CM´s version of reality yet.

Not that I find the system inaccessible but I still have a very long way to go before I´ll be able to "see" the terrain and how too advance, a very real problem in "reality" as well.

Therefore, so far, I have written off my losses so far as lack of training rather than weaknesses in the vehicles themselves

Tout´s book is a, eh, documentary. Basically you follow Ken in his Sherman fighting with the 1st Northamptonshire Yeomanry. For 40 hours you take part in the opening moves of, if I recall correctly, operation Totalize.

Very well written in all aspects, interesting, engaging and revealing with respect to the Sherman in particular and tank combat in general.

All around a first rate book.

M.

[CrapGame]

Mattias,

I share your difficulty in reading the terrain. I believe the abstraction of the trees to sometimes be difficult in determining where I may or may not move my vehicles and troops. I have yet to find any way other than getting down to camera angles 1 and 2, and slowly moving over the map to get a feel for the terrain. It can take me an agonoizingly long time between turns, and my games take forever as I do it for all the units.

Perhaps some other poster to this board can enlighten us to easier ways to read the terrain?

CrapGame

[Moon]

I use the LOS tool a lot. Not only to check line of sights, but also to see where woods exactly end (to the pixel) etc. The LOS tool tells you the terrain from the game engine point of view and is way more exact sometimes than looking alone.

[SimonFox]

I too use the LOS tool a lot. I also understand that BTS have made some efforts to increase the visual differences between the terrain types in terms of shading, maybe Martin can enlighten us on that one. Even so I would like an extra setting for the tree density which really showed woods to be inpenetrable to vehicles as sometimes it is difficult to plot sneaky movement paths for your tanks.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Hi all. I'm a little late to this thread, but have a few observations.

First, Simon.. yes, we have made improvements in the visual recognition of terrain levels. It is't as perfect as it could be with realtime lighting (oh to wish for that kind of power ), but it is a *lot* better than what you guys are playing with now. Generally even questionable stuff comes up and you then get at least a clue that you should check it out further, where as now you might miss it completely. Plus, when you plot movement lines now they sculpt to the terrain. So if you totally miss the lay of the land, at least when plotting through it you get instant visual feedback.

CrapGame, the Sherman is a frustrating tank when going up against a good foe. Going bunched up towards a hull down StuG is asking to be lit up. The StuG's most major weakness is that it is slow to get into firing position, so if you catch it on the move, or force it to move, you have a very good chance of taking it out. In Chance Encounter I tend to spread my Shermans out as much as possible. Say, moving abreast in a staggered line, some 50-100m apart from each other. The Sherman is a fairly fast tank with a very quick turret rotation speed. If you can get at the StuG from more than one side, you will almost always take it out. However, I have never made it through this scenario with more than 4 Shermans in one piece (though I lost another due to a Schreck ). The odds aren't that much in the US' favor, as it is 5:3 to start out with, so that is also something to think about.

Oh, and don't be afraid to pull your tanks back and hide them for a bit. Trying to slug it out in a kill zone is NOT a good idea. Run them into Scattered trees, behind a dip, house, whatever. Then figure out what to do next.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 11-24-99).]

[CoolColJ]

If you did check out the pics on my Web Site, you can see in my first game at Last defense, I wiped out all the STugs, by charging in my SHeramns and freaking out the STugs - they couldn't see my SHermans, until they crested the slight elavation, the STugs started Reversing

Too Late

------------------

CCJ

aka BLITZ_Force

My Homepage - Just updated, check out my MP3

and Combat Mission photos

www.geocities.com/coolcolj/

[guachi]

I think that the Sherman will be great against soft targets and buildings. Its 75mm shell has decent HE capability and the Sherman has a huge supply of them. In addition it has, like many tanks, a vast amount of MG ammo.

Jason

[Berlichtingen]

Is the T-34 better than the Sherman? There is no doubt about it. The Sherman had two good points: A) there were a lot of them, it was mechanically reliable. Other than that, it was a piece of junk. It was under armored, armed with an inferior gun, had an underpowered engine, tended to burn, had a high profile and narrow tracks. of the two varients of T-34's in 1944, the 76 armed version was under gunned, but not to the extent that the Sherman was. The 85mm gun was a decent weapon. The T-34's had good armor, presented a relatively low profile and was fast for a medium tank. Its wider treads gave it much better cross country capabilities. Remember, the Panter (probably the best tank of the war) was designed using many f the ideas the Germans learned from the T-34.

[Fionn]

I'd take 200 Sherman 76s on a campaign LONG before I'd take 200 T-34/85s on campaign.

Mechanical reliability, ergonomics etc of the T-34/85 were terrible. Also the 85mm gun had roughly the same performance as the 76mm-armed Shermans plus the armour was terrible quality (as usual for the Soviets).

A lot more than armour and bore size goes into determining what's good and what isn't.

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Guest Charles]

Ya, but in any given engagement, I'd take the T34's over the Sherman's any time.

------------------

Not THE Charles from BTS