COMBAT MISSIONS : Unit Research - Sherman

[Manx]

Thanks for your feedback on the Tiger gentlemen. I think i've learnt a few new things there myself! I will add these to the site later this evening.

Next up...what many people believe, was the tank that won the War in the West...the "Sherman". Now obviously there are quite a few variants of the Sherman within CM, so the pro's & con's and the way you would tactically use a Sherman I, might be completely different to how you would use the Sherman Firefly for instance.

Feel free to either comment on the Sherman family in general, or by a specific version.

Thanks once again.

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

COMBAT MISSIONS - CM News, Supplies & Resources

WWW.COMBATMISSIONS.CO.UK

[Mark IV]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Manx:

Feel free to either comment on the Sherman family in general<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They seemed like nice folks... quiet, kept to themselves a lot. Never expected anything like World War II to happen...

[PeterNZer]

except for Barry

always was a trouble maker that kid.

PeterNZ

[Terence]

Hmmm.

The sherman?

Rings a bell, I think

Is that the large brown vehicle that burns easily?

[Spook]

I dunno, Mark IV. As a young boy, little William Tecumseh had a tendency to pyromania. One quote of youth was, "I will make this schoolhouse howl!"

(Historical jest, folks. Don't get "fired up" here.)

Manx, I presume you've reviewed the CMHQ articles on the M4 tank series? Not all makes have been covered yet (like the later M4A3 models with "wet" ammo storage and the E8 with HVSS suspension), but those available are quite informative.

[Manx]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Spook:

I dunno, Mark IV. As a young boy, little William Tecumseh had a tendency to pyromania. One quote of youth was, "I will make this schoolhouse howl!"

(Historical jest, folks. Don't get "fired up" here.)

Manx, I presume you've reviewed the CMHQ articles on the M4 tank series? Not all makes have been covered yet (like the later M4A3 models with "wet" ammo storage and the E8 with HVSS suspension), but those available are quite informative.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, i have read that article and a good read it is too, but it is completely different to what i'm trying to do.

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

COMBAT MISSIONS - CM News, Supplies & Resources

WWW.COMBATMISSIONS.CO.UK

[Dr. Brian]

Manx,

I have some impressions about the Sherman. What made it valuable to the US/Brits was the fact that it was a mass production AFV. The chasis was used on numerous models which all helped.

Was it outgunned? Sure was.

But, was it USED properly? Sure was.

It was a infantry support tank, and also used for exploitation. When used in those roles, it worked wonderfully. When matched up in a tank battle in the ETO, it found itself in trouble.

Only numbers, speed, and the gyrostablizer (when employed by trained crews) allowed it to over come the enemy.

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

Doc

God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

[Bullethead]

Manx said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Now obviously there are quite a few variants of the Sherman within CM, so the pro's & con's and the way you would tactically use a Sherman I, might be completely different to how you would use the Sherman Firefly for instance.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No type of Sherman is entirely satisfactory. They all do one of tank's tasks rather well but tend to suck at all the others. That is, a given Sherman might be good at killing infantry but is nearly hopeless against heavy armor, or vice versa. Which task they specialize in depends on what modifications the basic vehicle has received. This can be determined by the nomenclature of the unit in CM.

All the different basic Sherman mark and model designations (i.e., M4, M4A3, Sherman II, etc.) really don't mean much in game terms. In real life, all these meant was what type of engine the tank had, or whether it had a cast or welded hull. So in CM, these various basic designations usually translate into insignificant differences in speed, armor thickness, and ammo stowage. As such, you can pretty much ignore them. This leaves the other, "suffix-type" designations to consider.

These suffixes can be divided into 3 main types: those dealing with guns, those dealing with armor, and those dealing with mobility. An individual Sherman in CM can have a combination any or all of these types. Depending on which ones it has, the tank will be much more effective in one role or another, and usually noticeably better than the baseline, unmodified vehicle.

Armor suffixes are the easiest to understand. There are 3 with game effects: +, W, and E2 "Jumbo". The + offers somewhat better protection against older AT weapons such as 50mm and 75mm PAKs but doesn't seem to make any difference to more powerful weapons. Therefore, I find this suffix not worth the purchase points in most cases. OTOH, Jumbo means armor from Hell, capable of taking some major hits, although at the cost of speed. Jumbos are useful for frontal attacks on prepared positions. The W designation just means the tank is less likely to burn when penetrated. Thus these tanks are slightly less likely to be knocked out by a penetration, usually cost you fewer casualties when they are knocked out, and have a better chance of recovery during operations.

There are 2 mobility suffixes--E8 and HVSS--but they both mean exactly the same thing. That is, E8 is the official designation for the HVSS suspension. This mod carries a very significant reduction in ground pressure, meaning a much lower chance of bogging. In real life, the ride was reportedly smoother as well, which should increase accuracy while moving. Also, you'd expect a somewhat lower chance of setting off mines. However, I haven't verified either of these in the game.

This leaves suffixes dealing with guns, which IMHO have the most game effects because the whole purpose of tanks is shooting the enemy. Shermans carried 4 types of gun: short 75mm, long 76mm, 17pdr (also a 76mm), and 105mm. The 75mm is there by default if the designation doesn't specify, and the 17pdr is indicated by "Firefly".

The 75mm is very good at killing infantry and is adequate vs. older German armor such as PzIVs and Stugs. Also, tanks so armed carry boatloads of ammo. OTOH, the weapon is pretty hopeless against heavy armor and loses accuracy at long range.

The 105mm is like the 75 on steroids. It's extremely good for killing soft targets, buildings, and even pillboxes. Plus its hollow charge round can take out even heavy armor. However, it's slow-firing, not very accurate, and tanks so armed burn very easily. Consider it a hammer with a balsa handle.

The US 76mm gun is a compromise in the anti-tank and anti-personnel roles. It offers better anti-tank performance, both in accuracy and penetration, than the 75mm, but at the cost of reduced effectiveness against soft targets and amount of ammo stowage. But even so, it's still not adequate against heavy armor.

Fireflies with the 17pdr (Brit 76mm), OTOH, are specialized anti-tank vehicles. The gun is capable of dispatching heavy armor but is less effective against infantry. In addition, to allow adequate ammo stowage space, the Fireflies eliminated the assistant driver and the hull machinegun. This reduces their ability to defend themselves against enemy infantry and makes them more vulnerable to crew casualties than other Shermans.

So, how do you use all this? In general, all Shermans except Jumbos are easy to kill and no Shermans except Fireflies can do much damage at long range. So basically, this means you have to rely heavily on terrain and smoke to avoid long-range enemy fire as much as possible. This is the great equalizer because Shermans are really no more vulnerable at ATG and tank fire at short range than at long, but German vulnerability and Sherman accuracy increase at short range. Plus relative turret speed starts to enter the equation.

Thus, on the attack, put your 75 and 105 Shermans fairly far forward, just behind your assault grunts, so they can deal with strongpoints as they appear. Use covered avenues of approach to avoid long range ATG and tank crossfires. Use mass to sustain firepower despite losses and to surround isolated heavy vehicles encountered en route. Advance by bounds from cover to cover if possible, sending 1 tank first to the next position to see if it triggers an ATG ambush before moving up the main body.

Fireflies are best left behind hills in the rear. They're no more durable than other Shermans and leaving them exposed on the skyline simply makes them targets to any unspotted AT platform with an LOS. Then, when your advancing 75 Shermans cause the Germans finally to commit their Panthers, pop the Fireflies up over the hill and nail the Panthers while they're fixated on your expendable tanks. Of course, achieving this requires proper appreciation and use of terrain.

The US 76mm Shermans are rather like weak Fireflies. Because they are generally your best anti-armor weapons, and because you're usually attacking, you should try to use them similarly to the Fireflies above. However, they need to be closer in to be as effective, and having flank shots at heavy armor is a big plus. Thus, as your main force advances, you may have to halt periodically to move the 76s to new positions, either further forward or more to the flank, so they'll be most effective when needed.

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

-Bullethead

In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

[Manx]

Bullethead...Nice post!...that's the sort of thing i'm after...how these units perform in CM and depending on their good/bad points, the sort of tactics you would use with them to gain an advantage on the battlefield.

As important as historical data, and performance is, i just want info that is relevant to a units role in CM.

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

COMBAT MISSIONS - CM News, Supplies & Resources

WWW.COMBATMISSIONS.CO.UK