One Sherman as good as another in battle?

[MikeyD]

Pretty much every Sherman variant is included in CMAK. Early gun mantlets, cast hulls, diesel engines, wet stowage, etc. etc. etc., they're all in there. Aside from praising BFC's commendable thoroughness, has anyone noticed a measurable difference between variants when it comes to actual warfighting? Are there any types you're positively avoiding?

I've played enough that I should've noticed a difference, but my poor 75mm gun Shermans are usually so overmatched that I'm often holed by one German über-weapon or another long before I have a chance to compare performances! At least with Stug variants you can SEE shells bouncing off the later types and not off the earlier.

[YankeeDog]

Well. . . aside from the ones with obvious advantages, like the 76mm and the HVSS suspension, I'd have to say the differences are pretty subtle.

Some of the early Sherman's don't have cupolas; that's definitely a disadvantage -- tanks without cupolas react much more slowly to new threats. Many times, I've had cupolaless buttoned tanks sit inactive while enemy units traipse unmolested through their field of fire.

Theoretically, Wet Stowage Shermans should survive penetrating hits more often. In my subjective experience, one place this really makes a difference is against the Panzershreck -- with (w) Shermans, it seems to me that the survival rate for shreck penetrations is much higher. Against other weapons like 75L48 (or higher), 88mm, and Panzerfausts, Shermans still almost always brew up on a hit. I guess the (w) stowage simply doesn't make much difference when the armor is that catastrophically defeated.

I've never noticed much difference in the engine types. The differences in top speed and acceleration are pretty minor as CM models them. Of course, there have been more than a few times I've had a Sherman get nailed just before it makes it into defilade; perhaps if I'd had a model with a few more horsepower, those tanks would have made it. . .

It would be interesting to do some tests, but I suspect it would take a big sample size to really show the differences, more than I'm willing to sit through. In any event, it's not like I'm going to start pushing my Shermans boldy into enemy fire simply because they have Wet Stowage!

Cheers,

YD

[Holman]

I haven't done real tests, but my sense from much play is that the different armor thicknesses and angles do count for something. Isn't armor also of a lower quality % on some models?

[Vergeltungswaffe]

They're definitely birds of a feather. Which is one more reason why you need to mod ALL OF THEM!

[MikeyD]

The VERY early narrow mantlet/cast hull/dry stowage versions may be somewhat more of a deathtrap.

I think there was talk that the roof-mounted gunner's sight for the narrow gun mantlet type was less accurate than the direct telescope sight wide mantlet. I've often been pleased to be allotted Shermans in a '43 N.A. QB (as opposed to Valentines) only to find that these Sherman have a frustratingly low hit rate.

[securityguard]

They all seem incredibly subtle changes wise. In QB's I just pick one and stick with it.

Cupolas are a huge difference though as someone stated above.

[CombinedArms]

I have to say that, while I tend to avoid the early model, otherwise I tend to treat all the 75mm Shermans as interchangeable and generally just buy the cheapest. My view is that any subtle differences and/or improvements aren't worth paying for. Of course, I might be wrong.

76mm and HVSS are of course real improvements. However, in part because the 76mm remains iffy against Panthers and Tigers, even with flank shots and because teh PzIV and Panther have almost as good suspensions as the HVSS at no apparent cost, I tend to feel these improvements are overpriced. If I want the 76mm, I might be inclined to buy it on a Hellcat (for the speed and suspension) or M10 (for a cheap version of the 76mm). I don't play QB's that much, though, so I might be missing some nuances. A Sherman Firefly, with its truly effective main gun, remains my favorite Sherman variant. That's upgrade that is truly noticeable.

[ December 07, 2004, 04:13 PM: Message edited by: CombinedArms ]

[HeinzBaby]

...Wet stowage or not, game wise the Sherm is finished if penatrated (usually), only the crew will have a higher chance of bailing if not gunned down..?

I've never given much thought about the pleathora subvariants of all the armour...'

I see it as ..OK sighted a Panther or '34/76, if I'm in the wrong spot at the wrong time that extra 10mm or 3mph won't help, I'm usually toast .

The beauty of the CM series is it rips you away from the Board/wargame mentality of moving to the last 1/2 inch to grab the next point modifier or forever measuring gunnery ranges.

not to mention all those gorgeous Mods

[junk2drive]

If I can get HeinzBaby to tan colour the Shermans like his PZs for AIW.....

What do you think?

[Bruceov]

The British Mark III has a top speeds of 30mph

[Bruceov]

That makes it marginally more usefull

[Soddball]

I think there can be a difference. Early-war Shermans only have a 76mm-armoured turret but quickly gain an 89mm turret.

Wet stowage is a plus, and helps to keeps your crew alive if and when they have to bail out. That might not matter in a game, but when you're an army trying to keep a veteran tank crew alive so you don't have to send green tank crews out, it's important.

In game terms, I agree that the 76mm gun, 'easy eight' and (if it were in the game) the Jumbo are the three biggest improvements.

For all the slandering that the Sherman gets - and it gets a hell of a lot - I really like it and I think it's unfairly slighted.

Remember that the Sherman first appeared in 1942, and it was competing against the Panzer III and early Panzer IV. It was way ahead of the competition. The 50mm/L42 needed tungsten to penetrate the Sherman at anything but short range, and the 75/L24 bounced off front and turret armour at all ranges and needed a good flank shot to disable it. The 37mm needed to use its Stielgranate to penetrate.

I'm also suspicious about the setting of the Sherman's turret armour to '0 degrees', because it looks as though it should be assigned the classification 'curved'. Have a close look at the design next time you're playing. I think the Sherman might need to be looked at again for CMX2.

Many of the Sherman's most positive aspects never come to the fore in a CM game because they're out of its scope, but were you to play a grand strategy game, they would become apparent. These are such thing as its reliability, its ruggedness and the availability of parts for repairs.

Read the 'Russian Battlefield' website stories about tanks like the KV-1. Russian gearboxes were diabolical. The unreliability of the King Tiger is legendary, but read between the lines about the KV-1 and you'll see that it's not any better - breakdowns on the way to battle, frequent breakdowns during battle. That great, much-vaunted behemoth had a shocking reliability record, but you never see that in the game. Oh sure, you might get it bogged in if you're unlucky, but you don't find your two of your three KV-1 reinforcements not making it to the battlefield and the third breaking down within 20 yards of the front line.

So I think the Sherman's biggest advantages are at a level beyond that which you play in CM. They're stuff that matters to armies as much as to soldiers.

[Michael Emrys]

The Sherman 75 has a humongous ammo loadout. If you can protect it from AT weaponry, it'll murder all the other personnel types on the map and do it all day long. When I played CMBO, I always included a platoon of Shermans with each company of infantry if I could afford it.

Michael

[Dave H]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

The Sherman 75 has a humongous ammo loadout. If you can protect it from AT weaponry, it'll murder all the other personnel types on the map and do it all day long. When I played CMBO, I always included a platoon of Shermans with each company of infantry if I could afford it.

Michael

I think that really hits the mark. In the role it was designed for, which is supporting the infantry, a Sherman with the 75mm gun is superb. Upping the gun to the 76mm actually reduced the effectiveness.

Comparing the Shermans on a tank-vs-tank basis with the Panther and Tiger is interesting, but really irrelevant. It's similar to comparing the dogfighting abilities of a Spitfire and a Stuka.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Dave H:

Comparing the Shermans on a tank-vs-tank basis with the Panther and Tiger is interesting, but really irrelevant.

Except if you are facing Panthers or Tigers and Sherman is the best AT asset you've got. Then it is very relevant.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Sergei:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Dave H:

Comparing the Shermans on a tank-vs-tank basis with the Panther and Tiger is interesting, but really irrelevant.

Except if you are facing Panthers or Tigers and Sherman is the best AT asset you've got. Then it is very relevant. </font>

[Dave H]

Originally posted by Sergei:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Dave H:

Comparing the Shermans on a tank-vs-tank basis with the Panther and Tiger is interesting, but really irrelevant.

Except if you are facing Panthers or Tigers and Sherman is the best AT asset you've got. Then it is very relevant.</font>

[roqf77]

true but if you did happen to end up facing a tiger or panther with a sherman 75mm you would be in a bit of trouble. and in the case of the americans where this was there main tank it would of happend ore than occasionaly.

[Macphail]

dont you be dissing saunders! he practically won the war all by himself.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

I suppose, but as has been said before, that didn't really happen all that often. Probably the worst enemies of the Sherman were the 50mm and 75mm PAKs in terms of what killed them. Didn't someone post some numbers on this a few months back?

But I think CM Quick Battlers more often play some kind of Combined Arms/Armoured force games, making it irrelevant how often it happened IRL.

Of course, even Italian light tanks are good if all they are facing is some British infantry, but that doesn't alter the fact that once a Matilda enters the picture, they're in trouble - even if most M13's were disabled by other things.

[Dave H]

Originally posted by Macphail:

dont you be dissing saunders! he practically won the war all by himself.

Amen. Between him and John Wayne, it's a wonder the uber-Americans didn't end the war in six weeks!

I'm just making the point that the Sherman wasn't ever intended to be a one-on-one match for Panthers and Tigers. Did they meet? Of course. There were times when Greyhounds and jeeps and halftracks ran into Tigers, too. Just because they weren't equipped to deal with such an indestructable opponent didn't make them less effective in their intended roles.

Try some unsupported Panthers and Tigers versus Allied engineers in a town if you want to see the instant cure for "uber Big Cat-itis".

[Dave H]

Originally posted by Sergei:

But I think CM Quick Battlers more often play some kind of Combined Arms/Armoured force games, making it irrelevant how often it happened IRL.

When you try to make units fill roles that were very ahistorical, should you really be surprised that the performance isn't what you want it to be? I'd say that is further proof that BFC made the capabilities of units accurate. If you use a wrench as a hammer, don't criticize the wrench for not doing the job as effectively as a real hammer.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Dave H:

When you try to make units fill roles that were very ahistorical, should you really be surprised that the performance isn't what you want it to be? I'd say that is further proof that BFC made the capabilities of units accurate. If you use a wrench as a hammer, don't criticize the wrench for not doing the job as effectively as a real hammer.

That's not really my point, though. In 1944 most German AFV's can destroy most stuff that the Americans have got, while most American AFV's can't do it so easily the other way around (Sherman75 can kill Tigers and especially Panthers, but it just takes more maneuvering and tactical finesse to do it - and I suppose these games are all about tactical finesse, which is why such situations are so common). I know that Sherman wasn't a MBT, and that the poor performance against heavy tanks doesn't mean that it wouldn't have been an overall good tank. But just because a tank does well against infantry doesn't mean that it is the God of War, because most tanks can do that.

As I said, M13/40 probably didn't encounter Matilda II's that often, and certainly wasn't designed for such encounters (or if it was the designers were not being serious). But that doesn't mean that the combat value of M13 wouldn't have been greater if it could withstand the 2pdr tank gun and at the same time be able to pierce the Matilda's front. Regardless of what the Italian armoured doctrine was (they had one, didn't they?).

[REVS]

Great thread, with many good contributions.

But it does point to one central issue that BFC can't really bring itself to embrace: the fact that CMAK etc is still about 80% game and 20% realistic simulator.

I get the feeling they see it as 80% sim and 20% game.

The Sherman, as the "great for easy spares and reliability" poster says, is what made it great in reality. It pummelled its way from Normandy to central Germany, here, there and everywhere. Great tank (just like the T34).

Out there on the CMAK etc "football field" of the gamer's typical battlefield, you never see the Sherman's real virtues in action, because the Germans, miraculously, have managed yet again to turn out some of their best tanks, full of ammo, with all spares installed, ready for battle.

I love CMAK etc as a game, but as soon as its developers come up with some way of recognising the fact that its main limitation is that it's a game, the sooner they will improve it as a game.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by REVS:

I love CMAK etc as a game, but as soon as its developers come up with some way of recognising the fact that its main limitation is that it's a game, the sooner they will improve it as a game.

You may have the seed of a great idea there, REVS, but I'm not clear in my own mind what you intend. I hope you will expand on that a bit. Do you think you could give us some examples?

Michael