Shermans - too effective?

[Catacol Highlander]

Folks

Many of you will have played far more CM than I manage to fit in. I am interested in your views on the bog standard M4A3 sherman or sherman V for the Brits.

Specifically I have been surprised to find it an extremely effective tank in all conditions bar long range frontal exchanges with the German cats. It benefits from the fast turret of course but I have been surprised by its ability to smash the German pz4 with ease and even outfight tigers in many situations. The US army planned all battles with German armour with a high ratio of shermans to german panzers but in cm this seems to be unnecessary.

My knowledge of WW2 AFVs is not bad but perhaps I lack the detailed understanding. However the following occurences seem to happen often:

1) The side armour of the tiger does not seem to present a problem to the Sherman at all, even at ranges around 500m. At 90 degrees perpendicular this would seem fine, but I have noticed that penetrations seem to be made even when the plating is at an angle to the incoming shot. I was under the impression that even when attacking the side armour the sherman needed to be in close and even then was not guaranteed a kill by any means.

2) Sighting and accuracy of the sherman seems superior to the German guns. I have read on this board before that the German guns are more accurate but I do not find that to be the case at all. The Pz4 seems to be a woeful shot, the tiger not much better. Most accurate would appear to be the panther, but in comparison with the humble sherman I am surprised to find this. I have also found the 88 flak guns to be a big disappointment for accuracy - the Pak 40 gets more hits. Interestingly the British cromwell couldn't hit a barn door at 10 paces - why does the sherman not suffer the same or even similar difficulties?

In addition in poor visibility the sherman seems more able to acquire a target. It has a quick reaction time and outfights the Pz4 every time. Tigers in the mist?? I'd have sherman every time with the abilities they have in CM. Is this an accurate reflection of reality?

Information please... Was the pz4 really such a poor match to the sherman? Did tigers really present little problem when some aspect of a side shot was possible? Do any of you find that a ratio of 4:1 is needed to outfight the cats? Or am I simply witnessing the quirks of fate.

One more thing while I am here - I am seeing a lot of gun hits rendering tanks useless, more than I would expect. Do you find the same? And finally [for sure] I am amazed that the 37mm on the stuart or the 2 pdr on the Daimler for that matter is able to make mincemeat with a front turret hit of the Pz4. In 1944? Why would the German designers put a tank into the field that was so vulnerable in an area you would expect to have the greatest protection, especially considering the german love of thick armour in other models?? I'm curious about that...

Food for thought on the eve of CMBB. Am I just seeing the sherman at its best due to luck? Please do not think I am questioning the value of the game - I love it to bits - I am just curious as to whether any of my observations ring true with anyone else.

Cheers

Al

[Echo]

Close up, and in congested terrain, Shermans do well, especially in numbers.

[Silvio Manuel]

You need to understand each unit's strengths/weaknesses, i.e. if you have German tanks, keep them back and utilize their superior accuracy and armor. If you have Allied tanks, manever them in closer where their fast turrets and less accurate guns can do damage. Use different tank groups to distract the slow-turreted Germans into aiming back and forth at elusive targets. Keeping the Allied tanks at range helps a lot too, maybe 600-700m+ tends to eat away at Sherman gun performance, such that your P-IV's and StuGs will get more kills.

I think that the 88 FlaK isn't so good b/c they didn't model its superior optics. In CM:BO, its the LEAST accurate AT gun (only 773m/s), IIRC...being as though apparently the Muzzle Velocity=Accuracy, 1:1. The long 88mm PaK43's are the most accurate, 1018m/s.

[Redwolf]

The Sherman 75mm had two different AP rounds, while CMBO models just one with a penetration between these two. This makes the Sherman unrealitsically able to penetrate Tiger sides and rears in Summer-of-44 scenarios. There is also the round back turret which is a box in CMBO and makes good-angle hit more likely.

Fast turrets rule in CMBO, they really do. The Tiger on anything but roads cannot react quickly enough. If you underestimate or don't understand these factors, your Tigers are dead before you can say they suck.

[JasonC]

It is all accurate with 1-2 minor quibbles. The AP performance of the 75mm Shermans is based on a midpoint between two rounds. In reality, the early plain AP had slightly lower penetration than CM stats give, while later APCBC (M61 rounds) had slightly better.

BTS apparently just took the midpoint of the two, since they randomize the armor penetration roll anyway. A "good roll" then penetrates like APCBC, and a "bad roll" then penetrates like AP. This does mask historical changes, though. Because in Normandy, the APCBC wasn't available. And in the Bulge, it was quite common.

So the Shermans look a little better than they should in July, a little worse than they should in December. In reality, you'd need rather flat side hits or to be reasonably close only in Normandy, against Tiger I sides. By the Bulge, it would be if anything worse than you see it in CMBO, because APCBC would be quite common. The Tigers are marginally underpowered vs. side hits in Normandy, though, compared to the real deal.

As for the Pz IV, they Germans did try to uparmor the front to give the equivalent of 80mm resistence. But the turret has weak points, and remains effectively thin. That is the reason you see 37mm getting in, though they need closer ranges. One can debate whether the modeling is insufficiently generous to the turret front of the Pz IV, (based on things like distinctions between the gun shield, the turret front itself, yada yada) but they generally know what they are doing about such things.

As for Sherman vs. Pz IV duels, with APCBC and W armor, the Sherman is vastly better off in gun-armor terms. The Pz IV does have higher muzzle velocity and that makes it marginally more accurate in CM - as you can see from the hit probability read outs. Your "impression" notwithstanding, the Pz IV gun *is* more accurate than the Sherman 75s in CM. The 75s may shoot better on the move, though, due to their gyros.

Against "bog standard" Shermans (not W armor), the "sweet spot" range for the Pz IV is from over 1000 meters to about 1250 meters. At that range, the Sherman will need a turret hit, with upper hull hits causing flaking but not getting in. If they only had AP, the range where that would happen would be somewhat shorter.

Meanwhile, against 85% armor quality "bog standard" Shermans, the long 75 on the Pz IV can kill at 1250 meters. Beyond that it needs a turret hit too, equalizing things. Side angles can reduce these ranges somewhat compared to head on fights, incidentally. In addition, faster turrets matter most in close, while muzzle velocity and thus accuracy is more useful when hit probability is low for each shot.

All in all, the Pz IVs are good at 1km, provided they don't face W armor. 76mm shooters also equalize the accuracy part of things. An Easy Eight (76mm with W armor) outclasses the Pz IV in all respects, and can blow them away beyond range of effective reply. If the Pz IVs are close enough, though (500 yards or less, sometimes 600) then first hit will win.

Even better, though, are the Jagdpanzers and Hetzers, because their sloped armor is invunerable from the front. Tigers and Panthers toast plain Shermans easily. Any of these are vunerable on side hits, with the Tigers being the most robust in that respect.

[Redwolf]

Regarding the Panzer IV:

First of all, you really want the medium speed turret, the slow-turret model is dead meat in CMBO.

It is correct that the 37mm can penetrate the turret front. However, CMBO fails to take into account that the Pz IV has a smaller ratio of turret front to overall vehicle front, the chance that a front hit hits the turret seems to be modled to be as high as for other tanks. Then, a large part of the turret front is covered by the gun mantlet, which is 30mm thick and would make substancial parts of the turret front appear 80mm thick.

But I do not agree to your conclusion that the Sherman is overall better than a Panzer IV in CMBO. Especially the going in bad ground (snow, mud, scattered trees) sucks for the non-HVSS Shermans. And the Panzer IV has better hit probablities and better penetration. Both factors mean that applying proper different(!) tactics decide which tanks is better.

[Sir Uber General]

I'd take Pz4's over most Shermans any day. And what Redwolf has said re turret/hull ratio is very true. Good post.

[Ligur]

Take 18 regular Shermans, then take 4 veteran Panthers. Put them on a flat range, maybe some light LOS block, light trees, face to face. Range maybe 700 meters. Start game.

Watch what happens.

This, of course, just proves that each unit has its strenghts. Inside a city or dense terrain and up close, the 18 Shermies surely stand a chance.

[JasonC]

Since the man specifically asked about Pz IVs and also about Tigers, suggesting a Panther test is kind of silly.

Incidentally, I also tried it. 18 Sherman M4A3 model, no W armor, no 76 guns, all regulars. 4 Panther VG, veteran. Light vegetation, gentle sloped, farmland. 800 by 800 meter map, with 100 meter set up zones as strips along each side, giving the 700 meter starting distance asked for. The Shermans used smoke, maneuvered aggressively, exploited their gyros, teamwork, available cover, etc. The Panthers took 7 of the Shermans with them, but lost.

[ July 16, 2002, 03:52 AM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[Jarmo]

Interesting note of the inaccuracy of Cromwells vs Shermans.

As far as I know there should be no difference at all. Well.. except maybe for firing on the move. But it's the same 75mm gun with same "fast" turret speed.

[Soddball]

I agree Jason. Playing at 700m is too close to get the real benefits of a Panther. Try doubling it, and you'll see a change. The Shermans will pop smoke and hide, unable to penetrate the Panther's armour. The Panthers will tear the Shermans apart.

[platoon_incap_monkey]

i think the shermans stand to much beating...The Germans didnt call it "Tommy Cooker" for nothing.

It easely cought fire.

[illo]

1. Turret speed.

In CMBO turret speed is very important factor. Tiger basically can't break cover if it sees any other enemy unit. (How many of us have seen tiger advancing turret pointing rearwards unable to decide between lonely unidentified infantry unit(s) and Sherman. How many times our tigers have been unable to get single shot off in 1 minute? You dont need 5 shermans to kill Tiger in CMBO. You need 2 stuarts. (if no good cover is available) Otherwise 1 stuart will do the job. Just move fast and tiger turret will lag behind never getting a shot off.

2. Armor modeling.

Tiger turret back not round.

PzKpfw IV small front turret and gun mantlet non existant.

3. Optics modeling (unexistant.)

German optics had ability to measure ranges.

US optics didnt.

This is of life and death importance in tank combat.You are able to hit while your opponent has to do ranging shots.

Also im quite sure that gunsight magnification doesnt play role at all in CMBO. Take test between Nashorn (10xmag) 88L71 and Stuart and set range about 2000m. Stuart will often hit first. AFAIK Nashorn should be ultimate long range killer. Best ballistics with best optics available at time.

[ July 16, 2002, 08:30 AM: Message edited by: illo ]

[Redwolf]

ilo, you are grossly oversimplifying And the Stuarts are not really that potent because for a change the Tigers side armor is resistent against the 37mm.

For the record, one PBEM opponent got a number of Tigers in a scenario against me. I tried the Tiger trick in one of my early games, lost and knew how to handle them. So, said new opponent got half of his Tigers wrecked the same way I lost mine in the old game. But he adapted in-game and now the second half of the Tigers are giving me a real headache.

Point is: tactics rule.

As a side note, heavy tanks were usually used in companies and up. The robustness of a Tiger unit does not primarily come from the armor thickness, it comes from the robustness by unit size. The thick armor is only secondary - it ensures that a heavy tank unit stays at a sufficient strength after going through some combat. The thick armor is only a helper for the (decisive) unit size factor. The thick armor does not change anything about the fact that small tank units suck.

[ July 16, 2002, 10:55 AM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[Ligur]

Redwolf, always the bastion of reason. Many of the Big Decisive Factors about a type of tank for the allies/axis are pretty much lost in CM:BO, we are playing section/platoon level combat with our armor, and, well, almost anything can happen.

Take a machine that can support a fight between four tank companies and you'll start noticing Panther is very good from long range vs a Sherman, Sherman is NOT too robust (IMHO), PZIV is not "crap", Tigers are worth their fame in resilience etc.

[JasonC]

To Soddball - so you think it is just the starting range? OK, I doubled the map in both directions, giving 1600m by 1600m. Same 100m set up strips on both sides. Terrain light vegetation, gentle slopes, farmland. Pretty darn open, about as open as realistic western Europe gets - which is not billiard table flat. Nor is the map artificially 200m wide with bottomless pits of Tartarus to anchor the flanks of the Panthers. With more distance, the Panthers did do better. This time they got 10 Shermans and gun damaged one more - and still lost.

In the 1st minute, I found 2 Panthers and lost the first Sherman, at around 1250 yards. In the 2nd, I found the 3rd Panthers, immobilized one with a track hit, and had a Sherman gun damaged. There were a lot of shots, but with rapidly moving targets at over a kilometer, most missed. In the 3rd minute, I found the last Panther and lost a second Sherman, list one at around 900 yards. The gun damaged Sherman went to defilade and waited out the battle, so it was effectively out of action too. By this point the ranges were 700 to 900 yards.

The longer approach lost 2 Shermans plus one ineffective, and made the subsequent positioning not as good (as you will see). It did not enable the Panthers to "run the table", because the Shermans did not sit still to bounce rounds off front armor while remaining stationary to die. They maneuvered behind cover - and even in light farmland with gentle slopes, there is always cover, when only 4 points on the map are threats. They never stopped moving, to avoid giving neat targets. They shot smoke at sighting gaps.

The 4th minutes was the worst of the battle. All the Panthers were still firing, and the range fell to what it had been in the previous attempt. In many places, a few Shermans were approaching their local Panther or pair of Panthers more or less frontally. They were picking their way from cover to cover and where the Panthers were was only recently discovered. But the ranges were low enough for the Panthers to hit moving targets. 4 Shermans bought it in this 4th minute, including 2 well forward on the US left, seriously weakening that wing.

In the 5th minute, the US completed the maneuvers begun in the bloody fourth. Some of which were designed to KO the immobilized Panther, by coming at it from about 90 degrees of seperation from half a dozen points. It killed the rightmost Sherman (just before that would have passed out of view again and made it around its flank), but was in turn knocked out by others more to the front. Meanwhile, the leftmost Sherman tried to avenge the loss of two on my left the previous turn. But with the "inward" threat killed, the Panthers there turned in time and KOed it.

So now, 8 Shermans were dead and 1 gun damaged. Only the immobilized Panther had been killed in return. The remaining fight was 9 on 3. You might think the Americans should go on to lose. But that is not how it happened, and it is instructive to examine why.

First, the closing phase of the battle was over. The American left had been pretty well smashed, with only 3 Shermans remaining on that flank, with 2 Panthers alive and well in front of them. The ranges there were as low as 400 yards, but the Shermans were staying out of sight behind the nearest large wood. They were also waiting for the 3rd on that side, pretty well back, to catch up. There was no point in pressing that 3 on 2, so they waited.

Second, by killing just one Panther, the German force had been disarticulated. The one hit was the rightward of the two middle ones. This left the rightmost Panther essentially alone. And On the side where the Americans had been doing better. Here, therefore, the immediately subsequent fight was a 6 on 1. With initial ranges on the order of 600 yards, starting mostly from behind cover.

Naturally, the US charged on the right side, perhaps a bit recklessly as to manner. Careful distraction might have made it cheaper than it proved. But I wanted to win the 6 on 1 before the nearest Panther could come over to help. In the 6th minute, I lost 2 more Shermans, one to the charged Panther and the other to the one trying to help, with a "sideways" LOS at range - but easily bagged the charged Panther. It was hit from 90 degrees on the compass and could not face two ways. One more Sherman was in LOS of the Panther that got off the sideways shot, but just made it out of that LOS again by the end of the minute.

That left the overall remaining fight a 7 on 2. Now the Panthers had only my far left corner to themselves. 3 Shermans were waiting behind the woods there; some earlier smoke on that side was clearing. The other four Shermans went for the shallow and deep flank of that corner respectively, each with one forward and another well back. Meanwhile, the three on the near side cautiously peaked around some corners with reverse moves plotted.

On the 8th minute, the far left Panther was immobilized by a track hit, facing toward my right, nearly parallel with the original start lines. It was shooting at the near flankers from my right, but missing through scattered trees (these LOS lines were still pretty long, too). Those Shermans were back out of LOS by the end of their moves. The deep flank guys on my right hadn't reached their "turning" destination yet.

But the left 3, with the help of the distraction of the inward flankers coming over from the right, had the leftmost Panther dead to rights. It was immobilized. One Sherman was only 300 yards away. With only a little remaining woods obstructing LOS and degrading accuracy, and still in motion, it had a 30% hit chance. It was ordered to pull out past the trees and stop (breaking the "stay in motion" adage), to finish off that Panther. Another Sherman had a view more from the front at 500 yards, but the Panther turret was closer to facing it. It reversed back into trees.

In the 9th minute, the 3rd Panther was killed easily by the "short halt" Sherman on my left. The remainder of the minute saw the last Panther come into view again, with Shermans now on 3 side of it, outnumbering it 7 to 1. If I had been less lucky it might have bagged one additional, but as it was the short halt Sherman happened to catch it facing a bit too far to my right, and hit it from the side.

Elapsed time - 9 minutes. Shermans lost - 10, plus one gun damaged but otherwise OK. The Panthers still lost.

So it is easy to see why the Americans had the adage, "bring 5 Shermans each to take on German cats". It was not a statement that each German cat was *equal* to 5 Shermans. It was a way to take them out, even if expensively sometimes. 5 times as many Shermans will beat cats, in any realistic western European terrain (not open steppe).

In case everybody forgot, the Allies won the armor war in the west, despite the dramatic superiority of the better German models. Moreover, the evidence is that at least the US actually outscored the Germans they faced, in total write off terms anyway. This is less surprising that some might have it, given the overall odds advantages the Allies enjoyed.

The western Allies fielded several upgunned AT shooter AFVs for every German AFV sent to the west. Only a third to at most half of the German AFVs sent to the west were armored enough to withstand short 75 rounds from the front. And 40% of the Allied AFV fleet was ungunned by the end of it.

Moreover, the Germans were able to send large amounts of armor to the west only one two occasions, with a modest amount on a third. They sent on the order of 2500 AFVs to Normandy. They sent about as many again in the winter counterattacks, most in the Bulge and some in Alsace. In between, they sent large armor formations to the Nancy area in September, but on the order of 500 AFVs engaged, nothing like 2500. Other armor counterattacks were launched, but with much smaller numbers - a few hundred AFVs.

Only in the first month or so of the two big armor waves did the Allies face numbers they could not overwhelm by sheer mass. Meaning, about mid June (arrival in theater) to mid July (ending by Goodwood, say) for Normandy, and mid December to mid January for the Bulge and Alsace. Unpleasant periods for Allied tankers, certainly. The rest of the time, things were not bad at all for Allied tankers.

One proof of this is that typical manpower losses in a US armor battalion were around 300 men, less than 1/4 KIA, over the whole war. The loss rate was 1/3rd as high for the tankers as for the infantry. Funny how nobody calls helmets "death traps". In addition, in total write off terms anyway, the US at least matched and perhaps exceeded the Germans facing them in tanks KOed. Only about 300 of those 2500 AFVs sent to Normandy made it back, and 900-1000 of those are identifiable as lost in the US sector (StuG early, Lehr, breakout, Mortain e.g.). The Nancy area fighting (of which Arracourt is the most famous, but only a small fraction of the overall month-long fight) saw 4 fresh armor brigades, 2 Pz gdr divisions, and 2 depleted armor divisions reduced to a combined total of about 50 runners. Around half of the German armor committed to the winter counterattacks was lost, virtually all of it to the Americans. US armor TWOs in Normandy are under 1000, and by the end of the Bulge under 2500. In the later war, even steeper odds and scarcer German AFVs kept additional Allied armor losses low. Moreover, a fair portion of the tanks lost by the US were lost to PAK and FLAK, or to infantry AT weapons, so the German tanks themselves did not KO even 2500.

So there is little doubt that the Germans did not do better operationally than to trade their superior AFVs 1 for 1 vs. the Americans. Their edge in quality made up for their deficiencies in battle odds, inferior logistics, lack of air cover, and being on the losing side operationally - all of which obviously increase tank losses. The US faced superior tanks, the best infantry AT in history to that point, and had to attack for most of the campaign. But odds, force mix (the whole German fleet was not cats) and other logistical advantages (heavier arty support to strip German tanks when concentrated, poor German fuel supply, etc) made up for those factors.

[Soddball]

No, Jason, I didn't think that it was only range. I just felt that 700m was too short a range to display the major advantages of the Panther, that is the armour which the 75mm Sherman can't penetrate, and the gun with its superior precision. The same applies to the Tiger, and Alastair Anderson is raising what appears to be the ineffectiveness of the much-vaunted german armour. Until you start duelling at long ranges, it looks as though there's a problem.

You're not wrong to demonstrate allied doctrine or to explain its value, but it wasn't the point I was agreeing with or the one that Alastair raised.

[CRSutton]

I think the key word that I am reading here is tactics. Every tank has it's strengths and weaknesses and you will need to learn the quirks of them. You can see that there is no general agreement here about which tank is superior and I think that bodes well for the system. I myself prefer the sherman to the PzIV. (or the M18 for that matter). I like to mask my tanks and maneuver for flanking shots-relying on the quick turret traverse and the slightly higher rate of fire that the sherman has over the pzIV. At close range, getting in the first shot is generally the deciding factor-all other things being equal. However, I have been schooled by competent players who know how to use the PzIV well.

The pzIV was an excellent design but by 1944 it had pretty much run it's course. The sherman was a newer design and really a better tank in many ways. This is especially true of the later models where design improvements, improved gun and ammo made the sherman an excellent all purpose tank.

Measured one on one against the cats, the sherman of course, comes up short. But in fact, it really was a better tank due to many other factors that are hard to translate into game terms. IE: ease of production, mechanical reliability, simplicity, flexibility, and upgradability.

The real wonder weapon of the war was the duce and a half truck, but the Americans produced a pretty good weapon when they made the Sherman.

[CombinedArms]

Hey, it's cool that we can still get a Panther/Sherman/Tiger debate going this late into the CMBO lifespan!

A couple of points to glean from or add to the above:

1) The Tiger was a powerfully armored and gunned tank, but it was also beginning to show it's age in 1944-45. It's slow and with flat armor that can be penetrated from the front by the Sherm76 at short range and the 17-pder at any range. It was subject to even Sherm75 penetration from the flank with the later-model AP round.

The Tiger's main strength is as a "stand-off-and-shoot-at-range" tank and you rarely get to do that on CMBO battlefields.

2. The Panther is really a superior tank in the CM context--and it's a later model, showing more advanced tank development.

3. Overall the vanilla Sherman and PzIV were judged in RL about what they turn out to be in CM--closely equivalent tanks. Each has strengths and weakness that make them stand out or come up short for specific tasks but among the diversity presented by the tanks in CMBO, they're about as close a pairing as you can find between tanks of the two different sides.

Many tank battle in CM take place w/in 500m, which is actually rather close range to hit something as big as a tank. Under 500m, more accurate guns matter less than at longer ranges, so the advantage of the PzIV's better gun may be minimized. Also, small samples of experience can be deceiving. I've gone for weeks at a time when the PzIV seemed to win every gunnery duel vs. Sherm75's, then, for other weeks, it seems to go the other way, with even green Sherm75's aceing crack PzIVs. A lot of this is just luck--not scientifcally significant, even if elating or frustrating in a given game.

As have been suggested by several already, tactics are the key. Every single tank in CM has both strengths and limitations. Mostly, these are rather realistically modeled (the Tiger's turret dither being an exception.) Learning to get the most out of a tank's strengths while minimizing its limitations (with maybe a little luck thrown in) is the key to success.

[rexford]

Originally posted by JasonC:

It is all accurate with 1-2 minor quibbles. The AP performance of the 75mm Shermans is based on a midpoint between two rounds. In reality, the early plain AP had slightly lower penetration than CM stats give, while later APCBC (M61 rounds) had slightly better.

BTS apparently just took the midpoint of the two, since they randomize the armor penetration roll anyway. A "good roll" then penetrates like APCBC, and a "bad roll" then penetrates like AP. This does mask historical changes, though. Because in Normandy, the APCBC wasn't available. And in the Bulge, it was quite common.

Sherman penetration against homogenous armor plate goes like this, according to U.S. test results:

75mm APCBC (basically the only armor piercing round fired by Shermans during 44-45 period)

88mm at 100m

85mm at 250m

81mm at 500m

77mm at 750m

75mm AP (this solid uncapped shot is very rare)

109mm at 100m

102mm at 250m

92mm at 500m

84mm at 750m

Average is:

99mm at 100m

93mm at 250m

87mm at 500m

81mm at 750m

CMBO is about 10% high for Sherman APCBC against homogeneous armor carried by Tiger, Tiger II and Panther, which shows up on battlefield in terms of wide angle penetrations that may be a tad optimistic.

Face-hardened armor is another matter (CMBO does not seem to recognize the differences between face-hardened armor, homogeneous plate and castings):

75mm APCBC vs Face-Hardened Plate

102mm at 100m

99mm at 250m

95mm at 500m

82mm at 1250m

75mm AP vs Face-Hardened Plate

91mm at 100m

85mm at 250m

75mm at 500m

Against PzKpfw IVH and StuG IIIG, which have face-hardened frontal armor, CMBO underestimates APCBC performance.

It is also worth noting that uncapped 75mm AP had a reputation for shatter, and the Americans converted thousands of 75mm M72 AP to M61 APCBC by inserting an HE burster cavity. 75mm AP should be very rare in CMBO.

[rexford]

Originally posted by rexford:

The data we've collected does not agree with the above statements.

Homogeneous Armor Penetration

75mm APCBC (basically the only armor piercing round fired by Shermans during 44-45 period)

88mm at 100m

85mm at 250m

81mm at 500m

77mm at 750m

75mm AP (this solid uncapped shot is very rare)

109mm at 100m

102mm at 250m

92mm at 500m

84mm at 750m

Average is:

99mm at 100m

93mm at 250m

87mm at 500m

81mm at 750m

CMBO is about 10% high for Sherman APCBC against homogeneous armor carried by Tiger, Tiger II and Panther, which shows up on battlefield in terms of wide angle penetrations that may be a tad optimistic.

Face-hardened armor is another matter (CMBO does not seem to recognize the differences between face-hardened armor, homogeneous plate and castings):

75mm APCBC vs Face-Hardened Plate

102mm at 100m

99mm at 250m

95mm at 500m

82mm at 1250m

75mm AP vs Face-Hardened Plate

91mm at 100m

85mm at 250m

75mm at 500m

Against PzKpfw IVH and StuG IIIG, which have face-hardened frontal armor, CMBO underestimates APCBC performance.

It is also worth noting that uncapped 75mm AP had a reputation for shatter, and the Americans converted thousands of 75mm M72 AP to M61 APCBC by inserting an HE burster cavity. 75mm AP should be very rare in CMBO.

We received some ammo availability tables from Bovington Tank Museum, and British use of solid shot AP rounds during '44 and '45 is virtually non-existent. It appears that they phased out the 2pdr, 6pdr, 17 pdr and 75mm/76mm uncapped AP ammo before Normandy.

[JasonC]

No, the Shermans wasn't "really" a better tank than the Panther, due to factors not depicted in CM. It wasn't even close. The Easy Eight was a fine all around tank, superior to the Pz IV in most respects. But it was not the equal of a 45 ton Panther with twice as deadly a gun and superior front armor and sloping.

It is just that the Germans didn't have a lot of Panthers to throw against the west. They sent around 150 Tigers and around 650 Panthers to Normandy. They sent 200-250 Panthers to the Lorraine in September. They massed ~300 heavies (King Tigers, Tigers, Jagdpanthers, etc) and another 800 or so Panthers for the winter counterattacks in the west. The first group lasted about a month, to a month and a half. The second group lasted about a week and a half. The third group lasted a bit less than a month, with remainders sent east against the Russians.

These numbers, combined, were matched by each model of US TD, and by Brit Sherman Fireflies, with as many as all those combined, again, in other 76mm Shermans.

The Germans also had as many AFVs again of the "vanilla" varieties, Pz IV and StuG, with some Jagdpanzers in between and some Marders and such worse. The western Allies matched those with plain 75mm tanks in the same ratio as the upgunned vs. uparmored match up.

Then for good measure the Allies throw in as many again in light armored vehicles - Stuarts, Greyhounds, Daimlers, etc. That is for the two months the Germans had armor. The other 4/5ths of the time, all this Allied armor was practically unopposed by German AFVs. Just a scattering of "fire brigade" cadres here and there.

Was this because "the Sherman was really better", being easy to produce? No. The US had 4 times the industrial capacity of Germany. The USSR had as much industrial capacity as Germany, as was fighting on only one front. The UK had between half and equal industrial capacity to Germany. Overall, Germany was outproduced in AFVs by about 4 to 1, which is less than the ratio of industrial capacities fielded against her.

Russia contributed more than her share to that total, because land combat was her overwhelming industrial focus and because she mobilized faster than Germany (which delayed econ mobilization foolishly). The US contributed less than its share of that total, because it was also busy building 300,000 planes, a navy to beat Japan, and shipping to move all of it half way around the globe. The Sherman was not particularly easier to produce, the US just had more to produce them with.

The odds the western Allies had made up for the inferiority of their tank designs. It is really quite simple. People who want Allied designs to be better are whistling dixie. People who want Allied designs to be so bad the Allies lost are living in a fantasy. The Allied designs were worse, but not enough worse to matter terribly much with the odds they had on their side. The losses on the two sides ran about even because the Germans had a quality edge and the Allies a quantity edge and they were about equally valuable in loss terms. The Allies also could afford to sustain those equal losses, though, and the Germans could not.

[JasonC]

To Rexford - I can tell you the numbers I've seen, and maybe you can figure out where they are coming from. Perhaps you are right about armor type distinctions being the cause.

I've seen listings for US 75mm M3, with the ammo sometimes given as "AP" and sometimes given as "APC", with the numbers 66mm vs. 30 degrees at 500m, and 60mm vs. 30 degrees at 1000m. CM gives 70mm and 63mm respectively, which is 6% and 5% higher respectively. I have also seen the numbers, specifically for APCBC M61, as 76mm vs. 30 degrees at 500m and 63mm vs. 30 degrees at 1000m. Which is 9% over the CM level and equal to the CM level, respectively. 66+76/2=71, CM gives 70. 60+63/2=61.5, CM gives 63.

I assumed they had seen both sets of figures and were trying to average them. I also thought the two sets of figures represented a real ammo difference. If they don't, perhaps one or the other is related to a particular test, which may have been affected by the sort of face hardening differences you are talking about. More than I know.

If the 66-60 numbers are correct, then Shermans in CM hit 5-6% harder than they ought to. If the 76-63 numbers are correct, they hit about 8% softer than they ought to at medium range, while being correct at long range.

[ July 16, 2002, 06:19 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[Silvio Manuel]

Originally posted by CRSutton:

I think the key word that I am reading here is tactics. Every tank has it's strengths and weaknesses and you will need to learn the quirks of them.

That's the key...i.e., if you are advancing 1 Plt. of Panzer IV's, and 1 Plt. of StuGs, which leads? Abstracted example: If you have the Panzer IV's in front, the closer ranges makes them vulnerable to 37/40mm's. If you lead with the StuGs, you have to cover them vs. infantry or armor threats to their vulnerable flanks, etc. Knowing the tank's Silhouette, Ground Pressure, Turret speed, etc. all are a factor in determining which tactics are needed.

[ July 16, 2002, 06:42 PM: Message edited by: Silvio Manuel ]

[illo]

As have been suggested by several already, tactics are the key. Every single tank in CM has both strengths and limitations. Mostly, these are rather realistically modeled (the Tiger's turret dither being an exception.) Learning to get the most out of a tank's strengths while minimizing its limitations (with maybe a little luck thrown in) is the key to success.

Are you saying that optics are modeled in CMBO?

For me it really doesn't seem like that.

Test realistic tactics with Nashorn and youll see.

Take Nashorns against stuarts or greyhounds in long range duel and see who wins.