British Shermans III and V

[Locksley]

Hey guys,

just a quick question while browsing forum; wondering if anybody knew why a regular British Sherman III would work out more expensive than a reg Brit Sherman V (133 and 115 pts respctvly)?

Any ideas, they don't seem to be that much different.

Ta

Tom

[Kingfish]

Check out their respective armor. IIRC, the Sherman III was better protected, especially in the front lower hull. Not sure if that is the reason for the extra cost.

[JasonC]

The Sherman III is basically a (W) armor Sherman, pretty much equivalent to a US M4A3 75(W). It doesn't have the actual wet stowage so it is still rated as "burns easily", but the armor is the same. It doesn't have the larger MG ammo load, getting only the UK standard 190 for the 30s and 12 for the 50 cal, rather than the 250 and 24 the US M4A3 75(W) gets. And it has lower hp to weight so it isn't quite as zippy - but it still does 30 mph rather than the 24-25 of the Sherman IIs and Vs.

The main benefit is the front armor protection. Armor quality is 100%, all angles, vs. 85% for the Sherman IIs and Vs. The previously vulnerable nose (51@15 with .85 quality) becomes a strong point instead. The protection is actually about as strong as a Tiger I, you just don't see huge effects from it because most German ATGs are so good.

In practice it means the tank is proof against guns smaller than the common German 75mm L48 from the front, and that one needs ranges under 1 km to penetrate the front hull. With side angle it is marginal in the 700-900m range window.

Even with only a short 75, this makes the Sherman III - or US 75 Ws - marginally superior to the Pz IV. At long range either needs turret hits. In the 800-1100 window the Sherman kills through any plate and the Pz IV needs turret hits. Under 700 both kill. So you can duel Panzer IVs - and you can live longer looking for the flank of a Hetzer or standard Jagdpanzer.

But it is particularly helpful against German infantry force defenses, because it restricts the dangerous gun list significantly. From the front they basically need a full priced PAK 40 reasonably close, or an 88. All the cheap guns fail - 50mm PAK, 37mm AA, 75mm IG HEAT etc. Against the IIs and Vs the vulnerable LH makes those dangerous, and forces them to be cautious any place a cheap gun may be waiting. Which is too many places.

[melb_will]

Gday

I've always been curious about how points are allocated in CM. This thread seems to bring it up so i'l ask here.

Are points allocated on rarity, ie a more rare unit costs more? effectiveness in game, if so against what? Or attributes, ie armour strength, firepower.

But how do you compare a King Tiger to a Rifle 44 Squad for example. Or a Pansershrek may cost more than a Volksgrenadier Squad, but is it worth more in an infantry game?

Will

[Locksley]

Hey thanks for replies, can always rely on BFC forum to get an answer.

I was wondering about rarity factor too, for example the Churchill Croc. I know it is a flamer and a good unit, but it is very expensive. Is this to give an element of realism to the amount a player buys?

Inquisitively

Tom

[flamingknives]

AFAIK, rarity isn't accounted for in CMBO.

The Churchill Crocodile is expensive because it's a thumping good tank. Compare it to a thick fronted, 75mm armed Churchill, then add a Wasp, add more range and ammo, then account for the fact that it is more survivable than the Wasp.

I think the points values are worked out for combined arms scenarios in moderate terrain, so it's a very average value - a well sited ATG can easily kill far more than it's points value, but equally, a 2" mortar could get lucky and KO it on the first shot, so your gun is worth somewhere between 4 tanks worth and 0pts. On average, and over much playtesting, BFC decided on a points cost.

Rarity is factored into CMBB, but you can turn it off.