The Shermans, can we make them better?

[Marmiteinajar]

I'm talking about M4A3(76) mainly, I've found this tank to be somewhat useless, despite me purchasing ALL upgrades for it, engine/ammo etc.

The mobility is meh, the speed is sub-par to the panther but shares the same horrid reverse.

Armor of course, it's a Sherman we can't forget all about it. The only way to take hits is to use that gun mantlet.

The only thing going for it is its ammo. The HVAP round of the 76 is crucial but then again facing targets with sloped armor with it is hopeless meaning you will have to snipe out their gunner over and over. (I think the ammo was nerfed as well, last time I saw it had a penetration of 260+ but I more than likely be wrong)

Now all this can be remedied if the Shermans were relatively agile which I would like to suggest ONE change, buff the reverse speed to only 3/4 power of the Russian IS series.

Now before anyone gets on my arse for any reason, I have reached Tier 4 on all factions of ground forces excluding Britain. I find Shermans to be nothing more than juicy targets that cannot escape quickly enough to be shot at the second time usually their demise.

What do you guys think?

[Mike Hock and York Hunt]

Początkowo opublikowane przez tentpeg:

IRL the Sherman tank fitted with the 76mm M1 gun and with wet ammo storage was actually really good. With the M93 HVAP it could pen a Tiger 1 mantlet and the frontal hull at 2286m, the same against the panther mantlet except for the frontal sloped hull. As tested against a captured Tiger 1 and Panther at Isigny on the 20 Aug 1944.
At the Battle of Arracourt, France 18 Sep 1944, the US 4th Armored Div was attacked by the 5th Panzer Army. In bad weather and thick fog,and without air support for 3 days. The 4th Div destoryed a total of 86 Panthers and Pz4s with only a loss of 32 tanks and TDs. 114 German tanks were left behind, damaged or broken down. It wasnt a terrible tank, far from it.

WG because of BR only allows the M4A3 76 W (E8) to have the M93 round, where the US had the M93 available to any 76mm Sherman including the M4A1 76 W and the M4A2 76 W (except for the Russian lend lease Shermans).

In the book WW2 Ballistics Armor and Gunnery, page 63
States the M93 could pen 239mm of armor at 100m, while WT has it pen at 221mm at 100m. The rest of the pen range is round about the same, give or take 10mm.
In the same book states the T34/85 APCR could pen a Tiger 1 at 1000m. A 17pdr APCBC face hardened could pen at over 3000m.

You can never say that this historical information is 100% true.

[Case]

Początkowo opublikowane przez "W" - Tungstène:

I personally think it could use some BR changes but I am not fully convinced because I have had many good games in it. They probably found information about the HVAP rounds IRL penatration stats and then changed it in game, but I am not sure at all.

IE They made ♥♥♥♥ up like they did with a lot of the Russian tanks whilst simultaneously ignoring the infamous accuracy of Russian ammo, ignoring how the Tiger's armor actually behaved and not bothering to model the Sherman's armor correctly. The real answer is that the Shermans are kind of screwed by all Tiger teams and the like. Like the rest of the American tree, it requires a different playstyle.

Oh and they didn't bother modeling that the T34 had a worrying habit of engine explosions when it was hit hard enough, because diesel is funny that way. Catches fire less, explodes more. They've also made treads HE proof and a bunch of other really stupid choices.

[tentpeg]

Początkowo opublikowane przez SaintMushroom:

Początkowo opublikowane przez tentpeg:

IRL the Sherman tank fitted with the 76mm M1 gun and with wet ammo storage was actually really good. With the M93 HVAP it could pen a Tiger 1 mantlet and the frontal hull at 2286m, the same against the panther mantlet except for the frontal sloped hull. As tested against a captured Tiger 1 and Panther at Isigny on the 20 Aug 1944.
At the Battle of Arracourt, France 18 Sep 1944, the US 4th Armored Div was attacked by the 5th Panzer Army. In bad weather and thick fog,and without air support for 3 days. The 4th Div destoryed a total of 86 Panthers and Pz4s with only a loss of 32 tanks and TDs. 114 German tanks were left behind, damaged or broken down. It wasnt a terrible tank, far from it.

WG because of BR only allows the M4A3 76 W (E8) to have the M93 round, where the US had the M93 available to any 76mm Sherman including the M4A1 76 W and the M4A2 76 W (except for the Russian lend lease Shermans).

In the book WW2 Ballistics Armor and Gunnery, page 63
States the M93 could pen 239mm of armor at 100m, while WT has it pen at 221mm at 100m. The rest of the pen range is round about the same, give or take 10mm.
In the same book states the T34/85 APCR could pen a Tiger 1 at 1000m. A 17pdr APCBC face hardened could pen at over 3000m.

You can never say that this historical information is 100% true.

M1 gun 76mm performance

1) ''The American M1A1 76 mm gun, mounted on an M18 Hellcat (serving in the Red Army under the name T-70 Ved'ma, or Witch) was tested against a Tiger II. Firing M-62 APC shells, it achieves the following results:''

"The armour piercing shell of the American 76 mm gun penetrates:
•The side of the hull at 2000 meters.
•The overtrack hull at 1500 meters.
•The turret side from 1500 meters.''

http://tankarchives.blogspot.com.au/2013/04/american-guns-vs-german-tanks.html
This is a Russian military archive site, that has translated ww2 Russian documents into English.


2) WW2 Ballistics; Armor and Gunnery by Lorrin Bird and Robert Livingston.
Page 63 76mm M1 gun APCR
Page 59 85mm L52 APBC FH
Page 60 17pdr APCBC FH

3) http://worldoftanks.com/en/news/21/The_Chieftains_Hatch_Firefly3/.
Yes it is from WOT, but it is written by Nicholas Moran who is a professional historian, and a former tank platoon leader. In the link it actually has the peneration results from a live fire test against the Tiger 1 and Panther with a 76mm M1 and a 17pdr.


4) http://www.wwiiequipment.com/pencalc/#
A ww2 armour and gun peneration caculator
US 76mm L42 HVAP vs German Tiger1

5) Battle of Arracourt - The book - Lorraine 1944, Patton vs Manteuffel by Steven J Zaloga.
25 Tanks and 7 TDs lost from the 4th Armored Division US. compared to the 86 destoryed German vehilces, further 114 lost due damage and breakdown by the 5th Panzer Army.

6) Book - The Sherman Medium Tank 1942- 45 by Steven J Zaloga

When 5 different souces both Russian and American ww2 archives confirm the peneration power of the 76mm M1 gun. I would say that it is pretty accurate.

[Admiral Obvious]

Początkowo opublikowane przez tentpeg:

Początkowo opublikowane przez SaintMushroom:

You can never say that this historical information is 100% true.

Snip.

Well done, now go to the War Thunder forum (the official one) and copy this into a bug report, so they can come back and say "we have more reliable data in a book that may, or may not exist".

[GoreTiger]

Początkowo opublikowane przez "W" - Tungstène:

Początkowo opublikowane przez Foxtrot39:

Not historical accurate won't happen, even though its needed

More Historically accurate then nearly all other games when it comes to tanks and aircraft of World War 2.

flyaceshigh.com beats this game by miles when it comes to historical accuracy. They don't even allow anything that didn't meet a roduction number/combat service record.

[Ethan Tokes]

This is why we need ai infantry in sim! So the sherman can perform it's role! Not to mention, epic? They already have ai models that die soooo, I doubt it would affect rating.

[GoreTiger]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Ethan Tokes Kronic:

This is why we need ai infantry in sim! So the sherman can perform it's role! Not to mention, epic? They already have ai models that die soooo, I doubt it would affect rating.

No. No infantry belong in warthunder.

[Eftwyrd]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Admiral Obvious:

Początkowo opublikowane przez tentpeg:

Snip.

Well done, now go to the War Thunder forum (the official one) and copy this into a bug report, so they can come back and say "we have more reliable data in a book that may, or may not exist".

is this a troll, no really, im confused, you are stating you are more ready to believe a particular source, one of many, many of which give different values, because information from that period is far from perfect, over what gaijin has implemented from whatever source they have, and because they havnt disclosed thier source and you found some data that says differently that they are wrong? glad we understand