Why is the M4A2 better than the M4?

[Alexandria38]

Okay, the M4A2 is an entire BR higher than the M4 Sherman, but they have the exact same stats including ammo, all but speed and frontal armor, yet the M4A2 is an entire BR higher. Why?

[Tankfriend]

I guess it *is* the top speed and frontal armour. Especially the armour.

Compared to the M4, the M4A2 no longer has those rather prominent weakspots in its frontal armour directly ahead of the driver and co-driver. It's now one clean and even slope.

Apart from that, the upper frontal armour of the M4A2 is also made from rolled homogeneous armour, while that of the M4 is made from cast homogeneous armour (you can compare it in the armour inspector). If I remember correctly, cast armour is roughly 5-10% less effective than rolled armour of the same thickness.

So, you're looking at a frontal profile with less weakspots, made from stronger material, and of thicker construction.

Edit: Despite that improvement, I also can't really see it being worth a full BR point, though... O.o

[Alexandria38]

Originally posted by tankfriend:

I guess it *is* the top speed and frontal armour. Especially the armour.

Compared to the M4, the M4A2 no longer has those rather prominent weakspots in its frontal armour directly ahead of the driver and co-driver. It's now one clean and even slope.

Apart from that, the upper frontal armour of the M4A2 is also made from rolled homogeneous armour, while that of the M4 is made from cast homogeneous armour (you can compare it in the armour inspector). If I remember correctly, cast armour is roughly 5-10% less effective than rolled armour of the same thickness.

So, you're looking at a frontal profile with less weakspots, made from stronger material, and of thicker construction.

Okay thanks. The stat cards dont do much to tell you all that.

[SaulTigh]

Thanks tankfried for the reasonable post.

And maybe because Herman the German Sherman sits at 4.7?

[LennyS]

whatever you do, dont go into tier 3 american no matter what you do, heavy tanks deservant of tier 4 will kill your driver and gunner in 1 shot every time in any american tank

[kleinerPanzer]

(sorry for being 3 years late but still lol whatever)
The M4 and M4A2 (and M4A1) depicted in the game are M4(75) and M4A2(75) (and M4A1(75)) (75mm gun, dry stowage).

The M4A1 is very early production, with the light-duty bogies (return roller is on top of bogie, rather than behind), two-piece cast transmission housing, Direct vision ports in the hull, small hatchest, and early turret (no loader's hatch, small gun mantle cover). Most notably, the entire hull is casted.

The M4 is a mid/late production, with "heavy"-duty bogies (return roller is behind bogie), one-piece cast transmission housing, periscopes only (DV ports are covered), but still small hatches and mid-production turret (no loader's hatch, large gun mantle cover). The entire hull is made from welded RHA.

The M4A2 is a mid production, with "heavy"-duty bogies, one-piece cast transmission, periscopes, large hatches (less slope, but thicker to compensate. also no protrusions), with a late production turret (loader's hatch, uparmored turret cheek, re-added pistol port). The entire hull is welded RHA.

So, lets delve a bit more into it.

The M4A1's cast armor makes the entire tank weaker, not to mention the small-hatch protrusions and DV ports. In addition, the worse gun-mantle coverage is also a weak spot, and the shaved out interior on the right side (viewing from inside) of the turret is thinner than everywhere else. The transmission cover is also weaker as it exposes more flat area than the one-piece. Its mobility is ever so slightly worse than most other Shermans, but negligibly so.

The M4's RHA is the "standard" that all armor penetration is based off of, so there is not +/- modifier to make the armor stronger/weaker. It still has the protrusions of a Small-hatch sherman, but the benefit of the once-piece transmission housing. There are DV ports, but they are covered by applique armor on the front, which somewhat negates the protrusion weakspot. It has some extra armor plates on the side armor (to protect the ammo), which are negligible at close to medium range. However, the turret is improved; the gun mantle is stronger (uses the later cover), and the shaved-out area has been patched with applique armor.

The M4A2 also has the RHA benefit of the M4. However, it fixes the protrusions of the small-hatch shermans by reducing the slope of the armor, but thickening it to compensate. It also has the one-piece transmission housing. It also has the extra armor on the hull sides, but the turret has, rather than a piece welded on, just a thicker casting where the inside was shaved off. The M4A2 also uses a different engine, however the power outputs are about the same. You could argue less flammability due to diesel, but that isn't very well represented as far as I know.

There are some other minor, cosmetic differences that pertained to the different variants; for example, the engine deck had a grille on the M4A2, but not the M4 or M4A1.

Do these changes justify such a large BR gap? No! At most the M4A2 should be at 4.0.

[Colonel Jason]

Originally posted by HugoTroop:

(sorry for being 3 years late but still lol whatever)
The M4 and M4A2 (and M4A1) depicted in the game are M4(75) and M4A2(75) (and M4A1(75)) (75mm gun, dry stowage).

The M4A1 is very early production, with the light-duty bogies (return roller is on top of bogie, rather than behind), two-piece cast transmission housing, Direct vision ports in the hull, small hatchest, and early turret (no loader's hatch, small gun mantle cover). Most notably, the entire hull is casted.

The M4 is a mid/late production, with "heavy"-duty bogies (return roller is behind bogie), one-piece cast transmission housing, periscopes only (DV ports are covered), but still small hatches and mid-production turret (no loader's hatch, large gun mantle cover). The entire hull is made from welded RHA.

The M4A2 is a mid production, with "heavy"-duty bogies, one-piece cast transmission, periscopes, large hatches (less slope, but thicker to compensate. also no protrusions), with a late production turret (loader's hatch, uparmored turret cheek, re-added pistol port). The entire hull is welded RHA.

So, lets delve a bit more into it.

The M4A1's cast armor makes the entire tank weaker, not to mention the small-hatch protrusions and DV ports. In addition, the worse gun-mantle coverage is also a weak spot, and the shaved out interior on the right side (viewing from inside) of the turret is thinner than everywhere else. The transmission cover is also weaker as it exposes more flat area than the one-piece. Its mobility is ever so slightly worse than most other Shermans, but negligibly so.

The M4's RHA is the "standard" that all armor penetration is based off of, so there is not +/- modifier to make the armor stronger/weaker. It still has the protrusions of a Small-hatch sherman, but the benefit of the once-piece transmission housing. There are DV ports, but they are covered by applique armor on the front, which somewhat negates the protrusion weakspot. It has some extra armor plates on the side armor (to protect the ammo), which are negligible at close to medium range. However, the turret is improved; the gun mantle is stronger (uses the later cover), and the shaved-out area has been patched with applique armor.

The M4A2 also has the RHA benefit of the M4. However, it fixes the protrusions of the small-hatch shermans by reducing the slope of the armor, but thickening it to compensate. It also has the one-piece transmission housing. It also has the extra armor on the hull sides, but the turret has, rather than a piece welded on, just a thicker casting where the inside was shaved off. The M4A2 also uses a different engine, however the power outputs are about the same. You could argue less flammability due to diesel, but that isn't very well represented as far as I know.

There are some other minor, cosmetic differences that pertained to the different variants; for example, the engine deck had a grille on the M4A2, but not the M4 or M4A1.

Do these changes justify such a large BR gap? No! At most the M4A2 should be at 4.0.

..

[Rei]

Originally posted by HugoTroop:

(sorry for being 3 years late but still lol whatever)
The M4 and M4A2 (and M4A1) depicted in the game are M4(75) and M4A2(75) (and M4A1(75)) (75mm gun, dry stowage).

The M4A1 is very early production, with the light-duty bogies (return roller is on top of bogie, rather than behind), two-piece cast transmission housing, Direct vision ports in the hull, small hatchest, and early turret (no loader's hatch, small gun mantle cover). Most notably, the entire hull is casted.

The M4 is a mid/late production, with "heavy"-duty bogies (return roller is behind bogie), one-piece cast transmission housing, periscopes only (DV ports are covered), but still small hatches and mid-production turret (no loader's hatch, large gun mantle cover). The entire hull is made from welded RHA.

The M4A2 is a mid production, with "heavy"-duty bogies, one-piece cast transmission, periscopes, large hatches (less slope, but thicker to compensate. also no protrusions), with a late production turret (loader's hatch, uparmored turret cheek, re-added pistol port). The entire hull is welded RHA.

So, lets delve a bit more into it.

The M4A1's cast armor makes the entire tank weaker, not to mention the small-hatch protrusions and DV ports. In addition, the worse gun-mantle coverage is also a weak spot, and the shaved out interior on the right side (viewing from inside) of the turret is thinner than everywhere else. The transmission cover is also weaker as it exposes more flat area than the one-piece. Its mobility is ever so slightly worse than most other Shermans, but negligibly so.

The M4's RHA is the "standard" that all armor penetration is based off of, so there is not +/- modifier to make the armor stronger/weaker. It still has the protrusions of a Small-hatch sherman, but the benefit of the once-piece transmission housing. There are DV ports, but they are covered by applique armor on the front, which somewhat negates the protrusion weakspot. It has some extra armor plates on the side armor (to protect the ammo), which are negligible at close to medium range. However, the turret is improved; the gun mantle is stronger (uses the later cover), and the shaved-out area has been patched with applique armor.

The M4A2 also has the RHA benefit of the M4. However, it fixes the protrusions of the small-hatch shermans by reducing the slope of the armor, but thickening it to compensate. It also has the one-piece transmission housing. It also has the extra armor on the hull sides, but the turret has, rather than a piece welded on, just a thicker casting where the inside was shaved off. The M4A2 also uses a different engine, however the power outputs are about the same. You could argue less flammability due to diesel, but that isn't very well represented as far as I know.

There are some other minor, cosmetic differences that pertained to the different variants; for example, the engine deck had a grille on the M4A2, but not the M4 or M4A1.

Do these changes justify such a large BR gap? No! At most the M4A2 should be at 4.0.

This thread is nearly 3 years old, do you really think he'll need this information now? Hell, he probably has the M60s and ♥♥♥♥ by now if he's still active.

[Jeruzalem]

why the hell did i not see that...

[☭CommissarBubz]

the A2 in the name do the job :V

[Blitzkrieg Wulf]

Originally posted by HugoTroop:

(sorry for being 3 years late but still lol whatever)

Everyone can appreciate the search function/google, but people move on from one game to another. If a thread has been inactive for more than a month, please, do not bring it back from the dead.