M4 Armor

[shiningpathb4me]

I've been off the game for about 6 months and got back in last week. I've put quite a few hours in, mostly with the new M4 VC Firefly.

I was pretty disappointed with the modeling until I did a little research. Apparently, the VC Firefly did have a formidable main gun. That explains how I was able to pop Tigers at 3400. OK, what about the armor? Today I attacked a town defended by 2 tigers and an M4. I brought a Panzer, preferring it for that sort of mission. I started taking fire 2800 from the town. I looked around and spotted an M4 facing me and engaged it. Range = 2800.  I got his range w/ 2 shots, then ricocheted 2 off the front of his tank and 2 off the turret dead center.  The M4 was putting rounds out as fast as he could shoot, and he finally hit me, 1 shot, I'm dead.

I'm not an expert on military vehicles of WWII, but I seem to remember seeing photos of a Sherman that looked more like a block of green swiss cheese. One tank I saw was shot so full of holes that you could see through it.

Did the VC Firefly have improved armor? If it's 17 pound gun is so awsome, why does it take 3 shots of HE to kill a town building, as opposed to the 2 shots of a panzer or tiger? *Sigh* It seems to me that the Sherman is the tank that should be heavily perked.

[T99LMG]

Feel your pain, dude. I use a Sherman VC, and I get destroyed by 6 Tigers all firing at me.It was about at the 12th shot, when I stupidly turned backwards after trying to flank one that was not really noticing the loud sounds of the guns, or out of ammo. I don't know, but I heard a bunch of shots near my back then BOOM and there goes my 3 Tiger kills and all of my perks except for 0.45 vehicle points. Not sure where it hit, but I think the back of the turret might be it.

[humble]

1st the sherman has a 46 degree slope on its frontal armor, 2nd the sherman has a rounded gun mantlet and thicker turret armor. Its much better armored then the PZIV is...but clearly inferior to the T-34 and Tiger. THe biggest problem the M4 had was a pitiful low velocity gun combined with a high siloutte. The "stock" M4 would have zero chance of killing you at that range. The need to close to almost suicidal ranges is what caused the heavy casualties. The germans relied very heavily on AT guns, TD's and Tigers/Panthers to stop allied armor...on those occasions the sherman met PZIV's (or even tiger/Panthers) in fluid engagements it did well.

[storch]

what humble said.  in close was the sherman's achille's heel.  the sloped armor should deflect rounds but I will agree that it is somewhat favorably modelled, it should die easier than it does, especially from an 88mm hit at 3k or so.

[64kills]

i never use sherman i always get kiled so i get a panzer and wait for someone in a sherman to rool by then bam when i have to usen sherman i keep speed up and zag  and still boom i'm dead even in 8player i'm dead because of some guy that give people supps

[E25280]

Others have already answered about the armor, which is much better than "popular opinion" would have you believe.

Originally posted by shiningpathb4me
If it's 17 pound gun is so awsome, why does it take 3 shots of HE to kill a town building, as opposed to the 2 shots of a panzer or tiger?

Regarding this specifically, this too is an attempt to make the guns accurate.

US armored doctrine of the day was that there would be lightly armored, fast tank destroyers with high velocity 76mm guns while the Shermans would fill the roll of direct infantry support.  This is the reason the "standard" Sherman used a 75mm gun -- it had an excellent HE shell.  

The 76mm, and even moreso the 17lbr gun on the Firefly, had too high a velocity for similarly effective HE rounds.  The skin of the shell needed to be thicker to withstand the higher muzzle velocity, thus there was less explosive in the shell when compared to the 75mm.