The Basic M4 (Sherman)

[vonKrimm]

<snip>
Someone must explain to me again why if our eagle-eyed 20 year old pilot  can spot and identify a 109 or La7 3 nautical miles away, he can't spot a multi-ton tank less than a mile away?
<snip>

Because they don't put it in f4 mode.

Easiest way to increase survivability for ALL GVs is to remove the targetting indicator that planes get against a GV, just like the GVs don't get them against each other.

There is no "hiding" in AH2 for GVs.  Once a plane is XX away from you it doesn't matter where you are, whether you are sitting still or moving, your camo, etc; you are spotted.

I don't need a silly red icon to find GVs as I see them fine from +1.5 to 3.0ish.  The only ones that I find the red icon useful is when they hide in the undamaged bars; but if they want to do anything except hide, they must eventually leave the barn.  So I can take or leave the red icon.

[Demetrious]

I'm not just talking 1939. The war lasted 6 years and with the Soviets and Germans saw a constant evolution of armor, guns, and ammo. Meanwhile in 1994 France it was going against guns like the KwK 40 L/48 on the lV, and of course the Panthers and Tigers. It wasnt even close. Im not a tank guy and I know some improvements were made in the war with the Shermans gun and ammo but still.

No, E25280 is right. The Sherman was constantly upgraded throughout the war as well as the Panzer IV. The Panzer received an upgraded gun, but so did the Sherman, with the '76. The Panzer had thicker armor, but it's failure to use sloped armor in many places (like the front of the turret) rendered it's protection about equal to that of the Sherman, which had steeper angles on it's armor in more places. The defining characteristic of the Sherman was it's very fast turret and superior off-road capability (on tarmac both tanks were about as fast as the other.) The gyrostabilizer never performed as wonderfully as promised, but it was unique in the world at the time and gave the tank the ability to fire with some semblance of accuracy while moving, which no other machine could do. Combined with the high off-road speed and fast turret, this made the Sherman quite good at flanking enemy vehicles and nailing them before they could bring their turret to bear.

Given the choice, I'd rather have the M4. The Firefly had a nice big gun, but that slowed it's turret down something fierce and it's overkill against most enemy ground vehicles. And if you blow a track off a Tiger, then circle round back to nail her in the rear armor faster then her turret can track, well, that's style, my friends.

[SmokinLoon]

The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of adding in the ol' M4A1 and/or M4A3.

If modelled on par with the rest of HCT's tanks, it would be as average as the Pzr IV and rule the T34/76.

[BigPlay]

How would it get on in the MA?

Not well I think but then I have killed tanks with an M8, and damaged them with an osti and wirrble.

I would like to see how it would do against the firefly and the basic T34. I assume the M4 came up agianst the T34 in Korea. Does anyone know how that went?   

The Shermans in Korea were basicly what they called "easy eights" up gunned and uparmored . The WW2 Sherman would not really fill any gaps other then historical gaps. In EW the T-34 would eat it up and the panzer would have an edge and especially at range. I would think that M8's would also fair well against it.

[Die Hard]

The Sherman and T-34 are actually very equal in terms of protection and mobility (edge to the T-34). However, the Sherman entered service two years later than the T-34, and that is the main reason everyone praises the T-34 and laments the Sherman. Add to that the Sherman didn't get a proper gun (76 mm) until mid-1944.

When the Germans met the T-34 in 1941 it was revolutionary, and outclassed the PzKw III and PzKw IV in service at the time. When the Sherman entered service in 1942 the Germans had already begun up-armoring their tanks (in response to the T-34) and they had just fielded the new PzKw VI Tiger I. Only in the latter half of 1944 did the Sherman become a real contender to German and Russian armor.

In short:

T-34 - In time to save the day for Russia.

M4 - Too little too late.

[BigPlay]

The Sherman and T-34 are actually very equal in terms of protection and mobility (edge to the T-34). However, the Sherman entered service two years later than the T-34, and that is the main reason everyone praises the T-34 and laments the Sherman. Add to that the Sherman didn't get a proper gun (76 mm) until mid-1944.

When the Germans met the T-34 in 1941 it was revolutionary, and outclassed the PzKw III and PzKw IV in service at the time. When the Sherman entered service in 1942 the Germans had already begun up-armoring their tanks (in response to the T-34) and they had just fielded the new PzKw VI Tiger I. Only in the latter half of 1944 did the Sherman become a real contender to German and Russian armor.

In short:

T-34 - In time to save the day for Russia.

M4 - Too little too late.

 The Sherman finally did get a decent gun but it never was able to compete with late war German armor or for that matter late war Russian armor. The M4 Sherman never was able to penetrate the frontal armor of most lw German tanks even at close ranges and was easily taken out by all lw German tanks from very far ranges while virtually being untouchable. Upon introduction of the longer barrel higher velocity guns that the Germans started equipping all of their tanks with the T-34 was no longer a contender, even the T-34/85 wasn't the answer. It turned out that numerical advantages was the answer. Not until the Americans introduced the Pershing did the Americans have anything that could slug it out toe to toe with most German lw tanks. However the T-24's 76mm main gun was better than the Sherman low velocity 75mm gun which MOST of the Shermans of WW2 were. So that is why I say that the T-34 could handle the 75mm Sherman with no problem, penetration charts on the American's 75mm gun proves this.

[BigKev03]

Well in this game it seems that all people want to do is drive or fly the big gunned, fast, and sleek rides.  For those who like to stay in the historical realm a ride like the basic M4 would be a good fit.  However, due to the M4's firepower I dont think it would be used as much as the tanks we already have.  But having said that it could be used to effect like the Army used it in WWII.  Quantity won many a battles!!  Like an earlier post, imagine 20-30 M4's hitting a base???  The 75mm gun would be affective against hangars and such but agaisnt other tanks it would be moderate against the panzer dependign on range, angle and other factors.  But against the T-34 I see problems due to the sloped armor of the T-34.  Agaisnt the Tiger forget about it unless you have numbers and get in close or in the rear.  I would have to research it but I do not know if the M4 had HVAP or HEAT rounds.  Now if we ever got the "Easy 8" version of the M4 with the 76mm gun that would be a good tank to take out.  But I would take the basic M4 out just to see what you can do with it.  However, with the way people in this game use the bugs, spawn camps, and other things we find to use to our advantage we will never have a true tank engagement.  But the M4 would be fun and I think if used within the tactical range it is capable of it would be respected.  

[dirt911]

yeah but early war it was in existince and the tigers and t34s werent exactly in existance

[E25280]

However the T-24's 76mm main gun was better than the Sherman low velocity 75mm gun which MOST of the Shermans of WW2 were. So that is why I say that the T-34 could handle the 75mm Sherman with no problem, penetration charts on the American's 75mm gun proves this.

Untrue.  The T-34's 76.2mm F-34 gun was fairly underpowered given the size of the gun (as were many Soviet guns), and performed on a roughly equal basis to the 75mm M3 on the Sherman.  The charts I have seen even show the M3 out performs the F-34 with all similar ammo except HVAP/APCR, which apparently the US did not produce for the M3.

[Die Hard]

yeah but early war it was in existince and the tigers and t34s werent exactly in existance

The Sherman entered service two years after the T-34 and a couple of months after the Tiger I. The T-34 was fighting before America even entered the war.

[Squire]

The basic M4A3 Sherman with a standard 75/L40 gun of 1942-43 is very close in speed, armor protection, and gun power to a T-34/76 of the same period. The Sherman had a better radio, better ergonomics for the crew, the T-34 could operate on crappier fuel (like most Russian vehicles), and had a lower target sillouette, but there was not a huge difference in the two AFVs in terms of over all effectiveness. The T-34/85 came out in early 1944, and was a more effective AFV to an early Sherman, but again, the M4A3(76) was a close rival in terms of gun power. Btw, there were dozens of Sherman varients, with at least 4 major gun types (75mm, 76mm, 17Pndr, 105mm), different armor, and different engines, and other differences, so be carefull about over generalising the type.

Without nitpicking the differences to death, neither was that much better than the other. The gun and armor values were fairly close from 1942-45 for those two, and both were superceded by improved types, M26, JS-2, ect. Both were built in the tens of thousands.

I would say the biggest advantage one would have over the other was the fact the Shermans all had decent radios, and crews that were better educated, and trained, compared to the average Soviet crew. One of those things that might not show up on straight "stats" comparisons, but that was of some significance. 

Btw, the Shermans first major combat action was at El Alemain, in October 1942, with the British 8th Army.

[RipChord929]

As far as the Standard M4s effectiveness, there is something
that you guys are ALL forgetting.. Tsk, Tsk....
For such smart, and very well informed guys...
Shamefull. LOL!!!  (just joshin ya's)

ANY american tank commander had access to the proverbial
anvil to drop on the sneaky coyotes head, day or night, and
in ANY weather..   ARTILLERY!!!

The US ARMY was the WORLD VIRTUOSO of ARTILLERY...
ALL officers, and 99% of NCOs were trained to call and
direct Arty fire in detail... Even lowly PFCs were trained
for it.. Part of a soldiers basic skills!!!

All he had to do was switch radio freq's, break onto the net,
and he had access to, batteries, battalions, regiments,
and even divisions or corps, of HEAVY GUNS...

The dangerous time for american tanks, was the first meeting
engagement... As soon as the germans gave away their
positions, THEY KNEW, that the sky was gonna fall on them..
This was the heavy punch of american armored doctrine..

Leading with tanks, is as stupid as a glass jaw boxer leading
with his chin, LOL!!!   Honestly, at bastogne do you think that
the 101 stopped all those german tanks from overunning the
town with MGs, bazookas, M1s and green shirts... ROFL!!!
HELL NO, it was ARTILLERY!!! and american MASTERY of the art..

German arty, was good, but they knew to fire short barrages,
and get the hell outta dodge.. Because american counterbattery
fire was almost instant, and DEVASTATING in its effects...

This is the major casualty producing arm of the war...
And the 800lb gorilla, that is missing from the game...

  sorry for joshin yas, no insult intended..
RC

[Die Hard]

If you look at the numbers you'll find that the Soviets were by far the masters of artillery during WWII. The US artillery did enjoy some nifty innovations improving accuracy and communications, but it's not really much compared to the huge mass of Soviet artillery and developments in self-propelled guns and rocket artillery. Soviet artillery killed more Germans than any other weapon during WWII.

[RipChord929]

LOL, I knew somebody would say that.. LOL!!!
Russian would line up their guns hub to hub...
And fire it into an area target... LOL!!!
Their idea of skill was a WWI rollin barrage...
Skill, HAH!!!

Like a caveman, swingin a club..

RC

[Die Hard]

Without nitpicking the differences to death, neither was that much better than the other. The gun and armor values were fairly close from 1942-45 for those two, and both were superceded by improved types, M26, JS-2, ect. Both were built in the tens of thousands.

I would say the biggest advantage one would have over the other was the fact the Shermans all had decent radios, and crews that were better educated, and trained, compared to the average Soviet crew. One of those things that might not show up on straight "stats" comparisons, but that was of some significance. 

Btw, the Shermans first major combat action was at El Alemain, in October 1942, with the British 8th Army.

The IS series did not supersede the T-34. The IS was a heavy tank series. The tank that superseded the T-34 was the T-44 which entered service with the Red Army in November 1944, and which was the basis for the later T-54/55. The T-44 was a vastly superior tank having more frontal armor than a Tiger I, but still weighing only 32 tons.




The T-34's first major combat action was in the summer of 1941. It was a shock to the Germans and directly influenced German tank designs (most notably the Panther). In contrast when the M4 showed up in October 1942 in British service the Germans nicknamed it the "Tommy cooker".