Jump to content

So, Tank Crew stuff. What exactly are we getting?


AndyJWest
 Share

Recommended Posts

Mitthrawnuruodo

So?

I said that MP tank games move away from historical accuracy most of the time.

 

One exception that is so inaccessible that only a few people have heard of it does little to refute that argument. 

 

Of course, I have nothing against Steel Beasts.

Edited by Mitthrawnuruodo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I said that MP tank games move away from historical accuracy most of the time.

 

One exception that is so inaccessible that only a few people have heard of it does little to refute that argument. 

 

Of course, I have nothing against Steel Beasts.

I think it's because constructing a tank game that approaches simulation at realistic level is generally completely incompatible with constructing a game that has thrilling and fun multiplayer gameplay. It's a trade-off.

 

"Oi mates! Our tank has been hit! Let's clump around and wait for 15 minutes for tank players to fix it!" "SOUNDS FUN!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

and time should be spent on making relatively realistic tank game, not a tank combat simulation.

 

Yes but that won´t do , because now we are talking about fundings and that again mean they do it for money, perhaps what they have is good enough to be a success and this will mean much more later on, like 777 will be known for its tanks and not for its planes. 

 

I think tank battles sell a lot more than plane battle Maybe I am wrong 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mitthrawnuruodo

"Oi mates! Our tank has been hit! Let's clump around and wait for 15 minutes for tank players to fix it!" "SOUNDS FUN!"

 

Agreed. Important aspects of MP such as match duration, balance, and variety are hard to reconcile with realism. It can be done to a certain extent, but it is very difficult. 

Edited by Mitthrawnuruodo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, do you know why BoS was released with a “campaign” that was little more than a random mission generator? It’s because they discovered that hardly anyone played the RoF campaign.

The RoF career was a brilliant piece of design, right up until the player hit the Fly button. However the reason nobody played the career was because the mission design was so weak that the in-game world was virtually empty. There were more aircraft and objects in a QMB mission than there were in the average career one.

 

The squadron lists were meticulously researched, with every unit shown at their historical location. But if the player flew there, or indeed anywhere beyond the pinpoint target and its three allotted enemy, it was a wasteland. Perhaps the missions were optimised for the lowest performing computers. Or maybe it was another example of Lofts ideas of "robust" game design.

 

Whatever the reason, all the good work on the RoF career was wasted because the missions were empty. The data that the RoF team should take away from it is not that "hardly anyone plays the campaign", but rather, nobody likes an empty campaign.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BraveSirRobin

or indeed anywhere beyond the pinpoint target and its three allotted enemy, it was a wasteland. Perhaps the missions were optimised for the lowest performing computers.

Yes, I suspect it was optimized for crappy computers, and the AI in 777’s “engine” is a resource hog. How would you solve those problems?

If that is the case, I will ignore.

 

So you’re not going to provide me with an update on all the great SP tank sims that are being produced?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you’re not going to provide me with an update on all the great SP tank sims that are being produced?

Who is making tank sims at all nowdays? WT is not a sim. Steel Fury and Steel Armor are ONLY single player. These games are old. You think they were failures because they were old? No, they had a community.

 

Steel Beasts is a training simulator through and through centered around the modern era. The price alone is enough to turn most away let alone the game delivery / payment methods. It also appears rather old. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The RoF career was a brilliant piece of design, right up until the player hit the Fly button. 

 

Whatever the reason, all the good work on the RoF career was wasted because the missions were empty. The data that the RoF team should take away from it is not that "hardly anyone plays the campaign", but rather, nobody likes an empty campaign.

Quoted for truth. 

 

Mick. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BraveSirRobin

Who is making tank sims at all nowdays?

 

Lots of people on this thread are educating me on how SP games are more “historical” and how MP games are getting more “airquake” (except Steel Beasts, of course), so I thought I would ask about recent SP game development. Apparently there isn’t any. I wonder if there is some deeper meaning in that fact?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, but the only wway to make it historical is to either make sure that Russian tanks can take 100 times more losses than Germany in any battle to simulate the numbers needed to take out a Tiger 2 or other German supertanks, same goes for Sherman on west side, it was numbers that won, not the tank itself. This is the problems of making a CFS / FPS game, to get people not to choose only one side it got to be playable for both sides. In other words , games like this will never be historical

A common misconception, but the German tanks did not lose the war because they were out numbered. The average kill to loss ratio for German heavy tank battalions was 1:1, and this is against mostly Shermans. The Germans lost because their better tanks were not as good as the allies at coping in a world where the ability of one tank to kill another is irrelevent. The vast majority of tanks were lost to AT guns, aircraft, breakdowns, infantry or artillery, and not to another tank. As for the King Tiger, by the time it reached the front, the Soviets had IS-2s and ISU-152s capable of killing them. In fact, from 1943 onwards it was often thw Germans suffering from arrition more than the Soviets. Panzer IVs and Stugs, with a few Panthers and Tigers, against masses of IS-2s and ISU-152.

Edited by hames123
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lots of people on this thread are educating me on how SP games are more “historical” and how MP games are getting more “airquake” (except Steel Beasts, of course), so I thought I would ask about recent SP game development. Apparently there isn’t any. I wonder if there is some deeper meaning in that fact?

They have right due simple issue: we know HOW history looked like, bet we don't know WHY history looked like it looks now.

So at the SP games AI may "simulate" that russian tanks were totally garbage, crew had "novice of novice" experience and more.

From second side, human player may shot to teammembers, hold the HQ orders or make "reconnaissance trips" with no penalties.

Hope you know what a kind of penalty was used at real front line...

 

In example Mark Solonin in his book "22 June" wrote that one group of T-28 completely destroyed 20+ German tanks with 3 losses only (as I remember correctly) in first days of USSR-Germany war. But lot of soldiers didn't want to fight for Mother Russia, they killed the transmission system in tanks and said "highly failure rate".

How can you simulate that to reach "historical accuracy"???

 

As others said, at MP games there is no "historical accuracy" because there is no way to simulate it.

History as we know does not match to technical abilities of tanks - you can't simulate crew experience, ammo, supply, support, communication, failure rate or crew morale.

Edited by PL_Andrev
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Helo everyone!. Im new here and new in game so i want to say hello.  

When i first time found information about Tank Crew i said... ,,Damn!, i need this thing!''.  For this game I currently earn money for a new PC :D because in my current computer in Il-2 BoS i have only 30 fps on low settings :( .  

You can say that there is probably too much expected from this game, but I know what 1C studio can do and what Il-2 Sturmovik is. But if in Tank Crew we will get a career mode as it is in the latest update to Il-2 or in Rise of Flight without any reluctance I will spend money on this product and buy new content, tanks, maps etc. I dreamed of such a tank game. There will probably be problems at the beginning and much may change, but I hope that it will be worth waiting for. 

I would like to explain something, however, the M4A2 tank which is on the list, well, the first M4A2 tanks began reach to the USSR at the end of 1942, theoretically these tanks could take part in the battle of Kursk but in practice I did not find any information about units who their use in Citadel operation. The first combat actions I found were noted in autumn 1943, that is after the battle at Kursk. Why ?, the period of training and forming units equipped with these Shermans lasted a long time.  

 

It would be nice if we got tanks delivered to the USSR as part of Lend-Lease, I think there would be players who would play them, including myself, I'm going to specialize mainly on M3 Lee (on the Soviet side, if it were available, if no, it will be M4A2), returning to the topic, I am for that we would get such tanks, but only those that actually took part in the battle of Kursk, e.g. 
 

M3s (the Russian designation of the M3 Lee tank "S-sredni" means medium) 
M3%20Lee%20Volkhov%20Left_small.jpg
M3l (Russian designation of the M3 Stuart tank) 
M3A1%20Stuart%20Left_small.jpg
Churchill Mk. III / Mk. IV 
Churchill%20IV_small.jpg


Most of all, however, I am curious if we will get a career mode? and will it be the same as for 'airplanes'? . In my opinion, the career mode is the main mode when it comes to a single player. I hope that we will soon get information about this DLC in which our doubts will be resolved. Greetings to all pilots and future tankers :) .

Source of the pics: 

http://www.o5m6.de/redarmy/index.php

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
Monostripezebra

Taking "dual use" (east and west scenario capable) lend lease tanks into account would only be logical, as you can gain a lot more flexibility per effort there.. Also, a playable stug would be a wise choice, customer satisfaction wise..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sevenless

I think the only halfway commercially successful WW2 tank game was PanzerELITE by Wings Simulations released 1999 and back then people were way more focussed on single player aspects. To be honest I´m not even sure there is a market out there anymore for this kind of simulation today. Arcade is pretty much covered by World of Tanks, but a tank sim must be a niche of a niche market?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎12‎/‎2‎/‎2017 at 7:47 PM, Field-Ops said:

Who is making tank sims at all nowdays? WT is not a sim. Steel Fury and Steel Armor are ONLY single player. These games are old. You think they were failures because they were old? No, they had a community.

 

Steel Beasts is a training simulator through and through centered around the modern era. The price alone is enough to turn most away let alone the game delivery / payment methods. It also appears rather old. 

Salutations,

 

Steel Fury and Steel Armor were very good tank games. We need an updated version of some sort along their lines of play.

 

I have the latest Steel Beast. It is a great simulation of modern era tank warfare. Although, I think its graphics need upgrading and this is expected soon. Unfortunately... it isn't set in WWII.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

=362nd_FS=RoflSeal
On 3/24/2018 at 11:11 AM, GTursonA523 said:

 

I would like to explain something, however, the M4A2 tank which is on the list, well, the first M4A2 tanks began reach to the USSR at the end of 1942, theoretically these tanks could take part in the battle of Kursk but in practice I did not find any information about units who their use in Citadel operation. The first combat actions I found were noted in autumn 1943, that is after the battle at Kursk. Why ?, the period of training and forming units equipped with these Shermans lasted a long time.  
 

I would imagine Sherman is in to hook in freedomboo audience, while we haven't got full details yet, I would imagine Tank Crew will follow the same release format as great battles of standard and collector tanks, so like the FW-190A-3, which didn't see action in Stalingrad specifically, but is period appropriate, was released as a collector aircraft.

Edited by RoflSeal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, sevenless said:

I think the only halfway commercially successful WW2 tank game was PanzerELITE by Wings Simulations released 1999 and back then people were way more focussed on single player aspects. To be honest I´m not even sure there is a market out there anymore for this kind of simulation today. Arcade is pretty much covered by World of Tanks, but a tank sim must be a niche of a niche market?

 

I'm 100% confident there is a market for a "realistic" WWII tank simulator, especially when it is combined arms with IL-2 flight sim. Sure, "realistic" simulators are a niche market but there are quite a few of us enjoying this kind of stuff I guess.

 

Just got BoX myself (I skipped it at release due to the idiotic leveling stuff etc.) thankfully the dev's came to their senses and now with all the changes they made it a great sim!

 

Looking forward to Tank Crew!

 

Edited by KeyCat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also would love to see some successor of Steel Fury Kharkov but how my favourite flight simulator developers could code comparable tank simulator? I don't know.

 

Steel Fury had really impressive physics of tank movement over different terrain, different engines, suspensions and transmission systems modelled. 

It had also very detailed weapon ballistics, armor penetration.

 

It had full very detailed interiors with all visors, periscopes, targeting reticles for every crewman modeled.

 

It had logic of crew coordination and it had only three tanks.

 

It was all a fruit of big experience of Ukrainian developers gained through coding many gradually improved previous tank sims.

 

To make a game comparable with Steel Fury Kharkov from scratch would require huge amount of work. 

 

cheers

 

Edited by bies
Link to comment
Share on other sites

InProgress
On 3.12.2017 at 9:33 AM, PL_Andrev said:

As others said, at MP games there is no "historical accuracy" because there is no way to simulate it.

History as we know does not match to technical abilities of tanks - you can't simulate crew experience, ammo, supply, support, communication, failure rate or crew morale.

Yes you can, crew experience = novice to ace. Supply = spawns or even fuel and ammo but that would be some work. Support and communication depends on players. Failure rate, if devs want they could do it, just like some fps games have weapons that can be jamming sometimes. Crew morale, morale of players, if you get destroyed and can't do much, losing a lot, morale can be low and people won't try as hard and even leave. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I don't think this is about how precisely it is simulated. For me, it's about the environment you fight in. And that's where pretty much all MP tank games fail: they depict tank vs tank battles almost exclusively, in fact they often reduce the ground war down to tank vs tank engagements.

 

My very best experiences playing with tanks in an MP environment were playing Arma with an organized group (Arma 2 back then). And in arma 2, the simulation of armor was appalling. I mean, it was pretty much a case of one hit was bad, two hits you're dead and that's it.

But having to drive that blind thing, as a crew of three (obviously it wasn't simulating the loader, because that would be boring as hell), amidst a platoon or two of infantry, playing as actual support for the infantry (and not the other way around) was an awesome feeling. Can't say any other game, no matter how detailed, depicted tank operations that well, while still making it fun.

 

And I don't quite see how IL-2 will do any different that those tank games. But we'll see!

 

Oh, and for some reason, while the same could be said of air ops (depicting them as a bunch of lonewolves, with a few organized sections of 2 to 4 aircrafts in the mix), it doesn't bother me for planes. Maybe because all flight sims have always done that.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ShamrockOneFive
On 5/3/2018 at 2:53 PM, sevenless said:

I think the only halfway commercially successful WW2 tank game was PanzerELITE by Wings Simulations released 1999 and back then people were way more focussed on single player aspects. To be honest I´m not even sure there is a market out there anymore for this kind of simulation today. Arcade is pretty much covered by World of Tanks, but a tank sim must be a niche of a niche market?

 

A tank sim on its own is very niche for sure, but a good tank sim inside a good airplane sim and now you might have people's attention. I think it will catch on slowly but then people will realize that there are potentially great multiplayer options here.

 

Bonus points if they can make the Air Marshal (or maybe just Marshal?) component compelling. You can conceivably have competitive multiplayer scenarios where a commander on either side makes the big picture decisions and then directs air and ground forces accordingly. That could be really interesting to see.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Quinte said:

My very best experiences playing with tanks in an MP environment were playing Arma with an organized group (Arma 2 back then).

 

 

A bit OT but you should check out A3 + the new Tanks DLC. Much improved damaging modeling as well as driving physics etc.

 

And if you prefer WWII also check out the IFA3 mod.

 

Edited by KeyCat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arma 3 tank system seems to rely on HP, I mean I saw shells go through tanks and stuff but that seems to affect the whole tank rather than specific components.

 

Do someone know if post scriptum is "realist" for the tanks battle ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

InProgress
1 hour ago, Eicio said:

Arma 3 tank system seems to rely on HP, I mean I saw shells go through tanks and stuff but that seems to affect the whole tank rather than specific components.

 

Do someone know if post scriptum is "realist" for the tanks battle ?

Arma is more like infantry sim, vehicles are there just for fun and realism (walking on these maps would be insane). 

 

Doubt, PS is just typical squad shooter, you hit something and it makes boom. I think the only fps I know with most realistic tank damage is old darkest hour. Tank don't usually explode from 1 hit, you can get destroyed tracks, vision, turret, engine. You can even catch fire! And you will burn, you can't click E to leave tank like in some casual battlefield. You have to open hatch if you want to exit and you WILL exit on top of the tank (if you use this hatch) so you can get shot by people around who just wait for you to try to run away from burning tank. If you are a mg gunner you have to change position before you leave tank since gunner has no hatch.

 

You also have lots of ammo, few kinds of AP ammo, smoke, HE, HEAT. Even infantry can sit on top of your tank and travel with you. Often tanks burn for long time or are abandoned and just sitting there and smoking :) best tank experience possible + lots of others vehicles, cars, trucks, panzer cars etc. Tiger tank feels really powerful and no one cares about balance. You drive tiger vs some silly t34 and they are unable to hurt you, they have to do it smart and flank you. So you can really feel like it's a tiger and not get instant explosion from silly bazooka hitting front armor... last time I was driving panther and got 8 kills with no deaths vs t34. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rattlesnake

Between Bodenplatte, Flying Circus, and Tank Crew this team just keeps on giving, it's fantastic.

IMO one thing the devs should consider doing is looking at the aspects of War Thunder  realistic/sim mode gameplay that frustrate the players the most and avoid those pitfalls. They can claim a LOT of market share by specifically doing so, I think. Some of the things to avoid:

1. It is important that running the game at low graphical settings NOT be a combat advantage. This is the single biggest thing that WT does to shoot itself in the foot IMO, creating amazing graphics and then failing to implement measures so that players can't successfully turn the graphic settings way down for easier spotting.

2. There will need to be some sort of balance, it wouldn't be fun for Sherman 75s or T-34 76s to face nothing but Tigers all the time. But the way WT does "balance", by matching up tanks without regard to history (IOW Tigers rolling against Cold War tanks), is less than ideal and likely won't fly with the Il-2 grognards anyway. Be better (and more realistic) if there was some way to limit the effects of a superior tank like Tiger by limiting the number of times a player can spawn one in a given period of time, or something like that.

3. A tank game will probably need to have some sort of repair system. But having repairs happen too easily/quickly causes undesirable distortions. For instance in WT in you have Fire Prevention Equipment your engine can be set on fire twice before it knocks you out, and your engine can be repaired an infinite number of times, in under a minute. This leads to weird side effects, like being directly behind a tank not as advantage as being on the flank, players sometimes actually proceeding backwards to use their engine as armor, etc.

 

 



 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Eicio said:

Arma 3 tank system seems to rely on HP, I mean I saw shells go through tanks and stuff but that seems to affect the whole tank rather than specific components.

 

This was the case before the new Tanks DLC. Now it offers fully modeled interiors, improved handling and new damage model. This also applies to stock tanks so you don't need to buy the DLC to try it out.

 

https://arma3.com/dlc/tanks

 

Anyway, I really looking forward to see what Tank Crew offers, I'm sure it will be good!

 

Edited by KeyCat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 4.05.2018 at 8:55 PM, InProgress said:

Yes you can, crew experience = novice to ace. Supply = spawns or even fuel and ammo but that would be some work. Support and communication depends on players. Failure rate, if devs want they could do it, just like some fps games have weapons that can be jamming sometimes. Crew morale, morale of players, if you get destroyed and can't do much, losing a lot, morale can be low and people won't try as hard and even leave. 

 

Uhmm... not, you can't.

Look, in theory I agree with you, but this is theory, not game reality.

 

Crew experience - you're right, but we're talking about your game-person, your crew, your avatar.

If you want to simulate the experience of your crew it should be set to zero when you're crew is killed, right? (to novice).

But how to simulate YOUR personal skill to enemy tanks identification, weak spots detection, self-hiding etc?

 

Supply

Well, there is no interesting option to take a supply. In other games you should capture point or find some supply unit.

But how to simulate you request with ammo or fuel? You will stay at point (and wait) or go back to base?

In fact you should call for your HQ and wait for supply unit, what is not often possible during front line.

So finally - you can't realize supply in game, because game's supply system does not match to reality standards.

 

Support and communication 

Again this is game: you can call to another people but nobody may react. In other games if someone call "help me" other people avoid (leave) area when requester is.

It works in two sides: orders are not important becaouse this is a game. So istead attack enemy position you may hide & camp with no effort to you.

 

Morale system

Morale represents your crew skill, not your personal skill. Not sure how to implement morale system into the game.

Break your orders? (you click "W" but tank do not go forward). But this game should be playable and give a fun... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking forward to this tank stuff since I'm no longer really able to "fly" due to health (eyes) issues...

Will see how it ends up, but I hope it will be great:)...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PatrickAWlson
On 5/5/2018 at 6:35 PM, CMBailey said:

Between Bodenplatte, Flying Circus, and Tank Crew this team just keeps on giving, it's fantastic.

IMO one thing the devs should consider doing is looking at the aspects of War Thunder  realistic/sim mode gameplay that frustrate the players the most and avoid those pitfalls. They can claim a LOT of market share by specifically doing so, I think. Some of the things to avoid:

1. It is important that running the game at low graphical settings NOT be a combat advantage. This is the single biggest thing that WT does to shoot itself in the foot IMO, creating amazing graphics and then failing to implement measures so that players can't successfully turn the graphic settings way down for easier spotting.

2. There will need to be some sort of balance, it wouldn't be fun for Sherman 75s or T-34 76s to face nothing but Tigers all the time. But the way WT does "balance", by matching up tanks without regard to history (IOW Tigers rolling against Cold War tanks), is less than ideal and likely won't fly with the Il-2 grognards anyway. Be better (and more realistic) if there was some way to limit the effects of a superior tank like Tiger by limiting the number of times a player can spawn one in a given period of time, or something like that.

3. A tank game will probably need to have some sort of repair system. But having repairs happen too easily/quickly causes undesirable distortions. For instance in WT in you have Fire Prevention Equipment your engine can be set on fire twice before it knocks you out, and your engine can be repaired an infinite number of times, in under a minute. This leads to weird side effects, like being directly behind a tank not as advantage as being on the flank, players sometimes actually proceeding backwards to use their engine as armor, etc.

 

 



 

The biggest problem with Tigers was their cost.  They were very expensive and therefore not that many of them.  Shermans and T34s should encounter far more StuGs and MkIVs.  Any MP server should limit Tigers to  one or two and maybe give the allies a numerical advantage.  Certainly any campaign should do this.

 

IMHO tanks should not be repairable within a mission - because in fact they were not.   If a tank got disabled the crew bailed.  The only question was to destroy the tank to prevent it from falling into enemy hands or leave it in hopes of recovering it later.  Tank crews did not get out of their tanks, turn a virtual wrench and then continue on.  If a supply system is modeled in a campaign then it makes sense to determine the degree of damage and time to repair.  Otherwise, become a pillbox or bail and call it a day.

 

This is IMHO not a problem.  Most tank crews that lived long enough had to bail at some point in their careers.  If you play in terms of a career, having to bail is just a bad day, kind of like getting shot down but surviving the bailout.  You pick up new kit from the depo and try again the next day.  Over the course of a career you will not be spectacularly successful in every mission.  The key is to have enough success and to survive.

 

My biggest concern is "what about infantry".  My favorite ground combat game of all time was the Battle Front series because of the central role played by infantry.  If infantry is not modeled it changes every aspect of tank warfare.

 

Shermans in particular get creamed for being death traps, and in may ways this was true.  Still, they were incredibly useful.  The US army stuck with the 75mm even after the 76mm became available because the 75mm was more useful in infantry support - larger ammo load and almost no difference in HE capability.  If you are talking infantry support, a Sherman was pretty much as good as a Panther.  

 

It will be interesting to see what we get.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-TBC-AeroAce

I only found out today that of all American tank crews in ww2 only 3% was kia compared to 18% infantry and God only know what for bomber crew. 

 

I know where I would want to be if I was in that war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

YankeeDoodle

The RAF bomber crews had a rather horrifying 44.4% KIA rate. I don't know what the numbers are for other countries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RedKestrel
1 hour ago, AeroAce said:

I only found out today that of all American tank crews in ww2 only 3% was kia compared to 18% infantry and God only know what for bomber crew. 

 

I know where I would want to be if I was in that war.

In WW2 The Canadian Army converted one of its armoured divisions to infantry late the war because of the much higher casualty rates among the infantry meant they weren't able to keep their infantry divisions up to strength. IIRC they underestimated the casualty rates because they had used the North African campaign as a reference for likely loss ratios, but the NW europe campaign ended up being much harder on the infantry than expected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

Shermans in particular get creamed for being death traps, and in may ways this was true.

 

[blank stare]

 

You better not call it a Ronson or cite a certain US Armor Recovery officer's book.

Edited by Frenchy56
Link to comment
Share on other sites

PatrickAWlson
4 minutes ago, Frenchy56 said:

 

[blank stare]

 

You better not call it a Ronson or cite a certain US Armor Recovery officer's book.

 

The Sherman was tall and not well armored.  I don't think there is a lot of debate about that.  My understanding is that earlier versions did have bad problems with burning, thus the Ronson and Tommy Cooker references, but improvements to ammo storage largely solved that.  By 1944 it would be no worse than most tanks (except for being tall and having thin armor).  As pointed out above, being surrounded by a Sherman's armor definitely beat the hell out of no armor at all.

 

Anyhow, my post was largely complimentary of the Sherman.  It was reliable and effective and there were lots of them.  You may not want to be face to face with a Tiger or a Panther when you were in a 75mm armed Sherman, but those occasions were not all that common.  A Panther you could take out if you could get on the flank.

 

Last but not least, the post had more to do with the impact of infantry on the game than anything else.  Point being that if you actually have infantry then you begin to see just how valuable a few Shermans could be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

=362nd_FS=RoflSeal
25 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

The Sherman was tall and not well armored.  I don't think there is a lot of debate about that.  My understanding is that earlier versions did have bad problems with burning, thus the Ronson and Tommy Cooker references, but improvements to ammo storage largely solved that.  By 1944 it would be no worse than most tanks (except for being tall and having thin armor).  As pointed out above, being surrounded by a Sherman's armor definitely beat the hell out of no armor at all.

 

Anyhow, my post was largely complimentary of the Sherman.  It was reliable and effective and there were lots of them.  You may not want to be face to face with a Tiger or a Panther when you were in a 75mm armed Sherman, but those occasions were not all that common.  A Panther you could take out if you could get on the flank.

 

Last but not least, the post had more to do with the impact of infantry on the game than anything else.  Point being that if you actually have infantry then you begin to see just how valuable a few Shermans could be.

Sherman had good armor... for 1942 when it first saw action, when the most common German gun was the 50mm KwK 39. Late hulled Shermans also improved the hull armor protection to protect from the 75mm KwK 40 from 1000yds.

 

Also saying meeting a Panther in a Sherman was rather uncommon is incorrect. By the time of Normandy the Panther was a significant portion of German tanks and TDs, ratio being 6:4:3:1 for Panzer IV: Panther : StuG III: Tiger respectively, with the ratio of Panther increasing as the war went on. Then you have to consider the concentration of German armor in Normandy for example. 90% of German armour was situated in the British and Canadian sectors around Caen for most of the campaign, that along with the Tank heavy units of British Armoured divisions (~340 tanks per divsion compared to 180 in a US and German tank division, 260 in a Soviet Tank Corps) lead to a lot of tank vs tank battles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...