Jump to content

FIX THE G-D SHERMAN!!!


Recommended Posts

Shampoo_Actual
Posted (edited)

Dear God please I don't want to go back to War Thunder.  I know you got my money - haha who cares right?  My problem, I get that.  But this is the kind of crap that causes people to find other things to do with their time.

 

Just now on Finnish - had a Sherman looking for me in PZ4 in the woods, not even 40 meters away (I was very well concealed, engine off).  Hull front shot, slight angle but nothing major.  4 Direct hits from me before he can even locate the source of fire: 1 in the machine gun port.  1 front turret ring under the cannon .  1 SIDE RIGHT TURRET (i.e. 45 degree angle, straight into the gunners pos).  Last shot right into his gun mantlet....just before - you guessed it... he one shots me.

 

99% of armor engagements are won by he who shoots first....unless of course you are going against a Sherman in IL-2!!

 

.....................very close to saying F this game.

Edited by Shampoo_Actual
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
LachenKrieg

I am encouraging you to stick it out. After being here only 1 year, I have to say that I am really impressed with the IL2 Dev team so far. Like you, I had a number of issues that were really problematic for me, and all but a few have been fixed to my expectations, or better.

 

I am sure there are many things you can point to in Tank Crew, and say "this is awesome". IMO, Tank Crew is the best WWII AFV simulator currently available. But I get the frustration and completely agree, they really need to look into the shell/armor performance issue.

 

As a simulator, it would be nice if it was more true to life. Some of what we are seeing in game might be in consideration of the game play itself, but again, as a simulator, being true to life should be the game. You are so right in that usually the tank to fire the first shot would likely have the most impact on the outcome of a Pz IVG vs Sherman engagement, especially at point blank.   

 

Game balance should come from the players and servers themselves. As a simulator, the game should be about the challenges of overcoming the limited visibility inside the armored compartment of a WWII tank and the effects that has on situational awareness. The game shouldn't be about being invincible because your in tank a, b, or c, it should be about how you use your tank. If your playing SP, you should be able to go hunting Sherman's in a Pz III, and score damage where you could realistically cause it. The same should go for a T34 vs Tiger setup. The player should decide the level of challenge he/she wants to encounter.

 

Realistic gun/armor performance would also help to force players in MP to learn how to work in teams. That is where the balance should come from, and realistic gun/armor performance has a big role to file here.

 

I would like to see Tank Crew become the Steel Beast training simulator of WWII AFV's. This would have no practical application for modern military training, but it would certainly be appealing to the thousands of gamers/ex/retired military that have an interest in the WWII era. To be able to make the claim that by getting Tank Crew, you could actually get checked off as a T34/Tiger crew member would be news worthy.

 

But I will be happy just the same if they fix the Sherman! 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
moustache
3 hours ago, LachenKrieg said:

Tank Crew is the best WWII AFV simulator currently available

... it's especially the only one, nah (the other simulations are starting to date, it can sting the eyes ...)?

 

(personally, it reminds me of the situation of "the isle" ... nothing for years, rickety updates ... and one day, competitors arrive, and since update , game overhaul, and everything, and everything ...)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Shampoo_Actual

I totally agree TC is still the best thing available today.  Just need to rant a bit.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
NoelGallagher
10 hours ago, LachenKrieg said:

I am encouraging you to stick it out. After being here only 1 year, I have to say that I am really impressed with the IL2 Dev team so far. Like you, I had a number of issues that were really problematic for me, and all but a few have been fixed to my expectations, or better.

 

I am sure there are many things you can point to in Tank Crew, and say "this is awesome". IMO, Tank Crew is the best WWII AFV simulator currently available. But I get the frustration and completely agree, they really need to look into the shell/armor performance issue.

 

As a simulator, it would be nice if it was more true to life. Some of what we are seeing in game might be in consideration of the game play itself, but again, as a simulator, being true to life should be the game. You are so right in that usually the tank to fire the first shot would likely have the most impact on the outcome of a Pz IVG vs Sherman engagement, especially at point blank.   

 

Game balance should come from the players and servers themselves. As a simulator, the game should be about the challenges of overcoming the limited visibility inside the armored compartment of a WWII tank and the effects that has on situational awareness. The game shouldn't be about being invincible because your in tank a, b, or c, it should be about how you use your tank. If your playing SP, you should be able to go hunting Sherman's in a Pz III, and score damage where you could realistically cause it. The same should go for a T34 vs Tiger setup. The player should decide the level of challenge he/she wants to encounter.

 

Realistic gun/armor performance would also help to force players in MP to learn how to work in teams. That is where the balance should come from, and realistic gun/armor performance has a big role to file here.

 

I would like to see Tank Crew become the Steel Beast training simulator of WWII AFV's. This would have no practical application for modern military training, but it would certainly be appealing to the thousands of gamers/ex/retired military that have an interest in the WWII era. To be able to make the claim that by getting Tank Crew, you could actually get checked off as a T34/Tiger crew member would be news worthy.

 

But I will be happy just the same if they fix the Sherman! 

very well said 

i think this kind of "flattening everything as equal" for the game balance is new trend of realistic shooter 

squad does that post scriptum does that ,hell let loose does that

for ex in post scriptum: instead of giving more air support and arty barrage(which can called out by platoon commander in the game) to the american and allied team as they did in reality 

they gave the tank which they don;t even had in terms of historical data of certain map

and nerf the german armour and boost the allied the tanks number ETC..

for ex in squad: to balance the rifle and mg 

they made the mg bullet has same damage as what pistol bullet does in game

as a result all of those game became mixature of confusion and shit 

it's neither realistic nor casual it became mass

 

1 minute ago, NoelGallagher said:

very well said 

i think this kind of "flattening everything as equal" for the game balance is new trend of realistic shooter 

squad does that post scriptum does that ,hell let loose does that

for ex in post scriptum: instead of giving more air support and arty barrage(which can called out by platoon commander in the game) to the american and allied team as they did in reality 

they gave the tank which they don;t even had in terms of historical data of certain map

and nerf the german armour and boost the allied the tanks number ETC..

for ex in squad: to balance the rifle and mg 

they made the mg bullet has same damage as what pistol bullet does in game

as a result all of those game became mixature of confusion and shit 

it's neither realistic nor casual it became mass

if TC trying to do this kind of shit 

then i'll immediately leave this game

the reason why i'm staying now is becasue even tho they release the TC 

it's still not hit it's full potential 

and also the sign of the dev's gives a shit about the TC 

 

1 minute ago, NoelGallagher said:

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
LachenKrieg

I agree, PostScriptum has proven that it is capable of reaching mass appeal, and I think one of the biggest reasons for that is the way it brings the battle field to life. If you are in a PostScriptum tank crew on an active server that is able to work together i.e. the Commander has the other 3 positions filled with people listening and working together, you can get pretty close to the intense chaos of battle and what it must have been like to operate as a team in the enclosed compartment of a WWII tank.

 

As a SIM community, Tank Crew has not really matured to that level of game play yet. The majority of people here are still focused on manning all 4 positions by themselves, and yet nothing could be further away from reality. I think one of the main reasons for this is that it is actually much harder to work in a 4-man team, then it is to man all 4 stations yourself. As a single player, there is no coordination between stations required, and therefore you don't have to deal with issues of getting all 4 players to act in unison. Another reason might be that most players want to be the guy/gal to make things go BOOM. But a well coordinated 4-man team viewing the game play map from 4 different perspectives will be much more effective then any single player could ever be.

 

So while we often site gun/armor performance, and whether this tank, or that was historically relevant on a given map in the name of realism, Tank Crew offers the ability to actually work like a real tank, and yet almost no one uses it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
moustache

it must be said that there are not as many tank crew players as there are post scriptum ... and as a result, it is easier to come across foreigners ... when English is not your natural language, it complicates things, it's much easier to work as a team when you speak the same language ... and postscript is only multiplayer ... no choice to work as a team (even if you see some part alone in a tank ). because it's only multiplayer, it also attracts a certain type of player. not as a tank crew, which is solo and multi ...

 

ah, and also, in post scriptum, we are above all on infantry combat ...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
SCG_judgedeath3

I would argue post scriptum is far away from what IL-2 is, its more arcade and not simulator, more a squad tactical shoter, as the tanks lack any simulation and the sights are unhistorical and very simple controls and you will most often see enemy or your own side yoloing in their combat veichles, driving around soldiers or tanks in circles and shoting and being chaotic xD Small maps too and short matches with much action, plus point for them not nerfing weapons too much unlike heroes and generals.....
And you cant fly in that game either.

 

I would more recommend: ww2 online as it has everything you mentioned and is a simulator actually and whole western europe as a map. OR arma III which is also a superb simulator where all artillery strikes, airplanes, tanks etc has to be manned and all weapons behave as they should, harder to learn but way more rewarding.

Lachenkrieg: come and play with us in SCG, we often play our tanks fully manned time to time, and yes its very different and you almost have to either play it a lot and find people who understand how to work together and have voice channels as else its hopeless to work together, or have military training unless it ends up a big mess as no one know how to command or properly instruct the gunner or driver without confusing everyone in the tank :P Most part its easier and often more effective to play the tank alone, but playing ina  group and man the tank together is more rewarding and fun in another way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
NoelGallagher
4 hours ago, LachenKrieg said:

I agree, PostScriptum has proven that it is capable of reaching mass appeal, and I think one of the biggest reasons for that is the way it brings the battle field to life. If you are in a PostScriptum tank crew on an active server that is able to work together i.e. the Commander has the other 3 positions filled with people listening and working together, you can get pretty close to the intense chaos of battle and what it must have been like to operate as a team in the enclosed compartment of a WWII tank.

 

As a SIM community, Tank Crew has not really matured to that level of game play yet. The majority of people here are still focused on manning all 4 positions by themselves, and yet nothing could be further away from reality. I think one of the main reasons for this is that it is actually much harder to work in a 4-man team, then it is to man all 4 stations yourself. As a single player, there is no coordination between stations required, and therefore you don't have to deal with issues of getting all 4 players to act in unison. Another reason might be that most players want to be the guy/gal to make things go BOOM. But a well coordinated 4-man team viewing the game play map from 4 different perspectives will be much more effective then any single player could ever be.

 

So while we often site gun/armor performance, and whether this tank, or that was historically relevant on a given map in the name of realism, Tank Crew offers the ability to actually work like a real tank, and yet almost no one uses it.

you didn't read my post hahaha

in my own experience with more than 1.5k H with that game(post scriptum)

80% of the time what happens in that game is 

1.the crew man inside the tank fight each other whether who's more right or not

2.driver or gunner don't listen the tank commanders order and often ignore and proceed to whatever they want to do and get kicked

(this game doesn't work becasue of this because military command chain is not about who's thinking is more correct or better but rather order is fuckin order whether you agree or not ,if that breaks down everything becomes mass but dev's of this game along with sqaud ambitiously tried to implement this mechanic with squad kick=punishing system but failed)

3.if you trying to set the ambush and if it requires long time (10min to 20min) everyone leaves

4.the players are exetremly serious and restrictive to each other while they are doing nothing tactically anyway lol

and the most often you get to see the individual squad leaders fighting each other by telling other what to do and fighting over who's opinion is better(there are too many brain dead kids in this game)

4.there's no tactic no cordination , it's a individual squad skirmishing around the cap there's no front line and if ever dev's made the frontline(not by choice but it's becasue it was historically) for ex: arnhem bridge, utah beach , the players hate it by saying it's meatgrinder(arnhem and utah was actaully meatgrinder)

thus it completely fails to represent the proper atmosphere of ww2

(this kind of game mechanic might work well if this game was set on vietnam war)

5.the current p.s has serious physics issue about armoured combat(kingtiger get penetrated by churchill at the frontal turret , since angling and shot deflection is no working in the current game if you fire at the tiger's ass with your 75mm sherman the shot go through even the angle is almost 0 degree

 

it's just my experience 

and this is about public server experience you might get very different experience by playing with clan members 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
SCG_judgedeath3

^that sounds like any game where people who arent used to working together and establish a order try to play together, just chaos and the tank ends up very useless as no one can come to agreement on anything xD same for teamplay in tournaments in il-2, can tell which teams have good structure and those who havent and players ends up going away and play rambos on their own instead of being part of a team. Glad we dont have such issues in my group^^

Link to post
Share on other sites
Voidhunger
9 minutes ago, NoelGallagher said:

you didn't read my post hahaha

in my own experience with more than 1.5k H with that game(post scriptum)

80% of the time what happens in that game is 

1.the crew man inside the tank fight each other whether who's more right or not

2.driver or gunner don't listen the tank commanders order and often ignore and proceed to whatever they want to do and get kicked

(this game doesn't work becasue of this because military command chain is not about who's thinking is more correct or better but rather order is fuckin order whether you agree or not ,if that breaks down everything becomes mass but dev's of this game along with sqaud ambitiously tried to implement this mechanic with squad kick=punishing system but failed)

3.if you trying to set the ambush and if it requires long time (10min to 20min) everyone leaves

4.the players are exetremly serious and restrictive to each other while they are doing nothing tactically anyway lol

and the most often you get to see the individual squad leaders fighting each other by telling other what to do and fighting over who's opinion is better(there are too many brain dead kids in this game)

4.there's no tactic no cordination , it's a individual squad skirmishing around the cap there's no front line and if ever dev's made the frontline(not by choice but it's becasue it was historically) for ex: arnhem bridge, utah beach , the players hate it by saying it's meatgrinder(arnhem and utah was actaully meatgrinder)

thus it completely fails to represent the proper atmosphere of ww2

(this kind of game mechanic might work well if this game was set on vietnam war)

5.the current p.s has serious physics issue about armoured combat(kingtiger get penetrated by churchill at the frontal turret , since angling and shot deflection is no working in the current game if you fire at the tiger's ass with your 75mm sherman the shot go through even the angle is almost 0 degree

 

it's just my experience 

and this is about public server experience you might get very different experience by playing with clan members 

 

Thanks you saved my money!

Link to post
Share on other sites
moustache

Mmmh, I would be less pessimistic than noelgallager on post scriptum ...

indeed it happens to have shit games, and everything that described it happens ... but this is not necessarily the majority of cases ... already, playing time is important: at 10 am, nobody is there, people are there for "fun", to try things out ... in the evening around 6 pm, the "big" teams get together, and the tactical game begins ... then, you sometimes have to be accepted by these teams (who are often disappointed with the players described by noëlgallagher ... and therefore suspicious) but with time (not enough), you are accepted and you really start to laugh ... we learn the tactics, the reflexes ... it's a game that takes time to be understood ... from this moment, you will have fun ...

Another thing is that some of the players do not accept defeat (see Christmas word on the squad leaders): we won together / we lost because of you ... while often everyone gave their all, it's just that the opponent had more knowledge, a better strategy, or even sometimes just more luck ...

frankly, in promo, buy, find a team and a serious server / RP, and it will be the beginning of happiness ... and tank fights ... my god (except for faults mentioned, which should be corrected in the next update up to date, largely dedicated to ballistics / penetration / damage ...)

 

(imagine, in this game, death can emerge from a bush, a window, or worse, a mined road ... imagine this stress, you driver, with reduced vision, the bullets ricocheting, your boss who screams the orders, parasitized by the info of other men because a tiger has just appeared from the corner of the street, all this while you can see nothing in your skylight, partly obstructed by the enemy smoke ... Raaaaaah, lovely .. .)

Link to post
Share on other sites
DD_Friar

Over at the DangerDogz we are using Multi-Crew more and more for our events.

 

Once players have experienced the action whilst working with a team mate (whether that be as a pair driver/commander + gunner or 3 players taking each position) they all confirm that they really enjoyed it.

It is producing kills that a single player on their own could not have managed, whether it be due to extra eyes looking for trouble or more often the gunner working with a commander as a spotter through binoculars for that long range kill.

 

If you are playing on your own, join a squad, there is nothing like working with team mates. Go on line on servers like the Advance and Secure or Finnish Dynamic, pit your skills against other players. It also, for some strange reason seems even more fun getting blown up if you are doing it with a mate!

Link to post
Share on other sites
NoelGallagher

my point was it's better to let the players decide whether they want to work with others or not (and il-2 already gives you the option to allow the other players to enter the tank)

instead of forcing it with game's core mechanic or admin control

(forcing people with control has a limit and eventually it fails , it's proven by human history)

after playing p.s so long and experience all that chaos 

i ended up never playing the armour with unknown public random players

and if you see the server these days 

many of other players also does this (multicrew the tank with the people they already know)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Shampoo_Actual

image.thumb.png.2bcfb6e191d2b91bbce16d75fa26f0ee.png

 

Ah-ha!  I have discovered how to go into the Sortie Log and here is the actual proof of the original event.  As a reminder I was in PZ4 with APHE from no more than 50m.  6 Shots (!!!) ....worse than I originally thought only 4.... into this Sherman and somehow, with a dead gunner no less, able to knock me off in one.  Developers - we deserve better.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Carl_infar
Posted (edited)

the hits when You do 1.2 or 1.3 % damage are not penetrating hits.

 

so actually You penetrated him just one time at 23:21:35 killed the gunner and injured the commander, who took over the aiming from the gunner 

Edited by Carl_infar
Link to post
Share on other sites
Shampoo_Actual

Thanks Carl. You know, I was going to say something snarky like "thank you Captain Obvious,"  but actually you made me think about something I hadn't considered before.  Maybe, since the distance was so close, the shells passed straight through causing such little damage?  We know in War Thunder this is in the meta as APHE rounds will pass right through lightly armored vehicles such as half tracks and AA.  Maybe that's what in play here since the history of IL can be traced back to some cross-pollination with WT.   Hmmmm

Link to post
Share on other sites
Wolfpack345
6 minutes ago, Shampoo_Actual said:

Thanks Carl. You know, I was going to say something snarky like "thank you Captain Obvious,"  but actually you made me think about something I hadn't considered before.  Maybe, since the distance was so close, the shells passed straight through causing such little damage?  We know in War Thunder this is in the meta as APHE rounds will pass right through lightly armored vehicles such as half tracks and AA.  Maybe that's what in play here since the history of IL can be traced back to some cross-pollination with WT.   Hmmmm

Great Battles and this engine has nothing to do with WT.

Link to post
Share on other sites
LachenKrieg
4 hours ago, Shampoo_Actual said:

image.thumb.png.2bcfb6e191d2b91bbce16d75fa26f0ee.png

 

Ah-ha!  I have discovered how to go into the Sortie Log and here is the actual proof of the original event.  As a reminder I was in PZ4 with APHE from no more than 50m.  6 Shots (!!!) ....worse than I originally thought only 4.... into this Sherman and somehow, with a dead gunner no less, able to knock me off in one.  Developers - we deserve better.

I would just like to understand the report more. How do you know which shots penetrated? And how are you counting just 6 hits? I count 7. What am I missing?

2 hours ago, Carl_infar said:

the hits when You do 1.2 or 1.3 % damage are not penetrating hits.

 

so actually You penetrated him just one time at 23:21:35 killed the gunner and injured the commander, who took over the aiming from the gunner 

 

48 minutes ago, Shampoo_Actual said:

Thanks Carl. You know, I was going to say something snarky like "thank you Captain Obvious,"  but actually you made me think about something I hadn't considered before.  Maybe, since the distance was so close, the shells passed straight through causing such little damage?  We know in War Thunder this is in the meta as APHE rounds will pass right through lightly armored vehicles such as half tracks and AA.  Maybe that's what in play here since the history of IL can be traced back to some cross-pollination with WT.   Hmmmm

The point is, the PzIV is not a lightly armored vehicle. And the question is, why did only one of your shots penetrate from point blank? You would have to look at a video replay, but it is hard to imagine the IVG not being able to penetrate a Sherman 6 to 7 times in a row at point blank.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Shampoo_Actual

They didn't pen. That's the whole point.  How can a PZgr39 from 50m away NOT pen Sherman at any place on the armor??    I have another post on here where I compare the documented ballistic performance of the PzGr 39 against documented Sherman armor thicknesses....and the PZGr should pen EVERY SINGLE TIME - regardless of the angle of attack against armor slope.  Historical anecdotes support this as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
LachenKrieg

@Carl_infar stated that certain shots didn't penetrate. I was just wondering if there was a way to tell, or was he just assuming that because of the low damage? But yes, the IVG had about 110mm of penetrating power at 100m, and up to 140mm+ if you were using APCR. The Sherman's turret has an effective armor of about 85mm on the turret and about 90mm on the front hull. So there should be no issues with penetrating a Sherman unless you are at an extreme angle.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Carl_infar

I'm quite sure becasue :

1) i remeber very well 1 enounter with PZIII where I was hit several times but i heard which shots just bounced and seen which not . that hits which bounced in stats were for around 1,3 % damage.

2) when my aphe was bouncing of a tiger , the damage in stats was also around 1,3 %

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
KoN_

So has this been fixed before i Buy . as there is a sale on . ? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
SCG_judgedeath3
Posted (edited)

Yep, its correct that the game at the moment isnt 100% accurate on ballistics and armour behaviour, but not far off either but its a area they need to work on and from how it was 2 years ago, not a impossible thing to do, and to be honest shermans armour is quite good frontally, its sloped and in effect at various places in the front as effective armour as the tiger, and when angled even more so, also depends on where you aim on it, its quite trollish as I call it in other tnak games and even in this game too.

Cheftain here describes the shermans armour:



I played around in warthunder to see what panzer IV with the ammo type mentioned would do at 0 range to a sherman, from various angles, and 140mm of armour:

OK warthunder may not be 100% correct but it gives an indication and interesting angle info etc and isnt far off from my experience in panzer elite, steel of fury and in il-2, and I think many people forget how shells work and their penetration varies on several parameters, is it tunbling, wind, temperature, defects or quality of the shell, which angle it hits the armour if its not going 100% straight, the gun itself etc but that is a lot of shell theories that can take hours and studies to go through so I wont bother doing it here, in most tank units the instructors and weapons analysis teams should be able to brief on this.

But yes, this is an area of il-2 where a lot of work is still needed, and also the damage models and improve the german tanks from blowing up with 90% safety every time they get penetrated etc, but I have faith in the game developer 😄

Edit: I forgot, the topic creator I would recommend if you could take pictures of the engagement for the future, so we can see distance and what angle the enemy tank was at and where you shot, shermans front armour has many curves and edges that affect which maybe could explain what happened.

20210527213055_1.jpg

20210527213057_1.jpg

20210527213100_1.jpg

20210527213102_1.jpg

20210527213131_1.jpg

20210527213136_1.jpg

20210527213144_1.jpg

20210527213146_1.jpg

20210527213153_1.jpg

20210527213154_1.jpg

20210527213201_1.jpg

20210527213334_1.jpg

20210527213340_1.jpg

20210527213342_1.jpg

20210527213344_1.jpg

20210527213345_1.jpg

20210527213348_1.jpg

20210527213354_1.jpg

20210527213402_1.jpg

Edited by SCG_judgedeath3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
LachenKrieg

I didn't watch the whole video, but be careful judge especially if English is not your first language, because he tends to be a little deceptive in the way he makes his presentations.

 

Its not that he gives false info, although he might stray from the truth a little at times, he tends to twist the info to make it sound different without actually having to saying it himself.

 

The early Sherman's had a 2 inch front plate at 56 degrees. This gives about 91mm of protection or 3.6 inches. The front plate was later beefed up to 2.5 inches at 47 degrees to give 93mm of protection. The chieftain actually shows the armor front plate of the Sherman to be 3.6 inches in his presentation, but the way he presents it, he makes it sound like it was almost as thick as the Tigers frontal armor.

 

Looking at the WT screen shots you posted, you can see that some of the numbers are close, but not quite actual. The penetration values for the L48 PzGr39 for example are close, but look to be slightly exaggerated, although they are reported at 0meters distance. The angle of armor at the point of contact is also relatively close, but not exact either. If you look at the 7th image in the Tiger group, that part of the tank is known to be 56 degrees from the vertical, or 34 degrees from the horizontal. The image shows a 70 degree contact angle. Games like WT and WoT use complex algorithms to calculate gun vs armor performance to achieve the desired balance in game play. They also take into consideration what stage of the grind the player is at, and in the case of WT, the battle rating of the tank being used.  

 

If the Sherman could have put up 222mm of protection, it would have been impervious to anything the Germans could have thrown at it. The Sherman first saw combat against PzIIIL/M and PzIVF2/G in Africa where a number of them were knocked out from beyond 1000m.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
SCG_judgedeath3

ITs a debate many historians are into, cheftain and others who debunk the myth of sherman being a death trap which more modern studies shown to not be the case, and the older facts historians who see the sherman as useless xD Dunno how many books and docus I´ve seen but the first case seem to be the more plausable from reports and recent documents in archives showing sherman to be quite survivable. But enough of topic.

Warthunder pictures was there just to give a pointer as its not exact but in the latter pictures I used a tiger at 0 meters and sherman could still bounce several hits when angled and depending on where you shot and the penetration data beats panzer IV by a large margin and isnt too far away from the real stats as you said, panzer IV wouldnt been able to pen either those places if a tiger cant.
With sherman you have to avoid certain places in the front to be sure of penetrating it, hiting one of the points shown where its angled even at point blank will result in no damage, or if its angled to you or you hit it at a angle where the shot ricochet, sherman can be tough to knock out at times in other games besides il-2.

although in il-2 at the moment the armour dtaa and penetration behaviour is quite not where it should be, yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Carl_infar

just as a side note: if we speak only about the angle at which the shell is impacting the sloped tank glacies, the more favorauble angle You get if You fire from 1000m than  from 50. As when the shell is impacting the target which is 1000m away, the shell is on its balistic arc already desending so the impact angle against the target with sloped galcies is nearer to right angle than the shell which is flying straight at target 50m away. 

 

another thing to take into account is that although the tank can have front armour sloped at certain angle, also the terrain on which it stands playes a role as its almost never completly flat. for example if there is small hill/rise of terrain the bow of the tank can go slightly up(or down) which can change the angle of sloped front glacies/turret significantly (it can either increase or decrease the angle at which the shell will strike the armour)

Link to post
Share on other sites
LachenKrieg
Posted (edited)

Well I don't know what studies you are talking about. I would have to see them for myself before I could comment.

 

But you can't argue with the facts, and the facts are that the Sherman could not put up more than 90mm of protection from its front plate.

 

Tanks like the Tiger, Panther, and PzIV G could knock it out well beyond 1000m. There  are numerous historical accounts of confirmed kills at these distances.

 

The video you linked above even confirms this. The Chieftain states that the front plate was 2 inches thick, and gives the effective thickness due to slope to be 3.6 inches. Do the math, 3.6 inches = 91mm.

 

So there is no way that the Sherman tank had 222mm. Its front plate would have to be around 5 inches thick in order to achieve that. That is almost the armor the Ferdinand had.  The Sherman was a medium tank that was only about 30 tonnes, while the Tiger was 56 tonnes.

 

My point was for anyone that does not speak English as their first language to be careful how you interpret some of what the Chieftain presents, because he has a dramatic presentation style. You are free to believe what you want, but it goes against all the facts in this case, including historical accounts.

Edited by LachenKrieg
Link to post
Share on other sites
LachenKrieg
Posted (edited)
34 minutes ago, Carl_infar said:

just as a side note: if we speak only about the angle at which the shell is impacting the sloped tank glacies, the more favorauble angle You get if You fire from 1000m than  from 50. As when the shell is impacting the target which is 1000m away, the shell is on its balistic arc already desending so the impact angle against the target with sloped galcies is nearer to right angle than the shell which is flying straight at target 50m away. 

 

another thing to take into account is that although the tank can have front armour sloped at certain angle, also the terrain on which it stands playes a role as its almost never completly flat. for example if there is small hill/rise of terrain the bow of the tank can go slightly up(or down) which can change the angle of sloped front glacies/turret significantly (it can either increase or decrease the angle at which the shell will strike the armour)

Have a look at ballistics Carl, and tell me what the slope of the arc is for a projectile traveling at hundreds of feet per second is. Then compare the velocities of the projectile after it has traveled 50m, and after it has traveled 1000. The change in angle you are talking about is unable to account for the extra 110mm in armor protection.

 

And regardless of terrain differences, the Shermans plate was 2 inches. This is a physical characteristic of the tank that limits the protection it could offer to 90mm when placed on level ground. Yes, if the Sherman has its front end elevated because of terrain, then both the angle and the thickness would change, but not by 110mm.

 

The opposite would be true if the Sherman had its front end in a depression. The amount of protection would decrease.

 

And lastly, the game mechanic that WT uses to generate the data for its players is generated with the tank on level ground. So the numbers being reported there are completely fictitious.

 

 

11 minutes ago, TIGRE88 said:

 



I had found sources which said that the sherman's cast steel was less resistant than rolled steel, that in the end it was the equivalent of 10 mm less protection than rolled steel, 
and then the effective protection of the sherman is 75 mm thanks to its inclination, which is in theory 65 mm if we take into account that the cast steel is less resistant. 
and apart from weak points, like the bottom of the glacis, at the level of the transmission which was flat and the locations of the driver and gunner which were also flat
another source said that for example the 80mm of side steel of the tiger was equivalent to 90mm of steel of Allied tanks, and the frontal armor of a tiger had partially a
 hardness greater than its flanks, the steel n ' was apparently not treated the same, which increases puncture resistance.
 after that I just write what I read. I don't know if this is really correct? 
for the end of the war, of course, it was known that German steel no longer had the right elements and was cracking, it no longer kept its flexibility

The facts you are reciting are well documented in history.

Edited by LachenKrieg
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
SCG_judgedeath3

Carl_infar is correct on this.

lachenkrieg your statement is on when you face the sherman straight on with no angle and aimed where the shell dont have to travel against an edge or slope. Yes those tanks will easily pen as I stated. But a sherman at an angle the armour the shell will need to go through increases. Extreme angle the armour thickness will be well over 90mm in effectivness.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Carl_infar
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, TIGRE88 said:

 



I had found sources which said that the sherman's cast steel was less resistant than rolled steel, that in the end it was the equivalent of 10 mm less protection than rolled steel, 
and then the effective protection of the sherman is 75 mm thanks to its inclination, which is in theory 65 mm if we take into account that the cast steel is less resistant. 
and apart from weak points, like the bottom of the glacis, at the level of the transmission which was flat and the locations of the driver and machinegunner which were also flat
another source said that for example the 80mm of side steel of the tiger was equivalent to 90mm of steel of Allied tanks, and the frontal armor of a tiger had partially a
 hardness greater than its flanks, the steel n ' was apparently not treated the same, which increases puncture resistance.
 after that I just write what I read. I don't know if this is really correct? 
for the end of the war, of course, it was known that German steel no longer had the right elements and was cracking, it no longer kept its flexibility

Just for clarity , the Sherman we have in game Has welded hull construction (and diesel engine btw). The ones with completely cast hull were early m4a1 shermans, easyly recognized by all those nice curves on the edges

Edited by Carl_infar
Link to post
Share on other sites
LachenKrieg
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, SCG_judgedeath3 said:

Carl_infar is correct on this.

lachenkrieg your statement is on when you face the sherman straight on with no angle and aimed where the shell dont have to travel against an edge or slope. Yes those tanks will easily pen as I stated. But a sherman at an angle the armour the shell will need to go through increases. Extreme angle the armour thickness will be well over 90mm in effectivness.

Yes as I have already acknowledged, changes in terrain elevation will change the angle of contact.

 

But two important points, the first being that it works both ways.

 

If a tank has its front elevated, then the angle and therefore the amount of steel the shell has to pass through can increase.

 

If the front of the tank is lower due to a depression in terrain, then the amount of steel the shell has to pass through will be decrease. So you may have slightly more, or less armor.

 

The second point is that in order for changes in terrain to account for 110 to 120mm of armor, the tank would have to basically be at such an incline that the crew would be looking at nothing but sky. Does it sound reasonable that a tank crew would park on a hill so that what they were viewing was nothing but sky while giving any enemy tanks in the area a shot at your underside? And out of all the engagements that took place in all theaters of WWII, how many would you guess took place where the Commander parked so his Gunner was viewing the German bombers going by?

 

In terms of WT, it maks its calculations with the tank sitting on level ground.

 

And I think when we talk about game mechanics and how things are modeled, we need to start from a point of reference so that the model can then account for other factors such as elevation changes. That point of reference should be the 91mm of effective armor the Sherman had while resting on level ground. If we then add to that the known gun performance using the shell types available, we get a reasonable overview of the expected outcome.

 

But as I have already said Judge, my point was really to caution the non-English speaking crowd here to really slow down and think through any interpretations of the Chieftain discussion, as his dramatic presentation style can be misleading.

 

 

9 minutes ago, Carl_infar said:

Just for clarity , the Sherman we have in game Has welded hull construction (and diesel engine btw). The ones with completely cast hull were early m4a1 shermans, easyly recognized by all those nice curves on the edges

But the point is, the Sherman's armor was not able to withstand point-blank attacks from the PzIV G, let alone the Panther, or Tiger.

Edited by LachenKrieg
Link to post
Share on other sites
Carl_infar

All depends on part hit and on angle of shell impact, if big enough the Shell would bounce off

Link to post
Share on other sites
SCG_judgedeath3

Yep fully like you say with incline and uphil etc positions and 91mmish of armour when its front and level. And its there we need il-2 to reach as a start.
yep, I said warthunder pics was there to showcase how angling will vary and the stats warthunder shows isnt correct :) Dont either forget and was what I wanted: if you angle the tank sideways with the front so its 69 degrees you can get much better protection than just using incline. Sherman is quite wide so a angled sideshot on the front will be much harder to pen.

 

cheftain is just a start, can recomend these docus about sherman: steel beasts, tanks, deadliest tanks, weapons of war, red storm, and tank museums youtube videos, military history visualised and many others you can find on youtube.

not home so cant recall books but anything from doyle or david fletcher is a good start to learn more and books about armour, for people in the military its enough to talk to the tank analysis/ instructors to learn more :) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
SCG_judgedeath3

We in scg have already done that on our server and angles and where to shot to kill any tank in the game and reguely train in this^^

Link to post
Share on other sites
LachenKrieg
Posted (edited)
On 5/10/2021 at 7:31 PM, Shampoo_Actual said:

Just now on Finnish - had a Sherman looking for me in PZ4 in the woods, not even 40 meters away (I was very well concealed, engine off).  Hull front shot, slight angle but nothing major.  4 Direct hits from me before he can even locate the source of fire: 1 in the machine gun port.  1 front turret ring under the cannon .  1 SIDE RIGHT TURRET (i.e. 45 degree angle, straight into the gunners pos).  Last shot right into his gun mantlet....just before - you guessed it... he one shots me.

 

23 minutes ago, Carl_infar said:

All depends on part hit and on angle of shell impact, if big enough the Shell would bounce off

 

21 minutes ago, SCG_judgedeath3 said:

Yep fully like you say with incline and uphil etc positions and 91mmish of armour when its front and level. And its there we need il-2 to reach as a start.

Yes of course, but the point is guys, what we are seeing in game a lot of the time is completely out. See the top quote. I myself have done this in both the PzIV and the Panther. This includes side shots on the Sherman with a Panther <500m away. At a certain point, it gets pointless to play.

Edited by LachenKrieg
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
SCG_judgedeath3
Posted (edited)

Yep, the armour and penetration isnt 100% correct and needs some work and seen strange pens and bounches that shouldnt happen. But Im sure we get there with time, its a lot better than 2 years ago where it was far from realistic xD so I have hope :) 

Edited by SCG_judgedeath3
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
LachenKrieg
1 minute ago, SCG_judgedeath3 said:

Yep, the armour and penetration isnt 100% correct and needs some work and seen strange pens and bounches that shouldnt happen. But Im sure we get there with time, its a lot better than 2 years ago where it was far from realistic xD so I have hope :) 

I'm with you there brother. We have to have faith in the Dev team. I think they have done a really good job with keeping the updates coming while also keeping community concerns at the forefront. Tank Crew is an awesome piece of software.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
KoN_

Three hits in to Sherman capping our CP . Three good hits into turret .

Dam thing killed me with one shot . 😄 

The Sherman nicked names tommy knocker or some thing to that ,  because so easy too kill and always set on fire . History . WWII.

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • NoelGallagher changed the title to sherman surviving 9 legitimate penetration from all side(proof with the video)

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
×
×
  • Create New...