FIX THE G-D SHERMAN!!!

[LachenKrieg]

18 hours ago, Dakpilot said:

If it is repeatable offline then a bug report in the correct format in the right bug section is the best procedure 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

Your point is well made and one worth following, but the same thing seems to be happening in online game play as well. If you haven't watched the linked video you should. My point to Blitz was just that although he has raised valid points, the video shows that the Sherman was registering hits.

[LachenKrieg]

8 hours ago, Carl_infar said:

Maybe it all comes to the players xD

 

The ones on allied side are far less whining than the Axis...

 

They are driving interior machines and try to find tactics that will allow them to win/survive. The Axis( not all of course but the whiny ones) on the other hand are costantly complaining.... Mama they destroyed my panther/Tiger .... I m driving such owsome machines that i must win whatever i do xD....

 

As i wrote already once, while driving Sherman online(i dont Play offline) i get disabled/ killer mostly by first rund, very rarely by 2nd one, dont remeber to by able to tank 3runds... 

 

6 hours ago, Carl_infar said:

Political not, but there seems to be a special attitiude of certain people who Play only the best equipment and never can be persuaded to use the inferior one... 

 

Anyway as i wrote , perosnally ive never encountered such things as above, i Die to max 2nd hit, but usually the first one. Same when i shoot the enemy. I need roughly 2 hits, sometimes one when closed range and i hit just below the turret into the ammo . Btw, I have one log where i needed 5 hits to kill the player controlled pzIv , but it never happend while i was shoot at .

 

Similar experience was reported by wolfpack who drives both sides and isn't biased to any.

 

All of the above is applicable to multiplayer  as i dont Play singlr player so cant give opinion on it.

I can appreciate that you have not seen this in your online game play, but what you can't seem to appreciate is that other people are. I also don't know what gave you the idea that this is about German tanks being superior, because it is not. It is about the fact that a player in a PzIV can contact a player in a Sherman and not only get the first shot away, but the first 3, or 4 away only to be one-timed by the guy in the Sherman. BTW, the Sherman is a very capable match against the PzIV.

 

But the point your making seems to be hinting at the possibility that there is disparity in the number of players willing to opt into the allied tanks side. If there is any truth to that, then that is not an easy problem to fix.

 

I wonder if they couldn't find some type of solution where the player doesn't choose a side, but gets assigned to one. Either that, or team compositions could be mixed so that instead of having allied vs axis, we would have red vs blue. I know neither of these are good solutions, but I wouldn't mind if after logging onto the server, it assigned me to the team I will play on. It could also alternate each player so that everyone gets experience playing both sides in the course of a single session.

 

For anyone that is not aware of it, the T34 is probably the nicest modeled tank in the SIM, and is only seconded by the GAZ AAA. The other Russian tanks are very good as well, and have very unique features included in their model. So assigning players to teams would not only help solve issues regarding team composition, but it would help to better showcase all of the models included in Tank Crew. 

 

If it would mean that the SIM could be modeled properly so that it is as close as possible to the real world vehicles, then I would be very happy to support any concept built around assigned teams.

[[F.Circus]Adastra99]

I’ve seen the videos that are supposed to exemplify this behavior, but has anyone actually done real testing with two player controlled tanks? As in getting two people together, stick them in the vehicles that they want to match up, go to a private/empty server, and start shooting from various distances while recording video and replay from each? Because that would kinda be necessary to show that this is a reproducible and consistent behavior. And reproducibility is the bare minimum standard.

 

By having a player in the sherman recording, you could at least get a better idea of what is actually happening when the vehicle is hit.

[LachenKrieg]

I have, and I saw the same thing. But if you want a video of it, I think @NoelGallagher has already posted a video that shows a real player in a Sherman vs other real players (MP game play).

 

I was not seeing this when I first started playing Tank Crew a year ago. So I don't know when it started, but I first noticed it in SP game play with a Panther vs Sherman several months ago. I did mention it in a post I made, but I would have to go back through hundreds of posts to find the exact date.

[[F.Circus]Adastra99]

7 hours ago, LachenKrieg said:

I have, and I saw the same thing. But if you want a video of it, I think @NoelGallagher has already posted a video that shows a real player in a Sherman vs other real players (MP game play).

 

I was not seeing this when I first started playing Tank Crew a year ago. So I don't know when it started, but I first noticed it in SP game play with a Panther vs Sherman several months ago. I did mention it in a post I made, but I would have to go back through hundreds of posts to find the exact date.

 

Yeah, I know, I mentioned that I saw the videos. What I'm talking about is actual testing, not encounters of it "in the wild". Like, y'know, get two people, put one in a sherman, one in a panzer 4 or somesuch, record what's going on from both perspectives. Not just recording what the panzer player is doing, but what the sherman player is experiencing. By having both controlling players in on the test, you can control and record everything from the relative angles of the vehicles (since a sherman tank angled at ~30 degrees will be a much tougher nut to crack than one directly facing you) to the hit locations and exact damage (including internal effects) dealt. Having the perspective of the tank being shot at also really helps narrow down the source of the behavior.

 

If the problem is in the game itself, then the sherman being able to survive hits it supposedly shouldn't ought to be able to be recreated consistently under controlled conditions (not to say every time, because there could be a random factor involved, but it should be possible to get it at a consistent rate at the minimum). If it can't be replicated by anyone with a copy of Tank Crew, then more likely than not the source is an external factor, like lag, cheating, etc (perhaps even a hardware dependent bug or server weirdness, but that's exceedingly unlikely).

 

As an example of potential results of such a test, let's say that the panzer 4 player takes 5 shots at the sherman  directly facing them from 200 meters, reporting 5 hits, none of which seem to penetrate. But the sherman player says they didn't get hit at all from their perspective. That would have dramatically different implications than say, the sherman player seeing a big fat hole in their sherman that the panzer player doesn't see, or exploding 5 minutes after the hits had happened, or noticing hits but no penetrations. If the sherman does take a ton of hits, is it because all the holes just aren't passing through anything important, or are the shells not even impacting from the target's perspective? Or are all the shots just bad angles, or is the tank's armor suddenly impenetrable? Or it's possible the tank blows up when it should, and doesn't blow up when it shouldn't. These are the sort of things one could figure out with someone recording in the sherman.

 

Hell, even if you can't get together two people to do a test, why not just drive around in a sherman and record getting shot a bunch of times. Just that could probably be very useful.

Edited June 29, 2021 by Adastra99

[Thad]

Salutations,

 

Yours is a reasonable essay espousing in game testing and some testing procedures. It could or should be done but I assure you it would take a LOT of time and attention to detail to document any offered conclusions.

 

But  I also suspect that any such tests, if done, with follow up conclusions being presented, would STILL not satisfy many.  ?

 

Actually, I do think there may be something wrong with the damage model of the Sherman. In the past, we have experienced like problems with other tanks in the game. They were found and corrected. I think I can remember one case where a tank was invulnerable if driven rear first towards the enemy. Players were taking advantage of this until the developers corrected it. 

[ShampooX]

As a fair update.  I've been two shotting, dare I say even one shotting Shermans a lot more the last week or so.   I even had a PZK IV take two shots from one without blowing up.... and return enough fire to kill it.  Could it be the old "RND function" is back?

[moustache]

1 hour ago, Shampoo_Actual said:

"RND function"

 

what is it?

[LachenKrieg]

14 hours ago, Adastra99 said:

 

Yeah, I know, I mentioned that I saw the videos. What I'm talking about is actual testing, not encounters of it "in the wild". Like, y'know, get two people, put one in a sherman, one in a panzer 4 or somesuch, record what's going on from both perspectives. Not just recording what the panzer player is doing, but what the sherman player is experiencing. By having both controlling players in on the test, you can control and record everything from the relative angles of the vehicles (since a sherman tank angled at ~30 degrees will be a much tougher nut to crack than one directly facing you) to the hit locations and exact damage (including internal effects) dealt. Having the perspective of the tank being shot at also really helps narrow down the source of the behavior.

 

If the problem is in the game itself, then the sherman being able to survive hits it supposedly shouldn't ought to be able to be recreated consistently under controlled conditions (not to say every time, because there could be a random factor involved, but it should be possible to get it at a consistent rate at the minimum). If it can't be replicated by anyone with a copy of Tank Crew, then more likely than not the source is an external factor, like lag, cheating, etc (perhaps even a hardware dependent bug or server weirdness, but that's exceedingly unlikely).

 

As an example of potential results of such a test, let's say that the panzer 4 player takes 5 shots at the sherman  directly facing them from 200 meters, reporting 5 hits, none of which seem to penetrate. But the sherman player says they didn't get hit at all from their perspective. That would have dramatically different implications than say, the sherman player seeing a big fat hole in their sherman that the panzer player doesn't see, or exploding 5 minutes after the hits had happened, or noticing hits but no penetrations. If the sherman does take a ton of hits, is it because all the holes just aren't passing through anything important, or are the shells not even impacting from the target's perspective? Or are all the shots just bad angles, or is the tank's armor suddenly impenetrable? Or it's possible the tank blows up when it should, and doesn't blow up when it shouldn't. These are the sort of things one could figure out with someone recording in the sherman.

 

Hell, even if you can't get together two people to do a test, why not just drive around in a sherman and record getting shot a bunch of times. Just that could probably be very useful.

I understood you the first time. Like I said, I did that and saw the same thing.

 

And I agree if what you are saying is that it is important to see what is happening when it is a real player vs a real player. Not that the people who enjoy SP game play are unimportant, but having this kind of thing happening in MP is a real problem in terms of growing that community.

 

The issue you are describing has already been reported/shown in video. The SP game play I showed was just to address the suggested cause for MP game play, that being internet lag/ping issues. Clearly if it is also happening in SP, then there are no lag/ping issues to worry about. So the problem seems to something other than an internet lag issue.

 

You can see the MP game play where a Sherman tank wont die here in case you haven't seen this one: 

 

 

[[F.Circus]Adastra99]

3 hours ago, LachenKrieg said:

I understood you the first time. Like I said, I did that and saw the same thing.

 

And I agree if what you are saying is that it is important to see what is happening when it is a real player vs a real player. Not that the people who enjoy SP game play are unimportant, but having this kind of thing happening in MP is a real problem in terms of growing that community.

 

The issue you are describing has already been reported/shown in video. The SP game play I showed was just to address the suggested cause for MP game play, that being internet lag/ping issues. Clearly if it is also happening in SP, then there are no lag/ping issues to worry about. So the problem seems to something other than an internet lag issue.

 

You can see the MP game play where a Sherman tank wont die here in case you haven't seen this one: 

 

 

 

So, to other people: Do these replies in any way engage with the direct stated text of my posts? I don’t mean agreeing/disagreeing, but are they, in any way, actually meaningful replies to what i said?

 

Because as far as I can tell, Lachen, I asked, has anyone done testing of this phenomena where BOTH the sherman player and the panzer player are participating in the test, and recording data from each of their perspectives. I don’t think anyone needs to agree that this is necessary, but you seem to be claiming that someone has done it, without actually fulfilling the conditions in any meaningful way? This does not track. If someone says “has anyone done A+B?”, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to say “I don’t think B is necessary”. But your post reads as “Yes, we’ve done A+B, here’s someone doing A”. This does not at all seem like evidence of A+B at all, yet you wave it around like one.

 

Yes, I had seen that video when I made my original post. You linked to it twice, as if I would suddenly see something different on the second or third viewing? But I see no recording of what the sherman player is seeing and doing, which was the whole point of my question.

Edited June 30, 2021 by Adastra99

[LachenKrieg]

Yes! I am answering your question. Yes, I checked exactly what you are asking. One tank was opened in my sons account, and one tank was opened in mine. I did this back when I first noticed that I was having problems knocking out a Sherman with a Panther at close range.

 

No one seemed to be seeing the same thing at the time though. It was only in the last several weeks/months that other people started reporting this in MP. I am not on the MP servers much, but I saw the same thing on the Finnish server where two PzIV's were coming out of a wooded area near a road that was being used by a Sherman who was slowly advancing towards us. While the Sherman was engaging the lead PzIV, I put 3 APHE rounds into his turret before he turns and one-times me.

 

And in terms of proof, if you watched the video linked in the post I shared, what more do you need? You can see the penetration marks in the Sherman. Does it really matter who made them in order to see the issue at hand? The point is, the Sherman in that video shouldn't be able to drive around, let alone deal damage to other players.

[[F.Circus]Adastra99]

See, that's good! Once you have repeatable, consistent testing procedures, it's valuable for diagnosing exactly what's going on, and provides a much better case. Because very clearly, this is not a thing that always happens, as plainly evident. So being able to recreate the conditions in which it does happen is critical.

 

Edited June 30, 2021 by Adastra99

[ShampooX]

7 hours ago, moustache said:

 

what is it?

LOL it's an old joke from one of the earlier posts about the problems with ballistics modeling code in this game.  "RND" is the old programing code for the random function used in basic computer programming courses - this is back in the late 80's.  I was saying that RND would be a more useful code to improve the hit/damage problems with the Sherman.  It was just a joke.

[KoN_]

On 6/10/2021 at 10:30 PM, ChampagneStars said:

oaky here we go again

this is noel

i met invincible sherman again while i'm playing on advance&secure server

WTH is with this sherman now 

4 shot straight in to the rear and side 

and sherman just don't die 

+as you can see he got the penetration at the front by other tank before i engage him

what you have in this game is not a sherman

this is NSA secret militray program

 

 

Yep that's what was happening . lol CRAZY . !!!!

[ShampooX]

Saw this topic bounced back up and I must say that in my many recent encounters with Sherman on Finnish in the last 30 days, they seem much more realistic and easier to kill.  Did the developers make adjustments?

[RossMarBow]

On 9/7/2021 at 5:03 AM, NervousPervert said:

Saw this topic bounced back up and I must say that in my many recent encounters with Sherman on Finnish in the last 30 days, they seem much more realistic and easier to kill.  Did the developers make adjustments?

I bet it was a skill issue.
If the sherman was angled and you weren't ez gg 
Try aiming at the flat parts and if it's not flat move 
Also in that youtube video you are aiming way too high

Edited September 11, 2021 by brahguevara

[LachenKrieg]

Skill issue? What skill, you mean angling the armor so that it does not face the gun at 90 degrees? If that is the skill, notice how quick the instructions for the master class are?

 

Remember, the discussion is about an L/48 firing into a Sherman (known fire bomb) at point blank range. And if you watch the two linked videos below, you will see holes all over the tank. When fighting a Sherman, unless your shell goes over the turrets top, you are not aiming too high. 

 

Pay close attention to minute 1:00 in the timeline of the second video, it doesn't get much more flat then that. Oh yeah and notice how the Commander is angling his body against the machine gun fire. Now that's skill!

 

The point is, Tank Crew is supposed to be a SIM. It is supposed to be the place you leave War Thunder for if you want real WWII armor simulation. It is not supposed to be the place that causes people to go back to War Thunder.

 

 

 

Edited September 11, 2021 by LachenKrieg

[ShampooX]

20 hours ago, brahguevara said:

I bet it was a skill issue.
If the sherman was angled and you weren't ez gg 
Try aiming at the flat parts and if it's not flat move 
Also in that youtube video you are aiming way too high

wasn't my video.  and you can see the flat parts were penned as well as the sloped parts and it kept on going.  but way to jump in bro.

[[F.Circus]MoerasGrizzly]

21 hours ago, LachenKrieg said:

(known fire bomb)

 

Nope.

Edited September 12, 2021 by [F.Circus]MoerasGrizzly

[LachenKrieg]

5 hours ago, [F.Circus]MoerasGrizzly said:

 

Nope.

Yeah that source is a real myth buster alright. The guy starts out by claiming the Sherman didn't have a fire problem, but then goes on to explain the myth is attached to the type of fuel it used, then ends by stating that the Sherman wasn't any worse then other tanks.

 

Your arguing with history dude, and the only thing your arguments have going for them is you seem to be able to say anything you want on this forum, and then after digging a hole you can't get out of, a moderator comes along to help you out by deleting the opposing argument.

 

But anyway, I will end it here with the following as this post will likely disappear soon anyway. The Sherman had a problem with burning out after being penetrated. You can read about this issue in multiple credible sources like the US military bodies appointed to look into the matter of burning Shermans for example. You can also read about the corrective measures used to counter the situation.

 

The PzIV G had about the same rate of incidence, but it also had less armor protection. The Tiger/Panther for example were a lot less susceptible to this type of incident requiring about twice the number of penetrating hits.  

 

This is a previous post where we discussed this issue that was somehow not deleted.

 

 

[LukeFF]

9 hours ago, [F.Circus]MoerasGrizzly said:

Nope.

 

Sadly, the myth of the Sherman being a deathtrap just doesn't want to die. 

[Thad]

On 6/30/2021 at 4:30 AM, LachenKrieg said:

And I agree if what you are saying is that it is important to see what is happening when it is a real player vs a real player. Not that the people who enjoy SP game play are unimportant, but having this kind of thing happening in MP is a real problem in terms of growing that community.

 

The issue you are describing has already been reported/shown in video. The SP game play I showed was just to address the suggested cause for MP game play, that being internet lag/ping issues. Clearly if it is also happening in SP, then there are no lag/ping issues to worry about. So the problem seems to something other than an internet lag issue.

 

You can see the MP game play where a Sherman tank wont die here in case you haven't seen this one:

 

 

I just re-read this post of yours. Are you asserting that there differing damage models for player and non-player tanks/vehicles in single player and or multiplayer?

Are you asserting that there are also differing ballistic capabilities being deployed for player and non-player tanks/vehicles in single play and or multiplayer?

 

If so, I strongly doubt that the developers would code such DM differences or ballistic anomalies.

Edited September 12, 2021 by Thad

[[F.Circus]MoerasGrizzly]

36 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

 

Sadly, the myth of the Sherman being a deathtrap just doesn't want to die. 

I mean having a book about it called "Deathtraps" by some poor bastard that was traumatized by having to clean up all the corpses in them probably didn't help, but it is understandable.

[BlitzPig_EL]

More Shermans were lost to non combat causes than to direct contact with the enemy.  Running off the road, falling through a bridge, hitting a mine, or going down on a ship.

 

Let that sink in.

 

The Sherman offered high mobility, the best reliability of any WW2 tank by a wide margin, it was relatively easy to repair, it had very high "in service" availability and was a match for the vast majority of enemy tanks it faced.  Only in the very unreal world of video games is every enemy a Tiger or Panther, most of which in the real world were broken down or taking days to have repairs done that could be accomplished in hours with a Sherman.  And the tank had a high survivability rate for it's crews, unlike anything else out there, with the exception of the Churchill.

 

It was unquestionably the best tank of it's time.

[[F.Circus]MoerasGrizzly]

23 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

 

It was unquestionably the best tank of it's time.

Driving the Sherman is definitely the best job it's crew ever had

[LachenKrieg]

59 minutes ago, Thad said:

 

I just re-read this post of yours. Are you asserting that there differing damage models for player and non-player tanks/vehicles in single player and or multiplayer?

Are you asserting that there are also differing ballistic capabilities being deployed for player and non-player tanks/vehicles in single play and or multiplayer?

 

If so, I strongly doubt that the developers would code such DM differences or ballistic anomalies.

Can you point to what you are referring to Thad? I think the point behind the post you are quoting was that someone was suggesting all the weird things we see with the Sherman had to do with internet lag/ping issues. My point was that if it is also happening in SP, then internet lag is likely not the cause. One of the questions that did come up over the course of this whole invincible Sherman issue is whether there was any difference between an AI tank, and a real player tank. But it was just a question. I don't believe anyone was trying to claim that there was in fact a difference. Hope this helps your coffee.

1 hour ago, LukeFF said:

 

Sadly, the myth of the Sherman being a deathtrap just doesn't want to die. 

Could it be because there might be some truth to the myth regarding the early Sherman tanks?

42 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

More Shermans were lost to non combat causes than to direct contact with the enemy.  Running off the road, falling through a bridge, hitting a mine, or going down on a ship.

 

Let that sink in.

 

The Sherman offered high mobility, the best reliability of any WW2 tank by a wide margin, it was relatively easy to repair, it had very high "in service" availability and was a match for the vast majority of enemy tanks it faced.  Only in the very unreal world of video games is every enemy a Tiger or Panther, most of which in the real world were broken down or taking days to have repairs done that could be accomplished in hours with a Sherman.  And the tank had a high survivability rate for it's crews, unlike anything else out there, with the exception of the Churchill.

 

It was unquestionably the best tank of it's time.

Regardless of the number lost to combat vs non-combat incidents, the question revolves around what happened to the early Sherman when it was penetrated, not when it fell through a bridge.

 

Some might argue that the T34 owned the title of the best tank of its time, but again, the issue being discussed is why Shermans in real life were prone to burning out after 1.8 penetrations, but in tank crew it seems to be more like somewhere between 9 and 99.

[LukeFF]

20 minutes ago, LachenKrieg said:

Could it be because there might be some truth to the myth regarding the early Sherman tanks?

 

Early versions of the tank, true, but the vast majority of Shermans that saw service in World War II did not have the problem of spontaneously catching fire, like some sources would lead you to believe. Unfortunately though, there are a lot of poorly researched books out there that overlook stuff like that.

[LachenKrieg]

11 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

 

Early versions of the tank, true, but the vast majority of Shermans that saw service in World War II did not have the problem of spontaneously catching fire, like some sources would lead you to believe. Unfortunately though, there are a lot of poorly researched books out there that overlook stuff like that.

That may be, I couldn't say though because I haven't read too many poorly researched books on WWII, let alone any that discuss the Sherman.

 

But my discussion regarding the known fire problem is in relation to the in-game Sherman, and how it does not seem to match what we see in game. You can pump rounds from the 75mm L/48 into any side of the Sherman you want with seemingly no effect. There is no point in playing even SP, let alone MP if that is whats on offer.

 

For all the people that came here for the flying part, I imagine they could care less, but if you were here for the AFV part like I was, its disappointing to say the least.

Edited September 12, 2021 by LachenKrieg

[JV44HeinzBar]

3 hours ago, LachenKrieg said:

That may be, I couldn't say though because I haven't read too many poorly researched books on WWII, let alone any that discuss the Sherman.

 

But my discussion regarding the known fire problem is in relation to the in-game Sherman, and how it does not seem to match what we see in game. You can pump rounds from the 75mm L/48 into any side of the Sherman you want with seemingly no effect. There is no point in playing even SP, let alone MP if that is whats on offer.

 

For all the people that came here for the flying part, I imagine they could care less, but if you were here for the AFV part like I was, its disappointing to say the least.

Just give up man. People never provides sources, citations, or any evidence to support their statements. If you provide source material, "It's poorly researched. It's been disproved, blah, blah, blah....again, no merit to support their statement with citations. It doesn't matter if it's correct or not. If it's in the game, then it's a fact. It's just like the original days of IL2 when the researchers, developers, & testers put it in the game, it was gospel. To quote Oleg, "Be sure." But wait, didn't I recently read that Jason posted a statement claiming that the parameters for the .50cal was bugged? That can't be true...researchers & testers don't make mistakes, nor do the developers. For once, it would be nice if people making blanket statements would provide sources/citations. I've provided source material in the past only to have it ignored or commented on as "poorly researched".

 

I'll stop now before I get banned...that may still happen, though

[LukeFF]

1 hour ago, JV44HeinzBar said:

poorly researched

 

Yes, poorly researched. To be more exact, one guy writes a book about how bad of a tank the Sherman was - going to the extent of calling it a Deathtrap in the book's title - mix in an anecdote about it being called a "Ronson" and bam, just like like that, the myth is created whereby the Sherman was this awful POS.

 

Regarding the book:

 

Quote

The website Tank and AFV News as well as historian Robert Forczyk were critical of the book and the reliance it has garnered online and in media coverage, writing:

 

"As a memoir, it is meandering and repetitive, far too often wandering away from the authors personal experiences into the realm of speculation. As a history it is lacking, containing no end notes, foot notes or bibliography. And finally, as an indictment of the M4 Sherman tank, the book is filled with so many factual errors and outright falsehoods, it cannot be taken seriously on this count either."

 

Edited September 13, 2021 by LukeFF

[JV44HeinzBar]

1 hour ago, LukeFF said:

 

Yes, poorly researched. To be more exact, one guy writes a book about how bad of a tank the Sherman was - going to the extent of calling it a Deathtrap in the book's title - mix in an anecdote about it being called a "Ronson" and bam, just like like that, the myth is created whereby the Sherman was this awful POS.

 

Regarding the book:

 

 

And? There are numerous quotes about the Sherman being poor AFV. The anecdotal evidence, from WW2 veterans, that were convinced that the Sherman was poor in comparison to the opposition. There were reasons that the Sherman was called the "Ronson". The Sherman was great because of the ease of manufacturing and adaptation. This doesn't mean that the tank was superior or on par w/ the opposition. It just meant that the Sherman was easy to produce, which over whelmed the Wehrmacht. It's poor armor & 75mm gun was the problem.

 

There is no myth about the poor armor, nor the poor armor. It wasn't until the British upgraded the gun to the 17lb gun that Sherman was competitive vs Wehrmacht main tank, Pz IV G. Tank vs Tank, the Sherman was still a poor AFV. The turret front armor was 76.2 mm thick, angled at 30 degrees from the vertical, giving an effective thickness of 87.9 mm. At best, Its 50 mm of frontal hull armor was angled at 56 degrees, which gave it an effective thickness of 90 mm, an amount almost equal to the front of the Tiger I. A German study concluded that even the Tiger I’s infamous 88 mm gun would not be able to penetrate the front of a Sherman if it was angled away by 30 degrees. However, the side armor of the flat sided Sherman was only 38mm. This still doesn't explain why the Sherman was prone to catch fire after taking rounds from the German 75mm. The main reason for the Sherman’s volatility was because of its ammunition storage. Ammunition was stored in the turret, hull sides, and hull floor, which meant a hit in the side (where hits were most likely to come from), would almost certainly hit ammunition. Likewise, the petrol would easily ignite when exposed to flames. It wasn't until later in the that the US took note and added applique armor over vulnerable areas, and later adding wet ammunition racks. Wet ammunition racks surrounded the shells with liquid which would immediately extinguish any fires. This made an enormous difference to the burn rates of Shermans, with only 10–15 percent burning after a hit, ironically making it one of the least flammable tanks of the war. Prior to this adaptation, the Shermans were very much prone to brewing up.

 

I have the book, Death Traps by Belton Cooper. Have you actually read it?  I see you copied and pasted a review of the book from Wikipedia. But you also left out the previous portion, "Publishers Weekly wrote of Death Traps in 1998 that, "Without a doubt, this is one of the finest WWII memoirs ever written by an American junior officer," and predicted it would become "required reading for anyone interested in armored warfare."^[2] In the foreword to the book, Stephen E. Ambrose wrote, "Cooper saw more of the war than most junior officers, and he writes about it better than almost anyone."^[8] The Library Journal wrote: "[Readers] will be left with an indelible impression of the importance of the support troops and how dependent combat forces were on them.”"

 

The 75 mm M3 gun firing the M61 APCBC round could penetrate 88 mm of armor at 100 meters. This is not the case in TC. Sherman tanks were not nearly as efficient or as armored as the primary German tank, the Panzer IV. This was a fact even before the upgrading of Panzer gun barrels and armor in 1943. Shermans were under-gunned when fighting German Tiger tanks and out-maneuvered when facing German Panther tanks. These disparities are shown in an account of the famous Lt. Colonel William B. Lovelady, commander of the 3^rd Armored Division’s 2^nd Battalion, retold by Lt. Colonel Haynes Dugan.

“One of his Shermans turned the corner of a house and got off three shots at the front of a Panther, all bounced off. The Sherman then backed behind the corner and was disabled by a shot penetrating two sides of the house plus the tank.”

 

I supplied some simple charts of penetration for WW2 tanks. Of course, this poorly researched, too. But feel free to produce citation to refute the charts.

Edited September 13, 2021 by JV44HeinzBar

[gunmetalstug]

I don't usually get involved in these types of debates, but I feel like the above post has missed the point entirely - the quotes praising Death Traps are from literary sources, and not actual statisticians or people who have done AFV research. Ambrose in particular should not be considered a reliable source. I also SEVERELY doubt the evidence of Shermans being "out maneuvered" by Tigers and Panthers, especially basing that around a single account.

 

As for complaints about them in Tank Crew, I find them entirely unwarranted. I've never had any problem killing Shermans, nor have I had any issues outflanking and penetrating the side armor of heavier German tanks AS the Sherman. But that's anecdotal evidence. You know... not real evidence.

 

Edit: This video is also really good at discussing the Sherman and its design, as well as a handful of pitfalls people fall into it.

Edited September 13, 2021 by gunmetalstug
Added link

[LachenKrieg]

4 hours ago, gunmetalstug said:

I don't usually get involved in these types of debates, but I feel like the above post has missed the point entirely - the quotes praising Death Traps are from literary sources, and not actual statisticians or people who have done AFV research. Ambrose in particular should not be considered a reliable source. I also SEVERELY doubt the evidence of Shermans being "out maneuvered" by Tigers and Panthers, especially basing that around a single account.

 

As for complaints about them in Tank Crew, I find them entirely unwarranted. I've never had any problem killing Shermans, nor have I had any issues outflanking and penetrating the side armor of heavier German tanks AS the Sherman. But that's anecdotal evidence. You know... not real evidence.

 

Edit: This video is also really good at discussing the Sherman and its design, as well as a handful of pitfalls people fall into it.

There is a lot of back and forth here for sure, and quite frankly I think I am almost done with TC if things stay the same. But the fact that you seem to never have a problem highlights exactly the problem. How do you explain that you don't have a problem, but others do? Have you watched any of the numerous videos that clearly show the complaint as it happens? 

 

The problem is not that the Sherman can one-shot a PzIV G. The issue is not whether a Sherman can be out-maneuvered by Axis tank. The problem is you can hit the Sherman 3, 4, sometimes 9 times at point-blank-range with a gun that can penetrate it on all sides, only to have the Sherman figure out where you are before knocking you out in a single shot. That's what your calling "UNWARRANTED".

 

At the end of the day, its just a game, and probably one that I spent way too much time, energy, and money on. I mean if all I wanted was an arcade shooter, there are still a couple out there that I can download for free. 

[No_Face]

2 hours ago, LachenKrieg said:

Have you watched any of the numerous videos that clearly show the complaint as it happens?

The problem is that you are fixated on these videos.

 

Look at the posts that say the problem SEEMS to be fixed. (already, if it seems to be fixed, it implies that there was a problem before)

None of these posts claim that there was ever a problem, but they do say that TODAY, players are not having a problem with the Shermans, or at least there aren't enough cases to go up to the horses and shout that there is a real problem with the Sherman.

If there are problems with the Sherman (which is possible) then the players don't seem to encounter them too often.

 

For example, on my side I had to fire 4 shells (all penetrating) at short range (in the front), into a T34 before destroying it. Is this normal? I don't know but overall, I don't encounter any problem in game.

 

Of course, this post is only about my experience, and it may be different for other players, but at the moment, I have the feeling that you are the only one who has a problem with the Sherman (which doesn't mean that you are lying either, there are cases where bugs will affect 1% of the players without knowing why). But I would still like you to restart the game to check if TODAY you still have problems with this tank.
 

As for the Sherman being easily flammable or not, I personally don't know anything about it but you will have a hard time agreeing if you don't talk about the same.

"The Sherman catches fire easily".
"No"
"I was talking about the early Sherman"
"Oh ok, so yes but..."
"I was talking about the early Sherman painted in pink!"
"Ahhh, why didn't you say so..."

Edited September 13, 2021 by No_Face

[LachenKrieg]

Well allritty then, since you put it like that... Problem solved.

 

Thanks @No_Face

[MajorMagee]

A few quotes from "The Ordnance Department: Planning Munitions For War" by the Office of the Chief of Military History, Department of The Army 1955.

Quote

"no requirement" was the standard reply to any proposed vehicle violating the weight limits of Army regulations 850-15, which prescribed that no tank weigh more than 30 tons, or exceed 103 inches in width, though one Ordnance tank specialist observed, Hitler's tanks violated this american rule. That tank for tank the Sherman was no match for the more heavily armored and armed German Tiger was learned in the early days of the fighting in North Africa. Nor were the troops chances any better in Italy and France when they came up against the Panther. The only unquestioned advantage of the American vehicles was their reliability. As General Bradley observed "this willingness to expend Shermans offered little comfort to the crews who were forced to expend themselves as well". As early as August 1943 the Ordnance department pointed out that the Sherman was becoming more obsolescent each month and urged the standardisation of the new Pershing tank in order to set up production facilities for these better gunned and better armored vehicles. The chief of the Requirement Division staunchly refused until January 1945 on the basis that it was inconsistent with American combat doctrine that placed the mission of fighting enemy tanks on the anti-tank gun forces. In the ETO US troops, whose Shermans mechanically outlasted their German adversaries as much as 5 to 1, "were reaching a point of becoming afraid to fight in the M4 [Sherman] due to lack of fire power." (Gen. Barnes).

 

Edited September 14, 2021 by MajorMagee

[JV44HeinzBar]

20 hours ago, gunmetalstug said:

I don't usually get involved in these types of debates, but I feel like the above post has missed the point entirely - the quotes praising Death Traps are from literary sources, and not actual statisticians or people who have done AFV research. Ambrose in particular should not be considered a reliable source. I also SEVERELY doubt the evidence of Shermans being "out maneuvered" by Tigers and Panthers, especially basing that around a single account.

 

S!,

I'm not saying Ambrose should be considered the only source, but with 40+ books on history, a PhD in history, numerous articles, the man does have some experience in researching topics. I find him no less credible than other authors of history. As for being Shermans being out maneuvered and catching fire, I'll post a rebuttal by using the following scans, which of course, may or may not be poorly researched. 

I've got literally hundreds of books about WW1 & WW2, ranging from infantry, aircraft, AFV, SPG, and ships much to the chagrin of my wife.  Unfortunately, I haven't had time to scan most of them, but I can supply citations and written documents from time to time.

[MajorMagee]

Much of the content in your scans appears to be referenced almost word for word from the Green Book series published by the office of the US Chief of Military History after the war.

 

It's interesting that the Chief of Ordnance discusses the fine balance of speed, mobility, protection and firepower that the Sherman possed initially. Each of these is essentially a function of weight, and for any given weight (remember the 30 ton limit), reallocating weight to different systems as shifting tactical situation demanded during the course of the war would upset the balance. Adding armor, wet stowage, and up gunning, simply reduced the speed and mobility without ever really catching up with the German advantage from using more weight to maintain the balance at a higher level of overall performance.

 

Another interesting contrast that is drawn is the design philosophy for mechanical life expectancy. I mentioned the 5 to 1 difference with the Germans earlier. The Russian standard was 14 hours of field use before assuming the vehicle would be lost, or break down. The US standard was 40 hours.

 

Also the development of the US armor in both performance and producibility itself continued throughout the war. It was only in early 1943 that we discovered that the armor lost its ductility in freezing temperatures and shattered on impact at much lower energy levels than expected. Vehicles that were able to overcome this issue through alloy modifications were not available in quantity until somewhat later in the war (in time for the winter battles of 44-45).

Edited September 14, 2021 by MajorMagee

[Robli]

I am actually somewhat surprised how lately, in maybe last 10 years, there have appeared some "myth-busting" stories how what was generally accepted for 65-70 years is suddenly declared a myth with nothing substantial to prove that it indeed was a myth. Data seems to back it up that Sherman caught fire quite easily, there are numerous reports about it, even Stalin wrote about it to Roosevelt (Letter No. 30, July 23 1942), there are memoirs from WWII tankmen that mention the issue ("By Tank Into Normandy", "By Tank: D to VE Days", "Jake Wardrop's Diary: A Tank Regiment Sergeant's Story"), it has these nice nicknames like Ronson and Tommy cooker and we know that US military took action to solve these specific issue and yet, suddenly decades after war internet starts to fill with stories how it was all a myth.

 

[LachenKrieg]

1 hour ago, Robli said:

I am actually somewhat surprised how lately, in maybe last 10 years, there have appeared some "myth-busting" stories how what was generally accepted for 65-70 years is suddenly declared a myth with nothing substantial to prove that it indeed was a myth. Data seems to back it up that Sherman caught fire quite easily, there are numerous reports about it, even Stalin wrote about it to Roosevelt (Letter No. 30, July 23 1942), there are memoirs from WWII tankmen that mention the issue ("By Tank Into Normandy", "By Tank: D to VE Days", "Jake Wardrop's Diary: A Tank Regiment Sergeant's Story"), it has these nice nicknames like Ronson and Tommy cooker and we know that US military took action to solve these specific issue and yet, suddenly decades after war internet starts to fill with stories how it was all a myth.

 

This is my sentiment exactly. We live in an age of misinformation, and the most amazing part is not the nut-job doing the misinforming, but the people that buy into it. I mean some guy gets his kicks out of fabricating an elaborate story about how the earth is flat, and you can bet your last doughnut that he is going to find a fair sized group of people to follow along.... Thanks internet!