FIX THE G-D SHERMAN!!!

[Thad]

Over my 70 years I've come to realize that sadly, there is no cure for stupid. ?

[LukeFF]

5 hours ago, Robli said:

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.

 

The myth, for the thousandth time, is that the Sherman was always this firetrap and the problem was never fixed.

 

A Sherman going into battle in 1944 was hardly the same tank that went into action in 1942/3. 

[JG1_Wittmann]

It does seem in game /   MP at least,   that the PIV G   blows up much more easily than the sherman,  T34, or any of the other allied AFV's.   That being said, the armor on the G   in the turret  is not very good.   I believe we have the bolt on plate of 30 on the upper hull making that 50 + 30    It seems  that in game there are times where you hit an allied tank, maybe more than one time and then they take you out, is that a net lag thing ? I have had that happen on a few occasions.  For the most part,  first shot usually wins.   I think perhaps many,  myself included,  want to see the tank explode so we fire more rounds into it to be sure.    Basically,  for tanks in game if a shot goes through the crew compartment,  that should be the end of the fight.  I do not know that what happens after a penetration  is modeled correctly.   If I shoot a tank in the side from a distance,  it could hit the engine.  From the front,  a penetration is in the crew compartment, and all the shards and chunks are going through that crew.   That, I think is the unknown  in the game on how well that is modeled.   Saw a video History channel years ago, of a 25mm round going through the front of an m113,  plates in place of troopers, and all looked like swiss cheese.    Wouldn't that be more so with a 75mm or larger round ?   It seems to me that my crew is injured more by hitting trees than by the enemy.

It also seems that my tank blows up just about every time I lose,   I only play  german side.   I never have a chance to bail out.  I either kill them with a shot, or 2, or 3,   or they  one shot me to an explosion.

[moustache]

1 hour ago, LukeFF said:

A Sherman going into battle in 1944 was hardly the same tank that went into action in 1942/3.

 

there have been a lot of improvements and differences made between the first and last shermans, be it different engines and different fuels, cooling systems, armor modifications, wet ammoracks ... outside, it resembles, but inside ...

[SCG_judgedeath3]

Well I would say after last couple of updates of the game last 3 months the sherman behaves like what I would expect from it and has no problem killing them frontally with Panzer IV or III at realistic ranges frontally and not angleed too much. Knocked out shermans from 1 1/2 km with panzer IV and at closer ranges. They explode somewhat often, sometimes not and they bail the tank.

Here is me when I engage a sherman at almost 500 meters and its slightly angled but I still penetrated its front and made it explode:

Sorry for shaky and moving camera at times, its not the easiest to move around in the replay function, but see here one shot penetrated the front and killed it.
Sadly I got killed to do this recording but I think its a good showcase of the Sherman not being as op as some claims, its now easy to take out in my opinion frontally and at realistic angles, wind and angle of the shell etc.

So there is no real reason to argue anymore about shermans front armour is op and unrealistic etc.
Also this is a game that is under development and will always gets updates and fixes to issues like these and one have to be patient with it, 1C isnt the biggest game studio and solve issues with the game as fast as they can and what can be done. Heck some airplanes and issues with the game since years ago still hasnt been issued and the 50 cal machine guns was just now fixed. Give it time



I wont go into the whole sherman was a ronsson vs newer more well researched findings and better access to more archives and documents now than back then etc, but have several good articles and academic reports on it and youtube videos too for those who want it. But in the end this is a forum where opinions rules and its impossible to change peoples minds.

[LachenKrieg]

6 hours ago, JG1_Wittmann said:

It does seem in game /   MP at least,   that the PIV G   blows up much more easily than the sherman,  T34, or any of the other allied AFV's.   That being said, the armor on the G   in the turret  is not very good.   I believe we have the bolt on plate of 30 on the upper hull making that 50 + 30    It seems  that in game there are times where you hit an allied tank, maybe more than one time and then they take you out, is that a net lag thing ? I have had that happen on a few occasions.  For the most part,  first shot usually wins.   I think perhaps many,  myself included,  want to see the tank explode so we fire more rounds into it to be sure.    Basically,  for tanks in game if a shot goes through the crew compartment,  that should be the end of the fight.  I do not know that what happens after a penetration  is modeled correctly.   If I shoot a tank in the side from a distance,  it could hit the engine.  From the front,  a penetration is in the crew compartment, and all the shards and chunks are going through that crew.   That, I think is the unknown  in the game on how well that is modeled.   Saw a video History channel years ago, of a 25mm round going through the front of an m113,  plates in place of troopers, and all looked like swiss cheese.    Wouldn't that be more so with a 75mm or larger round ?   It seems to me that my crew is injured more by hitting trees than by the enemy.

It also seems that my tank blows up just about every time I lose,   I only play  german side.   I never have a chance to bail out.  I either kill them with a shot, or 2, or 3,   or they  one shot me to an explosion.

Personally I don't think net lag can explain it because it also happens in SP, and the amount of time it takes to fire 3x is so long that you would probably have to be disconnected from the server for that to happen. If we use the various videos for examples, it is clear that there is no disconnect, or lag. The Sherman is simply trying to find the tank that is shooting him.

 

But I agree, I think what happens after penetration needs to be modeled more accurately. I believe that it is modeled, or rather that it has to be in order to show damage to the various systems, but maybe it needs to be updated.

 

But not all of the penetrations resulted in a total crew loss. One of the most interesting aspects of the video I posted earlier is the tanker being interviewed survived 5 destroyed vehicles. Its why I would like to see a more in depth damage model to both the systems and crew, and it is the value of having a post shot analysis so that you can see how the energy is dispersed and what systems/crew get hit. You can watch the video of the interview here if your interested.

 

Yeah the tree thing should be fixed, but your last comment should be the first hint that something is amiss. If your tank explodes every time you loose, then that can't be very accurate because many destroyed tanks did not actually blow up. That might be an attempt to use an explosion to make game play more interesting, but again, the in-game Sherman had a very similar burn rate to the PzIV.

 

 

7 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

The myth, for the thousandth time, is that the Sherman was always this firetrap and the problem was never fixed.

 

A Sherman going into battle in 1944 was hardly the same tank that went into action in 1942/3. 

 

5 hours ago, moustache said:

 

there have been a lot of improvements and differences made between the first and last shermans, be it different engines and different fuels, cooling systems, armor modifications, wet ammoracks ... outside, it resembles, but inside ...

@LukeFF, I don't believe that anyone is trying to argue that the Sherman was always the fire trap. Like the PzIV, it went through several modifications/updates that saw the situation improved on. I think we might be discussing two separate issues here. Although it is true that the Sherman saw updates throughout its service life, the issue being discussed is related to the in-game Sherman.

Edited September 15, 2021 by LachenKrieg

[MajorMagee]

We shouldn't lose sight of the fact that Tank Crew is modeling the 1942/43 produced M4A2 75 Lend Lease model with the diesel engine which only leaves the ammo propellant to cause fires. The 76W diesel version with a better gun, low temp resistant armor, and wet ammo stowage didn't arrive in Russia until 1944. The Russians tried and rejected the M4A4 because it ran on gas.

[[F.Circus]MoerasGrizzly]

On 9/14/2021 at 3:53 PM, 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.

 

Aside from the obvious points to make here (research linked above indicating that the Sherman didn't catch fire more often then, say, a Panzer 4) it should just be noted that a lot of misconceptions and myths circulate around the general population for decades even though they're entirely wrong, and confirmation bias is a very real thing (and soldiers are no more or less susceptible of this then anyone else, nor are armchair pilots. Just ask Jason about il2 myths, or any pilot who flies allies frequently encountering axis pilots who think flying straight vertical is the best way to avoid enemy fire). What has changed over the last 10 or 20 years is that academic sources are a lot easier to access, and maybe because today's nerd generation grew up with the excellent discovery channel show Mythbusters.

 

See also: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions

Edited September 16, 2021 by [F.Circus]MoerasGrizzly

[IVJG4-Knight]

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

Aside from the obvious points to make here (research linked above indicating that the Sherman didn't catch fire more often then, say, a Panzer 4) it should just be noted that a lot of misconceptions and myths circulate around the general population for decades even though they're entirely wrong, and confirmation bias is a very real thing (and soldiers are no more or less susceptible of this then anyone else, nor are armchair pilots. Just ask Jason about il2 myths, or any pilot who flies allies frequently encountering axis pilots who think flying straight vertical is the best way to avoid enemy fire). What has changed over the last 10 or 20 years is that academic sources are a lot easier to access, and maybe because today's nerd generation grew up with the excellent discovery channel show Mythbusters.

 

See also: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions

Some of the experts that do the  myth-busting are actually fanboys and some of their "facts" are inaccurate .

I mean in the video by Chieftain. When he talks about Korea and Pershing . Did you check that ? No you just believe because of  your personal preference.

 

The problem was PzIV wasn't facing german guns .Even the german veterans were more afraid of friendly fire than the shermans .

[LachenKrieg]

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

Aside from the obvious points to make here (research linked above indicating that the Sherman didn't catch fire more often then, say, a Panzer 4) it should just be noted that a lot of misconceptions and myths circulate around the general population for decades even though they're entirely wrong, and confirmation bias is a very real thing (and soldiers are no more or less susceptible of this then anyone else, nor are armchair pilots. Just ask Jason about il2 myths, or any pilot who flies allies frequently encountering axis pilots who think flying straight vertical is the best way to avoid enemy fire). What has changed over the last 10 or 20 years is that academic sources are a lot easier to access, and maybe because today's nerd generation grew up with the excellent discovery channel show Mythbusters.

 

See also: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions

What misconceptions/myths are you referring to? And how is the PzIV tied to the fact that the in-game Sherman had a very high incidence of burning up after being penetrated.

 

This is not a myth, it is a fact.

 

The impression one gets here is that you, @LukeFF and others are using the word "myth" just to confuse the conversation here. In other words, the only myth here is the one you are trying to create. No one ever said that the Tommy Cooker problem affected every Sherman tank that was ever made. Obviously we were discussing the issue of the damage model in TC, not what the Americans did with their Sherman Tank in 1944.

[Robli]

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

Aside from the obvious points to make here (research linked above indicating that the Sherman didn't catch fire more often then, say, a Panzer 4) it should just be noted that a lot of misconceptions and myths circulate around the general population for decades even though they're entirely wrong.

 

I am sure there are also myths and misconceptions about various things that are generally believed to be true, because one reason or another. Just like there are numerous "myth busting" stories that are not really based on anything. When thinking of Sherman, it is interesting how this "myth" of it's problems lasted for decades without anyone busting it in it's infancy. How this "myth" seems to come from multiple unlinked sources or anecdotes - American, British, Soviet and German - how historians with proved backgrounds have written books about it and how even tankmen in their memoirs have decided to join the conspiracy of creating the myth about Sherman.

 

Then, on the other hand you refer to a "research" that busts this myth. I read that "research" and frankly speaking did not find any statistical, logical or otherwise believable points that busts any myths. Maybe there are other researches that manage to do it better, but definitely not the one that you linked before. According to this "research" the source of the myth is that Sherman was actually better than other tanks and it's crews survived to tell a story of their tanks catching fire? For me, that kind of claim without any data or logical explanation behind it does not bust any myths - I rather see it as a potential source of a (possible) myth that crew survivability in Sherman was better than in any other tank. The entire story appears more like just a random opinion that is not based on anything rather than any kind of research.

Edited September 16, 2021 by Robli

[LachenKrieg]

9 minutes ago, Robli said:

 

I am sure there are also myths and misconceptions about various things that are generally believed to be true, because one reason or another. Just like there are numerous "myth busting" stories that are not really based on anything. When thinking of Sherman, it is interesting how this "myth" of it's problems lasted for decades without anyone busting it in it's infancy. How this "myth" seems to come from multiple unlinked sources or anecdotes - American, British, Soviet and German - how historians with proved backgrounds have written books about it and how even tankmen in their memoirs have decided to join the conspiracy of creating the myth about Sherman.

 

Then, on the other hand you refer to a "research" that busts this myth. I read that "research" and frankly speaking did not find any statistical, logical or otherwise believable points that busts any myths. Maybe there are other researches that manage to do it better, but definitely not the one that you linked before. According to this "research" the source of the myth is that Sherman was actually better than other tanks and it's crews survived to tell a story of their tanks catching fire? For me, that kind of claim without any data or logical explanation behind it does not bust any myths - I rather see it as a potential source of a (possible) myth that crew survivability in Sherman was better than in any other tank. The entire story appears more like just a random opinion that is not based on anything rather than any kind of research.

This^^^ +1... Very well said.

 

Back in the day when not only did the German troops recognize the issue, hence the nicknames, but the American/British authorities also recognized the problem and realized they had to go about fixing it.

 

So while the people that were affected by the problem knew it existed, us armchair commanders can pretend today that it wasn't actually a problem, it was just a myth. I wonder what some of the good old boys would have to say about that! You know, the guys that had to test it out for real.

 

Because quite frankly, I find it to be an insult against the names of the brave men that gave their lives fighting for our freedom. And some of them were driving Sherman tanks.

[[F.Circus]MoerasGrizzly]

2 hours ago, Robli said:

 

I am sure there are also myths and misconceptions about various things that are generally believed to be true, because one reason or another. Just like there are numerous "myth busting" stories that are not really based on anything. When thinking of Sherman, it is interesting how this "myth" of it's problems lasted for decades without anyone busting it in it's infancy. How this "myth" seems to come from multiple unlinked sources or anecdotes - American, British, Soviet and German - how historians with proved backgrounds have written books about it and how even tankmen in their memoirs have decided to join the conspiracy of creating the myth about Sherman.

 

Then, on the other hand you refer to a "research" that busts this myth. I read that "research" and frankly speaking did not find any statistical, logical or otherwise believable points that busts any myths. Maybe there are other researches that manage to do it better, but definitely not the one that you linked before. According to this "research" the source of the myth is that Sherman was actually better than other tanks and it's crews survived to tell a story of their tanks catching fire? For me, that kind of claim without any data or logical explanation behind it does not bust any myths - I rather see it as a potential source of a (possible) myth that crew survivability in Sherman was better than in any other tank. The entire story appears more like just a random opinion that is not based on anything rather than any kind of research.

Sorry I should've clarified: in my last post I referred to research posted by lachenkrieg

2 hours ago, Robli said:

and how even tankmen in their memoirs have decided to join the conspiracy of creating the myth about Sherman.

Oh c'mon, that's not a conspiracy. Soldiers in the Korean war believed that North Korean jackets were deflecting their bullets and wrote this in their memoirs accordingly. It was never shown to be the case in any ballistics trail (and yet, changes were made to armament!). Soldiers in the German army right now believe that the g36 heats up in the sunlight unevenly causing the barrel to bend. No ballistic trail to show this is the case, but even now there's trails for new guns underway (the most successful of which are ironically g36 derivatives) and HK changed the factory finish from black to tan because of the complaint.

 

Hell there's still people that believe the earth is flat despite literally all the evidence to the contrary, or that vaccines cause autism, or that 9/11 was done through controlled demolition, or that Roosevelt let pearl harbor happen, or that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11 or that Mussolini actually made the trains run on time. Just because a large amount of people believe it's true doesn't make it true, even if those people are very intelligent. And yes, a lot of people have tried to debunk those claims from the get go. Doesn't work. Lots of people can be wrong. Eyewitness accounts themselves can be notoriously unreliable. This isn't bad or a conspiracy or what have you: This is just how people are. I'm like this. You're like this. The Greatest Generation wasn't any diffferent, as much as our cultures currently glorify them.

 

And this matters specifically in the game because it's not modelling the Sherman as it exists in popular conception, but that of a specific timeframe. And it matters because throughout this entire thread people have been stating their perceptions of how the Sherman is modelled in game, how that perception has changed throughout several updates and how it does or doesn't align with their perceptions of what is historical or realistic. But if you want to make a claim about the inaccuracy of the modelling in game, simply saying that something was "known as a" doesn't make it so, because your word is as good as any other which was the entire point of me just typing "Nope" and linking to someone else. Why bother doing more effort then the person who wants changes? You've got to provide data and you've got to provide consistent tests of how it functions in game, just like the people who complained about the .50 machineguns on US fighters helped provide data that allowed the IL-2 team to spot that their 50cal was misrepresented in the game.

Edited September 16, 2021 by [F.Circus]MoerasGrizzly

[LukeFF]

6 hours ago, LachenKrieg said:

Because quite frankly, I find it to be an insult against the names of the brave men that gave their lives fighting for our freedom. And some of them were driving Sherman tanks.

 

What?! No one here is insulting WWII veterans. This all is getting ridiculous. 

[ShampooX]

Well as the OP who is now happily nailing shermans dead with an 88 from 2500m in just 2 or 3 shots, I move to lock this subject.  Problem seems fixed.

[[F.Circus]MoerasGrizzly]

But have you considered that you are insulting the names of the brave men that gave their lives fighting for our freedom by obliberating them in the name of the those who sought to take it away!?

[LachenKrieg]

22 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

What?! No one here is insulting WWII veterans. This all is getting ridiculous. 

 

On 9/16/2021 at 10:21 AM, [F.Circus]MoerasGrizzly said:

 But if you want to make a claim about the inaccuracy of the modelling in game, simply saying that something was "known as a" doesn't make it so, because your word is as good as any other which was the entire point of me just typing "Nope" and linking to someone else.

@LukeFF, no I am sure that you are not posting anything here with the intentions of insulting WWII veterans.

 

But while we starting this discussion about the Sherman being very difficult to knock out, which it was, you were pushing the argument into a direction that has no part of the discussion.

 

We are not talking about anything other than the in-game Sherman. So anyone who recites the historical fact that the Sherman modeled in the game was a known fire bomb when discussing obvious problems with the Tank Crew damage model is not reciting a myth. 

 

Unless you want to claim that you were not aware the discussion about the invincible Sherman was related to the game, then yes I see your intentions to misdirect the discussion insulting, because it is like you are saying that what actually happened is not true, it is all a lie, it is nothing more than a myth. Meanwhile, it did happen and it did affect the people that were there. This is a game, but you dismissing the valid concern raised here as simply a myth because the real life Sherman was used as a reference is uncalled for.

 

Just look at the bold text above. What you are implying by siding with comments like that is that there is no problem with the damage model, and that the in-game Sherman should be able to one-tape anything that comes within its line of sight AFTER being penetrated multiple times. I think it was Grizzly that first questioned whether anything critical would be hit after the Sherman in the video was penetrated something like nine times. I agree, the argument on your side is not getting ridiculous, its has been that way for some time now.

 

If IRL the Sherman had a 60+ percent chance of burning up after 1.8 penetrations, then I think it is safe to say that there is something wrong with the damage model when the in-game Sherman is penetrated 9 times and still goes on to one-tap multiple enemy tanks. Hopefully this has been corrected as some have already posted.

 

 

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

But have you considered that you are insulting the names of the brave men that gave their lives fighting for our freedom by obliberating them in the name of the those who sought to take it away!?

He is talking about a game session he just had. You claiming something that actually happened is a myth can be seen as insulting, especially to the people that were affected by it. I'm hoping your able to tell right from wrong, and that you can distinguish the differences here.

Edited September 17, 2021 by LachenKrieg

[JG1_Wittmann]

I am wondering,    what does the FF     in your sig, LukeFF    stand for ?

[LukeFF]

2 hours ago, JG1_Wittmann said:

I am wondering,    what does the FF     in your sig, LukeFF    stand for ?

 

Ages ago (mid-90s), I was a volunteer firefighter, and so all of our rank titles were abbreviated with 'FF'. When I started posting on message boards around that same time, I wanted to use something unique for my online name, so I combined FF with my first name. 

[[F.Circus]MoerasGrizzly]

Ever rescued someone from a sherman?

 

(Also, y'know, max respect for volunteering)

Edited September 17, 2021 by [F.Circus]MoerasGrizzly

[LukeFF]

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

Ever rescued someone from a sherman?

 

(Also, y'know, max respect for volunteering)

 

LOL no. ? 

 

Thanks! Yes, it was a lot of fun - I actually graduated from the fire academy before I graduated high school. It was a whole lot of fun. I started out as a Fire Explorer before landing a spot in the academy.

 

[IVJG4-Knight]

On 9/17/2021 at 12:36 PM, LachenKrieg said:

Sherman being very difficult to knock out

 

In korea a tank company of M4A3E8 shermans led an attack on 2  august 1950 near Masan and a NKPA 45 mm anti tank placement knocked out 
eight shermans in quick succession .
        Wasn't  that difficult ot take out even by what is later described as poorly trained troops.

Zaloga , tank warfare in Korea pub.

[[F.Circus]MoerasGrizzly]

40 minutes ago, IVJG4-Knight said:

 

In korea a tank company of M4A3E8 shermans led an attack on 2  august 1950 near Masan and a NKPA 45 mm anti tank placement knocked out 
eight shermans in quick succession .
        Wasn't  that difficult ot take out even by what is later described as poorly trained troops.

Zaloga , tank warfare in Korea pub.

Yeez. Lucky they weren't driving panthers or there'd be nothing left to report.

[LachenKrieg]

2 hours ago, IVJG4-Knight said:

 

In korea a tank company of M4A3E8 shermans led an attack on 2  august 1950 near Masan and a NKPA 45 mm anti tank placement knocked out 
eight shermans in quick succession .
        Wasn't  that difficult ot take out even by what is later described as poorly trained troops.

Zaloga , tank warfare in Korea pub.

Thanks for your input. IRL when an armored vehicle is penetrated, it generally means things aren't going well regardless of the armored vehicle, or the flag/country attached to it. In terms of Tank Crew, it is clear things got out of wack and needed to be re calibrated. By the sounds of it, most seem happy with the current model.

 

I would really like to see Tank Crew grow in both accuracy of the simulation and number of vehicles available, but even with the current vehicle lineup, I think we have everything needed to make some really exciting game play. The Sherman vs the Pz IVG is an excellent match up. Both of those vehicles could knock each other out, but there are enough differences between them in strengths/weaknesses that they should be considered in order to effectively use each vehicle.

 

Having the vehicles accurately modeled is a big part of what makes interesting game play IMO.

 

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

Yeez. Lucky they weren't driving panthers or there'd be nothing left to report.

Good point, and I get the connection your trying to make in a thread about fixing the Sherman. I drove Axis vehicles the vast majority of the time I spent in Tank Crew, does that make me a Nazi?

 

[LColony_Kong]

On 5/27/2021 at 8:50 PM, LachenKrieg said:

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.

Nope. Not how armor works.

 

Shells incur slope effects in addition to the line of sight thickness. You cant just go chugging line of sight thickness values in and expect to get the correct values. War Thunders slope effects are more or less spot on, although there are other discrepancies regarding other factors such as  armor hardness. The slope effects occur because the shell does not travel straight through he armor plate. The angle of the plate causes a moment on the nose the shell and it turns as it passes through, traveling through more than just the line of sight thickness.

 

 

The pre-64mm RHA Sherman had about 123mm of effective frontal protection against 75mm APCBC shells. This is mitigated by the fact that on some models it was cast or made from several welded plates, which would reduce some areas down to about 90mm. However the cast hull varied in angle and the imperfections due to the casting would be inconsistent, so its very much possible that shooting the front of the Sherman with PzG 39 would result in some deflections.

 

The later 64mm RHA armor on M4A3W's was not an accident or a trivial improvement. It was all RHA of high quality and would have deflected shots from Pz4 at ranges of 800m and above.

 

Our Sherman in game has RHA armor made of one main piece that is only welded at drivers ports. It would resist with 123mm of effective resistance, providing decent protection agaisnt the Panzer 4, especially L43.

 

 

The turret on Shermans is also fairly resistant, especially models with the M34 gun mount. We dont have that in game, but the Shermans turret armor is rounded and is actually fairly capable of blocking shots depending on where you hit it.

 

 

On 6/2/2021 at 10:36 PM, LachenKrieg said:

Going back to the points you made, there is no mention of tank crews over stocking ammo, or exceeding safety standards. The fact that ammo storage in the Sherman had to be redesigned by the people manufacturing it indicates that the problem was with design, and not irresponsible tank crews.

 

The death trap stigma originates from the fact that Sherman's had an alarming tendency to catch fire, and the loader was left with no escape when it did. That constitutes a death trap by definition, and has nothing to do with myth. The rate Sherman's were catching fire was frequent enough that German tank crews gave it the nickname "Tommy Cooker". Again, this is an observation made by people that were there. So we have the American's, the British, and the German's saying essentially the same thing. Where is the myth?

All tanks in ww2 caught fire most of the time after being hit. The Sherman was no different. What was different was the that US Army actually did something about it. Redesigning the ammo stowage was not a sign of a bad design, but simply a sign of improvement over time.

Edited September 20, 2021 by LColony_Red_Comet

[LachenKrieg]

Nope. The in-game PzIV has an L48 cannon. None of the shots in the experience I had on the Finnish server were from 800m, but were all nearly point blank like the shots provided in the video's linked above. I was also having the same problem while attacking a Sherman with a Panther at less than 500m. And then there are the penetrations on the side and rear of the Sherman in the videos. No problem there either right?

 

Show me a combat report where the Sherman could absorb the kind of damage in the videos and keep on not just fighting, but driving around, and I will show you a report that suggests the Sherman was so indestructible that there was no need to improve it... Ever!

 

This discussion is about the accuracy of the SIM. I don't really know why it continues, because just about everything you posted has almost no relevance here. It seems like this is nothing more than a mission to bend reality to make the linked videos look as if there are no problems in the SIM. 

 

The information I provided is accurate. You can get the same info somewhere around minute 34:00 in the time line of the video linked in the attached post:

 

 

"Redesigning the ammo stowage was not a sign of a bad design, but simply a sign of improvement over time." 

 

The ammo stowage was redesigned to fix a problem. This is pointed to and explained in numerous documents. So you can word it the way you want, but the early Sherman was prone to catching fire when penetrated. And based on the number that burned up, it was penetrated quite often.

 

But like I said, go find a real Sherman that was penetrated 9+ times and kept fighting like nothing happened. Again, this thread is about accuracy of the SIM in both SP and MP.

 

There is nothing accurate about the game play I was experiencing. If you intend to portray the type of game play shown in the video as being a realistic simulation, then great, but I have no interest in it. I will admit Tank Crew holds a lot of potential interest for me, but in the last several months I am sorry to say that I have seen more to be disappointed about, and less to be interested in?

 

I still have faith that the Dev team will come through again as I have seen them do in the past. I have just downloaded the latest patch, and look forward to trying it out. As I have already said numerous times before, I like the IL2 franchise and want to keep supporting it.

Edited September 21, 2021 by LachenKrieg

[LColony_Kong]

1 minute ago, LachenKrieg said:

Nope. The in-game PzIV has an L48 cannon. None of the shots in the experience I had on the Finnish server were from 800m, but were all nearly point blank like the shots provided in the video's linked above.

You will notice, if your inclined to read, that I never said anything exclusive to the L48, nor did i claim that the penetrations in the game were from over 800m. I was merely correcting your inaccurate statements which were exaggerating the failings of the Sherman. Also the only game play video i have seen of 500m hits not penetrating was from a significant angle. If a 88mm shell hits a sherman at 500m at 35 degrees, that is a 160mm effective resistance, so its entirely possible that the shell would bounce. If it hits at 20degress, its 135mm resistance and therefore likely to penetrate.

 

 

 

4 minutes ago, LachenKrieg said:

The ammo stowage was redesigned to fix a problem. This is pointed to and explained in numerous documents.

A problem that was not unique to the Sherman. The point that is made about this in pop-histories is that the Sherman had an usually poor tendency to catch fire, very frequently this is tied to the lack of diesel engine, which had nothing to do with the issue. Sherman's caught fire because, as it turns out, when you fill a metal box with combustibles and then put a high velocity chunk of metal through it, it tends to...combust. Just like every other tank in the war.

 

12 minutes ago, LachenKrieg said:

This discussion is about the accuracy of the SIM

Cry me a river. Ive seen the videos documenting the issues. A great deal of the things you have posted in this thread are not strictly relevant to the armor and damage model issue in this game. This part of why I am correcting them, because you are exaggerating the supposed failings of the Sherman.  Most of the problem I have seen from the videos here appear to be with the Shermans damage model, but it is hardly a statistically meaningful sample size and shows us nothing really. Come back to me when you have 100 tests and a unreasonable percentage of them are like the videos where the sherman survives 9 penetrations.

 

17 minutes ago, LachenKrieg said:

The information I provided is accurate. You can get the same info somewhere around minute 34:00 in the time line of the video linked in the attached post:

which video and what information exactly?

[LachenKrieg]

54 minutes ago, LColony_Red_Comet said:

You will notice, if your inclined to read, that I never said anything exclusive to the L48, nor did i claim that the penetrations in the game were from over 800m. I was merely correcting your inaccurate statements which were exaggerating the failings of the Sherman. Also the only game play video i have seen of 500m hits not penetrating was from a significant angle. If a 88mm shell hits a sherman at 500m at 35 degrees, that is a 160mm effective resistance, so its entirely possible that the shell would bounce. If it hits at 20degress, its 135mm resistance and therefore likely to penetrate.

 

A problem that was not unique to the Sherman. The point that is made about this in pop-histories is that the Sherman had an usually poor tendency to catch fire, very frequently this is tied to the lack of diesel engine, which had nothing to do with the issue. Sherman's caught fire because, as it turns out, when you fill a metal box with combustibles and then put a high velocity chunk of metal through it, it tends to...combust. Just like every other tank in the war.

 

Cry me a river. Ive seen the videos documenting the issues. A great deal of the things you have posted in this thread are not strictly relevant to the armor and damage model issue in this game. This part of why I am correcting them, because you are exaggerating the supposed failings of the Sherman.  Most of the problem I have seen from the videos here appear to be with the Shermans damage model, but it is hardly a statistically meaningful sample size and shows us nothing really. Come back to me when you have 100 tests and a unreasonable percentage of them are like the videos where the sherman survives 9 penetrations.

 

which video and what information exactly?

The video attached to this post. The information I posted, and which you quoted can also be found at about 34:00 minutes in the timeline. My entire discussion here is about the experiences I had while playing the SIM, which were very similar to what others were also reporting. I experienced this in both SP and MP. So unless your here to discuss the unrealistic game play that I have experienced, then I could care less about what you feel your correcting. And maybe you should consider reading more careful yourself before lecturing, because the point wasn't that point blank shots weren't penetrating, it was that the penetrations seem to have no effect!

 

AND KNOW ONE SAID THAT THE SHERMAN TANK WAS THE ONLY TANK TO BURN UP! WHERE DO YOU GET YOUR INFORMATION FROM?

 

Provide an example of a real life Sherman that can adsorb the kind of damage in the videos, and I would be happy to discuss which failings of the Sherman were being exaggerating? 

 

If your here to correct me, great, but the facts are the in-game PzIV is equipped with an L48 cannon, and I have penetrated the front/side/rear at nearly point blank range multiple times with no effect. In other words, after being penetrated multiple times, the Sherman eventually locates and one-taps me.

 

I am not crying you a river, and nor do I owe you a sample size of any amount. So blow your nose and get over it. 

Edited September 21, 2021 by LachenKrieg

[LColony_Kong]

2 hours ago, LachenKrieg said:

The video attached to this post. The information I posted, and which you quoted can also be found at about 34:00 minutes in the timeline.

he is quoting simplistic armor values. I just explained to you why thats not relevant or accurate. 

 

2 hours ago, LachenKrieg said:

then I could care less about what you feel your correcting.

Then keep your own comments purely relevant. Youve been doing alot of pontificating that has nothing to do with in game experience.

 

2 hours ago, LachenKrieg said:

and nor do I owe you a sample size of any amount

You do if you want anyone to take you seriously. So far I see only one video showing the damage model is wrong. And I see know evidence at all of the penetration being borked. That said, my own experiences with the armor simulation in this game indicate its not all the sophisticated at the moment. But thats precisely why your inaccurate perception of armor needs to be corrected, because if there is an error in penetration the only way it can be determined is if we know what it should be in the first place. 

 

2 hours ago, LachenKrieg said:

ND KNOW ONE SAID THAT THE SHERMAN TANK WAS THE ONLY TANK TO BURN UP! WHERE DO YOU GET YOUR INFORMATION FROM?

All tanks burned most of the time when hit. So the only relevant reason to bring up the Sherman specifically it to imply that it did worse than the others in a significant way.

 

2 hours ago, LachenKrieg said:

And maybe you should consider reading more careful yourself before lecturing

Penetration and armor values have been discussed by you an other since the OP, which itself was not specific.

[[F.Circus]MoerasGrizzly]

Look, it's impossible to argue with this poster. When it's about the effectiveness of Soviet weaponry against the chinks of Nazi tanks' armour, it's "Old wives tales". When it's about the effectiveness of Nazi tanks against American armour, suddenly not wanting to exaggerate the effectiveness is "disrespecting service members". We're all susceptible to biases off-course, I am personally of the opinion that one Polish artillery regiment is the embodiment of the Earth itself taking revenge against the Nazis, but just understand that if you want to argue with LachenKrieg, you're not going to convince them - It's more about educating the audience about historical fact by using their biases as an example and not letting a troll dominate the conversation. LachenKrieg doesn't really care about the stuff in scientific debates that we take to granted like "Burden of Proof" and what have you, we've seen this several times now.

Edited September 21, 2021 by [F.Circus]MoerasGrizzly

[LachenKrieg]

5 hours ago, LColony_Red_Comet said:

he is quoting simplistic armor values. I just explained to you why thats not relevant or accurate. 

 

Then keep your own comments purely relevant. Youve been doing alot of pontificating that has nothing to do with in game experience.

 

You do if you want anyone to take you seriously. So far I see only one video showing the damage model is wrong. And I see know evidence at all of the penetration being borked. That said, my own experiences with the armor simulation in this game indicate its not all the sophisticated at the moment. But thats precisely why your inaccurate perception of armor needs to be corrected, because if there is an error in penetration the only way it can be determined is if we know what it should be in the first place. 

 

All tanks burned most of the time when hit. So the only relevant reason to bring up the Sherman specifically it to imply that it did worse than the others in a significant way.

 

Penetration and armor values have been discussed by you an other since the OP, which itself was not specific.

You didn't explain anything sport. You came here to correct me, and end up going home having to tell everyone you misunderstood something! I stated the plate thickness on the early Sherman just exactly like the Chieftain does in his video. So you have been corrected good sir!

 

The Ansys video you put up is the author TESTING his models. This is what he says in his description:

 

"Testing two different failure models. I used them for both the plate and the projectile. In case of the plate, the model can be used for high hardness soviet armour, but for medium-hard armour I will return to the previous model. As far as projectile are concerned, the test was quite promising, I will choose the first model for further work and I increase density of the projectile mesh in future tests as well. PS Increase the tilt of the plate to 60 degrees."

 

Just so Winnie there and the rest of the audience understand, Ansys is a computational fluid dynamics software package, and the linked video is simply the software package generating what would happen based on the model it was given. If there is anything out in his model, or if the model does not account for any physical properties/effects, then the results obtained will be different from the real world scenario it is meant to simulate.

 

I am not saying that there is anything wrong with his model, but by his own words, he is testing. If for example the Sherman's armor is different than his high hardness soviet armor model, then the video linked here can be disregarded. The one property of his model that is visible from the video is that it is assuming a flat trajectory. I worked along side the CFD engineer I hired for almost 2 years while he helped me model blood flow through a medical device, so I am quite familiar with Ansys software and how changes in the model can give completely different results.

 

In terms of you pontificating about MY in-game experience, you are again being corrected good sir! I do not report to you, nor does anyone else. You saying that you see only one video showing the damage model is wrong means absolutely nothing. Maybe you need to go back and do a more complete search of the entire forum before coming here months after a discussion started to tell everyone what you think you see.

 

I started seeing this type of model behavior in SP game play before others started to report it in MP game play. And I continued to see the same type of behavior that others were reporting in both SP and MP game play over the course of several months. You coming here the way you have has set the tone to this discussion, and I don't need you to tell me what you think MY in-game experience was, nor am I obligated to keep you informed of what it was.

 

So regarding my game play, unless you can bring me 100 battle reports that clearly state, and explicitly describe how the early Sherman tank was indestructible on the real world battle field during WWII, then you can just stop your pontificating about how you came here to correct everyone! Because so far, I haven't seen a single real life battle report to support your deluded view point. What I have seen and experienced is well documented in the examples given in the videos linked to the various related threads here.

 

The rate the Sherman burned up and the reason for mentioning it here seems to be just another misunderstanding of yours. I mean seriously dude, you really expect me to take you seriously?

 

No one said, or even implied that the Sherman was the only tank that burned up during WWII. That is something you dreamed up all on your own. It was mentioned here only as a reference to what we were seeing in-game.

 

The reason the rate PzIV's burned up was not specifically mentioned was because we were not seeing invincible PzIV's during game play. Does that make sense to you? In other words, the PzIV blows up just about every time a Sherman looks at it in this game, so there was no reason to mention the rate because in Tank Crew at least, the rate was nearly 100%. This is in fact another example of how poor the damage model in Tank Crew is, and it might be yet another reason for you to chime in with Ansys videos months after a discussion starts if anyone eventually decides to make a thread about it.

 

But regardless, the early Sherman was prone to burning up when penetrated, and that doesn't mean after 9+ times. The reason for mentioning that is because there was a problem with the Sherman tank in Tank Crew.... hence the discussion.