I don't know where you're getting the idea the Sherman was shitty. The Sherman was by all accounts superior to PZ 3/4s. It began to struggle against the newer Panthers and Tiger 1s and the allies had to find a way to address this. The allies added a new 76mm gun which could easily handle german armor. On top of this it was cheap + easy to produce unlike the more complicated German tanks.Prince Blueblood wrote: ↑if we look at how WW2 played...
Instead of Tank Advantage, US should actually have LESS access to Medium Tank (need Tech Center), or even No Access to Medium Tank, remember that US used to have shittiest tank in WW2 (only build better tanks in mid 1944... not quite noticeable since Japanese tanks is almost as shitty as US', and they adopt British design for European theatre).
To counterbalance that, give them APC (they actually have superior infantry numbers and mobility, thanks to oil, but well since cheaper infantry means OP early rush), as well as the sniper (Pacific war anyone).
...
I can't said much about China, since they're explicitly win the war with sheer overwhelming number of infantry, maybe they get shitty "Chinese Riflemen" who cost only $75, but have less health and or firepower. Maybe same with US, more or less, in this case, instead of Soviet Heavy Tank, they actually have "Allied" Light Tanks and no access to Mammoth tanks... Maybe scrap grenadiers for all soviet factions (who build them after early phase), and make them Chinese speciality as well...
Red Alert: Pacific Theater
-
PersianImmortal
- Posts: 157
- Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 3:04 am
-
BaronOfStuff
- Posts: 438
- Joined: Sun May 22, 2011 7:25 pm
It was called a 'Tommycooker' for a reason by Panzerwaffe crews. British crews referred to it as a Ronson; "first time, every time".
In other words, the bastard almost invariably burst into flames when it was hit. The Sherman was a fine tank on paper, but in practice it simply was not entirely suitable for the period it entered service. To call it superior "by all accounts" to the Pz. IV isn't entirely true either. The G & H variants of the Pz. IV in particular (with their own 7,5cm gun) would have roughly been even to the Sherman in overall combat effectiveness.
That being said, I'm sure that Blueblood was referring to the M3 Lee/Grant (depending on config), with its puny turret weapon and awkward sponson-mounted main gun. All the Allies knew it wasn't really up to scratch vs the German tanks as soon as it was ready, but the Allies in the North African theatre needed tanks with a mix of armour and mobility and the M3 was the only thing available while the M4 was going through final stages of development.
In other words, the bastard almost invariably burst into flames when it was hit. The Sherman was a fine tank on paper, but in practice it simply was not entirely suitable for the period it entered service. To call it superior "by all accounts" to the Pz. IV isn't entirely true either. The G & H variants of the Pz. IV in particular (with their own 7,5cm gun) would have roughly been even to the Sherman in overall combat effectiveness.
That being said, I'm sure that Blueblood was referring to the M3 Lee/Grant (depending on config), with its puny turret weapon and awkward sponson-mounted main gun. All the Allies knew it wasn't really up to scratch vs the German tanks as soon as it was ready, but the Allies in the North African theatre needed tanks with a mix of armour and mobility and the M3 was the only thing available while the M4 was going through final stages of development.
-
PersianImmortal
- Posts: 157
- Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 3:04 am
If that's what he was referring to then he was right. But as for the Sherman's Fire problem most of it was due to improper storage of ammunition. "Myth: Shermans were prone to fires due to the gasoline engines, and were nicknamed “Ronson” by their crews.BaronOfStuff wrote: ↑It was called a 'Tommycooker' for a reason by Panzerwaffe crews. British crews referred to it as a Ronson; "first time, every time".
In other words, the bastard almost invariably burst into flames when it was hit. The Sherman was a fine tank on paper, but in practice it simply was not entirely suitable for the period it entered service. To call it superior "by all accounts" to the Pz. IV isn't entirely true either. The G & H variants of the Pz. IV in particular (with their own 7,5cm gun) would have roughly been even to the Sherman in overall combat effectiveness.
That being said, I'm sure that Blueblood was referring to the M3 Lee/Grant (depending on config), with its puny turret weapon and awkward sponson-mounted main gun. All the Allies knew it wasn't really up to scratch vs the German tanks as soon as it was ready, but the Allies in the North African theatre needed tanks with a mix of armour and mobility and the M3 was the only thing available while the M4 was going through final stages of development.
Fact: Shermans were not especially fire-prone (consider German tanks that also used gasoline engines, but avoid this reputation). Fires were caused by improper storage of ammunition, when it was literally stuffed everywhere inside the tank it could fit. The end of this practice drastically reduced the number of Sherman fires. The Ronson nickname is attributed to the slogan “lights every time”. The slogan was launched post-war, and thus could not influence the nickname." http://ftr.wot-news.com/2013/09/05/comm ... bout-wwii/
I'm sure the improper ammunition storage and the German practice of shooting disabled tanks ammo rack to make it exploded and was knocked out of combat for good contributed to the Germans giving it a nickname as well