Shermans too stronk, Cromwells too puny, panzers in the middle

[Yung Rommel]

IMO Sherman 75s need cost decreases of 10-15 and slightly more availability.

It would be interesting if non-command Sherman 75s in the 3rd Armored has access to smoke rounds.

 

[Ramsay]

I have to agree with the OP's TL : DR - "Shermans too stronk, Cromwells too puny, panzers in the middle"

From a rough estimate one can determine that Eugen takes 66% of the turret armor and 33% of the glacis into consideration for actual armor values, which is why the M4A3 series has better armor than the M4A2, for example. Or why the Jumbo has armor better than the King Tiger ("P"), which, while it had superior glacis armor, had drastically inferior turret armor.

While IM a potato only used hull armour, '66% turret and 33% upper glacis' still won't give the Jumbo Eugen's 20 FAV

Jumbo Armour Front (Slope angle)
Hull 63.5 + 38.1 mm (47°) = 102 (47°) = 150 mm = 15 FAV
Turret 177.8 mm = 180 mm = 18 FAV

Using 2:1 for turrent:hull
(18 x 2 + 15) / 3 = (36 + 15) / 3 = 51 / 3 = 17 FAV

Instinctively I'd want a lower turrent:hull armour weighting (1:1 (17 FAV) or 1:2 (16 FAV)) but it becomes a debate about values, realism and game balance.

M4A3 (76) W Armor Front (Slope angle)
Hull 63.5 mm (47°) = 94 mm = 9 FAV
Turret 88.9 mm = 90 mm = 9 FAV

Using 2:1 for turrent:hull
(9 x 2 + 9) / 3 = (18 + 9) / 3 = 27 / 3 = 9 FAV

At the moment, Sherman's feel very different to how they've been modelled in other games and IMHO it adversely effects mid tier (Pz IV) German armour (I'm saying this as an Allied player, who also plays Germany). I don't mind 'flavour' adjustments of +/- 10% (1 or 2 FAV) but anything larger, feels 'off'.

US:

Name         :  Armor : Slope  : Effective  : SD44 : mm/FAV :  Tank  :
             :  (mm)  :        :    (mm)    :  FAV :        :  Class :
-------------:--------:--------:------------:------:--------:--------:----------
M4A1         :  50.2  :  s56=  :    90.8    :   9  :  10    : medium :  correct (within 1.0 of class average - 10.2mm)
M4A2         :  64    :  s47=  :    95      :  10  :   9.5  : medium :  correct
M4A3(75)w    :  64    :  s47=  :    95      :  11  :   8.6  : medium :  overstated
M4A3E2 jumbo : 100    :  s47=  :   146      :  20  :   7.3  : heavy  :  overstated

U.S.:
* M4A1 : 50.2 : s56= : 90.8 : 9 : 10 : m : c
* M4A2 : 64 : s47= : 95 : 10 : 9.5 : m : c
* M4A3(75)w : 64 : s47= : 95 : 11 : 8.6 : m : o
* M4A3E2 jumbo : 100 : s47= : 146 : 20 : 7.3 : h : o

 

[Max_Damage]

I agree about the Jumbo and its armor is hugely overmodeled. It has ~130-140 armor in the hull (its armor is actually worse then the LOS thickness becaue it uses two sandwiched plates instead of one thick plate) and ~170 armor in the turret.

By all means Jumbo should have around 15 or 16 armor. Just wanted to ask how did the devs get 20 AV.

 

[Jonnydodger]

Wikipedia states that the Sherman M4A3E2 had "over 180mm effective thickness." Not that far from the King Tigers 185mm.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_Sherman#M4A3E2

 

[TheDeadlyShoe]

@Zinegata : i think you are overstating the matter. Tanks often continued to fight after being hit, even sometimes in the case of full penetrations.

 

[artemasward]

@TheDeadlyShoe : Which just adds to his point i think, that often truth is stranger than fiction, and technical statistics don't tell the whole story. According to the technical data, a pen should usually result in the destruction or abandonment of the tank, but it is possible for a tank to be so poorly armoured that penetrations go right through thus reducing spalling.

Overall, you can either try and take a bottom-up, technical data focused approach to simulation, in which case you will likely have to abstract the human and organizational factors in order to make everything work, or take a top-down, organizational approach, which might very well lead to necessary abstraction of real, physical technical data.

Eugen seems to have tried to balance these two approaches by doing both at the same time, but overall it's a messy result. Some things (like German machineguns) have been modeled according to some abstract operational details AND technical data resulting in bizarre stats relative to other MGs. While others have only received the technical treatment (pzivs are more or less accurate, but priced out of use) OR the operational abstraction (AVREs were given a longer range to keep them useful), resulting in a very uneven approach to both simulation and balancing.

 

[Radioshow]

Sherman's are ok for anti inf duty, but almost useless for anything else. Too expensive and few in number to be used as a tank. Aim time is no good if they cant hit crap, and they have to be used defensively.

 

[IronHat]

I have to agree with the OP's TL : DR - "Shermans too stronk, Cromwells too puny, panzers in the middle"

if we use your calculation for the panzer 4:

(5 x 2 + 8)/3 = 6. In game = 8

this mean that both the sherman and panzer 4 have a "bonus" of 2.

 

[Ramsay]

if we use your calculation for the panzer 4:
(5 x 2 + 8)/3 = 6. In game = 8
this mean that both the sherman and panzer 4 have a "bonus" of 2.

Yeah, comparing their amour, I'm ok with the values (I'd have preferred +/- 1 FAV) but perhaps the lower FAV's are compressed/crowded.

I'll need to play Axis more, before commenting on Pz IV range, accuracy and price (I'm mostly using them as tank commanders or infantry support).

It's outliers, like the Jumbo, I'd like to see fixed (I started with the 3rd Armoured).

The majority - 52% of gunfire hits against tanks were on the hull, with 17% on the track and suspension and 31% on the turret.

Source: Page 238, Armored Thunderbolt: The U.S. Army Sherman in World War II by Steve Zagola

Edit:
Note: If the ratio between turret:hull armour was reduced to 1:2, the Pz IV would gain +1 FAV compared to the M4A3(76)w, closing the 'gap' between Sherman and Pz IV to +2 FAV in the M4A3(76)w's favour.

Panzer IV H (Slope angle)
Hull 80 mm (12°) = 82 mm = 8 FAV
Turret 50 mm (11°)= 51 mm = 5 FAV

Using 1:2 for turrent:hull
(5 + 8 x 2) / 3 = (5 + 16) / 3 = 21 / 3 = 7 FAV

 

[Zinegata]

@Zinegata : i think you are overstating the matter. Tanks often continued to fight after being hit, even sometimes in the case of full penetrations.

There are certainly many accounts in popular memory of tanks fighting on despite being hit. The problem is that when you look at the subject very carefully you'll find that it's very often just the same few stories told over and over again. The very extraordinary nature of these engagements actually make them more memorable and more likely to be retold than "Our tank got hit, fortunately only one crewman was wounded and were able to bail out".

For instance the only two tanks to keep fighting despite dozens of hits were the Char B2 at Stonne and the KV-2 at Raisenai. Just two incidents out of hundreds of tank vs tank engagements!

When you look at statistical surveys of tank casualties however, the story painted is a very undramatic one. The US Army on average lost less than one crewman per tank lost - and the personnel losses already include tankers who were killed or wounded even when the tank wasn't even damaged (the majority of casualties were tank commanders who were hit while "unbuttoned"). Figures for the Brits were not much different, and the Germans and Russians probably had higher casualties purely due to specific safety issues on their respective tanks (which the Brits also suffered from).

It's really very similar to the Tiger issue. Basically every American and British tanker claims to have fought one. Yet when people actually tried to count carefully (something I did on my own before Zaloga basically confirmed the figures), they found that the US Army fought the Tiger I only three times in Northwestern Europe. They in fact never even fought it once in a tank vs tank fight during the whole of the Normandy campaign.

It's a reflection of how people prefer to remember dramatic and extraordinary - and assume it's the norm - rather than the uglier and more mundane reality that soldiers in war first and foremost thought about how to best save themselves (e.g. bailing out of a tank the moment it suffers any damage) as opposed to the heroic notion of combat that was often invented to try and fool people into fighting wars in the first place.

 

[Aeon221]

I mean if a tank gets hit and catches on fire you have about 30s to get out before you're burned to death. I think most people would prefer to risk gunfire over the certainty of burning to death unless they were very, very sure that their tank was not likely to be on fire.

 

[Ramsay]

Wow sorry but it's really hard to read, you should make a google doc with a table.

As the OP hasn't made a google sheet of his data, I have, it might be good as a basis for further discussion.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1FISeRrlI0T79KQ4das238B1dFsU3F3_F3Dp9VIaO3zk/edit?usp=sharing

My initial findings are that the FAV's of the German and British tanks are GOOD and are either correct or overstate +1 AV, the exception being the 2 Konigstiger which understate by -1 AV.

The 7 US tanks did not do so well: 4 overstate FAV by +2 AV or greater.

The FAV of the M4A3E2 Jumbo (+4) and M4A1 Rhino (+3) is of particular concern.

Jumbo Armour Front (Slope angle)
Hull 63.5 + 38.1 mm (47°) = 102 (47°) = 150 mm = 15 FAV
Turret 177.8 mm = 180 mm = 18 FAV

Using 1:2 for turrent:hull
(18 + 15 x 2) / 3 = (18+ 30) / 3 = 48 / 3 = 16 FAV

M4A1 Rhino (Slope angle)
Hull 51 mm (56°) = 91 mm = 9 FAV
Turret 76 mm = 80 mm = 8 FAV

Using 1:2 for turrent:hull
(8 + 9 x 2) / 3 = (8 + 18) / 3 = 26 / 3 = 9 FAV

The 1:2 Turret:Hull FAV ratio was chosen to simulate how hits were distributed.

The majority - 52% of gunfire hits against tanks were on the hull, with 17% on the track and suspension and 31% on the turret.

Page 238, Armored Thunderbolt: The U.S. Army Sherman in World War II by Steve Zagola

All feedback will be greatfully recieved, especially if it helps explains outliers.

Note:
Turret front armour or gun mantle thickness ? - I just looked at pictures and tried to judge which was most likely to be hit from the front
Hull front armour, which plate/angle to use ? - similarly I looked at pictures and tried to judge which plate was most likely to be hit from the front or by bounced shots
Where values differ more than 2 FAV from from Eugen, I've looked for which plate/angle was used by the dev's and tried to match it (even when it wasn't perhaps the best choice).

Edit: M4A1 Rhino hull has a field upgrade (full plate) that makes it's 12 FAV correct.

 

[Miskyavine]

Uh dude The jumbo stats are not accurate it had a thickness of 102mm on the front hull not including slope. Rhino had addon armor granted there were a ton of random addons so that may very. The Jumbo had the Normal M4A3 64mm of armor with an added 30-40MM plate on the front the problem is almost every source on the jumbo only takes the secondary addon plate into consideration on the frontal armor while not taking into account the first armor plate under it.


I wouldnt mind removing the jumbo for avalibility and price buffs for onther authentic 3rd armored tanks. But that most likely wont happen.

 

[IronHat]

The 1:2 Turret:Hull FAV ratio was chosen to simulate how hits were distributed.

Page 238, Armored Thunderbolt: The U.S. Army Sherman in World War II by Steve Zagola

Note:
you're counting suspension and track as part of the hull, which isn't really accurate to how the game works. Those should be counted as missed.

secondly, I am having trouble loading those pages, but I assume that's the figure for hits on a sherman. It would be a mistake to apply the same ratio on all the tank since different tank have different turret-hull ratio. The cromwell notably have a larger turret to body ratio, although it was a shorter tank to begin with.

The sherman infamously had a rather tall hull compared to the panzer 4 and british tank.

 

[Ramsay]

Uh dude The jumbo stats are not accurate it had a thickness of 102mm on the front hull not including slope.

The Jumbo had the Normal M4A3 64mm of armor with an added 30-40MM plate on the front the problem is almost every source on the jumbo only takes the secondary addon plate into consideration on the frontal armor while not taking into account the first armor plate under it.

The extra plate, 102 mm @ 47° = 150 mm effective, is already included. That's where 15 FAV is

• Hull (upper glacis) = 63.5 + 38.1 mm (47°) = 102 (at 47° slope) = 150 mm (Effective thickness) = 15 FAV

Rhino had addon armor granted there were a ton of random addons so that may very.

AFAIK the Rhino got it's name for it's hedge cutting 'horns', not for a thick skin/toughness.

I can't find any sources that suggest the M4A1 Rhino (with early 75mm gun) had a full width upper glacis 'bonus' plate as ilustrated in Eugen's unit card.

The only examples I can find, is of 38 mm plates added to protect the gunner and drivers hatch weak points.

Of course, it only takes one example in a museum, to change everything.

Edit: typo - they were 38 mm plates

 

[IronHat]

The extra plate, 102 mm @ 47° = 150 mm effective, is already included. That's where 15 FAV is

• Hull (upper glacis) = 63.5 + 38.1 mm (47°) = 102 (at 47° slope) = 150 mm (Effective thickness) = 15 FAV

AFAIK the Rhino got it's name for it's hedge cutting 'horns', not for a thick skin/toughness.

I can't find any sources that suggest the M4A1 Rhino (with early 75mm gun) had a full width upper glacis 'bonus' plate as ilustrated in Eugen's unit card.

The only examples I can find, is of 75mm plates added to protect the gunner and drivers hatch weak points.

Of course, it only takes one example in a museum, to change everything.

I think you're being too specific with it being a rhino variant. Considering the hedgerow cutter doesn't actually do anything the rhino basically represent sherman with extra armor welded on.

 

[Ramsay]

Note:
you're counting suspension and track as part of the hull, which isn't really accurate to how the game works. Those should be counted as missed.

Ignoring hits to track and suspension. The ratio of hull to turret hits becomes 52 to 31 i.e.1.7 to 1, so still closer to 2:1 than 1:1, etc.

 

[Max_Damage]

Ignoring hits to track and suspension. The ratio of hull to turret hits becomes 52 to 31 i.e.1.7 to 1, so still closer to 2:1 than 1:1, etc.

I agree with your calculations but the hull on the Jumbo is not even 150mm. It uses two sandwitched plates instead of a one 100mm plate. The shell hitting such sandwitched plates gets favorable T : D overmatch values because each sub plate is thinner and then the shell also gets to normalize twice when hitting each sub plate. In fact the UFP has something like ~135 armor. because of these drawbacks so the hull would give AV ~14. combine with the turret's AV 17 we re getting AV 15 in total.

Combined with being quite OOTF the unrealistic armor is really annoying on the 3rd armored. Just a bad design.

 

[Jim_Hatama]

shermans 75 76 and jumbo all have too much armor

 

[Ramsay]

... the rhino basically represent Sherman with extra armour welded on.

Good point - now if we can find some values to decide if it's FAV is realistic

There was a field armor upgrade that did work well; it was employed extensively by Patton’s 3rd Army. By this point in the war, late 44, early 45, there was an abundance of large hatch 75, and 76mm tanks in use. They would take the armor from knocked out tanks, often large hatch Shermans, and cut off the whole front plate, and weld it onto the front of a M4A3, A3E8, or even A1 tanks.

Steven Zaloga’s Armored Thunderbolt and Armored Attack books have extensive pictures of all the armor modifications and their use in action.

Perhaps this is Eugen source for the Rhino's FAV ? or give them grounds for reasoned artistic licence (we do have Jumbos after all )

Source: http://www.theshermantank.com/category/add-on-armor/