M4s & Shermans

PC : Turn based WW2 goodness in the mold of Panzer General. This promises to be a true classic!

Moderators: Slitherine Core, Panzer Corps Design, Panzer Corps Moderators

Post Reply
JagdpanzerIV
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Posts: 198
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2015 5:15 am

M4s & Shermans

Post by JagdpanzerIV » Sat May 06, 2017 11:33 am

So just to clarify,

American M4s and their British equivalent (Sherman)

feb 1942 M4A1 -> Sherman II - 75mm M2 or M3 gun
apr 1942 M4A2 -> Sherman III - 75mm M3 gun
jun 1942 M4A3 -> Sherman IV - 75mm M3 gun
jul 1942 M4 -> Sherman I - 75mm M3 gun (in panzer corps this is the first sherman m4 we see, i think they got it confused with the M4A1)
jul 1942 M4A4 -> Sherman V - 75mm M3 gun
oct 1943 M4A6 -> don't know - 75mm M3 gun
jan 1944 M4A1(76)W -> Sherman IIA - 76mm gun M1A1
feb 1944 M4A3(75)W -> don't know - 75mm M3 gun
feb 1944 M4(105) -> Sherman IB - 105mm gun M4
mar 1944 M4A3(76)W -> Sherman IVA - 76mm gun M1A1
may 1944 M4A2(76)W -> Sherman IIIA - 76mm gun M1A1
may 1944 M4A3(105) -> Sherman IVB - 105mm gun M4

jun 1944 M4A3E2, known as Sherman Jumbo, a few converted with a 76mm gun
M4A5 -> canada Ram II
W - wet ammo rack

Yrfin
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Posts: 548
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2016 6:47 am
Location: Behind your backs

Re: M4s & Shermans

Post by Yrfin » Sat May 06, 2017 2:48 pm

M4A3 (Sherman IV) - USA only, 7 pcs in UK.
M4A2 diesel (75/76 mm) - lend-lease only (7000 UK and 4000 USSR).
UK only: Sherman IIC (M4A1), Sherman VC (M4A4) - "Firefly" (17 pdr gun).

March 45 - new track 24" (E8 modification M4, M4A1, M4A2, M4A3).

UK Sherman - without AA MG.

Sherman Crab Mk I/II.
Sherman DD.
Shoot first. Ask questions later.

McGuba
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1154
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:34 pm

Re: M4s & Shermans

Post by McGuba » Sat May 06, 2017 5:02 pm

JagdpanzerIV wrote:jul 1942 M4 -> Sherman I - 75mm M3 gun (in panzer corps this is the first sherman m4 we see, i think they got it confused with the M4A1)
Not only the designations and the stats are messed up in the vanilla game, but unfortunately the unit icons as well. I attempted to sort them out to some extent in my mod:

viewtopic.php?f=147&t=47985&p=510842&hi ... an#p510842
ImageImage
slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=147&t=47985
slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=147&t=36969

JagdpanzerIV
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Posts: 198
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2015 5:15 am

Re: M4s & Shermans

Post by JagdpanzerIV » Sat May 06, 2017 7:12 pm

Yrfin wrote:M4A3 (Sherman IV) - USA only, 7 pcs in UK.
M4A2 diesel (75/76 mm) - lend-lease only (7000 UK and 4000 USSR).
UK only: Sherman IIC (M4A1), Sherman VC (M4A4) - "Firefly" (17 pdr gun).

March 45 - new track 24" (E8 modification M4, M4A1, M4A2, M4A3).

UK Sherman - without AA MG.

Sherman Crab Mk I/II.
Sherman DD.
Thank you for your input!

JagdpanzerIV
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Posts: 198
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2015 5:15 am

Re: M4s & Shermans

Post by JagdpanzerIV » Sat May 06, 2017 8:00 pm

McGuba wrote:
JagdpanzerIV wrote:jul 1942 M4 -> Sherman I - 75mm M3 gun (in panzer corps this is the first sherman m4 we see, i think they got it confused with the M4A1)
Not only the designations and the stats are messed up in the vanilla game, but unfortunately the unit icons as well. I attempted to sort them out to some extent in my mod:

viewtopic.php?f=147&t=47985&p=510842&hi ... an#p510842

good job sorting them out and pointing out the difference with your icons!

JaM2013
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Posts: 542
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 1:02 pm

Re: M4s & Shermans

Post by JaM2013 » Mon May 15, 2017 12:58 pm

I think M4 Sherman is portrayed extremely bad in Panzer Corps...

M4 Sherman was excellent tank in 1943, with very good gun, good armor and mobility. Besides the obvious things, M4 had higher quality gun optics, 3-man turret with good commander cupola and very good situational awareness (commander optics had much higher field of view for faster target acquisition). It was also first tank with a gyrostabilizer, which initially was not adding much, but once crew was fully trained how to use it properly, it become quite an advantage, allowing Shermans much better accuracy at move, or at short halts (gunner could fire faster as he didnt had to wait till gun stabilizes)

info on Sherman gyrostabiliizers: https://worldoftanks.com/en/news/chieft ... tabiliser/

Also lets not forget M4A3 model had very high turret traverse speed, which also increased its ability to engage targets. So technically, M4 should have much higher initiative than it has right now.. M4A3(76) should be even in the same league as Panther, who had slow turret traverse and not as good optics as Sherman 76 had.

It was also first tank to feature wet stowage for ammunition, therefore its post-hit survivability was much better than in any other tank.. (statistics show there was 0.6 killed in action tankers per single destroyed tank in 1944, where there was 1.8 KIA for T-34/85 for the same period)

Sherman also carried 3 machine guns, one of which was .50cal/12.7 heavy machine gun used for anti-air defense. for same purpose, there was a second .30cal machine gun also capable for AA fire..

Regarding armor protection in Panzer Corps, it is also inadequate, as M4 Sherman comes as less armored than German PzIVH, where M4 had much thicker turret (76mm) and sloped hull (50mm sloped at 55 degree = 90mm RHAe) , where PzIVH still kept the 50mm Face Hardened front plate on the turret and flat 80mm hull front. Face Hardening was effective way how to increase resistance against APC projectiles (used by Soviets), but was less effective against APCBC projectiles used by US (about 10% less than RHA). PzIVJ had exactly the same protection as PzIVH, but didnt feature face hardening because those tanks were simplified production versions...

Also its 75mm gun was actually not as many think ineffective against tanks, it was L40.1, only few calibers shorter than German 75mm kwK40 L43 used in PzIVG and F2. Yet M61 APCBC projectile it used gave it comparable performance on target as German Pzgr.Ptr.39 (95mm vs FHA vs 91mmRHA for Pzgr.Ptr39 fired by L43)
So even standard 75mm armed Sherman was more than capable fighting with German PzIV on equal terms. yet in game, PzIVG,H and J are superior to M4 Sherman having better HA and GD...

https://worldoftanks.com/en/news/chieft ... herman_PR/
The Tanks M4 have made a great impression on everyone, and the troops are thrilled with them. The long gun is magnificent, both in accuracy and in penetration, and the sights are evidently a considerable improvement on the Grant.
The Special Mk IV enemy tanks are being destroyed with M61 ammunition at ranges up to 2,000 yards.
And things just get more in favor for Sherman with 76mm variants and T23 turrets, which got much thicker armor, with about 90mm RHA (practically same as T34/85 turret front thickness).


So, to sum it up, Sherman needs quite a boost in stats, so it is not the worst of the three main medium tanks - PzIV, M4 and T34.. Personally i think it should be the best of those three (based on variant of course)



btw, strongly recommend watching this video about myths of American tanks during WW2:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNjp_4jY8pY&t=2418s
Image

JagdpanzerIV
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Posts: 198
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2015 5:15 am

Re: M4s & Shermans

Post by JagdpanzerIV » Mon May 15, 2017 5:21 pm

many good points. But...
the M4A3(76) got the same HA as the panther, which is a bit silly.
Sherman with 76mm gun;
pen APCBC FH, 122@500m...HA in game is 19
pen APCBC, 116@500m...HA in game is 19
Panther with 75mm gun;
pen APCBC,168@500m...HA in game is 19
So as you can see, the Sherman with the 76 needs a huge HA nerf.
Someone could mention Sherman 76mm had access to HVAP. yes, albeit in very limited amount. Almost all HVAP ammo went to TDs. Panther also had access to APCR, very limited as well.
When it comes to their armor, well, the panther wins there hands down.
When it comes to initiative, Sherman wins i guess. But then, it depends at what range. past 1000m shermans are easy picking for panthers, where Panthers need to be shot on their sides. At close range or ambush, initiative goes to the Sherman. But how to code this into the game ?

now, the Sherman with 75mm gun.
"The M61 had a muzzle velocity of 617 m/s (2024.28 ft/s) and was credited with the ability to penetrate 81 millimetres (3.2 in) of rolled homogeneous armor plate at 0° from vertical at 500 yards range, which was a quite acceptable performance by the standards of 1942"
So thats 81@500m...HA should be around 9-10
and 95@500m vs FH
the PzIV F2 & G in late 42 had the 75mm KwK40L43 (your numbers are way off, probably because you checked one with a 30degre angle)
pen APCBC, 121@500m...HA in game variable but should be either 13 or 14

The sherman 76 & the PzIV H-J should trade blow, the sherman had better armor, the PzIV better guns.

Early Shermans 42-43 need a buff to their gun HA and their armor GD as well. They were better than T-34s.

To sum things up, early shermans in 42-43 need to be tougher and hit harder, later shermans need a HA nerf, and improved initiative (or lower german tanks initiative)
___________________
There are many silly HA ratings in the game, the 77mm (a short 17pdr) on the comet 1 got 25 HA, *sigh* avg pen @500m was 142, less than the tiger and the panther. (HA17 & HA19)
Same silly thing with the M26 Pershing and many more.

JaM2013
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Posts: 542
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 1:02 pm

Re: M4s & Shermans

Post by JaM2013 » Mon May 15, 2017 5:55 pm

i think they gave 17pdr so high HA because of APDS round, but that round was way too inaccurate and in test practically unusable beyond 500m, so definitely they should get reduced HA.

HVAP in US tanks was actually issued, and tankers kept it in reserve for German Cats, mostly using it against Panthers. Of course frontal shootout would be problematic for M4s, but typical tank duels happened with 30 degrees to the left or right, so theoretically it was possible to hit the Panther in the sides in combat situations. (unless positioned somewhere where it couldn't be outflanked)
What is interesting, that American tankers found themselves being able to outmaneuver Germans quite often, like for example during German counterattacks against Allied beachhead in Normandy, Germans lost 80 vehicles vs 20 destroyed Shermans (majority of German tanks were Panthers), and something similar was also reported happening in Italy.


Anyway i dont think german 75mm kwk 40 L48 was better gun than US 76mm M1. They were pretty much very similar in performance, (same muzzle speed, practically same penetration), but M1 was slightly longer (52 calibers vs 48), so it would lose the speed slower therefore should have slightly better performance at range.
But course US were more likely to carry HVAP than Germans APCR. And, faster turret traverse, better optics, stabilizer and better situational awareness would give advantage to Sherman. (PzIVJ only had manual turret traverse)
Image

JagdpanzerIV
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Posts: 198
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2015 5:15 am

Re: M4s & Shermans

Post by JagdpanzerIV » Mon May 15, 2017 6:11 pm

I agree.

The thing is, the panther was a highly unreliable tank, in theory it could out maneuver any tanks, but the drive train was plagued with problems and it had to be driven cautiously, or the transmission would fail, or something else broke down etc. The german logistic also sucked badly, always lacking fuel and artillery shells.

So in a turn base videogame, how do you make an "unreliable tank" ? maybe each turn, randomly a panther would not be able to move, lol.
Like i said HVAP were issued, but it all went to TDs. Tankers had to bargain or harass td crews to get some. So i read. APCR was just as good as HVAP.
Thing is, you cannot give a HA rating based on special ammo, like APDS (which were inaccurate and bounced off sloped armor even tho their penetration rating was above 200mm) otherwise you also need to give HA rating to german tanks based on APCR ammo...

T34/85, Sherman76 and PzIVH-J should be roughly equal.
Early Shermans were a lot better than what we get in the game.

JaM2013
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Posts: 542
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 1:02 pm

Re: M4s & Shermans

Post by JaM2013 » Mon May 15, 2017 6:21 pm

From what i read, it seems HVAP was not sent to TD units only, as those were only supposed to face tanks in defense. Once American tankers met the Panthers in Normandy, issuing HVAP rounds was ordered, where they supposed to have 4-6 HVAP rounds issued to 76mm equipped M4 once they were delivered to France. But of course, those tanks were not ready for Normandy, so another mistake as M4A3(76)W are available way too early (i think it saw them available in Italy already)


Whole idea that TD is supposed to fight tanks while Tanks should support the infantry is just a (very persistent) myth, and American tank manuals state quite different things, with TDs being purely defensive vehicles while tanks were to engage whatever they meet.
Image

JagdpanzerIV
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Posts: 198
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2015 5:15 am

Re: M4s & Shermans

Post by JagdpanzerIV » Mon May 15, 2017 6:30 pm

yes, depending which books and which authors, or forums, you read and or believe.
Because of the US doctrine about tank destroyers, i tend to go with (authors saying) HVAP went to them first and foremost.

But even if Sherman 76 had a few rounds of HVAP, we have to use the standard ammo (APCBC) for the HA rating, otherwise we also have to use the APCR rating for german tanks. to be fair.

We have to be honest here, german tanks had nothing special but they had excellent standard apcbc shells and great high velocity guns.

JaM2013
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Posts: 542
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 1:02 pm

Re: M4s & Shermans

Post by JaM2013 » Mon May 15, 2017 6:44 pm

i agree, i think HA of 16 should be used for both PzIVH & J, and M4(76), yet while PzIV should have GD around 12, M4 should be at least 15 for M4A3, while M4A1 cast hull 14) This would make PzIV vulnerable even to 75mm Shermans (HA 9-10)

At the same time, T34/85 should have very similar HA (16), but a point higher GD for sloped turret (16). Of course, Initiative should be highest for M4A3(76), followed by PzIV and T34/85 the last. (11/10/9 ?) Panther initiative should be reduced to 10.


this article is particularly interesting as it compares the M4 to Panther, and gives some citations and reports from 1944-45

https://worldoftanks.com/en/news/chieft ... or-part-2/


one interesting quote from that article:
CCA of the 4th Armored Division was equipped mostly with 75mm-armed M4 tanks. They fought a series of delaying actions from ambush positions which bled the 113th Brigade every step of the way, slowed their advance, and reduced their cohesion. A second company of M4s arrived as re-enforcements. Once the Germans paused to regroup, CCA launched its own attack out of the fog, rolling up the German flank, and all but annihilating 113th Panzer Brigade.

The next day as they surveyed the battlefield the Americans counted forty-three knocked out German AFVs, almost all of them Panthers. German losses were actually greater than that, but they had managed to recover several knocked-out tanks as they withdrew. The two battalions of panzergrendiers had been shattered as well – overrun and scattered, suffering over 500 casualties.

And what price did the Americans pay for this victory? Six soldiers had been killed, thirteen soldiers wounded. Three M10s and five M4 tanks had been knocked out.

CCA 4th Armored Division did not win with overwhelming airpower or artillery support. Fog kept the airplanes home and made it almost impossible to bring down heavy fire concentrations on the Germans. The battle was almost exclusively a match between the armored forces. Nor did the Americans win due to overwhelming numbers. Overall they were outnumbered in both tanks and infantry. They won because they out-maneuvered their enemy, and concentrated forces for the decisive punch.
Last edited by JaM2013 on Mon May 15, 2017 7:13 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Image

JagdpanzerIV
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Posts: 198
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2015 5:15 am

Re: M4s & Shermans

Post by JagdpanzerIV » Mon May 15, 2017 7:06 pm

what i did in my mod was
Shermans;
M4A1 ini 7, HA 8 GD 12
M4 ini 8 HA 9 GD 13
M4A376 ini 10 HA 13 GD 13

Pz IV & panthers
PzIVH ini 9 HA 14 GD 12
Panther ini 9-10(G) HA 19 GD 18
tiger ini 7 HA 17 GD 17 (yes, 1 less than panther, on paper the panther is a superior tank)

T34 and T34/85
t34 ini 6-9 (by year) HA 7-9 GD 14
t34/85 ini 10 HA 14 GD 15

JaM2013
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Posts: 542
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 1:02 pm

Re: M4s & Shermans

Post by JaM2013 » Mon May 15, 2017 7:11 pm

isnt T34/85 a bit too strong? GD15 when all it had was 45mm@60degree hull, same as other variants, and 90mm turret, not that much different from M4A3 with T23 turret (51mm@55degrees for hull and 89mm turret)


btw, regarding availability, it is interesting to note that M4A3(76) came to units later than 90mm M36 GMCs, while in Panzer Corps it is the other way around
Image

JaM2013
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Posts: 542
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 1:02 pm

Re: M4s & Shermans

Post by JaM2013 » Mon May 15, 2017 7:23 pm

One interesting letter:

Supreme Commander
Supreme Headquarters
Allied Expeditionary Force

My dear General Eisenhower:

In this letter I am setting forth my personal convictions as to the quality of our tanks and certain other items of equipment in comparison with the German, as you requested in your letter of 18 March 1945.

I have enclosed a separate document giving a digest of the opinions of officers and enlisted men who have had much experience and in whom I have great confidence. I have also included a large number of the actual statements made by them. Allowing for the traditional enthusiasm displayed by the American soldier when he is given (or takes!) the opportunity to express himself in regard to any possible shortcomings in his rations, clothing and equipment, I think they are sincere, reasonably factual, indicate considerable thought and knowledge of the subject, and above all, they are most refreshing. I have not edited them in any way and I believe they are a true cross-section of opinion of the command.

I feel that many criticisms made by tank crews would not appear had we been equipped with a larger proportion of M4A3E8 tanks for Operation “Grenade.” Only two or three tanks of this type actually saw combat. During this operation only twenty-nine percent of our medium tanks mounted 76-mm guns, and only four rounds of HVAP ammunition per 76-mm gun was available. Incidentally, rounds of this type expended in this operation have not been replaced. However, the 76-mm gun, even with HVAP ammunition, is not effective at the required ranges at which we must be able to effectively engage enemy armor.

The following are my personal convictions pertaining to the items listed:

Ordnance Equipment

The major items of ordnance equipment are sound in design from a mechanical standpoint, particularly with the changes in suspension of the M24 light tank and M4A3E8 and M26 medium tanks. Any increase in armor plate thickness would decrease speed and maneuverability and it is felt that these highly desirable characteristics should not be sacrificed. The main armament of our tanks, including sights, is not comparable to that of the Germans.

Tank, Light: The M5 light tank should be replaced with the M24 light tank as soon as possible. The latter is a highly satisfactory tank in every respect. Every effort should be made to improve the gun, sights and ammunition. The M5 light tank is obsolete in every respect as a fighting tank.

Tank, Medium: The M4A3E8 has comparable speed and maneuverability to any German tank. The 76-mm gun is reasonably satisfactory, provided sufficient HVAP ammunition were available. If it were possible to design and substitute a long barrel piece with muzzle brake and approximately 3400-3500 feet per second muzzle velocity, similar to the German 75-mm HV tank gun, this tank would be equal to anything our enemies have to offer.

The M26 medium tank has not as yet been issued to this division and consequently no comments can be made. Experience with the M36 tank destroyer with 90-mm gun indicates that this should be a highly effective tank when HVAP ammunition becomes available. Its issue to this division is eagerly awaited.

Tank Destroyer, M36: Has not lived up to expectations, but when HVAP ammunition becomes available it is hoped that it will be more effective. Fighting compartment precludes efficient service of the piece and available ammunition is not effective at required long range.

M4A3E8 Assault Tank with 105-mm Howitzer: An ideal weapon for purpose for which designed. Turret should have power traverse.



The most important point, and upon which there is universal agreement, is our lack of a tank gun and anti-tank gun with which we can effectively engage enemy armor at the required range. The correction of this deficiency has made progress, but the problem has not as yet been satisfactorily solved.

I would like to express my sincere appreciation for this opportunity to write you informally on these matters which are of such immediate concern and importance.

Sincerely yours,
[signed]
Isaac D. White

there are multiple letters in that article, and some of them mention tank crew reporting on HVAP effectivity, which suggest them being available not only for TD units. This one mentions 2-3 rounds for tank:
Some of my tank crews claim penetrations on the front plate of Mk V tanks, using the 76-mm gun and HVAP ammunition (3400 feet per second). They have more confidence in this combination than any other we have. So far, however, we have never been able to supply a tank with more than two or three rounds of this ammunition. We have been unable to obtain it. So far, we have been unable to obtain more than seven tanks out of seventeen mounting a 76-mm gun. So far, in this battalion, I have three tanks with the wide E8 suspension and track out of a total of fifty-four tanks.
Last edited by JaM2013 on Mon May 15, 2017 7:32 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Image

JagdpanzerIV
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Posts: 198
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2015 5:15 am

Re: M4s & Shermans

Post by JagdpanzerIV » Mon May 15, 2017 7:25 pm

because essentially, t-34s have 45mm@40d on their sides, giving them an armor edge. imho.

they should add in the game, an early tiger with ini 7 and late tiger with ini 8-10, why? cos in 1942 giving the tiger ini above 10 is just insane.
same with PzIVG, we need an early version with 50mm of armor, and the late version with 50+30mm bolted on. because when it came out, it was essentially a F2 with a new designation (as i recall)

JagdpanzerIV
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Posts: 198
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2015 5:15 am

Re: M4s & Shermans

Post by JagdpanzerIV » Mon May 15, 2017 7:30 pm

yes, when the Jackson and Pershing came out, their gun did not perform as good as expected. Essentially those guns were almost on par with the panther gun. Post WW2, with new improved ammo, penetrations improved drastically.

JaM2013
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Posts: 542
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 1:02 pm

Re: M4s & Shermans

Post by JaM2013 » Mon May 15, 2017 7:35 pm

50-30mm armor on PzIV is only for the hull, turret stayed 50mm FH entire time.. i saw some books stating 80mm turret, but it was a mistake, there were no such turrets made for PzIV.

Seems like Germans considered PzIV turret a low profile, and less likely to get hit than Hull front, so they didnt uparmored it.


regarding T34/85 - i dont think few mm on sides should increase its resistance that much.. after all, these tanks were vulnerable to flanking fire, and those few mm would not play that big role.. (shame we dont have unit facing in PC, outflanking the enemy was a common tank unit tactics)
Image

JagdpanzerIV
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Posts: 198
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2015 5:15 am

Re: M4s & Shermans

Post by JagdpanzerIV » Mon May 15, 2017 7:48 pm

t34 sides 40@40 gives 52mm vs 38 on the sherman vs 30 on PzIV. i took it into consideration when i gave my rating.
there was one exception, the PzIVE, it had 40mm...

of course flanking was a tactic. it should always be employed whenever can be.

JagdpanzerIV
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Posts: 198
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2015 5:15 am

Re: M4s & Shermans

Post by JagdpanzerIV » Mon May 15, 2017 7:54 pm

we have to take the side armor into consideration when calculating GD, otherwise a tank like the Tiger II, 150@50 front armor, would get a GD rating above 45? its twice as thick as a Tiger 1 tank.

Post Reply

Return to “Panzer Corps”