New Allied Units List

[Gompel]

I know the Tortoise is a special unit, but why has it a unrealistic movement of 5? That's as fast as a Sherman, while Wikipedia says 19km/h on road. I would say it's more like a 3 or 4 at max.. I can understand that for the scenario (Crossing the Rhine) it is unusefull with such a slow speed, but why not put a hero with +2 movement in it?
Btw, I forgot to note in my earlier post that a few other US tanks from the M4 range have also a movement of 4.

[uran21]

The Avro Anson bomber has recon move and is a non purchased item.

Is that intended?

Yes it is intended.

[uran21]

I know the Tortoise is a special unit, but why has it a unrealistic movement of 5? That's as fast as a Sherman, while Wikipedia says 19km/h on road. I would say it's more like a 3 or 4 at max.. I can understand that for the scenario (Crossing the Rhine) it is unusefull with such a slow speed, but why not put a hero with +2 movement in it?
Btw, I forgot to note in my earlier post that a few other US tanks from the M4 range have also a movement of 4.

Good thinking for heavy allied tanks.

[Delta66]

I also think that Movement of 5 for The Tortoise and the T28 is way too much. 4 would allready be really generous for units that moved at under 20 km/h.

Giving the self propelled guns, the same attack value than their field guns of equivalent caliber, but with a better movement allowance, is an oversimplification.
For example, The M12 GMC / Long Tom, or the Sturmpanzer / sFH 18 in PzC.
The SP guns usually had a much lower elevation limiting the range, and were not designed to deliver the same volume of fire.

[Kamerer]

I think that is the e4 and not the e8. The e8 should be about comparable to the Firefly if not superior (the ap round was much more accurate and effective than the Firefly version). The e8 came out about the time for Bulge and was there, I believe, but not Normandy.

Hi Kamerer, the E4 was postwar, maybe you mean the heavily armoured E2 ('Jumbo')? Doesn't matter, just trying to clarify things, I mix them up all the time.

The E8 ('Easy Eight'), was just the designation of the prototype; the only major change was the new suspension (HVSS) which gave much better mobility and crew comfort, the rest was pretty much the same as the 'standard' M4A3 76mm armed Sherman.
http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/m4sherman.h ... 76%29WHVSS
also have a look at
http://the.shadock.free.fr/sherman_minutia/index.html

And yes, it was first made in August 1944. I just checked, first units were with the 4th Armoured Division, late Dec. 1944, so they would have been used at the Bulge. I think that the M4A3(76)W is the closest thing in the game, looking at the icon, with more fuel and 5 move, but it is introduced far too early.

The Firefly was based on an older Sherman hull/turret, so it would have a bit less armour protection than an E8 (I already commented earlier about its too high GD). And without HVSS suspension, worse mobility as well, and it lacked the hull machine gun as well (deleted to store more ammo).

Judging the guns is tricky, because what ammo should be compared? The 17-pdr had a sabot round with better penetration but worse accuracy than the 'standard' AP round that was mostly used. The US 76mm started out with a similar AP round, and later HVAP ammo was quickly introduced, after meeting Panthers and discovering the reality didn't match the expectations.

But overall, the 17-pdr is definately more powerful and has comparable accuracy when firing 'normal' rounds. I have a US wartime report on paper, I managed to find a working link to it: http://wargaming.info/1998/us-army-1944 ... Z1bi0qb6j8 Very interesting stuff. Sorry for the long story, but I hope this clears up some confusion.

Sorry to respond late but there was a big holiday in the US. I have to say most US war veterans would disagree with what you say, the easy eight was not a prototype but very much in the war from late '44 on. The Jumbo was an earlier version and not at all what we are talking about, or rather I was earlier.

The -e4 was a 76mm gunned version, which is shown in the game as the M4a3 as best I can tell (it was offically called the M4A3E4). The -E8 version never appears. Also, the US HV ammo was massively more accurate than the UK firefly ammo (proving ground tests show it as abysmal - check the Aberdeen post war tests). So the later model Sherman is badly under-represented in the game, and the Firefly over-capable, as we have known since GC West (there have been complaints on this issue since then). Overall, this would be akin to sending the King Tiger out with the same gun as the Tiger I. A flaw that should not go out in a game based on unit detail.

While the Sherman was not the ruler of the battlefield it surveyed, it was in fact a war-winning weapon and it would be worth getting it right within the game.

[ThvN]

I have to say most US war veterans would disagree with what you say, the easy eight was not a prototype but very much in the war from late '44 on.

Kamerer, than we are both right, it's just a matter of using the official US Army designation or the crew nickname. The tank you call Easy Eight is not a single model, although I know which one you mean. You call it M4A3E8, which was experimental, I call it the M4A3(76)W HVSS, which is short for Medium Tank M4A3(76mm)Wet, Horizontal Volute Spring Suspension, which is the service designation. I wouldn't mind if the game's 'short name' was M4A3E8, but for the purposes of providing accurate information I try to use the official designations.

And I am fequently amazed at how (former)military personnel know so little about their own equipment; I talked to people who didn't remember the calibre of their issued weapon, or what engine was in their APC. Some details can be very vivid and accurate, but overall it's the same as assuming a person who drives a milion miles a year knows everything about his car. So cross-reference those statements as much as possible. And if you are a researcher, using asserted conclusions, by proxy even, is not a very scientific approach. Which is why I post references, and try to use weblinks that post their sources as much as possible. As these were probably inadequate, I'll explain in more detail:

The Medium Tank, M4 was given a limited number of official designations. Those are the ones I refer to. The end-users may have thought up any fancy names they liked, but as this discussion is about the differences in versions, using non-official designations such as 'Easy Eight', 'Jumbo', can cause confusion. I was trying to prevent that. It wasn't even officially designated 'Sherman' except by the British, but as this was just the most common name for it, I use it. See "FM 17-76: Crew drill and service of the piece Medium Tank, M4 Series (105mm howitzer)". - official designation, no Sherman here.

M4 is just a designation for a series of medium tanks. the 'A' suffix is basically a system to separate the engine/hull types (different factories built different patterns, and these 'A' subtypes are not chronological). And you may call them Easy Eight, but than I will have to assume you are talking about a specific version, as this designation does not refer to a particular, unique version. If I say Tiger, what vehicle/version do I mean? T-34, even worse. Imagine ordering parts for one and just using that name. Good luck with that.

OK, besides the basic service designations, there was a host of experimental (E) and trial (T) designations. Now, the original suspension system (named VVSS) was taken from the Medium Tank, M3 (Lee, Grant), and was inadequate. So, experiments begun. The most succesful one was the suspension type (HVSS) mounted on an M4 which had the E8 suffix. There was also an E9, with a different suspension setup. When they were given service designations, the E (or T) generally was deleted. But sometimes these E (and T) designations were not given a 'service' designation, for example if they were considered non-standard, like the E2. (for example check the T26/M26 tank, what should it be called in the game?) Technically this HVSS suspension was not exclusive to the 76mm versions, but is commonly associated as the main model to feature HVSS suspension also had a 76mm gun in an upgraded turret. But the 76mm gun wasn't exclusive to the new 'T23' (another made-up designation) turret as well, to complicate things further.

'Initially these tanks were known to the troops as "M4A3 (76mm gun) with 23-inch track." This designation was too cumbersome, and by the spring of 1945 they were commonly referred to by their experimental designation of M4A3E8. While this designation is in fact applied to any of the developmental M4A3 tanks fitted with the HVSS suspension, in practice it was usually used to identify the 76mm M4A3 tanks with the HVSS suspension. Some units referred to these as "Easy Eights" but this appears to have been a post-war nickname.' source: Steven J. Zaloga, Jim Laurier. M4 (76mm) Sherman Medium Tank 1943–65, page 23

23-inch is the width of the new track that was used with the HVSS suspension. Note that the gun calibre is seperately mentioned.

The -e4 was a 76mm gunned version, which is shown in the game as the M4a3 as best I can tell (it was offically called the M4A3E4).

I'am not sure it is in the game, as the E4 wasn't really issued during WW2, but it could be, information is scarce. As the production of the newer 76mm turret was slow, plans were made to upgrade existing Shermans, exchanging the 75mm for the 76mm, with the necessary modification added to the stock turret (counterweights, etc.). This retrofit was called the E4, but in the mean time the production of the normal 76mm gun version had sped up, and it was no longer deemed necessary. There were field retrofits and an officially authorized 76mm refit for the E2, however.

I know for sure the E4 designation was recycled post-war for refurbished 75mm tanks that were retrofitted with the 76mm gun and supplied to various nations. So yes, you are right, it would designate a Sherman with a 76mm gun, but one based on a 75mm turret model.

Also, the US HV ammo was massively more accurate than the UK firefly ammo (proving ground tests show it as abysmal - check the Aberdeen post war tests).

Do you have a link or name for the Aberdeen tests? And what type of 'UK firefly' ammo? There were several ones for the 17-pdr.? SABOT or APCBC? And yes, I know, I've read my own links I posted, there is an accuracy comparison is clearly stated in the test I linked to:

4. Results of Test

a. A tabulation of the detailed results, with photographs, is attached as Appendix A1.

b. Accuracy

(1) A tabulation does not present a true picture of the comparative accuracy of the various ammunitions. With all the standard rounds, except 17pdr SABOT, the accuracy was such as to warrant attempting to hit specific parts of the front plates. In general this was successful, but some rounds fired at the lower glacis struck the upper nose, and vice versa. In addition, it was not possible to position all the tanks so that the nose was not, at least partially, hidden by the ground line. Therefore, it is felt that a better measure of accuracy can be obtained by considering the nose and glacis as one target.

(2) On this basis all twenty-two (22) rounds of 76mm HVAP, T4, and all twenty-three (23) rounds of 17pdr APCBC hit the target. Only one (1) of eight (8) rounds of 76mm APC, M62, which fell short attempting to hit the nose, failed to hit the target. Forty-two (42) rounds of 17pdr SABOT were fired and only 57% [24 rounds] were hits. More rounds of 76mm APC, M62 were not fired since its accuracy had been well established in previous firing in the U.S. by two members of the board.

(3) Insufficient firing was conducted with 76mm HVAP projectile with 17pdr APCBC and 17pdr SABOT propellant to determine definite sight settings for a conclusive accuracy test. The results of the limited firing indicated that these rounds are of an accuracy comparable with 76mm HVAP and 17pdr APCBC.

5. Findings

a. The 17pdr SABOT fired in this test has penetrating power equal or slightly better than that of the 17pdr APCBC and the 76mm HVAP, T4. It is, however, definitely inferior to these ammunitions because of its inaccuracy. The board invites attention to the fact that its findings and conclusions apply only to the ammunition furnished it and may not apply to good quality 17pdr SABOT.

b. The accuracy of 76mm APC, M62 is satisfactory. However this ammunition is definitely inferior to either the 17pdr APCBC or the 76mm HVAP, T4, because of its poor penetrating power.

c. The 17pdr APCBC and the 76mm HVAP, T4, are both highly accurate ammunitions. In the opinion of the members of the board, two of whom have had considerable experience test firing British and American tank and antitank weapons, the 76mm HVAP, T4 is the most accurate tank or antitank ammunition encountered to date.

d. The 17pdr APCBC is more effective against the front of a Panther tank than is the 76mm HVAP, T4. Its margin of superiority is not great. Neither one can be depended upon to penetrate the glacis plate in one fair hit on average quality plate.

6. Conclusions

a. That the 17pdr SABOT of the lot tested is considered an unsatisfactory ammunition because of its inaccuracy.

b. That the 76mm APC, M62 is considered an unsatisfactory ammunition for use against heavy armor because of its inferior penetration.

c. That the 17pdr APCBC and the 76mm HVAP, T4 are considered the best antitank ammunitions available in these calibers for use against heavy armor. The 17pdr APCBC is somewhat superior to the 76mm HVAP, T4, against the Panther Tank. Neither one can be be depended upon to penetrate the glacis plate of the Panther in one fair hit on average quality plate.

d. That the possibilities should be investigated of using 76mm HVAP, T4 projectile with 17pdr SABOT propellant, if 17pdr guns are made available to U.S. units.

So, if I provide a link to a test that gives these results, I would not say I disagree with your assesment. But I said the Firefly can be modeled on the different ammunition types. So, again, my question, on what ammunition type should the in-game stats be modeled?

So the later model Sherman is badly under-represented in the game, and the Firefly over-capable, as we have known since GC West (there have been complaints on this issue since then). Overall, this would be akin to sending the King Tiger out with the same gun as the Tiger I. A flaw that should not go out in a game based on unit detail.

While the Sherman was not the ruler of the battlefield it surveyed, it was in fact a war-winning weapon and it would be worth getting it right within the game.

Yes, I've mentioned multiple times the Firefly is too good, and the Shermans generally underpowered. And the game has trouble representing numerical advantage; the Sherman suffers extra because of this, I think. I would think it also suffers from being a very all-round capable tank, which make it seem to excel at nothing.

[Delta66]

I was surprised to see that the Americans, can use the M3 halftrack as a tractor for the 8 inch M1 gun, I though the M6 tractor was used instead.

[Razz1]

Release Candidate

Tortoise should be movement 3.

It's not fair to have a Monster tank like the Maus and only move three while the Allied Monster tank can move 4. They both had the same speed.

[VPaulus]

Release Candidate

Tortoise should be movement 3.

It's not fair to have a Monster tank like the Maus and only move three while the Allied Monster tank can move 4. They both had the same speed.

Maus weights more than the double. Probably you would sustain higher speeds with Tortoise than with Maus.

[Razz1]

My research shoes they both traveled at 19 km.

The Germans had better engines for HP to weight ratio.

[Razz1]

Did we ever get the camouflage trait fixed?