Commander Update Beta 2021 - Soviet Feedback

Now try comparing the M4C AP rounds with Sherman 75mm AP rounds.

Unless you also want to claim that 75mm can only fight Ostwinds.

Being able to choose from AP and HAVP rounds is an option for the 76mm Sherman the same way that being able to choose from HE is an option for the 75mm Sherman. It is no away disadvantage.

Do you actually believe in what you've stated or you just trolling?

Do you actually believe in what you've stated or you just trolling?

Do you actually think that having HE for the 75mm and HVAP for 76mm is a disadvantage of these units or are you just trolling?

Do you actually think that having HE for the 75mm and HVAP for 76mm is a disadvantage of these units or are you just trolling?

If you need to switch between them, you have a short period when you can get these completely off guard.

If you don't need to switch between them, like you claim, then alternative rounds are pointless and in need of buffs.

So, what it is?
Because you have portrayed it as everything between "advantage" and "pointless ability".

Do you actually think that having HE for the 75mm and HVAP for 76mm is a disadvantage of these units or are you just trolling?

Your words are "M4C does not have to switch shell to fight different target. Its AP rounds is both good at AT and AI."

Because if you only use AP rounds with 76mm it becomes a trash tank. There is not way you'd spend 125 fuel on that.

Also I never said that switching ammo is was a disadvantage. This is how these armor works and I absolutely have no problem with that.

Your words are "M4C does not have to switch shell to fight different target. Its AP rounds is both good at AT and AI."

Because if you only use AP rounds with 76mm it becomes a trash tank. There is not way you'd spend 125 fuel on that.

Also I never said that switching ammo is was a disadvantage. This is how these armor works and I absolutely have no problem with that.

Now instead of playing word games check my original post:

Can we pls drop the shell switch "big disadvantage" argument? M4C does not have to switch shell to fight different target. Its AP rounds is both good at AT and AI.

The unit simply has the option to use specially AT at rounds but that is an option and not a disadvantage.

(Can we also pls give a similar "disadvantage" to Ostheer's PzIV J)

If in your opinion the option for HAVP shell is not a disadvantage then pls move on.

If you need to switch between them, you have a short period when you can get these completely off guard.

If you don't need to switch between them, like you claim, then alternative rounds are pointless and in need of buffs.

So, what it is?
Because you have portrayed it as everything between "advantage" and "pointless ability".

Nope that is simply not the case. (what you have posted is mental gymnastics)

Allow me to explain to you that you can switch rounds just after firing and reduce delay between the shots.

Now if in your opinion having the option to use HAVP is disadvantage feel free to explain why.

not worth. deleted

1. Obviously having to switch between two shell modes to get good AI or good AT is a disadvantage compared to a tank who has the same AI and AT values combined in one standard shell. I do think this is out of question.

2. With the nerf to RoF AI and AT performance of the standard shell the 76mm got worse at AI and AT compared to the performance it had before. This one should be out of question too.

3. Given the armor values of axis tanks 120 long range pentration with a RoF above 5 seconds shouldn't be considered as "good at AT".

4. A 80 damage kill radius of 0,88 in combination with an AOE of 2 with a far damage of 8 shouldn't be considered as "good at AI". It is in fact the worst AOE profile of all generalist medium tanks (shared only with E8 shells and AP shells of 75mm Sherman).


The idea of a shell switch is that you have a strong AT shell with little to no AI value and vice versa. both shells should be individually stronger in their section than the shell of a similar priced tank which combines AI and AT in one shell. This mechanic should be obvious to all around here.

If a tank fails to be good in one of the two shell modes the shell switch gets obsolete, because you will be pretty much always be in the other better mode.

While HVAP shell of 76mm is good at AT, standard shells are not good at AI and not good at AT either of course (see 3. and 4.).

With 76mm standard shells not beeing good enough at AI and HVAP easily getting overshaded by SU-85 in range, accuracy, penetration and RoF there is no reason for the existence of M4C at a Soviet commander.

I'm done.

snip

Well said!

1. Obviously having to switch between two shell modes to get good AI or good AT is a disadvantage compared to a tank who has the same AI and AT values combined in one standard shell. I do think this is out of question.

2. With the nerf to RoF AI and AT performance of the standard shell the 76mm got worse at AI and AT compared to the performance it had before. This one should be out of question too.

3. Given the armor values of axis tanks 120 long range pentration with a RoF above 5 seconds shouldn't be considered as "good at AT".

4. A 80 damage kill radius of 0,88 in combination with an AOE of 2 with a far damage of 8 shouldn't be considered as "good at AI". It is in fact the worst AOE profile of all generalist medium tanks (shared only with E8 shells and AP shells of 75mm Sherman).


The idea of a shell switch is that you have a strong AT shell with little to no AI value and vice versa. both shells should be individually stronger in their section than the shell of a similar priced tank which combines AI and AT in one shell. This mechanic should be obvious to all around here.

If a tank fails to be good in one of the two shell modes the shell switch gets obsolete, because you will be pretty much always be in the other better mode.

While HVAP shell of 76mm is good at AT, standard shells are not good at AI and not good at AT either of course (see 3. and 4.).

With 76mm standard shells not beeing good enough at AI and HVAP easily getting overshaded by SU-85 in range, accuracy, penetration and RoF there is no reason for the existence of M4C at a Soviet commander.

I'm done.

What you are describing is the ISU-152 shell that AI or AT (and even that is not very accurate since the AI shell have deflection damage) and not the Sherman shells.

The 76mm AP rounds are simply not bad in AT. Here is a simply DPS comparison between the 76mm and Ostheer PzIV in live.

PzIV vs Sherman 76mm has 21.7/19.2/15.8/12.8/10.0 DPS
Sherman 76mm AP vs PzIV has 27.4/23.1/19.0/15.3/11.7 DPS

as you can see 76mm is higher DPS at all ranges so the AP rounds are good at AT.

As for its AI it probably the same to the 75mm AP rounds only it has higher ROF.

If you want more accurate stats you can ask Hannibal to provide you with the AT stats and MMX to provide you with AI capabilities of the 76mm Sherman.

76mm Sherman can use AP round and if it engages a vehicle with high armor it can easily switch to HAVP after firing the first shot and during reload and use HAVP that is simply not a disadvantage.

The 76mm AP rounds are simply not bad in AT. Here is a simply DPS comparison between the 76mm and Ostheer PzIV in live.

First of all the standard shell should be the one that is somehow good at AI and it just not good at AI. As I said it is the worst AOE profile of all generalist tank. Given the high armor of both PZIV variants you want to use HVAP shells to fight them. AP shells are only superior versus low armor targets because of the slightly faster RoF.

Secondly you will fight higher armored tanks pretty soon with 76mm, at that point AP rounds suck. So I wouldn't say AP rounds are good at AT.

If this tank should stand any chance in soviet roster then drastically reduce the penetration at AP rounds so that they are only useable versus light tanks and vehicles, buff AOE and take back RoF nerf. In addition give something like crew repair to make up for loss of tank crew.

Again, soviet faction has no use for a T4 tank that wants to be AT but gets outplayed in every single stat by T4 Su-85: Accuracy, range, RoF and penetration.

First of all the standard shell should be the one that is somehow good at AI and it just not good at AI. As I said it is the worst AOE profile of all generalist tank.

That is simply false, 76mm AP's AOE are identical to 75mm AP rounds while the gun fire faster.

Given the high armor of both PZIV variants you want to use HVAP shells to fight them. AP shells are only superior versus low armor targets because of the slightly faster RoF.

76mm AP rounds is on of the best, from all around rounds, in the AT role among medium tank. Only T-34/85 has better penetration but with lower ROF.

Just because HAVP round are superior that does not mean they are bad.

Secondly you will fight higher armored tanks pretty soon with 76mm, at that point AP rounds suck. So I wouldn't say AP rounds are good at AT.

The fact it can penetrate Tigers with 100% does make it "suck" unless in your opinion PzIV gun "suck badly" vs anything with armor better T-34/85

The round are simply good (for units of it class/role) and the unit can fight both tank and infatry with them effectively.

If this tank should stand any chance in soviet roster then drastically reduce the penetration at AP rounds so that they are only useable versus light tanks and vehicles, buff AOE and take back RoF nerf.

Funny that you make this suggestion because then it would have to switch rounds depending on target which according to you is a "Big disadvantage".

According to you are suggesting a nerf.

In addition give something like crew repair to make up for loss of tank crew.

Soviet 76mm never lost the crew, the USF version simply gained one.

Again, soviet faction has no use for a T4 tank that wants to be AT but gets outplayed in every single stat by T4 Su-85: Accuracy, range, RoF and penetration.

You mean the Soviet faction has no use for T-34/85 or KV-1?

The problem with your mentality is that you are comparing a medium main battle tank with TD and expecting the MBT to be superior AT role. That would simply be broken.

You misunderstood me in so many ways that I will summarize my most important statements since it seems you doesn't read all I posted but looking a every of my sentences individually without context.

That is simply false, 76mm AP's AOE are identical to 75mm AP rounds while the gun fire faster.

Shocking news, I said that they have the same AOE profile a few post above. The important difference is, that the AP shell of 75mm it is the shell meant to fight vehicles/tanks. The real AI shell (HE) has a strong AI value. You have to switch to fight infantry as intended at shell switch mechanic.

76mm AP rounds is on of the best, from all around rounds, in the AT role among medium tank. Only T-34/85 has better penetration but with lower ROF.

I would exchange AP from 76mm versus HE from 75mm or standard shell of PZIV any time. Imagine how op 76mm would be if the AP shell would be the PZIV shell. So don't tell me it is one of the best allround shell, it just sucks at fighting infantry.

Just because HAVP round are superior that does not mean they are bad.

Why having a shell switch if both shells are better at AT than AI. What is the meaning of it?

The fact it can penetrate Tigers with 100% does make it "suck" unless in your opinion PzIV gun "suck badly" vs anything with armor better T-34/85

You misunderstand me again. The PZIV shell would be soo good for 76mm, it doesn't have to penetrate Tiger with AP, it has to be better at AI to make shell switching between HVAP and AP a real decision.

The round are simply good (for units of it class/role) and the unit can fight both tank and infatry with them effectively.

Can fight infantry effectively? Again: Worst AOE profile of all generalist tanks (shared with E8 and AP from 75mm of course).

Funny that you make this suggestion because then it would have to switch rounds depending on target which according to you is a "Big disadvantage".

According to you are suggesting a nerf.

No it is not, if both shells perform accordingly a little stronger. Just please read what I wrote a few posts above or I won't answer anymore.

Soviet 76mm never lost the crew, the USF version simply gained one.

It got lost as the tank was ported from USF to Soviet without a compensation. Tank crews are part of price/performance of USF tanks. That isn't so hard to understand.

You mean the Soviet faction has no use for T-34/85 or KV-1?

The problem with your mentality is that you are comparing a medium main battle tank with TD and expecting the MBT to be superior AT role. That would simply be broken.

Oh man, I said more than once that T-34/85 and KV-1 are a strong addition to SU-85 since they shield better (survivability) and fight infantry very effictively, that is the one thing Su-85 lacks. Soviet need no AT tank that is worse than Su-85 in every single way, they need a tank that supplements the SU-85 like T34/85 or KV-1. Please apply the effort to not only read my last post but maybe the 3 to 4 above it. There you will find the answers to your arguments already.

The 105mm for example would be a very good edition to Soviet roster at Land Lease, the 76mm with current performance just isn't because it adds something that Soviets simply don't need.

You misunderstood me in so many ways that I will summarize my most important statements since it seems you doesn't read all I posted but looking a every of my sentences individually without context.

Then maybe you try to post less and more clearly.

I have not misunderstood anything you have made a claim that the "shell switch of 76mm is big disadvantage" and I have proven it to be false.

If in your opinion 76mm need a better AI round feel free to post about it but is quite irrelevant.

Shocking news, I said that they have the same AOE profile a few post above. The important difference is, that the AP shell of 75mm it is the shell meant to fight vehicles/tanks. The real AI shell (HE) has a strong AI value. You have to switch to fight infantry as intended at shell switch mechanic.

And that brings up the question, does the 75mm also have the "big disadvantage" of having to switch shell?

I would exchange AP from 76mm versus HE from 75mm or standard shell of PZIV any time. Imagine how op 76mm would be if the AP shell would be the PZIV shell. So don't tell me it is one of the best allround shell, it just sucks at fighting infantry.

And I would add the "big disadvantage" of having the option to switch to HVAP in PzIV J, any day so what exactly is your point?

Why having a shell switch if both shells are better at AT than AI. What is the meaning of it?


You misunderstand me again. The PZIV shell would be soo good for 76mm, it doesn't have to penetrate Tiger with AP, it has to be better at AI to make shell switching between HVAP and AP a real decision.

Your original post clearly says:
"The shell switch alone (6 seconds) is already a big disadvantage at fighting different targets, so this surely would not be op."

so I am not sure what you arguing here. If 76mm had 75mm HE and HAVP it would probably be OP so but it it would still have to "switch rounds" and that according to you is "big disadvantage"

Can fight infantry effectively? Again: Worst AOE profile of all generalist tanks (shared with E8 and AP from 75mm of course).

No it is not, if both shells perform accordingly a little stronger. Just please read what I wrote a few posts above or I won't answer anymore.

just because it has the worse AOE than PzIV/T-34 it does not mean it can not fight infatry effectively. And it has superior ROF and 3 mgs.

It got lost as the tank was ported from USF to Soviet without a compensation. Tank crews are part of price/performance of USF tanks. That isn't so hard to understand.

That is simply false. M4C was first available to Soviet and then it become available to USF, it never lost the crew because it never had one.

Oh man, I said more than once that T-34/85 and KV-1 are a strong addition to SU-85 since they shield better (survivability) and fight infantry very effictively, that is the one thing Su-85 lacks. Soviet need no AT tank that is worse than Su-85 in every single way, they need a tank that supplements the SU-85 like T34/85 or KV-1. Please apply the effort to not only read my last post but maybe the 3 to 4 above it. There you will find the answers to your arguments already.

If something is unclear maybe it has to do with what you actually write and not the people who read it.

The 105mm for example would be a very good edition to Soviet roster at Land Lease, the 76mm with current performance just isn't because it adds something that Soviets simply don't need.

That has nothing to with fact that you claim "shell switch is big disavantge for 76mm" is simply false.

The 76mm does bring rare/unique thing to Soviet roster like:
0.50 pintle
radio net bonuses
Smoke shell

If in you opinion the 76mm should be replace by 105mm go ahead and suggest it.

snip

It simply makes no sense to discuss it anymore in such a way. I will drop it now and in future. Thx.

In a few years we will find out that the Vipper account was just part of a social experiment: "How long will people continue to talk to you if you choose to ignore their argument and instead try to disprove single sentences without the context?"

Having the 75mm-HE AI-capabilities and the 75mm-AP AT-capabilities in one shell would be stronger than having to switch between the two shell types to fight specific targets, right? Thats what was meant with "shell switch is a disadvantage". But because there is no medium tank shell that has as good AI as the 75mm-HE AND as good AT as the 75mm-AP that makes up for the disadvantage of having to switch to the correct shell. This makes the performance of the 75mm sherman balanced and switching between the shell types an interesting choice. How this can be misunderstood is beyond me and has to be purposeful derailing of the actual discussion.

In a few years we will find out that the Vipper account was just part of a social experiment: "How long will people continue to talk to you if you choose to ignore their argument and instead try to disprove single sentences without the context?"

or in few year from now you might learn the game mechanics.
or
you might even understand that I am not the one continuing this but you by mentioning my name and writing things that are simply false

Having the 75mm-HE AI-capabilities and the 75mm-AP AT-capabilities in one shell would be stronger than having to switch between the two shell types to fight specific targets, right? Thats what was meant with "shell switch is a disadvantage". But because there is no medium tank shell that has as good AI as the 75mm-HE AND as good AT as the 75mm-AP that makes up for the disadvantage of having to switch to the correct shell. This makes the performance of the 75mm sherman balanced and switching between the shell types an interesting choice. How this can be misunderstood is beyond me and has to be purposeful derailing of the actual discussion.

And you are simply wrong.

What has been said is that:
"The shell switch alone (6 seconds) is already a big disadvantage at fighting different targets, so this surely would not be op."

That simply false.

According to that claim, if one is driving around his 76mm Sherman with his AP round load and vehicle comes he should immediately switch rounds and wait 6 second to load a HAVP.

That would be bad play and not a disadvantage of 76mm Sherman.


On should simply fire the AP round (which is actually one of the best AT rounds in any medium tank) and if the enemy vehicles has high a armor value switch to HVAP immediately after firing. The time to switch would be close to a normal reload but one would now have access to AT shell (mostly) restricted to TDs.

The "switch rounds argument" is imaginary disadvantage that was also attributed to 75mm and HE round.

It would only made some sense if both rounds did damage only and exclusively at one type of target. That is simply not the case.

Sherman AP rounds are good/great AT rounds compared to other medium tanks and average AI rounds compared to other meduim tanks.

Shermans using AP rounds can engage all targets.

On top of their multi role rounds, Shermans have the option to use a superior round against specific targets.

That is no way a disadvantage for the unit.

Sherman AP rounds are good/great AT rounds compared to other medium tanks and average AI rounds compared to other meduim tanks.

A Sherman using AP rounds can engage all targets.

Not true, check the stats.
The AP round has average AT performance and subpar AI performance.

Not true, check the stats.
The AP round has average AT performance and subpar AI performance.

Since you ask nicely here are the stats:

Cromwell
Penetration 135/120/105 ROF 6.05

T-34/76
Penetration 120/100/80 ROF 6.35

Panzer IV
Penetration 125/115/110 ROF 5.75

OKW Panzer IV
Penetration 125/115/110 ROF 5.75


Sherman AP
Penetration 140/120/100 ROF 6.05

Sherman 76mm AP
Penetration 140/130/120 ROF 4.55


With the highest penetration and highest ROF 76mm Sherman has the one the best AT guns.

Regardless how you describe the rounds my point is solid when a Sherman 76mm with AP round come across a vehicle it should fire that round and not switch to HAVP without firing.