Posts: 3114 | Subs: 2
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
1. The post you quoted is about the 75mm (normal) Sherman, not the 76mm.
2. How often do I have to point out that penetration values alone do not mean anything?
3. Could you also give some backup to your claim that the AI capability of the AT rounds is "average"? Because they are not.
Posts: 359
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.
Panzer tactician is no different than a skill shot. Hardly a "Free" get out of jail card.
Posts: 3114 | Subs: 2
Not really. User Urist mentioned my name and my point was always that 76mm does not have to switch rounds before firing on vehicles as general gwain claimed.
(his post actually makes little sense)
It really depends on what is one looking and comparing.
76mm sherman still has a better better DPS vs ostheer PzIV
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
(feel free to use any metric or comparison you prefer)
Sherman 76mm AP are good/great rounds.
Call them what you like I don't mind. One can use vs soft target unlike the HAVP rounds.
Posts: 919
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.
Posts: 919
Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
Urist clearly spoke about the normal Sherman, not the doctrinal one. Any comparison to the doctrinal one does not make sense when quoting him. He was not involved in the discussion prior to this so what you discussed before with others does also not matter.
If you make comparative claims and say things are equal, back it up and don't resort to "call them what you like". Their AI is not on par with the AI shells of other medium tanks.
I'll leave it at that to not derail the discussion further.
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
And DPS is a horrible metric to compare vehicles with, although i can't think of 5 people who actually use it.
Posts: 919
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
Since my sentence...
"The shell switch alone (6 seconds) is already a big disadvantage at fighting different targets, so this surely would not be op."
...seems to be used out of context over and over again I'll post an additional statement that I made after this sentence which made clear how it was meant to anybody who takes the time to read it.
Post #648:
"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."
That should clear things up. So please ignore the other sentence, the second describes it better.
Posts: 1594
That is also misleading, the argument could only hold some water if the switchable shell where only AI or only AT and at the same power level as the all around shells (similar to ISU).
When Sherman 75mm switches to HE it does not get "good AI" it get one of the best AI shells and punches above its cost/class, the same goes for 76mm HAVP in AT.
What you are painting it misleading picture. Both 75mm and 76mm Sherman are very good tanks and the fact the they can switch shell does not make them under perform. It part of their strength, not part their weakness. A single shell combining those properties would be simply be broken.
Posts: 919
Posts: 919
The fact that they have to switch shells at all is a disadvantage, regardless of how strong either shell is. That's the entire argument. The Sherman's AP and HE shells are both extremely good, but the fact there's a delay between being able to use one or the other (and the mere fact you have to manually switch) is undeniably a disadvantage. This disadvantage is counteracted by the fact that the HE and AP shells are stronger than average, but it's still a present disadvantage.
If they switched instantly, and were switched automatically dependent on the target then this would be a buff to the unit, wouldn't you agree? If you do agree, then you agree that manual shell switching is, in fact, disadvantageous.
What you're stating is rather more misleading than what Gawain was stating to begin with. This really didnt need to go on for quite so long.
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
The fact that they have to switch shells at all is a disadvantage, regardless of how strong either shell is.
Posts: 1273
Posts: 1379
"And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family?..The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and... the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough...We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”― Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn , The Gulag Archipelago 1918–1956
Posts: 1594
Nope, that does not make sense. If that was the case then adding Sherman's HE to the Easy8 would be a nerf.
It simply would not be a nerf it would be a buff.
Sherman 75mm gives the player the option to use the best AI shell than any medium has, Sherman 76mm has the option to use the very powerful HAVP round AT round.
That is simply not a disadvantage since it allow these units to punch above level.
Finnaly there is even less logic to use the existence of HAVP rounds a reason to buff the AOE of AP rounds as general_gawain has done.
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
It really is a disadvantage when having to change targets quickly. For example, a sherman and Pz.iv run into an identical situation. You use the tank on a less defended flank to attack some engineers, say. All of a sudden, a wild enemy tank appears, and lucky you, it was passing by and due to user error it exposed its side armor to you. Now the panzer 4 can immediately take advantage of this situation by switching to prioritize vehicles and fire at the tank as soon as it reloads. Meanwhile the Sherman has to take the time to switch rounds.
It's a disadvantage in scenarios like this.
Now, as far as it being a disadvantage with all things considered, that argument is definitely harder to make. If you have the time to switch shells before engaging a target it's much less of a disadvantage.
I haven't really tested the M4C AP rounds against infantry so I don't know how effective it is, so I can't comment on that, but I do think it's important to note that the M4C comes with mobile smoke which is quite nice for Soviets.
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
You are misunderstanding the point entirely, and I'm not sure why.
Having to switch between different shells (With the associated delay) before you can use them is clearly a disadvantage. Please answer my question:
Would the Sherman be stronger if it retained both its shell types, but automatically switched (instantly) between them dependent on what would be optimal in a given situation? Yes Or No.
Nobody is saying that the Sherman is underpowered due to this, the shell-switching disadvantage is included as part of the tank's balance, due to it having two exceedingly good shell types. The two strong shell types are an advantage, the fact you have to manually switch between them is a disadvantage.
"Nope, that does not make sense. If that was the case then adding Sherman's HE to the Easy8 would be a nerf. " is a non sequitur and has absolutely nothing to do with the argument. You seem to not quite understand what is meant by "disadvantage", perhaps this is a language-barrier issue.
Example: The Sherman having lower armour than, say, the PIV, is also a disadvantage, even if both tanks are balanced. Relative strength isnt important.
 |
|
|
58 | ||
|
|
|
|
23 | ||
 |
|
|
8 | ||
|
|
|
|
4 | ||
|
|
|
|
4 | ||
 |
|
|
221 | ||
|
|
|
|
50 | ||
 |
|
|
30 | ||
|
|
|
|
4 | ||
 |
|
|
2 |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
