USF 76mm Sherman?

The US Army didn't change their minds until losses incurred during the Ardennes Counteroffensive which were the result of Tank Destroyers being too few and Shermans being incapable of fighting Panzers efficiently. It was after this that Eisenhower finally gave the order to cease production and delivery of 75mm Shermans and send only 76mm Shermans.

you say it like the M36 needs a slight buff?

Scatter Angle:
Panzer IV: 7.5
Sherman: 6.0

Scatter Distance:
Panzer IV: 6.4
Sherman: 6.2




Uh, USF is late 1944. The US Army was very stubborn and refused to accept the 76mm Shermans as a replacement despite superior AT performance. In their minds, Shermans weren't supposed to fight Tanks, they were supposed to fight Infantry and Fortifications, and for this the Army kept using low velocity guns because of their superior HE round. They believed that Tank Destroyers were supposed to kill tanks, although this is poorly represented because the USF Tank Destroyers in CoH2 lack their real-life advantages.

The US Army didn't change their minds until losses incurred during the Ardennes Counteroffensive which were the result of Tank Destroyers being too few and Shermans being incapable of fighting Panzers efficiently. It was after this that Eisenhower finally gave the order to cease production and delivery of 75mm Shermans and send only 76mm Shermans.

Actually the Army did expect Shermans to fight other tanks. Armored divisions were meant to be used for exploiting breakthroughs the Infantry Divisions made with support from Tank Battalions (in the Tank Battalion role shermans were used in the support role you describe). Whatever the Armored Division could encounter behind the lines while wreaking havoc included enemy tanks. Armored Divisions usually only had one Tank Destroyer battalion attached to them, which couldn't possibly support all three of the Armored Division's Combat Commands properly. Tank Destroyers were supposed to be used defensively.

The Army also wasn't stubborn because they wanted tanks to fight in the infantry support role, they were stubborn because they didn't want to rush something that was half-finished to the front.

Uh, USF is late 1944. The US Army was very stubborn and refused to accept the 76mm Shermans as a replacement despite superior AT performance. In their minds, Shermans weren't supposed to fight Tanks, they were supposed to fight Infantry and Fortifications, and for this the Army kept using low velocity guns because of their superior HE round. They believed that Tank Destroyers were supposed to kill tanks, although this is poorly represented because the USF Tank Destroyers in CoH2 lack their real-life advantages.

The US Army didn't change their minds until losses incurred during the Ardennes Counteroffensive which were the result of Tank Destroyers being too few and Shermans being incapable of fighting Panzers efficiently. It was after this that Eisenhower finally gave the order to cease production and delivery of 75mm Shermans and send only 76mm Shermans.

You seem to be completely missinformed about american tanks. Please watch this video.

Actually the Army did expect Shermans to fight other tanks. Armored divisions were meant to be used for exploiting breakthroughs the Infantry Divisions made with support from Tank Battalions (in the Tank Battalion role shermans were used in the support role you describe). Whatever the Armored Division could encounter behind the lines while wreaking havoc included enemy tanks.

The point is, AT power wasn't a primary concern for the Army regarding the M4 Sherman. If it was, we would have started deploying a lot more 76mm armed Shermans a lot sooner. But it wasn't, we were more than content with our 75mm Shermans, and they could knock out a Panzer IV from medium range, so we were happy with them. We didn't expect so many Panthers when we invaded France, the British on the other hand did and prepared for it their own way, with 17 Pounder re-armed vehicles.

Armored Divisions usually only had one Tank Destroyer battalion attached to them, which couldn't possibly support all four of the Armored Division's Combat Commands properly. Tank Destroyers were supposed to be used defensively.

Tank Destroyers were used offensively, if Tanks were expected in an area, they sent them to cover the other forces. This is part of the reason the Army changed their minds after the Ardennes, because there wasn't enough Tank Destroyers to halt the German advance, and the Sherman was unable to defend itself effectively.

The Army also wasn't stubborn because they wanted tanks to fight in the infantry support role, they were stubborn because they didn't want to rush something that was half-finished to the front.

The 76mm Sherman wasn't half finished, it was completed and ready. The Army just rejected them because they valued their 75mm HE shell too much, and didn't consider better AT a worthy trade because they used Tank Destroyers.

You seem to be completely missinformed about american tanks. Please watch this video.

Can't right now, but is it the one that claims the 75mm Gun was superior to the 75mm KwK 40, and that the Panther had weak armor and crap penetration?

The point is, AT power wasn't a primary concern for the Army regarding the M4 Sherman. If it was, we would have started deploying a lot more 76mm armed Shermans a lot sooner. But it wasn't, we were more than content with our 75mm Shermans, and they could knock out a Panzer IV from medium range, so we were happy with them. We didn't expect so many Panthers when we invaded France, the British on the other hand did and prepared for it their own way, with 17 Pounder re-armed vehicles.

The development of a 76mm Sherman already started in early 1942 though.....

Tank Destroyers were used offensively, if Tanks were expected in an area, they sent them to cover the other forces. This is part of the reason the Army changed their minds after the Ardennes, because there wasn't enough Tank Destroyers to halt the German advance, and the Sherman was unable to defend itself effectively.

No, Tank Destroyers were meant to counter German tanks that broke through lines. One of its main criticisms was that it was much too defensive orientated, while the Allies were on the offensive and not encountering large concentrations of enemy armor anymore. And again, you seem to mostly be talking about Tank Destroyer/Tank Battalions that were attached to infantry divisions for support with breaking through enemy lines. My point is that the core of the Armored Division was the Sherman, but their role wasn't as narrow as just infantry support. Like I said, an Armored Division only had one Tank Destroyer Battalion semi-permanently attached to them. An Armored Division wasn't expected to counter enemy armor specifically, but Tank Battalions were expected to encounter it, and were not as narrowly focused on infantry support as Tank Battalions attached to Infantry Divisions were.

The 76mm Sherman wasn't half finished, it was completed and ready. The Army just rejected them because they valued their 75mm HE shell too much, and didn't consider better AT a worthy trade because they used Tank Destroyers.

Yeah, by 1944 it was completed and ready, which was when it was put into production and sent to Europe.

I feel like usf should initially have just the base 75mm sherman, which you could later refit with 76mm turret, jumbo armor or 105mm howitzer (maybe even croc, calliope...) depending on your needs. would give some flexibility. Make the upgrade possible only in the base sector for the sake of "realism". Oh, and bring back the crab flail!

No, Tank Destroyers were meant to counter German tanks that broke through lines. One of its main criticisms was that it was much too defensive orientated, while the Allies were on the offensive and not encountering large concentrations of enemy armor anymore. And again, you seem to mostly be talking about Tank Destroyer/Tank Battalions that were attached to infantry divisions for support with breaking through enemy lines. My point is that the core of the Armored Division was the Sherman, but their role wasn't as narrow as just infantry support. Like I said, an Armored Division only had one Tank Destroyer Battalion semi-permanently attached to them. An Armored Division wasn't expected to counter enemy armor specifically, but Tank Battalions were expected to encounter it, and were not as narrowly focused on infantry support as Tank Battalions attached to Infantry Divisions were.

I don't know about that, that sounds like one of those 'tank myths' in itself. I find it hard to believe that we'd knowingly send hordes of Shermans (poorly armed for tank combat) into battle with no dedicated anti-tank support, and not even change our strategies until early 1945 when they got wrecked due to lack of anti-tank ability / support. Tank Destroyer doctrine was working good enough for the Army up until then, I doubt it was as restrictive and reckless as you claim.

I feel like usf should initially have just the base 75mm sherman, which you could later refit with 76mm turret, jumbo armor or 105mm howitzer (maybe even croc, calliope...) depending on your needs. would give some flexibility. Make the upgrade possible only in the base sector for the sake of "realism". Oh, and bring back the crab flail!

If you want to argue "realism" then you're doing it wrong, because 75mm Tanks were not up-gunned to 76mm or Jumbo, these were built that way in the factory and sent to Europe. Only the Jumbo could upgrade from a 75mm to a 76mm, because the original design called for 76mm guns and thus the turret was designed for them.

The 76mm Sherman wasn't half finished, it was completed and ready. The Army just rejected them because they valued their 75mm HE shell too much, and didn't consider better AT a worthy trade because they used Tank Destroyers.

You're misinformed and seek to misinform others.

M4A3 (76mm) tanks went into service in mid August in two companies in 3 tank battalions. 70 went into action with the 7th army which was coming up after the landings in southern France post August.

During Operation Cobra, aka the breakout from Normandy 102 M4A1 (76mm) went into action as part of 2nd and 3rd Armoured Div's.

By October 1944 entire Armoured Divisions being sent to Europe such as the 9th were full equipped with M4A3 (76mm) in their battalions.

By the battle of the bulge (December) 1/3 of the US ETO forces were 76mm armed M4's. In armoured divs 2 times the number of 76mm M4 were available whereas the Infantry Div M4 battalions and independent Tank battalions had to make do with the 75mm gun M4s.

On February 15 1945 the 12th Army group refused to issue any further 75mm M4s resulting in around 600 M4 (75mm) sitting in depots.

The Idea that US forces only used 75mm Shermans relies on ignoring US armoured Divisions from the Normandy breakout onwards and pretending the only tank battalions were the independent units and integral Infantry division Sherman(75mm) battalions. It's as disingenuous as arguing German "heavies" were in the minority while ignoring Panthers making up 46% of the Panzer arm in the west.

I don't know about that, that sounds like one of those 'tank myths' in itself. I find it hard to believe that we'd knowingly send hordes of Shermans (poorly armed for tank combat) into battle with no dedicated anti-tank support, and not even change our strategies until early 1945 when they got wrecked due to lack of anti-tank ability / support. Tank Destroyer doctrine was working good enough for the Army up until then, I doubt it was as restrictive and reckless as you claim.



If you want to argue "realism" then you're doing it wrong, because 75mm Tanks were not up-gunned to 76mm or Jumbo, these were built that way in the factory and sent to Europe. Only the Jumbo could upgrade from a 75mm to a 76mm, because the original design called for 76mm guns and thus the turret was designed for them.

Combined with superior numbers, logistics, and recon Shermans in Armor Divisions did a fine job engaging enemy armor outside of long engagement ranges.

The battle of Arracourt is a textbook example of tactics and recon triumphing over superior hardware. IMO if you want some good reading try http://www.amazon.com/Tank-Tactics-Normandy-Lorraine-Stackpole/dp/0811735591. Author served in WWII if I'm not mistaken, and the entire book is very educational.

I don't know about that, that sounds like one of those 'tank myths' in itself. I find it hard to believe that we'd knowingly send hordes of Shermans (poorly armed for tank combat) into battle with no dedicated anti-tank support, and not even change our strategies until early 1945 when they got wrecked due to lack of anti-tank ability / support.

FYI an Armored Division wasn't just 'lol we got a lot of tanks', an Armored Division was a very mobile combined arms force of self-propelled artillery, mechanized infantry, and of course tanks. Like Beefsurge said, those three things he mentioned usually made up for the shortcomings of the Sherman's firepower. Besides, by the time the US Army actually had to engage German tanks at long ranges, 76mm Shermans had already been deployed to Europe.

Tank Destroyer doctrine was working good enough for the Army up until then, I doubt it was as restrictive and reckless as you claim.

It was though. The idea was that if an Infantry Division was attacked by a concentration of German armor, the Tank Destroyer Battalion would be brought up in its entirety from the rear. The problem was the Germans didn't have large concentrations of armor like that anymore. In Normandy they altered it slightly so a Tank Destroyer Battalion could have its TD's distributed among forward units if enemy tanks were anticipated to attack, but in general the doctrine was still defensive, which was why it sucked.

not when u have to switch between AP and HE shells for the 75mm sherman its kinda of an inconvenience if u ask me

Which is a blessing of course. I would add HE/AT swap for almost every tank in this game (expect a a couple like Panther which should remain AT only). But swapping rounds is a cool feature which is helpful.

If you want to argue "realism" then you're doing it wrong, because 75mm Tanks were not up-gunned to 76mm or Jumbo, these were built that way in the factory and sent to Europe. Only the Jumbo could upgrade from a 75mm to a 76mm, because the original design called for 76mm guns and thus the turret was designed for them.

No I don´t want to argue realism, I was merely suggesting the upgrade would require sherman to be in base sector, so they couldn´t just transform into different variant in the midst of combat.

No I don´t want to argue realism, I was merely suggesting the upgrade would require sherman to be in base sector, so they couldn´t just transform into different variant in the midst of combat.

anything that can give USF an edge to be on par with the axis is a blessing because at the moment axis seem to have all the advantages at their disposal

Which is a blessing of course. I would add HE/AT swap for almost every tank in this game (expect a a couple like Panther which should remain AT only). But swapping rounds is a cool feature which is helpful.

in combat its gonna be a real pain in the ass to do that not to mention costing precious time in the heat of it

in combat its gonna be a real pain in the ass to do that not to mention costing precious time in the heat of it

That's why you should think ahead and scout mate, I would trade HE/AT switching with "regular" round. any day. And as far as we know, Sherman's AT stats are close to PzIV's regular round.

That's why you should think ahead and scout mate, I would trade HE/AT switching with "regular" round. any day. And as far as we know, Sherman's AT stats are close to PzIV's regular round.

your idea is sound but it is not always practical or possible sometimes you will be forced into situations where you can't plan ahead so you will have to improvise with the tools you have...

What the hell is this argument even about, this is one of the stupidiest reasoning I've ever heard to no have something ingame.

Just half of the shermans were 76mm? So what? By that logic the tiger, tiger II, Ostwind, sturmtiger and jagdtiger should be removed from the game because of how incredibly rare they were, the last 3 being in the tens.

There are gameplay reasons to not have a sherman 76mm ingame, that is the sherman easy eight and the jackson, not some retarded logical fallacy about there not being enough 76mm during the war when you have the fucking sturmtiger ingame.

your idea is sound but it is not always practical or possible sometimes you will be forced into situations where you can't plan ahead so you will have to improvise with the tools you have...

That's not the point mate. Considering its price, Sherman is fine and there is no need for another mid-late game unit for USF. The only problem USF has is stale meta and boring game play (AKA RIFLE OPENING).

But seriously mate, please play other factions. I'm not being sarcastic or anything. Even if USF is your favourite faction, play others to find out weaknesses to exploit. If you check my player card you'll see I'm a USF fan too but currently on a lose streak. But almost all of your arguments are biased. Cheers.

What the hell is this argument even about, this is one of the stupidiest reasoning I've ever heard to no have something ingame.

Just half of the shermans were 76mm? So what? By that logic the tiger, tiger II, Ostwind, sturmtiger and jagdtiger should be removed from the game because of how incredibly rare they were, the last 3 being in the tens.

There are gameplay reasons to not have a sherman 76mm ingame, that is the sherman easy eight and the jackson, not some retarded logical fallacy about there not being enough 76mm during the war when you have the fucking sturmtiger ingame.

lol nobody's arguing that that's why the 76mm shouldn't be in the game, i just dont support it replacing the 75mm

I honestly don't see how a 76mm Sherman is any different from Easy Eight, seeing as how Easy Eight in this game is precisely that- 76mm Sherman. Hell, it's got other benefits too. You even build it now, not call it in from off-map.

Really, OP is propagating a feeling of "we don't have this, so we should get it", when in reality, you DO have it. And it's not like you could even use 76mm Shermans in Ardennes Assault anyways, the NPC use them at the final mission. Hardly a "it's already there ready to rock".

If you want 76mm, go Rifle Company. Begging it to be non-doc means you have to considering changing Easy Eight to give it relevance. People really need to stop being so shortsighted and demanding changes without thinking further ahead. What OP is looking for already exists in the game. If it's not good enough, you fix it, not throw superfluous units whose sole role is to compete with other units' roles.

You want bloated unit roster for sake of diversity? Play Total War. Factions have like three dozen different units but they're really better versions of earlier units arranged into five types, more if you play as the factions that got more attention during development.

So to answer OP's quetsion: no I don't know if or when, but I also don't see any reason why. 75mm Sherman works well enough, and is more versatile (supposedly anyways), and there is already a 76mm-armed option by way of DLC/ RNG dropped commander. There is no problem that this unit is trying to solve.