USF Urban Assault -Feedback

Another idea:

Give Cannister Shot to Stuart in the urban Assault kit.

As much as I want the Stuart to get a little boost, that's not the way to go, I can already hear people screaming about it like in vCoH.

E8 was uparmored sherman variant, better at taking punishment from AT infantry and enemy AT emplacements, perfect in urban enviroment.

Yes it fits the theme.

The Easy 8 basically had the exact same armor as earlier Shermans, the only real difference is that it used a much better suspension. Nothing that made it any more suited for urban combat. The Easy 8 doesn't fit the theme any better than Riflemen Field Defenses.

I'd like to point out, now that Urban Assault has 'cover to cover' it makes the smoke strike call-in utterly useless. If this was traded out for the now unused mechanised 155 howitzer barrage, this doctrine would be very good and relevant in all sized games not just 1v1s. It's also a nice way to utilise a currently unused ability that is in the files.

Ddd brings up several good points. Armor does the "Urban" and "Tank" parts better than this plus there is also Mech Company if you wanna go full vehicle.

I agree that the USF like the Ost needs more tanks rather than an arguably gimmicky commander that's probably along the lines of Tac Support and Rifle Company and will see little to no use and will be just a 3rd commander in need of a rework after some point in time.

I understand that keeping with the theme is important but in this case it probably hurts the commander more than it helps compared to the other concepts, this is just too tight and case specific to make it interesting for more than just the few people that are going to play it.

Even a single Pershing would probably make this commander a bit more out there for other players but in my opinion a Sherman Jumbo would be perfect if they could get around the model limitations.

The Easy 8 basically had the exact same armor as earlier Shermans, the only real difference is that it used a much better suspension. Nothing that made it any more suited for urban combat. The Easy 8 doesn't fit the theme any better than Riflemen Field Defenses.

The Easy 8 had better armor values with improved sloping at 47 degrees in addition to new suspension system. It fits the theme much better than calliope which was never used in urban combat.

The Easy 8 had better armor values with improved sloping at 47 degrees in addition to new suspension system. It fits the theme much better than calliope which was never used in urban combat.

So in your eyes slightly better sloped front armor gave it better protection in urban combat, where the biggest dangers are getting hit in the flanks or from above? Right.

The Easy 8 has nothing to do with urban combat. At best, the Sherman 105 fits the theme.

So in your eyes slightly better sloped front armor gave it better protection in urban combat, where the biggest dangers are getting hit in the flanks or from above? Right.

The Easy 8 has nothing to do with urban combat. At best, the Sherman 105 fits the theme.

The new suspension system let crews apply more field modifications, concrete side "skirts" and salvaged armor pieces welded to front and sides were common.

Anything fits more than calliope, in fact this whole commander doesnt fit its own theme.

The Easy 8 had better armor values with improved sloping at 47 degrees in addition to new suspension system. It fits the theme much better than calliope which was never used in urban combat.

That's not even true in the slightest way.

M4A3 all have 47 degrees sloped hull if produced after 1943, and it wasn't "better sloping", it was actually less sloped but a unique piece glacis compared to 50 degrees sloped 2 piece front plate glacis. It was better because it denied Puma and Panzer 3 50mm overmatching.

not to mention that you dont want a long barrel in urban enviroment (more clipping, less HE filler due higher Velocity and thus stronger shellcase req.)

less HE filler due higher Velocity

Not a "true rule" at all tho. German and Soviet guns all improve their he shells explosive filler as they increased velocity.
Kwk43 has better he shells than kwk36.
Kwk42 has slightly less he shells filler than kwk40.
Short barrel kwk37 75mm he shell has less explosive filler than kwk40 75mm long barrelled.
L-11 76mm gun had worse he shells than F-34 76mm gun

There's other factors like shell lenght, type of explosive,...

The short barrel = better he shell is mostly a myth.

The issue only presented with British and Us guns because of being very specific designs made with anti tank purpose in mind.

But yeah, 76mm m1 Sherman tank gun had worse he shells. Can't see why i would send one in Urban Combat.

That's not even true in the slightest way.

M4A3 all have 47 degrees sloped hull if produced after 1943, and it wasn't "better sloping", it was actually less sloped but a unique piece glacis compared to 50 degrees sloped 2 piece front plate glacis. It was better because it denied Puma and Panzer 3 50mm overmatching.

Uhm yes 47 degrees angled armor is better than 50 degrees angled armor. You even said yourself easy8 has 47 degrees sloped hull and that its better, so how excatly "that's not even true in the slightest way"?

EDIT: There was no overmatching for puma versus sherman front armor, as it was 51mm thick. Maybe learn what overmatching is.

This scene from a WW2 documentary shows how useful Shermans were for urban fighting. Especially against tigers.

This scene from a WW2 documentary shows how useful Shermans were for urban fighting. Especially against tigers.

Libtard tiger owned epic style.

Uhm yes 47 degrees angled armor is better than 55 degrees angled armor. You even said yourself easy8 has 47 degrees sloped hull and that its better, so how excatly "that's not even true in the slightest way"?

EDIT: There was no overmatching for puma versus sherman front armor, as it was 51mm thick. Maybe learn what overmatching is.

"Uhm yes 47 degrees angled armor is better than 55 degrees angled armor."

No, sloping is accounted as angle from the vertical axis, the higher number the better.
That's why Tiger and Comet are accounted as close to 0 sloping
This is fu#!ing basics lmao.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_Sherman

"The Sherman's glacis plate was originally 50.8 mm (2.00 in) thick and angled at 56 degrees from the vertical, providing an effective thickness of 90.8 mm "

"Later Shermans had an upgraded glacis plate that was uniformly 63.5 mm (2.50 in) thick and sloped at 47 degrees from the vertical, providing an effective thickness of 93.1 mm (3.67 in) over the entire plate."

"EDIT: There was no overmatching for puma versus sherman front armor, as it was 51mm thick. Maybe learn what overmatching is."

http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/m4sherman.html

"Starting in late 1943 at the Fisher Tank Arsenal, the 56° glacis on the M4A2 was replaced by a single-piece plate inclined at 47° from vertical."

The pre 1944 hull glacis was two pieces of armor casted togheter, 30 + 21mm, 50mm did overmatch M4a2 and M4a1

Kwk39 APC penetration at 450-500ms is 79-80 mm, and it did penetrate m4a2 hull despite its effective protection was 91mm because of overmatching.

So yeah, maybe YOU learn how sloping is accounted for and how armor works

This scene from a WW2 documentary shows how useful Shermans were for urban fighting. Especially against tigers.

Brad Pitt: we made a ridicolous movie

Clint Eastwood: hold my m3 75mm

"Uhm yes 47 degrees angled armor is better than 55 degrees angled armor."

No, sloping is accounted as angle from the vertical axis, the higher number the better.
That's why Tiger and Comet are accounted as close to 0 sloping
This is fu#!ing basics lmao.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_Sherman

"The Sherman's glacis plate was originally 50.8 mm (2.00 in) thick and angled at 56 degrees from the vertical, providing an effective thickness of 90.8 mm "

"Later Shermans had an upgraded glacis plate that was uniformly 63.5 mm (2.50 in) thick and sloped at 47 degrees from the vertical, providing an effective thickness of 93.1 mm (3.67 in) over the entire plate."

"EDIT: There was no overmatching for puma versus sherman front armor, as it was 51mm thick. Maybe learn what overmatching is."

http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/m4sherman.html

"Starting in late 1943 at the Fisher Tank Arsenal, the 56° glacis on the M4A2 was replaced by a single-piece plate inclined at 47° from vertical."

The pre 1944 hull glacis was two pieces of armor casted togheter, 30 + 21mm, 50mm did overmatch M4a2 and M4a1

Kwk39 APC penetration at 450-500ms is 79-80 mm, and it did penetrate m4a2 hull despite its effective protection was 91mm because of overmatching.

So yeah, maybe YOU learn how sloping is accounted for and how armor works

When you count from vertical, the source you provided states early m4a1 model at 37° to 55° and M4A3(76mm)HVSS (easy8) at 47° which is overall improvemed in combination with thicker armor. I didnt have encyclopedia when i was writing my original post, the point was that easy8 is improvement in terms of armor in comparison to previous variants.

Your source says nothing about 39 kwk overmatching sherman armor. Also no sources of puma ever penetrating sherman front.

Btw do you guys think that the RE rifle nades are serving their anti garrison role well enough?

If not, there is the possibility of changes like setting the nade timer to 0 seconds, the dmg multiplier vs garrisons to something like 2.0 and the multiplier vs non-garrison targets to 0.25 (so there is no abuse)

Let's be real, unit would still just hop in/out, the only antigarrison thing in this doctrine is USF flame nade.