Profile of LordRommel

Please.
Can someone explain me why Italy or France wont have any chance in a CoH game? Is this community so limited and behind the times?

Because, while arcade, this one particular game does try to follow certain level of historical accuracy in what actually was used in combat.

Otherwise OKW would have Maus and soviets KV-13.

So there is still no problem for Italy or Japan.

At the end Relic will send us to Korea or Vietnam xD

To be honest i think Relic shouldnt eliminate a faction because u cant find a super heavy Maus like Ubertank for the faction.
Out of my view u need a set of weapons to build a CoH faction like a ranged unit, close combat unit, suppression unit, hard soft counter, hard counter, ect ect pp.
Japan, Italy and France have all those kind of weapons. So when Relic would be interested in those nations there is no reason to kick them out because they dont have any super weapons.

I think these are US M1 Anti-Tank Mines.

Well. I think there is a different perspectives of such a topic.
First of all the quality of crews. I will start with this topic here because it is linked with the "german side" too.
First of all i dont have any numbers so i will look at the basic stuff.
German tank crew training lost quality in ww2. Crews that were trained before the war were much better trained compared to the crews that were trained in 1941 or 1943/44. Lack of fuel, time and vehicles forced the german tank schools to train faster. So the quality of "new tank soldiers" dropped. On the other side the tank crews that had combat experience were battle-hardened and know how to move, fire and retreat on battlefields.
Furthermore tank units like the Tiger units were recruited from experienced soldiers. Tiger tank commanders were often former tank drivers. In general most of the german tank commanders were former tank drivers because moving the tank was an elemental part of commanding the tank. So all in all the quality or training argument is a difficult argument because it is very difficult to analyse and to define.
So you had to check any tank combat here to get a solide information for "crew quality".
Furthermore all this elements cant handle fortune and fortuity. E.g. Wittmanns tank raid at Villers Bocage was a high risk attack. Basing on tank tactics it was a stupide idea. But he had luck. He wasnt killed at the attack so most people think it was a brilliant attack of a legendary commander. Try to think of this scenario with a new fresh tank recruit commander. Would he have started such an attack too? Would he have success with such an attack? It is difficult to answer such a question. Perhaps Wittmann has started his tank rush because he was sure that a surprise will end in a british defeat. Or he was self-confident because of his eastern front experience. Or he thought that the british tank crews were fresh trained crews without experience that could be defeated by shock.
All in all the question for crew and tank soldiers quality is extrem difficult (and cant be implemented into CoH).

For the Sherman in general:
I think it could be a solide idea to look into the numbers.
Basing on Niehorster the 21st Army Group (british, canadian and polish units) fielded 2213 Sherman tanks in Normandy. 276 Shermans were Firefly tanks. 178 Shermans were unarmed versions of the Sherman (Command Sherman, Recovery Shermans, ect.). Basing on Zaloga "Armored Champion" the 21st Army Group has lost 1739 Shermans in 1944 (June till December). So the british army group lost ~80% of the Sherman tanks they have fielded in Normandy. Unfortunately i cant find the Sherman numbers for Normandy only. But i can look into the general tank loses of the 21st Army Group in Normandy here. 21st Army group fielded 4338 tanks (combat tanks, special tanks, funnies, AA tanks, pioneer tanks). Zaloga said that the british army lost 1142 tanks in Normandy (until liberation of Paris). So this were ~25% of the tanks of the 21st Army group. So compared with the lost ratio of Shermans in 1944 we can sum up that most of the lost tanks of 21st Army groups were Sherman tanks. Now it is up to you to rate the Sherman tank in combat.

But to end here i can say that the Sherman was a solide tank design (from my point of view). As far as i know it was a result of the experience of the car industry. So Shermans had a high rate of production. The US tank doctrine of the early ww2 was split between the infantry tank and the tank destroyer. The Sherman was the infantry tank that was not designed for a tank-vs-tank combat. That wasnt his job. After Normandy the Allies realised that the Sherman need improvements. The long barrled versions with improved armor were the best answer. Combined with the allied industrial power they could replace the old tank fleet with the modern Shermans within a couple of months. So the Sherman fleet entering Germany was different from the Sherman fleet in Normandy. I think it is in Germany were the "modern Shermans" gained the reputation of the Sherman as a modern, solide and well balanced tank design. So to get the best picture for the Sherman at all you should take his development into your considerations.