You are describing a situation where you are forced to commit to firing a round with the Sherman at the infantry one more time instead of being able to instantly engage the enemy tank despite being in an advantageous position to do so. Your comment is self defeating. I hope you realize that I'm not conpletely disagreeing with you. There's no need to tie yourself into knots defending something so blatantly apparent.
Let start over.
I suggest you read post 634 and 636 at page 32. If you have established context we can debate what you like although I have little to add.
This is a factual statement. If the Sherman had a single round that combined the strength of both the HE and AP shells it possesses, this would be a buff. Ergo: The fact it needs to switch between two shell types is a disadvantage.
Now your simply doing mental gymnastics and I can easily respond that:
If the Sherman had a single round that combined the weakness of both the HE and AP shells it possesses, this would be a nerf. Ergo: The fact it needs to switch between two shell types is a advantage.
or that adding HE shell to Easy would be the unit stronger and thus it is advantage
or I can tell that removing the HE shell from Sherman it nerf so having them is advantage.
If you're looking to attack the idea of buffing the 76 Sherman's non HVAP shell, look for a different vector than trying to argue that shell-switching is not a disadvantage.
You got this all wrong. I have simply pointed out that presenting the ability to choose between shell as big disadvantage that cause a sec 6 delay and thus justifying buffing its AOE does not hold any water at all.
As for the 76mm I have made my own suggestion about the 76mm even during its first patch.
Now unless in your opinion 76mm should get a buff to AOE round because it has the "big disadvantage" of having access to HAVP rounds I suggest you move.
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.
Depends on the skill of the user, in the hands a noob it would made difference ,in the hands of pro, one might not even notice it.
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.
Yes they do, just read post 635 and my response 636:
"I always said M4C standard shells need AOE damage profile of Cromwell. The shell switch alone (6 seconds) is already a big disadvantage at fighting different targets, so this surely would not be op."
"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."
the shell switch is even been used as an argument to buff the 76mm's round AOE.
And that is my point and it seem that you agree with me so the rest is unnecessary.
"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.
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.
Not really.
If it is a 75mm Sherman the player can engage the engineers with AP rounds just fine, he has the option to decimate them with HE if he want to. He can then switch after firing adding a slight delay to the reload (that might even be lower than the time required to fire on the new target).
In sort the player used little more micro and got more from his units.
In a similar manner the the player using the 76mm can swamp to HAVP after firing. The difference in performance vs an ostheer PzIV is only substantial at max range. The AP round is even better at point blank.
In sort little micro allows users to get more out of their vehicle.
The fact that they have to switch shells at all is a disadvantage, regardless of how strong either shell is.
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.
"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.
That is also misleading, the argument could only hold some water if the switchable shell where only AI or only AT (similar to ISU) and at the same power level as the all around shells .
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.
And DPS is a horrible metric to compare vehicles with, although i can't think of 5 people who actually use it.
As I have already posted feel free to any metric you prefer, because I am not willing to spend time providing the stat each one prefers for something that besides my original point.
DPS is actually easily accessible to me and it proves the point that even if one factor in the difference in armor the 76mm is still ahead of the Ostheer PzIV even with only AP rounds.
More to the point in your opinion is the claim:
"The shell switch alone (6 seconds) is already a big disadvantage at fighting different targets, so this surely would not be op."
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.
Allow me to bring this back to origin point.
Sherman are good Tanks one could argue that 75mm is one of the most cost efficient stock medium Tanks and the 76mm is also very good (even op according to some).
To me claiming:
"The shell switch alone (6 seconds) is already a big disadvantage at fighting different targets, so this surely would not be op."
is grasping at straws.
It is like reading a claim that SU-76 has the disadvantage of having a HE barrage because one's opponent can attack with vehicle during the barrage.
If one find himself in disadvantage using the the 76mm AP/HVAP rounds that is simply his bad play and not a "big disadvantage" of the unit.
If in you agree with general_gawain and in opinion the option to choose between AP/HVAP or (AP/HE) is a disadvantage of the 76mm Sherman (or the Sherman) feel free to provide your argument.
again, keep going around and around about if an ATG is a """""""hard""""""" counter or not.
I'm just wondering why the white phosphorus shot was nerfed on the dozer sherman because it was too strong against its """""""hard counter"""""" the ATG.
Why does KV-8/Croc/hezter counters ATG since atg are its "hard counter" according to you?
The there is no patch change listed WP on dozer's WP so I am not sure why you claim it was not nerfed.
In addition the Dozer remain a main battle tank, WP is ability not auto-attack and comparing it with Brumbar is simply misleading (and rant)
1. The post you quoted is about the 75mm (normal) Sherman, not the 76mm.
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)
2. How often do I have to point out that penetration values alone do not mean anything?
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)
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
Heartless Jäger 
