Profile of MMX

yes i do. if not why i spent so much effort here.

then you should probably work on your reading comprehension skills, as TheMachine didn't even argue for outright removing abandon - quite the contrary in fact, he proposed a fix for the mechanic that would allow the worst effects of rng to be somewhat attenuated instead of purging abandon, and the flavor that comes with it from the game.
you know, building bridges instead of deepening the rift between those who enjoy the mechanic and those whose enjoyment suffers from random abandon crits costing them the game. maybe you should try focusing your 'effort' here in the same direction... just sayin'

Honestly I choose the Sherman because it was a Jack of all traits kind of unit and nothing more. I couldn't have guessed that it would turn out like this.

To be fair, I didn't expect the outcome to be like that, either. Before taking a deeper look into this I happily assumed tank MGs to be much less impactful. Turns out I was wrong!

There is also a reason I stopped arguing over anything here, I did do further testing against P4s, Centaurs, Ostwinds, T34/85, mg42, .50 HMG, Luchs, Stuart and alike. The conclusion I can to is against ballistic stuff (mg42, .50 hmg, autocanon of Luches) Rifles survive better by about 4-6s more. Against HE Ballistic stuff(centaur, ostwind) grens perform better on vet0 and same on vet3(rifle die quite a fair bit faster then grens but at vet3 their about the same), Against tank shots it depends P4's or t34/76 kills rifles and grens at the same speed while T34/85 kills grens a bit slower. I guess I can be happy with those kinda numbers tbh.
But I'll Make a prediction, VSL will get buffed a little maybe not in terms of stats maybe utility or cost in the future.

That sounds about right I'd say. In any way, kudos for going through the hassle of testing the stuff out, which is more than the average forum warrior would bother to do.
I'm personally not convinced VSL Grens are in need of any buffs right now, but I'm sure they, or the doctrine itself, will get some minor adjustments in the next Commander-focused patch if needed. Too early to tell right now before the patch has even gone live.

Wow you went tota; data scientist on this. Hmm... what did you use for 2000 itrs btw. This seems cool so was kinda curious.

I'm using this spreadsheet for the calculations, although the version in the link is pretty outdated. Reminds me that I wanted to update that for quite a while already...

Ok, so I did some testing today with an updated version of my simulator, now including a crude approximation of MG DPS. This allows the sample size with 2,000 iterations to be quite a bit bigger that what would be feasible in-game.

So far the numbers in the OP are in the same ballpark of what i got, just the relative order is different.

The short version:

Using the setup in the OP (same formation, no cover, 25 m distance to target, Sherman w/ AP rounds, combined base DPS for Hull and Coax MG of 9.47) and the respective defensive stats for each unit plugged from serealia's site I get the following T2K values:

Vet 0 VSL Grens	0.91 TS	0% DR	EHP: 439.6	TTK: 36.2 +/- 5.4 s
Vet 0 Riflemen	0.97 TS	0% DR	EHP: 412.4	TTK: 33.8 +/- 4.9 s
Vet 3 VSL Grens	0.91 TS	20% DR	EHP: 527.5	TTK: 41.9 +/- 7.0 s
Vet 3 Riflemen	0.63 TS	0% DR	EHP: 634.9	TTK: 47.7 +/- 7.9 s

Actual probability distribution in the spoiler Show Spoiler

Riflemen seem to die a tiny bit faster than VSL Grens, which they should considering their higher base RA. Vet obviously gives quite a bit more survivability but, in contrast to what I would have expected, the bonus RA of the Vet 3 Rifles seems to outperform the Gren's 20% DR. Quite surprising, as scatter and, hence, tank main gun damage is barely even affected by RA / target size.

And the reason for this leads us to...

The long version:

Looking at both the average damage dealt and models killed per shot over 2,000 repetitions, it's quite apparent that things are pretty even when the first shell lands - which it should, because at this point the damage output relies solely on the main gun and the differences in RA between the squads don't matter much (to illustrate, the chance of scoring a natural hit ranges between 3.3% (0.97 TSz) and 2.2% (0.63 TSz)). However, after that it gets interesting:



Now the average damage received increases inversely proportional to the EHP, suggesting the contribution of the Sherman's MGs becomes quite significant from now on. The extent of this contribution can be seen in the next two graphs, which summarize the percentages of the total damage and total kills, respectively, caused by the MG alone.



Obviously the MGs are responsible for the majority of the damage dealt and kills scored, with only about 20-30% coming from the Sherman's main gun. That as well should not be a big surprise, since the scatter profile of the AP shells isn't great to begin with. More importantly, due to the model spacing in the formation (average 5.9 m, minimum 3.6 m, maximum 10 m) it is literally impossible to catch more than two models in the AoE at the same time.
As a result, the superior RA of Vet 3 Rifles outweighs the 20% DR of Vet 3 VSL Grens by quite a margin, even though it does next to nothing against explosive damage at all.

To come back to the OPs conclusion: On paper I agree it looks like the survivability of VSL Grens is quite inferior to that of Vet 3 Riflemen, but I'd also say that you couldn't possibly have chosen a more favorable (or more deceptive?) example to prove your point:

The chosen squad formation to test this, together with the poor AI of the Sherman's AP shells means the result is dominated by the damage contribution of the MGs and, hence, the impact of RA on overall toughness (although I understand it is difficult to test other, more clumped formations in-game). For a more realistic test, I'd recommend to switch to a tank with better main gun AI, such as the PzIV or HE Sherman, where the added DR should have much greater effect. Also, choosing a more clumped formation, maybe even in light cover, should paint a more accurate picture of what to expect in a real game scenario where MGs are even less effective.

Cause Sections have better RA, Better DPS at all ranges but 0, Has nuke grenade, Doesn't have to deal with
Much stronger Shocks, Guards, Ranges, Paras, Cavs and Commandos + They don't have to face much stronger mainlines then themselves, can upgrade with weapons, get passive healing or sight. Sure they can't stop vehicle from bullying them. That seems very different from VSL m8.

not sure whether you chose to conveniently ignore the point i made or simply failed to grasp it, but i guess what i wanted to bring across is that both upgrades give 25% more survivability and DPS (even more of the latter for vsl, actually) through the extra model they get... regardless of innate RA, DPS or utility. they're still 25% better and tougher than without the upgrade. how this can be regarded as op for brits but useless for wehr is beyond me.

Yeah, I've always preferred the RC mechanic over that of getting a free squad, especially during the later stages of the game where unvetted cons or osttruppen are more a bane than a boon to your unit composition. Really wouldn't mind to see it coming back eventually...