the second ability from USF is a smoke barrage?
and the 5th of the OKW what is that? offmap arty or stuka callin?
It's an off-map. |
I hate to say it, but the Americans ability to do that has done nothing but cause problems. Something needs to change
Not really, you can also just fix the issue lol |
|
How about just fixing the bug instead of removing anything lol
|
thank you zupa
the other minimaps has donxavi made for me. but for this one he had no time and i have no photoshop and no experience with it.
when I find someone who makes it, I upload it later with a minimap.
Ah, that's alright. Like I said, still a great map! |
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 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. |
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.
|
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. |
And considering that the CoH2 timeframe has shifted to late-44 early-45, how is this not a reasonable suggestion? Even 50% or 33% or whatever of THOUSANDS is a lot. USF tech is stuck in 1943 basically, whilst all the goodies were deployed in mid-late 1944..
An M4A3(75)W isn't exactly 1943 tech....
Nor is an M4A3E8 lol
Look, the 76 could maybe be put somewhere but imo it shouldn't replace the 75mm. |
Why don't they replace the 75mm M4A3 with the 76mm M4A3 anyway? Hasn't CoH2 shifted to late 1944-early 1945 now? 75mm M4A3s were basically outdated from mid-1943 onwards and large quantities of them were given the 76mm upgrade. If it was added, maybe increase the fuel cost by 15 fuel and 40 MP or something to accommodate the much improved penetration of the 76?
They weren't 'given' the 76mm upgrade, nor was the 76mm an upgrade. The 76mm Sherman variants were considered seperate from 75mm Sherman variants. They were intended to supplement the 75mm. The first 76mm Shermans only reached the US 1st Army in Europe in July, 1944. Even by 1945 75mm Shermans still made up half (sometimes even more than half) of tank battalions. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
