+- PG-HQ Forums (https://www.pg-hq.com/comms)
+-- Forum: Panzer Grenadier (https://www.pg-hq.com/comms/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: General Discussion (https://www.pg-hq.com/comms/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Thread: Redefining canon for Shermans (/showthread.php?tid=2535)
Pages:
1
2
Redefining canon for Shermans - plloyd1010 - 08-21-2021
Another systemic glitch may be coming up, this time with Sherman tanks. Are Shermans going going to have an armor of 4 from now on? After Belton's Bane, the suggestion floating around the forums gravitated toward replacing all Shermans with 4-armor versions. Then that sort of died out. Now, Black Panthers seems to revive that idea (though the M4/76 on the webpage is still a 3).
This is important to me because of how I would redo the Vassal counters and the September update is coming. Right now uparmored Shermans are in the Allied Specials extension. If 4-armored Shermans are the new normal, I should move them into the regular OOB extensions. If they are not the new standard, I should leave them where they are or make alternate versions within the counter (menu code).
I asked about this on the APL support page. I thought I would a poll here too.
RE: Redefining canon for Shermans - triangular_cube - 08-21-2021
Regardless of what is the norm going forward, I would certainly appreciate if the other is available as an alternate. As you all know I play with the rules/values that were correct at the time of publishing.
RE: Redefining canon for Shermans - PGP - 08-22-2021
3 up to mid-'44, 4 after that.
RE: Redefining canon for Shermans - patman - 08-22-2021
The armor value should increase on the timescale laid out by Blackcloud over on CSW (and I think on another thread here).
RE: Redefining canon for Shermans - Blackcloud6 - 08-22-2021
This what I posted on CSW:
[font]I for one would be comfortable with saying 1924-43 Shermans are 3 and 1944-45 Shermans are 4 due to survivability increases such as wet stowage, better hatch placement, T23 turret etc. Thus then we have a distinction between Sherman types not just by gun and movement. Yes, I get it that the improvements I mention were not armor, but by making the tanks more survivable the crews are more confident and fight them better.[/font]
RE: Redefining canon for Shermans - JayTownsend - 08-22-2021
I always thought the Sherman tank should have an Armor factor of 4, especially years ago when the Battle of the Bulge game first was released, as fighting the Germans was just painful with a 3 factor in both Bulge games, Beyond Normandy & Liberation and even Road to Berlin.
Now with that said the Japanese will suffer even more with the tank on tank engagements. When it was a 3 value, the Type 95 and Type 97 had a chance, how ever small it was, if they rolled a 12, with a 4 they wouldn't. Now only the Type 97 Shinhoto has a chance against a Sherman tank with an armor factor of 4. Maybe that is how it should be, not counting the crossfire modifier and adjacent modifier. The Japanese 47mm AT gun weapons would need to a roll a 11 or 12 to do damage against 4 valued Shermans.
I think overall I would be happy with the 4, for all games. So many games have already been printed with the 3 value. Americans, British & Soviets all have 3 in the older games but why continue down that path going forward.
RE: Redefining canon for Shermans - triangular_cube - 08-22-2021
Those in favor of switching it up by year, how do you feel about the Soviet M4A2s?
These are specifically A2s, as opposed to the generic M4/Sherman units in other modules. By year of scenario they would be a 4, but by the actual tank identified on the counter they should remain a 3, no?
I certainly have some anxiety about losing access to the as published units. If they just get put into a different module, I can always load both. Alternate images one way or the other just seems, easier? to me and would allow everyone to grab the units they want.
RE: Redefining canon for Shermans - plloyd1010 - 08-23-2021
Shermans are certainly a complicated issue. Since I think of PG systemically, then layer on the Vassal presentation, singular answers become nigh impossible. Not that this hasn't happened before, Japanese Type 3 tanks, Soviet 76.2 field guns, and now 100mm artillery. The Shermans are just the latest headache.
Somewhat reiterating what I said on Consim, I am leaning toward 2 versions for every Sherman. For Shermans 1943 and before, the default version having an armor of 3. This would cover the U.S. Army ETO 1942-43 OOB extension, and the 2 British desert OOB extensions. 1944 and onward would have a default armor of 4, except for the U.S. Army PTO 1942-45 OOB extension and the USMC OOB extensions. I am not sure what to do with the Soviet Sherman, I think it is a combination of the M4A2 and M4A4.
My thinking on that is that Shermans were continually improved in small ways, and surviving older tanks were often retrofitted. The M4A1 had thicker hull armor. Then M4A2 went back to the original glacis armor thickness, but was better sloped, thick turret armor and had a diesel engine. The M4A3, which became the standard American version, introduced wet storage and better arranged (though not generally thicker) armor, but some of the sub-series went back to a gasoline engine. The M4A4, standard export version, was largely M4A3, but with a diesel engine.
That leaves me the notion that by 1944, many M4/M4A1/M4A2 Shermans have gotten refitted ammo storage and good number have gotten A3 turrets. I have come across evidence for both situations occurring, separately and in tandem, but have no real idea of what the actual refit number may be. That is how I am thinking about it.
RE: Redefining canon for Shermans - leonard - 08-23-2021
Fire & Sword is based on Road to Berlin counters. All shermans (M4A2) will have 3 armor... If there's a follow up book for Konrad II, Konrad III, Spring Awakening and Vienna operations, I will add M4/76 like in Broken Axis and 4 armor would be considered.
RE: Redefining canon for Shermans - Schoenwulf - 08-23-2021
Concur with the Consim comments regarding pre- and post-44 Shermans.