Hellcats were fastest tanks in WW2! 60 mph!! can we speed them up?

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[gamesguy2]

Check your costs, the Sherman costs less, allowing you to diversify more.

So yea, you can get more tanks.

It gets even better, stop using shermans to fight p4s, use an m10, the m10 costs a ton less, and does just as well vs armor as a sherman.

Shermans do not cost less than P4s.

[acker]

Yes, it's Hollywood history. Shermans had gyro-assisted stabilization, finer turret control, and a wider-angled gunner's sights. Why would their aim time be identical?

As a rule, tanks could only shoot on the move against point-blank targets. Unless, of course, the tank had gyro-stabilization like most of the American and British tanks, which improved on-the-move accuracy to around 200 meters, up to 500 for skilled tank crews. Why would they have identical movement aim modifiers of 100%? And you're telling me this isn't Hollywood history? The Sherman could also load and shoot its 75mm LV faster than the Panzer IV's 75mm HV. And, as I said, Shermans lose to Panzers in head-on fights 70% of the time.

If you want to discuss COH as a whole in terms of Hollywood, go ahead.

[AmPM]

Sherman - 395 MP, 250 F, 12 pop

PzIV - 400 MP, 260 F, 12 pop

[EliteGren]

5 less mp for sherman, 10 more fuel for p4 =  10 > 5

[dravidian]

wow 5mp and 10 fuel such a big difference i can buy a whole 2 jeeps with that fuel, anyways if your suggesting it costs lest it should be like 300mp 200 fuel for a sherman and like 400mp 350 fuel for a p4 and you could purchase 3 p4's with out any pp's

[AmPM]

Yes, it's Hollywood history. Shermans had gyro-assisted stabilization, finer turret control, and a wider-angled gunner's sights. Why would their aim time be identical?

As a rule, tanks could only shoot on the move against point-blank targets. Unless, of course, the tank had gyro-stabilization like most of the American and British tanks, which improved on-the-move accuracy to around 200 meters, up to 500 for skilled tank crews. Why would they have identical movement aim modifiers of 100%? And you're telling me this isn't Hollywood history?

If you want to discuss COH as a whole in terms of Hollywood, go ahead.

Because its a game, and a bunch of stationary tanks is boring? Its a video game, so they have to keep the action going.

If this were realistic games would take hours, including long artillery barrages and trying to dig hidden infantry out of every little piece of the map. Your Sherman would die instantly to a PFaust hit while driving down a city street because you forgot to have your men sweep every building and piece of rubble and there was a guy hiding in ambush.

[acker]

wow 5mp and 10 fuel such a big difference

...That's less of Hollywood than it is game design, though...imagine how horribly broken EIR would be with realism.

[AmPM]

Exactly, so why are we arguing realism in CoH?

The P4 and Sherman are pretty much identical, coming down to the users skill on who wins. That works well for this game, gives a basis for other things to work off of. Its like Volks vs Rifles.

[NCOIC]

Panzer IVs fire faster in COH than Shermans. They also beat Shermans around 70% of the time in a flat engagement. They also have the exact same aim time, and have nearly-identical accuracy modifiers against tanks on the move.

That's Hollywood history.

Well that's a whole different discussion! I just want M18s speeded up a bit.

Hollywood is a problem perception wise but frankly the sherman was inferior in a tank v tank vs a panther.... i. e. One panther or a tiger vs one sherman equally positioned/equally crewed will clobber the sherman most of the time. And that's the scale that EIRR models things.

The P4 basic model and basic sherman as deployed were roughly equal with a little back and forth in various areas. There were variations out the ying yang on both tanks but CoH/Eirr can't model them either so we are talking about the ones most deployed and fought on the west front after normandy

The Pershing was good but saw mebbe one battle and even it's 90 gun was underpowered for it's caliber.

Heheh OK while we've gotten into a nice large discussion I'd still like the Hellcat to be faster...

[acker]

Because its a game, and a bunch of stationary tanks is boring? Its a video game, so they have to keep the action going.

I'm not contesting that it's a video game. I'm saying that the devs in Canada were...inspired.

Tell me this. Why doesn't the Sherman 75mm LV beat the Panzer IV 75mm HV in one-on-one engagements the majority of the time? In real life they did. It wouldn't be terribly strange if the Panzer IV was slightly worse than the Sherman, and cost less to compensate. No action would possibly be compromised, just that the Sherman would act like the current panzer IV, and the panzer IV would act like the current Sherman.

So, why did they do it? Just look at the Flak 88, KCH, riflemen, and MG teams for other examples of hollywood in action.

The P4 basic model and basic sherman as deployed were roughly equal with a little back and forth in various areas. There were variations out the ying yang on both tanks but CoH/Eirr can't model them either so we are talking about the ones most deployed and fought on the west front after normandy

The Pershing was good but saw mebbe one battle and even it's 90 gun was underpowered for it's caliber.

Please PM me about this stuff, I don't want to continue beating this in public.

[AmPM]

I'd like my Jadgpanther to outperform my Panther too =)

Ah well, I play Brits now, much more fun.

[AmPM]

Because its a game, and a bunch of stationary tanks is boring? Its a video game, so they have to keep the action going.

I'm not contesting that it's a video game. I'm saying that the devs in Canada were...inspired.

Tell me this. Why doesn't the Sherman 75mm LV beat the Panzer IV 75mm HV in one-on-one engagements the majority of the time? In real life they did. It wouldn't be terribly strange if the Panzer IV was slightly worse than the Sherman, and cost less to compensate. No action would possibly be compromised.

So, why did they do it?

Because they wanted to maintain a consistent flavor for each side.

The allies won through numbers, they focused on that aspect, to maintain balance they have to make the side with fewer units have more powerful units.

You can't have one side have more stuff and better stuff, it makes for a poor game. Whats fun is that the Sherman costs MORE in vCoH than the P4.

I assume its to maintain overall balance of hte factions and their themes, allied units cost a bit, but their upkeep gets lower the more you tech up.

[NCOIC]

If you want realism, enlist in the army. These threads are pointless.

Um I DID enlist smart ass. SGT/E5, Sqd ldr 2Sqd, 3rd PLT, B Co 1/105th INF 10th MTN DIV NYARNG. 86-95 posted specifics in another thread, look it up.

back to our regularly scheduled programming...

[acker]

Because they wanted to maintain a consistent flavor for each side.

The allies won through numbers, they focused on that aspect, to maintain balance they have to make the side with fewer units have more powerful units.

You can't have one side have more stuff and better stuff, it makes for a poor game. Whats fun is that the Sherman costs MORE in vCoH than the P4.

Tell me, why weren't the Americans the ones with technical superiority, and why weren't the Germans the ones with numbers? Why are the Germans ,tank for tank, better than the Americans in COH when the US got favorable tank tradeoffs throughout the course of the war? Why does artillery not utterly devastate heavy tanks? Training can only go so far...

Build times are around the same for both factions. With the exception of the Pak, which builds twice as fast as the 57mm. Didn't the Allies have a logistics advantage?

Even your answer to this question is straight out of Hollywood, and ignores so many other factors (though it is, to some extent, correct). It's just as correct to say that the Germans were great because of Hitler as it is to say that the Allies won due to numbers. And Relic listened to Hollywood.

[AmPM]

The Allies did win through numbers....hence why the Sherman had to be made in such numbers. Do you realize how much numerical superiority we had?

By the time the US actually landed in Europe, the West Front was second fiddle to what was happening in the East.

Even saying that the D-Day landings even mattered in the grand scheme of things other than to keep the Soviets from taking over all of Europe is stupid.

The Allied advantage in numbers was staggering, the advantage in logistics (really just more numbers) was staggering. We had more vehicles, infantry, guns, aircraft, ships, etc.

Hell, look at the losses absorbed by the Russians and tell me numbers didn't win the war.

BTW, I don't see you complaining that the British are better man for man than the Americans.

[Jazlizard]

If you want realism, enlist in the army. These threads are pointless.

Um I DID enlist smart ass. SGT/E5, Sqd ldr 2Sqd, 3rd PLT, B Co 1/105th INF 10th MTN DIV NYARNG. 86-95 posted specifics in another thread, look it up.

back to our regularly scheduled programming...

Thanks for your service, prior military myself.

The argument is still rather silly, this is a game, gameplay > realism. Lots of things in this game don't even come close to being realistic, if you want something changed in game due to balance, I'm all for the rational argument as to why, but saying that it isn't how it worked in real life doesn't really work well for a game that doesn't really try to simulate much of anything accurately when compared to real life.

Anyways this thread has gotten so far off topic that it doesn't matter I guess.

[AmPM]

People keep forgetting that the game is LOOSELY based on ww2. 

You could realistically replace all the infantry with different colored gummy bears and the tanks with My Little Ponies and have the same game.

[Mgallun74]

one of my biggest gripes is the lack of side armor model in the game.. relic went ahead and did front and side together, basically taking out the weakness of most german tanks side armor, iv series, stugs had like 30mm of side armor, panthers 50mm... thats roughly the same as shermans..  flank and rear shoots 75mm shermans could easily knock out any german armor, but thats not in this game, which makes u have to try to get to rear, totally exposing your armor.

[AmPM]

I wish self propelled guns were more like mobile ATGs like they should be (give STuG, m18, m10, Hetzer AP rounds as a purchasable upgrade).

[NCOIC]

Ok all first I wanna say that I've really enjoyed this discussion. I like the stuff i am learning here

And as some here have said this has gotten to be a quite large and fascinating thread. Cool!!

So to wrap up my stuff is this:

EIRR Rocks fer me

I'd like the M18 to go faster

As to debating every point about various models of US Axis armor I am too lazy to PM the individuals kind enough to lend their replies to this thread. I do appreciate the feed back very much.

So I will sum up my thoughts simply... I hope

US armor doctrine and design, especially early in the war was inferior to German armor in the areas of ordnance, optics and armor. Tactics wise the Allies got very good later in the war as German vets were killed off and we learned how to fight our tanks.

mechanically/ease of use we had better stuff over all and I mentioned that.

The Sherman was the equal of the P4 series in the main. They each had their areas where they were better but they canceled each other out mostly.

Tank for Tank, The Sherman as fielded in the most numerous versions was not on par with the Panthers and Tigers despite the german tanks respective flaws. It was out gunned and out armored overall.

Unfortunately fer the Germans we tried to avoid those situations with numbers, airpower, arty and just better lifestyle choices

And finally cuz I wanna stop talking now and just play the game  can we speed up the Hellcat a bit? can we? I'll do all my shores and homework!

Thanx guys!!! See ya in da launcher!

NCOIC out