M4A3 Sherman needs a buff

[Arielbf3]

Historically, the game is right. The Sherman tank wasn't build to technically outclass it's opponents. Instead, it was build to have a low production cost and the idea was to outnumber them. So, it should have a lower cost.
But the T-34/76 is considered the best tank in the world because it was superior to all contemporary tanks,including Sherman and Panzer IV tanks.

[Roy Bond]

Historically, the game is right. The Sherman tank wasn't build to technically outclass it's opponents. Instead, it was build to have a low production cost and the idea was to outnumber them. So, it should have a lower cost.

Yes and wonder why it got nicknames like: Ronson or Tommy cooker

[penguofdoom]

Aiming in direct control at the center mass of a tank at 130m I miss on average 3-4 shots because the reticule is the size of the tank. Even if there is the off-chance you can hit the flat panel and damage the tank at max range, he was probably already ventilated your tank with their superior accuracy and firepower. Just because this crappy tank can pull off hail mary shots on puny shot traps doesn't mean its in a good shape... Try to take your Sherman and go toe to toe against panzer 4's of the G and H and tell if you survive long enough to knock out the bloody thing at max range. Other than that actually try to play USA more and hop off Germany. Coming from me who has played at least 60% of my games as USA I can firmly state that Shermans are at a massive disadvantage for their stupid price. Lower it by 40mp.


EDIT: The gun mantel on the turret of panzer 4's also reduces the space you can penetrate. So even poorer of a chance. Your argument doesn't make sense at this point. The chances of you beating a Panzer 4 are incredibly slim.

[Table]

ArielBF3, actually in real life the Sherman hull had 90mm LOS armour, equal to the T-34, with a gun that can easily penetrate that of the 50mm armoured PIV, which was what it was designed for.

Penguofdoom, they both penetrate each other at max range, the flat panels are the majority of the tank, the 50cal is great, and tanks which are tougher like the sherman has more use than tanks which are have stronger guns. Game balance wise, it seems fine.

[Nonesuch]

I do like the Sherman even if it's so damn tall, that's not so bad for the Jumbo with its brilliant armour, but having such a big profile is like asking to be shot. Still, one of my most used tanks and the croc is hilarious.

[rossBurglar]

Yes and wonder why it got nicknames like: Ronson or Tommy cooker

Shermans had a nasty habit of bursting into flames when hit because their ammo storage was inadequate. This was largely fixed with a new stowage system in later models (I think)

I read somewhere that Panthers had a similar problem, they just weren't penetrated by enemy fire as often

Compared to the Pz IV G the Sherman is quite well matched, it probably got its reputation when the later, more heavily armoured IVs, tank destroyers and heavy tanks became more common

Edit : To shtoormovick, Shermans used a wide range of petrol and diesel engines depending on the mark.

"A U.S. Army study in 1945 concluded that only 10–15 percent of wet-stowage Shermans burned when penetrated, compared to 60–80 percent of the older dry-stowage Shermans"

[Roy Bond]

Also the Sherman tanks had quite roomy interiors and good ergonomics,which really helps a lot in real life tank battles.

[ShtoormoVick]

Yes and wonder why it got nicknames like: Ronson or Tommy cooker

Unlike many german and all soviet tanks, it used highly flammable fuel, thus there was little chance of a tanker surviving a destruction of his tank, which was rather common with german and soviet tanks.

[Nonesuch]

I'm pretty sure all that stuff about shermans catching fire more than other tanks isn't true after they gave them wet stowage. After a really quick google apparently it reduced them catching fire by something like 75 percent.

[penguofdoom]

The penetrable areas of the panzer 4 are not enough to counterbalance the fact that in mid-game tank battles the panzer 4 G & H outclasses the sherman in profile, accuracy and gun strength. The .50 cal is a nice bonus but the gunner always dies and by no means should that MG make difference in price more than 10mp since its useful until the gunner gets shot which is generally what happens. The Shermans frontal armor is still only 51mm sloped at 56 degrees which does not protect it from tanks in its weight-class whatsoever. I think a price reduction would suit the tank because of how it was produced and what tactics it went by not to mention ingame things already discussed.