No, they're just pretty damn cheap. Tactical squads get them for free, as in, why not take it? You split into 2 combat squads, and the Sgt. and Special Weapon go in one, and the Launcher goes in the other (the "sit still" squad). Upgrading to anything other than a Heavy Bolter costs points.
Guard Platoons? The Heavy Weapon teams get Mortars, which are shitty, and it costs like +5 or 10 to exchange to a Launcher or Heavy Bolter, and +15 or so just to upgrade to an Auto-cannon, let alone a Lascannon.
So the decent-enough range, combined with S 8 AP (3? 4?) hit is nice for popping transports open or cracking Honour Guard (and Hive Guard, and Nobz) and at least Wounding Monstrous Creatures, if not that well. The range with a S 4 AP 5 or 6 Blast is decent for scraping blobs of infantry away.
Both roles it can do kind-of-okay (it's not a REAL tankbuster, nor will it flatten giant mobs of infantry), and for free or "basically free", it's nice. But STILL not worth giving 4 to a DevSquad. Or 1, 2 or 3 to a DevSquad. In fact, drop the DevSquad and spend that Heavy slot on a fucking Land Raider.
WH40K: Fifth Edition
Moderator: Moderators
-
Username17
- Serious Badass
- Posts: 29894
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
No. Anti-personnel missiles are still a snare and a delusion. Against most infantry you'd be better off firing a krak missile anyway because the higher strength and AP more than makes up for the lack of a small template.cthulhu wrote:Why? I haven't played 5th edition.. so did they get a bigger blast template or something?Koumei wrote:Missile launchers are actually pretty popular lately amongst the "Know what they're doing" crowd (whereas they used to be popular amongst the "This tac squad comes with a Missile Launcher and no other heavy options, I guess I take that then" crowd).
The blast template is a little better now, because I think in 5th edition you always place the template and deviate it rather than missing outright. But sill, against marines you mathematically kill more of them with krak missiles. No, the reason Missile Launchers get love is that randomly some sources will let you save 10-20 points outfitting something with a missile launcher instead of a lascannon. And against anything with a toughness of 6 or less and Sv of 3+ or worse, there is no difference at all.
-Username17
Lascannons greatly lose their effectiveness in 5th edition due to all the cover saves, since cover saves grant even vehicles and guardsmen with T-shirt a 50-50 chance of living.
Whereas before a Lascannon before would also erase a Marine's 3+ save, now it just gets dropped down to 4+ with cover.
A similar situation is developing with plasma guns. I'm seeing people wield GLs as a viable option now (only for Krak though).
Whereas before a Lascannon before would also erase a Marine's 3+ save, now it just gets dropped down to 4+ with cover.
A similar situation is developing with plasma guns. I'm seeing people wield GLs as a viable option now (only for Krak though).
Last edited by Zinegata on Sun Dec 12, 2010 11:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
Yet you'll still get that before I get any new codex for my army. Though I hear next up is Codex: Black Templars, followed by Codex: Grey Knights (no Inquisition), then Codex: Dark Angels, Codex: Necrons, Codex: Space Sharks then Codex: Rainbow Warriors. Then 6E and they start again with Codex: Space Marines, with another "Fuck Matt Ward in the ear" boost to Marneus Calgar.cthulhu wrote:Yeah, I am baised by being a guard player historically - with the 5th codex, it's cheaper to get a heavy bolter or autocannon than a missle launcher, so yeah, I'd just do that.
But anyway, I refuse to play that game again until Imperial Guard get a REAL HMG.
Count Arioch the 28th wrote:There is NOTHING better than lesbians. Lesbians make everything better.
Actually it's interesting: thanks to many modern armies having a lot of Derp Strike options (particularly Pod Assault) and Outflank options, a lot of the CHAAAARGE players have started using those things to sneakily enter the thick of things...
...often really badly. Like "I'll derp strike into the middle" (risking death by scatter, and even on a clear landing, they have to wait a full turn before they can assault" or organising it in such a way as to split their forces horribly.
It's interesting to watch the evolution of stupid.
...often really badly. Like "I'll derp strike into the middle" (risking death by scatter, and even on a clear landing, they have to wait a full turn before they can assault" or organising it in such a way as to split their forces horribly.
It's interesting to watch the evolution of stupid.
Count Arioch the 28th wrote:There is NOTHING better than lesbians. Lesbians make everything better.
Imperial Guard does not get infantry support weapons worth shit even in novels that are supposed to present it as a competent fighting force, so I think you're going to wait for a long time.cthulhu wrote:Yeah, I am baised by being a guard player historically - with the 5th codex, it's cheaper to get a heavy bolter or autocannon than a missle launcher, so yeah, I'd just do that.
But anyway, I refuse to play that game again until Imperial Guard get a REAL HMG.
Yes, I am not planning on ever playing it again.FatR wrote:Imperial Guard does not get infantry support weapons worth shit even in novels that are supposed to present it as a competent fighting force, so I think you're going to wait for a long time.cthulhu wrote:Yeah, I am baised by being a guard player historically - with the 5th codex, it's cheaper to get a heavy bolter or autocannon than a missle launcher, so yeah, I'd just do that.
But anyway, I refuse to play that game again until Imperial Guard get a REAL HMG.
It's quite funny actually, the main problem is that they are seriously schizophrenic about what the imperial guard is actually supposed to be, vacillating wildly between various extremes and as a result never doing anything right.
WWI Germans and Vietnam era US cannot be represented with the same list, so stop trying.
IG's schizo tech is somewhat justified in that the quality of each Regiment depends on the world it was recruited from. So while a semi-democratic highly advanced world (yes, fluff mentions they exist) may send out a Mechanized Guard force with high-tech battle tanks, that dumbfuck jungle world that still hasn't gotten out of the feudal era will probably just send the Imperium 10,000 barely clothed guys and ask them to issue lasguns.
Currently, I'd say the Guard actually somewhat manages to thread this line somewhat, with the foot-heavy armies representing the trench-warfare level armies while the mech/Valkyrie represents the 'nam or modern day armies. If anything though, it seems the Guard is leaning more and more towards the latter - given how shafted Conscript platoons are nowadays while the advent of Veteran Squads make a small, elite army much more viable.
Currently, I'd say the Guard actually somewhat manages to thread this line somewhat, with the foot-heavy armies representing the trench-warfare level armies while the mech/Valkyrie represents the 'nam or modern day armies. If anything though, it seems the Guard is leaning more and more towards the latter - given how shafted Conscript platoons are nowadays while the advent of Veteran Squads make a small, elite army much more viable.
A real modern army would set a guard army on fire. An M-16 has the same stats as a Lasgun (for reals, you can tell from necromunda), and a heavy stubber is a Browning M1919 .30 Caliber MMG (it's even modelled off it). The difference is that our guns are much less reliable than a lasgun.. but the other difference is that our guys actually understand how machines work and know what 'maintenance' means.
The guns are not that exciting - heavy stubbers, stub guns and autoguns (not autocannons), are explictly described as being similar to 20th century guns. A stub gun is a colt revolver. A crossbow or a bow is a Strength 3 weapon in Warhammer 40k.
Making the assumption then that 24" represents 300 meters (the realistic engagement range of an assault rifle), we can baseline
Once you've baselined our gear onto that, you can see that Warhammer 40k tech is actually on the same scale as modern day gear, and our tanks etc just shit all over the ones in Warhammer 40k.
A M1A2 is a Fast vehicle with BS 4 that has a S10 main gun with a 210" range, and 3 heavy stubbers. It has a really high ROF, so it's probably a heavy 2 weapon that can alternatively fire an ordinance blast.
An Australian infantry squad also shits all over it's Imperial guard equivelent. Packing 2 grenade launchers, 2 heavy stubbers, 1 voxcaster, 2 lasguns and 2 dudes with sniper rifles (should have BS 4 lasguns.. whatever), it's 50x times better than a standard imperial guard squad.
The british top that though, carrying FOUR heavy stubbers, two grenade launchers and two assault rifles.
The guns are not that exciting - heavy stubbers, stub guns and autoguns (not autocannons), are explictly described as being similar to 20th century guns. A stub gun is a colt revolver. A crossbow or a bow is a Strength 3 weapon in Warhammer 40k.
Making the assumption then that 24" represents 300 meters (the realistic engagement range of an assault rifle), we can baseline
Once you've baselined our gear onto that, you can see that Warhammer 40k tech is actually on the same scale as modern day gear, and our tanks etc just shit all over the ones in Warhammer 40k.
A M1A2 is a Fast vehicle with BS 4 that has a S10 main gun with a 210" range, and 3 heavy stubbers. It has a really high ROF, so it's probably a heavy 2 weapon that can alternatively fire an ordinance blast.
An Australian infantry squad also shits all over it's Imperial guard equivelent. Packing 2 grenade launchers, 2 heavy stubbers, 1 voxcaster, 2 lasguns and 2 dudes with sniper rifles (should have BS 4 lasguns.. whatever), it's 50x times better than a standard imperial guard squad.
The british top that though, carrying FOUR heavy stubbers, two grenade launchers and two assault rifles.
Last edited by cthulhu on Mon Dec 13, 2010 3:02 am, edited 4 times in total.
What are you counting as heavy stubbers? I don't recall an Aussie squad having two crew-manned weapons. I recall two SAWs, but not two heavy MGs.
Also, I would note that the Veteran squads (which can be had for 70 points) have BS4, 1 true Heavy Weapon, 3 special weapons (GL, Sniper Rifle, Melta, and Plasma - which has no modern equivalent), voxcaster, an officer's special weapon (which could toss in another plasma gun), and 4 other dudes with lasguns.
So it's not that far from a modern infantry squad.
The World War 1/2 inspired squads are clearly the regular IG infantry squads - which only have one heavy weapon, 1 special weapon, and limited options. It's basically the "ten guys guarding one MG-42" model practiced by the Germans.
As for tanks... dunno. Folks over at SD.net calculate LR tank rounds are much more powerful than modern tank rounds based on their effects.
It is true that the major problem of the current IG tank line is the lack of true "elites" however. IG tankers in the novels do, in fact, have stuff like computer guided shooting (via Auspex) which make them as-good as something like a Predator.
Also, I would note that the Veteran squads (which can be had for 70 points) have BS4, 1 true Heavy Weapon, 3 special weapons (GL, Sniper Rifle, Melta, and Plasma - which has no modern equivalent), voxcaster, an officer's special weapon (which could toss in another plasma gun), and 4 other dudes with lasguns.
So it's not that far from a modern infantry squad.
The World War 1/2 inspired squads are clearly the regular IG infantry squads - which only have one heavy weapon, 1 special weapon, and limited options. It's basically the "ten guys guarding one MG-42" model practiced by the Germans.
As for tanks... dunno. Folks over at SD.net calculate LR tank rounds are much more powerful than modern tank rounds based on their effects.
It is true that the major problem of the current IG tank line is the lack of true "elites" however. IG tankers in the novels do, in fact, have stuff like computer guided shooting (via Auspex) which make them as-good as something like a Predator.
Heavy stubbers are not crew served weapons. Source: Necromunda. They are SAWs. The game vacillates a bit about this, it appears SAWs and LMGs are folded together, and maybe HMGs.Zinegata wrote:What are you counting as heavy stubbers? I don't recall an Aussie squad having two crew-manned weapons. I recall two SAWs, but not two heavy MGs.
Okay, but that totally fails to simulate any of the platoon level assets that a real infantry platoon has - like a real crew served HMG, Carl Gustavs or similar AT weapons, or a crew served LMG squad.Also, I would note that the Veteran squads (which can be had for 70 points) have BS4, 1 true Heavy Weapon, 3 special weapons (GL, Sniper Rifle, Melta, and Plasma - which has no modern equivalent), voxcaster, an officer's special weapon (which could toss in another plasma gun), and 4 other dudes with lasguns.
It also doesn't simulate night vision gear.
Sure, but the WWII infantry is actually the soviets as per the fluff (the german inspired units are WWI units). Soviets had entirely SMG armed units making up a huge chunk of their forces. Where are my SMGs?!?The World War 1/2 inspired squads are clearly the regular IG infantry squads - which only have one heavy weapon, 1 special weapon, and limited options. It's basically the "ten guys guarding one MG-42" model practiced by the Germans.
Also the soviets had a fucking asston of HMGs in their rifle platoons and companies, which are again, no-where to be seen.
Yes, their HE rounds are AMAZING compared to current M1A2 HE rounds. Like AMAZING. But HE is a nice to have - the real benefit of an M1A2 is it's capability to put a depleted uranium penetrator round through a a sand berm, one T72, into another hull down T72 at a 3 kilometer engagement range at night. While on the move. ConsistentlyAs for tanks... dunno. Folks over at SD.net calculate LR tank rounds are much more powerful than modern tank rounds based on their effects.
Can a leman russ do that? Fuck no, it cannot even see 150 meters at night. What a fucking joke.
Last edited by cthulhu on Mon Dec 13, 2010 3:40 am, edited 3 times in total.
The .30 cal however, is a crew-served weapon unless you're a heroic character like Basilone.cthulhu wrote:Heavy stubbers are not crew served weapons. Source: Necromunda
SAWs are honestly thus better classified as "slightly better rifles" as opposed to being comparable to a crew-served weapon like the .30 cal (a fact probably lost on Necromunda writers).
AT weapons are simulated as having already been distributed among the troops. That's why you have Rocket Launchers and Lascannons as a possible option for the Veteran Squad. In a real world terms, it's a Carl Gustav team from the AT group that was attached to a line infantry squad.Okay, but that totally fails to simulate any of the platoon level assets that a real infantry platoon has - like a real crew served HMG, Carl Gustavs or similar AT weapons, or a crew served LMG squad.
It also doesn't simulate night vision gear.
Moreover, it's worth noting that the Veteran squad is actually the most loaded Troop choice in all of 40K today. Tactical Marine Squads just have 1 HW and 1 SW. To get close, you need to look at Devastator squads already.
So while these guys may seem under-equipped compared to a modern infantry squad, these guys are actually packing more special guns than Space Marines.
------
The stock IG platoon also does have Heavy Weapon squads to simulate platoon level assets. But nobody takes them because rules-wise heavyweapon-only squads suck horribly. Sure, you could have a Veteran Heavy Weapon Team, but they would suck because of the lack of ablative wounds.
Moreover, a Vet squad + Chimera (which is also an option in the new codex) simulates a mechanized infantry squad rather well. A Mech infantry platoon doesn't really need a seperate AT/heavy weapon element - the AFVs are the heavy weapon element.
Finally, I do recall some kind of NVG thing in the new codex but I'm not sure if Vets can get them. Probably the Stormtroopers have them, but those guys are overpriced and are actually worse than Vets weapon-wise.
Not really. Depends on the world you recruit from. Valhallans definitely fit the "Send in the next wave!" model for instance. They even have a special Valhallan commander whose special ability is to keep respawning his conscript platoon.Sure, but the WWII infantry is actually the soviets as per the fluff (the german inspired units are WWI units). Soviets had entirely SMG armed units making up a huge chunk of their forces. Where are my SMGs?!?
Also, there's really not much need for SMGs. You have shotguns.
See the Heavy Weapon teams that nobody takes. It's a bit of rules problem honestly.Also the soviets had a fucking asston of HMGs in their rifle platoons and companies, which are again, no-where to be seen.
Heck, a modern infantry squad in 40K would in fact be pretty screwed under these rules. Because it'd be very pricey due to all of the special weapons and yet it starts losing special weapons after just the third unsaved wound.
Except of course there are far more troops in a typical 40K battle than tanks. And even though it's not an ideal anti-tank cannon, the LR standard battle cannon is still strong enough to at least glance any 40K tanks - even the vaunted Land Raider.Yes, their HE rounds are AMAZING compared to current M1A2 HE rounds. Like AMAZING. But HE is a nice to have - the real benefit of an M1A2 is it's capability to put a depleted uranium penetrator round through a hull down T72 at a 3 kilometer engagement range at night. While on the move.
Can a leman russ do that? Fuck no, it cannot even see 150 meters at night. What a fucking joke.
Moreover, the Leman Russ Vanquisher does have the amazing penetration ability.
The problem, again, is that the Vanquisher lacks an "elite crew" option, which would give it a better BS (except for an overpriced Tank Ace - which can only be take once). With an elite crew option and some optics options, the Vanqui is in many ways the equivalent of a modern M1A2 (right down to shitty HE capability).
That being said, the real IG tank-killer nowadays is the Vendetta. A flying beast with three twin-linked lascannons and enough space for an infantry squad (usually veteran). That thing is the love child of the Hellfire-armed Apache and troop-carrying Hind gunship.
Things must be slow - surely arguing about realism in 40K is futile.
King Francis I's Mother said wrote:The love between the kings was not just of the beard, but of the heart
This is the fundamental failure of the ruleset. The Russian army never did that. This is what the Russian army did:Not really. Depends on the world you recruit from. Valhallans definitely fit the "Send in the next wave!" model for instance. They even have a special Valhallan commander whose special ability is to keep respawning his conscript platoon.
Also, there's really not much need for SMGs. You have shotguns.
1941 - Extremely poor command and control supported by absolutely insanely good tanks and experienced siberian troops.
1942 - Massive artillery and tank movements supported by infantry.
1943 - Russian armies had reached the same level of combat performance as US rifle divisions in italy.
See the Heavy Weapon teams that nobody takes. It's a bit of rules problem honestly.Also the soviets had a fucking asston of HMGs in their rifle platoons and companies, which are again, no-where to be seen.
Heavy weapons platoons cannot take HMGs. Repeat after me 'there are no HMGs in warhammer 40k.'
The point of the asston of HMGs was suppressive fire and beaten zones. No 40k weapon provides this.
There is no artillery either.
Fundamentally
WWI: No HMGs invalidates WWI, though we're getting close to WWI germans (veterans fill in for sturm squads).. but still
WWII: No imperial guard unit can be said to be based on the americans due to a total lack of artillery. WWII america was all about the 105 and 155MM artillery
No imperial guard unit can be said to be based on the germans, due to a total lack of mobile tank operations
No imperial guard unit can be said to be based on the russians, due to a lack of rules for general winter, SMGs, real tanks or HMGs
Last edited by cthulhu on Mon Dec 13, 2010 4:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
While I agree there is a lack of suppressive fire in 40K, the problem lies more with the casualty and morale check rules. Losing a couple of guys to shooting just isn't a big deal with the base rules. And most of the time even that is overriden by special rules like Wagh or "And they shall know no fear".
So it's not an IG problem. It's a core rules problem.
Moreover I think the development of the Red Army is far more chaotic and less clear cut than you make it to be.
And it's not exactly in line with how the media often portrays the Red Army anyway.
People like their "Send in the next wave" or "The man without the rifle follows the man with the rifle!" type of armies
So it's not an IG problem. It's a core rules problem.
Moreover I think the development of the Red Army is far more chaotic and less clear cut than you make it to be.
And it's not exactly in line with how the media often portrays the Red Army anyway.
People like their "Send in the next wave" or "The man without the rifle follows the man with the rifle!" type of armies
It would depend. (I am relying on Overy's "Why the Allies Won")
The big advantage of the Red Army by 1943 is that they were no longer losing track of where their units were. And they now had ample central control of artillery and airpower - if they were on the defensive. On the attack, their units still tended to devolve into chaotic mobs with little central control.
That's why they decided to fight a defensive battle at Kursk, as opposed to pre-empting the German attack.
It wasn't until 1944 that the Red Army proved that it could mount a coordinated offensive - a capability that was highlighted by their performance during Operation Bagration. In that battle, they not only kept huge numbers of tanks and men moving - they also managed to keep most of them well-supported by arty and airpower.
America's army by contrast always had a pretty weak rifle/infantry component - which was generally unwilling to engage in dirty close-in fighting. But the Americans had artillery and airpower in abundance, and by 1943 they knew how to coordinate artillery/airpower with ground assaults via dedicated FO units.
That's why the most impressive American victories - such as Mortain or Bastogne for instance - often involve just a handful of infantry (one rifle division in each case) holding off multiple German Panzer and Panzergrenadier divisions while the Corps artillery and air force rained fire around them.
I'm not entirely sure about the differences between the Soviet Tank Armies compared to the American Armored Divisons though. The former seemed to be a bit more rigid and relied heavily on improvisation (i.e. having their infantry ride on tanks as opposed to dedicated half-tracks, and not having dedicated self-propelled arty), but the latter had seriously shitty tanks for much of 1944-45 thanks to the boneheaded decision to keep the Sherman's piddly 75mm against Panthers and Tigers.
The big advantage of the Red Army by 1943 is that they were no longer losing track of where their units were. And they now had ample central control of artillery and airpower - if they were on the defensive. On the attack, their units still tended to devolve into chaotic mobs with little central control.
That's why they decided to fight a defensive battle at Kursk, as opposed to pre-empting the German attack.
It wasn't until 1944 that the Red Army proved that it could mount a coordinated offensive - a capability that was highlighted by their performance during Operation Bagration. In that battle, they not only kept huge numbers of tanks and men moving - they also managed to keep most of them well-supported by arty and airpower.
America's army by contrast always had a pretty weak rifle/infantry component - which was generally unwilling to engage in dirty close-in fighting. But the Americans had artillery and airpower in abundance, and by 1943 they knew how to coordinate artillery/airpower with ground assaults via dedicated FO units.
That's why the most impressive American victories - such as Mortain or Bastogne for instance - often involve just a handful of infantry (one rifle division in each case) holding off multiple German Panzer and Panzergrenadier divisions while the Corps artillery and air force rained fire around them.
I'm not entirely sure about the differences between the Soviet Tank Armies compared to the American Armored Divisons though. The former seemed to be a bit more rigid and relied heavily on improvisation (i.e. having their infantry ride on tanks as opposed to dedicated half-tracks, and not having dedicated self-propelled arty), but the latter had seriously shitty tanks for much of 1944-45 thanks to the boneheaded decision to keep the Sherman's piddly 75mm against Panthers and Tigers.
Last edited by Zinegata on Mon Dec 13, 2010 5:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
That's not just the most impressive victories.. that's EVERY victory. At the battle of the bulge, the US fired more shells in that sector in one month than the German army fired on the entire front in an entire year. And while that was an unusually high number.. it wasn't that high.Zinegata wrote: That's why the most impressive American victories - such as Mortain or Bastogne for instance - often involve just a handful of infantry (one rifle division in each case) holding off multiple German Panzer and Panzergrenadier divisions while the Corps artillery and air force rained fire around them.
Anzio is the same story. However, you are selling American infantry very short. The combination of 2 BARs and the M1 Garand was highly effective.
American just didn't have to rely on their infantry to do anything though. Due to their massive Artillery advantage (100s:1), overwhelming armour advantage (20+:1 in theatre and operational), and solid infantry corps, combined arms operations were the order of the day.
Those victories are impressive only because something went wrong and they fought their way out of it. US operational doctrine at the time basically called for 'if we encounter resistance here, let's attack over there instead' - if they sent 20 shermans out and found a german tank platoon, they could now sent 40 shermans somewhere else and attack where the germans didn't have any armour support.
That decision wasn't bone headed. Why attack a tiger with a sherman? You outnumber them TWENTY FUCKING FOUR TO ONE!I'm not entirely sure about the differences between the Soviet Tank Armies compared to the American Armored Divisons though. The former seemed to be a bit more rigid and relied heavily on improvisation (i.e. having their infantry ride on tanks as opposed to dedicated half-tracks, and not having dedicated self-propelled arty), but the latter had seriously shitty tanks for much of 1944-45 thanks to the boneheaded decision to keep the Sherman's piddly 75mm against Panthers and Tigers.
If you found a panther platoon, you'd sit on your arse while another sherman company attacked somewhere else.
However a soviet tank army and a US armoured division are completely different in every sense.
Last edited by cthulhu on Mon Dec 13, 2010 5:33 am, edited 2 times in total.
I count Bastogne and Mortain as their most impressive victories as it's ones wherein the infantry was facing a rather severe numerical disadvantage. Other battles - Cobra for instance - features Americans having so many more toops, arty, and planes that defeat is almost impossible.
You're also focusing way too much on weaponry, and too little on overall training, tactics, and general morale. Americans may have Garands and BARs, but the German MG-42 tended to make squad-level affairs at best even from a firepower perspective.
In battles where Americans were forced to fight without overwhelming artillery and air support, the result was usually simple: They got creamed. Hurtgen in particular, was a meatgrinder because the Americans couldn't really use their artillery effectively. Even the vaunted Rangers were wiped out taking a hill, which was subsequently retaken by the Germans. Man for man, American infantry simply did not have the experience, skill, and morale of their German counterparts.
Mortain and Bastogne were the true watersheds of American grit - because the severely outnumbered infantry held on, even in periods when the artillery/airpower was down.
--------
Moreover, the continued use of the Sherman against the Panther and Tiger, in itself, is not idiotic. The Sherman is a great tank logistically.
What was idiotic was the continued insistence on using the 75mm gun - and only the 75mm gun - despite ample evidence in North Africa and Italy that the 75mm wasn't good enough anymore against the Panther or Tiger.
Shermans could have easily been converted to the 76.2mm gun. Heck, the British converted a number of their own Shermans to use the much larger 17 pounder in time for the Normandy invasion. The Americans failed to make this simple gun upgrade due to the bull-headedness of some of its commanders.
Winning by having 24 tanks to 1 enemy tank is fine. But a simple gun upgrade would have made each of those 24 tanks equal to an enemy tank!
It's worth noting that Israeli Shermans equipped with the Panther 75mm (which is slightly better than the 76.2mm) were regularly facing Pattons and T-55s during the Arab-Israeli wars and winning - demonstrating that the Sherman's only real deficiency was gunpower.
There was simply no excuse for not doing the gun upgrade except for McNair's apparent insistence on the Tank Destroyer concept. It was thus stupid not to upgrade the guns, and it cost a lot of lives.
You're also focusing way too much on weaponry, and too little on overall training, tactics, and general morale. Americans may have Garands and BARs, but the German MG-42 tended to make squad-level affairs at best even from a firepower perspective.
In battles where Americans were forced to fight without overwhelming artillery and air support, the result was usually simple: They got creamed. Hurtgen in particular, was a meatgrinder because the Americans couldn't really use their artillery effectively. Even the vaunted Rangers were wiped out taking a hill, which was subsequently retaken by the Germans. Man for man, American infantry simply did not have the experience, skill, and morale of their German counterparts.
Mortain and Bastogne were the true watersheds of American grit - because the severely outnumbered infantry held on, even in periods when the artillery/airpower was down.
--------
Moreover, the continued use of the Sherman against the Panther and Tiger, in itself, is not idiotic. The Sherman is a great tank logistically.
What was idiotic was the continued insistence on using the 75mm gun - and only the 75mm gun - despite ample evidence in North Africa and Italy that the 75mm wasn't good enough anymore against the Panther or Tiger.
Shermans could have easily been converted to the 76.2mm gun. Heck, the British converted a number of their own Shermans to use the much larger 17 pounder in time for the Normandy invasion. The Americans failed to make this simple gun upgrade due to the bull-headedness of some of its commanders.
Winning by having 24 tanks to 1 enemy tank is fine. But a simple gun upgrade would have made each of those 24 tanks equal to an enemy tank!
It's worth noting that Israeli Shermans equipped with the Panther 75mm (which is slightly better than the 76.2mm) were regularly facing Pattons and T-55s during the Arab-Israeli wars and winning - demonstrating that the Sherman's only real deficiency was gunpower.
There was simply no excuse for not doing the gun upgrade except for McNair's apparent insistence on the Tank Destroyer concept. It was thus stupid not to upgrade the guns, and it cost a lot of lives.
Last edited by Zinegata on Mon Dec 13, 2010 7:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
Using the Sherman against a panther or a tiger is fucking retarded, eve with the 76MM up-gunning
A) A 76MM still cannot penetrate a panthers frontal hull armour and needs a lucky turret hit at 100M to get a penetration. Note that a panther has way better optics and can hit the tiger from a mile away and kill it.
B) The 76MM HE shell is worse than the 75MM HE shell at its real job - shelling infantry.
C) The US could attack with a tank battalion vs a tank platoon.
The US tactical doctrine called for going somewhere else when you ran into opposition - if they attacked with a infantry regiment supported by a tank battalion, you'd halt the attack where you ran into the german tank platoon, (keeping the enemy losely engaged) - then two infantry battalions with a supporting tank company each would go in vs a german infantry company. This battle is not winnable for the germans, and doesn't play out any differently whether the US has 76 or 75MM shermans (Defence is a different story.. but again, the US didn't fight like that on defence either.)
Also, the german MG-42 in LMG format as issued to squads in a platoon is the most overrated weapon in existence - you couldn't carry enough ammo to capitalise on your advantage at long range, and at medium to short range you got set on fire by superior short range firepower in US and Russian infantry platoons... or you know, if you try and fight in a city or a forest, or broken terrain or in hedge rows or you know like 75% of WWII battles.
German doctrine (reducing the rest of the infantry squad to ammo carriers for the LMG), was just not a great configuration.
In a HMG version crew served, different story, but really even the crappy soviet HMGs were 'okay' for this sort of work.
A) A 76MM still cannot penetrate a panthers frontal hull armour and needs a lucky turret hit at 100M to get a penetration. Note that a panther has way better optics and can hit the tiger from a mile away and kill it.
B) The 76MM HE shell is worse than the 75MM HE shell at its real job - shelling infantry.
C) The US could attack with a tank battalion vs a tank platoon.
The US tactical doctrine called for going somewhere else when you ran into opposition - if they attacked with a infantry regiment supported by a tank battalion, you'd halt the attack where you ran into the german tank platoon, (keeping the enemy losely engaged) - then two infantry battalions with a supporting tank company each would go in vs a german infantry company. This battle is not winnable for the germans, and doesn't play out any differently whether the US has 76 or 75MM shermans (Defence is a different story.. but again, the US didn't fight like that on defence either.)
Also, the german MG-42 in LMG format as issued to squads in a platoon is the most overrated weapon in existence - you couldn't carry enough ammo to capitalise on your advantage at long range, and at medium to short range you got set on fire by superior short range firepower in US and Russian infantry platoons... or you know, if you try and fight in a city or a forest, or broken terrain or in hedge rows or you know like 75% of WWII battles.
German doctrine (reducing the rest of the infantry squad to ammo carriers for the LMG), was just not a great configuration.
In a HMG version crew served, different story, but really even the crappy soviet HMGs were 'okay' for this sort of work.
Last edited by cthulhu on Mon Dec 13, 2010 8:28 am, edited 2 times in total.
Not really. After the T-34 was upgunned to the 85mm (which is roughtly equivalent to the 76.2mm), the Soviet Tank Kill-Loss ratio actually dropped down to 1:1.cthulhu wrote:Using the Sherman against a panther or a tiger is fucking retarded, eve with the 76MM up-gunning
The T-34/85 also had issues with front armor penetration for the heavies, but a chance of taking out a Panther/Tiger is better than plinking away at it ineffectively. Moreover, the 85mm/76.2mm was much more effective against other German tanks - like the more common MK IV.
The HE of the 76.2mm was less effective, but I frankly don't think it was ever really an issue. Note that after the war, the US kept only the 76.2mm version Sherman, along with a few dedicate HE slingers like the 105mm. Their revulsion for the 75mm was such that Eisenhower asked them to stop delivering any more of them by late 1944 - a few months after McNair got killed in Cobra.
Except of course that sort of thing doesn't actually work all of the time - i.e. in the hedgegrows where there simply isn't room to maneuver. Sometimes you *have* to make frontal assaults, and the fact that the Soviets upgunned their tanks (and suffered fewer losses) while the Americans did not just to satisfy McNair's ego was simply retarded.The US tactical doctrine called for going somewhere else when you ran into opposition - if they attacked with a infantry regiment supported by a tank battalion, you'd halt the attack where you ran into the german tank platoon, (keeping the enemy losely engaged) - then two infantry battalions with a supporting tank company each would go in vs a german infantry company. This battle is not winnable for the germans, and doesn't play out any differently whether the US has 76 or 75MM shermans (Defence is a different story.. but again, the US didn't fight like that on defence either.)
Not really. Check out Ambrose's Citizen Soldiers. American troops often found it hard to close on an MG-42 even in hedgegrows - the Garand and BAR simply aren't up to snuff when American doctrine calls for suppressive fire.Also, the german MG-42 in LMG format as issued to squads in a platoon is the most overrated weapon in existence - you couldn't carry enough ammo to capitalise on your advantage at long range, and at medium to short range you got set on fire by superior short range firepower in US and Russian infantry platoons... or you know, if you try and fight in a city or a forest, or broken terrain or in hedge rows or you know like 75% of WWII battles.
The Russians though... maybe a different story. An entire division of derp-gun wielding drunks is kinda hard to stop
.the T-34/85 MM is a completely different box and dice from the 76MM sherman gun. It is INSANELY better for a couple of reasonsZinegata wrote:Not really. After the T-34 was upgunned to the 85mm (which is roughtly equivalent to the 76.2mm), the Soviet Tank Kill-Loss ratio actually dropped down to 1:1.cthulhu wrote:Using the Sherman against a panther or a tiger is fucking retarded, eve with the 76MM up-gunning
A) Issuance of Tungsten penetrator rounds
B) HVAP rounds issued in 1994
C) Had massive problems with fragmentation against sloped armour that were solved in 1944.
That's why the kill rate sky rocketed - a T-34/85 with HVAP round has a REALLY dangerous gun on it. Plus they where mostly shooting up stugs and PIVs, which are just fucked against an 85MM HVAP round.
The 85 MM also has a huge HE charge even in AP rounds, meaning that behind armour effects were DRAMATIC. It was bad times getting hit by one of these mother fuckers.
You can make a frontal assault - just you make three and stop whichever one is going badly.Except of course that sort of thing doesn't actually work all of the time - i.e. in the hedgegrows where there simply isn't room to maneuver. Sometimes you *have* to make frontal assaults, and the fact that the Soviets upgunned their tanks (and suffered fewer losses) while the Americans did not just to satisfy McNair's ego was simply retarded.
MG 42 was a good gun no doubt, but the germans got repeatedly gutted in close in fights - and yes, a prime complaint from germans was piss poor short range firepower due to a lack of semi automatic and automatic weapons.Not really. Check out Ambrose's Citizen Soldiers. American troops often found it hard to close on an MG-42 even in hedgegrows - the Garand and BAR simply aren't up to snuff when American doctrine calls for suppressive fire.
The Russians though... maybe a different story. An entire division of derp-gun wielding drunks is kinda hard to stop