6 replies to this topic

[Andrew Burton]

Sherman tank M4A2 why does its side armor not increase from the M4A1, because the A2 they added plates to its side to help it survive a hit.

[Mark 1]

The presence of add-on armor has nothing to do with the tank being an M4A2, it has to do with the tank being a mid-war production Sherman.  The same is true with the wider M34A1 gun mantlet.  M4, M4a1 and M4A4 all also had applique armor applied to their sides in mid-war production, and received the M34A1 mantlet.  M4, M4A1 and M4A2 all had the applique armor omitted from late-war production.

 

The impact of the applique armor was relatively minor. It only covers a very small portion of the tank's side, immediately over the ammunition racks.  It was provided due to the number of tanks that were destroyed  by ammunition fires during the Tunisian campaign.  It was found that some of these tanks suffered fired from hits from relatively weak guns (in particular from German 50mmL42 in the older Pz III models).  The applique was thought to be effective against such guns, as well as the German 37mm Pak 36. 

 

Not speaking on behalf of ODGW, but I would expect modelling this relatively minor increment in protection would require a substantial increment in the complexity of the game.  The running gear, the engine, the majority of the hull side, the entire turret side received no extra protection.  Mein Panzer does not distinguish between hull and turret armor, much less between some small portion of the hull that might be a bit thicker than the rest of the hull.

 

It's a trade-off of game detail vs. game complexity.  There are games that give you 8, 10, or 12 different places on the tank that you might have hit on each aspect of the tank you might fire at, which might each have different levels of armor protection.  If you want games of that complexity, they exist.  You will find it difficult to play with more than about a platoon for each player when you start with those rules. 

 

Mein Panzer does an admirable job of balancing the level of detail with the level of gameplay, in my opinion.  It is the best ruleset I've found for combined arms actions (tanks, infantry, AT guns, etc.) at a level where each player can push a re-enforced company or more and battles can be battalion or even multi-battalion in size.  You won't be able to achieve that in rules that worry about whether you hit him above or below the return run of the track.

 

Just my opinions.  Consider or disregard at your discretion.

 

-Mark

[Peter M. Skaar]

There is always that trade off between added complexity and ease of play.  I think that Mein Panzer does an admirable job trying to balance the two aspects.  One can always make a house rule for add-on armor or anything else if you want to do that.  I have played with a few of my own house rules for this game.

[Kenny Noe]

Andrew

 

Peter and Mark hit the nail on the head.  We have extensively play tested Mein Panzer to make the game fun and thus people want to play it.   Play-ability is one reason there are only 4 hit locations on a vehicle.  When compiling vehicle stats this can be somewhat subjective.  The M4A2 that rolled off the production line in the US was not the same M4A2 that survived the war.  Also a later Mk of a vehicle is not always an improvement from the previous Mk, contrary to logical thinking.  Field modifications were and are always made to over come a "item" found that the original designers either thought too much or not enough about.  One such item is reported tenancy of US tankers disabling the gyroscopic stabilization in the Sherman for reasons of their own.

 

Adding applique, sandbag, tank tracks, or wooden beams can increase a vehicles armor protection, but usually at a price of maneuverability and speed.  Also with different armor additions how much protection is actually gained?  All good questions and everybody has their own answers.

 

We (ODGW) encourage Gamers to let us know if they feel that we have a vehicle stat wrong.  We will be glad to review and re-evaluate.  Gamers should provide reference / documentation from the real world to support their position.  Opinions and "plays like" in other games is nice but nothing to hang a hat upon.

 

If you feel that strong about your opinions, then as Peter suggested, House Rules are fine.  We (ODGW) encourages house rules and recommend you publish them here so every one can try them out.  If we like it enough we might put it in the official game (with your permission of course).

 

Hope this helps your understanding.

 

If there are any questions, please let us know.

 

Sincerely,

--Kenny

[Mark 1]

Coming back to this older thread (not quite old enough to qualify as a Zombie thread perhaps, but still not exactly current) ...

 

Thought I might provide some pics of gaming units that illustrate exactly how the early-production vs. mid-production Shermans differ.

 

Here is a pic of an early production M4A1 Sherman.  These are 1/285 scale GHQ models. 

 

This is the M4A1, which means it is a cast-hull Sherman using the Wright radial engine.  Notice the rounded corners of the hull, which help identify the M4A1.  Notice that there are no added plates on the sides, how the driver and co-driver hatches bulge out of the hull's front slope, and the thin mantlet for the gun.  These identify the tank as an early-production M4A1.

 

 

This is also the M4A1.  We can still see the rounded corners of the hull. But now we can also see that there are armor plates added on the hull sides over the ammo bins, and on the turret cheek (one side only) over the turret traverse mechanism.  Also the gun mantlet has been extended out to the sides.  These identify the tank as a mid-production M4A1.

 

Both early- and mid- are clearly M4A1s.

 

If these were welded-hull M4s (just the base M4, with radial engine, but not with a cast hull like the -A1) or welded-hull M4A2s (similar hull to the M4, but with diesel engines rather than the radial engines) you would see the same issues of added plates and extended mantlet to identify early- versus mid-production M4 tanks.

 

The upper picture early-production version (M4 or M4A1) would be the right versions for Tunisia or Sicily. Both were accepted as "standard" for US Army use in 1942.

 

The lower picture mid-production version (M4 or M4A1) would be right for US Army in France from D-Day on. Most of these divisions were equipped in 1943, and had been in the UK for many months.This was an in-the-line production ugprade implemented in the second half of 1943, and there were also kits produced and shipped to Europe for depot-level upgrades to the tanks already in theater.

 

Later versions -- the (almost all late-production) M4A3, and the late-production M4A1s, can be identified by their later designed hulls, without added plates but with with a flat front slope (no bulges) at a lesser (steeper) angle, and larger driver and co-driver hatches.  These begin to appear in ETO after the Normandy campaign. These would be newer divisions (and battalions) formed and equipped in the first half of 1944.

 

The MTO operations (Italy and the Dragoon landings in southern France) could use a mix of early- and mid-war production M4s or M4A1s, as these were mostly divisions that had been in-theater since Sicily, but had received later production models as replacement vehicles.

 

M4A2s differed from the basic M4 primarily in the engine. They went through the same sequence of upgrades as the M4A1. They were never adopted by the US Army for anything but prototype/evaluation use.  The USMC used them in 1943 and early 1944, replacing them with the M4A3 later in 1944.  Otherwise all M4A2 production went to Lend Lease clients, with the French and the Soviets operating them in large numbers, and the British in lesser numbers.

 

And now just for fun, here are the full companies of the tanks.  Each company has 3 platoons of 5 tanks, and a company HQ of 2 tanks, for 17 tanks in total.

 

Here is the full company of early-production M4A1s.

 

And here is the full company of mid-production M4A1s.

 

Hope that adds some visual impact to the otherwise textual discussion.

 

Good luck and good gaming,

 

-Mark

(aka: Mk 1)

[Kenny Noe]

Well done Mark!!  Awesome photos!

 

Tanks!!

[Peter M. Skaar]

Great looking photos, Mark!  One of these days, I may do a lineup of all the different painted Shermans I have that GHQ makes including a few that I modified somewhat from the standard model that GHQ makes.  There are quite a few.

I need to paint up a few of their recently released M4s one of these days as well as add some more M4A1s and M4A3s to my forces.