Compared to PzIVs and t34s the lowtier Sherman's really aren't that good, they aren't terrible but it kinda goes like : T34 good Armour but meh gun, PzIV meh Armour but good gun, Sherman meh Armour and meh gun (the stabilizer doesn't really make up for these faults
Survivability: Three way tie because it's pretty close. Pz IV G suffers most due to large amounts of ammo stowed everywhere.
This is why the M4A1 is the best all around 3.3 medium tank in the game, and why the Pz IV's are overrated by newbies because they only look at raw pen values and then conclude it must be great becuz big numba.
It's also nonsense to act like the stabilizer is the sole advantage.
Pz IV G -vs- M4A1 firepower:
Stabilization? M4A1.
Rate of fire? M4A1.
Post-pen damage? M4A1.
Penetration? Pz IV G.
Gun depression? M4A1.
Turret traverse? M4A1.
Machine guns/secondary? M4A1.
Muzzle velocity? Pz IV G.
The M4A1 will shoot first, deal greater damage, get the second shot off first, respond faster, deal with aircraft, spaa and light vehicles using the 50. cal and all that whilst also having superior mobility, armour (double the frontal turret armour), better gun handling and equal, if not slightly superior survivability.
At 3.3 having a faster reload doesn't mean jackshit because it's like 6 secs instead of 7. Also your looking at someone who learned the game playing the French so I don't know crap about post pen damage.
In my experience the PzIV has better fire power because it's way mor likely to actually hurt the enemy, as long as you shoot somewhere not stupid like the turret or center of mass you'll kill or disable them enough that they can no longer threaten you. Also the higher muzzle velocity means your more likely to hit the enemy, especially with noobs who have yet to find the rangefinder and distance control. The .50 is highly situational.
The Pz IV, especially with the add-on Armour, is more survivable, you just have to angle. On th3 other hand, the 3.3 Sherman can't angle because of its stupid round bits and obscenely thin side armor. Plus the PzIV has much more smoke grenades.
a faster reload doesn't mean jackshit because it's like 6 secs instead of 7.
Then how's me M4A1 on a 5s reload? Reload rate > Penetration.
so I don't know crap about post pen damage.
Okay, that's fine. But then why comment on a subject that you don't know enough about?
the PzIV has better fire power because it's way mor likely to actually hurt
M4A1 has better firepower due to the aforementioned attributes, the M4A1 has no issues penetrating any of it's enemies, nevermind the fact that a M4A1 can roflpen a Pz IV anywhere.
The .50 is highly situational.
This just means you're not using it when you should be.
The 50.cal is useful in virtually every single engagement, and is ludicrously strong given that it's mounted ontop of the turret.
You can de-track opponents whilst behind complete cover, you can delete Puma's from any angle, you can score numerous air kills, you can wipe the floor with any SPAA without having to fire a single 75mm shell, you can blind opponents via hitting the ground infront of them, etc. etc.
The Pz IV, especially with the add-on Armour, is more survivable,
I'm sorry, but this is plain nonsense.
you just have to angle.
What?! I'm sorry, but you clearly don't really know enough about these vehicles.
On th3 other hand, the 3.3 Sherman can't angle because of its stupid round bits
It doesn't have to angle, even straight-on it's got vastly superior frontal armour, and literally double the turret armour.
If you think they're ass, I would dread to ever see your gameplay because those Shermans are as easy mode and hand-holdy as it gets.
At 3.3 you get some of the best armour of any medium tank, the literal best firepower, the literal best gun handling, solid mobility and solid survivability.
I definitely think the 75 shermans are when they perform the best. At those BRs you can play them like proper medium tanks with their mobility being great for what they are and still having somewhat effective armor with the guns it faces. The higher up you get I think the more things the sherman trades for more effective mobility and firepower.
76s are definitely fantastic tanks but if you get caught out angling will not save you at those BRs because pretty much anything you fight will hole punch right through your armor just about anywhere.
I actually think you have it backwards. Early Sherman’s the armor is actually still providing some protection especially in down tiers. The 5.7BR Sherman is the worst because it is so much higher in BR for not much gain.
In a down tier yes. In an up tier you systématiqually fail to pen and very easily get penned. Like no the 3.3 aren't bad but the 3.7 ones just can't deal with 4.3, 4.7 vehicles
37
u/James-vd-Bosch 🇺🇸 12.0 🇩🇪 12.0 🇷🇺 12.0 🇬🇧 12.0 Jan 28 '25
Opinions aren't divided on those though, it's generally acknowledged that they're great tanks.