Combat Mission Units: M4 Sherman

A quick guide to identifying the swarm of Sherman variants in Combat Mission.
See videos early with KZbin membership: / @usuallyhapless9481
Or even earlier over on Patreon: / usuallyhaplessvideos

[@usuallyhapless9481]

Infinitely more detail on US WW2 tank design from The Chieftain: kzbin.info/www/bejne/g4fUlISnoqZmqpIsi=IczVYMOKvewKj82r and kzbin.info/www/bejne/mH_NoZJqn75rprssi=3_dk2ygt95y6Bupk

[@JimmyGarry]

"- Sir, the 17 Pounder won't fit!" "- PUT IT IN SIDEWAYS"

[@copter2000]

"- The radio won't fit!"

[@zimzam4932]

@@copter2000Put it in a box out the back.

[@sethja8]

"- the engine's no good!"

[@rodolfobischoff4856]

@@sethja8 GET 5 CAR ENGINES AND PUT THEM TOGETHER

[@tremendousbaguette9680]

You had me at "to the continued benefit of German players" 🤣

[@GrumblingGrognard]

Not only applicable to this single game, but also a quick overview of many of the most common variants of the M4 Sherman tank of WW2.

[@Euan_Miller43]

Love the fury reference

[@masonm9316]

The humble Sherman, jack of all trades master of none, but often times better than a master of one. Love my Sherman’s

[@lowenstaat]

You are the Mark Felton of the Combat Mission universe.

[@usuallyhapless9481]

Thanks! Hopefully a little less bizarre though

[@Caucasian60]

Dude, I love your videos. You’re the one that introduced me to Combat Mission and I’ve been buying them and playing them left and right now (on sales though lol). Please keep making more of these types of overview videos. What’s great about them is not only does it help people understand the game better, but it also is a good history lesson.

[@d.c.6065]

This is your best unit guide to date,, Hapless. Nicely done!

[@usuallyhapless9481]

Ta very much!

[@Syndie77-gk4xk]

People call out a few WW2 vehicles, especially the Panther as "the first MBT" but I would argue that, in terms of employment , the Sherman was a Jack of all Trades tank used for Breakthrough, Infantry Support, and all other roles typically taken on by modern MBTs. Now, nobody in WW2 actually intended to design a universal tank that did everything, but having been thrust into that role by the US Army's lack of a heavy tank, the Sherman has a better claim to "universal tank" or "mbt" than any other pre-MBT.

[@DTOStudios]

Absolutely true, combined with the fact it fought on arguably more varied battlefields than any other tank. North Africa, Burma, Eastern Front, and Normandy, it was the universal tank and none other in WW2 really came close

[@christiandelao2547]

An MBT is just the primary tank deployed by a military, its not a role designation like light or medium tank would be, it just means its the main tank deployed by the force

[@matthewjones39]

@@christiandelao2547That’s not how it works.

[@justanordinaryaccount9910]

The Pather's case is interesting because Germans did classify it as a medium tank. Meanwhile, Polish 1st Armoured Division's documents call it a tank destroyer, and Russian reports a heavy tank.

[@matthiuskoenig3378]

the soviets actually did design universal tanks. they just didn't see mass production. both the KV-8 and the T-43 were intended as universal tanks. as for shermans being pre-mbt due to the lack of us heavy tanks... that is a poor argument because the stuart did all that too before the sherman was used in combat. breakthrough tanks check (they actually did decently well in the role in operation crusader), infantry support, yep. exploitation? 100% (once again did very well in the role in operation crusader). the panzer 3 was also used in all these roles, and was used before the sherman in all these roles. so no, if we are going to shift the already shakey definition of MBT to include shermans you end up including older tanks.

[@Uberyankee]

None of this is new to me but your unit guides are simply fantastic to watch and have only gotten better since you started. Its nice to see the inclusion of the late-war field modified Jumbos in combat mission, as they're often forgotten. Churchill next? :^)

[@SM-pv4sn]

Fantastic guide, really enjoying the historical details beyond just the specs.

[@DTOStudios]

I mean to be fair to the Sherman, a Sherman 76 could kill a Tiger at 2000 meters, and Shermand were far more survivable than any other tank. You might lose the tank, but you almost always got the crew, or most of the crew, out of the wreck making it easy to throw them into a new tank and roll right back to the front. Chieftain discuss how in Shermans you lost .56 crewman per tank loss, so extremely low crew losses compared to tanks lost 😊

[@leandro9311]

It basicly was good enough in every regard, while every other tank in WWII was good at something to be bad at another

[@alarminglyfastmovingskelet7289]

While APCBC could technically penetrate the front plate at 2000 meters, even the slightest bit of obliquity would result in a failure to penetrate. HVAP would definitely have an easier time but HVAP/APCR is usually far more prolific in video games than it ever was during the war.

[@matthiuskoenig3378]

@@leandro9311 technically the panzer 3 was good enough, there was even planned 75mm L48 variant that was technically possible. its just the germans weren't interested in good enough (eg the L48 varient was going to take too long, so they canceled it and kept just the panzer 4 as the stopgap, despite being technically inferior, all because the panther was coming soon.). thepanzer 3 was also extremely easy to make. significantly easier to make than either a sherman or a T-34.

[@krisrock3975]

@@matthiuskoenig3378 do you mean the pz4? the turretring of the pz3 was to small for the long 75mm cannons and even the short 75mm cannon was a tight fit. The problem of the pz 3 was the lack of upgradeability caused by the turretring, increasing it would mean redesign of the hull. The problem of the pz 4 was everything about it. As a 19 ton design it was upgraded to weight 25 tons. The added weight put a lot of stress on the suspension and gave the engine what could barley make 300ps a lot of work. As a bonus the top front plate was not angled and the turret front had, even in the H variant, only 50mm of unangled armour. On a battlefield with 30+ ton tanks, like the sherman and the t34 it simply could not keep up anymore. trying to do all the upgrades, that the pz4 got, on the pz3 would create the same problems that the pz4 faced. An overweight and at the same time undergunned and underarmored tank, that has to face tanks that started development at ~30 tons instead of ~16 tons.

[@Rifin-pu2hb]

Short barreled 75mm Sherman could consistenly pen Tiger front plate from within 500 meter. Considering that Europe countryside consist of hedgehogs and hills, your combat distance most of the time would be within 1000 meter.

[@annoyedbipolar7424]

First off, it's a great video. The Sherman IS (was) what some individuals think the T-34 is. (was) 12:18 Second WP does simulate lethal effects they're just significantly reduced compared to IRL. A few days ago in BS, I took out like 8 troopen from a bogged-down platoon. I find they're good against suppressed enemies that I wanna keep blind. The attrition is just really helpful. (You want lots of shells in a small enemy-densense area. Like say a patch of trees to deploy ahead of an urban environmentent.) Another upside of WP is it doesn't read "empty" like HE when depleted so you can use all the ammo. It's also worth remembering smoke/WP rounds can often be underutilized with smoke rounds going unused. Combat Mission runs by "Use it or lose it" as much as "firstest mostest" so why not use them more liberally? (at least if they were gonna go to waste)

[@PaulMcElligott]

17:46 The Americans had experimented with the 3-inch gun, same as on the M10, as far back as 1942, with hopes of sending 3-inch-armed Shermans to North Africa during Operation Torch, but that gun was even bigger and heavier than the 76mm, so the problems fitting it into the Sherman’s turret were even worse.

[@sproge2142]

Yay, it's finally here!! Been looking forward to this mammoth! 🎉🎉❤

[@artemisfowl7191]

The M4A5 is in CMFBDF as the Ram Kangaroo Carrier, although if that's still an M4A5 is open to debate The M4A1 was the A1 model despite being the first to see service because the M3A1 Medium Tank also had a cast hull, and being otherwise identical the Army decided that A1 meant cast hull regardless of other factors 17:00 More steel means bigger fragments in terms of explosive shells, a smaller bursting charge tends to produce fewer, larger, more lethal fragments than a larger bursting charge, the 76mm M1's HE shell irl wasn't meaningfully less effective British Sherman [Whatever Number]A's were pretty limited, they only got some because the tanks they wanted (75 Shermans of some type) were no longer in production 32:16 Mildly important but in CMFBDF the M4A3E8 Easy Eight (Very Late) is a field expedient Jumbo Sherman and features a lot of extra armor plates bolted on.

[@matthiuskoenig3378]

larger fragments might be more lethal, but they are also less likely to hit a target, and produce a less reliable fragmentation pattern. actual tests found that the 75mm HE had a about a 10 foot radius advantage over 76mm HE, in both reliable lethal radius and reliable wound radius (thats a 33% increase and a 20% increase respectfully) warspot-asset.s3.amazonaws.com/articles/pictures/000/050/370/source/09-91693a0a1acd748e39229c015a95419b.png (yes this is for the 3inch, but that fires the same projectiles as the 76mm just with different cases. both fired the M42A1 HE shell. the 3inch just used the M2 propellant casing while the 76mm used the m26 propellant casing)

[@usuallyhapless9481]

All good points! I tried to avoid going right down into the CM variants. Though that late Easy Eight with the extra plates looks cool.

[@_Dogberry_]

It’s…… beautiful. Missed the release but I’m happy I checked in! Love it Hapless!

[@P0rtalgate]

Hapless what a video!!!! Great video been excited for another unit breakdown.

[@Blaze-vx1cc]

Your videos are top notch! Your videos alone convinced me to buy Battle for Normandy and Shock Force 2, already in love with them even if I'm struggling with the learning curve

[@wheneggsdrop1701]

I loved this guide it’s one of your best guides if not the best one yet. The quality has continued to rise! I remember only a few years back watching some of your earlier guides like the T-72. They keep the same style but keep getting better. Seems you’ve been doing a lot of hard work on the channel recently, and I wish you the best. I’m all here for it.

[@usuallyhapless9481]

Thanks very much!

[@LewisB3217]

Best tank of the war (also unified American industry is something glorious in output strength)

[@CruelDwarf]

Technically Combat Mission simulates the logistics/maintenance impact via different point costs of tanks. Or at least is should include that in the calculation. More reliable tanks should be cheaper to deploy.

[@markchorlton60]

A very thorough overview. Thank you Hapless!

[@usuallyhapless9481]

No problem! It's certainly sorted it out in my head.

[@realQuiGon]

I absolutely love these in-depth unit/formation guides! Keep em coming! :)

[@hamishneilson7140]

Love these unit type videos man, keep them up!

[@alexy590]

Love these unit guides. Could you make one about the TOW? I've been playing some more CM Cold War and some other Cold War games recently and it made curious about the various ATGM systems. Specifically when it comes to Combat Mission I'm having trouble dealing with them before I lose some of my armor. About the only thing that works consistently for me is dropping artillery on every potential ATGM position but you usually don't have enough arty for everything.

[@usuallyhapless9481]

I've covered the TOW in the Bradley unit guide, but that was before CMCW came out, so early TOWs aren't in it. Probably going to surface in some kind of M113 guide...

[@pyramusthelion3453]

Hell yeah, been looking forward to this video for ages! ❤

[@grapesnch33s3]

Such a shame you didn't go into excruciating detail about all the things that were done with the chassis, including but not limited to: Amphibious variants, SPG's, SPAA's, mine clearing vehicles, recovery vehicles, armoured personnel carriers, MRLS's equipped vehicles and who could forget all the post WWII variants... hehehe, just kidding, great video as always mate!

[@antonikubiak5798]

Considering the manual stating different levels of frontal protection for different variants of the panther (mainly later variants ommitting the face hardening process for the front plate armour), does the 17 pounder fare differently between them? Can it spall or partial pen the front of late panthers? Would love to see a gun range yt short on that

[@usuallyhapless9481]

I have a feeling the armour quality is randomised and there's no real way to check. Might be worth a test though!

[@antonikubiak5798]

@@usuallyhapless9481 i'm sure there's randomness involved, but the lack of face hardening seems like it could be a huge factor. and that's one thing that is specifically stated by the manual

[@markraffety3246]

Excellent video as always UH. I think it's worth remembering that the Sherman was substantially heavier than the vast majority of German AFVs. I don't believe that any vehicles on panzer III or IV chassis ever exceeded 26 tons, (though maybe some variation of the jadgpanzer IV may have) and though early T34 s were about 26 tons that tank ballooned to about 32 tons with the 85mm gun. This means that depending on the model of the Sherman most German armor is only 75 percent or less of a Sherman's weight. Considering that other Axis nations didn't have tanks even close to the Sherman the notion of a Sherman as a small tank is just plain wrong. I find I get the most out of my Shermans when I don't use the hunt command. I use the slow or move command and go from cover to cover point as close as possible (or reverse from the farthest movement point). The stabilizer means the Sherman has a high degree of accuracy when moving and the tank doesn't need to stop to get a good shot especially with superior crews.

[@PitterPatter20]

I was really confused at first how this video was only 30 minutes long

[@TigerTankSprues]

This was awesome. More please!

[@markbrookbank7282]

Great video! Must have taken a heck of a lot of time and research to put this one together?!

[@lorgius]

Very good video, as always. I watched it with pleasure :)

[@ricoberkhout2270]

I have a t-shirt that has the Sherman on it that says this is my Tank top and it makes me smile every time.

[@Tekisasubakani]

Awesome, time for the Sherman Herd!

[@porterpoteet]

If I remember correctly, can’t TRPs be used to increase the accuracy of your tanks? Seems if so the 75s and 105s would benefit greatly.

[@usuallyhapless9481]

Yes, they can. In my experience it's a nice bonus if you happen to be shooting in the general area of a TRP, but I wouldn't go out of my way to TRP up places I was expecting my tanks to shoot.

[@mekkatronixdad7017]

Hapless! Thank you for the video. You've inspired me to finally tackle why CM wouldn't run right on my gaming laptop (Good news! It was using the integrated card. Switched over to my 4050 and BOOM!) What graphics settings do you run on your CM games graphics? and do you use any mods? I'm trying to make mine look beautiful but not sacrifice too many frames at the same time. I need at least 50-60 fps. Thanks again for the video!

[@usuallyhapless9481]

I usually have the graphics set to balanced- I'm not sure it does anything except change LOD distances. Mods, well they're different from title to title. I spent some time messing around with ReShade to get more effects, but when I look back videos from that time now it just looks like someone has poured bleach in the screen. Or, to put it another way: your mileage may vary. I'm not sure CM can ever look 'beautiful' :P

[@guameldestruir6239]

A great video with lots of good history although some minor details bug me (Shermans are so damn convoluted) Another video i would recommend for further learning on the Sherman would be Eta320's "A Slightly Confusing Guide to The Sherman Tank"

[@Hy93Ri0n]

BEST JOB I EVER HAD

[@williamdufort176]

Great video as always.

[@usuallyhapless9481]

Thanks very much!

[@PaulMcElligott]

Americans with the 76mm: "You know actual adult-sized humans have to fit into the turret, right? Try again." British with the 17-pdr: "Ergonomics, shmergonomics. Just stick it in there."

[@copter2000]

British gunners when they have to do Olympic level gymnastics to operate a gun: 🤸

[@PaulMcElligott]

“What did you do before the war, lad?” “I was a contortionist in the circus, sir.” “Excellent. You’re now a Firefly gunner.”

[@Lazuli2-6]

13:00 It's tactically practical because Brad Pitt did it!

[@consul.5557]

13:16 nice fury reference

[@phunkracy]

I love these guides, and I don't even play Combat Mission anymore!

[@dadoogie]

American Military: M I would love to know why they designated everything with the M Prefix.

[@rastapasta6447]

"M" stands for Model under American military designation and is used for any piece of military equipment that is officially adopted by the US Army

[@dadoogie]

@@rastapasta6447 Thank you. It makes a lot of sense and a shame its so simple.

[@Listless_Robin]

It just means "mark". The A also means "alteration", so altering from the base. m4a1 would be mark 4 alteration 1.

[@thatorangeguy3646]

Its identicle to soviet or japanese "T" (type​) designations or german Ausf designation.@@Listless_Robin

[@lutherburgsvik6849]

AFAIK, only the Army uses the M designation, the other branches, Navy and Air Force have their own nomenclature.

[@MandolinMagi]

Sherman 105s were also meant as assault guns, not tanks

[@mark009vn]

18:00 a ghost is haunting hapless in the background

[@usuallyhapless9481]

IIRC it's a train

[@justanordinaryaccount9910]

Any chance for Formation Guide on Italian infantry?

[@usuallyhapless9481]

It's on the list!

[@infrared7759]

I love the jab at Fury. That movie is aptly named because that's what it made me feel. I have major issues with pretty much everything in that movie, not just from an "um technically" kind of way but also its messaging and story telling. Absolutely atrocious mess of a film that is only popular because it had the budget for cool effects and a real Tiger. But to give it some credit, at least it's not Hacksaw Ridge.

[@usuallyhapless9481]

Yeah, Fury seemed like such a missed opportunity. Awesome aesthetics, but the plot really let it down.

[@jondoe6663]

HOLY SHERMAN!

[@ThatOneGeneral_]

13:11 Famous Easy Eight ace Brad Pitt would strongly disagree with this statement, I fear.

[@veterankasrkin7416]

M1 Abrams next pls!

[@whya2ndaccount]

13:08: and yet they made a movie where that was the climax!

[@usuallyhapless9481]

I thought the climax was the bit with the guy on the horse...

[@whya2ndaccount]

​@@usuallyhapless9481All I know is that it made Kelly's Heroes look like a good tank movie.

[@raynel8495]

How did the Sherman 76's gun do against the Tiger 1's frontal armor? 🤔

[@matthewjones39]

Went right through it.

[@usuallyhapless9481]

It has a better chance than against the Panther's front slope, but... I mean, the US Army barely ever fought Tiger Is so it's a little moot.

[@Blader445]

Hi Hapless! Do you ever think a Combat Mission game centered around the battle of France circa 1940 would work?

[@usuallyhapless9481]

In practical terms, absolutely. In commerical terms... things are less certain.

[@JohnsonLobster]

When you have a quote on the screen, you should really add the source at the bottom. I have no idea who this "[weird mumbled name]" is you keep quoting.

[@usuallyhapless9481]

It's probably Hunnicutt

[@JohnsonLobster]

@@usuallyhapless9481 I was more baffled by the one at 2:06. Tso... Zo... Zologer...

[@usuallyhapless9481]

Oh Steve Zaloga?

[@JohnsonLobster]

@@usuallyhapless9481 I guess, yes.

[@larsdejong7396]

Overall, the Sherman is a great example of: performance isn't everything. There are things beyond the shiny statistics which are just as important. In many ways, the Panther, Tiger and T-34-76 are good examples of this in the other direction; prioritizing performance over soft factors at any cost. Which is only a good idea to some extend. The ME-262 is another example of that.

[@gotanon9659]

Well if we summerize german tank development the german got the right mix of design priorities in the early panzer's only to literally throw it at the trash can and copy the design priorities of their adversaries that lost to them....

[@user-yf9il6gl3t]

Im busting im busting