Sherman’s were not called Purple Heart boxes for nothing. They were well known to light up like a Roman candle when hit. I don’t know why Eugene cannot simulate this with crit system.
Just odd how I am reading some of this and think “instant death’” I mean ammo storage hit only causes 50% reduction in ammo and 3 sec gun damage??? That is crazy. Any storage hit on any tank should be instant death.
Also any track hit on a tank while moving should make the tank spin of control and open up side shots.
The "Purple Heart Boxes" nickname was actually for halftracks, most notably the Anti-Tank model ones used in Africa.
As to "well known" to light up, again that applied to earlier models with ammo stowage high in the hull. Panzer IVs, Panthers, Jadgpanzer IVs, etc etc all had similar burn/explosion rates when penetrated (and they were penetrated, the old myth of Panzer IVs wading through 75 MM fire, or of massed Tiger legions needs to be really tossed in the trash at this point).
The Sherman had indeed problems with his inflammability. The Germans called the M4 Sherman "Tommy-Kocher" (Tommy-Stove), because of that problem. Later the the Sherman was equipped with cans of water in the storage areas to fix that issue.
It wasn't "Cans of water" it was moving the main ammo stowage to the floor, and surrounding them with anti-freeze (as if it was water, it might freeze over if the tank was parked during cold weather which would burst the containers). Ultimately it was moving the ammo to the floor that was the most important measure as it moved it out of the most common lines of fire and later model Shermans kept the stowage location, but omitted the anti-freeze portion of the stowage.
The arguments on the forums over the brewing up issue was horrendous at launch. I remember having some rather 'heated' arguments (sorry) with a couple of 'experts' at the time who maintained that the water filled ammo storage eventually tried in the shermans eliminated the fire issue. That's fine for reducing the risk of heat igniting ammunition, but does nothing when splinters or other red-hot material exposes and ignites fuel or ammo propellant.
A lot of people simply don't accept the overall poor quality of WW2 tanks, and judge by modern standards...with a hearty dose of German/American rose tinted-jingo'ism thrown in. They refuse to accept that the M4 series was simply an intermediate stop-gap expedient till something better came along (same as the Grant/Lee)...which never really happened during the critical phase of the war.
This of course demonstrates ignorance of the topic entirely. The "water" portion didn't matter, it was the movement of the ammo out of the lines of likely penetration, which in turn reduced the burn rate of the Sherman to well below the ignition rate of any other tank in Europe circa 1944 that was still being shot at.
Also the Sherman was 100% not a "immediate stop-gap expedient!!!!" The US military regarded it as the tank of choice for 1942-43. US Ordinance Branch attempted to make a replacement in the T23 which basically failed to be better than the Sherman and was not adopted (with the exception of it's turret, which went on to become the pattern for the later model Sherman turret w/ 76 MM gun).
The main failings of the Sherman compared to German armor were:
1. Narrow tracks, meaning poor ground pressure compared to similar or even heavier tanks.
2. High profile
3. Until the later model, the split hatch with periscope was a worse observation system than the cupola type setup with 360 vision blocks (however the later "All vision" cupola on the 76 MM and later 75 MM Shermans was superior to the German model)
It's debatable if the armor or even gun were especially "bad" given their performance compared to other tanks of similar weight. That would then be should the US have fielded a "heavy" tank, or even a "medium" wink wink nudge nudge like the Panther. Given the performance of those vehicles relative to cost, and that most of the tank engagements the US Army was in involved only the US Army's tanks, this might be indicative the Sherman was the winning strategy.
Onto critical hits:
Honestly I'm enjoying the game more with them. Heavy armor doesn't seem quite as killdozer, AT guns are now a bad idea to employ on the offensive.
I don't play lots so I might be "wrong" but I'm playing again and liking it after walking away from the game for a few months, so going to call it a win.