HHR Easy-Eight

[Comassion]

'Dear God, an American Tiger! And it's not even the Jumbo model!'

Welcome all to HHRC's first individual unit discussion. Today we're going to examine the Easy-Eight.

M4A3E8 Sherman "Easy Eight" - 1944
54 Pts
Spd 4
Def 7 / 6
AI: 7 / 7 / 6
AV: 14 / 12 / 10
Transport
Superior Armor 2
Excellent Suspension
Armor Piercing Rounds

Easy Eight statistics (http://www.onwar.com/tanks/usa/fm4a376w.htm)

Discuss. Are the SA's warranted? Is the armor value of this tank too high? What about the offensive stats for the 76 MM gun?

[PatrickWR]

I'm gonna let someone who knows about the Easy Eight's historical stuff chime in, but my impressions:

Eliminate AP Rounds. It's a nerf SA that was included to make the Easy Eight on par with a Tiger.

Drop the Defense to 5/4, just like a normal Sherman. If it turns out that the Easy Eight did have some sort of better armor, I recommend that it become Defense 5/5, rather than adding Superior Armor 2 to the card.

Excellent Suspension is gimmicky, but I kinda like it. I think it should stay. Remember, we're altering these stats as little as possible, right?

The gun can stay as-is...it is, after all, better than the Sherman's 75mm, right? Or am I wrong?

[Count_Ciano]

Actually, the stats on the first link look a little off (it's the exact same armor stats for the "Sherman Jumbo")! :eek: This (http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/m4sherman.html#M4A3(76)WHVSS) might be a little more accurate. ;)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Believe. Obey. Fight!

[Bobsalt]

Unless someone can produce evidence that there was something special about the ammo used by an Easy Eight, my thought is that the Armor Piercing SA should be eliminated. I agree with PatrickWR’s comment – I believe this was done for pure play balance purposes to make it more competitive with the Tiger.

As to the armor, I’ve seen posts that claimed that the armor on this tank was stronger than earlier models because it was welded as opposed to being cast. Is this true? A 7 vs. a 5 for the base Sherman represents a 40% increase, not even taking into account the Superior Armor SA. My thought, pending input from those who have the time to do more detailed research, is that the front armor for the Easy Eight should be more like 5 or 6, while retaining the Superior Armor SA to account for the change from cast to welded armor.

I don’t have any issue with the gun.

[Comassion]

My research shows a marginal (but significant) increase in armor thickness - I propose that we drop the armor to 5 and retain Superior Armor 2.

Side armor should definitely stay at 4. There was no change in the Easy-Eight's side armor value from what I can tell. Unfortunately Superior armor 2 would still enhance this, but I'm willing to make that sacrifice.

APDS rounds with greater armor penetration values were issued to a variety of allied vehicles in 1944, but even then I'm inclined not to include Armor Piercing Rounds as an SA. For one thing, the APDS rounds caused less damage to their target than regular AP rounds (assuming both penetrated), even though they were much better at penetrating. So there's a bit of a tradeoff there, and the SA as written doesn't increase liklihood of penetration, just liklihood of a kill if you penetrate.

And we should drop transport. The Americans did not ride their tanks while in combat like the Soviets did.

Excellent Suspension is warranted - the major upgrade to the Easy-Eight was it's HVSS suspension, which was one of the best in the war.

As for the gun, I think it's perfect as is. A couple sites I looked at compare the tank to the T-34/85 and say that it's just about even in killing power and has slightly worse armor, and I think that's what we've got with this:

Finally, the year is accurate. The E8 saw action in 1944.

M4A3E8 Sherman "Easy Eight" - 1944
?? Pts
Spd 4
Def 5 / 4
AI: 7 / 7 / 6
AV: 14 / 12 / 10
Superior Armor 2
Excellent Suspension


I vote for these stats for the E8. If they're accepted, we'll determine cost, and then Domnhall can make HHR's first official unit stat card.

[Bobsalt]

I vote for Comassion's stats.

[Ming]

Would you consider the 'role' of the E8 Sherman in caclulating its stats? I believe E8s were initially issued as a 'Lead Tank' in Tank Platoons. (I might be confusing it with the Jumbo though.) Perhaps replacing 'transport' with 'Veteran Crew'?

[Old Fart]

The M4A3E8 is definately out of wack. Some of us feel that it was
included in Set l as a consession that the Allies needed some type of
heavy tank. To a purist, it's an incredable abomination.

However, before you start tweaking the Easy 8, there is a major
decision to be made regarding the US 76mm gun. Personally, I feel
that the 14-12-10 is too low. I think it would be more accurate to
give it 15-13-11 as I feel this is a better representation of it's
abilities. I have conferred with Prof. Danyel Phelps on this issue
and he concurs.

The foremost reason to modify The Easy 8 is to bring it back to
reality and attempt to recreate the historical model. But in the
process, you also want to establish a unit that gamers will WANT
TO USE. My own personal observation is WHY SHOULD I GIVE UP
THE EXTREMELY FLEXABLE M4A1 TO OBTAIN A VEHICLE THAT GIVES
ME ONE EXTRA ANTI-TANK DICE BUT TAKES AWAY TWO ANTI-
PERSONNEL DICE ??? The US 76mm gun is not the bargain that the
75mm gun is.

Presented below is the version that I use. It was originally conceived
by Prof. Danyel Phelps. It still retains Superior Armor as the later
Shermans did have more armor than the originals but nowhere to the
level of the Panther ( 6/4 Superior Armor ).

Old Fart

[Old Fart]

While this is off topic, eventually AH may/hopefully give us a Jumbo.
AH's Easy 8 almost appears to be a combination E2 and E8.

Old Fart

PS. My gaming buddy and I use the stardard Easy 8 model when we
want to play with this. As long as the other player is aware that that
is what it is being used for. BTW a standard Panther in my system
is also 39 points.

[Pasalades]

Lets do some costing here using my Matrix.

First is Commasion's Easy Eight:
With these stats:

Spd 4
Def 5 / 4
AI: 7 / 7 / 6
AV: 14 / 12 / 10
Superior Armor 2
Excellent Suspension

Cost = 25 points. 21-1+1+1+3=25. One less than a Rhino. To be honest, this isn't much different than a normal Sherman, but historically that's the case. It loses it's Anti Infantry Stats, but earns the moderadely helpful Superior Armour and Supsension SAs. Compared to a T34/74 with transport this is a fair costing.

Now for Old Fart's Easy Eight:

Exact same deal except with Transport and 15/13/11 Just like a PZ IV.

Cost = 32 points. 21-1+1+4+3+4=32. Not to far off from Old Fart's costing. PRetty nice. This would be comparable to the KV-1 or the SS-Pz IV F2. Do these stats hold up for a historical Easy Eight? Personally, I'm rather fond of This Sherman at 32 points (Remember our SS-Pz IV F2 while an all round weaker tank has that expensive Extended Range SA).

Enh, while I'm at it the Sherman Jumbo clocks in at 34.5 points (21-1-1+3+7+1.5+4=34.5). Round up to 35. Hey, just like a croc.

[Old Fart]

While I'm still thinking about it, there seems to be a design conspiracy
to undervalue allied tank guns. The US 76mm and the Russian 85mm
do have similar penetration capabilities ... both seem to be undervalued.
The British 17 lb gun is WITHOUT A DOUBT underated in this game.
I suspect the US 90mm will also be undervalued when it finally shows
up.

The AH design staff seem to want to give us a kiddie game based on
WW ll myth. The myth of the german ... badly outnumbered but
using superior equipment defending against the hordes of allies
using inferior equipment. This game seems to be heavily slanted
in that direction.

I do not wish to argue all night about the merits of this unit or that.
I'm simply trying to make you aware of what seems pretty obvious
regarding the direction of this game. It is probably safe to say that
by the Fall of '44 the AVERAGE allied tank crew was more experienced
than the AVERAGE german tank crew ... as with everything else the
hugh german losses up to that point were impossible to replace.

Anyway, I recommend that if you have any questions at all about
tank guns consult Prof. Danyel Phelps. His depth of knowledge on
the subject is considerable.

Old Fart

[Joisey]

I'm gonna let someone who knows about the Easy Eight's historical stuff chime in, but my impressions:

Eliminate AP Rounds. It's a nerf SA that was included to make the Easy Eight on par with a Tiger.

Drop the Defense to 5/4, just like a normal Sherman. If it turns out that the Easy Eight did have some sort of better armor, I recommend that it become Defense 5/5, rather than adding Superior Armor 2 to the card.

Excellent Suspension is gimmicky, but I kinda like it. I think it should stay. Remember, we're altering these stats as little as possible, right?

The gun can stay as-is...it is, after all, better than the Sherman's 75mm, right? Or am I wrong?
I agree with this.

[PatrickWR]

Good discussion, I vote for Comassion's stats. The gun may be a little underpowered (good points Old Fart), but we've seen what numbers (vs. statistics) can do in this game, so I'm inclined to let it go.

Does 25 points (as per Pasalades matrix) seem a bit low to you guys?

[Joisey]

Good discussion, I vote for Comassion's stats. The gun may be a little underpowered (good points Old Fart), but we've seen what numbers (vs. statistics) can do in this game, so I'm inclined to let it go.

Does 25 points (as per Pasalades matrix) seem a bit low to you guys?
What's the pzrIVG going to cost? I think that the main gun performance of the panzer IV G and the E8 were comparable and these two tanks ought to cost the same.

[Pasalades]

Good discussion, I vote for Comassion's stats. The gun may be a little underpowered (good points Old Fart), but we've seen what numbers (vs. statistics) can do in this game, so I'm inclined to let it go.

Does 25 points (as per Pasalades matrix) seem a bit low to you guys?

As far as its stats and abilities are concerned, it falls in between the regular Sherman (21 points) and a T34/74 (28 points). How valuable do you think the extra abilities (Suspension and Superior Armour: 2) are? Seeing the stats (one extra die on anti vehicle attack in exchange for going down a rank on anti-infantry) cancel each other out, it's a question of how much the SAs are worth for this tank.

[Pasalades]

What's the pzrIVG going to cost? I think that the main gun performance of the panzer IV G and the E8 were comparable and these two tanks ought to cost the same.

I agree. I guess you need to take a thread to decide how much Extended Range is worth, or if it should be dumped all together. My little matrix prices ER:10 at +8 points, but that's a little crazy don't you think? I say cut it in half or a quarter. That would make for a 24-26 point PZIV G.

[PatrickWR]

Eh, after thinking about it for a while, I'm ok with the price. We've seen that Superior Armor doesn't have a huge game impact, anyway.

[Joisey]

I agree. I guess you need to take a thread to decide how much Extended Range is worth, or if it should be dumped all together. My little matrix prices ER:10 at +8 points, but that's a little crazy don't you think? I say cut it in half or a quarter. That would make for a 24-26 point PZIV G.
Yeah, I can't see extended range 10 as being worth more than 2 points, tops!

[dracos42]

The Easy Eight seems to be the Sherman M4/76E8 with the Jumbo's armor. Or its a Jumbo with the M1 Abrams' engine.

While we are discussing the American 76mm gun, the M18 and M5 should have Extended Range 10 also. And the M18 should have access to HVAP rounds also, if that SA will be kept in the historical game. It makes sense that the tank destroyers would get that ammunition.

Michael

[cossackwarrior]

I'm gonna let someone who knows about the Easy Eight's historical stuff chime in, but my impressions:

Eliminate AP Rounds. It's a nerf SA that was included to make the Easy Eight on par with a Tiger.

NOT SO - The Easy Eight (and other 76mm US tanks) could and did fire the HVAP rounds which were issued to the Tank Destroyer units only. These were deadly and cut through armor better than almost any shell of equal class, second only to the super velocity 75 of the Panther and the German 88 and US 90. I feel that giving the SA oonly once per game is probably a bit tight.

Drop the Defense to 5/4, just like a normal Sherman. If it turns out that the Easy Eight did have some sort of better armor, I recommend that it become Defense 5/5, rather than adding Superior Armor 2 to the card.

I would suggest that the tank recieve one or the other not both the 7/6 Defense and the SA of Superior Armour.

Excellent Suspension is gimmicky, but I kinda like it. I think it should stay. Remember, we're altering these stats as little as possible, right?

The Suspension really proved itself in Korea where it took the Easy Eight where no other tanks could go in the hills of that little penninsula.

The gun can stay as-is...it is, after all, better than the Sherman's 75mm, right? Or am I wrong?

Much better than the original 75mm gun that a lousy mm would seem to grant. It was much higher velocity even without the HVAP rounds.

[Comassion]

I think that the most appropriate cost for the Easy-Eight with my stats is 28.

My rationale is a direct comparison with the T-34/76 (28 pts), which is the closest unit to the E-8 statwise.
The E8 loses 1 rear armor and transport.
The E8 gains Excellent suspension and +1 AV dice at medium and short range - which I think is a fine tradeoff. Basically, at 28 points for both, I'm not sure which one I'd rather take.

[PatrickWR]

Basically, at 28 points for both, I'm not sure which one I'd rather take.

As it should be in a good game! Are we in favor of accepting the revised E8 stats at 28 points? I vote yes.

[Pasalades]

I think that the most appropriate cost for the Easy-Eight with my stats is 28.

My rationale is a direct comparison with the T-34/76 (28 pts), which is the closest unit to the E-8 statwise.
The E8 loses 1 rear armor and transport.
The E8 gains Excellent suspension and +1 AV dice at medium and short range - which I think is a fine tradeoff. Basically, at 28 points for both, I'm not sure which one I'd rather take.

I disagree, but it's not my call. Losing transport is a bigger deal than you make out to be imho. The T34 is easily the better tank at 28 points for the potential it has (by carrying someone on board). Excellent Supension isn't nearly the ability transport is. But the extra point of defence (reducing six-die dissruption odds from 33% to 17.%) is a fair trade for the extra die of attack on short/medium.

[PatrickWR]

Hmm... 27 points then? Slightly more expensive than a Rhino?

[Comassion]

You're correct that Excellent Suspension isn't as good as Transport, but that extra point of defense is on the rear, which I've found is generally pretty easy to keep out of sight of enemy guns. The +1 attack dice at short, and especially medium range is worth a good bit - consider the E8 vs. the Guards T-34/85, which also drops Transport.

[Joisey]

I disagree, but it's not my call. Losing transport is a bigger deal than you make out to be imho. The T34 is easily the better tank at 28 points for the potential it has (by carrying someone on board). Excellent Supension isn't nearly the ability transport is. But the extra point of defence (reducing six-die dissruption odds from 33% to 17.%) is a fair trade for the extra die of attack on short/medium.
I agree with this analysis. The E8 should cost 27, not 28.

[Bobsalt]

A question I have is whether we're going with the proposed AV stats with the 76mm gun at 15/13/11. If I recall, this basically makes it equal to the Pz IVG, except for Extended Range. Comassion, just to help me visualize it, would you mind posting the proposed stats for the E8? I know you did this yesterday, but I want to see if we’re talking about a change.

I agree with Pasalades – losing Transport is a big deal, though I agree with dropping it since my understanding is that US troops rode Shermans more from Point A to Point B on a map, not carry them into combat situations like the Russians did. At 28 points each, I know I’d rather have the T-34 than the E8.

We’re comparing the E8 to the Rhino, Pz IV’s, and the T-34. A thought (or can of worms) to consider is that if we change some of these tanks as well, that comparison may not be valid. Personally, I thought the T-34 is a little too cheap, the Pz IV’s too high, and the Rhino obviously too cheap. I also think the KV-1 is too cheap with Hulking Mass – that SA has been a huge one in our games. Has anyone tried taking all of these and comparing them as a group to see what their values should be relative to each other? I’d hate to see us nerf the E8 into being never used, though if that’s the result of historical accuracy, then I guess that’s the price we pay.

[Pasalades]

You're correct that Excellent Suspension isn't as good as Transport, but that extra point of defense is on the rear, which I've found is generally pretty easy to keep out of sight of enemy guns. The +1 attack dice at short, and especially medium range is worth a good bit - consider the E8 vs. the Guards T-34/85, which also drops Transport.

Given other unit with an antivehicle value of 15/13/11, the dev team problably figured that the attack value of 14/12/10 wasn't worth nearly as much. Take a look at other 14/12/10 units like T34-85 and the PZIVs and Archer (discounting the 8 points for Extended Range). The guard T34 also has a frontal defense of 6, and THAT is worth more than an extra attack die. I believe that it is the defence change and the Guards Crew (giving it an effect attack of 15/13/11) that makes up for the loss of transport on the Guards tank.

[Pasalades]

A question I have is whether we're going with the proposed AV stats with the 76mm gun at 15/13/11. If I recall, this basically makes it equal to the Pz IVG, except for Extended Range. Comassion, just to help me visualize it, would you mind posting the proposed stats for the E8? I know you did this yesterday, but I want to see if we’re talking about a change.

I agree with Pasalades – losing Transport is a big deal, though I agree with dropping it since my understanding is that US troops rode Shermans more from Point A to Point B on a map, not carry them into combat situations like the Russians did. At 28 points each, I know I’d rather have the T-34 than the E8.

We’re comparing the E8 to the Rhino, Pz IV’s, and the T-34. A thought (or can of worms) to consider is that if we change some of these tanks as well, that comparison may not be valid. Personally, I thought the T-34 is a little too cheap, the Pz IV’s too high, and the Rhino obviously too cheap. I also think the KV-1 is too cheap with Hulking Mass – that SA has been a huge one in our games. Has anyone tried taking all of these and comparing them as a group to see what their values should be relative to each other? I’d hate to see us nerf the E8 into being never used, though if that’s the result of historical accuracy, then I guess that’s the price we pay.

When I was working on my matrix, the only points I had left over for the KV-1's hulking mass was 1(!). Obviously hulking mass is worth much more than one point when I calculated the cost of Superior Armour at 3. So the KV-1 is underpriced.

Check out my Vehicle SA cost Matrix on this forum. http://boards.avalonhill.com/showthread.php?t=7798

Mind you the costs I listed are what I pressumed WotC was using as a guideline. I do't neccessarily agree that the costs I came up with are balance (like the one point hulking mass). If we just adjust the relative costs of a few SAs then we can modify units, and maintain balance in the game, something we could be in danger of losing if we aren't careful.

[PatrickWR]

Hmmm, so the debate continues...


We’re comparing the E8 to the Rhino, Pz IV’s, and the T-34. A thought (or can of worms) to consider is that if we change some of these tanks as well, that comparison may not be valid. Personally, I thought the T-34 is a little too cheap, the Pz IV’s too high, and the Rhino obviously too cheap. I also think the KV-1 is too cheap with Hulking Mass – that SA has been a huge one in our games. Has anyone tried taking all of these and comparing them as a group to see what their values should be relative to each other? I’d hate to see us nerf the E8 into being never used, though if that’s the result of historical accuracy, then I guess that’s the price we pay.

I think overall our focus should be bringing tanks "down" to the cheapest common denominator -- that being the Sherman. Granted, the Sherman does need a little boost in price (perhaps up to 22 or 23), but we've been re-costing units based on the "Sherman Constant". I don't think this is a problem as long as we acknowledge it and continue doing so.

For the record, I have no problem with Soviet tank pricing. They're good, but not game-breaking (especially since none of them have Extended Range, which will very soon become an important SA).

[Domhnall101]

For the record, I have no problem with Soviet tank pricing. They're good, but not game-breaking (especially since none of them have Extended Range, which will very soon become an important SA).


me neither. The new setup will make the existing price for german armour more reasonable .

[Comassion]

Bobsalt, the stats under consideration (and actually voted in so far) haven't changed -
M4A3E8 Sherman "Easy Eight" - 1944
27-28 Pts
Spd 4
Def 5 / 4
AI: 7 / 7 / 6
AV: 14 / 12 / 10
Superior Armor 2
Excellent Suspension

My benchmark for the AV values were anecdotal reports of the E8 being as good a tank-killer as the T-34/85, which happens to have the same AV values (and they were also the original AH values assigned to the unit).

If research shows that the American 76 mm gun is as good as the German long-barrelled 75 (I believe that's the gun on the Panzer IV), we could bump the AV values up another point (and re-cost it). However, keep in mind that the Germans also boasted better optics for their tanks, making them more accurate at longer ranges than the Allied tanks, and that is a factor in the attack values.

If we want to discuss giving the 76 mm gun higher stats, I'm all for it, but I'm happy with the way the unit is now.

And I wouldn't worry about nerfing the E8 into disuse. If it turns out we've done that, then we've simply costed it wrong and made it unappealing, and we can re-cost it to be competitive.

Speaking of cost, 27 points sounds good to me. It's not exactly a huge difference from 28.

[Domhnall101]

et voila!!

[Comassion]

Looks good for now. Let's close discussion on the E8 - we can always revisit a unit later, but right now we have a lot of other units to talk about. I'll start a new single unit topic tonight when I get home - any preferences?

[Bobsalt]

Looks good for now. Let's close discussion on the E8 - we can always revisit a unit later, but right now we have a lot of other units to talk about. I'll start a new single unit topic tonight when I get home - any preferences?

As long as we've had this much discussion on armor, why not move on to the Rhino and/or Sherman?

[Joisey]

Looks good for now. Let's close discussion on the E8 - we can always revisit a unit later, but right now we have a lot of other units to talk about. I'll start a new single unit topic tonight when I get home - any preferences?
Yep, this one's "a wrap".

[Wyldman]

Reading your proposed armor defense for an Easy 8 is all wrong. Chamberlain (primary source) states that all Shermans carrying the 76mm gun have 1/2 inch (24mm approx) more armor plating than the standard Sherman 2 1/2" vs 2". This is not including the Jumbo Sherman. So how can you give it the same defense rating?

[Bobsalt]

Reading your proposed armor defense for an Easy 8 is all wrong. Chamberlain (primary source) states that all Shermans carrying the 76mm gun have 1/2 inch (24mm approx) more armor plating than the standard Sherman 2 1/2" vs 2". This is not including the Jumbo Sherman. So how can you give it the same defense rating?

I'll have to defer to those here who may know more than I do. I don't have Chamberlain. What I've found on the internet has been largely confusing and contradictory. I've seen figures for the forward turret armor on the E8 ranging from 3.2" to 6". One site said the E8 had cast armor; another said it was welded. I've also seen the M4A3E8 referred to as the Jumbo, which I know is wrong.

On the other hand, one thing I have seen is that there does seem to be a lot of comment that the armor of the E8 wasn't significantly better than that of any other Sherman.

As I said, with this much conflicting info, I need to defer to those who know more than I do.

[Comassion]

It doesn't quite have the same defense value - it has superior armor 2, which sort of works like half a point of armor. We felt that the bit of added-on armor of the Easy-Eight didn't warrant a full point of increase in defense.

That said, we will be revisiting our units after our first release of the rules based on playtesting and historical accuracy, so these stats aren't set in stone - they just won't be changing for now, as we have many other issues to discuss.

[PatrickWR]

I agree, Superior Armor does the trick.

[Danyel Phelps]

The contradictory information involving the thickness of the Easy Eight's glacis thickness is spawned from the many field modifications, including the manufactured armoring kit for welded-hull shermans. The fact of the matter is that the Easy Eight, if you take the suspension away, is just an M4A3 (76)w.

These tanks manufactured after the 1943 upgrades included a 64mm thick glacis plate, which is only slightly thicker than the glacis of the early production M4 Tanks. While the increase in thickness is small, the resulting bonus to protection was not. With the reshaping of the glacis to reduce the slope in conjunction with improved quality plates, the M4 was able to maintain a comparable mean shell resistance while eliminating two shot traps that plagued the tank for years.

The Sherman tanks in the late production run were generally able to resist fire from the KwK 40 gun at combat ranges and effectively outclassed the Panzer IVH.

It should be noted that the penetration of the 76mm M1A1 gun is comparable to that of the KwK 40 gun.