*Warning, Very Long* EXTENSIVE Testing of Unit Effectiveness

[Mr. Hasselhoff]

Original link to this guide:
http://www.forumplanet.com/planetcompanyofheroes/topic.asp?fid=20471&tid=1939135
By 1stStrikeRecon (http://www.forumplanet.com/planetcompanyofheroes/user.asp?gid=43438744&mid=2616501)

First, I want to make something very clear. ALL testing was done without taking into account the cost of anything.

Also, if you are unwilling to read the entire post without making a reply, I politely ask that you don't reply with analysis. Read the whole thing, and make an analysis, or don't do it at all.

The testing, and these results, are singularly concentrated on the respective units and how they perform in as many different permutations as I could concieve (And test without comprimising my sanity). So, if you view our incredibly long replays, I don't want to see any retarded posts of "OMZ!!!111oneoneone you DIDNT DO T3H MG RUSH" or "WHY R T3H RIFLEMANZ AND DE VGS JUST SHOOTING AT T3H EACHOTER". Cost-benefit analysis will follow after I show you the results of these units in terms of EFFECTIVENESS that IGNORES COST.

I also do not use grenades, panzerfausts (Not to be confused with the weapon, Panzershreck, that Sturmtruppen and Grenadiers get), or any other explosive munitions 'power'.
Volksgrenadiers
Strangly, my results show that VGs are superior to Riflemen, but only in a very narrow engagement envelope. At the 'long' range of engagement, wholly unupgraded Volksgrenadiers almost always win against unupgraded Riflemen.

Here is the engagement envelope I mean:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v496/1stStrikeRecon/EngagementRange.jpg

Results:
Unupgraded Volksgrenadiers
- Against Unupgraded Riflemen, 'long range', Volksgrenadiers will win.
- Against Unupgraded Riflemen, 'medium-short range', Volksgrenadiers will lose.
- Against Rifleman with BARs (With or without Suppression), 'long range', Volksgrenadiers will lose.
- Against Paratroops, ANY range, Volksgrenadiers will lose.
- Against Unupgraded Rangers (No Thompsons), 'long range', Volksgrenadiers will win.
- Against Rangers with Thompsons, ANY range, Volksgrenadiers will lose.

Volksgrenadiers with MP40 upgrade
- Against Unupgraded Riflemen, 'long range', Volksgrenadiers with MP40s will lose.
- Against Unupgraded Riflemen, 'medium-short range', Volksgrenadiers with MP40s will win.
- Against Riflemen with BARs (Without Suppression), 'long range', Volksgrenadiers with MP40s will lose.
- Against Riflemen with BARs (Without Suppression), 'medium-short range', Volksgrenadiers with MP40s will win.
- Against Paratroops, 'long range', Volksgrenadiers with MP40s will lose.
- Against Paratroops, 'medium-short range', Volksgrenadiers with MP40s will win.
- Against Unupgraded Rangers, 'long range', Volksgrenadiers with MP40s will lose.
- Against Unupgraded Rangers, 'medium-short range', Volksgrenadiers with MP40s will win.
- Against Rangers with Thompsons, ANY range, Volksgrenadiers with MP40s will lose.

In each of these cases (And all the following cases, unless otherwise noted), the win or loss was typically pretty significant, with only 1 or 2 casualties on the winning side and a complete wipeout on the loosing side. The only case I bring attention to is of Rangers with Thompsons at close range against Volksgrenadiers with MP40s will result in 50% casualties, at least, in the Ranger squad.

My analysis? Giving VGs MP40s provides them a SIGNIFICANT advantage as close range assault troops. For 50 munitions, VGs are the best close range assault infantry for the price.

Grenadiers
Surpisingly, Grenadiers are majorly underrated. The biggest problem with them is that most of their equipment is vastly overpriced and, in the case of the MG42 LMG, cannot be purchased until the Battle Phase.

Results:
Unupgraded Grenadiers
- Against Unupgraded Riflemen, 'long range', Grenadiers will win.
- Against Unupgraded Riflemen, 'medium-short range', Grenadiers will lose (However, at least 50% casualties among Rifle squad).
- Against Rifleman with BARs (Without Suppression), 'long range', Grenadiers will win.
- Against Rifleman with BARs (Without Suppression), 'medium-short range', Grenadiers will lose.
- Against Paratroops, 'long range', Grenadiers will win.
- Against Paratroops, 'medium-short range', Grenadiers will lose.
- Against Unupgraded Rangers (No Thompsons), 'long range', Grenadiers will win.
- Against Rangers with Thompsons, 'long range', Grenadiers and Rangers have roughly an even fight.
- Against Rangers with Thompsons, 'medium-close range', Grenadiers will lose.

Grenadiers with MG42 LMG upgrade

*NOTE* In ALL these cases, if the Grenadiers with MG42 LMGs ADVANCE (Are the ones advancing across ground and engaging the enemy at close range) they ALWAYS lose, except against unupgraded riflemen.

- Against Unupgraded Riflemen, ANY range, Grenadiers with MG42 LMGs will win.
- Against Riflemen with BARs (Without Suppression), ANY range, Grenadiers with MG42 LMGs will win.
- Against Paratroops, ANY range, Grenadiers with MG42 LMGs will win.
- Against Unupgraded Rangers, ANY range, Grenadiers with MG42 LMGs will win.
- Against Rangers with Thompsons, 'long range', Grenadiers with MG42 LMGs will win.
- Against Rangers with Thompsons, 'medium-short range', Grenadiers with MG42 LMGs will lose (But cause significant casualties @ at least 50% casualties, depending on how accurate the bazookas are. More accurate = less casualties in the Ranger squad).

Clearly, Grenadiers with the MG42 LMGs are significantly superior as 'defensive' troops. However, when they are told to advance into Allied fire, they almost always lose. This is because the MG42 LMGs do not fire on the move. We did conduct tests with Panzershreck equipped Grenadiers, however the results were largely the same as an Unupgraded Grenadier squad.

Sturmtruppen, AKA, Stormtroops

I will not repost the results of the UNUPGRADED Stormtroop squad as they are largely the same as an UNUPGRADED Grenadier squad. Note, however, that Grenadiers (Unupgraded) are better than VGs (Unupgraded) at long range (Suffering less casualties for each unit they win against) and that Stormtroopers (Unupgraded) are even better than the Grenadiers (Unupgraded). The results of the Stg44, though, are significant.

Stormtroops with Stg44s (Or MP44s)

- Against Unupgraded Riflemen, ANY range, Stormtroops with Stg44s will win.
- Against Riflemen with BARs (Without Suppression), 'long range', Stormtroops with Stg44s will be somewhat even.
- Against Riflemen with BARs (Without Suppression), 'medium-short range', Stormtroops with Stg44s will win.
- Against Paratroops, ANY range, Stormtroops with Stg44s will win.
- Against Unupgraded Rangers, ANY range, Stormtroops with Stg44s will win.
- Against Rangers with Thompsons, ANY range, Stormtroops with Stg44s will win (Read note for details on this).

A note. Against Rangers with Thompsons, if the Stormtroops are assaulting (i.e. moving accross a field, with rangers in position, into close range of rangers) the Stormtroops will win by a SIGNIFICANT margin (As in, no losses) UNLESS the Bazooka causes a 'squad scatter.' A squad scatter occurs when a Bazooka hits extremely close to, or kills, a member of the squad. It causes the entire squad to 'scatter' into cover before continuing their previous order. In the case of a Stormtrooper squad assaulting the Rangers, this causes them to 'squad scatter,' reorganize, then attack.

If Rangers cause the Stormtroops to 'squad scatter,' the Rangers will win with only 2 casualties (Happened consistently in all the trials a 'squad scatter' occured in the 'Stormtrooper assaulting Rangers with Thompsons' tests).

Conclusions:

Volksgrenadiers: VGs, unupgraded, MUST maintain their long range envelope with Rifleman squads in order to win. However, when you upgrade to Skirmish, VGs with MP40s are significantly superior to everything the Allies, short of Suppression Fire (In its current state) and Rangers with Thompsons, in close range. To be honest, I was surprised, as I had labeled VGs as utterly useless. Plus, with the Panzerfaust ability, Volksgrenadiers have a far more accurate AT ability than either the Panzershreck or Bazooka. Of course, at 50 munitions, it is somewhat pricey, but it is still far more effective at both AT and Anti-infantry than hand-grenades. Its explosion is much more concentrated than the post-1.17 grenades, resulting in far higher losses in bunched up Rifleman squads than if you were to grenade a bunched up VG squad. Clearly I was mistaken about VGs.

Grenadiers: These units are significantly superior to the VGs, for just a 20 MP cost increase. The biggest blow to their utility is the 150 munitions cost to upgrade them with 2 MG42 LMGs/Panzershrecks. Ignoring the cost for a moment, you can find that in the support/defensive role Grenadiers with a MG42 LMG are extremely powerful. I feel they are the most underrated unit in the Axis army, largely because you need to build a Kriegs Barracks to make them and pay 150 munitions to get this effectiveness.

Stormtroops: Anyone who says these infantry suck against fighting other infantry are, I'm sorry to say, simply not using them correctly. In all our tests, even Rangers (The best Allied anti-infantry, excepting support weapons like MGs) stood almost NO chance against MP44/Stg44 armed Stormtroops. Anything less than Rangers (I.e., Rifleman and Paratroops) stood no chance whatsoever. Add in stealth, and Stg44 armed Stormtroops are scarily efficient in their anti-infantry role.

However, again, just like Grenadiers, the 150 munitions cost (Among a few other things I will outline in my 'suggestions' section) is simply too much to justify upgrading the unit. Especially when getting these awesome Stg44 totally removes the Stormtroop's anti-tank capabilites.

Ironically, three Pioneer squads all upgraded with Flamethrowers are all vastly superior in the Anti-Infantry role than any other Axis unit, except Stormtroops with MP44s provided the enemy isn't garrisoned in a building.

Rifleman Squads with BARs are worth note, as you have surely realized that in all my results above, I noted that they did not use Suppression.

Why, you ask? Simple: In all our tests, the use of Suppression was overpowered (Uh oh, I said the 'O' word). Yes, overpowered. For 40 munitions, you give a unit the ability to totally pin at LEAST 3 squads.

Let me restate that. When you use SUPPRESSION FIRE, for 40 munitions, you PIN squads. It is important to realize the difference.

When a unit in this game is SUPPRESSED, it can still fire, throw grenades, etc. Suppression also remains for a few seconds after the fire has ceased.

When a unit is PINNED, it can no longer fire, use abilities, etc. The only thing you can do is move (very slowly) or retreat. Pinning also remains for a significant period of time after fire has ceased.

I feel this occurs because there is simply a 'suppression' value, and that everytime a unit fires, this 'suppression' value is applied to a Unit. When that unit reaches a certain threshold in its 'Suppression' value, it becomes suppressed. Another threshold, it becomes pinned.

This needs to change. First, nowhere in Suppression Fire does it imply the ability to PIN a unit, making it totally combat ineffective (This occurs regardless of veterancy). Suppression Fire SUPPRESSES its target. So, that's all it should do. This would still provide a significant advantage to Allied Rifleman, but not the overpowering total removal of combat effectiveness in Axis units that it does now.

Here are my suggestions to fix the inbalances and issues:

- Increase MG42 Team and Allied .30cal HMG team cost by 20 Manpower (New value is 280 and 260 respectively).
- Decrease Volksgrenadier cost to 260.
- Decrease Munitions cost of MG42 LMGs, Panzershrecks, and MP44 (Stg44s) to 50.
- Change the "Escalation" requirements of the MG42 LMG, Stormtroop's Bundled Grenade, and the MP44 to "Escalate to Skirmish."
- Increase Ranger Bazooka accuracy. Riflemen that pick up a Bazooka are significantly more accurate than Rangers.
- Remove Ranger Stealth Spotting OR add Stealth Spotting to Knight's Cross (Either of these solutions are TEMPORARY and will not fix the current imbalance stealth provides. The best solution? Rework Stealth entirely).
- Knight's Cross in their current iteration are totally useless. At 385 Manpower and a Tier 4 requirement, they are inferior to UNUPGRADED Grenadiers. Volksgrenadiers with the MP40 upgrade are vastly superior to the Knight's Cross.
- Grenades and the Blitzkrieg Commander Tree "Grenadier Assault" ability are both extremely ineffective against units that are Garrisoned in a building.
- Remove the ability to Pin from Suppression Fire.
- Reduce Ostwind moving accuracy and movement speed.




-Credits due to 1ststrikerecon

[Mr. Hasselhoff]

The Armor Tests

Completed Armor testing, all trials were done front to front (No manuver) for 50 shots for each tank. Some were done with 20-25 shots each simply because the results were so definitive (And it ws terribly difficult to keep one of the test vehicles alive) that more was simply a waste of time.

My lesson from these tests? 10 Pioneer squads can keep anything alive (And a Panzer IV is more dangerous to the Test Engineers keeping the Allied Test Tank alive than the Tank itself).

Results:
ALLIED ARMOR ATTACKING AXIS ARMOR
Sherman
Unupgraded Sherman vs StuG
Hit Rate: 93.65% (Of 63 recorded shots, 4 missed)
Penetration Rate: 30.1% (Of 63 recorded shots, 19 were penetrating)
Glancing Hit Rate: 63.4% (Of 63 recorded shots, 40 were glancing hits)

Obviously, an Unupgraded Sherman is a poor match for a StuG unless it uses its superior manuverability to get around its rear.

Unupgraded Sherman vs Panzer IV
Hit Rate: 98% (Of 50 recorded shots, 1 missed)
Penetration Rate: 50% (Of 50 recorded shots, 25 were penetrating)
Glancing Hit Rate: 48% (Of 50 recorded shots, 24 were glancing hits)

Against the Panzer IV, however, even the Unupgraded Sherman finds it can do fair amounts of damage (However, as will be reflected when I get to Axis tanks, it cannot take too much itself).

Unupgraded Sherman vs Panther
Hit Rate: 98.27% (Of 58 recorded shots, 1 missed)
Penetration Rate: 12.06% (Of 58 recorded shots, 7 were penetrating)
Glancing Hit Rate: 86.21% (Of 58 recorded shots, 50 were glancing).

Not much to say here, except using Unupgraded Shermans against Panthers is pretty dumb.

Unupgraded Sherman vs Tiger
Hit Rate: 100% (Of 55 recorded shots, none missed. I guess fighting certain death is good motivation)
Penetration Rate: 21.81% (Of 55 recorded shots, 12 were penetration)
Glancing Hit Rate: 78.18% (Of 55 recorded shots, 43 were glancing)

While the Unupgraded Sherman did do alot of penetrating hits against the Tiger, I feel it should be noted that its PENETRATING damage is equal to the GLANCING damage of a Wolverine or Upgunned Sherman (~1/20th the Tiger's health bar per Penetrating Hit).

Upgunned Sherman

All Upgunned Sherman tests were conducted at ~25 shots, because the difference was simply enormous and 50 shots would be redundant.

Upgunned Sherman vs StuG
Hit Rate: 100% (Of 25 recorded shots, none missed)
Penetration Rate: 64% (Of 25 recorded shots, 16 were penetrating)
Glancing Hit Rate: 36% (Of 25 recorded shots, 9 were glancing)

We only did 25 shot trials with the Upgunned Sherman vs StuG because, quite simply, the disparity was enormous. A StuG vs an Upgunned Sherman was clearly outmatched. The Upgunned Sherman did recieve alot of Penetrations in return, but it only took about (~)1/6th damage per FRONT penetration, whereas a Upgunned Sherman did about (~)1/4th damage per FRONT penetration. Further, an Upgunned Sherman suffers no degredation of its manuverability, allowing it to circle a StuG and easily defeat it.

Upgunned Sherman vs Panzer IV
Hit Rate: 82.14% (Of 28 recorded shots, 5 missed)
Penetration Rate: 71.43 (Of 28 recorded shots, 20 were penetrating)
Glancing Hit Rate: 10.71% (OF 28 recorded shots, 3 were glancing)

Again, a massive disparity. An Upgunned Sherman was like a totally different animal in the arena of dealing damage. Further, for some reason, against the Panzer IV the upgunned Sherman suffered from much higher inaccuracy than against any other vehicle.

Upgunned Sherman vs Panther
Hit Rate: 92.59% (Of 27 recorded shots, 2 missed)
Penetration Rate: 37.07% (Of 27 recorded shots, 10 were penetrating)
Glancing Hit Rate: 55.55% (Of 27 recorded shots, 15 were glancing)

I believe this shows just how significant the 76mm upgrade really is for the Sherman. Unupgraded, a Sherman could only get 7 penetrating hits out of 58 shots... and only one shot actually missed the Panther! Upgunned, the Sherman penetrated no less than 10 times out of 27! Not only that, it did significantly more damage than the Unupgraded version, doing ~1/10th damage to the Unupgraded's ~1/20th to ~1/25th.

Upgunned Sherman vs Tiger
We did not conduct a full test against the Tiger as there was no significant difference. The Sherman damage does improve to about 1/20th damage, however, remained so badly outmatched (As in, even if the Tiger missed it still did significant damage to the Sherman.... along with the Engineers repairing it!), upgraded or not, by the Tiger that no amount of upgrade would allow it to prevail in a frontal engagement: Even the smoke launchers would only delay the inevitable.

Overall, I would say that the Sherman is a fairly competent tank and well worth its cost. The 76mm upgrade, too, is worth it. The underdog of the Sherman, and one that deserves attention, however are the Defensive Smoke Launchers. While we did not conduct as much indepth testing as I would have desired, in a Tank vs Tank engagement (For some reason, 88mm Flak Guns seem unaffected by it, however, Pak 50mm AT Guns are) I have noticed as much as a 60-70% increase in the inaccuracy of Axis tanks firing at a Sherman inside defensive smoke. With defensive smoke, a Sherman can take on any tank, excepting the Panther and Tiger, in a frontal engagement. If anything, it's a little too cheap for its effectiveness.

M10 Wolverine Tank Destroyer
Wolverine vs StuG
Hit Rate: 94.73% (Of 57 recorded shots, 3 missed)
Penetration Rate: 61.4% (Of 57 recorded shots, 35 were penetrating)
Glancing Hit Rate: 33.33% (Of 57 recorded shots, 19 were glancing)

The M10 Wolverine Tank Destroyer truly lives up to its name. I have always used it as it seemed to be more effective, and was cheaper, than the Sherman. Of course, it also isn't anywhere near as survivable as the Sherman...

Wolverine vs Panzer IV
Hit Rate: 100% (Of 20 recorded shots, none missed)
Penetration Rate: 100% (Of 20 recorded shots, none were penetrating hits)
Glancing Hit Rate: 0% (Of 20 recorded shots, none glanced)

We stopped this trial at 20 shots because NONE of the shots had done anything but penetrate the Panzer IV. I'm sure, had we continued, we would have found a glancing hit or miss (or two) but clearly, even that close, there was a message: The Panzer IV's armor is not sufficient to glance the Wolverine's 3 inch cannon effectively.

We did not conduct tests of the Wolverine vs the Panther and Tiger because it proved extremely difficult to keep the test vehicles alive. However, from what we did get before the Wolverine wussed out and exploded was that the Wolverine has a higher penetration rate against both tanks, although its survivability without using its manuverability is... slim, to say it nicely.

Pershing Tank vs Tiger

There was only one tank my tester would allow me to try the Pershing against, and that was the Tiger. People talk about the two tanks being a poorly balanced match, here are the results of the Pershing's shots against the Tiger:

Hit Rate: 100% (Of 50 shots, none missed)
Penetration Rate: 48% (Of 50 shots, 23 were penetrating)
Glancing Hit Rate: 54% (Of 50 shots, 27 were glancing)

So the amazing, decisive result was!!!!! Lukewarm. The Pershing had about 50/50 penetration/glancing chance against the Tiger. And, as you will later see, the Pershing takes about 50/50 damage from the Pershing Tank. The real difference is the damage, wherein the Tiger did about (~)1/7th damage to the Pershing, whereas the Tiger took about (~)1/10th damage from the Pershing.

Puma AC with 50mm Cannon Upgrade vs Unupgraded Sherman
We conducted the full test of these two vehicles, but the results don't really need specific numbers. The short story? The Puma Armored Car stands no chance against an Unupgraded Sherman (Of 26 shots, 2 misssed, and 24 were penetrating).

Puma AC with 50mm Cannon vs M8 Greyhound (No Skirts)
We also conducted a full test of these vehicles, however, put simply and nicely: The M8 Greyhound, pitted against the Puma AC with 50mm cannon, stands no chance. While it did manage to maintain a good hit ratio (Of 25 shots, 22 were Penetrating and 3 were glancing) it did so little damage (~1/10th damage to the Puma's ~1/4th) that in a front on front engagement, a M8 Greyhound (No Skirts) was no match against the Puma. We didn't test Armored Skirts as, even with them, the M8 would need at least 10 shots to kill the Puma. Even with a 100% increase (Which is unlikely) in Armor, the Armored Skirts would only require the Puma to use 8 shots instead of 4 to kill the M8 Greyhound.

As per history, the M8 Greyhound is useful only in an extremely anti-light armor role (I.e. against Unupgraded Pumas, Motorcycles, or Halftracks), light anti-infantry (So long as they don't have anti-tank weapons), or as a scout. Even so, I feel it does need something to make it more useful.
AXIS ARMOR ATTACKING ALLIED ARMOR
StuG
StuG vs Unupgraded Sherman
Hit Rate: 92% (Of 50 recorded shots, 4 missed)
Penetration Rate: 68% (Of 50 recorded shots, 34 were penetrating)
Glancing Hit Rate: 24% (Of 50 recorded shots, 12 were glancing hits)

Clearly, against an Unupgraded Sherman, a StuG has few problems taking it out... so long as the Sherman doesn't manuver.

StuG vs Upgunned Sherman
Hit Rate: 84% (Of 25 recorded shots, 4 missed)
Penetration Rate: 56% (Of 25 recorded shots, 14 were penetrating)
Glancing Hit Rate: 28% (Of 25 recorded shots, 7 were glancing)

Strangely, it seems that the 76mm upgrade also provides a small armor bonus to the Sherman tank. Unfortunately, it almost doesn't matter as all Axis tanks beyond the Panzer IV and StuG enjoy a consistently high penetration rate against Allied armor.

StuG vs Wolverine
Hit Rate: 76% (Of 50 recorded shots, 12 were misses)
Penetration Rate: 76% (Of 50 recorded shots, 38 were penetrating)
Glancing Hit Rate: 0% (Of 50 recorded shots, none were glancing)

Not much to say here, except a Wolverine's armor is little protection against the StuG. Manuverability is its only real defense.

Panzer IV
Panzer IV vs Unupgraded Sherman
Hit Rate: 81.03% (Of 58 recorded shots, 11 (!) were misses)
Penetration Rate: 46.55% (Of 58 recorded shots, 27 were penetrating)
Glancing Hit Rate: 34.48% (Of 58 recorded shots, 20 were glancing)

From all our tests with the Panzer IV, I have come to the following conclusions: 1) While it is superior to the Unupgraded Sherman, it is also THE most inaccurate tank in the game, and when it encounters Upgunned Shermans finds itself in a tight (Aka, losing) situation. 2) The Panzer IV, as an anti-tank weapon, is probably the most cost-ineffective vehicle there is. A StuG, while less manuverable, is much more effective, survivable, and is significantly cheaper and easier to produce. A Panzer IV is THE weakest piece of Heavy Armor in the Axis arsenal in CoH, which explains why it is typically passed over in favor for the much more effective Panther tank.

Panzer IV vs Upgunned Sherman
Hit Rate: 58.82% (Of 34 recorded shots, 14 were misses)
Penetration Rate: 38.24% (Of 34 recorded shots, 13 were penetrating)
Glancing Hit Rate: 20.58% (Of 34 recorded shots, 7 were glancing)

The inaccuracy of the Panzer IV, as a trend, continues. Further, against the Upgunned Sherman, the Panzer IV finds itself outmatched. It is simply too inaccurate and doesn't do anywhere near enough damage/penetration to be a match for a Sherman. Admittedly, it IS cheaper than a Sherman, however historically the Panzer IVG (I'm assuming its the G model because it has the longer 75mm AT gun) was more than a match for the 57mm armed Sherman, and a 76mm armed Sherman was an equal match. I think an accuracy increase against the Sherman is all that is really needed.

Panzer IV vs Wolverine
Hit Rate: 100% (Of 20 recorded shots, none missed)
Penetration Rate: 100% (Of 20 recorded shots, 20 were penetrating)
Glancing Hit Rate: 0% (Of 20 recorded shots, 0 were glancing)

Whatever its downfalls against Shermans, the Panzer IV performs fine against the Wolverine. Ironically, both tanks had the SAME EXACT penetration rate... meaning that unless the Wolverine could avoid being hit, it would need to hit the Panzer IV's rear armor at least twice to emerge victorious.

Panther
Panther vs Unupgraded Sherman
Hit Rate: 93.75% (Of 47 recorded shots, 3 were misses)
Penetration Rate: 93.75% (Of 47 recorded shots, 45 were penetrations)
Glancing Hit Rate: 0% (Of 47 recorded shots, none were glancing)

Not much to say here. An Unupgraded Sherman is, simply put, no match for a Panther. The Panther's gun treats the Sherman's armor like wet toilet paper and the Sherman might as well be shooting BBs at the Panther, for all the good it can do. No dispute here.

Panther vs Ungunned Sherman
Hit Rate: 68% (Of 25 recorded shots, 8 were misses)
Penetration Rate: 68% (Of 25 recorded shots, 17 were penetrating)
Glancing Hit Rate: 0% (Of 25 recorded shots, none were glancing)

I don't know what it is with the Upgunned Sherman, but it seems like every Axis tank except the StuG suffers a accuracy penalty against it! Regardless, it still matters little as the Panther continues to enjoy its gun superiority over the Sherman. A Sherman's only hope, upgunned or not, against a Panther is numerical superiority and flanking. Otherwise, you'll be wreckage.

Panther vs Wolverine

As noted above, we did not get very far into testing. A Wolverine in a straight up front vs front match against a Panther stands no chance. Use the Wolverine's superior speed and numbers (Because it is significantly cheaper) to flank... or die.

Tiger
Tiger vs Unupgraded Sherman
Hit Rate: 89.28% (Of 56 recorded shots, 5 were misses)
Penetration Rate: 80.36 (Of 56 recorded shots, 45 were penetrations)
Glancing Hit Rate: 8.93% (Of 56 recorded shots, 5 were glancing)

The Tiger is the King of the Battlefield, proving more than a match (duh) for any Allied Armor in a straight up slugging match... However, hilariously, the Tiger DOES actually GLANCE against Shermans, upgunned or not. Me and my tester couldn't believe it the first time it occured, but it DOES ACTUALLY HAPPEN! FURTHER, these glancing hits do the same damage as a glancing hit against any other tank.. as in, none! This isn't terribly realistic, but lets face it, if you gave the 88mm Flak on the Tiger the same damage as the 88mm Flak on the AA/AT emplacement... Tigers would be unbeatable.

Tiger vs Upgunned Sherman
As noted previously, there was no significant difference between the Unupgraded version and the Upgunned version in terms of how badly the Tiger wtfpwned it.

Tiger vs Wolverine
Also, as noted previously, conducting the Wolverine vs Tiger test proved terribly difficult as the Wolverine had an annoying tendancy of dying when it got shot a few times. Regardless, the Tiger stands no chance of glancing off the Wolverine's armor, so a Wolverine either must pray for a miss, or use superior speed and manuverability to win.

The Ostwind Tests
We only conducted one FULL Armor vs Armor test of the Ostwind, pitting it against an Unupgraded Sherman. Needless to say, the Ostwind didn't do much to the Sherman (56 glancing hits and 6 misses against the Sherman) but before I list my conclusions on the Ostwind, some other results:

In our two Paratroop armed Recoiless Rifle vs Ostwind tests, we found that Paratroops had little trouble defeating the Ostwind, taking (At worst) a total of 5 casualties.

In our two Rifleman with sticky bomb vs Ostwind tests, we found that the Rifleman squads had to have some luck on their side in winning. Depending on the accuracy of the Ostwind, the squads would either survive, but with only 1 or 2 members in both, or they died.

In our various (I do not remember the exact number, as we did them previous to the 'official' armor tests, but we did at least 4 trials of Rangers vs Ostwinds) Ranger tests, we found that Rangers were simply too inaccurate with their bazookas to be able to do enough damage to the Ostwind before they died.

My conclusions, based on various tests with the Ostwind:

- The actual armor rating of the Ostwind is low, resulting in very few glancing hits. However: Its health is extremely high for a low-armor anti-infantry weapon, resulting in it soaking up several tank shots (It takes ~1/6th damage from an Unupgraded Sherman's shell).

- The above, paired with its speed, provides the Axis with a high health, extremely manuverable anti-infantry platform. Its speed and manuverability is roughly equivelent to that of the Sherman.

Comparing it to the Crocodile, its 'counterpart' unit from the Allies, yeilds the following:

- The Crocodile and the Ostwind are both, generally, roughly equal in killing garrisoned infantry. However, this seems to be EXTREMELY random. Sometimes, the Ostwind killed an entire 6 man garrison in 5 or 6 shots. Other times, it took up to 30 seconds for the Ostwind to wipe out the garrison. In comparison, the Crocodile suffered from the same problems: HOWEVER, the problem is not as pronounced because its flame attack lights the building on fire and causes the unit to evacuate the building, resulting in immediate flamethrowery death.

- In killing infantry outside of garrisons, the Ostwind comes out ahead. While they both have significantly long range (Being able to fire at the edge of their LOS) the Ostwind did not suffer the same damage reduction over range as the Crocodile did. The Ostwind's damage, generally, remained consistent over any range, although it did have difficulty engaging infantry at close range (By close range, I mean they might as well be climbing on it).

- In terms of overall effectiveness, the Ostwind is again superior. The Ostwind not only can engage infantry as effectively as the Crocodile, if not better (If they're in the open), but it can also engage light armor (Where the Crocodile cannot) AND can attack Aircraft (Effectively allowing it to counter a doctrine's offmap artillery ability, the only non-doctrine unit capable of that).

- In terms of cost, the Ostwind (Again) is superior. At 410 manpower and 45 fuel, it is significantly cheaper than the Crocodile, which costs 320 manpower and 110 fuel. Comparing the costs reveals a significant imbalance, in that the Ostwind is far more useful over a broader spectrum for a lesser cost. The Crocodile, by comparison, costs significantly more (It costs about 250% more fuel for a mere discount of around 22% in manpower). However, I do not advocate lowering the cost of the Crocodile, as its cost-effectiveness meshes in extremely well in the game balance. It is, I feel, the Ostwind that I feel needs to be balanced.

Also:

88mm Flak Cannon
We found this weapon did not miss at all, regardless of enemy movement, unless the vehicle moved behind a hill or something. We did not do significant testing to determine penetration or glancing rates. However:

All hits done against Front Armor of Sherman:
- Penetrating Hits do 1/3rd damage to Unupgraded Shermans (To provide context)
- Glancing Hits do 1/6th damage to Unupgraded Shermans

Suggestions:
- Sherman Defensive Smoke needs to cost 75 munitions to use instead of 50. At 50 munitions, they are too 'spammable' and provide far too great a defensive benefit (At least 70% reduction in accuracy during duration).

- Increase Panzer IV accuracy against Shermans

The M8 Greyhound needs its effectiveness against Infantry increased. As of now, it is largely a joke (Unless used by the Armor tree to capture points... but otherwise?). My suggestions are:

- Give it the .50 caliber Machine Gun Upgrade for free, or at least reduce cost to 25 or 50 munitions.
- Reduce Armored Skirts cost to 50 munitions
- Increase 37mm cannon's HE damage and blast radius against Infantry.

The Ostwind in its current state is, to use a single word, inbalancing. However, there is no need to rework its costs.

- Reduce Ostwind's HPs, but NOT armor values.
- Reduce Ostwind speed and manuverability (Between Sherman and Panzer IV is ideal, which, viewed in context is only a slight speed and turning reduction)
- Reduce Ostwind MOVING accuracy

Despite what these suggestions may, well, suggest: armor is, by and large EXTREMELY well balanced.

[DanangBoy13]

very very nice list u got her took me a while to get thorugh, btu i managed it next time i play i'll use some of teh stuff u have here, thanks man

[1stStrikeRecon]

As the actual writer of that guide, I would appreciate if you gave me credit for me and my friend's work instead of randomly copying it and stealing it for your own.

[Mr. Hasselhoff]

To be honest with you I did credit you in the begging. In the beggining it had a link to your profile on cohplanet, then in a later edit I meant to remove the link and just your name, but I guess it somehow turned white. It was there but it was white, after everthing. I just edited the color, I don't know why it changed, I'm sorry.

[1stStrikeRecon]

Unfortunately, it is no longer visible.

I politely ask that you provide a link to the CoH Forum thread I originally posted the guide in and credit to me at the header of the guide.

[Mr. Hasselhoff]

No problem, I am sincerely sorry and I honestly didn't mean for the credit to be left out. As proof on most articles I post, you can find credit towards the bottom, I'm not just some leecher, I am big on giving credit.

[skepter]

lol honestly dude, why do you beg us to put your name on it? I mean, yeah you created it but honestly, who cares, it just proves you have too much time on your hands.

[1stStrikeRecon]

Thank you, David, for providing proper credit. I apologize for any miscommunication that may have occured.

To Skepter:

Because, regardless of your opinion, it is the creative and original work of me and my friends and we would like proper credit given to us instead of someone else possibly claiming it as their own.

You might not care, but others do. Certainly, me and my friends who were involved do.

[DanangBoy13]

just stop bitching we heard you the firts time, right hasselhoff?

[blueops]

to skepter and danangboy13

you dont understand why he wants credits. its just because they spend there time making it. and w/o them there will be no guides like these. so just appreciate theres a people spending there time creating something like this
and only asking for credits isnt too much.

and as you can see david hasselhoff is being sorry for accidentally not include there name.

sorry for off topic its just not right to flame someone whos just asking for his credit to his work.

[*CCCP*]

Umm, stfu. they obviously took a LOT of time doing this we can surely respect that.

Good work guys.

[blueops]

thats what im telling them... :|

[Smotang]

http://i10.tinypic.com/40fc550.jpg