Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So I was looking at hells highway for my US airborne forces today and decided that I wanted to give them some armor support. I own some brit shermans and figured that I'd add them in.

However Cromwells have the same armor (6/4/1), same abilities (semi-indirect), same gun, and their a light tank with a better anti tank variant

So what is the point of taking shermans over cromwells then?

Historical accuracy? I myself would rather have a historical accurate army then one made of 'the best and hardest' units. I know everybody gets something different out of wargamming. Some people like to do tourney lists made from the best units out there. Some people like to do fluffy lists ( ie use what they have at and even if it's sub-par) and some people don't even use army lists they just make scenero's and dictate what units belong by what was there.

There is no right or wrong way to make a list or play a game. Everyone gets enjoyment differently. One of the most fun games I have everplayed was a space marine army defending a bunker complex. My friend had about 4000 points of necrons, and I had maybe 1500-2000 of marines. I had to hold it for eight turns until reinforcements arrived. It was a total blast and we both had a awsome time doing it. Some people just wouldn't like to play a game like that, they would prefer you take the 'best' list you could and play againsted there 'best list'.

Thats the great thing about TTWG, everyone gets some satisfaction doing things there way with people who play and think the same way as they do.

I agree with Mike. If you're in the tournament mindset all the time, then there's never a reason to take Shermans.

But the mindset in most historical wargames doesn't work like that. As Mike said, players will take fluffy lists based on what units were in the area at the time of the battle, or may eschew points altogether. In fact, the majority of historical wargames don't have points or army lists.

Actually many historical rules do use points systems, especially the most popular ones and those used for tournaments but they are often restrictive in certain things that must be taken in order to preserve a degree of historical feel... But yes, alot of gamers dont bother with them. For instance we dont use them in our Naps or ACW games.

Historically the reason for the Shermans would simply be a lack of Cromwells. British production was far behind the US. Also the Sherman, though slower than the Cromwell going forwards, was far faster in reverse (the Cromwell only had one reverse gear and that was locked at 4mph - caused a right mare at Villers-Bocage). The Sherman also had a marginal advantage in turret traverse speeds and a gyro-stabiliser (though most crews switched them off).

I dont play FOW but I do have both Sherman and Cromwell units for my British. How could I refight certain actions without them both? So as Mike says... If a unit used Shermans, then I need Shermans.

If I was running a Brit army, I would try to incorporate both. Most mid-late war the British military was forced to use everything at their disposal, so both would not be a rare sight.

Many Brit players like to take Cromwells because it makes your Brit company look different to a US one.

I'd like to field the Poles in Italy who were historically equipped with 76s. That would make for a different looking Brit-style list.

If i remember the cromwell was supposed to replace the sherman as the mainstay british tank in the later period of the war. The two tanks are very similar with the Cromwell having a smaller silouhette then the sherman and was faster wheras the sherman was more numerous. Also the sherman was the only tank at the time that could take the 17pounder gun to become a firefly wheras the cromwell's turret couldn't fit the recoil and loading breach. Until challengers and comets were available the cromwell platoons normally had a sherman firefly attached to them for extra anti tank fire. Thats all i know about the two tanks

One can take Shermans because they can take a Warrior who gives the Shermans in the whole Company the ability to re-roll misses under 16" on the move. They do lose semi-indirect fire.

DirtyJon wrote:One can take Shermans because they can take a Warrior who gives the Shermans in the whole Company the ability to re-roll misses under 16" on the move. They do lose semi-indirect fire.

Who's that? That's awesome.

Howdy, I take Shermans from the Hells Highway list so I can upgrade to 2 fireflies per platoon. Dunno if it's super competitive, but I've had fun with it.

JOE Vandeleur gives you this and some additional stuff with planes as well.