Tanks

[Nosara]

I would like to see more tank battle areas in all the maps. It is hard at times to find a good GV battle. Some of the maps are set up well for tank battles whilst others are not.

Also any chance for a low slung Stug111  or maybe the Panther ?

[Klum25th]

Panther be a nice addition to the game, I think it could match the tiger. Didn't it have better gun than the tiger. I still like to see a, better not say it (been discussed many times and many are getting mad) but a tall green match stick.

[Kurt]

Panther was one of the most common German tanks.  Really it statistically is MORE deserving of a place in AH than the Tiger.

I would love to see a Panther in AH.

[SMIDSY]

i would like the Stug IIIG with schurzen armor like that on the current Pz. IV.

[E25280]

I believe you are correct when you say the Panther's 75MM gun was slightly superior to the Tiger's 88mm in terms of armor penetration.  In terms of this game, however, I believe the game mechanics would make the two nearly identical in terms of hitting power and armor.  The only difference would be speed on open ground with the Panther having a clear advantage.  To keep the game balanced, then, the Panther would have to be perked HIGHER than the Tiger to account for the better speed.

I know from what I have heard elsewhere, this is going to cause a lot of gnashing of teeth, but I will back up the "high green matchstick" as a needed add.  Despite the poor reputation of the Sherman, and the conversely over-hyped t-34/76, the two tanks were in reality very similar in terms of armor (from the front, at least) and hitting power.  The t-34's reputation benefits from the fact that it faced early PzkwIV variants, PzkwIII's, and Czech 38(t)'s at its introduction.  Against these tanks, the t-34 was clearly superior.  In contrast, by the time the Sherman saw action in significant numbers, the Germans had already upgraded their tanks' hitting power in response to the T-34, causing the Sherman to receive its reputation of poor survivability.  The same goes for the gun.  The Russian 76mm gun was no better at killing tanks than the Sherman's snub 75.  But again, Shermans fought mostly already up-armored opponents and not their weaker-armored predecessors.

In terms of Aces High, the Sherman could be set up with capabilities comparable to the t-34 with the following modifications:

The downside would be the lesser likelihood of a ricochet when hit from the sides or rear, and the obviously higher and easier-to-hit silloette.

The advantages would be the pintle .50cal on the Sherman, better rate of fire for the 75mm gun (roomier turret than the t-34), and better crew visability.

One more advantage vs. ALL other armor in the game would be the gyrostabilized gun.  Yes, hard as it is to imagine, the gyrostabilized gun sights first saw use with the Shermans in WW2.  In game terms, this would mean little to no sight bounce when moving or turning and no random movement of the gun off your last aiming point when the gun is fired.  This better ability to fire on the move and/or "home in" on targets would help the Sherman stand up to its opponents.

Still think the Sherman would be too similar?  Then how about the version equipped with the 105mm gun?  It could be modeled so that it is better able than any of the other guns to take down hangers or town buildings to show its role as rolling artillery.  For anti-tank duty, it could carry a very limited number (8-10) of HEAT rounds.  These would be at least as deadly as the PzkwIV AP rounds.

Now I will sit back and wait for everyone who supposedly knows better to light me up.

[Karnak]

The T-34's reputation benefits from the large number of T-34/85s built.  The Russian 85mm gun isn't as good as the German 88mm or the 75mm on the Panther, but it is far better than the American 75mm or 76mm on the Shermans.  If we'd gotten the T-34/85 it would be the most used tank in AH.

Several people, such as Pongo and myself, predicted what would happen if the T-34/76 were added, and our predictions were right on the money.

It isn't that theb T-34 is over hyped (much) so much as we have an uncompetitive T-34.

HTC said the T-34/85 would be added at the same time as the Panther V was added.

[Klum25th]

After we get those, we need something can match up with the T34, M8, and other light vehicals like the Sherman, Panzer PzKfw II, Matilda tank, PzKpfw III Ausf.E, or ChurchHill tank, Crusader III, or Grant MK1, or the M10 Tank Destroyer. I think these would be good for lighter tank vs lighter tank battles.

The Tiger, Panzer IV, Panther, T-34/85 would be the heavy to heavy tanks.

AH would not be fun with all heavy duty, better armored, better armed guns. I think we need to even it out, so that not 95% of people don't only choose the better tanks, over the suckier ones.

For example right now the lightest tanks we have are the M8 and T34. The Panzer and Tiger are the heavier better tanks in AH. I dont see much people taking the M8 and T34 into battle. Most likely they are ganna take the Panzer or the Tiger becuase they have a better gun and armor, and have a better chance of surviving in battle. Those two are the only tanks that will match up against each other right now in AH. If we had an even number of heavy tanks and lighter tanks, than more people would have more choices to choose from. Now you wouldn't have to worry about going up against just panzers and Tigers in your T34, now you got tanks like the Sherman, Grant, Panzer II/III, and other tanks like you, that you dont have to worry about and you have better a chance to win a fair battle.

If we just got some of the better tanks during the war, then the M8, and T34/76 would not be used at all. If we had maybe 4 heavy tanks, and 8 lighter tanks, than theres more of a chance with less heavier tanks on the field and more lighter tanks on the field.

I would like to see the Panther and T34/85 in AH, then I would like to see more lighter tanks.

[Karnak]

Honestly, the problem with tanks and the ENY system is that unlike aircraft, some tanks are just immune to others due to the nature of heavy armor.  Even a Ki-43-I-Ko with a top speed of 308mph and armed with two 7.7mm machine guns can kill an La-7 or Tempest V just by shooting it.  There is no way that a Japanese tank armed with low velocity 37mm gun is going to destroy or disable a Tiger I.

Why?

Because the limited amount of armor on a fighter prevents it from being completely immune to even the smallest guns.  Those 7.7mm bullets will still puch holes in almost any part of a Tempest.

In the tank's case that is not true as weight is not nearly so limiting an issue.  If you are making a 45 ton armored fighting vehicle it is not terribly hard to make it the next best thing to completely immune to smaller and slower cannon rounds.


The effect this has is that there are some tanks that no matter the skill of the operator simply cannot kill the better tanks.  In AH2 this can already be seen in the T-34 vs Tiger I.  Because if you encounter a Tiger I you will be unable to hurt it, taking a T-34 means crippling yourself in a way that no fighter can be crippled in comparison to another.  Because of that people will opt to take the free, but still has a fighting chance, tank in numbers that are exagerated compared to the fighters.

I.e. taking a Bf109G-6 up against Tempest Vs is rough indeed, but very much easier than taking a T-34 up against Tiger Is.  The step back from the leading free unit (Spitfire Mk XVI or Panzer IV H respectively) to what could be considered middle of the pack performers has drastically different results on the probability of success.

[FDutchmn]

Originally posted by Karnak
It isn't that theb T-34 is over hyped (much) so much as we have an uncompetitive T-34.

Just a thought and just saying... I felt that the T34 that is modelled currently in AH was competitive enough though.  Last night, I took a T34 and took out three panzers before my turret was taken out and survived the battle long enough to rtb.  On the other hand, at point blank range, a Tiger couldn't be destroyed.

I guess the term competitive is in the context of the type of battle there is.  Last night it was fit for it and made it enjoyable.  Other times, probably not.

[Karnak]

FDutchman,

Against the Panzer IV H it is competitive enough.  The problem is when you face a Tiger, which happens all too frequently.  Tigers are by no means rare in AH.

[Pooh21]

I want a StuG III or a SU-85 because turrets are for dweebs. They look so cool.

[FDutchmn]

Originally posted by Karnak
FDutchman,

Against the Panzer IV H it is competitive enough.  The problem is when you face a Tiger, which happens all too frequently.  Tigers are by no means rare in AH.

then its clear what needs to be done... the Tiger's gotta go!  j/k

[E25280]

Originally posted by Karnak
FDutchman,

Against the Panzer IV H it is competitive enough.  The problem is when you face a Tiger, which happens all too frequently.  Tigers are by no means rare in AH.

In some ways, I think the frequency of Tigers is due to the lack of other perked vehicles.  Adding a something like a T-34/85 or another heavy tank with a modest perk value would make Tigers more rare.  Think of it like our bomber situation -- if you want to fly a perked bomber, you have one choice.

I have always found the T-34 to be a bit harder to kill than the PzkwIV in the game due to the propensity of ricochets off the sloped armor.  So that is the give and take that goes on for the un-perked tanks.

I have "killed" a Tiger in my measly M-8 once.  Actually, I managed to track him while driving circles around him as he tried to turn his turret to aim at me.  He was later finished off by a 1000lb bomb that had no trouble hitting such a large, unmoving object.  Got something like 11 perkies for it.     A T-34/76 should therefore be able to track a Tiger, but due to it's very slow rate of fire I would almost prefer my M-8 in that matchup.

Purists will say this is a flying game after all, but having a few more choices or more specialization (I still like the 105mm Sherman idea) would add to the game IMHO.

Turretless vehicles would be a wonderful addition, especially since the Germans were relying on them so heavily in the latter years of the war.  I would recommend a Hetzer for punch per square inch.

[715]

I'm curious: why do people keep calling the T34/85 a "heavy" tank?  I thought "heavy" meant with respect to weight, not caliber of the main gun.  The T34/85 was a medium tank: it has exacly the same chassis as the T34/76, only the turret and gun are different.  Or am I wrong?  Does "heavy" refer to the gun?

(BTW- an AH T34/76 can take out a Tiger 1, but only if the Tiger driver has gone to the bathroom or is otherwise indisposed, as it takes 4 to 5 shots at absolutely point blank range and 90 degrees penetration angle.)

[E25280]

Generally a "heavy" tank refers to its weight.  In WW2 terms, the cutoff varies, but I think is usually around 40 tons.  The T-34/85 was around 32 tons, making it a medium tank by those standards.

I re-read my post and I see how it looked like I referred to the t-34/85 as a "heavy", but this was bad grammer on my part and was not intentional.  I meant, add a t-34/85, or another heavy tank besides the Tiger.

I have seen some articles where the armor on the T-34/76 is listed as 60mm while the armor on the T-34/85 is listed as 90mm, but these same articles only show a 2 ton weight increase.  I think the 2 tons could be accounted for almost entirely by the larger gun, larger turret (3 man instead of the 2 man on the T-34/76) and heavier ammo loadout.  I always thought the chassis was the same, so maybe the added thickness was just on the turret.  Someone smarter than I could probably answer.