The King Tiger tank

[thrila]

British tanks undergunned?  Definately in mid-war, but no more so than the americans seeing as most of the brit tanks were american.  Late war the brits pretty much tried to bolt on a 17pounder to whatever they could find.

Late war for the brits could be the comet, it looks pretty awesome.  The churchill AVRE would be kind of interesting to have.

[Relorian]

Big, there were more than a few british tanks armed with the same gun that the firefly uses. Id hardly call that undergunned.  Yes they had lighter tanks for infantry support but even those could be put in as their guns are equal or bigger than the current M8's loadout.

[BigPlay]

There were a few British tanks that did have the 17pndr. The Firefly and Achilles were American tanks with British main guns so they don't really count as British. The only Brit tank that was designed with a 17pounder was the Challenger. However none of these tanks really had any battlefield survivability like the German AFV's which ment that they could be knocked out at greater range than they could knock out a equally armed German tank. Also the British tanks had their share of mechanical problems just like the Germans. Most British tanks had low velocity 75mm of less as main guns and were of little use against thick armored German tanks. The British were far behind the Germans in tank design and tactics and were pretty much decimated at Normandy. The Allies really hadn't come up against late war German armor until then. Only 100 or so of the American Sherman's that were unloaded at Normandy had the 76mm high velocity gun really capable of knocking the Panther, Tiger and other late war German variants out.  But again a Sherman could be taken out at over 3000 yrds straight on at  it's thickest armor by all German tank and jadg tanks main guns.

The Russian chose to just use higher caliber guns rather than high velocity ones, hence the 100mm, 122mm, 152mm main guns. They also had battlefield survivability unlike the before mentioned. I think a few tank destroyers would be the best addition if thet were going to introduce new GV's.

[BaldEagl]

The Stewart, Panther, Wolverine and a normally gunned Sherman would be nice additions.

[E25280]

Originally posted by BigPlay
How about HT just model the existing tanks correctly. Fireflys getting hit once by anything should kill it with maybe exception of the M8, but the M8 in here seems to be able to kill anything anyway.

I don't know where you people keep getting this bunk -- oh yeah, I remember, "reputation" instead of "reality."

The Firefly is modeled just fine.  Shermans had as much or better armor than the T-34/76 and PzkwIV.  I find them to be just as killable in the game as these two from the side or rear -- as it should be.  Due to the sloping armor, they are harder to kill with a frontal shot than the non-sloped PzkwIV -- as it should be.

[splitatom]

have you ever heard of a rumor before it might have because it was at the nazi testing grounds in poland and there are many claims of it actualy fighting rusian tanks the russians have one of them in a museam:p are you jokeing a t 34 had less armor than a sherman it had slopeing armor a t 24 could servive a hit from a panzer 4 and it could take out a tiger if it ramed it a sherman mached well with the panzar 4 well at least the m4a2 which had a higher volocity gun than the original sherman:aok

[Adonai]

Originally posted by SuBWaYCH
And Wikipedia isn't a reliable "source", since it isn't one. Need to get your proof from other sites besides Wiki.

Regards,
Subway

Actually that information is quite correct.

[BigPlay]

Originally posted by E25280
I don't know where you people keep getting this bunk -- oh yeah, I remember, "reputation" instead of "reality."

The Firefly is modeled just fine.  Shermans had as much or better armor than the T-34/76 and PzkwIV.  I find them to be just as killable in the game as these two from the side or rear -- as it should be.  Due to the sloping armor, they are harder to kill with a frontal shot than the non-sloped PzkwIV -- as it should be.

Actually I get this information from my 300+ book library. I have numerous books on main gun penetration for most main battle and tank destroyers in relation to angle, range and armor thickness. I also have a WW2 history related business for the last 15 years so I do read about the subject often. I don't claim to be the end all in knowlege but I do have more than most in relation to what were talking about.

The Fireflys armor was on equal term with early T-34's and  all MkIV's but not with the Tigers and the Tiger's gun was just as capable as the Firefly's. My problem is I have hit Firefly's 2-3 times  and died one shot from the same Firefly that I hit while I was in a Tiger. Now according to the information I have come across that shouldn't be happening. Sherman's caught on fire rather easy when hit and a Sherman hit by a Tiger should always be a one shot kill at greater distance that a Firefly can kill a  Tiger. I also have hit Firefly's a number of times in a Panzer without doing anything, again that shouldn't be happening. Iam sure there is many out there with the same problem.

The T-34 in my opinion is a little too hard to kill by Panzer's as well. I have hit many 3-4 times without slowing them down. I have killed Fireflys and T-34's one shot maybe 50% of the time but with a Tiger it should be one shot one kill.

[chrish483]

You know what, ive used ALL 4 tanks  and seen each killed with one shot, no advantige on any of them,  but there is one at long distance shooting, tigers take more hits from a panzer, and i dont know about the sherman in this game, long distance you can bounce shells off an M-8 all day ive done it, even an osty at long distance it took 8 hits so i dont know whats up with that but   go ahead and have the king tiger as long as the M36 GMC is there too as it can take on any german tank.  tit for tat there.