KV1 and KV2

[Rambo Fan]

I vote for the KV1 but the KV2 is bound to blast the crap out of many tanks, besides its very slow and can easily be killed, no use but KV1 is awesome.

[valdals]

they also made a kv85. it had the same gun as the t34/85.

[BigPlay]

As someone noted the Firefly was a very effective British tank even though it was a modified Sherman.  The Achilles IIC was also an effective British tank destroyer (based off the M-10).  There was also the Comet though I don't know how much action it saw.  I believe some of the tanks in the Crusader and Cromwell series were also rather effective and there was the Archer, another British tank that fielded the dreaded 17 pounder main gun.  There also had a number of successful early war tanks like the Matilda.


ack-ack

The Comet saw no major action and yes the Firefly and other 17lber armed tanks were effective however at stand off range non were able to compete against late war German armor. It's hard for me to vote for a British tank when I know they won't be able to compete . The Matilda would be a good EW tank addition but a tank that can be used in all arenas makes more sence.

[WMLute]

If we gonna add a Russian tank, how 'bout a JS-II?

American, i've always wanted a M26 Pershing.

Opinions?

[BigPlay]

If we gonna add a Russian tank, how 'bout a JS-II?

American, i've always wanted a M26 Pershing.

Opinions?

IS-11 is a uber tank . Not much here to kill it. I have read about Tigers taking them out but at close range. I also read that even King Tigers had to hit them in the right spot to kill them on the first shot.

If we do get a few new GV's heres what I think,

German - Panther
American M-10
Russian - T-34/85
British - none

These would still be able to be handled by current tanks and are additions that would get used .

[Ack-Ack]

I vote for the KV1 but the KV2 is bound to blast the crap out of many tanks, besides its very slow and can easily be killed, no use but KV1 is awesome.

KV2 was not designed or intended to fight other tanks.  It was a mobile artillery platform.  Sure, you could kill tanks with it with indirect fire like you could with any other howitzer but as a dedicated tank hunter or battle tank, that's not what the KV-2 was used for.  It wasn't all that successful for the reasons I posted in my previous reply.

The KV-1 will not bring anything to the game that the T-34 doesn't already bring.


ack-ack

[BigPlay]

The only thing shared between the T-34 and the KV1 was the engine, transmission and gun.  Though, I do agree that adding the KV1 at this point adds nothing new to the game that the T-34 doesn't already offer.  The only real thing the KV1 might offer is better armor but by 1942 the invincibility the KV1 once enjoyed was no longer there after the Germans started to field better armament for their tanks.

It would end up being just a pill box in AH for base defense.


ack-ack

basicly that was what I was refering too, the armor wasn't much thicker between the T-34 and the KV1. In fact the larger wheels acted as extra armor. The KV1 had a small portion of the hull exposed.

[Ack-Ack]

they also made a kv85. it had the same gun as the t34/85.

And as with the other KV tanks, it was heavy, slow and it's armor offered relatively little protection against the better guns of the Tiger and Panther tanks.  It was also only a stop gap measure until the Iosef Stalin heavy tank was fully in production with only 130 KV-85 tanks made.  However, the KV-85 was a step above the KV-1 heavy tank.

ack-ack

[Ack-Ack]

id like to see the KV1 and KV2 tank added. it had good armor and was tough to kill. the KV1 had a 75mm anti tank gun and the KV2 carried HE rounds

This what happens to a KV-1 tank when it meets a Tiger tank, so much for better armor protection.




ack-ack

[E25280]

If we gonna add a Russian tank, how 'bout a JS-II?

American, i've always wanted a M26 Pershing.

Opinions?

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I thought the JS-II's turret was manually cranked?  My basic thought is that the current GV set needs the smaller / earlier vehicles rather than more ultra-uber super-perked tanks that people keep asking for (JS-II or III, King Tiger, Maus, blah blah blah).  The T-34/85 seems a logical add as another variant on an existing chassis.  If another tank were to be added, I would suggest something like a BT-7 or T-26, which could be used in any of the mains (instead of just late war), and would be our first true light tanks.

The Pershing IMO in game terms (gun, armor, etc.) would be indestinguishable from the Tiger except for the .50 cal pintle, and therefore not necessary until much later down the line (assuming there is a much later down the line for GVs in this game).

[valdals]

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I thought the JS-II's turret was manually cranked?  My basic thought is that the current GV set needs the smaller / earlier vehicles rather than more ultra-uber super-perked tanks that people keep asking for (JS-II or III, King Tiger, Maus, blah blah blah).  The T-34/85 seems a logical add as another variant on an existing chassis.  If another tank were to be added, I would suggest something like a BT-7 or T-26, which could be used in any of the mains (instead of just late war), and would be our first true light tanks.

The Pershing IMO in game terms (gun, armor, etc.) would be indestinguishable from the Tiger except for the .50 cal pintle, and therefore not necessary until much later down the line (assuming there is a much later down the line for GVs in this game).

id rather have the m24 chaffee or the lee tank than the bt7 or t26

[BigPlay]

Well, If they do add a new AFV it should be competitive across the board and that is why I suggested the Stug. It could compete in all arenas since it served from early on. The up-gunned models still would be on even terms with our current panzer and a well commanded panzer is still very dangerous even in LW. Plus the added protection that exceeds the current armor of the panzer, Firefly and T-34. The only downside is the turretless design which would really add a learning curve to be competitive in it but the barrel traverse should give it enough range in an ambush role without having to start the engine in order to line the hull up with it's target. Maybe give it the ability to traverse the hull from the gunsight position.

[valdals]

Well, If they do add a new AFV it should be competitive across the board and that is why I suggested the Stug. It could compete in all arenas since it served from early on. The up-gunned models still would be on even terms with our current panzer and a well commanded panzer is still very dangerous even in LW. Plus the added protection that exceeds the current armor of the panzer, Firefly and T-34. The only downside is the turretless design which would really add a learning curve to be competitive in it but the barrel traverse should give it enough range in an ambush role without having to start the engine in order to line the hull up with it's target. Maybe give it the ability to traverse the hull from the gunsight position.

the stug would be a good option but would be very difficult for 1 person to operate. the gun had a minimum traverse and would have to be steared to aim. using a rudder system would work but make the gun inaccurate due to the gun barrel bouncing around.

[BigPlay]

the stug would be a good option but would be very difficult for 1 person to operate. the gun had a minimum traverse and would have to be steared to aim. using a rudder system would work but make the gun inaccurate due to the gun barrel bouncing around.

I don't know if it would ba any different that shooting on the move, some guys are masters at it timing the bouncing gun barrel perfect.

[Cthulhu]

This what happens to a KV-1 tank when it meets a Tiger tank, so much for better armor protection.

(Image removed from quote.)


ack-ack

I believe that's not a KV-1, but a JS-1, which should be even tougher. Your point is still a good one though. JS-1's had really weak turret armor, but still better than the KV-1. Both were fodder for Tigers.