The Iosif Stalin 2 (IS-2) & Tiger II (King Tiger)

[E25280]

My point is that like Flotsom said " it wouldn't be competitive in here" . Tigers in here are killed by panzer's at close ranges, but from distance it's very hard for a panzer to kill tigers. In midwar where there aren't Fireflys eny usually negates the other side from upping Tigers. I can sit at range and kill all the panzers and T-34's I want until I get bombed all the while taking hits from them without damage. It would be that way for a 75mm Sherman against a panzer. From distance the panzer has an advantage. I just don't think a 75mm armed Sherman would make an impact. A 76mm would.

It wouldn't be competitive against a perked tank . . . OK, makes sense, that is why the perked tanks are perked, isn't it?

IMO it would be competitive against the IV and the T-34/76, i.e. the unperked tanks.  Seeing as the Sherman itself would be unperked, again I don't see the problem.

But I disagree that the IV would have some massive advantage over the 75mm Sherman at range -- advantage, yes, a massive one, no.  How many whines do you see from people who think the Firefly is over-armored (due to "reputation") because they can't automatically one-ping it from 2000 yards from a IV?  To be sure, it would be a challenge for the Sherman driver to use cover to get close enough to bring its 75mm into killing range -- which is what is faced by the current T-34/76 as well.  Given the terrain we often see in AH, I don't think this would be a huge issue.

OTOH, the 76mm Sherman would have a slight advantage over the IV.  The question there would be whether it would be lightly perked like the T-34/85.  It is a close call -- T-34 (76 or 85) do have the advantage of speed over the Sherman, but are fairly comparable otherwise.

I suppose it gets back to what you want from the game.  Many people just want bigger and better, which is fine, but it doesn't mean the smaller and more challenging to use don't have a place.  We do have the M-8, after all.   

[BigPlay]

It wouldn't be competitive against a perked tank . . . OK, makes sense, that is why the perked tanks are perked, isn't it?

IMO it would be competitive against the IV and the T-34/76, i.e. the unperked tanks.  Seeing as the Sherman itself would be unperked, again I don't see the problem.

But I disagree that the IV would have some massive advantage over the 75mm Sherman at range -- advantage, yes, a massive one, no.  How many whines do you see from people who think the Firefly is over-armored (due to "reputation") because they can't automatically one-ping it from 2000 yards from a IV?  To be sure, it would be a challenge for the Sherman driver to use cover to get close enough to bring its 75mm into killing range -- which is what is faced by the current T-34/76 as well.  Given the terrain we often see in AH, I don't think this would be a huge issue.

OTOH, the 76mm Sherman would have a slight advantage over the IV.  The question there would be whether it would be lightly perked like the T-34/85.  It is a close call -- T-34 (76 or 85) do have the advantage of speed over the Sherman, but are fairly comparable otherwise.

I suppose it gets back to what you want from the game.  Many people just want bigger and better, which is fine, but it doesn't mean the smaller and more challenging to use don't have a place.  We do have the M-8, after all.   

Don't get me wrong, I would like to see 10-15 new tanks and not all uber ones. Yes the Sherman included. But the rate we get new anything concerns me. If they introduced a few lesser tanks that could compete against one another that would be cool but anything including a new plane that has a disadvantage against most of the line up wont be used much after the first week. Yah ... you ll have the token few guys that get a charge outta upping a Sherman and going against the rest of the line up but not many . So in my opinion it would be a waste unless like I said they introduce a couple of other gv's that are in the same league. People ask for the I-16. In my opinion that would be a huge mistake. An Oscar would make more sence to me. But again .... my opinion.

[RipChord929]

JS2 and TigerII would be kinda cool additions.. IF???
We had a more realistic terrain model first...

Our terrain model is a joke, it needs updating desperately..
Before any superheavy tanks come into the game...
Its unrealistic enough w the 56ton TigerI now... Never mind
60 and 70tonners...

Those tanks look mighty impressive on paper, and in
the imagination.. But their actual usage in the field,
wasn't near as glorious as most think... It took
tremendous effort and manpower just to bring them
into the battle area... And if the weather was even
slightly inclement in the last 3 days, they were stuck
on the hardball, (hardball=paved road).. And it better
be reinforced road too.. Even in prime weather conditions
their crosscountry speed was limited... What is solid ground
for a 35ton PnzrIV, IS NOT solid for a 70ton KingTiger, LOL!!!

And Geebus forbid ya come to a stream crossing..
LOL, you are STOPPED!!! End of story!!! Till the pioneers
can build or reinforce a bridge for ya...

The superheavies were a major Rube Goldberg.. The Germans
would have been far better off, by not wasting the materials
and effort building them... They should have simplified the
Panther design, and threw all production into that instead..

Even the Russians realized this eventually, deleting the JS series
and T10M from their inventory in the 50s... They used their
turrets/guns on concrete fortifications along the Chinese border..
Still there, LOL!!!

Not tryin to be a killjoy here... But we need SOME semblance
of reality in this game... If ya want all that armor and gunpower,
you should take the detriments along with the advantages..

RC

[FLOTSOM]

JS2 and TigerII would be kinda cool additions.. IF???
We had a more realistic terrain model first...

Our terrain model is a joke, it needs updating desperately..
Before any superheavy tanks come into the game...
Its unrealistic enough w the 56ton TigerI now... Never mind
60 and 70tonners...

Those tanks look mighty impressive on paper, and in
the imagination.. But their actual usage in the field,
wasn't near as glorious as most think... It took
tremendous effort and manpower just to bring them
into the battle area... And if the weather was even
slightly inclement in the last 3 days, they were stuck
on the hardball, (hardball=paved road).. And it better
be reinforced road too.. Even in prime weather conditions
their crosscountry speed was limited... What is solid ground
for a 35ton PnzrIV, IS NOT solid for a 70ton KingTiger, LOL!!!

And Geebus forbid ya come to a stream crossing..
LOL, you are STOPPED!!! End of story!!! Till the pioneers
can build or reinforce a bridge for ya...

The superheavies were a major Rube Goldberg.. The Germans
would have been far better off, by not wasting the materials
and effort building them... They should have simplified the
Panther design, and threw all production into that instead..

Even the Russians realized this eventually, deleting the JS series
and T10M from their inventory in the 50s... They used their
turrets/guns on concrete fortifications along the Chinese border..
Still there, LOL!!!

Not tryin to be a killjoy here... But we need SOME semblance
of reality in this game... If ya want all that armor and gunpower,
you should take the detriments along with the advantages..

RC

AGREED!! 

[Babalonian]

Comming back to AH this year I found the terrain had received a hug upgrade from what I remember it used to be (sheep, bushes, triangular hills and water).  I also found that there were more vehicles available than just the PT boat, M16 or M3 (the only non-plane vehicles I remember were in the game at the time).  If you remember those times, then I don't think you would complain about the current terrain model or limited choice of GVs currently in the game.  Sure, I want more and can't wait to see it, but to me it's obvious that HTC is already working on these departments (or at least significantly were).  So, it's hard for me to say "hey, put some work into these things here" when what I've been seeing shows they already are doing it.

HTC does need to add quite a bit more GV choices I think, it's really lacking a ton of the common GVs found during WWII.  But again, I say that with a grain of salt because I've returned to AH this year to find a dozen or so more GVs in the game than there were.  The reason I made this post though is that I figure HTC might be looking into adding more GVs soon, and I would like a couple favorites of mine that I also think are a good match against each other (and in their own unique ways, imo).

I am happy we are having some good quality GV-related discussions about the game in this thread, just be careful it doesn't step on the toes (or too far off-topic) of this thread's true purpose.

[Bolt45]

The Stalin is no joke in hitting power , I use it in Red Orchestra and have no prob knocking out Tigers / Panthers over 1000m ..when the King Tiger patch gets released soon we will see how they match up . As stated they both were slow to reload because of the crew config. you almost need a driver with you on the
maps to maneuver whilst you reload ..would be a nice addition to AH .

Bolt

[BigPlay]

AGREED!! 

Agreed about most of the late war German Uber tanks but the King Tiger should have been built. If the Germans didn't have the K Tiger they would have had problems with The Stalin Tanks. The really shined as defensive tanks, almost usless as an offensive weapon. There are more than 1 story where K Tanks commanders trook out 15+ Stalin tanks by themselves in one engagement.

[skribetm]

The Stalin is no joke in hitting power , I use it in Red Orchestra and have no prob knocking out Tigers / Panthers over 1000m ..

Bolt

I doubt Red Orchestra has the IS-2 modeled correctly, as the IS-2's HE rounds were only effective against buildings and bunkers, not enemy armor at those distances.

I haven't read a source that says the IS-2 has AP rounds.

 

[Babalonian]

I've played Red Orchestra.  It's hard to say how well modeled the tanks are in that game because they're all used at very close ranges.  The IS2 in RO had way more ammo than it does in the real world, and most of it was AP instead of HE (which is also not accurate).  I don't think I've been in an engagement with a tank in Red Orchestra that wasn't closer than 1000 meters.  At that range, yeah, maybe the 120mm AP round is modeled correctly in that game, but I doubt it.  But in AH we have tank battles that seem more accurate in that most engagements take place with a few thousand meters between the tanks that are fighting.  RO is a fun game but it is more of a FPS/infantry simulator than a tank/vehicle combat simulator.  It's like the antichrist of AH.

[Babalonian]

*punt*  I don't want this to get too old n dusty.

[Belial]

I put alot of hours in every tour in a GV, so some new tank choices would be nice.  I am with the people who think that bigger isnt better and we dont need more tigers.  The light tanks should be added first, any thing with the speed of an m8 and a 75mm would get my vote.  We already have the uber shermanvc firefly which in the right hands is a real pain to dispose of.  Alot of problems would be solved by perking the m4 at 3/4 that of the Tiger, and the t34-85 at 1/2.

[skullman]

would like to see the king tiger,panther an m36 slugger with 90 mm of pure death

[raiders]

it would be beast if i saw a King Tiger on the map

[Babalonian]

Thanks for your support and input.    (now i don't feel bad for reviving the thread).

I put alot of hours in every tour in a GV, so some new tank choices would be nice.  I am with the people who think that bigger isnt better and we dont need more tigers.  The light tanks should be added first, any thing with the speed of an m8 and a 75mm would get my vote.  We already have the uber shermanvc firefly which in the right hands is a real pain to dispose of.  Alot of problems would be solved by perking the m4 at 3/4 that of the Tiger, and the t34-85 at 1/2.

I like the bigger, but I agree that it does not mean it's better most the time.  In my gaming experiences, if you just add one "monster" that will be a dominant force in a game/simulator, you need to add a second "monster" so that you at least can have a minimal amount of variety in the same weight-class.  At the time when I started this thread there were some other threads on other tanks and GVs floating around, so this one I narrowed down the best I could to make it state "these are two big tanks I like, they aren't exactly the same by any means, but they would be decent competitors against each other on the field and I think would make a great addition to the game if they got introduced at the same time". 

I agree with your point though, I would like to see some more light and medium tanks added too, especially the more common tanks of WWII (by common I mean that there were thousands upon thousands of those models made during the course of the war.  IE: Panzer IIIs and the early and very common IV models).  I also really want to see if maybe we can get the STuGs (IIIs and IVs) and some other tank destroyers too.

[BigPlay]

The Stalin is no joke in hitting power , I use it in Red Orchestra and have no prob knocking out Tigers / Panthers over 1000m ..when the King Tiger patch gets released soon we will see how they match up . As stated they both were slow to reload because of the crew config. you almost need a driver with you on the
maps to maneuver whilst you reload ..would be a nice addition to AH .

Bolt

 I believe that the loading slowness of the Stalin was due to it's two piece round. Not so with the King Tiger. It should load as fast as any other German tank.