King Tiger????

[Babalonian]

Something big and Russian might be more representative of the war....

  Nothing says soviet love like a tank armed with 120mm of it.

[Wmaker]

Nothing says soviet love like a tank armed with 120mm of it.

...except a 152mm calibre projectile weighing twice as much as that 120mm.

(projectile weight roughly 108lbs...ouch!)

[Babalonian]

I was thinking more in line of a "true" tank, and I'm trying to not encourage any more demand for german armor for a little while, I don't think BAR can take much more of this heartbreak, but if we want to start talking SPA, then lets start talking StuGs!  (not that I'd be against a soviet 152mm SPA, but c'mon... the StuG!)

[Tank-Ace]

...except a 152mm calibre projectile weighing twice as much as that 120mm.

(projectile weight roughly 108lbs...ouch!)

You do realize that the BS-3 100mm AT gun had better preformance than the 152mm gun (I think, I may be thinking of the 122mm gun). And that the BS-3 was only comperable to the german '88? And not even the L' 71, but the L' 56?

Same with all the ppl asking for the Pershing. Its 90mm was comperable to the Tiger I's 88mm, and so wouldn't be able to penetrate the ~170mm glacis plate of the Tiger II from point blank range, yet alone combat ranges. There was a "super pershing" with a longer barrled 90mm, but that was only a prototype and only one saw combat.

[Wmaker]

You do realize that the BS-3 100mm AT gun had better preformance than the 152mm gun (I think, I may be thinking of the 122mm gun). And that the BS-3 was only comperable to the german '88? And not even the L' 71, but the L' 56?

Same with all the ppl asking for the Pershing. Its 90mm was comperable to the Tiger I's 88mm, and so wouldn't be able to penetrate the ~170mm glacis plate of the Tiger II from point blank range, yet alone combat ranges. There was a "super pershing" with a longer barrled 90mm, but that was only a prototype and only one saw combat.

I wasn't talking anything else than the shell weight and the calibre.

[Scca]

Woo Hoo for new toys to break!

With a bomb 

[Babalonian]

You do realize that the BS-3 100mm AT gun had better preformance than the 152mm gun (I think, I may be thinking of the 122mm gun). And that the BS-3 was only comperable to the german '88? And not even the L' 71, but the L' 56?

Same with all the ppl asking for the Pershing. Its 90mm was comperable to the Tiger I's 88mm, and so wouldn't be able to penetrate the ~170mm glacis plate of the Tiger II from point blank range, yet alone combat ranges. There was a "super pershing" with a longer barrled 90mm, but that was only a prototype and only one saw combat.

I do believe though that the BS-3 was a realtively new development and production availability/capacity was such that it never got mounted to a tank of self-propelled artillery piece, they only saw combat as static or towed field artillery pieces I believe (a shame IMO, would of been interesting to of seen it used otherwise).  Something AH doesn't have or has figured out yet a way to implement for players to use in the game....

[Tank-Ace]

Su-100 had a tank gun version of the Bs-3 (the '100' in Su-100 meaning it had a 100mm weapon)

[SmokinLoon]

If the Soviets would have stopped with the 100mm, they'd have been fine.  Same for the Germans and their Panther's 75mm Kw.K.42 L / 70.  Too bad each side wasted so many resources on things not needed.  Obviously, hindsight is 20/20.  The Soviets would have been just fine with the T34/85mm and the Su-100 for the rest of the war.  The Germans might have inflicted a bit more damage if they had not wasted so much on "super" tanks, instead cranking out more Panthers and TD's armed with the 75mm Kw.K.42 L / 70.

The reload rate for the JSU-152 was horrendous.  The propellent and projectile were loaded separately.     

[Babalonian]

Su-100 had a tank gun version of the Bs-3 (the '100' in Su-100 meaning it had a 100mm weapon)

Ah, the D-10!  One of those confusing Russian things to me, two names for what seems to be the same thing.  I've seen some references give differing numbers in muzzle velocity or other stats for both (range I can understand as the field artillery piece I'd imagine can shoot at a higher angle than those mounted to a tank or TD), so I wonder if they're relatively identical or actually different somehow, other than the means they were used.

If the Soviets would have stopped with the 100mm, they'd have been fine.  Same for the Germans and their Panther's 75mm Kw.K.42 L / 70.  Too bad each side wasted so many resources on things not needed.  Obviously, hindsight is 20/20.  The Soviets would have been just fine with the T34/85mm and the Su-100 for the rest of the war.  The Germans might have inflicted a bit more damage if they had not wasted so much on "super" tanks, instead cranking out more Panthers and TD's armed with the 75mm Kw.K.42 L / 70.

The reload rate for the JSU-152 was horrendous.  The propellent and projectile were loaded separately.     

Same for the 122mm A-19 and the IS-2.  Average was 2-3 rounds per minute.  Kind of a good and bad thing IMO in terms of AH.... the things are HUGE guns.

[Tank-Ace]

huge, but still comperable to the 88 we already have in game. IDK what it is, but russian cannons just weren't that good. I takes them an 85mm gun to match what the germans can do with a '75.

[Nypsy]

I am not sure if The King will be good for the game but I am sure it's a mean looking tank.

[Tank-Ace]

Oh the KT will be great for the game. but IMO we need a nashorn along with it. something cheap that can kill it from beyond point blank range  .

[Karnak]

Problem with the Tiger II is that I am not sure a M4A3(75), T-34/76 on Panzer IV H will be be able to kill it.  Having a tank that is immune to the free tanks could be a problem.  I am pretty sure a T-34/85's HVAP round could kill it from moderate range and making the T-34/85 a free tank might be a needed fix.

After all, a D3A1 can kill an Me262, let alone a P-51D, Bf109K-4, Fw190D-9, La-7, N1K2-J or Spitfire Mk XVI.

On the other hand a Tiger II can be bombed into submission as a last ditch defense, though having killed Tiger I's with 500lb bombs* I can say that it won't be easy to do.

*I had a Tiger I survive a direct hit from a 500lb bomb.  I dropped both 500lbers from my bomb bay, saw a hit sprite on the tank from one and the other exploded about 5-10ft from the tank's side.  The Tiger driver's response was "That was LOUD!"

[Tank-Ace]

it would be killable by all tanks but the M8 (which isn't really a tank anyway), just not from the front.

As to the T-34/85, no not at all. its gun is comperable to the panzer's, and it has ~170mm frontal hull armor once you factor in the slope