Author Topic: Tank destroyers  (Read 1759 times)

Offline Butcher

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5323
Re: Tank destroyers
« Reply #30 on: July 19, 2011, 09:55:05 AM »
Ok, the gun (depending on which we got) would be better than any currently in the game, but would be out gunned by the KwK 43 (88mm L'71)

Panzergranate 39 (PzGr 31, APCBC)
velocity        slope     100yd    500   1000  1500   2000yds
3,281'/s         30       203mm    185    165    148    132

Panzergranate 40 (PzGr 40, APCR/HVAP)
velocity       slope      100    500   1000   1500   2000
3,707'/s         30        237   217    193     171    153

I'm not entirely sure I understand this part. Are you saying that the projectiles are coming in at a relatively high angle, which results in a reduction of slope in armor relative to the trajectory of the shell at the time of impact?

And according to your charts, I don't see a gun capable of penetrating the panther's ~145mm glacis plate much beyond 1000m. Also, remember that as the war progressed, the German's quality of steel was falling, as materials needed to make high quality steel became scarce, or difficult to obtain. This was notable in all tanks produced late in the war. In AH, we aren't plauged by production defects for the sake of playability. If we were, they might as well have modeled the B-29 with its engine on fire, the tiger with a blown engine, and 4 out of 6 shermans exploding on spawn-in.

Very true, I've read enough stories of Panthers, Tigers and King Tigers with horrible defects because of the factories putting them together tend to be sabotaged, one note I remember reading was of a King Tiger which was captured and examined by the Red Army, realized the tank although had an amazing gun on it, the Armor welding was done so poorly it they felt the armor wouldn't stand up to taking any hits without fractures.

Also - while true most tanks wouldn't take out a panther or Tiger over 1,000 yards, you gotta realize in Aces High there are few spawns where you can shoot over a range of 1600 yards, I would say the average shot is 800-1600 yards where in some spawns you can get a nice long shot at 2-3k however It really depends on the map and type of Spawn, for instance the map we have right now I don't believe I fired a single shot over 2k because of line of sight.

In Aces High we'd have the perfect King Tiger with no defects, however there still runs a risk of hills to roll over on, trees to flip a tank and ultimately the first one in a King tiger will be bombed by a dozen Stuka Lancs.

I completely agree the German Armor would dominate Aces high in the Late War arena, mainly due to fact there are no defects in the Aces High design, in reality Germans wanted every tank with the highest quality of steel although it rarely happened.

But even still its Aces High where just because its a tiger doesn't mean you can't flank and kill one from behind as I did 16 Times already.

Ironically here are some of my Stats:

Most Kills of: Panzer 4 followed by M4(76)
Died most by: M4(76) closely followed by Panzer 4
Most Kills in: Panther followed by m4(76)
Most died in: M4(76)
Least Died in: Tiger

I believe someone rank the stats the other day, and first two are pretty much in order, Panzer dies the most with M4 having the most kills.
I would say the Panther has the most kills of the tour, followed by Tiger.

Granted there's nothing to face a Panther, Tiger unless its either of the two :)
JG 52

Offline SmokinLoon

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6168
Re: Tank destroyers
« Reply #31 on: July 19, 2011, 12:35:52 PM »
One thing the charts do not take into effect is the rate of fire, quality of optics, or the ability of the crew.  Do you want Evander Holyfield or Mike Tyson on your side?  Which one can do it all and do it all well vs which one can only do 1 or 2 things a wee notch better and much of everything else lags behind?

Proud grandson of the late Lt. Col. Darrell M. "Bud" Gray, USAF (ret.), B24D pilot, 5th BG/72nd BS. 28 combat missions within the "slot", PTO.

Offline fullmetalbullet

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 834
Re: Tank destroyers
« Reply #32 on: July 19, 2011, 12:56:54 PM »
i found this forum topic thats talking about the Sd Kfz 7 halftrack with an 88mm flak gun mounted on the back. anyone know where i can find more info on this? cuz if it was used alot then i say add this to AH2

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=122195&start=15
"Cry Havoc, And Let Slip The Dogs Of War" Julius Caesar


Offline SmokinLoon

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6168
Re: Tank destroyers
« Reply #33 on: July 19, 2011, 01:38:25 PM »
i found this forum topic thats talking about the Sd Kfz 7 halftrack with an 88mm flak gun mounted on the back. anyone know where i can find more info on this? cuz if it was used alot then i say add this to AH2

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=122195&start=15

That isnt the SdKfz 251 we have in the game.  That thing is a SdKfz Zgkw variant.  It was a beast of a support vehcile used to haul heavy equipment, namely arty.   
Proud grandson of the late Lt. Col. Darrell M. "Bud" Gray, USAF (ret.), B24D pilot, 5th BG/72nd BS. 28 combat missions within the "slot", PTO.

Offline Tank-Ace

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5298
Re: Tank destroyers
« Reply #34 on: July 19, 2011, 06:45:16 PM »
Well put loon. You're always very neat and concise with your posts.

But the other issue is that we don't get fatigued in AH either. 10 kills in the KT would be less physicly demanding than 10 kills in the M4(76) simply because the KT had superior optics, range finding equipment (I think, not 100% sure though), and a MUCH better gun. Say the M4 needed 3-4 shots for every kill, the loader is still doing more work dispite the lighter shells he has to move.
« Last Edit: July 19, 2011, 06:51:24 PM by Tank-Ace »
You started this thread and it was obviously about your want and desire in spite of your use of 'we' and Google.

"Once more unto the breach"

Offline fullmetalbullet

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 834
Re: Tank destroyers
« Reply #35 on: July 20, 2011, 10:04:30 AM »
That isnt the SdKfz 251 we have in the game.  That thing is a SdKfz Zgkw variant.  It was a beast of a support vehcile used to haul heavy equipment, namely arty.   

i know that, i was asking if someone could link a website with more info on the Sdkfz Zgkw, i havnt been able to find any website with info on it.
"Cry Havoc, And Let Slip The Dogs Of War" Julius Caesar


Offline AHTbolt

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 582
Re: Tank destroyers
« Reply #36 on: July 20, 2011, 12:29:39 PM »
Add the KV-1
AWWWWW CRAP YOU SHOT WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! In the desert somewhere west of Kuwait 1991.

Offline Tank-Ace

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5298
Re: Tank destroyers
« Reply #37 on: July 20, 2011, 01:19:42 PM »
Why?
You started this thread and it was obviously about your want and desire in spite of your use of 'we' and Google.

"Once more unto the breach"

Offline MK-84

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2272
Re: Tank destroyers
« Reply #38 on: July 20, 2011, 02:29:05 PM »
Well put loon. You're always very neat and concise with your posts.

But the other issue is that we don't get fatigued in AH either. 10 kills in the KT would be less physicly demanding than 10 kills in the M4(76) simply because the KT had superior optics, range finding equipment (I think, not 100% sure though), and a MUCH better gun. Say the M4 needed 3-4 shots for every kill, the loader is still doing more work dispite the lighter shells he has to move.

...And the M4 has a vertically stabilized sight, was much more reliable, was crewed with soldiers who were rotated in and out from the front, much better logistical and supply support....And ignoring that "crew fatige has nothing to do with anything here...what on earth is your point? 
     The loader has to do more work?  should he be given "nap time?"  How do you figure it takes 3-4 shots for a kill? how many does it take for a Tiger? Do you know? where did you find this info?  A much better gun works like coffee for the crew? Superior optics? Is that so the gunner doesnt have to strain his eyes by squinting as much? :rolleyes:

Offline Tank-Ace

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5298
Re: Tank destroyers
« Reply #39 on: July 20, 2011, 04:27:16 PM »
My point is that ability of the crew doesn't matter as much if the better crew is placed in an environment where they have to work harder. The T-34 (yeah, I put M4 at first, I was sleepy) had terrible crew ergenomics. It was small, it was uncomfortable, and it had only a 2 person turret crew which means each person is doing more things at once.

If the loader is tired he will be slower than when he started.

Better optics = less misses
Better gun = less ricochets or rounds failing to penetrate, which means less rounds fired

And side from that, the faster you kill what you're shooting at, the more likely you are to live. Imagine your shooting at a Tiger, in real life, with an T-34/85. From the side at a range of about 1100yds. If you don't kill him before he sees you, he'll turn that thick front armor and powerfull '88 on you and kill you're one and only irreplaceable azz. No second attempt, no respawning a new tank, you die.
You started this thread and it was obviously about your want and desire in spite of your use of 'we' and Google.

"Once more unto the breach"

Offline MK-84

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2272
Re: Tank destroyers
« Reply #40 on: July 20, 2011, 04:28:42 PM »
My point is that ability of the crew doesn't matter as much if the better crew is placed in an environment where they have to work harder. The T-34 (yeah, I put M4 at first, I was sleepy) had terrible crew ergenomics. It was small, it was uncomfortable, and it had only a 2 person turret crew which means each person is doing more things at once.

If the loader is tired he will be slower than when he started.

Better optics = less misses
Better gun = less ricochets or rounds failing to penetrate, which means less rounds fired

And side from that, the faster you kill what you're shooting at, the more likely you are to live. Imagine your shooting at a Tiger, in real life, with an T-34/85. From the side at a range of about 1100yds. If you don't kill him before he sees you, he'll turn that thick front armor and powerfull '88 on you and kill you're one and only irreplaceable azz. No second attempt, no respawning a new tank, you die.

So what is the point you are getting at?

Offline Tank-Ace

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5298
Re: Tank destroyers
« Reply #41 on: July 20, 2011, 04:33:12 PM »
Loon said that the charts posted don't show anything about the crew skill, rate of fire, or optics. My point is that there are circumstances that can negate or reduce the advantages given by those points.

did you read what I was talking about, or just that one individual post out of context?
You started this thread and it was obviously about your want and desire in spite of your use of 'we' and Google.

"Once more unto the breach"

Offline slayem

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 73
      • SWAMPDRAGONS  BASE
Re: Tank destroyers
« Reply #42 on: July 21, 2011, 03:38:19 PM »
Didn't the Germans come up with the Jagdtiger TD with a 128mm main gun?
 
SWAMPDRAGONS C.O.
"General, we're surrounded!"
"Then split the men and attack both ways."
Gen.N.B. Forrest

Offline fullmetalbullet

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 834
Re: Tank destroyers
« Reply #43 on: July 21, 2011, 06:22:29 PM »
Didn't the Germans come up with the Jagdtiger TD with a 128mm main gun?
 

yeah and they built 80 of them. a few served in the ardennes.
"Cry Havoc, And Let Slip The Dogs Of War" Julius Caesar