A few new GV's.

[Tank-Ace]

Panzer IV Ausf. F: 50mm frontal hull armor, 50mm frontal turret armor, 75mm KwK 37 L'24 or KwK 40 L'43.

This would give us a Panzer IV better representative of early set-ups such as Barbarossa, and North Afrika. We could have both cannons to represent earlier variants such as the Ausf. D with reasonable accuracy, as well as the later F2 and early G models.

It would also give us an ENY 35 vehicle with a powerfull cannon which we have been lacking.


SdKfz 251/9: a 251 with a 75mm L'24 gun, the 251/21: a 251 with 3 20mm cannons for anti-aircraft duty, and the 251/22: a 251 with a Pak 40 75mm AT gun mounted on top.

Would be a great ambush weapon, due to the small size and low profile. It would also be an effective town-killer just like the M3 75mm GMC we have now. This would also give us a fast anti-aircraft vehicle, with better firepower than the M16 MGMC.

[Karnak]

Wasn't the Ausf. D the standard Panzer IV of Barbarossa?

[Tank-Ace]

There was a mix. This is a compromise since it would let us do North Afrika set-ups as well. Although, we could just get an Ausf. F and give it both the long and short 75mm. No difference betwwen F2 and the early G models either.

Thanks for helping jump-start my brain. I'll edit the wish right now.

[skorpion]

Would be a great ambush weapon, due to the small size and low profile. It would also be an effective town-killer just like the M3 75mm GMC we have now. This would also give us a fast anti-aircraft vehicle, with better firepower than the M16 MGMC.

well, from the air, it would be a #2 target due to the large red icon stating where its at. (jeep is #1) and we have enough german tanks. theres the wirb/osti and the panzer/panther not to mention the tiger1/2. id rather take a StuG III Ausf G, M-18 (hehe i beat ya to it BAR) and a pershing. also, 4 .50 cals does far more damage than you think. maybe you suck at aiming them or you never really take the time to nail the moron in the face when he thinks hes going to kill you from a 20 degree angle of attack.

[Karnak]

There was a mix. This is a compromise since it would let us do North Afrika set-ups as well. Although, we could just get an Ausf. F and give it both the long and short 75mm. No difference betwwen F2 and the early G models either.

Thanks for helping jump-start my brain. I'll edit the wish right now.

The reason I mention it is that making a Panzer IV with the 75mm KwK 40 L'43 the standard German tank in Barbarossa settings would produce the non-historical result of the T-34/76 being decidedly inferior.  I don't think that would be a good thing.

[Tank-Ace]

Actually the T-34 would be equal if not superior. The KwK 40 can have trouble penetrating the T-34 much past 2000yds, while the T-34's 76mm gun would be able to punch through the Panzer's 50mm armor quite easily at that range.


And why do you want a US Tiger I? Pershing wouldn't be anything more than that. Personally I would rather see a Slugger more than a Pershing, and my new Panzers infinitly more than the slugger.

[skorpion]

Actually the T-34 would be equal if not superior. The KwK 40 can have trouble penetrating the T-34 much past 2000yds, while the T-34's 76mm gun would be able to punch through the Panzer's 50mm armor quite easily at that range.


And why do you want a US Tiger I? Pershing wouldn't be anything more than that. Personally I would rather see a Slugger more than a Pershing, and my new Panzers infinitly more than the slugger.

so your saying, you dont want any american firepower that can match the tigers? yeah...that makes sense. panzers are just thin skinned big guns that can be taken out by the M4/75. and if you say that the M4/75 isnt strong enough, well let me prove you wrong when i kill a panzer with one from 2k. the T34/76 was also superior to the panzer IV H when it was at an angle because all the shots would simply bounce off while the T34 ripped into the panzers thin skin.

[Karnak]

Actually the T-34 would be equal if not superior. The KwK 40 can have trouble penetrating the T-34 much past 2000yds, while the T-34's 76mm gun would be able to punch through the Panzer's 50mm armor quite easily at that range.

The K/D ratios between the Panzer IV H and T-34/76 say you're wrong, at least in AH.  The much higher rate of fire and better gun on the Panzer IV more than compensates it against the slightly tougher, more mobile T-34/76.

And why do you want a US Tiger I? Pershing wouldn't be anything more than that. Personally I would rather see a Slugger more than a Pershing, and my new Panzers infinitly more than the slugger.

Me?  I most certainly do not want an M26 Pershing of any kind.  There is no need for an American tank to match the Tigers.  Historically we didn't have it and in the MAs you can just use a Tiger.  The Russians have some toys that they actually used in numbers if something has to be added.  This "so and so has X, so America has to have something added to match X" is for the birds.

[B-17]

also, 4 .50 cals does far more damage than you think. maybe you suck at aiming them or you never really take the time to nail the moron in the face when he thinks hes going to kill you from a 20 degree angle of attack.

He was saying it was more effective/better firepower than is currently available for the vehicle-based AA (4x.50 cals)

3x20 mm cannon would be more EFFECTIVE, as you would need less ammunition to do some serious damage. Also, against the armored aircraft (which ones, I have no idea!) the 20mm would EXPLODE. More damage done.

[skorpion]

He was saying it was more effective/better firepower than is currently available for the vehicle-based AA (4x.50 cals)

3x20 mm cannon would be more EFFECTIVE, as you would need less ammunition to do some serious damage. Also, against the armored aircraft (which ones, I have no idea!) the 20mm would EXPLODE. More damage done.

4  .50 cals are just as effective. its called aim for the wing or the cockpit. you either make the plane go "kapoof" midflight or you take away its ability to fly. i guess if its not cannoned its not good in AH, IRL 4. 50 cals would do insane damage. even a single .30 cal was a danger to pilots. in AH its just a BB gun that would put a scratch in the paint and a crack in the glass and maybe make you duck then go at it again with a slightly different style of attack.

[B-17]

Are you saying I need to aim more accurately, or the damage modeling in AH is off?

[skorpion]

Are you saying I need to aim more accurately, or the damage modeling in AH is off?

neither. im saying if you dont know how to actually use the M-16 correctly, dont say its not good.

[B-17]

Ahhh... I see. Offline is a really bad place to practice with the M-16, unless I'm shooting the little WWI planes.

[skorpion]

Ahhh... I see. Offline is a really bad place to practice with the M-16, unless I'm shooting the little WWI planes.

your better off climbing a nearby hill, and shooting at a p38 thats 1k away.

[Tank-Ace]

Skorpion, quit ankle humping, its really annoying. Contribute and stop trying to derail the thread or leave.


Karnak, we're talking about the Panzer IV Ausf. F2 with only 50mm frontal armor, not the 80mm of the Panzer IV H. Huge difference there.