Where my KI-43?

[Karnak]

The Tiger II's most common historical opponent tanks were the T-34/85, T-34/76, M4A3(75) and M4A3(76), all of which we have. The fact that the Tiger II dominates each of those match ups doesn't make the non-historical

The only opponent of the Panzer III that we have at all is the T-34/76, which heavily over matches it.

[Tank-Ace]

Depends on the model. The Panzer III Ausf. L wouldn't fare too badly in the hands of an expierienced tanker.

[Butcher]

It doesn't really negate it's significance, thats like saying that the historical significance of the Tiger II is negated by the fact that we don't have the IS-2, or Pershing.
Right now, nothing we have can challenge it head on, and nothing could challenge it head on unless we went post-WWII, or into prototypes. But the Tiger II doesn't feel the lack, as the other tanks would only serve to highlight it's dominance, by going up against the best the enemy had, and beating it.

So your logic is because we have the Tiger 2, there must be some other tank that can beat it? In the same thinking - we have the 262 so we must add the P-80 to beat it?

Just because Pershings and IS-2's were available does not mean they faced Tiger 2's specifically. In reality the Tiger 2 didn't face the late war lineup you can dream of. T/34-85s, Shermans, Churchill Tanks,
Pershings military record is itchy enough, I proved that a few times you tried to debunk it, it fought in many separate engagements and only 1 squad was in combat. IS-2 is another story, I would favor the IS-1 being added in game which is no way going to combat a King Tiger. It will put up a fight with a Tiger/Panther.

There is a reason the Russians completely ignored the King Tiger - after capturing one they realized mechanically/armor wise it was sabotaged by the workers building it, enough they didn't even bother to lift a finger in attempting to combat a King Tiger, they figure "the few, the broken down" was going to hurt more overall, after all the Russians pumped out hundreds of tanks per one King Tiger. Whether this is the true reason is to be unknown, I support it's probably propaganda, but then again the way the war was going Germany lost it already.

The Panzer III might get added down the road, I hope its not any time soon honestly as it will be a waste of time for those that actually play the game. Only time it would combat right now is the Sherman 75/T34/76 which both would eat it up.
Historically significant? Sure the Panzer 3 holds its place - however for people paying $15 a month, an antique piece of junk won't last 15 seconds in the late war arena.

The Ki-43 however, holds its place in Aces High regardless. Panzer 3? not so much, perhaps once the GV lineups get more completed, then it will serve its purpose in scenarios down the road.

[Butcher]

Depends on the model. The Panzer III Ausf. L wouldn't fare too badly in the hands of an expierienced tanker.

an experienced tanker wouldn't be in a Panzer L, thus is why we have perks - I'll stay in my Panther, same with most the experienced tankers.

[ACE]

an experienced tanker wouldn't be in a Panzer L, thus is why we have perks - I'll stay in my Panther, same with most the experienced tankers.

His name is tank ace yet ive never seen him online?..

[Tank-Ace]

Butcher, that was just a massive fail on your part in the areas of reading comprehension. And just a failiure in general knowledge in some areas.

I have no idea how you arrived at the conclusion that I thought we needed tanks to beat the King Tiger. Nothing in my post even suggests that. What I said is that the Tiger II's historical significance (of a heavy-weight juggernaught) is not negated by the lack of contemporary US/Allied or Soviet design, because the Tiger II would still dominate those designs (IS-2, and M26) to almost the same degree that the Tiger II dominates the Tiger I's and Panthers it faces now.


And in LW, yeah, nobody would use the Panzer III L, because it would be out matched (unless it got APCR). However, the T-34/76 and M4A3(75) are both just about as crappy when you stack them up against a Panzer IV H or better.

And for that matter, the Panzer III isn't alone in this. The same could be said for just about any allied (and all soviet) tanks pre-1944.




Ace, I've been inactive for a while after a solid 6 year strech of play. I haven't played since September 2011.

[MK-84]

Depends on the model. The Panzer III Ausf. L wouldn't fare too badly in the hands of an expierienced tanker.

Yes it would.  It's slower, has inferior armor, and an inferior armament compared with every other tank we have.

[Tank-Ace]

Same speed as the Panzer IV, Tiger I, and is faster than the Firefly and Tiger II.


It's armor is a full 20mm thicker than the Panzer IV F's, and it's gun could penetrate the Panzer IV F's armor out to around 1300yds. It could penetrate the Panzer IV H's turret out to the same distance, the lower hulls of the M4 and T-34's out to about, say, 1000yds.



Its not nearly as bad as people are making it out to be, and its gun would be fairly quick firing too, which would provide a small advantage in some situations.

[HighTone]

Butcher, that was just a massive fail on your part in the areas of reading comprehension. And just a failiure in general knowledge in some areas.

I have no idea how you arrived at the conclusion that I thought we needed tanks to beat the King Tiger. Nothing in my post even suggests that. What I said is that the Tiger II's historical significance (of a heavy-weight juggernaught) is not negated by the lack of contemporary US/Allied or Soviet design, because the Tiger II would still dominate those designs (IS-2, and M26) to almost the same degree that the Tiger II dominates the Tiger I's and Panthers it faces now.


And in LW, yeah, nobody would use the Panzer III L, because it would be out matched (unless it got APCR). However, the T-34/76 and M4A3(75) are both just about as crappy when you stack them up against a Panzer IV H or better.

And for that matter, the Panzer III isn't alone in this. The same could be said for just about any allied (and all soviet) tanks pre-1944.




Ace, I've been inactive for a while after a solid 6 year strech of play. I haven't played since September 2011.

No Butcher did not fail...you did.

He is just using your augment against you. You have stated before that the Ki43 would be a hanger queen because in your opinion it's not better than something we already have......FAIL

+1 for OUR Ki43

[AustinAustin]

Got enough tiny gnats flying around.

Rather have a ki 45 or ki 102

[tunnelrat]

Butcher, that was just a massive fail on your part in the areas of reading comprehension. And just a failiure in general knowledge in some areas.

What I said is that the Tiger II's historical significance (of a heavy-weight juggernaught) is not negated by the lack of contemporary US/Allied or Soviet design, because the Tiger II would still dominate those designs (IS-2, and M26) to almost the same degree that the Tiger II dominates the Tiger I's and Panthers it faces now.

Being a Wehrmacht fanboi is one thing... but your assertion that an Ausf B. Tiger would dominate either an IS-2 or an M26 cannot be considered as having a basis in reality.

This is not to say that either the IS-2 or the M26 would dominate a King Tiger, either.

[Karnak]

Got enough tiny gnats flying around.

Rather have a ki 45 or ki 102

I can understand wanting the Ki-45 and/or Ki-102, but we are about to get another heavy fighter, the Me410, after having gotten a few bombers and lots of tanks lately.  The last new pure fighter airframes that were added are the B-239 and the I-16.  I think the fighter boys are due.

[tunnelrat]

I can understand wanting the Ki-45 and/or Ki-102, but we are about to get another heavy fighter, the Me410, after having gotten a few bombers and lots of tanks lately.  The last new pure fighter airframes that were added are the B-239 and the I-16.  I think the fighter boys are due.

+1 this... nothing more need be said.

[AustinAustin]

I can understand wanting the Ki-45 and/or Ki-102, but we are about to get another heavy fighter, the Me410, after having gotten a few bombers and lots of tanks lately.  The last new pure fighter airframes that were added are the B-239 and the I-16.  I think the fighter boys are due.

Oh , I'm new. Didn't know a 410 was coming. Didn't the 410 have guns that shot upward? Feel sorry for the "oh no, no belly gun" buff drivers. Still be nice to round out the Nippon selection with a twin.

[Karnak]

Oh , I'm new. Didn't know a 410 was coming. Didn't the 410 have guns that shot upward? Feel sorry for the "oh no, no belly gun" buff drivers. Still be nice to round out the Nippon selection with a twin.

I am not sure if Me410s ever had Schragg Musik, but some Bf110G-4s had it as well as some other Luftwaffe and Japanese aircraft.  But those were used at night only and the daylight versions of those fighters would not have the guns firing up at 45 degrees forward.