Panzer III please

[Butcher]

Hardly, while it couldn't fight the late-war tanks on even terms, or T-34's at range, it could still kill the Panzer IV F, T-34's at close range, M4's at close range, and other Panzer III's easily enough.

And in the main arenas, the Panzer III would probably get more use than the Churchill, just because its 10 mph faster, and more use than the KV-1 because it's easier to hide, and would be manuverable enough to escape fire that would blow the turret off of a KV1.


Bigger gun and better armor doesn't mean something will be more usefull. See the IS-2 for example, it would probably be relegated to a town killer, since it's gun and armor would be little better than that of a Tiger I, and its inferior in just about every other way.
Really, theres no argument for not adding the Panzer III at all, and the only real argument for 'not right now' is 'more fighters!'.

Town killer? the IS-2 was a Breakthrough heavy tank - used to bust through fortifications with he rounds, but its mobility was on par with a Tiger, Armor was far better and Gun packed a hell of a punch enough to knock out a Tiger/Panther. There is no inferior to it, IS-2 would be on par with a King Tiger.

How many King Tigers are relegated to Town killing? none.

Panzer III wouldn't get more use than a Churchill tank, KV-1 yes depending which model, KV-85 would get used more then both churchill and Panzer III, KV-1 on other hand with hand cranked turret and no mobility would be useless, other than for scenarios as the Panzer III. Churchill on the other hand has VERY good armor, while a bit slower, has a pretty decent gun and quite a few modifications from a Townkiller with 95mm gun, or 75mm, standard issue was a 6lb gun, early versions had a 2lb gun in the turret and 75mm Howitzer in the hull. Making it a pretty versatile tank all round, however if that doesn't take the case then Cromwell tank would certainly be added.

Cromwell did 40mph, had a 75mm long Barrel, and some 75mm or so of armor, pretty balanced medium tank setup, better then Panzer 4 - slightly less then M4(76) while faster then every tank even a T34/85.

Assuming HTC wants to go the route of making components for other things, the Panzer III makes a good choice - however as most will agree HTC tends to need time developing new things. Spending months to develop a tank nobody will use, just to have components for other things might not favor many players.
Especially when the Panzer III would pretty much be relegated to Scenario setups, since MW and EW are rarely populated by tankers.

In the long run it makes sense to add the Panzer III, its an iconic tank that stormed Europe at the height of the third reich, however if it comes down to a vote, I can see whatever was built in 1945 winning vs anything historical of value.

/Just ask the He-111

[chris3]

moin

i think a late panzer III with long 5,ocm gun would be a good adition.
You guys need to knew that the Panzer IV was disingned to suport Panzer III battel tanks.
with the late version of the Panzer III you can kill the most used tanks in AH.
And from my point of you view i like the Panzer iv F im better in using this eary panzer IV than the late version, why ever, and i think driving a late Panzer III wil be a alot of fun to me too :-).

A cromwell wold be a good choice too.

cu christian

[Tank-Ace]

Town killer? the IS-2 was a Breakthrough heavy tank - used to bust through fortifications with he rounds, but its mobility was on par with a Tiger, Armor was far better and Gun packed a hell of a punch enough to knock out a Tiger/Panther. There is no inferior to it, IS-2 would be on par with a King Tiger.

How many King Tigers are relegated to Town killing? none.

Panzer III wouldn't get more use than a Churchill tank, KV-1 yes depending which model, KV-85 would get used more then both churchill and Panzer III, KV-1 on other hand with hand cranked turret and no mobility would be useless, other than for scenarios as the Panzer III. Churchill on the other hand has VERY good armor, while a bit slower, has a pretty decent gun and quite a few modifications from a Townkiller with 95mm gun, or 75mm, standard issue was a 6lb gun, early versions had a 2lb gun in the turret and 75mm Howitzer in the hull. Making it a pretty versatile tank all round, however if that doesn't take the case then Cromwell tank would certainly be added.

Cromwell did 40mph, had a 75mm long Barrel, and some 75mm or so of armor, pretty balanced medium tank setup, better then Panzer 4 - slightly less then M4(76) while faster then every tank even a T34/85.

Assuming HTC wants to go the route of making components for other things, the Panzer III makes a good choice - however as most will agree HTC tends to need time developing new things. Spending months to develop a tank nobody will use, just to have components for other things might not favor many players.
Especially when the Panzer III would pretty much be relegated to Scenario setups, since MW and EW are rarely populated by tankers.

IS-2 is 2 mph slower, has a worse HP/ton ratio, has a much slower firing weapon, poorer balistics, and little better penetration than the 8,8cm KwK 36 L/56. Its armor is going to be about that of the Panther from the front, minus the lower hull weak spot, and about as much as the Tiger I on the hull sides.

Really, its HE, and its frontal armor are going to be the only redeeming qualities, the 88mm L'56, 75mm L'70, and 17lber will out-shoot the A19, even if they won't out-hit it. And the 88mm L'71 will do both.


I don't know about you, but that sounds a hell of a lot like inferiority, and town-killer set up.



Few, because its 88mm L'71 can get off about 6 rounds per minute, as opposed to the IS-2's ~3ish, and its far and away the best anti-vehicle cannon in the game. Even the 128mm L'55 didn't match it for maximum penetration in real life.




Depending on the model, the Churchill would without question see less use than a Panzer III. 25mph, 50mm armor, and a 50mm L'60 is better than 15mph, 102mm of armor, and a 2lber. A Mk III or IV would see more use than the Panzer III J, but even the Ausf. L might be close to equal. A Mk VI would probably see less use, since its essentially an up-armored but significantly slower M4.

So yeah, it really comes down to the variant in question.



The Cromwell had a short 75mm, firing the same rounds as the US M3 Tank Gun.

[Butcher]

Depending on the model, the Churchill would without question see less use than a Panzer III. 25mph, 50mm armor, and a 50mm L'60 is better than 15mph, 102mm of armor, and a 2lber. A Mk III or IV would see more use than the Panzer III J, but even the Ausf. L might be close to equal. A Mk VI would probably see less use, since its essentially an up-armored but significantly slower M4.

You are forgetting the Panzer III has to face all the late war monsters, including the churchill in the late war arena. Were not talking an easy war version in that case you put the Panzer III e would not stand up to anything other then a building. Churchill early version would be in a class of Panzer III, T34/41, Panzer 4 F, in which case it depends whether HTC allows the L/43 in which case it would dominate Early war, doesn't matter which tank gets added.

Late war models of the Panzer III is the N, which was basically a support tank for the Panther/Tiger starting in early 1943, the L models were phased out for Panzer 4 F's.

Again I have nothing against the Panzer III, its iconic value remains much, but if HTC added the Panzer III for early war (including variations) lets see an early war tank it couldn't touch the Char B1. After all, I've been begging for the D.520 which was a modern day French Fighter, the Char B.1 was a pretty darn good tank, throw it in the late war arena it would be useless of course, early war it would eat Panzer I/II/III/IV's for breakfast.

In my opinion, Late war dominates the ground vehicle battles of Aces High, EW/MW have absolutely no tanking period, thus leaves Late War - although I know less then 5 that use the M3/M8 - adding a Panzer III simply would be more of iconic if nothing more then hanger value. Aircraft are another reason, in scenarios, snapshots and FSO - aircraft are dominate used, Scenario's sometimes use ground vehicles, but to a very limited capacity.

If Aces High ever evolved as a game to point ground vehicles play a role to extent there are enough tankers to compete with a game like WW2 online - then it makes perfect sense, but for now FSO and LWA dominate Aces high, and it should be taken in consideration these are the factors that need to be looked into. Believe me I wish Snapshots were taken more seriously, I would love to see hundreds show up for a one/two hour scenario NOT linked to FSO every week.

[Tank-Ace]

And an Ausf. L could take on most of the LW tanks about as well as an M4(75) could. Better than the M4 in some ways, especially if they gave it a few APCR rounds. The damn things penetrated 130mm of armor at a 30 degree slope at 100mm. For a 50mm gun, thats damn impressive.

The Churchill Mk III doesn't quite make it into EW IIRC, while the Panzer III J₂ makes it in, meaning that the EW Panzer III would probably see more use than the EW churhill. Hell, I think the Ausf. L might barely make it into EW.


The Panzer III Ausf. L saw use at Kursk, which was also the last battle that saw sizable use of the Panzer III. They weren't phased out by that point.

And the Panzer III Ausf J₂ would also be capable of combating the Char B1, as could a Panzer IV with the L'43.

[Butcher]

And an Ausf. L could take on most of the LW tanks about as well as an M4(75) could. Better than the M4 in some ways, especially if they gave it a few APCR rounds. The damn things penetrated 130mm of armor at a 30 degree slope at 100mm. For a 50mm gun, thats damn impressive.

The Churchill Mk III doesn't quite make it into EW IIRC, while the Panzer III J₂ makes it in, meaning that the EW Panzer III would probably see more use than the EW churhill. Hell, I think the Ausf. L might barely make it into EW.


The Panzer III Ausf. L saw use at Kursk, which was also the last battle that saw sizable use of the Panzer III. They weren't phased out by that point.

And the Panzer III Ausf J₂ would also be capable of combating the Char B1, as could a Panzer IV with the L'43.

Given the time frames, Panzer III up to H makes it before 1941, L model is midwar being after 1942. Panzer III Ausf J's were not in france btw, It was Ausf E's. H models were just coming into production for the Balkins campaign, and Barbarosa. J/L/M were after the realization that the Panzer III couldn't scratch  paint on the T-34/39/40 and the KV-1.
Of course any Late war Panzer III is more than a match for the Char B1, the Char was in service for france in 1940 where the Panzer IIIe was the dominate tank, as could a Panzer 4 F/L43 that was not debuted for 2 years later................ Given this time period the Panzer F was not even in service yet - Panzer 4 E/D were.

You cannot compare apples to oranges, of course a Panzer J would combat a Char B, except both are years apart in production time and dates, same as comparing a Tiger tank to a Pershing, one was produced in 1942 the other a few years later - given the time frame, many things have changed in war at this point.

IS-2 was not needed to combat tiger tanks, given so few were actually built - the IS-2 had a more main battle tank role, it was to break through fortified lines and kill that single Tiger while breaking through an entire defensive line.

[Tank-Ace]

The cutoff date for EW is past 1941, as the 190A5 is in EW, as is the Spit 9. Panzer III J's came into service late 1941/early 1942.


Exact service dates matter little in the MA, as they're all mixed in indiscriminately, as you've been so eager to point out. So who cares if Panzer III J2 and the Churchill II didn't enter service at the same time, since the III J will still wail the crap out of a Churchill II if its well driven.




And what the IS-2 was designed to do is entirely irrelvent. In AH it would be a mediocre heavy tank, mostly relegated to town killing and base attack (because of its HE shells) rolls, and would be of limited value in a GV vs GV engagment. It would probably inferior to the Tiger I. Almost certinaly inferior if we get the 1943 model.

And it would almost certianly be inferior to the Panther in the typical MA enviornment, as the Panther will out shoot the IS-2 all day long.

[Butcher]

And what the IS-2 was designed to do is entirely irrelvent. In AH it would be a mediocre heavy tank, mostly relegated to town killing and base attack (because of its HE shells) rolls, and would be of limited value in a GV vs GV engagment. It would probably inferior to the Tiger I. Almost certinaly inferior if we get the 1943 model.

And it would almost certianly be inferior to the Panther in the typical MA enviornment, as the Panther will out shoot the IS-2 all day long.

You brought it up as the Is-2 would be a useless town killer, given how many Panthers it would face in a normal Aces High situation I say it would be perked far more then a Tiger and less than a King tiger, in which it would dominate in either a defensive position or offense.

People choose a Panther over a Tiger why? it answers my question.

[Tank-Ace]

You brought it up as the Is-2 would be a useless town killer, given how many Panthers it would face in a normal Aces High situation I say it would be perked far more then a Tiger and less than a King tiger, in which it would dominate in either a defensive position or offense.

People choose a Panther over a Tiger why? it answers my question.

I said the Is-2 would be a good town killer, but mediocre in most other roles. Certinally inferior to the Panther when attacking enemy tanks, and probably inferior to the Tiger I as well.

Given the fact that the Panther out-shoots the Is-2 by a much larger margine than the Panther out-shoots the Tiger I, I'm inclined to doubt it.

There is litterally not a chance in hell the Is-2 would be perked above 30 base price, and I think even 25 would be a strech. And because of the slow, 3rpm rate of fire, you'll end up with a situation similar to that of the Firefly: the perk price not being worth the advantage typicaly gained from using the vehicle in combat.


People choose the Panther over the Tiger I because they feel it has a better blend of characteristics for the typical GV fight in Aces High, where speed and manuverability, and gunning is critical.



At range, the IS loses because its much less likely to hit on the first shot, and it'll be another 20 seconds before it can shoot again. In a brawl, it loses because its basicly first hit wins, and its completely boned if theres a second tank anywhere within about 800yds.

We're talking a 20 second reload time for the IS-2, and gun penetration not much better than that of the 88mm L'56. Combine that with inferior optics, inferior balistics, lower speed, worse manuverability, and only 22 shells, and really you have a recipie for a rather unpopular, situation-specific tank.

[Debrody]

Oh, damn it Jager, its amazing.
A good town killer what carryes 28 rounds, shots one in every 25 seconds, and is perked to like 40... aye, an awesome a20 magnet. A good town killer is the...  75mm m4! excellent fire rate, 97 rounds + rockets. nuff said.
That tank still wasnt as bad. Dont belittle its cannon, its armor penetration was between the panther and the tiger2. The only disadvantage it had vs the tiger1 was the smaller ammo load.
I think it has far more place in the game than the panzer3 couse the majority of the tank combat was between the russians ans the germans, yet the germans have the panther, panzer4 f and h, the sdkfz251 (not a tank but still a GV) and the two tigers. The whole russian armada is represented by the 2 t34s.

[Noir]

I want a Char B1 then

[Tank-Ace]

Oh, damn it Jager, its amazing.
A good town killer what carryes 28 rounds, shots one in every 25 seconds, and is perked to like 40... aye, an awesome a20 magnet. A good town killer is the...  75mm m4! excellent fire rate, 97 rounds + rockets. nuff said.
That tank still wasnt as bad. Dont belittle its cannon, its armor penetration was between the panther and the tiger2. The only disadvantage it had vs the tiger1 was the smaller ammo load.

Come on Debrody, you've never been one to buy into propoganda and hype, don't start on me now.

The IS-2 is slower, has a worse HP per ton ratio, a roughly comparable ground preasure, and does not have the ability to turn in place. So manuverability goes to the Tiger I, even if by just a small margine.

The IS-2's gun, as you said, could get off about 1 round every 20 -25 seconds. Thats between 2.4 and 3 rounds per minute, as opposed to the Tiger I's 6-7 rounds per minute. The German optics were superior to those of the Russian IS-2, and I'd be willing to bet that the 88mm had better balistics. So the Tiger I will readily out-shoot an IS-2.

Penetration is slightly better than the 88mm L'56 at close range, although the 88mm falls behind at long ranges.

IS had 100mm on the turret front, 100mm glacis (flat nose) or 100/60/120mm for lower, glacis and driver's plate (stepped nose). And 90mm on the sides/rear.

So for frontal armor, the IS-2 is somewhere between the Tiger I and the Panther for protection, depending on the model. And its going to have better overall protection.


So the Tiger I has better mobility and much better shooting, while the IS-2 has a moderate armor advantage, and a penetration advantage.


Overall, they would be about equal...... however, that 25 second reload time is going to hurt it in a tank fight, and hurt it bad. One miss, and its essentially screwed, because in that 20 seconds, the Tiger I is going to drop 3 shells onto it.

[Butcher]

Come on Debrody, you've never been one to buy into propoganda and hype, don't start on me now.

The IS-2 is slower, has a worse HP per ton ratio, a roughly comparable ground preasure, and does not have the ability to turn in place. So manuverability goes to the Tiger I, even if by just a small margine.

The IS-2's gun, as you said, could get off about 1 round every 20 -25 seconds. Thats between 2.4 and 3 rounds per minute, as opposed to the Tiger I's 6-7 rounds per minute. The German optics were superior to those of the Russian IS-2, and I'd be willing to bet that the 88mm had better balistics. So the Tiger I will readily out-shoot an IS-2.

Penetration is slightly better than the 88mm L'56 at close range, although the 88mm falls behind at long ranges.

IS had 100mm on the turret front, 100mm glacis (flat nose) or 100/60/120mm for lower, glacis and driver's plate (stepped nose). And 90mm on the sides/rear.

So for frontal armor, the IS-2 is somewhere between the Tiger I and the Panther for protection, depending on the model. And its going to have better overall protection.


So the Tiger I has better mobility and much better shooting, while the IS-2 has a moderate armor advantage, and a penetration advantage.


Overall, they would be about equal...... however, that 25 second reload time is going to hurt it in a tank fight, and hurt it bad. One miss, and its essentially screwed, because in that 20 seconds, the Tiger I is going to drop 3 shells onto it.

Think of the perk Value, far less then Tiger II, just above Tiger 1.

[Debrody]

No hard feelings involved, Jager. Just stated that your comment as the IS2 would be a good town killer is plainly nonsense.
Also the tiger has a 100mm vertical frontal plate, the panther has a 80mm sloped, yet the IS2 has 100mm sloped or 120mm but less sloped, also 90mm (!) of side armor, how it comes its between the two german tanks?
True, the fire rate is slow and the ammo load is small, still, dont rush or spawn camp with it and it will peform well. Possibbly better than the later Panzer3's, what seemed to be inpotent to the t34/76s...

[BaldEagl]

I'd rather see any British tank before another variation of the Panzer.  Honey (actually U.S.), Matilda, Valentine, Churchill, Crusader... just pick one.  Build it and they will come.

Of course an Skd armored car would still be a good addition to the German line-up.

And while we're wishing the D3A needs a serious update.