3 new GVs

[Tank-Ace]

To those saying the German TD's are well represented, this is patently untrue. The 3 TD's we have only came into service in mid-late 1944, and represent roughly 1/30th of the German armored forces for the entire duration of the war.

The StuG series, on the other hand, represents about 2/7'ths of German armored forces (much more, if you don't count Panzer II's, and Pz 35/38(t)'s, and early/prototype variants of the Panzer III and IV, closer to 1/2, actually).


The SU-100, on the other hand, represents only around 1.5% of Soviet armored forces for the entire duration of the war, and only saw service from 1944 onward.

Basically, you are advocating an inferior Jagdpanther with a red star on it. Virtually useless for special events (given it has less than a year for which we could use it, and GV's are almost never used in special events), and beaten out by the Jagdpanther at the only thing it would be really good at.


The SU-76 would be most representative, overall, though the SU-85 would still be better as well.





As to the IS-2, it would blow as an anti-tank vehicle. 20 seconds to reload, just a poor ballistic coefficient, standard 2.5x optics, and awful armor penetration for how big of a shell you're throwing. That being said, you could kill the town in about 10 shots.

[Coalcat1]

I put out the request for the IS series because only one country, Germany, is represented with heavy tanks. Make the IS-1 cost the same as the T34/85 and the IS-2 cost the same as a Tiger 1.

[Wildcatdad]

I know, but I feel like we should balance the amount and type of GV's each country has before we worry about what impact it had. As long as it meets the guidelines and can make a contribution, I say add it. Then we can worry about what needs to be balanced as far as what was used most.
 
Edit: meant to be towards Tank- Ace, sorry

[Tank-Ace]

I know, but I feel like we should balance the amount and type of GV's each country has before we worry about what impact it had. As long as it meets the guidelines and can make a contribution, I say add it. Then we can worry about what needs to be balanced as far as what was used most.
 

Why? In the MA, you can take out a Jagdpanther, just like the other side. There's no need to balance out the "amount and type" of GV for each country, since you can just use another side's vehicle. Now should vehicles have any real use in special events, I would agree with you, but this is not the case.

Germany had a plethora of models and sub-types, the other side, not so much. We don't need any more than 2 T-34's to be representative of about 70% of soviet armored forces for the war, or 2 M4's for 70% of US armored forces. But we need about 6 tanks to do the same for Germany, or the UK. This being so, would it not stand to reason that Germany and the UK should have more vehicles than the Soviets or US?


And I think its utter BS that the UK only has 1 vehicle.

[Coalcat1]

To those saying the German TD's are well represented, this is patently untrue. The 3 TD's we have only came into service in mid-late 1944, and represent roughly 1/30th of the German armored forces for the entire duration of the war.

The StuG series, on the other hand, represents about 2/7'ths of German armored forces (much more, if you don't count Panzer II's, and Pz 35/38(t)'s, and early/prototype variants of the Panzer III and IV, closer to 1/2, actually).


The SU-100, on the other hand, represents only around 1.5% of Soviet armored forces for the entire duration of the war, and only saw service from 1944 onward.

Basically, you are advocating an inferior Jagdpanther with a red star on it. Virtually useless for special events (given it has less than a year for which we could use it, and GV's are almost never used in special events), and beaten out by the Jagdpanther at the only thing it would be really good at.


The SU-76 would be most representative, overall, though the SU-85 would still be better as well.





As to the IS-2, it would blow as an anti-tank vehicle. 20 seconds to reload, just a poor ballistic coefficient, standard 2.5x optics, and awful armor penetration for how big of a shell you're throwing. That being said, you could kill the town in about 10 shots.

 The IS tanks were not built on the same philosophy that German heavies where built on. Soviet tanks where ment to move in large groups and get up close, where their guns execled. German designs tended to be for longer range combat, in complete contrast to Soviet designs. Let's put it this way, which thank would you rather be in if your tank was forced into urban combat, an IS with a huge 122mm gun, or a tiger with an 88?

[Coalcat1]

I put out the request for the IS series because only one country, Germany, is represented with heavy tanks. Make the IS-1 cost the same as the T34/85 and the IS-2 cost the same as a Tiger 1.

  Well, if no one thinks they are good, might as well not perk em 

[Tank-Ace]

The IS tanks were not built on the same philosophy that German heavies where built on. Soviet tanks where ment to move in large groups and get up close, where their guns execled. German designs tended to be for longer range combat, in complete contrast to Soviet designs. Let's put it this way, which thank would you rather be in if your tank was forced into urban combat, an IS with a huge 122mm gun, or a tiger with an 88?

Patently untrue. The IS-2 was primarily designed as an anti-fortification vehicle, which is why it got the 122mm, instead of the 100mm, with much better balistic properties and armor penetration at all ranges.

Also, their guns did not excel at any range; compared to the German KwK 36 the soviet Zis-S-53 85mm gun fires a shell of roughly the same mass, at roughly the same velocity, and is completely underwhelming. Where the KwK 36 is arguably the 3rd or 4th best gun in the game, the Zis-53 is actually the 4th worse tank gun in the game, being superior to only the German KwK 37 75mm, the Soviet F-34, and US M3 75mm.

The Soviet D-25T 122mm does even worse; despite firing a shell weighing more than twice that of the KwK 36 (25kg vs 10.2kg) at the same muzzle velocity (800m/s), the D-25T only penetrates around 30-40mm more armor (depending on source).

The German KwK 43 fires a shell of the same mass as the KwK 36, at 1000m/s vs 800m/s and adds 100mm of penetration.



They did not move in large groups either, in most cases, they operated in individual tank platoons (IIRC, 4 vehicles for the soviets), supported by infantry and other lighter vehicles.

[Rich46yo]

To those saying the German TD's are well represented, this is patently untrue. The 3 TD's we have only came into service in mid-late 1944, and represent roughly 1/30th of the German armored forces for the entire duration of the war.

The StuG series, on the other hand, represents about 2/7'ths of German armored forces (much more, if you don't count Panzer II's, and Pz 35/38(t)'s, and early/prototype variants of the Panzer III and IV, closer to 1/2, actually).


The SU-100, on the other hand, represents only around 1.5% of Soviet armored forces for the entire duration of the war, and only saw service from 1944 onward.

Basically, you are advocating an inferior Jagdpanther with a red star on it. Virtually useless for special events (given it has less than a year for which we could use it, and GV's are almost never used in special events), and beaten out by the Jagdpanther at the only thing it would be really good at.


The SU-76 would be most representative, overall, though the SU-85 would still be better as well.





As to the IS-2, it would blow as an anti-tank vehicle. 20 seconds to reload, just a poor ballistic coefficient, standard 2.5x optics, and awful armor penetration for how big of a shell you're throwing. That being said, you could kill the town in about 10 shots.

  Im trying to really get a handle on your posts, how you figured out those representative percentages and exactly what they have to do with anything. If we need a Soviet TD why not model the best one. Most of all since we have Yank and German ones with the most effective guns they fielded. They built almost 2,000 SU-100s in WW2 aint that plenty? Besides all those TDs were built on the T34 frame so the only difference was the gun and amount of front plate tacked on.

[Tank-Ace]

How I know? One time I actually added up all the tanks and TD's for each nation, in order to see what the truth was as to the often-told story of Germany being outnumbered 3:1. In case of AFV's, it was almost exactly 5:1, in case you're wondering.

Considering the Soviets fielded almost 110,000 AFV's over the course of the war, 2000 is pretty small potatoes.

Second, the only German TD we got that I really wanted was the Hetzer. As for the rest, I would have been much happier with a StuG III, and a Nashorn if we absolutely had to have one with the 88mm L/71.


Besides, theres absolutely no logic behind that "might as well get the best" reasoning.

[Wildcatdad]

Why? In the MA, you can take out a Jagdpanther, just like the other side. There's no need to balance out the "amount and type" of GV for each country, since you can just use another side's vehicle. Now should vehicles have any real use in special events, I would agree with you, but this is not the case.

Germany had a plethora of models and sub-types, the other side, not so much. We don't need any more than 2 T-34's to be representative of about 70% of soviet armored forces for the war, or 2 M4's for 70% of US armored forces. But we need about 6 tanks to do the same for Germany, or the UK. This being so, would it not stand to reason that Germany and the UK should have more vehicles than the Soviets or US?


And I think its utter BS that the UK only has 1 vehicle.

What do they have other than the Firefly?
 

[Rich46yo]

Considering the Soviets fielded almost 110,000 AFV's over the course of the war, 2000 is pretty small potatoes.

Do you know how many vehicles and aircraft already in the game the same thing can be said of?

Besides, theres absolutely no logic behind that "might as well get the best" reasoning.

The ultimate logic is behind it. As in "people will actually use it". What good are hangar queens? If we can only have one then why model the lesser one? That far less players will actually use? That will be far less capable?

But..this is a wish list. So wish away.

[SmokinLoon]

Su-100

Panzer III with the 50mm Kw.K.39 L/60, or StuG III with both 7.5cm gun options (same as Panzer IV F1/F2)

Adding in another 2-3 variants of the SdKfz 251 would be good too.

Ditto for using the Sherman chassis as well.

[Coalcat1]

Su-100

Panzer III with the 50mm Kw.K.39 L/60, or StuG III with both 7.5cm gun options (same as Panzer IV F1/F2)

Adding in another 2-3 variants of the SdKfz 251 would be good too.

Ditto for using the Sherman chassis as well.

Add the huge low V HE gun for the Hetzer too! 

[lunatic1]

  hi--messed up post

[Rich46yo]

Patently untrue. The IS-2 was primarily designed as an anti-fortification vehicle, which is why it got the 122mm, instead of the 100mm, with much better balistic properties and armor penetration at all ranges.

Production realities had much to do with that decision too. The Reds simply couldnt make enough 100mm guns for both vehicles so it was decided the 122mm was "good enough". It was no secret at the time the 100mm was the better tank killer.

Throwing the available 100mm's on a T34 chasis just plain made sense, more sense, then letting them sit while an entire tank was being produced first. It got them in the field faster and was the only Soviet gun I'd compare to the German 88.