Author Topic: Tiger A Little Fast? (Read 1172 times)

hazed- · « **Reply #15 on:** December 20, 2002, 01:54:42 PM »

thought id repeat an answer i gave ealier in another thread in here...........

I think theres a fairly good reason to keep the axis tanks as the 'top gun' in AH as tanks are introduced.

By this i mean generally on the battlefields the German tanks were superior in firepower but inferior in numbers.
AH should try to reflect this i feel.Otherwise if we add now the latest 1944-45 allied tank buster we will see the tiger suddenly become nothing special! rather than have it appear as unusually durable/Tough opponent like it was when the allies came up against them, it will seem just like any other tank.

I feel we really need to let the tiger have its time in the limelight.
Shouldnt we first experience the panzer IV vs sherman M4 fights as the norm with the odd perk tiger appearing to strike a bit of dread into the fights?

If we suddenly add the firefly or M10 , fairly rare compared to shermans etc, we will see just the arcade like tiger vs m10 slogging fights.We know these engagements were less common but we would see it constantly in AH.

Id like to see what a sherman is like first and then see how much better the m10 or firefly is LATER.

The t34 for the same reason I think should be added after the sherman so we have the western front simulated before the eastern one as we have less of the eastern front planeset.

If I could choose some tanks these are what i would like and why:

American Sherman M4 .....The main/most common tank for the allies.(OR british version of same tank)
British Matilda tank ........For desert warfare with the panzer IV (very durable! but weak gun)
German armoured car ....to have parity with allies M8 or M3
Russian T.34................... for Eastern front model set
Japanese and British Light tanks from asian theatre or pacific (US light tank chafee?)

If during the addition of these tanks HTC decide to add something rare for the allies like the tank destroyers that can penetrate the tiger Id hope HTC introduce the even more formidable King tiger (with appropriate high perk cost) so the Axis can field another formidable tank but it costs them resourses just like the real ones did.

anyone else agree this would be a good way of doing it?

Jester · « **Reply #16 on:** December 20, 2002, 03:28:37 PM »

Agree with you Hazed.

To keep the TIGER "Special" as it was on the battlefield it should be perked so to keep it's numbers down. (CT ESPECIALLY). Otherwise the Panzer IV (Main tank of the German Armored Forces) is going to just become another Hangar Queen with only Tigers running around.

I would suggest the following simple formula:

Any Armored Vehicle with a gun above 76mm be Perked (except for Howitzers).
TIGER 1
KING TIGER
T-34/85
M36 JACKSON

Any at 76mm or below not be perked:
ALL AVAILABLE NOW
T-34/76
M4 SHERMAN
PANTHER
KV-1
M10 ARCHER
M18 HELLCAT

This would keep the number of Tigers low, as per history, plus it would also add the excitement of never knowing when a Tiger is going to pop out of the blue during a fight.

Karnak · « **Reply #17 on:** December 20, 2002, 04:43:08 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Andijg
Agree with you Hazed.

To keep the TIGER "Special" as it was on the battlefield it should be perked so to keep it's numbers down. (CT ESPECIALLY). Otherwise the Panzer IV (Main tank of the German Armored Forces) is going to just become another Hangar Queen with only Tigers running around.

I would suggest the following simple formula:

Any Armored Vehicle with a gun above 76mm be Perked (except for Howitzers).
TIGER 1
KING TIGER
T-34/85
M36 JACKSON

Any at 76mm or below not be perked:
ALL AVAILABLE NOW
T-34/76
M4 SHERMAN
PANTHER
KV-1
M10 ARCHER
M18 HELLCAT

This would keep the number of Tigers low, as per history, plus it would also add the excitement of never knowing when a Tiger is going to pop out of the blue during a fight.

Pardon my vulgarity, but that's idiotic.

The Panther's 75mm gun is vastly better than the T-34/85's 85mm gun. The Panther is faster, better armored and better armed. Leaving it free and perking the T-34/85 would be utterly stupid.

Perk Tanks (bold already added):

Is-2
M-26 Pershing
Panther V G
Tiger I
Tiger II

Free Tanks (bold already added):

Churchill Mk VII
M4A3 (75mm)
M4A3E8 (76mm)
Panzer IV H
T-34/76
T-34/85

Pongo · « **Reply #18 on:** December 20, 2002, 06:09:28 PM »

wulfie · « **Reply #19 on:** December 20, 2002, 08:38:36 PM »

M4A3E8 should be perked. Only at end of war did close to 50% of Sherman carry 76mm.

T-34/85 should be perked. Vast majority of T-34 to see combat were T-34 M42 and T-34 M43 (both with medium velocity 76mm).

Assuming that 'perking' a unit is based on rarity.

Nonperked - (these MBTs/TDs made up over 70% of the 1942-1945 armored forces of the relevant Nations)

Pz IVH
StuG IIIG
M4 Sherman (75mm) (for U.S. and U.K.)
M10
T-34 M43
Cromwell (U.K.)

Moderate perk cost -

T-34/85
M4 Sherman (76mm)
M18

Large perk cost -

Pz VG
Pz VIE
M36
Sherman 'Firefly'

Huge perk cost -

Pz VIB
JPz V
IS-2
M26

Those perk listings take into account rarity and performance both.

Not perking the T-34/85 in the MA would cause some problems. No one would have any reason to drive the Sherman (75mm), T-34 (76mm) - the 2 most common Allied MBTs of WW2 by a huge margin (assuming they weren't already in Churchill VIIs, see below).

Not perking the Churchill VII? It's got better armor than the Pz VIE and a decent 75mm cannon.

But the biggest problem is the MA itself in terms of how to handle different era MBTs. You need to understand how the vehicles would interact. With this 'perk table'...

"Perk Tanks (bold already added):

Is-2
M-26 Pershing
Panther V G
Tiger I
Tiger II

Free Tanks (bold already added):

Churchill Mk VII
M4A3 (75mm)
M4A3E8 (76mm)
Panzer IV H
T-34/76
T-34/85"

...the Churchill VII would dominate the non-perk MBTs. Not a single one of those non-perk MBTs can penetrate the Churchill VII frontally with their MA. The Churchill VII can penetrate the Pz IVH fairly easily at 500m, and can penetrate every other non-perk vehicle a fair (~50% of hits) amount of the time frontally at 500m.

Moreso than with aircraft, I think rarity would need to play a large part of what is perked.

When dealing with a 'historical' arena, sorting out the 'when and how much' for GVs becomes alot easier.

Mike/wulfie

Jester · « **Reply #20 on:** December 20, 2002, 09:30:28 PM »

That's your opinion Karnak, no need to get nasty about it. If you don't like my suggestion put up a better argument rather than just being rude.

When I was listing which should be perked and which shouldn't - it was just a suggestion to get the idea going. I was refering to something more like Wulfie has put up. A "Perk Scale" more or less for the tanks. (Great list BTY Wulfie !)

BTW, You need to read your tables again in you think the T-34/85 shouldn't be perked and the PANTHER should. Maybe like Wulfie said - they should be slightly perked - in a class between the Heavies and Mediums.

Karnak · « **Reply #21 on:** December 21, 2002, 02:06:07 AM »

Andijig,

You are correct. My appologies.

wulfie,

That doesn't make sense either. The Ostwind isn't perked. The La-7 isn't perked. The Spitfire F.Mk IX isn't perked. The N1K2 isn't perked. The Ki.67 isn't perked. The C.205 isn't perked.

If numbers or relative frequency of appearance were the sole governing factor in whether a unit is perked or not all of the above would be perked.

The main consideration that HTC seems to give in determining a unit's perk status is how powerful it is. The T-34/85, M4A3E8 and Churchill Mk VII simply aren't powerful enough to warant perking.

In the MA it is irrelevant that the M4A3 (75mm) and T-34/76 were much more common. Those units, like Spitfire Mk Is, Bf109E-4s, P-40s and A6M2s, are primarily scenario units.

In the case of the Churchill Mk VII, it is very slow and its gun is pretty poor on penetration capability. Those factors balance out its good armor value.

bj229r · « **Reply #22 on:** December 21, 2002, 08:05:01 AM »

I assume the Sherman was at least FASTer than panzer? If it went 35 or so....guys would drive it for thsat reason..might kill m8 interest tho

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #23 on:** December 21, 2002, 08:25:29 AM »

Karnak M4A3 with HVSS was extremly rare and only appeared in late 1944 early 45, this was the final Sherman variant.

If any Sherman is done it should be a M4A3 75(w), the best and latest 75mm VVSS variant, otherwise nobody would ever use Panzer IV again because a 76mm Sherman would have similar firepower and much much better AA. So one would have a choice between surving planes a bit better or better AP punch. Similarly with T34/85 you would have the option of a bit more speed and armor but no AA, while still same AP firepower as Panzer IV. A 75mm Sherman would alse enable accurate scenarios from 1942 to 1945.

Pongo · « **Reply #24 on:** December 21, 2002, 11:54:22 AM »

The Panther should be a higher perk then the Tiger 1. And the T34-85 should probably not be perked at all.
The T35-85 and the Panther are not equivilent...
The panther is a far more powerfull tank.
The Panther has better front armour then the tiger..A beter anti tank gun and greater speed.
The T34-85 gun is equivelent to the Panzer IV vs armour and the Tiger vs HE targets. It has weaker armour. but greater speed. And no AAMG at all.
The Panther is nearly as impervios to air attack as well. The T34 is not.
I still hope the next tank we see is a T34-85. High ENV value but not perked. Basically it has to flank a tiger to kill it..but gets there much quicker and can flank kill from a meaningful range.

The Panzer IVH

hazed- · « **Reply #25 on:** December 21, 2002, 01:23:05 PM »

I think the best way to use the perk system is to try to produce more engagements between the lesser tanks.

ie
t34/76
sherman M4 75mm
Panzer IV H
Matilda

use a perk system where if the tank was rare then it costs perks to field it:

ie

Tiger I
Panther V
T34/85
Firefly
M30

etc

this way generally you will see shermans and matildas etc vs panzer IVs and perhaps the german 75mm assault tank (cant remember its name)
BUT every now and then you will see a nasty tiger appear and it will start to hurt those shermans etc.
Then the Allied players will pay some perks for a specialised tank like the firefly (always should be cheaper than tigers etc as there were more produced) to tackle the tiger problem.

I really would like to see this sort of thing in AH. Id also like to see a lot more use of fast armoured cars for scouting which was the whole point of them. Use the cheap armoured cars to check out the enemy, then bring up the armour to attack. If its stopped by a heavy tank then bring up your own heavy to tackle it whilst your countrymates try to outflank with the cheaper tanks.

The other day me and my squadie straccop had a small taster of a combined assault, using the panzer to scout ahead as the tiger covered from a distance.With a few others around it was great fun. Id like to see even more of this but with proper allied vs axis vehicle set so we can have some great looking battles.

wulfie · « **Reply #26 on:** December 21, 2002, 03:50:41 PM »

No Pongo, the Pz VIE and Pz VG shouldn't be perked at all.

After all, both can be knocked out by the MA of and Sherman and/or any T-34.

I'll wait about 5 posts and add "when hit in their flank armor" if you don't mind.

Mike/wulfie

Karnak · « **Reply #27 on:** December 21, 2002, 06:04:25 PM »

The problem with perking the M4A3E8 and T-34/85 is that the Panzer IV H is a better tank than either of them, though it is arguable in the case of the T-34/85.

Both of those tanks would be useless as perk units. The Panzer IV H has a better gun than either, and unlike the T-34/85 it has some AA defense.

The T-34/76 and M4A3 (75mm) have such crappy guns that players might as well take an M8 for all the effect they'll have on other tanks.

You have to remember that the German superiority in tanks quality didn't appear until 1943. Before 1943 the British and Russian tanks were superior. Forcing the British (Matilda) and Russian (T-34/76) 1942 tanks to confront the 1944 German tanks might satisfy American impressions of German tanks, but those impressions were formed in late 1944 when we were using Shermans against Panthers and Tigers.

If the T-34/85 is to be perked, then perk the Panzer IV H and add the Panzer IV F and a 1942 Panzer III.

bj229r,

Nope. The M4 Sherman has a top speed of 26mph. For a fast tank you need to look to the T-34 or Panther V G.

Pongo · « **Reply #28 on:** December 21, 2002, 06:32:52 PM »

wulf..
that is how anti tank guns are used...Sorry if it hurts your feelings.
Hazed..
your list of rare tanks doesnt include any rare ones.
5000 panthers
2000 tiger ones
probably 5000 or more T34-85s.

The Matilda is totaly out clased by all those tanks. Slower(walking speed). a pathetic 40mm gun

Keep it like it is. Non perk tanks should be roughly the same in capablility as the Panzer IVh. The two that are are the T34-85 and the M4a3 75. They provide excellent trade offs vs the Panzer IV. and leave room for real heavy hitter tanks as perks.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #29 on:** December 21, 2002, 06:50:48 PM »

In AH a 76mm Sherman will make the Panzer IV useless because they will have rougly the same AP/HE capability, same speed, and mobility while the Sherman will have vastly better AA defense. RL Sherman weaknesses like awful shilouette and terrible cross country and floatation will not exist in AH.

I suggest this.

A 75mm Sherman.

An 85mm T34.

As for German tanks being inferior to allied tanks before 1943 thats somewhat misleading. Most allied tanks lacked something truley neccesary for a succesful WW2 tank. The T34 had no radios, 2 man turret and no commanders vision cupola. The KV had no radios, a terrible turret crew layout with three crew but only effective as two men, and again no commanders cupola. All the French tanks had a one man turret, this made them almost useless operationally in WW2 battles. The British had too many tank types. The various Cruisers were too lightly armored and lacked good turret crews, the early churchill was an outdated near stepchild of WW1 with massive armor and weight but with a 2 pounder gun in the turret and a limited traverse howitzer in the hull. The Sherman appeared in late 1942 and fixed almost all those deficiencies, but by that time Germany allready had Panzer IV with L43 and L48 75mm and not to mention Tiger I which just entered combat.

But ever since Panzer III Germany had all those things a 5 man crew, radios, full vision cupolas, adequate armor, speed, mobility, and very good reliability to boot. Their greatest weakness was armament of 37mm or low velocity 75mm. The 37mm on Panzer III was soon replaced by a medium length 50mm and then by a very long 50mm that was prolly the equal of many 75mm. The Panzer IV got a longer 75mm L43 by the F2 model and then the awesome L48 late G models.

So you see German tanks were not all that at a disadvantage in actual battles. On paper yes they looked weaker, but battles were not fought on paper.