Yea, I probably came off a little stupid in my original post. What I am really rather confused, or maybe irritated about, is this. What is the Panzers purpose in the game? Why is it there? Is it there to fight other GV's? That seems logical, except for the fact that if your tank is strafed by .50 cal MGs (or even if it gets within 1500 yards of an M3), YOU CAN NO LONGER MOVE!
It takes me, on average, 2 hits with the main gun to kill an M3 or an M16. It takes them, on average, 2 hits to detrack me so that I can no longer move. This renders the panzer slightly useless on offense. If you want to take a GV to an enemy base, take an M16 or an Osty. The M16 is a better all around choice, because you can defend yourself against other GV's a lot easier than with the Osties waterhose, but both of those are far more survivable than the Panzer is.
If you want to DEFEND your base that is under attack from M16s or Ostys, take an M16. If you take a tank, you will lose your track, so get in the position you want to be in before you engage them. This is rendered much more difficult with the advent of 'towns' with the maproom outside of the base, since if you get detracked halfway to the town you are still fairly useless.
Also, why is the M8 in the game again? I thought it was a "light tank"... armored against machinegun fire but not the sort of main gun round that it and the Panzer has? Oh wait, that can't be right, because we seem to have depleted uranium .50 shells in the M16's 4 .50 caliber machineguns. Furthermore, the M8 isn't much faster than the Panzer is (I don't have a TON of experience in it, but when I was driving it yesterday I never got it above 27 mph, over level, open ground. The Panzer will do 24-25).
A couple other things about the Panzer that sort of bother me. First off.. the cupola gun in the Panzer doesn't rotate 360 degrees. Why? Shouldn't the rail for it run all the way around? Also.. that gun is a .30 caliber gun, why not make it a .50 caliber? The difference in hitting power between a .50 and .30 seems to be quite extraordinary, why not give the Panzer some way to defend itself from air attack? (Please note, the above is solely personal experience.. It is my experience that you CAN shoot someone down quite easily with the single .50 cal mounted on the M3's roof [and the M3 is also far less likely to be rendered immobile] when they make one pass, whereas in the Panzer you are lucky to shoot them down after 5 or 6 passes.)
One other question.. how well armored was the IL-2, historically? I assume it was armored sufficiently to stop 'ground fire', but what caliber ground fire? It is exceedingly easy to shred an Il-2 with the M16, would the armor on the real plane have stopped most of that damage?
On a side note I edited the name of the post, since apparently my 'histrionics' were bothering people.
[ 10-14-2001: Message edited by: Urchin ]
