Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: chris3 on November 01, 2008, 05:08:14 PM
-
moin
what about this...
(http://www.achtungpanzer.com/gallery/images/jagd4_6.jpg)
(http://armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/WWII/jagdIV/jgdpz4.jpg)
(http://www.armchairgeneral.com/rkkaww2/galleries/axiscaptured/SPG/JgPzIV/JgPz_IV_01.jpg)
(http://necrosant.oranc.co.kr/zbxe/files/attach/images/3392/253/005/Jagdpanzer%20IV%2048.jpg)
would be a very nice tanke for the AH battelfields.
-
Moin
wow
no one has an opinion to this vehicle???? impressive! :eek:
cu chris3
-
Love to see it be added i think it do just fine in HTC but i think the good old Stug should be added. (http://www.achtungpanzer.com/images/stug_1.jpg) (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c4/Stug_III_02.jpg/800px-Stug_III_02.jpg)(http://www.tincrossmilitaria.com/Finnish%20Tank.jpg)
-
yea definetly, why not add another german tank. :aok
-
I'm a StuG fan and I agree with glock, the IV 70 was a very nice tank (I think less than 2000 were produced though), but the StuG was a lot more common (over 10,000 (!) StuG IIIs and IVs were produced during the war) and should be added to the game's tank selection much sooner than this.
I'd like to see at least the StuG III G and StuG IV in AHII and maybe these other StuG III variants:
StuG III Ausf. B (320 produced)
StuG III Ausf. E (272 produced. slightly beter armor on the sides than the B, plus the first to come with a MG34 to help protect itself from enemy infantry)
StuG III Ausf. F (359 produced. the F series was the first gun upgrade for the StuGs, it brought the StuGs enough firepower to be considered a tank destroyer, where before it was only really an effective infantry support tank.)
StuG III Ausf. F/8 (334 produced. a slight upgrade to the original F's gun and an improved hull design over the original F.)
StuG III Ausf. G (the most common StuG of WWII, 7,720 Gs were produced (compare that to the 8,800-ish Panzer IVs (all variants) produced)... how is this not in the game?! as the G series was based off a new chasis copied from the Panzer III, 173 additional ones were converted from existing battle-damaged Panzer III chasis.)
-
The Stug was the back bone for German TDs.
-
Hetzer and StuG gets my votes, Jagdpanzer after those 2
-
I highly doubt a tank or TD without a revolvig turret would be worth a hoot in AH2. Who would want to start up their engiones to turn their gun and risk giving away their position? Besides, with the low profile of the Hetzer/StuG/Jgdpzr IV say good bye to using a ridge or hill for cover as they wont be able to do anything 'cept for exposed straight on shots vs the enemy.
Oh... and imo, the StuG III was not a designated TD. It was an "assault gun". It could do it all depending on what was needed, but it excelled at nothing 'cept being cheap.
If AH2 is going to introduce a legit TD, I suggest HTC seriously look at the M10 or M18. The M10 would be easiest to add due to the chassis being the same as the current Sherman/Firefly, iirc. I'd like to see the M18 added because it would add in a whole different aspect to the game: a fast (45-50mph off road?) and powerful gun (between the Pzr IV 75mm and Firefly's 17lb'er) with very little ability to stand and fight due to low armor (fragile!). Perfect for shootin'-n-scootin'.
-
The Stug wouldn't offer much over the Panzer IV we already have, same 48 calibre gun but no turret. Slightly lower silhouette and some more armour, but that's not much of an edge to compensate for the loss of the turret. The Jagdpanzer however has the much more powerful 70 calibre 75mm gun from the Panther. The Jagdpanzer would be less work for HTC to introduce than the Panther as the bottom half of the tank is basically the same as the Panzer IV.
-
Jagdpanther?
-
The StuGs front armor was pretty thick, and I don't know if this is programed in the game, but if drivers could park their StuGs with some good downward or upward angle, most head-on shells will bounce right off... some exceptions, like the earlier StuGs could easily be taken out with a shot right beneath their main gun (a lot of the more produced and earlier WWII german tanks could). So if those strengths can't be taken advantage of, then no, a lot of tank destroyers in AH would be "gimped" by the game since they can't exploit their strengths. It will already be fairly easy to take them out in this game from the air with cannons to their tops and rears (larger cannons won't have a problem with most TD side armor either I suspect).
-
I highly doubt a tank or TD without a revolvig turret would be worth a hoot in AH2. Who would want to start up their engiones to turn their gun and risk giving away their position? Besides, with the low profile of the Hetzer/StuG/Jgdpzr IV say good bye to using a ridge or hill for cover as they wont be able to do anything 'cept for exposed straight on shots vs the enemy.
Oh... and imo, the StuG III was not a designated TD. It was an "assault gun". It could do it all depending on what was needed, but it excelled at nothing 'cept being cheap.
If AH2 is going to introduce a legit TD, I suggest HTC seriously look at the M10 or M18. The M10 would be easiest to add due to the chassis being the same as the current Sherman/Firefly, iirc. I'd like to see the M18 added because it would add in a whole different aspect to the game: a fast (45-50mph off road?) and powerful gun (between the Pzr IV 75mm and Firefly's 17lb'er) with very little ability to stand and fight due to low armor (fragile!). Perfect for shootin'-n-scootin'.
The problem with the 2 American choices is battlefield survivability. they would be no better than the current firefly. The stug was in fact the most important piece of armor to the German army. It was basically the back bone of both infantry and panzer divisions . To say it did nothing well is not correct. If I were a tanker and my choice was a Sherman , Churchill or Stug I would go Stug everytime. The Tigers turret traverse is very slow and starting it's engines rather than wait for the barrel to go around 180deg makes more sense to me, besides in lw TT where this would be used there are engine noises coming from everywhere so what's the big deal about leaving your engine running. You could use this thing to sit in the trees concealed and fire from standoff range where it's limited barrel traverse would be just fine. I'm sure that some of the games best tankers would find a use for it and be quite deadly with it.
-
The Stug wouldn't offer much over the Panzer IV we already have, same 48 calibre gun but no turret. Slightly lower silhouette and some more armour, but that's not much of an edge to compensate for the loss of the turret. The Jagdpanzer however has the much more powerful 70 calibre 75mm gun from the Panther. The Jagdpanzer would be less work for HTC to introduce than the Panther as the bottom half of the tank is basically the same as the Panzer IV.
The majority of the stugs had the L/48 75mm gun, same as the current panzers and its frontal armor and mantlet armor were much thicker than the panzers.
-
The Stug is most underrated tank out there got over shadow by the bigger Germans TD's i know i seen Stugs with 105mm guns added near the end of the war just like the Sherman and it 105mm gun.
-
The Stug is most underrated tank out there got over shadow by the bigger Germans TD's i know i seen Stugs with 105mm guns added near the end of the war just like the Sherman and it 105mm gun.
Yup, I think it has to do with the StuGs apearance to other tanks of the day, it was short, fat, and had a really short and blunt nose (only a couple feet long cannon barrel at most) compared to the taller, sleeker hulls and longer protruding barrels (longer than a man is tall, typicaly) of the tanks.
-
Yup, I think it has to do with the StuGs apearance to other tanks of the day, it was short, fat, and had a really short and blunt nose (only a couple feet long cannon barrel at most) compared to the taller, sleeker hulls and longer protruding barrels (longer than a man is tall, typicaly) of the tanks.
But still good.
-
If were going to add TD's it should be for the Germans Stug Russia Su-85 or Su-100 American M-10. Just a thought.
-
it only looks like the gun aims up and down only, is it like artillery, or does it turn 360 degrees?
-
The Stug only aims up and down same with the Su-85 and Su-100 the M-10 doesn't it turn 360 degrees. But allowing the TD's such as the Stug and the Su-85 without the turret save weight and time to build them and make them harder to see at long range.
-
M-10 would be cannon fodder in this game.
-
Sorry to say any american TDs without a covered top....is more useless then the StuG. I believe they had a 38* side traverse (probably wrong its 6:34am) If TDs are added (mainly germ/rus) then wed have to give them an edge, since most TD use would be defence and rear guard actions a few things need to be bumped up for them. Such as more magnification to commander/pintle and more bushes/grass to conceal yourself in. And if the StuG was so useless then why did Michael Wittman learn most of his tactics in them? (along with scout cars in the beginning and later a PIII then Tiger) the StuG is very underrated. Look at WW2 OL, the most success's i had in that game wernt tigers, PIVGs, or IIIH's it was in the StuG IIIG (then again they have a lot of ground "clutter" then well ever have. Id vote for anything russian or german...american... i like that their fast,good gun but thats where it ends.
-
Quite an elementary arguement, sorry to say. ;)
Remember, how the Germans used the StuG in WWII would be very different vs how they could be used in AH2. It offers *nothing* that the current Pzr4 cant do better.
You mentiojned "battlefield survivability"... stop and think just how quickly our current line up gets knocked out. I mentioned the M18 because it offers something we dont cuurently have: high speed, medium gun (better than current Pzr4, less than 17lb'er), and low armor (but better than M8). The M18 would be able to stand up vs the auto ack better than the M8, but not much else above it. It isnt designed to stand and fight, it is designed to shoot-n-move. I could see a JgdPzr IV being used as a legit TD in this game, but even then it would be handicapped.
The StuG would get owned in this AH2 game. Stop and think how often one can sit and only traverse their main gun 15d and do anything worth while. To start up the engine to turn the tank 45d or 90d to get a shot would be suicide. I try and mix up what tanks I tank in the game, and if the StuG would be introduced it would be considered a Pzr4 without a turrent. Would you take a Typhoon or La7 up and only use %50 of its throttle? No... why do you think anyone else would do the same in a Pzr4 vs StuG choice?
You mentioned the Sherman vs Churchill vs StuG???? and you picked the StuG??? There are far more perameters to think about than just for me to be able to blurt out "this one!" as a preference. Each of those tanks did something better than the other and the StuG was the most limited, imo.
The problem with the 2 American choices is battlefield survivability. they would be no better than the current firefly. The stug was in fact the most important piece of armor to the German army. It was basically the back bone of both infantry and panzer divisions . To say it did nothing well is not correct. If I were a tanker and my choice was a Sherman , Churchill or Stug I would go Stug everytime. The Tigers turret traverse is very slow and starting it's engines rather than wait for the barrel to go around 180deg makes more sense to me, besides in lw TT where this would be used there are engine noises coming from everywhere so what's the big deal about leaving your engine running. You could use this thing to sit in the trees concealed and fire from standoff range where it's limited barrel traverse would be just fine. I'm sure that some of the games best tankers would find a use for it and be quite deadly with it.
-
Yup, I think it has to do with the StuGs apearance to other tanks of the day, it was short, fat, and had a really short and blunt nose (only a couple feet long cannon barrel at most) compared to the taller, sleeker hulls and longer protruding barrels (longer than a man is tall, typicaly) of the tanks.
Once again the late models had the long barrel 75mm
-
Quite an elementary arguement, sorry to say. ;)
Remember, how the Germans used the StuG in WWII would be very different vs how they could be used in AH2. It offers *nothing* that the current Pzr4 cant do better.
You mentiojned "battlefield survivability"... stop and think just how quickly our current line up gets knocked out. I mentioned the M18 because it offers something we dont cuurently have: high speed, medium gun (better than current Pzr4, less than 17lb'er), and low armor (but better than M8). The M18 would be able to stand up vs the auto ack better than the M8, but not much else above it. It isnt designed to stand and fight, it is designed to shoot-n-move. I could see a JgdPzr IV being used as a legit TD in this game, but even then it would be handicapped.
The StuG would get owned in this AH2 game. Stop and think how often one can sit and only traverse their main gun 15d and do anything worth while. To start up the engine to turn the tank 45d or 90d to get a shot would be suicide. I try and mix up what tanks I tank in the game, and if the StuG would be introduced it would be considered a Pzr4 without a turrent. Would you take a Typhoon or La7 up and only use %50 of its throttle? No... why do you think anyone else would do the same in a Pzr4 vs StuG choice?
You mentioned the Sherman vs Churchill vs StuG???? and you picked the StuG??? There are far more perameters to think about than just for me to be able to blurt out "this one!" as a preference. Each of those tanks did something better than the other and the StuG was the most limited, imo.
First, Tigers dont or shouldn't get knocked out by anything at range other than by a firefly or another Tiger. Standoff suviverability is what I am referring to. The Stug or any German or Russian TD would be able to kill tanks at distance while being able to withstand hits from lets say a 76mm from a T-34 even a panzer. What did the Sherman do to any late war German tank other than chip it's paint. Not until they were equiped with the 76MM gun were they affective at killing tanks however they were able to be put out of action by almost everything the Germans had. . The Churshill was totally useless. It was super slow and had a gun that was good for nothing but infantry artillery support. Also shoot and move really wasn't acheived until a computer was used to stabilize the gun. You were still at the mercy of the terrain while driving and shooting in WW2 tanks so shooting on the move isn't really something a M-10 or M-18 can do any better than the current line of tanks we already have. It just will be able to shoot while going faster than the rest. Not a big deal if you ask me.
So not just killing tanks but all around usefullness between the 3 of those choices mine still would be the stug. I can assure that more Stugs killed more Shermans and Churchill's than the two of them killed Stugs combined .The Stugwouldn't be my first TD choice but it would provide a little more dynamics to the game than another tank that can be killed one shot all the time. Also take into consideration about bombing survivability. M-10 and the M-18 might as well be filled with candy like pinatas. Also as stated .... in LW TT there are so many engines running do you think starting you engine means suicide? Starting your engine even firing you gun doesn't give you position away all the time. It just informs the opposition that your there.
-
it only looks like the gun aims up and down only, is it like artillery, or does it turn 360 degrees?
not sure about the Stug but most German TD's have a side to side traverse as well as up and down.
-
Most Jagdpanzer style tank destroyers had around 15 degrees traverse each way for their gun.
-
I still want the Stug along with the Su-85 or the Su-100 and the M-10 would be great to have.
-
The Stug only aims up and down same with the Su-85 and Su-100 the M-10 doesn't it turn 360 degrees. But allowing the TD's such as the Stug and the Su-85 without the turret save weight and time to build them and make them harder to see at long range.
The StuGs and Su's had ~10-20 degrees of traverse, depending on the various makes and models combinations of the chasis and gun. I'd slap 15 degrees as the average. Same with the Su's too, they had a slight taversing angle, otherwise they'd never get to destroy a moving tank at anything but the closest ranges. You still had to slightly turn the tank to regularly adjust in a battle, unless you found some nice nook to hole up in, 15 degrees is only 15 degrees.
And in anything but raw flat open country, I'd choose a StuG III G or Stug IV to defend a position anyday (pending I had time (or familiartiy with the location i'm defending) to setup and take advantage of the StuG's strengths, but any tanker in any tank would want to familiarize themselves with the conditions and layout of a battlefield before going to battle in their tank).
-
The StuGs and Su's had ~10-20 degrees of traverse, depending on the various makes and models combinations of the chasis and gun. I'd slap 15 degrees as the average. Same with the Su's too, they had a slight taversing angle, otherwise they'd never get to destroy a moving tank at anything but the closest ranges. You still had to slightly turn the tank to regularly adjust in a battle, unless you found some nice nook to hole up in, 15 degrees is only 15 degrees.
And so what?
-
15 deg traverse covers quite a bit of terrain if your shooting from standoff range.
-
-BigPlay
I'll challenge you on the StuG vs Sherman M4 and Churchill kill ratio. I'd be willing to bet it was much closer than you claim. Back up your data, please.
The Churchill was a slow lumbering beast, no dout about it. Its 6lb (57mm) main gun was able to deal with the Pzr III and Pzr IV it fought against in Normady. It was barely adequate, but it wasnt worthless. Only against the Tiger's and Panther's frontal armor did they have almost no hope of defeating them. Ditto for the M4 Sherman w/ the 75mm gun.
I did not ever say the StuG was worthless. I said the StuG would be almost worthless in the AH2 game. As the AH2 game has proven many times over, what was good in real life WWII may be worthless in AH2 and what is good in AH2 might have been worthless in WWII. Just take a look at the ENY/OBJ numbers and that that should tell something. Yeah, many of those numbers need to be adjusted, but those requests have fallen on deaf ears time and time again at HTC.
I'd argue that the M10/M18 would not be worthless in the game, more-so the M18. The M10 would be a step down from the Firefly in every sense, so the M18 would be a better choice to add. I only offered the M10 due to the ease of adding it to the ga,e because of having the same chassis of the Firefly. THe Hellcat's main gun was almost as effective as the 17lb'er (and better than the Pzr IV), but the M18 was a smaller target, it moved 20-25mph faster, and actually had better anti-air with the 50cal. The open topped turret does pose a danger of being taken out by aircraft, but when speaking of 500lb bombs falling... it is no more fragile than any other gv.
Oh... and the Tiger can be taken out at 20+ by a T34/85 or Pzr IV. It isnt indestructable. Like many things in this game... it is not modelled correctly.
-
-BigPlay
I'll challenge you on the StuG vs Sherman M4 and Churchill kill ratio. I'd be willing to bet it was much closer than you claim. Back up your data, please.
The Churchill was a slow lumbering beast, no dout about it. Its 6lb (57mm) main gun was able to deal with the Pzr III and Pzr IV it fought against in Normady. It was barely adequate, but it wasnt worthless. Only against the Tiger's and Panther's frontal armor did they have almost no hope of defeating them. Ditto for the M4 Sherman w/ the 75mm gun.
I did not ever say the StuG was worthless. I said the StuG would be almost worthless in the AH2 game. As the AH2 game has proven many times over, what was good in real life WWII may be worthless in AH2 and what is good in AH2 might have been worthless in WWII. Just take a look at the ENY/OBJ numbers and that that should tell something. Yeah, many of those numbers need to be adjusted, but those requests have fallen on deaf ears time and time again at HTC.
I'd argue that the M10/M18 would not be worthless in the game, more-so the M18. The M10 would be a step down from the Firefly in every sense, so the M18 would be a better choice to add. I only offered the M10 due to the ease of adding it to the ga,e because of having the same chassis of the Firefly. THe Hellcat's main gun was almost as effective as the 17lb'er (and better than the Pzr IV), but the M18 was a smaller target, it moved 20-25mph faster, and actually had better anti-air with the 50cal. The open topped turret does pose a danger of being taken out by aircraft, but when speaking of 500lb bombs falling... it is no more fragile than any other gv.
Oh... and the Tiger can be taken out at 20+ by a T34/85 or Pzr IV. It isnt indestructable. Like many things in this game... it is not modelled correctly.
True.
-
-BigPlay
I'll challenge you on the StuG vs Sherman M4 and Churchill kill ratio. I'd be willing to bet it was much closer than you claim. Back up your data, please.
The Churchill was a slow lumbering beast, no dout about it. Its 6lb (57mm) main gun was able to deal with the Pzr III and Pzr IV it fought against in Normady. It was barely adequate, but it wasnt worthless. Only against the Tiger's and Panther's frontal armor did they have almost no hope of defeating them. Ditto for the M4 Sherman w/ the 75mm gun.
I did not ever say the StuG was worthless. I said the StuG would be almost worthless in the AH2 game. As the AH2 game has proven many times over, what was good in real life WWII may be worthless in AH2 and what is good in AH2 might have been worthless in WWII. Just take a look at the ENY/OBJ numbers and that that should tell something. Yeah, many of those numbers need to be adjusted, but those requests have fallen on deaf ears time and time again at HTC.
I'd argue that the M10/M18 would not be worthless in the game, more-so the M18. The M10 would be a step down from the Firefly in every sense, so the M18 would be a better choice to add. I only offered the M10 due to the ease of adding it to the ga,e because of having the same chassis of the Firefly. THe Hellcat's main gun was almost as effective as the 17lb'er (and better than the Pzr IV), but the M18 was a smaller target, it moved 20-25mph faster, and actually had better anti-air with the 50cal. The open topped turret does pose a danger of being taken out by aircraft, but when speaking of 500lb bombs falling... it is no more fragile than any other gv.
Oh... and the Tiger can be taken out at 20+ by a T34/85 or Pzr IV. It isnt indestructable. Like many things in this game... it is not modelled correctly.
First the 57mm gun on the was not a good gun for killing Tanks. By Normandy time it was useless as the complete tank in general. It was designed as an infantry support tank, not a battle tank, so in my words useless. Second T-34's and Tigers are hard to kill with bombs, M-10 or M-18 would be as easy as a panzer. So they are more fragile than some tanks. The T-34/85 was designed to deal with the Tiger and was able to take a Tiger out so over modeled may be a stretch. I do believe that the Tigers are taken out too easy by panzer's but from what I have been told is planes, GV's are a bit harder to kill on sides with lower numbers. A form of game equalization. At least that's what I have been told.
I will do a bit of research on the Stug vs the other two but am pretty sure what I said is what I will find.
-
First the 57mm gun on the was not a good gun for killing Tanks. By Normandy time it was useless as the complete tank in general. It was designed as an infantry support tank, not a battle tank, so in my words useless. Second T-34's and Tigers are hard to kill with bombs, M-10 or M-18 would be as easy as a panzer. So they are more fragile than some tanks. The T-34/85 was designed to deal with the Tiger and was able to take a Tiger out so over modeled may be a stretch. I do believe that the Tigers are taken out too easy by panzer's but from what I have been told is planes, GV's are a bit harder to kill on sides with lower numbers. A form of game equalization. At least that's what I have been told.
I will do a bit of research on the Stug vs the other two but am pretty sure what I said is what I will find.
Like I mentioned, the US 57mm and British 6lb'er were adequate at best, but not worthless. What it was designed for and what it was used for is negligible if the outcome if positive. I'm sure your aware the German 88mm began life as an AA gun, correct? The penetration charateristics of the 6lb'er were satisfactory with the firing ranges in the Norman hedgrows, again not ideal but adequate with the situation at hand. Once the 17lb'er became available then yes... by all means it should have been left behind at the fastest rate possible.
The Tiger in AH2 is too fragile vs gv's. Vs the air I'm not sure but it may be about right. I do believe the T34 has a turrent made of cheese (vs other gv's) and it is also too difficult to defeat via Hurri IID or IL-2 w/ cannon fire. I dont hear much of much troubles of people not being able to take out Tigers or T34 with ord.
1v1, the Tiger can walk all over the T34/85mm at any range, especially long ranges (both real life and in AH2). The Soviet 85mm was a step up with its lackluster 76mm, but not enough to make a difference. The penetration data clearly shows that.
-
The Russian guns were a little to be desired. I fly in attack mode with A20 all the time. I drop Panzers with ease but Tigers and T-34's need to have the bomb dropped right on them to kill them. At least that's the way it is for me.