Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Babalonian on November 12, 2008, 04:10:49 PM
-
How about a couple tanks in the game that would truely be worthy of perking, some that could strike fear into any other GV within range of their guns? I propose/wish/beg for the IS-2 and Tiger II (I favor the IS-2 personaly, but don't want to propose putting one big-hitter into the game without/before another).
Iosif Stalin tank 2 (IS-2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iosif_Stalin_tank
Manufacturer: Kirov Factory, UZTM
Produced: 1943–45 (IS-2)
Number built: 3,854 IS-2
Specifications (IS-2 Model 1944[1])
Weight 46 tonnes
Length 9.90 m
Width 3.09 m
Height 2.73 m
Crew 4
Armor: 30–160 mm
Primary armament: D25-T 122 mm gun (28 rds.)
Secondary armament: 2×DT, 1×DShK machine guns
Engine: 12-cyl. diesel model V-2 600 hp (450 kW)
Power/weight: 13 hp/tonne
Suspension: torsion bar
Fuel capacity: 820 l
Operational range: 240 km
Speed: 37 km/h
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/IS-2-44.jpg)
(http://www.battlefield.ru/tanks/is2/is2_67.jpg)
(http://www.battlefield.ru/tanks/is2/is2_29.jpg)
(http://www.battlefield.ru/tanks/is2/is2_55.jpg)
122mms of lovin'! In the right hands and positioned correctly, this thing should be a beast to try and take out with it's thick and angled armor. Oh, and by the way, was it's 122mm main gun not already mentioned? While this will hurt on the recieving end it did have an extremely slow reload time compared to other tanks (multi-component ammunition, hand loaded) and could only carry 28 122mm rounds in it's magazine.
----------------------
Tiger II (King Tiger)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_II
Manufacturer: Henschel & Son
Produced: 1943–1945
Number built: 487
Specifications
Weight: 69.8 metric tons (production turret)
Length: 7.61 m (10.286 m with gun forward)
Width: 3.755 m
Height: 3.09 m
Crew 5
Armor: 25–180 mm
Primary armament: 8.8 cm KwK 43 L/71 (84 rds.)
Secondary armament: 2× 7.92 mm MG34 (4,800 rds.)
Engine: V-12 Maybach HL230-P30 700 PS (690 hp, 515 kW)
Power/weight: 10 PS/tonne
Transmission: Maybach OLVAR EG 40 12 16 B (8 forward and 4 reverse)
Suspension: torsion-bar
Operational range: 170 km (110 miles)
Speed: 41.5 km/h (25.8 mph)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6c/PanzerVI_TigerII_Porsche1.jpg)
(early/original "porsche" turret)
(http://www.achtungpanzer.com/images/image001.jpg)
("production" Krupp turret)
(http://www.achtungpanzer.com/images/tig2s_2.jpg)
Much beter armor characteristics than the Tiger I, incorporating the original Tiger's thick armor and mass with the beter designed and sloped hull of the Panther tank series. It was underpowered though in the engine, and as such needed to run at full power to just get moving and was prone to overheating and breaking down. Also, since running the engine at full power was the norm, it had a very large thirst for fuel. It's 88mm KwK was an impressive main gun, it had greater armor penetration than the soviet's 122mm (although inferior to the 122mm's pure HE capability).
-
the russian 122mm main gun had horrible loading and long range aiming characteristics. it also proved to be a large but under powered AP round. it was found to be lacking penatration power against most medium armored and virtually useless against heavily armored vehicles. it was equated to being less than the allied 75mm gun firing AP rounds.
but it did prove itself to be an amazing close quarter building buster. it showed its worth during the final battle of berlin while having to fight entrenched german defenders from building to building. its HE round was devastating to any building or bunker the germans tried to hide in.
using it against buildings such as hangers would be devastaing but against vehicles it would do poorly.
think it would be a good choice to add to the game if it was correctly done.
FLOTSOM
-
I say add them both. The Russian tank should be added first, then the Tiger on Steroids.
-
Thanks for the positive posts.
the Russian 122mm main gun had horrible loading and long range aiming characteristics. it also proved to be a large but under powered AP round. it was found to be lacking penetration power against most medium armored and virtually useless against heavily armored vehicles. it was equated to being less than the allied 75mm gun firing AP rounds.
but it did prove itself to be an amazing close quarter building buster. it showed its worth during the final battle of Berlin while having to fight entrenched German defenders from building to building. its HE round was devastating to any building or bunker the germans tried to hide in.
using it against buildings such as hangers would be devastating but against vehicles it would do poorly.
think it would be a good choice to add to the game if it was correctly done.
FLOTSOM
The King Tiger and IS-2 are both big hitters, both have great guns in their own categories. One being high velocity AP, the other being HE shells with the force of a freight train. Also, at least in terms of AH, all the tank gun sights seem to be exactly the same, so I don't know if the IS-2's poor optics would be accurately represented.
From what I've dug up on the 122mm, the AP round at best (key term "at best") was situational. It did have a sweet spot (IIRC ~900-1000 meters) where it could go through the thickest German armor at a good angle (perfectly horizontal armor hit by a perfectly perpendicular shot). Most tankers preffered (depending on it's mission) no AP rounds in the IS-2's limited 28-round magazine, or at most 8 or 6 out of the 28 rounds were AP instead of HE.
Most IS-2 tankers found the 122mm HE worked fine against tanks, if you could hit the tank with it you'd blast the snot out of it (if I was in a heavier German tank, I don't know what I'd be more afraid of getting hit by a 122mm HE round than a 122mm AP round). There are some stories about German tanks getting hit by the 122mm HE round, and even though the round didn't penetrate, the blast was so violent it ignited (or caused a malfunction) in the impacted tank's magazine, causing it to detonate. I heard of some German tank crews that surrendered after taking one or two 122mm HE rounds (resulting in no significant damage) simply from the force of the impacts on their tank. I wouldn't model the tank or 122mm from these stories, but I'm sure it was a very terrifying and powerful weapon to be on the receiving end of.
Back to the AP round though, the 122mm was quite effective against the earlier Panzer IVs and StuGs. But if I wanted a good Russian anti-tank AP round I'd go with a 100mm D-10 on a Su-100, but to get that we'd need to introduce tank destroyers to AH.
-
moin
im still for the kingTiger the JS and the pershing, of course thay need to be all perked but thay all would be rise the Gv fun :rock. and ouer panzerIV is still able to kill all three of them so the after all whines should be not so big lol.
cu chris3
-
Adding either of these two tanks would be going in the wrong direction, imo. There are many other tanks and other gv's that should be added to the game prior to those lumbering beasts. We're missing lots of early and mid-war tanks and support vehicles.
The 251/9 with the 75mm infantry cannon (think of the LVT4 in halftrack mode) would be an awesome addition.
Or the Priest/Saxton with the 75mm cannon.
Or the M18 TD.
etc etc...
The King Tiger and IS-2 would be a waste of time and resources, imo. AH2 has far better things to add or correct than to add either of those.
-
i'd say adding them both would be great for gv'in! sure there's lots of earlier vehicles to add but that shouldn't preclude HTC from completing the vehicle registry with all the wonderful weapons of WWII. the more complete depository of weapons we have, the more fun AHII will be!
-
Thanks for all your thoughts and input guys/gals.
Adding either of these two tanks would be going in the wrong direction, imo. There are many other tanks and other gv's that should be added to the game prior to those lumbering beasts. We're missing lots of early and mid-war tanks and support vehicles.
The 251/9 with the 75mm infantry cannon (think of the LVT4 in halftrack mode) would be an awesome addition.
Or the Priest/Saxton with the 75mm cannon.
Or the M18 TD.
etc etc...
The King Tiger and IS-2 would be a waste of time and resources, imo. AH2 has far better things to add or correct than to add either of those.
I wouldn't consider them wastes, they would be enjoyed and welcomed by more people than hated I believe. But I agree, there are quite a few more common tanks that were everywhere in WWII that probabley should be added before these beasts. I personaly want to push for the StuG, over 10,000 were produced during the war, but there are tankers in this game who think a tank without a 360-degree rotating turret (tank destroyers) isn't worth it's beans (I disagree, but... that's another topic).
I'm not saying that these tanks should be next or last on the development line, but I am pitching that when the time does come (if it comes) that they be released together.
-
Thanks for all your thoughts and input guys/gals.
I wouldn't consider them wastes, they would be enjoyed and welcomed by more people than hated I believe. But I agree, there are quite a few more common tanks that were everywhere in WWII that probabley should be added before these beasts. I personaly want to push for the StuG, over 10,000 were produced during the war, but there are tankers in this game who think a tank without a 360-degree rotating turret (tank destroyers) isn't worth it's beans (I disagree, but... that's another topic).
I'm not saying that these tanks should be next or last on the development line, but I am pitching that when the time does come (if it comes) that they be released together.
HERE HERE, I concur and agree!!
if you put in one it wouldnt be right if you didnt put in the other at the same time.
:aok
:salute
-
The Panther should be added first then the Kv-1 or Kv-2 then the M-26 then the King Tiger and the Js-2.
-
Thanks for all your thoughts and input guys/gals.
I wouldn't consider them wastes, they would be enjoyed and welcomed by more people than hated I believe. But I agree, there are quite a few more common tanks that were everywhere in WWII that probabley should be added before these beasts. I personaly want to push for the StuG, over 10,000 were produced during the war, but there are tankers in this game who think a tank without a 360-degree rotating turret (tank destroyers) isn't worth it's beans (I disagree, but... that's another topic).
I'm not saying that these tanks should be next or last on the development line, but I am pitching that when the time does come (if it comes) that they be released together.
I agree that the StuG was a very important tank/assault gun for the Germans in WWII... but in AH2 it would be cannon fodder. Stop and think how limited it would be in usage. Speed like the Pzr IV, a gun like the Pzr IV, armor like the Pzr IV (similar enough), but with 345 degrees LESS of an attack angle. First, how many are going to take it vs teh Pzr IV? Secondly, stop and think how often the enemy comes straight at you to the point of not having to move your turrent more than 15 degrees... see my point?
-
I love this post, and just would like to keep this wishlist on the back of HTC staff's mind should they update the GV's. I know I haven't even grown tired of the Panzer, T-34/76 and M4 Sherman yet, but adding:
- IS-2
- King Tiger/Tiger II
- Panther
- M-26 Pershing
..would really make my thanksgiving and christmas 08 and valentine's day 09 the best ever!!!!!!!
I believe skuzzy can code this in 8 hrs provided we send him premium liquor??
:devil
-
I love this post, and just would like to keep this wishlist on the back of HTC staff's mind should they update the GV's. I know I haven't even grown tired of the Panzer, T-34/76 and M4 Sherman yet, but adding:
- IS-2
- King Tiger/Tiger II
- Panther
- M-26 Pershing
..would really make my thanksgiving and christmas 08 and valentine's day 09 the best ever!!!!!!!
I believe skuzzy can code this in 8 hrs provided we send him premium liquor??
:devil
lol, agreed! (thanks for the bump too, I like this post myself :o )
I agree that the StuG was a very important tank/assault gun for the Germans in WWII... but in AH2 it would be cannon fodder. Stop and think how limited it would be in usage. Speed like the Pzr IV, a gun like the Pzr IV, armor like the Pzr IV (similar enough), but with 345 degrees LESS of an attack angle. First, how many are going to take it vs teh Pzr IV? Secondly, stop and think how often the enemy comes straight at you to the point of not having to move your turrent more than 15 degrees... see my point?
Good input, sorry I missed this earlier.
Yes, it is very similar to the Panzer IV minus 345 degrees of coverage. But, if properly modeled it will be used in a much more intelligent way than a Panzer IV. I have played other tank simulators, one that had WWII tanks with 360 degrees of coverage and tank destroyers with only 15 (including the STuG). Players who are smart enough to know how to use them effectively (and if the game/vehicle is modeled in a way so that it can be) do so and enjoy the challenge (and satisfaction) of up taking down multiple-superior-targets before their sortie is over. And the bigest factor I think to how successful tank destroyers can be in a simulator is that tank destroyers are typicaly piloted by people knowing they're in a disadvantage, so they work at taking advantage of everything else they can and is available to be successful. The only situations where I prefered one over the other was when a) I wanted the thicker armor not typicaly found on tank destroyers (typicaly because I would be defending in a location where the enemy knew I would be, so close-quarter flanks and 3000 meter out snipes wouldn't be uncommon) or b) I would be assaulting a location where I would have almost no choice but to get in close-quarters and get into a tough fight (like a city with multiple tanks rolling around in it and defending it).
With the way this game's perk point system works (and assuming tank destroyers would be given a generous handicap, something that people arguing that "tank destroyers would be bad in AH" would expect), my biggest fear I would have with tank destroyers in AH would be that someone who is good at positioning their tank destroyer in a good spot and is patient enough to wait for the right moments would rack up a ton of perk points at a very quick rate. That player then, already proving their tanking skills in a tank destroyer, plows through everyone with the most expencive perked GV available in the game at the time.
-
:aok Add the Stalin. Look me in the eye and tell me it wouldnt be a gas to wheel one of those out the VH?
But I still want the Panther and think a tank destroyer should be added. Overall however I'd like to see more Russian in the game. SU-100 and Stalin, along with TU-2, would be a fine start.
-
Is it just me, or does the Stalin look like a big fat T-34?
-
Or the Priest/Saxton with the 75mm cannon.
Surprised no one corrected this yet -- 105mm, not 75mm.
-
the russian 122mm main gun had horrible loading and long range aiming characteristics. it also proved to be a large but under powered AP round. it was found to be lacking penatration power against most medium armored and virtually useless against heavily armored vehicles. it was equated to being less than the allied 75mm gun firing AP rounds.
i certainly believe the above statement, but i would like the source/data to back it up. i dont really believe russian written material because its mostly colored for propaganda, like this paragraph from wiki.
"The A-19 122mm gun had very good armour penetration, delivering 3.5 times the kinetic energy of the older 76.2mm gun, and when it didn't penetrate, could often knock a turret right off a tank with the combination of the impact and explosive filler. Its very large high explosive shells were very effective against bunkers, infantry and antitank guns. The main disadvantage of the gun was its huge, two-part ammunition, which were difficult to manhandle, slow to reload (the rate of fire was only about two rounds per minute), and only allowed 28 rounds to be carried. (Zaloga 1984:175)" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iosif_Stalin_tank#References (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iosif_Stalin_tank#References)
say what again? very good armor penetration but when it didn't penetrate.... d'oh!
seems that wiki is overrun with russian/chinese propagandists keeping an eye on everything socialism related. if it doesn't suit their taste they change it up to their liking. no wonder wikipedia is and will always be inadmissible evidence in u.s. courts.
-
i certainly believe the above statement, but i would like the source/data to back it up. i dont really believe russian written material because its mostly colored for propaganda, like this paragraph from wiki.
"The A-19 122mm gun had very good armour penetration, delivering 3.5 times the kinetic energy of the older 76.2mm gun, and when it didn't penetrate, could often knock a turret right off a tank with the combination of the impact and explosive filler. Its very large high explosive shells were very effective against bunkers, infantry and antitank guns. The main disadvantage of the gun was its huge, two-part ammunition, which were difficult to manhandle, slow to reload (the rate of fire was only about two rounds per minute), and only allowed 28 rounds to be carried. (Zaloga 1984:175)" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iosif_Stalin_tank#References (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iosif_Stalin_tank#References)
say what again? very good armor penetration but when it didn't penetrate.... d'oh!
seems that wiki is overrun with russian/chinese propagandists keeping an eye on everything socialism related. if it doesn't suit their taste they change it up to their liking. no wonder wikipedia is and will always be inadmissible evidence in u.s. courts.
http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=32&Itemid=50 this is a page with a good article on the JS2. it was a Russian review of the tank so take it for the propaganda laden review that it is. but it does give an excellent history of the design and building of the JS2.
i guess one insight into the failure of the 122mm against the German armor would be the fact that only 3000 were built. for the Russians that is hardly even a test run.
i cannot find the page that i read about the German review of the deficiencies of the Russian 122mm. i am sorry, i have spent almost 2 hours now looking for it and just cant find it. it is a review of the allied weapons vs various German armor. it gave field stats (reports from the field) and test stats of captured armaments. it was translated into English along with diagrams and graphs as supporting information.
i found one other site that gave a one sentence mention that the 122mm was not sufficiently effective against tanks to continue its use as a tank destroyer, but that it was extremely effective as a Mobile artillery piece in support of infantry units within urban enviroments. i didn't bother to post it because like i said it was a one liner that was vague and unsupported by any documentation so i didn't feel it was of any true value.
if you can find anything specific please let me know.
FLOTSOM
-
FLOTSOM
I truly appreciate your taking the time to research and to share it with us! :salute I hope to repay your kindness in the future, just as soon as I find further information about our topic here.
HAPPY THANKSGIVING SIR!
-
FLOTSOM
I truly appreciate your taking the time to research and to share it with us! :salute I hope to repay your kindness in the future, just as soon as I find further information about our topic here.
HAPPY THANKSGIVING SIR!
but to give you some good reading check out this page on the battle of kursk
http://www.historynet.com/battle-of-kursk-germanys-lost-victory-in-world-war-ii.htm (http://www.historynet.com/battle-of-kursk-germanys-lost-victory-in-world-war-ii.htm)
its a good read that may make you think twice about how much of the russian information about the war is believable
HAPPY THANKSGIVING to you and yours as well my friend
FLOTSOM
-
i think the history.net account is the ONLY version that offers a more believable "alternative" account on the biggest tank battle in history. all the other sites have generic communist russian propaganda versions! it was a great read!!! i had to go back to wikipedia for the maps though, helped me understand the armor positions as the war progressed.
if the 5th russian army were encircled, it would have been a slaughter! pity those t-34s that rushed the middle too!! fell into their own tank ditches! oh my russians, we shouldn't have worried too much during the cold war!
-
the thing i found the most laughable is that the russians have maintained that they destroyed hundreds of the new german panthers in the battle of kursk. they bragged how the t34 was so domanant that the panthers had no effect and their squads were utterly smashed by the t34's. then when you actually view the history you find that the panthers were still located deep in germany under going training excersises for the new crews at the time of the battle. what a joke! but people still eat up the russian versions of the war by the shovel full.
i wish also that they history.net version came with maps. it would be nice to have seen the german version of where thier forces were deployed instead of just the russian one.
FLOTSOM
-
the thing i found the most laughable is that the russians have maintained that they destroyed hundreds of the new german panthers in the battle of kursk. they bragged how the t34 was so domanant that the panthers had no effect and their squads were utterly smashed by the t34's. then when you actually view the history you find that the panthers were still located deep in germany under going training excersises for the new crews at the time of the battle. what a joke! but people still eat up the russian versions of the war by the shovel full.
i wish also that they history.net version came with maps. it would be nice to have seen the german version of where thier forces were deployed instead of just the russian one.
FLOTSOM
It to one sided i like to hear it from both sides.
-
It to one sided i like to hear it from both sides.
I'm not sure what you mean glock.
the article uses information provided by both the Germans and the Russians.
it then compiles them together to show a truer accounting of events during the battle as well as the future disposition of the forces involved to support the truth of this accounting of the battle of kursk.
I'm not understanding how you can see that as being one sided. if you would like to describe in full your argument then we can discuss it further.
FLOTSOM
-
I'm not sure what you mean glock.
the article uses information provided by both the Germans and the Russians.
it then compiles them together to show a truer accounting of events during the battle as well as the future disposition of the forces involved to support the truth of this accounting of the battle of kursk.
I'm not understanding how you can see that as being one sided. if you would like to describe in full your argument then we can discuss it further.
FLOTSOM
Sorry really tired i guess i didn't read it all the way.
-
Two words only:
BOMB MAGNETS
-
Thanks Flotsom and Skirbetm for your appreciated input while I was out of town for the holiday, good stuff. It's a shame you couldn't find that German review of the 122mm Flotsom, it would be a very tasty read to add to this post.
The IS2 I have never personally thought as the best tank of WWII, but when it's accurately modeled in a simulator, it's one of my favorites, it has its fair share of strength and weaknesses, and I think it would be a blast to have in AH.
I guess the King Tiger has been brought up on this wishlist in detail too much, nobody seems interested in discussing it's addition or impacts to AH compared to the IS2 in this thread.
Two words only:
BOMB MAGNETS
You are more than welcome to come and try to drop bombs on my IS2 if it gets added to AH, just as long as it gets modeled with the DShK machine gun. :rock
-
before we add more german and russian tanks (which we have 2 of each already) we need an american tank (the firefly IS BRITISH)
-
You want an American tank, that's all good, but please request those pathetic-excuses-for-competitive-WWII-armor in a seperate thread. It insults the superior German and Russian armor of the time when you mention them in the same thread :P
-
You want an American tank, that's all good, but please request those pathetic-excuses-for-competitive-WWII-armor in a seperate thread. It insults the superior German and Russian armor of the time when you mention them in the same thread :P
OUCH!!! now thats some COLD SHEEEEEEEPPPPPPP! :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
You want an American tank, that's all good, but please request those pathetic-excuses-for-competitive-WWII-armor in a seperate thread. It insults the superior German and Russian armor of the time when you mention them in the same thread :P
Please name a WWII 30 ton tank to which an M4A3(76)w was not competitive. I would like to know your definition.
-
Actually what I think is needed before any tank be added is a seprate arena just for GVer's . Make it difficult if not impossible to spawn camp and a limited assortment of aircraft, say Il2, Stuka and maybe a couple of others. TT can be a joke at times with the spawn campers and the never ending bombing not really giving a chance to a guy who wants to just GV fight. Nothing worse than driving all the way back to a Vbase to land a couple of dozen kills to be bombed or ambushed right at the vbase. Just my tought. :aok
-
Please name a WWII 30 ton tank to which an M4A3(76)w was not competitive. I would like to know your definition.
well how about in the words of a German soldier
"The German soldier of World War II felt no hatred for the individual French soldier, or the British Tommy, or the Ami, as we called them then. The French were pitied because of their lousy leaders and the fact that they were forced to fight with over-aged weapons; the British were respected as good fighters under lousy commanders, and the Americans, well we didn’t really know what we should think about them, they were to new in the business of war. The Russians were hated with a red-hot passion because every one of us had seen what they did to German POWs. The tankers of the British empire forces, and the American tankers were looked at with pity, because they were sent into battle in “rolling coffins”t that even a 50mm gun could and did blow away. All those of us who had been in tank battles felt sorry for them, because they had a lousy chance to survive, Only when they had a massive number of tanks on their side did they have a chance. Personal valor is fine, but at least your own people must give you a chance to survive. One Panther against one M-4 equals four dead Amis and a pile of rusting junk. Often, the Brits and the Americans were referred to as ”the comrades of the different APO number”. That held true for army personnel; any airman was hated with the same passion as we hated the Russians, because of what they did with their bombs. Yeah, yeah, I know; go figure it"
this is a part of a brief essay written by a Wehrmacht soldier.
that even the 50mm gun that was being used in the very beginning of the war could easily kill a Sherman shows that it would be out gunned in any GV engagement in AH.
unless all heavier tanks were perked and restricted in some manner and other comparable tanks (such as the panzerIII or early panzer IV) were placed in the game as the more common rides the Sherman would be like flying the stuka against a flight of P51D's. but i am all for adding the earlier versions of other tanks as well as other types of GV's. just crank up the cost and reduce the availability of the monster rides and it will balance out to some cool GV battles.
i know and understand that AH currently has the m8 m3 and jeep, but these have other benefits to them that a tank just doesn't have. the abilities of these vehicles to carry troops and supplies is the main purpose of them. the antiaircraft rides, well i guess just their category kinda gives away why they are useful.
but a tank that cant either out gun, out run or out maneuver anything it comes up against is just a rolling kill for anyone looking for free points. the Sherman would in 99.9% of its engagements die quickly and players would quickly stop bothering to use it.
http://home.att.net/~w.tomtschik/WW2OBindex.html (http://home.att.net/~w.tomtschik/WW2OBindex.html) this is where the complete essay can be found.
FLOTSOM
-
well how about in the words of a German soldier
"The German soldier of World War II felt no hatred for the individual French soldier, or the British Tommy, or the Ami, as we called them then. The French were pitied because of their lousy leaders and the fact that they were forced to fight with over-aged weapons; the British were respected as good fighters under lousy commanders, and the Americans, well we didn’t really know what we should think about them, they were to new in the business of war. The Russians were hated with a red-hot passion because every one of us had seen what they did to German POWs. The tankers of the British empire forces, and the American tankers were looked at with pity, because they were sent into battle in “rolling coffins”t that even a 50mm gun could and did blow away. All those of us who had been in tank battles felt sorry for them, because they had a lousy chance to survive, Only when they had a massive number of tanks on their side did they have a chance. Personal valor is fine, but at least your own people must give you a chance to survive. One Panther against one M-4 equals four dead Amis and a pile of rusting junk. Often, the Brits and the Americans were referred to as ”the comrades of the different APO number”. That held true for army personnel; any airman was hated with the same passion as we hated the Russians, because of what they did with their bombs. Yeah, yeah, I know; go figure it"
this is a part of a brief essay written by a Wehrmacht soldier.
that even the 50mm gun that was being used in the very beginning of the war could easily kill a Sherman shows that it would be out gunned in any GV engagement in AH.
unless all heavier tanks were perked and restricted in some manner and other comparable tanks (such as the panzerIII or early panzer IV) were placed in the game as the more common rides the Sherman would be like flying the stuka against a flight of P51D's. but i am all for adding the earlier versions of other tanks as well as other types of GV's. just crank up the cost and reduce the availability of the monster rides and it will balance out to some cool GV battles.
i know and understand that AH currently has the m8 m3 and jeep, but these have other benefits to them that a tank just doesn't have. the abilities of these vehicles to carry troops and supplies is the main purpose of them. the antiaircraft rides, well i guess just their category kinda gives away why they are useful.
but a tank that cant either out gun, out run or out maneuver anything it comes up against is just a rolling kill for anyone looking for free points. the Sherman would in 99.9% of its engagements die quickly and players would quickly stop bothering to use it.
http://home.att.net/~w.tomtschik/WW2OBindex.html (http://home.att.net/~w.tomtschik/WW2OBindex.html) this is where the complete essay can be found.
FLOTSOM
That is why I have voiced many times against bringing the M-10 or M-18 in. They have no battlefield survivability.
-
well how about in the words of a German soldier
<snip>
One Panther against one M-4 equals four dead Amis and a pile of rusting junk.
<snip>
You see, though, this is exactly why I said
Please name a WWII 30 ton tank to which an M4A3(76)w was not competitive.
The claim is that the Sherman was not competitive. It absolutely was competitive against like-sized tanks.
Your author compares them to a Panther, which is regarded in many circles as the best overall tank of the war -- and a tank that is 50% bigger than the Sherman. A tank more comparable to the Panther would be the Pershing, not the Sherman (which, by the way, would certainly also be a "competitive" tank vs. the German/Russian heavies).
So, if his definition of a "bad tank" is that it couldn't compete with a heavy tank, then he should have felt equally sorry for any Russian driving a T-34 or any of his own countrymen using the PzkwIV.
50mm round could kill it? Yes, and it could also kill the T-34 and PzkwIV. The reference to "blowing it away" likely refers to the early Shermans where the inadequate ammo protection caused many of them to catch fire -- a deficiency that was later remedied, but the reputation never went away.
If I could find the correct WWII magazine hidden in my attic, there was an article in there where US intel interviewed German POWs that had served on both the east and west fronts. This was in September 1944 IIRC, and there were about 300 interviews. Part of what came out was that the Germans rightfully admired the T-34 for it's simplicity and effectiveness of design (and that they always had plenty of them), but then said that in their experience, American armor held up to anti-tank fire better than the Russian tanks.
Then there what this Red Army tanker who used lend-lease Shermans has to say.
Here is the link (http://www.iremember.ru/content/view/85/19/lang,en/)
Overall, this was a good vehicle but, as with any tank, it had its pluses and minuses. When someone says to me that this was a bad tank, I respond, "Excuse me!" One cannot say that this was a bad tank. Bad as compared to what?
Which is exactly what I keep asking. It is quite an interesting read, and he is quite candid about some of the Sherman's shortcomings, but:
I want also to add that the Sherman's armor was tough. There were cases on our T-34 when a round struck and did not penetrate. But the crew was wounded because pieces of armor flew off the inside wall and struck the crewmen in the hands and eyes. This never happened on the Sherman.
So in conclusion, there is no reason to expect the Sherman would do any worse in the game than the current PzkwIV or T-34/76, which makes any argument against adding it on the grounds of it being "uncompetitive" quite silly.
-
So in conclusion, there is no reason to expect the Sherman would do any worse in the game than the current PzkwIV or T-34/76, which makes any argument against adding it on the grounds of it being "uncompetitive" quite silly.
the Sherman had a bigger profile weaker gun and thinner armor with less slope. it does not compare to the other light tanks currently in the game.
i have read that Russians essay before, its a good read. but the Russian 76mm gun of the t34 and the panzer 75mm had better penetrating power at long range that did the Sherman 75mm. the Sherman was just poorly equipped in its standard main gun. as time went on changes were made, they up gunned some to a 90mm and some even up to a 105mm self propelled artillery. but the standard Sherman of which you speak just could not go toe to toe with the other tanks currently on the AH GV list.
i am not saying that the Sherman does not have its place, but if you pit the Sherman against the common tanks currently in the game the Sherman would die quickly.
the main gun of the Sherman is weak and does not have the stand off killing ability of these heavier gunned tanks. the guns of the t34, panzer IV and the firefly would just rip them up at long range. the Sherman would not be able to get close enough to one of these tanks for its weak main gun to be effective before the enemy tanker had pounded it with multiple shots.
this is why i said that the heavier tanks would need to be perked and/or restricted. otherwise the Sherman riders would have no fun with it. they would easily be out gunned or out run by the tanks in current use. might just as well use the m8 against them instead, your odds of getting a lucky shot before getting killed are about the same.
i am all for adding every GV that saw even a moments action during WWII. but the problem is that most of them would be a waste of programing time for the HTC staff. they would create and model these GV's and then the players would never bother to use them. Unless the current tanks were restricted these lighter tanks would just get ripped apart.
do not misunderstand me, i am all for adding these tanks to the game. but there must be a way to level the playing field or it wont be fair or fun for those that would try to use it.
FLOTSOM
-
the Sherman had a bigger profile weaker gun and thinner armor with less slope. it does not compare to the other light tanks currently in the game.
Wrong, wrong and wrong.
Dimensions:
PzkwIV(H): Length : 8.15 meters / Height : 2.68 meters / Width : 3.33 meters
T-34/76 (Model 1942): Length : 6.75 meters / Height : 2.45 meters / Width : 3 meters
Sherman: Length : 5.84 meters / Height : 2.74 meters / Width : 2.62 meters
So the Sherman is shorter and narrower, only marginally taller than the IV, and less than .3 meters (about a foot) taller than the T-34. So it isn't so much "bigger" that it is at any disadvantage vs. the other two. (Center of gravity, perhaps another issue, but irrelevant to the point).
Armor:
PzkwIV(H):
Hull Front (Upper) : 80mm @ 80°
Hull Front (Lower) : 80mm @ 76°
Hull Sides (Upper) : 30mm @ 90°
Hull Sides (Lower) : 30mm @ 90°
Hull Rear : 20mm @ 82°
Hull Top : 12mm @ 0° - 5°
Hull Bottom : 10mm @ 0°
Turret Front : 50mm @ 80°
Turret Mantlet : 50mm @ 60° - 90°
Turret Sides : 30mm @ 64°
Turret Rear : 30mm @ 75°
Turret Top : 15mm @ 0° - 7°
T-34/76:
Hull Front (Upper) : 45mm @ 30°
Hull Front (Lower) : 45mm @ 30°
Hull Sides (Upper) : 45mm @ 50°
Hull Sides (Lower) : 45mm @ 90°
Hull Rear : 45mm @ 45°
Hull Top : 20mm @ 0°
Hull Bottom : 20mm @ 0°
Turret Front : 70mm @ 60° & Round
Turret Mantlet : 40mm @ 30° & 90°
Turret Sides : 52mm @ 70°
Turret Rear : 52mm @ 70°
Turret Top : 20mm @ 0°
Sherman - Standard M4 (i.e. 1942 version to compare to the T-34)
Hull Front (Upper) : 51mm @ 34°
Hull Front (Lower) : 51mm @ 34° - 90°
Hull Sides (Upper) : 38mm @ 90°
Hull Sides (Lower) : 38mm @ 90°
Hull Rear : 38mm @ 80° - 90°
Hull Top : 13mm @ 0° - 7°
Hull Bottom : 19mm - 25mm @ 0°
Turret Front : 76mm @ 60°
Turret Mantlet : 89mm @ 90°
Turret Sides : 51mm @ 85°
Turret Rear : 51mm @ 90°
Turret Top : 25mm @ 0°
Sherman M4A3(76)w (i.e. the March 1944 version I suggested a comparison against initially).
Hull Front (Upper) : 64mm @ 43°
Hull Front (Lower) : 51mm - 108mm @ 34° - 90°
Hull Sides (Upper) : 38mm @ 90°
Hull Sides (Lower) : 38mm @ 90°
Hull Rear : 38mm @ 68° - 80°
Hull Top : 19mm @ 0° - 7°
Hull Bottom : 13mm - 25mm @ 0°
Turret Front : 64mm @ 45° - 50°
Turret Mantlet : 89mm @ 90°
Turret Sides : 64mm @ 77° - 90°
Turret Rear : 64mm @ 90°
Turret Top : 25mm @ 0°
The PzkwIV's front hull armor is thicker, but had virtually NO slope at all. The Sherman's is actually THICKER than the T-34's, and has a 34 degree slope vs. the T-34's 30 degree. The turret front and mantlet even on the 1942 version of the Sherman are thicker than either the T-34 or the IV. The T-34 has an advantage to sides and rear on the hull, but the turret is the same, and the Sherman has a clear advantage over the IV in these areas.
Heck, why do you think people complain about the Firefly's armor? It is no more armored than any other Sherman would be. It is simply better than most give it credit for -- because they "know" the reputation, and not the data.
As for the gun: The T-34's 76mm gun was quite a poor performer given its size, as were many Soviet guns. The 75mm M3/L40 gun on the Sherman was the equal of the Soviet 76.2mm F-34 / L42 using standard AP rounds. This is why both the Soviets and the US started upgrading their armament when the Germans started deploying heavier tanks in numbers. The Soviets upgraded to the 85mm gun, and the US to the 76mm gun, which again were very comparable in hitting power (very quick reference) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/76_mm_gun_M1#Comparison_of_US_76_mm_and_Soviet_85_mm_guns), and outperformed the KwK 40 on the PzkwIV(H).
So a "standard" Sherman will either have the punch of the game's T-34/76 or T-34/85 depending on whether it is a 75mm version or a 76mm version, and have armor comparable to both the T-34 and the IV. In other words, it will be quite competitive against the current set of non-perked tanks, even without the massive firepower of the Firefly. To say anything different is to simply ignore the data in favor of popular myth.
(All referenced data taken from this site.) (http://www.tarrif.net/cgi/production/all_vehicles_adv.php)
-
You want an American tank, that's all good, but please request those pathetic-excuses-for-competitive-WWII-armor in a seperate thread. It insults the superior German and Russian armor of the time when you mention them in the same thread :P
agreed :aok
-
As for the gun: The T-34's 76mm gun was quite a poor performer given its size, as were many Soviet guns. The 75mm M3/L40 gun on the Sherman was the equal of the Soviet 76.2mm F-34 / L42 using standard AP rounds. This is why both the Soviets and the US started upgrading their armament when the Germans started deploying heavier tanks in numbers. The Soviets upgraded to the 85mm gun, and the US to the 76mm gun, which again were very comparable in hitting power (very quick reference) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/76_mm_gun_M1#Comparison_of_US_76_mm_and_Soviet_85_mm_guns), and outperformed the KwK 40 on the PzkwIV(H).
By the time any real number of Shermans were equipped with the 76mm gun (only 100 Shermans that landed at Normandy had 76mm guns) the Germans already had tanks with better performing main guns than the KwK 40 and the KwK 40 could still kill a Sherman at range. I agree with the last post that the 75mm Sherman would end up being targets. Also not until late in the war were the proper ammo protection actually achieved. Simply welding steel plates over the areas in question didn't do much more than improve moral for the crews. I respect your knowledge but I feel you are very wrong in your statements regarding the Sherman. I have read many books on armor battles and everything I have read about the Sherman was bad from the German point of view with exception on how many there were. Same reference to the T-34. There were never an end to them.
wikepida quote
The Sherman's armor was effective against most early war tank guns. The frontal thickness was 91 mm for the gun mantlet, 76 mm for the turret front, and 63 mm for the front of the hull. The Sherman's frontal armor was designed to withstand the lower velocity 50mm Kwk 38 L/42 gun, which was a common German anti-tank gun and the gun on the Panzer III medium tank during the North African Campaign in 1942. However, the Sherman's armor, while good for an early war tank, was inadequate against the German 75mm KwK 40 L/48 used by the later Panzer IV's, the higher velocity 75mm KwK 42 L/70 used by the Panther tank, and the infamous 88mm KwK 36 L/56 used on the Tiger tanks. It was this deficiency in its frontal armor that made the Sherman very vulnerable to most German anti-tank rounds in 1944.
-
I'm not sure where you think I am "wrong" about the Sherman?
I have not claimed nor will I claim that the Sherman was any match for the Panther or any other heavy tank.
The assertion I am addressing is that the Sherman was "uncompetitive" to its true contemporaries, which are medium tanks, not the heavies. You are not going to find a medium tank that was able to withstand the firepower of the Panther's 75 or the Tiger's 88 -- not the Sherman, not the T-34, and not the PzkwIV(H).
So, why is it the Sherman is poo-pooed but the T-34 and PzkwIV are being held up as superior?
By the way, the welded plates were added in '43 and wet stowage introduced in February '44. I suppose that is "late" in the war, but fairly quick given the US's late entry. Source. (http://books.google.com/books?id=IULV2RLYahkC&pg=PA16&lpg=PA16&dq=Wet+stowage+world+war+II+sherman&source=web&ots=W06ukCkHlN&sig=5UAyn4tSfk9tr_4nqehFuIdPKjk&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=10&ct=result)
-
I'm not sure where you think I am "wrong" about the Sherman?
I have not claimed nor will I claim that the Sherman was any match for the Panther or any other heavy tank.
The assertion I am addressing is that the Sherman was "uncompetitive" to its true contemporaries, which are medium tanks, not the heavies. You are not going to find a medium tank that was able to withstand the firepower of the Panther's 75 or the Tiger's 88 -- not the Sherman, not the T-34, and not the PzkwIV(H).
So, why is it the Sherman is poo-pooed but the T-34 and PzkwIV are being held up as superior?
By the way, the welded plates were added in '43 and wet stowage introduced in February '44. I suppose that is "late" in the war, but fairly quick given the US's late entry. Source. (http://books.google.com/books?id=IULV2RLYahkC&pg=PA16&lpg=PA16&dq=Wet+stowage+world+war+II+sherman&source=web&ots=W06ukCkHlN&sig=5UAyn4tSfk9tr_4nqehFuIdPKjk&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=10&ct=result)
i may have been to harsh in my choice of words, i will correct that now if possible.
i apologize if you took what i said to mean you were wrong, you are not wrong in the sense that a sherman belongs in the game.
my only point is that the panzer in the game and the t34 are both up gunned already (maybe unrealistically so in actual performance) and to add the sherman with the weaker gun would be leading the lamb to the slaughter.
i just dont want them to put it in so that it was butchered every time it was upped. i would just want to see the playing field equalized, upping the cost of perks or some other form of restrictions that will bring these into play in a manner that makes them fun for the player.
FLOTSOM
-
King Tiger :aok
-
i may have been to harsh in my choice of words, i will correct that now if possible.
i apologize if you took what i said to mean you were wrong, you are not wrong in the sense that a sherman belongs in the game.
my only point is that the panzer in the game and the t34 are both up gunned already (maybe unrealistically so in actual performance) and to add the sherman with the weaker gun would be leading the lamb to the slaughter.
i just dont want them to put it in so that it was butchered every time it was upped. i would just want to see the playing field equalized, upping the cost of perks or some other form of restrictions that will bring these into play in a manner that makes them fun for the player.
FLOTSOM
We do have the T-34/76, so there is one early version of the three mediums already. It is certainly more of a challenge to use than the perked tanks, but that is part of the fun.
I personally would love to see both the 75mm and 76mm versions of the Sherman (i.e. '42 and '44 versions), and a IV C or D with the KwK 37 / L24. These would add variety to the vehicle set (especially in the EW and AvA arenas, where variety is sorely needed), and since they are based on chassis already in the game, should be somewhat easier to implement. And they would still see use in the LWAs, just as the T-34/76 does.
-
I'm not sure where you think I am "wrong" about the Sherman?
I have not claimed nor will I claim that the Sherman was any match for the Panther or any other heavy tank.
The assertion I am addressing is that the Sherman was "uncompetitive" to its true contemporaries, which are medium tanks, not the heavies. You are not going to find a medium tank that was able to withstand the firepower of the Panther's 75 or the Tiger's 88 -- not the Sherman, not the T-34, and not the PzkwIV(H).
So, why is it the Sherman is poo-pooed but the T-34 and PzkwIV are being held up as superior?
By the way, the welded plates were added in '43 and wet stowage introduced in February '44. I suppose that is "late" in the war, but fairly quick given the US's late entry. Source. (http://books.google.com/books?id=IULV2RLYahkC&pg=PA16&lpg=PA16&dq=Wet+stowage+world+war+II+sherman&source=web&ots=W06ukCkHlN&sig=5UAyn4tSfk9tr_4nqehFuIdPKjk&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=10&ct=result)
My point is that like Flotsom said " it wouldn't be competitive in here" . Tigers in here are killed by panzer's at close ranges, but from distance it's very hard for a panzer to kill tigers. In midwar where there aren't Fireflys eny usually negates the other side from upping Tigers. I can sit at range and kill all the panzers and T-34's I want until I get bombed all the while taking hits from them without damage. It would be that way for a 75mm Sherman against a panzer. From distance the panzer has an advantage. I just don't think a 75mm armed Sherman would make an impact. A 76mm would.
-
IMO the Sherman would of been competitive early in the war, but I honestly think it was a competitive early-war tank that didn't see most of it's action until the mid to late time period of the war. By that time it was nowhere near to superior, and was only situationaly competitive at best against mid to late-war era German and Russian tanks.
If we saw a lot more Sherman variant introduced it would be good in that it would highlight the variants that were on steroids. But to make more Sherman variants see some actual use in the game, I think you would need to introduce a bit of early to mid-war era German armor (and maybe Russian). STuGs (IIIs & IVs), Panzer IIIs (& early IVs), this would give most of them (the Sherman variants not on steroids and likely un-perked) something to fight that wouldn't be a few notches superior.
NOW, back on topic ( :furious ), the Iosif Stalin 2 (IS-2 :aok ) & Tiger II (King Tiger :D ).
*wink* *wink*
*nudge* *nudge*
-
My point is that like Flotsom said " it wouldn't be competitive in here" . Tigers in here are killed by panzer's at close ranges, but from distance it's very hard for a panzer to kill tigers. In midwar where there aren't Fireflys eny usually negates the other side from upping Tigers. I can sit at range and kill all the panzers and T-34's I want until I get bombed all the while taking hits from them without damage. It would be that way for a 75mm Sherman against a panzer. From distance the panzer has an advantage. I just don't think a 75mm armed Sherman would make an impact. A 76mm would.
It wouldn't be competitive against a perked tank . . . OK, makes sense, that is why the perked tanks are perked, isn't it?
IMO it would be competitive against the IV and the T-34/76, i.e. the unperked tanks. Seeing as the Sherman itself would be unperked, again I don't see the problem.
But I disagree that the IV would have some massive advantage over the 75mm Sherman at range -- advantage, yes, a massive one, no. How many whines do you see from people who think the Firefly is over-armored (due to "reputation") because they can't automatically one-ping it from 2000 yards from a IV? To be sure, it would be a challenge for the Sherman driver to use cover to get close enough to bring its 75mm into killing range -- which is what is faced by the current T-34/76 as well. Given the terrain we often see in AH, I don't think this would be a huge issue.
OTOH, the 76mm Sherman would have a slight advantage over the IV. The question there would be whether it would be lightly perked like the T-34/85. It is a close call -- T-34 (76 or 85) do have the advantage of speed over the Sherman, but are fairly comparable otherwise.
I suppose it gets back to what you want from the game. Many people just want bigger and better, which is fine, but it doesn't mean the smaller and more challenging to use don't have a place. We do have the M-8, after all. :D
-
It wouldn't be competitive against a perked tank . . . OK, makes sense, that is why the perked tanks are perked, isn't it?
IMO it would be competitive against the IV and the T-34/76, i.e. the unperked tanks. Seeing as the Sherman itself would be unperked, again I don't see the problem.
But I disagree that the IV would have some massive advantage over the 75mm Sherman at range -- advantage, yes, a massive one, no. How many whines do you see from people who think the Firefly is over-armored (due to "reputation") because they can't automatically one-ping it from 2000 yards from a IV? To be sure, it would be a challenge for the Sherman driver to use cover to get close enough to bring its 75mm into killing range -- which is what is faced by the current T-34/76 as well. Given the terrain we often see in AH, I don't think this would be a huge issue.
OTOH, the 76mm Sherman would have a slight advantage over the IV. The question there would be whether it would be lightly perked like the T-34/85. It is a close call -- T-34 (76 or 85) do have the advantage of speed over the Sherman, but are fairly comparable otherwise.
I suppose it gets back to what you want from the game. Many people just want bigger and better, which is fine, but it doesn't mean the smaller and more challenging to use don't have a place. We do have the M-8, after all. :D
Don't get me wrong, I would like to see 10-15 new tanks and not all uber ones. Yes the Sherman included. But the rate we get new anything concerns me. If they introduced a few lesser tanks that could compete against one another that would be cool but anything including a new plane that has a disadvantage against most of the line up wont be used much after the first week. Yah ... you ll have the token few guys that get a charge outta upping a Sherman and going against the rest of the line up but not many . So in my opinion it would be a waste unless like I said they introduce a couple of other gv's that are in the same league. People ask for the I-16. In my opinion that would be a huge mistake. An Oscar would make more sence to me. But again .... my opinion.
-
JS2 and TigerII would be kinda cool additions.. IF???
We had a more realistic terrain model first...
Our terrain model is a joke, it needs updating desperately..
Before any superheavy tanks come into the game...
Its unrealistic enough w the 56ton TigerI now... Never mind
60 and 70tonners...
Those tanks look mighty impressive on paper, and in
the imagination.. But their actual usage in the field,
wasn't near as glorious as most think... It took
tremendous effort and manpower just to bring them
into the battle area... And if the weather was even
slightly inclement in the last 3 days, they were stuck
on the hardball, (hardball=paved road).. And it better
be reinforced road too.. Even in prime weather conditions
their crosscountry speed was limited... What is solid ground
for a 35ton PnzrIV, IS NOT solid for a 70ton KingTiger, LOL!!!
And Geebus forbid ya come to a stream crossing..
LOL, you are STOPPED!!! End of story!!! Till the pioneers
can build or reinforce a bridge for ya...
The superheavies were a major Rube Goldberg.. The Germans
would have been far better off, by not wasting the materials
and effort building them... They should have simplified the
Panther design, and threw all production into that instead..
Even the Russians realized this eventually, deleting the JS series
and T10M from their inventory in the 50s... They used their
turrets/guns on concrete fortifications along the Chinese border..
Still there, LOL!!!
Not tryin to be a killjoy here... But we need SOME semblance
of reality in this game... If ya want all that armor and gunpower,
you should take the detriments along with the advantages..
RC
-
JS2 and TigerII would be kinda cool additions.. IF???
We had a more realistic terrain model first...
Our terrain model is a joke, it needs updating desperately..
Before any superheavy tanks come into the game...
Its unrealistic enough w the 56ton TigerI now... Never mind
60 and 70tonners...
Those tanks look mighty impressive on paper, and in
the imagination.. But their actual usage in the field,
wasn't near as glorious as most think... It took
tremendous effort and manpower just to bring them
into the battle area... And if the weather was even
slightly inclement in the last 3 days, they were stuck
on the hardball, (hardball=paved road).. And it better
be reinforced road too.. Even in prime weather conditions
their crosscountry speed was limited... What is solid ground
for a 35ton PnzrIV, IS NOT solid for a 70ton KingTiger, LOL!!!
And Geebus forbid ya come to a stream crossing..
LOL, you are STOPPED!!! End of story!!! Till the pioneers
can build or reinforce a bridge for ya...
The superheavies were a major Rube Goldberg.. The Germans
would have been far better off, by not wasting the materials
and effort building them... They should have simplified the
Panther design, and threw all production into that instead..
Even the Russians realized this eventually, deleting the JS series
and T10M from their inventory in the 50s... They used their
turrets/guns on concrete fortifications along the Chinese border..
Still there, LOL!!!
Not tryin to be a killjoy here... But we need SOME semblance
of reality in this game... If ya want all that armor and gunpower,
you should take the detriments along with the advantages..
RC
AGREED!! :salute
-
Comming back to AH this year I found the terrain had received a hug upgrade from what I remember it used to be (sheep, bushes, triangular hills and water). I also found that there were more vehicles available than just the PT boat, M16 or M3 (the only non-plane vehicles I remember were in the game at the time). If you remember those times, then I don't think you would complain about the current terrain model or limited choice of GVs currently in the game. Sure, I want more and can't wait to see it, but to me it's obvious that HTC is already working on these departments (or at least significantly were). So, it's hard for me to say "hey, put some work into these things here" when what I've been seeing shows they already are doing it.
HTC does need to add quite a bit more GV choices I think, it's really lacking a ton of the common GVs found during WWII. But again, I say that with a grain of salt because I've returned to AH this year to find a dozen or so more GVs in the game than there were. The reason I made this post though is that I figure HTC might be looking into adding more GVs soon, and I would like a couple favorites of mine that I also think are a good match against each other (and in their own unique ways, imo).
I am happy we are having some good quality GV-related discussions about the game in this thread, just be careful it doesn't step on the toes (or too far off-topic) of this thread's true purpose.
-
The Stalin is no joke in hitting power , I use it in Red Orchestra and have no prob knocking out Tigers / Panthers over 1000m ..when the King Tiger patch gets released soon we will see how they match up . As stated they both were slow to reload because of the crew config. you almost need a driver with you on the
maps to maneuver whilst you reload ..would be a nice addition to AH .
Bolt
-
AGREED!! :salute
Agreed about most of the late war German Uber tanks but the King Tiger should have been built. If the Germans didn't have the K Tiger they would have had problems with The Stalin Tanks. The really shined as defensive tanks, almost usless as an offensive weapon. There are more than 1 story where K Tanks commanders trook out 15+ Stalin tanks by themselves in one engagement.
-
The Stalin is no joke in hitting power , I use it in Red Orchestra and have no prob knocking out Tigers / Panthers over 1000m ..
Bolt
I doubt Red Orchestra has the IS-2 modeled correctly, as the IS-2's HE rounds were only effective against buildings and bunkers, not enemy armor at those distances.
I haven't read a source that says the IS-2 has AP rounds.
:devil
-
I've played Red Orchestra. It's hard to say how well modeled the tanks are in that game because they're all used at very close ranges. The IS2 in RO had way more ammo than it does in the real world, and most of it was AP instead of HE (which is also not accurate). I don't think I've been in an engagement with a tank in Red Orchestra that wasn't closer than 1000 meters. At that range, yeah, maybe the 120mm AP round is modeled correctly in that game, but I doubt it. But in AH we have tank battles that seem more accurate in that most engagements take place with a few thousand meters between the tanks that are fighting. RO is a fun game but it is more of a FPS/infantry simulator than a tank/vehicle combat simulator. It's like the antichrist of AH.
-
*punt* I don't want this to get too old n dusty.
-
I put alot of hours in every tour in a GV, so some new tank choices would be nice. I am with the people who think that bigger isnt better and we dont need more tigers. The light tanks should be added first, any thing with the speed of an m8 and a 75mm would get my vote. We already have the uber shermanvc firefly which in the right hands is a real pain to dispose of. Alot of problems would be solved by perking the m4 at 3/4 that of the Tiger, and the t34-85 at 1/2.
-
would like to see the king tiger,panther an m36 slugger with 90 mm of pure death
-
it would be beast if i saw a King Tiger on the map :rock :aok
-
Thanks for your support and input. :aok (now i don't feel bad for reviving the thread).
I put alot of hours in every tour in a GV, so some new tank choices would be nice. I am with the people who think that bigger isnt better and we dont need more tigers. The light tanks should be added first, any thing with the speed of an m8 and a 75mm would get my vote. We already have the uber shermanvc firefly which in the right hands is a real pain to dispose of. Alot of problems would be solved by perking the m4 at 3/4 that of the Tiger, and the t34-85 at 1/2.
I like the bigger, but I agree that it does not mean it's better most the time. In my gaming experiences, if you just add one "monster" that will be a dominant force in a game/simulator, you need to add a second "monster" so that you at least can have a minimal amount of variety in the same weight-class. At the time when I started this thread there were some other threads on other tanks and GVs floating around, so this one I narrowed down the best I could to make it state "these are two big tanks I like, they aren't exactly the same by any means, but they would be decent competitors against each other on the field and I think would make a great addition to the game if they got introduced at the same time".
I agree with your point though, I would like to see some more light and medium tanks added too, especially the more common tanks of WWII (by common I mean that there were thousands upon thousands of those models made during the course of the war. IE: Panzer IIIs and the early and very common IV models). I also really want to see if maybe we can get the STuGs (IIIs and IVs) and some other tank destroyers too.
-
The Stalin is no joke in hitting power , I use it in Red Orchestra and have no prob knocking out Tigers / Panthers over 1000m ..when the King Tiger patch gets released soon we will see how they match up . As stated they both were slow to reload because of the crew config. you almost need a driver with you on the
maps to maneuver whilst you reload ..would be a nice addition to AH .
Bolt
I believe that the loading slowness of the Stalin was due to it's two piece round. Not so with the King Tiger. It should load as fast as any other German tank.
-
I also would like to see more light and medium tanks ex the stuart or tank destroyers like the hellcat or slugger-the only problem about some of the jag series is no turret movement so aiming would be tough with the way we drive- just a thought
-
Something I overlooked that's interesting for the subject of how well the armor penetration was of the IS-2's 122mm main-gun and didn't notice until recently, maybe you number-lovers will chew it over more in-depth than I have.
The Wiki page on the IS-2's main gun, the D25-T 122mm (M1931/37), has a table listing the various munitions and armor penetrations for the gun (references cited as the "Shirokorad A. B. - Encyclopedia of the Soviet Artillery - Mn. Harvest, 2000" and the "Ballistic Tables for Corps Guns M1931 and M1931/37 - Voenizdat NKO, 1944").
Perhaps someone here could compare it to one of their trusted/reliable sources for me, tell me if it's in-the-ballpark or completely-off (Stalinized). I'd also like to see something more comprehensive and reliable to work off of on the subject of the D25T's armor penetration at various ranges than a table off of the wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-19_122mm_gun
Available ammunition:
Type | Model | Projectile weight, kg | HE weight, kg | Muzzle velocity, m/s | Range, m
Armor piercing shells
АРНЕ | BR-471 | 25.0 | 0.156 |800 | 4,000
АРНЕВС (from early 1945) | BR-471B | 25.0 | | 800 | 4,000
High explosive and fragmentation shells
HE-Fragmentation, gun | OF-471H | 25.0 | 3.8 | 800 | 19,800
HE-Fragmentation, gun | OF-471 | 25.0 | 3.6 | 800 | 19,800
HE-Fragmentation, howitzer | OF-462 | 21.7 | 3.67 | 765 (charge no. 1) | 16,600
HE-Fragmentation, gun | OF-471В | | | |
HE-Fragmentation, gun | OF-472 | | | |
Anti-concrete shells
Anti-concrete, gun | G-471 | 25.0 | 2.2 | 800 | 20,400
Chemical shells
Fragmentation/chemical, gun | OH-471 | 25.0 | | 800 | 19,800
Chemical, howitzer | H-462 | 21.8 | | 705 (charge no. 2) | 19,800
Armour penetration table:
АРНЕВС shell BR-471B
Distance, m | Meet angle 60°, mm | Meet angle 90°, mm
500 | 125 | 155
1,000 | 120 | 145
1,500 | 110 | 135
2,000 | 100 | 125
3,000 | 85 | 105
APHE shell BR-471
Distance, m | Meet angle 60°, mm | Meet angle 60°, mm
500 | 120 | 150
1,000 | 105 | 130
1,500 | 95 | 115
2,000 | 80 | 100
3,000 | 65 | 75
Different methods of armor penetration measurement were used in different countries / periods. Therefore, direct comparison is often impossible.
I'll try to get some up for the Tiger-II later, though I don't think anyone following this thread doubts/questions the legitimacy about the 88mm KwK's effectiveness.
-
If we were to get this, i think we should be tlaking some SERIOUS perks. Like for the first weeks i can see it being very common as a lot of people have vehicle points to burn. But after a while it would be nice to have it so it wasnt so affordable, in a case where a single Tiger II could turn the battle for 1 side and send the enemy running.
:salute