Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Rendar on July 28, 2000, 03:16:00 PM
-
I think the Panther and the T-34 are good choices for our next tanks. I'm not sure if anyone would want to drive an M4. A M18 Hellcat is also pretty cool. Top speed of over 50 mph. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
The Panther is not "uber" as it has its share of weaknesses. It does have sloping armor and a HV 75mm gun though.
------------------
Rendar
[This message has been edited by Rendar (edited 07-28-2000).]
-
Panther was hands-down the best tank of the war. It is indeed uber. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Originally posted by Rendar:
I think the Panther and the T-34 are good choices for our next tanks. I'm not sure if anyone would want to drive an M4. A M18 Hellcat is also pretty cool. Top speed of over 50 mph. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
The Panther is not "uber" as it has its share of weaknesses. It does have sloping armor and a HV 75mm gun though.
Panther is by far uber. I'd try fighting a Tiger before taking on a Panther.
I must keep repeating myself on the M4A3E2-76...it is NOT a M4A1 or M4A3, the Shermans with a horrible rep...nor is it a an "Easy Eight"...the Sherman "Jumbo" has armor nearly twice as thick the PzIVH. It has a decent chance of living through a one on one engagement with a Tiger. Stats are in the "Pyro/Nate could you please add another tank?" thread.
Keep in mind on the Panther, it's armor is equal to a Tiger's, the 75mm is much more powerful, and it's faster.
And the T-34/76 was an early war tank (To give you and idea how advanced it was) that the Panther was based on and designed to destroy...so you would need at least a T-34/85 to make a good matchup which would leave the Panzer IVH useless in any case.
- Jig
--------
Tanks, smanks, gimme Dodge powerwagon.
-
The only way the Panther could not be a perk tank is if you are playing in 1955 or 65.
It is easiely the best production tank of WW2.
And in tanks that is much worse news than in planes.
-
I still say add the M4A3 Sherman and T-34/76 as the next tanks.
I'd be alright if the US got an inferior unit once.
Sisu
-Karnak
-
Oh my, yanks and canucks complaining of uber tanks, which are produced since 1943, unlike their +1944 planes..
Come on, lets perk P-51D and P-47D, those are obviously too uber.. and F4u-1C too, its bit too rare and it has those uber cannons.
I wonder what Panzer VIB or JagdTiger would be, probably perk down so much that you could gain the points with one year playing..
Now, germans made superior tanks while yanks have those hype planes and all other neat stuff... lets face it, germans rule on the ground (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Panther would be sweet toy.. faster than Pz-IVh (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Well FWIW, I never said don't model it. I only said it was uber. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Let's not turn this into another Axis/Allied bashfest. I just got the sand out of my britches from the last go-around in the sand box...
-
Karnak.
Exactly. The M4a3(75) would be cool in this game. Great HE, Hi rof, excellent AAMG, good speed. Good armour. Weak Anti Tank.
I would go with the T34(85) though. The design weaknesses of the earlier 2 man turrent T34s would be hard to portray in the game. And the 85 would be an interesting contrast to the IVH and the M4a3.
Better gun then the M4
Better armour and speed then the PzIVH.
Worse gun laying than either.
Not great HE round.
Lousy MGs.
Putting in planes that are supperior but still vulnerable too lesser planes is one thing.
Putting in a tank that is frontaly invulnerable to the others at anything more than 200meters, as fast as any of them and can destroy them at over 20 times that range is totally different.
The Tiger II and Jpzr VI where not so bad really. It would be along way to anywhere in one. Almost any hill in the game could defeat them. Any of the medium tanks could avoid them. Not so the Panther. And with its gun and armour It may as well be a Tiger II.
I know it was a common tank. But the thing puts the "P" in perk.
Definatly bring it on. But perk it.
-
OK, so the Panther is "uber". But the rest of the vehicles are not. Actually, the Panther being "uber" would be good as the Germans did not have that many of them going around. This would help in balancing the battlefield a bit.
------------------
Rendar
-
Originally posted by Rendar:
OK, so the Panther is "uber". But the rest of the vehicles are not. Actually, the Panther being "uber" would be good as the Germans did not have that many of them going around. This would help in balancing the battlefield a bit.
Your speculating again! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Someone explain to me why the MG34's ROF is like a hand cranked gattling gun.
- Jig
-------
I are dweeb.
-
Originally posted by Pongo:
Karnak.
Exactly. The M4a3(75) would be cool in this game. Great HE, Hi rof, excellent AAMG, good speed. Good armour. Weak Anti Tank.
I would go with the T34(85) though. The design weaknesses of the earlier 2 man turrent T34s would be hard to portray in the game. And the 85 would be an interesting contrast to the IVH and the M4a3.
Better gun then the M4
Better armour and speed then the PzIVH.
Worse gun laying than either.
Not great HE round.
Lousy MGs.
Putting in planes that are supperior but still vulnerable too lesser planes is one thing.
Putting in a tank that is frontaly invulnerable to the others at anything more than 200meters, as fast as any of them and can destroy them at over 20 times that range is totally different.
The Tiger II and Jpzr VI where not so bad really. It would be along way to anywhere in one. Almost any hill in the game could defeat them. Any of the medium tanks could avoid them. Not so the Panther. And with its gun and armour It may as well be a Tiger II.
I know it was a common tank. But the thing puts the "P" in perk.
Definatly bring it on. But perk it.
I can live with a M4A3...it and the Panzer IV are a good match, but let's at least make it a M4A3-76. That way they are very close in speed, gun range, and armor. The high profile of the Sherman would surely play a signifigant role.
The Sherman's thicker top armor would prove to make it more tolerant to air attacks, and would be faster off road. The Panzer IV has a lower profile and more side protection with it's skirts. The guns are about equal in both AP and HE preformence.
Then on to the T-34/76c which is much faster then the Sherman or panzer on the road, about equal to the Sherman offroad. It also has very thick side and rear armor compaired to the Sherman and PzIV, and slightly less frontal and armor then the Sherman. It's 76mm is inferior to both the Sherman and PzIV's guns.
Sherman M4A3-76
Speed 41.8 km/h
Off Road 16.5 km/h
Rev Speed 21.0 km/h
Body Mass 31.1 tons
Front Armor 122.0 mm
Side Armor 38.0 mm
Rear Armor 38.0 mm
Front Turret 135.0 mm
Side Turret 51.0 mm
Rear Turret 51.0 mm
Top Armor 25.0 mm
Turret
Traverse Speed 24 degrees per second
Elevate Min -10.0 degrees
Elevate Max 25.0 degrees
projectile velocity(AP) 792 m/s
projectile mass(AP) 7.0 kg
Caliber 76 mm
T-34/76c
Speed 55.0 km/h
Off Road 15.0 km/h
Rev Speed 27.5 km/h
Body Mass 30.9 tons
Front Armor 94.0 mm
Side Armor 57.0 mm
Rear Armor 66.0 mm
Front Turret 103.0 mm
Side Turret 55.0 mm
Rear Turret 55.0 mm
Top Armor 25.0 mm
Turret
Traverse Speed 36 degrees per second
Elevate Min -3.0 degrees
Elevate Max 30.0 degrees
projectile velocity(AP) 655 m/s
projectile mass(AP) 6.3 kg
Caliber 76 mm
Panzer IVH
Speed 38.0 km/h
Off Road 8 km/h
Rev Speed 19.0 km/h
Body Mass 25.0 tons
Front Armor 82.0 mm
Side Armor 30.0 mm
Rear Armor 21.0 mm
Front Turret 80.0 mm
Side Turret 33.0 mm
Rear Turret 30.0 mm
Top Armor 10.0 mm
Turret
Traverse Speed 14 degrees per second
Elevate Min -8.0 degrees
Elevate Max = 20.0 degrees
projectile velocity(AP) 790 m/s
projectile mass(AP) 6.8 kg
Caliber 75 mm
- Jig
-------
"I looked up and there was a Tiger pointing it's 88mm directly at me. I froze, standing there. The bastards fired , the shell whizzing by and exploding behind me. although the shell knicked me, the concussion from the explosion rendered me unconcious. A private then tossed a thermite gernade into the commander's hatch, at which point five very badly burned Germans surrendered to our meeger little force. At this point I was coming to and was being taken into a ambulance truck one of the Germans being carried past me. He then with a queer little smile, looked at me from his badly burned face and asked in bad english 'got a cigarette?'. It took all three corpsmen to keep me from beating the hell out of him" -- Sgt during the Ardennes skirmishs.
-
Hold it folks, The Panther, aside from being my namesake, was a very good tank, I grant,
however, let's tune to reality here.
1) 75mm gun same as PzIVH
2) armor thicker than IVH, not as thick as Tiger
3) mobility about on par with IVH
4) anti-aircraft capability, same as any tank, ie; none
Where does the "Uber"(gawd that word is abused) part begin?
The panther's main bonus was the well designed sloped armor,it was a good medium tank with a decent gun, nothing more, nothing less, and in an arena where 98.9% of tank kills come from aircraft, the exclusion of any tank is plain silly, you want to see Uber? have NATEDOG put a Flakveirling on the IVH's hull and you'll see pilot's screaming to the high heavens.
I say we need: panther,tiger,T-34,Sherman,hellcat, (the list goes on and on, some 3,455 types of armor in WWII, but outta time)
------------------
pzvg- "5 years and I still can't shoot"
-
Originally posted by pzvg:
Hold it folks, The Panther, aside from being my namesake, was a very good tank, I grant,
however, let's tune to reality here.
1) 75mm gun same as PzIVH
Panther has 75mm L70, Panzer IV has 75mm L48 difference vs armour at range is huge.
2) armor thicker than IVH, not as thick as Tiger
Its frontal Hull armour is not thicker than the tiger but well sloped and much more effective. The front of the turrent is simular to tiger. It is about twice as well armoured as a panzer IV. It should also be noted the the manufacuring of German tank armour was supperior to the Allied tanks. The Face Hardened swedish steel they used amazed the allies with its resiliance.
3) mobility about on par with IVH
It is 20km/hr faster then a panzer IV.
4) anti-aircraft capability, same as any tank, ie; none
Has a mg34 on the roof. Which is not great but it makes it one of the best of ww2. Most really had none.
Where does the "Uber"(gawd that word is abused) part begin?
I say your wrong. Your stats above show how you got the impression. I think tanks are more prone to perking than planes. Because they have real imunities to each other. In the wide open ranges of AH the Panther, with no engine fires or gear box failures, would be even better then in WW2.
No other tank would be used by anybody but masochists if the Panther was freely available. But what a perk to earn!
Jigster.
The Panzer IV and the M4a3 are not equal in armour. And they are not equal in speed. The Panzer IV H has a better gun the M4 is supperior in all other aspects. The side skirts are only effective against HEAT rounds, they dont add armour for AP purposes.
The 76.2 would give the M4 no disadvantages vs the Panzer IV.Give us the M4a375 I think.
I think it would be cool if the USSR had the top non perk tank. The set I chose established that. And any of them can kill any of the others. just the ranges vary.
And nothing would be cooler than a wave of T34 85s approaching a field and some one dusts of a perk and panthers them. he he he.
I would buy tickets for that.
As to the comments that only the Panther is uber. No but it is the most uber. The only tanks that can stand against it are much slower and usually have pathetic rof and or main armement rounds.
[This message has been edited by Pongo (edited 07-31-2000).]
-
Originally posted by Pongo:
Jigster.
The Panzer IV and the M4a3 are not equal in armour. And they are not equal in speed. The Panzer IV H has a better gun the M4 is supperior in all other aspects. The side skirts are only effective against HEAT rounds, they dont add armour for AP purposes.
The 76.2 would give the M4 no disadvantages vs the Panzer IV.Give us the M4a375 I think.
I think it would be cool if the USSR had the top non perk tank. The set I chose established that. And any of them can kill any of the others. just the ranges vary.
And nothing would be cooler than a wave of T34 85s approaching a field and some one dusts of a perk and panthers them. he he he.
I would buy tickets for that.
As to the comments that only the Panther is uber. No but it is the most uber. The only tanks that can stand against it are much slower and usually have pathetic rof and or main armement rounds.
I have been thinking it over an I agree...the 76 would give the Sherman no vices. The PzIV does come out to be the light-weight in forray however. The Sherman's offroad mobility, gun laying, and better armor will suffice.
My only problem is with the T-34/85...it's really not does not fit in with the other two, and would only serve a purpose if Panthers, or perhaps more fittingly a Tiger II was planned. But then we'd have to have M4A3E2-76's or T-26's (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Along with a Kv-85 and one of either the Su or IS series of course.
It would be interesting to see how much difference the gun laying ability of the US tanks has over the superior range and optics of the German, and the Russian's speed, and armor.
- Jig
-------
Churchill AVRE's. Now there's a pillbox buster.
-
The T3485s gun is very simular to the 75 on a Panzer IV. It would be the best in the game of Armour vs Armour but the others could deal with it. It sets up for the perk tanks very nicly. And it is THE 1944 russian medium. Also it is much faster then the best AAMG we will have(ostwind) so It will have to make due with M16s or slow down. It has no AAMG is self.
-
The armor on the Panther is not as thick as that of the Tiger. It was possible for the 75mm sherman to penetrate the Panther's armor from the side or rear at close and medium range.
-
I detailed the effective armour of the Panther above. The Tiger has 100mm at 81 degrees. (90/81) * 100mm - 111mm. Vs nearly 200 for the Panther
But still a good amount to withstand the typical guns of its apponents.
The Panther did have weaker protection on the sides compared to the tiger.
-
I once read the penetration ranges of the various countries' tanks against one another. That sounds confusing, but it boils down to this; if you wanted to kill a Panther, you had to be much closer than you would to kill anything else. 200yds is an awful darn close effective range to have to take one out, wouldn't you say?
Maybe the point is moot- I mean, kills occur at unrealistic ranges now. But the historical and anecdotal data would elevate the Panther to near legendary status, and it is a damn good thing the Germans didn't have more of them.
I don't drive tanks much- I don't enjoy them. Go ahead, model it. But when it happens, there is going to be two things that happen:[list=1]- There is going to be a terrific outcry from the people that do, and;
- There will only be one tank used in the MA.[/list=a]
Anytime a vehicle or aircraft is introduced into any sim it must be considered what its impact will be. If the introduction enhances the overall play by introducing a new challenge or opens the door for various new facets of gameplay, chances are it was a good addition. If on the other hand the introduction virtually eliminates any competition from any similar aircraft or vehicle, for the purposes of gameplay it is a bad move. If that is what you would have, HTC might as well model 262's and P-80's (both in production in WW2) and model nothing else in the air- believe me, if they did, you would be silly to try to fly anything else. (And I don't need someone on the LW side switching the focus here to "yeah, but the 262 saw combat and the P-80 didn't". I teach history, I know. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif))
The fact is, if you don't want to consider gameplay and approach this on a purely factual basis, fine. But now you are going to have to limit production of oil and rubber for the Germans, and allow unlimited production for the Allies. You are going to have to limit the available number of fighters the Axis had. You are going to have to simulate the comparatively green pilots the Allies faced by war's end. You will need to simulate the complexity and fragility of the advanced but untested equipment the Germans were forced to use. You will need to place them in the middle of Europe with armies on three sides rushing in. You have to give the Allies air superiority on most of the map. You will have the Axis defenders facing odds of more than 10:1. Won't all that be fun if we forget this is a game, and that some concessions have to be made to make it fun to play?
-
The Panther's 75mm gun is not the same as the 75mm gun on the IV H. The Panther's gun is a high-velocity 75mm which is more lethal than the 88mm.
------------------
Rendar
-
A WW2 simulation where all the tanks are Panther Gs is not a WW2 simulation.
A WW2 simulation where the Panther is somewhere equivilient to a T34-85 or a M4A3E8 is not a WW2 simulation.
But a WW2 Simulation without the Panther is HTCs perk scheme seems perfect for this. Limit the numbers of Panthers and Pershings hardly a WW2 simulation either.
without adding tons of strat reasons why they are rare.
As with the Spit XIV debate, The worst thing I think could be done is put something in that looks like a Panther but doenst dominate as it did.
Rivers with only 30 ton class bridges would limit the panther quite a bit too.....
-
Ok so the gun IRL was better, as in the other thread, it don't apply here.
Panther the only tank in the MA if put in?
go take a look at the relative sizes of both tanks, the panther would be at a greater disadvantage in AH for the simple reason it would be easier to see from the air.
Sloping armor giving it a much more effective thickness than a Tiger, True (IRL)
here it doesn't seem to matter, plus it's only sloped on the front and the turret, not that much protection.
If you really want to see something that would dominate ground action in AH (as opposed to real life) try STU-42H
very hard to see, very big gun
In a game where I have crippled a MKIV by shooting it in the butt with the Ma deuce on the M3, it's pretty much apples to oranges to go by real data, while it may be factored in by HTC, something is not going into it right, we have stuff happen to ground units here that not only did not happen in real life, it couldn't.
So let's not be perking any tank in this flight sim, or for that matter any plane
I have thought about it, and if the so-called "uber rides" were allowed in,and everyone flew only them, (which I personally doubt) Then 99% of the few kills I get would probably be these so-called "uber rides"
Somehow that idea doesn't bother me all that much, since I know that there ain't money or life riding on it, or do you all got something going on that we should know about? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
pzvg- "5 years and I still can't shoot"
-
Well I hope the extrordinary difference between a Sherman 75 and a Panther 75 is modeled in AH. I hope the massive increase in protection you get when you slope your glacis plane to 35 % is facored into the game...
I suspect they will
If they are then the Panther will be uber.
-
I'd really like to push for some type of range finder in the tanks too. Then the dang AP shells wouldn't make craters and we wouldn't have 75mm tracer rounds (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Ridding the tanks of the tell-tale tracer round would be a big step to improving their function in the game.
As long as the terrain is not completely flat there can be some very interesting tank battles...the small depressions at the base of the "big hill" by 27 come to mind. And the planes can't see the fighting because of the hills.
I wouldn't mind smoke trailing from the barrel after firing a round though (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
- Jig
-------
Ever notice that the Germans hardly ever had original designs for their tanks? The Pz38 was Czech, the Tiger implemented the size of the Kv's, the Panter came from the T-34, and the Strumtiger came from the Churchill AVRE...adaptation is the winner of wars.
-
You can't have it both ways, Pzvg. One poster wants Panthers to be Panthers, not a Panzer IV in a Panther shell. You seem to be saying that HTC will have some kind of Panther lookalike that really won't behave as a real one would... see what I mean?
If HTC did make a Panther, and they made it at all to measure up to its RL reputation, you bet that's all anyone would drive. That may bother you, it may not. It would bother me, because I do like to see the broad spectrum of aircraft and vehicles, and I like to see them used. Right now I think that 99% of the aircraft and vehicles in AH do serve a purpose- no small feat when you consider how many planes are included in the MA free-for-all. Yes, IMHO there are vehicles/planes that should be perked.
I came here from DoA- it's a little WWI sim from iEN. It has somewhat of a narrow focus of planes, but the fights are pretty fun. The trouble was that there was one plane that, for the longest time, was superior in every attribute to all others. Of course there were those that argued this was accurate, others against, but no matter. What did matter was that you flew into every furball knowing that 9 out of 10 airplanes were going to be Sopwith Camels. You don't really understand what an uber plane can do until you've seen something like this (I'm sure there are many ex-DoA pilots that can confirm exactly what I am saying here). DoA never could quite get over the hump for many reasons, but chief among them is the reputation it gained for being a one-plane sim. There were those of us that accepted the challenge of taking inferior aircraft against the hordes (ah! Taking the beloved DVa against 4 Camels and winning is sweet!) but usually people caved and flew what they needed to fly to be competitive.
WB's has had the same trouble occasionally, though not to the same extent. To some degree it is unavoidable. But when you look at this particular vehicle you have to ask yourself, what rough equivalent do you have for the other side?
-
Yes, bring on the Sherman and other tanks.
But for gods sake get RID of the external view!
The only advantage I see in driving a Sherman in AH is that it would be able to clear hills and run around while a panzer would muck and crawl at 5 mph. But the external view is simply screwing up the tanking experience. Just now I was in a PERFECT position to surprise, ambush and massacre 4 red panzers that were on the other side of a hill (a plane had given me their location and heading, which I confirmed with external view). If there was no external view, I wouldve still had the info from my flying buddy, wouldve gone around the hill (I was near the turn and the red panzers were halfway climbing hill on the other side). Alas, the geeks on the red panzers saw me with the external view and rushed me. Extremely frustrating to see my efforts messed up by such omniscient external view.
I say, take off the external view or give external view that would not display anything BUT terrain (aka, wont show tanks or airplanes). Whichever is easier to implement.
Matilda, Sherman (rocket, flamethrower, artillery versions would be nice as well), T-34, some early German Panzers would be great too.
Edited: Spelling...good grief (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
[This message has been edited by Tac (edited 07-30-2000).]
-
Kieren my point being that the mark IV in AH does not behave like the real thing, no not a panzer mk IV in a panther shell, more like an AH MK IV in a panther shell, come on folks stop trying to introduce real world data into the discussion, most of us are smart enough to know the panther was a superior tank, the point is, would that translate into a game where an unstabilized panzerkampfwagen IV ausf H can fire on the move and score a frontal armor kill at 2300 meters? If you think that is reality, send me some of what you're using (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
pzvg- "5 years and I still can't shoot"
-
Originally posted by pzvg:
Kieren my point being that the mark IV in AH does not behave like the real thing, no not a panzer mk IV in a panther shell, more like an AH MK IV in a panther shell, come on folks stop trying to introduce real world data into the discussion, most of us are smart enough to know the panther was a superior tank, the point is, would that translate into a game where an unstabilized panzerkampfwagen IV ausf H can fire on the move and score a frontal armor kill at 2300 meters? If you think that is reality, send me some of what you're using (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Are you saying that that shot in a Panzer IV is imposible? I guerrenty you its not. Yes it is extremely unlikly but not impossible.
Most of the reason the Panzer can hit at long ranges on the move is that in the absense of all the little natural fluctuations that make that shot extremely unlikly in RL here it just remains unlilky.
Sory to keep bringing up the painful facts but how is that situation made any better by inundating the theater with Panthers? You want those kills to happen at 5.5k?
The armour game is in its infancy. Some more diversity in AFVs will focus the interest of the players on the problems that still exist and that will focus HTC on it. Why wreck the whole process by focusing everyone on the Panthers increadably supperiority vs any likly adverserary?
Yes like its historical counter part most of them would be killed from the air anyway. But why not try to use the Panther as an incentive to play tanks more not less? If perk vehicles could only be earned from vehicle earned points then the guys that really love the weaker tanks would be deadly in the Panther if they earned it.
But it seems extremely unlikly that you would be able to play your namesake in the MA on a daily basis. Which I suspect is your real agenda.
-
One of my points in this discussion is there has to be a good blend of playability anchored in historical fact. One cannot discount all data any more than one can discount game playability.
Pure data = fun? Nope.
Pure gameplay = fun? Nope again.
Essential data + essential gameplay concessions = fun? Yes!
Now, what is essential on both counts is subject to vigorous debate. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Maybe if we had a limiter, this could work. For the MA, for each side, there would be a limit of 6 Panthers or 20% of the ground vehicles. which ever is more. So instead of having 50 Panthers, there would be 10 Panthers.
------------------
Rendar
-
My $0.02 (USD):
just give us a faster tank! I don't care who's or what, just something faster than that 25mph slug we have now. It takes an hour to get from one base to another in most cases. It's the only reason I don't tank more often.
-
Originally posted by pzvg:
Kieren my point being that the mark IV in AH does not behave like the real thing, no not a panzer mk IV in a panther shell, more like an AH MK IV in a panther shell, come on folks stop trying to introduce real world data into the discussion, most of us are smart enough to know the panther was a superior tank, the point is, would that translate into a game where an unstabilized panzerkampfwagen IV ausf H can fire on the move and score a frontal armor kill at 2300 meters? If you think that is reality, send me some of what you're using (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
We have too many artifical crutchs that let the tanks do such things. The 75mm tracer shell is probably the biggest, you can watch a round till it hits the ground and craters, for which you compensate. Most tank sights were marked with 2500m sights for adjusting elevation, and ranging was done either by profile range finding, or by moving in close enough to ensure a hit.
Because there are so many planes and acks to fire upon the tanks, getting close in not a very viable tactic.
The ideal way to engage tank vs tank is to creep along...stopping to take a shot and then moving again...but due to tracer shell, and the flat terrain shooting on the move isn't hard. At top speed yes, but when just scooting around long range shots are possible.
- Jig
-
just give us a faster tank! I don't care who's or what, just something faster than that 25mph slug we have now. It takes an hour to get from one base to another in most cases. It's the only reason I don't tank more often.
T-34/76 does 34 mph, 10 mph faster than PzKw IVH... 30% faster!
T-34/76 does not have AA MG and sights are quite a bit worser, armour is bit better than of PzKw IVH. Fairly balanced pair, I think. (Hint hint HTC!)
------------------
jochen
Jagdflieger JG 2 'Richthofen' Aces High
Geschwaderkommodore (on leave) Jagdgeschwader 2 'Richthofen' (http://personal.inet.fi/cool/jan.nousiainen/JG2) Warbirds
T-34/76 to Aces High!
Ladysmith wants you forthwith to come to her relief
Burn your briefs you leave for France tonight
Carefully cut the straps of the booby-traps and set the captives free
But don't shoot 'til you see her big blue eyes
-
T34-85! give the Russians the top dog!
-
With the Sherman, they could give us variants very quickly, and the variants were numerous. Also, in Tank vs Tank scenarios, you could balance it out to 60-40, more Shermans, to keep it historically correct.
Adding the Sherman may get some brain waves moving too, like, how about the ability to leave little mines around an vehicle field that will stay 'active' for ,say, 30 min? No more Mr.Goon coming in for a sweet landing without Picture #2 being present. Or Rockets into an airfield from a Sherman? (See picture #1) Having trouble with Mr.Panzer taking your SHerman out with one shot? Drive the Bulldozer version, now it takes 4 or 5 shots (unless he moves to get to your side armour)or using the blade to level structures such as AAA (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)...the combinations are endless...
I'd vote for the Sherman, then the T34, then re-visit German armour, with the Panther or TIger.
(http://Ripsnort60.tripod.com/calleope.jpg)
(http://Ripsnort60.tripod.com/kp102c.jpg)
(http://Ripsnort60.tripod.com/kp103.jpg)
(http://Ripsnort60.tripod.com/kp163b.jpg)
[This message has been edited by Ripsnort (edited 07-31-2000).]
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort:
With the Sherman, they could give us variants very quickly, and the variants were numerous. Also, in Tank vs Tank scenarios, you could balance it out to 60-40, more Shermans, to keep it historically correct.
Adding the Sherman may get some brain waves moving too, like, how about the ability to leave little mines around an vehicle field that will stay 'active' for ,say, 30 min? No more Mr.Goon coming in for a sweet landing without Picture #2 being present. Or Rockets into an airfield from a Sherman? (See picture #1) Having trouble with Mr.Panzer taking your SHerman out with one shot? Drive the Bulldozer version, now it takes 4 or 5 shots (unless he moves to get to your side armour)or using the blade to level structures such as AAA (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)...the combinations are endless...
I'd vote for the Sherman, then the T34, then re-visit German armour, with the Panther or TIger.
Hehe, a Calliopie, a Sherman Crab, and a Sherman Dozer (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Being able to ram small structures was quite possible with any 25-30 ton chunk of metal (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Hard to say but methinks the 4.6 rocket tubes on the Calliopie would be nice for artillary strikes (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
- Jig
-
Pongo, I haven't ever fired the gun on a MKIV or a Panther, (but I did get to drive them (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) )
But, In 1983 We tried some things out while testing the new M1's including firing on the move with the gun stabilizor turned off to simulate battle damage, the 3 M1's that took part in this test all had good gunners, were moving cross country on level ground at 15 Mph. It took on average 4 shots from one tank to hit a non-moving target at 1,000 meters.
I said it once,then again,now faced with the absolute surety of the BOOK, I'll shut up,
been there,done that,it ain't happening.
------------------
pzvg- "5 years and I still can't shoot"
-
pnzr.
So imagine in your test you had fired 70 rounds...with no recoil, no haze ,no hum from that turbine on your but, no deviation in the weapon from shot to shot, no crosswind, no birds in the trees, no trees...
do you get the picture.
you stated that you saw a shot hit at 2500m on the move. Well I never said it was likely. I bet you could try it 100 times tonight in AH and not do it again..maybe you could. But we are not modeling the whole world here. So some things get exagerated in effect. But in the real world the round will go that far and there for it is POSSIBLE.
I dont need a book to tell you that the Panzer IVH and the Panzer Vg are no where near equivilent.
If you brought your Abrams to AH or any other totaly sterile artifical enviroment you would find shooting on the move quite a bit easier.
But what does that have to do with the BOOK or with making the Panther available as a non perk tank?
The book is pretty much all we have about tanks that fought 55 years ago.
The Panther would be bad news for the game if available for general consuption. You have said nothing to refute that. Maybe you have tried to confuse the issue a little.
Panthers..
Putting the P in Perk since 1943!
-
Yes, putting the Panther on the "perk" list is a very good idea. This would simulate the relatively small numbers of German tanks.
------------------
Rendar