Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Tank-Ace on July 14, 2011, 10:11:44 PM

Title: Tank destroyers
Post by: Tank-Ace on July 14, 2011, 10:11:44 PM
I would like to request that the SdKfz 251/11, -/21, and -/22 are added. The /11 had a 37mm Pak 36 cannon, the /21 had a drilling 20mm turret (dri is german for three, it has 3 20mm cannons) for AA use, and the /22 had a Pak 40 with 22 rounds of ammunition.

Reasons:
1) it would give a counter-part to the M3 75mm GMC we have in the game.

2) it would finally give us a GV with an ENY above 25 that stands a reasonable chance of killing a tiger and even, dare I say it, a panther, from the front.

3) you could use it to test the feasability of legitimate tank destroyers in the game. The M3 GMC doesn't really do this, as it lacks the firepower most MW and LW tank destroyers had, but it has proven vehicles with limited traverse weapons CAN be effective. The 251/22 would give firepower parity with the M10 wolverine, the M18 hellcat, the Hetzer, the Marder II/III, and even early versions of the Jagdpanzer.

4) it would be relatively easy (note, relativly easy, not nessicarily easy) to add. Easier than modeling an entire new vehcilce from scratch. The gun and the vehicle both already exist, it would just require a modification of the center of weight and the visual model of the SdKfz 251.

And finally, I would like to ask for the M18, the Stug III Ausf. G, and the Su-85.
Title: Re: Tank destroyers
Post by: Rob52240 on July 14, 2011, 11:00:56 PM
+1 and +1 for mentioning the M-18 Heck Kitty.

There is a huge anti air niche between the M16 and German offerings to be taken advantage of with new toys.

I really think that the excellent GV game in Aces High has a lot more room to grow than the air side.  I know this belongs in the wishlist area but I think that it might be nice to spend a few perks for a closer spawn in or a spawn in point at regular distance but farther away from the center of the arrow.
Title: Re: Tank destroyers
Post by: Tank-Ace on July 15, 2011, 10:57:16 AM
Sorry rob, but I couldn't understand that last part. Infact, it seems almost self-contradicting.
Title: Re: Tank destroyers
Post by: Tyrannis on July 15, 2011, 11:08:07 AM
Sorry rob, but I couldn't understand that last part. Infact, it seems almost self-contradicting.
He's saying that aces-high's ground war has alot more potential in it than the air war, in his opinion.
And that he wishes there was an ability where you could spend a few perks to be able to choose your spawn point within an area. instead of clicking "NW" and the computer choosing your spawn point for you.

least, i think thats what he meant.
Title: Re: Tank destroyers
Post by: Tank-Ace on July 15, 2011, 11:12:04 AM
oh, I gotcha, thanks. Yeah, that would be pretty cool, or just forget the perks, and let you spawn up anywhere on the 'frontline'.      Maybe make that line about 2k wide, and 1k deep?
Title: Re: Tank destroyers
Post by: SmokinLoon on July 15, 2011, 12:42:37 PM
I would like to request that the SdKfz 251/11, -/21, and -/22 are added. The /11 had a 37mm Pak 36 cannon, the /21 had a drilling 20mm turret (dri is german for three, it has 3 20mm cannons) for AA use, and the /22 had a Pak 40 with 22 rounds of ammunition.

Reasons:
1) it would give a counter-part to the M3 75mm GMC we have in the game.

2) it would finally give us a GV with an ENY above 25 that stands a reasonable chance of killing a tiger and even, dare I say it, a panther, from the front.

3) you could use it to test the feasability of legitimate tank destroyers in the game. The M3 GMC doesn't really do this, as it lacks the firepower most MW and LW tank destroyers had, but it has proven vehicles with limited traverse weapons CAN be effective. The 251/22 would give firepower parity with the M10 wolverine, the M18 hellcat, the Hetzer, the Marder II/III, and even early versions of the Jagdpanzer.

4) it would be relatively easy (note, relativly easy, not nessicarily easy) to add. Easier than modeling an entire new vehcilce from scratch. The gun and the vehicle both already exist, it would just require a modification of the center of weight and the visual model of the SdKfz 251.

And finally, I would like to ask for the M18, the Stug III Ausf. G, and the Su-85.

HTC could add another 12-15 gv's using the SdKfz 251, M4, M3, and T34 chassis.  Easily.  The Su-100, SdKfz 251/9, 251/22, Priest, etc etc.
Title: Re: Tank destroyers
Post by: Rob52240 on July 15, 2011, 01:46:49 PM
I think there is more room to grow for the ground part than the air game.  We have tons of planes to choose from but only several Ground Vehicles
Title: Re: Tank destroyers
Post by: Tank-Ace on July 15, 2011, 02:05:18 PM
agreed, and again, we don't have anything to kill tigers from the front when the ENY goes above 25.

While this would be a stop-gap measure, as opposed to adding a Panzer IV Ausf F2 or G (same cannon pretty much, but weaker armor: 42mm and 50mm respecticly), it would still see a lot of use if the M3 GMC is any indicator.
Title: Re: Tank destroyers
Post by: Rob52240 on July 15, 2011, 02:20:02 PM
I'm still hung up on the 251s as gun motor carriages.  I think it would be a nice compliment to what we already have with the M3.  I actually prefer the 251 unless I'm posting the old Million M3 assault mission.
Title: Re: Tank destroyers
Post by: Tank-Ace on July 15, 2011, 02:31:19 PM
They would REALLY be the little lemmings from hell. The panther drivers would be screaming "OH CRAP!!!! 251 ON THE LEFT, KILL IT KILL IT!!!!."


It would combine panzer firepower with the mobility and ease of hiding of a halftrack.
Title: Re: Tank destroyers
Post by: SmokinLoon on July 15, 2011, 03:15:19 PM
They would REALLY be the little lemmings from hell. The panther drivers would be screaming "OH CRAP!!!! 251 ON THE LEFT, KILL IT KILL IT!!!!."


It would combine panzer firepower with the mobility and ease of hiding of a halftrack.

Not really.  The SdKfz 251 moves SLOWER than the T34.  I think it has a max speed in AH of 32mph. 
Title: Re: Tank destroyers
Post by: Butcher on July 15, 2011, 03:27:08 PM
Not really.  The SdKfz 251 moves SLOWER than the T34.  I think it has a max speed in AH of 32mph. 

Still better then the limited tanks we have available.
Title: Re: Tank destroyers
Post by: Tank-Ace on July 15, 2011, 04:07:56 PM
Well yes, it can't out run a T-34, but thats not entirely what i was talking about. They're harder to spot, they can hide in undestroyed barns, etc. The real danger of the M3 isn't nessicarily its speed, but how the ppl driving them at GV fights are among the most annonmmous vehicles. Aircraft spotters will call out heavy tanks, then the fireflys, M4's, and so on and so fourth. M3 is usually at the bottom of the list.
Title: Re: Tank destroyers
Post by: Rob52240 on July 15, 2011, 06:14:28 PM
251's armor is way way way better than the M3s though.
Title: Re: Tank destroyers
Post by: --)SF---- on July 15, 2011, 07:11:16 PM
Simply put...


Hetzer
Title: Re: Tank destroyers
Post by: Scotty55OEFVet on July 16, 2011, 09:22:31 AM
My only problem with GVs in AH s my comp suck at the moment lol. I cannot recall how many times I am killed because of jittery frame rates and screen freezes from LOTS of Gvs in one spot. Other than that, I really do think the Ground Phase would take on a whole new meaning with more Tanks/Armored and Underarmored lol, vehicles. Like I have posted as well, I think that adding more tanks would give AH another 20-30 Gvers. It tends to get a little monotonous when you do up Tigers, Panthers, or FIrefly's and are oneshotted and then its back to the same ole Panzer/T34 every sortie. I think im not alone in sayin that I would love to be able to choose from many Tanks other than just the same 4-5 every sortie. I NEED MORE GV BABY!
Title: Re: Tank destroyers
Post by: fullmetalbullet on July 16, 2011, 11:14:24 AM
Hey didnt they mount 88s on the 251s? or was it another halftrack like the SdKFz .7?
Title: Re: Tank destroyers
Post by: Tank-Ace on July 16, 2011, 02:43:11 PM
They didn't mount '88s on any halftrack, as far as I'm aware. I THINK they mounted a few, and a very few at that, on Panzer III and IV chassies, but it wasn't an official vehicle.


Well scotty, turn down your graphics, turn off enemy icons (for aircraft flying nearby), and, if need be, turn off skins. You do what you have to do.

And yes, it would be great to have more variatey. I'm still wishing for a Panzer III and M3 Stuart for EW. Perk the T-34 around 40 and you'll have a decent EW GV setup.

Would also like to see an earlier Panzer IV, such as the D and G. One for EW/MW and the other for a high ENY tank with a good gun (perk farming, gotta build up a good stash of perks for the Tiger II).
Title: Re: Tank destroyers
Post by: Scotty55OEFVet on July 16, 2011, 03:34:11 PM
Well scotty, turn down your graphics, turn off enemy icons (for aircraft flying nearby), and, if need be, turn off skins. You do what you have to do.


Have done all of this...its really just hit or miss because even the type of map will determine how my Ground Vis works. Only bugs me because I figure for every death in a blazing Tank I would normally have 3-4 NME Blazing Tanks in front of me if I had a good comp lol. Ty bud
Title: Re: Tank destroyers
Post by: 321BAR on July 16, 2011, 04:03:40 PM
Dont make me say it... :noid
Title: Re: Tank destroyers
Post by: Tank-Ace on July 16, 2011, 06:32:07 PM
Dont make me say it... :noid

Shut up, allies dominate the fighters, so axis are going to dominate the GV's.
Title: Re: Tank destroyers
Post by: Butcher on July 18, 2011, 09:04:46 AM
Shut up, allies dominate the fighters, so axis are going to dominate the GV's.

It would be a pretty good argument if we added some of the late war Russian tanks like the Su-100. The ISU-122 would be pretty interesting also.

What makes this most interesting is the fact the ISU-122 and ISU-152 would be monster perk tank killers, however it would have one very nasty reload time which means you better make the one shot count.
Title: Re: Tank destroyers
Post by: Tank-Ace on July 18, 2011, 01:38:11 PM
Butcher, hate to break it to you bud, but it would only be a bit better than the '88 we have now. About all it would do better is hold its penetrative power out to a longer range due to the larger shell. And seeing as they had average armor, the tiger will be perfectly capable of retaliation out to or beyond range of both of these guns. And the panther would have no worries except for lucky (or good) hits to the turret out past about 1000yds or so IIRC.
Title: Re: Tank destroyers
Post by: Butcher on July 18, 2011, 03:00:36 PM
Butcher, hate to break it to you bud, but it would only be a bit better than the '88 we have now. About all it would do better is hold its penetrative power out to a longer range due to the larger shell. And seeing as they had average armor, the tiger will be perfectly capable of retaliation out to or beyond range of both of these guns. And the panther would have no worries except for lucky (or good) hits to the turret out past about 1000yds or so IIRC.

Here are the facts - take them how you wish.

1. The D-25 122 mm tank gun manufactured at the factory #9. Its ballistic characteristics are identical to those of the following guns: the A-19 122 mm, the D-2 122 mm (factory #9) and the S-4 (Central Artillery Design Bureau), giving it a muzzle velocity of 780?790 m/s with a 25 kg projectile. This gun reliably penetrates the Panther's frontal armor at 2500 metres, and that is less than its maximum range.

2. The D-10 100 mm tank gun with ballistics identical to those of the BS-3 100 mm gun, its muzzle velocity being 890?900 m/s with a 15.6 kg projectile. This gun can penetrate the frontal armor of the Panther at up to 1500 metres, which is its maximum range.

3. The German 88 mm gun with muzzle velocity of 1000 m/s with a 10 kg projectile penetrates the Panther's frontal armor at distances of only up to 650 m.

The Panther's frontal armor is 85 mm thick and sloped at 35 degrees to the horizon. Therefore, when shooting at it from the above stated distances the angle of the projectile's trajectory at the point of impact is close to 0 degrees, and the difference between the axis of the projectile and the right angle to the armor's surface (angle of impact) is close to 55 degrees.

The above test results are preliminary, as the testing was done on guns with varying levels of deterioration: the 100 mm D-10 had fired 400 shots, and the 122 mm D-25 was new. However the difference in our test results is so great that it is unlikely that any necessary adjustments will be more than minor.

The method of evaluating armor penetration at angles of impact ranging from 0 to 30 degrees that is currently in use appears to be inefficient in evaluating the anti-tank guns.

Therefore it is our opinion that it is necessary to reconsider the subject of the most effective caliber of the anti-tank guns.

In regards to fighting the Panther tanks the tests at Kubinka clearly show that the 122 mm D-25 gun (V=780?790 m/s; g=25 kg) is superior to the 100 mm D-10 gun (V=890?900 m/s, g=15.6 kg). Also superior to the later are the 122 mm guns on wheeled carriage (the A-19 of the factory #9 and the S-4 of the TsAKB). The 100 mm BS-3 gun turns out to be less effective.

As you know, currently there are available two types of 122 mm field guns of a reduced weight but equal ballistic characteristics compared to the A-19 gun, i.e.:

1. The S-4 122 mm of the CADB, which is due to be delivered for field testing. The S-4 gun has a lot of parts common with the 100 mm BS-3 gun and its production could be begun using the facilities manufacturing the BS-3. Thus currently we are only waiting for the positive test results from the proving grounds and, probably, field tests of this gun.

2. The D-2 122 mm gun of the factory #9, which has successfully completed proving grounds tests on numerous occasions. A series of four D-2 guns is being readied for field testing. I believe that it is urgently needed to consider the task of manufacturing the D-2, in case S-4 does not pass its tests.

The second important problem that surfaced as a result of the tests at Kubinka is that of the high muzzle velocity, particularly the problem of the 85 mm guns with muzzle velocities of 1000?1100 m/s.

The tests have shown the projectile of the German 88 mm gun to have only limited effectiveness when used against the German Panther tank. It is also known that a similar 85 mm gun comes out to be roughly equal in its size and weight to a 100 mm gun with V=900 m/s. Currently 85 mm guns with muzzle velocities of 1000?1100 m/s are being developed by the CADB and factory #9, however their effectiveness against actual German tanks becomes doubtful, especially given the fact that such a gun would require tank turret dimensions no less than those used for the 100 mm D-10 or S-34 guns.

In this regard it appears that after the completion of the Kubinka tests, and if their final results confirm the current data, it would be beneficial to hold a special meeting to discuss further plans for the development of guns with high muzzle velocity.

The only point beyond doubt at this time is the need for increasing the muzzle velocities of the anti-aircraft guns, where it will result in drastic increase in range and reduction in projectile's time in travel to target.

Requesting you further instructions.

Deputy Chief of the Technical Department of the
Peoples Commissariat for Armaments:
Major-General of Engineering and Artillery
/TOLOCHKOV/

Chief of the Test Designs unit:
/VOLOSATOV/



Title: Re: Tank destroyers
Post by: Tank-Ace on July 18, 2011, 07:02:16 PM
sources? penetration tables?

I see a lot of anecdotal evidence, but no cold hard numbers aside from the ranges.
Title: Re: Tank destroyers
Post by: Rob52240 on July 18, 2011, 09:39:11 PM
Shut up, allies dominate the fighters, so axis are going to dominate the GV's.

And you don't think that there might be a direct correlation between the Allies dominating Aces High and the Allies Dominating WW2 History?  As well as dominating at the negotiation... I mean surrender table when the war came to a close.
Title: Re: Tank destroyers
Post by: Scotty55OEFVet on July 18, 2011, 09:49:40 PM
sources? penetration tables?

I see a lot of anecdotal evidence, but no cold hard numbers aside from the ranges.

Where the Hell did you find that Cat Picture...lmfao!
Title: Re: Tank destroyers
Post by: Butcher on July 18, 2011, 10:04:49 PM
sources? penetration tables?

I see a lot of anecdotal evidence, but no cold hard numbers aside from the ranges.

This is all guns based on angle plate at 30 degrees ->

Performance of the Su-100's 100mm Gun

100mm D-10S L / 54
BR-412 B ( Armor Piercing Ballistic Cap )
Weight   Velocity       100 m              500 m               1000 m               1500 m            2000 m
15.88 kg   880 m/s   148 / 143 mm   133 / 130 mm   116 / 115 mm   101 / 102 mm   89 / 91 mm

BR-412 D ( Armor Piercing Capped Ballistic Cap )
Weight   Velocity         100 m              500 m              1000 m               1500 m            2000 m
15.88 kg   880 m/s   186 / 153 mm   167 / 141 mm   146 / 128 mm   127 / 115 mm   111 / 104 mm

Su-122's Main gun which was 122mm

122mm D-25S L / 43
BR-471 ( Armor Piercing )
Weight   Velocity      100 m             500 m            1000 m             1500 m           2000 m
24.9 kg   792 m/s   137 / 140 mm   123 / 128 mm   108 / 114 mm   94 / 101 mm   82 / 90 mm

BR-471 B ( Armor Piercing Capped )
Weight   Velocity       100 m              500 m             1000 m           1500 m             2000 m
24.9 kg   792 m/s   162 / 145 mm   147 / 135 mm   131 / 123 mm   116 / 112 mm   104 / 103 mm

BP-460 A ( High Explosive Anti-Tank )
Weight   Velocity   100 m      500 m     1000 m      1500 m   2000 m
13.2 kg   335 m/s   97 / 97 mm   97 / 97 mm   97 / 97 mm   97 / 97 mm   -- / -- mm

ISU-152

152mm ML20 L / 28
BR-540 ( Armor Piercing )
Weight   Velocity 100 m            500 m             1000 m             1500 m           2000 m
40 kg   600 m/s   117 / 132 mm   109 / 124 mm   100 / 116 mm   91 / 107 mm   83 / 99 mm

BR-540 B ( Armor Piercing Capped )
Weight   Velocity   100 m       500 m             1000 m             1500 m             2000 m
40 kg   600 m/s   109 / 126 mm   104 / 121 mm   99 / 115 mm   94 / 109 mm   89 / 103 mm

Now T34-85's gun

85mm ZIS-53 L / 52
BR-365 ( Armor Piercing )
Weight   Velocity   100 m   500 m   1000 m   1500 m   2000 m
9.2 kg   792 m/s   97 / 94 mm   84 / 83 mm   71 / 71 mm   59 / 60 mm   49 / 51 mm

BR-365 K ( Armor Piercing Cappped )
Weight   Velocity   100 m   500 m   1000 m   1500 m   2000 m
9.2 kg   792 m/s   112 / 101 mm   100 / 92 mm   86 / 81 mm   75 / 72 mm   65 / 64 mm

BR-365 P ( Armor Piercing Composite Rigid )
Weight   Velocity   100 m   500 m   1000 m   1500 m   2000 m
4.99 kg   1050 m/s   140 / 140 mm   107 / 107 mm   76 / 76 mm   54 / 54 mm   39 / 39 mm
Title: Re: Tank destroyers
Post by: Butcher on July 18, 2011, 10:06:47 PM
To Compare here some information I have on the Panther, Tiger and Panzer 4 ->

75mm Kw.K.42 L / 70
PzGr.39 / 42 ( Armor Piercing Capped Ballistic Cap )
Weight   Velocity   100 m   500 m   1000 m   1500 m   2000 m
6.8 kg   935 m/s   138 / -- mm   124 / -- mm   111 / -- mm   99 / -- mm   89 / -- mm

PzGr.40 / 42 ( Armor Piercing Composite Rigid )
Weight   Velocity   100 m   500 m   1000 m   1500 m   2000 m
4.75 kg   1120 m/s   194 / -- mm   174 / -- mm   149 / -- mm   127 / -- mm   106 / -- mm


88mm Kw.K.36 L / 56
PzGr. ( Armor Piercing Capped Ballistic Cap )
Weight   Velocity   100 m   500 m   1000 m   1500 m   2000 m
9.65 kg   810 m/s   97 / -- mm   93 / -- mm   87 / -- mm   80 / -- mm   72 / -- mm

PzGr.39 ( Armor Piercing Capped Ballistic Cap )
Weight   Velocity   100 m   500 m   1000 m   1500 m   2000 m
10.2 kg   800 m/s   120 / -- mm   110 / -- mm   100 / -- mm   91 / -- mm   84 / -- mm

PzGr.40 ( Armor Piercing Composite Rigid )
Weight   Velocity   100 m   500 m   1000 m   1500 m   2000 m
7.3 kg   930 m/s   170 / -- mm   155 / -- mm   138 / -- mm   122 / -- mm   110 / -- mm

75mm Kw.K.40 L / 48
PzGr.39 ( Armor Piercing Capped Ballistic Cap )
Weight   Velocity   100 m   500 m   1000 m   1500 m   2000 m
6.8 kg   740 m/s   99 / -- mm   91 / -- mm   81 / -- mm   72 / -- mm   63 / -- mm

PzGr.40 ( Armor Piercing Composite Rigid )
Weight   Velocity   100 m   500 m   1000 m   1500 m   2000 m
4.1 kg   990 m/s   126 / -- mm   108 / -- mm   87 / -- mm   -- / -- mm   -- / -- mm
Title: Re: Tank destroyers
Post by: Tank-Ace on July 18, 2011, 10:58:22 PM
Ok, the gun (depending on which we got) would be better than any currently in the game, but would be out gunned by the KwK 43 (88mm L'71)

Panzergranate 39 (PzGr 31, APCBC)
velocity        slope     100yd    500   1000  1500   2000yds
3,281'/s         30       203mm    185    165    148    132

Panzergranate 40 (PzGr 40, APCR/HVAP)
velocity       slope      100    500   1000   1500   2000
3,707'/s         30        237   217    193     171    153

The Panther's frontal armor is 85 mm thick and sloped at 35 degrees to the horizon. Therefore, when shooting at it from the above stated distances the angle of the projectile's trajectory at the point of impact is close to 0 degrees, and the difference between the axis of the projectile and the right angle to the armor's surface (angle of impact) is close to 55 degrees.

I'm not entirely sure I understand this part. Are you saying that the projectiles are coming in at a relatively high angle, which results in a reduction of slope in armor relative to the trajectory of the shell at the time of impact?

And according to your charts, I don't see a gun capable of penetrating the panther's ~145mm glacis plate much beyond 1000m. Also, remember that as the war progressed, the German's quality of steel was falling, as materials needed to make high quality steel became scarce, or difficult to obtain. This was notable in all tanks produced late in the war. In AH, we aren't plauged by production defects for the sake of playability. If we were, they might as well have modeled the B-29 with its engine on fire, the tiger with a blown engine, and 4 out of 6 shermans exploding on spawn-in.
Title: Re: Tank destroyers
Post by: Butcher on July 19, 2011, 09:55:05 AM
Ok, the gun (depending on which we got) would be better than any currently in the game, but would be out gunned by the KwK 43 (88mm L'71)

Panzergranate 39 (PzGr 31, APCBC)
velocity        slope     100yd    500   1000  1500   2000yds
3,281'/s         30       203mm    185    165    148    132

Panzergranate 40 (PzGr 40, APCR/HVAP)
velocity       slope      100    500   1000   1500   2000
3,707'/s         30        237   217    193     171    153

I'm not entirely sure I understand this part. Are you saying that the projectiles are coming in at a relatively high angle, which results in a reduction of slope in armor relative to the trajectory of the shell at the time of impact?

And according to your charts, I don't see a gun capable of penetrating the panther's ~145mm glacis plate much beyond 1000m. Also, remember that as the war progressed, the German's quality of steel was falling, as materials needed to make high quality steel became scarce, or difficult to obtain. This was notable in all tanks produced late in the war. In AH, we aren't plauged by production defects for the sake of playability. If we were, they might as well have modeled the B-29 with its engine on fire, the tiger with a blown engine, and 4 out of 6 shermans exploding on spawn-in.

Very true, I've read enough stories of Panthers, Tigers and King Tigers with horrible defects because of the factories putting them together tend to be sabotaged, one note I remember reading was of a King Tiger which was captured and examined by the Red Army, realized the tank although had an amazing gun on it, the Armor welding was done so poorly it they felt the armor wouldn't stand up to taking any hits without fractures.

Also - while true most tanks wouldn't take out a panther or Tiger over 1,000 yards, you gotta realize in Aces High there are few spawns where you can shoot over a range of 1600 yards, I would say the average shot is 800-1600 yards where in some spawns you can get a nice long shot at 2-3k however It really depends on the map and type of Spawn, for instance the map we have right now I don't believe I fired a single shot over 2k because of line of sight.

In Aces High we'd have the perfect King Tiger with no defects, however there still runs a risk of hills to roll over on, trees to flip a tank and ultimately the first one in a King tiger will be bombed by a dozen Stuka Lancs.

I completely agree the German Armor would dominate Aces high in the Late War arena, mainly due to fact there are no defects in the Aces High design, in reality Germans wanted every tank with the highest quality of steel although it rarely happened.

But even still its Aces High where just because its a tiger doesn't mean you can't flank and kill one from behind as I did 16 Times already.

Ironically here are some of my Stats:

Most Kills of: Panzer 4 followed by M4(76)
Died most by: M4(76) closely followed by Panzer 4
Most Kills in: Panther followed by m4(76)
Most died in: M4(76)
Least Died in: Tiger

I believe someone rank the stats the other day, and first two are pretty much in order, Panzer dies the most with M4 having the most kills.
I would say the Panther has the most kills of the tour, followed by Tiger.

Granted there's nothing to face a Panther, Tiger unless its either of the two :)
Title: Re: Tank destroyers
Post by: SmokinLoon on July 19, 2011, 12:35:52 PM
One thing the charts do not take into effect is the rate of fire, quality of optics, or the ability of the crew.  Do you want Evander Holyfield or Mike Tyson on your side?  Which one can do it all and do it all well vs which one can only do 1 or 2 things a wee notch better and much of everything else lags behind?

Title: Re: Tank destroyers
Post by: fullmetalbullet on July 19, 2011, 12:56:54 PM
i found this forum topic thats talking about the Sd Kfz 7 halftrack with an 88mm flak gun mounted on the back. anyone know where i can find more info on this? cuz if it was used alot then i say add this to AH2

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=122195&start=15 (http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=122195&start=15)
Title: Re: Tank destroyers
Post by: SmokinLoon on July 19, 2011, 01:38:25 PM
i found this forum topic thats talking about the Sd Kfz 7 halftrack with an 88mm flak gun mounted on the back. anyone know where i can find more info on this? cuz if it was used alot then i say add this to AH2

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=122195&start=15 (http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=122195&start=15)

That isnt the SdKfz 251 we have in the game.  That thing is a SdKfz Zgkw variant.  It was a beast of a support vehcile used to haul heavy equipment, namely arty.   
Title: Re: Tank destroyers
Post by: Tank-Ace on July 19, 2011, 06:45:16 PM
Well put loon. You're always very neat and concise with your posts.

But the other issue is that we don't get fatigued in AH either. 10 kills in the KT would be less physicly demanding than 10 kills in the M4(76) simply because the KT had superior optics, range finding equipment (I think, not 100% sure though), and a MUCH better gun. Say the M4 needed 3-4 shots for every kill, the loader is still doing more work dispite the lighter shells he has to move.
Title: Re: Tank destroyers
Post by: fullmetalbullet on July 20, 2011, 10:04:30 AM
That isnt the SdKfz 251 we have in the game.  That thing is a SdKfz Zgkw variant.  It was a beast of a support vehcile used to haul heavy equipment, namely arty.   

i know that, i was asking if someone could link a website with more info on the Sdkfz Zgkw, i havnt been able to find any website with info on it.
Title: Re: Tank destroyers
Post by: AHTbolt on July 20, 2011, 12:29:39 PM
Add the KV-1
Title: Re: Tank destroyers
Post by: Tank-Ace on July 20, 2011, 01:19:42 PM
Why?
Title: Re: Tank destroyers
Post by: MK-84 on July 20, 2011, 02:29:05 PM
Well put loon. You're always very neat and concise with your posts.

But the other issue is that we don't get fatigued in AH either. 10 kills in the KT would be less physicly demanding than 10 kills in the M4(76) simply because the KT had superior optics, range finding equipment (I think, not 100% sure though), and a MUCH better gun. Say the M4 needed 3-4 shots for every kill, the loader is still doing more work dispite the lighter shells he has to move.

...And the M4 has a vertically stabilized sight, was much more reliable, was crewed with soldiers who were rotated in and out from the front, much better logistical and supply support....And ignoring that "crew fatige has nothing to do with anything here...what on earth is your point? 
     The loader has to do more work?  should he be given "nap time?"  How do you figure it takes 3-4 shots for a kill? how many does it take for a Tiger? Do you know? where did you find this info?  A much better gun works like coffee for the crew? Superior optics? Is that so the gunner doesnt have to strain his eyes by squinting as much? :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Tank destroyers
Post by: Tank-Ace on July 20, 2011, 04:27:16 PM
My point is that ability of the crew doesn't matter as much if the better crew is placed in an environment where they have to work harder. The T-34 (yeah, I put M4 at first, I was sleepy) had terrible crew ergenomics. It was small, it was uncomfortable, and it had only a 2 person turret crew which means each person is doing more things at once.

If the loader is tired he will be slower than when he started.

Better optics = less misses
Better gun = less ricochets or rounds failing to penetrate, which means less rounds fired

And side from that, the faster you kill what you're shooting at, the more likely you are to live. Imagine your shooting at a Tiger, in real life, with an T-34/85. From the side at a range of about 1100yds. If you don't kill him before he sees you, he'll turn that thick front armor and powerfull '88 on you and kill you're one and only irreplaceable azz. No second attempt, no respawning a new tank, you die.
Title: Re: Tank destroyers
Post by: MK-84 on July 20, 2011, 04:28:42 PM
My point is that ability of the crew doesn't matter as much if the better crew is placed in an environment where they have to work harder. The T-34 (yeah, I put M4 at first, I was sleepy) had terrible crew ergenomics. It was small, it was uncomfortable, and it had only a 2 person turret crew which means each person is doing more things at once.

If the loader is tired he will be slower than when he started.

Better optics = less misses
Better gun = less ricochets or rounds failing to penetrate, which means less rounds fired

And side from that, the faster you kill what you're shooting at, the more likely you are to live. Imagine your shooting at a Tiger, in real life, with an T-34/85. From the side at a range of about 1100yds. If you don't kill him before he sees you, he'll turn that thick front armor and powerfull '88 on you and kill you're one and only irreplaceable azz. No second attempt, no respawning a new tank, you die.

So what is the point you are getting at?
Title: Re: Tank destroyers
Post by: Tank-Ace on July 20, 2011, 04:33:12 PM
Loon said that the charts posted don't show anything about the crew skill, rate of fire, or optics. My point is that there are circumstances that can negate or reduce the advantages given by those points.

did you read what I was talking about, or just that one individual post out of context?
Title: Re: Tank destroyers
Post by: slayem on July 21, 2011, 03:38:19 PM
Didn't the Germans come up with the Jagdtiger TD with a 128mm main gun?
 
Title: Re: Tank destroyers
Post by: fullmetalbullet on July 21, 2011, 06:22:29 PM
Didn't the Germans come up with the Jagdtiger TD with a 128mm main gun?
 

yeah and they built 80 of them. a few served in the ardennes.