Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Tank-Ace on August 23, 2011, 09:05:39 PM
-
Panzer IV Ausf. F: 50mm frontal hull armor, 50mm frontal turret armor, 75mm KwK 37 L'24 or KwK 40 L'43.
This would give us a Panzer IV better representative of early set-ups such as Barbarossa, and North Afrika. We could have both cannons to represent earlier variants such as the Ausf. D with reasonable accuracy, as well as the later F2 and early G models.
It would also give us an ENY 35 vehicle with a powerfull cannon which we have been lacking.
SdKfz 251/9: a 251 with a 75mm L'24 gun, the 251/21: a 251 with 3 20mm cannons for anti-aircraft duty, and the 251/22: a 251 with a Pak 40 75mm AT gun mounted on top.
Would be a great ambush weapon, due to the small size and low profile. It would also be an effective town-killer just like the M3 75mm GMC we have now. This would also give us a fast anti-aircraft vehicle, with better firepower than the M16 MGMC.
-
Wasn't the Ausf. D the standard Panzer IV of Barbarossa?
-
There was a mix. This is a compromise since it would let us do North Afrika set-ups as well. Although, we could just get an Ausf. F and give it both the long and short 75mm. No difference betwwen F2 and the early G models either.
Thanks for helping jump-start my brain. I'll edit the wish right now.
-
Would be a great ambush weapon, due to the small size and low profile. It would also be an effective town-killer just like the M3 75mm GMC we have now. This would also give us a fast anti-aircraft vehicle, with better firepower than the M16 MGMC.
well, from the air, it would be a #2 target due to the large red icon stating where its at. (jeep is #1) and we have enough german tanks. theres the wirb/osti and the panzer/panther not to mention the tiger1/2. id rather take a StuG III Ausf G, M-18 (hehe i beat ya to it BAR) and a pershing. also, 4 .50 cals does far more damage than you think. maybe you suck at aiming them or you never really take the time to nail the moron in the face when he thinks hes going to kill you from a 20 degree angle of attack.
-
There was a mix. This is a compromise since it would let us do North Afrika set-ups as well. Although, we could just get an Ausf. F and give it both the long and short 75mm. No difference betwwen F2 and the early G models either.
Thanks for helping jump-start my brain. I'll edit the wish right now.
The reason I mention it is that making a Panzer IV with the 75mm KwK 40 L'43 the standard German tank in Barbarossa settings would produce the non-historical result of the T-34/76 being decidedly inferior. I don't think that would be a good thing.
-
Actually the T-34 would be equal if not superior. The KwK 40 can have trouble penetrating the T-34 much past 2000yds, while the T-34's 76mm gun would be able to punch through the Panzer's 50mm armor quite easily at that range.
And why do you want a US Tiger I? Pershing wouldn't be anything more than that. Personally I would rather see a Slugger more than a Pershing, and my new Panzers infinitly more than the slugger.
-
Actually the T-34 would be equal if not superior. The KwK 40 can have trouble penetrating the T-34 much past 2000yds, while the T-34's 76mm gun would be able to punch through the Panzer's 50mm armor quite easily at that range.
And why do you want a US Tiger I? Pershing wouldn't be anything more than that. Personally I would rather see a Slugger more than a Pershing, and my new Panzers infinitly more than the slugger.
so your saying, you dont want any american firepower that can match the tigers? yeah...that makes sense. panzers are just thin skinned big guns that can be taken out by the M4/75. and if you say that the M4/75 isnt strong enough, well let me prove you wrong when i kill a panzer with one from 2k. the T34/76 was also superior to the panzer IV H when it was at an angle because all the shots would simply bounce off while the T34 ripped into the panzers thin skin.
-
Actually the T-34 would be equal if not superior. The KwK 40 can have trouble penetrating the T-34 much past 2000yds, while the T-34's 76mm gun would be able to punch through the Panzer's 50mm armor quite easily at that range.
The K/D ratios between the Panzer IV H and T-34/76 say you're wrong, at least in AH. The much higher rate of fire and better gun on the Panzer IV more than compensates it against the slightly tougher, more mobile T-34/76.
And why do you want a US Tiger I? Pershing wouldn't be anything more than that. Personally I would rather see a Slugger more than a Pershing, and my new Panzers infinitly more than the slugger.
Me? I most certainly do not want an M26 Pershing of any kind. There is no need for an American tank to match the Tigers. Historically we didn't have it and in the MAs you can just use a Tiger. The Russians have some toys that they actually used in numbers if something has to be added. This "so and so has X, so America has to have something added to match X" is for the birds.
-
also, 4 .50 cals does far more damage than you think. maybe you suck at aiming them or you never really take the time to nail the moron in the face when he thinks hes going to kill you from a 20 degree angle of attack.
He was saying it was more effective/better firepower than is currently available for the vehicle-based AA (4x.50 cals)
3x20 mm cannon would be more EFFECTIVE, as you would need less ammunition to do some serious damage. Also, against the armored aircraft (which ones, I have no idea!) the 20mm would EXPLODE. More damage done.
:D :D :D
-
He was saying it was more effective/better firepower than is currently available for the vehicle-based AA (4x.50 cals)
3x20 mm cannon would be more EFFECTIVE, as you would need less ammunition to do some serious damage. Also, against the armored aircraft (which ones, I have no idea!) the 20mm would EXPLODE. More damage done.
:D :D :D
:bhead 4 .50 cals are just as effective. its called aim for the wing or the cockpit. you either make the plane go "kapoof" midflight or you take away its ability to fly. i guess if its not cannoned its not good in AH, IRL 4. 50 cals would do insane damage. even a single .30 cal was a danger to pilots. in AH its just a BB gun that would put a scratch in the paint and a crack in the glass and maybe make you duck then go at it again with a slightly different style of attack.
-
Are you saying I need to aim more accurately, or the damage modeling in AH is off?
-
Are you saying I need to aim more accurately, or the damage modeling in AH is off?
neither. im saying if you dont know how to actually use the M-16 correctly, dont say its not good.
-
Ahhh... I see. Offline is a really bad place to practice with the M-16, unless I'm shooting the little WWI planes.
-
Ahhh... I see. Offline is a really bad place to practice with the M-16, unless I'm shooting the little WWI planes.
your better off climbing a nearby hill, and shooting at a p38 thats 1k away.
-
Skorpion, quit ankle humping, its really annoying. Contribute and stop trying to derail the thread or leave.
Karnak, we're talking about the Panzer IV Ausf. F2 with only 50mm frontal armor, not the 80mm of the Panzer IV H. Huge difference there.
-
Karnak, we're talking about the Panzer IV Ausf. F2 with only 50mm frontal armor, not the 80mm of the Panzer IV H. Huge difference there.
Armor doesn't matter if the T-34/76 never hits you because its horrible rate of fire and bad gunsight make ranging the Panzer much harder while the Panzer can easily kill the T-34 out to, say, 1500 yards.
It was never a question of the Panzer's armor.
-
Skorpion, quit ankle humping, its really annoying. Contribute and stop trying to derail the thread or leave.
Karnak, we're talking about the Panzer IV Ausf. F2 with only 50mm frontal armor, not the 80mm of the Panzer IV H. Huge difference there.
:rofl ok, please tell me who im ankle humping. ankle humping is arse kissing, which im not doing. also, if you havent noticed, ive contributed to the thread. think before you post.
-
^
|
|
What he said.
-
"Pershing", "Why don't you want the Pershing?" Clearly they're all very closely relate to the Panzer IV Ausf F, and the SdKfz 251. You're just a pillar of focus aren't you :rolleyes:.
As to the ankle humping thing, I was implying that you're a closet Midaqua, but...... whatever.
Again, lets get back on topic, Karnak, thanks for not straying.
Karnak, in a long range engagement I think the Panzer would have an edge, but the T-34 is faster, and can produce a lot of ricochets even at close range if you're unlucky. Good gunnery and tactics can easily overcome those weaknesses.
-
Karnak, in a long range engagement I think the Panzer would have an edge, but the T-34 is faster, and can produce a lot of ricochets even at close range if you're unlucky. Good gunnery and tactics can easily overcome those weaknesses.
Perhaps in reality, but it is clearly not so in AH. The Panzer V H dominates the T-34/76, and that has almost nothing to do with the 80mm of frontal armor on the Panzer IV H. All you are doing in asking for a 75mm KwK 40 L'43 armed Panzer IV for Barbarossa is the same thing skorpion is doing when he asks for the Pershing. You, and he, are looking for a non-historical advantage for your favored side.
For Barbarossa settings the Panzer IV D would be the best option, with a long barreled 50mm armed Panzer III as the anti-tank part of the German forces.
-
Panzer IV Ausf. F: 50mm frontal hull armor, 50mm frontal turret armor, 75mm KwK 37 L'24 or KwK 40 L'43.
This would give us a Panzer IV better representative of early set-ups such as Barbarossa, and North Afrika. We could have both cannons to represent earlier variants such as the Ausf. D with reasonable accuracy, as well as the later F2 and early G models.
It would also give us an ENY 35 vehicle with a powerfull cannon which we have been lacking.
SdKfz 251/9: a 251 with a 75mm L'24 gun, the 251/21: a 251 with 3 20mm cannons for anti-aircraft duty, and the 251/22: a 251 with a Pak 40 75mm AT gun mounted on top.
Would be a great ambush weapon, due to the small size and low profile. It would also be an effective town-killer just like the M3 75mm GMC we have now. This would also give us a fast anti-aircraft vehicle, with better firepower than the M16 MGMC.
I think when HTC remodels the Panzer IV, they should give an option to take the long barrel or short barrel gun in the hanger. Even thought the model is not exact, they've done it with other newer additions (I-16 is 1 example). BTW... a 35ENY tank w/ a powerful cannon??? We already have the M4/75, T34/76, and the Panzer IV H. ;)
I've vouched for adding more SdKfz variants for a long time and the /9 would be my fist choice. The cannon would be very similar to the LVT-4's 75mm pack howitzer we currently have. After the /9 then the version with some real anti-tank power from either the German 50mm or 75mm AT guns.
-
You want 5 new types of German vehicles when you already have 2 medium tanks 1 heavy tank and 1 super heavy tank plus half tracks plus 2 AA vehicles while the British have 1 tank and the US has 2 tanks 3 halftrack types and a jeep. Whats wrong with this picture. No No No. Fill out the rest then its fine to add more GE types
-
Oh and lets not forget the mighty M8. You say no to the M26 because you can up a tiger is a strange statement because I dont want to up a tiger I want to up a M26.
-
Oh and lets not forget the mighty M8. You say no to the M26 because you can up a tiger is a strange statement because I dont want to up a tiger I want to up a M26.
hes probably scared to up a tiger1 when a firefly is out because its matched in firepower. whats your reasoning for saying no to the pershing tank? are you scared that it can kill a tiger1 in a single shot from 4k away? or do you just want more german tanks that outgun the tanks we already have?
You want 5 new types of German vehicles when you already have 2 medium tanks 1 heavy tank and 1 super heavy tank plus half tracks plus 2 AA vehicles while the British have 1 tank and the US has 2 tanks 3 halftrack types and a jeep. Whats wrong with this picture. No No No. Fill out the rest then its fine to add more GE types
the firefly wasnt completely brit. it had a brit gun and the chassis of an american sherman.
-
Perhaps in reality, but it is clearly not so in AH. The Panzer V H dominates the T-34/76, and that has almost nothing to do with the 80mm of frontal armor on the Panzer IV H. All you are doing in asking for a 75mm KwK 40 L'43 armed Panzer IV for Barbarossa is the same thing skorpion is doing when he asks for the Pershing. You, and he, are looking for a non-historical advantage for your favored side.
For Barbarossa settings the Panzer IV D would be the best option, with a long barreled 50mm armed Panzer III as the anti-tank part of the German forces.
I'm actually asking for a reduction in the advantage my side would have in a Barbarossa set-up. If you think it isn't armor that helps give the Panzer its edge, then a tank with armor a mere 10mm thicker than the Ausf D, and carrying the same gun (I changed my origional post btw) shouldn't have any greater advantage.
-
You want 5 new types of German vehicles when you already have 2 medium tanks 1 heavy tank and 1 super heavy tank plus half tracks plus 2 AA vehicles while the British have 1 tank and the US has 2 tanks 3 halftrack types and a jeep. Whats wrong with this picture. No No No. Fill out the rest then its fine to add more GE types
Then no more US aircraft until the French, Italians, and Soviets get better representation in the air? ;)
-
Wasn't the Ausf. D the standard Panzer IV of Barbarossa?
Hell, I thought it was PzIIs and PzIIIs for Barbarossa, with the short barreled IVs being
few and far between.
-
Was mostly II's and III's, but there was still a fair number of Panzer IV's. Enough so that they deserve mention at the very least.
-
I'm actually asking for a reduction in the advantage my side would have in a Barbarossa set-up. If you think it isn't armor that helps give the Panzer its edge, then a tank with armor a mere 10mm thicker than the Ausf D, and carrying the same gun (I changed my origional post btw) shouldn't have any greater advantage.
I saw the change. You're still asking for the 75mm KwK 40 L'43 as an option, and that translates to the only gun you'd see on the Panzer IV F. Nobody is going to take the 75mm KwK 37 L'24 when the 75mm KwK 40 L'43 is available.
-
Hell, I thought it was PzIIs and PzIIIs for Barbarossa, with the short barreled IVs being
few and far between.
by 1940 there were enough ausf d's produced for each tank division to have a company of them. in a battalion that would be least 4 panzer iv ausf d's, about 10-15 panzer iii's and a 3 or 4 panzer ii's.
it would have to be the ausf f2 in order to have the kwk40 l/43, the earlier f model had the same main gun as the ausf d - 7.5cm kwk37 l/24.
-
Then no more US aircraft until the French, Italians, and Soviets get better representation in the air? ;)
I totally agree with that statement. As far as vehicles go I would like to see the KV-1, Churchill, Comet,Cromwell and even a Char B1.
-
Gyrene, only difference was the gun, same armor, same turret, same engine.
-
Gyrene, only difference was the gun, same armor, same turret, same engine.
You keep pretending the gun is a minor thing.
-
For scenario and special event use (which is the main reason to add an L'24 right now), we can disable certian loadouts and weapons. It would work much better than the Panzer IV H we have now, and about as well as an Ausf. D.
And if I'm the type to fly 109E's, M8s, M4(75)'s, Ki-61's, and other less-than-stellar rides, why wouldn't I take the L'24? Would be funny as hell to take out someone's Panther tank with a low velocity 75mm round from the side.
-
And if I'm the type to fly 109E's, M8s, M4(75)'s, Ki-61's, and other less-than-stellar rides, why wouldn't I take the L'24? Would be funny as hell to take out someone's Panther tank with a low velocity 75mm round from the side.
thats more than easy to do...up a M4/75 (use HE) or a LVT-4 and shove 2 rounds into the panthers side from 1k away. simple as that.
-
Gyrene, only difference was the gun, same armor, same turret, same engine.
difference between what, the ausf f and f2? true. between the ausf d and f2? not true.
what's in the game now, the ausf h? it has the same gun as the ausf f2 and g models, armor is thicker in certain areas but if you're talking special event substitutions, the one in game now is perfect all the way back to 1942. the ausf d would be the best gap filler between pre/early war model panzer iv's if you're going to ask for one. wouldn't be bad to have a panzer iii ausf j with choice of short barreled kwk l/42 and long barreled kwk39 l/60.
-
Yes, the F1 and F2. But the gun is not the same between it an the Ausf. H. The H has an L'48 instead of an L'43 as on the F2 and early G models. Preformance was slightly better with the L'48 but it wasn't a huge increase.
And yes, the main reason for adding a Panzer IV Ausf. F would be for special events use. Particularly in N Afrika setups where we'd have Panzer IV's facing M4's. Would make it much more realistic (and fun) if the M4's can kill the Panzers as easily as the panzers can kill the M4.
+1 to the Panzer III. Nice sexy tank right there :D.
-
perty soon this is going to become a tank sim and all the air plane pilots are going to move over to warbirds or something.