Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Tank-Ace on November 10, 2013, 08:52:51 PM
-
I'd like HTC to severely reduce the number of HVAP rounds available for soviet tanks. I haven't been able to find anything stating they carried 20 rounds of the stuff. It looked to be more on the order of 5 rounds per tank or so, which is very much more reasonable for what is supposed to be a special purpose round.
I'd also like to see APCR shells for the US M4(76) at the same rate, the M18 at 10rds per vehicle, based on what I can find. I can only find some sources saying the M4's could generally scrounge up a few rounds, and that the bulk went to the TD force, so if anyone could find some more specific numbers, that would be very helpful.
I think it would also be fair to give the Panzer IV F APCR at around 5 rounds per tank, given that it was in service before the decision to reserve tungsten for production tools was made. Since this decision was made in 1943, and the Panzer IV H was in service before existing stocks were used up, it would be fair to give the Panzer IV H APCR at a rate of 3-5rds per vehicle.
-
I have to say I think this is a bad idea, particularly the Sherman and German tank requests. The M18 request makes sense. The Soviet tank request may or may not, depends on HTC's sourcing.
This mostly sounds like somebody upset that the Russian tank is widely used.
-
If there's documentation that shows the load mix options on the tanks are wrong, it should be corrected.
Same reason I support the argument to give the B-25H AP rounds, since there's been information turned up that the 25H was given a mix of AP and HE (I believe it was found that the 25s carried 5 AP shells).
-
Per his post Sherman crews "could often scrounge up a few rounds", in other words they weren't supposed to have them so it is basically a field mod. His request for the Panzer IVs are pretty much the same, particularly the H where he is talking about it being "fair" to give them 3-5 rounds of a discontinued ammo that may or may not have been available to them.
This is essentially a complaint that the Russian tanks are at all useful and a request to remove their HVAP advantage by reducing their capacity to 5 and giving the other tanks 5-10 rounds of HVAP ammo.
-
I'm of the school of thought the basic "main battle tanks" didn't carry much but the typical mix, AND furthermore didn't ever really load up with 100% of either type of ammo. I don't know what the Soviets actually issued to their tanks for ammo, but me thinks the HVAP we see in AH is a bit much. I can find with e wee bit of digging the "typical" load out for most US, British, and German tanks, but I'm not so lucky with Soviet and Japanese (not ever looked for Italian).
I wouldn't be sad to see the HVAP reduced on Soviet tanks and the M18 receive a few of the APCR rounds for the M18, especially if those rounds were reserved for TD units once received in theater. Likewise, those designated TD vehicles would not be able to carry but a few HE shells, I think HTC has hit the nail on the head with their new Jagd panzers and their ammo loadouts. The Firefly should be adjusted as well, it was not an HE based vehicle.
-
I'd like HTC to severely reduce the number of HVAP rounds available for soviet tanks. I haven't been able to find anything stating they carried 20 rounds of the stuff. It looked to be more on the order of 5 rounds per tank or so, which is very much more reasonable for what is supposed to be a special purpose round.
I'd also like to see APCR shells for the US M4(76) at the same rate, the M18 at 10rds per vehicle, based on what I can find. I can only find some sources saying the M4's could generally scrounge up a few rounds, and that the bulk went to the TD force, so if anyone could find some more specific numbers, that would be very helpful.
I think it would also be fair to give the Panzer IV F APCR at around 5 rounds per tank, given that it was in service before the decision to reserve tungsten for production tools was made. Since this decision was made in 1943, and the Panzer IV H was in service before existing stocks were used up, it would be fair to give the Panzer IV H APCR at a rate of 3-5rds per vehicle.
You are somewhat correct on Russian T-34's.
The standard load outs were mostly HE rounds & a few armour piercing & 5 HVAP rounds on the 76's & 4 HVAP on the 85's. However this paragraph from a Russian book from this man Alexei Isaev Artem Drabkin who was in T-34's during WWII. Also mentions the standard load outs carried confirms your numbers on HVAP. However the crews determined by the mission requirements as to what they would actually carry though. So I would say HTC has taken the option of optional load outs as required by the mission.
PS. You will have to translate it.
http://artofwar.ru/d/denxtankista/text_0020.shtml
-
So it seems that Tank-Ace's request has merit as an either/or thing.
Either reduce the T-34's HVAP load to 5 and keep the other tanks as they are, other than the M18 and perhaps the Panzer IV F, or retain the higher load of HVAP for the T-34s and give 5 rounds to the Sherman and Panzer IV H along with the 10 rounds for the M18 and perhaps the Panzer IV F.
He should get to keep his cake or eat it, but not both.
-
Either reduce the T-34's HVAP load to 5 and keep the other tanks as they are, other than the M18 and perhaps the Panzer IV F, or retain the higher load of HVAP for the T-34s and give 5 rounds to the Sherman and Panzer IV H along with the 10 rounds for the M18 and perhaps the Panzer IV F.
+1
-
Didn't the ostwind and nimrod carry a few ap rounds?
-
You are somewhat correct on Russian T-34's.
The standard load outs were mostly HE rounds & a few armour piercing & 5 HVAP rounds on the 76's & 4 HVAP on the 85's. However this paragraph from a Russian book from this man Alexei Isaev Artem Drabkin who was in T-34's during WWII. Also mentions the standard load outs carried confirms your numbers on HVAP. However the crews determined by the mission requirements as to what they would actually carry though. So I would say HTC has taken the option of optional load outs as required by the mission.
PS. You will have to translate it.
http://artofwar.ru/d/denxtankista/text_0020.shtml
Weaponry. According to the "Guide Service" the first task of 76.2-mm tank gun F-34 was "The destruction of tanks and other mechanized means of the enemy" (FOOTNOTE: 76-mm tank gun upgraded arr. 1940 (F-34) and 76-mm tank gun mod. 1941 (ZIS-5). Moscow: Military Publishing, 1943, p.3). Veterans tankers unanimously called enemy tanks as the main and most serious opponent. In the initial period of the war T-34 crews were confident to fight any German tanks, rightly believing that the powerful gun and reliable armor protection will ensure success in battle. The appearance on the battlefield, "Tiger" and "Panther" has changed the situation reversed. Now the German tanks were "long arm" that allows to fight without worrying about the disguise, "Using the fact that we have a 76-mm cannon that can take on the forehead of their armor with only 500 meters, they were standing in the open" (Iron) . Even piercing shells to 76-mm guns are not allowed in the duel benefits such as pierced only 90 mm of homogeneous armor at a distance of 500 meters while the frontal armor Pz.VIH "Tiger" has a thickness of 102 mm. The transition to 85-mm cannon immediately changed the situation, allowing the Soviet tank crews to fight the new German tanks at ranges of more than a kilometer, "Well, when there was a T-34-85, then it was possible to go one on one" (Iron). The powerful 85-mm gun crews allowed the T-34 to fight with his old acquaintances at a distance Pz.IV 1200 - 1300 m example of such a battle on the Sandomierz bridgehead in the summer of 1944, we can find in the memoirs Zheleznova. The first T-34 tanks with 85-mm gun D-5T rolled off the assembly plant Љ112 "Red Sormovo" in January 1944 to begin mass production of T-34-85, this time with 85-mm gun ZIS-S-53, was laid in March 1944, when the first tanks of a new type have been built on the flagship Soviet tank of times of war, Љ183 factory in Nizhny Tagil.
The only inconvenience that caused the introduction into service 85-mm gun was the need to watch closely to long barrel does not touch the ground over the potholes of the road or the battlefield, "the T-34-85 - a long barrel. Metra four or more. Slightest ditch , short barreled ground and pecked a little lacking. shot, the barrel as the anchor breaks, does not tear it, and so pushes. As a lily of the valley, rose disclosed in different directions. Usually 3 - 4, and that's because they are wrapped, and all trunk out of order "(Rodkin). Full length of the barrel 85-mm tank gun mod. 1944 was more than four meters, 4645 mm. The emergence of 85-mm guns and unexpected way affected the defeat of the tank, he ceased to explode with the breakdown of the tower: "The property is a T-34-85, they [gun shots] do not detonate, explode them one by one, and completely not. Old T-34 -76 there if one shell exploded, then detonates all combat pack. shells exploding "(Rodkin). This is to some extent increased the chances of the crew members, "Thirty" for survival and photos and newsreels of the war faded picture, sometimes flickering on the frame 1941 - 43 years. - T-34 lying next to a tank or upside down after falling back on a tank turret.
If the German tanks were the most dangerous enemy "tridchatchetverok" then do the T-34 was an effective means of destruction weapons and manpower that hampers their infantry. Most of the tankers, the memories of which are given in the book, have to their credit, at best, a few armored vehicles of the enemy, but the number of people shot out of a cannon and machine gun enemy infantry in the hundreds of people. Ammunition of the T-34 consisted mainly of high-explosive shells. Regular ammunition "tridchatchetverki" with the tower-"nut" in 1942 - 44 years. consisted of 100 shots, including 75 high-explosive and armor-25 (with the advent of sub-caliber ammunition from the 25 units were equipped with 4 pieces piercing shells). Regular ammunition of the T-34-85 provided 36 high-explosive rounds, 14 armor-piercing and 5. The balance between armor-piercing and high-explosive shells in many ways reflects the conditions in which fought "Thirty" during the attack. Under heavy artillery fire tankers in most cases have little time for the firing range and shot on the run and short stops, relying on the masses of the enemy shots or shoot a few rounds.
-
As a lily of the valley, rose disclosed in different directions.
that's beautiful.
-
So it seems that Tank-Ace's request has merit as an either/or thing.
Either reduce the T-34's HVAP load to 5 and keep the other tanks as they are, other than the M18 and perhaps the Panzer IV F, or retain the higher load of HVAP for the T-34s and give 5 rounds to the Sherman and Panzer IV H along with the 10 rounds for the M18 and perhaps the Panzer IV F.
He should get to keep his cake or eat it, but not both.
Either/or is fine, but if just like to point out that, at least with the Panzer IV H, it would not be a field mod. The H model came into service prior to the introduction of the APCR rounds. The biggest reason for giving it fewer rounds is that they the Panzerjäger units had to priority, and then the F's and early G's due to the weaker gun.
If we left the T-34 's keep their current loadouts, one could also make a case for giving the Panther, and perhaps even the King Tiger and Jagdpanther a round or two.
However I do see your point about the M4.
-
So Tank-Ace you feel the German tanks should rightfully be invincible and that people who drive Russian tanks should play their proper role as useless targets for you to vaporize? Can you kindly explain why I would pay $14.95 a month to be a hopeless target for you?
Tanks did not carry much HVAP because their main purpose was tasks (like infantry support) other than engaging other tanks. In AH there is no infantry to support so there is less need for HE and more room for something useful, i.e. HVAP. In other words the historical load out was controlled by need, not necessarily scarcity. So historical accounts of what was typical are not sufficient to limit a load out, you need historical accounts of scarcity, i.e. that the HVAP was hard to manufacture or contained rare materials. Was Tungsten Carbide that rare?
-
Was Tungsten Carbide that rare?
Not sure about for the Russians, but for the Germans it was.
-
So Tank-Ace you feel the German tanks should rightfully be invincible and that people who drive Russian tanks should play their proper role as useless targets for you to vaporize? Can you kindly explain why I would pay $14.95 a month to be a hopeless target for you?
Tanks did not carry much HVAP because their main purpose was tasks (like infantry support) other than engaging other tanks. In AH there is no infantry to support so there is less need for HE and more room for something useful, i.e. HVAP. In other words the historical load out was controlled by need, not necessarily scarcity. So historical accounts of what was typical are not sufficient to limit a load out, you need historical accounts of scarcity, i.e. that the HVAP was hard to manufacture or contained rare materials. Was Tungsten Carbide that rare?
I'm not asking for anything German but the Panzer IV's to have APCR, I'm saying that it's not necessarily an either-or thing.
And I'll just say that if you're going up against a Panther or anything larger, you already are a helpless target. APCR won't change that.
And if you think 3-5 rounds for the Panzer IV H will make you helpless, you've got no business in tanks.
-
I was referring to taking away HVAP from Russian tanks, not to adding it to German tanks. As you point out it doesn't matter what shell the Panther or Tiger or even Panzer uses; I have to count on killing it with my first shot before it gets to use that shell. With HVAP my T34/85 is not a completely helpless target; I once killed four King Tigers in rapid succession with HVAP. Without HVAP there is no point in even firing; it won't do anything even at short range.
-
I was referring to taking away HVAP from Russian tanks, not to adding it to German tanks. As you point out it doesn't matter what shell the Panther or Tiger or even Panzer uses; I have to count on killing it with my first shot before it gets to use that shell.
Why? You're in a VASTLY inferior tank. Why should you be able to count on oneshotting anything this side of a Panther, when they can't count on the same? Why should you be able to count on doing it 20 TIMES, when even the M4 of comparable price can't count on doing it once?
With HVAP my T34/85 is not a completely helpless target; I once killed four King Tigers in rapid succession with HVAP. Without HVAP there is no point in even firing; it won't do anything even at short range.
So its still only slightly helpless despite being able to kill 4 Tiger II's "in rapid succession"? And it would be completely helpless with a gun performing about the same as the Panzer IV F2's, which is enough to make that tank a credible threat to anything in the game, even with only 50mm of armor. Past a parity in guns, the T-34/85 is markedly superior to the Panzer IV F2.
Basically, what you're saying is the T-34/85 is an ENY 35 tank, if it weren't for HVAP. You do understand that, don't you? But then if you NEED HVAP to be successful, you just suck in tanks.
-
So it seems that Tank-Ace's request has merit as an either/or thing.
Either reduce the T-34's HVAP load to 5 and keep the other tanks as they are, other than the M18 and perhaps the Panzer IV F, or retain the higher load of HVAP for the T-34s and give 5 rounds to the Sherman and Panzer IV H along with the 10 rounds for the M18 and perhaps the Panzer IV F.
He should get to keep his cake or eat it, but not both.
Ahh no.
If you look futher down on the thread it shows the standard load out. So you can't just pick HVAP to change on the load out using this logic. Do you really want T34-76's in AHII to always have 75 rounds HE, 2O rounds AP then 5 HVAP? Not much point to up a T34 to go to tank spawn fight with that load out. So I think HTC has it right as the Book says load out based off the mission required.
Don't know enough yet on the other tanks to comment at this point.
-
Didn't the ostwind and nimrod carry a few ap rounds?
Ostwind & Wirbelwind both did.
-
Why? You're in a VASTLY inferior tank. Why should you be able to count on oneshotting anything this side of a Panther, when they can't count on the same?
Huh? The Panther (or Tiger I or Tiger II) can one shot kill my T34/85 from any angle and virtually any range. If I cannot one shot kill them at short range there is no point in engaging them at all. How long am I going to last when he knows where I am?
So its still only slightly helpless despite being able to kill 4 Tiger II's "in rapid succession"?
Three were point blank range to the sides from an ambush position, one was to the side from about 1K; all were using HVAP.
And it would be completely helpless with a gun performing about the same as the Panzer IV F2's, which is enough to make that tank a credible threat to anything in the game, even with only 50mm of armor. Past a parity in guns, the T-34/85 is markedly superior to the Panzer IV F2.
Basically, what you're saying is the T-34/85 is an ENY 35 tank, if it weren't for HVAP. You do understand that, don't you? But then if you NEED HVAP to be successful, you just suck in tanks.
A credible threat to anything? With AP only, and against the frontal armor, the T34/85 cannot kill a Panther, or Tiger I, or Tiger II even at 200 yds (except for a small target below the Panthers glacis). This is from offline testing.
-
IN wwll a m4 could one shot a panther from longer distances than a 1000 yds by shooting AP round at the ground in front of it.. The round would richot up into the bottom armor of the panther light skin at the bottom. I HTC is right with the way they have it.
-
My only problem with changing the load out for both the PanzerH and T34/85 is the eny would need to reflect it.
Pz4 goes from 25 to 20 Eny and T34 would drop from 1 perk to 0.
What I have on file, shows tankers generally loaded on the mission, not a standard loadout, technically HTC has it correct. Panzer4 rarely if ever carried any special ammo, same for the Brumbar which was a 150mm support tank, it could "carry" special AP rounds, but rarely ever did as it was simply not available either.
-
My only problem with changing the load out for both the PanzerH and T34/85 is the eny would need to reflect it.
Pz4 goes from 25 to 20 Eny and T34 would drop from 1 perk to 0.
What I have on file, shows tankers generally loaded on the mission, not a standard loadout, technically HTC has it correct. Panzer4 rarely if ever carried any special ammo, same for the Brumbar which was a 150mm support tank, it could "carry" special AP rounds, but rarely ever did as it was simply not available either.
You must have not taken the T-34/85 up in a while then. Going price is between 2-4 perks typically now.
-
Huh? The Panther (or Tiger I or Tiger II) can one shot kill my T34/85 from any angle and virtually any range. If I cannot one shot kill them at short range there is no point in engaging them at all. How long am I going to last when he knows where I am?
You're in a T-34/85 facing tanks that are VASTLY superior to you; you shouldn't expect to last.
Three were point blank range to the sides from an ambush position, one was to the side from about 1K; all were using HVAP.
Yeah, and you could still do this just as well with 5 HVAP rounds as you could with 20.
The fact remains that you want to be able to stand up and hit with the big boys paying 15 perks, while you yourself are only paying 2-3. And you want to do that for your entire sortie.
In Aces High, I guarantee that 90% of people running the T-34/85 are using HVAP exclusively, which is emphatically not how things worked in real life. It is also unfair, given that under 800yds or so, the T-34/85's gun is FAR better than a 2-3 perk tank deserves. Under 800 yds, the T-34/85 is competitive with the Firefly, which is a 12 perk tank last I checked.
A credible threat to anything? With AP only, and against the frontal armor, the T34/85 cannot kill a Panther, or Tiger I, or Tiger II even at 200 yds (except for a small target below the Panthers glacis). This is from offline testing.
Turret of the Panther should also be vulnerable under about 800yds or so. And that glacis plate isn't too difficult to hit, and makes the Panther vulnerable out to 1600yds. Tiger I should be vulnerable to 1600yds or so as well, realistically more like 1200yds unless you can't aim.
You should NEVER expect to be able to tangle with a King Tiger head on in anything not mountin an 88mm L/71. Ever. Period. End of story. At best, you should be hoping you can get in a lucky shot to the lower hull in a Panther, Firefly, or using one of your HVAP rounds. Thats the best you should be able to hope for.
-
My only problem with changing the load out for both the PanzerH and T34/85 is the eny would need to reflect it.
Pz4 goes from 25 to 20 Eny and T34 would drop from 1 perk to 0.
What I have on file, shows tankers generally loaded on the mission, not a standard loadout, technically HTC has it correct. Panzer4 rarely if ever carried any special ammo, same for the Brumbar which was a 150mm support tank, it could "carry" special AP rounds, but rarely ever did as it was simply not available either.
Regardless, there's nothing to justify the T-34's getting an unusually large amount of HVAP ammunition, and the Panzers and M18 getting nothing.
It is at least an either/or situation. And as I said, I would be fine with either the T-34's HVAP load being severely reduced, or the Panzers and M18 getting APCR.
-
. It is also unfair, given that under 800yds or so, the T-34/85's gun is FAR better than a 2-3 perk tank deserves. Under 800 yds, the T-34/85 is competitive with the Firefly, which is a 12 perk tank last I checked.
Firefly = 4 perks.
-
I'm just putting this out there just in case some are not aware:
HVAP offers an advantage over AP rounds at LESS than 1200 yards. Any distance over that and the ability to penetrate armor is back in favor of the regular AP round. If the target is a thin skinned gv (M3, M8, M18, etc), then keep on using the HVAP thanks to a much mroe flat trajectory. But otherwise, beyond 1200 yards the regular AP round will perform better.
-
Firefly = 4 perks.
They dropped it back to 4 perks? That would explain the higher number of them I've been seeing lately.
-
They dropped it back to 4 perks? That would explain the higher number of them I've been seeing lately.
Or players trying to get kills in a British tank for achievement reputation points... :noid
-
You should NEVER expect to be able to tangle with a King Tiger head on in anything not mountin an 88mm L/71. Ever. Period. End of story. At best, you should be hoping you can get in a lucky shot to the lower hull in a Panther, Firefly, or using one of your HVAP rounds. Thats the best you should be able to hope for.
Yup. Just wants uber German tanks to be invulnerable to non-German stuff.
-
Yup. Just wants uber German tanks to be invulnerable to non-German stuff.
In what way is it reasonable to expect to have a good chance against a 68 ton tank, literally invulnerable from the front to any free vehicle and vulnerable only in one small spot to anything this side of a Jagdpanther, with decent maneuverability, and mounting a gun that can put a shell through both sides of your turret while still retaining enough kinetic energy to kill the tank behind you?
Sorry, but I don't think its at all unreasonable to expect that tank to kick your arse around the block 9 times out of 10.
But either way, one of two things needs to happen. T-34's need to be reduced to 5 rounds of HVAP, or the Panzers and M18 need to get APCR.
-
Turret of the Panther should also be vulnerable under about 800yds or so. And that glacis plate isn't too difficult to hit, and makes the Panther vulnerable out to 1600yds. Tiger I should be vulnerable to 1600yds or so as well, realistically more like 1200yds unless you can't aim.
I was talking about one shot kills. Like I said, my data comes from direct offline testing. The frontal armor of the Panther turret, including the mantlet, is invulnerable to T34/85 AP rounds no matter where I hit it. In further testing I did determine that the turret ring, a very thin target at the bottom of the Panther turret is vulnerable, but at 500 yds it takes two shots there to turret the Panther and about four to kill it. The glacis plate is immune, I was referring to the plate underneath the glacis which is pretty vulnerable.
At 500 yds it takes two 85 mm AP to kill the Tiger I if you hit the thin vertical panel above the glacis. At 850 yds it take three to four.
-
I was talking about one shot kills. Like I said, my data comes from direct offline testing. The frontal armor of the Panther turret, including the mantlet, is invulnerable to T34/85 AP rounds no matter where I hit it. In further testing I did determine that the turret ring, a very thin target at the bottom of the Panther turret is vulnerable, but at 500 yds it takes two shots there to turret the Panther and about four to kill it. The glacis plate is immune, I was referring to the plate underneath the glacis which is pretty vulnerable.
At 500 yds it takes two 85 mm AP to kill the Tiger I if you hit the thin vertical panel above the glacis. At 850 yds it take three to four.
And this is bad for what reason exactly? Go grab an M4(76). Test that and see what it's performance is.
If the M4 is significantly superior, I'll yield the point. If not, will you quit complaining about how you won't be able to one-shot tanks costing 5 times as much as you paid, which have much heavier armor 20 times without resupply?
Bear in mind, even if HTC were to restrict you to the standard load, you would still be able to one-shot 5 of them.
Honestly, what I suspect is the real issue for you is that you would actually have to save those rounds for the big tanks instead of using them to guarantee a one-shot kill on Panzers and other weaker tanks.
-
If your going to wish for one tank to carry it's standard load out your going to have to do it for all of them.
Seeing that you wont allow for mission requirements as in the case of the T34.
That's going to go down well with the TT guys sitting behind a ridge at 4K with half HE & the other half AP.
In the case of the Tiger I.
Not much use for HE at TT in that sort of a fight.
As it is now HTC gives 5 options for the Tiger I load out.
-
I was talking about one shot kills. Like I said, my data comes from direct offline testing. The frontal armor of the Panther turret, including the mantlet, is invulnerable to T34/85 AP rounds no matter where I hit it. In further testing I did determine that the turret ring, a very thin target at the bottom of the Panther turret is vulnerable, but at 500 yds it takes two shots there to turret the Panther and about four to kill it. The glacis plate is immune, I was referring to the plate underneath the glacis which is pretty vulnerable.
At 500 yds it takes two 85 mm AP to kill the Tiger I if you hit the thin vertical panel above the glacis. At 850 yds it take three to four.
The Glacis plate should not be an issue, however in aces high it is, I showed a few times a while back that most tanks can kill a Panther by hitting the lower front glacis plate, reality is because of the angle it should be a million to one in getting that hit, in aces all you have to do is get lucky.
I lost enough Panthers I even did a video with M4s, T34s at 1000 yards taking out panthers.
-
If your going to wish for one tank to carry it's standard load out your going to have to do it for all of them.
Seeing that you wont allow for mission requirements as in the case of the T34.
That's going to go down well with the TT guys sitting behind a ridge at 4K with half HE & the other half AP.
In the case of the Tiger I.
Not much use for HE at TT in that sort of a fight.
As it is now HTC gives 5 options for the Tiger I load out.
I would absolutely allow for mission-specific loadouts... I just think carrying 20 APCR rounds is both unrealistic and excessive.
Really, probably somewhere between 80-90% of T-34/85's aren't even using their AP rounds, which is a bit ridiculous given that it WAS a specialty round. I'd be fine with them having 10 HVAP rounds (DOUBLE the standard loadout, and certainly enough so that they can use some of them to cover for any lack of gunnery skills).
-
The Glacis plate should not be an issue, however in aces high it is, I showed a few times a while back that most tanks can kill a Panther by hitting the lower front glacis plate, reality is because of the angle it should be a million to one in getting that hit, in aces all you have to do is get lucky.
I lost enough Panthers I even did a video with M4s, T34s at 1000 yards taking out panthers.
Yes, in all my discussions I'm referring to the AH tanks, not the real ones. By all means that should be fixed.
-
I would absolutely allow for mission-specific loadouts... I just think carrying 20 APCR rounds is both unrealistic and excessive.
Really, probably somewhere between 80-90% of T-34/85's aren't even using their AP rounds, which is a bit ridiculous given that it WAS a specialty round. I'd be fine with them having 10 HVAP rounds (DOUBLE the standard loadout, and certainly enough so that they can use some of them to cover for any lack of gunnery skills).
You best ask HTC were they get the load outs from.
They seem to do their home work when it comes to choices of vehicles & set ups in the game.
-
I would absolutely allow for mission-specific loadouts... I just think carrying 20 APCR rounds is both unrealistic and excessive.
Really, probably somewhere between 80-90% of T-34/85's aren't even using their AP rounds, which is a bit ridiculous given that it WAS a specialty round. I'd be fine with them having 10 HVAP rounds (DOUBLE the standard loadout, and certainly enough so that they can use some of them to cover for any lack of gunnery skills).
You keep forgetting that it was loaded as the mission requeired
-
You keep forgetting that it was loaded as the mission requeired
Will the Panzers get a high number like that? 5 rounds seems to be considered "standard" whenever they loaded APCR, but it was in no way a loadout specialized for hunting tanks, as the T-34/85's appears to be.
What if we get a Panzer III? APCR useage was MUCH greater for that tank than any other of the war, just due to the necessity.
-
If loadouts were mission specific, why not take all hvap or equivalent? Was it scarce ammo?
-
If loadouts were mission specific, why not take all hvap or equivalent? Was it scarce ammo?
Yes, more expensive to make. Also, HVAP ammo arrived "late" on the scene, so to speak. Millions of AP round had already been made and delivered and was the standard. Someone with more knowledge on the specialty AP ammo will go more in detail.
-
Being as you the tank commander are defining the mission - I don't see why you shouldn't be able to select your own mix of rounds from the "ammo depot" up to the maximum number carried by the tank. Start out with a "default" loadout and switch out rounds as needed.
-
Being as you the tank commander are defining the mission - I don't see why you shouldn't be able to select your own mix of rounds from the "ammo depot" up to the maximum number carried by the tank. Start out with a "default" loadout and switch out rounds as needed.
Because everyone would carry 75% HVAP in the T-34's which, regardless of "mission specific loadouts", is totally unhistorical.
-
Because everyone would carry 75% HVAP in the T-34's which, regardless of "mission specific loadouts", is totally unhistorical.
Nice until you have to take down a town....
-
Being as you the tank commander are defining the mission - I don't see why you shouldn't be able to select your own mix of rounds from the "ammo depot" up to the maximum number carried by the tank. Start out with a "default" loadout and switch out rounds as needed.
While I don't know specifics, I can vouch for the tank commander NOT being the link in the chain the decides how much of what kind of ammo is taken per mission requirement, that is decided higher up yet. Other than Pieper and the Battle of the Bulge, I'd like to think SOP was followed in most situations. There are all kinds of mission parameters that come in to play than just what the defining mission is. For instance, I can vouch that if there is a company of tanks that is going to be moving 60 miles in a "sprint" to help defend an area from an impending attack and it will be three days before resupply is available, you can count on two things: more than the standard ammo load will be carried (external), and the mix of ammo will be defined by probable enemy forces. There are reports of US tanks in Korea coming to the front to fend off the Chinese horde with nothing but a few HE rounds and thousands and thousands extra ammo for the MG's. Evidently the MG's were found to be more effective fending off the hard charging Chinese than HE rounds fired once every 3-4 seconds. But, in terms of WWII if you're in a Panzer IV H and you on the outskirts of Berlin and you're sent to hold back the column of T34's racing through a valley, odds are you're going to take as many AP rounds as you can with a small load of HE for any enemy infantry that may show up.
I for one think that tanks should not be able to take 100% of anything. I think there should be 4 options of various round counts, similar to what HTC did with the jagd panzers, but allow for more versatility. Only the designated TD's should be able to carry 100% AP rounds, and the LVT4 and M3/75 be able to take 100% HE.
-
While I don't know specifics, I can vouch for the tank commander NOT being the link in the chain the decides how much of what kind of ammo is taken per mission requirement, that is decided higher up yet. Other than Pieper and the Battle of the Bulge, I'd like to think SOP was followed in most situations. There are all kinds of mission parameters that come in to play than just what the defining mission is. For instance, I can vouch that if there is a company of tanks that is going to be moving 60 miles in a "sprint" to help defend an area from an impending attack and it will be three days before resupply is available, you can count on two things: more than the standard ammo load will be carried (external), and the mix of ammo will be defined by probable enemy forces. There are reports of US tanks in Korea coming to the front to fend off the Chinese horde with nothing but a few HE rounds and thousands and thousands extra ammo for the MG's. Evidently the MG's were found to be more effective fending off the hard charging Chinese than HE rounds fired once every 3-4 seconds. But, in terms of WWII if you're in a Panzer IV H and you on the outskirts of Berlin and you're sent to hold back the column of T34's racing through a valley, odds are you're going to take as many AP rounds as you can with a small load of HE for any enemy infantry that may show up.
I for one think that tanks should not be able to take 100% of anything. I think there should be 4 options of various round counts, similar to what HTC did with the jagd panzers, but allow for more versatility. Only the designated TD's should be able to carry 100% AP rounds, and the LVT4 and M3/75 be able to take 100% HE.
what Aces high is correct, we have various loadouts as a mission would.
-
what Aces high is correct, we have various loadouts as a mission would.
I have no issues with the ammo options that HTC has chosen, they are balanced and make sense. I'm not going to argue what is/is not "correct", other than having 100% of AP or HE would be rather far fetched especially for a front line tank. Assault guns 100% HE? Maybe. AP? Doubtful simply because they **typically** were used in conjunction with infantry like the tanks were. Jagdpanzers with 100% HE? I'd bet money against it simply because of their design and mission (and HTC has no 100% HE for Jagdpansers and rightfully so. Obviously, there are always exceptions to the rule.
-
Nice until you have to take down a town....
Which is very small portion of GV combat.