Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Coalcat1 on April 13, 2014, 08:11:33 AM
-
I would love to see the Stug III, IS-1 and 2 added to the game. The Stug was the most used German tank destroyer of the war. It was an all around decent GV and would make a great addition. (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/StuGIII.jpg)
Another addition I would like to see is the early IS series (the IS-1 and IS-2).
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1e/Belarus-Minsk-Museum_of_GPW_Exhibition-5.jpg)
The tank to the right being an IS-2. The IS-2 was a modification on the IS-1, the only major difference was the gun, an A-19/D-25T 122mm gun. The IS-1 used an A19 122mm gun or a BS-3 100mm gun. All of these GVs would be a great addition to AH and would add more Soviet tanks to the game.
:salute Coalcat1
-
(http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130210230031/warthunder/images/b/bb/B-17G_dropping_bombs.jpg)
-
(http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130210230031/warthunder/images/b/bb/B-17G_dropping_bombs.jpg)
Is that a +1 for more targets?
:banana:
-
Is that a +1 for more targets?
:banana:
Yessir :banana:
-
Need the SU-100 before a new German TD.
-
(http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130210230031/warthunder/images/b/bb/B-17G_dropping_bombs.jpg)
we already have the b-17
-
I would love to see the Stug III, IS-1 and 2 added to the game. The Stug was the most used German tank destroyer of the war. It was an all around decent GV and would make a great addition. (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/StuGIII.jpg)
Another addition I would like to see is the early IS series (the IS-1 and IS-2).
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1e/Belarus-Minsk-Museum_of_GPW_Exhibition-5.jpg)
The tank to the right being an IS-2. The IS-2 was a modification on the IS-1, the only major difference was the gun, an A-19/D-25T 122mm gun. The IS-1 used an A19 122mm gun or a BS-3 100mm gun. All of these GVs would be a great addition to AH and would add more Soviet tanks to the game.
:salute Coalcat1
we already have enough german iron
-
The Stug III was the most produced German armored vehicle of WWII and I would like to see it in the game along with the Panzer MK.III. :aok
-
Anyone have something to say about the IS-1/2?
-
That's what it's wish was mostly about...
-
+1 to more Russian vehicles
-
Anyone have something to say about the IS-1/2?
We just dont have a Soviet TD yet and for such an armor heavy force its kind of a problem and a priority. Most of all when the 100mm cannon was probably/arguably the best tank killer gun in the war. So Im not really against the IS tank I just think a Soviet TD is a higher priority.
TDs have brought a lot to the ground game, even a non-GV'er like me can see that. The SU-100 would be a real killer.
-
I feel like the Russians and Commonwealth could use a little more representation. I think the Is's and maybe the Churchill (sic ?) series could be good additions. Also, the KV-2, because of how good of a tank it was and the Russians dont have a Heavy tank. Come to think of it, noone but the Germans do right? Also, the Kv 2 has a cool story to go with it : http://www.warhistoryonline.com/war-articles/battle-raseiniai-1941-single-kv-tank-stopped-entire-german-kampfgruppe.html
And, if we are adding heavies, I vote TOG II...
:salute
EDIT: Sorry, that link didnt have the whole story, here is the correct one: http://tankarchives.blogspot.ca/2013/03/battle-of-raseiniai.html
-
Need the SU-100 before a new German TD.
I agree. :aok German self-propelled guns are currently well represented. I'd like to see the KV family and the Su-76 added for the early and mid war and the Su-100 and JSU-152 added for the late war.
-
The SU series of TDs are pretty good, add em too!
-
To those saying the German TD's are well represented, this is patently untrue. The 3 TD's we have only came into service in mid-late 1944, and represent roughly 1/30th of the German armored forces for the entire duration of the war.
The StuG series, on the other hand, represents about 2/7'ths of German armored forces (much more, if you don't count Panzer II's, and Pz 35/38(t)'s, and early/prototype variants of the Panzer III and IV, closer to 1/2, actually).
The SU-100, on the other hand, represents only around 1.5% of Soviet armored forces for the entire duration of the war, and only saw service from 1944 onward.
Basically, you are advocating an inferior Jagdpanther with a red star on it. Virtually useless for special events (given it has less than a year for which we could use it, and GV's are almost never used in special events), and beaten out by the Jagdpanther at the only thing it would be really good at.
The SU-76 would be most representative, overall, though the SU-85 would still be better as well.
As to the IS-2, it would blow as an anti-tank vehicle. 20 seconds to reload, just a poor ballistic coefficient, standard 2.5x optics, and awful armor penetration for how big of a shell you're throwing. That being said, you could kill the town in about 10 shots.
-
I put out the request for the IS series because only one country, Germany, is represented with heavy tanks. Make the IS-1 cost the same as the T34/85 and the IS-2 cost the same as a Tiger 1.
-
I know, but I feel like we should balance the amount and type of GV's each country has before we worry about what impact it had. As long as it meets the guidelines and can make a contribution, I say add it. Then we can worry about what needs to be balanced as far as what was used most.
:salute
Edit: meant to be towards Tank- Ace, sorry
-
I know, but I feel like we should balance the amount and type of GV's each country has before we worry about what impact it had. As long as it meets the guidelines and can make a contribution, I say add it. Then we can worry about what needs to be balanced as far as what was used most.
:salute
Why? In the MA, you can take out a Jagdpanther, just like the other side. There's no need to balance out the "amount and type" of GV for each country, since you can just use another side's vehicle. Now should vehicles have any real use in special events, I would agree with you, but this is not the case.
Germany had a plethora of models and sub-types, the other side, not so much. We don't need any more than 2 T-34's to be representative of about 70% of soviet armored forces for the war, or 2 M4's for 70% of US armored forces. But we need about 6 tanks to do the same for Germany, or the UK. This being so, would it not stand to reason that Germany and the UK should have more vehicles than the Soviets or US?
And I think its utter BS that the UK only has 1 vehicle.
-
To those saying the German TD's are well represented, this is patently untrue. The 3 TD's we have only came into service in mid-late 1944, and represent roughly 1/30th of the German armored forces for the entire duration of the war.
The StuG series, on the other hand, represents about 2/7'ths of German armored forces (much more, if you don't count Panzer II's, and Pz 35/38(t)'s, and early/prototype variants of the Panzer III and IV, closer to 1/2, actually).
The SU-100, on the other hand, represents only around 1.5% of Soviet armored forces for the entire duration of the war, and only saw service from 1944 onward.
Basically, you are advocating an inferior Jagdpanther with a red star on it. Virtually useless for special events (given it has less than a year for which we could use it, and GV's are almost never used in special events), and beaten out by the Jagdpanther at the only thing it would be really good at.
The SU-76 would be most representative, overall, though the SU-85 would still be better as well.
As to the IS-2, it would blow as an anti-tank vehicle. 20 seconds to reload, just a poor ballistic coefficient, standard 2.5x optics, and awful armor penetration for how big of a shell you're throwing. That being said, you could kill the town in about 10 shots.
The IS tanks were not built on the same philosophy that German heavies where built on. Soviet tanks where ment to move in large groups and get up close, where their guns execled. German designs tended to be for longer range combat, in complete contrast to Soviet designs. Let's put it this way, which thank would you rather be in if your tank was forced into urban combat, an IS with a huge 122mm gun, or a tiger with an 88?
-
I put out the request for the IS series because only one country, Germany, is represented with heavy tanks. Make the IS-1 cost the same as the T34/85 and the IS-2 cost the same as a Tiger 1.
Well, if no one thinks they are good, might as well not perk em :devil
-
The IS tanks were not built on the same philosophy that German heavies where built on. Soviet tanks where ment to move in large groups and get up close, where their guns execled. German designs tended to be for longer range combat, in complete contrast to Soviet designs. Let's put it this way, which thank would you rather be in if your tank was forced into urban combat, an IS with a huge 122mm gun, or a tiger with an 88?
Patently untrue. The IS-2 was primarily designed as an anti-fortification vehicle, which is why it got the 122mm, instead of the 100mm, with much better balistic properties and armor penetration at all ranges.
Also, their guns did not excel at any range; compared to the German KwK 36 the soviet Zis-S-53 85mm gun fires a shell of roughly the same mass, at roughly the same velocity, and is completely underwhelming. Where the KwK 36 is arguably the 3rd or 4th best gun in the game, the Zis-53 is actually the 4th worse tank gun in the game, being superior to only the German KwK 37 75mm, the Soviet F-34, and US M3 75mm.
The Soviet D-25T 122mm does even worse; despite firing a shell weighing more than twice that of the KwK 36 (25kg vs 10.2kg) at the same muzzle velocity (800m/s), the D-25T only penetrates around 30-40mm more armor (depending on source).
The German KwK 43 fires a shell of the same mass as the KwK 36, at 1000m/s vs 800m/s and adds 100mm of penetration.
They did not move in large groups either, in most cases, they operated in individual tank platoons (IIRC, 4 vehicles for the soviets), supported by infantry and other lighter vehicles.
-
To those saying the German TD's are well represented, this is patently untrue. The 3 TD's we have only came into service in mid-late 1944, and represent roughly 1/30th of the German armored forces for the entire duration of the war.
The StuG series, on the other hand, represents about 2/7'ths of German armored forces (much more, if you don't count Panzer II's, and Pz 35/38(t)'s, and early/prototype variants of the Panzer III and IV, closer to 1/2, actually).
The SU-100, on the other hand, represents only around 1.5% of Soviet armored forces for the entire duration of the war, and only saw service from 1944 onward.
Basically, you are advocating an inferior Jagdpanther with a red star on it. Virtually useless for special events (given it has less than a year for which we could use it, and GV's are almost never used in special events), and beaten out by the Jagdpanther at the only thing it would be really good at.
The SU-76 would be most representative, overall, though the SU-85 would still be better as well.
As to the IS-2, it would blow as an anti-tank vehicle. 20 seconds to reload, just a poor ballistic coefficient, standard 2.5x optics, and awful armor penetration for how big of a shell you're throwing. That being said, you could kill the town in about 10 shots.
:headscratch: Im trying to really get a handle on your posts, how you figured out those representative percentages and exactly what they have to do with anything. If we need a Soviet TD why not model the best one. Most of all since we have Yank and German ones with the most effective guns they fielded. They built almost 2,000 SU-100s in WW2 aint that plenty? Besides all those TDs were built on the T34 frame so the only difference was the gun and amount of front plate tacked on.
-
How I know? One time I actually added up all the tanks and TD's for each nation, in order to see what the truth was as to the often-told story of Germany being outnumbered 3:1. In case of AFV's, it was almost exactly 5:1, in case you're wondering.
Considering the Soviets fielded almost 110,000 AFV's over the course of the war, 2000 is pretty small potatoes.
Second, the only German TD we got that I really wanted was the Hetzer. As for the rest, I would have been much happier with a StuG III, and a Nashorn if we absolutely had to have one with the 88mm L/71.
Besides, theres absolutely no logic behind that "might as well get the best" reasoning.
-
Why? In the MA, you can take out a Jagdpanther, just like the other side. There's no need to balance out the "amount and type" of GV for each country, since you can just use another side's vehicle. Now should vehicles have any real use in special events, I would agree with you, but this is not the case.
Germany had a plethora of models and sub-types, the other side, not so much. We don't need any more than 2 T-34's to be representative of about 70% of soviet armored forces for the war, or 2 M4's for 70% of US armored forces. But we need about 6 tanks to do the same for Germany, or the UK. This being so, would it not stand to reason that Germany and the UK should have more vehicles than the Soviets or US?
And I think its utter BS that the UK only has 1 vehicle.
:headscratch: What do they have other than the Firefly?
:salute
-
Considering the Soviets fielded almost 110,000 AFV's over the course of the war, 2000 is pretty small potatoes.
Do you know how many vehicles and aircraft already in the game the same thing can be said of?
Besides, theres absolutely no logic behind that "might as well get the best" reasoning.
The ultimate logic is behind it. As in "people will actually use it". What good are hangar queens? If we can only have one then why model the lesser one? That far less players will actually use? That will be far less capable?
But..this is a wish list. So wish away.
-
Su-100
Panzer III with the 50mm Kw.K.39 L/60, or StuG III with both 7.5cm gun options (same as Panzer IV F1/F2)
Adding in another 2-3 variants of the SdKfz 251 would be good too.
Ditto for using the Sherman chassis as well.
-
Su-100
Panzer III with the 50mm Kw.K.39 L/60, or StuG III with both 7.5cm gun options (same as Panzer IV F1/F2)
Adding in another 2-3 variants of the SdKfz 251 would be good too.
Ditto for using the Sherman chassis as well.
Add the huge low V HE gun for the Hetzer too! :old:
-
:D hi--messed up post
-
Patently untrue. The IS-2 was primarily designed as an anti-fortification vehicle, which is why it got the 122mm, instead of the 100mm, with much better balistic properties and armor penetration at all ranges.
Production realities had much to do with that decision too. The Reds simply couldnt make enough 100mm guns for both vehicles so it was decided the 122mm was "good enough". It was no secret at the time the 100mm was the better tank killer.
Throwing the available 100mm's on a T34 chasis just plain made sense, more sense, then letting them sit while an entire tank was being produced first. It got them in the field faster and was the only Soviet gun I'd compare to the German 88.
-
+1 For more tanks.
-
Add the huge low V HE gun for the Hetzer too! :old:
Err Stug
-
Good assessment of the IS-2. I'm glad someone else sees it for what it is. btw... me thinks it would not be any more efficient at killing towns than the other three HE big boys (King Tiger, Tiger, and T34/85). They all three do 234 lbs of damage to OBJ with HE shells. Actually, the IS-2 would be LESS efficient at destroying towns thanks to the horrendous reload. :D
Also, on the flip side of things I look at what could be/should be added to HTC base on two criteria: First, how does it fit in the AH realm? Second, just what bearing or impact did it have in WWII.
We all can find the gaps in the line up, but which of those missing would actually fair well or find a place in AH? The KV-1 was a Soviet mainstay but in AH it would get walked on thanks to a weak main gun and its slow speed. The Cromwell is fast, has average armor, but has a weak gun (same as on the US M4/75mm), and it doesn't have the Calliope available. The Churchill would be armored well enough, and there are a host of main gun options, but it is slower than a 7 year itch (same category as KV-1).
With the Su-100 HTC would be adding something different and not currently in AH (Soviet TD). New gun, new sights, new platform.
With the Panzer III we'd be adding in a "lessor" medium tank that represents EW and is still very much in the fight in LW. Don't discount the 50mm KWK 39 L/60. Lighter medium tank, new gun.
StuG III = Panzer III chassis and same guns as on the Panzer IV F1, F2, and H. It would be much like the Hetzer, but more "German". :D
-
Good assessment of the IS-2. I'm glad someone else sees it for what it is. btw... me thinks it would not be any more efficient at killing towns than the other three HE big boys (King Tiger, Tiger, and T34/85). They all three do 234 lbs of damage to OBJ with HE shells. Actually, the IS-2 would be LESS efficient at destroying towns thanks to the horrendous reload. :D
Also, on the flip side of things I look at what could be/should be added to HTC base on two criteria: First, how does it fit in the AH realm? Second, just what bearing or impact did it have in WWII.
We all can find the gaps in the line up, but which of those missing would actually fair well or find a place in AH? The KV-1 was a Soviet mainstay but in AH it would get walked on thanks to a weak main gun and its slow speed. The Cromwell is fast, has average armor, but has a weak gun (same as on the US M4/75mm), and it doesn't have the Calliope available. The Churchill would be armored well enough, and there are a host of main gun options, but it is slower than a 7 year itch (same category as KV-1).
With the Su-100 HTC would be adding something different and not currently in AH (Soviet TD). New gun, new sights, new platform.
With the Panzer III we'd be adding in a "lessor" medium tank that represents EW and is still very much in the fight in LW. Don't discount the 50mm KWK 39 L/60. Lighter medium tank, new gun.
StuG III = Panzer III chassis and same guns as on the Panzer IV F1, F2, and H. It would be much like the Hetzer, but more "German". :D
Yes but we don't have a soviet heavy tank ether, I agree with the addition of the SU and a few Brit tanks as well.
-
Yes but we don't have a soviet heavy tank ether, I agree with the addition of the SU and a few Brit tanks as well.
We don't need a soviet heavy just because it's a heavy. The reality is that nothing anyone ever used in WWII will ever challenge the Tiger II, will only be a bit better than the Tiger I, and never have any significant use in special events. And because in the MA, you don't need something to challenge the Tigers, since you can just get a tiger for yourself, it's merit is based on its contribution to the war, and it's historical significance. In both cases, the KV and IS tanks are both rather wanting.
We need 1) the Valentine and 2) the Panzer III next.
-
Jagdtiger could probably kill a tiger2 at longer range than the KT2 could fight back at, due to its monster 128mm cannon.
As a Tank I agree with you, KT2 was the best.
We don't need a soviet heavy just because it's a heavy. The reality is that nothing anyone ever used in WWII will ever challenge the Tiger II, will only be a bit better than the Tiger I, and never have any significant use in special events. And because in the MA, you don't need something to challenge the Tigers, since you can just get a tiger for yourself, it's merit is based on its contribution to the war, and it's historical significance. In both cases, the KV and IS tanks are both rather wanting.
We need 1) the Valentine and 2) the Panzer III next.
-
We don't need a soviet heavy just because it's a heavy. The reality is that nothing anyone ever used in WWII will ever challenge the Tiger II, will only be a bit better than the Tiger I, and never have any significant use in special events. And because in the MA, you don't need something to challenge the Tigers, since you can just get a tiger for yourself, it's merit is based on its contribution to the war, and it's historical significance. In both cases, the KV and IS tanks are both rather wanting.
We need 1) the Valentine and 2) the Panzer III next.
I would absolutely use these tanks, both IS tanks, fairly frequently after figuring out the in-game ballistics and other properties of the gun. I could see a following for this tank, not as big as for German tanks, but a following none the less.
-
I would absolutely use these tanks, both IS tanks, fairly frequently after figuring out the in-game ballistics and other properties of the gun. I could see a following for this tank, not as big as for German tanks, but a following none the less.
I see what's going on. You just want the IS's for yourself, regardless of their overall utility for the game.
To be clear, I'm no saying no to them. I am, however, saying not yet rather insistently.
-
I see what's going on. You just want the IS's for yourself, regardless of their overall utility for the game.
To be clear, I'm no saying no to them. I am, however, saying not yet rather insistently.
No, I could see people using and them serving a purpose in the MA, a great spawn camping GV
PS: I was using myself as an example.
-
No, I could see people using and them serving a purpose in the MA, a great spawn camping GV
PS: I was using myself as an example.
It would actually be a rather average to poor spawn camping vehicle. 1 miss and he has 20 seconds to move. And your ballistics would be none too good with. Also, we should be attempting to eliminate spawn camping, not furthering it.
And of course people would use it; people use the M8 as well, but that doesn't mean HTC couldn't have used their time. The same will happen with the IS-2; it would be time that could better used modeling something else, and will only be used by the few diehard fans.
See how rare the Tiger I is? That's the IS 2 after the "new" wears off.
-
I think the SU-100 would be a serious threat to the Tiger-ll. Obviously not an equal but a serious threat non the less. A Soviet main gin study I found on the web, "tho the Tiger ll had a more effective 88 then did the Tiger l correct?
(http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr149/Rich46yo/tankpen_zpsfe9fc0c7.jpg)
-
I would take Soviet data with a grain of salt about the size of an orange if it doesn't match western data for any western guns they show. If thats the 88mm L/71 they're testing (and it appears so, given the muzzle velocity is listed as 1000m/s), and only found it to penetrate 168mm of armor on the level, then the data is utter garbage.
Any differences in testing method can be ignored, due to the fact that the 88mm L/71's main round was the PzGr 39/43 APCBC-HE round. The significance of this is that when the Germans themselves tested it, they required the shell to penetrate intact enough for the HE filler to detonate BEHIND the armor, while the Soviets typically tested for 75% of the shell's mass (including fragments) to penetrate the armor.
So the Germans are testing to a higher standard, and found their gun to be more capable than the soviets allegedly did, despite their more lenient definition of a "penetration".
Were I to make a guess, I would say the reason for the discrepancies have to do with both the fact that they would be sent to the gulag if they pissed the wrong person off, and that the Soviets weren't known for their precision and accuracy in anything they did, up to and including weapons engineering.
-
Well they must have done something right since they won. But I honestly dont know which 88 they tested.
I think we can all agree the gun and sighting system on the Tiger ll was the best in the war. "It" had other issues but its gun and sights were superb.
-
Let me rephrase; either they are using the 88mm L/71, and are grossly incorrect with regard to the penetration, or they tested the KwK 36 for both APCBC-HE, and the incredibly rare and almost never issued APCR round, and somehow came up with both the wrong muzzle velocity and penetration for the APCR round (and the incorrect penetration for the APCBC-HE).
In either case, its a pretty good argument to disregard soviet data.
-
I'm still waiting to find out what the Brit's have other than the firefly.
-
I'm still waiting to find out what the Brit's have other than the firefly.
Nothing, which is a travesty.
-
Anyone have something to say about the IS-1/2?
Yes....
No :banana: