Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: hazed- on March 06, 2002, 09:56:38 AM
-
The one area that the axis forces really dominated in world war 2, in the west at least, for superior design was in Jets and armour, late war mainly!, earlier blitkreig armour could be argued as inferior but with better tactics that were employed.Both jets and tanks fortunately, were not produced in enough numbers to stop the allies but it is an accepted fact that the German heavy tanks were the toughest and possibly the deadliest.
Now in aces high for the first year and a half(?) the allied planeset really dominated the skies of AH for european theatre types at least(nik became a real pain!).As a fan of LW planes I like others who chose to fly them were frustrated by the superior speeds of types like the p51d and the turning capabilities of other allied types like the spitfire.In ground attack we had for a LONG time no real capability at all! (remember when and for how long the 190a8 was all we had? :)).In the bomber catagory we had an even worse time until we had the ju88 to toy with.(I say toy with because it suffers from being the only bomber that is pre 1943-45).I really love the diversity the ju88 offers,and persist with its use because of this alone, even when i know 9 times out of 10 a determined attack will easily leave you dead.
We were lucky in only one area, the ground vehicles!.We had the only tank and the deadly ostwind(imo a vehicle that has spoiled somewhat the balance of choice in AA defence). The M16 was an excellent choice as an AA platform in that it is vulnerable without that instant kill capability.If you was a good shot and possess some skill you can get kills, but at the same time a more carefull pilot could kill you with a skilfull bomb or rocket attack and when hit by an M16 this type of pilot had a chance to react and escape harm.Not so with ostwinds(or AI ack for this matter!).I think a lot of the frustration in AH is that when hit by ai AA/ostwinds there isnt a lot you can do about it.This led to a lot of people ignoring the excellent ground attack side to flying.If when hit you get a chance to break off you are more likely to try again and use some skill and possibly we'd avoid this suicide dive mentality.Where they know they are going to lose a wing first hit so they dive in drop everything and hope it hits close (who can blame them when ai AA or ostwind AA is so deadly?)
Back to tanks, on average it took TEN shermans to kill a tiger.(recalled from memory 99% sure this was the statistic).The method employed was often to send so many shermans and other types into the battles that these heavy and dangerous tanks were simply overrun by the amount of allied tanks or were destroyed by air attacks when the allies really took a hold on the air.I think HTC should recognise that a lot of their customers are fans of books on history about this 'deadly image' of the axis.In AH there isnt many occations (not before the jets anyway) where you thought the axis had much of an advantage.However, we always had our Gvs but unfortunately not a lot we could match them against.Tank battles were just the same type vs type and did little to help us understand why the panzer was rated so highly.
I was thinking that HTC should Avoid bringing the very much later allied tanks I have seen requested in AH like the pershing or firefly version of the shermans in favour of the earlier types that had such a hard time against the better designs The Germans fielded.A simple sherman M4 would imo be a fantastic first tank addition to AH.(not only that but this is the icon of the allies for me personally from kellys heroes to the battle of the bulge this is the tank we often see and think of for WW2)
What Im asking for is for HTC to keep the Ground war an area where if you choose to be allied you will face a deadly enemy.In MA this will not be a problem in terms of ballance because, after all, you can take the same tank if you find it too difficult to attack a base etc.But for scenarios etc it is possible to field greater numbers of inferior tanks vs smaller numbers of the superior tiger/panther/panzer types.Learning decent tactics instead of slogging it out with longer and longer ranged guns will become the norm.Using cover or speed or numbers to overpower the small but deadly enemy could be a lot of fun imo.We might even see a few great tank commanders emerging!! :D
What i would really hate to see is an Allied tank from the very end of the war that greatly outperforms the panzerIVH or any other axis tank we might get for a while.What i mean is this:
If we introduce a pershing with a bigger gun the Panzer IV will be outclassed, the favoued tank would be the allied pershing and the panzer driver or fan would be frustrated and we would be back to pershing to pershing slug fests, only now at greater ranges.If however the sherman M4/or similar allied early tank like the matilda, was introduced most if not all will 'try it out' because we all like them, we might find the panzer a tricky foe and some good fights should emerge with a differing setup and capabilities/weaknesses.
I think personally that as AH has a heavily late war orientated plane set it would be a good idea to keep 'axis types' happy with the better types of ground vehicles.By all means perk them to reflect their rarity etc but keep them cutting edge.
If we get were to get the tiger or panther or kingtiger or jaggpanther etc, then by all means , introduce much later allied designs but please dont introduce an allied tank that suddenly leaves axis fans cold.I for one want to feel the difference by introducing models as they arrived into the front line, and this means Germany pretty much leading the way most of the time(russian front not included here of course, I have often read of the T34's superior design for the russian terrain and that would also be interesting to 'feel')
Anyway this has gone on a bit long , but i hope you understand what i mean here.Im ok with the airside of AH leaning towards the allies a bit but in the gound war I really feel it would be better for aH to keep it how it was on the front in europe.deadly but rare heavy german tanks taking on large numbers of inferior allies tanks interspersed with a few better versions but exacting high costs.And trying to convey that vulnerable feeling the allied tank veterans often talk about.Those Allied veterans often admired the vehicles of their enemies and openly admitted to wishing they had similar ones.Much as many german crews envied the mobility and good design of the Russians T34.
ok request over :D
-
Look at that Wall O'text...yikes!! ;)
I'm hoping that gv's (naval ships/boats as well) get an increase in thier complexity- re: driving as well as ballistics and damage model aspects. They may be "side dishes" or brief alternatives to the AH air war but as a player I see no reason they could not be made more realistic whihc IMO would make them more fun. As they are now they're even easier to use than fluffs but with some real odd damage models.
A key element to revising any ground aspect, imo, would be also bring a new complex uber-terrain such as ...er, that "other place" whose 'war' is stuck in 1940 has. A terrain where most every aspect is fixed and the same on every FE. However that may cause too big of an FPS hit.
After you provide the proper environment to use these ground vehicles in then IMO you cold really discuss what you would like HTC to do as regards adding specific vehicles and sets.
Westy
-
K west I avoided talking about the damage model because I feel at the moment HTC is obviously watching and testing it carefully as the game evolves.This was purely a request for armoured vehicles, although its good point to mention the allied superiority in sea based craft and landing craft.However the allies were really the only side to field such vehicles and it is definately an area where it helped to win the war.
By all means discuss the game 'affect' of sea based vehicles and ships, you feel would benefit AH but lets leave durability and damage modelling and the terrain out of it for a bit please :).This is aimed at seeing who agrees or disagrees and i dont want some off topic arguement starting.
What I express here is what i want or would like to see in AH not what Im demanding or argueing is broken.
If people feel thisshould be ignored then fair enough post here and say you dont agree and why.Dont argue about certain dates of design and introduction etc please.We are not all exact historians.Many just have an overall veiw of the war and how it played out and many times we argue over the strangest of mute points like how many were made or where they were deployed etc. We lose track of what we are here for and that is enjoyment with entertainment with a little information and complexity thrown in.
True the terrain isnt exactly suited to gvs but this can be addressed much later and for now i really enjoy the gv side too but would like to see a similar allied/axis choice of vehicles(with ref to huge first post :)) and then worry about how the terrain needs upgrading later:)
-
Originally posted by hazed-
...but it is an accepted fact that the German heavy tanks were the toughest and possibly the deadliest.
The Soviet T-34 I believe had that distinction.
(http://www.hispanicvista.com/assets/479th_shield.jpg)
Ack-Ack
479th FG - Riddle's Raiders
-
well when the sherman is brought in and modeled CORRECTLY,
i wont use it. if modeled correctly it wont be able to kill
a Panz 1 on 1, and will die easier then a M8.
whels
Originally posted by hazed-
The one area that the axis forces really dominated in world war 2, in the west at least, for superior design was in Jets and armour, late war mainly!, earlier blitkreig armour could be argued as inferior but with better tactics that were employed.Both jets and tanks fortunately, were not produced in enough numbers to stop the allies but it is an accepted fact that the German heavy tanks were the toughest and possibly the deadliest.
Now in aces high for the first year and a half(?) the allied planeset really dominated the skies of AH for european theatre types at least(nik became a real pain!).As a fan of LW planes I like others who chose to fly them were frustrated by the superior speeds of types like the p51d and the turning capabilities of other allied types like the spitfire.In ground attack we had for a LONG time no real capability at all! (remember when and for how long the 190a8 was all we had? :)).In the bomber catagory we had an even worse time until we had the ju88 to toy with.(I say toy with because it suffers from being the only bomber that is pre 1943-45).I really love the diversity the ju88 offers,and persist with its use because of this alone, even when i know 9 times out of 10 a determined attack will easily leave you dead.
We were lucky in only one area, the ground vehicles!.We had the only tank and the deadly ostwind(imo a vehicle that has spoiled somewhat the balance of choice in AA defence). The M16 was an excellent choice as an AA platform in that it is vulnerable without that instant kill capability.If you was a good shot and possess some skill you can get kills, but at the same time a more carefull pilot could kill you with a skilfull bomb or rocket attack and when hit by an M16 this type of pilot had a chance to react and escape harm.Not so with ostwinds(or AI ack for this matter!).I think a lot of the frustration in AH is that when hit by ai AA/ostwinds there isnt a lot you can do about it.This led to a lot of people ignoring the excellent ground attack side to flying.If when hit you get a chance to break off you are more likely to try again and use some skill and possibly we'd avoid this suicide dive mentality.Where they know they are going to lose a wing first hit so they dive in drop everything and hope it hits close (who can blame them when ai AA or ostwind AA is so deadly?)
Back to tanks, on average it took TEN shermans to kill a tiger.(recalled from memory 99% sure this was the statistic).The method employed was often to send so many shermans and other types into the battles that these heavy and dangerous tanks were simply overrun by the amount of allied tanks or were destroyed by air attacks when the allies really took a hold on the air.I think HTC should recognise that a lot of their customers are fans of books on history about this 'deadly image' of the axis.In AH there isnt many occations (not before the jets anyway) where you thought the axis had much of an advantage.However, we always had our Gvs but unfortunately not a lot we could match them against.Tank battles were just the same type vs type and did little to help us understand why the panzer was rated so highly.
I was thinking that HTC should Avoid bringing the very much later allied tanks I have seen requested in AH like the pershing or firefly version of the shermans in favour of the earlier types that had such a hard time against the better designs The Germans fielded.A simple sherman M4 would imo be a fantastic first tank addition to AH.(not only that but this is the icon of the allies for me personally from kellys heroes to the battle of the bulge this is the tank we often see and think of for WW2)
What Im asking for is for HTC to keep the Ground war an area where if you choose to be allied you will face a deadly enemy.In MA this will not be a problem in terms of ballance because, after all, you can take the same tank if you find it too difficult to attack a base etc.But for scenarios etc it is possible to field greater numbers of inferior tanks vs smaller numbers of the superior tiger/panther/panzer types.Learning decent tactics instead of slogging it out with longer and longer ranged guns will become the norm.Using cover or speed or numbers to overpower the small but deadly enemy could be a lot of fun imo.We might even see a few great tank commanders emerging!! :D
What i would really hate to see is an Allied tank from the very end of the war that greatly outperforms the panzerIVH or any other axis tank we might get for a while.What i mean is this:
If we introduce a pershing with a bigger gun the Panzer IV will be outclassed, the favoued tank would be the allied pershing and the panzer driver or fan would be frustrated and we would be back to pershing to pershing slug fests, only now at greater ranges.If however the sherman M4/or similar allied early tank like the matilda, was introduced most if not all will 'try it out' because we all like them, we might find the panzer a tricky foe and some good fights should emerge with a differing setup and capabilities/weaknesses.
I think personally that as AH has a heavily late war orientated plane set it would be a good idea to keep 'axis types' happy with the better types of ground vehicles.By all means perk them to reflect their rarity etc but keep them cutting edge.
If we get were to get the tiger or panther or kingtiger or jaggpanther etc, then by all means , introduce much later allied designs but please dont introduce an allied tank that suddenly leaves axis fans cold.I for one want to feel the difference by introducing models as they arrived into the front line, and this means Germany pretty much leading the way most of the time(russian front not included here of course, I have often read of the T34's superior design for the russian terrain and that would also be interesting to 'feel')
Anyway this has gone on a bit long , but i hope you understand what i mean here.Im ok with the airside of AH leaning towards the allies a bit but in the gound war I really feel it would be better for aH to keep it how it was on the front in europe.deadly but rare heavy german tanks taking on large numbers of inferior allies tanks interspersed with a few better versions but exacting high costs.And trying to convey that vulnerable feeling the allied tank veterans often talk about.Those Allied veterans often admired the vehicles of their enemies and openly admitted to wishing they had similar ones.Much as many german crews envied the mobility and good design of the Russians T34.
ok request over :D
-
And so it begins :(
dont know why i bothered.AKAK im aware of the russian tanks and already mentioned it.Id argue the germans had the dealier guns fielded longer than any other army.The 88cm was wel recognised as among the best of the war.This added to a body like the jagdpanther and i would garentee no t34 would beat it in a 1 on 1 situation over clear ground.Much as we would see in AH.So lets keep AH in mind here. Anyway the T34 was on the eastern front only and as 90% of the planeset and gv set is europe(west/south)/north africa or pacific orientated I thought id leave it for later discussions once we have more Russian models
whels how about not quoting the entire thread out ?? we can all read it at the top.True the sherman was weak but thats the whole point! if you use them you SHOULD feel weak.Its gun SHOULD feel a lot more usefull than the m8 we have(37mm?) which agin is down to modeling.
Whels consider this: The damage model is indeed bugged somehow but it can be adjusted.I feel HE/AP damage etc is off but i still use them.This is really about the future introductions more than anything.I personally do not want the current problems to stop introductions to the GV set. I want to see shermans, panzers,panthers,matildas, t34s,etc etc etc. we can tweak the models later.
-
"Panzer" and "blitzkrieg" were definatly two of the most significant concepts of WWII.
T34 was definatly one of the most significant tanks; and really should be one of the very next GV's modelled.
In the same way that the Spit and Hurri first shattered the invincible image of the Luftwaffe, Which Allied tanks first pushed back the Panzers?
At which point would we have a balanced field? North Africa? Kursk?
I know nothing of the armoured conflict in the PTO, any one got any links?
-
**ERROR! Text too long!
Text lenght exceeds brain capacity - Aborting
:rolleyes:
But in general - I agree...
-
Bring on Stalins organ pipes the Katyusha heavy rocket launcher........ driven in convoy as per future buff modes....... range finding etc modeled on the big ship guns but with accuracy randomiser as per future (I hope) buffs................
That might add a bit of varietyto the GV choice set......... the GV equivilent of a heavy bomber (destruction wise not strat wise)
http://www.swebase.com/wintersturm/html/katjusja.html (http://www.swebase.com/wintersturm/html/katjusja.html)
Tilt
-
Originally posted by hazed-
but it is an accepted fact that the German heavy tanks were the toughest and possibly the deadliest.
At west yes, at east IS-2 was 3 heards ahead of tigers and even kingtigers. It is well known that germans prohibitied their tankers to get into duels with IS-2.
Fariz
-
While I don't support the establishment of an arena for the sole purpose of demonstrating German military hegemeny, I do support increased utility of GVs (eg: investigating the interation between aircraft and GVs during combat) and increasing the vehicle set.
-Sikboy
-
well when the sherman is brought in and modeled CORRECTLY,
i wont use it. if modeled correctly it wont be able to kill
a Panz 1 on 1, and will die easier then a M8.
Sherman can kill PzKpfw-IVh frontally up to 1000m at least.
At west yes, at east IS-2 was 3 heards ahead of tigers and even kingtigers. It is well known that germans prohibitied their tankers to get into duels with IS-2.
Not quite true. IS-2 wast too hard target for even finnish Stugs. It had very slow rate of fire and very limited ammoload. Often under 10 AP rounds. Also IS-2 had much inferior optics to ones of Königstiger.
IS-2 and IS-3 look good on paper yes. But in actual combat T-34/85 and SU-100 would be much more effective against enemy armor.
There is general difference in design of german and soviet armor. Soviets went for larger caliber as germans went for higher muzzle velocity. Muzzle velocity is decicive for accuracy and penetration, but higher caliber guns (85mm, 122mm) on soviet tanks were better against infantry. These two countries made thair tanks with different desing goals and purposes. In
Armor vs Armor post 1943 german tanks were best until end of war.
T34 was definatly one of the most significant tanks; and really should be one of the very next GV's modelled.
In the same way that the Spit and Hurri first shattered the invincible image of the Luftwaffe, Which Allied tanks first pushed back the Panzers?
T-34 never pushed back panzers.
t was clearly worlds best tank design in 1941. With introduction of PzKpfw-IVf2 in 1942 with 75mmL43 it's rule was over. Anyway T-34 was very succesful design. And very innovative. Germans copied best of it in their panther. Used mostly against infantry t-34 broke terror in german forces. There is again this difference in doctrinal use. Soviet tanks against infantry and in breakthoughs, german tanks against armor.
t-34 was most inluential tank in ww2. It had largest effect in income of war. But that doesnt mean it could fight equally against Panthers or Tigers.
-
Originally posted by whels
well when the sherman is brought in and modeled CORRECTLY,
i wont use it. if modeled correctly it wont be able to kill
a Panz 1 on 1, and will die easier then a M8.
whels
Whels, which sherman? M4A2 was terrible, no doubt. But some modifications of M4A3 (76 (W) or "FireFly) can hold its own against TIV we have in the game. Actually they are same league. TIV is not a Panther, it is prewar tank with many improvments, far from beeing great.
Actually if (as HTC mentioned) we will get sherman and t34/85 in game in 1.10, t34 will be the dominent from all 3. It has better armor, faster, and better gun. Less ammo though, which in case of AH may be important
For your info I will put some date about all 3:
Weight:
TIVH -- 25.9
T34/85 -- 32
M4A3(76)W -- 33.7
Front Armor (chassy/tower)
TIVH -- 80/80
T34/85 -- 45/90
M4A3(76)W -- 108/64
Gun:
TIVH -- 75
T34/85 -- 85
M4A3(76)W -- 76
Rounds:
TIVH -- 80
T34/85 -- 55
M4A3(76)W -- 71
Armor penetration at 1000m:
TIVH -- 82
T34/85 -- 102
M4A3(76)W -- 88
Speed (at the road)
TIVH -- 38 km/h
T34/85 -- 55 km/h
M4A3(76)W -- 40
So nothing to afraid, those 3 are same league. I am sure that HTC will chose M4A3(76)W, and in this case people will chose tank basing on the task and their personal favours.
-
Originally posted by illo
IS-2 and IS-3 look good on paper yes. But in actual combat T-34/85 and SU-100 would be much more effective against enemy armor.
There is general princiference in design of german and soviet armor. Soviets went for larger caliber as germans went for higher muzzle velocity. Muzzle velocity is decicive for accuracy and penetration, but higher caliber guns (85mm, 122mm) on soviet tanks were better against infantry. These two countries made thair tanks with different desing goals and purposes. In
Armor vs Armor post 1943 german tanks were best until end of war.
First of all IS-3 did not saw action against Germans, so we can't compare. Only in one source I saw information that it was 1 fight between IS-2 and JagdPanzers (sp?). Other sources say some IS-3 were used in China in 1945, not any in Germany. Second, yes, IS-2 main disadvantages was slow speed of fire and load (that was main reason why IS-3 was put into production). But again, it could kill german panzers outside the effective range of their guns. We can argue or not, but lets rely on Germans, which, again, prohibited open fight of tigers and panzers with IS-2. They never did it for t34/85 or su100 (or even su152). And they saw it on the field, not on paper :)
Fariz
-
here something to show edge of better optics, muzzle velocity and higher ROF.
"Some Nashorn crews reported that they were able to knock out Soviet T-34 tanks at distance as great as 4000 meters. Nashorn crews also reported numerous kills of KV and IS-2 tanks as well as SU-152, ISU-122 and ISU-152 assault guns. It is reported that in early March of 1945, Lieutenant Beckmann from sPzJagAbt 88 destroyed Soviet IS-2 at the range of 4600 meters near Marzdorf." Source, Achtung Panzer.
Soviet tanks of time couldnt even dream of hitting anything at 4000m range.
Here something more about IS-2, and choice to use 122mm gun. Design issues of IS-2 heavy tank (http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=022960)
IS-2
(http://www.achtungpanzer.com/images/is2.jpg)
Panther G with IR searchlight (http://www.achtungpanzer.com/images/p5fg_1.jpg)
-
As above 88L71 gun of Jagdpanther, Nashorn, Königstiger could all knock out IL-2s at medium[edit, not extreme] ranges. Il-2s 122mm wasnt able to kill Jagdpanther or Königstiger frontally at over 1000m range.
I think T-34/85, Sherman 76 and PZkpfw-IVh are good choices. They all can knock out eachother with quite equal changes. Where 85L53 of T-34 is mariginally better in penetration it is worse accuracy wise than german 75L48 or US 76L51.
-
GV's need more cover first IMO +)
SKurj
-
"GV's need more cover first"
Yes. I'd like to see something along these lines:
No (enemy) icon for a GV that has been stopped for X minutes, and is "camouflaged".
No (enemy) icon for a GV that is in a "forest" (terrain with big trees).
(Might need to add muzzle flashes to make the above ideas viable.)
-
errm popeye
I was referring to GV vs GV cover(where no icons exist). Right now at least on ndisles you face your opponent over a vast area of pool table like ground.
Hull down position... whats that?? If you can get into a position like that you have to climb a hill for 5 minutes or more... and even then odds are you will not only be facing up/down hill, but also leaning to one side making aim even tougher...
Need abit more terrain variety
Perhaps this can be scheduled for 1.15 after the planeset is filled out +)
(sooner would be nice)
SKurj
btw Anyone pick up The Panzer Elite rerelease? +)
-
Yeah the Ostwind is undermodelled. Anti-LW conspiracy for sure.
-
Originally posted by SKurj
GV's need more cover first IMO +)
SKurj
100% correct.
Current terrain continues to be more akin to the desert. If one is attempting to truly simulate a European ground war, then it should be stated once again that the mean engagement range for Allied tanks vs German tanks was approximately 700 yards. The 1st Army mean range was 760 yds, the 3rd Army mean range was 615 yds and the British 2nd Army mean range was 644 yds. 87% of all engagements resulting in casualties were at more than 200 yds, 65% was greater than 400 yds. However, only 2% were at ranges greater than 2000 yds. It should also be that the range at which most encounters took place was 330 yds - or half the average range and most hits were on the front of the hull or turret for US Vehicles, but only for little more than 1/3 of the British tanks was this true.
1. Four of the five engagements between single tanks went to the tank that fired first.
2. One half of all casualties were caused by a single hit and the average number of hits per casualty was less than two.
3. German weapons could penetrate Allied armor, in most cases, out to 2000 yds, whereas Allied guns could perforate German armor only out to about 800 yds.
For Northern Europe, the average range that a tank could see another tank from any random point was 322 yards. The probability that a tank could see 1000 yards at any random point in Northern Europe was less than .05 (less than 5%).
Tank engagements in Europe were controlled by the terrain - thus limiting tank engagement ranges.
You'll need a proper terrain environment before anyone should be worrying about highly realistic modeling of ground vehicles or weaponry. Until then, the GV component of AH will always be more of a fun arcade adventure designed to support the essence of the flight simulation game, which IMHO it should always be.
Regards,
Badger
-
AND BACK TO THE REASON/TOPIC OF POST........:D.
Are we going to introduce allied amour that far outclasses axis or are we going to get the bigger axis armour as we get the better allied models like M4(76) or T34?
Id love to see the t34 and sherman firefly/pershing etc but LIKE I SAID IN POST :D I think the tank king should always focus more on the German armour.Just make them COST perks to use to reflect their lower numbers.
after all the me262 and arado seem to do their jobs perfectly. LW fans have their 'secret weapons of the LW' to toy with but they are costly and so cannot overun the arena.This is after all very similar to WW2 in that they ARE rare but THEY ARE there!!
In the GV world there should always be that DEADLY rare TANK possibly with the 88cm gun before we see the 76mm+larger guns the allies eventually fielded.I really wouldnt want the panzer to suddenly become the worst tank in AH and leave the axis players out in the cold before we have even had a chance to see what the panzerIV was like vs tanks it most commonly fought instead of itself like now.(t34 is an exception here i agree,it was used in 1941 against german armour but i think american or british tanks are more in line with our current model set)
I absolutely agree the ground war is much more a FUN addition than it is a serious attempt at highly detailed simulation and I also think that is pretty much where gvs should stay.AH is after all a flight sim with extras much more than it is the total war sim.(although a fun and good attempt at it)
Please open another thread for technical layouts etc and stick to this issue? do you agree or disagree.I think the GV part of AH should try to reflect battles with the advanced German armour before they model the advanced allied tanks.I dont want to see the panzer become obsolete before its even faced its oppersite number.Introduce pershings or t34s for that matter and without the mobile 88cm AA guns(cant remember name) or advanced German armour the ballance shifts TOTALLy to the allies.They will have the best anti-tank aircraft with the best tanks and best bombers.I think that willl be the day i give up playing AH through sheer frustration and lack of fun flying/driving the machines i choose to use :). And before you condemn me for choosing to be on an axis side remember you need axis players as much as any other, some people enjoy playing the bad guys in games.(think star wars and my favourite ships were the tie fighters!! go figure, does that make me a dark jedi? lol no I just liked the 'look' and their relentless image).We need both allied and axis aircraft/vehicle fans in here unless we want boring one sided fights.
-
Fariz
"Second, yes, IS-2 main disadvantages was slow speed of fire and load (that was main reason why IS-3 was put into production)."
Nope!
The IS3 had an even worse reaload speed than the IS2, the turret of the IS3 was much more cramped than the IS2.
Also, the IS3 had terrible vision outside the tank. It had no commanders vision cupola. It only gave him a single rotating scope on his hatch. I can't belive they did this as it was the one of the greatest faults with early T34s and KV1 excepct the KV1S.
As for the Soviet 122mm gun.
It only had the AP performance of the Panthers 75mm, but with much lower rate of fire, and much lower accuracy. It had vastly superior HE power against soft targets. But it only had 28 total rounds as ammo load vs Panthers 80-90.
The IS2 was not designed to fight tanks! It's purpose was as a breakthrough tank against entrenced infantry and pak lines.
IS2 wasnt that great, although it had thick armor and an excellent shilouette. It was aloso extremly sluggish compared to Panther- even though they weighed about the same.
-
Hazed, may as well paint those fancy shmancy tanks pink when your fighting in the current terrain.
The only skill involved is who can get the range first. This isn't how it was... stealth was a HUGE part of it.
If all you want are the monster tanks perhaps thats fine for you..
Allied tanks need the cover +)
SKurj
-
He upfront admitted wanting to see the Axis (as if it matters in the MA who made a vehicle, everyone can use them) get a huge edge in the armor area of operation.
Doesn't really matter to me. I rarely use GV's, they are more of a nuisance to me than fluffs are to Lazs. :rolleyes:
I think we need to see some Allied tanks before we EVER see a Tiger or Panther, if for no other reason than for "balance" in the GV set.
Not to be confrontational, hazed, but I do disagree with your comments about the air side of AH favoring the Allies, especially prior to the 262 and Arado. Not gonna hijack your thread, you can email me or PM me if you want to debate our differences in opinion.
Overall, not a bad post, Hazed. You presented your case well, even got the idea for complete German armor domination over in such a way no one has replied "F**k you Hazed!" :p
-
Originally posted by Seeker
At which point would we have a balanced field? North Africa? Kursk?
I know nothing of the armoured conflict in the PTO, any one got any links?
Look up 'el alamein' for info on the turning of the war in the desert. This link is a good start.
alamein (http://www.ehabweb.net/alamein.html)
-
Thanks grünherz! You said everything I wanted to say.
I think aircraft cannon/MG penetration against tanks should be made realistic. Now tanks are way too vulnerable because unrealistic damage model and no where to hide. Need thicker woods and roads. Icons for GVs don't work. In far future it would be great to get enough variation in ground to find hull down positions.
Some indrect arty like Hummel, Nebelwerfer/Wurfrahmen, Katyushka or Calliope would be cool for pounding airfields. Then only need Fieseler Storch for spotter AC. :)
I dream of seeing Kursk scenario. NO icons. 190s flying cover for advancing Pzkw-IVs. T-34s stalking their prey in woodline. First panzers lit up. Muzzle flashes and smoke reveal t-34s. Stukas diving to drop their bombs in woodline. La5s trying to get them...109s diving to help ju87s. Il-2s at treetop level trying to sneak past 190s to kill panzers.
Would this be possible in future??? What do you think?
-
Thanks, Gavnor; I'll read it through.
But before I do....
I was under the impression that supply line length (aided by the Desert Rats) was what really beat Rommel. The tanks in use in the desert I've always considered qualitiatvely inferior to the Panzers, is this incorrect?
-
I was wondering why I didn't see you online last night... now I know, you were here wrtiting a book :D
-
Russian 122mm was having nice punch: even if it didn't penetrate armour explosion could throw whole turret away.
(I've been reading about this issue 'cause wwiiol ;) )
Some numbers for German 37mm, 50mm, 75mm and 88mm:
http://www.kolumbus.fi/staga/wwiiol/penetr_tables.htm
-
As far as cover, if you want to see what people are talking about, get a good accurate combat sim like Combat Mission and see what engagement ranges are dictated by terrain & foliage.
In AH we kill tanks at 3000 yards, in CM we kill them at 300 yards. I think I know which is more historically accurate. :)
-
Well, I have not a single western source on tanks, and mostly soviet time books. So may be you are right. I will look for more info on is-2.
Fariz
-
Originally posted by illo
I dream of seeing Kursk scenario. NO icons. 190s flying cover for advancing Pzkw-IVs. T-34s stalking their prey in woodline. First panzers lit up. Muzzle flashes and smoke reveal t-34s. Stukas diving to drop their bombs in woodline. La5s trying to get them...109s diving to help ju87s. Il-2s at treetop level trying to sneak past 190s to kill panzers.
I started making maps and web scenario support for Kursk, but then stopped it. Current planes/gv's set is not any good for it.
I am sure we will get all what needed for Kursk some time... Not sure when though. What is needed is t34/76, Stuka, He111, Hs129, panzers, tigers, kv's, pe2, la5s, yak7, yak1, early yak9s, Ferdinands. What we have now are 109g2, 190a5, pIV, il2. Think there were some spanish units with 109f4 there too, but they were not used in action?
-
I just bought and "browsed" rather then sat down and read "Panzer Aces"- Franz Kurowski. It got pretty stale after sounding like a AH 109 pilot in leather mode, but fiction inspired chest thumping aside as it sometime seemed, really made the Tiger and even in a lessor tanks, with the German tactics pretty awesome. Something AH could never model in 50 updates.
The Tiger was really something.
Cool book, and when a Tiger Ace Commander was whacked by a sniper, I knew it beyond the scope of AH. And when they just murdered 10 Allied tanks at a time, I was convinced.
Still, reading how they fought was pretty cool.
-
Originally posted by eddiek
He upfront admitted wanting to see the Axis (as if it matters in the MA who made a vehicle, everyone can use them) get a huge edge in the armor area of operation.
absolutely eddeik i did point out it wouldnt effect MA so much but scenario play would like i said with the sherman or lesser types like matilda be less aslugfest than a storming the gates rush in together lol :)
Doesn't really matter to me. I rarely use GV's, they are more of a nuisance to me than fluffs are to Lazs. :rolleyes:
I think we need to see some Allied tanks before we EVER see a Tiger or Panther, if for no other reason than for "balance" in the GV set.
again absolutely agree here eddeik, perhaps i messed up what exactly i meant.Im not so much wanting the huge tanks now as wanting them if we have a large gunned allied version of a tank added.I suppose what im saying is 'add large gunned allied tanks if you have to but always put the slightly better german designs in at the same time to compensate'(plus add perk cost of course).What Im actually asking for here though, is a sherman M4 because its the icon of WW2 for me and a favourite AND it means the panzer remains 'top dog'.Its introduction covers all my criteria from this post.Again people are correct in saying this is more an arcade aspect in AH and hardly reflects real life warfare for armour.But this is all the more reason not to go mad an introduce the super tanks(pershing/kingtigers/Is2) yet. Gvs are fun though.
Not to be confrontational, hazed, but I do disagree with your comments about the air side of AH favoring the Allies, especially prior to the 262 and Arado. Not gonna hijack your thread, you can email me or PM me if you want to debate our differences in opinion.[/b]
noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooo :D
Overall, not a bad post, Hazed. You presented your case well, even got the idea for complete German armor domination over in such a way no one has replied "F**k you Hazed!" :p [/B]
I know! amazing isnt it! :p even creamo spared the horse whip! ....i think i need to lie down...come over all faint :)
-
I don't "horsewhip" out of spite. Whines and sappy posts? Most likely.
Your post is neither.
I can't seriously conclude much on your post as it is beyond my understanding (and attention) but I noted a book I read, where the Germans did in fact just decimate opposing anti-tank soldiers with their weapons, and NME tanks early conflict via tactical supremacy. Then later, in the case of the Tiger, even the best of the Allied efforts, was another serious asswhippin before the tide of Allied numbers just won out. (Like you said)
All of which I seriously don’t know how HTC could introduce GV variants to achieve a historical, or more important, a AH game play balance. It’s just too huge in scope.
Plus you pointed out the importance of the planeset and it's limitations prior to your GV point. It's viable.
Good post though.
-
"In AH we kill tanks at 3000 yards, in CM we kill them at 300 yards. I think I know which is more historically accurate. "
Exactly Funked. Build the playground and then introduce the toys to it. Until that happens then all the talk about Axis vs Allied vehicles in AH (talked about in a historically accurate additions to AH context) is simple day dreaming. There is no way in heck most players will use them in a historical context anyway and with the current MA terrain and environment there is no way one could even hope to at all.
Westy
-
cc Introducing the M4 would be a COMPLETE JOKE at the moment.
All this armor talk is pointless
SKurj
-
The T-34 would still be a decent addition because at least it'd be faster than the tank we have now.
Personally I can't see how the GV system will ever be able to stand alone in AH simply because there's just too many planes and any GV is an easy kill for an airplane.
J_A_B
-
In the never-ending quest for ulitimate "realism" in vehicles, I demand more and closer spawn points to relieve me of the responsibility of acutally having to drive my tank at a "realistic" speed to the area of conflict. I think I should be able to just spawn instantly at the end of the enemy runway in my Flak Panzer from any VH within 100 straight line map miles.
Further, I demand a speedometer calibrated to at least 200 mph so that I can accurately determine the optimum time to start braking my tank when whizzing down a hill into an enemy base.
Realism, Realism, Rah, Rah, RAH!
;)
-
I love it all of a sudden guys that think they know a lot about planes are now experts on tanks as well. T-34 was a great tank, toughest? Not by a long shot. Is-2 was a great tank, toughest? Nope. King Tiger great tank, was it the toughest? Nope. Not sure where some of these people read their info but I dealt with WW2 armor and ballistics for a game called Close Combat III the Russian Front. Actually we re-created the entire game and Called it the Western Front. You want answers I would gladly help.
-
YOU WANT ANSWERS!
I WANT THE TRUTH!
-
Originally posted by Sachs
I love it all of a sudden guys that think they know a lot about planes are now experts on tanks as well. T-34 was a great tank, toughest? Not by a long shot. Is-2 was a great tank, toughest? Nope. King Tiger great tank, was it the toughest? Nope. Not sure where some of these people read their info but I dealt with WW2 armor and ballistics for a game called Close Combat III the Russian Front. Actually we re-created the entire game and Called it the Western Front. You want answers I would gladly help.
Ok
Start with how did you screw up the armour modeling in CC3 so bad? Was there ever a more disappointing game to follow up such a great one? The modeling in CC2 was excellent. But CC3 is like they noticed that there was no way to give the soviets thier historical numerical supperiority and still keep within the force size limits of the game engine so they made the soviet armour 3 times too tough.. Nice to cyber meet the guy responsible for such a travesty.
-
Methinks he said they "fixed" the armor values in CC3 and renamed it. Damn hackers, trying to make a bad game good by increasing the realism :D
-
In a little different aspect, I think the future of AH GVs lies within detailed ground combat(not visually, just systematically). Sooner or later, at some point, AI ground forces concept must enter. I know many hate to see the AI drones working in AH. We have enough complaints on 4~5 automatic field guns currently :) It'd be quite messy when we see 10~15 ground vehicles working with AIs.
But all the complaints and arguments on strat, GV damage models and GV discussions converge to a single point of 'ground war'. Planes need to kill tanks, since taking out GVs with other GVs is inefficient in current ground war system. Attacking an enemy position with GVs is even more inefficient. Therefore, the 'double standard' on weapons. .50s and 20mms penetrate enemy armor easily, while GV weapons of 75mm cannons barely take out a hangar or two. The problems and discussions on strat(putting aside people who want completely no strat ;) ) are usually with how to make an AH multi-national war coincide with the actual appearances of 'authentic' WWII war, and the problems happen when one side is hugely air oriented, and the other side is in the ultimate, based on ground(in the ultimate end, importance of ground power exceeds air power, strategical or tactical).
What can we do that takes up low bandwidth, but simulates larger scale ground warfare?? :)
-
Originally posted by Sachs
I love it all of a sudden guys that think they know a lot about planes are now experts on tanks as well.
I can’t speak for others and I am far from an expert in this area.
However, besides being a RL pilot working on an aerobatics endorsement, I served in Armor for four years and qualified on the Sherman (M4A2E8), circa 1952 vintage and & Centurion, as well as spent considerable time being forced to study its potential adversaries contemporary to the period.
From what I’ve observed over the years, besides the regular group of Internet OCPD types, there’s a tremendous knowledge pool of people here capable of covering a wide variety of subjects.
Regards,
Badger
Group 3 Gunner (RCAC)
Group 2 Driver Mechanic Tracked (RCAC)
Group 2 Signaler (RCAC)
CC and Trooper Leader Instructor
-
Sachs, can I watch you remove your foot from your mouth now?
Badger, nice post, tastefully done. I'd have gone for the throat, but that's just me. :)
-Smut
-
want more gvs into the game, think its good for gamplay and somthimes Im just to tired to fly :)
AG
-
Hey Badger - long time no talk how are things in the Great White North? Those TK and TR screenshots are looking really sharp as of late.
Smut - sorry to hear about your team at EA. I just found out about it I've been out of the loop as of late when it comes to that industry. Are you working with/near Vila now? If so say hello for me. I think what Sachs was referring to was people applying historical/'accurate simulation' relevance and effectiveness to a vehicle based on a few numbers read from a book on AFVs. A good example applied to you would be some guy posting to one of your F-15 or F/A-18 simulation forums and saying something like 'The F-14 would beat them everytime, it can carry a bunch of AIM-54s and can engage from longer ranges.' Kind of true on paper maybe, but in the real world or any simulation that tries to mirror the real world it's never going to be that simple.
With regards to what someone posted about the CC3 armor values and such - I worked a little with the 'Real Red' guys, the group of guys that put out a really good patch for CC3 that 'fixed' some key issues. While corresponding with the actual 'code modifiers' of the 'Real Red' group I found out that one of the big problems with CC3 initially was that they tried to pull off a little too much 'abstraction'. On the Eastern front, the average engagement range for AFVs, AT weapons, etc. was much greater than in any other theater during WW2. But the maps of the CC3 battles and operations rarely allowed for the above mentioned longer range engagements. So apparently the initial armor and penetration values were 'fudged' to give the 'feel' of longer range engagements even if the ranges on the tactical maps read different - this explains the Su 122s taking multiple 88L56 AP hits at 150 meters in the release version of CC3 and living to tell about it.
Later on this was 'fixed'/adjusted in a number of very well done mods put out by the player community. For anyone who really liked CC3 - try 'Real Red' or one of the other mods - I'm sure you'll enjoy it.
Funkedup - the 300 meter engagement ranges of CM are largely due to theater and era. With CM being largely NW Europe, mid-1944 or later, the terrain you are going to be fighting in is going to give you lower average ranges of engagement every time.
On the Eastern front it was not uncommon to have AFV/AT engagements at 2000 meters range once weapons with that range were available. The Germans had far superior optics when compared to the Russians. An experienced German gunner could actually hit moving targets at 2000 meters on the steppes of Russia. The same was almost never true for the Russians.
I've looked at actual working gunsights for all the major combatants when it comes to WW2 AFVs. Not only is the quality of optics better with the Germans, but the sight design itself is far easier to use when it comes to long range gunnery. At the very end of the war the U.S. and the U.K. finally deployed some sights that were on par with the Germans - Badger actually used these sights. But these sights were almost never used during WW2 itself.
There are a couple of things to remember - the numbers on paper never tell the whole story. I've talked with Russian AFV crewmen while working on a WW2 AFV simulation. The AFV they favored the most - once it was available - was the T-34/85. According to these crewmen, they would rather have a T-34/85 against the Germans than even an IS-2 or IS-2M. Some of the reasons:
1. Turret traverse was so poor on the IS series that "we had to use them almost like an assault gun".
2. Low ROF combined with less than ideal gunner experience meant that a miss was much more dangerous in combat.
3. This one was stressed heavily by the guys I talked to - the T-34/85 was one of the only Russian MBTs to have a functioning smoke discharger. Very important when the enemy can hit you 1200 meters or so before you can hit the enemy.
4. Off road mobility of the T-34 series in general was very good.
The T-34/85s 85mm MA had good AP penetration (pure penetration values roughly equal to the 75L48 used by the Germans), better HE performance than the 76mm of the earlier T-34s (good vs. AT gun crews and enemy infantry), and the heavier shell fired by the 85mm means it kept its penetration capability a little longer than the German 75L48. A decent ROF made a big difference unless you had a really crack gunner - easier to adjust aim vs. a moving target with a better ROF. And to quote another one of these crewmen "the Germans never stayed put once they knew you were ranging them".
Another thing to consider is this - from 1944 onward, you have alot of engagements where 1 hit = 1 kill. In these cases, tactical skill and experience are a huge factor. 'SA' is greatly influenced by combat experience when it comes to AFV combat. This is why you get PzKpfw VIEs killing 5 times their number in IS-2s in a single engagement. Tactical surprise because of better German AFV crew experience. Maybe 1 of every 7 or 8 of those IS-2s had a really 'battle hardened' crew. So when they get surprised most of those IS-2s take too long to react in a way which gives them a chance of surviving. It's also how Pattons 3d Armored crews hammered the German 2d Pz in a 1 on 1 engagement even when the Germans had better optics and at the ranges the fight was taking place better AFVs. But the 3d Armored had more experienced AFV crews. They basically out positioned, out maneuvered, and out shot the 2d Pz units they were up against.
So if crew experience mattered so much in real life...you are going to get skewed results in AH. Be prepared and don't scream 'the modeling is porked' the first time a Sherman gunner with a 76L51 immobilizes your Tiger at 1200 meters in the MA. Your average AH gunner has 200 times the practice time against 'live' targets that any WW2 AFV gunner had.
My votes...
For the best 'classic and balanced' MBT set...
PzKpfw IVH (already have it)
T-34/76C - mainstay for the Russians from '42 until the T-34/85 showed up. Slightly inferior gun to PzKpfw IVH, but the PzKpfw IVH has inferior armor protection and if the gunsights are done right you are only going to want to start shooting at closer ranges anyways.
Any M4 with the 75L38 MA.
Then add the T-34/85, PzKpfw VIE, and either a Sherman with a 76L51 MA or the M10 GMC or the (my favorite) M18 GMC.
There are always going to be 'balance discrepancies' when it comes to the 'gun vs. armor' race. That's how it happened in real life. The PzKpfw VIE is going to be at a huge advantage at 1000 meters range or greater (terrain permitting that engagement range of course). That's when a Sherman crewman does what was done in real life - get a few more Shermans to rush and flank the PzKpfw VIE, or have some Typhoon or P-47 blow his tracks off so the crew has to leave the PzKpfw VIE.
The best thing overall is that the development team actually cares about getting the modeling right (this is never a given). Pyro has picked up the best references you can get as far as books go. The newer trees in the MA are maybe a step towards better/more realistic terrain in terms of cover vs. concealment, etc.
I think the M18 would be fun as hell in the MA. Same with the M24. I think both of these will be superior 'MA AFVs' if we ever see them modeled. Same goes for the PSW 234/2, etc. A PzKpfw VIB is going to attract so many 1000 lb. bombs in the MA it won't last long. Better to be fast with a good gun and not too flashy in my opinion. Tempest Vs can always dive for safety. An IS-3 can't. 8)
Mike/wulfie from WB
p.s. Badger you should repost all your M4A3E8, 'HVSS', etc. type stories here I'm sure people would love to read them.
-
Hey Badger those average engagement ranges and such you posted above, are those from training materials when you were in the service?
If so...I'd LOVE to get scans of all that stuff. I'll pay in beer, etc. whatever you want. What's your current email?
Mike/wulfie from WB
-
Hey Wulf,
I dealt with Ron G. when he was doing the RR stuff (we corresponded a lot to work through a lot of the issues and bugs we ran into. We did the western Front add-on for CC3, damn near took us a year to complete it. There were a lot of issues dealing with teh gunnery and armor modeling in CC3, I used the correct penetration values and the angles of 90 and 30 for all weapons. This differed from the RR version which was (downgraded for playability). Meaning some values were not 100% correct. Was a fun as hell game when CC4 came out it was a travesty CC1 adn 2 were great 3 started the downward spiral. If anyone wants I can grab the data files and import them into a spreadsheet for ranges and penetrations for most US/Brit/german guns either tank or AT mounted. Ranges up to 1000 meters.
-
Wulf that is an excellent post.
I agree with your reasoning on the initial three tanks in AH. Except I like the T34/85 as the best of the non perk tanks not the worst of the perk tanks...
-
wtg wulfie:)
-
Wulfie,
Long time no see bud. Yeah I'm back at Pax; decided to go for stability and decent working hours for the families sake. Ran into Vila the other day on base and need to call him to do lunch.
:cool:
BTW nice post, well thought out logic. I wonder if the graphics engine is capable of western Europe (better yet, Pacific Jungles!) terrain. Guess I should play with the editor and see what I can do...
-Smut
-
I dunno if Hazed saw it tonight, but while he kept pestering HT about any plans for GVs in AH...
HT said a perk GV is in the plans for 1.10 i believe, in reply to someone else's question.
SKurj
-
Vehicle diversity in the MA IMHO would be no more than fluff for the game, should we even encourage time and effort for vehicles while there's still a fairly large number of aircraft to model? When there are a number of vehicles to "drive", the majority of players will drive whatever vehicle garuntee's them the most kills, just like they do with aircraft right now. Lets worry about aircraft for the flight-sim for a bit longer.
-
I think the primary reason for people wanting 'vehicle diversity' (actually more like 'complete vehicle sets') is for historical recreation situations - scenarios and such. The only reason for having the Il-2 is to attack German ground units, etc.
Mike/wulfie from WB
-
I hope the future of GVs is AI control.
-
As vague as that seems, I think you have a point. At least it addresses the “scope” of the ground war, and the daunting task modeling GV’s realistic in mass.
Perks and player manning each and every unit just don’t seem to be the answer, although I don’t put much effort into worrying about it.
-
u all speak from new Vehicles, but why?
The Vehicle in AH is unrealistic its only a Fun-ride not more not less. Before we get new Vehicles, HT must work on a Realistic Groundset.
We need Trees, Streets, Villages a completed new Ground Terrain. The DM must new programmed for Ground Details, its a big Lough when i get Killed from a Cheep or a Tree.
Its Great to drive a 50Perked KingTiger and a Zero Kill u w MGs only. Yepppp thats realistic thats only AH-Realistic but not RL.
W different types of Tanks we need realistics periscopes, realitsic Ammo laod, realistic DM, etc etc
i hope HT learn a bit from PanzerElite or wwiio in groundware.
PanzerElite is the best and realistic Groundware Simulation, but i dont think that HT can programm it.
When HT get perk-Tanks in Game, i turn back to the Niki and only fly as attacker and hunt GVs. Its the easyst way to get perkpoints for a 262 ride :D
This is a Quake-Flight Sim w NO strat Desgin (Wtg to the one Goon resupply-all Patch).
AH is not more as a new AirWarrior, w a little bit better Damage- and Gunnery-Modell and it looks better, thats all. The VHs was a bit better in AirWarrior.
-
You sound drunker than me. Or retarded.
Someone, as sad as it is, WILL be sober. At least you won't have a headache.
-
CC3???
jesus hijacking threads is a bloody artform on this forum.
80% of the posts here have nothing to do with the original thread.
-
Originally posted by wulf14
Hey Badger those average engagement ranges and such you posted above, are those from training materials when you were in the service? If so...I'd LOVE to get scans of all that stuff. I'll pay in beer, etc. whatever you want. What's your current email? Mike/wulfie from WB
Hi Mike
Nice to hear from you again. :D My email is in my profile as I try not to hide it. ;)
The data is from an actual U.S. research study. Contact Charles Lemons, who's the curator of the Patton Museum for the full report, but here's the extract of the relevant portion we've been discussing. By the way, this study correlates to the anecdotal information I heard when serving with Sherman WWII veterans who landed at Normandy with the 6th Canadian Armored Regiment.
=============================================
The Range and Angular Distribution of A.P. Hits on Tanks, Ballistic Research Laboratories, Aberdeen Proving Ground MD, December 1951 (Project TB3-1224B, Memorandum Report # 590)
This study was an analysis of the range and angular distribution of casualties and hits on tanks in WW II (NW Europe). It notes number of reported tank losses for 1st US Army, 3rd US Army, and the reports from the British Army.
Mean engagement range for Allied tanks vs German tanks was 701 yards. 1st Army mean range was 760 yds 3rd Army mean range was 615 yds British 2nd Army mean range was 644 yds
According to the charts 87% of all engagements resulting in casualties were at more than 200 yds, 65% was greater than 400 yds. However, only 2% were at ranges greater than 2000 yds.
It was noted in the report that the range at which most encounters took place was 330 yds - or half the average range. It also noted that most hits were on the front of the hull or turret for US Vehicles, but only for little more than 1/3 of the British tanks was this true.
Several things were concluded during the study:
1. Four of the five engagements between single tanks went to the tank that fired first.
2. One half of all casualties were caused by a single hit and the average number of hits per casualty was less than two.
3. German weapons could penetrate Allied armor, in most cases, out to 2000 yds, whereas Allied guns could perforate German armor only out to about 800 yds.
A Map study was also included for Northern Europe and it concluded that the average range that a tank could see another tank from any random point was 322 yards. The probability that a tank could see 1000 yards at any random point in Northern Europe was less than .05 (less than 5%). It was concluded that tank engagements in Europe was controlled by the terrain - thus limiting tank engagement ranges.
It also noted that in only 3 of 85 cases cited were the tanks actually engaging the gun that knocked them out. It also noted that in only 3% of the cases were the tanks able to return fire before becoming a casualty.
=============================================
Regards,
Badger
BTW. I'll still take that beer sometime. We can get drunk and discuss the trials and tribulations of that particular company we've spoken of many times. ;)