Tanks we dnt have

[Urchin]

Well, in 1942 the T-34-76 had no chance against a Tiger.  The armor was simply to thick from all aspects to penetrate with the standard AP shell.  So the comment isn't completely inaccurate, but it isn't very informed.  

The HVAP round for the 76mm gun made it possible for the Tiger to be killed from the sides and rear, but it still couldn't be killed from the front.  

It wasn't until the 85mm gun was introduced that the T-34 could kill the Tiger from the front, out to around 1000 meters.  

The Tiger could kill the T-34 from much farther out, of course, but there were a lot more T-34s than Tigers.

And Kweassa - the Sherman was very maintainable and reliable... I'm not sure where you were going with your last statement.

[Simaril]

Just a thought

Notice in the sounds folder, that the T34 is identified as the T34 76? (At work -- dont have exact folder name) Strongly implies that the T34 85 is on the "to do" list, in my mind.


A second thought....Schlowy is a LW troller, and on 200 last night sounded an awful lot like a past permaban PNG named Glasses. In my book, his is best ignored as the tard he is.

[Urchin]

I think you are being to harsh.  He is new to the game and frustrated.  A lot of people who enjoy flying the LW planes start out that way.  You make mistakes and get blasted, and it is the planes fault and not the pilots, that sort of thing.

I know it is hard to do, but try to cut the guy some slack.

[Tilt]

Originally posted by Karnak
I'd like to see the T-34/85 and Panther V G before any of those.

Agreed......

Kursk Panther v T34-75 and Bagration King Tiger v T34-85 showed that armour massively out numbered is armour defeated. If you wanted to reflect the typical  post Stalingrad Red Army v Whermacht tank battle then you should give the Red Army tank formations.

[E25280]

Originally posted by schlowy2
See Rule #5

The T-34 in this game is hardly overmodeled.  

What, a T-34 medium tank couldn't stand toe-to-toe with a Tiger heavy tank?  Oh, my, what a surprise.

You've actually done the same thing with the T-34 that most people do with the Sherman, which was another medium tank that was a very good tank, but overmatched by the heavier German armor it usually faced.

If you compare the T-34/76 to the standard M4A1 with the 75mm gun, and they are very similar in most respects (gun penetration, armor, etc).  The T-34 had better off-road capabilities, the Sherman better ergonomics for the crew (3 man instead of 2 man turret, for example).

But, neither could stand up to a Tiger or Panther, both of which had much better armor, more powerful gun, and outweighed their medium tank adversaries by at least 15 tons.  Not sure why or how that makes either medium tank a "bad" tank.

[Bronk]

Originally posted by Simaril



A second thought....Schlowy is a LW troller, and on 200 last night sounded an awful lot like a past permaban PNG named Glasses. In my book, his is best ignored as the tard he is.

Quoted for truth.
 I squelched this tard right after his first round of verbal diarrhea on 200.
Gentlemen it is best to ignore the troll.

[Simaril]

Originally posted by Urchin
I think you are being to harsh.  He is new to the game and frustrated.  A lot of people who enjoy flying the LW planes start out that way.  You make mistakes and get blasted, and it is the planes fault and not the pilots, that sort of thing.

I know it is hard to do, but try to cut the guy some slack.

I generally try to cut slack, especially for new guys. And, I wouldn't mind a new guy with complaints about LW rides, any more than I mind less experienced guys who complain that "...that %^&( Niki was faster than my Pony, and out turned it!" Those kind of opinions change when further experience reveals, say, the mystery of energy states.

But my hackles went up to hear this guy rant. He did NOT sound like a new guy, and he pontificated with endless absolutist statements about everything non-LW. I was ignoring him, until somebody mentioned that he reminded them of someone -- and it hit me. He sounded and acted exactly like Glasses, who was one of several players whose persistently nasty attitudes ended in perma-bans for persistent denigration of HTC and claims of bias.


Fight oriented guys can see a player's style after a few moves, so that for example  when BluKitty appeared many immediately suspected it was NathBMP. Now, I'm a word based kinda guy, and for me the text patterns ring through just like those fight patterns did for them. I've been wrong before, and will be again, but this guy's conversation was a dead wringer for Glasses' ....



If he IS truly a new guy, then I apologize for my assumption. But even if he is new, he's not just frustrated -- he's on an aggressive mission, and he's arrogant about his views.




EDIT -- on a hunch, just looked at scores for the guy...and was admittedly surprised to see that they actually do look like a new guy's scores, over many hours of play.

Schlowy2:  I apologize for assuming you were someone else.  

[Bronk]

Originally posted by Simaril
I generally try to cut slack, especially for new guys. And, I wouldn't mind a new guy with complaints about LW rides, any more than I mind less experienced guys who complain that "...that %^&( Niki was faster than my Pony, and out turned it!" Those kind of opinions change when further experience reveals, say, the mystery of energy states.

But my hackles went up to hear this guy rant. He did NOT sound like a new guy, and he pontificated with endless absolutist statements about everything non-LW. I was ignoring him, until somebody mentioned that he reminded them of someone -- and it hit me. He sounded and acted exactly like Glasses, who was one of several players whose persistently nasty attitudes ended in perma-bans for persistent denigration of HTC and claims of bias.


Fight oriented guys can see a player's style after a few moves, so that for example  when BluKitty appeared many immediately suspected it was NathBMP. Now, I'm a word based kinda guy, and for me the text patterns ring through just like those fight patterns did for them. I've been wrong before, and will be again, but this guy's conversation was a dead wringer for Glasses' ....



If he IS truly a new guy, then I apologize for my assumption. But even if he is new, he's not just frustrated -- he's on an aggressive mission, and he's arrogant about his views.

He's not new he was calling aircraft "Addink 51" or Addink la". New  people don't do this.

[Urchin]

Well, I don't know who he is, but he isn't Glasses.  I've spoken with Glasses on vox before, and I've spoken with Schlowy as well.

[Meyer]

Originally posted by Shuckins
As to the statements that the T-34 was hopelessly outclassed by the Tiger, let me just say that wars are not won by small numbers of armored behemoths with slow rates of fire, poor cross-country performance, and horrendous reliability.  

Are you talking about the Tiger there? because it doesn't sound like the Tiger at all

Twenty T-34s were manufactured for every Tiger produced by the Germans.  That's why, when the war ended, T-34s could be seen in Berlin, and no Tigers were in Moscow.

The war ended the way it ended for many reasons much more relevant that the numbers ot T34 vs Tigers.

BTW: the Tiger had EXCELENT cross country capabilities (much better than the Pershing)

[humble]

Originally posted by schlowy2
See Rule #5

The germans were so impressed with the T-34 that they basically copied significant elements of the hull armor sloping for the panther. The T-34 suffered from poor ballistics for the main gun....similiar to both the US, British and Italians in 1942. The T-34 upgraded to the higher velocity 76mm gun did better and the t-34/85 was a reasonable match. The T-34 was not really viewed as a "tank on tank" weapon but primarily as a weapon vs infantry divisions. The Russians had, TD's and Heavy tanks specifically for tank on tank warfare.

The T-34 has to be viewed for what it was....a combined arms weapon.

[schlowy2]

See Rules #2, #4, #5

[humble]

Originally posted by Masherbrum
The Pershing would be a 2nd Firefly.    The M10 would be like the T34.

Pershing was far superior to the firefly in every way. The 90mm actually had a very good gyro stabalized gun and was quite capable of 1st shot hits while traveling at fairly high speed.

The M-10 had the 76mm gun and was actually far superior to the T-34 we have here (and the PzIV) balistically. It did have an open turret which was a major drawback in some ways. It should however have a very fast rate of fire as well as fast turret traverse. The M-10 could land an avergae of 3 shots vs a panther before the PZV could get a round off in meeting engagments. The various M-10, M-18 and M-36 units actually had very good K/D ratio vs german armor in both meeting engagments and in fluid defense...they suffered significant losses when emplyed in offensive operartions and were phased out primarily for that reason as the US invaded Germany proper...

[Meyer]

Originally posted by humble
. The M-10 could land an avergae of 3 shots vs a panther before the PZV could get a round off in meeting engagments.  

How??

[Pooh21]

lag