I was just thinking back on times long (read: two weeks) ago when I was using my favorite of all non-firearm manpad weapons, the Panzerschrek. I was then, as I was up until a few minutes ago, hoping to hear that the Panzerschrek would be upped for .66. Well, apparently not... This is what I mean. According to my sources, the Raketenpanzerbuchse, or Panzerschrek, could penetrate anywhere from 200mm to 230mm of armour at a range of 100m. This clearly makes it the best rocket launcher of the WWII era this side of AT guns and SPG AT vehicles. It could kill any tank of WWII at up to 100 meters! Yet time after time I remember hitting the Churchill squarely on the side and doing nothing more than giving him some white smoke and a good idea as to where I am. I now look at the data table on the Churchill tank from www.wwiivehicles.com. I scroll down to find the thickest point on the Churchill, of course the front hull, peaks at 159mm thick! The side of the upper hull was 95mm of steel. I ask now how at 25m or less I can not destroy a tank with a weapon capable of killing a Tiger at up to 100m. Don't give me that balance shit either. Tanks feared simple Faustpatrones, much more Panzerschreks. Tankers should have to think twice before driving their dumb asses into that NW village on Goodwood.
Don't give you that 'balance shit' cause it would be awesome if one side always won the map and the other side never got kills hey, what a game..... How big is the real world? How big is a map.....The enemy doesn't arrange a battlefield it happens where it happens IRL based on tactics. In real life a tank will see you from a lot further away than it will in FH. There is a LOT more people, enough to cover that tank and file into buildings and clear them. The ratio of tanks to people is a lot bigger, i.e. a lot more people for each tank AT weapons arn't as common, in FH they've decided to allow every single trooper to have one. In real life people don't fire AT weapons into tanks and winge about how the tank is still alive. You want realism? How about you fire your shrek into a churchill at 25m and it goes straght therough as it probably would and perhaps doesn't hit any crew and the tank nails your ass, you like that realism? *P.S learn how to AT and you will kill it, if you fired from the open (which I'm guessing you did, and stayed where you were you deserved to die from that churchill.
I am thinking more along the lines of Goodwood where the Germans have three (I believe that much, maybe four) Panzerschreks to stop a continous flow of Shermans, Fireflys, Cromwells, Sextons, and Churchills. I play mainly as either a support gunner or AT man so I know how to use the weapons.
Also, scale doesn't work as an arguement for you, no way. The range of the Panzerschrek is correct, so its damage at range should be the same.
How about this for realism, buddy. The Panzerschrek goes through the armour, sending pieces of metal richoteing throughout the tank. That is what would kill the crew, if not the detonating ammo or fuel.
1. It doesn't matter if you are at 100m, 25mm or if you are standing right next to the tank, the damage stays the same. 2. We can't model AT rockets disadvantages (like deflecting on angled impacts), so they don't have their complete advantaged 3. Ever noticed that no weapon has it's complete penetration capability? 4. The Panzerschreck is the dman best kickass AT rocket there is in the game, why don't you complain about Bazooka, Piat?
Erwin Rommel1How about you fire your shrek into a churchill at 25m and it goes straght therough as it probably would and perhaps doesn't hit any crew and the tank nails your ass, you like that realism?
Uh oh, how about you go and read some facts about anti-tank weapons. You obviously have no clue how they work. If the weapon penetrates the tank is pretty much gone. The crew may survive, the tank may even be able to shoot, but it most definitely isn't going to be intact - tanks are pretty cramped inside, they don't have plenty of open unused space. How do you "deserve to die from that churchill" if you fired it first with a weapon in a manner that should have killed it? The Churchill shouldn't withstand a side hit from a 'schrek any more than the Greyhound should endure a hit from a bazooka - which it unfortunately often does. Funny though that for once I'm agreeing with USMA on something. Still, I think this is more of a problem with the tanks' armor values and/or collision meshes than with the 'schreks actual performance.
You've never used a panzerfaust, panther, tiger, nebelwerfer, pak40 or panzer ivh if you think it isn't possible for axis to win. REAL LIFE BALANCE range of shrek 100m, range of tank mounter 50cal 1000m+ infantry support per tank 6 men absolute minimum. What's your viewdistance in FH? maybe 6-800 probably. What's a tank's range IRL....... You know about hittin the engine grill then mr AT? Know how many hit boxes on a tank and how important it is where you hit it? Guess not, get in a building and fire from above, use some skill instead of complaining about how the weapon doesn't do it for you. Maybe you have to shoot twice to take out the heaviest armed tank the allies have. Again you associate it too much with RL that doesn't work, concessions have to be made on realism for playability. Accept it play the game and move on.
vis range is 450m i do believe
Erwin Rommel1You've never used a panzerfaust, panther, tiger, nebelwerfer, pak40 or panzer ivh if you think it isn't possible for axis to win.
Who has said that you can't win on axis? Mind you quoteing that part to me?
REAL LIFE BALANCE range of shrek 100m, range of tank mounter 50cal 1000m+ infantry support per tank 6 men absolute minimum.
We are not talking about the schrek's range but it's damage effect. Or rather the too high armor values on Churchill.
You know about hittin the engine grill then mr AT? Know how many hit boxes on a tank and how important it is where you hit it? Guess not, get in a building and fire from above, use some skill instead of complaining about how the weapon doesn't do it for you. Maybe you have to shoot twice to take out the heaviest armed tank the allies have. Again you associate it too much with RL that doesn't work, concessions have to be made on realism for playability. Accept it play the game and move on.
Yes, reality has to be scaled to the engine. But it should be consistent with itself. Why is it acceptable for a bazooka to knock out a Sherman with one hit to the side, but not for the Panzerschrek to knock out a Churchill in a similar manner? In reality the schrek was able to penetrate the front hull of the King Tiger, so I think it is a little too much scaling to not have it able to penetrate the side armor of a Churchill. Though again I believe this is more of an issue with the Churchill's armor values.
The AT weapons use a formula similar to the tank guns. The sole reason for a Sherman dying from a Bazooka side hit is the fact that FHs damagesystem has steps of 10mm about the 100mm mark, while it has steps of 5mm below that. This means, the 200mm worth of armour penetration on the Schreck result in 150mm damage. The bazooka has 100mm damage and penetration, which is 2/3s of the Schreck. That means, the Schreck can kill 1.5times as much armour with one shot -> around 60mm
Ok, confusing, I admit.
churchill has the heaviest armour in the map, it isn't acceptable to make it die as easy as a sherman IRL thick armour didn't help close up against most tanks. Thicker armour helped at longer ranges these longer ranges don't exist so it makes sense to scale weapons down. Effective range of a 50cal was 1500-2000m. You see about half that in FH so the weapon's should technically be halved just on that merit alone. Exel the range of other weapons is relevant because the maps are small so the shrek has to be scaled down in power because of it's proportional increase in range.