Missing Allied Vehicles -1 reply

Please wait...

tvih

The Village Idiot from Hell

50 XP

30th December 2003

0 Uploads

718 Posts

0 Threads

#21 15 years ago

Better armor? There wasn't really all that much difference in armor protection. ~5mm to the sides, and a few millimeters to the front of the turret. The turret was bigger and more comfortable, and gave better visibility to the commander. Transmission and air filter were also improved, thus making the tank much more reliable. The gun could also depress a couple of degrees more (5 degrees total), which is nice.

Plus, the new turret looked cooler ;)




BAM

I pretend I'm cooler than AzH

50 XP

27th April 2003

0 Uploads

3,415 Posts

0 Threads

#22 15 years ago

good list :)




emonkies

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

17th July 2003

0 Uploads

15,096 Posts

0 Threads

#23 15 years ago

Artie Add the T-60 and T-70 to that list. They became the main Soviet light tanks after all the T-26s were taken out. The Kursk maps could really use them..[/QUOTE]

By Soviets own admission light tanks were considered ineffective against the newer and German tanks and A/T weapons and their usage was rapidly dropping off after 1942. Yes they were very important to the defense of Leningrad, Moscow, and were saw lots of action at Stalingrad. The T-60 was also callled "A brothers grave for two"

Artie Also, I don't see why you put the SU-122 as low priority and the SU-152 as high. They were both critical tank destroyers during the Kursk era. In fact, more SU-122s were produced (1,100) than SU-152s (700).

Assuming that FH even builds any of these and judging by JR's reply in the German vehicles thread not likely, then if they only build one I want it to be the SU-152 'Zvierboy'. The fact that the SU-122 is on the list means I want it ingame but if I had to choose between which one I want the SU-152 wins. Besides I just listed alot of vehicles. Someone would have to build and skin those and that takes time. Items have to be prioritized as to importance to teh war effort and which ones should be put ingame first.

[QUOTE=Artie] Also, add the "ISU-122S" to that list. More of the improved version were produced than the standard ISU-122. 1,400 as compared to about 650

It is my understanding that the ISU-122S is mounting the 122mm D-25 gun used in the IS-2 instead of the A-19 122mm howitzer. I dont want too many tank destroyers taking away from the glory of the SU-100.




Lt. Valentine

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

20th September 2003

0 Uploads

1,679 Posts

0 Threads

#24 15 years ago

do really need every tank from ww2 cant you people ever be happy with what the team releases?




tvih

The Village Idiot from Hell

50 XP

30th December 2003

0 Uploads

718 Posts

0 Threads

#25 15 years ago

When they are concentrating too much on the Germans and therefore not giving us Soviet vehicles, no, can't be TOO happy with what the team releases. Although at least we do get a couple of Soviet vehicles too in 0.62.

Besides, it's not like we can force them to add these, these are just wishes. What's wrong with wishing? Besides, how it would make your game experience worse if these WERE included? So calm down :)




emonkies

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

17th July 2003

0 Uploads

15,096 Posts

0 Threads

#26 15 years ago

Artiet347641.gif

t3476m43.gif

The 1943 model had better armor, overall..

I wouldnt call it better armor so much as a better ballistic shape with fewer shot traps.

This is the early style turret. http://www.battlefield.ru/destroyed/ussr/t34_03.jpg

This is a model 1943 turret. http://www.battlefield.ru/destroyed/ussr/t34_06.jpg

this is a cast model 1943 turret http://www.battlefield.ru/destroyed/ussr/t34_10.jpg

Also the model 1943 design was greatly simplified and production time was cut drastically.

Also I would like to see the round fuel tanks dropped from the T-34/76. Very Few T-34/76's carried the fuel in the round tanks shown in game on the DICE model and it would cut the poly count.

If any fuel tank should be used it should be the square ones attached to the rear hull.




D-Fens

uwe bolltastic!

50 XP

2nd May 2003

0 Uploads

4,837 Posts

0 Threads

#27 15 years ago

Anlushac, what can you tell us about the M5 and M22?




Artie

CCCP

50 XP

28th September 2003

0 Uploads

545 Posts

0 Threads

#28 15 years ago

The only real difference between the two models is that the T-34 Model 1943 had 70mm of frontal turret armor and the 1941 Model had 52mm.




tvih

The Village Idiot from Hell

50 XP

30th December 2003

0 Uploads

718 Posts

0 Threads

#29 15 years ago

Artie, read what I wrote ;)

As for the fuel containers, I think they look cool. But if the cylindrical containers are removed, don't put in the square ones either, because those look dumb. Most didn't have containers, as Anlushac said, so I guess they could be removed. Improve the turret instead, and add the m43.




emonkies

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

17th July 2003

0 Uploads

15,096 Posts

0 Threads

#30 15 years ago
D-FensAnlushac, what can you tell us about the M5 and M22?

I was wrong not to include the M5 Stuart. It was a much improved version with a welded hull and better ballistic shape.

M3 Stuart had a flat sided riveted and later welded hull. Mounted a 37mm L/56 gun, needed highly flammable aviation fuel, was faster than any tank in the desert, hitting speeds as high as 40mph. Was called the "Honey" by the Brits who loved it. Russians got some and thought it was OK. Armor was considered too light and was not reliable enough for the Russians. http://de.academyhobby.com/images/afv-usa/1398volig.jpg

M5 Stuart had a welded hull of better ballistic shape and had 2 x Cadillac V-8 automobile engines. Same gun, better hull design, used regular gasoline. Was the standard US Army light tank in most of Italy and Europe. Was to be replaced by M24 Chaffee but still widely used at wars end. http://www.tracks-n-troops.com/MMS/976.jpg

M22 Locust was a lightweight light tank intended to be landed with airborne troops. The US never used it in combat but the Brits did. paper thin armor, gasoline engine, same 37mm gun as M3 and M5 used. Was similar in design to the British Tetrach. http://www.roberts.ezpublishing.com/rarmory/m22.jpg

The M22 Locust weighed about 8 tons

The M3 Stuart weighed about 12 tons.

The M5 Stuart weighed about 14 tons

Now consider that a PzII weighed about 11.8 tons and a Soviet T-60 weighed about 6 tons.