Tank balance annoyance etc. -1 reply

Please wait...

tvih

The Village Idiot from Hell

50 XP

29th December 2003

0 Uploads

718 Posts

0 Threads

#21 16 years ago
Anlushac11IIRC the Sherman M71 APCBC could penetrate about 72mm of armor and the Soviet BR-350A APCBC could penetrate about 78mm of armor, both vertical at 500m.

Hmm, checked again from wwiivehicles.com. M3 with APCBC lists 75mm @ 500m, while F-34 with APCBC is only 56mm @ 500m (both figures for an angle of 30 degrees, it seems)? Seems to me like the Soviets had some crappy APCBC ammo. Any idea what was the usually used ammo type for anti-tank purposes on the T-34s? Silly if the T-34 is gimped by just the crappy ammo it uses :uhm: Didn't stop me from blowing up various StuGs and Panzer IV Hs and other T-34s in Prokhorovka today, though :D And also time and again getting bombed by a Stuka :uhm: Which reminds me, they really should make tanks do realistic damage to airplanes. I just hate it when the planes are foolish enough to come straight at me on low altitude and I shoot them in the face, with no effect, even though the plane should be blown to pieces. I mean, the airplanes are hard enough to kill anyway, and tanks have really no way of protecting themselves from constant air-raping. It's just lame that even if you DO manage to hit them, it's of no use whatsoever.




PanzerAce

Some Guy...

50 XP

10th January 2004

0 Uploads

736 Posts

0 Threads

#22 16 years ago
USMA2010"Has anyone ever shot a bt7 with a king tiger" first off, WTF is going on when a bt7 and a KT meet in battle? the bt7 was based off of a prewar french (rofl, a french tank? whats that?!) tank. the kt was late '44. That is really messed up. yeah, the sherman should suck a lot more. and remember, the KTs side armor was equal to a tiger royals frontal armor...

hehe, n00b, sorry, but i had to mention this, the name 'tiger royal' is the british form (form what i gather from my tank books published in britain) of the king tiger. so tiger royal = King Tiger (royal denotes a monarchy denotes king, etc)




tvih

The Village Idiot from Hell

50 XP

29th December 2003

0 Uploads

718 Posts

0 Threads

#23 16 years ago

Yeah, KT having an equal amount of armor in its sides and front... just NO. Wasn't like that. Also, neither did the KT have the amount of armor in its sides that would equal to Tiger I's front armor.

(I thought I posted this already, but guess I didn't.)




emonkies

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

16th July 2003

0 Uploads

15,096 Posts

0 Threads

#24 16 years ago

That figure of 56mm penetration of the F-34 is wrong. The 78mm figure was obtained by US Army tests at Aberdeen who tested a T-34/76 model 1941 that the Soviets gave them to evaluate. Russian data is not that low either.

A Royal Tiger is the term used for the Porche Turret Tiger.

A King Tiger is the term used for a Henschel turreted Tiger II.




Beast of War

Born to kill

50 XP

28th May 2003

0 Uploads

2,698 Posts

0 Threads

#25 16 years ago
tvih Which reminds me, they really should make tanks do realistic damage to airplanes. I just hate it when the planes are foolish enough to come straight at me on low altitude and I shoot them in the face, with no effect, even though the plane should be blown to pieces. I mean, the airplanes are hard enough to kill anyway, and tanks have really no way of protecting themselves from constant air-raping. It's just lame that even if you DO manage to hit them, it's of no use whatsoever.

You mean with this horrible flight code you are still getting raped by aircraft ? Thats amazing......especially divebombers and tactical bombers, but also most fighters are so slow responding to control imput, they cannot evade groundfire at all. That is part of the reason flak is so murderous in FH 0.6......

Maybe you need do something about your profile seen from the air in your tank.....you know.....driving near or under some trees - even if it is only a few trees - or bushes already decreases the chance you will be attacked by aircraft 90 %

It is tanks that foolishly drive in the open that are highly visible, or even insane tank drivers that use roads ( how stupid can someone be ? ) that will attract aircraft bombs....

Maybe you think minding visual cover while at the same time fighting targets on the ground is bothersome, it is nessesary and it will largely eliminate aircraft threat........so you really do not need a supercharged top mounted mg.

In deserts ofcourse there is not much cover, but taking another, maybe longer but less obvious route will often ensure no aircraft will attack you neither. When i am in tank kiling cabable aircraft first thing i do is patrol the obvious routes......and so do all the other pilots.

I drive tanks also, and i really noticed enemy aircraft do not attack me when i drive off the road and near/through bushes and near/under trees, however sparse they are in the terrain.........they do not attack, because up there it is difficult to see tanks that are not contrasting in open terrain or on a road....




Kämpfer

I take what n0e says way too seriously

50 XP

27th April 2003

0 Uploads

2,394 Posts

0 Threads

#26 16 years ago
'LIGHTNING [NL']They were outnumbered and out-stratigized. The German blitzkrieg was hell on he French tactics, which were seriously outdated.

Actually there were more French tanks they were better tanks overall.




shrinerr

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

1st October 2003

0 Uploads

1,258 Posts

0 Threads

#27 16 years ago

Yeh but the tactics and air dominace of the Germans got them.




MelanchOli

Dread thinks I'm a special person

50 XP

31st March 2004

0 Uploads

303 Posts

0 Threads

#28 16 years ago
-Moldie-Yeh but the tactics and air dominace of the Germans got them.

Bit off topic, but since we're here for WW2 discussions: ;) Well, yes and no. The French army made quite a lot of almost incredible mistakes in 1940. It was not until May that year that France had three (!) armored divisions. And the newest one had troop strength equal to a brigade (half a division).

It's a fact that the French tanks were better armored and had more effective armament. The French tank divisions even had more tanks than the Germans ones - and heavier ones at that. But the French tanks were way slower, had next to no radio equipment, and - according to a source I have - they were even short on cannon ammo due to that ammo being no longer in production.

What makes that even worse is the fact that France did not have capable tank division commanders (except for de Gaulle, that is). In 1921 already, a French general (Hering, IIRC) suggested the use of tank divisions the way Germany did in WW2. But still, French tanks in 1940 were restricted to infantry support as in WW1.

I don't want to go into details further than that, but in 1940, at least once a French tank division was unloaded from train and had their tankwagons with the petrol some 100 km away from them. Actually, those supply cars were closer to the front than the tanks were. ;)

What it comes down to is that France hardly had any chance of defeating a German attack in 1940 (*) due to bad military structure (no clear supreme commander, insufficient reporting system), bad strategy (Maginot line, extension of front into Belgium), bad logistics and serious deficits in tactical fighting doctrine. France was all set up to lead a trench war and got entangled into a "blitzkrieg". The Luftwaffe only helped accelerate the French army's collapse - in the army set up of 1940, the Germans would probably even have won without any planes.

(*) At least once the German "Sichelschnittplan" was established.




tvih

The Village Idiot from Hell

50 XP

29th December 2003

0 Uploads

718 Posts

0 Threads

#29 16 years ago
"Anlushac11"That figure of 56mm penetration of the F-34 is wrong. The 78mm figure was obtained by US Army tests at Aberdeen who tested a T-34/76 model 1941 that the Soviets gave them to evaluate. Russian data is not that low either.[/quote] Guess that site is wrong about APCBC performance then. HEAT has 75mm penetration, no angle given, and APHE 69mm at 90 degrees, all 500m figures. Don't know how correct those are either. Anyway, could it be that the devs have for example used that figure for the T-34, and therefore it feels so weak at times? Or maybe it's just the overarmoring on the heavier tanks, don't know. Two shots to the side of a King Tiger with an IS-2 to take it out? Right... [QUOTE=Beast of War]You mean with this horrible flight code you are still getting raped by aircraft ? Thats amazing......

Yup, still. Well actually I didn't really play 0.5 online because I didn't have ADSL yet, so don't know how it was then.

That is part of the reason flak is so murderous in FH 0.6......

Well, I don't see much AA Flak kills in 0.61. Whatever the reason. In Wake Island I was in the battery of four AA guns, and seems like it can't hit worth crap. And even when I hit, it didn't do crap to the planes. Now, I don't know if it is due to lag (my ping is ~160 in the Wolf server) or what, but they just can't be hit with that battery. With normal flaks I usually hit better.

Maybe you need do something about your profile seen from the air in your tank.....you know.....driving near or under some trees - even if it is only a few trees - or bushes already decreases the chance you will be attacked by aircraft 90 %

I know this. However, let's take Prokhorovka for example. Now, there isn't much air cover, is there? Or the desert maps you mentioned. I DO drive in the forests and such when possible, but often there simply isn't any cover. The bombs don't have to hit even nearly dead on to kill my tank, which is also weird. I find the way planes can reload their plane by flying over the airfield quite lame too, it's not much fun when you constantly get raped by the same plane that just reloads, comes again when you try to drive to a flag, always finds you no matter what route you take and what little cover you can find, and then bombs you to pieces time and again, and there's nothing you can do about it. Also one experience in Alpenfestung. I get a Panther, and drive to the woods overlooking the US main base. There's a King Tiger to my left, in the open, firing at their base. I don't even fire yet, when a damned US bomber comes right at me and bombs me to pieces. WTF? I'm in cover, in a worse tank, and yet it is me who gets bombed? This seems to always be the case, not just in this instance. The planes always seem to save their bombs for MY tank, like yesterday in Prokhorovka when I was constantly annihilating the Axis tanks with my Soviet tanks. I died fifteen times, of which about ten were by a Stuka. And often there were other Soviet tanks near, but nooo, the Stuka always bombed ME :uhm:




shrinerr

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

1st October 2003

0 Uploads

1,258 Posts

0 Threads

#30 16 years ago

tvih

Also one experience in Alpenfestung. I get a Panther, and drive to the woods overlooking the US main base. There's a King Tiger to my left, in the open, firing at their base. I don't even fire yet, when a damned US bomber comes right at me and bombs me to pieces. WTF? I'm in cover, in a worse tank, and yet it is me who gets bombed? This seems to always be the case, not just in this instance. The planes always seem to save their bombs for MY tank, like yesterday in Prokhorovka when I was constantly annihilating the Axis tanks with my Soviet tanks. I died fifteen times, of which about ten were by a Stuka. And often there were other Soviet tanks near, but nooo, the Stuka always bombed ME :uhm:

Its cause God hates you.