The new German tank camouflage really works.

[perato]

Haven't played Arad after patch, but in KonigsPlatz when playing as a russian, I never even saw that Tiger when it was stationary. Of course when it started shooting, I saw it, but it just blended into the backround in long distances. The old "africa-camo" was horrible. Might as well paint a bullseye into that tank.

 

[Maus]

man only noobs fly the 109, go for something with a challenge....like a spitfire

hell no, it's the other way around. The spitfire could turn on a dime, it was really a beginner-freindly aircraft... and so was the hurricane.

Well, you can have whatever opinion you like, but battle reports show quite clearly that the IS-2 had no trouble dealing with Tiger I or Tiger II tanks...

Tiger I tank it had a bit of an edge over... but the tiger II?

The tiger II made the IS-2 look like the Panzer I.



Anyway when dealing with an IS-2, A tiger angled at 1:30 or 11:30 with the mantlet facing the IS-2... the tiger was a fortress, and except at closer ranges where the IS-2 could defeat one of the thickest mantlets of the war, the tiger was a major obstacle for the IS-2.

 

[mat69]

It's 10:30 not 11:30.

On the main topic: The new camos are simply fantastic!

 

[fire4effect]

Yeah, Bf-109 is clearly owerpowered too.

LOL!

 

[Conscript]

hell no, it's the other way around. The spitfire...was really a beginner-freindly aircraft... and so was the hurricane.

No. The Hurriane, yes; the Spitfire wasn't. Whilst a beautiful plane to fly, it was hard to master, being quite twitchy, harder to control on the ground and not as stable a gun platform as the Hurricane.

 

[BeserkWraithlor]

Love the New Camo. Now I can hide in the bushes in Arad near the Village with a Panzer and destroy any passing Soviet Tank.

 

[oDD bALL]

Russian side still own Arad....
Tiger and Panther armor might just be made of paper - one can't tell the difference in my opinion. I was just part of a 5 map losing streak on Arad playing german side and no matter what tank I chose it was one shot one kill by the russians in 7 out of 10 times when my tank got killed even if perfectly angled at 1 o'clock... The 88' is still too weak when it comes to dealing with IS-2's and even T-34's especially when under 500 meters range with shells either bouncing from angled tanks to not penetrating, or at least not doing any noticeable damage, when hitting the turret both when fired at the front or the side...
The 7,5 cm on the Pz IV and Pz V still have trouble with bouncing shells when hitting T-34's when angled while on the other hand the sovjet guns do not seem to have any difficulty penetrating and getting 1 shot kills even when german tanks are angled. The skirts on the Pz IV do not seem to make any difference whatsoever when it comes to tankguns but do render the PTRS worthless when fired at the side. The same experiences are made when I play as russians and it do seem easier to me to kill german tanks from any range than the opposite.

Am I the only one who get this impression when playing the Arad map?

No your not the only one. Saw 2 clan members the other night clamber up close to the south sporn in arad in rusky tanks. Thinking back at least 4 tigers and panthers peppered them both with vast aray of fire power and they werent even smoking. They picked us of 1 shell one tank at a time. Most of the players left as you would. Something mighty wrong there with the map.

 

[The Beast (nl)]

1943 - USSR IS-2 Heavy Tank
Armament: - 1- 122mm D-25T gun
3 - 7.62mm DT MGs
1- 12.7mm DSchK AA MG
Armor: 60-150mm
Engine: V-12, W2-15 diesel, 600 hp
Speed: 23 mph
Range: 149 miles
Crew: 4
Weight: 46 tons

The IS-2 was the most powerfully armed tank in WWII, and its improved fire control system meant it could fight Panthers and Tigers on more than equal terms. Heavy Guard Tank Regiments were equipped with the IS-2 in February 1944. The armor of 150mm on the hull and 100mm on the turret made it impervious even to the 75mm gun of the Panther. The tank was improved several times before the end of WWII. Improvements included a 700 hp engine, a 5-speed gearbox and a new radio. Major shortcomings included a slow rate of fire, storage for only 28 rounds and internal splintering of the armor when hit. The long gun was extremely powerful but it required two-part ammunition. Nevertheless, the tank proved very effective in combat versus both the Tiger and the Tiger II. A total of 4,392 were produced.

 

[Bauer]

"Very effective"? What does that mean? Data? Source? Combat record. Your honour, I object - speculation.

One of the IS-2's most notable engagements took place during the fighting in August 1944 to establish a bridgehead across the river Vistula around the town of Sandomierz. During the engagement on August 13, the 71st Independent Heavy Tank Regiment's eleven IS-2s blocked an attack by fourteen King Tigers of the 105th Heavy Panzer Regiment. An engagement at 600 metres (660 yd) coupled with skilled tactical handling saw four King Tigers destroyed, for the loss of three IS-2s and seven damaged. This was a very creditable performance, although the post-battle analysis again revealed that the IS-2's armour was vulnerable up to 1,000 metres (1,100 yd) due to faulty casting.

If you look at the previous engagement record, it doesn't look that impressive, IMO. 3 IS-2 lost and 7 damaged vs. 4 King Tigers lost, while performing a defensive operation is not a stellar achievement.

Now this is impressive, the new L/71 88mm had quite the punch:

It is reported that in early March 1945, the crew of Lieutenant Beckmann's Nashorn tank destroyer (armed with the very long PaK 43/1 88mm gun) destroyed a Soviet IS-2 at the extreme range of 4,600 metres, near Marzdorf.

 

[short-fuse]

I just finished a round at ARAD and the Tiger is made of balsa wood. I angled the tank @ 1 o'clock and 1 hit from a T-34 then... BOOM. Come to find out that it was a FING bot with a "wonder weapon" Apparently the armor thickness in this game varies between maps. On Arad, and it has been mentioned on this forum, the armor is paper thin. On others, you have to hit it 7-10 times. Hey TRIPWIRE, what gives???? Did one of your designers skip out of history class or forgot to do his math homework?? You don't see too many Russian tankers on the History channel talking about how they mauled the Tiger, Panther and Panzer IV Tanks, do ya? Very few British and American tankers survived a battle with them. I know that the doctrine for the American and British tanks had flat sides but they made up this flaw in shear numbers. And the 7.5 cm rounds weren't effective until arround 400-500 yds. And that is with the armor piercing rounds the Americans and Brits had.

I know I am babbling like some know it all but, I am human and I do have flaws. But, this game is just full of these flaws. The most recent patch is a definite plus, but, when are we going to see the next one that will cure discrepancies on the following:

Tiger tank armor, not modeled correctly.
8.8cm, the most feared weapon of WW2, modeled incorrectly.
BOTS, the sharp-shooting ones expecially, need to be remodeled. No one is that perfect.
The incorporation of a "clown car" killer.
The incorporation of a true tank killer or upgun the STUG IV.

There are a couple more and I will post them in due time.

 

[mat69]

Well first of all it was 1:30 PM in reality, not 1:00. And that makes a big (!) difference.
Second Arad is not that big, so there is a chance that the distance was not that great.
And third Sichartshofen is working on a mutator that is supposed to correct - we'll see if that works *fingerscrossed* - "wrong" values on tank amour.
And fourth - maybe I'll reach thousand tday - it is not very likely or better it is very unlikely that tanks change on a map to map basis. It seems completly ridicoulous.
And now, before you say it was that way quote those parts of "map-code" that change the tanks on Arad.
Fith we are playing on the Ostfront. No Brits or Yanks here.
Sixth post your ideas in the correct forums and threads please, otherwise everthing will become a mess.
And finally (really?) seventh. Welcome to the RO forum!

Good night!

 

[Quietus]

I just finished a round at ARAD and the Tiger is made of balsa wood. I angled the tank @ 1 o'clock and 1 hit from a T-34 then... BOOM.

You were killed by the T34/85 not the T34/76. The 85 can penetrate the Tiger frontally.

 

[Dheepan]

I love the tiger on Arad. I do very well in it going to North or South Field, slowly advancing, taking out like 10 t34s before I die. People are not very aware on public servers.

 

[Recce]

Very few British and American tankers survived a battle with them. I know that the doctrine for the American and British tanks had flat sides but they made up this flaw in shear numbers. And the 7.5 cm rounds weren't effective until arround 400-500 yds. And that is with the armor piercing rounds the Americans and Brits had.

One point to remember.
The 75mm fitted to Sherman tanks was a medium velocity gun, best suited to a troop support role. The HE shell it used is cited as being excellent. But it wasn't a very good anti-tank gun, due to it's relativley low muzzle velocity.
Both the British 17pounder, used on the Sherman Firely, and the 76mm gun fitted to Shemans were high velocity guns and better suited to as anti-tank guns. I don't enough about Sherman development to say when the 76mm was introducted or in what numbers.
So you can't really compare a medium velocity 75mm gun against a high velocity 85mm gun.
If you were to compare the Russian high velocity 76mm against the American 76mm / British 17 pounder, then the Russian gun would come out bottom.

 

[short-fuse]

One point to remember.
The 75mm fitted to Sherman tanks was a medium velocity gun, best suited to a troop support role. The HE shell it used is cited as being excellent. But it wasn't a very good anti-tank gun, due to it's relativley low muzzle velocity.
Both the British 17pounder, used on the Sherman Firely, and the 76mm gun fitted to Shemans were high velocity guns and better suited to as anti-tank guns. I don't enough about Sherman development to say when the 76mm was introducted or in what numbers.
So you can't really compare a medium velocity 75mm gun against a high velocity 85mm gun.
If you were to compare the Russian high velocity 76mm against the American 76mm / British 17 pounder, then the Russian gun would come out bottom.

Tell me something I don't know!!!! And, yes I can compare the medium and high velocity together espically in this game. Until they can fix it, both guns are on equal terms. The 7.5 and the 8.8 are undermodeled when a human is aiming the gun. But, when a BOT is at the controls, it becomes a one hit wonder weapon. Go figure..... It is the same for the 7.6 and the 8.5 russian guns. Cant say much about the 12.2, that thing penetrates at any distance...

Quietus,

most of the tanks on that map are of the T34/85 version and I know it can penetrate the frontal armor but as I mentioned earlier, my tank was angled but 1 hit and I exploded. BTW, the T34/85 was about 500-600 yds away.

Mat69,

calling my observation redicilious was not called for. I call it like I see it. Do you know me? Do you know my background? Let me answer those for you, no. Then, prove me wrong then. I have witnessed on the larger maps that the character of the tanks change. And that quote about no Brits or Yanks here, guess what, what do you call that personnel carrier that just came out. It is certainly not Russian now is it.... Is that a white or red star on the back of that thing......


And now I will copy this and post it where it needs to be....