Heavy tanks in RO2:HOS

[Leopardi]

After the 4 tanks have been finished, will we see

and
http://www.crypticcomet.com/blog/wp-.../tigertank.jpg
in a future update?

[Apos]

For sure, but not in the Stalingrad. I hope, one day we get Battle of Kursk...

[Jaesperson]

to be honest, i also think that refining the tank gameplay mechanics to that extense would be just a waste if they later didn't add a campaign that focuses more on tank battle and thus, more tanks.
we all know they said it took them longer to get the 2 announced tanks done than it took them to do 10 tanks in RO1, but wouldnt it be more of a waste then, to leave it at that?

[Tiger2]

Why is such a crude tank as is-2 so popular on this forum? It had poor optics, a 24 or 28 shell capacity and was generally a lot less reliable and maneuverable than the t-34/85. Even when the americans tried to copy the German tiger which was a successful design they came up with a very poor and embarrassingly inferior prototype that was eventually to become their pershing. This pershing had similar armor quality but inferior gun to the tiger and it was produced so late into the war, that it did not see any significant action.

[Rak]

It's sort of a Tripwire Forums meme. I never did find it funny either.

[=GG= Mr Moe]

Originally Posted by Tiger2

Why is such a crude tank as is-2 so popular on this forum? It had poor optics, a 24 or 28 shell capacity and was generally a lot less reliable and maneuverable than the t-34/85. Even when the americans tried to copy the German tiger which was a successful design they came up with a very poor and embarrassingly inferior prototype that was eventually to become their pershing. This pershing had similar armor quality but inferior gun to the tiger and it was produced so late into the war, that it did not see any significant action.

It's based on a discussion thread that got carried away and turned into a running joke. It's as simple as that. I highly doubt many people really believe it, but they are committed to the joke anyway so arguing or discussing it is pointless.

Back on topic. Any tanks added after those already announced should be based within the time period. Also I personally believe that assault guns should be next if TWI decides to add more.

[Chadwiick]

Bren Gun Carriers (Universal Carriers, officially known) for all! Er... DP Carriers and MG Carriers! The Universal Carriers were on both sides fo the war, Axis and Allies.

[AgresywnySpawacz]

Originally Posted by Chadwiick

Bren Gun Carriers (Universal Carriers, officially known) for all! Er... DP Carriers and MG Carriers! The Universal Carriers were on both sides fo the war, Axis and Allies.

I hate "Tommie cans", they are slow, low armored and overall ****ty. Pure British design. They shouldn't put them in the game. sadface

It had poor optics, a 24 or 28 shell capacity and was generally a lot less reliable and maneuverable than the t-34/85.

Maybe because IS2's job wasn't killing other tanks, but helping infantry with bunkers? And btw it was pretty reliable, but of course not best.

Even when the americans tried to copy the German tiger which was a successful design

The only thing why Tiger could be successful is the 88 and thick armor, nothing else.

/weaponnerdmode

@topic
http://www.lotustalk.com/forums/atta..._thumbnail.jpg

[Nicholas]

Originally Posted by Tiger2

Why is such a crude tank as is-2 so popular on this forum? It had poor optics, a 24 or 28 shell capacity and was generally a lot less reliable and maneuverable than the t-34/85. Even when the americans tried to copy the German tiger which was a successful design they came up with a very poor and embarrassingly inferior prototype that was eventually to become their pershing. This pershing had similar armor quality but inferior gun to the tiger and it was produced so late into the war, that it did not see any significant action.

Its a running joke, in real life it was a really good tank, it was more like a support tank though, the best tanks were probably the T34/85 and the Panther.

[Unterscharfuhrer]

Im sure sooner or later we will get the tiger, I´m really excited to see it, but it will be not easy to mod looking on the new shoots of the PzIV!
I want:
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/TIGE...6-Captured.jpg

Where´s the Troll smiley?

[Nicholas]

While I'm not an end all expert on WW2 tanks, in my opinion the German Panzer 3's and 4's were inferior in terms of armor to the Russian tanks, while having a separate commander/gunner, better optics and ergonomics, and best of all, radios, radios were what made the German tanks so effective, up until they ran out of fuel and ammo of course and had to take on 500 bagillion Russian tanks.

The Panther and Tiger were amazing tanks, but came too late, and then the T34/85 fixed most of the 76's problems, and then came the IS2 heavy tank.

In my opinion though the Panther was better because it was only a little bit more expensive than the P4, had sloped armor, and actually a more effective gun than the Tiger, the Tiger was good but it was like Hitler was compensating for something, they took up way too much logistics.

[Tank!]

Originally Posted by =GG= Mr Moe

It's based on a discussion thread that got carried away and turned into a running joke.

If that is a joke then they might need mental help.

Originally Posted by Nicholas

the best tanks were probably the T34/85 and the Panther...the T34/85 fixed most of the 76's problems.

It never fixed the thin hull frontal armor. The T34/85 would be too vulnerable to be the best.

Originally Posted by Tomcat_ha

Tiger was half advanced and half obsolete. Its armour was non sloped.

Not really. When the enemies most common guns have to close within 500 meters (talking about the 85 mm) or less to have a chance against the frontal armor...

Originally Posted by CopperHead

King Tigers, like most of Germany's last ditch weapons were mostly used on the eastern front.

That is why it was a big disappointment that they were not in the map Ogeldow or Konigsplatz and others.

Originally Posted by dogbadger

with the values that RO used for tanks, it would have created an imbalance

Eh. Using RO values just 2 shot kill it from the side with the PTRD just like the Tiger I or hit it with 5 HE from an SU-76.

[dogbadger]

Originally Posted by Tank!

That is why it was a big disappointment that they were not in the map Ogeldow or Konigsplatz and others..

no doubt a disappointment if you habitually play as ger and typically get your arse kicked.

[Roflrocket]

Originally Posted by Tiger2

Why is such a crude tank as is-2 so popular on this forum? It had poor optics, a 24 or 28 shell capacity and was generally a lot less reliable and maneuverable than the t-34/85. Even when the americans tried to copy the German tiger which was a successful design they came up with a very poor and embarrassingly inferior prototype that was eventually to become their pershing. This pershing had similar armor quality but inferior gun to the tiger and it was produced so late into the war, that it did not see any significant action.

because is 2 is god

[RedGuardist]

Originally Posted by Roflrocket

because is 2 is The God

fixed