Search results

There is no doubt that they are entertaining. :)

Because you think a 2.5 ton top-heavy armored card with a very limited travel suspension and a 50hp motor should drive and handle like a Baja Racer?

Do you really think a heavy vehicle like the BA with its high COG could pull off turns and get on two wheels like that?

The T-60's TNSh should not pentrate the PzIII's minimum frontal armor of 50mm at any range. It should only penetrate side and rear armor at very close range. Check this page for excellent into: http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=104&Itemid=52

They were enough to crack weld seams, damage radio and optical equipment and injure crew members. Better not to get hit by them. ;)

The biggest problem with the Tiger is rate of fire, not armor values.

All Allied troops were fond of German panzerfausts and panzershrecks. These weapons were capable of dealing with even the heavy German tanks unlike Allied AT weapons. They were available and used in significant amounts. The Germans made heavy use of captured weapons, in fact relying to a...

The panzerfaust was very easy to use. It was designed to provide any soldier with an effective defensive weapon against tanks. It was frequently used by children against Allied armor towards the end of the war.

(The Tiger armor seems close, it is just the slow rate of fire of the German tanks that hinders them. German tanks had 5 man crews and good turret space, this should be reflected in higher rates of fire than their Soviet counterparts.) As for the KV, the earlier models were the heavily armored...

What? :confused: The KV was intended for a different role than the T-34, it was not a stop-gap for it. The KV-1S had reduced armor from earlier KV-1 models in order to improve mobility. The question of if the T-34 was better tank than the KV has no relevance to a question on the armor model...

RO Developers, Could you please check the KV-1S armor values in the game please. The KV-1S seems to be penetrated easily from the frontal arc even by PzIIIs and PzIVF1s. The hull armor of the KV-1S was 75mm@30 degrees and the turret fromt armor was 82mm...

Well, points don't matter, it's who wins the battle, but, I like your idea to try and encourage good infantry support for tanks. :cool:

Well, if we can't have this feature, I guess we just need better infantry support. ;)

I agree!!! Love The Russian Battlefield site. :cool:

The solution would be to model a narrow band with lighter thickness under than mantlet of the Panther D/A and T-34. This would represent the shot trap created by the rounded armor.

Thank you for the reply. Hopefully one of the mapmakers will have the ability and desire make the changes. :cool: I'd love to see a single KV holding up the German advance until it is taken out with a satchel charge or rear quarter AP round hit. :)

On one of my favorite maps, Berezina (beta 3, I think), the T-60 is modified to act as a BT-7 with a 45mm gun. So, I guess this means that the map makers can tweak the vehicles? Would it be possible to give the KV-1S the armor values for the KV-1E? My main question is, how much control do the...

This is correct. The Panther's glacis plate had flat plate equivalent of 185mm thickness when accounting for slope (Quote from Stephen Zaloga). According to Jentz in Germany's Panther Tank, the glacis and manlet of the Panther resist the T-34/85's gun to 0 meters.

Not only this but, it would cause a lot of ID problems. I have enough trouble as it is. :( Tank skins would be an interesing idea, as IDing them is easy and tank camo had a lot of individual variation. It would **** to see pink panthers on a historical map tough.

I'm glad to hear that MGs are becoming more effective. People forget that in WWI the MG the dominant weapon on the battlefield and the reason that the tank was created. If MGs require better armor support and coordination between armor and infantry, I'll be very happy. :cool: