King Tiger/Ferdinand/Elefants/Panthers (Merged)

[Recce]

Why? Because of the damage system. Currently it is possible for a PzIV to eventually destroy an IS2 frontally. Is this right? Hell no. But for some reason nobody that I have noticed has complained about it.

I'd say that is depends on 2 things. First and always is range. The second is if your shooting the turret or front glacis. Avoiding the mantlet, the turret has 90mm of armour, which is 30mm less (or 25%) than the glacis. Taking the data from the WWII Online site, the Pz IV F/2 shoud JUST be able to cope with the turret at 500m, using APBC. If you're shooting the mantlet, then you're going to have to close to under 100m.

But, if you're shooting the glacis, then you should be wasting your time. It's just too damn thick for the 75mm L/43. Now if the F/2 was issued with APCR.
But even then you'd have to get damn close. Better off in the Pz III.

I do find it odd that the JS-2 has thicker front hull armour than it's turret. I don't know of any medium or heavy tank where this is also true.

 

[Santini]

Allmost all tanks are that way
Pz IV, Pz III, Panther, King Tiger, T-34, BT-7, etc etc etc

 

[Dheepan]

But if the Royal Tiger got put in the game, all of a sudden you'd have a hundred posts about how TWI is Russian biased because the T34/85 can blow them up frontally.

Not sure becuase the t34/85 can't destory the panther from the front, which has the same armour rating as the is2 from the front, and the panzer 4 has the same firepower rating. However the pz4 can destroy the is2 frontally.

 

[Recce]

Allmost all tanks are that way
Pz IV, Pz III, Panther, King Tiger, T-34, BT-7, etc etc etc

You're right about the PzIV. I'm just getting to used to the F/2 (50mm for both).
I consider the BT-7to be a light tank. But if you look at the rest of the tanks you listed.

Front Hull (Upper) / Turret Front
Pz III M -- 50 / 57
Panther G -- 80 / 110
Tiger II B -- 150 / 180
T-34/76 -- 45 / 70
T-34/85 -- 45 / 90
JS-3 -- 120 / 160 (Mantlet is 200 )
And finally
JS-2 -- 120 / 90

 

[Rameusb5]

I'd say that is depends on 2 things. First and always is range. The second is if your shooting the turret or front glacis. Avoiding the mantlet, the turret has 90mm of armour, which is 30mm less (or 25%) than the glacis. Taking the data from the WWII Online site, the Pz IV F/2 shoud JUST be able to cope with the turret at 500m, using APBC. If you're shooting the mantlet, then you're going to have to close to under 100m.

But, if you're shooting the glacis, then you should be wasting your time. It's just too damn thick for the 75mm L/43. Now if the F/2 was issued with APCR.
But even then you'd have to get damn close. Better off in the Pz III.

I do find it odd that the JS-2 has thicker front hull armour than it's turret. I don't know of any medium or heavy tank where this is also true.

The frontal turret armor on all of the sources I have seen (WWIIVehicles.com and GVA (Guns vs Armor) list it as being 100mm at Round.

That "Round" figure is very important. What that means is the shell has to hit the exact right spot in order to get a good angle. A foot or so in either direction and the angle is going to be TERRIBLE.

The frontal armor of the IS-2's Turret would be QUITE effective at stopping about 90% of the shots from a PzIV.

 

[Harry S. Truman]

Why? Because of the damage system. Currently it is possible for a PzIV to eventually destroy an IS2 frontally. Is this right? Hell no. But for some reason nobody that I have noticed has complained about it.

Huh? If you are in the right position, that Pz IV can shoot all day and not even damage you. You people need to learn your angles.

 

[Letum]

Forgett the royal giants!
Lets have some I=infantary tanks for CA maps!

(Liberation Mod For Operation Flashpoint)

 

[Santini]

You're right about the PzIV. I'm just getting to used to the F/2 (50mm for both).
I consider the BT-7to be a light tank. But if you look at the rest of the tanks you listed.

Front Hull (Upper) / Turret Front
Pz III M -- 50 / 57
Panther G -- 80 / 110
Tiger II B -- 150 / 180
T-34/76 -- 45 / 70
T-34/85 -- 45 / 90
JS-3 -- 120 / 160 (Mantlet is 200 )
And finally
JS-2 -- 120 / 90

Slope!
Slope!
I'm talking about effective armor

 

[Rameusb5]

Huh? If you are in the right position, that Pz IV can shoot all day and not even damage you. You people need to learn your angles.

The angle really shouldn't matter. The front of the IS-2 should be for all practical purposes invulnerable to the PzIV's 75mm gun. Not so in RO.

 

[thedonster]

These constant suggestions that we add exotic or prototype German armour are silly and tiresome.

Only about 48 Jadtigers were produced. They had a max road speed of about 20mph., but a cross country speed of only about 9mph. They were pillboxes.

Only a few hundred (~500?) King Tigers were produced. I don't think they were used on the ostfront but I could be wrong.

Compare this to 4800 Panthers and 1500 Tigers produced.

If you want new German tanks, it should be Pz III and IV variants.

 

[Rak]

These constant suggestions that we add exotic or prototype German armour are silly and tiresome.

Only about 48 Jadtigers were produced. They had a max road speed of about 20mph., but a cross country speed of only about 9mph. They were pillboxes.

Only a few hundred (~500?) King Tigers were produced. I don't think they were used on the ostfront but I could be wrong.

Compare this to 4800 Panthers and 1500 Tigers produced.

If you want new German tanks, it should be Pz III and IV variants.

But don't forget that, to the end of the war the Panther and King Tiger tanks were nearly only main battle tanks that were getting out of factories. So, their production numbers may be low; but as they were the only available in the very late war, they should be common in very late war maps.

 

[Sichartshofen]

The angle really shouldn't matter. The front of the IS-2 should be for all practical purposes invulnerable to the PzIV's 75mm gun. Not so in RO.

The Panzer IV's cannon has the capability to penetrate the IS-2's lower hull at 500 meters. With APCR it can penetrate the upper hull at 100 meters.

Only a few hundred (~500?) King Tigers were produced. I don't think they were used on the ostfront but I could be wrong

.
They were first used on the Eastern front in May 1944. 3 months before they appeared on the Western front.

 

[thedonster]

But don't forget that, to the end of the war the Panther and King Tiger tanks were nearly only main battle tanks that were getting out of factories. So, their production numbers may be low; but as they were the only available in the very late war, they should be common in very late war maps.

You're assuming the Germs only used new tanks. The majority of their available armour would still have conststed of Panthers and Pz IV's. By the end of they war they just used whatever they had available and really should be vastly outnumbered .

 

[ROMMEL34]

Seriously there are just a few tanks that need to be added for historical accuracy on the Eastern Front.

German side:

1. The King Tiger especially for Berlin (I'd make them as rare as the KV-1s in game)
2. The Elephant tank because of Kursk (few produced but very important tank nonetheless)
3. Marder III Ausf. M self propelled artillery
4. The Panzer IV Ausf. H - some 3774 made. It was produced in April 1943
5. Stug III G+ (more common tank destroyer verison)
6. Wespe
7. A Kursk map-lol (although I'm in the process of making one)

Soviets: (some light tanks needed)

1.BT-7
2.T-26
3.T-70

 

[Sichartshofen]

You're assuming the Germs only used new tanks. The majority of their available armour would still have conststed of Panthers and Pz IV's. By the end of they war they just used whatever they had available and really should be vastly outnumbered .

And the Russian tankers should be inexperienced and incompetent. Except the only way for this to work would be to put 20 novice players on the Russian side and 4 veterans on the German side.

 

[thedonster]

And the Russian tankers should be inexperienced and incompetent. Except the only way for this to work would be to put 20 novice players on the Russian side and 4 veterans on the German side.

Yet another victim of the German ubermensch myth.
By war's end Soviet tankers were neither inexperienced nor incompetent. The Wermacht ranks were filled with inferior conscripts and combouts- when they were filled at all. Soviet infantry were often far superior to their German counterparts, they just just had political leadership that didn't value their lives at all.
Most German infantry was of middling quality and frequently outfought by equal or lesser numbers of Soviet, Australian, Canadian, British, and American troops. They often had a technical superiority in equipment and training for technical roles, but by war's end attrition had eroded the latter advantage. Morale was usually very poor late from 1943/44 on except for SS units.
Why do you think the Germans lost? It wasn't all because of numerical inferiority.

 

[kabex]

It wasn't all because of numerical inferiority.

The entire world was at war against Germany by '45... yes it was.

Also, obviously by the end of the war Germany had NOTHING. They lost everything, what do you expect?

Anyway, saying that man-to-man, tank-to-tank, Russians were equal to Germans is a complete joke that not even the most blindly patriotic Russian believes.

 

[Sichartshofen]

Yet another victim of the German ubermensch myth.
By war's end Soviet tankers were neither inexperienced nor incompetent.

Russian tank crew training did get better as the war progressed, but it never reached the level of German panzer crews. 1 on 1 a German panzer crew would completely dominate over your average Russian tank crew.

The Wermacht ranks were filled with inferior conscripts and combouts- when they were filled at all. Soviet infantry were often far superior to their German counterparts

What kind of bull**** are you reading? The entire world was againsts Germany. The Russians had numerical superiority. The entire Red Army wasn't some elite formation by 1944. It was still a conscript army. The Volkssturm is the only German formation that I would consider inferior to the Red Army in 1944. The remaining Waffen SS and Wehrmacht units were of the same or better quality. They were outnumbered 5-1 by the time the Russians reached Berlin. Even then they were still able to pull of counter-offensives againsts a numerically superior enemy.

By the end of the war Germany was fighting with practically nothing. Very few operational tanks againsts 1000's of Allied tanks. Extremely under strength in man power and resources. So what do you expect?

 

[Uber-Pig]

Russian tank crew training did get better as the war progressed, but it never reached the level of German panzer crews. 1 on 1 a German panzer crew would completely dominate over your average Russian tank crew.


What kind of bull**** are you reading? The entire world was againsts Germany. The Russians had numerical superiority. The entire Red Army wasn't some elite formation by 1944. It was still a conscript army. The Volkssturm is the only German formation that I would consider inferior to the Red Army in 1944. The remaining Waffen SS and Wehrmacht units were of the same or better quality. They were outnumbered 5-1 by the time the Russians reached Berlin. Even then they were still able to pull of counter-offensives againsts a numerically superior enemy.

By the end of the war Germany was fighting with practically nothing. Very few operational tanks againsts 1000's of Allied tanks. Extremely under strength in man power and resources. So what do you expect?

By the end of the war the Waffen-SS was far from an elite unit. Large numbers of non-german conscripts were making up the ranks of many SS Infantry units, and 16+ year old Hitler Youth boys, were often trained quickly to fill up SS Panzer Divisions, because the number of elite German tankers had been on a steady downward slope for a long while. The Russian Army was not elite, but they had for more combat expierence than the hastily trained Tankers Germany was sending into combat. There are many stories, from both Eastern and Western fronts, of German tank commanders being older boys or younger men, not elite veterans, not to say there were not still veteran elite German tank crews remaining, there were, but they were in the minority by 1945. Both Heer and SS units were in a sorry state at the end of the European Theatre of war, they still fought with conviction, but the quality was well below that of the Russian armed forces. Training among Heer and SS units was very poor by wars end, and I think it's simply a myth that German troops were better trained and more skilled fighters than Russian Troops at wars end, by the time the Russians reached Germany, the Red Army was a superior force, in terms of quality, and obviously supplies and equitment.

 

[thedonster]

Like I said, another victim of the ubermensch myth.
The pro- German pics on your signatures say it all.
Russian infantry was superior to German by mid-war, whether you like it or not. In part because of their willingness to die for their cause. Their tanks were not as good, but far superior to British or American tanks. Russian artillery (which mattered as much or more than tanks) was vastly superior to German.
I'll wager I've read more widely than you.
I have a doctorate.