The people's tank

  • Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

The people's tank


  • Total voters
    244
Status
Not open for further replies.

Saturnalia

FNG / Fresh Meat
May 4, 2006
98
0
0
Early war for me, would make the PTRS more relevant and "realistic". A 37mm and a short 50mm Pz III and a Pz II would be needed for Axis and the BT-5/7 and perhaps T-28 for the Soviets. The Pz IIIs shouldn't be too hard to do, I'm surprised modders haven't mutated the current Pz III into that form.
 
F

Field Marshal Rommel

Guest
We've already got the Panther for late war maps (which is basically unkillable from the front),

Unrealistic should be penetrated by a T-34/85 at 500meters with no little/no deflections (at 90 degrees). Also I am surprised that no one has mentioned the fact the Soviets countered the Tiger I and Panthers before the IS-2 with the Su-85 and ISU-152 (animal hunter/killer) their ommition is a serious blow to Soviet armor and keeps the game from being realistic.
 
Last edited:

Nebfer

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jan 23, 2006
384
11
0

Quietus

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 25, 2005
1,945
0
0
California
There is a bit of a diffrence between tests and combat.

there have been no known reports of it beeing penitrated durring combat on the front hull. even though there are weapons that are known that could do so.

and notice how shot up the Tiger II is in that "test" , not the best case for proph.
If you read a little closer you'll see that they mention severe damage after the first 3 or 4 impacts. It's not like the severe damage & penetrations occured only after it has been shot 100 times. Once again:The first few rounds caused bad damage to the Tiger II. Also about no known reports of it being penetrated frontally........maybe that was because so many Tiger II's broke down before they could even be used and as such the ones that were in shape for battle were few and far between hence the lack of reports. I believe the Tiger II was a "last ditch" effort of desperation using uncharacteristically inferior materials and craftmanship which was obviously not up to past German quality standards.
 
Last edited:

thedonster

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jul 27, 2006
291
1
0
British Colombia
You're ignoring the fact that probably one of the biggest reasons the Tiger II wasn't penetrated from the front in combat was its gun.
In other words, it was verging on suicidal to try, so any half-brained Soviet tank crew would obviously try to flank a Tiger II as soon as they saw it rather than trying a frontal attack.
 

Quietus

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 25, 2005
1,945
0
0
California
You're ignoring the fact that probably one of the biggest reasons the Tiger II wasn't penetrated from the front in combat was its gun.
In other words, it was verging on suicidal to try, so any half-brained Soviet tank crew would obviously try to flank a Tiger II as soon as they saw it rather than trying a frontal attack.
That's probably true but there is a big difference between it not being penetrated due to avoidance and not being penetrated due to it being impenetrable. So when statements such as "It was never penetrated frontally" are made a little specification about the reasons would be nice so people don't automatically assume hundreds of Russian tanks tried and failed miserably hence elevating the Tiger II to Godlike status.
 

ZSU-23

FNG / Fresh Meat
Apr 19, 2006
53
0
0
One early war tank that hasn't been mentioned but deserves mention is the Panzer I. Granted it's worthless against tanks but it would make a good enough tank for supporting German infantry on combined arms map(s) against Soviet infantry on map(s) were Germans are on the offensive

It isn't too overwhelming in firepower (it has two 7.92mm machine guns) and wouldn't be too hard for the Soviets to take out using RPG-40s(if added),Molotovs(if added),PTRDs or even satchels.

sdkfz101xn9.jpg
 

masterllama

FNG / Fresh Meat
Apr 2, 2006
96
0
0
I like all this talk of how cool it would be to add early war tanks but what maps would we play them on? I mean if u look at the servers already no one hardly ever plays Bondarevo which is an early war map. So by adding early war vehicles noone will hardly ever use them since they will be on early war maps which no one really plays. I'm not saying early war maps are bad maps they are actually quite fun but if the devs decided to insert new early war tanks I would think they should insert a new early war tank map or CA map with it.
 

SheepDip

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 21, 2005
3,626
495
0
38
The Elitist Prick Club
Early war tanks introduced would have to mean some new maps. Which is a good thing. Early war tanks were not used in a standalone way. More combined arms maps. And if not totally new ones I can think of a few mod maps which with a bit of tweaking and adjusting could be made into fantastic combined arms efforts (kiev anyone?).

Fact is the only reason anyone wants bigger tanks is so they can sit around in it, basking in the awesomeness and ruling the battlefield. That does NOT make a good game.
 

BringerofLDD!

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jun 10, 2006
15
0
0
M4A2 Lend leased Sherman Tank I love Shermans lol

http://www.o5m6.de/Numbers.html this link will show the different types of tanks, apc's, trucks etc.. sent to russia of the lend lease from US and england program... a got 4100 shermsn sent. if im wrong whoops just check the link and scroll down
 
Last edited:

LukeFF

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jan 12, 2006
706
0
0
Riverside, California, USA
By the words of russian tankers of WW2, Sherman is " The best tank for service in a peace time"

- Dmitriy Fedorovich, on which American tanks did you fight?
- On Shermans. We called them "Emchas", from M4 [in Russian, em chetyrye]. Initially they had the short main gun, and later they began to arrive with the long gun and muzzle brake. On the front slope armor there was a travel lock for securing the barrel during road marches. The main gun was quite long. Overall, this was a good vehicle but, as with any tank, it had its pluses and minuses. When someone says to me that this was a bad tank, I respond, "Excuse me!" One cannot say that this was a bad tank. Bad as compared to what?


http://www.iremember.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=85&Itemid=19
 

Nebfer

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jan 23, 2006
384
11
0
If you read a little closer you'll see that they mention severe damage after the first 3 or 4 impacts. It's not like the severe damage & penetrations occured only after it has been shot 100 times. Once again:The first few rounds caused bad damage to the Tiger II. Also about no known reports of it being penetrated frontally........maybe that was because so many Tiger II's broke down before they could even be used and as such the ones that were in shape for battle were few and far between hence the lack of reports. I believe the Tiger II was a "last ditch" effort of desperation using uncharacteristically inferior materials and craftmanship which was obviously not up to past German quality standards.

and the reports say that most of the rounds where grouped, three or four rounds hitting the same area will be pritty bad for any tank.

as for the relibility, the tanks used where early models wich still had meny of the bugs not worked out yet.

Its nice to know that the Tiger II was a last ditch weapon dispite the fact that it was created in early to mid 1943


well in any event I think more early war tanks would be more usefull at the moment than the Tiger II (it should be put it but there are more importent tanks that need to be brought in first -like the Panzer III-J, and T-26)

Panzer IB
Panzer IIF
Panzer IIIJ
JgPz IV/70
Tiger II
PSW 221/222

------------
T-26
BT-7
KV-1 M41
T-34 M42
SU-85
SU-122
 

jedinstven-o crni Wuk

FNG / Fresh Meat
May 3, 2006
937
0
0
germany
Unrealistic should be penetrated by a T-34/85 at 500meters with no little/no deflections (at 90 degrees). Also I am surprised that no one has mentioned the fact the Soviets countered the Tiger I and Panthers before the IS-2 with the Su-85 and ISU-152 (animal hunter/killer) their ommition is a serious blow to Soviet armor and keeps the game from being realistic.

indeed, youre very right. It is really annoying, to face a panther with a T34/85 just to have all your shots richochet when you know you could penetrate him on very short distance. Its not like all soviet tanks would have been totally crap or made from paper. In comparison to german tanks, they had of course there distadvantages, but they never have been totally useless. The same story when you face a IS2. There are more weak spots needed, a shot in the turret mantled, tracks or if you have enough luck a direct hit between turret and hull should always have a clear damage to the tank not just a richochet. And im sick as well to see that angled tanks get destroyed by HE shells ... not that its totally unrealistic (specialy while using the IS2), but that you can this way even on large distance destroy a panther or tiger frontally with a T34 is a bit ... well strange.

I hope we will get in future the KV1e or KV85 for some good early and mid war maps so we do not have just the T34/76. And i would like to see how well the early Panzer IV+III would do again the KV1e :D
 

Zbojnik

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 30, 2006
670
0
0
Chicago
indeed, youre very right. It is really annoying, to face a panther with a T34/85 just to have all your shots richochet when you know you could penetrate him on very short distance. Its not like all soviet tanks would have been totally crap or made from paper. In comparison to german tanks, they had of course there distadvantages, but they never have been totally useless. The same story when you face a IS2. There are more weak spots needed, a shot in the turret mantled, tracks or if you have enough luck a direct hit between turret and hull should always have a clear damage to the tank not just a richochet. And im sick as well to see that angled tanks get destroyed by HE shells ... not that its totally unrealistic (specialy while using the IS2), but that you can this way even on large distance destroy a panther or tiger frontally with a T34 is a bit ... well strange.

I hope we will get in future the KV1e or KV85 for some good early and mid war maps so we do not have just the T34/76. And i would like to see how well the early Panzer IV+III would do again the KV1e :D

With only 130 KV-85's produced I don't think they will add them in there. The KV-1A would be nice to see.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.