German Heavy Tanks

[Private Ryan]

Hey all,

I just recieved the "Encylcopedia of German Tanks of World War Two". I was curious on what kind of panther models there will be in the game. I know of Panzerkampfwagen V Ausf D, A, G, and F models. I was also wander about the heavy tank destroyer types. I know the Jagdtiger is already in the game, but what about the Jagdpanter and Jagdpanzer? They wouldn't be as powerful, but they could knock out a few shermans. http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif
Pvt. Ryan

[Big Time Software]

For Panthers we have three:

Panther A
Panther G (early, without chin)
Panther G (late, with chin)

There was no "F". Never made it past the prototype stage.

For German stuff, anything remotely "standard" is in. This includes the JpzIV (two types), PpzV, Jagdtiger, StuGs of various types, Hetzer, etc. Too many are already in to list http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/wink.gif

Steve

[Richard III]

How about the Sturmtiger? It saw service on the Wetern Front. IIRC one shot from this mother took out three Shermans. I want to see what happens to a building hit by a 380mm shell....

[Lee]

I'm with Richard, the Sturmtiger is a must; it is just
WAY to cool to not be in CM. http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif You have to love any
armored beast that hurls a 380 mm(!) projectile at you. http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif
OUCH! You don't want to be anywhere near where that
thing hits. http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/wink.gif

[Private Ryan]

How accurate was the Sturmtiger? I know it's a mobile assault mortar, but how accurate could this tank be?
Thanks,
Pvt. Ryan

[Richard III]

Accuracy of the Sturmtiger:
(ripped from the following excellent page (http://members.aol.com/sturmpnzr/sturmi.html)):

It was found that the rocket mortar was rather inaccurate out to its maximum range. This should not be surprising if one recalls the German small arms industry's experiments with rocket cartridges. As the propellant is used up, the center of gravity will shift, causing the projectile to lose its accuracy very rapidly. Since the 38cm RTgs projectile works on the same principle, then, you can see why its accuracy would suffer at range. However, given the mission of the Sturmtiger, firing at the weapons full range would probably not be the order of the day, given that, in the Sturmtiger's ideal combat environ, it'd be the urban combat arena, where ranges are dramatically short. However, given the war situation as it was by the time the Sturmtiger entered the battlefield, they often found themselves as defensive weapons with little opportunity to engage in battle on their own terms.

[kingtiger]

Lee & Richard III,

How can the SturmTiger be effective in CM with a 10 minute reload?

I would still like to see it though. I am very much a big German armor junky. However, CM's board has taught me much about the lack of effectiveness of this junk. I still can't wait to witness it first hand.

Richard Kalajian

"wanting more and more to go to a Punk Rawk Show"

[Lee]

Who needs to reload with a Sturmtiger? http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/wink.gif Hehe. Seriously,
even if you only got 3 or 4 reloads in one battle, that
is enough to have one big potential effect on the engagement
when you are dealing with something of the power of a
Sturmtiger.

[JonS]

Oddly, you are MORE likely to have HE rounds from this thing left at the end of a battle, compared to 'regular' tanks, because of its very low ROF.
Jon

------------------
Quo Fas et Vino du Femme

[Fionn]

3,760lbs of rocket means NEVER having to say your sorry OR do any house to house fighting.

Quite honestly two or three rounds would wipe out the entire village in Riesberg or Last Defence. It was designed to bombard cities (after they couldn't get the 210mm tube arty to fit to it).

BTW the 380mm barrel was NOT a purpose-designed weapon really. What was the 380mm adapted FROM and which arm of the service was it from?



------------------
___________
Fionn Kelly
Manager of Historical Research,
The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[kingtiger]

Wow. I found the answer and that is really cool. I would have never guessed.

Richard Kalajian

[Big Time Software]

The Sturmtiger is not going to make the cut. It was a low priority item from the get go, and we have had to leave such items out.

For the record only 18 were ever made and there is only one solid battlefield example during the failed Operation Nordwind. In this battle 9 were deployed, one was lost. I have not found more detailed info than that about their use. They were deployed in the Bulge, but apparently were not used.

Steve

[SimonFox]

Well those German armour nuts should definitely not have that Sturmtiger if I can't have my Churchill AVRE http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif

[R Cunningham]

Fionn,

To answer your trivia question:

From the Kriegsmarine. The weapon was originally meant for ASW.

[Lee]

Ah, Steve. http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/frown.gif Spoil sport. ;0 What, no good models?

[Fionn]

Good response Cunningham http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/wink.gif. Correct too..

It was intended to be a bit like an RBU on Soviet ships.



------------------
___________
Fionn Kelly
Manager of Historical Research,
The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Madmatt]

DANG!! And I knew the answer too http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/frown.gif


Madmatt out and beaten to the punch...

[kingtiger]

ASW?

RBU?

TY

Richard Kalajian

[Thomm]

King Tiger !
ASW = anti submarine warfare
RUB = ??????

[Madmatt]

oh hehehee sure:
ASW= Anti-Submarine Warfare
RBU= Rocket Boosted (Bomb?) Underwater (my translation may be slightly inaccurate) Basically a anti-sub mortar (rocket), used on Soviet (Warsaw Pact) naval vessels

See: http://worldsweapons.freeservers.com/russian/ships/admiral.htm

Madmatt out

[Fionn]

Yes, the RBU "Raketnaya Bombometnaya Ustanovka" is a multiple-barreled rocket launcher which can fire rockets to ranges of a few thousand yeards which can be set to detonate at either a specific depth or contact with a submarine.

It's actually a development of the Squid which was a shorter-ranged version developed in WW2 when it was realised that by increasing the range of the hedgehog and firing out to a distance ahead of the vessel such that the German sub was still visible on sonar (and thus depth could be better determined) allowed a better to hit chance.

Sonar at that time couldn't look down more than 45 degrees or so so as a ship began to get very close from a sub the sub would dissapear from sonar. The deeper the sub the farther away it was when it dissapeared and so the more avoiding action it could take before the ship passed over it and dropped the depth charges (or hedgehog bomblets).

The whole ASW warfare thing in WW2 is quite interesting as are the tactical possibilities inherent in the weapon system deficiencies of the time.

Hope that helps clear up the confusion. Sorry but there are so many abbrevs I sometimes forget people don't know them all.



------------------
___________
Fionn Kelly
Manager of Historical Research,
The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Richard III]

No Sturmtiger??
Aaargh, I guess we'll have to make do with the wimpy ol' Jagdtiger... http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif
Hey Steve, how about a CM expansion set with some of these stranger vehicles. T28 vs Maus! What a battle! Tortoise vs Pather Ausf. F. etc...

[Madmatt]

Don't forget the Soviet T-35! hehehe http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/wink.gif

All bark and no bite..reminds me of an ex-girlfriend hmmmmm......

35mm maximum armor plating, who were they trying to kid, looked cool in a parade though!

Madmatt out

[This message has been edited by Madmatt (edited 11-16-99).]

[Big Time Software]

We are planning on adding some vehicles in the future. FYI we have a VERY nice looking set of Sturmtiger pics (how all models start out!), but there are way too many other things on the list ahead of it.

The most oddball, rare vehicle that will be in CM is the M26 Pershing. We just put the rough model and texture set Sunday. Just watched it duke it out with a Nashorn. Hint... if the Nashorn gets off the first shot on the flank, the Pershing can just forget about getting off a shot! But it is funny to see 88s bounce off the front. Damn fine tank! And if you have about $160k and a very big garage, I know where you can buy one too http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/wink.gif

Steve

[Dar]

Steve,

I remember when Doom first came out and was such a big hit that the developers were rolling in the dough. Are you going to be like John Romero and go out to buy new toys (only in your case, something like a Candy Apple Red Pershing instead of a Ferrari?) after CM conquers the world? http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif

Dar

[Herr Oberst]

Just a quick note...

With a 380mm projectile, how accurate do you need to be?

Just hit near someone, and one of three things will happen:
1. You actually hit them, and they automatically become MIA since noone can find any parts of them.
2. You hit close to them and they are blasted off the map by the concussion wave.
3. You hit close to them, they aren't blow off the map, but instead are knocked senseless and find themselves at the bottom of a 20 yard, 60 foot deep hole.

All equally effective in my book.

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif


[This message has been edited by Herr Oberst (edited 11-18-99).]

[Lee]

Oh well, if the Sturmtiger can't make it in the initial release of CM,
then it would make prime material for the add-on. http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif

[K_Tiger]

The Pershing must be near out of sigth...if the 88er should rebound.

Please no Sturmtiger...or I put a Train/Rail Gun on my wishlist http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif

[Mike]

Madmatt - 35mm armour on the T-35 was pretty much standard at the time!!

Hard to imagine it now, but at that time anti-tank weapons were all 37-45mm (the Russian 45 was one of hte better ones!), or even smaller (French 25mm!), and anti-tank rfles were "it" for the infantry - from 7.62mm to 20mm.

And of course T-35's weer used in reasonably substantial numbers in 1940-41 - you couldn't do a Finnish/Barbarossa version/expansion of CM without them.

Mike

[kingtiger]

Guyz,

Having thought more about the inclusion or exclusion of something like the SturmTiger, I have changed my desire from wanting to see it in action to not wanting to see it at all.

The problem I see with adding the Sturmtiger follows. Whenever I play a game with ulitmately powerful German Armor, I am always most happy when the scenario includes ridiculous stuff like Maus's and Panther IIF's. So I don't play with lesser creatures like the Stug III, which due to CM, has gained great admiration by me. I hope that CM doesn't add the SturmTiger and stuff like that, because I will always be more focused on scenarios that utilize that big junk. User-created scenarios will invariably include more and more unrealistic quantities of rearely-used supposedly super-weapons and I would play em.

And now I have tasted the CM fruit, seen the effects of coordinated attacks, watched and learned as the Stug III chews apart the defences, and experienced almost first hand the effectiveness of this magnificent creature.

BTW thanks Thomm, Madmat & Fionn for the answers.

Sincerely,

Richard Kalajian

[Lee]

kingtiger, there will also be 300mm nebelwerfers and
14 inch naval guns available for fire support. That
doesn't mean you should use them in your scenarios all
the time. http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/wink.gif Practice a little self-control. http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif

I expect most of the well done scenarios to include
the more common vehicles and I wouldn't have it any
other way. The good designer will keep the rare stuff, rare. http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif

[SimonFox]

"A huge square object rises lazily above the trees, turns slowly over and over, then drops back into the writhing forest. '...man tank!' yells Keith, through the bomb detonations,.."

Wot no carpet bombing- damn! http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif

[tss]

Hard to imagine it now, but at that time anti-tank weapons were all 37-45mm (the Russian 45 was one of hte better ones!)

The Russian 45mm gun was _really_ good for its time. It could penetrate the armor of just about all tanks in use in '30s from all directions. For example, it could shoot through the T-26 turret ("through" as in "the shot penetrated both front and back sides of the turret").

Also, it was small and a single man can push it on level surface (I managed to try this when I was in army. IIRC, the gun was one of those that were captured from Soviets at Raate road on January '40). The small size made it easy to conceal.

The gun remained a threat for German armor for long time. While it could not penetrate the front armor of post-42 tanks, the flanks and rears of Pz-IV and Panther were vulnerable to it, at least from close range.

And of course T-35's weer used in reasonably substantial numbers in 1940-41 - you couldn't do a Finnish/Barbarossa version/expansion of CM without them.

Well, it seems probable that the T-35 was actually never used against Finns, the reports being misidentifications. (Yes, it is possible confuse T-28s to T-35s if you haven't seen the latter live. Especially, if the only AT weapons you have are demolition charges, molotov coctails, and logs and you are not interested in sticking your head up until the thing is close enough to use them.)

- Tommi

[Major Belles]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Richard III:
No Sturmtiger??
Aaargh, I guess we'll have to make do with the wimpy ol' Jagdtiger... http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/smile.gif
Hey Steve, how about a CM expansion set with some of these stranger vehicles. T28 vs Maus! What a battle! Tortoise vs Pather Ausf. F. etc...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hate to bring up an oooold topic http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/biggrin.gif, but I did a search on the Panzer Maus and came up with this topic. I haven't bought CM yet (plan to, though), and was wondering if the Maus was in there or planned to be there?

The Major

[Gremlin]

There's no Maus in CM. There were only a couple prototypes built, anyway.

------------------
War is cruel and you cannot refine it. --Sherman

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Major Belles:
I hate to bring up an oooold topic http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/biggrin.gif, but I did a search on the Panzer Maus and came up with this topic. I haven't bought CM yet (plan to, though), and was wondering if the Maus was in there or planned to be there?

The Major<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, and no.

The Maus never reached production.

Jeff Heidman

[Rob/1]

Heavy German tanks are http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/cool.gif I got a book of Christmas call um Fight land vehicals or somegthing any way did you know that the Tiger tank was droped out of prodution in late 1944 as it was to be replaced be the TigerII(KingTiger) or PanzerV II as it called it.

[Trooper]

Well, I hear that one completed version did see combat at the testing grounds against the Russians.

------------------
The difference between infantrymen and cavalrymen is that cavalrymen get to die faster, for we ride into battle!

[Lee]

Where's our CM add-on with the sturmtiger? We waited a whole year for it. http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/wink.gif

[Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lee:
Where's our CM add-on with the sturmtiger? We waited a whole year for it. http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/wink.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No add-on, I guess that is official by now. I started a thread a few weeks ago in which Steve explained it. Opens a can of worms regarding multiplayer compatibility.

The Maus seeing combat is unconfirmed AFAIK. Also, on the testing grounds - because it could go nowhere else I presume...

[rexford]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:
We are planning on adding some vehicles in the future. FYI we have a VERY nice looking set of Sturmtiger pics (how all models start out!), but there are way too many other things on the list ahead of it.

The most oddball, rare vehicle that will be in CM is the M26 Pershing. We just put the rough model and texture set Sunday. Just watched it duke it out with a Nashorn. Hint... if the Nashorn gets off the first shot on the flank, the Pershing can just forget about getting off a shot! But it is funny to see 88s bounce off the front. Damn fine tank! And if you have about $160k and a very big garage, I know where you can buy one too http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/wink.gif

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Observations:

Nashorn 88mmL71 should be able to penetrate Pershing glacis plate out to 2000m. Pershing hull front is cast armor, which is less resistant than rolled armor.

Pershing round mantlet is 113mm cast, 88mmL71 might find this fairly easy pickens on a high percentage of mantlet hits.

There was a Super Pershing that had a Panther glacis plate fixed to the frontal armor and the Super Pershing used an extra long 90mm gun. According to Hunnicutt's Pershing, it looked for but never found a Tiger II for a joust.

[Mace]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lee:
Where's our CM add-on with the sturmtiger? We waited a whole year for it. http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/wink.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Perhaps in CM2, especially if a Warsaw uprising Operation is included?

There is a fine mpeg available of the Sturmtiger firing a shot in anger during this battle.

Mace

[Jeff Heidman]

The problem with adding in vehicles like SturmTigers and Maus into the game is that then every time I PBEM with someone I do not know I will have to remember to ban the use of them or we will be seeing dozens of them all the damn time.

This problem already exists with the damn pupchen. If that thing worked as well and as cheaply in the actual war as it does in CM, we would all be speaking German!

Jeff Heidman

[ntg84]

Whats the blast radius of a 380mm HE rocket round?

[Ari Maenpaa]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rexford:
Observations:

Nashorn 88mmL71 should be able to penetrate Pershing glacis plate out to 2000m. Pershing hull front is cast armor, which is less resistant than rolled armor.

Pershing round mantlet is 113mm cast, 88mmL71 might find this fairly easy pickens on a high percentage of mantlet hits.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I tested (about thirty times) with the latest beta b24 and found that in CM Nashorn can't penetrate Pershing's glacis plate even at 1000 meters. Finally at 700m Nashorn succeeded but even then the penetration wasn't a sure thing. Numerous shots ricocheted from the glacis plate before the actual perforation occured.

Also the weaker frontal lower hull plate was impenetrable at 1500 meters range. And it seemed to be almost impossible to hit. Only frontal turret was penetrable at 2000 meters.

Depending on your sources (Spielberg?) it might be worthwhile to suggest a recheck on the corresponding armor quality ratings in CM to get them as historical as possible. Maybe there should be a difference between cast and rolled armor. Also the effect of face hardening raised many opinions recently.

Anyway it's a big difference between 700 meters and 2000 meters http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/wink.gif


Ari

[Warphead-]

Just in case somebody wants to see pictures of the Maus. I visited Kubinka in November and just updated Lindan's and my site with the pics.
I stroked the Maus and will never wash my hands again! http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/biggrin.gif
http://www.nahverteidigungswaffe.de


------------------
["Haben die Krupp-Werke Betriebsausflug? Da rollt ja halb Deutschland auf mich zu..." (Vincent)]

[Major Belles]

Back to the original subject, (the Maus), thanks for the replies; too bad!!! http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/frown.gif

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ari Maenpaa:
I tested (about thirty times) with the latest beta b24 and found that in CM Nashorn can't penetrate Pershing's glacis plate even at 1000 meters. Ari<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting Ari the 8.8 cm L/71 should punch thru the Pershing's frontal armor to & over 1500m & especialy at any range below 1000m
with little problem.

Regards, John Waters



------------------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the
German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. February 1945.

[illo]

700m and 2000m there is huge difference. This should be corrected right away! BTS?

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:
For Panthers we have three:

Panther A
Panther G (early, without chin)
Panther G (late, with chin)

There was no "F". Never made it past the prototype stage.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would not say the Ausf. F never made it past prototype stage Steve, as the F was going into series production at 2 German factories when the war ended, as well as Ausf. F chasis were being built and were photographed in the Ausf.G assembly plants as the factories were in the process of switching to Ausf F production.

And their is still controversey today on whether or not II/ Pz.Regt 2 used Ausf,F's from the Berlin-Marienfelde Daimler Benz plant, in the fighting for Berlin


Regards, John Waters

------------------
"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the
German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. February 1945.

[Ari Maenpaa]

I made some more testing with 88L71 (in Nashorn) against Pershing’s glacis plate. Beta24 version of CM was used. Nashorn was placed face to face with Pershing on open ground. Pershing couldn’t and didn’t move from it’s place even though it wasn’t dug in. Nashorn was also stationary. Both crews were elite.

I discounted broking shells and weak point penetrations. There were much more shell broking than weak spot penetrations even at 300 meters range so my results tend to show 88’s performance in better light than it actually was.

At 750 meters range – of 20 glacis plate hits, 1 penetrated and 19 ricocheted.
650 m – 9 penetrated and 11 ricocheted.
550 m – 11 penetrated, 9 ricocheted.
450 m – 13 penetrated, 7 ricocheted.
300 m – 17 penetrated, 3 ricocheted.

Now, gentlemen, I would ask what exactly makes you think that Pershing’s glacis plate should be penetrated by 88L71 up to 2000m range? Is there convincing historical evidence of that?

And IF there is… well, we know that CM doesn’t give the long 88 as much punch as the original German tests indicated it to have. But even if it did, I doubt that it would make any radical changes to my test results. And if the possible glitch isn’t in the gun’s performance, then: does the Pershing have unnaturally strong glacis plate in CM?


Ari

[Polar]

It's hard to cater to those that adopt the German 88 uberkiller doctrine and make a game that is fun to play.

I am not well versed on the whole glacis plate -vs- 88 at x range debate... but I wonder exactly what people want here.

Everyone who plays the Germans wants super German optics on 88s that can reliably target and penetrate a Super Pershing at 2000 meters. Well, 88s in practice were no where near that super human. Reliable? Yes. Versatile? Definitely yes. But it was NOT a dead cinch killer... or at least to the degree that many here seem to think it was.

Hell, if it was that good, they would have won the war!

Joe

------------------
"I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz

[Ari Maenpaa]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Polar:

I am not well versed on the whole glacis plate -vs- 88 at x range debate... but I wonder exactly what people want here.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have said this before, but for me the most important factor in a game like CM is it's historical autheticity. Naturally there are many things which can be only roughly abstracted in the game, but I don't think that armor penetration/persistence is one of those.

So IF in reality 88L71 could penetrate Pershing’s glacis plate at +1500 meters with no problem, then shouldn't that very much be the case in CM too? What is the point otherwise. We could as well play something like Ground Control where different warmachines with different abilities are balanced together almost perfectly. Of course they don’t reflect anything historical. In CM I want to see an excellent HISTORICAL game. Not just an excellent game.

When any "balancing" between different arms is needed, then it should be done by modifying the point costs, NOT by compromising an arm’s performance just for the sake of other arms, because that would make historical events impossible to happen in the game world.

Something like gun's armor penetration performance is very easy to test in CM. This and similar things I often put in test when I read/heard something new for instance from this excellent forum. In this case the Pershing’s current armor protection model has been questioned by a great margin and I would like to know if there in CM is something to correct.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Everyone who plays the Germans wants super German optics on 88s that can reliably target and penetrate a Super Pershing at 2000 meters. Well, 88s in practice were no where near that super human. Reliable? Yes. Versatile? Definitely yes. But it was NOT a dead cinch killer... or at least to the degree that many here seem to think it was.

Hell, if it was that good, they would have won the war!

Joe
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No. I don’t think that an AT-gun, no matter how good, could have won the war for Germans. And we are talking about the basic Pershing, not it’s bigger cousin. Super Pershing has even thicker glacis (why they boosted the original, if it already was this effective?) and is, btw, armed with the most powerful AT-gun in the whole game by far. At least penetrationwise.

And also I don’t think that people want 88s with uber-performance and super optics just because they play the German side. At least not all. In general I feel that it’s because they have read and heard that the long 88 was enough to stop even the biggest enemy tanks with ease. CM has surprised me, and many others, countless times by showing how weak those German uber-tanks can be.

Just for clarification: I haven’t any evidence that 88L71 ever penetrated Pershing’s glacis plate at +1500m range. I’m just curious to see it.


Ari

[Polar]

The thing is, most of what you hear and read about weapon performance is either exagerated for dramatics, or taken from the performance of a gun under optimal conditions, etc.

If an 88 can punch through x amount of armor, that doesn't mean that a glancing blow won't bounce off.

I have always had a sneaking suspission that most of what you read in these "Aromo(u)r or WWII" books wouldn't be replicated if you saw the stuff in action in the actuall war.

But then, most history we read is a bit skewed to the mythical. But it has always been that way, for as long as we recorded history.

Joe

------------------
"I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz

[Ari Maenpaa]

Polar,

Generally I agree what you said. However in this particular case two forum participants, both who I have learnt to be VERY knowledgeable, have given a statement which is in conflict with the game by a considerable margin.

It seems that the problem isn't necessarily with the performance of the German guns, but that the cast armor is considered too strong in CM's terms. Naturally it can be the combination of these both factors. I would like to see this cleared up, because I think that it may have an effect on many other vehicles too. Not just on the Pershing.


Ari

[Polar]

Well, my point is, until you get a working persisng on one side of a field, and an 88 on the other, and have them duke it out, you will not see one way or the other.

And even THAT won't truely measure how effective the armor or the gun would be.

The thing about armor is that generally (and esspecially in 1945) the strength is in the angles. If the 88 were to impact the glacis at a perfectly perpendicular trajectory, then the my guess is it would penetrate anything. But it gets tough (esspecially in an abstracted game) what angle it is hitting at...

I'll accept that the armor is softer on the glacis yaddayaddayadda....

I just think that this is part of the problem with lack of war games in the market. I could make a near perfect game (as BTS has done) and still get bombarded by demands on changing the color of the stain on the wood stock of the M1 Garand. Nobody who demands that their 4th person interpretation of any given subject is the ONLY interpretation will ever be happy.

I think all of us need to realize the difference between bugs and design descisions. And the fact that the Pershing wasn't killed 90% of the time from glacis hits is probably not a bug, and probably closer to reality then what people want here.

Live with what the game gives you and build your strategy accordingly.

I, for instance, KNOW that I need to pour fire on a Tiger at the expense of all else if I want to knock it out. Why??? Because the more angles you fire on, the less chance of the Tiger reducing those angles (closing the angle to one gun will open it to another). Maybe German players need to respect the Pershing more than they care too. http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/wink.gif

Joe

------------------
"I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz