Don’t nerf history. Stay historically accurate

I mean usable as a counter against this tank.
The actual cases where the flak88 would be used to take out the tank if both got added would most likely be <1%.

Except no because that’s to asume every KV-1 gets taken out. If we consider that 60% will just never die and drive over infantry that % gets much higher because so many KV-1s would just be unkillable for the average team.

You never know

The side armor is 75mm.
The Pz2 has 36mm pen with the normal AP
The Pz3 has 47mm pen with the APHE
Indeed neither would be able to pen.

This is just trolling at this point

No, if we wanna go for realism, and not milsim, we should simply never add the tank to begin with. It would be OP to the point that it will single handedly kill the game within 3 months.

Sure, like I said, aiming down the empty barrel sounds interesting and fun. I don’t think periscopes were really high tech by the 40s, though.

Soviets went from no periscopes to polished metal periscopes to finally proper mirror ones in their T-34-85s etc

Sounds like it is not a complete fabrication then that a tank commander might have a periscope of his own, even though it could be a makeshift one of questionable quality.

Well they would not have access to any polishing tools either, so not even the polished metal would be an option.

Was fine-grain sandpaper a closely guarded state secret as well?

That would not give any good reflective surface like a polishing machine would.
You would see blurs at best, as if your screen was like 72p (not even 144p)

Sounds like a makeshift reflective surface of shoddy worksmanship. I am sure a point of balance could be found where the periscope isn’t too clear but still clear enough to be somewhat usable.

How are periscopes even relevant to this?

As a balancing metric. If the tank is blind, it wont be as OP.

that just sounds like something everyone would hate on the giving and receiving end.

Also as that’s the purpose behind the idea I see no reason to argue whether or not they had the capacity to make periscopes.
Of course a tank wouldn’t be that blind with moscow optics either. They would still mulch infantry with 76mm HE and MGs because there was still an empty hole where the sight would have been.

Apparently aiming the gun itself would require the gunner to peek into the empty breech and through the barrel itself, which sounds interesting and fun to me. The periscope was suggested as an alternate way for the machine gunner to aim his gun or possibly for the commander to direct fire, both of whom would not have an empty barrel at hand to leer through in relative safety.

if you’re talking bow machine gun, wasn’t the historical approach (without dedicated view ports) for the driver to direct fire?

bro you resorted to trolling at last …shame on you

I can’t say for sure but it seems probable, because the commander has his own personal periscope and machine gun available to him, at least if we go by how War Thunder modeled the internals of the KV-1 armed with the L-11 gun.

There are 74 replies with an estimated read time of 9 minutes .

JEEZ people. you are more faster than a mg42 rate of fire.

also, where those fights come from?
is that hard sticking to the main question?

anyway, @71173141 what do you mean by this. could you give some example?

We have the 1* upgrade. +20%!

Fedorov Avtomat in cod = Historical innacurate :-1:
Fedorov Avtomat in Enlisted = Historical accurate :+1:

Pick one