About the distances of the fight against “50-ton Russian tanks”.
Telegram from the Inspectorate of Mobile Troops (Schnelle Truppen) from
June 30, 1941
50-mm PAK-38 is capable of hitting KV with 400 m, 50-mm tank gun ("stub») with 200 m,
47-mm Czech gun with 200 m,
88-mm anti-aircraft gun - 1000 m
This is a telegram of 30 June 1941 to a wermaht forces in Eastern front. 50 tons tanks is a KV-1. So historically it can be penetrated by many German arms like 50mm P. III subcaliber shells. There was a lot of subcaliber shells in wermaht since June 22 in 1941
Often we fighting about 200 meters… So, it can be penetrated.
I tried to convince him too but it won’t work. Some players just play one nation and will complain if the other side has one thing more unique. People always forget how powerful german fighter aircraft from 1941 were. Also germany already has a gun in the game that can penetrate a KV and will probably get more powerful guns too. Some people just enjoy having easy games where they always win and will not accept anything that looks like a challenge to their wunderarmee
Well people have been complaining about PPD too when it is very unique compared to German SMGs. Same goes for the tanks when Soviet ones are much better at fighting infantry, it’s unique that way. So, you could ask, why don’t Soviets just built AT cannons take them out like you are suggesting for KV-1s. You can now have 3 tanks in the field at the same time. Are you supposed to make 3 frickin AT cannons that takes a whole lot of time under enemy fire just to kill them!? In the current sorry state of the game, you can’t spare a squad to focus on destroying tanks instead of focusing on objectives. Maybe wait for OBT, see how the balance is and then add such major changes. I’ve been in plenty of games in which Soviet weapons seemed to work much better than German ones.
Soviets are asking for KV-1s because it is much superior to anything else in the game. Even though it is historically appropriate, it will tip the equipment balance severely to one side. Germans if they had the option would have done the same. It’s a never ending discussion.
Ironically there is a thread that recently popped up asking for a nerf of German planes. It’s not ‘some players’ not accepting uniqueness. They are the majority whichever the faction they play for.
People always forget that t34 and kv1 were the only 2 good tanks 1941 russia had. T28 is debatable because it is huge and has absolutely no armour. Removing those 2 tanks from the game will just make russia suffer even more
Oh c’mon dude, we both played Russia when they were on an almost 100% win streak in alpha. It’s not even remotely true that Axis in the game suffer now due to their equipment. Anyone who’s played Alpha will know that German SMGs were better than current MP-41s back then. They got nerfed after that and PPD had its recoil reduced. Other than tanks(debatable), the rest of the equipment have either stayed the same or has been modified for unsymmetric balance. Therefore, the only explanation for the skewed win rate should be the player base.
And it’s not like Pz III B and E is significantly better than Pz II. So, nerfing Pz II should solve most of the tank problems, right?
i mean… we both saw that people complained about german weapons, those got nerfed, and yet the problem remains.
so i don’t really know at this point.
i enjoy playing both side. but all of those people playing only russian, does not accept the fact that they are “bad” due to the presence of bots replacing humans.
cuz, weapons are quite balanced ( expet for the goddamn mp41 ) and the ptrs/ptrd which it’s still broken ( not doing the right damage )
but yeah. i’m afraid that it will be an endless discussion.
i think, some of those complain will quite down once it will be in open beta. but we’ll have to see.
Which we do not have but even if we did, would be drastically inferior in damage compared to APHE. So while a Pz3 could theoretically pen the KV-1, it would do as much damage as an AT-rifle. Historically they were issued at a rate of like 5 per tank anyways, so doubt they would be added. Solves nothing either way.
I have 0 issues with something being unique.
Being so stupidly OP that it can single-handedly annihilate entire teams, though, is a major issue to me.
Good point
Which would be a much larger change than adding a tank so I doubt the devs would do that.
But it has crew. And it is not like the Pz4C/D had any more armor, or that the Pz1, Pz35/38t, early Pz3s etc were any better. Only the Pz2 was good, but often enough had only a limited supply of AP rounds, and a near non-existent supply of HVAP, severly hampering its abilities.
BT-7 has great mobility.
T-60 gets a solid autocannon and decent protection
T-50 would probably be OP if it were ingame, with similar protection but weaker gun.
BA-11 did exist during the time and is proven to be OP, but because it wasn’t used, it was removed from the game.
Saying you had no good tanks is bullshit, you arguably had more good tanks than Germany did.
Germany’s current tanks suffered against the armor of a Somua S35, which has 47mm frontal armor. How do you expect them to handle something with 75mm armor?
Like you guys are as bad as the Germany Suffers mains in War Thunder, the guys who want to put the Tiger H1 at BR4.3.
Germany will get better tanks in Berlin and Normandy. Can you at least let allies have better tanks in Moscow. I already posted a possible solution to this but NOOOOO, the only solution to you guys is: ,ReMoVe aLL gOOd RussIaN TanKs’’
Panther vs T-34-85. Seems balanced Both are 5.7 in war thunder as well.
Tiger 2P (NOT H) vs IS-2 1944. Seems balanced. Both are 6.3 in war thunder as well.
Pz4J vs M4A2 sherman. Seems balanced. Both are 4.0 in war thunder as well.
Pz3E vs KV1. Seems not balanced. One is 1.0, other is 3.7.
SEE THE DIFFERENCE HERE
All tanks in Moscow are BR1.0-1.3 and you just wanna put a 3.7 in.
That’s like asking for Tiger 2H in Normandy, or an IS-3 in Berlin.
Using warthunder as a balancing factor?
This game has infantry and tank to tank combat is mostly frontal. T34-85 has less armour and a weaker gun compared to the Panther. Panther is also as fast as the t34, irl the only advantage the t34 had was that it is cheaper to produce. IS-2 is full of weakspots and tiger 2 only has a weak (but trolly) turret. Sherman only penetrates less than 90mm of armour and cant pen an angled Pz4J while the Panzer has a laser 140mm penning gun that kills anything it sees.
T-34-85 can easily kill a panther, especially considering the trap shot for the panther is very easy to land.
On top of that, if the panther is angled over 10 degrees, you can get through the side, while the T-34 can be angled at ~30 degrees without exposing an easy side shot. This also makes it easier for Russian AT infantry to use their bazookas against the panther.
IS-2 and tiger 2 both have weak turrent front, tiger 2 trades hull frontal protection for weaker side protection. This also makes it easier for Russian AT infantry to use their bazookas against the Tiger 2P.
Once again tradeoffs.
Sherman is very versatile, with fast turret rotation, 50cal roof mount, etc
Pz4J only has 50mm front turret armor compared to its 80mm hull armor. It also has abysmal turret traverse and only a 7.92mm MG roof mount.
Once again tradeoffs.
I suppose the Panther A could always be replaced with a D so the T-34 has a mobility advantage.
But that isn’t really the topic here.
If you have issues with that slight balance difference, or the Pz2, why would you introduce something that is so much worse?
