That would be correct under the assumption that the game doesn’t change and map sizes remain as small as they currently are. I personally work under the assumption that the devs will eventually unlock the entirety of the maps for matches, instead of just allowing us to play on the small snippets of them we currently have access to (Press M in any of the matches, the actual maps are pretty huge).
On those large maps, it is both viable and possible to fortify a position properly as there will be long stretches of time during which parts of the map will not experience any combat whatsoever. The 88 would then be one of the things you’d use to fortify such a position in preparation for an incoming heavy tank attack.
Don’t hold your breath on the maps. It seems to me like more of a way to simplify development.
Dust 514 was the same, and there was always talk of “this would make sense to add in future game modes” but the future game modes never happened and the maps never opened up.
or you can have more german soldiers vs less russian soldiers like 15 vs 10 with russia getting more defensive structures already built …lmao before the gameplay it was already mentioned in their faq back that not both teams be equal one team will have more attackers other team more tanks…etc but right now i see this game just going to generic capture the point lol… look at this oh sorry they haved removed the faq but it was written there!
I was thinking the same thing tbh.
Of course it made more sense when the first map was Normandy, and D day was expected to be a zerg of US players vs a handful of German players.
Of course what we learned from War Thunder’s historical sim battles is that, where assymetric teams are concerned, most players prefer queueing for the quality-over-quantity team rather than the strength-in-numbers team, which winds up ruining the number advantage anyway.
That’s what I mean, whenever there’s a zerg team, everyone wants to fight the zerg, not be a part of it.
War Thunder would have some battles that were meant to be historical by having a few good German planes vs a larger team of older Russian planes.
But nobody was queueing Russia to actually fill up the Russian team slots.
Angling is an option, increasing the thickness to over 120mm.
And as the AT-gun would be stationary, you cant position yourself to hit the flat armor.
Again, not accounting for angling. And the AT-guns aren’t the most accurate with the sight being offset as they use war thunder’s sim aiming system. It can be pretty hard to hit those spots, especially when a T-34 can zoom around about as fast as a Pz2.
Yup. Will only make people leave the game.
That’s why having more powerful open top vehicles would work better than introducing T-34s or KV-1s
The 38t was actually classified as a medium tank so it fits perfectly for this thread
Actually, not quite. The initial designs were started as early as I think 1937? Initially there was the VK30.01(H/P), with both Henschel and Porsche making prototypes. Then the specification went up to 36 tonnes, which only Henchel made a prototype for (VK36.01). After that, the VK45.01(H/P) models were built, tested and from there the Tiger was made.
None of the VKs were ever used in combat. Even the VK45.01(P) was first modified into the Ferdinant or PzBfw6P (command tank) before entering combat
Yes
No. Latter ones were too modern for Moscow anyways (1944/45 only afaik)
Agreed. They were pretty popular when dealing with KV-1s early in the war, which is why the Tiger received it as its main gun in the first place. However, it would be unlikely for it to be added as we already have the lighter AT guns and it would outperform them in every way including traverse (88 had full 360 degree rotation and was not angle-limited)
Also performance related.
Except that is already the case as Russia has 3 bots in their 10 player teams. So unless you want to fight 2-1, that wouldnt work. But even then, russia will complain about massive player disadvantage and leave the game, while germany will complain about inbalanced tanks and also leave
It is but it requires skill and skill should be granted. We already talked before about introducing new AT weapons and structures. Having better tank power was one of the biggest advantages of the red army during the war and you just want to take it away. T-34 and KV were only 1941 tanks that didn’t have paper armor. BT and T-26 are not good tanks no matter how fast they are, AT shells are always faster. T-28 will be more survivable but the armor stays paper.
Yet it should be asumed when talking about how to balance something.
I do not want to take it away. I only want to prevent it from ever happening.
A T-28 would be pretty darn powerful due to the crew count and the fact it has 4 LMGs (2 MG turrets, one coax, one in the back of the turret), no matter how much armor it has.
And what you say about the BT-7 and T-26 goes just as much for German armor as it goes for Germany, so they are in no way weaker (except for the Pz2 but I suspect that it’s armor model might be mismodelled slightly, or y’all are just getting volumetricked all the time. It could easily be replaced with an earlier Pz2C without the add-on armor plates that brought the armor from 15mm to 35mm)
It has already happened. T-34 was confirmed in the Alphatest. You DO just want to take a way a tank that was literally a legend in the battle of Moscow
Why are all of you even talking about tank on tank combat ? This isn’t world of Tanks or War Thunder. Infantry and Aircraft and Artillery and Anti Tank guns all do exist, so tank on tank combat is never going to be the deciding factor anyways, as it is easy enough for all those other weapons to take out a tank as well.
Furthermore, tanks weren’t actually meant to fight tanks back in 1941 and 1942. Both Soviet and German doctrine focused on the Tanks being used in entirely different roles. German tanks were meant to achieve breakthroughs in the weakest point of the enemy line and then either help to encircle them or disrupt supplies, while Russian tanks were used as infantry support or as a stand alone force (The soviet union was undergoing a reorganization effort) that should break the enemy by its sheer weight and drive them before them while the infantry cleans up after them.
Tank on tank engagements did happen, but they were few and far between. The largest tank battle of the war, The Battle of Brody/Dubno, overwhelmingly didn’t have tank on tank combat to begin with, and most tank casualties were to Anti Tank guns, Artillery and even infantry in close combat.
Any argument concerning itself with tank on tank combat should be irrelevant, as tank on tank combat itself was irrelevant in 1941. And the game already does a very good job at modeling the drawbacks of tanks by them having a very limited FOV. As such, it is very easy to just walk to a hostile tank and kill it with an explosive pack. You can even climb on tanks in the game !
The main thing they should add right now to help combating tanks which isn’t in the game yet is the ability to open hatches from the outside and throw grenades into the fighting compartment. because that’d be really cool.
you mean the very first test? The T-34 they removed because of balance reasons?
One could say the Tiger was a legend in normandy but that wouldn’t lead to it getting added because it would be OP against what would mainly be 75mm shermans.
The Panzer 4, maybe.
Panzer 3 was ment to be the main tank used to fight other tanks. It had the anti-tank gun the germans used at the time, the 37mm. And when that didn’t cut it, they developed a 50mm anti-tank gun and shoved it into the pz3. You literally can not claim tanks were not to fight other tanks as they were designed to do so even in world war 1 with the male variants of the Brittish Mark xxx tanks, that had cannons in the sponsons instead of the female variants, which only had MGs, to deal with fortified positions and tanks.
The T-34 was designed to fight enemy tanks with a longer 76mm than the T-28 (which was designed to be infantry support)
The KV-1 was designed to fight enemy tanks, again, longer 76mm to fire AP to deal with tanks.
You are literally making things up.
Yes. But that did not mean they evaded tank on tank engagements, nor that they weren’t designed to handle other tanks. They gave the Pz2 HVAP for a reason. They game the Pz38ts and Pz3s APRC for a reason. They even gave the Pz4 a HEAT round to deal with tanks for god’s sake.
Hello? Stalinrad?
No, no it was not.
No, they’re doing a terrible job at modelling the viewports so as a result everyone uses gunner sight only, resulting in said terrible FOV
Didn’t I ask you to inform yourself before you respond to me again ? Almost everything you just said is factually wrong. The only thing you’re right about is that the Panzer 3 was specifically built to be the anti tank element of the tank force. But your extrapolation that German doctrine must therefore be to engage tanks with tanks is incorrect. Rommel said that tanks shouldn’t fight tanks, but that it was the task of the Infantry and Anti Tank guns to do so, Guderian said so too, and the russian commanders, especially Tukhachevsky, agreed.
And the Heat round on the Pz4 had worse penetration that the APCR. It was specifically designed against fortifications.
But the single worst thing is that you honestly think Stalingrad is a larger Tank battle than Brody. What even ? There were less than 1400 tanks in total in Stalingrad, while the Soviets alone had over 4000 tanks at Brody according to some accounts. Seriously, do you ever look up anything you say ?
And Tank on Tank combat was irrelevant. It didn’t matter at Brody, where the germans were outnumbered in tanks 1 to 4 and still won due to their infantry, Airforce and artillery. It didn’t matter during that part of the african campaign in which both the allies and the axis preferred to ambush tanks with anti tank weapons, and it certainly didn’t matter in the pacific yet.
Concerning the FOV, I cannot really pass judgement. I haven’t been in any of the tanks that are currently in the game, but it certainly feels right that you have very little Idea of what’s going on around you while you’re in one of them. So, I’ll leave this open for now.
But in general, PLEASE inform yourself about what you’re going to talk about in the future. You just make yourself look stupid right now.
I never said that. I said that YOUR claim that they EVADED tank on tank engagement was false. They did not evade them, nor seek them out.
Not until they had the long 75mm gun. Afaik, the short 75mm did not even have APCR as that wasn’t an option with the low velocity. They needed something for AT and went with HEAT
At any given time, yes.
But as there were over 5.000 lost tanks, that can never be the total ammount.
lost by germany was ~500 + ~1500 captured + ~100 romanian tanks lost
lost by russia was ~4300
They evaded them whenever possible since tanks being bogged down in tank fights are arguably not able to fulfill their role. And while you’re right that the APCR wasn’t a munition on the first production versions of the Panzer 4, the HEAT wasn’t meant to destroy tanks. The ‘Hohlladung’, as it was called in german, was used to destroy fortifications for most of the war, not tanks. And during the early war it was exclusively used for that purpose. The Anti tank weapons of the late war were the only real exception as far as germany goes.
Stalingrade is not a singular battle, it was a series of engagements over almost half a year. This is the same reason why Kursk, which technically had the most tanks taking part in it of all operations on the eastern front with over 10000 being present during the soviet counter offensive (3200 german, over 7000 Russian) does not count as the largest singular tanke battle.
The largest singular tank battle is Brody/Dubno, because it hat the largest number of tanks in a single engagement/single battle.
As such, yes, and I apparently can’t stress this enough: PLEASE do your research.
This translates to “Hollow charge”
These were initially intended for anti-fortification, yes
But very early on the Germans realised the power in them being used for anti-tank purposes and used them against tanks with great success, after which they starting developing hand-held variants of the weapon system.
so it fits perfectly for this thread