Where is your source for it being historical? Is it tied up with that one where you said the thousand or so KVs and T-34s at moscow didn’t have vision slits that you couldn’t find last time we talked about this
2 Likes
And even if the T-34 is super gimped, it won’t alleviate the frustration of having next to nothing that can scratch it.
The user will hate it because it’s painful to use, and the enemy team will hate it because they can’t hurt it with most AT weapons.
well for this one I do have the secondary source from the Chieftan, which in turn had primary sources.
Simply lengthening the reload and lowering the FoV should be enough, so it will be harder to aim with the thing and more punishing if you miss
1 Like
God bless, we have our ducks in a row for once.
As I said before, I am not going to spend ages finding my sources again. This one was super easy to find, but some old primary source document from some old website, alongside some historical annekdotes, isnt that easy to find back.
I’m not the kind of person that would go like “well ‘historically’ (fake) the Pz4 was ‘able’ to reload in 3 seconds with an super good loader so all pz4s need a 3sec reload”.
1 Like
I’m not asking you to go back and find it, but you should be aware that when you make claims like that and can’t back it up it may as well be fantasy. For future reference at least.
I’ll watch the video as I make breakfast in a few because I’m curious how the slavs could actually make the T-34 worse than I already knew it was lmfao
Doesn’t solve the problem of the Panzer II, Panzer IIIs, probably AT guns, and pzb 38 not being able to threaten the T-34 in any way.
To sum it up:
bad sights (haha) forcing to use open hatches most of the time
long reload due to cramped turret
no radio
minor other stuff
Except for the PzB, I know all of those should be able to take out the T-34 through the turret, similar to the T-60. It is only 45mm thick, and flat armor. From the sides, it’s effective 50mm, and from the rear 53mm. From the side you can also pen the lower hull, which is 45mm flat. And with a long reload, those tanks get the extra seconds to line up one of those shots, to disable the gun/gunner.
The Pz 2 is only 36mm pen…
For some reason I thought it had more, mb.
The turret wasn’t just cramped, it was missing the basket that rotates with it, so you had to keep moving or you’d get ripped in half.
Current Russian MBTs keep the tradition going by the autoloader ripping arms off if you get in the wway.
It doesn’t have the APCR ammunition in enlisted…
It does with APCR, but we don’t have anything but AP and HE for now.
The early T-34 was very cramped. The two soldiers would touch each other and the turret side if they both sat perfectly facing forwards, not even accounting for the gun being in the middle. This is also modelled in war thunder:
This got enlargened with the 1941 and later models:
yes, I know. I just thought the normal AP penned more.
1 Like
Not sure about that, I remember the Italian medium 75 in War Thunder can only pen the T-34 with a square hit into the front of the turret.
Anything smaller than that is pixel hunting.
This might be due to the armor penetration changes they made to go to that one formula way back, which cucked all early low velocity APHE to lower-than-historical penetration values. In Enlisted, they would simply be able to not use the formula and use their old historical data.
1 Like
Yeah I remember that shit show. When they did that so they could make fantasy APFSDS for top tier.
1 Like
I suspect this is what the folks asking for it want, an invulnerable doom machine.
1 Like
Well restoring the armor penetration values to use the historical ammounts would fix it
The only tank that would really struggle would be the Pz2, but that could be solved by giving it 1-2 clips of that HVAP ammo, making it able to defend itself against a T-34 if absolutely needed, while also forcing it to focus on its main task: dealing with infantry and light tanks.
This would also indirectly solve the “Pz2 OP” issue that a lot of people have.
And this is why I prefer to say no to just throwing in stuff “just cuz it’s cool”
And putting some thought into WHY and HOW it should be added in a balanced manner.
For example a bunch of people also want MG34 or DP-27 in Moscow. I said no, until we figured out a way to implement them without making the existing ones obselete (which we have done by now, this is just an example), and I hope more people can be like that.
2 Likes
LMAO