First, a few historical and technical facts, including the Tiger H1 tanks on the Kursk Arch as an example.
The Battle of Kursk lasted from July 5 to August 23, 1943. The front in this place is 550 km (13% of the total length of the front), which is a huge space. It was not a medieval battle where the front attacked the tank like cavalry in medieval battles. It was a battle of combined armies.
150 Tiger tanks were fielded throughout the battle, and never more than 30 at a time. And these 30 tigers operated in companies of 10 machines, so see what the rotation of tanks to and from field workshops was.
The Germans irretrievably lost 16 Tiger tanks in the battle, but these tanks were put out of action more than 1,000 times, i.e. each Tiger was put out of action at least 7 times.
Most often, the tank was put out of action by 45mm field guns, and the Russians set massive traps using these guns.
A tank taken out of combat is not a destroyed tank.
And best of all, the front end was most often removed from combat without penetrating the hull or turret armor.
Examples that may make the game easier for an infantry player and a bit more difficult for gray zone tank shooting enthusiasts:
-A hit without penetration damages the turret’s hydraulics (blocking the rotation or drastically reducing the rotation)
-A hit without penetration damages the traction hydraulics (damage to the gearbox, inability to change gears)
-A hit without penetration damages the cannon’s loading mechanism (no possibility of loading another bullet)
-A hit without penetration damages the gun’s lifting mechanism (cannot raise or lower the gun)
In all these cases the tank was forced to withdraw for repairs or had to be covered by another vehicle or infantry until a vehicle could arrive to remove it from the battlefield.
I am leaving aside cases in which the armor was not penetrated and the crew died. Vehicle commanders were the most likely to die in Tigers, followed by drivers.
Additionally, I would like to add that I believe that artillery fire should be able to be called into the gray zone and such fire should have serious consequences for the enemy vehicle. Not necessarily destroy him, but seriously exclude him from the fight for a long time or force him to change position.
I will add one more interesting fact. Tiger number 131 was defeated in Africa by a Churchill tank with a 57 mm gun.
You like to feel safe in the gray zone. And any option to leave your comfort zone scares you. You could always get diarrhea, cancer and trench foot in the trenches, and the medic would say that helping you is pointless.
Cant wait for how mines actually worked in history and real life.
Tanks are ranged weapons and most of the time greyzones are also within a reasonable range for tanks as they cant really drive back.
Nobody needs most tanks 50m to CP because thats just xp pinata for enemy.
And you dont want your AP mines nerfed so what are you on?
I know what a tank is for, but when I see idiots’ ideas about “banning the possibility of firing from the gray zone” or other such nonsense, I try to come up with a solution. The ability to destroy optics is nice, but why can’t it be realistic to damage the tank’s modules without penetrating the armor?
Yes and no, primarily no because it’s annoying when it comes to King Tigers. They had sensitive instruments that you only had to hit them (not pen) to ruin their day. I like tanks as they are now, this system will make it a hit first system with no concerns for caliber.
But I see the direction you’re going and you may be into something.
Yes. I think that mines that remain in the gray zone are a good idea because you can mine the path of enemy vehicles, but at the same time I would eliminate mines in a specific area around the vehicle respawn.
And anything just to get offended. As far as realism is concerned, the mines should work on allies. And if they don’t work on allies, can’t tank missiles have a more realistic effect on enemy machines? Where’s the logic here? I’m talking about something else and you’re talking about anti-tank mines.
You’re just nitpicking just for the sake of nitpicking. You’re a troll, you’re locked in a basement and all you can do is criticize everything.
Please understand that the topic is not about anti-tank mines, but about anti-tank guns and the effect of bullets on tanks when they do not penetrate the armor.
Oh yeah. Cant wait for the bots to kill my silver earning because they cant keep stop stepping in my damn mines.
Nope.
You are just choosing when realism and HA fits you and when not.
Well. If you would write something, that isnt stupid, maybe we could actually have something worth to discuss.
But right now people actually consider your threads baits and in total gave them less likes than mine posts.
Ahh We still need to discuss that?
Is dumb, totally misses the point of greyzones. Only you and GuiltBuritto want it, so throw it away to the garbage and move on.
If you still struggle, just drive your tank to the camper and die to block his view, because thats not just dumb and borderlin troll, but a TaCtIcaL approach that is legit… or just shoot or bomb the guy like a normal pleb.
I know how to deal with hostile players in the gray zone. Not everyone, like me, has 11 slots for troops of two tanks and two planes, or three tanks and three planes, plus mortars, radio operators and parachutists.
The cat is out of the bag, this is the biggest difference between Soviet and German tanks, Germany had huge logistics behind their tanks while Soviets had to abandon their damaged tanks and replace them with new ones instead of repairing.
This is where allied and Axis documents conflict with eachother, since bigcats regularly under went maintenance and repairs (unreliablity was a calculated shortcoming based on Panzer IV data, but bigcats got damaged less often due to better armour), many knocked out Tigers were repaired and sent back to combat (unless over run like famous 131), this is why Germans claim at least 15 tanks for every Tiger tank while allied sources claim 4-5 tanks.
These logistics and tactics were extensively copied by other nations after the war for good reason, but they also managed to improve reliability.
Bergepanther armoured recovery vehicle
Not completely. Great German logistics is a gross abuse. But the fact is that German big cats were more often excluded from fighting. The problem with Russian tanks was that there was usually nothing to take off the battlefield, but if they were taken out of combat, they were also repaired, and the most frequently replaced element in Soviet tanks was the crew.
During the war, the USSR made statistic on how long a T-34 can operate before its totalled and is beyond repair, which was 6 months.
But it wasn’t an issue because most T-34s would not survive more than 3 months.
It certainly did happen in reality and still does to this day, but Im kind of skeptical about it. It is a thing in the game too, you can destroy light tanks with big HE shells if you hit them in the center of mass, but there is no reliable data for this mechanism, you can’t measure the chance of spliters as you can armour penetration so this could turn into a bias and nerf mechanism which I wouldn’t like.
I agree. I think it’s an interesting idea that needs just some refinement. It’s like in real life getting hit repeatedly may not cause outright destruction but causes structural and integral damage.
And even if a tank does survive a round that doesn’t mean the hit didn’t cause damage, or if multiple hits make it worse (to eventual destruction)
Obviously you won’t be one shotting formidable tanks, but it’s more of a death by a thousand cuts. Maybe it does just a littttttttle bit of damage and eventually at the right moment it would stack enough to disable a part. Or maybe it could be percentage based
I support this sort of mechanic being implemented. It adds a bit more dynamic to gameplay
There are reports from Tiger B crews where hits by high-explosive shells fired by M4 Sherman tanks with a short 75mm gun not only stunned the crew and caused cracked welds, but often killed the driver. There are many reports that high-explosive ammunition did not destroy the tank, but killed part of the crew. There is a report from the Kursk arc, where 45mm guns fired 300 shots at the Ferdyand destroyer, that the side armor was finally penetrated and the engine caught fire.
In games we use vehicles as they were on paper, and in practice reports say that most Allied guns penetrated a panther or a tiger from a distance of 600 m.
Interestingly, Soviet 85mm anti-tank bullets had worse penetrating properties than American 75mm bullets.
I believe that a game like enlisted should take into account such hit effects as hits without penetration or the effect of high-explosive shells on tank components. I no longer require any armor crushing, but that would also be a nice option.
I would like this system too, as long as its not luck based and doesn´t favour a faction (like Japanese tanks suddenly destroying US tanks without even penetrating them because splinters killed crew )
)