Don’t even mention the Tiger II it burns more then an Abrams and it was easily avoidable and extremely rear there is many abandoned do to the lack of parts or fuel…there is only 1 operation Tiger I and a lot operational Tigers II for a reason since they mostly abandoned them it was terrible tank.
@mods close ts
2 Likes
Or because basicly every german tank that was captured was scraped after the war with only very little exeptions. Tiger 2 just made better trophies so it might just be that.
Well no just look at the Ardennes they broke trough however they had no logistics to sustain them. Every vehicle in war requires logistics or its useless. So poor Joachim Peiper had to abandon his Tiger IIs without even being destroyed in combat and had no effect on the war at all xD
you really shot yourself in the leg with this.
Saved me the trouble.
you keep contradicting yourself:
Tiger is bad because its inefficient on logistics.
Than you finally mention that Germany had chronic fuel shortage… Biggest problem with German logistics really. Turns out fielding one heavy tank that consumes roughly the same amount of fuel as a Sherman instead of 3 tanks suddenly start to make sense…
Many Tiger II tanks were deployed at the Bulge. They were unstoppable and drove as fair as their fuel tanks allowed. However unlike 1940, there was no fuel coming after them so the tanks had to be destroyed to prevent their capture.
Its not a reliability or supply thing, Germany just did not have a natural large oil supply so they fight a war of attrition.
3 Likes
Well you are not thinking at all if know I have no fuel why would I build bigger and most costly tanks ? A nation should know its strengths the Abrams right now its super costly and the moment I look at the Tiger and I know its even more costly I will scrap that idea very fast since its not cost efficient.
The hope was that 1 tiger 2 could do the job of 4 panzer 4s maybe?
Depends if you can provide them with the needed logistics to be effective.
No need I’m behaving I’m even polite today 
In fact, isn’t the Soviets the ones who have a buildable AA gun that still maintains anti-infantry capabilities?, I remember being blown up several times by one of those in the Manchuria map.
You mean that single-barrel anti-aircraft gun whose damage was nerfed? It holds back your advance like a heavy machine gun and deals massive damage. That’s quite tough. You can take it out with satchel charges or AT launchers, and it doesn’t have much ammo either.
Yes, the one you can build at a safe distance with a good view to use as a light tank. I’ve literally seen it mounted even on the roofs of buildings. In one game, it wiped out many of us since it was in the area of the tower near Heilonjian Airport.
That’s strange. Manchuria is usually full of impassable obstacles, so heavy machine guns and anti-aircraft guns can barely perform well across most of the map.
Are you talking about the fake map that mimics the airfield in Normandy? There’s an AA gun set up on top of a building there, holding a dominant high-ground position and pinning down our allied tanks. Did anyone manage to destroy it or counter the emplacement? Normally, such an obvious strongpoint should be easily taken out by tanks. Could it be that our teammates just didn’t pull their weight?
1 Like
It’s possible, but it wasn’t the only time I’ve encountered that “problem.” In fact, that AA can easily destroy light tanks and is technically at any BR, unless you have guerrillas; sometimes you can’t even hit them. I find it intriguing that some people even build sandbag walls around the gun XD. The point here is that if the vehicle is BR3, it’s already going to mostly see KVs and Jumbos, and it’s not the Koelian to be BR4.
1 Like
I just recalled a suggestion from the forum before: rework the heavy machine guns of the US, Germany and Japan into proper anti-aircraft machine guns on par with the Soviet DShK. They would be far deadlier than dedicated anti-aircraft cannons.
AA cannons went through a balance patch previously. Overheating was removed and depression angles were improved, but their damage was nerfed heavily as a trade-off. At lower battle ratings, they struggle against tanks, though at least it creates a fair fight where each side can penetrate the other’s armour.
Also, bear in mind we’re talking about the standard Kugelblitz here. It has already been nerfed in-game, and its rounds can no longer punch through many vehicles it used to defeat. While its main gun is comparable to that of the Coelian, it simply cannot match the latter’s original firepower after the adjustments.
I’d love to see the Coelian added to BR5 too. It is an extremely potent vehicle. Experienced players nowadays keep testing and learning its limits, targeting weak points on the frontal armour of heavy tanks to land kills consistently.
1 Like
Yes, ultimately the problem still lies with poor matchmaking. If it weren’t for the uptier system, the BR would indeed be unfair, but since we’re still seeing things like the Panzer III N at BR4, I don’t think there’s much difference. Many low-BR tanks are essentially just personal APCs for their squads, as they’re quite bad even in HE. At least, that’s how I ended up using most of my Japanese and German tanks.
Heavy caliber machine guns would be useful mounted on emplacements or trucks (at least). You can even shoot down jets with light machine guns when they’re flying low.
I had certainly heard that the Coelian was quite strong and that’s why its acquisition in WT was so limited, but if it’s at BR5 and without slow reload or overheating issues, it would be quite useful against jets.
1 Like
Yeah, I think the core issue is the battle rating spread in matchmaking. What’s the ratio between BR3 and BR4 matches? Is it one to four or one to five? Right now, lower BR tanks often have no choice but to fight higher BR targets. Ideally, players in the same BR bracket should handle threats on their own.
If players in BR5 just stay airborne in their planes the entire match and refuse to help their BR4 teammates deal with enemy ground units, the situation will turn really bad. The current BR system is clearly flawed. BR1 needs hard locks, and BR6 should be introduced to ease pressure on BR4. We still need to push for these changes, otherwise the gameplay environment will keep suffering.
I’ve thought about locking BRs and removing rating drift entirely, but that would require adding AI bots to fill empty slots. However, Anton doesn’t want players farming points and rewards by killing AI units, which is why they use flexible BR matchmaking to keep lobbies full. So that idea is unlikely to happen. It’s really a letdown.
Only the Chinese server was generous enough to do this, like back in 2022 when one side was fully AI-controlled. I had a great time playing back then, easily racking up scores.
2 Likes
Here are a few takes to consider.
These are BRIII vehicles, this means they are being put against the likes of the T34, early KV1, Sherman, Cromwell, Chi-Nu, long gun Panzer IV variants etc… these tanks will struggle to do much against them and that’s as it should be.
They should be able to keep the sky clear and beat up infantry (though I suspect not as well as things like the Chi Ha Short Gun, 105 Sherman etc).
If they get up tiered well, they can still do their job. If they get downtiered (particularly if someone is bringing T1 vehicles into a II/III match) then they’ll be a bit more powerful against armour. That seems fair and reasonable.
Note that T3 normally gets downtiered, unlike what some people are suggesting because you need to be a crazy masochist to play T4 (I think 5 should be split into 5 and 6 but that’s just me).
All of this looks good.
I would be willing to bet that the tech tree additions will be an open-topped AA vehicle for each faction at T3.
3 Likes
I also hope BR6 gets added in the future. Then some vehicles from BR4 can be moved up to BR5, making room for units like the VK 3002 and KV-85 at BR4. This will narrow the performance gap between different brackets.
Since DF has reintroduced anti-aircraft vehicles as pre-order content after all these years, they will likely add new AA units to the tech tree. Still, we have to worry that these AA vehicles might take spots that should go to key tank squads, which would be problematic.
When BR2 and BR3 players are put in the same match, if the BR2 side outperforms the BR3 side, it just means the BR3 teammates are slacking and incompetent. Within the uptier system, BR3 players are supposed to lead and hold the line. Sometimes a squad leader from BR3 matters far more than regular BR2 teammates.
This is the SPAA in the tech tree that we can expect on BR3.
5 Likes