Like, when I played Soviets at the beginning, my KV-1 faced everything, F2 and III N and at the end, the Germans usually killed me with suicide stukas. And the cannon was good enough against N. Mabye different experience.
didnt get F2 gun buffed a while ago?
But remember, no TT or Event MP-717(r) because muh privileges.
I remember buying around 30-40 of those before the unjustified removal.
Best Enlisted decision I took.
Itās not AP which you shot - it was APHEBC (Armour-Piercing, High-Explosive, Ballistic Capped)
Well, maybe because the Wehrmacht tanks are, up to the āPantherā tanks, structurally repeating the PZ.1 of the thirties, and the Soviet ones are already interwar models developed in the forties, and also the Christie suspension is simply better than the spring suspension, but in general you are perhaps the first one who highlights German tanks have this problem.
What part of the BT-7 did you shoot at? A cumulative projectile does not have much armor-piercing effect, if you fired at a part of the tank where there is no crew or ammunition, then it is obvious that you will not destroy it like that.
And finally, I must point out that the KV-1 is not invulnerable even against tanks lower than the KV-1, just shoot at the driverās hatch, any hit and penetration destroys the tank from the first shot.
The tanks 3 and 4 werenāt exactly copies of the PZ1. Where did you get that from? And the Christie suspension caused a huge amount of sway along the hull while moving, so the barrel had to be ācaughtā to fire.
So, in your opinion, itās logical to penetrate a tank in multiple places with a HEAT round and it shouldnāt explode?
Youāre completely off topic about tanks of that period. A HEAT round, while burning through armor, can also tear off chunks from the inside of that same armor. And keep in mind the small interior space of Soviet tanks, which increases the chances of destruction.
Well, the fact that I was the first to raise this issue indicates the unfussy of the Enlisted audience, and perhaps also a lack of knowledge on these issues.
I sense a desire for Soviet tanks to remain unrealistically strong. Is this jingoism or are you playing for this faction?
P.S. Just no offense.
Iām not saying that the PZ3 and PZ4 tanks were exact replicas, but the German industry still couldnāt afford to build truly modern panthers and tigers and used tanks structurally and externally similar to the PZ1 at least to facilitate logistics and not much alter wagons, machines, auxiliary equipment, and probably something else.Something else
well, you donāt seem to understand about cumulative projectiles, we have the same type of cumulative projectiles in the game as the younger brother of var thunder, so if there is not enough explosive to destroy the tank with excessive pressure, only the cumulative jet remains, the main power of which is concentrated in a small cone, so in any case, when when shooting cumulatively, it is necessary to aim at the vulnerable points of the tank, one cannot hope that the fragments themselves will hook the ammunition or the last member of the tank crew, besides, the high rate of fire of the PZ3N allows not only to quickly deal with opponents, but also to quickly shoot the wrong way, so the opinion may be biased
This is definitely true for the Panzer II which only served as a stopgap between Panzer I and Panzer III - IV tanks, but the Panzer IV was the most innovative tank for its time, its 3 man turret put it ahead of other designs.
Though its true that Panzer IV was outdated by 1943, especially in terms of production since its very work intensive, unlike Sherman Panther and T-34 tanks.