My take on tank battles

it should consistently beat

This. Consistently.
They should be consistent, every tank. Not super RNG.

Plus you forgot the StuggE. It should be more useful imo.

I have been interested in this subject for 10 years. There are few reasons why the German side had higher kill claims with their tank crews. This makes the German 'aces' more human and less Nazi super soldier.

1. Inflation through Nazi Propaganda. Use of fake kill numbers and 'super soldier' of the week was the Nazi version of celebrity. By emphasizing Luftwaffe Aces, Panzer Aces, and Infanterie aces they could convince their people that Germany had a chance of winning ww2.

Question is how many of the kill counts posted by Affe was internal info and how much for propaganda.

2. The soviet way of using tanks was more like artillery ammunition. They had lots of tanks compared to the Germans and could afford to use them this way. The high losses has more due to Soviet aggressiveness rather than German skill or quality of their equipment. They exchanged tank losses for victory.

"rather then skill or quality" read your points 3. and 4. again.

3. Defensive stances. Tanks in the defense typically could inflict high tank losses on attackers in WW2 provided that their defense didn't collapse. The Panzers spent most of their time defending.

Actually Germans were attaking all the time, only after Kursk (a massive defensive line) 1943 Soviets became more offensive then the Germans

4. Target rich environment and the defensive use of the Tiger Tank. The Tiger Tank simply had armor and gun advantages in the USSR that made it more survivable than other tank destroyers.

And why soviets couldnt do the same at the beging of war in the east. When the T34/76 was superior to all German armor gun and armor wise? Probably because german crews had more skill?

Overall, German tank crews as a whole weren't particularly skilled compared to veteran Soviet, US or British by 1944.

They had less ammuntion and fuel supplys, no air support and still were able to get even/or them favoring tank exange ratios, or not ?

My response, tho it gets too much off topic you will make any sense since most of your posts are for some reason downgrading the Wehrmachts military effciveness.

The Nazi media tended to do hero worship more than the Allies. Newsreels and Newspaper articles would publicize heroes (knight's cross holders) and their stories. The aces were an important part of Nazi propaganda.

The German super soldier is largely a myth. The German Army peaked in 1939-1941. It was still good in 1942 but after that it became more and more incompetent.

And soviets did not? for example hero of the soviet union or soviet snipers getting gloryfied like for example female snipers. This is mostly your subjective opioion.

In 1943 and 1944 German ground forces were still even or even sligthly better quality wise but not in quantity.

My take on the new upcoming vehicle patch:

The gist of it is Soviets should have better end game tanks than the germans as they had better tanks in the war. This isn't western front where german Armour reigned supreme, the soviets had better tanks mid and late war one that would demolish a tiger or panther tanks such as the IS2 and ISU152.

• First off at guns need to be re worked – hold fire ability for starters, better vehicle targeting and faster lateral transverse speed – to be able to always track a moving vehicle instead of playing catch up. At guns have to become viable to destroy Heavy tanks such as the IS2 ( having between 2-3 should be more than enough to keep one at bay if used propely)
  
  
  
• One shot kill issue – this should be minimized, 1 shot squad wipes are not good for the game and isu and is2 do it on the regular, even on retreat.
  
  
• Tanks need to take about 1/2 the shots to die than they currently do - a king tiger could be annihilated by 2 at guns ( using AP rounds) in less time than it usually takes to kill a su 85 with a panther. The tank feel like big damage sponges and its terrible.
  
  
  
  
  Im sick of the absolutely basic way tank battles play out in coh 2. Its 2 lumps going head to head and the “better” tank always wins. What that means is each tank taking 15 shots and the one with more hp wins, manoeuvring, flanking, attacking from rear, hiding behind buildings or cover, reverse and forward acceleration and side and rear armour stats mean nothing.
  
  
  This needs to be changed – I want to see tanks that are technically worse get the upper hand if used wisely – this means hitboxes need to come back, proper rear and side armour stats need to come back, different forward and reverse speeds need to be implemented as well as different penetration at distance.
  
  Similar to the way how pios can now beat cons if used properly id like to see t34s take on pz4 and win considerably if you outplay your opponent.
  
  Its undeniable that ost has the infantry advantage – and I think soviets should have the end game heavy armour advantage ( doctrinal with the IS2, KV2, ISU152 ect) the tiger was not the best tank of the war – maybe on the western front but in the east russian armour ruled supreme by the later stages of the war)
  
  
  
• IS2: should be the best tank in the game – it should consistently beat the tiger in a 1 v 1 situation, should have better front armour, more damage, more health and slightly higher speed – its rear and side armour can be less than the tiger tho to give it some weaknesses.
  
  
• Isu 152 should be able to beat up enemy tanks and aenemy infantry – but you need to cycle between HE and armour piercing rounds with a significant but not over thetop delay – this will stop you just parking it and taking out the whole ostheer force.
  
  
• T34: should be a viable AI tank and not bad AT tank ( when used correctly) iat close range it should have high enough pen to soundly beat pz4 in a 1 v 1 if gets a superior position ( ie attack from the rear or sides)
  
  
• T34/85 should beat pz4 in a head to head but not the panther in a 1 v 1 unless It attacks from the rear or side.
  
  
• Pz4 should be a superior mid game tank to anything soviets can bring out at the time (t34 or su76) and will soundly beat su85 if attack from side or rear.
  
  
• Panther: This tank should still be a menace – its fast, well armoured and packs a serious AT punch – the machine guns should do less damage to inf though as it should not be a solid infantry killer, and its front armour should be very good – side and rear armour should be weak ready to be exploited buy at guns and well place tank hunters. Its job would be to out manoeuvre and destroy enemy armour and would be proably one of the best pound of pound tanks in the game ( price, front armour strength and AT capability) but with much more weakness on side and rear than it has now and would be more vulnerable to infantry if unsupported.
  
  SU85: still too many advantages in my book – needs to have weak side and rear armour be properly punished for over extending – should have great AT punch and solid front armour.
  
  
  
• 
  Su76: should accelerate forward and reverse faster and be more maeuverable as well as have good sight radius ( open topped) this will enable it to get into flanking ambush positions against enemy armour and rain down arty on infantry and get out of immediate danger due to speed. It should have same damage as su85 but lower penetration over med range but remain weak armour and
  low hp
  
  
  
• 
  AT nades and faust should be directional and do more damage accordingly to where they hit (side front rear) like in COH.
  
  
• Stug should be better against inf and against tanks ( to be a dependable AI and AT platform if used well) and a bit tougher from the front - the side and rear armor should be pretty low to allow it to be outflanked and destroyed with ease if unsupported. This would mean stug could form the base of any ost force if it needed to but would not be used to spearhead a assault. on a 1 v 1 head to head should just about lose to a su85 ( but would be worse due to less AT damage and less range) but be a great all rounder
  
• 
  Ostwind: Is good as is - I think it could do with some more sight range due to being open topped.
  
  
  
• KV8 - Flame and or health need to be nerfed. If its damage is going to remain the same it needs 40% health reduction it simply takes way too much to be destroyed. If not then increase the chance for engine critical by a big margin due to fuel tanks.
  
  
  
• t70 I think it should have the fire rate and reload time similar to the m8 scout car, it does good damage but i think its a bit off with the ROF and reload - this way would create a new and better way to use it.

+1

^


For the most part, if you look at allied histories of their ADs they generally write about beating the Germans and inflicting heavier losses than they took.


The German super soldier is largely a myth. The German Army peaked in 1939-1941. It was still good in 1942 but after that it became more and more incompetent.

Western Front:

Battle of Monte Cassino(1944)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Monte_Cassino
German losses: 20000
Allied losses: 55000

Operation Shingle(1944)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Shingle
German losses: 40000
Allied losses: 43000

Battle of Hürtgen Forest(1944)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_H%C3%BCrtgen_Forest
German losses: 28000
USA Losses: 33000

Battle of the Bulge(1944-1945):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Bulge
german losses: 67,200 – 100,000 and 600 tanks
USA Losses: 89,500 and 800 tanks

Operation Market Garden(1944):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Market_Garden
german losses: 3,300–13,300 and 30 tanks
Allied losses: 15,326–17,200 and 88 tanks

Operation Nordwind(1944):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Nordwind
German losses: 23000
USA losses: 29000

Operation Overlord(June 6– 25 August 1944)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Overlord
german losses: 209,875–450,000(mostly of them prisoners) +2,127 planes +2,200 tanks
allied losses: 226,386 +4,101 planes +4,000 tanks

Eastern Front:

Battle of Kursk:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kursk
german losses: 305565 and 760 tanks
soviet losses: 863303 and 6064 tanks

Battle of Narva(1944):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Narva_(1944)
german losses: 68,000 casualties
soviet losses: 480,000 casualties + 300 tanks

Battle of the Korsun–Cherkassy Pocket(1944)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korsun%E2%80%93Shevchenkovsky_Offensive
german losses: 30000-50000 and 156-249 tanks
soviet losses: 80188 and 728 tanks

Battle of Debrecen(1944)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Debrecen
german losses: 35,000 and 200 tanks
soviet losses: 117,360 and 500 tanks

Siege of Budapest(1944-1945)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Budapest
German losses: 99000–150000 dead, wounded or captured
Soviet losses: 320082 dead, wounded, missing or sick


I think these numbers Show that the german army in 1944-1945 was not that incompetent like you say.It s not bad for an army that fought on many fronts at the same time and were very often outnumbered in everything.

Note how they lost almost every copy & paste battle you posted. Winning and taking territory is different from defending it and getting beaten.

The German army in 1944 was mostly not offensive capable at the operational and strategic level. Their last strategic victory was in Kharkov in early 1943.

So you can't invent new ways of winning...........at Kursk, the Germans for the first time launched a full offensive and could not penetrate the Soviet operational depths. They would never penetrate soviet operational depths ever again in WW2. The gig was up.

It didn't matter that Soviet tank losses and infantry casualties were several times the German by Sept. 1943. The Soviets had retaken the Ukraine and beaten the Germans out of the Mius defensive line & broke the back of the Ostheer.

You missed out Operation Bagration for one thing...

No one here is claiming that the germans were winning these battles, just if they came out with a higher "K/D" ratio.

You missed out Operation Bagration for one thing...

Operation Bagration
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bagration
german losses: reaching from 300,000-600,000 Overall Casualties(depending on different sources)
soviet losses: 770,888 Overall Casualties +2,957 tanks +822 aircraft

The summer of 1942 was the last time germans used blitzkrieg , after that it was defending and retreating.

The ability should stay in the game but if used run the risk of engine damage or track coming off disabling the tank.

T34- Ram should stay like blitz but the one thing that annoys me about this tank it should be a lot quicker and more manoeuvrable , I am talking Cromwell tanks (coh1) speed if not faster then getting in close to german tanks would be easier. If they make it faster then reduce range of ram.

Personally I think Ostheer Tanks should have a 'Focus Sight' Vet Ability that increases view and range by 10 or 15 but requires the tank to be static or slow moving (so moving an inch or turning doesn't interrupt the fire-cycle.), and the T-34 should get Flank Speed and Ram would be changed to just stun both tanks and deal no more than 10% damage to both.

No one here is claiming that the germans were winning these battles, just if they came out with a higher "K/D" ratio.

The argument here is that the German military was 'qualitatively' superior based on tank and infantry casualties alone. (beancounting logic)

The German military was incapable of deep penetrations on a narrow front in 1943-1945. The Panzer Armies, even with local superiority in the initial stages, were incapable of breaking into Soviet operational depths from spring 1943 onward. Unlike in 1942 the Panzer divisions/korps could be stopped with local soviet forces and reserves. An Army that can't attack and only defend: that's called being militarily bankrupt.

The argument here is that the German military was 'qualitatively' superior based on tank and infantry casualties alone. (beancounting logic)

The German military was incapable of deep penetrations on a narrow front in 1943-1945. The Panzer Armies, even with local superiority in the initial stages, were incapable of breaking into Soviet operational depths from spring 1943 onward. Unlike in 1942 the Panzer divisions/korps could be stopped with local soviet forces and reserves. An Army that can't attack and only defend: that's called being militarily bankrupt.

They couldnt penetrate the Soviets lines because the Soviets out numbered not because soviets had better training or qualitive superiority. Soviets had a quantitative advantage. Isnt there the rule that you should out number your enemy x4 if you are the attaking side, Germans never were in such a situation, since when they attaked at Kursk or try to counter attak they were outnumbered by the soviets, at some section of the fornt soviets outnumbered them 1:20.

Note how they lost almost every copy & paste battle you posted. Winning and taking territory is different from defending it and getting beaten.

The German army in 1944 was mostly not offensive capable at the operational and strategic level. Their last strategic victory was in Kharkov in early 1943.

Of course they lost. At this time they were fighting in the east(soviet union), west(in france) and south(in italy) at the same time and were outnumbered in soldiers, tanks and aircrafts. But they still were able to hurt the soviets/allies very bad and giving them a hard time.

And of course the Wehrmacht had still offensive power.I don t know how much you know about all this battles but These battles were indeed allied offensives but the battles often lasted many weeks and were full of german counterattacks.It was not like the Wehrmacht just sitting around.When the soviets/allies captured a City/village then the Wehrmacht often starts a counterattack on the next day, pushing the allies out and recapture the territory.The Wehrmacht just couldn t hold it for a Long time because the allied had bring in new reserves and gain control over the territory again.

Inside most of the battles the Germans often startet surprisingly successful counterattacks which allowed them to regain territory for a short time.They just couldn t start BIG offensives because they didn t had the manpower, ressources and material for that.

Only because they didn t had the ressources anymore to Launch big offensives didn t mean that they were an incompetent army.

I read only the first page.

The biggest issue with Soviet tanks wasn't down to the raw performance, the engine, the armor, the gun. It was the poor optics, poor vision from within the tank, and terrible layout that made crew communication a nightmare. T-34-85s didn't even get radios as standard equipment until late 1943 iirc.

German anti-tank gun crews reported being able to fire 2-3 shells at a T-34 before the crew was able to react accordingly--this is from Operation Barbarossa, where the PaK 36 was more effective than what it's often credited with. German tank crews could have shells out in reply to Soviet ATG crews after the first or second shot from the ATG, because their vehicles had better optics, vision ports, and above all, a radio for every vehicle and a comms system for every tank.

If the T-34 had had those boons, it would have been a far more effective vehicle. Raw armor/speed/whatever can often lose out to the human element. You can't shoot what you can't see.

This is not really true as the tank losses statistics Show it:
http://www.wwiivehicles.com/wwii/production.asp
go on "tank losses".
The soviets lost more then 83500 tanks while Germans only 25,584.

tank loss statistics (as hemorraging as the idea already is for a computer game) are useless, because most tanks don't die to enemy fire.

what matters how ever is the fact that the soviet union won the war, hence they had the better army. this war was decided largely by massive tank battles, like the battle of kursk. therefore, the SU had the better tanks.

T-34 es numero uno

I read only the first page.

The biggest issue with Soviet tanks wasn't down to the raw performance, the engine, the armor, the gun. It was the poor optics, poor vision from within the tank, and terrible layout that made crew communication a nightmare. T-34-85s didn't even get radios as standard equipment until late 1943 iirc.

German anti-tank gun crews reported being able to fire 2-3 shells at a T-34 before the crew was able to react accordingly--this is from Operation Barbarossa, where the PaK 36 was more effective than what it's often credited with. German tank crews could have shells out in reply to Soviet ATG crews after the first or second shot from the ATG, because their vehicles had better optics, vision ports, and above all, a radio for every vehicle and a comms system for every tank.

If the T-34 had had those boons, it would have been a far more effective vehicle. Raw armor/speed/whatever can often lose out to the human element. You can't shoot what you can't see.

This is a great post - and i think it would be interesting to have soviet have the dominant heavy tanks in the game, they learned a lot by the end of the war and the discrepancies between german and soviet tanks are no where like sherman vs the tiger or something..

People just buy into the whermact mystique and its just not true. I think theres no doubt wher had more highly trained infantry and tank crews but the soviet union had some great tanks for sure.

what matters how ever is the fact that the soviet union won the war, hence they had the better army. this war was decided largely by massive tank battles, like the battle of kursk. therefore, the SU had the better tanks.

T-34 es numero uno

That logic is totally ignoring the fact Germans were under constant air bombardment of Britain by day and the US by night, were fighting in France, North Afrika/Italy the Atlantic at the same time while having to keep troops in Norway and other countries. This is totally ignoring supply lines also. Those were the deciding factors of the war.

If you lose more stuff your army is most likely not better. If you lose a multiple amount of tanks, your tanks are likely not better.

I highly doubt you would find the T-34 acceptable if you were sitting in one and were asked to attack a German tank.

That logic is totally ignoring the fact Germans were under constant air bombardment of Britain by day and the US by night, were fighting in France, North Afrika/Italy the Atlantic at the same time while having to keep troops in Norway and other countries. This is totally ignoring supply lines also. Those were the deciding factors of the war.

If you lose more stuff your army is most likely not better. If you lose a multiple amount of tanks, your tanks are likely not better.

I highly doubt you would find the T-34 acceptable if you were sitting in one and were asked to attack a German tank.

Soviet crews thought their T-34s were pretty good, though you'll just claim that's propaganda.

The air bombardment thing doesn't cut it, German tank production increased through the war, the only major effect tank production wise from the air war was the shutting down of the Maus project.

Soviet crews thought their T-34s were pretty good, though you'll just claim that's propaganda.

The air bombardment thing doesn't cut it, German tank production increased through the war, the only major effect tank production wise from the air war was the shutting down of the Maus project.

The German tank production increased only because Albert Speer has mobilized more Manpower and ressources.He also changed the production System to "Total war productioN".

The air bombardings caused the destruction of tenthousands of german tanks.
An example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_II

Production

The Tiger II was developed late in the war and built in relatively small numbers - 1,500 Tiger IIs were ordered, but production was severely disrupted by Allied bombing.[23] Among others, five raids between 22 September and 7 October 1944 destroyed 95 percent of the floor area of the Henschel plant. It is estimated that this caused the loss in production of some 657 Tiger IIs.[24] Only 492 units were produced

Another example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panther_tank#Production

Production
Allied bombing was first directed at the common chokepoint for both Panther and Tiger production, the Maybach engine plant. This was bombed the night of 27/28 April 1944 and production was shut down for five months. A second manufacturer factory had already been planned, the Auto Union Siegmar plant (former Wanderer car factory), and this came online in May 1944.[9] Targeting of Panther factories began with a bombing raid on the DB plant on 6 August 1944, and again on the night of 23/24 August. MAN was struck on 10 September, 3 October and 19 October 1944, and then again on 3 January and 20/21 February 1945.

The british and US bombing raids helped the soviets and allies very much and maked it a lot easyer for them on the battlefield.

But i see you didn t have much ideas about the things you are talking about here in the thread.

Beancounting logic: During the conquest of Denmark, the Danish military suffered 16 casualties and inflicted 200+ on the Germans.

Ergo, the Danish military is 'superior' to the German. Silly, right?

So the Danish military is 'qualitatively' superior; that they had no ability to conduct offensive operations and got totally defeated is not even considered.

Most of the Soviet high losses after the military restructuring and reform (1943-1945) were caused from their offensive operations and not the defense. When in the defense they usually marginalized German counteroffensives & counterattacks rather quickly. The Germans were only capable of shallow penetrations at this point.

The German panzer divisions lost their offensive edge at this point even if they conducted offensive operations with local superiority; they were incapable of penetrating soviet units and local reserves into the operational rear even if they outnumbered and outgunned the soviets in the local sector.

Their counterattacks were really just a thousand papercuts; they could only inflict losses and run away before Soviet reserves responded in full but not force a situation at the operational level. This is why one can get the sense that the German commanders were so obsessed with tank kill ratios and the like rather than winning. In comparison, the Red Army's attacks at this point were like stabbing a man in the stomach.

The mark of a good army in WW2 was being able to conduct long range offensive operations (extending over months) with operational and strategic level results. This covers everything an effective war machine can do (troop, logistics, command, operations, etc.) That's pretty much the story of the (most particularly) first 11 panzer divisions & the Ostheer armies in 1939-1942 (before their cadres were decimated).

By 1943 the situation switched it was the Soviet tank army that was doing this and not the Panzer Army. And the US/British/CW Armies as well. The Soviets had a way of winning the war with heavy use of tanks/SPGs and lightly equipped infantry. The Allied armies advanced on a broad front and relied most on heavy firepower and heavily equipped troops.

The Germans (pre-1943) used superior maneuver operations, communications, tactics, military doctrine, and combat operations to win. Post 1942 the German armies had no game plan as their tricks were getting countered and eventually in full. Same thing with the Panzer divisions. Even though their equipment got heavier and sexier their comparative advantages declined continuously against their opponents.

Take FM Rommel from the 'Rommel Papers' during the summer of 1944: [paraphrase] We [OB West] are inferior to the enemy in all areas except for a few equipment items.