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.
Posts: 2819
it should consistently beat
Posts: 105
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 ?
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.
Posts: 410
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.
Posts: 578
^
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.
Posts: 1571
Posts: 1042
Posts: 99
Posts: 578
You missed out Operation Bagration for one thing...
Posts: 24
Posts: 4928
Posts: 1571
No one here is claiming that the germans were winning these battles, just if they came out with a higher "K/D" ratio.
Posts: 105
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.
Posts: 578
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.
Posts: 344
Posts: 644
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.
Posts: 331
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.
Posts: 978
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.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.
T-34 es numero uno
Posts: 1042
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.
Posts: 578
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.
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
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.
Posts: 1571