State of the balance according to Imperial Dane

Strategically and operationally, Soviet generalship and command of their tank armies were on the ball by 1943. They understand their capabilities and the abilities of their enemies, and this made them successful. They paid attention to logistics and made their operations work. The Germans cannot claim this at all- and this is where they were weak. They made many organizational mistakes in their attitionist quest for high kill ratios which lost them all the ground. Their operations tended to have little strategic sense in the USSR.

Soviet losses were high due to their low cost organization building doctrine. They never intended to make their army highly expensive, low casualty, high power tactical units with 2-3 years of formation like the USA or CW.

Soviet armored formations were generally much weaker than German formations in motorized infantry, armored reconnaissance, communication systems, and mechanized infantry support. They had no indirect fire self-propelled artillery companies like the Germans did post 1943 (wespe, hummel, etc.) and made up for it with direct fire regiments (SU/ISU-122/152, etc.) which had to expose themselves to deliver their fire support. The army had a lot of tanks, but relatively few motorized combat troops and support for the tanks.

The tanks that were lost were easily replaced in offensives and re-crewed with old and new crews. An abandoned tank has the entire crew still intact. A knocked out tank has (generally) 3 operational men left.

i have some doubts about this. even in 1944 the soviets lost 13 k t-34's in the battle of Berlin they lost 2 entire tank armies . It simply doesnt match up what your saying.

The soviets saw tanks as consumables. Their T-34s were probably close to the cost of a Panzer I or II as far as factor inputs go.

Yeah Germany certainly had a high value for human life right? Even if we just count their own, at the end of the war they were sending truck drivers and teenagers to their deaths because they were too stubborn to surrender until Hitler was killed and the Nazi Government in shambles.

Surrender isn't an appealing option when the last time they surrendered their economy was devastated by reparations.

Surrender isn't an appealing option when the last time they surrendered their economy was devastated by reparations.

But it's better when you're getting bombed every day and massacred on every front.

They had no indirect fire self-propelled artillery companies like the Germans did post 1943 (wespe, hummel, etc.) and made up for it with direct fire regiments (SU/ISU-122/152, etc.) which had to expose themselves to deliver their fire support.

What about Katyushas? They kept using rocket artillery straight through to the end of the war, with ever larger rockets.

Surrender isn't an appealing option when the last time they surrendered their economy was devastated by reparations.

The Germans were perfectly fine surrendering to the Americans and British because they expected to be treated relatively fairly. They threw everything they had at the Russians because they expected the Russians to treat them exactly like they treated the Russians, which is to say brutally. You don't burn towns and starve cities and work slave labor to death and enact genocide pogroms without expecting a little payback.

Rocket artillery, while they were used tactically, were too inaccurate for tactical combat and could not replace real artillery. The soviets, in the desperation of 1941, often deployed rocket trucks tactically (like Walking stuka batteries in German panzerpioneer battalions). The soviets however, quickly realized that rocket artillery was ineffective if used in penny packets, and then started organizational building and redesigning their use.

Eventually, they merged their rocket artillery units into Guards mortar brigades, regiments, and other larger units. These were more of an operational weapon- most effectively massed in brigades and used to area saturation a German defense system as part of the artillery fire plan of an artillery division or artillery corps with hundreds of other guns.

The rocket carriers attached to Soviet armored units generally performed the same function but at a lower level- part of a fire plan.

In contrast, German SP artillery (105mm, 150mm) followed the tanks and provided very rapid artillery support for the tanks. The Soviets did not have these, and generally used towed light artillery (76mm) and some mediums (122mm) for tactical artillery support so their reaction time was slower.

Basically, the Panzers had a lot of coordinated combat support, which helped improve their unit survivability immensely vis-a v the Red tanks.

I was under the impression that the Soviets compensated for that with a lot of close air support, especially as the war progressed.

If the T-34 is so awful, why did the Germans enjoy even the worst model?

T-34/76 was held in high regard and also elite units such as Panzergrenadier Division "Grossdeutschland" (Panzer Regiment "Grossdeutschland") used some captured examples as late as 1945. Waffen-SS units also did not hesitate to use captured T-34/76 tanks and 2nd SS Panzer Division "Das Reich" and 3rd SS Panzer Division "Totenkopf" pressed significant number into service. Modifications included installation of commander’s cupola (from damaged Panzerkampfwagen III and IV tanks), Schuerzen (armor skirts) and other equipment such as Notek light, storage boxes, tools, radio equipment and antenna.

Surely such elite divisions wouldn't want to use "the worst tank in WW2"?

You dont let tanks lying around and look what kind of modifications the germans made to the t-34.

I was under the impression that the Soviets compensated for that with a lot of close air support, especially as the war progressed.

As the war progressed and the germans where put on the defensive the soviet build up a huge amount of artillery of their own before an attack. and until 1944 the germans had air superiority

^^

The Soviets achieved air supremacy in 1943. Even in citadel, the concentrated LW only achieved air parity in that sector. The failure of Barbarossa, Blau, Stalingrad, and the Air war in the west reduced LW presence dramatically.

Even as early as the winter of 1941, the Soviets were already making making cuts for their ambitions for their anti-aircraft defense system, as the LW was not that much of a threat unless it was massed in a 'schwerpunkt', the specialty of LW-4 under von Richthofen.

Stalin and STAVKA also believed that the German was finished, and they actually underestimated the abilities of the axis which lend to some operational blunders in the winter-spring of 1942.

I was under the impression that the Soviets compensated for that with a lot of close air support, especially as the war progressed.

That, but tactical air support with the help of air force liaison personnel was not enough and not reliable enough. The key thing was the 'forward detachment', which was a combined armed battlegroup that resembled German Kampfgruppe or US Combat Command in design and deployment.

The Forward detachment was the exploitation weapon of their Tank armies, and generally had the concentrated armor, communications , and mechanized assets that the richer western armies had but on a much smaller scale (brigade sized). The tank corps and the mech. corps were overall formidable, but comparably blunter weapons- lots of tanks, too little mobile infantry and support assets.

And we still wait for Relic to fix US Terminator squads, Maxim spam, OKW Overpriced shithouse armor and MG42/34 uselessness that get melted in the blink of an eye

If the T-34 is so awful, why did the Germans enjoy even the worst model?

T-34/76 was held in high regard and also elite units such as Panzergrenadier Division "Grossdeutschland" (Panzer Regiment "Grossdeutschland") used some captured examples as late as 1945. Waffen-SS units also did not hesitate to use captured T-34/76 tanks and 2nd SS Panzer Division "Das Reich" and 3rd SS Panzer Division "Totenkopf" pressed significant number into service. Modifications included installation of commander’s cupola (from damaged Panzerkampfwagen III and IV tanks), Schuerzen (armor skirts) and other equipment such as Notek light, storage boxes, tools, radio equipment and antenna.

Surely such elite divisions wouldn't want to use "the worst tank in WW2"?

The T-34 was not an "awful" design. It was a serviceable and competent model that was produced by a nation that had the industrial/logistical wherewithal to tolerate the many shortcomings of these vehicles under prolonged total-war.

The problem lies in the many myths and overestimation of the combat-effectiveness and reliability of these tanks and the gross exaggerations of attributing Soviet victory in the east (or German defeat) to a few different pieces of equipment. The T-34 no more won the war than the SVT rifle or RGD grenade. These are just pieces of equipment. As long as they function as they are meant to and are not woefully obsolete/unreliable...in the grand scheme of a theater the size of the eastern front...this tank or that tank is not going to influence the planning and execution of strategic operations in any significant way.

Better equipment gives you a tactical advantage...which is good...and tactical victories can lead to strategic victories...but at the end of the day if Germany had 9000 T-34/85s instead and the USSR produced 50,000+ Panzer IVs...the outcome would likely have been exactly the same.

Can we go back to talking about the game please?

Its sad to see some people resorting to personal attacks without discussing anything in this thread. If you cant add anything without bashing someone then kindly fuck off.

+1

this thread is about Danes opinion/video on the current balance of coh2 and what you think about it. there is no reason why personal attacks are being used or is nazism or other such wartime politics even shows up.

One question to those who are saying shermans and T34s were "superior": Let's say you are going to enter into a deadly tank battle 1v1 - one winner/one survivor type, but you have the liberty to chose between 2 tanks, the other one is for your opponent.

Var 1:
One Tiger - One T34.
Var 2:
One Panther - One sherman.

What would you chose? I'm sure it will be the T34 or the Shermann.... LOL.

One question to those who are saying shermans and T34s were "superior": Let's say you are going to enter into a deadly tank battle 1v1 - one winner/one survivor type, but you have the liberty to chose between 2 tanks, the other one is for your opponent.

Var 1:
One Tiger - One T34.
Var 2:
One Panther - One sherman.

What would you chose? I'm sure it will be the T34 or the Shermann.... LOL.

Why are you comparing medium tanks to heavy tanks? An is 2 vs PIV would also be skewed toward the is 2. And t 34s and shermans were not exactly made for tank combat. Unless it was the 76mm Sherman or the t 34 85 which was more than enuogh vs tigers and decent vs panthers

Asking which tank you would prefer to crew is exactly the wrong question that should be asked. How valuable characteristics are to a crewman is vastly different to how valuable they are on a tactical or strategic level (like how the panther's armor made it incredibly heavy and prone to breaking down).

The sherman and t34 outclass the panther in soft assets like reliability and HE preformance. It was easy enough to invalidate the panther's skewed armor layout (huzzah for 40mm turret and hull side armor!) and terrain did a lot to mitigate the how far away a panther could actually engage (and often putting it well into 76mm range).

Other flaws the panther had were side stowage of ammunition leading to explosive fires (like the sherman), the extreme velocity of the gun made it useless for anything except shooting tanks (the sherman's low velocity gun was capable of moonlighting as light artillery), the gunner only had a telescopic sight (leading to an astonishing 20-30 second delay in firing on targets!), repairing the transmission required the entire turret to be pulled off, and a whole host of other annoyances that could be forgived in isolation.

Don't even mention the final drives.

The French had a sizable force of panthers post war. They had issued a report on it in 1947 called Le Panther. It wasn't all that flattering (although they did praise a number of features) and I took most of the downsides above from excerpts.

You can read on it (along with some commentary from Wargaming resident tanker) here:
http://worldoftanks.com/en/news/21/chieftains-hatch-french-panthers/
I'd link to it directly, but doesn't seem to have been copied online (and would be in french anyway).

Having gone through 8 pages of this thread, there's quite a large number of posts that are invisible, and for good reason too. Please keep the discussion on-topic and end this pathetic bickering.

Some of the people here (without going into names and detail) need to stop posting unless they seriously reevaluate their methodology and way of thinking. The same goes for people who bash Imperial Dane and any other member of the community, no matter their position. This is amplified if you start attacking people that have contributed and continue to do so for the game, the community and are staff on COH2.org. Please keep the discussion civil.

Back on point: There are a number of underlying issues that I have with balance at the moment and I will not reference Dane's video because I have not watched it but I can guess what he's talking about from listening to him on his stream a few times and my own experience.

US Forces

Over Performing

• M19s need a blatant DPS reduction. They are extremely potent and combined with Defensive Stance, they're worse than the old Hit The Dirt! PPSh combination. The suppression is also problematic and with the high DPS, turns riflemen into proning MG teams with a lot of deadliness.
  
• M15 AA Half-track needs a tweaking, it is seriously over performing and is pretty much the go-to unit to build every game. Reminds me of the Flammenwerfer half-track pre-nerf. This unit destroys everything alike, in the hands of someone who is capable of any decent micro, there is nothing bar tanks that it cannot handle. It is too quick, too versatile and too cheap. It's suppression needs to go (this causes the early soft-counters to it to be next to useless). and it needs a delay in deployment time by either increasing the Lieutenant's cost or by further increasing the half-track's.
  
• "Easy Eight" Shermans are a huge problem right now in unison with vetted riflemen off the bat. This unit is far too cost effective and offers an extremely strong mid-late game option.
  

Under Performing

• The Pack Howitzer needs to be buffed, it is too costly and too inaccurate to be of any real use. When you compare this to its infantry support gun equivalent, it is a laughing stock and this greatly shuts down any possibility of a mid-game unit that can provide effective indirect fire.
  
• Mortar Half-track is another under performing unit that simply does not do enough to justify itself.
  
• Rear Echelon Troops, useful for a number of things but extremely limited combat ability and the lackluster state of Volley Fire leave much to be desired.
  

Oberwest Kommando

Over Performing

• Panzerfusiliers are a tad too cost-efficient and are the reason for making breakthrough such a prominent choice in any OKW game. They are a great all around infantry squad with a surprisingly high amount of DPS (especially with G43s) that make them the ideal complimentary unit or a replacement squad. Coupled with grenades, this quickly escalates to a Vet 5 monstrosity.
  
• Obersoldaten are another squad that I believe is simply breaking the rules of engagement. These guys have too many multipliers which makes things like retreating modifiers to be made pretty insignificant. Couple this with their naturally high DPS and you have a recipe for disaster which become near pointless to engage with infantry. While they may be one-shotted by Shermans, other armour and demolition charges, a wise player would not blindly send his elite infantry to its death without some sort of support.
  
• le-18 infantry support gun is another unit I've been keeping my eye on for a while and it seems to be extremely accurate, maybe a bit too accurate to be a "support" gun.
  

Under Performing

• The kübelwagen is a great unit but it is still far too fragile to be worth its 240 manpower investment. Take into account Western Front's silly drive-forward-then-backwards pathing and you're going to struggle to keep this unit alive. The HP increase was well deserved but I fear this unit can be slightly further improved in other areas such as cost.
  
• Flak-track - I don't think this needs any real explanation. It's too cumbersome, too niche and offers next to no advantages over spending 40 fuel on such a static unit which can be spent elsewhere. Its main problem is its deployment time, it makes any sort of escape a futility simply because you don't get smoke until vet 1 and if you get caught off guard even once, you're pretty much guaranteed to lose it. It's suppression and damage are great, along with its cost but its mobility, or lack thereof really diminish its usefulness.
  
• Luchs Panzer II is simply too pricey and comes too late for what it offers. It either needs to be buffed to match its cost and timing (but not excessively, just a small buff to things like the HP would be fine) or a reduction in cost is in order for its current price point.
  

These are the main issues I have with the Western Front's balance, I have purposefully left out certain units such as the M10 "Wolverine" for example because there are more pressing issues. I am aware that Soviets are extremely strong against OKW and that the Wehrmacht's teching system is far too punishing in some cases (T4 is a prime example) but these are less pressing issues which I feel can be independently resolved and addressed by the fixes above. You're very welcome to disagree and critique my opinion and I encourage critical analysis but I thought this thread could use some more useful input than "lol realism > gameplay".