A historical comparison in the Game

Start with design. It's a tank that outweights PzIV(H) by 20 tons (44.8 tons against 25), T-34 by 12 (32.2 tons for T-34-85) and Sherman by 14 (30.3). Germans could call it like they wanted, but it wasn't a medium tank to start with.
Is it a miracle that it had superior armor?

But add two more tonns and you've got IS-2 that had better armor protection, better gun (75-mm of the Panther was more like dedicated AT, 122-mm being slower but stil more versatile)

Weight isn't the only thing to consider, it weighed a lot because it mounted a large gun and had excellent armour protection. It also was only slightly less mobile than a Sherman or T-34.

And I wouldn't compare the IS-2's gun with the Panther's. The Panther's gun was designed for AT, it fired a 75mm high velocity shell designed to defeat any equal tank on the battlefield. The IS-2's gun was designed with 'breakthrough' in mind, utilizing powerful HE Shells. The IS-2's AT rounds had similar penetration performance to the Panther's, but was notably much much harder to reload. The massive gun had to be set to the neutral position (meaning each shot had to be aimed individually), and the large two-piece shells were heavy and difficult to load, leading to a much slower rate-of-fire than the Panther, and undesirable in a tank battle. The IS-2 was meant to shatter the defenses for the much faster and more versatile T-34/85's to exploit, while the Panther was meant to combat other tanks including heavy-hitters like the IS-2.

Add the fact, that Panther's design left no place for any upgrades(check how PzIII and Pz IV evolved). So afterwards Panther was intended to be replaced first by Panther 2, then remember E-series E-50 project.

The Panther II and Entwicklung series are completely unrelated to the Panther's supposed inability to be upgraded, which isn't true. First off, the Panther did get upgrades over it's life-span, the very fact that a Panther Ausf. G exists is proof. The Panther II was a heavier version of the Panther. At Hitler's insistence, it was to trade speed and mobility for armour and firepower, but never came to fruition and only one chassis was built.

The Entwicklung was a completely separate project to simplify all tank production into one standardized set, which would be much cheaper and easier to make and maintain. This never came to fruition either due to the rapidly deteriorating situation on all fronts, and only one partially completed E-100 chassis was made.


In the end I'm not saying the Panther was perfect, like coh2player said, it had reliability problems like much of Germany's armour. The entire reason the E-series was devised was to solve this one-and-for-all, but for Germany, the solution was far far too late.

Gameplay > realism...

/thread

Panthers destroyed more than they costed. T-34s did not.

T-34 helped to destroy Barbarossa and other germans plans. But yep - more fap at the Panthers They "destroyed more". lol

Revanshists are so funny.

T-34 helped to destroy Barbarossa and other germans plans. But yep - more fap at the Panthers They "destroyed more". lol

Well, somebody claimed they didn´t. That´s not true.

Revanshists are so funny.

It´s a fact. You are the one getting personal. Let me guess, you watched history channels greatest tanks and saw the T-34 was the bestest!!11!

Tactically, against superior German tanks, the T-34 isn't very good.

Strategically, where war is getting their firstest, with the mostest, the T-34 was pretty good.

It would be nice if some of you guys could cite sources, like something out of a book or academic paper

It's 1943 soviet and 1944 US equipment vs 1944-45 german. No need to say more.

Funny thing is Relic succesfully skipped both gameplay and realism in this game.

Tactically, against superior German tanks, the T-34 isn't very good.

Strategically, where war is getting their firstest, with the mostest, the T-34 was pretty good.

T34s were good, because they were always there and were easily replaced en mass.

Here, in coh2 its 5 T34 for 4 P4s, which doesn't give any advantage at all as 4 P4s will still walk over 5 T34s, so the only historical T34 advantage-availability doesn't exist in coh2, while all P4 advantages except range do exist.

And vet bonuses difference makes the gap into a huge rift, because T34s could just as well start with vet3 and still be equally ineffective.

Yeha that is well I think Relic messed up. Axis tanks look better on paper and the game captures that. But they fail to capture the advantages of Allied tanks, mainly its strategic use and how it was produced.

/thread

Then: U dont understand the thread. And this guy which u quoted too not.

T34s were good, because they were always there and were easily replaced en mass.

Here, in coh2 its 5 T34 for 4 P4s, which doesn't give any advantage at all as 4 P4s will still walk over 5 T34s, so the only historical T34 advantage-availability doesn't exist in coh2, while all P4 advantages except range do exist.

And vet bonuses difference makes the gap into a huge rift, because T34s could just as well start with vet3 and still be equally ineffective.

This.

Short: German Faction = Real and Balanced
Allied Factions = Unreal and unbalanced. U understand, all?

This.

Short: German Faction = Real and Balanced
Allied Factions = Unreal and unbalanced. U understand, all?

That´s how this realism discussion has come to life. If we just go for individual performance allied tanks are already a bit stronger than they were. For example you can drive up some T-34s to a Panther and then retreat them again.

Sovs could have cheaper T-34s, I agree on that though, but not on a 5:1 basis for stated reasons.

Real? Without side armor, hardly.

Panther's side armor could be penetrated by 45-mm gun (there was a case, when T-70 managed to disable two Panthers from the ambush.). Of course not from big range, but it happened.

Here Panther can turn it's side towards you and shoot, because there is no side armor.

(Well, obviously it wouldn't work without serious pathing and other stuff), but it's not correct to speak for real at this game.

It would be nice if some of you guys could cite sources, like something out of a book or academic paper

Not gonna lie, I got most of my stuff from TV documentaries, but I really believe the "German War Files" is quite recommendable.



About 50 minutes devoted to each of the German tanks and assault guns.
Nothing but actual WWII footage.

You seem to be forgetting the fact that the t34 was much faster than the panthers on cross-country/not on roads.

Anyhow T34 were mostly used as exploitation tools, exploiting a breach made by other divisions, then ravaging the rear of the German army: logistics, rear echelon, airfields, etc.

Sadly the increased mobility isn't represented in game. Panzers get blitzkrieg at vet 1, while t34 get "capture territory" which doesn't help them survive. You need vet 3 so they actually learn how to drive.


My sources are the books from Jean Lopez, but they're in French

It would be nice if some of you guys could cite sources, like something out of a book or academic paper

I can cite a source!

Le Panther, France's 1947 assessment of the panthers rebuilt from the ones littering the countryside. Pretty sure you can't find it online but you can find excerpts. Talks about a lot of the good qualities and the ones that they felt made it unusable.

This is my favorite (because it's never mentioned or modeled in games).

Aside from his periscope gun sight ( which is excellent), the gunner has no other type of observation device. He is therefore practically blind, ­ one of the greatest shortcomings of the Panther.

The gunsight with two magnification stages is remarkably clear and has its field of view clear in the center. The gunsight enables observation of a target and shells out to over 3000 meters.

Once the commander has located a target, it takes between 20 and 30 seconds until the gunner can open fire. This data, which is significantly greater than that of the Sherman, stems from the absence of a periscope for the gunner.

It's 1943 soviet and 1944 US equipment vs 1944-45 german. No need to say more.

Funny thing is Relic succesfully skipped both gameplay and realism in this game.

Imo it's more like the original factions are 1943-1944 and the new factions are 1944-1945.

And vet bonuses difference makes the gap into a huge rift, because T34s could just as well start with vet3 and still be equally ineffective.

T-34/76 should get a health buff at Vet 2 or 3.

Aside from his periscope gun sight ( which is excellent), the gunner has no other type of observation device. He is therefore practically blind, ­ one of the greatest shortcomings of the Panther.
The gunsight with two magnification stages is remarkably clear and has its field of view clear in the center. The gunsight enables observation of a target and shells out to over 3000 meters.

Reminds me of trying to gun in Red Orchestra, the tank gunner can only see through the telescope, which made it extremely hard to fire on the move because any movement was exaggerated immensely. A 2% rotation would shift half your screen.

Well, somebody claimed they didn´t. That´s not true.

It´s a fact. You are the one getting personal. Let me guess, you watched history channels greatest tanks and saw the T-34 was the bestest!!11!

You must check some german panzer officers order to Panters crews. Just for lulz about how "good" this "best" tank was.

You must check some german panzer officers order to Panters crews. Just for lulz about how "good" this "best" tank was.

The orders were usually to keep the distance as it had thin side armor (I don´t know why people exclusively refer to that on the Panther as it is pretty much this way for most tanks). Especially in the battle of the bulge it didn´t reach its full potential as the environment was narrow and thus the sides were exposed easily. But on the far ranges in the east it was very hard to take down. It´s designed to be used that way. If deployed correctly it was a tactical nightmare to face.

T34s were good, because they were always there and were easily replaced en mass.

Here, in coh2 its 5 T34 for 4 P4s, which doesn't give any advantage at all as 4 P4s will still walk over 5 T34s, so the only historical T34 advantage-availability doesn't exist in coh2, while all P4 advantages except range do exist.

And vet bonuses difference makes the gap into a huge rift, because T34s could just as well start with vet3 and still be equally ineffective.

Irony there being that Ram was nerfed and value redistributed, as a result of Sov whine.

Ram used to be a fantastic cost-efficient equalizer vs T3 grade armor.
Goes to show you need to be careful what you whine about enmasse, cos younmight like the alternative even less.

Furthernore, at cost, IF the guide section is updated:
4x PIV= 1280/460
4× T34= 1220/340

Meaning at pure unit cost, without including tier cost, which Im too lazy to add, 4xPIV should beat 4xT34 anyways.
5× T34= 1400/425
So even there, at fuel cost which is primary in vehicle comparison, 4xPIV should still beat 5xT34.
Ram used to make up the difference as a free tactical disabler, exchanging a cheaper armor for a more expensive one, but Sov whine lead to its nerfing in favor of better T34 bsse stats.

With Ram as it was, 5xT34w could categorically beat 4xPIVs, by Ramming with 4, and finishing them off with the 5th. But Sov whine changed that.