Login

russian armor

German 105 Howitzer is god awful

23 Sep 2014, 05:42 AM
#21
avatar of JohnnyB

Posts: 2396 | Subs: 1

despite popular beleif. the axis isnt supposed to just be a faction filled with better versions of everything that the soviets has.


Yes, we have to forget that this was actually the truth in WW2... only that soviets got 10 times more of everything germans had. The zerg army.

Currently, there is no comparison between soviet howitzer and the ostheer howitzer. The first is better, no doubt. But... where is the 17K18?
23 Sep 2014, 16:50 PM
#22
avatar of Kamfrenchie

Posts: 41

jump backJump back to quoted post23 Sep 2014, 05:42 AMJohnnyB


Yes, we have to forget that this was actually the truth in WW2... only that soviets got 10 times more of everything germans had. The zerg army.

Currently, there is no comparison between soviet howitzer and the ostheer howitzer. The first is better, no doubt. But... where is the 17K18?


are you saying mp40 was better than ppsh ? stuka better than sturmovik ? etc.

Plus you don't really get to zerg the germans in coh 2
23 Sep 2014, 16:56 PM
#23
avatar of Brachiaraidos

Posts: 627

jump backJump back to quoted post23 Sep 2014, 05:42 AMJohnnyB
Yes, we have to forget that this was actually the truth in WW2... only that soviets got 10 times more of everything germans had. The zerg army.

Currently, there is no comparison between soviet howitzer and the ostheer howitzer. The first is better, no doubt. But... where is the 17K18?


No, we have to put on our historical bias-o-vision and start chanting Deutschland Uber Alles while hugging our adolf dolls to suggest that the axis had everything better than the soviets.

German tank design was usually second stick at any given point of the war; the only high points were the introduction of the Tiger and Panther (both massively overrated and horrendously unreliable). At all other points either the Brits or the Russians had better vehicles available.

German infantry was nothing spectacular in and of itself it just happened to have (mostly) competent and modern thinking command at the time. All nations had their crack troops, all nations had their rank and file, all nations conscripted.

Etc. etc. etc.

This whole 'Omg germans super advanced wunderkind army' is an insult to history in the name of painting the villains as bigger so the allies can enjoy underdog victor status and it really, REALLY bugs me.
23 Sep 2014, 17:00 PM
#24
avatar of Airborne

Posts: 281

jump backJump back to quoted post23 Sep 2014, 05:42 AMJohnnyB


Yes, we have to forget that this was actually the truth in WW2... only that soviets got 10 times more of everything germans had. The zerg army.

Still find it funny that people believe that :D
23 Sep 2014, 17:01 PM
#25
avatar of Airborne

Posts: 281

both howizers are bad, the got always be 1 shotted by of mapps. the only that works is Priest, it is way less efficent than both howizer but it can move.
23 Sep 2014, 23:56 PM
#26
avatar of Chernov

Posts: 70

Beside M7 , leFH 18 in this game is a good artillery piece. It's really useful when it got vet, better than ML-20 in my opinion.
24 Sep 2014, 00:30 AM
#27
avatar of Enkidu

Posts: 351

I think that the 105 and 152 both need a bit better accuracy. The fewer shots fired nerf was probably a good thing but the long range scatter on both seems really bad. For such an expensive, fragile unit, it'd be nice if it could at least reliably counter barrage an enemy mortar
24 Sep 2014, 05:58 AM
#28
avatar of JohnnyB

Posts: 2396 | Subs: 1



No, we have to put on our historical bias-o-vision and start chanting Deutschland Uber Alles while hugging our adolf dolls to suggest that the axis had everything better than the soviets.

German tank design was usually second stick at any given point of the war; the only high points were the introduction of the Tiger and Panther (both massively overrated and horrendously unreliable). At all other points either the Brits or the Russians had better vehicles available.

German infantry was nothing spectacular in and of itself it just happened to have (mostly) competent and modern thinking command at the time. All nations had their crack troops, all nations had their rank and file, all nations conscripted.

Etc. etc. etc.

This whole 'Omg germans super advanced wunderkind army' is an insult to history in the name of painting the villains as bigger so the allies can enjoy underdog victor status and it really, REALLY bugs me.


I will ignore your flaming attitude and tell you that I don't want to derail this tread into a pissing contest. There is little to talk with someone who learned in school that soviets, british and americans were the best in everything, germans being just stupid nazi and read nothing more than that. Of course, I could invite you to put on paper every single german and allied tank/vehicle/weapon and compare their technical features. Overall you will discover that: germans had the best tanks, planes, artillery and an equivalent (if not superior) infantry.
So it's understandable why you and other players do not accept a faction as OKW. It is to realistic, to close to what german army was. Best units, best machines but to few and with no resources (fuel, raw materials).
24 Sep 2014, 06:10 AM
#29
avatar of JohnnyB

Posts: 2396 | Subs: 1



are you saying mp40 was better than ppsh ? stuka better than sturmovik ? etc.

Plus you don't really get to zerg the germans in coh 2


Certainly not. But the STG44 was. Better than STG 44 from russian side was kalashnikov, but that was after war. And kalashnikov, for the people who doesn't know, was designed BASED ON STG44. Just compare the pictures of weapons, you don't even need to verify the historical data. Russians STOLE all the projects that they put hands on the occupied countries, even from Romania if you can imagine from where an entire IAR-80 and IAR-81 planes factory was stolen (even the dusters!). So, the improved IAK models appeared. Lolz.
Stuka vs sturmovik? In what way "better"? It was the first dive bomber from the war, yes. Sturmovik wasn't even a DIVE bomber. It was a light bomber, comparable from that point of view with ME110E.
24 Sep 2014, 06:42 AM
#30
avatar of frostbite

Posts: 593

its a 122 I think not 105
24 Sep 2014, 06:49 AM
#31
avatar of ThoseDeafMutes

Posts: 1026

jump backJump back to quoted post24 Sep 2014, 06:10 AMJohnnyB

Certainly not. But the STG44 was. Better than STG 44 from russian side was kalashnikov, but that was after war. And kalashnikov, for the people who doesn't know, was designed BASED ON STG44. Just compare the pictures of weapons, you don't even need to verify the historical data.


Actually the Kalashnikov only superficially resembles the STG44. The idea of a sturm-rifle was copied from it, but the inner workings of the gun are very dissimilar, more closely resembling the firing mechanism of the M1 Garand. The AK47/AKM are only "copies" in the same way that the M16 was a "Copy" of the AK47 - it's a weapon that is designed to fill the same role, and exists in response to the other.
24 Sep 2014, 06:49 AM
#32
avatar of SlaYoU

Posts: 400

Endless argument about who was the best during the war. I'll just add one grain of salt to this: Germans have won the soldier victory, while the Allies have won the diplomat one.I guess odds aren't really in your favour when your high command have erratic decisions, split you one day only to regroup you the next with a new objective, then halt everything to help a useless ally 3000kms away.

All the while being under air pressure from basically everything that could fly from USAF and RAF, destroying your industry power. Still, Wehrmacht held their ground, advanced and conquered in every corner of Europe. Their weapons were ahead of their timeframe (as the war began, and were matched / outclassed in the end only), their soldiers were trained professionals who had plenty of time to prepare the 1939-1941 offensives while most other armies relied on conscription. The difference was very high and explains most of the first lightning victories.

That being said, the fact that it required intensive effort from almost everyone on the allies side + resistance of the first conquered countries to stop the german war effort only highlight how fierce it was. Noone think the allies were the underdogs, germans were, and by far, despite having started the whole thing. This vision of the faction is, i think (and also the esthetics), the reason why people prefer playing with them. Wehrmacht was just a tool for the nazi party, and was betrayed. People admire the tool, but that doesn't mean they admire the owner.
24 Sep 2014, 06:52 AM
#33
avatar of MarcoRossolini

Posts: 1042

Nope, leFH is a 105mm gun.
24 Sep 2014, 07:13 AM
#34
avatar of Airborne

Posts: 281

Lets just disscus the howizers in coh2
24 Sep 2014, 07:25 AM
#35
avatar of Sarantini
Honorary Member Badge
Donator 22

Posts: 2181

Faster fire rate for the german one sounds reasonable, but what I'd liek the most to see is a cost reduction for both howitzers. Something like 500mp. B4 can stay at 600
24 Sep 2014, 07:34 AM
#36
avatar of Mr. Someguy

Posts: 4928

It'd be nice if Howitzers had precision barrage and saturation barrage. One is slower but highly accurate, and the other is as fast as the gun can load and fire but has high spread after the first shot.
24 Sep 2014, 08:05 AM
#37
avatar of JohnnyB

Posts: 2396 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post24 Sep 2014, 06:49 AMSlaYoU
Endless argument about who was the best during the war. I'll just add one grain of salt to this: Germans have won the soldier victory, while the Allies have won the diplomat one.I guess odds aren't really in your favour when your high command have erratic decisions, split you one day only to regroup you the next with a new objective, then halt everything to help a useless ally 3000kms away.

All the while being under air pressure from basically everything that could fly from USAF and RAF, destroying your industry power. Still, Wehrmacht held their ground, advanced and conquered in every corner of Europe. Their weapons were ahead of their timeframe (as the war began, and were matched / outclassed in the end only), their soldiers were trained professionals who had plenty of time to prepare the 1939-1941 offensives while most other armies relied on conscription. The difference was very high and explains most of the first lightning victories.

That being said, the fact that it required intensive effort from almost everyone on the allies side + resistance of the first conquered countries to stop the german war effort only highlight how fierce it was. Noone think the allies were the underdogs, germans were, and by far, despite having started the whole thing. This vision of the faction is, i think (and also the esthetics), the reason why people prefer playing with them. Wehrmacht was just a tool for the nazi party, and was betrayed. People admire the tool, but that doesn't mean they admire the owner.


I couldn't say it better. True in every single word.
24 Sep 2014, 08:47 AM
#38
avatar of Aerohank

Posts: 2693 | Subs: 1

Lets get back on topic.

The Wehrmacht 10.5cm Howitzer is indeed quite poor. I have used it quite a bit over the standard tiger commanders but I have come to the conclusion that you are better of going for the PAK43 if you don't want to go tiger every game.

First, lets look at AT capabilities: Unlike the Soviet Howitzers, the Wehrmacht 10.5cm Howitzer does very little against enemy tanks. When shooting at tanks, it's all about the first few 2-3 shots because the enemy will move out of the barrage zone quickly. The relatively low damage and AoE of the 10.5cm Howitzer often won't do more than scratch the paint job on a close hit, and doesn't do a whole lot of damage on a direct hit. The ML-20 is not only better in this department in that it does more damage to tanks, it also has a precision strike that it can use on stationary tanks receiving repairs; ensuring both a squad wipe of enemy pioneers and more damage to the tank.

Then there are anti-infantry capabilities. Here the 10.5cm Howitzer is also the weakest of the bunch. The comparatively low alpha-damage, combined with bigger enemy squads make shooting at moving/mobile targets very inefficient. When you do have a stationary target to shoot at, like an enemy AT gun, I have found that the 10.5cm often fails to decrew the weapon or even do significant damage to the crew; unless firing from half-range.

Lastly, there is Areal Denial. While the 10.5cm is superior in this regard, it's only by a hair. It used to be extremely good at this role, with 12 shells and 0 seconds cooldown at vet 3. But now it spends most of it's time not shooting.

My suggestions:
- Reduce 10.5cm howitzer cost to reflect performance
OR
- Increase performance. Either decrease the scatter to make it better against enemy stationary positions or increase the number of shells to make it a better Areal Denial tool.
24 Sep 2014, 08:51 AM
#39
avatar of Unshavenbackman

Posts: 680

Isnt 8 cp alot for all howis? Why cant they be like 5 cp?
24 Sep 2014, 09:38 AM
#40
avatar of Alpharius

Posts: 56

5 would be too soon though
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Livestreams

unknown 51
United States 35
United States 25
unknown 11

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

881 users are online: 881 guests
0 post in the last 24h
7 posts in the last week
34 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49122
Welcome our newest member, Harda621
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM