Login

russian armor

What new Soviet unit do you want to see in CoH2?

PAGES (7)down
25 Sep 2014, 18:18 PM
#61
avatar of Affe

Posts: 578


SU-100 would do to Panthers what the Jagdtiger does to T-34-85s. Funny at first but horribly OP. What does the German have as a hope for winning if all their heavies are smashed instantly?

The Main gun of the SU-100(100mm D-10 tank gun)was a Little bit more powerful than the Panthers gun but weaker than the much longer main gun of the King Tiger/Jagdpanther/Elephant. So i dont believe that the SU-100 would easily kill all german heavys.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-10_tank_gun
The D-10 is a high-velocity gun of 100 mm bore diameter, with a barrel length of 53.5 calibres. Muzzle velocity of 895 m/s gave it good antitank performance by late-war standards. Initially it could penetrate about 146mm of steel armor plate angled by 30 degrees at 1,000 m range, superior to the German 75 mm KwK 42 mounted on the Panther tank and the original 88 mm guns such as the Tiger I's KwK 36, but not as good as the Tiger II's longer KwK 43 L/71 gun until after the war, when APDS and more modern ammunition types were developed. A more effective high-explosive shell was developed, taking advantage of the larger 100 mm bore.

25 Sep 2014, 18:28 PM
#62
avatar of Brachiaraidos

Posts: 627

For the Panther that would be point blank range to go through the frontal armor - if at all.

Who both couldn´t be defeated frontally by it. And there were like 90 Ferdinands/Elefants... pretty much no reson to develop a vehicle to counter a tank this rare. It was meant to be a counter versus Panthers and such as those proofed impervious on all but the closest ranges to the available 85mms.


This kinda thing bugs me. No. Stop. Stop this massive over-simplification of tank combat into idealistic theory craft.

King Tigers got knocked out by guns as small as British 6pdr shells. A 152mm HE shell could never in a million years penetrate a KT frontally, but it would still obliterate the tank.

Maximum armour thickness including slope hitting ideally forged steel at the prefect angle of incidence would probably result in a bounce. Pretty much 0% of tank combat happens like this.

Even the SU-85 could penetrate a KT frontally if it got a good angle and hit a good spot. The more your armour relies on angle, the less you can rely on that theoretical value and the more you need to look at absolute thickness compared to the shell in question.

Especially once you start hitting 100mm and up, even hitting plain steel at the angle most optimal for sloped armour can often yield no deflection at all if the armour is thin enough (see panther) because the steel simply cannot handle the impact force of a shell so large and fast.



TL,DR; tank combat is about 70% luck in WW-II. No matter how small your gun is, take the shot.
25 Sep 2014, 19:13 PM
#63
avatar of somenbjorn

Posts: 923

Ok hope you all have gotten that out of your system. I'm not talking about what guns did or didn't do IRL.
But that the SU-100, being an upgraded SU-85 AS THE GAME GOES, would need to have an increased penetration, dmg and armour compared to the SU-85.

Quite a lot actually or it would just be a slightly better SU-85 without the need for T-4. Having it just slightly better would just mean SU-85s never get built.

Having it alot better would mean German heavies, which is 70% of the German faction would be effectively nullified. This isn't a good approach.

Disclaimer this is based on teamgames.
In my mind the Allies already have more than enough dedicated AT, the problem being the Germans have so much better infantry that they can quite easily destroy most of that AT with inf, and the few things the allies can do against it is semi-static MGs or dedicated AI vehicles that can be taken out with little trouble by German infantry or their long-range AT platforms, the allied MGs will get wrecked by artillery or simply overrun.

After that the ger infantry moves in and destroys or damages alot of the allied AT. After that there is little problem for the German heavies to roll in.

Giving the allies a new and improved infantry unit would hopefully negate this problem. That would mean the Ger infantry needs to push already from the get go with their tanks, meaning we would get a situation where we see large battles of composed armies slugging it out.
Instead of having what I see alot of now. That is pushes of german infantry doing their best to knock out some AT before retreating because of Katyusha or some other artillery barrage. When enough AT has been knocked, roll in with tanks.

Hence why I feel there is a need for some more soviet AI infantry rather than AT infantry. That would just make them play more like Germans and would keep the meta more or less the same, I feel we need to mix it up.
25 Sep 2014, 19:28 PM
#64
avatar of Burts

Posts: 1702

jump backJump back to quoted post25 Sep 2014, 18:18 PMAffe

The Main gun of the SU-100(100mm D-10 tank gun)was a Little bit more powerful than the Panthers gun but weaker than the much longer main gun of the King Tiger/Jagdpanther/Elephant. So i dont believe that the SU-100 would easily kill all german heavys.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-10_tank_gun





Yes it would kill all german heavies, because it could do that in real life, and in coh logic, all tank destroyers are completely innefective againts infantry but super good againts tanks.

Even then, the D-10T was just slightly less effective in penetration than the KWK 43/L71

The elephant has 400 penetration, KT has something like 240. Even tho they use the same gun IRL, their gun stats in coh 2 are completely differently due to the elephant being a TD and KT just being an all round heavy tank by purpose.

So an SU-100 would also probaly have huge penetration because of it's TD role, and considering it's penetration and range was superior to that of the ISU-152, in game the penetration would probaly be something like 350 or so and it would have maybe 70 range, same as ISU or elephant.




And please don't add the su-100. We don't need more bullshit super range super tanks
25 Sep 2014, 20:25 PM
#65
avatar of Cardboard Tank

Posts: 978

TL,DR; tank combat is about 70% luck in WW-II. No matter how small your gun is, take the shot.
Well, I don´t want to write walls of text. In the end Soviet tanks had to come closer to German tanks for all different reasons to fight them. It was also not about luck but the skill of the crews. This engagement range gap is what caused so many casualties.

jump backJump back to quoted post25 Sep 2014, 19:28 PMBurts
Yes it would kill all german heavies, because it could do that in real life, and in coh logic, all tank destroyers are completely innefective againts infantry but super good againts tanks.

So an SU-100 would also probaly have huge penetration because of it's TD role, and considering it's penetration and range was superior to that of the ISU-152, in game the penetration would probaly be something like 350 or so and it would have maybe 70 range, same as ISU or elephant.
The SU-100 is comparable to a Jagdpanzer IV and see how that thing turned out. Making the SU-100 a super tank and the Jagdpanzer IV not would be ridiculous.
25 Sep 2014, 20:27 PM
#66
avatar of NinjaWJ

Posts: 2070

Ok hope you all have gotten that out of your system. I'm not talking about what guns did or didn't do IRL.
But that the SU-100, being an upgraded SU-85 AS THE GAME GOES, would need to have an increased penetration, dmg and armour compared to the SU-85.

Quite a lot actually or it would just be a slightly better SU-85 without the need for T-4. Having it just slightly better would just mean SU-85s never get built.

Having it alot better would mean German heavies, which is 70% of the German faction would be effectively nullified. This isn't a good approach.

Disclaimer this is based on teamgames.
In my mind the Allies already have more than enough dedicated AT, the problem being the Germans have so much better infantry that they can quite easily destroy most of that AT with inf, and the few things the allies can do against it is semi-static MGs or dedicated AI vehicles that can be taken out with little trouble by German infantry or their long-range AT platforms, the allied MGs will get wrecked by artillery or simply overrun.

After that the ger infantry moves in and destroys or damages alot of the allied AT. After that there is little problem for the German heavies to roll in.

Giving the allies a new and improved infantry unit would hopefully negate this problem. That would mean the Ger infantry needs to push already from the get go with their tanks, meaning we would get a situation where we see large battles of composed armies slugging it out.
Instead of having what I see alot of now. That is pushes of german infantry doing their best to knock out some AT before retreating because of Katyusha or some other artillery barrage. When enough AT has been knocked, roll in with tanks.

Hence why I feel there is a need for some more soviet AI infantry rather than AT infantry. That would just make them play more like Germans and would keep the meta more or less the same, I feel we need to mix it up.



I must disagree. Allied AT is woefully inadequate against German armor. Top players such as Cruzz and Vonivan have commented that Allied AT isn't on par with Axis. ZiS guns tickle Panthers, TIgers, KT, and Jgdt, while SU85s can only chip away.

I agree that Germans have superior infantry that could shove off Allied AT crews and weapons, but they also have better AT in every single way.

1. Panzerfausts > AT nade
2. Schreck > Bazookas and PTRS
3. Pak > ZiS

I do not think Soviets need another infantry unit. Shocks are already very good. The SOviets have the infantry they need, but the units have to be changed to be more competent (especially conscripts and penals).

jump backJump back to quoted post25 Sep 2014, 19:28 PMBurts




Yes it would kill all german heavies, because it could do that in real life, and in coh logic, all tank destroyers are completely innefective againts infantry but super good againts tanks.

Even then, the D-10T was just slightly less effective in penetration than the KWK 43/L71

The elephant has 400 penetration, KT has something like 240. Even tho they use the same gun IRL, their gun stats in coh 2 are completely differently due to the elephant being a TD and KT just being an all round heavy tank by purpose.

So an SU-100 would also probaly have huge penetration because of it's TD role, and considering it's penetration and range was superior to that of the ISU-152, in game the penetration would probaly be something like 350 or so and it would have maybe 70 range, same as ISU or elephant.




And please don't add the su-100. We don't need more bullshit super range super tanks


I really think you are overestimating the SU100s gamebreaking capability. Imagine the power of the Jackson on a nonturreted tank destroyer. It would not automatically be OP. And Burts, just because it could defeat enemy tanks in real life doesn't mean that it will do that in COH2. Look at the ISU152. It could probably one-shot most Axis tanks in real life due to the sheer explosive power of the shell. However, this does not happen in COH2 because of gameplay and balance.

Well, I don´t want to write walls of text. In the end Soviet tanks had to come closer to German tanks for all different reasons to fight them. It was also not about luck but the skill of the crews. This engagement range gap is what caused so many casualties.



He is right though. Anything could happen after you fire the shell. People don't look at spreadsheets of DPS and whatnot when fighting. After all, even low caliber shells have the possibly of breaking the threads, knocking out a crew member, getting a lucky hit, etc
26 Sep 2014, 00:16 AM
#67
avatar of van Voort
Honorary Member Badge

Posts: 3552 | Subs: 2

An SU-100 would be a better SU-85

So we would not see SU-85s anymore


I'd rather fix it, assuming it needs fixing in the first place
26 Sep 2014, 00:26 AM
#68
avatar of NinjaWJ

Posts: 2070

the problem is how Soviets are played. They are competitive with the right commander, but utterly useless without

IMO, a heavy AT unit in a nondoc role will make the faction a lot more playable without having to choose the right commander. This way, other units like the ISU152 can be properly balanced.

Tweaks and balances will come. I can see the SU100 coming out in the late game while the SU85, in its current state, as more of a midgame unit.
26 Sep 2014, 03:13 AM
#69
avatar of Crecer13

Posts: 2184 | Subs: 2

Well, I don´t want to write walls of text. In the end Soviet tanks had to come closer to German tanks for all different reasons to fight them. It was also not about luck but the skill of the crews. This engagement range gap is what caused so many casualties.

The SU-100 is comparable to a Jagdpanzer IV and see how that thing turned out. Making the SU-100 a super tank and the Jagdpanzer IV not would be ridiculous.


Do not lie, SU-100 ≈ Jagdpanther.
They have similar armor and gun, gun Jagdpanther better, but the SU-100 is lighter, more mobile and easier in service
26 Sep 2014, 10:33 AM
#70
avatar of Butcher

Posts: 1217



Do not lie, SU-100 ≈ Jagdpanther.
They have similar armor and gun, gun Jagdpanther better, but the SU-100 is lighter, more mobile and easier in service
Jagdpanther and SU-100 had roughly the same speed... 46 km/h vs. 47 km/h.

The gun on the Jagdpanther and Jagdpanzer IV was superior in reload speed, flatter trajectory, accuracy. Add to that superior ergonomics etc. and the Jagdpanther/ Jagdpanzer IV are effectively the better performing machines.

The frontal armor on Jagdpanther, Jagdpanzer IV with the long barrel and Su-100 was 80mm, 80mm and 75 mm - all roughly the same and with comparable sloping. No clear advantage for the SU-100.

Actually I consider the Jagdpanzer IV the better machine as it had a height of only 1,85m. The SU-100 had a height of 2,24m and thus is spotted more easily. And any gun over the calibre of the Jagdpanzer IVs 75mm was pretty much overkill.


Could we get this on topic? I´d like to see the game balanced rather than new units.
27 Sep 2014, 15:42 PM
#71
avatar of somenbjorn

Posts: 923

jump backJump back to quoted post26 Sep 2014, 10:33 AMButcher

Could we get this on topic? I´d like to see the game balanced rather than new units.


The topic being "What new Soviet unit do you want to see in CoH2?".......
27 Sep 2014, 17:15 PM
#72
avatar of Butcher

Posts: 1217



The topic being "What new Soviet unit do you want to see in CoH2?".......
Yes, that´s also an answer to the topic. Though the thread starter was smart enough to not include this option. ^^

First make all tiers and non doctrinal vehicles useful (SU-85, T-34/76), fix over-performing (ISU-152)and under-performing (Elefant) call ins and then we can think about adding a SU-100.

Adding such a unit before getting rid of the problems we are facing right now, will lead to unpleasant situations.
27 Sep 2014, 19:32 PM
#73
avatar of JohnnyShaun

Posts: 144

Stop dreamin guys, SU-100 isn't a german tank so it's "not fit with the game" :snfPeter:

For relic, COH2 isn't a RTS but a GBT (German Ball Trap, like many games), so you better asking for a BT-7 or maybe a T-26 !

Seriously i wish i had this BM 31 12, but walking stuka is already here, why get trouble with axis fanbase ? :bananadance:

27 Sep 2014, 22:31 PM
#74
avatar of UGBEAR

Posts: 954

Cons get DP28 upgrade......improve non-doctrinal first plz.....

and SU-100 is an awesome edition
28 Sep 2014, 12:48 PM
#75
avatar of Beinhard

Posts: 161



For the Panther that would be point blank range to go through the frontal armor - if at all.

Who both couldn´t be defeated frontally by it. And there were like 90 Ferdinands/Elefants... pretty much no reson to develop a vehicle to counter a tank this rare. It was meant to be a counter versus Panthers and such as those proofed impervious on all but the closest ranges to the available 85mms.


Lel it could defeat both of those tanks frontally if they were not properly angled,and the Su 100 were more common than the Su-85 during the war, as they stopped producing it when they could fit its gun on the T-34-85.

Su 100 with the BR-412D APCR shell pen:

100m 220mm
500m 200mm
1000m 180mm
1500m 160mm
2000m 140mm

Also the T-34-85 with the BR-365P shell could pen the Panther from the front:

100m 190mm
500m 140mm
1000m 100mm
1500m 82mm
2000m 64mm

Tho as many has stated, the pen figures are kinda "useless" when it comes down to this, it all depends on the situation and on what angle they are firing at each other.

28 Sep 2014, 13:00 PM
#76
avatar of Burts

Posts: 1702

Not really sure why the SU-100 is comparable to the jagpanzer, while it was more comparable to the jagpanther in terms of penetration. Jagpanther = elefant gun , which would mean it would have 70 range and 320 damage.



28 Sep 2014, 14:39 PM
#77
avatar of Butcher

Posts: 1217

jump backJump back to quoted post28 Sep 2014, 13:00 PMBurts
Not really sure why the SU-100 is comparable to the jagpanzer, while it was more comparable to the jagpanther in terms of penetration. Jagpanther = elefant gun , which would mean it would have 70 range and 320 damage.
Looks more like halfway in between 88mm and 75mm. But that´s not the point. Its armor is poor compared to the super-tanks armor - and those super-heavies are the ones that get the super guns in this game. The SU-100 still looks like a Jagdpanzer IV to me and both performed pretty similar in combat.

This theory-crafting doesn´t help...
28 Sep 2014, 14:42 PM
#78
avatar of Burts

Posts: 1702

jump backJump back to quoted post28 Sep 2014, 14:39 PMButcher
Looks more like halfway in between 88mm and 75mm. But that´s not the point. Its armor is poor compared to the super-tanks armor.

This theory-crafting doesn´t help...


Yes, but see, the high armor but low mobility of tanks like ISU-152, elephant and jagtiger are the main weakness of these tanks.

An su-100 would have a gun of an elephant while also retaining much better mobility at the cost of being less armored.

But of course it would be alot cheaper too.


And if it doesn't, then it will overlap too much with the su-85 which would make it pointless, so that's why the su-100 shouldn't be added.
28 Sep 2014, 14:48 PM
#79
avatar of Butcher

Posts: 1217

jump backJump back to quoted post28 Sep 2014, 14:42 PMBurts


Yes, but see, the high armor but low mobility of tanks like ISU-152, elephant and jagtiger are the main weakness of these tanks.

An su-100 would have a gun of an elephant while also retaining much better mobility at the cost of being less armored.

But of course it would be alot cheaper too.


And if it doesn't, then it will overlap too much with the su-85 which would make it pointless, so that's why the su-100 shouldn't be added.
Which would be totally overpowered. For the same reason I´m glad no Jagdpanther is in the game. Imagine 70 range with medium tank mobility... untouchable. As long as those don´t have the same range as regular tanks, I don´t see any hope with that.
28 Sep 2014, 18:10 PM
#80
avatar of NinjaWJ

Posts: 2070

jump backJump back to quoted post28 Sep 2014, 14:48 PMButcher
Which would be totally overpowered. For the same reason I´m glad no Jagdpanther is in the game. Imagine 70 range with medium tank mobility... untouchable. As long as those don´t have the same range as regular tanks, I don´t see any hope with that.


and yet we have the KT as a nondoc unit :D

i still think it can be balanced within the game though. Although it seems effective using theorycrafting and numbers, i think units can always be balanced within the game environment

There are many ways besides just damage, range, and armor

You have:

1. rotation speed
2. resource cost
3. build time (this one gets overlooked)
4. timing on when the unit comes out and its relationship to other units within that time frame

PAGES (7)down
4 users are browsing this thread: 4 guests

Livestreams

Sweden 89
unknown 1

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

277 users are online: 277 guests
3 posts in the last 24h
3 posts in the last week
23 posts in the last month
Registered members: 48731
Welcome our newest member, may88forex
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM