Or the superior suspension
Or the superior range
Posts: 2066
Or the superior suspension
Posts: 930
Posts: 414
Posts: 3103 | Subs: 1
ofc let's just forget about the same feature on german tanks lol
I think that as a unit they are fine, just too expensive for what they are. At this price, 60 range shouldn't be out of the question.
Posts: 414
Posts: 1954
ofc let's just forget about the same feature on german tanks lol
Or the superior suspension
Posts: 414
Posts: 578
First things first:
- T3 & T4 needs to be more accessible
By more accessible I do not mean "skipping T3 should be made easier than ever". No. I mean shifting costs around so that you can start your build with either T3 or T4. However, at no point should you feel "stuck" or "married" to either tier. You should be allowed to combine tiers
Posts: 283
Posts: 609
Posts: 578
Expert tankers could fire (and hit) on the move. The gunner in Wittman's tank crew was noted for it
Posts: 73
Panthers had brutally simple suspension. Torsion bars, I believe. I also believe that the panthers failed from their under sized engines.
I am 100% for your engine crit idea. Like, anytime the tank reaches top speed it has a small chance to engine crit, or w/e. Always a fan of historical flavour.
Posts: 414
Posts: 609
One crew doesn't = the thousands of other ones...
The thousands of other ones are the baseline.
Posts: 276
Just to bring an end to this insufferable OT discussion about stabilisation: None of the systems used in WWII allowed any tank to fire on the move. Not the Sherman's gyro-stabilisation, not the Panther's suspension. Heck, that technology didn't even exist in the 60s - the Leopard 1 featured one of the most advanced stabilisation systems at its time, and it still couldn't fire on the move and hope to hit anything.
The only thing these systems allowed were for the gunner to pick up and identify targets on the move, severely reducing the time needed between sighting a target, stopping, aiming at it, and firing. Rough targeting could be done while moving, reducing the time standing still and thus severely decreasing the chance of being hit at longer ranges.
The Panther's suspension on the other hand didn't provide such benefits at all - if the tank drove over a small bump, it helped. But certainly not enough to allow any kind of effective targeting and firing on the move, especially not off-road!
The tiger I believe was an exception due to slow speed, suspension, and sheer size would created a smooth enough ride to fire relatively well on the move.
Posts: 1954
Interesting... and informative, +1.
Incoming Tiger OTM accuracy buff?
Posts: 283
When I was referring to shooting on the move, I was thinking creeping at 10km/h, not full throttle. Hehe. Otherwise you are absolutely correct. The tiger I believe was an exception due to slow speed, suspension, and sheer size would created a smooth enough ride to fire relatively well on the move.
Posts: 283
Except that the Sherman did have a working single axis gyro. It wasn't tied into turret rotation so it helped some but not as much as modern gyro would have. A lot of the crews didn't know how to use it so they probably should've had the same poor moving accuracy that other tanks had. One of the vet abilities could've been reading the instruction manual......
Posts: 707
For exactly that reason I don´t get why some people even build the T-34/85. The T-34/76 is way more cost efficient and the 85mm gun still doesn´t offer that much more. Both tanks usually need to flank. Yet you get a lot more T-34/76s for the cost.
Posts: 2742
For exactly that reason I don´t get why some people even build the T-34/85. The T-34/76 is way more cost efficient and the 85mm gun still doesn´t offer that much more. Both tanks usually need to flank. Yet you get a lot more T-34/76s for the cost.
9 |