Profile of Smiling Tiger

This is somewhat amusing given that the USF and friends took back France faster from the Germans than the Germans took it from the French.

They took most of France in less than 4 weeks following the Normandy breakout. They did it by blobbing Riflemen and 75mm Shermans.

I mean that might be amusing if it weren't for the fact that Germany took France from both the French and the British who were both fighting on one front against only the Germans, unlike the Allies (not just the USF freeaboo) who were fighting a fuel and material starved Germany that was fighting on two fronts and had lost many of it's veterans over the last 5 years.

He said cheap TDs, it's literally in the part you underlined. And he wasn't even asking for stock m10 so idk what your point is here

The Jackson is an absolute bargin for its performance even if it isn't technically cheap. Plus the Firefly was made cheaper even though pretty much nobody considered it underpowered.

I might be ok with main gun destroyed crits and maybe even vehicle abandoned crits if COH2 was more like COH1 where vehicles were cheaper on average and you usually wouldn't throw the whole game based on one unlucky tank engagement.

As it stands right now with how long it takes to save up for even a standard medium tank main gun crits and especially vehicle abandoned crits have no place in COH2. The game has plenty of other RNG both in tank engagements and in other areas so saying it makes the game to predictable is wrong, you still have RNG with penetration, scatter, and missing vs hitting.

in 1941 panzer 4s and 3s were utterly helpless when confronted by T-34s and KVs... but of course the wehrmacht as a whole had combined arms to deal with these tanks... a midrange PaK 40 or a FlaK 36/88 shot can deal with the T-34 quite effectively... and although stukas werent really good at knocking out tanks... they were good at either rendering them combat ineffective or forcing their crew to start running out of the tank...

Yes it is true that the Wehrmacht had combined arms set up to deal with tanks and it's also true that most tanks overall were destroyed by infantry based AT weapons such as AT guns, but the idea that the Panzer 3 and 4 were "utterly helpless" against the T-34 in 1941 is completely false. The T-34 may have had more arnor and more penetration than the Panzers but this didn't mean they were helpless. Both Panzers had several advantages over the T-34 which allowed them to defeat their more armored foes.

The Panzers 3 and 4 had much better optics than the T-34 as well as more vision ports and probably most importantly the commander had a cupola which allowed him to observe the battlefield and identify targets much faster and easier than the T-34. This is especially important when you know that the main deciding factor in a tank engagement is which tank sees the other and fires first because even with a non-penetrating hit the crew will still be confused and probably panicking aswell. In addition to much better vision, each Panzer 3 and 4 was also equip with a radio which meant that movement and attacks could be much better coordinated and that Panzer 3s and 4s could react much faster and easier than a group of T-34s could. The Panzer 3 and 4 were also more reliable than the T-34 especially in 1941 and as you've already mentioned the ergonomics of the Panzer 3 and 4 are much better aswell.

So basically while the T-34 might look good on paper with it's better armor and gun, the reality especially in 1941 was that the Panzer 3 and 4 were much more effective fighting tanks because they could be operated much more effectively and bring what they had to bear on the enemy faster which is why many T-34 were easily outflanked by German tanks due to being practically blind and having no good line of communication with their fellow tanks.

I encourage you to watch "Panzer III vs. T-34 (featuring Cheiftain)" by Millitary History Visuallized, it's a very interesting and informative video.

Amazing, you decided to ignore every single real world application of King Tigers and focus on kill counts. Since they said, in a vacuum and with no strategic context, that they are “good” (whatever that means) then how dare anyone say otherwise, right? As for Tiger mobility, the KT had none. Just read on the Ardennes offensive and how it inhibited strategic movement by cluttering roads and supply networks. The Tiger 1 was much better in that regard, though again not compatible with schwerpunkt tactics, overengineered and hard to maintain.

As for the King Tiger needing better treatment because it’s a legendary tank, just look at how bad the T34/76 is in game. No further explanation needed.

You must not have watched either video because the first one is much more comprehensive than simply looking at kill counts and the second one doesn't even list them.

The Ardennes is an awful example because the Germans actually planned to steal feul in order to keep moving which was an idea doomed for failure. In addition the roads being blocked by the Tigers was much more a simple reality of driving on narrow roads through thick forest than anything else.

Once again I'll mention that Steven Zaloga (another tank expert who has written numerous books on tanks) said that the Tigers had good offroad performance on Operation Think Tank.

Lastly, don't ever put words in my mouth! Never did I ever say that the Tiger should be buffed simply because it is legendary, all I said was that it was so.

On topic: I feel like the best way to fix the King Tiger would be a moving accuracy buff. The Churchill has good moving accuracy because its terrible mobility forces it to fire on the move most of the time, the King Tiger should get similar treatment because not only is it slow but unlike the Churchill it also has afwul turret rotation speed that often times requires the hull to be manually turned to engage targets fast enough.