Profile of OrionHunter88

As to British tank losses rate. They had a particularly high tank loss due to the tactics they employed. It was pretty typical that for every Sherman tank knocked out an average of only 1 crew member would die.

Given that British had a manpower deficiency, commanders would frequently use Sherman tanks to spearhead the more dangerous missions. At least that's what I've read.

I think the answer here is to give OKW a precision guided V-1 or V-2. Allow it to be called in on the fog of war with very high scatter, but if target is visible it would be accurate.

I haven't watched the video yet (since I'm at work) but will later.

I've read a lot of Steven Zaloga's work on his research of armor - probably not best to base most of my in-depth WW2 tank knowledge on one writer but I can only read so much and I like the way he writes.

I'd like t point out another myth that often gets overlooked about german/US armor that often gets overlooked. Most sources state that the Panther was the "best tank of WW2". In terms of armor/gun it was really good - for fighting other tanks. Mechanically it was inferior though (some of this was due to the state of german industry)

Sherman had a number of advantages over the panther - In battle of the bulge nearly HALF the panthers were sidelined for mechanical failure only 2-3 days into the campaign, while only 10-15% of shermans were sidelined for mechanical failure during the entire campaign.

A lot of tank analysis in popular sources is in terms of tank vs tank, which was actually not nearly as common as the average consumer would think. In terms of vs infantry/fortification combat the Sherman was actually better due to it's extremely potent HE shell.

There is also a rather interesting fact that in more or less equal tank duels (so even if it was panther vs panther). The attacking tank force would lose approx 3x as many tanks as the defender. (This is based on testing done by both the brits and the US after WW2, and data losses recorded from tank vs tank actions in the later part of the war).


So a Giant myth is that Tiger/Panther were roughtly 4-5x as effective as a sherman. What people get that from is that the shermans were often on the attacking side. In the rare cases the germans attacked (Avranches, Lorraine, battle of the bulge) In scenarios where shermans (and similar tanks/TDs) were in defensive positions they inflicted ballpark 3:1 casualties on the attacking forces. It's just that in 1944-45 German attacks/counter attacks were so rare, and tank on tank was not common that those encounters are relatively few.

On the other side, I do think it's interesting that the Panther and Tiger had better ground pressure than the early-mid production sherman (meaning that despite their heavier weight they could navigate soft terrian more easily). Late production shermans had modified tracks that did help the issue, and modifications were made to the tracks of existing shermans. but still..


Anyways, i'll check this video out.

You know. The way I see it personally is that LeFH is a fine piece of artillery that does its job. Counter battery is a good answer to Katyusha.

Stats wise it's not exactly as powerful as the ML20, but then again does it have to be?

There's plenty of of German tanks that are much stronger than their soviet/usf counterparts. and in the case of the KT/jagd/elephant there's nothing to even compare it to. That's the game balance bit.

USF and Soviet had a huge artillery advantage over Germany in WW2. US though much more advanced technology and general doctrine and of course mechanization/motorization. Soviets had the most by far. Thats the history bit.

Agreed.

And replace it with this one:

Show Spoiler

I know that was a joke. But I'd be open to the 88 being a doctrinal upgrade for the Panzer HQ. Maybe swap that out with Pak 43 (copy/paste from Wher). Could be interesting. Static 88s are seriously under represented in COH2.