Profile of Burts

Avatar Area

Offline unknown
Posts: 1702

General Information
Broadcast: https://www.twitch.tv/Burts5556
Steam: 76561198033352922


Thread: Post 7/31 Patch Katyusha Test (see vid)1 Aug 2014, 07:15 AM Tbh, it's performance is fine, but i dont think it needs that 110 cooldown. In: COH2 Gameplay
Thread: Decrease please the Anti Air efficiency of OKW..31 Jul 2014, 19:47 PM Jump back to quoted post31 Jul 2014, 19:42 PMBrachiaraidos My inner (and outer) Brit is recoiling in revulsion right now :C :C :C Well, when i was talking about air support and artillery, i suppose i should of said allies. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Decrease please the Anti Air efficiency of OKW..31 Jul 2014, 18:39 PM it mostly comes down to the way the factions are designed. The faction that is supposed to be made out of mostly recruits because all of its veterans are dead and is supposed to have the most tanks out of the axis faction (OKW) , is the complete opposite. In reality, germans in 1944 made much much more tanks than IN any other year of the war, they rivalled the soviets in terms of tank production, in 1944, the quality of troops wasn't very elite at all, since most veterans were dead. But with OKW,we have the exact opposite. Volksgrenadiers divisions, that were meant to have a higher allocation of automatic weaponry and stuff, have no upgrades at all. A faction that particuraly lacked armed personell carriers (soviet union) and therefore had to heavily utlize tank riders, has the most halftracks in the GAME. M3+M5. A faction that had the most artillery in WW2 (soviets) have pretty much the worst arty in the game. A faction that heavily utilized submachine guns, and also had plenty of light machine guns, has all of these weapons locked away in seperate doctrines. A faction that stressed combined arms (soviet deep battle), is designed around stupid spam. And is locked away with 2 tiers. A faction that lost most of its airstrenght and was practically devoid of any air support in 1944 (ostheer) , has the most close air support abilities in the GAME. The mg42, without denial, the best machine gun in the war, is surpassed by some old WW1 maxim technology. A faction that HAD the MOST sophiscated air support and artirelly coordination (USA) has only 1 air support ability and pretty poor ish off map strikes (time on target takes like 14 seconds to arrive). It's like relic took the armies how they were IRL, and made them the complete opposite of what they really were. btw, i'm not bitching about the balance here, just bitching about how the factions are designed in a completely ahistorical way. Don't even get me started on complete nonsense like the IS-2s main gun having more penetration thant the king tigers main gun, however, king tiger having the superior anti infantry power.... In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Patch: July 31st31 Jul 2014, 17:47 PM Typical relic overnerf. Never ever relic learns their mistake. Slight BUFFS or SLIGHT NERFS. Jesus, i do not understand. It's killing power is back to pre buff levels (really bad, never kills anything) and now its also got that INSANELY long reload. Pwerfer is just a joke now. Welp, back to T3, T4, you will be missed. ugh. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Comparison of Kat & Stuka after heavy usage31 Jul 2014, 13:43 PM Jump back to quoted post31 Jul 2014, 13:19 PMMilkaCow 120 damage Katyusha would still oneshot the Flak HT and deal massive damage to the other OKW trucks (1920 dmg vs 2000 HP). Even if you cannot reliably fire from a position where all shots will hit, 2 of them should be able to instakill all trucks or one + a tank. 120 damage doesn't solve the problem, it just slightly decreases ist. And? What is wrong with a 132mm ROCKET doing damage to unarmored trucks and vehicles??? In: COH2 Balance
Thread: IS-2 Frontal Armor 31 Jul 2014, 12:13 PM Jump back to quoted post31 Jul 2014, 12:04 PMCardboard Tank Then why did so many T-34/85 get lost while trying to flank Tigers? After all they could have stayed at long distance and sniped the Tigers on equal footing. The 85mm was introduced to narrow the gap in the firepower of German and Russian tanks, not close it. Actually the lighter models like StuG and Panzer IV gave Soviets a headache because they had a way superior weapon to the 76mm. Thus the 85mm was introduced. Also: A chance of penetrating on close range is better than not penetrating at all. The 85mm was used because it could be mounted on the T-34 chassis, not because it was so superb. (Hell, maybe that was the reason those ridiculous test results were published. Try to explain to Stalin that you can only mount an average gun on the vehicle, that struggles versus the heavies.) It´s referring to the "non-mantlet" part of the turret, which is that spot marked red (the small edges) on this picture - which pretty much means the Panther was almost impervious frontally to that gun - as the article states. The mantlet was thick enough. Where do you get information that many t-34/85s died flanking tigers? Why are those test results ridiciluos? Every single source i found links to that the t-34/85 gun penetration was exactly 100mm at 1000 meters, except wikipedia... The panzer IV wasn't really all that well armored (it had 50mm armor and only in 1943 did it upgrade it's hull to 80mm and still had that 50mm on the turret . The stug had 80mm worth of armor, and the t-34/76 did struggle againts, but could penetrate it at 500m, just like it could penetrate the side armor of the tiger at 500m. The t-34/76 had around 70mm worth of armor on the turret and the sloped armor translated to 70mm worth of armor on the hull. Yes, the panther did have the advantage over the t-34/85, but to be fair, panther was more of a heavy tank than it is a medium tank. And it's not to say that the t-34/85s armor was crap, either, it had 90mm worth of armor on the turret, pretty good for a medium tank. And answer to jaigens post, yes the t-34/85 was indeed created to counter tigers. Not panthers, but tigers, soviets did not know about the panther when creating the t-34/85mm. If you want a counter to the panther, IS-2, isu-152 or su-100 work well. This is very usefull http://www.wwiiequipment.com/pencalc/ In: COH2 Balance
Thread: IS-2 Frontal Armor 31 Jul 2014, 11:07 AM Jump back to quoted post31 Jul 2014, 10:31 AMBulgakov I hope they don't change the IS-2. I've had some great tank battles tigers vs IS-2 recently, it's something that is satisfying to play with and to kill. And God knows it's far more fun to play against/with than an ISU-152. I've seen it bounce shots but, it's a heavy tank after all, it's designed to bounce shots. With RnG, you'll get some ridiculous moments but only 1/1000 games. I've seen a lot of them and never had one that did this or fought one that did this. It's a statistical anomoly. 99% of the time, it's a well-balanced unit. Because Propaganda. If you've seen the documents, it means they were written to be seen, which means it's not objective information. Don't search for objective truth in Soviet or Nazi historical documents. You will rarely find it there. Just because we can see them now, does not mean that these documents were made for propoganda purposes. No, that is wrong, these documents are specifically for the red army, and the red army concluded, that the F34 gun of the t-34 was not adequate againts tigers or panthers. That is why they introduced the 85mm gun on their T-34s, probaly because of these tests which showed that the 85mm is very effective againts tigers, and decent againts panthers. If we can't rely on historical documents, then maybe mass murder of jews, aushwitz, treblinka are all made up? Maybe they are all just propoganda? Maybe general plan ost was just propoganda meant to scare the soviets and allies? Also, that wikipedia penetration thing is way messed up. You get the idea that a tigers armor was actually superior to a panthers armor, because t-34 can penetrate 100mm at only 200~ meters on tiger, yet can penetrate panther ~100mm of curved armor on turret 500m??? ??? Infact, every single source i found on the internet about the 85mm gun penetration on the su-85 and t-34/85 (they had identical guns), points to 100mm of penetration at 90 degrees @100m using common AP rounds. Tigers hull armor was exactly 100mm, and turrets armor is 100-120mm. In: COH2 Balance
Thread: IS-2 Frontal Armor 31 Jul 2014, 09:51 AM Jump back to quoted post31 Jul 2014, 09:14 AMCardboard Tank Pretty sure at 30:11 that is a Raketenwerfer bouncing from the side. The same thing happens at 30:25. I don´t get you people. I was complaining about the side armor. A Tiger will take much more damage from the side. Flanking an IS-2 is not rewarding. And that´s the issue at hand. Russian testing... they also fired some hundred shells at king Tigers front armor on the shooting range and when the material finally succumbed, they claimed a penetration. The article doesn´t state what kind of ammunition was used (there is more than just one "AP shell"). With tungsten a Panzer IV could go through IS-2 armor as well. Those shells however were pretty rare and not standard. A penetration occuring that often is thus silly. "The 85 mm gun could penetrate the front of a Tiger I tank between 200 and 500 m (220 and 550 yd).[56] Against the frontal armour of the Panther, the T-34-85 could only penetrate the non-mantlet of its turret at 500 m (550 yd),[50] meaning that even upgraded models of the T-34 usually had to flank a Panther to destroy it." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34 200-500m are definitely less than 1000m + as your article claims. Also consider that every Tiger crew was instructed to angle the armor. So 90 degree hits won´t occur that often. That means a Tiger still remains pretty safe. So umm, why would the red army lie to themselves? This testing war done during wartime, and was important for the red army. So i really do not know why the red army would lie to themselves. Your wikipedia source isin't better at all, that article shows documents, information and photographs. While the only thing wikipedia article says it states a statement, and does not really back up at all. Where do you get this information that they fired a hundred shots at the king tiger? In: COH2 Balance
Thread: IS-2 Frontal Armor 31 Jul 2014, 08:11 AM Jump back to quoted post30 Jul 2014, 21:47 PMCardboard Tank The thing is that sideshots bounce off from it on a regular basis. Flanking is part of the game. Useless on IS-2s. Bringing up the T-34/76 which is hardly supposed to fight versus tanks is stupid. T-34/85s - which are more or less in the role of a Panzer IV - will make short process of any Tiger. More so, German AT should deal with heavy tanks. After all Russian AT deals with German tanks easily. "Wehraboo" you call it, while you are just looking for Soviet sided balance. Why should German AT not go through IS-2s armor? After all Soviet AT units (Zis and Su-85 and even the T34/85) go through the Tiger, despite failing to do so historically. So no reason why German AT should struggle to take down Russian tanks. http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/2013/03/soviet-85-mm-guns-vs-tigers.html oh really? In: COH2 Balance
Thread: Comparison of Kat & Stuka after heavy usage30 Jul 2014, 14:19 PM the pwerfer is also pretty crazy. It unleashes all of its damage in one go, making it more effective than the katyusha. In: COH2 Balance