Login

russian armor

WEHRMACHT=RUBBISH

  • This thread is locked
PAGES (15)down
7 Mar 2015, 05:27 AM
#1
avatar of IIGuderian

Posts: 128

you cant confront IS2'S or isu152's.
grens are fragile and dat rifle grenade ability is sometimes glitched.
panzergrenadiers is de cheapest and weakest advandced inf,cant deal with paratroopers or st's alone,must get two squad of it.2 panzershreks upgrade is stupid,coz then your pgs will lose all its anti-inf capability,but you will say :"then just use it as an anti-tank squad "no you stupid numbnuts ,its also too fragile ,t34s will fuck your hol squad up while youre trying to shooot.
also tiger is overpriced,it cant deal with is2s then why should it worth 230fuel.this is ridiculous,you finnally got your ultimate weapon out,and youre ready to counter-attack,then you find out your tiger got fucked up by the is2.and theres when you finnally realise that tiger is just a bigger version of panther with better anti-inf capability.AS A MATTER OF FACT,i remember back in old days ,tiger is 210 fuel,still useless in front of is2 tho .but it was cheaper than the is2,so it doesnt matter that much.but now you increased the price yet not buffing it whatsoever at all.thats just some idiotic actions.
my suggestion is :
1.to put grens at T1,so its like cons or volks or rifleman,you can build it as the game strats.
2.increse the member of a single grens squad to 5,so its not so fragile.
3.increse the survibility and weapon damage of panzergrens,also raise price
4.decrease the fuel cost of tiger to 210 or make tiger capable of confronting is2
5.change the weapon upgrades of pg.pg now can upgrade to a single panzershrek for 75ammo or 4xSTG44 for 100ammo.
7 Mar 2015, 05:32 AM
#2
avatar of IIGuderian

Posts: 128

yeah i forgot that panzergrenadier start with 4xstg44...so add one more piece of suggestion:change their initial weapons to 4xK98k
7 Mar 2015, 06:50 AM
#3
avatar of daspoulos

Posts: 1116 | Subs: 1

Permanently Banned
pgrens OP
7 Mar 2015, 07:30 AM
#4
avatar of AssaultPlazma

Posts: 300

so im curious why do so many axis heavy players complain about the fact the IS-2 beats a Tiger I in a 1v1?
Do you guys understand the IS-2 was better than the tiger in every way except reload speed due to having to load a propellant charge and a shell, and raw penetration which was largely a moot point anway? If anything a IS-2 should beat a Tiger II....
7 Mar 2015, 08:24 AM
#5
avatar of daspoulos

Posts: 1116 | Subs: 1

Permanently Banned
so im curious why do so many axis heavy players complain about the fact the IS-2 beats a Tiger I in a 1v1?
Do you guys understand the IS-2 was better than the tiger in every way except reload speed due to having to load a propellant charge and a shell, and raw penetration which was largely a moot point anway? If anything a IS-2 should beat a Tiger II....

Is2 fired 2 rounds per minute, and had around 160mm of penetration. They would not penetrate king tigers frontally. Only due to poor quality metals did they fracture the armor plating. Tiger 2s were better than is2s.
7 Mar 2015, 08:33 AM
#6
avatar of Crecer13

Posts: 1497 | Subs: 3


Is2 fired 2 rounds per minute, and had around 160mm of penetration. They would not penetrate king tigers frontally. Only due to poor quality metals did they fracture the armor plating. Tiger 2s were better than is2s.


No, the IS-2 penetrate the King Tiger. Because shitty quality metal. In IS-2 had problems with Elephant, because the quality of the metal was still good.
7 Mar 2015, 08:49 AM
#7
avatar of Midconflict

Posts: 204


Is2 fired 2 rounds per minute, and had around 160mm of penetration. They would not penetrate king tigers frontally. Only due to poor quality metals did they fracture the armor plating. Tiger 2s were better than is2s.


So then there is no reason that my IS2 shouldn't be pening king tiger like 75% of the time right. RElIC make it happen.
7 Mar 2015, 08:50 AM
#8
avatar of Midconflict

Posts: 204



So then there is no reason that my IS2 shouldn't be pening king tiger like 75% of the time right. RElIC make it happen.
7 Mar 2015, 09:16 AM
#9
avatar of dasheepeh

Posts: 2009 | Subs: 1

whine post.
7 Mar 2015, 09:24 AM
#10
avatar of daspoulos

Posts: 1116 | Subs: 1

Permanently Banned


So then there is no reason that my IS2 shouldn't be pening king tiger like 75% of the time right. RElIC make it happen.


You seem to not know much about anything in regards to how these vehicles actually performed. Let me be a little clearer. The is2 could not penetrate the king tiger frontally, in a few situations where king tigers with poor quality alloys were used the frontal plate of a king tiger would eventually crack after a few hits. This has nothing to do with actual intended performance or faulty design. Its more to do with indirect means such as low resources for the german war effort. Do you also blame tanks for the countries inability to provide fuel for it as well?

Is2s did not penetrate king tiger tanks under normal circumstances. For gods sake learn a little something about ww2 before you try to argue balance in terms of historical nature.
7 Mar 2015, 09:26 AM
#11
avatar of Burts

Posts: 1702



You seem to not know much about anything in regards to how these vehicles actually performed. Let me be a little clearer. The is2 could not penetrate the king tiger frontally, in a few situations where king tigers with poor quality alloys were used the frontal plate of a king tiger would eventually crack after a few hits. This has nothing to do with actual intended performance or faulty design. Its more to do with indirect means such as low resources for the german war effort. Do you also blame tanks for the countries inability to provide fuel for it as well?

Is2s did not penetrate king tiger tanks under normal circumstances. For gods sake learn a little something about ww2 before you try to argue balance in terms of historical nature.



The king tiger KWK 43 couldn't penetrate the IS-2 front armor under "normal" circumstances either. Infact on paper IS-2 was completely immune from the front, just like the king tiger.

However this really was not the case in reality.


IS-2 is more on par with the KT than the tiger if we go IRL. However, in game it must be balanced with the tiger I, since they both cost the same.


Of course we could make the IS-2 like a KT and make it cost like 320 fuel or something.. But i dont think thats a good idea.
7 Mar 2015, 09:30 AM
#12
avatar of austerlitz

Posts: 1705

Tiger has now become a paper tiger -on one hand jackson and p-47 laugh at it.On other hand is-2/t-85s laugh at it.Its not worth it unless opponent is infantry spamming hard.
Reason it has to be used is tech cost of T4,I guarantee the moment tech costs of ost are brought in line with WFA factions tiger will be history,serious players won't even bother with it if panther is accesible and panzerwerfer is more effective.The caliber of this tank is well known now vs jacksons and is-2.
7 Mar 2015, 09:36 AM
#13
avatar of daspoulos

Posts: 1116 | Subs: 1

Permanently Banned
jump backJump back to quoted post7 Mar 2015, 09:26 AMBurts



The king tiger KWK 43 couldn't penetrate the IS-2 front armor under "normal" circumstances either. Infact on paper IS-2 was completely immune from the front, just like the king tiger.

However this really was not the case in reality.


IS-2 is more on par with the KT than the tiger if we go IRL. However, in game it must be balanced with the tiger I, since they both cost the same.


Of course we could make the IS-2 like a KT and make it cost like 320 fuel or something.. But i dont think thats a good idea.

I never did like the matchup for tiger and is2, but I also really dislike the is2 having a 6 second reload and a highly innacurate gun with a low damage model. I'd be all for a better is2 with a 240 damage model 9-11 second reload, more accurate gun, and possible frontal armor increase for say a cost of 250 fuel.There is an area that involves keeping historical accuracy to a minimum though. For the is2 to have such a short reload and only cost 230 fuel its going to have to be gimped in some areas. Im unsure about angling and such but the king tiger and is2 were roughly similar in terms of frontal armor. But I have not heard is2s being impenetrable like I've heard the king tiger being impenetrable. (except for certain shots going through the turret). ATleast on the western front that is.

Another thing I don't suppose you've heard the account of Karl Korner:http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=64873

Is2s were able to be knocked out, the gun on the king tiger was one of the best anti tank guns in the german army. With around 200mm of penetration, considering the angling of the is2 I don't think it had over 200mm of protection. Though I could be wrong.
7 Mar 2015, 10:00 AM
#14
avatar of Burts

Posts: 1702


I never did like the matchup for tiger and is2, but I also really dislike the is2 having a 6 second reload and a highly innacurate gun with a low damage model. I'd be all for a better is2 with a 240 damage model 9-11 second reload, more accurate gun, and possible frontal armor increase for say a cost of 250 fuel.There is an area that involves keeping historical accuracy to a minimum though. For the is2 to have such a short reload and only cost 230 fuel its going to have to be gimped in some areas. Im unsure about angling and such but the king tiger and is2 were roughly similar in terms of frontal armor. But I have not heard is2s being impenetrable like I've heard the king tiger being impenetrable. (except for certain shots going through the turret). ATleast on the western front that is.

Another thing I don't suppose you've heard the account of Karl Korner:http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=64873

Is2s were able to be knocked out, the gun on the king tiger was one of the best anti tank guns in the german army. With around 200mm of penetration, considering the angling of the is2 I don't think it had over 200mm of protection. Though I could be wrong.




Kill claims are known for being very unreliable and most german ones arent matched with allied records. I know that it was a common thing to do by german officers is to cut the kill claims by 50% to get more accurate results.




Although this site can't be trusted 100% it is by far the best thing out there. Keep in mind that IS-2M just means the IS-2 with 120mm of armor, rather than some post war variant.







7 Mar 2015, 10:08 AM
#15
avatar of Midconflict

Posts: 204



You seem to not know much about anything in regards to how these vehicles actually performed. Let me be a little clearer. The is2 could not penetrate the king tiger frontally, in a few situations where king tigers with poor quality alloys were used the frontal plate of a king tiger would eventually crack after a few hits. This has nothing to do with actual intended performance or faulty design. Its more to do with indirect means such as low resources for the german war effort. Do you also blame tanks for the countries inability to provide fuel for it as well?

Is2s did not penetrate king tiger tanks under normal circumstances. For gods sake learn a little something about ww2 before you try to argue balance in terms of historical nature.


No no i know of the perform of these tank. And you pointed out that the IS2 on paper can pen the tiger 2 from the front on paper. But, in practice it did because of poor steel used to make the tank. This is what get under my skin about german WW2 fans (note i dont hate them :) ). It is just that people in general put too much stock into paper stats of WW2 german weaponry especially their tanks, which were in real like nothing more then a stupid and impractical dream of a made man, with zero thought into functionality, or strategic use of limited resources. Germans during world war really didn't need anything bigger then maybe a panther thought out the whole war. Which which other then the upgunned panzer 4 in my a opinion were far better tanks then the tiger 2. Granted the panther also broke down a lot. There were much better then tigers, ele, the Mous and other large waste of resources tank, arty like rail way arty, or super weapons that hitler thought would win him the war. But in the end these things just wasted already low resource that could of been used better.

This is one of the man reason that i have never and will never like any german faction in any WW2 game I play. This is not because they are german it is because any video game german faction celebrates these dream toys, which in my eyes are the main reason for the germany lose. While faction like the soviets and usf get punished for winning the war though better use of their resource making tanks that may not of been the best on paper, but were better tanks were it counted (Mobility, reliability, ease of production, and numbers to make a difference in the long run). I am not saying that these faction didn't make faulty weapon systems (soviet land ship anyone, or the Super USF tank), but they were smart enough to go back to weapons that worked.

I would also be careful about this statement "For gods sake learn a little something about ww2 before you try to argue balance in terms of historical nature", because your not that much better. 75% chance for a IS2 to penetrate a tiger 2 with shitty steel armor, and weld job is a easy way to bring some Historical facts into the game.
7 Mar 2015, 10:46 AM
#16
avatar of Cardboard Tank

Posts: 906

That illustration is likely false. The KT hull was never ever penetrated in the war. And there it says that from more than a km away it was penetrated? I call bullshit.

People see the IS-2 and think it´s a godlike tank. They however like to ignore the horrendous flaws it had.

Errors such as piss-poor accuracy due to the gun having to be leveled to its original position in order to reload. After ever shot the gun had to be leveled and aimed at the target again and again.

Errors such as an increased reload time, giving it less than half the rate of fire of normal tanks.

Frontal armor flaws on the early version (drivers hatch), which resulted in Panzer IV and StuGs fighting the early version effectively from the front.

A gun unsuitable for long range combat. The trajectory was bent due to the weight of the shell.

The IS-2 was hopelessly outclassed by the King Tiger, which of course had its own flaws. However in a regular engagements the 88mm was more than sufficient to defeat IS-2s even at 2km.

7 Mar 2015, 11:11 AM
#17
avatar of Burts

Posts: 1702

That illustration is likely false. The KT hull was never ever penetrated in the war. And there it says that from more than a km away it was penetrated? I call bullshit.

People see the IS-2 and think it´s a godlike tank. They however like to ignore the horrendous flaws it had.

Errors such as piss-poor accuracy due to the gun having to be leveled to its original position in order to reload. After ever shot the gun had to be leveled and aimed at the target again and again.

Errors such as an increased reload time, giving it less than half the rate of fire of normal tanks.

Frontal armor flaws on the early version (drivers hatch), which resulted in Panzer IV and StuGs fighting the early version effectively from the front.

A gun unsuitable for long range combat. The trajectory was bent due to the weight of the shell.

The IS-2 was hopelessly outclassed by the King Tiger, which of course had its own flaws. However in a regular engagements the 88mm was more than sufficient to defeat IS-2s even at 2km.





What illustration? I dont see any illustration stating king tiger was penetrated at 1000m...


I have absolutely no idea where this myth came from that the gun had to be levelled to 0 degrees to reload. This is completely false. It's accuracy was not "piss poor" and was just as accurate as KWK 43.


Kill claims are unreliable. They are not matched with allied records and cant be trusted.



How stugs and PIVs were able to defeat 120mm of armor is beyond me....
7 Mar 2015, 11:28 AM
#18
avatar of ElSlayer

Posts: 1605 | Subs: 2

so im curious why do so many axis heavy players complain about the fact the IS-2 beats a Tiger I in a 1v1?
Do you guys understand the IS-2 was better than the tiger in every way except reload speed due to having to load a propellant charge and a shell, and raw penetration which was largely a moot point anway? If anything a IS-2 should beat a Tiger II....

Because Krupp stahl, ja?

Actually, it is so funny how axis players always saying "you should flank it", but whining about IS-2 armor.
7 Mar 2015, 11:33 AM
#19
avatar of Affe

Posts: 578

That illustration is likely false. The KT hull was never ever penetrated in the war. And there it says that from more than a km away it was penetrated? I call bullshit.

People see the IS-2 and think it´s a godlike tank. They however like to ignore the horrendous flaws it had.

Errors such as piss-poor accuracy due to the gun having to be leveled to its original position in order to reload. After ever shot the gun had to be leveled and aimed at the target again and again.

Errors such as an increased reload time, giving it less than half the rate of fire of normal tanks.

Frontal armor flaws on the early version (drivers hatch), which resulted in Panzer IV and StuGs fighting the early version effectively from the front.

A gun unsuitable for long range combat. The trajectory was bent due to the weight of the shell.

The IS-2 was hopelessly outclassed by the King Tiger, which of course had its own flaws. However in a regular engagements the 88mm was more than sufficient to defeat IS-2s even at 2km.



Yep.
Here are a few interesting combat examples of the King Tigers and Tigers:
Tiger tank analysis

.............
4. Effectiveness of the main armament
............
A few combat examples:

• 21Jul1944, area of Iwaczow (Poland): 1 Tiger I destroys 1 JS-1 at 4000m ! (Schneider)
• 6Mar1945, area of Seregelyes (Hungary). 2 Tiger II’s destroy 6 JS-2’s at 2000m (Schneider)
• 19Apr 1945, Bollersdorf (Germany): 4 Tiger 2 attacked and destroyed 120 T-34-85 and JS-2’s, at ranges of 1,5 – 3km. The battle raged for a few hours, with about 30 T-34s destroyed during the night. (All tank commanders were given the Knight Cross on the 28th of April)
• 20Apr 1945, Klostendorf, Germany: 1 Tiger 2 of the SS-103rd Panzer destroyed 13 soviet tanks at ranges of 2-4km.

....................
Examples:
• 13th March 1945, Hungary: 16 King Tigers of the 509th Heavy Tank Battalion attack 24 entrentched ISU-152’s. In a ferocious battle, all the soviet SP artillery was knocked-out, but 3 Tigers were destroyed, 13 heavily damaged and put out of action for days or weeks.
...................
• 27th of Dec 1943: Mr Wendoerff leads his single Tiger tank against a T-34 column. He destroys the first and last tanks and then picks off each of the others. 11 T-34s destroyed.
• 12th of Jan 1944. 5 Tigers from the 508th Schw.-tank battalion fall into an ambush set up with 5 T-34-85s near a forest. The leading Tiger takes 20 AP hits, none penetrates. The other 4 Tigers open fire and destroy all 5 T-34s.
• 7th of Fev 1944- 8 Tigers remain out of fuel while retreating near Tatjanowka, Ukraine. They keep the enemy at a distance until fuel-trucks arrive. 20 soviet tanks are destroyed. No tank manages to close at less than 1000m. No Tiger lost.
• 7th of April 1944 – 3 Tigers engage a soviet armored brigade. 24 enemy tanks are destroyed for no loss.
.........................................
• 22nd of June 1944 – Mr Rohrig leads 4 Tigers in the area around Maritima, Italy. They engage a formation of 25 Shermans. 11 are set alight, the remaining 14 crews open the hatches and flee, leaving the tanks to the Germans. No losses.
• 11th of July 1944 – battle of Colombelle, south of Caen. Commander von Rosen leads 12 Tigers against a formation of about 20 Sherman tanks. During the night, the Tigers approach at maximum speed and open fire. The Shermans respond, dozens of hits bouncing off the frontal armors. In 5 minuntes, 12 Sherman explode or burn, and 2 more are abandoned by their crews; the others retreat. No loss.
• 28-29th of June 1944 – 18 Tigers of the 505th counter-attack around the Bobr river (PL) against 2 soviet armored columns (60, 30 tanks respectively). 55 enemy tanks are knocked-out [unknown number destroyed], for the loss of 6 Tigers.
• 23rd of May 1944 – one of the very few massed attacks of Tiger tanks. 40 Tigers of the 508th attack towards Cisterna-Latina (IT). All 15 US tanks in the area are destroyed. 1 Tiger damaged.
• 8th of Aug 1944 – 7 Tigers of the 102nd destroy 15 Shermans near Chenedolle; 1 Tiger damaged.
• 9oth of Aug 1944 – battle for Hill140, Normandy. 13 Tigers and several Pz-IV of the 12th SS Panzer counter-attack against elements of the Canadian II corps (with 55 tanks). The Tigers take position on the hill and start pounding at long range. 47 Canadian tanks are knocked-out, no Tiger lost.
..............
Battle of Oka River, Russia, part of the battle of Kursk, 1943
30 TigerI engage a large (over 100 tanks) Russian armored formation on the open fields. They opened fire at over 2km, scoring hits early. 42 T-34 destroyed, the rest fled. 1 Tiger was lost to enemy tank fire.

Battle of Collombelle, Normandy, part of the battle for Caen, 1944
12 TigerI attacked in the night a formation of 75mm Shermans. 12 Shermans were destroyed, 2 captured, 3 Tigers lightly damaged (repaired in 3 days or less). The battle was in the open terrain, no ambush, no air cover.

Battle of Tatjanowka, Ukraine, part of the strategic German retreat, 1944
8 TigerI remain without fuel out in the open fields. A large (over 30) formation of soviet tanks approaches them. 20 are destroyed, the rest flee; no Tiger lost or severely damaged.

Battle of Maritima, Italy, part of the battles for the Gustave line, 1944
4 TigerI engage a formation of 25 US Shermans. 11 are burned, the rest are abandoned by their crews. All Tigers moderately damaged.

Battle for Grunow, Germany, part of the final drive to Berlin, 1945
8 TigerII, occupying a small hill, engage a formation of over 100 soviet tanks. They open fire from over 4km. 70 enemy tanks are claimed knocked-out for no loss.

Battle for Bollersdorf, Germany, part of the final drive to Berlin, 1945
4 TigerII are attacked on the open by 30 T-34-85s. All soviet tanks are knocked-out [unknown number destroyed]. No Tiger lost.
Bibliography:
books
• Scheider, Tigers in combat, I and II
• Jentz – King Tiger heavy tank
• Jentz – Tiger 1 heavy tank
• Jentz – Germany’s Tiger 1 and Tiger II. Design. Production. Modifications.
• Buckley – British armor in Normandy campaign 1944

http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3722



7 Mar 2015, 11:36 AM
#20
avatar of Burts

Posts: 1702

jump backJump back to quoted post7 Mar 2015, 11:33 AMAffe


Yep.
Here are a few interesting combat examples of the King Tigers and Tigers:

http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3722






Dear lord how many times you are going to quote Scheiders book? He himself states that he used nothing but the shwerer panzer abteilung diaries when writing those kills, AND THEY ARE NOT matched with allied records. They aren't real.
PAGES (15)down
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • Oberkommando West flag N1cko
  • Oberkommando West flag Scotch1
  • Soviets flag Frosty
  • Soviets flag Beatricks Swire
uploaded by Frost

Board Info

87 users are online: 6 members and 81 guests
Crecer13, Sander93, Aerohank, Stormjäger, SunTzu, Fire and Terror
140 posts in the last 24h
1128 posts in the last week
5140 posts in the last month
Registered members: 69165
Welcome our newest member, han162mo
Most online: 918 users on 27 Oct 2019, 01:03 AM