New Unit ideas

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[ick312]

Balance is a subjective perspective. Might as well have some fun stuff to use.

No! there are things that are abviously op. like airbust mortar or in the past mustardgas and immediatly Firestormbarrage after it or sniper with smoke and fire up.

somethings might be discussable about their strength, like rangers or 4 KCH or assaultgrenadiere. But thats dicussion not op shit

[tankmaster23]

 Really the best thing about the t-34s they had been produced in large numbers.
 Stugs kicked the shit out of them...

 Rocksitter

 Stug 3

[nikomas]

I wonder if most realize how unreliable T34's actually was... those PoS's broke down at a frequency that made the german tanks look good. People confuse reliability for repairability. I mean, hell, you think Germany lost a lot of tanks to reliability issues while the "rugged" soviet tanks kept on going? Hehe, look it up is all I'm saying.

(I'm saying the T34 was a piece of shit that was spammed for greater justice)

[PonySlaystation]

nobody said the t-34 was a good tank, it was almost like ww1 tank among ww2 tanks.

[NightRain]

nobody said the t-34 was a good tank, it was almost like ww1 tank among ww2 tanks.

T-34 was superior to majority of tanks. Maybe not its first models but once they recieved their 85mm DT they became beasts among German warfare. They were cheap to produce, worked on majority of weathers, had wide tracks to operate almost anywhere and had a good sloped all around armor. Their cost efficiency was amazing and the tank by itself was a very good one. Honestly? T-34-85s were among the best tanks of WW2 if not the best.

[brn4meplz]

Yeah. The original T-34 model scared German engineers. They didn't think the Russians could design something combining several really good features.

The 34/85 was definitely scary. Once you drop production figures on top of it it leads up to something deadly.

Shit, the T-34 is the basis of the Panther. The germans just did it better.



Of course it's alot easier to defend then it is to attack, so losses figures will skew in German Favour. Add ontop of that the costly first 2 years of Russian losses and the fact that German military doctrine was the highest caliber in the world(and all modern military planning is based on it) and the Germans certainly did a good job statistically. Things got better for the Russians nearer the end of the war, but thats to be expected, aside from local counter attacks they had been winning near non stop for 3 years.


The Western allies would have been flattened if it came to a post war confrontation.
34/85's vs Shermans? HA HA. About the only thing on the allies side would have been an Air force(Heavy bombers and the planes to escort them and take air superiority) and the Nuclear bomb.

[hans]

to be fair, the more complex german tanks were only best on a good weather condition (summer maybe). but on harder conditions the lot less complex russian tanks worked fine axis had issues to keep them fine.

a stucked tiger in mud was shit, but this worked for close to all german warmachines.

[NightRain]

It is wrong to give all the airpower credit to Western Allied forces, Russians too had pretty scary Jagdbombers in forms of Sturmoviks and similars. Plus Late War American and British tank forces weren't exactly what they used to be early war, aka shit. Jumbos with 76mms, Comets, Pershings and other more modern combat vehicles started to arise from Allied factories and in great deal of numbers as well. Evidently had the war continued, it would of been the largest of speculations ever taken place in the history of world. Some thinks it might've been the true end of the world. Soviet Union vs Western Allies. Russians did have their own heavy tanks as well though.


Honestly, Osttrupp would be a fine addition. They were there. In Normandy.

[hans]

PE t34 would be epic

[nikomas]

Well it is fact that the allies were able to establish air superiority in a much greater scope than the Russians were, unless I've gotten all my memory completely messed up.

Anyway, given the topic I went for some reading...

http://operationbarbarossa.net/Myth-Busters/MythBusters2.html
http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.gr/2012/07/wwii-myths-t-34-best-tank-of-war.html

If anything, those links seem pretty well sourced to me.

[hans]

t34 BUSTED!

[tankmaster23]

 The T 34-85 was not one of the best tanks of the war maybe allies tanks, but if you are going for tank kills and over all performance hands down the StuG wins any way you slice it.


 Rocksitter

[PonySlaystation]

They were cheap to produce

Yes and that and mobility were the two advantages of the T-34. It's combat performance however was poor, being all about quantity over quality.

worked on majority of weathers

No, even rain was known to zip through cracks and disrupt electrical equipment and even ammunition and it had even more trouble with snow. So did many tanks of course, but the T-34's were no exception.

and had a good sloped all around armor.

The sloped armor was only effective against early war weaponry like the Pak 36 and Panzerbüchse and was useless against heavier AT weapons, especially axis 75 mm and 88 mm tanks. The T-34 gun while high caliber, lacked both accuracy and velocity which harshly affected long range combat.

The tank by itself was a very good one. Honestly? T-34-85s were among the best tanks of WW2 if not the best.

As the war progressed, the germans continued to upgrade their tanks while the russians reduced their designs to make it even cheaper to produce. The turret had to be hand cranked and the commander had to both aim, fire, spot and man the machine gun. This along with poor optics, vision devices, restricted turret movement and cramped internal spaces meant that for ever shot the T-34 fired, a german tank was able to fire three.

The T34-85 still suffered from many of the same deficiencies and problems that the T34-76 tanks had and was still inferior to the Panzer IV in every aspect but production cost and speed.

[AmPM]

Yeah. The original T-34 model scared German engineers. They didn't think the Russians could design something combining several really good features.

The 34/85 was definitely scary. Once you drop production figures on top of it it leads up to something deadly.

Shit, the T-34 is the basis of the Panther. The germans just did it better.



Of course it's alot easier to defend then it is to attack, so losses figures will skew in German Favour. Add ontop of that the costly first 2 years of Russian losses and the fact that German military doctrine was the highest caliber in the world(and all modern military planning is based on it) and the Germans certainly did a good job statistically. Things got better for the Russians nearer the end of the war, but thats to be expected, aside from local counter attacks they had been winning near non stop for 3 years.


The Western allies would have been flattened if it came to a post war confrontation.
34/85's vs Shermans? HA HA. About the only thing on the allies side would have been an Air force(Heavy bombers and the planes to escort them and take air superiority) and the Nuclear bomb.

A common mistake is thinking that American tanks were made to fight, well, tanks. They were not. American doctrine was that dedicated Tank Destroyers would fight tanks, and American tanks were used to breakthrough and exploit. Obviously you will want a gun capable of dual roles like the 75mm or 76mm, but it's primary purpose was still busting up infantry and pushing through gaps.

The only reason heavier tanks were not sent to Europe earlier, was that there was no need for them.

Either way, 90mm Armed M36's would punch holes in just about anything.

[brn4meplz]

I'm well aware of the American armour doctrine and that's fine to argue that, except the concept of dedicated Tank and Tank destroyer doctrine is inherently flawed. Even still the Russians had Tank destroyer units.

The concept of the MBT was adopted by everyone for a reason.

I still think that Tank on Tank and Tank destroyer on Tank destroyer the Soviets would have raped the western allies post war.

[AmPM]

Dedicated tank destroyers still exist....

[brn4meplz]

ATGMs exist for tank hunting. there are some dedicated vehicles still in possession, but not in production.

I don't think a new tank destroyer platform has been developed in the last 2 decades.


Tank destroyer vehicles had a purpose in the cold war, but not for the WW2 American Armour doctrine definition of things.

Cannon based tank destroyers died out in the 60's

[AmPM]

ATGMs exist for tank hunting. there are some dedicated vehicles still in possession, but not in production.

I don't think a new tank destroyer platform has been developed in the last 2 decades.


Tank destroyer vehicles had a purpose in the cold war, but not for the WW2 American Armour doctrine definition of things.

Cannon based tank destroyers died out in the 60's

That's because cannons became ineffective as a dedicated tank killing weapon.

ATGM used on a dedicated tank destroyer is still a tank destroyer, however, yes, in the modern era it has become much easier to just stick an ATGM on everything, that way even a HMMV can kill a tank.

The only real example we have of Soviet tech vs Allied tech post war is Korea, which didn't really lend itself to armored combat.

Damn, now I want to play some AirLand....

[Spartan_Marine88]

ATGMs exist for tank hunting. there are some dedicated vehicles still in possession, but not in production.

is an atgm equipped vehicle not just the next evolution of Tank Destroyer.

[brn4meplz]

The difference between an IFV with an ATGM and a Tank Destroyer is in the intended role.

My point is that the American WW2 Armour doctrine of infantry support tanks, and fast tank destroyers is flawed. The concept of a tank destroyer has merit,(From an economic perspective) but the inherent principles of a Cannon based Tank destroyer necessitate the removal of a traversing turret to mount either a bigger gun or a longer gun. Of which American tank destroyers did not do. Instead relying on little or no Armour and trying to get close enough to flank. I like fast things. Mobility is one of the corners of the Armoured holy trinity. but WW2 American Tank destroyers don't have balanced triangle.

Thats why the Panther and the T-34/76/85 are often considered the best tanks of the war. The Allies certainly got better with the 76mm Shermans. It's unfortunate the Americans were slow converts to the 76, but I still think the russians had it in the bag.