-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
M4A1 76mm for the US, Sherman Firefly for the UK as far as tank guns go... Forgot about Challenger, that had a 17-pounder and saw service in Normandy. Churchill Mk. VII has a lot of armor but just a 75mm gun.
Hellcats and M10/17pdr SP Achilles are the best TDs. 90mm guns didn't make it overseas until October '44.
As fate would have it, Fireflies will suffer from the classic British deficiency in Wargame: low ROF. There was barely any room in the turret with the 17 pounder's breech block.
This and a marginal speed advantage will be the only reason to use Challenger, probably.
Every other gun should be fine though, rapid fire 2/6 pounders firing accurately on the move too
Give me my littlejohn Tetrarchs to kill tigers with already!
Same armor as T-34-85, same mobility, higher profile making it easier to hit, frontal transmission going through the entire tank, gun that was worse for infantry support since smaller caliber, worse after armor effects as well since AP shell with smaller HE filler inside. The only thing where T-34-85 loses are the poor ergonomics pretty much. Not to mention T-34-85 was so much oversimplified for production by 1944, literally anyone could produce it (compare production numbers).
And it came out in early -44. Sherman came out in early -42. There's a full two years of difference, so comparing the two is stretching it a little bit. This is the "Panther vs. Sherman" again. There is simply no point in comparing a tank that was produced in -42, to a tank put to production in -44. Not to mention, that the point was that early T-34's were bad. Which they were. Saying that T-34-85 was good doesn't change that. And neither does it address the poor quality of work that was abundant throughout the T-34-s lifespan, resulting in poor reliability, armor spalling when hit, poor optics, and other factors.
The best part of T-34-85 wasn't the gun, it was the new turret that allowed a five-man crew, radio, and good visibility for the commander, as it allowed him to actually, well, command the the tank and coordinate with others in his platoon. It doesn't matter one iota how good your tank is, if it ends up fighting a one-tank war since it can't see or coordinate with others.
The T-34-85 was a great medium tank and fit the job it was asked to do very well, and had many of the same strengths as the M4. But it wasn't vastly superior, they're more neck-and-neck than anything, and you can argue the superiority of one over another all day long. At the end of the day, there's good reason both are considered "war-winning".
That game pissed me off. I was 5m away from the side of a T-62, fired a heat round at the side of the turret from a M1A2 SEP, which did nothing, then the T-62 turned, fired and pentrated the turret of the Abrams, knocking out all the crew and disabling the turret.
I haven't played the game since.
Yeah, physics can be a PITA.
I had a Tiger shot bounce off a T-70 turret in CMBB, a PIAT taking out a Jagdtiger with a lucky side shot in CMBO, a 50cal blowing up a Hetzer with a salvo in the rear in CMAK.
Also lost my very first King Tiger to a 80mm Mortar top hit. Ah, good times.
I had a Tiger shot bounce off a T-70 turret in CMBB, a PIAT taking out a Jagdtiger with a lucky side shot in CMBO, a 50cal blowing up a Hetzer with a salvo in the rear in CMAK.
Also lost my very first King Tiger to a 80mm Mortar top hit. Ah, good times.
Yeah, there will be a few things that will be a surprise to our uber tank fans. British 17 pdr APDS could easily penetrate the tiger 2 frontally at 600 metres, but was fairly inaccurate at longer ranges and only available to the Royal Artillery. In Command Decision 3 - basically this game on a table top - Churchills and Achillies were the mainstay of my British force.
I would like to see taks have real life data put in place. Other games did that and it worked fine. And it was done on a large scale before. Just take Combat Mission from old times, where tanks had nearly every aspect taken into consideration.
I realy hope we get realistic ways to deal damage in Steel Divison. Wargame has issue with stats scalling, so a tank that has 20 armour is approached by a tank with 20 penetration and the tank gets penetrated, but gets 1hp damage out of 10. LOL. If it gets through, it gets through.
I would like to see some good tank action with ricochets and armour spalling. It doesnt have to be ultra realistic, but I realy hope most of the time a penetration will mean severe damage or destruction of the tank. Either due to the crew bailing or tank blowing up, cooking up, burning slowly etc. They should ebrace their critical damage system modeling and make it more prominent than what it was in Wargame, where most crits were just a nuisance, and the most problematic one was 'track in the mud".
I realy hope we get realistic ways to deal damage in Steel Divison. Wargame has issue with stats scalling, so a tank that has 20 armour is approached by a tank with 20 penetration and the tank gets penetrated, but gets 1hp damage out of 10. LOL. If it gets through, it gets through.
I would like to see some good tank action with ricochets and armour spalling. It doesnt have to be ultra realistic, but I realy hope most of the time a penetration will mean severe damage or destruction of the tank. Either due to the crew bailing or tank blowing up, cooking up, burning slowly etc. They should ebrace their critical damage system modeling and make it more prominent than what it was in Wargame, where most crits were just a nuisance, and the most problematic one was 'track in the mud"
.
Well no look at the T34 85 vs Sherman easy 8 in Korea only one winner and that's the Sherman the 76mm stabilised gun ripped holes in the t34 so you can imagine what a 17pdr would do to the t34.
That was a matter of crew skill rather than technical superiority though.
Those two tanks really were very close in performance. I can't think of a pair of Cold War tanks that were so close.
Maybe
but the fact is I know what I would rather fight in the more ergonomic better made (t34s varied massively in quality) tank with the better sights and more accurate gun. Not saying T34 is a bad tank just saying it was a disposable tank (same went for the crews)
though if we go further into the cold war the Sherman jumps ahead again because the Israeli military went nuts and stuck a 105mm in it, not really sure how to be honest if the 17pdr didn't fit very well how did a long 105mm?
They didn't use the Sherman because they had a revelation about the tank still having untapped potential though. It was really just taking what they could, and stretching it to it's limits due to threats faced.
@Solty, I agree... sort of.
You know what they should do rather than coming up with the whole 'constantly needs balancing' armor system of Wargame......
Just take the same four-sided approach and put the real life value in millimeters. No disputes necessary. Then list the AP value in millimeters too. Maybe you have a sort of crit value that allows for glances, but let's take all the balancing out.
Already got HE and AP values from wargame so just change the AP value to something inarguable. HE would be subjective to terrain and whatnot and I'm not at all sure how that will factor in to design, but piercing vs armor is pretty straightforward.
You know what they should do rather than coming up with the whole 'constantly needs balancing' armor system of Wargame......
Just take the same four-sided approach and put the real life value in millimeters. No disputes necessary. Then list the AP value in millimeters too. Maybe you have a sort of crit value that allows for glances, but let's take all the balancing out.
Already got HE and AP values from wargame so just change the AP value to something inarguable. HE would be subjective to terrain and whatnot and I'm not at all sure how that will factor in to design, but piercing vs armor is pretty straightforward.
Well, no. Thats because if a tank has 80mm of armour and another tank has 81mm penetration (theoretically) it will mean the tank would still live with 9 HP. While a tank with 140mm of penetration would kill it with one shot.
The Wargame armour system is not well thought out and needed overhaul.
Not to mention, this game is specifically not called Wargame: Normandy 1944. It is called Steel Division: Normandy 1944. That would mean a different game with similar feel. I hope for a more complex aproach.
No, I'm not saying to include the HP's, I'm saying keep the armor modeling simple like with the 4 sides. Your screenshot at least in my opinion is far too complex and largely pointless in the scope of wargame where you might have 50 tanks fighting at once and while the information presented would give you an idea of 'the best shot' it's too much for so many units.