Unabalanced Armies

[hankypanky]

I'm sorry but what is really the point of this thread? I bet your just trolling all the devs.....

[Kelmola]

All german tanks is point and shoot.

Like PzIV F1 and PzIII N?

[Mazz]

All german tanks is point and shoot.

Like PzIV F1 and PzIII N?

If you really want to see point and shoot, spawn an M36 onto a map.

The round is on the other side of the map before the reload even starts.

[Strat_84]

Nice troll cave here. 

One statement deserves a correction though:

The QF75 cannot even punch through the 80mm of the Stug/IVH hull, which is strange as it has APCBC ammo, which is capable of like 85-90mm of penetration.

Actually not. This is the penetration of an APCBC shell shot by a Sherman, with a 75mm M3 gun.

The ROQF75 is a british made gun, different from the M3. When it fires an APCBC it has barely the same penetration as a M3 with regular AP shells. 

[THeTA0123]

Nice troll cave here. 

One statement deserves a correction though:

The QF75 cannot even punch through the 80mm of the Stug/IVH hull, which is strange as it has APCBC ammo, which is capable of like 85-90mm of penetration.

Actually not. This is the penetration of an APCBC shell shot by a Sherman, with a 75mm M3 gun.

The ROQF75 is a british made gun, different from the M3. When it fires an APCBC it has barely the same penetration as a M3 with regular AP shells. 

Penetration was sligthly higher but shell drop was much less.

75MM guns should have been able to damage and kill PZIV and stugs. In 1944 a sherman could well penetrate a panzer IV at 800m or even further because of the bad steel quality of PZIV and stug's

[Oddball]

Haven't we discussed the physics, geometries, abilities, weaknesses, and strengths of every tank till death now?! It is kind of just fustrating now. 

[Mazz]

Nice troll cave here.  

One statement deserves a correction though:

The QF75 cannot even punch through the 80mm of the Stug/IVH hull, which is strange as it has APCBC ammo, which is capable of like 85-90mm of penetration.

Actually not. This is the penetration of an APCBC shell shot by a Sherman, with a 75mm M3 gun.

The ROQF75 is a british made gun, different from the M3. When it fires an APCBC it has barely the same penetration as a M3 with regular AP shells.  

http://www.wwiivehicles.com/unitedkingdom/penetration-tables.asp

We had a discussion like this at the WaW forums, and a friend who has personal contact with a historian at Bovington actually confirmed Porter's numbers for M61 APCBC listed there. Its a shame those numbers can't be retested.  I know there's a lot of sources that counter this but its hard to argue with a man (not me, the WaW friend) who is writing his thesis on German divisional tank organization in WW2 atm.

[Strat_84]

That's the problem with historians. They are all dead sure to tell "the" truth and surprisingly you can't find two historians telling the same truth. 

Hopefully, one fact and two cents of logic allow to be sure M3 75mm > ROQF 75mm with the same ammo: the ROQF's barrel is shorter. 

[hankypanky]

Nice troll cave here. 

One statement deserves a correction though:

The QF75 cannot even punch through the 80mm of the Stug/IVH hull, which is strange as it has APCBC ammo, which is capable of like 85-90mm of penetration.

Actually not. This is the penetration of an APCBC shell shot by a Sherman, with a 75mm M3 gun.

The ROQF75 is a british made gun, different from the M3. When it fires an APCBC it has barely the same penetration as a M3 with regular AP shells. 

Penetration was sligthly higher but shell drop was much less.

75MM guns should have been able to damage and kill PZIV and stugs. In 1944 a sherman could well penetrate a panzer IV at 800m or even further because of the bad steel quality of PZIV and stug's

zomg more allied bias!!!!!

[Dnarag1M]

That's the problem with historians. They are all dead sure to tell "the" truth and surprisingly you can't find two historians telling the same truth.  

Hopefully, one fact and two cents of logic allow to be sure M3 75mm > ROQF 75mm with the same ammo: the ROQF's barrel is shorter.  

Isn't the reload time of the QF75 faster than that of the M3? Hence giving increased damage/second ?
Both M3 and QF75 often need multiple hits on longer range, meaning that in practise you could use the faster ROF at your advantage.

I'm not 100% sure if this is coded in the game though ^^ Besides all this, I would still like to mention the following :

"A much improved anti tank shell was developed. This was the APCBC shot (Armour Piercing Capped, Ballistic Cap). It had a muzzle velocity of 2,600 ft/s (790 m/s) as opposed to 2,030 ft/s (620 m/s) for the older M61 APC shell. US documents1 showed the round as available for both the M3 75 mm and ROQF 75 mm. Other sources2 indicate the shell saw use by the British only. The performance of the new shell was a vast increase: penetrating 102 mm at 500 yards (460 m) at 30 degree angle of impact."

[Strat_84]

Isn't the reload time of the QF75 faster than that of the M3? Hence giving increased damage/second ?

Why should it be ? In both cases you need to put a shell in the gun manually before shooting. That's not an automatic gun fed with clips. 

About the text you quoted, it's very likely the guy who wrote it messed up completely and found figures for a 76.2mm gun, 102mm@500 yards that's really too much for a 75mm gun with such length.
And this +600ft/s can't be achieved just by using APCBC instead of AP ... If you have a look at the other gun's data, from different sources, even if you assume the figures are not accurate, the general trend is that velocity is the same for AP, APC, APCBC, or APCBC is a bit slower than the others.

[THeTA0123]

Basicly. The M62  shell was a better round then the Standard US one. But the performance was less..

Theirfor, really, the ROQF 75 was simply the same gun as the sherman, but with less bullet drop. Theirfor more accurate.

Both the M3 75MM as the ROQF 75MM where designed as dual purpose guns, wich where designed for infantery support tanks. They where kept in service, because a sherman could still deal with the older german tanks, and kill the heavier german ones with some chance.

In the end, the allies where right in tank development. Combine firepower, armor(the pak40/75MM gun became standard and common only at 1943 mid) mobility, production numbers and reliability and you recieve the sherman and T-34. Both where well balanced on all of these levels. And german tanks where only better in terms of firepower and armor. And in the panther's case mobility. The stubborn german designers never standardized one tank. Wich led to their defeat.
Oh and hitler with  "Hey lets make a Anti-tank version of the schwere gustav" idea's

[Fuchs]

Never standardized their designs? Oh boy.. They where working on that since 1943, the E-Series, mate!

[THeTA0123]

Never standardized their designs? Oh boy.. They where working on that since 1943, the E-Series, mate!

And so many built!

[Safe-Keeper]

zomg more allied bias!!!!!

Of course there should be allied bias, they won the war, did they not?

Besides, I honestly don't mind maps being slightly unbalanced (not that I would know if any are, I don't play FH2 nearly as much as I should). If there's more challenge in some maps than others, no big deal to me. Sure, might not be by design, but still, I like assymetric warfare.