Author Topic: The Minor Suggestions Thread  (Read 43281 times)

Offline THeTA0123

  • The north remembers
  • Masterspammer
  • ****
  • Posts: 16.840
    • View Profile
Re: The Minor Suggestions Thread
« Reply #135 on: 06-05-2013, 19:05:12 »

Shot to the side or ass of Tiger with 75mm on the Sherman:

IRL = dead Tiger
FH2 = do this a thousand times and good luck causing any damage at all.
FH2 penetration tables are set on 500 metres.

Here from Wikipedias Tiger-article:

"From a 30 degree angle of attack, the M4 Sherman's 75 mm gun could not penetrate the Tiger frontally at any range, and needed to be within 100 m to achieve a side penetration against the 80 mm upper hull superstructure."

In FH2 and reality this means: Nope
Butch is correct, and incorrect

When the allies captured there first tiger tanks and did penetration tests, they came to the conclusion that some tiger tanks were manufactured with faulty armour plate sections and they did not stopped a 75mm gun when it should have had.


I cannot find any of this in normandy tough. German tanks had fauly armour plates mainly on panther tanks and PZIV, but vital alloy elements wich were in extreme short supply were primarly directed for use on heavy tanks so its possible that late war, tiger tanks were not affected by it anymore
(King tigers were however, as proven post war)

Wheter its a M4A1,Tiger, PZIV or Panther tank, all of these tanks were gigantic bombs of gasoline. All of these tanks had very high chance of fire upon penetration (80-85%)

Only british gasoline tanks were safer then the above (With the churchill tank being the safest at 60%)

The T34 had only 30-40% chance of fire upon impact BUT this tank had a FAR higher chance of ammo explosions

The M4A3 however, was one of the safest allied tanks latewar, thanks to improved ammo storage, fuel storage and wet ammo racks and was as safe as a churchill tank


Long story short

Should a Sherman 75 penetrate a tiger from the sides? No, not via FH2 range
Should a 6PDR penetrate a tiger tank? Yes as the first tiger tank was knocked out by a churchill and the first tiger tank Destroyed was also done by a churchill tank (Wich penetrated the Tiger tank at 400meters using the newly developed APC round wich penetrated 94mm of armour at 500 meters)

Same way a 17PDR, should NOT penetrate the front hull of a panther tank. The angle had to be perfect for it to penetrate at 500 meters. Only the turret could be reliably pierced
-i am fairly sure that if they took porn off the internet, there would only be one website left and it would be called bring back the porn "Perry cox, Scrubs.

Offline Chad1992

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 518
  • Back in the Swing of Things
    • View Profile
Re: The Minor Suggestions Thread
« Reply #136 on: 06-05-2013, 20:05:02 »
I still say that this is an issue where game play trumps realism.  In real life a tigers track could be blown off (not possible in FH2), in the game damage can be repaired in a manner of seconds and its like nothing happened (not possible in real life).  With limitations and possiblilities of the game, not being able to inflict heavy or any damage, simply makes a good tanker in a tiger invincible.  This is most noticable in sidi bou zid, all the USA has are 37 and 75mm guns, so if they have no impact how are they supose to stop it?  Im not saying these guns should destroy the tank in one shot, but they should have some sort of impact.


Offline THeTA0123

  • The north remembers
  • Masterspammer
  • ****
  • Posts: 16.840
    • View Profile
Re: The Minor Suggestions Thread
« Reply #137 on: 06-05-2013, 20:05:21 »
Many early FH2 Desert maps were like this

we can all remeber operation aberdeen.....

Or mersa matruh

-i am fairly sure that if they took porn off the internet, there would only be one website left and it would be called bring back the porn "Perry cox, Scrubs.

Offline kingtiger1891

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 458
    • View Profile
Re: The Minor Suggestions Thread
« Reply #138 on: 06-05-2013, 22:05:26 »
Can someone stop lying? Churchill knock out the first tiger because it shot into tiger's turret ring, not due to some "uber newly developed ap ammo" :-X

Your beloved churchill can already survive point blank panther side shot in game now, cheers.

But of course that's not the only exicting feature of 2.45 tanking, the more I play the more I realize the tank system is totally f**ked up, it requires more than "minor" suggestion to fix.

Offline Pejsaty

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 207
    • View Profile
Re: The Minor Suggestions Thread
« Reply #139 on: 06-05-2013, 22:05:49 »
Now Chrchill can win 1vs1 against Tiger frontally at close range...  ::)

Offline Butcher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1.839
  • ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
    • View Profile
Re: The Minor Suggestions Thread
« Reply #140 on: 06-05-2013, 22:05:20 »
Yup, the shell got stuck in the Tigers´ turret ring, blocking the turret... not destroying the vehicle. That´s why you can see that Tiger nowadays at the Bovington tank museum in driving condiditon.

I don´t know why Tao is so horny on the Churchill. The Tiger was a bad design - I agree on that. It was essentialy a big box with a big gun. The Churchill however was also a bad design - if not worse. It had the same conventional armor layout without any angles. Further the concept of an infantry support tank armed with a 6 pounder is bad. Later it got the 75mm, but still that dinosaur was slower than Tigers, less maneuverable and both guns weren´t a potent/the best option to fight enemy armour or infantry (Sherman was better in that regard).

I know a dozen Tiger aces yet no Churchill-ace.

Why is the Churchill such a great design in your eyes, while the Tiger is crap?  ???
He got banned for our sins. He was not the member FH forums deserved, he was the member we needed.

Offline THeTA0123

  • The north remembers
  • Masterspammer
  • ****
  • Posts: 16.840
    • View Profile
Re: The Minor Suggestions Thread
« Reply #141 on: 06-05-2013, 22:05:20 »
The churchill tank could go anywhere  ;) Anywhere


It could climb hills even tiger tanks could not (The tiger tank actually had better offroad performance then a sherman and a PZIV ;) )

The Churchill had excellent crew survivability. It could also be adapted to dozens of tasks wich extended its service life
AND the churchill tank did great service in the italy campaign, outperforming any allied tank in the field because it could reach any destination. Not to mention that in 1943, heavy german anti-tank weaponary was still rather scarce. And it had no problems with the PZIV then deployed.

Is the tiger tank a bad design?

I think there is a reason why it is famous today. It had many impressive features and the only real disadvantage of this tank was its manufactering cost and Maintance cost. From 1942-1943 the Tiger tank costed over 800 000 reichsmarks in materials and manhours, when the desperate needed Panzer IV costed 120 000 reichmarks or so. Only by 1944 did the tiger tank construction costs dropped drasticly, but by that time it was to late.

And welll, if the tiger tank was well maintained, it was actually quite reliable. Same as the churchill tank.
But yeah, in germanies situation, maintance was difficult.
-i am fairly sure that if they took porn off the internet, there would only be one website left and it would be called bring back the porn "Perry cox, Scrubs.

Offline Steel_Lion_FIN

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1.475
  • Mostly drunk.
    • View Profile
Re: The Minor Suggestions Thread
« Reply #142 on: 06-05-2013, 22:05:23 »
less maneuverable

Churchills had amazing cross-country capabilities and were able to climb hills most other tanks couldn't. A major advantage in the Italian campaign and I read somewhere about the Churchills in Normandy Campaign and how significant their ability to surprise the germans by climbing hills thought unaccessible to tanks. IIRC it was in a documentary about Churchills.

And then there  are the "Special" Churchills, the AVRE, Crocodile and ARV.

E: Damn it, theta beat me to it.
I'd rather play Kimble with my ass!


Offline Strat_84

  • FH-Betatester
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
  • Lemming Chieftain
    • View Profile
Re: The Minor Suggestions Thread
« Reply #143 on: 06-05-2013, 22:05:37 »
I know a dozen Tiger aces yet no Churchill-ace.

Easy, that's a matter of propaganda.

The IIIrd Reich kept making up heroes fighting in units that symbolized their early success (tanks, bombers).

The British tankers were there as well, but they didn't have their name written in newspapers for every new kill they got.


Offline THeTA0123

  • The north remembers
  • Masterspammer
  • ****
  • Posts: 16.840
    • View Profile
Re: The Minor Suggestions Thread
« Reply #144 on: 06-05-2013, 23:05:10 »
Exactly

Completly diffrent way of propaganda, might even be that many kills where "made up"  ;) ;) ;)

Same way the allied propaganda showed photos and said:LOOK HOW OUR EPIC FIGHTER BOMBERS RAPED THIS ENTIRE GERMAN ARMOURED COLUMN

When in reality they abandoned there vehicles because they ran out of fuel

People still believe fighter bombers destroyed panzers with ease when in normandy, they only accounted for 0.6% of the german panzers killed.
-i am fairly sure that if they took porn off the internet, there would only be one website left and it would be called bring back the porn "Perry cox, Scrubs.

Offline Butcher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1.839
  • ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
    • View Profile
Re: The Minor Suggestions Thread
« Reply #145 on: 07-05-2013, 14:05:17 »
The British tankers were there as well, but they didn't have their name written in newspapers for every new kill they got.
So there were actually british tankers with 100+ confirmed kills? Knispel, Carius, Bölter, Wittmann, Körner. Now it´s your turn...

many kills where "made up"  ;) ;) ;)
The kills mentioned in sources are the confirmed kills... they might as well be higher. Now even the confirmed numbers are made up?

We should get this on topic again: I think Christies proposal is out of place. Try hitting the Tigers´ lower hull on the height of the tracks and you can damage it from the side. That worked at least in 2.4 for me.
He got banned for our sins. He was not the member FH forums deserved, he was the member we needed.

Offline THeTA0123

  • The north remembers
  • Masterspammer
  • ****
  • Posts: 16.840
    • View Profile
Re: The Minor Suggestions Thread
« Reply #146 on: 07-05-2013, 17:05:16 »
I read they are confirmed kills, but i never actually saw the papers wich says so they are confirmed

i would love to those, tbh, to see how the germans mapped there kills.

-i am fairly sure that if they took porn off the internet, there would only be one website left and it would be called bring back the porn "Perry cox, Scrubs.

Offline Chad1992

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 518
  • Back in the Swing of Things
    • View Profile
Re: The Minor Suggestions Thread
« Reply #147 on: 08-05-2013, 03:05:20 »
Can we have half tracks spawn AT guns?  I know we have the trucks that "fart" them out now, but there not on that many maps, plus they have no armour.


Offline CHRISTIEFRONTDRIVE

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1.448
    • View Profile
Re: The Minor Suggestions Thread
« Reply #148 on: 08-05-2013, 16:05:35 »
Can we have half tracks spawn AT guns?  I know we have the trucks that "fart" them out now, but there not on that many maps, plus they have no armour.

+1, sorely needed imo. Static guns are almost useless on maps where enemy tankers memorize their positions (PaK 40s near Farmhouse on Cobra, American 6-pounder at Mortain on Luttich, etc.).


Quote from: TASSER1
you suck. noone likes you. and your mother isn't pretty

Quote from: Eightball1182
Andrew.Drunk.Drive...I love u man. You get it...u get it 100%. Stay cool Canada brother.

Offline Turkish007

  • Masterspammer
  • ****
  • Posts: 4.046
  • Mini-mod necromancer
    • View Profile
Re: The Minor Suggestions Thread
« Reply #149 on: 08-05-2013, 16:05:37 »
Will we be getting the katyusha rocket launcher (and the zis-5 :3)?

This one is made by Koricus for BGF:



Couldnt find it in the game files unfortunately.