BF2S Forums [World of Tanks] Discussion

War Man wrote:

76mm sherman=long barreled panzer IV. T34 was not an equal to the Panther, it didn't have as good firepower or armor as the panther. Russia had the upperhand in just mass producing the shit out of the t34 and send them to the battlefield to fight.

qft

the T34 was "the best" because of the numbers the russians could throw out, and the angled armor ofc...

Wtf you talking about, the sherman was bad, but you are praising the t34 little too much as it wasn't all that good it actually is a bit overrated. And the German heavy tanks were unreliable because the suspension couldn't handle their weight, if they had good suspension they'd be able to have the same mobility as the t34. The Panther's mobility was actually quite enough. King Tiger was a complete fucking waste of resources though. One problem Germany had in mass production is they didn't really decide upon what tank they should have as their main tank and Hitler of course wasn't a help with him wanting "Bigger Tanks" as well as them ending up with limited resources in the end. The Panther was actually only a bit more expensive than a Panzer IV but far cheaper than a Tiger I

As for Sherman, yes it was bad, at least for the American version, but it wasn't a complete trash as you say. American tank doctrine was terrible. The idea was tanks support infantry tank destroyers kill tanks, but in many cases it ended up being the reverse and we brought in the 76mm shermans ,which evened the odds with panzer IV vs sherman battles, a little late. Now as for the British firefly, a sherman tank, that proved to be legendary as the brits were smart to fit their tanks with guns that took care of the German heavy tanks. The extra firepower helped greatly which gave the sherman a good image. God, if the US had 90mm sherman tanks, replaced their shermans with the new medium tank designs, or brought in the Pershing much sooner, things would be different.

Edit: fixed some things

Last edited by War Man (2011-02-23 18:49:59)

Thank you for the history lesson, Company of Heroes.

e: In defense of the Sherman, it wasn't a bad tank...just ill-equipped for the European theater. In that respect, I believe the tank hunter doctrine was the right thing to emphasize, but not at the expense of expedited advancement.

War Man wrote:

Wtf you talking about, the sherman was bad, but you are praising the t34 little too much as it wasn't all that good it actually is a bit overrated. And the German heavy tanks were unreliable because the suspension couldn't handle their weight, if they had good suspension they'd be able to have the same mobility as the t34. The Panther's mobility was actually quite enough. King Tiger was a complete fucking waste of resources though. One problem Germany had in mass production is they didn't really decide upon what tank they should have as their main tank and Hitler of course wasn't a help with him wanting "Bigger Tanks" as well as them ending up with limited resources in the end. The Panther was actually only a bit more expensive than a Panzer IV but far cheaper than a Tiger I

As for Sherman, yes it was bad, at least for the American version, but it wasn't a complete trash as you say. American tank doctrine was terrible. The idea was tanks support infantry tank destroyers kill tanks, but in many cases it ended up being the reverse and we brought in the 76mm shermans ,which evened the odds with panzer IV vs sherman battles, a little late. Now as for the British firefly, a sherman tank, that proved to be legendary as the brits were smart to fit their tanks with guns that took care of the German heavy tanks. The extra firepower helped greatly which gave the sherman a good image. God, if the US had 90mm sherman tanks, replaced their shermans with the new medium tank designs, or brought in the Pershing much sooner, things would be different.

Edit: fixed some things

I would call you a moron, but that would be beating a dead horse.

The T-34 was a superior vehicle in every aspect. Mobility, firepower, armor, and production. The export versions of the sherman were pretty bad (when compared to other wartime medium tanks.) The Firefly and the Shermans that were fitted with the 76mm gun were the only tanks that could remotely compete with the likes of the Panzer 4 Ausf. H or the T-34. As JG said earlier, the only reason the sherman was a success is the massive amounts of Shermans we produced, but that alone cant win a war.

Also the reason why the german heavy tanks didn't see the widespread success that the lighter allied tanks did is not because of the suspension. It's because the engines were too weak or too unreliable. Also fuel was a major issue for Germany.

You seriously need to get your facts straight before trying to argue stuff like this.

War Man wrote:

I heard the German heavy vehicles would break down due to poor suspension. Also the t34's 76mm gun was more along the lines of the sherman's 75mm gun, armor was pretty much along the lines of the sherman and panzer iv except the rounds had a chance to bounce or deflect off the tank which gave it an upper hand in protection, t34 did have superior speed compared to panzer iv and sherman. Panther's early models could go at a similar speeds to the t34 but the extra armor added to it slowed it down and put pressure on the suspension.

Mix of both actually. It became increasingly tough to fuel their thirsty engines, and the Panthers engine would have serious reliability issues (some broke out in flames.) They were phenominal tanks plauged by sub-par building materials during the later stages of the war. The engine on the Tiger and Tiger II were underpowered for their class and weight of tank.

War Man wrote:

I heard the German heavy vehicles would break down due to poor suspension. Also the t34's 76mm gun was more along the lines of the sherman's 75mm gun, armor was pretty much along the lines of the sherman and panzer iv except the rounds had a chance to bounce or deflect off the tank which gave it an upper hand in protection, t34 did have superior speed compared to panzer iv and sherman. Panther's early models could go at a similar speeds to the t34 but the extra armor added to it slowed it down and put pressure on the suspension.

Nah, the sloped armor of the T-34 didn't just give a chance at deflecting a round, the way it was constructed at a 45 degree angle doubles the effective thickness of the armor. It was a revolutionary design.

| |

vs

\ \

The latter, if struck directly provides double the protection of the former. This meant the Russians could make lighter tanks that had equal protection as the German tanks. The only weapon the Germans had that could touch the T-34 (until the Panther came along) was the 88mm flak gun.

Yes the frontal armour of the Sherman was slightly sloped, but the angle was too slight and the plate itself too thin in the first place to make much of a difference.

And by the later models of the Panther many of the unreliability problems ,to do with engine and drive train had been solved and they proved quite reliable. The main problem with them as with many of the German tanks compared to Allied ones was that a lot of the time if the Allied tanks suffered some minor mechanical problems they could be fixed in the field, whereas due to over engineering of the Panzers' they could not. One particular problem was the interleaved road wheels that were on most German tanks, which could easily become clogged up with debris, and if one particular wheel needed to be removed/replaced, if it were one of the wheels closest to the hull rather than just having to remove it's partner you would have remove up to four others as well, just to get access.

Sometimes the enemy tanks will pop out from no where even if i'm looking at their direction...wtf?
even at clsoe ranges...

aerodynamic wrote:

Sometimes the enemy tanks will pop out from no where even if i'm looking at their direction...wtf?
even at clsoe ranges...

You can't see as far in crappier tanks.  You can check the view distance in the stats page.  You can buy stuff in game to increase the view distance.

UnkleRukus wrote:

Its the sighting/range system, it's kinda gay TBH.

I tend to agree there.  Also the Russian Tanks are fucking super stealth.

Russian tanks are just superior than their counterparts. I honestly believe they released this game too early especially because they haven't completed the American tank destroyers and the fact that they are redoing the American tree. The French tanks are just gonna add additional balance mess once implemented too.

Last edited by War Man (2011-04-14 14:36:36)

'Course not, but you can at least not make it Russian tanks are superior.

I've played the Russian tanks  up until the t44 and kv, I also played the American tanks up until the m4 sherman.

Early-to-mid tier are balanced fairly well. Late tier is where it gets fucked up balance wise as far as armor, speed, and weapons go.

13rin wrote:

The entire gold system is a scam.  You get your tank to elite status and as the reward have to pay to convert experience if you continue to use it?

Fuck them for having a business strategy!