Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
Sounds good, thanks for the info. How about the German armored units, would they be the same as they are in your SITW Mod?
On the german side, i'm very eager to see how the devs will do the Nashorn, the Hetzer, as well as the JagdPz 4 70/V.
If I were to take the same kind of thinking than the russian armor I detailed above, they would be like that :
JagdPanzer 38(t) Hetzer - 10 AP - 1500m - 10/3/2 - accuracy 4.
PzJäger Nashorn - 19 AP - 1500m - 2/2/1 - accuracy 6.
JagdPanzer IV 70/V - 13 AP - 1500m - 13/3/3 - accuracy 5.
But what i'd love the most would be seeing planes used as they were. Meaning they're not in your deck but you can call them in for a strike or an interception mission a lot like what they could be used in World in Conflict. Some special points for the planes could be earned through time to avoid for them to be abused.
For comparison from MrCrisps SITW mod which has more realistic armor/AP values than the vanilla SD44:
MkIV 10 AP- 7/5/3 - 4 accuracy
Tiger E 13 AP- 11/9/9 - 5 accuracy
Tiger B 19 AP- 21/9/9 - 5 accuracy
Panther A/D 13 AP 12/5/5 - 4 accuracy
Panther G 13 AP 13/5/5 -4 accuracy
That makes for some very interesting balance/gameplay decisions as only IS2, ISU/SU 122-152 can penetrate front armor of Panthers and Tigers from outside of 800 meters. Meanwhile Panthers and Tigers can pen all Russian armor except IS2-44 from 1500 meters.
How about the HE values for Russian armor? I assume they will be more deadly vs infantry/AT guns, and also they will be cheaper and have more availability than the Germans.
If the IS-1 is in SD2 then that could also pose a problem for tigers and panthers on 1500m. I thought the red army still had a few of those during bagration.
HE value will be better on average for the Soviets. The most common soviet tank the t-34/85 had a better HE shell tgen the panther and panzer 4.
85mm HE will always be more powerful than 75mm ones...
How will they make Soviet AFVs, and particularly T-34, poo in practice? It has some protection, it has firepower. Must emulate its poor ergonomics and optics etc all these litlte things that made it bad.
Extra slow turret rotation? Extra slow firerate? Easy to score criticals on them etc?
IS-2s and ISU-152s will be able to destroy a Tiger or Panther easily, and even the T-34-85s will have some potent AP capability, especially against the Tiger and Mark IV with their flat armour. The IS-2 could also bounce 88mm and long 75mm fire until the Germans got within 800 to 900m, making it a good choice to counter the German heavies. If you expect German tanks to easily dominate, I am afraid you are probably in for a nasty surprise, as the Germans were in 1944.
There shouldn't be too many IS-2 and ISU-152 (though I'm not sure how many there actually were in Bagration and what sort of formations etc, but I believe they were fairly rare), hopefully we will see more historically accurate relevancy of tanks than we did in Normandy.
It should mostly be Pz4, Pz5, T-34/76, T34/85, SU76 and the Soviet armour should be dying 4 times as much as the Pz4s etc. Mostly dead T-34s.
We are not discussing hypothesis. WW2 was real and actually happened.
THE T-34’S PERFORMANCE IN 1944
Even the Soviets realised that the 1943 loss/kill ratio was unsustainable. In order to restore the technological balance they attenuated T-34/76 production and moved quickly to up gun the T-34 with a new turret and the 85mm M-1944 ZIS-S53 L/51.5 gun, designated the T-34/85.
By 1944 the Soviets had the absolute strategic initiative, with massive numerical superiority, and in terms of supply distribution and support, operational superiority. They had the luxury of being able to concentrate large armoured forces at any points on the front they desired while still being able to strongly defend everywhere. In terms of tactical combat proficiency, the Soviets could claim to have tank crews as well trained and experienced as the Germans. In addition the RAF and USAF had given the Soviets critical air superiority for the first time. For most of 1944 the Soviets had technical parity in terms of AFVs, with the large majority of T-34s now being the T-34/85s. The Soviets, and most modern publications, claim the T-34/85 was much superior to any model Pz IV or StuG assault gun and similar in combat power to the Panther. On top of this the Soviets had large numbers of the new IS-2 heavy tanks, one of the most powerful tanks in WWII, as well as the almost equally powerful ISU-122 and ISU-152 assault guns.(19)
In 1944 the Soviets still managed to lose 23 700 fully tracked AFVs of which only 2 200 were light tanks: the highest number of AFV losses in a single year by any country in history.(20) Of these losses 58% were T-34s, the large majority being T-34/85s. Despite all possible factors being in their favour and despite massive German operational losses during 1944, the Soviets still managed to loose around three AFVs for every German AFV destroyed, or around four tanks (mostly T-34/85s) for every German tank destroyed.
(19) T. Bean, W. Fowler, Russian Tanks of WWII-Stalin’s Armoured Might, Ian Allan Publishing, London, 2002 p. 23, claims the IS-2 was “the most powerful tank of WWII”. The IS-2 and ISU assault guns were apparently a “source of amazement” to the Germans. Interestingly enough the IS-2 also had a poor tank vs. tank kill/loss ratio, but this tank was optimised for break through attacks against fortified positions, and not for tank vs. tank combat.
(20) G.F. Krivosheev , et al, Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses in the Twentieth Century, Edited by Colonel General G.F. Krivosheev, Greenhill Books, London, 1997. p. 253, table 95.
http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/the-t-34-in-wwii-the-legend-vs-the-performance/
We're not hypotheising if Soviet tanks died a lot.
It is a matter of hypothesising why Soviet tanks died a lot and how their poor performance can be replicated.
I'm looking forward to playing Soviet forces and I want tons of cheap T-34s and SU-76s to just throw out and get slaughtered.
Also the german tank forces did not fear the IS-2. Otto carius states in he's book tigers in the mud that he's Tiger 1 company was not impressed with the IS-2. Sure it was a threat to be dealt with accordingly by the use of different tactics. But it was not the ultimate tank russians always make it out to be. A tiger could fire 3 shots for every shell the IS-2 could fire in return.
The IS-2 in SD2 will be a good tank at long range where its slow reload matters less. But up close were aim time and ROF matters it will be out performed by Panther G,s and even tigers.
The king tiger will still be unmatched.
85mm gun 14 ap
100mm gun 20 ap
122mm gun 20 ap
So yes looking forward to tanks from the 40s with more range.
It's that Soviet Tanks have lower survival rates and lower kill/loss ratios, it's not that there were more of them so they died more.
It's that USSR universally made junk.
Having more tanks isn't a reason to lose more tanks, on the contrary that allows you use your tanks more effectively, especially in tank-on-tank combat having more tanks gives you and enormous advantage - that's what the whole land war in WW2 was about of Lanchester's law and the 'blitzkrieg' tactics rushing your tanks in for the attack to determine the battlefields as the more your tanks outnumber the enemy's tanks in combat the more effectively you destroy the enemy while minimising your losses.
You mean they were used differently? That doesn't cover them being lost over 5 times the amount in combat, but yea fam you use something like trash because it is trash.
It's almost as if the fashion you use something reflects its worth.
Yea, they did awfully at their main job as tanks. I agree that Soviet tanks are generally bad and do their job awfully in any aspect, not just failed in tank on tank combat. It's not just Bagration but consistent through the war that in combat Nazi Germany's tanks outperformed Soviet tanks, as put in the article by a factor of about 5-7 when you factor Germany's heavy operational losses in the later years, let alone the Soviet strategic and tactical advantages.
The article already linked touches on this general theme of Soviet Tanks quite alot.
From June to December 1941, the Soviets either already had in service or placed in service, a total of at least 3 017 T-34s out of a manufactured total of 3 111.(3) This is not a small number even by later WWII standards. With this number, the T-34 tanks must have been much more established than common perception.
The total number of German Pz IIIs, Pz IVs and StuG assault guns committed to the East Front during the entire period under consideration, was 2 686.(4) This figure includes Pz IIIs with only 37mm guns, all the tanks in all the units that arrived as reinforcements, and all replacements up to December 1941. These were the only general issue German AFVs with any reasonable chance of success in one to one combat with a T-34 or KV tank, and based on a cursory analysis of armour and firepower, this chance was theoretically low. In other words, even in 1941 the Red Army fielded over 1.1 times more T-34s than any German AFV ‘theoretically’ capable of taking them on. (If we add the 1 563 even more powerful KV I and II tanks fielded by the Soviets in 1941, this figure increases to 1.7). This is before we even consider the thousands of other tank types, that the same German Pz IIIs, Pz IVs and StuGs had to fight against during 1941.
...
THE T34’S OVERALL COMBAT RESULTS IN 1941
The combat results for 1941 show the Soviets lost an average of over seven tanks for every German tank lost.
...
The combat results for 1942, 1943, 1944 and 1945 show the Soviets lost an average of 6, 4, 4 and 1.2 tanks respectively, for every German tank lost.(12) If all German and Soviet assault guns, and all other types of fully tracked AFV losses are included, then the ratio changes to 5, 3, 3 and 1.3 for 1942, 1943, 1944 and 1945 respectively, in the German favour.(13) The figures for 1945 are not much use as the majority of German losses were operational or strategic, i.e. they are classified as lost when Germany surrendered in 1945.
Aren't Soviet Tanks supposed to be cheap?
Soviet Tanks cost on average about less than a fifth of what a German tank cost on average? Hmmm
It's not just that in tank on tank combat Nazi Germany's tanks so thoroughly outperformed them, and that is consistent through the war, but that Soviet tanks generally have such poor survivability compared to the very high survivability of Nazi Germany's tanks.
The results show what is must inevitably be in large part a poor design. This isn't something you have to stretch to see or based on anecdotes about events and the opinion's of people in uniforms, but it just pops out at you from the data.
It's consistent through Soviet tank design in WW2, and beyond WW2 into the Cold War, that they don't perform.
It's not just 1941, 1942, 1943, 1944, but the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Six Day War, Yom Kippur War etc etc.
It's almost as if there is some sort of pattern here that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics makes tanks that are pure junk.
It's almost as if there is some sort of strange consistent problem in the USSR of making good designs that aren't awful in practice.
When you design a weapon that uses a big gun and lots of armour the key part is the designing it to be used. As the article's concluding sentence says:
"If there was ever a case for not basing a tank’s overall combat power on over simplified parameters such as thickness and slope of frontal armour, and penetration of a single round from its main gun, then the T-34’s case is it."
Yet all the conversations you read of people talking about WW2 hardware is hypothesizing how much of a problem fixing certain tracks may be, or what some guy in a uniform in the middle of a war said, or some anecdote of some event, when the whole thing is already over and the numbers are just staring you in the face. Why do people do this strange thing of looking at what something is and guessing how good it will be? Look at the results.
People who comment on the obvious conclusions from results have nothing to prove, it is those who propose otherwise that have to answer for the disaster that was Soviet Tank performance that is manifest.
How bad they are isn't funny. It's typical of a tyrannical dictatorship that is not beholden to its people nor cares for them to betray their soldiers in such a way. The Russian people deserved better.
I agree with most you said. But don't forget that Germany was fighting a defensive War from 1943 onwards on the eastern front. Which gave German armor and AT guns several advantages in engagements. Which for a part explains the kill/death ratio which was heavy in favor for the Germans
People like to bash on late war german equipment and designs as unreliable and in case of acur the frontal plate falling off on then while completly ignoring Allied and Soviet late war designs which had obvious flaws. The americans for example did not manage to produce a single working and reliable heavy tank design during the war. And the 1 design they did bring out. The m26 pershing. Was so ♥♥♥♥♥♥ that even in the korean war it kept breaking down. And that design came from a war industry that could develop it,s weapons in peace while not having to deal with carpet bombing day and night.....
The soviet IS-2 was full of design flaws. It had a shot trap between the hull and the turret. It had frontal mounted fuel tanks which obviously catched on fire when the tank got frontally penetrated. It had horrible gun depression and bad crew survivability because of the cramped interior.
The brits are a mixed bag. Their main heavy tank the churchill was good for it,s time but in the later war years severly outdated in design just like most british tanks. Except for the firefly which was not even designed by the brits themselfs. The cromwell was a joke. Being worse then the panzer 4 fire power and protection wise. While the panzer 4 was designed in 1936..... then you got the comet which basicly is a cromwell on steroids and a capable gun. With the comet finally the brits surpassed the panzer 4
But apparantly most of those tanks are good while their wrecks layered the battlefields of europe, destroyed by tanks which broke down every time when trying to reach the battlefield and which frontal plate could break any moment and where bad...
I really love the mental gymnastics people make sometimes
Anyway ultimately just looking specifically at tank-on-tank combat you see Nazi Germany's tanks outperformed Soviet tanks in tank-on-tank combat, similarly looking at amount of combat engaged in and survival rates etc, but I don't have the numbers on hand so people can go ahead and dismiss it if they like.
Weapons don't exist in a vacuum of hypothetical usefulness. English don't need to make 150lb Warbows if the French are naked. If they had of brought 20lb Warbows and needed a army multitides the size it isn't that "It's not bad it's just that the French have armour", the issue would be that the weapon the English made was crap.
I don't remember ever seeing any numbers on the performance of Pershing in Korea, but I imagine overall it wasn't bad, breakdowns or not. I've read that the M4 Sherman was very good against the T34/85, but to be honest I don't remember ever seeing any actual numbers on it.
This is going off on a tangent bashing Soviet Tanks.
Just meant to say that hopefully what we see lost on SD2's battlefield's relatively matches the proportions of what was lost in Bagration, and Soviet Tanks were mostly T34 (and many SU76 I believe) and they died an awful lot, as they did through the whole war.