Tank Crew

[Legioneod]

Now that Tank Crew early access is on the horizon what are you looking forward to the most and what tank/tan destroyer are you most excited for?

I'm most excited to crew the M4A2 for the allies and the Ferdinand for the Axis. The Sherman is just my favorite allied tank of the war and I can't wait to see how it performs in combat against heavier tanks.

I didnt see any mention of a 75mm in the Dev Diary so does this mean we will be getting the 76mm M4A2? They didnt see service until 1944 so it really wouldn't fit the timeframe but I'm just wondering.

 

The Ferdinand is just a beast and at range is practically unstoppable (unless you send a 152 after it lol). As far as I'm aware non of the allied tanks have the punch to take it out (from the front) at longer distances and since we wont be seeing infantry any time soon I think the Ferdinand will excel at the type of fighting that will occur in-game.

 

 

If tank crew is expanded in the future what Tanks and Battles would you like to see?

For me it would be the Battle of Arracourt or the Battle of the Bulge since we are getting it as part of the new map.

The tank I would like to see most is the M4A3 E2 Assault Tank "Jumbo" and probably a Jagdpanther or Jagdtiger for the Axis.

Edited June 30, 2018 by Legioneod

[Thad]

Salutations,

 

Regardless of the tank types.. I truly hope and desire that the modules LOS (line of sight) implementation be realistic. If it isn't, any long range fire will be neutered.

 

With the current tanks, the AI can and does spot 'through' woods and elevated terrain and they can fire 'through' wooded areas. Even worse, they attempt to fire through blocking elevated terrain, thereby wasting ammunition. Good LOS restrictions and the resultant maneuver masking simply must be a necessary part of the upcoming Tank Crew module for it to even come close to reflecting WWII tank battles and tactics.

 

I am truly looking forward to the Tank Crew module. 

 

It had just better have realistic terrain masking or I will be very disappointed. ?

[angus26]

As cool as a 76 would be, I think we’ll see a 75 mm gun. Overall I kinda liked the 75 mm a little more, for no reason. Even if it’s anti tank abilities were limited. 

[Legioneod]

32 minutes ago, angus26 said:

As cool as a 76 would be, I think we’ll see a 75 mm gun. Overall I kinda liked the 75 mm a little more, for no reason. Even if it’s anti tank abilities were limited. 

I just didn't see the 75 mentioned but it makes the most sense to add it instead if the 76. The 75 actually did fairly well against tanks and could pen a tiger from the front if at the proper range and if it had the proper round. At the ranges we are likely to fight I'm sure the 75 is going to struggle against the Tigers and Panthers.

 

We shouldn't really be taking tanks on from the front anyways, flanking is the answer.

 

One question i still have is will we be seeing smoke added to the game, whether it be grenades or shells? Smoke is extremely important to obscure LOS and to be able to flank more effectively. 

Edited June 30, 2018 by Legioneod

[Velxra]

I'm looking forward to the tiger, panther, and most of all tank interiors! 

[angus26]

6 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

I just didn't see the 75 mentioned but it makes the most sense to add it instead if the 76. The 75 actually did fairly well against tanks and could pen a tiger from the front if at the proper range and if it had the proper round. At the ranges we are likely to fight I'm sure the 75 is going to struggle against the Tigers and Panthers.

 

We shouldn't really be taking tanks on from the front anyways, flanking is the answer.

 

One question i still have is will we be seeing smoke added to the game, whether it be grenades or shells? Smoke is extremely important to obscure LOS and to be able to flank more effectively. 

I would assume that unless it is mentioned, we probably won’t see smoke, however you never know, and it would be helpful. 

[Legioneod]

16 minutes ago, Geronimo553 said:

I'm looking forward to the tiger, panther, and most of all tank interiors! 

Tank interiors are great and I'm happy that they are doing the whole interior. Only thing I'm really disappointed about Tank Crew is that there wont be a loader position for player control.

[Feathered_IV]

I’m hoping the Tank Crew have a bit of chatter and don’t say the exact same sound sample for every round they load or every other action they take.  And I’m looking forward to the Hetzer one day...

Edited July 4, 2018 by Feathered_IV

[taffy2jeffmorgan]

 Pity we shall only be seeing tank battles on the eastern front, because we would only stand a chance of survival in a Sherman if it was fitted with the British 17 pounder [Firefly] 

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

3 hours ago, taffy2jeffmorgan said:

 Pity we shall only be seeing tank battles on the eastern front, because we would only stand a chance of survival in a Sherman if it was fitted with the British 17 pounder [Firefly] 

Well, that's just wrong, see Battle of Arracourt

[Garven]

11 hours ago, taffy2jeffmorgan said:

 Pity we shall only be seeing tank battles on the eastern front, because we would only stand a chance of survival in a Sherman if it was fitted with the British 17 pounder [Firefly] 

I don't see anything that says they won't go to the western front eventually.  

Edited June 30, 2018 by US103_Furlow

[unreasonable]

22 minutes ago, US103_Furlow said:

I don't see anything that says they won't go to the western front eventually.  

 

Western Desert would be better. Western Europe really was mostly combined arms battles at short ranges with lots of nasty infantry AT weapons, if only because of the terrain, while N.Africa was much more armour manoeuvring around static dug in infantry and AT guns before PzFausts and so on became standard.    

[Legioneod]

13 hours ago, taffy2jeffmorgan said:

 Pity we shall only be seeing tank battles on the eastern front, because we would only stand a chance of survival in a Sherman if it was fitted with the British 17 pounder [Firefly] 

This is incorrect, 75 and 76mm shermans did well against german armor, even Tigers and Panthers.

The 76 was more accurate and performed better overall than the 17pdr did, American testing between the 76 and 17pdr stated that the 17pdr was unsatisfactory.

 

Also one variant of the sherman had more frontal armor than the Tiger and was very hard to penetrate at range, it had 100mm of sloped armour which resulted in around 180mm of effective thickness. It performed very well in combat and was loved by it's crews, it was designed to take a bunch of hits.

 

The 5v1 numbers saying that you needed 5 shermans to take out one Tiger or Panther are incorrect as well. American and British reports stated that a 2-1 advantage was satisfactory to win against enemy armor.

9 hours ago, RoflSeal said:

Well, that's just wrong, see Battle of Arracourt

This. Another contributing factor was that the Americans were just better tankers and did better in combat tactics and maneuvering.

Edited June 30, 2018 by Legioneod

[Yogiflight]

1 hour ago, Legioneod said:

it had 100mm of sloped armour which resulted in around 180mm of effective thickness.

Please don't just write, what you read somewhere from an american 'expert'. That would be a penetration angle of less than 35°. Not even the T34 had such a shallow front armour.

Edited June 30, 2018 by Yogiflight

[angus26]

15 minutes ago, Yogiflight said:

Please don't just write, what you read somewhere from an american 'expert'. That would be a penetration angle of less than 35°. Not even the T34 had such a shallow front armour.

There was an actual Sherman with an extra plate attached to the main armor which resulted in 100mm of frontal armor. As far as effective thickness goes I’m not sure, but it did exist.

[Legioneod]

27 minutes ago, Yogiflight said:

Please don't just write, what you read somewhere from an american 'expert'. That would be a penetration angle of less than 35°. Not even the T34 had such a shallow front armour.

Its the truth though, not sure why you doubt it. The M4A3 E2 has 100mm of armour on the front, it had a line of sight thickness of around 140mm but an overall effective thickness of 180mm.

 

Effective thickness and LOS thickness are two different things. I recommend you do some research before calling someone a liar.

Edited June 30, 2018 by Legioneod

[Thad]

Ok, enough of the bickering. When Tank Crew comes out... just close your hatches and go at it. ?

[Legioneod]

19 minutes ago, Thad said:

Ok, enough of the bickering. When Tank Crew comes out... just close your hatches and go at it. ?

 You are correct I apologize, I just don't like being called a liar when I know I'm right.

We'll just have to settle it on the battlefield?

 

Some history of the M4A3E2:

http://the.shadock.free.fr/sherman_minutia/manufacturer/m4a3e2jumbo/m4a3e2.html

Edited June 30, 2018 by Legioneod

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

1 hour ago, Yogiflight said:

Please don't just write, what you read somewhere from an american 'expert'. That would be a penetration angle of less than 35°. Not even the T34 had such a shallow front armour.

WW2 shells at angles penetrate worse then what you would get if you cosined the armor thickness

Case in point, the 90mm which is analogous to the 88mm Kwk 36, at 0 degree at the muzzle it penetrates 6.75", at 47 degrees which is the angle of the Shermans front plate, roughly 3.375" when cosine you get 4.6". As you can see the 90mm would fail against the Jumbos front plate.

Edited June 30, 2018 by RoflSeal

[Yogiflight]

OK, I see. I didn't think about a possible deflection of the projectile through the sloped armour.

So I apologize for my post above.

@Legioneod, I never called you a liar. My point was, that you were referring to something you read, that was not correct. But you are right, with the armour piercing projectiles used back then, the LOS thickness is smaller than the effective thickness.

[Legioneod]

1 minute ago, Yogiflight said:

OK, I see. I didn't think about a possible deflection of the projectile through the sloped armour.

So I apologize for my post above.

@Legioneod, I never called you a liar. My point was, that you were referring to something you read, that was not correct. But you are right, with the armour piercing projectiles used back then, the LOS thickness is smaller than the effective thickness.

I'm sorry for the confrontation but I was correct in stating that the effective thickness is 180mm, I was just defending what I had stated that is all.

[Eicio]

I'm not sure how well will perform russian tanks, russian front so expect long distance engaments and I bet that the 76mm would struggle to pen tigers and panthers while those were able to do just what they want.

 

The thing is that panthers and tigers were rare, especially in 43' while t34 were common as well as the kv-1 so there might be some "balance" to consider.

 

The ferdinand doesn't need to be killed by the soviets, it can do this pretty well on it's own (yes I don't like it but you got to admit that it's more like a bunker than a tank).

 

And the sherman, well... obsolete tank, just like the cromwell. Don't forget that in 44' germans suffered a lack of materials that weakened the tanks and also consider the wear of the armor.

 

The stug would be neat though. It'll definetly come as a collector "plane".

 

 

[angus26]

9 minutes ago, Eicio said:

The stug would be neat though. It'll definetly come as a collector "plane".

Jason said that there will be no collector vehicles, right now, you buy tank crew, you get all of it.

[Legioneod]

1 hour ago, Eicio said:

I'm not sure how well will perform russian tanks, russian front so expect long distance engaments and I bet that the 76mm would struggle to pen tigers and panthers while those were able to do just what they want.

 

The thing is that panthers and tigers were rare, especially in 43' while t34 were common as well as the kv-1 so there might be some "balance" to consider.

 

The ferdinand doesn't need to be killed by the soviets, it can do this pretty well on it's own (yes I don't like it but you got to admit that it's more like a bunker than a tank).

 

And the sherman, well... obsolete tank, just like the cromwell. Don't forget that in 44' germans suffered a lack of materials that weakened the tanks and also consider the wear of the armor.

 

The stug would be neat though. It'll definetly come as a collector "plane".

 

 

There should definitely be limited numbers of Panthers and Tigers, most of the German tanks should be the IV and IIIs. 

 

Without infantry the Ferdinand will be very hard to kill, nothing the soviets have will penetrate it from the front, the 152 will be able to kill it but thats just because it's a big ole 152.

 

The Sherman was nowhere near obsolete by 43 and with the upgrades the sherman received during the war it remained a capable tank until the end, despite it being outgunned by some of it's opposition.

 

I never really had any interest in the stug, I'd much prefer a Jagdtiger or Jagdpanther, or even the 88mm Flak gun for AA.

 

Edited July 1, 2018 by Legioneod

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

I can't wait until the inevitable wars about armour penetration begin on the forum. No doubt someone will be doing FEA in an attempt to provide evidence. Exciting times are ahead.

 

[Legioneod]

2 hours ago, Mitthrawnuruodo said:

I can't wait until the inevitable wars about armour penetration begin on the forum. No doubt someone will be doing FEA in an attempt to provide evidence. Exciting times are ahead.

 

 

All depends on the angle, thickness, and range. With enough slope you can pretty much bounce anything. The 8.8cm PzGr. 39 could pen about 99mm of armor sloped at 30 deg from vertical (which is about a 60 degree slope) at a range of 1000yds, The PzGr. 40 is even greater.

 

Not sure what the slope is in the video but it looks about 30 degrees, a 30 degree slope of 30mm armor gives a relative thickness of roughly 120mm. So given enough range a 30mm plate can definitely bounce an 88.

 

EDIT: Video description state the slope at 24 deg. 

Edited July 1, 2018 by Legioneod

[69th_chuter]

On 6/29/2018 at 7:18 PM, Thad said:

Salutations,

 

Regardless of the tank types.. I truly hope and desire that the modules LOS (line of sight) implementation be realistic. If it isn't, any long range fire will be neutered.

 

With the current tanks, the AI can and does spot 'through' woods and elevated terrain and they can fire 'through' wooded areas. Even worse, they attempt to fire through blocking elevated terrain, thereby wasting ammunition. Good LOS restrictions and the resultant maneuver masking simply must be a necessary part of the upcoming Tank Crew module for it to even come close to reflecting WWII tank battles and tactics. 

 

I am truly looking forward to the Tank Crew module. 

 

It had just better have realistic terrain masking or I will be very disappointed. ?

 

Oh, boy, you can say that again!  There's nothing like spending quite a bit of time attempting to flank around an enemy position using terrain and forest as cover only to get blind one-shot over the hill and through the trees ... to grandmother's house we go ... ?.

[Porkins]

I assume we're getting the 75, simply because that is what existed during the battle of Kursk. Would love to see the 76 at some point. 

 

The "tank" I would most like to see in the game is the Stug III G. I'm a little surprised the devs chose to go with the Ferdinand rather than the Stug, as the Stug presents fewer balancing issues as it was vulnerable to the T-34/76. I also imagine it would be easier to model simply because it was a far smaller vehicle. 

 

On the Allied side, I would love to see some lend lease Churchills or the SU-76. 

[InProgress]

heh i am pretty sure map will have some towns and stuff like that, germans will be pro at longrange combat but when they will have to fight inside a city, russians can show some of their skills. Tho i can already see people with Ferdinand sitting at some hill and sniping every t34

 

also don't forget that this is going to be tank and planes, so you can always take out heavy stuff from the air.

Edited July 1, 2018 by InProgress

[Legioneod]

6 hours ago, InProgress said:

heh i am pretty sure map will have some towns and stuff like that, germans will be pro at longrange combat but when they will have to fight inside a city, russians can show some of their skills. Tho i can already see people with Ferdinand sitting at some hill and sniping every t34

 

also don't forget that this is going to be tank and planes, so you can always take out heavy stuff from the air.

 

This is ture. It's a good thing we will have player controlled AA to defend us against air attacks.

[Garven]

It would be fun to loiter in a ground attack aircraft and then get directed to a specific target not marked on the map.

[Legioneod]

Just now, US103_Furlow said:

It would be fun to loiter in a ground attack aircraft and then get directed to a specific target not marked on the map.

Players that are on the ground can direct them in to a target area. And I'm sure there are going to be objectives for the ground players to accomplish.

[InProgress]

You can use po2 as recon ^^

[LukeFF]

19 hours ago, Eicio said:

And the sherman, well... obsolete tank,

 

Thanks for the laugh. 

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

On 6/30/2018 at 3:03 AM, Legioneod said:

 

If tank crew is expanded in the future what Tanks and Battles would you like to see?

For me it would be the Battle of Arracourt or the Battle of the Bulge since we are getting it as part of the new map.

The tank I would like to see most is the M4A3 E2 Assault Tank "Jumbo" and probably a Jagdpanther or Jagdtiger for the Axis.

It would be nice if battle of the bulge encompasses the same period as BoBP, this would allow us to get post Bulge Sherman modifications

e.g. 3rd Army Modification to M4A3E8 76W

E.g. 

 

Which included 50.cal coaxial, roof 50 moved to loaders hatch, 30cal added to commander's hatch and of course weld add on armour taken from destroyed tanks and mounted on the hull and turret.

 

Also modifications to represent the 100 or so Jumbo Shermans that had the 75mm replaced with the 76.

 

[Legioneod]

15 minutes ago, RoflSeal said:

It would be nice if battle of the bulge encompasses the same period as BoBP, this would allow us to get post Bulge Sherman modifications

e.g. 3rd Army Modification to M4A3E8 76W

E.g. 

 

Which included 50.cal coaxial, roof 50 moved to loaders hatch, 30cal added to commander's hatch and of course weld add on armour taken from destroyed tanks and mounted on the hull and turret.

 

Also modifications to represent the 100 or so Jumbo Shermans that had the 75mm replaced with the 76.

 

 

The bulge would be really nice, we could even just have a list of German and Allied tanks that way we could pretty much recreate the campaigns on the Bodenplatte map from Market Garden all the way into 1945.

 

M4A3E2 (75 or 76 since nothing really changed in the turret all they did was install a new gun)

M4A3E8 76mm

Sherman Firefly

M10 or M36

Churchill or some other British Tank.

 

Panther A

Tiger II

Jagdpanther or Jagdtiger

Stug

Any other German Tank (can't really think of many more)

 

And we can use all the current tanks in the German lineup. 

Edited July 1, 2018 by Legioneod

[Finkeren]

People are so hung up on the Tigers, Panthers and Ferdinands, which made up such a tiny percetage of the armoured forces committed at Kursk. 

 

If we get realistic numbers incorporated in the campaigns and multiplayer (which I definitely expect) then it should all T-34s with a few KV-1s sprinkled here and there, PzKw III and IV, some assault guns and then very occasionally a Tiger, Ferdinand, Su-152 or a couple Panthers. 

 

The real match-up to consider should be T-34 model 43 vs. Panzer IV model M - which honestly should still work out in the German’s favor.

 

Also: I really don’t see how the vision of Germans sitting around in their Tigers and Ferdinands sniping Rooskies at maximum range all day is to come to pass. Consider how many tank players in MP can reliably hit a moving target at 1500m, and gunnery is not going to get easier as it gets more advanced in TC. I predict that most kills in MP will happen at 500m or less, which gives a Tiger commander precious little time to deal with 20 T-34s assaulting his position.

Edited July 1, 2018 by Finkeren

[Legioneod]

16 minutes ago, Finkeren said:

People are so hung up on the Tigers, Panthers and Ferdinands, which made up such a tiny percetage of the armoured forces committed at Kursk. 

 

If we get realistic numbers incorporated in the campaigns and multiplayer (which I definitely expect) then it should all T-34s with a few KV-1s sprinkled here and there, PzKw III and IV, some assault guns and then very occasionally a Tiger, Ferdinand, Su-152 or a couple Panthers. 

 

The real match-up to consider should be T-34 model 43 vs. Panzer IV model M - which honestly should still work out in the German’s favor.

 

Also: I really don’t see how the vision of Germans sitting around in their Tigers and Ferdinands sniping Rooskies at maximum range all day is to come to pass. Consider how many tank players in MP can reliably hit a moving target at 1500m, and gunnery is not going to get easier as it gets more advanced in TC. I predict that most kills in MP will happen at 500m or less, which gives a Tiger commander precious little time to deal with 20 T-34s assaulting his position.

With enough skill it can certainly be done, we don't have much to judge by right now however due to the fact that there are only 2 tanks in game right now.

Also, even below 500m the russian dont have much that can do any damage frontal vs a Tiger or Panther, they also don't have anything that can pen a Ferdinand at any range. Against heavier tanks the 152 will come in very handy, it was nicknamed the beast killer after all wasn't it?

 

If it were me I'd just limit the number per round.

 

handful of  Tigers

5 or so Panthers

a few Ferdinands 

and then a bunch of III and IV

 

Bunch of T34s

handful or more of KV

However many shermans

 

Honestly though Tigers and stuff wont be all that crazy if you just use teamwork and tactics against them, we'll also have air support so that will help.

Edited July 1, 2018 by Legioneod

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

You are forgetting that the heavy tanks were concentrated where the action is heaviest for maximum decisive effect, "sprinkled" is an incorrect term. The British didn't meet German tanks on the morning of Operation Goodwood on 18th July with the ratio of 6:4:3:1 PzIV, Panther, StuG, Tiger which was the ratio of overall in the Normandy campaign, but 2:3 PzIV, Tiger.

 

A Heavy Tank Battalion in 1944 has 45 Tigers, not mostly Panzers IVs with a sprinkling of Tigers.

 

Obviously there are exceptions, Sherman Jumbos were dispersed throughout numerous units and were used a lot as convoy lead tanks due to their heavy armour.

[Eicio]

24 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

With enough skill it can certainly be done, we don't have much to judge by right now however due to the fact that there are only 2 tanks in game right now.

Also, even below 500m the russian dont have much that can do any damage frontal vs a Tiger or Panther, they also don't have anything that can pen a Ferdinand at any range. Against heavier tanks the 152 will come in very handy, it was nicknamed the beast killer after all wasn't it?

 

The problem is that this is the eastern front and not Normandy so , except for an ambush, you will face the ennemy and generaly at distance, moreover flanking isn't done that easy like war thunder and you most likely won't surprise anybody since a tank isn't the most stealthy thing and tanks aren't doing their things alone.

 

However since the dev included the su-122 and su-152we can guess that HE damage on armored will be modeled so the question is: could a bunch of 76mm canons loaded with HE shells could, not destroy but at least disable a Tiger or a Panter or softened it's armor ?