Jump to content

Tank crew


Na-zdorovie
 Share

Recommended Posts

Na-zdorovie

although i guess really this should be in the tank crew forum, i wanted to ask here as most of you that have this are flyers too.

was wanting to pick this up but always hear different views of it, i know steam ones don't count as all of them are moaners :)

what's it like? campaign structures and career like great battles etc? runs well? fun? problems?

thanks for info guys

Edited by Na-zdorovie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The stock officual campaigns are.. from one hand - great because they add voice lines for both sides, but from other hand you drive a lot, then encounter enemy, and no matter from which side you shoot - you are dead. At least as Soviet side in T34.
And the strange thing is that next missions unlocks, so you never know if you was supposed to be killed? This misison designs raises more questions than answers.
Please note: I have only played these official missions on early access the week Tank Crew campaigns were released.
No idea if they improved it.

But. You have a lot of custom missions \ campaigns especially from some French users, they just release them non stop. You should check the Tank Crew missions forums. Maybe this point will give you a good reason to try it?

Edited by Zeev
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

AEthelraedUnraed
19 minutes ago, Na-zdorovie said:

what's it like? campaign structures and career like great battles etc?

No career, but there's quick missions and a couple of campaigns. Some of the campaign missions are really good.

 

20 minutes ago, Na-zdorovie said:

runs well?

The game runs well, yes.

 

21 minutes ago, Na-zdorovie said:

fun?

Overall, yes.

 

21 minutes ago, Na-zdorovie said:

problems?

As a VR user, the 3d viewpoint of the gunner positions keeps drifting. No such problems for non-VR or the driver/commander positions though. Furthermore, Tank Crew could really do with some basic infantry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If your a single player it's worth it just for the map. The fact that it is lots of fun is just gravy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EvilButtmaster

I'm not much of a fan of the developer-made single player missions - there are only two.  The terrain there, while historically accurate is, extremely boring.  Many of the user-made single player missions are challenging and have cool maps and fun objectives.  However, in online multiplayer you can not find a better combined arms experience that the Finnish Virtual Pilots server and the Advance and Secure Server is a close second.  Once you really get into the multiplayer, the single player becomes a little weak.  War Thunder and WOT have great graphics but horrible maps and tank balancing that throws history and realism out the window.  War Thunder gameplay in particular is horrible (air revenge kills, kill cams, broken ballistics, etc) Steel Beasts and Gunner Heat are better for realism and modern tanks, but have worst graphics and no multiplayer.  Right now, when you look at all the angles - maps, graphics, game play, historical realism and immersion, TC does the most things right of all the tank sims out there in my opinion.  It's still far from perfect, but it won't make you crazy with dissapointment like WT and some of the other games.

 

Stay nervous.

Edited by NervousPervert
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LachenKrieg
9 hours ago, NervousPervert said:

I'm not much of a fan of the developer-made single player missions - there are only two.  The terrain there, while historically accurate is, extremely boring.  Many of the user-made single player missions are challenging and have cool maps and fun objectives.  However, in online multiplayer you can not find a better combined arms experience that the Finnish Virtual Pilots server and the Advance and Secure Server is a close second.  Once you really get into the multiplayer, the single player becomes a little weak.  War Thunder and WOT have great graphics but horrible maps and tank balancing that throws history and realism out the window.  War Thunder gameplay in particular is horrible (air revenge kills, kill cams, broken ballistics, etc) Steel Beasts and Gunner Heat are better for realism and modern tanks, but have worst graphics and no multiplayer.  Right now, when you look at all the angles - maps, graphics, game play, historical realism and immersion, TC does the most things right of all the tank sims out there in my opinion.  It's still far from perfect, but it won't make you crazy with dissapointment like WT and some of the other games.

 

Stay nervous.

I haven't played in a little while. Did they fix the unstoppable Sherman issue? Because I wouldn't call that realism.

Edited by LachenKrieg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes the Sherman is now stoppable . Two rounds at close range . 

however I'm noticing strange behavior online . 

Tiger tank hit once in the front .I Sat scanning and backed up into dead ground then tiger tank exploded . Very odd Bugged. 

Static T34 wont die under cam nets . very Bugged . 

Panther got two hits both in front at long range from T34  . Moved and exploded .

Invisible damage is still there . Still no fix . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 8/30/2021 at 6:58 AM, KoN_ said:

Yes the Sherman is now stoppable . Two rounds at close range . 

however I'm noticing strange behavior online . 

Tiger tank hit once in the front .I Sat scanning and backed up into dead ground then tiger tank exploded . Very odd Bugged. 

Static T34 wont die under cam nets . very Bugged . 

Panther got two hits both in front at long range from T34  . Moved and exploded .

Invisible damage is still there . Still no fix . 

Two rounds at close range might be an improvement, but I am not sure we can say it has been fixed. It's too bad really because as a tank simulator, I can't use it to correctly learn how to use armor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, LachenKrieg said:

but I am not sure we can say it has been fixed.

How can you say that without any information about the shootings?

I did some tests and for me, everything is fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, No_Face said:

How can you say that without any information about the shootings?

I did some tests and for me, everything is fine.

@No_Face, you raise a good point and I'm not trying to be funny or insulting, but compare both of our posts.

 

I said, "I'm not sure" while you said " everything is fine".

 

You stating that everything is fine would require an exhaustive amount of information/data to support, while my statement requires none because I am not making any claims.

 

I am just saying that I am not sure. Certainly not all engagements would require 2 shots to knock out a Sherman tank with the L/48. Even the PzIII's L/60 could knock a Sherman out with a well placed shot.

 

I just watched a very entertaining video by @LUZITANO where he does a fine job on a MP server. And while he doesn't knock any of his opponents out in a single shot, he seems to be able to dispatch several T34's easier than would be expected. So again, it raises doubt that everything is fine.

 

I really like the IL2 franchise, and had a lot of hopes for Tank Crew, but lets just say my hope that this is going to be the de facto WWII armor simulator is fading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LachenKrieg said:

I said, "I'm not sure"

Oh okay, I thought it was said in an ironic tone.
 

But someone tells you that he shot a Sherman twice at close range before disabling it, and you think to yourself that there is still a possibility that the Sherman may not yet be functioning properly.

But even if he had killed it with one shot, that would not prove the Sherman was working properly either.

 

Apart from an answer from the developers (and again, there may be bugs they don't know about) the doubt will always linger with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, No_Face said:

Oh okay, I thought it was said in an ironic tone.
 

But someone tells you that he shot a Sherman twice at close range before disabling it, and you think to yourself that there is still a possibility that the Sherman may not yet be functioning properly.

But even if he had killed it with one shot, that would not prove the Sherman was working properly either.

 

Apart from an answer from the developers (and again, there may be bugs they don't know about) the doubt will always linger with you.

When I read @KoN_ post, I understand it to be more of a general comment. Maybe I misunderstood him, but my guess would be that he is not making that statement because he knocked a single Sherman out using two shots, I understood his comment as a reference to a trend that he sees.

 

But in order to work properly, I believe the Tank Crew damage model would have to have a lot more detail added to it. The current Tank Crew model has all the ingredients to be something great, but I doesn't seem to be complete/finished to me. They have considered enough of the major mechanical systems, but there seems to be a disconnect with how these systems are affected by a penetrating shot. We should be seeing about 2(+) out of every 4 Shermans penetrated go up in flames. It seemed like what we were seeing was closer to 1 out of every 10 to 15, and only after multiple penetrations.

 

I believe what we were seeing in terms of the penetrated PzIV destruction's was probably close to real, or at least closer to real.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Salutations,

 

I have to agree that the normal Sherman was known to burst into flames rather easily during the war. Its' biggest advantage was its' great numbers.

 

That being said.... no matter what changes the developers make to the damage models in the future, there will be complaints about it by some.

 

I know, I know, I'm a cynic. 🤔

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Thad said:

Salutations,

 

I have to agree that the normal Sherman was known to burst into flames rather easily during the war. Its' biggest advantage was its' great numbers.

 

That being said.... no matter what changes the developers make to the damage models in the future, there will be complaints about it by some.

 

I know, I know, I'm a cynic. 🤔

I just hope that there will be some tweaks before the end of the year.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Thad said:

Salutations,

 

I have to agree that the normal Sherman was known to burst into flames rather easily during the war. Its' biggest advantage was its' great numbers.

 

That being said.... no matter what changes the developers make to the damage models in the future, there will be complaints about it by some.

 

I know, I know, I'm a cynic. 🤔

You are probably right @Thad, but I don't think the Dev's job should be to stop all complaints. But it would be kinda nice if as a SIM it would at least try to resemble reality.

 

Other SIMs are even using armor composition to actually model spalling, why not Tank Crew?

 

Like most things, I think the makers of Tank Crew don't really care about historical accuracy of the product as much as they care about drawing more people into the game, and who can blame them. The problem that someone interested in the actual simulation has to face is that unfortunately, what draws people in is the game part, not a SIM.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/11/2021 at 12:06 PM, LachenKrieg said:

very entertaining video by @LUZITANO where he does a fine job on a MP server. And while he doesn't knock any of his opponents out in a single shot, he seems to be able to dispatch several T34's easier than would be expected. So again, it raises doubt that everything is fine.

The first T-34 in the video died with just one shot. The second T-34 in the video also died on the first shot, but I fired more to be sure. The sherman face to face is disabled with just one shot above or below the cannon, or in the machine gun in the hull on left. 

Guys, don't worry about bugs. Unfortunately they happen sometimes and sometimes it has to do with ballistics. Tank Crew has a lot of bugs, you guys have to be tolerant, overal the game is awesome!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[N.O.G.F]Leon_Portier
5 minutes ago, LUZITANO said:

The first T-34 in the video died with just one shot. The second T-34 in the video also died on the first shot, but I fired more to be sure. The sherman face to face is disabled with just one shot above or below the cannon, or in the machine gun in the hull on left. 

Guys, don't worry about bugs. Unfortunately they happen sometimes and sometimes it has to do with ballistics. Tank Crew has a lot of bugs, you guys have to be tolerant, overal the game is awesome!

Yes!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LUZITANO said:

The first T-34 in the video died with just one shot. The second T-34 in the video also died on the first shot, but I fired more to be sure. The sherman face to face is disabled with just one shot above or below the cannon, or in the machine gun in the hull on left. 

Guys, don't worry about bugs. Unfortunately they happen sometimes and sometimes it has to do with ballistics. Tank Crew has a lot of bugs, you guys have to be tolerant, overal the game is awesome!

@LUZITANO, thanks for the recap.

 

I really enjoyed the MP video, thanks.

 

But your post analysis suggests even stronger that there could be major problems with the damage/ballistics model that need to be addressed.

 

Historically, the 5cm L/60 PzIII would likely struggle to knock out that many T34's/Sherman tank in succession like that. In your favor though, most of your shots were on the side, so very likely penetrations. And while the 5cm gun was shown to have about a 12% penetration rate on the T34's front armor according to one Russian post battle analysis,

https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?p=2309387#p2309387 ...

 

it is hard to say from what distance, or if there were other contributing factors. I think variations in armor quality might have played a role, along with terrain elevations/depressions that may have changed the contact angle, as well as the general armor weakening that results from multiple shell strikes. I have a real interest in the battle performance of the 5cm L/60, but it is hard to come by really reliable sources. So much is lost in the past.

 

BTW, the Pz III in all its variations is my favorite armored vehicle from WWII. And I have a special interest in the L/M versions before the PzIII was put into more of a support role.

 

The linked video below includes the recollection of a WWII Panzer ace who gives an account of his battle experience from the cupola of a Panzer IIIL. At minute 15:00 in the time line, he does recount knocking out a T34 at close range, but doesn't say whether he attacked the frontal armor or not. I am assuming it was on the T34's front based on the direction and speed of the attack, but no way of knowing for sure.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 часов назад, LachenKrieg сказал:

The linked video below includes the recollection of a WWII Panzer ace who gives an account of his battle experience from the cupola of a Panzer IIIL. At minute 15:00 in the time line, he does recount knocking out a T34 at close range, but doesn't say whether he attacked the frontal armor or not. I am assuming it was on the T34's front based on the direction and speed of the attack, but no way of knowing for sure.  

 

It is difficult to call him a tank ace, judging by the video that you threw off, he knocked out not so many tanks.

 

Скрытый текст

What's more, the myth about "General Frost" comes up again. Do not think that the Red Army did not experience any problems. I also felt it. My great-grandfather defended Moscow, and according to his recollections, frost hindered no less than the Germans, although our uniforms were much better adapted for battles in cold climatic zones. There were fewer frostbites, but the equipment also suffered from bad roads due to bad weather. It is also interesting to see how the Red Army is exposed as a bloodthirsty Papuan, who grabbed onto the ground and does not give it up because he is a Papuan. There is no explanation of the reasons why Soviet soldiers fought so selflessly for their homeland. And the reason is simple. We knew what atrocities were committed by the German invaders in the occupied land, and how many people were exterminated. Everyone knows about the Holocaust, but few people know about the Famine Plan, as a result of which about 12 and a half million civilians were exterminated and 3 and a half million prisoners of war exterminated in concentration camps quite deliberately, it was a real genocide unleashed against the Soviet people, but if The USSR lost, our people would be doomed to extinction, and hardworking German farmers would populate Soviet lands up to the Urals. This would be THEIR living space that Hitler dreamed of since the days of Mein Kampf. In the West, they do not understand this, since there has not been such a scale of punitive actions against the population.
What the Nazis were doing on our land seemed an exaggeration to the judges of the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg. The vengeful invention of the communists. They refused to believe that a European human was capable of such a thing. Proof was needed. And we had them... we have them.

I apologize for the mistakes, the Google translator is not yet perfect enough to be able to translate Russian from English in the required form.
Edited by Eeafanas
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Eeafanas said:

It is difficult to call him a tank ace, judging by the video that you threw off, he knocked out not so many tanks.

 

  Hide contents

What's more, the myth about "General Frost" comes up again. Do not think that the Red Army did not experience any problems. I also felt it. My great-grandfather defended Moscow, and according to his recollections, frost hindered no less than the Germans, although our uniforms were much better adapted for battles in cold climatic zones. There were fewer frostbites, but the equipment also suffered from bad roads due to bad weather. It is also interesting to see how the Red Army is exposed as a bloodthirsty Papuan, who grabbed onto the ground and does not give it up because he is a Papuan. There is no explanation of the reasons why Soviet soldiers fought so selflessly for their homeland. And the reason is simple. We knew what atrocities were committed by the German invaders in the occupied land, and how many people were exterminated. Everyone knows about the Holocaust, but few people know about the Famine Plan, as a result of which about 12 and a half million civilians were exterminated and 3 and a half million prisoners of war exterminated in concentration camps quite deliberately, it was a real genocide unleashed against the Soviet people, but if The USSR lost, our people would be doomed to extinction, and hardworking German farmers would populate Soviet lands up to the Urals. This would be THEIR living space that Hitler dreamed of since the days of Mein Kampf. In the West, they do not understand this, since there has not been such a scale of punitive actions against the population.
What the Nazis were doing on our land seemed an exaggeration to the judges of the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg. The vengeful invention of the communists. They refused to believe that a European human was capable of such a thing. Proof was needed. And we had them... we have them.

I apologize for the mistakes, the Google translator is not yet perfect enough to be able to translate Russian from English in the required form.

@Eeafanas, maybe I'm wrong but your post seems to contain a message that diverts a little from the main point for putting up that video.

 

Someone posted a video of his MP session where he was able to knock out a number of T34's and a Sherman tank in a PzIII/M.

 

Having actual battle accounts of 5cm guns knocking out T34's is hard to come by. So I thought the video provided the perfect backdrop as a reference to the MP session considering all the doubt surrounding the current damage/ballistics model.

 

But going back to the video, I think it is more focused on telling his side of the story behind the tank battles that took place in that period as opposed to why he was considered an ACE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, LachenKrieg said:

But your post analysis suggests even stronger that there could be major problems with the damage/ballistics model that need to be addressed.

Once again, I have trouble understanding you.

When a Sherman doesn't die quickly, it means that there are bugs.

When it gets destroyed in two hits, it's a good thing but it can also mean that there are bugs.
When it is neutralized in one shot, it means that there are bugs.

 

So obviously, it's not really with the Sherman that you have a problem but with all the ballistics of the game (concerning the tanks), right?

If so, what makes you doubt it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the reasons you might be having trouble understanding the discussion is that you may be in the group that thinks I have a problem if an Axis tank gets knocked out. I am not saying you do, but that view point has been raised here before by others.

 

I don't think I have to mention names, but the point is, my expectations are that a SIM should try as best it can to simulate the actual real world object it is trying to simulate. I am not asking for a super human PzIV, or a crippled Sherman, I am asking for a real ballistics model. Or at least one that is as close as possible.

 

I raised the point with @LUZITANO because he was in a PzIIIM. The PzIII has a different gun then the PzIVG. The gun on the PzIV can easily penetrate a Sherman, where a PzIII can't depending on what part of the tank is being targeted. 

 

So I am not happy when a Sherman blows up, and upset when it happens to a PzIV. I am upset when the Sherman I penetrate 9 times doesn't blow up, when it should have the first time around.

 

And it doesn't make any sense to me why they would change the model anyway. I mean the purpose should be to try and grow the online community, not smother it. I can't see how an invincible Sherman is going to help with that. I mean eventually you would think everyone would be driving a Sherman for the guaranteed win right?

 

I would think the best online experience would be possible when both the Sherman and the PzIVG are correctly modeled. They are a very good match for each other. The PzIV driver will likely try to keep some distance between him and his enemy, while the Sherman will want to try and close the gap. This can make for an interesting balance/dynamic for online MP game play.

 

The doubt comes from my own experience, and the obvious experience of others as shown in the various videos. With all of that going around, the LUZITANO video simply makes you wonder, although most of his shots were angled side shots, which makes them very believable/likely. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, LachenKrieg said:

 I am asking for a real ballistics model. Or at least one that is as close as possible.

Ok, I understand better.
 

The problem is that in order to have a realistic ballistic system, one must already know the reality and for that, the developers need reliable data. But finding reliable data is maybe not so easy.
 

For example, you are a Pz III lover, but you admit that you have difficulties to find data concerning its ballistics and when you give figures or information, it is often based on "Maybe", "It seems", "we can think that...", "Let's say that...", and other words like that.  However, information containing so many words of this kind cannot really be considered as reliable.
 

I think the developers do their research on their own, they may not be as much in love with PZ III as you are, but I think they still want to stick as close to reality as possible. But the reality is difficult to know for several reasons: Testimonies are not always reliable information, figures are not always reliable information, propaganda has existed and has surely left traces, there is a difference between theory and my practice... In short, there are so many parameters to take into account and possible errors that it seems difficult to assert anything today.
 

Ideally, it would be necessary to reproduce these tanks and these ammunitions with the plans and materials of the time to make tests but it is unrealistic.

 

So the developers have little data to go on. On the other hand, there are still tanks of the time on which we can measure the thickness of the armor or the inclination.
If the developers have on one side as data :
-This X gun pierces 80mm of armor at 500m distance.
-This armor Y measures 60mm.
 

Then gun X will hit armor Y at a distance of less than 500m.
 

I'm not saying that it's perfect, but I'm saying that you have to start from a base, otherwise there would never be a game. Whether it's for Il-2 or War Thunder, in the patch notes it's not uncommon to see :
"Z ammo fix as per source: technical data blah blah blah" which proves that the developers are open to improving the game aiming to get closer to reality, but they can't do it based on "hearsay" or too vague assumption.
 

I am not saying that you are wrong (or right) but I just want to tell you why it is to go in your direction when you say "The ballistic system is bad" without real concrete and demonstrable facts.

After that, maybe the developers read you and take note of your messages, I don't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, No_Face said:

Ok, I understand better.
 

The problem is that in order to have a realistic ballistic system, one must already know the reality and for that, the developers need reliable data. But finding reliable data is maybe not so easy.
 

For example, you are a Pz III lover, but you admit that you have difficulties to find data concerning its ballistics and when you give figures or information, it is often based on "Maybe", "It seems", "we can think that...", "Let's say that...", and other words like that.  However, information containing so many words of this kind cannot really be considered as reliable.
 

I think the developers do their research on their own, they may not be as much in love with PZ III as you are, but I think they still want to stick as close to reality as possible. But the reality is difficult to know for several reasons: Testimonies are not always reliable information, figures are not always reliable information, propaganda has existed and has surely left traces, there is a difference between theory and my practice... In short, there are so many parameters to take into account and possible errors that it seems difficult to assert anything today.
 

Ideally, it would be necessary to reproduce these tanks and these ammunitions with the plans and materials of the time to make tests but it is unrealistic.

 

So the developers have little data to go on. On the other hand, there are still tanks of the time on which we can measure the thickness of the armor or the inclination.
If the developers have on one side as data :
-This X gun pierces 80mm of armor at 500m distance.
-This armor Y measures 60mm.
 

Then gun X will hit armor Y at a distance of less than 500m.
 

I'm not saying that it's perfect, but I'm saying that you have to start from a base, otherwise there would never be a game. Whether it's for Il-2 or War Thunder, in the patch notes it's not uncommon to see :
"Z ammo fix as per source: technical data blah blah blah" which proves that the developers are open to improving the game aiming to get closer to reality, but they can't do it based on "hearsay" or too vague assumption.
 

I am not saying that you are wrong (or right) but I just want to tell you why it is to go in your direction when you say "The ballistic system is bad" without real concrete and demonstrable facts.

After that, maybe the developers read you and take note of your messages, I don't know.

@No_Face, I appreciate your input but have to disagree with most of what you said.

 

First of all, both the armor specs and the ballistics data for the vehicles in TC are known to a pretty high degree of accuracy. At least enough to create a good simulation.

 

While the war itself may have caused disruptions/problems in acquiring the materials needed to manufacture the armor, all that is needed for the simulation are good base values.

 

There is no need to try and model variations in manufacturing quality that may have existed between the different Russian tank manufacturing facilities, or the changes in quality that occurred as the war placed Germany's manufacturing capabilities under strain due to supply shortages.

 

So you misunderstood me, because I didn't say I had trouble finding ballistics data for any of the guns in Tank Crew, or the vehicle armor specs.

 

What is hard to find are actual accounts of the 5cm L/60 gun knocking out T34's frontally. That is because if you take both the theoretical paper data and the actual ballistics data taken from tests, the L/60 could only penetrate the T34 frontally under certain circumstances. For the most part, the L/60 was not considered a threat to the T34's front armor.

 

But we do know for certain that 5cm guns have penetrated the front armor of T34 tanks, as demonstrated in the post battle analysis I linked. The only problem with those types of reports is that they are completely devoid of the details/circumstances surrounding each damage mark. For example, it is impossible to know the exact distance, or angle of contact between the armor plate and penetrating shell. The vehicle itself has been recovered to another location, and the distance/angle of the gun that fired the shot is also obviously not known. And yet penetrations occurred.

 

In the case of the PzIVG, the need to look for actual accounts is reduced because the gun was capable of penetrating the T34/Sherman. 

 

Regarding the Dev team behind Tank Crew, again I disagree for the most part with your point of view. Out of interests I have taken it upon myself to research/look up information on a number of specific aspects of the various tanks in TC, and have yet to find where the Dev team was in error. Clearly, they have researched the included vehicles to a very high degree, and their research is also supported by very knowledgeable people as demonstrated in the Tiger turret penetration discussions.

 

The attention to detail from the Dev team is actually what brought me here. I was thoroughly impressed with both their abilities and the product they delivered. But that doesn't mean I was happy with everything that was done. For example, the way they modeled the gun lock feature doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Having the feature is really great. It adds a lot to the SIM, but it should be modeled so that the user decides when and where to activate/deactivate it. This should include any AI tanks in the users platoon.

 

And I can't explain what happened to the Sherman, or when it even happened exactly, but I know it was not originally like that when I first bought TC. So in answer to your demand for real concrete and demonstrable facts, I refer you to the various videos related to this discussion that have been posted by both myself and others. We cannot say that it is reasonable to expect a Sherman tank to take the number of hits/type of damage shown in the videos and survive. But I think we are really just repeating the same discussion over and over. It has apparently been addressed as you have already pointed out, so I look forward to getting back into the simulation. I really like the IL2 franchise, and want to continue to support it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...