DLC tanks

[CCG_Pips]

20 minutes ago, namhee2 said:

Hey namhee2, do you know the nickname given by soviet tankers to this tank ?

 

"A coffin for 5 comrades"

 

?

[CountZero]

flak trucks atleast had some game reason to buy, but prokhorovka limited extra tanks ? i already have ferdinand, why would i buy stug iii , i can have ferdinand any time it does anything better. And from offered soviet tanks no one gives me anything better then i have with ones in TC. I expect this to fail and then have impact on decision to make next TC. No time limit on extra tanks is way to go, there is no SP like there is for airplanes, why limit them to BoP time, to me this is bad decision. No mather what they pick axis tank will probably sell better just because anyone who still plays active tanks here is axis tanks fan.

EDIT:

ohm maybe the plan is to offer 2 axis tanks for collector tanks, that would work better then 1 axis 1 soviet

stugii and wasp, that would sell better then any soviet tank that fit timeline

Edited October 4, 2021 by CountZero

[Voidhunger]

1 hour ago, JV44HeinzBar said:

The only data I could find indicated that the 6lb, firing APCBC, could pen 95.5mm of hardened armor at 500m or less. At 1000m, the pen dropped to 85mm. Standard AP round penned 76mm at less than 500m.

 I have tried to find quickly something on the net:

 

"The 6-pounder proved capable of penetrating the side of the Tiger from 1250 yards (one plate was penetrated from 1650 yards). A 6-pounder penetration was recorded in combat from 600 yards at 30 degrees. The rear (82 mm at 20 degrees) could be penetrated from 1050 yards. Even the front plate was not immune: the 102 mm thick plate sloped at 10 degrees was penetrated from 650 yards, but the lower front sloped at 20 degrees was not. However, a crack formed after two hits at 300 yards"

 

 

https://warspot.net/156-tiger-killers/images?name=%2F000%2F001%2F765%2Fcontent%2F9-ff421e1b8adeae218cf90548009176b3.png

 

 

https://warspot.net/156-tiger-killers

 

 

 

 

Edited October 4, 2021 by Voidhunger

[FTC_Tobi_der_Ossi]

1 hour ago, JV44HeinzBar said:

S!,

If there is a TC2, then it would be wise to hold off creating much of the western front tanks, e.g. Firefly, M-10, jagpanther, King Tiger, etc. With holding these more desirable tanks, I believe, would increase the likelihood of increased sales for TC2. As for providing eastern front tanks, such as the IS-1 & t34/85, these could sold as DLC tanks when/if TC2 is offered.

 

I really believe that the Stug III G will be one of the two collector vehicles to be released. Since the Stug III was at Kursk, perhaps for the soviet collector vehicle might be the Su-76? It's got a good gun that could pen panthers from the side at range. However, the Churchhill III & IV were also at Kursk, if memory serves me. Either one would find a place in TC, but the Churchill could be found on both fronts.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think there was an order to replace some of the IV's 6lb gun with 75mm in 1943, which became the Mk V?

 

HB

The only data I could find indicated that the 6lb, firing APCBC, could pen 95.5mm of hardened armor at 500m or less. At 1000m, the pen dropped to 85mm. Standard AP round penned 76mm at less than 500m.

 

I'll try to pull citations later. This is from memory.

 

HB

Solid AP has on Shorter Ranges more Penetration than with ballistic cap. Only after like 1km the BC has significantly more penetration. But i don't know if russians had BCs. I only know from AP. 

[616Sqn_Tyggz]

 

And my favourite quote to go with it...

 

"Every tank supplied to the Soviet Union is another nail in Hitler's coffin!"

[JV44HeinzBar]

31 minutes ago, Voidhunger said:

 I have tried to find quickly something on the net:

 

"The 6-pounder proved capable of penetrating the side of the Tiger from 1250 yards (one plate was penetrated from 1650 yards). A 6-pounder penetration was recorded in combat from 600 yards at 30 degrees. The rear (82 mm at 20 degrees) could be penetrated from 1050 yards. Even the front plate was not immune: the 102 mm thick plate sloped at 10 degrees was penetrated from 650 yards, but the lower front sloped at 20 degrees was not. However, a crack formed after two hits at 300 yards"

 

 

 

 

S!,

My mistake. I thought we were talking about penetrating the front of the tiger.

[Arditi]

3 hours ago, CCG_Pips said:

Hey namhee2, do you know the nickname given by soviet tankers to this tank ?

 

"A coffin for 5 comrades"

 

?

i think was 7 brothers?

[Yogiflight]

@CCG_Pips, @Matasiete it was called "a grave for 6 friends"

The crew was commander, driver, gunner and loader for the 37mm gun, gunner and loader for the 75mm gun.

 

EDIT: I have to admit, the 'Lee' version could have a radio operator left of the driver, so a seventh crew member. The 'Grant' had the radio in the turret, operated by the commander.

Edited October 4, 2021 by Yogiflight

[gunmetalstug]

I think a lot of people here are missing the point when it comes to the DLC tanks. The goal isn't to create 'balance', and that's fine - it's ludicrous to propose we should get tanks solely based on how Germans heavies are overperforming on two or three community-run PvP servers. It's perfectly fine to get a few new tanks to continue filling out the Prokhorvka scenario. And do we realllllly want to see similar thinking that led to War Thunder's battle rating system?

 

I do, however, understand everyone's frustrations. While I'm keeping my fingers crossed for a Bagration/Doppelkopf expansion (I want the IS-2 just as much as anyone else), any such expansion is bound to be a long way off. I'm perfectly happy to continue supporting Great Battles and the promise of more AFVs by getting expansion-appropriate vehicles in the mean time. As for these particular collector tanks...

 

As others have stated, leaving the StuG out is a pretty big gap in German armored capabilities, and its status as a Collector vehicle would be ideal since it won't be locked into a larger, region/period-specific DLC. Even though I can only concretely establish from academic sources that there were only ~64 StuGs present at Prokhorovka, it would be so enormously useful for every other time period and scenario that it'd be a perfect inclusion. I also don't get people saying that since we already have the Ferdinand, the StuG would be pointless - the Ferdinand is an enormous, overspecialized Tank Destroyer... while the StuG is a multirole assault gun. Even though I don't care overmuch about 'balance' myself, it would also allow the Germans to have a TD that isn't totally immune from Soviet counterattack at range. That means more variety for scenario builders and PvP matches as the Germans aren't forced to play the Panzer IV or Panzer III if the heavies are unavailable or have limited availability.

 

What the Soviets could have, however, is a more challenging pick. If we're following the logic of including the StuG, that would make the SU-76M the most likely vehicle (it's also a generalist SPG), and I'm divided about its inclusion. It would have many of the same drawbacks and benefits as the Soviet AFVs already included. Its open compartment would make it a death trap in any PvP environment, and possibly even vulnerable to AI machine-gun emplacements. HOWEVER, its lower profile, better cannon ballistics, and stellar reload rate (in comparison to its SU-122 and SU-152 cousins) might make it a pretty competitive choice, especially if they have access to their APCR shells.

 

I'm personally hoping to see the Churchill IV myself (like many others), but that's more so for variety on the Western maps rather than any intrinsic merit for the Prokhorovka scenario. It's main claim to fame here is being directly present at Prokhorovka itself, as opposed to the KV-1s which seemed to have missed the action there (mostly basing this on the Soviets reporting no KV-1s losses during the Battle of Prokhorovka). However, speaking of the KV-1s, the Churchill is a heavily armored infantry tank... exactly what the KV-1s was already supposed to be - a considerable degree of overlap as far as the simulation goes. That being said, if we are getting a Churchill, it's definitely suited to be a collector vehicle. That way if we are getting a TC2 centered around Normandy, this tank wouldn't be taking up one of the assumed 5 Allied tank slots, which would be hotly contested for inclusion - the relatively boring Churchill could be considered as "wasting space" for a more interesting AFV.

 

We could be seeing a Valentine or Matilda, but those were already being phased out by the Battle of Kursk. While they'd be excellent for doing some North African scenarios, their overall worth as an addition to Great Battles is middling at best. Same goes for the M3 Lee, which is really only fun as a meme vehicle. It could be a blast to multi-crew with friends, but its overall value is likewise lacking. Some more wild conjecture: if we're getting the SU-76M (an open-top SPG), it'd be amusing to see the German equivalent be the Marder II (an open-top TD). Equally fragile, equally effective in ambush positions, and very similar ballistic capabilities. I don't see the Marder II being likely however, its effective roles were FAR more limited compared to the SU-76M, never mind the rest of the available AFVs.

 

In the end, I'm just hyped to see more armor content on the way!

 

 

[Voidhunger]

8 hours ago, JV44HeinzBar said:

S!,

My mistake. I thought we were talking about penetrating the front of the tiger.

yes, you are right, i was talking about front of the tiger.

Im not saying that you are wrong. I just quickly found some info.

[moustache]

3 hours ago, gunmetalstug said:

do we realllllly want to see similar thinking that led to War Thunder's battle rating system?

 

 

nah, but this would be overkill ... and when I read the comments I don't feel / read that people (for the most part) want a balancing like war thunder ... but suggest more efficient allied tanks, which play less on their number than their individual efficiency would be nice, because this is one of the current problems of allied tanks, in reality, their efficiency came from their number ... and that ' is difficult to reproduce in MP ... a t 34 85 or a 76mm / firefly sherman would solve this problem ...

 

and why want to stay only on this period (if not to sell later a TC 2 or 3 on another period ...), most of the content (created by modders), frees itself from it and offers us scenarios in Germany, Belgium, at the start and end of the Russian campaign ... so good, is s 'would integrate well ...

[CCG_Pips]

10 hours ago, Matasiete said:

i think was 7 brothers?

 

9 hours ago, Yogiflight said:

@CCG_Pips, @Matasiete it was called "a grave for 6 friends"

The crew was commander, driver, gunner and loader for the 37mm gun, gunner and loader for the 75mm gun.

 

EDIT: I have to admit, the 'Lee' version could have a radio operator left of the driver, so a seventh crew member. The 'Grant' had the radio in the turret, operated by the commander.

 

I think a lot of versions are reported. ?

 

Meaning is the same, this tank was hated by tank crews .........and not only in Soviet Union ?

[NoelGallagher]

if they are smart they will do stug and churchill

becasue both can be used for western front setting at the same time expand the existing contents(prokhorovka)

also many of community members were keep asking for the new tank that can fit in the timline of upcoming battle of normandy 

On 10/4/2021 at 6:39 PM, CCG_Pips said:

 

Yes, no map is available for T34/85....BUT some multiplayers server are not historically related (Finnish virtual for example) and for Allies player, having finally a tank able to fight at long distance against Tigers and Panthers is of the foremost urgency for game play and forces balance. @CountZero said perfectly that in his post above......we will never do again Historical WWII battles, this would imply 30 Russian tanks for 1 German tank........so a T34/85 is just essential

no more one to one flat blancing plz

this is not warthunder..

allied has air superiority over germans in terms of ground attacking capabilty

most of the soviet aircraft can be equipped with rockets 

and whenever i play as german tanker 

the alllied ground attackers are pain in the ass

so as it was in reality 

battle of kuban 

the german tank suffered high loss due to the soviets ground attacking planes

so it is already well balanced as a total battlefield

 

 

Edited October 5, 2021 by NoelGallagher

[CCG_Pips]

@NoelGallagher.............

 

Yes, I understand your point of view. Just saying that on western Front, Allies have, at this moment , ONLY the M4A2 Sherman. I am agree, if they receive the Churchill MkIV in addition, then we will be abble to start battles on Bodenplatte and Normandy maps (finally)

[NoelGallagher]

31 minutes ago, CCG_Pips said:

@NoelGallagher.............

 

Yes, I understand your point of view. Just saying that on western Front, Allies have, at this moment , ONLY the M4A2 Sherman. I am agree, if they receive the Churchill MkIV in addition, then we will be abble to start battles on Bodenplatte and Normandy maps (finally)

yeah and it'd be nice if they add APDS rounds to the churchil as possible modification

i don't think soviets had recieved those rounds when they got landleased

but for the variety of playability it'd be awesome 

then allied can have easy time to deal with tigers with those rounds(at lest better than now)

since the BOBP map will be available in finnish server soon(they said they are working on it)

it would be really cool if we recieve new tanks that can fit in to the western front

18 hours ago, CountZero said:

flak trucks atleast had some game reason to buy, but prokhorovka limited extra tanks ? i already have ferdinand, why would i buy stug iii , i can have ferdinand any time it does anything better

exactly il-2 is not like those competitive game 

why make spitfire mkvb if you can have mk ix ,mk xiv

becasue it's shitty

well why make p-40? which is almost utterly useless relative to other aircraft at the same period?

who gives a shit about fw-190 a3 and bf-109 E7

when you can have d9 and k4

again this is not warthunder

it's more focused on recreating the historical vehicles and battles rather than who can unlock better one and winover others

if the community were based on that(which is absolutely fine it has it's own place to exist such as warthunder)

p-40,A3,ju-52,c-47 wouldn't sell a single copy at all

but it sells well over here and there's a reason why

Edited October 5, 2021 by NoelGallagher

[SCG_judgedeath3]

5 hours ago, NoelGallagher said:

so it is already well balanced as a total battlefield

Yep and if one look on those servers people mentioned, soviets usually win, its only in 1 vs 1 tank engagements they might lose if using sherman or t-34 and kv-1. But when using su 152 its 50%/50% situation.
Also tigers and panthers and ferdinands can easily be killed if one play with su 152s Plus if one use the offroad speed of the allied tanks they outperform the german tanks easily and if using the terrain and the advantages of those tanks they can compete. But yeah in open terrain frontally then germans will have the advantage like in real life.

My hope for what we will get is:
Stug III G
Brummbar
Marder III

for the allieds:
Churchill
SU-76
SU-85 if tank crew 1 counts august 1943 into the time period its set in.
KV-1 (we have KV-1S in the game)
Valentine

SU-76 would be nice as its more a tank destroyer and normal gun than what we already have.
churchill for hill climbing and its thick armour.
Stug III G is very different from ferdinand and plays very differently and german side lacks tank destroyers/assault guns as it is now so it would be a unique playstyle.
brummbar might not fit into the game but if collector tanks is meant to be unique experiences then yes it would be very different from anything inside the game.

[JV44HeinzBar]

16 hours ago, Voidhunger said:

yes, you are right, i was talking about front of the tiger.

Im not saying that you are wrong. I just quickly found some info.

S!,

No problem. But, you got me wondering about the 6lb gun. I have 2 of the books listed on that website (Schnieder & Wilbeck), but neither speak of penetration of 6lb gun. This lead me to dig through my tank library and search for anything about the 6 pounder. I found a couple of sources. Unfortunately, they are by the same author(s). I'll attach the scans below.

The website posted makes me question the author's intent. It seems to relate more to War Thunder In the text, he posts the front plate (transverse plate?) was penetrated @650 yards, yet the picture below that statement shows the front plate and gun mantlet being penned at 450 yards. The picture, IMO, appears to be doctored to include the arrows & text. I will concede that I don't have the papers he listed as citation ( Archive of the Canadian Military Headquarters, London (1939-1947) RG 24 C 2, The National Archives (Great Britain).

 

We all basically know that the front plate on the Tiger was ~100m w/10*slope. We also know that the gun mantlet was also 100mm thick. The sides of the tiger were 80mm thick. Doing the math, at 45* angle, the front would be approximately 140mm & the sides 113mm. According to the charts, the 6lb gun would have a very hard time to penetrate the front armor of the Tiger at combat distances.

 

With that being said, I'd love to have more info on the 6lb gun.

 

BTW, here's a fun little site to play with in regards to ballistics:  http://www.wwiiequipment.com/pencalc/

 

HB

Edited October 5, 2021 by JV44HeinzBar
Added website

[Voidhunger]

"Firing at trials revealed that a six-pounder anti-tank gun, firing at 300 yards, could damage the front plate but not make a hole right through it although firing at the front of the tank was not considered a good idea, the flanks were much more vulnerable."

 

https://blog.tiger-tank.com/tanks/first-tiger-i-knocked-out-by-the-british/

 

 

[ShampooX]

I’m stumped for the Russian edition to the game.  There were no KV2’s at Kursk and the T34/85 was not out yet.  The only other tanks not in the current Russian TC lineup that were actually at Kursk were the T60 &70 and the SU76.  All inferior to the currently available offerings on the Russian side.  As for the German side, my hope is for the Nashorn.  It had good success at Kursk. Kick ass gun and a great ambusher.  I wouldn’t cry if it is the Das Reich Stug III G though. 

[FTC_Tobi_der_Ossi]

3 hours ago, Heywood-Jablomie said:

I’m stumped for the Russian edition to the game.  There were no KV2’s at Kursk and the T34/85 was not out yet.  The only other tanks not in the current Russian TC lineup that were actually at Kursk were the T60 &70 and the SU76.  All inferior to the currently available offerings on the Russian side.  As for the German side, my hope is for the Nashorn.  It had good success at Kursk. Kick ass gun and a great ambusher.  I wouldn’t cry if it is the Das Reich Stug III G though. 

There were some more Tank Types used by Russians during the Battle of Kursk. Landlease Vehicles and the KW1. But one of the biggest impact on Prokhorovka was the Churchill Tank. 

[javelina]

1 hour ago, Tobi_der_Ossi said:

There were some more Tank Types used by Russians during the Battle of Kursk. Landlease Vehicles and the KW1. But one of the biggest impact on Prokhorovka was the Churchill Tank. 

Really?  that'd be interesting to read up more about that.  do you have any links?  I love learning more about all tanks.  thanks!

[gunmetalstug]

1 hour ago, javelina said:

Really?  that'd be interesting to read up more about that.  do you have any links?  I love learning more about all tanks.  thanks!

It's tough to precisely determine how much direct 'impact' the Churchill had on the battle without close reading of the sources, but they were unavoidably very present - the 5th Guards Army (the primary Soviet armored force involved in the battle) - had ~35 Churchills present within their ranks. Within that number, the 5th Guards reported 12 Churchills totally destroyed, and 7 damaged during the fighting on the 12th of July. I can't concretely establish if EVERY Churchill in the 5th Guards was present, but I can make educated guesses about how they were used given Soviet assault doctrine, Lt. General Rotmistrov's battle plans, and the relatively low losses of Churchills compared to the absolutely eviscerated core of T-34s which made up the majority of their AFVs.

 

Lt. General Rotmistrov planned to shock and disrupt entrenched German forces and outmaneuver their armor by basically yeeting 430 tanks (likely almost entirely fast-moving T-34s) at the SS Liebstandarte units stationed around Hill 252.2. It's likely that the second wave of tanks in this echelon - those carrying elite VDV units of the 9th Guards Airborne - were Churchills. If they didn't ride the heavy tanks desant, they were almost certainly supported by them, given the Churchill's qualities as an infantry tank.

 

Although the attack failed to achieve its objective of shattering the SS II Panzer Corps in a decisive breakout, the 9th Guards were highly regarded and managed to repulse all German counterattacks... almost certainly assisted by those heavy British tanks. Together (along with the rest of the 5th Guards), they managed to exhaust the already depleted Panzer Corps, crippling any ability to perform General Hausser's planned breakthrough. Liebstandarte was forced to pull back to the south, abandoning their defenses at Hill 252.2. The 5th Guards lost roughly half of their Churchills in the process, but their heavy armor was likely invaluable in supporting dismounted Soviet infantry.

 

Again, hard to determine exactly how the Churchill performed and where they were situated without a close read of the sources. However, it's impossible to deny they were there, and played a heavy role in the fighting.

Edited October 7, 2021 by gunmetalstug

[FTC_Tobi_der_Ossi]

5 hours ago, javelina said:

Really?  that'd be interesting to read up more about that.  do you have any links?  I love learning more about all tanks.  thanks!

Scroll up, i made a post about this earlier. 

[Robli]

The new tank does not strictly have to be present at Prokhorovka, but has to be from suitable time period, so that it "could have been" there. Just like Fw-190A3 was not present at Battle of Stalingrad, but was offered as a collector plane, because it suited the period. 

 

Anyway, going back to my previous guess of SU-85 and StuG III, if SU-85 was not available at that time yet, then my guess would also be Churchill IV. It fits the time frame, adds another heavy tank to the Soviet side to make the matchup more balanced and offers some possibilities to do western scenarios while we wait for TC2. It would undoubtedly sell better than a SU-76 or some other Soviet tank that is worse than the T-34 that we already have. Besides, there are enough western tanks left to model, if and when we will get TC2.

 

So, I update my guess to Churchill IV and StuG III.

Edited October 7, 2021 by Robli

[CCG_Pips]

1 hour ago, Eeafanas said:

Not right.  Such a name has never been encountered among Soviet tankers (I am telling you as the grandson of a Soviet tanker).  The real nickname was:

«Mass grave for six»;

«Coffin on tracks».

I believe you, I had read it in a history book........but, sometimes, history books .......?

[CCG_Pips]

Just now, Eeafanas said:

?

I said, you are surely right

[CCG_Pips]

Sometimes, history books does not does not relay the exact truth or are wrong in some quotes.

[SCG_Neun]

Maybe they had a poll for this before they started work on these tanks to see which ones resonated with the community?  That would be a good idea, yes?  If there is already an official poll on this, can somebody give me a link?  Thanks

[CCG_Pips]

41 minutes ago, SCG_Neun said:

Maybe they had a poll for this before they started work on these tanks to see which ones resonated with the community?  That would be a good idea, yes?  If there is already an official poll on this, can somebody give me a link?  Thanks

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/73734-we-want-more/

[CCG_Pips]

1 hour ago, Eeafanas said:

This poll doesn't say anything. The bottom line is that the only heavy tank of the Red Army that took part in the battles at Prokhorovka was the Churchill tank.  There were even more tanks of this type than Tiger tanks.  It is logical that he will become a collectible tank for the Red Army.  

 

P.S.

Matilda and Valentine did not take part in the battle at Prokhorovka.  SU-85 WAS NOT AT ALL AT THE FRONT AT THE MOMENT OF THE BATTLE OF KURSK! The first serial SU-85s began to arrive at the front in September 1943! I am also surprised that some individuals think that the T-60 or T-70 can be used as a collection tank.  Are you out of your mind?  What role will they play in the set of tanks that we have now?  Live targets?  Are you joking?  The T-60 has more logical and historical meaning in the battle for Moscow, since it was these tanks that endured most of the collisions with enemy tanks (based on an article by the famous Russian-speaking historian on armored vehicles - Yuri Pasholok)

What about the SU-76?  It will be the same firepower as the T-34-76.  There will be no benefit from it.

 

Yes we know everything you specify about the battle of Prokhrovka but everything that has been said before points to the fact that precisely, if developers choose to make two "collector" tanks then, the link with a specific battle is notanymore obligatory and if we follow this pol, the two tanks that should have been chosen are the Stug III G; tank destroyer and the Sherman Firefly; medium tank. Stug III could be used on Eastern and Western front and Firefly, could add a British tank to the battles of Normandy and Bodenplatte. Sorry but Churchill an interest tank anyway is not so popular than a Sherman Firefly for players.

[ww2fighter20]

The KV-1 1942 could be interesting addition considering it had the best armor of the KV1 series (100mm hull front and sides, 100mm turret armor all around) while the KV-1S was one of the weakest in armor (75mm front and 60mm side, 82mm turret all around).

[SCG_Neun]

It's a matter of marketing....and if you want more players you naturally should reach out to places...like the UK and NA highlighting some battles in and around the Normandy/Rhineland Map. That would mean a British Tank for sure.   Tell you what I'd like to see, is a 4k map like they did Prokhorovka within the Normandy map for tankers.

[LukeFF]

1 hour ago, CCG_Pips said:

if developers choose to make two "collector" tanks then, the link with a specific battle is notanymore obligatory

 

They absolutely are going to be tanks that were at Kursk:

 

Quote

Both tanks fit within the established Kursk timeframe for the existing map to help define this battle a bit more. 

 

[JV44HeinzBar]

3 hours ago, Eeafanas said:

This poll doesn't say anything.

S!,

I created this poll well before the announcement about the 2 collector vehicles. It was a poll to judge the interest in what the community would like to see added to the sequel of TC. However, there seems to be a great interest in the Stug III

 

HB

[gunmetalstug]

6 minutes ago, Eeafanas said:

For example T-35 for a map of Moscow

The T-35, like the M3 Lee, would indeed be novelties... but don't have much worth beyond that. Broadly speaking, these tanks have egregious design flaws and would likely be extremely boring - if not painful - to play after the first few sorties. They even share many of the same issues. Their speed is atrocious. Their armor is insufficient, despite their huge profiles providing easy targets for enemy AT capabilities, while not boasting the sort of firepower to adequately compensate for any of these flaws. Furthermore, the larger crew complements and multiple turrets would be a nightmare to manage for a single player or even a FULLY multi-crewed set-up, as evidenced by these AFVs IRL performance.

 

Again, I don't want to argue for vehicle inclusion based on how "good" it's considered, but there's a difference between playing a tank that doesn't trade well and a tank that would be torturous to play. Like an AFVs combat efficiency, its overall novelty is also not a strong factor for development consideration. I realize you probably weren't actually advocating for including the T-35, but I feel like it's still important to consider.

 

This goes for a lot of 'meme' vehicles that I see proposed. I myself really enjoy the KV-2, but many people don't consider how much time and effort would have to go into developing something like that. It'd be fun throwing those huge howitzer shells downrange a few times, but it'd become so painful to operate (agonizing reload rate, terrible traversing rate, no speed to speak of) that the joy of firing its oversized gun would wear off quickly... meaning wasted development time and resources.

[Lofte]

4 hours ago, Eeafanas said:

For example T-35 for a map of Moscow

I have better idea. "Comrade Stalin's steel balls" 

 

[Hien-0_1*]

An idea for the StuG III with L48 (F-F / 8-G variant):

 

When choosing the type of ammunition to make an option for the selection of a different / new weapon (10.5 cm StuH42 L / 28).

 

This is how the Sd Kfz 142/2 (StuH42) is created !!!
This vehicle would also fit perfectly into the existing scenario!

 

Both vehicles have the same chassis and body (in the interior, the cannon and the mounts for the larger grenades had to be redesigned).

Just an idea for an extension that creates a second new vehicle!

 

Please consider the option (for the development team!) !!!?

 

[41Sqn_Skipper]

I think this info was not posted here before:

 

 

M3 Stuart might also be a feasible option (but should rather be used for TCx)

Edited October 8, 2021 by 41Sqn_Skipper

[352ndOscar]

I’ll put my money where it needs to go.  If the 2 tanks are the StuG III and the Firefly/EZ8 - I’m in.  If they put in crap like the Churchill or T-something to please Kursk/Eastern Front players, then I’ll put my money elsewhere……

[LukeFF]

19 minutes ago, 352ndOscar said:

I’ll put my money where it needs to go.  If the 2 tanks are the StuG III and the Firefly/EZ8 - I’m in.  If they put in crap like the Churchill or T-something to please Kursk/Eastern Front players, then I’ll put my money elsewhere……

 

Jason has already made it abundantly clear the 2 tanks are going to be for Kursk, so... no Firefly.