Discussion of Churchill Mk.IV, StuG III Ausf.G and IAR-80/81 Pre-Order Announcement

[Fritz_X]

9 minutes ago, Trooper117 said:

We also plan to make a Romanian pilot and language pack for him.   

 

I might have missed something, but as we have had an Italian aircraft for a long time now, has an Italian pilot and language pack been produced as well?

 

Don't know about an Italian language pack, but it was mentioned in a Developer Diary quite some time ago that they are creating an Italian pilot model.

 

Great anouncement, by the way, both tanks and the IAR-80/81 are must-buys for me. Gotta love that Churchill, what an amazing looking design!

Edited December 1, 2021 by Fritz_X

[Asgar]

All aboard the Hype train!

Edited December 2, 2021 by Asgar

[[F.Circus]FrangibleCover]

34 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

 

Which begs the question:  Will the NA 75 be a modification?  Oh, and are we then going to Italy?

I'm hugely excited for Churchill gun modifications! There are three different possibilities to choose from, the 75mm M3 we are familiar with from the Sherman as the Churchill Mk.IV NA 75, the similar but slightly different British QF 75mm (6pdr rejigged to fire US 75mm shells) as the Churchill Mk.IV 75 and the significantly different Churchill Mk.V which is the same as the Mk.IV but for the 95mm CS Howitzer firing HE, HEAT and Smoke rounds. All of the above could be done, but how many will be?

 

Honestly, this is the first tank product I've bought. I'm not parochial about 'boring theatres', but the mismatch of Tiger and Panther against KV-1S and SU-152 didn't appeal to me. I'm excited enough about Churchill to have a go against Panthers.

[Avimimus]

Honestly - I don't understand the Churchill dislikers... I mean, sure it is slow and a little under-gunned - but how could one not want it anyway? It is like a WWI tank and a crocodile had a baby that was somehow allowed to enlist in WWII due to a clerical error!

 

 

[616Sqn_Tyggz]

3 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

Honestly - I don't understand the Churchill dislikers... I mean, sure it is slow and a little under-gunned - but how could one not want it anyway? It is like a WWI tank and a crocodile had a baby that was somehow allowed to enlist in WWII due to a clerical error!

 

The Churchill tank has to be probably the only successful WWII tank design to have the tracks running over the crew compartment.

Its design very much echoes that of the previous war... Still looks awesome to me.

 

 

We should hope that like the Spitfire Vb and P-40, the Churchill and Sherman may one day be crewed by commonwealth and US servicemen.

 

[Motherbrain]

I'm so glad we are getting a Churchill. It goes well with Normandy. And we really needed another western European tank besides the Sherman.

 

And the Stug was the most numerous panzer made, so it's inclusion should be obvious.

 

Very happy about the new tanks. ?

 

 

Edited December 1, 2021 by Motherbrain

[LukeFF]

33 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

Honestly - I don't understand the Churchill dislikers... I mean, sure it is slow and a little under-gunned - but how could one not want it anyway? It is like a WWI tank and a crocodile had a baby that was somehow allowed to enlist in WWII due to a clerical error!

 

The 6-pounder did not make the Churchill under-gunned. It was all about employing good tactics in the field (as with all tanks, of course). It was still quite a competent and capable tank with that armament in the summer of 1944 in Normandy and beyond. 

[itsbillyfrazier]

I don't get the Churchill haters either.... I mean they were still good enough for the Irish Army in 1962! ?

 

While this video mostly looks at the Comet, the Churchill makes an appearance near the end.

 

This army training area "Glen of Imaal" is actually very close to where i grew up.

 

 

[NoelGallagher]

1 hour ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

 

Which begs the question:  Will the NA 75 be a modification?  Oh, and are we then going to Italy?

if they ever make that kind of modification it would be more sensible to make Mark IV 75 (QF 75mm british gun)

 

[Jaws2002]

The 6 pounder was decent antitank gun, it's deficiencies came from the lack of a HE shell until mid 1944.

[NoelGallagher]

1 hour ago, Avimimus said:

Honestly - I don't understand the Churchill dislikers... I mean, sure it is slow and a little under-gunned - but how could one not want it anyway? It is like a WWI tank and a crocodile had a baby that was somehow allowed to enlist in WWII due to a clerical error!

 

 

many of them are gamers who plays it for stats in multiplayer

most of them don't care about history and or that 

i just encountered someone today who's saying that he don't want to see infantries in tank crew LOL

and his reason for that was "how is AI infantry can ever be relevant with gameplay" .. 

well what can i say... it's just different pops

chuchill is the one of the most iconic tank in ww2 and just for that reason alone it is very much appreciated 

43 minutes ago, Motherbrain said:

I'm so glad we are getting a Churchill. It goes well with Normandy. And we really needed another western European tank besides the Sherman.

And the Stug was the most numerous panzer made, so it's inclusion should be obvious.

YES exactly this was why we all knew what was coming haha

it's the best compromise for all

it can be used in western front scenarios 

also give reasonable option for allied tankers in multiplayer to deal with german heavy panzers

and both tanks were present at prokhorovka so they can expand the existing product

perfect sweet spot for everyone

Edited December 1, 2021 by NoelGallagher

[Vishnu]

Wooooohoooooo Stug, Churchill!!! That brings me back to my WWIIOL days!!!!  Also can’t wait for the IAR80. Such an odd plane.   Love it!  

 

Bought all 3.  Keep up the fantastic work!

[easterling77]

Bought all three with a big smile and great anticipation when we can fly and roll out with these beauties.

 

Thanks to all who made this possible and are still improving all this for us.

 

Cheers?

[Avimimus]

Interestingly, this pre-order missed November by only about 2 hours and 35 minutes.

 

54 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

The 6-pounder did not make the Churchill under-gunned. It was all about employing good tactics in the field (as with all tanks, of course). It was still quite a competent and capable tank with that armament in the summer of 1944 in Normandy and beyond. 

 

Indeed - I just looked up the penetration figures and it makes it look like it'd have an edge compared to the 76.2mm F-34 gun we're used to!

 

 

30 minutes ago, NoelGallagher said:

many of them are gamers who plays it for stats in multiplayer

most of them don't care about history and or that 

 

I see. Then we'd only have three fighters and two bombers in the game  Seems less interesting, but each to their own I suppose?

[No_Face]

I only play on the side of the axis. I don't know much about the Churchill but I hope it will allow players playing on the allied side to feel less disadvantaged compared to the axis and therefore to play more with the tanks, that is to say, all along the game, not only the first and last 30 minutes of the 5 hours game. This would be a very good thing for the multiplayer of TC.

 

The first reviews from disappointed players of the Churchill made me a bit scared, but the positive reviews that came afterwards reassure me. This tank seems to please (not everyone, of course), it seems to be able to play more easily on equal terms against most German tanks.

 

[Elem]

All purchased, with many thanks.

[[CPT]Crunch]

Why doesn't my rotate turret keys work in my new Stug?  Though I'd beat the rush.

[NoelGallagher]

9 minutes ago, [CPT]Crunch said:

Why doesn't my rotate turret keys work in my new Stug?  Though I'd beat the rush.

i bet that this question will be posted on TC forum after stug get released

[ACG_Dickie]

Excellent news, was only just recently talking about how great it would be to get a STuG in TC. 

 

The Churchill has opened a discussion with my lot about the gun, now Jason mentions the history and that it's a QF 6 pounder, and the 75mm upgrade (bored out 57mm I believe) but which are we getting?  Will they be options?  Especially interested in the ammo types, will ADPS rounds be available?  That would take this machine from 42 and into Normandy.........

2 hours ago, Avimimus said:

Honestly - I don't understand the Churchill dislikers... I mean, sure it is slow and a little under-gunned - but how could one not want it anyway? It is like a WWI tank and a crocodile had a baby that was somehow allowed to enlist in WWII due to a clerical error!

 

 

Crocodile is useless unless we have bunkers to burn.

 

It wasn't slow up steep slopes compare to all of the other tanks that couldn't move up them. ?

 

The 6 pounder with the APDS ammo could punch through 100mm from well over 1000m so Tiger/Panther front armour was penetrable.

Edited December 1, 2021 by ACG_Dickie

[LukeFF]

33 minutes ago, ACG_Dickie said:

The Churchill has opened a discussion with my lot about the gun, now Jason mentions the history and that it's a QF 6 pounder, and the 75mm upgrade (bored out 57mm I believe) but which are we getting?

 

Probably the NA 75 option at the least, which was essentially just the Sherman's M3 gun rotated 180 degrees.

 

Good reading here about the mod: https://www.google.com/amp/s/tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/gb/churchill-na-75%3famp

[Warbird213]

 

im just happy to get my DISCO PANZER XD

 

Edited December 1, 2021 by Warbird213

[Alan_Grey]

IAR-80/81 Romanian Fighter-Bomber - purchased - thanks! ?

[216th_Jordan]

Maybe an odd question, but how much ammo could the Mk IV take with it? With 57mm and 75mm?

[[F.Circus]FrangibleCover]

8 minutes ago, 216th_Jordan said:

Maybe an odd question, but how much ammo could the Mk IV take with it? With 57mm and 75mm?

I believe 84 of either, although I'm not using any academic sources. It's worth noting that the 57mm and 75mm are about the same length and case width, the stowage arrangements probably don't change significantly between the variants. This should make it very quick to model for the Il-2 guys.

 

Hey, at least I'm not asking for the AVRE!

[cardboard_killer]

I want a snow tiger.

 

[Ribbon]

30 minutes ago, cardboard_killer said:

I want a snow tiger.

 

That tiny tree in front of it....Greta Thunberg....run back to Germany!

[ilmavoimat]

All three pre-ordered. Still barely holding my fudge for the Dak!

[ITAF_Airone1989]

7 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

Probably the NA 75 option at the least, which was essentially just the Sherman's M3 gun rotated 180 degrees.

 

Rotated? You mean it will fire inside the tank? ?

[LukeFF]

44 minutes ago, ITAF_Airone1989 said:

Rotated? You mean it will fire inside the tank? ?

 

No, the gun had to be rotated 180 degrees on its longitudinal axis to fit properly inside the Churchill's turret:

Quote

The method of inserting the gun was thus:

1: The Churchill Mk.IV’s standard issue armament, the Ordnance QF 6-Pounder (57mm), was removed. The removed 6-Pounder guns were returned to Ordnance Stores.

2: The original mantlet hole on the turret was widened.

3: The gun was rotated 180 degrees to suit the crew positions in the turret, and inserted, complete with the M34 mount.

4: The gun was welded in place, including the new external mantlet.

The turret also saw the addition of a counterweight in the rear due to the increased size of the armament. Room was also made on the left of the gun for the addition of the Sherman’s coaxial 30 cal. (7.62 mm) Browning M1919 machine gun. The machine gun only had a limited range of motion due to the cramped conditions. As such, it could not elevate as high as the main armament.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/gb/churchill-na-75%3famp

Edited December 2, 2021 by LukeFF

[Alexmarine]

8 minutes ago, T-34 said:

Hey, a fighter-bomber, that'll balance out the lack of bombers in IL2.

 

Well, if you consider the Eastern front and the Western front sets as separate, at least the former has a proper ratio of bombers represented 

[=KG76=flyus747]

19 minutes ago, Alexmarine said:

 

Well, if you consider the Eastern front and the Western front sets as separate, at least the former has a proper ratio of bombers represented 

in the eastern front planesets, the reds have nothing that compares to the nuke payload of the he 111 and ju 88s. the blues have nothing that compares to the speed and survivability of the red bombers, maybe the ju88, but thats a stretch too. Problem is...

the reds have light bombers.

the blues have medium bombers.
I dont know if that s a good or bad thing in multiplayer but why didnt they decide to give both sides the same class of aircraft? How are these 2 very different pieces supposed to coexist in a game?

 

historically the reds did have medium bombers so in terms of gameplay and making sure the planes all fit together in this intricate puzzle of creating a planeset, it does not work that well. In multiplayer, no one flies the stuka or the 111. but everyone flies the pe2 and a20. i'm generalizing of course, but if i was the one making the planeset, ideally, i would want all the toys to be played, roughly equally. There are some planes in IL2 no one will touch because it just sucks in a competitive multiplayer environment so, then the question is...why did decide to go with the planeset we eventually got?

[Alexmarine]

On the Churchill armour manage your expectations: PaK40 can penetrate the frontal aspect of it from below 800m with PzGr.39 APC shells (600m for the PzIV and StuG) and 1.1Km with PzGr.40 APCR shells (950m for PzIV and StuG).

The Panther's L70 gun will penetrate the frontal arc of a Churchill at any combat range below 1.3km using both APC and APCR shells. Similar good results will be obtained with both the Tiger and the Ferdinand.

 

Lack of APCR on the Churchill 6pdr (if they decide to keep it modelled as an Eastern Front 1943 model) will mean that it will be very hard for it to harm from the frontal aspect Tigers and Panthers at all range except very close ones.

 

Unless you are taking a stroll around in a Panzer III (and below 300m with APCR not even for it) the Churchill will not be that more dangerous than the other allied tanks already in the game, though it's definitely a slight improvement over the KV-1S

[Eisenfaustus]

1 hour ago, T-34 said:

it just sucks in a competitive multiplayer environment so, then the question is...why did decide to go with the planeset we eventually got?

Maybe because there are paying customers who couldn’t care less about competitiveness and really enjoy flying ju 87s or he 111 in SP?

 

I‘n no expert on the soviet bomber forces of WWII but during the first half of the war the twin engined medium bomber formed the core of the Luftwaffe. They were the guys doing the real fighting according to LW doctrine with STUKAS as their elite for high value targets. Fighters were just support to enable the bombers. 
 

It‘s even reflected by the German terminology of the time:

Fighter=Jäger (hunter) the same word was used for light skirmishers in the Prussian and Austrian armies

Bomber=Kampfflieger (Fighting aviator)

 

Trying to create an immersive Eastern Front campaign without German mediums is impossible. 

[Alexmarine]

Something that I remembered: @Jason_Williams will the StuG come with the correctly modelled Sturm-Artillery grey uniforms (and artillery's red Waffenfarbe instead of the panzer's pink) for the crew? I don't recall at the moment if they were previewed in past DDs...

 

Just wanted this to be confirmed or not with the team, thanks and cheers 

[Ribbon]

2 hours ago, T-34 said:

in the eastern front planesets, the reds have nothing that compares to the nuke payload of the he 111 and ju 88s. the blues have nothing that compares to the speed and survivability of the red bombers, maybe the ju88, but thats a stretch too. Problem is...

the reds have light bombers.

the blues have medium bombers.
I dont know if that s a good or bad thing in multiplayer but why didnt they decide to give both sides the same class of aircraft? How are these 2 very different pieces supposed to coexist in a game?

 

historically the reds did have medium bombers so in terms of gameplay and making sure the planes all fit together in this intricate puzzle of creating a planeset, it does not work that well. In multiplayer, no one flies the stuka or the 111. but everyone flies the pe2 and a20. i'm generalizing of course, but if i was the one making the planeset, ideally, i would want all the toys to be played, roughly equally. There are some planes in IL2 no one will touch because it just sucks in a competitive multiplayer environment so, then the question is...why did decide to go with the planeset we 

Lets hope B-25 announcement is next, il2 is missing allied medium bombers and bombers in general desperately.

Ar234 and ju88c6 with cannons are; don't we have enough fighters in game....going for more fighter-bombers for current expansions is not attractive at all!

Even dcs ww2 is slowly catching up in gameplay variety, something that was considered il2's stronghold.

I'd rather we get 6 planes per expansion; one fighter, attacker and "proper" bomber for each side than having 100 fighter-bombers.

 

He111 is a beautiful bomber, especially in VR!

Stuka is being flown too, in MP campaigns...simply both are too iconic German planes to be missed out of the sim.

[[F.Circus]FrangibleCover]

I really do have to do this in every topic on the forums, don't I?

 

- Splash damage in Il-2 is low, bigger bombs are not better than an equal mass of smaller bombs except against specific unusual targets that actually need a single hard hit.

- The A-20B carries nearly as much bomb mass as a sensible B-25 loadout and it does it using more bombs. The B-25 will not be significantly more effective than the A-20B and it will be slower, making overall cycle time higher.

- The B-25 will not change the online balance significantly, the two reasons to use it are for the improved defensive armament and because you think it's cool.

- I also think it's cool and want it, I just won't engage in histrionics about how not adding it ruins the game.

[Ribbon]

3 minutes ago, [F.Circus]FrangibleCover said:

I really do have to do this in every topic on the forums, don't I?

 

- Splash damage in Il-2 is low, bigger bombs are not better than an equal mass of smaller bombs except against specific unusual targets that actually need a single hard hit.

- The A-20B carries nearly as much bomb mass as a sensible B-25 loadout and it does it using more bombs. The B-25 will not be significantly more effective than the A-20B and it will be slower, making overall cycle time higher.

- The B-25 will not change the online balance significantly, the two reasons to use it are for the improved defensive armament and because you think it's cool.

- I also think it's cool and want it, I just won't engage in histrionics about how not adding it ruins the game.

No you don't 'need' to and please don't do it!

-B25  beside bombs can carry a torpedo

-fits into BoN (important)

 

And most important; have a proper bomber cockpit with copilot, immersion is important for some and it will be first bomber in il2GB to have a "real" cockpit with copilot....not another fighter like cockpit!

 

[dannytherat]

8 minutes ago, =VARP=Ribbon said:

And most important; have a proper bomber cockpit with copilot, immersion is important for some and it will be first bomber in il2GB to have a "real" cockpit with copilot....not another fighter like cockpit!

 

Although Mitchells operated over North-western Europe by the RAF (the user that makes most sense in the game settings both current and announced thus far), generally operated with a reduced crew of four, with no co-pilot and the navigator doubling as bomb-aimer.

 

As I've mentioned elsewhere, my great-uncle served on Mitchells with 98 Squadron as a navigator/bomb-aimer, and on that squadron at least the aircraft were crewed with a pilot, a navigator/bomb-aimer and two gunners.

 

It seems like the RAF wasn't interested in having co-pilots in its bombers at that time, as even the heavies like the Lancaster, Halifax and Stirling usually operated with a single pilot. Early on in the war the RAF did designate one crew member as a "second pilot" in its heavy bombers, but by about 1942 the second pilot was replaced with flight engineer.

 

In short, if the game goes historical for Mitchells operated by the RAF, when you're in the pilot's seat you would have an empty chair next to you. ?

 

 

(As an aside, I've bought all the pre-orders, and I'll definitely be pre-ordering the B-25 when it comes up!)

[Noisemaker]

3 hours ago, =VARP=Ribbon said:

-fits into BoM (important)

 

Fixed that for you... 

 

 

[Leon_Portier]

Churchill is gonna be interesting