Jump to content


German Superiority

Germanbias

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
63 replies to this topic

SuperZero0ne #1 Posted Oct 08 2012 - 23:14

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 5822 battles
  • 26
  • [RT6] RT6
  • Member since:
    01-15-2012
Is it just me or do some of the German tanks seem nerfed compared to their american counter parts.(Yes I know that some of this has already been discussed before.) For example, I go into matches with my PzIV and majority of my deaths are from M4's, T1 HT's, M4A3E2's, and M4A3E8's. Now if you look back into history there was a 5:1 ratio of M4's and PzIV deaths. Now I have my PzIV fully upgraded and I use the 105 gun on it, I fire, they take the hit, they fire, I die. It's really irritating, what are your thoughts guys?

Legiondude #2 Posted Oct 08 2012 - 23:16

    Major

  • Players
  • 20979 battles
  • 23,198
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    08-22-2011
Oooooooooh boy

You're definitely going to enjoy the forums

<may contain sarcasm>

BandofBrothers101 #3 Posted Oct 08 2012 - 23:16

    Major

  • Players
  • 18415 battles
  • 2,634
  • Member since:
    10-13-2011
5 to 1 ratio historically, but failing to realize that there were far lesser number of PZ4's compared to M4's... AND that M4's not only had to face PZ4's but panthers tigers and other tracked vehicles...

Whee #4 Posted Oct 08 2012 - 23:17

    Major

  • Players
  • 27829 battles
  • 14,749
  • [WOPR2] WOPR2
  • Member since:
    03-22-2011
OMG, THIS AGAIN. R U KIDDING ME. DRINK.

Please, OP, INB4TEHNEGREP, this is a GAME not a SIMULATOR.

Non-constructive
Warning
~krazyone

Slakrrrrrr #5 Posted Oct 08 2012 - 23:17

    Major

  • Players
  • 22233 battles
  • 6,434
  • Member since:
    07-16-2011
After last update the Pz.IV is vastly inferior to the M4 Sherman. If it was given the Verienfachtem turret like everybody wanted (not to mention making the L/48 comparable to the m1a1) then the Pz.IV would still be a good tank worth playing.

Scolopax #6 Posted Oct 08 2012 - 23:18

    Major

  • Players
  • 8642 battles
  • 2,757
  • Member since:
    05-18-2011
Shouldn't necessarily be comparing the PZ 4 to things outside its tier

Otherwise this is a rather over used topic that generally ends the same

MisterPatriot #7 Posted Oct 08 2012 - 23:20

    Major

  • Players
  • 17538 battles
  • 6,661
  • Member since:
    01-19-2011
IN HESTORY CLASS THEY TOLD ME TIGER TANK WAS INVINCIBEL. I BUY TIGER TNAK ON GAME AND I DIE FROM OP RUSIA IS-3 TANK WTF WG WAT KIND OF BS IS THIS IS-3 IS FROM 1978 AND U ADD IT TO GAME FIGHTIN TIGERS WTF REMOV IS-3.

You have to contain a whole new form of stupidity to take this seriously.

The_Elephant #8 Posted Oct 08 2012 - 23:21

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 6544 battles
  • 567
  • Member since:
    03-18-2012

View PostBandofBrothers101, on Oct 08 2012 - 23:16, said:

5 to 1 ratio historically, but failing to realize that there were far lesser number of PZ4's compared to M4's... AND that M4's not only had to face PZ4's but panthers tigers and other tracked vehicles...

Funny you mention that, a Tiger I tank could actually kill 4 Shermans before the Sherman's even get within range of the Tiger.

As for this post, I have no idea what your talking about, all I can tell you is get the 3601 not the 30001 :D

ReactorNo4 #9 Posted Oct 08 2012 - 23:25

    Major

  • Players
  • 18967 battles
  • 2,293
  • Member since:
    12-28-2011

View PostM18HellCat, on Oct 08 2012 - 23:20, said:

IN HESTORY CLASS THEY TOLD ME TIGER TANK WAS INVINCIBEL. I BUY TIGER TNAK ON GAME AND I DIE FROM OP RUSIA IS-3 TANK WTF WG WAT KIND OF BS IS THIS IS-3 IS FROM 1978 AND U ADD IT TO GAME FIGHTIN TIGERS WTF REMOV IS-3.

You have to contain a whole new form of stupidity to take this seriously.
Edit:
Responding to sarcasm with valid argument,not a good idea
http://i0.kym-cdn.co...genius-meme.png

Edited by T_90MS_Tagil, Oct 08 2012 - 23:51.


MisterPatriot #10 Posted Oct 08 2012 - 23:27

    Major

  • Players
  • 17538 battles
  • 6,661
  • Member since:
    01-19-2011

View PostT_90MS_Tagil, on Oct 08 2012 - 23:25, said:

Bloody Hell, Tigers were not invincible by any means, in fact they suffered more losses from mechanical failure than enemy action. I find that sad.
I even own a Book called Tigers in Combat 1,by Wolfgang Schneider that backs that up.
IMHO the Tiger 1 was a failure,as were the Panther and Tiger 2.
http://www.amazon.co...r/dp/0811731715

http://gifsforum.com...facepalm_16.jpg

OnesFormerSelf #11 Posted Oct 08 2012 - 23:32

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 1426 battles
  • 155
  • Member since:
    07-28-2012
*Facepalm*

Removing comment.

Edited by OnesFormerSelf, Oct 08 2012 - 23:39.


Whee #12 Posted Oct 08 2012 - 23:32

    Major

  • Players
  • 27829 battles
  • 14,749
  • [WOPR2] WOPR2
  • Member since:
    03-22-2011
Removed.

Edited by Whee, Oct 08 2012 - 23:34.


IronWolfV #13 Posted Oct 08 2012 - 23:33

    Major

  • Players
  • 29545 battles
  • 25,263
  • Member since:
    10-21-2011

View PostT_90MS_Tagil, on Oct 08 2012 - 23:25, said:

Bloody Hell, Tigers were not invincible by any means, in fact they suffered more losses from mechanical failure than enemy action. I find that sad.
I even own a Book called Tigers in Combat 1,by Wolfgang Schneider that backs that up.
IMHO the Tiger 1 was a failure,as were the Panther and Tiger 2.
http://www.amazon.co...r/dp/0811731715

I am guessing you TOTALLY missed the point.

HE WAS BEING SARCASTIC!

Legiondude #14 Posted Oct 08 2012 - 23:33

    Major

  • Players
  • 20979 battles
  • 23,198
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    08-22-2011
Abort! Abort! The s***storm has been unleashed!

OnesFormerSelf #15 Posted Oct 08 2012 - 23:38

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 1426 battles
  • 155
  • Member since:
    07-28-2012
Head for the hills!

Cleric2145 #16 Posted Oct 08 2012 - 23:38

    Sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 6592 battles
  • 151
  • [LTG_B] LTG_B
  • Member since:
    07-12-2010
OP, you'll find that this is pretty common in this game. Most tanks (especially German tanks) have one strong point, and a few (German tanks: a laundry list) of weak points, while Russian tanks have a laundry list of strong points and one or two weaknesses.

Reason for weak tanks: "This is not a simulator, many changes were made in the interest of gameplay. This tank only had this gun for a few battles but never saw action, so we removed it."

Reason for strong tanks: "We are trying to be at least semi-realistic, but we've added a few downsides to tanks to balance them. This gun may have existed on some blueprints, so we put it on the tank and gave it shells it never realistically had in any good number so that it has some (286mm pen) AP ability."


And to avoid the angry shit storm mob, here's a cute kitten:
http://cdn.planetmin...3792641_lrg.jpg

_Snuggles2Death_ #17 Posted Oct 08 2012 - 23:39

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 13673 battles
  • 316
  • Member since:
    04-05-2012
:Smile_popcorn1:

superpops65 #18 Posted Oct 08 2012 - 23:47

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 8613 battles
  • 654
  • Member since:
    06-21-2011

View PostM18HellCat, on Oct 08 2012 - 23:20, said:



You have to contain a whole new form of stupidity to take this seriously.
comment removed

Edited by superpops65, Oct 08 2012 - 23:50.


Lumina #19 Posted Oct 08 2012 - 23:47

    Major

  • Players
  • 8368 battles
  • 6,744
  • Member since:
    03-07-2011

View PostBandofBrothers101, on Oct 08 2012 - 23:16, said:

5 to 1 ratio historically, but failing to realize that there were far lesser number of PZ4's compared to M4's... AND that M4's not only had to face PZ4's but panthers tigers and other tracked vehicles...
Actually the Soviets lost 5 for 1 tanks the Germans lost.  The Allies including the US/UK lost 4 for 1.  Also because of infantry/anti tank guns/airpower/mechanical break down which accounted for most German tanks lost, allied/soviet tanks accounted for a pathetic amount of German armor destroyed.

Mean while the Germans had a target rich environment in 1944 and 1945, getting kill ratios dramatically higher than 5:1 having entire battalion of infantry to defend one or two vehicles in some cases in defensive positions, having those vehicles performing much of the Anti Tank rule.

The whole 5:1 ratio thing is a myth, technically it's almost impossible to judge since the ratio changed time and time again throughout the war, and anti tank guns, aircraft, artillery and infantry's work on knocking out tanks have been added to the over all figure.  So ya sure, the Allies/USSR did loose about 5:1 tanks for every one Germany lost, but it wasn't from direct tank to tank combat.

Edited by Lumina, Oct 08 2012 - 23:52.


MisterPatriot #20 Posted Oct 08 2012 - 23:49

    Major

  • Players
  • 17538 battles
  • 6,661
  • Member since:
    01-19-2011

View Postsuperpops65, on Oct 08 2012 - 23:47, said:

Tiger relies on thickness rather than slope. plus IS-3 has 175-225mm AP penetration. Your history teach told you the Tiger was invincible because He/She never realised that the Tiger had very little side/rear armor. Also IS-3 isn't OP sure its front is bouncy but if you shoot the Lower Glacis the shots should pen i think a gun with 175mm AP+ penetration would be able to penetrate the IS-3 Lowe Glacis.Don't believe everything you teachers say. :Smile_blinky:

Please... my face hurts enough...





Also tagged with Germanbias

3 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users