Jump to content


KV-1S nerf in 8.9

KV-1S nerf 8.9

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

Poll: KV-1S Nerf in 8.9 (397 members have cast votes)

Should KV-1S be nerfed in 8.9

  1. No (227 votes [57.18%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 57.18%

  2. Voted Yes (170 votes [42.82%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 42.82%

Vote Hide poll

SkaarjMaster #81 Posted Oct 24 2013 - 03:52

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 4625 battles
  • 784
  • Member since:
    09-28-2012

View Postmattwong, on Oct 21 2013 - 05:24, said:

Another History Channel afictionado?

View PostHB_Landric, on Oct 21 2013 - 23:24, said:

Which is exactly why the Germans won the war...oh wait, is that what happened?
Really though, if you want historical accuracy, we could have 3 Tigers fight 15 M4s or T-34s. My money wouldn't be on the Tigers.
The outcome of the war has nothing to do with it. The Germans had the best tanks but couldn't keep up with production and the few that remained were ganged up on. History does not lie but only to those that distort the facts. :smile:

Anyway, my cousin has the KV-1S and is patiently awaiting the split. :popcorn:

Edited by SkaarjMaster, Oct 24 2013 - 03:54.


balmung60 #82 Posted Oct 24 2013 - 08:45

    Major

  • Players
  • 5668 battles
  • 3,016
  • [401ST] 401ST
  • Member since:
    10-02-2011

View PostSkaarjMaster, on Oct 24 2013 - 03:52, said:

The outcome of the war has nothing to do with it. The Germans had the best tanks but couldn't keep up with production and the few that remained were ganged up on. History does not lie but only to those that distort the facts. :smile:
True that history doesn't lie.  And that's how we know that the German's late-war tanks were rubbish.  The Panther could not go more than an average of 150km without breaking its final drive (no model did better than this) and early models would catch fire for essentially no reason.  Also, the sides of the Panther could be penetrated by obsolete anti-tank rifles (and yes, other tanks could be penetrated by those, too, but the Panther was also being used against a country that used said rifles).  On top of all this, the Panther's high-velocity gun was more or less worthless for anything but tank killing, making it almost worthless for supporting infantry and breaking fortifications.  The Tiger was... decent at its job, but borderline obsolete (being a flat armored box tank in 1942) when it was introduced and had reliability issues, though not quite as bad as the Panther and Tiger II (though the attached maintenance battalions no doubt helped).  And the Tiger II was no more reliable than the Panther and had a pointlessly powerful gun in the 88mm L/71 gun, when there was pretty much no tank fielded by anyone that would actually require said gun to penetrate.  And then there was the Jagdtiger and Jagdpanther, both of which just exacerbated the problems that their base chassis had, the Jagdtiger be being generally heavier and completely pointless as there was nothing that the 128mm gun would actually be needed to penetrate and the Jagdpanther being more front heavy than the Panther, putting even more strain on its already overworked final drive and transmission.

Furthermore, might there be a reason that nobody used late-war German tanks after the war if they could help it (note: the only people who couldn't help it were the French and they still replaced their Panthers ASAP because they were nearly useless due to how often they broke down)?  Also note that early model German tanks such as the Panzer IV did see post-war service into the '60s with some countries, though the Sherman and T-34-85 were in use even after that with some countries.

Oh, and then there are fun things like the Battle of Aracourt, in which an outnumbered force of almost exclusively 75mm-armed Shermans (and some infantry) wiped the floor with a much larger German force of Panthers and Panzer IVs.  And no, you can't use air support as an excuse, because they didn't have any (due to bad weather).

Basically, late-war German tanks were how someone who has no idea how to design a tank would design a tank: big honking gun, even if the guns already in use are more than enough to deal with everything on the field, absurd amounts of armor, and no regard whatsoever to things like reliability and mobility or how the former two affect the latter.

TL;DR: Seriously, put down the history channel and pick up some real history material, German tanks (especially late-war ones) weren't actually better than their opponents.

SkaarjMaster #83 Posted Oct 24 2013 - 15:21

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 4625 battles
  • 784
  • Member since:
    09-28-2012
I did not get my information on the History channel. It comes from a lot of people I know that know a lot about tanks and I always hear the Germans had the best tanks. If not the Germans, then who?

EDIT: even though they had their issues, the Tiger, Tiger II and Panther were all better than the T-34 and T-34-85. Of the top ten tanks in WWII, the Germans had five of them.

Edited by SkaarjMaster, Oct 24 2013 - 15:33.


balmung60 #84 Posted Oct 24 2013 - 17:26

    Major

  • Players
  • 5668 battles
  • 3,016
  • [401ST] 401ST
  • Member since:
    10-02-2011

View PostSkaarjMaster, on Oct 24 2013 - 15:21, said:

I did not get my information on the History channel. It comes from a lot of people I know that know a lot about tanks and I always hear the Germans had the best tanks. If not the Germans, then who?

EDIT: even though they had their issues, the Tiger, Tiger II and Panther were all better than the T-34 and T-34-85. Of the top ten tanks in WWII, the Germans had five of them.
You could argue either the Americans of the Soviets, really.

And no, not really.  The T-34 (and T-34-85) were reliable and common enough to be where tanks were needed, much like the Sherman was, and also like it, were adequately armed to actually deal with anything the Germans fielded.  Oh, and the mainline Allied tanks do a better job of supporting infantry and breaking fortifications due to their good HE rounds, and remember that tanks only rarely fought tanks.  They were usually doing various infantry support tasks.  And if you want to talk best heavy tank, the IS-2 could kill the German cats, weighed barely more than a Panther (but was actually built to handle its weight), had better armor than the Panther despite weighing basically the same, and had a much better gun for multipurpose work, with the 122mm gun D-25T.

The best German tanks of the war were the Panzers III, IV, and 38(t) (and derivatives of the three).  Unlike the Marks V, VI, and VIB, the III, IV, and 38(t) worked reasonably reliably, had room for useful upgrades (particularly to the StuG III, Ausf. H, and Hetzer, respectively), and were much more strategically mobile (the Panther, for example, would be loaded onto trains for trips as short as 20 km to preserve its fragile final drives).  Due to mechanical issues, you can't really count on a Panther or Tiger to flank or carry out part of an encirclement like you could with the III and IV and 38(t).

The German cats were built to win a war on paper, while the mainline Allied tanks were built to win an actual war.

mattwong #85 Posted Oct 24 2013 - 20:25

    Major

  • Players
  • 30470 battles
  • 17,333
  • Member since:
    03-03-2012

View PostSkaarjMaster, on Oct 24 2013 - 15:21, said:

I did not get my information on the History channel. It comes from a lot of people I know that know a lot about tanks and I always hear the Germans had the best tanks. If not the Germans, then who?

EDIT: even though they had their issues, the Tiger, Tiger II and Panther were all better than the T-34 and T-34-85. Of the top ten tanks in WWII, the Germans had five of them.

Stop embarrassing yourself.  Seriously, "It comes from a lot of people I know?"  That's how every urban myth in the world gets spread.

SkaarjMaster #86 Posted Oct 25 2013 - 04:50

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 4625 battles
  • 784
  • Member since:
    09-28-2012
Why would I embarass myself with facts? I can't help it if no one here knows their world history. :facepalm:
EDIT: anyway, this thread is going nowhere and off topic so let's just agree to disagree.

:sad: EDIT AGAIN: I'm not going to bump this thread anymore because it's already off topic, but if all you have to go on now is me saying I talked to people and deducing from that as my only source then you're pretty sad. Of course, I did my own research to back all that up. There is no doubt at all in my mind after talking to experts (one who actually worked on tanks) AND doing my own historical research that the German tanks as a total package were the best in WWII. :izmena:

Edited by SkaarjMaster, Oct 25 2013 - 14:36.


charley2222 #87 Posted Oct 25 2013 - 06:08

    Captain

  • Players
  • 29538 battles
  • 1,136
  • Member since:
    09-27-2013
for me  the best tank for ww2 are german no  doubt , soviet are so close to be exterminate :amazed:  and go too the oven  :great:  :tongue: the only reason why soviet survive the war is becauce the german fight on many front again the allied , you  put all german force vs all soviet , byebye soviet you are cook any doubt , too return too this game for me this game got  realy too much love for soviet tank ,and lost credibility the producteur need to be neutral

Edited by charley2222, Oct 25 2013 - 06:12.


mattwong #88 Posted Oct 25 2013 - 06:26

    Major

  • Players
  • 30470 battles
  • 17,333
  • Member since:
    03-03-2012

View PostSkaarjMaster, on Oct 25 2013 - 04:50, said:

Why would I embarass myself with facts? I can't help it if no one here knows their world history. :facepalm:

EDIT: anyway, this thread is going nowhere and off topic so let's just agree to disagree.

I don't think you understand what "knowing your history" means.  It means you get it from books, not from "people I know".

charley2222 #89 Posted Oct 25 2013 - 07:09

    Captain

  • Players
  • 29538 battles
  • 1,136
  • Member since:
    09-27-2013

View Postmattwong, on Oct 25 2013 - 06:26, said:

I don't think you understand what "knowing your history" means.  It means you get it from books, not from "people I know".
   depend  my grandfather make ww1 and my dad ww2 :) sometime what you will find in the book are not very accurate

Edited by charley2222, Oct 25 2013 - 07:11.


mattwong #90 Posted Oct 25 2013 - 07:17

    Major

  • Players
  • 30470 battles
  • 17,333
  • Member since:
    03-03-2012

View Postcharley2222, on Oct 25 2013 - 07:09, said:

depend  my grandfather make ww1 and my dad ww2 :) sometime what you will find in the book are not very accurate

On the contrary, proper historical research is far MORE reliable than a personal testimony.

charley2222 #91 Posted Oct 25 2013 - 07:45

    Captain

  • Players
  • 29538 battles
  • 1,136
  • Member since:
    09-27-2013

View Postmattwong, on Oct 25 2013 - 07:17, said:

On the contrary, proper historical research is far MORE reliable than a personal testimony.
historical make from 1 country too other are not always the same , but agree that give some basic info
but stay on topic the soviet tank are so op , is sad because the game lost a lot of credibility ( too my eye)
for me the soviet have good tank (best bang for buck tank ) fast production and decent power, but not the best
everyone know the soviet are so close to fall vs only the half of german army because the other half fighting the allied
,

Edited by charley2222, Oct 25 2013 - 08:05.


Ryffel #92 Posted Oct 25 2013 - 20:50

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 5972 battles
  • 81
  • [-MTB-] -MTB-
  • Member since:
    03-14-2012

View Postcharley2222, on Oct 25 2013 - 07:45, said:

historical make from 1 country too other are not always the same , but agree that give some basic info
but stay on topic the soviet tank are so op , is sad because the game lost a lot of credibility ( too my eye)
for me the soviet have good tank (best bang for buck tank ) fast production and decent power, but not the best
everyone know the soviet are so close to fall vs only the half of german army because the other half fighting the allied
,
Good point.  The old quote is the victor writes the history books.

Viper2112 #93 Posted Oct 25 2013 - 23:31

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 30660 battles
  • 138
  • Member since:
    08-20-2011

View PostFlorbFnarb, on Sep 08 2013 - 19:30, said:

Amazing how somebody can post that much wrong in one single post.

The KV-1S has MANY weaknesses, and there are a zillion tanks at Tier 6 that can take out a KV-1S without breaking a sweat.  If you can't handle a KV-1S in those tanks, it doesn't mean the 1S is OP, it means you need to improve.

thats what I dont get the KV1S lone "good" part is the gun...its armor is nothing to brag about and the long reload....thats not so hot in close quarters either..so its no super tank..i will admit I got my Pools(10 kill) medal with it..BUT that was a 1 time deal that ive not come close to again. Lately I cant buy a win in that tank ive not been playing it much every time I do its a L.

HB_Landric #94 Posted Oct 26 2013 - 21:10

    Major

  • Players
  • 42700 battles
  • 2,309
  • [DCLUB] DCLUB
  • Member since:
    12-20-2011

View PostSkaarjMaster, on Oct 24 2013 - 03:52, said:

The outcome of the war has nothing to do with it. The Germans had the best tanks but couldn't keep up with production and the few that remained were ganged up on. History does not lie but only to those that distort the fact.

Anyway, my cousin has the KV-1S and is patiently awaiting the split.

Isn't that what I said?  Being the "best" is mostly subjective.  It really depends on how one defines what makes something the best.  In general late war German tanks had much better guns and front armor than allied tanks.  Did that make them better?  Perhaps, but one wonders if it might have been a better use of resources to build five times as many Pz. IVs.  The T-34 was crude in manufacturing quality, but it was innovative and lead to the development of the main battle tank.  It was also available in numbers that could overwhelm the "superior" German tanks.  So, which one was better?

mattwong #95 Posted Oct 26 2013 - 23:19

    Major

  • Players
  • 30470 battles
  • 17,333
  • Member since:
    03-03-2012

View Postcharley2222, on Oct 25 2013 - 07:45, said:

historical make from 1 country too other are not always the same , but agree that give some basic info
but stay on topic the soviet tank are so op , is sad because the game lost a lot of credibility ( too my eye)
for me the soviet have good tank (best bang for buck tank ) fast production and decent power, but not the best
everyone know the soviet are so close to fall vs only the half of german army because the other half fighting the allied
,

"everyone know" is what people say when they're just repeating what they've been told.  70% of Nazi war casualties were on the eastern front.  The war in the east was much larger than the war in the west.  You don't think about that because you've only heard about the heroic western allies.

lordelamin #96 Posted Oct 27 2013 - 17:26

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 23025 battles
  • 989
  • Member since:
    10-14-2012
German tanks are like German cars:

They run great while they're running, but when they break down, they really break down.
I speak as a former real life Mercedes -Benz owner, and current real life Audi owner.

Never owned a real German tank though.

I've never owned a real life Russian car, and am not chomping at the bit for one.

brawler1967 #97 Posted Oct 28 2013 - 00:48

    Captain

  • Players
  • 9959 battles
  • 1,897
  • [RPG] RPG
  • Member since:
    08-04-2011
The German Tanks were awesome, but the they were over engineered and very complicated pieces of machinery. The American and especially the Soviet Tank were designed and built simple so they could be repaired or replaced the fastest way possible. The more units you can put into field the easier it is to overwhelm your opponent. Case in point.....The F-22. Why bother buying 1 of these when you could buy 5 F-18 super Hornets for the same price. Stupid modern military.  It will not work well in Canada. If it ever gets built.

CernoAlpha #98 Posted Oct 29 2013 - 21:22

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 17352 battles
  • 728
  • Member since:
    07-29-2013
after playing the KV1S and the T150, i do find the KV1S to be OP. I dont win with it all the time, and i do have bad games, but even if i think a lot less i do a lot better than my other tanks.

T150 doesnt seem that OP. When i do good in it, I feel that it was because i took some good decisions, not because i could one shoot most people on enemy team. Thus, I enjoy the T150 much more than KV1S.

I think the nerf will make the KV1s more enjoyable, since you can get a feeling of achievement from winning, which is related to your actions, not so much to the tank you choose.

Of course, others will disagree with me. However, it is hard to argue that tier 6 games are not a "are-our-KV1s-better-than-theirs" affair. I think that is the definition of OP...

Bronze_2_Wood #99 Posted Oct 29 2013 - 23:22

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 11297 battles
  • 98
  • Member since:
    04-30-2013
Just read through the 8.9 release notes. Unless I overlooked it, it appears that development did not remove the 122mm from the KV-1s. Can someone re-confirm this?

spy1309 #100 Posted Oct 30 2013 - 23:39

    Captain

  • Players
  • 44405 battles
  • 1,388
  • Member since:
    08-28-2012

View Postbalmung60, on Oct 24 2013 - 08:45, said:

True that history doesn't lie.  And that's how we know that the German's late-war tanks were rubbish.  The Panther could not go more than an average of 150km without breaking its final drive (no model did better than this) and early models would catch fire for essentially no reason.  Also, the sides of the Panther could be penetrated by obsolete anti-tank rifles (and yes, other tanks could be penetrated by those, too, but the Panther was also being used against a country that used said rifles).  On top of all this, the Panther's high-velocity gun was more or less worthless for anything but tank killing, making it almost worthless for supporting infantry and breaking fortifications.  The Tiger was... decent at its job, but borderline obsolete (being a flat armored box tank in 1942) when it was introduced and had reliability issues, though not quite as bad as the Panther and Tiger II (though the attached maintenance battalions no doubt helped).  And the Tiger II was no more reliable than the Panther and had a pointlessly powerful gun in the 88mm L/71 gun, when there was pretty much no tank fielded by anyone that would actually require said gun to penetrate.  And then there was the Jagdtiger and Jagdpanther, both of which just exacerbated the problems that their base chassis had, the Jagdtiger be being generally heavier and completely pointless as there was nothing that the 128mm gun would actually be needed to penetrate and the Jagdpanther being more front heavy than the Panther, putting even more strain on its already overworked final drive and transmission.
Furthermore, might there be a reason that nobody used late-war German tanks after the war if they could help it (note: the only people who couldn't help it were the French and they still replaced their Panthers ASAP because they were nearly useless due to how often they broke down)?  Also note that early model German tanks such as the Panzer IV did see post-war service into the '60s with some countries, though the Sherman and T-34-85 were in use even after that with some countries.
Oh, and then there are fun things like the Battle of Aracourt, in which an outnumbered force of almost exclusively 75mm-armed Shermans (and some infantry) wiped the floor with a much larger German force of Panthers and Panzer IVs.  And no, you can't use air support as an excuse, because they didn't have any (due to bad weather).
Basically, late-war German tanks were how someone who has no idea how to design a tank would design a tank: big honking gun, even if the guns already in use are more than enough to deal with everything on the field, absurd amounts of armor, and no regard whatsoever to things like reliability and mobility or how the former two affect the latter.
TL;DR: Seriously, put down the history channel and pick up some real history material, German tanks (especially late-war ones) weren't actually better than their opponents.
And yet they held a 4-1 ~ 5-1 kill ratio against russians  and americans....so if they manage that with POS tanks in your opinion imagine what the ratio would be in kick ass better tanks.
Crew wise hands down they were the best tankers in the world.
There is no point to deny the german engineering ....was and IT IS ... the best engineering in the world.....
Someone who drove an BMW M3 or a Audi A4 knows what I am talking about  :blinky:

Edited by spy1309, Oct 30 2013 - 23:44.






Also tagged with KV-1S, nerf, 8.9

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users