Jump to content


Overlord's blog M103 Delayed


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

KiwiMark67 #441 Posted Dec 31 2011 - 06:05

    Major

  • Players
  • 50959 battles
  • 5,060
  • [ANVIL] ANVIL
  • Member since:
    08-24-2011

View PostReaperV, on Dec 31 2011 - 01:22, said:

YES  :lol: ... no, but seriously, some of the low-tier tanks make mad exp, especially when played against players with no upgrades or other stuff on their tanks.

Now shhhhh and stop giving away the secrets!  :angry:  

I'm not sure that the noobs I'm pwning in tier 1 & 2 with my M2 Light know that these forums exist, I don't think I'll stop winning any time soon (up around 60% victory rate with my M2 Light).

Sputter #442 Posted Dec 31 2011 - 12:12

    Staff sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 16467 battles
  • 385
  • Member since:
    11-26-2010
They say that american heavys are support tanks but i really want to know exactly what they mean by that because atm this game does not support the use of support tanks in the heavy line because the brawling tanks with the heavy armor and damage can see and hit just as far as the so called support tanks, so to me they are just giving a fake term to american heavys because they can't seem to balance them out atm. Unless they change the spotting system around and tweak the maps to allow longer distances there is no advantage given to the support tanks to overcome the advantage brawling tanks have at these short distances and with the spotting.

awax001 #443 Posted Dec 31 2011 - 13:48

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 0 battles
  • 35
  • Member since:
    12-30-2011

View PostReaperV, on Dec 31 2011 - 01:22, said:


Just give it some time. It will be better at that task by all possible statistics, just don't expect it to be an IS-4... maybe more of an IS-3 with a better gun.

Oh, and I encountered an AMX50B in my IS-4 last night. Man, squishiest tank EVAR. I can see how that thing would be murder if hiding in some bushes or whatever, but most people will try to capitalize on the extreme movement speed... and then get 75% of their HP taken by an IS-4 hidding behind a rock.

I don't know, I still have mixed feelings about the French tanks since they are really changing the balance in the lower tiers (damn it! I miss being the only Valentine or B2 driver that can withstand 40+ direct hits in a battle... now these damn B1's and that other turtle-looking thing is in every single one of my battles  :angry:).

If anything, the Tier 9/10 Frenchies will definitely have a harder time surviving from battle to battle, no matter how fast they may fire. It could easily mean that the US is no longer the exclusive "support" side, but at the same time we can start seeing threads like this about the French tanks hahaha!  :lol:

don't get me wrong, M103 will be better then T34 IMO too   :) , it's just that for people who waited an US IS4/E75, it will be desapointing ( i was waiting for that in the past but with info we have already, i given up hope about it)
If you play your M103 like you learned to play your T34 it will be more then a efficient tank.

Like all "support" tank, the Amx50B will be a beast if well used, ( it's the case for ALL Tier10 tanks in fact but specially for the support type)

View PostSputter, on Dec 31 2011 - 12:12, said:

They say that american heavys are support tanks but i really want to know exactly what they mean by that because atm this game does not support the use of support tanks in the heavy line because the brawling tanks with the heavy armor and damage can see and hit just as far as the so called support tanks, so to me they are just giving a fake term to american heavys because they can't seem to balance them out atm. Unless they change the spotting system around and tweak the maps to allow longer distances there is no advantage given to the support tanks to overcome the advantage brawling tanks have at these short distances and with the spotting.

For me " support tank" mean a tank that you have to play like a puss... a TD sorry :lol:, avoid frontline or use the fact that you are not spoted to flank the enemy, never be alone ( well it's a rule for every tank, but specially when your chance to bounce a shell is so small, to be the only target of 3 tanks means 3 shells in your tank) but in the counterpart you have a good gun/mobility, so yeah all that to say that for me support tanks in this game are TD with more mobility and hit points, so yeah in random play supports tank have a hard life, i think their purpose is more helpfull in CW.
things that would help support tank would be to class it in an under class, like that it would help the MM to not make the classic mistake : 2 T34 VS 2 IS4

PS : i'm totally fan of the video that the 3E made with the M4A3E8  :Smile_honoring:

Batosi #444 Posted Dec 31 2011 - 14:23

    Major

  • Players
  • 37402 battles
  • 2,811
  • [THRET] THRET
  • Member since:
    05-07-2011

View PostSputter, on Dec 31 2011 - 12:12, said:

They say that american heavys are support tanks but i really want to know exactly what they mean by that because atm this game does not support the use of support tanks in the heavy line because the brawling tanks with the heavy armor and damage can see and hit just as far as the so called support tanks, so to me they are just giving a fake term to american heavys because they can't seem to balance them out atm. Unless they change the spotting system around and tweak the maps to allow longer distances there is no advantage given to the support tanks to overcome the advantage brawling tanks have at these short distances and with the spotting.

THAT was a very good point you made sir. +1 to you.  To be a support Tank you really need the tools to make that happen.

Dbars #445 Posted Jan 10 2012 - 05:24

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 3664 battles
  • 165
  • Member since:
    03-19-2011
You just lost my "SUPPORT" WG.

ReaperV #446 Posted Jan 10 2012 - 20:00

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 8892 battles
  • 544
  • Member since:
    10-02-2011

View PostDbars, on Jan 10 2012 - 05:24, said:

You just lost my "SUPPORT" WG.

I see what you did there lol.

Seriously though, as I have played through the T29 and T32, and currently just 50K exp away from the T34... I have to say that the US line is not that bad from Tier 7 on-wards. I still see T34's rolling people on a daily basis... and the M103 is supposed to be that much better at it.

Now that I have more experience with the American heavies since this thread started, I have to say that as long as the Tier-9 US heavy is at least a T32 with a 120mm cannon, it will be just fine. Thanks to that turret frontal armor alone, I have bounced more Tier 10 rounds with the T32 than with my IS-4, M6A2E1, or KV-5. To me, that says a lot.

Not 100% certain that the T110 will be a much better tank than the T30, either, however it should be less TD and more heavy tank... I suppose. With that said, I have witnessed a T30 hold-off 2 other Tier-10 tanks along with 2 Tier-9 support (IS-7, E100, IS-4, and E75) and managed to kill the E75 and IS-7 before going down itself. That's interesting since the T30 is just a T29 with more HP and a bigger gun.  :Smile-hiding:

Plus, you have been playing this game just as long as the other addicts, so you know you will never quit even if they changed all the tank textures to Hello Kitty. You would be upgrading your kitty tanks just as much as you are the poor US heavy line. :rolleyes:

inphinity #447 Posted Jan 10 2012 - 20:25

    Captain

  • Players
  • 5293 battles
  • 1,323
  • Member since:
    07-19-2011

View PostReaperV, on Jan 10 2012 - 20:00, said:

Seriously though, as I have played through the T29 and T32, and currently just 50K exp away from the T34... I have to say that the US line is not that bad from Tier 7 on-wards. I still see T34's rolling people on a daily basis... and the M103 is supposed to be that much better at it.

The US tanks are, imo, very capable in the right situation. The problem is, the situations and circumstances that suit their style are far more limited than those that suit the more heavily-armoured counterparts. Honestly, I play my T34 like a medium, and it works well enough. I play my T30 like a TD, and it works well enough. But if you find yourself (which often you will, at least in random battles) in a straight-up battle with another Tier 9/10, you have a problem, because you have to be very cautious where you shoot, and they can just take snapshots and have a 8 or 9 in 10 chance of penetration.

Also bear in mind the T32 has better front hull AND front turret armour than either T34 or T30, it does NOT have such prominent weak-armoured hatch on the turret (which is quite easy to hit when facing a hull-down T34 or T30), and it has same view range as T30 (40m more than T34).

Imo, T29 is very good for it's tier, pre-0.7.0 T32 was also, though I believe it has dropped off somewhat due to it's reduced penetration from the armour & normalisation changes, but it's still capable as a Tier 8. And you can play both of these as a "heavy" tank at their tier. The T34 and T30, though, you cannot. Playing a T34 and E-75 back-to-back is quite an astounding difference. You are required to do so much more pre-planning and thinking in the T34 to be effective, whereas the E-75 you can kind of just go with what happens and do OK.

I will say, that when you *can* exploit their strengths, the US tanks are extraordinarily good, but in my experience this opportunity to really play them at their best only happens maybe 1 in 6 or 8 games, compared to about 1 in 2 for the more traditional heavy tanks. This is partly due to so many of the potentially-good locations for using US heavies being very open to artillery fire, combined with the previously-mentioned big weak hats they wear meaning even hull-down you sustain a lot of damage. The T32 did not have this issue. In fact, my T32 bounces more Tier 9/10 shots than my T30 does, by a considerable margin.

So to me it's not so much about getting "better" tanks, but about getting tanks that are more flexible, so that they can be used to maximum effectiveness more often the way their counterparts can.

VirgilHilts #448 Posted Jan 10 2012 - 20:39

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 16650 battles
  • 3,417
  • Member since:
    07-31-2010

View Postinphinity, on Jan 10 2012 - 20:25, said:

The US tanks are, imo, very capable in the right situation. The problem is, the situations and circumstances that suit their style are far more limited than those that suit the more heavily-armoured counterparts.  Playing a T34 and E-75 back-to-back is quite an astounding difference. You are required to do so much more pre-planning and thinking in the T34 to be effective, whereas the E-75 you can kind of just go with what happens and do OK.

I will say, that when you *can* exploit their strengths, the US tanks are extraordinarily good, but in my experience this opportunity to really play them at their best only happens maybe 1 in 6 or 8 games, compared to about 1 in 2 for the more traditional heavy tanks. This is partly due to so many of the potentially-good locations for using US heavies being very open to artillery fire, combined with the previously-mentioned big weak hats they wear meaning even hull-down you sustain a lot of damage.

So to me it's not so much about getting "better" tanks, but about getting tanks that are more flexible, so that they can be used to maximum effectiveness more often the way their counterparts can.


Well said. The problem with the "soft stat advantages" of the T34 and T30 especially, are that they are of little use when you really need a real heavy tank. When you are the only heavy tank on your team of equal tier to the enemy heavy tank, and you do not get to choose where and how you fight the enemy, those "soft stats" are useless.

When you're in one of two T34's on your team, and the other team has 1-2 IS-4's or E-75's, given equal players on both sides, the team with two T34's simply is at a distinct disadvantage 3 times out of 4, because you do not always get to choose when, where, and how you fight. If those two enemy tier IX's are rolling a flank, you have to go deal with it. Or lose. Well, I suppose the T34 does have the advantage of being somewhat mobile enough to often reach the falling flank in time to get beat on before the battle ends.  <_<

hiroshi_tea #449 Posted Jan 10 2012 - 20:48

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 15796 battles
  • 3,458
  • [SPIDY] SPIDY
  • Member since:
    09-21-2010

View PostVirgilHilts, on Jan 10 2012 - 20:39, said:

Well said. The problem with the "soft stat advantages" of the T34 and T30 especially, are that they are of little use when you really need a real heavy tank. When you are the only heavy tank on your team of equal tier to the enemy heavy tank, and you do not get to choose where and how you fight the enemy, those "soft stats" are useless.

Same can be said for the French Heavies.  I'd rather see a real heavy tank on my team than an AMX 50 series tank

inphinity #450 Posted Jan 10 2012 - 23:52

    Captain

  • Players
  • 5293 battles
  • 1,323
  • Member since:
    07-19-2011

View Posthiroshi_tea, on Jan 10 2012 - 20:48, said:

Same can be said for the French Heavies.  I'd rather see a real heavy tank on my team than an AMX 50 series tank

I agree, the French are not true heavies either imo, but their burst ability makes them a bigger threat to many.

ReaperV #451 Posted Jan 11 2012 - 00:17

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 8892 battles
  • 544
  • Member since:
    10-02-2011

View Postinphinity, on Jan 10 2012 - 20:25, said:

The US tanks are, imo, very capable in the right situation. The problem is, the situations and circumstances that suit their style are far more limited than those that suit the more heavily-armoured counterparts. Honestly, I play my T34 like a medium, and it works well enough. I play my T30 like a TD, and it works well enough. But if you find yourself (which often you will, at least in random battles) in a straight-up battle with another Tier 9/10, you have a problem, because you have to be very cautious where you shoot, and they can just take snapshots and have a 8 or 9 in 10 chance of penetration.Also bear in mind the T32 has better front hull AND front turret armour than either T34 or T30, it does NOT have such prominent weak-armoured hatch on the turret (which is quite easy to hit when facing a hull-down T34 or T30), and it has same view range as T30 (40m more than T34).Imo, T29 is very good for it's tier, pre-0.7.0 T32 was also, though I believe it has dropped off somewhat due to it's reduced penetration from the armour & normalisation changes, but it's still capable as a Tier 8. And you can play both of these as a "heavy" tank at their tier. The T34 and T30, though, you cannot. Playing a T34 and E-75 back-to-back is quite an astounding difference. You are required to do so much more pre-planning and thinking in the T34 to be effective, whereas the E-75 you can kind of just go with what happens and do OK.I will say, that when you *can* exploit their strengths, the US tanks are extraordinarily good, but in my experience this opportunity to really play them at their best only happens maybe 1 in 6 or 8 games, compared to about 1 in 2 for the more traditional heavy tanks. This is partly due to so many of the potentially-good locations for using US heavies being very open to artillery fire, combined with the previously-mentioned big weak hats they wear meaning even hull-down you sustain a lot of damage. The T32 did not have this issue. In fact, my T32 bounces more Tier 9/10 shots than my T30 does, by a considerable margin.So to me it's not so much about getting "better" tanks, but about getting tanks that are more flexible, so that they can be used to maximum effectiveness more often the way their counterparts can.

Well-said, indeed.

One of my first comments I made in this thread was how I felt like the T29-T30s are really just tractors with TD's on top, instead of a normal turret (definitely a bit more of an exception with the T32, being a larger, better-armored Pershingm versus a KV with an Object 704 sitting on top). lol

I mean seriously, the T30 and T34 is just a T29 with a bigger cannon... that's just what it was historically, and any improvements over anything other than the gun really give the tank no advantage (in fact, lower view distance in-game? Still don't fully understand that one). The gun certainly makes that tank what it is, and being able to stay hidden or to peak-out over a hill is a distinct advantage (the hatch is a lot harder to hit than people make it sound)... the other being able to take more than half an enemy Tier-9 heavy tank's HP in 1 hit (placed just about anywhere), and seriously hurt any other Tier-10.

Definitely agree on the play style of the tanks being different, however there is no denying that a T30 with a 278 pen gun can do some extreme damage to anything that crosses it's path. At that tier and with the equall E100 guns present on the battlefield, armor is almost useless anyway, as a T30 can pen just about anything as well as it can get penned by other tanks of its tier.

The thing you said about the T32 is very true also. It's quick (even without the motor upgrade), it's got a low profile, the turret is much smaller, it has impressive armor for any tier tank, and it's manueverable. In fact, if you compare it side by side with a Pershing or Patton, there are some very noticeable similarities... that's why I just play my T32 like a better-armored Pershing, and I do well (by my standards) most of the time. :)

I do agree with you on the E75/E100 general ability to just show-up and be dangerous however as far as the IS-4, I have learned that simply hitting right in the center of the front hull (that little view port for the driver) means critical damage practically all the time... heck, it does not even have to be directly ON the view slot, it can be near it (just in the center, really), and my shots go through most of the time. I've learned to exploit that with as little as the US 90mm gun, so needless to say I'm not as impressed with the tank anymore. The side armor and S70 gun is a different story, so it's still not a "bad" tank by any stretch of the imagination, it's just that the E75 is the only one I still have a little trouble with (unless I have a clear shot at the lower plate, side, or rear, in which case it's not a big deal anyway). The IS-7 has a relatively weaker gun (slow rate of fire, about half the damage of the T30 gun), and has a few crippling weaknesses right below the turret on the side, lower plate (pen's from the front apparently), and rear of the tank... I mean I have absolutely destroyed these tanks even with a SU-8 arty in 7.1, and I'm talking about 40% HP per hit, so I can't say that tank does any better against arties compared to T34's or T30's.

I guess my point is that as situational a tank the T34 and T30 are, they are still rather great even for a brawl when in a pinch. It's the same reason that you see Object 704's and T95's taking the front lines every so often... when no other heavier tank is around to take the hits, even a TD will do rather well... and a TD mounted on a relatively weak tractor hull has the added weakness of the hull, but the added benefit of the manuverability and versatility.

So yes, I definitely agree that the T34 and T30's are not bad tanks, just not the heavy equivalents of the other sides. I guess for better or for worse.

Not so sure I really want a T34 premium over a M6A2E1, either... unless it comes with the 120mm, in which case I will still put it to good use when i get it.  :Smile-playing:
  

View PostVirgilHilts, on Jan 10 2012 - 20:39, said:

Well said. The problem with the "soft stat advantages" of the T34 and T30 especially, are that they are of little use when you really need a real heavy tank. When you are the only heavy tank on your team of equal tier to the enemy heavy tank, and you do not get to choose where and how you fight the enemy, those "soft stats" are useless.When you're in one of two T34's on your team, and the other team has 1-2 IS-4's or E-75's, given equal players on both sides, the team with two T34's simply is at a distinct disadvantage 3 times out of 4, because you do not always get to choose when, where, and how you fight. If those two enemy tier IX's are rolling a flank, you have to go deal with it. Or lose. Well, I suppose the T34 does have the advantage of being somewhat mobile enough to often reach the falling flank in time to get beat on before the battle ends.  <_<

Well, I think the "3 time out of 4" is a bit of an exageration, and like inphiniti stated, it's more situational than anything. If the map is flat with a lot of roads and narrow passes between buildings (where the hull has to be exposed a lot by moving down streets or peaking around corners), I would generally agree with you. If there are hills and bushes (where only the turret can be visible), the tables are turned.

The SSes I posted of the T34's owning were definitely from hilly maps.

Lastly, since tanks are matched by tiers, not by which is heavy/medium/light, would you rather see all Type-59's on your side or all KV-5's/Lowe's? Generally, I would vote for the KV-5's or Lowes over the Type-59's, despite them being in the same tiers. That's how I view this whole situation with the US tanks. No, they are not as heavily armored as the other heavy tanks in the game (with the exception of the T32 tank and some of the later French tanks), however they are not meant to be... at least not originally, but will be with the introduction of the revised tech trees.

The M103 and T110 will certainly help make the experience a lot more uniform between all 3 sides (not counting Frenchies), but I can't say that it's a good or bad thing. I guess it's good for those players focusing on the American tanks and expecting the experience of the other sides, but not really anything to somebody who intends to play every tank in the game anyway.

I suppose to each his own.  :Smile_honoring:

View Posthiroshi_tea, on Jan 10 2012 - 20:48, said:

Same can be said for the French Heavies.  I'd rather see a real heavy tank on my team than an AMX 50 series tank

Well, that's the whole thing, the AMX 50 can pwn as much as it gets pwned. Every so often you face one, you hit it with next to no effort with a relatively weak tank and think "oh, this tank sucks!!"... then you get hit by 2 100/120mm rounds in 5 seconds, and you are a smoking pile of deadness... I've seen then melt E75's by sneaking-up around back and emptying their cartridge. Those tanks are definitely not to be fked with, even if they are equally easy to hurt with low-tier tanks as high-tier tanks due to their general lack of armor (primarily in the turret, the 50B actually has some impressive front hull armor).

I'm not sure if I would even call those tanks "support" tanks, as they can generally out-flank any high-tier tank and gib it in seconds. Chances are about 50/50 the Frenchie will go *BOOM* if the other tank sees it approaching from a distance, but not before doing heavy damage itself.

If anything the Frenchies seem to be great brawlers that rely on being able to move faster than the enemy's turret.

I've actually witnessed an AMX 13t taking a hit from an E75, get around it, and single-handedly dropping the tank's HP to half. With a little support TO the AMX 13t, that E75 got gibbed.

Definitely what I expected to see, and certainly does not reflect my own experiences of being a distance and gibbing then with a KV-5 before they even see me.  :blink:

Mixed feelings, that's for sure.

VirgilHilts #452 Posted Jan 11 2012 - 00:27

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 16650 battles
  • 3,417
  • Member since:
    07-31-2010

View Posthiroshi_tea, on Jan 10 2012 - 20:48, said:

Same can be said for the French Heavies.  I'd rather see a real heavy tank on my team than an AMX 50 series tank

Sort of similar. There's a feeling of dread when you see the T30 and T34 on your team, when they're opposed by more heavily armored tanks. If the players in the U.S. tanks are good, as in better than average, and the situation is right, then you are in great shape for a victory. If the players in the U.S. tanks are average, and so are the enemy counterparts, you're in for a tough time, at best, and a curb stomping is very possible. U.S. tanks are simply not tolerant of anything except above average play. There just is not the margin for error there is with their German and Russian counterparts. I'd imagine the situation for French tanks is very similar, however, at least the French tanks have one truly outstanding attribute, their rapid fire capability.

Dands #453 Posted Jan 11 2012 - 00:29

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 11235 battles
  • 903
  • Member since:
    08-03-2010

View Postawax001, on Dec 31 2011 - 13:48, said:


For me " support tank" mean a tank that you have to play like a puss... a TD sorry :lol:, avoid front line or use the fact that you are not spoted to flank the enemy, never be alone ( well it's a rule for every tank, but specially when your chance to bounce a shell is so small, to be the only target of 3 tanks means 3 shells in your tank) but in the counterpart you have a good gun/mobility, so yeah all that to say that for me support tanks in this game are TD with more mobility and hit points, so yeah in random play supports tank have a hard life, i think their purpose is more helpful in CW.

This is pretty spot on IMO.

Short version is...

Support tanks mostly if not always suck ass playing in randoms.

Support tanks are more suited to clan wars.

But if that is so then why do clan teams just field E100s, scouts and arty?  Now if WG implemented a class or role system where by you HAVE to have "support" tanks then it may work for CW.

Right now you look for the best 'solo' suited tier 10 and buy that. All else is a waste of time. I'm sure the Ford Edsel was great on paper.

Mow_Mow #454 Posted Jan 11 2012 - 04:03

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 12058 battles
  • 14,881
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    10-25-2010

View PostDands, on Jan 11 2012 - 00:29, said:

ut if that is so then why do clan teams just field E100s, scouts and arty?  Now if WG implemented a class or role system where by you HAVE to have "support" tanks then it may work for CW.

Right now you look for the best 'solo' suited tier 10 and buy that. All else is a waste of time. I'm sure the Ford Edsel was great on paper.


Because they don't...

hckygod99 #455 Posted Jan 21 2012 - 18:21

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 23026 battles
  • 66
  • [ONLY1] ONLY1
  • Member since:
    02-21-2011
I have read this forum a few times now and I still don't understand why people are pissed. American tanks sucked during this era. They could barely beat there way out of wet paper bags. The same is proving true in the game. Personally I enjoy the challenge of playing the american tanks. I'm pretty sure if people would try and figure out a different playing style to use with them they would most likely find them ok.  :Smile-hiding:

Drive_Me_Closer #456 Posted Jan 22 2012 - 00:30

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 7300 battles
  • 639
  • Member since:
    04-09-2011

View Posthckygod99, on Jan 21 2012 - 18:21, said:

I have read this forum a few times now and I still don't understand why people are pissed. American tanks sucked during this era. They could barely beat there way out of wet paper bags. The same is proving true in the game. Personally I enjoy the challenge of playing the american tanks. I'm pretty sure if people would try and figure out a different playing style to use with them they would most likely find them ok.  :Smile-hiding:

You are incorrect.  US tanks were excellent when used in their role.  Russian and German tanks, especially the larger Tigers suffered from terrible reliability to the point that they would lose a third of their tanks to mechanical failure any time they deployed.  Russian tanks also had horrible ergonomics that compounded the problem with poorly trained crews.  The only real downside is that the US did not deploy better tanks once they had flooded the field with Shermans.  

It is entirely possible to put 90 mm and 105 mm guns on Shermans, but you don't see the Dev's doing that.  They never get better then their historic stock gun.  Nor do you see any of the more advanced designs the US produced in the '50s.  Mediums stop with the Patton.  The heavy tanks in the game were also from the 40s.  None of the late 50s designs will be in game till the M103 and the T110.  

Add to the fact that the US tanks usually suffer reduced performance from their actual stats.  For example the 105 mm should have pen in the 220 mm range, but it only gets 198 in game, and had 6 rpm fire rate which is what it gets in game where most other guns are firing at 2 to 3x the rate.  KVs could only fire 1 round per minute, and IS didn't fare much better.   But you see them at 3-4 rounds per minute easy.

KnightFandragon #457 Posted Jan 22 2012 - 00:43

    Major

  • Players
  • 4617 battles
  • 6,732
  • Member since:
    05-06-2011

View Posthiroshi_tea, on Jan 10 2012 - 20:48, said:

Same can be said for the French Heavies.  I'd rather see a real heavy tank on my team than an AMX 50 series tank


View Postinphinity, on Jan 10 2012 - 23:52, said:

I agree, the French are not true heavies either imo, but their burst ability makes them a bigger threat to many.

I would rather see a platoon of 3 of them then 3 of any other tank.  Just last night I was platooned up with my dad and uncle.  I was rolling my T29 them in their Lorraine and T44...we ran into the NDP Clan who were platooning thier AMX 50 120s.....our team got Frenched realy good...TWO times, we had the misfourtune of being owned TWICE by them lol...our entire 15 tanks didnt kill a single one of them either time and they were right up in the front brawling.  I copped some hits on 2 of them in one battle (Natuarlly hitting for waaaaay below my avg dmg on every shot, not a single 300HP shot..) and got a shot off into one of them the 2nd time but those french tanks are bad as hell.  If there are 2 or more Frenchies who actually work somewhat together, they are unbelievably broke.  Another battle i saw my dad play was against a 2 man platoon of Bat Chats...the whole battle lasted, oh say, 5 minutes at best and the Bat Chats ended up with NINE, count it 9 kills between them...they killed more then 28 other dudes.  THe BAt Chat team lost like 3 or 4 tanks and none of them were Bat Chats...All I gotta say is when there are more then 2 or 3 frenchies on one team, the team without the French lose...bad....There is no way to balance these things either...they will forever be broke unless WG nerfs them so hard they become essentially useless...like make their time between shots longer or they lower thier pen so they bounce half their shots or make em slower or something, nothing past hammering them into nothingness will properly balance them and I really dont want to see that happen.

hckygod99 #458 Posted Jan 22 2012 - 15:56

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 23026 battles
  • 66
  • [ONLY1] ONLY1
  • Member since:
    02-21-2011
:o

View PostDrive_Me_Closer, on Jan 22 2012 - 00:30, said:

You are incorrect.  US tanks were excellent when used in their role.  Russian and German tanks, especially the larger Tigers suffered from terrible reliability to the point that they would lose a third of their tanks to mechanical failure any time they deployed.  Russian tanks also had horrible ergonomics that compounded the problem with poorly trained crews.  The only real downside is that the US did not deploy better tanks once they had flooded the field with Shermans.  

It is entirely possible to put 90 mm and 105 mm guns on Shermans, but you don't see the Dev's doing that.  They never get better then their historic stock gun.  Nor do you see any of the more advanced designs the US produced in the '50s.  Mediums stop with the Patton.  The heavy tanks in the game were also from the 40s.  None of the late 50s designs will be in game till the M103 and the T110.  

Add to the fact that the US tanks usually suffer reduced performance from their actual stats.  For example the 105 mm should have pen in the 220 mm range, but it only gets 198 in game, and had 6 rpm fire rate which is what it gets in game where most other guns are firing at 2 to 3x the rate.  KVs could only fire 1 round per minute, and IS didn't fare much better.   But you see them at 3-4 rounds per minute easy.

Ok I stand corrected. I should have made it more clear on what I meant by the American tanks sucking. My bad. I know mechanically we had awesome tanks!!! Wash out the blood and guts, weld up the hole from the incoming round, crew it up and send it back out. They hardly ever broke down to boot. Very user friendly compared to the Germans and Russians.

Its just to bad the Ordnance Corps didnt find it important to up arm our shermans till the end of the war. Also to bad getting a bigger tank took so long to happen.

The KV's and IS tanks did have me kind of confused when they could fire faster then my T32 in the game.

So after the M103 comes out to play are we going to get a M60 Patton? I believe that tank was designed in the 55 to 57 time frame? 120mm gun and welded steel hull. 750 hp diesel. That would help the Americans too.

KilljoyCutter #459 Posted Jan 22 2012 - 16:41

    Major

  • Players
  • 8469 battles
  • 26,129
  • Member since:
    05-07-2011
Until the Tiger and Panther were fielded, the Sherman was actually as good as or better than the German tanks it was facing.  Compare it to most of the Panzer IVs that were fielded.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users