UK tanks

[Flint11]

Hello everyone, and thanks for reading my post. This will cover 2 things, 1. Underpowered and unrealistic UK guns, primarily the 17pdr. and 2. The tanks that should be in the game, but are not. I apologize for the wall of text in advance lol, this has just been really bugging me.

Alright, so, the 17 pdr anti tank and the one mounted on tanks is quite underpowered in the game. Yes, its still rather strong, but not as powerful as it should be. In WW2 the 17 pdr was able to penetrate 140mm of armor at 500 meters away using the APCBC round, and 209mm of armor at 500 meters using the APDS round. I understand that these stats are a bit overpowering to put in a game, it can be scaled down, but its scaled down way to much in the game, at 70 yds it can only penetrate 130mm or armor in the game. It should be able to penetrate tigers and panthers at the front from atleast 100-120 meters. Doesnt sound to overpowering to me, considering this was the best anti tank gun the Allies had during the war, it still sounds a bit underpowered to me, but i cant ask for everything, eh? I also find my self unable to beat panthers and tigers from the front, unless im 70 meters away from them, but even then its not a sure thing. Im sure you could imagine how hard it is to drive up to 70 meters, or maybe 80 might work, aim, and shoot at a panther with a tank that only has 76mm of armor (M4A4 VC firefly).


2nd, The only UK tank that can take a hit from a Panther or Tiger, and a KT at a certain range is the centurion (not counting the turtle). Yet this tank never saw action in WW2, yet the best UK tank of WW2 isnt even in the game, the Cruiser tank A34 Comet. This tank had 102mm of armor, a 76MM HV gun, (17 pdr with a shorter barrel), Able to go at 32 mph. This tank would balance the UK, and give them a fighting chance with tigers in panthers in slug outs. This tank is deadly, and i know, it didnt see much action in WW2, but it still saw action, unlike the centurion, or the T29. This tank mainly used APDS rounds which was unusual, since it penetrated much more then the standard APCBC round, but didnt cause as much damage after penetrating, (it still caused massive damage, of course), making up for the velocity lost with the shorter barrel.

(Many, Many mods have the comet, but i cant enjoy playing those mods because not many people have them online)

Sorry for the wall of text, but i hope you enjoy reading my post, and i hope you guys down at 1c consider adding these changes in the next update for Men of war.

[sgt steiner]

i would love to see the comet in the game,
the centurion is a fantastic looking model and i take my hat off to whoever made it, but i think you are correct in what you say about the comet being the better choice to place in this game because the centurion didnt see any action!!!

[Cmdr.Miskyavine]

this would be a fantastic idea take the pos but awsome looking cent heck just take all the uk tanks sept firefly and add the comet to replace it all i really use is the firefly its awsome just needs the armor of a jumbo but yea usa needs to be better to i mean a t29? its cool looking to but sucks
i find pershing for usa firefly for uk if you use them right you can accomplish endless posibilities on the field i took 3 is3s a pershing and a t29 eith 1 firefly in ffa mode tho but still 1 FIREFLY taking all thoose out and finaly running out off gass in mid of battlefield and being poped in engine and going boom that tank needs to be remebered R.I.P that poor firefly a moment of silence plz. ---------------------------------------------- 2 hrs later ok now moving on the uk are very under powered i saw a video of a firefly desimating a tiger on youtube real acctul footage (from men of war) i really think that you are on to something flint and i hope the creators adknowaldge this big mistake of underpowered uk cause if there tanks sucked how did they last so long in real life p.s uk right now is an ambush/flanking country and should not be used in common slugouts like they should be they need boosted alot i really despritlyhope they add the comet but the turtle is awsome ambusher if you position it right Cmdr.Misktavine over and out see you on the battlefield soldier cant wait for a fricking comet.

[Cmdr.Miskyavine]

o yea forgot to say i really thinkk they left out alot of uk and usa tanks just so everyone would do russia on germany really makes me mad when i think about it im not insulting the company im just saying WTF ARE YOU RIGHT IN DA HEAD IT SEEMS LIKE THEY FAVOR USSR AND GERMANY i mean they have like what no missing tanks in there countrys yet the americans are missing half there good tanks and uk is missing most of there tanks and there best tank

[Panzergranate]

Actually the 17 Pdr. was able was penetarte the Tiger II at 1,000 meters is a lower hull nose (100mm. sloped) or front turrent hit (185mm.) with the APDS round fron late 1944 onwards.

By comparison, the 88mm. L71 gun of the Tiger II could penetrate a maximum of just over 290 mm. at the same range.

Now there is some confusion and mythology concerning peformnaces of AT weapons. Because a gun has a maximum penetration figure at range X doesn't actually mean that every shell fired will achieve this due to countless lawas of physics. AT gun designers have been aware of this since the science became.

For example, a gun has a maximum penetration, when tested, of 100mm. (best result attained).

[Flint11]

o yea forgot to say i really thinkk they left out alot of uk and usa tanks just so everyone would do russia on germany really makes me mad when i think about it im not insulting the company im just saying WTF ARE YOU RIGHT IN DA HEAD IT SEEMS LIKE THEY FAVOR USSR AND GERMANY i mean they have like what no missing tanks in there countrys yet the americans are missing half there good tanks and uk is missing most of there tanks and there best tank

Actualy misky, most of the UK and USA tanks are actualy in the game, atleast the main ones mass produced and used in the war (except for the comet) -_- and, Germany and russia had very, very powerful tanks in WW2. War isnt balanced, so its right that germany and russia have OP tanks, altho they really screwed the UK over.

[Flint11]

this would be a fantastic idea take the pos but awsome looking cent heck just take all the uk tanks sept firefly and add the comet to replace it all i really use is the firefly its awsome just needs the armor of a jumbo but yea usa needs to be better to i mean a t29? its cool looking to but sucks
i find pershing for usa firefly for uk if you use them right you can accomplish endless posibilities on the field i took 3 is3s a pershing and a t29 eith 1 firefly in ffa mode tho but still 1 FIREFLY taking all thoose out and finaly running out off gass in mid of battlefield and being poped in engine and going boom that tank needs to be remebered R.I.P that poor firefly a moment of silence plz. ---------------------------------------------- 2 hrs later ok now moving on the uk are very under powered i saw a video of a firefly desimating a tiger on youtube real acctul footage (from men of war) i really think that you are on to something flint and i hope the creators adknowaldge this big mistake of underpowered uk cause if there tanks sucked how did they last so long in real life p.s uk right now is an ambush/flanking country and should not be used in common slugouts like they should be they need boosted alot i really despritlyhope they add the comet but the turtle is awsome ambusher if you position it right Cmdr.Misktavine over and out see you on the battlefield soldier cant wait for a fricking comet IM SO EXITED THAT I JUST CANT HIDE IT iM ABOUT TO LOSE CONTROL AND i THINK I LIKE IT *thows keyboard across room and jumps on comp singing)

Misky, alot of the information your telling me here is what i told you about the UK when i first met you o.o especialy the thing about UK being a flanking country. But the point of this post is, UK shouldnt NEED to flank, as theyr guns could penetrate tigers hull at 1k meters away. but that doesnt change theyr armor, which is why you dont wana get in a slug out. I told ya all this when i first met ya online, and your just repeating it to me -_- Also, if they were to add a comet, it could engage in slug outs with tigers and panthers, as it had more armor then the Tiger 1. Turtles not great for an ambush, much to large profile, and much to slow, if you position an Achilles right or a 17 pdr, thats great for an ambush. And really, alot of your post doesnt make any sense, and is quite inacurate. Improving a fireflys hull armor would make it unrealistic. Firefly is a M4A4 sherman with a 17pdr. This is a serious post, alot of research went into making it as i didnt want to appear stupid. Please take it seriously, and please, if your gona post, make a serious post and dont screw around. Sorry, but i feel like you dont respect my post when you comment like this, and almost like your making fun of it.

[Flint11]

Actually the 17 Pdr. was able was penetarte the Tiger II at 1,000 meters is a lower hull nose (100mm. sloped) or front turrent hit (185mm.) with the APDS round fron late 1944 onwards.

By comparison, the 88mm. L71 gun of the Tiger II could penetrate a maximum of just over 290 mm. at the same range.

Now there is some confusion and mythology concerning peformnaces of AT weapons. Because a gun has a maximum penetration figure at range X doesn't actually mean that every shell fired will achieve this due to countless lawas of physics. AT gun designers have been aware of this since the science became.

For example, a gun has a maximum penetration, when tested, of 100mm. (best result attained).
Yes, i understand what your saying, armor angles have alot to do with anti tank guns penetration. But still, iv hit tiger and panther tanks on the nose of theyr hull from 120 yds with a 17pdr and it has no effect. and yes, if a 17pdr can penetrate 209mm of armor at 500 yds, it can definatly penetrate the tigers armor at 1k yds. Altho, APDS rounds were only used 15% of the time for the 17pdr, as it didnt cause as much hull damage as an APCBC round, and was also alot less accurate. The penetration of a gun isnt set in stone, sometimes you can get lucky, sometimes unlucky.

[Cmdr.Miskyavine]

i said there a flanking country even tho they should be a slug out coutry thats what i ment

[Panzergranate]

A gun fires a KE Projectile with a maximum penetration, at range X, of 100mm. of vertical armour.

If the target has 50mm. of vertical armour and is at range X, the shot has a 50% chance of penetration and 50% chance of bouncing off, shattering on impact or becoming embedded in the armour.

This is because muzzle velocity is not a constant but varies according to the burn rate of each individual shell's propellant as it travels along the barrel, the amount residue remaining in the barrel from previous shots (this can vary as each shot can either add more soot or scour the barrel. Fanatical cleaning of AT and tank gun barrels was more out of increasing the chances of survival than routine.

Then there is the blemishes on each individual projectile which varies drag coefficents. Often wondered why tank crews polish AP shells.... now you know.

In flight, air density between the gun and target varies with each shot and so this varies the final velocity of the shot on reaching the target.

All this, generally falling under the "Chaos Theory" banner, when it comes to any hope of consistancy between shots, is why artillery shells fall into an average beaten zone and not land in the same shell hole.

Back to the gun shooting at a target at range X.

Asume that the range of all the test targets is range X, the same gun and projectile are used throughout.

If the target has a horizonal armour thickness of 50mm. but is angled to 30 Degrees, the chances of the shell not penetrating the armour is increased to 68%, so now the shot has only a 22% chance of a penetration.

If the target has a horizontal armour thickness of 50mm. but is angled to 60 Degrees, the chance of the shell not penetrating the armour is increased to 84%, so now the shot has only a 16% chance of penetration.

If the target has a horizontal thickness ranging from 1mm. to anything, but is inclined to any angle from 72 Degrees to 90 Degrees, the chance of the shot not penetrating is now 100% and the chance of the shot pentrating is 0%.

72 Degrees is known as "The Skate Angle" and is what you need to achiece to skip stones across water, be grazed by a bullet, etc.

For a home brew practical experiment, for those with access ti firearms, air or BB guns, try the following to confirm the above.

Take a piece of thick hard wood that you know the gun won't easily penetrate and fire any number of shots at it. Go to the piece of wood and measure the depth of each shot and they'll all be different, even with air and compressed gas weapons.

The difference between a AT weapon's maximum penetration and the average thickness of armour that its intended targets will have is refered to as the "Overkill Margin". This is always desired to give a somewhere between 60% and 70% chance of penetrating the average thickness of armour of known enemy AFVs, even today.

German WW2 AT gun designers went for 80% to 90%, thus ensuring that their enemy's attempts at thickening armour of new AFVs would not be that effective.

Further more, German AFV designers strove to make sure that German tanks would have sufficient frontal armour to give enemy AT weapons only a 30% or less chance of a first shot penetration, bearing in mind that the Germans meticuously tested every gun captured AT weapon and munition at the Rheim-Metal Borstig test facility and ranges.

Upgrade in shell designs maintained this advantage throughout WW2. The Allies struggled to keep up with German AFV designs and upgrades. The Soviets had to be given Allied propellant technology as they were still using Blackpowder, with Celluose Accetate primer, as their propellants in everything from small arms to AT guns, hence the abismal performance of Soviet AT and tank guns during the 1941 invasion.

During the Gulf and Iraq wars, the NATO 120mm. smoothbore tank gun had a better than 75% chance of a first round penetartion of the frontal 100mm. armour of the Iraqi T-54, T-55 and T-62 tanks at 2,000 metres.

By comparison, the 115mm. guns of the Iraqi tanks had a less than 20% chance of penetrating the frontal armour of the US M1 Abrams tank and 0% chance of penetrating the even thicker frontal armour of the British Challenger II tank even at point blank range. The frontal armour of a Challenger II exceeds the point blank maximum penetration, with FSAPDS, of the 115mm. tank gun.

Throw in superior fire control and sighting systems of the Coalition tanks and you have a very in even fight.

[Flint11]

i said there a flanking country even tho they should be a slug out coutry thats what i ment

aye

[Flint11]

A gun fires a KE Projectile with a maximum penetration, at range X, of 100mm. of vertical armour.

If the target has 50mm. of vertical armour and is at range X, the shot has a 50% chance of penetration and 50% chance of bouncing off, shattering on impact or becoming embedded in the armour.

This is because muzzle velocity is not a constant but varies according to the burn rate of each individual shell's propellant as it travels along the barrel, the amount residue remaining in the barrel from previous shots (this can vary as each shot can either add more soot or scour the barrel. Fanatical cleaning of AT and tank gun barrels was more out of increasing the chances of survival than routine.

Then there is the blemishes on each individual projectile which varies drag coefficents. Often wondered why tank crews polish AP shells.... now you know.

In flight, air density between the gun and target varies with each shot and so this varies the final velocity of the shot on reaching the target.

All this, generally falling under the "Chaos Theory" banner, when it comes to any hope of consistancy between shots, is why artillery shells fall into an average beaten zone and not land in the same shell hole.

Back to the gun shooting at a target at range X.

Asume that the range of all the test targets is range X, the same gun and projectile are used throughout.

If the target has a horizonal armour thickness of 50mm. but is angled to 30 Degrees, the chances of the shell not penetrating the armour is increased to 68%, so now the shot has only a 22% chance of a penetration.

If the target has a horizontal armour thickness of 50mm. but is angled to 60 Degrees, the chance of the shell not penetrating the armour is increased to 84%, so now the shot has only a 16% chance of penetration.

If the target has a horizontal thickness ranging from 1mm. to anything, but is inclined to any angle from 72 Degrees to 90 Degrees, the chance of the shot not penetrating is now 100% and the chance of the shot pentrating is 0%.

72 Degrees is known as "The Skate Angle" and is what you need to achiece to skip stones across water, be grazed by a bullet, etc.

For a home brew practical experiment, for those with access ti firearms, air or BB guns, try the following to confirm the above.

Take a piece of thick hard wood that you know the gun won't easily penetrate and fire any number of shots at it. Go to the piece of wood and measure the depth of each shot and they'll all be different, even with air and compressed gas weapons.

The difference between a AT weapon's maximum penetration and the average thickness of armour that its intended targets will have is refered to as the "Overkill Margin". This is always desired to give a somewhere between 60% and 70% chance of penetrating the average thickness of armour of known enemy AFVs, even today.

German WW2 AT gun designers went for 80% to 90%, thus ensuring that their enemy's attempts at thickening armour of new AFVs would not be that effective.

Further more, German AFV designers strove to make sure that German tanks would have sufficient frontal armour to give enemy AT weapons only a 30% or less chance of a first shot penetration, bearing in mind that the Germans meticuously tested every gun captured AT weapon and munition at the Rheim-Metal Borstig test facility and ranges.

Upgrade in shell designs maintained this advantage throughout WW2. The Allies struggled to keep up with German AFV designs and upgrades. The Soviets had to be given Allied propellant technology as they were still using Blackpowder, with Celluose Accetate primer, as their propellants in everything from small arms to AT guns, hence the abismal performance of Soviet AT and tank guns during the 1941 invasion.

During the Gulf and Iraq wars, the NATO 120mm. smoothbore tank gun had a better than 75% chance of a first round penetartion of the frontal 100mm. armour of the Iraqi T-54, T-55 and T-62 tanks at 2,000 metres.

By comparison, the 115mm. guns of the Iraqi tanks had a less than 20% chance of penetrating the frontal armour of the US M1 Abrams tank and 0% chance of penetrating the even thicker frontal armour of the British Challenger II tank even at point blank range. The frontal armour of a Challenger II exceeds the point blank maximum penetration, with FSAPDS, of the 115mm. tank gun.

Throw in superior fire control and sighting systems of the Coalition tanks and you have a very in even fight.

Thanks for telling me all this...... but... why are you telling me all this?... i dont care about modern tanks lol, i already know how a gun works and shit,
and this isnt about guns in general, this is about the 17 pdr and comet, i dont really care about US M1 Abram or the Challenger tank XD modern crap bores me. I prefer WW2 and ancient history, but yes, i know how a gun/cannon/AT gun works, You dont need to tell me all this, as i already know, but i didnt see what the point of putting it in my post would be. And this post is about men of war, Alot of these variables you listed arent in the game, like the residue left in the gun etc, or else it would be no fun.And, i have no idea what your talking about KE projectiles. That is not WW2, that is modern/future technology. All AT rounds use Kinetic energy, its that main thing that makes a AT round an AT round. The point of my post isnt to describe how an AT gun works. The point of my post is to point out how underpowered the 17 pdr is. When i said hitting the tiger on the nose of the hull, it didnt bounce off or anything. It hit, and disapeared.

[Nokturnal]

Alot of these variables you listed arent in the game

Sorry to point this out, but neither are your variables :P.
You constantly refer to APCBC rounds, or the various others available to armies in WW2. Sure maybe they were capable of penetrating this or that armor, but they are not used in MoW. It's as simple as that.

There are two types of shell (ignoring the different sizes) - One explodes on impact, one is designed to penetrate. That's it.
The devs did not do all the calculations for different functions of different rounds.

I think you are just taking the game a bit "too seriously" for what it is meant to be.
Yes it's a great game, but it was never meant to be a purely realistic (or even historically accurate) game. This should of been very obvious when you saw the rather small battlefields. If it were meant to be real, we would be able to have tank battles that span the entire size of the map :P. But as it is, you need to get within 200 yards (or is it metres?) before any vehicle is capable of firing....Now as we all know, this is far from realistic.

If you want a more realistic approach i highly suggest you give Theatre of War (1 or 2) a whirl, you will not be dissapointed...Except for the limited # of UK vehicles, but a user-made mod will fix that. ;)

In ToW you have the choice of various rounds when controlling a tank/AT gun. As opposed to just choosing from two basic options. Not to mention the fact that in ToW, the battles take place at (more) realistic distances.

They will also have different effects regarding the damage dealt, for example you may fail to damage the tank itself, but the shrapnel from the penetration of the round could still deal damage to the crew (which will make the tank less effective on the battlefield if it has a wounded/dead crew).
Or perhaps load up APC rounds so the target's sloped armor is not as much of an issue.
There are many more great features, most impressive being their attention to detail in terms of the units themselves. From memory, all(or atleast most) vehicles are made with the use of historically accurate blueprints. This includes damage they were capable of dealing, armor resistance capabilities, etc..

In conclusion, you are just playing the wrong game mate :P

[Cmdr.Miskyavine]

im not buying another russian made game that favors the russians/germans cause i still think the makers of it purposly gimped uk and usa so noone will play them and olny play ussr and ger not that this game isnt good its very well done and polished but needs work simple as that

[Nokturnal]

im not buying another russian made game that favors the russians/germans cause i still think the makers of it purposly gimped uk and usa so noone will play them and olny play ussr and ger not that this game isnt good its very well done and polished but needs work simple as that

Er, okay thanks for sharing?..I was talking to Flint11, as he seems to wish this game was more realistic than it is.
Hopefully he has more sense than you and actually researches the game before disregarding it based purely on who you think developed it. :rolleyes:

The ToW games are actually made with their partners in the project, battlefront.com (Americans..). It is also more realistic than MoW is, which is also why i believe you will not see these change you keep requesting to be "fixed" in MoW.
Why should they make one game more like the other? Clearly they wanted the two games to be separate for the different tastes in games people might have.


Now as for the "gimped uk and usa" have you ever read a book about the war?..Y'know, actual facts as opposed to what your friends tell you?
The reason you seem to think the Germans are over powered is because they infact WERE over powered.

Seriously, pick up a book and read (or watch a documentary) about some of the battles and you'll be shocked that the Germans didn't win. Luckily Hitler made quite a few mistakes :P.

I will agree that MoW missed out on few tanks here and there, but considering what other games (CoH and the sort) give us in terms of choice, MoW is still way ahead.
They might even add some vehicles here and there in newer versions. But as far as the realism goes, i think if you want a more realistic experience you should try Theatre of War. It is as realistic as you are going to get from an RTS (aside from those hard-core hex turn-based ones that some old war-vets help make...but they are dull as dirt). Give the manual a read (on the Battlefront website) and you can see the thought they put in to making it realistic, ballistic trajectory, muzzle velocity, penetration values, types of damage inflicted, morale..I could go on..
Also the graphics are damn nice:

http://www.battlefront.com/images/stories//TOW2/Africa5/1.jpg
http://www.battlefront.com/images/stories/TOW2/Africa4/theatreofwar2_0313.jpg
http://www.battlefront.com/images/stories/TOW2/Africa4/theatreofwar2_001.jpg
http://www.battlefront.com/images/stories/TOW2/Africa4/theatreofwar2_013.jpg


Unfortunately neither Battlefront or 1C are paying me for my advertising of their game, so i will stop posting here. :P

[Flint11]

Sorry to point this out, but neither are your variables :P.
You constantly refer to APCBC rounds, or the various others available to armies in WW2. Sure maybe they were capable of penetrating this or that armor, but they are not used in MoW. It's as simple as that.

There are two types of shell (ignoring the different sizes) - One explodes on impact, one is designed to penetrate. That's it.
The devs did not do all the calculations for different functions of different rounds.

I think you are just taking the game a bit "too seriously" for what it is meant to be.
Yes it's a great game, but it was never meant to be a purely realistic (or even historically accurate) game. This should of been very obvious when you saw the rather small battlefields. If it were meant to be real, we would be able to have tank battles that span the entire size of the map :P. But as it is, you need to get within 200 yards (or is it metres?) before any vehicle is capable of firing....Now as we all know, this is far from realistic.

If you want a more realistic approach i highly suggest you give Theatre of War (1 or 2) a whirl, you will not be dissapointed...Except for the limited # of UK vehicles, but a user-made mod will fix that. ;)

In ToW you have the choice of various rounds when controlling a tank/AT gun. As opposed to just choosing from two basic options. Not to mention the fact that in ToW, the battles take place at (more) realistic distances.

They will also have different effects regarding the damage dealt, for example you may fail to damage the tank itself, but the shrapnel from the penetration of the round could still deal damage to the crew (which will make the tank less effective on the battlefield if it has a wounded/dead crew).
Or perhaps load up APC rounds so the target's sloped armor is not as much of an issue.
There are many more great features, most impressive being their attention to detail in terms of the units themselves. From memory, all(or atleast most) vehicles are made with the use of historically accurate blueprints. This includes damage they were capable of dealing, armor resistance capabilities, etc..

In conclusion, you are just playing the wrong game mate :P

Hm, i never said i wanted the different types rounds in the game you should read my post again. I was just stating the stats of the real 17 pdr. MoW is a highly realistic game, as in almost ALL reviews and when people talk about it, they state "one of the most realistic WW2 games iv ever played". If you havent noticed, Russia and germany are EXTREMLY accurate with theyr guns/tanks. I was never asking for them to put different types of ammunition in the game. BUT you are wrong sir. APCBC round is the one they are using in the game.APDS rounds are the one they are not using, which is pretty accurate, due to it was hardly even used in the war. You can tell how accurate the game designers wanted tank v tank combat to be do to all the detail, like the detail of armor slopes/angles etc. But you really misunderstood my thread. And how am i taking this to seriously? i was just stating the they seriously need to upgrade the 17 pdr gun, and Add the Comet tank.And, yes, you do have to get within 200 meters to shoot with any tank. But look at this, the Tiger in the game has great penetration at its max range. Which, in WW2 is what it was known for. But so was the 17 pdr. Iv seen tigers take out Fireflys, IS1-IS2, and KV 85s from over 140 meters. Not lucky shots, i see this constantly. yet i have NEVER, EVER seen a firefly, or anything else that has a 17 pdr take out a tiger at max range. The 2 basic rounds you talk about, are the HE rounds, of which there werent many different types, and the AT rounds, which is the APCBC round. they do indeed use the APCBC round. Please confirm your facts before you post, and make sure you understand my post. it is common knowledge in the multiplayer community of MoW that the game designers seriously gimped UK, while they made sure Russia and germany were accurate and powerful. and you state this is unreaslitic game, yet they have INSANELY detailed tank combat, like the occasional "Hull pierced through", which is the result of a AT round hitting the armor of a tank, not penetrating, but shearing off all the Rivets inside of the tank (the bolts that hold armour plating etc" which is like having a machine gun going off in all directions inside of the tank, killing the crew. Again, you are wrong, MoW was ment to be a Highly realistic scaled down WW2 strategy game
Yes, the Germany were overpowered in the war. But UK didnt suck as bad as it does in the game. Basicly, the 17 pdr should be able to kill the tiger at the same range a tgier can kill a comet, if not more, (comet has 102 armor)
Really, much of what your saying sounds like an educated guess about the game, and what the game designers had in mind. They did miss out on a few tanks for everyone. But they got all the important tanks for all the armys, except for the UK. If the Soveits get theyr KVs, IS1s and IS2s, the Germans get theyr Tigers and panthers, USA gets theyr Shermans and Pershings, i dont see why the UK didnt get the Comet tank. Germany was OP in the war, BUT in late 1944 and 1945, Russia, UK, and USA had the tanks to rival the Nazis Tiger and panther tanks: The A34 comet, the M24 Pershing, and the IS2. I wanted to say IS3, but im not quite sure if that was in the war, i dont think it was, as it was just a proto type at the time. In fact, the A34 comet tank was better then the tiger, and almost equal to the panther. Same armor as a tiger, with the speed of a firefly, (32 mph) and higher firepower then panther and tiger tanks. And, i think you need to pick up a book or read about the UK tanks in 1944, and theyr 17 pdr. Also, you might want to reasearch a bit more about this game before you post again.

This game is indeed the right game for me, and i do highly think that they will add the Comet tank in future patches. Perhaps they will also increase the 17 pdr to balance the game.