Unreliable basically means its mechanical reliability...the KV was a tank that liked to break down...

Of course it could kill anything in 41......it was shooting Pzr 2's and 3's or those Pzr IV D stubby gun tanks that had melted butter for armor. Much past 42 the KV lost its massive invincibility advantage when the Germans got 75mm long barrel guns and 88's

Kid you should really think before you post. Unreliable means prone to mechanical failure. I don't care if the KV-1 was nearly indestructible, driving it over 100km led to it breaking down beyond repair. It was just far too heavy.

As the the T-34/76, it's armor wasn't that thick. At close ranges (50m-100m) the 37mm gun could penetrate. Germany did not need howitzers to destroy T-34s. They're tanks were perfectly capable of destroying them, its just that the T-34/76 was better. By 1942 it was obsolete, being easily destroyed at long ranges.

Depends which measure you use to classify it. The Russians for example had a different principle regarding classification of heavy and medium armor compared to the Germans. While the Soviet used mainly the weight of the vehicle the Germans rather concentrated on the gun and intended use. So the Panther was just a "medium" vehicle cause of its rather small caliber (compared to the heavy tanks) high agility and intented use as battle tank (its HE quality was somewhat less usefull compared to the Tiger I for example). For the Soviets and I think as well the other allies the Panther was seen as a heavy vehicle, cause its weight (44.8 tonnes) was almost as high like from the IS2 (aprox 46 tonnes) and even higher compared to the Pershing (41,8 ). Despite the big weight though the Panther was a quite agile vehicle. Thx to its excelent transmission and suspension which was one of the best in the whole war.

Yes. Thats how it is probably. Since many times you cant flank the heavy tanks particularly when you have small maps or several players using heavy tanks and seting up defensive positions. So without realistic use of air crafts allies would have almost no chance in a 1vs1 against german armor.

I dont find the experimental/late war units that bad. Its not like the Jagdpanther or Kingtiger have that much trouble with the either the IS3, Tortoise or T29. Actualy the T29 can be penetrated fairly easily for a super heavy vehicle ...

After loosing my KT to a matilda(it was nearly at its max range) i've lost all faith in heavy tanks and now rely on medium tanks.

Daaaaaaaaang....was it a side shot or what? Also, that British 40mm....its very unrealistically powerful.....go play the German campaign..2nd mission....Was the King Tiger you used the Grey one w/ the rounded Krupp turret? That one has a weak spot right on the middle of the front hull that can die to anything....BUt that sucks.....KT to Matilda.....id slap me a Matilda if that happened to me

It was the Porsche turret which is the the rounded one so that must have been the problem, funnily enough I lost another KT(one I captured with a porsche turret) to a 6Iber AT gun at its max range, I didn't mind loosing that one as I got it for free. Both shots where from the front at close to their max range maybe the AI knows about the weak spot?

AI just fires center mass at tanks and the weak spot happens to be right there =P I wish I knew how to fix it b/c that King Tiger is the kewler one...the Round turret might be worse then the other but the round turret definitly looks kewler =D. So dont loose faith in Heavy Tanks....just that King Tiger and the Tiger 1....the Tiger 1 also has a weak spot right on its lower hull, front bumper........

The 40mm 2 Pounder was actually decent, better than the German 37mm AT gun IIRC but not as good as the long barreled 50mm AT gun.

I think most of the guns in MoW work a bit ... strange. Or dont have the characteristics like one would expect.

Examples are the power of the Puma main gun regarding T34/76 and T34/85 front armor. With its 5cm gun the Puma is a quite well armored unit for a recon vehicle. But its by no means a anti tank weapon. The Panzer III with its 5cm gun could eventualy achieve on the T34 on very close distance a penetration with APCR (armor pearcing composit rigid) but the standart AP amuntion had a lot of issues with the front of the T34 and particularly the T34/85 which had a much stronger turret. I have no clue how MoW is portraying the AP amunition since the game has only either simple AP or HE available. But considering the intended use of the Puma not to engange in fights particularly with other enemy armor and the needed rare materials for APCR/APCBC amunition which would be more used for tanks like the Tiger, Panther or Panzer IV I would be extremly surprised if it got the rare 5cm APCR/APCBC available, it really had the gun more for self-defence and distraction to shoot a few shoots and retreat in the confusion.

Many of the guns should have a much higer penetration while others less regarding shoots to the flank. All of the medium and heavy guns should get a boost in penetration to the flank. Particularly the 85mm and long 88mm from the Tiger II / Nashorn / Ferdinant / Jagdpanther lack the needed power. The Panther in particular was extremly weak on its side and already the 76mm of the T34 should have here even on max distance a good chance to do almost always a damage (if it hits) of course if the angle is not to obnoxious. But the 85mm should not struggle with it as the gun would even extrem distance penetrate if it hits. One main issue of soviet guns was not inherently the penetration but accuracy. The 76mm had penetration quality good enough to destroy the panthers side on more then 800m. To hit it on that distance is a different issue though. In MoW it seems for flank shoots angle is a bit exagerated or / and penetration quality to much reduced. The SU 100 should have no issue with the Tiger IIs flank. Yet on big distance even if you hit it its sometimes a game of "luck" if you do damage or not. Same with the Tiger I 88mm shooting the Pershing, or soviet Heavy tanks (KV85, IS1, IS2 etc.) in their side. Flank shoots with the 88mm should almost always grant you a success even if you have a slight angle. The front is always the strongest part of course but if you manage to flank a heavy tank you should get a realistic revard for it. Many times enough you have to get so close to them that you can almost hug the enemy tank only to get a "sure" breach of the hull ...

The Tiger II with the Porsche turret (well both have been from Haenschel, but its easier to distinguish them that way) had the shooting trap but I somehow doubt that a 40mm shell even if it richochet has enough kynetic energy to cause any serious damage. The angle would be quite bad and it might damage the turret traverse but I doubt it would do anything more. The trap got removed quite fast with a new turret and I think there was a case where a Sherman with its 75 damaged a Tiger II heavily with the old turret cause of this shoot trap. But those are rare situations and should NOT be common in MoW. A 1 million dollar shoot eventualy. But nothing more. But well its a game afterall. Cant have everything I guess.

Gameplay in MoW is quite fun. But many of the "realism" mods prove that there is still a lot that can be improved and that there is definetly a need for it and craving for it from the community.

The biggest problem with MoW in my opinion is the shells lose penetration so quickly. An Pak43 88 can penetrate the same amount of armor at 1km as it could at 100m. Even shells fired from a lower muzzle velocity don't start losing penetration until around 300 meters. Guns that have very good muzzle velocity will be able to destroy most targets beyond 1km. The Pak 43 88 guns should all have over 200mm or penetration up to 1.5 kilometers.