Best Heavy tank
 

choose the best heavy tank

Panther - heavy tank?
ok. my vote goes too panther. all other tanks are too slow & too expensive.

KV-1, because it has a good gun and armor. More importantly, its Russian.

King Tiger, its got really good armor, its gun is the best of all the German guns and it just looks mean :-P No but srsly, it is the best value of all the German tanks. The Panzer IV is slacking once anything its weight class rolls out, anything heavier you might as well have a Pak 37, it would prolly live longer. The Panther has butter on its side, I dont like tanks that have a serious weakness like the Panther's side armor. The Tiger........that thing is just plain garb....Soo, yeah the King Tiger is like the only tank the Germans have that really holds up

King Tiger ive played against them alot and there nerly unbeatable a true tank to envy

I do not like the King Tiger at all. Slow, expensive.

I would rather be with 2 or more KV-1s, or Panthers.

King Tiger. Slow, devastating! :lol:

Just for the record, the Panther is not a heavy tank. It is a medium tank, you can't dispute that. The Germans did not classify it as a Heavy Tank, they classified it as a Medium. Now purely in Men of War the KT is best. Best gun and IIRC best armor. Obviously the IS-2 and IS-3 have the best HE capabilities out of all the tanks, but I think the KT is the best Heavy tank in MoW. IRL though, the IS-2 was probably the best Heavy tank of WW2. As the KT had mechanical problems.

My vote goes to the KT, especially during defense. Just face the enemy, your front is virtually impenetrable.

Better yet, I park 2 other tanks, one on the right and one left of the KT, so its impossible to flank the KT. Its a monster.

Id vote also for the IS2 or 3 if it wasnt for its amazingly small ammo cap of like 27 rounds or something and its rate of fire in game of 3 rounds an hour. No lie though that the IS3 is invincible.....

Well IS-3s are overall a very solid tank. Great armor and the best side armor in the game.
However i would still go for the King tiger instead. IS-3s can't even penetrate KTs frontaly, however KTs can kill IS-3s at a relativly close range.


Personaly though...I would say the Pershing is the best tank for its price.
Good gun, good armor, 50 cal and normaly wins vs Panthers,tigers, Centurions, IS-1s and sometimes IS-2s.

Centurions are pitiful........Ive seen people call the T29 crap for armor...its the Cent. It has like 160 on the turret and 67 on the hull....67? srsly, on a 1945 tank....67...geez, even the Chi Ri has better armor then that

They include the crappy Centurion in MoW. Not the good one, and the Cent isn't even a Heavy Tank. Its the world's 1st Modern MBT. And it kicked ass.

is-2

Yup the Centurion is shit. Only time its good is when its in a hull down position. However it has more then 67 in armor. It has 80mm sloped armor.
But thats still not much for a unit that cost 76 points.

From what iv heard the Centurions armors will have 120mm in the expansion. However thats only a rumor.

The Centurion is only shit in the game. The Centurion Mk 5/2 had the famous 105 mm L7 rifled gun, and a max armor thickness of 150mm, 6 inches. That was on the turret, the hull had 76.2mm, 3 inches, well sloped armor.

And 76mm is like not much better then regular war tanks...the 88 eats it for lunch all the same =P I wouldnt wanna be a Cent crewman..King Tiger all the way, even if it means dodging P47 bombs and Tempest rockets

The Centurion that you see in the game, is basically an Israelian version with the wrong gun, etc. The 6 Centurions that was rushed to Europe in May 1945 and arrived in combat units two weeks AFTER the war ended, did have a 17 pounder (that´s 76mm) main gun and a 20mm coaxial automatic cannon. The turret also looked very different from what we´ve in the game right now.

So, what you do get in the game, is a Centurion Mk. I with the correct main gun, but with everything else... plain wrong and it shouldnt even be in the game in the first place, since it was never used during WW2. A better UK tank to have added, would´ve been the Comet A34, which is was almost as good as the Panther.

~Zeke.

There is a mod I DL'd that had the A41 Black Prince. Looks like a Churchill Hull and Comet Turret w/ a 76mm. Weird for sure

Comet like never saw action either. But it doesn't matter what they add because there's nothing that the 88 can't pwn. Even if they added the T-62 (Which was from the 60s). The 88 couldn't penetrate it frontally but if it got repeated hits on the turret in the same spot it might be able to knock it out eventually. The 88 was just too good, IIRC the L7 105 did surpass it in AT capability and obviously its superior than the 88 when firing HE.

The Comet A34 were introduced in February 1945 and fully issued to one UK Armored Regiment before the end of the war. It´s true that it never saw much action, but it was used in combat against German tanks, even if only rarely. Unlike the Centurion and Turtoise (the latter never even ever been accepted for service by the UK), the Comet A34 was used during WW2 and that´s the difference.

I like my WW2 games to be historical correct when dealing with vehicles and such, and I do not like to see these prototypes that never saw service (T29 for example), and/or tanks that was introduced into service after the war. I really don´t care if a tank can´t go up frontally against a German 88 or not. That´s why flanking manouvers was invented...

~Zeke.

What about the IS-3?

IS3 is a footnote... in the history of WW2. It did enter service before the end of the war against the Japanese, but there is no written proof anywhere that they ever saw action against any Japanese tanks. In Europe they were only used during the Victory Parade in Berlin.

~Zeke.

Thanks for clearing that up for me, have been confused on it for some 5 years.

There's no record of the IS-3 ever seeing any real action. All these experimental tanks were added for balancing. If they weren't then Germany would wtf pwn everyone.

And at the end of the day the only super tanks I fear are the IS 3 and the T29. The Cent has no armor and a gun that only dreams of taking out my KIng Tiger and the Chi Ri, well....Ive never played against one b/c no one plays the Japanese. The Pershing is kinda annoying b/c of that 90 but still...it can die

It seems the King Tiger wins the Best Heavy Tank poll.

Can't believe nobody but me likes the KV-1. A reliable heavy tank for sure.

I wouldnt vote KV-1 but the KV85. The KV1 has good armor but it's F32 or w/e is not that great of a gun......The KV85 has some D5T or w/e and that thing is defintely nice, sure the 85 has less armor but the better gun is definetly a good trade off.

Chi RI and Centurion are pretty balanced vs eachother. Which means both are crappy.
The Chi RI usualy wins if you angle its armor.

Stupidest thing I have ever heard in my life. The KV-1 was very mechanically unreliable, more than the Tiger in fact. Its only advantage was it's armor, and that became penetrable frontally in 1942. It's poor speed made it an easy target for planes and artillery fire. And it's gun was just average, obsolete by 1942.

Bah, it is the most likeable Russian tank from the WWII era. My father drove one through the streets of Berlin, and even though it was later destroyed he and his crew survived Berlin. By that, I call it reliable.

No it wasn't, the T-34 was. And I find it hard to believe that the KV-1 was in service in 1945, but hey. Its communist Russia. And even if your father did in fact drive it in Berlin. The tank certainly didn't drive there. The threads would have broken down around Warsaw if he was lucky, chances are it would have been earlier than that.

Well, he did fine. At least thats what I'm told.

I don't feel comfortable with using the T-34.

I agree 100% here, atleast for in games sake. When I used to play the Russian missions and I got T34's I was simply amazed at what killed it and w/ such ease, meanwhile its gun bounced....alot......Because of that I went and tried out the KV1. I'll take a KV1 over a T34/76, atleast in game b/c you dont face breakdown, the KV has better armor and the same gun...so if there was a KV1 vs T34/76 poll, KV1 all the way. The T34/85, though it has the same crappy armor it had that top MG and the 85mm Zis 53. So yeah The T34/85 is a quite nice tank, aside from the fact that it dies to the Pzr IV D and its itsy bitsy 76mm infantry gun.

In game the KV-1 is obviously a better tank than the T-34, unless you want speed. But in real life the KV-1 wasn't that great and didn't have a huge impact on the war. The T-34 did.

For sure the Real life T34 was probably a better tank overall, more reliable, cheaper, faster and quick to make. Plus im sure the RL T34's armor was better then in game, it has 60mm sloped at like 60 degrees? or something like that so its armor is actually just as good as the KV's 100mm plus the chance for the shell to deflect, but in MoW it is 52mm turret and 47mm hull armor so its butter and sucks.

Already early in 1944 no KV-1 Model 1940, 1941 and 1942 was still in active frontline service. They had by then been withdrawn to second and third line units. But several SU/ISU assault gun units did use the KV-1S as a command vehicle until the end of the war.

The KV-85 was used in limited numbers until the end of the war which make it possible for it to have entered Berlin in May 1945.

Most KV-2´s had been destroyed by the summer of 1942 and the few left were withdrawn since it´s heavy weight proved to be much to troublesome (the Soviets had for example not a single vehicle which was capable of towing it if it got stuck in mud etc and thus, most of their KV-2 losses were due to knocked off tracks, stuck in mud etc).

To say that the KV-1 were a failure is nothing but a sheer lie. For it´s time it was one of the best tanks and even more importantly, the Soviet engineers and tank designers learned a lot from it, experience that they had good use of when designing the IS1/IS2.
When it was first put to use, it was the Russian equivalent to the German Tiger I.

T34/76 had 45mm of slooped armor but still, the KV1 had better armor protection. The biggest mistake the KV1 designers made, were to put a 76mm main gun on a heavy tank (same gun as the T34/76 used) instead of adding a bigger gun. When the KV85 arrived, the T34/85 were already in production and deemed to be a better tank and thus production of KV´s dropped off.

Captured KV1/KV2 were used by the Germans until destroyed or until they ran out of spare parts. The last combat use of the KV2 were in 1945 in German hands.

~Zeke.

One thing ive been wondering, since longer barrels allow the shell to pick up more speed and speed is velocity plus or minus a few hundred other things, would making the F32/F34 a gun w/ a longer barrel increase its killing power and therefore making a tank w/ better killing ability over the T34? Just been wondering that.

Yes. Long barrels have higher muzzle velocity, and therefor better penetration, range and accuracy.

In terms of guns. Muzzle Velocity=Penetration and size=damage done with HE rounds.

I'm pretty sure the armor thickness is correct. T-34/76 and T-34/85 were both pretty weak in terms or armor. Very vulnerable, German 37mm AT guns could penetrate frontal armor under 100m IIRC, and 50mm AT guns at even longer ranges.

KV2 was NOT unreliable. Sure, it had some mechanical problems due 2 its extreme weight but...

There are accounts of single KV-1's holding off an entire Panzer division (a bridge) and 5 KV-1's ambushing and slaughtering a panzer column. Its gun could kill anything in 1941.

Nah, it was impervious of fire from 37mm guns. I don't know about 50mm though I doubt it. The Germans often had 2 use howitzers to take out a T-34/76

I voted for the Centurion. It just has this awesome charm!

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.

Gun penetration in this game fubar......Sometimes you have a green circle and a penetration number that exceeds the enemy armor and you cant kill your target w/ 3490 rounds...then there is the red circle, massivly under the target's armor and it dies in a few shots. Also, In this game, it doesnt matter the angle you hit the Panther's side....pop the side, its game over....for the Panther. Also, as for the guns themselves, all American/British weapons are better.......Only in this Men of War game though. The Russian guns, mostly the 85's on thier T34/85 and KV85 are pretty good but they lack the pin point accurate, shoot on the move thing the Brit and American 76's and 90's have. The 88 is quite the sad gun...people say they dumbed the Germans down for playbalance. If it was for playbalance then the 88 would be atleast equal to the M3 90L on the Slugger in punch and accuracy, also it would load faster then it does. As is right now all the 88s aside from the KwK43 on the King Tiger and Ferdi are slow, inaccurate and dont kill anything. The 43' is slow but more accurate so atleast it can hit something from range in less rounds then half the ammo bin in the tank.

Then we have the British stuff.....IDK why but the British stuff I fear it...in campaign mode anyway, dont face much British stuff in MP. Anywho, the reason that 2nd mission gives people such hell is b/c the British stuff is entirely way better then it should be. That 40....its not that great, it wont be 1 shotting Pzr 4's on thier front anyway. Then we have the Crusader...I looked up its armor for ingame, its like 30 on the front hull I think it was, yet this tank is the one that gives everyone hell, you fire and miss and fire and bounce and fire and miss and miss and miss and bounce. It then fires like 3 times and kills 2 tanks. Then there is the M3 Grant. I played this missions w/ my dad twice and both times those grants proved to be pretty impenetrable to most our guns and they took a pounding. The Brits may have had good armor on thier tanks and the Germans didnt have 88 KWK43s and such out yet but the 75 on the Pzr G could do the number on those brit tanks in less rounds then it takes currently. IDK how many Crusaders have just fubar'd my world. In fact I have less trouble w/ Churchills and Centurions then I do Crusaders.......The Crusader is a light tank and the Pzr III cant stand up to it at all, where they have you defending the flood plain on Op: Crusader I lined the ridges w/ Pzr IIIs in hopes of holding them off that way...yeah it was a joke. I fired, they fired and when the dust settled there was like none of me and pretty much all of them left + reinforcements

I can understand the intention to downsize the effect of penetration and shells for gameplay sake. But yeah ... it still should be a lot more powerfull. You see way to many richochets and shoot without any effect at all particularly while engaging medium / light armor with heavy guns and tanks.

The Nashorn is litealy useless in battles cause it seems never to do much more then a Stug. And Before I spend points on a tank that has virtualy no armor (hey it dies 99% of the time in the first shoot) you save the points for the Jagdpanther or Jagdpanzer IV. If the Nashorn would at least get the penetration of its gun. To many times you shoot the side of some vehicle to see nothing happen ... or even its front. A t34 or similar vehicles should be toast. As simple as that. The IS2 and pershing. Thats a different story. I agree here to achieve penetration on highest distance. Should be difficoult of course. But not for the flank. It should almost always grant you success. I would like to use and see more Nashorns in battle. But it seems no one is choosing it for obvious reasons. If you dont get the first hit. you're dead.

This is what I mean though when I am talking about side shoots to the Panther. And this happend so many times ... its not funny anymore. And yeah it happens virtualy with all weapons and different tanks. Bee it shooting the Pershing side with the Tiger I, or Tiger II with the SU100 etc. ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6iqMJ0v2rI

The Brittish 2 pounder could penetrate 56~57.5mm of armor at a range of 500 yards, (it was the best light antitank gun at that time) which is more armor than the Pz4E-G had as front armor (they had 30-50mm thick armor plates, depending on which version). So this gun, just as it is in the game, were perfectly capable of knocking out Pz4´s frontal in real life.

Same thing with the 6 pounder: it could punch thru armor plating as thick as 81-83mm at a range of 500 yards. This gun can do it in the game, and in real life as well.

Both guns did suffer from one drawback though: neither one of them could use HE shells, these guns were firing antitank shells and nothing else, which is why tanks with these guns faired very poorly against German antitank guns.

The American tanks had gyrostabilized main guns starting with the M3 Lee/Grant. All tanks produced thereafter, had gyrostabilized guns which allowed them to be used whilst moving with good accuracy. The British designed tanks did not have it, until the Centurion arrived (but that tank is a non-WW2 tank really). Although in the case of the Americans, most tank crews choosed to not use the gyrostabilizing system since they thought it to be not much of use, and thus prefered the old method of stop-targeting-fire-move.

German tanks didnt have gyrostabilized guns, but of course these tanks could fire on the move as well, but by doing so, they lost all accuracy.

The Panther had 40-50mm (depending on which version, (Ausf D,A or G) we are talking about) and most, if not all guns of WW2 could knock it out by a flank shot. German crews were taught to always face the enemy with their thick frontal armor and by doing so, protect their tanks weaker sides. In other words, the Panther is just as vulnerable to flank shots in the game, as it was in WW2.

The accuracy, penetration, reloading time, etc of German guns is another thing: These has been nerfed down for the sake of balance in the game, and personally, I don´t like that kind of balance...

Also, guns in the vanilla version of MoW have two different settings: one for MP which tends to be more realistic, and another for SP which is highly unrealistic (boosted penetration etc).

~Zeke.

Ps.
I can´t belive that you´ve such problems with the Grant and/or Crusaders: usually they went up in flames as soon as I see them in the game... you must have some exceptional unluck when going up against these things... :D

Just as a question out of curiosity, does this penetration also takes eventual failing or shattering (shatter gap) of rounds in to acount ? This was a serious issue with guns that had to deal with armor that was just thick enough to alow eventual (theoretical) penetration. Like the Panzer IV H which had at least 80mm of front armor. This increased with the quality of armor which was in general excelent for German vehicles and less likely to crack, splinter or deform.

As you say depending on which Panzer IV we are talking about the penetration with the 2QF might be successfull or not. From what I can read it seems the Panzer IV G got some 80 mm of front armor with its base of 50mm + 30mm face-hardened appliqué welded and later bolted to the glacis. So at least the Panzer IV G (or the F2 which got the luck to receive the aditional armor) should prove to be a very hard target for the 2QF at any range. The front that is.

I am not that used with the 6QF, but the gun in use with the Cromwell for example wasnt the same kind of gun like the anti tank gun used by the infantry. For example the Cromwell never received any APDS or APCR amunition for its 75mm which had more or less the same penetration quality compared to the 75mm of the Sherman (if I am not completely wrong they even shared the same HE shells) So again penetrations to the front would be against the Panzer IV in its late/mid war variants not always be succesfull and the Sherman with its 75mm could only hope for a shoot to the turret. I have no clue how much issues the 6QF had with shattering shells or if that was even a issue at all for the gun. But I know that this was a reality for the Firefly with its 17Pounder which sometimes failed to penetrate either the Tiger I or Panther. Particularly with APDS shells and they had as well terrible accuracy and would often loose their fins in flight and thus hit nothing. It was really not much more accurate then maybe 400 or 500m. The Panther proved in tests to see a lot of richochets against the usual 17Pf Ap for example. It seems that tests have shown changes in quality of used armor as well ranging from very good to good and bad. Where high quality armor showed no sign of stress even after several shoots to the same spot and the bad armor cracked with the first shoot.

But the armor of the early/mid war Tiger was extremly well made and proved to be a issue for almost any anti tank gun of that time even to the famous and powerfull 17pf. So any gun which would shoot a high velocity shell at it like the Sherman with its 75mm HVAP would face eventualy a shattering of its shell on the front.

This is from what I can read a 17pf which got stuck in the front armor of a Tiger I
http://www.jwxspoon.com/Partial_Pene...duced_size.gif
militaryalbum.com

It is "vulnerable" to the side but just simply not enough from what I can tell. Particularly to guns like the soviet 85mm or the Shermans 76w which could penetrate the side of the panther up to much more then 1000m. I think up to 1500m even. In game you often enough strugle with it already on pretty small distances ...

Usualy one doctrine was to always use the Panther in combination with the Panzer IV as protection for the flank.

Panzer IV Ausf F2/G had 50mm armor, H had 80. The 2 Pounder was perfectly capable of taking it out. But it rarely got the chance. The 2 Pounder saw most of its action in NA. Rommel never allowed his tanks to charge head on, his Panzer IV Ausf Es would always lob 75mm HE shells at the British guns before advancing. But the 2 Pounder still could destroy most German tanks of the time with ease if they were under 500m.

Few British guns and tanks could fire HE. The Crusader was the 1st British tank to be armed with HE, until then only the 25 Pounders were equipped with it. All later tanks usually had it.

The game doesnt care if a 2 pounder round in real life, could shatter against the armor or not. It either penetrates or don´t, thats all.

The Crusader I and II were armed with 2 pounders, the Crusader III were armed with a 6 pounder (and so were the early Churchills). These guns weren´t designed to fire HE shells either. The first multipurpose gun the British got (ie capable of firing both AP and HE shells) were when they were supplied with American made M3 Lee/Grants. Some British tanks had a 94mm howitzer instead of the usual 2-/6-pounder guns, which could fire HE shells, but their main purpose were to fire smoke rounds. A typical load for these tanks were 24~28 smoke rounds and only 4~8 HE rounds.

The Pz.Kpfw. IV Ausf. F2 had 50mm of frontal armor, and so did the early and middle variants of the Ausf. G. Then when the late version Ausf. G started to see the light, the frontal armor was upgraded with 30mm thick extra armor plates, something that even the Ausf. H had at the beginning, before getting a single 80mm thick frontal armor plate.

~Zeke.

Some sources say 50% of the Panzer IV G versions got some aditional 30mm aplique armor wielded on it.

Like:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_IV
During its production run from May 1942 to June 1943, the Panzer IV Ausf. G went through further modifications, including another armor upgrade. Given that the tank was reaching its viable limit, to avoid a corresponding weight increase, the appliqué 20-millimetre (0.79 in) steel plates were removed from its side armor, which instead had its base thickness increased to 30 millimetres (1.18 in). The weight saved was transferred to the front, which saw a 30-millimetre (1.18 in) face-hardened appliqué steel plate welded (later bolted) to the glacis—in total, frontal armor was now 80 mm (3.15 in) thick.[27] This decision to increase frontal armor was favorably received according to troop reports on November 8, 1942, despite technical problems of driving system due to added weight. At this point, it was decided that 50% of Panzer IV productions would be fitted with 30 mm thick additional armor plates. Subsequently on January 5, 1943, Hitler decided to make all Panzer IV to have 80 mm frontal armor.

I cant tell how accurate Wiki is though. So everything should be considered with care.


Panzerkampfwagen IV
The during the production in June of 1943, the front armor was increased from 50mm with additional 30mm plate to basic 80mm on the front hull and superstructure.

It doesnt mention explicit the Ausf G. Just that around 1943 the Panzers received aditional 30mm armor to their 50mm base armor. I only "asume" here that this might as well have been done to any F2 or G variations that havnt received a update to the H. Probably done most of the time in the field.


Panzerkampfwagen IV Ausf G
From June 1942 an extra 30mm of armour was added to the front of the superstructure and hull of sixteen tanks per month, and from December 1942 that extra protection was installed on half of the total protection.

It mentions again that not all Panzer G received aditional armor.

dang, the T34 was produced like 1000 tanks per month and the end line of the post was like 16 tanks per month haha....shows how muhc slower German production was then allieds

Crni Vuk: I don´t use Wikipedia as a source at all; I flip thru my books in my library instead... got quite a collection after 25 years of studying German WW2 tanks...

But what you say about roughly 50% of all Ausf. G getting 30mm extra of armor is just about the same as I wrote, since roughly half of the total numbers of the Ausf. G production, were late variants Ausf. G´s, which had 50+30mm of frontal armor.

~Zeke.

Sad it doesnt :(

Question is what kind of penetration they use as well. Usual AP shell or the "best possible condition", meaning APDS or APCR shells and such.

Tsst BS Nashorns are Awsome. Sure they are risky, you can lose em many times and if the enemy has an officer or good line of sight. You may lose it.

The Nashorn has same gun as King tiger and JP so theres nothing wrong with its gun. Nashorns are really a unit you can only afford to quickly move forth shoot and then retrete.

Personaly i normaly buy em if the enemy has for example an IS-2 or a Pershing. And im too low on points to afford anything real heavy.
Then Nashorns are normaly a better investment then a JP 4 or even a tiger and panther.
Killed many IS-2s with Nashorns, trick is to make sure the enemy isnt ready for it. Sure somtimes the shot miss or hit a bad spot where it deflects.
But thats life.

thats why you see the Nashorn so many times and regularly used in battles right ...

Seriously. I dont even see experienced player use that vehicle very often as they save the points either for infantry or vehicles with better armor.

Similar to the SU100 which is also very rarely seen on the battlefield. And that is partialy cause the SU100 doesnt offer any advantage on long range compared to the IS2 or IS3 which it should as it has a 100mm gun. But the SU100 already strugles with the front of the Tiger I. And here again, one shoot and it is many times toast.

The times I used the Nashorn are very rare. I tend to spend the points more in ifantry equped with correct weapons like assault infantry or air born troops.

I actualy dont have any issue with the fact that weapons are not correctly modeled. But that you have to get so close to some tanks that you can hug them if you want to shoot the flank is what I find distubring. Particularly when you are using guns of medium/heavy caliber. In some battles you spend 3-4 ISU shoots to the SIDE of the Tiger II and see no effect. Taking its chains out at best. Particiliarly the ISU152 should be a lot more effective even against the german heavy tanks. If not penetrating the front armor but killing the crew inside.

Lol, I never buy the Nashorn.....its got melted butter as armor....I prefer something that can get hit a few times...King Tiger for life =D If I buy a Tank Hunter Assault Gun its the Elephant....that thing is decent gotten it a few times, lost it none.

Thing is a King Tiger cost 120 points a Nashorn cost 45.
Sometime when your in a bad situation, For example the enemy got a Pershing or and IS-2 out. That is very well guarded from any infantry attacks.

Then the only way to beat it, is to wait for ages to get JP for 90 points. Cuz Tigers and Panthers just wont be enought to fight it frontally.

But you can always get a Nashorn. It can be risky, specially if the enemy got good line of sight.
But if you control it correctly, and go in for the kill. Theres a good chance that one shot will be enough. A 45 point unit killing a 85 point IS-2 can be devastating for the opponant.

Im not saying Nashorns are always a good option. But if you need a heavy tank killed and got low resources. Nashorns can be a great option.

Crni vuk ISU-152s are one of the best units in the game. But it can sometimes be abit unpredictable. Sometimes it preforms great and iv even lost King Tigers frontaly too it. But other it doesnt kill shit.
Thing with the ISU-152 is that you have to hit the roof armor on units like the KT.
As for Panthers, a He shell in its frontal armor can normaly be enough.

Difference is the Nashorn has no defence what so ever while the Jagdpanther or panther even can take some fight with the Pershing.

There is no garantue that the Nashorns formidable gun would penetrate a Pershing or IS2. And the fact how easily the Nashorn can be seen chance is high that you loose it before you can shoot or get close enough for a certain penetration. Dont forget accuracy plays a significant role as well! You CAN theoreticaly on max distance take out the Pershing, IS2 and even damage the IS3 on his turret and gun. But how high is the chance to achieve that with the first shot ? Maybe 30%. Thats not enough.

The Nashorn is more a desperate unit. Maybe usefull to guard your flanks from a ambush position. Or to use it to get some heavy tank in its flank from long range.

In reality the Nashorn was a very succesfull tank hunter cause of its powerfull gun and experienced crews tank hunters usualy use different tactics compared to battle tanks.

Well when you get the Nashorn for half the price of a JP. And mounts same gun as the JP you can't expect it to have good armor aswell.

Like i said Nashorns are not for soaking damage in any way. Just shoot and then hide.

I dont recomend you try to fight Pershings and IS-2s at max range with it. Cuz then it will normaly deflect or miss.
However many times you can just quickly race for the enemy tank while its bussy. I Normaly get close enough so i get roughly 130-150 in penetration(which can be done from pretty far away). Then the chances of a kill is more like 70% if you manges to get your shot off.

Now ofc the Nashorn can get spotted and fucked up, or it misses. But you can't really expect it to be 100% sucessfull when its fighting units twice its cost.

Also don't recomend using Nashorns vs IS-3s. Even King tigers have to be damn close to kill and IS-3 frontally. And you will never be able to get that close with a Nashorns paperthin armor.

But yeah, if you can afford a JP. Its normaly a safer investment.
But don't underestimate the Nashorn. have killed many IS-2s, Pershings, IS-1s etc with it.

But exactly THAT is what you need most of the time during a battle. Particularly the longer the battle is going. And hence why you very rarely if ever see Nashorns and similar vehicles in action. The chance to survive a shoot by the powerfull Nashorn gun, even for medium targets like the T34 is just to high to warant its use. Just loost to much of them on medium tanks cause the first shoot did nothing even when almost the whole tank was in full sight. And now since I am doing different things with my points then spend it for the Nashorn things work better.

I have said this before, Nashorns are an emergency unit if the enemy pulls out a heavy tank you cant afford to counter. If you use em as a standard tank going around fighting stuff it will get fucked up. And yeah even a t-34 can **** it up at max range.

Im not saying Nashorns should be your main battletank. And many times you don't need to get it. But sometimes, in certain situations a Nashorn can be a great unit if used right.
Just 1 good shot with it and you might had killed something almost twice its price, but at the same time just 1 shot at it and you have lost it.
Its just that its different. But it doesnt make it bad.

Nashorns is a very good unit, if you use it correctly. Move it up towards the front and it is a dead duck in no time... when used from ambush and from the rear, and having infantry doing the scouting, it can deliver death to the enemy quite easy. Just remember to only shot one or two rounds from the same position and NEVER let it use "fire at will", the Nashorn is a unit that should only be used with direct control (since otherwise you can be pretty sure that it will reveal its position by firing a HE shell against a lone enemy infantry guy...).

~Zeke.

dont get me wrong I believe you all when you say the Nashorn is a powerfull vehicle if used correctly, I am sure youre love for it is waranted somewhere.

Its just that I think, to much work for the expected gain and to much things to consider when using it. Playing with it needs skill that for sure.