Make the game more "believabale"
 

If there ever will be more games in the future please consider it to make them more realistic. More authenticity regarding the combat.

Dont get me wrong I am not asking now for all sudden a 100% realistic repesentation of every aspect as realistic ranges for all guns would lead to a quite cheesy experience (see some of the mods which give the guns their real range and penetration but leave the size of the maps untouched) where you see heavy tanks even more sitting in the courner of some map sniping any tank on long range.

But what I am asking for is just the removal of frustrating aspects or the mere "luck" if you want so. Its the parts where Panthers and Tigers take shoots by the ISU152 and shrug it of sometimes like it would be nothing. Same for the SU100. So many times where you shoot the side of the Tiger II turret with the SU100 or ISU152 and nothing happens as its "to far away" for the game. It would be good to get also more a realistic representation of the penetration then the arbitrary system which is in use now that gives guns like the soviet 85mm or the german 5mm by the Puma/Panzer III a rather unrealistic power as you see the Puma beeing almost as effective like the Panzer IV G with its 5mm gun just when you get close enough while on a realistic point of view it should have no chance at all to damage the KV85 or T34 from the front. Same thing about the US 90mm where you sometimes see penetrations on long ranges but other times you have issues to do any damage at all even when close while I seen the 85mm of the KV85 penetrating the Pershings front ...

All this when you know something about the guns, their teoretical and "real" performance can lead to a "why did this happen now?" situation where you KNOW it should penetrate but it didnt. It seems that Mow decided to give some guns (Panzer IV H) not its real power while other tanks some teoretical power which they never had. It seems that many guns get the penetration of rare ammunition like the Panther with APCRC or all 5cm guns. The 17pf seems to as well use the APDS as base when it really had extremly poor conditions with those ammuntion you should not be able to hit anthing with it as it had very bad performance in real life. I just happens to many times that you hit the side of the tank and all thath appens is that its detracked when it should as well hit the armor of the tank and not just its track.

As said I am not asking for realism in everything. But its just not very believable when you see a 100 or 152mm shell bounce of that weak side armor of certain tanks or even some vehicles survive a direct 152mm hit from the HE shell. MoW creates already now a much more realistic feeling then most other WW2 strategy games. But I think they could achieve a better combat experience particularly when you fight with the allied nations against the heavy tanks in a realistic sense as they should be a lot more vulnerable from the side OR some guns should not loose so much penetration power. As its now you sometimes have to drive up to the Tiger II, Jagdtiger or IS3 where you can almost hug them just to penetrate the flank.

hmm, i've never had those problems.


Keep in mind the angle of ur and the enemy tank, as well as height differences.

i think "small" guns like puma, greyhound... are too powerfull in this "down-scaled" game.

i think also, game have massive problems by shooting tanks/vehicle into their side. sometimes i had 2x more penetration as sidearmor from enemys tank - 3-5 shoots into side ... but nothing happens. :confused:

also engine errors by calculating terrain/ground. why can enemies hit me, ... but i cant hit enemy on "flat" ground? specialy in fights infanty vs. infantry.

changeing some pententrations values for "ballancing" is the worst way. all units should have their "realistic" values (far as possible) and ballancing nations should be made only with price from units.

that is not what I am talking about. Angle should and does matter. Thats a good thing. But remember vehicles like the Panther for example had only 40mm of side armor. Thats not even enough to give any protection against the soviet 76mm gun which could penetrate it on pretty much any distance (I think up to 1000m). The issue with the Soviet 76mm is the acuracy like with many soviet guns. But thast another story.

I am glad the game seems to model the lower part of the hull (got a few tanks that way when you shoot uphill).

But what I am talking about are clear situations where you have no realy big angle or even no one at all and see the Tiger II taking flank shoots by quite powerfull guns (152,122, 100, 90mm etc.). But this doesnt only happen with German vehicles. I got such situations as well with the Tiger 1 trying to penetrate the side of the IS1, IS2 or the Panther the side of the Pershing etc. And as No.Mam said, smaller guns like the 5cm are extremly overpowered. The Panzer III could "eventualy" with APCR amunition do some damage to the T34 (any version) if it gets close enough. As said "If". The Panzer III was a battle tank afterall. But the Puma wasnt. Its a recon vehicle so it was not meant to engange tanks. Yet in game it does very often and succesfully. But I doubt the Puma got any APCR rounds as those have been very rare and the material needed for those rare shells have been probably spend more for the Panther and Tiger which had more use for them.

That Puma's 50mm was put there to engage tanks. The thing in the game is the Puma is way to accurate when its on the move. Its like the best Anti Tank Vehicle in the game, its cheaper then dirt, faster then that French TGV Train plus it has more ammo then ti really should. I swear I read somewhere it only had 12 rounds. In game it needs to be made stupid inaccurate to discourage people from using it like a guerilla vehicle....they just run it in circles around the enemy tank and blow the hell out of everything. Atleast it has butter for armor so it dies...just nothing can ever track it before it kills the target.

The Sd.Kfz. 234/2 "Puma" was not designed to engage tanks - it got a 5 cm KwK 39/1 main gun so that it could defend itself when and if it was needed to do so. It´s main defense were its high speed and it was a recon vehicle, and as a such, not meant to fight other vehicles.

It carried 55 rounds for it´s main 5 cm gun, and 1,050x7.92mm rounds for its coaxial MG 42 machine gun.

The later Sd.Kfz. 234/4 which carried a 7.5cm PaK40 L/46 main gun carried only 12 rounds.

~Zeke.

Even if it would have been designed to engange armor (which it wasnt by the way) the power is still way to high as I assume that MoW is basing the penetration on the very rare APCR amunition which was stoped to be in production from 1943 onwards for every 50mm (and smaller) guns to save the material for biger calibers like the 75mm and onwards and around 1944 there was no APCR in use with smaller guns anymore. The Panzer IV, Stugs, Panther and Tigers had a lot more use for such shells. Hence why I complain that the Panzer IV H is doing so poorly in MoW when it was a quite decent vehicle able to take out the Sherman and T34 on high distance.

Hmmm, Yes but if not DMS than You can do it in the SOE mod. Can't wait for this for SHOWW2 was my all time favorite.

Meh ... happend again, I really dont get it what the idea was behind this "penetration system" : /

IS2 taking side shoots from the Tiger I 4 times ... 5 times ... nothing ~ though strange enough the tank loost the tracks on the OPPOSITE side !. But the IS2 seemd to have no problem penetrating the Tiger 1 armor from range even when angled ... (talking about a boost of guns which have been different in real, penetration power of the IS2 main gun wasnt much better compared to the 88mm of the Tiger I for example)

Please for the next game do try to get a penetration system with a bit more logic behind it to reward people which try a succesfull flanking manouver as at the moment it is painfully hard to achieve this and it often enough starts in battles to be a situation of luck when it really should be a no brainer D: . I do agree that angles should matter but powerfull guns should overmatch enemy armor the 88mm or 85mm should have not that much issues with the weak side of most tanks.

It is one reason why we see so few times tanks like the IS2 or Tiger 1 when you have to break your neck to "flank" the enemy succesfuly (it has to be a obvious 90° angle shoot and even that isnt always a succesfull penetration ...) so one is just saving the points trying to go for the REAL powerfull stuff so he there is no need to worry about "angles" and such that much and just blow any enemy armor away. I do that many times where I think if I should go for a Tiger 1 or just save it for the Tiger II or Elephant and not worry anymore. I like the realistic approach the game tries but often enough it seems to have not that much logic behind it for me at least.

Penetration still doenst make any sense to me eitehr but I think you dont usually penetrate heavy tanks b/c thier armor is armor_heavy and so somewhere, hidden deep in the bowels of the game are shield Hitpoints which you have to go through before you can start to penetrate and kill stuff. I say this b/c in my games I lined up my KV6K, Panthers and Tigers of both the I and II then let them shoot otehr Panthers. and of the 3 tank guns, a 76, 75, 88 and a King Tiger 88 the Pantehr took 3 hits...its like it takes 3 hits to damage the armor enough to start to penetrate armor. I know this game has "damage buildup" but idk hwo exactly that works but thats what im figuring it is. Also, ive shot the Tiger I with my KV6K and its modded 76 and the Tiger takes no less than 2 hits in the side to kill it, no matter what range, angle....only shots from resonable angles though. I let the Tigers shoot my KV and it took quite a pounding but it to died after like 6-7 shots on its front from teh Tiger gun....all guns of which I modded to be more powerful. The damage build up thing makes sense again b/c when i played my mission I got into a pissing match with the pantehr I put on it as well as all the Panzerfaust on the map hitting my tank and a Panzer IV killed my tank despite its penetration being a MAX of 125 and mt tanks armor is 160......going by just numbers that is impossible but the damage build up it then makes sense...my tank had been hit so much its front hull just gave in. So im sure thats what goes on in MP.

Nah it just depends on where the shots lands. Also the tank penetrations in the editor/single player is very off.

well that the penetration is FUBAR in singleplayer is obvious anyway (Sherman 76w taking out Jagdpanthers from the front ? sure ...).

Thing is just that it feels to me like in multiplayer many believe Mow to be "realistic" when infact it isnt or to explain it more that way just alows for a small glimpse in to realism. Well that MoW is not a simulation and never was sold as one is obvious but that you get punished so many times for trying tacatical flanking or anything similar is not very supportive to the gameplay either in my eyes.

To that you can also add the the rather strange behaviour of guns like the 122mm of the IS2, British 17pf and a few other guns which are all way to powerfull. I would like to know what base they used for the 17pf for example. Was it the usual APCBC or the very rare APDS shell ? While the APDS had quite outsanding qualities (on paper ...) it was nearly useless in combat, somewhat reliable APDS shells didnt arrived before the end of 1944 on the front and still had only an accuracy of maybe 30% on 600m (aprox), they could "theoreticaly" penetrate the front of the Tiger II turret but the shatter gab would not allow that which as the high speed and small mass of the shell would simply cause the shell to shatter on the enemy armor instead of penetrating it (which was an issue with many allied guns including the 76mm HVAP on the armor of the Tiger 1). The gun of the IS2 seems to be ridiculous overpowered as well though while beeing weak in other situations (had to many cases where the IS2 was doing no damage to the side of heavy armor ...). It is as well a question what kind of damage one can expect to the turret for example as late versions of the Tiger I got 200mm protection for the turret. Last time I also had a situation where on point blank range the KV85 took 3 shoots of the Stug from the front ! Needless to say that such situations when you KNOW it should penetrate leave you somewhat with frustration. And I will not even go in to the details of armor quality which was well usualy very poor for the Soviets (compared to early and mid war designs of German armor).

But as said I am not asking for 100% realism either (that would leave most of the allied tanks in a very unfair situation since realisticaly not even the 90mm would have much success against the Panther). But a bit more authenticity regarding combat would be nice. Like No tank taking side shoots by powerfull guns that easily anymore. Actualy that is almost all I am asking for ... even powerfull tanks like the Tiger II, IS3 or IS2 and Pershing should be very vulnerable to medium guns from the side. What one can see though is that people use the Puma for example, to drive close to the IS3 and shoot its side ... sometimes with success even ... how is that in any way "authentic" ? Would it not be better to sneak eventualy (if possible) with good guns to the side of the enemy and score a hit and not make it simply a game out of "luck" ? Even the Tiger I should have a very good chance to penetrate the side armor of the IS3 on distance ...

Lolz id like tem to take a Advanced Squadleader Armor To-Kill sheet and base their numbers roughly off those. Thats what I use for my guns. If they did use that, you would quickly see that the Puma CANT kill an IS3 from any angle. To kill is 11, armor of the IS is 26 on the front hull and turret, back is 11 Hull, 13 turret. The TK on the 50L is only 11......and to get a kill you need to roll and have your to-kill # and die roll = 2 or lower then the armor factor.....so youd need a 8 or lower to kill it....wont happen. The Puma would have fun killing even a Sherman on its front hull and only has like 50% on its front turret which is like a 6. The Tiger I would smoke anything lower then a Is2. The T34 has armor factor of 11, I guess ASL aded in its slope for the armor factor and if a tiger hits it, you need a 9 or less to kill it on 2 6 sided die. To kill of the Tiger is 20....it cant possibly NOT kill what it shoots half the time. The Panther and King Tiger.....I dont care what you have out there...Panthers and King Tigers shoot it, its dead, dont even have to roll dice really. As for the 17OQF...its as good as the Panther gun.....Im sure the panther gun was better but as for the Allieds its thier best AT gun. And as for Side shots on the Tiger, King Tiger....The Russian 85, US 76L, Panzer IV 75L only has 50% chance to penetrate. Of course this is all based off ASL T/K chart which my dad says is based off realistic numbers and stuff. It makes sense that it coulda been. I try to base all my modded guns off those chart and so far it works for me. In my weird mod the Sherman dies.....just like it should. T34....crumples like a coke can under my tanks tracks when it gets hit by my King KItty =D muwhahahha

I've taken out a T29 two days ago with the Puma. Your right, the armor is thin, as anything 12.7mm or bigger will destroy it but their too fast. Their annoying, I've lost 6 tanks to one of these before.

Lolz my first ever Tank only battle was my dad and I vs some other people, we were Russia, them Germany and every tank they sent against us, be it Panthers, Panzer IVs, Jagdpanzer IV, we blew up and we were winning for awhile. Then they made 2 King Tigers sat out aways and didnt ever kill anything with the King Tigers, instead they kept sending in Pumas.....we would manage to kill every one of them but for every tank they killed (is2, KV85, T34/85...we needed to kill like 8-10 Pumas....it was retarded. They just ran up, kissed our rear and ran circles around us. Oh and it was only like 2 tanks per side so there was no way we were going to get the coverage needed to guard our flanks and rear. Even when we did both get a tank on the field, the puma was moving to fast for the other tank to get a clear, zeroed in shot before the other tank died. Ill toss in that was like my 10th battle of the game, so I was a newb then to but still......it was retarded.

If that ever happens, bring in a Anti-Tank rifle. Or get a .50 cal, that should protect you from them.

Right, I woulda had infantry and stuff but it was tank only, there was only tanks and AT guns I think.....maybe there wasnt i forget and a supply truck......if there was an AT gun I just didnt buy any.....whoops but i dont think there was. In a normal game I put infantry in front and behind b/c ive been raped in the rear by Dynamite-Scouts to many times now. I ensure maximum coverage with infantry...works pretty well. Smgs and Rifle squads are dirt cheap compared to Storms...never realized that until the last time I played haha. 18 points I pumped out like 3 squads of 8...was crazy tons of men. I play the Germans 99% of the time....only tiems I play other nations if I just get that bored and decide to do it or in the editor hahaha

just to say that, the 17pf with the usual APCBC amunition was slightly better then the Panther, though not by much so it was definetly very comparable.

The advantage of the Panther was its main gun in combination with the optics which have been some of the best in war. And its armor together with a great suspencion (again one of the best the Germans ever produced). The Panthers engine as well saw much use not just in the Panther design for example as it was a reliable and powerfull design.

The 17pf has never seen a good use before the Centurion and Comet eventualy (why is the comet not in game by the way !!!) as the Achiles, Firefly and Archer have been al just designs to fill the gab before better designs could be developed and send to the front. While the Cromwell was one of the most reliable British vehicles though it was not possible to squeeze the 17pf in it without designing a more or less completely new vehicle (which happend with the Comet but it shared many mechanical parts with the cromwell). Thankefully the idea with the Firefly just came right in time for the normandy champaign as luckily the first prototypes have been ready just before the invasion in france but even to achieve that was not easy and the crew inside the firefly turret really had NO room. The 17pf when deployed against the Panther proved to be a deadly weapon at least up to 1000m with a shoot to the turret. The structure was a different case as there have been panthers with different armor quality deployed in the west at least (on the east probably as well). British and US tests revealed that there have been somewhat 3 levels of quality in the armor of the Panther, with low, average and good. While Penetration (with both the 17pf and 90mm) was not achieved on the good armor plate they did have success with the low and average quality Panthers. The panther was a very good vehicle as there are enough Panthes which survived countless shoots from heavy guns, even some 122mm shoots though there are also Panthers in normandy which have been penetrated on the front by smaller calibers (starting with 76mm).

If I were you I would keep a Officer around. But they seem a little expensive, might as well buy a sniper for a few more points.

My usual line up is I play in 3v3, myself, my dad and another person as Germans. He focuses mainly on infantry but I still buy some. I start off with a Pzr H and my team usually buys the first infantry squads. I then buy a tank squad to man the AAMG followed by a storm squad and as of late several SMG and Rifle squads and I set up my screen of infnatry. Then as the game goes on I have started buying scouts instead of officers b/c scouts carry around really big boom sticks in thier hip pocket which ive put to great effect atleast 1 time now. IM trying to get out of my tank whore box and work more with infantry, so far its going pretty good as weve won pretty much all our games. Of course we play 400-450pt combat w/o arty...Germany vs w/e nation the other team wants. Seems alot of otehr people dont do the infantry screen and instead go for the big guns of the IS2 and 3 but fail to get proper recon in and wind up getting a pretty flat angle side shot to the rear end of those IS's b/c they inch forward not knowing whats where due to thier lack of infantry......yeah its awesome. One thing I wish 1c would do is restore the power of the AT nade. While I didnt like it that infantry were so powerful I now hate it that infantry are not that good anymore. Reducing the power of AT nades adds to realism as AT nades prolly weresnt that good but it kept tanks in their place and made infantry really AWESOME....one thign I like about this game.

They lowered the effectivness of AT grenades somewhat and even if it is frustrating sometimes I am very glad about it (well no one can tell me he is happy when his infantry failed to destroy or just damage that enemy heavy tank :-P ). Thing is even the way how they work now its STILL unrealistic as AT grenades have been usualy ... well almost useless particularly against late war armor.

For the Russian army for example the main AT grenades have been the RPG40 and RPG43 with the RPG40 eventualy penetrating 20mm of armor (the roof of the Tiger 1 had already 40) and the RPG43 with around 75mm of armor since it was a shaped charge while the earlier model was made of just explosives though you would have to be lucky with the throw as the grenade has to hit the armor on a flat angle an to achieve that was already hard enough. Overall most AT grenades were an awkward and difficult weapon to use effectively. To use it, the soldier had to get within throwing range with the enemy armor which alone was difficult already. Despite having a powerful warhead only a skilled user will have really success with it if anything, just like every shaped-charge weapons it is only effective if the striking angle is close to 90 degree and you have to hit hard the target hard enough to detonate the impact fuse, or it would bounce harmlessly off the tank. So even if you throw it one could many times experience situations where the grenade is either bouncing of harmelsly or exploding in some angle that is not very suportive which means that biger armor might not be penetrated. On the other side the "Gebalte Ladung" which is also used in MoW is quite effective even against heavy armor as well when it should not as its not more then a few usual Hd.Gr.43 or Stiel Handgreande 24 conected together which had not much armor pearcing qualities (not even that many shrapnels definetly much less then the British or Russian F1 grenade which had the most shrapnels for any grenade) while the German stielhandgranaten have been considered "conclussion grenades" and usually classed as offensive weapons cause they do not hold that much dangers to the attacker unlike "fragmentation grenades" which can be sometimes even dangerous to the user when they contain many shrapnells which can be lethal up to 50 meters and the effective casualty radius is often enough higher than the distance it can be thrown

http://www.fjr2.be/Wapens%20-%20Geba...nade').jpg

Though I am glad that they found a good way of dealing with the AT grenades as they are not always effective (so no anti-tank-wonder weapons anymore) particularly against heavy armor but they are as well not completely useless (where you have to ask your self why its even in the game ...). I wish the rest of the armor penetration would work the same way so you have a "midle ground" particularly with the medium and heavy guns. Many tanks like the Firefly and rather weak British vehicles which have a powerfull gun (Achiles, Archer etc.) would benefit from more vulnerable flanks for the heavy tanks as you dont have to get in suicide range anymore just to score a "succesfull" penetration of the hull and see your shell bounce of doing no damage at all cause its to far away.

Whats the Gabalte Ledung? Is that the PWM-1? I like those things, they make a rather big boom like AT nades but throw further.

I wonder, since tanks sound so valuable in Assault Squad if the effectiveness of the AT grenade is changed?

ive watched a few YT vids of AS and tanks seem to be kinda rare unless thats what you specifially save points for. Which is nice _D It will be cool to see the ligheter stuff actually used a little more. The Panzer IV still seems to be junk, saw it a few times in the vids and 1 hit and it died from 57s and stuff. Penetration values set to realistic now? I defintly like the longer ranges in AS as well....the short 2 ft ranges in RTS games bugs me so much

If this is true, then AS will very much be disappointing(for me). I'm all up for more infantry combat instead of the tank fodder that every round of MoW ends up in, but if they start "Balancing" units to be more "realistic" - then **** that.

There's so many ways around to balancing German vs. Russian(example) units besides taking the Tiger(example) and nerfing it to the point of a T34/85. :-|

The gebalte Ladung was a improvised anti tank weapon by the soldiers which was a usual stick grenade tied together with the head of others.

the PMW 1 was a anti tank grenade developed by the Luftwaffe but its use was pretty difficult as even with the fins to stabilize the flight it would still often tumble when thrown.

Yes, I disslike the 57mm gun as well and how overpowered it is ... particularly when you think how damn rare it was on the soviet side only a couple of T34 ever got them and I think all of them have been loost in battle while it had eventually slightly better penetration compared to the 76mm but it did less damage and the amunition was hard to manufacture and poor of quality. They though seem to be able to penetrate both the Panzer IV and Hetzer even when that is more then questionable ... since the Hetzer had with its 60mm of angled armor (around 55° or something) effectively almost the same protection like the Tiger 1 with its 100mm of armor which had no slope. What made the Hetzer really weak was the very small space inside the vehicle which slowed down the reload time (you will not believe that it was possible to squeze 5 people in it ...), the small traverse of the gun and its very weak side armor of just 20mm ~ the Panther had 40mm.

I believe there were only 4 crew members in a Hetzer.

Still remarkable though:rolleyes:

Military vehicles are all cramped, I don't know of a single comfortable tank.

Youre right, only 4 seems like even though when extremly rare that even I can make mistakes :rolleyes: :-P
*just joking

Depends. Yes when it comes to space they are all small. But in general you could do something to make it more letz say "comfortable" for the crew. So the Russian tank crews which had the luck to use a Sherman send there trough the lend and lease contract have been in general very happy with it. That a Sherman was no Tiger or Panther goes without saying but when just comparing it to the T34 (both versions the 76mm and 85mm) the Sherman was very comfortable, adjustable leaderseats, commanders cupola (that came very late in the T34) and also binocular sights for the driver even! And with later versions amunition in a wet storage to prevent explosion which was never present in the T34. The T34 had a nasty habit of exploding in a huge fireball once it was hit or burning very much to the fatality of the crews which bailed out of the vehicle and had to stay next to it cause of enemy fire. As Russian tanker you really have not been on the best side of things with a T34 or many other tanks that had a pretty crude design. Excelent war machines no doubt easy to use and maintain, but you really had to deal with a lot. In general for example the vehicle was extremly loud, almost twice as much like a Panzer IV which means that you can hear the T34 a lot earlier then the T34 the Panzer IV (or other vehicles) and shooting past 600meters with the T34 76 was hopeless. One of the reasons for the loud sound have been the tracks and their design. As said all very crude processed.

And the same can be said about comparing the Panther and Hetzer for example which offered you at least more space then a Hetzer which was for it self a average tank hunter but it still had a lot of disadvantages. You could always compare the Hetzer to the Jagdpanther or Jagdpanzer IV for example which offered not just more protection but also been overly better designed vehicles which is just natural as their base have been the Panther and Panzer IV while for the Hetzer it was the Panzerkampfwagen 38(t) which was for its time around 1939-41 a quite usefull vehicle but around 44 when the Jagdpanzer 38(t) saw use completely outdated and outclassed even as light vehicle. The design of the Jagdpanzer 38(t) was a good use of the existing resources as changing the whole production to a new vehicle would have cost many time but for 44 the Hetzer was probably to late ~ such a vehicle would have proved to be very usefull in the time between 41 and 43.

A T72 is cramped, it smells, everyone is breathing down each others neck and sometimes the assault rifle jabs you in the side.
I'm sure though its a step up from the T-18. I can't imagine those things.

Modern Russian tanks(T54/55, T72, T90) look very ugly and hardly functional....the turrets look so small its a wonder the gun can depress past its slightly elevated position I always see them sitting in when they are in pics and stuff. The turret is like half the size of a dinner plate...its a wonder anyone fits in them lolz

T90s are more Earth friendly so we don't use T72s anymore. We are giving alot of old tanks to Venezuela, Sudan, Algiers, Turkmenistan and India.

Well that you mention it Russian tanks of the cold war period like the one mentioned above definetly had issues with hull down positions because the gun could not be lowered all to much. Something western tanks like the Leopard or similar always could do well. But those are details regarding engagements. For the Russian army it was always important to have equipment that can be easily manufactured I mean for that they have very small and pretty "light" tanks (many times 20 tons lighter then most western counterparts) everything has advantages and disadvantages. But tough even that is a very very generic comment. Truth is that tank development is not a clear straight line or evolution. You make better protection the enemy will try to make a better gun, you try to make better vehicles the enemy will try to counter that. It was not rare that at some point either the Europeans (particuilarly Britain or Germany) had a clear advantage, a few years later eventualy the Soviets and at some point the US. Hence why its called and arms race it has a reason why the 105mm L7 was considered one of the most succesfull anti tank guns. Different nations had different priorities. Which one would have proved to be bette in a third world war ? Just letz be glad we never had to find that out. ~ there are a few interesting "what if" scenarios, but most if not all of them usualy end in a nuclear warefare at the end if either the one or othe side is loosing.