Make the game more "believabale"

[Crni vuk]

Originally Posted by KnightFandragon

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.

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.

Originally Posted by KnightFandragon

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

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.

[firearms2k]

Originally Posted by Crni vuk

you will not believe that it was possible to squeze 5 people in it.

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

Still remarkable though

[Korsakov829]

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

[Crni vuk]

Originally Posted by firearms2k

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

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

Originally Posted by Korsakov829

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

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.

[Korsakov829]

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.

[KnightFandragon]

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

[Korsakov829]

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.

[Crni vuk]

Originally Posted by KnightFandragon

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

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.