Shermans too stronk, Cromwells too puny, panzers in the middle

[Miskyavine]

WT is a terrible source.

also russian tanks have a massive advantedge because its a game. sighting systems and communication is the same for every tank which is where russian tanks had a massive disadvantedge and irl once your tank gets penetraated youre not going to stay inside so ap is performing worse at knocing out tanks than it should.

Dont forget equel crews aswell. In reallife Russian tank crews were majority peasants some couldnt even read. British and Americans had pretty good training and that showed in the Korean war when on paper Equal vehicles like the M4A3 76 and T34-85 the Sherman had an almost 5-1 kill ratio and not even mentioning the F-86 vs the MIG-15 F-86 left the war with a 9-1 kill ratio against mostly russian pilots.Warthunder really favors russian vehicles and it shows.


fact is Warthunder is a great game just noowere near realistic and shouldnt be brought up as a source for changes on other more realistic games.

Edit some of that was also directed towards Max_Damage but the quote thing was not working for two quotes that time.

 

[CyberianK]

Computer games and Wikipedia unfortunately are always terrible sources and will probably remain so forever its just a reputation thing even when everyone uses them and refers to them

That said War Thunder is quite well researched on some of their stats if its direct stats and not questionable game balance mechanics or BRs (there its russian bias ).

 

[holoween]

Dont forget equel crews aswell. In reallife Russian tank crews were majority peasants some couldnt even read. British and Americans had pretty good training and that showed in the Korean war when on paper Equal vehicles like the M4A3 76 and T34-85 the Sherman had an almost 5-1 kill ratio and not even mentioning the F-86 vs the MIG-15 F-86 left the war with a 9-1 kill ratio against mostly russian pilots.Warthunder really favors russian vehicles and it shows.


fact is Warthunder is a great game just noowere near realistic and shouldnt be brought up as a source for changes on other more realistic games.

crew skill is accounted for in player skill its just not a historical distrbution.

 

[TheDeadlyShoe]

The Rhino's an assault tank. IRL, hedgerow cutters and other methods of breaching hedgerows were critical to allied tactics in the Normandy campaign. Otherwise tanks could not continue to support infantry as was almost absolutely necessary against the entrenched defenders. SD does not model hedgerow breaching though, so i imagine they gave it a relatively high FAV to model its use for supporting offensives. Similarly, the StuG has 1000m range to encourage its use as a defensive and ambush tank, as it was used IRL.

(Although, given that you pay 20 points more and lose the vet, i'd rather have more m4DD...)

 

[Baron_Mijail]

The Rhino's an assault tank. IRL, hedgerow cutters and other methods of breaching hedgerows were critical to allied tactics in the Normandy campaign. Otherwise tanks could not continue to support infantry as was almost absolutely necessary against the entrenched defenders. SD does not model hedgerow breaching though, so i imagine they gave it a relatively high FAV to model its use for supporting offensives. Similarly, the StuG has 1000m range to encourage its use as a defensive and ambush tank, as it was used IRL.

(Although, given that you pay 20 points more and lose the vet, i'd rather have more m4DD...)

Unfoftunately, ambushes in steel division are impossible to make because of the pre-aim tanks have.

 

[Tankovsky]

In reallife Russian tank crews were majority peasants some couldnt even read. British and Americans had pretty good training and that showed in the Korean war when on paper Equal vehicles like the M4A3 76 and T34-85 the Sherman had an almost 5-1 kill ratio

In the Korean war most of the tank crews was korean and chinese peasants not russians.

In reallife Russian tank crews were majority peasants some couldnt even read.

Tank crew who can not read, are you serious? Didnt hear such bullshit before.

 

[Ramsay]

The Rhino's an assault tank. IRL, hedgerow cutters and other methods of breaching hedgerows were critical to allied tactics in the Normandy campaign. Otherwise tanks could not continue to support infantry as was almost absolutely necessary against the entrenched defenders. SD does not model hedgerow breaching though, so i imagine they gave it a relatively high FAV to model its use for supporting offensives.

Eugen have modelled a M4A1 with a field upgrade done in RL - taking the front plate from one tank and welding it on another.

There was a field armor upgrade that did work well; it was employed extensively by Patton’s 3rd Army. By this point in the war, late 44, early 45, there was an abundance of large hatch 75, and 76mm tanks in use. They would take the armor from knocked out tanks, often large hatch Shermans, and cut off the whole front plate, and weld it onto the front of a M4A3, A3E8, or even A1 tanks.

Source: http://www.theshermantank.com/category/add-on-armor/

For flavour/variety Eugen decided to make it a Rhino (with hedgerow cutters), rather than yet another Sherman 'clone', the upgrade was probably never done to a Rhino in RL but it looks 'cool' / WH40K / Mad Max like (they did mention their reasoning in one of their many streams but it's easy to forget when researching armour values).

The field armour upgrade FAV is correct.

M4A1 Rhino Front (Slope angle) with field armour upgrade
Hull 51 + 51 mm spaced armour at 56° = 135 mm Effective (double skin is less effective) = 14 FAV
Turret 76 mm = 80 mm = 8 FAV

Using 1:2 for turrent:hull
(8 + 14 x 2) / 3 = (8 + 28) / 3 = 36 / 3 = 12 FAV

 

[mitchverr]

yeah i would like an example of incorrect armor please. maybe im missing something? What exactly is wrong?

You re saying you dont like cromwell in war thunder. Whats wrong wit hit? And i suppose your fine with war thunder's jumbo? But then you ll have to accept how it has ~135 armor.

Alot of british tanks were made with spaced armour on sides, they didnt do it for a good chunk of them. EG they got a max of 14mm, which is the outer hull, when it would have had a 2nd layer, or on cromwell IIRC it was a case of 30mm too thin.

Over a year for the conq to get its floor plate (you literally had the tank doing a flintstones, lol) if it has it yet, i aint looked into it recently.

Churchill tanks cant go uphill in that game, or if they do, extremely slowly, the churchill was renown for being able to go up pretty near sheer cliffs, yet gaijin have it as this thing thats defeated by a slight bump in the road XD


Simply, dont trust another game for balance, go for actual source material on capability of vehicles.


FYI i aint biased against it, i thoroughly enjoy it, i wouldnt have the chieftain tank, the M103, the M56 scorpion, the T44 and so on and etc if i didnt enjoy the game, lol. But they are bad with reguards to showing the realistic ability of many guns aswell, and yes, AP is underrepped, as was HESH for a good while on certain vehicles. It takes them a long time to correct problems in the armour and guns for some nations, yet not others, thats their issue I have.

Sorry, I had to go to work before.

 

[Tankhunter__]

So, when are they going to fix the M4A1's AP and give it 11 AP like every other Sherman that is using the exact same gun and ammo?

 

[Miskyavine]

In the Korean war most of the tank crews was korean and chinese peasants not russians.


Tank crew who can not read, are you serious? Didnt hear such bullshit before.

The differance between a untrained malnourished Soviet tank crew and a untrained malnourished Chinese or North Korean tank crew is negligable at best and judging by the success rates of there pilots when facing American planes it really didnt matter if it was a Chinese or Russian pilot they both fire balled into the ground the same in the end.

Yes T-34s were designed by default so that even the most basic of humans could operate them and they did. You can literally hop in a T-34 and drive one near perfectly with absolutely no training its brillantly simple.

Anyway back to the topic on Steel Divisions tanks if were talking about tanks is it weird to anyone else the Tiger just feels wierd theres 1 point of armor separating the Tiger from the M4A3. and the 76W thats supposed to struggle againt tigers dominates it at max range, if you can hit my tanks go full retard and never hit anything no matter the vet but tanks are not my forte in Steel Division i like carpet bombing sectors with my 6 P-47Ds with 2500 pounds of bombs.

 

[Max_Damage]

Alot of british tanks were made with spaced armour on sides, they didnt do it for a good chunk of them. EG they got a max of 14mm, which is the outer hull, when it would have had a 2nd layer, or on cromwell IIRC it was a case of 30mm too thin.

Over a year for the conq to get its floor plate (you literally had the tank doing a flintstones, lol) if it has it yet, i aint looked into it recently.

Churchill tanks cant go uphill in that game, or if they do, extremely slowly, the churchill was renown for being able to go up pretty near sheer cliffs, yet gaijin have it as this thing thats defeated by a slight bump in the road XD


Simply, dont trust another game for balance, go for actual source material on capability of vehicles.


FYI i aint biased against it, i thoroughly enjoy it, i wouldnt have the chieftain tank, the M103, the M56 scorpion, the T44 and so on and etc if i didnt enjoy the game, lol. But they are bad with reguards to showing the realistic ability of many guns aswell, and yes, AP is underrepped, as was HESH for a good while on certain vehicles. It takes them a long time to correct problems in the armour and guns for some nations, yet not others, thats their issue I have.

Sorry, I had to go to work before.

WT is pretty much the game where they collect said source material and give us what you may be referring to is more like bugs. And i was talking about Jumbo which is pretty well modeled in WT and even amazingly it has the sandwitch armor weakness modeled into it.

 

[Harold Alexander]

Just for a very graphic and easy display:

We have 85 mm which penetrates 145 mm at 100m/0degrees

lets try 100mm jumbo UFP and similarly angled 80 mm panther UFP at 250m:

Jumbo explodes

Panther doesnt

As a conclusion 80 mm on a panther turns out to be better then 100mm sandwitched on a jumbo.

Max damage hit's new low

 

[Harold Alexander]

The differance between a untrained malnourished Soviet tank crew and a untrained malnourished Chinese or North Korean tank crew is negligable at best and judging by the success rates of there pilots when facing American planes it really didnt matter if it was a Chinese or Russian pilot they both fire balled into the ground the same in the end.

Yes T-34s were designed by default so that even the most basic of humans could operate them and they did. You can literally hop in a T-34 and drive one near perfectly with absolutely no training its brillantly simple.

Anyway back to the topic on Steel Divisions tanks if were talking about tanks is it weird to anyone else the Tiger just feels wierd theres 1 point of armor separating the Tiger from the M4A3. and the 76W thats supposed to struggle againt tigers dominates it at max range, if you can hit my tanks go full retard and never hit anything no matter the vet but tanks are not my forte in Steel Division i like carpet bombing sectors with my 6 P-47Ds with 2500 pounds of bombs.

Are you seriously talking about untrained soviet crews after WWII lol?

 

[KKnispel]

Wikipedia:
"The M4A3E2 Sherman "Jumbo" assault tank variant, based upon a standard M4A3(75)W hull, had an additional 38 mm (1.5 in) plate welded to the glacis, giving a total thickness of 101.6 mm (4.00 in), which resulted in a glacis of 148.97 mm (5.865 in) line-of-sight thickness, and over 180 mm (7.1 in) effective thickness. The sponson sides had 38 mm (1.5 in) thick plates welded on, to make them 76 mm (3.0 in) thick, a significantly thicker transmission casing, a new, more massive T23-style turret with 177.8 mm (7.00 in) of armor on the sides and rear and a 25.4 mm (1.00 in) thick flat roof, and a gun mantlet with an additional 88.9 mm (3.50 in) of armor welded on which resulted in a thickness of 177.8 mm (7.00 in). Intended for the assault to break out of the Normandy beachhead, it was originally to be armed with the 76 mm gun, but the 75 mm was preferred for infantry support and was used."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_Sherman#M4A3E2

Books put it around 175mm-180mm effective overall. Not that far from the King Tigers 185mm.

That's not how you determine the effective thickness of multiple plates. You can't just add both numbers.

((1.15*38)^1.4+(101.6-38)^1.4)^(1/1.4)*148.97mm/101.6=129.95mm

https://de.scribd.com/doc/219173969/WWII-Ballistics-Armor-and-Gunnery p.36

Jumbo's fav is about 54% too high.

 

[LCS73]

That's not how you determine the effective thickness of multiple plates. You can't just add both numbers.

((1.15*38)^1.4+(101.6-38)^1.4)^(1/1.4)*148.97mm/101.6=129.95mm

https://de.scribd.com/doc/219173969/WWII-Ballistics-Armor-and-Gunnery p.36

Jumbo's fav is about 54% too high.

Visualization

 

[Tankovsky]

The differance between a untrained malnourished Soviet tank crew and a untrained malnourished Chinese or North Korean tank crew is negligable at best and judging by the success rates of there pilots when facing American planes it really didnt matter if it was a Chinese or Russian pilot they both fire balled into the ground the same in the end.

First of all russian crews were not untrained and malnourished after WWII. There are many photos in the network, traces of malnutrition there is not visible.
In the second, a large number of T-34 in Korea war was burned with super-bazookas, with cannons and M26s tanks. What number of them was burned by the Shermans, I do not think that someone counted

Yes T-34s were designed by default so that even the most basic of humans could operate them and they did. You can literally hop in a T-34 and drive one near perfectly with absolutely no training its brillantly simple.

you can drive but how far? before the first breakdown of which was a lot. In Soviet tank crews, the driver was called the mechanic driver. Mechanic is already a qualified member of the crew at least then you can still remember the radio operator and commander.

judging by the success rates of there pilots when facing American planes it really didnt matter if it was a Chinese or Russian pilot they both fire balled into the ground the same in the end.

I do not think that you have reliable statistics on the ratio of aviation losses.
The only thing that can be said is certain that North Korea still exists.

 

[KKnispel]

Visualization

Read and understand my post before you reply to it.

 

[Ramsay]

Anyway back to the topic on Steel Divisions tanks if were talking about tanks is it weird to anyone else the Tiger just feels wierd theres 1 point of armor separating the Tiger from the M4A3. and the 76W thats supposed to struggle againt tigers dominates it at max range

Yeah, I sort of think the M4A3(75)w and M4A4 should have 10 FAV (instead of 11).

• They'd still have +2 over the Pz IV H but allow the Pz IV's to be a little more useful in tank v tank engagements.
• The gap between them and Tiger E would be greater (+2), making dealing with a Tiger E more dangerous and more significant.

Just not sure how it'd effect PvP balance or if the Panther D's would be too strong (+3)

 

[Tankovsky]

Anyway back to the topic on Steel Divisions tanks if were talking about tanks is it weird to anyone else the Tiger just feels wierd theres 1 point of armor separating the Tiger from the M4A3. and the 76W thats supposed to struggle againt tigers dominates it at max range, if you can hit my tanks go full retard and never hit anything no matter the vet but tanks are not my forte in Steel Division i like carpet bombing sectors with my 6 P-47Ds with 2500 pounds of bombs.

I think US tanks is to support the infantry in that game. For the tank confrontation they have AT guns and M10A1 destroyers.
Saddens tanks autoaim it does not fully take advantage of the speed and suddenly rolling out to hit the tanks.

 

[Think Tanker]

That's not how you determine the effective thickness of multiple plates. You can't just add both numbers.

((1.15*38)^1.4+(101.6-38)^1.4)^(1/1.4)*148.97mm/101.6=129.95mm

https://de.scribd.com/doc/219173969/WWII-Ballistics-Armor-and-Gunnery p.36

Jumbo's fav is about 54% too high.

With exception for the turret armor, which was actually only *slightly* inferior to the King Tiger, which had a 180mm RHAe plate (not accounting for any armor irregularities) at a 85 degree slope from obliquity, which gave about ~183mm RHAe. The Jumbo had a plate thickness of about ~177mm RHAe, with certain slopes off other sides going up to a much higher LoS thickness (anywhere from 181mm to 200mm+). The inferior glacis by such a dramatic margin is probably why the Jumbo has 1 less FAV from the KT (H) despite having a roughly equal turret armored turret, and the Jumbo having better armor than the KT (P) is more than justified.