We have A SERIOUS balance issue here

[Nebelwerfer 42]

Artillery is not for wiping out 88's, though it can, it's for smoking and suppressing them. You then move in direct fire units to clean up the 88's, once the 88's for 16 LW are routing he's essentially lost his entire frontline. I can't believe how few players use smoke against the 16th, the 88's are like fridges on wheels and when their line of sight gets smokes they cannot quickly find a new sight picture. Of course, instead, players try to spam air or challenge 88's at max range with hellcats and then complain that the battle group is OP.

 

[Max_Damage]

The diesel vs gasoline point you made is largely a myth. German tanks used gasoline yet they didn't always burst into flames. The only difference was that diesel was only a little less likely to catch fire against molotov cocktails (don't blow this out of proportion).

And the Sherman had thicker armor than the t34.

It is a myth that the diesel/petrol thing is a myth. The veterans explicitly mention the hazards of petrol engines on tanks (similar to gas turbine engines on modern ones btw).

One tanker which drove both a panther and a t34 85 mentions low quality of panther's armor with spalling and terrible engine/transmission. And yes shermans had thicker armor but it was less sloped and was softer all of which pretty much negated its strengths.

 

[fufubear]

It is a myth that the diesel/petrol thing is a myth. The veterans explicitly mention the hazards of petrol engines on tanks (similar to gas turbine engines on modern ones btw).

One tanker which drove both a panther and a t34 85 mentions low quality of panther's armor with spalling and terrible engine/transmission. And yes shermans had thicker armor but it was less sloped and was softer all of which pretty much negated its strengths.

Yet I have not ever heard that mentioned from the crews that drove both the m4a2 and the m4a3. The only thing I've see mentioned about the advantages of diesel is that it was slightly more resistant to infantry attacks.

Sloped armor isn't magic you know. The T-34s armor is more sloped (and only by 4° hardly a factor) but it's only a measly 45mm thick. Pz4s had no issues going through it.

 

[Lord KhaZimir]

Artillery is not for wiping out 88's, though it can, it's for smoking and suppressing them. You then move in direct fire units to clean up the 88's, once the 88's for 16 LW are routing he's essentially lost his entire frontline. I can't believe how few players use smoke against the 16th, the 88's are like fridges on wheels and when their line of sight gets smokes they cannot quickly find a new sight picture. Of course, instead, players try to spam air or challenge 88's at max range with hellcats and then complain that the battle group is OP.

Exactly. KT is OP, Flak 88 is OP... Instead of looking for solutions, complainers want to get rid of the units they can't instakill at will. It's boring...

 

[xXSunSlayerXx]

that seem doable on an open field, but if the 88 is hiding in a tree line they can just move back. Anyone experienced with ATG would know to quickly relocate a fight.

I think I might be misunderstanding you here, but 88s cannot hide in a tree line, nor can they move through one. That's the most important drawback of the 88...

 

[Max_Damage]

Yet I have not ever heard that mentioned from the crews that drove both the m4a2 and the m4a3. The only thing I've see mentioned about the advantages of diesel is that it was slightly more resistant to infantry attacks.

Sloped armor isn't magic you know. The T-34s armor is more sloped (and only by 4° hardly a factor) but it's only a measly 45mm thick. Pz4s had no issues going through it.

That because germans and americans never had diesel tanks and they couldnt compare.

 

[fufubear]

That because germans and americans never had diesel tanks and they couldnt compare.

M4a2 is diesel. Hence why I said crews that drove both m4a3 and m4a2

 

[Karlburg]

The thing that makes tanks catch fire and explode is ammunition, not fuel.

 

[Nordhammer]

That because germans and americans never had diesel tanks and they couldnt compare.

Eh?

Perhaps in your alternative version of WWII,Germany and the USA not have diesel powered AFVs.

Germany did not go beyond a few diesel powered prototypes and a few other odds and ends granted but the USA most certainly did; the M4A2 first springs to mind as fufubear pointed out.

You'll be interested to know there are more,if you do a slight bit of research.

 

[Nordhammer]

One tanker which drove both a panther and a t34 85 mentions low quality of panther's armor with spalling and terrible engine/transmission. And yes shermans had thicker armor but it was less sloped and was softer all of which pretty much negated its strengths.

Eh?
What model Panther,when was it built,what factory,what hull model and what was the condition of the Panther before the test,same pretty much goes for the T-34/85.
Or are you paraphrasing a single tanker who crewed a Panther and T-34/58 into combat?

The M4 series of tanks,the first production models used CHA and later models used RHA,where are you getting M4s armor was of such low quality...

Tiger crews had a valid respect for the M4's frontal armor capabilities,read the handbook.

I apologize for replying,very much off the topic,but your sweeping generalizations are exceptions for the most part.

 

[Herr_Robert]

Eh?

Perhaps in your alternative version of WWII,Germany and the USA not have diesel powered AFVs.

Germany did not go beyond a few diesel powered prototypes and a few other odds and ends granted but the USA most certainly did; the M4A2 first springs to mind as fufubear pointed out.

You'll be interested to know there are more,if you do a slight bit of research.

I also have to add that the Soviets only received M4A2 and M4A2(76)W Shermans from the Americans. Around 2000 of each type.

 

[Hidden Gunman]

@Herr_Robert
I don't think the Soviets could have lost the war...there exists this popular view that they would mystically collapse or lose the ability to fight, but the reality is that from Day 1 of Barbarossa they were fighting the war in accordance with their doctrine. Within 6 months of the invasion, they counterattacked with a strategic offensive that threw the Germans off balance, and made them focus on the south for their 1942 offensive, which showed that the german war goal of capturing the northern cities of Moscow and Leningrad and forcing a 'political' victory was no longer possible (my view is that it never was as that was a german view, not a soviet one). During Op Blue in '42, the Soviets were building up, giving ground, and then launched a massive counter-offensive that wiped out (totally) the largest German army, and threw them back, and completely regained the initiative. The problem is that the bulk of our western view of the war in the east is based on german apologist generals' writings, and a lack of understanding of Soviet warfighting doctrine and capabilities. It took the US 40 years to work out what the Soviets knew in 1944.

 

[Hawk8762]

So, you're basically saying that it is wrong that 4 or so flak 88's (your statement indicates that it might have been even more), which are a hard counter against air, are able to shoot down air instantly? They are amassing 480 points of hard counter against you and you complain about the fact, that it did work?

Would it sound wrong to you if I were complaining that half of that point sum (240 points) in paks is able to insta kill my precious german tank?

Several points wrong with your comparison
First off, most air is 200pts+ which is all now rendered automatically useless
Second, the thing about 88's is they don't just counter one thing. If ALL they did was counter air, sure that would be fine, but they are all 3: an AT gun, an AA gun, and an infantry support gun all in an incredibly hard to kill package

So that 480 points is not JUST going towards anti air, that is all contributing to their defensive line VERY effectively at the same time.
A series of at guns does not immediately render the battlefield unavailable to any and all tanks. If there was an at gun that could shoot through trees and obstacles, and even on misses gave a tank half panic, then yes, the comparison would be viable.

 

[DarkCruor]

Hey OP I was looking through the 4th Infantry Division chronicle and what do you know

88s OP yankees confirm

 

[IronHat]

Hey OP I was looking through the 4th Infantry Division chronicle and what do you know

88s OP yankees confirm

"we couldn't get through to artillery"..."finally some of our tanks came through and we cleaned the jerries out".
sounds like the sherman deal with the 88mm just fine, or they would have just call in some 105mm battery.


I was digging through the files and I noticed that the AA aim time on the 88m is one second. By comparison it's four second to fire at ground target (HE and AA).

If the AA aim time on the 88mm was increase to 4 second it would be a lot less power.it would force the axis to mix in their long range 88mm with close range defense.

 

[Scolopax]

I recall reading somewhere that 88mm Flak gunners weren't always the best in the anti-tank role, simply because they were not trained to engage tanks. From the standpoint of the crew, engaging a tank which can and likely will advance and shoot at you tends to be a bit more harrowing than firing at far away airplanes as trained for.

 

[Katsuki126]

I'm afraid sir you do not know your armor very well. The t34 was an amazingly designed tank. One of the first, if not THE first to be using the concept of sloped armor.

I'm afraid sir that you do not know your armor very well. The first tank to use sloped armor was the French WWI Schneider CA1. During the interwar the Renault R35 and Somua S35 both used sloped armor. Last but not least, the Soviet designs for the T34 were largely inspired from the aforementioned French designs.

The T34 was not the first, not even one of the first. The Germans simply forgot to use their eyes and to look at what the vastly superior French tank engineering was building at that time. Since France neatly collapsed in 1940, everyone forgot about their tanks, guns and airplanes. Sloped armor existed for well over two decades before the T34...

 

[Apolyon]

Sorry for the OP but I doubt that a single 88 could shutdown a P-47. This statement implies that the german players invest 240+ pts (2 88's) to defend against air attack/superiority. Then attacking the special german AA division from the sky and complaining about their toys because your plane can't reach it seems a bit awful.
However, as discussed in another topic, 88 switch to fast between ground/air attack modes. It did not allow effective combined air/ground tactics. I think this must be changed by adding a reloading/aiming time when the 88 is switching from air to ground and the opposite.

 

[YppY]

Has anyone ever complained about the fact that when the crew is suppressed and told to fallback, they will take there giant gun with them under enemy fire? I don't know, just seems a little off to me.

 

[DarkCruor]

"we couldn't get through to artillery"..."finally some of our tanks came through and we cleaned the jerries out".
sounds like the sherman deal with the 88mm just fine, or they would have just call in some 105mm battery.


I was digging through the files and I noticed that the AA aim time on the 88m is one second. By comparison it's four second to fire at ground target (HE and AA).

If the AA aim time on the 88mm was increase to 4 second it would be a lot less power.it would force the axis to mix in their long range 88mm with close range defense.

tbf tanks in this game don't get access to smoke either so who knows!