the jumbo is weak

Do you have a balancing problem or do you want to make a suggestion for the game? You are at the right place.
User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3152
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: the jumbo is weak

Postby Warhawks97 » 29 Nov 2018, 19:21

Thx for these info but i think most are aware here.

I have made a link collection if you ever noticed.
I have updated it with more and more links over the past years with lots of cruicial informations.


We all know that the 76 wasnt that great against frontal panther armor.
https://worldoftanks.com/en/news/chieft ... ur-part-1/

https://worldoftanks.com/en/news/chieft ... er/?page=1

https://worldoftanks.com/en/news/chieft ... or-part-2/


just read this. Here are all tests made before D-Day against allied steel and german steel later in france on captured panthers.
Conclusion was that the 76 performed worse than expected vs Panthers.
However Panther armor was different from tank to tank as later war models lacked the steel quaility.
So Panthers with proper steel could bounce the 76 gun easily, as you can see in the shooting tests. Those with lower quaility had cracks in their armor after being hit.


What matters in terms of armor:

1. What type is it? RHA, FHA, Cast..... Cast is the worst which is a reason why the M4A1 was the worst sherman (and the first one, yes before the normal M4)
2. BHN value: German had usually harder steel while allied was more soft. Both had pros and cons. Hard steel made you bounce more, but if penetrated also more cracking and shrapnel. So shermans got knocked out many times but the casaulties in men per lost tank were the lowest of all tanks. That had many reasons but one was the soft steel making the shell piercing it with less shrappnel effect. Its also in the three links above. Sadly this link doesnt work anymore: http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger1.htm here you could see the BHN value for the Tiger tank.
3. Slopping
4. Overmatching. That means if the diameter of the shell is bigger than pure armor plate thickness, then your armor loses protection/shell gets some sort of buff. For example even though guns like the 76 had on paper good chances to pen a tiger, the shell was sometimes simply not "thick" enough to pierce tigers armor. Even 17 pdrs sometimes bounced from 700 yards from tigers.



The Jumbo has two great advantages which is its pure armor thickness and thus not getting overmatched and that its slopped.
Perhaps i am giving you a video from war thunder which reflects certain combat situations quite well i guess.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qk_QrWv_6Rc&t=3s

MG ports were natural weak spots and tiger could pen jumbo frontally, but when the tank got just slightly angled towards tiger the odds were in jumbos favour.



Anyway, we would fill pages if we continue this debate about what tank was better.


So pls, can we forget this tank vs tank issue for a while and focus on what these tanks are meant to do.

Jumbo:
The Jumbo was NOT made and designed to battle enemie tanks or to compete with them. It was designed to get through defenses and thus to bounce most anti tank weapons. The germans had the Pak 43 heavy 88 L/71 gun but those were rare compared to the pak 40.

The Problem with Jumbo is that its currently more a "Pershing light" or "If you have no fuel Pershing" which is not the intention of this tank.
When the jumbo is better in killing Panthers and Tigers than anything else, something is srsly wrong. I am not denying that the 76 gun could kill them, just the tanks purpose wasnt to stop enemie big cats. Its not a "beast-killer".

It makes me questioning when a standard 75 mm pak 40 or stug can kill this tank so easily from ambush although the tanks intention was to overcome exactly those.


So all we have to do is to keep the current balance between Panther/Tiger and Jumbo. No need to change 76, 75 or 88 gun.

What is needed is that Jumbo must be able to withstand 75 mm L/46 and 48 guns relatively easily and to become so far the best armored tank in the US arsenal and that it needs to cost CP´s to unlock, favouring the currently 7 CP in armor doctrine. Also becoming a producable unit and the 75 mm as a reward to the 76 jumbo version (or rather the 76 reward for the 75 which was the actual standard jumbo).


If we keep track on this we wont need to debate the Jumbo/Panther/Tiger balance this much bc at best those units wouldnt have to face each other on the battlefield. The counter to Panther/Tiger are 90 mm guns and 17 pdrs etc. while the main counter to jumbo would be stuff like Jagdpanzers with Panther gun and 88mm L/71 guns from Nashorn/Elephant etc.


If we keep track on this we wont need to debate the Jumbo/Panther/Tiger balance this much bc at best those units wouldnt have to face each other on the battlefield. The counter to Panther/Tiger are 90 mm guns and 17 pdrs etc. while the main counter to jumbo would be stuff like Jagdpanzers with Panther gun and 88mm L/71 guns from Nashorn/Elephant etc.
Last edited by Warhawks97 on 29 Nov 2018, 19:39, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Panzerblitz1
Team Member
Posts: 1592
Joined: 24 Nov 2014, 00:12
Location: Paris, right under the Eiffel tower.

Re: the jumbo is weak

Postby Panzerblitz1 » 29 Nov 2018, 19:30

The New BK Champion wrote:In conclussion Jumbo kills tiger effortlessly (no APCR needed) at 1000m, while tiger cant do shit at that distance without APCR.
Jumbo also can pen Panther turret at 1000m with standart AP and hull too with APCR, while panther can do the same to jumbo.


WRONG! that wasn't the case during WWII, i gave you the AT guns who could deal with the panthers at any ranges, the Jumbo couldn't compete with big cats as "Pure tank Vs tank engagements" as Warhawk said trully.
Image

The New BK Champion
Posts: 223
Joined: 11 Feb 2018, 22:09

Re: the jumbo is weak

Postby The New BK Champion » 29 Nov 2018, 19:32

Panzerblitz1 wrote:
The New BK Champion wrote:In conclussion Jumbo kills tiger effortlessly (no APCR needed) at 1000m, while tiger cant do shit at that distance without APCR.
Jumbo also can pen Panther turret at 1000m with standart AP and hull too with APCR, while panther can do the same to jumbo.


WRONG! that wasn't the case during WWII, i gave you the AT guns who could deal with the panthers at any ranges.


I am saying something, basing it on facts and numbers. You say no, because no. Congrats. If you missed it I can list all values again. But I don't really care anymore tbh. Tiger was no match for 76mm jumbo, which could destroy that "big cat" from 1000 meters...
Last edited by The New BK Champion on 29 Nov 2018, 19:36, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Panzerblitz1
Team Member
Posts: 1592
Joined: 24 Nov 2014, 00:12
Location: Paris, right under the Eiffel tower.

Re: the jumbo is weak

Postby Panzerblitz1 » 29 Nov 2018, 19:35

Dude this is just wrong, you can base your thoughts of any values you can get on the web, the 75 or 76mm Jumbo wans't fitted to deal with Panthers or even Tigers, it wasn't his tactical role during WWII, only the Pershing 90mm gun could take down with great efficiency the Panther frontally. (And the others guns i already told you)
Image

The New BK Champion
Posts: 223
Joined: 11 Feb 2018, 22:09

Re: the jumbo is weak

Postby The New BK Champion » 29 Nov 2018, 19:38

Panzerblitz1 wrote:Dude this is just wrong, you can base your thoughts of any values you can get on the web, the 75 or 76mm Jumbo wans't fitted to deal with Panthers or even Tigers.


Tiger armor - 100mm

76mm gun penetration at 1000m and 0 degrees - 109mm.

Totaly not fit to kill, no hope for win.

"Using the M62 APC round, the 76 mm gun penetrated 109 mm (4.3 in) of armor at 0° obliquity at 1,000 m (3,300 ft), with a muzzle velocity of 792 m/s (2,600 ft/s). The HVAP round was able to penetrate 178 mm (7.0 in) at 1,000 m (3,300 ft), with a muzzle velocity of 1,036 m/s (3,400 ft/s).[34]" - Wikipedia
"106mm at 1000m and 90 degrees" - WarThunder wiki

Other sources are the same.
Last edited by The New BK Champion on 29 Nov 2018, 19:41, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Panzerblitz1
Team Member
Posts: 1592
Joined: 24 Nov 2014, 00:12
Location: Paris, right under the Eiffel tower.

Re: the jumbo is weak

Postby Panzerblitz1 » 29 Nov 2018, 19:41

The New BK Champion wrote:
Panzerblitz1 wrote:Dude this is just wrong, you can base your thoughts of any values you can get on the web, the 75 or 76mm Jumbo wans't fitted to deal with Panthers or even Tigers.


Tiger armor - 100mm

76mm gun penetration at 1000m and 0 degrees - 109mm.

Totaly not fit to kill, no hope for win.


at 1000 meters you can put a shell on a "flat" part of the tiger, yeah, just make a phone call first and tell him to be exactly the way he needs to be, you just have no idea of what you're saying here.

The 76mm US wasn't good, and the US tankist was waiting that 90 mm like the messia during WWII... but if you say so.
Image

The New BK Champion
Posts: 223
Joined: 11 Feb 2018, 22:09

Re: the jumbo is weak

Postby The New BK Champion » 29 Nov 2018, 19:44

Panzerblitz1 wrote:
The New BK Champion wrote:
Panzerblitz1 wrote:Dude this is just wrong, you can base your thoughts of any values you can get on the web, the 75 or 76mm Jumbo wans't fitted to deal with Panthers or even Tigers.


Tiger armor - 100mm

76mm gun penetration at 1000m and 0 degrees - 109mm.

Totaly not fit to kill, no hope for win.


at 1000 meters you can put a shell on a "flat" part of the tiger, yeah, just make a phone call first and tell him to be exactly the way it needs to be, you just have no idea of what you're saying here.


It's not about "100% pen chance", it's about probable penetration chance. 76mm has that possibility from 1000 meters up. Tiger needs APCR to be able to do that. I am not gonna insult you, by saying that it's you who has no idea, because I follow the forum guidelines.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3152
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: the jumbo is weak

Postby Warhawks97 » 29 Nov 2018, 19:46

Pure numbers isnt all. It also matter where they come from and who tested it.
In the links i showed (fixed them now) you can read all the shooting tests with original results. The 76 wasnt great in penetrating frontal Panther armor as several tests have shown.

Against Tigers i didnt find much as 76 shermans barely or never seen a tiger at all. I think it also doesnt matter this much given the low numbers of Tigers that saw action actually in the west.



But what i dont understand is what you debate is about?
I think its clear that the real issue of the jumbo is the fact that it doesnt do what it was designed for which is to break defenses.
The current pen stats of Jumbo (and all 76 guns) vs Panther/Tiger are well set, balanced and not the problem. A Jumbo (76) can face a Tiger equally in game which is ok i think.
But we need to fix jumbos armor against guns like 75 mm AT gun, stugs and tank IV guns so that this tank can do its job (which is not being a purposley build Tiger-counter).


As for the tiger: It needs a CP drop.
Last edited by Warhawks97 on 29 Nov 2018, 19:48, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Shanks
Posts: 591
Joined: 22 Nov 2016, 22:02

Re: the jumbo is weak

Postby Shanks » 29 Nov 2018, 19:47

Warhawks97 wrote:
If we keep track on this we wont need to debate the Jumbo/Panther/Tiger balance this much bc at best those units wouldnt have to face each other on the battlefield. The counter to Panther/Tiger are 90 mm guns and 17 pdrs etc. while the main counter to jumbo would be stuff like Jagdpanzers with Panther gun and 88mm L/71 guns from Nashorn/Elephant etc.


If we keep track on this we wont need to debate the Jumbo/Panther/Tiger balance this much bc at best those units wouldnt have to face each other on the battlefield. The counter to Panther/Tiger are 90 mm guns and 17 pdrs etc. while the main counter to jumbo would be stuff like Jagdpanzers with Panther gun and 88mm L/71 guns from Nashorn/Elephant etc.



sounds logical, good explanation ... but how much should a Tank cost that can not be destroyed by L / 46-48, Stug-Panzer H?

User avatar
Panzerblitz1
Team Member
Posts: 1592
Joined: 24 Nov 2014, 00:12
Location: Paris, right under the Eiffel tower.

Re: the jumbo is weak

Postby Panzerblitz1 » 29 Nov 2018, 19:48

APCR were the most unreliable anti tank shells of all times, especially at long range, but anyway, i'll stop for today, i had my dose.
Image

The New BK Champion
Posts: 223
Joined: 11 Feb 2018, 22:09

Re: the jumbo is weak

Postby The New BK Champion » 29 Nov 2018, 19:51

Panzerblitz1 wrote:APCR were the most unreliable anti tank shells of all times, especially at long range, but anyway, i'll stop for today, i had my dose.

All I wanted to do is point out the values and numbers you quoted wrong. You behave like I tried to insult you and ruin your day. Balancing the mod and matters of unit cost evectiveness and target tables are a different matter.

User avatar
Panzerblitz1
Team Member
Posts: 1592
Joined: 24 Nov 2014, 00:12
Location: Paris, right under the Eiffel tower.

Re: the jumbo is weak

Postby Panzerblitz1 » 29 Nov 2018, 19:59

The New BK Champion wrote:
Panzerblitz1 wrote:APCR were the most unreliable anti tank shells of all times, especially at long range, but anyway, i'll stop for today, i had my dose.

All I wanted to do is point out the values and numbers you quoted wrong. You behave like I tried to insult you and ruin your day. Balancing the mod and matters of unit cost evectiveness and target tables are a different matter.


First stop using Warthunder datas, bk mod isn't warthunder and we are working in a very different way, my values and numbers except that 60mm misstyping are right, you started to replied me in a sarcastic and mean way and i didn't liked it at all, im not here to face your shitty mood, or to push the jumbo being a new super Pershing, thats not my job here, i tried to explain and show for INFOS only some datas, and comapre to what we are experiencing with our Jumbo in bk, but you felt obliged to jump on me, and start your little crusade, but its fine, its not the first time you do that, and im pretty sure it won't be the last, but thats the last time you are talking to me like a dog, mark my word.
Image

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3152
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: the jumbo is weak

Postby Warhawks97 » 29 Nov 2018, 20:00

Shanks wrote:
Warhawks97 wrote:

If we keep track on this we wont need to debate the Jumbo/Panther/Tiger balance this much bc at best those units wouldnt have to face each other on the battlefield. The counter to Panther/Tiger are 90 mm guns and 17 pdrs etc. while the main counter to jumbo would be stuff like Jagdpanzers with Panther gun and 88mm L/71 guns from Nashorn/Elephant etc.



sounds logical, good explanation ... but how much should a Tank cost that can not be destroyed by L / 46-48, Stug-Panzer H?


7 CP, 600/100, limit two for 75 mm version, roughly 700-750/100-110 for the 76 version and limit one.

I also didnt say "cant", all i said is that Jumbo needs better armor as the Pershing (fun fact: axis 75 mm L/48 is better vs Jumbos as vs pershing, for Panther and Tiger its the other way arround). These 40% pen chance for a 0 CP stug against jumbo is quite high. It should be arround 20% with APCR and ambush (which is currently the standard chance for a tank IV to pen jumbo).


Panzerblitz1 wrote:APCR were the most unreliable anti tank shells of all times, especially at long range, but anyway, i'll stop for today, i had my dose.



If you speak about british APDS, yes, it had poor accuracy.
APCR (US called them HVAP) were not unreliable. The US HVAP was actually considered to be quite accurate. It was the best anti tank ammo among standard 76 mm APCBC and 17 pdr APCBC and APDS rounds.
It had issues at longer ranges though due to its light weight. But at most common combat ranges at the western front (usually not more than 800 meters) the HVAP was powerfull as a standard 17 pdr shot but more accurate than the APCBC rounds.

User avatar
Panzerblitz1
Team Member
Posts: 1592
Joined: 24 Nov 2014, 00:12
Location: Paris, right under the Eiffel tower.

Re: the jumbo is weak

Postby Panzerblitz1 » 29 Nov 2018, 20:11

Warhawks97 wrote:If you speak about british APDS, yes, it had poor accuracy.
APCR (US called them HVAP) were not unreliable. The US HVAP was actually considered to be quite accurate. It was the best anti tank ammo among standard 76 mm APCBC and 17 pdr APCBC and APDS rounds.
It had issues at longer ranges though due to its light weight. But at most common combat ranges at the western front (usually not more than 800 meters) the HVAP was powerfull as a standard 17 pdr shot but more accurate than the APCBC rounds.


Unclassified doc: https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1045347.pdf go page 32.
Attachments
gtyuioo.JPG
Image

The New BK Champion
Posts: 223
Joined: 11 Feb 2018, 22:09

Re: the jumbo is weak

Postby The New BK Champion » 29 Nov 2018, 20:14

Panzerblitz1 wrote:
The New BK Champion wrote:
Panzerblitz1 wrote:APCR were the most unreliable anti tank shells of all times, especially at long range, but anyway, i'll stop for today, i had my dose.

All I wanted to do is point out the values and numbers you quoted wrong. You behave like I tried to insult you and ruin your day. Balancing the mod and matters of unit cost evectiveness and target tables are a different matter.


First stop using Warthunder datas, bk mod isn't warthunder and we are working in a very different way, my values and numbers except that 60mm misstyping are right, you started to replied me in a sarcastic and mean way and i didn't liked it at all, im not here to face your shitty mood, or to push the jumbo being a new super Pershing, thats not my job here, i tried to explain and show for INFOS only some datas, and comapre to what we are experiencing with our Jumbo in bk, but you felt obliged to jump on me, and start your little crusade, but its fine, its not the first time you do that, and im pretty sure it won't be the last, but thats the last time you are talking to me like a dog, mark my word.


I corrected your mistake. In a polite way. while your post breaks several forum rules:

2. No spam, no flaming.That means no threads inciting flames or mindless chatter. Profanity is to be kept to a minimum: while permitted in context, excessive swearing will not be tolerated. Personal attacks - 'flames' - are strictly prohibited.

5. Do not drag threads offtopic.


If sarcasm is considered being rude, then I am sorry.

User avatar
Shanks
Posts: 591
Joined: 22 Nov 2016, 22:02

Re: the jumbo is weak

Postby Shanks » 29 Nov 2018, 20:33

Panzerblitz1 wrote:, but you felt obliged to jump on me, and start your little crusade, but its fine, its not the first time you do that, and im pretty sure it won't be the last, but thats the last time you are talking to me like a dog, mark my word.


I do not know why Panzerblitz gets angry, we're just debating to reach a better balance

The New BK Champion
Posts: 223
Joined: 11 Feb 2018, 22:09

Re: the jumbo is weak

Postby The New BK Champion » 29 Nov 2018, 20:34

Shanks wrote:
Panzerblitz1 wrote:, but you felt obliged to jump on me, and start your little crusade, but its fine, its not the first time you do that, and im pretty sure it won't be the last, but thats the last time you are talking to me like a dog, mark my word.


I do not know why Panzerblitz gets angry, we're just debating to reach a better balance


I truly don't understand that either. I think most of Hawks ideas are okey, I believe markr will find good solutions.

User avatar
Shanks
Posts: 591
Joined: 22 Nov 2016, 22:02

Re: the jumbo is weak

Postby Shanks » 29 Nov 2018, 20:38

Warhawks97 wrote:
Shanks wrote:
Warhawks97 wrote:

If we keep track on this we wont need to debate the Jumbo/Panther/Tiger balance this much bc at best those units wouldnt have to face each other on the battlefield. The counter to Panther/Tiger are 90 mm guns and 17 pdrs etc. while the main counter to jumbo would be stuff like Jagdpanzers with Panther gun and 88mm L/71 guns from Nashorn/Elephant etc.



sounds logical, good explanation ... but how much should a Tank cost that can not be destroyed by L / 46-48, Stug-Panzer H?


7 CP, 600/100, limit two for 75 mm version, roughly 700-750/100-110 for the 76 version and limit one.
.



I think this could be considered,but I am opposed to that Armor doc has the Jumbo 75mm .. this idea is good only for the Jumbo 76 mm in doc armor, is what I think
Last edited by Shanks on 29 Nov 2018, 20:48, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Viper
Posts: 240
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 23:18

Re: the jumbo is weak

Postby Viper » 29 Nov 2018, 20:40

first. tiger1 never faced jumbo in ww2. and tiger1 frontal armor is more than 100mm thickness. the turret contains some parts with 200mm thickness.
but you can't set different armor values for turret and hull in coh. so most coh mod developers agree that the frontal armor of the tiger1 is estimated by average value of 135-145mm of thickness. specifically late tiger tank versions. also, the tiger1 frontal hull is not at 90 degrees but slightly sloped. and in war thunder (since some people here talk about it) the 76 jumbo can not kill the tiger at long distance. and the tiger will not be able to kill the jumbo too. don't forget the armor values are not enough to evaluate penetration. but there is more to take into account. for example the steel that was used for the tiger tanks was high quality steel. this and many other factors. so "plain" armor values are not very accurate.


i also want to say panther has 80mm sloped armor. equivalent of 140mm of thickness. but thats not all. you still need to add the turret armor. but both panther.a and panther.d have weak turrets. when panther.g has improved turret. my point is.....when you evaluate the armor thickness for any tank in coh. you must calculate the average for both hull and turret. not only the hull.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 3152
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: the jumbo is weak

Postby Warhawks97 » 29 Nov 2018, 21:24

Panzerblitz1 wrote:
Warhawks97 wrote:If you speak about british APDS, yes, it had poor accuracy.
APCR (US called them HVAP) were not unreliable. The US HVAP was actually considered to be quite accurate. It was the best anti tank ammo among standard 76 mm APCBC and 17 pdr APCBC and APDS rounds.
It had issues at longer ranges though due to its light weight. But at most common combat ranges at the western front (usually not more than 800 meters) the HVAP was powerfull as a standard 17 pdr shot but more accurate than the APCBC rounds.

Unclassified doc: https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1045347.pdf go page 32


not bad, havent got through it all but it seems this is a lot of theoretical stuff. At least this page for example, using a special theoretical mathematic formula, says that a Tank IV H can be penetrated from only 50 yards away (the hull). The Thompson calculation method notes 2848 yards against the hull of the tank IV H, another says 230 yards and the last one says even 3300 yards.

Ive been diged myself very deep into this matter over the past year or more and read combat reports etc....And most noted that a tank IV H and 76 jumbo met each other at equal terms when facing each other one to one. Generally the one who spots the other first and landed the first hit won.
It seems unlikely to me that the 76 wouldnt pen tank IV hull at 100 yards. The 75 mm sherman was known for knocking out tank IV´s in nort africa from over 600 yards away. In this paper the lambert-zucka calculation would tell me now that the 75 mm couldnt pen 50 mm Tank IV steel at point blank.





@shanks... Impossible bc the inf doc jumbo does cost just 2 CP. We cant make a tank -that resists standard axis 75 mm shells so well- this cheap. And we cant make 76 mm jumbo having a different armor than a 75... well technically yes but it wouldnt make sense since jumbo is jumbo.

So with such armor buff the tank must move and costing CP to unlock.




@Viper: Tiger hadnt 200 mm. The alterntive tiger version from Porsche, the Tiger P, had 200 mm. But the Tiger that went into action did not have 200 mm.

Mr. FeministDonut
Posts: 268
Joined: 13 Aug 2015, 21:05

Re: the jumbo is weak

Postby Mr. FeministDonut » 29 Nov 2018, 21:28

Good news, we just found out that Shermans 76mm actually could penetrate Tigers, so we should implement that in our great mod.
Markkr, lead the way!

User avatar
Shanks
Posts: 591
Joined: 22 Nov 2016, 22:02

Re: the jumbo is weak

Postby Shanks » 29 Nov 2018, 21:51

Warhawks97 wrote:@shanks... Impossible bc the inf doc jumbo does cost just 2 CP. We cant make a tank -that resists standard axis 75 mm shells so well- this cheap. And we cant make 76 mm jumbo having a different armor than a 75... well technically yes but it wouldnt make sense since jumbo is jumbo.

So with such armor buff the tank must move and costing CP to unlock.



could make the M10 mandatory to unlock the sherman 105 mm, then the Jumbo would come, could even require that the tank factory is improved ... what do you think?...so it would be delayed to 6 CP, and it would not be so bad, because it only has a 75 mm cannon, unlike the 7 CP of armor doc with the Jumbo 76 mm that has a better canyon , and taking into account that you also say that the tiger needs a 3 CP for better performance

User avatar
Viper
Posts: 240
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 23:18

Re: the jumbo is weak

Postby Viper » 29 Nov 2018, 22:15

Warhawks97 wrote:@Viper: Tiger hadnt 200 mm. The alterntive tiger version from Porsche, the Tiger P, had 200 mm. But the Tiger that went into action did not have 200 mm.

im sorry to say you are wrong. it did.

look:

200mm parts:
200.jpg
200mm


140mm parts:
140.jpg
140mm


135mm parts:
135.jpg
135mm


tiger1 frontal turret in 1942 was nearly non.penetrable by any allied or soviet weapon.
you cant really expect anything less from a turret carrying the fat 88mm cannon.

this is tiger ausf.e version. the one in blitzkrieg doctrine in bk mod.

so. it is a very common misconception for people to say tiger1 only has 100mm frontal armor. it is very wrong piece of information.
because in coh you need average value for both hull and turret together.

good morning.

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 2537
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: the jumbo is weak

Postby MarKr » 29 Nov 2018, 22:30

Guys, can you please stop this? There is no point in this talk where people start pulling at each other sources of historical numbers. Most of the stuff depended on range. We cannot apply historical ranges to the game. I haven't read all the stuff you wrote here but I noticed the comparisons of 76mm gun vs Tigers and Panthers and whatnot. Nobody doubts that 76mm gun COULD penetrate Tigers frontally, the problem is at what ranges the gun could reliably do it. I don't rememeber exactly (possibly it was mentioned here somewhere) the gun could penetrate Tiger at about 700meters but the Tiger could effectively fire at over 2000meters (depends on target for sure but if we speak "Tiger vs Sherman" situation) - here the range issue starts to kick in. The in-game attack range of 60-ish is like 70 meters. We cannot give realistic ranges to tanks for several reasons:
1) map layouts are not made for it so the real range potential of these long range units would be unuseable (due to obstacles)
2) map sizes would allow Tigers, Panthers and units with KT guns shoot across entire maps
3) there is no "true sight" in CoH1 so the tanks would either have range of at least 900 (ingame units; for comparison static howitzers have now around 200 range) but not so long vision so you would not be able to use the range without spotters OR the tanks would have such vision and then one tank would spot entire map
(probably others problems too if you thinki about it a bit more)
The engine limits this too because it is not possible to make a gun very little effective at some range and then suddenly make huge jump in efficency when the range is some smaller value, or to be exact - it is possible but it would have to act like that that against every tank, not just a specific one.

So the only thing we can do to sort of simulate this is to "scale" the effectiveness at the ranges we have. This is the reason why Axis guns got better stats at longer ranges (at least I think so) in the first place. So the tanks of Allies either need to get closer to have better penetration chances (+ ideally use AP ammo too) or they need to attack from sides. We cannot make the 76mm gun effective against Tigers because "it was effective at 700meters and in the game they are not THAT far away from each other" because the this argument has its base in "reality ranges" and applies the real range effectiveness at the game without taking into account the fact that the ranges in the game are scaled. Or if look at it from the other side - if we made the 76mm gun a lot more effective in the game against Tigers because "in reality at this range the gun would penetrate Tiger" then the Tiger would be in the game SERIOUSLY underperforming.

Engine limitations make it impossible to go more realistic and so we have to make do with what we have. Consequently it is not practical to present here all the tables with all the penetration values of different ammunition types against X mm of steel under Y angle at distance of Z. These 3 aspects determine the effectiveness of a gun. If all these aspects were possible to realistically reflect in the game then it would make sense to present them here but since the angles are not represented in the engine at all and the ranges are misrepresented, these real life stats simply cannot be used as the main balancing point.

If there are some changes to Jumbo, the changes might take some inspiration in reality but it will not be 100% representation of the real performance of the Jumbo because, quite frankly, no unit has 100% real representation anyway.
Image

User avatar
Viper
Posts: 240
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 23:18

Re: the jumbo is weak

Postby Viper » 29 Nov 2018, 22:46

MarKr wrote:I don't rememeber exactly (possibly it was mentioned here somewhere) the gun could penetrate Tiger at about 700meters but the Tiger could effectively fire at over 2000meters (depends on target for sure but if we speak "Tiger vs Sherman" situation) - here the range issue starts to kick in. The in-game attack range of 60-ish is like 70 meters.

this can be solved by giving more range to tanks with bigger gun. either more basic range or more range in a form of special abilities. people here keep complaining tiger1 is useless. they suggest it should come sooner. and others suggest it should be cheaper.

but to be honest the tiger1 in bk mod has correct price (or maybe need slightly less manpower cost) and it comes soon enough. the armor is also fine. it seems to be correctly implemented as average of 135-145mm armor right now. not only 100mm as some people want to downgrade it.

the problem is the range. tigers are still not getting the deserved long range power. maybe except the ace tiger in the beta. but normal tigers are still doing too little for their cost. i think tigers are in desperate need for higher range.

jumbo should be available to deploy for 100 fuel in tank depot and limit of 2.

churchill mk.vii as well, but with no limit. because the gun is weak.


Return to “Balancing & Suggestions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests