Blitzkrieg Mod Forum

Posted: **25 Mar 2015, 23:34**

Warhawks97 wrote:
Kasbah wrote:Don't make me laugh, there is nothing easier than destroying a Panther or a Tiger. 17 pounder easily destroy them in 1 or 2 shots, not to mention 76 with AP rounds, that can do the same frontally costing 1/3 of a Tiger (a little less for a Panther) Or you just have to bring AT squads, come frontally, fire you're bazookas, and severly damage/destroy them, retreat and start again.

thx for theory.... doesnt work.. tested....did not work..... HVAP from US 76 bounced even from axis 76 sherman. Also if you would have read it its simply that even jacks bounce quite often from Panther G. Also you need 3-4 pen shots to kill a Tiger.... at average you need 3-4 tanks using HVAP+ micro. We really did all that. There was a Tiger facing two 76 shermans and m10 all with HVAP + Pershing flanking but all either bounced or damaged it..... the Tiger even damaged the pershing that flanked the Tiger. And mostly we killed a Panther from ambushes only but often enough booth sides lost their tanks. I wouldnt talk about it if it wouldnt be so silly and pls.... read EVERYTHING. And frontal attack on Tigers with hendheld AT..... are you kidding me now? Ive been watching a game of Tiger 1996 which was only a 1 vs 1 and he had 4 squads of AB with rl and zooks and doing frontal assaults on Tank IV´s and he actually always failed to kill a Tank IV.... and now you say i should frontal assault Panther or Tiger with hendheld at..... god lord you are so funny. I guess everybody would agree that this is suicide unless you have a vet 4 commando squad. Vet 3 Rangers lost 3 men after a 2 second burst of a vet 1 Panther G and the zook failed then also.

Edit: Or was this a joke? I am not sure as there are people out there which would mean this serious. if it wasnt then i am sorry for that replay.

Then you did not see my videos on the old forum did you? Or you do deliberately "Forget"

It proved that at max range, the Sherman 76 would penetrate a Tiger frontally with a 1/3 chance with standard ammunition, slightly less on Panthers, and HVAP modified that to about 1/2.

Seems your the one joking here, as all of your theories are bonkers, hyper inflated, it is very hard for me to believe anything you say, as you are clearly one sided, black and white, you only see what you want to see.

Posted: **26 Mar 2015, 00:13**

V13dweller wrote:
Warhawks97 wrote:
Kasbah wrote:Don't make me laugh, there is nothing easier than destroying a Panther or a Tiger. 17 pounder easily destroy them in 1 or 2 shots, not to mention 76 with AP rounds, that can do the same frontally costing 1/3 of a Tiger (a little less for a Panther) Or you just have to bring AT squads, come frontally, fire you're bazookas, and severly damage/destroy them, retreat and start again.

thx for theory.... doesnt work.. tested....did not work..... HVAP from US 76 bounced even from axis 76 sherman. Also if you would have read it its simply that even jacks bounce quite often from Panther G. Also you need 3-4 pen shots to kill a Tiger.... at average you need 3-4 tanks using HVAP+ micro. We really did all that. There was a Tiger facing two 76 shermans and m10 all with HVAP + Pershing flanking but all either bounced or damaged it..... the Tiger even damaged the pershing that flanked the Tiger. And mostly we killed a Panther from ambushes only but often enough booth sides lost their tanks. I wouldnt talk about it if it wouldnt be so silly and pls.... read EVERYTHING. And frontal attack on Tigers with hendheld AT..... are you kidding me now? Ive been watching a game of Tiger 1996 which was only a 1 vs 1 and he had 4 squads of AB with rl and zooks and doing frontal assaults on Tank IV´s and he actually always failed to kill a Tank IV.... and now you say i should frontal assault Panther or Tiger with hendheld at..... god lord you are so funny. I guess everybody would agree that this is suicide unless you have a vet 4 commando squad. Vet 3 Rangers lost 3 men after a 2 second burst of a vet 1 Panther G and the zook failed then also.

Edit: Or was this a joke? I am not sure as there are people out there which would mean this serious. if it wasnt then i am sorry for that replay.

Then you did not see my videos on the old forum did you? Or you do deliberately "Forget"

It proved that at max range, the Sherman 76 would penetrate a Tiger frontally with a 1/3 chance with standard ammunition, slightly less on Panthers, and HVAP modified that to about 1/2.

Seems your the one joking here, as all of your theories are bonkers, hyper inflated, it is very hard for me to believe anything you say, as you are clearly one sided, black and white, you only see what you want to see.

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=398

Posted: **26 Mar 2015, 02:11**

To just add to your little debate here...

Its true that 76mm HVAP has good penetration of tiger most of the time.
Its true that non-HVAP 76mm has bad penetration of tiger most of the time.
You have to count in health, weapon accuracy(moving and non moving), weapon damage, crits, reload speed etc. when comparing units.
You have to count in tank commanders / M20s and another buffs/debuffs.
These units have different abilities, even depending on veterancy.

Its also worth noting that in MANY cases, said multiple units don't start firing at once. Or I have yet to seen situation, where 4 shermans will fire at the same moment on tiger (during normal combat conditions). It very often goes like the way that the first unit is shot down / critically damaged even before it fired. That means that even if the next hit would crit destroy tiger, you already lost some part of MP and fuel. Using more units at once usually makes playing harder, thats why its always said, that playing US is harder than axis and why especially new / less experienced players have better results with axis side. Thats nothing new.

I believe that situation 3-4 Shermans vs 1 tiger can end good both for tiger and for shermans. In case of 3-4 shermans firing I'd believe that its usual that one is destroyed almost for sure and second will be severely damaged or destroyed too. But it all depends on situation and luck. I wouldn't generally say that tiger vs 3 shermans = allied/axis victory.

Chance of two shermans + 1 M10 not penetrating tiger with HVAP is very small, but can happen. Chance of oneshotting tiger is very small, but can happen. Chance of penetrating tiger two times in a row with non AP on max range is very small, but can happen.

Immobilizations from arty shells were reduced, but these changes were not that big, to cause panic over it.

Posted: **26 Mar 2015, 07:46**

I have no idea what are you talking about with this "4+ shermans couldnt kill tiger", are you playing with closed eyes or? 2 sandbaged and overrepaired E8 with hvap are always enougn to knock out Tiger in frontal meeting. (Using M20 you can outrange it, and thats actually hilarious to see how Sherman outranging Tiger, but due to gameplay reasons im ok with it)

Posted: **26 Mar 2015, 07:58**

The only thing I know, and I don't bring me tests, videos, coefficients, maths, algorithms, statistics or posts long like a dissertation or a novel is that Sherman 76 that cost 1/3, yes 1/3 (minus 75 ammo for AP) of a Tiger is able to destroy it in two shots, (and sometimes, but more rare, oneshot it) And this happens even frontally, with vet3, at long range and with a commander inside.

And don't bring me again the luck factor and blabla. I play this mod since early 2010 and this happens since 4.6 when AP rounds were made incredibly powerful, but until 2 patches ago that was in part compensated by the fact Tiger and TH got a price decrease, which is now increased again.

Posted: **26 Mar 2015, 12:14**

Kasbah wrote:The only thing I know, and I don't bring me tests, videos, coefficients, maths, algorithms, statistics or posts long like a dissertation or a novel is that Sherman 76 that cost 1/3, yes 1/3 (minus 75 ammo for AP) of a Tiger is able to destroy it in two shots, (and sometimes, but more rare, oneshot it) And this happens even frontally, with vet3, at long range and with a commander inside.

And don't bring me again the luck factor and blabla. I play this mod since early 2010 and this happens since 4.6 when AP rounds were made incredibly powerful, but until 2 patches ago that was in part compensated by the fact Tiger and TH got a price decrease, which is now increased again.

And what? Before you were paying for AP rounds that did nothing, now you actually pay for something that has fair chance to do something... thats bad? 1/3 cost is only true for Armor doctrine + massproduction. Sukin is also talking about fully upgraded, overrepaired armor only E8 even with using M20 (yet another unit, that has to be taken care of). While as a tiger you get vet and have long shot without need to use another unit. Tiger/playing axis is just different from allies.

1/3 of price isn't very good argument, considering there are just too many other factors, like with what can it be penetrated, how many shots will it withstand from anything else, handheld AT survivability, all the other stats... if you simplify it to "it costs 1/3 and can penetrate tiger", then you are not doing fair comparison and many units could be told the same.

Posted: **26 Mar 2015, 12:27**

As we all know... 76mm guns generally are very weird. Sometimes they can one shot a Tiger, while other times they can't pen the Tiger at all even after 3 shots! But through other situations they can kill a Vet0 Tiger tank with 2 shots in a row.. however that also sometimes they need about 4 already penetrated shots in order to kill it!! I think that we all hate how random it is specifically with this unit. Although that I am more likely fine with it too ^^

Posted: **26 Mar 2015, 13:16**

It's good to pay for AP rounds and have something effective for 75 ammo, which is considerable, but imo it shouldn't 2 shot or one shot a tank that costs 3 times more, in long ranges and with veterancy.

And yes, many units can be told the same and in both factions. This is not a Tiger/76 problem it's a general stuff. Towable AT are, for example, extremely powerful and cheap. Paying 260 or 330 for something that can oneshot or two-shot a tank costings 2-3 times more is something imo illogical. The same for At squads that costs 360 mp can destroy a tank (without too much tactic, just hit&run and reinforce later) that costs 2-3 times more MP, plus a ton of fuel, plus a lot of upgrades and buildings needed?

The fact I'm used to play like this and I love this mod don't make it fairer.

Posted: **26 Mar 2015, 14:00**

Its all about chances and other stuff... yes you are paying 300/330/440 MP for something that CAN destroy something that costs 2-3 times more (but that thing that costs 2-3 more is also more likely to destroy that your cheap stuff), but that thing costs more also because - is faster, usually has better anti-inf protection, have various abilities, can be further buffed by other units and who knows what else. I don't really understand what are you trying to say here, that only equal units should be able to destroy other units? Why would then anyone even build AT gun, if it would not be able to destroy any heavy tank or even medium? You would just buy Tiger/Panther or even KT and game is over, because you don't have Armor doc? Especially US AT squad is not really good at frontal attacks, WH at squad was best at that and it was reduced... but still, isn't the whole point of AT squad being.. idk... AT? So being AT should mean it can destroy what, light vehicles, just because it costs 360 MP?

Its strategy game after all, if you think, that Tiger is not worth it then... buy these cheap AT guns and AT squads only and lets see how that works in real scenario?

Posted: **26 Mar 2015, 14:21**

Kasbah wrote:It's good to pay for AP rounds and have something effective for 75 ammo, which is considerable, but imo it shouldn't 2 shot or one shot a tank that costs 3 times more, in long ranges and with veterancy.

And yes, many units can be told the same and in both factions. This is not a Tiger/76 problem it's a general stuff. Towable AT are, for example, extremely powerful and cheap. Paying 260 or 330 for something that can oneshot or two-shot a tank costings 2-3 times more is something imo illogical. The same for At squads that costs 360 mp can destroy a tank (without too much tactic, just hit&run and reinforce later) that costs 2-3 times more MP, plus a ton of fuel, plus a lot of upgrades and buildings needed?

The fact I'm used to play like this and I love this mod don't make it fairer.

axis AT squad can kill tanks with simple forntal assault.... a standard US hardly kills a Puma with two zooks (puma survives one, second fails) and also you dont get 3 76 for one Tiger unless you play armor doc. If you play armor doc you may have a few more tanks against a Tiger but more or less nothing to deal with 88´s or hidden TH´s which take on 3-4 e8 shermans when shooting from ambush. Also the docs with tigers have much better inf support and arty as armor doc which is only tanks so far. Also schrecks and zooks roaming arround as well just schrecks do force shermans to break off attacks on tigers or panthers or can turn the tank fight to axis favor while Tigers and Panthers literally ignore allied Hendheld AT mostly. Also without 5% oneshot thing the Tiger survives 3 pen hits of 76 and even 90 mm sometimes. And also as wolf said no unit is static and when shermans do attack a Tiger or whatever they do have to drive forward which reduces sight and thus the Tiger makes the first shot and not seldomly dealing crit. The Tiger drives backward while inf with schreck comes to support the tiger and the shermans are still on the move forward and stopping occassionally to make a better shot or to see if tiger is in range while the tiger drives backwards untill gun is reloaded, stops then and makes the next clear shot. Moving and stopping and activating AP rounds for each of these 3-4 shermans is a very hard job+ decding correct when to break off the attack due to schreck threats. So you may need to break off the attack when 1-2 shermans are already lost and 300-400 ammo gone for HVAP and the tiger is at best damaged.

The command vehicle might be a help but is additonal unit that need to be controled and managing it to keep it on save distance to be not killed by also in range to affect as many tanks as possible is also hard. Command vehicle works best with Jacks and SP but with a group of shermans its a very hard job. Beside that its 350 mp which is as much as another tank and i always build first tank commanders than command vehicle as those do not increase the micro at first place.

@dveller: you mean this funny test shooting on la fiere bridge? funny but never happens in pvp that way. You forget moving, sight, accuracy while moving and against moving units, schrecks, durability against different types of paks and many other things. Luckily Markr starts playing pvp to make his own experiences. Idk if he watched the replay but he was in a game in which your so highly priced HVAP failed to pen a stupid Beute Sherman and other tanks. HVAP works mostly reliable with TH´s from ambush waiting till enemie tank is close enough and unable to return fire instantly.... during assaults with normal shermans its often a waste as it mostly damages enemie tanks before those quickly drive out of range or knockin out the attacking sherman.

Ting is what Tiger said: The 76 gun of us is pure lottery. The 76 shouldnt have much trouble penetrating tank IV´s (esspecially those with 50 mm armor) but the 76 often fails to pen even 50 mm tank IV´s with basic ap rounds. Against Tigers HVAP should be effective. Against Panthers even HVAP should have it harder has HVAP had problems fighting slopped armor (though weak side armor must also be considered and thus frontal armor resistant cant be 100% realistic as side armor values do not exist). Against super Heavies the 76 should be ineffective so far except some lucky shot chances hitting weak spotts. But thing is that 76 is lottery against everything but usually very unlucky and without HVAP hardly able pen tank IV´s (and even stubby Tank IV´s).

Posted: **26 Mar 2015, 14:37**

I'm not a programmer nor a coder but how can one talk about "chance", "lottery" or "luck" in a videogame made of maths and algorithms?

About AT squads. Yes, AT squads are AT, but why the hell can an AT squad stand IN FRONT OF A TANK WITH 2-3 MG'S AND A CANNON and be able to shot and retreat, often loosing no more than 2 man? The same for flames or grenades immobilizing tanks frontally. You talk about strategy, explain to me where is the strategy here. Squads should not be allowed to approach a tank frontally and in open field without being wiped out.

I understand the price of a tank costing 3 times more than a pak is justified because the first is able to move, protect other units, has good armor etc. And of course this Pak has to stand chance against it, but with a strategy, not with a magic cover mode with nothing to hide in the middle of a road.

And I insist, I am used to play like this and I like it, just debating.

Posted: **26 Mar 2015, 14:42**

Kasbah wrote:I'm not a programmer nor a coder but how can one talk about "chance", "lottery" or "luck" in a videogame made of maths and algorithms?

About AT squads. Yes, AT squads are AT, but why the hell can a AT squad stand IN FRONT OF A TANK WITH 2-3 MG'S AND A CANNON and be able to shot and retreat, often loosing no more than 2 man? The same for flames squads immobilizing tanks. You talk about strategy, explain to me where is the strategy here.

I understand a tank costing 3 times a Pak is able to move, protect other units, has good armor etc, and of course this Pak has to stand chance against it, but with a strategy, not with an invisible magic mode with nothing to hide in the middle of a road.

And I insist, I am used to play like this and I like it, just debating.

Not sure what you mean by "how can one talk about..", you just have a chance, imagine 100 side dice, computer rolls it, if sherman has 25% chance to penetrate, then if computer rolled 1-25, then it will penetrate, otherwise not. Thats the way it is done in many games with "armor". Same goes for accuracy, damage.
Having common AT squad in front of a tank being successful against it is not that common anymore, it was much more common with 6 man squads and before certain nerfs. And while talking about stealth and ambush is nice in theory, it doesn't really happen much in game and it would not be better even if the squad would be dead in a second in front of a tank.

You are free to debate, we have nothing against that. Just from my point of view, its not right to talk about units by compaing their costs, especially doctrinal ones only.

Posted: **26 Mar 2015, 16:26**

Wolf wrote:Not sure what you mean by "how can one talk about..", you just have a chance, imagine 100 side dice, computer rolls it, if sherman has 25% chance to penetrate, then if computer rolled 1-25, then it will penetrate, otherwise not. Thats the way it is done in many games with "armor". Same goes for accuracy, damage.
Having common AT squad in front of a tank being successful against it is not that common anymore, it was much more common with 6 man squads and before certain nerfs. And while talking about stealth and ambush is nice in theory, it doesn't really happen much in game and it would not be better even if the squad would be dead in a second in front of a tank.

Sure.... but 76 is the top of all lottery in game. Its like always 50:50 chance or rather 40:60 or 20:80 which is very random and more than any other weapon in game. It would help a lot then (esspecially to non US armor doc player that use 76 armed tanks) to spare ammo for expensive HVAP when fighting tanks like Tank IV> and having then the ammo for HVAP when it is really needed against Panther and Tigers<.

For super heavy tanks i would have rather see a pen chance decrease against them from 17 pdr and US 76 mm guns (as many stated in forums JT´s and KT´s got never penetrated frontally in ww2) but keeping their vulnerability to arty (which was historically next to mechanical probs and airstrikes their only real weakness). But now we have super heavies more vulnerable to gunfire (even when pen chance is set very low already) as to arty which is crazy. I managed in some games to call off maps (inf doc but also tank commander arty) on tanks that did not move but those got not immobilized while explosions were right next to treads. In my last fight i put an off tank commander off map on a IV/70 in stationary mode and all shells did hit perfectly and tank was 2/3 down but still not a single crit or immobilized which sucks. As armor doc the best against these small IV/70 is to put an off map on it as most shots simply fail to hit them but now they can even stand in the mid of an powerfull off map without any care about getting immobilized.

Maybe instead decreasing general chance to immobilize change the radius where it can happen if that is possible.

Posted: **26 Mar 2015, 16:39**

Thats mostly because you are talking about absolute max range, get 76es on shorter distances and your chance goes up good against most mediums and less against heavies. If you are not able to get them on shorter distance, then you either try your luck or activate costly HVAPs which turns the chances up significantly.

Posted: **26 Mar 2015, 20:17**

Wolf wrote:Thats mostly because you are talking about absolute max range, get 76es on shorter distances and your chance goes up good against most mediums and less against heavies. If you are not able to get them on shorter distance, then you either try your luck or activate costly HVAPs which turns the chances up significantly.

Most tanks drive backward as fast as sherman forward... not that easy getting close.... best option is waiting for their attack and wait with ambushed guns.... still it means that the enemie must attack first.

The question is rather: Why? Why do i need HVAP vs 50 mm armor? why against Tank IV (80 mm)? simply...... why do i need always HVAP to kill the smallest axis tank reliable... that just sucks. I would change it so that the 76 is reliable without HVAP against mediums, increased effectivness with HVAP vs Tiger, Some Trouble with HVAP vs Panther tanks and IV/70 or IV/A and more or less no real chance against anything better. The Heavies then would mostly be stopped by disabling them with arty, airplanes, sticky etc and then surrounded.

Posted: **26 Mar 2015, 21:18**

I am not saying its easy, I am just stating how it is.
Also, what why? Which 50mm armor you need HVAP against? Tell me exact unit.
Against TankIV you don't NEED them, you have decent chance to penetrate without HVAP, again especially when being closer, IV also doesn't have 100% to penetrate sherman. There are also different IV variations and sherman variants, its not exactly the same.

Posted: **26 Mar 2015, 22:00**

Well, for me comparing costs is important and makes sense. There are units that costs nothing that are able to destroy instantly units who cost a lot. I still think 76 is way and too powerful most of the time in ranges it souldn't. A tank should only get a chance of a critical hit against another one 3 times more expensive at medium/short ranges

The same for PAKS. Man the 17 pounder is so cheap and blows up everything like butter whereas expensive arty is most of the time ineffective against tanks. So yes to that: "I would have rather see a pen chance decrease against them from 17 pdr and US 76 mm guns (as many stated in forums JT´s and KT´s got never penetrated frontally in ww2) but keeping their vulnerability to arty (which was historically next to mechanical probs and airstrikes their only real weakness). But now we have super heavies more vulnerable to gunfire (even when pen chance is set very low already) as to arty which is crazy.

And yes, AT squads are way better with 4 man now, very good change indeed, thanks, but the problem persists and also with flames, grenades and other stuff. Man, even normal squads can attack a Wiberlwind without cover frontally and throw any kind of shit to it. No squad should be able to rush, and even sometimes just walk in front of any tank. Just leave any squad in front of a Sherman, or in front of a Panzer IV and tell me how many seconds do they need to TOTALLY die under the fire of 2 mg's and a cannon...

Posted: **26 Mar 2015, 22:20**

Comparing costs is only important, when ALL OTHER FACTORS are being considered.

17 pdr is 440 MP iirc, thats not exactly cheap.

You have around 10-20% to penetrate KT and like 5-10% to penetrate JT with 76mm Sherman loaded HVAPS, not sure why that should cause any trouble unless you would, again, have 5 shermans firing all at once, because they are usually being blown up by one shot from KT. And that try would cost you only 375 munnitions, nice. Keeping vulnerability to arty... okay, so why dont we eliminate tank doctrines totally, and make another Arty docs! Yay!

Posted: **26 Mar 2015, 22:22**

A tank should only get a chance of a critical hit against another one 3 times more expensive at medium/short ranges only.

Why? Because it is impossible for a Sherman to hit Tiger's tracks or turret (main gun destroyed) on big distances?

Just leave any squad in front of a Sherman, or in front of a Panzer IV and tell me how many seconds do they need to TOTALLY die under the fire of 2 mg's and a cannon...

The hull and coaxial MGs could get a buff however then vehicles would be deadly as hell and playing with infantry would require constant micro to move them from cover to cover all the time... The tanks would have better anti-infantry capability but playing infantry-based doctrines would become even harder.

Posted: **26 Mar 2015, 22:29**

MarKr wrote:
A tank should only get a chance of a critical hit against another one 3 times more expensive at medium/short ranges only.

Why? Because it is impossible for a Sherman to hit Tiger's tracks or turret (main gun destroyed) on big distances?

Just leave any squad in front of a Sherman, or in front of a Panzer IV and tell me how many seconds do they need to TOTALLY die under the fire of 2 mg's and a cannon...

The hull and coaxial MGs could get a buff however then vehicles would be deadly as hell and playing with infantry would require constant micro to move them from cover to cover all the time... The tanks would have better anti-infantry capability but playing infantry-based doctrines would become even harder.

Hit yes. One-shot, no

There is a balance between constant micro and stupid hit and run frontally

440 is not cheap? Well, and how many ressources do you need to build a heavy german tank? Buildings, upgrades, cp etc etc?
The same for a pak: 330mp and you can quickly say goodbye to your heavy allied tank (except, maybe, jumbo)

Posted: **26 Mar 2015, 22:34**

How often do you see oneshot of tiger/KT/JP? From total shots, not only penetrating ones?

Posted: **26 Mar 2015, 22:39**

Hit yes. One-shot no

Oh...you wrote "criticals" which isn't just one-shot kill but also all the "main gun destroyed/gunner killed/engine damage/destroyed tracks..." so I got it wrong..

There is a balance between constant micro and hit and run frontally in front of any tank, destroying or inmobilizing, retreating and reinforcing not even half of the squad

Well...yeah, but you either buff the MGs so they wipe infantry without cover running in front of the tank or they won't be so effective but it still would be possible to do what you describe (hit and run) - maybe they'll have bigger loses but still it will be possible (since hand held ATs have quite a range and still are quite accurate - especially Schrecks)

Posted: **26 Mar 2015, 23:07**

Yes, at short-medium ranges ONLY a tank costing three times less than another tank could get a critical hit and even maybe, get destroyed with AP rounds, but in no way at long ranges.

Oneshot a JP and KT is very rare indeed. Oneshot a Tiger is not common, but it happens. Someone posted a video some time ago and the answer was "luck". I understand better now the luck factor with those explanations but I also know this didn't happen before 4.6. So it's good to pay 75 ammo for something that works, but it sometimes works so well I feel we went from one extreme to another.

About hit and run OK, I agree. It should still be possible but with bigger losses. You run frontally towards a tank without any tactic (nor cover) and you expose your squad to a suicide attack to throw a bazooka, shreck, grenade or flames? OK but then you should, at least, loose half, if not more, of your guys.

Posted: **27 Mar 2015, 03:09**

wolf: i talk about stubby tank IV. If it got not changed and what ive seen in corsix stats are as follows:

76 sherman vs Tank IV (one of the stubby version with 50 mm armor): idk point blank but at max range it was like just 53% with basic armor.

Then:

sherman 76 vs Tank IV H/J is or was: 90% at point blank and 43% at max range (J with skirts even less).

Tank IV H/J and hetzer and all with 75 mm /L48 vs sherman: 130% at point blank and 95% at max range with basic armor.

E8 version would muliplie these with 0.85 of what i know. So i wouldnt call it (good chance to pen tank IV with basic ammo). When i have 76 shermans with armor doc that have no hvap (due to lack of ammo) and i face any kind of HT and Tank IV i always shoot the HT so that i do kill at least something instead shooting the Tank IV.

about inf and tank warfare and we had that subject quite often already. I would say that coaxial can be really better as they currently seem to be taken from vcoh without any change. They should not shred everything in seconds which is in cover but guys that run frontally towards a tank without any cover should not be able shoot a schreck etc so easy. Also vehicles like jeep, schwimm etc do suppress so why not vehicles and tanks with several coaxial as well? That way nothing would be shred too fast (though should be faster as now) but not so many frontal assaults. Also why do have schrecks and zooks a range comparable of those with tank canons shooting HE? so as markr said.... as the range difference is so small and sprinting in squad needs just a time frame of one sec to "sloce" that range difference and to make a shot on vehicles.

also: "playing inf would become much harder".... but playing with vehicles is already a crazy job.... keep out of range of hendheld AT but keep shooting the inf. So if people do manage already to keep vehicles alive when every inf squad has some kind of AT they will be able to manage to get from cover to cover with their when vehicles and tanks would shred them when catching them on a field.

I am aware that such changes would throw over the entire game system and unit cost efficency ratios but i think having vehicles and tanks a way more deadly to inf wouldnt hurt.... i mean actually inf should be screwed by tanks and vehicles with dozens of MG´s when facing them in a field but currently tanks do escape from inf when those run frontally into 3 MG´s and sometimes even more.

Posted: **27 Mar 2015, 04:54**

I again feel like im playing different game, inf frontal rushes? Wtf? Its impossible to rush frontally anything bigger than 76mm sherman, wirbelwind also killing fast.

And of course i dont agree with all that words above about better coaxial mgs and etc. It will be pleasureless deal to play inf docs if all they will be shreded by small and cheap tanks.

warhawks, on previous page you complained in way like "omg panthers mg 42 shredding our inf in open field, so op" now you started conversation about "too weak" tanks and frontall inf rushes, which is Bullshit obviously. As i said, its hardly to rush anything frontally until you dont have vet.4 sas/commando/luft. In my last game, cyber's 300 mp sherman with HE could keep side against 3 of my luft units, i couldnt kill it for a veeeery long time.

P.S. All this discussions about game values are biased and pointless currently. I think its allrightly right now.

Blitzkrieg Mod Forum

Blitzkrieg Mod 4.8.8.0 Patch

Re: Blitzkrieg Mod 4.8.8.0 Patch

Re: Blitzkrieg Mod 4.8.8.0 Patch

Re: Blitzkrieg Mod 4.8.8.0 Patch

Re: Blitzkrieg Mod 4.8.8.0 Patch

Re: Blitzkrieg Mod 4.8.8.0 Patch

Re: Blitzkrieg Mod 4.8.8.0 Patch

Re: Blitzkrieg Mod 4.8.8.0 Patch

Re: Blitzkrieg Mod 4.8.8.0 Patch

Re: Blitzkrieg Mod 4.8.8.0 Patch

Re: Blitzkrieg Mod 4.8.8.0 Patch

Re: Blitzkrieg Mod 4.8.8.0 Patch

Re: Blitzkrieg Mod 4.8.8.0 Patch

Re: Blitzkrieg Mod 4.8.8.0 Patch

Re: Blitzkrieg Mod 4.8.8.0 Patch

Re: Blitzkrieg Mod 4.8.8.0 Patch

Re: Blitzkrieg Mod 4.8.8.0 Patch

Re: Blitzkrieg Mod 4.8.8.0 Patch

Re: Blitzkrieg Mod 4.8.8.0 Patch

Re: Blitzkrieg Mod 4.8.8.0 Patch

Re: Blitzkrieg Mod 4.8.8.0 Patch

Re: Blitzkrieg Mod 4.8.8.0 Patch

Re: Blitzkrieg Mod 4.8.8.0 Patch

Re: Blitzkrieg Mod 4.8.8.0 Patch

Re: Blitzkrieg Mod 4.8.8.0 Patch

Re: Blitzkrieg Mod 4.8.8.0 Patch