AT units

[ursus]

In last few patch tanks were improved vs inf. In general that is OK, you cant walk in front of tank and expect not to be killed, but in the same time AT units arent so realisticly dengerous vs armor.
Now its more difficult to approach tank and not to loose entire sqouad, but if you manage to ambush tank from side or behind (in BK is just behind) then tank must be seriously damaged. PzSchrack had 200mm penetration, so if I manage to hide team near to sherman and fire schrack in it then Sherman should be dead with 1 accurat shot. If bazooka sq fire 2 bazooka in PzIV side armor it should be dead.

AT guns looks like they are fireing wooden shells.

Pax 38 (50mm) could kill sherman on 500m, in BK you feel like you won lottery jack pot if you kill sherman with 2 paks.
US 76,2 had penetration 100mm (to 150 with high vilocity granade) on 500m and it's usless vs panther that had front armor about that thicknets (but sloped), like you throwing javelins (not modern one then wooden one).

It would be nice that AT guns are a bit more dengerous (if you like a bit more vulnerable when hited with tank granade).
I dont like At guns ping pong too. AT gun doesnt have thick armor, so if it's hit with shell then it should be destroyed.
Now, in the beggining of matches you have like 3, 4 shots between AT guns before one of them is destroyed (who stationed gun 1st should kill opponent gun if they fire accurate shot).

[Warhawks97]

I must have missed the moment when tanks became more dangerous to infantry oO.
anyway

I dont see a prob with AT guns at all. Also this 100 meters is not really helpfull. Generally we have close, mid, long and distant range. It should reflect 0-100,-500,-1000 and finally to 1500 meters.

Sadly we cant set in TT the pen vs a target at each distant. We only have a pen value in the TT against every unit but only one distant pen modifier (the penetration drop actually) which then applies against all targets TT pen.


Also keep in mind that paks have ambush boni and are actually supposed to be used from an ambush. The hendheld AT´s also get quite nice ambush bonis (accuracy, pen, damage etc).


Also there isnt "the sherman". The W versions for example had improved armor and the e8 at the end had armor plates and lower glacis armor thickness of the jumbos (which btw are too vulnerable to paks actually).

We could also go on and adding several AP shots and several armor types. AP rounds that are good vs RHA armor (later axis tanks used that) at close range but with quickly dropping pen, APCBC rounds (standard ammo of 17 pdr and 76 guns and axis tanks) that are especially good vs FHA armor (most axis standard tanks used it, also first Panther D´s) and pretty slow pen drop.


Quickly saying that we could throw over everything but we would never get perfect without making the game hyperrealistic.

And from my experience i would say that the right pak aganinst the right target does its job usually, especially from ambush. Just get the correct one.

Keep in mind that paks take several shots from tank and enemie paks. But you said it already in your last part.

A secret i wanna share: Medium paks are the best to counter enemie paks

Edit: Keep also in mind that US AT guns have at vet two a 50% boosted penetration (because of vcoh vets). So the US 57 mm behaves at vet 2 like a CW 6 pdr shooting nonstop APDS rounds becoming thus more effective vs medium armor as the US 76 guns.

[JimQwilleran]

I can not quite state that I agree with you. In terms of at squads effectiveness it's true that they are a bit less effective as a rushing weapon. And I like it, they do better as ambush unit.

Pax 38 (50mm) could kill sherman on 500m, in BK you feel like you won lottery jack pot if you kill sherman with 2 paks.

From my experience it's not true.

US 76,2 had penetration 100mm (to 150 with high vilocity granade) on 500m and it's usless vs panther that had front armor about that thicknets (but sloped), like you throwing javelins (not modern one then wooden one).

Effective frontal armor of panther was about 140mm. If that is so, us AT gun should be able to penetrate panther ONLY with HVAP shells.

I dont like At guns ping pong too. AT gun doesnt have thick armor, so if it's hit with shell then it should be destroyed.
Now, in the beggining of matches you have like 3, 4 shots between AT guns before one of them is destroyed

That is also not similar with my experience. Most of guns die in seconds after they reveal themselves.

A secret i wanna share: Medium paks are the best to counter enemie paks

I know that, also US 57mm at halftrack is very good at it

[Sukin-kot (SVT)]

Pak 38 struggles against sandbagged shermans from armor doc, I have seen how it bounced 8 times in a row, but thats ok imo. And generally I think that paks are OK currently.

[ursus]

The problem is that penetration is interpreted as scratching paint a bit. When shells penetrate tank then crew should be dead and tank destroyed. The same as when inf unit runs toward tank armed with MG. That part become more realistic and inf usally die really quickly (sometimes they dont but I assume its rolling the dice).
Yes sometimes inf fire lucky shots and kills sherman with 2 schracks in front armor or US with 2 bazookas vs pzIV (brits rockets are prity inaccurate. Its strange that piat is more accurate then raf parashooters with rockets).

BK in some pointed shifted toward tank battle (support with art) or better say in matches there are equal numbers of tank (armored) units and infrantry ones. Something like kursk. In real life wermacht produeced 1 tiger per day, some inf units were on bycicles.

Finally whats the point of AT gun if it cant kill anything with 1 shot. If it miss or made 30% of damage then it's dead in next few seconds.
I doubt it can be solved easely. They should be either harder to spot or they should have grater impact.

[Warhawks97]

The Tank anti inf weapons are crap afterall. What are you refering to? Most tanks cant stand infantry at all (especially late game) and the only tanks able to kill some inf are those with HE rounds (not single shot) and those with top mount.

Also its not realistic that crew dies with first pen hit or that tanks blow up instantly. Tanks often fired several times on the target untill it started burning. Thats in order to prevent that enemie will recover the tank.

Also crew survivability was depending on tank, what armor got used, quality of the steel (does it brittle, RHA or FHA armor, BHN value etc, the options for each crew member to jump out of the tank) and where it got hit. The survivability of sherman crews in france was apporx 80-82% for example.


In fact, tanks are blowing up quite fast. They mostly got hit several times, parts got damaged, burned out etc. But here we simply have engine limits. Would be quite annoying when every tank would blow up instantly once being penetrated.

[kwok]

Ever play men of war? I feel like that's what most people want on this forum. It's pretty cheap too.

[Warhawks97]

Ever play men of war? I feel like that's what most people want on this forum. It's pretty cheap too.

what exactly you mean with that? I havent played MOW yet, just seen it on yt.

[kwok]

It provides the hyper realism that I think most people will soon find out it is not exactly what they want. But if realism is truly what they desire in a game, there is no better candidate. especially the GSM mod.

[JimQwilleran]

Ever play men of war? I feel like that's what most people want on this forum. It's pretty cheap too.

It provides the hyper realism that I think most people will soon find out it is not exactly what they want. But if realism is truly what they desire in a game, there is no better candidate. especially the GSM mod.

I am Men of War veteran. Back in the old days (yes, I am that old) I had more hours played in MoW than in CoH now. And I truly love MoW. It's logic, engine, realism. But, that game lacks something... That thrill, some kind of randomness... Idk, I know that Bk is much more entertaining than MoW.

On the other hand yes, sometimes I am tired with some Bk mechanics and I am taking some short MoW vacations

[kwok]

You know what it is illa? It's scale. Mow is squad sized because that's the max a human can handle lol. Coh is company sized where you take away some realism so that you can get the full battle scale. I think that's the thrill.

[Tor]

Achilles one shot panthers 90% times, like 17 pound gun, but Jackson with AP does not, without AP jackson have low chance penetrate panthers, why jackson cost much more? and feels like jackson with AP worse than achilles without AP.
In same time have fight where over repaired sherman take 2 from PAK-43 and stay alive, he lucky, but 2 times?
I start research, maybe i stupid and dont know something about british 76mm gun.
88mm and 90mm guns have APHE ammo, they explode after they break armor, british shells nope.
And bigger shell with same velocity means more damage.
Another good story, Wolverine with com car and ambush in 10 tests better than jackson vs tiger-1 terror, same damage! and better chance break tiger armor.

[Wake]

Achilles one shot panthers 90% times, like 17 pound gun, but Jackson with AP does not, without AP jackson have low chance penetrate panthers, why jackson cost much more? and feels like jackson with AP worse than achilles without AP.
In same time have fight where over repaired sherman take 2 from PAK-43 and stay alive, he lucky, but 2 times?
I start research, maybe i stupid and dont know something about british 76mm gun.
88mm and 90mm guns have APHE ammo, they explode after they break armor, british shells nope.
And bigger shell with same velocity means more damage.
Another good story, Wolverine with com car and ambush in 10 tests better than jackson vs tiger-1 terror, same damage! and better chance break tiger armor.

Yeah, I mentioned this in one of my other posts.

Achilles - 430 MP/65 Fuel
M36 Jackson - 700 MP/110 Fuel

The guns are nearly identical, and the tanks are exactly the same otherwise, considering that they are both on the M10 Wolverine chasis. But for some reason, the Jackson is almost twice as expensive, requires twice the CPs to unlock, and needs the fuel depot upgrade in order to build.

[Tor]

Maybe identical, but M36 dont have camo bonus i think, and M36 AP ammo have lower damage.

[Sukin-kot (SVT)]

M36 vesrion which have camo is pretty useless in my opinion, at least I always use a reward one on sherman chassis, this version is quite cool because of lock down mod which boosts range, together with comand vehicle range bonuce you can easily fight off tiger or panther, just need to catch a right moment in a range of approx 70, so German tank will be able to neither drive backwards out of your ranger, nor forwards to make a shot.

[Warhawks97]

M36:

Damage: 130-160 (650-800). AP rounds reduce damage: 114,75-136 damage (537,75-680). Pen boost modifier is 1.74 but has usually worse basic pen.
No ambush damage or pen bonis as it seems (not yet, comes with next patch iirc)
Better armor
Flank speed only with 50 ammo engine upgrade possible, no flank speed after ambush shot even when engine is upgraded.
No range boost from ambush

M10:90-130 (450-650). AP rounds increase damage: 112,5-162,5 (562,5-812,5). Pen boost modifier is 1.45 (iirc) but basic pen is already very good (100% pen vs any tank IV with basic AP for example)
M10 Ambush boni: x2 penetration (more or less guranteed pen vs any axis armor except the biggest one), x1.5 damage (combined with AP rounds: 843,75-1218,75 damage[?!])
weaker armor
Flank speed at default after ambush shot
+5 range boost from ambush (65 in total)



So yeah, the M10 - when countering armor from ambush- is already playing in a different league than jacks A.
You can actually use the M18 or M10 from ambush instead. In fact, at times when HVAP boosted the damage, those had been better.

[Wake]

Yeah, both Jacksons are pretty bad when compared to the M10 Achilles or Firefly, when they really should be almost the same.

M10 Achilles = 17 pounder on M10 Wolverine chasis
M36 Jackson = 90mm gun on M10 Wolverine chasis

Firefly = 17 pounder on Sherman chasis
M36B1 = 90mm gun on Sherman chasis

[Krieger Blitzer]

Comparing the Achilles with the M36 Slugger is rather an interesting point indeed... But I would actually prefer increasing the cost of the Achilles than lowering the price of the Slugger!

Not to mention btw, that probably being just like the RL.. the Slugger has also got such a very high deflection damage penalty caused by its own fired shells; whatever was the target.

[Kasbah]

In last few patch tanks were improved vs inf. In general that is OK, you cant walk in front of tank and expect not to be killed,

Say it to Tank Hunters... Infantry can stay half a minute or more in front of a th without suffering almost any casualty

[Zardoz]

In last few patch tanks were improved vs inf. In general that is OK, you cant walk in front of tank and expect not to be killed,

Say it to Tank Hunters... Infantry can stay half a minute or more in front of a th without suffering almost any casualty

... It's a tank hunter, not an infantry tank

[Warhawks97]

Comparing the Achilles with the M36 Slugger is rather an interesting point indeed... But I would actually prefer increasing the cost of the Achilles than lowering the price of the Slugger!

Not to mention btw, that probably being just like the RL.. the Slugger has also got such a very high deflection damage penalty caused by its own fired shells; whatever was the target.

yeah.... so brits keep busy getting fragile 500 or 600 MP Achilles.... even when axis only spam tank IV´s and other cheap stuff. Its not that CW can choose between Wolverine to counter mediums and achilles vs heavy. Their only effective mid-late game AT is this achilles. Just no.

[milekh]

us 76,2mm has 130mm pen with ATHE(ATBCHE), 150 with AT(ATBC), 220mm with APCR(HVAT). someone above said it was 100 for at and 150 for apcrs.

and pak38 50mm could pen m4a1 only with APCRs (normal rounds culdnt scratch t34 or kv1, but in game it can even do damadge to m26 pershing?).