To end up all discussions about how good the US 76 mm gun really was

[Warhawks97]

76 mm gun against a 100 mm Armor plate with slight angle and 280 BHN (which is about what Tiger tank had). From 100 meters and 700 meters distance using standard APCBC rounds.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uesic33_OJM

[kwok]

[idliketoplaybetter]

Tiger is bigger than Sherman, sorry there is no discussion possible on how to balance that. Obvious dominance.

[Warhawks97]

yeah, i posted something in the "History/Realism" part of the forum. Its not a balance thread god lord. I just posted it because over the years tons of discussions had this as subject, and not just in the BK mod forum but basically any WW2 game forum.

And kwok, if BK isnt based on realism, why on eath do we use tanks and weapons from this era and not adding some Abrams Tanks or T-80´s? Without considering the realism part, BK would just be company of phantasy heroes.
Anywaysm this topic was not intended to open up balance talks... obviously.

[idliketoplaybetter]

Actually, I remember you saying something about effectiveness of 76mm cannon few years ago opened this topic for me.
I never actually gave it a proper thinking, that technically speaking, German engineering was not as good as it has been portraid for the massive public.

General combat and practical usage of Allied vehicles was more than comparable, achieving better result for much lower price. Not without flaws by itself, but Sherman was surely way better than most think. Especially 75mm version, ironically displayed as whateverunit.

[Walderschmidt]

Warhawks using reality as his main rhetorical weapon on this forum for the last 8 years:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKMMCPeiQoc

Wald

[kwok]

he isn't pitching this on a balance thread. but i do like to joke around warhawks and his love for shermans. or perhaps it's more of his hate for the wehraboo fantasy.

the biggest irony to me is two of the biggest US faction advocates in this community is german whereas it's really common to find axis faction advocates in the american community (and basically anywhere but germany). no one hates germans like germans i suppose.

[Warhawks97]

he isn't pitching this on a balance thread. but i do like to joke around warhawks and his love for shermans. or perhaps it's more of his hate for the wehraboo fantasy.

well, coh in particular has a habit to be a wheraboo game due to its large fanbase of "German Panzer lovers". When it comes to ground warfare of ww2, everybody, even "serious" documentaries claim german tanks to be "invincible in "fair fights".
Recently there was a coh 3 test video of "Panzers" (panzer IV F2 and G) against regular shermans and later easy eights which costs a hell lot CPs and ressources. The cheap Panzer Iv´s always won all the engagments relatively easily. The comments under the vid were like "Finally a realistic coh, Allis Tanks never stood a chance against German Panzers".

Funny enough, in the air war US planes are often portrayed as superior to everything axis had, esspecially the P-51. It was a good plane but was in various areas inferior to late Me 109 and FW 190. Its like whenever the debate about air war takes place, allied fanboys are dominant, on the ground thé wehraboos are....

Funny enough for a long time i really believed the Myths of German "Super Panzers".

the biggest irony to me is two of the biggest US faction advocates in this community is german whereas it's really common to find axis faction advocates in the american community (and basically anywhere but germany). no one hates germans like germans i suppose.

Maybe thats true. However i am suspicious whenever one side is being always portrayed as always superior. So on the ground i defend allied, in the air i defend axis planes.

[Krieger Blitzer]

I think most of the people who claim the Allied armor to be more superior than it actually was, often use theoritical calculation rather than actual incidents.

While i acknowledge that Axis fantasy is present (aka Werhaboo), yet i would have to say that Allied advocates are also very misleading when it comes to such subject.

For instance, armor BHN is often over-looked when speaking of the Tiger1's armor.. which then gives an illusion that Tigers (for example) were weaker than advertised.. where -in fact- they truly were hard to knock out.

Several real life historical incidents support this viewpoint; example:
https://youtu.be/raAx57MHH7k
And many more.

So, just to put this straight.. the US 76 gun was a 1944 late war cannon that hasn't seen as much combat as Tigers, therefore the perfomance of these guns is a bit vague, whereas Tigers (and other German tanks) have had much more combat time to prove their efficency.

[idliketoplaybetter]

Axis tanks are the best, if you want to up your skill of repair. They prooved their efficency very well on that matter.

But jokes aside, video states that even Goebels used this specific Unit231 case for the propaganda issue. I think that is exactly the reason for what we have years after with Wehraboo and German tanks myth thing.
So much exageration surrounds this, that it is simply does not match if you start calculations.

[Krieger Blitzer]

Exegarrations are exactly my point.. as i believe Allied advocates exagerate just as much as the Werhaboos they are trying to refute.

Also, while calculations might be a proper scientific way of measuring stuff, yet it's never enough to determine anything for sure without practical experience. Often in history, u would see scientists who came up with pretty tight calculations & theories that only ended up in disasters (for example: the several failed attempts of launching rockets into space) so proper science suggest that math isn't enough without practical experience to serve as solid proof.

And honestly, Axis tanks have much more historical incidents to prove their combat efficency when out-numbered, specifically in comparision to US & Russian tanks.

[idliketoplaybetter]

I just wanted to point out, that you picked up a video, that consists of "some unit231 tank" and it's historical depiction that was already corrupted by bigmouth himself.
And that applies to all aspects of technics and even calculations within reich itself. Not a question if you miscalculated anything, unless proposed proper numbers..and gave conclusion that requested.

FG42 "amazing weapon" that was almost never used.
Pz4 was the real work horse, eventhough Tiger was amazing repair practice machine.
Panther was best real medium tank with the most modern gun, bigger majority was simply abandoned, cause gearbox..
MP40 dream submachine gun for all soldiers, Kar98 reality.
No fuel war. (Imo that is the biggest reason for them to start exaggerating the results for anything they've been using).

The real majesty was among light armor in my eyes. pz2-3 and stuarts type of armor.

[Krieger Blitzer]

The video speaks history, on all its aspects.. though; the incident of this particular Tiger tank surviving this many hits, is clearly outlined and even supported by pictures & Russian witnesses; as u have listened to the video until the end... Also, it was one example, but many others could be provided.

Witmann on Villers Bocage for example was more reported by the British themselves, than the Germans.. etc.

Also, if u google across the documentaries; u would see several ones where they interviewed real ww2 German tank crew in their 80s & 90s of age, where the majority of whom have implied how the Tiger1 was actually better for them as tank crew members due to better optics and more space\room inside the tank whereas the Panther was very uncomfortable & less efficient (according to the tank crew veterans themselves).

[idliketoplaybetter]

76mm gun may have not seen as much combat against Tigers, not cause Shermans were unusable against it, but simply cause most of the Tigers were in repair depot or unfinished by the time of the combat itself.

History or not, my point was, again, is that There was practical usage and what they tried to imagine and it was mostly soar attempt to depict few incidents on "huge war impact". No one is talking of the first months and days of Panthers and Tigers somehow.
That was specifically what propaganda and myth tried to cover up.

German mid/late stage techs are best looking in the museum and most comfortable to sit inside, I give them that

[Krieger Blitzer]

The reason 76 guns didn't see much combat vs Tigers is because most Tigers were operational on the Eastern Front, and because Tiger1s were used since 1942 (so it's not a late war Axis tech) whereas the 1944 US 76 guns were deployed after mass bombing of Axis territory where not much ground enemy was left anyway.

Truth is, Americans fought the least in Europe, yet made the most nowadays movies out of it.
Hollywood isn't any better than Axis propaganda.

[idliketoplaybetter]

You are only supporting my point of Practical usage. How effective was said X unit, if you can't properly use it at all, by any reasons
That's where propaganda comes out again..

PZ4, Stug and Tankhunter type of vehicles were the most used ones and best.

(Well, I'd better be watching weird comic looking american war movie than anything nazis filmed, right?)

And..kinda the reason of why "hollywood" is better than axis propaganda, is that we are freely discussing the topic of both being truth or not. I kinda doubt we would to have a choice in case of the latter was successior goal.
But I dunno

[Warhawks97]

For instance, armor BHN is often over-looked when speaking of the Tiger1's armor.. which then gives an illusion that Tigers (for example) were weaker than advertised.. where -in fact- they truly were hard to knock out.

Thin horizontal plates (26 mm thick): 298-343
Thick nearly vertical plates: 257-310

In the video the shot was caclulated against 280 BHN.

Several real life historical incidents support this viewpoint; example:
https://youtu.be/raAx57MHH7k
And many more.

At kursk Russians did not even have their SU-85 in service that came shortly after. They had the SU-152 (not the ISU 152) which could kill a Tiger tank with its pure explosion of its HE and i think the SU 122 which was basically just a stug. However both were not a TD and were extremley inaccurate due to the massive trajectory of its shot.

The usual russian guns at that time just couldnt beat it. Things changed in 44 and 45 with the appearance of the ISU 152, ISU 122 shortly afterwards and ISU or SU 100 in 1945 with massive firepower.

So, just to put this straight.. the US 76 gun was a 1944 late war cannon that hasn't seen as much combat as Tigers, therefore the perfomance of these guns is a bit vague, whereas Tigers (and other German tanks) have had much more combat time to prove their efficency.

The 2915 M4A2 76(W) all got shiped to the USSR where they saw a lot of action. In fact, 1944 was the most intense year of the war. over 50% of all losses and deaths occured in 1944. The Germans produced 50% of their War Gear in 1944. The US at that time produced still more in this year alone than all other war participating nations together iirc.

And the German gear at that time didnt "prove anything". In fact early in the war German gear was way more superior in comparission to other nations than it was in 43/44 at which time all others managed to pick up with german war gear or even bypassing it. In 1941 and 1942 German War Gear had its peak and the largest advantage.

Just take a look at 41-43 German stuff:
-Reliable Panzer IIIs and Panzer Ivs getting long barrels
-Stugs with long barrel
-FW 190 was the fastest plane at that time
-Me 190 F variant was the best and fastest. Later models got heavier and often slower except for the K model which was produced only 250 times.
-Ju 88 being a fast medium bomber
-Stuka being an accurate dive bomber
-Artillery was decent enough.

Meanwhile Russians had in 41-43:
-I-16 oldtimer plane
-slow Yak-1, yak-7, LaGG-3 in the air
-unreliable early T-34
-No real TD
-Not so mobile artillery, only a lot of it.

Brits in 41-43:
-slow Spitfire MK V compared to FW 190
-slow american build P40 compared to FW 190 and Me 109 F
-a few tiny medium Bombers and the heavies just went into production

US 41-43:
-They just got started to build stuff. Till that time only a few A 20 medium bombers, P40 and thats all. P38 just came up.
-Probably the best thing US got out at this time was the Sherman. In 43 it was one of the very best medium Tanks. It was ultra reliable as proven many times, literally all war parties took the sherman whenever possible. In Africa only bad tactics and the 88 guns limited its effectivness.


However in 1943-1944 things started to shift drastically:
-The Spitfires got massive upgrades, ultimatetely the MK IX beating the Fw190A in almsot every way and any altitude.
-The P-51 came to the frontlines as well as better P47´s
-US dominated the heavy bomber field. Their defensive armament was not just numerous, but also their target systems were a generation ahead of its time, esspecially in the B29 Bomber over Japan.
-The US had BY FAR the best artillery guns and artillery system as a whole (https://armyhistory.org/u-s-and-german- ... omparison/)
-And even in the area of tanks they started to shine. Massive improvments for shermans in terms of safety, mobility, gunsights, armament. There was a incident in itally when Shermans fought axis tanks, including Tigers. Out of 15 Shermans, 11 got knocked out. However not a single crewmen died. On the other Hand axis also had losses, including at least one Tiger Tank.
- US had also by far the most effective Anti air ammo. They used shells with proximity fuses. Absolutely revolutionary. But got only used from ships over open water in fear the enemie could reverse engineer this ammo when used over land. the Japs lost almost 40% of their planes to the ship-based anti air weapons due to this VT shell.

The east was not different. Artillery got super mobile due to US build Trucks, Yak 9 got a new Engine, Yak 3 came out, T34-85, ISU 152 and ISU 122 also made their appearance.




So, when you say german War Gear proved itseld in 42 and 43, well, yes it did. It was probably the best out there. but towards end of 1943 and during 1944 axis didnt really bring anything new except for the Panther really. Their bombers saw minor improvments and the new models didnt get to the sky due to mechanical failures (esspecially HE 177). Its funny though that the He 177, despite seeing almost no action due to many engine overheatings and fires is being labeld as the "Kampfstärkste" ("Battle power") Aircraft. They only tried to improve existing stuff to a point where it was basically "downgraded". the Panzer IV H went far beyond its planned weight limit of 22 tons with its 25-26 tons. Panther only got reliable in 44 and new projects like the King Tiger were complete strategic and tactical errors.
The Fw190 C variant never made it into the air and the D-9 Model only saw a bit of action. Only arround a dozens of TA-152 fighter planes, a superb airplane, perhaps the best of ww2, left the factories.


The War went on so quickly that stuff, that proved capable in 42 and 43, was largely outdated by 1944 standards.
In short words: Axis had the best tactics, perhaps best soldiers and admirable geae in 1939-1942. In 1943 things got difficult for them and by 1944 they only produced masses but of much lower quality. As an example: During a battle in 1944 i think in italy, germans fired salvos of their 170 mm artillery against an enemie bridgehead. However, 70% of shots fired were duts and didnt explode. I think that sums up the Situation Axis had been in 1944 in terms of quality. And even being in the defensive which usually means less losses, the axis lost more tanks in france than the allied did.

The reason 76 guns didn't see much combat vs Tigers is because most Tigers were operational on the Eastern Front, and because Tiger1s were used since 1942 (so it's not a late war Axis tech) whereas the 1944 US 76 guns were deployed after mass bombing of Axis territory where not much ground enemy was left anyway.

Truth is, Americans fought the least in Europe, yet made the most nowadays movies out of it.
Hollywood isn't any better than Axis propaganda.

True, US portraying themselves as the heroes despite having the fewest losses during the war.
However, only due to them the other allied survived. Everyone used their equipment, even the chinese. And pretty much every other allied nation swapped their gear for US gear whenever possible, except for the british Spitfire and Lancaster Bomber.
So their gear proved effective not just in 1944. And the guys from the 8th Air Force were perhaps among the bravest in 1943 with insane loss rates and low chances to survive their missions. It was literally a journey without homecoming. A suicide mission. Yet they carried on. US soldiers fought on all fronts since 1942. Even before volunataries fought with the british air force in 1940 or in china. There simply were no boots in europe prior to 1944.

[Consti255]

But germany had the might Maus!!!