FileFront Forums - General Inaccuracies

FileFront Forums (http://forums.filefront.com/)

- Forgotten Hope General Yib-Yab (Off Topic) (http://forums.filefront.com/forgotten-hope-general-discussion-483/)

- - General Inaccuracies (http://forums.filefront.com/forgotten-hope-general-discussion/119382-general-inaccuracies.html)

Re: General Inaccuracies

Yes, but slower turning rate would probably result in quite annoying tank combat, since in FH battles are fought in miniature scales, unlike in real life, where ranges are usually up to two and half kilometers, which is over two times longer than the usual ranges in FH.

Re: General Inaccuracies

Yeah half the range... half the turret speed... that's ok then.

Re: General Inaccuracies

The faster ones are annoying, like the sherman turret, but other then that they're ok. Will the Pak40's be rotate-able in the next patch? And is russia getting some Anti Tank guns and Arty?

Will other countries get deployable guns like the '88?

A Recoiless rifle mounted kit would be awesome.

Re: General Inaccuracies

Yeah!.... or the "Barnstormer"... that would be a barn stormer.....

Re: General Inaccuracies

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohioan

I think that the devs have said that the only reason that the Pak40 does not rotate is that it was added in last minute and they didnt do all that much coding for it. as for the deployable 88s, well, not much of a loss if they dont get them, i would rather have all AT guns be able to be disconnected, reconnected, to any truck.

Re: General Inaccuracies

Quote:

Originally Posted by Count Nosferatu

The Puma's reverse speed should be the same as its forward speed [it had the same number of gears (6) for going forwards as backwards]... this was part of the reason why it was so vicious. Also aren't you going to include the 20mm version in the earlier maps?

Has been brought up before, unsure if it can be changed or not. Sounds like a simple thing to do, but this is the BF1942 engine we're talking about....

The Daimler Armoured Car could also be driven rapidly in reverse, so it wasn't unique to Pumas.

Re: General Inaccuracies

The gun in the Puma was not intended to be a a/t gun but it was the same 50mm L/60 as the PzIII L except for the muzzle brake to ease the stress on the lighter weight Puma

The 50mm L/60 firing PzGr40 could penetrate 72mm of vertical armor at 500m, more than the Sherman had on the sides or rear.

The PzIII for its time was a nice little tank. It had 50-70mm frontal armor depending on the model and its 50mm L/42 or later 50mm L/60 was capable of killing most of its opponents til the T34 and later Sherman appeared in numbers.

The main problem is especially in North Africa maps you have the Brits with the excellently armored Matilda II with its decent 40mm gun and the Crusader with its excellent 57mm gun. The Germans have a PzII with the 20mm gun and the PzIV with the weak 75mm L/24. There is no larger caliber high velocity a/t gun to counter the T34 or the Matilda II's other than the Tiger.

Re: General Inaccuracies

Quote:

Originally Posted by Count Nosferatu

Two things... I never said that "same sized gun" means "same power"... the best Western allied gun of WWII was a 77mm [17pdr] British gun. I said that, the next guns up from the Puma's main gun was not radically better... indeed that which can be taken out by the 75 and 76 mm guns can just as easily be taken out by the Puma's gun....

Moreover, the Pzkw IV's main gun [when long barreled not short] wasn't that bad... the T34's armour was just very good. The reason why the former kept getting mashed is because of its higher silhouette, weaker armour [not because of size of armour but shape - the fact that its not sloped and therefore rounds can penetrate easier by doing so perpendicularly... so no energy is lost].

Good site for info [quite accurate] is this:

http://www.wwiivehicles.com/html/ger....5cmStuK37L/24

WTF? I assume you're referring to the 75/l43, which could knock out a T34 no problem. T34's did not have a lot of armor, and it was very poor steel. By the end of '44 they were not main line tanks, this was more a job for the heavies by then. The 75/l43 is more comparable (but still not quite) to the 85mm on the T34/85. The 75/l43 penetrated a little more armor, but the '85 had more HE per shell. Now, the T34/85 was not a heavily armored beast either--47mm in the front hull, sources say between 30 to 45 degrees (don't know where the truth lies). That means that any long barreled 75 should have no problem for a hull penetration, and the 75/l70 and 88/l56 would have no problem making swiss cheese of the '85 anywhere, including the mantle.

The MK4 was later upgraded to 80mm of armor front in the Ausf F2 (I believe), and used the 75/l43. The Ausf H used armored skirts on the side to stop HEAT rounds and the 75/l48. Both of these could withstand a shot from a T34/76 no problem to the front, and both of them could preforate a T34/76 from almost anywhere.

The Germans used soft ballistic cap AT rounds, meaning it wouldn't totally neglify (is that a word?) the sloped armor, but it would allow for a more "head-on" hit, and would end up penetrating more armor because of that. This means that a 30-45 degree T34 is now about 45-60 degrees, while I'm sure that's not correct you get the general idea.

You have a good idea of how armor works, you're just confused, keep studying. Anlushac can teach you a LOT too, if you're willing to learn.

Re: General Inaccuracies

I'm gonna have to write a book called "What I've Learned From the FH Forum: and How to Identify Knife Asshats" ;)

Re: General Inaccuracies