1030633

General Inaccuracies

April 10th, 2004 05:20 AM

Playing FH for some time and a few little niggles are creeping in

The Pzkw II's gun is FAR too weak - virtually any light and light/medium tank should be cut to pieces with it.... ["Could penetrate 24 mm of armor at 500 yards. It's maximum effective range was 656 yards (600 m)."]. For instance the rear/side armour of the Stuart leading on to my next point

Why are there so few allied light/medium tanks for the earlier battles - we have a situation where the allies have an excess of light/medium tanks [on another note are you guys sure that there even were stuarts in Tobruk say,] but few light tanks.... I refer to some African scenarios where the British curiously have no Light Mk VI, which formed a large part of their armoured forces in hat region until 1942. In contrast the German army has predominantly PzkwII which are being faced up against Stuarts and sometimes even Shermans..... but no light/medium tanks such as Pzkw III to even the scores.

Why are there no Vickers 6 ton

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?

Also up the power of the Puma's main gun... that's another reason why it was so deadly [it may seem overpowerful but then hey it was]

The model of the Ge43 is a tad too long don't you think? It looks as long as a frigging rifle from WWI. On that note...

Ge98s? They were used quite extensively in WWII along with K98s...

The Staghound's silhouette is far too high - its as tall as a King Tiger FFS

Really truly, shouldn't the SdKfz scout car's hatch be closed, and shouldn't there be a feature to call artillery with it? Also shouldn't its penetration be greater [similar if not the same to the Pzkw II]

The Flak needs sniper sights

The turning rate of some tanks is waaaaay too fast... eg the Tiger's rate is more accurate when the tanks is burning flaming than when normally.

Also, to more accurately portray tank battles perhaps consider:

Removing the health bar of the tank - so you don't know what kind of shape your tank is in [only engs do]

Adding the feature that, if you are hit with a shell there should be more [and I mean a LOT more] noise inside. If it penetrates there'd be a different sound to the clanking.

Also, with all tanks if you are hit, internal injuries should be greater [ie you can knock out the crew as opposed to the tank itself which in reality is far more likely].


more niggles I'm sure you're aware of but are nonetheless annoying

Please please please remove the "bouncing wreckage of death"

The Pzkw V's model and skin are hideous... please change them

EDIT: The BAR CAN be fired in controlled bursts from the hip relatively accurately...


Other than that good mod. Looking forward to 0.7

1030650

Re: General Inaccuracies

-Moldie-

April 10th, 2004 05:37 AM

We call you fussy

1030658

Re: General Inaccuracies

April 10th, 2004 05:44 AM

The history nazi strikes again

1030668

Re: General Inaccuracies

April 10th, 2004 05:53 AM

The Puma's gun had a very poor anti-tank capability as Guderian noted, but superb anti-personnel qualities.
For Tobruk, remove alot of "Honey's" and put in a few Matilda's, give the Axis an 88mm Flak. They desperatley need the PzkwIII or a Pzkw IVF

1030683

Re: General Inaccuracies

April 10th, 2004 06:14 AM

Ahh yes and no. Guderian was right to whinge but he wasn't comparing like with like. yes compared to the nasty hard hitters which were the Panther and to a lesser extent to PZKW IV, the gun was weak as hell but, compared to the 75mm and even 76mm Allied equivalents, its performance wasn't a great deal worse....

Moreover, the gun, compared to its speed was idea for ambushes... which would involve closer ranged shooting as well as impacts on anywhere but the front armour. At relatively close range the Puma was lethal... and, along with the Stug and Sdfkz Aufklarung vehicle and thus ideal for ambushes...

1030685

Re: General Inaccuracies

April 10th, 2004 06:19 AM

...and a stronger 8,8 FlaK - that gun was able to kill british/american medium tanks with 1 hit on ranges up to 2000m from every side (penetrated 152mm of armor on 2000m and 216mm of armor on 500m with the panzergranate 40 - the matildaII had 78mm of armor on it's bow and 75mm on the front side ot the turrets (strongest parts of a tanks armor) really not enough to withstand a hit from an 8,8 cm Flak in the Erdkampfeinsatz)

1030693

Re: General Inaccuracies

April 10th, 2004 06:28 AM

... oh and a more definitive sound for the Flak88.... it should be such that once you hear the infamous "crack!" you're dead meat......

1030716

Re: General Inaccuracies

April 10th, 2004 06:57 AM

Don't underestimate the 50mm from the Puma... it's the same gun that the stronges PanzerIII version used.

1030836

Re: General Inaccuracies

April 10th, 2004 08:52 AM

Well,just because they had the same sized gun doesn't mean they both have the same power.Panzer IVs had 75mm guns and so did the Russian t34s but the t34s blew the IVs out of the water!

1030851

Re: General Inaccuracies

April 10th, 2004 09:00 AM

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