Jump to content

Why are fighint german ww2 tanks against Americian tanks from 1970?


I love the realistic War Thunder battles, but somtimes i get frustrated, wehn i have to fight with the tiger against americian and russian tanks, wich came out years after the war. In realf life the german tanks were much more stronger in ww2 than americians so i can understand, that there has to be a ballencing, but this is not the best way I think, it would be much better, if its like in realf life, german ww2 tanks against americian ww2 tanks and the german tanks are stronger, but they have less vehicles than the americians like in real life.

  • Haha 4
  • Confused 2
  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But who wanna play american tanks and face stronger german tanks, and maybe be the lucky one tank that survives to the end? 

 

Must Sherman players would only be shot to pieces and get no RP/SL at all. 

 

There are other games wich us more historical correct, but those games are totally different from this one (no grinding, no repaircost, not quick 10 min battles, instead campings that takes days/weeks to complete) 

 

In this game you have to meet tanks that are at the same level (sort of...) to earn RP and SL. 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Psychobiker
  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gaijin try “historical event”

in the past and it never work.

always few times more player queuing for the nation with stronger tanks.

While everyone race to get that stronger tank with limited number.

Either a good player took the stronger tank and dominate because the opponent require much higher level of team work

or

a player having no clue jump into the stronger tank and drag the team down

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, [email protected] said:

I love the realistic War Thunder battles, but somtimes i get frustrated, wehn i have to fight with the tiger against americian and russian tanks, wich came out years after the war. In realf life the german tanks were much more stronger in ww2 than americians so i can understand, that there has to be a ballencing, but this is not the best way I think, it would be much better, if its like in realf life, german ww2 tanks against americian ww2 tanks and the german tanks are stronger, but they have less vehicles than the americians like in real life.

 

Are you volunteering to drive the American tanks five times for every one time that you get to drive the Tiger? Because that is the natural result of what you are suggesting. Doesn't sound fun to me.

 

Cheer up though, I just spaded the King Tiger 105 in a 7.0 lineup (needed to play Rank V to research Rank VI tanks efficiently) against the best that the Allies had to offer, and had no trouble at all: 59 spawns, 85 kills/47 deaths. 54% winrate.

 

With no stock grind, the beating that I also gave them recently in the Tiger 2 SLA was off the charts by my standards (62 spawns, 132 kills/51 deaths). Low 40% winrate at 6.7, but what else is new.

 

Note, in both cases I spawned the heavy tank first, even in uptiers. Could have smurfed the stats even harder if I only spawned them in downtiers, which is the normal routine with heavy tanks in WT. I am not what anyone would call an "elite" player.

 

Bottom line, the big German cats can do very well...just focus on playing them with skill and you'll have a good time even against the more modern competition.

  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, [email protected] said:

that there has to be a ballencing, but this is not the best way I think, it would be much better, if its like in realf life, german ww2 tanks against americian ww2 tanks and the german tanks are stronger

 

I agree with you in general, balancing could be better overall but if you played all the Sherman variants you experience the same level of frustration against Tigers and Panthers. Every nation has its strong points throughout the tech tree, be it AirRB or GroundRB. 

I think you could balance WW2 tanks if you really wanted to with all other stats availible. Maybe divert reload speeds a bit more between nations, or mobilty for example. Some say the low mobility for Shermans is a bit exaggerated for example. 

I am not a fan of mixing eras with vastly different technologies in some cases, it always causes problems for balancing.  

  • Upvote 1
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the historical era should matter between late WW2 stuff and postwar stuff. There should be a clear BR where the top dogs of WW2 are. When they are playing at their own BR they would be strong, when uptiered they would have to face early postwar firepower. 76mm shermans are capable of fighting tigers and panthers even frontally with apcr, and they are at pretty good balance at the moment. Panthers could be given a heavy tank status if needed. But unfortunately the time traveller tanks might be here to stay. The existence of the Swedish tree kind of depends on it.

  • Haha 2
medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Himish said:

There should be a clear BR where the top dogs of WW2 are.

 

Which would be? And how balanced would that be.

 

Panthers/Tigers v 76mm are already the same BR. It's the later heavies that mix over into post war, but they do fine (the Panther is still faster than many of the early post war, though acceleration is worse).

 

Not sure why the British would be left with 2 vehicles from 4.7 to counter all the King Tigers/Panthers/Tigers. That sounds extremely unbalanced. The early MBT style are already out of the same level BRs.

 

Of course all other nations can be with Germany. Though the popularity of Germany (especially with Maus catch-up) and Russian (volumetric abuse) lines promote quite a few German or Russian only/mainly teams right now.

 

The game is about balance. Historical would defeat the game aspect and without all the factors of real life vehicles and war the historical idea is just as limp and unobtainable.

  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most ingame nations have BR brackets which give them unfavourable matchmaking. German BR of 6.7 is exactly like this. It confronts those silly 70 ton World War 2 behemoths to alot small and fast cars with recoilless rifles and/or HeatFS rounds, while Germany just have one of those...locked behind a paywall. 

 

If you identified some of those problematic BR brackets, just don't stick to them. Skill over it and trash it as soon as possible. If you're done, just focus to play the BR brackets which suit your faction most.

 

For Germany it is: (whole low BR range 1 - 2.7), BR 4.0, 5.3, 5.7, 8.7, 9.0 and 9.3. Ignore the rest for now.

 

With the next patch the new Leopard 2A6 will be introduced with DM53 shells, so we will see how this will work against the allmighty russians. It all depends whether it might pen russian top tier UFPs or not. For now avoid everything above 9.3.

Edited by Thodin
  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Deranger79 said:

Which would be? And how balanced would that be.

Yeah. I don't know. It is not a simple thing to balance all the nations. But I don't think it is necessary to have all the nations present at every BR bracket. For example British can have a bigger leap with their BRs at the ww2-postwar barrier.

The balancing could be made more interesting if the ammo would be dependent on BR. Old vehicles could get their more recent ammo only in games that are uptiered. However, I doubt GJ is going to add that much complexity to the MM.

 

54 minutes ago, Deranger79 said:

It's the later heavies that mix over into post war, but they do fine

They might do 'fine', but they cannot be played as the heavies they were at the end of ww2. It would be nice to have the ability to get such gameplay even at one BR. Most of the matches are uptiered anyway.
 

32 minutes ago, Thodin said:

If you identified some of those problematic BR brackets, just don't stick to them.

Yep. I rarely venture beyond 5.7 with Germans.

medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Oberstein said:

ww2 German players happens to be so good they have to face American tanks from 1970 in order to BALANCE the GAME.

 

Just because it is beyond your comprehension doesn't make it untrue as to why vehicles are currently where they are. Keep up with your conspiracies, we wouldn't want you to change and break the cycle :D

  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 3
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Oberstein said:

ww2 German players happens to be so good they have to face American tanks from 1970 in order to BALANCE the GAME.

German M41

German BMP-1

German M48 

RU-251

JPz 4-5

The whole Italian tank tree

 

Don't real!

 

 

Edited by SlayerMkX
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 5
medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear OP,

 

If the US had gotten its behind beaten as badly as the Nazis did, we, too, would have deployed half thought out garbage that broke down every 100 miles or so.  Much of the American post-war stuff that you're whining about was in development during WW2, but Murrica wasn't in any rush to deploy it because...well, we didn't need it.  General Sherman, it turns out, was as good at killing Nazis as he was at killing traitorous Rebs.  He whooped the Confederates so bad, southern women still faint at the mere mention of his name.  Fast forward 80 years, and old General Sherman was whooping the behinds of the Nazi ubermenschen as well. 

 

e7b9c0b146c1b53deef1a2cbd770dca3.jpg 

 

 

Oh, and while General Sherman was kicking the Nazis back to the bronze age, we kicked the Japanese back to the stone age.  At the same time.  Yes, that's right, America fought a two-front world war across 3,000 and 5,000 mile oceans on each side and came out smelling like roses.  Why?  Because Murrica!!

 

 

il_794xN.1717115329_jx8k.jpg

 

 

 

But...the American's aren't the opponents that are going to ruin your fun filled Hitler tank romps!!  The Russians are.  T-44/85 and T-44/100 are WW2 produced vehicles.  So is the IS-3.  If you thought your lineup of 2 panzer 4's, 1 Panther and 1 Tiger against 8 Shermans, 4 Hellcats and 4 M36's wasn't very fun, wait until you have to fight off a frigging horde of raging IS-3's.  Oh, and don't mention the repair costs.  Your German tanks will cost you 50,000 SL each to repair while the Americans and Russians will still be using free repairs and unlimited backups well into 2024.

 

IS-3_Czechoslovakia.jpg

 

 

 

Seriously, though, while the matchmaker is flawed and can certainly be improved, the balance is pretty good and makes most BR's fun experiences.

 

 

Edited by Pope_Shizzle
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
  • Haha 8
  • Upvote 4
medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

German 5.7 and 6.7 are some of the strongest lineups in the game. 

 

There are no tanks you should be struggling with unless you are plonking your tank in the open expecting to kill with impunity. 

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Pope_Shizzle said:

Dear OP,

 

If the US had gotten its behind beaten as badly as the Nazis did, we, too, would have deployed half thought out garbage that broke down every 100 miles or so.  Much of the American post-war stuff that you're whining about was in development during WW2, but Murrica wasn't in any rush to deploy it because...well, we didn't need it.  General Sherman, it turns out, was as good at killing Nazis as he was at killing traitorous Rebs.  He whooped the Confederates so bad, southern women still faint at the mere mention of his name.  Fast forward 80 years, and old General Sherman was whooping the behinds of the Nazi ubermenschen as well. 

 

e7b9c0b146c1b53deef1a2cbd770dca3.jpg 

 

 

Oh, and while General Sherman was kicking the Nazis back to the bronze age, we kicked the Japanese back to the stone age.  At the same time.  Yes, that's right, America fought a two-front world war across 3,000 and 5,000 mile oceans on each side and came out smelling like roses.  Why?  Because Murrica!!

 

 

il_794xN.1717115329_jx8k.jpg

 

 

 

But...the American's aren't the opponents that are going to ruin your fun filled Hitler tank romps!!  The Russians are.  T-44/85 and T-44/100 are WW2 produced vehicles.  So is the IS-3.  If you thought your lineup of 2 panzer 4's, 1 Panther and 1 Tiger against 8 Shermans, 4 Hellcats and 4 M36's wasn't very fun, wait until you have to fight off a frigging horde of raging IS-3's.  Oh, and don't mention the repair costs.  Your German tanks will cost you 50,000 SL each to repair while the Americans and Russians will still be using free repairs and unlimited backups well into 2024.

 

IS-3_Czechoslovakia.jpg

 

 

 

Seriously, though, while the matchmaker is flawed and can certainly be improved, the balance is pretty good and makes most BR's fun experiences.

 

 

 

Is this text some kind of irony or joke? 

 

On the western front the US mainly won by using airplanes and artillery, and un unlimited source of supplies. Also remember that only about 10% of the german forces where on the west front. 

 

Shermans got beat up pretty rough, and was nob to catch fire very easely, and there was no big tank battles either on that Front. US simple avoid it and used planes and artillery instead. 

 

US army itself calculated it needed 5 Shermans to take out one Tiger. 

 

The russian tanks you mentioned like the T-34-85 is not better then a Tiger or Panther, but was produced in far greater numbers. 

T44 was not produced in any big numbers, it was more like. Prototype, and IS-3 entered WW2 in the last week of the war. 

 

German tanks also had superior sights, and hade NVD that worked at the end of the war, wich no other country had. 

 

Tanks like Tiger 2 and Jagttiger had no match on either side. 

 

 

Even american historicans state that the german army wasn't really beaten, it more wear down when spare parts, ammunition and fuel ran out. 

 

Even the best tank in the world are useless with no fuel... 

 

So if all the ww2 tanks was moduled like the real ones, with correct armour, correct ammunition, correct sights, radio:s etc, no other nation would stand a chance, if there where equal number of tanks on both sides.

 

But if the game was so realistic, the german side would not be aloud to use air support, and the allies should be 5 times as many. 

 

 

  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Psychobiker said:

So if all the ww2 tanks was moduled like the real ones, with correct armour, correct ammunition, correct sights, radio:s etc, no other nation would stand a chance, if there where equal number of tanks on both sides

 

Which would not be historical then would it? Isn't that the point? People want historical but without some of the reality that puts their favourite nation in a poor position if followed.

 

Fortunately they abandoned Historical for Realistic.

 

Stops this sort of conversation from getting in the way of a game...

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Deranger79 said:

 

Which would not be historical then would it? Isn't that the point? People want historical but without some of the reality that puts their favourite nation in a poor position if followed.

 

Fortunately they abandoned Historical for Realistic.

 

Stops this sort of conversation from getting in the way of a game...

 

And that was just what I wrote in the last sentence...

 

But pope_Shizzle actually think shermans where better then Tigers and Panthers, and that is just wrong. 

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Pope_Shizzle said:

[...] he was at killing traitorous Rebs.  He whooped the Confederates so bad, southern women still faint at the mere mention of his name.

 

Wasn't General Sherman's march through the South considered a warcrime? Why do I have to watch a portrait of this highly questionable person in this thread? Why are you praising his orders to loot, to abuse women (Why do you like especially this?), to burn and to pillage? His troops burned down whole cities if they didn't payed enough ransom money. I'd really like if you'd just delete your post. Please.

Edited by Thodin
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Psychobiker said:

 

Is this text some kind of irony or joke? 

 

On the western front the US mainly won by using airplanes and artillery, and un unlimited source of supplies. Also remember that only about 10% of the german forces where on the west front. 

 

Shermans got beat up pretty rough, and was nob to catch fire very easely, and there was no big tank battles either on that Front. US simple avoid it and used planes and artillery instead. 

 

US army itself calculated it needed 5 Shermans to take out one Tiger. 

 

The russian tanks you mentioned like the T-34-85 is not better then a Tiger or Panther, but was produced in far greater numbers. 

T44 was not produced in any big numbers, it was more like. Prototype, and IS-3 entered WW2 in the last week of the war. 

 

German tanks also had superior sights, and hade NVD that worked at the end of the war, wich no other country had. 

 

Tanks like Tiger 2 and Jagttiger had no match on either side. 

 

 

Even american historicans state that the german army wasn't really beaten, it more wear down when spare parts, ran out.

 

Don't watch the history Channel and quote its opinions,

 

Germany lost because it fought enemy's it assumed would capitulate  withing weeks but didn't.

 

History is Germany lost so currently its ahistorical because at 6.7 they won a lot.

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Thodin said:

 

Wasn't General Sherman's march through the South considered a warcrime? Why do I have to watch a portrait of this highly questionable person in this thread? Why are you praising his orders to loot, to abuse women (Why do you like especially this?), to burn and to pillage? His troops burned down whole cities if they didn't payed enough ransom money. I'd really like if you'd just delete your post. Please.

 

I think you might need to dig a little deeper than a Gone With The Wind level of understanding of Sherman's campaigns.

 

On the topic, this is a silly video game that provides a sandbox where we can have a friendly rumble with somewhat-technically-accurate representations of military vehicles...no more and no less. People who are actually trying to re-fight WW2 or the Cold War with this product need to adjust their expectations.

 

And I'll say again that the German 6.7 lineup is very good, with the caveat that removing the Panther 2 was a big mistake in terms of gameplay.

Edited by NotTheWave
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Psychobiker said:

 

On the western front the US mainly won by using airplanes and artillery, and un unlimited source of supplies. Also remember that onl

 

How dare the Western Allies to use tactics and combined arms to defeat the enemy! Instead of charging head on on tank jousts!

 

10 hours ago, Psychobiker said:

Shermans got beat up pretty rough, and was nob to catch fire very easely, and there was no big tank battles either on that Front. US simple avoid it and used planes and artillery instead. 

Roughly 14% of the recorded tank losses were to tanks, just 14%. Tank on tank battles weren't the main issue.

 

And high tank losses are to be expected when you are in the offensive on terrain that massively favors the defenders.

 

And no, the whole thing about catching fire easily was the British stuffing the tank with ammo. The Shermans are notoriously hard to burn, specially the wet versions.

 

And the US can thank the Soviets for tanking most of the German armor. And it isn't like it would matter, since applying more armored forces to the Western Allies also means the Soviets can roll on the Germans even faster.

10 hours ago, Psychobiker said:

US army itself calculated it needed 5 Shermans to take out one Tiger

[Citation Needed]

 

The 5 to 1 ratio is nothing but made up numbers from the memoirs with no base in reality and is just wehraboos wet dreams.

 

10 hours ago, Psychobiker said:

The russian tanks you mentioned like the T-34-85 is not better then a Tiger or Panther, but was produced in far greater numbers. 

T44 was not produced in any big numbers, it was more like. Prototype, and IS-3 entered WW2 in the last week of the war. 

 How dare they building more cost effective tanks that actually work!

 

As it turns out, there was no need for wonder weapons to win again Germany

10 hours ago, Psychobiker said:

German tanks also had superior sights, and hade NVD that worked at the end of the war, wich no other country had. 

Those sights aren't that much of an advance and everyone else had good sights as well.

 

Newsflash, the German Vampyr didn't get adopted into service, neither did the tank NVD. If they work, which most times didn't.

 

Also, other countries had NVD as well. The US even formally adopted a night scope for the M2/3 Carbine and used it in in the Pacific.

 

10 hours ago, Psychobiker said:

Tanks like Tiger 2 and Jagttiger had no match on either side. 

 

They didn't because those massive tanks were a major waste if resources. To para quote Richard Smith, from the tank museum, they wasted the most steel and fuel on the country that most lacked them.

 

Even then, the operational history of the Tiger II was a mess and the Jadgtiger was an outright joke.

 

10 hours ago, Psychobiker said:

Even american historicans state that the german army wasn't really beaten, it more wear down when spare parts, ammunition and fuel ran out. 

[Citation Needed]

 

If marching all the way to Berlin, turning all their cities into rubble and grinding down their armies to the point they have to throw children, elderly and the disabled to hold the enemy isn't beating your enemy, I don't know what is then.

 

10 hours ago, Psychobiker said:

Even the best tank in the world are useless with no fuel..

 

And parts because you can manufacture them, or logistical support to field them, or being reliable enough to reach the front lines in numbers, or being able to build enough tanks to contest the enemy or even crew them with actually trained tankers instead of teenagers because you are losing more tankers faster than you can train them.

 

Maybe it isn't the best tank.

 

10 hours ago, Psychobiker said:

So if all the ww2 tanks was moduled like the real ones, with correct armour, correct ammunition, correct sights, radio:s etc, no other nation would stand a chance, if there where equal number of tanks on both sides.

 

If those were correctly modeled, more than half would be out of fuel or broken down and the other half would have to deal with all the issues late German armor had to deal like deteriorating armor quality, lack of air support and undertrained crews.

 

10 hours ago, Psychobiker said:

 

But if the game was so realistic, the german side would not be aloud to use air support, and the allies should be 5 times as many. 

 

If the game was realistic, you'd have more Stugs on your team than anything else.

 

8 hours ago, Thodin said:

 

Wasn't General Sherman's march through the South considered a warcrime? Why do I have to watch a portrait of this highly questionable person in this thread? Why are you praising his orders to loot, to abuse women (Why do you like especially this?), to burn and to pillage? His troops burned down whole cities if they didn't payed enough ransom money. I'd really like if you'd just delete your post. Please.

 

Educate yourself

 

 

Edited by SlayerMkX
  • Upvote 3
medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, SlayerMkX said:

How dare the Western Allies to use tactics and combined arms to defeat the enemy! Instead of charging head on on tank jousts!

 

That would be disrupting the infrastructure as far as Belgium without having much to show for it..... except for desperate supply situation when Allies were able to move out of Normandy 2 months after they intended.

 

And yes they charged head-on into tank jousts.

 

5 hours ago, SlayerMkX said:

Roughly 14% of the recorded tank losses were to tanks, just 14%. Tank on tank battles weren't the main issue.

 

That would be wrong.

 

5 hours ago, SlayerMkX said:

How dare they building more cost effective tanks that actually work!

 

Small miracle they managed to, after a catastrophic record of reliability, to finally master the production of a heavily outdated chassis after 4 years.

 

5 hours ago, SlayerMkX said:

They didn't because those massive tanks were a major waste if resources. To para quote Richard Smith, from the tank museum, they wasted the most steel and fuel on the country that most lacked them.

 

Even then, the operational history of the Tiger II was a mess and the Jadgtiger was an outright joke.

 

They "wasted" a miniscule part of resources that were invested into tank building compared to anything else.

 

5 hours ago, SlayerMkX said:

Those sights aren't that much of an advance and everyone else had good sights as well.

 

They were very advanced considering that until 1944 nobody was nowhere near in quality.

 

5 hours ago, SlayerMkX said:

Newsflash, the German Vampyr didn't get adopted into service, neither did the tank NVD. If they work, which most times didn't.

 

Vampyr was used, and all those NVGs worked very well.

 

5 hours ago, SlayerMkX said:

They didn't because those massive tanks were a major waste if resources. To para quote Richard Smith, from the tank museum, they wasted the most steel and fuel on the country that most lacked them.

 

Tanks were miles behind AA guns, AA ammunition, submarines, aircraft and a plethora of other things in terms of resource input.  So "wasted" is a very strange expression to use.

 

5 hours ago, SlayerMkX said:

And parts because you can manufacture them, or logistical support to field them, or being reliable enough to reach the front lines in numbers, or being able to build enough tanks to contest the enemy or even crew them with actually trained tankers instead of teenagers because you are losing more tankers faster than you can train them.

 

Maybe it isn't the best tank.

 

Half of these statements have nothing to do with the design of a tank, and are completely absurd.  The other half is BS.

 

5 hours ago, SlayerMkX said:

If the game was realistic, you'd have more Stugs on your team than anything else.

 

Strange way to spell Tigers and Panthers.

 

 

  • Confused 1
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And now we see why they abandoned Historical.

 

To avoid this pointless member measuring contest which no one here was ever involved with anyway.

 

BR balancing is much better than Historical nonsense.

 

6 hours ago, NotTheWave said:

On the topic, this is a silly video game that provides a sandbox where we can have a friendly rumble with somewhat-technically-accurate representations of military vehicles...no more and no less. People who are actually trying to re-fight WW2 or the Cold War with this product need to adjust their expectations.

 

Need anyone say anymore? If you think different then good luck to you.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...