I’m not ignoring them, I said “one of the only allied guns”, as in guns plural, and also the T34s were designed very similar to the Shermans, mass production but also really good tanks, the sloped armor was unlike anything at the time and was capable of glancing rounds from most guns, and was only upgraded with the IS series. The entire reason they had so many was just because, again, Russia had the worlds largest military and as such no production issues.
Both the Panther and Tiger broke down frequently, a little more on the Panthers part. The same thing of “didn’t have the means to repair” applied to the Russians. They had little to no training or tools because T34s were meant to have pretty good armor, decent gun, and be much faster than the Tigers so they didn’t have like full toolkits as that weighed it down. Also vehicles breaking down is not quality. The transmissions on both the Panther and Tiger legitimately sucked, and many German engineers admitted that it had been way over engineered and severely overperformed.
Yes, the same vehicles that had likely already failed and the Maus player would expect to come back again. We have better and more versatile tools now, you lose the medium, you can bring in a light thing, something like a Ratel that at the least they wouldn’t expect.
That is because they were designed for mass production, not quality at all.
Toolboxes would not have slowed it really at all.
The reality is, T-34s weren’t designed so you could repair them in the field. It was simply designed to carry armor and a gun. This is why Soviets are known for mass charges. It’s part of their doctrine and strategy.
If you can drain the enemy of resources, they will not be able to win. The difference is that it also means every German crew member became an ace, while the Soviets lost most of their aces. Which didn’t matter cause there were still more Soviet tanks than German tanks.
Unlike German and Soviet tanks, however, most tank crews for the US became Aces or near-aces.
Cause they didn’t need to constantly rely on a new, fresh tank, they knew their specific tank inside and out and understood how to operate it.
This is different from a Soviet icon, “The Fighting Girlfriend,” where the original Widow perished in a T-34/76 and the name just kept being used on every other T-34. Despite the original person being long gone.
Also incorrect; we also did bring light vehicles. You are really assuming a lot of those who drive Maus tanks are noobs; most of em are WT veterans who played a long-ass time.
The word I am looking for is balancing quality to describe the M4 Sherman.
In terms of KDR’s.
Early WW2: Soviets lost somewhere up to 7 Soviet tanks to 1 German tank.
Mid-war, this sort of changed from 7 to up to 5. Per German Tank.
Late War, at this point, the Germans didn’t really have any tanks.
Why are you even trying to debate that Russian T34s are bad? There’s literally no point and everything is easy to counter. They weren’t specifically designed for field repair but it was entirely possible. The crews simply did not receive training on how to do it, and to keep a compact loadout, reduce weight, and increase internal space they didn’t bring full toolkits for things like track repair, and since the Soviets had so many small factories that made it nearly impossible to fully stop production, it was usually just more effective to get another tank than repair one shoddily and wind up having the same thing break. Also legitimately how do you keep thinking we’re talking about the American T34 it’s extremely clear that we’re talking about the Russian one just stop confusing stuff.
Only light repairs were possible. Also, it’s a T-34. This is what’s written in the documentation.
That said, it’s because they were. They performed their job, but if a new vehicle had been available, it would have been preferred over it.
Case example of why Soviet tankers who operated Shermans preferred it. That said, from all of the responses you posted, you continue trying to claim Maus needs to be downtiered. Increased penetration of all vehicles will magically solve all problems for the Maus and its thick frontal armor.
I really haven’t seen a strong argument, just bits and bits of hypotheticals that are plausible. On paper. But do not translate at all to reality.
Are you seriously saying pen has no bearing on armor?
I shouldn’t need to specify a single hyphen every time when I’m literally talking about Russian tank crews but okay. Also the only reason they upgraded vehicles to stuff like the IS series was because they wanted slightly more armor and firepower to compete with the newer vehicles other countries were developing.
Yes it can - there is no need to mess with the tank itself when all the ammunition types that should be able to easily kill it are nerfed into near-oblivion. It unintentionally benefitted from the relentless screaming of primarily Russian tank mains in their T-54s, IS-3/4M, IS-6, T-10A, etc.
APCR got butchered repeatedly. APDS got butchered repeatedly. HEAT and HESH were both specifically neutered to protect the then-new IS-6 and forgotten about mostly thereafter (the one patch note claiming HEAT postpen was increased was laughable in practice). Big HE was initially great where simply smacking a heavy tank with an artillery gun at point blank reliably obliterated it, only for that frankly realistic behavior to be made an inconsistent mess claiming “it was a bug.” Bombs and Rockets have been nerfed into the ground repeatedly.
Every single one of those made the Maus that much harder to kill. THAT is how it became “unbalanceable.” And because all those artificial nerfs are what did so, the thing is very much balanceable - just make all the things that should damn well kill it actually WORK.
I only bothered bringing it up because other folk were claiming “just bomb the Maus like you would anything else!”
When driving my own I have had way too many situations where bombs I thought would have killed me (and probably should have), but due to repeated “painkiller nerfs” demanded by the cretins wanting TO mode, simply didn’t.
I find it very hard to believe the Maus would be actually that problematic if all its opposition worked correctly.
Every 90mm American tank with APCR would laugh at it from considerable distances, though if the Maus angled it would be able to deflect it, so you have to either hit it from multiple sides it can’t simultaneously angle against or just bait it to turning its turret toward you.
Long 90mm APCR and the two postwar M332(A1) APCRs would be comical against a Maus if they worked correctly with nearly 400mm penetration.
Even 17-pdr APDS and 76mm M93 would be able to pen it at close range the moment it looked at you and without a doubt through its hull sides from considerable distances.
Then meanwhile M319 and M331A2 would be flat-out overkill.
90mm M348 HEATFS would be borderline overkill as angling doesn’t help much vs HEAT. M431 would be overkill.
106mm Recoilless Rifle HEAT would be comically overkill. As would 20-pdr APDS and (if we ever got it) 32-pdr APDS.
And that isn’t even mentioning the results of simply undoing artificial neutering of big HE, rockets, and bombs’ blast radii…
The Maus is completely balanceable, but the average player is too blind to see what needs to be done. Mostly because they irrationally hate CAS.
Frankly, if all its historical opponents weren’t artificially gimped, 7.0 or possibly even lower would be more than possible, if not practical. You wouldn’t need anything more potent than a T29’s or Super Pershing’s APCR, M348 HEATFS, or 17-pdr APDS to easily smack it into next week. And properly modeled big HE would simply not give a single fuck about a Maus, nor any other tank it hits.
Buff the counters to what they damn well should be doing and the “unbalanceable” tank suddenly becomes quite balanceable.
I think the only and best solution for this would be a limiter on his ±1 to prevent him from dropping to 8.3 or 8.7 because we have to take into account that 8.3 is Bradley’s br, for example. Or lower Maus’s br to 7.0 and put a limiter on his ±1 to prevent him from dropping to 6.7 or lower. This would make him, according to the ±1, be played at a maximum of 8.0. It will still drop against Bradley, but less frequently.
I am stating that increasing penetration will not solve the problem of the Maus. It is simply too slow to be put at higher BR’s where it’s armor becomes swiss cheese. Frontally.
It cannot be placed at lower BR’s where its armor is near impenetrable frontally and in a snerg charge(Snail-Zerg). It will be a pain in the arse to kill.
Any solution you and others can think of has been tried. This is why the vehicle is hidden and only appears on Anniversaries.
Finally something correct. You don’t really need to be worried though because while the Maus isn’t rare, I have only ever seen 2 in one game through natural pairing. Sometimes youtubers like TCMM will queue snipe and get like 10 in but that’s extremely rare, and like 1% of games really aren’t worth ruining what’s really a very fun vehicle over.
Episode #9856387436324576 of somebody trying to fix issue with their favorite vehicle at the expense of everything below it.
Issue with Maus (and anything that is 7.7-7.0) is uptiers to 8.0+ - thats issue of BR compression. Everything 8.0+ need to be separated from 7.7 by a 1.3 BR, not by moving Mause or vehicle_of_your_choice lower to a “historical” BR.
Yes, because most people don’t play the damn thing cause often or not it gets into uptiers.
However, if you lowered it’s BR.
It’s going to be the opposite.
Most people, even if they play it, will either hate the god awful mobility and gun handling and quit, or just fail miserably because they don’t know how to play it and quit. It’d end pretty quickly, and the odds of getting 3 or more skilled Maus players in one game on a map it can actually perform well on is pretty low. The 128 is good but it’s also not quite “point and click”, if you can even point, and combined with the 20 second reload it’d be really easy to flank.
"I no longer listen to what people say; I just watch what they do. Behavior never lies.”
Your behavior is “but, but, but,” not when, so this discussion is honestly over. I’ve said my piece, and I’d rather not get a migraine talking to an individual who cannot seem to grasp that Maus being lowered and vehicles given more penetration doesn’t fix the problem cause the problem has to do with BR compression. Which cannot be decompressed cause there just aren’t enough vehicles to fill all slots for it to be viable. But has also demonstrated the inability to read everything written and would rather jump to conclusions while mistruding specific lines of text meant to be read all together, not on it’s own where the point is twisted.
You never once mentioned you thought it was BR compression but okay I have a life so I got stuff to do. And buts are how you win an argument, there are very few cases where a when will overpower all opposing points. Also I’ve had a migraine for the past hour so I do relate to not wanting to get one.
The mobility & gun handling is fine…
Same speed forward reverse.
Of course it’s over-performing in acceleration, but all MBTs are so… it’s not alone in that regard.