I know the rules, I am arguing that the rules are arbitrary, chosen to favor select nations, and anyone defending those rules is not doing so in good faith. We can’t have a Vk1602 because it was only a wooden mockup, but we can have a russian battleship that the Soviets would literally have been incapable of finishing in the state that it’s represented in the game (incapable of making the armor plate for example).
Tiger II? We’re talking about the Tiger 2 now? Then why the hell did we just spend 20 or so posts arguing about the Panther F? Insane goalpost changing here
Beep boop. No.
You’re a liar and a scoundrel. You brought up vehicles that had no reason to be mentioned in the first place to attempt to prove a point. The instant I corrected you, you started calling me a bot.
Funny that this thread was supposedly about air sim but you immediately went back to Germany ground.
Of course they are. They’re rules. There’s quite a few things I don’t agree with but this is getting off topic.
1 Like
You are drawing conclusions about the subject in a way that completely misses the point. Perhaps the title was misleading—it seems Google Translate caused an issue.
However, you are not only failing to read the actual content, but you are also steering the discussion in a different direction and inciting an argument.
#How can I report these individuals?
I dunno actually. He put “Tiger 2 H” and “aircraft” in the same sentence so it’s hard to tell what he’s looking for
Title said aircraft, immediately went to german ground in his post.
1 Like
Well, folks, as you are aware, there are significant imbalances in the battles taking place within this tier range.
The Allied side has access to 1950s-era French medium tanks—featuring 4-second reload times, rapid aiming, and highly effective ammunition—as well as reasonably balanced T-44-100 variants, British medium tanks equipped with 1948-pattern ammunition capable of 381mm of penetration, and a selection of fairly well-balanced American medium tanks.
In the heavy tank category, they field vehicles like the IS-2 M4 (late model), the Super Pershing series, and the Caernarvon—all of which boast excellent armor and highly capable ammunition. Some of these models even enjoy the advantage of an incredibly fast reload rate.
As for tank destroyers, they have access to units like the British Tortoise and the T28.
Now, let’s look at the German tech tree:
While they do have the Tiger II (H) and certain tank destroyer models that can, to some extent, hold their own against this opposition…
…the German tech tree completely lacks medium tanks.
On the Allies’ side, there are vehicles from 1950 and later—machines that are much more agile and equipped with superior ammunition—whereas the German tech tree is limited to the F and G series.
Even though the Allies have counterparts to the German vehicles, they have also been given machines with significantly better performance for this specific combat tier.
The Axis side, meanwhile, is stuck playing with heavy, sluggish vehicles based on WWII-era design concepts.
Before we can even reach the first objective, the enemy’s fast vehicles have already seized key positions, picking us off like sitting ducks.
The root of the problem is that we are forced to face post-WWII vehicles—designed with 1950s-era concepts—while using equipment designed for WWII. We are essentially being slaughtered.
Why, when there are clear WWII-era counterparts to the Tiger II, Panther F/G, and various tank destroyers, are we stubbornly forced to contend with much higher-performing vehicles produced after 1950?
Are we supposed to be here just to feed your egos?
In the past, attempts were made to balance this by introducing vehicles like the Panther II, the 10.5cm Tiger, and similar models—none of which are currently present in the tech tree.
But later on, these vehicles were removed from the tech tree using nonsensical excuses.
And if these vehicles are classified as “paper vehicles” (theoretical/blueprint-only designs), why do you add others—like those from the “Stalingrad” or “Sevastopol” series—to the tech tree?
Why the hypocrisy and the double standards?
Essentially, there are two ways to resolve this:
- Bring back the removed vehicles.
- Reorganize the simulation battle mode by introducing a new combat tier that includes the aforementioned French AMX models, the T-44-100, the Centurion, the Caernarvon, and their variants.
1 Like
Well he fixed the title so I got no reason to stick around. Peace y’all
Yes, the task is complete and the heading has been grayed out.
You may go.
Next time, try reading the content.
What is going on in here
1 Like
I explain the problem one by one to someone who has not read the subject and thinks they are smart, just as if I were explaining it to artificial intelligence.
The debate ended because they had run out of arguments.
Yes
Just forget the fact that the long 88 is arguably the best gun is its br range. It is capable of easily taking out anything you mention
So, is it better than the Shot Mk3—which has 381mm of armor-piercing capability—and the French 100mm PO models?
Don’t play this sim bracket than, if you have no skill. There is also another bracket with 6.7 max
You’re drawing conclusions without reading the topic or examining the vehicles.
Besides, I don’t even play the Tiger II (H); I just drop bombs on them with the Ju 288 and head back to base.
I’m not dim-witted enough to feed [the enemy] with 1950-era vehicles.
People just want to be able to seal club axis nations. To hell with realism or balance. I do it myself, my US 6.7 tanks have almost a 70% win rate because the game is unfair to nations who did not develop immediate post war vehicles due to losing the war and being bombed into a paste.
If you actually used 20 pounder shot mk.3, you would agree with me that it is straight cheeks. It just doesn’t work against anything angled, not because it doesn’t have enough pen, but because it just breaks. Even when it does pen, it does literally no damage, and it will commonly take 3+ shots to kill. And there is no way a Caernarvon can ever be impenetrable by the 88. You have the advantage in power and protection.
Shot mk.3 can only pen your hull if you never angle, skill issue, and a turret shot at best takes out 2 crew. You can pen its lfp at any angle, its sides when angled, and its turret. The only place the long 88 can’t 1 shot it is the ufp.
And I would gladly sacrifice 35mm of pen from 270 to 234 to get 108g of boom in there (in regards to the SA47)
Not everything is about pen, or Conway would be the queen of war thunder
In my opinion, the reason the game is in this state is the Axis players who just accept everything.
Ten years ago, we faced the same issues; even though the Panther D existed, it hadn’t been added to the tech tree for ground battles.
The Soviets had the T-34-85, while the German tree’s closest equivalent was the Panzer IV H.
Just as we are doing now, we voiced our concerns, and the Panther D was subsequently added to the tree.
The situation back then was exactly like it is today. I stood alone, defended what I knew to be right, and ultimately got the result I was looking for.
As you are aware, combat in the game typically takes place at close range.
At these short distances, this ammunition possesses excellent penetration power.
In fact, it remains effective even at long range; as the projectile begins its descent, the impact angle against sloped armor effectively decreases.
Furthermore, tanks in the game rarely move in large, cohesive groups. Once you catch an enemy—even just their turret—they struggle to recover, and barring any unforeseen circumstances, you end up destroying the tank. Moreover, since the Axis side frequently fields heavy tanks, they are unable to leverage any numerical advantage; with a limit of only two spawns, they tend to play much more cautiously.
In simulation battles, mobility is paramount. The Allied medium tanks are truly top-tier vehicles, whereas the German tech tree offers the Panther F and G series—which feel like a mockery of the Allied lineup. Hardly anyone even chooses these German tanks.
Also, I’m not sure how regularly you play, but if someone chooses the French tech tree and has even a basic grasp of the mechanics, they can dominate the game in no time.
In any case, the Tiger II (H) isn’t actually the focus here.
The issue is the weakness of medium tanks—I suppose I should update the thread title.