This member has provided no bio about themself...
It's armed with a pair of low caliber MGs, it was obviously never intended to fight other tanks.
It must have really sucked for the crews that were still stuck driving these relics in '44 though.
Actually it's a gigantic girl. Or a very small version of the tank.
Would it happen to be a ISU-152-2? Because that's what the image name says...
But both those guns weigh under 1100kg, compared to this which weighs 3700 kg. There's no way a few soldiers could push it across uneven ground.
Will this be static like the American TOW, or will it be movable in some way? I only ask because it looks like it weighs far too much to be moved by hand.
I'm not sure how that says anything about the tank's capabilites... Some models of the PzIII and IV were very solid designs, saying one could stand a chance against a T34 doesn't insult that tank's capabilities(particularly on the Russian steppes where the Germans had an advantage from the heavier guns of the PzIV). The Germans were constantly short on tanks however, so they needed something that would suffer less attrition when combating T34s.
Like everything humans design the T34 had advantages and weaknesses in all areas(including armament and armor). I fine with not citing specifics here as well since there's so many variants of each tank it's hard to compare any two.
Anyways, this discussion has gone on way too long and it's not something I care that much about honestly, so I'm done with it.
Okay, please point out where I said the T34 was a bad tank. In fact, in the very post you're responding to I specifically said it was not a bad tank.
By cost I mean economic cost. Seeing as I'm sure at least one German officer in the entire war complained about the larger number of enemy tanks than Axis tanks, they did talk about cost, yes.
I was merely making fun of his flowery word choice, I know that he meant a military historian.
And the Panther was largely a response to the T34. However, it was more a response to the large numbers of T34s than the tank's actual capabilities. The various 75mm/L42 and /L48 models of the Pz.IV could compete with a T34-76/-85 1 for 1, but seeing as the Germans rarely had the luxury of fighting with that ratio, they needed a tank that was more than just an equivalent of what the Soviets had. This is the reason almost all late war German tanks were armed with low caliber, high velocity guns heavily geared towards tank combat.
And note, I never said the T34 was a bad tank, it wasn't. I was merely saying that one cannot rightfully say the Sherman was bad because it was cheap, then glorify the T34, when the T34's primary advantage over the Sherman was the T34's low cost.
Please direct me to this someone who actually put "international military expert" on a resume their job title.
I wish to laugh at them.
The Germans used tanks from all sorts of different countries, including both the T34 and 7TP. Their early war tanks were mostly terrible and they didn't have very many of them, so they used almost anything they could capture. There were even unmodified pre-war tanks like Somua 35s fighting in the Normandy invasion that had been captured during the initial invasion of France.
There have been plenty of sci-fi aircraft posted before.
I really don't understand how someone could call the Sherman cheap **** and then turn around and say the T34 was one of the best tanks of the war, when the Sherman performed similarly or better than comparable models of the T34 in almost every way except cost.
You know why these are called UAVs and not RC planes? Because they aren't remotely controlled, they fly themselves. It doesn't need a constant connection to the ground controller, that's only require for it to change what programs it's following. And even in the best conditions, the autopilot controller can't make split second changes, as UAVs are generally controlled from very far from the front line(Nevada, in the case of the US), so there is a significant signal delay.
And plus, there isn't any modern fighter aircraft that could fly through an EMP(good thing they are extremely difficult to make), and electronic warfare aircraft aren't that common these days because they were never particularly effective.
Wow, what a puny bayonet. It barely even goes past the end of the barrel.
The tendency for the Sherman to catch on fire is grossly exaggerated. For one, it was the first tank to have wet storage for ammunition, and as a result by the end of WWII it was by far the least fire-prone tank in service. Moreover, even early and mid-war Shermans were not significantly more likely to catch on fire when hit than many other tanks, such Panthers.
I'm not sure about modern tanks, but a lot of older tanks have special hatches to throw away spent shells during combat, usually in the back of the turret and often doubling as escape hatches.
However, because breeches usually evacuate shell cases immediately after firing, I'm guessing most just are left in the tank until they cool down and there's a lull in combat.
Essentially the competition is set up so the same mod can't win twice, so if a particularly popular mod like Counter-Strike came around it wouldn't just win every year and make the competition boring. However, if a mod wins a lower rank, such as 5th, it can still win a place higher than that.
Now, if a mod wins, but undergoes a major update(such as Dear Ester's coming update), then it could win again, but only if the update was so large there is little content from the original mod remaining. The updated mod would need to be able to be considered unique from the previous winner.
As a clarification I'm not staff, but I've been around for a while and understand the rules.
In my opinion it could have won then, and it's only been getting better since then.
They're different, but singleplayer requires vastly more mapping work, and depending on the engine it can require a lot of work to get functional AI. Of course, a well balanced and deep multiplayer game can take just as long, but to simply get the game to a playable level singleplayer is probably more difficult.
The game(Both BF2 and FH2) is meant primarily meant to be multiplayer. There are a number of community driven efforts to further improve the singleplayer gameplay that you can find on the FH2 forums, but singleplayer will never rival multiplayer in terms of quality.
The side skirts are also removed though. My guess is that their just in the process of doing some sort of maintenance work on it. If it was just missing some wheels that is the type of thing they would probably use reproductions or similar parts from another vehicle for.
I can say I see it. The armor layout is completely different, with different turret shapes(one hemispherical, one rectangular) and different philosophies on sloping the front and rear armor(the challenger has a mostly flat glacis plate like that of a Kingtiger or Panther and a rearward sloping back, where as the IS7 has a pointed front like the IS3 and a inward sloping back). Moreover their suspension is completely different.
I really don't see anything significant they have in common...
I'd argue differently, but it doesn't change any of the points in my original post so who cares?
I'm thinking this must just be a translation issue. "Anti-Japanese war of resistance" sounds like the mod is specifically made for the point of being against the Japanese race, with a secondary description that it is also about a war of resistance. It ends up sounding extremely biased, not to mention rather racist.
Probably you mean something along the lines of "War of Resistance against the Japanese," which is clear but sounds stupid in English. A better name would just be something simpler like "Chinese Resistance," ect.
I've got to agree with the people who are skeptical about this mod's name.
The modeling/texture work looks excellent but I'm having a real hard time believing this mod is going to be balanced when it's outspokenly Anti-Japanese.
It was probably primarily political, as they may not have wanted to continue using captured German tanks when they didn't need to.
The front of the hull looks wrong as well. It really does look like an Abrams, but I think it must be some other tank.
Forgotten Hope 1/2 is about the only FPS I play regularly, and that's more realistic than any main-stream WW2 game. But then again, games are very poor thing to cite as what is realistic, even ones that strive towards realism.
And of course there is camping in WoT, but there is other play styles too. Camping is ALL that real tank combat is. There would be no artillery, you would need about 10 guns to even hope at hitting anything. There would be no scouts or light tanks (well, they were used but not for long). No special ammo (except HVAP/APCBC/PzGr39, ect, which would be all incredible overpowered, and HEAT which would be the ONLY thing most howitzer armed tanks could hurt anything with). Oh, and yeah, no tanks could really go 60 kph off-road, let alone through 2m deep water. Combine that with the fact that aiming was extremely accurate on most tanks when stationary, but difficult when mobile, camping would be all there was in game too.
And lets face, would you really be happier if you could kill a Tiger in 1 shot with a T34, but 5 out of 6 times(Going by the losses as Kursk) it shot you before you got with a kilometer of it? Or on the flip side, would you like spawning in a city map with your fancy Tiger only to find it's useless because everything can kill you in 1 hit anyways, and it doesn't even matter because your engine gives out before you even see an enemy tank?
Realistic tank combat would be pretty lame, as it would just be a massive camp-fest. The HP system makes the game playable at the ranges in which it is fought and increases diversity between tanks.
Plus, you should not be using the 76mm gun on the T34. Its 57mm gun is probably the best gun in the game, given its tier.
As Maltix said, probably infantry support. The Ausf. J's gun would have trouble hurting tanks as small as a T34. However, it wouldn't be lightly armored, as Pz. III's were more heavily armored than many models of the Pz.IV.