This member has provided no bio about themself...
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.
But, while in real life an conflict would be decided by who got the first hit, this mod will use CoH damage system, so in game it would presumably be like a up-gunned puma fighting a Sherman.
I'm okay with that though, as the US puts much less focus on armor than most other countries with large armies and that should be represented in game.
It's too big and the suspension is wrong for it to be Universal Carrier. I'm guessing it was built off of a M113, which is a pretty common vehicle to use for mock-ups.
Seconding that the vast majority of these images look like the result of bombings.
Not this one though, I'm not sure what's going on here... The more I look at this one the more I'm confused. At first I thought the StuG just fell through a bridge, but there isn't anything a bridge would be going over. It looks like it may have partially fallen through and gotten stuck in the roof of some sort of dugout or bunker, but it wouldn't make any sense to drive onto something like that.
It may have driven onto the rubble and then was destroyed by something else, but all the nearby terrain is clear, so it would have been stupid to drive onto a big pile of logs that's likely to damage the vehicles suspension or get it stuck. Plus, it's facing a wall, which it probably wouldn't be doing if it was just trying to cross the rubble, or if it was in combat.
Impressively Google translator actually translated that correctly, however in general automated translators do not work well.
Plus, everyone here can read English while relatively few can read Russian, so it's rude to post something in Russian.
Here's a M4A2.
Plus, the turret on the Staghound and Grant didn't have such a large bulge where the mantlet is mounted.
I thought so for a second too, because the mantlet isn't like that of most Shermans. However, now I think it's a M4A2, which basically wasn't ever used in US service, and which somewhat explains why it looks a bit odd.
Anyone know what's with the stripe painted across the turret? I've seen it a lot on pictures of M3 Grants but can't recall seeing it on a Sherman.
Could easily be none of those. Quality control wasn't so great in WWII, least of all in Germany, so the steel on this Tiger could just be significantly stronger than what it was assumed to have during whatever testing or analysis used to determine if a 122mm gun could penetrate it.
Plus, it could have just been lucky. Those armor penetration tables are good for averages at best, one can't look at one and conclude a shell would penetrate so much armor every time.
Seconding that it was only hit with AP though. HE makes a kind of flower shaped spattering where it hits, and certainly wouldn't bore into the armor like that.
Company of Heroes and Dawn of War 2 show IMO exactly how tanks and infantry should coexist. Tanks are extremely powerful, but if used improperly are just as fragile as infantry, and infantry are essential in any case for holding onto territory.
It's much more realistic than games where armored units are simply more powerful in every way.
Don't do it!
Unless you really want a t-43, and don't have enough gold to convert free xp, don't bother with the t-34-85. It's pretty much worse in every way than the t34 w/ the 57mm gun. It looks cooler but that's about all it's good for.
Depends on the engine and whether the devs are willing to redo a lot of coding and mapping. Anyways, if Dice uses Frostbite for BF3 FH3 will almost certainly not happen (or at least not on BF3).
It may not be falling. The pilot sits at the top, right in front of the dome turret, but I can't really tell if the cockpit is intact. If it is, there aren't any critical components in the nose so it could still be flying.
Supposedly a lot of even newer aircraft don't have particularly advanced onboard computers or flight controls, simply because of how fast most of it becomes obsolete. B-2's flight computers, while there are built in versions from the 90's, are essentially laptops.
They have realistic traverse rates, but the M10 is the only really slow one.
I'm pretty sure everyone here knew what they are(it even says in the description), they were just laughing at how ridiculous they look.
I had the same problem with my Hetzer. The 105mm gun was awesome for its tier but for some reason it gets grouped in with tanks way higher level than it is, making it pretty awful.
I still have it but I only use it if both my t-34/57 and Leopard are stuck in battles.
Ramelle Neuville is a fictional battle from SPR, so this map is completely based off of the scene from that movief.
Most of FH2's more recent trailers are like this, where it cuts out right before the action starts. I kind of don't like it, but honestly I think it's the best choice for the devs, as filming the game's combat doesn't do it justice. The ragdoll deaths always make it look rather stupid when filmed, even though one doesn't really notice them in game.
The KV-1/-2 are pretty lower tier, you shouldn't have to grind much to get them. If you save up enough gold to get premium it should only take a few hours of playing.
The Pershing was only classified as a heavy tank for morale reasons, in weight it was lighter than a Panther. You can't compare the two anyways though, as one was a very late war tank and the other was mid-war.
The Type-100 SMG was based off of the German MP-18, and is actually older than the Sten. I'm doubtful of the other comparisons you made as well, particularly the Arisaka which has a different bolt than that of the Lee-Enfield series.
That be said though there is still no doubt the Japanese infantry weapons were cheap crap. Not to mention their tanks, which were even worse.
At least it makes more sense than the ones who don't wear a helmet at all...
I play in Windows 7 and it runs fine, I don't even have it in compatibility mode.
Anyways, what exactly is the problem? Are you getting error messages?
I thought so too, as I've never seen a picture of one with a roof gunner, but I'll trust the devs on this one since they've been pretty accurate with their other stuff. Plus, they already have the remote controlled ones in game.
In real life if they were attacked by infantry they'd just shut the doors on the roof and try to get out of there. There's no point in using a mortar in close quarters.
The Iraqi army wasn't entirely modern, but it wasn't weak or ill equipped either. Sure the AC-130 wouldn't fair very well against AA or fighters, but the US has no shortage of other aircraft to ensure those things aren't a problem.
Plus, it's for lending fire support for ground troops, which means it doesn't operate deep in hostile territory where it would be easy to hide SAM sites and the like.
Yep, the M2 Browning .50 has been is use since before WWII, and has only seen relatively minor upgrades since then. The US army has only recently begun looking for a replacement, and even that is supposed to be little more than a lighter weight version of the same thing.