This member has provided no bio about themself...
Eh? The Sherman is probably the best example of a tank being underestimated, not glorified. When it entered service in North Africa it was far better than the Crusader I/II and Pz.III J/L, the most common tanks of it's class at the time. It was left with the 75mm M3 gun for too long, leaving it underarmed when fighting Panthers and Tigers in Normandy, but by 1945 once it was up-gunned and wet storage of ammunition was adopted it was again a solid tank. The thing showed itself to be effective in combat as late as the 1970's, it was not a bad tank...
As for the main argument, the ME262 was easily one of the best fighters of the war in most combat situations, but as with all early jets its engines gave poor thrust at low velocities, which, as the person under me said, made it very susceptible to being shot down during takeoff and landing.
Stuart Recces were quite common and lacked a turret, which is what I assume would be the case here. It looks to be in too good a condition to have had it's turret blown off completely, considering the chassis and suspension doesn't look badly damaged as they would in the case of something like an ammunition explosion.
It's pretty impressive that the SU-27 didn't stall, given how it was going rather slow and at a nearly 90* angle of attack for a moment there. It's amazing how agile modern fighter aircraft are.
Haha, sloped armor goes a lot further back than Soviet tanks. The old ironclads used during the American Civil War employed it, and you really could trace it back into the middle ages if you were generous with your definition of it.
Some tanks did use separated compartments, but even in these cases the separations weren't going to stop a round that could punch through the tanks main armor, or stop an ammunition fire. Depending on where the tank was hit some members of the crew are naturally going to have a better chance of survival than others, but it will mostly just be their proximity to the hit.
Museums often cut sections of armor off tanks to allow viewers to see inside, and there are plenty of pictures of these tanks on the internet. This is what the driver's area of a Sherman is like, for example:
Same reason that the Germans made the StuG IV even though they had the Pz.IV-cost. Turrets are expensive to build, and aren't necessary for certain roles.
I believe it's a T-60.
That was generally how it was used, however while it was okay at suppressing troops in towns and other large targets, it was too inaccurate to be effective against specific strong points such as pillboxs.
Moreover, it could not effectively operate as a normal tank with it's massive profile and what was basically several hundred pounds of explosives sitting unprotected on its roof.
Yes, but it couldn't be used effectively as both a tank and an artillery platform simultaneously. Positioning it as an artillery battery meant it would not see combat on the front line, where the tank could have been useful.
But it also took a otherwise useful tank out of action. The Wurfrahmen 40 launchers the Germans used were more effective, being a similar idea but mounting the rockets on armored vehicles that were not so critical to normal combat.
I think the word you're looking for by "barrel holder" is mantlet
...We can read the description too you know.
Just buy the game ffs, it's not expensive...
You may be able to play it without buying CR though. IIRC DoW 2 is like CoH in that people who don't have the expansions can still play against those who do, so you should have all the game files someone who bought CR has if you have your game patched.
I'm sure the devs would know more about this though.
I'm not familiar with this specific aircraft, but it's clearly powered by a jet engine, not a rocket. Me163s were awful, yes, but had the Soviets been able to build something to rival the Me262, or any of the German jets, I can assure you they would have.
That figure is rather misleading, as it's the total cost of the program divided by the number of B-2s built. The actually cost of building a new one is far, far lower but because the USSR collapsed and program got cut to only a fraction of its original size, the average cost per plane gets blown way out of proportion due to the high R&D costs and how few of the planes were actually built.
There's no external view on tanks and aircraft to represent the limited visuals of such vehicles.
Really depends on the model of Sherman, late war models that had used wet storage for ammo were one of the safest tanks to be in when a penetrating shot occurred. I don't know if the Shermans sent to the USSR were ever updated though.
I'd hate to see this die...
Maybe try releasing some more media of what you have finished, since you haven't shown much here over the last year. This would draw attention to the mod, which is good by itself, and might catch the eyes of some modders willing to help.
ERA requires the block to detonate to be effective, while the A-10's cannon is very accurate and fires at an incredible rate. Even if the armor was effective 100% of the time(I'd be even surprised if it even worked half the time) two rounds hitting close enough to each other or on an unprotected portion of the tank is not unlikely.
Javelins(which is what the missile in the picture looks like), along with most other modern HEAT weaponry use a precursor warhead to detonate any ERA armor prior to the main warhead firing, making ERA much less effective.
It's an WW2 era carrier, by today's standards it would probably be classified as an assault ship or the like though.
That's what I'm refering to in FH2's first release. I never played that version, but the dev's are pretty adamant about not bringing it back.
If a type of tank was at a battle in significant numbers, and the mod has it ingame, it will most likely be found on the map. The reason tigers aren't common is just that there are only a handful of late war armored maps and Tigers simply weren't very common in real life.
Also, I'm assuming you're referring to the Pz. III Ausf. N, which is historically accurate, and is only on late war Africa maps. You are correct that most earlier models had a 50mm or 37mm gun however, and the 50mm versions are by far the most common Africa maps.
As for tanks being disabled or immobilized it is not possible to do in the engine, and was done to a certain extent the original release of the mod(they became extremely hard to drive) but was taken out because it just didn't work well. I highly doubt it is possible to make crews survive either.
Dice developed it, EA just published it :P
I can't officially speak for the mod team, but they'll do what they can. I don't think there are plans for what front comes after the western front is finished, but they'll hopefully get to other fronts eventually(don't expect it for a long time though-they were working on Normandy from before the initial release of the mod 3 years ago).
It definitely deserves a vote. I just wish they'd be a little more active on the PR side of things so more people noticed this mod.
The rules specifically say that the mod must "have released a version of their mod to the public in 2009" to be categorized as released, so it'll be competing in the proper group.
It really depends on the game, but I chose maps. While I love total conversions, I rarely play mods that simply add a handful of new units or weapons to the existing content for very long, as these mods tend to be unbalanced. However, maps are usually easier to balance and can add variety to a game without causing gameplay issues.
Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a large player base in Australia's time zone but if you can play when it's the evening in Europe there should be plenty of players.