Tank thread

What co-op game lets me drive around a tank with my Kameraden. Giving out orders and destroying other tanks.

Also tank thread.

Other urls found in this thread:

poal.me/ndgpa6
poal.me/gvmvni
armaholic.com/page.php?id=27205
poal.me/9hfuyw
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Not real tanks, but Battlezone has been pretty fun. Shame it requires PSVR, so you have to be kilo-goy to get it.

Best get this out of the way
poal.me/ndgpa6

The people voting for this thing are memers.
This is the true boss. Sherman's are cool too

...

Advance Wars maybe?

bamp

Muh nigga! Not enough Battlezone is ever posted.

red orchestra 2 to a degree

red orchestra 2 to a degree

I thought the games tank combat was pretty much dead.

You tried and failed user.
poal.me/gvmvni

It pretty much is, Tripwire saw to that.

What's the point, the Hetzer is obviously going to win.

CoH: Tales of Valor has you commanding a Tiger tank which then single-handedly destroy a vanguard of a british tank division. The gameplay has a pretty interesting turn into the likes of a dungeon crawling RPGs where your tiger tank able to 'level up' replacing the command doctrines into a skill tree for the Tiger, you pretty much has full control of the tiger right down to its aim.
But alas it is very short like the other campaigns, topping off at 3 missions total and setting on the same map hell, only 2 out of 3 mission lets you command the tiger
I personally like it very much, probably the best campaign in ToV shame that they never expanded it, would love to see a fully fledged campaign though

Arma games have multi crew tanks which I assume would be fun with friends, though in 3 they cheaped out on modeling the interiors and viewports and shit so you basically have to drive the things in third person or have your commander permanently expose himself to tell you where every single rock and shrub is.

CoH looks interesting, but I'd prefer a game with you IN the tank, with other actual people, operating the tank,

I've thought about playing Arma 2 as well, I just don't know if there is an adequate WW2 tank mod out there.

Project Reality has a WWII mod that is a bit lacking for now.

The driver can't zoom/look into the viewport anymore? Or did they remove the commander's cupola that you could rotate?

It's been a while since I last tried, but from what I remember the driver gets either third person camera or just a single small forward viewport that's like trying to look through a handle hole on a cardboard box. The commander gets either a periscope or they can poke their head out and look around normally. Compared to the planes, helicopters and trucks where the full interior is modeled and all the windows are there and you can look around in every direction the tanks feel ultra lazy.

Few mods I think fix that
armaholic.com/page.php?id=27205

Did every ArmA except 3, I remember one of the developers saying something along the lines that 3 is just "a base for mods".
Then again the target audience has changed.

Tanks a lot

...

Steel Beasts Pro PE 4.0

But good look finding a Pirate copy, Pro Tip: there are non.

And the game costs into the hundreds of dollars.

What about Panzer Elite?

would you a tank

"No"

Pm-1 is the Hetzer with a turret.

Which tank is the biggest slut?

www.tankionline.com

Your mum.

G-Guess I'll just keep playing Warthunder until I can find a pirate for Steel Fury 1942.

Properly the tank that was sold the most to other countries.
So either the M4 or one of the Russia tanks.

Why live

That would place T-34 or T-54 as the biggest contenders. Centurion and Patton's as the next big contenders, perhaps Type-59 as well.

Either way Russian girls are biggest sluts from this.

Wehrboos need to leave.

Also people forgot this poll
poal.me/9hfuyw

How's Armored Warfare?

World of Tanks with abrams.

The Panthers weakness against infantry had always been its biggest sin.
However, this weakness seems to exist in most German tanks at the late part of the war.
Their long barrels and weak sides make them very easy targets for other infantry to take out.

it didn't help that US doctrine was to have infantry for THAT purpose specifically.
But the German tanks compensated for this with strong frontal armour and great penetration canons against other tanks.
I think the main reason for this was the doctrine the Germans used late in the war, which was to have tank go up against other tanks with strong frontal armour and great cannons to deal with other tanks, while infantry supported against other infantry and AT guns.
Compare that to the US tank doctrine, which was that tanks should be infantry support vehicles first. It makes them great in dealing with other infantry, but good luck holding your own against a German Tiger or Panther. You're going to suffer some losses, even if you manage to pull off a good flanking tactic.

Looking over the war, it makes sense for the Germans to adopt such a doctrine.
When you're dealing with an enemy with a massive quantity of tanks, and you do not have the proper numbers to produce tanks fully made for infantry support, the next viable course is for the tanks to destroy other tanks with bigger and better guns and armour, while infantry support them.

Overall, I think the people voting for German and American tanks are looking at it from different doctrines.
Do you believe tanks are made specifically to hold their own against other tanks.
Or that they should be support tanks, providing cover for infantry with high explosives.

Personally, I like the German tank doctrine of bigger guns and great frontal armour, thou I respect the M4 for its capability.

Keep in mind Germans were fighting defensively, each time the Panther or Tiger Tank went on the offensive it was nothing but complete disaster. The Panzer IV needs far more love and even Panzer III. Tanks like that along with the Sherman performed adequately on the offensive and defensive which I don't think is taken into account nearly enough.

Also note that Tigers and Panthers were far from the most common Tank engaged, it was mainly Panzer III's, IV's and Stug's which the Sherman could handle no problem even with a 75mm, and really one of the biggest things tankers usually feared most was towed AT Guns cause they will always certainly get the first shot off due to their ease of concealment.

tl;dr version: Being able to deal with Soft Targets is more important than Tanks. Wehrcucks that choose the Panther over the Panzer III or IV need to go home.

Ohboy, the 88mm Flak 37 was absolutely horrifying to the allies.

sprenggranate 42 5.7kg projectile with 0.7kg of explosive filler.
M42A1 5.8kg projectile with 0.4kg of explosive filler.
Please meme responsibly.

German defensive fighting is aggressive as hell, the idea that the Panther was somehow useless when used as anything but a metal pillbox.
The Panther's poor results during the late war offensives had more to do with lack of maintenance, spare parts, fuel, crew training and artillery and air support.

That said, STUG life 'till I die.

The Pz IV is my overall favourite medium tank.
Mainly because that I liked the German doctrine of tanks more, but also because it was more versatile than the Pz III.
The Pz III isn't a failure as so many people call it. It was fast, viable and had a gun that could stand against most tanks. at time.
The problem was that the Pz III wasn't fully capable of mounting a proper canon against the new T-34s. It meant that the Pz III had to be dangerously close to it deal with it properly.
It would have served as a much better infantry support tank. The Pz IV was a more successful design though.
At the early part of the war, certainly, the M4's golden age was when it was against those tanks.
However, by the late part of the war the Pz III was considered obsolete and replaced with the Pz IV, who were in much fewer numbers as well.
The Stug III was employed throughout most of the war, but it couldn't serve as a proper battle tank of the German army.
Later on in the war, when the Americans started fighting Panthers, there wasn't really any attempt to try and make a cannon that could properly deal with them. There was the 76 mm but the ammo that could penetrate the Panther was still in short supply.
It might not have been the most common tank, but if the US had tried to develop a more viable cannon, they certainly would have suffered less tanks.
Of course. The matter is how you deal with those soft targets, which was different from army to army.

I don't want to say the Panther was the perfect medium tank, it had horrible maintenance issues, but it was a heck of a lot better then the Tiger. Even though the Tiger is my favourite tank overall

Sorry to butt in user but I need to put things straight. The 75mm M42 round which you should be focusing on had close to a 14.6kg weight and 0.8kg of explosive filler. Also the Panther's HE filler was closer to 0.6kg not 0.7kg.

You also are neglecting the makeup of the shell. Squeezing HE through a High Velocity Gun puts enormous strain on barrel and you need to reinforce the shell to compensate. The end result is a shell that when it goes off doesn't produce a lot of shrapnel and has a significantly reduced effective radius.

On an added note the HE round fired by the Stug's and Panzer IV's weighted about 5.7kg and had around 0.9kg of explosive filler.

Please research before quoting bullshit.

Well I did fuck one thing up however still the point remains.

I compared the kwk2 against the M1 76mm because they are similar guns with similar performance, as opposed to the m3 75mm which, being low velocity as fuck (enjoy your 60-80mm of penetration) would be closer to the Panzer IV's various 75mm guns.

Post a source and I'll believe you.

Bullshit, the 75mm M48 weighed (both propellant and projectile) under ten kilograms, with a 6.7kg projectile carrying 0.667kg of explosive.
Your numbers are completely wrong, where are you getting them from?

The same goes for the m1 76mm, but for some reason it is only a crippling deficiency when the Panther "that got slaughtered routinely by infantry cause it's HE round was that shit" suffered from it.
My point is that if the Panther is shit, so is the 76mm armed M4.

You got the shell's weight right, but the sprgr 34 contained 0.65kg of filler, unless you are talking about the L/24, in which case stop talking about the L/24.

You first, especially with that 14.6kg M48, seriously even the Tiger 2's HE round only weighed something like 16kg.

It threw me off for a bit, I was wondering what the hell a 75mm M42 was.

Bird and Livingston; World War II Balistics: Armor and Gunnery
They take it from a Brit report.

Also you are right about the weight of 75mm shell being at around 6.6kg, I forgot to change from pounds to kg there. However it did come with a 0.8kg explosive

Dude

Wew lad, first off the 17pdr and the KwK 42 are a much more fair and accurate comparison since they are more similar. The M1's 76mm used on the Sherman is probably more fair to compare them to the KwK 40 which it just loses flatout in all aspects to. Makes me wonder why the fuck doesn't the KwK 40 get more praise than it does? It was hell of a good gun.

Pretty much this, going to correct someone at least get it right first time.

Why would you say that?
The maintenance required for the Tiger was similar to the Panther's, with the Tiger handling it better considering it's use as heavy tank.

On an added note the HE round fired by the Stug's and Panzer IV's weighted about 5.7kg and had around 0.9kg of explosive filler.

Bird and Livingston; World War II Balistics: Armor and Gunnery
Then you should also add the Sprgr.Patr.KwK(34) used from the Pz. IV. F2 onward with a weight of 12.6lb and an HE filler of 1.9lb.

Which comes out at 5.7kg and 0.9kg roughly translated from pounds to kg's.

It is a known fact that the British are always wrong about everything, forever.

These charts from Osprey Duel books say 653 and 650.

The kwk 42 is more comparable to the M1 76mm than it is to the M3 75mm when it comes to slinging HE rounds, which was part of my first post's point: that all the talk about the kwk 42's mediocre HE ammunition is overstated, especially when people try to compare it to a low velocity gun like the M3 75mm.

Aw shit yeah I read pound

I am kind of scratching my head at that one, wasn't it clearly an L/40? I think something may not be right with your sources user and I am more inclined to believe the Britbong report honestly as it's more in depth.

Fair enough but regardless of whether it's the 17pdr, M1A2, or L/70 75mm forgot it's fucking name these guns did trade HE performance for AT performance which isn't really as great a tradeoff someone would expect.

Also just noted something at the penetration values. 75mm of the Sherman had around 80-100mm penetration against targets like the Stug's and Panzer III's and IV's. How? Cause those were metal boxes.

I want to love tenderly the Oorai panzer girls.

the one with the least rear armor and shortest skirt

I think the Marder series are the slutiest tanks.
I mean, the turret is fucking exposed and it's really easy to penetrate it with anything.

www.tankionline.com

pdf download?

That is my favorite tank in Cancer of Hemorrhoids 2. Light tanks and tankettes are truly the best.