Jump to content


WoT is actually historically accurate (arty, "weak" Germans, etc)

Historicalaccuracy Carius

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
62 replies to this topic

CampingGoldNoob #1 Posted 18 April 2013 - 02:02 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 2242 battles
  • 90
  • Member since:
    02-12-2013
I have been reading Otto Carius' "Tigers in the mud" (by the way, the author is STILL ALIVE!) book recently and want to share the bits that seem to confirm that design decisions taken by WoT developers are not arbitrary - they want to make the game resemble historical warfare as much as possible.

First of all, regarding comparison between German and Russian tanks - Carius confirms that Russian tanks were no worse and some (IS in particular) were better than Germans by their characteristics, but they were used in a very bad way - Russians had worse communication, cooperation and their powerful guns were far less precise. I.e. Russians often "rushed without looking at the minimap" and without establishing contact with their peers - as a lot of people do in random matches. See this quote for example:

Otto Carius said:

The strength of a tank lies in its armor, its mobility and, finally, in its armament. These three factors have to be weighed against each other so a maximum in performance is achieved. This ideal appeared to be realized in our "Tiger." The 88-mm cannon was good enough to defeat every tank, assuming that you hit it in the right place. Our "Tigers" were strong enough up front to defeat a few rounds. We couldn't afford to let ourselves be hit on the side or in the rear or, especially, on top. Just that alone required a lot of prudence and experience.

Our guidelines were: "Shoot first, but if you can't do that, at least hit first." The prerequisite for that, of course, is fully functioning communications from tank to tank and also among the crew. Furthermore, quick and accurate gun-laying systems need to be present. In most instances, the Russians lacked both of these prerequisites. Because of that, they often came out on the short end of the stick, even though they frequently didn't lag behind us in armor, weapons, and maneuverability. With the Stalin tanks, they were even superior to us.

So see - Tigers were quite vulnerable vehicles and required skill to be used effectively. Their main strength was the astonishing accuracy of their guns - something that players seem to neglect. Stay far away and snipe from distance - that's the tactic that German tankers actually employed!  

People who like to play city maps and estimate German tank performance according to Himmelsdorf and such probably don't realize that tanks tended NOT to be used in cities as they were extremely vulnerable there (no, in real life you cannot rotate your cannons through walls and other tanks!).

Next quote is about artillery. Some say that arty had never engaged tanks the way it does in WoT. Here's another Otto Carius quote to prove them wrong:

Otto Carius said:

It was at this point that we suddenly started to receive heavy fire from our own 150-mm infantry howitzers, which were being directed from the "Kinderheim." The observer thought we were enemy tanks. Our silhouette barely peeked over the railway embankment, and we were shooting in the direction of our own lines.

We received a demonstration of how unpleasant the fire of these guns was. We heard every report quite distinctly and also saw the heavy rounds, which had a very flat trajectory, come straight at us. That certainly wasn't anything for weak nerves.

We were forced to drive back and forth across the mine-infested terrain to avoid the unfriendly "messengers." One might call something like that "a continual change of position." But who would want a 150-mm round landing on his head?

See, they had to maneuver back and forth to evade artillery fire pretty much the same way as we do in WoT. That was a friendly fire accident, but it doesn't matter - 150mm howitzers would engage enemy tanks in pretty much the same way (they actually mistook Tigers for Russian tanks - yeah, such mistakes were quite often in real life! Carius mentions a few other similar incidents of friendly fire).

Also, Carius stresses the importance of stationary AT artillery (not howitzers):

Otto Carius said:

The destruction of an antitank gun was often accepted as nothing special by lay people and soldiers from other branches. Only the destruction of other tanks counted as a success. On the other hand, antitank guns counted twice as much to the experienced tanker. They were much more dangerous to us. The antitank cannon waited in ambush, well  camouflaged, and magnificently set up in the terrain. Because of that, it was very difficult to identify. It was also very difficult to hit because of its low height. Usually, we didn 't make out the antitank guns until they had fired the first shot. We were often hit right away, if the antitank crew was on top of things, because we had run into a wall of antitank guns. It was then advisable to keep as cool as possible and take care of the enemy, before the second aimed shot was fired.


And finally, regarding "aiming at the commander cupola" - that is also something that was done in real life! Here's yet another quote:

Otto Carius said:

[...] The reason could be found in a design failure. On the initial ''Tigers,'' the cupola was still welded. It rose up high and had direct vision slits. The cupola hatch stood up vertically when it was opened. Thus, from a distance, anyone could recognize that the tank was vulnerable from the top. A high explosive round only had to hit the hatch, and the entire charge then came down on the commander's head.

If a commander wanted to close the opened hatch, he had to lean over on the outside of the vehicle and expose himself to the hip to unhitch a safety latch that released it. This faulty design was soon changed. Thereafter, the cupola was rounded off. The commander looked indirectly through the vision slits with mirrors, and the hatch could be swung right horizontally and closed.


So see - hitting a cupola (even its open hatch!) with a HE round would actually kill the crew or severely crippled the tank. It does indeed make sense to make cupolas "weak points" of tanks in WoT!

I highly recommend buying that book. Those of you who don't want to pay can read parts of it on Google Books.

Edited by JejKey, 21 April 2013 - 01:39 AM.
The thread has been moved to more appropriate section by a member of Moderation team. JejKey


CrimsonWolf91 #2 Posted 18 April 2013 - 02:16 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 10912 battles
  • 66
  • [95] 95
  • Member since:
    01-14-2013
Sounds like a must read for me!
I just had an argument last night with someone who said arty was not deployed against tanks, you just proved him wrong and for that I thank you :)

niick #3 Posted 18 April 2013 - 02:20 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 23855 battles
  • 485
  • Member since:
    05-06-2011

Quote

The strength of a tank lies in its armor
Yes, and that is indeed what WoT Tiger has!

Quote

its mobility
oh yes, this too!

Quote

assuming that you hit it in the right place

Quote

They main strength was the astonishing accuracy of their guns - something that players seem to neglect. Stay far away and snipe from distance - that's the tactic that German tankers actually employed!
Yes that is true too! Just like in real life, in WoT a penetration always mean knocking a tank out.

Quote

People who like to play city maps and estimate German tank performance according to Himmelsdorf and such probably don't realize that tanks tend NOT to be used in cities as they were extremely vulnerable there (no, in real life you cannot rotate your cannons through walls and other tanks!).
that is why russian tanks are so good in close urban combat - in soviet russia, a tank is an urban combat weapon!

Quote

150mm howitzers would engage enemy tanks in pretty much the same way
you're right again. they would just press shift and see enemy tanks from sky!

Arkhell #4 Posted 18 April 2013 - 02:25 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Beta Tester
  • 16942 battles
  • 6,748
  • Member since:
    09-20-2010
ofcourse the IS-2 was better then the tiger H since it was the reaction to the Tiger. King Tiger was better then the IS-2. etc etc. as for accuracy ever fired the 88L56 in game (tiger H gun historically) it isn't accurate, 88L70 is oke though and most people use it as a sniper, although the front does bounce when angled correctly.

Arty was used to engage tanks.. hell just about any weapon was used to engage tanks. problem is that IRL arty needed spotters and then carefull aiming from the crew while in game they have gods eye view.

TD's are dangerdous... no really? thats new  :blinky:

Copula's, ofcourse it's a weak spot, just not so easy to hit as it is in game since were litterly poking eachother with the barrles half of the time, besides a fair sized HE shell doesn't even have to hit the copula to break the tank IRL since it will cause so much spalling it will knock out the tank anyway.

Edited by Arkhell, 18 April 2013 - 02:25 PM.


CampingGoldNoob #5 Posted 18 April 2013 - 02:26 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 2242 battles
  • 90
  • Member since:
    02-12-2013

View Postniick, on 18 April 2013 - 02:20 PM, said:

that is why russian tanks are so good in close urban combat - in soviet russia, a tank is an urban combat weapon!

Neither nation's tanks are good for urban combat. But close quarters negate almost all advantages German armor had over Soviet armor - their long-barelled guns and slow turning turrets weren't particularly helpful in close quarters.

View Postniick, on 18 April 2013 - 02:20 PM, said:

you're right again. they would just press shift and see enemy tanks from sky!

In real life, artillery was helped by observers, those were "eyes" of it - and yes, they usually sit high enough to see the battlefield from above. There's no way to reflect that in a game unless you want to require two players to man a single artillery piece. If you insist on artillery using elevation angles to aim, then I would insist on tanks using the original gun laying systems instead of just pointing at the target with your mouse!  Not to mention steering :)

Edited by RCL_spd, 18 April 2013 - 02:28 PM.


CampingGoldNoob #6 Posted 18 April 2013 - 02:35 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 2242 battles
  • 90
  • Member since:
    02-12-2013

View Postniick, on 18 April 2013 - 02:20 PM, said:

Yes that is true too! Just like in real life, in WoT a penetration always mean knocking a tank out.

0-damage shots didn't happen IRL you say?  :)

Posted Image

(yeah, that's the mighty KV-1 :) )

Edited by RCL_spd, 18 April 2013 - 02:37 PM.


Sunleader #7 Posted 18 April 2013 - 03:39 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Tester
  • 9841 battles
  • 748
  • [-BV-] -BV-
  • Member since:
    07-22-2010
Honestly said I am a bit at an loss here.
How can someone Post such correct info and yet interprete it so completly wrong..... ?



A.
The guy there is talking from an Tigers perspective during 1944.
Now you need to see an Timeframe here.

Tiger Tank were in Combat starting 1942. At this time he was faced with KV1 and T-34 Tanks as well as other smaller vehicles.
However those were pretty much no threat because to actually defeat an Tiger they would have had to Hit his sides or rear point blank and even then the chance of em penetrating the Tiger was very low.

The First threat to the Tiger came 1 Year later in 1943
IS1 was the first true Enemy for the Tiger Tank but was still Inferior because it was easily Penetrable on high Range and less mobile while it was still not able to Penetrate the Tiger at the same range.
This changed with IS2 which was considered on Par with Tiger Tanks as he could Kill an Tiger on equal range even if it was still a little less maneuverable

Then in 1944 there were 2 Tanks which posed Danger to an Tiger
T-34-85 and IS2 Model 1944
The IS2 Model 1944 had an massive Armor Increase which made it possible to actually defelct the Tigers Shells at higher range and the T-34-85 while still not able to effectively penetrate an Tigers front on higher range was now able to Penetrate him effectively in the flanks and rear which was possible due to its superior mobility.
But theres the first Problem here matey.
1944 the War was good as over and to begin with the TigerII was already on stage.
Now against an TigerII none of the Soviet Tanks stood a chance simply because the L71 88mm was Powerful enough to Penetrate any Tank frontally on far over 1000 meters range while no Soviet Tank was actually able to Penetrate an TigerII frontally at all unless having luck in it. (For example an TigerII was Killed Frontally by an IS2 1944 once due to his Frontal Turret Plate being Penetratet and his Ammo being hit. Which shook up the German Tank drivers cause usually an IS2 just bounced off from the Frontal Plate.
Of course on the Sides and Rear the TigerII was still vulnearble which allowed Soviet Forces to take em down as they had advantage of numbers after all.


Now in WoT however this is pretty much all for naught.

1. German Guns in WoT are much weaker than they were.
In Reality it didnt make a difference wether it was 122mm or 88mm which hit you. But ingame the Soviet Tanks get more damage due to higher calibre and the HP system.

2. German Guns were alot more accurate in reality.
In WoT the Accurazy is very similar because Aiming Systems are fully staffed on both sides.
An Tiger could hit an IS2 on 1000 meters with nearly 100% chance but vice versa this was an unfulfilled dream.
In WoT however hitting an Target even on 400 meters is already an pain in the ass even with German Guns.
And Soviet Guns have only an very slight lesser accuracy which makes this advantage nearly useless.

3. German Guns had higher Penetration.
In Reality they were measured at 30 degree angle against target.
But this measure is just taken for 0 degree in WoT
The L71 of the TigerII for example only has 203mm Pen in WoT on 0 Degree but this was actually the measure for 30 degree which would effectively mean that the Penetration on 0 degree would be about 250mm and not 203.

4. Speed and Maneuverability
For some reason German Tanks in WoT are capped at the marshing topspeeds (topspeed which was available without danger to the engine)
Soviet Tanks however get the maximal topspeed which results in them being much faster than German tanks most of the time despite the Germans having far stronger Engines.
Tough this also results in the funny fact that German Tanks in WoT are up to their topspeed within few seconds while Soviet Tanks only reach it down the hill.


Now problem is the Book is right but WoT is not following it lol :P



B.
I think you got a problem with that Quote there matey.
The 150mm Infantry Howitzers are not Artillery as in WoT
Those were Stationary Field Howitzers.
Unlike Self Propelled Howitzers those were encamped in Sandsack Blockades and Covered Positions more importandly they could get their Gun much lower than Self Propelled Artillery.
And finally those had Support of Infantry.

Those 150mm Howitzers usually didnt engage against tanks.
But thanks to those facts above they could basicly be handled like normal Infantry AT guns

However this would not be possible with the Self Propelled Artillery we got in WoT matey :)
Also it doesnt change that Artillery in Reality was far less accurate in WoT.
After all as your own Book says they got Bombed by an whole unit of those Howitzers but hardly sustained Casualtys.



C.
I dont know what this has to do with WoT
but yes AT Guns were very dangerous to Tanks
pls note hes talking about AT Guns not about TDs here.
He is talking about small encampments of AT Guns in Citys manned by Infantry.
These were very Cheap (1 Tank cost about as much steel and work as 20 of those AT Guns)
and while a single AT gun was only able to Kill a Tank when the Tank really ran into the Ambush and got hit on a good spot the Positions fortified with AT Guns usually had an "Wall of AT Guns" as the Book states.
Means there were usually 20 or more AT Guns firing on an Tank Platoon of maybe 2-4 Tanks
And pls note here as well they were Supported by Infantry.


D.
Finally the think about the Hatch.
I am pretty sure you noticed matey.
But he talks about an OPENED Hatch here.
And even then the guy Dead was the Commander and not the entire Crew.

Unfortunately for you what he talks about was an fatal design error in the early Tiger Designs.
Usually Tank Commanders looked out of the Tank when not engaged in Combat to overview the Field.
Now Combat usually came around the Corner Fast and the Commander didnt have time to lean over to his back to close the Hatch again.
This by the way often resultet in the Commander keeping the Hatch close to him all the time which was annoying but working.
(You can see an example for this hatch on the TigerP in WoT)

Now this was only a Problem when Combat arrived suddenly.
If the Commander knewinlgy entered Combat he closed the Hatch first anyways and like in WoT the Hatch was now closed and those much less of an Target for enemys.
Especially for HE it was now no longer an effective Target.
It was still possible to kill the Commander of an Tank with shrapnells by hitting the Cupola with an AP shell tough.
not done very much tough cause those Fights usually were on high range and hitting to cupola was hardly possible with Soviet Guns.




Greetz mate.

Ps the Book itself is fine I am sure its a good read.
But you should not forget that he is only talking about an Tiger Tank in 1944
at that point TigerII and Panther were the state of the art Tanks. the Tiger was basicly obsolete here already as they were now faced with ´Tanks which were specially designed by the Soviets to counter em.

Read the Book and maybe a few others matey and compare them.
Seeing things from only one Viewpoint often makes you vulnearble to misunderstandings.

Dont forget the Grass on the other side of the Wall is Greener
If you sit in an Tiger Tank it might be an horrible thing that the Enemy can actually kill you if he manages to shoot your sides or rear.
But imagine the other end of this stick matey.
Talking from an T34-85 perspective.
I need to get closer to him before he Spots me and somehow need to Flank him before he notices me.
One hit no matter were means I am deadmeat.

Invincibility is an unfullfilled dream matey.
No Tank not even an German one was Invincible but its fact that they were usually superior....




Sunleader #8 Posted 18 April 2013 - 03:47 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Tester
  • 9841 battles
  • 748
  • [-BV-] -BV-
  • Member since:
    07-22-2010
Sorry for Doublepost ^^

By the way "0 Damage hits were Impossible"

Actually this is True and yet not True ^^


Dont forget Real Tanks didnt have HP :P
To Destroy an Tank you had to either Destroy the Critical Parts of it or Kill the Crew.
Now if an Shell Penetratet the Tank and went through the Armor without doing either it actually didnt do any serios Damage to the Tank itself.
Yet of course the Structure of the Tank was damaged by it which was not really importand but would still not be countet as 0 damage hit :P

So Yes in Reality 0 Damage hits were basicly Impossible and yet very frequent since an Tank being Hit and Penetrated by an Shell which however didnt destroy or damage any importand things in the Tank was an everyday matter.

An Tiger Tank in Afrika for example was penetratet by more then 20 shells from 17 Pounder Cannons before the Crew was completly Killed.
Yet the Tank was still fully operable when the British Forces checked it.



Greetz

Arkhell #9 Posted 18 April 2013 - 03:59 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Beta Tester
  • 16942 battles
  • 6,748
  • Member since:
    09-20-2010

View PostSunleader, on 18 April 2013 - 03:47 PM, said:

Sorry for Doublepost ^^

By the way "0 Damage hits were Impossible"

Actually this is True and yet not True ^^


Dont forget Real Tanks didnt have HP :P
To Destroy an Tank you had to either Destroy the Critical Parts of it or Kill the Crew.
Now if an Shell Penetratet the Tank and went through the Armor without doing either it actually didnt do any serios Damage to the Tank itself.
Yet of course the Structure of the Tank was damaged by it which was not really importand but would still not be countet as 0 damage hit :P

So Yes in Reality 0 Damage hits were basicly Impossible and yet very frequent since an Tank being Hit and Penetrated by an Shell which however didnt destroy or damage any importand things in the Tank was an everyday matter.

An Tiger Tank in Afrika for example was penetratet by more then 20 shells from 17 Pounder Cannons before the Crew was completly Killed.
Yet the Tank was still fully operable when the British Forces checked it.




Greetz

i played WW2 online and there was a post on the forums by one of the members who ran into a german panzer commander from teh afrika campaign who drove a tiger H.  he held an interview with the guy and one of the stories was about the guy getting attacked by the brits when the tiger was still new and they got hit a lot of times by just about anything the brits ahd to trow at them. nothing penetrated but they all sh*t their pants and came out completely stunned by the noise.

that was back when the Tiger H armor was still worth a damn before the allies fielded bigger guns.

should of bookmarked the topic it was a damn good read.

CampingGoldNoob #10 Posted 18 April 2013 - 04:03 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 2242 battles
  • 90
  • Member since:
    02-12-2013
First, let me correct (again using Otto Carius' words) some factual misunderstandings. Tigers were not THAT invincible (and it is indirectly proved that the very first time it got into battle in 1942 it was knocked out and captured).

Otto Carius said:

Our most dangerous opponents in Russia were the T34 and the T43, which were equipped with long-barreled 76.2-mm cannons. The tanks were dangerous to us from 600 meters in the front, 1,500 meters in the sides, and as far as 1,800 meters in the rear. If we hit these enemy tanks in the right place, we could still destroy them at 900 meters with our 88-mm cannon. The Stalin tank, which we first got to know in 1944, was, at a very minimum, the equal of the "Tiger." It was considerably superior in its shape (just like the T34) . I won't describe the KVI, the KV85, the other, less frequently encountered types of enemy tanks, and the assault guns with their large caliber cannons in detail here.

.

(Note that T43 is German designation for T-34/85, KVI and KV85 is KV-1 with 76 and 85mm guns respectively, and Stalin tank is IS).

Next, there's no argument that WoT cannot be 100% accurate. That would require them to have larger maps (most combat now happens at the distance of maximum 200m, which in real life was extremely close range). Peek-a-boos in cities would never happen in real life in the same manner, and just driving to the place of the battle would be boring to a lot of patience-deprived people (as it would took a few minutes to drive).

Again, artillery has to be simplified for the same reason - it is "scaled down" to match the other tanks. In my opinion, it currently fits it perfectly, providing additional tactical depth and justifying the existence of light tanks, while still resembling the real life usage. True, artillery crews did not have "sattelite view" themselves, but their observers often had (being located at high points and/or even cooperating with planes).

And again, judging by their "in-game" characteristics, German tanks were not superior to Soviets - they tended to have non-sloped armor, their armor was thin at the rear and sides, they were "overweight" resulting in worse mobility (Carius mentions a few times that lighter Pz IV had to be used on roads where Tigers couldn't go).

What made German tanks shine was their tactics. If you read Carius book, you will notice that he got most kills by sniping and "camping" in ambushes. He never just charged ahead shooting left and right, he always attacked using some kind of surprise factor, so enemies often did not know what knocked them out. Superior observation of the field (Germans drove with hatches open), superior radios, better teamwork with the infantry - what made them good tankers, not their hardware, which was adequate to the task, but not a "silver bullet"!

Again, using Carius' words:

Otto Carius said:

The lack of good observation by the Russians often resulted in the defeat of large units. Tank commanders who slam their hatches shut at the beginning of an attack and don't open them again until the objective has been reached are useless, or at least second rate. There are, of course, six to eight vision blocks mounted in a circle in every cupola that allow observation. But they are only good for a certain sector of the terrain, limited by the size of the  individual vision block. If the commander is looking through the left vision block when an antitank gun opens fire from the right, then he will need a long  time before he identifies it from inside the buttoned-up tank.

Unfortunately, impacting rounds are felt before the sound of the enemy gun's report, because the speed of the round is greater than the speed of sound. Therefore, a tank commander's eyes are more important than his ears. As a result of rounds exploding in the vicinity, one doesn't hear the gun's report at all in the tank. It is quite different whenever the tank commander raises his head occasionally in an open hatch to survey the terrain. If he happens to look  halfway to the left while an enemy antitank gun opens fire halfway to the right, his eye will subconsciously catch the shimmer of the yellow muzzle flash. His attention will immediately be directed toward the new direction and the target will usually be identified in time. Everything depends on the prompt identification of a dangerous target. Usually, seconds decide. What I said above also applies to tanks that have been equipped with a periscope.

Edited by RCL_spd, 18 April 2013 - 04:42 PM.


MTWEmperor #11 Posted 18 April 2013 - 04:20 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 18624 battles
  • 1,252
  • Member since:
    09-14-2012
Ok fine lets say it's historically accurate. AND?  I want GAME balance not this historically accurate NONSENSE.

CampingGoldNoob #12 Posted 18 April 2013 - 04:31 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 2242 battles
  • 90
  • Member since:
    02-12-2013
Of course they balance the game - that's why there are modules which aren't historical and that's why there are buffs and nerfs. As for me, the game is rather balanced.

Of course different people understand balance differently. Some just want to be able to "rule the battlefield" alone - not ever going to happen in a team game. If you go fight alone, you'll just die quickly and ingloriously, like in RL.

Another ones want just one type of vehicles (often heavy tanks) and one type of maps (city maps, completely unrealistic for tanks) in the game. In other words, they want COD-style gameplay in a tactical tank game. Thankfully, not going to happen and we have all kinds of vehicles (TDs, arty included) to provide more tactical depth.

To sum up: don't play the game as if you were Rambo single-handledly fighting the whole enemy team and you'll find it's quite balanced.

Edited by RCL_spd, 18 April 2013 - 04:32 PM.


Sunleader #13 Posted 18 April 2013 - 06:56 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Tester
  • 9841 battles
  • 748
  • [-BV-] -BV-
  • Member since:
    07-22-2010

View PostArkhell, on 18 April 2013 - 03:59 PM, said:

i played WW2 online and there was a post on the forums by one of the members who ran into a german panzer commander from teh afrika campaign who drove a tiger H.  he held an interview with the guy and one of the stories was about the guy getting attacked by the brits when the tiger was still new and they got hit a lot of times by just about anything the brits ahd to trow at them. nothing penetrated but they all sh*t their pants and came out completely stunned by the noise.that was back when the Tiger H armor was still worth a damn before the allies fielded bigger guns.should of bookmarked the topic it was a damn good read.

Well the 17 Pounder was one of those Bigger Guns matey ;)

Pusztuljka #14 Posted 18 April 2013 - 09:23 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 24459 battles
  • 22
  • [RAFKO] RAFKO
  • Member since:
    02-11-2011
Otto Carius also wrote:

"Again and again, we admired the quality of the steel on our tanks. It was hard without being brittle. Despite its hardness, it was also elastic. If an AT round didn't hit the armor dead on, it slid off on its side and left behind a gouge as if you had run your finger over a soft piece of butter."

So, I'm not sure if you've let that one out on purpose, to give your topic validity or something, your reasons are unknown to me. I'm not going to go on about what WG is doing with the german tanks in this game (my tin foil hat will fall off if I do), but let's just say that in my oppinion, a lot of "WG facts" are wrong. Some tank characteristics are left out, some are just way off (at least based on quite a few books from different authors).

CampingGoldNoob #15 Posted 18 April 2013 - 11:22 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 2242 battles
  • 90
  • Member since:
    02-12-2013
I didn't leave it on purpose. It does not contradict anything said above - of course steel was of a very good quality (until late in war), but it could only withstand rounds from the front. Hitting Tigers in broadside or in the rear would be disastrous (and there are several occasions in the book there Otto describes how his friends had narrow escape from being hit in the rear).

Note one more thing: in WoT, tanks fight in *extremely* close quarters, often ramming into one another. Flanking, hitting the rear is thus much more easier in WoT than it was in real life, where tanks normally didn't get that close to one another. If WoT was a tank simulator, the typical game for most tankers would look like this:

- you start the engine and drive for 5 minutes to the assembly area before the attack
- then out of the blue something hits you and kills instantly, ending the game

(and it is a round fired by a tank 1km away which is no larger than a single dot on your screen).

That would be a realistic scenario and that was the actual experience of a lot of T-34, T-34/85 crews. In that scenario, Tiger would rule.

But if T-34 is allowed to get close to the Tiger, then it's a completely different story. Remember, 200m is close enough for T-34 to penetrate Tiger even frontally (see Carius' quote above) - and that is the actual scenario that we have in WoT! No need to "nerf" German tanks, just make them fight in conditions they were not designed for!

Pusztuljka #16 Posted 18 April 2013 - 11:36 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 24459 battles
  • 22
  • [RAFKO] RAFKO
  • Member since:
    02-11-2011
I understand, and I agree (if we stick to the 200m distance to pen for example) with you. In a way, I was just making sure you've REALLY read the book, not just cherry pick whatever fact you needed to validate your argument. If the conditions would be met, playing with Tigers would be a whole different story. Although, even in these distances, I'm curious if with an actual ballistic - and a bit better penetration system, how some engagements would turn out. I dare to say we'd see a whole different style of play and set of skills would surface. I'd kinda like that actually. One can only dream...

Edited by Pusztuljka, 18 April 2013 - 11:36 PM.


del504082484 #17 Posted 19 April 2013 - 12:34 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 22525 battles
  • 556
  • Member since:
    07-03-2012
Sunleader makes some great counter points, I was going to make a post but he already did and in a fare more eloquent way than I could. Just to say though, that I also agree that arty is working in a way in this game that it never could have. Even the most inaccurate SPG in this game is more accurate than artillery was for the time period, that birds eye view is a huge advantage, artillery would never have been able to track a single targets movements in such a... first person perspective ( for want of a better way of putting it) as the observer would have to relay coordinates over the radio, so moving targets would be very hard to hit, and so instead artillery would be used to bombard an area, instead of sniping and picking tanks off one by one like it is in game.

So in that sense it is not so historical. But this is a game, and every tank class has to be playable, and as the support team told me, artillery cannot be hard to play, as it has to be easy enough for new players to use, or words to that effect, but the problem is, with the way arty has been implemented in game, it is making other classes much more difficult to play and unenjoyable (depending on the map) so, how is that fair?

The game has to be enjoyable for everyone, but arty is more like a trolling/ griefing factor in this game, especially in high tiers.

Ninja edit, cause I cant spell.... :hiding:

Edited by UnFriendly83, 19 April 2013 - 12:37 AM.


CampingGoldNoob #18 Posted 19 April 2013 - 12:40 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 2242 battles
  • 90
  • Member since:
    02-12-2013
@Pusztuljka

I have some experience with Project Reality (a BF2 mod) which tries to be realistic in many aspects (including a requirement of more than one player to man a tank) and I think that kind of experience is much more niche than WoT. A lot of WoT players are just impatient kids who want to jump right into the battle without thinking much about tactics, preparations, etc - they don't even have enough discipline to hold certain directions where seemingly nothing happens while the fight goes on elsewhere (that is, they say, the difference between RU and EU WoT Servers - Russian players play much more tactical and treat the game very seriously, while Europeans prefer "arcade" chaotic style and just have fun - probably lack of a single language to communicate with each other contributes to the problem).

So if WG were to introduce wider areas and more realistic gameplay, including finding your way to the position and driving there for several minutes (as it happens in BF2 Reality), I can imagine a lot of whining from "peek-a-boo" players who just want to shoot each other in "heavy tanks" in Himmelsdorf as if the game was a typical FPS - a parody of a real warfare. So yeah, you can only dream...

Edited by RCL_spd, 19 April 2013 - 11:43 AM.


CampingGoldNoob #19 Posted 19 April 2013 - 01:26 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 2242 battles
  • 90
  • Member since:
    02-12-2013

View PostUnFriendly83, on 19 April 2013 - 12:34 AM, said:

I also agree that arty is working in a way in this game that it never could have. Even the most inaccurate SPG in this game is more accurate than artillery was for the time period, that birds eye view is a huge advantage, artillery would never have been able to track a single targets movements in such a... first person perspective ( for want of a better way of putting it) as the observer would have to relay coordinates over the radio, so moving targets would be very hard to hit, and so instead artillery would be used to bombard an area, instead of sniping and picking tanks off one by one like it is in game.

So in that sense it is not so historical.

You contradict what Carius (and not only him) told about infantry howitzers. You are underestimating real-world soldiers - although howitzers were not designed as an AT guns, they were used (especially by the British) as ones out of necessity. Remember that in real world

1) artillery would have already been ranged on the most obvious targets (e.g. roads, junctions, known choke points), and would have appropriate gun laying parameters (elevation angle, fuse) ready by the time enemy started to appear there.
2) it is not necessary to achieve a direct hit to knock out the vehicle. Shrapnel can also penetrate vehicle sides or rear, or damage running gear.
3) the speed of the vehicle is much lower compared to the distance to it than it is in game. In WoT terms, it's like always shooting at a tank from the other end of the map - you only need slight angle adjustments to account for its movement (and real-world tanks rarely moved faster than 20 km/h cross-country).

So while SPGs that we have in game were not designed to fight tanks, it's not too unrealistic to imagine them in an AT role, especially considering that we don't actually have "proper" AT guns in the game (would you like to man one? :) ).

What's the deal with artillery, anyway? I only have VIII tier vehicles in my garage, so I don't play higher tier battles, but is it that hard to avoid artillery fire? Using terrain to your advantage and thinking tactically helps on lower tiers at least. Certainly, driving tanks in WoT is a lot easier than driving tanks in BF series, where you have all kinds of air threats and helicopters/jets knock your slow moving vehicles out whenever they feel like that :)

Edited by RCL_spd, 19 April 2013 - 01:32 AM.


del504082484 #20 Posted 19 April 2013 - 04:02 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 22525 battles
  • 556
  • Member since:
    07-03-2012

Quote

1) artillery would have already been ranged on the most obvious targets (e.g. roads, junctions, known choke points), and would have appropriate gun laying parameters (elevation angle, fuse) ready by the time enemy started to appear there.

That is still very different to the way SPG's are working in this game. Compering preplanned ambush points to the satellite guided orbital bombarders we have currently is stretching the rational argument you are trying to use to the limits.

Quote

So while SPGs that we have in game were not designed to fight tanks, it's not too unrealistic to imagine them in an AT role, especially considering that we don't actually have "proper" AT guns in the game (would you like to man one? :) ).

We already have Tank Destroyers in game, so I am not sure why you would make that point about having proper AT guns, the TD's fit far better, and I do not have a problem with them, so long as they are balanced and fair, but that is another discussion all together.

Quote

What's the deal with artillery, anyway? I only have VIII tier vehicles in my garage, so I don't play higher tier battles, but is it that hard to avoid artillery fire? Using terrain to your advantage and thinking tactically helps on lower tiers at least. Certainly, driving tanks in WoT is a lot easier than driving tanks in BF series, where you have all kinds of air threats and helicopters/jets knock your slow moving vehicles out whenever they feel like that :)

When you have 5 SPG's each team, a few tier 7 and 8, there really is not much in the way of useful "arty safe" spots available depending on the map, and some maps, it just becomes a nightmare, it sometimes comes down to luck as to whether or not the spot you pick to take cover from enemy direct fire is actually safe and for how long it will remain safe until the enemy arty relocates(if it can). If it turns out it is not safe, can you relocate to a safer place, or are the other tanks on the enemy team making that impossible? This all makes survival very difficult for any team that wants to attack, and makes high tiers into camp fests, making game play unenjoyable.

As for this

Quote

Using terrain to your advantage and thinking tactically helps on lower tiers at least
My average survival rate is about 40% ~ when it comes to my most resent tanks, the British tier 8, 9's so I cant be doing too much wrong. I have become pretty good at arty evasion, and the amount of times that arty itself kills me is getting rarer. That said, due to the large splash radius, they can still cripple you, knock off a track and make you a sitting duck for the rest of the team, if you survive, you will likely have lost crew members and modules, basically crippling your tank, making it impossible to fight back. Considering that there is often so many SPG's each game in tier 9 and 10 it soon becomes frustrating and as such we are now seeing less and less participation in tier 9 & 10, and it is sad to see the end game content in such poor shape, and surely needs (and is getting) attention.

I will simply end it with this, whether you agree or not that SPG's are accurately represented in game, game balance is more important than historical accuracy.

Edited by UnFriendly83, 19 April 2013 - 04:05 AM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users