Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

General Tank thread (Compiled idea's)


  • Please log in to reply
96 replies to this topic

#1 Tony O'Halloran

Tony O'Halloran

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 36 posts

Posted 01 January 2013 - 03:00 PM

Just a thread i think should be assembled, and can have stuff added or removed if needed.

1. AA Position Machine Guns

2. Seperate Gunner and Commander slots, (Totalling 4 tank crew per tank)

3. Indirect Fire capabilities (May be strange to do, seeing as the maps may or may not be big enough to use both realistic ballistic physics, and indirect fire capabilities, as it covers several miles of terrain.

4. More people on the tanks

(Something people in the realism community have been banging on about for ages, including myself, that you can't fit more than 4 or 5 people on the back of a tank. Posted Image

That says it all really. While impractical, it does share a fact that if you can sit on it, you can put a soldier on it. During my time in the military when I was moved to Motorized, we'd cram close to 10 of us rather comfortably on a vehicle and still have room for gear.

5. Less buggy tanks, such as some Shermans being invincible from certain sides, and shells bouncing off the angular yet thin Stuart. Also the fact that the panther can be bazooka'd from the front, and setting it on fire, and the fact that the Panther burns for 5 seconds before exploding, and the Sherman for about 45 to a minute. Burning tanks need to be dealt with as either dead to right tanks, or completely dangerous to use, as noone stayed in a burning tank.

6. Damaged components. And i dont mean like in RO2, when you get hit and everything breaks and the tank stops, such as "right break light down, gun wont work now.... tough shit" i mean optics breaking, individual tread malfunctions, brakes dying, fuel lines cut, ammunition blowing, crew dying, weapons damaged and the like.

7. If possible, less tank explosions.Tanks rarely blew up, mostly just burned out for days and days, before being towed or moved. I suppose for game purposes they need a confirmation of "you're dead cos your tank blew the fuck up"

8. More Torque. Tanks usually stall and fail to drive up hills. This needs to be redone, as tanks have a HUGE amount of torque, which should enable them to get up hills unhindered.

9. More shermans, less panthers. While my kameraden on the axis will shoot me behind the sheds for this one, it does need to be said. The main allied power was numbers, and the game doesn't really reflect that. The phrases "4 or 5 Shermans to kill a panther or Tiger" was mostly true, because the Allies were likely to have 4 or 5 shermans for every panther or tiger they saw on the field,

10. Fix the commanders weird Jesus-Christ-YMCA-HEY-LOOK-IMOVERHERE Pose.




Sorry for the long winded post, just thought it would be better to make a stockpiled ost of the suggestions to date for the tanks.
Posted Image

#2 The_Walrus

The_Walrus

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 50 posts

Posted 01 January 2013 - 05:30 PM

Gears for the driver is a 100% must have. Right now we have the problem Stamper described where tank's cannot get up hills properly, if more torque is added they will behave wrongly on the flat so Gears is the obvious solution. There is also a problem with the German tanks mainly but most tanks being able to spin around like ballarenas and also to quickly start reversing due to there being no gears.

When the tanks turned in real life they could only do it slowly because the track would throw if they did it too fast and also because they had to be in a lower gear to get enough torque to the track to actually turn it from a position where it was previously not moving. In-game they can turn on the spot at incredible speeds due to not having any gears and also tanks accelerate wrongly due to not having to work up the gears then they reverse too fast due to not having to work down the gears.
Apart from just making it more realistic it would also make it a lot more fun to drive a tank, you would be far more involved and maybe this would make people feel more happy to double tank and play as a driver in-game. I also think increasing crew size to 4 men would be good, the gunner should just function as the operator because nobody wants to be an operator. Then you should have Driver, Commander and Bow MG/Radioman in tanks that had these positions.

Tanks brewing up less often would be good, crew death should happen much more commonly than it does in DH. Practically every time a shell penetrated a tank's armour in real life a crew member was killed and equipment failed much more upon the tank being hit. Component failure was also much more common, from a non-penetrating hit the turret ring could become jammed and from penetrating hits hydraulic lines could be severed often causing a fire. The gun barrel could be damaged, suspension damaged. The list just goes on and on forever of what could happen.

Something else that would be good to make tanks feel more like tanks in urban environments is first as has been said in another thread destructible environments but with a limit on the amount of destruction capable to stop every battlefield from becoming Stalingrad and also barrel collision with buildings, trees and other objects. This would make much more realistic urban situations in tanks like the Panther or Firefly with massive overhanging barrels where you can't do a full 360 of the turret when in an alley or narrow road and would give an advantage that smaller barreled tanks like the Sherman75 really had in urban battles. The gears would also increase upon this advantage in urban environments making it more realistic and meaning the heavier German tanks would find it harder to turn around. With the barrel collision the barrel shouldn't be able to knock things down by the power of the turret traversing but I think it should be able to knock down or break smaller bricked walls if the tank is turning by its tracks and the barrel hits it. Small trees should be knocked down by the power of the turret traverse, medium trees by the power of the tracks turning and big trees just shouldn't get knocked down by the barrel at all. This would all make Urban combat along with Forest/Wooded combat a lot better.

Sorry for the massive post but I also think if full 3D Interiors are done for the vehicles (which they should be) then they shouldn't be like Ro2 where everything is nice and shiny, spotless and bafflingly clean. The tank interiors should be greasy, muddy, dirty and dark like in real life. There should also be some kind of way to lower and raise the commander's seat as there was in most vehicles at the time so that you don't have to either be fully buttoned up or hanging out of the tank like you want to be shot. In reality commanders can raise and lower their seats so can have just the top of their head or just their head sticking out. Then maybe they can go a bit further with just their shoulders and arms out so they can use their binoculars. Not like in current DH and in Ro2 where the commander's whole body is sticking out the tank as a massive target.

#3 Schneller

Schneller

    Elite Veteran

  • Jackboot Games
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,675 posts

Posted 01 January 2013 - 09:00 PM

Mostly very reasonable comments.... although since the Tank Commander stance was modeled on me the "weird Jesus-Christ-YMCA-HEY-LOOK-IMOVERHERE Pose" is a little hurtful.

The only other comment I'd make is that indirect fire from tanks has always been possible, it is just been hard to find people that would "Spot" for you. I have bombarded many villages with HE from a distance when I knew there were no friendly troops in them. However, without a spotter, it doesn't have a great deal of effect beyond area denial.

Posted Image

Wilsonam wrote: But, as someone said - perhaps just a touch too anal for a game

WUK: What! Thats impossible! Blasphemie!

#4 Kashash

Kashash

    Senior Member

  • Festung Europa Tester
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 362 posts

Posted 01 January 2013 - 11:18 PM

My main gripe from DH is that tanks always blow up. I wish the survivability would've been somehow taken from Combat Mission series.

If you take a look here in this video, T34 stops right after the first penetration, but the Panther keeps firing (just in case) to make sure crew definitely won't recover, and the randomness of it means it can blow up after the first shot or sometimes it takes even 10 hits.
LtpENkBzECo

And also the lack of indirect tank support or at least direct but long distance one and largely problem is the maps - maps in DH mostly come down to a confined area of a town where you and your squad & some tank or two start together right at the threshold of a town which is unrealistic. In real life you wouldn't suddenly appear within a 50m from a town, you'd be within a distance from it and a good example of it it's Bridgehead map which I always adored. You can have infantry fighting inside a town by having a mobile spawn point set up and a tank could fire 500m away. On the rest of the maps tanks and infantry are always together and way too close to each other and that's because they all start from the beginning of the battle way too adjacently squeezed-up.

#5 Dodenburg

Dodenburg

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 58 posts

Posted 01 January 2013 - 11:55 PM

1very important thing you forgot to add to the list ( forgive if you did, but I just didnt notice) is to make the tanks locable...no more stupid players ruining your game with driving around the map like idiots, never stop to give you chance to fire at anything, but also when you lock your tank you should be able to unlock it at any time, or invite players to join you.
Posted Image
2./SS-Panzer Regiment 2 "Das Reich" Panzer 244 "Adelhaide"

#6 The_Walrus

The_Walrus

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 50 posts

Posted 02 January 2013 - 01:33 AM

I think the "weird Jesus-christ-YMCA-HEY-LOOK-IMOVERHERE Pose" is a bug or something. Normally the tank commander gets out the hatch properly and then has his hands resting properly on the cupola on the Panther but sometimes he gets out and kind of gets stuck half way through with his arms just in the air after he pulled them out the tank.

Lockable tanks would be good but I hope that it is not achieved Ro2 style where you can't get out or in of a tank, you just spawn in it and you're stuck. In real life the commanders left quite often and it is useful to get out to check over a ridge or something blocking your view.

The problem of indirect fire being ineffective would be fixed by destruction to buildings.

#7 sulman

sulman

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 37 posts

Posted 02 January 2013 - 02:21 PM

CM's 'death clock' was a superb idea, and I'd like to see more sims do it. A small amount of smoke, or even no visible signs at all is very good for tension. I'm not sure other players will see it the same way, though. They may get annoyed that they cannot tell what is alive and what isn't.

#8 Father Ted

Father Ted

    Veteran

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 526 posts

Posted 03 January 2013 - 01:41 AM

I'm not sure other players will see it the same way, though. They may get annoyed that they cannot tell what is alive and what isn't.


As you say, I'm not sure how popular this would be, but I think it would be really good to get away from the gamey "this baddie takes two shots, this one takes three" that we are used to in most games. I think it would be hard to implement code-wise, but it would be much more realistic if hits on AFVs had a random variety of effects eg instant explosion, penetration but no bang, ricochet (all obviously weighted by the armour/projectile calculation) which are apparent to the victim but not necessarily to the shooter. It would be akin to the no (or delayed) death message we have had in DH, and would force players to be more circumspect.

#9 FuriousBystander

FuriousBystander

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 924 posts

Posted 03 January 2013 - 02:48 AM

Great thread, and I pretty much agree with all of these ideas, except this one gave me some pause. Emphasis is mine.

Sorry for the massive post but I also think if full 3D Interiors are done for the vehicles (which they should be) <snip>


In a perfect world, I would agree with you, however, using Tripwire as an example if we may - if a full time game studio has only been able to release two highly detailed vehicles in almost 4 years of developement (pre-release development + time since RO2's premiere), what makes you think part time developers, such as JBG, with likely a much smaller team is going to be able to pull off more? I would much rather sacrifice the fully modeled interiors for the sake of more diversity and breadth of vehicles on the (Normandy) battlefield. It would be a shame if the FE guys followed the same well intentioned, but misguided route as TWI.


Posted Image


#10 The_Walrus

The_Walrus

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 50 posts

Posted 03 January 2013 - 12:37 PM

TWI decided to do their game on the Eastern Front where there were many different Chassis of vehicle. In the western front many vehicles were sharing the same chassis and just had a different turret or even the same turret and a different gun so it would be a lot easier for Jackboot games to simply copy their previous interior, change a bit of the weathering so it feels more unique and change the gun/turret and then we have a whole new tank.

I remember reading in a forum post my Wilsonam or Ramm that it takes roughly 3months for them to do a vehicle, start to finish. This makes me think the TWI team is not as big as people seem to think because if it is taking 3months for each vehicle and we don't have 16 vehicles on release what the hell are the people doing the vehicles doing with their time? Maybe they're being told to work on other tasks because the team isn't big enough to cover everything. The fact that the DLC containing the Panzer3 and Halftracks STILL isn't here years down the line is just showing that TWI are as I said either not as big as people think or are just plain lazy. Laziness is an issue that the TWI team don't suffer it would seem from all the updates we are seeing so I think that fully modelled vehicles wouldn't detract from the overall amount of tanks in-game too much because most were just variants of the same thing.

For the British we will see the Churchill of course which had many variants, all using almost identical turret and the same chassis with just different guns so it would take time to produce the first Churchill but after that it would be very quick to bring out the new variants. Then the Cromwell and its variants was all the same turret and hull just different guns. The German tanks also shared the same hull sometimes, the StuG3 and Panzer3 shared an identical hull so there would be no need to re-do the driver's station ect and the Panzer4 and StuG4 would not require re-doing the driver's station.

As you say, I'm not sure how popular this would be, but I think it would be really good to get away from the gamey "this baddie takes two shots, this one takes three" that we are used to in most games. I think it would be hard to implement code-wise, but it would be much more realistic if hits on AFVs had a random variety of effects eg instant explosion, penetration but no bang, ricochet (all obviously weighted by the armour/projectile calculation) which are apparent to the victim but not necessarily to the shooter. It would be akin to the no (or delayed) death message we have had in DH, and would force players to be more circumspect.


JBG have said we are getting a component based damage model for the tanks so I am pretty sure it's not gonna be as you described "this baddie takes two shots". I assume that because of this type of damage model most tanks will be disabled or abandoned by the crew long before they catastrophically explode. Maybe catastrophic explosions should be made a very small chance even if the ammo is hit, a lot of the time it just caused a fire which later led on to a catastrophic explosion but more often it just caused a fire which burned for days as with the footage of the Panther in Cologne being shot up by a 90mm Gun. The tank is already on fire when the filming starts and you can see the holes in the armour are under the turret ring where the ammo was stored so this must have caused the fire. 6 shots are punched into the Panther, a couple into the turret and a few into the side of the hull. That tank burned where it was for 4 days until the fire finally ran out of fuel and never exploded. Also, even though the crew all got out they all died at most minutes later and some even seconds later from shrapnel, you can see one fall over in the background and never get back up after he gets out.

With the penetration if component based damage is done spalling is the one most important thing and the reason Ro2's damage model is bad is because it just follows the shell in a straight line and there is next to zero spalling so the tank can get hit 5 times with no crewmembers killed if he is shooting right in the middle of the hull because the line will go through the middle and miss the crew who are around the sides. If spalling is put in properly then it will really show the strength of the bigger shells and the more high velocity shells too without the need for a HP system because they produced much more spall than the smaller and lower velocity shells upon penetration.

#11 Blue Lightning

Blue Lightning

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 595 posts

Posted 04 January 2013 - 02:58 AM

7. If possible, less tank explosions.Tanks rarely blew up, mostly just burned out for days and days, before being towed or moved. I suppose for game purposes they need a confirmation of "you're dead cos your tank blew the fuck up"

Your right, no one stayed in a burning tank, it was too dangerous (could get burned or it could blow any second). And not all of them blew up either, your right. But in real life a tanker feared for his life. In the game a tanker does not, so he is likley to stay in the tank which is un-realistic.

I think this can easily be addressed, by allowing the tanker to stay in the burning tank all he wants, but after 10 seconds nothing works...the turret wont work, the tank wont start. So the tanker is welcome to stay in the tank, but he acomplishes nothing in doing so.

#12 Masterson

Masterson

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 374 posts

Posted 04 January 2013 - 05:03 AM

Not only that, but most tankers bailed after a single penetration. Even if no components were damaged, fear and psychological factor kick in.
Posted Image

#13 Father Ted

Father Ted

    Veteran

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 526 posts

Posted 04 January 2013 - 09:58 AM

Your right, no one stayed in a burning tank, it was too dangerous (could get burned or it could blow any second). And not all of them blew up either, your right. But in real life a tanker feared for his life. In the game a tanker does not, so he is likley to stay in the tank which is un-realistic.

I think this can easily be addressed, by allowing the tanker to stay in the burning tank all he wants, but after 10 seconds nothing works...the turret wont work, the tank wont start. So the tanker is welcome to stay in the tank, but he acomplishes nothing in doing so.


Even so, there is no incentive to bail in game - you may as well wait in a burning/potentially burning tank to respawn as wander the battlefield in the hope of finding another tank. In fact it's probably preferable in terms of time spent fighting. This is why I suggest a forced bail when the tank is hit in this way. Player(s) respawn as if they've died, and the other players see an animation of a bailing crew who then lie down and fade away. Before anyone says how unrealistic that is, think of the way we accept disappearing corpses, weapons and vehicles in DH (and nearly every other game).

#14 Tony O'Halloran

Tony O'Halloran

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 36 posts

Posted 05 January 2013 - 01:53 AM

I think there should be a five or ten second period of activity before the tank shuts down, and maybe a "died in burning tank" penalty, longer respawn maybe? maybe if you get right out of the tank, before it shuts down you go straight back to base? No inf kill for the enemy, and you may need to wait for a new tank.

So enemy knocks out a tank, plus you dont have to wait a lengthy respawn.

Win-Win
Posted Image

#15 ROMMEL 34

ROMMEL 34

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 572 posts

Posted 05 January 2013 - 05:55 AM

I remember reading in a forum post my Wilsonam or Ramm that it takes roughly 3months for them to do a vehicle, start to finish...the fact that the DLC containing the Panzer3 and Halftracks STILL isn't here years down the line is just showing that TWI are as I said either not as big as people think or are just plain lazy.

Actually, I think they just don't give a damn about vehicles whatsoever. For example, take a look at all the model errors & code problems that plague RO 1's vehicles to this day that were never fixed or even acknowledged by the devs when RO 1 was in its infancy. RO 2 seems to be emulating the same approach with its incorrect models and wonky tanking code w/PTRS. And of TW's 3 months, how is this relevant to JBG/FE? Is TW the official unit of time measurement? In addition, with their 3 months they essentially produced rubbish; some half-assed, errored, hybrid mess of a tank (both the PIVF2 and T34), both internally and externally, instead of using that time to buy some Panzer books and produce something correct. Here are pictures of their 3 month mess vs. the actual F2/G:



Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image



The German tanks also shared the same hull sometimes, the StuG3 and Panzer3 shared an identical hull so there would be no need to re-do the driver's station ect and the Panzer4 and StuG4 would not require re-doing the driver's station.

:nono: The drivers station in the "Panzer III" changed from the simple A-D flap to the E-F sliding shutter to the G-H pivoting visor and finally to the J-N improved pivoting visor. The Stug III A-G from start to finish had a pivoting visor (appears similar to the P3 G-H type). Here is a picture of the Panzer III L drivers station vs a Stug III G drivers station. There are differences including the fahrersehklappe already mentioned, internal area, lack of side vision port, zusatzpanzerung bolts, and so on:



http://imageshack.us...9/706/tt10y.jpg

http://imageshack.us...4792/tt111s.jpg

http://imageshack.us.../5325/tt11d.jpg

http://imageshack.us.../5417/tt12l.jpg



The Panzer IV Ausf. G late -J and the Stug IV drivers stations are even more different with one having a pivoting visor and the other having periscopes in a small armored cab extension from the main hull:



http://imageshack.us...3/8793/tt13.jpg

http://imageshack.us.../4171/tt14p.jpg

http://imageshack.us...0/2199/tt15.jpg



Maybe catastrophic explosions should be made a very small chance

The T34 was well known for having the tendency to blow up when it was hit.

Alles für Deutschland!

#16 The_Walrus

The_Walrus

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 50 posts

Posted 05 January 2013 - 12:23 PM

Most of the differences are changes to vision ports location/existence, periscopes and visors which are much easier fixes than building a whole new tank although the Panzer4's driver compartment is a lot more different than I thought. Even so all the differences are quite minor and would be much quicker to make than a whole new tank.

And how come you mention the T-34? Festung Europa is based on the Western Front, at first only the British sector so I think we won't be seeing many T-34s around here. The T-34's tendency to explode was because of the ridiculous way ammo was stored. The whole turret crew STOOD ON TOP OF IT. For some reason this was decided a good idea, to put virtually all the ammo in boxes which are not armoured and are right under the turret, right where everybody is going to aim their gun to try and cause most damage to crew. Those crazy Russians.

British and German tanks normally had armoured plates around the ammo which was stored in the hull, you can see it on the Panzer4 pictures you showed so ammo detonation was much less likely in German and British tanks than in the Russian tanks which means no way should Russian tanks be used as an indicator for how likely the ammo should be to explode in Festung Europa.

#17 Blue Lightning

Blue Lightning

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 595 posts

Posted 05 January 2013 - 02:24 PM

And how come you mention the T-34? Festung Europa is based on the Western Front, at first only the British sector so I think we won't be seeing many T-34s around here.

He mentions it because we do see plenty of T-34's around here. The RP (Real Panzer) clan puts up a very popular server that features the Germans vs the Russians. New Russian tanks were modeled and added so it goes far beyond what we saw in RO. Yes it seems a bit strange to have German vs Russians on some westren front maps, but it works. The wheeled vehicles and soldiers are American as of this point. There are many differences on the RP server compared to others, like turrets blowing off when the tanks explode. The most notable difference at least to me, are the "real sounds" that exists for the tanks of both armies.

The T-34's tendency to explode was because of the ridiculous way ammo was stored. The whole turret crew STOOD ON TOP OF IT. For some reason this was decided a good idea, to put virtually all the ammo in boxes which are not armoured and are right under the turret, right where everybody is going to aim their gun to try and cause most damage to crew. Those crazy Russians.

The reason most tanks blew up easily was poor ammo storage, yes. Shermans had that problem at first but it was corrected. Panthers had that problem too, and it was never corrected.

#18 The_Walrus

The_Walrus

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 50 posts

Posted 05 January 2013 - 02:48 PM

We're talking about FE here and I know quite well about RP considering I helped to make some parts of it. Talking about Sherman ammo storage, late war it was very good with the ammo being kept wet. The Panther's ammo storage was not poor from what I know, most of it was stored in side sponsons on the side of the hull above the tracks. If the tank is penetrated in the front it's very unlikely that the shell will hit this area because it is right on the edge of the sides when looking at the tank from the front, the other ammo there in the hull is armoured so the shell would have to directly pass through it, spall is very unlikely to penetrate that armour and that's if the tank got penetrated in the hull at all. Most penetrations were in the turret if they were from the front, the hull's armour was very strong and it was told to American tankers that they should aim at the turret to take them out.

Side Sponsons:

Posted Image

Posted Image

Then two racks was stored in front of and behind the loader in some small racks which were just sitting on the turret basket floor, so any penetration through the front would have to hit the left side of the tank to hit the ammo, if it hit the right side then it's unlikely that any spall would actually hit the ammo. Even if spall did hit the racks they are armoured so again this continues to decrease the chance of any ammo damage. The Sherman's racks were poorly armoured and in some cases like the shells in the turret not armoured at all, the same with the T-34. The boxes the ammo were in were not armoured and were simply boxes.

Ammo racks in front of and behind loader:

Posted Image

Posted Image

Ammo racks before going in the tank, you can see that from most angles there is armour, only from the side facing toward the loader is it open.

Posted Image

I think that there is also two racks that go under the floor where the torsion bars are like on the King Tiger and down there they are sarrounded by various pieces of steel supports and the whole running gear so it is quite unlikely that these shells will get hit. Here are those two racks before they are inserted alongside the two ones that go next to the loader. Maybe this is wrong, I can't find solid info on the Panther but I know the King Tiger does have some ammo under there so I would guess that's where these two racks go, maybe Rommel34 has some more information.

Posted Image

Here is another picture of the two racks that I think go under the floor which shows that they are heavily armoured and also a picture showing where I think they sit.

Posted Image

I think they go down here.

Posted Image

EDIT: I found where they go, behind the driver and one behind the RO/HullMG.

Posted Image

Posted Image

It looks like all of the racks have mounting points for armoured plates covering them from every direction, the only ones which would be exposed are the racks the loader is actually using and the side sponsons.

#19 Blue Lightning

Blue Lightning

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 595 posts

Posted 06 January 2013 - 03:09 AM

Forgive me, but I am also talking about FE, meaning that it wont be long until we see some Russian tanks/eastren front battles I hope...and why not? I love the westren allies with the Shermans and other allied tanks, but the Russians have something to offer as well. DH tried to forget about the Russians, but the RP crew brought them back

I hope in time, we can see both.

#20 Dodenburg

Dodenburg

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 58 posts

Posted 06 January 2013 - 06:17 PM

video from old build of RO, which i never had the chance to experience. When I saw it, I couldnt beleave how much better it must have been, especialy the tanks, if you look at 1:30-1:35.. that is, how it should look, when tank is hit or destroyed. I dont understand, why TWI replaced it with the black burning ugly looking wreck.
Posted Image
2./SS-Panzer Regiment 2 "Das Reich" Panzer 244 "Adelhaide"




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users