FORUM

Master your own destiny! Command a nation!




According to data III J/1 vs M5 Stuart is balanced

Talk and discussions specifically related to infantry & vehicle combat.

With the current damage model would you rather have the PZIII J/1 vs the M5 Stuart as both Light AT?

Yes, the Pz III J/1 vs M5A1 Stuart is balanced and a better option.
38
58%
No, but I prefer this option over the current PZ I vs M5A1 Stuart and III J/1 vs M4A3 Sherman E8 since it's an easy implementation.
13
20%
No, I like the current system.
15
23%
 
Total votes : 66

According to data III J/1 vs M5 Stuart is balanced

30 Oct 2013, 23:43

According to data III J/1 vs M5 Stuart is pretty balanced

When both the Stuart and Pz III J were announced in development I always thought they would be each other equivalent which my data shows just this. When the PZ IVF appear the III started to play a role as a support and reconnaissance tank about the same time the Sherman medium tank and Stuart Light tank started appearing in Africa.

By the time IVF/G/H+ III J/1/L/M vs M4/A2/A3 Sherman + M3/M5/A1 Stuart were finding themselves in the battlefield both the PZ III and Stuart were being used in the same roles, it would be more historical correct to pitch the IIIL vs M5A1 tank but that would be a bigger advantaged comparable to that of the current Sherman vs III J but if you put the IIIJ/1 vs Stuart it's actually pretty balanced, I made a table comparing each stat of each tank:


Image

I use the M5 Stuart contrary to the M5A1 Stuart just because of the production date and numbers produce were more similar, the M5A1 Stuart would simply carry more lmg ammunition and be cosmetically different on it's turret but otherwise it's equal to the M5.
You can see that in terms of penetration both tanks are pretty close to each other and as in real life the measure penetrations would often vary and in other games with ballistic and penetration systems often a 3mm-5mm +/- is randomized which make both the 50mm and 37mm more similar.
The main difference of both guns is that the Pzgr 39 contains high explosive that explodes after penetration since this game only takes in account penetration it would not make any difference, otherwise the Stuart would be more faster and agile, with better camouflage and smaller profile while III J/1 would be almost 50% slower has a slightly better gun, slightly better armor despite not being much of use since it will see it penetrated at 100m from the M5 Stuart and the standard III J/1 had grey paint despite this could be changed later on with payed cosmetics.

I would also ask that both the Stuart and Panzer III J/1 are set as Light Tank Assault Teams and the Panzer IV H enters as a Medium Tank Assault Team, additionally numbers produced, speed and fuel consumption could be mimic in the campaign map game with increase resupply timer/costs or faster movement.

Data is from tarrif.net:
http://www.tarrif.net/cgi/production/al ... iclesX=206
http://www.tarrif.net/cgi/production/al ... hiclesX=56


Wouldn't this be a fair match in Heroes and Generals and more fair than that of the PZ I vs Stuart or the IIIJ vs Sherman? tell me if you agree or not and why so :)

Thank you,
Deathmachinept
Last edited by deathmachinept on 11 Dec 2013, 14:34, edited 3 times in total.
Image
AKA Fxmkorp(Ex 8 year ww2ol Vet)/BF 1942(10 year Vet), also playing Warthunder, Archeage and RO 2.
1,2,3 Kill System
Campaing map checkpoint system
Move tankettes PZ I & M2A2 from Light tank to Guard
User avatar

deathmachinept

Hauptfeldwebel
Hauptfeldwebel
 
User avatar

deathmachinept

Hauptfeldwebel
Hauptfeldwebel

Re: According to data III J/1 vs M5 Stuart is balanced

31 Oct 2013, 00:06

My poll vote: "I'm just waiting to hear what Reto reveal are the new tanks that were recently discussed in the tank factory thread".
GM - [352nd Infantry Division | 6x Mech. 4x Mot.] - Infantry: 14 | Tanker: 12 | Paratrooper: 2 | Recon: 9 | Pilot: 8
US - [29th Infantry Division | 6x Mech. 4x Mot.] - Infantry: 14 | Tanker: 8 | Paratrooper: 6 | Recon: 1 | Pilot: 4
User avatar

BlaineUK

Oberstleutnant
Oberstleutnant
 
User avatar

BlaineUK

Oberstleutnant
Oberstleutnant

Re: According to data III J/1 vs M5 Stuart is balanced

31 Oct 2013, 00:32

blaineuk wrote:My poll vote: "I'm just waiting to hear what Reto reveal are the new tanks that were recently discussed in the tank factory thread".


Yeah but I'm not only pointing out how in theory and in their game the III J/1 vs the M4A3 Sherman E8 is not by any fetch of the imagination balance or any close to what was encounter in WW2 Tank battles while providing a solution that is cost effective, easy to implement and historical accurate.
Image
AKA Fxmkorp(Ex 8 year ww2ol Vet)/BF 1942(10 year Vet), also playing Warthunder, Archeage and RO 2.
1,2,3 Kill System
Campaing map checkpoint system
Move tankettes PZ I & M2A2 from Light tank to Guard
User avatar

deathmachinept

Hauptfeldwebel
Hauptfeldwebel
 
User avatar

deathmachinept

Hauptfeldwebel
Hauptfeldwebel

Re: According to data III J/1 vs M5 Stuart is balanced

31 Oct 2013, 00:40

deathmachinept wrote:
When both the Stuart and Pz III J were announced in development I always thought they would be each other equivalent which they truly are in my point of view.


Everyone did. Reto likely knew that as well but because the assault teams were set as light, medium, and heavy they probably conflicted with the Panzer IIIs designation as a medium tank.

I say throw out that weight designation nonsense and go with Tiers or Sets. :ugeek:
ImageImage
User avatar

Matt6767

Colonel
Colonel
 
User avatar

Matt6767

Colonel
Colonel

Re: According to data III J/1 vs M5 Stuart is balanced

03 Nov 2013, 07:03

I hope they announce what new tanks are planned, or just give a general idea.
III J/1 vs. M5 sounds good as far as I'm concerned. ;)
Image
If I don't use correct grammar in my sentiments, it's usually annoyance.

RichFriend

Major
Major
 

RichFriend

Major
Major

Re: According to data III J/1 vs M5 Stuart is balanced

03 Nov 2013, 08:02

Pz.3 should be moved down to "light" and face the Stuart.
E8 should be tasked against the Panther, and regular sherman should take its place, and be up against the Pz.4

If we think red vs blue, 1 US unit for 1 axis unit etc etc....

Wich is kinda rotten thinking if you ask me.

Reto painted themselves into a corner again because this 1 for 1 just won't work in the long run. Especially if we think ahead to factions... Japan, heavy tanks? Italian heavy tanks? British Tank Destroyers? British Semi auto rifle? Once they built the 1 for 1 system for Germany and US, what will they do when they start on a new faction and realise that that faction can't fill the 1 for 1 system?

Reto style Developement:
  • Scrap original dev plans, brainstorm on the breakroom after a binge weekend.
  • Ignore players while building the system that doesnt work, defend system on forums, calling it 1'st iteration.
  • Realise system is FUBAR, go on a weekend binge, brainstorm on the breakroom again but this time with even bigger hangover.
  • Completely ignore players feedback on forums(everyone knows that less than a 1% of players go to forums, so they can be ignored), build something that barely works short term, again call it 1'st iteration.
  • Get slapped in the face when next dev cycle aproaches and they realise they didnt plan for the system to work with future mechanics.
  • Scrap system, start over again, call it 1'st iteration.
---***--- Intel i7 2600k @3,40Ghz 4 Cores ---***---
---***--- 16GB Corsair Vengeance DDR3 1600MHz ---***---
---***--- Gainward GeForce GTX 780 3GB ---***---
User avatar

ralpgalland

Oberst
Oberst
 
User avatar

ralpgalland

Oberst
Oberst

Re: According to data III J/1 vs M5 Stuart is balanced

03 Nov 2013, 08:29

ralpgalland wrote:
Reto style Developement:
  • Scrap original dev plans, brainstorm on the breakroom after a binge weekend.
  • Ignore players while building the system that doesnt work, defend system on forums, calling it 1'st iteration.
  • Realise system is FUBAR, go on a weekend binge, brainstorm on the breakroom again but this time with even bigger hangover.
  • Completely ignore players feedback on forums(everyone knows that less than a 1% of players go to forums, so they can be ignored), build something that barely works short term, again call it 1'st iteration.
  • Get slapped in the face when next dev cycle aproaches and they realise they didnt plan for the system to work with future mechanics.
  • Scrap system, start over again, call it 1'st iteration.


LOL.
Will this game even see the light one day??
"Wood from Above."
Image
User avatar

Pinocchio

Master Sergeant
Master Sergeant
 
User avatar

Pinocchio

Master Sergeant
Master Sergeant

Re: According to data III J/1 vs M5 Stuart is balanced

03 Nov 2013, 14:17

I hope you are not right about your dev cycle conclusion ralp. On the other Hand, the external Image fit pretty well sometimes... Esp. the 1% ignored ones. But wait... 250+350=600 Players online at peaktimes may be 1000 total over the day means just 10 Forum users?
_______________________________________________________________________________________
H&G's ESSENTIAL RTS FEATURES: viewtopic.php?f=24&t=17089 click and find out!

Gerhacht

Oberst
Oberst
 

Gerhacht

Oberst
Oberst

Re: According to data III J/1 vs M5 Stuart is balanced

11 Dec 2013, 02:53

Well its all on paper :)
It looks nice, on paper tbh, not pz3 little better in terms of armor and cannon, and stuart much faster and more agil e. But in game, it really comes to few factors:
- front armor
- shape
- rate of fire
- damage
and in all those 4 stuart loses, not much in all but it still does. All rest for me is inrelevant in terms of balance in game, as most attacks from sides/back = win for attacker if he's not a noob. So i dont count that scenarios to get picture, what will happend when common players will get those tanks on battlefield.
Frontal shoting, who sees first (pz3 model is much better in hiding), rate of fire (i dont believe reto will take it away from pz3 to counter stuart low rate of fire) and damage..well cannon is there so damage should be better with pz3.
Speed may help vet tankers a bit, but at the end it will all come to pz3 rate of fire as always ;)


And yet, if we take numbers, and give pz3 2x price of stuart (to match numbers in productions in game) than for me we got nice asymetric balance, matching this table. Stuarts will be weaker, but their numbers on war map should be 1.5-2 times more.
I dont mind to play with weaker tier1 tank for a change tbh.

I dont expect that in ww2 pz3 were 2times more expensive than stuarts, but we cant have all here, with so few eq on both sides. Its hard to make balance with just a few toys to make it accurate, that's my believe

And now back to earth...:)
Image
User avatar

ilear

1st Lieutenant
1st Lieutenant
 
User avatar

ilear

1st Lieutenant
1st Lieutenant
Posts: 947
Joined: 08 Mar 2013, 12:53

Re: According to data III J/1 vs M5 Stuart is balanced

11 Dec 2013, 03:27

Yes, when will RETO reveal what they picked for the tank factory?
Image
If I don't use correct grammar in my sentiments, it's usually annoyance.

RichFriend

Major
Major
 

RichFriend

Major
Major

Re: According to data III J/1 vs M5 Stuart is balanced

11 Dec 2013, 06:37

ilear wrote:Well its all on paper :)
It looks nice, on paper tbh, not pz3 little better in terms of armor and cannon, and stuart much faster and more agil e. But in game, it really comes to few factors:
- front armor
- shape
- rate of fire
- damage
and in all those 4 stuart loses, not much in all but it still does. All rest for me is inrelevant in terms of balance in game, as most attacks from sides/back = win for attacker if he's not a noob. So i dont count that scenarios to get picture, what will happend when common players will get those tanks on battlefield.
Frontal shoting, who sees first (pz3 model is much better in hiding), rate of fire (i dont believe reto will take it away from pz3 to counter stuart low rate of fire) and damage..well cannon is there so damage should be better with pz3.
Speed may help vet tankers a bit, but at the end it will all come to pz3 rate of fire as always ;)


And yet, if we take numbers, and give pz3 2x price of stuart (to match numbers in productions in game) than for me we got nice asymetric balance, matching this table. Stuarts will be weaker, but their numbers on war map should be 1.5-2 times more.


- Well maps aren't very big and Stuart can penetrate the IIIJ/1 front up to 500m that is very fair ;)

- As for rate of fire I'm pretty sure stuart was faster, it has lighter and had smaller rounds that made easier to handle, load and unload from the breech.

- Why is the IIIJ much better at hiding?? :? I'm pretty sure the green would be better at hiding than the extra 9cm :roll:

As for numbers more Stuarts were produced in factories but Axis always retrofitted or upgraded their tanks when this became obsolete in the field so you might have 1000 produce in factories but another 500 retrofitted or upgraded on the field, no country retrofitted, upgraded, repaired or scavenged materials from destroyed vehicles better than Germany.

I still don't see any valid or unbalancing arguments from your perspective, the only thing that would be advantage for Axis would be because of the of the Pzgr 39 that has also explosive content inside but that isn't model and if it was it wouldn't have to be realistic to be unfair.

USA tanks were faster and had more mobility than germany while germany tanks well more rounded vehicles usually with better guns and armor but cost more to produce this two should fight each other.

I agree that if this too fought each other the IIIJ/1 could be 25% more expensive.
Image
AKA Fxmkorp(Ex 8 year ww2ol Vet)/BF 1942(10 year Vet), also playing Warthunder, Archeage and RO 2.
1,2,3 Kill System
Campaing map checkpoint system
Move tankettes PZ I & M2A2 from Light tank to Guard
User avatar

deathmachinept

Hauptfeldwebel
Hauptfeldwebel
 
User avatar

deathmachinept

Hauptfeldwebel
Hauptfeldwebel

Re: According to data III J/1 vs M5 Stuart is balanced

11 Dec 2013, 15:18

ralpgalland wrote:call it 1'st iteration.

Hahaha! Nailed! :roll:
Image
User avatar

CYNIC

Oberst
Oberst
 
User avatar

CYNIC

Oberst
Oberst

Re: According to data III J/1 vs M5 Stuart is balanced

11 Dec 2013, 17:28

deathmachinept wrote:- Well maps aren't very big and Stuart can penetrate the IIIJ/1 front up to 500m that is very fair ;)


I dont think we have any disadvantages from range, with maps we have. I never felt diff between shoting enemy tank from 10m and 500m in game. I mean damage, of course it is much easier to hit enemy within 10m :D

deathmachinept wrote:- As for rate of fire I'm pretty sure stuart was faster, it has lighter and had smaller rounds that made easier to handle, load and unload from the breech.

Gameplay screnario here, not real life. In H&G pz3 is a king of ROF and as i wrote i doubt it will change.

deathmachinept wrote:- Why is the IIIJ much better at hiding?? :? I'm pretty sure the green would be better at hiding than the extra 9cm :roll:

It's just lower. I hate stuart shape, so obvious to spot at least for me. I generally like pz3 shape most of all tanks. So cute :twisted:


deathmachinept wrote:I still don't see any valid or unbalancing arguments from your perspective,

I'v just wrote you 4 main areas, where pz3 would win :) At least, when i compare table+what we have now, that is how i feel.


deathmachinept wrote:USA tanks were faster and had more mobility than germany while germany tanks well more rounded vehicles usually with better guns and armor but cost more to produce this two should fight each other.


Well hard to balance that in game, while speed and mobility isnt that much factor in game itself. Its not like u stuck on mountine in H&G or sth ;)
Image
User avatar

ilear

1st Lieutenant
1st Lieutenant
 
User avatar

ilear

1st Lieutenant
1st Lieutenant
Posts: 947
Joined: 08 Mar 2013, 12:53

Re: According to data III J/1 vs M5 Stuart is balanced

11 Dec 2013, 17:47

ilear wrote:Well hard to balance that in game, while speed and mobility isnt that much factor in game itself. Its not like u stuck on mountine in H&G or sth ;)

You're saying mobility isn't a factor IN GAME?
In comparison to reality, the projectiles in game that the tanks shoot, known as shells, are much much slower. That gives higher mobility extra value, because on longer ranges speed and maneuverability can make the difference if you get hit or not - and even if you get hit, you don't necessarily get hit in a spot enemy tanker wanted to, maybe even causing the hit to be deflected. 8-)
Image
If you agree feel free to use the image as your signature.
User avatar

Jinppa

Generalmajor
Generalmajor
 
User avatar

Jinppa

Generalmajor
Generalmajor

Re: According to data III J/1 vs M5 Stuart is balanced

11 Dec 2013, 18:09

Jinppa wrote:maybe even causing the hit to be deflected. 8-)

Neo?

NQ_QB

Major
Major
 

NQ_QB

Major
Major

Re: According to data III J/1 vs M5 Stuart is balanced

11 Dec 2013, 18:22

ilear wrote:
deathmachinept wrote:- Well maps aren't very big and Stuart can penetrate the IIIJ/1 front up to 500m that is very fair ;)


I dont think we have any disadvantages from range, with maps we have. I never felt diff between shoting enemy tank from 10m and 500m in game. I mean damage, of course it is much easier to hit enemy within 10m :D

deathmachinept wrote:- As for rate of fire I'm pretty sure stuart was faster, it has lighter and had smaller rounds that made easier to handle, load and unload from the breech.

Gameplay screnario here, not real life. In H&G pz3 is a king of ROF and as i wrote i doubt it will change.

deathmachinept wrote:- Why is the IIIJ much better at hiding?? :? I'm pretty sure the green would be better at hiding than the extra 9cm :roll:

It's just lower. I hate stuart shape, so obvious to spot at least for me. I generally like pz3 shape most of all tanks. So cute :twisted:


deathmachinept wrote:I still don't see any valid or unbalancing arguments from your perspective,

I'v just wrote you 4 main areas, where pz3 would win :) At least, when i compare table+what we have now, that is how i feel.


deathmachinept wrote:USA tanks were faster and had more mobility than germany while germany tanks well more rounded vehicles usually with better guns and armor but cost more to produce this two should fight each other.


Well hard to balance that in game, while speed and mobility isnt that much factor in game itself. Its not like u stuck on mountine in H&G or sth ;)


Yes but you miss my biggest problem and concern why would you had to tune down tanks so they become unrealistic so they can fit the game while teaching wrong WW2 facts to clueless WW2 gamers? when you could just put another tank that adds historical context, is realistic and teaches you something about the game... :(

You also miss the point about why I saw USA tanks were faster, Reto says they want variation but this variation is non sense , PZ I and PZ IIIJ are tanks that are fast have high rate of fire and worst guns than axis this gameplay variation should be mainly on USA AFVs not Germany AFVs.

I agree btw that the IIIJ rof is disgusting but what would expect by putting a 42 germany light tanks vs a 1944 sherman made to face tigers and panthers?
Image
AKA Fxmkorp(Ex 8 year ww2ol Vet)/BF 1942(10 year Vet), also playing Warthunder, Archeage and RO 2.
1,2,3 Kill System
Campaing map checkpoint system
Move tankettes PZ I & M2A2 from Light tank to Guard
User avatar

deathmachinept

Hauptfeldwebel
Hauptfeldwebel
 
User avatar

deathmachinept

Hauptfeldwebel
Hauptfeldwebel

Re: According to data III J/1 vs M5 Stuart is balanced

11 Dec 2013, 19:34

IF you guys start to rethink the balance of light tanks, please do not forget to rethink as well the balance between tank destroyers.

ArmsOner

Private
Private
 

ArmsOner

Private
Private

Re: According to data III J/1 vs M5 Stuart is balanced

12 Dec 2013, 18:26

ArmsOner wrote:IF you guys start to rethink the balance of light tanks, please do not forget to rethink as well the balance between tank destroyers.


Why? both tank destroyers can kill each of these tanks easily
Image
AKA Fxmkorp(Ex 8 year ww2ol Vet)/BF 1942(10 year Vet), also playing Warthunder, Archeage and RO 2.
1,2,3 Kill System
Campaing map checkpoint system
Move tankettes PZ I & M2A2 from Light tank to Guard
User avatar

deathmachinept

Hauptfeldwebel
Hauptfeldwebel
 
User avatar

deathmachinept

Hauptfeldwebel
Hauptfeldwebel

Re: According to data III J/1 vs M5 Stuart is balanced

11 Feb 2014, 13:46

Heya. Am I already too late to reply to this topic? Hopefully not. It was an interesting read and I’d like to point out two things:
1. Some details you may have missed in your comparison
2. The fact that this comparison, though interesting, should not be needed due to asymmetrical faction balance.

1. I would not consider the Panzer III as having the same role/potential as the M5.
- The thicker armor is not just a slight advantage; 50mm compared to 30mm is… what? A 2/3rds increase? When looking at the penetration values you gave (which are average numbers), the PzIIIs armor should be able to withstand shots from the M5 at a certain distance or when presented at an angle while not giving the Stuart the same ability.
Talking about big maps here, not skirmishes. In a skirmish, a general should carefully think which tanks to send in, as the small map, and that's plausible, will negate many abilities a heavier tank has.
- Does the PzIII ingame have the 50mm KwK38 L/42 gun? If yes, it may be somewhat comparable to the 37mm M6 gun but this is not the most iconic gun he has been fitted with. The KwK 39, that was intended for the main production model of the PzIII Ausf. J, had a length of 60 calibers and way better penetration than the Stuart 37mm M6. Actually my data says that a Stuart would have been able to penetrate only 46mm of armor at 500m and 30° (or 60°, depends on whether you calculate from 0° or 90° as vertical) impact angle. The KwK38 would have 56mm penetration and the KwK39 around 61mm. But penetration values can be argued about forever as you rarely find the same data in two different sources. Also, the 50mm gun has a better range and loses less penetration at a distance and there is the quite-hard-to-explain feature of "overmatching", which results in larger calibers having less trouble penetrating angled armor.
In addition the larger caliber should cause way more damage to enemy vehicles (we're talking about more than double the projectile weight here; 2,18kg for the 50mm gun, 0,871kg for 37mm).
And anyway, one should not forget the anti-infantry capabilities based on the HE rounds. I don’t have the numbers for the explosive fillers at hand but the projectile weight says: 50mm has much more room for kaboom.
- Higher weight means that the PzIII is able to put way more mass against damage, which should lead to considerably higher HP values ingame.
- Upgrade potential: I think (hope) that the ability to customize tanks will be an upcoming feature of H&G at a given time. It would then be more than plausible to fit a PzIII with the (historical accurate) longer gun, additional frontal armor of 20mm, “Schürzen” (spaced armor on sides and turret) and, additionally, the 75mm L/24 KwK37 howitzer as an option. The M5 does not at all offer such possibilities.

A few words on mobility. I actually think it's one of the most striking factors for a tank - and one that keeps lights in the fields, where the enemy has heavies or whatnot. It's not only maneuverability in one-on-one fights. It also very important to quickly reach a good position and to be able to reposition once having fired a few rounds.

2. Why do we need to make every tank put in the game comparable to one of the other faction? It has been said before that it's hardly possible. Fact is that tank development has been asymmetrical, each faction besting the others from time to time. As there is a strategic background to the battles fought and weapons can be balanced by price, spawning abilities and requirements for unlocking them, I would find it way more interesting to have different abilities among the warring factions!
That said I do see the PzIII, whilst being a medium, in a German light/medium tank branch (something like PzI – PzII – PzIII – Panther) and have a separate medium/heavy branch (like PzIV E – PzIV F – Tiger). Despite that, US forces may be given an individual light tank branch (M3 – M5 – M24 Chaffee) and a medium/heavy branch (M3 Grant – M4 – M4A3E8 – Pershing) or so.
It's quite strange to put German tanks in the field, that were outdated by the time of D-Day, whilst US forces get late-war tanks. The Easy8 is not at all comparable to the PzIII either and PzI was a pre-war to first-combat vehicle not fitting in at all. It's true, what has been said: in the second half of the war US tanks tended to be faster and were produced in greater numbers, while German tanks were upgraded in armor and firepower, having their advantage there. This is not at all reflected in H&G right now.
But let's wait for the next tanks to come into the game, I'm sure they will even things out, hopefully in an asymmetrical manner.

So, no! Do not make the PzIII a light tank, which he has never been, but implement it the way it was and balance game by other factors than making all vehicles even! ;)

der_Panikmacher

Technician 5th
Technician 5th
 

der_Panikmacher

Technician 5th
Technician 5th

Re: According to data III J/1 vs M5 Stuart is balanced

11 Feb 2014, 15:15

der_Panikmacher wrote:So, no! Do not make the PzIII a light tank, which he has never been, but implement it the way it was and balance game by other factors than making all vehicles even! ;)

Bullcrap.

Panzer III was used in Leichte Panzerkompanie with Panzerkampfwagen II. Do you think it magically got bigger during the war, so that it's role changed suddenly to medium or heavy tank in 1945, when Allied had even bigger and bigger tanks to counter German heavies? :lol:
Image
If you agree feel free to use the image as your signature.
User avatar

Jinppa

Generalmajor
Generalmajor
 
User avatar

Jinppa

Generalmajor
Generalmajor