So in my mind, the Imperium of Man classifies tanks as thus:
Light Tank: No more than 1 main weapon - armor below AV 12
Medium Tank: No more than 3 main weapons - AV 13
Heavy Tank: - Armor 14 no holds bar.
In a heavily mechanized army such as the IG, why does it seem as though they are limited in the department of Medium Tanks? They seem to jump between Sentinels and Valkyries straight to as heavy ordinance as they can get their hands on. Would there not be a situation where it would be advantageous to produce (presumably cheaper) more medium tanks that are both faster than heavy tanks and harder hitting than light tanks?
Just a thought - likely to be answered by "40k isn't realistic or sensible."
Discuss. Furthermore, if you were an Inquisitor in need of Medium Tanks for your PDF, what would you order?
well with the IG (from what i can tell) the have lots of light and heavy that the need to have a midium is lost because the tanks are compensating for each other
Imperial Guard armour doctrine actually seems more in line with conventional MBT, or "Universal Tank" doctrine.
The Leman Russ really is the only "line" tank in common use by the Imperium, and while described as rather slow, it possess valid capabilities to engage enemy armour, fortifications and infantry in its default loadout, and the numerous modifications perform various specialist roles befitting the "different" nature of 40k warfare.
Heavy tanks have been largely obsolete in modern military doctrine since Korea, and the time period that 40k was devised was the era where militaries rarely fielded too many different types of tanks.
If anything, look at Imperial armour as similar to Soviet doctrine, as they borrow a good deal from one another.
Soviet military doctrine consisted of several types of formations, each with their own type of armour support. Infantry formations, both motorised and foot based, relied on simple, mass-produced, reliable and fairly durable tanks without much in the way of "special features" like autoloaders, sophisticated electronics and so on. These were, at various times, the T-55, T-62 and T-72 series tanks.
In concert with these massed, "hammer" forces, you had specialist units; the various "Guards" divisions, and the dedicated armoured divisions fielding much more advanced tanks with better guns, armour, electronics with fully mechanized AA, infantry, artillery and so on. They utilized things like the T-64 series, the T-80, along with all manner of AFVs like the BMP series, AAA like the Shilka, MLRS like the Buratino and so on that normal divisions didn't have, or didn't have in anywhere near the same numbers.
For the Imperium, the "line" Imperial Guard rely on the buck standard Leman Russ; no frills, no fancy toys, just a battle cannon, thick armour and some heavy bolters.
Dedicated armoured units, and elite divisions tend to be much more mechanized (assuming their doctrine, of course, is armoured, the Imperium has a lot of diversity), and tasks that would otherwise be done by infantry or fixed emplacements become done by Sentinels, Hellhounds, Hydras and so on. They also field the more advanced variants of Leman Russ. Rather than just the standard pattern, they'll have Vanquishers for tank-hunting, Demolishers for cracking open fortifications and blasting apart urban targets, Executioners for heavy infantry targets, and so on, which the normal, expendable Guard may not have.
Basically, Imperial doctrine doesn't call for any kind of light/medium/heavy distinction, as it serves no purpose. They operate much more specialized light and heavy vehicles for whichever tasks may be required of the formation, much like in modern militaries. Today, one doesn't send a light tank to scout, one sends a drone, a fast attack vehicle, or a light IFV, such as the BMP-3 or Bradley, and when breaking open an enemy hardpoint, precision artillery, airstrikes, or massed MBTs perform the job, as there's no need for old-school linebreaking tanks, they're just less efficient killing machines.
Besides, it's logistically much easier to have a single model of tank; you need less spare parts, and fewer skilled mechanics to repair standardized equipment, and the Imperium is always focused on logistics. Hence, one chassis for tanks, one chassis for everything else.
But aren't using the same bodies also a way of standardization that the IoM is famous for? So if we adopt Engine of War's definitions of tanks (which is probably the best so far), each bracket has a STC that is modified slightly depending on the need, even I don't get why there is really only one variation of medium tanks - and it's only used by the SM's. Similarly, why aren't other tanks used by the SM, would they not benefit from Hellhounds that fit their "hit hard and fast" tactics?
Seeing as the Rhino, Razorback and Predator are basically the same tank, only kitted differently. I would call the Rhino and Razorback equivalent to modern APCs (Armored Personell Carrier). Put more guns on an APC and you get an IFV (Infantry Fighting Vehicle), which the Predator basically is if you don't put lascannons on it. To me IFV is just a fancier name for light tank, so it's a light tank, by 40k standards. A light tank with reinforced front armour. 10-11 is pretty light armour if you ask a Space Marine, I think.
A Vindicator on the other hand is also based off the Rhino platform, but with fatter armour and a fatter gun. So it's a heavy tank, but more specifically it's a siege tank. So it's a special purpose heavy tank. Kinda like the WW2-era Sturmtiger.
And of course it is also mention in the fluff that Land supposedly was looking for the "lost" medium tank that was "heavier and more powerful than the Predator but lighter and faster than the Land Raider"
I feel like the Leman Russ fulfills the Main Battle Tank role quite adequately, and, similar to modern times, the Main Battle Tank has made both the heavy and medium tank series obsolete (while light tanks live on in Cavalry Vehicles such as the M3).
The real Imperial "heavy tank" in 40k if you must make the distinction is the Macharius, called the Macharius Heavy Tank.
Also you can't really go by the Codex as to whether the IG doesn't have any Medium Tanks. As I recall the Leman Russ Conqueror was a lighter version of the Leman Russ MBT. Also there was that tank in one of the Gaunt Ghost's books, it was described as a light or medium tank, compared to the Leman Russ anyway. Chaos was using it but it was originally an Imperial design.
Galdos wrote: I feel like I am the only one who refers to an MBT as the main (primary) battle tank of an army.
This would make takes like Panzer 4s and Shermans MBTs lol. Apperently im an odd ball
Nazi afair initially called Pz.IV "heavy tank" - due to 75mm gun - though in other classifications initially it was light tank - under 20 tons. But this was "grim teutonic geniuses", who created Panther - "medium tank" heavier than soviet heavies..
Actually MBT is not just "medium tank fast with heavy tank potection" , but tank which do cost-efficiently all the tank tasks. First such design was T-44B (later known as T-54/55) which incorporated protection and firepower only slightly inferior to heavies in much lighter and cheaper chassis (but with top speed inferior to mediums).
As for MBTs...every country have their own idea of tank place in battle - for ex. M1A2 is "heavy" compared to T-90S, but while being better AT weapon, it lacks in mobility, non-AT firepower and , 'cept overweight specialist TUSK version, overall protection. So under other classification it can be rightfully called "heavy Tank Destroyer".
Still, the Panther. I want someone to make a Company of Heroes mod that puts a Russ alongside those sexy German tanks, just to see a side by side comparison.
Grey Templar wrote: Its difficult because all of GW's vehicle models are of a distorted scale.
The body of the LRBT should be much wider than it is on the model. The turret also needs to be larger, but not nearly as much as the body.
A true scale LRBT would be roughly the size of a Landraider model.
You'd probably end up with the LRBT looking something like a more angular T-34
That would actually be a really cool conversion. I saw that double wide Rhino chassis on the front page. I wonder how well that would work for a Russ conversion.
One well engineered tank taking out four tanks meant for battlefield superiority is a fair tradeoff I find. There's the quality/quantity debate sure, but in terms of performance and in general aesthetic, it's a sexy beast.
And the design flaws of the Panther and Tiger were fixed within a year of their deployment, after which the only real flaws were limited numbers and Germany's insistence on spending ridiculous amounts on experimental weapons that bled their resources dry for no gain.
In answer to the Q - I have a pair of 1:35 Panzer IIs built as Russes and they are only barely smaller than a Chimera in every dimension but height, height wise they are taller.
So a Panther would be quite a bit smaller than a Russ if they were both 28mm scale, the II's I am using are acutally very small tanks, in a larger scale hence they work out quite nicely. (AFAIK, 28mm work out @ 1:60??). I did park a 1:35 Churchill I had alongside a Russ and the Churchill looked titanic!
The issue with GW isnt the size of the Russ, its the size of the weapons - its 120mm cannon works out at something like 600mm if it was to scale, if you were to do it to scale the autocannons from the Exterminator are actually more correct in terms of bore size, but then they are supposed to be 40mm!!
Bascially the only Imperial medium tank is the Predator or the Razorback, the Guard dont have one unless you call the APDS-6 thats mentioned in the Armageddon fluff a "medium tank" (more of a medium tank destroyer).
Just a side by side shot of a Chimera chasis vs my LRBT built from a Tamiya italian tank.
As seen here a real world tank ends up being longer by narrower than GW monstruosities, plus the LRBT has a very high siluette that screams "shoot me" to AT gunners
M.
As seen here a real world tank ends up being longer by narrower than GW monstruosities, plus the LRBT has a very high siluette that screams "shoot me" to AT gunners
M.
To be fair, so did the Sherman. And it was a highly effective vehicle, easily competing with the Panzer IV and Panther(once it got a weapon upgrade)
Well keep in mind that, as far as its use by the Imperium goes, the Leman Russ is something of a cross between a WWI infantry tank with sponsons, the Sherman in terms of cost and ease of use, and the Abrams in terms of general-purpose capabilities.
Arcsquad12 wrote: One well engineered tank taking out four tanks meant for battlefield superiority is a fair tradeoff I find. There's the quality/quantity debate sure, but in terms of performance and in general aesthetic, it's a sexy beast.
Yes, it's a Tank. It's just that I dislike the general shape of the box on treads with a big gun called the "Panther", it's just nowhere near as good looking as other kinds of boxes on treads with big guns, like, say, anything from Supreme Commander or Total Annihilation. Or the StuG. Or the Sherman. Or the Leman Russ.
It's a tank. You can argue that its box is in a more pleasing shape, but it is wrong to try to dismiss one design over the other because it is a "box on treads with a big gun"; given that ALL tanks are "boxes on treads with big guns", because in doing so you're dismissing all tank shapes including the Panther... which is just a box with a slightly different shape, on treads, with a big gun.
The Panther was an amazing Medium Tank. It had excellent frontal armor combined with a powerful gun.
Sure, the engines were shoddy towards the end there, but so were all German engines due to resource problems along with pressure to produce more and more vehicles on short notice.
If Germany had not had supply issues the Panther could well have stemmed the tide.
Well yes, it's an effective sniper tank (but a HORRIBLE close combat tank, with a slow engine, notoriously slow turret traverse, and absolutely pathetic side armor), but that wasn't the point.
As seen here a real world tank ends up being longer by narrower than GW monstruosities, plus the LRBT has a very high siluette that screams "shoot me" to AT gunners
M.
To be fair, so did the Sherman. And it was a highly effective vehicle, easily competing with the Panzer IV and Panther(once it got a weapon upgrade)
Fun fact, the Sherman has a better K/D ratio compared to Panthers.
Im talking about when Shermans were fighting Panthers and nothing else. For every 1 Sherman killed by a Panther, 1.1 Panthers were killed by Shermans.
Note thats a fun fact, in no way shape or form am I saying the Sherman is a better tank. This also is does not factor the different models of Shermans (E4, E2, E8, etc...)
All this K/D means is the Shermans veterans fought a lot of rookie Panthers after the Panzer Lehr division got destroyed in Operation Cobra
The Sherman WAS a better tank-- because it was the tank that the US military needed more, once you consider its cost, mobility, adaptability, etc.
Much like the Leman Russ for the Imperial Guard-- cheap, easy to manufacture, rugged, and with enough firepower to do its job.
The Panther was a fine tank, but given their situation, the Germans needed something else. If, as Grey Templar said, they were not completely and utterly incompetent when it came to logistics and efficiency, the Panther would have worked better. But they weren't, so that's a moot point.
And their logistics problems were largely due to Hitler's meddlings, plus overextending germany's number of feasable opponents. Given better supply and time constraints the Panther was a superior design from a combat perspective.
If the Germans had focused on building cheaper tanks, similar to the Sherman, they would have done much better.
Heck, if resources hadn't been diverted to making Tigers and King Tigers they might have done better. Too much focus on "War-winning" weapons.
Grey Templar wrote: Given better supply and time constraints the Panther was a superior design from a combat perspective.
The problem with ideas like this is that they ignore reality.
"If the T-34 has 10000000000mm of frontal armor and a gun that fired nuclear weapons, it would have been the better tank" is true. Any statement saying "If <insert tank here> had better <insert fact here>" or "Given <something untrue> then <tank> is good" is a silly statement.
The reality is, the Panther was a really bad tank given the situation it found itself in. It would have been an AMAZING! tank in many other (perhaps even most other) situations. But it was a bad design, because it was designed for a situation that did not exist.
Sorry for my spelling mistakes but heres some outher things. 1. The panther being a Fine tank and all came too late to do any good. 2. one of the main problems faces by the germans whas the fact they wernt standerdized dramaticly slowing the ability to put armor back on the lines. 3. The sherman did an alright job it was a good tank but the real power behind it was our ability to mod the feth out of it and put more of them out there then the germans could effectivly kill 4 The LRBT feels more like the Tiger to me with a lot of the issues fixed. Bulky, slow but Emperor protect you if you get caught by the beast. and they are flat acrost the bored with parts. So you can canablize one out or a aknocked out one and have more on line. Hell I have read storyes of them busting a track to have the TC use his "Swager Stick" As a make shift pin to limp it home. 5 the Tiger and King tiger where moral breakers as well as a bastion of death. but at the same time it was the failing of the German infrastructure that killed thoes Tanks. they also lead to the creation of the Jagd Tiger wich is a beatstick and a hlf that could have gone a long way. and finaly tho I do love talking about WW2 and such I would like to direct all of this back to 40k what about things along the lines of Hell hound it has no IN capasity anymore but Does have larger weapons. Tho it COULD be still a light tank Also think of all the tanks in use that are nonplayable in the IoM
Light Tanks: Hellhound and its varients. Salamander (maybe), Predator (but I think i read it was a medium tank but cannot remember where), Siegfried, Tauros
Infantry Fighting Vehicle: Razorback, Chimera
APC: Rhino, Testudo,
Medium Tank: So far none found. But still think Predator fits here.
Heavy Tank: Malcador (its in its full name) Land Raider and its varients , Spartan Assault Tank, Valdor Tank hunter
Main Battle Tank: Leman Russ and its varients. Ragnarok
Super Heavy Tank: Macharius, Baneblade and its varients, Falchion,Gorgon,
Tauros (and Tauros Venator) aren't tanks, its a "dune buggy with a gun"?
There isnt really a "medium tank" about in Imperial terms. I suppose if you up-armoured a Chimera very slightly and fitted it with a turret / gun combo from a Russ that would be a medium tank but I dont think one will ever be released.
Ross74H wrote: Tauros (and Tauros Venator) aren't tanks, its a "dune buggy with a gun"?
There isnt really a "medium tank" about in Imperial terms. I suppose if you up-armoured a Chimera very slightly and fitted it with a turret / gun combo from a Russ that would be a medium tank but I dont think one will ever be released.
There's actually a neat Chimera conversion that does something like that. On this very site.
Light Tanks: Hellhound and its varients. Salamander (maybe), Predator (but I think i read it was a medium tank but cannot remember where), Siegfried, Tauros
The Salamander and Siegfried remind of the Stuart light tank and the Pz II. The Tauros is more in-line with the humvee imho. A light utility vehicle or some such thing.
Ross74H wrote: Tauros (and Tauros Venator) aren't tanks, its a "dune buggy with a gun"?
There isnt really a "medium tank" about in Imperial terms. I suppose if you up-armoured a Chimera very slightly and fitted it with a turret / gun combo from a Russ that would be a medium tank but I dont think one will ever be released.
There's actually a neat Chimera conversion that does something like that. On this very site.
And very cool! Where'd you find it here?
But agreed, I can see a slightly up-armored and armed chimera filling in the medium tank role quite nicely.
An intersting comparison of Panthers and Shermans, at least in model scale version. Assuming the two models are scaled the same, the Panther has the same height as the sherman although the sloped armour will help more than the sherman's vertical sides.
Depends really. The sloped armor leaves the panther more vulnerable to attacks from an angle, such as airstrikes and rocket attacks from a rooftop, etc.
Flinty wrote: An intersting comparison of Panthers and Shermans, at least in model scale version. Assuming the two models are scaled the same, the Panther has the same height as the sherman although the sloped armour will help more than the sherman's vertical sides.
Melissia wrote: Depends really. The sloped armor leaves the panther more vulnerable to attacks from an angle, such as airstrikes and rocket attacks from a rooftop, etc.
Tanks have always been vulnerable to airstrikes and artillery. its why the Germans used camo on their vehicles.
The Allies didn't use camo much because it often led to friendly fire incidences. So they came up with the solution that if a vehicle has camo its an enemy.
Melissia wrote: Depends really. The sloped armor leaves the panther more vulnerable to attacks from an angle, such as airstrikes and rocket attacks from a rooftop, etc.
Tanks have always been vulnerable to airstrikes and artillery. its why the Germans used camo on their vehicles.
That doesn't change the fact that sloped armor has disadvantages.
Melissia wrote: Depends really. The sloped armor leaves the panther more vulnerable to attacks from an angle, such as airstrikes and rocket attacks from a rooftop, etc.
Tanks have always been vulnerable to airstrikes and artillery. its why the Germans used camo on their vehicles.
That doesn't change the fact that sloped armor has disadvantages.
You have to get into seriously thick armor for the slope to make much of a difference against a bomb. The Sherman has no more meaningfull slope against an air strike than the Panther does.
You have to hit the King Tiger before you have much meaningfull protection against an Air Strike, and this is completely countered by being big and slow.
Grey Templar wrote: The Panther was an amazing Medium Tank. It had excellent frontal armor combined with a powerful gun.
Sure, the engines were shoddy towards the end there, but so were all German engines due to resource problems along with pressure to produce more and more vehicles on short notice.
If Germany had not had supply issues the Panther could well have stemmed the tide.
It was an over engineered mess. If it made it to combat it was excellent. However it was so overengineered matinence and cost to build were strong negatives. Its like after the PZIV they quit building tanks and started tring to design fighters. Too complex for the task needed.
Grey Templar wrote: I attribute the mechanical problems to the demand for rapid production and the short cuts that were taken to do that.
From the perspective of designing a weapon it was excellent. Engine problems shouldn't be considered in this.
Of course they should be. It wasn't production engineering or manufacturing that was the problem. Their designs were overly complicated for the job and too highly engineered for maximum performance. Its not just a Panther thing, but an overall design thing. For instance there's a note somewhere where the firing mechanism on a German artillery tube had something on the order of over 30 pieces, whereas its British and US counterparts had six or seven.
Specific to their engines - their engines were designed almost as racing engines. This is great where power/weight is the key factor. Churning through the mud taking a pounding in the freaking Russian winter is something else entirely. Very high performance but too complicated - creating extended manufacturing times and overly long maintenance runs vs. their enemy counterparts. its no wonder...Ferdinand Porsche was involved. (has image in his head of a PZ V going through a hairpin turn about 70 mph...)
Discussions of which was the bestest tank ever, and which IS the bestest tank ever (bestest tank ever is the K2 Black Panther imo) are rather moot, and the Classification of tanks into light, medium and heavy is 70 years out of date. The classification was out of date as soon as the T-34 showed up, and then the upgunned and up armoured MK IV, and the Sherman.
The classification system was based on purely theoretical work condicted between the wars, where it was envisioned that specialist tanks would perform specialist roles on the battlefield. Generally speaking:
Light Tanks were for reconaisance
Heavy Tanks were for Linbreaking weaknesses discovered by the light tanks
Medium tanks were for the exploitation of those penetrations in the traditional cavalry role
What was discovered during the war, was that light tanks died way too easily (there are some awesome german attempts to keep the light tank relevant, like the 'baby tiger') and had pathetic guns.
Heavy tanks were too expensive, and couldn't keep up
Medium tanks could be armed with exactly the same guns as heavy tanks, and if the gun could kill a heavy tank, it didn't really matter what was firing it, or whether it had paper mache for armour.
The experiences resulted in medium tanks performing all battlefield roles, For example, the Panther tank replaced light tanks in the recon role, and had better frontal armour, and a better gun than the Tiger E heavy tank.
Post war developments resulted in the production of 'universal' tanks such as the centurion, T-54/55 and Patton tanks, all medium. Heavy tanks were obsolete, and while produced in some numbers, they were impractical, and soon abandoned in favour of what would become MBT's, or tanks that could perform ALL battlefield roles. Light tanks are enjoting a slight resurgence in popularity of late, but they, like the heavy tanks, are pretty much extinct.
Role wise, which is the only real way to classify tanks, most tanks in 40k would probably fit into the medium role, the only exception i can really think of is the Landraider, being a linebreaker to all intents and purposes, and the super heavies, being, well, super heavy
I like Panthers, and I believe the theory behind them was sound. It was a proto MBT attempt that had an unsound design. Considering the year it was introduced into service I'm surprised they managed to get anything working at all. I do find them aesthetically pleasing however.
As far as the imperium goes I agree with whoever applied warsaw pact strategy and tactical theory to the imperium, its the mnost apt comparison.
I consider the engine to be a seperate design system from the armor and weaponry because an engine can be swapped and still have it be the same vehicle.
You could have a better engine in a Panther tank and still have it be a Panther tank. You could not change the gun to a hull mount and still call it a Panther. Its become a Jagdpanther.
The Germans made a poor choice of engine for the Panther, that doesn't make the Panther a bad tank.
A more useful distinction is probably between battle tanks (predator, leman russ, etc), assault tanks (land raider, crassus, etc), infantry fighting vehicles (chimera, razorback, etc), and self-propelled guns/mobile artillery pieces (such as the basilisk and vindicator). But even that can be blurred by variants.
Grey Templar wrote:I consider the engine to be a seperate design system from the armor and weaponry because an engine can be swapped and still have it be the same vehicle.
You could have a better engine in a Panther tank and still have it be a Panther tank. You could not change the gun to a hull mount and still call it a Panther. Its become a Jagdpanther.
The Germans made a poor choice of engine for the Panther, that doesn't make the Panther a bad tank.
madtankbloke wrote: Discussions of which was the bestest tank ever, and which IS the bestest tank ever (bestest tank ever is the K2 Black Panther imo) are rather moot, and the Classification of tanks into light, medium and heavy is 70 years out of date. The classification was out of date as soon as the T-34 showed up, and then the upgunned and up armoured MK IV, and the Sherman.
The classification system was based on purely theoretical work condicted between the wars, where it was envisioned that specialist tanks would perform specialist roles on the battlefield. Generally speaking:
Light Tanks were for reconaisance Heavy Tanks were for Linbreaking weaknesses discovered by the light tanks Medium tanks were for the exploitation of those penetrations in the traditional cavalry role
What was discovered during the war, was that light tanks died way too easily (there are some awesome german attempts to keep the light tank relevant, like the 'baby tiger') and had pathetic guns. Heavy tanks were too expensive, and couldn't keep up Medium tanks could be armed with exactly the same guns as heavy tanks, and if the gun could kill a heavy tank, it didn't really matter what was firing it, or whether it had paper mache for armour.
The experiences resulted in medium tanks performing all battlefield roles, For example, the Panther tank replaced light tanks in the recon role, and had better frontal armour, and a better gun than the Tiger E heavy tank.
Post war developments resulted in the production of 'universal' tanks such as the centurion, T-54/55 and Patton tanks, all medium. Heavy tanks were obsolete, and while produced in some numbers, they were impractical, and soon abandoned in favour of what would become MBT's, or tanks that could perform ALL battlefield roles. Light tanks are enjoting a slight resurgence in popularity of late, but they, like the heavy tanks, are pretty much extinct.
Role wise, which is the only real way to classify tanks, most tanks in 40k would probably fit into the medium role, the only exception i can really think of is the Landraider, being a linebreaker to all intents and purposes, and the super heavies, being, well, super heavy
An interesting but OT aside, when the heavies started showing up (when was that '43?) , how come the US didn't just mass produce tank destroyers, which had better guns?
I consider the engine to be a seperate design system from the armor and weaponry because an engine can be swapped and still have it be the same vehicle.
You could have a better engine in a Panther tank and still have it be a Panther tank. You could not change the gun to a hull mount and still call it a Panther. Its become a Jagdpanther.
The Germans made a poor choice of engine for the Panther, that doesn't make the Panther a bad tank.
Er yea, until they fix the engine, so it can be deployed, it does. If the engine never gets fixed, then it remains a design flaw. The three factors, or so the history Channel tells me, are speed, firepower, and protection. If you engine no workey you gots no speedey. Again, this is a common problem. The Mustang was purely mediocre until the Brits threw in a quality engine. In fact the Spitfire's engine and wing are what made it, else its just a Hurricane or P40.
Its also like the Sherman. It was a Tommy cooker initially, but design changes helped cut down on the flare ups, making a much better tank (along with a better gun). The Germans never seemed to get the need for a simple engine. Frankly, we have many of the same issues with the M1 vs. a more standard diesel engine, but we're not fighting Mother Russia right now either.
Melissia wrote:Hah, I like that anime's sense of humor. What's its name?
"Girls und Panzer" (no, really )
I have yet to give it a try myself, but what I've seen on youtube so far looks interesting/funny. I'm also impressed by how well it integrates 3D tanks with drawn characters.
Well, it's the usual superkawaii schoolgirl look. I suppose I'd be more disturbed by it if the series was in any way serious, but this way it almost feels as if it would have to be there.
The Tiger P ended up being a great TD tho. so you cant compleatly falt it.
And Sloped armor is amazing becouse it increased the armor value of something whil redusing the weight.
I at the same time I like the intimidating presence of just a bulky flat tank
Sloped armour is part of the reason the T34 was so revolutionary when it was introduced - it increases the relative armour thckness by something like 50% without the armour needing to actually be thicker.
Hence why the barn-sided Russ just looks plain old wrong to modern eyes, and I'm sorry but i would not think designs would de-evolve so much as to have some mad hybrid of a WW1 tank and a Cold War era turret.
Just no on so many levels.
Build a MBT based on the chimera hull or WW2 designs, they look much more right.
Flat side that is three feet high, versus nine feet. I don't want this to become another "Leman Russ sucks" thread. Just mentioning. Flat sides are used on modern tanks because they suit the combat environment. Long range tank battles in vehicles that stay low to the ground so they aren't as easy to target.
The Leman Russ is only one meter taller than the Leopard 2.
It is actualy 1,4m higher than the Leopard. This means that the Leman Russ is almost 50% higher than the Leopard 2, which is one of the larger tanks currently around.
The Leman Russ is twice as high as the russian T-80 and T-90 tanks.
The Leman Russ is only one meter taller than the Leopard 2.
It is actualy 1,4m higher than the Leopard. This means that the Leman Russ is almost 50% higher than the Leopard 2, which is one of the larger tanks currently around.
The Leman Russ is twice as high as the russian T-80 and T-90 tanks.
My IAv1:2e says the LRBT is 3.98m tall, and wikipedia says the leopard 2 is 3m tall.
Also, the Sabra, an Israeli tank, is taller than the leopard 2. But yes, those are both large tanks.
My point being that being slab-sided isn't really some sort of strange obsolete concept deserving relegation to the 1920's dustbin of tank designs.
Arcsquad12 wrote: Flat side that is three feet high, versus nine feet. I don't want this to become another "Leman Russ sucks" thread. Just mentioning. Flat sides are used on modern tanks because they suit the combat environment.
Actually they're used because the sloped armor doesn't provide as much protection as people think it does, especially against modern armaments; superior materials (such as chobham) helps more than sloping.
Ross74H wrote: Sloped armour is part of the reason the T34 was so revolutionary when it was introduced - it increases the relative armour thckness by something like 50% without the armour needing to actually be thicker.
Sorry but French tanks got there far before the Russian T-34. Look up the Renault R35, Hotchkiss H35/38, Hotchkiss H39, S35 SOMUA as well as a load of other tanks in French service prior to 1940.
People give Russian tanks far more credit than they deserve. For example people like to say how the German Panzers meeting the KV1 & T-34 in Russia made the Germans accelerate their Heavy Tank project (PzKpfw VI 'Tiger') when in fact the German introduction to the A12 Matilda IIC, A11 Matilda 1 at Arras in May 1940 as well as combat against units of French Char B1 BIS during the Battle of France that made the German High Command give the project higher priority. The only way they stopped the British Infantry Tank advance
The T-34 was a horrible tank for its crews - few had half-decent optics with many gunners forced to aim the gun by peering down the bore of the gun before it was loaded. Then the amount of training the crews had was abysmal, with many Russian tank crews suffering injuries just from being in their own tanks - when you don't know where to place yourself & your limbs when a 76mm gun is crashing back inside a cramped turret...
The major thing Russian tanks had going for them were their suspension systems which allowed for a faster vehicle over rougher terrain. The inventor was turned down by the US and so he went over to Russia.
Britain used the Christie suspension system in the A13 MkII & MkIII. The Christie suspension system wasn't a 'one nation only' thing, it was purchased by whoever wished to use it & was allowed to buy it.
The Leman Russ is only one meter taller than the Leopard 2.
It is actualy 1,4m higher than the Leopard. This means that the Leman Russ is almost 50% higher than the Leopard 2, which is one of the larger tanks currently around.
The Leman Russ is twice as high as the russian T-80 and T-90 tanks.
My IAv1:2e says the LRBT is 3.98m tall, and wikipedia says the leopard 2 is 3m tall.
Also, the Sabra, an Israeli tank, is taller than the leopard 2. But yes, those are both large tanks.
My point being that being slab-sided isn't really some sort of strange obsolete concept deserving relegation to the 1920's dustbin of tank designs.
Are you certain about the 3,98m? IA1 says, at least according to my version, that the tank is 4,42m high.
There is plenty of incidents of "sloped armor" long before tanks were invented. no less the T-34. Germans only realized the sloped armor helps and is more effective then "flat" armor when their guns bounced off of the armor when it was thinner then the flat armor they had.
There is plenty of incidents of "sloped armor" long before tanks were invented. no less the T-34. Germans only realized the sloped armor helps and is more effective then "flat" armor when their guns bounced off of the armor when it was thinner then the flat armor they had.
a) Russians DID invented usage of sloped armor for increased protection in vehicles...though 25 years earlier ( Mgebrov's armored car, 1915.)
b) Actually, even in 1941 germans did have AP shells which were almost as effective 'gainst sloped armor as against vertical one due to "normalizing cap" . It's just that nobody else bothered to produce them en masse - lack of targets, you know.
Actually the first actual example of sloped armour on a ground based vehicle? Leonardo da Vinci's design for a 'tank'. I think you'll find it has 400 or so years on that Russian armoured car, but if you want 20th century examples prior to 1915; Simm's Motor War Car of 1902, Austro-Daimler armoured car of 1904 has a marvelous domed turret - they both have examples of sloped armour as does the Rolls-Royce Armoured Car (RNAS) of 1915.
Ross74H wrote: Sloped armour is part of the reason the T34 was so revolutionary when it was introduced - it increases the relative armour thckness by something like 50% without the armour needing to actually be thicker.
Sorry but French tanks got there far before the Russian T-34. Look up the Renault R35, Hotchkiss H35/38, Hotchkiss H39, S35 SOMUA as well as a load of other tanks in French service prior to 1940.
People give Russian tanks far more credit than they deserve. For example people like to say how the German Panzers meeting the KV1 & T-34 in Russia made the Germans accelerate their Heavy Tank project (PzKpfw VI 'Tiger') when in fact the German introduction to the A12 Matilda IIC, A11 Matilda 1 at Arras in May 1940 as well as combat against units of French Char B1 BIS during the Battle of France that made the German High Command give the project higher priority. The only way they stopped the British Infantry Tank advance
The T-34 was a horrible tank for its crews - few had half-decent optics with many gunners forced to aim the gun by peering down the bore of the gun before it was loaded. Then the amount of training the crews had was abysmal, with many Russian tank crews suffering injuries just from being in their own tanks - when you don't know where to place yourself & your limbs when a 76mm gun is crashing back inside a cramped turret...
I don't think the amount of training is indicative is a tank design is good or not. You can have the best plane in the world but if you put me at the controls it will result in a pretty explosion all the time . Bad or insufficent training is the result of bad doctrine not bad tank design.
Melissia@ Most modern tanks have some degree of slope in their fron armor. Side armor is not something you are supposed to allow your opponent to target. I also think that you are being unfair to the Panther with your vulnerability to air attacks comment, that would assume that the Panther was supposed to star in a one sided fight against everything the Allies could throw against it, from GIs with a grenade to BB bombardement. No weapon system, no matter what the marketing guys say, is able to engage or defend against all threats of the battlefield and the Panther was no exception without taking into account the numerous teething problems it had due to the usual infighting about what the generals wanted, what Hitler wanted and what the engineers could provide.
Miguelsan wrote: I also think that you are being unfair to the Panther with your vulnerability to air attacks comment, that would assume that the Panther was supposed to star in a one sided fight against everything the Allies could throw against it
So a single off-hand comment means I'm focusing on it?
You guys are getting hilariously defensive about your mediocre historical tanks
I think the Imperium isn't really predisposed to delicate tactical engagements of armour - rather they prefer as much concentrated firepower as possible.
Why dance around with a finely honed rapier, thrusting and feinting then slipping it between the armour of your opponent when you can just smash his head back into his torso with a massive hammer?
No, heavy tanks are the way to go.
If that isn't working send a thousand more.
If that isn't working then use super heavy tanks.
Scale up to planetary bombardment/exterminatus as required.
Melissia@ Most modern tanks have some degree of slope in their fron armor. Side armor is not something you are supposed to allow your opponent to target. I also think that you are being unfair to the Panther with your vulnerability to air attacks comment, that would assume that the Panther was supposed to star in a one sided fight against everything the Allies could throw against it, from GIs with a grenade to BB bombardement. No weapon system, no matter what the marketing guys say, is able to engage or defend against all threats of the battlefield and the Panther was no exception without taking into account the numerous teething problems it had due to the usual infighting about what the generals wanted, what Hitler wanted and what the engineers could provide.
M.
In Melissia's defense thats accurate though. Panthers faced all of that. Indeed, I'll take a Thunderbolt weighed down by rockets and bombs than a Panther.
US simple math:
Panther > Sherman
Thunderbolt > Panther.
Melissia wrote: But two shermans > one panther, and you could probably get two shermans for the cost of a panther hehe.
Probably 3. And by the time your fancy panther is done destroying that sherman? We just replaced it, the tank crew and the ammunition twice over. That's the beauty of the old American industry. Germany couldn't afford to lose panthers but the USA could lose all the shermans it wanted and still get more. Even then the Sherman was a good match for a Panther with the right armament. In it's defense, the Panther never failed to have a snazzy paintjob.
On topic, look at it like this. What's the point of a medium tank to the Imperium of Man? They got a tank that you can blow up with an autocannon on a 5 and they got a tank you could blow up with a lascannon on a 5. What else is needed? A tank you can blow up with a battle cannon on a 5? The Leman Russ variants can fullfill most battlefield roles reliably and the Chimera can pick up the slack from there. Need a fast, recon tank? Salamander is your baby.
Medium tanks aren't realy needed for the Imperial Guard. They need things that are heavy, heavily armed and move slow. Medium tanks aren't that.
Arguably, it's Marines that need mediums more than guard... but the Predator is basically a light tank-- fast (in the lore at least) and relatively lightly armed.
Miguelsan wrote: I don't think the amount of training is indicative is a tank design is good or not. You can have the best plane in the world but if you put me at the controls it will result in a pretty explosion all the time . Bad or insufficent training is the result of bad doctrine not bad tank design.
I think, and don't trust me on this as it's been a long old week and my mind is mush at the moment from lack of sleep, that it was a follow on comment to the gunners have to look through the guns bore in order to aim it because the optics were useless except for a few lucky crews who had half-decent optics on their T-34s (think it was normally the 'command' tanks that got 'em).
The classifications you offer are a modern construct. They might not have that sort of military doctrine in the Imperium. They might only have light and heavy tanks, and light tanks would be fairly heavy.
Grey Templar wrote: Are we in a dense wooded area or is there decent line of sight in multiple directions.
I'm not certain it matters that much.
The Panther is a very, very limited tank design, which is slow to turn and with a abominably slow turret, whose only advantage is really not all that useful.
It matters alot realy seeing the terain would acount for the style of fighting the crews would try fro. consider this open field, long LOS would favor the panther and its Long 7.5 CM and would be able to knock out 2-3 mobility kills add 1-2 more from an ambush but a forest would favor a short 75mm Sherman becouse it could still turn its turret and not hanve to worry about the trees as much. the long 7.5 cm would be a down side becouse the trees would limit your turning radius. the panther also had loads of things it could do but again it was very circumstantal to where you were.
Grey Templar wrote: Are we in a dense wooded area or is there decent line of sight in multiple directions.
I'm not certain it matters that much.
The Panther is a very, very limited tank design, which is slow to turn and with a abominably slow turret, whose only advantage is really not all that useful.
At long range the relatively slow traversing turret is much less of a disadvantage than in a cityfight. The high power of the KWK 42 as well as the tank's thick frontal armour meant that it could destroy most contemporary tank designs before they managed to threaten the tank itself. As such the Panther was a rather sucessful design.
Miguelsan wrote: I don't think the amount of training is indicative is a tank design is good or not. You can have the best plane in the world but if you put me at the controls it will result in a pretty explosion all the time . Bad or insufficent training is the result of bad doctrine not bad tank design.
I think, and don't trust me on this as it's been a long old week and my mind is mush at the moment from lack of sleep, that it was a follow on comment to the gunners have to look through the guns bore in order to aim it because the optics were useless except for a few lucky crews who had half-decent optics on their T-34s (think it was normally the 'command' tanks that got 'em).
I think you might be thinking about radios, most mid war T-34 lacked radios with some from the lend and lease programs spread around for commanders. Optics were crude compared to german ones but then german ones where second to none, I've never heard about having to aim through the gun.
BloodAngels Brother wrote: It matters alot realy seeing the terain would acount for the style of fighting the crews would try fro.
consider this open field, long LOS would favor the panther and its Long 7.5 CM and would be able to knock out 2-3 mobility kills add 1-2 more from an ambush
but a forest would favor a short 75mm Sherman becouse it could still turn its turret and not hanve to worry about the trees as much. the long 7.5 cm would be a down side becouse the trees would limit your turning radius.
the panther also had loads of things it could do but again it was very circumstantal to where you were.
Of course, if the Panther is in an open field, it might blast some Shermans, but the FOB going to bring the tankbuster rain on you.
