Switch Theme:

Your favorite tank and why  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in gb
Keeper of the Holy Orb of Antioch





avoiding the lorax on Crion

 Frazzled wrote:
The Germans tried upgunning the Panzer IV even further but the chassis simply could not take any further modifications. German design philosophy of building bigger tanks with bigger guns certainly would never have won them the war and the Panther was not an efficient use of resources considering their strategic situation. This madness even led to designs like the Tiger II, Jagdtiger and the Maus. While I love all these tanks dearly they were not war winning designs. They would've been better off building more STUG III/Hetzer vehicles and finding a more sensible replacement for the Panzer IV rather than a giant hunk of metal that was a great target for allied aircraft.

Regardless, I still like the Panther and it's my favorite WW2 tank. It's a big tank with a big gun with a nice look.


Have you looked at their E series designs? These are also interesting in looking at German armor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entwicklung_series
Their medium series to replace the Panther and Tiger II is interesting, if heavy at 50 to 75 tons.


Germans default answer was to make tanks heavier, more armoured and fit ever heavier main guns.

They had 128mm jag tigers, with close to a foot of frontal armour. They could kill a Shetland 4000m away, or through a barn.

They only lost due to reliability or inexperienced crews turning or getting flanked and instead OT taking hits on heaviest, they got hit on weaker side armour. It was perfectly capable of taking Sherman shots head on but crews did not have the experience and training of earlier crews.

In the hands of crews who had time to train, and had combat experience. The late war tanks probbly would have been extremely lethal (if they not break down!)

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/13 19:17:48


Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.

"May the odds be ever in your favour"

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.

FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.  
   
Made in gb
Lord Commander in a Plush Chair





London

Otto Carius describes how crew inexperience cost them jagdtigers. They had crew try to turn and run from an attack which exposed their rear, and crew that bailed as soon as they saw a column of allied tanks arriving instead of holding ground in a vehicle that was largely invulnerable in the short term - once they bring in air support and artillery it’s time to quit.
   
Made in gb
Keeper of the Holy Orb of Antioch





avoiding the lorax on Crion

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Otto Carius describes how crew inexperience cost them jagdtigers. They had crew try to turn and run from an attack which exposed their rear, and crew that bailed as soon as they saw a column of allied tanks arriving instead of holding ground in a vehicle that was largely invulnerable in the short term - once they bring in air support and artillery it’s time to quit.


Yeah, hull down somewhat, forward facing. There was no allied tank that could attack them head on at any real range. Only ones even close might be the likes of 17 pounder equiped designs and they would have to close. All while Germans are able to land hits at 2000+ metres if lucky and knock em out.

75/76mm AP was gonna be useless, the did stand a chance bar maybe like 1-1000 odds.

Good job for allies. In right hands they could likely fight 10-1 and do alot of damage with right ground.


Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.

"May the odds be ever in your favour"

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.

FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.  
   
Made in gb
Fresh-Faced New User





 Ouze wrote:
ThunderCracker wrote:
A particularly deadly encounter involving these tanks happened on 24th April 1918, near Cachy, France. A single Whippet company of seven tanks wiped out two entire German infantry battalions caught in the open, killing over 400.


So pretty much the last scene of Fury, but times 7.


Yeah, except this actually happened

Infact, I know of no other instance of so many people being killed in one incident by so few tanks. I accept that more than this perished in epic confrontations such as Kursk, but, of course, that involved huge numbers of vehicles.

If anyone can enlighten me here, I would be interested to know.
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

Well Audie Murphy did that thing with the tank machine gun....

-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in us
Member of the Ethereal Council




USA

 sebster wrote:
Its funny that people have argued the Panther was the first MBT. Its kind of maybe true in a technical sense, in that the tank managed to technically stay in the medium category and maintained mobility (theoretically), while having a cracking good gun that could penetrate just about anything at ordinary combat ranges. However, the core of the MBT design philosophy is that the cycle of heavier tanks with heavier guns was broken, because no matter how much armour you put on a tank the other side will be able to put a gun on their tank that will punch through.


I think it's because on paper it had all the qualifications. I don't know if being part of the older design philosophy disqualifies it. Every innovation begins as a piece of what is already established. The T-44 was also designed in that era but clearly qualifies as an MBT. On paper the Panther had excellent armor, excellent speed and mobility, a strong gun. Just going by it's specs it could reasonably have replaced the entire stock of German armored vehicles and done all their jobs itself. On paper.

A better term than "first" though I think would be "forerunner." A glimpse of things to come rather than the thing to come itself. I'd argue that the T-34 and the Centurion also fill this role. The former gets overlooked because it was very clearly part of the light-medium-heavy era and typical of it but when you break down the T-34 by performance it does everything you want an MBT to do. I don't think it's accurate to gauge this is a matter of design philosophy for the weapons platform itself. MBT is a doctrinal development first, and a design philosophy second. The abandoning of the light-medium-heavy dynamic of tank design goes hand in hand with the doctrine advancements and lessons learned in combat. Where light tanks were practically target practice and far more limited in role than expected. Where heavy tanks kept being beaten by slapping a bigger gun on whatever wanted to shoot it, creating a hopeless design loop of up-gun and up--armor that no one could keep up with from a production and development stance. Meanwhile while heavies were caught in an arms race and lights were being scaled back in role, mediums ended up being the workhorses for all armies involved because their performance-cost-kill ratios were just better on the whole. They ended up doing everything from fire-support, assault, exploitation, and mobile defense which in hindsight only begged the quation "why do we have these other tanks?"

The design philosophy was altered to adhered to learned realities and changes in how tanks were employed on the field, but tanks were already being employed in those roles on the field even before doctrine began to codify that reality.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 jhe90 wrote:


They only lost due to reliability or inexperienced crews turning or getting flanked and instead OT taking hits on heaviest, they got hit on weaker side armour. It was perfectly capable of taking Sherman shots head on but crews did not have the experience and training of earlier crews.


I think this is a common thing people think that makes little sense in the realities of the war.

Germany was outgunned, outmanned, and outproduced on all fronts. They could make tanks as heavy, armored, and gunned as they wanted. In the sort of words of a captured soldier "I ran out of ammo before you ran out of tanks." The Jadgtiger was a fearsome weapon, but one that was so easily circumvented it only qualified as a threat over the horizon. Once it's location was identified, it didn't have the mobility to avoid being flanked, shelled by artillery, or bombed by planes. Germany could never have produced such a thing in large number, making it even more "flash with no thunder."

In a way it was the only choice for Germany. They couldn't out build their foes by any measure. They focused on trying to build better tanks that could outlast their enemy, but the numbers were just to great. They were undone by the limitations of population, industry, and geography with all the design errors, badly trained crews, and lack of gas simply being symptoms of the real problem; After things reached a certain point, Germany had no chance of winning at the game of industrialized warfare. Fighting was just delaying the inevitable, and the enemies closing in had decided that conditional surrender was unacceptable.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/02/13 20:59:24


   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

Good points. On that basis you would really have to argue the first intentional MBT was the T55. The IS series had fallen out of favor at that time.

Centurion had the Conqueror, but later became the defacto MBT
M48 had the M103 but also became the defacto MBT, especially with the incurrence of the M60.

Speaking of cool. The ultimate Sherman tank, with a French 105mm on it.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/02/13 21:01:34


-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in gb
Lord Commander in a Plush Chair





London

 Frazzled wrote:
Well Audie Murphy did that thing with the tank machine gun....


Fury is bit of a mash up of things that resemble many notable incidents of the war, they just didn’t all happen to the same people. A KV-2 sat on a road all day with shells bouncing off and destroying everything in front of it (accounts are variable on details) and the Brad Pitt manning the 50 calibee on the deck is very much a homage to Audie Murphy, as you say.

Talking about heavy German guns, my dad thinks that one of my grandfathers accounts describes an Elephant encountered in Italy, I appreciate it’s a rarity but is conceivable. It sat around the bend of a road at the top of the hill, one side of a valley. It would come forward to fire, and reverse back into cover again. No one could get up the road all day. In the end a team took a Pheasant 17 pndr up the other side of the valley to fire across to knock it out. I think my dad showed pictures of Elephants to my grandfather but he couldn’t be sure, but the description in other ways seemed correct.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/13 21:05:12


 
   
Made in us
Ancient Ultramarine Venerable Dreadnought





Southern California, USA

Another German tank I'm fond of is the Hetzer. Cheap and reliable. Probably because it was a Czech design originally.



Also the Easy Eight. Absolutely beautiful tank with its HVSS suspension and long 76mm cannon.




Thought for the day: Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
30k Emperor's Children: 2000
Bolt Action Soviets: ~2000 pts
The Empire : ~60-70 models.
WMH CoC: 40 points (30 fully painted!)
1500 pts
: My Salamanders painting blog 16 Infantry and 2 Vehicles done so far!  
   
Made in gb
Keeper of the Holy Orb of Antioch





avoiding the lorax on Crion

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Well Audie Murphy did that thing with the tank machine gun....


Fury is bit of a mash up of things that resemble many notable incidents of the war, they just didn’t all happen to the same people. A KV-2 sat on a road all day with shells bouncing off and destroying everything in front of it (accounts are variable on details) and the Brad Pitt manning the 50 calibee on the deck is very much a homage to Audie Murphy, as you say.

Talking about heavy German guns, my dad thinks that one of my grandfathers accounts describes an Elephant encountered in Italy, I appreciate it’s a rarity but is conceivable. It sat around the bend of a road at the top of the hill, one side of a valley. It would come forward to fire, and reverse back into cover again. No one could get up the road all day. In the end a team took a Pheasant 17 pndr up the other side of the valley to fire across to knock it out. I think my dad showed pictures of Elephants to my grandfather but he couldn’t be sure, but the description in other ways seemed correct.


I'm sure Audie Murphy was a wrecked tank destroyer.not tank exactly if your being super detailed.

Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.

"May the odds be ever in your favour"

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.

FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.  
   
Made in gb
Lord Commander in a Plush Chair





London

Yes it was an M-10 but in the movie To Hell and Back they used a Sherman!

Short but good interview with Audie Murphy here (don’t want to go too far off topic) in which he describes his most memorable moment of the war. Worth listening too.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/13 21:39:33


 
   
Made in gb
Keeper of the Holy Orb of Antioch





avoiding the lorax on Crion

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Yes it was an M-10 but in the movie To Hell and Back they used a Sherman!

https://youtu.be/wF1F1kRTpWE


They even toned down the film lol.
He thought if they did it exactly to truth It would be unbelievable, his exploits, and his heroism.

Though it takes somthing that extreme to get a medal of honour.


Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.

"May the odds be ever in your favour"

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.

FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.  
   
Made in gb
Wrathful Warlord Titan Commander





Ramsden Heath, Essex

The Churchill Tank and the many derivatives especially the late Mark funnies.

A tank that finally meet most of the troops requests from 1939/40s battles (namely you could survive and manoeuvre well) allied to the leaderships desire for Infantry Tanks. Never quite up todate but never completely outclassed. So ugly it’s sexy.

The Crocodile and the Avre variants are just mind bogglingly clever and really show the versatility of the hull.

When the going got tough they sent in the Churchill, either taking punishment but making gains, cracking entrenched positions or scaring the fight out of the enemy without risking Allied troops. Truely a life saving vehicle.

So popular with British and US formations that they couldn’t convert Mk7+ to Crocodiles quick enough.

I’ll stick my neck out and suggest it was a vital but overshadowed tool in wining the Second World War.

How do you promote your Hobby? - Legoburner "I run some crappy wargaming website " 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Well Audie Murphy did that thing with the tank machine gun....


Fury is bit of a mash up of things that resemble many notable incidents of the war, they just didn’t all happen to the same people. A KV-2 sat on a road all day with shells bouncing off and destroying everything in front of it (accounts are variable on details) and the Brad Pitt manning the 50 calibee on the deck is very much a homage to Audie Murphy, as you say.

Talking about heavy German guns, my dad thinks that one of my grandfathers accounts describes an Elephant encountered in Italy, I appreciate it’s a rarity but is conceivable. It sat around the bend of a road at the top of the hill, one side of a valley. It would come forward to fire, and reverse back into cover again. No one could get up the road all day. In the end a team took a Pheasant 17 pndr up the other side of the valley to fire across to knock it out. I think my dad showed pictures of Elephants to my grandfather but he couldn’t be sure, but the description in other ways seemed correct.


Your grandpa could be right! They did have two formations of them in Italy, and the description of how they would shoot and back into a tunnel sounds exactly like a film review of the Elephant on youtube of what they did in Italy. Also, the Allies were successful in knocking several out like that there. I think there is a pic of one knocked out in that manner knocking about on the internet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 TheCustomLime wrote:
Another German tank I'm fond of is the Hetzer. Cheap and reliable. Probably because it was a Czech design originally.




They have a working Hetzer at Camp Mabry. I got inside it for a sec, that thing is CRAMPED inside. the turret on the M4 I was in felt like the same amount of space as the whole Hetzer.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/02/13 22:48:44


-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in gb
Keeper of the Holy Orb of Antioch





avoiding the lorax on Crion

 Frazzled wrote:
 Howard A Treesong wrote:
 Frazzled wrote:
Well Audie Murphy did that thing with the tank machine gun....


Fury is bit of a mash up of things that resemble many notable incidents of the war, they just didn’t all happen to the same people. A KV-2 sat on a road all day with shells bouncing off and destroying everything in front of it (accounts are variable on details) and the Brad Pitt manning the 50 calibee on the deck is very much a homage to Audie Murphy, as you say.

Talking about heavy German guns, my dad thinks that one of my grandfathers accounts describes an Elephant encountered in Italy, I appreciate it’s a rarity but is conceivable. It sat around the bend of a road at the top of the hill, one side of a valley. It would come forward to fire, and reverse back into cover again. No one could get up the road all day. In the end a team took a Pheasant 17 pndr up the other side of the valley to fire across to knock it out. I think my dad showed pictures of Elephants to my grandfather but he couldn’t be sure, but the description in other ways seemed correct.


Your grandpa could be right! They did have two formations of them in Italy, and the description of how they would shoot and back into a tunnel sounds exactly like a film review of the Elephant on youtube of what they did in Italy. Also, the Allies were successful in knocking several out like that there. I think there is a pic of one knocked out in that manner knocking about on the internet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 TheCustomLime wrote:
Another German tank I'm fond of is the Hetzer. Cheap and reliable. Probably because it was a Czech design originally.




They have a working Hetzer at Camp Mabry. I got inside it for a sec, that thing is CRAMPED inside. the turret on the M4 I was in felt like the same amount of space as the whole Hetzer.



Shooting, back from a tunnel to reload. Sounds very much like tactic used by the Raul guns that fired at anzio. Etx. They ducked into tunnels to reload for cover and harassed the Allies for days on end with there range beyond any allied counter battery fore.

Very efficient when you have lost air supority and not always got advantage.

Also yeah. The Hertzer was a real hitting above weight tank. Reliable, easy to use. Build, cheap and effective.

They where ideal for the battles the Germans faced regularly later war.

Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.

"May the odds be ever in your favour"

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.

FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.  
   
Made in au
[DCM]
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 TheCustomLime wrote:
As the Panther existed during the war you have a point. You can build the best tank ever (not the saying the Panther is) but if you crew it with conscripts it is not going to matter much against an enemy with well trained tankers. I wish I had more statistics of Panther performance when operated by quality such as the Panzer Lehr division but alas I can only speculate.


I don't have any figures for direct performance of Panther within Panzer Lehr or Grossdeutschland, and I doubt such stats exist. But given the incredible combat performance of those elite units it is safe to say the Panther played a significant role. It wasn't just training, the Panther had everything you want for taking on enemy tanks and blowing them up.

But what I'm saying is that isn't all you judge a tank on. Apart from some pretty limited counter-offensices, it's ultimately all the Germans could use their tanks for from roughly Kursk onwards, but if the war was very different and the Panther was looked on to make the kind of freewheeling exploitation operations that is a key part of the role of a medium tank, that was the reason the Germans took France and advanced across most of Russia, then the Panther would have been found more than a little wanting.

The Germans tried upgunning the Panzer IV even further but the chassis simply could not take any further modifications. German design philosophy of building bigger tanks with bigger guns certainly would never have won them the war and the Panther was not an efficient use of resources considering their strategic situation. This madness even led to designs like the Tiger II, Jagdtiger and the Maus. While I love all these tanks dearly they were not war winning designs. They would've been better off building more STUG III/Hetzer vehicles and finding a more sensible replacement for the Panzer IV rather than a giant hunk of metal that was a great target for allied aircraft.


The Germans did a lot of good work getting every bit of performance they could out of the Panzer IV, the 75mm gun they managed to get on it was pretty good, all things considered, and the SPG variants gave great service as well.

But the Germans started the Panther with a notion of a 30 ton tank. Remember at that time they weren't aware that they were about to spend the rest of the war on the defensive. Sticking to 30 tons, with a focus on something able to take the long 75mm gun they put on the Panther, or at least something very close, that would would have given the Germans a true medium tank that maintained real tank killing power, much like where the Allies went with the upgrades to the Sherman and T-34.

Regardless, I still like the Panther and it's my favorite WW2 tank. It's a big tank with a big gun with a nice look.


Damn straight.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 LordofHats wrote:
I think it's because on paper it had all the qualifications. I don't know if being part of the older design philosophy disqualifies it. Every innovation begins as a piece of what is already established. The T-44 was also designed in that era but clearly qualifies as an MBT. On paper the Panther had excellent armor, excellent speed and mobility, a strong gun. Just going by it's specs it could reasonably have replaced the entire stock of German armored vehicles and done all their jobs itself. On paper.


But the Panther had limited operational range, even on paper without the mechanical issues, and a crappy HE round. It wasn't an all-around tank as it couldn't perform the exploitation role. It was focused on tank killing.

MBT is a doctrinal development first, and a design philosophy second. The abandoning of the light-medium-heavy dynamic of tank design goes hand in hand with the doctrine advancements and lessons learned in combat. Where light tanks were practically target practice and far more limited in role than expected. Where heavy tanks kept being beaten by slapping a bigger gun on whatever wanted to shoot it, creating a hopeless design loop of up-gun and up--armor that no one could keep up with from a production and development stance. Meanwhile while heavies were caught in an arms race and lights were being scaled back in role, mediums ended up being the workhorses for all armies involved because their performance-cost-kill ratios were just better on the whole. They ended up doing everything from fire-support, assault, exploitation, and mobile defense which in hindsight only begged the quation "why do we have these other tanks?"


Sure, I agree with all that. My point, though, was that instead of being the first MBT or even the forerunner, the Panther was one of the missteps along the way to reaching the end stage MBT design. It was an entry in the overall concept of pushing weight to the limits to try and produce a tank that no enemy gun could penetrate at normal combat ranges. That it did this while maintaining speed was an impressive engineering feat. But the fact the allies just responded by upgunning their existing (much lighter) tanks showed the design philosophy of the Panther was a step in the wrong direction.

The Jadgtiger was a fearsome weapon, but one that was so easily circumvented it only qualified as a threat over the horizon. Once it's location was identified, it didn't have the mobility to avoid being flanked, shelled by artillery, or bombed by planes. Germany could never have produced such a thing in large number, making it even more "flash with no thunder."


Yep, no frontal armour will ever be so thick, no main gun so huge that it can stop an infantry team moving to the tank's flank and popping it with a bazooka. Or simply holding back and calling in artillery.

Really, the Jadgtiger makes us wargamers smile because of its so cool, but as a weapon of war it was a terrible choice. Even given Germany's extreme circumstances it made little sense. Really, its just another example of how Germany's war industry declined in to mad scientist buffoonery by the end of the war. Another example is the German program to build a bomber that could reach New York - it was ended when Russians overran the factory. There were Russians marching on all fronts - a bomber that can reach New York should not be a priority.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/02/14 02:32:34


“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
Member of the Ethereal Council




USA

 sebster wrote:
But the fact the allies just responded by upgunning their existing (much lighter) tanks showed the design philosophy of the Panther was a step in the wrong direction.


I guess I just don't consider that relevant. Missteps happen in developing ideas. The first tank destroyers produced by the US military were just half tracks with 76mm guns stapled to the decks. They were horrendously flawed in all kinds of ways, but they still ended up signaling the coming irrelevancy of hauled anti-tank guns because as flawed as they were they were the predecessors of later more successful weapons like the M10 and M18. Hell even the tank destroyer concept was flawed by its very nature in the long run, but that doesn't change that when you take McNair's TD doctrine and put it in the air you get the A10 Warthog and the Apache Attack Helicopter, which succeed(ed) in their roles and time.

Really, the Jadgtiger makes us wargamers smile because of its so cool, but as a weapon of war it was a terrible choice.


Yep. Rule of cool. Though I'll say they were pretty damn effective in Company of Heroes: Blitzkrieg Mod, cause once you started spamming tanks in that infantry became useless and whoever had the meanest tank won

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/02/14 07:52:59


   
Made in au
[DCM]
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 LordofHats wrote:
I guess I just don't consider that relevant. Missteps happen in developing ideas. The first tank destroyers produced by the US military were just half tracks with 76mm guns stapled to the decks. They were horrendously flawed in all kinds of ways, but they still ended up signaling the coming irrelevancy of hauled anti-tank guns because as flawed as they were they were the predecessors of later more successful weapons like the M10 and M18. Hell even the tank destroyer concept was flawed by its very nature in the long run, but that doesn't change that when you take McNair's TD doctrine and put it in the air you get the A10 Warthog and the Apache Attack Helicopter, which succeed(ed) in their roles and time.


I think we're maybe talking at cross purposes here. I think you're saying the technical specs of the Panther, the speed the tank was capable of despite its weight, gun and armour, that showed what was possible and where tank design would go? So in terms of technical specs it was a move towards the MBT? Because I don't disagree with that, its just we're looking at the question from different angles.

Because to me I look at that question as one of intent and design. The Panther was built with a focus on killing enemy tanks, and loaded with armour in the belief that it could be made resistant to enemy AT guns. That's the opposite of MBT design, I think. So in terms of the move down the path that led to the MBT doctrine, the Panther was a step in the wrong direction. Whereas the upgunned Shermans and T-34s built in response, while they weren't MBT, the concepts behind those tanks were steps towards MBT.

Yep. Rule of cool. Though I'll say they were pretty damn effective in Company of Heroes: Blitzkrieg Mod, cause once you started spamming tanks in that infantry became useless and whoever had the meanest tank won


A friend and I were talking about Bolt Action, we both played but had never played each other. He was commenting how it was weird in Bolt Action that the Sherman was a better tank than most German tanks, because the Sherman had a special rule to give it a better HE round, which was mre useful than the high AP of German guns because Bolt Action is mostly an infantry game. When he asked why I was smiling, I said it was because the Sherman actually was a better tank than most German tanks, because WWII was mostly an infantry war

“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
Ancient Ultramarine Venerable Dreadnought





Southern California, USA

Cold comfort for the poor Sherman crew who had the misfortune of fighting against the big cats, though.

Thought for the day: Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
30k Emperor's Children: 2000
Bolt Action Soviets: ~2000 pts
The Empire : ~60-70 models.
WMH CoC: 40 points (30 fully painted!)
1500 pts
: My Salamanders painting blog 16 Infantry and 2 Vehicles done so far!  
   
Made in gb
Fresh-Faced New User





I have to say, it does grind my gears somewhat that folk keep talking highly of the German tanks of WW2 so much.

Yes, I think we can all agree that they were indeed very good vehicles. But did they achieve their objectives, ie; win the war? No, they didn't.

There were too few of them (mostly referring to Panther, Tiger and King Tiger), they were too complex, they were unreliable, they were difficult and labour intensive to maintain, they were a logistical nightmare to get from A-Z (particularly Tiger and King Tiger, owing to their weight)...I could go on and on. I could mention their virtues, but we all know those.

Compared to many of the tanks which the Allies had, of course they stood out. But only in the way a Lamborghini stands out next to a Ford. Is the Lamborghini a "better" car? No.

Allied tanks were, as we know, generally inferior to their German counterparts in tank-to-tank combat. But once upgunned, as seen in the Sherman Firefly, all of a sudden, they were deadly. Michael Wittmann knows all about that. The British 17pdr it was armed with was easily comparable to, or even superior, to the much vaunted German 88.

Had the British Matilda 2 had a better gun and been faster, it would have been a complete nightmare to face. Even with a small 2pdr gun, in the early stages of the war, it terrified the Germans because only the 88 or very heavy AT could stop it.

Allied tanks were easy to build (particularly the Sherman), easily upgradable, easier to maintain, mass-prodceable (is that a word? No? I just coined it), more reliable etc. And, most importantly, they were EVERYWHERE.

Had the Germans focussed more on upgrading their existing tanks, such as the excellent Panzer III and IV, they might have done better. Even as it was, the Panzer IV was a superb tank, which despite being upgunned and made considerably heavier than it's original design weight, still performed well. Yet hardly anyone seems to mention this vehicle.

It's also worth remembering that the Comet tank was excellent, yet sadly arrived too late. A couple of years earlier, and it would have given even the Tigers something to think about. And the Centurion was born from a WW2 design. Had THAT beast been introduced during the war, then I believe that the Germans would have learned to fear it every bit as much as the Tigers.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/02/14 14:29:36


 
   
Made in us
Shas'ui with Bonding Knife





Northern IA

You are making a pretty broad statement when you ask "did theu win the war?"

The only thing that I can say has ever won a war ny otself was the atomic bomb.

There are so many more "moving parts" involved in achieving victory.

Did the T-34 win the Russian front?

Did the Iowa class battleships win the Pacific?

Just some examples of great pieces of war machinery...but ones that would not, could not, and did not single handedly win the war.

I destroy my enemies when I make them my friends.

Three!! Three successful trades! Ah ah ah!
 
   
Made in us
Veteran Inquisitorial Tyranid Xenokiller





 ThunderCracker wrote:
I have to say, it does grind my gears somewhat that folk keep talking highly of the German tanks of WW2 so much.

Yes, I think we can all agree that they were indeed very good vehicles. But did they achieve their objectives, ie; win the war? No, they didn't.

There were too few of them (mostly referring to Panther, Tiger and King Tiger), they were too complex, they were unreliable, they were difficult and labour intensive to maintain, they were a logistical nightmare to get from A-Z (particularly Tiger and King Tiger, owing to their weight)...I could go on and on. I could mention their virtues, but we all know those.

Compared to many of the tanks which the Allies had, of course they stood out. But only in the way a Lamborghini stands out next to a Ford. Is the Lamborghini a "better" car? No.

Allied tanks were, as we know, generally inferior to their German counterparts in tank-to-tank combat. But once upgunned, as seen in the Sherman Firefly, all of a sudden, they were deadly. Michael Wittmann knows all about that. The British 17pdr it was armed with was easily comparable to, or even superior, to the much vaunted German 88.

Had the British Matilda 2 had a better gun and been faster, it would have been a complete nightmare to face. Even with a small 2pdr gun, in the early stages of the war, it terrified the Germans because only the 88 or very heavy AT could stop it.

Allied tanks were easy to build (particularly the Sherman), easily upgradable, easier to maintain, mass-prodceable (is that a word? No? I just coined it), more reliable etc. And, most importantly, they were EVERYWHERE.

Had the Germans focussed more on upgrading their existing tanks, such as the excellent Panzer III and IV, they might have done better. Even as it was, the Panzer IV was a superb tank, which despite being upgunned and made considerably heavier than it's original design weight, still performed well. Yet hardly anyone seems to mention this vehicle.

It's also worth remembering that the Comet tank was excellent, yet sadly arrived too late. A couple of years earlier, and it would have given even the Tigers something to think about. And the Centurion was born from a WW2 design. Had THAT beast been introduced during the war, then I believe that the Germans would have learned to fear it every bit as much as the Tigers.


Going off this logic the best tanks of the war would be the M3 Lee and the T-34. Both were 100% successful in what they were designed for - as stopgaps that stemmed the superior german models and turned the tide of the war. Hell the firefly would be pretty low on the list as it was pretty damn late to the war and fared horribly against german heavy tanks - the M10 tank destroyer massively outperformed it despite the almost complete lack of armor.

Bender wrote:* Realise that despite the way people talk, this is not a professional sport played by demi gods, but rather a game of toy soldiers played by tired, inebriated human beings.

Mike Krahulik, in response to 40k criticism wrote:...And when my tainted spirit finds its destination, I will topple the master of that dark place. From my black throne, I will lash together a machine of bone and blood, and fueled by my hatred for you this fear engine will bore a hole between this world and that one. When it begins you will hear the sound of children screaming - as though from a great distance. A smoking orb of nothing will grow above your bed, and from it will emerge a thousand starving crows. As I slip though the widening maw in my new form, you will catch only a glimpse of my radiance before you are incinerated. Then, as tears of bubbling pitch stream down my face, my dark work will begin. I will open one of my six mouth, and I will sing the song that ends the earth.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Denison, Iowa

There was a story I read once about a Sherman crew in the Pacific in WWII. They considered their tank lucky because it always used less fuel and never broke down. Then one day they got point blanked by a small anti tank rifle. It should never have penetrated the armor, but it did, barely. No one was hurts but something was up with their tank. On further inspection they found out that somehow the manufacturer shipped a low-armor "trainer" or testbed version. The army wanted to give them a proper tank, but they refused. The armor they had was sufficient as the Japanese had few anti armor weapons and they were still rifle proof.
   
Made in gb
Fresh-Faced New User





@ChargerIIC;

For some reason, I can't quote what you said.

Again, my opening statement has been taken too literally. The Germans, despite making superb hardware, could not bring themselves to SIMPLIFY.

Had they done so, and refrained from simply making bigger, heavier and more powerful tanks using an industrial base which was increasingly strained, they would have fared much better IMHO.

Think about it laterally for a moment.

As for the M10 outperforming the Firefly; you're dreaming. I believe that the M10 MAY have killed more German tanks simply because there were MORE M10s than fireflies. The M10 was in no way a superior vehicle.

...and in what way did the Firefly perform "horribly" against heavy German armour? Certainly no more "horribly" then the stock Sherman did. And the superb British 17pdr gun made the humble Sherman a real heavy killer. A Firefly, as I mentioned, Knocked out the renowned German Tank Ace Michael Wittman's Tiger, killing him.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@TheMeanDM;

I can't seem to quote you either.

However; don't take what I said literally. Of course no single weapon won the war.

The point was making that, despite their quality, German tanks were far too complicated. The Germans simply could not SIMPLIFY. Had they done so, they might have done better.

For this reason, I don't think the German tanks deserve their reputation. If anything, they helped in handing victory to the ALLIES

This message was edited 11 times. Last update was at 2018/02/14 16:48:52


 
   
Made in gb
Keeper of the Holy Orb of Antioch





avoiding the lorax on Crion

 ThunderCracker wrote:
 TheMeanDM wrote:
You are making a pretty broad statement when you ask "did theu win the war?"

The only thing that I can say has ever won a war ny otself was the atomic bomb.

There are so many more "moving parts" involved in achieving victory.

Did the T-34 win the Russian front?

Did the Iowa class battleships win the Pacific?

Just some examples of great pieces of war machinery...but ones that would not, could not, and did not single handedly win the war.


I think you're taking what I said a little too literally. My statement was hyperbole, to make a point. Of course, no single weapon won the war.

My point, in a nutshell, was that the German tanks were just not as good as people keep saying they were / are, for the reasons I outlined.







Automatically Appended Next Post:
 ChargerIIC wrote:
 ThunderCracker wrote:
I have to say, it does grind my gears somewhat that folk keep talking highly of the German tanks of WW2 so much.

Yes, I think we can all agree that they were indeed very good vehicles. But did they achieve their objectives, ie; win the war? No, they didn't.

There were too few of them (mostly referring to Panther, Tiger and King Tiger), they were too complex, they were unreliable, they were difficult and labour intensive to maintain, they were a logistical nightmare to get from A-Z (particularly Tiger and King Tiger, owing to their weight)...I could go on and on. I could mention their virtues, but we all know those.

Compared to many of the tanks which the Allies had, of course they stood out. But only in the way a Lamborghini stands out next to a Ford. Is the Lamborghini a "better" car? No.

Allied tanks were, as we know, generally inferior to their German counterparts in tank-to-tank combat. But once upgunned, as seen in the Sherman Firefly, all of a sudden, they were deadly. Michael Wittmann knows all about that. The British 17pdr it was armed with was easily comparable to, or even superior, to the much vaunted German 88.

Had the British Matilda 2 had a better gun and been faster, it would have been a complete nightmare to face. Even with a small 2pdr gun, in the early stages of the war, it terrified the Germans because only the 88 or very heavy AT could stop it.

Allied tanks were easy to build (particularly the Sherman), easily upgradable, easier to maintain, mass-prodceable (is that a word? No? I just coined it), more reliable etc. And, most importantly, they were EVERYWHERE.

Had the Germans focussed more on upgrading their existing tanks, such as the excellent Panzer III and IV, they might have done better. Even as it was, the Panzer IV was a superb tank, which despite being upgunned and made considerably heavier than it's original design weight, still performed well. Yet hardly anyone seems to mention this vehicle.

It's also worth remembering that the Comet tank was excellent, yet sadly arrived too late. A couple of years earlier, and it would have given even the Tigers something to think about. And the Centurion was born from a WW2 design. Had THAT beast been introduced during the war, then I believe that the Germans would have learned to fear it every bit as much as the Tigers.


Going off this logic the best tanks of the war would be the M3 Lee and the T-34. Both were 100% successful in what they were designed for - as stopgaps that stemmed the superior german models and turned the tide of the war. Hell the firefly would be pretty low on the list as it was pretty damn late to the war and fared horribly against german heavy tanks - the M10 tank destroyer massively outperformed it despite the almost complete lack of armor.


Again, my opening statement has been taken too literally. The Germans, despite making superb hardware, could not bring themselves to SIMPLIFY.

Had they done so, and refrained from simply making bigger, heavier and more powerful tanks using an industrial base which was increasingly strained, they would have fared much better IMHO.

Think about it laterally for a moment.

As for the M10 outperforming the Firefly; you're dreaming. I believe that the M10 MAY have killed more German tanks simply because there were MORE M10s than fireflies. The M10 was in no way a superior vehicle.

...and in what way did the Firefly perform "horribly" against heavy German armour? Certainly no more "horribly" then the stock Sherman did. And the superb British 17pdr gun made the humble Sherman a real heavy killer. A Firefly, as I mentioned, Knocked out the renowned German Tank Ace Michael Wittman's Tiger, killing him.


The British 17 ponder was a great AT gun. It gave the sherman the punch it needed to threaten heavy German tanks from real ranges.

The sherman was never designed to take the fire flies main gun though, it was a bodge yes, but a very effective one. It was a great idea. THere was a ton of crews who could repair, mantain and spares for Shermans, its required little of new infrastructure and needed less retooling than a new tank.

at the time, it was not operfect but it was one of the best ideas at the time and was a efichant way to get a mobile 17 pounder gun into a tank.

Had it dragged on the heavier armoured and bigger Black Prince would have come along to, 17 pounder, on a expanded churchilll tank,.


Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.

"May the odds be ever in your favour"

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.

FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.  
   
Made in nl
Rampaging Reaver Titan Princeps





Somewhere... over the rainbow

 TheMeanDM wrote:
You are making a pretty broad statement when you ask "did theu win the war?"

The only thing that I can say has ever won a war ny otself was the atomic bomb.

There are so many more "moving parts" involved in achieving victory.

Even the atomic bomb did not win the war. The Japanese surrendered due to a number of different factors of which the atomic bomb was just one (and not even the most important).

But while a war is never won by a weapon, I think you could say that some weapons contribute more to victory than others.

А сегодня, что для завтра сделал Я?
But today I don't feel like doing anything... 
   
Made in gb
Fresh-Faced New User





 Iron_Captain wrote:
 TheMeanDM wrote:
You are making a pretty broad statement when you ask "did theu win the war?"

The only thing that I can say has ever won a war ny otself was the atomic bomb.

There are so many more "moving parts" involved in achieving victory.

Even the atomic bomb did not win the war. The Japanese surrendered due to a number of different factors of which the atomic bomb was just one (and not even the most important).

But while a war is never won by a weapon, I think you could say that some weapons contribute more to victory than others.


Amen to that. The Bomb didn't win the war. The war was won well before either Little Boy or Fat Man were dropped.
   
Made in gb
Keeper of the Holy Orb of Antioch





avoiding the lorax on Crion

 ThunderCracker wrote:
 Iron_Captain wrote:
 TheMeanDM wrote:
You are making a pretty broad statement when you ask "did theu win the war?"

The only thing that I can say has ever won a war ny otself was the atomic bomb.

There are so many more "moving parts" involved in achieving victory.

Even the atomic bomb did not win the war. The Japanese surrendered due to a number of different factors of which the atomic bomb was just one (and not even the most important).

But while a war is never won by a weapon, I think you could say that some weapons contribute more to victory than others.


Amen to that. The Bomb didn't win the war. The war was won well before either Little Boy or Fat Man were dropped.


That did break the end though, they where still dragging it out and out. Willing to fight to death. The Nukes sent a clear. This is over now message. There was no fighting the nukes.

The anililation of entire cities by a single bomber, it was a terrifying force. It did be the only thing that could send the message. This war is lost.

Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.

"May the odds be ever in your favour"

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.

FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.  
   
Made in us
Ancient Ultramarine Venerable Dreadnought





Southern California, USA

By the end of the war the Panzer IV had reached the limits the chassis could provide. The Germans attempted to further upgun the Panzer IV with the Panther's main gun but even with just mating a Panther turret to a Panzer IV chassis it proved unsuccessful. The Ausf. H was the peak of the Panzer IV's potential and I believe the Germans knew it. Credit where credit is due they did a good job of upgrading a pre-war chassis and keeping it viable until the very end. That is why they tried replacing it with the Panther and later the E-series of tanks.

Thought for the day: Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
30k Emperor's Children: 2000
Bolt Action Soviets: ~2000 pts
The Empire : ~60-70 models.
WMH CoC: 40 points (30 fully painted!)
1500 pts
: My Salamanders painting blog 16 Infantry and 2 Vehicles done so far!  
   
Made in jp
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer






Somewhere in southern England.

Here is a thought experiment.

If the Germans had had the design for the T34, but could only manufacture 1,500 tanks a year, while the Russians had had the design for the Pz III, but could manufacture 15,000 a year, would it have have helped the Germans to win the war?

“Medieval history encourages rigour and seriousness about how you handle your sources and distinguish truth from fiction, which in today’s world we could with a bit more of.”

We're not very big on official rules. Rules lead to people looking for loopholes. What's here is about it. 
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: