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.

Howard A Treesong wrote:

Tyyr wrote:
The Jagdpanther is a triumph of form and function. Low, sleek, and with a main gun rivaled by few in the war. It was gorgeous!

Low?! Have you stood next to one of these things, it's colossal.

The Tiger 1 is bigger than most would imagine. Films like Saving Private Ryan give the impression they are much smaller. The brutal square design exaggerates the size compared to other similarly sized vehicles, it's worth seeing one in the flesh so to speak. It's just enormous. I've also seen the one used in Saving Private Ryan and it's tiny by comparison.

Correct. Height profiles.

Tiger 1: 9' 10"
Pershing: 9' 1.5"
Matilda II: 8' 3"
T-34: 8'

So the Tiger actually presented the highest profile to target.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I would also like to point out that the Centurion Tank never saw action during WW2, since it didn't go into production until January 1945.

So comparing it to other tanks that were produced years earlier, while it was designed with the benefit of hindsight, is a bit wrong.

djones520 wrote:
Correct. Height profiles.

Tiger 1: 9' 10"
Pershing: 9' 1.5"
Matilda II: 8' 3"
T-34: 8'

So the Tiger actually presented the highest profile to target.

Aside from the Russian Tiger-equivalent...

KV-II: 12'


T-34 competes with the Panther, not the Tiger.

Howard A Treesong wrote:

Tyyr wrote:
The Jagdpanther is a triumph of form and function. Low, sleek, and with a main gun rivaled by few in the war. It was gorgeous!

Low?! Have you stood next to one of these things, it's colossal.

The Tiger 1 is bigger than most would imagine. Films like Saving Private Ryan give the impression they are much smaller. The brutal square design exaggerates the size compared to other similarly sized vehicles, it's worth seeing one in the flesh so to speak. It's just enormous. I've also seen the one used in Saving Private Ryan and it's tiny by comparison.

Interestingly, the "Tigers" used in both Saving Private Ryan and Kelly's Heroes, and Band of Brothers as well if I remember right, are actually T-34's converted to look like Tigers. Besides the size difference, you can tell by the road wheels. Real Tiger's had interlaced road wheels, but the T-34 "Tigers" don't.

Hordini wrote:Interestingly, the "Tigers" used in both Saving Private Ryan and Kelly's Heroes, and Band of Brothers as well if I remember right, are actually T-34's converted to look like Tigers. Besides the size difference, you can tell by the road wheels. Real Tiger's had interlaced road wheels, but the T-34 "Tigers' don't.

I don't recall, it might have had dummy wheels it was a long time ago that I saw it. The Jagdpanther of Band of Brothers is too small as well, in the scene when it drives across the field attacking the americans the guy in the hatch looks huge, because the whole thing is undersized.

Compared to rolling sky scrapers like the King Tiger? Yes.

Hordini wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:@George: IIRC, StuGs ang JagdPz were more mid/late war units, when volume ramped up.

Not really the case with StuGs. They were used from at least 1940 on. Jagdpanzer were used later in the war, but StuGs were used basically all the way through.

Like George Spiggott said, StuGs were assault guns that were designed to support infantry on the offensive, although they were also used in a tank hunting role and even replaced Panzer IVs in some Panzer units later in the war. Jagdpanzer on the other hand were designed as dedicated tank destroyers.

Agreed. Panzerjagers (not Jagpanzers) were also in use from 1940 onwards. The only real difference in design between Panzerjagers and Jagpanzers is the additional ,thicker, armour enclosing the vehicle on the latter.

The increase in StuG use as ersatz tanks and tank hunters later in the war can almost certainly be attributed to cost as they were (probably barring the 'Hetzer)' the cheapest enclosed vehicle the Germans produced. Their use as a tank hunter started in 1942, a year of vast sweeping advances for the Germans on the Eastern Front.

Any design specifically designed for 'defensive' use would realistically have to be produced after the Summer of 1943. It's worth noting that the Germans were on the defensive in North Africa before this but very few StuGs were used there.

Im gunna go with Stug IVs cheap to build, effective and easy to maintain (compared to tigers anyway) Also alot of folk forget just how slow a tigers turret could traverse and that most crews found it more effective to turn the entire tank to engage a target and then use the turret to make final adjustments.

Also I might take the chance to plug my current brand of E crack

http://www.battlegroundeurope.com/


its a combined arms MMO sim set in ww2 the learning curve is fairly high and it helps if you already know a bit about ww2 equipment and tactics but the tank side of the game is great =)

Theres no silly hitpoints every shot you make is modeled of real world balistic data joules of energy etc and takes into account angle of hit what it actaully does from just killing your crew to knocking ya turret off.

There is a free trial and the community is very helpful but the games does require patience and a joystick is helpful if you want to actaully explore the air war side of the game