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.
In other words, if it was a better tank, it would have been a better tank.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
No, the design was perfectly fine. It was that they put shoddy engines in them.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
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...)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/01/23 19:32:09
-"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!
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
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.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/01/23 20:54:11
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
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.
Hah, I like that anime's sense of humor. What's its name?
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/01/23 22:22:04
-"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!
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.
Looks like it might be worth a watch, despite the hideously high skirts.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
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.
Cheekmouth annoys me, as always. Lazy freaking animation that just ends up ruining good...
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
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
Do you ever go into a fight thinking "there's no point giving it my best, I'll get another chance later?"
We only ever get one shot marlin. Life is one shot
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/01/24 10:50:56
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/01/24 14:40:30
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
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...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/01/24 18:56:03
5th Boudican Mechanised - 2300 points W:0 D:4 L:3
Iron Bloods - 4000 points W:1 D:5 L:6 
