Anti-Tank/Armor Rifles Use For FH2 -1 reply

Please wait...

Mp5-Killa

FH Betatester

50 XP

19th April 2004

0 Uploads

1,161 Posts

0 Threads

#101 14 years ago

'LIGHTNING [NL']You guys are going at it hard. But I'll try to provide my view of tanks in North Africa.

First, we'll have to seperate different time periods. Let's start with 10 June 1940 to, say..., 16 February 1941. Between this period we have British vs Italians. As we probably all know the Italian tanks are vastly inferior, but to make a real comparison we have to look at the British tanks. British use of tanks made it nessecairy to have 2 kinds of tanks: Slow, but heavily armoured infantery tanks (Matilda MkII) and fast, but poorly armoured cruiser tanks (Cruiser MkI A9, MkII A10 and MkIV A15). The lightly armoured cruiser tanks are comparible to the Italian tanks of that time (L6/40 and M13/40), but the Matilda MkII was a realy monstrosity, not even comparible to the Tiger I in 1943. There wad nothing the Italians had that could penetrate it's armour. Only a luck shot from a 47mm anti-tank gun could knock of a track or disable the turret. That said the British tank strategies were also much better than the Italians, but we can conclude that British tanks are superior to Italian tanks.

The second part in our time-table being 16 February 1941 to 30 May 1942. Here we shall consider the German armour (Panzer II F, Panzer III 37mm, Panzer III J (50mm KwK 38 L42) (June '41) and Panzer IV D) against the British armour (Crusader MkI (June '41) and MkII (November '41), M3 Stuart Honey (November '41) Valentine MkII and Matilda MkII). Although the British Infantery tanks are almost indestructable, the excellent use of the Flak 18 88mm gun rendered many of these tanks useless. But when we compare the cruiser tanks we see that the Germans have the clear advantage. With the Panzer III J's 50mm gun being much better than anything the British have. The Panzer IV D was mostly used in an infantery support role, almost never as an anti-tank role.

The Third part here is 30 May 1942 to 23 October 1942. We consider again the German tanks (Panzer III J early and late (the latter armed with the 50mm KwK 39 L/60), the panzer IV F1 and F2 (August '42) and to a lesser extent the Marder III SdKfz 139 (July '42)) and the British tanks (Crusader MkII, M3 Stuart, M3 Grant, Valentine MkII and Matilda MkII). The only real change here being the M3 Grant. Though being armed pretty good and not that pooly armoured it sticks out like a sore thumb over the desert landscape. As with many tanks of American design it had the tendancy to catch fire when hit. On the German side however we see a huge improvement, with the Panzer III J late's 50mm L/60 gun and the Panzer IV F2's 75mm L/43. Again, German tanks clearly have the upper hand.

And the last Period being 23 October 1942 to 12 May 1943. In this period German tanks remained largely the same. The main exception being the Tiger I, which was available is very limited numbers and was only used from December 1942. The British however recieved a number of new tanks. These being the Crusader MkIII (armed with 6-pounder), the M4 Sherman with 75mm gun and the Churchill. In this period the tanks on both sides can be considered equal in my opinion.

Nice post mate. However, I think you overestimate the Panzer IVF2. How many were actually used in Africa - as far as I know not even 100 were used in active combat. Also the Churchill was a real asset in Tunisia as it was the only tank that could climb the hills. Despite being a tank that was designed for a WW1 style war and also the fact that it wasn't in great supply in Africa (first usage were a 1 or 2 of them at El Alamein right? - Mark Is?), it still proved useful in the later parts of the African theatre.




[nl]Invincible

FH Betatester

50 XP

28th December 2004

0 Uploads

1,437 Posts

0 Threads

#102 14 years ago
Mp5-Killa Nice post mate. However, I think you overestimate the Panzer IVF2. How many were actually used in Africa - as far as I know not even 100 were used in active combat. Also the Churchill was a real asset in Tunisia as it was the only tank that could climb the hills. Despite being a tank that was designed for a WW1 style war and also the fact that it wasn't in great supply in Africa (first usage were a 1 or 2 of them at El Alamein right? - Mark Is?), it still proved useful in the later parts of the African theatre.

The Churchill tanks in afrika wher 6 mk3 who first saw action in El alamain. They wher hit 106 times. 3 wher took out, and they claimed 5 enemy vehicles. After this battle the british hi comand send 2 brigade's to afrika.




Jetro

There's a satchel on your tank

50 XP

6th December 2004

0 Uploads

1,473 Posts

0 Threads

#103 14 years ago

PietjeActually, they can take it out. Sherman Firefly for example can take it out headon. And so can the better armed Shermans. And the list goes on.

So lets not start to think that Allied tanks are weak and all because i cannot help but laugh when people try to tell me that. :)

But we are getting kinda offtopic here though.

A sherman firefly can take a tiger head on. But It has nowhere near the tigers armor advantage. While all the tiger really might have to fear is a firefly, the firefly can be taken out in a 1 or 2 well placed hits from anything the germans can throw out. Any Sherman less than a firefly isn't going to have a prayer against a tiger head on unless the tiger is a total noob.

And lets not forget nearly every german tank from panzers to stugs are certified sherman armor killers. Of course if you're suggesting the allies(I assume we're talking about americans only right now) should get an abundance of Fireflies, M10, and M35s to balance things out, I won't complain.:D But let's not pretend the Germans don't have the upperhand when it comes to armor.;)




Solo4114

Scoundrel Extraordinaire

50 XP

16th September 2002

0 Uploads

1,460 Posts

0 Threads

#104 14 years ago

Yeah, it's not that the Allied tanks are weak in an absolute sense. But they're certainly weaker than their German counterparts, who have (generally) better or equivalent armor, and almost universally better guns.

Now, granted, this depends on the theater and the year. But generally speaking, German armor in a one-on-one matchup is better than Allied armor.

That's all fine and no one's saying German armor should be weakened, but this being a game and not a recreation of the war, the Allies deserve a fair shot at winning the map, and accordingly need something to compensate for their armor disadvantage.

That can be anything including (but not limited to):

- Positioning advantages/terrain advantages (IE: lots of city flags where enemy tanks can't maneuver well)

- Air power

- Numerical superiority (this only works when the tanks in question can actually damage the enemy tanks -- in other words it doesn't matter how many Vickers tanks you get if the enemy's driving anything better than a Panzer II)

- Plentiful and well-placed anti-tank cannons.

What it DOESN'T mean is that we make a Sherma = a Panzer in all aspects, nor does it mean that we make the Boys AT rifle = Panzerfaust.




Frederf

I take what n0e says way too seriously

50 XP

2nd March 2004

0 Uploads

2,156 Posts

0 Threads

#105 14 years ago

The ability to tow and push smallish AT guns around with trucks and elbowgrease would change the anti-tank-defensive game so much




Pietje

People say I post too much

50 XP

13th December 2005

0 Uploads

1,454 Posts

0 Threads

#106 14 years ago
Solo4114Yeah, it's not that the Allied tanks are weak in an absolute sense. But they're certainly weaker than their German counterparts, who have (generally) better or equivalent armor, and almost universally better guns. Now, granted, this depends on the theater and the year. But generally speaking, German armor in a one-on-one matchup is better than Allied armor. That's all fine and no one's saying German armor should be weakened, but this being a game and not a recreation of the war, the Allies deserve a fair shot at winning the map, and accordingly need something to compensate for their armor disadvantage. That can be anything including (but not limited to): - Positioning advantages/terrain advantages (IE: lots of city flags where enemy tanks can't maneuver well) - Air power - Numerical superiority (this only works when the tanks in question can actually damage the enemy tanks -- in other words it doesn't matter how many Vickers tanks you get if the enemy's driving anything better than a Panzer II) - Plentiful and well-placed anti-tank cannons. What it DOESN'T mean is that we make a Sherma = a Panzer in all aspects, nor does it mean that we make the Boys AT rifle = Panzerfaust.

As long as it doesn mean it will become so absurd that it will become frustrating to play as Germans then its fine by me. Keep in mind dont forget Allies generally have better small arms. So that balances it a bit out aswell. And the Russians for their SU series whom can destroy everything the Germans got with ease, with the exception of the SU-76, whom wasnt too usefull in the AT role. Also the Allies will highly likely receive better tanks in FH2, so i wouldnt mind seeing some map balancing in favor of the Germans, especially early war. Also a bigger variety of planes, please. The Germans used more planes then the JU-87 in the ground attack role.




Fuzzy Bunny

Luke, I am your mother.

50 XP

1st May 2005

0 Uploads

6,274 Posts

0 Threads

#107 14 years ago
PietjeAs long as it doesn mean it will become so absurd that it will become frustrating to play as Germans then its fine by me.

There's nothing wrong with playing on any given team being "frustrated". Remember, maps can be horribly skewed in favor of a given side, and still be "balanced". I see Zitadelle as a great example of a map that's frustrating as hell to play as Axis; Pegasus is the opposite example.

I actually enjoy the existence of a "big panzer map" that doesn't automatically match up large numbers of Allied cannon fodder with a few domineering German tanks. It shakes things up a bit.

Keep in mind dont forget Allies generally have better small arms. So that balances it a bit out aswell.

True, but this primarily comes into play on infantry maps. We're talking mixed or tank-only maps here--not much infantry weapons (except AT, but fausts/'schrecks _do_ match up pretty well) can do against tanks.

And the Russians for their SU series whom can destroy everything the Germans got with ease, with the exception of the SU-76, whom wasnt too usefull in the AT role.

The Su-76 is a fantastic Panzer-killer; in fact, next to the M36 it's my absolute favorite (albeit very crunchy.) I am, however, saddened that it would be placed in such a historically inaccurate role (I don't believe Su-76s in real life were such armor breakers as they're made up to be in FH) just to balance out Tigers & Panthers.

Also a bigger variety of planes, please. The Germans used more planes then the JU-87 in the ground attack role.

Hear, hear.




Pietje

People say I post too much

50 XP

13th December 2005

0 Uploads

1,454 Posts

0 Threads

#108 14 years ago
FuzzyBunnyThere's nothing wrong with playing on any given team being "frustrated". Remember, maps can be horribly skewed in favor of a given side, and still be "balanced". I see Zitadelle as a great example of a map that's frustrating as hell to play as Axis; Pegasus is the opposite example.

Well, yeah if you on the winning side, then it isnt frustrating. Most people dont like to play on the losing side.

I actually enjoy the existence of a "big panzer map" that doesn't automatically match up large numbers of Allied cannon fodder with a few domineering German tanks. It shakes things up a bit.

I dont mind it either, but like i said before as long as it means it isnt absurd for the Germans.

True, but this primarily comes into play on infantry maps. We're talking mixed or tank-only maps here--not much infantry weapons (except AT, but fausts/'schrecks _do_ match up pretty well) can do against tanks.

Yeah but still, its a advantage, and you have to keep that in mind.

The Su-76 is a fantastic Panzer-killer; in fact, next to the M36 it's my absolute favorite (albeit very crunchy.) I am, however, saddened that it would be placed in such a historically inaccurate role (I don't believe Su-76s in real life were such armor breakers as they're made up to be in FH) just to balance out Tigers & Panthers.

In real life they where used for infantry support, akin to the Stug3, with one exception: it couldnt be used in the indirect fire role. The SU-76 gained rather "special" names, like "Suka" (B-tch, sorry if it offends anybody.) and "Golozhopij Ferdinant" (Naked Ass Ferdinand). When used in the AT role though. Mostly because their armor was simply too thing and their cannon inadequate for the AT role.

Hear, hear.

That will be a fascinating thing to see a FW-190 with a 250kg bomb. Oh boy i would love to see the face of the Allied tankers when they see the Butcher Bird coming for 'em. :lol:




Tas

Serious business brigade

50 XP

3rd September 2004

0 Uploads

7,275 Posts

0 Threads

#109 14 years ago

Personally i'm kinda tired of maps where most players get crap, and only a select few get the tools to turn the tide of battle. With so many asshats, noobs and scorewhores around, many maps tend to be crap most of the time.




Fuzzy Bunny

Luke, I am your mother.

50 XP

1st May 2005

0 Uploads

6,274 Posts

0 Threads

#110 14 years ago
PietjeWell, yeah if you on the winning side, then it isnt frustrating. Most people dont like to play on the losing side.

Again, balanced != even. I enjoy playing on the disadvantaged side of my team's not a total bunch of numbnuts, because it provides me with a challenge. Turkey shoots bore me (e.g. German mortars on Pegasus), evenly matched head-on fights can be fun from time to time (Prokhorovka), but pulling off a victory in the face of stupid odds is pretty gratifying; I don't care what team I'm on.

Yeah but still, its a advantage, and you have to keep that in mind.

I am. My point is that advantages/disadvantages need to be considered on a per-scenario basis. Despite what people say about the G43 vs. SVT-40 or K98 vs. Garand or No4, I enjoy playing both German and Allies on Zielona Gora, Gold Beach and Charlie Sector. Despite Allied infantry weapon superiority, I find these maps to be pretty balanced.

with one exception: it couldnt be used in the indirect fire role.

Got a source for that? Wikipedia thinks differently (I assume you mean the Su-76M here.)

That will be a fascinating thing to see a FW-190 with a 250kg bomb. Oh boy i would love to see the face of the Allied tankers when they see the Butcher Bird coming for 'em. :lol:

I'd prefer to see the Hs-129 used for ground attack, even though not so many were built, and the Fi-156 and Fw-189 for closer infantry recon/support.