Random tank numbers - the number "7" on Panzer IIIJs are boring... -1 reply

Please wait...

Archimonde0_0

In Vino Veritas

50 XP

28th August 2006

0 Uploads

1,231 Posts

0 Threads

#31 11 years ago
Pietje;4197238The Tiger tank was quite usefull, especially at long ranges where it excelled. It even caused a psychological effect (Tiger phobia) by Allied soldiers whom thought that every German tank was a Tiger tank. It wasnt build in large numbers but it cannot be denied that it had a certain effect on the Allies. Besides, what makes you think it would been better of as a tank destroyer? For that matter i know that it was difficult to repair in the field but nearly impossible? Some sort of proof for that would be nice, if you dont mind. :nodding: Superior numbers is something you shouldnt rely on. You can easily replace a tank or a airplane but replacing an experienced crew is an entire different story. Even more so in the case of Shermans. Belton Y. Cooper who was a junior officer in charge of retrieving damaged and destroyed tanks, even refers to the Sherman in his memoirs of the 3rd Armored Division, as a deathtrap. The overall losses in that division where extremely high.

Germanys army was rather small if you compare it to the combined power of the Allied forces in Europe, Germanys low numbers meant that they needed standardised vehicles to win the war, Variants of the PZ3 and 4 mass produced wouldve been many times more effective than wasting valuable resources, time, and money in producing these "Super Weapons" The Tiger, The King Tiger, The Railroad Guns, all these things look nice on paper, but in germanys case they were spending so much money on these ideas, that they couldnt fight a war. They were more focused on producing the biggest and the baddest, while the allies were standardising their tanks and putting them to Multiple rolls, saving time, money, and materials. Russia did the same. The T-34/76 Was by far the greatest tank of the Entire War, it was simple to build, extremely fast, its gun had the necessary punch, its sloped armor was superb, and its suspension was great. But if Russia had not of had T-34's rolling out of the factory doors and straight into combat, they wouldve easily been overrun. Production is everything, despite the Shermans being metal death traps, which i totally agree upon, from a certain point of view they are the better tank, NOT because they are more powerful, or have better armor or what not, but because they were far easier to produce and maintain. Ive heard storys of German Tiger crews, abandoning their tanks because they got damaged, or because a track broke, and they had no way of repairing it in the field. The Eastern front is a great example, on the eastern Front was one of the largest tank battles in History Kursk, despite having the Most powerful tanks, the Overwhelming Size of the Russian Army was too much for even the large amount of Tigers in that battle, they had fun for mayb a little while at long range, but as soon as the never ending line of Russian Tanks got closer, the Tigers were doomed, almost useless.




Pietje

People say I post too much

50 XP

14th December 2005

0 Uploads

1,454 Posts

0 Threads

#32 11 years ago
Archimonde0_0;4197640Germanys army was rather small if you compare it to the combined power of the Allied forces in Europe, Germanys low numbers meant that they needed standardised vehicles to win the war, Variants of the PZ3 and 4 mass produced wouldve been many times more effective than wasting valuable resources, time, and money in producing these "Super Weapons" The Tiger, The King Tiger, The Railroad Guns, all these things look nice on paper, but in germanys case they were spending so much money on these ideas, that they couldnt fight a war. They were more focused on producing the biggest and the baddest, while the allies were standardising their tanks and putting them to Multiple rolls, saving time, money, and materials. Russia did the same. The T-34/76 Was by far the greatest tank of the Entire War, it was simple to build, extremely fast, its gun had the necessary punch, its sloped armor was superb, and its suspension was great. But if Russia had not of had T-34's rolling out of the factory doors and straight into combat, they wouldve easily been overrun.

You forget something. Even IF Germany did standardize a tank they wouldnt be able to produce in the same quantities as Russia for example. Not to mention Germany simply didnt have the same amount of manpower/resources/etc as Russia or America but still they managed to keep the war going for an impressive time despite their handicaps. For that matter, the Tiger tank wasnt a super weapon of any kind. On the other hand the King Tiger and the Railroad guns where a waste of time. Ill agree with that.

Production is everything, despite the Shermans being metal death traps, which i totally agree upon, from a certain point of view they are the better tank, NOT because they are more powerful, or have better armor or what not, but because they were far easier to produce and maintain. Ive heard storys of German Tiger crews, abandoning their tanks because they got damaged, or because a track broke, and they had no way of repairing it in the field. The Eastern front is a great example, on the eastern Front was one of the largest tank battles in History Kursk, despite having the Most powerful tanks, the Overwhelming Size of the Russian Army was too much for even the large amount of Tigers in that battle, they had fun for mayb a little while at long range, but as soon as the never ending line of Russian Tanks got closer, the Tigers were doomed, almost useless.

I dont think you have read my post, Archimonde. You can produce all you want but you cant replace a experienced crew as easily as a tank. The extremely high losses could have been prevented on numerous ways. And here is a good quote from the book Art of War, written bu Sun Tzu, regarding quantity.

In war, numbers alone confer no advantage. Do not advance relying on sheer military power. (9.45)

Besides, you MIGHT want to think about adding paragraphs next time because im getting a headache from trying to read this big chunk of text.




Pietje

People say I post too much

50 XP

14th December 2005

0 Uploads

1,454 Posts

0 Threads

#33 11 years ago
Archimonde0_0;4197640Germanys army was rather small if you compare it to the combined power of the Allied forces in Europe, Germanys low numbers meant that they needed standardised vehicles to win the war, Variants of the PZ3 and 4 mass produced wouldve been many times more effective than wasting valuable resources, time, and money in producing these "Super Weapons" The Tiger, The King Tiger, The Railroad Guns, all these things look nice on paper, but in germanys case they were spending so much money on these ideas, that they couldnt fight a war. They were more focused on producing the biggest and the baddest, while the allies were standardising their tanks and putting them to Multiple rolls, saving time, money, and materials. Russia did the same. The T-34/76 Was by far the greatest tank of the Entire War, it was simple to build, extremely fast, its gun had the necessary punch, its sloped armor was superb, and its suspension was great. But if Russia had not of had T-34's rolling out of the factory doors and straight into combat, they wouldve easily been overrun.

You forget something. Even IF Germany did standardize a tank they wouldnt be able to produce in the same quantities as Russia for example. Not to mention Germany simply didnt have the same amount of manpower/resources/etc as Russia or America but still they managed to keep the war going for an impressive time despite their handicaps. For that matter, the Tiger tank wasnt a super weapon of any kind. On the other hand the King Tiger and the Railroad guns where a waste of time. Ill agree with that.

Production is everything, despite the Shermans being metal death traps, which i totally agree upon, from a certain point of view they are the better tank, NOT because they are more powerful, or have better armor or what not, but because they were far easier to produce and maintain. Ive heard storys of German Tiger crews, abandoning their tanks because they got damaged, or because a track broke, and they had no way of repairing it in the field. The Eastern front is a great example, on the eastern Front was one of the largest tank battles in History Kursk, despite having the Most powerful tanks, the Overwhelming Size of the Russian Army was too much for even the large amount of Tigers in that battle, they had fun for mayb a little while at long range, but as soon as the never ending line of Russian Tanks got closer, the Tigers were doomed, almost useless.

Archimonde, you can produce all you want but you cant replace a experienced crew as easily as a tank. The extremely high losses suffered by the 3rd Armoured Division could have been prevented on numerous ways. For example by upgrading the cannons or improving the armor. Even if such a thing would mean the production would suffer it could mean you could keep an experienced crew alive. And here is a good quote from the book Art of War, written bu Sun Tzu, regarding quantity.

In war, numbers alone confer no advantage. Do not advance relying on sheer military power. (9.45)

Besides, you MIGHT want to think about adding paragraphs next time because im getting a headache from trying to read this big chunk of text.




Archimonde0_0

In Vino Veritas

50 XP

28th August 2006

0 Uploads

1,231 Posts

0 Threads

#34 11 years ago
Pietje;4197737Besides, you MIGHT want to think about adding paragraphs next time because im getting a headache from trying to read this big chunk of text.

im not going to sit here and argue with you over what we think is right, I believe the sherman was better, you believe the tiger was better, But this last sentence was not needed, please don't insult me, for i have not done the same to you.




Pietje

People say I post too much

50 XP

14th December 2005

0 Uploads

1,454 Posts

0 Threads

#35 11 years ago
Archimonde0_0;4197754im not going to sit here and argue with you over what we think is right, I believe the sherman was better, you believe the tiger was better, But this last sentence was not needed, please don't insult me, for i have not done the same to you.

I dont claim the Tiger was better but i dont believe it was entirely useless either. However, like i said before relying on sheer quantities is not a good idea and that is the cause of rather high losses which could have been prevented. That is the point i was trying to make in my previous post. EDIT: While i did not intend to insult you i do hope you understand why i said that. Afterall its annoying to read large chunks of text. That is why i said it would be a good idea to use paragraphs. I am sure you can agree with that. :)




pmbf1942

A BF1942 Fan/ Mcbob from SSLF

50 XP

17th February 2006

0 Uploads

384 Posts

0 Threads

#36 11 years ago
Major Hartmann;4197316Wouldn't mention "cruising" and "Matilda" in the same sentence. Also it's wrong, the P3 and P4 have less groundpressure then the Sherman, and much less then the Mati. The PIV was designed to support infantry, but it didn't only use HE rounds but also AP (weak those are) and HEAT (and these aren't weak at all).

Really? The AP Rounds were not as useful as the HE Rounds? Interesting.




Pietje

People say I post too much

50 XP

14th December 2005

0 Uploads

1,454 Posts

0 Threads

#37 11 years ago
pmbf1942;4197947Really? The AP Rounds were not as useful as the HE Rounds? Interesting.

You misunderstood what Hartmann said. He didnt say the AP shells where less usefull then the HE shells. What he was trying to say was that AP shells arent really usefull for tanks with short barrels compared to HEAT shells.




Major Hartmann

Major Disinformation

50 XP

27th April 2003

0 Uploads

2,347 Posts

0 Threads

#38 11 years ago

In infantry support of course the HE rounds are more effective, but it's wrong to say it used HE instead of AP. The HEAT round beats the Shermans AP hands down, by the way.




pmbf1942

A BF1942 Fan/ Mcbob from SSLF

50 XP

17th February 2006

0 Uploads

384 Posts

0 Threads

#39 11 years ago
Major Hartmann;4197967In infantry support of course the HE rounds are more effective, but it's wrong to say it used HE instead of AP. The HEAT round beats the Shermans AP hands down, by the way.

Ah.

Well, back on topic, I could care less what the numbers on a Panzer, Tiger, Sherman, Stuart, etc are. If you can get then to change, thats great.