Revamping tank combat -1 reply

Please wait...

Puma2005

GF makes me horny

50 XP

11th January 2005

0 Uploads

82 Posts

0 Threads

#31 14 years ago
Comrade0RedSoviet tanks from 1942 onward were usually equal and more practical in quality to their German counter parts. The Tiger tank for instance had to be reshipped all the way back to Germany after 600 miles of driving because it needed to have all it's components changed. You call that quality? [/QUOTE] Driving 600 miles? Weren't tanks in WW2 transported by trains? Wasn't it normal to take the tanks back to factory to upgrade? How does it do to quality? If Tiger tank wasn't good why do people honor it as the first MBT in military history?
Comrade0RedAny heavy tank isn't practical, the closest one to practically was the IS-2 in WWII because it was one of the few who's engine could actually carry it's load.
Please educate me why weren't heavy tanks practical in WW2? IS2 had three notable drawbacks. (1) slow rate of fire; (2) relatively low number of main armament rounds stowed within the tank itself; (3) its mantlet was vulnerable to high velocity AP rounds. German AT and AFV gunners were instructed to fire at the mantlet of all IS-1 and IS-2 with AP40. There are numerous records of kills vs IS-1 and IS-2 as well as IS-2M by gunners using AP40 fried from 7.5cm Pak 40 and 7.5cm Kwk40. [QUOTE=Comrade0Red]Remember in real life there were hardly any tigers or panthers, the core of the German tank army on the eastern front was PZ IIIs & IVs up untill 1944.

1/43 to 9/43 850 Panther D were produced; 8/43 to 5/44 2000 Panther A were produced; 7/43 to 8/44 1354 Tiger I were produced; Compared to 4/43 to 7/44 3774 Panzer IV H were produced; Battle of Kursk: I read an article called "lost victory for the Germans" in "WWII" magazine some time ago. Recently some European historians questioned the result of the battle. I don't quite remember the battle of order. It was the German 2nd SS panzer division against the Russian 2nd guard tank Corps (not sure about the Russian side). Due to numerous reasons the Germans could only deploy around 200 tanks to battlefield (michael whittmann's tiger was among them) while the Russians rushed 700 tanks out. Based on the military records from both army the Germans had more than 100 tanks left after the battle while the Russians lost 500 to 600 tanks. The Germans airforce (Hs-129 & Stuka Ju87-D & G) were credited half of the kills. Anybody can add more details? Michael Whittmann's Tiger recorded >100 tank kills. Most of them were T-34s. So does speed really matter during tank fights on open field?




Dee-Jaý

Always 1 point ahead of you

50 XP

17th February 2004

0 Uploads

1,694 Posts

0 Threads

#32 14 years ago

100 kills in Kursk, I seriously doupt it ! (Maybe people, but not tanks) This source says otherwise: http://users.pandora.be/dave.depickere/Text/wittman.html About 30 tank kills and some others... As for the quality debate: Well its true that the german tanks were rather unreliable comapred to the soviet and Allied tanks buts thats also sue to the fact that the germans had far more supply problems than the other nations. Yes, the Heavy german tanks needed a lot of maintance and were notorious for braking down, but once in combat they held their own. So in one way, the german tanks were of a lower quality, but generaly had better fighting capabilitys (with better trained crews). But I have to agree, that towards the end of the war the soviets probably had the highest quality tanks...




Fuzzy Bunny

Luke, I am your mother.

50 XP

2nd May 2005

0 Uploads

6,274 Posts

0 Threads

#33 14 years ago
Comrade0RedTanks in FH are stupid. What balance is it if every infantry man can leap on a tank, somehow unlock the hatch and waste the tank. I want tanks to be FEARED! Infantry should cower and hide when one rolls by! Infantry SHOULD feel almost helpless to tanks, because that's the whole point of having tanks. It's just idiotic the way it it now, Infantry chasing tanks with satchels. In real life nothing like that ever happened. And while it is a game, I like it feeling realistic, or I wouldn't play it, I'd play vanillia.

Look up "molotov cocktails", "sticky bombs" and a whole slew of other fun toys. Tanks must be supported by infantry (hence the concept of "panzer grenadiers" because they simply cannot cover all angles of approach. Typically you have an MG that shoots forward, a turret that shoots in one direction at a time, and maybe a cupola MG that requires the commander to pop his head out in a very sniper-friendly manner. And since you can't really instill the fear of death in a kiddie playing a determined infantry dude with a bag full of explosives, or in hordes of suicidal Soviet infantry, scratch that idea. No, infantry should not feel almost helpless against tanks, because they're not. That would be a lot of things, but certainly not realistic.




Puma2005

GF makes me horny

50 XP

11th January 2005

0 Uploads

82 Posts

0 Threads

#34 14 years ago
Dee-Jaý100 kills in Kursk, I seriously doupt it ! (Maybe people, but not tanks) This source says otherwise: http://users.pandora.be/dave.depickere/Text/wittman.html About 30 tank kills and some others...

I meant >100 tank kills during his whole service time not in Kursk. Sorry for confusion.




Neighbor Kid

Pro Sherman Tanker

50 XP

31st July 2004

0 Uploads

1,334 Posts

0 Threads

#35 14 years ago

i think he had like 154 tank kills in his time ?