'LIGHTNING [NL']"In October of 1943, 50 survivors were sent back to the factory for badly needed repairs and pre-planned modernization. Modernization consisted of the installation of a MG34 in the hull, improvement of armor protection, installation of wider tracks and installation of commander's cupola (developed from that of Stug III Ausf G), which provided improved visibility. Most of the Elephants were partially covered with Zimmerite, an anti-magnetic paste. Modernization was made in February and March of 1944 by Nibelungenwerke in Austria and modified Ferdinands were renamed Elephants. Officially Ferdinands were renamed Elephants in general order dated May 1st of 1944." -Achtung Panzer
I retract my previous statement. Im throwing out my "Encyclopedia of WW2 Armor" as I type.
lol, and underpowered Porsche? My how the times have changed; well maybe not, the Boxster is a POS, as is the regular Cayenne.
Sgt SaundersThe gun was great...the vehicle AS A WHOLE was a piece of crap. More vehicles were lost at Kursk due to mechanical failure than anything else. The reason the Henschel chassis was chossen was the Porsche was underpowered and the transmission was weak. The vehicle was heavy, slow and highly vulnerable to infantry attack. You may have the best gun in the world on your vehicle, but if you cannot get it to the battlefield or it is constantly in the repair shop, then it is not much good. Once these beasts broke down, it was practically impossible to recover them under battle conditions.
Coupled with the fact that it used a large amount of the strategically critical mineral copper in the electrical transmission.
Did someone mention Hetzer?
When measuring a tank/assualt guns effectiveness you guys always count the enemies tanks it killed.....
But especially for assault guns, is it not more important how much field guns and bunkers it destroyed......because that is it's job.
Assault gun :
Destroy bunkers, field fortifications and field guns. Most were capable of destroying enemy tanks, but in self defence.
Assault guns were always in the company of infantry, wich they were supporting attacking enemy front lines. They were really mobile short-medium ranged cannon support to infantry, that could deal with enemy defenses that would stop infantry.
They were in fact the replacements of the horse drawn field gun, wich had the same purpose. Many assault guns lacked a machinegun, since infantry was supposed to keep enemy infantry away from the assault guns.
Some assault guns were specially designed for aiding infantry in city combat ( the Brummbär ) or attacking very thick bunker complexes and fortresses ( SturmTiger)
Like it or not, the Elephant was an assault gun......not a tank, not a tank destroyer.
Destroy infantry, bunkers, field fortifications, other tanks and field guns. With 2 machineguns ( some had 3 ) and half of it's munitions consisting of HE grenades you can guess a tank had another purpose then only killing tanks.
2 machineguns in the tank had offensive ( used when the tank attacked )purpose, the mg in the bow and the coaxial mg next to the main gun. If there was a 3rd mg on the roof that was a defensive ( used to discourage attacking aircraft and keep infantry away ) mg.
Tanks were expensive all round units, and fighting tank vs tank was very costly and should be avoided. That is why they were mainly used in large offensives directed at enemy front lines, where there were no tanks but only field guns, bunkers and field fortefications.....and lots of infantry.
Tanks were usually spearheaded an attack on enemy front lines, with infantry following directly behind them.
Tank destroyers :
Destroy tanks. These were cheap to produce units with a large anti tank cannon, usually the first to carry a larger cannon before tanks did, since they had no turret rotating mechanism that limited weight and recoil forces.
Tank destroyers came in the place of less mobile anti tank field guns, and often operated without infantry support. They were mainly used for ambusing the enemy long range, and retreat after the first few shots. Many did not have machineguns for self defence.
In FH these vehicles cannot be used for the task they were designed for, and it is not surprising many fail to be effective vehicles.
Too short distances and inappropriate terrain ( no real large open terrain ) are responsible for this.
Expensive tanks are just 2-seconds-to-deal-with targets for a mere throw away Panzerfaust infantry soldier, or engineer expacker. You can imagine if this was realistic no side would have ever used tanks ( when very expensive to build tanks are blown away by a single infantry man in 2 seconds with a real cheap weapon, and there were 6 million infantry soldiers and only a few thousand tanks on each side what good would a tank have been eh ? )
There are very few maps that allow vehicles to keep appropriate distance of infantry, and especially those vehicles without any mg will fail miserably......and even more without proper blast damage of their main gun.
It is not only FH where tanks are terribly underpowered, it is all mods and bf1942 itself. Players do not really want to expereince WWII but want to run around and blow up tanks, feeling invinceble like Rambo......
The Tiger tank was mainly used as a anti-tank tank because it's 88mm kwk36 had way more AP power than HE power, A IS2 is a tank which was used more for taking out bunkers etc, because it's gun had way more HE capacity 70% of the shells shot by the IS2's was HE. And the Ferdinant/Elefant was maybe a asault gun but it had one of the most powerfull anti-tank cannons of WWII. and the germans assault guns were more usefull as AT weapons. You could better say self-propelled guns and tank-hunters under the catogory assault guns. So in that case the Elefant was a assault gun and a tankhunter. A self propelled gun was one with a big calibre gun because of the high HE capacity. Self-propelled guns are more like ISU 122/152 etc.
You guys worry 2 much. I like things the way it should be so leave the devs to make it so,they know whats best. In FH an elefant will be a devestating weapon, no doubt about it, but its a weapon that needs coop play from other player, its not a rusher. I see it as a long range party crasher, "stay put and shoot" :cool: . My guess is that a PZ3 is needed as hell in early maps, but thats nothing new. The thing i miss the most are open maps. A map that is minimalistic, small village, some trees, maybe railroad and lots of equipment, towable arty and AT...something to encurage some real teamplay, BK style. Anyhowz, cant wait for the new FH and keep up the superb work guys. PS: Dont whine for jagd-tank series, 2 unbalancing for now. Most of the heavy tanks were destroyed by planes and even carpet bombing (Panzerlehr regiment). BTW in FH there are lots of battles from the eastern and weastern front...but somebody is forgetting about Operation Husky and all the battles that took place on Italian soil. The gustav line would be very nice 2 see, since the terrain is very interesting for assaulting, or something like a Monte Cassino map (not RTR crap). Well, just a thought ;)
french in 0.7, italians later :D
I don't spend enough time here
22nd September 2004
ah yes bickerin of the ferdinand.....this is a very odd thread...the ferdinad/elephant did what it was meant to do with gusto but i have one question does geramny really need anymore anti-tank 'tanks' or TDs you look at the KT that is an awsome TD in its own right and just the tiger and as you all should'of guessed with all the jagds the 2nd part of thier name is of what chasis they are built on eg: jagdTIGER jagdPANTHER jagdPANZER see what i mean..all i can say do devs or any is i don't mind what else you do with balacning aspects but don't change the KT it is perfect the way it is....
Actually, the Jagdtiger was build on the Tiger II chassis, if I'm not mistaken...
you are not mistaken :lol: