Tank tactics running, gunning, and ramming, oh my. -1 reply

Please wait...

It's Happy Fun Ball!

aka Killed in First Minute

50 XP

21st October 2005

0 Uploads

1,297 Posts

0 Threads

#51 14 years ago
JetroThat's not taking into account the German U boat forces, or the German airfoce. If things had turned out differently(like the RAF losing the airwar) german could have won a against the British Navy. And Germanies conventional Navy was nothing to sneeze at either.:uhm: The point is, transporting germanies larger tanks over water is a logistical nightmare. Something hitler didn't take into account when approving all these massive tanks that, ultimatley are far more limited in terrain and transport capability.

They still would never have been in a position to cross the channel. They were barely able to invade Norway, which was close to their own bases, and far from the British bases. The Germans still took heavy naval losses in that operation. 'Winning' the air war would simply have meant forcing the RAF to abandon their bases in Southern England which were in range of the Luftwaffe. The RAF would still have been able to defend against an invasion, only at less effectiveness due to the more remote aerodromes. The ONLY way for Germany to have beaten England would have been to have started mass producing submarines in 1936, (and abandoning surface fleet production) so as to be in a position to effectively blockade them in 1939. And hope the British didn't respond right away with a crash destroyer and ASW training program. (which they probably would have since a naval threat is the one thing the British NEVER ignored)




[BFE]Adder

Lord of Irony

50 XP

4th June 2005

0 Uploads

304 Posts

0 Threads

#52 14 years ago
JetroThat's not taking into account the German U boat forces, or the German airfoce. If things had turned out differently(like the RAF losing the airwar) german could have won a against the British Navy. And Germanies conventional Navy was nothing to sneeze at either.

Acutaly it was if Britian brought the full force to bear aginst the German Navy(As it would when it's home waters are being invaded) their Navy was outnumbered badly and in a land attack role those shinny battleships would be easy pickings for night attacks or small torp boat style attacks. Nevermind British subs, commit your forcers to battle in such an attack and your Navy gets pinned down and destroyed in detail.

The point is, transporting germanies larger tanks over water is a logistical nightmare. Something hitler didn't take into account when approving all these massive tanks that, ultimatley are far more limited in terrain and transport capability.

Which was not an issue in 40 when he only had Panzer I, II, 38's III's and IV to worry about. *Edit that is to say that previously design landing ships could support his tanks at that point even if he could have never got enough to transport them across the channel fast enough.




Admiral Donutz Advanced Member

Wanna go Double Dutch?

735,271 XP

9th December 2003

0 Uploads

71,460 Posts

0 Threads

#53 14 years ago

PietjeMaybe, regardless if i have to give something up as a tanker then AT infantry has to be toned down aswell. For example placing a limit on AT infantry. By discouraging suicidal behaviour, and forcing them to have a reloader. And by encouraging people to use AT cannons by allowing AT to be pushable and towable.

Ofcourse you can not do it but sooner or later you will notice the results yourself. When its simply suicidal to use tanks and no one will use tanks anymore because every Jo and Mo can take a AT weapon while you as a tanker have a gazillion limitations in the name of "realism". And thats the thing i fear. That sooner or later tanks will be useless because most AT infantry lack skill and we tankers have to pay for their own lack of skill.

But that wouldn't be realistic (tanks becoming useless), if both the infantery (AT men) and tank are tweaked (tuned down in one area, boosted in an other) the game could become more realistic while still being balanced. Ofcourse we all know that realism has it's limits but experimentating with more realistic features certainly can do no harm, aslong as the negativy concequences are kept in mind and dealt with accordingly for balance reasons.




{9thInf}QbanRev*E*

Hero

50 XP

26th October 2005

0 Uploads

276 Posts

0 Threads

#54 14 years ago

i bail out of my sherman and use my bazooka thats far more effective than that limp dick sherman gun. 2 to the tracks kill a tiger. But there is no reason to attack a tiger with a sherman, you need to sneak into the flag, cap it and let the tiger come to you, most likely it will simply camp the perimiter and get outflanked. or the magical f2 f5 will do its job well. Honestly i wouldnt say your agood tanker if you engage the biggns with the piss sherman. Steal a p4 and you can devastate a tiger, or get an m36 and hide in a bush, m36 owns every thing to the tracks. Depends on the map really. Run and gun is smart when you are spotted, but staying conceiled is far more valuable, especially against things like the jagds. If you stand still firing at a jagd you have absolutely 0 chance to kill it. However along barrel jumbo will own a tiger front on front, so stay still with it. Ive been in sector 318 as allies and hid in a bush while a KT and a panther A goes right by my sherman 76, well they both got killed because of patience, if i tried to move forward on them in any fashion i would have been obliterated, Stay concealed!