Paper Tigers?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Paper Tigers?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> Paper Tigers?

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Paper Tigers? - 7/1/2003 11:07:26 PM

AbsntMndedProf

Posts: 1780
Joined: 7/6/2001
From: Boston, Massachusetts
Status: offline

Which of the following AFVs do you consider the biggest 'paper tigers' of WW II?

Eric Maietta

_____________________________

Post #: 1

- 7/2/2003 1:45:34 AM

Capt. Pixel

Posts: 1219
Joined: 10/15/2001
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline

My opinion is that the Big German TDs and AGs were the biggest waste of effort (SturmTiger, Elefant) Although, under certain circumstances, I've had very good success with the Elefant. Long visibility and open terrain with an elevated overwatch are ideal for the Elefant.

The SturmTiger's big gun can be as detrimental to your own troops as that of the enemy if you're not extremely careful with firing them. (Opfire can be truly devastating, as you rarely have control over it) On the other hand, there's nothing quite as satisfying as obliterating a city block with one of those bad boys. :D

But if you're dealing with a dwindling availability in qualified tanker crews, these behemoths might have been the only feasible option available to the Germans at the time.

The British cruiser series seems particularly weak as represented in SPWaW. I'm not qualified to tell whether or not the representation is fairly accurate. For myself, I tend to bypass the Cruiser series when I'm making a British force selection.

I don't, as a rule, play Japanese forces, but my overall opinion is that they should have spent more effort developing infantry AT weapons rather than tanks and saved their steel for ships. :cool:

_____________________________

"Always mystify, mislead, and surprise the enemy, if possible. "
- Stonewall Jackson

(in reply to AbsntMndedProf)

Post #: 2

You Forgot... - 7/2/2003 2:56:30 AM

Orzel Bialy

Posts: 2664
Joined: 4/4/2002
From: Wisconsin USA
Status: offline

the M-4! :D :p ;)

_____________________________

(in reply to AbsntMndedProf)

Post #: 3

- 7/2/2003 3:04:23 AM

Belisarius

Posts: 4041
Joined: 5/26/2001
From: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: offline

I went for the M3 Grant, only for the early-mid war (-42) where I can't make them perform historically. They shoot pretty good but they blow up just as easily.

...and if we'd start a poll on the most overpowered tanks, my vote is for the M10 and M18, who are far too hard to kill. :p

_____________________________

Got StuG?

(in reply to AbsntMndedProf)

Post #: 4

Re: You Forgot... - 7/2/2003 3:28:57 AM

Capt Chris

Posts: 200
Joined: 2/4/2002
From: Rochester, NY
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Orzel Bialy
[B]the M-4! :D :p ;) [/B][/QUOTE]

He didn't say paper kittens. He said TIGERS! GRRRRRRR!

:D

_____________________________

Capt Chris

"Badges? We don't need no stinking badges!"

(in reply to AbsntMndedProf)

Post #: 5

- 7/2/2003 4:50:27 AM

AbsntMndedProf

Posts: 1780
Joined: 7/6/2001
From: Boston, Massachusetts
Status: offline

Belisarius posted:

[QUOTE]I went for the M3 Grant, only for the early-mid war (-42) where I can't make them perform historically. They shoot pretty good but they blow up just as easily. [/QUOTE]

Another drawback of the M3 is illustrated by a quote from 'An Army at Dawn', the first of three eventual books in the Liberation Trilogy by Rick Atkinson on the U.S. Army in Europe:

". . . At more than ten feet tall, 'it looked like a damned cathedral coming down the road,' as one tanker complained. . . ."

[Source: [I]An Army at Dawn[/I] , p. 208, Rick Atkinson, Henry Holt and Company, New York, 2002.]

Eric Maietta

_____________________________

(in reply to AbsntMndedProf)

Post #: 6

I like the Grant - 7/2/2003 10:54:33 AM

Buzzard45

Posts: 364
Joined: 1/11/2003
From: Regina, Canada
Status: offline

or Lee depending on whose army it is in. Its interesting that the only lend lease tanks that the Russians liked was the Grant. They loved the double guns system.

The Cruisers suck in this game and the fact that they didn't make it out of the desert campaign says a lot about how confident the commanders were with them. If any survived.

The SturmTiger is one of my favorites. Now that I know how to use it. It throws a mean lump of explosive although it doesn't carry much ammo what it throws does dominate the encounters that it manages to survive. It seems like it is a "kill me quick" target for all armies. No one wants to face a second shot from them. They are just the ticket for busting through a smoke screened ambush by infantry.
The Elephant IMHO has few redeeming qualities. Its just a waste of steel. Heavy and slow. You can never have enough armor to stop all the shots, but you can run and hide with a faster tank. I'd much rather have an 88AA or a even a 75Pak. They are cheaper and easier to move and hide.
The HaGo was the best that the Japanese had. It was somewhat similar to the Stuart. It was a good mobile weapons platform. It was never intended to be a MBT in the European sense. The Japanese could have built the behemoths that were used in the open steppes and fields of Europe but they didn't need to. Look at their Battle ships. The Yamamota was huge and out gunned all the American and British Battle-wagons. You just don't need a King-Tiger or even a Panther in the Jungle and how do you get it to the Island in the first place?

What about the haevy Russian units? If they could shoot they would not have been bad tanks but ROF and poor optics make them low on my list.

_____________________________

" Look alive!! Here comes a Buzzard"
POGO

(in reply to AbsntMndedProf)

Post #: 7

- 7/2/2003 7:32:06 PM

AbsntMndedProf

Posts: 1780
Joined: 7/6/2001
From: Boston, Massachusetts
Status: offline

Buzzard45 posted:

[QUOTE]Its interesting that the only lend lease tanks that the Russians liked was the Grant. They loved the double guns system.[/QUOTE]

The Soviets also thought that the T-35 'land battleship' was a good idea. (Before it got into battle, that is.) :D

Eric Maietta

_____________________________

(in reply to AbsntMndedProf)

Post #: 8

- 7/2/2003 7:44:11 PM

Voriax

Posts: 1719
Joined: 5/20/2000
From: Finland
Status: offline

I also had to vote for the T-35

Take a look at this page (slow loading) about how darn big that target..err..tank really was!

http://www.sweb.cz/Tankove_Muzeum/museum/t35.html

Voriax

_____________________________

Oh God give Me strength to accept those things I cannot change with a firearm!

(in reply to AbsntMndedProf)

Post #: 9

- 7/2/2003 7:44:53 PM

Les_the_Sarge_9_1

Posts: 4392
Joined: 12/29/2000
Status: offline

I voted M13/40.

If it isn't a sports car, then it isn't any good if made in Italy :)
Ok a bit harsh, but their armour sucked big time.

The Elephant wasn't a tank it was a fully enclosed mobile anti tank gun. I find these things lousy once you move them.

Sturm Tiger a paper tiger?, more like clumsy tiger. I usually don't like weapons that cause as much harm as good. Actual artillery is more useful to me.

_____________________________

I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.

(in reply to AbsntMndedProf)

Post #: 10

- 7/2/2003 9:05:14 PM

Frank W.

Posts: 1958
Joined: 10/18/2001
From: Siegen + Essen / W. Germany
Status: offline

all of them :D

except the grant/lee which at least in the game
in 42 and early 43 is decent !

(in reply to AbsntMndedProf)

Post #: 11

- 7/2/2003 9:11:37 PM

Belisarius

Posts: 4041
Joined: 5/26/2001
From: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: offline

Whooo......cr*p.... I think I completely misread the question. :o

It's PAPER TIGER, like in looks-good-on-paper-but-turns-out-a-failure, not I've-got-firepower-but-am-really-weak ;)

In that case, I go with the Elephants. What a waste of good chassii. (?) :rolleyes:

The M3 is the best of the above in that case. :p

_____________________________

Got StuG?

(in reply to AbsntMndedProf)

Post #: 12

- 7/3/2003 11:15:38 AM

stevemk1a

Posts: 855
Joined: 3/30/2002
From: Penticton B.C.
Status: offline

My vote goes for the Karlgerat self propelled mortar ... Sure it's an incredible tech achievement, but why build a 600mm self propelled mortar? speed is only 10km/h and I'm sure it couldn't travel most roads or terrain ... Don't get me wrong, I still think it's really cool (I built a 1/72 scale model of one with it's Munitionstrager as a kid), but I can't help but think that it's a waste of metal, and of engineering effort ...

[SIZE=1]I'd love to have a battery as OBA support tho....[/SIZE]

_____________________________

(in reply to AbsntMndedProf)

Post #: 13

- 7/3/2003 3:05:26 PM

G_X

Posts: 518
Joined: 7/7/2002
From: Atlanta, Georgia
Status: offline

Everything ~except~ the Sturms and Elefants.

I dunno, two Elefants held off a whole company of Shermans once for me.

Never doubted them since then.

Sturms? Well, I got two of them once.

They racked up over 30 kills each that game, mostly HT's and Infantry squads, but also they got a couple Shermans,

_____________________________

If you can read this, you're at the end of my post.
SPWaW Record: W:0 / L:0 / D:0

(in reply to AbsntMndedProf)

Post #: 14

- 7/3/2003 3:15:35 PM

Belisarius

Posts: 4041
Joined: 5/26/2001
From: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by G_X
[B]I dunno, two Elefants held off a whole company of Shermans once for me.[/B][/QUOTE]

Bah, you can do that with two PzIII's. Doesn't prove anything. :D

[SIZE=1]...this was just too good to pass on.... [/SIZE]

_____________________________

Got StuG?

(in reply to AbsntMndedProf)

Post #: 15

- 7/4/2003 6:29:35 AM

Capt. Pixel

Posts: 1219
Joined: 10/15/2001
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Belisarius
[B]Bah, you can do that with two PzIII's. Doesn't prove anything. :D

[SIZE=1]...this was just too good to pass on.... [/SIZE] [/B][/QUOTE]
ROFL :D:D

_____________________________

"Always mystify, mislead, and surprise the enemy, if possible. "
- Stonewall Jackson

(in reply to AbsntMndedProf)

Post #: 16

- 7/4/2003 8:23:28 AM

Buzzard45

Posts: 364
Joined: 1/11/2003
From: Regina, Canada
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Capt. Pixel
[B]ROFL :D:D [/B][/QUOTE]

Ditto

:) :eek: :) :eek: :) :eek: :) :eek: :) :p :eek: :) :eek:

_____________________________

" Look alive!! Here comes a Buzzard"
POGO

(in reply to AbsntMndedProf)

Post #: 17

Re: I like the Grant - 7/13/2003 2:40:01 AM

o4r

Posts: 257
Joined: 1/31/2003
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Buzzard45
[B]or Lee depending on whose army it is in. Its interesting that the only lend lease tanks that the Russians liked was the Grant. They loved the double guns system.

The Cruisers suck in this game and the fact that they didn't make it out of the desert campaign says a lot about how confident the commanders were with them. If any survived.

The SturmTiger is one of my favorites. Now that I know how to use it. It throws a mean lump of explosive although it doesn't carry much ammo what it throws does dominate the encounters that it manages to survive. It seems like it is a "kill me quick" target for all armies. No one wants to face a second shot from them. They are just the ticket for busting through a smoke screened ambush by infantry.
The Elephant IMHO has few redeeming qualities. Its just a waste of steel. Heavy and slow. You can never have enough armor to stop all the shots, but you can run and hide with a faster tank. I'd much rather have an 88AA or a even a 75Pak. They are cheaper and easier to move and hide.
The HaGo was the best that the Japanese had. It was somewhat similar to the Stuart. It was a good mobile weapons platform. It was never intended to be a MBT in the European sense. The Japanese could have built the behemoths that were used in the open steppes and fields of Europe but they didn't need to. Look at their Battle ships. The Yamamota was huge and out gunned all the American and British Battle-wagons. You just don't need a King-Tiger or even a Panther in the Jungle and how do you get it to the Island in the first place?

What about the haevy Russian units? If they could shoot they would not have been bad tanks but ROF and poor optics make them low on my list. [/B][/QUOTE]

The different between Grant & Lee is one is taller with the 3rd turret and the other remove the 3rd turret making it shorter. The Russian took the one without the 3rd turret.

British always is one step behind in German armour development. The only good thing they ever did was their insisten on placing that 76mm gun into the M4 and thus give birth to firefly. Tanks like Comet came too late. Cruiser tanks are known for their light or average armour and the pea gun (40mm or 2 pdr gun). Even when they decided to use the 57mm gun or 6 pdr they are again one step behind the German whch had already adopted the 75/L43 in numbers.

SturmTiger are ideal by Hilter. Being an infantry in WWI, and during the engagment in stalingard. He knew soliders were dying fighting for block by block, he wanted a gun which can take down one building in a single shot and SturmTiger was born. It was never really love by any general due to its slow speed and fuel thirsty need. I consider SturmTiger as a destroyer on ground rather sea since it weapon is actually a modified depthcharge.

Elefant is a backup plan for Tiger if the latter would fail. Since the Tiger didnt that why the Elefant was built in that small number. For offensive, even Elefant fail to live to it reputation but on defensive this tank is deadly. It perform badly in Russian Front due to the fact of the terrain but in Italy it is a different story.

(in reply to AbsntMndedProf)

Post #: 18