Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Regular tanks v. amphib tanks

 
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] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Regular tanks v. amphib tanks Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Regular tanks v. amphib tanks - 1/31/2006 11:14:28 PM   
Ideologue

 

Posts: 47
Joined: 12/14/2004
Status: offline 		Is there actually a difference in their performance in amphibious landings?

Nothing's apparent from the database stats.
Post #: 1
RE: Regular tanks v. amphib tanks - 1/31/2006 11:19:13 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		There isn't. They're all AFV's...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Ideologue)
Post #: 2
RE: Regular tanks v. amphib tanks - 1/31/2006 11:21:11 PM   
Ideologue

 

Posts: 47
Joined: 12/14/2004
Status: offline 		Humbug.

Guess the time and shipping spent preparing and concentrating Marine LVTs would've been better used with Shermans.

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 3
RE: Regular tanks v. amphib tanks - 1/31/2006 11:24:11 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		They're flavour...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Ideologue)
Post #: 4
RE: Regular tanks v. amphib tanks - 2/1/2006 8:07:01 AM   
afspret


Posts: 851
Joined: 2/19/2004
From: Hanahan, SC
Status: offline 		Yes, there is a difference. Most U.S. Marine and Army amphib tanks had M-5 Stuart light tank turrets with 37mm guns. They were lightly armored and still had the ability to land & transport troops. They could also be landed from ships off-shore, like an AKA, APA, and LSD. Regular tanks had a 75mm or larger gun, were more heavily armored and they had to be transported to the beach from large landing craft, such as the LCM and LST. And they were used almost exclusively in the Pacific.

(in reply to Ideologue)
Post #: 5
RE: Regular tanks v. amphib tanks - 2/1/2006 10:06:09 AM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		He's talking about in-game difference...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to afspret)
Post #: 6
RE: Regular tanks v. amphib tanks - 2/1/2006 11:32:24 AM   
afspret


Posts: 851
Joined: 2/19/2004
From: Hanahan, SC
Status: offline 		It dawned on me thats what he meant as soon as hit the "OK" button.

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 7
RE: Regular tanks v. amphib tanks - 2/1/2006 4:05:49 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		'ok. The attack/defense characteristics of the tanks in the game do make a difference in terms of casualties inflicted and suffered but buried amidst a big invasion operation you'll not notice much difference in the great scheme of things.

_____________________________


(in reply to afspret)
Post #: 8
RE: Regular tanks v. amphib tanks - 2/1/2006 4:11:25 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		Yeah, but the game doesn't distinguish between an amphibious tank or a non-amphibious tank, does it? There is only the category "AFV".

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 9
RE: Regular tanks v. amphib tanks - 2/1/2006 4:42:38 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		don't believe so.

_____________________________


(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 10
RE: Regular tanks v. amphib tanks - 2/1/2006 5:28:37 PM   
Ideologue

 

Posts: 47
Joined: 12/14/2004
Status: offline 		Yep, that I was what I was looking for.

Just wondering if there was any reason to use shipping for the LTVs if better tanks were actually on hand, other than historical flavor. Seems a shame there isn't.

< Message edited by Ideologue -- 2/1/2006 6:05:35 PM >

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 11
RE: Regular tanks v. amphib tanks - 2/2/2006 12:09:28 AM   
dereck


Posts: 2800
Joined: 9/7/2004
From: Romulus, MI
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ideologue

Yep, that I was what I was looking for.

Just wondering if there was any reason to use shipping for the LTVs if better tanks were actually on hand, other than historical flavor. Seems a shame there isn't.


I may be wrong but I think there "may" be a difference in how much shipping is needed to transport the two. I think the amphibs may take less to ship than the regular tanks. Not 100% sure though.

_____________________________

PO2 US Navy (1980-1986);
USS Midway CV-41 (1981-1984)
Whidbey Island, WA (1984-1986)
Naval Reserve (1986-1992)

(in reply to Ideologue)
Post #: 12
RE: Regular tanks v. amphib tanks - 2/2/2006 8:12:47 AM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		They are, but that's because their Load Ratings are lower.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to dereck)
Post #: 13
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Regular tanks v. amphib tanks Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.109