Tanks v tanks

Tanks v tanks (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Commander - Europe at War Gold

Message

Irish army63 -> Tanks v tanks (8/16/2007 6:17:16 PM)
A follow-up to my 'Berlin falls too easily' post of a couple of days ago. From an AI point of view the real pity is that in 1942 when my US and UK armies invaded France a handful of Panzer corps in France would have wreaked havoc. The one Panzer corps they did have in France caused severe damage because in 1942/43 the quality difference between UK/US tanks and German tanks (in my campaign anyway) was immense. The German tanks wiped the floor with my US tanks in particular. Therefore, if the programmers can ensure that even a few decent German units move to counter an early invasion of Europe it would make a huge difference. This is quite apart from improving the 'defend Berlin' AI.

Syagrius -> RE: Tanks v tanks (8/16/2007 6:21:09 PM)
I agree with you, in 1942-1943 British and US armor are no match for the panzers. In my last game too they just had one panzer corps in northern France which I quickly surrounded and destroyed.

SMK-at-work -> RE: Tanks v tanks (8/17/2007 12:19:37 AM)
In 1942-43 Anglo-American armour has its greatest advantage over eth panzers!! The Sherman was the latest greatest tank and completely outclassed the Pz-3's and many of the 4's that made up the bulk of the German armour! The Sherman remained better than the Mk IV for the entire war (a Sherman could always kill a Mk IV at longer range than a Mk IV could kill a Sherman because of eth thin armour on the German tank (50mm on turret front( and the thick armour on the Sherman (up to 100mm on standard model turret fronts) it was only from late 43 that significant numbers of Tigers and Shermans become relevant against them.

targul -> RE: Tanks v tanks (8/17/2007 1:45:53 AM)
Yes the gun was superior to the Axis gun against front armour. Problem for the early Sherman was Ammo Sponsons above the tracks. These would explode when hit and ignite the tank. The where known as cigarette lighters since they would light up first time everytime. Sherman still performed well until Normady. After Normady the gun needed replacement since it could not penetrate the Panthers armor. Production began in Feb 42 for the Sherman but they were intergated as quickly as possible once produced.

Major Victory -> RE: Tanks v tanks (8/17/2007 2:33:16 AM)
No issue that 1 on 1, a Tiger or Panther easily made wiped out a Sherman, but lets face it, rarely did that happen, there was usually 5 Shermans for every German tank and the allies were willing the attrition rate, Germans could not. When the Sherman was used in sufficient numbers (and more so with tac air support) more often than not, they simply swarmed superior German armour and won the day. In WW2, superior tech could still be countered by plain simple quantity and the ability of a nation to sustain attrition, be it troops or production.

SMK-at-work -> RE: Tanks v tanks (8/17/2007 3:07:36 AM)
Yep - as long as the superior quantity had at least reasonable motivation as well - otherwise you get the Italians vs O'Conner in 1941......

cptracks -> RE: Tanks v tanks (8/17/2007 3:41:17 AM)
Quite often the winner wasn't the one with the biggest and baddest tank, but the one whose doctrine best used combined arms. As early as 1940 the Germans would have lost a full up head on tank engagement against the Char B and don't even think of the ensuing slaughter against the Matilda 1. But on an operational level their commanders translated blitzkrieg into combined arms and won the battles. It was a lesson Rommel learned in France and perfected in the desert. German doctrine there was to avoid tank on tank and use their mobility to first lure the Brits into a charge and then maneuver for side shots where needed. The purpose of the lure was to draw the Brits onto the real tank killer, a dug line of anti tank guns. Fact is, German tanks were superior in some ways, inferior in key others, and largely outnumbered in all major fronts pretty much at all times. What made the difference was how they were used. It stayed this way up to the later marks of the Panther but by then...

SMK-at-work -> RE: Tanks v tanks (8/17/2007 3:47:12 AM)
and IMO the "organisation" factor covers that nicely.

Major Victory -> RE: Tanks v tanks (8/17/2007 4:34:02 AM)
I think Patton did quite nicely when all he had was Shermans to use. Did not the Germans do well in Russia 1941-1942 when clearly the T34 was the better tank.

IrishGuards -> RE: Tanks v tanks (8/17/2007 5:04:10 AM)
What is this T34 .. IDG

Krec -> RE: Tanks v tanks (8/17/2007 5:23:42 AM)
US Armor rolling out !![:D]

SMK-at-work -> RE: Tanks v tanks (8/17/2007 5:36:26 AM)
You don't know what a T34 is??!![X(][X(] See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34 - it owned the panzers in 1941 and early 1942 when used properly, but was outdated by the end of 42 due to serious design shortcomings and poor build quality. Most often it's technical advantages 41-42 were let down by poor training and clumsy tactics. It was upgunned in 1944 with the 85mm gun in a 3-man turret and remained in service to the end of the war and beyond despite being well and truly outdated by then. Attempts to replace it during the war (T43, T44) were invariably abandoned or delayed due to the need to keep producing any vaguely reasonable tank in vast numbers rather than close down the production lines to produce a better one in smaller numbers.

Rocko911 -> RE: Tanks v tanks (8/17/2007 6:17:01 AM)
Actually, their was a show on the history channel that showed the Sherman tanks had a strategy when taking on Tiger or panther tanks. It involved 4-5 shermans. The US would have a lead tank out front and another couple hundred yards back and so forth. The lead tank was toast along with the second, the third could get one shot off or scramble to keep the germans occupied while the fourth and or the fifth tank flanked and shot the Panther or Tiger in the rear where its armor could be penetrated by the Sherman. It was pretty interesting and was considered standard procedure when taking on the two large threats.

Irish army63 -> RE: Tanks v tanks (8/17/2007 12:58:50 PM)
These historical discussions are very interesting but I was hoping to get a discussion going about tanks v tanks in the game! Obviously a lot depends on how developed your tank technology is in the game, but in my latest campaign allied armour was inferior to German armour in 42/43 and was wiping out US/UK tanks. This meant even a handful of panzer corps would have defeated my invasion of France. This would have caused me to withdraw and delay the invasion proper until closer to the historical date. (Mind you, in my campaign the Germans would have by then defeated Russia and that probably would have been that). My summer '42 invasion was meant as a feint but given the almost total lack of resistance ended up in Berlin in no time at all.

Vypuero -> RE: Tanks v tanks (8/19/2007 7:06:01 PM)
SMK - IDG was joking

IrishGuards -> RE: Tanks v tanks (8/19/2007 7:11:55 PM)
LMAO ... [:'(] IDG

SMK-at-work -> RE: Tanks v tanks (8/20/2007 1:51:48 AM)
It's hard to tell with him sometimes - actualy most times....but also especially if he's not bothering to put smilies in[:'(][8\|]

IrishGuards -> RE: Tanks v tanks (8/20/2007 4:46:14 AM)
[&o][8\|][X(][:-][>:][:(][:'(][:@][&:][8D][;)] Ire was ere ... IG

SMK-at-work -> RE: Tanks v tanks (8/20/2007 5:19:08 AM)
First there's content with no smilies....now smilies with no content....I live in hope that one day you'll learn to integrate them in a meaningful maner![8\|]

IrishGuards -> RE: Tanks v tanks (8/20/2007 5:21:13 AM)
Nay .. Is Wargamin .. Nay integration ... Is Aggression .. [X(] IG

Syagrius -> RE: Tanks v tanks (8/20/2007 5:17:00 PM)
Does this guy is speaking english or is he dyslexic[&:]

cptracks -> RE: Tanks v tanks (8/20/2007 6:34:17 PM)
Neither. He seems to be differently enabled. Plays a mean game tho

IrishGuards -> RE: Tanks v tanks (8/20/2007 7:33:33 PM)
LOL ...[X(][:'(] IDG

targul -> RE: Tanks v tanks (8/20/2007 8:55:36 PM)
Enabled you call IDG. Now I have played him a few times and I have called him many things (none of them can be printed) Heehee but enabled is not one of them.

cptracks -> RE: Tanks v tanks (8/20/2007 10:13:33 PM)
Ah well we can't all be polite pc northerners. Know what you mean, tho. Playing my first ever pbem with him and its just amazing how many different ways I can think of to bless the lad (wishing him all warm and toasty, very toasty). They do say humility is good for you. But this much?[:@]Think I've lingered too long in the fields of AI.

IrishGuards -> RE: Tanks v tanks (8/20/2007 10:18:16 PM)
The Ire says .. what a riot .... [:'(] Kinda windy and gloomy today ... hmmm Maybe a wee bit of General Cab Sav .. [X(] IDG

cptracks -> RE: Tanks v tanks (8/21/2007 2:34:51 AM)
S'Okay Irish. I'll find a way out of the pit I've dug for myself, just as soon as I find the shovel, that is.....[&:] BTW, [:@]means a couple of things, but gloomy ain't one of 'em!

targul -> RE: Tanks v tanks (8/21/2007 4:17:30 AM)
Avoid the Christmas rush surrender now.

IrishGuards -> RE: Tanks v tanks (8/21/2007 4:24:27 AM)
Them Spanish tankies went under the treads of German Mot corps .. with Rommel commanding of course .. [X(] IDG

cptracks -> RE: Tanks v tanks (8/21/2007 4:59:39 PM)
Nah. Got to blow the rust off somehow. Back to the original topic. I am wondering if the three techs in each branch function to cancel each other out. Sort of rock paper scissors thing. Is there one tech that the allies can research to even up the tank duels? And how does organization in the general branch affect things?

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.578125