(Full Version)

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



Message


sven -> (5/20/2001 10:08:00 PM)

Highway you are right. I guess Patton(representing the Allies I suppose)should not have used his inherent advantages in order to be more 'manly'. The Panther was the best tank of the war, but it was not inwincible.(as soviet strike says) It seems to me that there is a group of people who act as though the Tiger should have 95000 base armor rating.(and sorry but it shouldn't) regards, sven




AmmoSgt -> (5/20/2001 10:15:00 PM)

HighWay exactly my point .. it is tactics and not a 1 on 1 match up of tanks ..T-34's and Shermans are similarily no match 1 on 1 with Heavy german Armor .. but in this game as i think in real life it is the gestalt of the threat arrayed against the gestalt of the opposing force.... Air Arty Infantry on both sides affect the equation as do terrain and weather ..and a 40 ton GW bridge is not Neutral when it comes to a Sherman /Panther Duel , neither is mud mneither is cloud cover ... neither is a bazooka team .. or nebelwerfers for that matter .. you can't "fight" the germans the same way you do the americans or russian or brits each force has it's own timing and rythyms against the other... different degrees of threat from different elements , even different proportion or kills v suppressions in the overall scheme of a battle ..what is good tactics for americans with american gear is suicide for the germans with german gear , or the brits with brit gear... and heeding Pattons Mistake i will not leave out the Russians with Russian gear In fact you could say that the Russians and Brits had similar infantry and cruiser tanks ideas while the Germans had yet another idea of what a tank did .. the French yet another .. and the Americans yet another .... ok so they looked alot alike , armor, tracks, turret, but the differences in purpose as reflected by capability and use , make them all so different that many direct comparisons can be frustrating to the point of meaningless




Highway -> (5/20/2001 10:19:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by sven: Highway you are right. I guess Patton(representing the Allies I suppose)should not have used his inherent advantages in order to be more 'manly'. The Panther was the best tank of the war, but it was not inwincible.(as soviet strike says) It seems to me that there is a group of people who act as though the Tiger should have 95000 base armor rating.(and sorry but it shouldn't) regards, sven
Maybe they should give him that superior 5000mm/L100 KwK2050 long-barrel with armor piercing death-rays.




AmmoSgt -> (5/20/2001 10:20:00 PM)

And yes i grouped the Brits and Russians together because it will start an arguement to say they aren't, and i will agree with the fact that is it argueable, ( I did it so Charles22 will still wonder if i am being seriously funny)




sven -> (5/20/2001 10:22:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by Highway: Maybe they should give him that superior 5000mm/L100 KwK2050 long-barrel with armor piercing death-rays.
Maybe..... :D ;) :D




Paul Vebber -> (5/21/2001 1:39:00 AM)

Ammo Sgt - I have to agree with you yet again (and having to argue against increasing Geramn firepower on other threads - what is this board coming to ;) The technology advantage went hand in hand with tactics and small unit leadership advantages to give the Germans the ability to fight out numbered, but not forever... A battlefield exhibits "co-evolution" innovation is powerful, but only until the enemy figures out a counter. "Gestalt" is an ininteresting term in this context and captures the idea nicely.




sven -> (5/21/2001 1:50:00 AM)

The gestalt you speak of is as old as warfare paul... regards, sven
quote:

Originally posted by Paul Vebber: Ammo Sgt - I have to agree with you yet again (and having to argue against increasing Geramn firepower on other threads - what is this board coming to ;) The technology advantage went hand in hand with tactics and small unit leadership advantages to give the Germans the ability to fight out numbered, but not forever... A battlefield exhibits "co-evolution" innovation is powerful, but only until the enemy figures out a counter. "Gestalt" is an ininteresting term in this context and captures the idea nicely.




AmmoSgt -> (5/21/2001 2:04:00 AM)

Ok thats twice Paul I'm seeing a doctor ...I'll be fine really




sven -> (5/21/2001 2:37:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by AmmoSgt: HighWay exactly my point .. it is tactics and not a 1 on 1 match up of tanks ..T-34's and Shermans are similarily no match 1 on 1 with Heavy german Armor .. but in this game as i think in real life it is the gestalt of the threat arrayed against the gestalt of the opposing force.... Air Arty Infantry on both sides affect the equation as do terrain and weather ..and a 40 ton GW bridge is not Neutral when it comes to a Sherman /Panther Duel , neither is mud mneither is cloud cover ... neither is a bazooka team .. or nebelwerfers for that matter .. you can't "fight" the germans the same way you do the americans or russian or brits each force has it's own timing and rythyms against the other... different degrees of threat from different elements , even different proportion or kills v suppressions in the overall scheme of a battle ..what is good tactics for americans with american gear is suicide for the germans with german gear , or the brits with brit gear... and heeding Pattons Mistake i will not leave out the Russians with Russian gear In fact you could say that the Russians and Brits had similar infantry and cruiser tanks ideas while the Germans had yet another idea of what a tank did .. the French yet another .. and the Americans yet another .... ok so they looked alot alike , armor, tracks, turret, but the differences in purpose as reflected by capability and use , make them all so different that many direct comparisons can be frustrating to the point of meaningless
Wasn't the French idea of proper use of a tank, '1. find a stack of paper, 2 place tank on it.' Oh wait that was what the germans made the French tanks after they mopped up Gaul with Pierre's 4th point of contact. ;) :p ;) regards, sven [ May 20, 2001: Message edited by: sven ]




AmmoSgt -> (5/21/2001 2:54:00 AM)

The Germans only attacked France to capture the Souma's so they could have them to fend off the Americans :) :)




sven -> (5/21/2001 3:09:00 AM)

because everyone knows that a truck is stronger than a Sherman only if it is a German truck ;) ,besides a Russian truck is ONLY as strong as a Sherman... :p [ May 21, 2001: Message edited by: sven ]




Mikimoto -> (5/21/2001 3:18:00 AM)

Hello. 1. IMHO the germans had some good ideas about how to use tanks. Assault guns and self propelled tank destroyers were stop-gap measures. They tested and failed like other countries. The Light Divisions were a big failure. The early panzer division performed well, but had a poor complement of infantry and too much tanks. The early motorized divisions evolutioned to panzergrenadier, etc... and their tanks were not invincible. Actually, until the Tiger and panther appears, the russians and allied are better (if only some models). It wonders me how the panzer III last so longer been the mainstay of the armored divisions. And the panzer IV has only two virtues: high mechanical reliability and fine gun (75, long 43/48). Well, Tigers and Panthers were great. Perhaps not so great like I feel... 2. The US had, initially, bad tank doctrine. With experience they were able to upgrade the performance of the armoured divisions. The organization of combat commands are one of the great successes of WWII. US tanks were outgunned by the germans, all along the war. I think in may 45 there were only 25/30% of 76mm shermans. But the sherman (75) fighted very well against pzIV's and Stugs. Light tanks were useful in cavalry and pursuit missions. And tactics, support and flanking gained the day against those few panthers and tigers they defeated. 3. Sometimes I feel that we gamers forget the great success of the Soviet armoured formations. Well, the initial doctrine was masses of tanks supporting infantry. When tanks fighted alone in the first two years, were isolated and masacred. They returned to earlier doctrines in 42/43. They retained the infantry support tanks in the form of the independent tank brigades. But new tank and mechanized corps (actually divisions) began their long journey to success. The soviet mechanized corpos was perhaps the best armour unit of worl war II.




sven -> (5/21/2001 3:25:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Mikimoto: Hello. 1. IMHO the germans had some good ideas about how to use tanks. Assault guns and self propelled tank destroyers were stop-gap measures. They tested and failed like other countries. The Light Divisions were a big failure. The early panzer division performed well, but had a poor complement of infantry and too much tanks. The early motorized divisions evolutioned to panzergrenadier, etc... and their tanks were not invincible. Actually, until the Tiger and panther appears, the russians and allied are better (if only some models). It wonders me how the panzer III last so longer been the mainstay of the armored divisions. And the panzer IV has only two virtues: high mechanical reliability and fine gun (75, long 43/48). Well, Tigers and Panthers were great. Perhaps not so great like I feel... 2. The US had, initially, bad tank doctrine. With experience they were able to upgrade the performance of the armoured divisions. The organization of combat commands are one of the great successes of WWII. US tanks were outgunned by the germans, all along the war. I think in may 45 there were only 25/30% of 76mm shermans. But the sherman (75) fighted very well against pzIV's and Stugs. Light tanks were useful in cavalry and pursuit missions. And tactics, support and flanking gained the day against those few panthers and tigers they defeated. 3. Sometimes I feel that we gamers forget the great success of the Soviet armoured formations. Well, the initial doctrine was masses of tanks supporting infantry. When tanks fighted alone in the first two years, were isolated and masacred. They returned to earlier doctrines in 42/43. They retained the infantry support tanks in the form of the independent tank brigades. But new tank and mechanized corps (actually divisions) began their long journey to success. The soviet mechanized corpos was perhaps the best armour unit of worl war II.
Mikimoto I am not forgetting Ivan, but it is just about universally accepted that he got Armor Tactics 101 completed by about mid '43. Burning tanks are cool! :cool: :cool: :cool:




Charles2222 -> (5/21/2001 4:08:00 AM)

The Americans only attacked Germany to capture the V2s, Tigers, ME262s so they could have them to fend off the USSR. The USSR counterattacked Gerry to get the same equipment to fend off the USA. See? Germany was merely a invention depot for the fighting of future wars. Hitler knew this, so he started attacking other people to use their stuff, against those that would use his stuff. The French, were the most brilliant of them all, as they saw that taking Germany in WWI would assure them of using German equipment to stop an imminent English invasion of France (and it worked for 20 years), and then they were suckered into letting the Brits come across to defend against the Germans who were set on stopping the future US/USSR war. In reality all the fighting wasn't about ruling the country you conquered, but about using that place's permission to use their stuff to fight future wars against someone else :rolleyes:




sven -> (5/21/2001 4:15:00 AM)

I'm confused...what 'secret weapon' did uncle Adolph want that Holland had? ;) sven
quote:

Originally posted by Charles_22: The Americans only attacked Germany to capture the V2s, Tigers, ME262s so they could have them to fend off the USSR. The USSR counterattacked Gerry to get the same equipment to fend off the USA. See? Germany was merely a invention depot for the fighting of future wars. Hitler knew this, so he started attacking other people to use their stuff, against those that would use his stuff. The French, were the most brilliant of them all, as they saw that taking Germany in WWI would assure them of using German equipment to stop an imminent English invasion of France (and it worked for 20 years), and then they were suckered into letting the Brits come across to defend against the Germans who were set on stopping the future US/USSR war. In reality all the fighting wasn't about ruling the country you conquered, but about using that place's permission to use their stuff to fight future wars against someone else :rolleyes:




Mikimoto -> (5/21/2001 4:26:00 AM)

The Gouda cheese (terrible chemical secret weapon), a step forward in byological warfare. :D :D :D




Charles2222 -> (5/21/2001 8:06:00 PM)

As Mikimoto said, and also the concept of neutrality. Hitler had tried to work that concept for years with some success by gaining control of future countries without firing a shot, however as the concept had run it's course, and other countries devised an effective counter-neutrality system, with desperate measures he invaded the country with perhaps the cutting edge in the neutrality concept. [ May 21, 2001: Message edited by: Charles_22 ]




sven -> (5/21/2001 10:38:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by Charles_22: As Mikimoto said, and also the concept of neutrality. Hitler had tried to work that concept for years with some success by gaining control of future countries without firing a shot, however as the concept had run it's course, and other countries devised an effective counter-neutrality system, with desperate measures he invaded the country with perhaps the cutting edge in the neutrality concept. [ May 21, 2001: Message edited by: Charles_22 ]
????????????????????????????????????????????? The 'cutting edge' in neutrality allowed the Germans, and Japanese to effectively emasculate the Dutch govt. What a concept! ;)




Charles2222 -> (5/21/2001 10:54:00 PM)

That is one of the problems with having both effective neutrality concepts and effective cheese; somebody is always looking to get at them. Much to Hitler's dismay, he found that the Dutch neutrality concept wasn't good enough either, or at least not enough to overcome the Allies forgiving him for Poland. In essence, the war for neutrality was lost when Poland was attacked, he was too overconfident firstly in German neutrality concepts, and later in the Dutch ones which persuaded him to attack. To this day, many Germans have questioned whether the Swiss neutrality concepts might have saved the day, and why Hitler didn't attack there as well. BTW, the whole reason Hitler held the panzers back from getting at Dunkirk, so long, was that it was the first attempt to employ Dutch neutrality concepts, so overconfident was he in it's effectiveness. :rolleyes:




sven -> (5/21/2001 11:05:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by Charles_22: That is one of the problems with having both effective neutrality concepts and effective cheese; somebody is always looking to get at them. Much to Hitler's dismay, he found that the Dutch neutrality concept wasn't good enough either, or at least not enough to overcome the Allies forgiving him for Poland. In essence, the war for neutrality was lost when Poland was attacked, he was too overconfident firstly in German neutrality concepts, and later in the Dutch ones which persuaded him to attack. To this day, many Germans have questioned whether the Swiss neutrality concepts might have saved the day, and why Hitler didn't attack there as well. BTW, the whole reason Hitler held the panzers back from getting at Dunkirk, so long, was that it was the first attempt to employ Dutch neutrality concepts, so overconfident was he in it's effectiveness. :rolleyes:
The Germans sure were put upon by Polish neutrality. I mean after all ask Uncle Adolph and he would have told you Poland attacked Germany. Germany was just trying to defend itself, but the Anglo/French alliance had to support those Polish aggressors.(sigh) :(




Charles2222 -> (5/21/2001 11:44:00 PM)

The German neutrality concepts were on their last legs in Poland, they only worked insofar as it convinced Hitler himself. Hitler was shocked that the German neutrality to Poland wasn't accepted, so since the effect was so backwards, he figured that he would do something backwards to the concept of neutrality and attack Poland. Poland, as it turned out, didn't have any neutrality concepts for him to take as his own, so in this he violated a major tenant of neutrality, and that is that attack is only acceptable if you end up procuring a superior neutrality concept from the conquered. Not having superior neutrality concepts from Poland, and his own concepts on their last legs, his only choice after that was to hope that attacking a country with the cutting edge in neutrality concepts would win the day (and some cheese on the side), but unfortunately couldn't be implemented until the halt of the panzers close to Dunkirk.




AmmoSgt -> (5/22/2001 12:24:00 AM)

I'm gonna go way out on a limb here..but.. I think ..at least in the west. Holland, Belugium, Norway, and France and Denmark most of the countries that Germany "conquered" were more properly just occupied .. the amount of troops that had to be used to maintain control were so high right from the start, that I think ,due respect for the Occupied folks as tenacious fighters should be given ...and perhaps had we realized it at the time ..we would have been talking about two new kinds of warfare "Blitzkreg" and the effective counter " Resistance " ... Thoughts please




sven -> (5/22/2001 12:28:00 AM)

The problem was that 'Uncle Adolph's' Traveling Comedy Troupe(never ever use the 'N' word)was extremely effective in generating a 'fan club' that wanted to kill the performers in the troupe. I think the part that the Allied intelligence coups and sacrifices of the 'resistance'in our victory made them truly the unsung heroes of the war. regards, sven [ May 21, 2001: Message edited by: sven ]




murx -> (5/22/2001 1:54:00 AM)

Why Germany didn't invade Swiss ? Simple & easy, there was no army group small enough to do the task :D murx




sven -> (5/22/2001 2:06:00 AM)

No problem for the US anymore.... after all.... We ARE an Arny of ONE! :mad:




Highway -> (5/22/2001 2:07:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by murx: Why Germany didn't invade Swiss ? Simple & easy, there was no army group small enough to do the task :D murx
Scherzbold :D




Mikimoto -> (5/22/2001 2:41:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by murx: Why Germany didn't invade Swiss ? Simple & easy, there was no army group small enough to do the task :D murx
The reason was not that terrible chemical weapon, the Emmental cheese, no, no. The actual responsible was one technological weapon, the feared Cuckco clock!!! :D :D :D




Nikademus -> (5/22/2001 4:49:00 AM)

are these results being observed with or without the national characteristics on? some comments from one who's studied tanks long before there was a Steel Panthers (the HORROR of it!!!! Kampfgruppe was fun but...) The Sherman's armor was good. Like the T-34, it had a very nicely sloped front glasis if a tad bit less armored (earlier marks) but had a much higher profile and was slab slided making them vulnerable in the same vein as the Panther. biggest problems was that it was burdened with a very poor gun (vs. tanks....essentially a howitzer weapon as US doctorine viewed that the best solution to a tank was not another tank but a specialized "tank destroyer) and worse....facing a German opponent which had been previously forced to up-gun thanks to their experiences in Russia. As other's have mentioned, the Tiger I did not have "exceptional" armor by 1944 (and i personally do not agree with the Mantlet + front turret armor combo in the official OOB) but it's gun allowed it to fight at standoff ranges from which the Sherman could'nt compete. Not impenetrable though. I think the "Hollywood" factor comes from the documented cases in which a Tiger survived hits from which even an American or British 75mm should have penetrated (a have a few where a Tiger shrugged off flank hits at point blank range (under 100yards) but i cannot believe those where the norm but the exception to the rule. Anyway, enough with the history lesson. Most of us know all this already. On the issue of non-penetrating hits against Shermans in teh game: Ver 5.0 'fixes' identified the need to tweak the penetration formulas to lesson the tendancy for High velocity shells to skip off armor at more extreme angles vs the more accurate "iceburg" effect that rounds like the 88 and even 75mm tended to produce. 'Maybe' this has something to do with the frequency of Shermans surviving hits that "maybe" they should'nt have. Its hard to guage. Traditionally i found even before SP:WAW that the majority of "kills" made against Shermans tended to be not from the glasis but from the far less sloped front turret. On the plus side, i've seen T-34's and even BT-7's survive hits at more accute angles which are further exaserbated by the heavy front slope so i dont think the Sherman is being singled out just because its "American" On the issue of to-Hit chances vs actual hits: Not sure what to say on this one. I hav'nt played enough American scenerios to make a qualified judgement on it. Most of the game's i've played have been as the American side so you can rest assured that when the snout of a Tiger or Panther poked it's head out that i did'nt sit around waiting to trade shots :) I have noticed that the Americans tend to get very favorable results in small arms fire vs German squads leading me to suspect that it might be better to play with Nat. Characteristics off but many of the units in question were of good experience so that clouded even that issue a bit. This thread has piqued my curiosity enough so that i think i'll try a few random gen scenerios and see if i can observe this reported phenomenum. In case it's not obvious. I am not a German Tank supremist. My personal record against panthers has alwasy been great as the AI will usually present me with a flank to shoot up. I've had more trouble against Tiger's and once lost an entire platoon of Shermans to 3 well entrenched Pz-IV's that kept hitting with the first shot!!!!!! One final note. Shermans will do better in the game in one respect vs historical. Early Shermans had a tendency to catch fire even after a non-penetrating hit and to my knowlege SP:WAW does not attempt to simm this.




sven -> (5/22/2001 5:11:00 AM)

RONSON!!!!




Mark Ezra -> (5/22/2001 6:30:00 AM)

The poor maligned Sherman. It lacked punch, it lacked armor, it lit up like a christmas tree...so why did the US build it? Answer...You can ship it! You can put it on a train, take it the the dock, crain it into a cargo hold and send it anywhere in the world. Because of it simplicity, relability, size and weight more could be made and sent to where the fighting was. Not Germany, nor Russia faced the logistical difficulities that the US faced and overcame. Although weak and under gunned the Sherman is the only tank that can be called "The tank that won the war"




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1