RE: Panzer IV vs Jagdpanzer IV

RE: Panzer IV vs Jagdpanzer IV (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> SP:WaW Training Center

Message

RockinHarry -> RE: Panzer IV vs Jagdpanzer IV (6/14/2004 5:40:19 PM)
A working tactic for thin skinned Panzer-Jagers (and AT-guns in general) would be to find a "keyholed" defense position, or IOW, a position/hex that provides you with a very limited field of fire that enables you to shoot at the enemy (preferably flank shots), with less danger of more than the targeted enemy unit beeing able to shoot back at you. If you´re lucky the first shot hits and destroys the enemy unit without detecting you and the enemy alway needs to move his units into your field of fire one at a time. It´s also good to know back-up positions, when the initial position is neutralized by flanking moves or smoke. That can be done in the deploy phase of the game, or later by moving (thus testing) less visible units (infantry scouts ect.) to possible new "keyholed" positions. Re Jagdpanzers vs. Tanks: I think it would´ve been best if Guderian would´ve had complete control on tank development and doctrine, but the inter army rivalties between SS, army and air force simply did not allow it. As long as guys like Goring or Himmler could march out and order any stuff they see fit directly from the industry independently, it was no wonder that german war efforts were scattered as they were. Also Hitler had his own "ideas" for what might be good for "his" army, so what could someone like Guderian do about it at last, also considering that Hitler didn´t really trust him? Was just the same as with other german military "professionals" like Manstein, Rommel, ect. They were all most capable military professionals, but more and more not allowed to do their "job" properly. The standard "halt at all costs" orders in the second half of the war surely favored the development of less mobile turretless combat vehicles, but IMHO this was just a logical adaption to the general faulty strategy, when it would have been more suited to allow for the mobile and flexible defence hat the german "professionals" were so good at when facing superior odds. Here the turreted tank surely would´ve been much better and flexible. Off course it didn´t quite work anymore properly in the west (and italy) in 1943/44 onwards due to western allied air supremacy. Without any sort of air cover, any movements/attacks at daylight are extremely hazardous, so I would say it doesn´t matter much whether you move/attack with a Jagdpanzer or a turreted tank in this regard. Thus I would say the early Marders ect. were an emergency measure to deal with superior russian armor in 1941/42 until tanks were upgraded with better guns, while the later Jagdpanzers were an adaption to a wrong strategy (static/hold at all costs vs. elastic/mobile defense)

Marek Tucan -> RE: Using panzerjaegers (6/16/2004 11:12:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Losqualo quote: ORIGINAL: Frank W. best tank killers: M10,M18,M36 and SU 85. german ones had mostly some drawbacks made them not as good as the above. exept that the M series was open topped they were good. Didn't they have a rotating turret (M-Series)? So the question for me is (I wanted to ask that for a long time) what qualifies them as TD's (In the German sense = turretless) apart from naming them TD's? Wouldn't you count them as tanks? Definitely not, it isn't the construction details but purpose what qualifies them as TDs. Rotating turret was only a technical solution, with its pros and cons. But Wolverine, Hellcat and Jackson were definitely TDs. Try to use them as tanks and you'll get piles of burned metal...

terje439 -> RE: Using panzerjaegers (6/28/2004 5:47:20 PM)
My question is how to use panzerjaegers (marders, etc) effectively. Someone mentioned a while ago that they lose a lot of accuracy when moving, my testing bears this out. Here are some possibilities. Well I haven't been playing SPwaw that long, but in all other wargames like this, I use the rule of thumb I learned in Panzer General, when using TD's, MOVE offensively, and FIGHT defensively. Also, move your TD's were you expect a enemy attack/counterattack, but do not fire with them, let them stand there and use oppertunity fire. I always deploy atleast one platoon of TD's when I fight defend/delay/meeting advance. So long they have proven their worth by killing almost as many tanks as my 88s.

Kokoda -> RE: terge 439 (6/29/2004 2:23:29 AM)
quote: MOVE offensively, and FIGHT defensively There was a general before Panzer General that said this...Robert E Lee. One of the factors that characterises a great leader is the capacity to very simply state complex problems for broad application. It means that each subordinate commander has relatively simple rules that apply in many different situations. Lee exemplified this skill. May be significant enough to nominate Lee as one of the great WWII commanders (on another thread), since these 'rules' clearly still have application a hundred years after he gave voice to them!

MOTHER -> S tank (6/29/2004 3:31:25 PM)
Yes ,all quite valid historical data and references,and an engaging topic. The "modern" m1 abrahms afv as poopyhead described may be the 21st century answer :however the panzerjager concept still had alot of merit during the cold war .The S TANK as the swedes designated it ;still had alot of merit and development.Read this compelling article , look at the picture of this baby and imagine trying to destroy this , in defilade!. [link=http://afvinteriors.hobbyvista.com/stank/stank.html]

Poopyhead -> RE: S tank (6/29/2004 4:25:31 PM)
Yes, MOTHER, the "S" tank is certainly unique. If I remember correctly, it had hydraulic jacks to raise the whole tank and then turn it to aim the gun. Works great in the frozen north, but I wouldn't try it in the sands of the middle east.

terje439 -> RE: terge 439 (6/30/2004 12:00:13 AM)
RE: terge 439 (in reply to terje439) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- quote: MOVE offensively, and FIGHT defensively There was a general before Panzer General that said this...Robert E Lee. well although I am a big Robert E.Lee fan, that was a well known fact for ages before that, however I learned it when playing Panzer general [;)]

Roo -> Turret versus non-turret (7/10/2004 3:46:06 PM)
In the turret vs. non-turret debate, the turreted TDs had one advantage over the non-turreted TDs - they could react faster due to the turret - useful when a tank suddenly appears slightly off centre.

arras -> RE: Turret versus non-turret (9/7/2004 11:24:00 PM)
There is difference between tank destroyer and self propelled gun. At the beginning of war, there were no TDs in any army. StuG was not intended to be TD it was just self propelled gun and as such was “poor man” tank –cheap tank without turret. They were made to support infantry (role for which tanks were originally invented) and as was already sat, they were under artillery not tank command. Armored units were armed with regular tanks. As post war analysis are showing, Germany was among worst prepared countries for war, especially for long lasting war. Hitler believed that war will be short which resulted to many mistakes. For example that military research projects which should not bring results soon were cut of finances or stopped and resources used elsewhere. This was reason why Germans often choose to modify inadequate equipment instead of spending time and recourses on new development which would not bring effect soon enough. That’s why they rather continue to produce TDs or AGs on old chasses than switch to new type which would cost time and lower production. This approach one can see on many other examples like continuing of massive Bf109 production while A. Galland (fighters inspector) asked for switching all to FW190 or when Germans stopped development of heavy bombers at the beginning of WWII. But back to TDs. During fights in France and later in USSR they found to have their tanks outclassed by enemy. Allied tanks were especially better armored than German ones. Ge tanks ruled the battlefield by revolutionary organization, tactic and crew training, not by tanks quality itself. And that was moment when tank destroyers were born. Quick (but not totally sufficient) solution was to put heavier gun on existing chassis. That costed turret and some superstructure of course. There were very small logistical problems since new vehicle used nearly all parts identical than original tank except gun and was in general more simple. But tank is multipurpose weapon and to destroy other tanks is not its only role. Main role of tank is break through enemy defenses and use its mobility to break deep in to the enemy territory to surround, disorganize and hit infrastructure and supporting units. Remember, most of the German big tank victories were not head on battles but operations where big enemy formations were surrounded by two or three attacking arms and had to surrender. Germans rarely fought what allies did and what can be called “big material battles”. TD (or AG) cant replace tank and was just used where there was not enough tanks, or where tanks could not manage to destroy enemy tanks. TDs were in general inferior to normal tanks and that is in my opinion quit realistically simulated in game. What cant (or only up to certain point) be simulated is “hit and run” tactic TDs used in war. Typically destroyer fired few rounds from prepared position and then moved to another one to avoid counter fire. Interesting approach with using them would be to try to get many cheaper units which would bring bigger punch for the same money. I mean to try to organize your forces “economically” since your opponent have to live with the same starting points as you. What about core force of many cheap TDs with cheap supporting infantry to protect them? Of course this can’t be done in jungles of Pacific but in battles with open terrain where is possibility for long range firefight, something TDs were made for [;)]

POTEMKIN -> RE: Panzer IV vs Jagdpanzer IV (10/4/2004 1:34:26 AM)
Though I have only been playing WAW for a short while, I have seen that moving offensively, and then just before making contact with the enemy moving into a good fire position works best with JPZ'S/TD'S/SU'S but on the whole I would rather have a Pz IV than a Stug III/IV. The only turretless that I consider is the Stuh 42 as the 105mm is better against infatry than the 75's and the bigger guns dont pack much HE wise as they are AT rather than all purpose weapons. On the PANZER VS STUG issue, I feel that once the descision was made by the insaniacs that NAZI germany there was nothing that could be done. Though it does providing an interesting learning experience much like multiple turrets were proven to be a mistake in the Winter war and early phases of barbarossa.

pappasmurf -> RE: Panzer IV vs Jagdpanzer IV (10/6/2004 11:29:41 AM)
when you use TD's you have to site them carefully. if they can be paced to op fire an emerging enemy as it enters a LOS while remaing hidden from thier targets buddies they are deadly. Screen them to the front with dug it or dismounted infantry. Ya it's hard on them as they draw fire but, they can spot for hidden AFV's, and the AI can't seme to resist firing on riflemen. When I play the US (n from Utah to the Rhine) I hate the german TD's. Thier guns can kill anythign I have so when I get ambushed I radically manuver to the flanks. As long as I don't run into infantry i can ussaly take them out pretty quick. overall they ( german TD's vs me) seem to take out 2 of my tanks before dying. a couple of times I have gotten lucky and had infantry close enough to move up and assult once the TD's had expended thier firing. The Longbarreled 88 is a flippin nightmare. When palying the germans I have given up on the jadgpanter it dies to quick due to weak side armor so instead I'll use a JPZ-IV/48/70 wich is cheaper. The really heavy Fedinands, Elephants, and jadgtigers are worthless wastes of vlaauble resources. The American hell cat and jackson have also proven useful to me. If I have to engage a panter or tiger at range (expensive) I'll hold them back until the shermans or armored cars have drawn all the fire then move them up and pop away at them.

mckenzie -> RE: Using panzerjaegers (10/8/2004 9:17:07 PM)
Certainly a lot of history buffs here... I thought I was one of the few to read Guderian's book. There is certainly a lot of sense in the various arguments for and against AGs and TDs here. My personal opinion in SPWAW is that they are more effective than tanks (more bang for the buck) for both attack and defence, mainly because the game does not simulate the advantages of having a turret very well. Stugs expecially were very effective throughout the war years in SPWAW, useful for both tank busting and whacking hapless infantry. Ammunition is certainly a problem, but a couple of ammo carriers in the rear usually remedies that, if you are patient enough. They usually have both thicker armour and bigger guns than comparable tanks of the same period. Although if you get immobilised facing the wrong way, better bail to save your experienced tank crews...

pappasmurf -> RE: Panzer IV vs Jagdpanzer IV (10/15/2004 8:11:27 AM)
Woith the glaring exceptions of the maus. gemrany used a used a wide vareity of viehicles but realtively few chassis. Pz II finished the war as the Linx recon tank Pz-III finshed the war as the stugIII, Stug 33b, Stu-42 and marder chassis as wellas SPA Pz38 finshed the war as the hetzer and marder, SPAA Pz IV finshed the war as the stug IV, med tank, Brumbar, SPA, SPAA, JPV-IV* Pv-V MBT and jadgpanther, recoverviehicle PV-VI tiger, Fedinand*, king tiger/**, jadgtiger, elephant*, recover vihiecle, Sturm Tiger What I consider wasted effort. * based on the Porshce desing for the PZ-VI so rpduction lines already existed *** Would have been better to equip the late model tigers with the longer 88. They would have had better speed, lower production cost, higher production rates and saved metal Compared to the Britsh and Russians they were down right stingy in wringing the most out of a design.

Losqualo -> RE: Panzer IV vs Jagdpanzer IV (10/15/2004 9:14:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pappasmurf ... Pz-III finshed the war as the stugIII, Stug 33b, Stu-42 and marder chassis as wellas SPA ... One little addition: The Marders were based on various captured French chassis, the PzKpfW II and the PzKpfW 38 (t) but NOT on the PzKpfW III.

Svennemir -> RE: Panzer IV vs Jagdpanzer IV (10/15/2004 6:15:46 PM)
quote: Infantry too? Infantry, too, is affected by movement while firing (I didn't read ALL the posts, maybe someone said this already). The effect is somewhat more subtle than for vehicles. Handguns and such weapons that can generally be aimed quickly (that is, aiming time << turn duration) will not suffer tremendously from movement, but I think they do suffer a little. Anti tank weapons such as bazookas, fausts and schrecks, however, take long to aim and reload in real life and will suffer huge penalties from moving. The accuracy while moving with such weapons is horrible at ranges greater than 1 hex. If the target is suppressed, though, it often pays off to move to an adjacent hex and fire from there. Close assaults should preferably be done while stationary, but if the target is suppressed it won't hurt to give it a try either.

Svennemir -> RE: Panzer IV vs Jagdpanzer IV (10/15/2004 6:20:20 PM)
About the Stug/Panzer discussion: as has already been stated by different people, I believe Guderian was really against the Sturmgeschütze because they were cumbersome while on the move. The tactics used by mechanized formations required that the panzers should not have to stop and turn around in order to fire, and Sturmgeschütze lacked manoeuverability in this respect. They were probably fine for infantry support, but Guderian wanted other vehicles for mechanized operations.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.28125