Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

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 >>

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

- 6/30/2002 10:37:31 PM

M4Jess

Posts: 5140
Joined: 1/17/2002
From: DC
Status: offline

I vote for anything German....as my M4 roll over them time and time again!:p

M4 Jess~Tiger Killa

_____________________________

Im making war, not trouble~

(in reply to Capt. Pixel)

Post #: 31

- 7/1/2002 7:12:20 AM

Figmo

Posts: 556
Joined: 5/28/2000
From: Pennsylvania, USA
Status: offline

I'm not sure if they are the worst Tanks because I haven't read much about their use but the British "Archer" with the gun mounted on the rear and the American "T3 Christie" Medium Tank with the ability to take the tracks off so it could be run on it's rubber wheels on the road are the strangest ones I've seen.

And those ideas were never used again that I know of - that says something!

Figmo

_____________________________

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes ...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, f

(in reply to Capt. Pixel)

Post #: 32

!!! - 7/1/2002 11:46:44 PM

Suvorov

Posts: 80
Joined: 6/28/2002
Status: offline

I should start by educating Figmo, as it will lead into the education of OKW...

Christie tanks:

In June of 1930 when the engineers of UMM RKKA visited the Unighted states for now only the second time, an agreement was struck between the american engineer Christie and his soviet counterparts.

This led to the redisigning of the Christie tank with better suspension armour artillery and powerplant to produce a series of BT-X tanks begining with the heavy production of BT-2 and ending with the BT-7M and BT-SV-2 (Cherepaha). The characteristics of these tanks were trully AMAZING.
BT-7M
Battle Mass 14.65t
Crew: 3
Armour:
Front: 20mm
Back/Side: 13mm
Armament: 45mm 20calibur m1934 gun, 2x7.62 MGDT
Powerplant: B-2 desil 500hp
!!!Speed on Wheels: 86km/h
!!!Speed on Tracks: 62 km/h

For the fools that may argue against the weak armour, I once again point to the powerplant and the speed characteristics of this tank. If armour was necessary thick armour plates could EASILY be introduced to compensate. The BT-SV-2 carried 40-45mm armour that could defend against any 45mm gun at any distance at the time. Note: the Pz III series only carried 37mm guns.

However these tanks were not inteded as heavy tanks. These were weapons of Soviet BlitzKrieg, that was about 4 times faster than anything the Axis could produce. The wheel/track system was designed for the LOCATION of the soviet blitzcrieg, Europe. There are little good roads in Russia, mainly railroads for transportation, therefore wheeled tanks are at a disadvantage. When Whermacht launched its offensive first, most BT tanks were used in a different way from what was intended and subsequently destroyed.

That's a very very brief history of the Soviet tracked tanks. (there were many more)

Now to the ABSURD outburst by OKW-75:

T-34 and TANKS in general:

On the 13th of October 1937 the Soviet government provided characteristics to match for a new class of medium tanks. From them came the A-20 and then the T-32 which was converted to the T-34 after periods of modification.
T-34 1941:
Battle Mass: 26.5t
Crew: 4
Armour:
Turret front: 65 mm
Front/side/rear: 45 mm
Top: 20 mm
Armament: 76.2mm F-34 m1940 gun two 7.62mm MGDT
Powerplant: B-2 V12 500hp engine
Speed: 54km/h
OP Radius: 400km

The Whermacht had only 310 total PzKpfw III Ausf. G tanks produced by April 1941. Not all of these tanks participated in battles on the Eastern front. The most common german III series tanks were A through E/F let me give you their best set of characteristics:
PzKpfw III Ausf. E
Battle Mass: 19.5t
Crew: 5
Armour
Front/side: 30mm
Top: 18mm
Armament: 37mm KwK L46.5 gun and three MG34 machineguns
Powerplant: Maibach HL120TR, V12 carburated 300hp engine
Speed: 40km/h
OP Radius: 165km

As you can see the medium tanks from Whermacht at the time could not compare in a single characteristic with the Soviet T-34 making it the best tank at the time. Not only that, but the T-34 was much easier to put together, hence the large production numbers.

The T-34 with the short barrel gun had become outdated in ONE DAY. As soon as the Tiger tank came out. Just like the Pz III models at the begining of the war the T-34 could no longer compare with this powerful adversary on paper. BUT (big BUT) the 34's still managed to deal powerful blows to the panzer core, just like the Pz III's in the begining of the war tore into the Soviet battle machines. Then came the T-34-85... and so on and so on.

I'm tired, and I'm not going to go into the history of tanks, what they're used for and what the Whermacht did to them in their desparation war. I hope what I said is enough to educate.

(in reply to Capt. Pixel)

Post #: 33

- 7/2/2002 12:06:44 AM

Figmo

Posts: 556
Joined: 5/28/2000
From: Pennsylvania, USA
Status: offline

Geez I hope you didn't hurt yourself Suvorov - but I knew all that. I know that the Cristie design was the basis for many tanks but the American T3 was a joke - IMHO.

My statement was that I hadn't read much about the Archer and American T3 tanks being used in action - have you? Actually, I think the T3 was scrapped before the war.

And the idea of taking the tracks off or putting the Main Gun on the rear of the tank haven't been used again - to my knowledge. Do you know of any?

Hope this clarifies my statement.
Figmo

_____________________________

(in reply to Capt. Pixel)

Post #: 34

- 7/2/2002 12:40:00 AM

Suvorov

Posts: 80
Joined: 6/28/2002
Status: offline

Did you read what I wrote above or not? I said all of the BT-X series tanks took their tracks off and even gave characteristics on that. As for the main gun on the rear... no only the americans can come up with something like that. (as far as I know)

(in reply to Capt. Pixel)

Post #: 35

- 7/2/2002 1:20:24 AM

Belisarius

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

Main gun on rear?

That goes for any early- to mid-war German TD as well, doesn't it?

_____________________________

Got StuG?

(in reply to Capt. Pixel)

Post #: 36

- 7/2/2002 2:44:49 AM

ivantheterrible

Posts: 79
Joined: 4/2/2002
From: Dallas
Status: offline

really? I didn't know that at all. I did notice that in SPWAW Archer is treated as if the main gun points to the front isn't it? Must be some "game limitation" eh...

(in reply to Capt. Pixel)

Post #: 37

- 7/2/2002 3:57:16 AM

Figmo

Posts: 556
Joined: 5/28/2000
From: Pennsylvania, USA
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Suvorov
[B]Did you read what I wrote above or not? I said all of the BT-X series tanks took their tracks off and even gave characteristics on that. As for the main gun on the rear... no only the americans can come up with something like that. (as far as I know) [/B][/QUOTE]

Sorry - I missed it with all the other info - at lunch during work I have to hurry. And the Archer is a British Tank. I've never tried it in the game - ahh - something to do tonight!! :)

Figmo

_____________________________

(in reply to Capt. Pixel)

Post #: 38

- 7/2/2002 6:14:00 AM

Capt. Pixel

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

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Belisarius
[B]Main gun on rear?

That goes for any early- to mid-war German TD as well, doesn't it? [/B][/QUOTE]

This is maybe not such a bizarre concept.

Rather than a Tank Destroyer, consider the Archer platform as an Anti-Tank Gun with a really fast 'Shoot-and-Scoot' feature.

And, it can fire limbered (duh!) :)

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Capt. Pixel)

Post #: 39

- 7/2/2002 6:50:49 AM

Figmo

Posts: 556
Joined: 5/28/2000
From: Pennsylvania, USA
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Capt. Pixel
[B]

This is maybe not such a bizarre concept.

Rather than a Tank Destroyer, consider the Archer platform as an Anti-Tank Gun with a really fast 'Shoot-and-Scoot' feature.

And, it can fire limbered (duh!) :) [/B][/QUOTE]

You may be right - I just checked it out and with that 17Lber it's like an 88 but really mobile.

_____________________________

(in reply to Capt. Pixel)

Post #: 40

Tank site! - 7/2/2002 8:06:42 AM

Figmo

Posts: 556
Joined: 5/28/2000
From: Pennsylvania, USA
Status: offline

Hey, this may be old to some but just found this WW2 tank site and it gave the official designation for the Archer "Valentine 17-Pounder, Self-Propelled, "Archer" (A30)"

The site:

http://www.onwar.com/tanks

I'm off to read some more.

Figmo

_____________________________

(in reply to Capt. Pixel)

Post #: 41

- 7/3/2002 9:21:07 AM

OKW-73

Posts: 237
Joined: 9/1/2001
From: Cyberspace, Finland
Status: offline

Thanks Suvorov for education-
yes, my mistake cause i didnt say any specific year, but as you noticed i didnt say at any time that T-34's were actually worst tanks around, i did just say their accuracy (short barreled version) wasnt very good...instead armour was good or at least decent ;) and was wondering Anthony Beevors opinion in his book Stalingrad cause he didnt say any details why he think T-34 was best...
But still overally i think Germany had best panzers in WW2 if we look all models like Panthers, Tigers, etc.

_____________________________

"You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone." - Al Capone

(in reply to Capt. Pixel)

Post #: 42

- 7/3/2002 6:44:08 PM

Suvorov

Posts: 80
Joined: 6/28/2002
Status: offline

Germany had some exceptional tanks, but they also had some exceptional pieces of ****... if you recal in the begining of the war whermacht came to a decision that thier current Pak35/36's were unable to penetrate the armour of soviet tanks. A decision was made to begin the mass production of the Pak 38 50mm guns and rearm the III's/IV's with bigger 57/75mm guns. However that took time, and up to the point when these guns stoped being a rarity the german forces frequently resorted to using the Flak 18/36/37 88mm guns as well as a LARGE number of the soviet F-22/YBC(UVS) guns to rearm their forces. These guns got the names 7.62cm Pak 36(r) and 7.62cm Pak 39(r) that were mounted on the Marders II and III.

For a short period in time the germans took a BIG advantage (in my opinion) when the Tiger tanks that could outrange KV's and 34's came unto the battlefield. However this advantage was equaled with the T-34-85 KV-1s KV-85 and the xSU's. For a long time after that nobody really took a lead in the technological developement until the very end of the war. When germany realized their defeat was inevitable, they began contructing expensive really excessive tanks, that prooved quite useless against the mass soviet numbers. With low speed and maneuverability the soviet columns could easily outmanuever and destroy the large german freak tanks. Most of the soviet tank losses in the end of the war in fact came from the PanzerFaust's of the infantry, especially in city/fortification combat when the soviet troops were rushed into action needing to meet an extremely short deadline. But that was in the end, and quite understandable. It seems to me that the engineers in the two countries (Russia Germany) were working on almost equal mental capacity... which seems very interesting.

(in reply to Capt. Pixel)

Post #: 43

- 7/4/2002 3:02:31 PM

Tankhead

Posts: 1352
Joined: 6/21/2000
From: Yukon Territory Canada
Status: offline

For me it as to be the Italian M11/39, I think this tank was design by a mad man or a sadistic one.

Gun: 37mmL40 Weight: 11 tons
MG: 2X 8mm Speed: 21 mph Crew: 3

UpHullFR: 30/10*
LowHullFR: 30/0*
HullSide: 15/6*
LowHull: 15/0*
HullRoof: 6/85*
HullRear: 15/0*
TurFr: 30/10*
GunMant: 30/20*
TurSide: 15/10*
TurRear: 15/10*
TurRoof: 6/90*

This as to be the worst bad tank designs of all time. The 37 mm gus was mounted in a corner of the hull superstructure with limited traverse, the small turret carried twinn 8 mm machineguns. :eek:

_____________________________

Tankhead

(in reply to Capt. Pixel)

Post #: 44

- 7/4/2002 5:23:37 PM

screamer

Posts: 299
Joined: 7/21/2001
From: The Netherlands,
Status: offline

the arcer is a god if you know how to use it right, ive experienced this in combat mission deploy him hulldown if posseble wait for the enemy shoot a few shots and scoot

_____________________________

poep

(in reply to Capt. Pixel)

Post #: 45

What fun! - 7/7/2002 7:20:52 AM

Capt. Pixel

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

Well thanks, guys and gals. This was a fun thread.

I was thinking the 'worst' might be akin to my sister and I in the old refrigerator box. Trying to tractor around and get the 'hatch' to come back to the top. Ahh the fun. :D

And I think the 'Bob Semple' pretty much filled the bill. You have to work with what you've got, but Oh my God. :)

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Capt. Pixel)

Post #: 46

I have the answer!!! - 7/7/2002 9:40:15 AM

Commander Klank

Posts: 226
Joined: 10/15/2000
From: Killleen, Texas
Status: offline

The worst tank is the one your in when it gets hit, catches fire and blows up!!!!!!!!!!!

Too easy:D :D :p

[IMG]http://ardenne44.free.fr/cdMenil02.JPG[/IMG]

(voice of Elvis) Thank you, thank you very much....:cool:

_____________________________

Commander Klank

(in reply to Capt. Pixel)

Post #: 47

- 7/8/2002 1:52:31 PM

G_X

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

How could someone say that glorious Juggernaut of a tank called the T-35 could be bad? ;) the T-35 was never meant to compete against Panzers, though I'm sure if you just started strapping armour plates on to it, it would cut speed, but you could give it better armour than a Tiger.

I think the Bob Semple takes the cake for Worst Tank

I think two drunk Germans with nothing but a beer bottle or two between them could take that thing out...how many people fit in that thing? I'd feel cramped...

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Capt. Pixel)

Post #: 48

- 7/9/2002 7:02:19 AM

Possum

Posts: 349
Joined: 3/27/2000
From: Adelaide, SA, Australia
Status: offline

Hello All
The T-35 was a very good tank for what it was designed for,
Parading in Red Square! It looks very impressive, rumbling over the cobbelstones.....
I mean, It didn't even have real Armour, only rolled mild steel plates!
back to the worst tank of wwII, I'd vote for the Bob Semple, but it never saw use (except as an object lesson, and traveling road show), so I think it shouldn't count....
Instead I offer the British Vickers "Cruiser" Mk-II, In production 1939-1940. No Armour to speak of; Barely faster than a walking infantryman; A 2 lbdr with no HE ammo; Mecanically unreliable; Threw tracks if pushed, or manuvered, hard; A S.O.B. to maintain, as so many easily breakable parts where in hard to get places. AND IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE THE IMPROVED, "COMBAT EXPERIENCE APPLIED", VERSION!!!!!
( The Mk-I was marginally worse, but then, it had been designed and built with no combat experience, or indeed, pre-production testing, at all!)
Actually, Vickers eventually got all the problems ironed out of the Mk-I/II chassis, and the Vickers Mk-III "Cruiser" went on to be one of the most reliable and robust tank chassis in the world. With a decent ammount of armour, and eventually a 75mm gun. You may know it as the Valentine.

_____________________________

"We're having a war, and we want you to come!"
So the pig began to whistle and to pound on a drum.
"We'll give you a gun, and we'll give you a hat!"
And the pig began to whistle when they told the piggies that.

(in reply to Capt. Pixel)

Post #: 49

- 7/9/2002 8:27:31 AM

G_X

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

...The T-35 was meant to bust Bunkers in a World War I type scenario, It had enough armor to deflect small arms, and it was rather fast, a sporting good 30+ klicks or so, and had less ground pressure, meaning it could easily roll over soft ground better than the T-34 even.

The major downfall of the T-35 was the fact that it was unmaintainable, in the end it would have been better to have split the crews up and build smaller tanks that were more easily maintained. This compounded with the incredible difficulty of a Tank Captain trying to pilot this literal Land Battleship around by yelling orders...made it very hard to use.

I'm sure however, if anyone ever felt the overwhelming desire, most of the turrets could be automated, and all the weaponry, armor, and internals could be updated, and we may have one hell of a tank out of this behemoth. Personally, with a new engine, new armour, more armour, maybe add some Reactive's on there, replace the Drive Train and all the breakables and internals, and automate as much as possible, cutting crew size down, this would be an excellent large mobile Gun platform, possibly sporting a nice High Velocity cannon...or two.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Capt. Pixel)

Post #: 50

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

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

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

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

0.969

Slitherine