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 >>

- 12/18/2001 10:51:00 PM

Charles2222

Posts: 3993
Joined: 3/12/2001
Status: offline

Mikimoto:

quote:

Where do I say I expect parity between the T34/85 and the Tiger? Really expecting miracles of the USSR 76mm? It was that "silly" gun and others Soviet designs that defeated the 80% of German men and resources.. Your posture is pure American Chouvinism, you can't believe others did the long, real and hard job... hahaha

You couldn't be more grossly wrong, on where I'm coming from, in fact a lot of people would sooner call me anti-American (or pro-German) than what you called me. I have no doubt that American ground forces didn't do all that much in comparison to the USSR, but how that makes the 76mm anything but a broad-sweeping generaliztion with no basis in fact, against the Tiger armor, is beyond me.

_____________________________

(in reply to Gallo Rojo)

Post #: 31

- 12/19/2001 5:02:00 AM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Charles_22:
Nikademus: . I hope I'm making sense here. [ December 18, 2001: Message edited by: Charles_22 ]

naw...i think you might have been caught inside a turret ring after a high velocity round skipped off, the effect would probably be similar to turning up the stereo sounds of SP:WAW to full blast on a full computer speaker system and scoring a glancing hit on a tank WWWWWWWWHHHHHHHHHHOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNGGGG!!!!!!!

I see what your saying about the T-34, though i still must disagree. For one, the Pz-IV example you cited, while the gun "size" did indeed stay the same still recieved what was essentially a completely new gun, one purpose built to defeat heavy enemy tank armor wheras the previous KwK had been express designed for close support of infantry with but a nominal anti tank capability added in. That and the uparmoring completely changed the tank's role in the scheme of things as well, The reason of course, was to make the tank competetive once again in an increasingly scary world. I see no difference in the case of the T-34. True, the hull was not uparmored, but the turret mantlet was so there was a nominal increase in protection. It could be aruged that there would also be a "nominal" increase in protection via the bigger gun allowing the tank to fight at longer combat ranges where it would have a better chance of surviving a hit vs having to close to 100-200yards!!! Remember too, that the decision not to uparmor the hull of the 34 was a **conciencious** one made by the Russian command because they felt that preserving the 34's mobility and range was more important than the potentially dubious benefits one might recieve from say, doubling the armor of the 34 as in the case of the later T-44 (and i cant blame them in the face of such uber-AT weapons like like the 75L70, 88L56 and 88L71....even the APCR boosted 75L48 could fall into this) So the Russians could have fully uparmored the T-34 but chose not too. The decision to increase the gun size by comparison was one of little choice. The Russians could'nt really compete in the technical high velocity dept like the Germans so needed a bigger gun to get the bigger kick. Being very much production minded they also had an easy fix in the form of an existing gun to use as a template to build a better dedicated AT gun (85mm AA) As for the T-34 being an answer to the Tiger specifically....i'm sure that was part of it, but especially in light of the revelations of V.70 based on new data from the RMZ and Lorrin's book, the Tiger was hardly the only AFV giving the T-34 problems....even the ubiquious Pz-IV, facelifted and revitalized with 80mm glasis and a high velocity gun was now more than a match in a gunfight at the OK corral vs the T-34 which either would need APCR ammo (and a good gunner) or get a flank shot. (the undesirable alternative would be to close to under 100M head on and pray for continual German misses) Finally, the 34/85 was'nt simply an upgunned tank but was further improved by eliminating what had been arguably the vehicle's greatest fobile even from the days of it's uber-ness....getting a roomy three man turret and improved optics making it better able to take advantage of the improved gun at obtain that "longer arm to reach out and smash German armor" Ok, so the tank remained vulnerable to the majority of German AT weapons. Join the club i say, Sherman, Churchill, Cromwell, even Pershing. All could be peirced at standard battle ranges more or less. It was a sad reality of facing an enemy that held the high spot in AT technology in terms of killing tanks at least. The RMZ made a good point in pointing out that a tank is hardly just a tool to fight tanks, but more often fights other targets making HE just as important. Given the results of the Russian offensives from 44-45, i would again, hardly call the 34/85 a stop gap, but rather, like the metamorphasis of the Mark IV, a final refinement of one the best tank designs of WWII and arguably the best overall when looking at the big picture and not just stats The KV-85. To reclarify, reason i call it a stopgap was because long before it, the Russians realized the folly of equiping both their Heavy and Medium tanks with the same gun. What point in having two types? esp in the face of such formidable AT weapons? Thicker armor serves little if you cant stand off and smash your enemy, one of the secrets of the Tiger....its armor by late 43-44 was hardly uber in terms of thickness, other tanks had it or exceeded it, but it's gun and optics allowed it to engage enemies from distances that made it's armor more than good enough and made the enemy's fire virutally impotent. Further, the KV-85's marginal armor improvements (more important for a heavy tank than a medium) hardly justified it's existance when there were cheaper SU-85 and T-34/85 coming into the fold The Russians realized this which is why the KV-85 had a very short run to bridge the gap between the discontinued KV series and it's sucessor, the IS series. Thats my definition of 'stop gap' It served it's purpose and then the IS came along with improved balistic shape, thicker armor (except for the turret unfort) and most importantly, a BIIIIIIG gun, capable of dealing with most any opponent, giving the Soviets an idea heavy breakthrough tank. Not perfect, but better than any KV. (i should add "eventually" in the case of the gun....85mm to 100mm to 122mm in short sucession) [ December 18, 2001: Message edited by: Nikademus ]

_____________________________

(in reply to Gallo Rojo)

Post #: 32

- 12/19/2001 5:09:00 AM

GI Seve

Posts: 101
Joined: 6/27/2000
From: Oulu, Finland
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Panzer Leo:

You're absolutely right, Miki. And it was also the well trained Russian infantry-man, relying on his months and years of practicing in the worlds highest regarded infantry schools, who send the Germans back to Berlin. He was lead by NCO's full of wisdom and infantry tactics, just beaten by the glorious junior officers, the inventors of the most complex battle tactics the world had seen sofar...ofcourse, if it was not like this, how could they ever have beaten the Germans ?

As Finn I must be grateful for uncle Stalin for "purifying" his high general staff just pre WW2

We thank thee for sake of those poor ruskies running heads up on open fields without permit to duck unless willing to be shot by own morale oficers

_____________________________

HallelujaaGobble!

(in reply to Gallo Rojo)

Post #: 33

- 12/19/2001 9:12:00 PM

Charles2222

Posts: 3993
Joined: 3/12/2001
Status: offline

Nikademus:

quote:

I see what your saying about the T-34, though i still must disagree. For one, the Pz-IV example you cited, while the gun "size" did indeed stay the same still recieved what was essentially a completely new gun, one purpose built to defeat heavy enemy tank armor wheras the previous KwK had been express designed for close support of infantry with but a nominal anti tank capability added in.

Well, yeah, the PZIV isn't the purest example, especially considering that it was intended originally as infantry support, but OTOH, gamewise, before the 37mm was given more penetration, it was the best tank against other tanks, because the penetration was comparable to the others, while the shell size was DOUBLE the others. A lot of first hits for the PZIV in those years come out as kills, instead of the usual picking away the others do. Besides the T34/85, the more typical stop-gap AFV I can think of is a lot of the British stuff, such as keeping the Cruisers with pretty much the same inadequate armor, but sticking new guns on them. On the T34/85 and KV comparison. Since they wanted to have the same gun, it occurs to me that in terms of stop-gapedness, that the T34 was worse, because the KV kept upgrading the gun while the T34 did not. I know that's probably reverse to your thinking, but I would assume the only reason the T34 didn't play along and keep getting a larger gun, during WWII anyway, was because the increased size of turret necessary would no longer work properly with the frame (or so they must've thought - which was often the consideration for many nations not upgrading a previous tank to deal with the enemy having larger guns - or the other semi-related consideration where the new gun wouldn't fit the prior turret). I don't think their refusal to upgrade the armor, and later the gun, was based solely on a purist desire to keep the model with it's prior speed, as it did indeed drop somewhat with the 85. Yeah, they probably didn't want it to drop any more though. On the side, on what I told Mikimoto last, I said that people might draw the conclusion that I am anti-American or pro-German, but I never said they were accurate in such an assumption. With what little social issues are discussed here, which seems to be where Mikimoto's last remark comes from (assuming all Americans think everything they do is perfect or something), I haven't stepped into very much. Instead my comment was said with the understanding that if one is shallow enough to judge people's social positions based on comments which are in my case pretty much confined to WWII gaming here, then that is the conclusion one would draw, while his comments were to the opposite. My gamewise anti-Americanism, if you will, is not so much "anti" as "bored". In other words WWII gaming, bored-American. America wasn't in it very long, and the land units weren't the best in the world, while they and their Allies won it; all factors to have me quite bored with them. If we were talking WWI, I suppose the nations I'd be the most interested in, would be Germany and the US. I suppose the only reason the US interests me there, is because the land units aren't individually lacking in comparison to Gerry. Plus the side effect that WWI Germany didn't conquer so much, so unlike the WWII Germans they don't capture my imagination as to why they didn't do better and how they did as well as they did. I suppose WWI US is more fascinating too, because WWII US has been so over-saturated over here in my earlier years. I'm sure there's a number of us here who have similar tales to tell on how they got to the point that they prefer playing one nation over another, and how even a war 20yrs. apart may see them preferring a different nation still.

_____________________________

(in reply to Gallo Rojo)

Post #: 34

- 12/19/2001 10:40:00 PM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Greetings, I recently fought 2 battles Dec 44 US versus Germany. German assault US defend.
8000 pts German 4000 points US. German tanks were med tank companies each with a platoon of Tigers added. US tanks were the standard Sherman.
results 1 draw and 1 US desisive. No Tiger was destroyed by a Sherman but many were killed by bazooka's. The Tigers killed the Shermans easy. The Shermans and MK-IV's pretty much split.
I may not be a good tank commander since from my very first days in SP and SPWAW I have had a hard time fighting German tanks. I do pretty good if I avoid buying Soviet/Allied tanks and just stick to infantry. The bulk of German tanks I destroy are always by close assault or bazooka.
(I even get slaughtered using Fireflys let alone Soviet tanks of any type) Give me a molotov!!!

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Gallo Rojo)

Post #: 35

- 12/19/2001 10:44:00 PM

Warrior

Posts: 1808
Joined: 11/2/2000
From: West Palm Beach, FL USA
Status: offline

I've designed a number of sceanarios in v7 with Tigers, and I can state without hesitation that they're not invincible... even against the AI. [ December 19, 2001: Message edited by: Warrior ]

_____________________________

Retreat is NOT an option.