Slitherine

Posted: **Tue Aug 24, 2010 10:25 pm**

I don't have much to add only that I don't find the German tanks in the game especially weak.
Panthers and Tigers boggs down a lot, though...

Posted: **Wed Aug 25, 2010 5:47 am**

himmelstoss wrote:well anyhow...is there anything done to beef up the german tanks?

himmel

i think the solution is to just give panthers and tigers more range. as the comments earlier correctly pointed out, panthers and tigers had excellent range (could take out tanks up to 2km out) and also better optics. by giving them more range it would bring more realism to the game and solve the issues raised by this thread. in practice in the game, given the maps are pretty close quarters, it would only be in selected areas on the map where they could take advantage of this superior range.

Posted: **Wed Aug 25, 2010 12:36 pm**

Obsolete wrote:I'm not sure what is meant by "brew-up",

American tanks were called Flaming-Coffins for a real good reason. Because they were! Even if you failed to take one totally out by a direct hit, they caught on fire so easily. The problem was so bad, that both the Brits and Russians (who were being sold the hardware) continued to scream down the throats of the American manufacturers. However, this still seems to have landed on deaf ears, and I do not know how such a bad design flaw could continue on such a large scale. IIRC, there eventually was a super-duper M5 model that was changed to diesel, etc, but by that time the Russians laughed the Americans right off the barganing table.

And don't even get me started on all the other terrible yet mass-produced allied design flaws.

no doubt, the gas engines were a major reason the shermans "brewed-up," but afterall they were up against Panthers and Tigers... T-34s didnt much stand a chance against their high velocity shells either. Shermans were "work-horse" tanks that served the allies very well in all sorts of roles. They they were overall fairly decent tanks with good mobility and were easy to work on. What bargaining table are you talking about? The Lend-Lease? The russians were more than happy to accept all the shermans, air cobras, and trucks the americans were willing to hand over...

Posted: **Wed Aug 25, 2010 12:44 pm**

As I understand, US doctrine was to use tanks to support infantry and tank destroyers to battle other tanks. Of course when A meets B, doctrine goes out the window.

Posted: **Wed Aug 25, 2010 6:34 pm**

'But really, I have been forced when using them, to use them cowering behind Pz IV and Stugs too afraid to duke it out with Sherman schlock. '

This is semi realistic, cant speak for the power of tigers but the tactic was called the panzer keel (i think), they had the medium and light tanks as a screening force protecting the heavier tanks.

Posted: **Wed Aug 25, 2010 10:01 pm**

Deadmeat1471 wrote:'But really, I have been forced when using them, to use them cowering behind Pz IV and Stugs too afraid to duke it out with Sherman schlock. '

This is semi realistic, cant speak for the power of tigers but the tactic was called the panzer keel (i think), they had the medium and light tanks as a screening force protecting the heavier tanks.

you got it, and if remember correctly, "panzerkeil" was a term/tactic thought up for the battle of Kursk to combat the numerous and deep defensive belts. The big cats were put up front to punch holes in the line with the lesser tanks covering their flanks.

Raising the frontal armor for the panther and tiger is a tricky subject as it could throw the balance off even more. What I would really like to see is a "force pool" that would allow players to pick what units they would like to take in battle. Id probably leave the cats behind and take the more numerous Stugs & Panzer 4s...

Posted: **Thu Aug 26, 2010 12:31 am**

WillyPete wrote:
Obsolete wrote:I'm not sure what is meant by "brew-up",

What bargaining table are you talking about? The Lend-Lease? The russians were more than happy to accept all the shermans, air cobras, and trucks the americans were willing to hand over...

The other major Lend-Lease recipient of the M3, the Soviet Union, was even less happy with the tank, considering it undergunned, underarmored, likely to catch fire, and too sensitive to fuel quality. The narrow tracks were highly unsuited to operation in winter conditions, as they resulted in high ground pressures under which the tank sank into the snow. Further, the M3's radial aircraft engine required high-octane fuel, which complicated Soviet logistics as most of their tanks used diesel... -- In 1943, the Red Army tried out the M5 and decided that the upgraded design was not much better than the M3. Being less desperate than in 1941, the Soviets turned down an American offer to supply the M5.

Posted: **Thu Aug 26, 2010 1:09 am**

As I understand, US doctrine was to use tanks to support infantry and tank destroyers to battle other tanks.

That depends on the time and the tank. Originally this doctrine came into play after the light US tanks ran into disasters vs Rommel in Africa. The heavier Shermans were in fact, even supposed to engage the heavier Axis tanks such as the Tiger later on. Of course, they got raped on the exchange rate, but over all the US had the advantage in replacements, even if it sounds strategically foolish.

Posted: **Thu Aug 26, 2010 11:28 am**

I think the problem here is that distances are close and maps are narrow. very few tanks took a Tiger on across its frontal armour but manouverd to attack the flank. Not sure there is the same opportunity to do that here. So lets be careful we dont go the other way and make them invincible.

Mike - OneSpartan

Posted: **Thu Aug 26, 2010 2:21 pm**

yes i have to say ,sick of german tanks missing all the time and the u.s side killing my damn panzers all the time with one shot from the front i can understand being killed from a shot from the rear all the side. sorry but to me german tanks are weaker than the u.s ,and yes i played the to sides .to me you have to be a way better player playing as germans but maybe it me

Posted: **Thu Aug 26, 2010 6:46 pm**

Well, technically on the Tiger I if you had a lucky shot on the front, you could indeed knock out the driver

Posted: **Thu Aug 26, 2010 7:04 pm**

Who needs a driver, when you have an 88mm gun.

Posted: **Fri Aug 27, 2010 12:44 pm**

In a current game, I just totally ripped off my adversary. I almost feel bad for doing it.

Two Panzer IVs and a Panther I had no identifiable right to kill. I was using Shermans in duke it out mode ie more than a few squares distance and all I really had going for me was the shoot and scoot and the fact I never move full move for the most part, I use hunt mode almost entirely. Full move is usually something I only use on turn 1 when chances are the map won't even put you in contact otherwise.

My main advice for either side, rush on turn 1 and make sure you are not in view at end of move and from there on it's hunt mode all the way.

Come on guys it isn't a historical battle it's a chess game with tanks and infantry. You need to get IN my head and ask yourself 'where SHOULD he be'.

I have dropped my turn 1 arty and air support in some cases on enemy units with almost psychic precision in some cases.

Eventually we all KNOW where the Tiger will be, it can only go so fast eh. So you need to intentionally play knowing that. Just like we all know where your Queen might be on the second move in chess.

Sadly though, the Germans ideally SHOULD be able to drive in front of a standard Sherman, and laugh at it in frontal combat. 'What? was that 75mm supposed to mean anything to me from the front? So you hit me, big deal, try that from behind if you want to get any results'. That's what I am talking about here. A Tiger realistically should be capable of just ignoring a typical Sherman in a frontal shoot out. 'Your Sherman better be hiding on my next turn buddy'.

Posted: **Fri Aug 27, 2010 1:00 pm**

I almost feel bad for doing it.

If you really think so, why did you not just let your opponent kill off your units then so you wouldn't have to feel bad about it?

I hate it when people say this in poker, but never give the chips back despite they rave how they feel GUILTY about putting on a bad beat. Yeah right, don't give me that bs.

Posted: **Fri Aug 27, 2010 1:12 pm**

He said "almost"

Posted: **Fri Aug 27, 2010 1:16 pm**

WOW!

I thought we are playing only a game!

Posted: **Fri Aug 27, 2010 1:21 pm**

I'll do some tests on Panther/Tiger armour and see if it is working as intended. People do seem to expect from these tanks than they did historically. The games is based on the reseach by Dr John Buckley, an expert in WW2 tank warfare.

Posted: **Fri Aug 27, 2010 3:20 pm**

Here's what a quick search produced on Panther armor (to say nothing of the Tiger and Konigstiger), keeping in mind this just describes the gun mantlet:

In most cases the Panther's gun mantlet could not be penetrated by the M4s 75 mm gun, the T-34s 76.2 mm gun, or the T-34-85s 85 mm gun. But it could be penetrated by well-aimed shots at 100 m by the later M4A3E8s 76 mm gun, at 500 m by the Soviet A-19 122 mm gun on the IS-2 and at over 2500 yards (2286 m) by the British 17-pounder using APDS ammunition. The side turret armor of 45 mm (1.8 in) was vulnerable to penetration at long range by almost all Allied tank guns, including the M4's 75 mm gun which could punch through at 1500 m.[43] These were the main reasons for continued work on a redesigned Panther turret, the Schmalturm.

Posted: **Fri Aug 27, 2010 3:59 pm**

You can find many variations on these values so any one source is not very reliable. Much depended on build quality which was a lot lower late war as materials were not the ones intended to be used due to shortages.

Posted: **Fri Aug 27, 2010 4:19 pm**

iainmcneil wrote:You can find many variations on these values so any one source is not very reliable. Much depended on build quality which was a lot lower late war as materials were not the ones intended to be used due to shortages.

Yeah, I agree. I guess my whole point is that currently, these tanks are not feared at all in game and they really should be.

I'm thinking of maybe changing the values so that MOST direct frontal attacks do absolutely nothing to the front armor of the Tiger, but allow the Tiger to only move a very small distance per turn or something.

Is there a way to make turning in place cost movement points as well? That might be an idea.

Slitherine

Tigers and Panthers suck

...