Paper tanks.

[huertgenwald]

The sight is good ...

You meant to say "site" ?

[Muddy]

You are getting a false positive.
You have to make sure you click on the the correct link.

Otherwise they will try to download software you do not need.

Many of us here use sendspace for our Mods.

The sight is good and I have been using it for years.

Yeah, wrong link. The right one is the tiny little one right at the bottom, the rest are spam.
Thanks.

Update: can I use this with the grand campaign? I am look for something that will give the correct balance to units such as tanks in the GC.

[Muddy]

I couldn't carry on playing were armored cars and infantry could knock spots of tanks. It just didn't feel right.

[Muddy]

Still trying to get your AT-AA mod to work, it would help if I knew what I was doing.

EDIT: YEAH!! Gave up trying to do it manually and used GME, started a new game and all seems to be working nice now. I like it. What level of difficultly would you recommend I play it on?

[captainjack]

I agree that early tanks are not very good, especially the Panzer 2, which seems to be even weaker than the Panzer 1. This could be because I use the Panzer 2 as a tank, and the Panzer 1 as an infantry support unit. Even the 38t is a bit rubbish. If they Panzer 1 and 2 make it to 2* they can be retired for upgrading into something more resilient later on - Panzer 2 can be converted to Flammpanzer later on, though I can't work out how to keep them alive long enough to be useful.

As a result, when playing the DLCs I rarely buy any tanks until late in 1940, or maybe 1941, and get by with captured ones and any SE awards plus a recon (two if I've had a bad day with ambushes). Also, the Stug3 is strong enough to survive in the front line next to rather than behind the armour. I now keep using the pak 37 as it's quite effective if used with a bit of care and is dirt cheap to patch up, but I sometimes upgrade this to a PanzerJager for the extra hitting power. A retired 3* AT (especially with a hero) upgrades very nicely to a 3* Elefant later on when kv1s and t34s start to be a serious pain.

Since I stopped buying tanks (early on) my use of terrain and combined arms has improved.

[Muddy]

Good thing about this game is the abundance of mods, the games is great but feels a bit out of wack when it comes to balance, but it's not such a problem when you can mod it to more on the realistic side.
I have started a new modded game and there's no doubt about it, the game is much, much better and a hell of a lot more fun. Oh, I am still losing tanks, but usually to bigger tanks.

[Tarrak]

Good thing about this game is the abundance of mods, the games is great but feels a bit out of wack when it comes to balance, but it's not such a problem when you can mod it to more on the realistic side.

Well at least the self perceived "reality". A lot of people totally overestimate the early war tanks. The Panzer I had between 7 and 13 mm of armor. Panzer II had 13 mm front, side, and rear; 8 mm top; 5 mm bottom of armor. Both could be knocked out easily by any artillery, anti tank gun, anti tank rifle or even some heavier rifles and machine guns aiming at them. I can't find any data about the penetration of allied weapons but here is one for German MGs. Keep in mind this tests are against armor sloped at 30° and the German tanks before Panther had nearly no slopes at all.

The early German tanks wasn't successful because their was towering behemoth rolling over the opposition bouncing shot left, right and center but because the Germans figured out first how to wage modern war with them and used their tanks properly. This is true in PC as well. If used properly some tanks early in your core are invaluable.

[captainjack]

Tarrak's comments make much sense. I read Guderian's Achtung Panzer! recently, and it describes early German tanks having a role that required mobility as well as adequate protection so that they could both create and exploit breakthroughs. The primary requirement for armour in this view was to withstand small arms fire. The British and French heavy tanks (and some of the Russian ones like the T26) were intended to create a breakthrough that was to be exploited by faster lighter tanks. This kind of World War 1 thinking was viewed as outmoded where you could create a mechanised force, which would move too fast to require use of the breakthrough vehicles.

Anti tank rifles between about 12.7 and 15mm calibre were common and were reportedly quite effective, and some tanks relied on heavy machine guns for anti tank use. Some of the annoying Polish TKS tankettes were reportedly fitted with a 20mm cannon to act as tank destroyers (apparently with some success) and the German army obviously considered that a 37mm gun was sufficient to deal with all expected tanks. The British 2 pounder guns (and some of the older 3 pounders) were obviously expected to be good enough. Lighter armour must have been widespread, if relatively small bore weapons were considered to be effective against most contemporary tanks.

I think that if you use early tanks in infantry support roles and to exploit breakthroughs you will probably have more success, than if you try to use them like real tanks. My previous comment on my different success rates with Panzer 1 and Panzer 2, seems to justify this approach.

[Muddy]

Very interesting. Maybe the balance is more precise than I first thought. Anyway with, and without mods it's still a bloody good game, I'm just being picky, so no worry's.

[Tarrak]

I think that if you use early tanks in infantry support roles and to exploit breakthroughs you will probably have more success, than if you try to use them like real tanks. My previous comment on my different success rates with Panzer 1 and Panzer 2, seems to justify this approach.

This is exactly how you need to use your tanks in early PC. Use them to cover your units while they are on the move loaded in the vulnerable tracks. Use them to penetrate holes in enemy defenses to pick off soft annoying targets like enemy artillery or AA guns (the later can be surprisingly painful tho). Use the speed of the tanks to reach and finish off wounded enemy units. Make sure to always keep them on open ground as in close combat they get quite hurt by enemy infantry.

Very interesting. Maybe the balance is more precise than I first thought. Anyway with, and without mods it's still a bloody good game, I'm just being picky, so no worry's.

Well it's your game so feel free to mod it the way you like it. I just wanted to point out that the balance in PC for the early war tanks is not really as bad is it may sound. The recon units are a bit on the tough side maybe but i explain that by myself simply by not only considering their armor into their defense but as well the evasive movement.

[KeldorKatarn]

True, and you also have to keep in mind that the Pz I and II were not even considered combat vehicles early on. They were built as training machines, to be used until Pz III and IV were ready. The army was not happy at all when the war came earlier than expected and they actually had to use them in combat which is why the czech tanks were used to fill up the ranks. Also the Pz III should have had a 5cm gun according to Guderian's suggestions. Instead the army felt 3.7cm was enough. Guderian was later proven correct and the long 5cm was fitted.

As for the high vulnerability of the Pz IV, that is also accurate. The Pz IV was initially not meant to be a front line tank. It was a support tank for the Pz III, using a short 7.5 cm gun with HE shells to blow up MG and Anti Tank nests and other annoying soft targets. It was used in much lower numbers and only in support of the Pz III and the infantry. Already in France it proved invaluable since its 7.5, even though a short gun firing HE, was the only tank that could damage certain french tanks due to their armor. That already showed the inadequacy of the Pz III with its initial armament, but the Pz IV could not engage those tanks alone. It fired from safe distance while the Pz IIIs kept the target in check. The Pz IV was pretty defenseless against a lot of targets initially especially due to its lower rate of fire and ammo capacity and was only meant as a support tank again soft targets, protected by Pz IIIs.

Also you mentioned your StuKas playing an important role instead of tanks. Well guess what, without Stukas you could have forgotten Blitzkrieg. People completely underestimate the importance of the Luftwaffe for the success of Blitzkrieg. The entire concept relied heavily on air superiority and heavy focus on ground support aircraft (too much focus as later showed since Germany lacked strategical bombers and lost a lot of important situations because of this. it's also why the Me 262 was delayed too long, Hitler wanted it to become the next StuKa, but too fast to be intercepted, hence getting rid of the need for a fighter escort)
When the StuKas faced situations where they did no longer have total air superiority, they proved inadequate and the Blitzkrieg suffered. When the western allies controlled the skies, Blitzkrieg operations in the west became completely impossible. That's why Wacht am Rhein (Battle of the Bulge) was started in bad wheather, so the allies couldn't use that advantage. Without air superiority any tank operations in the west were rendered useless, even though the Germans had vastly superior tanks by this time and some completely mechanized divisions.
Therefore the dependence on StuKas as air support as well as the inadequacy of earlier tanks is very accurate indeed.

[captainjack]

I just finished re-reading Achtung-Panzer! by Guderian.
His recipe for success involves artillery suppression of positions, followed by assault by massed tanks (he advocates massed tanks for any purpose), air strikes disrupting reserves and rearward formations, with motorised infantry to follow up and hold the positions taken as the tanks exploit the breakthrough and cause trouble in the rear sections. He was a strong advocate of self propelled artillery over towed artillery, and of well protected recon vehicles.

When I remember to use these tactics I seem to do a lot better. Even with Panzer 1s, good artillery suppression (and maybe an air strike) can allow you to damage entrenched infantry without too much risk. If you have a SiG available to sit behind to provide supporting fire, you should be reasonably safe against counter attack until the truck mounted infantry arrive to allow you to refuel and reinforce. Panzer IV's better soft attack makes it more damaging, but as the armour is about the same as the Panzer 1, suppression is still essential. My natural tendency is to use my air power to finish off damaged units and clear obstacles as quickly as possible, but where I have tried attacking the reserves and rearward troops, it seems to be pretty effective.

[Muddy]

You do get to think about the significance of individual units in the un-modded GC. I mean has anyone ever tried to play and win the game using only recon units and fighter aircraft? I bet it's possible.

[KeldorKatarn]

on easy anything is possible. but to be honest, currently I'm playing with a pretty historical setup and it works very very well, so I think a roughly historical mix is best.

[krugec]

Early tanks were kinda crap.