My dream is to become a tank commander
0
Oh and i do play COH too, i love the panzer grenadiers but they are just too expensive, wish they also made their MG42 avilable in early games cos theyre pretty good. My fav doctrine is probally def cause i get 88s, but thats when if im stiil alive to get em.
0
I thought that the terrain of that battle was the exposed salient in (i dunno where but i think the town of kharkov was in that area). True they lost the battles but the damage to the attacking force was high. So high it was that the repulsed attacks were like bloodied noses to the russians. But man how i'd love to be the gunner seat of either a PzKpfW IV or Tigers I & II and you'd be the commander.
Hey I play defense too. Try overdefending certain points in the map, like overlapping MGs and ATs to form killzones. I think thats what the Germans did in the desert warfare where they placed their ATs in well defended areas and overlapped it with MGs and mortars so no spot is undefended. You're right about the panzergrenadiers there. They pack a punch, but they also pack a punch at you're treasury.
Hey I play defense too. Try overdefending certain points in the map, like overlapping MGs and ATs to form killzones. I think thats what the Germans did in the desert warfare where they placed their ATs in well defended areas and overlapped it with MGs and mortars so no spot is undefended. You're right about the panzergrenadiers there. They pack a punch, but they also pack a punch at you're treasury.
0
Nah, rather be in the seat of a Panther, combine speed, mobility and killing power and youget one kickass tank.
eah, i do that tactic too, Once when i was pushed back to my base, i built 2 88s and held off an entire army. i then counter attacked by building what i call a moving wall, with bunkers and mortars in every junction as i expand, with all covering each other by two or more other bunker. I then mass my panzre grenadier and use Stugtanks as hardpoints.
At Kursk, the russians won, but they lost considerably more men and machines. It would be the last German offensive in the entire Eastern Front, due to the amount of efforet it was put itnto the offensive. for the entire war, the would be fighting a stategic retreat in the eastern front.
The next time they would launch an offensive like Kursk would be during the Ardennes Offensive, otherwise known as the Battle of the bulge, at the Western Front. Front
eah, i do that tactic too, Once when i was pushed back to my base, i built 2 88s and held off an entire army. i then counter attacked by building what i call a moving wall, with bunkers and mortars in every junction as i expand, with all covering each other by two or more other bunker. I then mass my panzre grenadier and use Stugtanks as hardpoints.
At Kursk, the russians won, but they lost considerably more men and machines. It would be the last German offensive in the entire Eastern Front, due to the amount of efforet it was put itnto the offensive. for the entire war, the would be fighting a stategic retreat in the eastern front.
The next time they would launch an offensive like Kursk would be during the Ardennes Offensive, otherwise known as the Battle of the bulge, at the Western Front. Front
0
Panther, as in the new german tank or the panther WWII? I never thought of doing your moving wall thing before. BtW were the StuGs equipped with PAK 43 ATs or bigger guns? Because they look very awkward because of a small cannon, though the elefant was also weird enough. No way... 2 88s against an entire force? Now THATS hardcore. Usually My 88s were accompanied by MGs and mortars for support (if i couldnt build anymore SdK halftracks due to lack of funds). Now i would believe if a light tank was equipped with the Bofors 40mm AA though
0
Think you mean Leopard, the modern day German MBT, Im talking bout the WW2 one.
The STuG 3 and 4 both uses the 7.5cm gun which is weaker then the PAK 43 which uses an 88mm gun. The STuG is one of the most successful tank in the entire war. By 1944, it had destroyed over 20,000 tanks. The STuG is a self-propelled assault gun which is designed for direct fire against armoured structures and tanks. this means this does not have a turret and rather, the gun is mounted on the hull. This enables the tank to have a smaller chance to be hit, can be conceealed easier and cheaper to produce.
The Elefant shares the same role as the STuG but equiped with a more powerful weapon, this case the PAK 43 88mm gun. This however is much slower as it uses the chassis of a Tiger and so is suppose a heavy tank. However, they were plagued by non-combat incidents such as terrain and reliability issues, which stopped them from using their full potential.
Its actually funny that most German vehicles during the war were lost by noncombat situations then combat. Infact, in most situations, German tanks have an upperhand against allied tanks even outnumbed. This tells how lacking the German leadership is.
The STuG 3 and 4 both uses the 7.5cm gun which is weaker then the PAK 43 which uses an 88mm gun. The STuG is one of the most successful tank in the entire war. By 1944, it had destroyed over 20,000 tanks. The STuG is a self-propelled assault gun which is designed for direct fire against armoured structures and tanks. this means this does not have a turret and rather, the gun is mounted on the hull. This enables the tank to have a smaller chance to be hit, can be conceealed easier and cheaper to produce.
The Elefant shares the same role as the STuG but equiped with a more powerful weapon, this case the PAK 43 88mm gun. This however is much slower as it uses the chassis of a Tiger and so is suppose a heavy tank. However, they were plagued by non-combat incidents such as terrain and reliability issues, which stopped them from using their full potential.
Its actually funny that most German vehicles during the war were lost by noncombat situations then combat. Infact, in most situations, German tanks have an upperhand against allied tanks even outnumbed. This tells how lacking the German leadership is.
0
Okay... Still the StuGs and Elefants really look awkward but they sure kick ass in the time. But was the StuG slow because of overplating armor or because of the gun?
Thats the big prob with the Wehrmacht there. They had the firepower, speed and the tactics to boast, but sadly the only thing that they were unable to predict was the mechanical problems of the complicated new technology, mother nature, and shortage of supplies. About the panther, what was its specs? Because up to today I still believe that the Panther is in the class medium-heavy and i dunno about that gun of its that is only second to the Tigers
Thats the big prob with the Wehrmacht there. They had the firepower, speed and the tactics to boast, but sadly the only thing that they were unable to predict was the mechanical problems of the complicated new technology, mother nature, and shortage of supplies. About the panther, what was its specs? Because up to today I still believe that the Panther is in the class medium-heavy and i dunno about that gun of its that is only second to the Tigers
0
Dont think its slow, its the same as a panzer as it originally is made from the chassis of a Panzer. Its slighly heavier because of the bigger gun.
The panther is a medium tank armed with a 7.5cm canon. It is one of the best tank design during the war, it combines armour, mobility and firepower making this an all rounder tank. when it ws introduced to the allies at Normandy, it was a huge shock as most of their weapons cannot penetrate their armour even at close range.
Only the British version of the M4 Sherman, named the Firefly, with its 17-pounder cannons can defeat it at far range. It was until much later, better armed Shermans and the new American tank, the M26 Pershing heavy tank was introduced but still the Panther proved a challenge.
It was only the logistical problems and poor engineering of late models that prevented the Panthers to appear later in the war.
The panther is a medium tank armed with a 7.5cm canon. It is one of the best tank design during the war, it combines armour, mobility and firepower making this an all rounder tank. when it ws introduced to the allies at Normandy, it was a huge shock as most of their weapons cannot penetrate their armour even at close range.
Only the British version of the M4 Sherman, named the Firefly, with its 17-pounder cannons can defeat it at far range. It was until much later, better armed Shermans and the new American tank, the M26 Pershing heavy tank was introduced but still the Panther proved a challenge.
It was only the logistical problems and poor engineering of late models that prevented the Panthers to appear later in the war.
0
Oh yeah. Come to think of it, I do remember the Panther being 'the difficult tank to obliterate'. I thought that the Firefly version of the Sherman was armed with a 25 pounder and the did the Panther and the M26 had a skirmish? Where? Also, the StuG was a novel concept with no turret though. I think that design is where The Swedish military made the S-tank. Also I think I heard that a Churchill tank went head on against a Panther in the invasion, but didnt know who got pummelled. When you said that Allied weapons were ineffective, did you mean even a close range M9 Bazooka in the rear didnt kill it and it had to take either a field gun or artillery to knock it out?
0
Okay kids, another round of exterminatus's history lesson.
The firefly is armed with a 17 pounder and 25 pounders are mostly used as a field howitzer or artillery as opposed to an anti-tank gun.
To be fair, the S-tank should've been classified as a self propelled tank rather then a main-battle-tank. The design made the S-tank largely for defensive rather then defence likeall self-proppeled-anti-tank-guns.
Well theres a large probability that did happen, as the British did field a large number of that and so did the Germans. My money would be rooting for the Panther though.
What i meant by effective was the tank guns at the time. The shermans initial 75mm gun cannot penetrate the Panther even at short range and the latter guns such as 76mm and 105mm howitzer didnt improve much.
The M9 bazooka is in reality a weak weapon against tanks. Infantry would often have to flank the tank to destroy it and often leave high casualties. Eisenhower himself said that the bazooka is merely a weapon to usedefensivley and not in the offensive.
Only the Firefly and the Pershing can effectively destroy Panther tanks at far range. but fortuatley for the allies, the presence of German tanks was a rare sight at the start of 1945 due to the loss of the Germans during the Ardennes offensive and the approachment of the Russians at the Vistula-Oder river. Infact, there were only 117 Panthers, only 49 of which were operational, left in the entire Western Front.
The firefly is armed with a 17 pounder and 25 pounders are mostly used as a field howitzer or artillery as opposed to an anti-tank gun.
To be fair, the S-tank should've been classified as a self propelled tank rather then a main-battle-tank. The design made the S-tank largely for defensive rather then defence likeall self-proppeled-anti-tank-guns.
Well theres a large probability that did happen, as the British did field a large number of that and so did the Germans. My money would be rooting for the Panther though.
What i meant by effective was the tank guns at the time. The shermans initial 75mm gun cannot penetrate the Panther even at short range and the latter guns such as 76mm and 105mm howitzer didnt improve much.
The M9 bazooka is in reality a weak weapon against tanks. Infantry would often have to flank the tank to destroy it and often leave high casualties. Eisenhower himself said that the bazooka is merely a weapon to usedefensivley and not in the offensive.
Only the Firefly and the Pershing can effectively destroy Panther tanks at far range. but fortuatley for the allies, the presence of German tanks was a rare sight at the start of 1945 due to the loss of the Germans during the Ardennes offensive and the approachment of the Russians at the Vistula-Oder river. Infact, there were only 117 Panthers, only 49 of which were operational, left in the entire Western Front.
0
And rest that are not included in the 117 were either claimed by mechanical failure, destroyed or any other reason, am I wrong? No way. The M9 cant even kill a PzK IV? Id be better off with the recoilless rifle at the time. Speaking of which, even AT rifles cant scratch the Panther? I reviewed its specs and now i know why you want to be in that tank. Man even the Panzer IV Ausf. G and F would be put to shame. Thats the big problem with the sherman. Ever noticed the star in its side? If i were a tank commander, the tank there would be saying, "hit me here", and still come back in numbers. So thats why the S tank had such suspension so it could shoot and run away. Sneaky, very sneaky.