 |
| |
|
|
Stromprophet
|
|
Panzar tanks were the stuff. At first. Although they proved ineffective in the Russian winter they were still reliable on the western front.
Sherman tank commanders said it was suicide going directly at Panthers, Tigers, and Panzar tanks. But the shermans were faster and could flank them, on the sides where their armor was thinner.
On another note. Watching the history channel, I learned that an Angent decieved the Axis on D-day. Hitler had ordered the enitre panzar army, planes, infantry, artillery, all that army from Calias(where they thought the attack would happen) to Normady. To throw the allies out.
But this trusted informant, called them, told them Calias was still the target and then the Army was recalled to Calias.
That might have been devastating because if the Allies had lost think of all the planning that would be gone, etc. They would have been crushed under the full weight of the armies in France. It took the allies like a year or 2 to plan that attack.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
jsw363
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Stromprophet
Calias, where they thought the attack would happen |
Calais, no?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by UberKruX
im not a big WW2 buff, but from what i have gathered Panzer tanks were stronger hulled than other tanks of the era.
would anyone like to elaborate on this for me? do you think the panzers will get more defence points? more movement points? more attack points? will they not require oil (lol)? |
At the start of the WWII, German tanks were in some ways inferior to western tanks. the German tanks had thinner armour compared to the British Matilda and the French tanks. German tanks were significantly inferior to the Russian tanks (t-34 and KV-1).
Tha Panther and the Tiger brought the Germans back on par with the Russians (whether the Panther was better than the t-34/85 is a matter of debate).
At the end of the war, the King Tiger was matched by the Russian JS-1 and JS-11.
Where the Germans excelled was in tactics.
So IMHO, the Germans should not get a better tank in CIV3, nor should their tanks require extra resources.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
d_dudy
|
|
it'll probobly have hella assault and no other improvements.
it wasn't any faster was it?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lordfluffers
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tingkai
At the start of the WWII, German tanks were in some ways inferior to western tanks. the German tanks had thinner armour compared to the British Matilda and the French tanks. German tanks were significantly inferior to the Russian tanks (t-34 and KV-1).
Tha Panther and the Tiger brought the Germans back on par with the Russians (whether the Panther was better than the t-34/85 is a matter of debate).
At the end of the war, the King Tiger was matched by the Russian JS-1 and JS-11.
Where the Germans excelled was in tactics.
So IMHO, the Germans should not get a better tank in CIV3, nor should their tanks require extra resources. |
The Panther was a far superior weapon to the T34/85, it had a better gun, better optics and and better armor. The King Tiger was a much better tank than both the JSI and JSII except in terms of mobility and reliability. The advantage Russian tanks had was mobility and numbers. Despite the Russians upgunning their tanks to larger caliber weapons/guns than the Germans, their gun ballistic and ammunition technology was far less developed and thus less effective. The Panther's long 75mm gun was a much better and more effective weapon than the T34/85's 85mm gun. The Germans should definitely have the Panzer (generic term) as their UU because they pioneered mass tank warfare and used them to maximum effect (In the battle of France, France had about twice the number of tanks Germany had and still lost. The Russians had about 4x the German number of tanks at the beginning of the war and only survived because of Russia's size and the onset of winter in 1941). BTW the German King Tiger was the best armored tank that fought in WW2 although its mobility and reliability was terrible. 
Last edited by Lordfluffers on 22-09-2001 at 21:49
|
|
| |
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mark L
Leopard II, which could kick the Abrams' ass without a doubt. |
Petty bold talk for two Tanks that have not fought each other.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BeBro
|
 |
of the Krauts
Mar 2000
time: 06:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mark L
I hope Firaxis picks a different name for the unit, cause I don't think they mean that the german UU is the Leopard II, which could kick the Abrams' ass without a doubt. |
I think LeoII and M1 are pretty equal.
quote:
The Panther was a far superior weapon to the T34/85, it had a better gun, better optics and and better armor. The King Tiger was a much better tank than both the JSI and JSII except in terms of mobility and reliability. The advantage Russian tanks had was mobility and numbers. |
Well, far superior is a bit exaggerated, I think. Sure, Panther, Tiger, and KingTiger were devastating weapons, but mobility and reliability also are necessary for a good tank. Soviet tanks also were a lot easier to produce, probably one reason for their numeric superiority - Panthers and Tigers were far more complicated, so they often broke up.
And there are a lot of different examples on the net, some stories from WWII say a Panther was better than a T34/85, some say just the opposite (the same for KingTiger/IS II). Personally I would not say one of them is generally definately better, I think they had different strenghts and weaknesses.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lordfluffers
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by BeBro
Well, far superior is a bit exaggerated, I think. Sure, Panther, Tiger, and KingTiger were devastating weapons, but mobility and reliability also are necessary for a good tank. Soviet tanks also were a lot easier to produce, probably one reason for their numeric superiority - Panthers and Tigers were far more complicated, so they often broke up.
And there are a lot of different examples on the net, some stories from WWII say a Panther was better than a T34/85, some say just the opposite (the same for KingTiger/IS II). Personally I would not say one of them is generally definately better, I think they had different strenghts and weaknesses. |
Quite right BeBro, it is a matter of opinion I was just be opinionated  There are arguments for both sides. The Tiger and Panther were far too complicated, and thus limited in numbers. Bad decision primarily by Hitler.
Also I agree with JJD2007. The term 'panzer' doesnt refer to a sningle tank but to the generic term of German tank use in WW2.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Saint Marcus
|
 |
Scio Me Nihil Scire
Jan 1970
time: 06:15
|
|
quote:
Other armoured vehicles are called "Schützenpanzer" (for APCs on tracks), Panzerspähwagen (APCs on wheels, Recon vehicles), etc., etc., so your are right when you mean other vehicle´s names contain the word "Panzer" but today the term "Panzer" (without an addition) is only used for tanks like LeoII, M1. Sometimes they also use "Kampfpanzer", but mean the same - Main Battle Tanks. Nobody would say just Panzer to an APC... |
Ok, you're right. But this means only modern tanks are Panzers, and WW2 tanks in Germany were called Panzerkampfwagens, not Panzers. But give those units the name Panzerkampfwagen also creates problems because the modern Swiss version of the Leopard II is also called Panzerkampfwagen 81.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:15.
Apolyton Time is 00:15. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-09-2001 03:54
|