,besides a Russian truck is ONLY as strong as a Sherman... :p[ May 21, 2001: Message edited by: sven ]
Tiger & Panther Accuracy
Moderator: MOD_SPWaW
Hello.
1. IMHO the germans had some good ideas about how to use tanks. Assault guns and self propelled tank destroyers were stop-gap measures. They tested and failed like other countries. The Light Divisions were a big failure. The early panzer division performed well, but had a poor complement of infantry and too much tanks. The early motorized divisions evolutioned to panzergrenadier, etc... and their tanks were not invincible. Actually, until the Tiger and panther appears, the russians and allied are better (if only some models). It wonders me how the panzer III last so longer been the mainstay of the armored divisions. And the panzer IV has only two virtues: high mechanical reliability and fine gun (75, long 43/48). Well, Tigers and Panthers were great. Perhaps not so great like I feel...
2. The US had, initially, bad tank doctrine. With experience they were able to upgrade the performance of the armoured divisions. The organization of combat commands are one of the great successes of WWII. US tanks were outgunned by the germans, all along the war. I think in may 45 there were only 25/30% of 76mm shermans. But the sherman (75) fighted very well against pzIV's and Stugs. Light tanks were useful in cavalry and pursuit missions. And tactics, support and flanking gained the day against those few panthers and tigers they defeated.
3. Sometimes I feel that we gamers forget the great success of the Soviet armoured formations. Well, the initial doctrine was masses of tanks supporting infantry. When tanks fighted alone in the first two years, were isolated and masacred. They returned to earlier doctrines in 42/43. They retained the infantry support tanks in the form of the independent tank brigades. But new tank and mechanized corps (actually divisions) began their long journey to success. The soviet mechanized corpos was perhaps the best armour unit of worl war II.
1. IMHO the germans had some good ideas about how to use tanks. Assault guns and self propelled tank destroyers were stop-gap measures. They tested and failed like other countries. The Light Divisions were a big failure. The early panzer division performed well, but had a poor complement of infantry and too much tanks. The early motorized divisions evolutioned to panzergrenadier, etc... and their tanks were not invincible. Actually, until the Tiger and panther appears, the russians and allied are better (if only some models). It wonders me how the panzer III last so longer been the mainstay of the armored divisions. And the panzer IV has only two virtues: high mechanical reliability and fine gun (75, long 43/48). Well, Tigers and Panthers were great. Perhaps not so great like I feel...
2. The US had, initially, bad tank doctrine. With experience they were able to upgrade the performance of the armoured divisions. The organization of combat commands are one of the great successes of WWII. US tanks were outgunned by the germans, all along the war. I think in may 45 there were only 25/30% of 76mm shermans. But the sherman (75) fighted very well against pzIV's and Stugs. Light tanks were useful in cavalry and pursuit missions. And tactics, support and flanking gained the day against those few panthers and tigers they defeated.
3. Sometimes I feel that we gamers forget the great success of the Soviet armoured formations. Well, the initial doctrine was masses of tanks supporting infantry. When tanks fighted alone in the first two years, were isolated and masacred. They returned to earlier doctrines in 42/43. They retained the infantry support tanks in the form of the independent tank brigades. But new tank and mechanized corps (actually divisions) began their long journey to success. The soviet mechanized corpos was perhaps the best armour unit of worl war II.
Desperta ferro!
Miquel Guasch Aparicio
Miquel Guasch Aparicio
Mikimoto I am not forgetting Ivan, but it is just about universally accepted that he got Armor Tactics 101 completed by about mid '43.Originally posted by Mikimoto:
Hello.
1. IMHO the germans had some good ideas about how to use tanks. Assault guns and self propelled tank destroyers were stop-gap measures. They tested and failed like other countries. The Light Divisions were a big failure. The early panzer division performed well, but had a poor complement of infantry and too much tanks. The early motorized divisions evolutioned to panzergrenadier, etc... and their tanks were not invincible. Actually, until the Tiger and panther appears, the russians and allied are better (if only some models). It wonders me how the panzer III last so longer been the mainstay of the armored divisions. And the panzer IV has only two virtues: high mechanical reliability and fine gun (75, long 43/48). Well, Tigers and Panthers were great. Perhaps not so great like I feel...
2. The US had, initially, bad tank doctrine. With experience they were able to upgrade the performance of the armoured divisions. The organization of combat commands are one of the great successes of WWII. US tanks were outgunned by the germans, all along the war. I think in may 45 there were only 25/30% of 76mm shermans. But the sherman (75) fighted very well against pzIV's and Stugs. Light tanks were useful in cavalry and pursuit missions. And tactics, support and flanking gained the day against those few panthers and tigers they defeated.
3. Sometimes I feel that we gamers forget the great success of the Soviet armoured formations. Well, the initial doctrine was masses of tanks supporting infantry. When tanks fighted alone in the first two years, were isolated and masacred. They returned to earlier doctrines in 42/43. They retained the infantry support tanks in the form of the independent tank brigades. But new tank and mechanized corps (actually divisions) began their long journey to success. The soviet mechanized corpos was perhaps the best armour unit of worl war II.
Burning tanks are cool!
-
Charles2222
- Posts: 3687
- Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2001 10:00 am
The Americans only attacked Germany to capture the V2s, Tigers, ME262s so they could have them to fend off the USSR. The USSR counterattacked Gerry to get the same equipment to fend off the USA. See? Germany was merely a invention depot for the fighting of future wars. Hitler knew this, so he started attacking other people to use their stuff, against those that would use his stuff. The French, were the most brilliant of them all, as they saw that taking Germany in WWI would assure them of using German equipment to stop an imminent English invasion of France (and it worked for 20 years), and then they were suckered into letting the Brits come across to defend against the Germans who were set on stopping the future US/USSR war. In reality all the fighting wasn't about ruling the country you conquered, but about using that place's permission to use their stuff to fight future wars against someone else :rolleyes:
I'm confused...what 'secret weapon' did uncle Adolph want that Holland had?
sven
sven
Originally posted by Charles_22:
The Americans only attacked Germany to capture the V2s, Tigers, ME262s so they could have them to fend off the USSR. The USSR counterattacked Gerry to get the same equipment to fend off the USA. See? Germany was merely a invention depot for the fighting of future wars. Hitler knew this, so he started attacking other people to use their stuff, against those that would use his stuff. The French, were the most brilliant of them all, as they saw that taking Germany in WWI would assure them of using German equipment to stop an imminent English invasion of France (and it worked for 20 years), and then they were suckered into letting the Brits come across to defend against the Germans who were set on stopping the future US/USSR war. In reality all the fighting wasn't about ruling the country you conquered, but about using that place's permission to use their stuff to fight future wars against someone else :rolleyes:
-
Charles2222
- Posts: 3687
- Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2001 10:00 am
As Mikimoto said, and also the concept of neutrality. Hitler had tried to work that concept for years with some success by gaining control of future countries without firing a shot, however as the concept had run it's course, and other countries devised an effective counter-neutrality system, with desperate measures he invaded the country with perhaps the cutting edge in the neutrality concept.
[ May 21, 2001: Message edited by: Charles_22 ]
[ May 21, 2001: Message edited by: Charles_22 ]
?????????????????????????????????????????????Originally posted by Charles_22:
As Mikimoto said, and also the concept of neutrality. Hitler had tried to work that concept for years with some success by gaining control of future countries without firing a shot, however as the concept had run it's course, and other countries devised an effective counter-neutrality system, with desperate measures he invaded the country with perhaps the cutting edge in the neutrality concept.
[ May 21, 2001: Message edited by: Charles_22 ]
The 'cutting edge' in neutrality allowed the Germans, and Japanese to effectively emasculate the Dutch govt. What a concept!
-
Charles2222
- Posts: 3687
- Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2001 10:00 am
That is one of the problems with having both effective neutrality concepts and effective cheese; somebody is always looking to get at them. Much to Hitler's dismay, he found that the Dutch neutrality concept wasn't good enough either, or at least not enough to overcome the Allies forgiving him for Poland. In essence, the war for neutrality was lost when Poland was attacked, he was too overconfident firstly in German neutrality concepts, and later in the Dutch ones which persuaded him to attack. To this day, many Germans have questioned whether the Swiss neutrality concepts might have saved the day, and why Hitler didn't attack there as well.
BTW, the whole reason Hitler held the panzers back from getting at Dunkirk, so long, was that it was the first attempt to employ Dutch neutrality concepts, so overconfident was he in it's effectiveness. :rolleyes:
BTW, the whole reason Hitler held the panzers back from getting at Dunkirk, so long, was that it was the first attempt to employ Dutch neutrality concepts, so overconfident was he in it's effectiveness. :rolleyes:
The Germans sure were put upon by Polish neutrality. I mean after all ask Uncle Adolph and he would have told you Poland attacked Germany. Germany was just trying to defend itself, but the Anglo/French alliance had to support those Polish aggressors.(sigh)Originally posted by Charles_22:
That is one of the problems with having both effective neutrality concepts and effective cheese; somebody is always looking to get at them. Much to Hitler's dismay, he found that the Dutch neutrality concept wasn't good enough either, or at least not enough to overcome the Allies forgiving him for Poland. In essence, the war for neutrality was lost when Poland was attacked, he was too overconfident firstly in German neutrality concepts, and later in the Dutch ones which persuaded him to attack. To this day, many Germans have questioned whether the Swiss neutrality concepts might have saved the day, and why Hitler didn't attack there as well.
BTW, the whole reason Hitler held the panzers back from getting at Dunkirk, so long, was that it was the first attempt to employ Dutch neutrality concepts, so overconfident was he in it's effectiveness. :rolleyes:
-
Charles2222
- Posts: 3687
- Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2001 10:00 am
The German neutrality concepts were on their last legs in Poland, they only worked insofar as it convinced Hitler himself. Hitler was shocked that the German neutrality to Poland wasn't accepted, so since the effect was so backwards, he figured that he would do something backwards to the concept of neutrality and attack Poland. Poland, as it turned out, didn't have any neutrality concepts for him to take as his own, so in this he violated a major tenant of neutrality, and that is that attack is only acceptable if you end up procuring a superior neutrality concept from the conquered. Not having superior neutrality concepts from Poland, and his own concepts on their last legs, his only choice after that was to hope that attacking a country with the cutting edge in neutrality concepts would win the day (and some cheese on the side), but unfortunately couldn't be implemented until the halt of the panzers close to Dunkirk.
I'm gonna go way out on a limb here..but.. I think ..at least in the west. Holland, Belugium, Norway, and France and Denmark most of the countries that Germany "conquered" were more properly just occupied .. the amount of troops that had to be used to maintain control were so high right from the start, that I think ,due respect for the Occupied folks as tenacious fighters should be given ...and perhaps had we realized it at the time ..we would have been talking about two new kinds of warfare "Blitzkreg" and the effective counter " Resistance " ... Thoughts please
"For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary periods, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which
The problem was that 'Uncle Adolph's' Traveling Comedy Troupe(never ever use the 'N' word)was extremely effective in generating a 'fan club' that wanted to kill the performers in the troupe. I think the part that the Allied intelligence coups and sacrifices of the 'resistance'in our victory made them truly the unsung heroes of the war.
regards,
sven
[ May 21, 2001: Message edited by: sven ]
regards,
sven
[ May 21, 2001: Message edited by: sven ]
The reason was not that terrible chemical weapon, the Emmental cheese, no, no.Originally posted by murx:
Why Germany didn't invade Swiss ?
Simple & easy, there was no army group small enough to do the task
murx
The actual responsible was one technological weapon, the feared Cuckco clock!!!
Desperta ferro!
Miquel Guasch Aparicio
Miquel Guasch Aparicio
are these results being observed with or without the national characteristics on?
some comments from one who's studied tanks long before there was a Steel Panthers (the HORROR of it!!!! Kampfgruppe was fun but...)
The Sherman's armor was good. Like the T-34, it had a very nicely sloped front glasis if a tad bit less armored (earlier marks) but had a much higher profile and was slab slided making them vulnerable in the same vein as the Panther.
biggest problems was that it was burdened with a very poor gun (vs. tanks....essentially a howitzer weapon as US doctorine viewed that the best solution to a tank was not another tank but a specialized "tank destroyer) and worse....facing a German opponent which had been previously forced to up-gun thanks to their experiences in Russia.
As other's have mentioned, the Tiger I did not have "exceptional" armor by 1944 (and i personally do not agree with the Mantlet + front turret armor combo in the official OOB) but it's gun allowed it to fight at standoff ranges from which the Sherman could'nt compete.
Not impenetrable though. I think the "Hollywood" factor comes from the documented cases in which a Tiger survived hits from which even an American or British 75mm should have penetrated (a have a few where a Tiger shrugged off flank hits at point blank range (under 100yards) but i cannot believe those where the norm but the exception to the rule.
Anyway, enough with the history lesson. Most of us know all this already.
On the issue of non-penetrating hits against Shermans in teh game:
Ver 5.0 'fixes' identified the need to tweak the penetration formulas to lesson the tendancy for High velocity shells to skip off armor at more extreme angles vs the more accurate "iceburg" effect that rounds like the 88 and even 75mm tended to produce. 'Maybe' this has something to do with the frequency of Shermans surviving hits that "maybe" they should'nt have. Its hard to guage. Traditionally i found even before SP:WAW that the majority of "kills" made against Shermans tended to be not from the glasis but from the far less sloped front turret.
On the plus side, i've seen T-34's and even BT-7's survive hits at more accute angles which are further exaserbated by the heavy front slope so i dont think the Sherman is being singled out just because its "American"
On the issue of to-Hit chances vs actual hits:
Not sure what to say on this one. I hav'nt played enough American scenerios to make a qualified judgement on it. Most of the game's i've played have been as the American side so you can rest assured that when the snout of a Tiger or Panther poked it's head out that i did'nt sit around waiting to trade shots
I have noticed that the Americans tend to get very favorable results in small arms fire vs German squads leading me to suspect that it might be better to play with Nat. Characteristics off but many of the units in question were of good experience so that clouded even that issue a bit.
This thread has piqued my curiosity enough so that i think i'll try a few random gen scenerios and see if i can observe this reported phenomenum.
In case it's not obvious. I am not a German Tank supremist. My personal record against panthers has alwasy been great as the AI will usually present me with a flank to shoot up. I've had more trouble against Tiger's and once lost an entire platoon of Shermans to 3 well entrenched Pz-IV's that kept hitting with the first shot!!!!!!
One final note. Shermans will do better in the game in one respect vs historical. Early Shermans had a tendency to catch fire even after a non-penetrating hit and to my knowlege SP:WAW does not attempt to simm this.
some comments from one who's studied tanks long before there was a Steel Panthers (the HORROR of it!!!! Kampfgruppe was fun but...)
The Sherman's armor was good. Like the T-34, it had a very nicely sloped front glasis if a tad bit less armored (earlier marks) but had a much higher profile and was slab slided making them vulnerable in the same vein as the Panther.
biggest problems was that it was burdened with a very poor gun (vs. tanks....essentially a howitzer weapon as US doctorine viewed that the best solution to a tank was not another tank but a specialized "tank destroyer) and worse....facing a German opponent which had been previously forced to up-gun thanks to their experiences in Russia.
As other's have mentioned, the Tiger I did not have "exceptional" armor by 1944 (and i personally do not agree with the Mantlet + front turret armor combo in the official OOB) but it's gun allowed it to fight at standoff ranges from which the Sherman could'nt compete.
Not impenetrable though. I think the "Hollywood" factor comes from the documented cases in which a Tiger survived hits from which even an American or British 75mm should have penetrated (a have a few where a Tiger shrugged off flank hits at point blank range (under 100yards) but i cannot believe those where the norm but the exception to the rule.
Anyway, enough with the history lesson. Most of us know all this already.
On the issue of non-penetrating hits against Shermans in teh game:
Ver 5.0 'fixes' identified the need to tweak the penetration formulas to lesson the tendancy for High velocity shells to skip off armor at more extreme angles vs the more accurate "iceburg" effect that rounds like the 88 and even 75mm tended to produce. 'Maybe' this has something to do with the frequency of Shermans surviving hits that "maybe" they should'nt have. Its hard to guage. Traditionally i found even before SP:WAW that the majority of "kills" made against Shermans tended to be not from the glasis but from the far less sloped front turret.
On the plus side, i've seen T-34's and even BT-7's survive hits at more accute angles which are further exaserbated by the heavy front slope so i dont think the Sherman is being singled out just because its "American"
On the issue of to-Hit chances vs actual hits:
Not sure what to say on this one. I hav'nt played enough American scenerios to make a qualified judgement on it. Most of the game's i've played have been as the American side so you can rest assured that when the snout of a Tiger or Panther poked it's head out that i did'nt sit around waiting to trade shots
I have noticed that the Americans tend to get very favorable results in small arms fire vs German squads leading me to suspect that it might be better to play with Nat. Characteristics off but many of the units in question were of good experience so that clouded even that issue a bit.
This thread has piqued my curiosity enough so that i think i'll try a few random gen scenerios and see if i can observe this reported phenomenum.
In case it's not obvious. I am not a German Tank supremist. My personal record against panthers has alwasy been great as the AI will usually present me with a flank to shoot up. I've had more trouble against Tiger's and once lost an entire platoon of Shermans to 3 well entrenched Pz-IV's that kept hitting with the first shot!!!!!!
One final note. Shermans will do better in the game in one respect vs historical. Early Shermans had a tendency to catch fire even after a non-penetrating hit and to my knowlege SP:WAW does not attempt to simm this.
The poor maligned Sherman. It lacked punch, it lacked armor, it lit up like a christmas tree...so why did the US build it? Answer...You can ship it! You can put it on a train, take it the the dock, crain it into a cargo hold and send it anywhere in the world. Because of it simplicity, relability, size and weight more could be made and sent to where the fighting was. Not Germany, nor Russia faced the logistical difficulities that the US faced and overcame. Although weak and under gunned the Sherman is the only tank that can be called "The tank that won the war"
All Hail Marx and Lennon