Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

countdown to a historic first........one of Brady's "Name This" threads being locked.

ORIGINAL: Historiker

A Tiger can do quite fine even today! It depends on who is commading it, how the crew is trained, which doctrine is base of their commands and - of course - who's the enemy. (and at least ammunition that's up to date for its 8,8cm or then maybe 90mm or 105mm gun)

The Russians had superior tanks throughout the war but still lost many battles against oviously inferior german tanks. The reason was that the russians acted incompetent while the german forces really knowed what to do. And in the case of an KW 1 blocking the road without a chance to flank - a group of Ju 87 appeared or a 8,8cm Flak was used...

The PzKpfw I was never intended to be used in combat at all! It was a purely training tank to get as many "tanks" as possible in a short time to
a) show "we already have a lot of tanks" to the other nations
b) allow the companys to gain experience in production and designing
c) have more than a car with paper-mâché to train tank crews and infantry
That it was used at all was the need for something with tracks, some sort of armour and at least a MG at the beginning of a war that came at least three years too early for germany. But as Hitler got impatient and the Reich was almoust bankrupt, he started the war with an only half trained and equipped army.

The PzKpfw II also was no combat tank. It was something in between as it was intended to be used for recce and not to serve in the "battle line".

The only somehow capable tanks where the PzKpfw 35 (t), PzKpfw 38 (t), Pzkpfw III and PzKpfw IV. While they were able to do the job against the poles who themselves didn't have a tank force worht the name, they were already outclassed in summer 1940 by the french and british tanks. Matilda II and Char B1-bis were superior, R35 and H39 were at least as good.

So Terminus IS RIGHT! They were crap! The only reason they did their job was, that they were used superior and the superior tanks were used totally incompetent.


While it's influence somewhen ends against technology 50 years ahead, the crew and the tactics is the most important thing in tank warfare. Of course, a Renault FT-17 can't do anything against an Abrams even when crewd by experienced US or Israeli tank soldiers. But how superior crews can be the decisive was prooved often enough by the Israelis in 1956, 1967 and 1973.


So of course: Enough and competent employment of the 47mm Pak by the Austrian army would have stopped the german Panzers!
The only tanks in use then where PzKpfw I and II. The 30 available PzKpfw III where pre-production models with 15mm armour all around, so just enough to stop a MG bullet with no chance against an AT shell!
No 35 (t), 38 (t) in use yet as not yet captuered and the few existing PzKpfw IV where thinly armoured as well!
The austrian army itself was obviously way too small to defend the country without assistance from Italy for long. But as we all know, the vast majority of the Austria couldn't hail "their" Führer early enough.

As soon as a tank or a tankette is able to achieve what it was built to achieve then it´s a 100% success and not crap at all. Why it achieves this and why something else fails doesn´t matter, the tank failed because it couldn´t achieve what it was supposed to. You have a tactic, you build a tank for that tactic. Failing or success is a result of tactic and material together.

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

countdown to a historic first........one of Brady's "Name This" threads being locked.

ORIGINAL: Mynok


Some of us have been here long enough to have discussed all these topics before and we know which ones bring out the real trolls who do nothing but crap all over the forums here. Don't blame us for knowing what the outcome will be beforehand. We've seen it over and over and over. You don't want to heed the warnings? Fine, but don't bitch because you were warned.

ORIGINAL: Historiker

As soon as a tank or a tankette is able to achieve what it was built to achieve then it´s a 100% success and not crap at all. Why it achieves this and why something else fails doesn´t matter, the tank failed because it couldn´t achieve what it was supposed to. You have a tactic, you build a tank for that tactic. Failing or success is a result of tactic and material together.

I agree, but they were still crap by technical means [;)]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: Historiker

As soon as a tank or a tankette is able to achieve what it was built to achieve then it´s a 100% success and not crap at all. Why it achieves this and why something else fails doesn´t matter, the tank failed because it couldn´t achieve what it was supposed to. You have a tactic, you build a tank for that tactic. Failing or success is a result of tactic and material together.

I agree, but they were still crap by technical means [;)]

if they 100% achieve what they were tasked for?

ORIGINAL: Mynok


Not if people insist on continuing the discussion. There might actually be some benefit to heeding the warnings, ya know?