Matrix Games Forums

If, as Germans, you have panthers in a combat is it better than say PzIII`s?Or is in game terms a tank is a tank?

Yes, King Tiger = T-70.

Now, please tell me that this ain't so!

Hi all,

As every player can see if he/she slows down the combat resolution every weapon system / squad (of course depending on various other dice rolls and calculations) has opportunity to engage the enemy!

Also every weapon system / squad has unique characteristics (including armor and gun for tanks for example).

Now combine the two above and you can easily see that every weapon system / squad in WitE is unique... [;)]


Thus Tiger is Tiger and Panther is Panther and T-34 is T-34! [:)]


Leo "Apollo11"

ORIGINAL: bjmorgan

Yes, King Tiger = T-70.

Now, please tell me that this ain't so!

You laugh, but alot of Wehrmacht tank strategists, for way too long, basically felt that a tank was a tank. Planners went for quantity over quality, which is why the Pz I and II were produced far too long. Only the shock of the T-34 shook the Germans out of their tank production torpor.

You forgot to mention the KV series. Especially when one Kv on the route to Leningrad held up an entire German battalion by just sitting at a crossroads. Nothing could dent it till a 88 crew came along and used pillbox penetrating shell to finally knock it out.

Speaking from the soviet side, a German tank is a German tank.  My tanks on the other hand vary widely.  The T-26/BT-2/5/7 series of tanks don't count for anything beyond artificially inflating the CV of the unit they are in.  They die to everything from the AT rifle to 20 mm AA guns.  On the other hand you can count on your T-34s and KV-1s being there at the end of the battle contributing to the CV.  What you won't see to much of is damage from the tanks but that is due to low experience.  The T-60 is a huge improvement over the light and cavalry tanks, and the T-70 should be a further improvement.

I would suggest watching a few battles at message setting 4.  This will help you immensely in understanding how the combat system works and what the value of the various weapon systems are. 

Following the genereal idea of mobile warfare aka "Blitzkrieg" tanks were just tanks only defined in light (recon), medium (main battletank - fight other tanks) and heavy (support).
Enemy tanks should be overhelmed (Guderian:Nicht kleckern, sondern klotzen / Not to fiddle about, but rather bring lots (?) not sure how to translate it correct [&:]), and/or destroyed by divebombers and artillery. But germany was never able to build enough SP artillery to cover the need and as the war went on germany also lost air superiority. Thus, fighting tanks become a tank vs tank battle mainly and quality of tanks become more and more important (wich also lead to the massive buidling of infantry anti-tank weapons latewar, when tanks were not really avaible anymore).

For the game, its already answered by posters above

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

ORIGINAL: bjmorgan

Yes, King Tiger = T-70.

Now, please tell me that this ain't so!

You laugh, but alot of Wehrmacht tank strategists, for way too long, basically felt that a tank was a tank. Planners went for quantity over quality, which is why the Pz I and II were produced far too long. Only the shock of the T-34 shook the Germans out of their tank production torpor.

I think you might be stretching it a tad to say that the Germans went for quantity over quality; IMO the germans attitude was that superior well made weapons would give them the decisive advantage on the battlefield, and thats why they stuck with craftmanship as opposed to mass production, and made numerous minor variationsto to gain a perceived advantage. And the T34 didnt shake up their production, it shook up their tank design.

Anyway the germans success was not due to superior equipment but rather superior morale, training and Tactics.

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

ORIGINAL: bjmorgan

Yes, King Tiger = T-70.

Now, please tell me that this ain't so!

You laugh, but alot of Wehrmacht tank strategists, for way too long, basically felt that a tank was a tank. Planners went for quantity over quality, which is why the Pz I and II were produced far too long. Only the shock of the T-34 shook the Germans out of their tank production torpor.

Yeah, but there's now 75 years that proves otherwise. So, it would be foolish to design a game at this detail that considers them the same.

ORIGINAL: johntoml56

Anyway the germans success was not due to superior equipment but rather superior morale, training and Tactics.

But they lost the war so that superior stuff wasn't so superior.

Anyway as a Russian in 1942, I have a whole zoo of tanks. The tank corps that are full of lend-lease oddballs don't seem to do
as well as tank corps that are full of t-34s (two varieties!) with a few Stuarts for decoration.

It came to a point where the Russians asked the Western Allies to stop sending them tanks - since the models they were mass-producing, the T-34 series and KVs were better than anything they were getting from us (though Shermans were prized for their ease of maintenance and rugged design - the armament was sorely lacking).

Of course, even the T34s weren't perfect & the lack of radios hampered them at the tactical level - but the Russians could throw so many of them at the Germans, it really didn't matter at the end of the day if you had 5 - 1, 10 - 1 or even 15 - 1 kill ratios, you'd still be overwhelmed.

The question of quality vs quantity in warfare is an old one and always an interesting discussion. In general, history shows that quantity wins in wars. There are absolutely exceptions to that of course. (Battle of Britain, Campaign in France to name two from WW2 alone).

The Germans absolutely had the edge in tanks with the Panther (generally recognized as the best tank even into the early 50's). The issue is when you build 5500 of them compared to 55,000 T34's. The Panther is good, but not that good.

When Guderian took over as inspector-general of the armored troops and had input on tank production, he went for a mix of quantity and quality. The Panther was superior to anything the Russians had, but the Panzer IV could be produced much easier and required far fewer materials per tank (45 tons vs 25 tons ball park).

ORIGINAL: bjmorgan

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

ORIGINAL: bjmorgan

Yes, King Tiger = T-70.

Now, please tell me that this ain't so!

You laugh, but alot of Wehrmacht tank strategists, for way too long, basically felt that a tank was a tank. Planners went for quantity over quality, which is why the Pz I and II were produced far too long. Only the shock of the T-34 shook the Germans out of their tank production torpor.

Yeah, but there's now 75 years that proves otherwise. So, it would be foolish to design a game at this detail that considers them the same.

[&:] Yes it would and that's the reason they didn't

The Soviets believed that quantitywas a quality itself and this was proven out by both the Western Allies ans the Soviets. Shermans weren't all that great but sooner or later one will get that engine compartment shot on that Tiger.

I've always been of the opinion that so many t-34's and il-2's were produced was because they HAD to.There losses were appalling.
Also the t-34 was a superior design but was seriously hampered by having a 4 man crew until the t-34/85 was produced.
I'd be curious to see how many of those 55.000 t-34's were left at the end of the war!

I'd be curious to see how many of those 55.000 t-34's were left at the end of the war!

They were continued to be used right up to the 80's and no doubt some of the T34/85 are still being used in some 3rd world countries. I saw a report about a Pz 4 being used by the Syrians in the middle east wars.

The sherman was a better tank then the T-34. There, I said it. But then, you don't have to listen to me say it, here is a site where an actual Russian Tank commander of a Guards Tank unit says about the Shermans he commanded:

http://english.iremember.ru/home.html

His name is Dmitriy Loza.

For more fun: http://www.battlefield.ru/en/documents/ ... ation.html

And finally a fun question: Where did the Sherman come up in battle against the T-34 in large numbers? And who won?

ORIGINAL: Neal_MLC

The Soviets believed that quantitywas a quality itself and this was proven out by both the Western Allies ans the Soviets. Shermans weren't all that great but sooner or later one will get that engine compartment shot on that Tiger.

Or put a 17-pdr with discarding sabot on the Sherman and have better penetration than the Tiger I's gun.

If you were lucky enough to get assigned to the small number of FireFlies that were actually built - the vast majority of Shermans still used the old 75mm gun - though the upgraded 76mm was decent & gave those PzIVs a hard time, US tanks were outclassed by the Panther probably into the 1950s (and in general, we didn't get a good tank until the M1!)

After some quick research i have found a russian source that states that 13.400 t-34's werre lost in 1944 alone!
Seems to reinforce my opinion somewhat.