by Empire of Cats » Sun Feb 19, 2017 7:41 am
by Neu Leonstein » Sun Feb 19, 2017 7:48 am
by Empire of Cats » Sun Feb 19, 2017 8:49 am
Neu Leonstein wrote:German WWII armour is mostly overrated though. The early models weren't really any better on average than those of the Allies... just used differently and flattered by the strategic situation, and the late models were too complicated and expensive to make for a country that needed to make sure no dollar was wasted.
I rate something like the T-55 way more highly. Came out almost the same time as the Tiger II (for example), but better armour, better gun, but like half the weight and therefore way better power-to-weight ratio. They made thousands and thousands and they served for half a century.
by Empire of Cats » Sun Feb 19, 2017 8:50 am
by Washington Resistance Army » Sun Feb 19, 2017 9:02 am
by Neu Leonstein » Sun Feb 19, 2017 9:11 am
Empire of Cats wrote:I beg to differ, at least slightly. German armor may be overrated, but it's not so much what you have as what you do with it. The Panzer II wasn't the best tank, but combine it with the tactical genius of Erwin Rommel...then look out. If you are able to outthink and outmaneuver your enemy, their numerical superiority is negated as they are unable to coordinate an effective response. Look at France 1940 for example. The Allies had more tanks, but the Germans were able to exploit the inefficient tactics of the French and British and that numerical superiority was negated.
by Empire of Cats » Sun Feb 19, 2017 9:17 am
Neu Leonstein wrote:Empire of Cats wrote:I beg to differ, at least slightly. German armor may be overrated, but it's not so much what you have as what you do with it. The Panzer II wasn't the best tank, but combine it with the tactical genius of Erwin Rommel...then look out. If you are able to outthink and outmaneuver your enemy, their numerical superiority is negated as they are unable to coordinate an effective response. Look at France 1940 for example. The Allies had more tanks, but the Germans were able to exploit the inefficient tactics of the French and British and that numerical superiority was negated.
That's basically what I said, isn't it? It was the way the Germans used combined arms to move so quickly that the defenders were in disarray and ended up never really getting a working defense going. Until Russia, that is, where the distances were big enough that the Red Army could retreat mostly intact and eventually push back as supply lines got too long for the Germans.
But that's not really a question of the armour, as in the actual machinery. The Russians always had better tanks and more of them.
And on Rommel, I feel like it's worth pointing out every time someone mentions him that as great a leader he might have been at the tactical level, he did mess up his logistics pretty badly. Not entirely his fault, obviously, but I think that there's a lot of British wartime propaganda speaking when people remember Rommel these days.
by Imperium Sidhicum » Sun Feb 19, 2017 11:04 am
by Risottia » Sun Feb 19, 2017 11:13 am
Neu Leonstein wrote:And on Rommel, I feel like it's worth pointing out every time someone mentions him that as great a leader he might have been at the tactical level, he did mess up his logistics pretty badly. Not entirely his fault, obviously, but I think that there's a lot of British wartime propaganda speaking when people remember Rommel these days.
by Uxupox » Sun Feb 19, 2017 11:31 am
Risottia wrote:Neu Leonstein wrote:And on Rommel, I feel like it's worth pointing out every time someone mentions him that as great a leader he might have been at the tactical level, he did mess up his logistics pretty badly. Not entirely his fault, obviously, but I think that there's a lot of British wartime propaganda speaking when people remember Rommel these days.
His deploy at the Second El Alamein was especially ineffective. I still think that if one wants to point out the best German armour general of WW2, it's most likely Guderian.
About Italian tanks, I wonder how come the nation which first came up with a heavy tank sporting a turreted main gun with a 360° traverse (the FIAT 2000, in 1917) could abandon the idea of heavy tanks and rely on tankettes and light tanks only.
by Kanzaki Ranko » Sun Feb 19, 2017 11:34 am
by Union of Despotistan » Sun Feb 19, 2017 12:00 pm
by Empire of Cats » Sun Feb 19, 2017 12:26 pm
by Rio Cana » Sun Feb 19, 2017 12:33 pm
by Teemant » Sun Feb 19, 2017 1:09 pm
Rio Cana wrote:Who needs tanks when you could have a Pak-40 German 75mm tank destroyer. It was much cheaper then a tank.
Video of it - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7fhBm1ouSU
by Union of Despotistan » Sun Feb 19, 2017 1:13 pm
Empire of Cats wrote:
Hum...I'd say the Panther, because by the time that the Tiger was introduced, the German war machine was running out of fuel, supplies, etc. Its size and its copious consumption of fuel hindered its mobility severely. That said, the kill ratios some units achieved with it were incredible, like that of the 502nd Heavy Tank Battalion. From 1942-45, it achieved a kill/loss ratio of 13.08 to 1. But the prize goes to the 13th Company of the Grossdeutcheschland Division, which lost 56 Tigers...and destroyed some 500 enemy tanks while deployed with Tigers.
However, the Panther was a better tank, as it was cheaper to produce, quicker, and had better handling. It was one of the best tanks of the war. That said, nothing put more fear in an Allied tanker than hearing that they were going up against Tigers. Not that Tigers were invincible, but that they were so held in awe that it had a major psychological advantage over some of its opponents.
Bear in mind though, that the Panther was a medium tank, while the Tiger II was a heavy tank. The Tiger was never meant to serve as a run of the mill average main battle tank, but to be used as a sort of 'bunker-buster' heavy backup tank. So it's kind of a little hard to compare the two.
by Risottia » Sun Feb 19, 2017 1:26 pm
Uxupox wrote:Looking at Italian tanks specifications and comparing them to their immediate enemies and allies within their vicinity then one can can conclude that they are trash.
by Union of Despotistan » Sun Feb 19, 2017 1:39 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Atrito, Austria-Bohemia-Hungary, Cheblonsk, Duvniask, Elejamie, Europa Undivided, GMS Greater Miami Shores 1, Neu California, Post War America, Tarsonis, Unmet Player
Advertisement