Achtung Panzer! Armor Discussion Thread

[Risottia]

I think more like "overengineered and rushed into production without testing it extensively enough".

Can't get tested when the possibility of getting spanked by the Soviets is on the horizon.

Or while those race traitors known as Briten and Amerikaner bomb ball bearing plants every odd day. *nod*

[Uxupox]

Can't get tested when the possibility of getting spanked by the Soviets is on the horizon.

Or while those race traitors known as Briten and Amerikaner bomb ball bearing plants every odd day. *nod*

you called?

[Risottia]

Or while those race traitors known as Briten and Amerikaner bomb ball bearing plants every odd day. *nod*

you called?

Nah.

[Nekotani]

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.

If I recall correctly, one reason for this was that there were quite a couple of generals who, like Budyonny but without the horse fetish, thought that the tank would be rendered obsolete and thus did not place much attention on them. Italian high command also thought a war would take place in the Alps or Balkans rather than the African desert and for that reason focused on light tanks which could maneuver more easily across the mountain passes. Which ended up screwing them over when Fiat M13/40's without equipment for the desert were deployed in Libya.

[Uxupox]

you called?

Nah.

it's broken

[Empire of Cats]

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.

If I recall correctly, one reason for this was that there were quite a couple of generals who, like Budyonny but without the horse fetish, thought that the tank would be rendered obsolete and thus did not place much attention on them. Italian high command also thought a war would take place in the Alps or Balkans rather than the African desert and for that reason focused on light tanks which could maneuver more easily across the mountain passes. Which ended up screwing them over when Fiat M13/40's without equipment for the desert were deployed in Libya.

From leading the field to being destroyed on it...what a fall from grace. Much like Japan, who actually made an effort at tank development after the Great War.

[Tbliska]

I dunno, I like postwar light airborne stuff. Not all of them were strictly tanks I know.

The AMX-13 was a pretty good light tank for its time. Sort of in the same general class as the M8 Gun System proposed for the US military. Need a big gun to demolish things in the way of paratroopers and the like and even the odds since they're most likely outnumbered and outgunned wherever they deploy.

I also rather liked the BMD-1 series. Which later evolved into the BMD-3.

And these little guys had quite the fearsome reputation among the Israelis and the Legion, though the heaviest tank they were able to kill was a T-62.

[Hurdergaryp]

I think more like "overengineered and rushed into production without testing it extensively enough".

Can't get tested when the possibility of getting spanked by the Soviets is on the horizon.

The Tiger II had its merits as a defensive tank, which is why the Third Reich strategists couldn't help themselves and deployed the seventy ton beast as an offensive weapon during the Battle of the Bulge. Typical.

[Engleberg]

Panzerkampfwagen VIII "Maus" best tank ever created. *nods*

[Nekotani]

If I recall correctly, one reason for this was that there were quite a couple of generals who, like Budyonny but without the horse fetish, thought that the tank would be rendered obsolete and thus did not place much attention on them. Italian high command also thought a war would take place in the Alps or Balkans rather than the African desert and for that reason focused on light tanks which could maneuver more easily across the mountain passes. Which ended up screwing them over when Fiat M13/40's without equipment for the desert were deployed in Libya.

From leading the field to being destroyed on it...what a fall from grace. Much like Japan, who actually made an effort at tank development after the Great War.

At the start of the war, Italian tanks were sufficient to an extent, but the problem was that on account of corruption, lack of planning, etc. it could not adapt to the times and produce newer models while the Allies started to field tanks such as the M4 Sherman and T-34. Though their tank destroyers, such as the Semovente 90/53 were pretty good. Only problem was they were rarely produced in high quantity.

I'm not really knowledgeable on the Pacific Theater, but it didn't seem that heavy armor was all that useful. One of the advantages that the Japanese had at the start was their light equipment which was ideal for jungle warfare.

[Major-Tom]

I am utterly and completely devoid of any knowledge in regards to;

(1. Tanks
(2. Armor
(3. Guns
(4. Really anything military related.

[Engleberg]

From leading the field to being destroyed on it...what a fall from grace. Much like Japan, who actually made an effort at tank development after the Great War.

At the start of the war, Italian tanks were sufficient to an extent, but the problem was that on account of corruption, lack of planning, etc. it could not adapt to the times and produce newer models while the Allies started to field tanks such as the M4 Sherman and T-34. Though their tank destroyers, such as the Semovente 90/53 were pretty good. Only problem was they were rarely produced in high quantity.

I'm not really knowledgeable on the Pacific Theater, but it didn't seem that heavy armor was all that useful. One of the advantages that the Japanese had at the start was their light equipment which was ideal for jungle warfare.

The Japanese armour within the Pacific was designed for beach landings, and being small enough to be used on the jungle islands. It was not until they fought the Russians did they decide to build better armoured vehicles, such as the Chi-Nu and similar vehicles. Most of the better ones were deployed to mainland Japan for defense of the home islands in case of allied invasion, which never happened.

[Novus America]

From leading the field to being destroyed on it...what a fall from grace. Much like Japan, who actually made an effort at tank development after the Great War.

At the start of the war, Italian tanks were sufficient to an extent, but the problem was that on account of corruption, lack of planning, etc. it could not adapt to the times and produce newer models while the Allies started to field tanks such as the M4 Sherman and T-34. Though their tank destroyers, such as the Semovente 90/53 were pretty good. Only problem was they were rarely produced in high quantity.

I'm not really knowledgeable on the Pacific Theater, but it didn't seem that heavy armor was all that useful. One of the advantages that the Japanese had at the start was their light equipment which was ideal for jungle warfare.

Certainly tanks saw less use in the Islands of the Pacific, and smaller more mobile vehicles better.

Problem Japan had was their conflict in China. China had limited armor, but the couple times Japan had run ins with the Soviets they were crushed.

Though it was not just lack of armor, but other deficiencies. They Japanese Army was not very good. It had high morale, good determination. But its weapons, tactics and equipment lacking. It never developed modern combined arms abilities or the ability to use the tank as more than infantry support. As much a problem as their tanks being ill suited for combat in open environments was their tactics were also insufficient.

Japan had a a very good navy. Its army was not particularly good though. Often charging with mass infantry bayonets on bolt action rifles like it was before WWI.

This often got them massacred.

[Germanic Templars]

Sooo, is this just for tanks or can armored cars, APCs, IFVs be included too?

[Engleberg]

Sooo, is this just for tanks or can armored cars, APCs, IFVs be included too?

They are armoured vehicles used in combat and other situations, so I don't see why they wouldn't.

[San Marlindo]

I don't really understand why towed anti-tank guns went out of use. They used to be as common as howitzers.

The difference being howitzers are still around and they're still making new ones.

I don't think any(?) anti-tank guns have been made since WWII. And I don't know of any country today which still uses them.

[Novus America]

I don't really understand why towed anti-tank guns went out of use. They used to be as common as howitzers.

The difference being howitzers are still around and they're still making new ones.

I don't think any(?) anti-tank guns have been made since WWII. And I don't know of any country today which still uses them.

They went out of use because of anti tank missiles. They are obsolete.

Anti tank missiles have superior range, mobility and effectiveness.

[San Marlindo]

I don't really understand why towed anti-tank guns went out of use. They used to be as common as howitzers.

The difference being howitzers are still around and they're still making new ones.

I don't think any(?) anti-tank guns have been made since WWII. And I don't know of any country today which still uses them.

They went out of use because of anti tank missiles. They are obsolete.

Anti tank missiles have superior range, mobility and effectiveness.

Aren't those only designed to hit targets at very long range? It would seem like they need to travel a considerable distance to arm, but maybe this is just my ignorance on the topic showing.

Anti-tank guns could still be useful for targets at closer than missile range.

[Empire of Cats]

At the start of the war, Italian tanks were sufficient to an extent, but the problem was that on account of corruption, lack of planning, etc. it could not adapt to the times and produce newer models while the Allies started to field tanks such as the M4 Sherman and T-34. Though their tank destroyers, such as the Semovente 90/53 were pretty good. Only problem was they were rarely produced in high quantity.

I'm not really knowledgeable on the Pacific Theater, but it didn't seem that heavy armor was all that useful. One of the advantages that the Japanese had at the start was their light equipment which was ideal for jungle warfare.

Certainly tanks saw less use in the Islands of the Pacific, and smaller more mobile vehicles better.

Problem Japan had was their conflict in China. China had limited armor, but the couple times Japan had run ins with the Soviets they were crushed.

Though it was not just lack of armor, but other deficiencies. They Japanese Army was not very good. It had high morale, good determination. But its weapons, tactics and equipment lacking. It never developed modern combined arms abilities or the ability to use the tank as more than infantry support. As much a problem as their tanks being ill suited for combat in open environments was their tactics were also insufficient.

Japan had a a very good navy. Its army was not particularly good though. Often charging with mass infantry bayonets on bolt action rifles like it was before WWI.

This often got them massacred.

Um, I know that happened, but one does not simply march through most of the British Empire in Asia and then hold off several imperial powers by throwing their men around in banzai charges. Yeah, it happened, but Japan's army was pretty technologically advanced when the war started. They had a lot of machine guns and knew how to use them. They had heavy artillery and their tanks were actually supposedly equal to prewar French and British standards. And therein is the issue. Japan had the advantage, but squandered it because they didn't want to divert resources from proven success. It proved to be their downfall.

Actually, Japan developed fighter jets and tanks similar to German designs just before the war ended. They were never used in combat, but one wonders.

[Novus America]

They went out of use because of anti tank missiles. They are obsolete.

Anti tank missiles have superior range, mobility and effectiveness.

Aren't those only designed to hit targets at very long range? It would seem like they need to travel a considerable distance to arm, but maybe this is just my ignorance on the topic showing.

Anti-tank guns could still be useful for targets at closer than missile range.

Depends on the missile. Some like RPGs and LAWs are designed for very short range.
Most are fairly short ranged though.

Thing is anti tank guns are very difficult to maneuver. Unlike a missile or recoilless rifle you cannot take them up stairs and shot them out a window. Anti tank guns are much heavier, slower yet also inaccurate and less powerful. Anti tank guns get their power from velocity. But you can get more power out of lighter weight weapon by using shaped charges, which can cause far more damage while still being much smaller and lighter.

And modern tank armor can defeat pretty much any towed gun. You either need a anti tank gun that would be impractically large and heavy and thus needing to be self propelled, thus offering no real benefits over just getting a tank.

[The Conez Imperium]

I am utterly and completely devoid of any knowledge in regards to;

(1. Tanks
(2. Armor
(3. Guns
(4. Really anything military related.

If you like spreadsheets and video strategy games, then play Wargame Red Dragon. It's essentially spreadsheets graphically fighting on a map. It'll teach you all about the military between the 1950-80's

[Germanic Templars]

I am utterly and completely devoid of any knowledge in regards to;

(1. Tanks
(2. Armor
(3. Guns
(4. Really anything military related.

If you like spreadsheets and video strategy games, then play Wargame Red Dragon. It's essentially spreadsheets graphically fighting on a map. It'll teach you all about the military between the 1950-80's

Actually from the late 40s to the early 90s (though those are considered prototypes like the M1A2).

[The Conez Imperium]

If you like spreadsheets and video strategy games, then play Wargame Red Dragon. It's essentially spreadsheets graphically fighting on a map. It'll teach you all about the military between the 1950-80's

Actually from the late 40s to the early 90s (though those are considered prototypes like the M1A2).

another wargame player. Lovely to see.

Back on topic, what does everyone think about the STRV 103 series or the Swedish S tank? Although they were never combat proven, they seem to be one of the best well-designed tanks to have fulfilled it's role.

Image

[Risottia]

I don't really understand why towed anti-tank guns went out of use. They used to be as common as howitzers.

The difference being howitzers are still around and they're still making new ones.

I don't think any(?) anti-tank guns have been made since WWII. And I don't know of any country today which still uses them.

Excuse me?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprut_anti-tank_gun

It shoots the same ammo of the 2A46 tank gun, homing missiles included.

[Uxupox]

Can't get tested when the possibility of getting spanked by the Soviets is on the horizon.

The Tiger II had its merits as a defensive tank, which is why the Third Reich strategists couldn't help themselves and deployed the seventy ton beast as an offensive weapon during the Battle of the Bulge. Typical.

If we go by the definition of a defensive posture then the third Reich strategists were correct in the their assumption since a defensive is only established when perpetuating a situation where you can conduct your own offensive.