Maybe he meant "German tanks were huge chunks of shit after 41"? Which is a bit radical, but much closer to truth
Will tanks/planes reflect the tanks/planes of the period/county or will they be same?
- Thread starter Gratch11
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Maybe he meant "German tanks were huge chunks of shit after 41"? Which is a bit radical, but much closer to truth
Now this has certainly been influenced by winner`s history writers. 95% of time in history weapon smiths have had different opinion of good equipment than soldiers, and generals had their own opinion too. Only in Cold War that changed, before that, all nations from all eras were guilty of being mix of excellence and flaws. Kar 98k was popular becouse it had so little flaws i believe, altough it might have been just popular becouse that is what old school generals wanted. I have not studied that rifle in depth tough, i have studied equipment in general of course.
The technical differences between tanks ended up being far less important than a bunch of other factors in how they did during their employment.
The Panther and Tiger both had major flaws, particularly if viewed in a strategic sense. I believe the Jagdpanther was pretty solid.
Although lets not turn this thread into another Panther argument thread
:rofl: Why not? We only have 3 or 4 so far! :rofl:Although lets not turn this thread into another Panther argument thread
IRL Japan did buoght 2 Tigers, and was studying them, so the possibility is not that far off as you might think.
Exept they were not.
They were properly designed with emphasis on ergonomics and reliability, they could sustain long marches.
Yes, their armor was poor. But so was the armor of T-34 and M4 in mid-late war. Tanks don`t really fight AT emplacements. You use your artillery, mortars, and infantry to get rid of enemy`s AT for your tanks. If you can do that, armor of your tanks doesn`t need to be thick, and if you can`t, thick armor won`t help your tanks. German exploits in 1939, 1940, 1941 and 1942 handilly prove that, and so do allied tanks in 1943-1945.
It was a panther and a tiger I think and they never got delivered afaik
This, really. Starting points should be different, and so should be capabilities, but if a nation decides to follow another's route - and manages to do it - it should give roughly similar results.
The Panther and Tiger both had major flaws, particularly if viewed in a strategic sense. I believe the Jagdpanther was pretty solid.
Although lets not turn this thread into another Panther argument thread
Rubbish, and nothing to do with Panther being bad or good. Germany´s STRATEGIC situation was bad and it would STILL be bad regardless of mass building Panzer IV and StuG. Look how well it worked out to keep building BF 109... instead of rushing Me 262. PAnther had flaws? Would have been improved if Germnay wasn´t beign crushed.
People should stop looking at the tree andlook at the forest.
Will the game model differences between ballistic caps and uncapped projectiles? Will the game model small benefit of Russian blunt-nosed projectiles which inertia did not push away from angled slopes as much as non-blunt noses? Will the game model variances in ammo quality? Will the game model all the creative differences of belt hook use before combat suspenders became common in the Wehrmacht and apply -2% morale penalty given how annoying they can be? Will the game model morale loss for new recruit due cost cutting measures and lacking issue than year or two before? Will the game model wear and tear difference between leather soles and hobnails and rubber soles and their impact on enemy morale if the war is not working out for the other side? Will the game model all the subtle differences how German hobnails and soles were more slippery than Russian ones? Will the game force player to produce subpar ammunition to save materials and reduce combat efficiency by -20 to -30% or even more in order to produce 20 more big cats with green recruits? Will the game model general MoAs of average quality weapons alongside their ammunition quality? Will teh game keep track which divisions have higher likelihood of PTSD and neglience in the field to increase odds of poor ammunition storage and loss of morale? Will the game model the poor comfort of PaK40 gunner position due the very cranky (if functional as far as the cannon's own protection goes) shield? Will the game model effect of losses and perceived losses and issues as loss of morale? Will the game model hypothetical wolf attacks in field hospitals in some regions? Will the game model all the quirks of hand crafted production and its inefficiency when ½ of the ammunition pouch is mass produced and the other ½ is hand stitched? Will the game model when the factories have machine issues or were recently bombed and they have to do everything by hand in that case and its effect on troop supply and possible issues of fitting properly due wartime standards means nothing?
Jokes aside we could say those all are pretty important and realistic and I am up for some stat variances, but what good it would do attempt to turn HoI4 into physics calculum simulation when at best the benefit it creates is 6234068903289503219+0523076509321765032079532780523089 interpretations did that uncapped projectile actually shatter in contact since factory #632 used better quality steel and batch #632632663203689032680932-64351-666 to #632632663203689032680932-64351-999 used superior materials than factory #11 made of ersatz and thus gives +0.1 hard attack boost?
Jokes aside we could say those all are pretty important and realistic and I am up for some stat variances, but what good it would do attempt to turn HoI4 into physics calculum simulation when at best the benefit it creates is 6234068903289503219+0523076509321765032079532780523089 interpretations did that uncapped projectile actually shatter in contact since factory #632 used better quality steel and batch #632632663203689032680932-64351-666 to #632632663203689032680932-64351-999 used superior materials than factory #11 made of ersatz and thus gives +0.1 hard attack boost?
Wait a minute, so a 1940 German tank has exactly the same stats as an 1940 Russian tank? So all strategic values are removed and instead it's all about who can steamroll who is'nt it. I mean, it will just be about numbers then... a 1 million strong German army will automatically lose to an 1.1 million stron Russian one then, am I right?
So in what way is what he said "rubbish"? Panther and Tiger flaws don't magically stop existing because Germany was also losing the war they started. Is it also Rubbish that the JP was "pretty solid"? Really, what are you talking about?
I can't see why 1940-level tech should mean different things for two nations. Now, should the Russians have 1940 tech in 1940? I can tell that - for example - the Italian 1940 tank should be as good as the German 1940 tank, with the Italians having...1936 or so tank tech in 1940, for example. If Italy is dead set on wanting tanks, and does exactly as the Germans do, the results should be the same. But, for logistical and industrial reasons, they probably won't do it.
Oh lord, no more panther vs whatever discussions please, after a hundred or so posts in other threads and indeed I see them spring up in every WW2 discussion board can't we talk about Japanese vs American carrier design or something new? Perhaps a 109 vs spitfire thread lol. Hell I'd even enjoy something about who had the hottest chicks in the 40's.
why dont you start considering how this works in HoI3 and what other factors are present.
In HoI3 Inf tech 1939 was also equal to Inf tech 1939 no matter who researched it so its not really a change in this regard.
Regarding different factors theres the make up of divisions ratio of armor/inf/support brigades etc., theres the make up of light/med/heavy tanks Inf/mot/mech etc theres the quality of all those (what tech equipment and what upgrades said equipment have received), theres doctrines, concentration of force, airsupport, naval support, terrain, probably also some randomness in actual combat rolls etc.
So yes 1,1million russian will beat 1,0 million germans in the right conditions. Will they have the right conditions maybe? Do you ever watch sports? in soccer example theres 11 people on each team how is it possible that they do not draw all the time? Since there is the same number of people on each side and they have the same equipment how come anyone can win a soccer match?
sry to say but you have both HoI, EU and Vic batches on your profile you should have some idea about the number of factors that might make a victory or loss.
He implied it was a strategically bad decision. If your choices are stepping on hornets (building Panther) and lava (building cheap fodder) it´s hard to say it was strategically bad isn´t it? For all their flaws at least on the defense both Tiger and Panther were better then Panzer IV and StuG, which could be pierced by dozens of weapons in their front armor, and were even more screwed in counter attack as it´s a situation you will usually be shot first. In which tank you wnat to be shot, Tiger or Panzer IV?
Besides, as I said, putting yourself in acorner by mass producing old weapons is hardly smart as eventually you WILL need better stuff. Zero and BF 109 showed that more than well enough.
Last edited:
No, he said "The Panther and Tiger both had major flaws, particularly if viewed in a strategic sense." ie being heavy and short-legged they were difficult to use strategically. That's not the same as saying it was a bad strategic decision to build them (although it was).
Then we´ll have to agree to disagree, unless you prove the ahistorical choice of building only cheaper stuff was better. Also strategically useful is relative, as it depends on if you´re attacking more than defending, and I don´need to tell which was the case with Germany.