will you mass produced crappy shermans or have limted numbers of tiger tanks

[Darkrenown]

^^^ I included Italy in the Axis numbers too vs France since they were involved before the end.

Not ultimately. They need to fight off inf aswell, but in germany its main task was to fight tanks.

I don't think we're going to get anywhere then.

 

[Cybvep]

^^^ I included Italy in the Axis numbers too vs France since they were involved before the end.

Uh, I think that you are going a bit too far here. Italian contribution was token and they got involved after 1 month of fighting, when the Allied situation was already FUBAR. Not a very convincing argument.

 

[Darkrenown]

The "argument" was losses don't count if you are outnumbered (or therefor victories if you are the outnumberer), so only numbers matters for the sake of saying it's a bit silly.

 

[Mannstien]

Schwerpunkt anyone? The Germans did indeed have a large advantage in aircraft and a slight advantage in men during the battle of France but there was a large discrepancy in tanks. It was all about how they were employed(doctrine), they simply should not be employed piece meal and without an effective means to communicate both within the tank corps and with the supporting infantry.

Allies: 144 divisions
13,974 guns
3,383 tanks
2,935 aircraft
3,300,000 troops

Germany: 141 divisions
7,378 guns
2,445 tanks
5,638 aircraft
3,350,000 troops

 

[Bullfrog]

I don't think we're going to get anywhere then.

Actually you're both kind of right, in the beginning German armor was not meant to fight other tanks, or really do a lot of hard fighting at all. It was most utilized as cavalry was in WWI. Get past enemy strongpoints and mess about in the rear areas. Guderian was the instigator of this tactic; he was a cavalry officer.

German AT was used to fight enemy tanks.

Later in the war, it became apparent that tanks could be countered with a mobile reserve, hence the idea that they should have some ability to destroy enemy armor, but also have some survivability against AT.

There is no doubt that the up-gunning and armoring progression of tanks in WW2 was usually a requirement to maintain parity or 1-upmanship relative to new enemy tanks. In the end though it's debatable whether heavy designs were really worth it.

 

[Invader_Canuck]

This is an easy argument to settle.

German tank design followed German war design.

Quick, effective, decisive. With that in mind German tanks were designed for short, decisive actions. It protects your crews and assets allowing their experience and quality to be a deciding factor for as long as possible.

This design philosophy is not conducive to the war Germany found itself in the USSR. Tanks eventually get knocked out, crews eventually die, experience on a crew by crew basis is lost.

If you are aiming to launch quick decisive wars, the German school is best. It allows you to more rapidly and skillfully defeat an enemy while preserving manpower. If you think it's going to be a slog. Go for mass, every time.

 

[juv95hrn]

I´m sure most of us are aware of the fact (and maybe it has been mentioned) that the prolonged use of Shermans (and less advanced tanks) was due to not only production lines but also shipping limitations. Why fx. build a new tank that could not be transported in Liberty ships or be supported by bridges in the US or Europe?

I think it will work out fine if German troops (experience, traits of leaders and new ones for units, doctrine, morale and organisation, etc.) should simulate the stubborn defensive capabilities of the Wehrmacht at the end of the war together with some decent technological units like Tigers and Panthers, even if they don't get the super-stats some excaggerated rumours would give them.

This thread shows that the designers are aware of combat abilities, doctrines and what is myth and reality as well as anyone.

 

[Vacceo]

I wonder what is going to be the policy for nations that did not produced and developed their own war machines. I mean cases such as Spain (both Rep and Nat), Portugal, Brazil...

The name of the model is, in game terms quite irrelevant as you will have a tank comparable to the proverbial T34, Panzer IV or Crusader. I just wonder what will be the aesthetics...

 

[mursolini]

I´m sure most of us are aware of the fact (and maybe it has been mentioned) that the prolonged use of Shermans (and less advanced tanks) was due to not only production lines but also shipping limitations. Why fx. build a new tank that could not be transported in Liberty ships or be supported by bridges in the US or Europe?

I think you missed Churchill. For all the talk about how "bad" and "inefficent" and "unmanuverable", slow, and unsupported by bridges heavy armor is supposed to be, Allies actually had far more heavy armor than Germans ever had.
Germans had what, 1k of Tigers and 500 Tiger2. Brinish had 7.368 Churchill, which British, somehow managed to move around. Soviets had 5.2k of KV-1, and another few thousands of IS and IS-2.
Also, let`s have a laugh, Churchill had an operational range of 90(!)km and top speed of 24km/h. Tiger is almost a Ferrari in comparison.
And yet somehow, Allies operated Churchill just fine, despite it`s enormous inferiority to Tiger or TigerII.
The thing is, American tank industry was fairly bad at the time, Sherman being their first decent design, and they made the right conclusion that they simply had to stick with it, and that shifting gears would kill their armor for long time, building some utility smaller, ligter tanks. Later after the war, generals tried to cover that up, by claiming it was their plan all along, which, looking at British and Soviets, and their own designs requirements before the start of the invasion, proves that it was not true, at all, as US did very serious work on T1 heavy, , T14, M6 and eventually M26, T29.
Americans seriously developed 57 tonne and more tanks, just failed at it, and decided to make it look like they never wanted them anyway.
In fact, most assumptions about how will armored combat turn out in Europe in 1944, were wrong for allies starting from what kind of viechles they will meet, and what tactics they will use, to what kind of AT capacity is needed. Fortunately for them, the fate of war was more or less sealed already, and it didn`t really metter what kind of armor or TDs allies would field, in the long run, other than more or less casualties to achieve the goal.

 

[keynes2.0]

You are comparing a Panther to a tank designed for a radically different role, two years earlier.

 

[Chromos]

Thats the plan.

As for Panther: I agree with Darkrenown that studies have shown that it really wasnt as amazing as claimed, but when making games we are free to ignore certain stuff and cater a bit to the legends. Lets call it the Discovery Channel Factor or Don't Crush Podcats Boyhood Dreams Factor People told stories of how awesome the Panther was and there is no reason the panther the player builds has to have a flawed drive system - because where would be the fun in that.

I'd also argue that at the end of the war the Panther was in large part used defensively where a lot of its flaws werent very apparent.

Show us that studies! And I'm sure we could rip them apart with ease.

During the battle of France, the Allied and the Axis forces were roughly even in terms of numbers. Germany had more aircraft, the Allies had more tanks and artillery, the number of troops was comparable.

During Barbarossa, if we count the troops from the whole Axis alliance used in the operation, the Axis had more men initially, that's true. However, the Soviet armoured forces outnumbered the German armoured forces severely. The VVS also dwarfed the Lufftwaffe in terms of numbers.

Yes, I wrote that above too. Also numbers in Art was 3 times as bigger as Germans. So the argument with GER outnumbering at their "victories" is a moot point.

^^^ I included Italy in the Axis numbers too vs France since they were involved before the end.



I don't think we're going to get anywhere then.

Well if you think in spheres of tanks mostly used as an Inf support role neglecting the importance to fight other tanks and so do again the error the Alied high comand did, then I hope we see us on a MP game once.

Uh, I think that you are going a bit too far here. Italian contribution was token and they got involved after 1 month of fighting, when the Allied situation was already FUBAR. Not a very convincing argument.

Agree here, Italy just joined on june 10th but onyl started fighting one day before cease fire..
Numbers ranged from 150k up to 300k french soldiers countering the attack. By that time all was decided in the north..

The "argument" was losses don't count if you are outnumbered (or therefor victories if you are the outnumberer), so only numbers matters for the sake of saying it's a bit silly.

That was not my(!) point..
My point was/is that you need to take into account how equipment worked in wich circumstances. And in the case of "bad designed" Panther, that it was used most times in situations where it was ountnumbered and was still successfull then.
While "your seen superior designs" early on had also quite better battle situations, and the later "far better designs" of western allies even more.. You already stated that Panther was good in one on one comparision. But at the same time also state that it was overall a bad design :wacko: :

It was worse than all of them in every way besides pure 1v1 tank on tank combat at range, and maybe tactical mobility if you discount reliability issues. For everything else, it was sub-par.

Again, what use has a tank if it can't survive in a tank to tank battle? Thats a logical flaw imo. A flaw wich many tankers payed with their lives in reality.

Am intersting quote maybe:

The heavy U.S. tank losses in the Battle of the Bulge against a concentrated German tank force composed of some 400 Panther tanks,[35] as well as Tiger II tanks and other German armored fighting vehicles, revealed the deficiencies in the M4 Shermans and tank destroyers on the U.S. side. The British forces armour was somewhat better equipped to deal with such a force, having adapted some Shermans to carry a more powerful 17 Pounder gun.[36][37] On 22 December 1944, while the battle still raged, the brand new T26E3 tanks were ordered to be deployed to Europe. The unexpected German tank attack had settled the question once and for all as to whether the T26 was needed. Twenty were sent in the first shipment arriving at the port of Antwerp in January

There is much more of that here and in other places http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M26_Pershing

E.g. read here for more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanks_in_the_United_States
So US started with tanks on the same lvl as germans PzI/PzII but developed quite quick up to the M4(Sherman). And also just after starting prodcution of M4 the T-20 was designed. That lead later to the M-26. So US could have had more devastating tanks with ease much earlier. Intersting read about the M-26 in the above wiki:

In combat it was, unlike the M4 Sherman, fairly equal in firepower and protection to both the Tiger I and Panther tanks but was underpowered and mechanically unreliable.

Like I said, above a certain weight, all had those problems..

Actually you're both kind of right, in the beginning German armor was not meant to fight other tanks, or really do a lot of hard fighting at all. It was most utilized as cavalry was in WWI. Get past enemy strongpoints and mess about in the rear areas. Guderian was the instigator of this tactic; he was a cavalry officer.

German AT was used to fight enemy tanks.

Later in the war, it became apparent that tanks could be countered with a mobile reserve, hence the idea that they should have some ability to destroy enemy armor, but also have some survivability against AT.

There is no doubt that the up-gunning and armoring progression of tanks in WW2 was usually a requirement to maintain parity or 1-upmanship relative to new enemy tanks. In the end though it's debatable whether heavy designs were really worth it.

No, german tanks were designed to fight tanks first, then inf.
As Germans envisoned that in a next war, tanks would have first and all to fight other tanks.
As if your tanks could fight off the other tanks, the other side could not use theirs at all.
Thats only logical thinking here. Tanks were initially used to support Inf. To counter that threat you need a similar weapon, wich is capable to survive a direct combat with the enemies tanks and is able to knock out enemies tanks at the same time.
So role of tank shifted towards an anti tank weapon. Also the german training of that time clearly showed that.
PzIII was designed to fight tanks with 37mm AT-gun and PzIV was designed to clear strongpoints with its bigger short 75mm guns where PzIII could not achieve that much.
(It was initially planned to use the 50mm long for PzIII though. But Hitler was "overruled" by Army wich saw 37mm sufficient..)
Clear as that. Three companies of PzIII one hvy comp of PzIV.. That was the plan..
The WW1 thinking of tanks being some sort of Inf support only was already dated in the aftermath of WW1. But some "old guards" didn't liked that already back then..
Patton/DeGaulle/Hart/Fuller/Triandafillov/Tukhachevsky/Guderian/Mannstein etc. were the more modern guys..
Even as all knowed that most countries already used 40mm+, nobody envisioned that a medium long 75mm in a PzIV type tank would have "rocked" the early war years.. :laugh:

 

[ladner]

The Sherman had issues, once the M4A3E2 'Jumbo' and M4A3E8 HVSS 'Easy Eight' were introduced it was a decent enough tank, likewise the Sherman Firefly was a good vehicle. So I don't understand all of this disdain for the Sherman. The biggest problem was the early choice to use the radial air-craft arrangement which resulted in a tall hull profile, which means you are a 'big target'. If anything this was the Sherman's main flaw. US doctrine had problems though, and particular General Leslie McNair's ideas on tank destroyer doctrine did not help matters. The M26 Pershing and the Comet were developed too late, it just shows that even the Allies had restraints on what they could do. The Germans due to the tank shock of the T-34 and KV-1 had no choice but to get into a significant design race for tank supremacy with the USSR.

 

[keynes2.0]

Again, what use has a tank if it can't survive in a tank to tank battle? Thats a logical flaw imo. A flaw wich many tankers payed with their lives in reality.

Oh gee, it's not like anybody's answered this question... three or four times.

 

[RELee]

I started to give a smart-alec answer and claim I was going to being a bunch of crappy panthers, but I can't. Patton loved the Sherman and swore by it. That's always been good enough for me.

 

[Lightning Jack]

E series yea

More importantly, what about if the French survive past 1940. Will I get some upgunned Somua's?

 

[Mannstien]

But it's really all for not if you have the most advanced gun, suspension, reliability, and so on if your commanders have no idea of how to employ them. Having the highest velocity gun if your doctrine is for infantry massed attacks it makes it pointless so my emphasis is a tank is only so good as how it's employed by a human regardless of faults.

 

[Poh]

I dont understand why you still argue, so i'll join the fray (much logic )

A medium tank is supposed to fill different roles or you need different medium tanks to fulfill the roles (pzIII and pzIV). The Panther was supposed to the sole medium tank in the wehrmacht which means it should be a fairly rounded tank that can fulfill many different roles. Now to the cookie analogy: If you want a round small chocolate chip cookie but get a large square chocolate cake instead. The taste might we equally as good or even better but you only fulfill one criteria that it contain chocolate. You will never agree when Darkrenown argue that a large square chocolate cake is not the small chocolate chip cookie that was needed while the rest argue that the chocolate cake is infact chocolate and tastes better and therefore it doesnt matter that its not a cookie.

I must say i agree mostly with Darkrenown even though im somewhat of a Panther fanboy. The Panther wasnt a good all around tank its a bloated tank that got too fat in development for its own good and therefore suffer from breakdowns. The germans needed a better slightly better armored pzIV with the ability to upgrade it further if the war dragged out. A medium tank doesnt really need to be able to take out all tanks as you also have planes, tank destroyers, heavy tanks for that. At the same time most tanks can be forced to be abandoned someway or another, jamming the turrentring, tracking it etc. A good example of this is the german invasion of ussr and the allied invasion in normandy. They both had the inferior medium at the time for pure tank on tank stats. Ofcourse theres a lot of "soft" stats too, targeting etc that plays a role.

 

[Mjarr]

Am intersting quote maybe:

Which also highlights concept of schwerpunkt and since we play with with hindsight, part of the success goes also to complete surprise and high concentration of force and initially chaotic and very sluggish response which favours even more such scenario even if for obvious reasons Germans had advantage in "fair" fights. Why fight like gentlemen when you can, after all, kick someone in the crotch and hit them while one is down?

 

[podcat]

A medium tank is supposed to fill different roles or you need different medium tanks to fulfill the roles (pzIII and pzIV). The Panther was supposed to the sole medium tank in the wehrmacht which means it should be a fairly rounded tank that can fulfill many different roles. Now to the cookie analogy: If you want a round small chocolate chip cookie but get a large square chocolate cake instead. The taste might we equally as good or even better but you only fulfill one criteria that it contain chocolate. You will never agree when Darkrenown argue that a large square chocolate cake is not the small chocolate chip cookie that was needed while the rest argue that the chocolate cake is infact chocolate and tastes better and therefore it doesnt matter that its not a cookie.

This analogy had me laughing over my breakfast but its pretty accurate ;D

 

[D Inqu]

I think you missed Churchill. For all the talk about how "bad" and "inefficent" and "unmanuverable", slow, and unsupported by bridges heavy armor is supposed to be, Allies actually had far more heavy armor than Germans ever had.
Germans had what, 1k of Tigers and 500 Tiger2. Brinish had 7.368 Churchill, which British, somehow managed to move around. Soviets had 5.2k of KV-1, and another few thousands of IS and IS-2.

Ehm, you do know that the "heavy" churchill was lighter than the "medium" Panther, right (and KV-1 and IS had the same weight as a panther)?And that the soviets killed the KV-1 production to allow for more T-34s.

As for actual use, the Churchill, being a very light heavy had decent ability to cross terrain. The low speed was not an issue as it was use for infantry support.