K_Tiger

I`m not sure where i read it, but it was a interview with Bobby Woll (Wittmans Gunner) who sayd, that he allways pre adjusted his gun to 800m.

Hi Mattias, I didn’t say there was no influences at all, im only every time afraid, when a thread started with "what was the best Tank in WWII" or similar, and someone comes up with somefink like "...look here, without the t-34, there was no way to build a Panther", and that’s nonsense. The most influences came from the own made practices from earlier "VK" projects and from the thousands of German Tanks who were involved in battles in Poland/French/and Russia. This always brought up influences from T-34 on the Panther is in my eyes way overrated. I wouldn’t say anything if Daimler hade got the contract, but it wasn’t so. Indeed, the Daimler Concept was heavenly influenced by the T-34 design, but maybe more to take the attraction from Hitler…but this bullet seemed to left the barrel to the wrong side… Its like i put always drawings out from Me-107/109 when someone comes up with how good their Spitfires/P-51/Il`s are, or from Submarines...ect. but i dont do it. I hope i made my point of view a bit more clear. Greets TC PS: No, i dont need to show you the opposite. I mean, all Historians start waving with this Prototype (Who hase nothing to do with the endproduct Panther) and i thought this is doubtful. Maybe someone can heal my ignoranz..

You can call it like you want "influenced"... so all Tanks are influenced bye the first tanks from 1916... What i hate is, wen someone put out the drawings from one single Prototype from one Companie with a similiar shape from a T-34 who never got in production state to call the better design "influenced" or a "copy"....really, doesnt matter how you call it. I stand in front of both tanks and beside the back layered front plate, nothing lead me to the conclusion, the Panther were a follower design from the T-34. Every nation tried to made their tanks inpennetrable for the ennemy guns and vice versa...if you call this influencing...its debatable. In my opinnion, the Panther was a result to build a base for a bigger gun, the bad ground conditions in the east, an easier Plattform for further Projekts (like JPanther)to put a bigger engine in a Tank, ect. So far..

I read long time ago that a WWII diesel tank engine needed up to 5 minutes for a properly start....but i can`t swear on it... What does the truck fleet have to do with the tank development? Sure, the Germans were able to build diesel Engines, but not with the power to move 50 tonns and up around. Diesel hase its plus in full consumption...but who knows how the german tank design went, if they hade known the future.

-K_Tiger Quite the contrary, according to achtungpanzer Message edited for clarity and format and to see if I could add a picture </font>

I dont think the Panther has anything to do with the T-34 and of course it wasnt a reaction to it. Before the Panther appeared, there were allready PzIV and Stug longs around plus severly Tigers who hade no problems with anything the russians fielded. The Tale, that the Pather was a copy of the T-34 comes from the first Prototype the Germans made, where they put the turret to the front comparable to the T-34 design. But was imediatly abandoned due to the stepp back in Tank design and for the fact that the tank gets to be nose heavy. Can you too give a hint how better the T-34 Chassis was to the Panther one? If you are able to made a similiar in size Diesel Engine with the same power charakteristics like a petrol engine.... you can come back and complain again. Not to mention the fact, that the rest of the german Tank-Fleet runned also on Petrol.....so far to the complication.

It was more a "Bring as mutch men to the front..." to avoid a bigger revolt in the back of the army and of course in the "Reich".

A FOV = Field of View where all Objects are highlighted in your sight line.

Thats a Museeum? Its a shame in which bad shape some of the tanks are in.

Mine too.. At the moment, my Feldwebel gave me the Granade, i was thinking by myself: "How would he react, if i throw it straigt up in the air....?) Not so many ways to find cover... Even if there are some accounts with grenade exploding in front of some soldiers without a casuality... i dont want to be to near a exploding grenade. They are damn loud, and if i say loud, i mean totaly noisily.

I`ll hope CMX will give us a other Soldier Model. I dont want to play abstractions anymore. I though, the Stick-Grenade have some pros compared to egg`s. They do not bounce off so easy from hard surfaces and eighter not roll away. I think too, that grandes should have more effect in closed Buildings and in Trenches. Also, i belive, a grenade-thrower would aim in first place at the most valuable target a group of ennemys and not at single soldiers.

You need a lot of men to "schieben" a Tank...

Long time ago i saw a documentation about a travel from a 88`crew to her old fighting places. The one i remember, they sayed uni sono, for Time fuzed Projectils 6 per minute. Rate of fire is more sumfink for arty peaces... where you have to spit out a lot of bullets in a short time period, or for AA guns. Targeting is more importand and thus the first bullet. If you do not destroy your target whithin the first 3-5 bulletts, your are in serios trouble, nontheless you are able to put out 20 bullets per minute.

[qoute]Mine, and that of the official history of Germany in the war, Das deutsche Reich und der zweite Weltkrieg, Band. VI 'Der Globale Krieg'. Just in case mine is not good enough for you.</font>

Ok..your opinnion. Sounds easy...but the small, little thing, that tanks rolling out of those tank factorys..would made me a bit jerkily. Thats right, the 6th wasn`t in her best shape...but propably with some reinforcements from France... but AH was so self-assuredly. The Murmansk line was attacked, Afaik, by 6 Divisions divided in 3 Parts 3x2. I belive only one of this three reached the target but was then repulsed. If the Germans had put them together they became able to cut off the line. Oh they did, but they reached only the outskirts...wasnt there an incident where a Officer drove some miles with the streetcar into the City? [/QB]</font>

There was no way the Germans could have taken Moscow in 1942. In any case, what would they have wanted there? They were even incapable of taking Leningrad, despite attempting to do so. All they got was Sevastopol. And so what if the Germans had taken Stalingrad? What would that have changed? Chuikov would not have written his memoirs, and what else? </font>

@Feldtrompeter Hehe.. a Sturmtiger with Wolfram ammo?? What do you want to sink with it...the Iowa??..

I disagree. I don't think Germans had particularly good chances to win, and they were already lucky to have Stalin make some serious blunders during Barbarossa. But good luck doesn't equal good chance. Starting earlier would still have forced them to stop for supplies, meanwhile at least Finland would not have been prepared. </font>

Cheerio Dandelion </font>

The Germans hade a good chance if they have started Barbarossa 6 weeks earlier and not helped the italians with the greeks. Second mistake was not to take Moskow as primari target, like the most higher ranked Officers wanted. Thats nearly two Month of good weather who was later badly missed. Im convinced it was a great chance to conquer Moskow. If Moskow falls, the biggest logistic Center in Western Russia would make the different. Also a Big faktor was the secret contract between Russia and the cowardly Japanese. Whitout the eastern forces...they hade hardly a chance to defend Moskow not to mention the following winter operation. Not to capture Leningrad with the first attack...was also a giant point against the germans. I think it was more a matter of time and operational mistakes than Lend-Lease or the resources the Russian fielded. Too i think the biggest ennemy for the germans was AH himself this little wannabe Napoleon. I belive also, that it was a light chance in 42`to win if the main target would have been Moskow insteed of Stalingrad. Even in Stalingrad it was possible to win there. But the relativ low pressure on the town in the beginning and the denying from AH to free more troops from France (there was 39 Divisions for refitting and for a surely awaited Invasion). 9/10 of Stalingrad was allready in German hands....a higher ranked Officer sayed " We needed two elite or four med. Divisions to own the complete Town...nothing more". The loss of the experienced 6th Army and the 4. panzer Korps from Hoth....hurted alot and a recover was nearly impossible.

For what?? I doesnt have the time and plus, i dont need to turn into a Historian to participate in such a discussion. I would not certainly have interfered, with my limited English abilities, if I would not consider your idea so principle wrong. From where you got the average?? But of course, you come close. I didnt say, this should only concerns the germans...the allies lost also Tanks who never fought or saw an ennemy tank, so put it out of your calculation. In the Nature of Tank-Doktrien, even if the germs hade worser Tanks, no Tigers, no Panthers...the overall stats would be also on their side. The german Tanks where mostly ordered to engage ennemy Tanks...more often than on the other side. Better to drop those Vehikels as to put all produced in..thats totaly nonsens. This doesnt tell us nothing about the effectivnes of something... Not that it really interessts me..if a Tiger hase a ratio from 1.1 or 50.1. did you consider sometimes, that it wasnt always fair in Battle?. Maybe it happend that Tiger formations met a battalion of light tanks...do we give those Tigers only a half Kill because of their gaimeynes? Its like the Thread about effectivnes of Infantrie... it only works when bouth sides have the same conditions, like in a Football Match. Fact is: The fewer the Vehikels that saw combat, the higher the effectivnes from each participating Tank that fought the ennemy Tanks. Again....your idea makes sense, if a Tiger made only one Kill and then was shot by an ennemy Tank...than it fits...but otherwise...not. A los of a Tank without participation of an hostile Tank doesnt tell me his abilities for further victories. Nothing. But if you doesnt understand my above explanation, than i dont know. If you really whant the Tank vs. Tank comparison you need the number of Tanks who fought each other...a Tiger who battled only infantry doesnt leads you to the right results. There is also no reason to put those named Tanks in a Tank vs. Tank debate. Sounds like the Allies didnt field At-Systems? Wasnt the biggest Tank battles, At wise, in favor of the Allies? At Kursk, the Germans throw her own Mines in front of their Tanks, to made it a bit more excitingly? Please, remain essentially and measuring not with different ratings. Heavy Paks?? 24.000 from your numbers are 75mm. 11.000 should be 88`Flaks but the most of those were used in the home defense. 1.000 88`s became used on Submarines. Not to mention the Costal defenses, usage on Trains, in Fortifications...scattered on the hole Kontinent. Your Production figures sounded powerfully, but the reality looks a bit different. Those over 30.000 IL2`s doesnt dropped Flowers, particularly on retreating convoys, gun emplacements..ect., dont forget those thounds of tactical Bombers the western Allieds fielded also not forgetting the outstanding aerial recconisation helped alot to disable those dug in guns. Why dont you write it earlier? Now we have it...or is this again a produktion versus produktion statistik?? Seems you doesnt re-read your own postings, the only one who clasps on one side, are you. Did i found the first who knows more about the deep nature of the Germans....? </font>

@JasonC Its totaly wrong to take the overall german Vehikel Produktion into your example. The overall losses due to Allied Arty, Air, Paks and Mines, was mutch higher as turned around, particularly after mid 43`. You can take out of your calculation all those german At-Assets who are never met an ennemy Tank face by face....this includes Partisan actions, abandoned Vehikels due to fuell shortages, mechanical breakdowns, overrunning...self destructing..ect. not to mention the losses due to Weather conditions in the cold/mud period. The No.1 question is: How many German Tanks/any At-assets were responsibly for the kills of allied Tanks...of it I cannot read anything in your text, in addition, much text, no force of expression. Bring in a new calculation with actually combat ready tanks who possibly met and fougth against each other.... maybe than you will find a positiv result.

150mm Inf gun in CMBB with over 550 mens killed. A heavy MG (German) with 162 Kills - i still have a screenshot from it...looks awesome...burning Tanks and lots of dead Infs around...

Where is the fun in modern battles?? Always to see the "Target-Chance-Indikator" between 98-100% Who wants to play with the mighty USA against third world Country`s equipet with second world material? Same with ultra modern stuff... its like to play with extra ordinary komplete Fog of War.... against " We know what you have eat yesterday...."

PPSh too long? Have you ever held one? Heavy? Not with the stick magazine. Again, it is all relative. As for extended range, what are we talking about - 100 metres more? How often would the weapon really be used at ranges beyond 200 metres or so? I understand SMG units were a peculiarity of Russian organization but were they really utilizing that extra range in any really practical terms? Weren't SMG companies coupled with tank companies? As for unintended fire when dropped - the same was said of the Sten. Best solution - don't drop the gun. I suppose they were also prone to shooting your best friend when inadvertently aimed at his head and the trigger was inadvertently pulled. </font>