Otto

Jeff, Let him finish one game first!

I just can't let this one go...yet. In the Panther vs Tiger degate PL and Randell bring up some great points. Randell's list is a good short list of outstanding characteristics of a good tank. However, I can come up with a tank that satisfies all those characteristics listed, and will still be terrible on the battlefield. A few items you mentioned: Better power-to-weight ratio Better fuel efficiency Higher speed ( especially cross- country speed) -Granted, the Panther is superior here. All these are satisfied simply by the fact that the Panther is about 15,000 kg smaller than the Tiger. Certainly a small jeep would do better here than a huge SUV. Better mechanical reliabilty -I would say they were about the same when they sorted out the teething problems. Later models of the Pather were certianly reliable, but the early models were quite the opposite- I'm sure some of you have read about the Panther's debut at Kursk- due to engine problems, many of the Panthers broke down before reaching the battle. These issues were fixed, but never completely, as well, very late models of the Panther were notorious for their unreliability. Sloped as opposed to "flat vertical" armor -sloped armour alone does not a better tank make. The Tiger's armour was a tough nut to crack, even though it wasn't sloped, it was just darn thick! The Tiger is hands down better armoured than the Panther, especially from the sides, one of the Panther's notorious weaknesses, (the other is brittleness, I'll deal with that a little further down). A better gun -PL's tables, (thanks to achtungpanzer.com), do show better penetration rates from the Panther, but the Panther and Tiger's guns were quite comparable, the 88 of the Tiger actually had better penetration at long distances due to it's greater mass. The point for me here is that both guns could more that do their job, the Tiger and Panther's fearsome reputations attest to that. The guns more or less even out... Better optics (can't kill what you can't hit) And a less cumbersome gun-turret drive system, -I have to admit I can't comment on these much, as I am not familiar with these in either tank, but I can say that they both seemed to be adequate, as I can't recall crews complaining that these were issues, nor did it seem to impede them from effectivly killing enemy AFV's Back to my rant: Mobile warfare is the role of any tank. I'm just saying that the Tiger was more likely to kill tanks and survive than the Panther. I recall a story where a Tiger took over 200 hits and travelled 40 miles to get repaired. Anecdotes aside, I think the best people to comment on Tigers and Panther are those that drove them, and those who fought against them: Words from an American tanker, (Tanks or WW2 documentary): "The Panther was definetely more suited to any operation where mobility was required, and the sloped armor was an advantage. I would say, however, that although the Tigers armor was not sloped, the thickness could stop most impacts. And here's something else- only a theory- Panthers were ainly made later than Tigers... And as the war progressed, the quality of materials the germans were getting to build their vehicles was decreasing. I wonder if the steel used to make Tiger armor was of a higher quality than that used for the Panther?" Going back to the armour question - (the US tanker was right!), I read quite recently that the Panther's armour could be quite 'brittle' due to the way it was cast. I have seen photos of knocked-out Panthers in the Ardennes where the shell-holes are quite jagged. Apparently the Tiger utilised a different type of armour which was less liable to 'break'. Taken from (Thomas Jentz' Tiger I website) "The armour used on the Tiger I was highest-quality rolled nickel-steel with a 'Brinell Hardness Index' rating of 255-260. This was apparently some of the best quality armour used during the war. The Panther armour was of lesser quality - presumably because the designers hoped that the sloping-effect would offset this weakness. But this did mean that Panther armour could 'shatter' from some hits." This perhaps explains why Tigers were so eagerly sought after by scrap metal merchants after the war. For what its worth, if I had to go to war in one of them, I would trust the judgement of Otto Carius who said that the Tiger was number one, as did Wittmann, (the highest scoring tank ace of all time). Both are great tanks, but if I had to choose, put me in a Tiger. One last point, the German army would put its highest scoring tank aces into Tigers, not Panthers. Doesn't it seems that the German army thought the Tiger was "just better" as well? *PHEW*

IE, Yeah, I hear that from a lot of women too! BTW, I'm pretty sure it is 4 out of 5 stars, not bad at all. [ July 24, 2002, 01:42 AM: Message edited by: Otto ]

PL, I must give credit to you. Instead of posting a question that had been asked several times, you did a search and found your answer, and in doing so did your small part in reducing the verbal clutter lying around the SC Forums. Cheers!

I have to agree with Scott Udell, the AI is one of the features that I find to be a strong point with this game. Whatever "fuzzy logic" means I don't know, but I do know I have lost a great many units that I left unprotected or insufficiently supplied because of it. The AI repeatedly punishes me for my mistakes. :confused: No AI is perfect, and I'm not saying that this one is, but I have played a LOT of wargames, and this AI is one of the best I have come against. I can't disagree with what Tom Chick says in his Gamespot review, after all it is solely one man's opinion and one can't refute another person's perception, but I was truly surprised to see him being so hard on the AI. I have found that the AI adapts well to counter my strategies, and is quite audacious on attack, (I have been on the wrong end of my fair share of Operation Overlord). Personally I find the AI strong enough to give me a good run for victory, and certainly strong enough to make me come back for more.

FYI, a list of all SC related reviews and previews can be seen here: http://ww2n.com/schq/revs.htm If you see a review and want to know if others have spotted it yet, take a look at the site. If you see a review that is not on that list, by all means email me and let me know.

PL, Just a few points. The Tiger was a heavy battle tank, (59000kg). It ruled the battlefield for over two years when it was introduced. Allied tankers were never fond of any German tank, but they were terrified of the Tiger, NOT the panther. The panther was designed as a medium battle tank, (43000kg), this would account for the better fuel consumption, higher speed, longer range. It was intended to be a cheap answer to the Russian T34. Comparing the two just isn't fair, the Tiger has an uneven advantege in so many ways. The true greatness of the panther was that it had such great killing power and defensive capability desite the fact that it was a relatively cheap medium tank. This as compared to the expensive and massive Tiger. This means that you could field more panthers as compared to tigers if you spent the same number of Reichsmarks, but one on one the Tiger would come out on top. The Panther was a superior tank technically for all the reasons you listed, but the Tiger was simply better. I love armour.

That's exactly it, but as Wolfpack said, you can pass through if you reduce the port. I have a few things that might solve your gibraltar issue. The basics: Gibraltar is only about 5 square miles total, but it is all one massive rock. Assaulting this would be extremely difficult. The British have held it now for over 650 years, (I looked it up), and no one has ever come close to capturing it desite many attempts to do so. The strait is only about 15 kilometers wide, and very shallow, so ships cannot maneuver much at all in the strait, and getting even tiny vessels through is difficult. On even bad days, you can see across the strait, and ships passign through are easy to see, even at night because light on either side of the strait will silouette the vessel. Radar would make detection much easier. BTW, any WW2 era vessel could easily fire shells 20 kilometers. If a vessel were cruising down the center of the strait, it would be only 7.5km from the shore battery,... suicide. The port of Gibralter was always full of destroyers and torpedo boats, and often had heavier vessels, ready to attack any hostile traffic. Not to mention the small airfield where a few aircraft, performed both recon and anti-shipping functions. In short, no force would ever make it through Gibraltar, it's too narrow, too shallow and too well defended to do so. And bringing a large force to attack it is impossible due to the layout of the naval base. Take a look: http://history.acusd.edu/cdr2/WW2Pics2/81834.jpg You have to get your ships partially throught the strait to attack it, not bloody likely. It was only realistic to capture it from the rear, by a land assault. That's what happens when you use Axis and Allies as your a source on military history. A little joke, I love A&A and I play it often. [ July 21, 2002, 09:14 PM: Message edited by: Otto ]

I don't think it really matters which tank goes first, but the Panther was not a better tank than the Tiger. The tiger did however show up on the battlefield before the Panther.

What difficulty did you play, axis -2?

DW, I've put you on my icq list, I'll talk to you soon.

They will work, this is not my opinion, but fact. [ July 21, 2002, 02:03 AM: Message edited by: Otto ]

Anyone familiar with the word "tact"? Has anyone who finds a bug considered emailing the problem directly to Fury Software instead of posting it here, it is what I would do.

now available on my site

double post, ignore this.. [ July 19, 2002, 09:34 PM: Message edited by: Otto ]

double post ignore this... [ July 19, 2002, 09:34 PM: Message edited by: Otto ]

I download fine, (175 KB/sec), must be your connection, sorry to hear it. Randell, I put my time in too, I played the original Castle Wolfenstein game, the B/W version, (NOT Wolf3D). [ July 19, 2002, 09:35 PM: Message edited by: Otto ]

It's out?!?! DAMN! Can't we wait a little longer? Maybe another week? I have enjoyed this forum so much I'm going to miss you all so much!

Waggs, thanks for the tip, Is this the "webmaster backpack" chat client or am I out to lunch on this?

My pleasure gentlemen. I'm glad to help out Immer Etwas, I know it can be difficult when you start out, but like you said half the battle is overcoming tentativeness. Thanks everyone for the comments on the fansite, but honestly, I'm doing as much for myself as you guys.

A couple of weeks ago I had a request to post a short tutorial on modding the SC game art. I just posted the tutorial on my site, you can get there by visiting the graphics mod section of the SCHQ. I also added links to all the interviews, reviews, previews and game development updates. Take a look. [ July 14, 2002, 08:26 PM: Message edited by: Otto ]

No I'm sure they are not working hard. Game programmers are all very lazy people. I bet they are all drunk and laughing at us that we don't have the game. I bet there is not even a game, this is just a cruel joke to toy with our sensibilities. Damn Battlefront, Damn Furysoft those cruel bastards. [ July 12, 2002, 05:34 PM: Message edited by: Otto ]

Great, we will be in touch.

fire me an email, it is on my homepage in my profile, lets work something out Whatever case does, I'm going to have a ladder on my site too, [ July 11, 2002, 06:42 AM: Message edited by: Otto ]

SuperTed, thanks, FREE is a great deal! Gorski, I am completely ignorant about how to set up a ladder, but I'm willing to try.