Aragorn2002 Posted March 9, 2021 Share Posted March 9, 2021 (edited) 3 hours ago, chuckdyke said: @Lethaface we make our judgements in regards which tank came closest to the MBT concept of postwar Europe. 3 tanks shined in that regards during WW 2. The German Panther, The T34/85 and the Sherman Easy Eight with the 76 mm Gun. The unreliability and complexity of the Panther wouldn't make it my choice out of those three. I would probably go for the T-34/85. The number of runners in Panther units only reached an acceptable level in the last year of the war. Edited March 9, 2021 by Aragorn2002 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckdyke Posted March 9, 2021 Share Posted March 9, 2021 (edited) 21 minutes ago, Aragorn2002 said: The unreliability and complexity of the Panther wouldn't make it my choice out of those three. I would probably go for the T-34/85. The number of runners in Panther units only reached an acceptable level in the last year of the war. I would go with the Easy 8 Sherman came to that conclusion after visiting the Korean war Museum in Seoul. It performed better than the Pershing in many aspects and the US crews had better training than the North Koreans in the T34/85. You're correct with the Panther it was rushed but that didn't make it a bad tank. Tanks nowadays are MBT's mostly. These 3 tanks came close to that concept. I like always to play British or German whether it is WW 2 or Shockforce. The reason I wait with Cold War till they expand it. I would suggest the North German plain is more strategic. The Hansa League cities went from Antwerp all the way to Gdansk. Gdansk started the 2nd World War and there began the first stage of failure for the Soviet Union. In the Netherlands Delfzijl, Emden, and Hamburg. There is where the British ended World War 2. it stopped the Soviets moving into Jutland. For the Cold War it would make an excellent scenario. Edited March 9, 2021 by chuckdyke 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Probus Posted March 11, 2021 Share Posted March 11, 2021 I can't remember if someone asked this question already. Is fire and rubble going to have the Gun Tractor for the 88mm FLAK? (Sd.Kfz.7 or SS10?) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waffelmann Posted March 11, 2021 Share Posted March 11, 2021 Is it in the vehicle list of the web page? If not I don't think so... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Probus Posted March 11, 2021 Share Posted March 11, 2021 1 hour ago, waffelmann said: Is it in the vehicle list of the web page? If not I don't think so... I was hoping it was under an unfamiliar name, but I don't see it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vacillator Posted March 11, 2021 Share Posted March 11, 2021 (edited) 6 hours ago, Probus said: 88mm FLAK As an experiment to see how long setup was for the 88 Flak (and just to play with it) I just tried to set up a QB with it. After some searching I found them in the Heavy Flak units of the Armored Infantry, and impressive they are. They do however seem to set up fully deployed and 'static' with no limbering option? If so, there is no need for the Sdkfz 7 to tow it . Edited March 11, 2021 by Vacilllator 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Probus Posted March 12, 2021 Share Posted March 12, 2021 18 hours ago, Vacilllator said: They do however seem to set up fully deployed and 'static' with no limbering option? If so, there is no need for the Sdkfz 7 to tow it . Yeah... I knew that. That was why I wanted a Sdkfz 7. So we could limber an 88mm. So the 88mm models would have to be updated also to allow limbering. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vacillator Posted March 12, 2021 Share Posted March 12, 2021 1 hour ago, Probus said: Yeah... I knew that. That was why I wanted a Sdkfz 7. So we could limber an 88mm. So the 88mm models would have to be updated also to allow limbering. It would be a good addition and okay for longer battles I think. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aragorn2002 Posted March 12, 2021 Share Posted March 12, 2021 18 minutes ago, Vacilllator said: It would be a good addition and okay for longer battles I think. Well, when we go to Norh Africa we simply must have them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waffelmann Posted March 12, 2021 Share Posted March 12, 2021 Ok, my vacation has started, I would have time now.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AttorneyAtWar Posted March 12, 2021 Share Posted March 12, 2021 *Cough* 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waffelmann Posted March 12, 2021 Share Posted March 12, 2021 I am still ready! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vacillator Posted March 12, 2021 Share Posted March 12, 2021 Ich auch. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waffelmann Posted March 12, 2021 Share Posted March 12, 2021 Fein! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artkin Posted March 12, 2021 Share Posted March 12, 2021 (edited) On 3/8/2021 at 7:36 PM, Lethaface said: Yes but any improvement after the fact doesn't really have validity in discounting what was the best tank of WW2. On 3/9/2021 at 4:30 AM, Lethaface said: Anyway, just thought that your mention of the performance during the Sinai conflict wasn't relevant for that argument On 3/8/2021 at 7:08 PM, chuckdyke said: That a tank is good in a PC game doesn't mean it is good in real life. JS III in the Sinai vs Israeli Shermans in 1956. Guess which tank came out on top it was not the JS III. Both tanks were an improvement on the WW II counterparts. That wasn't even what he was saying. He was off on a tangent. Tanks are not exactly as they are in video games. Hello? Anyways I would have easily said the panther tank for #1. That giant aspect ratio high velocity gun. That was the tank to do it. As for the IS-2... it's trash. Lackluster armor, and as said - a field gun on tracks. What's the point of having a turret? You really think the 122mm is going to penetrate anything that moves? Lmao. There's a reason the soviets threw the 100mm on their mbts.... I can't wait for the SU-100 holy crap. That mofo is gonna punch a hole right through both sides of a panther.. Edited March 12, 2021 by Artkin 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vacillator Posted March 13, 2021 Share Posted March 13, 2021 (edited) Our friend is often off on a tangent but that isn't a criticism. Well yes, I do like a Panther. But, IS2 is not an easy opponent - a cautious approach is required . The SU-100 is of course something to be very cautious of . Edited March 13, 2021 by Vacilllator 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymous_Jonze Posted March 13, 2021 Share Posted March 13, 2021 36 minutes ago, Artkin said: That wasn't even what he was saying. He was off on a tangent. Tanks are not exactly as they are in video games. Hello? Anyways I would have easily said the panther tank for #1. That giant aspect ratio high velocity gun. That was the tank to do it. As for the IS-2... it's trash. Lackluster armor, and as said - a field gun on tracks. What's the point of having a turret? You really think the 122mm is going to penetrate anything that moves? Lmao. There's a reason the soviets threw the 100mm on their mbts.... I can't wait for the SU-100 holy crap. That mofo is gonna punch a hole right through both sides of a panther.. Um... Trash? Really? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artkin Posted March 13, 2021 Share Posted March 13, 2021 21 minutes ago, Vacilllator said: Our friend is often off on a tangent but that isn't a criticism. Well yes, I do like a Panther. But, IS2 is not an easy opponent - a cautious approach is required . The SU-100 is of course something to be very cautious of . Agreed. I was talking smack about how bad azz the german armor is around here but that will change once F&R is out. Lol. Everything that doesnt have 150mm+ is getting penetrated. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artkin Posted March 13, 2021 Share Posted March 13, 2021 14 minutes ago, Anonymous_Jonze said: Um... Trash? Really? It's trash bro, throw it out. It's a 46 ton heavy tank that fails to medium tanks, its armor isnt anything special on top of having an over complicated glacias. It carries 28 rounds of low velocity ammunition that depends more on M than V to destroy its targets. The reload time is god awful. I'm really not a fan. The panther is 43 tons, has similar armor arranged in a significantly simpler design... it carries 80 rounds of ammunition fired from a similar performing gun (in regards to penetration capability within 1500m). Panther is way faster in every regard. The IS-2 is just bad. Still gonna play with it though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AttorneyAtWar Posted March 13, 2021 Share Posted March 13, 2021 (edited) Its important to remember that the IS-2 was designed as a breakthrough tank first, its meant to reduce enemy fortifications primarily and then it also has the ability to engage tanks if it has to. Edited March 13, 2021 by AttorneyAtWar 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckdyke Posted March 13, 2021 Share Posted March 13, 2021 It is pairing. Bunkers with HMG's inside yes, a few IS2 will take care of them. Panthers counter attack the IS2's can defend themselves for a while. Better pair the Panthers with company of T34/85 (quantity is a quality). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymous_Jonze Posted March 13, 2021 Share Posted March 13, 2021 14 minutes ago, Artkin said: It's trash bro, throw it out. It's a 46 ton heavy tank that fails to medium tanks, its armor isnt anything special on top of having an over complicated glacias. It carries 28 rounds of low velocity ammunition that depends more on M than V to destroy its targets. The reload time is god awful. I'm really not a fan. The panther is 43 tons, has similar armor arranged in a significantly simpler design... it carries 80 rounds of ammunition fired from a similar performing gun (in regards to penetration capability within 1500m). Panther is way faster in every regard. The IS-2 is just bad. Still gonna play with it though. Ha. Yes the gun reload is pretty slow. Guess I'm still reeling from my King Tiger platoon getting knocked out by them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E5K Posted March 13, 2021 Share Posted March 13, 2021 So many pros and cons. For the best combination of fire power , mobility and armor I have to say Panther. I dont think any heavy tank can be in the running for best tank. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Placebo Posted March 13, 2021 Share Posted March 13, 2021 (edited) “best combination of fire power , mobility and armor”. That is the holy trinity of tank design, however for world war 2 I think you have to add ease of manufacture and complexity of the design/reliability. For me the Panther 1 on 1 with any other tank probably comes out on top but add in the the time it took to manufacture and that it was a complex machine prone to breakdowns then it’s T34/85 1st, Sherman 76 2nd and panther down to 3rd place. Edited March 13, 2021 by Placebo 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aragorn2002 Posted March 13, 2021 Share Posted March 13, 2021 To awake one morning, checking your e-mail to discover that Fire and Rubble is FINALLY available... 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.