Stuart/ Puma and Armor Category

[Ken Talley]

I have been playing some PBEM's and have noticed that players rarely purchase certain vehicles. Typically in a meeting engagement, there are a limited number of points for vehicles and armor. Certain vehicles such as the Lynx and Stuart are included as armor yet are much closer in value to M-8's, Pumas and Daimlers in capability (which are included in the vehicle category). The end result is that I have never seen a Stuart in a PBEM and definitely haven't bought one. When I spend points on armor, I spend them on vehicles with significant guns capable of taking out primary enemy armor or with substantial anti-infantry capability. The 37mm of a Stuart or the light gun of a Lynx just aren't worth the limited points of the armor category. The Stuart and Lynx are definitely tanks but seem closer to AC's rather than tanks. Any chance we can have them switched to the vehicle category rather than armor category. I have seen tons of Daimlers, M-8's and Pumas but never Stuarts(UK or US) and Lynx's in PBEM's. I would certainly like to purchase a Stuart... :>)

Thanks,

Ken

[This message has been edited by Ken Talley (edited 08-26-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Ken Talley (edited 08-26-2000).]

[Formerly Babra]

I'm playing a pbem using a platoon of Stuarts. They're all dead though...

------------------

Sounds like 100% weapons-grade bolonium to me.

[TP_Bomber]

Im in a PBEM right now where I bought 3 of the Lynx tanks. They were just tearing up my opponents infantry. One of them took out my opponents Hellcat with a frontal shot. I lost one outright on a dumb move by using him as a scout without infantry support. One zook and it was bye bye Lynx. They are great little tanks if used right. Just keep them away from the heavy armor unless you can get them around for a rear shot.

[Abbott]

I had great success with my Stuarts yesterday. I even had one take out a MkIVg with its third frontal hit! Final tallies Stuart a. 2-251/1 2-234/1 12 inf. casualties. Stuart b. 4 251’s 1MkIVg 1-Puma 3 Inf. Casualties. Needless to say I was very pleased.

Gene McCoy, an old friend who was an Armor company commander in Normandy and Germany. Mentioned to me that his primary use of them was to drive them through the front line areas, stealthily or using their speed and to shoot up the rear areas of the combat units his company was opposing. Saying “ A platoon of Stuarts wreaks great havoc on an enemy Headquarters”.

[Ken Talley]

Agree they are definitely great vehicles. But why not buy Greyhounds or Pumas or Daimlers or 251/9's from the vehicle category instead of using armor points on Stuarts or Lynx's.

Ken

[chrisl]

Fully tracked vehicles (like Stuarts) can go over things that Greyhounds can't. I've destroyed Panthers (yes plural) with Stuarts. Admittedly it was against the AI, but it was with a good bait and ambush move, rather than a suicidal tank rush.

[M Hofbauer]

A Tiger is clearly a tank and a halftrack is a support AFV, but there is a grey area between "armor" and "support" into which many vehicles fall.

Namely the Lynx, the Puma, the Wasp, and the T-8; the Rams.

The Stuart is obviously a tank , albeit a light one. Still it's 37mm is more than enough for most engagements, and the combat value of the Stuart is correctly represented in the points value of this vehicle which costs as much as a sherman.

The Luchs (btw people it's LUCHS not Lynx, it is only Lynx when translated into english; you're not saying Rhino for the Nashorn, either) is a very light tank derived from the original Pz II, arguably a tank.

The T-8 is the questionable Stuart conversion with the turret removed. Still, it can be compared to the Luchs in so far as it is a recon version of a tank.

The Puma is yet another recon vehicle that is by all definitions a light tank except the fact that it is wheeled.

The Wasp flamer is a conversion from the Bren carrier. Even the Bren machine gun carrier itself could be seen as a light tank in the class of the early Pz I, however you might as well classify it as a transport vehicle modified to carry a MG. The Wasp has a flamethrower instead of a machine gun much like the Flammhetzer has a flamer in place of the main gun. Main difference: the wasp can be bought without infringing on the precious armor budget.

Lastly, the Ram. Shermans w/o their turrets. They still retain the considerable hull armor of the basic sherman, so you have a turretless tank, yet again this vehicle can be bought using cheap support points.

I think the decision to put a certain vehicle into one category or another is one where there isn't only one coreect solution; BTS decided to do it as they felt correct, and overall their decision seems sound.

[chrisl]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

The T-8 is the questionable Stuart conversion with the turret removed. Still, it can be compared to the Luchs in so far as it is a recon version of a tank.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The T-8 can be wicked deadly to light armor and field guns. It's a speedy little bugger, and can buzz past most german light armor and perforate it with that M2 before they even realize that they need to rotate the turret. Play grunto (or one of his scenarios) some time if you want a demonstration.

[M Hofbauer]

thanks chrisl,

but really I don'tneed tosee it - my experiences with the T-8 have gotten to a point where pne of my PBEM opponents will call any use of T-8 gamey, even though I make sure I never use more of 2 of those.

They race around the enemy rear like crazy, ripping up every thin-skined armor until they run out of ammo, and then they are luring Panzerschrecks into firing which will only miss and reveal their position; or when you place a Bazooka on them, which btw looks dastardly funny , you have a AT weapon that when used in pairs can take out any isolated german heavy armor by zooming around it, making it buttton up with the 50cal, and placing a pair of zooks at it's ass (this is all 1.03).

ok, it is NOT a wonder weapon, but I agree with you it can be very effective, it can create hell of an annoyance for the opponent (or yourself depending on who is evil *g*) and considering it'sprice and the fact that only very very few of these were actually built their use can easily be viewed as gamey.

[Vanir]

Every time I purchase units as German I find myself wishing Lynx were in vehicle catagory. I think they are a better bang for the buck unit than Pumas. Unfortunately, 2 Lynxes means one less Mark IV or StuG 42. On the other hand I always have extra vehicle points left over.

[guachi]

Hofbauer, If you insist on calling all German vehicles by their German names, do you also refer to all Japanese equipment by their Japanese names?

Jason

[Guest grunto]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

...- my experiences with the T-8 have gotten to a point where pne of my PBEM opponents will call any use of T-8 gamey, even though I make sure I never use more of 2 of those. They race around the enemy rear like crazy, ripping up every thin-skined armor until they run out of ammo, and then they are luring Panzerschrecks into firing which will only miss and reveal their position; or when you place a Bazooka on them, which btw looks dastardly funny , you have a AT weapon that when used in pairs can take out any isolated german heavy armor by zooming around it, making it buttton up with the 50cal, and placing a pair of zooks at it's ass (this is all 1.03).

ok, it is NOT a wonder weapon, but I agree with you it can be very effective, it can create hell of an annoyance for the opponent (or yourself depending on who is evil *g*) and considering it'sprice and the fact that only very very few of these were actually built their use can easily be viewed as gamey.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've sort of moved away from T8s to Jeep .50s. They carry a half squad but are faster, with the same ammo. They certainly don't take any kind of fire though. They are more realistic. I was looking at a web page where the organic small unit of the American cavalry was 6 jeep .50s, with 3 greyhounds, loaded with infantry and 60mm mortars. I find this to be a very effective team. Then there is the M8 HMC which I represent either with an on-board presence or by a 75-mm F0.

In any case I'll agree that the Jeep .50 is probably more realistic to use than the T8.

The 'bazooka T8 riders' is a great tactic in any event.

To counter American fast vehicle threats I like to bring German towed guns on Sdkfz7s or Kubelwagens. I'm starting to think that the 'next level' beyond fast armored cars, tanks, and halftracks is the towed gun.

A nest of those doing flank protection sure will give any American fast vehicle incursion a good challenge.

What I tend to forget as well is that infantry ultimately wins or loses most of these battles, so the vehicles must be used with keeping the infantry alive in mind. So before I do a vehicle rush I ask myself, 'how does the infantry fit in with the expected results of this move?'

Andy

[M Hofbauer]

Jason/guachi,

not sure what you mean. really.

as for the japanese tanks, I am not even aware that there would be other names known for their tanks than the (admitedly transcribed) japanese names, HA-GO, CHI-HA and what not...

I think that evil equipment should be named by it's original evil name, in evilese, so that any casual observer is not mistaken about it's evil nature.

In return, I will not call those frickin' canuck APCs "Känguruhs" either, deal?

[This message was almost edited by an accidentally passing-by diarrhoea bacterium (almost edited 08-27-2000).]

[M Hofbauer]

"A nest of those doing flank protection sure will give any American fast vehicle incursion a good challenge."

Andy,

no, that's exactly the point about the T-8, a 2cm FlaK nest does NOT help **** against the T-8, as they are rather well armored. Even the fabulous 3,7cm FlaK has it's problems with that li'l bugger.

[This message has not been edited yet. Sorry. (not edited 08-27-2000).]

[Guest grunto]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

"A nest of those doing flank protection sure will give any American fast vehicle incursion a good challenge."

Andy,

no, that's exactly the point about the T-8, a 2cm FlaK nest does NOT help **** against the T-8, as they are rather well armored. Even the fabulous 3,7cm FlaK has it's problems with that li'l bugger.

[This message has not been edited yet. Sorry. (not edited 08-27-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A mix of 20mm AA with 75mm IG does well against T8s or most anything else American for that matter. In think that the 37mm AA would consistently punch holes in the T8.

Admittedly the 20mm does have its problems in but a 'nest' with close-range flank shots they seem to do pretty well. Even with long-range shots (300-500m) they seem do fairly well at any angle against certain targets like Greyhounds.

[Guest Michael emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by grunto:

To counter American fast vehicle threats I like to bring German towed guns on Sdkfz7s or Kubelwagens. I'm starting to think that the 'next level' beyond fast armored cars, tanks, and halftracks is the towed gun.

A nest of those doing flank protection sure will give any American fast vehicle incursion a good challenge.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you're right about towed guns being an underutilized resource in the game (at least from the sound of it). But if you are going to use them, you'd better either have a tow vehicle handy and yank them out of there after two or three turns of firing, or be prepared to view them as expendable. They are *prime* targets for artillery, either on- or off-board. As soon as I run into one, I saturate it with everything I have because a well-placed gun can hold up an entire attack. On the other hand, one gun for two tanks is not a bad exchange rate at all.

Michael

[guachi]

MHofbauer, I was more referring to Japanese planes which had all of those English nicknames. I don't think I have EVER heard anyone refer to those planes by whatever name the Japanese called them.

Is there a distinction between using a translated name (as in the Lynx/Luchs) and using a code name (as for Bettys and Oscars)?

Jason

[Papa Khann]

Not sure how much work this would involve for Charles, but how about adding an additional category? Rather than just Vehicles and Armor, the program could divvy the points up between Vehicles, Light Armor, and Heavy Armor?

Papa

[M Hofbauer]

guachi, it's been a long time that I was into ww2 aircraft, but I remember off the top of my head distinctly that for example the A6M was called Rei-Sen (fighter zero) in the (german) publications I read on the subject. I can also supply you with the japanese names for all the other japanese ww2 aircraft, I just don't know them off the top of my head. The allied code words for these aircraft were of course also given.

It's simply a thing of inconsistency. In CM, tThe Nashorn isn't called Rhinocerus, the Hummel isn't called Bumble Bee, the Wespe isn't called Wasp, the Hetzer isn't called Hunter/Chaser/Hounder. The Luchs is translated into Lynx. If you can explain to me the rationale and consistency in this...?

[Guest Michael emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

If you can explain to me the rationale and consistency in this...?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If I could explain the irrationality and inconsistency of the human race in general, I probably could. If I ever get around to it, I'll drop you a line....

Michael

[guachi]

I can't explain it.

Why are motorized squads in English? Why are Sicherung squads given a parenthetical translation? Why not Fusilier squads?

Dunno.

Jason

[Vanir]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

It's simply a thing of inconsistency. In CM, tThe Nashorn isn't called Rhinocerus, the Hummel isn't called Bumble Bee, the Wespe isn't called Wasp, the Hetzer isn't called Hunter/Chaser/Hounder. The Luchs is translated into Lynx. If you can explain to me the rationale and consistency in this...?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Everyone one on this side of the pond has been calling it a Lynx their whole lives. It's been called a Lynx in every book I've read and every game I've played. We're used to it and so I rather doubt anyone will change now. Inconsistant? Obviously. I have no idea why it was translated and others weren't. Maybe because Luch would be pronounced by most Americans as "luck", which sounds like a silly name for a tank. Plus, it is consistant (in a way) of using the English translation for German armor named after cats (unless Tiger and Panther are the same in English and German?)

[RMC]

Vanir,

It just so happens that Tiger and Panther are spelled the same way in German.

Hofbauer's point is the Lynx is the only German vehicle cursed with an English name. This would tend to indicate that it was an oversight and not a special case.

[IntelWeenie]

To borrow from the Poet:

A Lynx by any other name is still a Luchs.

C'mon guys, ease up.

------------------

"Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

[robo]

Well, the main obvious advantage of the light tanks over the armored cars are their tracks - however in CM this doesn't seem to make much of a difference. It seems to me that CM just uses ground pressure and not carriage when checking for bog but I could be wrong.