Jump to content

Favorite TD's? Axis or Allied...


Recommended Posts

Bored and wanted to post something after replying to a couple of posts. My favorite TD is without a doubt the Jagdpanzer IV now. I don't play as the Allies much but the M10 seems quite popular due to its cost.

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

"Uncommon valor was a common virtue"-Adm.Chester Nimitz of the Marines on Iwo Jima

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm hard to decide.

Jagdpanther, Jpz-IV, Hetzer and Marder II are all very good TDs.

Marder II is my favorite in ambush(It just gets aim so damn fast because of wide gun traverse.)

Jagdpanther must be my overall favorite. It is fast, has great front armor, awesome gun and it just looks so pretty. biggrin.gif

[This message has been edited by illo (edited 03-22-2001).]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think my favorite is Hetzer, it has so cool look smile.gif

Once in TCP/IP game my Hetzer was hunted by three British riflesquads with grenades, Hetzer survived 20 turns without damage (to the end of game)

After that it has been my favorite!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The M-18 Hellcat, is my best bang for the buck TD choice when playing the US, don't have one for the UK / Commonwealth forces, 17pdr Achilles ? Perhaps. For the Heer, the Hetzer seems to be quite effective in both cost and usefulness, I also like the JgPzIV with the L/70 75mm gun as in the Panther afv.

Though quite rare its' armour and main armament are very formidable, provided I choose my positioning carefully.

Funnily enough, though the Hetzer is popular in CMBO, the soldiers that crewed the real vehicle considered it cramped, and the 75mm was difficult to load because of its reversed and inverted breech positioning relative to the loader, leading to a slower rate of fire than say, a Stug III or JgPz IV.

It was nicknamed Guderian's Duck, after the famous panzer general.

Cheers.

Eric Tuggle

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, must correct myself. I said the M10 when I meant to say the M18 was commonly liked by Allied players. I've never tried the Achilles. Matter of fact, I never played anyone using that thing.

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

"Uncommon valor was a common virtue"-Adm.Chester Nimitz of the Marines on Iwo Jima

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was that the one that had to turn it's rear towards the target to fire? I heard of some weird thing like that but wasn't sure or if the guy was just BS'ing me.

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

"Uncommon valor was a common virtue"-Adm.Chester Nimitz of the Marines on Iwo Jima

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ckoharik

Originally posted by Warmaker:

Was that the one that had to turn it's rear towards the target to fire? I heard of some weird thing like that but wasn't sure or if the guy was just BS'ing me.

Why yes it is. What a pain in the...arse. Granted in an ambush role it can do wonders but if I had the choice I would not be using it.

My votes are for Hetzer and M36 Jackson (cuz it's got a big friggin gun).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had my first go using a JPz-IV yesterday (axis defending vs allied AI) and I found it to be a pain in the bum without a turret. It was fine hull down on defence but once I had routed the right flank of the AI I couldn't use it in an offensive way (didn't turn to target infantry etc) - this was low pts so only 1 tank on my side - but in defence it was good.

I find that a surprisingly good tank buster is a Churchill VIII with discarding SABOT. I have used it a couple of times to remarkable effect.

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

"Woof!Woof!"

That's my other dog impression.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ckoharik

Originally posted by Soddball:

I had my first go using a JPz-IV yesterday (axis defending vs allied AI) and I found it to be a pain in the bum without a turret. It was fine hull down on defence but once I had routed the right flank of the AI I couldn't use it in an offensive way (didn't turn to target infantry etc) - this was low pts so only 1 tank on my side - but in defence it was good.

I find that a surprisingly good tank buster is a Churchill VIII with discarding SABOT. I have used it a couple of times to remarkable effect.

That's the whole point of TD's. They are not meant to be offensive weapons in the sense that turreted vehicles are. Every time I have been forced to rely on my TDs/AGs to go on the offensive alone I usually end up paying heavily for it. Not all the time, but usually.

The Churchill as a TD? Interesting, I'll have to try that one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Martin Cracauer

Regarding German TDs on the offensive, look at how the Germans arrived at building them.

In early WW2, tanks were rarely killed by AT guns and even then, the guns were quite light, they could be moved by men or towed by a light horse team (if you ever drove a horse wagon you know how much easier 1 or 2 horses are to handle than 4 or 6). At the same time, the artillery guns and infantry guns already got too heavy and the German begun mounting them on Pz 1/2 chassis.

Later the need for heavier AT guns grew exponetially and they started to mount AT guns on SP chassis as well. The guns themself were already quite heavy and the limited load carrying capacity of the chassis dictated that only a limited amount of armor could be installed. These are the Marder/Nashorn class vehicles.

These self-propelled AT guns do not move like a tank. For the most part, the SP ability is used for marching (especially in armor divisions) and then the gun was placed like it was a towed gun. Except for defensive movement to pull the gun quickly back after it had given its position, but even then the movement of the gun was more of a sniper, not a normal infantry soldier.

On the other hand, anti-tank guns for infantry assault purposes were the Sturmgesch├╝tze. Smaller guns than the real tank destroyers, but mounted in decent armor. But still, these vehicles hung much behind the assaulting infantry. While they had to move into enemy field-of-fire, they did so in most cautious ways. To do so, one of their most important characteristics is that they are very flat, to remain undetected as long as possible while attacking single targets spotted by the infantry in front of them.

Later, these vehicle classes were joined. On the heavier chassis (Pz IV/V) you could mount a big enough gun (and the real big guns were in short supply) together with thick armor and a low profile.

But, and that's the point here, just that they had armor like a real tank did not mean they were deployed like one. Their movement was still that of a simple gun, adding the sniper-like movement to protect itself,not to gain attack range to the enemy (if you would try the latter, the enemy tank would appear just outside the traverse range of your gun. That is the turreted tanks' job).

Also keep in mind that within the limited amount of traverse, the self-propelled guns can turn their gun on a target *faster* than a turreted tank. It means moving the gun vs. moving the whole turret, at least for accuracy (where electic traverse help systems in turrets were often switched off). A Marder on the defensive can engage more different targets in the same time.

The allied TD are different.

The British Archer with its rear-facing gun is not an accident. It could pull out of a position that had been announced to the enemy quicker. Useful for defensive fighting. Sad the vehicle was made only half-hearted, it has 165 HP only. Imagine a decent motor and a read-facing driver place under a 17 punder AT gun.

The M10 was probably build out of the desire to use the Sherman chassis for eveything, but for the offensive role the Western allied could expect to remain in from 1943 on, a turret was strictly required. Gun has to be big, chassis is already there, so the only way to make the vehicle light enough is to have a lightly armored turret (on a normally armored chassis). Especially nonsense when hull-down fighting was possible. The result is not liked by most people in CMBO and as far as I know that reflects reality. The Jackson is just the same thing with an even bigger gun. Most British TD besides the Archer are the M10, either with its original gun or the 17 pounder. The Challender was done out of the same mistake, only that they gave it more armor and had to extend the Cromwell chassis in a way that the thing would barely drive in curves.

The M18 was built for its role from ground up and was evenly thin armored. That gave it its speed (and parts of its reliablity and easy handling), which turned out to be the kind of protection you need in the offensive role.

[This message has been edited by Martin Cracauer (edited 03-22-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Martin Cracauer (edited 03-22-2001).]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Soddball:

I had my first go using a JPz-IV yesterday (axis defending vs allied AI) and I found it to be a pain in the bum without a turret. It was fine hull down on defence but once I had routed the right flank of the AI I couldn't use it in an offensive way (didn't turn to target infantry etc) - this was low pts so only 1 tank on my side - but in defence it was good.

I find that a surprisingly good tank buster is a Churchill VIII with discarding SABOT. I have used it a couple of times to remarkable effect.

Just a tip... if you want armor and only have enough points for one on an offensive mission go with a regular tank for the flexibility. Keep in mind a StuG does make a decent compromise for inf.support but long range engagements with its gun is limited but at short ranges is well capable of knocking out any Allied armor. Also, if possible keep overwatch (leapfrog) if you have multiple TDs while one moves just in case something pops up.

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

"Uncommon valor was a common virtue"-Adm.Chester Nimitz of the Marines on Iwo Jima

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...