Randell Daigre Posted July 24, 2002 Share Posted July 24, 2002 Otto- Good points (and well-researched). Just to clarify a few things: I included "sloped armor" on the list mostly as a general principal. Sloped armor makes more efficient use of the metal that's there. Think how much more survivable the Tiger would have been with the same thickness of armor sloped at, say, 30 deg. from vertical (without adding any extra weight). It's just a better design principal. From what you said, it would seem that the main difference in the ability of a Tiger and a Panther to withstand a hit was the quality of the metal that was used. This would seem to indicate that Ferdinand Porche had the right idea in trading armor thickness (and weight) for slope. And once again: Originally posted by Otto: Words from an American tanker, (Tanks or WW2 documentary): "The Panther was definetely more suited to any operation where mobility was required,...Which basically means any operation involving a tank. Sorry to keep hitting on that one, but one of the most important lessons I've learned over the past ten years is that tanks move or they die. Sitting around waiting to get shot at is for grunts (and they don't like it either). BTW, the problem I was referring to with the gun-turret drive system of the Tiger was this: The turret was hooked into the same hydraulic system that operated the brakes. The system was set up in such a way that you could not traverse the turret while the tank was moving. Not actually that big of a deal, though, as it is nearly impossible to hit anything with the main gun of a moving tank anyway (unless you have a competent stabilization system, which nobody did until about 1965 or so). This design flaw may or may not have been corrected on later models of the tank, I'm honestly not sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randell Daigre Posted July 24, 2002 Share Posted July 24, 2002 Of course, this is all just a big "I'm a tit man and you're an leg man" discussion. Just a matter of personal preferences. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. (Even if their opinion is wrong) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otto Posted July 25, 2002 Share Posted July 25, 2002 Originally posted by Randell Daigre: Of course, this is all just a big "I'm a tit man and you're an leg man" discussion.LOL! Very nice Randell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted July 25, 2002 Share Posted July 25, 2002 Err.......is that that you think that Randell has nice legs and tits....or do you prefer just one of those attributes on him..er...her....errr..... :eek: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
husky65 Posted July 25, 2002 Share Posted July 25, 2002 Originally posted by Panzer Lehr: I'll stop stereotyping the French as cowardly, Just to put the French cowardice in perspective, it is worth noting that the French 'cowards' chose to fight the fascists (they were bad at it, but that was a result of decades of bad doctrine and an expectation of fighting WW1 again), the 'brave' Americans were bombed and torpedoed into the war for freedom. Not suggesting that PL is an American, but it amuses me to see Americans regularly putting the boot into 'cowardly' frogs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polish Bruce Lee Posted July 25, 2002 Share Posted July 25, 2002 ok you cant say that the amerocans werent scared of the Panzer V because their rule of tumb was take out a Panther with NO MORE then 5 tanks, that means 5-1, now, i dont know what it was with the tiger but anything that take 5 of your own tanks, i be scared to crap of it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Camicie Nere Posted July 25, 2002 Share Posted July 25, 2002 Damn! See what I miss when I am away for awhile. A couple things: Lehr - you've done no butchering! I encourage anyone to make whatever mods they want to my mods. I myself prefer the color-coded strength indicators I use in my latest version, but if the "dot" type works best for you then have at it! I created these originally to enhance my own enjoyment of SC and I am glad others can use the work or whatever derivations thereof to do likewise. I like the camo schemes on the tanks and in fact am planning to do that in a future version for ALL of them. I am working on an extensive Guide to the modded units - Otto has been kind enough to offer to host it when I am done (heh heh - at this rate we'll be on SC III when that happens). I am going to go into the following things a mite in the aforementioned Guide, but it seems tgermane to the thread to do so here: 1) Panther v. Tiger: if it were me and I was in need of a tank for anything other than defensive purposes I would take the Panther (being a leg man and all - just ask my wife.) The Tiger ranks "higher" on the scale for one major reason - I cannot reconcile myself to a tank designated "Mark VI" being below "Mark V" on any sort of hierarchical progression. It may sound silly, but things like that seriously bug me for some reason and smack of being errors in continuity. Another consideration was the fact that "Heavy Tanks" are being developed in SC, and the Panther was typically classed as a "medium." But really, the models depicted are done as a fun way to show different levels of development and not as an implication that said model is necessarily what is being USED. (i.e. I am not implying that the Level 0 French would have been using the FT-17 as their MBT) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts