and the best tank of CM?

[Warmaker]

Heheheh, sorry guys, we can keep going on, but I have to add one last time to defend my cats... My Panthers FREQUENTLY leave burning hulks of various soda cans laying around like litter. There is no discrimination between Shermans, Stuarts, M10s, Firflies and Pershings. They are all equal under the guns of my Cats

Anyhooo, IF purchase price was no factor in CM, I still would not settle only for Jagdtigers. Platoons of Panthers would be more effective for a broader set of roles. Why? Reload times for that 128mm feels much longer than the 75mm of the Panther. In dealing with the Western soda cans, the penetration of the 128mm is extreme overkill to say the least. However, that blast value of the 128mm (OMG!) is quite nice...to say the least. In addition, the Jagdtiger does not carry that much main gun rounds compared to the Panthers/Tigers I & II. Unless you're real lucky, you're not going to hit 100% of the time. In a defensive role, with the right support and factors, the Jagdtiger can be a centerpiece of a defense. However, its very slow speed and lack of a turret limits its role somewhat on the attack. While the armor is extremely thick on the Jagdtiger I'm not naive enough to think it is invincible (and I am quite aware of the Panther's flank armor values ). If close enough the 17-pdr will penetrate frontally since the superstructure is not well sloped, not to mention a good flank shot. A platoon of Panthers IMO would suit my tastes better between defensive and offensive roles than a platoon of Jagdtigers.

As far as 17-pdrs go, they're quite nice guns but... in schooling myself in facing these weapons I know they had a good blast value but in earlier CMBO months the Fireflies seemed to be lacking against my grenadiers. Found out about the lack of HE shells for the Fireflies. I'm sure that this did not reflect badly on the gun's performance itself, but it kind of takes away from the reputation.

And guys, don't worry about any high levels of Panzer worhsip around here... it's only coming from me, as far as being vocal goes

[ 06-06-2001: Message edited by: Warmaker ]

[Marlow]

The best armored vehicle depends entirely on the situation. For a cheap and well balanced tank that is a good match for infantry and any armor up to and including Stugs and Mark IVs, the Sherman is the ticket. If the enemy has primarily armor, the Hellcat is the best bang for the buck (just watch out for those 20mm and 37mm guns). The M36 is also a cost effective way of dealing with enemy armor, but like the M18, sucks against infantry. The Greyhound is great at dealing with German recon/mechanized troops. In general, I settle for a mix of tanks and tank destroyers. Each Sherman (vanilla flavored)/TD set costs about the same as one Panther, and to my mind offers more tactical options. Except for one particularly ugly encounter with AT pillboxes, this combo has not failed me yet.

[Stalin's Organ]

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

[QB]

--but it might be worth noting that the Panther's 75 gun was very similar in many respects to the 17 pounder--like it a long, high velocity gun that was a great tank killer, and IT doesn't have a cult following in and of itself. The Panther DOES, as a complete tank, but people don't seem to get all dewy-eyed about that excellent gun as such. I think the 88 just picked up a mystique early in the war--when it really was a pretty unique weapon--that it continues to retain.

QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The 75L70 was never fielded as an AT gun either, which limited it's exposure to only armoured nuits - the 88 AA gun was much more widely distributed, including Infantry units.

For the Brits the "mystique" of the 88 pretty much stems from the attack at Halafaya Pass in 1941 IIRC, where one of the RTR's got it's Matilda's massacred at long range - up to then they had been pretty much invulnerable (Arras notwithstanding)

[Cpl Carrot]

The best tank is the one you have at the moment. I mean its not like you can go "Um sorry, mind if I just go sell this "insert tank name here" and buy a bigger one?"

Cpl Carrot.

Ps BTW many people seem to be getting confused. I was under the impression that a Jadgtiger/Hetzer/Stug etc were TANK DESTROYERS and not tanks. Pehaps the thread should be about AFV not MTB's??

[Redwolf]

You should think not of "Panthers", but the Panther, Panzer IV/70, Jagdpanther, King Tiger combination.

Which is good when?

- if you are going to do mostly "sniping" in the defensive, the turretless units are better for cost and silhuette

- are you going to battle thick Churchills? If so, the 75mmL/70 only allows you to engage them at 500 meter or less. By buying the upgraded gun unit (King Tiger if you want the turret, Jagdpanther if not) you gain the freedom to engage them earlier. Whether that is important to you entirely depends on play style.

- The 88 L/71 also offer the better blast value

- On the other hand, four Panzer IV/70 are clearly better than three Jagdpanthers unless you need the gun. They are better for having more guns and smaller silhuette

As for the Jagdtiger, i found it to be very vulnerable to gun damage and immobilization. Even in direct comparisions, the King Tiger was much more survivable. In fact, the King Tiger is the only CMBO vehicle I would move into fields of fire of 17 pounder guns, including Jagdtiger.

In reality the 17 pounder gun is said to be significant less precise than comparable guns. That does not seem to be modeld in CMBO, probably due to a lack of hard data.

If you are battling StuG and Panzer IV with 75mm Shermans or Cromwells, look at the hit probability. The 75mm is less precise, duels are biased.

[Warmaker]

Oh, one more thing from my last reply... I would be crazy to deny any Jagdtiger support once I get my Panthers first though

Well, since we've drifted a little to the TD part: The Jagdpanzer IV/70's are great for the TD role and can carry just enough HE rounds to take on infantry. A damn good compromise of armor, cost, and a killer gun. That sloped armor (50 or 60 degrees, can't remember) makes it that much tougher and resistant to the 76mm"t" rounds and sometimes the powerful 17-pdr. The uparmored PanzerIV (don't confuse this TD with the PzKpfw IV) carries a long-barelled 75mm and is quite similar to the Jagdpanzer IV/70 but is uparmored significantly on the front to 80mm while maintaining the slope! Quite a bit more resistant to those annoying "t" rounds frontally. I'm having alot more luck with the Jagdpanther whereas in the beginning they died on me within the first 5 turns. Learning to use them alot better... excellent armor and slope while retaining the killer gun of the King Tiger's long-barelled 88mm.

Of course, if you're pennypinching, the Marders are still an option for a pure AT role. The Nashorn too, but with a killer blast to take infantry on. However, the Hetzer is still a very nice choice for the typically defensive Axis setting.

[CombinedArms]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Ps BTW many people seem to be getting confused. I was under the impression that a Jadgtiger/Hetzer/Stug etc were TANK DESTROYERS and not tanks. Pehaps the thread should be about AFV not MTB's??[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The line between tanks and TDs/assault guns seems to constantly and inevitably get blurred--as it they did in real life, where both TDs and assault guns were constantly used as if they were tanks, and tanks were constantly used to destroy other tanks.

I've frequently read histories where the writer will scrupulously distinguish between tanks/TDs/assault guns every time there's an individual encounter (sometimes even correcting a soldier's memory of the event --"The American soldiers said it was a Tiger but there were no Tigers in the area; it was really an assault gun.) Then when they tabulate result of the battle, all you get is: the Allies lost 45 tanks, the Axis 50. It's usually not clear from this if TDs/assault guns are included or not in the count.

Anyway, since the lines are constantly blurring every where else, I don't see why they can't blur here, too.

[Cpl Carrot]

It's all right, I was just feeling pedantic.

Still reckon the best tank/TD is the one you've got. That includes the amazingly cool, incredibly neat H-39. Hey I took out a M-10 with one of these. Admittably with a rear turret hit - but beggers can't be choosers.

[Big Ron]

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

If you are battling StuG and Panzer IV with 75mm Shermans or Cromwells, look at the hit probability. The 75mm is less precise, duels are biased.[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wasn't the Allied 75mm shorter barrelled making it less accurate. Can't check right now as am at work. Will research for later.

:confused:

[Stacheldraht]

The American M3 gun used on the earlier Sherman models was about 110 inches long with a muzzle velocity of 2300 fps (ammo type not listed--looks like AP). The 75mm KwK40 L/48 found on the Pz IV models in CM had a muzzle velocity of 790 m/s (Pzgr 39 AP round). CM's StuG's used the 75mm StuK40 L/48 gun (990 m/s with Pzgr 40 AP round.) Barrel length equals caliber (75mm) multiplied by calibers (in the European sense of the term, here being 48).

Barrel length affects velocity of the rounds (increased pressure from expanding gases in the longer tube), not accuracy, afaik.

[ 06-20-2001: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]

[Freak]

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

Barrel length affects velocity of the rounds (increased pressure from expanding gases in the longer tube), not accuracy, afaik.

[ 06-20-2001: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But doesn't higher muzzle velocity, in turn improve accuracy?

[Freak]

Doesn't higher projectile trajectory maen less of a chance to score a direct hit? I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that german guns had an advantage in accuracy because of this. For instance the flat trajectory of the panthers gun leads to better accuracy? I may be way off base here.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

[Stacheldraht]

Sounds like a question for Rexford

[CrapGame]

It is a good question for Rexford, but I do believe it has to do with higher velocity shells taking less time to reach a target. The less time it takes to get there, the less time gravity has to work on the shell's path, and thus the faster shell flies "straighter" or on a "more level path" than the shell traveling at a lower velocity. This can be roughly translated into higher accuracy, as there does not have to be as much guessing what the arc to the target should be in order to hit it.

Crapgame

[Freak]

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

It is a good question for Rexford, but I do believe it has to do with higher velocity shells taking less time to reach a target. The less time it takes to get there, the less time gravity has to work on the shell's path, and thus the faster shell flies "straighter" or on a "more level path" than the shell traveling at a lower velocity. This can be roughly translated into higher accuracy, as there does not have to be as much guessing what the arc to the target should be in order to hit it.

Crapgame<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That was exactly my thinking on the matter. Shot fired with higher muzzle velocity = flatter trajectory = less travel time+less travel space = more accuracy.

[Stacheldraht]

Trajectories for the different projectiles are studied and then taken into account when aiming and firing, though. That was the case for WWII DF artillery, and I can only assume it was for tank guns.

[CrapGame]

Artillery and tank guns are totally different animals. With artillery, you know the distance your shell has to travel based on your location and the location of your target on the map, so all you have to do is dial in the correct elevation of the barrel to get the required trajectory for the shell to travel the correct distance. In combat with a tank gun (in the CM time period without laser range finders, etc.), the distance is not very accurately known, and therefore, a knowing the trajectory path of a shell is useless. Therefore, the ideal shell will have as little trajectory (fly very flat) as possible over as great a range as possible, thereby ensuring a greater hit percentage regardless of variations in the range of distance to the target. How is this achieved? Greater muzzle velocity. The faster the shell gets there, the less time gravity can affect its flight path. Hence, other things being equal, higher velocity = flatter path = greater accuracy over a given range.

[Stacheldraht]

Are you sure that knowing the trajectory is useless? Yes, the gunners had to estimate range, but was gun elevation not tied to the range markers on the sights? I.e, target is estimated to be 2000m out, based on its apparent size in the sight, barrel is properly elevated for the type of round used, and then fired.

Fwiw, the modern M1 tank has a backup sight, called the gunner's auxiliary sight, that works this way when the ballistics computer and rangefinder are damaged. It has a stadiametric rangefinding diagram (akin, I believe to those used in at least some WWII tanks, like the Tiger) that is tied to each type of round, whether Sabot, HEAT, etc. Perhaps this operates on the same principle? I'd appreciate any recommendations for books dealing with WWII tank gunnery. Thanks.

[Jarmo]

Faster velocity leads directly to better accuracy.

Both in real life and in CM.

Shorter flight time has (a least) two major benefits.

1. No need for as large "lead" against moving targets.

2. Evaluation of distance and range correction is less important.

[thor]

For Germans, Hetzer or Stug or Panther. For US, Hellcats and Challengers.

Just wanted to add that, for those of you who like the Jagdtiger, I believe those never appeared on the Western Front (solely an east front phenomenon) and thus really have no place in CMBO.

[Warmaker]

Actually, the Jagdtigers did make an appearance in the West late in the war. Don't know the exact details and results, but they did engage an American armored force. Someone here surely knows about it. IIRC there's even a historical scenario about it floating around.

[Mr. Johnson--]

Well they tried to get involed in Wacht en Rein, but diddn't make it. The did make an apprence during Nordwind. And after the Allied crossing of the Rein tried to stop the northern thrust of the Americans I belive.

[thor]

Didn't know that about the JTs. But what kind of numbers are we talking about?

[Barton Hick]

The M-18 is sweet, except for the fact that the open top makes it more vulnerable to infantry than normal. I hid on right along a trail that German armor was pouring across and from the close range, he knocked every one of their tanks and halftracks out before they figured out he was there. By then, the infantry started assaulting him, and its great speed got him out before things really got hot (by the way, fastest tank of all time, including modern ones).

[Warmaker]

IIRC there were only 2 batallions equipped with the Jagdtiger.