Lame (as in slow) early German tanks

[Redwolf]

Anybody else feels like this?

I was hoping to get some pretty fast and decisive action out of Pz II and III and the thinner IV models. But they are pretty slow. If you're looking for something fast you better wait for the Panther or better yet use captured T-34s.

So, a mental change required here, need to exploit command and control, and optics instead of decisive and fast placing.

[Eric Alkema]

I found that while wooden pillboxes are just about invulnerable to the other early German tanks, the Pz II (I think I am remembering the right one, the 20mm gun) is murder on them.

[Silvio Manuel]

Originally posted by Eric Alkema:

I found that while wooden pillboxes are just about invulnerable to the other early German tanks, the Pz II (I think I am remembering the right one, the 20mm gun) is murder on them.

What do you mean? What kind of main guns are on these early German tanks that you refer to?

[Eric Alkema]

Well, lesse...

PanzerIvF 75mm L/24

StuGIIIB 75mm L/24

Panzer IIIH 50mm L/42

Panzer 38(t)E 37mm L/48

Actually they were able to get kills with firing slit penetrations at 300 - 350 meters.

The Panzer II 20mm L/55 was generally able to get firing slit penetrations and a kill within 60 seconds at over 650 meters.

[catnip]

Those PZ II + IIIs are just slow enough to get killed by Russian PRTD AT squads. It seems that the Germans had fewer gears on their tanks or they used really small engines. The 25mph PZ II tanks are very disappointing. Most of the early PZ tanks only have "good" optics which isin't that much of an advantage over the T-34s optics.

Sometimes I wonder how the Germans defeated the T-34 early in the war.

[ September 27, 2002, 10:55 PM: Message edited by: catnip ]

[Nippy]

Originally posted by catnip:

Sometimes I wonder how the Germans defeated the T-34 early in the war.

The same way they defeated the French Char B1 and S-35 in 1940...let their enemy squander their armor peice meal. The Soviets made the same mistake the French did.

[Redwolf]

The biggest joke is the Pz IIJ.

It has 80mm front armor, partly curved, at 100% armor quality (it is stonger than a latest-model Pz IV) and 50mm on all sides and rear, more than a Panther. All with a 150 horsepower engine, the same one as in the normal Pz II models which weight 10-11 tons, this one 20.

If you have a car with 150 horsepower, around 1.2 tons, can you imagine putting the same engine into 20 tons?

This thing is slower than an IS, SU or ISU tank and even the KV-1 (but not 2) beats it.

[ September 28, 2002, 12:19 AM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[Eric Alkema]

Speaking of tank guns, I missed the part in the manual that explains what the numbers (##mm L/##) mean. I get the first one, shell diameter in milimeters, but what the heck is the second number?

[mchlstrt]

I believe it's the Barrel Length.

Strt

[flamingknives]

Yes, it's the barrel length.

Not certain on this, but I think that it's measured in 'calibres', so a 75mm/L24 fires a 75mm wide shell down a 1.8m barrel and a 75mm/L48 fires much the same shell down a 3.6m barrel.

[Redwolf]

I sense it you guys are more fascinated by the guns on the tanks than by the motor

[ September 28, 2002, 09:07 AM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[Eric Alkema]

I have never killed anything with the tank's motor.

Theoretically a faster tank could bound between more widely spaced bits of cover and still make it before somebody gets a shot off but in my limited experience the fastest tank isn't that much faster than the slow ones. My being a moving target hasn't really offered much protection either (I usually only try this with armored cars and such).

My approach is 1) don't be seen and 2) kill it before it kills you.

[Andrew H.]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

Yes, it's the barrel length.

Not certain on this, but I think that it's measured in 'calibres', so a 75mm/L24 fires a 75mm wide shell down a 1.8m barrel and a 75mm/L48 fires much the same shell down a 3.6m barrel.

This is correct. To find the barrel length, you multiply the "L" number by the caliber of the gun, i.e. 75mm x 24 = 1800 mm (1.8m); 75mm x 48 = 3600, or 3.6 meters.

[Hoopenfaust2]

Originally posted by redwolf:

I sense it you guys are more fascinated by the guns on the tanks than by the motor

Redwolf has been reading a little Guderian eh?

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Hoopenfaust 101:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by redwolf:

I sense it you guys are more fascinated by the guns on the tanks than by the motor

Redwolf has been reading a little Guderian eh?</font>

[109 Gustav]

Guderian said something along the lines of "A tank's engine is as important of a weapon as the gun."

[Redwolf]

The quote I use is like

"A tank has two weapons - its gun and its motor"

I have no clue where I picked it up.

[CrapGame]

A certain acquaintance of mine says it is nice to "be able to get out of trouble as quickly as you get into it..."

Rather interesting chap, he is....

[Chad Harrison]

For those early war battles, I have a blast with the Mark II's and III's! The light armored cars are better for scooting around. Dont underestimate the Mark II, outside of the T34's and KV's, they can take on all other russian tanks. Great ROF also.

Chad

[Prinz Eugen]

Originally posted by Andrew Hedges:

To find the barrel length, you multiply the "L" number by the caliber of the gun, i.e. 75mm x 24 = 1800 mm (1.8m); 75mm x 48 = 3600, or 3.6 meters.

88/L71 : 88mm x 71 = 6248 mm, or about 6.2 meters. Sheesh ! :eek:

[Redwolf]

I find the Pz 38(t) to be pretty much what I want.

Of course, nothing beats the Stuart in running around...

[Shosties]

Originally posted by redwolf:

I find the Pz 38(t) to be pretty much what I want.

Of course, nothing beats the Stuart in running around...

That and mechanical reliability is what I believe lead the CW forces in North Africa to nickname it the "Honey".

[demoss]

Dont underestimate the Mark II, outside of the T34's and KV's, they can take on all other russian tanks. Great ROF also.

The 20mm is great for that - works wonders on BTs. My preference is for armored cars over the Pz II, though - they're faster, and the lighter armor doesn't matter so much since the Pz II already goes up in flames if you even look at it cross-eyed.

For some reason, though, this reminds me how much I miss seeing the T-28s and T-35s. It seems like the 28s, at least, could have been worked in by abstracting out the MG turrets.

[ October 04, 2002, 02:09 PM: Message edited by: demoss ]