Mlapanzer Posted February 18, 2001 Share Posted February 18, 2001 Or French tanks Which tank is better. The never ending question. Just don't flame the Sherman it not only won ww2 in the west (no hate mail from the commie lovers out there please) But it also won several wars for the Israilies afterwards. Which was better for real can be summmed up by those who fought against them. Ask anyone who fought against the Germans and the thing they feared the most was the Tiger tank. Be it infantry or armor. I really like that in CM that your troops esspecially if there of a lower caliber will call just about any tank they see a Tiger at first. Which is better to have in CM depends not only on your tactics but the job on hand. The Tiger can't be beat in the defense esspecially if he has long LOS's. Other than that have fun with both. I for one enjoy playing with many different kinds of weapons not just the biggest baddest ones. I get more satisfaction out of killing a Stug with a Greyhound. Which I just did in a PBEM game than killing anything with a Tiger. where's the challange in that? ------- "No man ever won a war by dieinf for his country he won it by making the other poor sob die for his country" PATTON Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skipper Posted February 20, 2001 Share Posted February 20, 2001 By the same token, the best german aircraft is a Stuka - it was certainly the most hated one. Wherever a Tiger could make it to the front in time, it was basically a place to call for an airstrike or a platoon of ISUs. In the meantime, it was to be avoided or outflanked. That's the only role Tigers were really good at - heavy tank destroyer. But in that role they were not better (probably, worse) than real heavy tank destroyers - and at a much bigger production cost. Sherman was quite a decent medium tank for the era, albeit the turret design was not very good. The problem was lack of a heavy TD and a heavy assault tank in the western allies arsenals. Which meant that Shermans were too often called for jobs they were not designed for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skipper Posted February 20, 2001 Share Posted February 20, 2001 PS unless you want to be referred as a nazy lover (hey, you do advocate their horrible killing machines!), please drop the "commie lovers" crap. There are none around, as far as I can say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mlapanzer Posted February 20, 2001 Share Posted February 20, 2001 Hey Skipper lighten up it was a joke. I guess I should use those little faces more. It was just a reference to the fact that whenever anyones says anything about the Western Allies winning the war you invariably have to hear about how it was the Soviet Union (Commies) that did it. Since COMBO does not cover the Eastern Front yet. There was no need to discuss Soviet armor. It was not meant as a put down to anyone. Your remarks about the Sherman were right on. The biggest drawback of the Tiger was it's drain on resources and it's unreliability. Which brings up the Question. Is reliability of a tank modeled in COMBO? If so the Tiger and other big guns of the Germans (nazis) should breakdown much more often. ----- "We have meet the enemy and he is ours" Adam. Perry during the battle of Lake Erie after abandoning his ship. Now that's confidence! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mlapanzer Posted February 20, 2001 Share Posted February 20, 2001 Skipper BTW it would be "Imperialist Pig" not Nazi lover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mlapanzer Posted February 20, 2001 Share Posted February 20, 2001 BTW Skipper it would be "Imperialist running dog" not Nazi lover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skipper Posted February 20, 2001 Share Posted February 20, 2001 hehe, you please make up your mind, dog or pig - cant have it both ways > There was no need to discuss Soviet armor. I believe, the fact that CM2 is about Eastern Front just gives me a good excuse. That's all I need My 2 cents on your question. Reliability of tanks doesn't have much to do with the battlefield. If you follow any of your tanks through a firefight, it doesn't drive all that much around. By far the most mechanical failures occurred during marches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mlapanzer Posted February 20, 2001 Share Posted February 20, 2001 Hav'nt heard much about CM2. I'm looking forward to playing with Some of Uncle Joe's stuff. But I still think reliability should be modeled at this level. Especially during an operation. Things tend to break when you put them under a lot of stress. Such as "Han's Han's INCOMING reverse mach snell!!! ------ "Stop with the negative vibes man" Oddball Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skipper Posted February 21, 2001 Share Posted February 21, 2001 In operations - maybe. But still not a big thing. You need to travel some 20km to stand a considerable chance of a breakdown in a platoon of Tigers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy w/gun Posted February 21, 2001 Share Posted February 21, 2001 I don't mean to go against the grain here, but for the purposes of CM, I like Tigers. Although my other German fav is the lowly mark IV, but thats a different topic altogether... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy w/gun Posted February 21, 2001 Share Posted February 21, 2001 ...Although all of these favorites are likely to be dismissed after I play around with T-34/85s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt the Paladin Posted February 22, 2001 Author Share Posted February 22, 2001 And the IS-3 will be fun to use as well. Wonder if anything could take a direct hit from that and live. It will be interesting to get a chance to use Soviet tanks against German tanks, since those two nations were certainly the two best tank builders. Also, doesn't it seem like some of the old WWI tanks would have done okay? The first British tanks came with 2 6-lbr. guns, while the Matildas and several other British tanks came with only 2 or 6 lbr. guns. The first French tank had a 75 mm gun. Of course, both tanks were horribly slow, and had pretty thin armor (It was only meant to block MG rounds), and the French tank had no turret, while the British tank had its guns in half-turrets. Looking forward to CM 2 so I can finally decide if the T34-85 is better than the Panther. I've heard that the T34-85 is pretty cramped because of the bigger gun on the same turret. Also, IIRC the T34-85 had its tank commander reload the gun, how could that be moddeled in CM 2? ------------------ "War is like a cat, it is easy to let out of the bag, but hard as hell to put back in!" -Me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freak Posted February 22, 2001 Share Posted February 22, 2001 Maybe with crappy loading times or poorer (is that a word?) LOS capabilities? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blenheim Posted February 22, 2001 Share Posted February 22, 2001 Quote: "or french tanks" Well, this is a clichè, I think. French tanks were pretty good (in fact, much better in some cases than the crappy PzIII and IV early versions) but were used really bad. The French, instead of massing the tanks in a sector of the battlefield, the spreaded them thinly all over the front. The result: crappy german tanks always got overwhelming numerical superiority... but french boxes were not bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blenheim Posted February 22, 2001 Share Posted February 22, 2001 Hei !!! I am a goddammed commie lover !!! Long life T34, winner of the war !!! ------------------ "We do not retreat... we advance to the back of the formation..." (brave new soldier) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pvt.Tom Posted February 23, 2001 Share Posted February 23, 2001 As with everything, French tanks had strong points (gun & armor) and weak points (no radio & 1 man turret & crappy leadership). IMHO if they had been used correctly they probably would have done well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mlapanzer Posted February 24, 2001 Share Posted February 24, 2001 Yes the French tanks we're not that bad in many respects better than the German tanks at the time. Not only am I looking forward to playing with some of that commie stuff in CM but I would also enjoy playing with some of the early war French armor. Is there any chance of that happening soon? It was a joke and with a name like Michael LaPlante (You can't get a much more French name than that) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pvt.Tom Posted February 24, 2001 Share Posted February 24, 2001 I think the earily war years are going to be CM4??? So maybe 3-4 years as a guess? Who knows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Martin Cracauer Posted March 2, 2001 Share Posted March 2, 2001 Regarding the original question, Panther vs. Tiger, I think most people with strong opinions overlook the tactics factor and experience level of the commanding person, and that especially for the Tiger. Everyone recognizes for the faster, lighter armored vehicle like the Panther "it's your tactics, your skill of moving the thing". Some people don't recognize that the same applies for the heavy tank as well, just a different kind of movement. It is as much an art to plan the movement of a slow vehicle so that it finally shows up in the right place at the right time as it is to keep a ligther vehicle rooling so that it doesn't get hit, while spreading chaos on the run. Only that the heavy movement arts require more foreplanning and foreplanning requires accompanying measurements to reduce battle chaos. Overall I think that a player specializing on Tiger tactics might be as successfull as the Panther lover, but only if he expands the term "Tiger tactics" to all factors included and the commands to the actual tank are only a small part of that. TOAW skills probably come handy here, especially to overcome the narrow time limits in CMBO that will be felt like that in TOAW and you need to preplan the whole battle and seperate it into strict buildup, fight and exploration parts with no mixup allowed. The opponent of course can take this into account and the result may be a very interesting battle primary for control vs. dynamics. It's sad that CMBO doesn't allow us to play German units vs. German units (although a Heer vs. SS fight in July 1944 might not even be be historically unimaginable...), in that case it'd like to try the point in a few Panther vs. Tiger Quickbattles. Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mlapanzer Posted March 2, 2001 Share Posted March 2, 2001 I like that idea Tiger vs. Panthers and also when CM2 comes out to be able to play Soviet vs.Western Allies. Pattons dream come true ------ "Who put orange juice in my orange juice" W.C. Fields Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Martin Cracauer Posted March 2, 2001 Share Posted March 2, 2001 Originally posted by Jackson: For slow-turreted tanks I would like to see the TacAI fix on the current target unless an armor threat appears. The swinging back and forth is usually between infantry targets. In fact, the swinging for armor threats was fixed, a prime example why people like a certain game company However, what I'd like to see is that a slow-turret vehicle coming out of cover, meeting a fast-turret one, calculates who will get this first shot off. If there is no hope to be the first and the opponent is dangerous, the slow-turret vehicle should retreat, pop smoke, whatever instead of insisting on a turret race it cannot win. Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
North Star Posted March 2, 2001 Share Posted March 2, 2001 Also back on the original topic. If I had lots of points, I would get some of each tank, for the excellent reasons stated - Panther - better frontal protection, faster turret, more speed. Tiger - better side protection, better gun (especially against infantry). But we never have enough points. I usually take the Panther and try to be very careful about my flanks. If I on the Allied side, I am intimidated by both. The recent changes that allow Tigers to be included under the "Panther-76" guidelines should have us see some more use of this original German heavy tank. ------------------ "Act after having made assessments. The one who first knows the measures of far and near wins - this the rule of armed struggle." Sun Tzu - The Art of War Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ADAman Posted March 2, 2001 Share Posted March 2, 2001 Might be my imagination but it seems the Panthers have more accuracy, especially at longer range (probably the shell velocity if true). All things considered (penetration, hit probability, HE shells size), I'd chose based on what I thought about the upcoming combat - long range or short, tanks or non-armor, thick skinned or wimp tanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts