ricwine
Rep: 6.8
|
Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:22 am Post subject: TANK DROUGHT |
|
|
Hi
Is there a way of gaining or at least maximising tank units to play. The Germans have a dearth of armour, just those useless Marder III :zzz .
Can you recommend any mods or maybe a walkthru to gain as much armour as possible. Tigers and assault SPG needed !. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
flick
Rep: 17.6
|
Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2009 11:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
You get panthers if you play on novice. Historically all the americans faced (at first) was PZIV's and SPG's based on the MK IV chassis.
If you want tigers, panthers, spg's, monkeys, ducks, play the Gold Juno sword mods. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Dima
Rep: 87.3 votes: 16
|
Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2009 4:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote:
|
Historically all the americans faced (at first) was PZIV's and SPG's based on the MK IV chassis.
|
no PzIV till PLD counter offensive, altho there were couple of PzIII .
there were both StuGIII and StuGIV . |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
flick
Rep: 17.6
|
Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2009 7:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Is that all? How come the yanks took so long, compared to the brits? |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Dima
Rep: 87.3 votes: 16
|
Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2009 7:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote:
|
Is that all? How come the yanks took so long, compared to the brits?
|
yanx had less tanks and overal war gear than the brits till July, plus worse terrain.
when they have massed equipment they could launch Cobra and crush the german defence pretty easily in comparison to the brits . |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
flick
Rep: 17.6
|
Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2009 8:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well,the brits were fighting all those SS panzer divsions and tiger battalions, in what was a deliberate grind down campaign.
Fair play to the US, they had worse terrain to get through. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Dima
Rep: 87.3 votes: 16
|
Posted: Tue Apr 28, 2009 7:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote:
|
Well,the brits were fighting all those SS panzer divsions and tiger battalions
|
2.SS-PzD and 17.SS-PzGD were in US sector along with many other AVF formations . |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
southern_land
Rep: 155.2 votes: 14
|
Posted: Tue Apr 28, 2009 8:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
you like tanks. try downloading the RSR mod... you'/ll need Noah to build a tank proof arc LOL |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
flick
Rep: 17.6
|
Posted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Dima wrote:
|
Quote:
|
Well,the brits were fighting all those SS panzer divsions and tiger battalions
|
2.SS-PzD and 17.SS-PzGD were in US sector along with many other AVF formations .
|
Yes, but not in the same numbers. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Dima
Rep: 87.3 votes: 16
|
Posted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote:
|
Yes, but not in the same numbers.
|
true, but brits had almost 3 times as many tanx as yanx in June 1944 . |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
flick
Rep: 17.6
|
Posted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
That's because they had to fight germans, on more tank friendly conditions.
The plan was agreed upon before D-day, the Uk and canadians hold down the bulk of german armour, while the US takes the port and expands out of the perninsula. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Dima
Rep: 87.3 votes: 16
|
Posted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 10:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote:
|
That's because they had to fight germans, on more tank friendly conditions.
|
didn't i tell the same . |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
flick
Rep: 17.6
|
Posted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 10:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Tank friendly terrain works for the germans as well though. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
ricwine
Rep: 6.8
|
Posted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for the chit chat. Well not sure where the UK/USA rivalry comes from. The yanks never really produced any brilliant '' equipment. But it worked and was available. Same for the Brits. Both countries were asleep and struggled and eventually won the war of production.
As a matter I read a cracking memoir of a German Panzer driver. He explained that Hitler equipped him with the best available death traps ( especially as the Nazis lost the techonoligical advantage ). Hitler gave them Hearses and they duly drove to theirs and many others deaths !. Food for thought !!. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Dima
Rep: 87.3 votes: 16
|
Posted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As a matter I read a cracking memoir of a German Panzer driver. He explained that Hitler
Quote:
|
equipped him with the best available death traps ( ). Hitler gave them Hearses and they duly drove to theirs and many others deaths !. Food for thought !!.
|
could you, please, open it a little bit more - hard to understand what did you or that tanker mean .
Quote:
|
especially as the Nazis lost the techonoligical advantage
|
that's not true. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
ricwine
Rep: 6.8
|
Posted: Fri May 01, 2009 11:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks Dima
Well if you look at the reality of WW2 era tanks. Metal boxes on wheels. Most offered poor protection from A.P rounds. No fancy climate control or air con. As a matter of fact fire suppression and crew survivability was not generally considered. They were DEATH TRAPS !!.
The panzer driver was origionally a mechanic in a car engine factory. Which became a cover when they switched production to Panzer engines. He was drafted and fought in most theatres thru the war. Of course as the defeated and hated' enemy at the end of the war. There was no understanding of his PTSD and 'sacrifices.
German armour was tactically execellent but from a strateigic viewpoint inferior. By this I mean early - mid war the Panzer II - V rained almost supreme. But was beset by rushed upgrades and poor mechinical reliability and mechanical over complexity. Shermans and T34 were not really inferior in design. They had no fancy extras though ( especially the T34 ). Remember the T34 was really a brilliant mechanical design. But with the origional small turret and lack of finesse appeared worse than compariable designs.
By the late war the allies would go on to produce BETTER tanks - centurion/chaffee/Staliin which worked. The Nazi tanks had lost there edge.
On the 'Hearse' comment. The German panzer driver told the real thoughts of your avergae army blockhead. He drove Tigers which were great tank Vs Tank killers. But against combined and overwhelming forces. Were to little and overwhelmed.
Remember the crew makes a tank a efficient weapon. Aliied crews overcame 'panzer fright' and beat the Nazis at there own Blitzkrieg.
Food for thought.
Thanks
Richard |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
ricwine
Rep: 6.8
|
Posted: Fri May 01, 2009 11:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Back again after a short think
In 1940 france had the best armour in the world. Unfortunately with the exception of a few independant brigades was used shockingly in combat. Relegated to infantry support which is the exact opposite of Blitzkrieg philosophy.
The overunning of Europe cost the Germans dearly in casualties and industrial dependancy.
Who did have the best armour and more importantly' - tactics - leadership - skilled crews - industrial backup ?. I dont know really. You could argue the Russians at the spring of 45.
The East Front accounted for 75% of army manpower in 1943. And thats without all there allies . Easily forgotten is the huge manpower and industrail resources from countries such as Romania/Italy/France. With all the slave and forced labour they also had at there disposal'. Millions were brutalised to death for the Nazi war production. To produce 'Hearses'. Never happened in free countreis. There the industrial IQ of a nations people was properly utilised. Rosy the riveter and Betty the air raid warden.
So anyway I will look forward to your reply.
Cheers |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Dima
Rep: 87.3 votes: 16
|
Posted: Fri May 01, 2009 4:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
hi,
Quote:
|
Well if you look at the reality of WW2 era tanks. Metal boxes on wheels. Most offered poor protection from A.P rounds.
|
you think alot have changed since then ?
Quote:
|
No fancy climate control or air con.
|
hehe
Quote:
|
As a matter of fact fire suppression and crew survivability was not generally considered
|
that's not true.
Quote:
|
They were DEATH TRAPS !!.
|
same for modern AVF .
Quote:
|
German armour was tactically execellent but from a strateigic viewpoint inferior.
|
rite on the contrary.
Quote:
|
But was beset by rushed upgrades and poor mechinical reliability and mechanical over complexity.
|
Pz I- IV had bad reliabilty and were too complex?!
Quote:
|
Remember the T34 was really a brilliant mechanical design.
|
really?
Quote:
|
By the late war the allies would go on to produce BETTER tanks - centurion/chaffee/Staliin which worked. The Nazi tanks had lost there edge.
|
why those were better than the german ones?
Quote:
|
He drove Tigers which were great tank Vs Tank killers. But against combined and overwhelming forces. Were to little and overwhelmed.
|
Tiger was designed to fight overhelming forces .
Quote:
|
Remember the crew makes a tank a efficient weapon. Aliied crews overcame 'panzer fright' and beat the Nazis at there own Blitzkrieg.
|
not only crew but the whole system of using tank - doctrine.
Quote:
|
In 1940 france had the best armour in the world. Unfortunately with the exception of a few independant brigades was used shockingly in combat. Relegated to infantry support which is the exact opposite of Blitzkrieg philosophy
|
doctrine (check above) was poor = the french didn't have "the best armour in the world".
Quote:
|
The overunning of Europe cost the Germans dearly in casualties and industrial dependancy.
|
explain, plz .
Quote:
|
Who did have the best armour and more importantly' - tactics - leadership - skilled crews - industrial backup ?. I dont know really. You could argue the Russians at the spring of 45.
|
or the americans, or the germans? |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
7A_Woulf
Rep: 22.1 votes: 2
|
Posted: Fri May 01, 2009 5:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote:
|
The plan was agreed upon before D-day, the Uk and canadians hold down the bulk of german armour, while the US takes the port and expands out of the perninsula.
|
Argh!! Now I'm seeing red again!
This "plan" was a invention by 'Monty' to justify his shortcomings during his command of the Normandy theatre, just as Operation Market Garden was a "90% success" as he said in the aftermath of that fiasco...
If you look into the plans of Operation Overlord, Caen was an objective on D-Day itself and the British paras was to form the left flank of the invasion. There were never a 'plan' to tie down the German forces, it just happened to be so as the bulk of the German forces came from east and arrived at the Commonwealth sector first. :
And yes, as you can guess: -I can't stand that prima donna 'Monty'! He did a good job in North Africa, but from Sicily onwards he lost it in the competition with the Americans! |
"When the tough gets going, I run to live to run another day..."
"Is this trip really necessary?" |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ricwine
Rep: 6.8
|
Posted: Fri May 08, 2009 1:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here you are
Quote:
Well if you look at the reality of WW2 era tanks. Metal boxes on wheels. Most offered poor protection from A.P rounds.
you think alot have changed since then ?
YES 60+ YEARS OF SCIENTIFIC ADVANCEMENT. ACTUALLY MBT ARE EXPENSIVE AND VUNERABLE TO AIR POWER/URBAN FIGHTING.
As a matter of fact fire suppression and crew survivability was not generally considered
that's not true.
YES IT IS. MIDWAR TANKS ADOPTED SOME BASIC TECHNOLOGY. AMMO WAS GENERALLY UNPROTECTED UNTIL THE 1950/60 ERA.
German armour was tactically execellent but from a strateigic viewpoint inferior.
rite on the contrary.
I DISAGREE. LOOK AT KURSK AND THE BULGE. ALLIED AIRPOWER WREAKED HAVOC ON BLITZKRIEG. AT KURSK HUNDREDS OF GERMAN TANKS KNOCKED OUT BY STORMBIRDS FIGHTER BOMBERS. NAZI DOCTRINE RELIED ON SUPERIOR TRAINING AND LOCAL SUPERIORITY + EXECELLENT COMMUNICATIONS. THEY SLOWLY LOST ALL OF THESE AND THEN THERE INIATIVE
Remember the T34 was really a brilliant mechanical design.
really?
ARE YOU SERIOUS ?. T34 FIGHTING UNTIL 1990S. MORE IMPORTANTLY UPGUNNED AND CHASIS USED FOR OTHER AFVS. A ROLLS ROYCE OF TRACTOR TECHNOLOGY
By the late war the allies would go on to produce BETTER tanks - centurion/chaffee/Staliin which worked. The Nazi tanks had lost there edge.
why those were better than the german ones?
THE STALIN II/III WERE SUPERIOR. EVOLVED FOR 30 YEARS. TH EPHILOSOPHY OF THERE DESIGN. SAME WITH CHAFEE , ALWAY THRU TO M60. GERMANS WERE OF COURSE EXECELLENT, IM NOT SILLY AND DENYING THAT. BUT WERE NOT SUPERWEAPONS !!.
He drove Tigers which were great tank Vs Tank killers. But against combined and overwhelming forces. Were to little and overwhelmed.
Tiger was designed to fight overhelming forces
RUBBISH !. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN. TIGER WAS DESIGNED FOR 88MM GUN. AND OTHER TECHNILOGCAL IMPROVMENTS. REALLY A SUPER HEAVY TANK. THIS PHASED OUT BY THE 50S FOR THE MBT. A MEDIUM HEAVY TANK !.
In 1940 france had the best armour in the world. Unfortunately with the exception of a few independant brigades was used shockingly in combat. Relegated to infantry support which is the exact opposite of Blitzkrieg philosophy
doctrine (check above) was poor = the french didn't have "the best armour in the world".
THEY HAD NUMBERS AND SOME OF THE BEST ARMOURED/GUNNED TANKS. SIMPLE
The overunning of Europe cost the Germans dearly in casualties and industrial dependancy.
explain, plz .
OK THIS IS A BROAD SUBJECT. GERMANS TOOK MASSIVE KIA. STRIPPING GERMANY OF DEFENCES AND FIGHTING ON THREE FRONTS. MASSIVE PROBLEMS WITH EUIPMENT COMMONALITY AND SUPPLY. ETC ETC
Who did have the best armour and more importantly' - tactics - leadership - skilled crews - industrial backup ?. I dont know really. You could argue the Russians at the spring of 45.
or the americans, or the germans?
ANY FURTHER COMMENTS ?
.....................................................................................................
So any war is a logistical one. Especially WW2. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|