Historical Accuracy or Game Play? | ||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
Total Votes : 50 |
Gun_Pierson wrote (View Post): |
Its really a huge shame that there's such a huge focus on shiney new maps when the real beef of this game is the unit data (gameplay!). |
Quote: |
Since no one has even attempted to answer my question on the effective armor value on the Panther, I will give what I would consider the ultimate answer as it comes directly from the Office of the Ordnance Headquarters of the Third United States Army:
"The general characteristics of the frontal armor are: glacis plate 85mm (3.35 inches) at 55 degrees and nose plate 65mm (2.56 inches) at 55 degrees. Using an armor basis curve, the vertical equivalent of the glacis plate is 187mm (7.36 inches) and of the nose plate 139mm (5.47 inches)." |
Quote: |
They also went on to say that neither the 75mm or 76mm were capable of defeating any German late war tanks. |
Quote: |
So your message got out. The people that wanted the historical accuracy of driving indestructible tanks, and playing with severely depleted non-movable battlegroups who's forcepools are locked out got what they wished for and can play vs the AI too their hearts content because nobody will play a game like that multiplayer. |
Quote: |
You seem to have a special knowledge of the effects of the different shells on armor, and for all I know your figures could be fairly accurate. |
Quote: |
All I was trying to point out was that the Office of the Ordnance Headquarters of the Third United States Army was conducting tests on a few captured Panthers to see what it takes to crack the frontal armor. |
Quote: |
Obviously, the reports from the front were not good with the Shermans in dueling battles with the Panthers and Tigers. I had read that there were tests on captured Tigers from Tunisia back in 1943 and so they were well aware that there were problems with the 75mm gunned Shermans that far back. And yet because of the reasoning at the time that tanks were not to engage in duels with enemy tanks they were left under-gunned. |
Quote: |
If what you are saying is true that the 75mm Shermans were able to penetrate the Panthers why was it that it was standard procedure for the German tank crews to especially target the British Fireflys? |
Quote: |
And why was there an urgent request to get the M26 Pershing into the European theater as soon as possible even though it would have arrived too late for any meaningful action? |
Quote: |
Obviousley, the Firefly had the 17 pounder... |
Quote: |
Obviousley, the Firefly had the 17 pounder. Which could penetrate panther glacis, as per test counducted in summer 1944, even at 400 yards. But sure, 200 yards was more suitable... |
Quote: |
Theorically it could be penetrated at 800 yds as well ....but sure, 200 yds, and less, was let's say the best distance... |
caruso wrote (View Post): |
i wasn't talking about 76mm ammunition Ok, whatever... |
Quote: |
Actually, I started this discussion in answer to one of the forum entries that was bemoaning the difficulty of penetrating the Panther from the front. So that is all I was referring to: defeating it from the front. If you were a Sherman tanker how do you think you would feel knowing that your gun was relatively ineffective against the Panther front, but oh, being told that you can defeat it by flanking it???And ultimately, how many tanks are you willing to lose, as well as tankers, to take out one of those heavily armored German tanks? |
Quote: |
Since you mentioned the weak side armor; yes, the Wehrmacht was working to correct that problem with the Panther II. |
Quote: |
And many of those German loses were due to artillery and aircraft attacks, |
Quote: |
And so maybe the CC gamers who lament having to battle them can take note that it takes a correct strategy. |
output generated using printer-friendly topic mod. All times are GMT