AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > Anime Discussion > Older Series

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2012-11-16, 02:19   Link #1301
LoweGear
Device Meister
*Graphic Designer
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: 3 times the passion of the usual flamenco
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Tran View Post
No way! Production designs, especially combat-proven ones, are far superior to the paper tanks. A tank's ability can often only be judged by its combat record. Non-produced tanks have no record, so there's no way for them to be impressive. Otherwise, we'd all be talking about how awesome Shermans are because they have gyro stabilizers.
Now that's a tangent I didn't expect when I brought up this topic

I'm more just excited about the possibility of prototype tanks at all irrespective of combat records or their supposed abilities. Also, there have been prototypes with actual combat records - just look at the T26E4 ( ).
__________________

On Simple Solutions: "I bought the airline. It seemed neater."
LoweGear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-11-16, 03:39   Link #1302
gaiar31
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Girls Und Panzer New Campaign


http://girls-und-panzer.at.webry.inf...rticle_12.html
gaiar31 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-11-16, 06:28   Link #1303
jwai
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Age: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamui04 View Post
Wow the whole history club is on the lower intelligence side. Well it isn't like you need high intelligence to just memorize and quote stuff from history books. And it also explains how they shot themselves in the foot with the Stug III low profile and the big tall banners
They might not be the brightest bunch, but from what I've seen, they don't seem nearly as skittish under fire as some of their other team-mates, which is a good thing when the StuG is going to be relied upon to do much of the big shooting.
__________________
Some people are alive simply because it's illegal to kill them.
jwai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-11-16, 07:39   Link #1304
Liddo-kun
Come on everyone
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Nanairogaoka
Send a message via MSN to Liddo-kun
Watched episode 5.5:

Some information about the main characters and their favorite tanks.
Not very surprising that Mako's motto is something related to sleeping.

Also found some funny quotes of people at Nyaa on Commie's version.

Quote:
myonlylovesakura
User
Nov 15 2012 at 15:11 UTC4thanks commiesubs~
ALL HAIL FUHRER!!! o7
Quote:
ot4ku
User
Nov 15 2012 at 15:54 UTC8Yes we germans know english very well... its the language of our enemy, thats why we need to learn it
Liddo-kun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-11-16, 08:37   Link #1305
Zaku_II
1st Scouting Group
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: High Seas Fleet
Quote:
Originally Posted by PzIVf3 View Post
I been wondering all these year why British and American amour still inferior? Even Patton himself complain of their poor amour protection to the War Department and nothing happen.
The problem of USA was the development of an erroneous doctrine.

From the analysis of the blitzkrieg, American planners concluded that tanks were the master to make and take advantage of the rupture of enemy lines. For this was not necessary that the tanks had a very powerful gun, but more importantly a good mobility, range and reliability.

On the other side, to opposing the inevitable counterattacks by enemy armored forces, it was thought that the anti-tank units with tank destroyers (unarmored sherman chassis with 90mm cannon and after 76mm) and towed guns, would be able to benefit from enhanced mobility that gave them the lack of armor would be able to anticipate these counterattacks and defeat the enemy tanks thanks to a better location (to come before and choose their positions in ambush) and better weapons on tank destroyers compared the to enemy medium tank.

In practice this doctrine proved inadequate and tank destroyers were most used as infantry support (such as German Stug) for which there were unadequate for their lack of armor, while the tanks proved to be the best anti-tank weapon available.

The UK on the other hand had the problem of a smaller industrial base, and the need to produce enough units (UK was at war continuously since 1940) to reequip and replace loses, therefore all their arms were incremental developments of existing models, which limited the time and resources available for the development of new weapons.

Last edited by Zaku_II; 2012-11-16 at 14:37. Reason: typo
Zaku_II is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-11-16, 09:43   Link #1306
LoweGear
Device Meister
*Graphic Designer
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: 3 times the passion of the usual flamenco
Images
Yukari
Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

Images
Kay
Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?
__________________

On Simple Solutions: "I bought the airline. It seemed neater."
LoweGear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-11-16, 11:13   Link #1307
OkamiNoKaze
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Looks like Ep 5.5 included some new scenes, or rather a couple new camera angles on scenes, a couple examples I noticed, was the the elevator sneak attack, was shown from the side, and the first person view of the tank hitting the store, there were probably a few more, I just didn't catch them.
__________________
OkamiNoKaze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-11-16, 11:19   Link #1308
LoweGear
Device Meister
*Graphic Designer
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: 3 times the passion of the usual flamenco
Quote:
Originally Posted by OkamiNoKaze View Post
Looks like Ep 5.5 included some new scenes, or rather a couple new camera angles on scenes, a couple examples I noticed, was the the elevator sneak attack, was shown from the side, and the first person view of the tank hitting the store, there were probably a few more, I just didn't catch them.
Nope, those scenes all appeared in episode 4. Episode 5.5 has not one second of new footage in it.
__________________

On Simple Solutions: "I bought the airline. It seemed neater."
LoweGear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-11-16, 12:15   Link #1309
Vanish
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Age: 22
Send a message via Skype™ to Vanish
Hmm so 5.5 summarized all the ED tanks into one ED. Truly everything was an edit-together, even the ending. I still prefer the Panzer IV(?) ED from episode 2. The wobbling of the tank really made it look like pudding... a pudding with adorable chibis on it. Jesus, save us all! Wonder if they'll come up with something new in the next ED (just a new tank would be fine).
Vanish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-11-16, 12:47   Link #1310
Tak
☭ автомат Калашникова ☭
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Neu Herzogtum Zeon
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamui04 View Post
Well certain "Superior for some" Arian group insist that she said "Caesar"
Serious?

Which group is this?

Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Tran View Post
Washuu from Pretty Sammy said that all the time. I can't recall hearing it from any other character though.
Ya know, I am a pretty big fan of Tenchi Muyo... but you can't possibly expect me to watch Pretty Sammy.

Hell, the mere thought that you've seen it makes me shudder

- Tak (Tsunami is not pleased)
__________________
- Flight to Brazil? $1,500
- FIFA Stadium Ticket? $500
- Witnessing Coach Joachim Lw crack a smile at the World-Cup Final? PRICELESS


There are some things money can't buy. For everything else, there is Master Card.


Get strong like ROCK! Not weak like Barack! Putincize now!

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Last edited by Tak; 2012-11-16 at 13:25.
Tak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-11-16, 14:16   Link #1311
4Tran
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoweGear View Post
Now that's a tangent I didn't expect when I brought up this topic

I'm more just excited about the possibility of prototype tanks at all irrespective of combat records or their supposed abilities. Also, there have been prototypes with actual combat records - just look at the T26E4 ( ).
Prototypes by themselves are just numbers on a page for me, so I don't find them very sexy. There are just so many facets to what makes good and bad tanks that never show up on paper. If a design was any good, then they would've been put into production. Prototypes like the Super Pershing may have seen occasional combat, but the record is usually very sparse and not particularly relevant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaku_II View Post
The problem of USA was the development of an erroneous doctrine.

From the analysis of the blitzkrieg, American planners concluded that tanks were the master to make and take advantage of the rupture of enemy lines. For this was not necessary that the tanks had a very powerful gun, but more importantly a good mobility, range and reliability.

On the other side, to opposing the inevitable counterattacks by enemy armored forces, it was thought that the anti-tank units with tank destroyers (unarmored sherman chassis with 90mm cannon and after 76mm) and towed guns, would be able to benefit from enhanced mobility that gave them the lack of armor would be able to anticipate these counterattacks and defeat the enemy tanks thanks to a better location (to come before and choose their positions in ambush) and better weapons on tank destroyers compared the to enemy medium tank.

In practice this doctrine proved inadequate and tank destroyers were most used as infantry support (such as German Stug) for which there were adequate for their lack of armor, while the tanks proved to be the best anti-tank weapon available.
I'm a bit less critical of the American tank destroyer doctrine. In principle, it's quite correct: you shouldn't try to destroy enemy tanks with your own. It's better to use either dedicated anti-tank units or to defeat them using maneuver. However, the problem is that they overly adhered to that doctrine. Sometimes a tank unit doesn't have a choice but to engage enemy tanks. If Sherman units had a few extra 76mm tanks and a sprinkling of Pershings, they wouldn't have such bad press.

While the general preception is that American tanks were terrible against German tanks, but the combat record suggests that they did fairly well overall. I'd say it's more of a case of having some decent ideas, and then going about it wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaku_II View Post
The UK on the other hand had the problem of a smaller industrial base, and the need to produce enough units (UK was at war continuously since 1940) to reequip and replace loses, therefore all their arms were incremental developments of existing models, which limited the time and resources available for the development of new weapons.
The British problem was having an unmatched development cycle. They were trying to churn out new tanks in 1940-41 before the lessons of Barbarossa were widely known and absorbed, and this covered all the tanks up to the Churchill and the Cromwell. The next developments were the Comet and Centurion, and those tanks were pretty darned good. Americans supplying a large number of Shermans to the British also played a hand in disrupting the deployment of domestic tanks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tak View Post
Ya know, I am a pretty big fan of Tenchi Muyo... but you can't possibly expect me to watch Pretty Sammy.

Hell, the mere thought that you've seen it makes me shudder

- Tak (Tsunami is not pleased)
Nuh-uh, Tsusami is totally pleased. She gets to play a much larger role in Pretty Sammy than in the Tenchi OVAs, TV shows and movies unless you count the third OVA. Besides, it's a good show, basically Nanoha long before Nanoha came out, and with Washuu as an American. Pixy Misa is pretty awesome as well.
__________________
The victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won...
4Tran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-11-16, 18:14   Link #1312
Random Wanderer
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vanish View Post
Hmm so 5.5 summarized all the ED tanks into one ED. Truly everything was an edit-together, even the ending. I still prefer the Panzer IV(?) ED from episode 2. The wobbling of the tank really made it look like pudding... a pudding with adorable chibis on it. Jesus, save us all! Wonder if they'll come up with something new in the next ED (just a new tank would be fine).
We're still missing one. The first-years haven't had their ED yet.
Random Wanderer is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-11-16, 19:37   Link #1313
Sumeragi
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Dai Korai Teikoku
NSFW
What Girlish Wear You Have, Onee-sama
Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?
Images
Tearful Onee-sama
Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?
Sumeragi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-11-16, 19:51   Link #1314
Chiaki_chan
Kubo GO TO HELL
 
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: with Maki-sama
Age: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sumeragi View Post
NSFW
What Girlish Wear You Have, Onee-sama
Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?
Images
Tearful Onee-sama
Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?
Ho god Darjeline Onee-sama
__________________
http://forums.animesuki.com/images/as.icon/signaturepics/sigpic211239_32.gif
Chiaki_chan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-11-16, 23:56   Link #1315
Scarletknive
Meister
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
What do you get if you mix 08th team with Girls und Panzer?

http://www.nicovideo.jp/watch/sm19305079
__________________

Last edited by Scarletknive; 2012-11-17 at 00:11.
Scarletknive is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-11-17, 01:27   Link #1316
Znail
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Tran View Post
I'm a bit less critical of the American tank destroyer doctrine. In principle, it's quite correct: you shouldn't try to destroy enemy tanks with your own. It's better to use either dedicated anti-tank units or to defeat them using maneuver. However, the problem is that they overly adhered to that doctrine. Sometimes a tank unit doesn't have a choice but to engage enemy tanks. If Sherman units had a few extra 76mm tanks and a sprinkling of Pershings, they wouldn't have such bad press.
I really disagree with this as it's such a bad idea really. Just consider if you have 4 infantry support tanks and 2 tank destroyers and then you get matched up against 6 all round tanks, then the 2 tank destroyers get to fight a 3-to-1 battle while the infantry support tanks scurry around in panic. Now this isn't quite how it was planed origiinally as the Sherman was actually envisioned as an all-round tank that would be able to deal with enemy tanks, it just didn't live up to that role due to how the tanks had progressed. There was also the failure of using soft armor as test targets for the guns.

The US was also somewhat tricked by the Germans as they had also originally planed to use the same type of setup with infantry support tanks (PzIV) and tank destroyers (PzIII). But they had already realised this mistake at the start of the war (39), but had yet to get the change in doctrine into production. But as what they used seemed to work so well with Blizkrieg so did the US think that this was the way to go and totally missed what kind of changes that Germany did to later versions of those tanks and the newer tank designs.

There is really no point in specialising a turreted tank for infantry support as the turret isn't really a feature needed to do that. That role is much better filled with SPG's as they can mount much larger caliber howitzers on the same chassis.

It doesn't hurt that you lose very little in the area of infantry support by focusing on making sure the anti-tank capability is there as you will still be able to fire HE of only marginally less effectiveness. In the end so are infantry more common then enemy armor, so even tank destoyers tended to use more HE shells then armor piercing ones. It's just that when you met enemy armor, then the gun you have would be vital.

As a side note so were the StugIII one of the top performers in tank destroying in WW2 as it was cheap to make and good at what it did. It's a bit of contrast as Germany are often chided for making uneconomic tanks during the war, but the StugIII is an exception to that for sure.
Znail is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-11-17, 01:56   Link #1317
LoweGear
Device Meister
*Graphic Designer
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: 3 times the passion of the usual flamenco
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Tran View Post
If a design was any good, then they would've been put into production.
I find this statement a narrow view on prototype designs. Sure it is true for many (I pity the girls who get themselves an A38 Valiant), but there are also designs that never got into production mainly because of factors not relating to the design itself, like politics (ex. CF-105). And then there are those designs that were intended for combat but came too late for the war, like the T29. The T29 in fact was slated for production (being pilot tanks afterall) but was relegated to engineering testbeds due to Japan surrendering. There are also designs that lost to another design in one department, but then came to be used in another; the YF-17 design lost to the YF-16 in the USAF's LWF program due to the USAF seeing the latter as superior, but then the YF-17 saw a new lease of life when it was redeveloped as a Navy aircraft, becoming the F/A-18 Hornet. And then there are designs that went into production and seeing combat despite the teething problems they had, like the Churchill, which only became the trustworthy Heavy tank it did after several iterations down the line.

Just because the designs never saw combat doesn't mean they wouldn't have been good, nor are they uninteresting.
__________________

On Simple Solutions: "I bought the airline. It seemed neater."

Last edited by LoweGear; 2012-11-17 at 02:46.
LoweGear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-11-17, 02:23   Link #1318
Znail
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoweGear View Post
I find this statement a narrow view on prototype designs. Sure it is true for many (I pity the girls who get themselves an A38 Valiant), but there are also designs that never got into production mainly because of factors not relating to the design itself, like politics (ex. CF-105). And then there are those designs that were intended for combat but came too late for the war, like the T29. The T29 in fact was slated for production (being pilot tanks afterall) but was relegated to engineering testbeds due to Japan surrendering. There are also designs that lost to another design in one department, but then came to be used in another; the YF-17 design lost to the YF-16 in the USAF's LWY program due to the USAF seeing the latter as superior, but then the YF-17 saw a new lease of life when it was redeveloped as a Navy aircraft, becoming the F/A-18 Hornet. And then there are designs that went into production and seeing combat despite the teething problems they had, like the Churchill, which only became the trustworthy Heavy tank it did after several iterations down the line.

Just because the designs never saw combat doesn't mean they wouldn't have been good, nor are they uninteresting.
There is alot to this, even more so when you consider such simple things like US armor was very limited due to logistics and many heavier designs never saw use simply due to the difficulty of transporting them to the front. This doesn't mean that they were bad, just that they couldn't easily be loaded on ships with standard loading cranes of that time.
Znail is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-11-17, 06:01   Link #1319
Guppy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Znail View Post
It doesn't hurt that you lose very little in the area of infantry support by focusing on making sure the anti-tank capability is there as you will still be able to fire HE of only marginally less effectiveness.
I'm not really sure things worked out that way. The Sherman 76mm's HE shell had only 50-60% of the 75mm's explosive filler; that doesn't seem like it'd be only a marginal loss of effectiveness. IIRC the Firefly had similar problems with its 17-pdr's HE shell, and also suffered from a lower rate of fire because the turret was so cramped by the bigger gun.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoweGear View Post
I find this statement a narrow view on prototype designs.
I mostly agree with you on that. Anime in general has a bad habit of continually treating prototypes as flawless wonder weapons, though, so I wouldn't be surprised if 4Tran's a bit fed up with the whole thing (particularly since one of the worst offenders is Gundam, and I remember 4Tran was a veteran of that series's board here).
Guppy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-11-17, 06:33   Link #1320
Znail
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guppy View Post
I'm not really sure things worked out that way. The Sherman 76mm's HE shell had only 50-60% of the 75mm's explosive filler; that doesn't seem like it'd be only a marginal loss of effectiveness. IIRC the Firefly had similar problems with its 17-pdr's HE shell, and also suffered from a lower rate of fire because the turret was so cramped by the bigger gun.
50% of explosives still means it will blow things up, maybe fire two shots instead of one. But if you have the 75mm against a Tiger then it wont matter if you fire two shots as it wont penetrate anyway.

Those are also just specific design problems and not a general rule. If the turret were correctly designed for the right gun from the start so would there be no problem with the room. It's also quite possible to have as large HE charges for the anti-tank gun as long as the design is well made and alows for lighter propellant charges for HE shots.
Znail is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
comedy, gup, military, original anime, slice of life, sports, tanks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 21:06.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.