(L) Girls und Panzer

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by Znail

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.

That's not how the tank destroyer doctrine worked - its idea was to concentrate anti-tank capability into independent battalions. The British were the ones who interspersed 17-pdr armed AFVs with their other vehicles, and it worked out pretty well for them. Outside of the heavy tank battalions, the Germans didn't send out their tanks en masse any more, so an allied tank force would usually have a large numeric advantage.

As I stated earlier, as an idea, the tank destroyer doctine is not entire without merit. Most of the fighting done by tank units isn't against enemy tanks, and it's a lot better to use your non-tank forces to defeat the enemy tanks that show up. This is a lesson that pretty much every other army learned as well. Tanks are used to create breakthroughs and to exploit them. Enemy tanks are to be defeated by anti-tank guns, artillery, inexpensive tank destroyers, and through maneuver warfare.

Where the ideas of tank destroyer doctrine don't pan outis that it was primarily a defensive doctrine at a time when the U.S. was on the strategic offensive, and that everyone else had also realized that every tank unit needs some of anti-tank ability. It doesn't need to be a lot, but you need something to deal with the odd Panther that shows up.

Originally Posted by Znail

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.

That's because the U.S. got trapped by the timing of their development cycles. The tank destroyer doctrine was developed in 1939-40 as a counter to the Blitzkrieg. And it's not as if the Germans themselves did any better since they still had that Pz. III vs. Pz. IV dichotomy at Barbarossa.

Originally Posted by Znail

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.

Untrue. Where tanks really shine is when they're attacking. The time it takes to pivot an SPG could be the difference between taking out an AT gun or being taken out by it. The Red Army had SPGs up the wazoo, and they still thought it necessary to design a breakthrough AFV with a turreted big gun.

Originally Posted by LoweGear

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).

I can grant you that some cancellations are for non-critical reasons, but the vast majority of them are eminently reasonable. But the weakness of a lack of a combat record stands.

Originally Posted by LoweGear

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.

Counterpoint: Centurion. If the T29 was thought to be worth it, it would still have been built. The U.S. knew of the IS-3's existence by September 1945.

Originally Posted by LoweGear

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.

Sure there's lots of prototype stories out there, but the general gist is that, to be produced, poorer prototypes need a lot of work before they're any good. That's pretty much my point against prototypes. Teething problems and flaws and all sorts of other issues aren't apparent until vehicles see combat. Look at the Panther - do you think the prototype of that tank was any good?

See, whenever I look at a design, the primary question I want answered about it is "Is this useful?" And prototypes don't really provide an answer. For example, the early Centurions had a coaxial 20mm cannon. If it had only existed as a prototype, would we think it was a good idea or not?

Originally Posted by LoweGear

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

I can certainly agree about the interesting part, but how much can you really know about a prototype's capabilities or lack thereof?

Originally Posted by Znail

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.

That's part and parcel of the same issue. Even a terrible design is vastly superior to one that can't even be fielded.

Originally Posted by Guppy

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).

It's the other way around - practical real-world considerations color my ideas a lot more than a show ever will.

Originally Posted by Znail

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.

The problem isn't entirely about the size of the HE shell. Some guns simply have poorer HE rounds by design. And having a larger HE round makes a big difference in the support role - you don't always get a second shot at certain targets, and some targets aren't damaged enough by smaller charges. The Soviets didn't even think that sub-100mm HE rounds were ideal, so they went with 122mm ones.

[aldw]

The simplest extrapolations for tank prototype combat performance would be from comparing prototypes to their closest production unit, such as T-34 vs T-43/T-44, M4 vs M27, or Pzkw V vs E-50 for instance.

[kct]

Originally Posted by aldw

The simplest extrapolations for tank prototype combat performance would be from comparing prototypes to their closest production unit, such as T-34 vs T-43/T-44, M4 vs M27, or Pzkw V vs E-50 for instance.

Except such a process isn't feasible and simple. There's a reason people prefer to do an evolution through improvements to a tank that people will be familiar with, rather than going out and produce an all-new design that they could not get crews up to speed with.

Much has been said about the Comet and Centurion, and how people said they were designs that could possibly swing everything in the favour of the British on a tank-to-tank basis, but both of them descended from the lineage that started with the Cavalier/Centaur/Cromwell. In fact, while it can be argued that post-WWII British tanks like the Chieftain is all-new, they are built off the lineage that started with the Cavalier/Centaur/Cromwell.

[panzerfan]

Before I comment further, here's the Keep Calm posters that I just did.



I will have to have it retouched a bit, I think...

[LoweGear]

Originally Posted by 4Tran

I can grant you that some cancellations are for non-critical reasons, but the vast majority of them are eminently reasonable. But the weakness of a lack of a combat record stands.

Do note that I was only out to disprove the "If a design was any good, then they would've been put into production." statement, since as I've already pointed out, there are a lot of external factors separate from the physical design that can determine whether a prototype enters into production and eventually service. In an ideal world, all it would take for a prototype to be acquired for service would be for it to be a sound design. This world isn't ideal unfortunately, and factors like acquisition requirements, fiscal concerns, doctrinal shifts, bureaucratic swashbuckling, personal egos over pet projects etc. can make even promising prototypes gather dust stuck there as decoration instead of going on into production, and have mediocre designs go out into combat.

Just because prototypes never go into combat doesn't make them less interesting. The history of the prototypes themselves, the design decisions that went into them, why they thought said decisions were good at the time, and the potential capabilities said prototypes and pilot designs might have brought into the field have they gone into service is what makes them interesting to me. Reading about the development histories of tanks like the T95 Medium Tank or the MBT-70 is no less interesting to me than reading about the combat abilities of the M1 Abrams in combat.

And just because I want to remember why this discussion began in the first place, what's the harm of seeing prototype designs in a show like Girls Und Panzer? This is a setting where tanks go all out against each other in battles without having to consider stuff like strategic logistical concerns or combined arms doctrine. No air power, no infantry, no politics, just tanks vs tanks. There's a reason this show is rightfully known as "World Of Tanks: The Anime".

Finally, so we don't forget the "Girls" in Girls Und Panzer, have a Yukari

[Wild Goose]

Originally Posted by panzerfan

Before I comment further, here's the Keep Calm posters that I just did.



I will have to have it retouched a bit, I think...

Awesome!

Could I have the first image resized/retouched to be an Avatar? It'd be the perfect avatar for another forum I visit

[panzerfan]

Sure, let me know size and whatnot and I can change just the logo or whatnot. Up to you... here's what I got atm.



(40mm pom pom going pon poko pon pon on me...)

and a spoof.

[MeisterBabylon]

Miporin is innocent! /kct

[aldw]

Originally Posted by kct

Except such a process isn't feasible and simple. There's a reason people prefer to do an evolution through improvements to a tank that people will be familiar with, rather than going out and produce an all-new design that they could not get crews up to speed with.

Much has been said about the Comet and Centurion, and how people said they were designs that could possibly swing everything in the favour of the British on a tank-to-tank basis, but both of them descended from the lineage that started with the Cavalier/Centaur/Cromwell. In fact, while it can be argued that post-WWII British tanks like the Chieftain is all-new, they are built off the lineage that started with the Cavalier/Centaur/Cromwell.

T-43/T-44s are evolved from T-34 designs for instance, while the E-50 is the standardized and simplified version of the Panther tanks, so that still falls within the examples you just indicated.

[LoweGear]

And in other news...

Originally Posted by MAL

According to the Tweet of director Mizushima Tsutomu, he noticed that some animators of Girls und Panzer have been struggling to show pantsu of the characters although Mizushima had promised that there would be no pantsu shown in the anime. He said he will enforce the discipline of the staff to suppress the "resistance", but he would like to praise the courage if someone manages to insert pantsu scenes.

According to Ibakaki Newspaper, Girls und Panzer has already contributed a lot to the tourism of the model town Oarai. The character tickets released by the local railway have been flying off the shelves and a Japanese-style Hotel, which Matilda crashed into in episode 4, got many reservations by the fans. Ibaraki Prefecture has been publicizing the anime on the top page of the official website.

This anime needs less pantsu, and more PANZER! Mizushima sounds like a cool bro though, like a sir

[MeisterBabylon]

Lol the Matilda's crash ACTUALLY benefitted the RL hotel?! NUTS!

[Sumeragi]

NSFW

Onee-sama in Uniform

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

[kct]

Originally Posted by aldw

T-43/T-44s are evolved from T-34 designs for instance, while the E-50 is the standardized and simplified version of the Panther tanks, so that still falls within the examples you just indicated.

Yeah, except the former projects have been shelved since the Soviets' main concern is pushing out as many T-34s as possible without downtime, which would have happened with adoption of either tanks in their entire form. However, not all is lost as what they have learned from these tanks are used to improve upon the T-34, and with some breathing space, developed into the T-54.

For the E-50, while it was by all intents a simplified version of the Panther, there are plans to adopt even more advanced technologies along with the fact that the Germans were in no shape to push another design into production.

In the end, some of the points raised by 4Tran is quite valid, but at the end of the day someone needs to do the testing to iron out the kinks. The T26E4 example is one of them, and we know how it went for the lineage. The entire subject is too subjective, because everyone will have their take on what happens and clearly it is influenced by priorities of that time.

[Random Wanderer]

Originally Posted by LoweGear

This anime needs less pantsu, and more PANZER!

I wouldn't mind a little pantsu *is shot at by the entire assembled collection of tanks* JOKING! Just joking!

[NoemiChan]

Originally Posted by LoweGear

This anime needs less pantsu, and more PANZER! Mi

More of real blast, explosions....!!! More fire power, more charges!!!

[Kimidori]

wonder if the delay was because of someobe draw too much pantsu?

[Lord of Fire]

I fail to see how a bit of pantsu would hurt this show.

Even though it seems to be working right now, I think a bit of exposure might not be such a bad thing, as long as they don't overdo it and end up making a Strike Witches clone. Plus, it might help those frustrated animator to relieve themselves of some stress.

I'm sure I would enjoy this show either way.

[MarkS00N]

Originally Posted by Lord of Fire

I fail to see how a bit of pantsu would hurt this show.

Even though it seems to be working right now, I think a bit of exposure might not be such a bad thing, as long as they don't overdo it and end up making a Strike Witches clone. Plus, it might help those frustrated animator to relieve themselves of some stress.

I'm sure I would enjoy this show either way.

Well for me, the question isn't whether the show will be harmed by it or not, but why would it need one?

[Scarletknive]

Originally Posted by LoweGear

This anime needs less pantsu, and more PANZER! Mizushima sounds like a cool bro though, like a sir

Need more tanks and stronger ones...

Of course, more Badass Adorable... Oh wait.

[Kimidori]

Waiting line of Girls und Panzer fans at Oarai Goosefish Festival