Quote:
Originally Posted by panzerfan
On another note, this pops up quite often in 4chan /ak/ GuPWoT discussions: having SPGs participate in Panzerfahren. It is NOT fun to be met by Churchill AVRE's flying dustbin in the face, nor is it fun to meet a Sturmtiger morser in a dark alley... if you survive to meet them at all, that is.
|
Their guns are powerful, but they have poor accuracy and no rate of fire. Wouldn't it be better to stick with conventional tank destroyers and tanks?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tak
When it comes to steamrolling, Russia really comes to mind.  I wonder what Pravda would pull. |
Maybe that's why they're the defending champions. I rarely think of Soviet tank forces as standalone units - they're just too closely tied to combined arms operations. Instead, I always think of maskirovka and superior generalship when it comes to the Red Army.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tak
Marina2, Tigers were pretty much centered on the philosophy that Tigers are strongest when alone
It is devastating as long as it has a clear sight & line of fire.
I remember one expert commented that the Tiger is a fine tank. There is really nothing wrong with it, its everything else that it comes with.
|
Well, the Germans did form the Tiger battalions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoweGear
Well, not just Japanese Miltakus. Most people think of the Tiger when you they think German WW2 Heavy Armor, since it is the tank that made legends like Michael Wittman and generally made Allied tankers brown note themselves. As powerful as the Tiger II is, it just didn't make that much of an impact on the war to actually be remembered by more people. |
The combat record of the Tiger I is quite astonishing; I guess a lot of it comes from being introduced fairly early in the war, and getting to go up against non-Firefly Shermans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Znail
Err, they got one Firefly, one 76mm armed Sherman but the rest have the crappy 75mm gun that is pretty much unable to harm a Tiger or Panther, even have issues with the PzIV . Well, at least according to the info given so do they have those, even if they look a bit too long to me.
The Shermans also have poor armor compared with the german tanks. It's not just the thickness, but also the use of soft iron instead of high quality hardened steel that the german tanks uses.
|
I meant against Ooarai's ragtag vehicles
. The Sherman's 75mm gun is sort of weak against many tanks, but only the StuG III has any real protection against it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoweGear
Tanks known to have participated in combat during the war aren't too exciting to be honest. What I want to know is what sort of prototype tanks and blueprint designs are allowed under the stated rules. Just one hint, and the possibilities are endless!
*wishes for T29*
|
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.