(L) Girls und Panzer

[LoweGear]

Originally Posted by 4Tran

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 ( ).

[gaiar31]

Girls Und Panzer New Campaign


http://girls-und-panzer.at.webry.inf...rticle_12.html

[jwai]

Originally Posted by Kamui04

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.

[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.

myonlylovesakura
User
Nov 15 2012 at 15:11 UTC4thanks commiesubs~
ALL HAIL FUHRER!!! o7

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

[Zaku_II]

Originally Posted by PzIVf3

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.

[LoweGear]

Images

Yukari

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

Images

Kay

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

[OkamiNoKaze]

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.

[LoweGear]

Originally Posted by OkamiNoKaze

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.

[Seihai]

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).

[Tak]

Originally Posted by Kamui04

Well certain "Superior for some" Arian group insist that she said "Caesar"

Serious?

Which group is this?

Originally Posted by 4Tran

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)

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by LoweGear

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.

Originally Posted by Zaku_II

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.

Originally Posted by Zaku_II

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.

Originally Posted by Tak

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.

[Random Wanderer]

Originally Posted by 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).

We're still missing one. The first-years haven't had their ED yet.

[Sumeragi]

NSFW

What Girlish Wear You Have, Onee-sama

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

Images

Tearful Onee-sama

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

[Chiaki_chan]

Originally Posted by Sumeragi

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

[Scarletknive]

What do you get if you mix 08th team with Girls und Panzer?

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

[Znail]

Originally Posted by 4Tran

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.

[LoweGear]

Originally Posted by 4Tran

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.

[Znail]

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). 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.

[Guppy]

Originally Posted by Znail

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.

Originally Posted by LoweGear

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).

[Znail]

Originally Posted by Guppy

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.