A few new GV's.

[Karnak]

Karnak, we're talking about the Panzer IV Ausf. F2 with only 50mm frontal armor, not the 80mm of the Panzer IV H. Huge difference there.

Armor doesn't matter if the T-34/76 never hits you because its horrible rate of fire and bad gunsight make ranging the Panzer much harder while the Panzer can easily kill the T-34 out to, say, 1500 yards.

It was never a question of the Panzer's armor.

[skorpion]

Skorpion, quit ankle humping, its really annoying. Contribute and stop trying to derail the thread or leave.


Karnak, we're talking about the Panzer IV Ausf. F2 with only 50mm frontal armor, not the 80mm of the Panzer IV H. Huge difference there.

  ok, please tell me who im ankle humping. ankle humping is arse kissing, which im not doing. also, if you havent noticed, ive contributed to the thread. think before you post.

[B-17]

^
|
|

What he said.

[Tank-Ace]

 "Pershing", "Why don't you want the Pershing?"  Clearly they're all very closely relate to the Panzer IV Ausf F, and the SdKfz 251. You're just a pillar of focus aren't you  .

As to the ankle humping thing, I was implying that you're a closet Midaqua, but...... whatever.


Again, lets get back on topic, Karnak, thanks for not straying.


Karnak, in a long range engagement I think the Panzer would have an edge, but the T-34 is faster, and can produce a lot of ricochets even at close range if you're unlucky. Good gunnery and tactics can easily overcome those weaknesses.

[Karnak]

Karnak, in a long range engagement I think the Panzer would have an edge, but the T-34 is faster, and can produce a lot of ricochets even at close range if you're unlucky. Good gunnery and tactics can easily overcome those weaknesses.

Perhaps in reality, but it is clearly not so in AH.  The Panzer V H dominates the T-34/76, and that has almost nothing to do with the 80mm of frontal armor on the Panzer IV H.  All you are doing in asking for a 75mm KwK 40 L'43 armed Panzer IV for Barbarossa is the same thing skorpion is doing when he asks for the Pershing.  You, and he, are looking for a non-historical advantage for your favored side.

For Barbarossa settings the Panzer IV D would be the best option, with a long barreled 50mm armed Panzer III as the anti-tank part of the German forces.

[SmokinLoon]

Panzer IV Ausf. F: 50mm frontal hull armor, 50mm frontal turret armor, 75mm KwK 37 L'24 or KwK 40 L'43.

This would give us a Panzer IV better representative of early set-ups such as Barbarossa, and North Afrika. We could have both cannons to represent earlier variants such as the Ausf. D with reasonable accuracy, as well as the later F2 and early G models.

It would also give us an ENY 35 vehicle with a powerfull cannon which we have been lacking.


SdKfz 251/9: a 251 with a 75mm L'24 gun, the 251/21: a 251 with 3 20mm cannons for anti-aircraft duty, and the 251/22: a 251 with a Pak 40 75mm AT gun mounted on top.

Would be a great ambush weapon, due to the small size and low profile. It would also be an effective town-killer just like the M3 75mm GMC we have now. This would also give us a fast anti-aircraft vehicle, with better firepower than the M16 MGMC.

I think when HTC remodels the Panzer IV, they should give an option to take the long barrel or short barrel gun in the hanger.  Even thought the model is not exact, they've done it with other newer additions (I-16 is 1 example).  BTW... a 35ENY tank w/ a powerful cannon???  We already have the M4/75, T34/76, and the Panzer IV H. 

I've vouched for adding more SdKfz variants for a long time and the /9 would be my fist choice.  The cannon would be very similar to the LVT-4's 75mm pack howitzer we currently have.  After the /9 then the version with some real anti-tank power from either the German 50mm or 75mm AT guns.

[AHTbolt]

You want 5 new types of German vehicles when you already have 2 medium tanks 1 heavy tank and 1 super heavy tank plus half tracks plus 2 AA vehicles while the British have 1 tank and the US has 2 tanks 3 halftrack types and a jeep. Whats wrong with this picture. No No No.  Fill out the rest then its fine to add more GE types

[AHTbolt]

Oh and lets not forget the mighty M8. You say no to the M26 because you can up a tiger is a strange statement because I dont want to up a tiger I want to up a M26.

[skorpion]

Oh and lets not forget the mighty M8. You say no to the M26 because you can up a tiger is a strange statement because I dont want to up a tiger I want to up a M26.

hes probably scared to up a tiger1 when a firefly is out because its matched in firepower. whats your reasoning for saying no to the pershing tank? are you scared that it can kill a tiger1 in a single shot from 4k away? or do you just want more german tanks that outgun the tanks we already have?

You want 5 new types of German vehicles when you already have 2 medium tanks 1 heavy tank and 1 super heavy tank plus half tracks plus 2 AA vehicles while the British have 1 tank and the US has 2 tanks 3 halftrack types and a jeep. Whats wrong with this picture. No No No.  Fill out the rest then its fine to add more GE types

the firefly wasnt completely brit. it had a brit gun and the chassis of an american sherman.

[Tank-Ace]

Perhaps in reality, but it is clearly not so in AH.  The Panzer V H dominates the T-34/76, and that has almost nothing to do with the 80mm of frontal armor on the Panzer IV H.  All you are doing in asking for a 75mm KwK 40 L'43 armed Panzer IV for Barbarossa is the same thing skorpion is doing when he asks for the Pershing.  You, and he, are looking for a non-historical advantage for your favored side.

For Barbarossa settings the Panzer IV D would be the best option, with a long barreled 50mm armed Panzer III as the anti-tank part of the German forces.

I'm actually asking for a reduction in the advantage my side would have in a Barbarossa set-up. If you think it isn't armor that helps give the Panzer its edge, then a tank with armor a mere 10mm thicker than the Ausf D, and carrying the same gun (I changed my origional post btw) shouldn't have any greater advantage.

[SmokinLoon]

You want 5 new types of German vehicles when you already have 2 medium tanks 1 heavy tank and 1 super heavy tank plus half tracks plus 2 AA vehicles while the British have 1 tank and the US has 2 tanks 3 halftrack types and a jeep. Whats wrong with this picture. No No No.  Fill out the rest then its fine to add more GE types

Then no more US aircraft until the French, Italians, and Soviets get better representation in the air?   

[Oddball-CAF]

Wasn't the Ausf. D the standard Panzer IV of Barbarossa?

Hell, I thought it was PzIIs and PzIIIs for Barbarossa, with the short barreled IVs being
few and far between.

[Tank-Ace]

Was mostly II's and III's, but there was still a fair number of Panzer IV's. Enough so that they deserve mention at the very least.

[Karnak]

I'm actually asking for a reduction in the advantage my side would have in a Barbarossa set-up. If you think it isn't armor that helps give the Panzer its edge, then a tank with armor a mere 10mm thicker than the Ausf D, and carrying the same gun (I changed my origional post btw) shouldn't have any greater advantage.

I saw the change.  You're still asking for the 75mm KwK 40 L'43 as an option, and that translates to the only gun you'd see on the Panzer IV F.  Nobody is going to take the 75mm KwK 37 L'24 when the 75mm KwK 40 L'43 is available.

[gyrene81]

Hell, I thought it was PzIIs and PzIIIs for Barbarossa, with the short barreled IVs being
few and far between.

by 1940 there were enough ausf d's produced for each tank division to have a company of them. in a battalion that would be least 4 panzer iv ausf d's, about 10-15 panzer iii's and a 3 or 4 panzer ii's.

it would have to be the ausf f2 in order to have the kwk40 l/43, the earlier f model had the same main gun as the ausf d - 7.5cm kwk37 l/24.