Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Neubob on November 15, 2004, 12:33:58 PM
-
Any thoughts to adding this vehicle to the selection? Seems to me that with the Tiger, a JS tank would be an appropriate counterpart.
JS tanks (http://www.battlefield.ru/is2_1.html)
The 122's a real monster.
-
nice tank, but the western allies need 1 or 2 first, especially for scenario's.
-
as much as i would hate to see it arive the waste of coad sherman should be next...i like all russian tanks so js's would be good.
-
KV-1 would be a nice alternative.
THe funny thing is this. I have read an awful lot about the Tiger series. Carius, Wittman (war interviews), and many others had lots to say about the great attributes of the Tiger, especially that it was tough, could take almost anything to the front, and that the "mechanical unreliabilty" was just not true. They also shed some interesting light on the bad attributes, such as the lack of a decent tow vehicles forcing tigers to tow other tigers that caused strain on the tranny and subsequent failures, the inability to go onto soft ground, the lack of thick top armour (this is how Wittman got nailed by a Typhoon and the Western Front achieved most Tiger kills this way) and that the Tiger had poor outside visibilty, along with component replacement being severly diffciult owing to the necessity to remove the turret to do tranny and drive train work.
Most everyone thinks that the Tiger is a wonder weapon, and I disagree 100%, it was a good weapon when employed with heavy infantry support, and for ambush as it's range (with ability to penetrate) far exceeded anything until late in the war. But, it was also vulnerable from the rear, the sides could be penetrated and air attack proved to be it's nemesis.
All in all the Tiger is a good weapon, and it's weapon should penetrate ANYTHING on the ground in AH with impunity, but it does not, as those who know it have found out, probably for game play reasons, and the lack of killabilty from the top is probably another reason of playability.
-
Would be nice to see, though it would dominate the tiger.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
KV-1 would be a nice alternative.
THe funny thing is this. I have read an awful lot about the Tiger series. Carius, Wittman (war interviews), and many others had lots to say about the great attributes of the Tiger, especially that it was tough, could take almost anything to the front, and that the "mechanical unreliabilty" was just not true. They also shed some interesting light on the bad attributes, such as the lack of a decent tow vehicles forcing tigers to tow other tigers that caused strain on the tranny and subsequent failures, the inability to go onto soft ground, the lack of thick top armour (this is how Wittman got nailed by a Typhoon and the Western Front achieved most Tiger kills this way) and that the Tiger had poor outside visibilty, along with component replacement being severly diffciult owing to the necessity to remove the turret to do tranny and drive train work.
Most everyone thinks that the Tiger is a wonder weapon, and I disagree 100%, it was a good weapon when employed with heavy infantry support, and for ambush as it's range (with ability to penetrate) far exceeded anything until late in the war. But, it was also vulnerable from the rear, the sides could be penetrated and air attack proved to be it's nemesis.
All in all the Tiger is a good weapon, and it's weapon should penetrate ANYTHING on the ground in AH with impunity, but it does not, as those who know it have found out, probably for game play reasons, and the lack of killabilty from the top is probably another reason of playability.
A few points I'd like to add.
The 80mm side and rear armor of Tiger I is only 20mm thinner than its front armor. So any great vulnerability from the sides isnt that much greater than the front. In this respect the Tiger is far superior to lets say Panther which has very strong frontal armor but rather weak side and rear.
The Tiger turret top armor was thickened to 40mm. Oddly enough according to the data I have this wasnt to defeat air attacks, it was a counter to soviet artillery which was able to crack the thinner plates by dropping in fire on the tanks. Its intresting how you meantion Tigers and infantry support. Infantry got spooked and lost confidence when a great invulnerable Tiger was knocked out by artillery and this was apparently one of the key reasons the roof was reinforced. It was so common that the troops even came up with a fancy german compound noun for this type of reaction.
Nobody knows for sure what killed Michael Wittman's Tiger 007, there are both RAF Typhoon and Sherman Firefly partisans here. It's very likely that Wittmans late model Tiger had the thicker top armor.
There are some reports that air attack claims against tanks are wildly overstated and that the US military found little evidence of great numbers of tanks killed from the air after the normandy fighting.
Yep the turret removal for transmission service was a pain, especially since it required that huge gantry setup.
As far as Tiger I being a wonder weapon, perhaps the best comment on that was something I saw like this from 1944.
"No longer could a Tiger I drive up to a ridge line to observe the enemy with impunity as it would likely be on the receving end of a killing 122mm JS II russian heavy tank rund"
When introduced in late 1942 the Tiger 1 was practically immune to the common tank guns in all reasonable ranges but of course that did not last for long.
Finally you mentined KV1, this certainly had many of the steotypical traits of Tiger especially when faced with 37mm and 50mm armed Panzer III in 1941.. The stories of single KV1 or KV2 holding up entire panzer divisions for days.. ;) But it was very slow, very unreliable, very heavy and only monted the 76mm gun and it was ultimately supplanted by the T34. Much in the same way Tiger I was outdone by Panther IMO..
Oh yea and about the JS II russian heavy tank.
The front armor would be all but impenetrable to all the ccurrent AH2 guns - even the Tigers at everyuting except very very close range. The side armor would be as thick or thicker as Tiger I frontal armor. It would be very slow and sluggish, slower than Tiger. It would only hold 38 rds of 122mm ammo. This was 2 part ammo, with seperate shell and propellant charge so reloading would be very slow, even slower than the T34 we have now. Its gun would allow Tiger 1 frontal kills at ranges exceeding 1000 meters.
-
I've been in a JS-2M but there's some confusion whether it saw much service in WW2. I have some inside photos if they wanted to model it, but I have no internet at home yet!
-
Originally posted by Replicant
I've been in a JS-2M but there's some confusion whether it saw much service in WW2. I have some inside photos if they wanted to model it, but I have no internet at home yet!
The JS-2M variant was purely postwar. The website mentions this specifically as a point of confusion, and goes on to indicate that it was a mid 50s model of the JS-2, and that anything of WWII vintage lacked a suffix of any sort.
Nevertheless, it would be a great addition, I think. If not the 2, which, as Grun said, would have load speed issues, then certainly the JS-1 with the 85mm gun. It's top speed was supposed to have been around 54kph, which would make it faster than the tiger. A nice machine overall.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Oh yea and about the JS II russian heavy tank.
The front armor would be all but impenetrable to all the ccurrent AH2 guns - even the Tigers at everyuting except very very close range. The side armor would be as thick or thicker as Tiger I frontal armor. It would be very slow and sluggish, slower than Tiger. It would only hold 38 rds of 122mm ammo. This was 2 part ammo, with seperate shell and propellant charge so reloading would be very slow, even slower than the T34 we have now. Its gun would allow Tiger 1 frontal kills at ranges exceeding 1000 meters.
I agree 95%... all true what you said on the JS-2, it was more like an turreted tank in an assualt gun role, rather than a true heavy tank. For anti-tank work, it`s not the best, too low ROF, too few AP rounds carried.. One comment on the JS-2`s front armor, it wasn`t impenetrable. YES the glacis was very good, highly sloped 120mm, inpenetrable even to the best German AT guns... but the turret ? 100mm cast only... that`s vulnerable even to common guns, like the PzIVs long 75mm, not to say the heavier ones.
Oh, and one final note on the Tigers ability on soft terrain. Unlike the urban myth goes, the Tiger was HIGHLY manouverable on soft terrain, I have seen a detailed study on that, it`s ground pressure on soft terrain was entirely comparable to that of the T-34, and that`s true for the Tiger II as well. the Panther was lightyears ahead to all... having read US tankers on that, they state they saw with their own eyes Tigers and Panthers making their way on such terrain which would be simply unpassable for their shermans, which would plow itself into it right to the belly.. the secret : the equal distribution of weight over the tracks, thanks to the overlapped roadwheels. But this type of running gear was too complex for regular maintaince.
-
...which kept them stopping.
Anyway:
"There are some reports that air attack claims against tanks are wildly overstated and that the US military found little evidence of great numbers of tanks killed from the air after the normandy fighting. "
This boggles me.
Might come to the same pond. Tanks were getting knocked out (of order) but not destroyed, successfully being pulled out.
For some reason, the allied invasion and the 3 months that followed was highly succesful, basically exceeding expectation in advance speed. German tanks being operable could have changed that.
So, they got knocked out by the dozens allright, however not KILLED.
-
Angus,
something for you to read.
http://w1.183.telia.com/~u18313395/normandy/articles/airpower.html
Under test conditions, RPGs had a ~5% hit probability. Would be much less than that in combat. What a2g did was wreck havok with the supply train.
-
So why were so many tanks destroyed by their crews?
Damage? From where?
What boggles me is the end effect. Ok, there is not so good consistency between destroyed tanks and their production numbers. So where's the difference?
At the time of the Arnhem invasion the German Tank force on the western front was quite tattered, and various army units were striving to get the few operable tanks. One commander responed to orders to deliver his tanks to another unti by "disabling" some of those few he had, so that officially operable numbers would be lower.
It shows a bit how the situation was. So where were all of them tanks?
-
Everyone who reads that article will come away with their own conclusions. My observation is about the assault gun unit--they had to work for an entire day to get 80% of their vehicles back in service. If the allies had been able to advance to that position, they would have been forced to abandon some of their equipment in place.
Battles are usually won by he who gets there first with the most. Keeping an assault gun unit out of the fight--even for a day--can have an effect on the overall battle MUCH greater than any actual destruction. A ground military unit that has lost 20% of its equipment in a single engagement is usually considered to be unfit for service.
-
Originally posted by Angus
So why were so many tanks destroyed by their crews?
Damage? From where?
AFV are high maintainance vehicles Angus. If the supplies to keep them operating do not reach them..... So your afv that was destroyed by its crew was not capable of moving because it lack some $0.10 part that was destoyed in some truck on the road by Allied FBs. Much easier to 'kill' a truck than a afv and the result is an afv is out of service.
-
Not to hijack the hijack, but are we pretty much in concensus about the appeal of having a JS1 or a KV of one type or another on the vehicle list?
-
Jumbo or Firefly Sherman first.
Another nice toy would be a 75mm gun "add on" for our M3 Halftrack.
-
So the major success of allied air assaults on tanks would have been with damage and supplies.
Damage a tanks just enough to stop it where it is, - if it does not get supplies it is out. Even burned by the crew?
-
imho, the best addition right now would be a M4A3 with the 105mm howitzer. In very strict game terms, it would give us 4 options overall. The heavily armoured T-34, the well balanced Panzer IV, the perk'd Tiger I, and the M4A3 would fill the gap with a lighter armored tank with a pretty big gun. iirc, the 105mm was good even against King Tigers.
I don't agree with throwing in the JS series or anything yet. I think there's alot of great tanks, tank destroyers, self-propelled guns, and medium tanks that would go a long way to improving the ground game. Why go through the effort of making something similar to the Tiger, when there's a whole slew of untapped resources?
Now, on a quick second to digress into the realms of insanity... you can keep your JS series tanks. You can keep your Tigers & Panthers. Give me a Maus (http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz7.htm#maus)! 128mm main gun, and 75mm "coax". No, wait. Too small. Ahh, here we go, the P1000 "Ratte" (http://www.achtungpanzer.com/p1000.htm#1000) design. Two 280mm main guns taken from a Graf Spee battlecruiser turret with the center gun removed, a single 128mm gun, eight 20mm Flak 38 AA guns, and two 15mm Mauser MG 151/15 guns... Doh, still not big enough. Ahh, here we go, the P1500. 250mm front armor, 800mm super heavy mortar, with two, small, 150mm backup guns, & 2-4 U-Boat engines to drive it. Man, Grote was definately off his rocker... but those are just freakin' awesome. Thank God none were ever built.
And I checked all those numbers to make sure I didn't mistype anything. Yes, 800mm.
-
Pershing tank baby, all the way.
-
Originally posted by indy007
imho, the best addition right now would be a M4A3 with the 105mm howitzer. In very strict game terms, it would give us 4 options overall. The heavily armoured T-34, the well balanced Panzer IV, the perk'd Tiger I, and the M4A3 would fill the gap with a lighter armored tank with a pretty big gun. iirc, the 105mm was good even against King Tigers.
I don't agree with throwing in the JS series or anything yet. I think there's alot of great tanks, tank destroyers, self-propelled guns, and medium tanks that would go a long way to improving the ground game. Why go through the effort of making something similar to the Tiger, when there's a whole slew of untapped resources?
Now, on a quick second to digress into the realms of insanity... you can keep your JS series tanks. You can keep your Tigers & Panthers. Give me a Maus (http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz7.htm#maus)! 128mm main gun, and 75mm "coax". No, wait. Too small. Ahh, here we go, the P1000 "Ratte" (http://www.achtungpanzer.com/p1000.htm#1000) design. Two 280mm main guns taken from a Graf Spee battlecruiser turret with the center gun removed, a single 128mm gun, eight 20mm Flak 38 AA guns, and two 15mm Mauser MG 151/15 guns... Doh, still not big enough. Ahh, here we go, the P1500. 250mm front armor, 800mm super heavy mortar, with two, small, 150mm backup guns, & 2-4 U-Boat engines to drive it. Man, Grote was definately off his rocker... but those are just freakin' awesome. Thank God none were ever built.
And I checked all those numbers to make sure I didn't mistype anything. Yes, 800mm.
this is sick, kinda make me think of the "mammoth" tank in "Red Alert" :)
-
Originally posted by indy007
Now, on a quick second to digress into the realms of insanity... you can keep your JS series tanks. You can keep your Tigers & Panthers. Give me a Maus (http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz7.htm#maus)! 128mm main gun, and 75mm "coax". No, wait. Too small. Ahh, here we go, the P1000 "Ratte" (http://www.achtungpanzer.com/p1000.htm#1000) design. Two 280mm main guns taken from a Graf Spee battlecruiser turret with the center gun removed, a single 128mm gun, eight 20mm Flak 38 AA guns, and two 15mm Mauser MG 151/15 guns... Doh, still not big enough. Ahh, here we go, the P1500. 250mm front armor, 800mm super heavy mortar, with two, small, 150mm backup guns, & 2-4 U-Boat engines to drive it. Man, Grote was definately off his rocker... but those are just freakin' awesome. Thank God none were ever built.
And I checked all those numbers to make sure I didn't mistype anything. Yes, 800mm.
Most likely even if they would have been built they would have been tactically useless.
If you remember that there wasn't a bridge "anywhere" in Europe at the time that they could cross and alot of the rivers and streams couldn't have been forded.
They were pretty much stuck at the factory if they were built. Also with Allied Air Superiority - they wouldn't have lasted long.
-
Didn't say they woulda been useful in reality. :) However, we don't have reality. We have the MA. In the MA, they would be cool once or twice.
And Porsche really did build the Maus. Well, 2 prototypes at least. They were supposed to be destroyed as they Wehrmacht was pushed back to Berlin. Rumor has it though that a Maus (not sure if it's the V1 or V2) is on display at a museum outside of Moscow.
-
Originally posted by indy007
Now, on a quick second to digress into the realms of insanity... you can keep your JS series tanks. You can keep your Tigers & Panthers. Give me a Maus (http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz7.htm#maus)! 128mm main gun, and 75mm "coax". No, wait. Too small. Ahh, here we go, the P1000 "Ratte" (http://www.achtungpanzer.com/p1000.htm#1000) design. Two 280mm main guns taken from a Graf Spee battlecruiser turret with the center gun removed, a single 128mm gun, eight 20mm Flak 38 AA guns, and two 15mm Mauser MG 151/15 guns... Doh, still not big enough. Ahh, here we go, the P1500. 250mm front armor, 800mm super heavy mortar, with two, small, 150mm backup guns, & 2-4 U-Boat engines to drive it. Man, Grote was definately off his rocker... but those are just freakin' awesome. Thank God none were ever built.
And I checked all those numbers to make sure I didn't mistype anything. Yes, 800mm.
Funny how a couple modern tanks would make short work of any of these monstrocities without breaking a sweat.
-
Originally posted by indy007
And Porsche really did build the Maus. Well, 2 prototypes at least. They were supposed to be destroyed as they Wehrmacht was pushed back to Berlin. Rumor has it though that a Maus (not sure if it's the V1 or V2) is on display at a museum outside of Moscow.
...And you actually give any credit to such rumors? Bah... :)
(http://www.jagdtiger.de/GermanTanks/Maus-04.jpg)
-
Originally posted by indy007
imho, the best addition right now would be a M4A3 with the 105mm howitzer. In very strict game terms, it would give us 4 options overall. The heavily armoured T-34, the well balanced Panzer IV, the perk'd Tiger I, and the M4A3 would fill the gap with a lighter armored tank with a pretty big gun. iirc, the 105mm was good even against King Tigers.
I
As I recall, the 105 on the sherman was a HOWITZER, with a relatively low muzzle velocity. It was intended purely for infantry support. Something like one out of four shermans were produced with the howitzer turret.
I love shermans, and want one. But, the only way that thing would hurt a tiger would be to drop a round in on the top. Or maybe drop the tank on the top of the tiger from altitude.
shubie