PANTHER--> please

[rapp25]

I would love to see the panther added.I am a fan of german armour.The panzer is my favorite ride but in a spawn battle I am at a disadvantage.I am a prtty good shot but most often finding to have to lay in 2 or more rounds to kill a firefly.I have lost many a gunfight due to underpowered gun although I was aiming for a soft spot and beat them to the trigger.Thhe panzer is fine in an ambush situation but in a headon fast spawn war it is a disadvantage.

Well the panther had great sloped armour in the front but nothing special in the sides or rear, its high velocity 75mm long barrelled pak (same gun as panzer IV just different barrell) had roughly same penetration power as the 88mm on the tiger so the problem lies with balancing axis/allied tanks if the panther was to be introduced which is obviously should be - i cannot understand its omission beyond the game balance point of view - there isnt much on the british or american side that realistically match up well against those tanks bar maybe the late war pershing. I meant IS-2 not IL-2 in my previous post which was a match for the tiger and panther but it had a slow reload time and poorer optics. The german optics were fabulous. But that isnt modelled in game which is another interesting thing that could be added...

We could really talk about 10+ tanks or jagdpanzers to add to AH from the german side and maybe one of the SU soviet vehicles but I think allied tanks are poor which is why we will probably never see the best overall tank of the war - the panther. Its mechanical problems were sorted out (never as reliable as a t34 but what would u rather be in), its the tiger that needed constant repair as someone said earlier - maybe they just read about kursk...

[Boxboy]

Talking about the "use" of any new addition in the MA is just silly, nothing but most uber will be used. We have tons of planes that hardly ever get used in the MA because they are not an uber ride.

To those that say they aren't interested in history I ask just what are you interested in? This a WWII game/sim, which is based on ,gasp, history.  Many of us are in the game ONLY for the history and could care less that some Russian/Brit/US plane can dominate the MA.

The M4 sherman was one of the most produced tank in WWII, and definately has a both a need and a right to be included in the game/sim.  If for nothing else the senario folks, because no matter what gets added after new wears off no one will use it unless its UBER.

From a production stand point alot of the art work and balistic work has been done to make both the M4 and Pzkp III with the 50mm gun, the M4a2 with the 76mm gun could also be added without as much work as making an entirely NEW tank like the panther.  The facts are that both the Tiger and the Panther and the Tiger II for that matter were badly designed for HP/weight which caused numberous tranny failures which we do not model in AH , the Tiger and Tiger II were so large and heavy that alot of roads and terrain were impassible them (also not modeled here).

[rapp25]

Talking about the "use" of any new addition in the MA is just silly, nothing but most uber will be used. We have tons of planes that hardly ever get used in the MA because they are not an uber ride.

To those that say they aren't interested in history I ask just what are you interested in? This a WWII game/sim, which is based on ,gasp, history.  Many of us are in the game ONLY for the history and could care less that some Russian/Brit/US plane can dominate the MA.

The M4 sherman was one of the most produced tank in WWII, and definately has a both a need and a right to be included in the game/sim.  If for nothing else the senario folks, because no matter what gets added after new wears off no one will use it unless its UBER.

From a production stand point alot of the art work and balistic work has been done to make both the M4 and Pzkp III with the 50mm gun, the M4a2 with the 76mm gun could also be added without as much work as making an entirely NEW tank like the panther.  The facts are that both the Tiger and the Panther and the Tiger II for that matter were badly designed for HP/weight which caused numberous tranny failures which we do not model in AH , the Tiger and Tiger II were so large and heavy that alot of roads and terrain were impassible them (also not modeled here).

I really dont get where your coming from boxboy. No one is mentioning the tiger II, the panther was sorted after its horrific rushed debut at kursk but granted it wasn't as reliable as the t34/sherman but it had a kill death ratio of about 5:1 v sherman and 9:1 versus t34 - the tiger was more like 10:1 on t34 maybe 6-7:1 on sherman basically due to better trained crews and tactics not to mention not the open terrain of russia. we are talking about the best all round tank of WW2 the panther so it should be in the sim and balance is obviously an important aspect of the game, the japanese planes are fairly out classed you could say so the N1k2j is included even though less than 450 were actually built - the zero and ki84 are both good in their own ways but the n1k really balances things out. As for uber I see plenty of people upping planes of all kinds its not just a spit16, la7, blah blah fest You only get that with p51s and fw190s in the stratosphere. Personally I fly all planes to avoid staleness and many people do similar for the challenge for the perks etc. Its all rock paper scissors in AH there is no uber. Uber = perked.

[skribetm]

Personally I fly all planes to avoid staleness and many people do similar for the challenge for the perks etc. Its all rock paper scissors in AH there is no uber. Uber = perked.

the most fun i have in this game is when i fly the p-40e(and pretend to be ben affleck). most memorable engagement in p-40e was with an f4u-1a on the deck, he bnz'ed me first, then he lost e advantage. proceeded to turn/stall fight me until he ran out of bullets. now it's my chance to get on his six! unfortunately, he flies faster so he was able to get home. or i think i just wasn;t wearing my glasses.. my memory on specifics eludes me. i just know it was fun!

[Belial]

P-A-N-T-H-E-R......let me in one of those things and i will be a bear to send back to the tower

[bj229r]

I had, up until now, always assumed Panzer was German for Panther, hence they were the same machine.........apparently not

[Boxboy]

Where I am coming from is we don't NEED another uber tank.  Balance what? You have the tiger and Firefly and the next best down from those is the pzkw IV, followed I suppose by the T-34 85, and the T-34 76mm.

What is lacking is the most or one of the most produced tanks of the war the Sherman M4, and kill ratio means nothing when you have 10,000 Shermans and the other guy has 500 Panthers sooner or later numbers will tell as it did in WWII.  That statement is also true of the T-34 (which if memory serves me was rated the best tank of WWII overall).

I see no balancing being needed on the upper end of the scale at all, unless you want to introduce the 90mm Pershing which saw limited action near the end of the war.

It's not that I hate the Panther I just think some others should come before it,

[Cajunn]

 

[Motherland]

I had, up until now, always assumed Panzer was German for Panther, hence they were the same machine.........apparently not

Panzer is German for armor.

[JunkyII]

Panther would be nice, but people are talking about evening out the field, we should add the M18 Tank Detroyer, I hear it was a beast at Bastogne holding off like a battilion with only 4 tanks

[rapp25]

I had, up until now, always assumed Panzer was German for Panther, hence they were the same machine.........apparently not

Panzer means tank.

[SKYGUNS]

Panther would be neat BUT! we already have 2 German Tanks, 2 Russian tanks and one Brit Sherman.


WE HAVE NO UNMODIFIED AMERICAN TANKS




we could use more light-medium allied armor in my opinion

[rapp25]

Where I am coming from is we don't NEED another uber tank.  Balance what? You have the tiger and Firefly and the next best down from those is the pzkw IV, followed I suppose by the T-34 85, and the T-34 76mm.

What is lacking is the most or one of the most produced tanks of the war the Sherman M4, and kill ratio means nothing when you have 10,000 Shermans and the other guy has 500 Panthers sooner or later numbers will tell as it did in WWII.  That statement is also true of the T-34 (which if memory serves me was rated the best tank of WWII overall).

I see no balancing being needed on the upper end of the scale at all, unless you want to introduce the 90mm Pershing which saw limited action near the end of the war.

It's not that I hate the Panther I just think some others should come before it,

The T34 was the best tank of the war if you rely on the history channel, the fact it entered the war early and the 80,000+ that were produced of which I think 50k were knocked out in WW2. Sure 80k+ would win any numbers game but the "tommy cooker" sherman M4 defo is pretty much in same boat as the t34 from the economical stand point, both were cheap and quick to throw off production lines but the were outclassed in comparison to the german tanks. Ask any ex-tanker WW2 what'd he prefer to be in and all you'll hear is panther or more usually tiger (usually hits that knocked it out werent completely fatal to the tank & crew and it was recoverable)- the amount of recycled tigers is phenomenal from WW2 the germans probably put more effort into tiger recovery on battlefields unless it was a lost cause (ammo exploded) at night than they did into any other GV it was so valuable. Sending patrols of 2-4 tigers out against a horde of whatever the soviets had in store that day and coming back with cricket scores wasn't abnormal. The panther is UBER from frontal armour and gun perspective but it wouldnt be much in comparison to a tiger to defeat as to how AH tanking and gvs are modelled.


The panther only came up against allied armour in '44 in small numbers and nearly every available unit was pretty much on the eastern front anyway to combat the hordes of t34s. The P IV was considered enough for the sherman m4 and the workhorse stugs. I'm beginning to think this debate is useless anyhow on the way tanks are modelled in AH, all with same main gunsight, lack of depth with speed, hitting power & trajectory being pretty much the winner beyond who sees who first. Go google about he panther G and you'll find most sources saying it was the all round best tank but it just was more costly and difficult to produce. I reckon if the pershing had seen more combat and had an earlier introduction it would have won the title hands down in a "which tank would i prefer to sit in" or best of WW2 question.

When I talk about balance I'm generally speaking about scenarios and from a historical perspective, like you said earlier I couldnt care less if everyone was in an uber german/japanese or russian/american tank or plane. ACTUALLY WE NEED JAPANESE GVS but I suppose it wouldnt be hard to throw the american m4 sherman into the mix seen as its base is already there. ?BTW I'd consider the t34/85 ahead of the panzer IV for sure in AH with the t34/74 and IV tied.

Saying the T34 was best tank of WW2 is the same as saying the P51 was the best fighter of ww2 - we could argue it to the death.

[skullman]

I would just like to see a larger selection of armour-the japs and the stuart maybe-add some destroyers like the hellcat and slugger.I just want some variety.It is a shame though to up a panzer in a spawn war(my favorite)and be at a disadvantage due to the firefly superior armour in a headon position

[Boxboy]

The T34 was the best tank of the war if you rely on the history channel, the fact it entered the war early and the 80,000+ that were produced of which I think 50k were knocked out in WW2. Sure 80k+ would win any numbers game but the "tommy cooker" sherman M4 defo is pretty much in same boat as the t34 from the economical stand point, both were cheap and quick to throw off production lines but the were outclassed in comparison to the german tanks. Ask any ex-tanker WW2 what'd he prefer to be in and all you'll hear is panther or more usually tiger (usually hits that knocked it out werent completely fatal to the tank & crew and it was recoverable)- the amount of recycled tigers is phenomenal from WW2 the germans probably put more effort into tiger recovery on battlefields unless it was a lost cause (ammo exploded) at night than they did into any other GV it was so valuable. Sending patrols of 2-4 tigers out against a horde of whatever the soviets had in store that day and coming back with cricket scores wasn't abnormal. The panther is UBER from frontal armour and gun perspective but it wouldnt be much in comparison to a tiger to defeat as to how AH tanking and gvs are modelled.


The panther only came up against allied armour in '44 in small numbers and nearly every available unit was pretty much on the eastern front anyway to combat the hordes of t34s. The P IV was considered enough for the sherman m4 and the workhorse stugs. I'm beginning to think this debate is useless anyhow on the way tanks are modelled in AH, all with same main gunsight, lack of depth with speed, hitting power & trajectory being pretty much the winner beyond who sees who first. Go google about he panther G and you'll find most sources saying it was the all round best tank but it just was more costly and difficult to produce. I reckon if the pershing had seen more combat and had an earlier introduction it would have won the title hands down in a "which tank would i prefer to sit in" or best of WW2 question.

When I talk about balance I'm generally speaking about scenarios and from a historical perspective, like you said earlier I couldnt care less if everyone was in an uber german/japanese or russian/american tank or plane. ACTUALLY WE NEED JAPANESE GVS but I suppose it wouldnt be hard to throw the american m4 sherman into the mix seen as its base is already there. ?BTW I'd consider the t34/85 ahead of the panzer IV for sure in AH with the t34/74 and IV tied.

Saying the T34 was best tank of WW2 is the same as saying the P51 was the best fighter of ww2 - we could argue it to the death.

Well you are doing the same thing when you discuss your view point, you are just using balistic's and armour thickness, but to effectively rate a tank or any other piece of military equipment, it ease of operation, ability to repair, its mechanical durability, speed and yes the ease in which it is produced.

The "tommy cooker" was given a bad rap because of its gasoline (petrol to you Europeans ) engine, when in fact it was the poor ammo storage that caused the problem in most cases.  Its main defense vs Tigers and Pathers was speed.  BTW knocking the "history channel" because they get a few things wrong is like whapping your history teacher cause you found a "flaw" in the textbook, and this bit of info came from the "military channel" and years of reading books and playing war games like this one