Jump to content
NETSCAPE

Your Tiger I costs too much dude.

Recommended Posts

Yes the Germans were always going to lose out in the numbers game, but the Sherman`s were total death traps when up against German amour and their losses were terrible. They were brave men that took that risk, I think the infantry had better chances.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Wulfen said:

but the Sherman`s were total death traps when up against German amour and their losses were terrible.

 

Oh good grief, this old myth again?

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NETSCAPE said:

 

Yeah if I recall it was covered in this talk... I think. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNjp_4jY8pY

 

Actually I had previously watched (I am a subscriber to his channel) that from my fellow Irishman and had forgotten about it.   Still my vote goes to the Tiger.

Edited by Wulfen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Wulfen said:

Still my vote goes to the Tiger.

 

Waste of resources my dude. You could have almost 4 Stugs for the price of 1 Tiger I. Just sayin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, NETSCAPE said:

 

Waste of resources my dude. You could have almost 4 Stugs for the price of 1 Tiger I. Just sayin.

True, but what a machine for the time.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I've long been on the StuG bandwagon, and I'd be fine with the F we have in game as AI only.  I've been saying for some time it would have been better than the Tiger for gameplay (but maybe not sales).  The StuG got as many armor kills as the Tiger and Panther combined.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, chuter said:

 

I've long been on the StuG bandwagon, and I'd be fine with the F we have in game as AI only.  I've been saying for some time it would have been better than the Tiger for gameplay (but maybe not sales).  The StuG got as many armor kills as the Tiger and Panther combined.

 

Well, Panther and Tiger def will be the selling point. And the panther was produced quite a lot... The point I've made in the past is that the Stug would have been the obvious choice rather than the hunk o junk known as the elephant... in the long run the Stug III G could fit many other scenarios/maps in the future... 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, NETSCAPE said:

The point I've made in the past is that the Stug would have been the obvious choice rather than the hunk o junk known as the elephant.

Less cool. People want fancy gear, even if it works against them. Ever looked at the total costs of an F-35? You know how many Tiger tanks you get for that?

 

As opposed to that one, the Germans were not really calculating how much something cost in $ (and they didn‘t care for that), it was more a question if they could make it out of standard parts. Money, that they printed. Also, it is questionable that by not making the fat cat that they could produce that many more Stug that would also have crews to operate them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, chrisarmyknife said:

i don't care about the stug wheres my hetzer?

 

hetzer would be awesome for a later war scenario... I love that thing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/27/2018 at 8:36 PM, Wulfen said:

Yes the Germans were always going to lose out in the numbers game, but the Sherman`s were total death traps when up against German amour and their losses were terrible. They were brave men that took that risk, I think the infantry had better chances.

T-34 suffered far bigger losses in all: absolute numbers, as percentage and as chance of crew member to survive the encounter. T-34 were true death traps. 

 

In average man mind it's opposite because American crew could complain about everything and it became established in the social consciousness.

In USSR there were decades of Soviet propaganda of success, everything had to be the best T-34, PPSch, Katyusha, IL-2 etc - even if they were true death traps. Nearly no complains could did not have a chance to reach public opinion.

Sherman being death trap bigger than i.e. T-34 was a myth of the past.

cheers

Edited by Bies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/12/2019 at 4:08 PM, Bies said:

T-34 suffered far bigger losses in all: absolute numbers, as percentage and as chance of crew member to survive the encounter. T-34 were true death traps. 

 

In average man mind it's opposite because American crew could complain about everything and it became established in the social consciousness.

In USSR there were decades of Soviet propaganda of success, everything had to be the best T-34, PPSch, Katyusha, IL-2 etc - even if they were true death traps. Nearly no complains could did not have a chance to reach public opinion.

Sherman being death trap bigger than i.e. T-34 was a myth of the past.

cheers

I can imagine the T-34 crew losses on the Eastern Front were terrible. It was a meat grinder where tens of millions of people and machines were relentlessly fed. It was total war on a scale that far exceeded that in the west.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/27/2018 at 3:34 PM, NETSCAPE said:

 

Waste of resources my dude. You could have almost 4 Stugs for the price of 1 Tiger I. Just sayin.

But who would crew those 4 Stugs? The worst shortage for Germany after fuel was trained manpower. That's one reason they were searching for wonder weapons. They had to find a way to leverage their manpower.

 

A Tiger or Panther required 5 men. 4 Stugs required 16. But I do agree that the Stug should be playable in game.

Edited by Porkins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Porkins said:

But who would crew those 4 Stugs? The worst shortage for Germany after fuel was trained manpower. That's one reason they were searching for wonder weapons. They had to find a way to leverage their manpower.

 

A Tiger or Panther required 5 men. 4 Stugs required 16. But I do agree that the Stug should be playable in game.

 

Yeah but consider 4 stugs = 4 guns that are capable of all independently engaging individual targets... rather than 1 wonder weapon...

 

I guess another thought is "were the Germans more in short supply of men or short in steel/production capability" --- also no one has stated what stage of the war we are talking about when they give their opinion or argument... imagine if earlier on all resources had been devoted to Tigers rather than Stugs, Pz IVs, or even Pz Vs....it would have been much more of a catastrophe I think... there are so many variables to consider here. Production, logistics, oil, combat radius... I really get tired of the whole "just build more heavy tanks bro" sentiment...that would be like arming a fleet with only battleships or a platoon with only MG42s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A StuG cannot even negotiate a road while tracking and engaging a target sideways, or manoeuvre through terrain while doing so. It's not a substitute for a tank and there are reasons that StuG were used alongside tanks and not as substitutes. While quantity over quality might have been worth it for the Germans to some point, for replacement it would have been PzIV instead of Tigers, not StuGs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, JtD said:

A StuG cannot even negotiate a road while tracking and engaging a target sideways, or manoeuvre through terrain while doing so. It's not a substitute for a tank and there are reasons that StuG were used alongside tanks and not as substitutes. While quantity over quality might have been worth it for the Germans to some point, for replacement it would have been PzIV instead of Tigers, not StuGs.

 

Actually it was a substitute for a tank. You should research the k/d ratio of Stug battalions in armor engagements... Trust me, they are worth it and the German production numbers reflect that fact. 

 

EDIT: Another variable worth mentioning here: RELIABILITY. 

Edited by NETSCAPE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, NETSCAPE said:

Actually it was a substitute for a tank.

 

The Germans kept producing tanks until the end of war in significant numbers, so they didn't agree with you.

 

20 minutes ago, NETSCAPE said:

You should research the k/d ratio of Stug battalions in armor engagements.

 

You should research the tactical circumstances under which these k/d manifested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, JtD said:

 

The Germans kept producing tanks until the end of war in significant numbers, so they didn't agree with you.

 

 

You should research the tactical circumstances under which these k/d manifested.

 

I have. The ground war is my primary interest, not airplanes and super dope paint jobs. 

 

And I'm not making a Stug only argument here. If you actually read what I have posted in the thread I mentioned the Pz IV and Pz V, along with the Stug IIIg as a better alternative to the Tiger.

 

You're either a Tiger fan boy or just hate Stugs because you lack the capacity to understand what it means to live the Stug Lyfe dawg. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, NETSCAPE said:

I'm not making a Stug only argument here.

 

55 minutes ago, NETSCAPE said:

Actually it was a substitute for a tank.

 

As opposed to

 

1 hour ago, JtD said:

StuG were used alongside tanks and not as substitutes.

 

:rolleyes:

 

Whatever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/1/2019 at 8:58 PM, NETSCAPE said:

And the panther...

 

That's only if it's not sitting on a rail head somewhere waiting to be offloaded because it had to be hauled to the battlefield instead of being driven there. 😄 Gotta love that garbage operational range, terrible transmission/drive-train, and overall horrendous level of reliability.

 

Agreed with the StuG though. Odd we didn't get one in TC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, NETSCAPE said:

 

Yeah but consider 4 stugs = 4 guns that are capable of all independently engaging individual targets... rather than 1 wonder weapon...

 

I guess another thought is "were the Germans more in short supply of men or short in steel/production capability" --- also no one has stated what stage of the war we are talking about when they give their opinion or argument... imagine if earlier on all resources had been devoted to Tigers rather than Stugs, Pz IVs, or even Pz Vs....it would have been much more of a catastrophe I think... there are so many variables to consider here. Production, logistics, oil, combat radius... I really get tired of the whole "just build more heavy tanks bro" sentiment...that would be like arming a fleet with only battleships or a platoon with only MG42s.

I agree that 4 Stugs is better than a Tiger, but only if you have the trained manpower to operate them. Everything I've read indicates that by 1944 the Germans were scraping bottom of the barrel for men.

 

I actually think the consensus is the big tanks were a mistake, which I think only tells half the story. Anyway, fun to discuss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good luck getting the whole tank crew in one tank and play it through the mission while being destroyed by the enemy tanks and the aerial forces....hope you have the patience. Cuz  a lot of ppl quit after  a couple of defeats...just saying. Its not your typical dogfight mission :bye:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, RIVALDO said:

Good luck getting the whole tank crew in one tank and play it through the mission while being destroyed by the enemy tanks and the aerial forces....hope you have the patience. Cuz  a lot of ppl quit after  a couple of defeats...just saying. Its not your typical dogfight mission :bye:

 

I think it's safe to assume we can "lock" other player positions in our tanks (much like bomber/gunner positions). In Ro2 for example I found it much more effective to man a tank alone than with random people. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/27/2018 at 11:34 PM, NETSCAPE said:

Waste of resources my dude. You could have almost 4 Stugs for the price of 1 Tiger I. Just sayin.

 

Still waste of resources, you could have two Panzer I's for the price of Stug. And actually, lots of motorcycles for the price of Panzer I. Just that Panzer I could not fill the role that Stug was meant for and Stug could not fill the role that Tiger was meant for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎/‎2‎/‎2019 at 12:20 PM, ZachariasX said:

Also, it is questionable that by not making the fat cat that they could produce that many more Stug that would also have crews to operate them.

 

Excellent point and insight. :salute:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 1/19/2019 at 1:35 PM, II./JG77_Kemp said:

 Stug could not fill the role that Tiger was meant for.

 

Sorry for being late to the party, but just getting interested in the tank side.  Anyway...

 

Even the Germans rarely used the Tiger in the role is was meant for.  The Tiger was not an MBT in the way we use the term now.  It was a breakthrough tank.  It's purpose was to punch a hole in enemy lines at the start of an offensive and allow the faster and more numerous medium tanks to use their better mobility and range to exploit the breakthrough,  then the Tigers would return to the rear for replenishment and maintenance.  Circumstances rarely let them be used in this way, especially once the Heer was on the defensive.

Edited by BlitzPig_EL
spelling error....
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salutations Tankers,

 

Ultimately players can be counted on to choose the meanest, toughest and with the best firepower tanks if the TC designers don't present a type numbers limit. At least for any planned historical campaigns. The same should be considered by builders of any probable scripted tank campaigns. We will need some form of balance in numbers and or types.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/19/2019 at 4:23 PM, NETSCAPE said:

 

I think it's safe to assume we can "lock" other player positions in our tanks (much like bomber/gunner positions). In Ro2 for example I found it much more effective to man a tank alone than with random people. 

Ah yes but nothing beat out a good driver / gunner combo in RO tanking.

Being able to maneuver and fire or be hull down and getting directions for a competent gunner was invaluable.  Most fun though was the Spawn Rush towards tanks on the Tank Only Maps.  😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×