and the best tank of CM?

[marco]

I've read the topic "best TD for axis" and so now I would like to know Your opinions: against other tanks the best tank -looking also to the price- is?
ThankYou!
Marco

[Pillar]

Nashorn for Axis. M18 for Allies.

(Cost Incl)

Panther is nice for some extra points, will keep small calibre stuff at bay.

Firefly makes a nice allied tank.

[Pvt.Tom]

Got to be StugIII, can do it all, kill infantry, kill tanks, and it is cheap. I know it doesn't have a turret but when used correctly it is deadly.

[Jagdwyrm]

economically good vehicles are Hetzer and StuH42 and M24 chaffee and M18 hellcat..IMHO

[ParaBellum]

I like the Stug III, too. Dirt cheap, low profile, good gun and armour. Equally effective against infantry and armour.
You gotta place it in a good position because it´s got no turret.
Always provide flanking cover against allied rushes.
Of course I REALLY like the Panther, but for the points of a Panther, you can buy two Stugs.

------------------
Klotzen, nicht kleckern!

[109 Gustav]

The M7 Priest. Cover it with an AT gun, and you can rout an infantry squad after two shots. Dirt cheap, too.

------------------
Well my skiff's a twenty dollar boat, And I hope to God she stays afloat.
But if somehow my skiff goes down, I'll freeze to death before I drown.
And pray my body will be found, Alaska salmon fishing, boys, Alaska salmon fishing.
The Last Defense- Mods, Scenarios, and more! (http://www.angelfire.com/ak5/TheLastDefense/index.html)

[Wisbech_lad]

Hmm, he asked for "best vs other tanks" so that counts out SPG like Priest.

But counting TD's as tanks, and including price:

M18
Comet

Comet is especially sweet. 80% price of a Panther, 75% of a Sherman E8, better gun than both (at CM ranges), same speed and ground pressure. Thin armour, but that's something you get used to as the allies.

By the time you get to 1945, most tanks are eggshells with hammers. Thus the reverse CM arms race to Stug III, M18 etc. Why pay for any extra armour when just about anything can kill anything? Better to go for more guns.

In Jun/Jul 44 though, there is a clear advantage to getting a Tiger or Panther, as they can shrug off majority of allied threats frontally.

[Big Ron]

I've been using the PzIV/70 TD of late. Kind of a more tank destroyer oriented Stug. Not too expensive 120 I think.
Challenger for the allies. I love that boxy look!

[CrapGame]

The IV/70 runs around 150 pts or so. They are great for long range tank killing. THe plain jane Jpz IV is around 120 pts, and it has sufficient punch to take out just about anything shy of a Jumbo at all ranges. A pretty good value, IMHO.

[North Star]

Best Tank - for the money I don't know how to beat the Churchill VII and VIII. Ideally played in Panther 76 rules, these bests shrug off most hits and keep on shooting. The 95mm in the VIII will tear apart infantry and has amazing punch against armor - and is much tougher than the more expensive M4-105. Had a VIII take out a Jagdpanther the other day in PBEM. That had to hurt!

------------------
"Act after having made assessments. The one who first knows the measures of far and near wins - this the rule of armed struggle." Sun Tzu - The Art of War

[sturmtiger101]

Mornin' all. IMHO the Tiger I is my fav all round afv for playing the German side. A bit more expensive, yes, but I like the combination of good to very good armor protection front and sides, as well as the L/56 88mm main gun that has excellent ap and he performance. Slow turret? Well, if I can afford it I buy two so that they can cover each other' tail. Or buy one and a couple MkIV or StuGIII to give flank protection. The Tigers usually have around a 50/50 mix of ap/he and 190+ mg ammo, I cover their flanks as above, provide an infantry escort and perhaps some mortar equipped FO and let those cats rock on...Ah, well.
Cheers,
E Tuggle

[Mlapanzer]

Big Ron I hope your right about that Challanger I have 2 of them going up against a Tiger in a pbem right now. http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/eek.gif
Haven't played the Brits much but for the Americans I like the Hellcats and Chaffee's when available. The Tiger is great in a defensive roll but on the offense I think your better with the value you get from the PZ 4's and of course the Panthers if you have the points.
The big drawback of the Hellcat and other open top TD's is there succeptability to Arty fire. You have to keep them spaced out and on the move.
IMHO

-------
"Who put orange juice in my orange juice" W.C. Fields

[Big Ron]

If you're up against a Tiger, all bets are off. Get on the flanks or you're dead!

[X-00]

For US:

I love teaming Chafees, Hellcats and Greyhounds. Throw in some tasty M8 GMC's and you've got a tank killing and infantry killin machine.

For Brits: The Challenger is great but I feel gamey picking it seeing that only 200 ever saw action. That said the Comet Chuch VIII team is good.

For Germans: I like the Tiger it's balanced and it's flanks aren't as fragile. The allies always have a numerical superiority and the panther is too vunerable.

[aliakbar]

Well, I dunno about tigers.I had an epic slugging match in one of my scenarios yesterday between it and a Churchill VII. After 5turns of ricochets the Churchill took out its main gun and finished it off.(btw this was front on front)

[Cleavis]

well, i couldn't say exactly, as i haven't gotten the game yet (its in the mail, on the way as we speak) but historically, i would say the best tank, at least for my purposes, would be the sherman Firefly, it is fast, it has a gun equal to the german 88, fast turret rotation, and decent armor, this is why i would think it's probably the best overall tank.

[Pud]

Churchill's and Panthers. I learnt to respect panthers when my opponent drove past my 3 piats, 11 shots later (range 40-100m all at side armour) it was still driving away. He didnt know where the shots where coming from as piats remain hidden quite easily. The panther then came face to face with my Jumbo which it destroyed in three shots, jumbo only managed to immobilise Panther (range <50M), to be eventually be taken out by my Daimler from the side.

Was not my day I expect. http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/frown.gif

[Cleavis]

yea, the panther is good against tanks... VERY good against enemy tanks... but i can't help but notice that it's main gun more or less sucks against infantry.

[grunto2]

in low visibility (fog or night) the m24 chaffee.

in high visibility the m18 hellcat.

both are very fast and have decent guns.

the m24s don't carry much ammo so aren't good for prolonged engagements. they're great though for moving fast and taking flanking and rear shots.

another great vehicle in low-visibility is the m8 HMC. point for point this 'ag' rocks against german armor in the night or the fog. it's quick, has 'decent' armor, and the 75mm is great against infantry; with a couple of 'c' rounds it can stalk axis heavy armor. it runs out of ammo fairly early though.

in high visibility the m8 hmc suffers because of its short gun (bad accuracy at longer ranges).

at short range though its nasty, especially if it has 1 or more 'c' rounds.

the sherman 105 is arguably the best all-around american tank, especially with 'c' ammo.

for the british i like the 95mm infantry support tanks... cromwell IV or something? that 95mm commonwealth 'c' ammo is deadly.

andy

[Ivan Jozic]

I haven't been playing for long, but for defensive ops and for breaking through initial defences (strong enemy tanks or guns) the King Tiger would be my choice... It's damn expensive, but it can withstand almost everything upfront... It has a slow traverse turret (i believe he needs 19 secs for the whole turn) so it's sensitive to flank attacks (sensitive for stronger guns - 76mm and above)...
I build up a quick small battle with Jumbos (76) and Jacksons and I put up various German tanks... Jacksons are vurneable but they pack a strong gun... Tiger I blew up immediately, and the others followed him soon enough, but the Tiger II stood still and kill them all...

[MrSpkr]

The Stuart.

Okay, Okay, pick yourselves up from the floor. Stop laughing.

Stuarts are dirt cheap, fast, and, if used in numbers, can take out any Axis tank as long as proper group tactics are used.

MrSpkr

[Warmaker]

I still love the Tiger I but the Panther is such a much more capable, all-around tank. Excellent sloped armor and weapon to pop open any Allied soda can. Not the fastest turret in CMBO but much faster than the Tigers and acquires targets faster, instant death to any soda cans. Yes I've taken the "almighty" Pershing heavy tank frontally with my medium tank... the Panther on numerous occasions. Excellent speed and mobility and along the Tiger I it almost NEVER bogs for me due to good ground pressure (lessons from the Ostfront). Some complain about the 75mm's lack of punch against infantry. Don't care about you but all those infantry getting shot up by my Panthers aren't saying that its gun is ineffective against them. Besides, it's got MGs. Also, the close defense mortars (starts with an N) are quite effective against foolish infantry trying to rush it. The Panthers are a bit more pricey than the Tigers but are worth it in situations where you want a tank that can do it all.

This view is of course from a person who prefers quality over quantity... and am still irate about the short-changing of the Tiger I stats.

[ 04-17-2001: Message edited by: Warmaker ]

[James]

Definatly the Churchill AVRE for its novelty value!

[Monte99]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MrSpkr:
The Stuart.

Okay, Okay, pick yourselves up from the floor. Stop laughing.

Stuarts are dirt cheap, fast, and, if used in numbers, can take out any Axis tank as long as proper group tactics are used.

MrSpkr<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm with you. Couldn't believe no one mentioned the Stuart earlier. For the money, it's best tank in the game...

[Da Beginna]

Also, the close defense mortars (starts with an N) are quite effective against foolish infantry trying to rush it.
----------------------------------------
N stands for NAHVERTEIDIGUNGSWAFFE:
Nah - Close
Verteidigung - Defense
Waffe- Weapon

Put it all together if you can, damn ami tongue.gif null

[CombinedArms]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Monte99:
I'm with you. Couldn't believe no one mentioned the Stuart earlier. For the money, it's best tank in the game...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK--we've really run the gamut now! We've seen the Panther as best tank (expensive but excellent overall--though not unkillable if attacked thru an avenue of weakness) vs. Stuart (cheap and vulnerable but with strengths that can lead to victory given numbers & right tactics.)

So this leads back to a question: given that CM assigns costs to armor as a function of "combat value," are all tanks (or other AFVs) in CM functionally equivalent--i.e. of equal value given the relative cost? Or are some tanks overpriced and others real bargains, given their actual fighting ability?

Let's phrase it another way: which Axis tank is the best bargain? Which the worst bargain? Which Axis TD? SPG?

Which Allied/American tank is the best bargain? Which the worst bargain? Which American TD? SPG?

Which British tank (not available to Americans) is the best & worst bargain? TDs? SPGs?

Is it a matter of personal style--some like Ubertanks; others like cheap, fast, rattletraps? Or are their real differences in value? You make the call....

[ 04-18-2001: Message edited by: CombinedArms ]

[MrSpkr]

I don't know that all tanks are equal - there are some real dogs out there (think Hetzer, for example). However, every tank appears to have some purpose and is of some value if used appropriately (except for maybe the Hetzer!).

In a straight on armor v. armor match, I'll take on a 1000 point German ubertank force with about ten stuarts - I'll outnumber them by at least 2-1 (particularly if the German player takes Elite or Crack crews - mine are usually regular or green) and have decent odds of beating the snot out of them as long as I properly approach the targets.

If infantry is involved, nothing says loving like a Priest. BA-ROOOOOOOMM!

The best bang for the buck among Axis tanks is probably the Mk IV J. Decent armor, decent gun, decent speed, decent price.

Best Axis TD - bang for buck its a StuG III.

Best Axis SPG - dunno - don't use them much. I guess I would have to go with the Wespe, though. Great at range, smaller than the Hummel (IIRC - I am at work so don't have the docs in front of me).


The worst AFV for the Axis, IMHO, is the Tiger. Great Armor, Great Gun, incredibly slow speed, high profile, weak sides and ssss-llll-oooo-www turret rotation. Good if the terrain is flat and open, but how often does THAT happen?!?

For the Americans - I love the Stuart - great speed, enough armor to resist mgs, gun capable of penetrating most if not all german side armor at close distances, and cheap.

For Allied TD's, the Jackson or Pershing are the best, but are way expensive and of limited availability. I prefer an M-10 - just watch out for mortar fire.

For Allied SPG's - the Priest has my money. Great anti-infantry gun, decent speed (okay, it drives like a cow, but who is going to move it in close range anyway?), enough armor to protect from pesky MG's and occasional 20mm (though a Wirbelwind will eat its lunch if it gets a good burst of shots off).

British and Canadian - who plays the British or Canadians? ;) Just Kidding -- that was for you, Michael Dorosh.

I rarely choose these nationalities because their armor chooices are mor limited. However, I do like the crocodile (anything with a 75mm and a FT is cool), and the Cromwell, umm, VII? I also like the Stuart V (no big surprise).

I think it all comes down to playing style. My life is busy enough (school, 4 kids, full-time job) that I don't want to be patient - I wanna get in and kill something! Therefore, I value speed over armor in most situations. I also take a lot of HT mounted guns - the German 75mm and 20mm in HT's are two of my faves!

Okay, now that I've rambled enough about my choices, let's everyone pile on and tell me how wrong I am! :D

MrSpkr

P.S&gt; I really miss the spell checker!

[Kingfish]

IMO, the H39 rocks! A fast and lethal killing machine they are, and great gas mileage to boot.

I once had a H39 take out a pine tree with three shots (first two were richochets) from 30 meters away. Damn tree didn't know what hit him.

[Warmaker]

Okay, here I go:
Axis
-Best overall tank: Panthers-reasons stated earlier
-Worst overall tank: I was about to say the PzKpfw IV but the Hotchkiss and Lynx does come to mind.
-Best TD-Jagdpanzer IV/late-Small silhouette, excellent tank killing gun, excellent slope. Have yet to lose one frontally. Put one in a hull down position and it can hold off an area by itself. The Panzer IV/70 is an improved version of the JgPz IV but 40 points more.
-Worst TD-Marder II/III-too flimsy and can't hide well(big silhouettes). Only use if desperate for guns and don't expect them to last much longer than regular ATGs.
-Best SPG-StugIIIG/late-The StuH42 does provide better support but in case any surprising armor does show up, the StuGIIIG can take on all comers.
-Worst SPG-Wespe/Hummel-Open topped and flimsy superstructures. A .50 cal can do wonders on this.
-I want to mention the Tiger IE since it can kill tanks easily and attack infantry effectively. It has good armor to boot. All this allows it to do a multiple set of roles and costs a few points cheaper than a Panther.

Again, I tend towards quality over quantity. I'd pay the points to have my Big Cats to be able to shrug off rounds and have the capability to kill anything, even the *snicker* M26 Pershings. I really hate having panzers that can be destroyed as easily as the Sherman/soda can.

[Guy w/gun]

Ok, since unit rarity isn't modeled in price and because factors that are out of CMs scope are modeled (cross-country), I'd have to say the Tiger IE.

A regular Tiger costs less than some regular Shermans. It's Tank killing ability is unquestionable and it's anti-infantry ability is very good too. It has thick, albeit non-sloped, armor. It has better side armor than a Panther, so it won't get knocked out when the allies start throwing rocks at it tongue.gif !

While it is slow, cumbersome, very heavy, and has the slowest turret transverse in the game, it accels at over watch. Just keep that big SOB back away from the front lines and pop him over hills to catch enemy tanks trying to flank.

I think thats were the Tiger truly accels. Far back where its transverse doesn't matter and were most allied guns have a hard time hitting it due to range, accuracy, and power.

Its too bad I've started limiting myself from using them along with infantry due to historical reasons :( .

[ 04-19-2001: Message edited by: Guy w/gun ]

[Guy w/gun]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>-Worst overall tank: I was about to say the PzKpfw IV<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you serious? :eek: The Mk IV is my second pick! It rocks!

[ 04-19-2001: Message edited by: Guy w/gun ]

[Schwarze]

Panzer IVJ, Same armor as a StuGIIIG but better overall terrian and can get less bogged...

[jwxspoon]

For British - I'll take the Firefly every time. I've only been burned once by dueling a pair of Fireflies with just about anything.

For German - I'll take the Tiger, Panther of Stug IIIG

For American - I like the jumbo Sherman, the Stuart, and the M36

[Warmaker]

Sorry about my bad mention of the Pzkfwp IV. It has an outstanding gun, no doubt about it, and good mobility. However, armor is the failure. While the hull is barely acceptable (not sloped well, i.e. Panther) to top it off even the front turret armor is a mere 50mm(roughly). I've lost a many PzKpfw IVs to Stuarts... while in a hull-down position and taking a direct front turret penetration. Instant German soda can on fire.

IMO in the armor department the Germans have nothing to contribute to a quantity vs. quantity type of match. There's always going to be a ton of Stuarts and other cheap Shermans running around, you can't help that. You can't get into a qty vs. qty match on even terms with the Allies because of the low cost nature of their AFVs. The cheapest, decently "effective" TANK (not SPG/TD/etc., their tend to be too limited in roles & capability) is the aforementioned PzKpfw IV, which dies much too easily. For roughly 145 precious points for a veteran one, I'd rather invest more in a veteran Tiger IE at roughly 222 points or 240 points for a Panther.

If you're not expecting much of an Allied armor threat, then I guess a Mark IV is a great, cheap choice. But if any significant armor slugging match is expected, esp. w/ 76mm/17 pdrs are concerned then the PzKpfw IV is best suited to maybe a supporting/escort role at most. I'm not saying the Tigers/Panthers are invincible against these weapons, but they tend to survive much longer and the Allied players have to try harder to attempting to skin your Big Cats.

Besides, it's funny to watch Allied armor pop smoke upon arrival of a Big Cat into the sandbox for play. :D

[ 04-19-2001: Message edited by: Warmaker ]

[BloodyBucket]

Most effective anti-tank vehicle in the game is, without a doubt, the One That My Opponent Is Using At The Moment :( .

[Abteilung]

The numerical superiority gained by purchasing less costy afv's does not seem to me the appropriate response for the topic. Thats just dogs against a bull.
The best tank overall for CM is the 17 pdr. armed Sherman Firefly.
In reality the debates still rage today over what was the best tank fielded.

[Warmaker]

I have a healthy respect for the Fireflies. If one shows it's face up, you can usually bet it gets targetted immediately upon identification. That's the only British tank that I have any bit of fear of. The only drawback of course is that it's based on the Sherman, meaning thin armor. Also, if I have an infantry-heavy kampfgruppe, the Fireflies don't mean much as a threat since they usually have less HE rounds and no .50 cals.

[Cybeq]

Best tank vs. tank in the game when taking price into consideration is the Stuart. Cheap price will allow you to outnumber enemy armor. High ROF will allow you to get more shots per turn. High speed will allow you to outflank / outmanuever. The 37mm gun will penetrate all "normal" tanks from behind or side at typical CM ranges. Armor is impervious to small arms. Given that in CMBO most armor can be defeated by most guns at most ranges typically experienced you encounter a phenomenon in which logic dictates speed and numbers over armor / gun superiority. In this environment the Stuart is king. I won't even mention the three machine guns used to hose the infantry since the original question concerned only armor vs. armor. Stuarts rule!!! You can accept this fact or be destroyed by it.

[Warmaker]

There's quite an easy, cheap, and effective fix for Stuarts on the defense though... 50mm ATGs. For a mere 44 points w/ veteran status and with Tungsten, and a high ROF, Stuarts crumple like wet paper bags. ;)

Oh, and Tigers do laugh when 37mm rounds tickle their "soft" sides.
:D

[ 04-22-2001: Message edited by: Warmaker ]

[Sirocco]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MrSpkr:
every tank appears to have some purpose and is of some value if used appropriately (except for maybe the Hetzer!).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

:eek:

The Hetzer is a fine ambush weapon with a good gun and acutely sloped frontal armour making it ideal for defence.

If I had to make a choice for favourite tank, I'd probably choose the Churchill VIII, too, because of it's heavy armour and punch against armoured and soft targets. I like the Hetzer on the defence as the Germans because of it's low cost and it's strength in good ambush positions.

[MrSpkr]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sirocco:
:eek:

The Hetzer is a fine ambush weapon with a good gun and acutely sloped frontal armour making it ideal for defence.

I like the Hetzer on the defence as the Germans because of it's low cost and it's strength in good ambush positions.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okay, I now am forced to concede this after a PBEM game in which a Hetzer tagged my TD from distance while moving (nice shot Leeo.

I now think Hetzers are mostly worthless, not entirely worthless. smile.gif

MrSpkr

[Stacheldraht]

I have to agree on the utility of the Hetzer. The relatively low ammo count (both for the main gun and remote flexible MG) and slow ROF are more than offset by the highly sloped front armor, tiny sillhouette (6' 10.7" high), and low, low price smile.gif

As with any turretless AFV's, protect their flanks (weak side armor and slow to rotate) and use them in groups. A few Hetzers working in concert can ruin an Allied player's day.

[ 04-23-2001: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]

[Stacheldraht]

This one isn't exactly a tank in the traditional sense, and I certainly wouldn't call it the best in CM, but it's extremely useful: the Ostwind. Mediocre armor and speed plus an open top don't say much in its favor. But, its 37mm gun can not only take on fighter-bombers, but more importantly it can easily waste any light armor or vehicles and can get side or rear penetrations (no jokes, please) against many medium or even heavy tanks. The high rate of fire can at least give you immobilizations or gun hits. That ROF plus an absolutely huge ammo store means you can easily take on lots of infantry and suppress them well, raze buildings in one or two turns, not to mention sustain constant firing for twenty turns or so. Very versatile and fun smile.gif

[thor]

For the axis, I like Tigers, tho I tend to prefer more and cheaper than fewer and larger. I have to concur that the Stug III and the Hetzer are pretty good tank destroyers.

For the allies, there are a lot of tanks I haven't played much with, but I did like the Chaffee because of its speed and FAST turret rotation. I had a Chaffee run circles around some Panthers and take two out.

[Major Belles]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BloodyBucket:
Most effective anti-tank vehicle in the game is, without a doubt, the One That My Opponent Is Using At The Moment :( .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My feelings exactly!!!!

The Major

[Yaba]

Well, I guess I may as well chuck in my two bits worth... I agree with the above statements that it totally depends on what you are using the tank for so I am just going to mention some of my favourites:

British: Churchill VIII -- this ugly tank can shrug off most anything that gets shot at it's front. Very good for a frontal assault when you expect immediate contact or are trying to flesh out some defences. It's hollow point shells can crack through most German armour even at a distance. Devistating on infantry and buildings! Very cheap for a big tank as well with a fast turret to boot. The one SERIOUS drawback is the lack of hollow point shells. There is a good chance that in a quick battle you will end up with only a couple of shells -- sometime none (happened to me). Another thing to be aware of is that it is terribly slow!

American: Stuart -- this little guy can hardly be called a tank in comparison with the Churchill. But what it lacks in power it makes up for in speed. If used correctly a few of these tanks in the right conditions can cause fits for a German Commader by exposing flanks and drawing fire away from the real tank killers.

German: Panther (Late) -- Hard to argue with the quality of this beast. It seems to blend the best of speed, armour and weaponry. The only weakness of these tanks is the cost.

Yaba

[cpurkiser]

Gosh, I read the whole thread and now I am as confused as ever as what to buy :).
STUIII, Hertzer, PzKIV, Jadpanzer IV or V, Tiger I, Panthers. I guess Marder II/III are out, and nobody has nominated the Elephant yet.

How about no tanks? Just buy things like Recoiless rifes and maybe a 75MM antitank gun. Any disadvantage to that in a village scenario?

[CombinedArms]

Query for the Stuart fans: What's a Stuart got that a Greyhound doesn't have? Obviously, both are fast, cheap, with thin armor and 37mm guns. But beyond that I haven't really closely compared them. Is there a tangible reason why Stuarts keep getting mentioned with no mention of Greyhounds, or is it simply a matter of this being a thread about tanks, not recon vehicles? Are Stuarts cheaper? I admit I haven't really looked.

[Warmaker]

Stuarts, being tanks, are closed topped. A big factor in particular if it is receiving fire from higher elevation. Just one reason.

[Yaba]

To jump to the defence of the Greyhound... I once took out a Panther at 220 meters with a side shot. Hmmmmm... the only thing that I think that make a big difference with the Stuart is the armour all around. Don't get too crazy with it -- the armour is thin! But at least it covers the whole vehicle...

Yaba

[Soddball]

Best tank - something with girls and a fridge for beer.

Beer GOOD!

[Jarmo]

Huh! Hetzer obviously has the best price/performance in the game. JagdPanzer IV/70 is also a great pick, but really only worth getting if you expect to meet something the Hetzer can't kill.

I'd get Hetzers all the time if I was only in for the wins.

For the allies, the Challenger is so sweetly priced it amazes me. The same gun as in the Firefly, but with a fast turret and a cheaper price.

[Panther G]

In my experience, I would have to say the M-18 Hellcat. I penetrated a Jagdtigers frontal turret with a tungsten shell on this tank.

Panther G

[Kallimakhos]

Archers, there's no question about it :cool:
I did some amateurish testing to see which allied tanks would beat the hell out of panthers in frontal slugfest in a 3000 p. frontal slugfest. Were of course speaking about tank to tank cost-effectiviness, which seems to be the topic, nothing else. King Tigers fared even worse than panthers. Only axis tanks that were a match in my speedy testing were Hetzers mentioned by Jarmo, but even those lost both the tests I did.

[Warmaker]

I just realized I haven't played much against the Churchill VIII and Crocodiles. So, decided to play the British for once to take a ride against some panzers (both sides regular). I do see the attraction of the Churchill VIII for the armor and use of hollow charge (c) rounds. However I have seen several faults after 5 QB on medium and large maps. First, the armor though thick, is at a horrible angle like the Tiger IE. Second, I have noticed the Churchills are VERY bad at ranges of about 800m or above, missing quite often. Add to this the relatively small number of hollow charge rounds available and any significant dueling is a little "iffy" to me. No hollow charge rounds mean a big, tough, but toothless bulldog. IMHO, just keep it against soft targets. I still say the Firefly is the best British tank against armor.

And I have come to like the Churchill Crocodile. Quite a nice toy.

[ 04-28-2001: Message edited by: Warmaker ]

[Silvio Manuel]

I like Stuarts quite a bit, not only are they fast and good for flanking, and have 3 mgs to smash inf. close assaults, but generally outduel PanzerIVs and their weak turret armor and all light AFVs in a face-to-face slugfest.

Tigers are great (as long as their flanks are protected), i love that they'll laugh at frontal 76mm AP shots.

[Cybeq]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CombinedArms:
Query for the Stuart fans: What's a Stuart got that a Greyhound doesn't have? Obviously, both are fast, cheap, with thin armor and 37mm guns. But beyond that I haven't really closely compared them. Is there a tangible reason why Stuarts keep getting mentioned with no mention of Greyhounds, or is it simply a matter of this being a thread about tanks, not recon vehicles? Are Stuarts cheaper? I admit I haven't really looked.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I mentioned the Stuart as my favorite tank in a tank vs. tank scenerio. The lack of a referral to the Greyhound was just to stay on topic. But since you brought it up I love the Greyhound too. The big bonus with the Greyhound is that it doesn't use up your armor points since it is classified as a vehicle in the game. In a game where I choose my units I will usually opt for Greyhounds over Stuarts based on that fact alone. However, Greyhounds only have two machine guns and I think their turret is slower. Add to this the fact that they are open topped and you can see why the Stuart is the better AFV.

[Rubber Bullets]

I don't think we need any of that here DA BEGGINA. Take your pompus additude and stuff it. I'm sure you can fit it next to the corn cob. :D

[Me. 262]

My favorate German tank would be the tiger, JagdTiger or Panther G late smile.gif

[John Kelly]

I like the Jumbo with tungsten. Without the tank killing round, its 76mm gun is very ordinary. The thick hide, however, will repel most 75mm/L48 hits, while the 75mm/L70 and up will penetrate most of the time. All things considered, its survivability is the best of the American tanks. John

[Chek]

I play the Brits fairly regularly and have become quite partial to a Churchill VIII,Cromwell IV(40mph) combo.The Churchill works well as a kinda mobile pill box although as previoulsy mentioned as an anti tank weapon it is best for shorter ranges,you don't wanna waste those c shots unnecassarily.The Cromwells protect the Churchills flanks and they are brisk,I see them like a fast Sherman.

Of course for those pop up long range shots it's hard to beat the Firefly or Challenger.

[Stalin's Organist]

I haven't seen anything that tops BloodyBucket's post yet, and I agree with him - the best tank is always the one that my opponent has just used to wipe out my own armour!

[Aposotol]

I used to think that an M-18 do all the work against tanks but, i rushed one to the side of a phanter, fired 2 shots the second hit his turret at the front(after rotating it) , it start to fall back fire a 3rd shoot and the blow up. How you can miss 2 shoot at 75m and the only hit was in his front turret.
I hope it was only bad luck. I still like that hot rood.

[Da Beginna]

I went down to the cellar and broke down and cried for hours - rubber bullette.

What about my dear old Hotchkiss? In the campaign "Against old odds / 1. scenario" it proved to have some combat value. It killed a couple of bren ca., tiny stuarts and men.

I was dissappointed when I realised that other French tanks used by the 21th in Normandy like the Somua S-35 or Char BIS weren't displayed in CM. I guess you just can't have every thing...

[Trooper]

Stuart is good, but a Stuart Variant is better. The M8 GMC. It has a better HE punch than the Stuart, and the Anti-Armor capability isn't bad at all. May be a little less accurate at range, and a little slower ROF, it'll still easily knock out a Stug or MkIV from the front, it is fast, it is cheap, and infantry hate it.

That said, I always try to have a 37mm flak or two around to deal with M3/M5/M8s...

NTM

[Redwolf]

Problem with the 17 pdr AT gun and all tanks carrying it (Firefly, Challenger) is that they get no HE shells before October. They are cheaper in that period as well, so it may turn into an advantage, but you should be aware of the issue.

Regarding the Ostwind, compare hit chances of AA versus AT guns and you see why it is quite effective.

The thick variant Cromwells are not much slower than the thin ones except for top speed. Typical terrain movement is almost equal, much better that most other tanks.

The British 95mm gun should be more precise than the American 105mm, almost equal to the Allied 75mm (which is very bad compared to the Axis 75mm L/48 to start with, of course). None of these has a chance in a long-range battle.

[ 05-29-2001: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[Redwolf]

I wonder why noone mentioned the Jagdpanther. I don't use itmyself, mainly because I usually play Allies, but several times an opponent turned it into a problem for me.

It is probably the tank with the worst flank protection for the money in the game (armour and no turret), so it needs to be handled with great care. If you do, the front armour is very good, especially against tungsteen due to angle and also against the 105mm HC, just for thickness.

But the Jagdpanther is a very cost-effective insurance against thick Churchills and the like. Buy an overall force that is meant to overcome "normal" forces, small and medium guns, HE-intensive vehicles etc. But just in case the enemy comes in with heavy stuff, take a Jagdpanther so you are not defenseless. If you was trying to get the same insurance with guns, you would have to buy several 88s. Or a tank which is less mobile (Tiger) or has a smaller gun (Panther).

The trick here is that after the tank battle the Jagdpanther still has an 88 and it has about 30 HE shells for it, with blast 50. That is a first-class anti-infantry capability, although the MG ammunition has probably been spent by then.

And another thing about the long German guns (75mm L/70, 88mm L/71) is that the HE is very precise. That is of no great use for anti-squad use, but for sure it is against heavy infantry weapons and guns (should you be forced to attack them with tanks). The HE shells from these guns are also faster, 2 seconds earlier knockout of a Bazzoka can make quite a difference, you know? :)

[ 05-29-2001: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[Chek]

Just took out a Panther at 1300metres with a single C shot from a Mk VIII Churchill.Admittedly a very lucky shot.I suppose loading them up with 20 plus of C shot would be just a little too gamey. smile.gif

[ 06-02-2001: Message edited by: Chek ]

[Redwolf]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chek:
Just took out a Panther at 1300metres with a single C shot from a Mk VIII Churchill.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Panther or Jagdpanther? The Jagd has the armour at a high angle which makes it much more robust than the Panther, even against th otherwise very good British 95mm HC round.

[Stalin's Organ]

Why do people rave about the Stuart?

it's not THAT cheap - 90-something points vs 115 for a M4A1 Sherman, it's gun is only useful vs the flank of German main-line armour, it is 50mm AT-gun bait when it tries to get into position to do that, and the Sherman's 75mm HE is considerably more useful than teh tripple MG "threat" vs infantry.

Greyhounds have the same gun and mobility (if fewer MG's), and do NOT use up "Armour" points....if I was to go for cheap american tanks it'd be a mix of M4A1's, M8 HMC's (for "armour"), and Greyhounds for "vehicle" points.

As a single pick-tank I'd take the M4A1 as a better balanced vehicle than the Stuart, for not much extra cost.

[Gen-x87]

Best tank IMHO has to be the Panther G.

Pretty good slope, can kill anything in the Allies arsenal, and really not that bad against Infantry. Use it more as a terror weapon. Not invulnverable but pretty close. Churchills can kill it with one lucky shot smile.gif But most of the time they do not have many C rounds to worry about.

Then I would say the Hetzer is another good bargain. 83 points but it can kill most allied armor. If use right they can wreak havoc on an allied player.

Then I would say the Firefly, good tank if you keep it moving smile.gif Do not let it stop or expect it to be squashed by a cat.

Gen

[Redwolf]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stalin's Organ:
Why do people rave about the Stuart?

it's not THAT cheap - 90-something points vs 115 for a M4A1 Sherman,
[...]
As a single pick-tank I'd take the M4A1 as a better balanced vehicle than the Stuart, for not much extra cost.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think it is comparable to the Sherman, as the M3A1 is extremly immobile in difficult terrain. For the same points, I would prefer the Cromwell VII, my personal single tank choice. The Shermans with added mobility are very expensive.

I buy Stuarts only when I expect that I have to knockout much armour that is vulnerable to the 37mm, like when I play a known lover of Hummels, Wespes and 75mm howitzer vehicles.

In that case, the Stuart avoids "overgunning". Overgunning is not as bad as undergunning (obviously), but it worsens ROF, ammo amount carried, turret speed etc.

Stuart against StuH is an interesting experience, though.

[Warmaker]

The Panthers are the best tank of CM with the G Late version at its zenith. Excellent armor with slope, good speed, practically NEVER bogs in any weather/ground condition, and of course, one cannot help but mention the excellent gun to pop soda cans open with.

Let the Allies keep saying things like "I once killed a Panther from the front/flank/etc. with a 37mm/95mmC/etc." Key word being "once," referring to the survivability of the Panther. You'll never have to say things like "I had my Panther kill a Churchill VIII/Pershing/etc. once frontally with the 75mm." These things are expected and often become the result. Again, further proof of the Panther's superiority.

Numbers? Bah, insignificant... It's quite often for the prey to outnumber the predators...

**This has been a short "Panzer Complex" attack. Sorry if this has deeply hurt or offended anyone :D **

[Gyrene]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Let the Allies keep saying things like "I once killed a Panther from the front/flank/etc. with a 37mm/95mmC/etc." Key word being "once," referring to the survivability of the Panther. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I regularly kill Panthers with Fireflies in CM.

Like someone else posted on this forum before, if the 17 pounder was German it would have a cult following like the 88mm.

The Panther is a great tank, but if purchase price is no object than it would be silly for an Axis player not to pick the Jagtiger, the thing is almost indestructible, but give me a super-gamey 40mm Bofors/ Churchill AVRE combo and I'll fry that sucker. :D

Gyrene

[CombinedArms]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gyrene:


I regularly kill Panthers with Fireflies in CM.

Like someone else posted on this forum before, if the 17 pounder was German it would have a cult following like the 88mm.

Gyrene<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This may be so, Gyrene--I mean, I get annoyed, sometimes, too, by the worship of Nazi weaponry--but it might be worth noting that the Panther's 75 gun was very similar in many respects to the 17 pounder--like it a long, high velocity gun that was a great tank killer, and IT doesn't have a cult following in and of itself. The Panther DOES, as a complete tank, but people don't seem to get all dewy-eyed about that excellent gun as such. I think the 88 just picked up a mystique early in the war--when it really was a pretty unique weapon--that it continues to retain.

BTW, I've FREQUENTLY killed Panthers with 37mm flank shots. Killed 3-4 of them that way in the operation "First Clash at Stoumont" (one Stuart got two)--shooting from concealed positions and admittedly against the AI. I've also now killed TWO KTs with zook shots in the rear. And I once played an adapted SL scenario where two Green Sherman 76s and a small infantry force wiped out three Vet Panthers and two Stug IIIs, plus a large infantry force, mostly by lurking behind cover and ambushing at the right moment. Yet in one operation I was trying to knock out an abandoned Panther and bounced about 8 Sherm 76 shots off its front armor at 200m before finally moving around to dispatch it from the rear. The point is that everything has its strength but nothing in the game is invulnerable. Maybe the further point is that there's no "best tank" in CM--any one of them can be effective in the right circumstances and any one of them can be defeated.

[ 06-06-2001: Message edited by: CombinedArms ]

[Warmaker]

:D Heheheh, sorry guys, we can keep going on, but I have to add one last time to defend my cats... My Panthers FREQUENTLY leave burning hulks of various soda cans laying around like litter. There is no discrimination between Shermans, Stuarts, M10s, Firflies and Pershings. They are all equal under the guns of my Cats ;)

Anyhooo, IF purchase price was no factor in CM, I still would not settle only for Jagdtigers. Platoons of Panthers would be more effective for a broader set of roles. Why? Reload times for that 128mm feels much longer than the 75mm of the Panther. In dealing with the Western soda cans, the penetration of the 128mm is extreme overkill to say the least. However, that blast value of the 128mm (OMG!) is quite nice...to say the least. In addition, the Jagdtiger does not carry that much main gun rounds compared to the Panthers/Tigers I & II. Unless you're real lucky, you're not going to hit 100% of the time. In a defensive role, with the right support and factors, the Jagdtiger can be a centerpiece of a defense. However, its very slow speed and lack of a turret limits its role somewhat on the attack. While the armor is extremely thick on the Jagdtiger I'm not naive enough to think it is invincible (and I am quite aware of the Panther's flank armor values ;) ). If close enough the 17-pdr will penetrate frontally since the superstructure is not well sloped, not to mention a good flank shot. A platoon of Panthers IMO would suit my tastes better between defensive and offensive roles than a platoon of Jagdtigers.

As far as 17-pdrs go, they're quite nice guns but... in schooling myself in facing these weapons I know they had a good blast value but in earlier CMBO months the Fireflies seemed to be lacking against my grenadiers. Found out about the lack of HE shells for the Fireflies. I'm sure that this did not reflect badly on the gun's performance itself, but it kind of takes away from the reputation.

And guys, don't worry about any high levels of Panzer worhsip around here... it's only coming from me, as far as being vocal goes :D

[ 06-06-2001: Message edited by: Warmaker ]

[Marlow]

The best armored vehicle depends entirely on the situation. For a cheap and well balanced tank that is a good match for infantry and any armor up to and including Stugs and Mark IVs, the Sherman is the ticket. If the enemy has primarily armor, the Hellcat is the best bang for the buck (just watch out for those 20mm and 37mm guns). The M36 is also a cost effective way of dealing with enemy armor, but like the M18, sucks against infantry. The Greyhound is great at dealing with German recon/mechanized troops. In general, I settle for a mix of tanks and tank destroyers. Each Sherman (vanilla flavored)/TD set costs about the same as one Panther, and to my mind offers more tactical options. Except for one particularly ugly encounter with AT pillboxes, this combo has not failed me yet.

[Stalin's Organ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CombinedArms:
[QB]
--but it might be worth noting that the Panther's 75 gun was very similar in many respects to the 17 pounder--like it a long, high velocity gun that was a great tank killer, and IT doesn't have a cult following in and of itself. The Panther DOES, as a complete tank, but people don't seem to get all dewy-eyed about that excellent gun as such. I think the 88 just picked up a mystique early in the war--when it really was a pretty unique weapon--that it continues to retain.
QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The 75L70 was never fielded as an AT gun either, which limited it's exposure to only armoured nuits - the 88 AA gun was much more widely distributed, including Infantry units.

For the Brits the "mystique" of the 88 pretty much stems from the attack at Halafaya Pass in 1941 IIRC, where one of the RTR's got it's Matilda's massacred at long range - up to then they had been pretty much invulnerable (Arras notwithstanding)

[Cpl Carrot]

The best tank is the one you have at the moment. I mean its not like you can go "Um sorry, mind if I just go sell this "insert tank name here" and buy a bigger one?"

Cpl Carrot.

Ps BTW many people seem to be getting confused. I was under the impression that a Jadgtiger/Hetzer/Stug etc were TANK DESTROYERS and not tanks. Pehaps the thread should be about AFV not MTB's??

[Redwolf]

You should think not of "Panthers", but the Panther, Panzer IV/70, Jagdpanther, King Tiger combination.

Which is good when?
- if you are going to do mostly "sniping" in the defensive, the turretless units are better for cost and silhuette
- are you going to battle thick Churchills? If so, the 75mmL/70 only allows you to engage them at 500 meter or less. By buying the upgraded gun unit (King Tiger if you want the turret, Jagdpanther if not) you gain the freedom to engage them earlier. Whether that is important to you entirely depends on play style.
- The 88 L/71 also offer the better blast value
- On the other hand, four Panzer IV/70 are clearly better than three Jagdpanthers unless you need the gun. They are better for having more guns and smaller silhuette

As for the Jagdtiger, i found it to be very vulnerable to gun damage and immobilization. Even in direct comparisions, the King Tiger was much more survivable. In fact, the King Tiger is the only CMBO vehicle I would move into fields of fire of 17 pounder guns, including Jagdtiger.

In reality the 17 pounder gun is said to be significant less precise than comparable guns. That does not seem to be modeld in CMBO, probably due to a lack of hard data.

If you are battling StuG and Panzer IV with 75mm Shermans or Cromwells, look at the hit probability. The 75mm is less precise, duels are biased.

[Warmaker]

Oh, one more thing from my last reply... I would be crazy to deny any Jagdtiger support once I get my Panthers first though ;)

Well, since we've drifted a little to the TD part: The Jagdpanzer IV/70's are great for the TD role and can carry just enough HE rounds to take on infantry. A damn good compromise of armor, cost, and a killer gun. That sloped armor (50 or 60 degrees, can't remember) makes it that much tougher and resistant to the 76mm"t" rounds and sometimes the powerful 17-pdr. The uparmored PanzerIV (don't confuse this TD with the PzKpfw IV) carries a long-barelled 75mm and is quite similar to the Jagdpanzer IV/70 but is uparmored significantly on the front to 80mm while maintaining the slope! Quite a bit more resistant to those annoying "t" rounds frontally. I'm having alot more luck with the Jagdpanther whereas in the beginning they died on me within the first 5 turns. Learning to use them alot better... excellent armor and slope while retaining the killer gun of the King Tiger's long-barelled 88mm.

Of course, if you're pennypinching, the Marders are still an option for a pure AT role. The Nashorn too, but with a killer blast to take infantry on. However, the Hetzer is still a very nice choice for the typically defensive Axis setting.

[CombinedArms]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Ps BTW many people seem to be getting confused. I was under the impression that a Jadgtiger/Hetzer/Stug etc were TANK DESTROYERS and not tanks. Pehaps the thread should be about AFV not MTB's??[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The line between tanks and TDs/assault guns seems to constantly and inevitably get blurred--as it they did in real life, where both TDs and assault guns were constantly used as if they were tanks, and tanks were constantly used to destroy other tanks.

I've frequently read histories where the writer will scrupulously distinguish between tanks/TDs/assault guns every time there's an individual encounter (sometimes even correcting a soldier's memory of the event --"The American soldiers said it was a Tiger but there were no Tigers in the area; it was really an assault gun.) Then when they tabulate result of the battle, all you get is: the Allies lost 45 tanks, the Axis 50. It's usually not clear from this if TDs/assault guns are included or not in the count.

Anyway, since the lines are constantly blurring every where else, I don't see why they can't blur here, too.

[Cpl Carrot]

It's all right, I was just feeling pedantic.

Still reckon the best tank/TD is the one you've got. That includes the amazingly cool, incredibly neat H-39. Hey I took out a M-10 with one of these. Admittably with a rear turret hit - but beggers can't be choosers.

[Big Ron]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by redwolf:

If you are battling StuG and Panzer IV with 75mm Shermans or Cromwells, look at the hit probability. The 75mm is less precise, duels are biased.[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Wasn't the Allied 75mm shorter barrelled making it less accurate. Can't check right now as am at work. Will research for later.
:confused:

[Stacheldraht]

The American M3 gun used on the earlier Sherman models was about 110 inches long with a muzzle velocity of 2300 fps (ammo type not listed--looks like AP). The 75mm KwK40 L/48 found on the Pz IV models in CM had a muzzle velocity of 790 m/s (Pzgr 39 AP round). CM's StuG's used the 75mm StuK40 L/48 gun (990 m/s with Pzgr 40 AP round.) Barrel length equals caliber (75mm) multiplied by calibers (in the European sense of the term, here being 48).

Barrel length affects velocity of the rounds (increased pressure from expanding gases in the longer tube), not accuracy, afaik.

[ 06-20-2001: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]

[Freak]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stacheldraht:
Barrel length affects velocity of the rounds (increased pressure from expanding gases in the longer tube), not accuracy, afaik.
[ 06-20-2001: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


But doesn't higher muzzle velocity, in turn improve accuracy?

[Freak]

Doesn't higher projectile trajectory maen less of a chance to score a direct hit? I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that german guns had an advantage in accuracy because of this. For instance the flat trajectory of the panthers gun leads to better accuracy? I may be way off base here.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

[Stacheldraht]

Sounds like a question for Rexford smile.gif

[CrapGame]

It is a good question for Rexford, but I do believe it has to do with higher velocity shells taking less time to reach a target. The less time it takes to get there, the less time gravity has to work on the shell's path, and thus the faster shell flies "straighter" or on a "more level path" than the shell traveling at a lower velocity. This can be roughly translated into higher accuracy, as there does not have to be as much guessing what the arc to the target should be in order to hit it.

Crapgame

[Freak]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CrapGame:
It is a good question for Rexford, but I do believe it has to do with higher velocity shells taking less time to reach a target. The less time it takes to get there, the less time gravity has to work on the shell's path, and thus the faster shell flies "straighter" or on a "more level path" than the shell traveling at a lower velocity. This can be roughly translated into higher accuracy, as there does not have to be as much guessing what the arc to the target should be in order to hit it.

Crapgame<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


That was exactly my thinking on the matter. Shot fired with higher muzzle velocity = flatter trajectory = less travel time+less travel space = more accuracy.

[Stacheldraht]

Trajectories for the different projectiles are studied and then taken into account when aiming and firing, though. That was the case for WWII DF artillery, and I can only assume it was for tank guns.

[CrapGame]

Artillery and tank guns are totally different animals. With artillery, you know the distance your shell has to travel based on your location and the location of your target on the map, so all you have to do is dial in the correct elevation of the barrel to get the required trajectory for the shell to travel the correct distance. In combat with a tank gun (in the CM time period without laser range finders, etc.), the distance is not very accurately known, and therefore, a knowing the trajectory path of a shell is useless. Therefore, the ideal shell will have as little trajectory (fly very flat) as possible over as great a range as possible, thereby ensuring a greater hit percentage regardless of variations in the range of distance to the target. How is this achieved? Greater muzzle velocity. The faster the shell gets there, the less time gravity can affect its flight path. Hence, other things being equal, higher velocity = flatter path = greater accuracy over a given range.

[Stacheldraht]

Are you sure that knowing the trajectory is useless? Yes, the gunners had to estimate range, but was gun elevation not tied to the range markers on the sights? I.e, target is estimated to be 2000m out, based on its apparent size in the sight, barrel is properly elevated for the type of round used, and then fired.

Fwiw, the modern M1 tank has a backup sight, called the gunner's auxiliary sight, that works this way when the ballistics computer and rangefinder are damaged. It has a stadiametric rangefinding diagram (akin, I believe to those used in at least some WWII tanks, like the Tiger) that is tied to each type of round, whether Sabot, HEAT, etc. Perhaps this operates on the same principle? I'd appreciate any recommendations for books dealing with WWII tank gunnery. Thanks.

[Jarmo]

Faster velocity leads directly to better accuracy.
Both in real life and in CM.

Shorter flight time has (a least) two major benefits.
1. No need for as large "lead" against moving targets.
2. Evaluation of distance and range correction is less important.

[thor]

For Germans, Hetzer or Stug or Panther. For US, Hellcats and Challengers.

Just wanted to add that, for those of you who like the Jagdtiger, I believe those never appeared on the Western Front (solely an east front phenomenon) and thus really have no place in CMBO.

[Warmaker]

Actually, the Jagdtigers did make an appearance in the West late in the war. Don't know the exact details and results, but they did engage an American armored force. Someone here surely knows about it. IIRC there's even a historical scenario about it floating around.

[Mr. Johnson--]

Well they tried to get involed in Wacht en Rein, but diddn't make it. The did make an apprence during Nordwind. And after the Allied crossing of the Rein tried to stop the northern thrust of the Americans I belive.

[thor]

Didn't know that about the JTs. But what kind of numbers are we talking about?

[Barton Hick]

The M-18 is sweet, except for the fact that the open top makes it more vulnerable to infantry than normal. I hid on right along a trail that German armor was pouring across and from the close range, he knocked every one of their tanks and halftracks out before they figured out he was there. By then, the infantry started assaulting him, and its great speed got him out before things really got hot (by the way, fastest tank of all time, including modern ones).

[Warmaker]

IIRC there were only 2 batallions equipped with the Jagdtiger.

[gredeker]

The best tank is the one that is in the right place at the right time. ;)

Seriously, I tend toward assault gun & tank destroyer combos (stuh/wespe and hetzer for Germans, priest/m8 hmc and hellcat for americans - haven't played the Brits enough except to know that the croc is lots of fun).

In terms of actual tanks, I've got to go with the Panther or the Sherm Jumbo 76, although they're both too expensive for the point values I'm usually playing with (which is why I go with the cheaper combos).

[Patton_71]

The problem with these discussions is that we are really debating the accuracy of CM's designers points values of the vehicles, and nothing about their historical value. That being said, in the game, I find the STUG III answers nicely. Good enough firepower for anti-armor, and definitely capable in the infantry support role too. With the price of usually around 100, I think it's a bargain. ( By the way, anyone who uses the 1000 Stuart tactic is nothing but a gamey bastard)

Historically speaking, the most effective tank on the western front 44-on has to be the Sherman. Easily(especially when considering the multitude of chassis sub-types) equipping the majority of the western allies armor, it also had the reliability and the ruggedness for all types of terrain. The maintenance nightmare that was the German army could not even cope with the lowly Sherman's stallar record of dependability. ( kind of like a reliable old ford to a porsche that is always in the shop)


Patton

[88mm]

Agreed on that. There must be something wrong here. while most player call the Hetzer crap, the germans in WWII loved it. Now if the Hetzer was that bad, why would they love it ?

[Redwolf]

The Hetzer is actually a true CMBO favourite with almost all players I know.

In CMBB the insane turn rates hurt it badly.

[Nippy]

Originally posted by redwolf:
The Hetzer is actually a true CMBO favourite with almost all players I know.

In CMBB the insane turn rates hurt it badly. I loved the Hetzer in CMBO. The huge slope of the front armor would shruge off 75mm hits and the main gun did wonders on the Sherman and Cromwell series.

In CMBB it's already outclassed by the T-34/85. The 85mm gun will go through front armor (God help you if the T-34 has tungston) and the main gun on the Hetzer has problems penatrating the front turret on the T-34/85 series at any extended range.

The Hetzer is okay for busting up SU-76s and the odd T-34/76, but when the T-34/85 and JS-2s start showing up, the Hetzer is fudged...

[flamingknives]

Actually, the change in front armour description hurts the Hetzer more. In CMBO, it had a slope of 60 degrees, which was pretty solid, especailly in hull down.
In CMBB, it now has a 'curved' front plate, which is pretty poor - it counts more like 30 degrees on average.

[Richie]

There's several reasons why Warmaker's so right.
The Germans may have developed the best tank tactics prior to and during the beginning of WW 2, but the appearence of the T34 clearly displayed the lack of progress in German tank design. (yes, yes bar the Tiger) So to a certain degree they were playing catch up. The Tiger, whilst an excellent tank is quite heavy, hard on spares and slow to build. The Panther on the other hand weighed less, was a less complex design and easier to build. It also utilised the exsisting 75mm based on the Pak 40, simplifying production once again. Truth is, they couldn't build enough of them by that stage of the war anyway, Too little Too late. :(

And the allies, well it's got to be the T34 doesn't it. Lovely sloped armor. Mass production at it's finest and easily upgradable. (just pop on another turret with a bigger gun) :D

[billybubb]

i've been reading for the last little while which tank is the most effective for the money. imust agree that for germans it is the STUG III and the us it is the STUART

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Richie:
The Panther on the other hand weighed less, was a less complex design and easier to build. It also utilised the exsisting 75mm based on the Pak 40, simplifying production once again. Truth is, they couldn't build enough of them by that stage of the war anyway, Too little Too late. :( Actually, Panther's gun (KwK 42 L/70) was different from the PaK40 or the KwK 40 L/48 on PzKpfw IV. KwK 42 penetrated more than the 88mm on Tiger I. Panther's frontal armour was also more resistant than that of Tiger's because of its slope. Flanks were weak.

It is interesting that T-34 was originally a pre-war design, but is even today in the inventory of some less privileged armies. Not that I'd step into one if the enemy had anything better than RPT's (Rocket Propelled Toothpick).

[Richie]

What you say is true Sergei. I do have numerous books tucked away in boxes and I should load my brain first. :rolleyes: I'm aware of the improved performance over the Tiger I's 88 and of the fact that the Panthers gun slightly improved on the PaK 40 etc... Can someone enlighten me on a couple of points. How heavy were the shells for the L/70 (surely it's easier to chuck them about than the shells for the Kwk 36 L/56) and were the shells retro compatable between guns, say with the L/48? I know storage was a little more on the Tiger I despite the larger shell.

[Richie]

Besides, the Panther is fast and mobile. It can take a hit or two without brewing up (if used correctly, in pairs) With a bit of infantry support there isn't much you can't do. It's nice to know you can exchange a few rounds at range with most other tanks out there and most times come out alive.

Except for the Jabo's... :mad:
And that damned Tungsten...

[Chad Harrison]

LoL! Who dug this one up?

CMBO:
I loved the sherman 75. That is all I ever bought and it worked great for me. The key to the sherman was patience. You can easilly take out a panther from the side, take Mark IV's and StuG's head on. Not only that, but with 3 mg's and a great HE load they were death to infantry. Cant wait for CMAK to come out so I can get back in my sherman 75 and sherman 105!

CMBB:
Hands down the StuG III. Cheap, great gun till the end of the war and near indestructible when hull down until the T34/85 shows up. I have even heard them called gamey in a game before! smile.gif

[[UF]fridericus]

first: armor and guns of tanks in cmbo have many numbers, but interesting is only one point: enough or not? so it can take only the values 1 or 0.
cheap tanks without real high velocity are worthless, what do want to do with a burning wreck of a cheap tank, when you could still have a living, expensive tank.
most light vehicles, which could try to flank out enemies heavy armor, can be killed by 37mm and 40mm aa-guns. so you need tanks to deal with enemies heavies frontally.

as german i use: tiger 2 (kingtiger), hetzer, psw 234/3
as us: jumbo76, hellcat, greyhound, m8hmc
as uk: churchill 8, daimler

so you have the superiority at the point of the battlefield, which is the most important to you.