361
Suggestions / Re: Panzer 4 d/f1
« on: 16-05-2009, 21:05:25 »
And duly, the German Propaganda is coming here
The facts are that during the Battle fo France, orders were given to fight heavy French tanks only with equipements at least as heavy as PzIVs (that were still classed in "heavy tanks" in that time).
The facts are that when KV or T-34 were encountered during the Barbarossa operation, PZIII were stepped back for PzIVs to deal with those threats.
Anyway, whose the best tank is nothing of importance -again-, the important thing is the way is was used, something to do with ammo, you remember ?
Maybe am I ignoring "tactics", but you surely ignore common sense ...
About the design of the gun, could you please tell me what it shows ? There's a french proverb that could be translated that way : Knowledge is just like jam, those who spread it the most are those who have the least.
What's the next story you will find ? A guy came one day and started to shot at an infantry platoon with AP rounds ? You know what ? That guy killed 3 footmen in a row! Conclusion: HE rounds are useless, let's equip the tanks with AP rounds only!
No really, if you want to start something like: I'm an expert, you're an ignorant, so shut up I'm right, then I give up, this discusion leads nowhere.
It's just pathetic that you remain stuck in your own little certitudes without trying to be fair in your arguments just for the sake of being right.
You are assuming that the commanders had the ability to change doctrine. they did not, that was up to the rear line suppliers, who often didn't care about battlefield reports. Duly, you are ignoring chain of command.I was using the "commander" word in a general purpose and this is nothing of importance.
The facts are that during the Battle fo France, orders were given to fight heavy French tanks only with equipements at least as heavy as PzIVs (that were still classed in "heavy tanks" in that time).
The facts are that when KV or T-34 were encountered during the Barbarossa operation, PZIII were stepped back for PzIVs to deal with those threats.
You are saying that the Panzer 4 was better against tanks, despite the heavy evidence we have presented to show that the Panzer 3 was a far superior tank in those capabilities. Duly, you are ignoring clear factWell, this is purely blindness, you have shown nothing and the penetration values are a page back if you have already forgotten them.
Anyway, whose the best tank is nothing of importance -again-, the important thing is the way is was used, something to do with ammo, you remember ?
You are assuming that the Panzer 4 was a common tank in the early war, it simply was not. There were only 20 in the invasion of poland, and a couple hundred in France and the begining of russia/africa, compared to a few hundred Panzer 3 in poland and france, and thousands of pz3 in russia/africa. Of course, the main battle tank of the early war for the germans was the Panzer 1/2, sadly. Duly, you are ignoring clear fact of numbers.Would you be kind enough to quote where I am supposed to have written such a stupidity ?
You are assuming incorrectly the use of a support tank. Support is in the sense of artillery support in here. The mortar on the Panzer 4 was based off of the pioniere mortars of WW1, used to hammer bunkers and infantry opposition. Thus why they put in a high arc, low velocity gun. It was in no way effective against a well armoured target, the gun itself was not designed for that, and could hardly be used as such. Duly, you are ignoring tactics of support, as well as design of the gun itself.Sure, so when you design a "support" weapon, you shoot at soft targets and when something armored appears, you just cease fire and watch the infantry getting slaugtered ?
Maybe am I ignoring "tactics", but you surely ignore common sense ...
About the design of the gun, could you please tell me what it shows ? There's a french proverb that could be translated that way : Knowledge is just like jam, those who spread it the most are those who have the least.
You are assuming that light armoured targets are not affected by HE shells, when they clearly are, APCs and scout cars are easily destroyed by HE, not through penetration, so much as concussion. THere's even a case of a Panzer 2 capturing a T-34 just through constant HE fire which so badly damaged the internal organs of the T-34 crew that they surrendered. So in a sense, the Pz4 could be effective as anti-tank, but with HE shells causing concussion and fractures in the armour plate. Duly, you are ignoring proper usage of HE shellsYep, I ignore the proper usage of HE shells. I really do. Because of course it makes more sense of shelling a target with HE shells, praying for something to get damaged inside, instead of firering a couple of AP rounds that will definitively do the job.
What's the next story you will find ? A guy came one day and started to shot at an infantry platoon with AP rounds ? You know what ? That guy killed 3 footmen in a row! Conclusion: HE rounds are useless, let's equip the tanks with AP rounds only!
No really, if you want to start something like: I'm an expert, you're an ignorant, so shut up I'm right, then I give up, this discusion leads nowhere.
It's just pathetic that you remain stuck in your own little certitudes without trying to be fair in your arguments just for the sake of being right.