is2 and tiger ace

I'm thinking at a larger scale. Sure germany probably had some of the finest crack troops, but as the war progressed a lot of them died in risky assaults. So the volksgrenadiers and conscripted foreigners slowly became more prevalent. German commanders though were experienced and more knowledgeable than the american officers usually. Purely from experience. They were just limited in a number of ways that the americans were not. Same with the russians. Theres a lot you can do with seemingly infinite resources compared to the enemy.

Ah! I see, my bad then.

But But if you read about US Army anything anywhere and youll find that nothing they had could kill German armor! Their AT Guns were too weak (if you try to research them) Shermans were total and complete crap incapable of doing anything but killing their own crews, P47 Rockets couldnt Penetrate anything heavier then a Panzer IV if they hit, and the tank destroyer doctrine was a failure not to mention the Bazookas. So how did all these tanks mysteriously die???

Kind of being a smart ass here but I am half serious. Every source I seem to look up about the various ways America dealt with Panzers seems to show that EVERYTHING was ineffective...yet...they still died in droves...

The efficacy of German armor is played up, but it's also that people tend to focus only on their big cats rather than their much more numerous assault guns, AT guns and earlier tank models (e.g. Pz III / IV) which statistically would provide the lion's share of kills against the allies. The idea of a single indominatable Tiger is menacing, but you were more likely to get killed by a hidden Pak somewhere or a PzIV.

This is especially true when you get to the realm of pop culture, since films tend to gravitate towards dramatic encounters against overwhelming odds. Go watch Fury for a weird mix of historical accuracy, historical myths, and action movie tropes. To take out a Tiger tank that appears at very close range, four Shermans get killed including one E8 model, and then the final Sherman fires two point blank shots at the rear of the Tiger to kill it. This Sherman is itself an E8 model with 76mm main gun, a gun which could have penetrated the Tiger frontally from the initial ranges it presented itself at even with standard AP ammo. In fact had the 5 Shermans simply opened up on the Tiger the initial volley would almost certainly have killed it. But this is Hollywood, and they are portraying the situation of US tankers in April 1945 as some kind of desperate struggle to survive against overwhelming odds.

The efficacy of German armor is played up, but it's also that people tend to focus only on their big cats rather than their much more numerous assault guns, AT guns and earlier tank models (e.g. Pz III / IV) which statistically would provide the lion's share of kills against the allies. The idea of a single indomitable Tiger is menacing, but you were more likely to get killed by a hidden Pak somewhere or a PzIV.
.

The early war german tanks and assault guns effectiveness was primarily due to tactics and blitzkrieg though. Not really the unit itself. Thats why even though they were inferior to the common allied tank, germans made really good use of them. As the war progressed, suddenly allies keep producing more and more tanks, logistics and supply are getting back in order, big offensives fail in russia. Suddenly another blitzkrieg can't be pulled off, its no surprise smaller amounts of bigger tanks with more armor and better guns are showing up. It's not myth that some tiger/panther crews were able to kill large amounts of tanks due to superior gun and armor. I'm gonna try not to ramble here.

TLR, even though most of kills came from panzer3s/stugs and such, their success was due to tactics, as well as allies being pitifully weak at the beginning of the war. Germany needed stronger, more superior vehicles than the common allied tank. Because you couldn't outproduce america and russia combined, no way. Since germany was losing rapidly by 1943, I don't really think it is fair to say that the rushed into production panthers and king tigers were the wrong way to go, or would of been bad vehicles. Just that a lot of factors indirectly affected them in a negative way. Bombing, rushed production, lack of quality resources/enough resources.

If mechanical problems, lack of quality metals/fuel, didn't plague late war german vehicles they performed decently. Problems the allies really had no worry for.

I'm not sure I consider the Tiger I to be a mistake necessarily, it has a niche in terms of assaulting prepared defences - a breakthrough vehicle. But I think the Panther should have been a lighter vehicle, and ideally it would be more reliable too. On a strategic level having more panthers that weren't quite as tough on their frontal armour and maybe has a slightly shorter gun would have been a net positive. Not enough to win the war though, so it's moot ultimately.

I have discussed in the past the amusing contradiction that the Germans had their greatest successes when they had arguably inferior vehicles to their opponents. The German AFVs from 1942 onwards started to take a gamble on what you might call a "specs war" (to borrow from smartphone terminology); an attempt to have a qualitative advantage by having the best guns and the best protection, but I don't think it paid off.

^

Because the factors that lead to these successes had little to do with tank models. The Pz38T was probably even more successful than the PzIII short.

The Panther battalions on the Eastern Front had serious problems in 1943, enough to consider it a failure.

The tank arms race was the sign that they were deteriorating. They were losing their ability to win through maneuver (requiring strong logistics, and good quality combat formations) + massed airpower and had to settle with attrition.

Go watch Fury for a weird mix of historical accuracy, historical myths, and action movie tropes.

You did NOT just go there. Ill see your Fury and Raise you Thin Red Line. Worst war movies EVER lol.
Fury tried to be the Tankers version of Das Boot then ended with a Rambo Scene.

There is a book floating around out there that costs a couple of hundred bucks I forget the name but it was a statistical analysis of all losses on all sides of the War. And an excerpt from that book showed the Stug III got the most kills of all tanks in the war lol. So it really was a Stug Life!

But yes I agree. Its much inflated. But the bias of personal accounts shows the same sort of thing. At least from the books that I have read. I cant however locate a decent amount of information on what EXACTLY did the most tank killing on the US side. I suspect it must have been AT Guns. If you know where I could find the answer and which books talk to it specifically I would appreciate it. Because like I said everytime I turn around to research accounts about what someone else said was what was knocking out Panzers left and right I find equal accounts that contradict it.

Used to crap myself in Coh1 at tigers, now i think "marked target and lololololol".

Yep.

Flame post #166 invised. Pleased discuss the post, not the poster.

The stugs were deployed in small units, only capable of short-range thrusts (low offensive capability) and were fundamentally defensive units or units used to support short ranged counterattacks. So naturally it would get plenty of opportunities to snipe attacking and infiltrating enemy armor.

It was not intended to perform the complex and offensive oriented roles of a Pz Division.

The value of an armored unit is not really measured by how many tank to tank kills it gets.

And an excerpt from that book showed the Stug III got the most kills of all tanks in the war lol. So it really was a Stug Life!

The stugs were deployed in small units, only capable of short-range thrusts (low offensive capability) and were fundamentally defensive units or units used to support short ranged counterattacks. So naturally it would get plenty of opportunities to snipe attacking and infiltrating enemy armor.

It was not intended to perform the complex and offensive oriented roles of a Pz Division.

The value of an armored unit is not really measured by how many tank to tank kills it gets.

Yet Kursk was a full on tank Slugfest and again the Stug did well there. Sure they werent even in the Panzer Divsions but Artillery yet they performed very very well. A surprising fact that I did not expect. Right along with the P47 getting the largest amount of Air to Air kills of the Army Air Corps.....

Man, when did this turn into a history discussion...sigh..

Man, when did this turn into a history discussion...sigh..

Historical discussions are like the Godwin's Law COH2 Balance threads, except they don't put an end to the thread.

Citadel was a 'special case' (a weird battle) and not the 'general case' in the East. It was two big weeks, and overall a tremendous disaster for them. It was a huge waste of the potential of armored forces supported by massed airpower since they did not cut off the salient. There were Stug units integrated into the divisional structure of GD and the 3 x SS PzD. Kursk was not much of a mobile battle- it was an attrition type exchange, with less maneuver and depth of movement, and lots of brick wall fighting.

It is better to cut off & capture equipment and men than to actually waste capability fighting them.

Yet Kursk was a full on tank Slugfest and again the Stug did well there. Sure they werent even in the Panzer Divsions but Artillery yet they performed very very well. A surprising fact that I did not expect. Right along with the P47 getting the largest amount of Air to Air kills of the Army Air Corps.....

lol people still bringing up the dumb "Tiger is better versus infantry" meme when the IS2 has a larger AoE and only slightly more scatter.

Also ignoring the fact that IS2 is much more likely to pen the Tiger than the Tiger an IS2.

You also ignoring the fact that IS2 has a 122mm DT-25 gun when Tiger has 88mm KwK. But Alex, you seems ignoring a lot of things when it come to Axis.

(it's not fanboyism, i actually play mainly Wehr cause it's more challenging)

You also ignoring the fact that IS2 has a 122mm DT-25 gun when Tiger has 88mm KwK. But Alex, you seems ignoring a lot of things when it come to Axis.

(it's not fanboyism, i actually play mainly Wehr cause it's more challenging)

that shouldnt mean that ANYONE should have a super tank such as is2s both capible of destroying infantry and tanks very well all while being fast and mobile
people say germans have all super tanks and shit but tbh the tanks are worth how much they cost
panzer 4 destroys shermans because p4s costs more
panthers destroy t34s because it cost more AND its a tank hunter that fails to kill infantry with its main gun
jackson has a long range with rotatable turret and speed so that you can spot tanks with infantry and shoot them at long range, run away when germans tank chaise you. beats p4 at any range despite being a tank destoryer, which one sided tanks such as jagdpanzer would lose because it would be flanked. all while it fails to kill infantry. extremely powerful with vet ability. but americans deserves the jacksons since they have pretty weak AT.
but the fucking is2, capable melting both infantry and tanks, clearly is not worth how much its cost
im not quite sure what you mean with "ignoring" but the game has ignored is2 reload speed and how much ammo it can hold in its rack in real life