.. So if a Panther stays in it's infantry supporting role, it excels.
Only that is the role of "Churchill infantry support Tank."
The Role of the Panther is described as counter to Heavy tanks, and it pretty bad at it.
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
.. So if a Panther stays in it's infantry supporting role, it excels.
Posts: 2243
Tanks shouldn't even try to fire on the move. WW2 era stabilizers only were effective at keeping the gun pointing in the general direction of the target while on the move. T-34 didn't even have a stabilizer. So firing on the move should be basically a sure miss, unless you're targeting a house from point blank range.
That's off my chest now.
I think the Panther does it's job pretty well. It's quite fast, pretty heavily armored, can make a lot of damage to tanks, and the MG on the top makes it pretty effective against infantry as well. It is pretty expensive yes, so yolodives are not the brightest idea. Hate losing a expensive tank to a mine/at ambush. So if a Panther stays in it's infantry supporting role, it excels.
Posts: 2742
Posts: 930
I think the Panther does it's job pretty well. It's quite fast, pretty heavily armored, can make a lot of damage to tanks, and the MG on the top makes it pretty effective against infantry as well. It is pretty expensive yes, so yolodives are not the brightest idea. Hate losing a expensive tank to a mine/at ambush. So if a Panther stays in it's infantry supporting role, it excels.
Only that is the role of "Churchill infantry support Tank."
The Role of the Panther is described as counter to Heavy tanks, and it pretty bad at it.
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
I don't know in what world panthers are supposed to be a direct counter to heavies.
Panthers are medium tanks, THEY ARE support tanks, if you want TDs you either go stug, JP4, elephant to Jagtiger.
Posts: 930
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
And they are exactly like that. If you use them like a puma instead of a KT they will be great against tanks.
Posts: 1217
Tanks shouldn't even try to fire on the move. WW2 era stabilizers only were effective at keeping the gun pointing in the general direction of the target while on the move. T-34 didn't even have a stabilizer. So firing on the move should be basically a sure miss, unless you're targeting a house from point blank range.Flawed argument. Panthers didn´t need to shoot on the move back then since they could engage at the longest ranges. A Su-85, Firefly etc. wouldn´t outrange the Panther in the first place that it would have to close in like it has to do ingame.
That's off my chest now.
Posts: 1585 | Subs: 1
Posts: 2396 | Subs: 1
I think the Panther does it's job pretty well. It's quite fast, pretty heavily armored, can make a lot of damage to tanks, and the MG on the top makes it pretty effective against infantry as well. It is pretty expensive yes, so yolodives are not the brightest idea. Hate losing a expensive tank to a mine/at ambush.
So if a Panther stays in it's infantry supporting role, it excels.
Posts: 4314 | Subs: 7
Than are the allie tanks to far to strong at aiming while driving.
The german tanks had the best binoculars and fire-aim systems to scout the area and aim the enemy.
every german tank had a radio to communicate with other tanks...ask the sovjet...not even every 10. tank had one.
they operated alone, didn see much and their aiming was very bad on range.
normaly a tank shouldnt hit a kubel while it drive...
Posts: 1158
Posts: 25
Posts: 10665 | Subs: 9
Posts: 25
Nice marshalling of the thread, OP.
Press the Report button, if your thread goes out of kilter.
You can ask a Moderator to close the thread, when you are done with it.
Posts: 10665 | Subs: 9
29 | |||||
22 | |||||
905 | |||||
2 | |||||
1 | |||||
1 | |||||
1 |