loomaluftwaffe
Tech Sergeant
- 1,840
- Dec 20, 2005
an offensice weapon can be used in the defensive, attacking the attackers is essentially defending
Army with best weapons
- Thread starter elmilitaro
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
To attack is the best from of defence...
schwarzpanzer
Senior Airman
- 662
- Aug 8, 2005
That is certainly true in the air, but on the ground and armed with defensive weapons, it can be a different matter.
loomaluftwaffe:
The MG34/42 is not an MMG, it is actually a GPMG and was meant to fill the role of both MMG, HMG LMG - hence the bipod and Gutrommel.
Certain people can use a GPMG as an LMG, but I certainly couldn't for long!
My personal belief is that the MG42 was pathetic as a HMG, but some people say it's effective enough. I'm not too sure about this, but know even the Bren could be used in this role with some success, so...
PlanD:
I know the MG34/42 were SSW's. So were the StG44 and MG26 used.
I don't think that 'one size fits all', that's all.
I think the GPMG system is flawed if it completely replaces LMG's and MMG's, don't you?
If you want a modern example, look at the SA80. It was intended to replace LMG's, Battle Rifles, SMG's and GPMG's and so is a Jack of all trades, master of none. Even Geoff Hoon has put Minimi's and FN MAG's back in, sharpish.
The Steyr AUG and HK G36 do OK from SMG-LMG though IMHO.
The Tetrarch/Locust??
Not if it breaks down or is too slow, the Tiger was a fine tank when all was well, but was a logistical knightmare.
A Tiger was great at ambushes, but in a close range fight with even a T34/85 it was dead meat and that is how it was all-too-often used.
Admittedly the commander is probably responsible for this, after all you can't blame a screwdriver for being a bad hammer.
Getting a pounding from everything the enemy had, in '43 onwards this was suicidal. The problem with boastful Tiger commanders is they got too big for their boots IMHO. Pride comes before a fall they say... There were weapons that could destroy the Tiger, likeit or not, those are the facts.
I agree, but when used properly and with all logistical considerations taken into account.
What? Obviously?? K98k's vs Garands, Lee-Enfield and others? Those were standard issue, the Germans having at best equal equipment 'till it was too late and in too few numbers.
What's wrong with saying the Waffen-SS had the best equipment? I can actually see your point there.
The Tiger was horribly overweight for the DW (Breakthrough) role it was intended to do, so had to be reclassified as a SdKfz SchwerePanzer (Special Purpsose Heavy Tank).
Tring to use a defensive weapon for attack is usually extremely difficult.
Having said that, you could get away with it... The StuG being an example - just not too often.
loomaluftwaffe:
The MG34/42 is not an MMG, it is actually a GPMG and was meant to fill the role of both MMG, HMG LMG - hence the bipod and Gutrommel.
Certain people can use a GPMG as an LMG, but I certainly couldn't for long!
My personal belief is that the MG42 was pathetic as a HMG, but some people say it's effective enough. I'm not too sure about this, but know even the Bren could be used in this role with some success, so...
PlanD:
I know the MG34/42 were SSW's. So were the StG44 and MG26 used.
I don't think that 'one size fits all', that's all.
I think the GPMG system is flawed if it completely replaces LMG's and MMG's, don't you?
If you want a modern example, look at the SA80. It was intended to replace LMG's, Battle Rifles, SMG's and GPMG's and so is a Jack of all trades, master of none. Even Geoff Hoon has put Minimi's and FN MAG's back in, sharpish.
The Steyr AUG and HK G36 do OK from SMG-LMG though IMHO.
The Tetrarch/Locust??
Not if it breaks down or is too slow, the Tiger was a fine tank when all was well, but was a logistical knightmare.
A Tiger was great at ambushes, but in a close range fight with even a T34/85 it was dead meat and that is how it was all-too-often used.
Admittedly the commander is probably responsible for this, after all you can't blame a screwdriver for being a bad hammer.
Getting a pounding from everything the enemy had, in '43 onwards this was suicidal. The problem with boastful Tiger commanders is they got too big for their boots IMHO. Pride comes before a fall they say... There were weapons that could destroy the Tiger, likeit or not, those are the facts.
I agree, but when used properly and with all logistical considerations taken into account.
What? Obviously?? K98k's vs Garands, Lee-Enfield and others? Those were standard issue, the Germans having at best equal equipment 'till it was too late and in too few numbers.
What's wrong with saying the Waffen-SS had the best equipment? I can actually see your point there.
The Tiger was horribly overweight for the DW (Breakthrough) role it was intended to do, so had to be reclassified as a SdKfz SchwerePanzer (Special Purpsose Heavy Tank).
Tring to use a defensive weapon for attack is usually extremely difficult.
Having said that, you could get away with it... The StuG being an example - just not too often.
loomaluftwaffe
Tech Sergeant
- 1,840
- Dec 20, 2005
please explain how is the SMLE better than the 98k? i dont know that much about them
How was the MG42 being used as an all-round weapon when only a couple in the squad would be carrying the MG? It was the squad support weapon, and was not a purely defensive weapon.
The Tetrach and Locust were both offensive tanks, since they were used in airborne operations. Which is distinctively an offensive operation. Even when used in the scout role, they're being used offensively and defensively.
If the Tiger had enough spares, or if the commander handled marches properly then the Tiger was fine. A Schwere Pz.Abt in Russia managed an 86.6% readiness, which is impressive for any armoured battalion. This was maintained with proper marches to keep up maintenaince levels, and enough spares.
When Germany was on the offensive the Tiger was the offensive point weapon. I would much rather be in a Tiger than a T-34/85, since at ranges up 3,000 metres the T-34 was vulnerable to the KwK36. At close range the T-34 would be smashed to pieces.
In 1943 the Tiger was still untouchable, it was not until 1944 that the Tiger commanders had to realise the enemy was catching up. And yes, the Tiger commanders became too used to being invulnerable which caught them off-guard in the summer of '44. But this was soon rectified.
True, there were weapons that could destroy the Tiger. No one has denied this. But the Tiger was a much more formidable opponent than anything the Allies or Soviets had in their arsenal.
The Tiger was not over-weight for the breakthrough role, that is why the Germans continued to use it as such. It was the pinpoint of the assault and broke the lines to allow the lighter armour through behind it. It was an offensive weapon, in fact all tanks are offensive weapons.
The Tetrach and Locust were both offensive tanks, since they were used in airborne operations. Which is distinctively an offensive operation. Even when used in the scout role, they're being used offensively and defensively.
If the Tiger had enough spares, or if the commander handled marches properly then the Tiger was fine. A Schwere Pz.Abt in Russia managed an 86.6% readiness, which is impressive for any armoured battalion. This was maintained with proper marches to keep up maintenaince levels, and enough spares.
When Germany was on the offensive the Tiger was the offensive point weapon. I would much rather be in a Tiger than a T-34/85, since at ranges up 3,000 metres the T-34 was vulnerable to the KwK36. At close range the T-34 would be smashed to pieces.
In 1943 the Tiger was still untouchable, it was not until 1944 that the Tiger commanders had to realise the enemy was catching up. And yes, the Tiger commanders became too used to being invulnerable which caught them off-guard in the summer of '44. But this was soon rectified.
True, there were weapons that could destroy the Tiger. No one has denied this. But the Tiger was a much more formidable opponent than anything the Allies or Soviets had in their arsenal.
The Tiger was not over-weight for the breakthrough role, that is why the Germans continued to use it as such. It was the pinpoint of the assault and broke the lines to allow the lighter armour through behind it. It was an offensive weapon, in fact all tanks are offensive weapons.
loomaluftwaffe
Tech Sergeant
- 1,840
- Dec 20, 2005
what about the IS-2? that 122mm gun should be able to kill a tiger?
The IS-2 was introduced in 1944. It's D-25T 122mm cannon could destroy a Tiger at combat ranges (400 - 600 m) but compared to the KwK36 88mm it was weak, and the IS-2 only carried 28 rounds.
In a moving combat from 3,000 m the Tiger will most likely win every time. The IS-2 was vulnerable to the KwK36 at ranges up to 1,000 m - and that was it's frontal armour.
In a moving combat from 3,000 m the Tiger will most likely win every time. The IS-2 was vulnerable to the KwK36 at ranges up to 1,000 m - and that was it's frontal armour.
loomaluftwaffe
Tech Sergeant
- 1,840
- Dec 20, 2005
wow, cause when i set huge tank battles in IL-2 sturmovik, a tiger II will only destroy its side armor
loomaluftwaffe said:
But still when you compare the ration of GIs firing Garands vs the ratio of Germans answering back with MG34/42, the GIs still put more rounds in the air. Good example is the 101st assault on Brecourt Manor where the Germans had MG42s anchoring the flanks. The paras were able to supress the MG on thier US left because by sheer volume of having semi and auto weapons on one target. Remember most Whermacht grunts were armed with bolt action rifles, not MGs.
:{)
schwarzpanzer
Senior Airman
- 662
- Aug 8, 2005
loomaluftwaffe:
The Enfield had it's disadvantages against the K98k (debatable), but here are the advantages:
It could fire faster; the handle was nearer and more ergonomic, it had an easy breech mechanism and required exactly half the reloading. Reloading more not only decreases the RoF, but also increases the chances of getting dirt in the mechanism, some Mauser's even had an (unsuccessful) 20-round box to try to prevent this!!
It was better suited to close-quarters fighting, especially with the "18 inches of steel" sword-bayonet on the pre-No.4 models.
It is in long-range shooting and reliability where the LE and K98k differ, though that is purely a matter of personal opinion.
PlanD:
Yes, I understand what you're saying regards Support Weapon. The point I'm trying hard to make is that with it's heavy weight/role and lafette tripod, it may have inadvertantly slowed an advance down? The Sokolov mount the Soviets had was a good idea IMHO.
The MG 42 could be used 'rambo stylee' I suppose and was probably better than the Soviet DP I'd say.
Tetrarch/Locust; Yes, I suppose any Military equipment or action is offensive or defensive?
I agree with you on most of your points on the Tiger (on your last post, that is!). It maintained a better operational readiness than the Panther!!
If I had such a precious and decisive piece of equipment, I would certainly take the best care of it I could.
There were Soviet tanks SPG's in '43 that could take on a Tiger (not necessarily on equal terms) though these were relatively few and far between.
The breakthrough role the Tiger could do - and well - but IMO it should not have been used for exploitation also.
The IS2:
Yes and 18 of those were HE. Enough to kill a Panther at point-blank, but not a Tiger.
The early IS2 AP rounds (non-normalised) were near useless against a Panther, but I think not against a Tiger.
The front turret of the IS2M (Western) was vulnerable here, especially against the later APCR. The entire front of the early IS2's were vulnerable here also.
A Tiger II would possibly have no trouble killing an IS2M (W) @ even 2,000m, provided it found it's mark.
The Enfield had it's disadvantages against the K98k (debatable), but here are the advantages:
It could fire faster; the handle was nearer and more ergonomic, it had an easy breech mechanism and required exactly half the reloading. Reloading more not only decreases the RoF, but also increases the chances of getting dirt in the mechanism, some Mauser's even had an (unsuccessful) 20-round box to try to prevent this!!
It was better suited to close-quarters fighting, especially with the "18 inches of steel" sword-bayonet on the pre-No.4 models.
It is in long-range shooting and reliability where the LE and K98k differ, though that is purely a matter of personal opinion.
PlanD:
Yes, I understand what you're saying regards Support Weapon. The point I'm trying hard to make is that with it's heavy weight/role and lafette tripod, it may have inadvertantly slowed an advance down? The Sokolov mount the Soviets had was a good idea IMHO.
The MG 42 could be used 'rambo stylee' I suppose and was probably better than the Soviet DP I'd say.
Tetrarch/Locust; Yes, I suppose any Military equipment or action is offensive or defensive?
I agree with you on most of your points on the Tiger (on your last post, that is!). It maintained a better operational readiness than the Panther!!
If I had such a precious and decisive piece of equipment, I would certainly take the best care of it I could.
There were Soviet tanks SPG's in '43 that could take on a Tiger (not necessarily on equal terms) though these were relatively few and far between.
The breakthrough role the Tiger could do - and well - but IMO it should not have been used for exploitation also.
The IS2:
Yes and 18 of those were HE. Enough to kill a Panther at point-blank, but not a Tiger.
The early IS2 AP rounds (non-normalised) were near useless against a Panther, but I think not against a Tiger.
The front turret of the IS2M (Western) was vulnerable here, especially against the later APCR. The entire front of the early IS2's were vulnerable here also.
A Tiger II would possibly have no trouble killing an IS2M (W) @ even 2,000m, provided it found it's mark.
102first_hussars
Tech Sergeant
elmilitaro said:
Arguably the Russian T-34 tank was the best tank of the war, but other than that the Germans had the best equiped military.
schwarzpanzer
Senior Airman
- 662
- Aug 8, 2005
I'd be tempted to say the Late Panther G 102first_hussars, but I can't argue with your choice.
IMHO the failings of the K98k against other standard-issue weapons was a huge dissadvantage.
CurzonDax:
I think you're right on the merits of standard-issue SLR's.
Germans were the first to experiment with SLR's, wonder why they weren't adopted? - reliability is my guess.
IMHO the failings of the K98k against other standard-issue weapons was a huge dissadvantage.
CurzonDax:
I think you're right on the merits of standard-issue SLR's.
Germans were the first to experiment with SLR's, wonder why they weren't adopted? - reliability is my guess.
delcyros
Tech Sergeant
Question:
What are the ballistic datas for the tank guns? I do now have armor schemes , projectiles weight and design, armor quality datas and muzzle velocities but still miss the following datas:
Angle of fall and striking velocity in comparison with range (for example:
1.000 m: AoF 0.8 degrees, striking velocity: 840 m/s for APC rounds). If anyone post me the missing datas I will post the immune zones of Tiger, Tiger-II, Panther, T-34/76, T-34/85, JS-II, Su-100, Su-152 against each other.
Interested?
What are the ballistic datas for the tank guns? I do now have armor schemes , projectiles weight and design, armor quality datas and muzzle velocities but still miss the following datas:
Angle of fall and striking velocity in comparison with range (for example:
1.000 m: AoF 0.8 degrees, striking velocity: 840 m/s for APC rounds). If anyone post me the missing datas I will post the immune zones of Tiger, Tiger-II, Panther, T-34/76, T-34/85, JS-II, Su-100, Su-152 against each other.
Interested?
lesofprimus
Brigadier General
And I am one of them redcoat...
I can argue that the T-34 was not the greatest tank of the war, for the simple reason that the Panther G was far superior! It could stand up to anything in the war, it was not complex (in comparison to some German designs), it could be mass produced, it was relatively cheap (for it's ability) ... and it could blast the hell out of several T-34s without loss to itself!
And I also believe that Ambrose mixed up the Bren and Sten ... British soldiers loved the Bren - and it was an excellent weapon.
And I also believe that Ambrose mixed up the Bren and Sten ... British soldiers loved the Bren - and it was an excellent weapon.
schwarzpanzer
Senior Airman
- 662
- Aug 8, 2005
redcoat:
A decent enough gun in it's own way - copied by the Germans as the MP3008, also influential to the M3 Grease Gun and a lot of post WW2 weapons.
I suppose the SA80 overshadows it's crapness somewhat.
That and the ZB26, they all had their good points, the BAR, MG42 and DP( M) were all great weapons.
In certain situations, one would outshine the other e.g. defence: MG42.
delcyros:
I might have them some somewhere. APCR is extremely different to AP for e.g. Which guns do you want, all of them??
I know all these, I will post if I find, but I don't like the 'swapsies' attitude delcyros.
Anyways KonigsTigers, T34/76's and JS2's frontal armour varied in both thickness and quality, just one number doesn't count.
PzIV/III and just about every other tank of the war's armour varied also tank-to-tank.
PlanD:
The Panther was complex, even the G, but it was on the way...
Quality was also a bit too variable.
I think Ambroze probably meant Sten's, but it could have been Bren's if :
1. They were on the defensive?
2. They had run low on .303's and had a healthy supply of 7.92's?
- That's another blow against the MG42, enough ammo to feed it's huge hunger for ammo was very, very heavy.
The tripod and ammo were the main weight factor's, not the gun itself (only 5lb's heavier than a BAR BTW 8) )
A decent enough gun in it's own way - copied by the Germans as the MP3008, also influential to the M3 Grease Gun and a lot of post WW2 weapons.
I suppose the SA80 overshadows it's crapness somewhat.
That and the ZB26, they all had their good points, the BAR, MG42 and DP( M) were all great weapons.
In certain situations, one would outshine the other e.g. defence: MG42.
delcyros:
I might have them some somewhere. APCR is extremely different to AP for e.g. Which guns do you want, all of them??
I know all these, I will post if I find, but I don't like the 'swapsies' attitude delcyros.
Anyways KonigsTigers, T34/76's and JS2's frontal armour varied in both thickness and quality, just one number doesn't count.
PzIV/III and just about every other tank of the war's armour varied also tank-to-tank.
PlanD:
The Panther was complex, even the G, but it was on the way...
Quality was also a bit too variable.
I think Ambroze probably meant Sten's, but it could have been Bren's if :
1. They were on the defensive?
2. They had run low on .303's and had a healthy supply of 7.92's?
- That's another blow against the MG42, enough ammo to feed it's huge hunger for ammo was very, very heavy.
The tripod and ammo were the main weight factor's, not the gun itself (only 5lb's heavier than a BAR BTW 8) )
The Panther G was not complex in comparison, is what I said. It took half the time to build than it did a Tiger. And for the ability of the Panther it's build time was practically none , since it paid for it's man hours on the battle field.
Quality was nowhere near as bad as you make it out to be . The Panther could withstand most punishment , throughout the war. Now the IS-2 quality didn't vary , it remained poor !
Quality was nowhere near as bad as you make it out to be . The Panther could withstand most punishment , throughout the war. Now the IS-2 quality didn't vary , it remained poor !
