Best Tank Destroyer

Paciat wrote:

AbhMkh wrote:
And Paciat the archer was built on a valentine tank chassis which was obsolete and very weak!!!

Valentines were called Montys (Montgomeries) Staghounds becouse they chased Romels troops across N. Arfica.
Armored allmost as good as the Matilda II (a small tank with more armor than a T-34) they were upgunned to 6lbs.
Valentines can be compared to PzIII.

Archer was a better tank destroyer than Achilles - it had a lower profile. If you want a tank destroyer with lots of armor get a real tank!

I have to agree with Paciat. The Archer was a excellent tank, and it's baxckwards gun was VERY powerful [It could park in ambush, then rush off after firing without turning around] And the Valentine was a EXCELLENT tank, almost 7,000 i think, we're made, making it one of the most-mass produced Brit tanks of the war.

Theres lots of wierd britsh tanks...

Mass production does not mean that a tank is excellent!!!!!!!!

Mass production means that they had no better designs at that time!!!!!!!!!!

The valentine was an early war british tank which became obsolete in late war(the british had to take shermans from the americans)

also the no of archers produced were only 400 which doent make it  a suitable canidate for the game!!!!!!!!

Says who? The berge is in the game despite being contested whether or not it even existed at all. Ostwinds are in with their low unit numbers. Pershings are in despite only appearing at the VERY end of the war.

It's not a realism mod, it keeps with the cinematic feel of vCoH. So it will keep the hollywood feel of Saving Private Ryan/Band of Brothers/Enemy at the Gates and will put in whatever seems like an interesting unit.

How many tigers were made? Answer that first.

AbhMkh wrote:
Mass production does not mean that a tank is excellent!!!!!!!!

Mass production means that they had no better designs at that time!!!!!!!!!!

The valentine was an early war british tank which became obsolete in late war(the british had to take shermans from the americans)

also the no of archers produced were only 400 which doent make it  a suitable canidate for the game!!!!!!!!

Mass production of Valentine tank means that it was better than Crusader and Matilda II tanks. It remained in production until April 1944.

As Ive said before Valentine can be compared to PzIII.
PzIII was obsolete in 1944. That dosnt make StugIII obsolete. UK didnt produce Archers much becouse it was a defensive weapon while they were attacking.

... why are you yelling so much?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

1. I'm not screaming :P

2. @ Paciat you are right that the valentine can be compared to the panzer3 but only in terms of armament ,panzer 3 had slightly better armor

3. Valentine served only in the African campaigns and became obsolete later with the intro of the churchill and shermans


4. The african threatre was the early stages of the war , the real tank action was seen on th eastern fronts and the western fronts


@ Paciat why the hell do you give history lessons when we are talking about practicality of an unit

Are you british or what????? ;D

AbhMkh wrote:
1. I'm not screaming :P

Finally.

Quote
2. @ Paciat you are right that the valentine can be compared to the panzer3 but only in terms of armament ,panzer 3 had slightly better armor

If it had "slightly better armor" than it can be compared.
57mm had "slightly better armor" penetration than the german 50mm.

Quote
3. Valentine served only in the African campaigns and became obsolete later with the intro of the churchill and shermans

It was produced till april 1944 so it had seen a lot of action. Including Eastern Front.

Quote
4. The african threatre was the early stages of the war , the real tank action was seen on th eastern fronts and the western fronts

Desert warfare was all about tanks. Whats not real about Tobruk or ElAlamain?

Quote
@ Paciat why the hell do you give history lessons when we are talking about practicality of an unit

Becouse COH units are based on history.

Quote
Are you british or what????? ;D

British no. Allied yes.

Last edited July 8, 2010 at 6:03 AM by Paciat

AbhMkh wrote:
Are you british or what????? ;D

Paciat is Polish. Poles were officially on the Allied side (truth be told, their commanders barely tolerated each other), though there were some who fought in the Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS, including more than a few officers (Poland actually had the best Officer Corps before the war and during the early stages; most of them were liquidated by the Soviets, but the mass graves were discovered by German troops---ironically, Poland's "friends" the Allies denied/covered up the entire incident during and after the war and burned all reports pertaining to the event). Anyway, that's the end of that.  ;D Nationality is of little relevance to this discussion, unless you want to start a flame war. ::)

The Valentine was a pretty decent tank (I actually suggested a captured lend-lease version before as a reward unit to replace the Pz. IV "Stubby") which had good armour characteristics, decent mobility, and an effective gun for a tank of its size. However, it was NOT a tank destroyer, and neither are the Cromwell, Churchill, Pz. III and Pz. IV either, so this argument is off-topic. The Firefly, Comet and Archer tanks were deployed and (mis)used more often like up-gunned medium tanks by inept Allied strategists, so they would barely qualify as TDs IMO. Therefore, my choice would be the Nashorn...which had the longest range, a high kill-ratio and was deployed (defensively) in large numbers on the Ostfront. Second place goes to the SU-85. 8)

Last edited July 8, 2010 at 6:40 AM by Werwolf

Ahh Polish I see................

Ya I knw polish airborne divisions participated in "operation market garden"

and polish armored divisions participated in the allied offensive in taking the fight to Germany

nationality is irrelevant here,i was joking about it cuz it seemed to me that paciat is taking criticism of the british to his heart ;D ;D ;D

Nyways as to the valentine can you guys imagine what will be the result of the following duels????


valentine vs stug
valentine vs p4
valentine vs marder
valentine vs paks???????

I shudder even to imagine how valentines 40 mm gun will perform against these units


In the desert threatre tank technology was not at its best , things were still being tried and tested......

and yes that difference in armor made pz 3 impenetrable to the british tank guns of tht time and the valentine penetratble to the 50 mm german cannon!!

Any tank can really beat any tank. They just need the right skill and a fine tatic.

late war Valentines where armed with 6pdrs=57mm=the same the US 57mmAT gun which is a copy o the 6pdr built under license. Its AT performance was better than a 75 M1 on shermans.

History-Game balance 2 different things

At least read wikipedia articles about weapons/vehicles if you want to argue about such things  ::)

Thts precisely what i want to put here!!

historically valentines had the 40mm cannon which when introduced in the game would be a large imba

even with the 57 mm cannon(as that of the churchill) it will be no good against nything better than the stug

AbhMkh wrote:
Nyways as to the valentine can you guys imagine what will be the result of the following duels????


valentine vs stug
valentine vs p4
valentine vs marder
valentine vs paks???????

I shudder even to imagine how valentines 40 mm gun will perform against these units


In the desert threatre tank technology was not at its best , things were still being tried and tested......

and yes that difference in armor made pz 3 impenetrable to the british tank guns of tht time and the valentine penetratble to the 50 mm german cannon!!

"pz 3 impenetrable to the british tank guns of tht time" so why did the germans lost? British main AT guns at that time were also 2 pounders.

Only the PzIII with 50 mm KwK 38 L/42 gun and those with 37mm guns (up to PzIIIH) should be compared with Valentines with 2 pounders.
PzIII with 50 mm KwK 39 L/60 should be compared to Valentines with 6 pounders.

There was an idea a while ago (when the Soviet Sherman was OP) to replace the Sherman with a Valentine (probably with Churchills 57mm gun and Cromwells armor). It would be a perfect counter to PE AC, PE PzIVs, and Wehrmacht Pumas (even if upgunned) and would be an equal to Osteer PzIII.

It was a good idea, but time consuming so now Soviets have a 76mm Sherman with most stats nerfed (acc, HP, and - not sure about this one - speed).

Also, you shouldnt compare tanks to tank destroyers.
The price of a Valentine should be as low as Stug but its efectivness vs infantry should be better than vet 1 Stug (just like PzIII).

So how about

valentine vs PE AC spam
valentine vs PE Pz4
valentine vs 50mm Puma
valentine vs PzIII???????

Last edited July 8, 2010 at 7:02 PM by Paciat

Paciat wrote:
"pz 3 impenetrable to the british tank guns of tht time" so why did the germans lost? British main AT guns at that time were also 2 pounders.

Paciat that is the worst arguement i heard from you yet. Its like saying a panther is worse than a t-34 because the axis lost the war.

The Allied had other advantages, surely - it wasnt the quality of their tanks - as you surely know. The british had decent tanks, but mostly thier armamanet were inferior to the ones of thier enemies. till the 17pdr came up.
¬


But back to topic. This topic is about the best tank destroyer. And this role surlely goes to an russian or german one.



Regards,

-V-

Venoxxis wrote:

Paciat wrote:
"pz 3 impenetrable to the british tank guns of tht time" so why did the germans lost? British main AT guns at that time were also 2 pounders.

Paciat that is the worst arguement i heard from you yet. Its like saying a panther is worse than a t-34 because the axis lost the war.

No, Its like saing that T-34 could destroy a Panther.
Panthers armor wasnt impenetrable to the Soviet tank guns of that time.
Am I right or am I right?

Valentines were outclassed by PzIV, not PzIII.

  The King Tiger it's Defenetly the best tank of the entire WWll, but in the game I think it's the american Sherman whit all the upgrades, I mean the canon , the smoke shels and the Gunner,and don't Forget about the mine chain destroyer, very usefull at close range with the infantery :D :D =))

Paciat wrote:

Venoxxis wrote:

Paciat wrote:
"pz 3 impenetrable to the british tank guns of tht time" so why did the germans lost? British main AT guns at that time were also 2 pounders.

Paciat that is the worst arguement i heard from you yet. Its like saying a panther is worse than a t-34 because the axis lost the war.

No, Its like saing that T-34 could destroy a Panther.
Panthers armor wasnt impenetrable to the Soviet tank guns of that time.
Am I right or am I right?

Well actually you are just bullish atm :)
What i said: t-34 < panther

and this is why you are telling just shit man sorry.



Regards,

-V-



IMO the best tankdestroyer is the SU-100 or the G-wagen.
the best tank/tankdestroyer is the jagdpanther.

Lets see what the reward units will bring ..

Venoxxis wrote:

Paciat wrote:

Venoxxis wrote:

Paciat wrote:
"pz 3 impenetrable to the british tank guns of tht time" so why did the germans lost? British main AT guns at that time were also 2 pounders.

Paciat that is the worst arguement i heard from you yet. Its like saying a panther is worse than a t-34 because the axis lost the war.

No, Its like saing that T-34 could destroy a Panther.
Panthers armor wasnt impenetrable to the Soviet tank guns of that time.
Am I right or am I right?

Well actually you are just bullish atm :)
What i said: t-34 < panther

and this is why you are telling just shit man sorry.

Youre the one that understands "shit".
AbhMkh said that "pz 3 impenetrable" to 2 pounders.
How did the British destroy german tanks then? Ive asced.
The anwser is: Using their 2 pounders as Static AT guns, as tank guns and even as guns on Hurricane IID plane.

The fact that T-34 can destroy a Panther dosnt mean it is better.
Understand now?

Sorry devs. Im done here.

Last edited July 8, 2010 at 10:10 PM by Paciat

lets leave it here ;) and stay freinds.

Both, you and me defend our opions/suggestions and meanings till the bloody end.

that makes us being self-willed fighters. I always respected you just like you are, and i guess you do the same with me. And thats the most important thing.  ;)


by the way,
Have you seen the new announced reward units on moddb.com already?

Wow, V, I never saw you like this.

But I have to go with Paciat here, you kinda saying if it has a better gun and better amour, no tank under it can beat it. And thats very wrong.

But anyway you hopefully made up, so I will stop here.

Given the fact that the original list contains a number of vehicles besides tankdestroyers, I'm going to go wild and say that the Stuka is the best one. The proper model with the proper pilot could wreak havoc amongst armoured columns, infantry, trains, and from what I've read on wikipedia (yes, I know that it is a really bad source) even ships.

Cheers

I'll give the answers to all of your queries!! ;D

1. The Germans lost the war because of the following reasons

- Shortage of manpower(Germany is a very small country,sooner or latter they are bound to run out of proper soldiers)

- Trying to improve technology to bring in heavier tanks rather than massing on their std tanks

- No of nations they were fighting(practically whole of the europe and later on america too),what do you expect in duel of 1country vs 4-5 countries???

- Last but not the least "Hitlers Foolishness"


@ Paciat

1. I'm convinced that ur not British, ur so incourteous to your tenses(no offences mate!!)

Well what i was saying was that pz3 was impenetrable to the british tanks guns not AT guns


P.S : There is a hell lot of a difference between the 6 pounder AT gun and the 57 mil mounted on a churchill or valentine(the penetration is considerably less)


And thts why the british had to lease shermans from the americans!!

AbhMkh:

-Germany a very small country? Dare I ask where you are from, because to European standards, Germany is a large country. Also, it is very well possible for small countries to win against larger ones (even with badly trained soldiers). Some examples: the war of 1812, the American war of independence, the 80-years war.

- I sort of agree with this point. Than again, the Germans didn't have the luxury to keep producing panzerIV's and Panzer V's because they will, as you pointed out, run out of men. Couple this to the fact that the allies were basically going for a "If you throw enough junk at them they'll lose" strategy, it is more than obvious that the Germans tried to go for advanced tanks although they did overdo that at some point.

-The way you make it sound, is that they were fighting the whole of Europe at once which is not true. It was done piecemeal. Also, the division between European countries fighting against Germany is more around 50-50.

-Hitler's foolishness is indeed a good point. Had he not ordered Goering to stop bombing British airfields, the Germans would have actually destroyed the RAF, which would have allowed them to go forth with operation Seelöwe which in all likelyhood would have meant the entire occupation of Britain. This in turn would have made D-day almost impossible to pull of.

Also, the part above (and that which I replied too, are very off-topic, they belong in the "why did Germany lose thread").

(sort of) on-topic
The whole comparison between "x pounders" and "Y mm" is not completely valid, depending on the design of a shell, you can have several matches between "X1 pound" and "y mm".
Also, if the 6 pounders were mounted on tanks (don't know if this happened) than there shouldn't be a difference in penetration, also, penetration is highly dependant on the type of shell used.

The fact that the British leased shermans from the Americans, has more to do with the fact that the shermans were able to be cheaply mass produced and that the Americans didn't have to worry about their cities/factories being bombed to pieces.

Cheers

Tico my friend are you a german???

If so,i didnt mean to offend but yes germany is a small country,though its the largest economy in europe but as u may see tanks cannot drive themselves , germany is like just another patch on the map when compared to either russia or america , size of a country is an indicator of how much manpower it can produce

P.S : I'm from India and germany is roughly equal to one state+1/6 of another state of India(out of 29 states)


As to x pounders with y mm guns is to make paciat understand...

@Tico where did you read history from???,Shermans were asked by Montgomery because the British couldn't fight at equal terms with the jerry , with their poor matildas or crusaders and churchills the sherman 75 mm cannon was excellent against the panzers of tht time...

Yes i knw im offtopic but i couldnt help mentioning!!

No, I'm not German, I'm Dutch (from the tiny country next to Germany;))

No offence taken. In my opinion, your comparison is faulty. You compare a country (Germany in this case) to Russia and America. Most countries are just patches on the map when compared to those two. In my opinion, Germany is a country of average size, while countries like China, America, Russia and India are large countries. Countries like the Netherlands, Belgium are what I consider to be small countries;)
Size is not always a good indicator. Norway for example, is four times as large as the Netherlands, it does however have only one fourth of the population of the Netherlands (if I'm not mistaken)

I read my history from university (I study history). That being said, I'm afraid we didn't cover WW2 as thoroughly as I'd like (in other words, no military history) so I don't know too much about details and such.
I do know, that there is never one single reason for something, so the production problems which I mentioned earlier are certainly a major factor in my opinion.

The sherman might have been good against certain panzers, but most panzers generally outclassed shermans. Sherman tankcrews themselves stated that the sherman was a horrible tank in terms of protection for the crew and such. Also, it's main gun wasn't that effective against tanks like the Tiger and the Panther. Yes, I do realise that the tiger and the panther are heavier tanks than the sherman, but still, they are not as overpowered etc. as say a maus and such.
The main reason for the sherman (I'm talking standard American shermans here, not upgunned fireflies and such) to be so effective against Panzers, is that they generally outnumbered them at least 5 to 1.

Btw, if my post(s) sound harsh, it is not meant as such. I have a tendency to come across as such though so I'll apologise in advance :P

Cheers

Not to mention the Shermans had a huge bullseye right over the munitions storage in the tank. The crews had to slap mud over the big white stars on the side otherwise the Germans had a perfect aiming target. Horrible tank, would have rather been an infantryman than a Sherman crewman. In fact, many did ask to get transferred.

Well im from Slovakia (which was Germany´s ally in WWII) and from my point of view and i think its basically a all-european view Germany is a big country in fact its the biggest one besides France in Europe. My home country can be called a little patch on the map...but certainly not Germany. Btw greatness of a country is not measured by its sheer size rather than as Tico_1990 said its measured with population who lives there and ofcourse its economy and military might. In summary Germany had the best economy in late 30s and early 40s, because rest of the world was still just recovering from world economical crisis. And its military might in early 40s was undoubtly best in Europe, hence the quick defeat of France and conquer of whole mainland Europe.

Beg me pardon AbhMkh but your arguments are rubbish, because as my memory recalls even such a big country as India was conquered and colonised with the British...which is from your point of view a little patch on the map with only two isles. So it does not work as you think, that bigger country will no-doubtly win against smaller!

...Anyway back to the topic, because this is off-topic for sure...so as the best Tank destroyer in game i would vote for Marder III. Its cheap, easy to quickly deploy, easy to mass produce, it has excellent firing range, good speed and most importantly it can fire while being set-uped realy quickly...what more would you want for a tank destroyer unit than that?

Well Strayker at the time they were indinans with only wooden spears compared to fine britsh soldiers with swords and muskets.

ANd if thats not 100%, lets just say the brits had better tech ;)

Seeme wrote:
Well Strayker at the time they were indinans with only wooden spears compared to fine britsh soldiers with swords and muskets.

ANd if thats not 100%, lets just say the brits had better tech ;)

That was exactly what i was talking about Seeme. About military might and economy strength. Simply enough British were the best armed and organised force back then and they conquered the India despite its a much larger country.

Your arguments are completely legitimate guys , I don't question the mettle of Germany in terms of technology, even today Germany remains by and far europes largest economy

But you guys , have to agree that there are two contributing factors to a countries superiority

1. Technology
2. Manpower

BTW the dutch have proved their mettle(at least in soccer!!)


Coming back to the point germany was technologically superior throughout the war but why did it lose the war,clearly because of the second factor,germany had to field "old men and young boys" , as i mentioned afore "tanks can be made but we need people to drive them" and let me give the list of countries that germany was fighting by the end of the war


1. Russia
2. Britain
3. America
4 The Dutch ;D
5. Poland
6. Greece
7. Belgium
8. Luxembourg

9.Norway

10. Yugoslavia


If this isnt the whole of Europe then perhaps i shouldn't have passed school geography!!!! ;D

@ Strayker the size of the country is mentioned only to lay emphasis on its potential to produce manpower...

And thts why USA and USSR emerged as superpowers after war and still retain the might whereas Germany and become "just another European country"

As to what you mention about indian history is very correct .. but you see 400 yrs ago when the british attacked india india as a nation did not exist there were monarchies existing in each state,the british defeated each monarchy one by one!!!!!( British had colonized many countries in this manner,infact the entire commonwealth(which includes america as well whether they like it or not)) 

Though history is a witness of battles where a smaller country has defeated larger countries, but you must observe that they were traditional battles which involved horse cavalry and foot infantry etc  the will of a man is what measures here!! , It was a man to man battle not a rifleman to panzer4 battle!!! ;D



@ Seeme gunpowder was prevalent everywhere including India at that time,India was overtaken due to the afore mentioned reasons!!

---

Post Merge: [time]1278692001[/time]

---

Also its very hard to administer large countries sheerly cuz of their size but if a gov manages to do it then that country is surely to become a superpower!!!

USSR faced the consequences of bad governance and as far as i remember history , this situation also existed in Europe when there were clans instead of countries!!

Last edited July 9, 2010 at 4:13 PM by AbhMkh

Define "being at war with a country". Countries like Belgium, the Netherlands and Norway hardly had any regular army units helping in the liberation of Europe.

Also, with that list, I'd suggest that you have another go at geography. :P
America is obviously not part of Europe and Russia is debatable.
After that, you forgot
Spain, Italy, Vichy France, Switzerland, Finland, Sweden, Romania, Bulgaria, Ireland, Denmark.
That puts the score at 8 fighting against the Germans, 1 being debatable European and 10 who didn't fight or who fought on the German side.
Hardly all of Europe don't you think? :P

Cheers

Fully agreed tico but these countries had their resistance units

and many of them had partisan units as well and i dont literally mean the "whole of Europe" its just to signify the no of european countries :P

Except Italy hardly any of the german allies played a role in the war!!!

And Russia is half in europe and half in asia!!

AbhMkh wrote:
P.S : There is a hell lot of a difference between the 6 pounder AT gun and the 57 mil mounted on a churchill or valentine(the penetration is considerably less)


And thts why the british had to lease shermans from the americans!!

The penetration of OQU 6lbs was better than Shermans or Cromwells gun and much better than any PzIII tank.
And thats why US started producing their own 6lbs (57mm) for their army!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordnance_QF_6_pounder

Britain used Shermans becouse they had a big HE shell (to destroy AT guns) were fast, realiable and Lend Leased unlike Churchills.
Valentines and even Cromwells were to small to mount a 17lbs.
"And thts why the british had to lease shermans from the americans!!"

Russia isnt in europe anymore.

Seeme wrote:
Russia isnt in europe anymore.

Why?  ???

All right i think paciat is correct about the shermans

being lent to the british, so obviously sherman outperformed the british tanks of tht time!!!

I believe Russia is considered European because of it's ancestral history and Moscow is in Europe.

I think that, politically speaking it belongs to Europe, and Geographically, it belongs to both, not sure though.

Cheers

Most of russia is in Asia, most of the Russain's live in 'European Russia' [AKA: West Russia'

This has gone WAAAAAYYYYYYY off topic gents. Post on topic or the thread is locked

Cheers

I am unlocking this topic but it should be discussions about td's and their part in game and history . We dont care wether montgomery fought churchill or patton put up his arse in france, we only care about the game and the units significance wrt to the game and history as well , no historical crap please..

Ok: Ingame - Sherman Firefly [Best gun IMO]

Late-game it can be put ont he field like M&M's, vital for Late-game tanks [TigerI, Jagdpanther, TigerII, Panther etc], Has decent armour [VERY GOOD WHEN LOCKED DOWN!] And has good range, espically with a CCT next to it.

Agreed totally