Author Topic: 3075 Tiger/Panzer equivalent? (Read 6076 times)

Black_Knyght · « **on:** 12 February 2018, 00:02:22 »

The year is 3075...

You're an armchair history buff who's familiar with the legendary historic reputation of the ancient Germanic Panther and Tiger tanks.

What modern tank, in the age of 3075, do you think might might rank as a roughly modern equivalent to those great armored monsters of yesteryears gone by?

VhenRa · « **Reply #1 on:** 12 February 2018, 00:06:51 »

Quote from: Black_Knyght on 12 February 2018, 00:02:22

The year is 3075...

You're an armchair history buff who's familiar with the legendary historic reputation of the ancient Germanic Panzers and Tiger tanks.

What modern tank, in the age of 3075, do you think might might rank as a roughly modern equivalent to those great armored monsters of yesteryears gone by?

I am having a hard time thinking of a tank so damned poor that it would be a good fit. The Tiger and Panther were horrible tanks. If you go off their undeserved reputation?

Axel IICs, Gauss Rommels, Myrmidons, maybe Manticores.

Black_Knyght · « **Reply #2 on:** 12 February 2018, 00:41:01 »

During WW2 they were greatly feared. Modern day hindsight makes them far less formidable to armchair historians.

But at one time they WERE considered badass...

Porkins · « **Reply #3 on:** 12 February 2018, 01:43:01 »

Quote from: VhenRa on 12 February 2018, 00:06:51

I am having a hard time thinking of a tank so damned poor that it would be a good fit. The Tiger and Panther were horrible tanks. If you go off their undeserved reputation?

Not sure where you are getting your information from but the Panther is acknowledged by most historians and military experts as one of the best tanks made in wwII. Other than initial teething issues with the first batch that were quickly resolved, the tank was a perfect blend of speed, thick armor, powerful long distance gun and wide tracks. It was a bit complex to build but so were most german tanks. I have watched hundreds of documentaries and read dozens of books covering that war and have never heard of anyone disparage the Panther so I find your remark of it being horrible to be very odd.

As for the equivalent I would think the Rommel gauss variant might be a good one, assuming it was still in use by 3075. The gun is strong and long ranged, while the tank is thickly armoured and sppeed is average.

SteelRaven · « **Reply #4 on:** 12 February 2018, 01:59:43 »

Both the Tiger and Panther where ahead of their time and required more maintenance and logistics than what the Germans could not afford vs the Allies simplistic and easy to repair vehicles like the Sherman tanks. The Germans kept throwing resources super weapons like the Maus Super Heavy tank while tank crew left broken down Tigers and Panthers behind while retreating from the Allied advance. That said, Tigers did scare the hell out of Sherman tank crews. The Sherman was a match for most other more common Panzers but few Shermans had the fire power to tangle with a Tiger as many commanders saw that as a job for Tank Destroyers like the Hellcat and Wolverine (that changed after WWII obviously)

Back to the OP, all practicality aside:

When the DI Morgan came up in Fan Articles Vehicle of the Week, many considered it the more expensive version of the Alacom and Schrek. Defiance had to offer low finance loans for smaller units to afford the beast. While it is scary, a Battlemech is probably more practical.

Likewise, the Marksman M1 was made to impress more than anything else. It does impress, the future mad First Prince Caleb Davion made the Marksman his ride of choice rather than a Federation built vehicle.

The Rommel and Patton have served generation for a reason, both practical and powerful.

Porkins · « **Reply #5 on:** 12 February 2018, 02:10:27 »

Quote from: SteelRaven on 12 February 2018, 01:59:43

Both the Tiger and Panther where ahead of their time and required more maintenance and logistics than what the Germans could not afford vs the Allies simplistic and easy to repair vehicles like the Sherman tanks.

The fact that the germans had supply problems does mot make the Panther a bad tank - that is a supply issue. A Panther in normal condition was considered a "model" tank.

But yeah, the Patton and Rommels are great. That DI Morgan becomes deadweight BV as soon as you land an engine hit on it with all those energy thirsty ppcs.

Liam's Ghost · « **Reply #6 on:** 12 February 2018, 02:43:22 »

Setting aside the discussion on tank hype...

How about the Alacorn? Big, spendy, fancy, powerful. Famously intimidating.

AldanFerrox · « **Reply #7 on:** 12 February 2018, 02:59:48 »

Quote from: Porkins on 12 February 2018, 02:10:27

The fact that the germans had supply problems does mot make the Panther a bad tank - that is a supply issue. A Panther in normal condition was considered a "model" tank.

The Panther was simply too heavy for it's own good (only two tons lighter than the IS-2 Heavy Tank), the engine was highly unreliable and had a bad habit of catching fire and the gearbox and the final drives ate themselves alive regularly. Also, the armor was extremely brittle which lead to massive spalling even if the armor wasn't penetrated. This is a picture https://collection.nam.ac.uk/images/960/100000-100999/100764.jpg of a Panther turret after being hit by high-explosive ammo from the 75mm cannon of a Sherman Tank. Another problem was the slow turret traverse speed compared to the Sherman (the Sherman needed 15 seconds for a full rotation, but the Panther needed between 20 and 45, depending on engine RPM). I highly recommend reading "Armored Thunderbolt" by Steven Zaloga to get a better picture about armored warfare in World War 2. Not only about the Sherman, but also about german tanks.

And talking about a Tiger equivalent, I would actually argue that the Şoarece Superheavy MBT is the closest thing to a Tiger BattleTech has. It has good weapons and thick armor for its time but it is also slow and unreliable (although the tank is clearly a homage to the Maus. Şoarece is actually the word for mouse in the Romanian language).

SCC · « **Reply #8 on:** 12 February 2018, 03:04:41 »

Quote from: Porkins on 12 February 2018, 02:10:27

The fact that the germans had supply problems does mot make the Panther a bad tank - that is a supply issue. A Panther in normal condition was considered a "model" tank.

But yeah, the Patton and Rommels are great. That DI Morgan becomes deadweight BV as soon as you land an engine hit on it with all those energy thirsty ppcs.

You're confusing your rules, tanks that take an engine don't have trouble firing their weapons, even energy weapons, due to increased heat build up.

The problem they have is moving.

SteelRaven · « **Reply #9 on:** 12 February 2018, 03:31:23 »

I never said the Panther was a bad tank, I said it was ahead of it's time It's a debate for another time regardless.

Anyway, I'll add the Demolisher to my list as it continues to give Mechwarrior a brown pans moments when they round the corner.

The Behemoth II likewise gain a reputation to be feared fluff wise

VhenRa · « **Reply #10 on:** 12 February 2018, 04:47:40 »

Quote from: Porkins on 12 February 2018, 01:43:01

Not sure where you are getting your information from but the Panther is acknowledged by most historians and military experts as one of the best tanks made in wwII. \

You mean the one where it took 24 hours to do a one hour repair job on a Sherman, the one with no broad angle gunner optics, the one prone to catching on fire and throwing a track on any strenous road march and the error list goes on. Brittle Armor, low turret rotation speed, no TC override on the turret, poor commander optics, extremely poor escape system... the problem with the Panther was that it was a 45 ton tank using engine and transmission more suited for a 30 ton tank. Post War tests by the British determined on average a Churchill (with a much lower road speed) was faster on a strategic level than a Panther because of how much time was lost making repairs to it. Amusingly, the Sherman had as much armor thickness effectively as a Tiger I. I am assuming those are the same documentaries that describe Shermans as Death traps and Ronsons and stuff. Most of those are using a completely biased source that has been repeated dozens of times without anyone doing any critical research since.

But yes, more seriously. There is a whole slew of tanks that fill a similar role. Rommel/Patton, Axel IIC, Manticores, Alacorns, Demolishers, Schreks (Though, a Schrek is more of a Jagdpanther or Jagdtiger)

pheonixstorm · « **Reply #11 on:** 12 February 2018, 05:28:14 »

Any tanks in 3075 mount a Long Tom Cannon? That would be my pick. Longer range than an AC/20 with better damage potential.

Sartris · « **Reply #12 on:** 12 February 2018, 06:18:46 »

Quote from: pheonixstorm on 12 February 2018, 05:28:14

Any tanks in 3075 mount a Long Tom Cannon? That would be my pick. Longer range than an AC/20 with better damage potential.

The Rommel Howitzer prototype debuted in 3077

Porkins · « **Reply #13 on:** 13 February 2018, 00:58:55 »

Quote from: VhenRa on 12 February 2018, 04:47:40

You mean the one where it took 24 hours to do a one hour repair job on a Sherman, the one with no broad angle gunner optics, the one prone to catching on fire and throwing a track on any strenous road march and the error list goes on. Brittle Armor, low turret rotation speed, no TC override on the turret, poor commander optics, extremely poor escape system

But yes, more seriously. There is a whole slew of tanks that fill a similar role. Rommel/Patton, Axel IIC, Manticores, Alacorns, Demolishers, Schreks (Though, a Schrek is more of a Jagdpanther or Jagdtiger)

Oh please, every tank had its long list of problems so the panther is no different, nor is the sherman or anything else. Pretty sure if most people were in a tank duel with a choice of a sherman vs panther they would take the panther. As for biased shows I think tank crews talking about their real combat experiences is somewhat more reliable than engineers testing in a lab.

But as you say, that is not the topic.

I agree with most of your choices except the demolisher - too short ranged to be comparable to the 88 on the tiger. I always thought of the demolisher being like the old Brummbar except with a turret.

SteelRaven · « **Reply #14 on:** 13 February 2018, 01:11:36 »

I would think the Demolishes Gauss has enough range

Porkins · « **Reply #15 on:** 13 February 2018, 01:33:35 »

Quote from: SteelRaven on 13 February 2018, 01:11:36

I would think the Demolishes Gauss has enough range

The gauss variant was not mentioned, just the tank's name which usually means "standard model" so the ac20's were what came to mind. But yes the gauss variant would definitely fit the bill for a tiger - slow, long range powerful gun, thick armor.

Thought I remember seeing a tiger tank in heavy metal vee in the fan directory but maybe I am thinking of something else.

worktroll · « **Reply #16 on:** 13 February 2018, 01:51:01 »

The Sturmfeuer HG variant makes a good Elefant analog. Unfortunately we don't seem to have any good Nashorn or Marder II/III analogs.

The Hetzer, OTOH ... ;)

Kit deSummersville · « **Reply #17 on:** 13 February 2018, 08:40:06 »

Quote from: Porkins on 13 February 2018, 01:33:35

But yes the gauss variant would definitely fit the bill for a tiger - slow, long range powerful gun, thick armor.

Reminds me of a Gurty.

Colt Ward · « **Reply #18 on:** 13 February 2018, 10:27:07 »

Quote from: Porkins on 12 February 2018, 02:10:27

The fact that the germans had supply problems does mot make the Panther a bad tank - that is a supply issue. A Panther in normal condition was considered a "model" tank.

But yeah, the Patton and Rommels are great. That DI Morgan becomes deadweight BV as soon as you land an engine hit on it with all those energy thirsty ppcs.

The DI Morgan also has a Gauss Rifle version and a LRM version . . . what made the exact comments about a better Alacorn is that it also has a TC tied into those gauss rifles. You could say the original was a better Schrek, but IMO that would actually be the Morrigu (Laser).

Porkins · « **Reply #19 on:** 13 February 2018, 10:31:53 »

Quote from: SCC on 12 February 2018, 03:04:41

You're confusing your rules, tanks that take an engine don't have trouble firing their weapons, even energy weapons, due to increased heat build up.

The problem they have is moving.

No I am sorry but you are incorrect. TWpg 195 for engine hits states energy weapons no longer work. Been playing the game a long time and had many a tank newtered from this when they have too many energy weapons.

mbear · « **Reply #20 on:** 13 February 2018, 13:49:48 »

Weird how this changed into "why a WW2 tank sucks/rocks". Anyway...

I'm assuming the OP is looking for tanks that are "benchmark" units for 3075. With that in mind, I'd have to say the Rommel and Patton tanks. Also the Manticore, Partisan, Zhukov, and Myrmidion. I think the Challenger, Ajax, and Mantuefell (sp?) are pretty good as well.

Porkins · « **Reply #21 on:** 13 February 2018, 14:41:00 »

Ha ha, it's always easy to get off topic when things like that come up. My bad for starting it and kind of funny that people who were never in that war or piloted one of those tanks can have so many opinions on what sucks/rock. It's all good.

Back to the stompy robot universe ... nice catch on the Manteuffel. Didn't even think about that one - probably because I've never used one. I would think that it would maybe even be closer to the King Tiger, which I do acknowledge as a terrible tank ^-^

I was thinking of the Myrmidon but it seemed too light to be a comparable to Panthers and Tigers, relatively speaking as its a medium tank on the light end of the spectrum.

Black_Knyght · « **Reply #22 on:** 13 February 2018, 15:26:06 »

Quote from: mbear on 13 February 2018, 13:49:48

Weird how this changed into "why a WW2 tank sucks/rocks". Anyway...

I'm assuming the OP is looking for tanks that are "benchmark" units for 3075.

Yeah, kind of got hijacked by opinions and personal perspective rather than actually paying attention to the point of the post.

FACT: Many veteran WW2 tank commanders have unreservedly stated, in numerous documentaries, that IN THEIR TIME those tanks WERE seen as the terrors of the battlefield by those who faced them.

FACT: History and HINDSIGHT have shown that they were flawed, but in their day the DID earn their feared reputation.

Which leads me back again to my the point of my original question - Given their fearsome reputation IN THEIR TIME, what 3075 tank could be seen as equally fearsome and tough? :)

Without nitpicking details that don't apply to the question.. ;)

Porkins · « **Reply #23 on:** 13 February 2018, 15:56:02 »

If it's "feared" rather than "comparable" then I would agree with VhenRa's choices of Alacorn and Demolisher (either AC20 or gauss variants) as their weapon's load and thick armor are of great concern regardless of the mech you are piloting. If there's lots of terrain then their speed works against them but I would still be fearful based on the sheer damage they can inflict while being able to handle it being dished back.

Not overly fearful of others like Manticores, Myrmidons and stuff like that.

snewsom2997 · « **Reply #24 on:** 13 February 2018, 16:11:37 »

Rommel/Patton for the Panther
Gurteltier for the Tiger.

Colt Ward · « **Reply #25 on:** 13 February 2018, 16:58:28 »

IMO the problem is 3075 had some new really good tanks come out that had not been in many fights nor widespread . . .

Joust
Enyo
Moltke
Royal Von Luckner
Morrigu (Laser)- brought to the IS by the Sharks

glitterboy2098 · « **Reply #26 on:** 13 February 2018, 17:43:24 »

Quote from: AldanFerrox on 12 February 2018, 02:59:48

The Panther was simply too heavy for it's own good (only two tons lighter than the IS-2 Heavy Tank), the engine was highly unreliable and had a bad habit of catching fire and the gearbox and the final drives ate themselves alive regularly. Also, the armor was extremely brittle which lead to massive spalling even if the armor wasn't penetrated.

much of the engine and drivetrain issues however stemmed from the nazi use of unskilled slave labor drawn from the concentration camps to work the lines.. it was part of their "extermination through labor" effort, where they used the inhabitants of the camp to work in factories producing weapons and other arms for the nazi's, working long hours in unsafe conditions with little rest or food.
many of the other factory workers not part of the concentration camps program were also slave labor as well, pulled from conquered regions like poland, russia, etc.
both groups of unwilling laborers got to be very good at building equipment that passed inspections at the factory and which seemed fine during tests, but which failed during actual hard use.

so i'd be wary of putting too much stress on bad engineering as a detriment. if they'd been built by properly employed workers motivated to actually do their best work, the late german warmachine would have been a real nightmare to face, and virtually unstoppable by the allies.

Garrand · « **Reply #27 on:** 13 February 2018, 17:59:45 »

Quote from: glitterboy2098 on 13 February 2018, 17:43:24

so i'd be wary of putting too much stress on bad engineering as a detriment. if they'd been built by properly employed workers motivated to actually do their best work, the late german warmachine would have been a nightmare to face.

Nonetheless, there is still a "bad engineering" issue with these tanks. The Panther had the transmission & drive train designed for a 30t tank, not a 45t tank it became. The Tiger I was already slightly under powered; the Tiger II was several tons heavier & still used the same engine. Even older tanks like the Pz IV suffered more frequent breakdowns. Added to the Panther (& presumably Tiger II) issues was the fact that if you blew the transmission, you had to remove it through a small plate in the upper hull which also required partial disassembly of the drivers compartment to do so. A transmission swap on a Panther could be an all-day exercise, whereas on the Sherman the entire nose with the transmission could be removed & swapped in a few hours.

I have no doubt that some of these German tanks were very good performers (the Panther, when properly working, was a very good tank, with better mobility than a Sherman or T-34, better protection, better gun, better speed, etc), BUT on the other hand there were some pretty big flaws in its design (IIRC the first & only Bn level assault by Tiger IIs during the Budapest engagement, saw nearly half of the Bn drop out due to mechanical failures in the march up from the assembly area, per the book Sledgehammers). In retrospect the best way to kill Tiger tanks was to force it to engage in a road march of more than 10mi! There was a big reason why the Germans preferred rail transport whenever possible...

Yet many of these tanks had a very outsized impact on battles, but especially on the impressions of the participants on either side.

For those reasons I tend to be pretty skeptical about claims of the "best tank" or "worst tank" especially in the European theater.

Damon.

Black_Knyght · « **Reply #28 on:** 13 February 2018, 18:29:42 »

Gotta love what geniuses hindsight and history makes of us all. Guess it's lucky for the Germans WE weren't around to face those tanks in WW2, or they might never have been so feared by Allied tankers...

The Eagle · « **Reply #29 on:** 13 February 2018, 22:24:22 »

Quote from: Black_Knyght on 13 February 2018, 18:29:42

Gotta love what geniuses hindsight and history makes of us all. Guess it's lucky for the Germans WE weren't around to face those tanks in WW2, or they might never have been so feared by Allied tankers...

Yeah. Sure. I'm trying to imagine the look on the faces of the remnants of the 4th County of London Yeomanry after Villers-Bocage if I told them "Guys, Tiger tanks are poop."