FA+
Shop
499
Views
Views
7
Favorites
Favorites
Category
Artwork (Traditional) / Fantasy
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 800 x 971
File Size 73.4 kB
Report this content
More from Leucrotta
German mechs were far better engineered than their Allied counterparts, but they were harder to maintain and exceptionally costly.
Category Artwork (Traditional) / Fantasy
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 800 x 971px
File Size 73.4 kB
http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info......ters=400_0_0_0
You did catch Gear Krieg when it first came out, right?
You did catch Gear Krieg when it first came out, right?
Like the real world!
Semi-joking, though I'd say a lot of the german engineering was actually not all it's cracked up to be. Overburdened engines that still ran on gasoline(making for an even higher oil consumption!) versus the diesel engines of say, Russian T-34... without mentionning occasionally osbolete armor designs(the Tiger 1 might have sported 100mm armor, but it was verily unsloped, making it less of an "incredibly advanced warmachine" than almost simply a larger and and more armored Panzer 4 that just so happened to have a bigger gun and redesigned turret.
In fact, "advanced" tanks like the Tigers and Panthers both respectively had to do more with the meeting of the russian KV-1(a "brick on thread", like the Tiger I. It could be considered the Tiger's spiritual ancestor) and T-34... and even the Panther was generally a result of "not designed here" syndroms where officers were asking for a "german T-34" while the german engineers instead went for a much heavier/oil-consuming tank in refusal of copying a russian(considered "under-men" by the germans) design.
And engineering wise, it could be argued that the -over- engineering of the german design was almost as much at fault than the german designs themselves. A panzer 4 was generally not that much different from a T-34 or Sherman, yet much harder to maintain and also the different variants of different vehicles and designs only made german logistics that much harder(versus the very versatile designs behind the shermans and T-34, making modifying them for different roles extremely easy whilst the all-around designs were themselves very easy to maintain thanks to their streamlined nature making it extremely easy to get holds of spare parts on the field versus german designs which almost required to be sent all the way back to Germany when requiring repairs).
Sorry for the lenghty post, a bit of a geek regarding WW2 so please disregard if it was bothersome ^^;
On a whole other note... nice picture :)
I like the mech on the top. Nice use of bold shading.
Semi-joking, though I'd say a lot of the german engineering was actually not all it's cracked up to be. Overburdened engines that still ran on gasoline(making for an even higher oil consumption!) versus the diesel engines of say, Russian T-34... without mentionning occasionally osbolete armor designs(the Tiger 1 might have sported 100mm armor, but it was verily unsloped, making it less of an "incredibly advanced warmachine" than almost simply a larger and and more armored Panzer 4 that just so happened to have a bigger gun and redesigned turret.
In fact, "advanced" tanks like the Tigers and Panthers both respectively had to do more with the meeting of the russian KV-1(a "brick on thread", like the Tiger I. It could be considered the Tiger's spiritual ancestor) and T-34... and even the Panther was generally a result of "not designed here" syndroms where officers were asking for a "german T-34" while the german engineers instead went for a much heavier/oil-consuming tank in refusal of copying a russian(considered "under-men" by the germans) design.
And engineering wise, it could be argued that the -over- engineering of the german design was almost as much at fault than the german designs themselves. A panzer 4 was generally not that much different from a T-34 or Sherman, yet much harder to maintain and also the different variants of different vehicles and designs only made german logistics that much harder(versus the very versatile designs behind the shermans and T-34, making modifying them for different roles extremely easy whilst the all-around designs were themselves very easy to maintain thanks to their streamlined nature making it extremely easy to get holds of spare parts on the field versus german designs which almost required to be sent all the way back to Germany when requiring repairs).
Sorry for the lenghty post, a bit of a geek regarding WW2 so please disregard if it was bothersome ^^;
On a whole other note... nice picture :)
I like the mech on the top. Nice use of bold shading.
What I've read is that the overlapping roadwheels on things like the Tigers and some of the halftracks tended to break, and it was freakin' terrible. I've read things like that by the end of the war, most of what the Germans were actually fielding were StuG IIIs (I have a weird reason for thinking this one is true), because they were ridiculously hard to mess up, and I've read about Soviet M4 crews taking out Tigers (compare to the stereotype everyone learns in elementary school where Tigers were invincible things).
People diss on Shermans, but you notice the IDF was still using their versions of them into the 70s and 80s. That people could rework the tanks into something usable that easily says some pretty good things about them.
People diss on Shermans, but you notice the IDF was still using their versions of them into the 70s and 80s. That people could rework the tanks into something usable that easily says some pretty good things about them.
Well, the thing with Stugs(both the Panzer 3 chassis-based Stug 3 and Panzer 4 based Stug 4) is that they weren't just relatively durable. They were dirt-cheap and easy to produces.
And yes, the Sherman was a -very- malleable chassis. You could make into a tank hunter of sort(Sherman 76mm and it's british cousin the Sherman Firefly with 17 pounder... a gun with probably more armor penetration than even the Tiger I's 88mm, outclassed maybe only by the Pak43 used on the Nashorn and King Tiger).
Or even an assault tank, such as the Sherman Jumbo which packed even more frontal armor than a Tiger I, with the bonus advantage of the slope of said frontal plating on Shermans... it still packed generally the same gun as conventional Shermans but generally it's goal would be very simple. A: To distract Tigers from more properly equipped tank hunters which would aim the true killing blow. B: Assault anti-tank guns with it's near-impervious frontal plating, destroying them with well-placed high explosive shells.
Roles which tends to be rather well represented in Men of War, possibly the only games where I ever saw all of the Sherman Jumbo, M18 Hellcat(light armored speedy tank hunter with an open-top turret and 76mm gun) and M36 Slugger(slower, slightly more armored but using an open top turret still, uses the same 90mm gun than a Pershing). Which is nice because it not only includes your old US of A and Germany, but also the Commonwealth, Russia and as of a freely distributed patch, Japan(though they had to thrown him some tanks still in early production or prototype stages at the end of the war to keep them from being underpowered).
And yes, the Sherman was a -very- malleable chassis. You could make into a tank hunter of sort(Sherman 76mm and it's british cousin the Sherman Firefly with 17 pounder... a gun with probably more armor penetration than even the Tiger I's 88mm, outclassed maybe only by the Pak43 used on the Nashorn and King Tiger).
Or even an assault tank, such as the Sherman Jumbo which packed even more frontal armor than a Tiger I, with the bonus advantage of the slope of said frontal plating on Shermans... it still packed generally the same gun as conventional Shermans but generally it's goal would be very simple. A: To distract Tigers from more properly equipped tank hunters which would aim the true killing blow. B: Assault anti-tank guns with it's near-impervious frontal plating, destroying them with well-placed high explosive shells.
Roles which tends to be rather well represented in Men of War, possibly the only games where I ever saw all of the Sherman Jumbo, M18 Hellcat(light armored speedy tank hunter with an open-top turret and 76mm gun) and M36 Slugger(slower, slightly more armored but using an open top turret still, uses the same 90mm gun than a Pershing). Which is nice because it not only includes your old US of A and Germany, but also the Commonwealth, Russia and as of a freely distributed patch, Japan(though they had to thrown him some tanks still in early production or prototype stages at the end of the war to keep them from being underpowered).
Comments