Guild Wars 2

Lostwingman I don’t know why you keep saying Soviet anti tank rifles (like the PTRD) are effective against heavy tanks. I have no idea where you read this stuff up. Feel free to post links to prove your point.

Anti tank rifles didn’t work. That’s why they invented the likes of RPGs and Panzerfaust for infantries to kill tanks.

As for the Tiger II, its 5 to 1 kill/loss ratio (conservative estimate) spoke for itself. Some estimates are as high as 10 to 1.

Realistically speaking, if the legions were to declare war on Rata Sum, they would have to face all the other major races to get there. Asura gates, waypoints and other tech are just too convenient and their destruction would prove fatal for commerce.

The Asura war machine has one glaring weakness; it relies overmuch on golems for not just front-line infantry and armored divisions, but also basic logistics and transportation. If I was a Charr Imperator in charge of spearheading a war against the Asura, my first action would be to find a way to “suppress the golem sedition inhibitor”. Then sit back and watch the fireworks, and roll in once the Asura have been greatly weakened suppressing their own rebellious golems. (Heck, maybe I won’t even “invade” them at all! I’ll just secretly start the Golem War 2.0, then bring the Charr Legions to “save” the Asura and be hailed as a hero.)

Pretty simple question. It just seems that that the Charr lovers wish it was different. Laser beam technology vs. bullets. Giant mega death laser vs tank… Gee I wonder.

Not even 250 years ago the Charr barely had the concept of armor down. Now they are about on average with human technology and you want to pair them off against the Asura? The one race that has been literally studying science and advancement at the core of their racial structure for untold years…. You should know how that would turn out.

Vanthian.9267:

Pretty simple question. It just seems that that the Charr lovers wish it was different. Laser beam technology vs. bullets. Giant mega death laser vs tank… Gee I wonder.

Not even 250 years ago the Charr barely had the concept of armor down. Now they are about on average with human technology and you want to pair them off against the Asura? The one race that has been literally studying science and advancement at the core of their racial structure for untold years…. You should know how that would turn out.

Lasers are hard countered by mirrors. It only worked against elder dragons and minions because they do not have mirrors.

Lasers must have line of sight. Artillery shoot in an arc, from behind a mountain or trench.

Lasers don’t kill instantly. It needs to heat up. So the user must aim at one spot for at least a few seconds before it starts doing damage. So they are only useful against large stationary targets, or target moving along a trajectory like a cruise missile. Anything that can run will quickly move away from the laser or hide behind something to prevent further damage.

Laser produce heat. Charr tanks runs on steam, which needs heat. The Charr might find a way to take that energy to fuel their tanks.

While it’s off-topic, I’d also like to see lostwingman’s sources… particularly since I’ve read that the Soviet Union issued captured Panthers as rewards to particularly distinguished crews.

Comparing unfavourably to the PzIII and PzIV (except in terms of maintenance, which the Panther admittedly did require a lot) is particularly strange there – while the Panther had relatively weak side and rear armour, it was still thicker than what it replaced, and its 75mm gun was still at least equal in firing effective HE than anything a PzIII mounted or most PzIVs mounted. Not to mention most Western tanks at the time – the Russians were anomalous in going up to larger calibers at the time. I’d believe that there were Panthers taken out by partisans with antitank rifles, but if the shoe had been on the other foot, I’d expect the same of T-34s. Every tank had weak spots that generally wouldn’t be significant in normal battlefield situations, but where, if swarmed by more infantry they can deal with or one undetected partisan in the right place, the tank could be disabled by substantially weaker firepower than would normally be necessary.

Either way, pretty much all the experts on the subject list the Panther and the T-34/85 as the competitors to the title of “best tank of the war”, and which it is usually comes down to whether you mean tactically on the battlefield (the Panther wins) or strategically (the T-34 wins by relative ease of production and maintenance).

It’s also worth noting that some of the maintenance issues that the Panther had were due to compromises the Germans made due to their strategic position. The interleaved road wheels on the Panther, for instance, made maintenance a nightmare, but was done in order to address a shortage of good rubber (when the French copied it postwar without knowing that reason, much palming of faces occurred when the West German design teams were brought in for technical assistance). The weak transmission, #1 cause of Panther breakdowns, was also something that the Germans knew how to fix – basically, install the transmission system of the Tiger instead – but they were substantially more complex to make and weren’t compatible with making Panthers in the quantity desired. If Panther production had continued in a non-wartime situation, that issue would have been promptly fixed (and probably was, in the case of the French-operated examples).

Why no postwar tanks came from the Panther development line is more of a result of national pride and manufacturing considerations than the Panther being viewed as technically inferior. For the nations with established production lines, it was politically and technically more feasible to upgrade their existing designs – Centurions, Pershings, the T-44/54/55 – than to adopt someone else’s (although, looking at the T-54 compared to the Panther and T-34, I do have a suspicion that the Soviet designers did borrow some of the Panther’s features).

It’s telling, in fact, that the one major tankbuilding nation that was in a position where they had to restart from scratch used the Panther as the basis. Particularly when it’s the French, who have since shown a history of exclusively using their own equipment even when foreign equipment that better meets their requirements is available. True enough, the AMX50 and its cousins never saw service, but the reason for that is the development of the shaped-charge warhead lead both the French and West Germans to believe that heavy armour was obsolete and that speed was the best defense, leading to both moving away from the Panther line and towards the Leopard and AMX-30 instead.

Rednik.3809:

Pact may not have support of Arcane Council (btw I don’t think what Council decisions are something significant for asuran society anyway, but this is my opinion), but Pact have money, and money can hire golemancers. And yet not doing that. I see several possible reasons:
1. Golemancers are all patriotic and don’t want to work with foreigners (are you kidding me?).
2. Golems are too expensive. But if this is so expensive, how can you build big golem army for charr-asura war?
3. Good golemancers are rare and they are too expensive to hire/don’t want to work with foreigners. Combined 1 and 2.
4. Golems are just plain bad soldiers.

5. Mass-production of golems requires production facilities that the Pact didn’t have the time to set up, but which the Arcane Council and Inquest have sufficient for a full-scale war.
5a: It’s implied that High Legion support of the Pact is strong enough that it might extend to providing use of production facilities to the Pact, particularly since they no longer need to deploy such weapons to Ebonhawke. If this isn’t the case, that implies that the Pact has production facilities somewhere we can’t currently visit – but in that circumstance, it makes sense that they’d focus on building things that provide new strategic capabilities (airships, submarines, “tanks”, golems custom-made for suicide missions such as the bomb golems in the Claw of Jormag event and the cannon-launched golems in the northern invasion path) rather than replacing infantry they already have plenty of.

(3, I’d note, is also not as unlikely as you seem to be implying through your implicit dismissal of all possibilities apart from the ones that support your position. There are comments from members of other races how exorbitantly expensive asura stuff is, except that “exorbitantly expensive” stuff is seen in large quantities in asura-controlled areas. Given that many asura have been presented as profit-minded and the asura as a race have an effective monopoly on many technologies, it’s likely that the price charged to non-asura organisations is inflated many times, possibly even orders of magnitude, above cost. If this is true, it’s likely that it’s not practical for the Pact to have large numbers of them (until they establish their own facilities, see #5) – golemancers that have volunteered for the Pact will produce them at cost, but there’s no reason for other asura not to charge the usual rates).

CHIPS.6018:

Lostwingman I don’t know why you keep saying Soviet anti tank rifles (like the PTRD) are effective against heavy tanks. I have no idea where you read this stuff up. Feel free to post links to prove your point.

Anti tank rifles didn’t work. That’s why they invented the likes of RPGs and Panzerfaust for infantries to kill tanks.

As for the Tiger II, its 5 to 1 kill/loss ratio (conservative estimate) spoke for itself. Some estimates are as high as 10 to 1.

Panther wasn’t a heavy tank, it was a medium. Also the source is Hilary Doyle, the highest living authority on German WW2 AFVs. I’m at work but I’ll find the interview where he states that shortly.

Anti-Tank rifles did work, very well. It’s just they were generally heavy and only really developed by a handful of Eastern European countries.
For lack of a better source till my contact replies:
“During the initial invasion, and indeed throughout the war, most German tanks had side armor thinner than 40mm (PzKpfw I & II: 13-20mm, III & IV series: 30mm, PzKpfw V Panther (combat debut mid-1943): 40-50mm), but the PTRD teams needed to be close to very close, sometimes at point blank distances, to have a chance of penetrating the sides of these tanks.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PTRD

Oh sweet Jesus no, not the kitten ed inflated kill ratio thing.
http://ftr.wot-news.com/2013/07/28/please-dont-use-the-5-m4s-1-panther-myth/
King Tigers, they have no appreciable ratio positive or negative because they were incredibly rare, even rarer when they were found working. The more common big vehicle the Shermans ran into was the Panther and by Army evaluation they found that the Sherman was 3.6x as combat effective as the Panther. A British evaluation of the Normandy campaign found that when the allies had a 2.2:1 advantage, victory was assured.

Without knowing more information, I would definitely consider those figures highly suspect.

I would, actually, believe that the kill ratios between Shermans and Panthers are what you say there… but not because the Sherman is a better tank (it really wasn’t) but because of the overwhelming strategic advantage the Western Allies had. From before D-Day on, it was rare for Panthers to be fighting Shermans without being short on fuel and ammunition and having to constantly be on guard for attacks from the air (both of which hamper their ability to fight other tanks) and without the Shermans having an overwhelming numerical advantage (and as Stalin says, quantity has a quality all of its own. Having a numerical advantage doesn’t just mean that you can trade one for one for longer – it usually means you can find ways of reducing your overall casualties as well, such as getting around the good frontal armour on the Panther by flanking it).

The British study is probably more reliable, although it is worth noting that that study compares the inventories of each side rather than Panther versus Sherman directly (and during the Normandy campaign, the Allies largely had relatively modern models, while the Germans had a lot of very obsolete stuff mixed in). Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that “guaranteeing victory” means a guaranteed victory against a good unit which is equipped with Panthers and Tigers. Presumably, the Germans are attacking at times when their strategic hindrances are minimised, so what that study shows is that the Germans needed a 50% numerical advantage to ensure a victory, while the Allies needed a 120% advantage. Now, the numbers aren’t as easy to figure out as that laughable “the Sherman is 3.6 times as effective as the Panther” figure, but it does imply that the German equipment was roughly 40% more effective than what the Western Allies had (in that 15 German tanks could do to 10 Western tanks what it would take 22 Western tanks to do to 10 German tanks).

Which seems reasonable – the Sherman really isn’t as good as the Panther, but neither is it as bad in comparison as the legends would suggest.

With regards to the 5v1 thing… I’d believe it with the 75mm-armed Sherman, which really did have serious trouble getting through the frontal armour of the Panther or any of the armour on a Tiger. 76mm-armed Shermans, however, are another thing altogether, let alone the Firefly.

EDIT: On the Panther’s status as a heavy or medium… like the Pershing, it’s a bit ambiguous. The Germans certainly regarded it as a medium, but there were periods when the British and Americans considered it to be a heavy (since it was heavier than pretty much anything they had except the Churchill, which was definitely a heavy by role, albeit a lightly-armed one). The Germans, certainly, regarded it as a medium (just as, morale-raising efforts aside, the Pershing was really a next-generation medium). Personally I’m inclined to lump the Pershing and Panther together as “heavy mediums” or first-generation MBTs.

draxynnic.3719:

While it’s off-topic, I’d also like to see lostwingman’s sources… particularly since I’ve read that the Soviet Union issued captured Panthers as rewards to particularly distinguished crews.

No.
You’re talking about a 45t maintenance intensive vehicle that needed key parts regularly replaced. The Soviets did not produce Panther parts and would only use them if they found them and only for however long till the next break down. This was very common on the Eastern front.
.
Heard back from contact, here’s your AT Rifle source.
http://tankarchives.blogspot.ca/2013/05/infantry-vs-tanks.html
Sourced from the Central Archive of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation.

draxynnic.3719:

Comparing unfavourably to the PzIII and PzIV (except in terms of maintenance, which the Panther admittedly did require a lot) is particularly strange there

No, it’s really not.

draxynnic.3719:

- while the Panther had relatively weak side and rear armour, it was still thicker than what it replaced, and its 75mm gun was still at least equal in firing effective HE than anything a PzIII mounted or most PzIVs mounted.

The Panther side and rear armor could be penetrated by almost all of the same weapons that the PzIII and PzIV. For a tank that weighed twice as much as the PzIII and some 20t more than the PzIV, that is awful. Just awful.
Also no, HE was worse in the L70 because of the high velocity which required thicker shell walls and thus less HE filler.

PzIII Ausf. N
7.5 cm Sprgr.34 – High Explosive
Explosive Filler: 0.69 kg

Pz IV Ausf G/H/J
7.5 cm Sprgr.Patr.34 KwK 40 (High Explosive)
Explosive Filler: 0.66 kg

Panther
7.5cm Sprenggranate 42 (Sprgr. 42)
Explosive Filler: 0.600kg

draxynnic.3719:

Not to mention most Western tanks at the time – the Russians were anomalous in going up to larger calibers at the time.

Because the Soviets smartly required that their tank guns have both good armor penetration AND a good HE shell. This is why early on the T-34 was equipped with the 76.2mm F-34 instead of the limited run 57mm ZiS-4. The British would learn this lesson the hard way with their insistence on using the 2 pdr for so long.

draxynnic.3719:

I’d believe that there were Panthers taken out by partisans with antitank rifles, but if the shoe had been on the other foot, I’d expect the same of T-34s. Every tank had weak spots that generally wouldn’t be significant in normal battlefield situations, but where, if swarmed by more infantry they can deal with or one undetected partisan in the right place, the tank could be disabled by substantially weaker firepower than would normally be necessary.

Soviets early on leaned kitten the reactivated Cossacks who escaped the purges by being disbanded and sent home early on in the Soviet Unions existence. They were great at surprising and flanking German armor units. Also yes, exactly, that’s the point. You have a vehicle nearly twice as heavy as its counterparts that can be taken out by the same weapons. The only real armor advantage the Panthers had in armor was the upper plate, which isn’t much consolation when you’re attacking or not fighting in a large open field. That’s awful.

draxynnic.3719:

Either way, pretty much all the experts on the subject list the Panther and the T-34/85 as the competitors to the title of “best tank of the war”, and which it is usually comes down to whether you mean tactically on the battlefield (the Panther wins) or strategically (the T-34 wins by relative ease of production and maintenance).

I can’t quickly locate evaluations of the 85mm against the Panther but I do have some on the 85mm vs the Tiger.
"The AP shell from the domestic gun D-5-S penetrates:

the side of the hull from 1350 meters
the over-track hull from 800 meters
turret side from 800-1000 meters"

http://tankarchives.blogspot.ca/2013/03/soviet-85-mm-guns-vs-tigers.html
Again, with internal documents and test fire results (plus images) against a captured Tiger. In terms of combat effectiveness, both the T-34 and the Sherman exceeded the Panther. The US Army’s internal evaluation placed the Sherman at 3.6x as effective.

draxynnic.3719:

It’s also worth noting that some of the maintenance issues that the Panther had were due to compromises the Germans made due to their strategic position. The interleaved road wheels on the Panther, for instance, made maintenance a nightmare, but was done in order to address a shortage of good rubber (when the French copied it postwar without knowing that reason, much palming of faces occurred when the West German design teams were brought in for technical assistance).

Close but not quite. There were a large number of reasons. That was one but at the same time it allowed for more even ground pressure distribution and flotation while also providing protection to the side armor behind it. However, it’s complexity and propensity to get gummed up with crap made it not worth it. Additionally the Germans did end up using all steel rims on a lot of their tanks towards the end of the war, just a note.

draxynnic.3719:

The weak transmission, #1 cause of Panther breakdowns, was also something that the Germans knew how to fix – basically, install the transmission system of the Tiger instead – but they were substantially more complex to make and weren’t compatible with making Panthers in the quantity desired. If Panther production had continued in a non-wartime situation, that issue would have been promptly fixed (and probably was, in the case of the French-operated examples).

Tiger was also bigger with a bigger engine compartment. Additionally the Tiger final drive could not be adequately produced in number for the mass produced Panther because it required specialized gear cutting tools. The gears in the drive were the main culprit and they were never able to overcome that.

draxynnic.3719:

Why no postwar tanks came from the Panther development line is more of a result of national pride and manufacturing considerations than the Panther being viewed as technically inferior.

Just…no…
No country would turn away technology or design solutions “just because those guys came up with it”. Even the Germans wanted to copy the T-34, ultimately they didn’t because of concern of friendly fire and the aluminium required for the engines.
The French mimicked a lot of German designs but just couldn’t make it work.
The Panther was a dead end design. Tanks like the M26, the Centurion, and the T-44 lived on in future tank designs because they were such good platforms to build off of with each of those being the basic foundation for future design.

draxynnic.3719:

For the nations with established production lines, it was politically and technically more feasible to upgrade their existing designs – Centurions, Pershings, the T-44/54/55 – than to adopt someone else’s (although, looking at the T-54 compared to the Panther and T-34, I do have a suspicion that the Soviet designers did borrow some of the Panther’s features).

I….I don’t even know where to go with this…
The Panther was simply a dead end. There was little you could do with it. The other platforms, they exceeded it in everyway and had tons of potential. Aside from refining the parts to last longer the Panther had nothing. It was a rushed design manhandled by industry magnates and political dealings.

draxynnic.3719:

It’s telling, in fact, that the one major tankbuilding nation that was in a position where they had to restart from scratch used the Panther as the basis. Particularly when it’s the French, who have since shown a history of exclusively using their own equipment even when foreign equipment that better meets their requirements is available.

Are you being serious or is this a joke?
The French had NO tank building industry when liberated. If they could make anything it was vintage 1930s vehicles that were long out of date. They simply used whatever they had on hand until their own industry was able to recover. The only thing that is telling of is that a major nation with a stripped industry trying to rebuild will use whatever is on hand.

draxynnic.3719:

True enough, the AMX50 and its cousins never saw service, but the reason for that is the development of the shaped-charge warhead lead both the French and West Germans to believe that heavy armour was obsolete and that speed was the best defense, leading to both moving away from the Panther line and towards the Leopard and AMX-30 instead.

Close, but no dice. The French would have gotten their AMX 50s out roughly in time with the M103 and the Conqueror if not for the engine development issues. The constant delays with that overlapped with concern about advanced rounds and killed that. Meanwhile the M103 went on to live an uneventful service life into the 1970s.

And now I have work to do. I’m done talking about tanks for now. This is why I usually leave this to the people official documents on hand.

draxynnic.3719:

Without knowing more information, I would definitely consider those figures highly suspect.

I would, actually, believe that the kill ratios between Shermans and Panthers are what you say there… but not because the Sherman is a better tank (it really wasn’t) but because of the overwhelming strategic advantage the Western Allies had. From before D-Day on, it was rare for Panthers to be fighting Shermans without being short on fuel and ammunition and having to constantly be on guard for attacks from the air (both of which hamper their ability to fight other tanks) and without the Shermans having an overwhelming numerical advantage (and as Stalin says, quantity has a quality all of its own. Having a numerical advantage doesn’t just mean that you can trade one for one for longer – it usually means you can find ways of reducing your overall casualties as well, such as getting around the good frontal armour on the Panther by flanking it).

No, stop.
Stop.
Before you get to it. No, CAS was ineffective against AFVs. It shone in taking out supply lines.
No, the Sherman with even the 75mm M3 could handle Tigers and once again those were rare.
http://tankarchives.blogspot.ca/2013/03/sherman-vs-tiger.html
The 76mm was even better.
http://tankarchives.blogspot.ca/2013/04/american-guns-vs-german-tanks.html
http://worldoftanks.com/en/news/21/the_chieftains-hatch-end_of_75_M4/
http://worldoftanks.com/en/news/21/chieftains-hatch-us-guns-vs-german-armour-part-1/
http://worldoftanks.com/en/news/21/us-guns-german-armor-part-2
Also yea, I know, “world of tanks” but the guy is an ex-tank commander tasked with going through the American archives.
http://worldoftanks.com/en/news/21/us-national-archives/
Additionally before anyone goes raving again, the 17lbr had serious accuracy issues. Serious ones.

draxynnic.3719:

The British study is probably more reliable,

Why? Because it’s British? This was an internal army survey to evaluate their equipment.

although it is worth noting that that study compares the inventories of each side rather than Panther versus Sherman directly (and during the Normandy campaign, the Allies largely had relatively modern models, while the Germans had a lot of very obsolete stuff mixed in).

No it doesn’t, it’s numerical comparison in an engagement. Where did you even read that?

Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that “guaranteeing victory” means a guaranteed victory against a good unit which is equipped with Panthers and Tigers.

Do you not know what “guaranteed” means or do you think this report was something made to send out to the public for pr? This was the army evaluating for its own purposes.

Presumably, the Germans are attacking at times when their strategic hindrances are minimised, so what that study shows is that the Germans needed a 50% numerical advantage to ensure a victory, while the Allies needed a 120% advantage.

Yes, because the Germans were attacking medium class tanks with vehicles twice their weight. Yet, nowhere near the compensating effectiveness.

draxynnic.3719:

Now, the numbers aren’t as easy to figure out as that laughable “the Sherman is 3.6 times as effective as the Panther” figure,

I’m sorry, I’ll get the pentagon on the line. They’ll want an expert like you on the double who knows more than the Army on the ground in WW2 doing the indepth evaluation.

but it does imply that the German equipment was roughly 40% more effective than what the Western Allies had (in that 15 German tanks could do to 10 Western tanks what it would take 22 Western tanks to do to 10 German tanks).

When it existed and worked. Which was rare, because the Panther was an unreliable mess.

Which seems reasonable – the Sherman really isn’t as good as the Panther, but neither is it as bad in comparison as the legends would suggest.

The Sherman is only disadvantaged to the Panther from extreme range in open ground. Outside of that it’s a matter of tactics and crew training.

With regards to the 5v1 thing… I’d believe it with the 75mm-armed Sherman, which really did have serious trouble getting through the frontal armour of the Panther or any of the armour on a Tiger. 76mm-armed Shermans, however, are another thing altogether, let alone the Firefly.

Yea….not really…no….as already posted….
…………………
And that’s seriously all I’m posting on the matter…the rest of my sources are tied up in books anyway.

Lostwingman.5034:

The Panther side and rear armor could be penetrated by almost all of the same weapons that the PzIII and PzIV. For a tank that weighed twice as much as the PzIII and some 20t more than the PzIV, that is awful. Just awful.

The Panther also had a lot more engine power to push that around, which is why it was more agile than, say, the Churchill. Big engines add to the weight too.

As for the armour… the T-34 had about the same armour, all around, as the Panther’s sides (albeit better sloped on sides and rear). Sherman has less armour on all facings. The Kv-1S had heavier armour on the sides and rear for about the same weight, and less armour on the front, a less powerful engine and lower mobility. Armour layouts by weight is a compromise that every tank designer has to wrestle with, and assuming that in most circumstances the heaviest enemy fire will be coming from the front is usually a good one.

Also no, HE was worse in the L70 because of the high velocity which required thicker shell walls and thus less HE filler.

PzIII Ausf. N
7.5 cm Sprgr.34 – High Explosive
Explosive Filler: 0.69 kg

Pz IV Ausf G/H/J
7.5 cm Sprgr.Patr.34 KwK 40 (High Explosive)
Explosive Filler: 0.66 kg

Panther
7.5cm Sprenggranate 42 (Sprgr. 42)
Explosive Filler: 0.600kg

So it has, what, about 10% less HE than its counterparts, when the machine gun is at least as important when fighting infantry (that’s what did in the Ferdinand), not to mention that late-model Panthers had a grenade launcher as well? I really don’t think that’s the massive disadvantage you think it is. Particularly when the Panther was intended to operate with support from both infantry and close support artillery.

Because the Soviets smartly required that their tank guns have both good armor penetration AND a good HE shell. This is why early on the T-34 was equipped with the 76.2mm F-34 instead of the limited run 57mm ZiS-4. The British would learn this lesson the hard way with their insistence on using the 2 pdr for so long.

Which lead to compromises in armour penetration, accuracy, and onboard ammunition storage. It’s not the black-and-white situation you imply.

As to the British: They didn’t “insist” on using the 2pdr. They were forced to by circumstance – in the early period of the war, there was a very real concern that retooling to mass-produce the bigger guns they’d developed would have left them facing Operation Sea Lion with no guns at all.

The US Army’s internal evaluation placed the Sherman at 3.6x as effective.

Like I said, I find that figure highly suspicious.

I’d easily believe that, in conditions where the Allies have total air supremacy and the Germans are suffering from a lack of ammunition, fuel, and spare parts and many of the German tanks are being scuttled by their own crews due to breakdown or lack of fuel, that 8.4 Panthers might be destroyed for each Sherman. I do not think that this study you’re referring to is a fair representation, however.

Just…no…
No country would turn away technology or design solutions “just because those guys came up with it”. Even the Germans wanted to copy the T-34, ultimately they didn’t because of concern of friendly fire and the aluminium required for the engines.
The French mimicked a lot of German designs but just couldn’t make it work.
The Panther was a dead end design. Tanks like the M26, the Centurion, and the T-44 lived on in future tank designs because they were such good platforms to build off of with each of those being the basic foundation for future design.

They made their own design, that had strong similarities to the T-34… just as the French made their own, with strong similarities to the Panther.

It’s not entirely a matter of national pride – there’s also a matter that it’s a heck of a lot easier to iterate from designs you already have than it is to switch over entirely to a different design tradition, particularly when your own designs have been made according to your own specifications when someone else’s designs may not have the same priorities you do.

The French, on the other hand (who, I’d point out, did have the infrastructure for a tankbuilding industry and started gearing it up pretty much immediately upon liberation, although they didn’t get to the point of getting anything built by the time the war ended and if they had it would certainly have been built with obsolete track designs) could have chosen to base their postwar designs off the Centurion or Pershing. They chose to base them on the Panther. I think, even though they had problems with it in the end, that means something, particularly when some of the problems they had came from the oscillating turret and constantly changing their minds over the specifications.

CAS does nothing against AFVs? Considering how many dedicated close-support aircraft the Germans and Russians built, and how much use the Allies made of fighters (particularly second-line ones) equipped with rockets to take on AFVs… yeah, I call BS on that.

On gun effectiveness: I never said the 75mm couldn’t get through the Tiger, just that it had trouble. 400m is actually pretty dang close in tank battles, and those tests don’t mention the angle at which the shell lands.

The Chieftain I consider reasonably authoritative… but while I haven’t had the time to fully read through all of those, what I have read supports my position: the Panther was a nasty shock to the Sherman crews, and its frontal armour was impregnable in many cases to the 75mm (in fact, there is indication that the 76mm fared even poorer to the Panther than I’d thought) except with the shot trap under the mantlet. (It’s also worth mentioning, incidentally, that German armour plate deteriorated in quality near the end, due to wartime shortages of alloying materials, and thus that firing tests are not necessarily reflective of the majority of the tanks in question.)

W.r.t the studies in the “please don’t use the 5:1 myth” blog – the reason I’m sceptical of them is because I don’t know where the data is coming from, and what assumptions they are and aren’t making. In the US study, as I said, I’d believe a loss rate of over eight Panthers to a Sherman – if the Panthers are out of fuel, low on ammunition, and vastly outnumbered so that as soon as the location of any one is identified, it gets immediately swarmed from multiple sides and is destroyed before it can get a second shot off. I also do not think this is a reasonable appraisal of the relative quality of the tanks in question. I don’t contest that the Ballistics Research Lab has made any errors – without seeing the report in question myself, though, I have a strong suspicion that the “3.6 times as effective” figure is someone having extrapolated conclusions that the people who made the report did not intend, and who might in fact be shocked to see.

The British report I consider more trustworthy, not because I consider the British to be more trustworthy than the Americans (or vice versa), but simply because I have a better idea of what the numbers are actually saying. Tanks being sent on an offensive are usually tanks that have been fully stocked with fuel and ammunition, so when the British say that the Germans can ensure a victory with a 1.5 to 1 numerical advantage, these are not German tanks that are being abandoned and destroyed by their own crews due to running out of fuel. Conversely, saying that a 2.2 to 1 numerical advantage on the side of the Allies “practically ensures” a victory says to me that this figure still holds against German tanks that are fully prepared for battle. Because of this, I can conclude that the British study represents relatively fair fights (apart from numerical superiority), while I suspect the American study does not.

And in the British study, it’s clear that the Germans need less of a numerical advantage to be successful, which in turn suggests that on a 1-1 basis in a fair fight, their stuff is better. Not as much as the myths would claim, but still better.

One thing to consider, is that Asuran society is highly competitive, to the point of being destructive towards each other. Asuran Krewe’s are eager to beat other Krewe’s or steal each other’s work. They work together well as a Krewe, but not as a people. Where as the Charr work as a well oiled military machine. They may have cast out a lot of magic, which puts them at some sort of a technological disadvantage, but don’t forget the massive progress as a society. They tend to be fiercely loyal, and have gone through some huge social improvements as well.

Asura are very dependent on the technology of others. Their portal technology was originally not of their own making. It is unknown who made the original portals (as far as I know), but meanwhile they were sitting right on top of an Elder Dragon without even noticing. When the minions of Primordus drove them to the surface, they were unable to reclaim their territory. Even with all their magic and their golems. One could say the Asura are over-reliant on their magic and on the technology of others. They constantly built on things others came up with first. But this is also their weakness, which became apparent when they lost control of the Central Transfer Chamber.

Meanwhile, Kralkatorrik’s minions did not drive off the Charr. Though we could say that Kralkatorrik is not actively waging war on the Charr like Primordus did to the Asura. But still. Their technology seems to combine well with their heavily fortified structures and military focused society. They even reclaimed the land that was once in the hands of humans.

I’d say the Asura may be more advanced technologically, but it is also their main weakness due to their over-reliance on it, and they are not as advanced as a society as the Charr are.

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

Asura are very dependent on the technology of others. Their portal technology was originally not of their own making. It is unknown who made the original portals (as far as I know), but meanwhile they were sitting right on top of an Elder Dragon without even noticing.

Uhhhh…

I’m pretty sure the asura gates was technology of their own making. Vekk even comments that they built the Central Transfer Station where it was to make use of the magic coming off Primordus (although back then they thought Primordus was simply a big magical statue). The asura build off ruins that predate them, yes, but their technology is – as far as we know – their own.

I believe there was some dialogue in GW1 that specifically stated that the Asura built upon existing ancient gate technology. It would be had to find the exact quote, since it was only mentioned once I believe.

CHIPS.6018:

Lasers are hard countered by mirrors. It only worked against elder dragons and minions because they do not have mirrors.

Lasers must have line of sight. Artillery shoot in an arc, from behind a mountain or trench.

Lasers don’t kill instantly. It needs to heat up. So the user must aim at one spot for at least a few seconds before it starts doing damage. So they are only useful against large stationary targets, or target moving along a trajectory like a cruise missile. Anything that can run will quickly move away from the laser or hide behind something to prevent further damage.

Laser produce heat. Charr tanks runs on steam, which needs heat. The Charr might find a way to take that energy to fuel their tanks.

Love them Charr harder.

You are confusing what we have in real life vs. what they have in this fantasy game. Any laser that is hot enough to melt and instantly vaporize metal would also melt a mirror from heat alone. So no, fancy mirror tricks would not work.

They could theoretically build something to “catch” the energy, but they just learned how to use black powder and steam in recent years. I highly doubt they are anywhere close to building something as fancy as a Thermal Battery device.

Vanthian.9267:

CHIPS.6018:

Lasers are hard countered by mirrors. It only worked against elder dragons and minions because they do not have mirrors.

Lasers must have line of sight. Artillery shoot in an arc, from behind a mountain or trench.

Lasers don’t kill instantly. It needs to heat up. So the user must aim at one spot for at least a few seconds before it starts doing damage. So they are only useful against large stationary targets, or target moving along a trajectory like a cruise missile. Anything that can run will quickly move away from the laser or hide behind something to prevent further damage.

Laser produce heat. Charr tanks runs on steam, which needs heat. The Charr might find a way to take that energy to fuel their tanks.

Love them Charr harder.

You are confusing what we have in real life vs. what they have in this fantasy game. Any laser that is hot enough to melt and instantly vaporize metal would also melt a mirror from heat alone. So no, fancy mirror tricks would not work.

They could theoretically build something to “catch” the energy, but they just learned how to use black powder and steam in recent years. I highly doubt they are anywhere close to building something as fancy as a Thermal Battery device.

funny that you say this, can you name one mega laser that is owned by the ASURA, I’ll start for you the megalaser on the glory of tyria (pact), megalaser at tequatl event (vigil/pact), mega lasers at fort trinity (pact). but really if you could name one I would really be happy to find out as I’ve looked and have never been able to locate one.

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Malxa_Pyronetics.

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Cover_Krattz_as_he_neutralizes_the_suspicious_skritt_device.

Lostwingman.5034:

CHIPS.6018:

Lostwingman I don’t know why you keep saying Soviet anti tank rifles (like the PTRD) are effective against heavy tanks. I have no idea where you read this stuff up. Feel free to post links to prove your point.

Anti tank rifles didn’t work. That’s why they invented the likes of RPGs and Panzerfaust for infantries to kill tanks.

As for the Tiger II, its 5 to 1 kill/loss ratio (conservative estimate) spoke for itself. Some estimates are as high as 10 to 1.

Panther wasn’t a heavy tank, it was a medium. Also the source is Hilary Doyle, the highest living authority on German WW2 AFVs. I’m at work but I’ll find the interview where he states that shortly.

Anti-Tank rifles did work, very well. It’s just they were generally heavy and only really developed by a handful of Eastern European countries.
For lack of a better source till my contact replies:
“During the initial invasion, and indeed throughout the war, most German tanks had side armor thinner than 40mm (PzKpfw I & II: 13-20mm, III & IV series: 30mm, PzKpfw V Panther (combat debut mid-1943): 40-50mm), but the PTRD teams needed to be close to very close, sometimes at point blank distances, to have a chance of penetrating the sides of these tanks.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PTRD

Oh sweet Jesus no, not the kitten ed inflated kill ratio thing.
http://ftr.wot-news.com/2013/07/28/please-dont-use-the-5-m4s-1-panther-myth/
King Tigers, they have no appreciable ratio positive or negative because they were incredibly rare, even rarer when they were found working. The more common big vehicle the Shermans ran into was the Panther and by Army evaluation they found that the Sherman was 3.6x as combat effective as the Panther. A British evaluation of the Normandy campaign found that when the allies had a 2.2:1 advantage, victory was assured.

Your own link stated that the Russian soldiers need to move the PTRD to POINT BLANK RANGE before it can penetrate the side armour of the Panther. Now I do not doubt that this can be done, and has indeed been done in desperate times. But is it effective? Nope.

I think what you are doing is talking about theory, not an actually battle. You are saying

“Panther side armour is relatively thin.”

and

“PTRD can penetrate a Panther’s side armour at point blank range”

So you conclude: PTRD owns Panthers.

Nope. Totally wrong conclusion. In an actual battle, the PTRD crew will 99% of the time be mauled down by German troops nearby before they get anywhere close to the Panthers. But if the Russians were willing to send 100 men on a suicide mission for one Panther, I guess it can be done.

Russian tanks, anti tank guns and RPGs were what killed German tanks, not anti tank rifles. Anti tank rifles are not effective (unless you are willing to lose 100 men for 1 enemy tank.).

Dragging this back on topic, I don’t think the art team put any real thoughts into how thick the armor of the Charr tanks is exactly. They are mostly made to look pretty. From what we can tell from the Personal Story, Charr tanks are pretty tough, even if they don’t look like it.

@ Lostwingman.5034

You kept saying that German tanks are inferior. But fact is in almost every battle the German army always killed more Russian tanks and soldiers, win or lose. And the Russian often outnumber the Germans 2 to 1, sometimes more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_Kharkov
(2 to 1. Germany won. Russia suffered more than 10 times the losses.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kursk
(2 to 1. Russia won but suffers 4 times the losses.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Narva_
(2 to 1. Germany won. Russia suffered 7 times the losses.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korsun%E2%80%93Shevchenkovsky_Offensive
(5 to 1. Russia won but suffers 3 times the losses.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bagration
(3 to 1. Tanks 7 to 1. Russia won but suffers 1.5 times the losses.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_for_Normandy
(2 to 1. US and England won but suffer twice the tank losses.)

Now I know at the start of the conflict, T-34 have better armour and bigger guns than German tanks at that time. It was Germany’s superior tactics and superior training (specially their anti tank gun crew) that did a lot of damage. But they eventually use their battle experience to build the Panther and Tiger II tanks, which are better than the T-34 and KV1 tanks. But it was too little too late.

If you want to prove that T-34 and KV1 are better than Germany tanks, then you better explain why they “drop like flies” in almost every battle, win or loss.

It would be insane to claim the German army and tank battalion was a bunch of push overs. They are anything but. They were some of the toughest, best trained and best led armies around.

Maybe we should rename this thread to “German vs Russian Tanks”. XD

Heh. I was thinking myself that the moderators might be getting itchy fingers on this due to OTness. It’s a shame there isn’t an OT forum, or I’d recommend moving there myself.

CHIPS.6018:

Russian tanks, anti tank guns and RPGs were what killed German tanks, not anti tank rifles. Anti tank rifles are not effective (unless you are willing to lose 100 men for 1 enemy tank.).

To be fair, Stalin was more than willing to make that trade.

However, it’s still holding the Panther up to a standard that its rivals that were built to fulfill the same role couldn’t meet either. The side and rear armour of the Panther were only weak compared to heavy (like the Tiger and Kv/IS series) and infantry (Matilda and Churchill) tanks – other medium cavalry-type tanks (which is pretty much all of them when talking about the Russians, Americans or Germans) such as T-34s, Shermans and Cromwells had similar or lower levels of side and rear protection compared to the Panther.

For curiousities sake; CHIPS, Lostwingman and draxynnic, where are you from?

Australia here. Why?

I have a sneaking suspicion CHIPS is German and Lostwingman is Russian and wondered if there was any bias in the Tank discussion.

You know if this continues, I will simply report this. I don’t want to be a jerk, but this is ridiculously off topic, and I just tried to drag this back ON topic. But the very next post is again another German VS Russian tanks post. Cut it out already. Tyrian lore!

Cataclysm.7491:

I have a sneaking suspicion CHIPS is German and Lostwingman is Russian and wondered if there was any bias in the Tank discussion.

American.
And I left this conversation a long time ago because they are taxing and time consuming.
I just couldn’t leave the “Germans had the best tanks of the war!” thing alone.

Cataclysm.7491:

For curiousities sake; CHIPS, Lostwingman and draxynnic, where are you from?

Chinese living in Canada. I just happen to love military history. :P

Vanthian.9267:

CHIPS.6018:

Lasers are hard countered by mirrors. It only worked against elder dragons and minions because they do not have mirrors.

Lasers must have line of sight. Artillery shoot in an arc, from behind a mountain or trench.

Lasers don’t kill instantly. It needs to heat up. So the user must aim at one spot for at least a few seconds before it starts doing damage. So they are only useful against large stationary targets, or target moving along a trajectory like a cruise missile. Anything that can run will quickly move away from the laser or hide behind something to prevent further damage.

Laser produce heat. Charr tanks runs on steam, which needs heat. The Charr might find a way to take that energy to fuel their tanks.

Love them Charr harder.

You are confusing what we have in real life vs. what they have in this fantasy game. Any laser that is hot enough to melt and instantly vaporize metal would also melt a mirror from heat alone. So no, fancy mirror tricks would not work.

They could theoretically build something to “catch” the energy, but they just learned how to use black powder and steam in recent years. I highly doubt they are anywhere close to building something as fancy as a Thermal Battery device.

LOL fine fine let’s talk about ingame. Those Asuran lasers takes forever to charge up and aim properly. In other words, their rate of fire is way too slow against an advancing tank battalion.

Anti tank guns would have been more useful. I mean yeah sure they deal less damage than the laser. But they also fire MUCH faster than those Asuran lasers.

You should watch this clip here. Once you have seen a tank battalion assault, you will understand why these slow lasers will be overrun. That’s how fast tanks can be upon your trenches.

As I said before, these Asuran lasers are hardly of any use against anything but large stationary targets with lots of health. And that is, literally, the only placed they were deployed in the game.

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQVVvrXPVCw2fnS29OYrhUVUtN6D7SDB-HHIjlbN7dSwKD3zMHO

If Teq (Zhaitan’s minion) move just 1 KM away from his spawn point, we are doomed. These Asuran lasers are hard to move around. In other words, they are hard to be redeployed.

It will be the same in a Charr vs Asuran battle. The Charr general will simply move his highly mobile tanks away from these stationary lasers before his assault. He can also dig underground (stealing a page from the Dredge) and then emerge to assault these lasers. He can sent special forces behind enemy lines to assault power grids. There are just too many things he can do to render these lasers useless.

“Rate of Fire” and “deployability” are the greatest flaws of these Asuran lasers.

CHIPS.6018:

It will be the same in a Charr vs Asuran battle. The Charr general will simply move his highly mobile tanks away from these stationary lasers before his assault. He can also dig underground (stealing a page from the Dredge) and then emerge to assault these lasers. He can sent special forces behind enemy lines to assault power grids. There are just too many things he can do to render these lasers useless.

“Rate of Fire” and “deployability” are the greatest flaws of these Asuran lasers.

You know why lasers are still considered as pretty bad weapon IRL? Because if you want to make laser useless, you don’t need all those things from your post. You just need some good smoke/aerosol source.

Rednik.3809:

You know why lasers are still considered as pretty bad weapon IRL? Because if you want to make laser useless, you don’t need all those things from your post. You just need some good smoke/aerosol source.

Yes, but it also must be kept in mind that unlike IRL, where lasers are beams of light, in Tyria they are at least partially magic- they can follow trajectories, and as often as not fire orbs rather than beams. Refraction would not be an adequate defense.

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

You know if this continues, I will simply report this. I don’t want to be a jerk, but this is ridiculously off topic, and I just tried to drag this back ON topic. But the very next post is again another German VS Russian tanks post. Cut it out already. Tyrian lore!

The problem with the topic is that we don’t know how the Asura will deploy their troops and what tactics they would be using. The people who thinks Asura will win are all talking about how awesome Asuran technology is. Technology by itself cannot win a war. They need mass production, correct deployment and most importantly, morale.

On the other hand, we have a decent idea on how the Charrs should deploy their troops, because tanks do exist in real life.

Keep in mind that I am not saying Asura have bad tactics. It is just very hard to imagine what an Asuran army will do in a total war situation. They hardly have a standing professional army to begin with.

And more importantly is morale. We just don’t see the patriotic side of the Asura. So it is an unfair comparison of Charr vs Asura.

I can easily imagine a Charr squad fighting to the last men while trapped inside a burning house. They are devoted, loyal and brave.

When I imagine the Asura, I think they would be saying:

“Forget this! Only a bookah will stay. I am surrendering see ya!”
“Maybe we can talk with them? Maybe we can pay them off?”
“As long as the Charr let me continue my research into magic ponies, I don’t mind being rules over by the Charr.”
“My ears are so long! How can they kill a girl as cute and smart as I am? Beyond logic!”
“Don’t worry. My research into the Charr taste bud indicates that our flesh tastes very bad to them. So they will just kill us and won’t be eating us alive.”

>_>

On that note, I would recommend that Anet hire an ex-army major to be their consultant. They really need to start putting “military tactics” in their missions to make them believable. They need to give both sides some “brains” to indicate that both sides did some planning. War is not as simple as it is presented right now.

Look at how much preparation both side put into this battle:

But we DON’T know how the charr should deploy their troops, because we don’t even have anything remotely equivalent to magic in real life, and that will be a major factor, perhaps the greatest factor, in determining where and how to deploy troops. For all that we know, the charr might not use tanks at all in an assault on the asura.

I agree with all the rest of your points though. I just can’t see the asura being capable of mounting any real defense.

I just find it funny that some of you honestly think the Charr would even stand a chance. For all the talk about their “tanks” and their mobility you forget that they have a capital that has 0 protection from a aerial assault from stealth airship. They could easily just charge up the batteries for a laser hop on their ships fly over to the Black Citadel and goodbye Charr. Not a portion of the city, the entire city would be gone.

This is not even to mention the Asura weather controlling device. Nor the fact they could easily cause earthquakes to render their precious tanks useless because guess what; the Asura capital is in the air. They have a untold number of things over the Charr and have built far more complex and sophisticated things than they can even fathom.

Yet some of you believe they will over whelm them with iron and steel?

Anyway, no I am not a Asura fan. I actually do not enjoy them as a race because they could basically wipe Tyria clear of all living things without any opposition. And to those who say the “Mega Laser” is pack technology… it is borrowed Asura technology, much like the gates everywhere are not Tyrian technology. The Asura are kind enough to let other races use their inventions.

I’m a little confused as to where you are getting that asura have any airships to use, if anything the airships are more related to charr design and use than asura, such as can be seen here http://www.guildwarsinsider.com/charrcopter/ . Second you only mention the black citadel, you don’t even mention the blood or ash legion capitals. As I pointed out earlier I don’t believe that in any way being in the air in their capitol is an advantage, in fact it seems to be the point of extreme vulnerability as the charr also have submarines and rata sum is a costal city they may be able to bombard whatever device keeps rata sum in the air safely offshore. (as we can see by the ships in the asuras harbor area I don’t think their sea power would even be a match.) with all of these things it seems to me that the charr have the advantage in at least two of the three areas (sea, and air), I would also argue that they have the advantage on land through both numbers and a heavily equipped and battle trained infantry.

This all being said my arguments may be taken with a grain of salt as charr are my preferred race in this game (unless they bring back the seer).

Charr have been fighting the Elder Dragons and their minions for a while now, I’m pretty sure they are prepared for aerial attacks. There are canons and guns everywhere. A direct attack on the Black Citadel with an airship would be a very very bad idea.

@Infamous Darkness

Tixx and his Funwerks Krewe have an airship of seemingly complete Asuran design. (Though, I could be wrong in that regard.) Also, if the Inquest are involved in Rata Sum’s offence or defense, their previous partnership with the Aetherblades most likely gave them access to all the blueprints and specs of the Pact’s airships. Given the amount of time that has passed, they could have easily produced their own style of airship, and they could have modified it to include more magitech enhancements.

The submarines are a plus to the Charr side, but Rata Sum is upriver from its harbor, with at least one or two small dams between it and the coast. The Charr might be able to land and take the harbor, but they would have to cut their way through the jungle to get to Rata Sum. The distance seems too far for the Charr’s mortar fire and other artillery to reach otherwise.

@Mad Queen Maladife

It would depend if the Charr have a working radar system or not. It’s pretty easy to see an Elder Dragon coming your way, but it might be harder to see a lone airship coming in under the cover of heavy dark clouds and/or darkness.

The charr have barely started to consider the possibilities of electricity and there’s no evidence that the Tyrian equivalent of Maxwell has shown up yet – radio, let alone radar, probably isn’t even on their, errr, in their field of view yet.

Erukk.1408:

@Mad Queen Maladife

It would depend if the Charr have a working radar system or not. It’s pretty easy to see an Elder Dragon coming your way, but it might be harder to see a lone airship coming in under the cover of heavy dark clouds and/or darkness.

That depends on if the airships are still running on hydrogen or methane. If so they will be very prone to fire hazard. One well placed Firestorm or other fire magic spells may take it out. This is the inherent flaw of using light-than-air aircraft as weapons.

There are safer gases like helium and neon. But those are much rarer and hence prevent total mass production.

Other choices like hydrogen fluoride, coal gas and ammonia are highly toxic and any leak may very well kill the whole crew.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifting_gas