17 pounder
 

Is the 17 pounder AT piece already in-game? If not will it be included in the next update and will we have APDS as a selectable ammo type?

Re: 17 pounder
 

17 pounders weren't used in North Africa, they were first used in Italy. Might be in the Normandy patch, though.

Re: 17 pounder
 

death to axis tankers :(

Re: 17 pounder
 

Yay! ;)

Ah yes you're correct, I thought they were used at the end of the North African campaign but they first saw action in Feb 1943 in Italy. Ah well, will just have to wait to give those Tigers some 17 pounder APDS love. =p

Re: 17 pounder
 

noooo i am too scared of even just a 6 pdr. but hopefully 17 pdr got lower reload rate and is less deadly that way :p...


but i think it would be fair, you got 17 pdr, we got Pak 40

Re: 17 pounder
 

The first allies landed in Sicily in July 1943. :p

Re: 17 pounder
 

Correct, I misread the wikipedia page on the 17 pounder, however my initial assumption that they were used in North Africa was kind of correct, from the Wikipedia page:

Re: 17 pounder
 

Sometimes wkipedia lies.

Re: 17 pounder
 

So is the above quote incorrect? Were the 25/17-pounders never used in North Africa?

Re: 17 pounder
 

I don't know that... We'll have to wait till vM wakes up.

Re: 17 pounder
 

Cant wait for people to start complaining when the 17pdr starts ripping their Tigers apart.

Re: 17 pounder
 

They seem to think that the Tiger is somehow the best tank and has no business being destroyed. =p

I'd love to see what some of them say, for pure comic value. :nodding:

Re: 17 pounder
 

According to the Wikipedia article even the 6 pounder could destroy the Tiger 1 from the sides or the back, and from the front at close range.

Re: 17 pounder
 

Do you want to live forever, panz0r jockey?

We will love the crying shouts when M10's, Jacksons, Fireflies rip apart their tigers like butter

Re: 17 pounder
 

Ah, the Tiger-philes. "It's not fair - everybody knows the Tiger is the pwnage. We're supposed to win."

Well at least that's a historically accurate attitude. I'm always amused to hear the attitudes of those German ex-panzer warriors who were upset at how they lost the war. It was fun to hear Otto Carius, Willi Fey, Lohringhoven and the younger Guderian talk about what was "fair" and "unfair". They resented that the Allies' chose to win by making the war one of industrial production instead of simply matching Germany tank-for-tank. SS-tankers Carius and Fey seethed about how unfair it was to have to fight so many enemies who had so much materiel. They claimed that it was only the Allies' numerical and materiel' superiority which permitted them to annihilate the German military machine.

Well, yeah. Their argument seems to be, "We had such uber weapons and well-trained troops that no one should have been permitted to find ways to defeat them. No fair fighting a war we can't win!"


Sounds very familiar.

Re: 17 pounder
 

*manlove*

mr Jackson for me please. Yeah

Re: 17 pounder
 

I want to see an M18 Hellcat with its 50mph speeds :cool:

Re: 17 pounder
 

Firefly for the win!

It was a pleasure to use in the Market Garden map for FH1 - as long as the Tiger-jockey didn't see you first then it was point n' click insta-death for Mr Tiger :naughty: The sound of the 17 pounder gun on the Firefly was great too, it conveyed so much power and lethality :nodding:

Re: 17 pounder
 

Hey, even your fancy Centurions will run when we get our PaK 43s...

88mm HE shells are awesome too, hell I kill AT guns with the AP shells since you get more of them. So don't think suddenly the Tigers are just easy meat now...

Re: 17 pounder
 

The one fellow who's appeared on a couple of the History channel shows (can't recall his name) said that a Tiger could take out 3 Shermans. "But there was always a fourth..."

Re: 17 pounder
 

The actual average in the war was seven enemy tanks (of every type) for one tiger. I think it was six for a Panther, and about eighteen for a King Tiger.

Re: 17 pounder
 

Yea..since Germans were defending mostly all the times...and those tanks were not attacking one next to each other.For example...At the battle of Stashów,ONE T34/85 took out like 3 or 4 Tigers II-that dosn't mean that for one T34/85 there were like 3 Tigers II,besides that..History channel tells bullshit instead of history.:rolleyes:

Re: 17 pounder
 

People never think.... There were RARELY, EVER cases of Tigers that were lone wolfs. Wittmann was a major exception, and it was only during one battle, hell, even Carius and Knispel didn't do that. Most Tigers fought in 4 tank squads, and often 2 squads worked together. This meant that each covered the other.... Sure, it may take 5 shermans to get 1 around that Tiger, but will it survive when the tiger's 3 buddies shoot at him? Same with Panthers and King Tigers and every other tank ever used by any side. Lone Wolfs were RARE, extremely RARE. 4-5 tank squads were the norm, so they could cover each other.

Now, onto the issue of the 17lber used in North Africa, yeah, it was used, though too late to do much good, and the Tigers mostly faced the americans.

Re: 17 pounder
 

Too bad that evidence shows that the allies not only outproduced, but outFOUGHT the axis, as well--maybe not initially, but as they wizened up to the process by which their enemies operated.....

Re: 17 pounder
 

And Wittman attacked Villiers-Bocage with 3-4 other Tigers IIRC, he just left them behind when he went off on his famous charge.

Re: 17 pounder
 

As I recall it was 2 Tigers and 2 Pz4H. And Wittman was an idiot for that attack on the village. Stormed in with no infantry support and lost both Tigers, which were recovered later.

Re: 17 pounder
 

and oftenly, 1/2 tigers where standing still because of an engine malfuction ...

Re: 17 pounder
 

and the shermans nick was "ronson"...

Re: 17 pounder
 

sounds like any war the americans did and lost after ww2 :)

Re: 17 pounder
 

Not according to this page, although if you've got another source please post.

Re: 17 pounder
 

Tigers and Shermans had break downs just as much as each other, the Tiger was just harder to repair.

Re: 17 pounder
 

A version of the 17lbr was used in North Africa. They were called Phesant guns. They were rushed by air to Tunisia after the Commonwealth encountered Tigers and were used against Axis tanks in the actions at Medinine in March 1943.

The intended carriage for the 17lbrs were not ready so the guns were mounted on modified 25lbr carriages.

They look sorta like this
http://www.missing-lynx.com/gallery/...pheasant-1.jpg

Due to their importance, The Tigers were often kept at operational readiness levels comparable to any German tank unit.

Many of the Tigers faults stem from the early models with the troublesome 600hp engine. The later models did require lots of maintenance but so did any other tank.

Re: 17 pounder
 

I think you're confusing some concepts along with history. I realize this is flame bait of the rankest kind; and the thread will doubtless go to hell six seconds after I rain on what you probably intended as humor, the confusing passive-aggressive use of the smiley notwithstanding. But a point or two.

The literal context of my post, a segment of which you quoted, is that the "complainer" had been militarily defeated because of his inability to adapt to his opponents weapons and tactics. So for your statement to be valid there must have been:
a) multiple wars after WWII;
b) in which the US was militarily defeated;
c) due to an inability to adapt its strategy and tactics to the circumstances of the war;
d) after which the US can be said to have complained that no one should have been permitted to find such ways to defeat it.

So, got some examples for your statement, "sounds like any war the Americans did and lost after WWII"? Because I don't see it.

The only war remotely objectively classifiable as a defeat for the US was Vietnam, and there can be little argument that it was lost by the change in the citizenry's commitment to continue it, not because of the military's capability. Indeed, had the military been permitted by its political masters to pursue unequivocal military victory which resulted in cessation of organized, major hostilities, it would have been a relatively easy matter.

The mere investiture of Haiphong Harbor may have done the trick within a matter of weeks, even days. Regardless, the destruction of the hydroelectric dams which produced the electrical power of the country would have been a simple matter, and devastating to the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam). US forces could have put and maintained large troop concentrations into the DMZ (recognized only by the US and RVN anyway) and into DRVN proper within a matter of days, and the NVA couldn't have prevented it or expelled them. Very soon the NVA would have been essentially unsupportable in the field. Even had North Vietnam not immediately sued for peace, it could not have maintained or fielded a cohesive, effective force capable of meeting and defeating US units.

Understand, we're not talking about what was a good idea or bad idea. Nor are we concerned with problems facing a post-open-hostilities government. Merely the military capacity to impose a military defeat on another country.

As I see it, you can't demonstrate a single postwar US military defeat, much less overcome the other hurdles.

Or is all this a tempest in a teacup anyway?


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, and I'll address this to Anlushac-11 and von Mudra about Tigers and doctrine. I've seen pre-1944 German tanker memoirs which speak of German armor units in Russia in battalion-size attacks (on prepared positions with dug-in/concealed PAKs and armor as well as infantry) being configured so that the Tiger company or companies took a central "protected" spot in the armored formation, with light (Pz-III?) and medium (Pz IV/Panther?) panzer companies on either flank.

Was this to shield the Tigers? Was this German panzer doctrine at any point? Was it rational to put the least-survivable tanks in the positions where they faced the most chance of destruction? Or did it just reflect the very high value German doctrine put on the Tigers?

Re: 17 pounder
 

Or maybe it was made to lure Russian forces in the middle so the flanks would be weaker. Just a thought.

Re: 17 pounder
 

I dunno. I myself would have put the Tigers on the flanks, but what do i know?

Re: 17 pounder
 

Flanks need speed and flexibility for maneuvres, and center needs strenght and power...ABC

Re: 17 pounder
 

IIRC Soviet tactics were to launch a massive artillery strike followed by a rapid armored thrust. The Soviets often broke through the middle, sometimes with heavy casulties to split up a unit and destroy it piecemeal.

By putting Tigers in the middle they took brunt of the assault but were also the best equipped to deal with a assault. Also by putting the hardest hitting and longer ranged guns in center the Tigers could offer good fire support to either side equally as well. Also if units had to be moved to plug breakthroughs the center was the closest to either side.

Re: 17 pounder
 

Anlushac pretty much hit the nail on the head. From Tigers in the Mud, I learned exactly that and that Tigers were in the middle for I guess attacking and absorbing the attack.

Re: 17 pounder
 

Yep, and meanwhile, the lighter, faster Pz4s could use their flank positions to maneuverer around the enemy while they were busy dealing with the Tigers. Still, it continues to go to show you that no, Tigers weren't freelance hunters in the war, and neither were any other tanks. Only in the very final stages would german tanks hunt alone, and that was due to them being the only tank left more then them thinking they could handle things by themselves.

Re: 17 pounder
 

Well, that settles that. I suppose if I had been commanding, say, Schwere Abteilung 501 in 1943, and had put a company of Tigers on each flank, and a mixed company of Pz-IIILs & Pz-IIINs & Pz-IVHs in the middle, with two companies of mounted grenadiers just behind the IIIs and IVs - I would have wound up with nothing in the middle, and a 2000 m gap between two unescorted companies of Tigers. Because the T-34/76s and T-354/85s would have rolled right through my middle, laughing all the way. And now the unescorted and separated Tiger companies will find rank upon rank pf dug-in ZiS 2 PAKs, and after them the SU-152s lie in wait on the outside of each Tiger company, waiting their turn.....

Re: 17 pounder
 

You got it pretty much dead on. IN practice, the PzGrn would have rode in on the flanks with the light tanks, being the maneuver element, outflanking the main Russian positions that are distracted by the looming Tigers, and then would roll up the flanks and trap the center between them and the tigers, destroying them.

Re: 17 pounder
 

The late tactic for offensive is the panzerkeil (arrow formation )where the tiger is on the edge and the other tanks less armored behind ( positionned as :panther > pzr3 >stug ).

The tiger is a rupture tank so he do his job, he break the lines, and the other tank can exploit the breach.

For defense there is an other tactic i don't remember the name (panzerkessel ?) each side the mass of weak tank for ce th ennemy tank to run in the kessel and at the end of the kessel, the tiger or a heavy tank massacre the ennemy.

Otherwise normally tiger tank advance together in a line to protect each other their flank.

Btw, the tiger is one of the biggest mistake of germany, they would still continue to produce rupture tank like tiger but if you don't have a medium tank to exploit the breach, it is useless.
It was already the main point of guderian when he get his inspector job.

Re: 17 pounder
 

I wouldn't call Tger a "mistake". Maybe making it in bigger numbers than it supposed to, yes. It wasn't too fast and mobile and repairs took long but there wasn't more mind shattering German weapon as the Tiger.

So even if Tger was a mistake (which I doubt) I've got two replies for that:

1. It was a "wonderfull" mistake.
2. It wouldn't be good if Germans didn't make any mistakes at all, would it?

Re: 17 pounder
 

The Tiger was a good tank for what it was designed to do and proved formidable in defence but IMHO the Panther was a much better tank. Slightly better gun when both firing PzGr39, better reliability, better mobility, and still good armor. At 45 tons per Panther versus 56 tons per Tiger I and the easlier sloped armor the Panther should have been cheaper and easier to build.

Re: 17 pounder
 

Ditto. Panther G ftw! ;)