Login

russian armor

Ostheer Panther

  • This thread is locked
PAGES (3)down
16 Feb 2017, 14:42 PM
#41
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13407 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post16 Feb 2017, 14:36 PMV-T
.. So if a Panther stays in it's infantry supporting role, it excels.

Only that is the role of "Churchill infantry support Tank."

The Role of the Panther is described as counter to Heavy tanks, and it pretty bad at it.
16 Feb 2017, 14:46 PM
#42
avatar of ullumulu

Posts: 2242

jump backJump back to quoted post16 Feb 2017, 14:36 PMV-T
Tanks shouldn't even try to fire on the move. WW2 era stabilizers only were effective at keeping the gun pointing in the general direction of the target while on the move. T-34 didn't even have a stabilizer. So firing on the move should be basically a sure miss, unless you're targeting a house from point blank range.

That's off my chest now.

I think the Panther does it's job pretty well. It's quite fast, pretty heavily armored, can make a lot of damage to tanks, and the MG on the top makes it pretty effective against infantry as well. It is pretty expensive yes, so yolodives are not the brightest idea. Hate losing a expensive tank to a mine/at ambush. So if a Panther stays in it's infantry supporting role, it excels.


Than are the allie tanks to far to strong at aiming while driving.

The german tanks had the best binoculars and fire-aim systems to scout the area and aim the enemy.

every german tank had a radio to communicate with other tanks...ask the sovjet...not even every 10. tank had one.
they operated alone, didn see much and their aiming was very bad on range.


normaly a tank shouldnt hit a kubel while it drive...

16 Feb 2017, 14:46 PM
#43
avatar of ZombiFrancis

Posts: 2742

USF was designed to hard counter Ostheer. OKW has been a cluster from the start. Brits were designed to be better than WFA.

Soviets and Ostheer have always had some semblance of a chance at balanced matchups though. Just like Wehr v American was, and still does, remain fun and interesting in vCoH.
16 Feb 2017, 15:59 PM
#44
avatar of zerocoh

Posts: 930

jump backJump back to quoted post16 Feb 2017, 14:36 PMV-T
I think the Panther does it's job pretty well. It's quite fast, pretty heavily armored, can make a lot of damage to tanks, and the MG on the top makes it pretty effective against infantry as well. It is pretty expensive yes, so yolodives are not the brightest idea. Hate losing a expensive tank to a mine/at ambush. So if a Panther stays in it's infantry supporting role, it excels.


Finally someone with a bit of sense.

Like I said before, if you wait for vet2 you get extra armor and HP, making it an excellent tank.

jump backJump back to quoted post16 Feb 2017, 14:42 PMVipper

Only that is the role of "Churchill infantry support Tank."

The Role of the Panther is described as counter to Heavy tanks, and it pretty bad at it.


I don't know in what world panthers are supposed to be a direct counter to heavies.

Panthers are medium tanks, THEY ARE support tanks, if you want TDs you either go stug, JP4, elephant to Jagtiger.
16 Feb 2017, 16:01 PM
#45
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13407 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post16 Feb 2017, 15:59 PMzerocoh

I don't know in what world panthers are supposed to be a direct counter to heavies.

Panthers are medium tanks, THEY ARE support tanks, if you want TDs you either go stug, JP4, elephant to Jagtiger.

In this world.
From the patch notes

Panther

The Panther provides the perfect combination of mobility and anti-tank capacity, making it the ideal counter to heavy armor.
16 Feb 2017, 16:08 PM
#46
avatar of zerocoh

Posts: 930

And they are exactly like that. If you use them like a puma instead of a KT they will be great against tanks.
16 Feb 2017, 16:50 PM
#47
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13407 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post16 Feb 2017, 16:08 PMzerocoh
And they are exactly like that. If you use them like a puma instead of a KT they will be great against tanks.

Ok make them cost as Puma and I will use them as Puma.

And pls decide are they or are they not designed to counter heavies?
16 Feb 2017, 18:26 PM
#48
avatar of Butcher

Posts: 1209

jump backJump back to quoted post16 Feb 2017, 14:36 PMV-T
Tanks shouldn't even try to fire on the move. WW2 era stabilizers only were effective at keeping the gun pointing in the general direction of the target while on the move. T-34 didn't even have a stabilizer. So firing on the move should be basically a sure miss, unless you're targeting a house from point blank range.

That's off my chest now.
Flawed argument. Panthers didn´t need to shoot on the move back then since they could engage at the longest ranges. A Su-85, Firefly etc. wouldn´t outrange the Panther in the first place that it would have to close in like it has to do ingame.
16 Feb 2017, 18:44 PM
#49
avatar of Imagelessbean

Posts: 1585 | Subs: 1

Couple of points here:

The game is a game not a war simulator so similarities or differences to real life are fully expected.

Having said that the Panther was designed with a state of the art suspension system to allow it to move and fire on target, this was revolutionary for the time. You can see more about it by searching on youtube for Panther documentaries. They have the old training reals showing the stabilizers in action across uneven terrain.

In any case, Panthers have a low moving accuracy which makes no sense since they are designed in game to attack on the move. This coupled with their long reload means you simply cannot get the job done even when you use them correctly. The panther should be a flanking TD, but it should have good moving accuracy to do this, or it should have really fast fire rates (this is not a good idea). However, we should note that at vet 2 or vet 3 the Panther is a different beast, and so balance for this unit is very close. I suspect if the balance team is allowed to include it the Wehr Panther will be easily balanced by changing just a couple of stats.
16 Feb 2017, 19:12 PM
#50
avatar of JohnnyB

Posts: 2396 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post16 Feb 2017, 14:36 PMV-T

I think the Panther does it's job pretty well. It's quite fast, pretty heavily armored, can make a lot of damage to tanks, and the MG on the top makes it pretty effective against infantry as well. It is pretty expensive yes, so yolodives are not the brightest idea. Hate losing a expensive tank to a mine/at ambush.


How about its shitty reload rate? This on top of all its weak points?

jump backJump back to quoted post16 Feb 2017, 14:36 PMV-T

So if a Panther stays in it's infantry supporting role, it excels.


So this is the role Panther it's reduced to, an infantry support role, while at least Brits may yolo with their tanks into enemy base and back.
16 Feb 2017, 19:41 PM
#51
avatar of __deleted__

Posts: 4314 | Subs: 7



Than are the allie tanks to far to strong at aiming while driving.

The german tanks had the best binoculars and fire-aim systems to scout the area and aim the enemy.

every german tank had a radio to communicate with other tanks...ask the sovjet...not even every 10. tank had one.
they operated alone, didn see much and their aiming was very bad on range.


normaly a tank shouldnt hit a kubel while it drive...



Normally a tank will be dead if hit by a panzerfaust.

Please do not bring in real life arguments into balance forums. If you want to discuss about reality, visit library.

Reality in RTS is only good as long as it doesn´t hurt gameplay. And tanks being unable to hit anything while moving will surely hurt gameplay
Vaz
16 Feb 2017, 20:06 PM
#52
avatar of Vaz

Posts: 1155

Yea I don't think reality is a great argument here. It's never worked since the vcoh times. Not like we can have allied armies with 20 tanks at a time. Squads completely armed with stg44 wasn't a thing. Many clashes with reality.
16 Feb 2017, 20:42 PM
#53
avatar of APlebsyTeddyBear18

Posts: 25

Why can't you people get the actual point of this thread? It is to discuss realistic strategies to use the Panther tank in. All you guys do is blame each other or call each other names.

As far as I can conclude, the majority of Allied players (who seemingly don't play Axis that often), yes I checked your player cards, think it is fine, whilst the majority of Axis players (that actually play Axis on a regular basis), think it isn't fine.

I agree that it isn't fine in it's current state, let alone worth it in my honest opinion. Can it work? Maybe?

Can we now please get back to discussing viable strategies that make the Panther work? So far I haven't heard one, which highly favors the Panther being 'lackluster'.

Thank you..

16 Feb 2017, 20:45 PM
#54
avatar of MajorBloodnok
Admin Red  Badge
Patrion 314

Posts: 10629 | Subs: 9

Nice marshalling of the thread, OP. :thumb:

Press the Report button, if your thread goes out of kilter.

You can ask a Moderator to close the thread, when you are done with it.
16 Feb 2017, 20:47 PM
#55
avatar of APlebsyTeddyBear18

Posts: 25

Nice marshalling of the thread, OP. :thumb:

Press the Report button, if your thread goes out of kilter.

You can ask a Moderator to close the thread, when you are done with it.


Thank you, I have gotten pretty good info by now. I think this thread isn't going anywhere anymore. Could you be so kind to close it?

Thank you in advance.
16 Feb 2017, 20:49 PM
#56
avatar of MajorBloodnok
Admin Red  Badge
Patrion 314

Posts: 10629 | Subs: 9

As requested.

/
PAGES (3)down
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

227 users are online: 227 guests
31 posts in the last 24h
236 posts in the last week
1229 posts in the last month
Registered members: 38631
Welcome our newest member, Radefvff
Most online: 1221 users on 25 Feb 2020, 12:03 PM