Best Tank in Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm

[Tazak]

Bradleys are the clear winner in terms of NATO IFV's, Marders only have Milan ATGM so their limited to 2km engagements which given how fast the soviets advance means they are lucky to get more than 1 shot off before being hammered. The British way of thinking is to let the tanks engage the tanks, leaving the warriors to engage the APC/IFV so sadly they never included in the design specs to have a vehicle mounted ATGM system although if you look at the Desert Warrior brought by the Kuwaiti Army and I think the Saudi's, they replaced the 30mm Rarden cannon with 25mm bushmaster and twin TOW launchers.

Timing movements is key now, I've been practicing attacking with a sqn of tanks using the 1st and 2nd movement order to move forward leaving the 3rd movement order to pull back into cover. Works fairly well once you get it right - I hit a T64 battalion in the flank knocking out 60% for the loss of 1 tank troop (which I question if I would have lost it if the resupply overriding movement orders issue wasn't playing hell)

[ComradeP]

The West Germans often have a PzG ATGM element with the Marder unit as well, which improves capabilities a bit, but like you said: the limited range can be a big problem.

Nations like the British, I believe, the French and the Dutch rely on specialist ATGM vehicles which makes for a more complicated structure, but which also has advantages (the specialist vehicles have just one role, the Bradley is also a transport). However, FCRS makes it clear that having even just 1 ATGM can already make quite a difference.

I still have to test how good the Soviet ATGM's are in practice. They're good on paper, but it may be difficult to use them to maximum effect due to their tendency to fire only at fairly short distances (compared to their maximum range).

The engagement ranges can be quite long. I haven't been able to match the longest range confirmed NATO tank kill of about 5000 meters, but ranges of 3000-4000 meters are more rule than exception for NATO units, which limits the use of ATGM's that are reluctant to fire at ranges over 3000 meters or so even if they can.

[Tazak]

Here's a list of soviet ATGM, general rule of thumb is if its fired from a MBT gun barrel it will use beam riding SACLOS other wise it uses wire guided SACLOS

AT4- Fagot –2km range - uses SACLOS (direct copy of NATO Milan ATGM??)
AT-5 Spandrel – 4km range – uses SACLOS
AT - 6 SPIRAL – 5km range – uses SACLOS
AT-7 Saxhorn – 1km range – uses SACLOS
AT-8 SONGSTER – 4km range – uses SACLOS
AT-9 Ataka – 5km range – uses SACLOS
AT-10 Basnya – 4km range – uses SACLOS
AT-10 BASTION – 4km range – uses SACLOS
AT-10 Sheksna – 4km range - uses SACLOS
AT-11 SVIR - 4-5km range – uses SACLOS
AT-11B/ NVAR – 4-5km range – uses SACLOS
At-12 Kornet – 5km range – uses SACLOS
AT-13 Metis – 1.5km range – uses SACLOS

Sources such as WEG2001 and FAS website both claim majority have 90% hit change, which if these are anything like NATO ATGM systems they only need to keep the optical viewer on the target

In practice/FPRS the vehicle mounted ones can and do hurt at range, thankfully their night/low visibility capabilities stop them from spanking M1/Leopard2/challenger with alarming frequency

[MikeAP]

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

it isn't always clear if the blue line indicates 1 vehicle firing or more

I've often wondered this myself, especially when one 'blue line' scores multiple kills. I'm assuming that one blue line is equal to the entire unit (with subunits) firing.

[CapnDarwin]

Yes the blue/red fire lines are a unit based attack of the various weapons from the sub units in the unit. Depending on the situation, sub units may fire more than once during the combat event.

[Sabre21]

ORIGINAL: Tazak

Here's a list of soviet ATGM, general rule of thumb is if its fired from a MBT gun barrel it will use beam riding SACLOS other wise it uses wire guided SACLOS

AT4- Fagot –2km range - uses SACLOS (direct copy of NATO Milan ATGM??)
AT-5 Spandrel – 4km range – uses SACLOS
AT - 6 SPIRAL – 5km range – uses SACLOS
AT-7 Saxhorn – 1km range – uses SACLOS
AT-8 SONGSTER – 4km range – uses SACLOS
AT-9 Ataka – 5km range – uses SACLOS
AT-10 Basnya – 4km range – uses SACLOS
AT-10 BASTION – 4km range – uses SACLOS
AT-10 Sheksna – 4km range - uses SACLOS
AT-11 SVIR - 4-5km range – uses SACLOS
AT-11B/ NVAR – 4-5km range – uses SACLOS
At-12 Kornet – 5km range – uses SACLOS
AT-13 Metis – 1.5km range – uses SACLOS

Sources such as WEG2001 and FAS website both claim majority have 90% hit change, which if these are anything like NATO ATGM systems they only need to keep the optical viewer on the target

In practice/FPRS the vehicle mounted ones can and do hurt at range, thankfully their night/low visibility capabilities stop them from spanking M1/Leopard2/challenger with alarming frequency

The AT-3 was still being used at that time too. The downside to ATGM's is the time of flight to the target compared to that of a main gun sabot round. A TOW takes 15 seconds to reach 3000m and 21.5 seconds to get to 3750. The hellfire was much faster and I'm sure some of these are too, but not near as fast as a main gun round.

Also if the missile was spotted, eratic last second maneuvering could foil the shot as well as the use of smoke unless the shooter had good thermals like the Bradleys had. I don't think any of the Soviet platforms at that time had thermals.

Another problem would be round availability. Tanks can only carry a few of the missile rounds, they took up much more space than the normal rounds. If I was a tanker I would prefer to carry more APFSDS than a few missiles.

The M2 Bradleys carried 2 ready to shoot TOWs and would carry a couple more inside as reloads. The M3's carried more reloads since they had fewer troops.

[Panta_slith]

During my sort of "convalescence" (not playing FPC until v.2.03 was out), I did an extensive testing of ATGMs against armour using the Steel Beast Pro PE trainer/simulator. As per my previous experience, Brads were deadly against a limited number of targets. You need to keep your vehicle leveled to fire the TOW and the amplification of the scope makes targeting too far away moving vehicles difficult. If you are too close, even hull down, and the enemy has thermals, you fire once or twice and are dead meat.
With dismounts firing the TOW in protective terrain, things are a bit easier, but if they see you, you are dead meat as well. You better choose a reverse slope/defilade position, fire a volley and run as fast as you can (the TOW launcher and the missiles are heavy).
Firing to a laterally moving target through obstacles like trees, buildings and even grass is prone to failure.
I haven't tried the AT-3. AT-4 and Milan launchers yet, but their sights are inferior to the TOW's.
In conclusion, ATGM vs armour remains a tricky issue that need careful positioning and timing. Of course, in a 1-to-1 engagement, who fires first has the edge. [;)]

[Sabre21]

ORIGINAL: Panta

During my sort of "convalescence" (not playing FPC until v.2.03 was out), I did an extensive testing of ATGMs against armour using the Steel Beast Pro PE trainer/simulator. As per my previous experience, Brads were deadly against a limited number of targets. You need to keep your vehicle leveled to fire the TOW and the amplification of the scope makes targeting too far away moving vehicles difficult. If you are too close, even hull down, and the enemy has thermals, you fire once or twice and are dead meat.
With dismounts firing the TOW in protective terrain, things are a bit easier, but if they see you, you are dead meat as well. You better choose a reverse slope/defilade position, fire a volley and run as fast as you can (the TOW launcher and the missiles are heavy).
Firing to a laterally moving target through obstacles like trees, buildings and even grass is prone to failure.
I haven't tried the AT-3. AT-4 and Milan launchers yet, but their sights are inferior to the TOW's.
In conclusion, ATGM vs armour remains a tricky issue that need careful positioning and timing. Of course, in a 1-to-1 engagement, who fires first has the edge. [;)]

I wonder if those simulators take into account with any wire guided missile wire droop. At max range wires will droop several feet and if they make contact with a body of water or power lines they will short out. The other thing to consider is at ranges going past 3500m for the Tow, the missile is in a nose high attitude trying to maintain its flight path. If the target has good reactive armor chances are even the TOW IIa might not make a kill, the IIb is a different animal altogether though.

[Panta_slith]

I don't know how far their ATGM model goes, SBP is mostly a tank simulator, but I presume that it has to be fair enough to keep their military customers happy. I never could target accurately at long distances with the TOW, even on thermals, but that must probably be a training-related issue.

[Hexagon]

Dont understand me bad, i dont say you do a bad job, oposite, i think you do a great research job but well, if even in a WWII wargame are discussions about certain weapons performance... in an hypotetical war with 0 true analogue wars to compare is harder do this and is more open to interpretations of official documents not tested in real life.

You talk about france campaign where germans with inferior tanks won but well, is not only a question of tanks, you have the nation strategic (France fought to dont lose, Germany fought to win), the operational use of armor (you have tank formations... how use them??? and here Germany use them in a strategic level that increase a lot his value) and the tactical use (here france had better tanks in main areas armor-firepower-mobility well, firepower was better because they need pen less armor and mobility usually was inferior but not in a dramatic way damage was done more in how they move the tanks in superior levels) and you need think in the control over armor where germans superiority was their reference during the war and training with a more complete training using lessons learned on battlefield.

I allways think that soviets can win in a conventional war in 50s-60s-70s and early 80s but not because they have beter material or training... they have simple tons of units to face a "break" army with diferent material, trainings and objetives... sure NATO can deal a lot of damage to WP but in the ned the best result for NATO always for me was a stalemate or at least mantein a step in Germany... survive is the main objetive for NATO... they fight a little like France in 1940, fight to counter enemy if they can do it, is curious how you after soviet fall they fear a NATO attack, in the end both sides try dont lose maybe this is why we dont have WWIII actior reports to create wargames... or why we dont life in a vault or in a cave painting in the walls [&o]

WOA Mad Russian, i am not alone!!! i think to that the PzIII influence was incredible high, of course if you ask me for the best WWII med tank i think in Panther (apart how you can his "claws" in modern designs) but PzIII was the first germany true "all terrain tank" sure if it can deal with a bigger gun could be in 1st line a little more (he fights in all fronts with Germany and well, was the tank that could conquest the world).

ATMG... they are a support for infantry or tanks, they reduce number of targets for tanks and made infantry deal with enemy armor at range, for me is a support weapon unlike tanks that can support but they can crack enemy lines and take the offensive.

[Mad Russian]

Quick question Hexagon, which tank was in use when Germany conquered all the ground they gained? That would be the PzIII and not the Panther. Which of them faced opponents that outclassed them in armor and gun technology? Again, that would be the PzIII and not the Panther.

Most influential and best tank of WWII was the PzIII. Look at the derivatives of the tank as well. All those StuG's vs what for the Panther? A single version of a tank destroyer.

Good Hunting.

MR

[zakblood]

must agree with MR on his comments,

The Panzer III was intended to be the main medium core of the German armor force when it was designed during the inter-war period. While it was originally designed to fight other tanks, its 37 mm and later 50 mm guns could not keep pace with Soviet T-34 and KV tanks. In 1941, the Panzer III was the most numerous German tank, but by late 1943 it was largely replaced by later versions of the Panzer IV and Panther. Its self-propelled gun chassis variant, the Sturmgeschütz III was, with just over 10,000 units built, the most produced German armored fighting vehicle of World War II.

Approximately 10,001 StuG IIIs of various types were produced from 1940 to 1945 by Alkett (~7500) and from 1943 to 1945 by MIAG (2586). From April to July 173 older Panzer III were converted to StuG III Ausf. G standard. The ~1299 StuH 42 and the 12 conversions from StuG III were solely built by Alkett

taking all factors into consideration, costs in RM, time to build and develop, material needed to build and fuel to run etc, if germany would have produced more low cost, quick turn over types and spent less time on fancy types, they may have fared better, good for us they didn't and kept building bigger ( Panzerkampfwagen VIII Maus /Panzerkampfwagen E-100 / Panzer VII Löwe / Landkreuzer P. 1500 as a few examples)and less types which cost more to build and run and took more time to develop....

[Hexagon]

I think the same about the things you say for PzIII BUT i dont consider the PzIII the best WWII tank, sorry but here i see Panther better.

Why??? well i see 3 motives because Panther is for me better than PzIII in the "race" to the 1st position.

1-to be fair the PzIII as tank had reached his top evolution in 1943, Panther no, a simple comparison, Panther G is for me like the PzIIIh, the Panther F with the new turret is the equilalent to PzIIIj (50mmL42) and the Panther F with the 88mmL71 (germans plan mount this gun in Panther F and even think in a autoloader gun) the equivalent to the PzIIIM

2-is true that PzIII face tanks "better" in his usefull life as 1st line tank BUT is true to that PzIII had a much better support than Panther in late war, think that PzIII in the worst situation has in 1941-1942 a good cover against enemy aircrafts thanks to Luftwaffe and in the offensive the PzIII has tactical air support, apart this PzIII fights in a period where germans have their top finest moment in armored combat and in military power in general, their enemies usually are very under their training and tactical deployment and the human resources was enough to provide infantry and support to PzIII units. Other point is that Panther influence as "sniper" plataform was present in postwar designs, you know, Panther was designed to fight at range and be at med close range with enough chance to survive, PzIII was designed more with the pre and early war requirements.

3-yes, a PzIII "sucks" less resources than a Panther but the true is that the Panther in 1943-44-45 offer even with a lot of problems in battlefield a much better relation between resources invest/fighting performance, Panther cost more than a PzIII but not a lot more in numbers and a lot less compared with the Panther performance in situations where well, support was small and enemy has a lot of it, think that Panther after WWII was an able vehicle even when it can admit using WWII tecnology improvements in main areas.

StugIII for me was much better in relation cost/performance compared with PzIII but the true is that in 1944 StugIII start to be a little stay back, you need admit that JgPzIV with 75mmL70 was clearly the StugIII sustitute and well, JagdPanther was far from be a waste of resources, sure that with the Panther F mounting 81mmL71 lose his value but... why not mount a 105mm AT gun in the JgPanther??? true is that StugIII and PzIII cant admit armament improvements when there were better vehicles in service and other have room to improve the firepower.

PzIII was the base for Panther (a tank to made crew feel comfortable and increase their performance, space to improvements in basic design and be "better" than enemy tanks) but in the moment that appear Panther armored warfare change a lot and Panther mix the good things from PzIII with the necesity of engage enemy at range in a better armored vehicle.

I am with you that things like Maus, JagdTiger, SturmMaus and even Tiger II (i like a lot Tiger II but in the war period germans really need more Panthers or PzIV than 500 Tiger II... damn, if they had more JagdPanther sure be more usefull and invest less resources) but in 1943-1944 the question for me was more incrase number of panthers and use PzIV as reinforcement to fill gaps, a panther can offer more in tactical defense than PzIV.

In 1942-43 build more PzIVG-H was critical for Germany but you need admit that do this and enter in 1944 with very few Panthers to provide the extra punch that PzIV needs and without a sustitute for StugIII could be a true problem for germans they could see in the same situation as soviets in 1943 or americans in 1944 BUT with a lot less material to waste to cover the gap... well, Germany start to fight a total war to late i allways see them as "when can win not the best equipment when they cant win the best equipment"

Damn, i do it again, i kidnap another thread [8|]

[Templer_12]

To reanimate this thread.

It's not in the game (not yet [;)]), but the masters of Panzer technology (Tiger, Panther, Leopard) are back:

The Leopard 3:

[mikeCK]

M1a1, Challenger 2 and Leopard 2: brothers from a different mother.

[ivanov]

ORIGINAL: Templer
The Leopard 3

That's Leopard 2A4 with the Revolution upgrade package.

[Templer_12]

The source I used:
-> Das ist Deutschlands Panzer-Zukunft (This is Germany's panzer future)

[ivanov]

Since Leopard 3 still doesn't exist, they used the photos of Leo 2 Revolution for the article.

[Deathtreader]

Hi,

If (my)game results are any indication then the T80U with the AT11 Sniper ATGM is hands down the best tank in the game. Of course, your mileage may vary [:D]

Rob.

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: Deathtreader


Hi,

If (my)game results are any indication then the T80U with the AT11 Sniper ATGM is hands down the best tank in the game. Of course, your mileage may vary [:D]

Rob.

You seem to have been playing NATO exclusively!! [:D]

If you were playing the Soviet's your mileage would most assuredly vary!!

Good Hunting.

MR