1. How do they classify the tanks based on the name and the origins and the variations, like the Panzer I till Panzer IV, (and Panzer 35 and 38, and I heard there is Panzer X), and Marder I to Marder III, Tiger I to II (and is King Tiger exists)? Is it based on the production line or the effectiveness against the allied army? So far I have searched the tanks have a lot of variants, even the StuH and StuG. The only tank that has no variant is the Panther (at least I never heard about Panther II).
Is FlakPanzer II and III exists? So far the Flakpanzer IV is the popular ones and they have a lot of variants, such as Wirbelwind, Ostwind, and Kugelblitz.
Since they are in the Axis faction, do Germans also utilize demolish vehicles like the Japanese did, such as kamikaze tactics?
Wondering they use the self-explosive unit, Goliath for what reason, as that is also a part of suicidal tactics (though it is only a remote-controlled unit).
And they also categorizes Panther as a medium tank that only combats the T34 (lol). According to what I have read, they stated that Panther don't have any other version is that Panther is not so useful if compared to Tiger and cost-wise to Panzer or StuG.
I do think that German army is quite efficient when it deals with artillery, is there any other mobile artillery other than the Hummel, Wespe or maybe the semi-artillery taker, like Sdfkz Stuka, or Hotchkiss Stuka, and Werbelnerfer?
And they also categorizes Panther as a medium tank that only combats the T34 (lol). According to what I have read, they stated that Panther don't have any other version is that Panther is not so useful if compared to Tiger and cost-wise to Panzer or StuG.?
3. Since they are in the Axis faction, do Germans also utilize demolish vehicles like the Japanese did, such as kamikaze tactics?
Is the Scorched Earth tactics a common strategy to use for German, as I know that British used this a lot when the invasion of Japan to the South East Asia countries?
That sure rings the bell, no wonder they use such unique names for their tanks and have much weaponry compared to Allied units.
German army was against suicide/kamikaze tactics. Germans think that german soldiers are always better than the enemy. When they fight with heroic and with faith they will win the battle and the war. There is just one small exception: In 1945 the Luftwaffe trained a small number of kamikaze fighters. There mission was to destroy all bridges of the river Oder to stop red army ambush against Berlin. When red army crossed the Oder near Seelower Highs mission was obsoleted and outdated and was dropped. All in all kamikaze was no part of military plans and strategies. German soldiers and german weapons are key element for victory and not kamikaze attacks.
And thus Tigers can be seen as more of a defensive weapon than an offensive weapon: their big guns and armor and reduced mobility make them nothing more than moving blockhouses. And while they were never really called on to perform such a role, I doubt that they would be able to perform good strategic offensives the way Panzer III, IV and to a certain extent even Panthers would. All-in-all Tigers are a useless waste of ressources that could've been better used to produce more Panzer IVs or Panthers.
QuoteAnd thus Tigers can be seen as more of a defensive weapon than an offensive weapon: their big guns and armor and reduced mobility make them nothing more than moving blockhouses. And while they were never really called on to perform such a role, I doubt that they would be able to perform good strategic offensives the way Panzer III, IV and to a certain extent even Panthers would. All-in-all Tigers are a useless waste of ressources that could've been better used to produce more Panzer IVs or Panthers.I think Tiger was a balanced weapon. It wasnt a revolutionary tank but it was a balanced one.Everyone say that a Tiger cant do maneuver performance. But out of my view they dont need to do long range maneuvers. They are an excellent breakthrough weaponsand german tank commanders know this.One of the battle doctrines for a Tiger in the offensive was the idea of the hammer to break enemies lines. Tiger smash down the heavy fortified position and silence all ofthe heavy anti tanks guns. When Tiger has open a gap into enemies front line, Pz III, IV and V can rush throw this gap and do their "Panzer warfare". And when they finda new line they call the Tiger to repeat it.
As for tanks, many people tend to underestimate the value of mobility. People tend to see tanks as mobile artillery pieces whereas their main ability is to be able to pierce through enemy lines. That being said, it is vital for tanks to be able to serve under long periods of stress, in other words for a long period without breaking down. If your tank needs to have spare parts replaced often, then inevitably your offensive will stall. And don't forget that a tank that always needs maintenance is a bad tank, no matter how great the design.
5. From my understandings, it seems that the Tiger is more into defensive tank due to the armor and the rounds that they can use, it seems that they can differ from AT rounds, Armor Piercing Rounds and HE Rounds. Standard AT Guns cannot destroy them easily except using weaponry or mines to destroy the tracks of Tiger. Wonder if it is true and how they use such different ammunition since that in a war an ammunition is quite limited.
6. StuG mobility is much higher than Tiger as well. But how do they design that by using fixed turret, or the self-propelled turrets, like how to differentiate between StuG and StuH (I see they use the same chasis, same turret, only one can lift and one not, with different projectiles)? Cannot really find the difference between tanks and assault guns, as both are used for offensive operations, so far it is quite rare that they used tanks for defense.
7. Can it be said that they produced so much variants, and to differentiate them is because most of the weaponry they used, like tanks are abandoned, so the Allies just capture and use their own paint/ decal with their spare parts, and that is why the Allied have less tank variations compared to Germans, like US they are mostly Shermans, except M26, and for Brits, they have only Churchills and Priest?
8. And they also used Porsche engines for the latter versions of the tanks, right?I guess that is why there are so many Allies faction to take on against the Axis, especially Germans.
Guess that explained a lot :>And found out yesterday, wondering is it true that there are also halftracks, is also modified as tanks, like Sdfkz 265 and Sdfkz 111, 121 and 141? Or tanks are originated from halftracks since they are using the same tracks, and some with the same engines?
And is it correct to say that longer tank turrets fires longer distances, like Panzer IV with 7.5 KwK40 and 7.5 StuK (the name of weaponry are quite confusing), or Tiger that have much longer turret than Panzer IV and StuG?
And based on the rule, higher velocity turret means higher recoil too, right?