Two tanks, one musketmen, one knight?

[Rommel393]

Sorry executor. The tiger was american designed and sent to the ussr shortly after the war began. Why the other allies didnt use it boggles my mind though.....

This is fact unless I've been grossly misinformed which I really dont think happened. I'm 98.634% positive the tiger was soviet.

[Rommel393]

if you have solid proof that im wrong, prove me wrong now so that i dont make a further fool of my self.

[Rommel393]

Look at what you've done... now you've undermined my confidence.

[Col Bigspear]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Rommel393



In WW2, possibly the best and least known about tank was the Soviet Tiger.

?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????

Rommel the Tiger was a PANZER mark VI, GERMAN!!
The PANZER mark V was the PANTHER

Jerrie Tanks
PZ mk I
Pz mk II
Pz mk III
Pz mk IV
Pz mk V (Panther)
Pz mk VI (Tiger) (Appeared before the Panther in 1942, Panther first used at Kursk 1943)

Soviet tanks

T-34, 1940-55 (near enough) (the one I assume u r talking about, Panther Copied from this (no-one dared tell Hitler)).
KV series, 1930s-45 (Big BAST*RDS)
JS series, 1944-45 (JS=Joseph Stalin, HUGE, 88mm+ gun LOTS OF ARMOUR)
thats of the top of my head
BTW, PANZER=German for tank!

[Executor]

Originally posted by Rommel393
if you have solid proof that im wrong, prove me wrong now so that i dont make a further fool of my self.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWtiger.htm

http://www.archivebritain.com/tiger_tank_a_british_view.htm

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tigers.htm

[Col Bigspear]

Originally posted by UberKruX
there arent two tanks iirc, ones a tank and ones a mech inf.

Ah.. Uberkrux you are a firm believer in thouse tech tree pics with units etc.
What makes you think that Firaxis would release the whole thing before the release date?.Just because its not on there how can you be sure its not in Civ 3?

[Col Bigspear]

Originally posted by Rommel393
Sorry executor. The tiger was american designed and sent to the ussr shortly after the war began. Why the other allies didnt use it boggles my mind though.....

This is fact unless I've been grossly misinformed which I really dont think happened. I'm 98.634% positive the tiger was soviet.

American, AMERICAN, F***ING AMERICAN
Who told you this?
Give them a slap for me, tell them British Stef sez NO!

AMERICA Pisses me of CONSTANTLY.
e.g
Chuck Yeager? goes through the sound barrier, IN A BRITISH INVENTION!!!!!!!.
A picture from the 1930's showed a british plane with a one-piece rear wing, so that it would not get ripped of at high speed ( the airelon? moving down to raise the plane would be ripped off causing the plane to crash. A one-piece wing acts as the airelon, but much more airodynamic).
Anyway the Americans asked Britain for their research notes in exchange of theirs, we give em ours we get a telegram "The Chief of staff's believe that our research is too high a defence secret and cannot be shared" ? we're your F-ing Allies.

British scientists give america all our data on the Nuclear forces and how they can be developed in to a bomb ( ok these were notes from the mid 30's but still, we got f-all in return until the USSR developed the bomb then they decided to give us THE BOMB.

And the NORDAN bomb site, Britain was forced to Carpet bomb at night because we lacked a precition bombing site.

The list is endless.

Americans this is not aimed at you, more at you Governments and Generals. Patton, don't get me started.
Patton quote " British generals are well known to fight to the last Australian" And so they should but we has less men than he and the American army had, he could have ACCEPTABLE losses.

No Offence
Your with me arn't you brits

[monkspider]

Someone here thought the Tiger was Soviet??

The Tiger was the German Panzer V if I recall correctly, I suppose it's possible that the Soviets may have captured a few of them and re-used them, but it was most certainly a German vehicle.

As for the bloody Brits, speaking as an American no less, I would agree that Monty was a far more brilliant tactician than Patton, considering the limited supplies and manpower he had behind him, Monty got a miraculous ammont accomplished for the Allies, primarily in the North African campaign. I also agree that most Americans fail to give the Britsh their proper credit in all numbers of things. I have always found Britain to be one of the most courageous nations in world war II (only behind the Soviet Union).

[monkspider]

Also, hearing that the Tiger was an American designed tank is one of the funnier things i have read in a long time, being a WW II historian of sorts.
To read an accurate and well documented history of the Tiger I go here

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/tigerp.htm

[Urban Ranger]

That image was too old. It never had any real units in it at any rate, it was supposed to be an artist's illustration of "what-if's."

Rommel393: The Tiger is definitely a German tank. The tanks the Soviets used early were probably KV-I's and KV-II's. They were far superior to what the Germans had at the time, unfortunately the Soviet commanders didn't know how to use them properly (massed charges supported by infantry).

[monkspider]

Exactly Urban, it's actually a little known fact that even the French had some superior tanks to that of the Germans during the Blitzkrieg campaign of 1940. The French had two awesome heavy tanks known as the Souma and the Char B1-Bis which were infinitely superior to the Panzer Is and IIs that the Germans used, and even far better than the limited number of Panzer IIIs and IVs. However, the French also took a World War I type perspective to armor useage and superior tactics won the day.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Rommel393

Sorry executor. The tiger was american designed and sent to the ussr shortly after the war began. Why the other allies didnt use it boggles my mind though.....

This is fact unless I've been grossly misinformed which I really dont think happened. I'm 98.634% positive the tiger was soviet.

if you have solid proof that im wrong, prove me wrong now so that i dont make a further fool of my self.

Kind of hard to prove that something does not exist.

The Americans did not designed a good tank until the very end of the war (the Pershing). The Sherman was too tall, lightly armoured and the gun was weak (except for the Brit modified Firefly with a 17-pounder). Also the Yank tanks were gas (aka petrol) fuelled which meant they had a common tendency of going up in a fireball when hit. Russian and German tanks used diesel which is less flamable.

The Russians really hated the American tanks which were far inferrior to the T-34.

I think you might be talking about the KV-1, heavily armoured and heavily armed at the time of the opening of the German invasion of Russia.

Monkspider wrote: "The Tiger was the German Panzer V if I recall correctly."

The Panzer V was the Panther, the Panzer VI was the Tiger.

The French tanks had better armour and guns, but were hampered by having one man turret. The commander had to load and fire the gun himself whereas other countries had two- or three-man turret crew.

Urban Ranger: The main problem with the Russian tanks was the lack of radio communications which hindered their tactics, but I agree with you that their tactics were not great at the beginning. That's a reflection of the pre-war purges of the Russian military.

[Saint Marcus]

A WW2 era tank highest calibre=88mm, A modern tank calibre= 105mm Av (I think) with better Armour (thicker and small packs on the outside that explode outwars when hit detonating the round before it penertrates the Armour) this is a SIGNIFICANT CHANGE.
I don't recall a knight with a few cm or mm of Armour meeting a knight donning 3inch armour!

A 1st century AD cataphract is a knight in civ terms, but it is totally inferior to the knights fighting in the Battle of Poitiers or at the Great Siege of Malta.

A single regiment of Napoleon's infantry, which would be musketeers in civ terms, would totally wipe out a great number of musketeer regiments that fought in the Battle of Granada some 300 years earlier. The difference between them is much greater than the difference between a Tiger and a Leopard.

Spanish musketmen anno 1500:

* inaccurate, precision shooting wasn't possible with these weapons. Only usefull against a great number of enemies. In other words, when it's impossible to miss
* underpowered. The bullets would often not even reach their target or inflict serious damage.
* slow reloading. In those early days, soldiers would usually fire once and then use hand to hand combat because it would take forever to reload a weapon
* unreliable. The muskets would often not fire or worse, explode when fired.

French musketmen anno 1800

* far more accurate. "Sniping" was a real possibiliy with these muskets.
* far more powerful. The bullets could rip right trough it's targets, even if they have body armor.
* Reloading a lot faster. A weapon can be loaded and fired twice, or even thrice, in one minute. With the old spanish muskets it would take minutes to reload just once.
* Quite reliable. Of course, the weapon would still refuse to work sometimes (naturally) but far less often than in 1500. Exploding guns where also uncommon in these days.


And the Riflemen isn't a modern musketeer, because rilfemen where first used in the American Civil War, and not in the Napoleonic Wars.

All in all, it seems a bit silly to have two tanks and only one musketmen.

[Rhysie]

Originally posted by Mark L

All in all, it seems a bit silly to have two tanks and only one musketmen.

Your post produced evidence for at least two types of musketmen, but in a game like civ you have to generalise at some point. I'm sure someone could quite easily argue that there should be four tanks, one for ww1, one for start of ww2, one for end of ww2, and one for modern day... There may have been variation in musketmen, but there has been a wider range of variation of tanks.

[Tingkai]

Mark L: The muskets used during the Napoleanic wars were still not very accurate, hence the use of massed formations. The muskets were not really accurate enough for sniping. This job was left to soldiers with muzzle-loading rifles. Napoleanic muskets had a high rate of breakdown in battle conditions.

As for pitting a 16th century musket regiment against a 19th century musket regiment, yes the 19th C would likely win, but it would likely suffer damage. Napoleanic battles were usually fought at about 100 yards or less - about the same range (or a little bit more) as the 16th C musketeer.

Now compare a leopard to a tiger. The leopard can fire accurately on the move, the tiger could not. The leopard can fire accurately in pitch-black night, the tiger could not. The leopard's shell would rip through the tiger's armour, don't know whether the tiger could inflict damage, but probably not. Still, in a match up, the leopard is far more versatile and far more likely to inflict damage without being damaged itself.

But in the end, all of this is meaningless. The reason there are two tank units and only one musketeer is because that's what the designers decided.

Finally, maybe you will get your answer when we see the game in action, unless you already know the attack, defence and speed of the two tank units.