PDA

View Full Version : What would you class a Magrider/Vanguard/Prowler?


Onizuka-GTO
2004-06-08, 11:46 AM
Today most tanks are in the 'main battle tank' category. However, from the 1920s to 1940s there were widespread differences of doctrine about how tanks should be used in battle and what technical specifications designs should have. Some of the categories that arose are below.


Tankette

A tankette was a small tank, with a crew of 2 (there were prototypes with one-man crew). It usually had no turret, or if it did, it was traversed by hand. It was armed with 1 or 2 machineguns, or rarely with 20mm gun. The "classic" design was British Carden-Loyd Mk.VI Tankette - many others were modelled after it. Tankettes were produced between about 1930 and 1939, but ceased soon afterwards due to limited usefulness and extreme vulnerability.


Light Tank

These tanks were designed for speed and to be able to take on infantry and light vehicles. While very common at the start of World War II they were graudually relegated to use as scouts and to strike vulnerable areas. Some, like the Tetrarch were small enough to be air-lifted to the battlefield. Sometimes called a cavalry tank.


Medium Tank

Tanks with a good balance of firepower, mobility and protection. Able to engage infantry and also other tanks. German Panzer III, Panzer IV and Panther tanks were medium tanks of increasing sophistication and power, as were the American M3 Grant and M4 Sherman and Russian T-34.


Heavy Tank

Designed to attack obstacles, create breakthroughs and engage enemy armoured formations. Prominent World War II examples were the German Tiger and Russian Josef Stalin. They featured very heavy armour and guns. After World War II the heavy tank concept wasmerged into that of the main battle tank.


Assault Tank

A very heavily-armoured vehicle designed to directly attack heavy anti-tank emplacements, of limited tactical use otherwise. While the German Panzer IV was originally envisaged as something like this, World War II versions included the Sherman Jumbo, Sturmmoser Tiger and Churchill AVRE.




Cruiser Tank

Primarily restricted to Britain and the Commonwealth, cruiser tanks were designed to have moderate armor and fast speed. They were intended for maneuvers such as flanking the enemy.


Infantry Tank

The idea for this tank was developed during World War I by the British and French. The infantry tank was designed to be slow (moving at the same pace as running infantry) and heavily armored. Its main purpose would have been to clear the battlefield of obstacles, take out enemy soldiers, and protect the infantry on their advance through and into enemy lines.

The most developed infantry tanks were the Matildas of World War II. Their armour and anti-tank firepower was sufficient to take on German Panzer IIIs. However, their anti-infantry weaponry was often restricted to a machine-gun, with no high-explosive rounds for their main gun being available. Later British tanks were more akin to medium tanks.

Tank Destroyer

Used mainly in World War II, the tank-destroyer concept was used by German, British, American and Russian armed forces. In theory, tank-destroyer units (from platoon to battalion level) would be deployed alongside armored formations to destroy enemy armoured forces when encountered and act as fully mechanized anti-tank guns.

All tank destroyers were equipped with powerful guns. Early in the war tank destroyers tended to be lightly-armoured to ensure mobility but increasingly late in the war heavily-armoured models were produced, able to take on heavy tanks at all ranges.

In spite of the tank destroyers, most tank casualties in the War were inflicted by other tanks or anti-tank guns. After the War the concept of the tank destroyer was replaced by that of the main battle tank.


Obviously now the three empire specific "Main Battle Tanks" aren't in the same catagory at all.

What are they?

Lightening is definately a Light Tank,

But what is the Magrider?
What is the Prowler?
What is the Vanguard?

Personally, i think the magrider is a Tank Destroyer, Vanguard is a Heavy Tank and the Prowler is a Medium Tank.

Rbstr
2004-06-08, 11:52 AM
i agree with you except i thing the Prowler is more of an infanty tank on steroids(slow heavy armor, better infanty killer than the van, but not as slow as infantry)

the lighting is a tanket on steroids as well(one man, light armor, but turret, and small cannon)

Manitou
2004-06-08, 11:58 AM
I think you classified them pretty well, but I am not so comfortable with this definition of the Prowler:
Tanks with a good balance of firepower, mobility and protection. Able to engage infantry and also other tanks. German Panzer III, Panzer IV and Panther tanks were medium tanks of increasing sophistication and power, as were the American M3 Grant and M4 Sherman and Russian T-34.I don't see the Prowler as being on par with the Panzer IVs, Panthers, nor the T-34s. Don't get me wrong, I love driving the Prowler, but it doesn't have the hitting power of these three specifically. I would probably define it more as an Infantry tank with a slightly buffed cannon.

Majik
2004-06-08, 12:05 PM
Don't forget the games new Tank Destroyer, the Thunderer :doh:

Rbstr
2004-06-08, 12:07 PM
not a tank, and the radier is good enough to take out a tank, you just have to actualy man one.

Incompetent
2004-06-08, 12:36 PM
The MAG is a tank destroyer, the Vanguard is a Heavy tank, and the Prowler is closest to a medium tank.

scarpas
2004-06-08, 03:51 PM
not a tank, and the radier is good enough to take out a tank, you just have to actualy man one.


yes... it take out a tank if the tank doesnt have machineguns shooting the raider.

the raider cof gets about to the size of a mcg at full bloom if it is shot, so if you are gettin hit by any type of fast firing gun the raider will land about 1/14th of its shots, which therefore makes the raider almost useless.

BlackHawk
2004-06-08, 05:15 PM
All 3 of the empire specific tanks are classified as Medium Tanks on the official PS website.

Otherwise, I would classify the Vanguard as a Heavy Tank, the Prowler as a lightly armored Assault Tank, and the MagRider as a Tank Destroyer.

Onizuka-GTO
2004-06-08, 05:31 PM
mmmm...maybe they should of made all the tanks in the same type? cos when you can seperate them like that, you cant really compare them with each other, and you shouldn't expect them to clash head on.

Lartnev
2004-06-08, 06:02 PM
I love driving the Prowler, but it doesn't have the hitting power of these three specifically.

Hitting power is a relative term (ie those featured tanks could probably kill another tank in one shot, none of the tanks in PS can kill another with one shot :))

Onizuka-GTO
2004-06-08, 07:29 PM
Hitting power is a relative term (ie those featured tanks could probably kill another tank in one shot, none of the tanks in PS can kill another with one shot :))


but only one main battle tank from ps can't kill infantry with one direct shot. :rolleyes:

Baneblade
2004-06-08, 07:44 PM
I think the empire traits concept is flawed in the concept.

In the real world (yes I know its damn game) nobody had some that the other side didnt have, even if it might have been inferior in a way.

The problem is the devs designed the game so that the three sides would never be equivalent...though they did attempt to have some of the field equal with Common Pool...

In my mind, all the heavy tanks or MBTs should be similar to the Vanguard. Obviously they should have some little quirks though.

One thing that I really didnt like is that it only takes 2 or 3 ppl to fully man the tanks in this game...

Should be a Commander, Driver, Gunner, and Machine Gunner...

It would be more fun imo to work with a fluid team of 4 in the same vehicle than just have 2 Vans assblasting everything that twitches...

=/

PS: Still think the Reaver should be a 2 person futurilzed Apache...like its designed after...

Sputty
2004-06-08, 08:34 PM
MAgrider is a cruiser tank
Prowler is Infantry(sort of, it has low armor, but it's also slow, it's more of an infantry tank than anthing else)
Vanguard is Medium tank

EarlyDawn
2004-06-08, 08:39 PM
MAgrider is a cruiser tank
Prowler is Infantry(sort of, it has low armor, but it's also slow, it's more of an infantry tank than anthing else)
Vanguard is Medium tankI concur, with the exception of the Vanguard being a heavy tank IMO.

Mag is defenitely a cruiser, though. I guess it's technically a Medium / Cruiser hybrid above anything else.

Lartnev
2004-06-09, 06:09 AM
but only one main battle tank from ps can't kill infantry with one direct shot. :rolleyes:

Ah quit whining :P~

I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say, a WWII panzer was powerful because it could withstand and obliterate opposing tanks and infantry weapons in WWII. Against a modern Abrams or T80 it probably wouldn't have much of a chance.

Onizuka-GTO
2004-06-09, 07:07 AM
:lol:

o. but what im trying to say is that it is obvious that the DEv did mess up the specification of the MBT.

Because IRL you do not field a cruiser or infantry tank to combat a medium or heavy tank. You always attempt to field one that is in the same class or at leased be better then it.

I suppose i won't be so annoyed if they just label the tanks accordingly to its class.
Don't label something as the same when it's isn't.... :rolleyes:

Lartnev
2004-06-09, 01:02 PM
It's an informal label. I think they're all classed as medium, despite what VR training says about the Vanguard. :)

Rbstr
2004-06-09, 01:09 PM
they used shermans against the German Panzer and Tigers and other giant all the time, the Sherman defenetnly not a big tank.

Onizuka-GTO
2004-06-09, 03:43 PM
well there is that, quantity over quality.

Of course that won't work if you have the quality and the quantity....

*cough*MakovNC*cough* :p

Rbstr
2004-06-09, 05:08 PM
well there is that, quantity over quality.

Of course that won't work if you have the quality and the quantity....

*cough*MakovNC*cough* :p

you think we have the quantity? look at the maps, we almost always are in seond or third pop level now.

Markov is different than Emerald look at who wins, it shifts everyday, and ther is negligble 4th empire working

Indecisive
2004-06-09, 05:46 PM
Prowler is a box with a gun on it.

Baneblade
2004-06-09, 09:23 PM
Prowler is a box with a gun on it.
Vanguard is a gun with a box on it...

Indecisive
2004-06-10, 02:00 AM
A more powerfull gun that is more accuarate due to the fucking barrels not switching on you, mounted on a faster, sturdyer (alluminum compared to cardboard?) box.

Kam
2004-06-10, 02:56 AM

Kam
2004-06-10, 03:04 AM
they used shermans against the German Panzer and Tigers and other giant all the time, the Sherman defenetnly not a big tank.

Well ok, but it took on average 10 shermans destroyed before an eleventh would put a shell it the panzers weak spot(The ass). In PS that would be the same as 11 lightnings fighting one prowler.

Most tiger tanks had open backs to allow troops protection, so they were not as big a threat. Now the King Tiger Tanks were a different story. The model was put into production in late 1944 and presented to Hitler as a birthday present. 10.5 inches of solid steel proteted that thing in all positions, as opposed to a shermans 1/4 inch armor. Not even our P-51 tank busters could knock a King Tiger Tank out. The only reason they made little significants was because Germany was losing and had little supplies to put into another wonder weapon. (They had already wasted enough on the V-2 rockets and the Me-262.)

My point in that was that in most tank battles there IS a clear advantage and almost never will you a battle that is balanced such as when a T-34 and a Panzer crossed paths on the battlefield.

(Sry about the double post, hit the wrong button.)

Onizuka-GTO
2004-06-10, 03:37 AM
:nod:

10.5 inch is what in mm?

Wasn't the Soviet IS-2 the more powerful compared to the King Tiger?

It had around 160mm front armour, and a 122mm cannon, far more superior to anything the Germans had....

Kam
2004-06-10, 05:36 AM
No, the King tiger tank was the most powerful tank of WW2. And yes, 10.5 inches of pure steel. Also at the very end of the war they started putting dumbfire rockets on it to get rid of pescy enemies near the tank.

Lartnev
2004-06-10, 05:37 AM
I do believe the Soviets had a heavier tank than the Tigers, could be that. But what they did even better than that, was mass production of smaller, reliable tanks.

Kam
2004-06-10, 05:40 AM
Well, they did have more armor on two of thier models but the king tiger was the most powerful overall. And they were reliable, the only tanks that sucked were the sherman and the british tanks.

SandTrout
2004-06-10, 06:35 AM
24 mm to the inch, so 10.5 inches would be 252mm of armor.

Onizuka-GTO
2004-06-10, 07:42 AM
Well, they did have more armor on two of thier models but the king tiger was the most powerful overall. And they were reliable, the only tanks that sucked were the sherman and the british tanks.

British tanks only fault was the lack of firepower. They had superior armour.

The one consistant philosophy of British tank design post 1940 was Armour, Armour, Armour. and a ignorance glance at everything else.... :rolleyes:

The average thickness of British tank armour was 160mm, al lthat means was that they took alittle longer to be completely destroyed....

As for the IS-2, what size armament did the King Tiger have? was it bigger then a 122mm?