Versus: Round1: Crusader II Vs. Panzer III Ausf. F

Post and discuss building armies and platoons

Moderator: curtm1911

User avatar
Centurion
Member
Member
Posts: 518
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 1:10 am
Location: At the Eastern edge of the Monacan Nation

Versus: Round1: Crusader II Vs. Panzer III Ausf. F

Unread post by Centurion » Tue Feb 11, 2014 3:13 am

The Crusader II was the mainstay British Cruiser units in North Africa in 1941. It was a fast tank but with an underperforming 50mm gun and thin armor. It is said that it went fast enough to damage itself. Used in the operation Crusader, which successfully relieved the besieged port of Tobruk, it needed a lot of maintenance to keep in good fighting order.
_Crusader_II_North_Africa_AAMeditor_120121182729.jpg
The Panzer Ausf. F was to be the main battle tank of Pnazer formations at the beginning of the war. Initially the Panzer III was armed with a 37mm cannon. It was later retrofitted with a 50mm cannon. With decent armor and mobility the Panzer III served on all fronts, including in North Africa with Rommel's Afrika Corps (also known as the Deutsches Afrikakorps or the DAK). It served until 1943, by which time it was obsolete, outclassed by the T34. The chassis was found to be a suitable base for assault guns like Sturmgeschutz III.
Panzer_III_Ausf_F_1939-1945_AAMeditor_120124045056.jpg
A piece of spaghetti or a military unit can only be led from the front end. George S. Patton

Image
Nissan lover and Ace of Base fan
A.K.A.: Centurion24

User avatar
FieldMarshall Ober
Founder
Founder
Posts: 5105
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2011 7:37 pm
Location: OK, Its late july and summer is over in Canada....it was 3 days this year!
Contact:

Re: Versus: Round1: Crusader II Vs. Panzer III Ausf. F

Unread post by FieldMarshall Ober » Tue Feb 11, 2014 3:42 pm

I like the Pz III in early war battles, its a solid tank with a decent gun. Its mobility lacks a bit but this is true for most German tanks so its par for the course. Its lack of negitive SAs makes it better also.

On the other hand I shudder when I am forced to use early war british tanks in NA & Dieppe type battles. The only exception is the Matilda which although slow is a beast in early battles. I have used the vangard to my advantage in certain scenarios where getting to the objective first is critical, however the 'prone to breakdown' generally gets exploited by my opponents and they become pillboxes real quick. But this works well to distract the enemy while the Matildas are slowly moving toward the front. Useally by the time the Matildas have arrived the soldiers have "Tally-Ho'ed" into position and I have a good fighting force.
"Maybe there are 5,000, maybe 10,000 Nazi bastards in their concrete foxholes before the Third Army. Now if Ike stops holding Monty's hand and gives me some supplies, I'll go through the Siegfried Line like %*$# through a goose."
~Gen. G.S. Patton

Image

User avatar
Centurion
Member
Member
Posts: 518
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 1:10 am
Location: At the Eastern edge of the Monacan Nation

Re: Versus: Round1: Crusader II Vs. Panzer III Ausf. F

Unread post by Centurion » Fri Feb 14, 2014 6:21 pm

I'd rate the Crusader pretty low, like 2 out of 5. Its fast and has average armor, but it lacks the necessary punch to hurt much of anything, especially soldiers. The Panzer III may be slower but its attack is far better. The Panzer III I'd give a 4 out of 5.
A piece of spaghetti or a military unit can only be led from the front end. George S. Patton

Image
Nissan lover and Ace of Base fan
A.K.A.: Centurion24

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest