SgtMuhammed

Almost any size can achieve penetration if you use it well. Plus remember that often diameter is more important than length. [ February 20, 2003, 10:47 AM: Message edited by: sgtgOOdy ]

What's the down side to this? Steve </font>

Don't forget that an overall 3 to 1 ratio was rarely achieved by anyone. Sure that is the "official" figure but often commanders had to make do with what they had. What you as a commander have to do is pick your point of attack and then achieve overwealming odds in that location. Relying on brute force can be effective but usually only ends up with increasing the other guy's body count.

In the game the answer is simply because that is how it was decided to show them as knocked out. In real tanks the main reason is the loss of hydraulic pressure. Tank guns are not ballanced at the pivot point because this would mean that too much of the turret would be taken up by the breach. While the actual movement of the gun is initiated by screws and gears the gun is held in place and assisted in movement by hydraulic pressure, the lines for which pass through various parts of the turret and are easily ruptured. One of the most common injuries to Sherman crewmen was being scalded by hot "cherry juice" after a penetration of the turret (that and the whole bursting into flame thing). Even in the M1, when hydraulic pressure is lost the barrel will droop. With AT guns it is much the same story especially if there has been major damage to the carriage. The guns are unbalanced at the pivot point and tend to go barrel down if they are dismounted or loose hydraulic support.

Moraine Sedai you are filling the thread with images that...well...<font size=+1>MAKE ME WANT TO CLAW MY EYES OUT!!!</font> By all that is holy please stop. BTW, you're a biscuit.

Never underestimate the power of training. To take an example from another service. B-17 bombadiers were so thoroughly trained to protect the secret of the Norden bombsight that even when their bombers were plumetting from 35000 feet their primary concern was to destroy the sight. You get things drilled into you until they become instinctive. You are also so close as a crew that your own safety often takes a back seat to that of one of your crew members. This especially applies to the tank commander. His primary concerns are his mission and his crew, personal saftey ends up being further down the list (of course there are always exceptions). The TC knows that if he doesn't ensure that the way is clear then his driver is going to die and this is a situation that is less acceptable than putting himself at risk.

Tanks at night tended to pull back unless there was a tactical reason for them to remain at the front. Their already restricted vision and especially hearing made them vulnerable at night. That being said, however, there really was no hard and fast rule. Usually though tanks would at least pull back to within the infantry line.

Especially with as slow as things turn in CMBB.

The record of German war production pretty much answers this one. One of their biggest failings wasn't that what they produced wasn't clever it was that it was too clever. The quest for the ultimate weapon seemed to make them lose sight of the value of having a ton of good systems rather than a handful of wonderful ones.

The horror....<font size=-1>the horror.</font>

John pretty much hit it on the head. Crews tended to stay together till someone got promoted or died. When you are part of a crew your survival greatly depends on how well you know what the other man is thinking. As an example from my own experience, I used to hate it when my driver was on leave. We had reached the point where all I needed to say was a word or two and he knew exactly how and where I wanted him to drive. With another driver I had to spend half my time directing his speed or direction or trying to identify fighing positions and covered routes. This, of course, detracted from my ability to effectivly fight my vehicle. The same has been true throughout the history of armed comflict. Yes it seems that every vehicle has its own personality. Some of them you love (we sank an M113 in a pond once and it still refused to die) while others you hate (one of our other 113s used to blow the engine every mission), and it always seems that you have to rely on the cursed one more than the good ones. James

I have figured it out. lemoncustard is a computer. No matter what time of day I send a turn I get one back within a matter of minutes. While this is great is it also a bit unnerving. Fortunatly he is not a very bright computer or he would present a much better challenge. Sir AJ you might want to upgrade from this one to a better model.

HMMMMM...very interesting.

In the night the ninja frog leaps. Through the fog he slowly creeps. In hidden places cool and dank. Oops, just squashed him with my tank Sir a<font size=+3>US</font>siejeff tell your squire to let me know when he plans to start fighting. My men loved the fireworks but now they are getting rather restless.

Remember that with its low profile it is almost always effectivly hull down. Also don't forget that the 75/48 was the gun the Germans began giving their tanks to enable them to defeat the 34 and its bigger brothers. Used defensivly the Stug is a tough customer. For another view you might try taking that same setup and attacking with the Stugs. Slightly different story there. [ February 18, 2003, 06:30 PM: Message edited by: sgtgOOdy ]

<font size=+2>GRRRRRRRRRR</font> :mad: :mad: :mad: Because I just figured out the font command. Don't worry oh troublesome priest, my infantry are lighting the fuses on some horrific TNT as we speak.

Thank the gods, a new thread. I was getting lost trying to wade through all the crying and wailing and gnashing of teeth in the last one. Little hint, never play one of Berli's maps. They look really neat but they are a pain in the wazoo. Just ask Becket. I have crushed his armor force and haven't had to lift a finger. Now we shall see if his grunts can handle a buttwad of TNT right up the patootie. Hey McMuffin, quit hiding behind your real life and send me another turn. Trying to hold back all this TNT is really straining my hard drive. <fontsize +2>GRRRRRRRRRRRR</font> :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: [ February 18, 2003, 06:12 PM: Message edited by: sgtgOOdy ]

Thanks for the weather Tom. And now on the international front... The Beast v Ivan_RU: turn 3 Debrecen v Sgt_Kelly: turn 5 Xmas v Bullit: turn 5 Hoss v Barrage: turn 1 Rear Guard v PBIman: turn 5 All password and patch problems seem to be overcome. Now to Ken with sports.

Back to the original point. What I see most of the time is people complaining that the game is ahistorical and then telling about taking a company of T34s and KV1s and obliterating a company of PIIIs and short IVs. So what is wrong with this picture? If you want a view of the historical situation then you have to set up the historical situation. Select your forces by an actual OOB rather than the best that you can buy. Here is an example. In a recent QB I chose a company of Pz38(t)s and a company of SOMUA Tanks (just for kicks) backed by a platoon of Stug IIIs and a platoon of PIII(kurz). The computer had 91 BTs, 2 T34s, and 2KV1s. End result, 93 dead Soviet tanks and 23 dead German. The only survivors were the KVs which accounted for over half the computer's kills. The point is, if you choose your forces realistically (even somewhat) you will get pretty realistic results. If you give yourself the best case then you will get the best case. The game itself has very little sense of what actually happened. You, however, do. So don't blame the game for not recreating history if you don't do so yourself.

Sir AugustJamboree you are setting a bad example for your squire. Stop playing with your name and continue with our game. I have resent the last turn because you probably got vegemite all over the last one. Apparently your squire lincolncontinental spent all his points on mortar spotters and now I will have to go hunt him down. Turning now to the international page... Nidan1 and I are engaged in a staring contest over the ruins of some innocent village. His hopes of forcing me into a long range duel with his cats have proven fruitless. Lt. Hortlund seems to be baffled by anyone who doesn't blindly charge into his prepared defenses. I will give him the benefit of the doubt and count it more of a measure of his previous opponents than of him. In addition, not that it really matters, my battles against various outboarders continue to be rousing victories for the honor of the pool. Proof, if any were actually needed, that a mere serf of the MBT would be rated as king in lesser threads.

A bee! One bee gets in the driver's hatch and you guys just freak.

So far the official word on this has been the fact that many vehicles needed to do kind of a back and fill turn to turn in place. That is what makes turning so slow if the vehicle is standing still. The point has still been raised, however, that several tracked vehicles should be able to pivot turn, or brake one track while driving the other. This would give them a much faster rate of turn than is shown.

I'd bet that is a good guess. It is real easy to jam a long weapon into the ground while moving around with it. Not something you want to do with a 1000 m/sec mv. :eek:

You'll not escape that easily you Scandinavian Git. I will convert the file and sent it to you. (Once again a mere serf must make up for the mistakes of his "betters.")

He's just still scared of the incendiary rockets I blasted him with to start our game. :mad: :mad: :mad: