Jump to content

Elmar Bijlsma

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Elmar Bijlsma

  • Birthday 10/09/1976


  • Location
    The Netherlands
  • Interests
    Being Dutch
  • Occupation
    1940-45, by the Germans

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Elmar Bijlsma's Achievements

Senior Member

Senior Member (3/3)



  1. I just popped in here to pay my respects. Berlichtingen was one of those people that made this community so extra-ordindary. We are all lessened by his passing. ... And he would not forgive me if I wasted this opportunity to tell you Pengers that you were all pretty ****ing lessened to begin with.
  2. You are a life saver. Setting affinity did the trick for me. Could not get the game to load the 3D map at all (or, oddly, the editor's 2D map) after upgrading to Win X. After trying all the compatibility options in vain, I thought I had reached an end of an era. My North African RobO campain lives on!
  3. Nothing like seeing an old discussion to ease me back into befouling this forum with my presence. As pointed out by others, the physics of the "ricocheting into belly armour" just does not add up at all. First of all, the angle required to reliably bounce into the underbelly pretty much makes it impossible to penetrate any sheet of armoured steel. It is exceedingly unlikely to penetrate that plate after losing energy and shape in bouncing off the ground. Furthermore I cannot figure how anyone can expect this damaged and reduced in energy projectile to penetrate armour if it could not even bury itself into whatever ground surface the tank was standing on while it still had its original shape and energy. As ever when it comes to the claims of airmen, it is perhaps best not to unquestioningly trust the testimony of someone who is observing events through a gunsight filled with tracers, smoke and dust while travelling several hundreds of kilometres per hour.
  4. M12 GMC? Holy ****, they actually did it! *wipes a tear away* First they gave me the Crusader AA, now this?! Only the Wasp and 25pdr to go and I need to think of new items to ask for.
  5. I still fondly remember an Italian electrical company called Powergen Italia.
  6. Well I'm not a satisfied customer. I suggest you stop all downloads until the following grievous error is fixed. I mean, look at the announcement: Really?! Equipment on the green light? It is a bit late at that point, one better not find anything wrong or a paras death and his burial is the same event. Personally I would suggest people hook up and do a last check when the red light comes on. I see no other option: MG release should be delayed for a week or two to have that sentence QA-ed properly.
  7. Arpella, while I agree with the general sentiment in your post, the Sherman was not designed as an infantry support tank. It was always expected to act like a true medium and deal with enemy tanks if and when it came upon them, US TD doctrine not withstanding. And it was easily capable of doing so when it first arrived in theatre. You don't give a tank fancy optics and an even fancier stabilizer if you expect its main role to be blowing landser out of foxholes.
  8. Especially since the supply situation did not allow for #1.
  9. The M26 had the better record in tank on tank engagements. The rest of the time it was a bitch to operate. It basically had all the pros and cons of a Panther: Good in a fight if you could get it to a fight.
  10. Pretty much every cruiser tank up from A9 to Cromwell did have that very reputation. I think you'll find that the ammo stowage of a Sherman was not that much different then it's contemporaries. Same for their location, underneath and to the sides of the turret, where you need them to be. I do know there was an issue with tankers carrying more then their allotted ammo complement, stored in what spare space the tank had. But then again I recall the Germans doing the same thing.
  11. Nope, British post battle research indicated every tank, allied and German, went *woosh* in about 75% of first penetrations. Fuel has nothing to do with it. You think that with the energies involved in penetrating armour that the ignition point of diesel as opposed to petrol is going to matter? Besides, only the Russians and the USMC used diesel for their tanks. Everyone else was using petrol too. In a vehicle stuffed with ammunition it is the explosives cooking off that you need to worry about. The stowage of it prior to wet stowage being utterly unremarkable an equivalent to the ammo stowage of other tanks, I might add. The Sherman got its reputation for catching fire because it got shot at with high velocity guns, thus being penetrated penetrated more reliably. German tanks getting shot at with capable guns suffered the same fate.
  12. Quick drive by: Sherman WAS expected to take on German armour. It was not it's main job but it was certainly designed to do so from the onset. Up-gun projects for it were under consideration before it ever saw action against Panther or Tiger. Shermans burned no more or less then any tank that gets penetrated by an anti tank weapon. Anything you stuff with ammo and then shoot through with a large cannon tends to go *woosh* and that includes everyone's favourite Teutonic ├╝berpanzer. Unlike all those other tanks the Sherman did receive wet stowage, making the Sherman much less likely to burn upon penetration. Sherman M4a3s were still kicking ass throughout the Korean war while M26s were being replaced by M46s. Shermans being called Tommy cookers and Ronsons? I'd like to see evidence of that. Shermans weren't even called Shermans except by the Brits and the press. If the jagdpanzer 38(t) was not called Hetzer then I sure as hell am not going to take those nicknames for fact. My opinion: Sherman is a viscously maligned piece of kit.
  13. To hell with super-light SPGs, get me an M12! The case for it is good: *It saw action in the correct geographic area and timeframe. *It uses the M3 chassis so can be built, in part, from earlier work. *It has a great big stonking gun.
  14. Eh? I did and found no reference to them on second reading either.
  • Create New...