Jump to content

Elmar Bijlsma

Members
  • Content Count

    3,756
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Elmar Bijlsma

  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
  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 stowa
  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
  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.
  15. No one slipped in Crocs and Wasps yet? For shame!
  16. At this point I think Steve is not going to be wrongfooted by any sort of optimism. He knows this community's favourite word is "more"!
  17. Even more fact: the Russians had naval infantry in CMBB. You are forgiven for this grievous error only because: *hug* Now... back to work on flamethrowers, please.
  18. Most likely these were British born blacks or at least resident at the time of call up as typically I would expected colonial soldiers to remain in ditto units. Being a naval trading nation Britain accumulated a moderately sized black community. I think Liverpool was noted as having a good sized one but presumably other coastal towns would have had their share. So other then being blacks in Britain prior to the post-ww2 mass migration, I doubt these guys were anything unusual.
  19. massive1974, you need to read up on the WW2 Pacific and specifically the behaviour of the Japanese if you think that the Germans were the big racist baddies of WW2. The behaviour of Japanese combat and garrison units makes most SS units look like a hippie commune. The Japanese had a deeply entrenched racism towards, well, everyone else. They murdered fellow Asians by the millions without needing to industrialize the process.
  20. God dammit Jason, someone finally mistook me for a guy that might know something and then you go and answer their question for me. But yeah, that answer sounds about right.
  21. Here's a good read from the resident tank buff from World of Tanks. http://worldoftanks.com/news/919-chieftains-hatch-us-guns-vs-german-armour-part-1/ http://worldoftanks.com/news/1006-us-guns-german-armor-part-2/
  22. Any penetration obtained by the 76 on the Panther front glacis should be on the freakish side of lucky. Without HVAP it just was not up to the job, at any range. With HVAP you would still need a good dose of luck, if the Isigny tests may be taken for typical.
  23. Mr Atkinson's second book, while a riveting read, is a poor shadow of his first and not that great on history. Too often an attack is just described in the vaguest of generalities. As for bias, to my mind there can be very little doubt there is plenty in the book. While several US generals do not come out of the story unscathed, pretty much all non American generals are described as rigid, out of their depth and a bit thick. Only Juin comes off looking good. Somewhat less clear cut is whether Clark gets off too easy. I think so. His glory seeking character comes under fire throughout the
×
×
  • Create New...