Mark IV
-
Posts
1,993 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Mark IV
-
-
This tank doesn't get the pop cult status of the Tiger and the Panther, though it deserves special recognition. To GIs, every tank was a Tiger, every gun an 88, every German soldier was SS.
I like to see the PzKpfwIV get it's due (they should have picked an animal marketing name). People forget that this tank was synonymous with "Panzer" while the later super-tanks were still on the drawing boards, and that they did the bulk of the fighting in WWII.
They were also used after the war by Bulgaria, Finland, Egypt, Spain, Syria, Jordan and Turkey.
Panthers also were re-used by various armies throughout the 1950s, including Israel.
More than a few MP40s and K98s were used by the victorious People's Army of North Vietnam (among many others), so I don't think any stigma of defeat remained attached to German weapon systems. All of mine work well (no MP, unfortunately).
-
Now THAT is a damn TANK.
I have been waiting for this POTD... while your flashy Panthers and Tigers were still hogging resources, frying engines and trannies, and collapsing bridges, this baby was out winning the battles.
Only T-34 rates the respect due the PzKpfwIV as a workhorse war-fighter, IMHO. This brung the Panzertruppe to the party, and the late war, johann-come-lately mutant freaks never got close to the mileage and the victories that the Mk IV racked up.
Panther cultists have a superior tank, to be sure, but they didn't really get 'em right till '44. And Mark IVs continued to serve after the war, as late as the 1967 war in Syrian service.
A fine POTD.
-
Rorke's Drift is one that worked.
Most sieges that fail are examples of static defenses that worked (barring the arrival of a relieving force). Thucidydes is full of them. The ending is usually not as dramatic as those of successful attacks; one morning, the horizon is free of invaders, who simply left.
The Alamo and Thermopylae are examples of static defenses that worked according to Steve's definition; the defenders were wiped out but accomplished their mission, and at a disproportionate cost to the attackers.
The master of maneuver warfare, Robert E. Lee, chose a static defense at Fredericksburg and destroyed the Union offensive.
-
Heading dangerously O/T here, but I think "Communism vs. Fascism" is more accurate. As a western industrialist myself, I think that the prevailing way of life in the US and UK, et al, was far more representative of "western industrialism" than the Third Reich.
The clash of the "isms"- in fact, their literal duel to the death, is a BIG part of the fascination with the Drang nach Osten/Great Patriotic War Against Fascism.
Racist belief in the Volk, vs. Marxist belief in the elimination of class (one appealing to the worst in human nature, one believing that human nature can be engineered) resembles a Godzilla movie with bizarre, unnatural behemoths locked in mortal combat.
The western industrial democracies have an inherent belief in the rule of law, and aren't truly represented by either Nazis or communists. There was plenty of "western" industrial technology in Soviet Russia, BTW.
The Japanese, by contrast, were belatedly striving to achieve an essentially 19th century colonialist empire.
Fascism, communism, capitalism, and colonialism (all served with a heavy sauce of nationalism)- is it any wonder this war fascinates? And of these, the two most "modern", extreme, and well-equipped ideologies fought on the Eastern Front, without compromise.
-
Lather, rinse, reprit.
From repritrare, "to consume bandwidth". As in "Repritraro, ergo sum".
-
Thanks!
Pictures?
-
I'm pretty sure that the tube shown is part of the recoil mechanism.
This question has been driving me nuts. Ain't nothin' on the net I can find with details on the PAK sights, and my little home library has been no help. The Zeiss website mentions them in their history section, but that's all...
I continue the quest.
-
Just read it (thanks for the heads up).
Before we start slamming the reviewer, this is a good case in point.
As you noted, the reviewer concedes up front that WWII wargames are not his genre. Laudable honesty, but why would something called the "Wargamer" have a non-WWII gamer review a WWII game?
However, the conclusion reads thus: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>While it isn't a real leading-edge title in terms of the mainstream market, Combat Mission looks as if it may be a sleeper release. For wargamers, strategy gamers, and certainly for World War II fans, it could easily become a favourite. I definitely recommend giving the demo a try. It will certainly be staying on my PC for quite some time - or at least until I can actually win a scenario! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It was not exactly a pan. And the worst thing we could do would be start flaming the guy and Wargamer.
One of the themes seems to be a "poor cousin" approach- the game is a "labor of love", a "sleeper", and worst of all, "there have been at least a dozen rebuilds to allow for minor alterations, bug fixes and so on" (can you say b-e-t-a?). They are not taking BTS seriously.
Another theme is that it doesn't live up to its claim of "cutting edge" graphics. Let's face it, to a FPS or space-fantasy guy, this is probably true, certainly of the beta demo. That claim should be tempered with "...for a historically accurate 3D combat sim" or words to that effect.
This dude was unaware of, and would probably not be very impressed with, an explanation of kinetic energy calculations under the hood. This is a person who has never heard of ASL.
But we gotta remember the guy isn't reading this board. He is highly complimentary of many features ("This is Wonderful!" of the 3D zoom). We tend to forget that the "outside world" takes things at face value.
This gem explains a lot: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In addition, it looks like Combat Mission will be very scenario-based. If an editor is provided with the full game, the limits will be endless, and The Wargamer Scenario Archive will no doubt flood with user-created wonders.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Very scenario based? Maybe BTS needs to buy some ad space, after all. Some form of gentle persuasion needs to be brought to bear on the gaming press to assess CM for what it is, by those more familiar with the genre.
We all want "our baby" to do well, but the key word is "gentle". The worst reaction would be a knee-jerk "you don't know s**t" slam that brands us as a defensive, marginal, and paranoid cult.
-
I think Scott is right. Grog or not, to the first-time or potential users the perception is the reality.
If they think CM has taken shortcuts to simulate reality a negative "buzz" gets started that is hard to counter (kinda like the Polish Lancers charging panzers). And there are some folks who live to see the mighty fallen. They are looking for negatives.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>we know CM is ahead of anything out there so what can the grog commonity say anyways<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Read the newsgroups. Once a "flaw" is discovered in a wargame, the blood's in the water and the sharks gather to feast. If any community gets the notion that inaccuracies are inherent to the game, it will lose some sales.
If we, the faithful, can devote this much discussion to the topic, what would would an attitudinal reality-freak with an audience make of it? We can't assume that everyone will accept that this is "ahead of everything out there". A concise explanation of turn resolution math and its relationship to the graphics would help.
This is another slippery slope- the gray distinction between "game" and "combat sim". Better to address it upfront.
-
Beautiful Mauser.
And hey, is the middle guy in the squad in the background holding a Bergman MP? Wood stock, all metal front end?
Too much!
-
Late May. Gold demo downloadable sooner (TBA).
-
Originally posted by Comic book Guy:
I agree it makes no sense why they did that
Yes, CM is obviously the product of random, senseless decisions...
and how do you know who is the sgt. or higher rank for your snipers?
The squads are representative, not individual soldiers. If the Sgt. is hit someone else takes over.
and why do the bodies diappear when they die why can't they stay there for acouple turns?
Did you READ this thread?
and what about land mines or trip wires set up by engineers? what if they get killed they just don't think it out well enough, they have the history down but no the logic!
Find the S-E-A-R-C-H feature. Immediately. Read all 40,000 posts before asking these things again.
[This message has been edited by Mark IV (edited 04-29-2000).]
-
POST THE LINK.
-
LOL.
Kartoffelwerfer = Bombs de terre?
-
I have always been a smoke fan. I don't use it much against the AI because I try for worst case scenarios, trying not to anticipate what I already know, etc.
With the Amis 0 for 5 in tanks I wouldn't usually play it out, but I became irritated with some arrogant infantry and wish to gel them before terminating this particular scenario. Sometimes you just get caught up in the emotions.
-
No, just the AI. But I was "trying something" again and this is one of the ones that worked. Getting a little better at tank micro-tactics, I guess (got 'em all with the 75s, no schrecks).
Gotta start PBEMing soon.
-
Dunno, but I whacked the 5th Sherman in CE this AM and still have all 3 StuGs, Game Turn 12.
Gonna be some heartache tonight...
Isn't it strange that blasting things, and blasting them well, can help you leave for work in the morning with a song in your heart?
[This message has been edited by Mark IV (edited 04-28-2000).]
-
CREW ABUSE: It's Everybody's Problem.
Since the discovery of AFVCVL Syndrome, hundreds of armored crewmen have died and thousands more have been injured in senseless attacks. Some gamers seem to value a mere flag more than a digital life- please don't be one of them.
Let's give AFV crews a fighting chance- and help stop Crew Abuse forever!
A public service message from The National AFVCVL Foundation.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Major Tom:
I wouldn't say that allied strategy in 1940 was drastically inferior to that of Germany.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm sure you don't think I did either.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The Belgians, French and British faught very well, usually when they were tactically outgunned.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Tactically out-maneuvered and generally outfought, nonetheless.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I would have to say that a 1940 version of CM will be just as interesting as 1944.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The points you made are why I think so, too. The French have taken quite a beating in pop history for their eventual collapse, but the facts are that they tried very hard and had some very decent, even superior, equipment.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The Germans would have been as defeated if the Allies were to have used the same blitzkrieg tactics on them in 1939-40.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, that would be interesting to game. I'm not sure I completely agree; the best defense against a blitzkrieg is a good counter-blitzkrieg, and the Germans were in a much better position to do that. They were trained and equipped for both combined arms assault and defense in depth, well-articulated massed armor maneuver, and were generally better-motivated and psychologically conditioned.
Successful or not, they would not have been caught as unprepared for highly mobile warfare as were their adversaries in 1939-40.
DrD: One way to simulate radios at the CM scale is to extend the effects of command radius. Vehicles not in very close proximity to commanders would suffer greater delays in response to orders. German infantry formations would probably have higher morale status. German player would benefit from more and closer Jabo support (a mixed blessing, sometimes).
I don't think the better player needs to play Germans (it is a game, after all). A lot of the German superiority was in higher troop training and squad level assault tactics. This can be quantified and simulated, if not exactly depicted.
[This message has been edited by Mark IV (edited 04-28-2000).]
-
Panzerbuchse 41 was an air-cooled 20mm semi-auto, weighing 97 lbs. It penetrated 30mm armor at 250 yards, and was the furthest the Germans tried to pursue the infantry AT rifle. They ended up giving many to the Italians. The design was such that US Army test firers said it had about the same felt recoil as the Springfield .30-06.
One interesting thing about its predecessor, the Pzb 38 (and 39): the ammunition was a 13mm Mauser cartridge necked down to a 7.92mm bullet. The bullet itself was tungsten-cored, and between the bullet and the tracer element was an aspirin-sized tear-gas pellet! These bullets did penetrate some Polish armored vehicles (though the tear gas had no recorded effect, and was discovered by accident in captured ammunition).
-
So did you all cancel this, or ya gonna post the link, or what?
-
The Germans lost about 16,000 killed, 32,000 wounded, 674 tanks, and lots of other equipment in the Polish campaign. And it was both the first time anyone had faced a modern blitzkrieg, AND the first time the Germans put one into practice.
It's challenging to play for the same reason that Beyond Overlord is- on a local basis, there were many interesting conflicts, despite the foregone conclusion of the outcome.
To me, France 1940 is the most interesting of all. The magnitude of the German victory was due to superior tactics, against (often) locally superior enemy forces and tanks. To me this makes an interesting game. It would be fun to counterattack with Matildas and Somuas using German-style tactics.
-
Anything's possible. I'll check "Men Against Tanks" when I get home for specifics on the original.
The point is that the original story from Spain may have been apocryphal, but really was part of the training "suggestions" in the post-Dunkirk era. So it's quite possible that someone got the idea, and was quirky or desperate enough to actually try it.
Since your example is evidently during Dunkirk, based on the source, it's hard to say whether they heard it somewhere else first and tried it, or it's just another version of the story...
(smileys used as faux minefield- bring on the Flail!)
-
Bubble intact... I was thinking GeForce for the new one.
But the Voodoo was more cost-effective for this old beast, and what a difference!
[This message has been edited by Mark IV (edited 04-27-2000).]
Beta AAR turn 3 Now Up at CMHQ!!!! oh and Gladiator ROCKED!!!!
in Combat Mission Archive #2 (2000)
Posted
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>it was a has been<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ich bin verwundet! Devilish riposte.
Your research reveals that later weapon systems tend to outperform earlier weapon systems, and this insight shall guide me in the future.
I would certainly rather take a Pershing into battle than a Sherman (or, for that matter, a PzKpfwIV). Shall we then discount the Sherman's role in winning the war in the West?