jgdpzr

Personally, I wouldn't call the Jagdtiger a weapon ahead of its time. It was merely the most fully realized example of Hitler's quest for fielding the biggest, baddest AFV possible. Yep, the gun would devestate all-comers (particularly coming from the West) and the frontal armor was damn-near impenetrable. However, calculating it's true combat value must include adding up the opportunity costs associated with its selection. Simply put, would you rather have one Jagdtiger or two or three other well-armored and capably gunned TDs? As a centerpiece of a well orchestrated and supported defense, it certainly makes one helluva tough nut to crack. Just don't rely on moving the sucker, especially in anything but perfect ground conditions. And remember, artillery (through HE and smoke) and air support can really hamper the effectiveness of such a lumbering, stand-off vehicle. Still, I'll admit crossing the sights of one of the beasts is not something I would enjoy had I been an allied tanker.

Ah yes, our hoosier friends from the north. Better be careful when planting mines/explosives on the Kennedy or Second Street bridges, all points are fully registered and there might be some nasty enfilade fire from the sandbars. CP, I noticed you live in Jasper. Ever play Sultan's Run (if you play golf)? I hear it's great but I've never made it over there. [This message has been edited by jgdpzr (edited 01-05-2001).] [This message has been edited by jgdpzr (edited 01-05-2001).]

Blackhore and Hilltopper, Another Louisville native here. I live just north of Okolona in the Audubon Park area. I echo the sentiments on the Patton Museum. I go several times a year and always make the July 4th re-enactment. I've even had the chance to sneak around the backlots once or twice to see some of the finer specimens they don't display. We should play some pbem. Also, on the Rugged Defense site there is a team ladder, perhaps we should look into forming one. Seems there are a couple of active players from Fort Knox as well. Good to see some CMers in my own backyard. ------------------ "Sometimes you eat the bar and sometimes the bar eats you. Take it easy, Dude." -- The Stranger The Dude abides.

I think further evidence that the dates are off is the fact that these are G's (late G's at that), and we all know production of the G didn't begin until March '44.

For change of pace games, gotta echo what the lord of wolves said in trumpeting Thief 2. I'm usually not much for FPS-style games, but Thief 1&2 are special. Great atmosphere, sound, gameplay. Simply awesome, but no multiplayer (you don't need it).

Theron, I too love the Churchill VIII. That monster is one of my favorite British tanks, and certainly my favorite Churchill. Sure, its lack of mobility is a serious pain in the butt, but I love its combination of thick armor, infantry lethality and anti-armor capability when it has those cartridges. My Churchill VIII was about the only thing that permitted me to eke out a draw in one of my last pbems when it took out both of my enemy's Panthers on first-shot kills.

Well, I can answer a couple of your questions. The shot trap on the M-10 stems from the design of its turret. If you look at the rear counter weight, particularly, you will notice that its slope will cause any round striking it to be deflected downward into the thin top hull armor. Not a good thing, even with a thinly armored turret such as that on the Wolverine. Regarding your question about the 75MM gun on the Brit tanks, it was designed to fire the same round as the American gun, so I would assume its characteristics are virtually identical. Hope this helps! [This message has been edited by jgdpzr (edited 12-08-2000).]

Chupacabra, Regarding the side-armor/front-armor thing, I think what he is saying is that because of the shape of the Tiger's turret (sort of a horseshoe), when you look at the front of the turret, the sides of it can be seen as they narrow toward the front. Thus, a certain % of the frontal aspect is actually made up of the side armor which is at a very sharp angle (in the horizontal) to anything coming from the front. At least that is my interpretation.

I seem to recall that a preferred tactic of US tankers when facing the Panther head-on, especially when the German tank was on pavement or a hard surface, was to "bounce" a shot in front of the tank in hopes of getting it to skip up and penetrate the thinner plate of the lower hull. I doubt this has anything to do with this situation, but I am curious if this has been considered at all.

John, By saying you are trying to limit the fire until the final 15 seconds, do you mean by using the pause command? It is my understanding that the pause command refers to movement orders only, not fire orders. Hope this helps clarify why that barrage came in when it did.

Andreas, I am chock full of self-loathing! Sorry I am so transparent.

I have to agree that this myth is widely propogated in the US. And certainly Ambrose has about as much to do with it as anyone. Just the other night I was watching one of the History Channel's pieces on D-Day, and there was Stephen once again spouting off about Gen. Roosevelt's decision to "start the war right here" when he discovered that his troops had landed at the wrong spot on Utah beach. Seriously, what choice did he have? Call the boats back to pick them up and redeposit them a few hundred yards north? Does he really think that a German commander in Roosevelt's shoes would have been paralyzed? And this whole concept of the "Furor Principle" has gotten a little old. On the strategic or operational level, this may have been true. But on the tactical level, German commanders and NCOs had every bit as much latitude as their American counterparts and were trained to behave as such(with some noteable exceptions- i.e. Stalingrad). I have even seen arguments that their training at this level was far superior to the western allies. Certainly, I believe no such national modifier is necessary in this game. The tactical scope of combat in CM just doesn't need it. Sorry, Buddy, hope you don't think my comments were meant to pick on you. However, you will find that Ambrose doesn't garner much respect outside of the US. Not a bad writer, but historical accuracy is not his forte. [This message has been edited by jgdpzr (edited 11-22-2000).]

I agree wholeheartedly with the input from most others here in that movement is not really an option, it is a necessity. For me, it is not a matter of whether to move, it is a question of how to move. For example, with the German heavies, your greatest asset is the thick frontal armor. That allows these tanks to standoff (preferably at ranges above 500M) and go toe-to-toe with virtually anything the allies can throw at them. However, that generally doesn't mean that you park it and forget it on some hill near the rear of your deployment zone. Biggest reason: artillery. A stationary tank makes a wonderful target for artillery. May not be KO'd, but will usually suffer some sort of damage. Now, sometimes I will park a tank hulldown if it can cover a relatively small zone of fire that is a likely avenue of advance. The German tank destroyers are particularly good at this. In this measure, it usually serves as some flank protection. But I have to be careful here, I usually want to make sure I can spot any FO's that could draw a bead on it and I will then start moving it pretty quickly once it starts to engage any targets. And of course, I want to make sure its flanks are protected. That is always paramount with German tanks. Now, allied armor requires movement of a different sort. In terms of tank vs. tank capability, the main advantages of allied tanks are their relative mobility and speed (especially turret traverse speed) and gyrostabilized gun. These strengths require a different philosophy. Whereas movement of German armor is largely defensive in nature, allied armor requires more offensive maneuvering. I agree with the poster that movement in sections is ideal. Paricularly if you can "grab 'em by the nose and kick 'em in the rear" (paraphrase) as Patton would say. But the bottom line is, when allied tanks face German tanks their best chance (and sometimes only chance) is to get to the enemy's flanks or rear. Sitting hull down in ambush is simply a more dangerous proposition for most allied tanks. But a couple of Stuarts running wild on the flanks or in the enemy's rear can do some remarkable damage to all but the heaviest German tanks.

For me, it all depends on the situation. I have found massed 60MM mortar fire can serve two very important roles against enemy AFVs of any level of armor, particularly when those vehicles are stationary: button 'em up (as mentioned by others) and immobilize them. Top hits may have less effect on the heavies (particularly the Tiger), but any tank can get its treads chewed up by mortar fire. A buttoned, immobile tank is as good as dead in many or most combat environs. If the enemy is doing a good job of keeping the armor moving, I usually will not waste my ammo on them.

Olle, I've always thought the S-Tank is one mean looking little bugger. However, I'm totally confused as to how it could fire on the move. It had a fixed gun, correct? I guess I can see how it could fire on the move, it's the aiming part that confuses me. I also can't positively remember how the gun was aimed when stationary, if it is fixed. Seems like I remember that the suspension could elevate to allow for range adjustment and I would assume the entire vehicle would rotate on its tracks to allow for horizontal adjustment. But for the life of me, I can't figure out how that would work if the vehicle is in motion. Well, I guess I should say except for head directly toward it's target. Got any ideas as to how effective it truly was in terms of firing on the move? Thanks for your insight into what is surely one of the more unique AFVs developed since WWII. [This message has been edited by jgdpzr (edited 11-17-2000).]

OK, regarding the mystery vehicle in the second photo, I don't have my reference material in front of me so I can't specifically identify the vehicle (and I would probably have to reformat my keyboard anyway), but it looks like the little Polish "recon" tankette. That's my guess anyway. Thanks for the pictures. [This message has been edited by jgdpzr (edited 11-17-2000).]

My vote has to go with the Panther. Yes, the KT is a more formidable tank in terms of armor and firepower. But the mobility and cost of the Panther neutralize those advantages in my mind. Still, I must admit that I am influenced by my belief that the Panther was the finest tank of WWII. Sure, the T-34 was probably the most important tank of the war. But it had too many disadvantages to rank as the Panther's equal. Note: Whoops failed to recognize that cost should not be factor. That probably shifts the balance toward the KT. [This message has been edited by jgdpzr (edited 11-02-2000).]

John, As I stated in my original post, I agree that there was very wide variance in terms of shading because of the way the paint was mixed in the field. However, it is my understanding that by this point in the war, the paste being supplied was red-brown (it was even labeled red-brown, in German of course, IIRC), rather than chocolate brown. I believe chocolate brown was used earlier in the war (for example very early vehicles may have had it oversprayed over the panzer gray). The information that I have seen, as well as the very few color photos and some of the original red brown paint I have seen on a couple of vehicles at the Patton Museum, point to a fairly distinctive reddish tint to the paint. This should be true regardless of how it is diluted. But, I really don't want to sound like a nitpicker. So, please feel free to totally disregard this. As I say, you do great work. That's what is important.

Applique armor should not, in and of itself, cause the armor to lose effectiveness by changing the slope. First off, except for plate added to cast hulls (actually I should say except for armor added to the front of the early hulls that had the nearly verticle hatch contours), it would be at the same angle as the armor below. Secondly, even if there is a difference in the angle, that shouldn't affect it's penetration angle or potential regarding the plate below it (other than reduce it since it has absorbed some of the initial kinetic energy). I believe the references to added plates being problematic relate to what would happen if a round were to strike just below the plate on the hull's front. Although the plate below might induce some deflection of the round, sending it an in upward angle, if the round would then strike the edge of the added plate, a shot trap might result, preventing the round from being deflected and instead helping it penetrate the original steel. That's how I've understood it, but I'm far from an expert so counter information is certainly welcomed by this very amateur armor buff. [This message has been edited by jgdpzr (edited 08-31-2000).]

Hey John, Man, you are a very talented individual! You are doing some fantastic work. Your attention to detail is excellent. Because of this, I thought I might risk a little suggestion. I don't want to sound unappreciative, so I have been debating making any comments. But I decided to throw this out, not as a criticism, but merely a suggestion. Here goes. I have noticed that the browns you are using may benefit from some slight altering. Namely, to my eye (from years of modelling experience and research) the browns are a little too gray. The most commonly applied brown was a reddish-brown. Because of differences in how it was diluted in the field there was considerable variance, but there was almost always a reddish tint to it. In some cases, it would almost look more red than brown. I could be totally wrong here, and I admit I'm too lazy to dig out my references, but seems like I do remember there being two distinct types of brown used as overspray, one being red-brown, the other being chocolate brown. You may be trying to model the latter, but I believe red-brown was far more common. Perhaps others may be able to correct me on this because I am certainly no expert, but I do believe a slight 'tweak' might get you into the realm of "dead solid perfect." Thanks for all your work!

Hey Philistine, Man, I love the "prost" smilies! I think even Mr. Peng might be willing to tip his hat(or mug) to those little fellows. HMMM, gettin' thirsty here. So let me be the first to ask, how'd you do that?

I've seen accounts of US tankers in Stuarts taking out Panthers. One incident happened when a Stuart rounded a building, saw a Panther's flank less than 100M away. The person being interviewed said that his gunner put seven rounds into its side, finally knocking it out, before the Panther could turn it's turret and get one shot off. The Tiger, on the other hand, had a pretty thick hide all around and would most likely only be defeated by hits on a weak point or a turret ring jam, etc. I don't have the 37MM penetration table in front of me, but I believe it would have a hard time getting through almost any part of the Tiger's armor.

Panzer Elite is clearly the standard-bearer for WWII tank sims. There really is no competition. As others have noted, it isn't perfect, but it is a very good single player experience. Moderate to high learning curve because it is a sim, rather than a shoot-em-up. But no, I haven't fired it up since CM landed on my hard-drive.

Marcus (that is your name, isn't it?), I believe the rotate command refers to rotating the hull of a vehicle, not the turret. Like someone else suggested, giving them an ambush command will mean the turret will turn in the direction you wish. However, it may not fire if the target is well beyond the ambush point. With 1.04, it may be possible to set the ambush command, and then cancel it next turn and keep the turret where it is. Not sure, though, haven't tried it. The turret will remain oriented toward the last target in 1.04.

I sure wish the Patton Museum would display this Jgdpz IV. Their floor space is somewhat limited, but they have a treasure-trove of vehicles in the back lots that never see the light of day.