Kanonier Reichmann

...BUMP... because it's worth it! Regards KR

The PIAT used a charge similar to a shotgun cartridge so it would kick like a mule when fired but there was never any danger of overpressure as there was no rocket propellant involved. It would be great if someone from Battlefront could comment on this subject. Regards KR

To be fair, even the Wikipedia article on the topic of Rheinwiesenlagers states the following... Not that I'm trying to argue that Western Allied forces were only marginally better behaved than the Nazi's because that's patently not the case but there did seem to be a prevailing spirit soon after the war ended for the German POW's and population in general to be punished for the crimes of their political leaders. As has been stated many times before, war is hell. Regards KR

The test the OP ran produced the following results when running Panther tanks half on, half off the road. I'll quote... Boggings occurred every 44 meters on average, and the tanks were immobilised after 4, 12, 12, 24 and 384 metres. Average distance to immobilisation was 87 metres. One could quite rightly argue that the 384 metre distance was the outlier in this test. If so and with the outlier discarded, the average distance before becoming bogged would be just 13 metres. I find this just a tad absurd for a Panther tank that was widely regarded as having one of the best suspension, flotation, ground pressure characteristics of any tank in WW II. Regards KR

So stick with the classics then rather than trying to force yourself to enjoy CMx2. We've missed you at Band of Brothers. Regards KR

That's not bloody William Shatner overacting again with the excessive hand gestures is it? Regards KR

It seems clear from the test that some serious study from the Beta testers would be highly desirable. Regards KR

I'm with the Russians on this. Very scary and definitely threatening to their way of life! Regards KR

Hear, hear! Regards KR

Would never happen. That Webley revolver wielder would take out the machinegunner every time! Regards KR

I didn't think it needed to provided there was an objective area on it somewhere. Doesn't the AI at least try to take the objective in the absence of anything else? Regards KR

Me. It may have officially been classed as a self propelled gun but the gun on it was most definitely designed from the ground up to defeat well armoured threats, hence my classification as a Tank destroyer. I also note that Wikipedia refers to it as a Tank Destroyer. Refer link- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archer_(tank_destroyer) Maybe so but most of the examples you've given were local conversions numbering very few in total. The so called common ones being the PzJg I & Nashorn at least mounted forward facing guns and still both of their numbers combined doesn't match the number of Archers built. Also, the Nashorn was around in mid 1943 while the half baked Archer didn't make its debut until October 1944! Regards KR

As far as I can tell, the Archer was still classed as a Tank Destroyer yet it was the only one in that class across all nations that had the main gun facing to the rear of the chasis. Just because Royal Artillery personnel manned the thing doesn't excuse it from being of a design that could be useful in a scrape if ambushed. I don't see any Stugs or Marders with backward facing guns in the Axis inventory yet they were manned by artillery personnel as well. I'm sorry, the Archer was just a pure stop gap hybrid design thrown together in what looks like a weekend of slap dash design work. Regards KR

Did it have frickin lasers attached to the top of it? Regards KR

Well, no one side had the monopoly on what was modern and effective in terms of kit and weapons. I could counter your point above with the comparison of readily portable machineguns of the US compared with Germany. You have the WW I style water cooled M1917 Browning HMG or air cooled Browning MMG equivalent with no quick change barrel versus the MG 42 with its quick change barrel, relatively light tripod, excellent accuracy and ability to double as either an lmg or a proper HMG. Still used today with virtually no modifications, as the MG 3. The only thing we may agree on is that the British army always seemed to have the dowdy, outdated looking gear throughout the war. What with tank destroyers that had the gun facing backwards, Marmon Harrington armoured cars, Churchill tanks, drab khaki uniforms etc, etc they always looked like the Steptoe & Sons of WW II. The only item I can readily think of that looked the part was the Comet tank. That was sexy in the best Tiger tank tradition! Regards KR

I have to completely disagree with you here. The Tiger looks so damn menacing and purposeful. It is the quintessential tank design in my book. Much like how people love muscle cars from the 70's as being the perfect car look with their invariably boxy design and no consideration for coefficient drag, the same applies to the Tiger. Who needs svelte sloped armour when all you need is lots of it to do the same job. Much like the old muscle cars that relied on pure V8 grunt for their speed rather than sleek design. The Tiger 1 is a 'real mans' tank as opposed to a fancy Pershing which is a quiche eating, metrosexual equivalent! Regards KR

Le Farm? Regards KR

What I don't understand is why the tests at the mentioned range showed numerous lower hull & upper hull hits but no superstructure hits. Surely there would be about as much chance of hitting the superstructure as the upper hull and any hit, whether it be AP or HE should be pretty nasty I would have thought. To me, it sounds like a bug from what I'm reading. Regards KR

Would they care? Regards KR

That's nothing. Compare it with the Davy Crockett tactical nuclear device. It's maximum range for the early model was 2km!!! Link... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device) Regards KR

Nice Beaver! ette. Regards KR

I think we can rule out the Visigoths! Regards KR

A Crocodile, Wasp, Churchill AVRE and an SdKfz251/16 Ausf.D for the Germans. Regards KR

Wasn't Nelson buried at sea? Regards KR

But if you set a pre-planned barrage does it use up all your ammo for the chosen asset(s) when it eventuates, like in CMx1? Regards KR