Claus B

Yes there is. But you got it wrong. "Skid steering" is the means by which nearly every AFV turns at all. However, many AFVs have the ability to turn in place, but by different means. What you refer to as "pivot steer" is, in my book, "neutral steering". Which is what happens when you can put the vehicle in neutral but still have the ability to turn the tracks, albeit in opposite directions and thus turn the tank in place. What I would call pivot steering is when you turn the tank in place by turning over (i.e. pivoting around) a braked track, something that is possible with clutch-and-brake systems (but not with a geared differential like that used in WWII US AFVs). Claus B

Intriguing isn't it The fact is, that the Shermans has one brake and one brake only (well, one on each side of the differential). And that is the steering brake. However, the speed reduction induced by applying the steering brake is sufficient to stop the tank if both levers are applied. If you could actually brake a track to a standstill, you should also be able to pivot steer the tank over the braked track - but as I think we agree, that was not possible with the Sherman. Actually, Hunnicutt gives minimum turning circle (diameter). Which probably explains it Claus B [ February 17, 2003, 06:19 PM: Message edited by: Claus B ]

Depends on your definition of "braking". It could be argued that no WWII US tank could "brake" a track, as applying the steering lever did not brake the track but instead result in gearing down the inner track, transferring more power to the outer track. Also, the track could not be braked to a standstill. Claus B

The Arras counter-attack, the river-crossing at Sedan, the last stand of the Searchlights in "The Flames of Calais", and the rearguard at Dunkirk aren't "interesting"? All the best, John.</font>

Claus B

Someone mentioned noise inside the tank from non-penetrating hits as a factor for bailing out. In fact the Germans made tests of this in 1940, comparing the effect inside a captured Somua S-35 and a Panzer III. The testresults reveal that continous fire by 2cm Flak at various points on the tank resulted in noise levels between 126 and 135 DB. IIRC that is a bit higher than standing on the runway next to a 747 during take off. My guess is that you could go temporarily deaf within a minute, but I'm no expert. Claus B

Hmmm... why not replace the wavs with soundbits from The Simpsons... German: "Acthung" Russian: "Eat my shorts..." Claus B

That is a popular myth, probably originating with US Army intelligence being baffled about the plate-thingies hanging on German tanks. Even though they had good evidence as to the real reason for the German use of Schürzen (Soviet AT-rifles), they apparently had qualms about such an outdated weapon getting this much attention by the Germans and tried to convince themselves that the Mighty American Bazooka , being made in America, must have been the real reason. Western post-war writers never had any doubt: The AT-rifle was an obsolescent and crude weapon, only too typical of the primitive Soviet system and thus not a threat to the Mighty German Panzer. Schürzen could only have been developed to defeat the Mighty American Bazooka . That remained the explanation until someone tried to find out what the Germans themselves had thought of the matter and given as their reasons. Even though thorougly debunked, the myth persists that Schürzen were made to counter the Mighty American Bazooka and as there is not a shred of contemporary German evidence supporting this, the supporters of this theory will use "logic" to prove that Schürzen were only usefull against HEAT-type weaponry, not AT-rifle bullets. That is fine by me, as long as they dont use their "logic" when driving cars and handling firearms For a less biased account of the discussion, check out the CMBO 2001 archive : http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=16;t=022044;p= Claus B

227 hits IIRC. And don't underrate the PTRD. Of course it is not likely to turn a Panzer III into a furnace with one shot, but consider that the Germans considered it a big enough threat for them to hang about 600kg worth of steel plate on their tanks (Schürzen) in order to prevent the little 14.5mm AP rounds from penetrating the side armour of their tanks. In a AAR from Stalingrad, the AT-rifle was rated as one of the greatest threats to tanks, showing that if the AT-rifle team can get close enough (IIRC recommended distance was 50-100 meters), it can be deadly. As AT-rifles are small, concealable, numerous, they might just inflict the death of a thousand cuts on your Panzer IIIs and IVs. At least before the spring of 1943 when Schürzen were introduced. Dunno if it is refleced in the game though? Claus B

I'm shure we agree, but just to clarify: The 7,62mm PaK 36r did not fire "standard German 75mm AP ammo". The chamber was re-worked to allow the use of the 7,5cm PaK 40 cartridge case but the ammunition was 76.2mm caliber ammunition though of similar design to the 7,5cm PaK 40 rounds. Claus B

If so, it would only be fair to model the Panthers inability to power traverse its turret on slopes steeper than 20 degrees.... Claus B

Great post Helge! I'll save it and use it whenever some - ehhh.... - person starts babbling about Typhoons again Claus B

In fact, the feasability of mounting a T26 (Pershing) turret on the Sherman was tried out in the summer of 1944 and worked fine as both tanks had the same turret ring diameter. The only problems was rearranging stowage and some minor exterior modification to make room for the larger turret. The design was not adopted, because it was thought to take 6 months to get the vehicle into full production and it was assumed that the Persing would have been ready at the time. As we know now, only a few Pershings ever made it to Europe, so producing the 90mm Sherman would in fact have been a wise move. A 90mm Sherman was certainly possible, just as the 76mm armed Sherman was being discussed in 1941 and was tested as a prototype in August 1942 with the 76mm gun mounted in the 75mm turret, exactly the same combination that was sent as military aid to a number of countries post-war. But in 1942, the US Army did not want 76mm guns. The real problem was not the capabilities of the Sherman, it was the conflicts in the US Army about the role of the tank. Claus B

Well.... M4+M4A2+M4A3+M4A4 56 degree hull M4 Hybrid cast front M4A1 early cast front M4A1 late cast front M4, M4A2, M4A3 47 degree hull M4A3E2 Jumbo reinforced 47 degree hull Claus B

The standard German APCBC round, PzGr 39, had HE filler basically from start of the war to the end. The US and USSR also used armour piercing ammunition with HE filler until the end of the war. The British used solid shot, and when given US type ammunition, removed the filler (and supposedly replaced it with inert material. Why do you think otherwise? Source? Claus B

Hogg: "Encyclopedia of German Artillery of WWII" p. 259: Of these four {propellants} Nitroglycerinpulver was the most powerfull, bulk for bulk, but at the same time it developed the highest flame temperature and thus caused the most erosion of the gun barrel. The others, owing to the absence of nitroglycerine in their structure was less powerfull but burned at lower temperatures and were thus less erosive. According to Hahn, propellent with Nitroglyzerin was about the only type used up to 1936 when Diglykolpulver was introduced. Whether this is explains the difference in barrel life for the 8,8cm FlaK, I dont know, but it does show that the type of propellant could play a role. Claus B

The armament is not the problem. Problem is that anyone with a pointed rock or an un-ripe mango fruit could make a hole in it. Even the post-Poland after action reports labelled it as "outdated" and "insufficient armoured". Something that seems to be documented by the loss rate in the summer of 1941. But Ok, then lets say its combat potential was limited. Claus B

The barrel wear of the 8,8cm Flak was apparently dependant on the type of propellant? At least that is the impression you get when reading the "Datenblätter" for the gun: 2000-2500 rounds "b. Röhr.-Pulv. B" 6000 rounds "b. Röhr.-Pulv. M" For comparision, the 10,5cm lFH 18 is rated at 10,000 - 12,000 rounds, the 10cm K 18 at 6000 rounds. Claus B

Jentz: "Panzertruppen" shows the following number of Panzer I in the Panzerregiments on June 22. 1941: 9. PzDiv = 8 12. PzDiv = 40 17. PzDiv = 12 18. PzDiv = 6 19. PzDiv = 42 20. PzDiv = 44 Total = 146 (other sources mentions only 74) June 1941 losses (all fronts) were 34, 146 in July, 171 in August but dropped to 7 in September and then remained between 18 and 33 until February 1942. Inventory on June 1st was 877. Interestingly, Jentz also shows strength returns from August and September, and now every division reports Panzer Is (p.206). Perhaps they were used to fill up the gaps? Makes you wonder if the Panzer I was omitted in some of the June 22. returns because it was useless as a combat vehicle? Claus B

But if D'Este was to cover the entire war in the West and Mediterranian in the same way he covers Normandy, Anzio and Sicily, it would be a 10 volume set of 10,000 pages "When Titans Clashed" is an overview, a very compressed version of the Soviet view on the conflict. Glantz has done battle studies like D'Este, his Kursk book for example, but that is, in my view, a different genre all together. That said, D'Este is certainly more readable than Glantz, regardless which book we are talking about. I dont think Glantz will ever write a book that will really capture the reader... Claus B

It can be a somewhat boring read if you try swallow it all in one go. After all, describing such a complex event in one book will tend to be superficial and only deal with the "big picture". Also, there are some errors in detail, possibly copied from Soviet sources, like Panthers with 88mm guns (p.160), repetition of the old myth of the "Porsche Tigers" and their missing machine guns at Kursk (p.162)and the SU-152 being labelled a "tank-destroyer" (p.162). I think the strong point of this book is that you get a good factual account of the Soviet perspective in compressed form. Whether your jaw will drop or not depends on whether you are up to date on 1990ies "discoveries" about the eastern front. When I first read the book, I found Zhukows complete and utter failure in Operation Mars and its relationship to the Stalingrad offensive quite interesting. Also, remember to check the notes, a lot of the interesting stuff is actually found there, like the discussion of Rezun/Suvorov on page 327. Also, the notes to the chapter about Operation Mars on page 347 is interesting regarding Zhukows premature commitment of his armoured forces and the comparison with his conduct in the attack on Berlin. Claus B

Friesser, Karl-Heinz: "Blitz-Krieg Legende - Der Westfeldzug 1940", Oldenburg Verlag, München, 1995 ISBN 3-486-56124-3. This is indispensable if you are interested in the background for the German planning and the execution of the first part of the campaign from an operational viewpoint. It is thourough and thought provoking, well researched and fully referenced. Claus B PS: It is in German, of course

I think the source for most of such info is Pawlas, Karl (ed.): "Datenblätter für Heeres-Waffen, Fahrzeuge, Gerät", Waffen Revue Sonderdruck W127, 1976 ISBN 3-88088-213-4 Claus B

Not in 1936. The 3,7cm SprGr you (and Hogg) refer to was not available until after the Polish campaign. Claus B

Double post - can be deleted [ February 26, 2002, 05:50 AM: Message edited by: Claus B ]