CavScout

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: How would that even remotely be relevant to whether or not it was a good idea to arm your primary battle tank with a weapon you know is inferior? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hmm.. could it be that you continue to insist that the American tank crew suffered more than the German. Seems it would pretty damm relevent. You said, "The US Army in Europe NEVER experienced a shortage of armored vehicles. They did experience a shortage of experienced crews however, since the turnover in crews was very high, due to the Sherman being a mediocre (at best) design." The turnover of crews due to combat is VERY relevent. Cav

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: The US Army in Europe NEVER experienced a shortage of armored vehicles. They did experience a shortage of experienced crews however, since the turnover in crews was very high, due to the Sherman being a mediocre (at best) design.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The Germans experianced the same shortage of trained crews. To you this on a poor design choice? Again, do you know of a statistics that show the comparisons? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I criticized not just the Sherman, but the very fundamental decisions made by the US Army in regards to what they thought was necessary from a medium tank. The very idea that the Sherman would not fight other tanks was obviously wrong (or should have been obviously wrong) long before late 1944. The Sherman did not suck because we could not do better, the Sherman sucked because some idiot decided that we did not NEED better. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Those same 'idiots' insured that U.S. production would out-strip the enemy. Yes, they could have designed something new at every obsticle but then they would have been in the same position as the Germans. Great designs and little way to mass-produce them. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> If you think the idea was right, then pray tell what exactly changed that made almsot every single designer of armored fighting vehicles after WW2 give up on the idea of the "Infantry Support Tank" a go to the accepted concept of the main battle tank that the Panther represented? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The "infantry support tank" concept changed as weapons changed. Even the Germans were 'late' on the scene with the Panther. You think those short barrel IVs were made to fight tanks? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The argument that the Sherman was limited by weight due to the need to ship it is equally fallacious. Do you apply that same standard today and demand that the US Army ditch the incredibly heavy M1 Abrams in favor of something lighter, like say, the T-72? No? Why not? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You'll notice that the method of transportation has changed in the mid-term as well. New transport naval vessels have been designed and pre-placement of armor was implemented. The Cold War was NOT fought like WWII. You'll notice it took MONTHS for a sizeable U.S. force of armor to build up in the Gulf. You're comparing apples and oranges. You also might want to take a look around. Armies are going towards the lighter, more mobile tanks. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The simple fact is that the powers that be in the US Army screwed up. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Did they? They were able to produce an effective and reliable tanks in mass numbers. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> They made some assumptions that were incorrect, and then made it worse by not being willing to be flexible and change when it became obvious that their assumptions were incorrect. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> U.S. production was far more flexiable than anything the Germans had. It is not simply a matter of one day this tank and the next day that tank. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The writing was on the wall in early 1943 that the Sherman 75 was not going to come close to cutting it by 1944. The American bomber that dropped the short bomb that killed General McNair did the US Army a huge favor. The Pershing could have been in Normandy in 1944, and at least 1/2 of all Shermans in the Normandy campaign could have been armed with the 76mm gun if it was not for the stupid idea that tanks would not fight other tanks. lets not even discuss the possibilites of arming the Sherman with the excellent brit 17lber, whose only flaw was its "not made in the USA" origins.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The US was willing to use foreign designs, not sure where you get this from. We used their dsigns in aircraft engines and such. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> P.S. I did not mention German problems because the topic was not about the Germans problems. They made some rather serious errors themselves when it comes to tank procurement, but on a very differnt level. Contrary to popular opinion, the problems with the Panther had nothing to do with its abilities, and everything to do with the overall inefficiencies in the system that Germany used for armamanets procurement.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I would argue that the Panther was overly-complex. It was no where near as reliable as the Sherman. Cav ------------------ "War does not determine who is right - only who is left." --Bertrand Russell "God is always with the strongest battalions." --Frederick the Great "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." --Benjamin Franklin, 1759 "For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-Jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary period, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which is likely to be the more ominous for the Axis--an American decision that this is sport, or that it is business." --D. W. Brogan, The American Character

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Raze: Pardon my intrusion good sirs. And thank you in advance for your help. Exactly how do I take a screen shot? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Press the PRINT SCREEN button and then paste it into a paint program. Cav

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: Yeah, tell that to all the Sherman crewman who were killed in their "Infantry Support" vehicles that could not take a shot from a bloody 50mm AT gun, much less have a prayer when the Panthers decided to take a break from the East Front. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Can you provid any statistics for Allied [West] tank crew causulties versus the German [West] ones? I am willing to bet the Americans, espicially, had lower rates then the Germans. We lost far fewer than most in the war. Cav

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: Uhh yeah, that and the secret invisible elephant troops. Production won the war. The abortion that was the US Armies concept of armored vehicle procurement just made it take longer. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The US Army's armored vehicle had to be put on a boat and sailed across the Atlantic to get to the fight. A handicap neither the Soviets or Germans had to consider. The American tanks simply couldn't be the biggest on the battlefield. The simple claim that 'production' won the war is misleading. In 1943, Germany's economy was much larger than both the British and Soviet economies yet they produced less.The Germans simply couldn't manage the production as well as the allies. "But the pursuit of advanced weapons [by Germany] came at a price. Instead of a core of proven designs produced on standard lines, the Germans forces developed a bewildering array of projects." This wide variety is very difficult to mass produce. "German weapons were very good, but very expenive - in skilled manpower, time and materials." Yes the Sherman wasn't the most heavily armed or armored tanks in the West but what it was was reliable. TANK PRODUCTION: 1940: Germany: 2,200 USA: 400 1941: Germany: 5,200 USA: 4,052 1942: Germany: 9,200 USA: 24,997 1943: Germnay: 17,300 USA: 29,497 1944: Germnay: 22,100 USA: 17,565 1945: Germnay: 4,400 USA: 11,968 What has always perplexed me is people are quick to critique the American choice of the Sherman but are so very slow to critique the German lack of strategic foresight in regards to prodiction. Haveing the 'best' means little if you don't have enough to go around. Cav ------------------ "War does not determine who is right - only who is left." --Bertrand Russell "God is always with the strongest battalions." --Frederick the Great "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." --Benjamin Franklin, 1759 "For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-Jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary period, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which is likely to be the more ominous for the Axis--an American decision that this is sport, or that it is business." --D. W. Brogan, The American Character

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Popper: I like to smoke the front of them and rush up until I'm out of their fire arc. After that, the tac ai takes care of the rest.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Smoke good... smoke very good. Unfortuantly, I took it that he had no smoke. Cav PS When using smoke, timing is everything! I had smoked a bunker and just as my three squads arrived on scene, to the sides and behind th ebunker, the smoke cleared and my men were raped by flanking MG bunkers, broke and then FLED back to the start off points BACK in front of the bunker they just assulted! Not pretty. ------------------ "War does not determine who is right - only who is left." --Bertrand Russell "God is always with the strongest battalions." --Frederick the Great "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." --Benjamin Franklin, 1759 "For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-Jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary period, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which is likely to be the more ominous for the Axis--an American decision that this is sport, or that it is business." --D. W. Brogan, The American Character

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: And what a great idea that turned out to be. Not. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well.. it did win the war. Cav

It's tough without arty or tanks support. You need to try and manuver to the flanks. The bunkers have relativly narrow firing arcs. Cav

Another reason for the lack of "big tank" battles was the different theories in the use of tanks. The Americans didn't build tanks to fight tanks, they built them to perform breakouts and rush behind enemy lines. For tank killing the built the tank destroyer. Cav

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Teamski: Damn, where did I read it?.......I read somewhere that even at the end of the war that the Germans still used horses for 25% of it's transportation...... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It was much, MUCH more than that. One book says that of the 141 divisons taking part in Operation Barbarossa, 108 (76%) were NON-motorized infantry... marching men! Cav

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pillar: Looks like we need a replacement for your Allied Recon command in the CMRPG. Anyone interested?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Did I hear someone looking for a recon commander? CavScout "If you ain't Cav... you ain't..."

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JediJobu: But the tank, even though has been ordered to fire smoke in front of it and go in reverse, will go in reverse but then attempt to engage the tigers, or will back up and wait 10-20 sec to fire smoke by which time it's dead anyway. Any suggestions or comments on this?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Perhaps it is faster to fire the AP/HE round in the gun and then load the smoke then it would be to unload the Ap/He then load the smoke. Cav

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Von Fauster: Yet (and here's the question) when I think of the Allied breakout and push into Germany (that is to say, Beyond Overlord)I tend to think in terms of Infantry- not armor. Why is that? Did armor play a smaller role later in the war? Was it a function of Allied tactical doctrine or a consequence of the physical structure of the battlefield? Were there no great armored battles on the Western Front in 1944-45? Or am I, in a word, wrong? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> IMO, it has more to do with the history we are fed more than anything. We one talks about the German army in WWII, the fast moving tank formations pop into mind. That's what we read and that's what we see in film footage. Everyone, well not everyone , thinks of the German army as some huge mechanized beast when in reality it was a lumbering horse and foot soldier army. Heck it was the American army that was the most mechanized and motorized of them all. Perception sometimes doesn't match with reality. Heck, in my opinion, the only true Blitzkrieg of war (by the Germans) was France. In Poland and Russia it was the encirclement battle. Surround and pound them. Cav ------------------ "War does not determine who is right - only who is left." --Bertrand Russell "God is always with the strongest battalions." --Frederick the Great "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." --Benjamin Franklin, 1759 "For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-Jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary period, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which is likely to be the more ominous for the Axis--an American decision that this is sport, or that it is business." --D. W. Brogan, The American Character

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken: What exactly is the point in all this, Bates? Your PBEM experience is dependent on the kind of people you play against. There's no point bitching here about your PBEM opponents - if you've got a problem, either take it up with them, or find someone else. Telling us about it serves no purpose whatsoever - it's like complaining to your local grocery store that you don't like the other people you see shopping there. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Come on! People vent on this board all the time for things that aren't going to be changed. He's letting his opinion be known, big deal. It wasn't over-the-top, insulting or vulger. At the very least it lets others on the board who play PBEM know if they fit his game 'type'. Cav ------------------ "War does not determine who is right - only who is left." --Bertrand Russell "God is always with the strongest battalions." --Frederick the Great "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." --Benjamin Franklin, 1759 "For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-Jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary period, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which is likely to be the more ominous for the Axis--an American decision that this is sport, or that it is business." --D. W. Brogan, The American Character [This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 08-31-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RudeLover: A real-life tanker talks about 'lowsky' and 'tophat,' suggesting that maybe it isn't so gamey after all. I've seen other tankers on this board talk about the real-life small displacements and rotations for a fighting tank (never been there myself, thankfully).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No, it's not a 'gamey' tactic. Both tankers and Bradleys are trained to fight like this. You are trained to ID and aim at targets from the turret down and then roll up, enagage and back down. The sights for the M1 and M2/M3 allow you to see what you may not be able to shoot at due to the hull down. Cav

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zamo: Yeah really. Despite the fact I found his post rambling and difficult to follow (I really hate it when people compromise English due to laziness), he has valid concerns and is due the same respect we would give anyone. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Without knowing where he is from, his poor English could be because it is not his native tounge. Who knows.. Cav

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pzvg: Hehe don't sweat it Cavscout, at least they gave you a whole 9 seconds (67N10, UH1-H crewchief, life expectancy in combat, 4.5 seconds) Ya know what? figures lie (actual combat time 38 minutes, Grenada) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> LOL! Was it 9 seconds.... dam...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jshandorf: One, such as myself, gets said information from a friend who happens to be an Airborne Ranger in the 2nd Battalion, Charlie company. The other information comes from having atleast passing skills in math. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> My point was not aimed at where YOU got those statistics but where they originate. I've heard the same "X second life span" numbers for years. They just don't add up. They used to tell us that scouts averaged 19 seconds... well, the Gulf was a 100 hours and well, I and my buddies are still here. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> With todays laser range finders, and general fire control, hitting a target is easier than spotting it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Anyone who has watched tankers fail Table VIII courses can contest that. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> See, if you would have actually read my post, I said that the TOW gunner better pray that his target doesn't spot him, cause if they do, it doesn't take much to swing the main turrent on a modern MBT to line up a shot. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually, you said "Think about it.. A TOW gunner could fire at a tank at 3000 meters. Lets say the TC spots the incoming missle 5 seconds later. That puts the missle at 2000 meters from the tank. This gives the tank crew 11 seconds to respond. More than enough time to kill the TOW gunner and therefore make the TOW round miss." I simply dispute it is as easy to spot and as easy to remain a target to take a shot over excuting a "sagger drill". <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Have you ever seen a TOW missle in flight? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes and have fired both live and 'dummy' ones. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> It is freakishly huge, slow, and noisy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The size is rather small from either the front view, the target's, or the rear view, the firer. It is relativly slow to other weapons perhaps but it hardly misses. I defy anyone to HEAR a tow being fired while a TC in a moving tank, at several thousand meters while wearing a CVC... That assumes nothing else is making noise on the battlefield. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> When it takes on average 10 seconds for your round to impact, believe me, someone is going to see you steering it in. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> TOWs were effective in both the Gulf and when used by the Isralies. The TOW is hardly as ineffective as you seem to imply. Cav ------------------ "War does not determine who is right - only who is left." --Bertrand Russell "God is always with the strongest battalions." --Frederick the Great "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." --Benjamin Franklin, 1759 "For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-Jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary period, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which is likely to be the more ominous for the Axis--an American decision that this is sport, or that it is business." --D. W. Brogan, The American Character

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jpinard: Stransky is a loser. Get lost you troll.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Come on now. Who's trolling now? Cav

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mannheim Tanker: My question: Is it gamey to send snipers that far forward? I've read that the Soviets commonly did this, but I'm not sure about the other nationalities. How do other players employ sharpshooters? This question has been asked before, but I thought I'd pose it again now that the game has been out for a while... Thanks! Blaze on!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> IMO, that is not forward enough! In my experiance the snipers have been much farther forward than a couple hundred meters. Cav

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jshandorf: Case in point: The average life expectancy of the gunner of a TOW launcher is about 9 seconds.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> One often wonders where they get these statistics. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The math is simple. A TOW rockets moves at, on avergae, 187 meters per second. The average time to max range (3750m) is about 20 seconds. Now... A .50 cal machine gun or even a 120mm rounds moves MUCH faster than that, aproximately 5x to 6x. A TOW gunner better pray they don't spot him before his missle reaches the target. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> While this MAY be true, the .50cal has nether the lethality nor the chance to hit percentage of the TOW. Highly unlikly that the TOW and .50 cal would be fired on the same target. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Think about it.. A TOW gunner could fire at a tank at 3000 meters. Lets say the TC spots the incoming missle 5 seconds later. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What happens when they fire at a closer range and if the TC doesn't see the incomming missile? Tankers have tunnel vision. Where the gun is pointed is what they see. Flank and rear shots are likely to be un-noticed. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> That puts the missle at 2000 meters from the tank. This gives the tank crew 11 seconds to respond. More than enough time to kill the TOW gunner and therefore make the TOW round miss. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This assume they would fire on the position of the TOW gunner, if it was even know, over taking evasive actions. It would take a rather cool tank crew to sit in the open and line up a shot that could well miss. Cav

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gregory Deych: The 4 mile range of the TOW definitely gives Bradley a good stand off punch. I'd rather be in a T-72BM with it's Refleks-M, though. 7.5 km trumps 4 miles every time, and I believe they cost roughly the same (T-72BM vs Bradley). Oh, and T-72 is better armored. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hey but at least you won't get stuffed into the main gun, on Bradley, by the auto-loader.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzer Grenadier: Everytime I start a QB, I get nothing but AGs as the Germans. How can I prevent being slaughtered by shermans and M10s by not being able to rotate my turret?? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Now you see why the Germans were desperate when they began building them instead of tanks beacuse they were 'cheaper' and easier to build. Cav ------------------ "War does not determine who is right - only who is left." --Bertrand Russell "God is always with the strongest battalions." --Frederick the Great "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." --Benjamin Franklin, 1759 "For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-Jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary period, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which is likely to be the more ominous for the Axis--an American decision that this is sport, or that it is business." --D. W. Brogan, The American Character

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pzvg: First off, recon elements are never supposed to engage the enemy unless they can kill them and disengage at once. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's why BN scout's are given Humvees. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Second, the Cav uses mixed platoons of Bradley's and Abrams for added weight. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Not anymore. When I was with 1-1 Cav they were using the 5x3 platoon, 5 Bradleys and 3 M1s but they have since gone back to troops of 2 Braldey platoons and 2 M1 platoons. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Thirdly, to make it worse, that's an aluminum-maganese alloy, same as a flare "twinkle,twinkle, little light, bradley burning in the night" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well that is nothing compared to the 12 TOW missiles and 1200 rounds of 25mm... Cav ------------------ "War does not determine who is right - only who is left." -Bertrand Russell "God is always with the strongest battalions." -Frederick the Great "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." --Benjamin Franklin, 1759 "For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-Jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary period, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which is likely to be the more ominous for the Axis--an American decision that this is sport, or that it is business." -D. W. Brogan, The American Character [This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 08-30-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by thomasj: I would agree with you, except this game is supposed to be as realistic as possible and the German SS wern't the sissies that I am hearing about here. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> As the war progressed even the Waffen SS suffered more and more from loss of men and less and less in replacements. Just look how the 'requirements' changed as the war progessed alowing the less and less perfect German, and hell even non-Germans, into the units as the war dragged on. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Don't have the full game yet*SIGH!*, but I hope this is just a one time happening and not the norm, and if it is, then it should be looked into for most of the SS were battle hardened veterans. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Some SS were, for sure but even the SS gets replacements. Cav