dieseltaylor

I don't understand that at first. However I suppose what you mean is that having doen the calculations once there should be some reduction in the delay when switching back. Seem ssensible and probablya three minute call - the FOO and the mortar Officer would need to make very sure it was the same target, Did they assign names/number s to each fire mission?

No problem. Gander could be wrong and in any event one should always quote the source.

I was justing reading today how in North Africa the US Shermans advanced halted and fired, and then advanced again. Panther crews were only assessed - when graduating - on halting and taking out their four targets on the range. SO apart from the British early war practice with the tiny 2 pdr it seems hard to give much credence to firing on the move - when aiming at another tank or ATG. Of course there are exceptions but does the game need to make the rare occurrence the common method? It does suck against the realism. Shoot and scoot worked very well in CMAK provided one understood that you could actually advance with the order. There was a higher hit chance than blindly firing during a fast move to the same spot. Unfortunately most players thought shoot & scoot was a move up and reverse order.

Tery Gander has it in "Tanks in Detail: Medium Tank M4 [ 76mm & 105mm] " that there was no gyro nor for that matter a power traverse. I don't have Hunnycutt. : )

The Sherman 105mm had no gyro-stabilisation.

A nice story I picked up from the "Economist". Here is a link to Reuter's article and a quote: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/09/us-court-veterans-idUSTRE7082U020110109

I think that in fact a radio, at one stage at least, was with the co-driver in the Sherman. However we need a Sherman radio grog.

I was a bit dismayed that I could not get my tank to deliberately fire at a bailed Sherman. Standing orders shoot till the buggger burns, in game terms I wanted the smoke. : (

I was thinking of H Company , Ist Armoured Regiment, 1st Armoured Division which if not all Shermans was certainly a company full worth. The 3rd Battalion which I know had some Shermans got toughed up and pincered 14/15 February by two German Tank Regiments. The German official report cliams 34 Sherman destroyed and 3 officers and 74 crewmen captured - which sounds about the right number.

SOrry to be absent from the thread for so long but I have been busy, and secondly making sense of what is being bruited about in the Press and the Web makes it difficult who to believe. Firstly the number killed at Chernobyl is one of thos figures which starts almsot from the first phrase to be a game of semantics. "Killed at Chernobyl" as in killed in the explosion Killed as a result of the Chernobyl explosion" Hurt at Chernobyl died elsewhere later "Killer by Chernobyl explosion" [ no time limit?] However let us say that it is more than 56 quoted by Other Means. Now what has been unfolding is the story of hot particles. So radioactivley not hugely significant unless lodged in your body where they can creat cancers. Obviously a non-story if no fine radioactive particles were blow skywards and inhaled by humans. Unfortunately there is no definitive answer. However here is a substantial thread on the matter which pretty much covers the situation to date: http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/node/4459?page=1 If I had more time I would be looking to see if the birth figures were a big anomaly etc etc compared to its own area, to the whole of the USA. Incidentally the US has the highest infant mortality rate of civilised countries but lets not worry about that. Not that I subscribe to it being fall-out as the cause. I am just interested in statistics revealing anomalies and trying to figure out why. Incidentally I see no one has wanted to comment on the Berlin Downs syndrome spike mentioned in the Wiki article. Is it not interesting enough? BD6 is right Al-jazeera needs a new correspondent.

It was a taught tactic for the Germans to go to the mealtime position .... or lunchtime in more logical English. There has been a thread here recently on the very subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Sidi_Bou_Zid is one area. I would find more but it is tricky for me to spend the time to find how many of each Mark were involved in the separate phases. However I will risk my neck and say that I think you will find there are more MkIII's involved than Tigers. So that was why I said III's and IV's - note not III's by themselves Happy Hunting.

Not humour by poloticians but .. A bus full of politicians was cruising down the road with all of them singing ‘Highway to Hell’ to pass the time. By a stroke of mischance and irony, the bus ran off the road and into a tree belonging to an old farmer. Out of curiosity, the farmer limped toward the bus to investigate the scene, where he then decided to dig a hole deep enough to bury every politican in it. A few days later, a policeman was patrolling the area when he came across the wreckage which had once been a bus. When asked whether anyone in it was hurt, the farmer replied, ‘Well, some of them said they weren’t, but you know how they all lie sometimes.’ One wintry morning, Bill Clinton was strolling along a frozen river when all of a sudden he slipped and tumbled through the sheet of ice into the frigid waters. Fortunately three little boys had seen the whole thing and arrived at the scene in time to pull him out. Said a grateful and shivering Bill Clinton, ‘Truly grateful for pulling me out back there, my young prepubescent heroes. Come, do allow me to repay your heroic deed by granting your deepest desires, however perverse they may be.’ ‘I would like a brand new bicycle,’ squeaked the first one and Mr. Clinton nodded with a smile. ‘I would like last year’s Miss Universe as my nanny for the rest of my childhood and, if possible, a few years into adolescence,’ said the second one and Mr. Clinton gave him an awkward nod as well. ‘I would like a coffin beside my grandma’s,’ said the third one flatly. Raising a surprised eyebrow, Mr. Clinton asked, ‘Of all the things in the world, why a coffin?’ And so replied the third boy, ”Cause my dad’s gonna kill me as soon as he finds out that I saved you, sir.’

Sympathy mate. : ) The reason for mentioning North Africa really was to point out that in the wrong circumstances the Sherman had trouble with mere MkIII's and MkIV's let alone Tigers. So suggesting that SHermans were "better" than Panthers would, with logic, suggest MkIII's and MkIV's were better tanks because they had won battles with Shermans. Fairly pointless argument. The only interesting thing on th Panther I want to know is really were the French Army correct in their report Le Panther 1947 - which BF class as anecdote - saying the Sherman had much faster target acquisition. Now that would add some meat to the discussion.

Yes maggie it was very sad to see that JonS was unaware of this fact. Very sad. And him wondering why other posters thought he was not up on armour and giving him some references to read - you can understand why it happens. : )

Perhaps it is not striaghtforward : ) I have not got Hunnycutts bookn on the Sherman so I cannot be definitive as to whether it is a model or country specific role change. http://hmvf.co.uk/forumvb/showthread.php?15398-Sherman-Crewman-Frank-Dennis-Gent/page2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Firefly http://www.tanks.net/american-world-war-ii-tanks/m4-sherman-medium-tank.html http://66.241.252.164/digital-archive//profile.cfm?collectionid=128&cnf=wwII

Michele Bachmann Love it. Incidentally referring back to politicians and lies she is setting whole new levels - and thats official. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hqshyBUGMhP9xk5u0gDm6UwUC12g?docId=c1a51e8adce640b596f8f657c275edbf

JonS - well thats minus 100 grog credibility points : )

Well argie did say he was ignorant : ) Just as an aside if I were intent on fanning the argument I would look at those occasions where Shermans got handed their arses in North Africa where there was not always a huge disparity in resource - just a large disparity. Not to say the the Allied armour did not have overall success.

For game improvements. I know that my tank cannot drive down a line of wire fence and knock it down. I have not tried a wooden fence. This seems hightly unrealistic. And to be honest something that beta-testing should have found out and been cured before release. I know there is a problem with Cuilin plow tanks being able to reverse through and destroy bocage which may be being sorted. In my minds eye any deformable structure should have been given special attention on being driven at, though , sideways, backwards and then blown up in many assorted ways. Does not some of this scenery life wire fences exist in CMSF and been tested there?

Sherman Radio operator is also loader Michael. Lose 3 grog points.

I am surprised any of you has the rite to mock a mis-type.!

You have to love figures quoted without reference to the parameters under which they were derived. Perhaps hate is a better word as the figures get quoted back and forth and embedded in sites and books without the necessary caveats. Actual gun penetration figures are normally taken at right angles to the test plate and then at a couple of slopes such as 30 and 60 degrees. This is what gets quoted widely and is of interest. However the real value is thta the hosting nation is comparing guns under the same criteria, and then again can repeat the experiments with different ammunition. So you have a base to build on. Firing in the wild is very rarely going to replicate the results of the firing range as the angles are never going to be precise, and the armour of the enemy tank may react differently, the nominal amount of the area struck may actually be reinforced by another plate ar right angles. So a very imperfect idea until a few captured samples can be tested. The lesson though is surely that gunners do not aim for an area where they are told penetration is unlikely. So does the game engine reflect expert gunners aiming not at central mass but at what is legitimately a potential penetration area? Do green crews aim solely at the central mass and hope for the best? Range and optics would therefore have a bearing when precision is required. There is huge evidence that tank crews were advised where to shoot on enemy tanks, and even anecdotal tales from tankers, so I assume some took notice. : )

RosNos - do not get too het up. There is no real argument which tank most of us would prefer to be in if the choice were Panther or Sherman. And if people highlight certain circumstances were a Sherman migh be better that is fair comment. In special circumstances the Churchill is the most agile tank of the war but seriously thinking it is a preference is another matter. Mind you night fighting with a Crocodile in town .... hmmm. The knowledgeable people are not really in this discussion as it has been hashed to death on many sites before.

Wow, And all along it was us wargamers. Man I feel baad.