CATguy

Perhaps a firefly or a sherman 76. I always know I will have friendly skies and pleny of artillery support!

The BT series of Tanks were great the only problem was the crews lack of training and understanding of modern mechanized warfare. If you read accounts of early soviet tank battles there were some exceptions were a handfull of crews would roast pzII's and III's with these BT's

I so hate that also, hope you knocked a few down though...

CR, yes it was purely a defensive weapon and thus a failure...

Ok for quantifying my argument the tiger series was a strategic failure and at the least a minor tactical gain. The tigers first appearance in Russia gave the Soviets several free early versions up near Leningrad to point out its introduction. Pity the poor tanker who faced a tiger but only several miles on down the front lines the other tanker could enjoy relative equality on the battlefield, there numbers were far too few and claims of tanks killed may be high but look at how many tanks were killed by shermans, stuarts, Lee/grants, and T-34's....Being in the Gulf War we were concerned with the Republican Guard and their use of T-72's. This tank on a duel for duel basis was a great tank but in a combined arms effort it failed same as the Tiger did in WWII... just my two cents worth and we can all agree to disagree and I do enjoy the diverse comments... ( enough said from my viewpoint)

In reply the sherman crews of the era surely would have not have thought of the Tiger as a failure while encountering it, but historians in general would agree it was a failure as a tank.

My estimation of American armor is that it is good and reliable as any german tank there is. I think it realy boils down to crew quality. When I am playing the germans and I see veteran shermans out there, I shudder at the thought of taking them on since they almost always have an advantage in speed, numbers, and accuracy. Also as a side note the tiger was a failure of a tank along with its cousin the king tiger. It used too much fuel. Could not travel long distances on its tracks, i.e. transports. and mechanical issues such as powertrain failures and mechanical maintenance issues.

I remember an old thread on those tigers in KH. I think the chasis is a christie style and that they were a postwar imported British tank( not sure of which type) into Tito's fledgling government in the late 40's. The movie company used the tanks and dressed them up for the tiger look. I could be wrong but I think this has been discussed already...

I find that the converted ASL scenarios are the heart and soul of this game. I grew up playing SL and ASL and this is a dream come true playing a SL scenario once a nite where it might take one full weekend to play an asl scenario.

In reading this thread on the Pacific theater I see that the general Consensus is that it was just an assault of endless pillboxes across the whole pacific. This in fact was not the norm and is the Hollywood version of the Pacific. There were large scale confrontations in the South Pacific all the Way over to SouthEast Asia on to the Philipines and Okinawa to name a few. The largest Tank Battle was on Saipan if memory serves me right. But on the other hand I would like to see the Russian Front done first and the Pacific done in future editions.

Think of it this way: You are sitting in a trench or foxhole and the enemy is approaching. Depending on your experience in battle and your bravery you would probably let lead fly well out to 100 meters or sooner so as to keep the enemy away from your position. It takes a very brave and calm soldier to allow the enemy to approach to distances that are considered to close for "comfort"...

here is my list 1: Julius Cesear 2: Alexander the Great 3: Manstein 4: Zhukov 5: Sherman

This was one of my Favorite scenarios before all the ones on the web came out. It is tough for both sides and can be very tense, loved it playing tcp/ip

Not sure of any web sites but most tank shells from WWII and on use metallic cartridges just like any other large gun. Some modern rifles in tanks use sabots to guide the "warhead" or shell head as it leaves through the rifle barrel. There are shaped charged, high-explosive, and a host of others.... just my two cents worth

Huh??? FUBAR goes back to the turn of the century is where it first entered the slang ( according to websters that is)

War in Peace!!! the memories! Third Reich!!! played it to death!!! Also lots of hours spent on Civil War, Panzerblitz/leader, russian front, Up Front, and luftwaffe.

Loved it, I had it for the IBM also and played all the scenarios many times. That game was way ahead of its time.

FUBAR... very explicitive to say the least...@#$%@#$@%%@.... up beyond all recognition

Flamethrowers of that era often required the assistant to turn the tanks on, light the pilot, and adjust the mixture and regulate the pressure all while under fire. Quite a task if you think of of it. Flamethrowers were usually brought up to the point of resistance. The operator strapped in and the assistant did his tasks and off they went usually with in 100 meters to flame the target. The tanks alone weigh in at over 100 lbs depending on the model and are very cumbersone.

First played SL back in the late 70's and thought wow! Boy have times changed. All nighters till dawn just taking hill 621 and on and on. Of course when cross of Iron and crecendo of Doom came on board the game really became its own genra.

Some of my favorite are: Bridge Too Far, Cross of Iron, Apacolypse Now, Platoon, Das Boot, Big Red One, SPR (of course), Winter War, porkchop and hamburger hill, and a host of others!

From my experience with tracked machinery (dozers, crawlers... etc). Reverse gear is hard on a undercarriage. Most tracked vehicles have 95% or more of their life spent going forward. When you reverse a tracked vehicle especially with high hours on the undercarriage, track tension changes and the; traction, the driveablity, and chance of throwing a track greatly increase. You ask any person with knowledge of tracks and undercarriage and you ask the number one killer of a track is reverse gear ( especially high gear). I serioulsy doubt this is modeled in CM but I could be wrong

I am sure they mounted these but as to their effectiveness I seriously doubt it. As for the US jeeps with MG,s they mounted them also but in reality they were ineffective. For one, the operator of the mg was fully exposed. Secondly the recoil from a mg34 or a 30cal on a kubel wagon or jeep would be tremedous and hitting a target not moving would be difficult. As for the 50 cal on a jeep this was extremely rare and the recoil would rattle the vehicle and the angle of fire and deflection would be poor. Having experienced firing a 50 cal (M1a1 style) on a hard mount I seriously doubt their effectiveness, just my thoughts....