gunnergoz

All this energy spent upon a scenario that was, in the end, statistically pretty rare. As far as the "mealtime position's" virtues go, the tactic has the major shortcoming that, given more than one opposing AFV, it is useless because a vulnerable aspect will always be vulnerable to a maneuvering enemy. The tactic might have worked for a while on the steppes where engagement ranges could be huge, but once battle took place in the Normandy bocage it was almost irrelevant and after the breakout, Tigers were just big slow targets trying desperately to make it to the Seine. AFAIC this just exemplifies the seemingly undying obsession some have for the German big cats. Yes they were something to marvel, and if right in front of you, to respect. But in the end they were defeated due to many factors, not the least of which was their own lack of invincibility. They had their day in the sun and then their fortunes waned, eclipsed by numbers, air power, better enemy tactics and finally production flaws due to lack of metals like molybdenum. Frankly, I'd rather see this same energy spent on figuring out how to better employ the more ordinary weapons like artillery and infantry which were the real grist for warfare in this era. Not glamorous, I know, but far more historically relevant.

The army figured out rather late that its practical training to tankers was inadequate. Most tankers gave up on the stabilizer, which was only for the vertical axis anyway. Another army training problem was that the tankers in the armored divisions were getting better and more intense training than those in the separate tank battalions that supported the infantry divisions. The armored divisions also did a better job of training their tank-infantry teams to coordinate. The army had listened far too long to General McNair, who wanted to pool the separate tank and TD battalions into reserve pools and as a consequence, training was never a priority and when the infantry divisions finally did get paired up with a tank battalion and a TD battalion after Normandy, there was a stretch of time where both arms had to learn to work together. Tankers complained that the infantry commanders used them up without regard to their vulnerability without accompanying infantry. Infantry complained that the armor withdrew in the face of enemy armor like Panthers and Tigers. It took a while for the two sides to adjust to reality and work together like a team. Gen. McNair was a victim of friendly fire during the Cobra bombings and while he made many positive contributions to the army's wartime preparations, he also left a legacy of branch divisiveness that took years to shake off. He was an artilleryman and that mindset never quite left him.

General Patton actually tried to get US army ordnance to try out the aircraft version of the .50, which had a ROF of about 850, significantly higher than the ground version's 500-600 RPM.. His plan was for Shermans to have the new .50's as a coax. Armed with some rounds of air corps API ammo, the Sherman could have lit up a lot of light armor. The idea never got anywhere and it seems they were just humoring Old Georgie, but it does lead to some intriguing what-ifs.

A well trained, experienced German tank crew could and did engage at closer distances while on the move, but the tank was not optimized for it. It was just one way to get the jump on an enemy. A lot depended upon terrain, movement conditions, lighting, etc for that to work. It was probably more common on the Eastern Front when the Germans happened to find themselves close in in the midst of milling T34's. The Panther was not the Abrams, able to shoot with great accuracy while on the move and had no mechanical stabilization like the Sherman, which had it in the vertical axis only if the Sherman crew had bothered to train in it and to maintain the system. But the Panther's gun had such velocity and flat trajectory that close in, if the gunner could sight the enemy, even if the Panther was moving, there was a decent chance to hit the target. It was much harder if the target was also moving and movement rates and angles relative to each other were critical factors in the equation. To see a stationary tank shooting at moving targets is of commonplace, but again much depends upon crew training and experience. Learning to lead a target correctly is something of an art form and not everyone accomplishes it equally.

Disagree that Germans routinely used Panthers from fixed positions. The German tankers knew that movement on the battlefield was critical to survival. They were offensive minded and the tanks were the cutting edge of the offensive sword. If one wants to speak about relatively static AFV defenses, that is what the StuG's did (as well as PzJag's) and were good at. But to envision a Panther statically waiting for an American attacker, while it did happen on occasion, does not correctly depict how how these two tanks typically encountered each other. Not to mention that in the CMN time frame, the most commonly encountered tanks were Pz IV's, but since this discussion began over Panthers, I won't belabor that point.

When I was referring to shot traps in the Tiger's front upper hull armor, this is what I meant: Any gun with sufficient penetrating power that managed to find one of those shot traps might have well have gone into the hull...not that there were many contemporary guns that could accomplish this, mind you. Here, the hits only damaged the armor but did not penetrate completely. Still, the noise and shock effect on the crew must have been substantial.

The makers of that game proudly announced recently that after, what, 15 years, they now have improved path finding routines implemented. !!!??? It took them how long to get around to that? I long since lost interest in their games, sorry. But you are correct, the strategic layer and persistence capability was very cool and I do wish this game had something like that. Oh well...

Boodybucket - Thank your dad for his service if he is still with us. Sometimes I think its a good idea to remember that we - collectively - are gamers, not combat veterans (with very few exceptions) and not even professional historians. We're just overgrown kids with enough interest, time and bread to spend it on these past times. We brawl and argue over minutiae and tend to forget what it is all really about - images like your dad tried to forget, evidently. Sometimes a little perspective and respect is called for but I don't always see it, even here. PS was he in the 28th ID - that were your moniker comes from?

Yes, I mis-remembered Steve's response. Here it is: Thread link: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=96335&highlight=gun+crews&page=4 #34 So no we will not see this capability in the game by BFC's choice on the matter. Sorry if I mislead anyone.

No Micheal, I haven't cracked open one of his in ages. I'll run across which one it was again sooner or later and post it here if anyone cares.

One well-known popular non-fiction book on the subject that I was recently perusing commented as how "the Panther and Tiger had 88's." I set it down after seeing that in print, not once, but twice in the same work. Now I wish to he// I could remember which one it was...I have so many lying around here.

My dad was an NCO in the postwar US army from 1950 on to 1970 but even in the 1950's the Tiger and the 88 were still legendary grist for soldier stories among the ranks. Probably had a lot to do with WW2 vets stories getting passed around, and around, and...you get the idea. Some things take on a life of their own after a while.

Steve has said that there are programming issues (regarding the game engine and action spots) with re-manning a gun that has been abandoned by crew and these are substantial enough to remedy that the issue is taking a back seat to other alterations they will make. In other words, fixing this is not a priority right now. Perhaps down the road it may get addressed but not in the near future.

Ladies and gentlemen, do not attempt to adjust your sets...you have entered...The Twilight Zone. Where unseen enemies can ruin your day. That said, I can think of more than one WW2 incident I've read of where soldiers from opposing forces encountered each unexpectedly, looked down or away and just kept going like nothing had happened. This guy was not so accommodating, apparently not having read the same books I have. :D

So - where's my glass?

It's the old "do you want a game where you completely control everything?" vs "do you want a game that is realistic and sometimes is beyond your control?" debate all over again. This game has so many little opportunities for anticipated unit behavior to go awry that for me it has the chaotic element of a real battlefield (or what I've read of them.) That may not be something that everyone enjoys, however.

Zeeesh.

The Sherman had vertical stabilization only, which generally only helped the barrel stay aligned correctly in the vertical axis when the vehicle stopped to fire. It was by no means a modern, shoot-on-the-move system, though it might offer some minor advantages very close in. The US found that tank crews quickly tired of maintaining the system and it fell into disuse; later replacements did not even know how to use it. In close, there are historical examples of Panthers firing the main gun while on the move. It took a skilled crew to do it but for many months, the Germans had those. The Sherman's main strengths in a close in knife fight with a Panther remained its relative maneuverability, decent speed and comparatively rapid turret traverse. If it could not successfully maneuver to get a side or rear shot, it was better to withdraw to fight another day...assuming that was still possible. In an earlier thread I posted links to actual WW2 footage of a duel between a Panther and first a Sherman and then an M26. You might find it interesting to watch.

I can believe that the 20mm (or better) armed SpW's and SpahW's can be good ambush weapons against other light armor, if they are properly sited. They can get side shots against the M5 and are lethal to H/T's and M8 scout cars at any aspect. If and when they are discovered, however, they need to relocate out of sight in a hurry.

Yes, but the Panther's sight had both 2.5X and 5X settings, so the gunner was not always looking down an narrow field of view. The Sherman's sight had only 5X but to compensate, he also had his own periscope. The Panther's arrangement was superior in that the gunner never had to take his eyes out of the sight, whereas the Sherman gunner lost time moving back and forth between the two viewing means.

Yeah, does "noise discipline" mean you make noise in a disciplined manner? So maybe we need more opera singers on battlefield? The mind boggles.

Think of it this way...if your scout does stay on one place for a moment or two, not only does he catch his breath, but he also can hear enemy movements, if any, near his position. While he is moving, his ability to listen is penalized.

The title of the folder you have to create in the "Data" folder for the game on your computer if you wish to use mods. You stick all of your mods in there and the game will load them in preference to the files it normally would use.

Late Panthers also suffered from flawed armor plate that sometimes cracked under certain hit conditions...I think it may have been hardened too much, making it brittle. Oddly enough, the vaunted Soviet JS-III tank that we may get to see some day also proved to have vulnerabilities in that the complex armor welds required in its hull front, often failed, leading to a good hit cracking the hull wide open in the pointy "prow" of the tank. IIRC it was the Israelis that noticed that defect in either the 1967 or 1973 war, which one escapes me now.

I try to use the actual artillery FO officer (if there is one in the scenario) as he seems to yield the best results if properly placed with good LOS on the target. Alternately I use my senior officer on the field (company CO) or if need be the weapons platoon (or weapons company) commander. I check them all out and the one with the shortest time to call in fire is usually the one with the best skills anyway and I use that one. And no, they do not seem to suffer from multi-tasking; I've seen one artillery FO manage 4 separate fires at one time, with no problem.