gunnergoz

Cat got your tongue, Spook? I'd vote for the T-34/85 if it were leading a whole Guards Mechanized Army in the late war days, with the experienced leadership and support that that implies. One on one, the Panther has the better engineering and details, but it needed good maintenance behind it to keep it up. On the other hand, the Russians could produce T34/85's until the Cows Come Home, and the Germans never really got production of the Panther ramped up into the same league as the Russians.

Regarding the German use of captured Shermans, or for that matter, anybody's use of capured materiel, we should look at whether the use was done at the unit level (extemporaneously) or at the command level (by design.) I can see photos of a lot of captured materiel that seemed to be a spontaneous, local adaptation of enemy tanks (whatever) for practical as well as emotional/propaganda reasons. For instance GI's loved to tinker with schwimmwagens, panthers, kubels, SD-251's, kettenrads, whatever. They also liked to mess with MP-40's and -44's but often found to their chagrin that colleagues would mistake the fire signature for that of the enemy and would open up on them! The more unusual situation is when the utilization of capured material is ordered by the upper echelons, and is accompanied by plans, organization, logistical support, whatever. The best example is the German's use of French, Czech and Russian materiel, but we also see the Russians using Pz-III's and the postwar French using Panthers en mass. Another way to look at this is to as the question: is the use of this particular enemy materiel going to appreciably enhance my fighting ability? When the answer was "yes", you could be resonably expect the stuff to be put to use at both the individual and command level. American command levels never for a moment (that I'm aware of) considered using captured German materiel on the battlefield as a matter of doctrine. They might turn a blind eye to casual, localized exploitation of some asset, but would have not condoned the diversion of resources towards the rehabilitation and issuing of such weaponry. The only exception that I can think of, regarding the US, anyway, was the retention of captured material for training and demonstration purposes. This was most common before D-Day in England, but the practice continues to this day (remember the original OPFOR running around in exotic AFV's?).

Carrion eater.

Wow. Neat. And you said your address was...?

Compressed air starts are a feature almost unique to diesel engines. No battery power is required for cranking or ignition. A magneto can perform ignition functions on aircraft round engines (like the Wright cyclones in the early Shermans), using a starter cartridge (think of a shotgun shell whose explosive discharge pushes up one cylinder and starts the cranking cycle going.) As to the issue of the Sherman never being upgraded, that is just not true. The same chassis was turned into the M-10 TD (with better armor layout, though thinner plate unfortunately) and even made it through the Sherman Jumbo version with very heavy armor indeed. The suspension was upgraded to the HVSS version with wider tracks, improving traction and floatation. The major constriction to the Sherman was the basic issues of height of it's hull (a legacy of that big round engine) and the narrowness of its turret diameter, limiting the size cannon it could carry comfortably. Of course, if you upgrade something enough, it becomes another thing entirely...

Capitain Wacky is Steve's illegitimate son? What? How and were did you pull all that together? Mind you, I'm not trolling or belittling (well, maybe a little ). I'm just curious as to the latest BTS thinking and wondering if you indeed encapsulated it in your post.

Price differences are almost imponderable considering that they came from countries with different economic models. Think Ford and Lada. Both get you there, both cost an equivalent year's wages (or did at one point in their national histories.) The key is that both suited their respective production regime quite well. They were the best tanks that could be produced at the time, given that the introduction of superior models would have come at a sacrifice in the essential numbers that would reach the battlefields in time. (A fair tank delivered in time is better than a great tank delivered a day late...)

there's an echo in here...

Well, apart from the issue of the M-4A1's inherent radio, 3-man turret and the doctrine that those imply, my question to you is: who would be fighting in them? Crew quality is the other big joker in the pack, you see. Inexperienced Sherman crews will bail too. Don't forget that CMBO didn't model tank unit cohesion (tanks were always in command radius). US Shermans will do better under such circumstances. Keep in mind that Russians would not receive M-4A1's, they'd get A2's and A4's for the most part, with diesel engines, IIRC without looking it up. Maybe some A6's as well if memory serves correctly. The T-34 wowed the Germans at the time, but they quickly learned how to deal with it in the coming months. The Russians produced prodigious quantites of them, though, and "quantity has a quality all it's own."

A bartender who asks you to "burn him a copy of CM" is probably watering your scotch. Alot.

The Fat Slob lobby is going to go ape**** over this one, boy. BTW, the next meeting is going to be at my house, lads.

This was in a loooong earlier thread that was thoroughly answered by Steve for BTS. He made it clear that the scenarios he designed personally for the demo were intended to show off the new features at their best, to highlight the differences between CMBO and CMBB, and finally to show how a superbly crafted, accurate game about the Eastern Front could be fresh and different and not the same old stuff. There will be no new demo scenarios, he also said. I am taking the liberty of paraphrasing liberally from memory, so before Steve comes around and chews me out for misrepresenting him, please check him and the others out in the following thread: http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=000507

Those training drawings make me think of the song "50 ways to leave your liver."

Sure, if you have BIG brass ones, no kin, paid up insurance and don't mind a load in your shorts... We talk easily about this sort of thing from the comfort of our PC hutch, but my limited experience being on the ground next to (admittedly friendly) operating tanks left me shaking at the knees. Those things can kill you when they LIKE you. Being near hositle ones who like crunchies underfoot is still a job for those with iron nerves, quick step and a lucky rabbits foot in their pocket.

Darn. You just defrocked all my Grogginess. Anybody want to buy a video library? Looks like I need to learn to read after all these years. (You don't have to know how to read in order to write, you know. Check out Congress.)

Yep, I agree that the BTS fellows have some sneaky algorithm to come up with totally baffling and misleading order numbers. Hey, if it lifts their skirts, what the heck, its their little trade secret. Personally, all I care about it that they make scads of money if it helps keep them on (the game) track...

Michael- You're probably right on that count. I served with naval aviators and, to them, if the target wasn't observed flying away from the scene, they figured that they'd nailed it...that could explain a lot too in the case of armor!

RPG = russian: "Reaktivniy Protivotankovyi Granatomet", not Rocket propelled grenade!!!</font>

Steve would probably say something utterly reasonable like "It's beyond the scale of CM." Whatta partypooper.

Then again, the order number may represent the number of days until it arrives... :eek:

Hey, I just ordered a couple of hours ago and got an order number of two digits even higher than yours... I suspect they have some other way of coding the orders, perhaps you are the 50th order from your state today?

Stories of the failure of JS-III's to perform agains the Israelis have to take into account that the vehicle was not being used as the designers had envisioned. When Israeli troops had to face it head on, at a distance, it gave them real headaches. If the JS-III unit could be outmanouvered, the flank and rear armor could be penetrated by Israeli Pattons and Centurions. I don't believe I ever read of Israeli AMX-13's coming up against the JS-III's in the Sinai. The Israeli's used the AMX-13's as recon tanks, for the most part. If there were instances of those two tanks meeting, I'd love to read them myself and so would appreciate a reference if anyone has one. IIRC, most of the Israeli armor at the time was Pattons/Centurions in the regular forces and Ishermans in the reserves.

Da, I vant dat wun alzo, comrade.

Thanks, I went to that swell site and was impressed. Got me as confused about my premise as did the site about the RPG that I found. In the end, it seems to matter little, the RPG and faust are essentially son and father in most repects as to use.

A quibble, and a question... RPG=Rocket Propelled Grenade My impression is that the Panzerfaust fired its round from a propellant charge that was consumed within the launcher. The difference being, the propellant in a rocket is in the round and continues to burn after leaving the muzzle (or laucher), while the panzerfaust had only the initial propellant burn in the launcher to propel it. Technically, the bazooka and panzerschreck are closer to that definition to an RPG than is the panzerfaust. What confuses things is that the postwar Russian RPG's look a bit like panzerfausts more than bazookas. Comments? Anyone care to straighten me out if I'm getting this wrong?