Corvidae
-
Posts
447 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Corvidae
-
-
lets see how far off topic we can get.
-
Damm, thats unfair to you.Originally posted by JasonC:Not to worry, the silly person is now spewing his self important bilge at me in private email. One can hope he will spare the rest of you indefinitely.
Still the guy was rather infuriating. Seems to have an 'All Or Nothing' approach.
-
Ending a 600 point, 40 turn ME.
I would say that at least THIS SP AT gun was effective
So how do I add kill rings to the barrel?
-
It appears that the tread has degenerated into an
"I'm always right on all points and you are just stupid"
contest.
From a psychological viewpoint, there appears to be a lot of overcompensation going on.
In short, its become a 7th grade pissing contest.
And on that note... How was everyones xmass?
,
-
Mr Kenny,
Will you consider a possibility that we may in fact be talking about two different periods in the northern european campaign?
Perhaps early american wastefullness led to the shortages you bring up.
I am willing to consider that early wastefullness may have been exadurated by the propaganda industry. And that wastefullness could have contributed to later shortages.
I am willing to consider the possibility that the wastefullness was pure 'official history', and was created for newsreels.
I am willing to consider any suggestion, with a grain or two of salt.
By the way. I consider being at 86% of strength to be a fairly normal state, not a crisis.
But thats just my perception.
-
Mr Kenny, you are perhaps missing a point here
In fact many american losses were due to minor mechanical failures which the germans would have repaired. You appear to have not grasped this."I was led astray by the printed word. Rather than accepting Jason's amazing discovery that US armour 'outscored' the Germans every time they met I continued to cling to the fiction of the real losses. I simply could not admit the medium I use is so useless. All the detailed records kept by the US Quartermasters where they listed the tanks the struck off are are no good. Jason is the only one who saw through their deception."Due to the abundance of replacement vehicles, American crews were quite willing to simply abandon a tank or TD rather than bother to salvage it. A clogged jet on a carburetor, or a bent stem on an exhaust valve, could stop a tank.
And the americans would often write off such vehicles as lost or destroyed. The crew were simply given a new tank. There is no deception.
Jason is fully aware of the wastefull practices of a forward rushing army with a huge surplus of spares. So is almost every person who bothers to actualy look at the habbits of recovery efforts on tanks for all armys. The Americans did not feel a need to salvage and canibalize their tanks for spares.
Germans DID salvage their tanks, and everyone elses.
German loss rates are higher than their production rates simply because the same hull might be killed and salvaged a dozen times before being placed beyond recovery. (ie; overrun)
There is no discovery here. Nothing amazing, and no deception. Your bombast is missplaced.
As to your dissmissal of the game.
As you said, You have never played it. So your condescention is from ignorance.
Maybe you should consider learning something about the CM games before you heap ridicule upon them.
"Battleships" indeed
-
Mr Kenny
PBEM, means PLAY. BY. E. MAIL.
Where by, turns are E-mailed back and forth between two players.
This is the most common way that the CM games are played on line, (I think)
I honestly find it most bizzare that you should post so vehemently on a game related forum, without having any interest in the game.
I think given that I am posting on the CMAK forum rather than the Battleships form, that it can be reasonably assumed that I have neither a copy of, nor an interest in Battleships.
That you are incessantly shouting down anyone who dares suggest that allied SP AT guns were in any way effective, strikes me as irrational, or pointlessly argumentative, or both.
Sad to say that my own primary resources for WW2 info are those awfull "Time-Life" coffeetable books, (Which are as useless as a 10,000 page report on lesbianism in an all male environment.)
However logic and common sense tells me that SP AT guns could be very effective if used correctly.
Certainly there would be instances where allied AT commanders blundered badly. Plus the inevitable random screwups that happen. But for the most part, allied SP AT guns were used correctly. And they worked.
-
Ummmmm Ladies. WW2 please, that thing between 1939 and 1945.
Lets not go off into the cold war, or the zulu wars, or the siege of minas tirith. Yes I realize the Sith had more aggressive methods than the Jedi.
More specificly we are about tanks (axis tanks) vs AT guns (allied AT guns).
If Foghorn Leghorn wants me stuffed, he will just have to risk a PBEM, and try to do it himself.
(unless he has his own panzer group to lead, and a matching SP AT force he could lend me).
(wouldnt that be fun)
Otherwise I remain unimpressed by his incessant crowing and strutting.
-
Jason,
enough about the poultry section already,
How was your xmass?
-
Ah, not a chihuahua after all, nor a canid of any sort, nor even a mammal.
perhaps a therapod of some sort, a recent therapod.
Of the Order: Galliformes,
Genus: Gallus,
-
If michael kenny is as sure as he says,
Perhaps he might back it in a PBEM match.
I'm sure at lease one grog here can draw up an historicly correct list of allied SP-AT units for me to deploy.
And michael kenny can cherry pick axis tanks to his hearts content.
Say about december '44,
45+ Turns on a large 1500 pt map,
I'm at raven_song73@yahoo.com
-
The chihuahua not only has ADD, but a serious ego problem as well.
When 3 resident uber-grogs agree, its usualy time to listen.
Jon, Jason, and Dorosh are all well versed and informed uber-grogs.
And while I may not ever become as knowlegable about this stuff, I can still add my own fairly respectable common sense.
The primary late war, western allied, tank destroyers were mostly based on the sherman chassis.
They were reasonably armored.
Please note that I did NOT say "heavily armored".
They were effective at their job.
They were not tanks.
If anyone sees any error in the logic of my above statement, please help me to not make that error again.
-
There are two kinds of arrogance,
1) EARNED arrogance,
2) UN-EARNED arrogance,
JasonC may be abraisive. He certainly does not suffer fools, or their pretentions. He ruthlessly applies caustic doses of common sense to people who usuly need it. And our oppinions and interpretations, sometimes clash.
But in the time I have been on these forums, I have never seen him be wrong about a statistic or fact.
......If I missed such an event, someone please link me to it.
-
I freely admit my own relative ignorance,
and try to form a valid oppinion from what evidence I can find.
Please dont hoot too derisivly at any of my mistakes or expressed failures of comprehension
Ok, Tank killers were specialized vehicles,
They were designed according to the available hulls of their respective armys, and according to the tactical doctrines of their respective armys as well.
German doctrine led to the "eggshells with hammers" approach to tank destroyer design.
American doctrine led to the open topped tank killers everyone here is ranting about.
The allied tank killers were effective, They worked. They were generaly not as well armored as a tank, But close enough that it didnt matter.
They had a MUCH better gun.
The allied tank killers were best used in the anti tank role, (hence the name) They were specialized, and were not supposed to do much else besides kill tanks.
They COULD be used in other roles, But why would you use them for anything else?.
Proper tanks were more generalized. More versitile.
A well designed tank (M4/Sherman) could do a lot of things fairly well.
But although it was a pretty good anti tank weapon, it wasnt an exelent one.
The tank killer was designed to be an exelent anti tank weapon. That was its role.
By the end of the war, the standard tanks of the western allies were becoming increasingly effective as anti tank weapons.
As tanks became better tank killers, Designated tank killers became obsolete.
would this sum it up?
-
Yet another Corvid mod of the M4 sherman in british service.
Let me know when you start to gag on these things.
The mod will be posted as per the usual routine
-
And again, a thread has wandered into the land of grog.
......__
...../...\===
.o""""""""""o\
.\oooooooo/
-
Having been playing with assorted sherman mods of my own feeble semi-creation,
I might just try to see how badly I can mangle a panther mod.
-
-
To avoid confusion, Its generic
M4 Sherman III
-
Tell MikeyD, Those are all his.
I just did the camo patern,
Ok I'm depressed now.
Gonna go stuff myself with oreos and alcohol
-
This is the result of several hours of steady drinking while studying the work of MikeyD.
I will be posting this mod within the next 24 hours or so.
-
As a barely functioning,computer semi-illiterate, I feel your pain.
But DEY has a point, What are the specs of your system?
-
So it was a hotrod show for tank people?
Kinda like how to supercharge the engine of a PzIII for streetracing?,
I used to rebuild vintage motorcycles, An engine that isnt in a million pieces on my table, is not that interesting to me.
I would rather have the tank where I can actualy DO the work myself, And the manual open on my bench.
But if you liked it, its cool.
-
Maybe It's JasonC from prior life or prior identity.
Guns vs Armour
in Combat Mission: Afrika Korps
Posted
jBrereton,
What?
Iraq is dead, its just taking a while to stop resisting the inevitable.
I dont understand the "safety" part, or the "post-Saddam" part.
They had a good run though, from 1948 to 2003.
From a brutalized colonial possession.
To a fully industrialized and secular, soverigne, nation state.
And then to a devastated wasteland under foreign dominance.
However I think we realy should discuss beer, Beer is more important than dead nations.