GhostRider3/3
-
Posts
1,027 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by GhostRider3/3
-
-
Thanks everyone for the Forestry lessons and the beautiful Link to the Aerial photographs.. (Notes taken)
Ahh can we have more AAR now please.. Im dying to see more Shermans, and Panzers taken it to each other.... and I would really like to see the Paratroopers dodge HE and MG rounds... LOL.Frankly Im drooling soo much, I cant wait for my copy, so I went back and started watching all my DVD's of "A World at War"...again...
-
There were very few sizable tank battles in the West, though there were lots of tanks engaged. At the tactical level the Americans won plenty. Both sides suffered quite a number of battles where things didn't go very well for them. One of my favorites was the battle for Schmidt and Kommerscheidt. They didn't win those particular battles, but the Germans came off pretty badly in several engagements within the larger scope of the battles.
Steve
I strongly believe however that if the Allies did not have Air Supremecy and did not have to worry about Fuel shortages.... Hence = ground, then the Axis Tanks would most likely been on top in almost every engagement. I mean by the time Normady came to the Germans they had already lost the war...too many what if's shoulda, woulda, and coulda's.
But buy 1944 The Germans were using the last remaning stocks of equipment and men, while the Allies were now putting out Volumes of equipment... and men.
I remember talking to a son of a UK vet, and his Father explained to him that the entire meditereanean Theatre would have been completely different had the Germans gone the extra distance and destroyed the forces or made them surrender and Dunkirk, the British he believed would not have been able to make good on those loses, and the battle for Greece, Crete, and North Africa and even India would have been not the same. So I beleive it is Fate, and alot of lady luck or Divine intervention if you will... anyone who has been in combat either believes in a higher power, or is enraged on how a higher power could let stuff like War happen... but if your religious then you would know warfare is, and always will be apart of Humankind... Cain..and Able.. LOL.
-
So Basically if you have a Bridge wich could be blocked a scenerio could be pretty much over before it got started if lets say the defense shot out a Tank on the bridge.
I would hope that in designing scenerios with Bridge crossings that Engineers are available to have boats possible or in some way create a crude bridge. I know the Soviets were masters of sinking some T-34's and throwing some logs over them. I guess the design of the Scenerios need alot of consideration when dealing with lets say... 1 Bridge crossing and preventing the enemy from crossing.
-
Could not find any info on this so I guess this is a question for the BF team...or anyone in the know.
I know in CMSF the terrorists or enemies got to use technicals or car bombs.. and my question is will there be any Civilian cars and trucks available.
For example maybe some Citroen's, Mercedes, German Staff car, Allied Staff car, Ford, Opel, or maybe some French trucks etc.
I think they would be cool for Scenerio type "Special Missions" French Resistance etc.
Just checking..
-
Couldn't agree more, Bil...
Yep.. going to have to agree on that one as well. For us in the Infantry... with Long range reaching instruments of death... we may calculate windage etc... but for the Armor guys its always been.. "Send it!"
And then there was mass amounts of destruction!....
-
My other question with bridges as well is this....... Can we blow them UP!!!
By engineers, or by Direct Fire, and Indirect Fire?thanks for any enlightment.
-
If I remember right the long 50 in some of the IIIs combined a different type of armor plate actually made them superior to the early IVs with the short 75. That being said the Sherman was superior to nearly everything in NA. I should have prefaced my earlier comments by saying if armor and guns are nearly equal on both sides. Obviously your tactics are formed to a great degree by the capabilities of your equipment. There isn't much point in angling your armor if its impenetrable or if the enemy guns will penetrate from all ranges and angles. I remember one Tiger crewman who said he couldn't imagine fighting in anything else. For most of the war that was probably true.
True however I found thru some reads that the first Shermans deployed had really poor quality AP rounds, and pretty much everywhere I read the Sherman 75mm was great up until about 700m-800m the Crews reporting that there shells were even bouncing off Pz IVH's.
This of course is debatable as we are talking about First hand passed down to books but the velocity of their AP rounds tappered off as they were not Aero efficient and of poor quality... at least till the later stages of 44 early 45. So the Optimum range that a Sherman wanted to engage a Pz. IVH or J or side hull hit for a Panther or even Tiger would have been within 600m or less.
So this Battle being played out with ranges below 700m is really a advantage for the Shermans. So for the Pz IVH to really survive it needs distance from the 75mm of the Sherman. 76mm = Issues for the PzIVH... but really the Sherman 76 vs ths 75 L48 are pretty comparable, it was the Long Barrell 17lbr or 76mm that truly had the Panthers and even Tigers worried. IMO
-
True, but in the desert you can begin firing at maximum range so unless the enemy is really spread out for the first few minutes can manage your facing somewhat. Personally unless there is some reason to hold the line I'd be doing a lot of reverse driving to keep my front armor toward the enemy (on defense) .
Hello StellarRat,
I know the Pz IV F2 does not have the same armor as the IVH... and in CMAK my Pz III J faired way better then the IV F2 and G's.. especially from the front. However the Side armor is always weakest, hence the need to flank all the time.
I was still amazed at the firepower of the Early Sherman hits at 800-1000m. They were destroying the crap out of my IVF2's and (G's) and even Pz III J's, although mainly the PzIV F2's suffered the most.
That being said though, the 75mm L/43 did do its job in CMAK, although I thought I would have an advantage at longer ranges with the Sherman... it was pretty much tic for tac.
-
The vehicles actually do have some wear and tear and dust on them, if it isn't obvious from the compressed JPEG screenshots. The new Rock Paper Shotgun AAR shows some Sherman dust. The key factor is that unlike certain CMx1 mods, the effects aren't over-done.
I agree with NormalDude here... its nice to see a variety of even the Pz IVH. if you notice some have a grey bucket in the back, and others do not. Not to mention the wear and tear on each is not exactly the same. Sort of what maybe Empire Total war did with the peoples heads.. some diff, from others.
What I would like to see happen with the Battlefront Series is a way to get rid of having a million different mods you have to download from different people and areas... some work, some dont, some work with others and some conflict.. BLAH!!!
I would also like to see an option for when you are creating your own Custom Scenario, or QB... Tactcial markings option. They did this sort of with "IL2"
The Tactical marking for which division you would like to deploy would be applied to the Armored Vehicle etc.... sort of like with a drop down menu or something you could pick either 3rd Armd, 1st etc... Deploy a TD company from the "....." TD Btn with correct tactical markings.
Alot more detail, but consumers will always want more, but just a suggestion. The Battlefront Team has really done a supurb job with Normandy, and even though it may not have the correct Tac markings for what scenerio I want to create... Im still pre-ordering.
-
I think people really rely alot on TV... Hollywood, which in my opinion is unrealistic. Sure most likely during the civil war or WWII 90% of combat personel were probably fit. But then when you realize that most people volunteered or what not it could be plausible to have had some overweight persons. Uncommon but plausible.
I have seen numerous WWII combat films showing a large man or two... again rare and uncommon but it did happen. It is ok to me to show some imperfections with film, not everyone can be a steller GQ 10. IMO
-
Even though I may like Axis Armor better, I still enjoy a good fight. I still beleive that between Close Quarter tank combat (500-200m) the Sherman will have a slight advantage over the Pz IVH. If you really want some good reads in conjuction with Shermans and Mk IV tanks, you really should read the Books by Frank Reynolds.
Although the Mk IV tank was a decent medium tank, by 1945 it was defenitely becoming a obsolete design.
I am truly enjoying the AAR's and the beautiful pictures... the tanks look freaking sweet!
-
Plus having a strong leader (tank commander in this case) would trickle down to the crew. So if the TC is crack then I would degrade the crew to veteran or maybe regular if the entire crew minus the TC is green....but never underestimate the affect of a strong leader in these positions...they teach and inspired their subordinates to do more than they would prpbably do otherwise.
Steve-o
Yes if you look at the adventure of Michael Whittmen and Bobby Woll it was truly a great combination. Bobby was extremely proficient with his gunnery skills, and Michael with his decision and reaction capability. In the end it is teamwork... that makes a tank and its crew act as one.
-
First of all, thank you very much for all these detailed explanations. I really appreciate them !!
However, there is something that I am not understanding properly: when you speak about the hit results on the M4A3 Sherman, you state that:
“M4A3 Sherman upper hull: usually but not always penetrates; majority of killing energy absorbed by armor (53mm vs 46mm)”.
And later you also state referring again to the Sherman
“If the chance of a penetration from straight on is marginal, then a less optimal angle of impact likely means the round does not penetrate.”
But the chance of penetration should be quite high. 53mm vs 46mm should mean that most of the times the shell should penetrate. (53/46 = 1.15, penetration capability is 15% larger than the thickness of the plate). Then why do you speak about marginal chance of penetration? I think that in this case we have a high chance of penetration… and consequently if the Panzer IV hits the M4A3 Sherman three times with this high chance of penetration, it must be very unlucky not to penetrate it at least once. Not to achieve a penetration with 3 hits is possible, of course, but it is a very unlucky result for the Panzer IV.
Moreover, although the majority of killing kinetic energy would be absorbed by armor in case of penetration, the AP rounds used by the Panzer IV have an explosive filling to increase the destruction after penetration and therefore they should be able to produce important damage to the M4A3 Sherman.
Battlefront, could you please comment on these?
P.S. BTW, the ratios for the M4A3 Sherman hitting the Panzer IV at the upper hull and lower hull are quite similar: 96mm vs 80mm -> 96/80 = 1.20 (penetration capability 20% larger than the thickness of the plate) and 93mm vs 80mm -> 93/80 =1.16 (penetration capability 16% larger than the thickness of the plate) and in both cases you state that there will be a penetration.
I also am not understanding this as well, as I am more of an overall Historian and rely more on facts then formulas. All I know is the 75mm L/48 can pretty much easily penetrate 96mm at 500m or less. I was just more or soo looking for a answer as to why... deflection? It just seems that it would have out of 3 shots at 500m or less at least a 30% chance of penetrating, but when all 3 did not, I was curious.
Later there was a hit from the front at around 450m I think... I still can not wait to see the results but am a little concerend sort of that if the 75mm L48 can penetrate up to 96mm of armor... what ammo were they using? HE?
-
No, we don't go down to that level of detail. What happens is Experience is averaged downward.
Steve
Good to know, besides most crews unless promoted, or injured stuck pretty much together.
-
Awesome Action reporting... cant wait for the next minute!
-
I had the impression that the side skirts were to cause the shaped charges (bazooka) to detonate prematurely, prior to hitting the main armor thus rendering them harmless.
This is the same reason slat cages are installed around the Strykers in Iraq today.
Exactly!
As my above post contradicts some other info.. I think it really depended on the distance and situation. But unless the Bazooka or AT round was at close range, the Shurzen could possibly make the round impact abnormaly. However at close range from 600m or less, not sure a Allied APCR from a 76mm would make much difference... on a PZ IV that is or even a Hull shot on the flank of a Panther from 900m or less. (Side shot) -
The T-72 family and the new Leopard 2A6 have maneuvering problems with their long cannons too. It just comes with the territory. That's one of the reasons why the U.S. opted out of the 120mm barrel extension program. I've got a photo of a crew of a Centurion digging about two feet of 20 pounder gun barrel out of the side of an embankment in Korea. And Centurion stands considerably higher off the ground that JpzIV.
Sounds like driver error.. LOL.. Hell even in Iraq us Marines were getting vehicles stuck, overdriving the LAV's or whatever... Youth.. will be youth!
-
Interesting. Here is something the US said about it in 1943.
A U.S. report on the German practice of mounting armor skirts (Schürzen) on panzers in WWII, from Tactical and Technical Trends, No. 40, December 16, 1943.
NOTE: taken from "Lone Sentry"
From both Allied and German sources, reports have come in of additional armored skirting applied to the sides of German tanks and self-moving guns to protect the tracks, bogies and turret. Photographs show such plating on the PzKw 3 and 4, where the plates are hung from a bar resembling a hand-rail running above the upper track guard and from rather light brackets extending outward about 18 inches from the turret. What appeared to be a 75-mm self-moving gun was partially protected by similar side plates over the bogies. This armor is reported to be light -- 4 to 6 millimeters (.16 to .24 in) -- and is said to give protection against hollow-charge shells, 7.92-mm tungsten carbide core AT ammunition, and 20-mm tungsten carbide core ammunition. This armor might cause a high-velocity AP shot or shell to deflect and strike the main armor sideways or at an angle, but covering the bogies or Christie wheels would make the identification of a tank more difficult, except at short ranges.
-
Not really wanting to get into a debate on the effectiveness of the JPz Iv/70 but Im sorry the video really does not do the vehicle justice. Traversing muddy sloped ground? Hell any tank back then was not doing much over 35km/hr The Jagd Pz. IV/70 did have a top speed of 40km/hr give or take. (25mph) Compared to the Pz. IV H was 26mph or 10mph off road.Yankee Dog, heard the same thing, just hope all the different vehicles ideosyncratic behaviours can be shown somehow, it gives them a character. There is a famous Ardennes photo of a Jagd Pz IV Lang negotiating a fence and ditch, what is interesting is that it comes from a clip which shows just how slow the beast is.moving.
17-28 seconds into clipPhillip I don't want to let this debate degenerate into semantic argument about the meaning of perform versus behave, I really do appreciate though the way you are trying to give the gamer a quasi-realistic look at WWII combat. I was quite iffy about the game (US not my favourites and was holding out for the Brits) but the more I read, the more my queries are answered, not ignored, the closer I come to buying the damn thing. Good job I have quit all but my basic responsibilities at work, otherwise it would be early morning gaming, or persuading my wife to see her parents whilst I, ahem, work!
Wrath of Dagon, thanks for making my point by using the example of Kursk.
Now compare that to the Sherman which could do about 25-30mph or roughly maybe 12mph off road.
-
Geesh I hope I did this right. Picture of a Jagd Pz IV/70 Front.
The First picture is a Pz IV/70 although the barrel is long it can be secured, as with picture #3. The center picture is the JgPz IV/48 Shorter barrel. I did read that the Jagd Pz IV/70 from a drivers perspective was difficult to manuever, but again this was during the battle of the Bulge which was not ideal by any means to be effective tank country. In ambush or in open field with its low profile it was however a effective Tank Killer. When I mean open field I mean that it had the ability to manuever and could bring its 75mm L/70 to bear at distance with the enemy. The greater the range from the enemy the less it had to worry about flank penetration. The front was well sloped and armored for ranges over 1000m. But at that range could easily penetrate most Allied Vehicles. I do not think the Stugs although somewhat successful, and the Jagd Pzers were great at offensive manuevers, but best deployed defensively.
-
I won't disagree with you on that, GhostRider. It's good for people to have interests. It's just a funny visual, like a re-enactment of 'Allo 'allo. It's only missing some barmaids, British pilots in drag, female resistance fighters and a Long Distance Duck.
LOL
Yeah I hear you, Its funny some of our girlfriends are soo bored that they are willing to come out and reenact with us. I must say the Russian Female fighter is just as tenacious as the male... Yeah... it can be at times humerous.
Peace!
-
Only one Kompanie of the 503rd had the IIs, the rest were Tiger Is.
Yes thank you for correcting me. I believe some of the other earlier versions were sent to Panzer Lehr as there are photos of some left behind, or burnt up from either crew, or some other means of destruction near St. Lo.
-
I see that the reenactor in the foreground has valiantly bestowed upon himself to grow himself to the calibre of the Reichsmarschall himself, but after fulfilling this pursuit couldn't find enough white velvet for the uniform (there must have been an Elvis lookalike contest in the town at the same time), he chose to dress himself as a Neubaufahrzeug.
Maybe he should have gone to the Elvis contest, after all.
Nice... Im not here to throw stones or anything, but at least he is keeping History alive. As a reenactor myself and one that has met Vetrans from the UK, Hungary, Germany and the US, I have been honored to take part in mock battles, as a reenactor.
Some groups may be more Farbie then others, but how can you say anthing negative to someone who enjoys what he or she does.
Just saying go a little easy.... some would say we are complete geeks for waiting and drooling over CM Normady.. but hey if it makes us happy then who cares.
-
Awesome Bil! was there any way you could have fired a couple of smoke rounds with Tank 2 before you moved(I dont think you can tell the tank to fire smoke first, (delay) then move. By now your opponent is going to realize your flanking desire..
Anyways I agree with that even in Cmak CMBB, that the Mk IV was best at ranges of over 800+ meters vs Sherman and T-34.... you defeninetely have to know your strength and weakness. (Book of 5 rings...LOL) Distance is a good thing with the Pz IV.
That being said this battle looks more like a Close Quarters battle with tanks. Under 1000m
Bil what are the ranges of thes past 2 minutes... the engagements?
Thanks.. everythings looks so wonderful... Dang! I am defentitely pre-ordering this Friday!
Ahh can we have more AAR now please.. Im dying to see more Shermans, and Panzers taken it to each other.... and I would really like to see the Paratroopers dodge HE and MG rounds... LOL.
Bridges
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
I could have sworn in CMBB or CMAK the ability to have engineers remove mines and Blow Bridges. Will the same be possible with CM Normady? I think anyone who designes scenerios etc, for example "Pegasus Bridge" with British Para will make the scenerio challenging but yet realistic, with realistic Varibles and Victory parameters. I mean if they did not take Pegasus what did that mean... tactical setback or strategic setback? I guess its up to the designers? But having linked campaign or scenerios is something I have always looked for.