Jump to content

GhostRider3/3

Members
  • Posts

    1,027
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by GhostRider3/3

  1. Excellent, I do apreciate your response civdiv and im glad you responded in reference to the game. I guess the data is different where I recieved my information on the early sherman tank. Oh and Zmoney.. I never said all Allied equipment was rubish, true I think the German tank designs look abit better, however inefective some were... Anyways.. its late and im having a Fosters in celebration of a long weekend. Cheers!
  2. Thank you very much Hubert, that was very informative and I apreciate your reply as well as everyone else's messages here. I find it wonderful as many can come to these forums and discuss things in a civilized manner, and produce great insight and thought. I will definetly keep reading the forums here, and probably pick up a copy and check it out for myself. thanks, Juergen
  3. Yes I beleive the quality of ammunition was better with the US, but again this Thread was about the Dynamics.. in game with concern with Quality of Crew, Optics, and such. And Im more of a Historian on tactics, and Stratagey not really an Uber for every vehicle that took place in WWII. And it sounds like we read different materials.. but thats ok Zmoney. And by the way.. many allied tankers mistook the PzIV H for a Tiger, as their silhouetts were almost the same at long ranges, therefore when there buddies were taking fire, they sometimes assumed it was from a Tiger, not the PZ IVH....
  4. Just a Question, I have not played Strategic Command 2, and it sort of sounds alittle off balanced. Any way to edit your starting forces, and such? How does it compare to Hearts of Iron 2? Thanks, Juergen
  5. Well I think winning the War is an entirely different thread. Zmoney dont confuse me with.. how did you say it.. "Nazi Fan boy" you dont know me, so to say something like that is pretty irresponsible on your part. This thread was about the general dynamics of the game concerning the PzIV H and J vs early model Sherman... I put T-34 in the title because the barrel length is not as long as the Pz IV and neither is its velocity. The T-34 respectavily hands down would kick the ass of any Pz IV H J. and The Pz IV H would only stand a slight better chance at long ranges and from ambush or reverse slope tactics. As for where I live and where Im from, thats none of your business, I currently live in the US. And its all a matter of I guess what books and who you talk to, about the engagements in WWII, both sides were bad at propaganda reports, and mis information. There are many authors im sure that write byast opinions of equipment, not fully researching or understanding the equipment they are writing about. And if I happen to like German equipment over Allied that does not make me a Nazi either... thats like saying I like T-34's and Il2 Sturmoviks so I must be a communist.
  6. No I would not say that, everyone has there days, and every scenerio is different. I just think that my experiments with both tanks give the Sherman the edge at long ranges. My next experiments will probably be at 1000+ ranges using the same crews and such. The Sherman short 75mm should not do as well as the Pz IV H or J in hit percentage given the dynamics of both tanks. Flat open terrain... no obstructions. Technicaly the Pz IV with Vetran crew should have a better hit percentage than a Green Sherman crew. if Optics, crew and weapon are all factored into the hit Percentage.
  7. Maybe...LOL I did a search... nothing came up.. what was the other thread Corvidae, I would like to at least view it. thanks.. 12/26 HJ
  8. Yeah the Nashorn has such a large Silohette that it really needs to be positioned from an ambush area or from extreme distance. I think it only had 2-5mm of armor protection, so the slightest HE hit or Ap hit will surely destroy it. Make a scenerio using the long 88mm Pak. not the famed 88' Oh.. not sure if they have that AT gun for CMBB. Ill have to check It was a PAK that used the 88mm that was fitted to the King Tiger. Pz VIb.
  9. True...very true.. and I agree with you Realest, I have read many accounts of Panzer IV H and J's doing well in combat. Read Michael Reynolds series of the ISS PzKorps, or II SS pzKporps. Even though the Pz IV H suffered heavy casualties, on the west coast mostly due to lack of fuel or Airpower they performed very well to tank killing. Again it was the Allies that hated the Sherman and did not feel exactly safe in it.. but you would always 90% of the time German crews happy with their machines, confident and quite sure of themselves.... allthough at the end of the war it was airpower that was truly an overwhelming factor for them.. in fact there are other good reads as well of the conflict in the Eastern front where the Pz IV H and J's did very well against the T-34's not the T-34/85 of course, as that was an excellent platform. And yes we bloody all know that the Pz IV was a medium tank at best, howver at long range I think that it would get the better of the early version shermans....
  10. Well sense I did not develop the game I cant tell you what calculations they have programed in.. and Im really not a Techy! on that subject. I never said that being German made them special.. LOL However Im German and Consider myself Special! LOL I think the only way to feel better is to get about 10 Tigers.... on HUGE>.. HUGE map.. and blow the crap out of about 60 Shermans or more.. that sounds good for today's acitivities. LOL Yes The PZ IV had Crap armor....
  11. And as far as the Title of the Thread... I guess it should have been. Green Crews of Soviet and Allied Armor are superior to Vetran and Crack crews of the Whermacht! LOL that was the point I was trying to make.. on Game Dynamics... does not seem extremely acurate. Dont get me wrong the game is great, but I dont think that when they include Optics, armor quality and type of crew it really matters. If it does you really cant tell the difference with the exception Vetran crews are harder to panic under fire.
  12. Well I guess you all have not really read what I was talking about in the first place, and im not going on and on about it. No... shi..t the Pz IVH was not a great tank. but the Long barrel it used was better than the stupid shermans... and Im talking about the freaking Game Dynamics.. not what happend in Normady... As I said if you would read Im talking about how I think the game designers have flaws with their calculations when it comes to Vetran crew, optics, and a long barrel 75mm AT gun, that really does have better penetration value over the early sherman tanks! So respond to what the thread was about in the first place, im talking about the game play dynamics.
  13. Thanks for the input, However I still disagree with the gun-armor dynamics of the game. The T-34, and sherman M3 not the M4 as I have been discussing does not have the same penetrating value as the 75mm KwK 40 L/48 which was actualy a very decent AT gun. again I think some of you are missing my point, I know in Normady distaces were close... However I think alot of you need to read the battles around the Caen area. I know the Pz IV H and J were not the best tank. As I pull my hair out because some of you are not listening... My argument is with 1. Better optics 2. Vetran crew vs Green crew or Regular 3. High velocity vs Low Velocity 4. Ammunition 5. Range im talking about is 500m to 1000m All this and the Sherman.. Tinder box seems like it still has an edge over Pz IV H or J.. Its a wonder how you can even use them in a scenerio. And as a Historian I know the Kill ratio was alot higher on the Axis side vs the Allies. In fact the Morale of the US tankers and even British tankers were so bad in Normady they cried out to DC. Anyways... I think I got my point accross... when they developed the Pz IV... it seems that the dynamics are wrong for it. That tank should be more acurate than it is, and should be able to penetrate the Sherman at long range with a vetran crew well before that slow 75mm gun of the Sherman with a regular or green crew can hit the Pz IVH...unless the Sherman gets lucky dice rolls every round. For instance... I had a entire Platoon of Pz IVH spread accross a large field... vs a Platoon of Sherman M3 with the short 75mm... at a range of 1000m facing each other...German crews were Vetran with a Crack Platoon leader.. Shermans were all Green except for a Regular Platoon leader. end result were 2 shermans destroyed.. 4 Pz IVH destroyed... Oh and for the shurzen..I know they wont stop AP rounds.. however they will slow them down and affect there penetration value. Also my M3 data...in my second post was taken straight from the Sherman web site.. Im not talking about the 76mm 17lb gun. Check out Achtung Panzer! look at there data, they have a great web site. sad.... makes no sense. [ October 25, 2006, 10:45 PM: Message edited by: Jurgen12/26HJ ]
  14. Not sure what scenerio you play, but try putting them not on TOP.... But on the "REVERSE slope" This will better protect your ATG's. also try setting them up so that they make Killing fields of fire and overlap each other's sector a little, this will help out if one gun is engaged, the other if not engaged, so that they support each other. Or try putting them in defilades, Divits in the ground, low points, and at angles that mass amounts of fire cannot be directed at them, but they can deliver lethal firepower to the oncoming vehicles. Keep them out of sight, so that spotters have a hard time finding your postion, they will need infantry support. Juergen.
  15. My bad.... Early shermans were equiped with the following. A version used on early M3 medium tanks. Barrel length: 31 calibres Muzzle velocity: 588 m/s Shell weight (M72 AP): 6.32 kg Armour penetration (M72 AP shell, 457 m, at 30 degrees): 60 mm Taken from Achtung Panzer; Gun Type: Soviet 76.2mm F-34 L/41.5 German 75mm KwK 40 L/48 American 75mm M3 L/37.5 Anyways question not answered. What Im talking about is the unrealistic dynamics in the game. The German tank should be able to engage the sherman at range, and win everytime. (early version) Range being over 500m and facing each other. The PzIV H and J had better turret armor than the earlier models and the velocity of the earlier shermans could not penetrate crap. Look at the Battle of Caan in Normady for example. Germans usually lost the advantage at close range ie 250m or so. But again, Im talking about facing a Sherman early with its short 75mm vs a Pz IV H or J. In game it has unrealistic charcteristics.
  16. I did a search and could not find anything regarding this subject. I was extremely frustrated that my PZ. IVH could not stand up to the pathetic Sherman M4 basic models, Im not talking about the Fire Fly equivilant as I know they were deffinetly tank killers and had long barelled 76mm or 17lb guns. Short barrel (16 calibres) pack howitzer gun. Rate of fire: 25 rounds per minute Muzzle velocity: 1,250 ft/s (380 m/s) Range: 9,610 yards (8790 m) Shell: 6.3 kg Armor: 2 inches (50 mm) (front upper hull glacis) VS PZ IV H or J Armor: 80mm Gun : KwK 40 L/48 I went to Achtung Panzer, and was not suprised that the M3 was inferior to the German Long barreled 75mm. Its penetration chart thanks to Achtung Panzer which is a highly respected web site shows the German Superiority vs the Sherman M3. My issue is that the Penetration for the Sherman seems wrong in CMBB or CMAK. The Information in the game seems correct when you hit Enter and look at the stats, but the dynamics seem wrong in game. It is too easy for the sherman at 500m to even 800m, the sherman usualy comes out ahead. So I guess Im at a lost, I have replaye scenerios that I have created and the Pz IV H seems at a major disadvantage, even with its Shurzten. (skirts) Can I edit my TANK....LOL Anyone else annoyed with this? Juergen.
  17. off the subject.. but what is this Improved Combat mission im hearing about on the forums?? Are they re-vamping the entire CMBB, CMO, and CMAK or is it just Combat Mission Campaigns? A new graphics engine, for CM would be sweet, as well as being able to have all theatres of war in one package, Ie.. from 1939-1946? That way we could play any part of WWII, sounds good but not sure if Battlefront has plans like that... maybe they will include all that in the Campaigns issue, whenever that comes out minus the re-vamped graphics. Im sold! Juergen
  18. I totaly agree with Spindry69, that would be most excellent. I do think ToW will do very well, and am still excited for its release. However having an improved CM would be very, very nice. I love chess, and tactical thinking and being able to change everthing about. Thanks Battlefront for all of your hard work for consumers like myself and thousands of others! Juergen
  19. From what it sounds like I Theatre of War will be campaigns with forces already configured per battle is my guess. The Graphics look great and is a large improvement over CM series. It does not sound like you will be able to edit anything, Names of troops, formations, and there is no editor....so far. I will continue to most likely play the CMBB and CMAK series until there are editors. I guess I just like to be able to change the course of history and dislike playing pre-set campaigns that have only one ineveitable end.... success for the Allies. LOL I guess im a fan of What IF!!! anyways we will see where the great people of Battle Front takes us with there most excellent new addition.
  20. I know you have all killed this already but in regards to Swastika's you would find them on vehicles advancing into the enemy.. ie.. scout vehicles, or a Recon in force with tanks. As in regards to Infantry, it was pretty much only the Waffen SS, or its bodyguard unit that applied them. And not to many Waffen SS men applied the Swastika, but they would apply the SS runes to the right side of the helmet. Pretty much the other branches applied the National Flag instead of the Swastika to the Left side of helmet.
  21. I guess my question also is in line with c3K, and my question is this, Will Aircraft be able to play a factor in CMC? ie.. can you bombard a possible enemy defensive area with a bomb run with possibly Pe-2's and He-111's? sort of like pounding them with artilery but in this case if the enemy has flak units then I guess there would be some calculation as to aircraft being lost and such. Also after such artilery fire or Air bombardment would there be physical damage to the terrain and surrounding areas? ie buildings on fire, craters and ruble, destroyed vehicles and troops damaged?
  22. Im glad that CMC is coming out... now I get to design my own missions and Devestate my enemy in mass! I think CMC will be great, one of my questions is Air Power, since the scope is larger, will there be more tactical aircraft available. ie... an entire wing of HE-111's or Pe-2's laying waste to suspected enemy fortification or defensive areas, and will this then reflect damage on the battle board as well? Also can you do pre-emptive artilery strikes to suspected enemy defensive areas, and will this damage on terrain and units be reflected in combat on your next move? or am I way out here, and not even close to what CMC is capable of. [ June 30, 2006, 08:17 AM: Message edited by: Jurgen12/26HJ ]
  23. Nice thats a good idea. I know that people creating scenerios... like myself use Roadblocks to symbolize Rail Cars. I wish they could produce rail cars That would be sweet, alot of small skirmishes were held at Rail junctions and Rail yards.
  24. I have not purchased this game yet, is it far better than Hearts of Iron? It sounds like you can definelty have some unique situations with this version of Strategic command. is it possible to re-name your units as in the first version, and did they create specailized units such as Guards, WaffenSS, Rangers, or Commando Batalions?
×
×
  • Create New...