J Ruddy

Ho hey! What the hell has happened to this place? I used to lurk here for the chuckles and brief glimpses of wit but death threats, whining and Pearl White Fords? Keeeeeeeeeristal Gayle! Fellas, I'm nothing here. Zip, nadda nuttink! Not even a maggot who's crawled out from under a dead and bloated MasterGoodale. Well, ok maybe the last one. But even I can see that you're all are in need of a good kick in yer panties followed up with three quick shots from good ole Dr. Jack Daniels. If you don't want me crapping in your sandbox every day I suggest you follow a couple of rules: First and foremost, leave poor Abbott alone, the chap's not been right since he played Bud Flick in Dance with me Henry. Second, stop with this death threat turned nicey nicey butt kissing stuff. Let's keep the personal apologies and accusations of kitten killing to the emails, ok? For example, this is acceptable: Bauhause, I used to tink your name was a reflection on your preferred form of architecture, but I'm starting to wonder if you aren't a mindight drag queen? That's sick, but I guess it's the American way. This is not acceptable: Joe Shaw, the voice of reason and a sensitive male? Not likely. Not in this universe or any other. I'm going to kill you and bury you under the Washington monument. Actually I'm so sorry I didn't mean to offend you, honestly. I'm really a nice guy who likes kittens. If you use the right batter they taste just like chicken. And yes I am sodding off. Frankly the lousy atmosphere in here is thicker than Boo's dead infantry.

Noooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Tell me it aint so?! I luvs my ATI!

I must rescind my previous post. This thread, once again, is dead...

Well I'll be a Ping loving pariah! If my nose serves me right, the right honourable MasterGoodale has returned (again) and even more, he's brought this thread back from beyond the wasteland over the river styx, known by some as Hades, others, New Jersey, kicking, screaming and chock full o' lovely putrid Maggot filled goodness!! (again) :mad: :mad: :mad: Blah!!!! :mad: A word of advise, your diamond crustyness, don't bother with Prince Eunich, he can't finish a beer, let alone a TNT chucking contest! BWAAAAHHHHHHAAAAAAAHAHAAAHAAAHAAHAHA I shudder to think of how many lousy ship jumping maggots have slithered over to the cesspool for a little jumpy jumpy, humpy humpy with Miss Ping and her brazil nuts. Chaos baby, that's where my heart lay, not in an archaic aramaic feudal system of pseudo-wit and hobo snobbery. May Ping and her poodles eat cake, that's what I say, cause the people have spoken and when the people chuck TNT in the forest, trees fall, dammit!

You're thinking of "America's Army"... :mad:

Happy Turkey day to my neighbours to the south. Eat, drink, sleep, drink, eat, sleep, eat, drink and be merry!

Christ! Who in their right mind is turned on by a busload of yattering hens squaking about brand x jeans, cosmetic brand y and how much it hurt when they got their nipples pierced... Never mind the back massaging for sore muscles and the inevitable comparison of their leg waxing results. Jeepers, we're talking about, what 19 to 23 year old College girls who haven't been physically altered by childbirth, breast feeding or gravity and haven't turned into bank account nazi's who hold sex over your head like some kind of carrot then ask you for a new kitchen... What was I saying? Oh I know, sod off with your cheerleading bus driving fantasies already! Ya sick-o! Now a bus load of naughty Stormtrooper-ettes going to Dragon Con might get interesting...

I like it. It could use a few tweeks (as beefed about by others) but all in all it's pretty good. It it were released today, I might chuckle but I wouldn't complain. Kasserine Pass here I come! (or not..)

I shoot the 7.62x54R fairly often at the range. If the story of the body armour vs 7.62x54R is true I am very impressed. The most common rounds that I buy surplus are: - Hungarian 1987 7.62x54r Steel Core Light Ball - Hungarian 1970 7.62x54r Steel Core Heavy Ball (For more info on these rounds see http://7.62x54r.net ) I can't speak to kevlar or other forms of modern body armour but I have penetrated 1/8" mild steel with both of these rounds at ~80 yds. I have also blown the back out of a 4x4 at 200 yds. 5.56 & 7.62x39 are very popular calibers at my range but in comparisons (using surplus military rounds - sorry I don't know which ones) neither were a match to the 54R on 1/8" mild steel or the 4x4 test. Just some first hand information... not sure if it is useful or not.

T-34's suck, the best tank was... er never mind, did that, got the t-shirt. Seriously (and I mean it this time) does anyone know, is it really 100% true that Commonwealth Allies put the D-Day stars on their vehicles crooked so they wouldn't be confused with Yanks. I know I've heard this a hundred times from all kinds of sources, including first hand accounts, but I don't know if it is a myth or something that a few people did or not at all. I have a book with a ton of Normandy armour pic's (forget the title right at the moment) and I have looked for an not found any crooked stars. I guess it's a little off topic but I'm painting up a June '44 M4 and have to decide whether to put the star on straight or not before quickly/sloppily painting over it so that German AT teams aren't tempted to use it as a target. Jim

I told you to do WWII, but did you listen to me??? Noooooo... Regardless, I'm sure people are going to complain no matter what you put in the game. (No! That lightbulb is a 120v frosted GE model, not the [insert obscure electrical reference here] Syrian model!) Hurry up and finish SF so that you can start working on WWII or U.S. Civil War or whatever interesting historical thing you are doing next!!!!

Well... I know it's shocking, but I have an opinion on this... As a hunter I *know* that (Contrary to some people's opinions) the most common cause of death in a large animal is shock. Whether it is a 1 oz 12 Gauge Slug at 1100 fps or a 160 grain 7mm Mag at 3000 fps, the goal of the ammo manufacturer is to cause enough damage to put the target into severe shock causing death. White Tail Deer Bucks Average 150-220 lbs so I think they make a good choice for drawing a parallel with military targets. There are a number of big bore fanatics who use 44 Mag, .45/70, .444 etc... on deer and there are the guys who use .243 (a necked down high velocity .308 / 7.62 x 51) Obviously these are very different weapons that kill in different ways. (OK, I know, 30-06, .308, 7mm mag, 6.5 etc.. are popular too but lets look at .45/70 vs .243) The .243 will convert the kinetic energy of a rapidly travelling nice small efficient bullet into a large flat-ish piece of copper & lead which causes massive tissue damage and trauma. The .45/70 is already a large diameter bullet and while it will mushroom to become even larger, the bullet design will waste less energy to do so. So a low velocity larger bore round *can* cause trauma as well a high energy smaller bore round and vice versa based on efficient bullet design. The hv round wins in things like bullet drop and range, while the slower round wins in things like 'twig deflections' and not accidentally shooting your neighbours dog 1200 yards away... I don't think that FMJ rounds use any of the advanced expanding bullet designs that we can get away with hunting. So the 5.56 NATO, a small light super fast round that will fragment, yaw etc... was developed (roughly based on the civilian .222). Soldiers could suddenly carry much more ammo and supposedly do the same job as the 7.62 when it comes to causing trauma. So why is it no one in their right mind hunts deer with .223 rifles? One guess is that hunters are more humane than military weapons designers. The deer don't have field hospitals and medics to patch them up. Another is we don't like fragmentation. (At least I don't, the thought of digging through a carcass to find 17 fragments of a shattered round doesn't appeal to me.) Anyways, will a 500 fps drop make a big difference in a FMJ 5.56's terminal performance? (That number seems very high, the average rule of thumb is 50fps per inch) If it were an expanding round, then yes, absolutely a 500 fps loss would be a terrible thing. You need the kinetic energy to mushroom the round and cause the most trauma. But a non mushrooming FMJ? I guess it won't fragment as much, though I believe fragmentation in a high powered rifle round is normally associated with *very* high velocities not seen with a 5.56 at more than 100 yds even with a 20" barrel. If you check the ballistics of the Remington UMC 55gr FMJ round, from a 20" barrel it loses around ~500 fps at 100 yards and an additional ~400 fps at 200 yds. So if you lose 500 fps from the get-go you're basically cutting 100 yards off the effective range for the weapon. Given a 16" barrel I don't think I'd want to engage at more than 200 yards anyways. At 200yds and ~1600fps the 5.56 will still be dangerous enough to ruin my day. Still, if it came down to my life, I'd prefer the heavier, larger 6.8SPC in the 16" barrel, thanks. It's the old claymore versus rapier thing, you know what I mean? Jim

Old Joke: A deer hunter walks through the woods carrying a black powder musket, see's a massive Buck and takes a shot. By the time the smoke clears, the big buck has swung around behind the hunter, rams him then procedes to mount him. A few minutes later the bow legged, sore and infuriated the man scrambles back to his truck, grabs his 12 ga shotgun and a box of slugs. He carefully makes his way back into the forest when out of no where the Buck slams into him again then mounts him. A half hour later, in agony, the man collects up his gear and returns to his truck where he grabs his 30-06 & tree stand and then heads back into the forest. Near the small clearing where the Buck had mounted him twice the hunter is looking around for a good tree to put his stand in when *wham* the buck knocks him down and mounts him yet again. After 45 minutes the deer whispers into the hunter's ear, "Lets face it buddy, you're not here for the hunting are you?"

Not that it is important, but I do recall seeing tripod mounted C6 GPMGs (I think it was called a SF Kit), though it was quite a few years ago. Imagine you have a platoon that is tasked with taking a hill. Though a bipod mounted GPMG might do OK, if you are maintaining a sustained rate of fire over long ranges, I'm thinking setting up a tripod mounted GPMG to provide sustained covering fire would be ideal. But then I wasn't an infanteer, didn't get to play much with the nice toys, so I might be out to lunch.

lol - you guys need to calm down a little. I guess you don't recognize a troll when you see one... Well, this isn't fun anymore so I'll leave on this note. Shermans suck. Anyone who disagrees is a total baboon. :mad: have a nice day, Bills fans.

<font color = red size = 6> I've been mistaken for a cesspooler!!!! </font> :mad: :mad: :mad: Bad Steve! Nasty, dirty, evil Steve! When we gets our ring back we'll show you and all your "Sherman tank loving", "no crew served MG's when attacking" secret lovers!!! Either that or sneak into the Leaf game.

Why not - he's right.</font>

Yup, that's exactly the mentality the Russians used when they sent their men to the meat grinder on the Eastern Front. They won the front didn't they? So it cost the lives of a few million men? So what? There can't be anything wrong with the military doctrine so long as you win? Sure, maybe someone could have come up with a doctrine that didn't results in so many losses, but any doctrine is better than no doctrine after all. So maybe a few thousand Allied lives could have been saved by a handful of key design changes to the medium tank of the day. We won, didn't we? And the tanks were nice and cheap too. Go Bills Go! </font>

Yes, but what about tripod mounted Brens!? :mad: Me a MrPing worshipper? The cesspool is a nice place to visit, drop the kids off at the pool so to speak, but I wouldn't want to live there...! You are right about one thing though, the last person to take me seriously ended up writing a book in the CMAK forum on how the Sherman tank is superior to the T-34. :mad: bwaa haa haa! Jim [edited to fix UBB code ] [ November 14, 2006, 08:58 AM: Message edited by: J Ruddy ]

Go Bills Go! (Look, the emperor has no clothes!) Just a quick question, are you a moron? All joking aside, it was the methodology of the assembly line which was borrowed from the Auto Industry which helped the west to mass produce vehicles of all kinds, including Sherman tanks. This isn't a new revelation, it's been known for 60+ years. I saw it on TV, it must be true. Actually I was not very clear. Ford actually introduced mass production production line methods to communist Russia in 1929-1930. By implementing this methodology in the tractor plants, Russia was able to ramp up production of T-34's and other vechicles. My point is that while the source parts changed, the final assembly procedures did not change much. Look at a picture of the 1968 Chev 1/2 ton and the 1995 Chev 1/2 ton. There aren't many parts that are the same but they are the same basic design and were produced on the same basic line using similar methods. To change to a truck that is 12" wider or with a relocated engine would be a costly change over. The idea of fenders, a hood, a ladder frame, SBC engine, RWD & 4WD etc... are all the same. The assembly staff did not need to learn new whole new skills to develop the next-gen M4. Well I did say: IMO the main raison d'etre for tanks is to have a well protected and mobile firing platform whether the target is infantry, other armoured vehicles or hard points etc... The Leopard II, Challenger II & M1 Abrams are great tanks. The M551 was *not* a great tank. The Panther was a fantastic design, if not a *little* too costly to build. Any time you compromise, you run the risk of creating something that is sub-par. Don't get me wrong, I do love the Firefly. I personally think the Comet was a better design though. Unfortunately superior production capability beat out a superior design in this case. Could you see some guy in bible-belt USA building a British tank design? Not likely. No WWII tank is without its faults. I just think that the Sherman line of vehicles reminds more more of VW Bugs. Cheap, easy to produce, does the job. Does this make it great? Some people say the Bug was a great car. I prefer a car with a decent heater and more that 56 HP. If I had to choose a single *great* tank of the 20th century it would have to be the Centurian. If you have to ask why, read a book. :mad: lol - a Sherman fanatic calling me crazy. Bolting on a bunch of stuff to make the Sherman more useful is more of a kudo for the engineers, not the original design. The DD tank's 'most successful amphibian' status is a bit suspect. They were purpose built for D-Day and didn't do too badly in that role (ignoring Omaha Beach, that is). The whole concept of a swimming tank is for the most part silly and if you can name 5 combat tested swimming tanks I will buy you a beer. If Sea Lion had gone ahead it is possible the Tauchpanzer III would have been the 'most successful amphibious tank' ever built. I do concede the point that the chassis was also used for a huge variety of tasks. IMO, not to the same level of performance as the SU85/SU100 TD's& SU122 AG. Again I think this speaks to the manufacturing power of the west, not the soundness of the design. (Like a gong - tres drole.) M46 Scored 20% better. So are you saying it isnt' a better design? Armour Up? SU-100 tank hunter - 110mm Frontal Armour for example. How many engineers & military leaders looked at the Sherman tank and said "Golly! That is a great design! We should make our own version!" The thought of Heinz Guderian demanding that Germany look into building a tank based on the Sherman design is a total farce. Beta tape was better than VHS, but VHS won out. The Sherman is the VHS tape of the American WWII war machine. It was at best on par with the Pz IV as far as greatness goes. That's just one man's opion though, I'm sure it won't keep you from sleeping at night. Jim

My point regarding T-34's is that the initial design lent itself to up armouring and up gunning without too much trouble. [Edit] T34/85 - Sloped Armour alla round, 6" lower profile, 55km/h, 360km range - I fail to see how this isn't an improvement over any war time Sherman? They were all (M46, M47, M48 and M60) influenced heavily by T-34. The M48 was the first American tank who's design reminds me of the T-34/85, it's fast and has a big gun. Plus there is no real reason why the US couln't have built it in 1944. What message are you reading? I just think it is a smarter/better design than the Sherman. Do the tank designs of 1945-1999 look more like the Sherman or T-34? Why? [ November 13, 2006, 01:56 PM: Message edited by: J Ruddy ]

The biggest mistake you can make is thinking you need to 'roll over' the enemy with your tanks. That is, playing the game more like an armoured avalanche, rather than a careful game of chess. Using scouts to move ahead of your armour is a good idea. I normally use infantry or light vehicles that I don't mind putting in harms way. Even if you are assaulting you need to be sure that you are taking tactically important ground based on your equipment, not just bearing down on the enemy. Depending which Stug III you have, you should be able to out gun most Shermans at longer ranges. You might not want to 'lead the attack' with them as closing with the Shermans will equal out the difference in weaponry. If you have short 75 Shermans, you will want to get as close to the enemy as possible, most German guns will take you out at long range. I don't know what else to say. Even when attacking you need to be sure you are stopping and holding key positions for the map. Play it more like chess and you may have more success. jr

Yup, that's exactly the mentality the Russians used when they sent their men to the meat grinder on the Eastern Front. They won the front didn't they? So it cost the lives of a few million men? So what? There can't be anything wrong with the military doctrine so long as you win? Sure, maybe someone could have come up with a doctrine that didn't results in so many losses, but any doctrine is better than no doctrine after all. So maybe a few thousand Allied lives could have been saved by a handful of key design changes to the medium tank of the day. We won, didn't we? And the tanks were nice and cheap too. Go Bills Go!