The_Enigma

cheers for the abbreviation meanings

excuse me but what does GD and CE mean, sorry? Other then that, nice work

Do you get lettuce and mayo with that too?

Sorry to split this in 2 ... stupid internet connection! :mad: cont from above post: source: link

Aye, i believe it stated somewhere that Guernsey was the 2nd most fortified island in Hitlers little empire. Some info on "Fortress Guernsey" (well and the other islands too):

Jason, out of intrest - the figure you give for POWs in your orginal post, does that factor in the Italian 10th Army? Edit: talking about German troops getting left behind in fixed positions etc I recently read that the Channel islands were occupied until the last day of the war ... they where just completly bypassed. 40000 German troops tied up and it would seem 10% of all resources for the "Atlantic Wall" sent there way! :eek: [ November 21, 2006, 11:21 AM: Message edited by: the_enigma ]

</font>

I can agree with that, i dont believe i have denied that. All i have stated is, prehaps it is better to suggest why didnt they build a tank with xy and z which is more remotly like it? Prehaps they did not see the need to build a tank which wieghs nearly 40 tons just to have the same armour as it. When it was designed as far as i can tell for a different job. Look at the Brit tanks, the Infantry and Crusiers ... why did they not make all there crusier tanks as heavly armed as the Infantry tanks? I also dont doubt why what they wanted to use the 17 pounder for, but one must ask then, if they wanted it on a tank as early as '41 ... why was the cromwell built with a 75mm gun?

lol but you brought up the Churchill tank Iirc which was designed during 1940, the Cromwell which is more "comparable" to the M4 Sherman also started on the drawing board in 1940. The Comet it would seem started life off in '43 and the Challenger it would seem they just slapped on a new turret and gun on the Cromwell.

My argument, is how can you compare 2 tanks which were designed with 2 different things in mind to combat the orginal question. Stating if you wanted to look at comparable armour thickness and weapon caliber why not look at the stated tanks for said comparison. Yes it is logical to want to get a gun which will punch right through whatever the enemy is making, but thats not real life is it lol Just look at the contuined use of the 2 pounder by the British Army.

As always - great topic! Large ammount of great info! Cheers! If i understand correctly, American doctrine called for there tanks to avoid 1 on 1's with the German or anyone else’s tanks and leave them to the Tank destroyers. However other then that, i don’t see how you can compare an infantry tank, designed to take as much punishment as possible in braking the enemy line with what is ... a Medium/Cruiser. Should one not compare the Sherman’s armour with British tanks which are similar to it, the early cruisers, Covenanters, Crusaders, Cavalier and the Centaur/Cromwells (the Comet and Centurion being more comparable to the up gunned tanks and the American later war models). Anyhoo on the subject, from some quick research it would appear the first 1400 models built were quipped with the 2 pounder (40mm gun), a few hundred of them with a 3inch howitzer (76mm?) in the hull.

Jagpanther: Dont be scared of these things if you have something faster then a Churchill and with something like a 75mm gun Whereas there nigh on impossible lol to kill from the front, an opponent made it perfectly clear he could still kill these when he took 2 out of 4 of them with flanking fire! In one case he ran a Sherman down my flank, it blazing away at me tank. Made me Jagpanther a right off. (think the other fell to a zook! ... afterwards i made sure only the front was pointing in his direction lol) Luckily a 75mm armed HT stopped his fun vulnerable? There is cover everywhere! ITs not like in the countryside where your looking for trees or the odd house, or in the city and urban combat. Here your looking for Brush, some rough ground, more brush, sometimes rocky ground ... better then nothing, did i mention brush? everything you usally think is too open in "Italy" is much needed cover in the desert! In my exp, i have moved large chunks of my infantry forces through Brush etc without taking heavy casulties etc As for tank combat, again there is always cover Just got to get down to eye level ... that small rise ... the one you could golly over if it was real ... thats a hull down position which will save your ass ... get over there No need to use the seek hull down command, eye view and find it yourself ! Of corse ... if you only have a 2 pounder in that tank of yours, there is no hull down positions .... well its time to CCCCHHHARGE!!!!!!!! Never works like but hey its good fun!

in a completly unrestricted QB, tanks is the answer, in my opinion. Something which can kill the enemy decently but at the same time can waste infantry - Shermans for example. Although if there is a decent ammount of points, i have seen people when i was playing desert QB buy Marders. 2 situations which i can recall: one was a random map based around a town. It was a main road down the center of the map with the town around this road. The flanks where pretty much open with the odd building. my opponent had them covering on one flank. Around the corners or in between these few buildings on the flank. My tank force took a hamering from them, however even though i only had Valentines i was able to outflank and outrun his marders and thus destroy them. I believe he had bought marders, the odd MK III and several AT guns. Probably based off pervious exp where i had bought as many tanks as possible lol. 2nd situation. Guy bought 2 platoons of marders and several platoons of MKIIIs in a hilly desert map.Ihadplaoons of Shemans which kept hidden, a platoon of Vlentineswith 6 pounders and a few Churhcills. His marders were deployed 1 platoon per flank on the reverse slope of hills. His MKIIIs moved from the flanks towards the centre and towards my lines iirc. In the ensuring battle, my tanks took out his marders on one flank as they were getting into position but had a hard time off the marders on the right flank. Eventually knocking them out although after some heavy losses iirc. The battle climaxing with his MKIIIs and my Churchills mixing it up in the centre ... followed up by the rest of my force overwelming his hehe.

You need them rolling around, from hull down position to hull down position The offensive action is via moving foward ... pushing the enemy back etc, unless of course there is a great overwatch position.... Rankorian: well the map is a mix of open space, hills, some palm trees, a small town, brush, rocky terrain and rough ground. With the addition of HTs and trucks it is decent infantry terrain The Firefly is British. ... a modified Sherman II or V, the radio moved, the bow machine gun removed for storage, a big "box" slapped on the back of the turret ... and it would seem the back of the turret was cut open to allow the gun to recoil into this overhand on the back of the turret. Surprisingly ... the 17pounder was also position on its side in the turret. [ October 28, 2006, 09:33 AM: Message edited by: the_enigma ]

edit: ignore this post

12th was so short of officers and NCOs that it wasn't considered capable of doing battle, though that was sort of norm for the front, like Jason pointed out. </font>

Jason: Would one not have any Battalion and Company (possibly some platoon leaders) commanders as Vets or Regs if dipicting this division in Normandy? I have just finished reading Meyers memoirs and he states that the division was built around a pool of Vet WSS officers and NCOs aswell as some vet officers from Heer. Just a though on ingame dipicition...

Then way are you so miffed that the Allies could do the same? :confused:

the desert one? Well the infantry battle will be taking place a few hundred meters to the left of the American tanks which have been engaged? My infantry force is on my right flank along with some other assests and tanks, plus they were brought in via halftracks. Just seems the tank battle will take place first ... possibly end first too lol. We also have a bit of raiding going on with American halftracks.

in a scenario am playing, i sent off my panzer IIIs to Id the enemy. The map is set in Tunisa so i had a decent idea where the enemy was coming from due to dust. Although most of the terrain is brush so there is no dust. I moved them them up and identified the enemy, the general direction and the how many. I however lost one tank in the process. A turn or so later tanks and some marders arrived. I drove them to the nearest hull down positions facing the flank of the American tanks and opened fire. My recon tanks looking at the enemy form say 7'oclock, my tanks and marders where moved from 7to5 on the clock. The americans where running from 3to9. Now with the majority of the enemy tanks which we found out of the picture, i advanced 2 tanks to the next hill. Which as well as giving los on there pervious position will give los on the ravine they where running into. My intention is to move my force up there. Its a ME, i have the better guns and armour but am being as offensive as i can. Hope this helps lol Edit: 2 other games come to mind. One was a Goodwood scenario. M10s, churchills and shermans. It was advance as fast as possible, if i get a los on a German tank. Halt everyone who can see it and open up. Same is sort of happeneing in a game i have going on set in Italy '44. A bunch of M10s, i had sitting in some open terrain because they could see a Jerry tank, firing away at him. When 2 could no longer see him, i moved them off to a position i wanted them. When the other 2 were finally through they joined them. This position is currently in some scattered trees, waiting in ambush for some German tanks i know are coming that way. Once other forces have leveled up with there position and i can advance with other units. These M10s in the treeline will move on through. I wouldnt try this with Marders, but the American and British TD can take a bit of a slugfest and survuve Agressivness wins! (most of the time ) [ October 26, 2006, 11:26 AM: Message edited by: the_enigma ]

I dunno ... instead of all the stats, gun calibers, confusion over which tanks were talking about, expectations etc ... could it be that your just a bad cyber tank commander?

I saw this and said to myself, nar come this cant be right. I have just went and tested it, now i know the big cal stuf lands all over the show but any way here are my results. CMAK British 7.2 inch spotter - 50 rnds US 8inch spotter - 50 rnds Took them 18 minutes to expend all rounds. Facing them in open terrain was 3 concrete bunkers which they could see. By the end, around 25% of the rounds had landed near only 2 of them (the 3 of them where close together). I had also placed 3 wooden bunkers with them, next to them in fact. Factoring in these 3 other bunkers. Around 50% of the rounds landed near 4 bunkers. All in all, no bunkers - wooden or concrete was destroyed in the 18 minute bombardment and not a single man inside was wounded or killed. One should note i had them setup in a semi circle so the rear of the bunkers would be exposed to. shocking stuff! :eek: Never full realised how ineffective Arty is agaisnt bunkers. That bombardment would have ripped a small village to bits ... killed countless cyber soldiers i reckon but nothing happened to these bunkers ... even the wooden ones! :eek: Going to got an drop some 305mm rounds and 300mm rockets on them now! Edit: Just dumped 300 Rockets on again 6 bunkers - 3 concrete and 3 wooden - nothing! Over the 30 min period 2 spotters for 305mm batteries firing 25rnds each dumped most of there rounds on the targets. I must point out that i did give this test a TRP so nearly all the rounds landed on the bunkers. So what was the result of ~340 HE rounds ... 2 wooden bunkers set on fire and the occupants only killed when they left them and where caught in the shelling. Btw 300 rockets is rather awe inspiring for a game! [ October 22, 2006, 01:29 PM: Message edited by: the_enigma ]

ehehe thats the one. It was the first time i had used one, i think i would have been surrised that its like an oversided panzershreck had i not read i believe it was your topic on them. It did alright, it took out a HT and did manage to nail a Sherman, after 3 rounds. 1 missed, the other hit the rear turret and the 3rd took it out. I can see why it was considered not a sucess, think i will stick to my PAk 38 or 40!

Its like this pic of some squaddies on a Valentine: link to pic the guy to the right of the main gun (>>>that way) is holding an Italian SMG. I did not recall seeing such a thing before that pic and took me quite a while to fond out what it was.

ive recently played a few games with a Grille. To be honest last game it didnt really work out well. But a game i have on going, it had close to 20 rounds i think. I had it blast every British held position. It was blowing houses apart with its HE rounds, routing infantry from the tree lines etc In essance it has cleared my entire right flank and gave my boys some room to breath. In conjuction with this, there was 75mm AT guns, one of those 88mm rocket launcher thingies (cant think of the name now and no its not a panzerfaust or panzershreck), halftracks, heavy machine guns, a panzer IV and a few Stugs.