The_Enigma
-
Posts
723 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by The_Enigma
-
-
I have With the Jocks ... i have yet to read it though. (only got it last july
)Although the reviews i read for it and other peoples opinions on it, was that it was a great account of the infantry during the latter part of the war in Europe.
Some great sketches in the book too
-
We gave you 50 flush deck destroyers for those bases. They weren't part of Lend-Lease. </font>Originally posted by stoat:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by the_enigma:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by stoat:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by the_enigma:
One also wonders, did our country not give bases up etc during the war to the US ... were they not part of the payment?
-
We gave you 50 flush deck destroyers for those bases. They weren't part of Lend-Lease. </font>Originally posted by stoat:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by the_enigma:
One also wonders, did our country not give bases up etc during the war to the US ... were they not part of the payment?
-
I was reaing about this earlier this month and hadnt realised the country was still in a form of debt to others due to the war.
One does wonder now that these payments are no longer being made if the money will be thrown into something "worthwhile".
One also wonders, did our country not give bases up etc during the war to the US ... were they not part of the payment?
-
Well stated.Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:]Well stated.
*runs for cover
* -
hehe sorry guys, i know this such a late reply but here is the picture, should show this time round :-o
And just incase there is any confusion about which dude i was referring to (may seem strange but there was alot of confusion to what side the right side of the picture was .... hehe dont ask)
-
Ah, i always wondered were you were able to get this type of stuff fromOriginally posted by JasonC:Green book, Cavanagh, McDonald, and Dupuy. I never use just one.
-
May i ask, where do you get such figures from?
-
Aw, but in the first place, I guess his real mistake was to bring only 4 TDs to your party of 10.Originally posted by birdstrike:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by the_enigma:
A recent opponent had 4 M10s. I had 2 platoons of Mk IVs. As i advanced his TDs opened fire and destroyed several of mine.
I halted my tanks, repositioned a few and within a few turns they were butchered, the M10s that is.
</font>
-
The range of the engagment i mentioned was a few hundred meters, 200 max i would guess.
-
A recent opponent had 4 M10s. I had 2 platoons of Mk IVs. As i advanced his TDs opened fire and destroyed several of mine.Has any one used TDs on an attack against German tanks defending (i.e. would we expect the same results as the reverse? or worse or better)I halted my tanks, repositioned a few and within a few turns they were butchered, the M10s that is.
-
Id like to clear up something, what do we all mean by towed AT guns.
A gun which is being pulled by a, truck or whatever, which then has to unlimbered etc?
-
for referance: side on and front views of a Grant
http://tanxheaven.com/ljs/m3grant/05-M3'Grant',Brussel.JPG
http://tanxheaven.com/ljs/m3grant/04-M3'Grant',Brussel.JPG
Edit lol now that should work .... 55th time lucky!
[ December 20, 2006, 01:55 PM: Message edited by: the_enigma ]
-
hehe
I wonder, why does he even bring the tank up in the first place in his commentry on the site?
And also, i cant quite get my head around it - why does he call it by the British nickname?
I cant help but laugh each time i see this get mentioned!Because he is a crabby git -
MK: erm right oh.
You may be intrested though:
- Erwin RommelUp to May 1942 our tanks had in general been superior in quality to the corresponding British types. This was now no longer true, at least not to the same extent. The American built Grant tank, which appeaered for the first time in the summer battles, undoubtedly had a match in oue long barrlled Panzer IV...
Nevertheless, the Grant had the advantage as it could shoot up the short barrelled Panzer IV at a range where the latter's shell was unable to penetrate the heavy armour of the American.
The Rommel Papers, Pg 196
-Erwin RommelThe main armament of our panzer formations was the Panzer III, which, with its 50-mm gun - of which by far the majority were short-barrlled- was even less of a match for the GrantThe Rommel Papers, Pg 197
He goes on to say how the Italians were even worse off and the men called there tanks "Self Propelled Cofins".
If the other side of the hill think the tank was better then the Crusader and Crusiers, and historians state the British believe this .... i think we can conclude they are right.
Hence the whole jumping for joy thingy...
-
But they were much better then the A13 which they replaced
The MkII increased the armour.
The MKIII addressed the now very much outdated 2 pounder and slapped a 6 pounder on itstead which iirc could take on most tanks.
Went on to be an AA tank, tractor, ARV etc
Not to bad for a "sucky" tank
-
Have you seen what people say about Guy Sajer?Errors are not justification for abuse.*stirs the pot and runs*
Michael Kenny: On the subject of the M3, there are many works which have hailed the M3 as Jason has justly stated.
The M3 was a tank mounting a gun, if rather awkwardly, which could hole the German tanks with ease then our 2 pounders.
It was also sporting more armour then our Crusaders.
Although the tank wasn’t without its own flaws which have also been stated.
Fair enough that there is also documented evidence that some crews preferred the Crusaders to the M3 but there is also alot of evidence which back up crews liked the M3.
Now to fill my own curiosity, (this may be a trivial point).
Would have the author not known this tank has the M3 or the "Lee", in opposed to the "Grant" (which if i understand this correctly, was modified version of the M3, a British turret placed on it so it had a lower profile, radio moved iirc etc)?
[ December 19, 2006, 06:30 AM: Message edited by: the_enigma ]
-
I agree with Jason ... but didnt really want to point them all out lol
Now am no Army man ... so am under no illusions how things truly work.
It states he had to zero in his BAR during actual fighting, when the division landed and went right into combat.
Again i hate to be an ass, but the division history shows they landed in port or on beaches (a different one from which he states) and didnt start fighting till around a month later.
Would one be wrong to presume that would be all the time he needed to zero his rifle?
-
Fair enough
What is your position on the picture at the top of page 3?
-
Didnt realise the commerical internet was that old :eek:After the war. I looked up some of my comarade on the web.May i ask, since am confused. Why is it he was trained on a copy of the Lee Enfield instead of a M1 or a Springfield as i would of thought?
Edit: I hate to be an ass but:
I was under the impression that this was a British nickname for the modiefied Lee (again British nickname?) and the Americans never called them this and only referred to them as the M3 Mediums. :confused:Tanks and reconnaissance vehicles were a horror and the first American military tank produced for World War II (called the "Grant"[ December 16, 2006, 09:55 AM: Message edited by: the_enigma ]
-
Cheers dudes
-
I have read either around the time of Kasserine Pass or just afterwards that the US Tank Destroyer Battalions received "Some new M10s".
Is it correct for one to assume that the battalions were made up of the M3 Gun Carriage before that then?
-
From that picture, based off actually bmp representation that the gun barrel is pointing into the hill.
(Now i do understand that the game allows it to fire anyway)
I think we are all getting confused on the subject then lol.
As in my pic, i always have the gun so they are pointing over the crest if i position them on a hill.
My original comment came from this, as in shells will mostly fly over it or slap into the hill side.
Enough them as in my pic above can take out said gun.
Whereas yourself and Jason are referring to a scenario more in line with your picture.
-
Would one consider this cheating:
We have 2 guns (these a 3rd but cannot be seen here) on the crest looking down on massed armour. Yet these 3 guns have been knocked out after massed HE fire.
)
*
</font>
Ju-87/G Stuka tankbuster info (cross post fm CMAK)
in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin
Posted