stoat

How old are you MW44?

I wonder how many times a crew had to "paint" a tank. Probably not too many due to the terrible performance of Italian tanks on the Eastern Front.

Aside from CM, I like Avalanche Press' board game series Panzer Grenadier.

I will try to find the source, but if I remember correctly, it presumes that impressed labor purposefully sabotaged the vehicles and when hit with smoke, the mentioned fans would suck the smoke into the vehicle through gaps in the hull.

In the early stages of the war the largest and strongest of this race were tested and trained to a high standard. The Russians, and to a lesser extent the western allies, would long after remember the ferocity and fanaticism of the elite "Panther" and "Tiger" companies.

No, standard smoke that entered due to poor construction.

On this note, I have heard of King Tigers being constructed poorly enough that if they were hit with a smoke shell, the smoke would circulate throughout the tank and the crew would bail out, thiking that there was a fire. That was a long sentence.

That's because the TDs were better suited to dealing with armor. But more often than not, the Shermans at the point of the spear with the infantry had to deal with the enemy tanks. It has been said that no plan survives contact. This one is no different and I doubt it was ever used as battlefield doctrine.

From battlefront.co.nz (hmm...what a great name): Grey-green, not green. And this would seem to be the right color for CMBB.

I was just stating numbers according to the percentages. I think it would actually depend the most on what ammo was available. The only time there was a standard loadout would probably be before the unit saw action. In the following weeks of battle, the tank probably never had the same load twice. It all depends on your supply. It would make sense for TDs to carry more AP rounds or for support vehicles to carry more HE, but tanks are dual purpose weapons. You can't design and build a tank and train it not to fight tanks (granted there were infantry tanks and the like, but these tactics soon changed). From what I gather TDs (American M10, M18, M36) were intended to defeat superior German armor, but if tanks were not supposed to fight tanks, there would have been a lot more TDs produced and used. The Sherman was always intended to fight tanks, but not monsters like Panthers and Tigers.

Hard to beat the first scenario I ever played: Chance Encounter.

If roqf77's percentages are correct, you would have a 68/20/9 loadout. [ September 18, 2005, 03:21 PM: Message edited by: stoat ]

Newts are amphibians.

Witches. Russian witches.

Yes, I got the 75mm howitzer (M3) confused with the 75mm gun (M3).

Yeah...no way did any tank in ww2 ever physically run over an enemy unwounded soldier on purpose. Now, since you have discarded eye-witness accounts as evidence of such occurances, how are we to prove it happened? Forensics reports? Im not sure there were super-many autopsies made directly after combat on guys that had been crushed by tanks, but I suppose thats what we'll have to find eh? </font>

Never mind.

I guess that special ammo would be the M66 HEAT round and the M64 chemical round (smoke, white phosphorus, gas). Other than that it carried the standard M48 HE, M61 AP, and M89 smoke. The M4, A2, A3, A4 all could carry 97 main gun rounds. The M4A1, 90.

No myth, just some stupid crap I posted from a book I knew to be inaccurate.

I had previously thought that this type of speech impediment could only be found in Japanese tourists. I was mistaken.

Exactly. But without the old men, plaid, and carts. And with far more Europeans.

I was referee at a U-12 girls game today. Score: 12-10.

I have mis-timed an advance after an artillery barrage and had the spotter get credit for the friendly casualties.

I think that people who play SC and CM, even if they play both, play them for different reasons.

I feel that way about all of Ambrose's books.