Jump to content
Battlefront is now Slitherine ×

stoat

Members
  • Posts

    1,338
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by stoat

  1. Originally posted by michael_wittman44:

    Just stating what I've read! Hmmm the book was Jane's Encyclopedia of ww2 armour or something similar. It stated that some members of the high command wanted Shermans to support infantry while the TD's knock out enemy tanks. One of these being General McNair (the highest ranked general killed in Normandy).

    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.
  2. From battlefront.co.nz (hmm...what a great name):

    The Italian use three different colours to camouflage their tanks. The base colours used were Sabbia (Yellow Sand) used in the desert and Italy in 1943, or Grigio Verde (Grey-Green) in the Balkans and Russia. Grigio Verde and Terracotta (Red-Brown) were used as disruptive colours over Sabbia in Italy, Grigio Verde over Sabbia in North Africa.

    Grey-green, not green. And this would seem to be the right color for CMBB.
  3. 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.

  4. Originally posted by Leutnant Hortlund:

    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JasonC:

    "I have read many accounts..."

    More to the point, you apparently believed them. Which would seem to be the problem.

    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>

×
×
  • Create New...