Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Narses

  1. In QB there seem to be only cumulative scores, " 2 tanks destroyed."
  2. I miss those added pieces of armor info in the original CM games and I miss seeing after the battle the scores of individual tanks. If Battlefront needed to eliminate this it is OK and really not that important. Armor thickness isn't the end all of the equation anyway. You also need to know about ammunition, APCBC versus APCR or APDS, etc. Then there is quality of armor with German armor starting to feel the effects of loss of certain alloys. So really its keep the enemy away from your flanks and rear, use hull down if possible and for the Germans and maybe the 17pdr range is your frie
  3. THis is a very nicely developed product. Graphics are amazing. I love playing it as I did all your earlier CM's and a few other products from you. I would like to suggest that village maps should have their buildings mostly wall to wall down the main street which often has a church. There might be narrow alleyways but in European villages - mostly - those stone building of 2 or 3 or even more stories are side by side. The map views of villages do not look right. Generally I think the city maps are better. There might be some small issues with the farm buildings but its not bad. Any E
  4. Ian Hogg in German Artillery of WW2, 1975, says (pg 217 ): 8.8cm Panzerabwehrkanone 43/41. ..... Since the barrels of the PAK 43 were relatively easy to make, but the carriage manufacture was lagging, a temporary expedient was produced. The PAK 41 barrel was fitted with a horizontal sliding block breech mechanism resembling that of the 7.5cm PAK 40 and the semi-automatic gear was a simplified version of that used on the PAK 43. The carriage was a collection of suitably modified stock components; the trail legs came from the 10.5 cm le FH 18, the wheels were taken from the 15cm s FH and the s
  5. Wow! Really great shot. Hard to believe I haven't seen it before based on all the books I've collected over the past 50 years!
  6. Or dropping it at the Vegas gun range firing a MP40 or Thompson. Then eating is next !
  7. Only because I am always at 'Regular' or 'Veteran.' However right after posting that I went back and played a saved QB and my stationary Panther this time had 3 misses at 1142m on moving Shrtmans (their flanks) then got one. My other pzs were IVs and they were not yet shooting as the 2 were in a different location. Certainly I've seen the % figures firing on a range for the 75L70 but battlefield creates its own problems for the crew.
  8. Tanks do seem too accurate getting too many first rd hits around 1000 meters although my panzers are stationary. And I've never tried the highest 2 skill levels either. At least certain units like anti-tank hunter and bazooka/schreck guys are too prone to fire their sidearms often after firing their AT rd. If they hit their tank target they then start firing sidearms at the crew it seems. Instead they should go prone and hide again as in most of my QB games another enemy unit will get them. I'm not sure about MG fire on tanks. I tend to think it has advantages to keep the tank butto
  9. Too bad there are no reasons given why Zaloga is clueless and wrong about his opinions and statements in his fine volume on tank destroyers. Strange that I mentioned far more information on this subject and quotes from the Ft Leavenworth's US Army Combat Studies Institute on the overall failure of the whole TD concept ( it was disbanded as a force and concept after the war) and you zero in on a couple opinions from Zaloga. You are certainly welcome to your opinion on tank destroyers and your opinion on TD's has merit but your continual rants about Zaloga as a historian are clearly not
  10. I fully agree with you. Many of the Osprey issues are quite decent and the history is very short but good however any of us at some particular point might disagree with the opinions. Osprey may not be Col David Glantz but its OK and the current products are much improved over the early years. But that is why I went back to the Leavenworth #12 Combat Studies Institute which in all aspects agreed with Zaloga.
  11. All these officers quoted agree the TD's were exactly ineffective in their intended role as originally conceived as a counterattack force to armor attacks. It would have been much better it seems to have put high priority to the 76mm gun tank and start embedding them in tank plts until such time as there were 100% 76mm gun tanks and then the HVAP rd. In any regard we had numbers the Germans couldn't match even with quality in gun power. Seems to me the TD ended up in a role that it was not designed for and that is the point as it greatly distracted the US Army's armor doctrine but yes the
  12. Taken from "Leavenworth Papers #12 "Seek, Strike, and Destroy: US Army Tank Destroyer Doctrine in WW II by Dr. C. R. Gabel. These quoted comments came after North Africa was won and are After Action Reports based on tank destroyer performances: (pg44) Gen Harmon, Cdr, 2d Arm Div in North Africa: "...there is no need for tank destroyers. I believe the whole organization and development of the tank destroyer will be a great mistake of the war." (pg44) Gen Devers, Chief of Arm Forces then the AGF: "The separate tank destroyer arm is not a practical concept on the battlefield." (pg43,
  13. Thise were not my statements and conclusions but those of the author - Steven Zaoga - of the 2 Osprey pubs I sourced.
  14. Thanks. I didn't pick up on that. But almost immediately they requested the M4A1 76mm gun tanks waiting in England and then embedded them in the tank bns of 2nd and 3rd Arm Divs. Though it appears we were not flexible enough because there was only a limited number of the 76mm gun tanks in England (maybe 90) and many, many M10s (743 in July). Even by Nov 44 the 2nd and 3rd Arm Divs had only 60, 76mm gun tanks and about 130 other tanks each. Seems to me embedding one in every plt would have been a great immediate solution until numbers of the 76mm gun tank became available. This entire
  15. According to Osprey books US Tank and Tank Destroyer Bn in the ETO 1944-45 and US Armored Divisions (The ETO 1944-45) tank destroyers although not organic to arm divisions were almost always assigned as one bn each to the arm divisions. (pg44 Osprey US Arm Divs) and: (pg 70-71 Osprey Tk Dest Bn) "At the time of the D-Day landings there were 30 tank destroyer bns in England of which 11 were towed and 19 self-propelled...... Almost from the onset the bns were attached to the infantry and armored divisions." The M10 bns going mostly to armored divisions and the towed and some M10 bns to the i
  16. That's correct as most of the panzers were facing the Brits and Canadians at least initially.
  17. In Osprey's #3 Sherman Medium Tank 1942-45 pg 37 and 38 has Col James Leach a then plt ldr in 4th Arm Div's 37th Tank Bn saying later in 1944 in his plt at least one tank in each plt was a 75mm gun tank and its job was to keep loaded and fire WP smoke as this round was not available for the 76mm gun tanks. When any enemy armor unit was met and had to be initially engaged frontally the 75 was to immediately fire the WP moke round to attempt to prevent the enemy from engaging while the 76 gun tanks scooted around to the flanks. If this did not work artillery was called in. On pg 37 a repo
  18. We're in agreement. I was simply verifying what you said, adding some extra info on when the T4 was introduced (Aug 44 and mostly later) and it seems the game properly portrays the effectiveness of the T4 round.
  19. True but the T4 tungsten rd could penetrate 157mm at 500 yards versus 98mm for the M62APC.But the crews firing the T4 were directed to fire at the Panther's mantlet which apparently caused penetration. (See Osprey M10 and M36 Tank Destroyers, pgs 19, 34 and 35). Osprey says the first 2000 rds were airlifted to Europe in Aug 44 but did not become widely available until November. By March 1945 only 18,000 rds had been delivered (pg 34 & 35). Usually M10 and 76mm gun tanks might have 2 to 3 T4 rds on hand held for Panthers and Tigers.
  20. This was certainly a huge job and its so well done. Congratulations on an important improvement.
  21. Generally I really like the appearances of the buildings, farms and churches. The cites are very nice. I lived in France, Austria and Germany in the 60's and 70's and my recollections are that in villages, even small ones, the buildings in town where the village church always is were wall to wall against each other nearly always. In fact this is often the way in small or older American small towns except for wood and brick rather than stone. This is not always the case in the various maps I see in QB for villages.
  22. According to several sources in the website GvA "A few rounds of HVAP M93 APCR were rushed to France in August 1944. Subsequently limited numbers were issued to troops as only 10,000 rounds were produced each month." Many went to the M10 units then to the 76 gunned units. So for this game in June-July-August very little should be on hand and only in August.
  23. Certainly this is a complicated subject. But a review of Jentz's 2 vol Panzer Truppen seems to indicate serious issues. We all know the disasterous employment of Panthers at Kursk where nearly 200 PzV's fell to 40 by Jul 7 (pg 98 Jentz, Vol 2) and more or less remained around 35-40 thru the month. Even the Eastern Front's total operational versus repairables was 1922 total and 775 available on 10 Sep 43 (so roughly 40% available on the entire Eastern Front) but there is no way to determine combat damage or mechanical issues. But this is Eastern Front. The problems with the Panther wer
  24. Sorry, I posted mine I guess about the same time you posted your correction.
  • Create New...