Magpie_Oz

We are like the US in many ways, this is one area however that we differ. Inbreeding is a northern hemisphere thing.

True enough. It seemed much harder to build than the others tho', even the British produced more tanks than the Germans.

The depth is what is important, was the Stug underwater if so that shouldn't happen.

He looked at some records but there is no indication at these records are 100% correct or 100% complete. Also much of his inference is draw from establishment numbers of operational tank and does not seem to itemise tanks hit and returned to action or combat losses replaced. From "Rich" In his own words : There seem to be several possibilities. The first is that Barkmann made the whole thing up; second, he was wrong about where he was, and had the date wrong (these two errors are common on the battlefield (and tend to increase over time as memories fade and change), and was Barkmann either unaware or unwilling to admit (and share the credit) he was part of a defensive line, however thin it might have been; thirdly, he was telling the truth, and no one has pinned down the proof just yet? On this latter possibility, it is reasonable to remember that large elements of at least two American divisions, along with an unknown number of attachments, and VII Corps units passed through this area during the time in question, and it is perhaps better to keep an open mind on the subject until more research is done. Despite the risks of letting the brains out.

You just turning up and any thread with PENG Challenge in the title is what offends me ol' mate, thought that much was obvious. I keep forgetting I have to type slow for the South Australians.

The only thing about the Panther and T34 in common was sloped armour and a crap gearbox, not really a copy. The Lee and Sherman had sloped armour before both of them, depending on how you look at it. Operation Bagration: Soviet Armour: 4070 German Armour: 118 Tanks 377 TD Soviet Losses: 2957 German Losses : Unknown. Despite the Barkmann thread that suggests that the absence of records of losses is an indication that the battle did not happen, even if the German armour was totally wiped out it is still a 6:1 loss ratio. Even if you consider all German armour performed about the same it is still an OK ratio against an enemy on the attack but it wasn't good enough. The Germans may well have been better off building a tank en mass with an excellent gun, good mobility and adequate armour rather than the over complicated rubbish they did produce. Like a T34-76 / 85 or Sherman (75/76/17lbr) or Cromwell/Comet...........

I think you mean Native American But no I am a White man who objects to being called a white ..... man...... oh never mind.

Praise be to God that I am not on THAT list

That is quite a leap mate. I was alluding to the fact that the German supreme commander missed the point when he laid down the required specs for his new tanks, Panther, Tiger etc and I think he was kinda upset by all that.

Is that some kind of race jibe ?

Point is dude, it ain't a Formula 1 race. The Panther was brill for a situation that did not exist ! No amount of jack-booting, Heiling, stomping and tantrums is going to change that fact and ol' Adolph didn't get that.

Yeh but what is underneath the hat is what really raises the gorge.

He's dreamin'

All this man love is making me queasy, can we get back straight up abuse of each other?

No what it means is if you turn up to a the World Rally Championship in a Formula 1 car you are going to get your arse kicked good an proper.

'Merkin politics......zzzzzzzzzzrrrrckkkkkk............... Wake me up when you're done?

They did neither well nor poor as they didn't exist. Bit like being west of Venus isn't it? Only true from a peculiar stand point?

LAY OFF THE CROWS ! Close relative of the Magpie you know. US Army tank crewman 1941-45: European theater of operations, 1944-45 By Steve Zaloga, Howard Gerrard States that the loader was required to "assist the commander to operate the radio." Pretty logical given that it was in the turret. The Firefly did delete the bow gunner in favour of more ammo but I am fairly sure the British hull gunner was not the radio operator either.

I think that was his own special brand of antipodean irony. Lost on most I think. I only know because I speak Kiwi, have to in my line of work.

- IF you can field it (that is, it can be transferred all the way from the USA and supply lines are not cut by the German Navy, air force or army) Which is what happened - IF you are on the enemy flank Which is what happened - IF you are confident that your flanks aren't exposed, even if you have to reposition Same as any tank - IF the battle is short enough as to be sure to not run out of gas, or to lose a track Same as any tank - IF the terrain and infrastructure is capable to handle a 30 ton vehicle constantly getting bogged Only if it is wet and is more of a concern in a 45 tonne tank - IF you have an almost any version, the armour will still be poor. Adequate not poor - IF you have over poor LOS and no enemy air activity Which was the case - IF the enemy doesn't have, almost any german tank or tank hunter being fielded. They did field them and still lost. - IF you have maximum artillery cover and almost unlimited supply of shells Which they did - IF you have maximum air cover and almost unlimited supply of aircraft Which they did - IF you have unlimited access to spare parts, logistics and money Which they did - IF you have no other major powers fighting against you Remember Japan ? and that was a hemisphere away. - IF the enemy has run out of raw materials and petrol, can hardly move due to fuel and is forced to make do with sub standard replacement materials Which they did but still managed to get around quite nicely any way - IF you outnumber the enemy at least 4 to one and often much more than that Which they did - IF the enemy has green crews and has been ground up on the eastern front first Which they did THEN, 1 on 1, the Sherman is better than the Panther. I think that encapsulates the debate quite nicely, in the situation that actually existed the Sherman was superior. In fantasy land the Panther was better. Like I said before it is not enough to goose step about telling everyone how Uber you think you are, eventually you have to ante up, when that came Adolph's lads were found wanting.

Given that the Panthers weren't deployed to Africa their service record would simply be a "null" entry wouldn't it?

Which will double the apparent armour thickness. It seems a little odd to take the round striking the front at an angle of 30degrees, why not shoot the side which would be a much larger apparent target at that angle and only at 60degrees and generally thinner too ?

Check this out: http://www.wwiiequipment.com/pencalc/

I too often get more caught up in buddy aid than what we were supposed to be doing. I'd be keen for BFC to put medics in the game, as at the moment I usually get some random unit to act as the medic. The XO in CMSF was usually the one I'd have running behind fixing people up, which was kinda his job IRL anyway.

What sort of MG? An MG on a tripod can be hard to aim at a close enemy, particularly if they are lower. (I don't think the game models elevation limits though.)