Charlie Marlow

I don't recall Shermans having trouble with PzIIIs. Which battles?

Stuka in NY now? NY legalizes gay marriage? Coincidence? Not that there is anything wrong with that. Just want to know where you two are registered.

Also note that it only went into the defense because of operational issues in diverting supplies to Montgomery for Market Garden, not because of losses from the battle (which weren't all that high).

This made me chuckle.

Riddle me this. Which of the 3rd Reich's operational wizards ordered the attack at Arracourt (and Dompaire, and Mairy, ...)? If the Panther is not at fault, and the German's were unmatched in tactical accumen, it must be the ones who ordered the attacks. Let's see ... 106th Panzer Brigade gets mauled. Who is in charge? Noted panzer genius Herr Dr. Franz Bäke. 5th Panzer Army gets mauled. Who is in charge? Distinguished Panzer General von Manteuffel. Who ordered these attacks? Who picked the place for the Panthers to be employed and destroyed? If the use of the Panthers was not ideal, and the crews not properly trained, who decided to use them in offensive operations?

OK RosNos, where is the counterfactual? Where is the large scale battle where Panthers saved the day for the Germans? Where they racked up massive kill ratios against Allied tanks? A large number of example battles (Arracourt was only one) where Panthers are shown to be less than optimal (at least as handled by German tankers). Where are the examples going the other way? Again, just to be clear (as if it is really needed), this isn't a case of the Sherman being a better tank. I would prefer a Panther (assuming it made it to the battlefield) over a Sherman in a head to head, one-on-one fight in most situations. It just wasn't as good as the fanboys think, nor did the Germans use them as well as they could have been used.

The Panthers of Panzer Brigade 107 didn't do so well, and I don't recall the fight being close combat, nor do I recall fighter/bombers playing a significant role. The 107th was tasked to take a bridge from a battalion of the 101st Airborne. Couldn't get it done. The paratroopers eventually had support from a squadron of British tanks, and drove off the Panthers with the Germans losing about a third of their tanks.

Only if it was to stick a knife in said side.

There is the action mention in Zaloga that I quoted. Not a major action, but it could fit. It was the same road as some folks (on other websites) suggest that Barkmann himself identified as the correct one. And contrary to someone's suggestion, this account does generally identify the US unit. CCB of the 3rd Armored division usually included the 33rd Armored Regiment as its tank component. We know from other materials that CCA (including the 3rd AD's other Armored Regiment, the 32nd) was a fair distance Southeast of the identified site. The 33rd's daily diary (if it was consulted) would likely have included a synopsis of actions as well as a general catalog of losses/available tanks. The loss of 3 tanks instead of a company also makes sense from a logical point of view given what the Americans would most likely have done. The 3rd Armored included 2 battalions of SP 105mm guns and 1 battalion of SP 155 mm guns. Battalions, not batteries. This is a crapload of artillery. The division would also have had access to higher level 155mm and 8 inch guns. Picture the situation. A combined arms team including a company of tanks is moving up the road. First platoon gets fired up, and loses 3 tanks. What would the commander do? Charge the rest of his tanks? Probably not. Most likely he would have called in a lot of artillery and shot the crap out of the spot where the trouble was coming from. Also, we know from US sources that it was clear enough that day for air support. Barkmann's account confirms this. Many US breakthrough units during Cobra had attached air liaison personnel. SO in addition to arty, Barkmann got Jabos. This is the way that the US often operated. Using their strength - the best and most numerous artillery of the war. So, what I believe happened (and is supported by what evidence I have seen so far) is that things are basically as Barkmann says, but that the number of kills is only 3, not 15 or whatever. He kills the 3, the US commander calls in fire support, Barkmann's tank is damaged, he withdraws, and the US unit is moving forward with scant delay. It is a minor action for the US, which does not materially impact offensive operations, so not reported in any significant way.

With some exception, the Allies were dictating the course of battle by late July. So more like a month. However, it isn't like the Allies hadn't been facing the Germans for 5 years by then for the UK, and two years for the Americans. Not to the same extent as the Soviets, but the Allies didn't need to overcome the same drawbacks as the USSR in massive early casualties and the pre-war purge.

Apparently University of Illinois has the 33rd Armored Regiment's daily logs. If you want to go look them up, fine. Zaloga likely had access to them. If he says three Shermans KOed, I am more likely to believe that then the poorly documented Nazi propaganda version which reads like fiction anyway.

The Italians lost and they had the better tanks ... wait a minute ...

As a follow-up. This is found in Operation Cobra 1944 by Steve Zaloga and published by Osprey. It would seem by this account (if accurate) that the scenario is OK in concept, and that the ID of the US force is at least narrowed to CCB/3rd AD. The above outcome seems a little more believable though.

BTW, I agree that in the game situation, I would much prefer the Panther. CM does not take into account the reliability or supply problems faced by the Germans (I suppose the scenario author could limit ammo carried). So, two of the big disadvantages of the Panther are not present. The typical scenario also does not model the often overwhelming US artillery support. What fun would a battle be where before it even starts your Battalion sized Kamfgroup gets hit with a battery of 155 and three batteries of 105? Finally, I don't have to lead with the Panthers as the Germans often did. So in the game context, I would absolutely take the Panther all other things being equal.

Big Duke argues that the Red Army was better man for man by 43. I can't argue one way or the other. But there are pretty persuasive arguments that by late 44, the US army was better man for man. Keith Bonn's book "When the Odds were Even" is a good example. http://www.amazon.com/When-Odds-Were-Even-1944-January/dp/0891416021

So your wife's genes are once again expressing themselves and letting your grandson overcome your unfortunate contribution. Good to hear.

[dusts off an old book] Hmmm. I know it is here somewhere... AHA! Sigh. Noobs.

My big problem with the article is that it is not talking about health effects in Japan. It is trying to link Fukushima radiation with health effects on the other side of the Pacific Ocean. At a distance where there has been no significant increase in radiation from the disaster. The "scientists" who promote such a link are either idiots or scare mongers.

Not what I ment. Walls should be better protection than open pavement, for sure. Just that firing over the top of walls may not be the best cover. I did say that it appears that the "way the game represents firing over the wall from the knee may present a larger target than prone in the open." This is possibly why the walls look to be less safe to troops that don't duck. Probably should be looked at.

Set them to normal rather than fanatic and try again would be my suggestion. Seems that the way the game represents firing over the wall from the knee may present a larger target than prone in the open. Presumably cowering soldiers would duck behind the wall and gain protection from direct small arms fire, while those cowering in the open could still be hit. If CMBN uses the actual figure positions to measure exposure, the soldiers firing over the wall may be exposing too much of their bodies. That said, shooting over a nice straight wall isn't exactly the safest firing position in the world. Your head makes a nice obvious target on top of that well defined wall. Like plinking tin cans.

You are probably correct after the M47. I'll give the win to the Centurion. Though by GW II, the Centurion really was not a viable MBT against other modern designs.

The argument between the Pershing and Centurion would be an angels on the head of a pin type. M26 Pershing with new engine is the M46. Add redesigned turret = M47 Patton. M48 and M60 were evolutionary redesigns.

I know you joke, but the real best tanks of the war in the technical sense that they were fielded prior to Germany's surrender were ones that only saw limited or no action. The Pershing and Centurion were the basis for Western tank design for the next 30 plus years for a reason. EDIT. I stand corrected. The Centurion didn't make it to Mainland Europe until after the war. Guess the M26 is the best WWII tank after all.

Nice try, but you need really need to learn to read. My guess is that you are intentially misstating what I said, but whatever. I said quite plainly that the Sherman was the best tank in the specific time frame of 1942 to early 1943. I also specifically said that the Panther was arguably the best tank of the war (nothwithstanding its problems). I am sorry that your reading comprehension is so poor.

Tell that to Panzer Lehr at Mortain; 106th Panzer Brigade at Mairy; 5th Panzer Army at Arracourt; 112 Panzer Brigade at Dompaire; and 12 SS Panzer Division at Krinkelt. All of these are examples of where large numbers of Panthers (and other AVFs) were knocked out by Shermans and 76mm tank destroyers (and 57 and 76 mm AT guns) with minimal or moderate loss to the Allied forces. Most of these battles the Germans had more AFVs than the Allies. In the case of Dompaire, the French 2nd Armored attacked with 75mm Shermans and M10s against a superior number of Panthers and wiped the floor with them. Sorry, but the Panther was in terms of actual effectiveness not as good as it looks on the spec sheet. In terms of actual battle performance it outscorred Shermans IIRC 1.2 to 1. In terms of operational effectiveness, Panther units routinely ran at less than 50% operational. Sherman units rarely ran at less than 80% operational. That gives the Allies a 2:1 edge in available tanks even barring the large difference in production. If your tank sucks mechanically, it has a large impact on how many can be fielded in any particular battle. This will put you at a big disadvantage regardless of how uber it appears at Achtungpanzer.com