Richard III Posted January 16, 2000 Share Posted January 16, 2000 Hey guys, Someone must have a screenie of my favorite tank in action: Aw please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamo Posted January 16, 2000 Share Posted January 16, 2000 Don't worry, it's there. Just not in the demo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted January 17, 2000 Share Posted January 17, 2000 Yup, very much in the game. However, I found out the hard way that the Pershing isn't all that it is cracked up to be. In spite of the morale building designation of "Heavy Tank" it is really just a good Medium Tank. Put it against a Panther and it does pretty darned well. Stick it up against a Tiger or King Tiger and it is dead meat Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard III Posted January 17, 2000 Author Share Posted January 17, 2000 Well, since we've seen all these screenshots of 'cool' German vehicles, I was wondering if we could see some 'cool' Allied vehicles. Just seen the Croc so far.... Please? After all, you haven't heard a word about 'release date' from me... BTW, did you model the T26E4 'Super Pershing' also? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JonS Posted January 17, 2000 Share Posted January 17, 2000 Out of CMs timeframe, but ... how come the US was using Shermans in Korea and not Pershings during the early battles in Korea? Wasn't the Pershing the replacement tank? Thanks Jon ------------------ Ubique Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeT Posted January 17, 2000 Share Posted January 17, 2000 Jon, I think the use of Shermans in Korea was due tothe fact that is all they had. Remember our military was gutted after WWII. Sounds familiar does it. MikeT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Beman Posted January 17, 2000 Share Posted January 17, 2000 Cause after WW2, the US military was cut way back, and there wasn't the money to buy enough Pershings to replace ALL the Shermans. The important places (central Europe to stop the darn commies) got Pershings, while the dark corners got Shermans by the truckload. You can see the same thing today; central Europe and the other primary places get brand new Abrams tanks, while less important places, along with a lot of the Nat'l Guard and Reserve units, get early Abrams or (good Lord) M60A3s) DjB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JonS Posted January 17, 2000 Share Posted January 17, 2000 Thanks Guys, I thought it was probably something along those lines, although it did occur to me that maybe the Pershings didn't work out as well as expected and were dropped. As for the Nat'l Gd thing - remember that it takes folks longer to learn about armoured warfare than it does to learn how to drive an M1. In other words, as long as the M60s aren't intended for combat use anymore (though they would be an immense boost to the local armoured capability here in NZ. M113s with a 50cal in a little turret anyone?), their training potential is as good as any other AFV. Regards Jon ------------------ Ubique Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Wilder Posted January 17, 2000 Share Posted January 17, 2000 There was little opportunity to test the Pershings and see how well they performed in World War II. They came too late in the war to see action. There was a confrontation between Pershings and Tigers at Elsdorf Germany on February 27, 1945. There is a scenario in the list that covers that one. Its a tough little tank fight. Ask the testers (G)! In Korea, however, many tankers looked for anyway to get rid of their Pershings for the old venerable M4A3E8, the "Easy Eight." It became the favorite of most tankers throughout the Korean War. One batch of Pershings were actually on display on concrete pedastals at Ft Knox. They were taken down and shipped to Korea. They were called by the tankers there "monument tanks." Blair, "The Forgotten War," page 213. ------------------ Wild Bill Wild Bill's Raiders Director of Scenario Design, The Gamers Net billw@thegamers.net http://wbr.thegamers.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted January 17, 2000 Share Posted January 17, 2000 Yes, the Super Pershing is included. Why? Well, because it was a peice of cake to do, not because we really SHOULD include it. I think there was something like two of them in operation before the war ended Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard III Posted January 17, 2000 Author Share Posted January 17, 2000 Hey Steve, That's great! You guys think of everything. I thought that there was only one Super Pershing in service before war's end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest scurlock Posted January 17, 2000 Share Posted January 17, 2000 I know the 3rd Armored had one, highly modified I might ad. Even had elephant ear looking things protruding from the gun mantlet to help balance out the extra weight placed on it. It destroyed at least one unidentified armored vehicle. Who had the other one? [This message has been edited by scurlock (edited 01-17-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamo Posted January 17, 2000 Share Posted January 17, 2000 I gotta step up to bat and defend the honor of the venerable M60. Sure it's no M1 but they did pretty damned good against T-72's in the gulf. Good enough to earn better praise than you guys have shown here. It was a fine tank and is STILL a fine tank when set up against any threat tank out there we're likely to encounter, just not AS fine a tank as the Abrams. OK, so I'm biased, I was a M60A1 Rise/Passive tank commander in the Marines in the 80's...you caught me. I just wish I could find one surplus... Zamo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark IV Posted January 17, 2000 Share Posted January 17, 2000 Zig: Thanks, my thoughts exactly. The M60A1 was more than a match for the T72, despite a much earlier design platform. It's not the M60's fault (and may be partially to its credit) that no major wars occurred for it to shine in. Now the A-deuce, on the other hand... I can't imagine anything more embarassing than bouncing a dud Shilleleagh off a Russian turret. Plus a tank can't get more butt-ugly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted January 18, 2000 Share Posted January 18, 2000 Yeah but you've also got to remember that the EQUIVALENT to the M60 was not the T-72 but the T-64 series and THAT was around at the same time and featured a nice through-barrel ATGM capability. The T-72 is one of those monkey-model things which is great for export and 2nd line units but isn't in the 1st team. Secondly the T-72s that the Iraqis had weren't the same models the Soviets give their own troops. It is my understanding that a lot of the "fancy" stuff was ripped out PLUS the M60s they were facing would have been M60A3s correct? End result, you're not really comparing like with like IMO. of course with the pitiable state of crew training in Iraq it probably wouldn't matter if they all had M1A2s since they couldn't use the tanks to full effectiveness. ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamo Posted January 18, 2000 Share Posted January 18, 2000 Fionn, I realize the Iraqi's all had export models of the T-72, and that our guys had M60A3's, but there isn't much diff. between an A1 R/P and an A3, other thant the thermal shroud and Laser rangefinder (which IS a sig. diff). I'm sure our intrepid Jarhead Tankers would have made good account against the T-72's with M60A1 R/Ps. When I was in we were mortified by the then new and threatening T-72, much more than the T-64. We were convinced it was a killing machine which would finish us high profiled 105 shooting targets long before we could even get close to them. Not to mention we were planning for a Fulda Gap defence against the Red horde. Being an educated tanker in a Marine tank unit (ie: not too many numbers) set up against this imposing force was sobering to say the least. My greatest concern was not the tanks though, we knew we could shoot four or five times faster than them, but that damned Hind-D. That was a fearsome opponant. Sorry to run on...especially in THIS thread...Yeah, um, I like the M26 too! Zamo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted January 18, 2000 Share Posted January 18, 2000 Zamo, Excellent points... Yes my statements regarding the A3 versus the A1 R/P basically revolve around the laser rangefinder. IMO the inclusion of a laser (even if it is a MUCH poorer laser than is used on the Leopard MBT) makes the M60A3 an order of magnitude more lethal than the A1 IMO. The ability to more surely hit what you aim at instead of messing around with Mils comparisons etc makes a big difference IMO. The thing with the T-72 is that, like the Mig23 and Mig 25, it was hyped up by the military-industrial complex so that a good case could be made for buying better equipment for US troops. I mean, once the performance characteristics of the MiG-23 and 25 became known it was easily seen that the counter to these jets (the F-15) was really overkill although Eagle drivers aren't about to complain about getting a much better jet than the penny-pinchers might have given them if they hadn't been so scared of a phantom threat. Anyways, my point is that the T-72's abilities seem to have been vastly over-estimated when it was new and it was felt it was a major improvement over the T64. Now it seems it was actually a cheapie export version and the true lineage went something like T54/55, T62, T64B (and I know we can disagree about exact designations just like the US military insisted on calling what we now call the T80 the T84 for the longest time ), T80, T9? The T72 seems to have been a cheapie export version (much like the US selling other countries M60 upgrades but keeping the M1 at home (although I wouldn't compare the T80 to an M1 ) ). The BIGGEST issue with the Hind was that Soviet doctrine called for using them en masse in one portion of the front IIRC and thus you'd have ended up with an overwhelming concentration of force at that point which simply couldn't help but blast through unless NATO air power could break through the SAM envelope and engage the helicopters. I always think that this might have been exactly what the Soviets wanted though since planes hunting choppers in a SAM-heavy area are incredibly vulnerable and that the Soviets wouldn't have minded sacrificing a dozen Mi-24s for a squadron of Eagles or F16s. Hmm, I want CM6 (modern wars) .... C'mon Steve, you KNOW CM is just crying out for a modern war version . ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DesertFox Posted January 18, 2000 Share Posted January 18, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Now it seems it was actually a cheapie export version and the true lineage went something like T54/55, T62, T64B (and I know we can disagree about exact designations just like the US military insisted on calling what we now call the T80 the T84 for the longest time ), T80, T9? The T72 seems to have been a cheapie export version (much like the US selling other countries M60 upgrades but keeping the M1 at home (although I wouldn't compare the T80 to an M1 )<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Fionn Indeed the T72 was the version with nearly all fancy stuff ripped off for export. You probably know that in the late 80s the "Soviet Westgruppe" which was intended to make the first assault alongside the Fulda Gap and the Line Magdeburg-Braunschweig-Hannover was equipped with the brandnew toys of soviet arsenals. They had the T-64B for good reason which was way superior to even the T72M, because of it´s fire control system gun stabilisation and rangefinding system. We calculated to be challenged with approx. one soviet Regiment per remnants of a LeoII Kp. which survives the innitial Arty barrage. I´m damn glad it never happened ! Helge ============== Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate! - The DesertFox - Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com WWW: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Capsule/2930/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Posted January 18, 2000 Share Posted January 18, 2000 My dad was stationed in Germany during the Cuban missle crisis with the 3rd Armored Division. And he said they were on maximum alert and expecting the Russians to attempt an armored breakthrough at any moment. The problem was that the good guys were way outnumbered in tanks by the Russkies. Our troops were expecting a very nasty fight against hordes of enemy tanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark IV Posted January 18, 2000 Share Posted January 18, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>the T-72's abilities seem to have been vastly over-estimated when it was new <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> They sure were. I was in 3AD 1977-80, and must be a victim of our own propaganda. The line-up as far as we knew was T-62s, being replaced by the death-dealing T-72. I just pulled down FM 30-40 "Handbook on Soviet Ground Forces" (1975) which doesn't even mention the T-64. We were still taught to identify the T-10 and PT-76. We were also concerned about SCUDs. The prevalent thinking was that we would face 3 to 1 tank superiority across the front and 5 to 1 at the Schwerpunkts. It was believed that T-72 units would spearhead the main attacks, accompanied by the dread Hinds. The plan was to make up the difference with airpower, both Cobra and A10. It was my pleasure to observe a joint air attack team test by both on some old M48s or something downrange (range targets become difficult to identify over time). The Cobras did their thing with the rocket pods, then TOWs; but when the A10s sailed in with the gats it was tank part city. Anyway, no matter how well we did in games the poor Brits in the great, open northern plain always got wiped, and we were flanked and cut off, or fell back to the Rhine. Only once did we play with tac nukes (that I observed) and that was the fastest we ever lost (started a pissin' contest with a skunk). That was Carter's army, and it's a wonder the Reds didn't go for it. We were told that Soviet troops were usually drunk, but many of our guys were probably too stoned to retain the information. Could have been a hilarious tank battle, if there is such a thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted January 18, 2000 Share Posted January 18, 2000 Cool discussion, even if way off topic I also suspect there might have been a bit of logic assumptions made that favored the T-72. Very rarely in military history has a major nation actively replaced a superior weapons system (or military formation) with an inferior one. Usually this happens at time of prolonged war when the side in question is acting out of despiration. But the T-72 came out when the Soviet Union was at the near height of its outward show of power. So why the heck would they be replacing good tanks with poor ones? I wouldn't even look at statistics of each before I would guess that the T-72 was a better tank. See what I mean? As for which one I would like to own, a M60x or T-72? T-72 I'd never want to take it into combat (or any vehicle for that matter!) but man, it sure looks lethal and sleak. Ah... someday maybe Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark IV Posted January 19, 2000 Share Posted January 19, 2000 Perception is everything. These were the operational assumptions of the time, and you're exactly right about T-72. No one knew then it was a loser-doggie. All we heard was "125mm smoothbore fin-stabilized 5600 fps" and the idea that T-"72" minus M-"60" meant it was 12 years newer than ours. This, when our military was at one of its cyclical lows and the Red Army was on the muscle. There wasn't a man in 3AD, even the stoners, who didn't still believe his tank/unit could whip any Soviet counterpart. The general notion, however, was that they'd keep on comin' and that we'd be overwhelmed before long by weight of numbers. Sound familiar? So, if you think the T-72 is really T-Rex, and the horizon's suddenly full of them (and they all must be 72's, like all German guns were 88s), that's where your company-level officers have the chance to earn their keep, 'cause the troops aren't gonna like it. It's not as though the Soviets faxed us specs and performance data. This was when we still had diplomats with cameras in their hats photographing parades in Red Square for our latest "G2" on weapons developments (and the pix in my FM look it). Tamiya knew more about Russki armor than we did. As for body styling, I like the M60 look. They were chick magnets in the Bundesrepublik, beaucoup ponies under the hood, and an individualistic style statement. The commander's cupola was the armored equivalent of a moon roof and ceiling console, with the yummy .50 for grins. So what if it had the functionality of a molded spoiler on a Dodge Ram family van. [This message has been edited by Mark IV (edited 01-19-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted January 19, 2000 Share Posted January 19, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>We calculated to be challenged with approx. one soviet Regiment per remnants of a LeoII Kp. which survives the innitial Arty barrage.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This cracked me up.. The bit where you said "REMNANTS of a Leo II Kp" is oh so poignant and true. This is one thing so few people understand about what would have happened in WW3... The initial attack would have gone in against emplaced Kompanies which would all have been pinpointed over the years in which the Red Army had to assign an arty Bn to each Kompanie-defended hill. The attrition to the Kompanie would have been severe but can you imagine how much worse it would have been if the Soviets had had DPICM or even just ICM. I remember reading some reports generated during the early to mid 80s when the T80 wasn't really known in the west and the US Department of Defence was still calling it a T84 which spoke of M60s bouncing shell after shell off T72 sloped armour and being destroyed by deadly accurate 125mm rounds in reply. Now we all know that T-72s versus M60s is a relatively easy fight given the fact that the T72s would be on the attack and this would decrease the efficacy of their fire control systems even more than usual and make it even more difficult for them to actually achieve a hit. The only question would have been could 105mm rounds penetrate T72 frontal armour reliably at long ranges (1 to 2 Km). I'm not so sure the 105s could do it.. It actually could have led to one of the stranger types of tank battles ever.. A battle in which both sides HAD to close to extremely close range.. The Soviets needed to get close so they could actually hit what they aimed at but if they hit they would almost surely get a kill while the Western Allies would need to get close to be able to kill the T72s (I'm talking frontal penetration here obviously). One other thing about the T72 was that its presence and the certainty in the Allied higher commands of its superiority surely paid dividends in new weapons appropriation and the new "Air-Land Battle" doctrine which, was only a glint in some doctrinist's eye in 75. I wonder what all the G2s thought when they saw T-64s arriving in Germany and T72s going into what they had for so long thought were 2nd line formations ? That must have caused a bit of a panic. As for which I'd like to drive around.. Definitely the T72 although I'd probably curse it after driving it for its terrible ergonomics. It looks mucho cooler than an M60 IMO. ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DesertFox Posted January 19, 2000 Share Posted January 19, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The attrition to the Kompanie would have been severe but can you imagine how much worse it would have been if the Soviets had had DPICM or even just ICM. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don´t even want to think about it, Brrrrrrr...... And after the Arty barrage all these nice Mi-24 searching for their prey. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The only question would have been could 105mm rounds penetrate T72 frontal armour reliably at long ranges (1 to 2 Km). I'm not so sure the 105s could do it...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> They could, but with the introduction of the "Dolly Parton" type uparmoured turetts on the T72M IIRC things changed. That, by the way, was AFAIK one of the reasons why the US Army wanted to have the german Leopard II 120mm Glattrohrkanone for their M1 , besides other reasons of course. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I wonder what all the G2s thought when they saw T-64s arriving in Germany and T72s going into what they had for so long thought were 2nd line formations ? That must have caused a bit of a panic.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If my memory doesn´t play tricks with me the soviet Westgruppe never had T-72. They directly switched from T-62 to T-64. The T-72s went to Poland, East-Germany and the Tschechoslovakei to replace their T-54/55, but I can be wrong here. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Definitely the T72 although I'd probably curse it after driving it for its terrible ergonomics.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And you can hide it behind a hedge , this thing is so flat that I can stand inside the turett and am still looking out of the gunners hatch. [i´m 1.85metres] Imagine you have to search for the little turett of a T-XY which is in hull down position Without thermal imaging you won´t have a chance. Helge ============== Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate! - The DesertFox - Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com WWW: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Capsule/2930/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silencer Posted January 19, 2000 Share Posted January 19, 2000 ok, now that the Americans have the Super Perching M26E4 in it, do the Germans get the MAUS to play with? or the Sturmtiger?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts