fd ski Posted July 31, 2000 Share Posted July 31, 2000 Looks there: http://www.hitechcreations.com/ubb/Forum9/HTML/000686.html Post by Pyro of HitechCreations. Very long and very interesting. Especially conserning the manouverability of tanks.. i myself always though that Shermans were more manervurable then German tanks... i guess i was wrong.. Also, if any of you are interested in WWII air warfare - i suggest checking out the whole site http://www.hitechcreations.com/ It's a small diveloper, like BTS, and they also make an excellent product. ------------------ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spook Posted July 31, 2000 Share Posted July 31, 2000 It was quite fascinating to read in that the topic thread began with a survey of US WW2 armored divsion personnel ranking from armored division commanders on down to the tankers themselves. Even better is that the survey was conducted DURING the war (Mar '45) for added historical perspective. I liked the one comment from a US tank force commander that he knew that "tank vs. tank" battles were supposed to be avoided by US tanks IN THEORY, but further commented that battlefield realities typically negated the "theory" and that US tankers had to take their lumps and go in. Yes, fd ski, a good article. Thanks for the link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dittohead Posted July 31, 2000 Share Posted July 31, 2000 Great article. Interesting stuff for sure. Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R-Man Posted July 31, 2000 Share Posted July 31, 2000 I was very surprised to read of the lack of mobility of the US tanks. Particularly, the lack of a "locking" track to allow the Sherman to pivot, and the wide turning radius. CM models the Sherman's as having the ability to turn and pivot quickly, and I can't imagine fighting an armor battle without such ability. The other deficiency which stands out is the near complete lack of HVAP ammunition. Four rounds per tank?! You really have to hand it to our guy's courage and determination to press the fight against such overwhelming odds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMC Posted July 31, 2000 Share Posted July 31, 2000 Thanks for the link. That was a goldmine of good info. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatAWilson Posted July 31, 2000 Share Posted July 31, 2000 Great info. My understanding is that the superior manueverability and off road performance of the Tiger and Panther came from the wider tracks. The German tanks had slower turret traversal but any half competent German tanker would also be rotating the hull to meet the threat. I don't have empirical evidence but it seems reasonable to me that the superior pivoting ability would, to some extent, compensate for the inferior turret traversal. How is HVAP modeled in CM? Are the number of rounds limited to just a few or are all AP rounds assumed to be HVAP? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spook Posted July 31, 2000 Share Posted July 31, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PatAWilson: How is HVAP modeled in CM? Are the number of rounds limited to just a few or are all AP rounds assumed to be HVAP?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> HVAP for the US AFV's in CM is modeled by the availability of "t" ammo (tungsten). These are available also for the other Allies (like APDS for the UK) and Germans, and in all cases, the number of "t" rounds per vehicle is very limited. The CM manual mentions that any first shot by a tank to an armored target will USUALLY be done with standard AP ("a")ammo. If the target is identified by the tacAI as a "formidable" one, then a following shot (if the first didn't achieve a hit/kill) will likely be with the "t" ammo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgdpzr Posted July 31, 2000 Share Posted July 31, 2000 Pat, Tungsten rounds are few and far between, rest assured. You are lucky if you get more than 2 to 4 per 76MM armed vehicle. I haven't really noticed if the loadout for TDs is much different, to be honest. I have seen a complaint or two that tanks don't seem to use theirs as appropriately as TDs, (i.e. they won't automatically load one when they face the front of a Panther, etc.) but I haven't noticed this problem yet. ------------------ "Sometimes you eat the bar and sometimes the bar eats you. Take it easy, Dude." -- The Stranger The Dude abides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajbab Posted July 31, 2000 Share Posted July 31, 2000 One of the most arrogant persons I have ever known was a German tank crewman from WW2. He never said much, but if we happened to talk about the war he'd always add in little comments. Now all I know about war was basically from the movies, so we'd be talking about the movie last night and how those Sherman tanks really busted up them poor Germans. At this Willy(thats what we called him) laughs and says"Uncle Sherman always tipped his hat to the Tiger" then a pause and "you really dont belive that garbage do you?" Fist off I didnt know what he ment and second of all I did belive it because we won the war, it had to be basically true. Next day he brings in a bunch of stuff printed in German and says look here this is why the movie is impossible(Did not understand a thing he was saying). Well it kinda got my interest up since I had always belived that we had kicked the Germans ass quite easly, I did a little research as it were and of course found things to be a little different than the movies. Now this is not the fault of American soldiers that movies are the way they are,(HOLLYWOOD) if you talk to these soldiers they tell the truth, and though they agree on how the movie ended they tend to disagree with movies on how that end was achieved. Anyway I find this all quite interesting now and hope that wars will only be fought in great games like the #1 Combat Mission. If Willy were alive I'm sure he'd take issue with some elements of CM(this guy just would not accecpt a Panther or Tiger could ever be hurt) and perhaps from a German perspective there may be one or two issues. My opinion is this is the best war game, and will proably get better as it catches fire, and the Germans were much better soldiers than these movies will ever tell, and that our heros had one hell of a fight, which I much appreciate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikester Posted July 31, 2000 Share Posted July 31, 2000 This is a really good read. Thanks much fd ski. Mikester out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coe Posted July 31, 2000 Share Posted July 31, 2000 Any idea what the kill ratio was in Tank vs. Tank - Germans vs. Allies? (ignoring tank vs. Aircraft.....) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K_Tiger Posted August 1, 2000 Share Posted August 1, 2000 Uhm..realy nice reading..and why didnt implement BIG-Time those features? i couldn say *B* and my Panthers and Tiger1 r destroyed by super M4 and other Monster US Tanks.. ...every shoot they made..they hit.. No wonder...CM is made from US-guys for the US Market... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrD Posted August 1, 2000 Share Posted August 1, 2000 I read somewhere recently that US tanks were not supposed to have ANY tungsten round because of the US policy that tanks were supposed to take on infantry and that the tankers usually begged the rounds of the tD outfits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted August 1, 2000 Share Posted August 1, 2000 PatAWilson, Firstly the Brits, US and Germans used different types of "special" AP rounds. The Brits liked APDS ( this was before fins were needed cause of smoothbores), the US liked HVAP (basically the same) and the Germans preferred an APCR shell which basically sucked balistically. Anyways, all of these are represented in CM and differentiated from normal AP shells. Ajbab, Well, that German tanker was more right than wrong ( although he sounds a bit of an asshole ). Honestly, the Pz IV was equal to a Sherman 75 but the Panther, Tiger and King Tiger could habitually face down a half-dozen US tanks, destroy them and come out smelling of roses. I've read of one case in which a KT took out 4 Shermans, 2 M18s, 1 M36, survived a Battalion of artillery and then reversed out of position and moved to a new position. Held up an entire advance for a morning all by itself. Honestly though, on both sides, most soldiers were just people fighting for their buddies and homes. It's a pity "Willy" isn't around... I'd be interested to hear what he brought in to show you.. Probably a fibel or something. DrD, The correct term is STOLE . TD units were regularly raided or plied with cigarettes or booze to get a few tungsten rounds for normal Shermans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Snake Driver Posted August 1, 2000 Share Posted August 1, 2000 I find it odd that range affected penetration results of the German and American bazooka's tested against the captured German tank. Penetration shouldn't be affected whether the round is traveling 5 feet per second or 1000 fps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dittohead Posted August 1, 2000 Share Posted August 1, 2000 Uh-oh, with all this new information BTS will have to go back and redesign everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajbab Posted August 1, 2000 Share Posted August 1, 2000 I had just wanted to say thanks to fd ski for pointing to that bit of info and got carried away. For what its worth he claimed that the really big tanks and tank destroyerys - King Tiger JagTiger - were never knocked out by allied tanks or anti-tank guns, but were blown up by their own forces if they became disabled, and very rarely a ship shell. When checking some info about a man named Red Hassletine, who burnt up over a hundred Germans with a flamethrower, some of the fellas in his regiment The Toronto Irish, told of coming across an abandoned Panther tank in Italy. They had a little time on there hands so they decided to blow it up with some of there anti-tank weapons, they said everything they hit it with bounced off to their dismay as they might soon have to face some manned ones. A couple off Shermans were sent up from the Governor Generals Horse Gurads, and they had the same problem, finally it was packed with explosive and sealed up and finally destroyed. I dont know what main guns the Shermans had, but they had access to 17 pounders anti-tank guns, as well as piats and six pounders and so on, all with no effect leaving them very upset as they had been told that their new weapons would stop any German tank. I guess they forgot to tell them they had to do it from inside the tank. And finally Ive been unlucky with most Germans I've met, perhaps its me but they have been arrogant bastards. I dont mean to offend anyone here thats German, I'm sure most Germans are very nice, perhaps talking about the war gets there backs up, after all some movies do make them look pretty stupid, and one thing I can say for sure is they never were and are not stupid. Except Hitler and his ring of fools of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
:USERNAME: Posted August 1, 2000 Share Posted August 1, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fionn: PatAWilson, Firstly the Brits, US and Germans used different types of "special" AP rounds. The Brits liked APDS ( this was before fins were needed cause of smoothbores), the US liked HVAP (basically the same) and the Germans preferred an APCR shell which basically sucked balistically. .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think HVAP is the same as APCR. Is this what you are saying? It seems you are saying APDS is the same as HVAP. HVAP probably sucked balistically. Lewis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K_Tiger Posted August 1, 2000 Share Posted August 1, 2000 Fionn.. M4 is equal to Pz IV??? let us spoke about normal AP rounds....75mm pennetrating is little more than 60mm (M4) Pz IV with better optics and gun would outmatch the ugly green US-Thing.. on longer ranges 800-1000 meters.. on closer ranges..may the different isnt great.. but if i hade the choice, i would spend my money to the Pz IV... Username is rigth with his comment about the poor balistical stats from the HVAP Ammo... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PzKpfw 1 Posted August 1, 2000 Share Posted August 1, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by K_Tiger: Fionn.. M4 is equal to Pz IV??? let us spoke about normal AP rounds....75mm pennetrating is little more than 60mm (M4) Pz IV with better optics and gun would outmatch the ugly green US-Thing.. on longer ranges 800-1000 meters.. on closer ranges..may the different isnt great.. but if i hade the choice, i would spend my money to the Pz IV... Username is rigth with his comment about the poor balistical stats from the HVAP Ammo...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well I would not say the German 7.5cm L48 was an better gun or that US APCR-T 'probably sucked balistically' as the 76mm out performs the 7.5 cm K.wK.40 L/48 with both AP-T & APCR-T Ie, 7.5 cm K.wK.40 L/48 Firing Pzgr.39/43 APCBC & Pzgr.40/43 APCR in ( )'s @ 30^ 500ms - 91mm (108mm) 1000ms - 81mm (87mm) 1500ms - 72mm Sherman 76mm fireing M79 AP-T, M93 APCR-T in ( )'s @ 30^ 500yrds - 109mm (157mm) 1000yrds - 92mm (135mm) 1500yrds - 76mm (116mm) you can discount the M4 75mm as it carried AP-T only, but 75mm AP=T could penetrate the PzKpfw IV at the same ranges the PzKpfw IV lang, could penetrate the Sherman. And their was alot more Shermans running about then PzKpfw IVs. German optics were better yes, but at long range Ie, 1200 - 2500ms. The original M4 Sherman 75mm sight was terrible at 1000yrds. In Normandy range except in some instances was below 500ms, some Panzer Div AA reports state common engagement ranges were 600 - 1200ms but this was not the norm. Regards, John Waters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dittohead Posted August 1, 2000 Share Posted August 1, 2000 "Our best tank weapon, and the boy that has saved us so many times, is the P-47." Kind of says it all. Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K_Tiger Posted August 1, 2000 Share Posted August 1, 2000 PzKpfw1: ... please read my posting corectly... Fionn compared bouth sides "Workhorses" M4 "Burning Homer" with 75mm and Pz. IV with 75mm. And please..you dont need to post the gun and range stats..I Know this allready... Hmm..it looks like you compare meters with yards??? isnt really fair?? 3 yards ~ 1 meter. And dont forget...the different testing of PR..the US testet on us-steel and germans on german steel...as we all know..the german steel was far better also the ammo.. Its on thing to bring such stats on paper..and the others..to see it on the battlefield.. I didnt say..the M4 couldt destroy a Pz. IV...i would sit in a german tank if i hade the choice.. The other things is the special ammo HVAP..and others..it must be displayed..but they seems to rare to see it as a standard ammo.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Galanti Posted August 1, 2000 Share Posted August 1, 2000 Actually, it's about 1.09 yards per meter, so as a rough calculations is pretty accurate. In general, especially at the end of the war, I believe that the allied steel was superior to the stell used on German tanks. A Pz IV and a Sherman are really pretty equivalent. Ben Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PzKpfw 1 Posted August 1, 2000 Share Posted August 1, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by K_Tiger: PzKpfw1: ... please read my posting corectly... Fionn compared bouth sides "Workhorses" M4 "Burning Homer" with 75mm and Pz. IV with 75mm. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes he did and again the PzKpfw IV lang and 75mm Sherman come off equal, the PzKpfw IV had no advantage over the 75mm Sherman except in optics at long range. The other issue is most German armor superiority advocates don't like the 76mm Sherman compared to the PzKpfw IV because the 76mm Sherman was rare etc, it realy makes no difference in comparison as both the 75mm & 76mm Shermans had no trouble dealing with the PzKpfw IV, and they outnumbered it as well. The Germans couldn't afford a tank that was an equal match for the 75mm Sherman when faced with Allied numerical superiority. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> And please..you dont need to post the gun and range stats..I Know this allready... Hmm..it looks like you compare meters with yards??? isnt really fair?? 3 yards ~ 1 meter. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The assertion was that the 7.5cm L/48 was a better gun with better ammo performance etc, as I have shown that is a false assertion. Yes I used yards for the US as that is our standard measurement. Below is the meters conversion as you see their is realy no diference: US 75mm Fireing M72 AP-T @ 30^ 457ms - 76mm 914ms - 63mm 1371ms - 51mm US 76mm Fireing M79 APT M93 ACR-T in ( )'s 457ms - 109mm (157mm) 914ms - 92mm (135mm) 1371ms - 76mm (116mm) <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> And dont forget...the different testing of PR..the US testet on us-steel and germans on german steel...as we all know..the german steel was far better also the ammo.. Its on thing to bring such stats on paper..and the others..to see it on the battlefield.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Go check out the Question on Armor thread posted by Paul Lakowski, you'll see that I discuss US & German pen data and US & German test plate & BHN that was used to obtain the data. I have seen quite a few PzKpfw IV's knocked out by M72 AP-T the results are no diferent then if they had been hit by 76mm M79 AP-T or M93 APCR-T the PzKpfw IV was penetrated in all aspects. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I didnt say..the M4 couldt destroy a Pz. IV...i would sit in a german tank if i hade the choice..<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I never said you did I'm pointing out a fact most ppl forget when they discuss this as in all German tanks were superior to Allied ones etc, this wasnt the case especialy concerning the PzKpfw IV, it may have been the workhorse but it was also the most vulnerable German tank as the standard Allied tank & AT guns inc, the 37mm & 57mm, could defeat it frontaly at all standard combat ranges. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The other things is the special ammo HVAP..and others..it must be displayed..but they seems to rare to see it as a standard ammo.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes HVAP was not standard in Ge or Allied tanks, the Germans were in a much worse situation concerning Pzgr.40 then the Allies, but ppl still post data for both. implying that German APCR was better then US APCR or Brit APDS is incorrect as Allied 'HVAP' performed better in most cases then German Pzgr.40 Regards, John Waters [This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 08-01-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IntelWeenie Posted August 1, 2000 Share Posted August 1, 2000 One aspect that I think has been lost in all this is that no matter the perceived or real inferiority of US/Allied tanks, these same tanks proved more than equal to the task of defeating German armored formations (with some help from other supporting forces and tactics). This (to me, at least ) is analogous to the defeat of French armor in 1940, though the French tanks were superior to the German in many respects (especially armor protection). ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts