Guest rune Posted August 1, 2000 Share Posted August 1, 2000 King_Tiger, Fatal flaw in your arguement. 1 meter equals 3.3 feet, which is slightly over a yard. 3 yards is approximately 3 meters. His table compare well. Rune Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apex Posted August 1, 2000 Share Posted August 1, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>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).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Complete bull. The french and british armies both outnumbered and outclassed the german armor they faced. Their defeat resulted solely from inadequate tactics, this definitely wasn't the case with the german tank force after operation Overlord where the allied success definitely wasn't because of tactics but due to numbers and logistics. apex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianc Posted August 1, 2000 Share Posted August 1, 2000 One feature that was continually commented on in the interviews with the tankers was how the German tanks could pivot on their axis where the Allied tanks 'took half a field'. I don't believe CM simulates this right now, but I'm trying to imagine how it would affect gameplay. I should think it would have a pretty serious effect myself; the Shermans couldn't pivot in place to present their frontal armour, but would be forced to either reverse out of their position, or drive forward to do this. This could well be the end of the game for them. This could also mitigate, to a certain extent, the dreadful slowness of the German's turret traverse. Wonder why BTS didn't model this? ianc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Galanti Posted August 1, 2000 Share Posted August 1, 2000 The following thread talks all about the neutral steer issue: www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/001493.html Ben Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted August 1, 2000 Share Posted August 1, 2000 Yes, I AM saying that the Pz IV and Sherman 75 were basically equal in the fighting in Normandy. Each could knock out the other at normal engagement ranges, each was pretty reliable and each was a workhorse. Don't go believing all this "all German tanks were great" hype. It simply isn't true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
von Lucke Posted August 2, 2000 Share Posted August 2, 2000 About the original cross-post: Gen'l White's summary of the M4 reminded me of that old saying "If I had some bread I could make a ham sandwich --- if I had some ham". He basically calls the Sherman inadequate without actually saying so. 'Course, he let everyone else do it for him in the interviews... Found the actual quotes interesting in that they said almost exactly the same things I've been reading for years: We beat the Germans through logistics, not individual quality of equipment. Just, for some reason, I never thought the active participants saw it that way too... As has been pointed out before, it may have taken a platoon of Shermans + air-support to take out one Panther, but we could afford to replace the Shermans, whereas the Panther was irreplaceable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K_Tiger Posted August 2, 2000 Share Posted August 2, 2000 Jo..Jo.. my mistake..with the yards-feeds..he..he..you got me on my neck.. Must re-read the thing about the Pzgr. 40..but as i know, there where no need to use it..esp. panthers and tigers...(westfront) And the thing about the german Workhorse... the most used MBT in 44`was the panther.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PzKpfw 1 Posted August 2, 2000 Share Posted August 2, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by K_Tiger: Must re-read the thing about the Pzgr. 40..but as i know, there where no need to use it..esp. panthers and tigers...(westfront) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> While this may suprise you then some KT but the 7.5 cm L/70 & 8.8 cm L/56 Pzgr.39 did have trouble pentrating a few Allied tanks. 1 tank in paticular was the Jumbo Sherman, German reports state 7.5 cm L/70 & 8.8 cm L/56 Pzgr.39 failed repeatedly against the Jumbo's front hull & front turret, both PzKpfw IV, & PzKpfw V crews tell of haveing to use some of their limited Pzgr.40 against them. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> And the thing about the german Workhorse... the most used MBT in 44`was the panther.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> 'Workhorse' was your quote not mine.As of 10.06.44 their were 758 PzKpfw IV's & 655 PzKpfw V's in the West. As of 15.12.44,their were 594 PzKpfw IV's, & 487 Panthers in the West. In the East the numbers were similar but again with more PzKpfw IV's the reason the PzKpfw IV is considered the 'workhorse' of the Panzer Div's is their were more PzKpfw IV 's, produced then PzKpfw V's,& the PzKpfw IV, was mechanichly more reliable then the PzKpfw V, and more were operational on a daily basis then Panther's. And more PzKpfw IV's were encountered then PzKpfw V's. basicly the PzKpfw V was never available in enough numbers or operational enough to replace the old reliable PzKpfw IV. 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...
Simon Fox Posted August 2, 2000 Share Posted August 2, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>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...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Uh-oh, with all this new information BTS will have to go back and redesign everything.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Of course! Steve and Charles must be morons, how could they have missed this vital piece of research. In fact why bother doing any at all when they could rely totally on this single source which is clearly correct because it coincides with all your preconceptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dittohead Posted August 2, 2000 Share Posted August 2, 2000 Actually Simon I was commenting on the fact that some members would insist that things would need to be changed. I used the when maybe I should have used the smilie thingy. Sorry for the confusion but I can never seem to use these smilies in the right manner. Maybe Peng is right after all. Nah! Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Fox Posted August 2, 2000 Share Posted August 2, 2000 Doh! Sorry Tony, I guess your post didn't drip with the right kind of sarcastic vitriol and it was a bit subtle for me after I had read through the rest of the thread up to that. From Sept 19-22 1944 combat command A of the US 4th Armour fought a series of defensive and counterattacking engagements south and east of Arracourt France. CCA consisted of two companies of Shermans (almost exclusively the M4A1 type) and a company of light tanks (37 tank battalion), a battalion of armoured infantry, a battalion of engineers, a company of tank destroyers (C co. 704 TD Bn. with M18s) and 3 battalions of arty. The tank units were not at full strength. They were attacked by the 111 and 113 Panzer Brigades with supporting infantry. The 113th at least was at full strength with 42 Panthers. In the four days of fighting the 37th lost 14 of its own tanks while destroying 55 Panthers. The M18s of the 704 TD also played a part in the initial defensive battle. In one engagement which lasted the most of 19th Sept one platoon of M18s knocked out 15 panthers for the loss of 3 of their own TD. One M18 was responsible for 6 of these kills. I guess they must have used their inferior mobility, armour, and guns pretty well. ------------------ "More German prisoners were now arriving. There were well over 150 of them, with a lot more yet to be brought in. I watched them sitting in the dust, knowing they must have been in a state of shock. This was something that had never happened before. They couldn't bring themselves to admit that this was their first defeat of the war. Not only that, but it was suffered at the hands of Australian infantrymen, who were vastly outnumbered and fighting their first battle of the war." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest grunto Posted August 2, 2000 Share Posted August 2, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by K_Tiger: And the thing about the german Workhorse... the most used MBT in 44`was the panther.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes I'll bet that of the German medium tanks in 1944 that the Panther outnumbered the panzer IV about 55%/45%. There were probably assorted other medium tanks but I'll bet that in 1944 for the Germans it was mostly Panthers/PzIVs with the edge going to the Panthers numerically. If memory serves the 1944 Panther production figures are slightly higher than for the PzIV during that same year. It probably depended upon the unit as well. I'll bet that GD received more Panthers, as well as SS combat formations and other elite units such as Panzer Lehr. Is anyone familiar with the Abrams versus German heavy armor battles in the fall of 1944? Supposedly the Americans had a battalion of experienced crews in Shermans and they ate through two full divisions of green German crews in heavy armor (Panthers mostly). The Americans probably had nice air (on clear days) and artillery support to help them out. In any case from what I've heard of that the Americans proved that the crews were the key to armored success. It does seem to me that some of the German armor in Combat Mission is modelled a bit weakly, but you have to take into consideration that the Tigers and Panthers were really good at ranges found mostly outside of the Combat Mission Scenario. So to add to the realism, imagine a few dead Shermans off of the board which have already fallen to that Tiger's gun, on the American approach outside of the scope of the game. Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Erickson Posted August 2, 2000 Share Posted August 2, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by grunto: Is anyone familiar with the Abrams versus German heavy armor battles in the fall of 1944? Andy<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Wasn't Abrams the guy in charge of the action described by Simon in the post above? John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajbab Posted August 2, 2000 Share Posted August 2, 2000 I think IntelWeenie has summed it up pretty good, as the great football coach Vince Lombardi said "Show me someone thats a good loser, and I'll show you a loser." I dont think some Germans belive they lost, its just that time ran out. Everything they do is better than anyone else, and perhaps a lot of the time this may be true. But where a person lives in their heart, they are matched as history will show. The people of Britain took a good pounding as well as their soldiers. Yes they got there ass kicked, but loose, never. Can you imagine being a RAF pilot in those days, I know I dont posses that kind of courage. We would have won if their armour was twice as good as it was, if their planes were twice as good and so on. Germany may still get there wish of world domination, this time its a little more subtle. Money that is, been down to some of the islands lately? Who owns them? Who are the powerhouse currency's in the world. Control the cash box and you control the world, someone once said. Just a thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaka Posted August 2, 2000 Share Posted August 2, 2000 ... sorry... just putting this topic in front again ... very good link, not to be missed by anyone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackhorse Posted August 2, 2000 Share Posted August 2, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by John Erickson: Wasn't Abrams the guy in charge of the action described by Simon in the post above? John<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshK Posted August 2, 2000 Share Posted August 2, 2000 Take a look at Patton's Best: An Informal History of the 4th. Armored Diversion. Very good first-hand account of what was right and wrong about U.S. tank equipment, tactics, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dittohead Posted August 2, 2000 Share Posted August 2, 2000 Simon there were a couple of major battles in that time frame in September involving several recently formed Panzer Brigades. Hitler insisted they be committed to battle with little or no training. So you have a case of poorly trained troops who were told their Uber tanks cannot lose, going up against a veteran tank force backed by air, artillery and Ultra. Outcome was never in doubt. In "Panzer Commander by Von Luck" he descibes the "Debacle at Epinal" 11-13 Sept. Where he wished that existing panzer troops be replinished with the new tanks and troops instead of being rushed into battle in senseless counterattacks against overwhelming air and artillery. The force "Von Luck" was supposed to be helping lost 34 panthers and 26 Mark IV's. By the way he was facing Leclerc and the French 2nd Armored division backed by US air and Art. Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Fox Posted August 3, 2000 Share Posted August 3, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So you have a case of poorly trained troops who were told their Uber tanks cannot lose<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Point taken. So are these poorly trained troops anything like the poorly trained CM players who think their Uber tanks can't lose? ------------------ "More German prisoners were now arriving. There were well over 150 of them, with a lot more yet to be brought in. I watched them sitting in the dust, knowing they must have been in a state of shock. This was something that had never happened before. They couldn't bring themselves to admit that this was their first defeat of the war. Not only that, but it was suffered at the hands of Australian infantrymen, who were vastly outnumbered and fighting their first battle of the war." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dittohead Posted August 3, 2000 Share Posted August 3, 2000 In the the article they talk about a ricochet hit going through the side of a M4 at 3,000 yds. Do they mean it ricocheted off the ground, ie bouncing AP rds or is it something else? Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
:USERNAME: Posted August 3, 2000 Share Posted August 3, 2000 LOL please dont bring up bouncing rounds. I read one account where a sherman was broadside behind a hill. That is , he was turret down behind a hill and his side was facing same hill. The crew noticed a lurking german spying them from aways and he was chased away by MG fire. Shortly thereafter, the sherman took a AP round through its side armor! The crew got out and surmised that a high velocity gun had been shooting through the hill and had finally nailed them. It was guessed that the german was "spotting" for them. I have also read accounts of US crews bouncing AP off hard surfaces like cobblestone streets or paved roads and penetrating belly armor. And of course the grermans put the words "Kennzahl fur Sprengstoffart" on HE rounds for a pretty good reason. Lewis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts