Just a little pissed off...

[Tank Man]

I can't understand why the hell people think the Axis tanks are "uber" compared to Allied tanks.

Its pretty retarded to hear people complain about how their Shermans can't take out Axis

"uber" tanks. Last time I checked a plain vanilla M4 sherman with its 75mm gun, gyrostabilizer, and fast turret walk all over Panzer IVs medium-slow turret, no gyro, and slow speed.

Why don't you set up a test to see how many times a Panzer IV plinks a shot from an M4 Sherman.

Oh wait a damn minute! Are people complaining about how a Sherman (MEDIUM) tank can't stop a Tiger (HEAVY) tank??? Well ain't that kinda dumb. Want to know what else is dumb? People expect tanks that are designed to stop infantry to stop tanks that are designed to stop other tanks (and don't tell me that a Sherman with a companies worth of MGs on it as well as a low velocity, short barrel, increased blast 75mm gun wasn't designed to stop infantry).

It seems to me that people are playing the Allies all wrong. A 76 gun does a pretty damn good job of taking out a Tiger from the front, and if you still think thats hard WHY NOT USE A TANK DESTROYER AND STOP MISUSING YOUR TANKS. A firefly is pretty badass for 165 points. Idiots, good job getting your retard on.

Also, if you play by Fionns Short 75 rule, don't you dare let any word beginning with the letter "u" leave your mouth, especially the word uber.

Instead of smacking your face into a wall over and over and over why not find the door and walk through.

For those of you too retarded to understand what that means (i.e. those of you that are comparing medium tanks to heavy tanks), if one tactic doesn't work, don't expect it to work better a second time. Instead try a different tactic.

I want someone to explain why people underestimate the Sherman so much. Is it because they worship the axis tanks? Do you have a special retardo altar to pray to the god of panthers at?

If only Patton were here to explain to you how Shermans are invinsible and how he used them to crush the germans.

[russellmz]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tank Man:

WHY NOT USE A TANK DESTROYER AND STOP MISUSING YOUR TANKS. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BECAUSE A TANK DESTROYER HAS PAPER THIN ARMOR THAT CAN BE PIERCED BY A 20MM AA GUN AND SOMETIMES THE GERMAN PLAYERS USE INFANTRY AND OTHER TANKS TO GUARD THEIR REAR AND FLANKS?

[Cull]

Yeah! And the Hulkster ruled over that RETARDO Iron Shiek, too!

Oh, why hello there, mother.

[Tank Man]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> BECAUSE A TANK DESTROYER HAS PAPER THIN ARMOR THAT CAN BE PIERCED BY A 20MM AA GUN <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thought I said something about misusing tanks. This is why you have regular tanks, and if the 20mm AA gun is guarding the tank then they are stuck at that position and you can flank them. If he has his infantry guarding his flank (and I don't see how this can happen, unless you have some sort of mod for the game that allows small arms to penetrate tank armor) just mess up his infantry. When his tank has to move forward to protect the infantry knock it into the next valley with a the tank destroyer that you bought. Unless you expect your anti-infantry tank to stop his anti-tank tank (which most german tanks are).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> SOMETIMES THE GERMAN PLAYERS USE INFANTRY AND OTHER TANKS TO GUARD THEIR REAR AND FLANKS <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

WHAT OTHER TANKS? Have you even seen the other sides point allocations? In a 1000pt ME the Axis player gets 200 points for tanks and the Allied player gets 300. That 200 points buys the Axis player a Panther VG late

while the 300 points buy the Allied player a Sherman III and a Sherman VC Firefly. When that Sherman III starts rocking on the axis infantry the axis player usually tries to stop it. Lets see what he can use to stop it.

He could roll in a halftrack with a 75 gun on it! Oh wait.. no.. that hollow shell doesn't really penetrate the frontal armor on a sherman... besides, if it wasn't killed by the .50 cals on the two Shermans it would be killed by the gun of the Firefly if the Sherman III decided it was enjoying smacking around some infantry.

He could send in some 'shrecks!!! Nope.. that won't work... Those tanks have a total of five MGs as well as their main guns. If they didn't get the crap supressed out of them by now they would have probably missed anyway, seeing as how shoulder fired AT weapons are painfully inaccurate now.

HE COULD ROLL UP A FIELD GUN!!! Too bad the Sherman III would smack that around even harder than the infantry.

So that leaves us with rolling up the Panther. But with the Firefly on overwatch, guess whos toast.

Now consider adding other allied units into the picture... Wow, guess whos got a pretty damned hard time?

Patton had a damn good reason for liking the Sherman. Obviously some people just don't know the difference between compotent allied tank tactics and beating yourself in the face with a hammer. I mean its pretty clear, viable tactics could help you win, while beating yourself in the face with a hammer is just retarded.

So don't be like the idiots beating themselves in the face. Be smart! SMART GOD DAMMIT! DON'T BE A MORON AND SEND YOUR TANKS TO DIE.

[Tank Man]

JACK ARILLIAC! The rage of a thousand angry Pattons surges within me and you have the nerve to greet your mother! HOW DARE YOU!

[Cull]

Please forgive me, sir, as you are clearly insane. I can respect that.

May the fleas of a thousand angry Pattons set themselves upon my crotch.

[Tank Man]

If Patton heard you talk that way he would shoot you with one of his custom-made revolvers.

Now go away, I think you scared russell off.

[JasonC]

Start with a plain vanilla Sherman M4A3. It costs 122 points, about the same as a Pz IV. Either will penetrate the other. The Sherman has more HE, a 3rd MG, and a faster turret. The Pz IV has a more powerful gun, as powerful as the gun on a Sherman-76.

Now, let's look at improvements. For 24 points, you can get wet stowage (W). This gives you 7 more rounds for the main gun, 12 more from the roof 50 cal, and less likely burn-on-kill. For 24 points, +20% cost. The lower hull has better armor, the upper hull has worse, the turret is the same - all will be penetrated by typical German guns.

Or, you can spend 31 points for a 105mm howitzer, to specialize in infantry killing. This gives more HE obviously, also a slower turret. +25% cost. In contrast, a StuH-105mm costs 11 points *less* than a StuG-75mm, 3/5ths the cost of a Sherman 105, with about 3/5ths the ammo load (and the same ammo load as a StuG).

Or, you can spend 49 points for a better gun, 76mm. 40% more, for a gun as powerful as the one the Pz IV started with. In return, the HE load is reduced, plus a minor reduction in blast, overall a considerable reduction in anti-infantry firepower - to less than the Pz IV has. What will the gun do? Punch through the front of the turret of a Panther at point-blank range, counting armor quality. Sometimes penetrate a Tiger from the front at very close range. Penetrate the sides of Tigers at range. You also get a random number of T rounds, 0-5, about 1/3-1/2 chance you get enough you will actually fire any of them, if you are lucky. If they hit, often 2nd or 3rd shot, those can kill Tiger Is, and get through Panther turrets only, not the front hull.

Or instead of a gun, you can pick W+ and take armor (late enough in the war). Every 75mm and up gun the Germans use will still go through the turret front, and kill from any other angle. But the hull front actually has tank armor. The Panther will still penetrate the lower hull to moderate ranges (~500m), and the upper hull very close and sometimes. 88mmL56 (FLAK or Tiger I) will mostly bounce from the front hull. Can you kill anything back? Why no, you only spent 49 points you see. You turret and sides are still vunerable, while you will need a 76mm to threaten even the turret of the Panther or Tiger.

So you can buy both the 76mm gun and the W+ armor - for 79 points, +65% to the cost. Now the tank costs more than a Panther. Where does it penetrate the Panther? Sides and rear, or turret only from close ranges. Where does the Panther kill it? Turret at any distance, hull front close (lower especially), sides and rear any range. You will also need another 8 points for easy-eight flotation or you not they will bog in mud, with far higher ground pressure.

Now, let's look over on the German side. As already mentioned, a StuH comes at a discount to the StuG (~11%), instead of costing 25% more. A Jadgpanzer will bounce short 75mm AP from the front for the same cost as a Pz IV, doing the job W+ armor does for the US and more so, since there is no penetrable turret.

A Tiger I costs 59 more points than a Pz IV, and gets in return front and side armor the vanilla Sherman can't penetrate, plus 76s need to be close or use "T" rounds from the front, plus more powerful HE, plus a gun that kills anything below W+ from any angle, and W+ in the turret front from any range, plus the usual sides and rear. For about the cost Shermans pay for *either* a decent (but not as good) gun, or good armor (but not on the turret).

Or, for 78 points, a smaller mark-up than a Sherman 76W+, you can get the Panther. Either can penetrate the other's turret, but the Sherm needs to be close or use T, while the Panther can penetrate the Sherm's hull close, the turret at any distance. Speeds and flotation are comparable if the Sherm spends 8 more for E8.

The prices clearly have the Sherman W+ -or- the Sherman 76(W) as a counterpart to the Tiger I (or the Jadg-L70), and the Sherman W+ 76mm as a counterpart to the Panther. The first of those match ups has the Tiger superior in gun plus armor, with the US picking which one to "match" in effectiveness (= force need of side, rear, or turret shots etc). The second has the Panther superior in tank fighting but at a lower price.

And some of these options only come late anyway (good W+ hull armor, E8 flotation).

Are TDs the answer? They are cheap enough, and they have hammers, more likely to have T ammo and enough of it to use the stuff too. That does make them effective in "stalking". The choices, though, are Jackson - without T ammo, able to kill Tiger Is and take out Panthers with turret hits, not able to get through the glacis or deal with super-heavies except from the side. Or Hellcats, the fastest and with plenty of T ammo. These are the usual choice, but suffer from paper armor than is easily scraped by light support weapons - 20mm FLAK, 75mm IGs, etc. Last the M-10s, slower and slow-turreted, but with T ammo and armor enough to shrug off 20mm rounds. The saving grace of all three types is that they are cheap, the price of vanilla Shermans.

What can the Germans get in the way of guns by skimping on armor? Hetzers for 84 points, Marders for 69-75, StuGs for 94. In other words, turretless AFVs with guns as effective against US armor as US TDs are against German armor, for 2/3rds the cost. Some of them with roofs. They just plain pay less, because the US armor is all paying for extras that are not as critical in face to face tank dueling as gun power and armor thickness.

Is the Firefly a good gun on a good tank? Sure, but you get it for being British not for the price paid. They will kill Tiger Is, Tiger Is will kill them, and they cost the same. The difference is the Tiger I will not die when hit by accompanying vanilla Shermans, while the Firefly will die when hit by accompanying Pz IVs.

Does any of this mean Shermans cannot be used effectively? No. Does it mean W+ is not effective armor? No, unless you are hull down - LOL. Does it mean the US is toast, even with TDs, T rounds, and later Sherman 76s and W+? No, certainly. It does mean the Germans get to buy more armored fighting power for the same price spent.

How does the US fight effectively anyway? By using teamwork. One on one, the prices are such that the Germans can buy a better tank for the same cost. But 5 on 5 or 10 on 10, that matters less, and how the tanks mesh their fighting with one another matters more.

I will give an analogy from the air war in the Pacific. It is not perfect, but it is still a useful analogy. The early US carrier pilots did not have F6F Hellcats specifically designed to kill Zeros. They had comparatively lumbering F4F Wildcats. The Zero was faster, more maneuverable, had a better rate of climb, about equal firepower thanks to its cannons. It wasn't as durable, and did not dive as easily, that was about it. Did this prevent US pilots from every fighting the Zero with F4Fs? No.

They developed group tactics. The most elemental of them was called the "Thatch weave", based on the guy who came up with it. The basic idea was to use the fact that planes are vunerable only from behind (in that era), plus teamwork, to overcome maneuverability. How? By leading a trailing Zero in front of a wingman's guns. Following somebody means turning over to him the decision where one goes. That is power, it can be used.

The similar principle operating in tank combat is that almost every tank type is vunerable from the sides. In the case of the heaviest tanks, vunerable to 76mm Shermans or TDs; for most tanks (including the vaunted Panther), from any decent AP gun. And no single tank can face two directions. Even if multiple tanks are fanned out with their facings in an arc, toward the closest of all enemies arrayed in front of them, if the total arc is long, all of them are subject to side shots. When the terrain prevents that, it usually also prevents one facing from blocking all avenues, and provides opportunities to charge close from a side or rear. When teamwork and its tactics even the penetration odds by making side shot common, then the other frills of the US AFVs come out - faster turrets and gyros, etc.

[Redwolf]

While I personally don't complain about Axis tanks being too dangerous (have sufficient tactics so that it isn't a problem anymore), I can maybe contribute one point why other players are annoyed:

For each game level (Fionn recon, short 75, long 76, heavy tanks), the Germans have the best gun when it comes to AT. The 75mm L/48 is clearly better than the Allied 75mm, the long 88 better than the 90mm, the Puma gun that the 37mm etc. In practice that means that at a tank meeting the Germans have the advantage that they get a lower ricochet chance for bigger angles, assuming similar armour.

So, if you are in mostly for tank battles, or think that mixed battles are decided in initial tank clashes, you are probably not satisfied with the Allied tanks.

[Dunnee]

(laughter)

[Phillies Phan]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jack Arilliac:

Yeah! And the Hulkster ruled over that RETARDO Iron Shiek, too!

Oh, why hello there, mother.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, he did. Didn't he? Watcha gonna do when all the hulkamaniacs run wild on you?

[Mr. Johnson--]

You tell them Tank Man.

[von Lucke]

Too much caffeine, or not enough sleep?

[Guest Babra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by von Lucke:

Too much caffeine, or not enough sleep?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Too much red meat, I'm thinkin'...