Jack Carr Posted February 4, 2003 Share Posted February 4, 2003 Play historically accurate scenarios and you will think differently about Soviet armor. Remember this line, "Quantity has a quality all it's own". Late war scenarios should see 1 Panther pitted against 3-5 T-34/85's or JS-2's. When the odds are at this level you can bet that at least one of the Soviet tanks is going to get off a shot! The 85mm and 122mm guns are more than capable of taking out Panther and Tiger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mididoctors Posted February 4, 2003 Share Posted February 4, 2003 Ignore....!!!!! [ February 04, 2003, 09:09 AM: Message edited by: mididoctors ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grisha Posted February 4, 2003 Share Posted February 4, 2003 And using numbers to defeat German armor takes nothing away from the Soviets. Massive tactical numerical supremacy was a hallmark of late war Soviet operational art, the result of elaborate and comprehensive deception operations prior - and sometimes even during - an offensive operation. In the Soviet-German War, the Germans held the tactical edge, all things being equal. The Soviets learned to counter this from the operational level, and large numerical superiority was the tactical product. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Pepper Posted February 4, 2003 Share Posted February 4, 2003 As i live in a democracy i assume it my right to choose a name of my choice and not to b told which name to assume.Maybe we should stick to the original question rather than take history lessons as everyone reads the facts slighty differently . regards to all J Lad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tools4fools Posted February 4, 2003 Share Posted February 4, 2003 The "hide" order could have been one reason, but in the first case (1900m) the PzIII could well have been a misidentified PzIVG. This would explain the long range kill. In the second "hide" seems even more possible, as described the T-34 was knocked out with the first shot from the Panther and therefore not able to "unhide" and engage. In CMBO I always had the impression that non-moving tanks were kind of sitting ducks. It seemed to me that if they were sitting in ambush and a tank drove into their sights they often got their shot off - but only after the tank that drove in sight had opened fire (and those tanks were not "hiding"). I regularly used multiple short "hunt" and "reverse" orders to keep the tank moving "on the spot" since it seemed to me that I achieved better results this way, but I never really tested it. Marcus **** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted February 4, 2003 Share Posted February 4, 2003 Originally posted by tools4fools: The "hide" order could have been one reason, but in the first case (1900m) the PzIII could well have been a misidentified PzIVG. This would explain the long range kill. You are saying that if the T-34 thinks what shot at it was a PzIVG then the incoming shot would also have the penetration of a Pz IVG shot? Now, that takes psychological warfare to new levels Besides, this battle was probably in a timeframe before the IVG existed. If the original poster would come over with more specific info, please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted February 4, 2003 Share Posted February 4, 2003 Originally posted by Jack Carr: Play historically accurate scenarios and you will think differently about Soviet armor. It is sufficient to play with historically correct numbers of battles in mud, snow and fow, swamps or even woods mixed it to show that Soviet tanks are far from inferiour. Numerical superiority is not required. The 85mm and 122mm guns are more than capable of taking out Panther and Tiger. You need the 85mm AP ammo without the HE charge, though, otherwise your frontnils are in for a bad surprise on behalf of the slackers in the ammo labs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarquelne Posted February 4, 2003 Share Posted February 4, 2003 frontnilsMy vocab. is reasonably large, and I can generally get past spelling errors (in fact I take a stand in support of spelling errors), but I have to admit that one's got me stumped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lumbergh Posted February 4, 2003 Share Posted February 4, 2003 "frontniks", maybe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarquelne Posted February 4, 2003 Share Posted February 4, 2003 A T-34/76 that's unbuttoned, ready to fire, and tracking a target? Was there a T-34/76 model without a 2-man turret? "frontniks", maybe? An special fork made for eating potato chips, common in California and the US South in the 1960's and 70s? I doubt it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted February 4, 2003 Share Posted February 4, 2003 So much for blowing a joke by spelling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soddball Posted February 4, 2003 Share Posted February 4, 2003 Originally posted by SS Pieper: As i live in a democracy i assume it my right to choose a name of my choice and not to b told which name to assume.Maybe we should stick to the original question rather than take history lessons as everyone reads the facts slighty differently . regards to all J Lad Nobody has told anybody which name to assume. But would you onto a forum which discusses racial equality with the name "Nigger Basher"? No. Part of being a democracy is tolerance of other people's views - and the people here are entitled to their views. Are you also claiming that these facts about the evil things Heydrich did are untrue? Nazi apologists last a fast five minutes here. For your information, we had an SS Peiper here before. He was banned for posting images of Nazi iconography and of mutilated bodies from the death camps - and quite right too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V Posted February 4, 2003 Share Posted February 4, 2003 Originally posted by SS Pieper: As i live in a democracy i assume it my right to choose a name of my choice and not to b told which name to assume.Maybe we should stick to the original question rather than take history lessons as everyone reads the facts slighty differently . regards to all J Lad I don't see what you have to worry about. Peiper, as in Joachim Peiper, as in Kampfgrüppe Peiper, as in SS Standartenführer Peiper, are spelled EI, which in German makes an "I" sound. As in "Piper." Your name, however, is SS Pieper, the IE makes an E sound, so you would be SS Peeper!?!?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MasterGoodale Posted February 4, 2003 Share Posted February 4, 2003 1. The people here, including myself, who believe he has a right to choose any name he wants ARE NOT Nazi sympothizers! We just believe in Freedo Of xpression, one of the many rights we fought the Nazis to keep. 2. I find it Ironic that, as I mentioned above, you are against people having the right to choose any name, yet that's why we fought the Nazis - to preserve freedom and fight oppression. 3. Yes, "Nigger Basher" would be unacceptable because it is not a name, it's an insult and/or an adverb I believe. The same would go for "Jew Burner". these are not names. How do you know he doesn't have an uncle named "Heiydrich"? I could go on all day, but I say unless the name is a direct insult then he has every right to use it. That's like saying I can't use the name Saddam or "Ted Bundy". Not that I would, but I would hope it would be my right to do so. Just my opinion, I'm done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nolloff Posted February 4, 2003 Share Posted February 4, 2003 Well, he could have a an uncle called "Basher" So you fought the Nazis so that today people have the right to call themselves "Hitler" or "Heydrich" on message boards. What an absurd idea of Freedom of Speech. Sounds more like "Do what thou wilt" by A. Crowley. Nolloff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Carr Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 Redwolf posts: It is sufficient to play with historically correct numbers of battles in mud, snow and fow, swamps or even woods mixed it to show that Soviet tanks are far from inferiour. Numerical superiority is not required. -------------------------------------------------- True enough but it sure doesn't hurt to have more which is really what Tiger and Panther were up against more often than not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walpurgis nacht Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 Originally posted by Soddball: Part of being a democracy is tolerance of other people's views - and the people here are entitled to their views. Are you also claiming that these facts about the evil things Heydrich did are untrue? Nazi apologists last a fast five minutes here. [/QB]Here we go again Soddball, maestro of the monopoly on moral authority. ... then heed the integrity of your quote "part of a democracy . . . " by taking it to its logical conclusion! Or does *your* take on democracy not extend tolerance to those judgmental the adverse judge? Master Goodale has it right, "The people here, including myself, who believe he has a right to choose any name he wants ARE NOT Nazi sympothizers! We just believe in Freedo Of xpression, one of the many rights we fought the Nazis to keep. Learn it, live it, and love it, or become another elitist in the democratic party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke 'n' Load Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 Attempting to objectify that which is subjective is obviously impossible. There are a million different reactions one can have in response to displaying an offensive (whatever that means) name on public domain, ranging from complete indifference to utter indignation. The fact that somebody's feelings are hurt is obviously not a reason to censor another human being's rights of free speech. We only have the right to muffle another if the offender DIRECTLY assaults a person through PHYSICAL means (stealing,striking,coercion through force, etc). If a person is offended by the phrase "purple horses", does that give them the right to try and stop the person using the phrase -- no. If you are offended by a person's statements, the only recourse you have is either intelligent debate or to completely ignore what he/she has to say. Censorship is far more insidious than the pain one may get at having their feelings hurt. For those interested in a fascinating book on the subject, I would recommend the book "Kindly Inquisitors" By John Rauch. At around 150 pages, it is a very quick read and brilliantly exposes Political Correctness for the abortion of human thought that it truly is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 I believe we got sidetracked here a little? Name choices aside, I am locking this up since it clearly went off-topic. Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts