Guest Mike Posted November 10, 2003 Share Posted November 10, 2003 The Brits sent a few Churchill's to Nth Africa too. 6 x Mk III's with 6 pdr were apparently present at Al Alamein, and saw considerable action in Tunisia. According to one site I saw the Churchil IV NA started it's life there too, rearmed with 75m guns taken from scrap Shermans. Tiger KO'ed by Churchils: (It was knocked out in action with Churchill tanks of No. 4 Troop, A Squadron, 48th Royal Tank Regiment at Medjez-el-Bab on 21 April 1943. ) [ November 09, 2003, 10:32 PM: Message edited by: Mike ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted November 10, 2003 Share Posted November 10, 2003 Originally posted by Patton21: The middle e in my signature is to be crazy! And the m10 may be in tunisia but it has very thin armor and you could punch through it with anything a bit bigger then a rifle round. You are either waxing hyperbolic or confusing the M10 with the M18. The M10's armor, while hardly spectacular, will certainly defeat projectiles substantially bigger than rifle bullets. At combat ranges over 500m, the M10's frontal armor should offer pretty good protection against projectiles up to about the 50mm/L42. Keep in mind we're talking 1942-1943 here, before every german tank is running around with at least a 75mm/L48. . . Cheers, YD 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted November 10, 2003 Share Posted November 10, 2003 The M10 is based on a Sherman hull with an open turret isn't it? From what I've read/seen/learnt on allied tank losses in Africa, a significant number of losses came about due to tactical blunders rather than technical inferiority - there are accounts of the Germans losing swathes of Mk IVs to Stuarts and Grants due to poor tactics on their [the Germans] part. In addition, Crusaders are quite fast, about their only good feature before the 6pdr tank gun. Oh, and there is an 'e' in George, just not where Patton21 puts it. [ November 10, 2003, 09:14 AM: Message edited by: flamingknives ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seanachai Posted November 10, 2003 Share Posted November 10, 2003 Originally posted by Patton21: The middle e in my signature is to be crazy! Another out-of-control, post modernist youth, mad for fun and uncaring of the consequences... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted November 10, 2003 Share Posted November 10, 2003 Originally posted by flamingknives: The M10 is based on a Sherman hull with an open turret isn't it? It's based on the M3 medium tank hull. The Sherman is the M4 medium tank. The M10/M36 booklet by Steven Zaloga is excellent, BTW and can be picked up for $5 or so on half.com. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CombinedArms Posted November 10, 2003 Share Posted November 10, 2003 The drift I'm gleaning from this thread is that we may be in for some more balanced tank confrontations than those we usually encounter in CMBB, where, often, one side has a dominant and fairly common tank that the other side is hard put to counter. Such balance would be good news from a gamer's perspective, IMHO. As long as rarity rules keep the PzIV longs in check until about when the Shermans arrive, things should be fairly balanced much of the time. That would be cool. It will also be fun to witness the Sherman's brief, shining moment as a common yet scary tank. I don't see much reference to Stugs. Is it a fair inference that the StugIII was not much seen in the desert? Was the idea that tanks really needed turrets to survive in that environment? What about Marders, Wespes, Hummels, et al? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted November 10, 2003 Share Posted November 10, 2003 Originally posted by redwolf: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by flamingknives: The M10 is based on a Sherman hull with an open turret isn't it? It's based on the M3 medium tank hull.</font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted November 10, 2003 Share Posted November 10, 2003 Mumble. No, I was quoting out of my head. I'll have a look what Zaloga says. The chassis might not be that different anyway. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patton21 Posted November 10, 2003 Author Share Posted November 10, 2003 Not to mention that the m10 is easily knocked out my a grenade or mortor round. Lets be honast guys, everything you leanred in close combat II is true, it was the pinacle of m10 simulation. My m10's were always knocked out my german grenades and rifle fire. Im just not a huge fan of the m10, unless its up against german tanks that cant fire back. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMplayer Posted November 10, 2003 Share Posted November 10, 2003 Originally posted by Patton21: honast leanred pinacle Were those also just to be crazy? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted November 10, 2003 Share Posted November 10, 2003 Originally posted by CombinedArms: I don't see much reference to Stugs. Is it a fair inference that the StugIII was not much seen in the desert? Was the idea that tanks really needed turrets to survive in that environment? What about Marders, Wespes, Hummels, et al? AFAIK there weren't any StuGs in the desert - or, if there were, whey were present in small numbers. BTW, the StuG isn't a 'tank' and as far as possible the Germans tried to avoid using them as such. This was certainly the case up till mid-43 (when the war in NZ ended). Marders, as panzerjagers, work to a different doctrine than tanks. Wespes and Hummels are SP artillery, not 'tanks' or 'AT guns-on-tracks', so considering them at all is a red herring. Regards JonS 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted November 10, 2003 Share Posted November 10, 2003 Originally posted by CMplayer: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Patton21: honast leanred pinacle Were those also just to be crazy? </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted November 10, 2003 Share Posted November 10, 2003 Originally posted by JonS: This was certainly the case up till mid-43 (when the war in NZ ended).I have to admit that one brought me up short until I figured it out. Those pesky Maoris giving trouble again, eh, Jon? Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sokal Posted November 10, 2003 Share Posted November 10, 2003 Originally posted by Patton21: Do you think that superior german optics and tank guns will turn all desert battles into a slaughter? There is not much cover in the desert and german 88's and mark IV tanks, not to mention panthers and tigers will make short work of any allied tank in the open. Unless allies get air support I dont think the allied armor will have a very good time in africa. I have to admit that I'm not too worried about 88s. The CM system tends to reproduce battlefield conditions pretty well and we know that in the prevailing conditions in the Mediterreanean in the period, the Allies managed to beat the Axis forces most of the time. I think 88s will be very effective, but we know from the accounts that they were only one of the ways that the Axis forces maintained an edge in armored engagements and I think we can expect the CM system to reproduce this. For example, the 50mm AT guns that operated right with Axis armored units seemed to have knocked out significantly more British cruiser tanks than 88s. And for another example of why we should remain calm in the face of the prospect of Germanic equipment in the desert, in the Easter 1941 battles around Tobruk, 88s that had been positioned too far forward before dawn had their crews suppressed by small arms fire before they could get into action. I guess it would be nice to have the growing light of dawn simulated, but maybe that's a CM2 thing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted November 10, 2003 Share Posted November 10, 2003 Originally posted by Patton21: Not to mention that the m10 is easily knocked out my a grenade or mortor round. Lets be honast guys, everything you leanred in close combat II is true, it was the pinacle of m10 simulation. My m10's were always knocked out my german grenades and rifle fire. Im just not a huge fan of the m10, unless its up against german tanks that cant fire back. With the new mortar accuracy in CMBB the CMBO 3" anti-tank mortars don't work anymore. I would be surprised if CMAK would return to CMBO accuracy. They will be vulnerable to molotov cocktails, but molotov cocktails are having problems in CMBB, a squad or tank hunter becomes more effective when the cocktails are gone and it uses normal grenades. So, in combination with the .50cal I think they'll be pretty pesky until they run out of antipersonell ammunition. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted November 10, 2003 Share Posted November 10, 2003 Originally posted by redwolf: They will be vulnerable to molotov cocktails, but molotov cocktails are having problems in CMBB, a squad or tank hunter becomes more effective when the cocktails are gone and it uses normal grenades.Were Molotov's ever used down south? I thought they were entirely an Ostfront phenomenon. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted November 10, 2003 Share Posted November 10, 2003 Once again, if you are letting infantry get close enough to your M10s to throw a grenade or their dirty socks at them, you are using bad tactics. They should be well screened by your own infantry and as far back on the battlefield as possible while still providing adequate support. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted November 10, 2003 Share Posted November 10, 2003 Originally posted by Sergei: Were Molotov's ever used down south? I thought they were entirely an Ostfront phenomenon. They were almost certainly used in Italy, especially by Italian Partisans. They might have been used a few times in NA in an improvised role, but it was harder for infantry to get within throwing range of armor in that theater unless they had their hands up. Anyone pulling an MC from inside his coat would have been shot down before he could even flick his Bic. On the other hand, there were Mills bombs and sticky bombs that might have been used by infantry that was in the process of being overrun, but that has most of the problems of the prospective MC user. Namely early retirement from the living. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted November 10, 2003 Share Posted November 10, 2003 Originally posted by Michael Emrys: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JonS: This was certainly the case up till mid-43 (when the war in NZ ended).I have to admit that one brought me up short until I figured it out. Those pesky Maoris giving trouble again, eh, Jon? </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted November 10, 2003 Share Posted November 10, 2003 Originally posted by Mike: ...US Marines against NZ Servicemen over the usual things - Yanks being over paid, over sexed and over here!! Tut, tut. One might have thought you lot would be grateful that we kept your women in practice to provide that warm welcome home after the war. Plus the generous donations to your bloodlines enriching your gene pool. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted November 10, 2003 Share Posted November 10, 2003 Originally posted by Michael Emrys: ... On the other hand, there were Mills bombs and sticky bombs that might have been used by infantry that was in the process of being overrun, but that has most of the problems of the prospective MC user. Namely early retirement from the living.Well, there are numerous accounts of attacking infantry using "sticky bombs" (?No.68? Grenade) successfully to KO and disable tanks in the desert. Of course, most of them are during night attacks, which is a whole 'nother story, eh Michael? Regards JonS Oh yeah ... Z => A Stoopid fingers/brain connection. And damn those keys for being so close [ November 10, 2003, 04:54 PM: Message edited by: JonS ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASL Veteran Posted November 11, 2003 Share Posted November 11, 2003 Originally posted by JonS: AFAIK there weren't any StuGs in the desert - or, if there were, whey were present in small numbers. BTW, the StuG isn't a 'tank' and as far as possible the Germans tried to avoid using them as such. This was certainly the case up till mid-43 (when the war in NZ ended). Marders, as panzerjagers, work to a different doctrine than tanks. Wespes and Hummels are SP artillery, not 'tanks' or 'AT guns-on-tracks', so considering them at all is a red herring. Regards JonS I vaguely recall from the cobwebs located within the dark recesses of my brain that there were exactly 3 StuG IIIBs that fought somewhere in the Tobruk area. These three StuGs, as I recall, were the only StuGs to enter this theater of operations. I'll try to poke around and confirm this if I can find the appropriate source material. There were also the so called "Diana" SP guns (well, really truck mounted guns) and I think, although I'm less certain of this one, that there were some of the little 47mm armed PanzerJaeger Is in North Africa too. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSpkr Posted November 11, 2003 Share Posted November 11, 2003 Originally posted by Patton21: The middle e in my signature is to be crazy! And the m10 may be in tunisia but it has very thin armor and you could punch through it with anything a bit bigger then a rifle round. Not if it sees you first. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patton21 Posted November 11, 2003 Author Share Posted November 11, 2003 My spelling is due to the fact that i dont care about spelling on a message board. If that makes me a bad person, so be it. I also like to cross streets on a red light just for the hell of it. Anway, ill take some of you guys on in scrabble and then we will party. But sometimes, if you charge a tank up to some infantry and blast at them with a .30 cal you can route them much faster then peppering them with HE from a distance. An m10 at 1000m versus a long 75mm mark4 is no match and will be destroyed very fast. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted November 11, 2003 Share Posted November 11, 2003 Originally posted by Patton21: My spelling is due to the fact that i dont care about spelling on a message board.Fair enough. On the other hand, don't be surprised if you get the same attitude coming back at you with regards to your questions, comments, and opinions. Regards JonS 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.