Michael Emrys Posted November 11, 2003 Share Posted November 11, 2003 Originally posted by JonS: 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? Heh. You mean another one of those imaginary night attacks? Sure, I'll go along with that, why not? About the No. 68, it appears to have been a rifle grenade and of it Chamberlain & Gander have this to say: "...[it] was not very useful against anything other than light armour; it was withdrawn after 1941. It had a range of 75-100 yards, but the blank cartridge used to project the grenade produced a very heavy recoil so the rifle had to be fired with the butt against the ground or against something solid." Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted November 11, 2003 Share Posted November 11, 2003 Originally posted by Michael Emrys: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted November 11, 2003 Share Posted November 11, 2003 Originally posted by ASL Veteran: 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. Apparently there were nine of the Dianas made and all nine went to NA. Some sources claim that there were Marders in NA during the summer of '42 also, but at the moment I am unsure if they are not confusing those with the Dianas. I think you are right about the PzJg Is, but I also suspect they didn't make it past the end of '41. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys 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. 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.In which case, I am satisfied that you will probably get what you deserve. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted November 11, 2003 Share Posted November 11, 2003 Originally posted by Mike: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Emrys: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted November 11, 2003 Share Posted November 11, 2003 Originally posted by Patton21: An m10 at 1000m versus a long 75mm mark4 is no match and will be destroyed very fast. Really? I'd have said it was a fairly even match - both carry guns capable of destroying the other and both guns are fairly high velocity (minimal ranging errors). What do you base your statement on? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted November 11, 2003 Share Posted November 11, 2003 I got the number wrong Michael - 'twas the No. 74 I was thinking of. Was in service through 1942. Exampls? do an "Edit -> Find(on this page)" for sticky here 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patton21 Posted November 11, 2003 Author Share Posted November 11, 2003 In all my tests in CMBO my m10 would get killed at 1000m at a ratio of 2:1 against the markIV. It seems to me that the mark IV would just be dead on faster then the m10. In fact, some of the rounds from my m10, would land behind the m10, now that is one heck of a bad shot! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted November 11, 2003 Share Posted November 11, 2003 Originally posted by Michael Emrys: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> no marine ever enriched a gene pool in his life! Better not let Gyrene, Berli, or any of the several current or former Jarheads hear you say that!</font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted November 11, 2003 Share Posted November 11, 2003 Originally posted by JonS: I got the number wrong Michael - 'twas the No. 74 I was thinking of. Was in service through 1942.Yeah. Chamberlain & Gander mention it as well, noting its unfortunate tendency to stick to the user. This could have tragic consequences as the bomb had a five second timed fuse. C. & G. seem to like the No. 75 much better. It looks more like a mine (which it could be used as) than a grenade, but they claim it could be thrown. Exampls? do an "Edit -> Find(on this page)" for sticky here Interesting site. I have bookmarked it and will return when I have the time to do it justice. Thanks. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted November 11, 2003 Share Posted November 11, 2003 Originally posted by Patton21: In all my tests in CMBO my m10 would get killed at 1000m at a ratio of 2:1 against the markIV. It seems to me that the mark IV would just be dead on faster then the m10. In fact, some of the rounds from my m10, would land behind the m10, now that is one heck of a bad shot! The reason for that is the slow turret. Turret and turn speed and hence targetting and hence first shot had a large impact in CMBO. Historically, things are a little better for the M10. It sometimes had two loaders and could probably reach higher ROFs. The open turret means that all 3-4 men in the turret can look out. And after they are done doing that they could transition to firing position quicker than a tank with the loader looking out of the second hatch. That thing was in many ways specified by people who were preferring towed guns. Situational awareness is substancially better, as is operation of the gun compared to a normal turret. In the end the disadvantages and cost were killing the concept. But in a platoon/platoon duel or an ambush situation that thing probably rocked. [ November 10, 2003, 09:40 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted November 11, 2003 Share Posted November 11, 2003 Zaloga says it was the M4A2 chassis and some M4A3. My goof, sorry. I should know better than to echo what I read on Internet forums 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted November 11, 2003 Share Posted November 11, 2003 On M3 and M4 chassis, the vehicle that used both was the Priest. After the Grant's day in the sun, that is where the chassis went. (And some bridgelayers, tank recovery vehicles, etc iirc). On Marders in North Africa there definitely were some and they were important. They were around for the summer 1942 battles. They were Marder IIIs with capture Russian 76mm. "Marder III 76.2 mm PaK 36®: Used captured Russian Model 36 76.2 mm L/54.8 gun. By May 1942 120 had been built and all but 3 went to North Africa to serve in the 33rd & 39th Panzerjägerabteilung of the 15th Panzer Division." Says an ASL site. Much earlier than long 75 Pz IVs. Since they kill Matildas and Valentines at ranges the German tanks of the day can't hope to, they should be of considerable tactical importance. They are themselves vulnerable even to 2 pdrs, but those first have to get hits. If they stay far enough away that shouldn't be easy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted November 11, 2003 Share Posted November 11, 2003 So who's going to be first to start transcribing Tobruk scenarios into CMAK? Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seanachai Posted November 11, 2003 Share Posted November 11, 2003 Originally posted by Patton21: In fact, some of the rounds from my m10, would land behind the m10, now that is one heck of a bad shot! Thank you, Dr. Science. You've discovered a CMBO vehicle that would eject rounds through the back of the turret, or did rounds circumnavigate the game world and come up on the other side? Beginning...to...lose...interest...in...poster's...opinions... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berlichtingen Posted November 11, 2003 Share Posted November 11, 2003 Originally posted by Mike: I rest my case!! Or rest in peace 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMplayer Posted November 11, 2003 Share Posted November 11, 2003 Originally posted by Michael Emrys: He's a wild and crazy guy, ain't he? I bleeive the prpoer wrod in tihs csae is 'wacky'. BTW who was the original 'wild and crazy guy'? I can't place it... Belushi? Ackroyd? Steve Martin? Must've been one of those three. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seanachai Posted November 11, 2003 Share Posted November 11, 2003 Originally posted by CMplayer: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Emrys: He's a wild and crazy guy, ain't he? I bleeive the prpoer wrod in tihs csae is 'wacky'. BTW who was the original 'wild and crazy guy'? I can't place it... Belushi? Ackroyd? Steve Martin? Must've been one of those three. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMplayer Posted November 11, 2003 Share Posted November 11, 2003 Originally posted by Seanachai: And stop screwing with the letter placement. You're not amusing anyone, you know. I'm amusing myself. That's one person anyway. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soddball Posted November 11, 2003 Share Posted November 11, 2003 I was amused. That's two. An opportunity to screw around with Seanachai's meagre cerebrum should not be missed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted November 11, 2003 Share Posted November 11, 2003 I'm auesmd. But then, that isn't saying much. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted November 11, 2003 Share Posted November 11, 2003 Originally posted by flamingknives: I'm auesmd. But then, that isn't saying much. I could make an observation about how some people can be easily amused by playing with their toes, but in the interests of inter-Allied amity will refrain. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMplayer Posted November 11, 2003 Share Posted November 11, 2003 hrm... hmm.... total allied destruction. :confused: hrm. Total ALLIED Destruction. Hm! TOTAL ALLIED DESTRUCTION Somehow that phrase reminds me of something. Can't remember what. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patton21 Posted November 11, 2003 Author Share Posted November 11, 2003 Am I the only one who has seen a round fired from a tank land behind the tank? I dont think so. And i am a college student getting a degree in neurobiology, so i am not low on the food chain, nor am I not intelligent. Some of you guys are silly willys. I have been on this board for two years now and you guys have gotten bitter. Perhaps some wine will help. The m10 is a great tank destroyer, but has its flaws, like thin armor and a slow turret, and a high profile. The Americans should have made a low profile tank destroyer like the stugIIIG. Its veterans day, lets celebrate!!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMplayer Posted November 11, 2003 Share Posted November 11, 2003 Patton21, below I restructure your verbal effluvient for the sake of clarity and order. Please note how well it flows, and how much more connection there is in the sequence of ideas. You'll notice I only moved entire sentences, and did not change any wording, spelling or punctuation. Hope it helps. Edited version of Patton21's post: The Americans should have made a low profile tank destroyer like the stugIIIG. The m10 is a great tank destroyer, but has its flaws, like thin armor and a slow turret, and a high profile. Some of you guys are silly willys. I have been on this board for two years now and you guys have gotten bitter. Am I the only one who has seen a round fired from a tank land behind the tank? I dont think so. And i am a college student getting a degree in neurobiology, so i am not low on the food chain, nor am I not intelligent. Its veterans day, lets celebrate!!! Perhaps some wine will help. By the way, that'll be fifty dollars. [ November 11, 2003, 01:21 PM: Message edited by: CMplayer ] 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.