dalem Posted August 15, 2002 Share Posted August 15, 2002 Originally posted by Prinz Eugen: Anyway, you yanks ought to remember that you alone didn't win WW II.How could we forget when thoughtful chaps like yourself bring it up every five seconds? -yawn- -dale Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thin Red Line Posted August 15, 2002 Share Posted August 15, 2002 Originally posted by Schrullenhaft: You'll have every nationality that participated in NWE in Italy though I don't think there were any French armored divisions in Italy/Southern France).French 1st "Division Blindee", raised in May 1943, based on Colonel Vigier's "Brigade Legere Mecanique" which had served in the Vichy French garrison of North Africa and fought against the Axis in the Tunisian campaign. As part of French Army "B" (later redesignated French 1st Army), the 1st Armored Division sailed to southern France and landed in the follow-up of Operation Anvil-Dragoon. It then took part in the campaigns in France and Germany with French 1st Army, often dispersed and supporting French infantry divisions. [ August 15, 2002, 03:35 AM: Message edited by: Thin Red Line ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marlow Posted August 15, 2002 Share Posted August 15, 2002 Originally posted by Prinz Eugen: But it doesn't take 38 50 mm shells to knock out a Sherman, now does it ? From the front, a Sherman (especially late war Sherman) was generally better protected than a T34. A Pak 38 can only penetrate the front of a plain M4 Sherman with a lower hull hit (upper hull is too sloped, and the turret too thick). An up armored Sherman cannot be penetrated from the front by a Pak 38. I would imagine that a Pak 38 could penetrate a T34 with a turret hit (though I'm not sure of this). The early war 50mm tank guns would probably have more difficulty, and that is probably what MrSpkr is talking about. [ August 15, 2002, 08:58 AM: Message edited by: Marlow ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted August 16, 2002 Share Posted August 16, 2002 Originally posted by John D Salt: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: There is a prize for the first person to post with what a Sgian Dubh is, and in what article of underwear it is commonly worn....It's a dirk (Jockanese pudding-jabber) and you'd wear it in your hose tops. I'm not sure if they count as underwear, but I can't seem to think of any other underwear worn by Jocks. Not even Jockey shorts. All the best, John.</font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted August 16, 2002 Share Posted August 16, 2002 Originally posted by YankeeDog: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: There is a prize for the first person to post with what a Sgian Dubh is, and in what article of underwear it is commonly worn....Sgian Dubh: The famed Scottish Highlander "Boot knife", or weapon of last resort. Usually a small (4-7") double-edged blade with a horn or antler grip. In practice, the Sgian Dubh was often the salvaged remains of the broken blade of a Dirk (which in turn was often the salvaged remains of a larger blade). I'm not sure of the answer to the second part of your question. The highlanders didn't wear socks; they wore foot wrappings if anything. I guess if you consider foot wrappings underwear, then that would be my answer. AFAIK they were also famous for not wearing anything under their kilts either. Do I win something??</font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diceman Posted August 16, 2002 Share Posted August 16, 2002 Originally posted by Prinz Eugen: No that would not be nice. What is it with you guys ?!? Are you so much in love with those crappy Shermans or what ? Do a comparison on the performance of the Lend-lease Sherman and the T-34 when CM : BB's out. The results may prove a shock to you... [qb] At the risk of being groged to death a quick comparison of the T34 and Sherman: First: late 42/early 43 models of both. Armor protection: Comparable. Each vehicle has its +s and -s. Turret Design: Sherman with its 3 man turret. Crew accommodations and communications: Sherman by far. Gun: Comparable. You could get nitpicky but from wha I've read they're pretty close to each other. T34 gun suffers from small turret, two man crew, and generally unfriendly interior environment but that's not the fault of the gun Reliability: Sherman. The new 5 speed transmission that came out in '43 for the T34 was better than previous transmission, and engine reliability was improved, but the Sherman still stands out in a big way. Suspension and ground pressure: T34 by a wide margin. Speed: T34 Radio: comparable? They both had radios at this stage of the war but I couldn't tell you how good they were. Now a few notes on T34/85 - Sherman 76mm HSVV comparison. The Sherman gun was rated better than the 85mm gun in Russian ballistic tests. It had to be a nightmare to work in the T34/85 turret. All that turret and gun on such a small chassis, and turret ring? The HVSS suspension was a big improvement for the Sherman. Couldn't tell you if ground pressure rating was as good as the T34-85. A couple of other snippets: Russian crews really liked the Sherman. The Sherman was at least as frustrating to the Germans in North Africa, as the T34 was in Russia durring the same time frame. The M4A3E8 made a very good showing of itself against the T-34/85 in Korea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted August 17, 2002 Share Posted August 17, 2002 Originally posted by MikeyD: I've always been a bit afraid of the much-discussed "engine rewrite". Too often My poor old mac and I have been left in the dust as game hardware demands outpace my ability (and wilingness) to constantly upgrade-upgrade-upgrade. Yeh, yeh, I know. The march of progress and all that. I just want to say it's a MASSIVE relief to know that a gigantic game like CMBB (or CM:BB as they're calling it lately) will STILL run on my old machine without so much as a hiccup. Hats off the Battlefront.com. You guys are magicians!Well if it takes the now wildly circulated "estimated" 2.5 years to develop the NEXT master piece Combat Mission game (CM II) AND if the counting on that 2.5 doesn't start until Jan 2003 (just a guess here) then we aren't going to see that next new game until the summer of 2005, I would guess that by then we will all have newer faster computers. And the way they do things at BFC I would guess they will target computers that will be average consumer level computers that are 18-24 months OLD by the summer of 2005 so the average computer you can buy at Christmas 2003 would be my totally homegrown GUESS for the next new hardware standard for CMII How's that? -tom w [ August 16, 2002, 06:55 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts