Melchior Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 By 1944 I doubt many of those divisions were full strength. Even taking into account the "preferential treatment" the Waffen SS often got. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 Maybe, though Zetterling seems to indicate that the majority were up to strength, or very nearly so, prior to their committment to Normandy. Besides, it'd not like the Pz Divs on the Eastern Front were exactly swimming in tanks at the time. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 Besides, it'd not like the Pz Divs on the Eastern Front were exactly swimming in tanks at the time.I think they were - its just they weren't German ones How common was the 105mm armed Sherman and what was its rate of fire spring to mind when suggesting it as a tank killer. HEAT in CM*1 was ridiculously accurate [given the game engine I can understand the fudge] so I wonder what CM*2 will reveal. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 *cough* Brits will bring 15" and 16". What were the 16" guns on? I know the Nelson and Rodney had them, but were they at Normandy? Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 Emrys: both were. Deez: touche, although they wouldn't have been Pz Divs IIRC there was 1 x 105mm Shermans per tk company, with another platoon of 3 at bn level, for a total of 6 in the bn. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 How common was the 105mm armed Sherman and what was its rate of fire spring to mind when suggesting it as a tank killer. HEAT in CM*1 was ridiculously accurate [given the game engine I can understand the fudge] so I wonder what CM*2 will reveal. I remember some of those debates back in the day, IIRC mostly surrounding the use of 95mm HEAT by British Cromwell and Centaur CS tanks. I don't recall if there was ever any conclusion as to whether the weapon was incorrectly modeled. My guess is that if engagement ranges are as short in CMBM as they typically were in CMx1 the Sherman 105 will be a serious threat. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 Ahhh... those were the days. Charging around in Cromwell CS tanks with their 95mm howitzers ripping into Panthers and the like with their big assed heat rounds. Fun times. Fun times indeed! Regards KR 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 I checked on the 105mm Shermans. No power traverse and no stabilsation. Fair enough given the role. Surprisingly they had a burst fire rate of 4 rounds in 30 seconds!! I assume all the available ready ammo Over 10 minutes the rate was expected to average 30. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryujin Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 4 rounds in 30 seconds makes sense for rapid fire, especially with the small 105mm. A good loader on the M1 Abrams is supposed to be able to load a 120mm every 6 seconds for rapid fire (granted, the M1 is a probably bit more ergonomic for the loader, but still those 120mm are heavy). So I can believe a good Sherman loader could do a 105 every 7.5 secs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barkhorn1x Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 *cough* Brits will bring 15" and 16". To be fair, the US Navy class A BBs were in the Pacific. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barkhorn1x Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 By 1944 I doubt many of those divisions were full strength. Even taking into account the "preferential treatment" the Waffen SS often got. At least the following were at FS: 2SS 12SS (never committed until Normandy) 21st Lehr BTW, 17SS was a Panzergrendier Div which had a PzJg Abt. only - no IVs or Panthers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Over 10 minutes the rate was expected to average 30. Your wording here is not clear as it can easily be interpreted as meaning "thirty rounds per minute for ten minutes" when I suspect the correct figure is thirty rounds fired over the space of ten minutes. Correct? Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Ah Michael. Given I remarked on a burst fire of 4 in 30 seconds you may wonder why I did not think it necessARY TO MAKE CLEAR THEY DID NOT FIRE AT 30 ROUNDS PER MINUTE, DOES THE BIG PRINT MAKE IT CLEARER : ) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 No, but wording it unambiguously does. Look, DT, not everybody who reads these threads is sophisticated enough to to mentally correct your omissions. You can feel contempt for them if you choose, but don't complain if they quote you in good conscience but getting the facts entirely wrong. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 So you're saying that in the second 30-seconds of burst fire they have to pump out 26 rounds. Gosh, must be like a convention of one-armed paper-hangers in those turrets. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 "thirty rounds per minute for ten minutes" To all my future Axis opponents: FEAR ME!!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 To all my future Axis opponents: FEAR ME!!! How big is the tank that stores 300 rounds of 105mm? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Pretty big, I imagine. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 You see what I mean, dt? Unless we formulate and express our thoughts precisely, all sorts of feeble-minded interpretations can gain currency and even come to dominate the discussion. :D:D:D:D Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 Those are never 105's 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zukkov Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 Pretty big, I imagine. what the hell is that? a tank or an aircraft carrier with tracks? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WineCape Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 what the hell is that? a tank or an aircraft carrier with tracks?It's a mobile Maginot Line, with all it's inherent disadvantages and advantages. Can you name them all? [20 points] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zukkov Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 nope, can't name all the advantages/disadvantages, but i think if the germans had a lot of those, it would blow the curve on cas hitting armored vehicles... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 what the hell is that? a tank or an aircraft carrier with tracks? Not a CV but a cruiser. That particular Hitler's fantasy would have sported a twin gun turret of naval proportions. I think the smaller popgun was supposed to be 128 mm. How the whole thing was supposed to get from point A to point B escapes me. Perhaps move it in parts and assemble it at the final destination? Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 Not a CV but a cruiser. That particular Hitler's fantasy would have sported a twin gun turret of naval proportions. I think the smaller popgun was supposed to be 128 mm. How the whole thing was supposed to get from point A to point B escapes me. Perhaps move it in parts and assemble it at the final destination? Michael It's what the Autobahn was for: one track on each carriageway. And a rolling repair crew behind the thing... 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.