Tanks we dnt have

[trotter]

Originally posted by Simaril
A second thought....Schlowy is a LW troller, and on 200 last night sounded an awful lot like a past permaban PNG named Glasses.

Simaril, you're too decent a guy to be tuned to 200. Tune it off.

[WMLute]

KV-VI Behemoth

Panther?  Who needs the "wimpy" Panther?

or maybe one of these...

[humble]

Originally posted by Meyer
An ambush is not a meeting engagement.. in which, and since normally occurs in the frontal arc, turret traverse is not very important. The TD didn't have range finders.

So no, that is pure fantasy

 

I think you have to read more on the subject... I recommend specially the books of T. Jentz and Wolfgang Schneider. Or, the AARs of US tank crews, stating that the Tigers (or Tiger II..) could crossing soft terrain, in which the Shermans would bog down.. hardly surprising since the Tiger had a MMP much lower.

1st, a meeting engagment can very well be an ambush. If the enemy axis of advance is known a flank attack is in fact a form of ambush. US TD doctrine was based on shoot and scoot and often involved manuever and fire vs a set "point defense". This is a complte contrast to german TD's which were engineered for a static defense.

2nd, your confusing a "range finder" with range finding. All tanks had "range finders" in there gun laying optics. However traditionally the tank commander called out target, range and ammo type to the gunner...as in "AP,Panther, 2 o'clock, 400 yds". While it was not uncommon for commanders to fight their vehicles from an open turret it was less common in a breakthru where infantry wasnt deployed. The open turret of the TD's great facilitated situational awareness.

US TD doctrine is covered in FM 18-5 and involves an aggressive but defensive ambush pattern based preferably on a dispersed 3 platoon deployment designed to lure in attacking tanks or alternatively strong flanking techniques (used by m-18s during the Bulge defenses). All in all the TD's did very well even though the best defense for a tank proved to be another tank. AAR reports clearly support that in both static and mobile defense the TD's usually got 2, often 3 and sometimes 4 shots off before being engaged by return fire.

A good example of the TD's effectiveness would be at Arracourt were 1 platoon (4 TD's)[M-18] attached to CCA of the 4th armored div claimed 15 german tanks (for the loss of 3 TD's). In action during the bulge 1 company of the 655th TD battalion claimed 17 tanks for the loss of 2 M-10s as fighting in the "egg" raged back and forth. mobile TD battalions were credited with 306 kills in the various bulge actions and played critical roles in the 7th armored defense at St Vith and the 101st airbornes defense of Bastogne.

While the "towed" TD elements suffered great attrition the mobile M-10,M-18 and M-36 units did very well. not only did they get significant kills as mentioned above...but suffered very low losses. The 1st Army lost only 12 TDs during the bulge battle but 65 stationary AT weapons.

[bigrich]

you are also forgetting the King tiger tank, it is also the most feared tank in World War Two because of it's unique armor design and its 88mm gun.

[Meyer]

Originally posted by humble
1st, a meeting engagment can very well be an ambush. If the enemy axis of advance is known a flank attack is in fact a form of ambush.  

Then again, that's not a meeting engagement:

A meeting engagement , a term used in warfare, is a combat action that occurs when a moving force, incompletely deployed for battle, engages an enemy at an unexpected time and place.

2nd, your confusing a "range finder" with range finding. All tanks had "range finders" in there gun laying optics. However traditionally the tank commander called out target, range and ammo type to the gunner...as in "AP,Panther, 2 o'clock, 400 yds". While it was not uncommon for commanders to fight their vehicles from an open turret it was less common in a breakthru where infantry wasnt deployed. The open turret of the TD's great facilitated situational awareness.

I know that.. but since all tanks had sights, I don't see how "rangefinding" helps your argument

A good example of the TD's effectiveness would be at Arracourt were 1 platoon (4 TD's)[M-18] attached to CCA of the 4th armored div claimed 15 german tanks (for the loss of 3 TD's). In action during the bulge 1 company of the 655th TD battalion claimed 17 tanks for the loss of 2 M-10s as fighting in the "egg" raged back and forth. mobile TD battalions were credited with 306 kills in the various bulge actions and played critical roles in the 7th armored defense at St Vith and the 101st airbornes defense of Bastogne.
 [/B]

Same old problem..claims vs real kills. Since total german AFV losses in the Ardennes numbered about 550, I think that claims of the TD battalions are really hard to believe.
Anyway, this has nothing to do with the fact that there's NO WAY that a TD would average a 3/1 fire advantage vs a Panther (or whatever) in  meeting engagements.

[schlowy2]

See Rule #5

[Ack-Ack]

Originally posted by WMLute
after all that buildup I get a Wiki link?

(sigh)

Yeah, but the pedigree B.S. about being #1 for 3 campaigns and being the first flight sim speed record holder made this thread worth it.  I wonder if he also likes to hunt red scorpions.

ack-ack

[Simaril]

Originally posted by trotter
Simaril, you're too decent a guy to be tuned to 200. Tune it off.

Heehee.

I'm also too social a guy to leave it off. I thoroughly enjoy the greetings, congratulations, and kidding around that are the AH community at its best. I usually try to promptly squelch the Jerk O'The Night, but sometimes I do let myself get sucked into..umm...discussions that should be avoided.

I can't imagine ignoring 2/3 of the community, so even if all I do is torment listeners with lame witticisms, I'm gunna leave 200 on. I just need to get quicker with the squelch command, and all will be well.

(Plus, you'd be surprised how slowly the buffer rolls with 1 or 2 strategic squelches. An added benefit -- getting only one side of a conversation can simulate surrealism, without involving the DEA!)

[schlowy2]

See Rules #2, #4, #5, #6

[Karnak]

schlowy2,

Some people are being rude to you, but you are being rude to everybody.

I have not been rude to you, but quite honest.  Widewing has also not been rude.

Asking for evidence is not rude.  Informing you that what you posted is not evidence is not rude as it wasn't evidence and we explained why.

Just because you see things one way does not make everybody else wrong.  You need to suppport your arguements, which you have yet to do.  You prefer to make unsubstaniated claims and then rant when we don't take your claims as being correct.  Many of us here have spent a lot of time and money on this subject.  You are acting as though we are clueless idiots when we are not.

The way you are presenting yourself is doing more to discredit your arguements than any other person.

[Ack-Ack]

Originally posted by schlowy2
See Rule #5

Never heard of your squadron in AW but then only a few AW squadrons stood out.

No offense to whomever is your old AW CO but if you both think that AW3's Dora was better than the one we have in AH, you really don't know what you're talking about.  

The Dora's flight model in AW was completely inaccurate.  Probably the only thing that was accurate about it was the model name, it definitely wasn't in the flight model department.  None of the planes in AW had an accurate flight model, especially compared to AH's planes.  As an example, the P-38J in AW had air brakes, something the plane never had in real life.  Yeah, AW was accurate *rolls eyes*.


ack-ack

[Stang]

Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Never heard of your squadron in AW but then only a few AW squadrons stood out.

No offense to whomever is your old AW CO but if you both think that AW3's Dora was better than the one we have in AH, you really don't know what you're talking about.  

The Dora's flight model in AW was completely inaccurate.  Probably the only thing that was accurate about it was the model name, it definitely wasn't in the flight model department.  None of the planes in AW had an accurate flight model, especially compared to AH's planes.  As an example, the P-38J in AW had air brakes, something the plane never had in real life.  Yeah, AW was accurate *rolls eyes*.


ack-ack

Yeah, but the 109F climbed at like 8,000fpm.  That was cool.

[Meatwad]

I want a Panzer 3F

[Murdr]

Originally posted by schlowy2
Then I got banned [Re: AW] for protesting too much, and telling a specific admin, forgot his name, 'fu'.

Wow, there's a real shocker.

[Simaril]

So Schlowy ==

Let's be honest. Does this boil down to "Luftwaffe planes were really good, but I keep getting owned in them. Therefore, the modelling must stink."?

Cause what this "historical forum" looks for is specific details of the models. like climb rates, speeds at alt, and turn circles. Since there is so much crap data around, the standard is data from original documents.

Now, I'm not an engineer, and I'm not a historical tech data guy. But I browse this forum and usually learn something as I go. Even in my superficial coverage, I can recall times when intelligent people presented data, showed problems with the models -- and ended up convincing HT to make a change.

If you take that route, you might find more success. If you continue to flame HTC without anything to back yourself up except "Us guys agreed that the models in WB were better," then expect to get banned eventually.

And if you continue to flame, it will NOT be because you disagreed. It will be because you cannot handle yourself in a mature, intelligent manner.