Author Topic: Please FIX the Panzer and M8 (Read 765 times)

hazed- · « **Reply #30 on:** October 15, 2001, 07:38:00 AM »

oh and BTW the CONVOY trucks need some adjusting.

took M8 A (F*CKING

)long way to an enemy supply road and thought 'right I'll sit in the road and blast em as they come toward me!,mwahahah and other evil laughing

Suddenly over the crest of a hill 5 or 6 trucks came hurtling along!!! 'open fire gunner they are sitting ducks!' came a voice in my head, bang,bang bang went the HE gun as it plastered the front truck! er...hold on...they getting real close!, images of the DUEL from the 70's flashed in my mind, BANG BANG BANG more hits but nothing the trucks came on at what seemed like 100mph!!
in panic i jumped to driver position as the trucks loomed large infront then CRASH they pilled through me like a freight train on PCP's!.

and so ended the illustrious career of the toughest M8 crew in the world.
epitaph:

'they were toejame! couldnt even kill a truck full of sheep'

Please could we change this ?
i would have thought some old opal truck being shot, what id estimate 6 or 7 times with a HE shell full in the front would surely at least slow down?
I have managed since to shoot a couple of the trucks with a panzers (HE)gun and it was like some horrible 'fixed' fairground shooting alley.prizes wizzing by that only a professional marksman could hit

.
I didnt sit in the road this time but i only managed a couple of hits as my gun couldnt traverse fast enough for the convoy!

er this is a whine right?
Im doing wrong by telling you this?
better that you go discover it for yourselves?
Im only ruining your day?

sheesh im getting tired of it.

[ 10-15-2001: Message edited by: hazed- ]

Wotan · « **Reply #31 on:** October 15, 2001, 08:44:00 AM »

seeker those stories are bull crap most roads were dirt or cobble stone and the angle blah blah blah ...........

this has been said argued or whatever but needless to say it didn't happen.

Am0n · « **Reply #32 on:** October 15, 2001, 09:11:00 AM »

Its nearly impossible to destroy a Panzer with the M16, but it does indeed take a few seconds of sustained hits to render it treadless.

It does kinda suck to have this happen, but my question is why the heck are you letting the m16 get that close to you when you got a cannon that can shoot 10X as far.

The M8 rocks, it has a much higher ROF than the Panzer so it seems, the only draw back is you can either take HE or AP, not mixures or smoke (and the obvious lack of armor). But if you get close to a city in a M8 with 80 HE, consider it gone becuase its ROF is so high you can lobb 2 shells before the first hits the target at a decent range.

I do agree there are tons of GVs out now, GVs rock no matter if your driving them or fighting them, its good to have a mixure of targets.

DanielMcIntyre · « **Reply #33 on:** October 15, 2001, 06:41:00 PM »

Quote

Its nearly impossible to destroy a Panzer with the M16, but it does indeed take a few seconds of sustained hits to render it treadless.

It does kinda suck to have this happen, but my question is why the heck are you letting the m16 get that close to you when you got a cannon that can shoot 10X as far.

Err point 1, totally untrue, its very possible to destroy a panzer with an m16. Ping Ping, gun dead, Ping, track ded, many more pings Panzer explodes.

In fact the i've been killed by m3's and have killed panzers with m3's.

And point 2, why let them get so close, I once hit an m16 22 times with AP rounds and all it did was smoke. I started recording after the 5th hit so I have proof. Many times when i've killed panzers, the guy i just killed spawns an m16 and kills me. He don't spawn another panzer? why? I hit an m3 once as he came round a corner, he pulled up, pinged my track out first ping, by the time I realigned my gun, he'd pinged my gun out and ping ping ping, panzer explodes?

There is obviously a bug with mg rounds on panzers and ostwinds.

Apparantly panzer and ostwind armour has been toughened up, but I've only noticed a difference in Pnzr vs Pnzr duels.

Seeker · « **Reply #34 on:** October 15, 2001, 07:43:00 PM »

Wotan,

It's not bull crap, it's established, accepted fact. That's beyond dispute.

What *is* open to dispute is how effective it was. As you rightly point out, the road surface must play a part in the equation, and, again as you point out, that was extremly variable in Italy.

Hence my extreme uncertainty as to whether or not it actually achieved anything.

But the fact that they were trained to attempt it, and that they did attempt is a matter of historical record.

<edited for spillning>

[ 10-15-2001: Message edited by: Seeker ]

mrfish · « **Reply #35 on:** October 15, 2001, 09:03:00 PM »

what zigrat said

Animal · « **Reply #36 on:** October 16, 2001, 01:03:00 AM »

zigrat hasnt even posted here you fool

mrfish · « **Reply #37 on:** October 16, 2001, 01:12:00 AM »

well if he did i'm sure it would be meaningful ....fool.

gatt · « **Reply #38 on:** October 16, 2001, 03:20:00 AM »

Plz HTC, fix the whole ground war stuff.

Wotan · « **Reply #39 on:** October 16, 2001, 04:45:00 AM »

no its not established and it is bull crap.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #40 on:** October 16, 2001, 04:56:00 AM »

Seeker, the story of the "instruction" is true.

However it never worked in RL. Just compare the thickness of hull bottom armor of German tanks to the BEST case 50cal 90degree penetration figures and its clear 50cal would have trouble even if it hit the plates at a 90degree angle. Then add the fact that the 50cal must first bounce off the ground, which will deform the shell and cut down its velocity, then any likely richocet would impact the hull bottom at an extremly shallow angle and would just bounce off. It DID not work.

Apparently the US pilots were told that german tanks had no armor on the bottom. Thats what I heard from a WW2 vet who mentioned this story, again they were told that German tanks had no armor on the bottom.

German tanks DO have armor on the bottom.

So both you and Wotan are right, the "instruction" happened but the effectiveness of this technique is a myth.

Staga · « **Reply #41 on:** October 16, 2001, 05:35:00 AM »

Panzerkampfwagen IV Ausf.H

Armor (mm@degrees)

Front Side Rear Top Bottom
Hull 80@76 30@90 20@82 - 10@0
Superst. 80@80 30@90 20@79 12@0-5
Turret 50@80 30@64 30@75 18@0-7
Mantlet 50@60-90

Seeker · « **Reply #42 on:** October 16, 2001, 06:33:00 AM »

My point exactly, Grunhertz.

It *was* an instructed technique.

It *was* an accepted practise.

It *was* implentented in the field

But....I've no idea how effective it actualy was (I'd imagine that it may have disabled half tracks and the like, and leave a "real" tank unscathed).

Certainly I know one Jug pilot personaly (through the net) who actualy did it on many occasions as part of Operation strangle; he says it worked. However, I'm very well aware that allied anti-armour claims were just as misleading as arial claims, and I wouldn't blame him for surveying a railyard he'd just jabo'd from a jug cockpit at 400 MPH, seeing all the damage, and assuming *everything* had been flattend.

I'll try and dig up his posts.

I've an interesting combat report from him if any one has web space so that it can be reproduced here.

Wotan · « **Reply #43 on:** October 16, 2001, 07:59:00 AM »

instruction or rumor?

hey jimmy yesterday just fer toejams and giiggle while rtb'n I saw a pnzr head bac toward german lines so I starfed it in my jug. Damnedests thing though I saw them jerries leave the pnzr and run into the woods. I bet a couple of those 50cal bounced up and tour the engine up.

Then it spreads around and soon everyone tellin each how to kill a pnzr by bouncing 50s of the ground.

again instruction or rumor..........

its still bull crap

Seeker · « **Reply #44 on:** October 16, 2001, 08:33:00 AM »

Just what sort of documentation would satisfy you, Wotan?

You know you're wrong. You'll also note that I've made absolutly no claims as to it's effectiveness, I think it's nuts too.

But that doesn't change the history.