Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: raider73 on November 08, 2007, 04:55:37 PM
-
http://www.military.cz/panzer/index_en.htm
Heavy tank M.26 Persching
Armament: 90 mm Gun, MG
Crew: 5
Armor (max.): 102 mm
Speed (max.): 32 km/hr
Dimensions: 8.79 x 3.50 x 2.77 m
Weight: 41.7 ton
http://www.military.cz/panzer/index_en.htm (http://www.military.cz/panzer/index_en.htm)
Tank Destroyer M10 Wolferine
Armament: 76 mm Antitank Gun, MG
Crew: 5
Armor (max.): 13 - 37 mm
Speed (max.): 48 km/hr
Dimensions: 6.0 x 2.5 x 3.0 m
Weight: 30 ton
http://www.military.cz/panzer/index_en.htm
Italian Tank
40M Turan I Tank
Armament: 40 mm Gun, 2 x MG 8 mm
Crew: 5
Armor (max.): 50 mm
Speed (max.): 47 km/hr
Dimensions: 5.5 x 2.44 x 2.3 m
Weight: 18.2 t
Produced No: 230 pieces
-
I'd like to see the T-34/85 and Panther V G before any of those.
-
I'd like to see the existing Tiger tank be able to pivot, like it could, before any of those.
-
Originally posted by schlowy2
I'd like to see the existing Tiger tank be able to pivot, like it could, before any of those.
I Heard that Tiger tanks tend to break suspension parts easily pivoting.. So it was only used for emergencies, but i am not sure.
-
The Pershing would be a 2nd Firefly. The M10 would be like the T34.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
The Pershing would be a 2nd Firefly. The M10 would be like the T34.
I would think the Pershing would be more akin to the Tiger.
I really do not see the comparison of the M10 to the T-34. The 76mm gun on the M10 outperformed the Russian 76, visibility was much better, optics were better, open top . . . :huh
-
Originally posted by E25280
I would think the Pershing would be more akin to the Tiger.
I really do not see the comparison of the M10 to the T-34. The 76mm gun on the M10 outperformed the Russian 76, visibility was much better, optics were better, open top . . . :huh
M10 would be outclassed by the rest with the exception of the T34. I just think the PIV is superior to the M10.
I realize the Pershing is of Tiger proportions, just my way of saying "we don't need redundant tanks". I realize the M26's 90mm would be nice.
I rather see the T34 changed to the 85mm if that's the case.
-
See Rule #5
-
Originally posted by schlowy2
See Rule #5
Hmmmm
Can you back this up ?
A web site perhaps...?
-
M-26 was generally considered to be superior to the Tiger I because of its sloping armor, which offered better protection, and cross-country performance that the Tiger could not match.
When the Pershing was introduced to the ETO, a team of technicians was sent along with the first lot to train the crews that were to man it. There was a lack of enthusiasm for the new 90mm weapon, which none of the men had seen in action, and whose accuracy was suspect. To allay those fears, one of the technicians set up a number of captured German infantry helmets at distances of 500 yards....and nailed them....first shot, every shot.
-
As to the statements that the T-34 was hopelessly outclassed by the Tiger, let me just say that wars are not won by small numbers of armored behemoths with slow rates of fire, poor cross-country performance, and horrendous reliability. Wars are won by well-designed machines that don't break down every other day, are easy to maintain, can be used in all types of weather and over all types of terrain, which crews can be easily trained for, have a reasonably effective weapon for use against a multitude of types of targets, and...most importantly....can be easily and rapidly manufactured, improved, and updated.
Twenty T-34s were manufactured for every Tiger produced by the Germans. That's why, when the war ended, T-34s could be seen in Berlin, and no Tigers were in Moscow.
-
Tigers lasted more than one battle, t34's didn't, so go figure that into your maintenance equation.
-
One of the designers of the T-34 died of pnuemonia, I'm not aware of any that actually were killed by the government for treason.
As far as the rest of the diatribe, Schlowy, I implore you to find and read some technical documents, or at least something other than pulp fiction novels.
-
Most competent historians of the armored conflict in WW II consider the two most outstanding tank designs to emerge during that struggle to be the T-34 and the Pazerkampfwagen V (Panther)....and in that order.
-
See RUle #5
Thanks.
That was about the funniest crock of bullshi* I've heard in a long time, and really helped me get through a tough day by constantly making me laugh. While there is a long history of belittling Soviet achievements and excellence during WW2 years (...which, in reality, often outclassed its Western allies by an impressive margin), the comment above easily takes the cake as being 'the most malinformed view on T-34 evah'.
Tigers lasted more than one battle, t34's didn't, so go figure that into your maintenance equation.
By that definition, the M4 Sherman probably should rate as the worst piece of trash that ever held the name of a 'tank' in history, no?
-
Well, in 1942 the T-34-76 had no chance against a Tiger. The armor was simply to thick from all aspects to penetrate with the standard AP shell. So the comment isn't completely inaccurate, but it isn't very informed.
The HVAP round for the 76mm gun made it possible for the Tiger to be killed from the sides and rear, but it still couldn't be killed from the front.
It wasn't until the 85mm gun was introduced that the T-34 could kill the Tiger from the front, out to around 1000 meters.
The Tiger could kill the T-34 from much farther out, of course, but there were a lot more T-34s than Tigers.
And Kweassa - the Sherman was very maintainable and reliable... I'm not sure where you were going with your last statement.
-
Just a thought
Notice in the sounds folder, that the T34 is identified as the T34 76? (At work -- dont have exact folder name) Strongly implies that the T34 85 is on the "to do" list, in my mind.
A second thought....Schlowy is a LW troller, and on 200 last night sounded an awful lot like a past permaban PNG named Glasses. In my book, his is best ignored as the tard he is.
-
I think you are being to harsh. He is new to the game and frustrated. A lot of people who enjoy flying the LW planes start out that way. You make mistakes and get blasted, and it is the planes fault and not the pilots, that sort of thing.
I know it is hard to do, but try to cut the guy some slack.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
I'd like to see the T-34/85 and Panther V G before any of those.
Agreed......
Kursk Panther v T34-75 and Bagration King Tiger v T34-85 showed that armour massively out numbered is armour defeated. If you wanted to reflect the typical post Stalingrad Red Army v Whermacht tank battle then you should give the Red Army tank formations.
-
Originally posted by schlowy2
See Rule #5
The T-34 in this game is hardly overmodeled.
What, a T-34 medium tank couldn't stand toe-to-toe with a Tiger heavy tank? Oh, my, what a surprise.
You've actually done the same thing with the T-34 that most people do with the Sherman, which was another medium tank that was a very good tank, but overmatched by the heavier German armor it usually faced.
If you compare the T-34/76 to the standard M4A1 with the 75mm gun, and they are very similar in most respects (gun penetration, armor, etc). The T-34 had better off-road capabilities, the Sherman better ergonomics for the crew (3 man instead of 2 man turret, for example).
But, neither could stand up to a Tiger or Panther, both of which had much better armor, more powerful gun, and outweighed their medium tank adversaries by at least 15 tons. Not sure why or how that makes either medium tank a "bad" tank.
-
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. In my book, his is best ignored as the tard he is.
Quoted for truth.
I squelched this tard right after his first round of verbal diarrhea on 200.
Gentlemen it is best to ignore the troll.
-
Originally posted by Urchin
I think you are being to harsh. He is new to the game and frustrated. A lot of people who enjoy flying the LW planes start out that way. You make mistakes and get blasted, and it is the planes fault and not the pilots, that sort of thing.
I know it is hard to do, but try to cut the guy some slack.
I generally try to cut slack, especially for new guys. And, I wouldn't mind a new guy with complaints about LW rides, any more than I mind less experienced guys who complain that "...that %^&( Niki was faster than my Pony, and out turned it!" Those kind of opinions change when further experience reveals, say, the mystery of energy states.
But my hackles went up to hear this guy rant. He did NOT sound like a new guy, and he pontificated with endless absolutist statements about everything non-LW. I was ignoring him, until somebody mentioned that he reminded them of someone -- and it hit me. He sounded and acted exactly like Glasses, who was one of several players whose persistently nasty attitudes ended in perma-bans for persistent denigration of HTC and claims of bias.
Fight oriented guys can see a player's style after a few moves, so that for example when BluKitty appeared many immediately suspected it was NathBMP. Now, I'm a word based kinda guy, and for me the text patterns ring through just like those fight patterns did for them. I've been wrong before, and will be again, but this guy's conversation was a dead wringer for Glasses' ....
If he IS truly a new guy, then I apologize for my assumption. But even if he is new, he's not just frustrated -- he's on an aggressive mission, and he's arrogant about his views.
EDIT -- on a hunch, just looked at scores for the guy...and was admittedly surprised to see that they actually do look like a new guy's scores, over many hours of play.
Schlowy2: I apologize for assuming you were someone else.
-
Originally posted by Simaril
I generally try to cut slack, especially for new guys. And, I wouldn't mind a new guy with complaints about LW rides, any more than I mind less experienced guys who complain that "...that %^&( Niki was faster than my Pony, and out turned it!" Those kind of opinions change when further experience reveals, say, the mystery of energy states.
But my hackles went up to hear this guy rant. He did NOT sound like a new guy, and he pontificated with endless absolutist statements about everything non-LW. I was ignoring him, until somebody mentioned that he reminded them of someone -- and it hit me. He sounded and acted exactly like Glasses, who was one of several players whose persistently nasty attitudes ended in perma-bans for persistent denigration of HTC and claims of bias.
Fight oriented guys can see a player's style after a few moves, so that for example when BluKitty appeared many immediately suspected it was NathBMP. Now, I'm a word based kinda guy, and for me the text patterns ring through just like those fight patterns did for them. I've been wrong before, and will be again, but this guy's conversation was a dead wringer for Glasses' ....
If he IS truly a new guy, then I apologize for my assumption. But even if he is new, he's not just frustrated -- he's on an aggressive mission, and he's arrogant about his views.
He's not new he was calling aircraft "Addink 51" or Addink la". New people don't do this.
-
Well, I don't know who he is, but he isn't Glasses. I've spoken with Glasses on vox before, and I've spoken with Schlowy as well.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
As to the statements that the T-34 was hopelessly outclassed by the Tiger, let me just say that wars are not won by small numbers of armored behemoths with slow rates of fire, poor cross-country performance, and horrendous reliability.
Are you talking about the Tiger there? because it doesn't sound like the Tiger at all
Twenty T-34s were manufactured for every Tiger produced by the Germans. That's why, when the war ended, T-34s could be seen in Berlin, and no Tigers were in Moscow.
The war ended the way it ended for many reasons much more relevant that the numbers ot T34 vs Tigers.
BTW: the Tiger had EXCELENT cross country capabilities (much better than the Pershing)
-
Originally posted by schlowy2
See Rule #5
The germans were so impressed with the T-34 that they basically copied significant elements of the hull armor sloping for the panther. The T-34 suffered from poor ballistics for the main gun....similiar to both the US, British and Italians in 1942. The T-34 upgraded to the higher velocity 76mm gun did better and the t-34/85 was a reasonable match. The T-34 was not really viewed as a "tank on tank" weapon but primarily as a weapon vs infantry divisions. The Russians had, TD's and Heavy tanks specifically for tank on tank warfare.
The T-34 has to be viewed for what it was....a combined arms weapon.
-
See Rules #2, #4, #5
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
The Pershing would be a 2nd Firefly. The M10 would be like the T34.
Pershing was far superior to the firefly in every way. The 90mm actually had a very good gyro stabalized gun and was quite capable of 1st shot hits while traveling at fairly high speed.
The M-10 had the 76mm gun and was actually far superior to the T-34 we have here (and the PzIV) balistically. It did have an open turret which was a major drawback in some ways. It should however have a very fast rate of fire as well as fast turret traverse. The M-10 could land an avergae of 3 shots vs a panther before the PZV could get a round off in meeting engagments. The various M-10, M-18 and M-36 units actually had very good K/D ratio vs german armor in both meeting engagments and in fluid defense...they suffered significant losses when emplyed in offensive operartions and were phased out primarily for that reason as the US invaded Germany proper...
-
Originally posted by humble
. The M-10 could land an avergae of 3 shots vs a panther before the PZV could get a round off in meeting engagments.
How??
-
lag
-
Its apples and oranges to compare a 56 ton Tiger I heavy tank (which was not Germanys main MBT of WW2 by any stretch) to a 26 ton T34/76, of which the Soviets produced in huge quantities.
The Tiger I was formed into special heavy tank companies and were far far fewer in # than the Panzer III/IV was.
The Soviets understood what wins wars, and thats mass producing "good" AFVs by the 10s of 1000s and deploy them to the front lines.
One need look only as far as Kursk to see they were correct in the strategy. All the Tiger Is deployed did not stave off defeat, good as they were.
As well, the Soviets fielded many other very good AFVs in 1944-45: JS-2, KV-85, T-34/85, Su-100, JS-152 to name just a few, and built them in very large #s. They also had decent guns in the 85-122mm range and shells that were perfectly serviceable. The KV-1 was also in service in 1941-43.
That and the mainstay of the Panzer forces was the Mk IV, even late in the war. Not the Tiger.
The Germans were so unimpressed with the T-34 there was serious discussion about COPYING IT DIRECTLY in 1942. General Heinz Guderian said of it "we had nothing to match it".
As for the M-10? it had a slightly higher ROF because the crew could reload in an open topped vehicle. Marders, M-10s, Su-76s, Archer, and other TDs (and fixed AT Guns), had this advantage, that was mainly ergonomic, and much depended on crew quality. The guns themselves (75-76mm) were very similiar in loading speeds with no other factors involved.
Tiger Is cross country performance: it was average at best, it was slower, and a gas guzzler, one of the reasons it was deployed into special companies was its inability to keep up with Panthers and especially the much lighter Panzer IVs. At 56 tons thats hardly surprising. In the Ardennes offensive, Peiper placed the heavy tanks to the rear of his column, so they would not slow his advance. It was a very formidable AFV, but like all fighting machines, it too had its drawbacks, as did the T-34 series, and all the others.
Regards.
-
See Rule #5
-
See Rules #4, #5
-
it doesnt really help your argument to start with a meltdown.
-
schlowy2,
Pyro has lots of sources. Many of us here have lots of sources. Pyro's sources are their secret though. Why? Because this is not public research, it is a for profit company that has to protect their intellectual property.
You have also not shown any sources to dispell the "myths". So right now we just have your word, and that isn't very much given your rants thus far.
-
Holy crap time to permasquelch another squeaker
-
Originally posted by schlowy2
See Rules #4, #5
Im pretty sure that the climb and speed charts are for the modeled planes.
What makes you think that the La7 is overmodeled? Everything Ive read about it suggests it was a VERY good aircraft, one of the best the VVS had by the end of the war. Ive also read that the La5FN was faster, climbed better, and was more manueverable than the 109G2 and 190 A4- which it stands to in Aces High.
In fact, the top speed for the La7 according to AH speed charts is actually lower than Ive found elsewhere.
-
Schlowy -
I'm confused by the freshman level Calculus and Physics. Whats your point?
I suppose I can answer them, but if I told you I have a B.S. in Math and I work with Aerospace engineers you wouldn't believe me anyway, so why bother?
By the way .. your car cylinder example I learned in Physics II (basically heat and electromagnetics), never did take Chem. IIRC the process is actually referred to as an adiabatic process.
I remain confused on what this has to do with anything.
My point remains unchanged. If you think something is wrong, go educate yourself on the subject. Provide feedback to HTC, then restart the loop based on their response.
As far as the rest of the diatribe...
The Tiger had welded armor. So it didn't need "fewer" rivets.. it needed none. It was also a PITA from a maintainability standpoint, the T-34 was quite reliable.
The vast majority of T-34s had radios. Models made in 1940 had none, except for platoon commanders vehicles. Starting in 1941, all models had radios.
The "off topic" diatribe.
Yea, you are new to this game. I know, you told me already. Couldn't care less about your pedigree, to be honest.
I believe that Hitech has a math degree, I could be wrong on that. I'm not certain about Pyro. Soviet material from WW2 is now available to the public (its been YEARS since the wall went down, after all), and several good books have been written about Soviet equipment by Western authors. I'd suggest you look some of them up, but you are apparently of the "if I believe in something strongly enough, I don't NEED sources!" school of thought.
-
See Rules #4, #5
-
Originally posted by Meyer
How??
A combination of factors, primarily the combination of turret traverse, ammo handling and rangefinding. 1st you have to see a tank, since the TD was normally deployed in a defensive position (even if moving to engage) they normally had the advantage of terrain. Usually the german tank didnt even know the TD was there till it fired. The rate of rotation for the TD's was very fast compared to the PZV and tiger. Most tanks store the used casing in the floor or in a rack. while you can just let em on the floor this caused other issues in an enclosed tank...including richochet. So normal doctrine called for handling of the "empty"...TD's had easier options for ammo handling. Again this is just an "average"...but TD rate of fire was very high comparatively. This is reflected in the very good K/D ratio's of the US TD units overall.
-
See Rules #2, #4, #5
-
Post the document that gives the Bf109 a 170m turning circle.
Mentioning Wikipedia is not going to do it. Wiki can be used to find sources (just look at the sources at the bottom of the article, get said source and evaluate it) but Wiki itself is not a source.
Here is a quick splurge into a good online source:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/
Lots of actual documents there, not filtered by historians or hobbists at all.
How many primary source documents do you have? What can you pull off your shelf right now and read that contains primary source data? I have Spitfire, Mosquito and Fw190 stuff myself, but the site I linked has far, far more than I do by many orders of magnitude.
And yes, Tigers could pivot. I have asked for that ability in the past.
-
after all that buildup I get a Wiki link?
(sigh)
-
Originally posted by schlowy2
Royal Aircraft Establishment tests with a captured Bf 109 showed the Spitfire's turning circle — without height loss — was 696 feet (212 m) in radius (the Hurricane's would be slightly tighter) while the 109's was 885 feet (270 m) radius according to British calculations using assumed values as basis. According to the German manuals however, the smallest turning circle was 170 m, ...
--------------------------------------
Raf says:
spit turn circle 212meters (the Hurricane's would be slightly tighter)
109 turn circle 270meters
109 manual says:
109turn circle 170meters
I wonder what Widewing's reports would be?
(no I don't, we leave him out of this.)
(we don't even know at which alt they are talking about.)
In the game, 25% fuel, with Combat Power (WEP) at about 500 feet ASL, using full flaps. Minimum turning circle diameter, in meters...
Bf 109E: 245 meters
Bf 109F-4: 255 meters
Bf 109G-2: 284 meters
Bf 109G-6: 293 meters
Bf 109G-14: 298 meters
Bf 109K-4: 325 meters
SpitI: 226 meters
SpitV: 236 meters
SpitIX: 264 meters
SpitVIII: 271 meters
SpitXVI: 275 meters
SpitXIV: 306 meters
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by humble
A combination of factors, primarily the combination of turret traverse, ammo handling and rangefinding. 1st you have to see a tank, since the TD was normally deployed in a defensive position (even if moving to engage) they normally had the advantage of terrain. Usually the german tank didnt even know the TD was there till it fired. The rate of rotation for the TD's was very fast compared to the PZV and tiger. Most tanks store the used casing in the floor or in a rack. while you can just let em on the floor this caused other issues in an enclosed tank...including richochet. So normal doctrine called for handling of the "empty"...TD's had easier options for ammo handling. Again this is just an "average"...but TD rate of fire was very high comparatively. This is reflected in the very good K/D ratio's of the US TD units overall.
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
[Originally posted by Squire]Tiger Is cross country performance: it was average at best, it was slower, and a gas guzzler, one of the reasons it was deployed into special companies was its inability to keep up with Panthers and especially the much lighter Panzer IVs
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.
-
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.
-
(http://banpiro.bitacoras.com/imagenes/b_119_1.jpg)
KV-VI Behemoth
Panther? Who needs the "wimpy" Panther?
or maybe one of these...
(http://www.corazzati.it/sturmtiger_fotobn.jpg)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
See Rule #5
-
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
-
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!)
-
See Rules #2, #4, #5, #6
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
:cool:
-
I want a Panzer 3F
-
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.
-
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.
-
Meyer,
Your definition of a meeting engagement is completely wrong. Even though its a NATO/DoD definition its actually a very simplistic basdardized "definition" out of context. A meeting engagement occurs any time two forces on the move collide. In fact a critical component of any armored offense is in fact movement to contact. The initial component is charged with identifying and fixing an opforces strength/location and then a second unit is normally passed thru to continue the advance. As a general rule meeting engagements occur as an expected event as part of a general order ie "advance to contact". The Nato definition is really geared toward the "fulda gap" syndrome and the concept of massive deployed tank corps...which didnt really ever happen. A much better definition would be the desert storm reality where US forces attacked on a defined axis of advance until contact and then deployed directly to a hasty attack from a moving advance. Which is identical to both the german attack and the actions of the 7th armored at St Vith. This was a true meeting engagement where an advancing force met a mobile advancing defensive force and its screening components.
Typical US use of TD's in 1944 involved a defensive movement to contact against a known axis of advance...in effect an attack on the side of an advancing opforce. This is both a meeting engagement and an "ambush". The alternative would be the preferred static defense in depth.
US TD's were never actually employed according to the original 42 doctrine at any point in the war. Instead the revised 44 field manual called for static defense in depth if possible...manuevering attack if suitable.
US records specific to kills/losses for the bulge battle are fairly accurate. These encounters are well documented on both sides. The US defenses relied very heavily on TD's thruout the bulge.
-
Originally posted by schlowy2
See Rule #5
LOL, you obviously cant read. What I said is that historical record shows that US TD's normally got 2, 3 and occasionally 4 shots off before german tanks could respond. The 1st is obviously because they tended to attack from ambush or the flank. The 2nd becuase they had faster ammo handling and faster traverse in most cases. In many engagements wgere the ymet nose to nose the TD's still got more lead on target. One of the most famous had a M-10 outside longvilly that literally ran into a german unit at a crossroad. It's 1st shot was almost point blank and took out the lead Panther, 2nd and 3rd shot both hit the 2nd panther and rattled the crew enough they abondoned the vehicle. The M-10 backed of the road and escpaped and in fact sent the report that sent team cherry into confusion. Meanwhile the germans had no idea a single TD did that damage and altered there advance as well....
-
By the way, in my game statistics over 70 tours, my top non-perk plane for kills/death is the Dora, topped only by the Tempest and Me262. That is how 'junky' it is modeled in AH.
-
The Dora in AH is a great airplane. With its high speed climb rate and zooming ability it can own despite having a horrible turning radius. It's just totally dominated by the La7 in the MA at low alt, never allowing it to really shine. In AvA setups or Western front scenarios it really does great.
-
Originally posted by humble
LOL, you obviously cant read. What I said is that historical record shows that US TD's normally got 2, 3 and occasionally 4 shots off before german tanks could respond. The 1st is obviously because they tended to attack from ambush or the flank. The 2nd becuase they had faster ammo handling and faster traverse in most cases. In many engagements wgere the ymet nose to nose the TD's still got more lead on target. One of the most famous had a M-10 outside longvilly that literally ran into a german unit at a crossroad. It's 1st shot was almost point blank and took out the lead Panther, 2nd and 3rd shot both hit the 2nd panther and rattled the crew enough they abondoned the vehicle. The M-10 backed of the road and escpaped and in fact sent the report that sent team cherry into confusion. Meanwhile the germans had no idea a single TD did that damage and altered there advance as well....
I urge anyone interested in American Tank Destroyers to read this document: American Tank Destroyer Doctrine in WWII (https://cgsc.leavenworth.army.mil/carl/download/csipubs/gabel2.pdf)
It's a 15 meg PDF.. So, be prepared.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Widewing
I urge anyone interested in American Tank Destroyers to read this document: American Tank Destroyer Doctrine in WWII (https://cgsc.leavenworth.army.mil/carl/download/csipubs/gabel2.pdf)
It's a 15 meg PDF.. So, be prepared.
My regards,
Widewing
Great find...TY
Just started looking at it but the final sentences point to everything i've ever read regarding the TD's in europe...
"The inflexibility of tank destroyer doctrine resulted in its abandonment and led to the employment of tank destroyers in extradoctrinal roles, albeit with a surprising degree ofsuccess. The flaws inherent in tank destroyer doctrine, rather than the misuse of tank destroyers by higher commanders or deficiencies in equipment, prevented the tank destroyers from fulfilling their intended role.
That the tank destroyers performed yeoman service in spite of doctrinal defects is to the credit of the American soldiers who, in essence, created a new doctrine in the field."
-
See Rule #5
-
Sherman, no.
T-34, yes.
-
So far from watching youtube:
t34: one track could go in one direction while the other track was at a stop.
different from
Tiger: one track could go forward while the other backward.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Sherman, no.
T-34, yes.
But it could only be done at low speeds with the T-34. The clutch and brake steering unit could cause troubles for inexperienced drivers if they tried it at high speeds.
Interesting note on the Panther Auf.D, crews were told to use the auxiliary brakes to steer and to stay away from pivot steers due to the unreliability of the Panther's steering mechanism.
ack-ack
-
You could be right on that count. Tanks are not my focus, but I had been told that the Sherman's inability to pivot in place was unusual in a tank by an ex-US Army M1A1 commander. He also thought very highly of the T-34, which was pretty much an exception for his regard of Allied tanks. The Tiger I and Panther V tanks are clearly superior to the T-34.
I wonder if the Churchill or other British tanks could pivot?
I started to post before Ack-Ack's reply was there. I understand that until the Auf.G Panthers had a lot of reliability issues.
-
The M-10 had the 76mm gun and was actually far superior to the T-34 we have here (and the PzIV) balistically.
Being a Tanker for 25 years and still going, and a WWII Armor buff all my life, The M-10 never had a 76mm gun. It had the 3 inch gun and in late 1944 the British mounted the 17pdr gun onto there's. The M-36 had the 90mm AA High Velocity gun. This was the only armored U.S. vehicle before the M-26 that could knock out a Panther or Tiger at long range. The M-18 Hellcat had the 76mm gun mounted on it. This also used the new 76mm ammo HVAP (high-velocity armor- piercing). Infor came from "The Complete Illustrated History of British, American and Commonwealth Tanks, 1939-1945" (Peter Chamberlain and Chris Ellis) and "Combat and Development History of the Sherman Tank and All Sherman Variants"(Michael Green) Also in another Book I have which I can't find at the time, it deals with the Russian lend lease tanks. They, the Russian crews loved the Sherman for the simple reason ( this coming from a few Russian drivers), "You turn the engine switch and it started every time, we could go weeks with out a break down compared to the T-34's." Now armor and 75mm main gun, well, you can't say much about them. Also the Russians got all of the Diesel engined Sherman until mid 1944.
There is my 2 cents worth.
Keep up the great game and please add more armor, like the Comet, the Cruiser Tank Mk VIII, the Churchill tank, KV-1's. M-36's, M-18's
Thanks
:aok
-
Originally posted by Jag34
Being a Tanker for 25 years and still going, and a WWII Armor buff all my life, The M-10 never had a 76mm gun. It had the 3 inch gun and in late 1944 the British mounted the 17pdr gun onto there's. The M-36 had the 90mm AA High Velocity gun. This was the only armored U.S. vehicle before the M-26 that could knock out a Panther or Tiger at long range. The M-18 Hellcat had the 76mm gun mounted on it. This also used the new 76mm ammo HVAP (high-velocity armor- piercing). Infor came from "The Complete Illustrated History of British, American and Commonwealth Tanks, 1939-1945" (Peter Chamberlain and Chris Ellis) and "Combat and Development History of the Sherman Tank and All Sherman Variants"(Michael Green) Also in another Book I have which I can't find at the time, it deals with the Russian lend lease tanks. They, the Russian crews loved the Sherman for the simple reason ( this coming from a few Russian drivers), "You turn the engine switch and it started every time, we could go weeks with out a break down compared to the T-34's." Now armor and 75mm main gun, well, you can't say much about them. Also the Russians got all of the Diesel engined Sherman until mid 1944.
There is my 2 cents worth.
Keep up the great game and please add more armor, like the Comet, the Cruiser Tank Mk VIII, the Churchill tank, KV-1's. M-36's, M-18's
Thanks
:aok
Your info is accurate. The M-10 was fitted with a modified and generally obsolete anti-aircraft gun, designated the M7 3" gun. However, 3 inches is generally equal to 76mm, which is why many refer to the M-10 as having a 76mm gun. On the other hand, the M-18 was fitted with the high velocity M1 (or M1A1) 76mm, which was developed specifically to kill tanks. When the 90mm M-36 arrived in September of 1944, it quickly proved itself quite able to kill any German tank. The M-36 was lethal at more than double the range of the M-10, and an M-36 recorded a kill of a Panther at over 4,000 yards.
Of note is the fact that all M-10s were powered by twin GM diesels. Those converted from Shermans (the M-10A1) were powered by Ford gasoline V8s. While the crews loved the diesels for their reliability and resistance to catching fire when hit, logistics were often a nightmare. During the Battle of the Bulge, gasoline and 75mm ammo was sometimes delivered to M-10 units by error.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Jag34
Being a Tanker for 25 years and still going, and a WWII Armor buff all my life, The M-10 never had a 76mm gun. It had the 3 inch gun and in late 1944 the British mounted the 17pdr gun onto there's. The M-36 had the 90mm AA High Velocity gun. This was the only armored U.S. vehicle before the M-26 that could knock out a Panther or Tiger at long range. The M-18 Hellcat had the 76mm gun mounted on it. This also used the new 76mm ammo HVAP (high-velocity armor- piercing). Infor came from "The Complete Illustrated History of British, American and Commonwealth Tanks, 1939-1945" (Peter Chamberlain and Chris Ellis) and "Combat and Development History of the Sherman Tank and All Sherman Variants"(Michael Green) Also in another Book I have which I can't find at the time, it deals with the Russian lend lease tanks. They, the Russian crews loved the Sherman for the simple reason ( this coming from a few Russian drivers), "You turn the engine switch and it started every time, we could go weeks with out a break down compared to the T-34's." Now armor and 75mm main gun, well, you can't say much about them. Also the Russians got all of the Diesel engined Sherman until mid 1944.
There is my 2 cents worth.
Keep up the great game and please add more armor, like the Comet, the Cruiser Tank Mk VIII, the Churchill tank, KV-1's. M-36's, M-18's
Thanks
:aok
I knew it was a "3 inch" gun and there for 76mm...but I assumed that it was the basis for the M1A1. Curious if it used a completly different ammo from the M1A1 or could it fire same ammo in a different tube?
-
Interesting write up...
M-10's in Italy (http://www.lonesentry.com/brassingoff/index.html)
-
US penetration charts... (http://gva.freeweb.hu/weapons/usa_guns5.html)
From what I see here, performance was identical for the for the M7 (3in tube in M-10) and the M1A1 tube although the M1A1 ammo was shortened a bit for ease of ammo handing. Which goes back to what I was aying originally. The turret ergonomics made the rate of fire higher for the TD's vs the enclosed shermans and german tanks...
-
Originally posted by trotter
Simaril, you're too decent a guy to be tuned to 200. Tune it off.
He enjoys chatting with friends on other countries, like myself.
-
The Tiger did have a good rate of fire. The rate of fire is a direct result of having a loader and not a loader/gunner as the T-34/76 did. It also was determined by ammunition storage in relation to the loader. The German crews were also better trained and had a communication system within the tank that was second to none so targets were acquired quicker than it's Russian counterparts . The Tiger did have a very slow turret traverse as it does in this game.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
As to the statements that the T-34 was hopelessly outclassed by the Tiger, let me just say that wars are not won by small numbers of armored behemoths with slow rates of fire, poor cross-country performance, and horrendous reliability. Wars are won by well-designed machines that don't break down every other day, are easy to maintain, can be used in all types of weather and over all types of terrain, which crews can be easily trained for, have a reasonably effective weapon for use against a multitude of types of targets, and...most importantly....can be easily and rapidly manufactured, improved, and updated.
Twenty T-34s were manufactured for every Tiger produced by the Germans. That's why, when the war ended, T-34s could be seen in Berlin, and no Tigers were in Moscow.
QFT
-
Originally posted by Karnak
I'd like to see the T-34/85 and Panther V G before any of those.
T-34 pictures from Finland
http://picasaweb.google.com/jpgrohn/T3485MmMainTurret
-
Nice photos. What was the event happening that day that had this T-34/85?
Jag34T
-
Only a handful of Pershings even made it to Europe. And probally didnt even see combat. How about a Maus, or a E100 then?
Better tank for the game; Panther, Lee, JS1, Churchhill or some that actually were the backbone of the conflict.
-
Originally posted by alskahawk
Only a handful of Pershings even made it to Europe. And probally didnt even see combat. How about a Maus, or a E100 then?
Better tank for the game; Panther, Lee, JS1, Churchhill or some that actually were the backbone of the conflict.
Pershings saw plenty of combat for the few months they were deployed. There's a well know film of a Pershing obliterating a Panther. You can see it here. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqH_WEqNK5Y)
My regards,
Widewing
-
Only a handful of Pershings even made it to Europe. And probally didnt even see combat.
Ok, all you have to do is do a little research online to have learned the Pershings did see combat in the ETO.( Such as the link from Widewing, Thanks for the link.) And did a fine good job at it also. Did you see the holes in the Panther after the 2 rounds hit it. You can see the frames in the tank though the holes. That is the only thing I hated about being in the M-60's. They would burn just like the WWII tanks. Glad I have my M1A1 Abrams. 70 tons of Hard Cold Steel.
Laze and Blaze
Jag34T
-
That film appears to be from right at the end of the war. April or maybe even May of 45. Very few made to Europe before the war ended. Plenty of combat? doubtful. Most sources state that about only 20 Pershing's made it to Europe before May 45. That film looks a bit staged. It may have been a Pershing that was rushed to the front for combat testing. I believe Golom was one of the last battles.
The point is that if AH is going to bring out rare vehicles there are plenty of them such as the Maus, etc. There are plenty of everyday tanks that are not represented in the game.
There are some other comments about the T34 being outclassed by the Tiger. The T34 was medium tank like the Panther. Compare the T34 to the Panther. Its kind of like comparing the Bf109 to the Mustang. Early war extensively modded design versus a late war lessons learned design. Some of you real tank experts can expound on the differences between medium tanks and heavy tanks better than I can. (USN retired)
Those of you on the east coast if you get a chance check out Aberdeen proving grounds. They have a nice collection of ww2 tanks. Including a Tiger(?) with a nice frontal no penetration glacial hit.
-
Originally posted by alskahawk
That film appears to be from right at the end of the war. April or maybe even May of 45. Very few made to Europe before the war ended. Plenty of combat? doubtful. Most sources state that about only 20 Pershing's made it to Europe before May 45. That film looks a bit staged. It may have been a Pershing that was rushed to the front for combat testing. I believe Golom was one of the last battles.
By the surrender, 188 T26E3 tanks had been delivered to the ETO. Some made it to Okinawa as well. Approximately 22 were issued to the 3rd and 9th Armored Divisions in February of '45 and saw extensive combat during Operation Zebra. The film was not staged...
Say, you're not one of those that believe the moon landings were staged, are you?
My regards,
Widewing
-
That film looks a bit staged. It may have been a Pershing that was rushed to the front for combat testing. I believe Golom was one of the last battles.
Your kidding right, Staged. Yes it was, that German TC (tank commander) agreed to get blown out of a tank and the driver agreed to burn to death all for the film crew.:lol
Right now I'm looking for a book I have on the M-26 in WWII. Its about a crew who got one of the M-26's and had it for 4 months of combat. The last month they had a Super M-26 with a longer barrel gun, which gave it a 600 ft per second faster then the 88mm. Here is the link to the M-26 Super Pershing http://www.3ad.com/history/wwll/feature.pages/super.pershing.1.htm (http://www.3ad.com/history/wwll/feature.pages/super.pershing.1.htm)
Where did I pack that book:mad:
Jag34T
-
Staged as in rushed to the front for combat testing.
-
Originally posted by Jag34
Ok, all you have to do is do a little research online to have learned the Pershings did see combat in the ETO.( Such as the link from Widewing, Thanks for the link.) And did a fine good job at it also. Did you see the holes in the Panther after the 2 rounds hit it. You can see the frames in the tank though the holes. That is the only thing I hated about being in the M-60's. They would burn just like the WWII tanks. Glad I have my M1A1 Abrams. 70 tons of Hard Cold Steel.
Laze and Blaze
Jag34T
Not big online research. It's generally worth what you pay for it. But here it is from a quick search. A handful were sent to the 3rd and 9th for combat testing. and quote from The Military Factory;
"About 20 M26's were reported to have seen any action at all. Ten M26's were also shipped out to the Pacific Theater for action in Okinawa, though arriving too late to be of any effective tactial use."
Hardly qualifies as "Plenty of combat". I haven't had much time to analyze the video but my comment as to "staged" is my initial reaction. They probably sent a cameraman and a Pershing to the front where they knew there was one enemy tank to evaluate how it would perform. But that's just a guess as I stated I haven't had much time to watch the video.
Other references mention the lack of power on the M26 due to the Ford GAN/GAF V8 power plant. As well as different transmission tests/gun sizes etc. 105mm, 76mm. Designed as a heavy tank reclassified as a medium tank.
However by the Korean war it was a formidable machine. Killing lots of T34/85s.
-
Originally posted by Jag34
Nice photos. What was the event happening that day that had this T-34/85?
Jag34T
It was winter war scenario, where "red"army attacks with T-34 support against finnish fieldbase.
T-34 did shoot once. Flame was about 15 to 30 meter long and smoke runs about 50 meter ahead.
Finally finnish troops did shoot T-34 with that "panzerfaust" (http://www.pkymasehist.fi/panzerfaust.html ) and arrested crew.
-
Meyer,
I have to agree with you on your statement that it is not a meeting engagement.
The correct term i actually called a Movement to Contact. This can be construed as both sides moving directly toward each other, or, one side moving and one side stationary.
With Movement to Contact in mind--it plays directly into the side that is actually moving, whether the other side is in hasty or deliberate defensive fighting positions.
All in a nutshell is that a Movement to Contact is an military term to describe when one force is actually moving to engage another force, whether it is stationary or moving/:aok
As for the M26, the first vehicles actually arrived in the ETO in Feb 45. It was comparably the best tank to be produced toward the end of WWII. Let us not forget that the British were also on the cutting edge of tank design near the end of the war with the production Centurion. If the war in Europe would have lasted another 6 months, imagine the tank battles that might have been fought with the latest advances in armored warfare.
Jag,
By the way I loved my 20+ years as a tanker also. M60A3 and M1A1s also. Also happen to be a tank master gunner.