|
Charles22 -> (2/15/2001 9:49:00 PM)
|
AmmoSgt: Rommel never faced Patton in battle, in both cases one of them wasn't commanding. NAfrica was as close as they got, and though it was the force Rommel had, it wasn't him commanding them. Rommel probably would've been scorched anyway, but the legendary matchup never took place.
While I understand your anti-whiner type stance, my argument is that IF they recall the series of arguments we had, which ended up with the conclusion I recalled, they wouldn't call for 5-to-1 superiority anyway, but would rather just make the general claim that a tank that an army officer claimed had a 5-to-1 advantage (talking strictly kills) over his own tanks, would show something better than perhaps the 1-to-1 results they feel they are getting, irrespective of whether that's actually the case. I've never pitted Tigers (though the army officer said Panthers) against basic Shermans so I cannot say, but I have seen it reap havoc against T34s.
I have to suspect that there are some, perhaps those in this forum excepting, who get this really killer tank, and then think they can ram it through opposing forces like a level boss in Super Mario Brothers might. Nope, you have 80mm side armor or 60mm in the case of the Panther, and you're going be vulnerable. I do, however, emphatize with those who haven't figured out the percentage chances yet, as I'm in the same boat and it can be frustrating. As I've said before, it seems to me that when I fire a tank against another tank, that the 40%-70% alleged hit ratio is a lot closer to 20%-30%. It's goofy, because the ratios lower than 40% and those higher than 70% seem to reflect the result.
I would suggest that the Tigers couldn't have achieved the 5-to-1 ratio against Shermans as the Panther did. Why? Because the Panther is faster than the Sherman while the general useable roadspeed and practice of the Tigers made it slower. In the case of the Panther, it could sit behind a hill, blow a tank or two apart, and then escape to find another position, to try the same thing from, but the Tiger pretty much had to stand it's ground.
Now if you gave silly AOE testing to Tigers vs. Panthers on just which would slay the most Shermans the Tiger would probably fare better, but as often is the case, people either use their Tigers or Panthers either on better or worse terms than a silly meeting engagement controlled by the AI, where it may appear to be a fair test of value.
Oh, just read through the whole thread, but I responded to your post first, so please forgive my what turned out to be reemphasizing the Rommel/Patton point already made.
[This message has been edited by Charles22 (edited February 15, 2001).]
|
|
|
|
