What US tanker...

What US tanker... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns

Message

Voriax -> What US tanker... (1/9/2003 1:13:49 AM)
..thought of US equipment in WW2 http://www.warwick.ac.uk/~eswmn/IT.html Some quotes: "The small turning radius when standing still is a desirable feature of German tanks. Would like this feature incorporated in our own tanks. " " I believe the American M4 medium tank, a basically good implement of war, is beset by overwhelming disadvantages. " " But we need to be able to some way lock one track so we could turn in the field like the Mark V " " Bazooka. Well, we had the first one. And that is about all that can be said for it. The German bazooka makes ours look sick, not only in effect but in accuracy. " " We want wider tracks. This new E8 suspension is a lot better as far as flotation is concerned than our old suspension system, but the German tanks still have better maneuverability in the field. " " The Mark V and VI have our tanks out-gunned and out-sighted in all cases except the new sight M71D on the American M4E8. They can hit at 3,000 yards in the M4 with a good percentage of penetrations. I have actually seen ricochets go through the M4 at 3,000 yards. " " We've got a good tank - for parades and training purposes - but for combat they are just potential coffins. " There's more, but read it yourself Voriax

VikingNo2 -> (1/9/2003 1:16:09 AM)
:cool:

Jim1954 -> (1/9/2003 1:41:38 AM)
Obviously those guys haven't spoken to M4 Jess yet. lol :D

Belisarius -> (1/9/2003 2:49:40 AM)
Interesting reading. The better quality of sights, guns and armor of Panthers and Tigers are no surprise, but it was interesting to see that they found the Panzerschreck better than the Bazooka?!

Goblin -> Re: What US tanker... (1/9/2003 2:54:33 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Voriax [BI have actually seen ricochets go through the M4 at 3,000 yards. " " We've got a good tank - for parades and training purposes - but for combat they are just potential coffins. "[/B][/QUOTE] Yep. Yep. LOL! Goblin :D

Gary Tatro -> Reading further down (1/9/2003 3:05:35 AM)
I saw this quote: "I believe the American M4 medium tank, a basically good implement of war, is beset by overwhelming disadvantages. I personally do not mind its height, with consequent size of target! Nor do I consider too much its lack of armor (an 88 will penetrate regardless of armor). The greatest deficiency lies in its firepower, which is most conspicuous by its absence. Lack of a principal gun with sufficient penetrating ability to knock out the German opponent has cost us more tanks and skilled men to man more tanks than any failure of our crews, not to mention the heartbreak and sense of defeat I and other men have felt. To see twenty-five or even many more of our rounds fired and ricochet off the enemy attackers. To be finally hit, once, and we climb from and leave a burning, blackened and now a useless pile of scrap iron. It would have yet been a tank had it mounted a gun. -Cpl Francis Vierling, Tank Commander " I certainly felt this way about my M4's in my battle with Rbrunsman. :( :( :(

tracer -> (1/9/2003 3:11:11 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Belisarius [B]Interesting reading. The better quality of sights, guns and armor of Panthers and Tigers are no surprise, but it was interesting to see that they found the Panzerschreck better than the Bazooka?! [/B][/QUOTE] I brought this up in another thread: if you start a post-war battle (1949 for sure) you'll see that US formations have the panzerschreck as an AT option, and it costs [I]more[/I] than the M9.

Voriax -> (1/9/2003 3:46:23 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jim1954 [B]Obviously those guys haven't spoken to M4 Jess yet. lol :D [/B][/QUOTE] I fear my days as Map Contest Judge are over when he sees this thread.... :rolleyes: Voriax

Jim1954 -> (1/9/2003 4:41:03 AM)
Nah dude, I'm sure he'll save all the winter Russian steppe maps, you know, the ones with no elevation changes or stream beds or vegetation, for you. lol, :D

mlomax -> HOLD ON A MINUTE!!!!! (1/9/2003 4:49:17 AM)
These soldiers were involved in conflicts that they were out-gunned and outnumbered. Do you really expect some one to say after climbing out of there tank, while its on fire, "I'm the best and no one can match me." Most of the time they were saying,"WOW, how did he do that." The tankers did not have the equipment that they needed to fight, but that did not stop them. It takes alot of guts to ride in that so called "coffin". Especially into battle. In retroflect, how do you think the Germans felt when they went against russian armor.

rbrunsman -> (1/9/2003 5:16:26 AM)
Who here likes panzerschreks in SPWAW? I never buy them, maybe I should? Thanks for the compliment Gary. You line 'em up, I'll knock 'em down.:D

Belisarius -> (1/9/2003 6:10:28 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by rbrunsman [B]Who here likes panzerschreks in SPWAW? I never buy them, maybe I should? Thanks for the compliment Gary. You line 'em up, I'll knock 'em down.:D [/B][/QUOTE] IMO, they suck. In particular compared to the Bazooka teams ;) So for all your SP:WAW needs: the Bazooka is the better weapon here

Belisarius -> Re: HOLD ON A MINUTE!!!!! (1/9/2003 6:21:59 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by mlomax [B]These soldiers were involved in conflicts that they were out-gunned and outnumbered. Do you really expect some one to say after climbing out of there tank, while its on fire, "I'm the best and no one can match me." Most of the time they were saying,"WOW, how did he do that." The tankers did not have the equipment that they needed to fight, but that did not stop them. It takes alot of guts to ride in that so called "coffin". Especially into battle. In retroflect, how do you think the Germans felt when they went against russian armor. [/B][/QUOTE] Hey, we don't ridicule US nor British armor crews here. ;) Outgunned they were (when facing the long-barreled 75mm or larger), but certainly not outnumbered. What's your point? Yes it takes a lot of guts, but what has that to do with the stories? These are accounts of men riding into combat themselves, not their adversaries'. They are not belittling at all to their efforts, if I read them right? Are you saying that their testimonies are flavored by their own inefficiency i.e. that they exaggarate the power of German armor much like the Germans themselves did regarding the allied airstrike efficiency? ('cuz that was a reflection of my own... ) :confused:

BARKHORN -> (1/9/2003 8:24:58 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Belisarius [B]Interesting reading. The better quality of sights, guns and armor of Panthers and Tigers are no surprise, but it was interesting to see that they found the Panzerschreck better than the Bazooka?! [/B][/QUOTE]The reason they found the pz schreck more effective is that the pz schreck had a diameter of 88 mm against the the 2.1 in.diameter of the bazooka and could penetrate thicker armor

mlomax -> Reply (1/9/2003 9:20:53 AM)
In regards to there testimonies, I believe that alot of thoughts about either sides equipment were exagerated. Yes the german tanks were superior but I believe that there ability was not comparable to the U.S. tankers. In one hand we have the M4 which the crew already knows can not get a one shot, one kill consistently and in the other hand we have a Tiger or Panther which the crew knows that they are "bullet proof" so they barely strive for the kill. The U.S. tankers earned there kill while the german tankers didn't. Now these are my own beliefs. I also apoligize if I come across strongly about this. I think its has something to do with being a tanker myself.

tracer -> (1/9/2003 9:41:02 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by BARKHORN [B]The reason they found the pz schreck more effective is that the pz schreck had a diameter of 88 mm against the the 2.1 in.diameter of the bazooka and could penetrate thicker armor [/B][/QUOTE] In Max Hastings' book "Overlord" he describes how captured panzerfausts were coveted by allied troops because they would punch thru the frontal armor of the heavier German tanks, where their own bazooka rounds often bounced off. But in SPWAW I agree: buy the bazooka...the panzerschreck doesn't have HE ammo ;)

M4Jess -> Re: What US tanker... (1/9/2003 7:45:43 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Voriax [B]..thought of US equipment in WW2 http://www.warwick.ac.uk/~eswmn/IT.html Some quotes: "The small turning radius when standing still is a desirable feature of German tanks. Would like this feature incorporated in our own tanks. " " I believe the American M4 medium tank, a basically good implement of war, is beset by overwhelming disadvantages. " " But we need to be able to some way lock one track so we could turn in the field like the Mark V " " Bazooka. Well, we had the first one. And that is about all that can be said for it. The German bazooka makes ours look sick, not only in effect but in accuracy. " " We want wider tracks. This new E8 suspension is a lot better as far as flotation is concerned than our old suspension system, but the German tanks still have better maneuverability in the field. " " The Mark V and VI have our tanks out-gunned and out-sighted in all cases except the new sight M71D on the American M4E8. They can hit at 3,000 yards in the M4 with a good percentage of penetrations. I have actually seen ricochets go through the M4 at 3,000 yards. " " We've got a good tank - for parades and training purposes - but for combat they are just potential coffins. Voriax [/B][/QUOTE] These boys are sissys!:mad: Old Blood and Guts would have had them shot!:mad: The M4 was the best dam* tank of the war! So there!:mad:

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.8144531