RE: US 1000lb GP bomb test (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message

mdiehl -> RE: US 1000lb GP bomb test (7/29/2004 7:05:24 PM)

quote:

From what Ive read a single bomb would probably have little chance of damaging the Yamato at all,


Then I submit you need to read a little more. One bomb killed Yamato... or rather, WOULD have killed her except that she turned turtle from torpedo hits first. IIRC one or teh other of Yamato or Musashi was sent back to the yard after a close abroad bomb near miss dropped by a B17 in 1943. Not so surprising as it would, if it hit close enough, had an effect rather more like that of a modest torpedo or mine.

quote:

These ships, as other battleships, were designed to withstand ARMOR PIERCING shells from other battleships and 1000 pound general purpose bombs will do alot of damage to unarmored areas, like AA guns but the vitals of the ship will be intact unless it is a lucky hit.


They were designed to withstand AP shells of a certain caliber to a certain degree. No BB was impenetrable to AP shells or larger AP bombs. Someone mentioned something about the bridge being armored. What surprises me is thath the bridge areas of BBs, while armored, weren't very well armored. Yamato's bridge crew could not have lived through the impact of a 14" round. The conning tower is another story... but I wonder what shape the guy in the citidel would be in if a big AP or HE round rang the iron bell in which he was secured. When you look at the AARs of capitol ship engagements it is ironic how quickly the skipper and his bridge entourage were often wiped out. Bismarck's final sortie being a case in point.

quote:

Look at the Bismarck, she was smashed up pretty good, all her guns and communications knocked out and she was hit by dozens of 14 and 16" AP shells. And she stayed afloat till scuttled and torp'd. So the game has it right. Use torpedoes to sink battleships.


The Bismarck was sunk by penetrating shell hits that exploded deep in her interior. She had a 15 degree list and was shipping water over her stern deck when the order was given to abandon ship. She sank within ten minutes of the order being given to set the scuttling charges. Given the fact that she was being then commanded by a very junior officer, with little effective internal communications, and given that survivors attest to gaping holes leading from the main deck deep into the interior of the ship full of maelstroms of flame, I find it very much a stretch to pretend that Bismarck was scuttled. Too little time elapsed between the order being given, and far too much else probably preventing many from hearing the order.

Bismarck was on her way to the bottom from progressive flooding before any torps hit her and before she was ordered abandoned. Had she not sunk quickly enough she'd have exploded from the fires. She was sunk, done for, done in, greased, wiped out, waxxed, wasted, crushed, crumpled, destroyed, defeated handily, scrunched, finished, kaput, good night Sally, an ex-Battleship, and she bought the farm and the recondominium -- and 100% of that is attributable Royal Navy gunfire. The rest (torpedoes, rumours of "scuttling") was just the orchestra playing an encore as the curtains came down.



hithere -> RE: US 1000lb GP bomb test (7/29/2004 7:13:54 PM)

quote:

Had she not sunk quickly enough she'd have exploded from the fires. She was sunk, done for, done in, greased, wiped out, waxxed, wasted, crushed, crumpled, destroyed, defeated handily, scrunched, finished, kaput, good night Sally, an ex-Battleship, and she bought the farm and the recondominium -- and 100% of that is attributable Royal Navy gunfire.


eerr...so ...what are you trying to say?



mdiehl -> RE: US 1000lb GP bomb test (7/29/2004 7:16:56 PM)

I'm trying to say that she was a "dead parrot." [:D]



Mr.Frag -> RE: US 1000lb GP bomb test (7/29/2004 7:21:55 PM)

quote:

I'm trying to say that she was a "dead parrot."


Well, when you consider what was sent after her, it is amazing that she lasted as long as she did. Chock that one up to the Brits being a little too eager to close range instead of using plunging fire. Frankly, they got off pretty lucky that they didn't suffer any serious damage of their own.

Just something scary about the concept of a 14" gun being used for direct fire! [X(]



mdiehl -> RE: US 1000lb GP bomb test (7/29/2004 7:28:37 PM)

Direct fire. Yeah. It's not so surprising that Bismarck went up quickly. By closing the range the Brits pretty much guaranteed they'd strip Bismarck of every worthwhile piece of equipment quite quickly. And Rodney's crew was rather veteran. IMO on the whole the British were better (more accurate) shots, although Bismarck's ranging was impressive vs. Hood.

Did you ever read a detailed account of the Dieppe Raid? At one point some German tanks were taken under direct fire from RN DDs. According to the accounts when the DDs hit the tanks frontally it blew them to shreddies and sent a sort of furball of wreckage careening like a disintegrating bowling ball hundreds of yards.



hithere -> RE: US 1000lb GP bomb test (7/29/2004 7:29:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

I'm trying to say that she was a "dead parrot." [:D]


Like in the Monty Python skit???[:'(]



Mr.Frag -> RE: US 1000lb GP bomb test (7/29/2004 7:49:04 PM)

quote:

Did you ever read a detailed account of the Dieppe Raid? At one point some German tanks were taken under direct fire from RN DDs. According to the accounts when the DDs hit the tanks frontally it blew them to shreddies and sent a sort of furball of wreckage careening like a disintegrating bowling ball hundreds of yards.


Thats something worthy of giving people the feel for naval guns ... poor tanks ... getting picked off by what amounts to 9 Russian Su-152's per DD.



Nikademus -> RE: US 1000lb GP bomb test (7/29/2004 8:13:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

Steve (Nikademus) can you please comment on this thread (since this is your field after all and your hard work finally produced the resluts we are seeing?

BTW, I like the results since the UV had bombs that were actually air dropped torpedoes (which is, of course, wrong)!

Also it is great to see that prolonged fires will cause SYS damage just as it shuld be (i.e. the hull would be intact but superstructure and exposed armamanet would be heavily damaged)!


Leo "Apollo11"


Other posters have pretty much nailed it on the head but i'll resummarize a few points.

GP bombs....otherwise known as "High Explosive" bombs are not designed to penetrate hardened structures, anymore than HE shells are (heavy armor-grade plate is definately a "hardened structures". This is why hard data vis-a-vis how much "armor" one can penetrate is not readily avail if at all. In order for any AP projectile to penetrate heavy or substantial armor, it must have a hardened and specially reinforced case (the nose piece is usually a big dense block of metal) designed to be able to survive impact at extreme velocity so as to keep it's internal fuse/components intact and thus explode properly. If the projectile is damaged or broken up. (even if penetrating the armor in the process) it's blast/damage effect is severely curtailed.

US GP 1000lb bombs, particularily the early war versions were particularily sensitive, but given their "role" in USN carrier doctrine, this was not an issue. These GP bombs were meant to be used against light structure so as the #1 target.....an enemy carrier deck. Read up on any of the four carrier battles......all of the 1000'lber hits exploded either instantly on contact with the wooden flight decks....or punched through to then explode in the hanger. This often caused major topside damage and fires.....but rarely impacted the ship's hull or propulsion.

Thus, 1000lb "GP" bombs are not going to penetrate substantial armor....certainly not battleship armor. The game currently only represents critical damage to a warship in terms of FLT and SYS. SYS is also linked with propulsion, therefore only "critical/penetrating" damage can be considered represented here. A non penetrating hit can indeed cause much carnage topside in non essential and unarmored areas and cause crew causalties (the latter is not represented in the game)

Does this make the 1000'lber useless. Hardly. Take battleships for example...they are the biggest most powerful surface ships but consequently are also the hardest and longest to repair. Another nice aspect of GP type bombs, they cause alot of FIRE levels. FIRE in the game (as has been admitted in the past) is not all it might be, BUT it still does play a part. If you have a ship that only has 3% SYS after 5 bomb hits but has 40 fire levels...you can be assured that after those fire levels are extinquished that the ship wont have 3% SYS. Further, the more bombs that strike, even if they cant penetrate the deck armor, the more chances of a secondary or teritary weapons hit. You might say "big deal" but they too have their importance and more importantly, take time to be repaired in port.

In other words....you can MISSION kill a BB with large GP bombs by causing it light to moderate damage, usually most of it topside. Its not as satisfying as a full Kill with points, but a ship sitting in a repair dock is about as useful as a sunken one. If you really want to sink battleships....you need to do it the way it was mostly done....by using torpedoes....the achillies heel of all warships, including battleships.

As for "All or Nothing" armor designs. There is no need for a "tweak" here. Actually all or nothing simplifies OOB issues vs older "Incremental armor" designs where different thicknesses were found depending on the area. AoN simply uses one thickness...the maximum thickness allowable to protect all the vital areas of the ship. The non vital areas are unarmored.

AP vs GP - The USN, even late war did not reguarily employ AP bombs for carriers. Most of the quotes of using 1000 "AP" bombs are misquotes. At best they might be SAP (which is actually what the Japanese 250kg bomb is, which stands for "Semi-Armor piercing", a bomb more capable of penetrating armor vs a GP but less so than a dedicated AP bomb)

The reason for this was again doctrine....and space. CV magazines can only carry so many bombs...and AP bombs are highly specialized weapons....only suitable for certain targets. But carriers have to be able to deal with a multitude of targets...land and sea...thus as with pre-war doctrine....the US relied mostly on improved torpedoes (with Torpex warheads) for sheer ship killing power while the dive bombers continued to use mostly GP (with some SAP) to strike lightly protected ships and land targets. AP bombs did exist by late war, but as mentioned in another thread....a typical Essex might only have a dozen to a dozen and a half at most.

The current 1000lb GP rating is in reality quite generous in terms of penetration rating. This was done on purpose because of the way the game treats armor vs pen.

A Near miss Hit Location was preposed to factor in the possible light FLT damages that such strikes might cause...but this was axed due to coding difficulties. They can still be simulated by penetrating "belt hit" strikes by bombs but of course you need to be able to penetrate the HL as well.

Testing i have done, and comparing to what i'm seeing here....dont see a problem with the current ratings. Keep in mind too on the FLT issue....if for whatever reason any ship reaches 50% SYS...even at 0 FLT....and it will begin to roll for FLT accumulation.....thats how i lost Akagi on the way back in the Banana AAR, and i nearly lost Hiryu to the same thing.



mdiehl -> RE: US 1000lb GP bomb test (7/29/2004 8:24:27 PM)

quote:

Most of the quotes of using 1000 "AP" bombs are misquotes. At best they might be SAP (which is actually what the Japanese 250kg bomb is, which stands for "Semi-Armor piercing", a bomb more capable of penetrating armor vs a GP but less so than a dedicated AP bomb)


Yamato was set irrecoverably afire (and would have sunk had the torps not finished her off first) by a bomb that you claim could not have sunk her and that seems according to the complaint WitP would not allow to sink her. THAT is DEFINITELY a problem. IMO as always.



Fallschirmjager -> RE: US 1000lb GP bomb test (7/29/2004 8:28:57 PM)

So everything appears to be ok.

Good...that was all I was asking for in the first place. [8D]


Next topic I bring up is going to be air to ground rockets so beware [:'(]



Nikademus -> RE: US 1000lb GP bomb test (7/29/2004 8:35:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl


Yamato was set irrecoverably afire (and would have sunk had the torps not finished her off first) by a bomb that you claim could not have sunk her and that seems according to the complaint WitP would not allow to sink her. THAT is DEFINITELY a problem. IMO as always.


This is incorrect, and has been disproven 5 times by myself, and lastly by Tironu.



Mr.Frag -> RE: US 1000lb GP bomb test (7/29/2004 8:40:55 PM)

Also keep in mind that both Floatation and Fire damage can grow. It is controlled by the damage control levels of the respective countries. As you watch the turn execute, you will notice a couple of phases where this is checked to see if it increases or decreases.

You can loose a ship to Fire, it just will not sink. If you've ever managed to get lucky with your PH results, you've probably had some BB's with 90%+ SYS damage. They are not technically sunk, but they will be in a repair yard for in excess of a year worth of repairs.



mdiehl -> RE: US 1000lb GP bomb test (7/29/2004 8:54:31 PM)

quote:

This is incorrect, and has been disproven 5 times by myself, and lastly by Tironu.


You are incorrect. Niether of you have disproven same. According to Yamato's survivors, the fire imminently threatening her forward secondary magazine and WOULD by all accounts have set off her forward main magazinge WAS by all survivors accounts and by USN pilot accounts started by the second bomb to strike her forward. All you have done is denied, well, something. I'm not sure what you're denying. Either that the hit happened (which is demonstrably false). Or that it set an uncontrollable fire (that is demonstrably false). Or that it was imminently going to set of the secondary magazine (which is an opinion to which you are entitled but at odds with what the surviving Japanese crewmembers thought). Or that if the 2ndary magazine had detonated that it would not have threatened the main magazine (which is another opinion but certainly not by any remote standard a "proof" -- just a denial and nothing more).

I'm not sure what Tiornu thinks about the conflagration and if he wants to chime in he may.

For interested third parties I again refer the viewer to www.combinedfleet.com Tony Tulley's trom for Yamato. The bomb hit is there for all to read about. I think that fire would have destroyed Yamato.



Nikademus -> RE: US 1000lb GP bomb test (7/29/2004 9:07:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

This is incorrect, and has been disproven 5 times by myself, and lastly by Tironu.


You are incorrect. Niether of you have disproven same.


Lol.....whatever you say. If 5 times wasn't enough....i'm certainly not going to waste with a sixth. Like FACEHARD....if you purchase D&G's Axis battleships of WWII, you have avail the most detailed and accurate damage accessment avail for Yamato, much of which i posted prior to the hacker attack and summarily ignored by you.

Its a good book...i highly recommend it



Nikademus -> RE: US 1000lb GP bomb test (7/29/2004 9:16:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fallschirmjager

So everything appears to be ok.

Good...that was all I was asking for in the first place. [8D]


Next topic I bring up is going to be air to ground rockets so beware [:'(]


we aims to please...... [;)]



Damien Thorn -> RE: US 1000lb GP bomb test (7/29/2004 9:18:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fallschirmjager

So everything appears to be ok.

Good...that was all I was asking for in the first place. [8D]


Yeah, I also think everything is OK. I don't like the rule where ships with 50+ system damage start making rolls for flooding though. I don't see the rational for it. I hope it doesn't apply to ships in port.

On the whole falacy of Yamato being finished with a single bomb hit... well, its from the same poster who thinks the Sherman tank was better than the Tiger tank so I'll just consider the source and move on. [8D]



mdiehl -> RE: US 1000lb GP bomb test (7/29/2004 9:19:36 PM)

LOL. Like 5 denials constitutes a real proof anywhere. I suggest you read the same book and then actually read an account of Yamato's demise. Talking theory is cheap. The fire was there. It was started by a bomb. It was uncontrollable. Surviving Japanese crew members were sure that the 2nd magazine would blow.

"In theory, Rurulad, we should be immune to attack because our ECM will stop any targeting system." Thwack thwack thwack thwack blaze... "Hey pilot, does ECM stop 20mm?"



mdiehl -> RE: US 1000lb GP bomb test (7/29/2004 9:23:27 PM)

quote:

On the whole falacy of Yamato being finished with a single bomb hit... well, its from the same poster who thinks the Sherman tank was better than the Tiger tank so I'll just consider the source and move on.


You, sir, are a liar. I never made the claim that the "Sherman tank was better than the Tiger tank." I think it says loads about the (usual) indefensibility of your arguments on their factual basis that you regularly stoop to egregious straw man fabrications.

Just for the record I'll say it again. The Sherman was more RELIABLE than the Tiger tank, and at moderate to close range a 76 armed Sherman had a reasonable chance of destroying a Tiger tank. On the steppes of Russia or in North Africa, where ranges are of course much greater owing to the open nature of the terrain, the Tiger has a tactical advantage on the battlefield.



Damien Thorn -> RE: US 1000lb GP bomb test (7/29/2004 9:30:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

t... well, its from the same poster who thinks the Sherman tank was better than the Tiger tank...


You, sir, are a liar. I never made the claim that the "Sherman tank was better than the Tiger tank."

Just for the record I'll say it again. The Sherman was more RELIABLE than the Tiger tank, and at moderate to close range a 76 armed Sherman had a reasonable chance of destroying a Tiger tank. On the steppes of Russia or in North Africa, where ranges are of course much greater owing to the open nature of the terrain, the Tiger has a tactical advantage on the battlefield.



Oh come on mdiehl. There was a LONG multi-page thread where you were the sole defender of the Sherman tank. I have no idea if you ever said in a direct quote that the Sherman was "better" but that sure was the point you were trying to make. Everyone who read that thread would agree with me that that was the conclusion you were trying to sell on everyone.

I bet you still haven't even bought the game. If so, you have no stake at all in how the game models bombs, battleships, or anything else. You are just a troll and I should ignore you but hey, it's a slow day at work.



VicKevlar -> RE: US 1000lb GP bomb test (7/29/2004 9:35:07 PM)

I suggest the temperature in here cools down a tad please.

Now back to your regularly scheduled thread.



Nikademus -> RE: US 1000lb GP bomb test (7/29/2004 9:37:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

LOL. Like 5 denials constitutes a real proof anywhere. I suggest you read the same book and then actually read an account of Yamato's demise.


Translation: I'm not going to buy the book as i dont wish to be educated.

quote:


Talking theory is cheap.


I agree...so are talking facts when the person being talked too refuses to listen



mdiehl -> RE: US 1000lb GP bomb test (7/29/2004 9:52:34 PM)

In all honesty, laying aside grudges...

No, there was a long series of posts in which I said, in effect, that circumstances of battle determine which vehicle can have the advantage. I've not revisited that thread in a long time but I believe someone said the Tiger was "impenetrable" to the Sherman in a frontal hit. I pointed out that was not the case with the 76 armed Shermans. I also pointed out that the Tiger was not without serious flaws that made her operationally difficult to keep in the field and pointed out that in some ways, viewed from the strategic an logistical level, one would want a Sherman rather than a Tiger.

Imagine that you're a German on the western front in July 1944. Supply sucks because the Wallies have complete air supremacy. The ranges are, on the whole, pretty short. You've got good ATG defenses but require tanks for MOBILE support. So which would you rather have accompanying your unit -- several late-model PzIVs (with a gun adequate to the task of penetrating most Allied tanks at close to moderate range) or one PzVI? -- because that's about the ratio of their cost, and then you have to protect and supply the host of technicians that had to accompany the PzVI in battle to keep the thing running. And each one of those guys is eating food that you could be eating if the supplies could get to you. Or the supplies contain stuff for these guys when if you had PzIVs with you rather than the quirky behemoth, you could have left most of the technicians behind and brought two more squads of buddies with some 50mm mortars and another MG?

Most Allied tanks were destoyed by ATGs and, to a lesser extent, TDs. So if you want to kill Allied tanks, IMO, make more of those rather than PzVIs. If you want mobile armored support make more PzIVs because you can buy several of these for the cost of a PzVI and you can maintain them with less effort. And most of all because even being in a PzVI doesn't make you invulnerable to a 76armed Sherman or M10TD, much less something nasty like a 17pdr equipped British tank or a US M36B.

So that's my point. Like many discussions I am pointing out that the "advantages" of one design over another are often situational, and some designs can be "better" in the immediate tactical circumstances of a battle and yet be strategically inferior because the likelihood of having that asset available in an operational state is lower than it would be if you had something else.

One can't just say that the PzVI is "better" than an M4 or vice versa. There are so many qualifying remarks that absolute statements like that are either trivial or come across as uninformed because they gloss over so many qualifying conditions.



mdiehl -> RE: US 1000lb GP bomb test (7/29/2004 9:54:43 PM)

quote:

Translation: I'm not going to buy the book as i dont wish to be educated.


Well, if your theory is that owning a book makes one better informed then your theory is wrong. Case in point: you seem to have bought a lot of books and yet remain fundamentally ignorant. Maybe you should read some of them.



Damien Thorn -> RE: US 1000lb GP bomb test (7/29/2004 10:11:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

In all honesty, laying aside grudges...

One can't just say that the PzVI is "better" than an M4 or vice versa. There are so many qualifying remarks that absolute statements like that are either trivial or come across as uninformed because they gloss over so many qualifying conditions.



OK, I can see your point in that case (gasp). Let me ask you two simple questions.

1 If the US army could have one model tank in 1944 for the drive across Europe, which one would you prefer: the Sherman or the Tiger?

Let me try to anticipate your answer. If you say the Sherman, I think the only reason you could give would be speed. I don't know if it is really accurate to say speed would make a difference here since the army moved at the speed of its slowest supply.

2 If somebody FORCED you to be a crewmember in a tank in 1944 in Germany, would you rather serve in a Tiger or a Sherman (assuming German had whichever one you choose and the Allies had the other one)?



Armorer -> RE: US 1000lb GP bomb test (7/29/2004 10:16:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Damien Thorn

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

t... well, its from the same poster who thinks the Sherman tank was better than the Tiger tank...


You, sir, are a liar. I never made the claim that the "Sherman tank was better than the Tiger tank."

Just for the record I'll say it again. The Sherman was more RELIABLE than the Tiger tank, and at moderate to close range a 76 armed Sherman had a reasonable chance of destroying a Tiger tank. On the steppes of Russia or in North Africa, where ranges are of course much greater owing to the open nature of the terrain, the Tiger has a tactical advantage on the battlefield.



Oh come on mdiehl. There was a LONG multi-page thread where you were the sole defender of the Sherman tank. I have no idea if you ever said in a direct quote that the Sherman was "better" but that sure was the point you were trying to make. Everyone who read that thread would agree with me that that was the conclusion you were trying to sell on everyone.

I bet you still haven't even bought the game. If so, you have no stake at all in how the game models bombs, battleships, or anything else. You are just a troll and I should ignore you but hey, it's a slow day at work.



No offense - but why does the fact that only one person defends a certain stance necessarily make him ( or her ) wrong? I recall the thread you are referring to, and seem to remember mdiehl not requiring much help. If I remember correctly, diehl's entire point was that the Sherman was as good as, if not better than, any MEDIUM tank in the war. I happen to agree, so long as one considers the Mk V Panther a heavy, which in American usage, it would have been. When introduced in 1942, the Sherman was far and away superior to anything in the German inventory, and, with the exception of its propensity to 'brew up' when taking penetrating hits in its fuel tanks ( which problem was eventually solved, if I'm not mistaken ), probably equal or superior to the T-34. By 1943-44, it was outclassed by the Panther and the Tiger, so long as the latter was in a defensive posture - which of course, was the vast majority of the time. However, had there been a little more foresight on the part of a few members of the US Army's ordnance bureau, and more Shermans been upgraded to the Firefly ( with the 17lbr ) configuration, or even the M4a3e8 with the 76.2 gun, there's little doubt in my mind that the Sherman would be considered one of the finer AFVs of the war. There was nothing wrong with the Sherman's basic design - it was well armored, for a medium ( certainly far superior to the German's workhorse, the MKIV ), incredibly reliable, and capable of extensive up-gunning and up-armoring. That the up-gunning did not happen in a reasonable manner is not the fault of the weapon system or its designers. Blame that on the Army.
Sorry for the rambling, just wanted to add a little.

Thanks,
Randy



mdiehl -> RE: US 1000lb GP bomb test (7/29/2004 10:20:38 PM)

Hey, Damien, my apologies for losing my cool earlier.

My answer: The Sherman. If you're an American tanker most of the time you're going to be facing infantry. When you're not, you'll probably be facing an ATG (you're in a tough way if you're the first guy to be shot at by the ATG and it's an 88mm because they're so darned hard to spot), or a Stug (you've got the edge there although they're dangerous), or a PzIV (you've got the edge there as well.. indeed a StuG might be more dangerous to you than a PzIV becuase the StuG is harder to spot). So the M4 is very well equipped with MGs for dealing with German infantry and has a gun that's good for everything except a PzV, atlhough doing a Tiger requires that you be within roughly 500m.

Then there's the logistics. True, the US may have been able to support a Tiger better than the Germans were able to support a Tiger, but that doesn't mean your problems are always solved. Also, if you're driving a "US Tiger Tank" identical to the PzVI in every way, you're still vulnerable to the German 75mm AT, the German 88mm AT, a concealed StuG, or a late model PzIV. Being in "an American Built Tiger Tank" only gives you a greater capability if you are likely to see lots of enemy PzVs.... 'cause then your 88 will handily do for the Panther's frontal armor.

Edit:
Oh yeah, question 2. I'd take an M4A3E8 over a Tiger. 1. I can kill the tiger. 2. My turret traverses faster and I may even know how to use my gyrostablizer so if we spot each other at the same time and neither of us happens to be pointing at each other at the moment I'm going to get the first shot. I've heard it said that being the one to shoot first gives one an real edge. 3. If I shoot n scoot, I don't have to worry much about stalling. 4. I don't have to worry about whether or not my tank will start if I drive it another 20 miles. 5. Me and my friends in the other four M4A3E8s have you surrounded.

My bad luck if you see me first and shoot first, but that threat exists not only with the PzVI but also with the PzV, late PzIVs, late StuGs, and 75mm and larger ATs.



Nikademus -> RE: US 1000lb GP bomb test (7/29/2004 10:25:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Well, if your theory is that owning a book makes one better informed then your theory is wrong. Case in point: you seem to have bought a lot of books and yet remain fundamentally ignorant. Maybe you should read some of them.


Thats not my theory. Thats you saying its my theory. No problem though, as i said, if you wish to not purchase the book and exorcise yourself of the gross errors you've posted here, that is of course your choice. [:)]



Rebel Yell -> RE: US 1000lb GP bomb test (7/29/2004 10:27:08 PM)

DT, you're not taking a number of factors into consideration. For the offensive across Europe in 44, you would absolutely want the M4. Its not just speed, its also the automotive reliability, the distance able to be travelled per unit of fuel, the number of spare parts needed, and last, but not least, weight considerations for bridge crossings. I am a serious WWII AFV grog, and the Tiger was successful in defense and assualt situations, but it was very disadvantaged as an exploitive unit.

In addition, US doctrine did not employ tanks to destroy tanks. Their job was to rout infantry and artillery via exploitation and audacious flanking movements. US TD units were, theoretically, used to deal with the German armor encountered. The greener grass syndrome also applies. many US tankers wanted Tigers/Panthers and many German tankers wanted Shermans.



hithere -> RE: US 1000lb GP bomb test (7/29/2004 10:33:57 PM)

very interesting that in a pacific navy sim game we are talking about tanks in europe!! [:)]
but I do have to say that in many ways the Tiger was better than the Sherman. but i don't agree that they army would have choose the tiger over the sherman. these are my reasons...
1) the US was more that capible of creating a mechanical, armored monster. but most of the combat in europe was infantry. the army needed infanty support armor. they needed fast tanks that could flak the enemy. Speed is not a stratigic concern, it is a tactical concern. While the us army was largly mech, as you said it could not out run the supply lines.

2) There is little anyone can argue about which tank was more powerful and well protected. My grandfather was a Sherman co commander in WW2. while it had many shortcomings, he always said that he loved the Sherman. (even more after they got rid of the 75)



Damien Thorn -> RE: US 1000lb GP bomb test (7/29/2004 10:34:42 PM)

mdiehl, my apologies also for my blatant baiting remarks.

The reason I get worked up so much on this forum sometimes is because of a game called "Star Fleet Battles". It was a fictional board game that was based on Star Trek and really well balanced...untul around 1984-86. The developers listened to the feedback of the players (like 2by3 does). Well, the feedback was really biased in favor of the "Federation" (the "good" guys). It was also influenced, I think, by the resurgance in US patriotism under Regan (a very good thing). Sonn the Federation started having F-14, F-15, and other space fighters (in the Star Trek universe!). Well, balance went way the hell out the window. I guess I just fear the same thing happening here. I'm not blind. I know most people play the US side (or the Aussie side as some people on this forum think it is. [;)] ). I just don't want to see WitP balance influenced (not saying you are trying to do this, just saying it in general). I do want 2by3 to listen to us as far a feature requests and bug fixes, of course.

Back to the tank discussion. I'm more of a naval guy so my experience with tanks is mostly limited to Steel Panthers-type games.

Uh oh. Work just got busy. Have to leave any more discussion for another day. [:(]



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.578125