Welcome to Close Combat Series
  Login or Register Home  ·  Downloads  ·  Forums  ·  Combat Camera  ·  Help  

  Survey
Do incapacitations count as a soldier's kills?

Yes
No



Results
Polls

Votes 1179
Comments: 1

  Shout Box!!

Only registered users can shout. Please login or create an account.

  Main Menu
Articles & News  
    Help
    Player`s News
    Site News
    Multiplayer
    Terrain Challenge
    Boot Camp
Community  
    Forums
    Downloads
    Combat Camera
    MOOXE @ Youtube
    Statistics
Members  
    Private Messages
    Your Account
    Logout

  Donations
Anonymous - $25.00
08/15/2022

Anonymous - $25.00
08/15/2022

Anonymous - $25.00
12/18/2021

Anonymous - $100.00
11/08/2021

Anonymous - $15.00
04/09/2021

Anonymous - $100.00
04/05/2021

Anonymous - $20.00
02/20/2021

Anonymous - $10.00
12/29/2020

Anonymous - $1.00
11/06/2020

ZAPPI4 - $20.00
10/10/2020

Find our site useful? Make a small donation to show your support.



Search for at
Close Combat Series Advanced Search


Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 Author
Message
 
mikwarleo

Rep: 38.5
votes: 2


PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 1:37 am Post subject: Reply with quote

I played a GC once in gjs black devils with elite settings... I've never experienced anything like those king tigers and king jags... I was allies playing against a regular GC partner of mine (MarkusAur for those that might have played him as well). He's a good player but I usually would get the better of him, but it was always very tough going...

With those king-tanks on the elite setting he was truely terrible on the field. But after losing a mass of tanks (15+) in failed attempts to swam his king tiger I finally got it... with a PIAT!

I immobilised it with a piat shot of all things and it wasn't repaired!

Again when hit with someone who has the armour advantage... like I said, use cover... force him to send his infantry in, or bring his tanks into the enclosed spaces where you can ambush and swamp them.

Having played gjs black devils elite I think it favours the Germans too much. I sure know I'd find it very easy with those rolling land fortresses under my command.


Heghemon wrote:
with settings elite - elite at day 13 when panzers division storm the line my friend (ally) was forced back of one territory along all the line of fight.

Without hope to stop panthers that advance with their aufklarers as eyes he decided to flee from campaign : (

i played as german and i have to admit that the game was too isi to play.

Are settings incorrect?
Allied will have more powerful units the next days?


20min games | Replace Commander | Disband Rule | CC5 Strat Guide
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message GameRanger Account
 
Dima

Rep: 87.3
votes: 16


PostPosted: Sun Apr 23, 2006 1:34 am Post subject: Re: great replies Reply with quote

Hi!
Just some comments:).

Deshrex wrote:
I certainly agree with the school of thought that says the Panther was the best medium tank design of the war.

best AT tank:).
In reality Panther was almost incapable of fighting infantry as KwK42 HE shell was v weak. Actually it weighted less than APCBC.
Imo Sherman was better all-around medium tank than Panther.

Quote:
I guess the Panther was able to easily destroy the Sherman in most contests as long they were head-on.

it just needed to hit.

Quote:
and of course the Sherman had only 76 mm frontal armor.

Early Shermans(that were used in Norm in June) had 51mm@56(from vertical) for High FHP that granted some 90-115mm of protection vs WW2 shells. And 51mm for Low FHP that was cast and could be pen. even by 3.7cm.
More to say all Sherman in June had flawed High FHP that drastically reduced protection. So in reality even 5cm L/60 could pen. it.
76mm@30deg(from vert) frontal armor was only for turret. But again it was cast...

Quote:
The 75 mm gun of the Sherman, meanwhile, could only penetrate 74 mm armor at 100 yards (p.189).

with early APC(AP=US designation).
By June 1944 APCBC(APC=US designation) were available. They could pen some 84mm@100m/90deg.

Quote:
I don't have any info on the upgunned 76 mm Sherman.

the first 76mm Shermans were M4A1(w) and were used in Op.Cobra for first time. It was July.

Quote:
Hastings says the Panther had the same 100 mm frontal armor of the Tiger

again not correct.
Panther had 85mm@55deg(from vertical) for High FHP and 65mm@55deg(from vertical) for Low FHP that granted protection of some 140-160mm and 130-150mm respectivly vs WW2 shells.
And only turret had 100mm but had curved shape so shell would have v high chnce to rico.
While Tiger had 102mm minimum in frontal hull and up to 200mm maximum in some parts of turret front.

Quote:
but less side armor, with 45 mm for the one and 80 mm for the other.

Panther D/A had 40mm@40deg for high side hull and 40mm@0 for low side hull.
Panther G had 50mm@30deg for high side hull.
And only turret sides were 45mm@25deg.
While Tiger had 82mm@0 for turret sides and 82mm@20 for high side and 82mm@0 for low die hull.

Quote:
So the basic Sherman has some small hope only if it can get a side or rear shot in on the Panther.

indeed plus it could pen Panther in turret ring.

Quote:
The 17 pdr could penetrate 149 mm armor at 100 yds, 140 mm at 500 yds, 130 mm at 1000 yds.

indeed but vs what angle it was? and what armor quality?
i've read UK reports and it is said there that 17pdr can pen. Panther HFHP at up to 300m with APC shell and at point black with APCBC.
Turret could be pen. at 600m.

Quote:
Another feature of the German tanks that writers mention is the slow turret traverse relative to the Sherman.

Sherman could make full circle in 15sec. Panther G could make it in 19sec, PzIVH slightly slower. Tiger/Panther D could make it in 60sec Very Happy.
Not big difference yeah?Wink
But in reality Panther/PzIV/Tiger had much better chnces to spot Sherman than vice-versa so turret traverse wouldn't matter at all.
Btw due to it's hull square shape Tiger could align hull v fast. Much faster than any other turetted tank:).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
AT_Stalky

Rep: 27.4
votes: 10


PostPosted: Mon Apr 24, 2006 9:58 am Post subject: Reply with quote

Ye

Recommended reading of reports (of 17 pd Sherman’s etc) and such of test fires against different tanks:

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Capsule/2930/pzpanther/pzpanther-Charakteristics.html

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Capsule/2930/documents.htm

ye

Stalky
[/quote]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
 
AT_kampf




PostPosted: Mon Apr 24, 2006 9:22 pm Post subject: Re: great replies Reply with quote

Dima wrote:
Hi!
Just some comments:).

Deshrex wrote:
I certainly agree with the school of thought that says the Panther was the best medium tank design of the war.

best AT tank:).
In reality Panther was almost incapable of fighting infantry as KwK42 HE shell was v weak. Actually it weighted less than APCBC.
Imo Sherman was better all-around medium tank than Panther.

Quote:
I guess the Panther was able to easily destroy the Sherman in most contests as long they were head-on.

it just needed to hit.

Quote:
and of course the Sherman had only 76 mm frontal armor.

Early Shermans(that were used in Norm in June) had 51mm@56(from vertical) for High FHP that granted some 90-115mm of protection vs WW2 shells. And 51mm for Low FHP that was cast and could be pen. even by 3.7cm.
More to say all Sherman in June had flawed High FHP that drastically reduced protection. So in reality even 5cm L/60 could pen. it.
76mm@30deg(from vert) frontal armor was only for turret. But again it was cast...

Quote:
The 75 mm gun of the Sherman, meanwhile, could only penetrate 74 mm armor at 100 yards (p.189).

with early APC(AP=US designation).
By June 1944 APCBC(APC=US designation) were available. They could pen some 84mm@100m/90deg.

Quote:
I don't have any info on the upgunned 76 mm Sherman.

the first 76mm Shermans were M4A1(w) and were used in Op.Cobra for first time. It was July.

Quote:
Hastings says the Panther had the same 100 mm frontal armor of the Tiger

again not correct.
Panther had 85mm@55deg(from vertical) for High FHP and 65mm@55deg(from vertical) for Low FHP that granted protection of some 140-160mm and 130-150mm respectivly vs WW2 shells.
And only turret had 100mm but had curved shape so shell would have v high chnce to rico.
While Tiger had 102mm minimum in frontal hull and up to 200mm maximum in some parts of turret front.

Quote:
but less side armor, with 45 mm for the one and 80 mm for the other.

Panther D/A had 40mm@40deg for high side hull and 40mm@0 for low side hull.
Panther G had 50mm@30deg for high side hull.
And only turret sides were 45mm@25deg.
While Tiger had 82mm@0 for turret sides and 82mm@20 for high side and 82mm@0 for low die hull.

Quote:
So the basic Sherman has some small hope only if it can get a side or rear shot in on the Panther.

indeed plus it could pen Panther in turret ring.

Quote:
The 17 pdr could penetrate 149 mm armor at 100 yds, 140 mm at 500 yds, 130 mm at 1000 yds.

indeed but vs what angle it was? and what armor quality?
i've read UK reports and it is said there that 17pdr can pen. Panther HFHP at up to 300m with APC shell and at point black with APCBC.
Turret could be pen. at 600m.

Quote:
Another feature of the German tanks that writers mention is the slow turret traverse relative to the Sherman.

Sherman could make full circle in 15sec. Panther G could make it in 19sec, PzIVH slightly slower. Tiger/Panther D could make it in 60sec Very Happy.
Not big difference yeah?Wink
But in reality Panther/PzIV/Tiger had much better chnces to spot Sherman than vice-versa so turret traverse wouldn't matter at all.
Btw due to it's hull square shape Tiger could align hull v fast. Much faster than any other turetted tank:).


ive never read such a load of contradictory bollox in all my life
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Dima

Rep: 87.3
votes: 16


PostPosted: Tue Apr 25, 2006 10:34 am Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
ive never read such a load of contradictory bollox in all my life

wow, such an argument!
guess one of the most smartest thing u've ever told.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
AT_kampf




PostPosted: Tue Apr 25, 2006 9:39 pm Post subject: Reply with quote

Dima wrote:
Quote:
ive never read such a load of contradictory bollox in all my life

wow, such an argument!
guess one of the most smartest thing u've ever told.



so your argument resorts to slaging me off ???

no counter argument to your sherman comments ???

ic nothing ( slag kampfe off and back stab him ill make kampfe look stupid)
sorry you are the person that looks stuid and the idiots that belive your data shit belive you ,,
dima quote " "Imo Sherman was better all-around medium tank than Panther. "

lolololololololololololololololololololol

so why did they desiagn pershing???
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
AT_Stalky

Rep: 27.4
votes: 10


PostPosted: Tue Apr 25, 2006 9:52 pm Post subject: hmmm? Reply with quote

Hmm

Quote Dima : “Imo Sherman was better all-around medium tank than Panther.”

US would not have traded there Sherman’s for Panthers if they had that possibility… Ehmm..?


Here is a serious web page:

Here is Excelent reading of cast hull RHP/FHP, and data of all sorts, and how guns and difference tank preforme against each others official data form tests:

Panther facts tests etc:
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Capsule/2930/pzpanther/pzpanther-Charakteristics.html

Loads of facts:
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Capsule/2930/documents.htm

Some Tiger facts:
http://www.alanhamby.com/technical.html

Some Gun data page:
http://www.freeweb.hu/gva/

I must say GJS is the best mod ever, but is it a mod? Really? I alwasy seen GJS as CC6...

I must say Attilla and crew made a mod that sets the standard for the rest of us.

Stalkyy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
 
Dima

Rep: 87.3
votes: 16


PostPosted: Tue Apr 25, 2006 10:22 pm Post subject: Reply with quote

kamf,

Quote:
so your argument resorts to slaging me off ???

interesting how u turn it all upside down.
U quoted my reply fully and told that it is 'contradictory bollox' w/o explaining anything.

Quote:
no counter argument to your sherman comments ???

if u wanted to comment my saying about Sherman, why didn't u quote only it?

Quote:
ic nothing ( slag kampfe off and back stab him ill make kampfe look stupid)
sorry you are the person that looks stuid and the idiots that belive your data shit belive you ,,

once again u turn it upside down. And even more, u insult me w/o showing any argument.

Quote:
dima quote " "Imo Sherman was better all-around medium tank than Panther. "
lolololololololololololololololololololol

now i can c what in my reply u don't like.
1).It is My Opinion. That's why i put IMO.
2).I posted why i think so. Do u have counter arguments?

Quote:
so why did they desiagn pershing???

well they started with M2m.
Why did they design M3m and then M4?

Stalk,

Quote:
US would not have traded there Sherman’s for Panthers if they had that possibility… Ehmm..?

According US doctrine tanx don't fite tanx. Tk Destoryers and ATGs do it.
What other things than excellent gun were much better in Panther than in Sherman?

didn't they have possibility? Do u really think USA couldn't just copy Panther? But as kamf mentioned they preffered Pershing.

Shermans fought long after WW2. What about Panthers?

Quote:
I must say Attilla and crew made a mod that sets the standard for the rest of us.

second that totally.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
AT_kampf




PostPosted: Tue Apr 25, 2006 11:14 pm Post subject: Reply with quote

once again u turn it upside down. And even more, u insult me w/o showing
any argument

kam..
well you've insulted me many times in past so if i done it to "hay" i got 1 back on you


now i can c what in my reply u don't like.
1).It is My Opinion. That's why i put IMO.
2).I posted why i think so. Do u have counter arguments?

kam...
quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panther_tank
rule-of-thumb among Allied tank crews of Sherman-to-Panther ratio necessary for destruction of a single Panther was 5:1

sry not to go into more detail but i think this covers our argument .. you cant beat the truth from the guys that were there in1944
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
AT_Stalky

Rep: 27.4
votes: 10


PostPosted: Tue Apr 25, 2006 11:46 pm Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
US would not have traded there Sherman’s for Panthers if they had that possibility… Ehmm..?

Quote Dima: According US doctrine tanx don't fite tanx. Tk Destoryers and ATGs do it.

Answer, well, why did they up gun the Sherman’s if they was so happy with it in its roll where it had, and to dodging Germans tanks? The 76mm they put in the M4A1, M4A2, and M4A3. And then we have the Fire fly, im rather sure it was not for infantry killing it was changed for. You know at the end of war roughly 50% of the Sherman’s had received 76mm guns, wonder why, as they was so pleased with the 75mm ? ?


Quote Dima: What other things than excellent gun were much better in Panther than in Sherman?

Answer: Well, what about armour, and as u insinuated in your first post, what about the panther’s optics?? And btw, wats the pourpose of a tank except its gun? Isnt that the whole ide with a tank? I meen kill power and protection?
And yes, panther gun is better, panther armoure is better, so maybe i draw wrong conclusion to belive Panther to be better as it is better in the two fundamental causes one even build and use tanks...

Quote Dima: didn't they have possibility? Do u really think USA couldn't just copy Panther?
Answer, and when would the US -Panther copy work be ready? In 1946? And why would they copy Panther, US had Perching in the pipelines dint they?
And talk of copy, what about armour, why dint they copy the excellent steel alloys and treatment of armour? Well, US did “in a way” dint them? Have you seen a later (1944) Sherman and studied what they changed?


Quote Dima: But as kamf mentioned they preffered Pershing.
Answer: Ofcose, who wouldn’t? So exactly what are you saying here?

Quote Dima: Shermans fought long after WW2. What about Panthers?
Answer; Ehh? Well, how many Panthers were there after WW2? And how many Sherman’s? Ehmmm, do you think that because Sherman’s fought after WW2 they were better? Ohh, ic.

Well, this is just my humble analys.

Stalk


Last edited by AT_Stalky on Tue Apr 25, 2006 11:55 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
 
Dima

Rep: 87.3
votes: 16


PostPosted: Tue Apr 25, 2006 11:51 pm Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
rule-of-thumb among Allied tank crews of Sherman-to-Panther ratio necessary for destruction of a single Panther was 5:1

once again, Sherman(75)'s main role was to fite soft targets. It did it v good. While was able to deal with most tanx of the enemy at real distances of combat.
Now say what was the chnce for Sherman to meet Panther/Tiger? V low in comparison to chnce of meeting enemy infanty,ATGs or AVFs it could deal with.

Panther was meant to be 'AT Tank'. So it was amust that it should win any other tank. In fighting soft targets it was not good.
But in such role (Anti-tank) JPIV, StuG40, etc were v good as well and costed much less.

According this logic('5:1 ratio'), do u think that 1 Panther crew will engage if it c 4 Shermans?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
ANZAC_Lord4war

Rep: 3.5


PostPosted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 2:31 am Post subject: mmm Reply with quote

main reason shermans went on the m4a1 to m4a2 so on route
coz it was financially cheaper to add the upgrades part at a time,also they were in a serious learning curve.
compare their tanks of 4 to 5 years earlier.
this way a upgrade could be added on the production lines without significantly changing too much.
the most important thing at the time was to keep producing them
as they knew germany couldnt!
im sure every sherman crew wished they were in a panther or a pershing instead.


Forget words,actions will show your true ambitions!The Battlefield,In many cases, the terrain of a battlefield can be the best resource a commander has. A clump of trees, an abandoned house, or a drainage ditch can all be powerful tools in the right hands
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
 
mooxe

Rep: 221.1
votes: 25


PostPosted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 2:52 am Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Shermans fought long after WW2. What about Panthers?


Dima my guess is that the Panthers were all destroyed, and the same with the factories that made them. So this would mean no spare parts, nobody ready to train new crews etc etc....

Quote:
US would not have traded there Sherman’s for Panthers if they had that possibility


If was possible to get a larger tank with better everything who wouldnt?


Join Discord for technical support and online games.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
 
AT_kampf




PostPosted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 3:32 am Post subject: Reply with quote

mooxe wrote:
Quote:
Shermans fought long after WW2. What about Panthers?


Dima my guess is that the Panthers were all destroyed, and the same with the factories that made them. So this would mean no spare parts, nobody ready to train new crews etc etc....

Quote:
US would not have traded there Sherman’s for Panthers if they had that possibility


If was possible to get a larger tank with better everything who wouldnt?


After 1945, fifty Panther tanks had been used by French 503e Régiment de Chars de Combat stationed in Mourmelon le Grand. Before the end of 1950, the Panther tanks had been replaced by French-built ARL-44 heavy tanks.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
AT_kampf




PostPosted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 3:35 am Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="Dima"]
Quote:
According this logic('5:1 ratio'), do u think that 1 Panther crew will engage if it c 4 Shermans?




i belive your lerning Rolling Eyes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
AT_Stalky

Rep: 27.4
votes: 10


PostPosted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 8:25 am Post subject: Ahha... Reply with quote

Quote Dima: once again, Sherman(75)'s main role was to fite soft targets. It did it v good. While was able to deal with most tanx of the enemy at real distances of combat.

Answer, well, how come Dima, in the end of war some 50% of the Sherman’s was equipped with 76mm guns as the 76mm was really not good for HE Shells? They started this conversion in early – mid and fall of 1944. If the Sharman’s WAS NOT to be able to encounter enemy tanks why would one change this? Why remove the 75 mm with its HE abilities and replace with a basically AP fire gun. It don’t makes no sense for an infantry support tank to not be able to fire HE does it? ? ? ??? ?? ?
To me it’s obvious…


Quote Dima: Panther was meant to be 'AT Tank'. So it was amust that it should win any other tank. In fighting soft targets it was not good.
Answer: ??? Not good? How can that be? A Stug 75mm L/24 and the early IV tanks had 75mm L/24 and they were used as infantry support tanks, used mainly for HE at that time. And they all had same weight of their HE shell as the panther,.. The 75mm L/24 use the HE 34 model, and it was same weight, but less powerful, compared to the Panther who had the “60/40” -42 shell. So Panthers must have been an improvment? ! ?
As an example a 8cm mort shell weights some 3.5 – 4,5 kg..

Quote Dima: But in such role (Anti-tank) JPIV, StuG40, etc were v good as well and costed much less.
Answer, ehhh, well, the military analysis during and after ww2 doesn’t really seems to agree with you that a turret less tank destroyer is “v good” ... I would say its “ok”, but not good, and serenely not "v good"… It was a budget solution in a stressed time. And after WW2 nearly all tank designs was favoured turrets, so I guess they don’t agree with you, and nor do I.
A turret has so much advantages compared to a “fixed” or semi fixed gun. A turret less tank is in huge disadvantage in a close and in moving situation.

My much humble analyze, done in 10 min so sorry if my Englich is bad...

Slacky
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
 
Dima

Rep: 87.3
votes: 16


PostPosted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 9:48 am Post subject: Reply with quote

stalk,

Quote:
Answer, well, why did they up gun the Sherman’s if they was so happy with it in its roll where it had, and to dodging Germans tanks?

mainly to increase range of direct shot.

Quote:
The 76mm they put in the M4A1, M4A2, and M4A3.

1)Long before they met first Panther.
2)They began to fit Shermans with 105mm pretty same time to compensate weakness of 76mm HE shell.

Quote:
And then we have the Fire fly, im rather sure it was not for infantry killing it was changed for.

indeed. Specialized 'Tank Killer'. According UK doctrine tanx main targets were tanx. But still there were CS tanx.
Why do u think yanks refused to use C-versions?

Quote:
You know at the end of war roughly 50% of the Sherman’s had received 76mm guns, wonder why, as they was so pleased with the 75mm ? ?

They produced less than 8000 76mm Shermans for USArmy. While in same time they produced ~5000 of Shermans(105mm) and ~11500 of late Shermans(75).
Why do u think they didn't stop production of 75mm versions?

Try this book:
"US Army Tank Crewman 1941-45: European Theater of Operations 1944-45"/S.Zaloga/Osprey 2002.

some v interesting things there. One of them that noone wanted to chnge Sherman 75 on Sherman 76 as it put them in disadvantage against infantry and ATGs that were the most common enemies.

Quote:
Answer: Well, what about armour, and as u insinuated in your first post, what about the panther’s optics??

Late Shermans recieved 64mm@47(from vert) that granted average protection against most common AT Weapons german had(Kwk42 was not common in comparison to pak40 and varients) at real distances of combat.
Sherman had good optics for it's gun. Take into account that unlike Panther it wasn't meant to fire at 1500m.

Quote:
And btw, wats the pourpose of a tank except its gun? Isnt that the whole ide with a tank?

U misses tank with tk destroyer.

Quote:
I meen kill power and protection?

Tank as a system, depends on mobility, gun, protection, crew, tactics.
1)Sherman had good mobility.
2)Sherman's gun was good for the task it's main tasks.
3)Sherman's protection was adeqvate.
4)US crews were mostly in good level of training.
5)germans tank tactics was more advanced.

Quote:
Panther to be better as it is better in the two fundamental causes one even build and use tanks...

Panther was good medium tank for germans.
Sherman was good medium tank for allies.

They were meant for diferent purposes. I really doubt that allies could reach Germany if they had Panthers instead of Shermans.

Quote:
Answer, and when would the US -Panther copy work be ready? In 1946?

at least in March 1945 Pershing wasn't in serie.

Quote:
And talk of copy, what about armour, why dint they copy the excellent steel alloys and treatment of armour? Well, US did “in a way” dint them?

interesting...r u saying US copied german way of producing armour?

Quote:
Have you seen a later (1944) Sherman and studied what they changed?

late Shermans entered production since fall of 1943 when US found the way of producing single piece armor plates for FHP.

Quote:
Answer; Ehh? Well, how many Panthers were there after WW2?

sev hundreds.

Quote:
Ehmmm, do you think that because Sherman’s fought after WW2 they were better?

well PzIV were used long after WW2 although not many of them survived after the war as well.

Quote:
Well, this is just my humble analys.

good.
At last we can have good discussion w/o emotional background Wink.

Lord4War,

Quote:
main reason shermans went on the m4a1 to m4a2 so on route
coz it was financially cheaper to add the upgrades part at a time,also they were in a serious learning curve.

not really.
Most of models entered production pretty same time. Mostly depended on factory.

Quote:
im sure every sherman crew wished they were in a panther or a pershing instead.

well actually KwK42 would pen. both Panther and Pershing at 600-800m.

mooxe,

Quote:
Dima my guess is that the Panthers were all destroyed, and the same with the factories that made them. So this would mean no spare parts, nobody ready to train new crews etc etc....

yes pretty much like this with spare parts, etc.
But as i told PzIV was in longer service.
Btw after WW2 Panthers were in service in Hungary,Czechoslovakia(~70) and France(50).

Quote:
If was possible to get a larger tank with better everything who wouldnt?

yanks had M4A1(76) by June 1944. But they didn't use them by July 1944.

kamf,

Quote:
i belive your lerning

do u mean by that that u think lone Panther would engage 4 Shermans?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
AT_Stalky

Rep: 27.4
votes: 10


PostPosted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 11:23 am Post subject: Ok Reply with quote

Quote Dima:
Quote:
Answer, well, why did they up gun the Sherman’s if they was so happy with it in its roll where it had, and to dodging Germans tanks?

Dima: mainly to increase range of direct shot.


Answer: Well, what are you saying here exactly? “range” is that the purpose? Well it comes with grater velocity and hit power… Range? Is that you way to analyze the cause to swoop from 75mm to 76mm? And loose the HE shell as well? What propose does a AP gun not be able to use HE be in infantry support`? Range? Is that your analyze why they removed the HE ability to an infantry support tank? Or can it be the US wanted some AT ability to there Sherman’s?


Quote Dima:

Quote:
The 76mm they put in the M4A1, M4A2, and M4A3.

Dima: 1)Long before they met first Panther.
Dima: 2)They began to fit Shermans with 105mm pretty same time to compensate weakness of 76mm HE shell.


Answer 1: So you are saying the US didn’t have a clew the Panther was in Germans troops when they landed in Normandy? Are you saying they dint have reports from Russia for example what they was up against (or nearly as bad experiances with the Tigers?) ? It fell to UK / US hands you know in africa.
Do you really believe US dint know there Sherman’s 75mm guns was not up to meet Panthers and Tigers?
Answer 2: Ohh, so they did, and what was the 76mm then produced and fitted for, as they made the 105 for compensate for the bad HE in 76mm? What do you believe the 76mm was to be used for? For farm work in the filed, maybe? Or Killing infantry with AP rounds at "range"... ? Ehh?


Quote Dima:
some v interesting things there. One of them that noone wanted to chnge Sherman 75 on Sherman 76 as it put them in disadvantage against infantry and ATGs that were the most common enemies.


Answer: well I take your word for it, but read what you just written, “One of them that noone wanted to chnge Sherman 75”, yes, ONE YOU SAY dint want to change the 75mm… That’s an exception… Atleast to me, for the 75mm was changed was it not...


Quote Dima:
Late Shermans recieved 64mm@47(from vert) that granted average protection against most common AT Weapons german had(Kwk42 was not common in comparison to pak40 and varients) at real distances of combat.
Sherman had good optics for it's gun. Take into account that unlike Panther it wasn't meant to fire at 1500m.

Answer 1: Ehh, a Pak 40 can kill a Sherman…
Answer 2: You say “Take into account that unlike Panther it wasn't meant to fire at 1500m.” Well, 90 to 95 % of battle in Europe between tank vs tank was WITHIN 1000 meters.


Quote Dima:

Quote:
I meen kill power and protection?

Dima: Tank as a system, depends on mobility, gun, protection, crew, tactics.
1)Sherman had good mobility.
2)Sherman's gun was good for the task it's main tasks.
3)Sherman's protection was adeqvate.
4)US crews were mostly in good level of training.
5)germans tank tactics was more advanced.

Answer, ahhh, well, again I say Fire Power and Protection is what its about, but ofcose other things make up a tank, it’s a chain and links have to be somewhat “ok” in general, obvious really to most ppl, goes for verything in life, imo..
But it don’t matter how god them other thing is if you don’t have “firepower and protection”, set Michael Withman in a PzI and I bet any rocky Sherman or Stuart crew would beat him 99 times of 100… Pretty obvious to me…


Quote Dima:

Quote:
Answer, and when would the US -Panther copy work be ready? In 1946?

Dima: at least in March 1945 Pershing wasn't in serie.

Answer: What are you saying here, what does that have to do with anything? ? Can you explain plz?
So you say they should have scraped the Pershing project and tool making preparations and build a copy of a less good tank, a “US –Panther” ?? Why would the US scrap a better construction and build a less good tank? You aren’t making any sense to me…
(( And its not be in production is not really fully right either, but it dont matter, ofcose.
From "http://www.tarrif.net/" Although not standardized until March 1945, Pershings had been sent to the European Theater of Operations as T26E3s with the Zebra Mission in January 1945..))
There are even some really nice film form Pershing fighting a Panther in Köln. And guess who won?
See movie here: http://youtube.com/watch?v=nsYWNjJN_V0


Quote Dima:

Quote:
Answer; Ehh? Well, how many Panthers were there after WW2?

Dima: sev hundreds.

Answer: So? And how many Sherman’s was there? Cant you see the huge difference.. Or do you think its no major difference in them figures? I take your word it was 200, but ehmmm maybe you can look at Shermans numbers…

Quote Dima:

Quote:
Ehmmm, do you think that because Sherman’s fought after WW2 they were better?
Dima: well PzIV were used long after WW2 although not many of them survived after the war as well.

Answer: What exactly are you say here? That the IV is there for a better tank then the Panther? Is that the conclusions you draw?


Quote Dima:

Quote:
Well, this is just my humble analys.

Dima: good.
At last we can have good discussion w/o emotional background

Answer: Well, you say Sherman’s is an overall better tank than the Panther, may I disagree with you? Maybe we can see each other arguments, and maybe one of us may come to change there minds.
Or it’s all ok with me that we agree to disagree. Maybe that’s the simplest way…

Stalky

Well, I rest my case... Lets get a beer isntead..
[/b]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
 
ANZAC_Lord4war

Rep: 3.5


PostPosted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 12:50 pm Post subject: mmm Reply with quote

Double post


Forget words,actions will show your true ambitions!The Battlefield,In many cases, the terrain of a battlefield can be the best resource a commander has. A clump of trees, an abandoned house, or a drainage ditch can all be powerful tools in the right hands


Last edited by ANZAC_Lord4war on Wed Apr 26, 2006 2:10 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
 
ANZAC_Lord4war

Rep: 3.5


PostPosted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 1:22 pm Post subject: Re: mmm Reply with quote

i pulled figures for production of M4 Sherman
M4 75mm were in production for nearly 2 years before 76mm & 105mm
Total War time production
75mm 33403
76mm 10883
105mm 4680

Now for 1944 production figures
75mm 3504
76mm 7135
105mm 2286

now for 1945 production figures
75mm 651
76mm 3748
105mm 2394

seems the 76mm was gun of choice
of them 33403 75mm shermans
29248 of them were made before the 76mm gun came into production.

also M26 production
for 1944 was 40 Pershings
1945 was 2162 Pershings

ANZAC_Lord4war wrote:
Quote:
im sure every sherman crew wished they were in a panther or a pershing instead.


Dima wrote:
well actually KwK42 would pen. both Panther and Pershing at 600-800m.


what range would it do a sherman at?


Forget words,actions will show your true ambitions!The Battlefield,In many cases, the terrain of a battlefield can be the best resource a commander has. A clump of trees, an abandoned house, or a drainage ditch can all be powerful tools in the right hands
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
 
 
Post new topicReply to topic printer-friendly view Close Combat Series Forum Index -> CC5 Gold, Juno, Sword
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next


 
   
 


Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum




Forums ©





In August of 2004, Zappi, Homba, Bambam887, RedScorpion and MOOXE all pitched
in to create this Close Combat site. I would to thank all the people who have visited and
found this site to thier liking. I hope you had time to check out some of the great Close Combat
mods and our forums. I'd also like to thank all the members of our volunteer staff that have
helped over the years, and all our users that contributed to this site!