Close Combat Series :: View topic

through

[^/[Print]\]
Goto page 1, 2 Next :| |:
Close Combat Series -> Close Combat 5: Invasion Normandy

#1: TANK DROUGHT Author: ricwine,

Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2009 9:22 am
—
Hi

Is there a way of gaining or at least maximising tank units to play. The Germans have a dearth of armour, just those useless Marder III :zzz .

Can you recommend any mods or maybe a walkthru to gain as much armour as possible. Tigers and assault SPG needed !.

#2: Author: flick,

Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2009 11:24 am
—
You get panthers if you play on novice. Historically all the americans faced (at first) was PZIV's and SPG's based on the MK IV chassis.

If you want tigers, panthers, spg's, monkeys, ducks, play the Gold Juno sword mods.

#3: Author: Dima,

Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2009 4:57 pm
—

Quote:

Historically all the americans faced (at first) was PZIV's and SPG's based on the MK IV chassis.

no PzIV till PLD counter offensive, altho there were couple of PzIII Wink

.
there were both StuGIII and StuGIV Smile

#4: Author: flick,

Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2009 7:28 pm
—
Is that all? How come the yanks took so long, compared to the brits?

#5: Author: Dima,

Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2009 7:40 pm
—

Quote:

Is that all? How come the yanks took so long, compared to the brits?

yanx had less tanks and overal war gear than the brits till July, plus worse terrain.
when they have massed equipment they could launch Cobra and crush the german defence pretty easily in comparison to the brits Smile

#6: Author: flick,

Posted: Mon Apr 27, 2009 8:12 pm
—
Well,the brits were fighting all those SS panzer divsions and tiger battalions, in what was a deliberate grind down campaign.

Fair play to the US, they had worse terrain to get through.

#7: Author: Dima,

Posted: Tue Apr 28, 2009 7:57 am
—

Quote:

Well,the brits were fighting all those SS panzer divsions and tiger battalions

2.SS-PzD and 17.SS-PzGD were in US sector along with many other AVF formations Smile

#8: Author: southern_land,

Posted: Tue Apr 28, 2009 8:24 am
—
you like tanks. try downloading the RSR mod... you'/ll need Noah to build a tank proof arc LOL

#9: Author: flick,

Posted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:50 am
—

Dima wrote:

Quote:

Well,the brits were fighting all those SS panzer divsions and tiger battalions

2.SS-PzD and 17.SS-PzGD were in US sector along with many other AVF formations Smile

Yes, but not in the same numbers.

#10: Author: Dima,

Posted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:52 am
—

Quote:

Yes, but not in the same numbers.

true, but brits had almost 3 times as many tanx as yanx in June 1944 Smile

#11: Author: flick,

Posted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:58 am
—
That's because they had to fight germans, on more tank friendly conditions.

The plan was agreed upon before D-day, the Uk and canadians hold down the bulk of german armour, while the US takes the port and expands out of the perninsula.

#12: Author: Dima,

Posted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 10:02 am
—

Quote:

That's because they had to fight germans, on more tank friendly conditions.

didn't i tell the same Smile

#13: Author: flick,

Posted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 10:05 am
—
Tank friendly terrain works for the germans as well though.

#14: Author: ricwine,

Posted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:10 pm
—
Thanks for the chit chat. Well not sure where the UK/USA rivalry comes from. The yanks never really produced any brilliant '' equipment. But it worked and was available. Same for the Brits. Both countries were asleep and struggled and eventually won the war of production.

As a matter I read a cracking memoir of a German Panzer driver. He explained that Hitler equipped him with the best available death traps ( especially as the Nazis lost the techonoligical advantage ). Hitler gave them Hearses and they duly drove to theirs and many others deaths !. Food for thought !!.

#15: Author: Dima,

Posted: Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:22 pm
—
As a matter I read a cracking memoir of a German Panzer driver. He explained that Hitler

Quote:

equipped him with the best available death traps ( ). Hitler gave them Hearses and they duly drove to theirs and many others deaths !. Food for thought !!.

could you, please, open it a little bit more - hard to understand what did you or that tanker mean Smile

Quote:

especially as the Nazis lost the techonoligical advantage

that's not true.

#16: Author: ricwine,

Posted: Fri May 01, 2009 11:21 am
—
Thanks Dima

Well if you look at the reality of WW2 era tanks. Metal boxes on wheels. Most offered poor protection from A.P rounds. No fancy climate control or air con. As a matter of fact fire suppression and crew survivability was not generally considered. They were DEATH TRAPS !!.

The panzer driver was origionally a mechanic in a car engine factory. Which became a cover when they switched production to Panzer engines. He was drafted and fought in most theatres thru the war. Of course as the defeated and hated' enemy at the end of the war. There was no understanding of his PTSD and 'sacrifices.

German armour was tactically execellent but from a strateigic viewpoint inferior. By this I mean early - mid war the Panzer II - V rained almost supreme. But was beset by rushed upgrades and poor mechinical reliability and mechanical over complexity. Shermans and T34 were not really inferior in design. They had no fancy extras though ( especially the T34 ). Remember the T34 was really a brilliant mechanical design. But with the origional small turret and lack of finesse appeared worse than compariable designs.

By the late war the allies would go on to produce BETTER tanks - centurion/chaffee/Staliin which worked. The Nazi tanks had lost there edge.

On the 'Hearse' comment. The German panzer driver told the real thoughts of your avergae army blockhead. He drove Tigers which were great tank Vs Tank killers. But against combined and overwhelming forces. Were to little and overwhelmed.

Remember the crew makes a tank a efficient weapon. Aliied crews overcame 'panzer fright' and beat the Nazis at there own Blitzkrieg.

Food for thought.

Thanks

Richard

#17: Author: ricwine,

Posted: Fri May 01, 2009 11:42 am
—
Back again after a short think

In 1940 france had the best armour in the world. Unfortunately with the exception of a few independant brigades was used shockingly in combat. Relegated to infantry support which is the exact opposite of Blitzkrieg philosophy.

The overunning of Europe cost the Germans dearly in casualties and industrial dependancy.

Who did have the best armour and more importantly' - tactics - leadership - skilled crews - industrial backup ?. I dont know really. You could argue the Russians at the spring of 45.

The East Front accounted for 75% of army manpower in 1943. And thats without all there allies . Easily forgotten is the huge manpower and industrail resources from countries such as Romania/Italy/France. With all the slave and forced labour they also had at there disposal'. Millions were brutalised to death for the Nazi war production. To produce 'Hearses'. Never happened in free countreis. There the industrial IQ of a nations people was properly utilised. Rosy the riveter and Betty the air raid warden.

So anyway I will look forward to your reply.

Cheers

#18: Author: Dima,

Posted: Fri May 01, 2009 4:43 pm
—
hi,

Quote:

Well if you look at the reality of WW2 era tanks. Metal boxes on wheels. Most offered poor protection from A.P rounds.

you think alot have changed since then ? Wink

Quote:

No fancy climate control or air con.

hehe

Quote:

As a matter of fact fire suppression and crew survivability was not generally considered

that's not true.

Quote:

They were DEATH TRAPS !!.

same for modern AVF Smile

Quote:

German armour was tactically execellent but from a strateigic viewpoint inferior.

rite on the contrary.

Quote:

But was beset by rushed upgrades and poor mechinical reliability and mechanical over complexity.

Pz I- IV had bad reliabilty and were too complex?!

Quote:

Remember the T34 was really a brilliant mechanical design.

really?

Quote:

By the late war the allies would go on to produce BETTER tanks - centurion/chaffee/Staliin which worked. The Nazi tanks had lost there edge.

why those were better than the german ones?

Quote:

He drove Tigers which were great tank Vs Tank killers. But against combined and overwhelming forces. Were to little and overwhelmed.

Tiger was designed to fight overhelming forces Smile

Quote:

Remember the crew makes a tank a efficient weapon. Aliied crews overcame 'panzer fright' and beat the Nazis at there own Blitzkrieg.

not only crew but the whole system of using tank - doctrine.

Quote:

In 1940 france had the best armour in the world. Unfortunately with the exception of a few independant brigades was used shockingly in combat. Relegated to infantry support which is the exact opposite of Blitzkrieg philosophy

doctrine (check above) was poor = the french didn't have "the best armour in the world".

Quote:

The overunning of Europe cost the Germans dearly in casualties and industrial dependancy.

explain, plz Smile

Quote:

Who did have the best armour and more importantly' - tactics - leadership - skilled crews - industrial backup ?. I dont know really. You could argue the Russians at the spring of 45.

or the americans, or the germans? Smile

#19: Author: 7A_Woulf, Location: Sweden

Posted: Fri May 01, 2009 5:27 pm
—

Quote:

The plan was agreed upon before D-day, the Uk and canadians hold down the bulk of german armour, while the US takes the port and expands out of the perninsula.

Argh!! Now I'm seeing red again! Twisted Evil

This "plan" was a invention by 'Monty' to justify his shortcomings during his command of the Normandy theatre, just as Operation Market Garden was a "90% success" as he said in the aftermath of that fiasco...

If you look into the plans of Operation Overlord, Caen was an objective on D-Day itself and the British paras was to form the left flank of the invasion. There were never a 'plan' to tie down the German forces, it just happened to be so as the bulk of the German forces came from east and arrived at the Commonwealth sector first. : Cool

And yes, as you can guess: -I can't stand that prima donna 'Monty'! He did a good job in North Africa, but from Sicily onwards he lost it in the competition with the Americans!

#20: Author: ricwine,

Posted: Fri May 08, 2009 1:39 pm
—
Here you are

Quote:
Well if you look at the reality of WW2 era tanks. Metal boxes on wheels. Most offered poor protection from A.P rounds.

you think alot have changed since then ?

YES 60+ YEARS OF SCIENTIFIC ADVANCEMENT. ACTUALLY MBT ARE EXPENSIVE AND VUNERABLE TO AIR POWER/URBAN FIGHTING.

As a matter of fact fire suppression and crew survivability was not generally considered

that's not true.

YES IT IS. MIDWAR TANKS ADOPTED SOME BASIC TECHNOLOGY. AMMO WAS GENERALLY UNPROTECTED UNTIL THE 1950/60 ERA.

German armour was tactically execellent but from a strateigic viewpoint inferior.

rite on the contrary.

I DISAGREE. LOOK AT KURSK AND THE BULGE. ALLIED AIRPOWER WREAKED HAVOC ON BLITZKRIEG. AT KURSK HUNDREDS OF GERMAN TANKS KNOCKED OUT BY STORMBIRDS FIGHTER BOMBERS. NAZI DOCTRINE RELIED ON SUPERIOR TRAINING AND LOCAL SUPERIORITY + EXECELLENT COMMUNICATIONS. THEY SLOWLY LOST ALL OF THESE AND THEN THERE INIATIVE

Remember the T34 was really a brilliant mechanical design.

really?

ARE YOU SERIOUS ?. T34 FIGHTING UNTIL 1990S. MORE IMPORTANTLY UPGUNNED AND CHASIS USED FOR OTHER AFVS. A ROLLS ROYCE OF TRACTOR TECHNOLOGY

By the late war the allies would go on to produce BETTER tanks - centurion/chaffee/Staliin which worked. The Nazi tanks had lost there edge.

why those were better than the german ones?

THE STALIN II/III WERE SUPERIOR. EVOLVED FOR 30 YEARS. TH EPHILOSOPHY OF THERE DESIGN. SAME WITH CHAFEE , ALWAY THRU TO M60. GERMANS WERE OF COURSE EXECELLENT, IM NOT SILLY AND DENYING THAT. BUT WERE NOT SUPERWEAPONS !!.

He drove Tigers which were great tank Vs Tank killers. But against combined and overwhelming forces. Were to little and overwhelmed.

Tiger was designed to fight overhelming forces

RUBBISH !. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN. TIGER WAS DESIGNED FOR 88MM GUN. AND OTHER TECHNILOGCAL IMPROVMENTS. REALLY A SUPER HEAVY TANK. THIS PHASED OUT BY THE 50S FOR THE MBT. A MEDIUM HEAVY TANK !.

In 1940 france had the best armour in the world. Unfortunately with the exception of a few independant brigades was used shockingly in combat. Relegated to infantry support which is the exact opposite of Blitzkrieg philosophy

doctrine (check above) was poor = the french didn't have "the best armour in the world".

THEY HAD NUMBERS AND SOME OF THE BEST ARMOURED/GUNNED TANKS. SIMPLE

The overunning of Europe cost the Germans dearly in casualties and industrial dependancy.

explain, plz .

OK THIS IS A BROAD SUBJECT. GERMANS TOOK MASSIVE KIA. STRIPPING GERMANY OF DEFENCES AND FIGHTING ON THREE FRONTS. MASSIVE PROBLEMS WITH EUIPMENT COMMONALITY AND SUPPLY. ETC ETC

Who did have the best armour and more importantly' - tactics - leadership - skilled crews - industrial backup ?. I dont know really. You could argue the Russians at the spring of 45.

or the americans, or the germans?

ANY FURTHER COMMENTS ?

.....................................................................................................

So any war is a logistical one. Especially WW2.

Close Combat Series -> Close Combat 5: Invasion Normandy

output generated using printer-friendly topic mod. All times are GMT

Goto page 1, 2 Next :| |: Page 1 of 2