US 1000lb GP bomb test

[Nikademus]

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.

Talking theory is cheap.

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

[mdiehl]

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]

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]

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]

ORIGINAL: Damien Thorn

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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. [:(]

[Arnir]

Okay, so does all this mean that we now have to test the US 1000lb GP bomb against Tigers, Panthers and Shermans. And if the animals and/or general is not available, we have to bomb the respective tanks instead?

I have to give the WWII German war machine credit for one thing, it pokes its head into places that it never went. What would have happened on Okinawa if the Japanese had the new German Panzerkampfhampsterwagon Mk. VIIaR? Etc.[:)]

[mdiehl]

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.

I've made no gross errors. Yamato. She sure was Japanese. In your world view I guess that makes her, in theory, unsinkable. And of course, since in theory she was unsinkable, rumours of her sinking must be mere propaganda.

[Bradley7735]

Wow. This thread is awesome. I just love to listen to you guys who know massive amounts of detail, but still disagree. It's one of the best things about this forum.

Anyway, I have a suggestion. I don't know much about the US 1000lb bomb, or the armor of the Yamato, but....

I think we can all agree that even non armor piercing bombs still cause fires. And that fires will cause more sys damage. Someone even said that a ship can burn to 99 sys damage from fire, but won't sink. There's the problem. How many ships sank from exploding fires? (Taiho was one for sure)

How about one of the future patches code that there is a small chance that large fires will cause the critical hit massive explosion thing. That means that ships that have massive fires can sink from them. This would definitely simulate the Yamato sinking from the bomb that might have set off it's secondary magazine explosion. (not sure if I got that right)

Anyway, that's my 2 cents.

bc

[mdiehl]

As I understand it, Nik's claim is that no fire caused by a non-penetrating-the-main-deck-armor hit could have threatened Yamato's main magazines. Hence no big explosion and no sinking could be caused by an uncontrolled fire unless that fire was started within the citidel by a penetrating bomb or shell hit. If you believe him, then there's no need for a critical hit effect.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

I've made no gross errors. Yamato. She sure was Japanese. In your world view I guess that makes her, in theory, unsinkable. And of course, since in theory she was unsinkable, rumours of her sinking must be mere propaganda.

Yeah, you have...7 times running now. I also dont recall ever saying the Yamato was invincible. Pehaps you could quote the section in this thread where i have? All i recall saying was to reitterate my recommendation that you read G&D as it contains the most detailed account of Yamato's damage.

[SunDevil_MatrixForum]

Ok, here is the book that will finally end this discussion. [8|]

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de ... ce&s=books

I couldn't find the book that Nik recommended on Amazon, so this one should do. [:D]

[Nikademus]

LOL.....good one SD.

[;)]

[MadDawg]

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. rumours of "scuttling") was just the orchestra playing an encore as the curtains came down.

And I submit you take a chill pill before you have some kind of seizure [;)]. Seriously though, my point was that a single bomb itself would have been very unlikely to hurt here, I was not referring to any fire that man have been caused by said bomb.

Dawg

[barbarrossa]

Not THIS again!!!![:D]

[mdiehl]

And I submit you take a chill pill before you have some kind of seizure. Seriously though, my point was that a single bomb itself would have been very unlikely to hurt here, I was not referring to any fire that man have been caused by said bomb.

Sorry about the snarkiness. But I think that's the point. The bomb causes the fire. The fire sinks the ship, eventually, within a few hours.

And even non-penetrating hits on Yamato caused flooding that required counterflooding.