198 replies to this topic

[phelancracken]

Gameguy,

your so full of yourself it's not funny. You lost the arguement not understanding that firepower, armour, and mobility are the triads of tank design. You said the P3 was the best tank the Germans had and I corrected you and you got mad. Buck up and realize you are dealing with some history buffs too. History isn't always in a video game. In fact, that's the last place to get it. It may be right, but lot of the time, it's not. I never ignored mobility. You assumed I did. But in an open range, the German tanks ate Shermans for lunch.

As for street fighting, do you understand barrel lengths? I can tell your either a kid or completely clueless. German tanks got their superiour armour penentration by longer gun barrels. Remember, i said 7.5cm guns. That's 75mm same as the Sherman tank before it got the 76mm. The street fighting is the LAST place a tank wants to be. Infantry rules in cities. Any tanker who has run a tank will tell you that. Not to mention in narrow streets turrets can't traverse completely backwards if the width narrower than the swing of the barrel.

Another thing, in warfare, it's called morale. If your enemy is demoralized before they see the enemy or can effectively hurt them while taking casualties, they will back off. You win without taking losses. That's the biggest effect of the Tiger tanks. The OH **** factor. Nobody wanted to be the cannon fodder distracting the Tiger or Panther to get it killed. But those brave men did.

Now, as for the A-10, can it take fire and do it's job at low level? yes. Can the F-22 do it? Not so well. It don't have the tools for the job. Either compare apples to apples or don't bother. Tanks and airplanes have completely different roles in the same job, which is to defeat the enemy. BTW, again, airpower won the day for the Americans. Also, tactics, the germans were forced to try to go through choke points. Bastogne anyone? The Germans had to capture that city due to terrain forcing them to go there. If the weather had held and stayed cloudy, the 101st might not have been able to hold on. They got resupplied by air and then our fighter bombers came in and wrecked the german armour. Was that a good offensive? I won't agree it was, but I wasn't there, and hindsight is 20/20.

Also, Patton's 3rd Army had heck trying to break through to Bastogne. They had to go through the same check points and by that time, the supposed cream of the German crop was a bit watered down from attrition by warfare.

[phelancracken]

gamesguy, on 16 June 2012 - 11:24 PM, said:

UACs do twice the damage of ACs. The only UAC IS has access to in this time period is the UAC-5.



Where did the Germans "slaughter American tanks"?

If airpower was the reason, why did the Germans lose so badly at Arracourt, the second largest tank battle in WWII? The Americans had no air cover till the closing stages of that battle(when the Germans were already in full retreat).



Yes, and at Ardennes our tanks slaughtered German tanks. You do understand that the Germans attacked a couple of infantry divisions with very minimal armor support right? You do understand that for most of the battle the Germans heavily outnumbered the Americans, and yet still couldn't breakthrough. The legend of the 506th PIR was established there. You ever heard of the 705 TD battalion? They had a whole four M18 Hellcats yet they attacked an entire panzer division head on and won. They suffered no casaulties and destroyed 20+ tanks despite their paper thin armor that could be penetrated by a WW1 AT rifle.

Oh and when the American tanks did arrive in bulk(after driving nonstop for 100 miles which no German tank could attempt), they simply swept away the Germans.



No it doesn't. If you were in a non-japanese cruiser/DD you had a choice of either doing AA work or be worthless cannon fodder.



What the **** are you rambling about? There is no multiplayer SW video game where you controlled star destroyers. The **** are you talking about?



Still waiting for you to name a retail MP video game where one side has to make up for weaker forces with superior numbers and each unit was controlled by a different player.




Anyways I wouldn't worry too much about it. The devs have shown they are willing to put gameplay above fluff and have already altered the stats of several weapons, I expect them to do the same to clan tech.

You want a place where German tanks slaughter American tanks? Kesselring pass. Africa. Yep they did. First of many places. How about all up Italy?


Aww, so the Ultra 20s were not available. You do know to stay away from a mech that has a class 20 AC right? Simple counter don't rush that mech. Act as it's a 12 hex bubble until it uses up it's ammo. Okay, so clans should complain that IS gets RACs and they don't? Same logic. Ultra tech get evened out with a little time. roughly 10 game years. And do you know that in Ultra mode you don't always hit with both shells?

As for a multiplayer game with your specs. Try Star Wars. Yes, there is a multiplayer Called Star Wars Galaxies. Or gasp, NAVYFIELD.
As for sweeping away the Germans, when your out of fuel you can't move. you become a mobile pillbox. By that time the Germans were running out of fuel. Logistics will bite someone in the posterior everytime if you don't have that nailed down.

So why were you in the BB rooms? Being dumb? There were the max 60 level rooms that were much more DD friendly. I have to laugh, and you probably ran in front of Kitas and raged when they launched torps that you ran in front of which sunk your sorry behind. I have seen that soo many times. You never run in front of kitas. Those ships launch soo many torps at close range you can't get away.

Shakes head. If the Germans had local air superiority how easy would it have been for the allies? Much harder. Logistics and air supremacy were major keys in allied victory. I know, I am a WW2 buff.

Gameguy, The Germans attacked with less than full tanks of fuel. When tanks have to be abandoned for lack of fuel, you loose attacking power. It was an attack ordered by Hitler. Oh, trying to say that the Sherman was the best tank, no, it's was the most available tank that was reliable. Germans made things too complex in general. That's was part of what they did. I would argue that the T-34 was better than the Sherman.

Edited by phelancracken, 16 June 2012 - 11:53 PM.

[gamesguy]

phelancracken, on 16 June 2012 - 11:29 PM, said:

Gameguy,

your so full of yourself it's not funny.

You're so dumb it's not even funny making fun of you anymore.

Quote

You lost the arguement not understanding that firepower, armour, and mobility are the triads of tank design. You said the P3 was the best tank the Germans had and I corrected you and you got mad.

Nowhere did I say the P3 was the best German tank, learn to read.

Quote

Buck up and realize you are dealing with some history buffs too. History isn't always in a video game. In fact, that's the last place to get it. It may be right, but lot of the time, it's not. I never ignored mobility. You assumed I did. But in an open range, the German tanks ate Shermans for lunch.

You're no history buff, your knowledge of WW2 appears to come from the history channel.

Oh and in the open range, German tanks LOST to American tanks. Target acquisition speed, learn these words. Do you know where the Germans did the best? In close quarters fights with no way to flank such as the Italian alps. Tigers slaughtered Shermans there.

Quote

As for street fighting, do you understand barrel lengths? I can tell your either a kid or completely clueless. German tanks got their superiour armour penentration by longer gun barrels. Remember, i said 7.5cm guns. That's 75mm same as the Sherman tank before it got the 76mm. The street fighting is the LAST place a tank wants to be. Infantry rules in cities. Any tanker who has run a tank will tell you that. Not to mention in narrow streets turrets can't traverse completely backwards if the width narrower than the swing of the barrel.

Are you retarded or something? You do realize that tanks did fight in close quarters and in streets right? Nobody said it was preferable, just that it was done.

Quote

Another thing, in warfare, it's called morale. If your enemy is demoralized before they see the enemy or can effectively hurt them while taking casualties, they will back off. You win without taking losses. That's the biggest effect of the Tiger tanks. The OH **** factor. Nobody wanted to be the cannon fodder distracting the Tiger or Panther to get it killed. But those brave men did.

Nonsense, average numerical advantage for Sherman vs Panther engagements was only 1.2:1, yet the shermans won more often than not.

Quote

Now, as for the A-10, can it take fire and do it's job at low level? yes. Can the F-22 do it? Not so well. It don't have the tools for the job. Either compare apples to apples or don't bother. Tanks and airplanes have completely different roles in the same job, which is to defeat the enemy. BTW, again, airpower won the day for the Americans. Also, tactics, the germans were forced to try to go through choke points. Bastogne anyone? The Germans had to capture that city due to terrain forcing them to go there. If the weather had held and stayed cloudy, the 101st might not have been able to hold on. They got resupplied by air and then our fighter bombers came in and wrecked the german armour. Was that a good offensive? I won't agree it was, but I wasn't there, and hindsight is 20/20.

We're talking about technical superiority, not role warfare. You can't just look at gun size and armor and ignore the rest.

Quote

Also, Patton's 3rd Army had heck trying to break through to Bastogne. They had to go through the same check points and by that time, the supposed cream of the German crop was a bit watered down from attrition by warfare.

What version of history were you reading? Patton's third army broke through to Bastogne extremely rapidly given the circumstances and the Americans retook it within 2 weeks.

[CanAm]

gamesguy, on 16 June 2012 - 11:12 PM, said:

You should tell that to Blizzard, who retcons at the drop of a hat. Last I checked the Warcraft and Starcraft series are still absurdly popular.

By this logic North Korea should have the more powerful army in the world.

Blizzard has lost a HUGE amount of players due to retconning.

North Korea is nowhere near analogous for the Clans. North Korea doesn't put money into R&D for military tech. North Korea doesn't have the resources for a powerful army. North Korea's army is, at best, only good for saber rattling to their own population.

gamesguy, on 16 June 2012 - 11:00 PM, said:

The Battle of the Bulge conclusively demonstrated the superiority of American tanks over German ones.


And why in the **** are all the crappy German stuff is being ignored? Having 1 F-22 and 100 F-4s doesn't mean your airforce is superior to someone with 100 F-15s.

Americans had greater numbers of Shermans and superior airpower at that point of the war. Why was it that SOP for Shermans versus a Tiger required four Shermans for every one Tiger?

Also, 1 F-22 is vaguely equivalent to a huge number of F-15s, including the newer Strike Eagles. In some recent war-games, the F-22 squadron had a Kill/Death of about 241-2. The two deaths were both F-15s.

Aaron DeChavilier, on 16 June 2012 - 10:27 PM, said:

can you back that up with a few examples? that sounds rather broad.

SWTOR, Star Wars itself, DC comics (having to reboot now because they ****** everything up via retcon), etc.



It's amazing how jingoistic some of you people are, but I've come to expect it from the Something Awful crowd.

Edited by CanAm, 17 June 2012 - 12:33 AM.

[gamesguy]

phelancracken, on 16 June 2012 - 11:47 PM, said:

You want a place where German tanks slaughter American tanks? Kesselring pass.

You mean narrow mountain passes where the tiger was finally put to good use? Yes I already said that German tanks were really good in the Italian alps because they couldn't be flanked and the enemy could only come down a narrow pass. Too bad 95% of the world isn't mountain passes, and thus the tiger was still a crappy tank.

Quote

Africa. Yep they did. First of many places. How about all up Italy?

Yes Rommel's finest against green American troops with no combat experience, gee I wonder why they won there. Also I'm not aware of any major tank engagements between American and German armor in Africa.

I already said Italy, please learn to read.

Quote

Aww, so the Ultra 20s were not available. You do know to stay away from a mech that has a class 20 AC right? Simple counter don't rush that mech. Act as it's a 12 hex bubble until it uses up it's ammo. Okay, so clans should complain that IS gets RACs and they don't? Same logic. Ultra tech get evened out with a little time. roughly 10 game years. And do you know that in Ultra mode you don't always hit with both shells?

Nice backpedal, you've shot yourself in the foot because UACs do indeed do twice the damage of ACs.

This is absolute nonsense. By that logic a gun that does 5000000 damage at 180m range is balanced in your eyes because you can "just stay out of range". I guess AC20s are never used ever because everyone just stays out of range right?

RACs won't ever be in this game. 1 game year=1 real life year, which means realistically nothing past 3055. Unless you really think this game is going to last 10 years.

Quote

As for a multiplayer game with your specs. Try Star Wars. Yes, there is a multiplayer Called Star Wars Galaxies. Or gasp, NAVYFIELD.
As for sweeping away the Germans, when your out of fuel you can't move. you become a mobile pillbox. By that time the Germans were running out of fuel. Logistics will bite someone in the posterior everytime if you don't have that nailed down.

In Star Wars galaxies you didn't play as an ISD, you played a character, what crack are you smoking? How is SWG remotely relevant to this topic?

You mean navyfield? The terrible game where most destroyers and cruisers were completely worthless outside of AA roles? Only the Japanese ones had a use due to their torpedo spam. When subs were introduced the battleship players whined like crazy because they actually needed DD escorts instead of ramboing it up all by themselves.

Quote

So why were you in the BB rooms? Being dumb? There were the max 60 level rooms that were much more DD friendly. I have to laugh, and you probably ran in front of Kitas and raged when they launched torps that you ran in front of which sunk your sorry behind. I have seen that soo many times. You never run in front of kitas. Those ships launch soo many torps at close range you can't get away.

I was in BB rooms because I was in a BB? I had a Vanguard. There were DD/CL rooms yes, but even there the higher tier ships just rapestomped the lower tier ones, though torpedos evened it up a bit.

Oh look, it's yet another accusation of "raging". Kitas only killed people who weren't paying attention, did you even play navyfield? My range was so retardedly long and my alpha so strong no destroyer or cruiser could get within gun or torpedo range before being one volleyed. In your standard GB only the higher tier BBs and the CVs were useful(and the odd AA ship) until subs were introduced.

Quote

Shakes head. If the Germans had local air superiority how easy would it have been for the allies? Much harder. Logistics and air supremacy were major keys in allied victory. I know, I am a WW2 buff.

No **** sherlock, but I'm using specific examples such as Arracourt where American armor had no air cover and still kicked German *****. It's hilarious how hard you're dodging this fact. Explain how the Germans with their shiny new panthers and numerical superiority lost so badly to 75mm Shermans and stuart light tanks at Arracourt.

Quote

Gameguy, The Germans attacked with less than full tanks of fuel. When tanks have to be abandoned for lack of fuel, you loose attacking power. It was an attack ordered by Hitler. Oh, trying to say that the Sherman was the best tank, no, it's was the most available tank that was reliable. Germans made things too complex in general. That's was part of what they did. I would argue that the T-34 was better than the Sherman.

The Germans didn't run out of fuel at Arracourt, they didn't run out of fuel at Bastogne. they were just owned.

The T-34 was not better than the Sherman, though it had a bigger impact on the war due to being produced so early and in such great numbers. The Russian tank crews who got lend lease Shermans preferred them over the T-34, and in Korea Sherman easy eights achieved a 2.5:1 kill ratio against T-34/85s.

[gamesguy]

CanAm, on 17 June 2012 - 12:32 AM, said:

Blizzard has lost a HUGE amount of players due to retconning.

Bullshit, proof?

WoW retconned everything and it has retarded subscriber numbers.

Quote

North Korea is nowhere near analogous for the Clans. North Korea doesn't put money into R&D for military tech. North Korea doesn't have the resources for a powerful army. North Korea's army is, at best, only good for saber rattling to their own population.

You mean just like the Clans? Outside of authoritorial fiat how the **** does a bunch of soldiers who nearly bombed themselves back to the stone age, have very low population, and on resource poor planets, somehow manage to achieve better tech than the IS?

Quote

Americans had greater numbers of Shermans and superior airpower at that point of the war. Why was it that SOP for Shermans versus a Tiger required four Shermans for every one Tiger?

It wasn't, that's a myth people like you keep repeating because it sounds good.

Quote

Also, 1 F-22 is vaguely equivalent to a huge number of F-15s, including the newer Strike Eagles. In some recent war-games, the F-22 squadron had a Kill/Death of about 241-2. The two deaths were both F-15s.

Sorry nope. 1 F-22 is going to run out of missiles, and then the F-15s will blow up the airbase the F-22 is based out of. GG you lose.

Of course, German tanks didn't have stealth armor now did they?

Quote

SWTOR, Star Wars itself, DC comics (having to reboot now because they ****** everything up via retcon), etc.

How did "retconning" kill SWTOR? What crack are you smoking? SWTOR is dying due to it being a terrible game.

Star Wars is dying? How many million copies did that 9000th re-release of the original trilogy sell again?

Quote

It's amazing how jingoistic some of you people are, but I've come to expect it from the Something Awful crowd.

I don't think you understand the term "jingoistic".

[CanAm]

gamesguy, on 17 June 2012 - 12:36 AM, said:

The T-34 was not better than the Sherman, though it had a bigger impact on the war due to being produced so early and in such great numbers. The Russian tank crews who got lend lease Shermans preferred them over the T-34, and in Korea Sherman easy eights achieved a 2.5:1 kill ratio against T-34/85s.

You're delusional. The Sherman was regarded by American tankers as a piece of ****. The only inferiority of the T-34 stemmed from their shoddy drivetrain. Otherwise they were the only tanks that could stand up to German firepower.

The combat life expectancy for tankers in Korea was heinously short and they were regarded as death traps.

gamesguy, on 17 June 2012 - 12:40 AM, said:

I don't think you understand the term "jingoistic".

I believe vehement defense of an inferior war machine simply because it's American falls under jingoistic.

You obviously can't be persuaded, nor will you persuade anyone else. You constantly ask for sources and fail to cite your own. Why not save your breath?

Edited by CanAm, 17 June 2012 - 12:47 AM.

[phelancracken]

Snicker.

Your so funny. I come here just to laugh at your expense. BTW, History guru, your info seems to come from games. What I have used is respected for source material, except for you. The fact of the matter is this, Shermans had very high silouhettes. Germans didn't. Why? Better to hide. The Russians didn't mind the Sherman but also stated it was lacking in gun and the armour was thin. They have had bitter experience with the German armour. KV-76s were replaced very quickly with 85s. They had the same issues that you say the Germans have, mobility, or the serious lack of it. Remember that triad of the successful armour? Shermans had thin armour and a gun that when used in mobile warfare and could get behind the german tanks, could defeat them. If they got close enough. The Nomandy area proved that. Shermans could not use their mobility due to terrain. In a straight up slug fest, head to head, the germans won. Yes, they ambushed, they did everything they could to win, that's war. BTW, when you stock Panthers with green crews, do they know all there is to know about their tanks and how to fight, no. That's what happened in Arracourt. The fault didn't lie with the tank, it was the inexperienced crews.

As for Patton breaking through, 2 weeks is a life time for those soldiers on the ground. Germans didn't have that much fuel. It was an all or nothing gamble that Hitler rolled on. So tanks were again running out of fuel. Like I said, logistics. Also, and I give Patton credit were credit's due, he was one of the best tank generals of all sides. Tactics make up for a lot.

BTW, you say Panthers, what mark is that tank? Come on, history buff, easy one for a "superior" buff.

As for tanks, here is what I look for:

Armour
Firepower
Mobility
reliability

German tanks were fairly reliable. Towards the end they were getting to the end of the designs' upgradability. Were they as reliable as the Sherman, no. Germans over complicated things in general.

Edited by phelancracken, 17 June 2012 - 01:38 AM.

[phelancracken]

Gameguy, I was driving South Daks and North Carolinas. I know all about the kitas and the BB rooms. You obviously are a kid. But then again, what did I expect. Not to mention, in real life, WW2, if a full broadside from a BB hit a DD, what happens? Especially if the shells explode? That's right, no DD.

As for the Ultra, meh, You realize it's an ammo based weapon with limited utlity? Stay at max range of the weapon with very high to hits and wait for the ammo to run out. It also can jam. Plus, the Ultra mode DOES NOT gaurantee a double hit. In TT it was 8s or better to get both shells to hit. Roughly 33%ish of hitting with both shell streams. IS does get it in about 10 years. So just wait. That's why I wasn't too concerned. I was thinking of something else. Personally, hate Ultras. Ammo hogs and jammers. Not to mention, AC/20 ammo is 5 shots a ton. So you do the damage 2 times sooner possibly is all. Rather have LBX, the cluster munitions are killer. I stand by my comment on the RACs. Then IS shouldn't get them, Period.

As for tanks, besides your supposed quote by the army, where else is your sources?

Oh as for the F-22 versus F-15. You seem to know all the perameters. First off, if the F-15s don't know where the F-22s came from or what base they are going to, can't blow them up. Second, if they did squadron versus squadron, there would be no F-15s to follow them. 214 kills. How many other nations have that many f-15s besides us? Hmm?

Also, you are so delusional. Read the clans sourcebook before going on. Kerensky took followers that had the tech they had to Stranta Mechy to wait out the wars of the other rebellious members. This tech wasn't lost. It was preserved. Sorry, keep going. Still, they had 200 years to research and improve on the tech that was originally Star League. Now, I really don't care if you believe it, it's your choice. You obviously don't like clans, and that's fine. But to change the game when(gasp), that dreaded UAC has been in the game system 22 years, come on, it's a part of the clan tech that makes them a bit more powerful.

I have to agree with CanAm, your not going to persuade us. Save your breath.

Edited by phelancracken, 17 June 2012 - 01:27 AM.

[Sychodemus]

For the record, I am a Battletech player. This means that I have no biases beyond those that accompany whatever I am playing at the time. As part of campaigns (straight BT and MWRPG), I have played as a member of all five Great Houses, the FRR, the Clans (W, JF, GB, Coy, DS, BS, NC, SJ), TC, MoC, OA, Chaos March, ComStar, WoB, The Terran Hegemony, SLDF, Pirate (bonus) and of course the ubiquitous Mercenary.

I tend to play logistics-heavy games, so Clan weaponry is not especially common outside of the Clans (the exception being a tech-hunting merc unit.) I accept all the inherent silliness and flaws for what they are. I don't always like it. And I truly look forward to a time (3250, maybe??) where most Clan tech will be indistiguishable from that of the Inner Sphere. But that time is not now. For now, as far as official Battletch goes, the Clans will retain their advantage in weapons. In tabletop, that means the stats are not changing.

But even though MWO is sticking fairly close to Battletech, the PGI folks have a right to put their own spin on things as they see fit. Think of it as artistic license. TT relies heavily upon pilot skill and range for weapon effectiveness; something that shooter games aren't known for, so it is obvious that MWO will have to adapt. It is all a question of how that superiority will be communicated. And we don't know that answer yet.

Once MWO launches and we have a clear idea of how matches will work, then this topic will flare up again and will be better able to surmise how Clans will affect balance.

Regarding WW2 tanks: I have seen better discussions elsewhere. The synopsis is this: Tactically, the T-34 and M-4 were superior to the Tiger in mobility but initially had inferior crew training/experience. Strategically, the T-34 and M-4 were more easily mass produced, had better uniform quality, less parts and better interchangeability. Oh, and all these tanks were artillery's *****.


Thread TL;DR summary:

1. Clan Weapons are supposed to be better than IS weapons.
2. Some people play Clans because of the better weapons.
3. PGI will change what they deem is necessary to make a good game.
4. WW2 analogies derail topics.

Wow. It is all so clear now.

[2ane]

clan tech shouldnt be balanced, it should just be better, rarer and more expensive to maintain.

The clans technology is superior to the war-torn IS in every way, deal with it.

[Blinks]

2ane, on 17 June 2012 - 01:28 AM, said:

clan tech shouldnt be balanced, it should just be better, rarer and more expensive to maintain.

The clans technology is superior to the war-torn IS in every way, deal with it.

Which remains retarded but it doesn't, really matter.

I don't care about clan honour, clan tradition or anything else like that.

If clan stuff is better. Then i'll use that. And probably be typing "lawl, owned noob" every time i blow a grossly outmatched IS mech to pieces.

[Jaroth Corbett]

Skylarr, on 16 June 2012 - 08:25 PM, said:

I am guessing you mean the Wolf's Dragoons use of Clan second Line Mech. Because the clan's front line units use Omnis

No I was talking before that during Operation Klondike. I posted pics earlier in this thread IIRC.

Tim East, on 16 June 2012 - 08:48 PM, said:

I already mentioned omnitech, and how it makes clan mechs individually versatile. I was stating that IS mech design is more varied than clan. For instance, I know of no clan mech that has a melee implement, and these have been around for quite a while. In fact, iirc, the clans deplored melee combat with mechs as uncivilized or something.

That makes absolutely no sense. If you saw a Centrion you KNEW the right arm had a ballistic weapon in it & that it was most likely a LB-10 X AC. Also just because the Clans deplored melee still does not negate the fact that IS mechs are NOT more varied. I wonder why there is a mech called the Axman..... could it be because it had an axe built in?

gamesguy, on 17 June 2012 - 12:40 AM, said:

You mean just like the Clans? Outside of authoritorial fiat how the **** does a bunch of soldiers who nearly bombed themselves back to the stone age, have very low population, and on resource poor planets, somehow manage to achieve better tech than the IS?

What nonsense are you talking about? The IS had 4 succession wars, the Clans suffered one. When the divisions were becoming clear Nicholas led the Second Exodus. The IS bombed the **** out of each other. The worlds that split from Nicholas lived on their own in the Pentagon Worlds. The Clans were implemented on Strana Mechty.

Edited by Jaroth Winson, 17 June 2012 - 02:29 AM.

[Gremlich Johns]

Re: WoT BS above - Until the US started using diesel fuel in the Shermans, the Germans used to call the M4 Sherman tanks "Ronsons" (after the lighter). One other thing, until the Shermans got applique armor, they were just tank range targets.

When I was stationed in the FRG during the 70's, our memorial tank was the Sherman with the 12 cylinder rotary aircraft engine that could run on Mogas - our very own "Ronson", drove nice too, despite being noisy and shooting 6 foot blue flame out the exhaust. Good times if you are shooting one.

[Aaron DeChavilier]

CanAm, on 17 June 2012 - 12:32 AM, said:

Blizzard has lost a HUGE amount of players due to retconning.

that's patently false. Starcraft II's launch was big, and is still going strong as a serious e-sport game. Wow has been printing money for roughly a decade. So point to the retconned game of Blizzards that making them lose players? and you can't say WoW. WoW is losing players because its been around printing money for a decade. In fact, Warcraft III was a huge retcon of Warcraft I and II lore, but somehow people got over this and played WCIII in large numbers...

CanAm, on 17 June 2012 - 12:32 AM, said:

SWTOR, Star Wars itself, DC comics (having to reboot now because they ****** everything up via retcon), etc.

As GamesGuy said, SWTOR isn't losing players to retcons, it's losing players because its a bad game. Same as how battletech lost players. As for DC comics, again, what are you talking about!? the new 52 was a big win for them, their sales were some of the highest they've had in recent years. DC comics isn't losing readings to retcons, it's losing readers because of the digital age, and the average age of the comic reader is 30.

CanAm, on 17 June 2012 - 12:32 AM, said:

It's amazing how jingoistic some of you people are, but I've come to expect it from the Something Awful crowd.

and it's amazing how willfully ignorant some of you people are, but I didn't expect because I try to have no expectations when dealing with people I'd rather let them prove it.

oh and like GamesGuy, still waiting for that list of retail multiplayer games where once side is x2 better everything, have you found one yet, Phelan?

Edited by Aaron DeChavilier, 17 June 2012 - 07:48 AM.

[Deathz Jester]

I just realized this thread is stupid

[Jack Gallows]

Gremlich Johns, on 11 June 2012 - 06:48 PM, said:

Only two things to do - welcome them or fear them.

Option 3, beat them.

[gamesguy]

CanAm, on 17 June 2012 - 12:43 AM, said:

You're delusional. The Sherman was regarded by American tankers as a piece of ****.

They were regarded by fresh off the boat green tankers as a "piece of ****". The Germans respected it as did the Russians.

Quote

The only inferiority of the T-34 stemmed from their shoddy drivetrain. Otherwise they were the only tanks that could stand up to German firepower.

Nonsense, for most of its lifespan the T-34 had an intentionally crappy gun.

Quote

The combat life expectancy for tankers in Korea was heinously short and they were regarded as death traps.

Yet they still achieved 2.5:1 kill ratios against T-34/85s, are you going to argue against historical facts now?

Quote

I believe vehement defense of an inferior war machine simply because it's American falls under jingoistic.

You obviously can't be persuaded, nor will you persuade anyone else. You constantly ask for sources and fail to cite your own. Why not save your breath?

You haven't come up with any good reasons why the Shermans sucks other than "because I say so". Repeating the same worthless claims over and over again does not make them true.

I cited my sources, try reading.

Edited by gamesguy, 18 June 2012 - 07:33 AM.

[Zalikar]

GearBoxClock, on 11 June 2012 - 04:09 PM, said:

The Clans have always left me split in two ways. One direction says that they are an interesting addition to the game, bringing unique tech and fluff that couldn't work in the Inner Sphere.

The other way is that they have very few interesting 'Mech designs, rarely have any weaknesses besides "light" armour and the easily ignored Zell and are generally unfun to play against.

I think that a rebalance of Clan tech is nessecary if the Clans are to be added to MWO. I've never understood why their weapons have longer range, better damage and no minimum range. It doesn't make much sense from a fluff standpoint (One-on-one duels would probably be close range 99% of the time) and makes even less sense from a balancing standpoint. Perhaps giving Clan weapons reduced range and increased heat in exchange for higher damage and no minimum range would be the better choice.

What does everyone else think?

According the lore, The Clans continued to develop new technology, constantly looking for ways to improve everything, as well as sometimes going out of their way to preserve tech and scientists. While the IS became technologically stagnate and more than once lost technology by destroying not only the tech, but the scientists who knew how the stuff worked. There are far to many instances of IS forces flattening everything on an entire planet

[gamesguy]

phelancracken, on 17 June 2012 - 12:46 AM, said:

Snicker.

Your so funny. I come here just to laugh at your expense. BTW, History guru, your info seems to come from games. What I have used is respected for source material, except for you. The fact of the matter is this, Shermans had very high silouhettes. Germans didn't. Why? Better to hide.

Man it's fun making you look stupid. Here you go with your history channel "knowledge" again.

The Sherman was a whopping 2 inches taller than the panzer IV, oh look, you're a moron who doesn't know jackshit, how unexpected.

Quote

The Russians didn't mind the Sherman but also stated it was lacking in gun and the armour was thin.

Where? Source? Because the source I have says the Russians loved the Sherman.

Quote

- Dmitriy Fedorovich, on which American tanks did you fight?
- On Shermans. We called them "Emchas", from M4 [in Russian, em chetyrye]. Initially they had the short main gun, and later they began to arrive with the long gun and muzzle brake. On the front slope armor there was a travel lock for securing the barrel during road marches. The main gun was quite long. Overall, this was a good vehicle but, as with any tank, it had its pluses and minuses. When someone says to me that this was a bad tank, I respond, "Excuse me!" One cannot say that this was a bad tank. Bad as compared to what?

- Dmitriy Fedorovich, did you have just American tanks in your unit?
- Our 6th Guards Tank Army (yes, we had six of them) fought in Ukraine, Romania, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Austria. We ended the war for us in Czechoslovakia. Then they rushed us to the Far East and we fought against Japan. I briefly remind you that the army consisted of two corps: 5th Guards Tank Stalingrad Corps on our own T-34s and 5th Mechanized Corps, in which I fought. For the first time this corps had British Matildas, Valentines, and Churchills.

- They delivered the Churchill later.
- Yes, a bit later. After 1943 we largely declined British tanks because they had significant deficiencies. In particular, they had 12-14 h.p. per ton of weight at a time when good tanks had 18-20 h.p. per ton. Of these three British tanks, the best was the Valentine produced in Canada. Its armor was streamlined but more importantly, it featured a long-barreled 57mm main gun. My unit switched over to American Shermans at the end of 1943. After the Kishinev Operation our corps became the 9th Guards Mechanized Corps. I missed to tell you that every corps consisted of four brigades. Our mechanized corps had three mechanized brigades and one tank brigade, in which I fought. A tank corps had three tank brigades and one mechanized brigade. Yes, we had Shermans in our brigade at the end of 1943.
- But the British tanks were not withdrawn from service, so they fought until they were gone. Wasn't there a period when your corps had a mixture of tanks, both American and British? Were there any problems associated with the presence of such a broad variety of vehicles from different countries? For example, with supply and maintenance?
- Well, there were always problems. In general, the Matilda was an unbelievably worthless tank! I will tell you about one of the Matilda's deficiencies that caused us a great deal of trouble. Some fool in the General Staff planned an operation and sent our corps to the area of Yelnya, Smolensk, and Roslavl. The terrain there was forested swamp. The Matilda had skirts along the sides. The tank was developed primarily for operations in the desert. These skirts worked well in the desert-the sand passed through the rectangular slots in them. But in the forested swamps of Russia the mud packed into the space between the tracks and these side skirts. The Matilda transmission had a servomechanism for ease of shifting. In our conditions this component was weak, constantly overheated, and then failed. This was fine for the British. By 1943 they had developed a replacement unit that could be installed simply by unscrewing four mounting bolts, pulling out the old unit, and installing the new unit. It did not always work this way for us. In my battalion we had Senior Sergeant (Starshina) Nesterov, a former kolkhoz tractor driver (Kolkhoz is sort of farm - Valeri), in the position of battalion mechanic. In general each of our tank companies had a mechanic and Nesterov was it for the battalion. At our corps level we had a representative (whose name I have forgotten) of the British firm that produced these tanks. At one time I had it written down, but when my tank was hit everything I had in it burned up -photographs, documents, and notebook. We were forbidden to keep notes at the front, but I did it on the sly. Anyway, this British representative constantly interfered with our efforts to repair separate components of the tank. He said, "This has a factory seal. You should not tinker with it!" We were supposed to take out a component and install a new one. Nesterov made a simple repair to all these transmissions. One time the British representative came up to Nesterov and asked him, "At which university did you study?" And Nesterov replied, "At the kolkhoz!"

The Sherman was light years better in this regard. Did you know that one of the designers of the Sherman was a Russian engineer named Timoshenko? He was some shirt tail relative of Marshal S. K. Timoshenko.
The Sherman had its weaknesses, the greatest of which was its high center of gravity. The tank frequently tipped over on its side, like a Matryoshka doll (a wooden stacking doll). But I am alive today thanks to this deficiency. We were fighting in Hungary in December 1944. I was leading the battalion and on a turn my driver-mechanic clipped a curb. My tank went over on its side. We were thrown around, of course, but we survived the experience. Meanwhile the other four of my tanks went ahead and drove into an ambush. They were all destroyed.

Dmitriy Fedorovich, the Sherman had a rubber-coated metal track. Some contemporary authors point to this as a deficiency, since in combat the rubber might be set on fire. With the track thus stripped bare, the tank is disabled. What can you say in this regard?
- On the one hand this rubber-coated track was a big plus. In the first place, this track had a service life approximately twice that of steel track. I might be mistaken, but I believe that the service life of the T-34 track was 2500 kilometers. The service life of the Sherman track was in excess of 5000 kilometers. Secondly, The Sherman drove like a car on hard surfaces, and our T-34 made so much noise that only the devil knows how many kilometers away it could be heard. What was the bad side of the Sherman track?
...

Still one great plus of the Sherman was in the charging of its batteries. On our T-34 it was necessary to run the engine, all 500 horsepower of it, in order to charge batteries. In the crew compartment of the Sherman was an auxiliary gasoline engine, small like a motorcycle's one. Start it up and it charged the batteries. This was a big deal to us!

For a long time after the war I sought an answer to one question. If a T-34 started burning, we tried to get as far away from it as possible, even though this was forbidden. The on-board ammunition exploded. For a brief period of time, perhaps six weeks, I fought on a T-34 around Smolensk. The commander of one of our companies was hit in his tank. The crew jumped out of the tank but were unable to run away from it because the Germans were pinning them down with machine gun fire. They lay there in the wheat field as the tank burned and blew up. By evening, when the battle had waned, we went to them. I found the company commander lying on the ground with a large piece of armor sticking out of his head. When a Sherman burned, the main gun ammunition did not explode. Why was this?

Such a case occurred once in Ukraine. Our tank was hit. We jumped out of it but the Germans were dropping mortar rounds around us. We lay under the tank as it burned. We laid there a long time with nowhere to go. The Germans were covering the empty field around the tank with machine gun and mortar fires. We lay there. The uniform on my back was beginning heating up from the burning tank. We thought we were finished! We would hear a big bang and it would all be over! A brother's grave! We heard many loud thumps coming from the turret. This was the armor-piercing rounds being blown out of their cases. Next the fire would reach the high explosive rounds and all hell would break loose! But nothing happened. Why not? Because our high explosive rounds detonated and the American rounds did not? In the end it was because the American ammunition had more refined explosives. Ours was some kind of component that increased the force of the explosion one and one-half times, at the same time increasing the risk of detonation of the ammunition.


- What would you like to say about the German Tiger?
- It was an extremely heavy vehicle. The Sherman could never defeat a Tiger with a frontal shot. We had to force the Tiger to expose its flank. If we were defending and the Germans were attacking, we had a special tactic. Two Shermans were designated for each Tiger. The first Sherman fired at the track and broke it. For a brief space of time the heavy vehicle still moved forward on one track, which caused it to turn. At this moment the second Sherman shot it in the side, trying to hit the fuel cell. This is how we did it. One German tank was defeated by two of ours, therefore the victory was credited to both crews. There is a story about this entitled "Hunting With Borzois" in my book.

- ПDid the crew receive a concussion when a round hit the tank, even if it did not penetrate the armor?
- Generally, no. It depended on where the round hit. Let's say that I was sitting in the left side of the turret and a round struck near me. I heard this hit but it did not harm me. If it struck somewhere on the hull, I might not hear it at all. This happened several times. We would come out of an engagement and inspect the tank. In several places the armor would show an impact, like a hot knife that had cut through butter. But I did not hear the round impacts. Sometimes the driver would shout, "They're shooting from the left!" But there was no overwhelming sound. Of course, if such a powerful gun as the JSU-152 hit you, you heard it! And it would take off your head along with the turret.
I want also to add that the Sherman's armor was tough. There were cases on our T-34 when a round struck and did not penetrate. But the crew was wounded because pieces of armor flew off the inside wall and struck the crewmen in the hands and eyes. This never happened on the Sherman.

http://english.ireme...itriy-loza.html

Notice how he says nothing bad about the Sherman's armor or gun, it's because they really were not that different from the T-34, so to a tanker who have used both the T-34 and the Sherman, it's all the other things that mattered. Indeed, he even points out that the Sherman's armor was actually better(probably due to spall liners) in that a deflected shot would not cause injury to the crew.

Quote

They have had bitter experience with the German armour. KV-76s were replaced very quickly with 85s.

Not sure if serious.

You realize that for most of the war started it was the Russians who had the overwhelmingly superior armor right? Tigers were always in very limited numbers and panthers didn't come till much later in the war(and also in limited numbers at the start). Oh and the Russians waited 2 years to upgrade the T-34 with the 85mm gun, shows how much you know.

Quote

They had the same issues that you say the Germans have, mobility, or the serious lack of it. Remember that triad of the successful armour? Shermans had thin armour and a gun that when used in mobile warfare and could get behind the german tanks, could defeat them. If they got close enough. The Nomandy area proved that. Shermans could not use their mobility due to terrain.

This is the same Normandy campaign where the German Panzer Lehr general stated that the Sherman was superior to the panther and that he'd rather have more panzer IVs than panthers?

Quote

In a straight up slug fest, head to head, the germans won. Yes, they ambushed, they did everything they could to win, that's war. BTW, when you stock Panthers with green crews, do they know all there is to know about their tanks and how to fight, no. That's what happened in Arracourt. The fault didn't lie with the tank, it was the inexperienced crews.

Head to head slugfests didn't exist except in the Italian alps, so for the other 95% of the war, the Sherman was a better tank.

Yes, precisely. So why do you keep using American tanker experiences in Normandy when they were brand new inexperienced troops going up against German veterans?

Oh and the German troops at Ardennes were also veterans, yet they couldn't even beat two rear guard infantry divisions, an airborne regiment, and like one battalion of tanks.

Quote

As for Patton breaking through, 2 weeks is a life time for those soldiers on the ground. Germans didn't have that much fuel. It was an all or nothing gamble that Hitler rolled on. So tanks were again running out of fuel. Like I said, logistics. Also, and I give Patton credit were credit's due, he was one of the best tank generals of all sides. Tactics make up for a lot.

Are you incapable of reading? Patton broke through in two days, it took 2 weeks to retake the lost territory and erase the German offensive completely.

Quote

BTW, you say Panthers, what mark is that tank? Come on, history buff, easy one for a "superior" buff.

The panthers the Americans faced at Bastogne were Ausf A variants I believe, and they are the most relevant variant since they were in use during the critical phases of the war (43-44).

Quote

As for tanks, here is what I look for:

Armour
Firepower
Mobility
reliability

German tanks were fairly reliable. Towards the end they were getting to the end of the designs' upgradability. Were they as reliable as the Sherman, no. Germans over complicated things in general.

"German tanks were fairly reliable". HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.

I already gave the numbers. After two weeks of fighting in the Ardennes, the Shermans had a 9% deadline rate due to mechanical failure, the panther had 55%.

Oh and your list of 4 things left out the most important aspect of tank fighting, as proven by two seperate war studies(one by the DoW, one by the British War Office). Target acquisition. Statistical study shows that the side that fired first won 70% of the time and won them convincingly. The Sherman had a vastly superior target acquisition speed compared to all German tanks, except in ambushes, the Sherman always got off the first shot. This is why the Department of War rated the Sherman 3.4 times more effective than the panther. You see, the Sherman had a wide angle low zoom scope for the gunner that enabled him to pan across the battlefield and quickly acquire targets. German gunners had only narrow FoV targetting scopes, which meant they either had to stick their head out of the turret and search for targets with their naked eyes(with no magnification to help, and slows target acquisition), or they had to slowly pan across the battlefield with a targeting scope.

Here are the two studies I mentioned, but I bet you will just discount actual period research and keep repeating your bullshit over and over again.

Quote

What factors most strongly influence the outcome of tank v tank fighting? Technological superiority? Crew quality? Sound tactical doctrine? In the spring of 1945, the US Army's Ballistics Research Lab (BRL) adopted the existing British Army practice of 'operational research' and conducted the first major American study of tank vs. tank fighting in an effort to determine which factors led to battlefield success. The evaluation team focused on the US 3rd and 4th Armoured Divisions, which saw as much, if not more, tank versus tank fighting than any other American division. A total of ninety eight (98) engagements from August to December were identified and quantified, including the Arracourt engagements and thirty-three skirmishes in the Battle of the Bulge.

This study immediately noted that the US Army fought very few large-scale tank v tank battles. Most were small-unit engagements, averaging nine tanks on the American side and four on the German. The study concluded that the single most important factor in tank v tank fighting was which side spotted the enemy first, engaged first, and hit first. This rule meant that the defender had a clear advantage, since the defending tanks were typically stationary in a well-chosen ambush position. The defender was more apt to spot or hear the enemy tanks first because the likely venues of approach were under surveillance. Furthermore, greater familiarity with the local terrain meant that the defender usually had the ranges to certain objects plotted in advance, which was an important ingredient in making certain that the first round fired struck it's target. In contrast, attacking forces were usually on the move, which often led to a lack of familiarity with the terrain in the battle area, difficulty spotting the defending tanks, and reduced accuracy because of problems with quickly establishing accurate ranges given the limited technology of the day.

Of the incidents studied by BRL, defenders fired first 84 percent of the time. When defenders fired first, the attackers suffered 4.3 times more casualties than the defender. On the relatively few times where the attackers fired first, the defenders suffered 3.6 times more casualties than the attackers. The side that saw first and hit first usually had an overwhelming advantage in the first critical minute of the fire fight since not only did the firing first have such an effect, but neighbouring friendly tanks also tended to fire shortly after, overwhelming the enemy force with a sudden volley of fire. Tank engagements tended to be short, violent affairs with the losing side quickly withdrawing rather than face annihilation. Ambush from a concealed position was the ideal ingredient in winning a tank versus tank firefight.

A similar British study conducted back in November 1944 had reached the same conclusion, finding that in 70 % of the eighty-three actions studied, the side which fired first won. Another grim statistic showed that the side that was ambushed had very little chance of regaining the initiative and that their survivability fell by half every six seconds.

In the American study there was very little evidence that technical superiority, such as the imbalance between the Panther and the Sherman, was a major ingredient in the outcome of the firefights. The popular myth that the Panther enjoyed a five-to-one kill ratio against the Sherman, or that it took five Shermans to defeat one Panther have no basis at all in historical records, at least as far as the US Army is concerned. The BRL study concluded that the outcome of a tank versus tank fight was more often determined by the tactical situation than the technical.

The study does highlight the difficulties faced by the Sherman in the 1944 campaigns. The Sherman more often than not was used in offensive operation, often against organised German defences where the Wehrmacht had the opportunity to position antitank guns and AFV's along likely lines of advance. Under this circumstance, the Germans had distinct tactical advantages in tank fighting, and the US Army suffered heavy tank casualties as a result.

The corollary was true as well. The Wehrmacht suffered disproportionate tank casualties on the occasions when it attempted to conduct offensive operations, such as the Panzer Lehr's attack at La Desert in July 1944, the Avranches counterattack near Mortain in August 1944 and the Lorraine panzer offensive in September 1944.

Edited by gamesguy, 18 June 2012 - 08:13 AM.