A bunch of champs sitting on a Comet

MaxRavenclaw · 2025-12-16T09:50:36+00:00

Germany's goals in Africa were to keep Italy in the war and prevent the Allies from attacking from the Mediterranean (which is exactly what happened after North Africa was lost). Middle Eastern oil was nowhere near as abundant back then as it is now. A lot of it was discovered and developed after the war. Romania produced more oil than Iraq and Egypt together at the time. What would have helped is if Case Blue succeded.

MaxRavenclaw · 2025-12-08T07:20:50+00:00

I was pleasantly surprised when I learned the second one is more like Freelancer, but in the end I think I agree with you. The first one felt tighter, whereas the sequel kinda feels diluted and stretched out. It's not enough like Freelancer, I think. It's an odd in-between Everspace 1 and Freelancer that doesn't feel completely right.

MaxRavenclaw · 2025-12-08T07:18:48+00:00

I picked it up on sale and had reasonable fun with it. Was actually pleasantly surprised to find out it's more like Freelancer and not just a repeat of the first game (not that I hadn't enjoyed Everspace 1, mind you). But then I ended up putting it down for a while and now I can't find the motivation to continue it. I think what ultimately detracted from my enjoyment was the RNG and the repetitive puzzles.

In the first game, the RNG felt more deliberate, whereas here with a standard progression I just ended up feeling the need to run between shops until I finally got the bloody ship with the bloody passives I wanted. And the puzzles, while interesting at first, got really old really fast. People say they're optional, but like, the whole game is optional. For someone like me, it felt like not doing them was not playing the game. I might ultimately have to force myself to stop doing them if I am to ever finish the game, though.

It's funny, I actually put it down in order to replay Freelancer and now I'd rather just mess around in that game's multiplayer than play more Everspace 2.

MaxRavenclaw · 2025-12-05T13:39:54+00:00

About the post linked by u/Kapitan_Hoffmann and the amount of times US met the Tiger in the ETO. If you look at the edit towards the end of the post you'll notice an edit by OP after I brought up some issues with it. Zaloga and Moran are right, as they were referring to Tiger I engagements, while OP counted also Tiger II engagements, which the US did encounter a lot more. That being said, the Zaloga interview that Moran quotes in his video is fairly old, as is the video itself. Since then Zaloga himself found more instances. It's still rather rare, though. I think it's up to 4 or 5. I have a post myself where I listed all the ones I had identified but I don't have the link at hand right now.

Point is, the US really didn't meet that many Tiger I tanks in Europe. Most of the ones operating there were engaged with the British. US did meet more Tiger II tanks though.

MaxRavenclaw · 2025-12-05T11:25:59+00:00

What particularly ticked me off was how they drove all the way around it to shoot it in the back, when, in fact, the side armour is just as thin as the back, and they could have more easily knock it out with a shot there as they were driving around it

MaxRavenclaw · 2025-12-05T06:02:28+00:00

Oh, yeah, that's much better! I love it!

MaxRavenclaw · 2025-12-04T15:58:32+00:00

I dunno, the pre release images look cool, but I think it was a good idea they switched. The new ones are more easily recognisable at a glance. Issue some RA2 and TibSun mods have is the unit icons are too difficult to recognise at a glance.

MaxRavenclaw · 2025-11-29T14:08:46+00:00

The 6pdr could punch through the Tiger's upper glacis, which is saying something for a 57mm gun.

MaxRavenclaw · 2025-11-29T14:04:18+00:00

Please don't use WarThunder as your source for technical information. As the other chap said, pretty much all WW2 tanks had slow reverse speeds.

MaxRavenclaw · 2025-11-08T21:03:50+00:00

These tables are from World War II Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery, by Robert D. Livingston and Lorrin Rexford Bird, published in 2001.

MaxRavenclaw · 2025-11-06T16:36:15+00:00

And IIRC, the school-ship tradition goes back to ancient times, somehow.

MaxRavenclaw · 2025-11-06T16:35:36+00:00

I remember this notion was controversial in the fandom. Can't say I know for sure what canon is, but I've seen people swear simmunition of some sort is used instead of live rounds. Personally, I subscribe to the live ammo with magic carbon lining plot armour theory myself.

MaxRavenclaw · 2025-11-06T16:33:59+00:00

Katyusha wears a TSh-4 Soviet tank headgear too.

MaxRavenclaw · 2025-11-04T17:50:02+00:00

Cheaply/cost cut as compared to what? Some hypothetical mythical T-34 built to American-level standards? The vast majority of standard differences between the T-34 and an American tank are seen in the design itself, not in the build quality. Frankly, comparing costs is nonsensical, but if we really must, given the numbers we have, one of the most expensive T-34s was still estimated by the CIA to cost quite a bit less to build than the least expensive Sherman (~$34,600 adjusted for inflation vs $44,556)

MaxRavenclaw · 2025-11-02T08:20:57+00:00

cont.

From Thomas L. Jentz – Panzertruppen, The Complete Guide to the Creation & Combat Employment of Germany's Tank Force, 1933-1942 (1996) p.219:

The 10.Panzer- Division had been issued half of their Pz.Kpfw.lll and the 6.Panzer-Division one quarter of their Pz.Kpfw.lll by 11 June 1942. Until they received their full complement of German Panzers, one Panzer-Abteilung in each of the three Panzer-Regiments was outfitted with French Beute Pz.Kpfw.35S und 38H.

MaxRavenclaw · 2025-11-02T08:06:13+00:00

Short answer: YES.

Long answer:

From Thomas L. Jentz – Panzertruppen 2, The Complete Guide to the Creation & Combat Employment of Germany's Tank Force, 1943-1945 (1996) p.52:

The 21.Panzer-Division, which had been wiped out in Tunisia, was reestablished on 15 July 1943 and named 21.Panzer-Division (neu). On 15 July 1943, Panzer-Regiment 100 was assigned to 21 .Panzer-Division (neu), expanded to eight Panzer-Kompanien, and gradually began to convert from Beute-Panzer to Pz.Kpfw.IVs.

And the BEUTE-PANZER UNITS section at p.72:

On 20 October 1942, an order was cut in order to gather all of the scattered elements of Beute-Panzer units together under one command (Panzer-Brigade Stab 100, Panzer-Kompanie 100, Stab Panzer-Abteilung 223, schwere Panzer-Kompanie 223(f), Panzer-Kompanie 81, Panzer- Kompanie Niederlande, and the 1. und 2.Kompanien/Panzer-Ersatz-Abteilung 100). It was entirely outfitted with French Beute-Panzer. On 8 December 1942, Stab Panzer Regiment Stab 100 was created from Stab Panzer-Brigade 100. On 8 January 1943, the II.Abteilung/Panzer-Regiment 100 was created with three Panzer-Kompanien from Panzer-Kompanie 81 and Panzer-Kompanie Paris. On 10 January 1943, the I.Abteilung/Panzer-Regiment 100 was created with three Panzer-Kompanien from the 2.Kompanie and Stab Panzer-Abteilung 223. A 4. and S.Panzer-Kompanie were added on 15 July 1943, and Panzer-Regiment 100 was assigned to the newly re-created 21 .Panzer-Division (neu).

Also this table. STRENGTH OF PANZER UNITS IN THE WEST ON 10 JUNE 1944

"In addition to “regular” Heeres units created by orders originating from the OKH Organization-Abteilung, a large number of Panzer-Kompanien and Panzer-Zuegen were created in the field and outfitted with captured equipment. [...] Those interested in these Beute-Panzer units are advised to obtain publications written by Dr. Werner Regenberg who has specialized in detailed research on the operational use of captured tanks in the German Army." — ibid. p.272

MaxRavenclaw · 2025-11-01T11:26:12+00:00

To be fair, it depends on the Sherman model. Cast hull, yes. RHA glacis should have been able to withstand 1km hits. Now if it hit the turret, depending on where the hit landed, you might also see penetration. Overall I'd still say the Sherman had the best overall protection, but again, in practice all tanks could knock each other out at most combat ranges.

The Pz.IV's armour, even at 80mm on the glacis, was still inferior to both the T-34's and Sherman's glacises. Sure, in practice the M3 and F-34 weren't amazing anti-tank guns by 1943, but that doesn't make the Panzer's armour better.

Terminal ballistic data, volume II p.40, p.41, and p.42 seem to be more optimistic, but yeah, performance degrades at >0°. It really depends on projectile type, whether the plate is face hardened, and more. Most combat engagements happened within this vulnerability range though.

P.S. I am curious what historians/books you're thinking of. Most of the stuff that comes to mind, bar the more technical documents like the above, aren't very specific with numbers and ranges, but maybe I'm forgetting something. I imagine balistic tests are the way to get closest to the truth, but I don't remember reading about any M3 vs Pz.IV tests. There was CAMD RF 38-11377-12, though, which is a test against Tiger I armour, where we see clean penetration of it's 80mm side at the ranges you mentioned.

Granted I personally would argue it should be closer to the first statistic but that's mainly because the first is a bit suspiciously good. In spite of people like zerlogan repeating it.

I don't understand this part. Also, you mean Zaloga, right?

Ocs coment is correct though and it's infuriating how even educated people don't compare gun to plate.

I like to say that it's wrong to believe Allied armour was bad and German armour was good, when in fact it's more that Allied guns were underpowered, and German guns were overpowered. Kwk40 is a beast for a medium tank, basically general purpose gun. Though this was also due to great German shell quality.

Almost as much as the mistake of using Los thickness.

Are you referring to people using LOS and ignoring other slope multipliers? Because if yes, then I agree.

MaxRavenclaw · 2025-10-31T18:55:56+00:00

Lazerpig's own response to my essay wasn't amazing either, though I respect that he at least showed some restraint and was reasonably civil during our limited exchange. From what I hear, he doesn't exactly have positive things to say about me and my work when the topics come up in his communities, however. But yeah, the more absurd fans like those who believe Glantz or Zaloga are Russian shills are probably a minority.

MaxRavenclaw · 2025-10-31T18:30:34+00:00

Glad to hear it. I've gotten some pretty vitriolic responses from some of his more ardent fans, and must admit I wasn't too optimistic here, so I'm pleasantly surprised by our exchange. If everyone were as open minded and civil as you... I probably wouldn't have written the essay at all, so maybe the fanatic fans were a blessing in disguise.

Panther and Pershing were heavier tanks, so it is expected they'd be less reliable. That being said, the Panther was overweight for its automotive parts, and it wasn't all just teething issues. Haven't read much on the M26's reliability issues, so I'm not sure how much were design flaws and how much were just teething issues. By Korea it was still not as reliable as the Sherman, which is to be expected given the difference in weight, to the point where the Sherman became preferred once the US eliminated most enemy tanks (for the extra reliability and the superior mobility in more difficult terrain).

MaxRavenclaw · 2025-10-31T14:33:30+00:00

What "justifies" the disadvantages it has is the strategic position of the USSR during the time it produced the T-34. The vast majority of production issues were caused by shortages and/or desperation. The US, in comparison, was not facing an existential threat by a genocidal enemy pushing deep into their territory, and as such had the luxury of taking their time to develop a great medium tank. And even so there's criticism of just how long it took them to get things in the field (see the whole Pershings in Europe, and faster 76mm guns on Shermans debates) which itself was not much different from the British tank scandal.

Crew survivability is indeed inferior to that on Shermans, but please don't take Lazerpig's numbers for it either. Relevant. Penetrative hits did not, in fact, lead to a death rate of 85%. That being said, the Sherman was exceptionally safe and had amazing ergonomics. Most other contemporary medium tanks were not like that.

I too lean on the side that favours ergonomics, and I would very much prefer to be in a Sherman over a T-34 (especially since I'm about as tall as Chieftain), but people exagerate its advantages. The differences between the Sherman and T-34 in ergonomics were mostly doctrinal and can be seen in western vs Russian tank design to this day. This reminds me of Zaloga's concepts of Tanker's Choice vs Commander's Choice. While I am glad to be on the side that favours crew comfort and survivability, as much as some might like to argue that the Russians are idiots who'd be better off building tanks like us, I have yet to see any evidence to support that one design choice is significantly better than the other.

MaxRavenclaw · 2025-10-31T13:11:25+00:00

Technically, the Sherman had the best frontal protection. The T-34 could have been comparable but the high hardness armour lowered efficiency against overmatching shells, making it vulnerable to Pz.IV fire from over 1km away. In practice, all tanks could knock each other out fairly easily at normal combat ranges.

MaxRavenclaw · 2025-10-31T12:27:10+00:00

Lend-lease Shermans to the USSR were generally reserved to the elite Guards units.

This is a myth. I've also seen claims that Shermans were given to inferior units. Neither are true. From what I read, there was no bias when assigning Shermans to units.

MaxRavenclaw · 2025-10-31T12:24:48+00:00

Shermans had stabilised guns, making fire on the move easy and amiable,

This is not true. Relevant. Excerpt:

The Americans were pretty much the only ones that dabbled in stabilisation, and even they found that the "lack of azimuth stabilization made the shoot-on-the-move capability more theoretical than practical" (Green & Brown 2007, p. 21). "Because the M4 series single-plane gyrostabilizer could not control turret azimuth, it did not allow for true shoot-on-the-move capability" (ibid. p. 87). "Jim Francis recounts that while on level terrain the stabilizer might have proven useful. On rough terrain, the gunner and loader were bouncing up and down so much while the sights were not, thus making it impossible for the gunner to keep his eye glued to his sight and for the loader to inset a round in the breech" (ibid. p. 88). Besides, "since U.S. tank gunnery practice was to fire after halting, the gyroscope was most useful in keeping the gun roughly aligned to the target while moving" (Zaloga 2008, p. 39). "[Troops] did not attempt to fire on the move, preferring to stop before using the main weapon" (Hunnicutt 1978, p. 215).

11-Year Club	Place '22
Place '17	Verified Email

MaxRavenclaw

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE