Another lie. You posted the exact same thing back in 2015:
viewtopic.php?p=2050577#p2050577
It appears your memory is completely shot.
Another lie. You posted the exact same thing back in 2015:
I suppose he could have been in an OP tank, but seriously...Michael Kenny wrote: ↑20 Sep 2020, 16:38Note that fantasist Mr Ward is relying on a quote from a 'tank crewman' of the Essex Yeomanry to reinforce his fiction.
The problem is that posters trolling and lying in posts at AHF, no matter how regularly or predictably, are subject to zero sanctions by by moderators. "Incivility"? Oh, heavens no, we can't have that! Blatant lying and trolling? Bring it on, since it stimulates lots of posts and lots of clicks for the site.Michael Kenny wrote: ↑20 Sep 2020, 16:17Or as we say plain English 'a tissue of lies'
No dear. What happened is you have been peddling this made-up story for years and you forgot to stick to your script. This latest 2020 is different from your original 2015 version and the slightly changed 2016 version. Liars need good memories and your has been found wanting. Please continue with the pathetic excuses.
Strictly speaking they are. But, there has been a incremental policy, which not all of us agree with. Since the change in ownership of this forum there have also been some changes in policy considered at the top, which have made things a bit ambiguous. I have discussed a time or two with you and a couple others here alternate methods. Those may be less satisfying in the short run, but do avoid wasting time & bandwidth. The old trope about not feeding what you see as a troll applies, tho I now see it more as if you think you see a tar baby , don't stop to slap it. I'd be happy to discuss that further privately.Richard Anderson wrote: ↑20 Sep 2020, 18:41...
The problem is that posters trolling and lying in posts at AHF, no matter how regularly or predictably, are subject to zero sanctions by by moderators. ...
I understand Carl, but this is a long-standing issue that precedes the current ownership. Yes, I have taken the step of placing some posters on ignore and try only to reply to other posters relying to them, but that only serves to keep some of the constant din of the monkey gallery out of my ears. The problem remains how do you keep agenda-driven a-historical drivel based upon heresy controlled on what nominally advertises itself as a history forum?Carl Schwamberger wrote: ↑20 Sep 2020, 20:58Strictly speaking they are. But, there has been a incremental policy, which not all of us agree with. Since the change in ownership of this forum there have also been some changes in policy considered at the top, which have made things a bit ambiguous. I have discussed a time or two with you and a couple others here alternate methods. Those may be less satisfying in the short run, but do avoid wasting time & bandwidth. The old trope about not feeding what you see as a troll applies, tho I now see it more as if you think you see a tar baby , don't stop to slap it. I'd be happy to discuss that further privately.
I believe the logic was simple - since our tank uses that type of plates (which must be the best option because we do it) our enemies are also reasonable and follow the suit. This makes us to questions why nobody checked what kinf of actual armor is used by Germans...Richard Anderson wrote: ↑17 Sep 2020, 01:57Lastly, there is the issue of the quality of the test plates they fired at...American machined plate was more ductile than German, so that may have been an issue.
I do not claim that 17-pdr should be "copied" - I simply state that if it was requested, the "new" 76 mm or even 3-Inch could be pushed to higher values and placed in M4 if anybody is asking. To put it simple: stronger recoil system, maybe longer breach and barrel in 76 mm and everything is OK. It was a decision.Actually, I'm not sure that would be perfectly possible, although it would be imperfectly possible. The 17-pdr Mark IV was developed to mate with the trunnions and trunnion bearing surfaces of the M34A1 Gun Mount as found on the 75mm-armed Medium Tanks M4-series, which were mounted on the inner face of the mounting. The M34A1 also had a convenient "hole for the co-axial telescope and can be readily machined in the bottom center to facilitate maximum depression". Perhaps perversely, Ordnance designed the M62 Gun Mount for the 76mm-armed T23 and M4, with the trunnions and trunnion bearing surfaces on the outer face of the mount. It is also unclear if the telescope mounting would fit. All that means that the 17-pdr Mark IV would have to be redesigned again to make it work. (In reality, the change in the trunnion design was for a good reason, it moved the gun forward in the mounting, improving room in the turret and the balance of the gun, but still... )
It's seemingly minor issues like these that can turn out to have unintended consequences.
Which I find extremely odd. For sure production of ABCBC ammo would be much cheaper. OK - maybe not perfect option but penetration similar to German 75 mm KWK L48 should be achieved and even slightly surpassed -especially since both velocity and weight of the projectile of M1 gun was slightly higher. The other issue is that even HVAP ammo barely (400 yards ?) was able to went through front turret of Panther.More damning though was that American Ordnance did ZERO to improve the standard 76mm AP or APC rounds, but did for 90mm AP rounds.
It is the belief that as everyone has an opinion then everyone must air that opinion.Carl Schwamberger wrote: ↑21 Sep 2020, 20:56...................in the last decade a different sort of annoyance has emerged.
The author felt he had to dig up something to validate his argument so he resurrected his 5 year old Google result. He did not bother to check the Google claims:paulrward wrote: ↑20 Sep 2020, 16:24
Here are two articles I found this morning that are worth your reading. They will enrage the Sherman
Fanbois, but they are both based on interviews with actual M4 Sherman Tankers............................... these are two more, unverifiable accounts made by veterans.
Actually, they did test German plate, starting with Panzer III in March 1943, but tests of Tiger and Panther were later in 1944.Delwin wrote: ↑21 Sep 2020, 22:59I believe the logic was simple - since our tank uses that type of plates (which must be the best option because we do it) our enemies are also reasonable and follow the suit. This makes us to questions why nobody checked what kinf of actual armor is used by Germans...
And I did not say you did. No, the 76mm could not be "pushed to higher values and placed in M4"...that is the 3-inch M7. Or the first iteration of the 76mm, which had to have the barrel trimmed down. Nor does the longer breech work. Nor was the recoil system a problem, the 90mm M3 in the M36 used essentially the same recoil system as the 3-inch M10. Yes, it was a decision, but there was a reason for that decision, it wasn't arbitrary.I do not claim that 17-pdr should be "copied" - I simply state that if it was requested, the "new" 76 mm or even 3-Inch could be pushed to higher values and placed in M4 if anybody is asking. To put it simple: stronger recoil system, maybe longer breach and barrel in 76 mm and everything is OK. It was a decision.
There does not appear to be any clear reason for that. My inference is they tested the German 7.5cm AP in April 1943...and by then Ordnance was already pushing for the 90mm, which Armor did not like, preferring a more powerful 75/76mm. So Ordnance did what they wanted to do, which is pursue the 90mm gun as the "simple" solution...and since 76mm would go away in 1945, there was no need for something similar to the 90mm AP T33 for the 76mm.Which I find extremely odd. For sure production of ABCBC ammo would be much cheaper. OK - maybe not perfect option but penetration similar to German 75 mm KWK L48 should be achieved and even slightly surpassed -especially since both velocity and weight of the projectile of M1 gun was slightly higher. The other issue is that even HVAP ammo barely (400 yards ?) was able to went through front turret of Panther.
Richard Anderson wrote: ↑20 Sep 2020, 21:07
I understand Carl, but this is a long-standing issue that precedes the current ownership. Yes, I have taken the step of placing some posters on ignore and try only to reply to other posters relying to them, but that only serves to keep some of the constant din of the monkey gallery out of my ears. The problem remains how do you keep agenda-driven a-historical drivel based upon heresy controlled on what nominally advertises itself as a history forum?
Owner and forum staff must to decide what type of forum. Forum for to discuss serious real history or forum for to write agendas and fantasys and complete tosh. Or some other type like maximum views for maximum incomes.Carl Schwamberger wrote: ↑21 Sep 2020, 20:56Rigid vetting of the members is how. Theres a couple other forums that seem to do this, but I don't use those. The participation or activity on those is relatively low. I spend a lot of my time here reading threads/posts from 10-20 years ago on this site. It looks like the policies of the owner & mods were adequate then, but in the last decade a different sort of annoyance has emerged. Hopefully the policies will be up dated before the year is out, but I'm not predicting anything.
I don't argue with veterans who were actually there. I'm pointing out that your particular anecdote is devoid of support outside of your own claim that it happened, that you understood what you were hearing correctly, and that the years haven't fogged your memory. There is a significant difference between those two types of reports that really cannot be glossed over. One is first-hand, documented, and the other is neither.paulrward wrote: ↑20 Sep 2020, 16:24Hello Mr Thumpalumpacus:
Here are two articles I found this morning that are worth your reading. They will enrage the Sheman
Fanbois, but they are both based on interviews with actual M4 Sherman Tankers.
In the first one, you will find the following passage :
you can find the article at :Fury accurately portrays how superior the German tanks were. A Sherman
provided you with protection against most enemy fire but against a Tiger it could
easily become your coffin. I remember a very near miss where an eight cm shell
from a Tiger tank went within inches of our turret and we decided not to stay
around too long after that. In open combat we never had a chance. So, like in
Fury, we always had to be one step ahead. It was only because we could call up
air strikes and had many more tanks than the Germans that we eventually won.
https://www.theguardian.com/film/filmbl ... -realistic
You should also read the following account, based on an interview with a 2nd Armored tanker named
Bromberg, which actually contains some of the incidents from the movie, ' Fury ' . You can find the
article at :
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ ... page=0%2C3
So, these are two more, unverifiable accounts made by veterans. Believe them or not, as you prefer.
Respectfully :
Paul R. Ward
So yet another perfect example of a trolling attempt and the logical argumentation of trolls.
Does it not strike anyone as odd that "Bromberg" apparently had no other name? Or rank? Or that he drove tanks, except when crossing rivers, so he wasn't a driver? Or that he didn't like the M26, because it was "computerized"? That Americans called German sub-machine guns "grease guns"? Or that the "M4A3E8" featured "thicker armor"?You should also read the following account, based on an interview with a 2nd Armored tanker named
Bromberg
Why yes, exactly. And just how this confirms Mr. Respectful's trolling lies about 4th Armd Div tankers "training" on Medium Tanks M3 in England is beyond me.I don't argue with veterans who were actually there. I'm pointing out that your particular anecdote is devoid of support outside of your own claim that it happened, that you understood what you were hearing correctly, and that the years haven't fogged your memory. There is a significant difference between those two types of reports that really cannot be glossed over. One is first-hand, documented, and the other is neither.So, these are two more, unverifiable accounts made by veterans. Believe them or not, as you prefer.
Well, yeah, of course, but that is the red herring Mr. Respectful likes to rely on.Be it known that I'm of the opinion that the M-4 series was in most marks clearly inferior in both firepower and armor to Tigers or Panthers. I'm not arguing the point you're making, just pointing out that your anecdote does not constitute reasonable support in the context of an anonymous Internet discussion.