Jump to content

Porkins

Members
  • Content Count

    216
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

103 Excellent

About Porkins

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Planet of Bestine
  • Interests
    Eating, suicide missions

Recent Profile Visitors

673 profile views
  1. The problem with that is they didn't have the manpower to man a bunch of medium tanks. They needed to build a tank that allowed 5 German tankers to take on 5-10 enemy tanks to have a chance. It didn't work, but building more powerful tanks made more sense than more medium tanks.
  2. That's basically the entire design philosophy behind the F-35. There may be planes that can outmaneuver it, but if you don't know it's there until after it fires a missile at you, does it really make a difference?
  3. Really good posts. What I've read about Kursk follows what you're saying. I think a particularly salient point is that the German failure at Kursk was more the result of a lack of manpower, specifically trained panzer grenadiers and the officers and NCO's to lead them, than it was a lack of armored vehicles. The most serious shortage for Germany in the later half of the war (along with oil) was manpower. For this reason I quibble a bit with your assertion that it was an error for Germany to concentrate on larger heavy tanks as opposed to building, "a better medium tank." More PIV's, or an improved version of the PIV, was not a solution for Germany because they didn't have the trained manpower reserves to man enough medium tanks at anywhere near the numbers to counter Allied numbers. They were in desperate need of force multipliers, like a tank that enabled a 5 man crew to match the combat power of 5-10 allied tanks. This ultimately was not successful either, but I would argue that the idea was more sound than trying to outproduce the Allies, which was impossible for Germany to do. My last thought on Kursk is that it is not only overblown in terms of tank battles, it gets overblown in terms of overall importance. The reality is that even if Germany was successful, closing off the Kursk salient and destroying the armies w/in, the Soviets had more armies coming. Win or lose, Kursk wasn't a turning point either way for Germany. Their fate was sealed at Stalingrad, or even in front of the gates of Moscow.
  4. Would second that regarding the A-20. Built like a bomber, flies like a heavy fighter. A great plane to learn bombers with.
  5. Great topic. For me it's the P-39, the cover boy for Kuban! I actually kind of love the plane, I just hate to fly it. Handles like a flying brick for me. The armament is great on paper, but while I adore the effect of a 37 mm round sheering off the tail of a bomber with one blast, the reality is I usually can't hit anything in it.
  6. Yeah, but nobody wants to play mud in MP.
  7. I would like to see the Stug replace the Ferdinand, because the Stug is cooler.
  8. Is the Stug in this game as an AI controlled vehicle? Is there a list of AI assets planned for the game?
  9. I agree that 4 Stugs is better than a Tiger, but only if you have the trained manpower to operate them. Everything I've read indicates that by 1944 the Germans were scraping bottom of the barrel for men. I actually think the consensus is the big tanks were a mistake, which I think only tells half the story. Anyway, fun to discuss.
  10. But who would crew those 4 Stugs? The worst shortage for Germany after fuel was trained manpower. That's one reason they were searching for wonder weapons. They had to find a way to leverage their manpower. A Tiger or Panther required 5 men. 4 Stugs required 16. But I do agree that the Stug should be playable in game.
  11. I had to edit my post from highway to roads. I thought highway driving in England was pretty easy. The sheer terror came when I got off the highway and drove the back roads, a drive I assumed would be a piece of cake. Specifically, I was driving from Bovington to Bath. I'm on the wrong side of the road (for me), wrong side of the car (with a stick no less), some surprisingly steep grades, and negotiating traffic circles backwards. It was scary stuff. The worst part was the narrowness of the roads and the fact that the "shoulder" was often a series of houses or a stone wall! The roads also felt busy compared to a rural US highway. My wife and kids tell me the countryside on the drive was just lovely, I wouldn't know. I was too busy trying not to kill the whole family. Bath, BTW, was wonderful. My wife and I are seriously looking at it as a retirement option someday. Pretty pricey real estate though. Not London pricey, but not cheap!
  12. If you do any sightseeing outside of London, I highly recommend the Tank Museum in Bovington (write it off as research for Tank Crew!). I'm guessing it's about a 2 hour drive from London. As a Yank I drove there from Portsmouth just last year. I was actually driving a manual transmission of all things (shifter on the left), and was surprised how quickly I got used to it. Rent the smallest car possible, as the hardest part about driving in England are the extremely narrow roads.
  13. This raises a question I've had. I own BoS and BoK. I'm not really interested in BP, but am intensely interested in the P-38 collector's plane. If I just buy the P-38 and not BP, what can I do with the P-38? Can I fly it in MP? Can I fly it in any of the BoS or BoK SP modes?
×
×
  • Create New...