Post
by Gunney » Tue May 19, 2009 6:57 pm
Shermans did indeed engage Pak 88s. They were not effective, yes. But there have been repeated documented engagements where Shermans, under the command of Patton (That awesome Cowboy General) were so deep into enemy lines that they caught the enemy napping. By the time the Pak's fought back, the Shermans sorrounded them. Yes, it was usually 5 shermans to a Pak, but the fact is, the Pak's got their rear handed to them whenever Patton bull rushed them.
They were not encouraged to engage Pak 88's due to the American Armored Doctrine, but they none the less engaged them.
Don't ever tell me again such historical inaccuracies. Its people like you that belittle the truth in WW2. Yea the Pak's chewed up Shermans, so did Tigers, Panzerfausts, and every other Anti-Tank known. But the Sherman still went up against them and came out the victor, with about 580% casualty rate. Which by the way is mainly contributed to the German's Defensive fighting. Same casualty rates were reported on the German side whenever they assaulted the Allies.
THATS WHAT THE **** IM TALKING ABOUT.
*Lays down the "You Got Served" hammer*
Oh and to the Allied Bombers dreading the FlaK .88, the gun was only effective in day light when the bombers were flying low. The highest maximum range of the gun was well short of the maximum flying range of most any Allied Bomber. So as long as the bombers were flying high the FlaK .88 wasn't that effective as an Anti Air gun.
I will however concede that the FlaK .88 was none the less an effective Anti-Air weapon. That was proven quite well.
Remember, there are no such thing as Athiests in foxholes. There's also no such things as foxes in foxholes.
