German 'Handy Top Tips' armoured tactics document

[womble]

In CM the penalty for shooting on the move was reduced for WW2 tanks because of 1min turns and something else which i dont remember right now. So it may make sense in CM to move fast towards the enemy and shoot, while in reality you would only do this in extreme situations, like in an ambush.

A believe the penalty for shooting while moving Slow was reduced for the benefit of the AI which isn't up to plotting stuttering movement with fast bursts and shooting pauses at the waypoints. The Russians, I gather, did used to advance and fire while at the "charge", but only area HE fire at wood lines and the like, and en masse. The loss of accuracy there wasn't as crippling as when trying to hit another vehicle, indeed, some random distribution of shots was probably desirable.

 

 

[large snip]

 

Exactly. That's what I think is weird about the whole thing.

Maybe the guy who posted the instructions himself didn't think about "die Halte" and used "die Halbe" instead, reversing the meaning. We may never know

There's lots of ways it could've gotten into a pamphlet; look at the errors in the first few generations of CM manual While the need for "agreeing prepositions" in German and many other languages is a bit of a "parity" check, it could even be that somewhere in the publication process "die Halten" got a letter dropped and another altered... But thanks for the discussion; language fascinates me.

[George MC]

No, I do joke around elsewhere. But on this, I was trying to figure it out as well. half or halt, stop to fire, what did they mean?

 

I was also scouring the internet for scans of the original brochure/pamphlet and probably found the same auction house with a few scans of the cover and a page but not the one of interest.

 

I found the German translation or whatever from a German site.

 

Which came first? the chicken or the egg as far as the versions floating around?

 

I found a site in German which seems to MAYBE have jpeg scans of the other pages but a window pops up and you need to register to see them I think. I didn't register.

I might be wrong and they are not scans, it is all in German!

 

I will come back and edit the links in....

 

EDIT 1: George already had the link to the German language version in post #1, I hadn't noticed it before.

 

EDIT2: These might be scans here...? At least we will know what the actual document was printed as saying, right? 

 

http://www.militaria-fundforum.de/showthread.php?p=3338428

That link does have images. I created an account to take a peek. However it's a pretty tight forum so I can't see full size pictures - just the thumbnails... And they are too small to make much of the wording out.

[JasonC]

On shooting on the move, school and dreamed up doctrine might advocate it, but no one in history ever hit anything actually using it. Its just idiotic and a total waste of ammunition.

On the overall German armor doctrine, notice the concentrated offensive employment urged everywhere. Now ask how well that actually worked out in practice. Not all that well is the answer. Over the whole second half of the war, once facing veteran opponents with equipment and doctrine evolved by the war itself,and without the operational prereqs for it all too often, this doctrine led to the wholesale loss of masses of scarce German armor, to very little overall effect. The one to three day "seize the initiative" death ride happens over and over, and practically never achieves anyhting beyond a momentary pause in the enemy's momentum, if that. On two or three occasions it may stretch to a couple of weeks when enough mass is employed - meaning whole panzer armies and multiple panzer corps, not singke panzer battalions.

The point is, the greatest weakness of German armor doctrine in WWII is they never developed a realistuc and practical *defensive* armor doctrine. Even in the sense of local counterattacks within their defended zone. Many units *practiced* sensible fire brigade and reserve "linebacker" tactics, but they weren't applying anything from actual German doctrine as they did so - just ad hoc, practical adaptations. The doctrine was always telling them to gather everything armored up into one fist and launch it into space, deep in the other guy's defended zone, where the tanks were at their most vulnerable and had to fight diverse effective enemy AT arms with the worst tactical conditions conceivable. Then the muckety mucks would criticize any resulting failure as showing insufficient offensive spirit and willpower. It was a fantasts doctrine, driven by romantic to magical aspirations to recreate 1940-1941 without noticing the enemy was no longer brain-dead in doctrine and practically unarmed, in AT terms.

Above all, it did not even remotely work. So keep that in mind as you try to learn from and copy it.

[Bil Hardenberger]

On shooting on the move, school and dreamed up doctrine might advocate it, but no one in history ever hit anything actually using it. Its just idiotic and a total waste of ammunition.

 

Jason, true, but the point wasn't to actually "hit anything" when firing on the move, but to provide a psychological weapon primarily against infantry... the German 7th Panzer Division used it to good effect during the battle of France (I know there were other uses (and other than 1940) but this one comes quickly to mind).

 

I use firing on the move as a tactic in CM but in the manner I just described, never as a tactic versus enemy tanks, that is asking for disaster.

[Bil Hardenberger]

By the way I discussed some of these principles and how they relate to CM in my CMBN BETA AAR if anybody is interested.

[BLSTK]

Kohlenkau, where are you getting your foreign language interpretations from? If you're google-translating the original text from here, of course the typo will be propagated and translated. Or if you're not, it's entirely possible that there's a typo in whatever German original was used to produce the English and French translations, and the person who made the French translation hadn't really got a clue, so added in the bit about power, which isn't in the German you posted...

 

Actually, womble, the French translation describing the speed is bang on. However, rather than encompassing the whole it embraces only a portion of the tank. The key word here is "régime" (meaning "engine or running speed") "Puissance" here refers to the inner workings of the AFV as opposed to the actual travel velocity of the vehicle itself. (There, my Masters Degree in French Language and Literature finally served a purpose!)

[womble]

Actually, womble, the French translation describing the speed is bang on. However, rather than encompassing the whole it embraces only a portion of the tank. The key word here is "régime" (meaning "engine or running speed") "Puissance" here refers to the inner workings of the AFV as opposed to the actual travel velocity of the vehicle itself. (There, my Masters Degree in French Language and Literature finally served a purpose!)

It's still a translation of a flawed original, Mr Troll.

[Mad Mike]

It's still a translation of a flawed original, Mr Troll.

 

I don't think the original is flawed.

 

It says: There should be only two speeds for a tank: half speed (for firing) and full throttle.

 

"Halbe" does not mean "halt" or "stop" and it is not a typo. The reason it can't be a typo is quite logical: Nobody would refer to a halting tank as having any speed at all, it does have no speed since it is standing still. So when point 8 refers to two speeds, this does by itself exclude standing still. Don't try to overthink this or make it more complicated than it really is .. it simply means what I wrote above and it was also meant to say this.

Edited July 18, 2015 by Mad Mike

[RockinHarry]

Whoever translated from german original first, took a bit of freedom, while also doing some translational errors. The retranslated version to german on the 501 Tiger page, also got some the same errors obviously, although I just could judge from a single "original" page containing paragraph 15, to be found here:

http://www.hermann-historica.de/auktion/hhm67.pl?f=NR_LOT&c=6031&t=temartic_R_GB&db=kat67_r.txt

15.

"Angreifende Feind-Panzer darfst du nie angreifen, da sie dich dann vorzeitig sehen und deine Stärke erkennen, ehe du ihnen Schaden zufügen kannst; vielmehr mußt du geschickt ausweichen, um sie in einer günstigen Feuerstellung auflaufen zu lassen und sie dann überraschend in der Flanke oder Rücken anzugreifen und zu vernichten.

Geschlagenen Panzerfeind mußt du aus eigenem Entschluß rücksichtslos verfolgen!"

It can be assumed, that many translational errors made it into the remaining text as well. I have an original german tank training manual, as well as other sources that state, that offensive tank combat movements are either from full stop (for firing) or full speed to reach the next combat position.

[RockinHarry]

That link does have images. I created an account to take a peek. However it's a pretty tight forum so I can't see full size pictures - just the thumbnails... And they are too small to make much of the wording out.

Unfortunately only paying members at that german site (military relic hunters and collectors) can see full size images, but from the given assortment of thumbs it´s just a handful of selected pages that do not help much anyway.

[womble]

I don't think the original is flawed.

 

It says: There should be only two speeds for a tank: half speed (for firing) and full throttle.

 

"Halbe" does not mean "halt" or "stop" and it is not a typo. The reason it can't be a typo is quite logical: Nobody would refer to a halting tank as having any speed at all, it does have no speed since it is standing still. So when point 8 refers to two speeds, this does by itself exclude standing still. Don't try to overthink this or make it more complicated than it really is .. it simply means what I wrote above and it was also meant to say this.

Whatever. You're missing the point. And you're wrong: Speed zero is still a speed. I have often encountered the usage, "He only has two speeds: stopped, and flat out." Given that it's a physical fact that you will only by sheer fluke hit another tank by shooting at it while moving at any speed with an unstabilised gun, why would you ever (barring obstacles) move slower than "as fast as you can"? Which is the whole point of the paragraph, which starts by telling you to drive as fast as you can. Why would the author specify "slow down to half speed to shoot" when in the previous sentence he said "you won't hit any better by slowing down (and you'll be easier to hit if you do)"? There is obviously some sort of error, whether it be typo, transcription, dictation, interpretation of jargon or some other failing between the brain of whoever conceived the advice and the copy that made it to "Halbe", because otherwise it's just a confusing paragraph which makes no consistent sense whatsoever.

 

Also, what, exactly might be meant by "Half speed". It makes some sense in naval parlance, since the sea is largely devoid of hills, or the instruction can mean "half of maximum revolutions of the propellor", but in a tank, which can be driving in mud or on pavement, with a gear box to change what "half revolutions" means, it's pretty meaningless. If the tank can do 27kph on flat metalled road, does it mean that you should slow down to 13.5kph to shoot? When you might not be able to maintain 13kph on the surface you're crossing with the pedal to the metal? And what about a Panther, with its 55kph notional top speed: should the tank commander consider it ideal to fire while crossing a ploughed field at 27.5 kph? Of course these are rhetorical questions; the answers are clear: no, there is no practical advantage to be gained by firing at half a notional top speed, in any circumstance. It's nonsense.

 

And another point: "the half" isn't a speed . Half is a speed, so "...should be only two speeds: the half (for firing!) and all out forward..." makes grammatical sense, and is consistent with widespread usage. The phrase sans elision does not and is not. I believe German permits "halbe" to be used as a quantifier without an article (or the article applies to the noun it's quantifying).

 

 

A little sanity-checking simply shows there's a problem with advice paragraph 8, sentence 3. The simplest solution to resolve that problem is that the author meant to say "Der Halte", because that is consistent with both the advice given elsewhere in that paragraph and pamphlet, and the laws of physics.

[RockinHarry]

I have no doubt, that it´s a translation error:

8.

... the half (for firing!) and all out forward. This is the basic principal of tank combat!

... the halt ( german original most likely was "Schiesshalt" = stop to fire ) and full speed forward.

and to clear up 14.

"When your attack must pass potential enemy tank positions, for instance a woodline, you should either pass by them so closely that you are inside their minimum range, or remain so far away that you are outside their maximum effective range."

Minimum range = most likely the range that a potential enemy (tank) gunner needs to effectively aim at a passing by vehicle at great speed.

Would be interesting to test "minimum range" for the various weapon systems in the game...

[Mad Mike]

Whatever. You're missing the point. And you're wrong: Speed zero is still a speed. I have often encountered the usage, "He only has two speeds: stopped, and flat out." Given that it's a physical fact that you will only by sheer fluke hit another tank by shooting at it while moving at any speed with an unstabilised gun, why would you ever (barring obstacles) move slower than "as fast as you can"? Which is the whole point of the paragraph, which starts by telling you to drive as fast as you can. Why would the author specify "slow down to half speed to shoot" when in the previous sentence he said "you won't hit any better by slowing down (and you'll be easier to hit if you do)"? There is obviously some sort of error, whether it be typo, transcription, dictation, interpretation of jargon or some other failing between the brain of whoever conceived the advice and the copy that made it to "Halbe", because otherwise it's just a confusing paragraph which makes no consistent sense whatsoever.

 

Also, what, exactly might be meant by "Half speed". It makes some sense in naval parlance, since the sea is largely devoid of hills, or the instruction can mean "half of maximum revolutions of the propellor", but in a tank, which can be driving in mud or on pavement, with a gear box to change what "half revolutions" means, it's pretty meaningless. If the tank can do 27kph on flat metalled road, does it mean that you should slow down to 13.5kph to shoot? When you might not be able to maintain 13kph on the surface you're crossing with the pedal to the metal? And what about a Panther, with its 55kph notional top speed: should the tank commander consider it ideal to fire while crossing a ploughed field at 27.5 kph? Of course these are rhetorical questions; the answers are clear: no, there is no practical advantage to be gained by firing at half a notional top speed, in any circumstance. It's nonsense.

 

And another point: "the half" isn't a speed . Half is a speed, so "...should be only two speeds: the half (for firing!) and all out forward..." makes grammatical sense, and is consistent with widespread usage. The phrase sans elision does not and is not. I believe German permits "halbe" to be used as a quantifier without an article (or the article applies to the noun it's quantifying).

 

 

A little sanity-checking simply shows there's a problem with advice paragraph 8, sentence 3. The simplest solution to resolve that problem is that the author meant to say "Der Halte", because that is consistent with both the advice given elsewhere in that paragraph and pamphlet, and the laws of physics.

 

Well done, agree with most of what you've written.

 

It's just that you seem to miss my point: Whoever translated this, intended "Halbe" to mean "half speed". That's the only way this whole sentence construction as it stands in the translation makes sense.

There is no "Der Halte" in German. "Der Halt" would be the closest, correct equivalent.

 

I guess this all is a case of a translator with mediocre understanding of German translating the original into English, which then in turn has been translated back into German. Would be interesting to see the original, maybe someone can provide a scan?

[womble]

Well done, agree with most of what you've written.

 

It's just that you seem to miss my point: Whoever translated this, intended "Halbe" to mean "half speed". That's the only way this whole sentence construction as it stands in the translation makes sense.

There is no "Der Halte" in German. "Der Halt" would be the closest, correct equivalent.

 

I guess this all is a case of a translator with mediocre understanding of German translating the original into English, which then in turn has been translated back into German. Would be interesting to see the original, maybe someone can provide a scan?

No, your point is just irrelevant or possibly facile or both. What the translator intended is irrelevant. The intent of the author is all that matters.

[BLSTK]

It's still a translation of a flawed original, Mr Troll.

 

Zat would be "Monsieur Le (P)resident Troll ®" to you, Meester Mumble.

 

Ah trust yore Eengleesh  ees better zan yore French.

Edited July 18, 2015 by BLSTK

[kohlenklau]

How about this-ski?

 

8. В атаке продвигайся вперёд так быстро, как только можешь. На маленькой скорости ты сможешь видеть и стрелять лишь ненамного лучше, а вот вероятность попадания в тебя возрастёт многократно. Для танка может быть лишь две скорости: половинная - для ведения огня, и полная - для продвижения вперёд. Это основные принципы ведения танкового боя!

 

And you will not believe this next one, this Chinese chick, Dr. ZHAO Wei, wrote a technical paper and used the mis-re-back-inter-cross-translated version!

http://www.tech-ex.com/thesis/cje/00445642.html

 

 

I am just gonna buy the freaking thing and see what the hell it really said. This is starting to remind me of Samuel L. Jackson in "The Red Violin"...

[LukeFF]

womble, do you even speak German? 

[womble]

womble, do you even speak German? 

A little. Does it matter? At least one German speaker with the ability to read and comprehend agrees with the thrust of my argument on the linguistic side, and no one has yet come up with a study showing that firing on the move at half speed was actually recommended. Or any idea what "half speed" actually means.

 

Whether I speak German or not, advice point 8, sentence 3 as originally presented is obviously wrong and inconsistent with the rest of that paragraph, the rest of the points given, and known tactical doctrine, and there must have been some mechanism by which it got twisted. Can you deny that, with any rationale?

[SlowLarry]

For what its worth, if common sense cant be applied in this case, i found another translation, which, oh wonder, says at point 8:

 

For a tank there should be only two speeds: the halt( for firing!) and all out forward.

 

So its time that someone brings up the 600euros to solve this issue...

 

http://www.raafsquad.com/cliffs/battlefront/PanzerForwards.pdf

[c3k]

Thanks for posting this. I think number 8 has a typo. "half" (my bold) should probably be "halt". You should either be shooting or going full out at the enemy.

 

Quoting myself because it's embarrassing to be ignored over Womble.

 

The doctrine was to HALT to fire. Any firing while moving was considered wasted ammo.

 

Edited to add: I have now caught up with the Great German Grammar war postings. Without having seen the specific document, I don't need to know what German word was used. The doctrine was for coordinated, aimed, fire. As stated, the Soviets did not follow that doctrine. They wanted guns blazing when charging. 

 

This is a subject which cannot be resolved by looking at a single internet "document". I've never seen any other German period writing, pamphlet, order, or instruction which said anything other than "stop to shoot". FWIW.

Edited July 19, 2015 by c3k

[JasonC]

Given the choice between discussing whether German armor doctrine was effective or wasn't, and discussing whether they wrote halt as they clearly did, or half as some fool on the internet guessed, the brilliant tacticans of this site spend 3 pages weighing in on the second "question". This is why I write for Board Game Geek these days, far more than this forum. Just saying...

Edited July 19, 2015 by JasonC

[c3k]

Given the choice between discussing whether German armor doctrine was effective or wasn't, and discussing whether they wrote halt as they clearly did, or half as some fool on the internet guessed, the brilliant tacticans of this site spend 3 pages weighing in on the second "question". This is why I write for Board Game Geek these days, far more than this forum. Just saying...

 

Sorry, I only half-read your post.

 

 

(C'mon! THAT was funny!)

 

Ken

[76mm]

At least it was a good-natured, well-informed discussion...  

[BLSTK]

Sorry, I only half-read your post.

 

Dude, I saw what you did there. Too funny, Ken.

[LukeFF]

A little. Does it matter?

 

It does matter, seeing how arrogant you are coming across towards anyone who dares disagree with you. I speak a small bit of German as well, but I'm not gonna be one to puff up my chest and tell others how wrong they are and how right I am.