Bullethead

Why did tank destroyers not work? Well, to make a long story short, the US doctrine was to take what we now consider as all the essential parts of a tank and divide them between 2 types of vehicles: tanks and tank destroyers. Tank destroyers got the high-velocity gun and good mobility, tanks got the armor (by US standards of the time) and the anti-personnel gun. This doctrine has quite obvious flaws. What do specialized infantry support tanks do when they meet enemy tanks? What do specialized tank destroyers do when they meet infantry and artillery? In both cases, the answer was "die a lot now". So both problems were eventually solved by combining all the features of both vehicles into a single thing, the tank as we know it today and which other, wiser nations had been using all along. So why did the US have this doctrine? It goes back to the immediate post-WW1 years and inter-arm politics within the US Army. Basically, the in massive force reduction after that war, the brand new US Armored Corps was disbanded. But now tanks existed and somebody had to be in charge of them, so the infantry got control of them (to the point that the cavalry couldn't have tanks--it's armored, tracked, turreted vehicles were called "combat cars"). The infantry naturally twisted tank development to suit its own ends and focused on developing infantry support platforms following a 1918-style doctrine. The cav, legally forbidden to have "tanks", OTOH, focused on making light scout "combat cars" for its recon mission. So by default, the US didn't develop any vehicles with real anti-tank capabilities for a long time after WW1--killing tanks was the job of AT guns. Shades of 1918 again, but at least this time the AT guns were specially designed instead of being field guns pressed into this role in emergency. Then the US started paying attention to current events and learned that the potential enemy might employ masses of tanks for breakthroughs. But by this time, thinking had fossilized that tanks were infantry support things and AT guns were the tank killers. So with this mindset, the natural answer to hordes of enemy tanks was more AT guns, only self-propelled so they'd be able to meet armored mobility with mobility of their own. Thus was born the WW2 crop of tank destroyers. They were invisioned at AT guns 1st, vehicles 2nd. Their intended foes were tanks of the US style, armed with low-velocity AP guns, which the TDs would be able to pick off at long range. Then they'd move quickly to a new firing position before arty landed on them. And when the enemy tanks broke through somewhere else, they'd be able to go head them off quickly as well. Unfortunately, by the time the TDs reached the field, they were facing multi-role tanks able to shoot back effectively. TDs have always reminded me of WW1 battlecruisers. Those were a good idea until the other side got its own BCs, at which point thin armor and speed were of no use. So just as the BC was replaced by the fast BB, so did the TD and specialized AP tank get replaced by multi-role tanks. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria. [This message has been edited by Bullethead (edited 02-12-2001).]

MD said: I don't have a flatbed scanner. It's a roll-through thing for doing single sheets only. The only way I can scan a book's picture is to cut the picture out of the book and feed it through the machine. Crappy scanner, I know, but it's what I have. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

1. T / F. No poison gas was used during WWII. False. Japanese used poison gas AT grenades in Burma, at least. T / F. Britain used bomber aircraft to target civilians first. False. It was either the Japanese in China, the Germans in the Spanish Civil War, or the Italians in Ethiopia. r: 1940 3. T / F. Germany had more tanks than the allies. False 4. T / F. German tanks were better than allied tanks. Not a T/F question because both sides had some good and bad points. 5. T / F. The German army was larger than the combined allied armies. Way false. 6. T / F. The German airforce was larger than the combined allied airforce. Way way way false. 7. T / F. Belgium would not let English or French military units inside it's borders. True, until after it had been invaded by the Germans. Year: 1941 8. T / F. The Russians were producing T-34 tanks. True. 9. T / F. The Germans were producing Panther tanks. False. 10. T / F. Zuhkov was still in a Russian prison camp. Dunno. Year: 1942 11. T / F. The German Luffwaffe was reaching it's peak effectiveness. False. The LW peaked in 1941. 12. T / F. American sent the first Lend Lease convoy to Russia. All convoys to north Russia left from England regardless of whose ships they were. 13. T / F. Germany had no labor shortages this year. Depends on how you count. 14. T / F. The first German mass execution took place in Russia. False. They'd already hosed off some Tommies during the Dunkirk thing. 15. T / F. The first US invasion of the war took place in North Africa. False, it was Guadalcanal. Year: 1943 16. T / F. The battle of Midway marked the high water mark of Japanese expansion in the Pacific. False. Midway happened in 1942, and the Japanese captured some Aleutian Islands and invaded India afterwards anyway. 17. T / F. Lend Lease convoys were suspended because the Liberty ships would sometimes break in two in calm seas. The ships did break due to faulty welding but this didn't stop convoys IIRC. 18. T / F. US Bombers based in England began daylight bombing of Germany production centers. False. They started in 1942. 19. T / F. Radar was first used in an aircraft. False. This had also started in 1942 at least. 20. T / F. The first US bombing of Japanese soil took place. False. That was the Doolittle raid on 18 April 1942. 21. T / F. The first incendiary devices were used in the war. False. Fire bombs had been in use from the beginning. Year 1944 22. T / F. Toyko was the first Axis city fire-bombed. False. The Brits had been firebombing Germany for years already, including the big mess at Hamburg in 1943. The big Toyko firebombing was in 1945 anyway. 23. T /F. Italy surrenders and officially exits the war. False. This happened in 1943. Then they came back into the war on the Allied side. 24. T / F. FDR makes "unconditional surrender" official allied policy for the European Theater of Operations. Dunno but I don't think it was FDR's idea. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

Thanks for posting that up. I've tried several times to describe this beast in "ugliest tank" threads but seeing is believing. Although I have photos of this thing, I'm not about to cut up the book. Anyway, I guess now I'm the retroactive, revisionist winner of those old arguments now ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

Because we seem to be in the mood to type arty song lyrics, I guess I need to chip in. After WW1, "The Field Artillery Song" was changed to reflect motorization. Most of the verses remained the same; the only different one I can recall was: See the red guidon stuck on the outside of the truck Motor trucks with the pieces hooked on Stop to fix up a flat or to get the captain's hat Motor trucks with the pieces hooked on ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

Because we seem to be in the mood to type arty song lyrics, I guess I need to chip in. After WW1, "The Field Artillery Song" was changed to reflect motorization. Most of the verses remained the same; the only different one I can recall was: See the red guidon stuck on the outside of the truck Motor trucks with the pieces hooked on Stop to fix up a flat or to get the captain's hat Motor trucks with the pieces hooked on ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

Kunstler said: There is no such thing as a "definitive" history. Yes, only 1 thing really happened, but WW2 was simply so huge that at this remove in time it's impossible for us to ever really know what that one thing was. The best we can do is get a good approximation. For this, we have the works of all the historians digging into primary sources, plus the memoirs of participants. None of them tell the full story but taken together they at least all agree on the major points. After that, it's pretty much up to every reader to form his own opinion of the minor details. So read everything you can. That said, from my various readings (including German memoirs and Glanz ), here's what I've learned about your various line items: - Weather repeatedly frustrated the fulfillment of German operational aims. Weather frustrated everybody and all their foot, horse, guns, and boats, at various times. I don't think the Germans had it worse than anybody else after they got over the 1st Russian winter. - Soviet forces throughout the war in virtually every operation possessed significant or overwhelming numerical superiority. Depends on how you count. If you look at a theater or sector of the front as a whole, then this was usually true. OTOH, if you consider only the critical points, then this wasn't always true. How else could the Germans have made their big penetrations and encirclements if they had to assault vastly superior forces to get there? - Soviet manpower resources were inexhaustible, hence the Soviets continually ignored human losses. Not true. In 1942, for example, the Russians were really scraping. This is one big reason the Germans got so far that year. - Soviet strategic and high level operational leadership was superb. However, lower level leadership (corps and below) was uniformly dismal. Not true, at least at first. For examples of very poor top-level command, check out the 1941 campaign and also the 1942 Kharkov battle. - Soviet planning was rigid, and the execution of plans at every level was inflexible and unimaginative. I don't think so. Rather, it seems like they tried to adapt to unforeseen circumstances but were handicapped by their over-all command structure (rather unwieldy at first) and (especially) their unreliable means of communications. Thus, their HQs were sometimes in the dark and when they did know what was going on, they had a hard time passing new orders. Thus the whole show often defaulted to autopilot despite their best efforts. - Wherever possible, the Soviets relied for success on mass rather than maneuver. Envelopment operations were avoided whenever possible. I guess this depends on the scale you look at. The Russians were bigtime into envelopments at the operational and strategic scales. Look at the arrows on the maps showing the routes of their armies from the 1941 Moscow counterattack, through Kharkov 1942, Stalingrad, etc., to the end of the war. - The Soviets operated in two echelons, never cross attached units, and attacked along straight axes. Not true. They cross-attached units from the beginning, often had reserves (where possible) besides 2nd echelon forces, and did enveloping turning movements. - Lend lease was critical for Soviet victory. Without it collapse might have ensured. Subject to much argument, but I think it's pretty clear that without all the US trucks they got, they'd have been unable to move so much so far so fast. - Hitler was the cause of virtually all German defeats. Army expertise produced earlier victories (a variation of the post World War I stab in the back. legend). Depends on what you mean by "cause", proximate or contributing. The root of all German defeats was Hitler for starting the war in the first place, for doing so before the date he'd told his chiefs to plan for, and for structuring the German economy for a short war. As to the course of individual battles, it's true Hitler screwed up a good number of them, and the effects of such losses were felt in later battles. OTOH, there were times when the Germans were simply out-fought. - The stereotypical Soviet soldier was capable of enduring great suffering and hardship, fatalistic, dogged in defense (in particular in bridgeheads), a master of infiltration and night fighting, but inflexible, unimaginative, emotional and prone to panic in the face of uncertainty. Never having fought Russians, I can't comment. But the above description fits most troops of most nationalities I'm personally familiar with ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

Generally that's called the "Field Artillery Song". It might have a more precise name but I don't know it. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

Generally that's called the "Field Artillery Song". It might have a more precise name but I don't know it. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

My list of East Front vehicles I'd like to see: 1. The Pioneer version of the PzII that had the crane on the back for placing large demo charges. Also the type used as an APC for sappers. 2. The T-35-1(76) heavy tank with a crew of 10 and 5 separate turrets. 3. All the various 2-turret versions of the T-26. 4. The KV-8 with its usual armor, 4 MGs and a turret combining a 47mm AT gun and a flamethrower. 5. SdKfz 301 demolitions vehicle. 6. Raupenschlepper Ost, with and without the 75mm PAK aboard. 7. SdKfz 251s with the Wurfrahmen 40 rockets attached to the sides. 8. Amphibious vehicles and assault boats for everybody. And while not a true vehicle, I'd like to see Sturmoviks carrying their PATB clusterbombs ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

The 4.2" isn't arty per se anyway, it's just a mortar ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

I see all this blather about spanners and wrenches, but I am shocked that nobody has mentioned the key difference between whisky and whiskey. And you all call yourselves grogs! ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

The reason is that unlike real life, CM FOs don't specify the number of rounds of FFE in advance. Instead, CM FFE keeps going until you tell it to stop. Unfortunately with this system, if your FO freaks or dies while FFE is going, you'd shoot off all your ammo unless CM had the FFE stop automatically upon such events. Hopefully, in some future version of CM, things will be as in real life, where the FO specifies a number of rounds of FFE in advance. Under this system, the FFE will continue until all these rounds are fired even if the FO dies, unless you tell it to stop sooner. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

The M4A4 aka Sherman V never had the "Ultimate Sherman" front armor configuration of 2.5" at 47^ slope. Instead, it always had the original 2" at 56^. This was considered inferior despite the better slope. Also, the Sherman V used the Chrysler Multibank 30-cylinder engine so was considerably heavier (and a couple feet longer), and thus slower, than all the other types of Sherman. Hence the lower price. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

First off, yes I was drunk. But I remembered to do the spell check thing, which also has a grammar checker Anway, Afkamm said: The really funny of that particular initation is that you have to hit ESC-p a 2nd time to open your parachute. If the guy thinks it was a power-up cheat and finds himself suddenly without a plane, 99% of the he won't think doing it again will do him any good. So everybody soon sees this in the text buffer: NewDweeb: hey my plane is gone NewDweeb: plane crashed (meaning the pilot went SPLAT ) That would be cool, especially for tournaments. Of course, the spectators would have to be able to heckle the actual players . ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

OK, I admit it, I'm drunk right now. But in this state it has occurred to me that there's one thing the CM community is lacking: initiation rituals for newbies. You know, like telling an Air Warrior dweeb that ESC-p is a cheat code for more power when it's really the command to bail out of your plane So I think the time has come for us to invent some creative lies to tell new CM players, which they can believe to their detriment. All in the name of good fun, of course. When they fall for them, we laugh loudly, pat them on the back, buy them a beer, and welcome them to the CM community To get the ball rolling, here are 2 suggestions. I encourage all you devious bottom-dwellers to add to the list. 1. Alt-U is a cheat code for "ultimate weapons". It basically puts your units in "god mode". 2. (by Ariel aka Argie) There is an off-the-map cheat. You can issue a string of waypoints so that a unit exits the map at Point A, moves along off the map, the re-enters the map at Point B. Great for flanking moves ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

Skott Karlsson said: I've seen that film, too, but that wasn't the T10. The T10 was front-wheel drive using the Sherman's normal power train. It had modified drive sprockets at the front that meshed into teeth on the inside rim of the front wheels. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

He's the guy who drew some of the pictures you used in that montage. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

Rommel-- That's a cool montage but be careful or John Batchelor will come looking for you with a copyright suit....... ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

I'd believe that this was a real mineclearing prototype. The US had a very similar thing called the Mine Exploder T10 based on the Sherman. It was like a huge backwards tricycle: 2 huge wheels in front and another behind. The idea was, it would just roll over AT mines, absorbing the explosions by sheer mass. Like this German thing, unfortunately, the T10 also was only an unsuccessful prototype ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

Making dummy batteries is an art of long tradition. Hell, there's even a "Fort Humbug" near Shreveport, Louisiana, which was a Confederate dummy battery (real earthworks with "cannon" made of logs) that misled yankee efforts for some time just by bluff. The deal is, what other type of unit besides artillery is amenable to such decoy measures in a WW2 tactical situation? I mean, it's pretty easy to dig a gun pit and prop menacing-looking logs up in it with organic shovels and axes, but how do you make a fake tank without some specialized or fortuitiously found materials? For instance, modern Stinger AAM units have inflatable vehicle decoys (complete with IR and radar spoofing devices) to attract enemy aircraft, but I've never seen such things in other types of units. In CM1, there really aren't arty batteries on the map, so the decoy question really doesn't apply. However, the Russians had their famous "PAK Fronts" and used a lot of arty far forward as ATGs, so real battery-type positions would be a common feature of CM2 battlefields, you'd think. So in CM2, I think there's a good reason to include dummy batteries. In that case, I'd have them as a type of fortification unit on the same list as mines and wire. They'd have to be able to be spotted sooner than the real (presumably camouflaged) guns. This would be tricky because they'd have to be close enough to where the shot really came from to make the enemy see what he expects to see. And unlike CM1 fortifications, they'd have to be capable of being destroyed by fire. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

FWIW, I added some PzIVs to this scenario. They all came in between the Panther and the fastest non-HVSS Shermans. That is, a tiny bit faster than the non-HVSS Shermans, but also only a tiny bit slower than Panthers. However, like the Panther, they seemed to have less tendency to bog than Shermans. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

PzI said: There's probably a reason for that ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

OK, I have now modified my test scenario by building a wall down the middle of it and putting some German tanks on the opposite side from the US tanks. Then me and Ariel ran it several times, enough to see the general trends. In terms of speed across mud, the tanks rank as follows: 1. M4A3E8(76)W - 32 mph, 37 tons, 11.0 psi 2. Panther - 30 mph, 49 tons, 12.5 psi 3. M4A3 - 32 mph, 33 tons, 13.6 psi 4. M4A3(75)W - 32 mph, 35 tons, 14.3 psi 5T. M4 - 24 mph, 33 tons, 13.6 psi 5T. M4A1 - 24 mph, 33 tons, 13.6 psi 6T. M4A1(76)W - 26 mph, 35 tons, 14.5 psi 6T. M4A3(76)W - 32 mph, 37 tons, 15.1 psi 6T. Tiger - 23 mph, 63 tons, 13.8 psi 7. King Tiger - 22 mph, 77 tons, 14.1 psi The Panther was only slightly faster than the 3rd place Sherman, IOW still well below the E8's speed. The King Tiger was only an RCH slower than the slowest Shermans and the Tiger I. In other news, the German tanks all seemed less likely to bog than all US tanks except the E8, which had the lowest bog chance. Also, the German tanks appear less likely to become immobilized once bogged. Guess those wide tracks and interleaved roadwheels really do work ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

I think Rexford must have gotten hold of some bad data. Either in the form of an isolated result from a bad batch of plate, or simply some human mistake in interpreting the results. The idea that the Brits couldn't make decent armor plate over 2.5" thick is ridiculous. As you might be aware, naval armor plate is often MUCH thicker than this, and at the time of WW2, the Brits made the best naval armor plate in the world (and thus of all time). Thus, given that naval armor and tank armor are designed to do exactly the same job, are made of the same materials, are fabricated using the same processes, and are often made by the same firms, I find it extremely difficult to accept that Brit naval armor expertise did not find its way into tank armor fabrication. ------------------ -Bullethead In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria. [This message has been edited by Bullethead (edited 01-28-2001).]