coe

Y'know this brings up that I never mastered the idea of tanks only overcoming a Pak front with minimal losses (something the germans were able to do somehow) - especially if you have to approach from a distance over reasonable open ground. If I use Pz IVs in general they take decent losses.... Is it better to standoff from a distance and engage the Pak front or to close in? (if you had tanks only)

My interest is purely intellectual at this point... it's been kind of nagging at me at the back of my mind so to speak

Hi all, I seem to remember reading somewhere that a german general said late in the war something on the lines that after a meeting he boarded the train for a short visit to the western front (i.e. the eastern and western fronts were so close together that all you needed was a short train ride). Is there an actual quote (and can someone provide the reference) or am I just dreaming it up? Conan

ahh ok but I'll be able to do a European theater only or something like that if want to?

I'm curious, if I get the Global Conflict version will I be able to do all the other previous scenarios in the previous SC2s (e.g. be able to have Europe only or pacific only dealing with units at the levels they are in those SC2, or be able to do future post WWII scenarios like patton drives east). I'm not talking about doing the exact scenarios but more like theaters and time periods. Conan

It might be nice to have on -board mortar teams the above reasons but also there are times when when a firebase might get over-run or perhaps one side does a sudden strike and finds the mortar position and tries to eliminate it before the other side can get it to retreat...that would be fun.

quick thing on PzIV specials... in real life, did the IV specials really avoid hull down due to the turret thing or is it just a CMBB probability thing. e.g. in real life - did the allies say, "oooh PzIV... target specifically the turret!!" when PzIV fully exposed? (we're assuming front aspect)

hmm if you go even further south though its like it is wide open....almost like a straight shot to rostov.

So I often see on maps at the time of Stalingrad (e.g. Nov 1942) there is a huge gap between the 4th Pz Army and Army Group A in the Caucasus (e.g. around Yelista etc.)....was this really only lightly guarded and if so what prevent the soviets from simply just marching up the step in that area...If I remember right only one motorized division seemed to cover about 150-200 miles or so it seems.

It would have made sense to have all the German Half tracks start to sport AA capable machine guns instead of the MG34/42 (which isn't as effective as 12.7mm). I liked the idea of the Kangaroos on the British side...now that's an APC that would be harder to beat (wait is the Kangaroo the APC version of the Stuart or is it the one of the Priest? either way both are good ideas - they kind of remind me of the APC the US used in Vietnam. by the way why isn't the German Halftrack with the 37mm gun which can still carry a headquarters size unit not in CMAK?

interesting - conversation - wonder why the different philosophies on weapons for the half tracks (U.S. .50 cal heavy machine gun (not as good in terms of volume of fire out there against infanty but good penetrating and AA power, germans have MG34/42 - volume good against infantry but not as good against light armor btw, have you ever tried in CMAK doing a german aircraft strike against 50 U.S. half tracks - that's like fifty AA guns at your plane... C.

well not exactly...I was saying maybe things would gravitate towards tanks that weren't superly heavy just enough to resist the lighter AT guns (whether on vehicles or towed) such as 37mm, 50mm, 57mm. At the time the 75mm and 76mm towed guns I think could still defeat the heavy tanks in the frontal aspect (they might take several more shots but they still could). You'd want a tank/TD strong enough to force the enemy to use the less mobile AT guns I think...75mm then you have the ability to easily move around them before they can set up...I think.... Show me my errors in my reasoning.

extended fishing expedition...no....but trying to formulate an opinion based on explanations which have caused a reevaluation as to some beliefs... - hesitating at this moment to say anything extreme due to lack of data but for entertainment purposes I'll say some extreme ideas that I'm starting to entertain. Ignoring fleet mixing by the way: by late 1944-1945 on the Western front due to the effectiveness of guns, it was appearing that the heavy tank wasn't needed much like firearms did away with body armor in the 1700s. e.g. if you had enough armor to resist the recon vehicles canons (37mm - 57mm) and maybe bazookas that was enough since 76mm tungsten would get you anyways. And thus as Allied weapons became more powerful, it made less sense for the Germans to sport heavy tanks which were slow, broke down, slow to react (turret speed). i.e. if you are going to waltz around in a first to see-first to fire = first to kill environment, why bother having a big Panther tank at least if you were moving faster you'd be harder to hit? (maybe that is unfair since I am comparing a Hellcat speed)...and when you blow up you cost far more to replace than a PzIV. 1946 would have been interesting. As for ammunition loads, a 76 mm sherman vs. a 76mm TD... I assume the TD might have less ammo capacity but all you need to do is perhaps change the ammunition ratio of AP to HE - (don't know if there's any space issues with putting a coaxial MG and maybe a hull MG if there is enough space (doubtful?) - but that aside with the ammo ratio change, I am starting to wonder why bother have tanks at all on either side and just have slightly uparmored TDs. As for getting in close, with the infantry AT weapons, it seems as if any tank or TD you is pretty much in trouble if it is in close combat with enemy infantry (ok ok I know if the infantry runs out of Panzerfaust, schreks, or zook ammo, with a TD you can still do a nice grenade over the top - but that can be somewhat minimized with mesh covering perhaps). again i might be presuming here that the infantry can do lots of the small arms part while the most important asset of the Tank/TD in infantry killing is its cannon - in a combined arms situation. I guess it comes down to I'm starting to think that perhaps a slightly modified TD could have replaced both the TDs and heavy tanks at that point (on both sides) since the cannon it mounted could kill the heavies of both sides. Still I'm starting to imagine perverse dreams of M-18 hellcats and some form of turreted Hetzers running in mass against eachother into battle. But it does seem the 76mm has some advantages over the 75mm L48 including accuracy. As a total aside, since 75mm L/48s were having trouble dealing with IS-IIs, and to some extent late T-34/85, wonder what would have been done to up gun the hetzer. So as in the last post, if the TD can do the similar roles as the tank, why bother with the tank...it's more expensive...

true true but during the later part of 1944 alot of shermans were starting to have the 76mm gun.

Forgive me on this but as you described a tank is supposed to stand off and pound infantry from a distance. A tank destroyer can do that too. A tank destroyer can engage gun lines too (if you put a bit more armor on it? and does it make a difference if it is open topped?) Thus I see no major difference in whether you use tanks on the attack or turreted tank destroyers. Please clarify the distinction of what would make a close topped vehicle (tank) that much more suited than some faster nimble but can be uparmored to be just as heavily armored as regular tanks?

well interesting response...dedicated tank destroyer - if both sides know where eachother is, do you want to be in the tank destroyer or the tank? If the tank is at a big disadvantage against a tank destroyer properly positioned and if a tank shouldn't get close to enemy infantry to begin with with the hand held AT stuff...what is the use of the tank (note here going on the assumption that Artillery and mortars aren't that effective against TDs. In that sense why not use turreted TDs in a shot = kill era against heavy armor...first of all you have higher turret rotation and can react better to the enemy threat.

Jason could you expand on then why the Germans still managed to get good exchanges early (when their guns stunk) and even later (note they still had Panzer IIIs 42-43 and the even late when everyone was upgunned - is this a case of T34 and IS-IIs running around blind? I see what you mean about TDs - in general finding out where the enemy is, rushing there ahead with superior intelligence seems like the antidote for most things regardless if it is TD vs. Tank. In that sense the doctrine isn't that revolutionary. More generaly for all...any advantages besides ammo load of having a StuG IV as opposed to a StuG III? I have to look up the stats for the soviet 57mm but it seems like a good gun and since the barrel is smaller than the 76 or 85mm I am wondering if it is a smaller gun and therefore would be advantageous to have put that into a T-34 than the 76 (isn't it lighter too?)... (and for you naval grogs, do you know where I can find a comparison of the Type VIIC U-boat and the Gato class (find out who can dive deeper, faster and which was more quiet).

oops well i meant for the question about what would it take to defeat U.S. TDs in their doctrinal role...if they were so successful what is their achilles heel? so to speak. When you think about it, the U.S. had a pretty good mixture of tanks and TDs and the German big tanks weren't all that invincible as stated. Though how they managed to get such good exchange rates on the eastern front is amazing since the 122mm guns on the IS series and the 85mm gun are pretty good too.

thanks for the responses, I should have asked those questions on the previous full blown TD doctrine. what would it take to defeat the TDs when they are used properly. If they are excessively open top, would the doctrine involve alot of artillery? And as we got into the one shot can kill anything mode (1944) did it make sense for either side to have really heavy tanks since those could be penetrated. Jason et al. I find it quite interesting your opinion about that TDs would do well in 1943 on the Eastern front against the Germans. Could I assume that this is because the Russian 76mm Zis or 57mm ATGs were less powerful than the 76mm U.S. canons. In that sense, were the US 76mm easier to score the first hit with than the 75mm L/43 or L40 germans. Essentially you have two forces on the open step approaching...who has the greater max range? I would presume that at this range slower turret is less of a disadvantage. I would assume, all else being equal, if the guns had equal range and penetrating power you might not want to be in the TDs at range because of the supposedly thinner armour (though it appears to me that the late war TDs were pretty much tanks but without the top. Still it would have been interesting if there were a battle when a bunch of panthers come up against TDs at long ranges. As for the dug in experience at Anzio...was this a case of inability to get the first shot off? Persumably then the TDs had some first shot = kill capabilities. It would make sense that the TDs would be less effective in battle if you knew where they were to begin with (even if they knew where you were to begin with too) since the sloped frontal armor of panthers would be a tougher nut to crack.

ahhh a return to the TD doctrine... here's a few questions... 1. how do you think the U.S. TDs would have faired in the Russian front (lets say circa 1943-1944) where the tank battles could occur at far greater ranges?. 2. are there any circumstances where the TDs were used as an offensive role rather than the defensive doctinal role (i.e. go in against armour on defense, create the breakthrough 3. are there instances where TDs failed in their defensive role 4. The germans made their TDs turretless destroyers (StuG, JadgPanzer, JadgPanther etc.) I know part of this was due to lack of parts, production constraints - they had pretty good success - do you think the benefits of open turrent vs. turretless (why didn't the U.S. build turretless TDs). 5. Can the German success and failures in the use of their own TDs support or not support the TD doctrine or were the German TDs too different to afford proper comparison? (actually on that note, what was the actual German doctrinal use of TDs?)

1000 rounds of 88mm - does that equal the mass of the plane? to the extent of armored planes as none being armored at the beginning - we often hear of the Zero being unarmored only - was it less armored compared to others at the begining of the war? What mystifies me is that in the later parts of the war the Germans didn't start putting .50 calibre type machine guns on their tanks or pretty much any vehicle...of course there is a question of making them! Conan

for some reason I heard that 7.62 wasn't that good in penetrating things like aircraft skin but I could be wrong

I've heard the germans sometimes used their machine guns on the turret (the one the commander used) for AA but was the calibre to small?...actually I'm trying to think of when the commander would ever use his machine gun because if infantry is that close to him he'd rather button up I'd think.

well y'know if the statistics about Bagration are right, not only was manpower losses heavy on the russian side heavy but they lost a decent number of tanks too - if tanks weren't that involved in the break in, they were being lost heavily in the exploitation phase? I presume this might be to ambushes ...or was it in the break through they suffered lots of losses - or perhaps they just broke down on the road and were abandoned (wear and tear loss).

interesting where did you find out about it? I was under the impression it was constantly occupied... did this kind of reinfiltration stuff happen in later city battles (e.g. Berlin, Budapast, Aachen) or were there better techniques. It appears that in Stalingrad the German lines were a bit porous (then you add sewer movement). Would you say that loss rates were average for city operations during WWII. (this is before Soviet Counteroffensive)? I'm under the impression that it wasn't and that both sides fighting in the city could have had less casualties while still fighting intensly. Jason, also might you know of any maps of the Koltov Corridor, I'm just curious as to where it exactly was and since it was long how the germans were making it a corridor and how the russians were keeping the end of the corridor open (the side that goes into the german rear) because if it truely was a corridor heavily lined on both sides then you would just have to put something at the opening to cap it (temporary solution) because it sounds like in the corridor that the sides were pretty tough to crack and it was the opening at the very end of the corridor that was key.