coe

actually perhaps you could have it if the abandonment was due to immobilization or something like that - that the crew be rather well armed.

one could have had it such that there is a random chance that one of the crew might have a submachine gun - though a low probability of it...either way, that the crew is valuable points should discourage people not to use them as regular infantry. Conan

An interesting comparison would be to analyze the way the Germans employed their Tank Destroyers - here I don't mean the multipurpose tank - but the ones that were supposed to be dedicated in their role to stop tanks and see the differences in success...I would guess without any study at the moment there would be other factors heavily contributing to any differences, that are independent of the tank destroyer itself (Panzerjager whatever you call it)...that includes artillery support, air support, large quantities of supplies, and mobility of other key arms. I do agree - yes the TDs did their job... I'd love to know could they have done it by themselves? (earlier post about the open ground, no artillery, medium to longer range)... arguably the Russians at Kursk with their 76.2 mm guns should have been trading off very well (though I suppose their 76.2 AT guns might not be as good as the 76mm L55 guns) simply because they, like the TDs would be hidden and choosing the ideal range/moment to fire at Pz IVs (mostly). So perhaps I used the word failure incorrectly - I did mean perhaps the Tank gun armed TD was disbanded in the years following WWII because they saw that the canon armed vehicle truely had to be very multipurpose... to which a TD (in an HE environment might not have been)... otherwise, we might have open topped somewhat lighter armoured tank canon armed vehicles ready against the soviet tanks...instead of thin skinned, but closed top vehicles with wire guided or now fire and forget missles. something about todays environment discourages open topped vehicles that have an Abrams like cannon. something about today favors the tank instead of the TD like design. (could be politics!)

hey does anyone know where exactly the 88mm gets plopped down...when it is ported on its prime mover there is the location of the primemover no indication as to where the 88mm is - if you disembark it will it always be lets say 2 m to the rear of the prime mover?

My question is, could a german attack if done differently defeat the TDs... my guess is that the Germans were outperformed even if the U.S. tried the same style attacks as the Germans because the U.S. had more of various supporting arms etc. People are right in saying the TDs did their job if used correctly - but that is probably true about most things... you wouldn't send a TD group by itself racing into a defensive line with HE all around it against the frontal aspects the enemy or exposing the flanks against an enemy. perhaps the failure is because the evaluators expected TDs to do other things too.

First thing, I know I sent this forum on a twist from the original - but lets keep both debating sides rather civil please - or at least acknowledge that it is heated passionate debate that in perspective isn't about something as critical as someone starving to death on the street. As for some funny things: "Towed tank destroyer" - isn't that the same thing as Anti-tank gun? Granted Tank destroyer sounds more fierce. One wonders if the guns were getting to a point where each side could easily kill eachother with one shot (e.g. 88mm and 90mm) that both sides should go back down to thin skinned vehicles that have just enough armor to stop artillery fragments and small to medium arms as well as lighter cannons. Since you are going to die in one shot anyways from a heavy gun, why try to waste all the armour just to be a bit short of providing protection against it. It might be better to focus on the avoid getting hit part more. It'd be interesting to find out...lets say, what percentage of hits by Panzerfausts were kills for instance (or at least enough to make the crew abandon the tank), same for 88mm, 90mm, 75mm (Ger./Amercan), 76.2mm, 57mm, bazookas - ok the latter we know varied), shreks etc. As for the open tops, if you put enough covering to stop shrapnel and grenades or nearby arty air bursts, you could make the covering dome/bubble like so you keep the space you need. Better yet, a space age bubble. JasonC - interesting description of your view on incorrect tactics...It has merit - and if your objective is to bleed the enemy what you propose could work. But lets add this factor, the allies make a break, and take a key point, a PZ unit moves in and stops the advance and inflicts some losses...but doesn't drive them back. The allies consolidate - and perhaps also cause the rest of the german line to be compromised...so that it now has to retreat all across the board to a more stable line. Actually more simply the situation is, you can stop the Allied attacks and inflict losses - but if the chances you can't drive them back and retake the ground and they keep getting lots of replacements, at some point you'll run out of space and will have to try to attack to regain ground...that's the dilemma...I look at Bulge and Lorraine as somewhat of the "oh my gosh, we are running out of room, we're getting waaay to close to the homeland (Germany) - we have to push them away somehow... What would have helped us all in this TD debate is if there was a meeting engagement in WWII daylight open fields (none of this go in the fog to avoid airpower) but no artillery, no planes to cause buttoning up, open turret damage) and have the tanks and TDs slug it out (we're not talking about close quarter combat...) - one observation is, if it's anything like Combat missions, I wouldn't want to be up against a Sherman or any tank destroyer if I was in a Pz IV - especially in the mid ranges. the interesting thing is if a tank runs out of AP and is against a TD - if the tank hits the TD with HE near the top of the turret the tank has a good chance of KOing the crew.

In terms of an open turretted TD...what were the main threats and did they necessitate armour to the thickness level on regular tanks (for the open top). In otherwords were they more worried about grenade/artillery fragments or a direct HE hit? Thus if it was grenade/artillery fragments then you put a light covering over the TD and voila. JasonC - when you say Germans misused their armor - are you trying to say the Germans were using the same tactics they used successfully against the russians but against an enemy that was much different (lots of arty, mobile, good coordination , air superiority) or are you saying that the Germans recognized the difference in the enemy - made modifications but got the modifications in tactics wrong? - just curious... relative to the situation against the western allies (i.e. Germans were modifying their tactics to fight the western allies) o

considering the Germans held their own (though with much difficulty with Pz I, II, IIIs and 38(t)s all which could die with a single shot from T-34 and KV-1s....maybe they would have been much better if they built TDs (though there is the point of allied artillery). I presume that the reason why Allied tankers did will in the German defense zone is because they had massive support faster turrets isn't a bad thing either when it comes to first to shoot.

hmmm howabout at range? e.g. 1000-2000m - how are the allied guns there? If TDs were on the assault over open ground I can imagin it might be like T-34's advancing over an open steppe against a Panther and PzIV mix...actaully how does the 75mm Pak L43 stack up against the 76mm and 90mm. This presumes the allies have their ammo availability and the Germans don't have tungsten anymore.

I know the thread has wandered...sorry about that - As for the bug...I suppose if you had the gun showing it would be interesting if an AP round on a flattish like trajectory just took the AT gun's top off... Has any one used TDs on an attack against German tanks defending (i.e. would we expect the same results as the reverse? or worse or better)

howabout this, any stories or studies about TDs on the attack? or TDs when they had to deal with German tanks in open terrain?

so you are saying that essentially when fighting (if you ignored artillery), US TDs vs. German tanks was essentially a tank versus tank battle? i don't know the stats on this but as you said TDs did pretty well against the Germans - did they give better than they got and if so why? was it a case of not being on equal ground - i.e. if you were in the open steps of Russia would you rather be in panthers or US TDs. By some accounts it seems that the TDs are better. or perhaps they were better trained by that point. I assume the U.S. TDs weren't heavly exposed to massed artillery fire as often as the German tanks were which would be a liability to the open top. Otherwise i can imagine the Germans as thinking maybe we should ditch the top of the turret too and have a fast turret also (less weight)

the other thing was, how did German towed PAK compare in performance to its allied counterparts? (offensive and defensive considerations)

Speaking of tank destroyers (M36, M10, etc.) I wonder why the Americans didn't try turretless tank destroyers and why the germans didn't try turreted tank destroyers (ok besides the cost of a turret but we're talking the theory of lightly armored vehicles with turrets but with enough punch to kill a tank) .

So in real life in a chance encounter the PAK would usually have favorable exchange or was it a question of who spotted who first and got the shot off. It seems to me that to kill a pak you have to land an HE in a relatively tight area (assume it's 75mm HE) - perhaps in an area tightter than the area that would be taken up by a tank (I assume that parts of the PAK crew are in foxholes near by so the only way to kill the PAK early on is to physically harm the gun. I'm thinking however for a tank you don't have to land an AP round really close to the gun in the tank to kill the effectiveness of the thank, - a hit farther away from the gun will do (like hitting the engine compartment - causes secondary effects, fire, explosion etc.

Well naturally this leads to the real life question. Since guns were very effective tank killers and seem to if confronted with a tank get the better of it: why not have a whole bunch of AT guns with highly mobile transport all over the place - you'd still get a good exchange!

I don't know the logistics of this but if you had a bolt action rifle...I wonder if it would have helped if each of them also had a pistol y'know with about 10 rounds for close in defense...certainly would fire faster....

hmmm I wonder what would have happend if those channel island fortifications had guns that could reach a port in Britain or if it had a massive radar installation or could hit the cherbourg.. that would have been an interesting campaign.

imagine what all the extra people and the loss of aerodynamics do for an already poor fuel economy...

still I'd love to see the face off between the russian and italian SMG squads like in the tractor works.

uhh, well maybe you could modify CM to have two different carrying capacities - slightly reduced speed and ability to fire but alot of people on board and waaay exposed The thing I want to know is how does the driver see and what happens if someone falls off especially if in front of the vehicle?

Well the reason I'm trying to back out POWs is more towards evaluating fighting ability (and thus also the question does CM adequately model that)...for example ideally we'd love to know if two equal forces met (same experience) etc. perhaps over equal ground what will happen...or if one force outnumbers the other 2 to 1 will the fact that being german or being allied nullify that some of that outnumbering (e.g. weapons, fighting ability etc.)...of course this is optimistic and waaay to unrealistic but it is interesting that many of the accounts tell of some G.I. leaping up, eliminating several machine gun posts and then taking out a squad of Germans (the reverse doesn't seem to be as common a story) - perhaps taht's because there are many tales from the victorious side.

have you checked out the Ammo load on them 90!!!! and the firepower isn't that bad...throw them into the Stalingrad Street figting! ha ha

this is rather interesting...one might guess that the russian tactics on the offensive were more "wasteful" in man power...(perhaps it was the way the charged over open ground? I don't know)... but if there were a way to properly deduct the prisoner account. But even so it seems that when assautling fixed positions, the Germans did more poorly than the Allies (probably due to massive artillery fire?) I presume POWs aside the Germans would have to have had a better loss ratio against the western allies to win.

I did some reading on the Italian campaign...from my interpretation there is a view that it was a German defensive success in that it tied down large amounts of Allied units and was a rather orderly withdrawal from fortified defensive line to fortified line (granted some were incomplete)...yet when I read the casualty counts, it seems like the Allies were always getting the better of the Axis. Are there reasons for this? especially when attacking prepared positions? Were the german losses on counterattacks that went into a hail of fire?