John Kettler

One of my CoC colleagues said he couldn't find any, but it wasn't hard at all to fix that problem. Here's the link to all the ones the WW II 506th PIR part of the 506th Infantry site had. Covers from Normand through the end of the war, with several other types of reports as well. http://506infantry.org/library/official-documents/wwii-506th-parachute-infantry-regiment/ Regards, John Kettler

Combatintman, Here's a little intel morsel from the Cold War. When I was at Hughes Missile Systems Group, our weaponeer, a physicist, was the keeper of the JMEMs (Joint Munition Effectiveness Manuals). These were huge orange binders, essentially target killing cookbooks in which a defined target/target array was evaluated against a range of munitions. Knowing the pertinent delivery variables, guidance performance and so forth generated Ph, and from separate (not integrated) modeling and tests of frag penetration, blast and sometimes fire, came Pk. When I was there, for several years the SA-8/GECKO SAM system, though amphibious, was deemed to be lightly armored. Turned out, though, we were wrong, and it was British Intelligence which got the goods--by photographing the hull of one (in a parade) with an IR camera. The imagery revealed the vehicle was essentially nothing but a fully enclosed DUKW into which the entire SAM system was installed. Another one was that the British caught a Soviet missile cruiser with its bow SSN-3/SHADDOCK launch container opened. For ease of maintenance, the missile type was prominently stenciled on the inside of the tube lid, including the ones showing where the nukes were! Regards, John Kettler

Combatintman, Ever hear one about the SOXMIS that absolutely refused to leave--until our guys brought in an M113 VADS and pointed it directly at the offending vehicle? If you've got any good stories you can share of your own experiences in counter-SOXMIS, please do. Here's the full BRIXMIS doc. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dQfp8KUdYA Regards, John Kettler

Really like this! https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a29108820/air-force-jet-tuskegee-airmen/?fbclid=IwAR129cFlYj5JWNDbpmRkrmZpi-M7bedHzK5nCLrQrL6LUNvi3kMTd9HsiFA Regards, John Kettler

Returning to the Hitler ice cream cones, this was in India, and it rated a Daily Mail story. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3097640/The-Luft-wafer-Ice-cream-cone-named-Adolf-Hitler-sale-India-sparks-anger-Germany.html And that's not all. There's other Hitler themed merchandise, including a restaurant with a swastika on its electric sign. https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/582542/Adolf-Hitler-Ice-cream-cone-which-has-face-of-evil-dictator-goes-on-sale Regards, John Kettler

No means no! Also, special seating required. Regards, John Kettler

After reading the entire thread, a couple of things came to mind. First, I believe there needs to be a clear distinction made between the coax MG, which does have telescopic sights, and the bow MG, which hardly ever does. Even the Pershing bow MG had no telescopic sights and was critically dependent on tracer to walk fire onto all but the closest target. Also, the bow gunner usually has very poor visibility, further reducing weapon effectiveness. There was some mention of how good grazing fire was from the bow MG, but it had no proper T&E gear (other than the gunner's moving it about while essentially peering through a straw), greatly negating any such capability. In light of these facts, if there's a way for the code to handle it, bow MG fire should be nowhere nearly as effective as coax MG fire. This alone would considerably rein in what's arguably too high a level of typical tank effectiveness vs infantry. The assertion was made that the M9 rifle grenade was less effective than the bazooka, but here, it's necessary to clearly specify which bazooka rocket, for the early one and the rifle grenade had the same warhead. CM2 provided us with far better modeling of the tank than did CM1, in that it was now a group of systems, each vulnerable to attacks yielding small incremental degradation to catastrophic in some instances. But the core idea was that the armored elephant could now be subjected to the armored warfare equivalent of the Death of a Thousand Cuts. But if the ability to target optics and such has been removed, this considerably reduces the effectiveness of AT weapons, especially the ATR. It's readily demonstrable that the Russians could and did target not only optics, but gun barrels, bow MG mounts, vision ports, drive sprockets and more. Many tanks invulnerable to ATR fire from the front could be severely damaged or killed from the flank or rear. Though I can't find the article, have many times posted of a Tiger company at Kursk which was so cut up by ATR fire aimed at the cupola that the entire company was rendered unfightable, there being no way to see out. Vision block losses were so severe that even the parent battalion couldn't replace them all, forcing resort to the regiment and considerable delays. ISTR it was out of action for two weeks. Quite a few TCs were temporarily out from glass splinters in their eyes, faces or both, and one TC was down for weeks after the 14.5 mm projectile smashed in his vision block, driving it and the frame into his face. If you read Drabkin's Panzer Killers, you'll learn the Russians loved their 45 mm ATG for its accuracy. At 500 meters (high Ph open fire range), it could specifically target tank tracks, which tended to be exposed on the steppe. Tank tracks were also explicit targets for ATRs, though would be problematic, I think, vs Tiger and Panther type vehicles because they were so stoutly built. Antitank doctrine was to always place an ATG on the flank and engage the foe with that gun only, causing the onrushing tanks to turn toward the offender, exposing their flanks to the other three guns in the battery! This is why the 45 mm stayed in the war clear to the end in many units. It could be pushed, but was generally horse drawn between engagements. The Destroyer units were used en masse, whole regiments at a time, and weight of fire told. The Russians used incendiary bottles (Molotov cocktails) on a vast scale. In a Kursk book I have, the Russian veteran says every unit (company?) received hundreds. He reported having six in a niche his foxhole, along with several antitank grenades and a number of the lemon (F1 frag). Would also note that most of the panzers captured by the Polish Home Army during the Warsaw Uprising were taken by close assault, with Molotov cocktails being explicitly mentioned. More surprising was a gammon bomb. If you haven't yet, see the video I posted on CMRT. Finally, and I've been banging on about this for years, is that the Red Army's Combat Regulations of the Armored Troops categorically ordered that hatches be combat locked when entering the battlefield. Not doing this could get the entire crew in huge trouble with the NKVD, with penal unit assignment being a good outcome! No one can toss a grenade in your open hatch when it isn't! Several accounts I've read indicate that agonizing decisions were made in order to revive drivers suffocating from heat and cordite fumes at Kursk, and in another, describing the fighting in Budapest, an ISU-152 commander made a point of explaining how dangerous it was, from foe and NKVD alike, to open the hatch, but so grave was the peril from Panzerfausts that the hatch was left down but not locked. If hit, this kept the blast overpressure from killing the entire crew. Where you find Russian armor operating with open hatches is almost exclusively in the exploitation phase. Regards, John Kettler

The next CMRT will presumably enable depiction of the Warsaw Uprising fighting, and this will be most apt then. The Polish Home Army captured quite a collection of panzers and destroyed their German panzers and German positions with them. The Soviets made the inconvenient evidence of resistance go away over time, but photos have survived. Also of interest is the use of close assault weapons against panzers to capture them. Regards, John Kettler

Imagine the "This is a SLIDE. Non-sliders will be removed immediately" signage went up immediately after this clip surfaced. Imagine how thrilled a major soda manufacturer was to see this. Regards, John Kettler

Came across this on FB, and it was news to me, especially since it still continues. Save on divorce--sell your wife. If you're a really bad husband, she might volunteeer! https://allthatsinteresting.com/wife-selling?fbclid=IwAR2O37PdPA50kGUVVYFtCdUr2gb7SH6JjX3geGvQj9NlMvGmSbAhabB45LU Regards, John Kettler

Bulletpoint, The Wiki is worth the read and was referred to me by brother George, who notes the 10.5s were actually not the typical types but special mountain howitzers which used, in some cases, ammo not compatible with the standard type. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brécourt_Manor_Assault https://military.wikia.org/wiki/10.5_cm_Gebirgshaubitze_40 Judging from the Catalogue of Enemy Ordnance, if armor attacked, the gunners weren't going to wait until the tanks got close, for the range drum for that projectile extended to 1500 meters. http://www.lonesentry.com/ordnance/10-5-cm-geb-h-40-mountain-howitzer.html Regards, John Kettler

Found this useful piece and thought I'd share it. Taught me a number of things I didn't know about this tiny CM level engagement that shut down punishing fire on the beachhead and yielded a true intelligence windfall. https://www.wwiidogtags.com/ww2-history/assault-on-brecourt-manor/ Regards, John Kettler

Buletpoint, Wiki is wrong as to the count. The writer of Another River, Another Town, John P. Irwin, who wound up as gunner for the one 3rd AD got, clearly named another receiving AD as well, but I forget its number. Pretty sure Belton Copper talked about how many and definitely provided considerable specifics on how they were built and by whom. Regards, John Kettler

One of the CoC guys posted this most informative 4 minute newsreel, which is replete with CM level goodies. First time I ever saw British units in closeup street fighting, a Churchill in action shot at spitting range by the camera man, an LVT loaded with a UC, putting the tail ramp up and driving into the water with it. Great visual reference for terrain, buildings, kit, etc. Regards, John Kettler

It's a truism that the rich are different from us. Consider this example, a clothes closet so incredible even the rich women of reality shows would cry for the want of it. No idea whose house that is, but Dallas Design Group created this beyond opulent marvel. As you can see, everything really IS bigger in Texas. Regards, John Kettler

Unexpected highway encounter--best ever! John Kettler

This is a. topic of which I knew almost nothing going in, but once again, Mark W. Felton delivers the goods in detail and provides some excellent footage, including captured German 88s being used against their former owners, Highlanders in winter kit, several varieties of UK and Belgian armed and even armored jeeps and a rare recon version of a Panzer 38 T. Lots of German winter and fall paint schemes prominently shown, at close range. Though small, the British contribution, though buried, said General Sir Alexander, CIGS, for political reasons, was militarily significant, timely and valuable. Regards, John Kettler

MOS:96B2P, If you watch the full film sequence (helpfully provided by a CoC colleague), the likelihood is that the tank is fully crewed. Seriously doubt the driver alone would be allowed to do these things solo, but I wouldn't be shocked to learn the entire crew was officers. An old Soviet peep show trick to deliver guaranteed high standards of performance (especially after vast rehearsal) later seen in the Coronation Review and in Operation Dnepr. Can you imagine the US ever blowing up a bridge right in the face of our own tank like that? That was real HE, not that Hollywood nonsense. Erwin, Combat Regulations for the Armored Troops specifically mandated that hatches be closed and locked once the tank was committed to battle, which is what this is supposed to mimic. Accounts I've read indicated that the rule was sometimes not adhered to, but the veterans always said they could've gotten severely punished for doing so. Examples include opening a T-34's hatch at Kursk after the driver passed out from heat and heavy cordite fumes and in an account of street fighting in which the writer indicated the hatches were down but not locked to give the crew a chance of surviving otherwise lethal overpressure if hit by a Panzerfaust or similar. A hit tank with everything buttoned was a sure fire dead crew against such weapons. Regards, John Kettler

Time to zero out the Days Without A Work Accident sign. Hope this guy was okay. Regards, John Kettler

One of the important things the West learned about the Soviets was that they would use ANY unprotected avenue of approach to penetrate NATO defenses. Now, most thought in terms of trails and such, but here's an example which illustrates precisely how clever they could be. BT-7 command tank crosses a destroyed (or maybe unfinished) bridge. Regards, John Kettler

Contrary to anthropological writ, berserkers clearly weren't/aren't just a Viking thing. I've seen a chrome framed office chair flung clear across a room and into a wall, terrifying evryone anywhere near this uncontrolled rage by a mini Hulk, but this is another matter altogether. Regards, John Kettler

Police pursue a moped=-and lose! https://ve.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_pvh0ocv13m1xaugd1_720.mp4 Regards, John Kettler

Someone posted this for my attention on FB. Love it! Regards, John Kettler

Here's an outstanding an positive find in the OP category. Has embedded videos. Our bookmobile made us return them! https://laughingsquid.com/weapon-of-mass-instruction-tank-library/?fbclid=IwAR27-KYciBx-LvbHUKniBlL2zZvGROACx5Xir5DYXIds2CJOJDimM4mqiXE Regards, John Kettler

The historical documentation shows the tank was in the sector of the Cav unit, not the Armored Infantry of the parent battalion which was one over. The account is clear that shooter was an M8 (not M20) armored car. What's not clear from the account is that the Tiger was in fact a King Tiger, but from what I can see, the owning unit had been reequipped with King Tigers well before the Battle of the Bulge. That said, there were Tiger 1s at the Bulge, but only from a single battalion from a combat demolition unit (Borgward B IV). Details at link. https://www.answers.com/Q/Lists_of_Tiger_1_tanks_in_battle_bulge Returning to the main narrative, the M8 left its position and chased the Tiger down the trail, closing to 25 yards before opening fire. The tank caught fire in the rear, which was the part the M8 was shooting. The engagement observer was a captain, not some know nothing private or freshly arrived 90 day wonder, which I think greatly improves account credibility. Also, he describes the engagement as the only thing of note in an otherwise quiet sector. There is zero mention of any other portion of the force there participating, and the tenor throughout is how unusual the occurrence was. Had a bazooka team done it, and especially a GI with a rifle grenade, let alone destroying the tank by close assault, this would've been known, given that nothing else happened in that sector on that day. War diary entries note cases in which bazooka or other destroys a tank. Have seen quite a few such entries over the years. The same would be even more true regarding a tank or ATG, I think. Could the sole known eyewitness, rank notwithstanding, have been wrong, because some other entity also engaged but was unknown to him or the battalion S3 to whom he reported? Sure. Do I consider it unlikely? I do. Regards, John Kettler