Username

CM2: Comrade Mission

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fairbairn-Sykes Trench Knife: *Cough*... [pitiful cry for discussion] can't Username even make an appearance to ridicule me? i've already done the groundwork - by simply posting...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Too busy snickering. Dont want to piss off the brits anyway. Might need them soon enough, crappy infantry weapons or not! Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MrPeng: [QB]I also shave in the shower - without a mirror. QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So do I, but usually finish up my chin by shaving in the toilet. I immerse my bleeding mug into the murky depths. I then scrape any gnarly scrub off the edges of my face. Finish up with readily available TP against any spurting wounds. It may be wierd but at least I am not bald. Thats the real horror. Especially when you shave your head in a desperate attempt to look cool but people see the demarcation of nubs and skin way back on the head. Speaking of which. Did they drain ModMatt dry? He gave blood for almost 4 days it seems. Lewis PS Oh yeah, its miller time heah.

Rexford is in complete agreement with himself and wins his own arguments.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nijis: Look, those are sick reactions, but it happens. The Palestinians have been on the receiving end of a fair number of American munitions lately. Lebanon has been hit by US-made munitions for well on three decades, including white phosphorous and cluster bombs, yet folks are still friendly to Americans. Don't let a few creeps on the TV make you want to wipe out a country. I can tell you that nobody seems to be dancing or shooting off firearms in the streets of Cairo. And there's a lot of Afghans that don't care for OBL and his Taliban hosts, too.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Nah. This isnt going to happen ever again. I am sick of the peace process. The world is going to seperate all these clowns from each other. Bunch of ****ing babies. I am sick of the mid east, terrorism, israel, arabs, persians, bloodshed and bull****. Lewis

Anyone in NY?

Those buildings hold thousands of people. I used to work in the stock market. Theres probably ten thousand people dead.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Priest: Username, Your brother worked in WTC or NY. It actually does not matter my prayers are with you either way and your family no matter the outcome.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Chinatown. Between the lower bridges and the collapse. Fireman.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pvt. Ryan: As the reality of terrorism sets in, the people in my NY office don't know what to do. They don't know if they should stay in the office or go home. They were told that if they leave the building they can't get back in. The subways are shut down and probably other forms of rail transporation. People want to leave but they can't get out of the city. They are afraid to take buses because they fear the bridges may be targets. My company is an insurance agency and many insurance companies are located in the WTC. We fear that the people we know are gone.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sorry to hear that. If my brother was working then he is gone too. I cant reach anyone in NY on phone.

**** the beer. I need a real drink. My brother is a fireman in chinatown nyc. Hes probably dead.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1: I would question how any of us here can empirecly challenge the claimed 'tank' kills of any nation in WW2, as their is no way to verify any of the data, not thru formula, guestimates, etc. ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That is also what I am saying. The origional question is tank-vs-tank battles. Jason loves to try to take people down paths where he feels that discussions must go. In answer to the origional question, I think I have already answered it. Unless people start posting after action reports of tank units fighting other tank units, then overall numbers can be taken anyway you want. Lewis

More encyclopedia jasonica. jasons arguments come down to "See? alot of T34/85 in Berlin, ergo, they won the war.". (I thought that was Maximus' line.) Again, for those that think they can blow smoke out thier butts and impress people, unless tank on tank battle data can be offered up, alot of the numbers you see here are open to interpretation. When tank-on-tank data is put here, it is poo-poo'd by the self proclaimed "analyzer". So I am posting data on the combatants OWN claims against themselves. That is, total writeoffs reported by the side losing the tanks. Perhaps jason will explain how these are understated just like the kill claims are overstated. Just for the record, I was refering to T34 and KV manhandling the early panzers. Most of the tank kills were against other soviet tanks because the T34/KV1 were minority vehicles during 1941 (maybe 42 also). Anyone can see through the rest of the jasons blather (hes desperately trying to put words into others mouths). He wont address previous points like the fact that Tiger and panther numbers steadily increased but thats to be expected. I said it before, arguing with jason is an exercise in futility. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC: And German fleet size was not growing. Production was in the ratio 2.2-2.5 to 1 favor the Russians. Losses probably were ijn that ratio as well, favor the Germans of course. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This isnt true for the Tiger I fleet. It rose in 1943 even with Kursk. It did not fall during a month till early 1944. It finally declined during the summer of 1944. This is also true for the Panther. The summer battles of 1944 being the worse for the german tanks overall. The panzer IV fleet followed a trend of barely keeping up with the pace of loss (with some close months). But the Panzer IV fleet also gradually continued to grow. It also took a beating during the summer of 1944. I think this thread has taken the typical JasonC route. He wants so desperately to make his point that he gets away from the initial interest. I think the question initially asked was about tank on tank battles. This scenario will be (hopefully) more common in CM2 than CMBO. CMBO being more an infantry game/combined arms game. So, when the germans are defending in tank battles (1942-1944), they will have better kill ratios most of the time. This all depends on time frame, ratio of attacker to defender, terrain, etc. In attacks by german armor, unless they have Tiger tanks against weaker gunned defenders (45mm gun vehicles, T34/76), they can expect to have lesser kill ratios and even be on the losing side of the ratio. No big whoop but thats they way it was. But dont worry, more numbers and math and strange logic will follow this post. Unless someone can produce tank-on-tank battle data, It is really up to people seeing the overall numbers how they want to. Lewis PS I am using Panzer Truppen 2 as a source.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Roksovkiy: Tanks kills were always confirmed when the situation allowed. During July 12th prokhorovka the Leibstandarte division alone claimed 192 Soviet tanks destoyed. II SS Panzer Korps General Paul Hausser thought this was scarcely credible until he visited the battlefield and walked around the hulks, each was numbered in white chalk to confirm the kills. This was only in the Leibstandarte sector during Prokorovka. Leibstandarte combat report 12 July losses: Total lossed: 18 Tanks Repairable: 14 Tanks Unrecoverable 4 Tanks Romitrov’s own admission of his tank losses tally with German figures, his tank charge was a slaughter.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Heres a pretty good site that lists RUSSIAN claims about RUSSIAN losses. http://history.vif2.ru/library/archives/losses/losses3.html The russians seem to be feeding in armor. The losses being greater than the starting TOE during battles. I believe this meant that the russians would sacrifice tanks in slaughters to try to achieve their goals. Operation Availability of AFVs at the start of operation Total losses Details Battle casualties Tech fauilures Other From report of 1st Guard Tank Army. Kursk-Belgorod operation. Defensive period 5/7-20/7.1943 631 (511) 954 (783) 854 (716) 100 (68) - (-) Kursk-Belgorod operation. Offensive period 3/8-31/8-1943 542 (418) 1040 (889) 706 (646) 334 (243) - (-) The 1st guards tank army lost 1.5 as many T34 during the offense then they possesed in the beginning! There must have been stores of T34 in tank parks waiting to be delivered to these slaughter hauses.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC: [QB If every German tank and PAK KO'ed 5-10 Allied AFV, which is often claimed, the Allied AFV total at the end of the war would be negative, and a larger number in absolute magnitude than total Allied production. Leaving aside breakdowns, mines, artillery HE, tankbuster aircraft, and infantry weapons. .[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You miss the point. It was at certain times that the germans achieved this and higher. It was not every german vehicle for the whole war. Thats the part that you are missing. The T34/76 were not that great in the attack after 1941. Actually most tanks arent but ALL the weaknesses stand out in the attack. They were slaughtered. But I take it you will see what you want to see. Lewis

Pz6 Team : According to records your tank destroyed 20 T-34's & 23 guns would you say that was correct ? Bobby: Ja that would be about right. We had special engineers that were there for salvage & it was them who normally told us the numbers. We then counted how many rounds we had fired & the position of the kills & worked it out. Actually it was more like 22 T-34's as there were 54 wrecked tanks left behind & I fired 25 AP rounds. As for the guns I wouldn't like to say as Jurgen fired more rounds at them then me & I think the total was around 40 destroyed I think he killed more than me. ( Bobby continued on for about another hour about his adventures in the east all along similiar lines to the above) http://www.panzer-vi.fsnet.co.uk/tales_bwoll.html This is from Bobby Woll. He was with Whittman and later a Tiger commander himself. I have other data I will post. It seems that the Tigers needed alot of mechanical attention but were very survivable. Lewis

jason do you have any data that backs up your pessimism? Anybody can say "We dont know". Anybody can cast doubts and feel smart. Look at Kursk. For so many years it was the fabled death ride of the SS divisions. The victors told the stories. The authors used the victors stories to write history. The BS sets the height that the truth must jump over. The Kursk story is more like the SS divisions continued to fight after the big defeat. They fought the Kursk battles and generally came out on top but lost overall because of failure to take objectives and resistance to throw in reserves. you gotta gamble big to win big y'know. But the books on the shelves claim that thousands of Tigers are still burning. Ever heard the line "tell a lie often enough and its the truth?". Sometimes its who tells the story first that sets the truth. Lewis

http://www.panzer-vi.fsnet.co.uk/tales_jscholl.html This is a good site and contains a Tiger tank commanders diary. Seems planes were his biggest enemy.

Oct 43 transferred to Augustdorf 22 Oct 43 reformed in Augustdorf [Tessin: France] 4 Nov 43 redesignated schwere SS-Panzer-Abteilung 102 effective 22 Oct 43 Jan 44 transferred to Argentan, France Spring 44 Transferred to Wezep, the Netherlands 21 Apr-29 May 44 45 Tiger Is delivered 15 May 44 absorbs 268 men from s.SS-Panzer-Abteilung 103, not enough men to establish 3. Kompanie 6 Jun 44 personnel on courses at Paderborn return to Wezep 11-12 Jun 44 transfer to Calais region 14 Jun ordered to Normandy front 21-23 Jun detrainment of 2. Kompanie in Versailles, road march to the front begins with a number of breakdowns 2 Jul last trainload arrives in Versailles 7 Jul 44 28 operational tanks, but 3. Kompanie still hadn't reached the front 9 Jul-1 Aug 44 subordinated to 10. SS-Panzergrenadier Division Hohenstauffen 2 Aug transferred to sector of 9. SS-Panzergrenadier Division Frundsberg with 38 Tiger Is 1 Sep 44 all tanks lost during the retreat from Normandy Sep 44 redesignated schwere SS-Panzer-Abteilung 502 when reformed in Sennelager Between 10 Jul and 20 Aug claimed 227 tanks and 28 AT guns 27 Dec 44 6 Tiger IIs delivered, later transferred to s.SS-Pz.Abt. 503 14 Feb 45-6 Mar 45 equipped with 31 Tiger IIs early Mar 45 transferred to Stettin-Army Group Center 19 Mar 45 Küstrin area, Army Group Vistula http://srd.yahoo.com/goo/Tiger+tank+101/11/*http://members.tripod.com/~Sturmvogel /tigers.html Well, heres some kill claims by another tiger battalion 102. It would seem that when a tiger battalion could be supported by adequate recovery and parts, maintenance,etc. It could maintain a valuable presence. Its successes during this period was mainly in a defensive posture and very limited counterattacks. Lewis [ 09-07-2001: Message edited by: Username ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: The numbers Lewis Quotes are correct. One underlying cause was that US tanks were repaired more often than Germans and returned to the field to become casualties again. German tanks were more often over run, or the German repair and recovery services could not deal with them. .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Heres the operational status of SS PzBn 101 from Jun1 to Aug11 1944 JN1 45 (37) JL1 30 (11) [-15] JL5 30 (0) JL8 28 (21) [-2] JL9 28 (19) JL10 28 (15) JL11 28 (13) JL12 28 (13) JL15 28 (20) JL16 28 (19) JL21 25 (6) [-3] JL22 25 (7) JL23 25 (10) JL24 25 (14) JL28 25 (20) JL31 25 (19) AG4 25 (20) AG7 25 (21) AG10 17 (17) AG11 11 (11) Date Strength (Operational) [Total writeoffs] It would be interesting to see the claims against this battalion and how many tanks it claims to have destroyed. The number of total writeoffs is low except for the initial 15. The 15 were over the month of June and included Villers Bocage and the initial Normandy battles. Whittmans exceptional numbers might be a starting point. The data shows that the battalion did maintain a operational status from battlefield repairs. I dont think many panzer formations recieved replacements during this period. Many tanks were hit and recovered and either repaired or led to other repairs. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Roksovkiy: The heavy german tanks did have extremely high kill ratios. The official records of the schwere Tiger Abteilungs were made available in 1983. Total Confirmed kills were well above 12,000 tanks for Tiger IE. Tiger IE losses Lost in action - 706 Destroyed by crew/abandoned - 592 Total losses 1298 The Average kill ratio for the Tiger I was just above 12:1<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I read a pretty good website about a Tiger tank commanders diary from the east and west front. It was pretty clear that Tiger tankmen were very competitive and tracked each others feats pretty closely. An example was that they didnt consider assault guns as kills (su122, etc). They also only considered burning a tank a kill (Mickeys). The author had a lot of truck kills and the other tank men goofed on him about it. In reality, trucks were very valuable on the eastern front. I think the Tiger Is in the east had some of the best success as tank killers (and assault tanks for attacking). This rapidly dropped off in 1944 as the allies had better weapons. The StuG also enjoyed a killing spree till 44. Looking at some of the Tiger tank battalions 'runners' numbers, I wonder if overall the StuG was a better buy (in defensive battles). The Panther was born into a world in decline. As it was coming up in numbers, it was meeting more capable enemy tanks (in much greater numbers) and greater threats (HC weapons). It may have been a great tank, but its side armor was not 'Tiger' class at any time. Leading with panthers in an attack was going to cost some tanks. Usually not even worth recovering because they burned. In the attack, the german tanks were no better than the allies in close terrain. They should have been used more in an overwatch/second echelon during combined arms battles. They should have been used to smash allied counter-attacks and defend the ground gained. Unfortunately, this would limit the speed of attack also. Getting pounded by arty and air would be the result. Lewis

Actually during the bocage fighting, german rifle grenading had a rebirth. The close ranges made this an effective activity. Even the german 50mm mortar had a second life as they were reissued. I read that the germans used a wooden bullet to launch the things. Sometimes in desperation when low on ammo, they would fire these resulting in nasty wounds. The US rifle grenade collection included purpose built, like the antitank version, and literally grenade launchers that would hoist an infantry grenade. Also a 60mm mortar launch capability. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC: First off, there are enourmous amount of bilge and hyperbole expended on this subject. And often people are talking about entirely different things, sometimes without knowing it. .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I am reminded of our recent "All tank battalions experience being the same in WWII" discussion. You were handily dividing up AFV destroyed by armored divisions to try to back up your claims for battalions. Here , you take the stance of chiding others. You are preaching to the choir, doctor heal thyself. 70% of allied armor in the west was destroyed via AP. That includes german tanks, ATG, SPAT, assault guns. 40% of german tanks were destroyed by AP. the next leading cause of german tank destruction was self destruction. Out of gas/ammo/not running/surrounded/etc. the germans blew them up. In the late war, german tanks only had an advantage at long range. This is hard to use in an attack under west european battlefields. Leading with armor was the way to lose an attack. Armor does not mean tank attack. Armored warfare deals with combined arms with the tank at the cutting edge. Only in the desert or vast open area of russia could tanks operate independantly. When one side has such an air and arty advantage as the allies did in ETO, tanks become less of the cutting edge. I think the germans had some defensive armored warfare success after the retreat in france. They worked with the terrain. In france, they wanted to attack to win. There was no other consideration. If they fought a fighting retreat, they could have been in better shape for the eventual bulge counterattack. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Doug Beman: About the Eastern Front: until the Panther & Tiger reached combat (and both were several months too early from a testing&refinement perspective) the balance of tank vs tank ability was in favor of the Soviets. The T34 was practically invulnerable to German 50mm guns and the short 75 carried by early PzIVs. The longer 75mm on the PzIVG was better. For a while after Panther and Tiger became truly combat-ready, their crews learned of the strength of their armor and adopted an attitude of virtually ignoring Soviet tanks. After the SU100 and T34-85 became common, German higher command actually distributed material to crews of Tigers and Panthers saying "you can't afford to ignore basic tactical doctrine anymore; if you stand up on a ridgeline picking a fight, you'll get knocked out." DjB ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually there was an interim phase where PIIIL60 and PIVL48 alongside Marder and StuG could effectively deal with the T3476 horde. So, in the early war, when the german tanks had 37mm, 50mm short, 75L24; they were manhandled by the T34s, KV1s. When the germans got the PIII and PIV uparmored and upgunned, they did alright. When the Big cats came out, they had a short period of dominance. But the russians went for numbers of T34/85, su100 and the rest of their monsters in smaller numbers, the germans were doomed. Lewis

WP shells are set off by a burster charge, a small HE charge to break the shell and blow chunks of the WP all over. The WP will ignite with the O2 in the air. It creates Phos pentoxide or something like that. Its all a matter of surface area. The more surface exposed to air, the more burning willy pete. A shell that has been cracked open and a dousing of water based fluid is better than exposure to air. Again, just a snipey little remark from JonS he cant back up. Lewis