Username

Heres the list of AFV that the 116th Panzer Bn destroyed during the time period posted before: 2 KV1 12 122mm assault guns (su122) 227 T34 1 General Lee 1 T60 8 T70 Guns: 12 122 guns 40 7.62cm guns (infantry) 147 7.62 ATG 43 45mm ATG 10 76mmAA Heres the 1943 operational strength (the starting strength was posted before)! Jn30 40 Jl10 39 Jl20 14 Jl31 20 Ag10 23 Ag20 21 ag31 22 sp20 18 sp30 10 oc10 10 oc20 9 nv10 9 nv20 9 nv20 5 nv30 3 dc10 10 dc31 16 This is a list of the runners! At most times, the pzIIIlong was the majority tank. I will leave it to the reader to make comparisons. For the last half of the year, the "battalion" was fighting at company strength, sometimes at platoon strength!. Not sure if they had the time on target support of up to 18 battalions of artillery or flights of 36 fighter bombers!!!! Lewis

Jason your math is full of such leaps of faith, self-serving dismissals and just blindness that I must give you credit. In your examination of the US armored divisions stats that I posted, you divvy up the AFV destruction between the tank battalions and TD battalion. First off, AFV destroyed does not mean tank and SP gun (I have the list of T34, etc for the german bn). I would think that you would know that. Second, You dont think that the arty and especially the armored infantry bn (57mm and bazooka) could have bagged any? Third, You have previously gone on about how kills are bloated/incorrect. You really think those "AFV" destroyed were all the work of the shermans and TDs? Funny that in the same thread, you can conjure up math to explain a TD battalion having such a low number of kills and then turn around and try to prove another TD battalion has more than a factor of 35? You are being JasonC at his most classic. In any case, the theme of the thread is "What was it like to be in a WWII tank battalion". I would look at things like how many battles was the battalion in? How many days in the line? How many times was it taken out of the line? Transferred to another front? How many tanks did it lose (and from what)? Destroy? Other eqipment? re-equipped with tanks? Better tanks? What kind of ammo did it fire? You want to look at: How many casualties did it take (without even mentioning its starting size, I know you have a four function calculator, percentage mean anything?). How many rounds did it fire? (since US tanks and TD fired indirect at times, unlike many other nations, this is a loose indicator at best). Other things like the terrain fought in is important. I have read Brazen Chariots and at times it seems like the battles are like fighter planes swooping through formations and turning around for another pass (low HE use here by the way). In the pacific, the battles are characterized by near crawling through limited visability and blasting things just in case). In russia it was different as was france. So the basic question asked "what was it like", can be answered with "Depended where you were and who you served with and how long". The US tankers ETO, generally speaking, had a short run of it. Again, the game has a habit of making every battle that tanks are in a last man standing contest. I would like to get away from the tedium of following a bad math "debate" and focus on the game. It occurs to me for tanks, and infantry, that being low on ammo has to have ramifications that lead to limitations in the game. Specifically, movement towards the enemy should be limited in the case of low ammo. In the case of tanks without AP, the appearence of another AFV would mean reverse movement only (away from the enemy). The player is going to do whatever he feels is going to make him win. The game should take this into account and limit the orders so that suicidal behaviour is limited. Lewis

The pacific war obviously had limited LOS. If the Japanese had any kind of decent faust type weapon it would be curtains for the tankers.

What Commisar is describing is a drill. Its a larger version of "cover me while I move out/got you covered". I was thinking about orders limitations. What I would want is the more orders a platoon as a whole gets, the longer the delay before they kick in. This simulates the coordination/communication/etc. to get a drill going. KISS (keep it simple stupid) becomes a viable tactic. Better troops with better HQs would have shorter delays. The delay would be in addition to other delays like being out of C&C. So if you want a 'kick-off', use troops from the platoon that are in C&C. The pause amount could be variable also. Better troops having less variance. In the common vernacular, their **** snaps. Just an idea. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wild Bill Wilder: It really gave me some insight into the happenings inside those minds of those tank commanders. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Can you imagine the coordination without radios? Lewis

There were about 80 Tanks in the Battalion. A-Co: 3 platoons of five 76mm M4 Sherman Tanks, one 105mm M4a3 Assault Gun Sherman Tank, one 76mm M4 Sherman Tank for the Company Comander, 17 MediumTanks (30 Tons). B-Co: Same as above but 75MM M4 Sherman Tanks and 1 Assault Gun. 17 MediumTanks. C-Co: Same as above 75MM M4 Shermans and 1 Assault Gun. 17 Medium Tanks. D-Company: Same as above except they had a 37MM cannon in the turret. 17 Light Tanks (18 Tons). Service Co: Tank retrivers, Tanks with dozer blades spikes, (for hedge rows and other obstacles), Tanks with flails with chains (for land mines to clear our paths. Hdq- Co: One Platoon of 3 Assault guns with 105mm M4A3 Shermans and three M4 Shermand with 75mm Cannons. The assault guns were for support and street fighting - they had larger guns and inflicted more damage that the 76mm & 75mm guns. This is a US Tank Battalion. Compare and contrast to the German Bn. Notice especially that the US has 4 companies and built in 105 support. The german Bn is 3 companies. the US battalion has over 50 percent more tanks. Care to crunch your numbers again?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC: Next, in one place you say the losses for the US armor and armored infantry battalions look "close". I assume you meant "close to the example of the 68th AB", the one I gave the unit history stuff on. Because each of the armor battalions of the 7th AD averaged 85 KIA, very close to each other and to the figure for the 68th. But the armored infantry battalions lost 3 times as many KIA - around 250 each - not "the same" as the armor battalions. .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Excuse me but you make me laugh. Whats the armored infantry have to do with the armor? Nothing. I am just showing that they all had about the SAME casualties. I am making a point that multiple sources would back up YOUR suggestion of what a TYPICAL armor battalion experience was like. I am also saying that you can only make a case what a typical US ARMOR experience was like in WWII on the west front. See? Do you get the difference? Now as far as your "they fired about the same amount of shells" and they had "about the same casualties"..weeelllllll.. Jason you have a propensity to boil out numbers, "facts", etc. to suit what ever point you are trying to make (and I am not so sure you have one). But the US tank battalions had 4 companys (3 medium 1 light)? The panzer gren division 16 (pz bn 116) started july 43 with: 4 pzII 32 PzIII 5 PzIII75 11 PzIVlong 1 PzBef HQ This is the starting strength. They all tied their shoes about the same too. But they werent wearing the same shoes. They didnt walk the same road either. They didnt walk the same amount of time either. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC: Thanks for the corrected figures on the rounds. Curious that the AP figure in the total is off by so much - 2889. Perhaps each tank company had 5 Pz IIs and they expended some? .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No. The number was a error. The second post has the correct data verbatim from the book.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MikeyD: About expenditure of rounds: I read in the Jentz book "Tiger I & II Combat Tactics" how Tiger 1 commanders in Tunisia were downright envious of the Allied ability to rain shells of all type on them from extreme distances, while the Tiger with its excellent long-range gun was under expicit orders to first close with the enemy so as to not waste ammo. !<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ive read of US tanks firing HE and AP at the tops of hills just to get the range in case a panzer showed up. The tigers only real advantage was at range. Try to read Tank Tactics. Its a really good book about the western tank battles. The author supplies lots of info from studies. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC: PS. If my guess about the HC kick is accurate, it leaves the question, why did they stop? The obvious reason is they fielded enough Panthers, and phased out the long 50s and short 75s, and uparmored the Pz IVs. As a result, all their guns could penetrate the T-34 at medium range, and some could at long - while the T-34s wanted to close the range. Before then, while there were still undergunned German tanks in the force mix and not many Panthers, the Russians had an incentive to stand off at 1-1.5 km ranges. That incentive disappeared by 1944, and as a result the "75mm HC at range" idea was no longer necessary or useful.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I can't for the life of me understand how you think HC can be used at range. It was known to be wildly inaccurate at long ranges. It was used around 500-600 meters max and required alot of rounds to get a kill (3-6 quoted for MkIV short and PIIIM on pg 41 panzertruppen). It was not liked by the panzertrupps. The germans used HC in rifled weapons as an interim solution till more heavy ATG and panzerkanone could be fielded. they probably still used it for 251/234/etc using 75mmL24 till the end of the war.

havent read the whole thread but.. Setting buildings on fire that ARE objectives is a little gamey. But in real life, as others have probably posted, US used WP specifically, along with tracers, etc., to burn down buildings after surrounding a town. Any building giving a height advantage was targetted. Ive read of woods being set on fire to trap defenders, flush them out, etc. Guess it depends on what you think gamey is and what effect reality has on it.

4687 75long HE 1798 75long AP 1237 75long HC 99 75short HC 39 75shortAP 5700 50long HE 2845 50long AP This is the data. It works out to 18.6 AP per tank destroyed It works out to 24 AP+HC per tank destroyed The original data: The data does break down the ammo usage by type. 10387 HE vs 7571 AP and 1336 HC. They fired 219,140 MG. This a Bn mix of mostly MkIII and MKIV type tanks. Should have read 4682 AP. The panzer bn also claimed two aircraft, 87 mortars, 164 ATR, 34 trucks and 4680 enemy killed. 435 Captured too. Personnel losses 43 killed 192 wounded 14 missing Anyway. I think the point is lost on you Jason. The typical tankers experience (you named the post) depends on alot of things. As Wild Bill is demonstrating, the pacific was different from the west as it was different again from the east. As I am also pointing out, A TD bn experience would be different still (and yes I think the whole TD policy was crap). Even if the panzer tank battalions didnt rack up the ratios here, the point is that they engaged in more armored battles than a US tank battalion would typically. See? Thats a point. Discussions hinge around people making points, relating information, etc. Otherwise you might find yourself in the company of someone who insists on rattling off on tangents about his "hollow charge usage theories". (The germans, by the way, gave orders to tankers to substitute HC for HE when the HE was getting scarce. This further supports the point about HE being used mainly, even to the point of scarcity in the german case) Heres an interesting site: http://members.aol.com/dadswar/7ada.htm Notice the losses in the three armored inf battalions and tank battalions. Pretty close. From data like this, I would start making claims about the average US tanker and armored infantrymens experience in the western front of WWII. I couldn't guess at what it was like to be in a tank in the pacific or eastern front from this data. But I think I get some of your points. Yes, most tankers in most places fired HE most of the time. Most blowouts, like the typical CM game, would not happen to a formation more than a few times. Unfortunately, the game does nothing to stop the knock-down-drag-out fight-to the-last-cartridge syndrome. But the game rarely showcases skirmishing but rather battles. For what its worth. Lewis

Another TD report... "30th Company A reported---moved---left Perkam, Germany 1245 hours Apr 29th and arrived Salching, Germany 1420 hours Apr 29th---distance traveled 9.2 miles. At 1445 hours Apr 29th, Captain Williams took 9 prisoners (1 Lieutenant) in woods south of Salching, Germany. Approaching an airfield outside of Ganacker, Germany, vicinity grid square 6425, the 4th platoon had a small arms fight with the enemy and took 43 prisoners after expending 100 rounds of .30 cal Machine gun. Action took place between 1700 and 1800 hours Apr 29th. At 1400 hours Apr 30th the 1st platoon in position and 4th platoon in position; both positions just west of Kleegarten, Germany, fired 59 rounds of 3" APC, 43 rounds of 3" HE and 5 rounds of 3" HVAP at suspected observation points in the town of Zeholfing, Germany. High buildings, Church steeples and other suspected strong points were blasted and demolished eliminating all opposition for infantry upon entry. After completing their position of the mission assigned the platoon, the 4th platoon displaced farther west and the 1st platoon remaining in position received 40 to 50 rounds of counter battery estimated at 75mm artillery with approximately 20% mortar. Although a number of rounds exploded 25 to 30 yards from the platoon's gun positions, no damage was sustained. 2nd platoon took 2 prisoners on Apr 30th in town of Kleegarten, Germany." This report shows that AP and even specialized rounds like HVAP were fired at what most CM players would call an infantry target. This is late in the war and there could have been other circumstances (low on HE?) but it shows that AP was fired at infantry (I have read stugs would also do this to dug in guns, MG, troops). The kinetic energy of a slug of hard metal slamming into a position has a power all its own. It would be very usefull for troops in cellars. The penetration of the earth and wall being easy for the round. Lewis

This from an M10 website... "During the eight months of active combat in the ETO the battalion fired the staggering figure of 63,625 rounds of three-inch service ammunition and 811 rounds of 76mm service ammunition---captured over 3,186 German prisoners of war, or about six prisoners for each man in the battalion---assisted the infantry in capturing many hundreds more---killed 85 of the enemy and probably killed many hundreds more---knocked out four enemy tanks including a MK VI Tiger, two MK V Panthers and a MK IV---destroyed three combat vehicles and fourteen general purpose vehicles, fourteen flak guns, seven 88mm guns, eighteen machine gun positions, five pillboxes, and even shot down one observation plane---and assisted the infantry in causing the surrender of Forts Yutz, Illange, Julian and Bellecroix. During all this fighting the battalion was fortunate in sustaining relatively light losses--twenty men killed, and eigthty men wounded, more than half of whom returned to duty. In all, over 2,500 miles of European soil was ground under the wheels and tracks of the rapidly moving 807th Tank Destroyer Battalion." http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/barracks/8929/page2.html (Extreme Sarcasm mode on) I guess the Seek part of Seek part of 'Seek, Strike, Destroy' was missing. To field a TD battalion and have it rack up 4 tank kills is a waste of time. Since it fired 3 inch and 76mm, I would assume it was a mix of M10 and some M18 with mostly M10. I would say that they fired mostly HE most of time. Lewis

Well its Monday and I would like BTS to comment.

An interesting comparison can be made with the german tank battalion data given in panzertruppen II on pg 129. Over a 7 month period (July 43 to Jan 44), the Bn fought 76 battles. About 1 every 2 2/3 days. The data does break down the ammo usage by type. 10387 HE vs 7571 AP and 1336 HC. They fired 219,140 MG. This a Bn mix of mostly MkIII and MKIV type tanks. The data supports Jason's assumption about main battle tanks,ie they fired HE mostly. Of the 37 panzers lost during this period, 21 were destroyed by hits. This is higher than the west where reports for german tanks lost to gunfire is 40 percent (70 percent of allied tanks were destroyed by german gunfire). The nature of the fighting can be judged by the russian losses. The german Bn claims 251 enemy tanks and 245 enemy guns. Strait math works out to 24 AP/HC per tank killed. Obviously, AP/HC were also fired at bunkers/pillbox/etc also. But many tank actions did not result in tank destruction. Rounds were fired, hits were achieved, and the enemy pulled out. The germans would use about 115 rounds AP/HC per battle. The germans had a tank kill ratio of 251 to 37 or 6.8:1. This was a panzer grenadier (116 tank Bn) unit that mainly had panzer III long and 75mmL24 and PIV long. The majority tank was the PIII types from the ammo expenditure. Since this was a period of german reversals, the number of ATG/AA/guns destroyed is slightly lower than the number of AFV destroyed. I would expect this to be higher in earlier attack conditions. I would also expect the number of HE used to also be higher then further supporting Jasons claims. The ratio of HE to AP per tank type is also revealing. The PIII long fired 2:1. The PIV long fired 2.6:1. So the german 75L48 was doing alot of the tank killing and was also using its HE too. The 75L48s also used 1237 HC. This is a ratio of 9:6 of AP to HC. The HC seems to have been a bigger player than most people would assume. I would assume it was being used as a dual purpose round for tanks, bunkers, dugin ATGs, etc. The 75mmL24 on the MKIII also fired 3:1 HC to AP. This would be expected given its limited AP performance at this time. No HE use is listed for this vehicle though, which is odd. While Jason has given a good insight into the typical US battalion, the typical german battalion (if this is typical) was on a different mission. The reader can make his own comparisons. Lewis

Unless the "jet" actually hits ammo or fuel or people, its not as devastating as some people think. The "jet" is actually metal from the liner of the HC. An interesting experiment showed that the metal is NOT vaporized and directed at the tank. The experiment took the liner and sawed it into three pieces. Each piece being a cross section of a cone. the HC was reassembled and fired into a pool of water. What did they find at the bottom? Three pieces of metal. If it was a jet, they would have melted together to form one piece of metal. The point is that a HC is "firing" a piece of metal into the tank. Very high velocity, very thin penetrator. I understand that the russians are using depleted uranium in new generation ATGM as the cone component. This should be nasty because of the DU habit of flashing after armor properties. This could be a solution to the "jet" improvement. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The Commissar: At least that's what it seems like to me from these accounts. Any other stories that had the 20mm resulting in the abandoning of the tank, from any front? Maybe those Germans happened to fire on over-sensitive Soviets? ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I have also read about Tigers getting just hosed by HMG fire, ATR fire and scores of light and medium ATG fire. No one bails because of this though. A trick is to stick your fingers in your ears and open your mouth. A factor might be how confined the tank is and the proximity of the tankers head to the armor of the tank. But russian accounts always baffle me. They demonstrate a propensity for such exagerations, references to folklore/witches/etc that I have to laugh. Someone once said that a russian cant tell the time of day off his watch without embellishing. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Babra: The desert is neither a billiard table, nor an IBM clean-room. If anything, spotting is more difficult than in temperate zones, and identifying is harder still. Dust and heat-haze make good cover.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Babs You miss the point. I am saying that if someone is shooting at you in the desert(they can see you right?), then theres more quid-pro-quo than in other built up, vegatation dominated terrain. Lewis

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackhorse: The tank goes straight. If the soil is soft, the tank follows an arc, as the soil provides resistance. Other than that, there is no steering invloved.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The arc is what I am refering to. A vehicle like a stug could use it to point itself at targets. The gunner then using the traversing mechanism to zero in on the target. Lewis

I personally did this. I shed a track, it came off at full speed and was laid out behind me in a nearly strait line. With the track off on one side, the vehicle would move both forward and back with minimal throttle and would slew to one side or the other when I floored it in forward and reverse. The drag on the road wheels on the field on one side (tore up dry ground), seemed to be the steering element. I stopped after a few trys because it cant be good for the roadwheels. Under combat conditions, that would not be a concern though. Or you saying it cant be done or that it shouldnt be done? Lewis

Didnt BTS mention that there will be some sort of close range targetting of tracks in CMBB? If this is the case, then vehicles like the stug, which already come off pretty unhistorical, will be further handcuffed. Vehicles like the Ferdinand had fairly wide traverse of the main weapon. It could easily hold off attackers to its front with one track. An interesting thing is that most AFV/tanks that are hit cant tell they are detracked till they try to move. I wonder if there can be an ultimate FOW setting that only informs the player of M damage till they try to move. in brazen chariots, the author was very clear about this. Lewis

It will be interesting to see if the LMGs get any better in CMBB. A possible use, with the new covered arc, will be the final protective fire. If the LMG can stay hidden from attackers FP and site a narrow long arc across the MLR. Perhaps they will take on a new character. They should have been modeled around 3 men. If nothing else, to make them live longer like the FOs. Carrying a M60, I wasnt able to move much ammo by myself. It would take a couple of others to make the weapon sustainable. 2 extras would give about a thousand rounds. Lewis

The Panther then came under attack from Allied fighter-bombers, wounding some crew members, blowing off a track and damaging the ventilation system. Under the cover of the air strike two more Shermans approached, only to find that Barkmann's tank had not suffered any serious damage and was still more than capable of fending off their challenge. The two Shermans were soon reduced to burning hulks. Barkmann managed to destroy one more Sherman before deciding discretion was the better part of valour and ordered his driver to reverse their way back out of danger. This in itself was no mean feat in a badly damaged Panther tank. Nine out of the 15 Shermans which had attacked his lone Panther were destroyed, together with other vehicles. In addition, despite fighter-bomber attacks and his tank being severely damaged, Barkmann managed to get his vehicle and crew back safely to German lines. He was decorated with the Knights Cross of the Iron Cross on 27 August for his achievements. http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/8662/barkmann.html

Modmatt cracks me up. I never made that assumption. Read my initial post. I even ask if thats the case! You made the assumption. What I was going to suggest BEFORE the engine gets rewritten is that IF the game differentiates between engine hits, track hits, etc then an engine/tranny/steering column/fuel line/etc M-kill be modeled with the BOGGED or whatever being stuck in the mud is called. The track hits (which are modeled I believe, that is, its an area of the tank that gets a percentage of the hit distribution) could be differentiated by movement/rotation limitations. To be clear, it would be allowed to rotate but not move a distance. Subsequant track hits could cause a chance to be completely M-killed. And yes, its possible to slew a tracked vehicle about on one track. Its even possible to drive on one track a short distance on hard surface. The trick is flooring it (to slew on one track) and feathering it to move in a strait line. I remember that Panther ace who shot up all the Shermans, Barkmann, his driver was able to reverse far enough back with major track and vehicle damage. Thanks Matt Lewis