Andreas

Well, that must have been like the dying scene performed by Peewee Herrmann in "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", considering that it took until 1953 for Marat to be taken out of service. Dying for 12 years... </font>

How is the Bradley revolutionary when it appears to be pretty similar to the German Marder IFV, which entered service ten years before it? All the best Andreas

Mk III, or Kingtiger, depending on which picture. All the best Andreas

Edit: cross-post with Steve, sorry for the repetition. Adam In your examples you are blissfully mingling tactical examples to elaborate on an operational/strategic problem. I was responding to your tactical example, nothing more. So, let's accept that Steve is right, and that in a tactical situation like the one you describe it does not really make a big difference whether it is an M1 or a Stryker that gets blown into pieces by a Styrian Kornet. Your operational/strategic question has merit, but I think the answer depends on BFC's background story. But let's take the 'It absolutely has to be there on Tuesday' approach. For whatever reason US forces are needed to go into Styria, and sort things out. This has to be done now, and on the double, for political reasons. This would tell me the following: a) you are unlikely to hit a continuous line of defense key elements of the most capable enemy force may not be in your way in numbers c) your fast medium force element is going to be out on a limb compared to your heavy elements; but that does not mean the latter will never arrive, just that they will be there later. So, I think of this as a large forward detachment action, where combat power is traded for mobility. The Germans called these Vorausabteilungen, and every infantry division had one in France and early Russia, consisting of their motorised elements. The aim was clear for these guys - stay as close as possible to the enemy, keeping him from taking the time to turn around and defend again. If you hit real resistance, move around it and continue, or screen it until the infantry regiments have walked up. Arrive in potentially defensible locations such as the Stalin line at the same time as the retreating enemy. Establish bridgeheads before you are expected to be even near the river. All this only works if you are dealing with a disorganised enemy, and there is the reason they did not do it at Kursk. The German VA was a motorised infantry force, supported by lots of light AT and a battalion of 15cm guns. They went up against Soviet forces that on paper were numerically vastly superior, had access to KV-1s, T-34s, and lots of artillery, and got away with it. The reason for that was that one side had functioning C&C and a plan, while the other was shaken to its core and had lost control. Stryker Brigade can do the same against Styrian forces, regardless of what they have as weapons on paper, as long as they keep them off balance. But that is the extent of it. In order to properly kill the Styrians however, and thereby turning the fleeting success into a permanent one, they will still need HBCT forces coming up behind them, who will deal with the main enemy force element should the Styrians decide to make a stand. Stryker Brigade can create the opportunity to dismember Styrian forces, but it can not achieve this, it will need other forces to do it. Have a look at the Uman encirclement - Lots of relatively light forces coming from the west and south using weak forward detachments to control the roads and create the encirclement, but it needed most of a Panzergruppe coming from the north to go around the Soviets in the east, and some fairly heavy stuff to convince the guys inside the pocket that their number was up. If Stryker Brigade runs into well-armed and motivated Styrians whose commanders are not razzle-dazzled, it is toast. My guess is the Background story will explain why that is unlikely. I hope that gives you some idea. Let's stick to one layer of debate, and not use CMx1 examples or think about how the ZSU-23 will affect Strykers, as opposed to Bradleys, because it really won't make a difference on the operational level. All the best Andreas

So, heavy armour will get blown into pieces, and that's why they are better to use in such a situation than a medium force, who would get blown into pieces. Somewhere the logic of that conclusion appears defunct to me. All the best Andreas

I don't think that heavy armour will have a good time going through dense infantry anti-tank belts either. Or maybe I just imagined what happened to the Israelis on the last day of their recent war. All the best Andreas

I wouldn't get hung up on individual weapon systems. If you encounter a Syrian force with ZSU-23s, it is likely they have other kit as well, such as advanced ATGMs, or maybe the odd tank. In which case Bradleys are also in for trouble. Neither of the Syrian large kitm would be around for long though once fixed - i.e. once they have opened fire. All the best Andreas

Great find. Thanks for sharing. All the best Andreas

I would like to hear the cries and shouts of those having issues with the Stryker should the US Army specify A400M transportability for the successor vehicle. Or to put it differently, the Euros wisely specified transportability for a plane they have procured. The US wisely did not specify transportability for a plane it has not, nor will ever procure, and which was a gleam in Airbus' eye at best when Stryker was defined. All the best Andreas

Well, that must have been like the dying scene performed by Peewee Herrmann in "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", considering that it took until 1953 for Marat to be taken out of service. Dying for 12 years... All the best Andreas

Well, that must have been like the dying scene performed by Peewee Herrmann in "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", considering that it took until 1953 for Marat to be taken out of service. Dying for 12 years... All the best Andreas

I believe the 20+ figure is coming from the official German account of the battle. The 20 Cromwells and 4 Fireflies are (together with 3 Stuarts) the tank casualties of the day of 4th CLY (see below). It is just that the article assigns all of them to Wittmann, while there were a few other German tanks around as well. As Michael points out, it has more to do with what was needed to make a good Signal article then with reality. http://www.warlinks.com/armour/4_cly/4cly_44.html All the best Andreas

As far as I know the German kill award system was only recognising claims for TWOs, not for temporary kills. The way I understand it the tank had to burn or suffer catastrophic damage to count. As for Wittmann, if you look at this article, you'll see it credits him with 24 tanks (20 Cromwells and 4 Firefly), so no, the claim of 20+ does not include Bren carriers and HTs. http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/dday/foothold.aspx All the best Andreas

I know a lot of Virginians are from the back woods but I assumed they spoke English. I stand corrected. </font>

Other titles would be Harrison 'The Russian Way of War', and the out of print Garthoff 'Soviet Military Doctrine'. All the best Andreas

Zerleger is a time-fuse implement that detonates the round after a set time of flight. In the Bundeswehr it is called Selbstzerleger, and was in the 20mm HE incendiary rounds. It works based on round rotation, i.e. if rotations drop below a certain number (which is preset and unalterable in the 20mm), the round will detonate. For the 20mm, this happened after ca. 1,600m flight distance, if memory does not trick me, but I was taught this 20 years ago. The aim is to prevent the round coming down onto the heads of your own troops/your own territory, if it fails to hit. All the best Andreas

Remember the 50% haircut. As far as the Germans were concerned, the 3,000 were not claims, but awards. There were also other ground attack planes, most notably the Hs 129, but also FW 190 Jabos, and I would think that ordinary bombing would also account for a good number. All the best Andreas

Remember the 50% haircut. As far as the Germans were concerned, the 3,000 were not claims, but awards. There were also other ground attack planes, most notably the Hs 129, but also FW 190 Jabos, and I would think that ordinary bombing would also account for a good number. All the best Andreas

Air arm is not the same as Ju 87 though. All the best Andreas

Air arm is not the same as Ju 87 though. All the best Andreas

Or they were destroyed, like so much of the Luftwaffe material. BTW "some", does that mean, one, two, or thousands? How do you verify a kill from watching a tape? As for the discussion on penetration, I see this as an interesting side-bar. To me at least the ability of the 37mm gun fixed on the Ju 87 to damage or kill a WW2 tank from above was never in question. The ability of the pilots to achieve the hits reliably is. All the best Andreas

Or they were destroyed, like so much of the Luftwaffe material. BTW "some", does that mean, one, two, or thousands? How do you verify a kill from watching a tape? As for the discussion on penetration, I see this as an interesting side-bar. To me at least the ability of the 37mm gun fixed on the Ju 87 to damage or kill a WW2 tank from above was never in question. The ability of the pilots to achieve the hits reliably is. All the best Andreas

I suggest you read my posts as often as it takes for you to understand them. At this moment, you clearly have more reading to do. All the best Andreas

I suggest you read my posts as often as it takes for you to understand them. At this moment, you clearly have more reading to do. All the best Andreas

I think that total is fairly irrelevant, even though the individual data is quite interesting. Nice digging. All the best Andreas