Andreas

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette: Environmental conditions and there effects on gunnery and range estimation are in fact discussed in the TigerFibel.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Jeff, I still see a problem with some people here quoting what are probably one-offs to have the whole range of the gun shifted higher. Since we both agree that CMBO does a good job on modeling the sheep, I think we can also both agree that the issue of the 'wolves', as you put it maybe something that needs looking at. The reason I dredged up that quote last night was to give an antidote to the relentless optimism of the Tigerfibel ('Observe the rule and you won't miss at 1,200m' - not 'Observe the rule, be in the right territory, make sure noone shoots at you, be calm, grab enough sleep, and don't let your driver hit you with 'em nagtive waves and you won't miss at 1,200m'). I am sure it discusses environmental influence. Unfortunately the way it was presented here looked to me as if it should be evidence that the gun should have an automatic hit out to 1,200. I also think that maybe better treatment of defensive preparation may help matters (ranging etc.)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Perhaps, JasonC, you might start to see the disadvantages of trying to quantify the unquantifiable, and look more outside the scientific realm.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Oi! Even if it ain't got numbers it still don't mean it ain't science! It is called 'qualitative' research, as opposed to 'quantitative'. Still science.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pascal DI FOLCO: NB : en échange dis moi STP comment me débarrasser de ces @^[|[]# de Churchills a Côte112, je me fais écrabouiller sur un PBEM <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Acht-acht?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hon John Howard MP LLB: Other areas covered include CDLs (first conceived on Matilda II chassis but deployed on M3 Lee/Grant) and Valentine bridgelayers (only used in the Pacific as far as I am aware though present in the Order of Battle for 79th Armoured Division in NW Europe).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I have some references for Valentine Bridgelayers in NWE. Not sure where, but they seem to have been used in action. CDL - not in its intended role, from what it looks like.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox: Bet that was a hard one to get a hold of.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Was quite funny actually. I stood at the stall of the vendor, wanting to pay for 'The history of assault-gun brigade 276', when he was discussing whether £45 was too much for a fairly dilapidated copy of 'The story of 79th Armoured'. The guy he was talking to put the book back onto the box where I had failed to spot it. Took me all of a quick glance and 30secs to decide that £45 was indeed a lot, but not too much. Did not look for it or intend to buy it, and it canceled out the planned purchase of four other books. Oh well.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox: Thought you already had that? Or was that the Delaforce book? Is that the one printed in Germany in 1945? With lots of maps and bulls head on the front cover? If so, that's the one I have.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's the one. The other I already had was the Delaforce book.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette: It is heavily wooded in the vicinity of Nowinki. Obviously terrain considerations play an important part in engagement ranges. In addition Feldwebel Karl Hass says nothing about the experience level of the flak unit, visibility, whether the crew was under artillery fire or small arm fire, etc.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well he says that just before they were hit by a tank cannon shell. Of course that might distract one a little. Still, 30m, and they missed. You has well as I have seen the threads going 'my XYZ missed at 100m, fix or somefink', and as ecidence goes, this is as much evidence as recorded one-shot kills at 4,500m. 'Just throwing some wood on thie fire, you know I mentioned the bell curve earlier. One end is a one-shot kill at 4,500. Another is a miss at 30m. Reality is somewhere inbetween. I have no doubt that the 8,8 can do either. The Tigerfibel does not mention crew experience, enemy interference and terrain considerations too, BTW.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: I just got the scoop from someone who already owns that history - see my British and Canadian messageboard. Shame. You should have asked me first.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hmm, not sure that is the same, if you refer to the Ed Storey post on your forum. His maybe a more scientific assessment of the operations of the division. Would be interesting to compare. But to be honest, I actually wanted to have that book myself, and there are some great pictures and very good maps in there too. Argie - maybe. I have to look at it more closely. I thought that explosive mine-clearing device was called a Conger.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rexford: Actual data from 88mmL56 Flak against T34 at 2000m resulted in 10 shots per kill.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks - now going back to my source (Piekalkiewicz: 'Die 8,8cm Flak im Erdeinsatz') made me find what must be the worst 8,8 gunners in the whole Wehrmacht. Mind you, this is the gun as AA gun, not as tank, but it is still pretty much the same gun 'that cannot miss up to 1,200m' 'Before the AA guns opened fire, the tanks started firing their cannons. When the first t-34 reached appr. 900m distance our guns (sic!) fired from all tubes. The first tank, despite our heavy fire, came up to 200m, but then brewed up. [...] One [tank] came up to 60m to the gun position and fired into it. [...]Then a shell hit our gun-shield. All were reeling like after a steep fall. The gun commander, who had been wounded, saw first [...] a tank that had camouflaged itself. It had closed to 100m. Then finally the shell left the gun and glanced from the monster. The second shell was in the breech. The tank had closed to 30m now. The shell raged out of the gun and - missed, with all the excitement.' The tank, a KV-1, then proceeds to crush the 8,8 and various other pieces of valuable Wehrmacht property in a truly anti-social manner, before rolling off into the distance, firing all the way. If only the gunners had known that they can not miss up to 1,200m.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette: As I recall you were using the Tigerfibel in one particular thread to support a point you were making. Something to due with tank crews knowledge of vulnerable points on a vehicle.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Not quite - I was asking what German training manuals said about somefink or other (forgotten what) because that might shed some more light. As part of the puzzle, not as evidence in their own right. I find it unbelievable based on gut feeling, and stories how difficult it is to hit stuff at that kind of distance, and readings about the period in question where 4,000m hits feature rather rarely, which could either be because it was absolutely no problem, hence not worth mentioning, or because it happened 'rather rarely'. What is the current expectation of a Leopard II or M1 gunner at 4,000m? 4 shots to hit, better or worse? Do they bother to train that kind of distance? What about 1950s and 1960s tanks?

From 'The story of 79th Armoured Division', 1945. Chapter VI - The Channel Ports p.306-7: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This [the bombing] was followed by a heavy artillery programme, and at 5.45 the tanks went in. [...]. In the centre of 56th Brigade front, the minefield lay in front of the ditch and two troops of Crabs (one from each 'A' and 'B' Squadrons, 22 Dragoons) started flailing on either side of the road, as shown on the map. In forty minutes the right troop had cleared a 24-feet breach to the ditch and a 1915 hours 222 Squadron RE brought up an S.B.G. bridge. It was hit, and so was a "Snake" which exploded. The reserve bridge was brought up, hit about 500 yards from the ditch and fell. For 20 minutes sappers worked under fire to winch it into position. By 2055 hours it was ready. [...]The two breaches on the left, marked 'C' on the map, met with qual trouble. In the first, three crabs were knocked out by mines in the space of a few minutes: the lane was abandoned, an dhte surviving Crab (Cpl. Agnew, 22 Dragoons) made a second gap. This was completed to 24 feet by 1905 hours and down it went the infantry with two troops of 'A' Squadron 141 RAC and a troop of 617 Squadron.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What do we learn from this: a) The engineering battle lasted 3hrs10mins on the right, and 1hr20mins on the left The infantry waited with moving in until the engineering battle was over c) S.B.G. bridges and other fancy stuff are very vulnerable d) Flailing in this case took 40 mins when no problem was encountered. What does it mean for CM II? Basically, you would have a separate battle, in which the UK commander attempts to do his stuff, and the German commander gets pillboxes and guns and shoots at him. In order to make it succeed, all the Germans have to start the scenario demoralised, and not shoot at the UK troops too much, based on an appreciation later in the narrative about the likelyhood of success if the German defenders had made an effort. BTW - the narrative for Totalize talks about the Crabs leading the columns to their objectives, not more not less. It also states that no mines were encountered.

Try to get closer than 100m, quite a bit.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Berkut: The book is called "Death By Design" written by Peter Beale who also wrote "Tank Tracks" He served with the 9th battalion RTR, from 43 to 45. In Death by Design, he does attack British tank design and training given to the men who would have to go to war in tanks like the cromwell. What amazed me was the break down of the various depts involved in tank design, and the length of time taken to get the tank built.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Second Tout, again. Peter Beale was a troop (platoon) commander in 9th RTR (Churchills, NWE), and also wrote the history of 9th RTR, 'Tank tracks' - an excellent history of an ordinary unit. I just picked up the regimental history of the East Riding Yeomanry 'Forrard' by Paul Mace today (and got to talk to the author, who also signed it - yeah!). Incidentially written by a troop commander, too. Looks quite interesting. I looked at 'Death by design', and very seriously contemplated buying it (and 'death traps', and the history of the 70th US Tank BN, and whatnot - but they don't pay me enough to afford this hobby )

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette: From the Tigerfibel: Only if firing as far as 3000 m, one of three shots will miss. At a distance of 4000 m only every forth shot will Produce a hit. (deviation)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is the bit I find wholly unbelievable, and it makes me doubt the rest as well. The way it is written is very re-assuring, in a sort of 'Yeah, go get em Tiger (excuse the pun), you can do it!' style. But we two have been through my belief in in the usefulness of training manuals before, so maybe best not go there again

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jarmo: Ahh!! I missed this the last time as the topic doesn't interest me. But good old redfaced shouting is always in. Anyway, I could use the blood and body pieces flying in the air. Would add immersion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Tut tut...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian: Why the emphasis on flails? I did not mention them in my last message at all. There are other ways and means. Yes, the thread is about the "funnies" so, I'm quite willing to accept that you thought I was talking about flails but my comments were directed more towards the general use of engineer assets, than anything else.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Flails were just an example to at least come to discuss a species of funnies instead of the total array, which had vastly different purposes. I have read the other thread - and I have read Tout and other stuff on Totalize. I am not sure from my memory that the flail were used in the CM type battle of that operation. IIRC they were used in the approach march. If someone has Tank! lying about, they could quickly clear that up, and I will check my sources. Now Red Army mine-rollers seem to be a whole different kettle of fish.

I just wanted to let you lot know that I despise you all because today I shelled out £45 for the original 1945 print history of the 79th AD, only because of this discussion (okay, it has pwetty pitchers too). I swear if I find anything about this discussion and the use of funnies in it whatsoever, I'll be damned if I tell you. So there. Great day out at the Tank Museum, including a chat with a troop commander in East Riding Yeomanry! Yeah!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzer Boxb: Just as more wood for the fire, Achtung Panzer has a reference where an Elephant killed a T-34 at a range of 4.5 kilometers.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> IMO - the reason these things are recorded for posterity and subsequently mentioned on websites/in books is that they were so freakign unusual. Nobody records the event where it took an 8,8 five shots at 900m to hit a Sherman trundling down a road unawares. Common sense tells me though that the absence of mention does not mean that these things did not happen. It's a bell-curve, and with the number of statistical events you will get some outliers at the freakish end. So, what exactly is it that people would like to see? Exact modeling of bracketing? 8,8 based guns never to miss at first shot? Better to hit chances at 1,500 - 2,000? Or is it just general - my oh my, that was a great gun? I am a bit at a loss here. [ 09-29-2001: Message edited by: Germanboy ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RMC: Ah, yes the world of CM. I hate to muddy the waters a bit, but my failing memory has this number 7,400m associated with some tank fight on the Eastern Front. I don't remember where I saw it or if it was for real.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That was an 8,8cm Flak employed in the Caucasus mountains, where the gunners decided to have a lark and fire at a T-34 somewhere in the valley below. The claim is a first-shot hit and brew-up of the T-34. Reasons given were that the air is very clear up that high, and they were firing top-down, so were not impeded by the horizon bending away. I think I have that in Piekalkiewicz' 'The 8,8cm Flak in ground combat' (Die 8,8cm Flak im Erdeinsatz). If it is correct, I think it can be put into the realm of flukes nevertheless. From the way the story is written it is clear that everyone was a bit astonished at that, to put it mildly. Sort of beats the hell-fire pass story though (another thing the Commonwealth can not claim - longest-range victim of an acht-acht).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian: I find it disconcerting that I as a commander cannot order a bridge blown, a minefield breached or a gap blown in wire, when I am very well aware that was part of the ability of the troops in the period.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> At the level of command we are talking about in CMBO (regardless of time constraint), it really was not the local commanders decision to blow the bridge or not (e.g. the bridge in Nijmegen which the local commander wanted to see blown, while Model stopped him, because it was needed for potential counterattacks).. While I grant you the gap blown in wire (which is simulated to some degree, if you have not noticed, because your men can actually get through it), I would really be interested in a range of cases where the flails were used in a battle, as opposed to before a battle, as seems to have been the case in Astonia, for example. Mines in the El Alamein defenses were also cleared the night before the attack. How do you intend to use the flails? Have them roll in front, and the infantry and other tanks follow close? Why do you think it is up to a local battalion commander to decide if a bridge is blown? I would say that is up to higher level of command.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mattias: Oh, and this was not in any way intended to argue against your tests Germanboy and Guy, just to clarify my line of thought!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sorry Matey - but you must be confusing me with someone or somefink. I never did any tests.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MikeyD: Sherman smoke launchers (as well as Staghound, Churchill Cromwell, etc. etc. etc.) were internal, firing through a simple hole in the turret. From inside it looked like a big flare pistol screwed to the interior roof.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, there I go, eating my words. Bugger. Working from memory is always beaten by having the book in front of me. The picture is showing a B Squadron South Alberta tank (well, part of it anyway) somewhere near Oldenburg in the last days of the war. The caption identifies the smoke launcher as a 'contrivance', suggesting it was a field modification. Anyway, here it is in all its glory: IF geocities works for a change, that is...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pvt. Ryan: In one game a FB caused a Marder crew to abandon. For the rest of its turns the FB kept strafing the Marder. I suppose this isn't entirely unrealistic because from the air a plane wouldn't know that the Marder was not knocked out unless it was burning, but it sure was frustrating to see the waste of air power.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I would just consider myself lucky that it did not decide to commit fracticide

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scipio: Have you ever seen a dud? No?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Any suggestion on how prevalent these should be, e.g. for US vs. German? And matter of fact, I have. I would class US 76mm breaking up as a dud. Was in the beta.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MikeyD: Sherman smoke launchers (as well as Staghound, Churchill Cromwell, etc. etc. etc.) were internal, firing through a simple hole in the turret. From inside it looked like a big flare pistol screwed to the interior roof.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Not the ones in the South Albertas. Also not like the ones seen on the Daimler in the IWM, although that maybe a post-war addition.