Andreas

Hi konstantine - he actually says that in a few of the books, and I do believe that in 'The Ionian Mission', this is how he phrases it. It is of course related to a nautical observation made by him, then corrected by Aubrey. All the best Andreas

I know. It was also seen as a complete waste of a good gun and the most important combat power asset of the division, and an expedient in case of extreme need, only to be used if nothing else answered. Which makes it different from the Soviet doctrine, which even had a gun designed with the dual role in mind. In the German case they needed to do this because they f*cked up on the ATG design in early war, only remedied by the appearance of the Pak 40 in February 1942, and so they did it, because losing guns was preferable to losing the battle. So I stand by what I said - if recommended without further restriction on time of the war it is a gamey (in the sense of not backed by doctrine) use of the gun, with the exception of a small time-frame in 1941-2, where it is a gamey use of the gun that occured in history as well. The point about them being overmodeled in CM still stands. It was toned down in testing, AFAICR, but it is still better than what German documents say. All the best Andreas

I seem to recall their hit chance is overmodelled. They should not really have much of an ability to deliver a HC charge in DF at distances >500m, according to German experience. I believe (from memory) that they do a lot better than that in CM, so I would not agree that they are not a gamey choice. That's before even getting into German doctrinal use of such guns. All the best Andreas

Huh? Are there two books with that title? Infantry Aces I am aware of the one above by Kurowski, which I would not touch with a barge-pole, just like any other work by AFAIK erstwhile PK man Kurowski. All the best Andreas

My guess is that at longer range the Sherman's superior frontal armour begins to have an effect. Did you have a look at the amount of non-penetrating hits? All the best Andreas

You'll excuse me if I call bullsh*t on this forum myth, I am sure. And if not, I don't give a hoot, and consider this as a needed jog for your and zmoney's memory. The last person I called a Nazi fanboy happened to have a bad crush on Tigers, that is true. But he deserved that label not for his failure to comprehend stats, but for referring to other human beings (in this case soldiers and officers of the Red Army in World War II) as "little better than animals", while extolling the virtue, education, and honour of the German soldiers. The former part of this is straight out of the "Joseph Goebbels Handbook on how to refer to your political enemies", while the latter part is just a lie. And that's what got him labelled, and eventually banned. The fact that he thought it entirely possible that Tigers killed 12,000 T34s, while all Tiger claims on all fronts run to less than 10,000 has nothing to do with it. As for the topic at hand, civdiv said all that needs to be said. Make a clear statement of what you are talking about, be sure to have your facts right, and come with a test that is meaningful, not with an anecdote of one combat that got you hacked off. Then there is something to talk about. All the best Andreas

Do those truck numbers include the artillery? In which case the amount of trucks available for the infantry would be even higher in the armoured division, I should guess? All the best Andreas

Can't help you with the Kursk chapter, but some general advice on the book. Whatever you do, just don't take it as gospel. It is one man's perspective on the events, and that man happened to have strong opinions on them as they unfolded, which means that he is likely to be quite biased in many cases. E.g. his version of the fighting on the Leningrad approaches is heavily criticised by the then 1a of Panzergruppe 4, von Beaulieu, in his book on those battles. All the best Andreas

For info on LW Felddivisionen: http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=6292 http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=73733 http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=55943 http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=90624 All the best Andreas

They are Felddivisionen (L) type chaps if they are after 11/43. Before that, they are from Luftwaffe-Felddivisionen. If you think it does not make a difference, you are wrong. All the best Andreas

I fully agree with that, but I think it is clear from the reduction in ROF that it was not the final word in GPMG design. I also think however that Michael is raising a valid point in terms of the impact on tactics, something that is described quite well in Jary. All the best Andreas

I suspect I shall like it much more than when you called me a 'tosser' and told me to shut up, but then I've always been sensitive that way. </font>

You mean the MG42..........the best MG of its time and to this day?? </font>

Wrong - but a predictable excuse. All the best Andreas

The German claims number did get a 50% haircut throughout most of the war, and that made it quite closely to actual Soviet write-offs, AFAIK. This means that the claims consisted of three elements: 1) Actual total destruction of the enemy vehicle 2) Damage to the enemy vehicle to a degree that it was seen as totally destroyed. 3) Fantasy destructions (double countings of destroyed tanks, tanks hit but only lightly damaged or not at all, made-up numbers) I have given an example for this effect elsewhere for the invasion front: "German claims to 8 July 537 - Allied write-offs in June 377, in July 522". This would indicate probably a 10%-20% overclaim compared to TWO numbers, which may well not be an overclaim at all considering item 2) in the list above. OTOH, I do not know how Soviet and Western Allied standards for what constituted a TWO compare, so comparisons across these two are not possibly for me. Regardless of this, it should be clear to anyone that it is not possible that German Tigers killed 12,000 T34 when the total kill claim for all Tigers on all fronts runs to 9,850 (which includes items 1-3 from the list). It is quite possible that German tanks damaged more tanks than they claimed as killed. It is virtually certain that they killed less than they claimed as killed. In effectiveness terms, one can analyse these things as follows: 1) Tactical effectiveness - removal of enemy assets from the battlefield. Contribution to success of own side on the day. 2) Operational effectiveness - removal of enemy assets from the battle. Contribution to operational success of own side during the battle. 3) Strategic effectiveness - removal of enemy assets permanently. Contribution to strategic success of own side during the war. It is clear that Tiger battalions would primarily contribute to 1), and to a lower degree to 2), even though this would possibly be a higher degree than other battalion size formations. This is indicated by their direct attachment to operational formations, i.e. Corps level. It would be hard to expect them to contribute to 3) beyond the no doubt high number of kills that they racked up, of all types of assets. In this discussion, the actual exchange ratio tank for tank is of relatively limited relevance. What maybe more important is the ability of the tank to stand up to most types of fire, not just that delivered by enemy tanks, and of its consequent ability to handle disproportionate odds, if thrown in as a fire brigade. Their tank kills, whatever the ratio was, were a result of this ability, and as such they are an interesting diversion in the discussion. All the best Andreas

Keep digging. All the best Andreas

And he even called Andreas an insecure Russian... </font>

Have to say I'm beginning to feel the same way. For some reason I assumed the kind of people who play these tac games were a cut above the usual teenage FPS-whoring retards, but after some of the comments in another thread in the CMBB forum I've revised that assumption. </font>

How to deal with German heavies, according to a UK Sherman tank platoon leader: 1) Find one (that's the difficult bit) 2) Keep him interested by dangling the 2-3 75mm Shermans on his frontal arc (that's the dangerous bit) 3) Turn the Firefly turret to 90 degrees off the line of advance in the direction of the heavy 4) Revv the engine 5) Break cover to the left or right of the heavy with the Firefly. Move at high speed past the German heavy. (that's the bit that shows that you know that their turret rotation is slower than your running speed) 6) Stop when you are at a right angle to his side armour. (that's the exciting bit) 7) Fire the gun into it. Repeat as required. (that's the easy bit) 8) Pray that a second one/an ATG was not in overwatch. (that's the hairy bit) 9) Breath out, if you are still alive. (that's the 'You have earned a pint or the MM, whichever you prefer' bit). Just remember that the platoon leader is not in the Firefly. All the best Andreas

I'd be happy to research your statements, of course. Well, only because JonS made it easy All the best Andreas

Actually, most of us are aware that this idea of most German tanks being destroyed from the air is a myth, but one that is carefully nurtured by German tank aficionados. Achtung Panzer is still alive and kicking, BTW. All the best Andreas

There's an anecdote about a fighter-bomber getting into the barrage during the landing on Okinawa. It just vanished. Probably a side-effect of the Philadelphia experiment. But I can't remember anyone using a fancy term to describe it. All the best Andreas

Or the USMC f*ck-up in 2003. There are some to choose from. All the best Andreas

You can go and infer whatever you like into what other people wrote, I stick to what I read. Sigrun stated that in his view each Tiger in the east (conservatively) killed ten T34. He may have been ambivalent at first, which leads to your wild goose chase about tank-on-tank engagements, but he then is very clear about what he says, and you prefer to ignore it. As I told you before, that is what I am debating. It has to do with an interest in combat effectiveness of a weapons system and type of formation, and in stupid legends cropping up time and again. If you want to debate something else, no matter how irrelevant it is, feel free to do so. But you are not free to tell me that I said things I did not say, or that things I read in the clear mean something completely different from what they say. So, with that out of the way it is 12.2:1 for all Tigers lost in combat and 5.4:1 for all Tigers, based on German claims. Which means in reality it is going to be far less, which means that in reality each Tiger did not kill 10, or 20, or 75 enemy tanks. I really don't give a flying monkey's about tank-on-tank engagements, and I honestly don't understand why you do. I am interested in the rate of over-claiming, and in the comparison with other formations, e.g. independent Stug units, or Nashorn Panzerjägerabteilungen. I am also interested in the operational impact of these formations. I am decidedly not interested in the tank-on-tank performance, or in how many Tigers can dance on a pin, or silly legends such as 'every Tiger killed >10 T34s.' Is that clearer now? All the best Andreas

I don't know as much about it as you do, obviously, so I leave it for you to judge. All the best Andreas