dieseltaylor

Some stuff from Tankers in Tunisia

: } .....,,,...

I don't recall it saying but I got the impression it was longish. If my memeory is not playing me false I do believe a respondent mentioned an 88 at 200 metres not being spotted. In that case it was not firing! I cannot recall if it was deserted but certainly the camouflage was excellent. I will see if I can locate those excerpts sometime. Congratulations on your success with the Pak43 - very encouraging. Out of curiosity was it against the AI or a human.

Haha! No. Bocage Tanks! If anyone cares to read the US Intelligence Bulletins for NA there are AFAIR examples of 88's being hidden to the extent that only the barrel was visible ...... in one case quoted a single 88 was not spotted for a day though it was firing. Regarding the 40mm I actually worked with a guy who was on a Bofors in Italy. Not much action but in the mountains they would use the Bofors on individual enemy MG nests as they outranged them and were pretty accurate. I suspect that this was especially for Hannomags : ) Actually 600yards was a good range for an ATG like the 6pdr as proximity increased its chances of penetration and allowed for slight angles that might increase effective armour. Obviously much depended on the tank and the tactical situation. The British ATG's were trained to choose the most dangerous target which would be stationary tanks as opposed to moving tanks.

Some German ideas http://archive.org/stream/1943-07IntelligenceBulletinVol01No11/1943-07%20Intelligence%20Bulletin%20Vol%2001%20No%2011_djvu.txt

http://ia600701.us.archive.org/6/items/1943-07IntelligenceBulletinVol01No11/1943-07%20Intelligence%20Bulletin%20Vol%2001%20No%2011.pdf Pages 4-6 Obviously this illustrates a US attack. The principle seems the same.

The Germans were being quiet during the day also according to troops in North Africa contained in US reports. AFAIR it is noted in "Tanks in Tunisia"

Apocal - You did just take one point of a constructed argument that in isolation was silly without showing how the point was being juxtaposed for the total argument. The point you highlight and Jason jumped on was really just taking part of a whole and then making a point that was unjustified. Of course in certain circumstances the advice is hugely sensible. If we break it down: How close is close? If it was 50 yards dead in front of you and you were already at speed how many of us would think to stop or reverse? I have instances of an 88mm missing a Churchill on a causeway twice head on at small hundreds of yards ..... and we all know how slow a Churchill is. It eventually lumbered up an settled its hash. The Germans always end up saying the commander has to make decisions and all of their tactical advice is based on the idea that there are possibilities. It may be in the single ATG example they could have gone into reaction times, how fast an ATG loads, and morale state to justify the advice but that really is not much help when action is the primary importance. Returning to the quote it does not say you have located many ATG's charge forward - it requires commonsense - and presumably felt it unnecessary to mention not charging Pakfronts it in print. Incidentally the halftracks are interesting as they actually had three reverse gears!

Good post Kensal. Very nice to be able to quote the action which looks textbook. I have been reading the relevant Lone Sentry reprints. There were 23 variants of the 251 [or 22 depending on your books] the odds would strongly suggest APC rather than " a half-track". I think we can rule out non-armoured and those without weapons.

Apocal - I am surprised that you dismiss ASL' post so out of hand and then quote misleadingly a fragment of his post solely to highlight it against some of Jason's more considered posts. Perhaps you might do the same for Jason dismissing the German manuals which say precisely what his new position is now. The introduction of the Kursk figures was not helpful to the discussion unless JC tied it into the fact that the Germans were following their doctrine and using the Hannomags wisely by NOT using them in a very heavily defended locality. This quote below illustrates JC having a pop and being wrong in bolstering his argument in reverse to the way he thought.

JasonC The German doctrine is there in black and white. AND the main point is that it was up to the officer to decide when and if to use them. I am totally not surprised to find how absent they are in major combats you quoted previously. It is not proof that they were not used in support of assaults in certain circumstances. You yourself actually outlined the likely circumstances in one of your earlier posts. It was the use Kursk as an example and generalising that I found a stretch. I hope all readers will now be on the lookout for examples of the rare halftracks in action : ) The best I have currently is a quad AA bouncing a Cromwell but thats not really the right sort of vehicle.

Mistakes happen I will subscribe to but what is missing is confirmed checking by an independent. It used to be that before being published peer review was required. It seems that even this elementary precaution was not taken AND the samples had not been double-checked prior to the paper being sent in. If we are going to live in an age of people rushing to publication then surely it is better for society that we put the onus back on the researchers to go through some mandatory checking or face the consequences.

MI6 - more let politicians distort and pressure to fabricate a case. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2025512/MI6-pressure-Blair-Campbell-produced-bogus-Iraq-war-evidence.html Its a laugh who gets considered a war criminal. Blair comes out a millionnaire.

or perhaps an American plane!!!! The report seems highly believable.

http://www.monmouth.edu/newsdisplay.aspx?id=29695 BUT BUT BUT ...... http://www.naturalnews.com/039998_imported_rice_lead_contamination_retraction.html Quite an interesting long article on how to go wrong, the lack of checking, and the difficulties of analysis when done properly.

I would do nothing so stupid as I do realise that conglomerated figures may hide differences of use over a six year period with changing weapon systems. I don't suppose you will recall that earlier in the thread I made the observation that in the right circumstances the local commander would decide on the benefits or otherwise of using them. I think this link vindicates my view that in appropriate circumstances they would be used as fire support etc,. Until such time as you produce something different in from the German Army - rather like the directive on Tiger use -this seems to be the proof. And I do mean documentation not aggregated figures from the entire Eastern Front in specific chosen years designed to support your position. Against early Poles and Russians they would be sensible orders and with the advent of huge numbers of ATR and ATG they would be not so clever. In extremis one might use them even against heavier positions if you had the foresight to drop artillery on the positions you wanted to nullify and then use the Hanomags to provide heavy MG direct fire as the bombardment lifted. But then that comes back to German officers making the call and in fact having some documentation on use. Talking of minimal losses in some operation does not prove otherwise.

http://www.autoweek.com/article/20130418/CARNEWS01/130419869 Quite interesting really.

http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt09/motorized-infantry.html Obviously the Germans did not have the benefit of the forum gurus. : )

That does highlight one faintly worrying omission in that the report is not dated. Also the range of firing is not given.Any looping effect of firing at long ranges will not be represented but particularly interesting on the glacis plate when the angle of incidence would be lower. Perhaps they felt that firing at extreme ranges head on was nonsensical : )

Yes if I had the precise figures for the Texas from Wikipedia I would have quoted those. However the concept remains the same : )

Excellent find. I have never seen it before.

I have no doubt the linked accounts are true. Battleships could fire 20 miles or so in which case there is more than plenty airspace to get plunging fire. I see at least some US ships had an elevation of 45 degrees for the 16" turret.

Kursk Live and learn!

From the BBC It is really rather shaking that so much rests on such poorly constructed spreadsheets. I am remingded that 50% of the most quoted medical research is actually bogus or suspect. Checking up seems to be an inadequately rewarded whereas those who make mistakes or lie seem to get away with it.

Agree with proposition.