dieseltaylor

Bailing when hit. Tank Men page329 "Crew learned to clear the tank on first strike." Stephen Dyson Churchill tanker. An examination of 1600 tanks showed that only 30% of hits failed to penetrate a Sherman whereas 50% failed against the Churchill. Fire resulted from 35% of hits to the turret and 60% from hits to the hull. Chapter 14 page 367. The survey was Military Operational Research Study no.6, A Survey of Tank Casualties, March 1947

Surely a Jagdpanzer IV suffers because it does not have the fine traverse of the Tiger. Provided someone can notice the strike of the shell fine adjustments can be made by the Tiger. At 1000 metres were any hatches opened? I mean it may not be shown in game but I would think a T/C would make efforts to report shot. The chances of being hit by a tank MG would be lowish at that range.

Bocage actually means grove or copse. Haie I think is hedgerow. I am sure JSB will confirm or correct. BTW I am using Fernand Braudel to see if he can give me lots of info but really he is only post 1000 AD and Normandy is not a favourite area : ( Now from Tank Men. page225 line 7 " The first Sherman of the 737th US Independent Tank Battalion that tried to ram through a hedgerow " was flipped onto its back and lay like an up-ended turtle " according to an observer."

A genearl rule for the British Army SHermans I thought was if you get hit bail immediately as the next one is very very likely to hit you aswell. Churchills were good for two hits. Perhaps crews attachment to their tanks is too strong. I will try and find the source for the information.

You see there is a correct way to attack AFV's

Trail Ape - but would not the peasants have a cow or two, some pigs , perhaps a sheep, chickens etc? Perhaps I should also point out that the Normnands actually believed in primogeniture but whether they took over the field systems of the natives when they invaded is probably a fair point. In the days before maps, marking out land was important. Building stone walls goes back thousands of years so there is every reason to think hedges were the way to do it before wooden fences and barbed wire. Hedges also have a great benefit for people who lived off the land, hedgrows could provide plenty plus wood which was very necessary. Heating is tricky when there is nothing to burn. And different trees for different uses in woodworking. Beech is good for burning, but the mast [flower] gives 20% oil and could be used by humans and animals. etc. PS . I was forgetting that wild boars, deer and wolves would have been threats to crops and livestock. Even in the 1750's in parts of France they would kill 700 wolves a year,

Vark - I thought the difference would be that your troops would not fire without orders on a tank. Seems reasonable. And I strongly suspect historically accurate.

Excellent work siffo. And given the knowldege of WW2 readings where firing and hitting on the move is noticeable for its absence it does seem definitely a problem area.

Cunning stuff! : )

Cunning stuff SlapHappy. And building into slopes is not that uncommon.

In what respect do you think the industrial lobby in the US were influential in maximising their production run? If I were a producer and made a profit per tank I would not wish for any thing that would reduce my production rate. As to lessons from history - when a war starts with tanks using 40mm and 37mm with x armour and the trend is more armour and bigger guns each year you might just think that up-gunning at least would be necessary. The Churchill, your Allies not so good tank has armour that will defeat the 75mm reasonably well!. Anyway as we can Blue on Blue the game will be interesting for these match-ups : )

Technically I would agree with you that for some bocage it would be possible. However there are two risks , the chief one being your tanks belly armour is exposed and even light guns could probably do for you, and secondly there is a chance you would become immobilised or damage some sensitive part of the tank. So operationally it would be frowned upon as slightly too risky. Particularly if like the Panther you have a very long gun. Shermans are taller than their width and toppling over would be a consideration if a track hooked and brought the tank around.

There is an old saw that during WW2 it took 13 shots to hit an enemy tank at 1500 metres, in the fifties[?] 3 shots, and now one shot. Unfortunately though I have read it I have never seen the research behind the figures. But I do believe they were stationary tanks.

Its a good thing anecdote is not the basis for design? However out of the number of shots fired at TC's [non-sniper] what was the success rate? And is this not a last ditch defence option caught as they were in an open field. And why, out of a company, were no other soldiers firing at the T/c? Was this guy the sniper?

There was Eurosport feed, the official Le Mans race order tracker, the Corvette live cam, the Audi live cam. It was hell knowing which to watch. I think Peugeot were a trifle naughty and I am a Pug supporter. And the PS3 Gran Turismo selected driver Ourdinez is on the podium 3 years later. Not bad going.

Here is one thread Georgie http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=98346 and another http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=98191 and I thought there was a third which I posted to .....

Its good to have some tests to show there is a difference. The question remains to a degree are even humble Normandy houses under -modelled in terms of wall thickness. However it would be true the rooms are smaller and that bullets bouncing around inside would make it a hostile environment. The furniture would be substantial wooden items that might help but overall it does seem likely it is hostile environment. Not from wall penetrations I think but simply shots going through doors and windows and ricochetting around of things like the massive stone lintels and mantlepieces. A larger building would be larger and more rooms , plastered walls ,more furniture so it figures troops would be happier and safer in it.

oh well it may yet surface on the net : ) It always makes me wonder post-battle whether you can tell if there was an engine malfunction, the crew bail, and then the tank is destroyed - grenade down the hatch?, bazooka, 75mm tank gun. Must make it quite an iffy.

"Small-arms " may be a catch-all for infantry weapons other than bazooka. Do you have a link?

Marioa - it was on your e-mail advice form when you paid AFAIR. And I suspect if you log in a customer it may have it there also. It is NOT on the box.

I imagine that 1940's ammo was not quite as efficient as modern day so one might need to edge the figures down - bearing in mind also these have already been rounded to the nearest 6". I also think that we are a little short on data for brick strengths, and also what type of brick the US army was using in the tests. Without that information I am afraid that it might be considered anecdotal.

Weird!

Well it might have been helpful if you had specific examples. Still it has been interesting but my brief research fails to find anything to support the BF practice. FM 7-10-2 published in 1945 is probably handy as it presumably builds on experience post Normandy so it is slightly anchronistic. PAge 17 addresses what to do when ATTACKED by a mechanised force I did take the opportunity to Army Talks 27/1/1945 page 7 where a Russian General was suggesting infantry dive into holes and leave the enemy armour to tanks and ATG's! Seems wise. One thing that I did gfind interesting that in the FM it said the bazooka was reasonably accurate against moving targets up to 300 yards. Who would have thunk it.! My men are obviously wimps. Perhaps there is a specific piece that says if not being attacked shoot to button them up - but I might need your help to find it.

I suspect its more likely that there are slightly different coding rules for tanks and infantry when it comes to covered arc discipline : )

I have to admit that it certainly was a Russian tactic to snipe at armoured vehicles. However generally they would be using ATR's at range and therefore unlikely to attract much retaliation if well concealed. German tanks had to carry plenty of spare vision blocks. In the event the German tanks were trying to break into a defensive position then every thing would let rip. But that was Russian tactics.