Jump to content

sturmtiger101

Members
  • Posts

    56
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Everything posted by sturmtiger101

  1. Niether, in effect, did the Heer panzer divisions. According to T. Jentz, in " Panzer Truppen " among other sources, the 51st and 52nd pz. abtl. ( Panther ) were grouped under a special 10 Panzer Brigade HQ for employment in the Heeres Gruppe South during the Kursk offensive. Eric
  2. Which would only make sense when one compares the number of SS panzer divisions to the total of Heer panzer div., brigades, and independant battalions that were outfitted with Panthers. While not all Heer panzer regiments were fortunate enough to ever recieve an organic Panther abtl., only the 1, 2, 3, 5, 9, 10, and 12 SS panzer divisions ( anyone confirm if one of the other "friewilligen" SS units had 'em ? ) were issued Panthers. Cheers, Eric Tuggle
  3. I have seen a similar scene too. In ' Far From Over ', against the AI, I had a Tiger II fire its' nuagewhatchacallit gizmo ( close defense weapon ) at a GI squad on its port side. Just about the time the little explosive grenade comes flyin' outta the launcher along comes my Wirblewind rite up beside the Tiger II, Poompf !!!, and the Wirblewind is knocked out. Not exactly killing itself, however it was still very cool. I said to myself, " Ya know, this is one hell of a game..." I guess those open topped afvs are just so much more vulnerable, if these posts are anything to go by. Cheers, Eric Tuggle
  4. Hey TS, That Bovington Tiger I is actually from s/504, the only other unit to send Tigers to North Africa. It is vehicle # 131, and was captured in April of '43 after an encounter w/ Churchill tanks. There is a surviving Tiger I from s/501, however, and it was found abandoned at the end of the Tunisian campaign and captured by the U S Army. This vehicle was at Aberdeen Proving Grounds until the mid 80's when it was given back to Germany on a ten year loan for display at their Munster ( or was it Sineschiem (sp) ? ) facility. Anyone here know what's become of this tank today? Last I heard it was in the UK for restification by a private firm... Cheers, Eric Tuggle
  5. To those of you who, like me, have a special warm - fuzzy place for Tigers, AND have the spare bucks to shell out, T. Jentz and his " Tiger I & II Combat Tactics " has plenty of after action reports, both of succesful and not-so-succesful variety. It also contains plenty of performance data as well as reports of tests done by the Allies on captured examples to measure the beasts mettle. Very nice, gives a good feeling of what the crews and commanders thought of fighting in a Tiger and their experiances on different fronts. Cheers, Eric Tuggle
  6. JAK, A report issued from Guderien's Gen. Inspecter der Panzertruppen office, circa May 1943, mentioned an engagement involving a Tiger of s/503, one of the first Tiger tank battalions formed. the action took place during the counter offensive to retake Kharkov in Operation Fredericus, late Feb - early March '43. Forget the exact wording but esssentially the account described that one Tiger I took eleven 76mm AT hits, six + 57mm, over 30 anti tank rifle hits, and ran over at least one AT mine. The road wheels looked like swiss cheese with their rubber rims gone from several, several axles / torsion bars were broken, the radiators were full of holes, the main gun barrel was perforated, all sheet metal and outer top-hamper ( smokecandles, etc. ) were shot away and the armour of the vehicle was pock-marked like a bad case of pimples on a pizza eatin' teenager. The commander's drum cupola was sprung and some main weld seams were also cracked. But, the armour had in no case been penetrated, and the crew were unscathed, if understandibly shaken, and reportedly, the vehicle still traveled another 60 kilo's after the days fighting. Ultimitley, the repair shop of the battalion decided to write this vehicle off, however, due to the cummulitive damage and the sprung weld seams. Still, in terms of crew survivability, I believe the Tiger provided a greater ratio of saftey comparable to its' contemporaries. Cheers, Eric Tuggle
  7. Warning, slight spoiler ahead... . . . . . . . . . . . . I've " killed myself " in a game too. Sort of. In " Far From Over " a King Tiger's close defense weapon ( nbhztr ) popped a grenade on some nearby US infantry just as an Ostwind trundled by, aiming for the same infantry - BOOM - and scratch one Ostwind. The King was a regular and the Ostwind was a regular or green, can't quite recall now. At the time my greatest thought was, " Damn, now that's realism! " ... Cheers, Eric Tuggle
  8. PzKw I, Mr Waters, thank you for your comments and information with resources. I have been a fan of the PzKw III and of the Tiger I for so long that I am just experiancing further interest in the Panther series only in the last year. Appreciate your help here. Regards, Eric Tuggle
  9. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Wolfe: JagdPanther. Sorry, couldn't resist. - Chris<hr></blockquote> Wolfe, old fellow, I'm afraid you are quite right! The JagdPanther did indeed give the Panther family an '88' armed afv. Good point and thank you for helping me keep my points from being ever too serious! I can be a stuffy old bastard... and a gamey one too! Regards, Eric Tuggle
  10. The Panther II design consisted of a newly designed hull and turret, and was supposed to be armed with a 8.8 cm KwK 43 L/71 gun. The Panther II prototype captured by American forces carried the Panther G turret for trial purposes, as the work on the real Panther II turret did not start in earnest until late February 1945. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr> <hr></blockquote> Mattias, Hope I'm not confusing anyone... Regarding the Panther II, though, this was a completly separate project from the later development of the Panther Ausf F. The II was a developmental dead - end after the first hull was produced for trials, as it was decided to focus instead on developing the original hull and chassis. This decision was reached by Wa Pruef 6, the Panzerkommision, and M.A.N. in a series of meetings culminating in May of '43. T. Jentz, Germany's Panther .Tank...1995. Disscussion and research was on - going for development of a turret mounting the L/71 cal 88mm for the Panther Ausf F, however no date was set for this turret's introduton to series production. Indeed this particular design was still very much on the drawing boards and there were concerns regarding the loading and servicing of this weapon in a turret that could fit the Panther chassis. A wooden mock up, as well as scetches and drawings, had been made toward this proposal, but this does not mean that a Panther mounting an '88' was enevitable. Again, in the main, I'm paraphrasing Mr Jentz and his research. All else aside, what this means for we fans of CMBO and CMBB is that, IMHO, it's unrealistic for a Panther armed with the '88' to make an appearance, even an Ausf F for that matter. I haven't seen evidence that either vehicle type ever reached more than " a few partially assembeled chassis " . A shame as I would dearly enjoy employing one in a twilight, end of the war type scenario. I am enjoying this topic and all the contributors who are posting responses, it is an interesting debate. Cheers, Eric Tuggle :cool:
  11. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Stoffel: Instead of a Maus I rather would see the Panther II if rare vehicles would be alowed easy to code too,since its a Panther with an 88 gun <hr></blockquote> Sorry Stoffel, Afraid there's no such beast as a Panther mounting an '88'. Per Mr T Jentz in "Panther, The Quest For Combat Supremacey. " The Panther II was an attempt to up-armour the Panther hull with 100mm front and 60 mm sides. One prototype hull was produced and was captured intact by the USA at the end of the war. It resides today at the Patton Museum of Armour, in Ft Knox, Ky. The vehicle mounted an Ausf A/G turm with the L/70 cal 75mm main armament. There was an Ausf F model under development that was a new "schmallturm " turret mounted on the Ausf G hull, but it too would have been armed with the L/70 cal 75mm, not the '88'. Two partially completed prototype turrets were completed before the war ended, but no Ausf F as such was ever produced or supplied to combat troops even for field testing, ergo, none saw combat as none ever really existed. Fabulous flights of fantasy I'm afraid. My apologies if I burst any bubbles, old man. Cheers, Eric Tuggle [ 11-11-2001: Message edited by: sturmtiger101 ]</p>
  12. Greetings, I wanted to take a moment here and post my thanks to all the modders out there who work so hard to bring us all more and better afv, gun, grass, blasts, etc., mods. Learning to d/l and install mods, heck, do anything on my own system, has been a long hard struggle for one not brought up in the era of pcs' and the internet. I'm finally able to do basic bmp and wav file mods and have been enjoying all the awsome work that is availible through CMHQ and the 3rd party sites like The Scenario Depot. Some of the artist whose work I have used are: Fernando Buil - Panther and MkIV, Tiger S - US/FF M-4 & UK/CA/POL M-4 Desert Fox - Tiger I Paul McMahon - JgPzIV and L/70 & Hetzer Gordon Molek - Tiger II & Daimler a/c Marco Bergman - JagdPanther & M-8/M-20 a/c. Thank you all for the time and effort you put into making these mods availible. Cheers, Eric Tuggle P.S. BTS - Don't know if this would be more appropriate in another forum but I thought this might reach more members, lurkers, readers et al, here. Thank you. Eric Tuggle
  13. Thank you for the effort and time you've put in to share these pics with us , Karch. Enjoyed viewing them tonite. Cheers, Eric Tuggle
  14. Hey now, How about " Panzertruppen ", vol. #1 and 2, by T. Jentz? Excellent accumulation of reports written by platoon, company and battalion COs, plus lots of stats and diagrams on tactical formations. First vol for 1939 -42, second covers 1943 -45. Covers both east and western fronts. Cheers, Eric Tuggle
  15. Excellent and humorous site, enjoy coming back time and again. Thanks for all the photos guys! Cheers, Eric
  16. Hi, JasonC, well now, was wonderin' if you have ever been inside a M5 Stuart? 'Cause, gee - whiz, I have and I can tell you there are damn few spaces over 3" availible, let alone 5", for a 128mm to pass on through! I'm 5'7 an 135# and it was still a tight squeeze, and this was a museum vehicle that was not combat loaded with ammo and gear stowed. I've heard of ap rounds goin in one side of a medium tank and out the other, or front through to rear penetrations, so I agree it is possible, just highly unlikely. Also, and I'm no munitions expert mind you, didn't german pzgr39 ap shot usually not travel in a straight line upon penetrating a target? Would it not ricochet around inside the vehicle several times before either exiting or touching off fuel / ammo stores? - Thus causing crew casualties along its' path. just some thought here to stir the pot. Welcome any other info you have, thank you, sir. Regards, Eric
  17. Andreas, Agreed, sir. I myself would most definatley want to get the heck out of a Sherman that had been penetrated, regardless of it's remaining functional capability! And crawling to a ditch or other cover seems most prudent indeed. Thank you for your reply, sir. Regards, Eric
  18. Looking through some of my modest literature on afv combat and a few web sites as well, IMHO, a case can be made for both abandoning or remaining in a disabled afv in the midst of action with the enemy. I believe that many factors: type of damage, current dangers outside the vehicle, risk of fire inside, chance of recovery, repair or immediate assistance from comrades, crew training and morale, etc., are taken to account in whole or in part before the commander orders a crew to bale out. I've read of actions in which the crew elects to stay in their vehicle and await recovery / rescue, even continuing to engage enemy targets, rather than bale out and expose themselves to fire. Likewise, crews choosing to leave (abandon) their afvs often suffer significant casualties from enemy fire, indeed resulting in the death or capture of the entire crew. The image that comes to my mind is a picture of a MkIII ausf H or J knocked out during the German drive to Stalingrad, the bodies of all 5 crew members liter the area surrounding the tank, with one crewman hanging half way out of the escape hatch located in the lower hull, just above the roadwheels. It is apparent that they were machine gunned in the act of abandonment. As another example,who has read of the account of the 27 July '44 action at "Barkman's Corner" at a crossroads junction on the St. Lo - Coutances road? Ernst Barkman and crew in their Panther engaged and fought off a large American armoured colum, knocking out nine Shermans and several other vehicles. His Panther took many ap hits as well as enduring an attack by " jabos " ( fighter - bombers ) and suffered a broken track, damage to the running gear, damage to the ventilation system, cracks and sprung weld seams to the armour, and the driver suffered a head wound. Still he and his crew stayed in the tank, slowly managed to withdraw by manuvering with only one track side intact, and saved their tank to fight another day, albiet after some time in the shop. This is growing rather more long winded than I had planned... however, the point I'm trying to make is that it just depends on the circumstances and panic or lack there-of, of the crew in question. I've seen this born out just recently in a CMBO game in the " Stoumont " operation. A veteran Panther G crew remained in their tank after becoming immobilized by an unseen 76 mm atg at a range of less than 200meters. The tank also took internal spalling of the armour from a second and third hit to turret as it rotated towards the gun. the Panther then knocked out the atg, it's half track carrier lurking nearby and then proceeded to shoot up several infantry squads that crossed within it's line of fire. At the time the tank was about 500 meters in front of the rest of my troops, no close support. The vehicle and crew survived the scenario intact and manned, hopefully this tough crew and tank will return in a few more scenarios to help me complete the operation ( Game #3 of 11 total ). Christ on a crutch! Sorry so rambling guys, just two cents worth from a lurker here at battlefront... Cheers, Eric Tuggle [ 08-12-2001: Message edited by: sturmtiger101 ]
  19. The hasty camo scheme of thin and wavy green air brush strokes of the 12th SS Pz Div Hitler Youth, at the time of the Normandy campaign. But I must admit its getting a little old and I'd like to try a good 3 - tone scheme next. Cheers, Eric
  20. Sascha and Warphead, very cool pics, thanks for sharing them. Cheers, Eric :cool:
  21. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Schrullenhaft: My guess is that they should be. The Ausf. F and Ausf. J were produced in large numbers (to my limited knowledge) and are very representative of the Pzkw III series.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sir, the Ausf F was actually not very numerous as only about 300 - 500 units were produced (I'll have to check the exact #s at home. ) until the introduction of the Ausf G. The Ausf J, however, does appear to be the most numerous turreted version of the Mk III with ~ 1600+ L/42 and ~ 1000+ L/60 50mm equipped units produced. Respectfully, Eric Tuggle
  22. Michael, your welcome, happy to have been of service. I looked through some reference books at home and the tauchpanzer wading tanks were of 118 pz abt of 18 Pz Div. There were Ausf F, G, and H types. Some were also issued to 6th Pz Div. I also did find one very fuzzy photo of a regular ( non - wading ) Ausf F with the 37mm gun supposedlly employed on the eastern front, but still feel that this was an exception to standard. There were early versions of the Mk III converted to command tank roles that still retained the original 37mm armament and served in the east and in North Africa. Just as often, however, these command tanks mounted a dummy gun in place of the main armament and the turrets were fixed and could not rotate. Cheers, Eric
  23. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wolfe: Didn't the PzIII undergo a change in chassis from short to long? Maybe that's what they were referring to. I think this started with the J model? - Chris<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Nope, from the MkIII Ausf E on all versions used the same chassis and drivetrain. the earlier Ausf A - D were all developmental series with experimental suspensions and only saw limeted operational duty during the invasion of Poland in '39 before being withdrawn from service. In terms of refering to Mk IIIs as short or long, perhaps this is the ref to L/42 vs L/60 50mm equipped versions? Cheers, Eric Tuggle
  24. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys: Does anyone know offhand whether the Germans were still using the 37mm gunned Pz. IIIs at the time of Barbarossa? I would expect those would have been replaced by the 50mm models by that time. Michael<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Some specially prepared submersible PzIIIs belonging to ? 18 Pz Div ( at work and can't remember exact unit number ) were armed with the 37mm, they participated in securing a crossing over the river Bug, in the early stages of Barbarossa. As a general rule however, most Mk III equipped units had recieved models mounting the L/42 50mm or had been up-gunned to this standard. I suppose there were exceptions but I've yet to see any photo evidence. Most MkIII Ausf F were originally fitted w/ the 37mm but had been rearmed with the 50mm by 1941. The Mk III is a very interesting series and it can often be challenging to distinguish the different models as the Heer was constantly upgrading the earlier marks with new gun / armour, cupolas, drive sprokets, idlers, wider tracks (40cm vs 36cm) and so forth. Hope this helps! Cheers, Eric Tuggle
×
×
  • Create New...