Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by JasonC

  1. We've heard all the changing armor quality stories, but a few less concerting facts. First, Duckman's quote about the cracked mantlet specifically says the 122 ricoceted off. Second and more on the actual theme of the thread, there is precise little evidence that US 57mm ATGs were ever very effective against the front of Panthers. There is in fact remarkably little evidence of their being effective vs anything, really. So e flank shots at close ranges, some hits on Panzer IVs, no doubt. But a simply horrible combat record vs serious German armor, in the bulge period specifically
  2. Erwin - asked and answered - yes, the Germans were just plain wrong. Why is this hard?
  3. Higher magnification is hopeless for handheld use. You need a fixed mount, whether ground or vehicle. 7x is about as high as is practical with anything hand stabilized; even at 10x you get plenty of object movement from "jitter". At 25 or 50 as used on true telescopes or spotting scopes you can't even hold the intended point inside the field of view with your hands. Googling around, I find the standard artillery set usually had 8-10 magnification, even with the quite heavy mount and tripod.
  4. Erwin - one cheap to make gun across the whole force, was the primary motive for the MG42. The high ROF was certainly useful in an aircraft or anti aircraft role, for the reasons already given above. By late war, The Germans didn't consider it sufficient caliber for any anti material purpose including AA, relying on 20mm cannons, 15mm MGs, and late war on 30mm cannons for that. But early midwar, they had lots of MGs in the skies, on fighters and (flex mounted) on bombers, not just ground LMGs in the infantry.
  5. cool wrote in part - " often MGs do area fire and covering twice as big an area seems sometimes helpful". But you aren't covering twice as big an area. You don't get one more bullet by having a higher rate of fire. You don't get one more ounce of barrel metal or one more inch of barrel surface area to cool things off. You don't get to fire any more, therefore, not over any length of time. You don't even get to fire the same ammo faster in any sustained fire sense. You just get to fire the ammo you can and do fire, in narrower windows of time within the overall firing time you have.
  6. cool - no, you can't fire over twice the beaten area to make full use of a higher rate of fire. The shots are coming very fast. It is the inherent dispersion the shots cause by moving the gun barrel around with their own recoil impulse that determines the angle the burst covers. That and the range determine the width of the spray pattern at the other end, not the operator. The effect of a denser pattern is just to make the spray a fuller probability of a hit on anything inside that dispersion cone, through a narrow range window, and at quite a distance. Even that density only matters for
  7. Erwin - about 550 rounds per minute, cyclic. Half second 5 round bursts, practically speaking. MG rate of fire is extremely overrated, incidentally. A very high ROF is only helpful vs briefly exposed targets or e.g. anti aircraft use where brief exposure and a need for many hits to do material damage is important. Vs infantry in their skivies, 2 hits aren't any better than 1, the beaten zone is set by gun manipulation mechanics not ROF, and running out of ammo twice as rapidly isn't nearly as good an idea as wargamers seem to think. The allies had MGs with twice the ROF of their typic
  8. breeze - If I have a motor vehicle to carry gun and ammo, I'd take a belt fed M1919 over a Lewis or a Bren, any day.
  9. Re reloading pans, see - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l73mR4D9pYw Jump to 8:19, and watch for 40 seconds. No, he doesn't load 47 rounds in 40 seconds. Try 5. Reloading 1 47 round pan mag from loose rounds is a 5 minute operation at the shortest, and some modern people report 10 minutes is more realistic. The 47 rounds load in two layers and the winding spring gets progressively harder to turn as load. This is incredibly clumsy compared to putting rounds into a box magazine, like we all do today.. "But, but, you'd never reload a magazine in combat!" Even if you
  10. First, the varied causes of loss point is perfectly sound. But the notion that the data imply that StuGs were the best isn't actually supported by that data. Notice that it is British loss reporting that is behind that conclusion, as to the division of gun losses between ATGs, SP guns, and turreted tanks. Notice that the SP guns accounting for 25% of losses doesn't mean just StuGs, but also Marders, Jagdpanzer IVs, Hetzers, Nashorns, Jagdpanthers etc. A whole zoo, in other words. Yes the StuG was the most common item in that zoo, but it wasn't by any means all of it. Along with th
  11. The Bren is a vastly better gun than the Lewis. The BAR is admittedly much worse than the Bren as a GP LMG, but it is also 9 lbs lighter, 2/3rds the weight of the Lewis. The Lewis is 5 lbs heavier than the Bren. And pretty much worse in every respect. The higher ammo capacity from 47 round pans vs 30 round box is not a great advantage, because the circular pans are much, much slower to reload (not putting a new pan onto the gun - putting the rounds into a pan), and are very awkward to carry especially in numbers. The 47 round pans are reliable feeding, but those disadvantages are crip
  12. On the bunker, indirect artillerynis actually what it defends against the best, with small arms fire a close second. It has two vulnerabilities - close approach by infantry outside its covered arc (not from its front, in other words), and direct fire by AT weapons from its frontal arc, going through the firing slit. That means guns, tanks, ATRs. For an MG only bunker, a tank just trumps it for that reason, because the MG won't hurt a buttoned tank, and even a lighter tank's main gun will eventually put rounds through that firing slit and knock out the bunker. If you don't have a tank
  13. First on a source - Hugh Cole's bulge Green Book covers this under the section titled "one threat subsides, another emerges", the first half of which covers the liquidation of Peiper's pocket. On the weather, the 30th division narrative is clear that on the 22nd the day was very cold, falling snow and heavy overcast, so there was snow on the ground and it would still be present on the 23rd. 117th Infantry on the 22nd is described as trying to reduced a German force on the nose of a ridge that held them off with mortars, werfers and small arms, until a fourth company from Stavelot got beh
  14. herr_oberst is correct, the US artillery definitely practiced TOT missions at this stage of WW II - and used them with considerable effect in front of the Elsenborn ridge position, among other places.
  15. kevinkin - as long as you agree that maneuver never won anything - before the 6 days war at least - while attrition was always the decisive question, we have complete agreement. If you disagree and think that maneuver is a better way to win campaigns and wars and that attrition is only an unintelligent fall-back that arises when people aren't smart enough to win through maneuver, then we have complete disagreement. What you previously said is entirely irrelevant to the question; it turns only what you try to maintain is true, now. If the answer is "nothing", you are free to say so.
  16. Kevinkin - you ask what I was disagreeing with. In relevant part, you wrote "the overall concept of maneuver warfare vs attrition warfare in winning campaigns and wars, not battles... there was no way in WWI to follow up successful maneuver tactics strategically and in the end attrition warfare always settled back in without a decisive result." I claim the sentence after the ... is just as true of WW2, and that maneuver warfare was only important in winning battles, and not wars. (At least in that era - 6 days war might plausibly be argued either way). I agree that in WWI, maneuver only ma
  17. kevinkin - sorry for the lateness of the reply. The problem I have with your comment is that WW2 was also very clearly decided by attrition processes. Maneuver theory never offered more than some force multipliers in either war, tactical in the first if you like (though they did reach operational scale importance in the east and early on), but never strategic or war winning even in the second war. Attrition as the overall strategic wrapper in great power war is not something maneuverism has repealed or overthrown, despite the claims of its advocates. In fact, it has lured its practitioner
  18. Amizaur - Assuming everything you derived from the diagram is correct (which I believe), that puts the feasible penetration range of the 75L48 hitting the turret front at just under 1000 meters, or as low and 750 meters if production instances were routinely as thick as 115mm rather than the design spec 110mm. In that range, in any event. That is using the usual 50% penetration standard, so in CM terms at those range a substantial portion of hits would be partial penetrations only. Which still seems long compared to the tactical evidence, which reports 88L56 and 75L70 penetrations to that di
  19. They had them, issued them, used them, and staff studied and reported on their effectiveness, as early as the first winter of the war. There is a chapter in one of Glantz's books based on Soviet staff studies on that period on the effectiveness of smoke. What they actually found, though, was that smoke was most effective when used on a large scale in space and especially in time, and in favorable weather conditions. They note its usefulness in forcing river crossings in particular. They report plenty of tactical failures when it wasn't used in sufficient mass and duration, or in unfavorable
  20. Hank24 - the 15th Pz Gdr was a motorized formation that had a single armored recon battalion plus a single panzer battalion, alongside 2 regiments each of 3 battalions of motorized infantry, plus the usual artillery regiment and a battalion each of pioneers and antitank. The panzer battalion was equipped with StuGs because there were shortages of turreted tanks by that stage of the war, and even some of the panzer divisions had to use them in place of turreted tanks. Unlike a full panzer division, there was no halftrack mounted battalion in its panzergrenadiers, so the recce battalion was th
  21. Bozonwans - be advised, the AI will "walk right into" an annihilating barrage, but human players just won't. If you don't surprise them, and pin them down with the first flight of shells, they will be elsewhere 2 minutes later. Stationary barrages don't hurt human players, unless they are very large in footprint (e.g. barrages by lots of small rocket modules can't really be avoided, because their impact zone is half the map).
  22. hank24 - No, recon battalions never had organic StuGs. Mobile division recon battalions, the kind that did ride in halftracks like the original poster described, were light armor formations with armored cars, gun armed halftracks, the MG armed halftracks carrying the recon infantry, and support halftracks with short barreled 75mm infantry guns (SPW-251/9) and 81mm mortars as their "artillery" component for fire support. Almost all of the armored cars had 20mm main armament. The gun armed halftracks generally included some with 37mm PAK armament, on a one per platoon basis. Very rarely, the
  23. CaptHawkeye - hmm, 28 seconds, 30 second training standard in the US Army, what are the chances? It is almost like there is an actual time these things take, and that we don't need to just make things up...
  24. kevinkin - the desire to not get killed to death is a remarkably strong motivator. Motivate, as in cause to move with a purpose and with speed. No motel 6 required. No, people aren't going to move slower in combat than in training. Might they make more mistakes or skip a step? I suppose, yes. Or a member of the team might have more urgent things to worry about, like not bleeding to death or something similar. But other than that, no it isn't going to take 4 times longer to do something that you've been trained to do and have done repeatedly, that your life will depend on doing rapidly r
  25. JonS - I and others are complaining about things that take comically longer in CM than in real life. Pushing guns, setting them up, rotating them, setting up crew served weapons, etc. You might try reading the thread. Or you could stick an index finger in each ear and sing God Save the Queen, I suppose.
  • Create New...