Mark Gallear
-
Posts
423 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Mark Gallear
-
-
Battlefront - please fix or somefing!
I think if Pioneers can blast a path through minefields and Dragons Teeth they are should be able to do something with a CMBB graphic of a few chest of draws and other obstacles thrown across a road!
-
Battlefront - please fix or somefing!
I think if Pioneers can blast a path through minefields and Dragons Teeth they are should be able to do something with a CMBB graphic of a few chest of draws and other obstacles thrown across a road!
-
Is there a way to destroy road blocks? I have tried targeting them with an Pioneer Section but they did nothing.
-
Hi Brian
Looks like my page has suddenly become popular and geocities have cut my bandwidth by timing my page out for awhile. It is up now through and the link is good.
I emailed you the operation.
-
I have got my operation - THE ROAD TO MINSK - as finished as far as I can get it and am releasing it on my site as a beta version. I have had problems getting testers due to its size, complexity and the fact that you need a PC/MAC with horsepower. As it is complicated I can not swear if somebody makes a good complaint I won't fix it. (Certainly not had the testing I was able to give to Polar Bears).
It was a gigantic operation, which I have reduced to merely huge with 9 games of 30 turns and cut out many of the shell holes as well!
It represents the assault phase of Operation Bagration in June 1944. Play from the Soviet point of view with scenario default for both sides.
I designed it on a PII 400mhz but you really need something with more muscle to play it or it will be S L O W for the AI to do a turn. :mad:
This is a release beta for feedback.
Special thanks to Eden Smallwood
for editing the briefings and Chris Martino , who tested it from the German side on his super computer (I am sure we will all get one soon.)Just one more point in case anybody is outthere. One of the big problems with operation design - is the number of tank commanders who die peaking out of the turret against orders and the effect of the tank not been available for the next game because of this. You almost have to replace all the armour every turn. Please tone down the number of tank commanders who die - I do not believe they are that easy to kill.
Minerollers on T-34s, proper minefields and railroad junctions would be all nice as well.
Title: The Road to Minsk
Operation Type: Soviet Advance
Date: June 1944
Operation Length: 9 Battles, Night Falls every 3rd Battle.
Battle Length: 30 Turns
On 22 June 1944, three years to the day after Germany’s 1941 invasion of the Soviet Union, the Red Army launched a massive offensive in Byelorussia, which would take them to the gates of Warsaw in five short weeks. The operation was named after a Russian prince who fell at Borodino defending Russia against Napoleon. For Germany it was a worse defeat than Stalingrad and came at the same time as the victory in Normandy.
The German High command knew that a major Russian offensive would be launched against them, but they believed it would come in the Ukraine. Their reasoning was that the terrain in the Ukraine was the most suitable for tank warfare. If the Russians gained victory here it would give them a number of strategic possibilities including cutting off Army Group centre or an attack directly on Berlin. An attack in Byelorussia was dismissed because the terrain favoured the defender and the road network was poor, making logistical resupply difficult. The Germans were also confident of been able to defend here as they had done so in the past with success.
The Soviets high command so things differently and picked Byelorussia for the scene of their offensive. They reasoned that the German armour remained concentrated in the Ukraine, there was a strong partisan movement in this area to aid their offensive and once liberated it would leave Army Group North and Army Group North Ukraine out on a limb. It is unclear if the Russian High command was aware from Enigma intercepts that the Germans expected and were preparing for the attack in the Ukraine.
A major Maskirovka (deception) campaign was put into operation to persuade the Germans that the attack was due in North Ukraine as they already believed. Steps were taken to hide reinforcements sent to Byelorussia and persuade the Germans that a number of Tank Armies were still in the Ukraine. These included the creation of false positions and the heavy air patrols that only occasionally gave German Reconnaissance the opportunity to photograph them. The Soviets put out false radio traffic that reinforced the idea that their troops were arrayed against the Ukraine and actual communications were switched entirely to landlines.
Even so by the eve of the offensive Army Group Centre’s intelligence had correctly identified 140 of the 168 division arrayed against them. However estimates of Soviet Armoured strength was less than half the real amount and the belief was still that the main thrust would come against Army Group North Ukraine.
Army Group Centre had been weakened and left with primarily an infantry force, weakly supported by armour and aircraft. The German infantry divisions were stretched beyond prudent limits. Each division covered a front of 24-32km about double the norm. German infantry troops were now made up by a third of volsdeutsche – ethnic Germans from Eastern Europe who had little enthusiasms for dying for Hitler.
The area of the Moscow-Minsk highway had been bitterly contested in the winter and autumn fighting of 1943-44 and it was the most important objective in the beginning stages of the operation. The heaviest concentration of Armour was at Orsha guarding the highway with 40 tanks including 29 Tiger 1s. The Germans had been able to prepare elaborate defensives with three to five trench lines at a depth of 5-6km. German strength was 52 divisions with about 800,000 men, compared to the 1700,000 Soviet men, who also had a six-fold advantage in armour and seven folds in aircraft.
The offensive was timed for 19 June but congestion on the railway system prevented key units been deployed on time. A partisan offensive on the German rail network timed for the 19th began anyway. The results were muted because of a German anti-Partisan operation that had begun in mid May, however the rail lines were totally disrupted for at least a day.
On June 22, the Red Army began reconnaissance in force with battalion raids into the German trench line to probe for weaknesses and ensure that these trenches were fully manned for a planned massive artillery strike on them the following day.
On the night of 22/23 June the first attempts to soften up the German defences with strategic bomber strikes on German troop concentrations. This was followed up at 0500 hours on June 23, by a massive artillery preparation all along the front. The barrage lasted over two hours, and began with a period of intense shelling and was designed to destroy the forward trenches and destroy the German infantry before they could withdraw to deeper defence lines. In some sectors this was followed by a rolling barrage along the forward trench lines for up to an hour, where the defences were dense a double rolling barrage was carried out. The German defenders agreed that it was the highest concentration of artillery fire that they had faced so far in the war.
- Players Notes –
The operation is meant to be played from the Soviet point of view. Both sides are set-up historically and the AI will not make a good job of placing the defensive line so you should stick to Scenario Default.
I had problems recreating the initial artillery barrage. Any artillery units set for turn will reappear in the following games. In fact the heavy Russian artillery was left far behind when the breakthrough took place. The solution was to give the Russian player some heavy artillery units so he has the satisfaction of a fireworks display but set the start of the game at the end of the barrage with damage from it factored into the German defenders. (Another reason not to change the default scenario set-up.)
The forces are scaled down. The map was created from the 3d map in Steven Zaloga’s Operation Bagration, Osprey. See also the Russian PKKA-CA site for a personal account of an unnamed Soviet flame-thrower tank commander in the operation. The Historical Perspective Deception page on the US military site - Fort Leavenworth is a paper on the US military analysis of the Maskirovka element in the success of Bagration.
You can download it directly from Mod Corner - at the bottom of the page. (Hopefully I will feel justified in putting up at the Scenario Depot soon.
) -
Just for Andreas - one more try.
My thinking is that the British Army didn’t have 2pdr HE rounds and 2pdr HE rounds were not manufactured, therefore they could not have been sent to Russia. The evidence that 2pdr rounds were sent to Russia is one document that says it happened.
My illogical thinking is that I have every reason to believe 2pdr HE rounds were not produced or used by the British Army so there is a very good chance that this document is slightly inaccurate on this point. (I have already pointed out that it seems to include figures for one Canadian tank we know was sent to Russia but not the other.) I am not an expert on logic but if something says something is so when from your experience/knowledge that it cannot be – warning bells should go off in your head.
This is an attack on one part of one document not on the honesty or cleverness of the poster. I have not even seen this part of the document quoted in full – I know I should go off and get the British Library to photocopy it and send me.
I find the view that it was not British doctrine to use HE in tanks so they could have produced them and sent them to Russia a bit hard to swallow as well. I know from the document they are sending obsolete stuff and we know that the Russians moaned about it. I have also pointed out how relieved British tankers were when they got the 6pdr with HE and the same goes for the American made Stuart’s, etc - that could fire HE.
My unofficial history of the 2pdr in British army service is this:
The reason was that the British Army had been totally under funded in the post-war period and only just about had an armoured force. (It was even worse in the US). There was a 6pdr design on the table ready to go, which the Army wanted, as it was a much better gun. But having lost most of their weapons in France and the Germans were banging on the door and it seemed like only a matter of time before an invasion took place. (America believed that England would fall as did many people in Britain.) It was decided by the powers that be to produce the 2 pdr for which some manufacturing facilities were available as rapidly as possible in as great as numbers as possible rather than attempt to switch over to the 6pdr.
There was no HE round but an experimental round was developed the blast was not exactly all that impressive. Also a Czech designer presented them with the plans for a device that increased the penetration of the 2pdr which would keep it effective against most German tanks until the 6pdr could be produced. Slight problem guns with the adapter cannot fire HE rounds. Oh well thought the powers that be – the test 2pdr HE rounds are not up to much anyway and we are not producing them – better to fit the adapter and get the extra penetration – the tanks have got MGs after all.
In the Far East 2pdrs were used until 1945 as better weapons were reserved for use against Germany who had the better tanks. Clearly a HE round would have been more useful here than an extra bit of penetration. I suspect the accounts of HE use here can be put down to home-made rounds (for which I seem to have some evidence) or manufacture in Australia (for which I don’t have any evidence). I learned a lot from the posts on this subject and it made me think but just because they existed in this theatre does not prove that they were sent to Russia. (In Russia as well as the Desert war tank fighting is going to be the main purpose of the 2pdr on the Matilda and Valentines.)
This bit is as Andreas says is beside the point – they seem to have picked on these points because if they make me look mistake or an idiot then I have got to be wrong about the 2pdr HE. I suppose there is logic to that somewhere.
German Armoured cars were given auto-cannons with no HE potential either.
Flammingknives came to my rescue on that point. If it needs HE then I suspect Andreas is a beta tester and better rush off and do something about it.
Some modern vehicles that use auto-cannons are not issued He rounds because the blast is so small the effectiveness is marginal compared to fire solid shot.
From some accounts of battles – (I have read a lot of accounts of Helicopter crews in Vietnam and armoured warfare there) – I have noted that yes there are indeed HE, Flechete rounds – no doubt CS gas and anything else you want as well are made. The crews of scout vehicles and APCs figure that AP round will kill a light armoured vehicle but HE probably won’t. An AP round will put a big hole in a man if you hit him, the HE explosion is so small that you just about have to hit him anyway. A modern autocannon puts out a lot of rounds so you going to hit a man size target sooner rather than latter. So what do they do – fill up on AP and leave the HE at home. That’s all I meant by that. (Sometimes they fill up onm He and leave the AP at home!)
Modern tanks don’t carry HE they have HEAT - it is not much use for killing infantry – if you are desperate you could fire it at an AT gun but its not really meant for that and is not as effective as HE would be. The primary anti–infantry device on a modern MBT are the MG guns!
I now freely admit that I am rude, an idiot, bad at playing CM, can’t spell, can’t write, can’t explain myself, don’t have important history friends and everything else that I have been accused of or can be accused of. I almost changed the title of the post to “Peng has got a 2pdr”. However, my personal failings do not prove that HE rounds were manufactured in Britain just for Russian use. If they were I am going to write to my MP and demand to know why our boys in the desert were not better equipped, it is after all a national scandal!
This is my last post on this subject – please have the last word and don’t call me back.
-
"You are ruling yourself out as a serious participant in any discussion by your behaviour here, as far as I am concerned. It appears to me that the documents you read are being interpreted by you in a way that suits your personal prejudices, and that you give at best cursory glances to responses you get here, if any."
I am sorry that you don’t like my tone/behaviour – I happen to think your tone has been a bit threatening, when I said things that you did not want to here and yes there is a lot of prejudice in the arguments here! This does seem to be the beta group who want HE in the game against me or am I wrong about that?
I am sorry that I got confused between Simon and John. Does this mean that I am going to be wrong about everything else for the rest of my life?
There does appear to be a German 20mm gun in the game with only AP ammo. I was just pointing out that not having HE ammo for all AT weapons is not totally unheard of. You seem to have accepted that the British Army did not use HE with the 2pdr at this time?
Ok, the sources such as they are do not say if Little John Adaptors were fitted or not. If you believe they were not fitted then I think the AP penetration of the 2pdr game should be reduced downward for all vehicles. I have come across info on the different marks of 2pdr both tank and AT – some have the Little John others do not – they are listed as distinctly different weapons but to a soldier in the British Army they were all 2pdrs. (I will point out again if it's got the Little John it cann't fire HE anway.)
I am not a historian but everybody is subject to bias and can make mistakes. I am well aware that I am subject to these factors.
All wartime documents are subject to propaganda. What was and was not sent too Russia would have been politically sensitive at that time even for internal documents.
I can not really comment on the info in the document that says HE rounds went to Russia, as I have not seen it or even a copy of it. My feeling is that it can not be right because it does not fit in with the knowledge that British troops did not have such a round at the time. So I do think it fairly likely that a civil servant who had never seen a HE or AP round ticked a wrong box.
Think I have had my little say – not up to me what happens - not my game, I just play it.
-
Sorry I think a civil servant made a mistake and the Russians didn't get HE, or that there is a big element of propaganda in John’s document. I think this idea that the British Army didn't get HE because it didn’t fit in with their doctrine. But at a time of economic crisis Britain produced them by the thousand so they could give them to Russia with Home Guard crap like the Blacker Bombard is more than a little strange!
I would much prefer to see in the patch Matildas and the early Valentines with a 2pdr without the later Little John Adapter and a lower penetration and points cost.
-
The 2pdr shell is very small and really is not big enough to get a sufficient explosive charge into it. German Armoured cars were given auto-cannons with no HE potential either. Some modern vehicles that use auto-cannons are not issued He rounds because the blast is so small the effectiveness is marginal compared to fire solid shot.
The 2pdr AT gun all though obsolete at the start of war carried on in the Far East until the end of it. As you point out targets here were mainly infantry, although the Japanese used armoured warfare in their blitz across the Far East and so it had a role. Better guns were sent to the West to match better German tanks.
The 2pdr lingered into the post-war/cold war period in some Armoured Cars, they did not have HE rounds either.
I don’t think it was a thought out tactical doctrine by the British Army but more it’s the only thing we have got.
-
The British Army Handbook 1939-1945
George Forty
P230
“Hidebound both by the choice of the 2pdr as the main tank gun and by building tank rings that were too small to accept anything larger, the resulting small calibre main armament was far too small to produce an effective HE round, although its AP performance was reasonable.”
OK you can take it to mean both ways!
Sorry I don’t have the Hogg book that says an experimental 2pdr HE round was developed but never produced.
I found this NZ armoursite on NZ 2 pdr use in the late Jungle war. This suggests to me that the 2pdr He rounds they are using were home-made by the unit – also Valentine CS use must be peculiar to this unit as well.
“Their stay in Guadalcanal was not without its problems. On the 13th of October during a demonstration to some visiting British Officers a 2-pounder HE round became stuck in the breech of a gun. The Squadron Workshops had to manufacture a special clearing rod to remove the round and then go through the painstaking task of modifying each round. This involved reducing the length of the case by 1/1000 of an inch, reassembling the round and chamber testing it.”
This quote although not gospel suggests that some 6pdr HE shells were home-made by their units in the Desert War.
“The 6 Pdr. tank gun and the anti-tank gun listed below did not have H.E. shells issued for them. This meant that these guns could not be used for close defence against infantry or provide fire support during assaults. Why this was, nobody knows, but there are accounts of British anti-tank gun crews making their own case shells for close defence against infantry assault. This was done by removing the A.P. shell head, filling the cartridge with a suitable piece of cloth, filling the shell case with stones and gravel, and sealing it with another piece of cloth or encasing the shrapnel content in thick axle grease. This tactic was quickly improvised in the North African campaign, and there is some indication that tank crews employed it with the 6 Pdr. L.45 as well.”
I have failed to find any information on 3inch or 3.7inch loads outs – I did keep notes which are on CD somewhere but have not had time to go through them.
My SPWAW oob has 42 rounds of smoke for the Matilda CS against 92 AP for the 2pdr. Cannot remember if I changed these figures or not as there was some guesswork by the original expert. (The game system does not differentiate between HE and smoke rounds so I was never able to get this right anyway and I cannot simple find the date of HE inroduction either from it.)
Thanks Von Lucke for identifying the vision slit correctly - the coaxial MG gun barrel does stick out a long way on the Valentine which is not always the case on British tanks.
-
That info from gibsonm is very interesting indeed. Are we talking about a British or ANZAC unit?
My understanding until now was that no 2pdr HE was put into production in Britain because
A the blast would be very small
B the Little John Adapter prevented their use anyway.
C in the early war year’s production and development effort would have been better placed elsewhere. The British Army wanted to replace the 2pdr with the 6pdr at the start of the war but as production such as it was geared up to 2pdr and the Germans were banging on the door it was decided to produce as many 2pdrs as possible. Most of these were lost in France and the first forces to go to North Africa were equipped with 40mm Bofors guns that were termed 2 pdrs partly for Battlefield propaganda purposes.
It may have been that Australia made some 2pdr HE rounds at the end of war. Be interested if anybody from Downunder has heard about this?
I cannot remember when the 3inch HE was developed exactly, however I suspect it was before the Russians got their Matildas. Looking at Johns figures - I suspect that the high number of Matilda CS tanks and the Tetrarchs are due to the British Army been told to send the Russians some tanks and they seem to have opted to send them training tanks that were obsolete and probably fairly clapped out as well. The Matilda would have been replaced in the Desert war by mid 1942 and would have been considered an obsolete vehicle for combat. No wonder the Russians were less than impressed until Canadian Valentines started to arrive!
They may have cannibalise some of them to keep the 2 pdrs tanks going or used them for training themselves. Even when HE rounds were supplied to British CS tanks they would have made a small fraction of the load out with the majority been smoke.
(The number of vehicles sunk in the early period also looks low to me – I know that for a merchant seamen been put on convoy duty to Russia was considered a death sentence. Is there an element of propaganda here?)
[ March 01, 2003, 10:04 AM: Message edited by: Mark Gallear ]
-
I have got an exam for a job and until then the idiot does not want to play. I am totally over awed by John’s connections anyway.
Interestingly all though I am a complete nobody with no connections to anybody who is a somebody. I found the quote from one of John's friends on this site. You just need to put in 2pdr into goggle. It is one of those smelly websites that no real grog would dare go near.
John is therefore well aware that with the Little John Adaptor fitted it is impossible to fire HE rounds from a 2pdr anyway. I found the story of having it removed so you could fire HE rounds fascinating to say the least.
I had more problems finding out about the Little John than anything else about the 2pdr. At first I thought it was a late invention and rather rare, but in the end found sources who said it was fitted fairly early. The effect is to boost the 2pdr penetration. I think a more pertinent question is when were Little Johns fitted to Russian supplied 2pdrs. (I think the current penetrations have this factored in anyway.)
If you are going to nick-pick get me on something decent. I said HE was not supplied until June 1944 to the AT gunners – in fact I was thinking of APDS. I humbly apologise for misleading you all.
Ok I have accepted that Valentines with 6pdrs were sent to Russia, from John post and the picture.
Yours
The Idiot
-
Yes, some of the "elite" Guards units were equipped with them - such as the 3rd Guards Tank Corps at Bagration
-
Sorry don't feel very foolish.
I am interested by all the sources quoted, as I do not own any of those books. I am surprised that nobody is quoting all the books and battlefield reports that say the 2pdr did not have HE rounds.
Do any of these books have detailed reports on 2pdr HE manufacture, design and use or just throw away one line comments?
Yes, it is a bit strange that I am supporting Battlefront for once, maybe not, but generally it feels it! Of course I could be wrong and Battlefront could be wrong. I have been proved wrong before on many issues and I am certainly not the Pope.
I am interested in the report by gibsonm as I and other people who did the SPWAW OOB have come across Battlefield reports of 2pdr HE shells been used in the Far East. I was never able to verify these reports - but they are interesting as they are the only reports of 2pdr HE shells been used. As Battlefield reports can get things very widely off the mark I discounted them. I know that flechette rounds were developed for the American 37mm in the Jungle used in the Lees. So there is some possibility of a limited number of 2pdr HE shells made locally or officially for the jungle war. Personally I think it is more likely from this evidence that solid shot was fired and in later memoirs/reports it became HE or was HE from Matilda CS tanks. But I could be wrong, however I feel it needs some more evidence to know either way.
I have read so many accounts of the early Desert War where the lack of HE tank rounds was seen as a major disadvantage. HE rounds first arrived with the American tanks. (The Bofors gun was used in AT role in the early Desert War and is often called a 2pdr and it had HE rounds.) There was a general sigh of relief in the battle accounts when the 6pdr finally got HE.
Battlefront again models the timeline of the 17pdr HE rounds correctly with them only appearing after Normandy. Most wargames get that wrong. Most wargames get the lack of 2pdr HE shells right!
(Got to say that my SPWAW OOB is totally unofficial and done off my own bat – any mistakes in it have nothing to do with Matrix. I am still learning and can keep my mind open.)
[ February 27, 2003, 04:58 AM: Message edited by: Mark Gallear ]
-
I am thinking of doing an op on same subject. (I am doing Bagration in a series of three). There is a map of the battlefield in Osprey's Op Bagration book. There only one or to sites mentioning the battle nothing good at all I am afraid. 9the book does not actually cover the battle which came after Bagration proper.
-
Gosh get some flank here – I thought my little post on the John Salts post was meant to be helpful interpretation. (My initial post on that you can not expect tank commanders to know what guns they have was meant in jest – but as we have seen battlefield account although important are open to loss of memory and casual use of terminology. Andreas seems to have taken that the wrong way.)
The information on Valentine Bridegelayer was meant to illustrate some info I found on it for British use. I don’t doubt the Russians got them.
I have seen other Hogg reports that say that it was possible to make 2pdr HE rounds but apart from experiments they were never produced – which is basically the quote again here. Battlefront got the lack of 2pdr HE rounds right with the Daimler in CMBO and the Valentine in CMBB. For me, the fact the report says that vast numbers of 2pdr HE rounds with an exact figure quote leaves the report open to some big question marks. I am absolutely certain that no 2pdr HE rounds were ever used in combat. (Sorry about my tone but that is fact.) I would be glad and appreciative to receive a photocopy of the report from John, if he would email me I will send my address.
Yes a 3inch HE round was later developed but in the early war the gun only fired smoke! I was amazed myself to find that out. Cannot remember offhand exactly when they came in but Matilda CS tanks and all the others in the Desert War and undoubtedly the Russian ones as well had no HE. Later period Matilda use in Burma is a different matter.
When researching squadron organisation I came to the conclusion that there was no special model CS tanks as such. The tanks would be delivered and the squadron would have a command section of two tanks – a CS section of two tanks and then a troop of 4. The number of troops in the squadron was cut early in the war. The Squadron armourer would convert the tanks by taking out the 2pdr and putting in the 3inch gun. The idea was that they would screen the squadron from AT fire by firing smoke rounds. Later when HE and smoke rounds were available the CS tanks for the Churchill and Cromwell were some times used and sometimes ordinary versions took there place in different Squadrons. It is interesting that the report identifies "CS" tanks as being sent.
I didn’t know that the 75mm gun was a 6pdr conversion – it really was news to me. I am going to look that up. When I did the oob I didn’t go much into gun development as the guns were already on the database to pick. Although I remember having a lot of problems with the Sherman and finding a made up 75mm gun! I have learnt something from this
-
Some very interesting figures from Simon Fox.
Tetrarch was a light tank developed by Britain in 1940 but production was stopped after 177 were built. Light tanks were now deemed useless after Britains first experience of tank warfare with Germany. The American Stuart was accepted because it was considered a light medium. Tetrarch was only used operationally by Britain as an airborne tank via gliders in Normandy
The Maltida are all versions of the Matilda II. The CS version has a 3in howitzer that fired smoke. (Not HE).
Valentine II - 2pdr AEC diesel engine 3 man crew.
Valentine III - 2pdr Turret modified 4 man crew.
Valentine IV - 2pdr GMC diesel engine 3 man crew
Valentine V - 2pdr 4 man crew and GMC diesel engine
Where is the VI - we know that they got vast numbers of this Canadian version!? (Is it lumped with the VII?)
Valentine VII 2pdr 3 man crew Improved Canadian VI
Valentine IX 6pdr in Mark V 3 crew No co-axial turret MG
Valentine X Early 1943 production with 6pdr GMC engine co-axial Besa, welded construction.
No XI with 75mm listed but then that was a late 1943-production model. They may have got it after June 1944? But I doubt it - production probably ceased in early 1944 after a short run.
Going to ignore Churchills and Cromwell until another time!
Valentine.Bridge.Laying
My info - Valentine Bridgelayer: Mk II with turret removed. Carried No 1 30' scissors bridge. Some used in Burma. Most used for training. Bridge was 34' x 9.5' class 30
I am afraid it is just not possible that both 6pdr and 2pdr versions of the Valentine got HE rounds because no 2pdr HE round was ever produced!
Frankly if the Russians got 6pdr HE rounds I would have thought it would have been after June 1944. I know that they were only supplied to AT crews for the Normandy campaign because of shortages of the round.
I am gob smacked that the Valentine 75mm is a converted 6pdr - I would have thought it was an American 75mm possibly shortened to balance the turret and maybe the flash hider added to cut the extra flash. This gun is also fitted to the Churchill and I always believed it was just the standard American 75mm produced in Britain.
Anybody got details and links on this. :confused:
-
For MikeyD-
I am pretty sure the 75mm in the Valentine is the American 75mm used in Sherman. It was decided to standardise on this mediocre weapon some time in 43 between US and UK and her allies. Not a 6pdr enlarged!
Yet to find a decent picture of the IX and other versions with 6pdr to compare it with. Yep the picture could be reversed - but then it can not be an IX if I am looking at co-axial MG. The cloth cover does not help - sometimes I think it has a muzzle break other times not. It probably is some kind of British variant with 6pdr - however remote outside chance that it is a Russian conversion with the Russian 76mm gun mentioned on one of the sites!
For flamingknives that was good explanation but the in game figures for 2 pdr penetrative power still seem higher than some figures I found for 2 pdr performance. (I don't want to get into that argument as I know that there are grogs who visit the forum who know far more than me!)
Although I would agree Russian 76mm was a fieldgun stuck in a tank - 2pdr and 6pdr were designed as AT guns. They were high quality, fast firing and accurate. British Army realised 2pdr was obsolete in 1939 and wanted to replace it with 6pdr, which was fully designed and ready to go then. However the time to transfer manufacturing facilities to the new gun was deemed to be far too long and it was more important to mass-produce the 2pdr in Britains darkest hour.
-
Andreas – I am not sure what web site you think I am looking at. Your quoted site is very interesting but it does not say what Valentines were sent to Russia.
Hoggs Allied Armour of World War Two says.
“In June 1940 the Canadian Pacific Railway Company set up a plant for the production of Valentines in Canada. At first it was intended to build the hulls there and ship them to Britain for fitting with engines and guns, but eventually complete tanks were built, using guns and engines made in Canada. Altogether 1,420 were built there, of which 1,390 were shipped to Russia. Over 8,000 were built in Britain, about 1,300 of which also went to Russia. The Soviet Army made one of its few acknowledgements of outside assistance when it reported that “… the Canadian- built Valentine tank is the best tank we have received from any of our Allies …”
The problem is we know what was produced in Canada and it all went to Russia, but what about the 1,300 British tanks? I was lucking at the Valentine in British service when I collected sources for my oob, most British sources apart from mentioning we generously gave the Russian tanks when we were desperate don’t say much about what went.
There is a very nice site on the Canadian Valentinehere
As for MikeyD post, I am not impressed by the black and white drawing. Probably comes from a British source and the site is about WW2 tanks not Russian WW2 tanks.
The photo of the Russian IX Valentine is very interesting – the gun is clearly much longer than a 2pdr and has a muzzle break. However it is not an IX model as it appears to have a co-axial MG gun and the IX didn’t. It is not an XI because co-axial is on wrong side. In fact it appears to be on wrong side for all Valentines! Am I imagining that co-axial? The dates are probably wrong as well? I will look through my picks and try and identify it.
Hero worship to MikeyD for his Valentine mods. I am currently using the British mod – think I better rush off and change to the Canadian version!
I could be wrong about the 4-man crew as all the versions I say went to Russia were based on mark II which apparently had 3-man crew?
-
I am more confused than ever! :confused:
Can not find the Valera's interview that Andreas mentions. The Dmitriy Loza interview is here.
Problem with him saying the Canadian Valentines were equipped with 57mm gun is that they had the 2pdr. I can not find the bit that Panzerwerfer42 mentions about him saying that the Matilda having the 57mm gun as well. (The Matilda II was never equipped with 6pdr only 2pdr). What does it mean Andreas when you say that it is better believe a tank commanders memoirs than some website, when these are on a website!
The editor picks him up on saying that his Shermans had 76mm before they were so equipped. He seems to have been a Sherman commander not a Valentine commander.
“- In your book "Commanding the Red Army's Sherman Tanks" you wrote that the 233rd Tank Brigade's M4A2 Shermans were armed not with the short-barrelled 75mm but the long-barrelled 76mm main gun in January 1944. Wasn't this a bit early? Didn't these tanks appear later? Explain one more time which main guns were mounted on the Shermans of the 233rd Tank Brigade.
- Hmm, I don't know. We had very few Shermans with the short-barreled main gun. On the whole, ours had long-barrels. Not just our brigade fought on Shermans. Perhaps these were in other brigades. Somewhere in the corps I saw such tanks, but we had the tanks with the long barrels.”
Not sure what flamimg knives is getting at 2pdr certainly used AP. (The game seems to suggest it had something more sophisticated - APCBC .)
MikeyD post is more interesting. I can find no British sources saying that models of Valentines other than those I listed were sent to Russia. I would like to see pictures of Valentines with 6pdr and 75mm or links to the sites, please. This would of course prove that at least a few were in Russian service. As MikeyD says as they went out of service they may have been sent to Russia – but bear in mind that they were taken out of active British service at the end of the Desert War and before the invasion of Italy. (The XI would have lingered in small numbers in Artillery OB role.) Hard to believe they were shipped back to England and then convoyed to Murmansk!
The default setting for QB Valentines with 6pdr is with about 50% HE.
The problem with putting in a bigger gun on the Valentine was the small turret size so the later up gunned versions lost a man in the turret. (The game lists most of the early ones with only 3 men).
-
That's fairly typical - few tankers know what calibre gun they have!
-
I have checked the armour and this seems accurate. The penetrative power of the 2pdr and 6pdr seem on the well generous side to me but then I have not checked for comparison with the other guns in the game.
The game seems to have the following versions of Valentine - III, IV, IX, XI,
The sources that I could find which state what was sent to the USSR say it was the IV, VI,VII versions. The majority of the Valentines sent to Russia seem to have been made in Canada.
IV is the Valentine II with an American GMC diesel 138 hp engine rather than the British AEC gasoline 6 cylinder 135 hp.
VI is the Canadian model of the Mk IV. Nose plates were cast instead of bolted and it had a Browning .30 cal rather than the British Besa.
Valentine VII: Improved Mk VI with internal changes. Built in Canada.
Valentine VIIA: Improved VII with jettisonable fuel tanks, studded tracks and protective cages over headlamps.
(I think that all of these versions had a 4 man crew.)
I can find no evidence that the versions with the 6pdr were sent to Russia. If they were – I greatly doubt they had HE rounds. These only appeared, as the Valentine was becoming obsolete in late 1943 - 6-pdr AT gun crews had to wait until Normandy before they got theirs. The final Valentine IX with the 75mm was already obsolete when it went into British service – it was only used as an artillery observation vehicle or command vehicle. Seems unlikely that enough were made for a shipment to Russia, has somebody got some evidence for this?
The Valentine III was a mainstay in Britain’s Desert war – I again doubt it was sent to Russia in any numbers as Britain herself was desperate for tanks in this period of the war. It is possible that Churchill made a political gesture to Stalin with a small number?
Quote from WWIIVehicles.com “1,420 Valentines were also built in Canada. All but 30 of these (used for training) and 1,300 built in England were sent to Russia. The Russians are reported to have liked the simplicity and reliability of the vehicles, but disliked the small gun. Some complaints of snow packing the wheels and stopping the tanks from moving. Some vehicles had a 76.2 mm tank gun installed.”
-
I am a real Yorkshireman living in Yorkshire. I only once saw a ferret it was attached to a certain newscasters hand. (I lie I have been Doncaster market.)
Sign me up if there any places left.
No Scots yet?
[ February 22, 2003, 12:25 PM: Message edited by: Mark Gallear ]
-
Thanks again Franko
I looked up the reinforcements on map in the CDV pdf - it is a useful feature as you set a flag on the map to trigger reinforcements. I can set them to arrive at historical locations rather than guess the timeframe!
[ February 19, 2003, 06:48 AM: Message edited by: Mark Gallear ]
CMBB OP - The Road to Minsk out the door
in Combat Mission - Scenario Talk
Posted
My Road to Minsk operation is oout the door at last and is on my Mod corner page plus hopefully the scenario depot in a couple of days.
Briefings Editing: Eden Smallwood and Brian Martuzas
Playtesting: Chris Martino and a very special thanks to Brian Martuzas, an SL/ASL scenario designer/researcher and playtester at Avalon Hill, who put in a lot of work and made many suggestions.
On 22 June 1944, three years to the day after Germany's 1941 invasion of the Soviet Union, the Red Army launched a massive offensive in Byelorussia, which would take them to the gates of Warsaw in five short weeks. The operation was named after a Russian prince who fell at Borodino defending Russia against Napoleon. For Germany it was a worse defeat than Stalingrad and came at the same time as the victory in Normandy.
The German High Command knew that a major Russian offensive would be launched against them, but they believed it would come in the Ukraine. Their reasoning was that the terrain in the Ukraine was the most suitable for tank warfare.
If the Russians gained victory here it would give them a number of strategic possibilities including cutting off Army Group centre or an attack directly on Berlin. An attack in Byelorussia was dismissed because the terrain favoured the defender and the road network was poor, making logistical resupply difficult. The
Germans were also confident of been able to defend here as they had done so in the past with success.
The Soviet High Command saw things differently and picked Byelorussia for the scene of their offensive. They reasoned that the German armour remained concentrated in the Ukraine, there was
a strong partisan movement in this area to aid their offensive and once liberated it would leave Army Group North and Army Group North Ukraine out on a limb. It is unclear if the Russian High
command was aware from Enigma intercepts that the Germans expected and were preparing for the attack in the Ukraine.
A major Maskirovka (deception) campaign was put into operation to persuade the Germans that the attack was due in North Ukraine as they already believed. Steps were taken to hide reinforcements
sent to Byelorussia and persuade the Germans that a number of Tank Armies were still in the Ukraine. These included the creation of false positions and the heavy air patrols that only occasionally gave German Reconnaissance the opportunity to photograph them. The Soviets put out false radio traffic that reinforced the idea that their troops were arrayed against the Ukraine and actual communications were switched entirely to landlines.
Even so, by the eve of the offensive Army Group Centre's intelligence had correctly identified 140 of the 168 divisions arrayed against them. However, estimates of Soviet Armoured strength was less than half the real amount and the belief was still that the main thrust would come against Army Group North Ukraine.
Army Group Centre had been weakened and left with primarily an infantry force, weakly supported by armour and aircraft. The German infantry divisions were stretched beyond prudent limits.
Each division covered a front of 24-32km about double the norm. German infantry troops were now made up by a third of volsdeutsche – ethnic Germans from Eastern Europe who had little
enthusiasms for dying for Hitler.
The area of the Moscow-Minsk highway had been bitterly contested in the winter and autumn fighting of 1943-44 and it was the most
important objective in the beginning stages of the operation.
The heaviest concentration of Armour was at Orsha guarding the highway with 40 tanks including 29 Tiger 1s. The Germans had been able to prepare elaborate defensives with three to five trench lines at a depth of 5-6km. German strength was 52 divisions with about 800,000 men, compared to the 1700,000 Soviet men, who also had a six-fold advantage in armour and seven-fold in aircraft.
The offensive was timed for 19 June but congestion on the railway system prevented key units being deployed on time. A partisan
offensive on the German rail network timed for the 19th began anyway. The results were muted because of a German anti-Partisan operation that had begun in mid May, however the rail lines were totally disrupted for at least a day.
On June 22, the Red Army began reconnaissance in force with battalion raids into the German trench line to probe for weaknesses and ensure that these trenches were fully manned for a planned massive artillery strike on them the following day.
On the night of 22/23 June the first attempts to soften up the German defences with strategic bomber strikes on German troop concentrations. This was followed up at 0500 hours on June 23,
by a massive artillery preparation all along the front. The barrage lasted over two hours, and began with a period of intense shelling and was designed to destroy the forward trenches and
destroy the German infantry before they could withdraw to deeper defence lines. In some sectors this was followed by a rolling barrage along the forward trench lines for up to an hour, where the defences were dense a double rolling barrage was carried out. The German defenders agreed that it was the highest concentration of artillery fire that they had faced so far in the war.
- Players Notes –
The operation is meant to be played from the Soviet point of view. Both sides are set-up historically and the AI will not make a good job of placing the defensive line so you should stick
to Scenario Default.
I had problems recreating the initial artillery barrage. Any artillery units set for turn will reappear in the following games. In fact the heavy Russian artillery was left far behind
when the breakthrough took place. The solution was to give the Russian player some heavy artillery units so he has the satisfaction of a fireworks display but set the start of the game
at the end of the barrage with damage from it factored into the German defenders. (Another reason not to change the default scenario set-up.)
The forces are scaled down. The map was created from the 3d map in Steven Zaloga's Operation Bagration, Osprey. See also the Russian PKKA-CA site for a personal account of an unnamed Soviet
flame-thrower tank commander in the operation. The Historical Perspective Deception page on the US military site - Fort Leavenworth is a paper on the US military analysis of the
Maskirovka element in the success of Bagration.