Hortlund
-
Posts
950 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Hortlund
-
-
Actually we are, this info was classified for a reason.Originally posted by Foxbat:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Leutnant Hortlund:
Hrm..actually that might not be the best source in the world to quote. I mean, lets face it, we arent looking at the pillar of unbiased truth here.
No. These general staff studies are internal documents, the intention is to analyse and learn from these things. It wouldn't make much sense if they only contained wildly off-the mark misinformation conceived for propaganda use...Wasnt it that same General staff study that put the German tank losses at Kursk to 600 something (and not only that, most were Tigers and Panthers too).
And vice versa I don't think the Ivan in the street would be to impressed if Pravda proudly declared the TOT of preplanned fire to be 1.5-3 minutes.. unless he was a grog of course
Anyway these figures merely show that under comparable circumstances artillery delays between armies are in the same ballpark.</font>
-
Originally posted by Foxbat:
"As a rule, prepared fire was opened in 1.5-3 minutes after it was called for and the opening of unplanned fire took 4-7 minutes.”
The Battle of Kursk, The Soviet General Staff Study, 1944.
Hrm..actually that might not be the best source in the world to quote. I mean, lets face it, we arent looking at the pillar of unbiased truth here.
...Wasnt it that same General staff study that put the German tank losses at Kursk to 600 something (and not only that, most were Tigers and Panthers too).
[ October 18, 2002, 06:48 PM: Message edited by: Leutnant Hortlund ]
-
Oh man, I laughed so hard when I read this line that I woke up the kids:
the formidable Panther tank is clad with thick armour at the front whilst the back is left open, meaning a well placed explosion at the back will render it obsolete.
Anyone else get the impression that this guy is 15 years old and armed with his mothers dictionary? No one talks like that...no one. Actually I find this fascinating. My bet, as I said, is that this "Steven" character is 13-15 yrs old, desperately trying to sound older and wiser.
What a gem..."a well placed explosion at the back will render it obsolete"
..render it obsolete??
I found a new addition to my sig line.
-
I'm Swedish, but my dad is German.
My Grandmother had 7 brothers who all died in the war. She never *ever* talks about it, but dad has told me a little about them (he really doesnt like to talk about it either). I know that one was a 109 pilot who got killed in the east, and two were infantrymen, also in the east. My grandmother was at Dresden that night in April 45, and she lost two of her brothers there, the youngest one was 4. I think Grandmom was something like 13-14 at the time. She is still around.
My great-grandfather fought in both wars. In ww1 he was a captain in the cavalry, but since there were little use for cavalry in the trenches, he spent most of his the time in various French villages behind the front. He was stripped of rank twice for his excessive partying (apparently he and his drinking escapades were something like a legend in his division). In ww2 he was a officer in a cavalry unit, but I dont know which one.
-
Well, I dont get it. On the CDV website it says UK release Oct 4th...
-
You people eat rotting fish that smells like an opened grave.Originally posted by Seanachai:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Leutnant Hortlund:
I get to buy the Wafflengrenadiere-sanitized version too.
*sigh*
One would think you'd be inured to pain and disappointment by now.</font>
-
So I went to the computer store today. I do that pretty much every day to see if by some miracle CMBB has arrived. Alas, there were no CMBB in the store, but there was a new release date there...October 18th.
Wohooooo...but wait there's more.
I get to buy the Wafflengrenadiere-sanitized version too.
*sigh*
-
LOL, man I've fallen in love with the Sturmtiger just by reading your descriptions of it.
There is something immensely charming with a big tank with a too big gun. Kinda reminds me of those guns in MIB or something like that.
The mental image one gets is that when a S-tiger shoots, half the map explodes, and the other half flees in panic
-
What do you think the db count is for a 88mm gun fireing from inside a steel can?
That's what headphones and earplugs are for...
[ September 22, 2002, 05:40 PM: Message edited by: Leutnant Hortlund ]
-
This is my opinion:
If every tank crew in an immobile tank will bail out if the tank is hit by small arms or small calibre guns, then I think it should be changed.
If you want I can dig up countless examples of situations in world war two where tank crews of all nationalities chose to stay and fight in their vehicles despite being immobilized, on fire, under fire, you name it.
On the other hand I can also dig up countless of examples of situations in world war two where tank crews chose to bail out before they saw the enemy, when a near miss made the tank shake, when a non penetrating hit occured, you name it.
Maybe we should agree that anecdotal evidence cant really solve this one. Why? Because we are dealing with psychology here. What makes some people cowards under fire, what makes some people act with complete disregard for thier own safety. This is not an easy question, and it is far to complicated to just brush aside with some examples of real life anecdotes. Because for every example of bailing out you can produce, I can produce an example of a crew staying with their tank.
Returning to my option:
If every tank crew in an immobile tank will bail out if the tank is hit by small arms or small calibre guns, then I think it should be changed.
Ask yourself this question. Is it reasonable that every tank crew in an immobile tank under small arms fire bails? Is it in any way historic? Does it in any way give us a good example of combat in ww2?
Let me give another example. Suppose someone found out that every sniper in the game would panic if there was an enemy squad within 50 yards. This proved to be reproduceable, every time an enemy squad came within 50 yards from a sniper, that sniper would panic and try to run away.
Someone would say "hey, that sounds weird, that should be changed"
but then someone else would say
"hey, I can understand that sniper being afraid and wanting to get the he** outta Dodge"
someone else would agree
"yeah, can you imagine laying there alone watching 10 guys approaching your position, the smartest thing to do would be to retreat, regroup and then fight another day"
a third person would claim that "it was standard procedure for snipers to pull back when the enemy got too close, and it all makes sense, because a sniper should always kill from a distance, and then dissapear".
People would then start to post examples of real life encounters where snipers ran away at the first sight of the enemy etc etc.
I guess what Im trying to say is that its beside the point.
-
Would it be possible for a European customer to "buy" a manual from the US (when I say buy I mean pay for p&p) or would that violate your agreement with CDV?
[edit] I mean that should really not be a problem for CDV, its not as if you would be taking business or revenue from them, on the contrary.
[ September 20, 2002, 07:24 PM: Message edited by: Leutnant Hortlund ]
-
I can produce other accounts where tank crews drove off or abandoned after taking non lethal hits.Originally posted by ASL Veteran:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Tiger:
I've read a historical account of a Soviet tank getting hit non-stop by a single flak 20 cannon (all the Germans had right then). Turns out the crew inside had gone insane from the non-stop reverbrations and at least 2 had shot themselves, the others bailed out as babbling idiots. Imagine being inside of a large bell getting hit by rapid-fire AA and you get the idea....
-john
It is pretty easy to sit around the PC and say "I wouldn't bail out, that would be crazy" but we really aren't going to be able to judge what "we" would do in a similar situation until we've been in that situation and were subjected to the stresses particular to that situation. Perhaps if you were in a tank being hit by shellfire you would be so busy crapping your pants and saying "mommy mommy" that you weren't even capable of thinking logically, let alone doing something as complicated as bailing out!But I *really* doubt that any crew would bail out while a flakvierling were firing at the tank. I mean that is beyond stupid...
I'm sure there are historical accounts with tank crews doing all kinds of crazy things when under fire so it seems difficult to critique how accurate the morale model is one way or another. You are attempting to put a rational set of parameters on something that is inherently irrational. Human nature. People just do some wacked out and crazy things when their very survival is at stake. When a Landser gets hit, he can't just reload the game and play another quick battle - he is out permanently.</font>
-
I guess we just see things differently.
Although I agree that the field of view from a buttoned tank is very restricted. And true, the crew might suspect that there are German infantry teams stalking the tank.
Personally I fail to see why this would make the crew more eager to abandon their vehicle though...presumably the stalking infantry has other weapons too.
But that is beside the point. To abandon a tank that is under direct fire from a flakvierling = suicide.
If you are sitting in a heavy tank and you are getting shot at by small arms or small calibre guns, you dont jump out unless you *really* have to.
-
Weren't tank crews under orders to abandon immobilized vehicles, and move themselves to the rear - in order to avoid capture, firstly, and secondly because they were highly trained specialists who were needed to man other tanks? Not to mention the desire to report to higher headquarters about their condition, etc.? Just spitballing here, really, but some stuff to consider. Not "defending" anything, just attempting discussion.</font>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Leutnant Hortlund:
Lets see, IS-3 tank... crew is protected by the thickest armor in the game. They KNOW they are being fired upon by several flakvierlings. They bail out.
To me that is a pretty good indication that something might need a change in the "bail-out-routine"
But you guys are defending that?
You have just watched a tank crew commit suicide for no reason and your line of argument goes along the lines of
"they cant know that there arent any bigger guns out there" (IS-3 remember)
"the tank was immobile" (still safer inside than outside)
"the noise inside must have been horrible" (undoubtedly)
-
Lets see, IS-3 tank... crew is protected by the thickest armor in the game. They KNOW they are being fired upon by several flakvierlings. They bail out.
To me that is a pretty good indication that something might need a change in the "bail-out-routine"
But you guys are defending that?
You have just watched a tank crew commit suicide for no reason and your line of argument goes along the lines of
"they cant know that there arent any bigger guns out there" (IS-3 remember)
"the tank was immobile" (still safer inside than outside)
"the noise inside must have been horrible" (undoubtedly)
-
Chinese water torture pfft...thats nothing compared to this...
Game is released Oct 10th in Sweden...sweet, I think Im gonna totally flip out.
-
Looks great!
I would definitively like to get involved. German side if its possible.
-
In the battle near Sandomierz the germans lost 3 King Tigers, this checks with the 501st abteilung daily returns.
For some reason the russians counted the entire third company of the 501st battalion as losses but it had yet to arrive from Koniecpol railway station.
-
Smart move right there...Originally posted by TSword:One B IV was used vs. a T-34 at 400 m range. The T-34 was destroyed as he tried to ram the B IV.
-
10th of October here (Sweden)...yipee
But at least I get the waffengrenadiers, so I guess I shouldn't complain too much...yipee again
-
I think they are the legendary finnish commisars we all learned to avoid in ASL.
-
Source: Tiger Tanks by Michael Greene
ISBN 0-87938-954-0
In the example given in the instruction book, the distance to the target has been estimated by one person (driver) and measured twice (commander and gunner). First the commander and driver results are averaged, then this number is averaged with the gunners result.However, we notice that the commander is not apparently expected to give any extra weight to the gunner's estimate. The implication is surely that rangefinding by stadia reticule is no more accurate than rangefinding by naked eye.
Now maybe someone more talented in math than me could explain this better, but doesnt this mean that the measured distances are given "more weight" (assuming that everyone comes up with fairly reasonable ranges).
Suppose the driver says 150m, the commander 110 and the gunner 120.
110+150=260/2=130+120=250/2=125
120+150=270/2=135+110=245/2=122,5
Apparently it does matter what numbers you average first, but Im not a matematician so I have no idea whether this makes any sence or not
-
Gentlemen, regardless of what you may or may not think, Im not basing my statements on a computer game.
the gunsight
Lets take the TFZ 9b sight as an example of a German gunsight. (Used in the Tiger I)
The sight contained two illuminated transparent discs. The first had a range scale inscribed around its circumference. The disc was turned by the gunner until the appropriate range to the target was set against a small pointer. This action would simultaneously raise the other transparent disc which incorporated the gunners graticules (aiming marks, or "crosshairs" if you will).
The gunner would then overlay the aiming marks on the target using his hand operatedelevation and traverse controls. As long as the gunner knew the correct width of the target he could make a fairly accurate range determination. This range estimate is known as a stadiametric range determination system.
So apparently the gunner could measure range using his sight. But did he?
From the Tiger I manual:
RangefindersThe distance can only be properly estimated by the driver and the commander, because they can see the target unhindered with the naked eye. It is worse through the telescopic sight, first because the telescope sight magnifies everything by a factor of 2.5, and second because you cannot estimate range that well with a single eye.
If you have the time, do like this: The commander measures or estimates the distance. The driver takes a little longer and reports his distance (estimate). The commander calculates the middle (average) value. Meanwhile the gunner has estimated the distance using the gunsight and reports his value to the commander. The commander recalculates the average value and gives the right range. The gunner sets the range and fires.
The commanders were provided with a small optical coincidence-type rangefinder to assist in the observation and ranging of targets. (a coincidence-rangefinder the distance to the target is measured by sighting on the target and bringing the erect image into coincidence with the inverted image in the field of view. The range is then read on a range scale). The commander could use this rangefinder to align the gun with the target in cases where the gunner could not see the target.
Standard field practice for the Panzer commanders was to get their hands on a TZR 1 (another optical rangefinder) this was something issued to all Tiger tanks, and to most other tanks. The TZR 1 was a periscope type rangefinder. When in use the periscope was mounted on a bracket attached beneath the base of the commanders cupola so that it enabled the commander, with his head below the top of the cupola, to see from a point roughly 39 inches above the cupola mounted MG ring.
First hand accounts
-Sgt Lewis A. Taylor 2nd Armor division, 1944.The German telescopic sights mounted in their tanks are far superior to ours, in particular it is more powerful. In fact all their optical equipment is superior to ours.
Franz Kurtz, Tiger I&II gunnerYou could clearly see a blade of grass over a mile away with the sights in the Tiger.
Sgt George A. Barden, tank gunner 2nd Arm division, same report as sgt Taylor above.At one time I got to try to look through a Tiger I sight. It was the best optics I have ever seen. On two occations I was able to pick out an anti tank position and a mortar position at a range of about one mile. When we moved over to our tank I could not see either of the targets at all.
[ September 11, 2002, 04:13 PM: Message edited by: Leutnant Hortlund ]
-
Yeah, I know.Originally posted by Michael emrys:I thought we were comparing US to Soviet sights.
Michael
All I'm saying is that knowing how crappy the US sights were, I was real surprised to see that the Soviets thought the US sights were better than theirs.
It kinda gives the impression that the Russians were firing over open iron sights or something
Missing and incorrect information on Finland
in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)
Posted