SleeStak

With all due respect Steve, I just got finished reading the post you made previous to this post and, based on my reading, it seems you want me to leave the discussion. Of course, if this were a movie, I would bravely stand up and state 'My voice will be heard!' but its not, its your forum and I'm I guest here and I will now leave this discussion. For the record, I enjoyed it and learned plenty in the process.

I believe Normal Dude and Steve both rightly cautioned against giving official manuals too much creditibility out of hand. With that said, I don't think the Shot trap advice trumps the training manual. There seems to be official, printed material that supports both a center mass only shooting technique and vulnerable point conscious technique. I've read alot of arguments that seem to suggest aiming at a point of the tank wouldn't be done because it was hard, but I'm sure hitting a Sherman turret at 500m would be just as hard as hitting a Sherman at 1500m and I'm sure the Germans shot at Shermans at 1500m in Russia. The only real opinion that counts as far as CMBN is concerned is Battlefronts and, based on what I've read of their posts, I think they've already decided and not in my favor. I don't know how you prove something like this. Maybe a seance with Patton and Guderian.

You've got a point Bil, I haven't been in or worked for the military but I have both been an employee of and a contractor for the US government and, upon reflection, I can see them distributing unnecessary, useless, pointless information. I stand corrected on this point.

You should check out two parts of the Tigerfibel. Page 17 has a beautiful picture of my new favorite Fraulein. Also, apparently the pocket of the Tigerfibel had: (I'm pasting this because I'm lazy) "a small 10-3/4 x 11-1/2 inch two-sided sheet identifying enemy tanks and armored cars dated 1 February 1943; a larger 11-1/2 x 23 inch two-sided sheet identifying enemy tanks; a 11-1/2 x 12-1/2 inch two-sided sheet explaining the effectiveness of the Tiger’s 88 mm gun by showing the vulnerable spots in the front side and back armor of ten enemy tanks including the Russian T34 and the American M4 Sherman tank." Link that I found the text, check out the diagrams almost half way down the page Your post piqued my interest in the Tigerfibel (I've never seen it) and a look showed information that seems to support my claim. Not conclusively of course, but I don't know why they would distribute this information if it wasn't used or was unable to be used. Vark, I'm sure alot of tank encounters were seat of the pants affairs where speed was the factor. I just don't think that represents all of them.

I agree with everything you've said, yet if I go to the range with a rifle or a pistol or even a BB gun, I can hit my targets if I shoot within my less than average ability. I have a friend that can shoot a smiley face on a target with a pistol at 25 yards (aka one of the Lethal Weapon movies). Heck, my sister in law can put out a hand sized group with a handgun at 25 yards (She doesn't shoot fast but she's a better shot than I by a mile). Sure, their is variance in the ordinance, boresights that get out of whack, wind, any number of factors that impact the accuracy of a tank cannon. Still, tankers aimed and hit their targets. I don't think that you've stated anything that would keep them from aiming at a part of the tank in the correct circumstances though. A couple of posters have posted that the Americans identified the Panther shot trap as a legit target and I think someone identified the MG port too. I can recognize that a question of how often the tanks found themselves in a position to aim is a debatable point and I may very well be wrong. But I don't really buy the arguments that A - combat is so stressful a gunner couldn't aim in those circumstances or B - Aiming is so hard a gunner wouldn't attempt to do it at any time. I think everyone will aggree that the gunners at least aimed at the tanks and aiming at a part of a tank is really just doing the same thing at a smaller target. And sometimes, not even that. Hitting a Sherman turret at 500m isn't any more difficult than hitting a Sherman at 1500m. Not that the Germans or Americans were doing alot of fighting at 1500m in Normandy but certainly tank crews were engaging at that range in the east, even farther. I haven't said the factors you listed don't impact accuracy or that either sides tankers were the Davy Crockets of the ETO. I'm just saying that, given the chance, I believe the tankers would try to hit the tanks in the spots that would most likely kill the tanks.

Thats true, the Americans especially didn't face alot of German armor until the Bulge. The British had to deal with those pesky SS Panzer units but the Americans had it comparibly easy on the armor front.

I'm sure you're right. The Tiger disparity is the best known but I'm sure some of those 88's were fallen trees or pipes or whatever. I'm also sure that, for the most part, the tankers could correctly identify their opposites armor. I think this because people tend to get proficient at what they do and the tankers were doing this 24/7. Tank versions might have been hard to pick, but I'm sure that axis could generally tell the difference between a Stuart and a Sherman and the allies could tell the difference between a PzIV and a Panther. Not all the time of course, but generally speaking.

Again, of course you're right. The desire to do something while picking your shot would be huge. I just think that, if a tanker were riding in a Stuart, and ran into a PzIV, He'd try to shoot the turret as he doesn't have a chance at penetrating the hull and he'd almost certainly know that. I would contend that, in general, tankers could correctly identify their opponents tanks (I've taught my three year old how to identify t-34's and Shermans and my wife can identify which German variants are built on the Pz38t chassis). I think we can all pretty much look at tanks and identify their make and, generally, their model. The Shermans might be hard to identify their specific model but, you wouldn't really have to. You'd give yourself the best chance of killing one by shooting it in the turret no matter what model you came across (with a 75L48 gun that is). With all of that said, I'm sure its alot harder to identify tanks looking at one at 1500m through a gun sight. But that really isn't the kind of shooting I'm talking about. I'm talking about 500m maybe out to 1000m in the right circumstances in the close terrain of Normandy. Not shooting your way out of an ambush or fighting in circumstances that require quick, snap shots. I think I differ from most of the rest of the posters in that, I think the opportunity to aim was more frequent. I can't defend my position with evidence and I haven't really seen any evidence that changes my position. The closest thing I've seen is the poster that posted the training manual but, that really isn't conclusive. I don't think either side can be proven. The only position that really matters on this is Battlefront's and I don't think they are changing their mind. This isn't an issue that would keep me from buying the game. On the contrary, I'm really looking forward to buying the game. I just think I'm right and everyone that doesn't agree with me is wrong! (In case the smiley face doesn't make it plain, I'm mostly kidding)

If the interest generated by the AAR's is any indication, it seems you are sitting on a hit. I'm thrilled that you guys have decided to take the success generated from CMSF and produce what looks like an excellent WWII title. I'm really looking forward to its release!

Stikkypixie, maybe you are right. I doubt anyone would claim it never ever happened and the debate seems to be over 'did it happen often or only very very rarely'. I think this is one of those issues that really can't be proven one way or another. I find the idea that the tankers didn't try to hit specific, vulnerable points of their opponents armor incomprehensible. Based on the responses I've read in this post, it appears my position is in the minority and that many well informed posters think that they almost always aimed center mass. Alas! Either way, based on the posts I've seen in this thread, I don't think Battlefront is rethinking their aiming routine (They even went so far as to liken the idea to the BREN tripod arguement). If nothing else, I won't be as surprised by the PzIV vs Sherman matchup as I would have been had I not seen this thread. Still, not trying to hit the vulnerable parts of their enemies tanks, you guys are crazy.

Well, you're right of course. Targeting specific points on a tank would tend to reduce the fudge factor you'd have in a specific direction and I suspect the tankers would only do it if they felt they had something to gain from the attempt. When talking about the Sherman, there are significant differences in the armor configs but I think the turret is generally you're best bet with the 75L48.

Fortunately, i have absolutely no experience shooting at anything while being shot at. Yet I'll still contend that aiming at a tank or aiming at part of the tank is basically the same thing. What I've read from people that have been in combat was that the fear did not over ride their ability to do their job. With that said, would it impact their ability to aim well, I'm sure it did. And for the record, I'm on my couch typing on my IPad, not in a comfy chair behind a computer screen, though the couch is pretty comfy.

I guess I just don't see from the arguments in this post why a WWII tanker wouldn't have aimed the points on his target he felt he could penetrate. I don't think the stress of combat would keep the majority of gunners from effectively doing their jobs. Certainly our modern soldiers are able to carry out complex tasks while under fire. The soldiers had access to the information, undoubtly imperfectly but they had the info. Aiming isn't a complex task that requires a great deal of time. At least, not in the circumstances that I'm suggesting. No one is trying to snipe the vision slit of the tank. They are shooting at reasonably large parts of the tank. This isn't a herculean task. That's not to say its easy to accomplish, but the process of aiming isn't precluded by anything I've read so far. A person using iron sites on a .22 can hit a man sized target at a couple hundred yards with a minimum of training. A gunner that has some training, with the advantage of a gun that has a higher muzzle velocity, a telescopic site and shooting at a target that isn't tinsy should probably be able to extend that out farther. Not in all situations of course, but when stopped and prepared to enter combat, it seems reasonable to me. I don't know how we could prove or disprove that tankers aimed at vulnerable parts of tanks during WWII, it just seems incomprehensible to me that they wouldn't when able. Steve, I don't think that turns this into a 'BREN Tripod' discussion, I just think you're wrong on this point.

I remember reading a comparison once of the Panther vs the Sherman. It was written as a narritive and it described how the Germans destroyed the Sherman: "shooting it at any distance they could hit it and watching it burn" and how the American destroyed the Panther: "sneaking up on it and trying to bounce a shell off of the mantlet". While it was a little like bumper sticker politics, I felt sorry for the Sherman crewmen.

Give that guy an M10 and a medal, definitely an above and beyond sort of response.