Jump to content

SimpleSimon

Members
  • Posts

    539
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

SimpleSimon last won the day on February 5 2020

SimpleSimon had the most liked content!

1 Follower

Recent Profile Visitors

1,192 profile views

SimpleSimon's Achievements

Senior Member

Senior Member (3/3)

259

Reputation

  1. I think the net effect of many decades of media familiarization, video games, movies, tv, books, etc is that there's an inability to see things the way people saw them in 1941. Many people in the world in 1941 did not have electricity or indoor plumbing, had never seen a car or an airplane before, and essentially still lived as peasants. Even the ones that did had very little familiarity with something like a tank aside from maybe hearing about it as the nebulous "land battleship" of the Great War. If a T-28 emerged from the treeline it would for many soldiers I think it would be equivalent to something quite actually biblical, and would not be laughed at. It just so happened that by 1941, German troops were pretty seasoned and also probably had a pretty good idea of what its limitations would be. (Avoid its line of sight, wait until it runs out of gas). If you were green and did not know these things as many conscripts in many armies in 1939-41 it would be much worse. Until the advent of credible infantry anti-tank weapons though, such as the Panzerfaust and Bazooka there really wasn't much you could do to challenge a tank assault except hope engineers chose your sector to mine. Most early war infantry anti-tank weapons were improvised weapons or just placebos. By 1943 there was enough warning, enough collective experience, and most importantly of all just enough anti-tank weapons around to at least keep the frontline from melting rapidly in a tank assault-as long as it was a smaller than a Corp attack. It really wasn't until the 1980s that there was much prospect of stopping a Tank Army though...
  2. I've seen the Panther in real life and while its smaller than I thought it would be it's still a very...sinister looking tank. Has a predatory vibe like its namesake. The multi turret monstrosities look pretty stupid-the rationale behind them was that they could multitask and cover each other or suppress multiple enemy positions etc but in practice it didn't work on only one tank commander and tanks with all those turrets just look really crowded. I certainly wouldn't laugh at a T-28 if it came at me, but the turrets definitely don't contribute to why i'd view running into it as a major bad day for me and the boys.
  3. Big ooof when you get sent into Aachen or Cologne for infantry support. US Army TDs had a tendency to end up playing Assault Guns. A job for which they were fairly unsuited given their height and open top. Hope the GIs cleared the upper floors of the opera house you're driving by before it starts raining potato mashers. 😬
  4. I think people care too much about armor. Someone would always turn up with the gun to defeat it, and tanks were generally killed by AP shot from anti-tank guns which were way common. Fact was even armor that technically "overmatched" the oncoming projectile was still vulnerable to spall/lucky gap hits. Savvy crews understood the only thing their tank was actually proof against was bullets and fragmentation. Anything else needed to be dealt with before it got a shot off. The Panther looks really survivable in theory, but the side armor in the track wells was only 40mm thick and could be penetrated by anti-tank rifles and definitely so by the tiny 45mm anti tank gun the Russians had tons of. Other than that distance was also pretty equivalent to safety for a tank, since physics meant lots of small rounds lost performance rapidly over wide areas and there'd be fewer hiding options for anti-tank guns that would put them close enough to endanger your tank. Even something the size of the Tiger is pretty hard to hit at 1000m and if you're in something like that or the Panther looks good right? At the kinds of ranges they could fight at the T-34 and Sherman would have extreme difficulty even hitting you. Unfortunately, shortages of infantry mean that your tank will frequently be sent into close fighting a lot-Rattenkrieg'ing it up along with the bloody Landwehr. Since "Divisions" are down to single Regiments or even Battalions at this point that's just how it's going to be. Crew losses in the Panzer Divisions accelerated throughout the war for this reason, and it was major element in the decision to expend so many of them in Glorious Panzer Death Charges where the chances of survival might actually improve with operational mobility and disruption of the Allied line. Maybe if you're lucky you'll be able to extract the crews too once their tanks run out of gas. Yeah, gonna go with the Sherman.
  5. I watched the video. I think what's often not brought up is that the manner in which the Allies were conducting strategy in the ETO often required attacks up predictable routes due to the all the wrecked bridges and need to capture Ports. Market Garden was a pretty infamous case-literally up a single highway-but there plenty of times in Italy Allied commanders had to do the same thing because there was no alternative. This meant the unfortunate Division Commander often had no choice but to send his troop into Pak country. I've heard the often quoted readiness figures in American Armored Divisions which are quite impressive-but so were losses overall. By 1944 however it was pretty much accepted that tanks were going to suffer many losses no matter what they did. Frontlines were way more dense than in 1940-so there was little hope of achieving clean breakthroughs anymore, calibers had increased-so hits were more likely to be fatal, and finally tanks of peer tonnage were being mass produced-so tank Armies were large enough to be held in reserve now to plug breakthroughs. I was just reading Zaloga's book on US Army Armored Divisions and he was highlighting the different manner in which the British and Americans viewed their armor for consideration. The British tended to view their Armored Divisions as anti-Panzer Divisions-deliberately to be used against German armor. whereas the Americans saw their Armored Divisions in the 1940 sense of the Breakthrough Force. Chief difference between American thinking and similar German school of thought is that the Germans felt the infantry shouldn't do anything except bottle up and "deal with" stragglers caught in a kessel. The Americans felt the infantry should be the ones to actually punch the line open-which Armored Divisions (formed up as Combat Commands) would then exploit. This was pretty much Operation Cobra in a nutshell and later on the Battle of Remagen. There was a greater degree of cavalryman thinking going on in US Army Armor than in British and definitely German Panzer Divisions.
  6. Well just about every tank during the 2nd World War was a death trap. By today's standards they'd all be unacceptable. Most of them stored ammunition in open racks for instance. The Sherman was literally the only one at least trying to decrease the brew up chance. I'm sure it's going to be mentioned ad nauseum too but Ronson didn't come up with the slogan "lights first every time" until the 1950s either. I think Tommy Cooker was in use during the war, but no one's sure if that was just meant for the Sherman or any tank the British were using. The fact that crews were running around complaining about the Sherman all the time is sort of interesting-because it implies the crews tended to survive enough to complain at all. I definitely do not want to turn this into another Defense of the Sherman thread however lol...
  7. Statistically the Sherman. Grand scheme you'll probably be fine but even if you're unlucky, the Sherman is the only tank of the war with wet stowage for its ammunition and an escape hatch beneath the hull. Very important for evacuating the vehicle under fire. The Sherman's sheer mass went a long way into enabling crew survival by making it easier to evacuate and taking hits from shaped charges a bit better than smaller tanks. Mainly due to greater volume between ammunition and fuel stowage. If you're a tank crewman there isn't a lot of certainty, but one thing that's bound to happen to you? Your tank will be shot out from under you at one point or another. Whether you can get out of it easily enough to fight another day is the big priority for me.
  8. It sounds like this was the intent of the directly attached mortars that were given to the infantry in British Divisions. This is why the Bren Carrier was so common and so valuable. That it was barely bulletproof or splinter proof was just the bonus-it's main job was to huff the Vickers and MkII mortar around with their crews and ammo.
  9. Think part of the problem is different combatants used the term "effective" with wide latitude. It could mean quite different things from Army to Army. I believe the PPsh sight has settings for 100 and 200 meters. Germans used to capture them whenever able as I recall though-they found it a very favorable weapon for assault troops. Although this might've reflected shortages of the MP40 more than it being a "better" SMG. Most sub-machine guns were pretty similar during the war, and seem to have been valued for the service they provided storm troopers and assault teams than being quality guns. Most of them were manufactured with surprisingly low tolerances-some were made entirely out of metal stampings with just the barrel and bolt being lathed, and have a bargain basement feel in my opinion. Earliest models of the Thompson had an insane leaf sight up to 600 yards as I recall. This was dropped, but it might've been intended to be used in semi-auto. The Thompson's problem is that it was basically a World War 1 design, huge, heavy, and expensive. It fired a cartridge notorious for rapid muzzle energy loss after about 100m.
  10. The way airplanes are implemented in RT makes them useless, and is a waste of a mechanic. I'd say to just remove them too, but not because I don't want airplanes in the game. Intricate and detailed attack parameters are totally reasonable to set during the player's planning phase, but since we can't do that for no good reason what's the point in even having them at all? As for the other games it's yeah not very realistic that we can get near-JDAMs accuracy out of FW190s on call-in airstrikes, but that's way less of a problem than RT's weird roving air attacks the VVS most certainly did not do. It seems to me that the community has these really built in ideas of what CAS looked like in the 1940s-it wasn't like a less sophisticated version of today's AirLand Battle concepts for instance-but removing it entirely isn't appropriate either. Airstrikes could be very intricate and surprisingly accurate for the day, it just took a lot more effort to manage. The Stuka was clever but also very clearly a gimmick, and the way it bombed it was still necessary to send whole squadrons than just one or two airplanes like the games suggest. CAS did indeed happen a lot in the 2nd World War, and it wasn't unusual to see 40+ airplanes attack a "point" target instead of 2 using a laser guided bomb like we're used to now. That's why you sent many of them. We just can't do that in the WW2 titles because the rules governing airstrikes are fundamentally Shock Force's and they Do Not Work for 1940s.
  11. Shocking to think some of them have even turned up in Iraq or Syria. I suppose anything that can chuck a 152mm HE round can still be found some kind of job though.
  12. Army crews have 32 even, but rarely are they much good for indirect fire I felt. Too much complication for too little kaboom. My own preference-but I usually just order them to direct fire at targets they have visibility on. There were reports of the 60mm round it used landing right next to Germans and not killing them. 60mm produces very little fragmentation (less than a hand grenade in theory) and a lot of Armies ditched light mortars during the war. Sort of off topic in this case I know but the key to me is just that I don't rely much on them. I prefer to expend their ammunition at first opportunity and use the crews as line infantry.
  13. Incidental to an issue with call-for-fire issues but the Airborne mortar crews are only issued 20 rounds per team. Seems much like they're intended for direct fire.
  14. If they're behind a hill and out of your sight Bulletpoint they might as well be on Venus. They're out of play.
×
×
  • Create New...