Jump to content

Are all open British Tank Commanders summarily executed?


Recommended Posts

In real life yes, unfortunately not in CMBN where they have have IR and radar guided infantry targeting computers.

People keep saying this, and it's just not what I'm seeing... just last night, I snuck an entire platoon of infantry through the front quarter of a buttoned Stug, at a distance of less than 100m. They had some cover, but for sections of the move they had "blue" LOS to the Stug, so the Stug certainly had an opportunity to spot them.

If that Stug had "IR and radar guided infantry targeting computers", the batteries must have been dead, er sumfink.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 85
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

So the spotting performance of buttoned tanks is inconsistent (well, it should be inconsistent but not in a way I'm talking about). Way to often tanks are seeing things they would be extremely unlikely to see. The instances when their spotting ability is correct, and they do not see what they shouldn't see, do not mean there is no problem at all.

Instances when they do not see what they really sHOULD see (like another tank in the middle of the road they are guarding from an ambush position) are also a poor "compensation" for the frequent overspotting issue... This is how I see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People keep saying this, and it's just not what I'm seeing... just last night, I snuck an entire platoon of infantry through the front quarter of a buttoned Stug, at a distance of less than 100m. They had some cover, but for sections of the move they had "blue" LOS to the Stug, so the Stug certainly had an opportunity to spot them.

If that Stug had "IR and radar guided infantry targeting computers", the batteries must have been dead, er sumfink.

Yeah same here, I've also found ANY TC unbuttoned anywhere near concealed infantry is just asking for a ticket home, either in an ambulance or a pine box. It isn't a British only thing and it is a real nice way of making that tank worry more about itself and less about looking for other targets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I lose tank commanders like you wouldn't believe. I've been sending out "name-tape defilade" instructions to my subordinates but the boots on the ground have been ignoring my orders.

I think instead your guys should be getting what this guy has. Apparently sniper issues really were a bit of a problem.

http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205202475

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recall reading years ago that army medical officers were concerned about the number of head wounds to tank commanders. I tried to find the article again but can't at the moment.

The difference in vision buttoned up must be huge and the chance of spotting even a firing AT gun will be nil if you are looking through the wrong vision block or just the wrong direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think instead your guys should be getting what this guy has. Apparently sniper issues really were a bit of a problem.

http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205202475

I'll see if I can find you a picture of the crazy solutions the Army came up with in Iraq for protecting TC's. We had some odd looking devices strapped to the turrets so you could be unbuttoned and safe from sniper fire.

Look at this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

Vanir Ausf B,

I'm with you on Israeli TC losses. The U.S. Army noted, in FM 100-5 Operations during the early 1980s, that an unbuttoned tank was 50% more effective than a buttoned one, but, armed with the Yom Kippur TC loss figures, was justifiably concerned what would happen to exposed TCs, particularly from airburst artillery and mortar fire. The solution for the M1 Abrams was ingenious--a hatch which could be cracked open a few inches all around while still providing excellent overhead protection. Thus, the M1 could be fought effectively, without taking the terrible casualties the Israelis sustained to obtain combat effectiveness.

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Johnston,

Most revealing tests. I've previously opined that my limited survey of combat pics with TCs exposed indicates the British tended to fight with everything from the sternum up exposed, the Americans less (shoulders and up visible) and the Germans least of all (head or fraction thereof--often none because of periscopic optics). It stands to reason that exposure ought to correlate with casualties, and that seems to be the case here. The British aren't being screwed IF they are getting spotting advantage as a result of being so exposed. Call being shot so often the down side!

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...