Tank hunter teams, another grog question

[winkelried]

Didn't Patton also hold up the development of the Pershing?

Zaloga has another story based on his research

[womble]

Interesting I have to admit I do not "get" this. In what situation can you do this? When running from cover to a flanking or rear position to the enemy tank?

How does this work? What difference does it make if I give the order end point to the AS I want them to fire from or the AS one square closer to the target? I thought they would not setup to fire until they stopped moving and moving an additional 8m would mean more time until they fire.

I hope someone can shed some light on how this works.

If it was me that suggested that approach, there's some errors in it that I either didn't mean to introduce or wasn't aware of at the time. I don't believe you should use Fast since that prioritises getting there over returning fire/engaging targets of opportunity. Quick or Slow, perhaps. I might consider using this to fire at a target in a road I'm going to cross, from behind one building to behind another (with no LOS at move start or end). There's no guarantee the Fauster will take the shot though, so use it with that in mind. I can't think of a time I've actually used it at all though, and if I did propose it, it would have been based on observing unexpected ATR opportunism on the part of the TacAI.

[snake_eye]

couple of points- the wheat fields are perfect for tank hunting teams. I think people forget that its a wheat field or field with high vegetation. if u have them crawl or hide tanks or even men have to be almost on top of them to see them.

Seems perfect in the game, but not in a real action. As a matter of fact during the hot season infantrymen were often flushed out of a wheat field by setting it in flame with MG tracer’s rounds. That was not done always intentionally, since the smoke besides flushing the enemy out hide it pretty well.

[altipueri]

Zaloga has another story based on his research

Hmm.. this on the Pershing has some points I think of interest re range, concealment - Tiger 100 yds !, HE, immobilisation: (copied from Wiki - hence references)

""After training the tank crews, the T26E3 tanks were first committed to combat on 25 February, with the 3rd Armored Division, in the fighting for the Roer River. On 26 February, a T26E3 named Fireball was knocked out in an ambush at Elsdorf while overwatching a roadblock. Silhouetted by a nearby fire, the Pershing was in a disadvantageous position. A concealed Tiger tank fired three shots from about 100 yd (91 m). The first penetrated the turret through the machine gun port in the mantlet killing both the gunner and the loader. The second shot hit the gun barrel causing the round that was in the chamber to fire with the effect of distorting the barrel. The last shot glanced off the turret side taking off the upper cupola hatch. While backing up to escape, the Tiger became entangled in debris and was abandoned by the crew.[38] Fireball was quickly repaired and returned to service on 7 March.[39].."

Shortly afterward, also at Elsdorf, another T26E3 knocked out a Tiger I and two Panzer IVs.[40] The Tiger was knocked out at 900 yd (820 m) with the 90-mm HVAP T30E16 ammunition.[36] Photographs of this knocked out Tiger I in Hunnicutt's book showed a penetration through the front gun mantlet.[41]

On 6 March, in the city of Cologne, a T26E3 knocked out a Panther tank in front of the Cologne Cathedral after the Panther had knocked out at least one M4 Sherman.[42] The action was recorded by a Signal Corps cameraman.[43][44]

On the same day, another T26E3 was knocked out in the town of Niehl near Cologne, by an 88 mm self propelled anti-tank gun, at a range of under 300 yd (270 m).[45] There were two other tank engagements involving the T26E3, with one Tiger I knocked out during the fighting around Cologne, and one Panzer IV knocked out at Mannheim.[46]

The T26E3s with the 9th Armored Division saw action in fighting around the Roer River with one Pershing disabled by two hits from a German 150 mm field gun.[36]

[Broadsword56]

When I researched a historical map/scenario I uploaded for TOW II: Africa (Battle of El Guettar, Tunisia, in March 1943), I learned about how the new M-10 TD saved the day for Patton's forces when they showed up en masse, used shoot-and-scoot tactics from the heights, and obliterated the German panzer spearhead (together with US arty that obliterated the supporting grenadiers).

It was the first -- and only -- episode where the TDs were used in this large a concentration, instead of parceling them out in penny packets. It was a desperation move that turned out successfully.

I imagine El Guettar may have prolonged the US confusion about TDs and the proper way to use them -- those who wanted to distribute them into infantry battalions simply as more mobile versions of AT guns, and those who might have argued, "No, the doctrine really works, if only commanders would truly follow it and deploy TDs as whole units."

[Sublime]

by having the team run across the tank or near it it stops them from making a full stop at an action point - theyre constantly moving. without testing it, in my experience they usually always take the shot if they know the tank is there and are in faust range. Usually it is quick Im using however. Sometimes slow. I personally have killed at least 5-7 tanks this way in PBeMs since womble first mentioned it 5 or 6 months ago. Just a random thing that works for me sometimes, its very situation specific of course.

[Sublime]

oh and btw yes its unfortunate we dont have fire yet in cmbn. it pains me to make a cmx1 comparison, but I remember the glee of seeing wheat fields catch on fire when Id ambush opponents. Same with buildings.

[womble]

by having the team run across the tank or near it it stops them from making a full stop at an action point - theyre constantly moving. without testing it, in my experience they usually always take the shot if they know the tank is there and are in faust range. Usually it is quick Im using however. Sometimes slow. I personally have killed at least 5-7 tanks this way in PBeMs since womble first mentioned it 5 or 6 months ago. Just a random thing that works for me sometimes, its very situation specific of course.

Wow! One of my whacky ideas actually works!

[winkelried]

Hmm.. this on the Pershing has some points I think of interest re range, concealment - Tiger 100 yds !, HE, immobilisation: (copied from Wiki - hence references)

ranges in some regions in middle europe can be pretty short - especially in urban areas and in hilly or forested terrain. a bit like the bocage in normandy where it is sometimes difficult to find positions where you can get your tanks to bear on optimal distances (especially for panthers/tigers).

also concealment in urban areas is easier to achieve than outside. something i CMx does not support as it should - e.g. to put a tank into a barn or a gun into a building - or to take some planks and cover the front of a tank between two houses. sure this concealment drops as soon as the vehicle moves, but it's ideal to set up an ambush - what the action in Elsdorf was AFAIK.

[winkelried]

When I researched a historical map/scenario I uploaded for TOW II: Africa (Battle of El Guettar, Tunisia, in March 1943), I learned about how the new M-10 TD saved the day for Patton's forces when they showed up en masse, used shoot-and-scoot tactics from the heights, and obliterated the German panzer spearhead (together with US arty that obliterated the supporting grenadiers).

It was the first -- and only -- episode where the TDs were used in this large a concentration, instead of parceling them out in penny packets. It was a desperation move that turned out successfully.

I imagine El Guettar may have prolonged the US confusion about TDs and the proper way to use them -- those who wanted to distribute them into infantry battalions simply as more mobile versions of AT guns, and those who might have argued, "No, the doctrine really works, if only commanders would truly follow it and deploy TDs as whole units."

doctrine works well, when the assumptions it is based on come to existence - El Guettar seems to be the only battle where a Blitzkrieg-Spearhead of considerable size actually happened in a terrain where a full TD batallion could actually be deployed. In addition the El Guettar action it seems the US have used combined arms tactics pretty well - slowing down the Germans with a minefield and supporting the TDs with artillery.

and the question remains - was the TD doctrine successful? the US lost 21 (8 could be repaired) of the 31 M10 employed in this encounter against 30 German tank losses.

after the war the multi-purpose MBT emerged and TDs became obsolete (with some exceptions like the Jagdpanzer Kanone) until the emergence of ATGMs. so probably the TD doctrine was there to solve a particular tactical situation which didn't occur any more towards the end of the war.

[YankeeDog]

Actually, IMHO El Guettar is a perfect example of the successful use of a Combined Arms doctrine defense to counter a Combined Arms attack. The German attacking force was composed of tanks accompanied by infantry in halftracks and on motorbikes, so it qualifies as a combined arms attack. And in fact, the German infantry succeeded in clearing the forwardmost American defensive positions. However, the German infantry failed to rout the 1st ID completely, and this turned out to be critical. The M10s, combined with artillery support, and 1st ID infantry holding on to certain key terrain locations, were able to carry the day.

TD Doctrine did not sufficiently recognize the need for such close coordination between the infantry, artillery and anti-tank assets in a combined defense. El Guettar shows that, by March 1943, the U.S. field commanders were already figuring this out, even if the desk jockeys back in D.C. didn't fully appreciate it.

[A Canadian Cat]

by having the team run across the tank or near it it stops them from making a full stop at an action point - theyre constantly moving.

Thanks @womble and @sublime - I "get it" now. I'll have to find an opportunity to try it. I do not have any games going right now where I am playing the Germans where this might come up.

[Michael Emrys]

I do not have any games going right now where I am playing the Germans where this might come up.

Perhaps one of your opponents who is playing the German side can give it a try.

Michael

[womble]

Thanks @womble and @sublime - I "get it" now. I'll have to find an opportunity to try it. I do not have any games going right now where I am playing the Germans where this might come up.

My recollection is woolly, but I think I first observed the "opportunistic targetting on the run" with a Shreck team, so it might work for Zooks, too. I accept no responsibility for writing letters home if you try it out though.

[YankeeDog]

My recollection is woolly, but I think I first observed the "opportunistic targetting on the run" with a Shreck team, so it might work for Zooks, too. I accept no responsibility for writing letters home if you try it out though.

Yes; it works for 'zooks too. I have seen it happen.

Not exactly realistic because it would be a really bad idea to run with a loaded 'zook -- the rocket isn't held into the tube by very much at all, and furthermore the warhead is completely live once the safety pin is pulled out (which must be done prior to loading). So if the tube gets jostled too much or pointed downward, the rocket might fall out, and if it falls nose-first, *boom*.

But I think we can assume there's a certain amount of abstraction going on here. That is, the 'zook team, being aware of an enemy tank in the vicinity, is dashing up to a firing point, quickly loading up and loosing off a rocket, and then continuing on to a (hopefully) safer location.

[womble]

But I think we can assume there's a certain amount of abstraction going on here. That is, the 'zook team, being aware of an enemy tank in the vicinity, is dashing up to a firing point, quickly loading up and loosing off a rocket, and then continuing on to a (hopefully) safer location.

Aye. Or (since they're risking their fool necks anyway) they preload the ATR, knowing it's only going to be a short dash to where they are going to fire it and figuring the faster acquisition and shoot time makes it less risky than popping one up the chute in LOS of their target...

[A Canadian Cat]

Perhaps one of your opponents who is playing the German side can give it a try.

LOL - I am sure they will be glad to.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Aye. Or (since they're risking their fool necks anyway) they preload the ATR, knowing it's only going to be a short dash to where they are going to fire it and figuring the faster acquisition and shoot time makes it less risky than popping one up the chute in LOS of their target...

Or they are cognizant of the fact that they have been banned from using their rockets from the cover of any man-made structure and are up against tanks that are capable of feats no real world tank could ever perform, and therefore new tactics, no matter how seemingly reckless, are needed to survive.

[womble]

Or they are cognizant of the fact that they have been banned from using their rockets from the cover of any man-made structure and are up against tanks that are capable of feats no real world tank could ever perform, and therefore new tactics, no matter how seemingly reckless, are needed to survive.

Yeah, it'd be better if they could sneak a shot peeking round of the building corner. One day. One day. Maybe Bulge? We can hope.

[Sublime]

I just assume (and am content to) that its the same as the grenade being tossed - a slight abstraction that covers for corner shots or whatever.

And yes, it works well with zook squads, schrecks as well. However schrecks are usually accurate and deadly enough to use as a mini ATG of sorts, and I excel with them in ambush roles. By their nature tank hunter squads are a lot better suited to fire brigade type stuff, reacting to holes punched by their armor, if nothing else because at this stage in the war they have a 30m kill radius. This means you have to be damn sure the enemy is actually going to roll his tank by a spot. With a schreck you have much more capability, the zook is a different matter. Kills arent nearly as certain on tanks (half tracks are no problem) so I like to be closer, especially because it doesnt seem to be as accurate as the schreck either.

The PIAT is a mixed bag. The warhead seems decent. But its effective range isnt as far as the zook or schreck, at least in my gaming experiences. However the PIAT is more than compensated by how much better 6 lbers seem at killing German armor compared to say the American 57mm. Now I may be mistaken but I believe those are the same actual guns. So perhaps its the British AP shot, or maybe the higher seeming proliferation of APDS ammo in CW hands. Of course it could also be subjective. But Ive noticed the same on the 6lber mounted churchills, as well, and seeing as how theyre mixed in with 75 mm variants Im starting to think this was realized in the war and they were an 'early firefly', or the platoons AT tank. and of course with 17 lbers ATG and the CW armor with it. Because of this, the effectiveness of the American zook is important I think, though Im certainly not knocking the US 57, I guess its also really just handicapped by the lack of HE, now that I think of it.

[womble]

...Im certainly not knocking the US 57, I guess its also really just handicapped by the lack of HE, now that I think of it.

Not so I've noticed... its APHE seems to do a perfectly good job of killing and suppressing my PzGrenadiers... :-\