Veer Posted December 7, 1999 Share Posted December 7, 1999 The way I see Charging in a tank is rather different from charging on a horse... . The Tank divisions of this century are designed to fill the role that the calvery had in the previous ones (Heavy force, fast at a point equals maximum effect). Added to this Tanks have the advantge of surving as Moblie pillboxes for supportting infantry missions, something that calvery were not. Anyway, to return to how inferior british tanks were to Germans, Some time ago I made a Senario in TOAW I where I had a divison of British Tanks (about 400 + cromwells) attack a beffed up Pz Regt. (About 55 Tigers, 20 MK IV's). No infantry or air support on either side. The end result was that the Brits lost some 320 + tanks for just 35 Tigers and 17 Mk IV's. I re-did the battle this time with the Germans attcking the British. The Brits did better, taking about 100 Tank loses for 20 Tigers and 10 Mk IV's. I dodn't know how well TOAW models actual tank combat, but interesting results nonetheless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SimonFox Posted December 7, 1999 Share Posted December 7, 1999 You should have tried using jeeps instead of cromwells I have heard they work better in TOAW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Deans Posted December 7, 1999 Share Posted December 7, 1999 "What makes this even more suprising is that the Australians carried out the Charge with only their bayonets drawn, due to the lack of lances and sabers. " Couldn't resist,......The reason the Australians had no swords or lances was because they weren't cavalry........They were mounted infantry. (yes there is a difference) The bayonet bit was almost certainly a movie thing.....Have you ever tried to reach a man on the ground from the back of a horse with a 1907 bayonet?.......They adavnced at the gallop up to and into the Turkish positions and then dimounted to fight through the town. On another note, I wonder how many of the posters here have had any experience with the Regimental System? I feel a great misunderstanding of this way of soldiering. Thanks Rob Deans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastables Posted December 7, 1999 Share Posted December 7, 1999 Actully the Aussies did not dismount until the 2nd trench line when the Turks began bringing down groups of chaps with rifle fire. The 1st trench lines, which were shallow was just overrun. Also, as I attempted to imply in my 2nd post Lancers and Dragoon's don't cause massess of dead when charging and meeting enemy formations. Why? becuse lances, carbines and sabers are not much better at killing men then the long bayonet. Lances at full charges can snap on ones victim or can become entangled with the other chap. Accuracy with a carbine is effectivly nil while the horse is moving, if you stop to fire the carbine the infantry also gain in accuracy, although the head of the horse provides some armour, as it were the benifits of being a dragoon. Sabers are not much bigger if at all than the monster bayonet of the Imperial armys, 3 foot long, although once the pesky infantry are close enough its easier to kill or maim a man while one is on horseback with the saber (slashing) than a bayonet (stabbing). Here in New Zealand, Regt's are incresingly becoming a memory. My own 3 Auckland North Regt (Countess of Ranfurlys own. We were there in the Boer war, well ok the Regt was) is now Ranfurly plt attached to 1 RNZIR, alpha coy. At least they did not Disband it outright as the've been doing in the British army. But that is a small comfort. [This message has been edited by Bastables (edited 12-07-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Deans Posted December 7, 1999 Share Posted December 7, 1999 "Sabers are not much bigger if at all than the monster bayonet of the Imperial armys, 3 foot long, although once the pesky infantry are close enough its easier to kill or maim a man while one is on horseback with the saber (slashing) than a bayonet (stabbing)." Yes they are. The 1908 pattern sword is almost three times as long as the 1907 bayonet. It was actually designed for thrusting, not for slashing, with a very thin blade and was commonly sharpened only half way down. Ironically it was the best sword ever produced for cavalry, just in time for the mounted arms' demise....... But I guess this isn't really the topic of this thread though is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trooper Posted December 7, 1999 Share Posted December 7, 1999 With regard to the comment that the modern role of cavalry is that of heavy units massed, I would beg to differ. The traditional cavalry roles are independent scouting and flank security, with sub-benefits as from mobility, not hard assaults. That said, there always seem to have been two schools of thought as to just how to accomplish this. The British seemed to traditionally equip their recce units with very fast, very light vehicles (Daimler, Scorpion etc) partially on the basis that if you give the troopers heavy weapons, they'll be inclined to use them when they would be better off fulfilling the primary scouting role. David Fletcher said that he thought the best designed AFV in his collection at Bovington was the Daimler Scout. Spotting the enemy and then dying when you engage them is not a success. My unit drives around in AMLs and jeeps. If we meet a tank, we go the other way and call it in. The other point of view was typified by the Germans in WWII and US until about 10 years ago, that being to equip the cavalry with good armor to defeat the first line of defense, and then roam around in the rear. The US seems to be shying away from this concept of late, with the replacement of the Bradleys by Hummers. That Aussie tank was the AC1 Sentinel. http://www.clubi.ie/exalted/ac1.htm DWH Manic Moran Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted December 8, 1999 Share Posted December 8, 1999 Trooper, you are correct about the Daimler. If I have my facts straight here, it was the basis for the Ferret AC/SC cars that are still in service in various places (UK still?) today. They are also quite popular here in the US with military vehicle collectors, although they all gripe about various poor design decisions I have read enough from Ferret owners to know that I most likely wouldn't want to own one! Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted December 8, 1999 Share Posted December 8, 1999 Trooper, They still use Ferret variants in the north don't they or have they phased them out even there? IIRC the designation right its the FV432 (or something similar..) right? ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trooper Posted December 8, 1999 Share Posted December 8, 1999 Frankly, I doubt the Ferrets are still in use in the North. I certainly don't recall seeing any in pictures since the Saracens went. The development of the Ferret was the Fox CVR(W), and <that> is now out of service, although admittedly because of instability problems cause by the large turret. There are two schools of thought as to whether Ferret is still in service with the British Army, but I haven't seen it officially on the orbat in years. Doesn't mean to say that there aren't a few still around though. Possibly they're in use with the British Forces in Cyprus. The FV432 is the Trojan tracked APC. The UK equivalent to the M113. (Did the M113 not have a name?) There are FV432 variants still in service. Mortar, ARV, Command post, AT and so on and so forth. I'm out of my house for the week (Wexford and Galway) so I can't look up the FV designation for Ferret right now. DWH Manic Moran Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted December 9, 1999 Share Posted December 9, 1999 Ah that's it, the FV 432 must just have stuck in my head since it's so common. It's been a couple of years since I really dug into "modern armour" in a serious way so things are beginning to get blurry plus I'm horribly out of date about all the new active defence systems being mounted vs ATGMs now (not that the Irish Army would ever get any.. I remember being in a Churchill about ten years ago in a barracks in Rathmines..) ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W583 Posted December 9, 1999 Share Posted December 9, 1999 Hey!!.. I read a book about Allie during the war.... Some American troops got their ass kick by a tiger.... so they call in reinforcement, and the only tank that is close to them is a cromwell.... at the time the cromwell got to the sence.... the tiger just fire a shot at the GI.... and it take so time to reload... guess what the British did... they ran for their live!!! they reverse the tank and drove away...... so is this how Allie treat each other.... the whole platoon are either KIA or MIA I hope during the game of CM... the British tank crew won't do this to me =) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Tom Posted December 9, 1999 Share Posted December 9, 1999 Uhhhh... W583, do you have some problem with the British or something?? It is just weird that your post here, and on the WWII movie seem to be a severely anti-British. Do you have issues that need resolving? Or is it just a severe coincidence and my imagination acting up on me again? [This message has been edited by Major Tom (edited 12-08-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted December 9, 1999 Share Posted December 9, 1999 Major Tom, Usually this is just the result of someone who doesn't have English as a first language expressing themselves poorly and I'd imagine W583 is no exception. I know I got a shiver when I read the "this is how the allie treat eachother line" since, as a historical webmaster I get neo-nazi mail every so often which features similar lines but you must remember many non-native English speakers aren't aware of nuances and how their words can be interpreted. lastly, I think the smiley signals the intent of the post (although I think that that intent didn't come across well i grant you ). Ps. If I was the driver of the Cromwell I sure as hell would have reversed too ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Tom Posted December 9, 1999 Share Posted December 9, 1999 Ohh. I get it... Sorry W583. I don't mean to start up stuff that didn't exist, it just caught me off guard. By the way, I am not British either, just Canadian. We drove Cromwells too. [This message has been edited by Major Tom (edited 12-08-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speedy Posted December 9, 1999 Share Posted December 9, 1999 W583, That seems like a smart thing to do, if I came across a tiger that wanted to kill me I would run like hell to. P.S.- the TC's wife probably dumped him for a rich yank (g). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trooper Posted December 9, 1999 Share Posted December 9, 1999 The British tried several different techniques for getting their fireflies to live longer, primarily painting the end of the barrel black to make it look like a 76mm. The only one that tended to work, however, was to fire a shot with the firefly, reverse, then send another Sherman up to take the hit. Apparently in the Gulf in 91 a British force flat refused to go in to extricate a US unit that was under fire, because they were sure that the US would shoot them up. Sure enough, it turned out that the US unit needing extrication was being engaged by another US unit, and the relieving US unit was itself undertaken by Blue-on-Blue fire. So there's a method behind their madness! DWH Manic Moran Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts