fry30 Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 Got tired of bumping that moron's thread, so I figured I'd take this question here: So after a tense stand off between: an IS-1, a SU-85, a SU-152 and 2 Ba-64s versus a King Tiger, a late model Tiger, and a Marder, I came out on top. My Su-152 dinged the King Tiger head on, and then backed out of its hull down position out of sight. I brought up my Su-85, and after removing a house in my line of sight, managed to spot the Dastardly IS-1, Ba-64 killing machine. Now here is my question: I noticed, and have heard on this board before, that Soviet Tank commanders were told to keep their hatches down. (My vocabulary decreases with every drink I finish.) I ended up opening the hatches on my two remaining Tank Destroyers (/assault guns) which were hiding in a patch of woods. This enabled me to spot the King Tiger, and subsequently his slightly smaller little brother, with relative ease. I say relative because the Tiger machine gunned down the TC shortly after it delivered the kill shot to the KT. No, wait... now here is my question... How gamey is this? I know that, intrinsically, using Western style tactics with the Soviets is a form of "gamey-ness" in of itself, but how far off am I with regards to opening the hatch for better visual awareness? We decided to do a tank only battle, (my buddy justtttt purchased the game perhaps an hour ago) so I figured spotting was going to be key to the battle. (Hence the scout cars). Any input on this would be great... I have much to learn about Soviet tactics and strategy. BTW- Best CM I've played so far!!!!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weapon2010 Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 If opening a tank hatch to spot better is gamey,then I'm the gamiest bastard that ever lived! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fry30 Posted April 7, 2014 Author Share Posted April 7, 2014 Well I did mean with regards to the Soviets. Maybe I just feel guilty about the a$$ whooping I just put on my friend. Playing Hot Seat is hilarious, I had first viewing so I'd turn the music down as low as possible and try to hide my emotions so as to keep him in the dark as long as possible. Ahhh... what a glorious game. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oddball_E8 Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 I'm pretty sure that even if they had orders not to do so, if they were being killed by unseen tanks, the soviet TC's would disobey that order for a brief time to poke their heads out every now and then. At least the ones that survived 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fry30 Posted April 7, 2014 Author Share Posted April 7, 2014 I know I'm inviting disaster upon us all, but I almost wonder what John Kettler has to say on the matter. I think I remember him posting a pretty good excerpt from a Soviet tanker's memoirs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 Yeah, I would want to see a source on the "don't peek out" thing. I could believe it. Soviet operational doctrine concentrates on simplifying decision making while taking casualties that are unavoidable either way and maximize the benefit they get out of a certain move (aka attack). So they want each individual soldier and tank to move as indoctrinated even if for one certain individual platoon or tank platoon the local conditions make that suicidal. Over the whole force they will statistically still win, and wouldn't if all tankers would actually watch out for suicidal conditions. However, it is the first time that I hear that they go as far as blinding the tankers. Maybe that is an early war only thing? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bil Hardenberger Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 As I have stated previously in my AAR thread I also agree with Redwolf.. also remember that prior to every tank having a radio all tank to tank communication was sent via flags.. only way to do that is while unbuttoned. So unbutton all you want and lay waste to the Germanic hordes and feel good about it. Bil 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 Redwolf - I think this whole notion may be a misunderstanding based on the early 2 man turrets of T-34s and prewar tanks. The tank commander had to act as the gunner in those, and could only do so with his head down inside and his eye glued to the gunsight. Being head up unbuttoned meant not being ready to fire, in those turrets. In later war tanks with a separate gunner and TC, no such issues. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 From my reading actual first-person accounts by Soviet Tank/Assault Gun commanders, regardless of what the official instruction was, it seems the most common stance was for the tc to stay mostly in the hull, but with the tc's hatch open so he could peek out occasionally to get a view of surroundings. IMHO, this is probably fairly well represented by CM's "unbuttoned" state. We don't literally see the tc popping up and down like a gopher, but that's probably what he would often be doing. Also worth noting that Soviet armor continued to make heavy use of hand signals & signal flags as a supplement to radio comms through the end of the war -- radios were not always reliable and could be listened in on by the enemy. Hard to imagine how they could do this if they didn't stay at least partially unbuttoned. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Der Alte Fritz Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 This gives 3 states of Combat Readiness: 35. Combat Readiness 1: The entire crew is in the tank and prepared to fire. All hatches are closed, the engine prepared to start instantly. The crew goes into combat readiness 1: - in the Start position (ie just before attacking) - in rests and halts, defence positions and on the march at the signal "Battle Alert!". (CR2: has one man in the tank and the rest outside while CR3:all the crew are in trenches outside the tank) Part VIII The Individual Tank A) 250. The entire crew must observe the battlefield constantly. to orient themselves, search for targets so that these are not lost to sight and report them to the tank commander immediately. If orientation is lost it is permissible to observe the terrain through an open hatch. 257. The tank attacks at top speed , suppressing enemy artillery, mortars and machine gun crews and infantry by effective, intense fire from the move and making skillful use of the terrain to beak through into the flank or rear of an enemy and avoid a frontal attack. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 Also, there's a difference between charging, in echelon of platoons and a hail of HE rounds, into the teeth of the enemy position and stalking a couple of kitties with a hotch-potch of single tanks. I suspect "doctrine" was more concerned with the former and less with the latter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Der Alte Fritz Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 According to Charles Sharp by start of 1943 platoon commanders and upwards had full RT (able to receive and send messages) while most tanks had a RR (radio receiver) by the end of 1943. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 By all rights you probably shouldn't be unbuttoning your TCs for SU-85 and SU-122. Those vehicle's commanders stations don't have hatches so he has to unplug from the radio and move all the way back to the rear hull hatch to get a breath of fresh air. The closest equivalent I can think of is Tiger 1 driver's hatch which wasn't directly over the driver so he couldn't poke his head out and drive at the same time. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 DAF - sure they fired on the move. The coaxial MG, that is... The main gun? Short halts... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 ...also remember that prior to every tank having a radio all tank to tank communication was sent via flags.. only way to do that is while unbuttoned. Are you quite certain of that, Bil? I could swear that a few years back I read somewhere that Soviet tanks (at least in the early war years) had a small port in the roof of the turret (similar to a pistol port, I suppose) through which flags could be poked to make signals without opening a hatch. On the other hand, watching for a flag signal must have been a real challenge and a distraction from looking for the enemy. I really wonder how they managed that. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 DAF - sure they fired on the move. The coaxial MG, that is... IS-2 had a rigidly mounted DT mg in the hull (not modeled in the game). You couldn't even approximate aiming it. The whole concept was a dozen tanks in formation indiscriminately throwing lead downrange. You may recall early Stuart and M3 Lee also had rigidly mounted hull mgs for the same task. I don't think Russia started mounting rigid hull mgs until after they began receiving lend-lease aid, so it may have been our idea first. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grisha Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 The idea of a Soviet soldier not having the wherewithal to open a hatch to get a better view of a very dangerous opponent is sort of mind boggling. No, sir, it's not gamey at all. It's what any smart person (including Soviet-type human beings!) would do when posed with such a situation. A risk? Certainly, but relative to what? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankster65 Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 Battlefront offers those nice manuals on infantry and armor tactics for purchase. I have bought them myself and they are quite good. I have Soviet Infantry Tactics and Soviet Armor Tactics. Both by Charles C. Sharp. They are quite good. You might want to check them out at the BF store. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Der Alte Fritz Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 DAF - sure they fired on the move. The coaxial MG, that is... The main gun? Short halts... You are right. This is a direct quotation of the Regulations (and the implication is that they are firing everything).......but then again I have read personal accounts by tankers who sad that they made short halts to fire the main gun .......so that is the difference between the 'rules' and actual events. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 In training, Soviet tankers practiced firing the main gun while actually moving, I have read several memoirs which confirm this. How much they did so in real combat I don't know... On anything other than a straight, graded road seems to like something that would only be effective as a scare tactic, if anything. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 ...only be effective as a scare tactic, if anything. Don't understimate the power of scaring the new trousers off your basic Landser who's just survived a rain of DivArty and had to change his britches for his spares and is still feeling a little delicate. Or at least I suppose that's what the idea of massed onrushing hopelessly inaccurate HE fire was in the REMFs' heads. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Der Alte Fritz Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 The idea of a Soviet soldier not having the wherewithal to open a hatch to get a better view of a very dangerous opponent is sort of mind boggling. No, sir, it's not gamey at all. It's what any smart person (including Soviet-type human beings!) would do when posed with such a situation. A risk? Certainly, but relative to what? You assume that the main risk was envisaged as coming from enemy tanks whereas the Regulations assume that enemy tanks are dealt with by AT assets (AT guns SAU aircraft) and Soviet tanks are fighting enemy infantry protected by direct fire guns and artillery who suppress enemy AT guns. Given that these Soviets tanks were attacking German infantry who were trained in close assault against tanks, the Regulations seem more worried about them and grenades, fire bombs etc going in through the turret than about enemy tanks. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 In training, Soviet tankers practiced firing the main gun while actually moving, I have read several memoirs which confirm this. How much they did so in real combat I don't know... On anything other than a straight, graded road seems to like something that would only be effective as a scare tactic, if anything. This probably went in parallel if/when they had orders not to stop for anything. In particular when they were not allowed the short stops for aiming. There is a big difference between not firing when stopped and not firing at all. You want to them to fire their weapons at something under some circumstances, and if you forbid aiming stops you have them fire on the move. We really can't look at individual bits here. It all plays together. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.