Ok what about discarded panzer crews?

[Rommel]

Ok in a scenario, if a crew abandons their vehicle, will they get another tank in the next map? or the map after the next one?

Yes fionn i understand it wouldn't be a quick thing to get a replacement panzer. Just wondering if you'll get the crew back ever.

[Berlichtingen]

Here's a semi related question. What about manning captured enemy vehicles? I really don't know what the practice was on the West Front 44-45, but it was fairly common practice in Russian and North Africa.

[Berlichtingen]

Here's a semi related question. What about manning captured enemy vehicles? I really don't know what the practice was on the West Front 44-45, but it was fairly common practice in Russian and North Africa.

[Guest KwazyDog]

Rommel, I think you are talking about operations?

Basically there are two types of battle in CM, scenerios, which are on a single mape, probably about 1km x 1.5km or so, which last around anywhere between 15mins to an hour (though you really gotta watch your ammo ). With scenerios there is no battle after the first one.

Secondly there are oprtations. These are still only one map, one really big map (maybe 3-4km x 2ish). During a single battle on this map, you only see a portion of the map at a time (defined by the operation designer). After the end of each battle, the portion of the map you are fighting is adjusted to the new battle area (and front line) depending on how the previous battle went. Hehe, there is heaps about this one in other threads so if Im not clear, do some searching for 'campaigns' (though they are now called operations).

To answer your questions, in operations if a cew survives they can be reassigned a new vehicle (very good reason to keep them alive). Also, if a abandoned vehcile didnt burn and is within friendly lines, it is quite possible that it will be towed away and repaired between battles. This makes for a good reason to make sure those vehicles end up burning (as believe this was common practice in reality by the Germans?)

Berlichtingen, no remanning of enemy vehciles. It did happen on the Western Front, but from what Ive read wasnt all that common. Im sure this is something that will be reinvestigated for CM2 on the Eastern Front though.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Berlichtingen,

This one has been covered many times so far. Bottom line is that manning captured weapons RARELY happened during a pitched battle, for MANY reasons. However, some vehicles were captured, brought back behind the lines, repainted, rearmed, and then put into the front until they broke down and were abandoned. Out of the thousands of tanks the Germans captured in the East, only a hundred or so were on official established strength, and most were not functioning. So even in the east this was pretty rare. And again, we are talking about stuff that happens after battles, not during.

Steve

[Guest JonS]

BTS,

I've come across numerous statements concerning US paras using captured panzer fausts - things like "we used as many as we could get our hands on", and things like that.

I agree with the call about not being able to pick it up during the course of a battle. However, these guys seem to have taken the time to train with them behind the lines to get familiar with them, and then deliberatly taken previously captured PFs into battle with them.

Is there any way to simulate this type of captured use through unit editing, etc.?

Thanks

Jon

------------------

Quo Fas et Vino du Femme

[MikeT]

Maybe a patch could allow using captured equipment in a campaign. For example, after a battle there would be the list of enemy killed, captured, etc then a reference to any captured gear such as PFs, PS, ATGs. The new "owner" could elect to use the equipment but there should be a penalty in battle for using unfamiliar equipment. They shouldn't be able to shot as accurately due to lack of training on sights/optics.

MikeT

[Guest Big Time Software]

Jon, there was a lengthy discussion about this some while back. Basically there is evidence that the 82nd Airborne, and to a lesser extent the 101st (or was it the reverse? ) did actively use PFs. HOWEVER, there isn't much in the way of direct evidence of how and to what degree they were used. Unfortunately, quotes from General Gavin were typical of this type of "hit hard and think later" style of commander. They should be taken as something based in truth, but otherwise are open to question

Our problem is that we really can't allow for an exception for basically ONE Allied division. Yes, we are sure they were used here and there by most units, but still very much the exception rather than the rule. So in the interest of upholding the rule, the exceptions are not allowed.

Steve

[Berlichtingen]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This one has been covered many times so far. Bottom line is that manning captured weapons RARELY happened during a pitched battle, for MANY reasons. However, some vehicles were captured, brought back behind the lines, repainted, rearmed, and then put into the front until they broke down and were abandoned. Out of the thousands of tanks the Germans captured in the East, only a hundred or so were on official established strength, and most were not functioning. So even in the east this was pretty rare. And again, we are talking about stuff that happens after battles, not during.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you misunderstood my question. I realize that captured vehicles would not be manned during a pitched battle. My question was more about operations. KwazyDog's response about the West Front makes sense. The only time I've read that the Germans used US equipment was the Ardennes... and then most of the "US" tanks were really Panthers. I quess my real question is for CM3(?). I've read several accounts of the Afrika Korps turning captured tanks around in a day. On the east front, the only accounts I have seen for turning captured vehicles around quickly was when the SS captured Kharkov. I did find an interesting referance that stated that the bulk of captured T-34's were used for spare parts for the ones in use.

[Guest JonS]

Thanks (again!) Steve.

I'll buy your reasoning with regard to excluding it. I suppose this will, in some (rare) instances make it difficult to reproduce particular battles that people may want to recreate.

I suppose its a flavour vs. taste thing (eh? does that make sense? )

Regards

Jon

------------------

Quo Fas et Vino du Femme

[tss]

On the east front, the only accounts I have seen for turning captured vehicles around quickly was when the SS captured Kharkov

I can add a couple more: Finns captured two ISU-152s on 26.6.1944 at Portinhoikka and used one of them in combat the next day. (It was lost a couple of days later for a direct hit). During the same battle (Tali-Ihantala) three T-34/85s were captured and put into action in a couple of days.

It seems that in '41 the infantry company led by Lauri Törni captured few Soviet tanks and manned the vehicles (IIRC, a T-28 and a T-26). So for a couple of days the unit had an unofficial tank platoon attached to it. Not that the tanks were too effective, the crews had no tank training at all, barely managing to keep the vehicles moving.

The Finnish army was quite special case in use of captured tanks. At times more than 90% of Finnish armored vehicles were originally captured from Soviets.

I don't think that it is necessary to include captured tanks to CM campaigns as it happened so rarely. On the other hand, in CM2 Finns should be able to capture Soviet LMGs. It was a _very_ common practice to scrounge all Soviet "record-players" that were found. Of course, it helped that it used the same ammo as Finnish rifles and LMGs. Soviet Maxims were captured too, but they were often sent back for refitting since the Soviet wheel-mount was inferior to a tripod-mount.

- Tommi

[howardb]

If I'm not much mistaken one of the reasons the germans took so long time getting captured vehicles back in action was because they usually fitted them with radios, new hatches etc (anyone seen the strange protruding man hatch on the captured T-34's?). They usually gave them to rearguard, garrison units etc after they were re-equipped anyway. Think I read about this on webpage once. Achtung Panzer ?

[Guest Big Time Software]

Howard, you are very much correct. New optics too.

The Germans did use a LOT of captured equipment in front line duty. Most of it was not "stock" but significantly changed (like Becker's mishmosh of junk in Normandy ). I think there were VERY good reasons why there wasn't much AFV swapping in the West. The Allies didn't want to drive around in vehicles that EVERYBODY would shoot at and ask questions later. And the Germans didn't particularly care for Western armor as is because they were not built for German styled tactics (stand off with a short 75mm gun?!?).

We are going to have to think about captured stuff for sure in connection with the Finns. They did indeed use a LOT of stuff, some of it predating Barbarossa (Winter War booty!). In North Africa the Germans sometimes used whatever they could get their hands on, but often lacked the fuel to do much with them in any case.

Steve

[Berlichtingen]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>They usually gave them to rearguard, garrison units etc after they were re-equipped anyway.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The SS Panzer Divisions had around 50 T-34's at Kursk... hardly rearguard.

[Goanna]

OK, so what about left over ammo. A couple of times I have had just one StuG left in Chance Encounter, with the others having been killed quite early (hopefully after taking out a M4 or two). Then my last StuG and my infantry take out the other M4s and then go to work on the US infantry, usually running out of HE rounds. Wouldn't it be possible to recover the HE rounds from the abandoned StuGs and use it in the remaining StuG. I'm no historian, but I'll bet a lot of rounds were scavenged like this on the battlefield.

------------------

desert rat wannabe

[howardb]

Berlichtingen:

That's what I read on some site though but the T-34 was a very good tank so it doesn't surprise me. 50 T-34's.. wow that's alot.

[tss]

We are going to have to think about captured stuff for sure in connection with the Finns. They did indeed use a LOT of stuff, some of it predating Barbarossa (Winter War booty!).

And a lot of stuff was captured in 1918...

Modeling the Finnish army equipment will be quite large task, since we used just about everything we could lay hands on. For example, anti-tank rifles from four countries (Finnish, Italian, Soviet, and British), AT-guns from at least four countries (Swedish, Soviet, German, and French), and so on. Last summer I came across a (quite) new study on Finnish field artillery pieces (Paulaharju: "Itsenäisen Suomen kenttätykit 1918-1995", it contains short English summaries in addition to Finnish text). The book contains listing of all artillery pieces that have been used by the Finnish army and what units used them and when. I don't have the book on my hands right now so I don't remember the actual figures, but there were some 20 different _caliberes_ and about 50 different artillery pieces in use ranging from 1877 vintage French siege guns to 105 mm German howitzers.

A couple of days ago I find a "sequel" to the book that describes all coastal artillery and railroad guns in use.

- Tommi

[Guest Big Time Software]

Goanna, yes this sort of thing happenend, but not during the heat of a CM sized battle. Transfering ammo was a lengthy and exposed process.

Regarding T-34s used in frontline combat... yes, these things happened. The Germans even put a WWI French tank into front line service after stealing it from a museum! Everybody just has to keep in mind that these things were VERY rare and, therefore, if we don't include them there is no real loss (sure, would be nice to have 'em though).

Tommi, the armed forces of your country are going to be more trouble to simulate than their impact on the war But we will do our best to have them be as realistic as possible, given realistic cost:benefit ratios. BTW, I had a chance to purchase a WWII Finnish 20mm AT rifle this summer. Really cool looking, but fairly expensive ($6000 USD??). Unfortunately, I missed the guy shooting one of his later on that day. That would have been fun to watch!

Steve

[tss]

Tommi, the armed forces of your country are going to be more trouble to simulate than their impact on the war

I know. The equipment was so diverse that modeling it completely is downright impossible. Even modeling all possible uniforms is out of question. (I have seen a photo of a single infantry squad with _four_ different types of helmets).

For curiousity's sake, I counted the different field gun models in use. There were 18 different caliberes ranging from 75 mm to 227 mm and 60 different models. The most numerous caliberes were 75 mm and 76 mm, both having more than 10 different models. I didn't bother to count the number of coastal artillery gun types, but they outnumbered the field gun types ...

BTW, I had a chance to purchase a WWII Finnish 20mm AT rifle this summer. Really cool looking, but fairly expensive ($6000 USD??). Unfortunately, I missed the guy shooting one of his later on that day. That would have been fun to watch!

The 20mm Lahti ATR (or "norsupyssy", "elephant gun", as it was called by troops) was a fine weapon and one of the best ATRs ever designed. Its only problem was that it came too late. IIRC, only a couple of prototypes reached the front in Winter War and in 1941 it was already obsolete and could not penetrate the armor of KV and T-34 tanks. However, it remained effective against light Soviet tanks throughout the war, and I think that the last kills with it were made as late as 09.06.1944 when Soviets used some old T-26 tanks to probe Finnish defences at Rajajoki. (The Soviets saved all expensive stuff for the main offensive that begun on the following day).

- Tommi