Planes/Tanks and Hedgerows

[Dave]

I'm reading "Closing With the Enemy" by Michael Doubler and came across this:

"Fighter-bomber pilots attacked German armor from the rear so that machine-gun bullets entered a tank's hull through exhaust portals and damaged its engine. Ground units found disabled German tanks with little external damage, but with a dead crew and extensive interior damage. Investigation revealed that machine gun bullets had entered the tanks through open hatches, then ricocheted around inside, destroying equipment and mutilating crewmen."

Is this kind of action modelled in CM?

Also, since there are hedgerows, will any of the Shermans be equipped with cutters and able to bust thru the hedgerows? This may be too hard to do with current hardware/software limitations and it may be considered to be just before CM's time period.

[Fionn]

I'll answer what I'm sure of.

Rhino teeth (the things which cut through hedgerows) are modelled.

I don't know about the open hatches leading to dead crew but I imagine it's an urban myth or VERY rare since it would be extremely rare for a bullet to enter an open hatch (maybe 2 feet wide) and be able to kill the whole crew inside.

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

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Dave]

Fionn - Thanks for the reply. I hope the air attack method, mentioned in Doubler's book (pg. 68-69) was just rare and not an urban legend. I'm enjoying the book and would hate to think it was that inaccurate. It does make reference to Maj. Gen. "Pete" Quesada's (CO of IX TAC) oral memoirs (Section V, 3-5) and the American Forces in Action Series (St. Lo, pg. 40-41). I don't have either of those, but maybe someone else could check to see what they say.

Have you tried the Sherman with Rhino teeth against hedgerows? I would love to see a Sherman busting thru a hedgerow!

[Herr Oberst2]

What is not a myth is that Typhoon pilots tried to come in from behind so the rockets had a chance of hitting the thinner rear armor.

Research has fixed the probably cause of Michael Wittman's demise in his Tiger as a rocket through the back deck, igniting in the engine compartment, and eliminating the crew in seconds.

[Guest Big Time Software]

The tactic of coming in from behind might also have had to do with aiming. I am not really sure here, but I would think coming up behind something would be easier to line up on and less likely for the target to swerve out of your carefully lined up AOA. As for hitting armor... any hit on the top side of even the heaviest German tanks would cause it to be knocked out (potentially at least) as deck armor was very thin. The only advantage I can see coming in from behind in this regard is that if the rocket hit just "in front" of the target it would hit the rear armor instead of the front armor, which might make a difference.

Steve

[Fionn]

Why pilots come from behind... (LOL.. now THAT's a dirty post title !)

Here's another reason. If you attack from the side well, a tank is longer than it is wide so that doesn't make much sense.

So an attack from in front or behind is preferable. If you attack from in front even if you hit you might hit the thick frontal armour which won't do.

If you approach from the rear any hit is into the engine or turret rear and is an automatic kill.

ALSO if you approach from the rear any very near miss has a good chance of sending shrapnel into the engine and wrecking it totally. A near miss in front of the tank might damage a track but that's easily fixed.

Overall I think the chances of rendering a tank combat incapable are greater if it is attacked from behind with rockets than if they are launched from in front.

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

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Dave]

"Fighter-bomber pilots attacked German armor from the rear so that machine-gun bullets entered a tank's hull through exhaust portals and damaged its engine."

Sorry, but the book did say machine-gun bullets, not rockets. Either Doubler and his sources are wrong, or right, or it was just a very rare happening.

[Guest PeterNZ]

Being a slight slight ww2 plane grog (I fly a lot of Warbirds hehe)..

Well i can say that on the mention of mg's and rockets.. It would depend on the plane.

The bigger US and UK planes would of course, carry rockets and maybe a bomb for ground support. Smaller planes would be forced to just use their MG and Cannon shells (20mm being pretty standard)

Coming in from behind makes sense for a couple of reasons. First, those mentioned of armor being softer and the angle of attack being better.

Second, all the damn mg's are unlikely to be pointing your way! There's nothing more unnerving than driving INTO fire when yer flying.. even if it's unlikely to get a kill, it could still damage lots of stuff (eg, yer engine). I guess from behind you'd hope to 'surprise' the tank and avoid its fire.

I'd say bullets sneaking in and bouncing around would be unusual. More likely to see 20mm holes (from brit most brit planes) and 50 cal holes (from US planes), of course, there were some pretty high volumes of fire coming from some planes (eg, 8x50cals in later p51's) and so a good chance that an open slot could be an entrance for some shells.

In the end, I don't think it matters whether or not it's modeled that way, a kill is a kill.

Whether using rockets, mg, cannon or whatever, i figure the damage comes down to either tank kill, engine kill, crew kill, gun kill, or all of the above, pretty much what BTS seem to have planned allready.

Either way the tank is dead, screwed or lucky

hope this made sense or helped in some way LOL

PeterNZ

[Guest PeterNZ]

Something i forgot to mention.

A rear attack is favoured because it's hard to slew the plane left and right as tank crosses your angle of attack, but if you're coming in from behind it's easy to drop or raise the nose and roll a touch to keep lined up. Also i *think* it would be fairly standard practice to launch a bunch of rockets, not just one or two, at a time. Thus say you launch half of your compliment, 5 rockets and they each have a delay of say, 50ms, then you'd going to get a nice walking of the rockets up the target if you come in from behind. From the side, only one or two would hit. Same applies for MG/Cannon

PeterNZ

[Mike D]

Herr Oberst,

I'm curious what research / source stated that Wittmann's Tiger was hit by a rocket. All that I've ever read of his last battle never even mentions an air attack taking place when he met his demise. In fact, one book has at least one or two eye witness accounts from the German side of the battle of folks that were not too far behind Wittmanns advancing columns and they make no mention of an air attack either. I'm not saying that I don't believe you, just that it goes against all I've read about Wittmann's death.

Mike D

aka Mikester

[Fionn]

Dave,

ANY pilot will tell you that in WW2 rockets were used to attack enemy tanks and that pilots relied on them and not their machineguns. Sure, when they ran out of rockets they blazed away with MGs but I was simply focusing on why they attacked from the rear using their most effective anti-tank weapon, the rocket since that is most applicable.

Also, you should note that pilots often fired into the ground just behind the tank (during a rear approach) or just in front of the tank (if attacking from in front) in order to get ricochets up into the unprotected (well, very poorly protected) belly of the tank which could damage the drivetrains, fuel lines etc.

Reading a book requires a large degree of interpretation. What I'm sure Doubler was trying to convey was that fighter pilots who had expended their rockets and wanted to do some strafing would preferentially attack from behind and hope they get hits into the engine since that was about the only place their MG bullets could do damage.

A fighter pilot attacked first with rockets though and only then resorted to the MG. I know lots of fighter pilots tried to MG the engine from behind and I also know they usually failed to knock out the tank.

The thing about the crew being killed by a few bullets entering the tank is possible but the odds of it happening are vanishingly small. If I had to guess I'd say that some Allied soldiers saw the effects of spalling (armour flaying off the inside of the tank in response to a non-penetrating hit) and not knowing about spalling figured it MUST have been a plane that did it.

Sure its possible but unlikely.. In any case no-one can definitely say it didn't happen or say it definitely did.

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

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Fionn]

Oh boy. This is one of the great armour in history debates.

Like all good debates no side has incontrevertible proof. I DO subscribe to the " a rocket hit his rear turret/engine decking and destroyed his Tiger".

I've seen pictures of the Tiger he was in that day with its turret blown off and a clear penetration in the rear turret. My only reason for changing this opinion would be if someone was able to prove that historians have gotten the Tiger he was in wrong and he was in another vehicle.

Another reason it isn't probably very public knowledge is that no Allied planes were actually allowed bomb in the area. It was too close to Allied lines. I have read several accounts from the Canadian air force photo reconnaisance squadrons in the area at the time that significant numbers of nearby squadrons disobeyed orders that day and struck German vehicles north of the "bomb line" including some planes which attacked the vehicles of which Wittmann was a part BUT these pilots could never admit it publicly since they had disobeyed orders to do so and put Allied soldiers' lives in danger.

Of course, the other side which speaks about a Firefly taking him out could be right. Still, the huge number of nearby units which claim his kill seems like hyperbole to me. poles, Canadians and British all claim to have killed him.

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

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Moon]

In "A Fine Night for Tanks" from Ken Tout, the author makes some pretty convincing points that Wittman's tank was KO'd by a Firefly in the confusion of the battle. He mentions also that Wittman used a different tank than his normal one.

[Fionn]

Yes and his normal tank is the one which was KO'ed by firefly's and missappropriated.

Tank 007 (what a fitting number) was the one he was in and seems, to my eye, to have been the victim of a rocket hit to the rear turret.

His normal tank was KO'ed by Fireflys I agree. Since he had switched mounts I think this is what caused the confusion.

Again, it's one of these things which can never be proven though and I think the argument is about 50/50 at the moment.

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

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[SimonFox]

"Research has fixed the probably cause of Michael Wittman's demise in his Tiger as a rocket through the back deck"

I too would like too see the source of this "new" and "conclusive" research as far as I can tell it continues to be a topic for debate. Unfortunately for some people with an unhealthy obsession with the subject it becomes a case of wish fufillment that their invincible "hero" was killed by a dastardly air attack as opposed to another tank (not meaning anyone around here of course ). As far as I'm concerned the main thing is that he copped it right up the exhaust pipe! and of course that was the bit he forgot to dip in dragon's blood hehe

[Fionn]

Simon,

1. Herr Oberst said "probable cause" and this is VERY different from the "conclusive" label you seem to interpret it as. That's a big difference.

2. Basically what happened was that Wittmann's grave was discovered and he was re-interred. At the same time the question of which tank he was in surfaced its head because the crew buried in that location was supposedly from tank 007 and not the tank Wittmann was thought to have been in.

A bit of research later it became fully accepted that Wittmann WAS in 007 and not his normal tank. Pictures of tank 007 clearly show the turret was blown off (unusual result if it was penetrated by a Firefly but NOT unusual if a rocket ignited the ammo in the rear turret etc) PLUS there are clear signs of a rocket hitting the rear turret/engine decking.

So, given that Wittmann was in 007 and NOT in his "normal" tank as previously thought and that tank 007 was hit from behind (and no ground forces claim to have been behind the enemy tanks) it seems logical that one of the rogue airman got the kill.

It is logical and probable IMO but still open to some debate of course.

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

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[M Hofbauer]

Steve and PeterNZ made a point that if I understood that correctly they meant to imply that coming in from behind would make it harder for the tank to outmaneuver/throw off the planes aim by swerving left/right as opposed to an attack from front where he could. I think I disagree / this is not entirely correct. I think it is not valid to apply this rationale that is applied when defeating a fast SAM or AAM onto the attack of an airplane onto a ground target. The ground target's speed (say, 20k) in comparison to the attacking aircraft's speed (say, 400k) is practically neglectable for this effect (in my opinion)(the tank when swerving covers the same amount of space whether you attack him from front or rear). Whether the aircraft attacks from the front or from the rear does not make throwing off the aim *noticeably* harder/easier. I agree though it makes a difference whether to attack the tank from rear/front as opposed to from the side. The moving tank would require leading, also Fionns point of a broad target vs. a long target make sense, as do your points re. near misses at front atacks vs. rear attacks.

PeterNZ, your quote "Being a slight slight ww2 plane grog (I fly a lot of Warbirds hehe).." leaves me puzzled. Are you referring to flying restored WW II aircraft (like, the confederate air force etc.)? or - if you are referring to that awful game "Warbirds" then surely this is a joke, right? I have seen this game *once*....that was all I needed...Anyways, 20mm was not the standard for ground attack aircraft. It might have been for the british (Typhoon, Tempest, Hurricane...ahm...IIc (?)), even there it wasn't that much standard (see the Whirlwind, or some ground attack versions of the Mosquito (57mm+7.9mm). If ever there was a "standard", then it was the .50cal for the american-designed aircraft. In this connection, I never heard anything about a P-51 equipped with *eight* .50cal MGs (unless maybe yopu mean the Twin Mustang which was neither a "P-51" nor WW II). Surely you are confusing this with the P-47?

Totally concur with Fionn re. the tactic of .50cal - equipped aircraft aiming for a stretch of road before the target for that ricochet tactic. His theory of spalling is reasonable. But here's another thing to add to this: when later the tank's armor got too thick for the tank rifles to penetrate, the gunners were instructed to aim for the small observation holes/slits in the tank (I have seen pictures of instruction leaflets). The idea was exactly that, to let a bullet enter the tank and ricochet around inside causing injury/damage. Why could it not be that -I know it would be impossible for an aircraft to aim for it, but there's a good chance that in a hail of machine-gun bullets (if the tank is in the target center of eight machine guns for one second let's approximate 80 bullets hitting on/near it) *every once in a while* one enters the tank achieving the described effects?

Another note onto "walking" rockets into the target. I have never heard of that tactic being used for WW II ground attacks. I know it's made with machine-gun / cannon fire, and I could imagine it might be possible with today's FFAR pods, but I don't think (besides never having seen/heard about it) it would be a feasible thing to do with the type and number of rockets carried in WW II. However just my opinion of course and I would be very interested in any reliable sources and stories where that was done.

now something new added to this aircraft thread: as far as I can see, the plane acts more or less like an act of god (in the AAR it did : it is neither requested by the player nor can he give it any specific orders (tanks in vicinity of...; attack strongpoint at...; enemy infantry in open between...); it's effects are more or less an arbitrary deduction of the enemy's forces strength. Well, I don't think this is a major problem and can live with it, most of the times this was how it was in real life. But maybe - just maybe - you could include an air liasion officer just like the FO's, or even if he's not represented, provide for some sort of basic communication between you as the ground commander and the aircraft in terms of:

* the aircraft is "on call" and can be requested for within a limited time frame (e.g., "aircraft on call for strike between turns 21 - 26" etc.), implemented simply as the possibility for the player to call the airstrike for the next turn

* give general orders for the attack, like the examples above, prominent targets like "tank column at X/Y" or "enemy stronghold at house / in patch of wood at X/Y" etc. This could be implemented by giving an attack order onto the selected target with suboptions much alike those for the artillery (point/area target, strafe, bomb, strafe&bomb etc.). Much like the artillery, the accuracy would depend on the air FO (liasion officer) to have LOS to the target, there would still be a certain amount of inaccuracy/wrong targettting by the plane etc. The player could then decide for himself at least roughly whether he wants the plane's targets closer to his own positions, thereby increasing however the chances of friendly casualties, or at a safe distance. The way it is now, the plane might not care for the unit that endangers your MLR and attack some wholly irrelevant target elsewhere / in the rear of the enemy.

* Maybe have an option to simply "recon" an area to extend the view of the commander player. This, as in real life, can be immensely helpful to generally scout for the enemy Schwerpunkt

*maybe -now this would be ultra- have tanks fire colored smoke to designate a target for the aircraft/or have a refertence point for ordering the aircraft ("fire at the group of houses 100m west of my smoke"). The main thing here is that it would really require the player's attention and involvement to get the aircraft to do something, and I can imagine it would be a great feature when thinking of the opposing player who suddenly sees yellow smoke pop up near his beloved Panthers (talkling PANIC here hehe)...since the aircraft doesn't strike immediately there might still be a little time to try to get it out of the area (probably not).

ok, remember, these are just ideas, you can dismiss them all and I wouldn't have a problem with it. After all, CM is a simulation of ground warfare, and the air attack is just an occasional side show. But it might be interesting and adding value.

yours sincerely,

M.Hofbauer

[DesertFox]

Friends,

Before you start up a debate who killed him and who not. I´d like to carefully advise you to only rely on what IS written AND made save by either eyewittness accounts or documents.

In this case we have 2 eyewittnesses (the doctor of sPzAbt(SS)101 and the Tiger commander who was next to Wittmanns left, who both state concurringly that Wittmann´s tank (007 since Wittmann was CO of the Abteilung) was hit by cannonfire, the tank started to smoke and the turret was where it should be. Some minutes later the fire lead to an explosion of the tank, blowing the turret off (some 5-10m behind the tank). Furthermore this wasn´t the only tank which brewed up that day. All Tigers which attacked on the right on the GRAMESNIL side of the road where knocked out. It is extremely sure that all these tanks got hits in their right flank from the Gramesnil area.

All this and a little more you can read in Patrick Agte´s book about the sPzAbt(SS)101. This is what the facts say. All else is speculation.

regards

DesertFox

P.S. Fionn would you mind to send me the Photo with a big red circle around what you presume to be the impact hole of a rocket?

[Guest PeterNZ]

In reply to Hofbauer.

I guess i didn't quite explane my 'walking' bit as far as attacks goes.

All the footage i've seen shows rockets tend to stream out either with a slight delay in launch (very slight), or in a big blob.. Now my guess is that dynamics and stuff mean a trajectory that would result in a line of hits at worse. My guess is this would favour an attack from the rear or front.

As for armaments. The 20mm was pretty standard on all british planes (which fought most of the early war right .. Although this isn't particularly relevant to the CM time frame, it is important since many planes in the euro theater were so equiped. All the spits since the II had the 20mm cannon, although i gather there was debate back and forth over the efficacy of say, 6 brownings over 2 20mm Hispano and 2 303 brownings or some such, (late war the 303's were replaced with 50cals, eg. spit XIV). The hurri IIc had a nice 4 20mm on a nimble plane, quite solidly armed.

I think it would be fair to say that the US were alone in not equiping their planes with 20mm cannon (barring the p38 and a cpl of others of course) favouring the massed firepower of 4, 6 or 8 50cals in their fighters. There's pluses and minuses on both sides of the 50cal/20mm argument and people still debate them!

As for an 8 50cal version of the p51, i -think- there was a late late war varient that used this layout, but i could be wrong. 6 or 8 50cals would be much the same if you were on the receiving end methinks hehe

Either way, if I were a p51 pilot I think i'd prefer to use one of my cpl of 500lb bombs or my rockets on any armored target. I think the richochet method would be for those particularly heroic pilots hehe!

It's interesting that the rusians did quite well with that flying brick, the p39, it's nice and large 37mm cannon was good for taking out German tanks apparently. Necesity is the mother of invention, after flying it in sims I'd hate to be stuck in the pig.

Another nice ground attack plane was a b25 varient with a 75mm (!!!!) gun in the nose, copilot would lock and load for the pilot as he attacked. Used in the PTO i gather.

I am not quite sure why we're arguing this any more, but it has been interesting as a thought puzzle. My main point would be that If i were in a jabo, i'd be wanting to surprise my target and hit it where it was vulnerable, and luckly, for a tank that's not too hard, hit it from the behind! Drop a bomb on the top and game over.

Pilots probably also liked the.. er.. familiarity .. hehe.. of coming in from behind? Snap shots across your nose suck .. whether the target is moving slowly or not you still have to lead and it's tricky. I'd guess most pilots didn't really master this skill, especially not leading rockets.

As for Warbirds, the online game, it remains the best ww2 multi-player flight sim you can get with an excellent flight model, nice graphics and great playability. It may not be to your taste, but can't please everyone eh

Act of God planes.. eee.. sounds kinda scary when they can strike like a.. er.. thunderbolt, and totally change the battle. Any chance of some counter for them? I guess they'll be 'expensive' for the allies to purchase. I'm just getting vissions of my well layed plans all going to pot because of some random plane attack! eeep!

PeterNZ

[Mike D]

I concur w/ Desert Fox here. I don't have time to go in to all the details until I get home tonight and recheck the book, so I'm going from memory here (what I reread last night that is). However, it is clear from Agte's book that there was no air attack! It is in no way shape or form mentioned by any of the German eyewitnesses. And trust me, all throughout the book they make mention of darn near each any every air attack they encountered. Nor is mention made of any air attacks in the unit history of the English unit that was situated on their right flank in the tree line where the infamous Firefly was hiding.

Next, Wittmann was definitely in Tiger 007! Several German eye witnesses attest to this fact. Including one of the other Tiger commanders in the battle which climbed into his tank at the same time Wittmann did, just before proceeding with the advance. He clearly states that Wittmann went into battle in a command tank and that that tank was 007. Since Wittmann was the company commander of the 2nd company his regular tank would have been 201. This is not entirely uncommon though. In fact I believe Wittman wasn't even in his own tank at Villers Bocage. I don't remember why at the moment though(I'll have to go checke the book again tonight.) Regardless, the reason he wasn't in his normal tank on that particular day is that he had assumed command of the battalion several weeks before after H. VonWesterhagen had had to step down due to aggravations with an old head wound. In fact he hadn't even been in the thick of the fighting for the most part since is return from leave after receiving the Knight's Cross w/ Oak Leaves from the Fuhrer after his magnificant achievement at Villers Bocage. He in fact probably wouldn't have gone into battle this day either, save for the fact that that the company commander (Heurich) that would otherwise have lead them had never even seen action before. One eye witness has quoted Wittmann stating before the battle something to the effect (I'm going from memory here), "I must go, Heurich can't handle this himself".

Finally, the pictures. I don't know what pictures anyone else has seen, but Agte has two in the book that were taken by a French civilian after the battle. Supposedly these are the only two pictures in existence of any of the Tigers knocked out during the battle. One of which is a pretty darn good shot of tank 007 showing the turret blown off. First off, there isn't a single scratch on the rear of the turret. No burn/blast marks, no holes, nothing. And surprisingly, not on the right side of it either which is clearly visible in the picture since the turret is sitting on the ground upside down. This latter fact doesn't mean much, other than it is interesting since the German tanks came under fire from their right flank. It does show that this isn't where the penetrating hit occurred if nothing else. However, the fact that there are no indications on the rear of the turret of any AT or rocket hit whatsoever (not even a nearby hit which one would certainly think would leave some type of blast mark on the rear of the turret!) would also seem to indicate that there was no hit on the rear deck of the tank either. The photo also shows the rear of the tank, but unfortunately is taken from ground level so you can't see the rear deck. From what you can see though, there is absolutely no indication whatsoever of any type of rocket hit. No burn/blast marks, etc. Nothing.

My "guess" is that Wittman's tank was one of the three knocked out by the English Firefly on the Germans right flank. The English unit history clearly states that this tank took out at least 3 of the 4 Tigers on the east side of the road that were knocked out, or immobilized. The fourth was probably hit by other Shermans as it was reported to have lost a track and become immobile. The other 3 were clear kills. Most likely the Firefly round penetrated the right hull and got into the ammo store somewhere on that side. The tank then brewed up and the ammo went off blowing off the turret.

I'm not saying this is the end all conclusive story of what happened. However, it is told by eyewitnesses and references official reports and unit histories. So I think that it does hold a fairly high degree of credibility.

Mike D

aka Mikester

[This message has been edited by Mike D (edited 10-21-99).]

[DesertFox]

Friends,

Although I am very convinced about the data being presented by Patrick Agte, I am open minded and extremly eager to learn about new facts. Can anyone provide me with the source (book, other kind of written publication) wherein the rocket hit on the 007 is mentioned?

regards

DesertFox

[Hunter]

I killed Wittman (and so did my wife)

(and don't even get me started about the aussie AA gunners and the Red Baron). lol.

Bruce

[Fionn]

Do you really think Brown got him?

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

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[DesertFox]

And I´m Brian too

Seriously I only want to know some reliable sources for that rocket story. And don´t tell me AchtungPanzer! is. They don´t mention the primary source on the page.

DesertFox

[Bil Hardenberger]

M.Hofbauer:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>* Maybe have an option to simply "recon" an area to extend the view of the commander player. This, as in real life, can be immensely helpful to generally scout for the enemy Schwerpunkt<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Even in todays world this type of Air-borne real time Tactical Intelligence is non-existent. All Intel reports have to be sent to a central location(Bde/Reg/Div TOC) then analyzed and disseminated back to the appropriate echelons. Aerial Recon is more a Strategic asset than it is a Tactical one.

Real time tactical Intelligence consists primarily of SPOT reports from the soldiers on the ground and Signals Intelligence (SIGINT - intercepted enemy radio transmissions). Even so, the SPOT reports are usually held in suspicion until they can be confirmed by another source. Even SIGINT has a lag time involved that rarely lets it become a player once the enemy has been met. It is at it's best when gathering enemy dispositions and intentions before the battle even begins. I do not think that WW2 armies had anywhere near the SIGINT capability that we have today.