German Tanks - MG-34s In Commander's Cupola?

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

24 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

Never said I was a military intelligence analyst. My point was whether or not it should be up to the pilots themselves and their potentially inflated egos to assess their own impact.

Historically, military intelligence hasn't been much better at assessing if something was dead or not.  

It's less cut and dry that we'd think.  Some organizations had political pressure to be VERY successful, or had training issues that made for very unreliable reporting, while others just didn't know any better.  The output remains the same though, that virtually always will damage claimed greatly outpace damage inflicted.

[Michael Emrys]

1 hour ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

It's less cut and dry that we'd think.  Some organizations had political pressure to be VERY successful, or had training issues that made for very unreliable reporting, while others just didn't know any better.  The output remains the same though, that virtually always will damage claimed greatly outpace damage inflicted.

And in the case of the 8th. Airforce bomber gunners, they were allowed to over-claim as a matter of morale building. It was tough going out day after day to slog through German interceptors in a pretty passive way (that is compared to fighter pilots who at least got to mix it up on somewhat even terms). So anything to convince themselves that they could strike back was a welcome relief.

As for fighter pilots, from my readings, nearly all air forces over-claimed by a margin of about two claimed for every actual one destroyed. But by far the worst were the Japanese who over-claimed by a margin of at least ten to one.

Michael

Edited April 5, 2016 by Michael Emrys
Further thoughts.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

30 minutes ago, Michael Emrys said:

And in the case of the 8th. Airforce bomber gunners, they were allowed to over-claim as a matter of morale building. It was tough going out day after day to slog through German interceptors in a pretty passive way (that is compared to fighter pilots who at least got to mix it up on somewhat even terms). So anything to convince themselves that they could strike back was a welcome relief.

As for fighter pilots, from my readings, nearly all air forces over-claimed by a margin of about two claimed for every actual one destroyed. But by far the worst were the Japanese who over-claimed by a margin of at least ten to one.

Michael

Since we've wandered into that swamp, I did a lot of reading on the end of World War Two in the Pacific back in February.  It's mind boggling how much the Japanese overstated their damage on Allied forces, and worse, based major strategic choices on those claims.  What's funny now is when you deal with folks who take those estimates as historical reality showing up in places.  I ran into someone claiming a whopping whole two Type 97 tanks held off an entire Marine Battalion and destroyed 40+ M3 Stuart tanks on Corregidor before being withdrawn to fight another day elsewhere in the Philippines circa 1945.  

They were not amused when I pointed out the lack of Marines, M3s, or Type 97s in the historical battle.  My "European" sources were clearly incorrect.  

[General Jack Ripper]

13 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

I ran into someone claiming a whopping whole two Type 97 tanks held off an entire Marine Battalion and destroyed 40+ M3 Stuart tanks on Corregidor before being withdrawn to fight another day elsewhere in the Philippines circa 1945. They were not amused when I pointed out the lack of Marines, M3s, or Type 97s in the historical battle.  My "European" sources were clearly incorrect.  

I have conversations like that on an almost daily basis. The amount of misinformation, and legend floating around as fact is truly absurd.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Just now, SLIM said:

I have conversations like that on an almost daily basis. The amount of misinformation, and legend floating around as fact is truly absurd.

Truly.  I got sucked into a debate about Japanese armor on a whole.  My brain hurt by the end of it simply because how something that was so historically irrelevant and really not at all that good could have such a die hard fan club.  I have to wonder if the Axis and Soviet fan clubs benefit somewhat from how much of their "source" material is less than truthful while much of the Allies actions and equipment is seen through a much more starkly realist viewpoint.  

[General Jack Ripper]

1 minute ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

My brain hurt by the end of it simply because how something that was so historically irrelevant and really not at all that good could have such a die hard fan club.

To be honest, I think it is the propagation of games like World of Tanks that's doing the most damage. It's great that they've rekindled so much interest in the subject matter, but now we have lots of people out there whose only expertise is that which they have gained by playing the game.

2 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

I have to wonder if the Axis and Soviet fan clubs benefit somewhat from how much of their "source" material is less than truthful while much of the Allies actions and equipment is seen through a much more starkly realist viewpoint.  

Trouble is, a lot of historical documentation, whether true or false, didn't survive Communism. Meanwhile, here in the west, everything in the archives has been declassified, and freely available for many years now.

It's like Harry Yeide found out when he went to the German national archives. A lot of the materiel in there hasn't seen the light of day since 1945.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Just now, SLIM said:

To be honest, I think it is the propagation of games like World of Tanks that's doing the most damage. It's great that they've rekindled so much interest in the subject matter, but now we have lots of people out there whose only expertise is that which they have gained by playing the game.

Trouble is, a lot of historical documentation, whether true or false, didn't survive Communism. Meanwhile, here in the west, everything in the archives has been declassified, and freely available for many years now.

It's like Harry Yeide found out when he went to the German national archives. A lot of the materiel in there hasn't seen the light of day since 1945.

I'm going to certainly have to agree with the World of Tanks comment.  The interest is great, but it's like Jurassic Park to actual paleontology.  

[Sublime]

On the gun cam thing a couple notes. For one I dont think they were universally used and Im sure they only had so much film in them.  For two, I dont think they always worked well or as intended, and only filmed for a few seconds immediately after firing.  This is better at assessing air to air damage it would seem than air to ground, especially since 2 of your 3 air to ground weapons choices wouldnt active a gun cam.

Also, the gun cams Ive seen of ground attacks.. Well its hard to see whats going on after watching them repeatedly.  Even color ones from P51s strafing  shipping and airfields late in the Pacific which frankly is some of the best gun cam footage of the war IMO.

This isnt to say that after the primary accomplishment of the bomber offensive - destroying the Luftwaffe - that the side effect of having hordes of long ranged and medium ranged fighters that didnt have aerial opponents and therefore were prowling about shooting anything that moved with machine gun and cannon had an immense effect on travel during the day time, using main roads, morale, and destroying trucks, railroad vehicles, and soft skinned vehicles.  But tanks?  Not so much, unless napalm was used which definitely was the best AT weapon by far.

Even for using FBs for say dive bombing bridges the task was very hard.  Even as late as Vietnam the USAF had a lot of difficulty knocking bridges out with dumb bombs and if you read early reports of laser guided bombs the impact they had made a GIGANTIC impression on the air crews about how a bridge that would take several lives and dozens of missions would be dumped into a river by one bomb and one mission - FINALLY..

[Michael Emrys]

13 hours ago, Sublime said:

On the gun cam thing a couple notes. For one I dont think they were universally used...

I was just thinking about this yesterday. I can't recall ever seeing guncam footage from the Japanese and I have to wonder if they even used it. Given their practice of eliminating all "excess" weight from their fighters in order to maximize performance (early in the war most of them did not even carry radios and often their pilots did not wear parachutes), it occurs to me that they may not have even been installed.

Michael

[landser]

If I may get back to the original topic...  recently I was reading some accounts from the perspective of the Germans that were stationed in Normandy at the time of the invasion, in the static infantry divisions. One man was a machine gunner in a Tobruk near Vierville if I recall. When describing his gun mount he said something to the effect of 'it was just like the air defense mount for a panzer commander's machine gun", and went on to describe how it was mounted to the rail to allow it to rotate in any direction. I mention this only because here was a common infantry soldier who was fully aware of the commander's machine gun and how it was mounted, suggesting perhaps it was common enough for a soldier like this, who wasn't in the panzer arm, to know of it and be able to describe it in detail.

[Bulletpoint]

6 minutes ago, landser said:

If I may get back to the original topic...  recently I was reading some accounts from the perspective of the Germans that were stationed in Normandy at the time of the invasion, in the static infantry divisions. One man was a machine gunner in a Tobruk near Vierville if I recall. When describing his gun mount he said something to the effect of 'it was just like the air defense mount for a panzer commander's machine gun", and went on to describe how it was mounted to the rail to allow it to rotate in any direction. I mention this only because here was a common infantry soldier who was fully aware of the commander's machine gun and how it was mounted, suggesting perhaps it was common enough for a soldier like this, who wasn't in the panzer arm, to know of it and be able to describe it in detail.

We don't know if he was talking about German or American panzers though. He could be talking about the Sherman tank with its mounted machinegun.

[Sublime]

Even more so thats just one and only one account. Youd think there.d be more. Do you have a  citation or book or website?

Emrys I dont think the Japanese had gun cams. Nor do i think the Italians did either.  The author of Masters of the Air comments Clark Gables self made documentary Combat America has apme of the best footage anywhere of the air war over Europe as it was shot by Clark Gable himself when he was a gunner.  Im going to try and hunt down an internet copy.

Btw does any one have a list or maybe descriptions of the more notable accidental USAAF vs VVS air engagements at the end of the war?

[landser]

13 minutes ago, Sublime said:

Even more so thats just one and only one account. Youd think there.d be more. Do you have a  citation or book or website?

 

I agree and also made that point earlier in the thread. There is very little evidence of their operational use. The book was one of the volumes of the books D Day Through German Eyes by Eckhertz.

[landser]

Don't know if the direct link will work but here it is

http://www.amazon.com/DAY-Through-German-Eyes-Hidden-ebook/dp/B00VX372UE#reader_B00VX372UE

Look for the question 'What was it like to man the Tobruk?" in the Utah Beach :The Tobruk Soldier section.

 

This position was actually near Dune St Pierre according the the soldier, not Vierville as I had said. I can't find this location, so perhaps he was mistaken, or the name has been changed?

 

 

Edited April 7, 2016 by landser

[Bulletpoint]

@landser Did you read the amazon reviews of the book? Seems like there's some doubt as to whether or not this book is based on real eyewitness accounts or if it's basically fiction.

[landser]

I did not. I hope it's not another Forgotten Soldier or Iron Coffins. Disappointing if it true, but then again it's difficult to know these days.

[JonS]

3 hours ago, landser said:

I mention this only because here was a common infantry soldier who was fully aware of the commander's machine gun and how it was mounted, suggesting perhaps it was common enough for a soldier like this, who wasn't in the panzer arm, to know of it and be able to describe it in detail.

Not to pile on, but consider the context. The landser would have been in France, a non-active front for some months or years. The greatest threat - until the actual invasion - was the increasing number of US and RAF planes tooling around shooting up anything that looked interesting. The landser would also have seen panzers moving about and exercising, and they too would have been concerned about those same Jabos. I don't find it hard to believe that in the months before D-Day many panzers in France most of their time with the coax mounted on the commander's cupola, and that a lot of landsers in France saw same.

I suspect that all changed after D-Day though.

(Jon Gawne's review is fairly damning though)

Edited April 7, 2016 by JonS

[landser]

I took some time to read through the comments, and the associated comments based on Gawne's comments, and I will only say that questioning the veracity of any account is preferable to blind fatih, yet I see nothing that has convinced me these accounts are not factual. They may indeed be, and I'd love to know for sure.

It's funny, but this exact thing went through my mind when I made my posts above, that I did not know if the book was factual, and that after posting someone would tell me these books were debunked long ago. I mentioned Iron Coffins and Forgotten Soldier above, which are two books that have been challenged, and are probably either partially or wholly untrue. Sometimes it's difficult to know with any certainty, though these D Day accounts are so amazingly descriptive and interesting that I hope they are indeed true and genuine, but it might be argued that for those reasons, they may be worthy of additional scrutiny.

Edited April 7, 2016 by landser

[JonS]

5 minutes ago, landser said:

I took some time to read through the comments, and the associated comments based on Gawne's comments, and I will only say that questioning the veracity of any account is preferable to blind faith, yet I see nothing that has convinced me these accounts are not factual. They may indeed be, and I'd love to know for sure.

Fair enough.

Sometimes you have to trust experts though, and Gawne is an expert in this field. Instead of starting from the assumption that the book is factual and looking for counter evidence, why not flip that around? AFAICT there is nothing in the books that would lead one to believe they are factual. Well written; sure. Factual ...?

Edited April 7, 2016 by JonS

[Warts 'n' all]

3 hours ago, landser said:

Don't know if the direct link will work but here it is

http://www.amazon.com/DAY-Through-German-Eyes-Hidden-ebook/dp/B00VX372UE#reader_B00VX372UE

Look for the question 'What was it like to man the Tobruk?" in the Utah Beach :The Tobruk Soldier section.

 

This position was actually near Dune St Pierre according the the soldier, not Vierville as I had said. I can't find this location, so perhaps he was mistaken, or the name has been changed?

 

 

There is small hamlet called La Dune to the west of Vierville. Whether it was once called Dune St Pierre I couldn't say.

[General Jack Ripper]

50 minutes ago, landser said:

I did not. I hope it's not another Forgotten Soldier or Iron Coffins. Disappointing if it true, but then again it's difficult to know these days.

Forgotten Soldier was later verified. A highly subjective personal accounting, but the author is legitimate. I remember the discussion vaguely.

I've never heard of Iron Coffins though, is it not legitimate?

[landser]

Iron Coffins, by Herbert Warner, is another book challenged because there are many factual inconsitencies. There are, I suppose, many possible reasons for this, not necessarily because it is fiction.

I was unaware of the verification of Sajer's book. Do you know where I can read more about this?

Another book I have that has been subject to the same thing is Bidermann's In Deadly Combat.

 

[General Jack Ripper]

3 hours ago, landser said:

I was unaware of the verification of Sajer's book. Do you know where I can read more about this?

All I know is Guy Sajer was found, and he verified he actually wrote the book. Wartime records show he was part of the GrossDeutchland Division. That's all I can say.

http://members.shaw.ca/grossdeutschland/sajer.htm

There's a few reproduced articles on that page.

[Doc844]

Re. Hollywood, one of the best I've seen and I literally couldn't believe what I was seeing was in the film red tails when one ofor the Tuskagee airman dives on a German destroyer and shoots the hell out of it with his 6 .50 cal, not once but twice and flies away without a scratch and leaving the destroyer a burning pile of junk.  Never laughed so hard.  Hollywood I salute you.

[landser]

Slim, thanks for that link. Very interesting. What I think I can take from it is that Guy Sajer is in fact genuine and his book is, more likely than not, authentic. While there is nothing to prove so beyond doubt, I understand of course how details can be mistaken, I do it all the time.  Of course on one hand this understanding of factual mistakes is being used to cut Sajer slack, while on the other hand damning the D Day Through German Eyes book. I have no horse in this race, and don't mean to defend that book, only the desire to know if what I am taking to be authentic actually is.