Jump to content

German Panzer Grenadier doctrine


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Badger73 said:
4 hours ago, akd said:

Best possible use of a GoPro:

<snipped>

I noticed that there is no sound of incoming shells before rounds detonated on the target area.

I noticed the same, but then again I assume the camera is placed in a fortified box of some kind, as it seems to take several very close hits and keeps filming. Also the explosions sound quite dim. So I'm thinking the box dampens the sound quite a lot, possibly making it impossible to record the whistling... this is of course just guesswork on my part.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/20/2020 at 11:56 AM, MOS:96B2P said:

+1 My friend.  Thanks for posting that video.  I'd seen the mention of this video before but never watched it until you posted it.  Interesting stuff.  I think I'll look for more videos by this guy.  

Here's my favorite:

 

Edited by General Jack Ripper
Link to post
Share on other sites

At 54:25 he says the 75mm Shermans dealt fine with Ferdinands, Panthers, and Tigers, etc. in Italy, but if you read the reports, the Ferdinands (called Elefants at this point) were actually knocked out by artillery, mines, fell down rivers when bridges collapsed, or in many cases were blown up by their own crews. 

https://mikesresearch.com/2019/07/28/elefants-in-italy-1944/

(obviously this guy knows more about tanks than I ever will, but I thought it was odd)

Edited by Bulletpoint
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/25/2020 at 5:23 PM, Bulletpoint said:

(obviously this guy knows more about tanks than I ever will, but I thought it was odd)

Hi, I just watched him and I think he covers this with his later comments that the Sherman was successful on the strategic level.  So it was winning against these tanks. He even mentions that people focus on the tactical level. Which I think you might be falling into that trap?

So in context of his talk you should view it at the strategic level.  I.e yes for those tanks that had to face head on those uber tanks they needed a better tank, but by having more Sherman's that worked it meant that they were available for the whole front and every company fighting had support. While the German uber tanks were limited and could not be every where. They broke down / were bypassed. 

Just my interpretation of where he was coming from. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Holien said:
On 1/25/2020 at 6:23 PM, Bulletpoint said:

(obviously this guy knows more about tanks than I ever will, but I thought it was odd)

Hi, I just watched him and I think he covers this with his later comments that the Sherman was successful on the strategic level.  So it was winning against these tanks. He even mentions that people focus on the tactical level. Which I think you might be falling into that trap?

So in context of his talk you should view it at the strategic level.  I.e yes for those tanks that had to face head on those uber tanks they needed a better tank, but by having more Sherman's that worked it meant that they were available for the whole front and every company fighting had support. While the German uber tanks were limited and could not be every where. They broke down / were bypassed. 

Just my interpretation of where he was coming from. 

I understand his strategic points and agree with them. It's just that I am surprised that reports would be coming in from the front that the 75mm was dealing well with the German heavy tanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Reports sent back will be summarized from whole front and as the uber tanks were not holding up the whole front then it might have been summarized that all was good. 

He mentions in the Q&A about staff on the ground working with the crews asking questions to help inform future design. If the Sherman's had not engaged say the Elephants then they would not be reported back as an issue?

Strategic  vs Tactical  the reports he might have seen would be at Strategic level?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/20/2020 at 10:56 AM, MOS:96B2P said:

I've always been of the opinion that it was a bad idea to attempt to fight from German half-tracks in Combat Mission.  Maybe I'll give it another try :D.  

 

CM generally makes it worse than it should be just due to the limits of the animation system. Because the model represents the hit box the limited positions a model can take also creates a higher change of being hit.

While in a HT troops heads are sticking out above the top of the track. Allowing fire to rack up free kills when it would be possible for the soldiers to keep their entire bodies within the track. Additionally when firing the shooter fully stands up rather than hugging the top of the track. Fully exposing a large portion of their body to return fire when they shouldn't have to.

This exposure can be decisive in close run engagements. Especially against low morale/experience troops where getting a few early kills can quickly stack the firepower advantage in your favor (or disfavor).
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Pelican Pal said:

While in a HT troops heads are sticking out above the top of the track. Allowing fire to rack up free kills when it would be possible for the soldiers to keep their entire bodies within the track. Additionally when firing the shooter fully stands up rather than hugging the top of the track. Fully exposing a large portion of their body to return fire when they shouldn't have to.

Agreed. Also real troops would have situational awareness of ranges to potential enemy positions and the amount of incoming fire they were taking at any given moment, and make split second decisions to fire or duck back behind cover in the halftrack. Sometimes they would make the wrong choice, of course, but they would act less robotic and have a better "feel" for the tactical situation than our pixeltroops have. I see many halftrack passengers get hit and killed only after several previous shots have ben pinging off the sides of the vehicle.

My personal opinion is that while fighting from a halftrack should not make troops invulnerable, it should at least be more viable than it is in the game currently. But we all know what a personal opinion is worth.

Edited by Bulletpoint
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this film is better understood in the context of, and probably arose from, the more narrow doctrine behind the Panzer Brigades raised in late summer 1944 to contain Soviet breakthroughs.  The guidelines issued for their employment can be found in the appendix to Timm Haasler’s book on 105. Panzer Brigade:

https://books.google.com/books?id=cIH1tFC0NgsC&pg=PA504&lpg=PA504&dq=Guidelines+for+Command+and+Combat+Use+of+Panzer+Brigades&source=bl&ots=l_XekKPaA_&sig=ACfU3U3xChdS-NAflUdmRVTlwLoBK2yeFA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj9q-i1iK7nAhXLna0KHYIsAJUQ6AEwAnoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=Guidelines for Command and Combat Use of Panzer Brigades&f=false

Edited by akd
Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, akd said:

I think this film is better understood in the context of, and probably arose from, the more narrow doctrine behind the Panzer Brigades raised in late summer 1944 to contain Soviet breakthroughs.  The guidelines issued for their employment can be found in the appendix to Timm Haasler’s book on 105. Panzer Brigade:

+1.  Interesting stuff.  At a quick glance it seems like the 30 Panzergrenadier Commandments were to support these guidelines.  I now have the Kindle edition of this book so I will give it a closer look.  :)   

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...