Richard III Posted March 9, 2000 Share Posted March 9, 2000 Here are some more nice links to Ferdinand/Tiger (P) stuff.... http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz6.htm http://members.tripod.com/~fingolfen/tiger/vk4501p.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howitzer Posted March 9, 2000 Share Posted March 9, 2000 I know! I know! (hand raised high)... With a Ferdinand or Elefant gun! (smiling proudly) Steve C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maus Posted March 9, 2000 Share Posted March 9, 2000 By pure coincidence I am reading A Time For Trumpets by Charles MacDonald and the following is paraphrased from the To Relieve Bastogne chapter (page 521 in my copy): <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Advancing on Chaumont (Dec 23, 1944) 4 US Armored Div.'s CCB encountered a company of the 5th Parachute Div supported by 10 assult guns and (what the Amis believed to be) 5 Tigers. It seems that earlier that morning the headquarters of the 26th Volksgrenadier Div. had recieved 5 Ferdinands attached to the 653 Heavy PanzerJager Battalion that were destined for Alsace but were diverted to the Ardennes. Colonel Kokott, commander if the 26th Div. sent these tank destroyers to blunt the 4th Armored Div.'s drive.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Now I don't really care if the Ferdinands are modeled in CM or not but just for arguements sake I thought that I would present this material. If anyone has more insight into this particular incident or into MacDonald's reliability in general.... fire away! Cheers!, maus [This message has been edited by Maus (edited 03-08-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted March 9, 2000 Share Posted March 9, 2000 Hmm... well, we need someone who bought the Shiffer book on the 653rd Everything that I have on my shelf, and mind you none of it is as detailed as the Shiffer book, says that the 653rd fought in Italy. Other books state that the Elephants (one mistake that McDonald made at least is the name) were all moved to Italy and finished the war there. No mention of any move, especially a high profile one like the Bulge. The Germans weren't into penny packeting vehicles like this, so it makes no sense to have just 5 vehicles going up to the Bulge and the rest staying in Italy. And if the WHOLE 653rd moved up I would not have 4 out of the 4 sources I just checked saying that it fought only in Italy after moving out of Russia. I'm not saying he is wrong, but my sources in front of me do. I'm thinking that he must be confusing the Elephant with the Jagdtiger. It is very possible that the Jagdtiger would have been there. In fact, and I might be wrong, I am pretty sure that the 653rd was outfitted with JTs because they didn't have enough Elephants on hand. So it is possible that part of the 653rd was withdrawn from Italy, WITHOUT its equipment (this is how Germany did things for years), outfitted with JTs, and moved into the Bulge. McDonald found out the 653rd was in there and then assumed that they had Elephants. That's my theory Steve [This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 03-08-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Fox Posted March 9, 2000 Share Posted March 9, 2000 It would be a gross oversimplification to blame German munitions production problems merely upon Hitler's reluctance to adopt a wartime economic footing which I might add was a largely political decision which in itself had some merit (though not of course in hindsight ). Indeed there is some evidence that the widely held belief that Germany did not move to a full war economic status until 1943 is in fact at least partially mistaken. Nor can they be adequately ascribed to shortages of specific raw materials. Such views are reminiscent of the "Hitler's Fault" theory of German military failure. As such they are equally unbalanced and are an essentially worthless version of the wistful vision of a defeated nation and therefore of no service to responsible historical research. Speer's work is certainly of great historical value and interest but it is fundamentally a personal justification as are the memoirs of Manstein, Guderian etc and as such must be considered in it's proper context. In fact the German economy was inherently quite weak and totally incapable of sustaining her war effort. Furthermore the Nazi management of the economy was generally deplorable and characterised by gross inefficiencies and misdirection of resources. Certainly some significant production increases were acheived under Speer's control. But these increases were not necessarily translated into increased delivery to the frontline troops and paled into insignificance when compared with the massive increases acheived by their opponents economies. Every now and again statements along the line of "What they could have acheived if Hitler hadn't done...." crop up which I find extremely distasteful and ignorant as if the allies sailed through WWII without a single blunder If they had correctly identified the weaknesses in the German economy and directed the strategic bomber offensive at them earlier it is quite possible that Germany could have been crushed much earlier. Hindsight is a wonderful thing eh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted March 9, 2000 Share Posted March 9, 2000 One thing that Kettle Black hit upon... ground pressure. Most of the German and Allied tanks going into their first winters sucked. Tracks were too narrow. The Germans fixed this by introducing special tracks for older vehicles and making wider tracks for new ones standard. The Allies also got on the ball and introduced wider tracks as well. Soviets were much more on the ball from the start. So yes, the heavier the tank the more likely it will become stuck in mud, sand, or snow. Worse, once stuck the heavier the vhehicle is the harder it is to get OUT There is a famous picture of THREE 8 ton HTs towing one Tiger. Dang I think the more important thing was to have fewer models rather than fewer numbers of vehicles. As for Fionn's idea of fewer but bigger tanks? I wouldn't necessarily agree. Some of the reasons are above. Bigger is harder to maintain and keep running PER VEHICLE, so it doesn't matter how many you have. In fact, if you have only these sorts of vehicles then you can count on a large number being out of service at any one time. So not only to you start out with fewer tanks, but you wind up with even less. Although fewer tanks could have been maintained better because of more spare parts etc., the fact is that the engines, drive trains, and suspensisons were overworked and overloaded so breakdowns would still happen just as frequently. The difference is that they could more likely be repaired quicker. Owning an MV myself, I have to tell you that you can pick up MBTs for practically no money. A Cheiftan, for example, costs about $20k less than a M5A1 Stuart in the US. Why? Because the MBTs need so much maintanence and MAJOR spare parts that hardly anybody wants to own one. I know I don't Steve P.S. Oh, and as many of you know, I am a supporter of more tanks (i.e. Allies) vs. fewer and better ones (i.e. Germans), so there is that whole can of worms too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KwazyDog Posted March 9, 2000 Share Posted March 9, 2000 "The Germans fixed this by introducing special tracks for older vehicles and making wider tracks for new ones standard. " On that note (though Im sure Steve already knows this ) Ive also read that when the Tigers were first introduced they had a problem with their very closely spaced road wheels. The problem was that they would get jammed with mud which would freeze overnight into a pretty much solid block of ice, immobilising the vehicle. This is why frequently on photos of them in action on the Russian front youll notice the very front road wheel is removed, which was apparently the worst offender. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattias Posted March 9, 2000 Share Posted March 9, 2000 Regarding the Elefants in the Ardennes, Bit of support for Steve’s theory. Spielberger, who is a reliable source as far as I have seen, says the following: The Elefants in Italy was 1. Kompanie / s.Pz.Jg.Abt 653 (11 vehicles, 3 possibly following?) which arrived in late February 1944. On the 26th of June the company was ordered to send it’s repair and recovery unit to link up with the parent unit, now fighting in Russia. The remaining Elefants stayed in Italy (no exact figure given, but the last month in Italy around 2 or 3 vehicles were typically combat ready at any given day). The rest of the 653 fought in Russia from April to the 3d of August when they left for RnR in Krakau, at this point 14 Elefants were available for the unit. These 14 were combined into one company and went back into the line on the 19th of September 1944 (17. Armee, Heeresgruppe A). No losses were sustained during September and October. In October the 653 was ordered back to rearm with Jagdtigers. After this all remaining Elefants were handed over to the 614th s.PzJg.Abt, the only remaining Elefant unit except possibly for the odd ones in Italy. This unit fought on to the end on the east front. Now, the source mentioned by Maus states that the engagement took place on the 23d of December. At this time Spielberg places elements of the 653d near Blankenheim (at the time 18km behind the front) with 6 Jagdtiger, not being committed to battle. They were intended for but not used in Wacht am Rein. The first use of the Jagdtiger seems to have been on the 31st of December in support of the 17th SS PzG Div, as part of operation Nordwind. Just one more source to ponder. M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Christensen Posted March 9, 2000 Share Posted March 9, 2000 Somewhere I've got a xerox of an article in Armour from 1944/45 that has an account of an M10 taking out a Ferdinand in Italy. Kevin Christensen Lawrence, KS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted March 9, 2000 Share Posted March 9, 2000 Good stuff Mattias. Just for those who didn't know, the Germans from about 1943 on generally had units transferring between fronts leave their heavy equpipment behind for other units to use. Since all units were pretty much always understrengthed, and no reserves either, the remaining units were only too happy to get the hand me downs. When the unit got to its new front they sat around and waited to be rearmed with generally a combo of new and hand me downs. This made a lot of sense logistics wise. Instead of, say, shipping 50 PzIVs to Russia as replacements, then ship 50 PzIVs all the way to France with a relocating unit, they could simply ship 50 to France and skip the longer trip into Russia AND the trip from Russia to France. Kevin, that must have been an interesting engagement to say the least! Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted March 9, 2000 Share Posted March 9, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Steve P.S. Oh, and as many of you know, I am a supporter of more tanks (i.e. Allies) vs. fewer and better ones (i.e. Germans), so there is that whole can of worms too <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And, as many of you may know, I'm a major supporter of barely mobile but massively armed and armoured fortresses . We'll have to settle this in a PBEM one day Steve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GriffinCheng Posted March 10, 2000 Share Posted March 10, 2000 Fionn, As a sarcastic bystander, please let us know how your duel with Steve over PEBM going. Griffin @ work Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted March 10, 2000 Share Posted March 10, 2000 Well, considering Fionn was the first human I played against in CM, it was in a city, he had just as much infantry as I did, yet he was defending, had 5 Panthers and a pillbox, loads of MGs, and all I had was crappy Shermans and so so infantry with no artillery support... I think I did pretty well I got at least a Draw if not better (we called it quits when my reserves came in). Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted March 10, 2000 Share Posted March 10, 2000 LOL. As Reagan would say. "I have no recollection of this PBEM game." (When all else fails a carefully regimented programme of repression and denial works wonders ) Aye, Steve is a tough player.. I VERY much want to play him again in an open field scenario and see how we do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Posted March 10, 2000 Share Posted March 10, 2000 Hehe. I want to see the AAR for that one when it happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted March 10, 2000 Share Posted March 10, 2000 You're on as soon as we get this sucker out the door Oh, and whoever makes the scenario up for us had better give me something more than crappy Sherman 75s vs. Panthers No, I don't need a Pershing to beat you my friend, but an M10 or two before turn 20 would be nice! Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted March 11, 2000 Share Posted March 11, 2000 You're on... Of course, with your luck with Lower Front Hull hits you don't need 76s .. Those damn 75s did the job frontally for you . No jabos and comparable tanks. You got yourself a deal . Hell, we should just make a DYO or a deal on points allocation and buy our "ideal" forces . Could have the scenario designer place them on the map for us . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EScurlock Posted March 11, 2000 Share Posted March 11, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fionn: ...Now, if only I could get a proper, realistic WW2 Grand Strategy game with realistic production imperatives I could test this all out.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Amen Halleluyah Let it be so! BTS: If you ever deside to expand your workforce I think you're just the people to make this happen! ------------------ He who gets there the fastest with the mostest wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spider Posted March 12, 2000 Share Posted March 12, 2000 r u irish fionn? ------------------ This is my rifle, this is my gun. This ones for killing, this ones a tasty alternative to turkey at christmas..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted March 12, 2000 Share Posted March 12, 2000 Taim, cen fath ? ( impossible to do fadas in this script unfortunately ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spider Posted March 15, 2000 Share Posted March 15, 2000 kewl, I wasnt being serious in the kung foo grip post, not disrespect to cm, i love the game, i was slagging console wanna be wargames, ------------------ This is my rifle, this is my gun. This ones for killing, this ones a tasty alternative to turkey at christmas..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts