killmore Posted March 24, 2000 Share Posted March 24, 2000 In the final version before you start the game can you "prepare" positions for your StuG so the are hull down wathing over selected area? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Posted March 24, 2000 Share Posted March 24, 2000 Well, you can deploy your units anywhere within the designated setup areas, so you can of course select a spot where you think your StuG is going to be hull down. But there is no "hull down" command as such. You can, however, literally "dig in" your armor (if the scenario designer allows). In other words, your tanks will start the game with the the hull firmly dug into the ground. 100% hull-down I'd say - with the disadvantage that you cannot move at all, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killmore Posted March 24, 2000 Author Share Posted March 24, 2000 Really? I can't move at all? Too bad. I thought I would be able to back out my tank... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dano6 Posted March 25, 2000 Share Posted March 25, 2000 Hey moon, that is like a mason who walls himself in with bricks, damn if I was the TC I would sure be pissed at my crew for digging in the tank and then backfilling it so it couldn't back out of the position. I wonder if the TC fell asleep while the digging was going on. dano6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted March 25, 2000 Share Posted March 25, 2000 The Germans picked up this trick from the Soviets. They would litterally dig in a tank in some key location. It could only be removed with a WHOLE LOT OF WORK, well outside of CM's scope. If done in the right place and in the right way they were DEADLY. There are several famous shots of a 12th SS Pz Div PzIV dug in on one of the main roads around Caen. Burried right up to the turret. It was positioned at a road junction with flat open fields in front of it. I don't know much about this, but apparently it caused a LOT of problems. The Germans even dug in a Panther at a key intersection in Köln. They tore up the cobblestones and dug a pit. Apparently this Panther caused a LOT of pain before the US managed to flank it and scored a killing shot from a better angle. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dano6 Posted March 25, 2000 Share Posted March 25, 2000 Wow, that is definitely a stange use of a complete tank. The tanks' major assets other than its firepower is its maneuverability and armor. If you bury it all the way then you lose one of those assets. I don't see why it would not leave itself an escape rout, so it could back out of the dug in hull down position. Hey, maybe the battalion commander didn't like the crew and didn't want them to have ability to bail out of a precarious position. I wonder if the tank had a driver, whats the point of him being there to be killed. Hell if I found one of these I would just call down some arty, what he going to do, move, I don't think so! dano6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kettle Black Posted March 25, 2000 Share Posted March 25, 2000 Yeah what Steve said And digging down a StuG or any other turretless (term?) tank would be a rather bad idea... -Enemy in sight! Target at one o'clock! -Uh.. -What are you waiting for! Target at one o'clock! -We're dug in Sir. -I know that! What? -Well we might be able to hit targets at 12.30 or even 11.30. Not one o'clock Sir. Sorry Sir. <Boom> Just ram em straight through a building and let the muzzle stick out. Stick some loose bricks and assorted furniture on top and voila! Armored Rubble! Lovely cammo and a great way to avoid being spotted by those pesky Tempests too Sorry. Too much sugar and caffeine. Kettle Black Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gunnerdream Posted March 26, 2000 Share Posted March 26, 2000 IIRC, the practice of burying a tank up to its turret in a strategic location was an act of desperation on the part of the defenders. The tanks in question were more than likely unable to move under their own power due to battle damage or lack of repair facilities or fuel. They were probably towed into position, loaded with a limited amount of ammo and buried. A lack of fuel would certainly mean the crew would have to crank the turret manually. I would not envy the people manning these "pillboxes". Gunnerdream...floating down through the clouds... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walt Posted March 26, 2000 Share Posted March 26, 2000 You can't have prepared positions for your vehicles? I don't know about WWII but of course you're going to put a bunch of dirt in front of your tank. The Iraquis simply pushed up sand birms with dozers. We use something like the ACE to dig a trench that the tank can back out of. Is this a post war innovation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Username Posted March 26, 2000 Share Posted March 26, 2000 Ive used an ACE to prepare whats called an improved firing position. Basically you dig it so the tank can be "track-down" from the sides and hull down from the front. The tank can easily reverse out the back. In WWII there were tankdozers in the US Army, I dont know about others. Lewis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted March 26, 2000 Share Posted March 26, 2000 Digging in tanks as I described was an act of despiration and/or putting a broken down tank to some use. As for the use of dozers to dig in tanks in WWII, I have never once heard about this being done. My bet is on this being a post war concept. And I think the US were the only ones to have dozers in WWII, 'though we probably "lent" some to the British. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Username Posted March 26, 2000 Share Posted March 26, 2000 Steve I have read of germans improving positions for armor. Steel Inferno comes to mind. Light skinned armor like Marders and such would really benefit I would assume. Improving a position entails alot of things. Clearing lanes of fire, digging in or fortifying, camoflauge, setting up alternate positions, measuring ranges, etc. All of which is perhaps hard to bring into the game. Lewis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mostro Posted March 27, 2000 Share Posted March 27, 2000 Swedish army has a tank - stridvagen (?) - with a similar shape as StuG, no turret, gun in top of hull, that has a dozer in front, allowing to get partially buried when in treat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walt Posted March 27, 2000 Share Posted March 27, 2000 Sounds fishy. I can see the laser guided bomb being developed post war, diging a hole and sticking a tank in it for a while seems a little simpler... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tss Posted March 27, 2000 Share Posted March 27, 2000 Steve wrote: The Iraquis simply pushed up sand birms with dozers. I have seen one picture taken during Summer '44 where four Finnish T-26 are positioned behind man-made sand walls. The tanks positioned on an abandoned airfield (Suulajärvi, perhaps). - Tommi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sten Posted March 27, 2000 Share Posted March 27, 2000 Mostro's right. Stridsvagn S or 103 is still in use in the Swedish army. It's fairly heavy for a turretles, 39000 kg, has a crew of 3 and has a maximum speed of about 60 km/h. Originally armed with a 105mm smooth-bore, but I think(?) some has been upgraded to 120mm. One AA 7.62mm MG and two hull mounted forward 7.62mm MG The general terrain in Sweden is more or less ideal for armoured ambushes, with forests dominating large parts of the country. The forest is interrupted by small plains and farmlands (excellent LOS) and only in the south part of Sweden do the plains ever reach the size where an ambush might be tricky due to too good LOS. This terrain and Sweden's determination to design its army as a *strictly* defensive force (sometimes overdoing it, IMHO) led to the decision to go with Stridsvagn S. If you don't count the AA MG the tank only has to show ~40 cm of its hull to be able to fire. Fantastic tank for ambushes. Sten Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kettle Black Posted March 27, 2000 Share Posted March 27, 2000 Sten, Yeah during my compulsory armed service the only combat situation we thoroughly practised was setting up ambushes. I was in an AT-platoon (Bv2062) and the one thing that always was stressed was never to engage in a stand-up fight. Only hit and run. Thought Stridsvagn S had been discontinued by now? Isn't it from the early sixties sometime? Oh well, I'm not keeping up with current events on that front anyway Btw, you don't happen to have the URL for a Swedish page on tanks? I remember reading about some tank trials done in early twenties here in Sweden which was attended by, among others, Guderian. The page included short bios on Guderian and Rommel I think, as well as some shots on the newly bought Leopard II tanks. It was some time since I last saw the page though. If you have the URL I would greatly appreciate if you could post it. Thanks Kettle Black Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark IV Posted March 27, 2000 Share Posted March 27, 2000 I remember building a model of the "S" tank in the early 1970's- a very cool design. Autoloader, can be fired by either the driver or commander- controls for steering also operated the gun... Here was some basic English info: http://home8.swipnet.se/~w-83907/strv103.html I think you're going to like this one (the Unofficial Swedish Armor Site): http://w1.500.telia.com/~u50003151/index.html This has many links although I can't read Swedish... there also seems to be a very interesting armor museum at Axvall! http://www.algonet.se/~toriert/axvall.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted March 27, 2000 Share Posted March 27, 2000 Yes, prepared defenses did entail bettering the positions of tanks. This could be anything from parking it in just the right spot to clearing out the ruins of a house and putting a tank in it. I was specifically talking about dozers driving on up to a position, making a nice little ditch in a short time, and parking a tank behind it. I'm sure some schleps did stuff like this upon occasion, but it wasn't standard. Digging in a vehicle in CM is meant to simulate intensive position preparations. This effectively leaves the vehicle tactically immobile. As for the Stridsvagn S (Swedish "S" Tank), they are indeed out of service. And much to the sadness of armor enthusiasts they are being melted down for scap metal as we speak. Pretty soon, if not already, there will only be a handful left in museums. Such a waste!! Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sten Posted March 28, 2000 Share Posted March 28, 2000 BTS, thanks for the heads-up. The last stridsvagn S was delivered during 1971 and the whole concept was based on an idea from mid fifties by a guy named Berge. I know there was some discussion of scrapping it during the late eighties, but I thought they decided to keep it for a few more years. Apparently, I was wrong. (I'm getting pretty used to that, what with all the knowledge collected on this board... Damn shame it's discontinued. It was waaaay cool. Sten Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kettle Black Posted March 28, 2000 Share Posted March 28, 2000 Thanks Mark IV! Just the stuff I was looking for. The armor museum in Axvalla, now get this, GAVE BACK the King Tiger they had to Germany a few years ago. Before I had a chance to see it too If there is something in particular you would like to see translated from a Swedish site let me know and I'll do it for you. Kettle Black, using Russian assault tactics in a small town called Reisberg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattias Posted March 28, 2000 Share Posted March 28, 2000 A bit more… The gun mounted on the “S” was a longer (L/61 methinks) version of the British L7 (rifled) gun. No 120 mm version has been used in service. It was taken out of service with the arrival of the Leo2´s in the mid 1990´s. The strengths of the design in a tank vs. tank situation were pretty much lost with the arrival of tanks using fully integrated and functional stabilisation, laser ranging, thermal sights and target computers. From then on it was reduced to being a mobile pillbox. In a fluid combat situation its abysmal thermal signature and modest mobility would have crippled it. Still survivable but a moot point in a tactical sense. It was thus finally axed, as should be, when it became a liability in the armoured formation. In peace time these things just take a little longer than they “should”. However, if this was the result of any real development in Swedish armour doctrine, or just the fact that the news toys (Leo2 and Strf 90 for example) were more fun to play with, remains unclear. Mark IV, the museum at Axvall is not exactly ideally situated but should you for some reason find yourself in those parts of Sweden you are in for a treat. As long you can live with the extremely cramped display there is a lot to be seen, unusual and lovingly cared for (many fully functional) tanks from all periods. M. [This message has been edited by Mattias (edited 03-28-2000).] [This message has been edited by Mattias (edited 03-28-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dumbo Posted March 28, 2000 Share Posted March 28, 2000 I bought a Swedish modern army (minature wargaming) when i was younger just becuase the S-Tank was the coolest tank I had ever seen I would be curious how it actually would have fared in battle. Happily it never saw action (happily becuase there wasnt a war just to clarify) _dumbo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts