kunstler Posted July 23, 2000 Share Posted July 23, 2000 I have been trying to launch assaults against both computer and PBEM opponents against heavily fortified positions, and have been taking heavy casualties. I was just wondering how other people are handling assaults/attacks like West Wall, Fire n Maneuver, or Berchtesgarden. Recon in force into an ambush is costly, but just one recon vehicle often doesn't even spot the gun that kills it. Obvious routes of advance through cover are often targeted, but routes without cover often incur high casualties as well. How do the experts do it? I read that schrecks were copied from the american bazooka, and then improved upon. What I wonder is why, with it's superior manufacturing capability, the americans didn't bother to copy the schrecks' improvements? And why did they continue to pump out Shermans when they knew they were outclassed, and refuse to equip them with the British 17 pounder? the Russians were smart enough to copy german designs, and the germans to copy and learn from soviet designs, why didn't the allies? does this have something to do with why I don't drive an american car? After reading about the landing in Normandy, and how the Germans were afraid to move during the day due to air attacks, and that Rommel also suffered terrible casualties fleeing to Tunisia in the desert from allied air power, why the heck did Saddam Hussein, with knowledge of WWII, put his tanks in the open desert and not just set his troops up to defend cities/towns where they would inflict higher casualties (like the russians in stalingrad) and result in civilian deaths that would hurt coalition support if they were bombed? Was he worried about the kuwaiti people? Hardly seems likely, he seemed pretty willing to gas his own people. What were the Iraqis thinking? I don't know a lot about military history or modern warfare really. I'm sure there is a reason, I just can't guess what it is. kunstler the inquisitive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mirage2k Posted July 23, 2000 Share Posted July 23, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>After reading about the landing in Normandy, and how the Germans were afraid to move during the day due to air attacks, and that Rommel also suffered terrible casualties fleeing to Tunisia in the desert from allied air power, why the heck did Saddam Hussein, with knowledge of WWII, put his tanks in the open desert and not just set his troops up to defend cities/towns where they would inflict higher casualties (like the russians in stalingrad) and result in civilian deaths that would hurt coalition support if they were bombed? Was he worried about the kuwaiti people? Hardly seems likely, he seemed pretty willing to gas his own people. What were the Iraqis thinking? I don't know a lot about military history or modern warfare really. I'm sure there is a reason, I just can't guess what it is.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It's important to remember that at the start of the war, no one thought Iraq would be a pushover, and no one expected the coalition to be as unified as it was. Most likely, Saddam Hussein believed he could inflict significant casualties, even in the open desert. In regard to air power, Iraq had one of the most extensive air defense systems ever built, modeled directly on that of the Soviets. In fact, the ease of which the United States and Britain penetrated Iraqi airspace surprised and distressed the Soviet general staff. -Andrew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted July 23, 2000 Share Posted July 23, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mirage2k: In regard to air power, Iraq had one of the most extensive air defense systems ever built, modeled directly on that of the Soviets. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, they also had Roland AA rocket tanks and container launchers. These achieved exercise kills of +95% in Germany in the late 1980s. They had also had kills during the first Gulf War, AFAIK. I have seen these on TV footage during the war. I have come to believe that the French must have kept some important software keys for these, basically viruses, rendering them useless against western planes. Moral of the story is - if you want to fight a war, don't use the weapons your opponents sold you beforehand. Note to Grogs: I have no documentary evidence about this, but a friend of mine worked on software development on the Roland at MBB in the mid-80s, and a lot of info came from him. Would be interested if other people have come across this. ------------------ Andreas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aacooper Posted July 23, 2000 Share Posted July 23, 2000 I'll contribute some misinformation to kunstler's other comments: The US DID build a larger bazooka later. I think it was used in Korea. I don't know how good it was or how much better it was than the initial, smaller bazooka. Why was the Sherman cranked out? There are several old threads discussing this, some reasons are narrower size fits on boats better, WW2 US doctrine not to take tanks on with tanks, and Patton's opposition to the Pershing tank. The manufacture of the 17lb gun was limited in quantity, and probably the English converted as many Fireflies as they could. I'm not a good enough CM player to give advice on attack a heavily fortified position. One opponent put a hole in mine using Stuarts and Greyhound with their "firing slit-seeking" 37mm rapid-fire guns. They happened to be quicker on the draw than the Pillbox AT gun with LOS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted July 23, 2000 Share Posted July 23, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aacooper: The US DID build a larger bazooka later. I think it was used in Korea. I don't know how good it was or how much better it was than the initial, smaller bazooka. The manufacture of the 17lb gun was limited in quantity, and probably the English converted as many Fireflies as they could. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hi, while it was a lot of fun for the GIs to watch their 2in zook rounds bounce off T34/85 in Korea, it was a lot more fun to watch the 3in zooks knock them out. This according to Toland 'Korea' or whatever his book was called. The Pommies did indeed produce only a limited number of 17lb guns. They equipped less than 1/4 of their force in Normandy with them (1 per troop of four, none for HQ troops). I read about the reaction of 7th Armoured troopers when they were informed about the Cromwells they were to be requipped with for the invasion, and they were deeply depressed, having encountered superior German armour in North Africa and Italy. This topic was covered up by the UK government, despite the efforts of at least one Labour MP to ask questions about it in the House of Commons. And boy was I lucky to knock those out. What a bastard of a battle... Gotta love Stuarts and Greyhounds... ------------------ Andreas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Michael emrys Posted July 23, 2000 Share Posted July 23, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kunstler: I read that schrecks were copied from the american bazooka, and then improved upon. What I wonder is why, with it's superior manufacturing capability, the americans didn't bother to copy the schrecks' improvements?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Probably mere inertia. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> And why did they continue to pump out Shermans when they knew they were outclassed...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This was debated in the Army. Careful calculation indicated that the alternate tank they were considering would require twice the shipping space but would not likely prove anywhere like twice as useful in combat. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> ...and refuse to equip them with the British 17 pounder?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Aacooper mentioned limits on the quantity of 17 lbers. That's likely true. Also though, I think the Not Invented Here syndrome was in full effect. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>...why the heck did Saddam Hussein, with knowledge of WWII, put his tanks in the open desert and not just set his troops up to defend cities/towns where they would inflict higher casualties (like the russians in stalingrad) and result in civilian deaths that would hurt coalition support if they were bombed?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The oilfields (which is what the war was all about) tended not to be in cities. Besides, no-one, at least on this side, says that Saddam Hussein is a strategic genius. Michael [This message has been edited by Michael emrys (edited 07-22-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PzKpfw 1 Posted July 23, 2000 Share Posted July 23, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aacooper: I'll contribute some misinformation to kunstler's other comments: The US DID build a larger bazooka later. I think it was used in Korea. I don't know how good it was or how much better it was than the initial, smaller bazooka. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The reason for the larger bazooka, was that NKPA T-34-85s were immune to the WW2 2.36in version frontaly. The first indications that the 2.36in was not adequate was when the ROK forces were badly mauled and in areas overan by NKPA Tank Inf assaults, neither the US supplied 57mm AT gun, nor the 2,36in bazook's were effective. The 2nd indication of the 2.36in bazooka's failings was when the US 24th Inf Div's Task Force Smith was badly mauled,and again the 2.36in failed vs the T-34-85. After these incidents and the innefectiveness of the M24 Chaffee,(in the initial encounter between M24s and NKPA T-34-85s only 2 M-24s out 14 survived as the M24s 75mm gun couldn't deal with the T-34-85 frontaly)3.5in 'Super Bazooka's' were developed and rushed to Korea by airlift in July of 1950, and proved more then capable of dealing with the T-34-85. Regards, John Waters [This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 07-22-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Formerly Babra Posted July 23, 2000 Share Posted July 23, 2000 17 pounders were indeed rare (relatively speaking). The Firefly variant was barely ready in time for Overlord and a rush program was needed to outfit as many as they did. In the US Army there was initial resistance to the introduction of bigger guns from the tankers themselves, who were comfortable with the 75. This didn't change until the 76 had proven itself. ------------------ It's a mother-beautiful bridge and it's gonna be THERE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sailor Malan Posted July 23, 2000 Share Posted July 23, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aacooper: The manufacture of the 17lb gun was limited in quantity, and probably the English converted as many Fireflies as they could. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes. The One Firefly per Troop (platoon) in Normandy was not some tactical masterplan to allow the Panthers and Tigers to get distracted, shooting up the 75mm versions. It was soley that there were not enough 17Lbr tanks around to have more. The ratio did climb later in the war. The 17Lbr did have some diadvantages - less ammo, which matters when fighting infantry, bigger shells, harder to load etc etc. ------------------ The conception of such a plan was impossible for a man of Montgomery's innate caution...In fact, Montgomery's decision to mount the operation ...[Market Garden] was as startling as it would have been for an elderly and saintly Bishop suddenly to decide to take up safe breaking and begin on the Bank of England. (R.W.Thompson, Montgomery the Field Marshall) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calvin Posted July 23, 2000 Share Posted July 23, 2000 Knustler, Hmmm... As obvious as it should have seemed, I wonder why Sadaam didn't fortify the cities with troops and tanks. I think the post above rings true, which states that he initially thought himself capable of fending off the allied attack. Two precedents apply here. One, Vietnam, two, the Iran-Iraq war. Sadaam made allusions several times to Vietnam. He thought he would be able to cause enough casualties to win a political victory. Remember, the Pentagons early estimates of expected casualties were 8-10,000 KIA. That's not including wounded. General Mcaffrey, our controversial drug Czar, referred to these basic causalties as the "cost of doing business." Even allowing for the terrain and superior firepower, these figures were the lowest that Vietnam era commanders would allow themselves to imagine. As for the Iran-Iraq war, as we all know this was a quagmire of the WWI variety. Many parrallels are drawn to the Great War. Neither side was able to sustain an advantage. Infantry was cut down in waves by machine guns; tanks knocked out at a distance. The susequent counterattack would be thrown back to begin the cycle anew. Sadaam assumed he would merely need to sit in defense this time to break the American publics stomach for war. No one was more shocked than the Iranians who watched the coalition army do in a matter of days what they had failed to accomplish in years of bloodshed. But again, God help us if Saadaam had fortified Kuwait instead of attempting to defend his borders. This was a political war, and there is no way that airpower could ignore civilian casualties. So it would have been house to house fighting of the worst sort and many more innocent killed. Interesting comments above. I'm always impressed with the knowledge of the vistors to these boards. Calvin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts