Tank recovery rate in CM

[Allan]

I have read that in operations some of your knocked out tanks may be recovered for future use in the operation. I was reading Ambrose's "The Victors" where he was comparing the tank recovery of the US vs. the Germans. He quoted the amazing fact that over half of all of the US tanks that were knocked out were back in the line within two days. Those that couldn't be put back in the line were scavenged for parts. That is an amazing record for the tank recovery units. It was also mentioned that the Germans didn't have anything close to those numbers. Will this advantage for the US be reflected in CM?

Allan

[Guest Username:]

Aint so amazing considering the germans were giving up ground. The germans blew up alot of vehicles because they couldnt hold the ground they were on.

In game terms, whoever holds the ground at the end keeps the spoils.

Screw Ambrose. His books are like bad quilts.

Lewis

[Keith]

All Ambrose does is interview ALLIED veterans, whose memory is fallable at this date, and prints their view as solid fact. He then recycles stuff from other classic WWII books and, voila, he pumps out a new book. Half the time he even gets the recycled stuff wrong. I opened up two of his books on random pages and found two factual erros. He referred to the Panzer Lehr as an SS division (!) and in another case stated the Germans had a 57mm AT gun.

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Username::

In game terms, whoever holds the ground at the end keeps the spoils.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Have to agree with Lewis here. I read a book about the Afrika Korps years ago, where they described these operations in some detail, and the author said the single most stupidest guy there was some captain who ordered the tank repair unit to fight a delaying regard action after El Alamein, where they duly got wiped out. At that stage of the war, the Germans were really good at recovering stuff.

------------------

Andreas

It is amazing what you can learn from a good book...

[sage]

Whatever the qualities of Ambrose's reliance on anecdotal evidence, I believe that it IS true that the Germans were not nearly as good at repairing their tanks in the field. This was especially true of later model tanks, such as the Panther. The reason for this is that the Germans had a fragmented system of manufacturing, which meant that most tanks were one-of-a-kind, with slight variations of the different parts (eg, one might have a crank shaft made at one company, another made at another company, and both crankshaft machined by an expert machiner to actually fit due to deviance from spec).

As I understand it, this system went back to decisions made about how to treat factories and businessmen in pre-war Germany, although I don't understand this issue clearly at all.

What this meant, though, was that it was harder to scavenge one tank for parts (as there was lots of small variation that would keep them from working well in the "same" model), and that a tank with damage to the engine could easily have to be shipped all the way back to Germany in order to be fixed.

Finally, the general greater technological complexity of German tanks meant that they were more difficult to service in the field.

All of this equated to a much reduced ability to service and recover tanks in the field. By no means impossible, just more difficult.

Anyone with better info care to back me up?

Sage

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Allan:

I have read that in operations some of your knocked out tanks may be recovered for future use in the operation. I was reading Ambrose's "The Victors" where he was comparing the tank recovery of the US vs. the Germans. He quoted the amazing fact that over half of all of the US tanks that were knocked out were back in the line within two days. Those that couldn't be put back in the line were scavenged for parts. That is an amazing record for the tank recovery units. It was also mentioned that the Germans didn't have anything close to those numbers. Will this advantage for the US be reflected in CM?

Allan<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[tosmart]

Stephen E Ambrose is a **** head, i got a book he made and he writes

"The German Phanter , a medium tank, carried the best cannon of the war, the 88-millimeter"

[Aacooper]

I can't actually back sage up, but his post makes sense (to me)given

a) The large repair facilities inside Mercedes factories (at least as late as the late '80's) -- i.e. the German engineering reputation isn't the same as the German quality reputation.

The US repair rates of Korean War tanks -- Shermans were repaired more quickly than M26's & M46's. Part of that was due to the unfamiliarity of the newer tanks, part due to their complexity, part due to the available of parts for a greater variety of AFV's.

The German engineers I've worked with were very good, but look at where Volkswagen stands in the J.Power quality rankings. VW doesn't have the same large repair areas as the luxury brands.

[Keith]

I agree that the American equipment was superior from a logistical point of view, in the sense that many of the parts were interchangeable, and their were a finite number of models. But most importantly, America in general during this time period was much more industrialized and the automobile was ubiquitous as compared to pre-war Germany. In other words, we had more technical know how and skilled mechanics and people familar with driving. In addition, the Germans were using slave labor to build their weapons, and of course there was sabatoge. Would you believe the Germans never required women to work to take mens places in the factories. There were no "Rosy The Riveters".

[tosmart]

"we had more technical know how and skilled mechanics"

The germans build ther best tanks the best cannons, the best airplaens (jet) The only rockets of the war

The only thing the Americans had going for them was that they had alot of every thing"

"and people familar with driving"

???? Driving A 15 years old girl can learn to drive in a day and driving a car and a tank is not the same, it is not the skill of driving that makes a tank driver good it is knowing where and when to drive and where and when not to drive

[Howitzer]

Keith wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I opened up two of his [stephen Ambrose's] books on random pages and found two factual erros.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your obvious dislike for Ambrose aside, Allan's re-statement of Ambrose's "fact"...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>He quoted the amazing fact that over half of all of the US tanks that were knocked out were back in the line within two days.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

...IS backed up by others.

Have you read "Death Traps : The Survival of an American Armored Division in World War II", by Belton Cooper? He LIVED probably the job that probably provides the best perspective on this issue (from the American side). He handled replacement tanks and recovery and repair of damaged tanks, he was at the front and in the service depots. Excellent reading, and supportive of Ambrose's statement.

Also, what surprises me most isn't the rate at which US tanks were replaced...it's the great lack of qualified crew in 1945...our armored divisions were scraping up crews straight out of the infantry ranks.

Steve C.

[Seanachai]

Double post, double post! Why can't we delelte our own double posts?

[This message has been edited by Seanachai (edited 05-22-2000).]

[Seanachai]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy:

Have to agree with Lewis here. I read a book about the Afrika Korps years ago, where they described these operations in some detail

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've read the same, that at the time (and from Britisher sources), said one of the advantages the Afrika Korps had was that they were far better at recovering vehicles from the battlefield post-combat, and getting them, whatever their origin, back into combat. Please keep in mind that the VW bug was designed in Hitler's Germany (because Hitler was supposedly incensed by America's domination in this area), and from friends who owned original VW vehicles (NOT modern, high-tech VWs, but the original, buy-a-spiral-bound-manual-and-replace-every-

aspect of your engine), they were simple and quick to repair. I believe others are correct in saying that as the war progressed, vehicles became increasingly high-tech, complicated, and (like modern vehicles), 'proprietary' in terms of the parts and technology needed to keep them operating. Certainly many German generals have chipped in post-war to bitterly lament the (almost bizarre) proliferation of vehicle types and solutions the Reich came up with in the latter years.

------------------

After witnessing exceptional bravery from his Celtic mercenaries, Alexander the Great called them to him and asked if there was anything they feared. They told him nothing, except that the sky might fall on their heads.

[Doug Beman]

Another factor against the Germans was their emphasis on production of complete vehicles at the expense of spare parts. I've read a couple books (one by Macksey, the other by somebody whose name I forget) that state that many vehicles that damage at the front just severe enough to require rear-area care arrived at the repair facility as total losses due to their being stripped of anything usable on the way.

DjB

[Lanzfeld]

The Americans also had going for them the fact that they were the best fighting men on earth.

[Allan]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tosmart:

"

The germans build ther best tanks the best cannons, the best airplaens (jet) The only rockets of the war The only thing the Americans had going for them was that they had alot of every thing"

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I read in Ian Hogg's book, "German Secret weapons" that while German engineering was very advanced, they tended to over engineer everything. Thus making things overly complex and hard to service in the field. While the US took a lesson from its auto industry by keeping it relatively simple and easy to service. That combined with the the fact that most US soldiers had at least some experience with engines/driving allowed for more repairs in the field. This makes sense since at the time of the war in Germany, the automobile had not become entrenched in modern life as it had in the US. In fact, the German army was basically still horse drawn, unlike the Allies. BTW, I believe both the English (Gloster?) and the Germans (Heinkel)were credited with the invention of the jet engine in the early 30's. Also, German rocket design had its foundation in the early work of Dr. Robert Goddard, an American.

Allan

[Howitzer]

tosmart said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The germans build ther best tanks the best cannons, the best airplaens (jet) The only rockets of the war

The only thing the Americans had going for them was that they had alot of every thing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The US DID have alot of everything, that's just the point. As a country, the US was FAR more industrialized. Industrialization breeds production which breeds "alot" of stuff! Personally, in the case of WWII, that was a VERY GOOD THING.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>???? Driving A 15 years old girl can learn to drive in a day and driving a car and a tank is not the same, it is not the skill of driving that makes a tank driver good it is knowing where and when to drive and where and when not to drive<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

tosmart, I think you are missing the point...the US quickly adapted to a industrialized (re: tractors, etc.) farming system, earlier than any other country...they did this at a time when families live in mostly rural farmland and still had large family sizes (number of children)...when WWII came around, the number of draft/volunteer age young men with signficant, practical, hands on experience in fixing or even making machinery of one sort or another was VERY high. In situation after situation, it was ingenuity drawn from experience that gave the US troops (as a whole) the edge when it came to matters or practical mechanics, and hence, tank repair.

And, yes, most of the kids that were in the Army already knew how to drive, and in many instances, drive NON-automobiles, such as tractors, combines, plows, bulldozers, etc. Again, nothing to be scoffed at! I'm glad they did!

BTW, I noticed your main interests are yourself...interesting indeed.

Also, don't you really want to be toosmart, and not tosmart?

Steve C.

[Bullethead]

US tanks weren't as standardized as this thread might lead one to believe. Due to the bottleneck of engine production, different civilian factories converted to tank production were allowed to put their own motors in their tanks. This usually entailed different transmissions as well. This policy led to several variants of the Sherman alone reaching volume production:

M4 and M4A1: Wright Whirlwind 9-cyl radial (about 13,000 built with 75mm gun)

M4A2: twin GMC 6-cyl deisels (over 8000 built with 75mm gun--most sent out Lend-Lease)

M4A3: Ford GAA V-8 (nearly 5,000 75mm built)

M4A4: Chrysler 30-cyl A-57 Multibank engine (7500 built--nearly all sent to Brits)

So the Allies all had to contend with maintaining and repairing these different motor systems, and the Brits had the added complication of different types of fuel. That they were apparently able to do so very successfully indicates not only mechanical expertise in the field but also very well-organized logistical systems stretching across oceans back to the US factories.

------------------

-Bullethead

jtweller@delphi.com

WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

[Guest Seimerst]

Great discussion on the topic. To answer your question, IIRC, there will be no vehcile recovery option in the game. With each "turn" being one minute of "real time combat", no scenario seen thus far is long enough for things to cool down enough for the recovery team to get to work.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Allan:

I have read that in operations some of your knocked out tanks may be recovered for future use in the operation. I was reading Ambrose's "The Victors" where he was comparing the tank recovery of the US vs. the Germans. He quoted the amazing fact that over half of all of the US tanks that were knocked out were back in the line within two days. Those that couldn't be put back in the line were scavenged for parts. That is an amazing record for the tank recovery units. It was also mentioned that the Germans didn't have anything close to those numbers. Will this advantage for the US be reflected in CM?

Allan<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Renaud]

The mistake of indicating a Panther as armed with a 88 was also made by Charles B. MacDonald in his book about the Huertgen Forest battles. The proliferation of this error might be due to people all referencing a bad source, or referencing each other and doing no primary research.

I consider the books buy MacDonald to be more entertaining and grittily realistic than Ambrose but they both have faults.

For really top notch writing and historical accuracy see anything by Max Hastings. Notable: 'Overlord: D-Day and the Battle for Normandy'...much better than Ambrose's D-Day book.

-Ren

[Guest Babra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lanzfeld:

The Americans also had going for them the fact that they were the best fighting men on earth.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

yawn.

[sage]

My point was that these problems were minimal compared to the problems the German tanks had. For 10 Panther tanks, there were ten engine variants -- each one very close to another, but different in the detailed machining. In otherwords, they were more like BMWs than fords -- friggin' expensive to fix, and if you take any where but a BMW place, you'll get screwed.

Sage

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bullethead:

US tanks weren't as standardized as this thread might lead one to believe. Due to the bottleneck of engine production, different civilian factories converted to tank production were allowed to put their own motors in their tanks. This usually entailed different transmissions as well. This policy led to several variants of the Sherman alone reaching volume production:

M4 and M4A1: Wright Whirlwind 9-cyl radial (about 13,000 built with 75mm gun)

M4A2: twin GMC 6-cyl deisels (over 8000 built with 75mm gun--most sent out Lend-Lease)

M4A3: Ford GAA V-8 (nearly 5,000 75mm built)

M4A4: Chrysler 30-cyl A-57 Multibank engine (7500 built--nearly all sent to Brits)

So the Allies all had to contend with maintaining and repairing these different motor systems, and the Brits had the added complication of different types of fuel. That they were apparently able to do so very successfully indicates not only mechanical expertise in the field but also very well-organized logistical systems stretching across oceans back to the US factories.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[RobVarak]

Everybody raves about Hastings, but I found Overlord to be laughable in its ceaseless praise of the Germans.

He bases a fair amount of his work on Paul Carell's Invasion , which was one of the most disappointing things I've read lately. Carell has some wonderful first person accounts and anecdotes, but he mars the work by simplistic negative criticism of the allies. While they are both more careful in their technical accuracy, both come of almost like Ambrose from the "other side of the hill".

I'd still recommend both though. It's nice to know what's out there.

------------------

Rob Varak

Editor

Site on Sound: The Web's Premier Site For Musical Discussion www.siteonsound.com

[This message has been edited by RobVarak (edited 05-23-2000).]

[This message has been edited by RobVarak (edited 05-23-2000).]

[This message has been edited by RobVarak (edited 05-23-2000).]

[Lt Bull]

As Howitzer has already mentioned, an entire book has been written by Belton Cooper about his experience as a young ordnance lieutenant involved in vehicle recovery in the 3rd Arm Div in Europe after D-Day. (Death Traps, The Survival of an American Armored Division in WW2). Excellent reading!

His job was to travel with the combat units during the day and assist in coordinating the recovery, repair, and evacuation of the battle-damaged tanks. He is believed to have probably made more ordance inspections and witnessed more battle damaged tanks than anyone else in any war.

The book indicates that during his time after D-Day at least, the German army did not have a fully functional/organised vehicle recovery system that was anywhere near as efficient as that in place in the US armored divisions.

Numerous reasons for this.

1) The Germans were generally the ones who were LOSING ground and being overrun, so KOed tanks were generally abandoned and got captured without any hope of returning to them and recovering them. Also, safe collection points and maintenenace areas are required to be established. It was difficult to do this when you are losing ground everyday.

2) The Allied air superiority made battlefield vehicle recovery all the more dangerous and impractical for the Germans (let alone for the German armor in general). Even at night, precautions had to be taken to limit the amount of light attracting attention from the air and ground.

3) The logistics of having a well trained/equiped vehicle recovery team within the German army at that time was just not as feasible given the strain on men and resources.

It would seem that the German system in place was at best haphazard.

It would seem logical that any recovery model of vehicles from the battlefield in CM operations is surely dependant on who owns the turf at the end of the day. Allied recovery/repair should be significantly more EFFICIENT than German recovery I would think (for the reasons mentioned above). Perhaps weather (air visibility) and local air units might affect things as well.

Just out of interest, I will relay some details from the book as to how the US armored divisions organised themselves and the recovery/repair of vehicles:

Cooper explains that once an armored division deployed to exploit a breakthrough, it moved out with 2 combat commands abreast (1 in reserve), with Div HQ and division train following.

Each CC consisted of:

HQ

Recon Co

2x Tank Bn (2x medium Co, 1x light Co)

Armored Inf Bn

Armored Field Arty Bn (18 M7s)

Armored Combat Engineer Co

Ordnance maintenance Co

Medical Co

Supply Co

The division trains consisted of:

Div HQ

the Ordnance Bn HQ Co

the Medical Bn HQ Co

the Suppy Bn HQ Co

A heavy armored division had attached to it an AA Bn, and a Hvy Arty Bn (155mm).

The CCs contained 2 separate task forces, moving parallel. During daylight hours, each task force had available 4 P-47s under the direct control of an air force liason officer who rode in the lead half-track with the task force commander. The task force's mission was to advance rapidly towards it's objective, leaving any resistance to be cleaned up later by the infantry (2hrs to 2 days).

At night the combat elements would coil off the road and form a circular perimeter. The tanks and infantry would form the outer perimeter and the maintenance, medical and supply units the inside, where they could do their work. At daybreak, when the combat units moved out, the maintenance unit commander had to make certain critical decisions. All vehicles repaired and ready for action would be returned to their units. All others would be towed to the next stopping point.

If there were more vehicles than the wreckers could accomodate, a vehicle collecting point (VCP) was established. The ordnance company commander would detach a maintenance platoon to establish the VCP and repair the vehicles that were left behind. This could take several days. During this period, the maintenance platoon would be completely isolted behind enemy lines and responsible for it's own security.

After the vehicles were repaired, they returned to their original units, and the maintenance platoon went forward to rejoin the ordnance company. In some instances, there would be several VCPs along the route of advance. As soon as any platoon finished its repairs, it would leave the others and return to the company.

By utilising this system, plus the replacement vehicles brought up each day by the ordnance liason officer, the CC was able to maintain its effectiveness during long, continuous operations.

Lt. Bull

[Allan]

Well, last night I read from Ambrose's book "The Victors" that the Soviet T-34 tank was originally an American design. This comes as news to me. Anyone care to comment?

Allan

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Allan:

Well, last night I read from Ambrose's book "The Victors" that the Soviet T-34 tank was originally an American design. This comes as news to me. Anyone care to comment?

Allan

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

IIRC there was an American tank designer who went to the Soviet Union in the early 30s (forgotten his name). I am quite sure he designed some tanks, maybe the T-26. About the T-34, I somehow doubt that. But doubtless lessons from earlier tanks were included, so maybe that was the US input. Someone here ought to know all about it, or maybe it is in Fionn's article about Soviet tank design over at CombatHQ.

------------------

Andreas

It is amazing what you can learn from a good book...