John Kettler Posted May 30, 2000 Share Posted May 30, 2000 First, let me say that I'm well aware of BTS's official position on why WP (white phosphorous, incendiary smoke) isn't in CM. I am also aware that one of the objections to its inclusion was the lack of accounts of its use in tanks. Well, last night I found not one but two such accounts at www.tankbooks.com/giffdarp.htm One account describes the results of hitting a German tank with WP, the other the fate of an antitank gun and crew dug into a building. The firing tank was a 76mm Sherman. I'd love some feedback from BTS and the troops on this one, please. Also, if you haven't been to www.tankbooks.com either lately or ever, then you are missing out on a tremendous information resource and scenario development treasure trove. Today, I found an account of a battle in Germany (Battle of Forsbach) as seen by a U.S. combat engineer. Mines, booby traps, bangalore torpedoes--all are here and then some. If you're German and tired of being Hector Quesada's personal target drone, you can read about what the Americans thought of being attacked by several dozen Me-109s. Then there's the use of sheets as field expedient winter camouflage for American tanks during the Battle of the Bulge and a young soldier's account of what it was like fighting German pillboxes. These are merely to tantalize you and are found in the numerous interviews and stories. TANKS FOR THE MEMORIES is a must read. Happy reading and research! May it give you much to ponder. John Kettler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus Posted May 31, 2000 Share Posted May 31, 2000 Actually John, you wouldn't believe it, but...in "Kelly's Heroes" Donald Sutherland's character called out for the use of WP in the marshalling yard scene. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L.Tankersley Posted May 31, 2000 Share Posted May 31, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maximus: Actually John, you wouldn't believe it, but...in "Kelly's Heroes" Donald Sutherland's character called out for the use of WP in the marshalling yard scene.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> STOP THE PRESSES!!! BTS, how can you leave out WP in the face of this compelling historical evidence?!?! ------------------ Leland J. Tankersley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
109 Gustav Posted May 31, 2000 Share Posted May 31, 2000 Wouldn't it be great to have WP to use against the 88s on Riesburg? You wouldn't have to worry about them very much then. ------------------ There is nothing certain about war except that one side won't win. -Ian Hamilton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted May 31, 2000 Share Posted May 31, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I am also aware that one of the objections to its inclusion was the lack of accounts of its use in tanks.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually, that isn't correct. What we have a problem with is how often WP was used in a role that either HE or Smoke wouldn't do exactly the same thing. From all that we can tell, and incidentally all the "pro-WP" folks debating us, the use was very limited. There were all sorts of things in existance that weren't either common or commonly used. There had to be real reasons why this was the case, so unless we can simulate those we rather not put in WP. Basic concept here is if we can't identify the reality of their use then it will most likley be "abused" by gamers and therefore produce ahistorical results. So on balance we feel NOT including WP makes the game overall more realistic than if we simply included it as another type of ammo. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bullethead Posted May 31, 2000 Share Posted May 31, 2000 Just a question: how much historical use data do you need before you'd feel comfortable including WP? ------------------ -Bullethead jtweller@delphi.com WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm [This message has been edited by Bullethead (edited 05-30-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobbaro Posted May 31, 2000 Share Posted May 31, 2000 Would'nt it be wonderful if someone could find an ordanance record of some supply dumps or of shipping to France etc that specify the relative amounts of the ammo available. I have followed the noise on this topic and even querried the US Army Military History folks about the issue and come up with nothing helpful. Surely someone with connections could come up with something. I am rooting for WP's inclusion, but really can't come up with one darn shread of statistical evidence. Hardly even would know where to start. What about the other ammo? Is the evidence there of equal quality? At least it is common sense to put in bunches of HE and AT stuff. WP had an antipersonell effect that smoke did not. It would stick to surfaces so that a retreating AFV doused with the stuff would carry the blinding cloud with it. I can't imagine anyone sticking around long in the choking, poisonous fumes from it ruled. Say, was there any question about the fumes and the prohibition against poison? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mch Posted May 31, 2000 Share Posted May 31, 2000 been doing some reading on the subject.... I've found alot of accounts of WP "mixed" with HE fire for arty bombardments..(ctbtry+) It was a standard tactic of most forces in WWII to mix a little smoke into their FFE's...so maybe the WP was used to"thicken" things up and block LOS at the same time... also,mortar crews subbing WP when they were low on HE(inferred:not as "valuable" as HE?) I've got some good pics. of WP bombardments.. don't know how to post them. Final conclusion(arty): pretty common.I'd like to see it included(arty) Tank WP:from what I've seen so far...I'd say that it's kind of akin to a "cannister" round.Highly sought after by the tankers,but not a standard loadout item...seems to have been a stop-gap measure. final conclusion(tanks):not as common as arty.I'd like to see it (sparingly)in,as some situations in the game really call for smoke and he saturation at the same time...but,like cannister,I understand BTS's decision. [This message has been edited by mch (edited 05-31-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted May 31, 2000 Author Share Posted May 31, 2000 While I'm gratified to get so many replies, especially the one from Steve, what I'd really like is a response specifically to the tank crew interview whose link I posted. What's given there isn't speculation, nor does it involve artillery. It is a straightforward account by combat veterans of the use of WP in direct fire engagements from a tank. Given the formidable depth and breadth of knowledge (not to mention contacts) the people on this board have, there must be more such accounts and data out there somewhere. Let's find them and talk about our discoveries! A firm believer in digging for the truth, John Kettler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Fox Posted May 31, 2000 Share Posted May 31, 2000 With respect John, the examples you raise are not new ones. As a protagonist in the WP debates and a supporter of it's inclusion those examples were alluded to by myself in that previous discussion. Having long been a visitor to that website I have often used the content to support my arguments here. But they remain personal accounts only. As such they are useful evidence but need to be either in considerable number or backed up by other evidence to convince Steve. Maybe one day we'll get enough straws to break that camel's back [This message has been edited by Simon Fox (edited 05-31-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts