Penetration KT vs M-18 - some strange conclusions

[Guest Big Time Software]

Yes, it is very true that documentation of enemy equipment was not nearly as good as it should have been. It wasn't even as good as it could have been.

The other thing to keep in mind is that gun accuracy wasn't nearly as good as it is now. So aiming for the center mass greatly increased the chance of a hit. And ANY hit is better than a miss. Besides, with the heat of combat, dust, lighting problems, weather, etc... tanks were very often not exactly sure what they were shooting.

Steve

[Guest Germanboy]

Do the Tiger or Pantherfibel mention exact spots where the enemy can be defeated? IIRC the graphical representation is only showing the Front/rear/side effects possible.

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

Andreas

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a >

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 12-19-2000).]

[Jeff Duquette]

I think in a broad since WWII tankers had a since of weak areas on tanks, and would attempt take advantage of those weak areas. However, this would have been limited to a since of "It's better to engage an enemy tank while its presenting its flank or rear armour to you…than it would be in engaging an enemy tank frontally". Contemporary training material and field manuals stress this kind of thing. The "Tigerfibal" and "Pantherfibal" are particularly effective in demonstrating weaknesses of various allied vehicle types. Both fibals have drawings toward the tail ends of the pamphlets showing best ranges to engage various tanks which are presenting there front, flank or rear to you. A picture says a thousand words. But than again these are just training manuals and official doctrine, and we all know training and official doctrine never survived first contact with the enemy.

You also run across the odd tale of gunners aiming at specific points on a tank. I recall a tale of a MkIII(h?) crew somewheres' in Russia that was engaging a KVI. I can't recall the range of the engagement. After firing numerous rounds into the KVI's flank with no effect, the MkIII than deliberately fired a round at the barrel of the KVI to disable the gun (which they were apparently successful at). Loza in "Commanding the Red Armies Shermans" also relays a similar tail of a Sherman deliberately shooting the barrel off a Tiger I @ 600 meters. However, I think either of these examples would be considered kind of a stretch for the average "po-dunk" gunner.

[This message has been edited by Jeff Duquette (edited 12-19-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Exactly Jeff. I am sure that Vets, who know exactly what tank they are engaging, and know exactly what their gun is capable of, would aim for a disabling shot instead of trying for a kill. But one has to wonder how frequently this was done.

One other thing to keep in mind is that a tanker is going to be hard pressed to identify the specific model. Say, engaging a Sherman Jumbo vs. a run of the mill Sherman. So even *if* the TC/gunner had an exact specification of where to hit each tank model, I doubt they would spend the time to figure out which is which. Instead, it was "Sherman 3 o'clock!" or perhaps even more common "enemy tank 3 o'clock!" but NOT "Sherman M4A3E8 with no suplimental armor at 3 o'clock!"

[M Hofbauer]

BTS,

One other thing to keep in mind is that a tanker is going to be hard pressed to identify the specific model.(...)I doubt they would spend the time to figure out which is which. Instead, it was "Sherman 3 o'clock!" or perhaps even more common "enemy tank 3 o'clock!" but NOT "Sherman M4A3E8 with no suplimental armor at 3 o'clock!"

that's what I had been lamenting about all along! - to no avail!

because in CM the specific Sherman make is identified by the enemy down to the screw, well, almost, but surely down to the wet ammo storage, when most people would be hard pressed to identify the concrete make in question using a reference book and all the time in the world doing a walkaround in a museum. Enemy soldiers in CM seem to have no problem readily discerning between PzIV Ausf. H and J or identifying the exact Cromwell model etc.

Now you seem to have the same view - ?

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

"Im off to NZ police collage" (GAZ_NZ)

[edited to add emphasis tags]

[This message has been edited by M Hofbauer (edited 12-19-2000).]

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette:

But than again these are just training manuals and official doctrine, and we all know training and official doctrine never survived first contact with the enemy.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But then again - the Tiger- & Pantherfibel were based on actual combat experience and also probably testing on captured enemy AFVs, which makes them a different beast entirely

[Guest Big Time Software]

M. Hoffbauer:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>that's what I had been lamenting about all along! - to no avail!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I for one never tried to justify the historical realism of knowing the EXACT make and model of an AFV, gun, or squad. The problem is that realistically some of this information would be known, some of it unknown. It is just easier and more consistant for us to display the exact enemy unit after a certain point.

Since most of the differences between vehicles is not really of much concern, much of the information you gain is largely irrelevant. But more importantly, since the TacAI doesn't take advantage of this information, the individual tank commander in the game is working under the same assumptions as one in WWII. Therefore, the issue is not all that important to the integrity of the simulation as a whole.

Steve

[Jeff Duquette]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Andreas Said:

But then again - the Tiger- & Pantherfibel were based on actual combat experience and also probably testing on captured enemy AFVs, which makes them a different beast entirely<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So is it your contention that the 1944 version of FM17-36 was not based upon combat experience (you know…smoke grenades). If you don’t readily know the answer I could give you a hint.

[Jeff Duquette]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>because in CM the specific Sherman make is identified by the enemy down to the screw, well, almost, but surely down to the wet ammo storage, when most people would be hard pressed to identify the concrete make in question using a reference book and all the time in the world doing a walk around in a museum.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good point. Kind of reminds me of the “fly on the wall” intelligence you could get in CC by simply hovering your cursor over an enemy squad. Or the infamous CC tactic of “recon fire by scream”.

One thing that was rather exciting about CM (at least to me) is you don’t always know the exact tank model that’s coming at you. Those Gray generic vehicles which pop-up are a great feature. When you click on them they simply say Lt. Armour, or Heavy Armour. In addition, I have on numerous occasions had to rethink a tactical situation because the game was showing me a Tiger I just around the next corner when in reality the thing was just a MkIV. That was a brilliant little piece of game chrome. Lends credence to GI's insistence that every Panzer was a Tiger, and every German gun was an 88.

Perhaps a fog-of-war button that turns off the oppositions ability to hit enter and pretty much see what kind of final drive a bad guy tank is equipped with, or what the TC has in his lunch pail.

[ModernTimes]

Hmmm.

I've had one individual - Hofbauer - question my "grip on reality" because I made the presumption that tank crews had an incentive to know the weaknesses of the enemy tanks and used this information (yes, in the heat of combat) in order to maximize effectiveness. (See above.) [Reply: I think Hof thought I meant that tank crews knew every nook and cranny of the opposition. They would simply need to know the strengths of major parts of a tank (Hull, turret...)

Jeff H concocts a witty little satire on the outrageousness of a detailed manual of armored combat. (See above.) [Reply: Funny, but does not defeat the argument and strong possibility that tank commanders knew the general weaknesses of enemy armor. For example, the Panther tanks had heavier turret protection than hull protection.]

The loudest reply seems to be that gunners aimed for a general "center of mass" and did not consider (or know?) the weaknesses of what they were shooting at. (b/c The battle field was a mess and too chaotic for such fine reasoning.)

Unlike Hofbuaer and Jeff H, I am not a genius on these matters, so I will accept this reasoning until I can better familiarize myself with the specifics of WWII armored warfare.

Thanks to those who suggested (or will)relevant texts on this subject.

-MT

p.s. "Back then the poor souls which had to man those tanks on both sides didn't enjoy that 20/20 hindsight we armchair warriors and wannabe-grogs of today have." Hofbuaer. Actually, Hof, I am quite certain those "poor souls" knew a hell of a lot more than you or I will ever know about armored combat during WWII...and I think that is my point.

[Guest Big Time Software]

ModernTimes, I think the jests were not meant to be personal. Hoffbauer's point about the 20/20 thing is in some ways correct, in others incorrect. I am sure a WWII tank commander knows a heck of a lot more about the nuts and bolts of tank warfare and his own machine.

However, I think many grognards here know more about their enemy's equipment than the WWII tank crews who fought them. It is amazing to me that this might be true, but when you think about it really isn't that hard to believe. Where does the information one of us has about, say a Panther, come from? A dozen very well written and researched books, hundreds of mentions in AARs, and even the original German Panther manual translated into English. Some of us have also seen Panthers up close and personal in museums.

What do you think the VETERAN US tanker would have for info? Lots of word of mouth hearsay I should imagine, maybe some bad scrapes with the nasty cat in person, examination of burnt out examples, and perhaps some minimal documentation/training about the Panther's effectiveness on the battlefield. The AVERAGE tanker might have only the hearsay. But in any case, neither would have the detailed technical data that is available to us now. We know that there was some little stress point here, or defective armor plating there, but the WWII tanker would not. That is the point.

Steve

[Jarmo]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Since most of the differences between vehicles is not really of much concern, much of the information you gain is largely irrelevant. But more importantly, since the TacAI doesn't take advantage of this information, the individual tank commander in the game is working under the same assumptions as one in WWII. Therefore, the issue is not all that important to the integrity of the simulation as a whole.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not trying to say this is a huge gaping flaw in the design, but:

JagdpanzerIV vs JgdPzIV(70)

Churchills, "lightly" armored vs 150mm armor versions

Sherman vs Sherman Jumbo

Just a few examples, the first vehicles look almost the same as the second ones.

Yet, when fully ID'd, the TacAI knows when it's futile to engage one and pops smoke.

One more plea for maximum FOW sometime later.

[aka_tom_w]

I just re-read this thread and it was so FREE of flames and so interesting and informative, I though I would send it back to the top this Saturday morning so all the new folks here can see where we have been on this one.

This thread covers in a BIG way the Hull down issue and some LOS issues.

its a truly Classic thread!

-tom w