Tankers in WW II

[Panzer_Meyer]

It's funny how the Platoon commander tells his "wingmen" they are always to close. Why is he so paranoid of them getting to close. Every 3rd sentence he tells them they are to close.

[Username]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wild Bill Wilder:

It really gave me some insight into the happenings inside those minds of those tank commanders.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can you imagine the coordination without radios?

Lewis

[Panzer_Meyer]

Damn, must be terrible!

[Username]

The pacific war obviously had limited LOS. If the Japanese had any kind of decent faust type weapon it would be curtains for the tankers.

[JasonC]

"Why is he so paranoid of them getting to close"

Because he doesn't want one field gun to KO two tanks, and also doesn't want the LOS and covered areas of the pair to be no better than one can do on its own. The point of a wingman is to cover spots the leader can't see, and take out any gun that shoot him - which he can't do if he is right on top of him, or dead.

Haven't you ever seen the CM AI bunch up its tanks in a kill sack? Doesn't it make them far easier to stop?

[Simon Fox]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I thought Tout was in 2nd Northants Yeo, 11th AD's Recce. He was in a Cromwell, IIRC, since he complained about the poor quality of it (the Sherman was seen as the Rolls-Royce of the Allied tanks). His unit was almost totally destroyed in GOODWOOD (lost 57 out of 64 tanks or somefink), and rebuilt by disbanding 1st Northants Yeo. All from memory, long time since I read it. This is all based on Tank!, haven't read any of his other books.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Nope. I think he was in the 1st NY which was in one of those independent armoured brigades. They had Shermans. The 2nd NY was disbanded and amalgamated into his unit. I have read 3 of his books: Tanks!, Tanks, Advance! From Normandy to the Netherlands 1944 also To hell with Tanks! All of them good first hand tank action, especially Tanks, Advance! which has an account of a battle in a Dutch town in which the action is more like a demolition derby and the Brit and German armour fight it out at ranges of just a few metres.

[JasonC]

The Stuarts rarely saw much front line fighting, as is easily shown. The 68th drew 2750 rounds of 37mm for the whole war. Well, that is one load for a single company of stuarts. 147 rounds apiece, 17 tanks, equals 2499 rounds. Not exactly a lot of fighting for ten months. The Sherman 105s typically fired indirect as a battery, as I covered in the post about the 68th. At TOE, a battalion had 54 mediums for direct fire work. And they weren't at TOE all the time. 80-90% is typical (the lower figure for independent battalions working with infantry divisions); and an the intense fighting period it dips far lower of course.

Meanwhile, your returns for the German battalion - which are not TOE but below it of course - have 54 tanks, though 5 of them are lights (the Pz IIs). It is a unit of basically the same size. Incidentally, though, the TOE of a German panzer battalion was 4 companies each of 17, later each of 14 tanks, plus a few battalion command tanks. Your example unit was just around 75% of TOE.

Same conclusion. The idea that a German tank battalion in Russian fought 5 times as much or killed 5 times as much as a typical western tank battalion just doesn't withstand scrutiny. Sure there will be unit to unit variation, but it is within limits, around an ordinary amount of fighting work a tank battalion can be expected to do. With the ordinary mix of incidents and types of engagements of which the war was composed.

They lost about the same number of men per month and expended about the same number of rounds, and claimed about the same number of kills afterward. Factors of 1.5 variation you will surely find. Factors of 5, for average or typical unit stats? Nope. Medium tank battalions and whole campaigns are close enough to being "apples".

[Andreas]

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

The Stuarts rarely saw much front line fighting, as is easily shown. The 68th drew 2750 rounds of 37mm for the whole war. Well, that is one load for a single company of stuarts. 147 rounds apiece, 17 tanks, equals 2499 rounds. Not exactly a lot of fighting for ten months. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If they were used like in the UK armoured forces, their job would be pure Recce. Go somewhere, see something, make it back in the tank or on foot to tell the Sabre Squadrons what is going on, have a fag. You don't stick around to fight anything in a Stuart in 1944/5.

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox:

Nope. I think he was in the 1st NY which was in one of those independent armoured brigades. They had Shermans. The 2nd NY was disbanded and amalgamated into his unit. I have read 3 of his books: Tanks!, Tanks, Advance! From Normandy to the Netherlands 1944 also To hell with Tanks! All of them good first hand tank action, especially Tanks, Advance! which has an account of a battle in a Dutch town in which the action is more like a demolition derby and the Brit and German armour fight it out at ranges of just a few metres.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for the correction. I must have mixed him with the guy wo wrote '64 Days of a Normandy Summer', was it Keith Jones?

[JonS]

yes

[ParaBellum]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wild Bill Wilder:

Well for some interesting insight into how it all works, check out this piece of historical data...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thx Bill, great stuff to read.

One can really imagine those guys sitting in their steel boxes with very restricted vision, trying to get information about what's going on "outside".

And the way their formation ALWAYS seems too close for the platoon leader, looks like inexperienced crews.

I remember the first weeks of my army service when our squad leader was telling us "you're too close, spread out!" all the time...

I guess it's just an instinct to bunch together in unknown situations.

[Username]

Jason your math is full of such leaps of faith, self-serving dismissals and just blindness that I must give you credit.

In your examination of the US armored divisions stats that I posted, you divvy up the AFV destruction between the tank battalions and TD battalion. First off, AFV destroyed does not mean tank and SP gun (I have the list of T34, etc for the german bn). I would think that you would know that. Second, You dont think that the arty and especially the armored infantry bn (57mm and bazooka) could have bagged any? Third, You have previously gone on about how kills are bloated/incorrect. You really think those "AFV" destroyed were all the work of the shermans and TDs? Funny that in the same thread, you can conjure up math to explain a TD battalion having such a low number of kills and then turn around and try to prove another TD battalion has more than a factor of 35? You are being JasonC at his most classic.

In any case, the theme of the thread is "What was it like to be in a WWII tank battalion".

I would look at things like how many battles was the battalion in? How many days in the line? How many times was it taken out of the line? Transferred to another front? How many tanks did it lose (and from what)? Destroy? Other eqipment? re-equipped with tanks? Better tanks? What kind of ammo did it fire?

You want to look at: How many casualties did it take (without even mentioning its starting size, I know you have a four function calculator, percentage mean anything?). How many rounds did it fire? (since US tanks and TD fired indirect at times, unlike many other nations, this is a loose indicator at best).

Other things like the terrain fought in is important. I have read Brazen Chariots and at times it seems like the battles are like fighter planes swooping through formations and turning around for another pass (low HE use here by the way). In the pacific, the battles are characterized by near crawling through limited visability and blasting things just in case). In russia it was different as was france.

So the basic question asked "what was it like", can be answered with "Depended where you were and who you served with and how long". The US tankers ETO, generally speaking, had a short run of it.

Again, the game has a habit of making every battle that tanks are in a last man standing contest. I would like to get away from the tedium of following a bad math "debate" and focus on the game.

It occurs to me for tanks, and infantry, that being low on ammo has to have ramifications that lead to limitations in the game. Specifically, movement towards the enemy should be limited in the case of low ammo. In the case of tanks without AP, the appearence of another AFV would mean reverse movement only (away from the enemy). The player is going to do whatever he feels is going to make him win. The game should take this into account and limit the orders so that suicidal behaviour is limited.

Lewis

[Username]

Heres the list of AFV that the 116th Panzer Bn destroyed during the time period posted before:

2 KV1

12 122mm assault guns (su122)

227 T34

1 General Lee

1 T60

8 T70

Guns:

12 122 guns

40 7.62cm guns (infantry)

147 7.62 ATG

43 45mm ATG

10 76mmAA

Heres the 1943 operational strength (the starting strength was posted before)!

Jn30 40

Jl10 39

Jl20 14

Jl31 20

Ag10 23

Ag20 21

ag31 22

sp20 18

sp30 10

oc10 10

oc20 9

nv10 9

nv20 9

nv20 5

nv30 3

dc10 10

dc31 16

This is a list of the runners! At most times, the pzIIIlong was the majority tank. I will leave it to the reader to make comparisons. For the last half of the year, the "battalion" was fighting at company strength, sometimes at platoon strength!. Not sure if they had the time on target support of up to 18 battalions of artillery or flights of 36 fighter bombers!!!!

Lewis

[Skipper]

> The idea that a German tank battalion in

> Russian fought 5 times as much or killed 5

> times as much as a typical western tank

> battalion just doesn't withstand scrutiny.

IMHO, it does. Here's why:

German tank bn after Kursk:

1. Target rich environment.

2. Operating mainly on defensive, mainly in AT role.

3. Retreating at the double from most battlefields, hence no way to verify your kill claims.

US tank bn in Normandy:

1. Not many armored targets around.

2. Operating on offensive, mainly in infantry support role.

3. Advancing -> can verufy kill claims -> less space for fantasy.

[Scipio]

Pals,

you seem to have big knockledge in this things, maybe you can help me with that:

In CM, hits mostly penetrates the tanks, and a penetration means in most cases the loss of a tank. When I now read above that - even for a PZ IV - several shots was needed to take it out, does this mean:

a) the other shots don't hit

the shots hit, but don't penetrate ??

My personal problem (or maybe misdunderstanding or lack of knowledge) is, it really doesn't matter which tank I use (except a few like the Panther), a hit of something equal or bigger than a 75mm usually means the end of the tank, and this appears to me a bit hard. Also when I read that the losses wasn't so extreme as most people (me included) believe.

[ 08-15-2001: Message edited by: Scipio ]

[JasonC]

"You don't stick around to fight anything in a Stuart in 1944/5"

Right. There were other roles for them besides drive-up recon, though. They acted as FO tanks, runners carrying messages, ammo resupply, and field ambulances. What they brought to all such roles was fully tracked off-road movement, and enough armor to drive through areas of shelling without danger. There was plenty of work found for them. But fighting Panthers was not among them.

Incidentally, it shows another place where the US armor force had a decent asset at the time of its design, but failed to provide useful upgrades fast enough. In 1942, the Stuart was a fine light tank. Better than the Pz II, the T-60, or the Crusader (which was supposedly a medium). But the M-24 Chaffee ought to have replaced it by early 1944, not a year later in dribs and drabs. The M-18 Hellcat was another possibility. (The eventual successful light tank replacement for all three, the Walker Bulldog, was sort of a Chaffee-Hellcat "cross").

Just like the Sherman story, BTW. There was nothing inadequate about it as a first line medium tank - when it came out, and through mid 1943. But they should have been upgunning them to 76mm (and providing more HVAP for those, and W storage, and HVSS suspension, etc), a year earlier than they actually did.

[JasonC]

Very small numbers from zooks and arty, most by tanks, none by 57mm AT - is what I'd expect. Many ADs disbanded their 57mm crews and used the men as additional riflemen. Since the AIBs were always tasked with the tanks, they had better AT weapons with them, especially for attacking which is what they mostly did. But the ADs were always short of infantry. Only about 1500 men in a 1943 AD were front line infantrymen, and that was just not enough. It led to limited "wind" in intense fighting, and also to such field expedients. Many of the ADs 57s were ditched in Cobra, or made their way to infantry units (which, lacking tanks, did have a use for them).

As for thinking the claims inflated, I think the claims of both units are inflated. I find it very amusing that anybody believes either of them. The point is both are making equal inflated claims. As for strength reductions in intense fighting periods, the 68th was reduced to "a company" as I mentioned the first time. And much of the rest of the time, its version of a company of runners was only the point company of a column involved in fighting. If you can't see equal shots fired, men lost, and enemy assets claimed, as pointing to similar combat use, then that is your problem.

[Username]

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

As for thinking the claims inflated, I think the claims of both units are inflated. I find it very amusing that anybody believes either of them. The point is both are making equal inflated claims. As for strength reductions in intense fighting periods, the 68th was reduced to "a company" as I mentioned the first time. And much of the rest of the time, its version of a company of runners was only the point company of a column involved in fighting. If you can't see equal shots fired, men lost, and enemy assets claimed, as pointing to similar combat use, then that is your problem.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No problem. I like the way you can look at anything to satisfy your "point".

You cant produce any evidence that they are equal direct fire. In fact, I produced all the evidence in this thread about HE being the predominate round fired by armor, but again, that doesnt even mean that they were direct fire in the US case. I have produced evidence that TDs fired alot of indirect.

I think everyone who has read this and other JasonC threads sees the trend.

I can supply the actual numbers and you can mumble some excuses. Assumptions, bad math and refusal to see how wrong you are does not add much to the thread. Discussions, arguments and debates with someone like you is just pissing up a rope. You also have bad theories like your "ollow charge at range non-sense"

Here I went and tried to support some of your assumptions with actual data, and what does mr charming do?, it was simple. He makes anyone that has anything to do with him feel bothered for going to the trouble. You are a real class act Jason.

So. US army tank battalions experiences in the european theatre area of operation can be catorgorized. Please dont get on a pedastal and say that other tank bns in the whole realm of WWII can be described by the US experience.

Lewis

[Username]

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

In CM, hits mostly penetrates the tanks, and a penetration means in most cases the loss of a tank. When I now read above that - even for a PZ IV - several shots was needed to take it out, does this mean:

a) the other shots don't hit

the shots hit, but don't penetrate ??

My personal problem (or maybe misdunderstanding or lack of knowledge) is, it really doesn't matter which tank I use (except a few like the Panther), a hit of something equal or bigger than a 75mm usually means the end of the tank, and this appears to me a bit hard. Also when I read that the losses wasn't so extreme as most people (me included) believe.

]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can supply some info from the eastern front. Things to keep in mind are:

1. Range. Damage being usually greater at short ranges. CMBO experience is mostly at short range. So this backs up your experience in the game.

2. Armor vs penetration. Also very range dependant but the point is if the penetrator has just enough power to get through, then it wont have much after armor effects. thats the destructive force the shell brings into the tank. I am not so sure the game models this but like you, most CM experiences are at short range.

3. Reversing. In real life, even heavy tanks would reverse like hell if hit. Your experiences are usually tanks getting wacked on the first hit or just sitting there trying to return fire and getting killed on the next couple of hits?

4. Size of shell and HE filler. In CMBO most tanks are sporting large guns. These guns sometimes had HE filler in the back of the AP. In the confines of a tank, even a small explosion is ugly.

75mmL43 in 4 MIV tanks

tanks KO

17 KV1

26 T34

1 T26

1 MkII

3MKIII

1 General Lee

PnzrG39 was fired at ranges from 1200-1600 m. Every hit caused a destructive effect with the tank going up in flames. Two -three were expended per tank killed.

If this report is correct, then a hit almost always meant a kill. I would consider these ranges medium-high medium.

Lewis