game favors armor way too much

[Michael Dorosh]

Training vs tanks does not equate to automatic success, nor even enhanced performance. Killing tanks depened on the individuals resolve attempting the task.

Agreed.

The Germans may have trained & even instituted tank weak point training & an tank destruction badge as an incentive, even so, many German troops froze up in their foxholes, Ie, on the Eastren Front many German troops even in 1944 - 1945 were crushed or panicked & fled when faced with an tank assault.

Incentive or reward? Or both? I don't doubt the Germans had there share of frightened troops too - you make this sound like a fact, however. Can you cite a first person account or unit history that relates such an instance?

Determined men are another factor I wouldb guess in CM elite troops would be more likely to stand & fight then green, regular, or Vets. Absolutely agree. And I am saying that German troops showed great determination by and large - green troops much less so.

Panzerfausts gave German inf an independant ability to kill tanks, but it did not mean the troops actualy used the wpn.

True. Do you have some statistics or evidence to back this up? Jason tells us the PF was the preferred method of tank killing. Which of you is correct?

An good example of use of Panzerfausts, was in the Berlin fighting, the Soviets reported the loss of 120 tanks in one day to Inf hand held SC wpns. Not sure why you include this; the PF was a splendid weapon - I agree with both you and Jason on this. If I had one, I would certainly use it.

I was certainly not trying to say that German infantry preferred teller mines or dumping raw gasoline on tanks to set them on fire. My point was, and is, that German infantry simply did not turn into a fear stricken mob at the first sight of enemy armour. This would naturally, as you point out, apply more to veteran, trained, infantry, than it would to conscripts, etc.

My secondary point was that to my knowledge, Allied troops were lesser equipped to deal faced with enemy armour when they themselves were not supported by anti-tank weaponry. It was rarer, among the Western Allies, for them to operate without this special weaponry especially by 1944-45.

You make excellent points and I agree. If anyone can speak to/against my second point with any authority, I would be quite interested in learning more from you.

[Skipper]

Miracles happen. Such as the well known encounter at Dubosekovo - November 41, 28 people with 2 AT rifles and 2 Degtyarevs held for a full day a batallion strength combined arms attack, destroying in the process (according to german sources) 10 tanks and 6 APCs. By the end of the day, they were all either dead or POW.

I don't remember names or details, but for sure there were infantrymen who destroyed more than one german tank in RKKA. Not many...

The "need for the road" I mentioned means that most neat tricks in the manual are ambush tricks. Ie, you have to anticipate that an AFV will be going through a certain place, and position yourself in that spot well in advance.

Btw, I think it was kerosene, not gasoline (?) Gasoline (diesel fuel oil) does not ignite very well. If you know what you are doing, you can extinguish a match by dropping it in a barrel of gasoline. DONT TRY THAT, PLSE!!!

[Guest tero]

The Soviets lost some 3 000 tanks to all causes fighting against an army with 2 37mm AT guns per Regiment, virtually no effectice AT rifles at all and with artillery that could fire 10 ROUNDS a day in a sector, in a good day.

Yes, Winter War. Soviets vs Finns Nov.30th 1939-March 13th 1940.

[Skipper]

Three thousand??? 15% of what they had at the time??? Hmm... sounds a wee bit too many.

Anyway, there were many tanks lost for sure. Primary 10 causes (from my impression):

(1) mines

(2) mines

(3) mines

...

(7) mines

(8) 37 mm AT guns, AT rifles, mortars - both very effective against a T-26 or BT-5

(9) boulders under snow and swamps under ice, what was called an "anti-tank terrain"

(10) grenades and molotovs

[This message has been edited by Skipper (edited 02-08-2001).]

[PzKpfw 1]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Incentive or reward? Or both? I don't doubt the Germans had there share of frightened troops too - you make this sound like a fact, however. Can you cite a first person account or unit history that relates such an instance?

Read some of the German & Soviet accounts of Bagration & after concerning German troop quality etc. As to sources off hand IIRC Red Storm on the Reich comes to mind as does Ostfront 1944, but this is from memory only I dont have either book in front of me.

True. Do you have some statistics or evidence to back this up? Jason tells us the PF was the preferred method of tank killing. Which of you is correct?

I realy don't know as I'd like to see any actual statistics concerning this myself & IMHO their are none, to many fausts were produced & with the state of the German losses. Also one would add the prefered method of killing Soviet armor was AT guns, tanks & TDs with inf AT wpns being a last resort, & often late in the war it would appear that Fausts etc were the prefered means because they were the only means available.

Not sure why you include this; the PF was a splendid weapon - I agree with both you and Jason on this. If I had one, I would certainly use it.

I included it as an example of what desperate men could do Berlin was probably the single biggest massed use of Panzerfausts in WW2. Would you? 30+ tons of steel bearing down on, while you watch it grind your friends to death in their foxholes my point here is we can all say what we would do in combat but until one has actualy been in that situation one never knows what one will do.

My point was the German infantry suffered 'tank fear' as well, especialy when they 1st encountered the T-34 their was an section i read somewhere on Single KV-1 tanks terrorising whole German inf Bn well into 1942 because the then current German AT wpns couldn't deal with them, until the arrival of the PAK 50. & Later again in 44 & 45 when German troops faced massed concentrated Soviet Mech forces.

Regards, John Waters

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

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the

German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. February 1945.

[jackhammer]

(But the point is that German troops were trained not to be afraid of enemy armour.-Dorosh ) LOL. I guess those weren't german troops who threw away their rifles and hauled ass when 2 measly battalions of matildas counterattacked at Arras! (They trained their infantry to fight tanks because they knew that if Germany had them, others would eventually.Dorosh) I guess thats why they issued their inf 37mm "antitank" guns. Guns that could not even destroy their own tanks never mind anybody else. no too many germans or anybody else was keen on tackling tanks with "antitank weopons" such as molotov cocktails, mines or any other improvs. Not until 1943 did the germans have a reasonable weopon in the panzerfausts, 4 years after the war started!

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by jackhammer:

(But the point is that German troops were trained not to be afraid of enemy armour.-Dorosh ) LOL. I guess those weren't german troops who threw away their rifles and hauled ass when 2 measly battalions of matildas counterattacked at Arras! (They trained their infantry to fight tanks because they knew that if Germany had them, others would eventually.Dorosh) I guess thats why they issued their inf 37mm "antitank" guns. Guns that could not even destroy their own tanks never mind anybody else. no too many germans or anybody else was keen on tackling tanks with "antitank weopons" such as molotov cocktails, mines or any other improvs. Not until 1943 did the germans have a reasonable weopon in the panzerfausts, 4 years after the war started!

The Matilda was the King Tiger of the desert - they needed 88s to stop them; good point. I don't know much about the desert but I suspect it was harder to use the "ambush" techniques mentioned above.

Arras, eh? I've heard a bit about that, will need to look into it. On the other hand, the Grossdeutschland (at that time a Regiment, not a division) was counterattacked by French armour at Stonne and held their own. The Char B1 was also a behemoth (not counting the large grille on the left side). I think they had 88 support there, too, but I would need to check my references.

[CavScout]

Originally posted by Germanboy:

CavScout - before we go down the usual, and the typically unproductive way of flaming again on the issue - do you have any data on Allied infantry training courses in taking out tanks in close combat? I have (somewhere) the PDF of a training brochure for German infantry that confirms Michael's statement. Can dig it out in the next few days.

I know you are not seriously going to contend that German soldiers weren't afraid of armor and that the Allied certainly were?

That's his point. And it's is silly on its face.

[Chupacabra]

That wasn't the point. The point was that German infantry were specifically trained to kill tanks, whereas Allied infantry - as best as I can tell from what I have read - were not.

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

Soy super bien soy super super bien soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super

[CavScout]

Originally posted by Chupacabra:

That wasn't the point. The point was that German infantry were specifically trained to kill tanks, whereas Allied infantry - as best as I can tell from what I have read - were not.

It was and it is.

"My point was, and is, that German infantry simply did not turn into a fear stricken mob at the first sight of enemy armour."-Michael Dorosh

[Chupacabra]

Yeah, and if you read any of the later posts you'll noticed he clarified himself.

Whatever, I suppose if you're looking to find prejudice wherever you go, you'll find it. Pardon me while I go eat my bratwurst and listen to some nice Wagner, or something.

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

Soy super bien soy super super bien soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super

[Michael Dorosh]

Cavscout, you still haven't provided anything in the way of worthwhile discussion. Take a look at the follow up posts and feel free to join in rather than simply standing off and saying "nyah nyah nyah." Comments of a historical nature will be most welcome from you.

[tss]

Skipper wrote:

Three thousand??? 15% of what they had at the time??? Hmm... sounds a wee bit too many.

The actual figure from _Soviet_ sources is a little over 3500 tanks (Finnish post-war sources estimated 2000). However, this includes mechanical breakdowns, tanks that were knocked out but could be later repaired, and some tanks were repaired and lost again two or even three times during the war.

- Tommi

[CavScout]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Cavscout, you still haven't provided anything in the way of worthwhile discussion. Take a look at the follow up posts and feel free to join in rather than simply standing off and saying "nyah nyah nyah." Comments of a historical nature will be most welcome from you.

You'll have to forgive me, I didn't know saying, "The Allies ran in fear from armor but the Germans didn't" was historical...

[tss]

tero wrote:

... and with artillery that could fire 10 ROUNDS a day in a sector, in a good day.

10 rounds per gun was truly a good day during the Winter War. They usually had to do with 7 rounds/day/gun.

- Tommi

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by CavScout:

You'll have to forgive me, I didn't know saying, "The Allies ran in fear from armor but the Germans didn't" was historical...

So now would be a great time for you to set the record straight then, wouldn't it. The floor is yours.

[Pak40]

Flipper,

If what you say is true, then how come almost every game I've played has had all armor knocked out? And, no, it's not because of poor armor use.

How come I'm consistantly able to knock out various grades of armor with infantry? Usually it's infantry with satchel charges or rifle grenades that can do the most damage, and they are usually quite effective.

[Guest Germanboy]

Originally posted by CavScout:

I know you are not seriously going to contend that German soldiers weren't afraid of armor and that the Allied certainly were?

That's his point. And it's is silly on its face.

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

But the point is that German troops were trained not to be afraid of enemy armour. I'd love to hear from those who know anything specific from their point of view. I am sure Allied troops of all nations were pretty shy when it came to tanks. Even the PIAT was not trusted in its first months of operational use because of faulty ammunition.

That is what he said when you made your comment - I can see nothing offensive in that. You just choose to interpret it differently - I saw the point that the German soldiers were specifically trained to deal with tanks hands on, while the Allied soldiers were not. Whether this translated into different performance (also a function of weapons available of course) is a totally different question, IMO, but a decent assumption to make.

Jackhammer - Arras is not a particularly good example, because the special training only started much later in the war, after the experiences in Russia. Also - remember who won the battle (hint, it was not the British). The 37mm was almost inadequate when the war started, but that is why they issued AT rounds to the 88. Also, from what I have read, there were only 16 Matilda IIs at Arras (out of about 75). The rest were light tanks that could be knocked out by the 37mm gun. I have a good picture of a Matilda II from Arras with an AT hole in it. Looks like 88 though. Most of the UK tanks at Arras were knocked out by field-guns, AFAIK.

Nice example of maneuver warfare going haywire, BTW .

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

Andreas

Der Kessel

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

[StellarRat]

Originally posted by Skipper:

Btw, I think it was kerosene, not gasoline (?) Gasoline (diesel fuel oil) does not ignite very well. If you know what you are doing, you can extinguish a match by dropping it in a barrel of gasoline. DONT TRY THAT, PLSE!!!

Gasoline and diesel fuel oil are totally different. If you are dumb enough to drop a match in a barrel of gasoline you'll be in for a big surprise! Please do not ever try to light a large amount of gasoline by hand!

[Guest Germanboy]

Originally posted by StellarRat:

Gasoline and diesel fuel oil are totally different. If you are dumb enough to drop a match in a barrel of gasoline you'll be in for a big surprise! Please do not ever try to light a large amount of gasoline by hand!

Gasoline - American English for petrol.

Gazol - French for Diesel. Maybe also in other languages.

I believe Skipper is not a native speaker of US English?

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

Andreas

Der Kessel

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

[StellarRat]

I believe Skipper is not a native speaker of US English?

Skipper: If you're not a US English speaker I apologize. But I still feel the need to caution anyone that might try dowsing a match in gasoline (petrol) that this is extremely dangerous. Gasoline (petrol) vapor is very explosive.

You probably could put a match out in diesel or even kerosene without an explosion. Although, I still wouldn't try this.

[Guest tero]

>Three thousand??? 15% of what they had at the time??? Hmm... sounds a wee bit too many.

Don't take my word for it. Check out

http://www.winterwar.com/Tactics/FINatTactics.htm

for actual figures.

>Anyway, there were many tanks lost for sure. Primary 10 causes (from my impression):

(1) mines

I have seen a (Finnish) source quote the number of mines you need to produce a kill as being 2000 mines statistically speaking.

>(8) 37 mm AT guns,

Too few around for comfort

>AT rifles,

Practically non-exsistent. Later on the 14mm Boys was the best but even that had problems dealing with even the lighter tanks

>mortars

Regular field artillery actually. Finnish artillery was extremely accurate but always short of ammo.

>(9) boulders under snow

Not that effective since they were UNDER the snow

>and swamps under ice

frozen and thus no problem to the tanks as the ice could carry them. To brake the ice you needed artillery but since it was ammunition starved....

>what was called an "anti-tank terrain"

actually close quarters fighting in the dense forest was preferred.

>(10) grenades and molotovs

The best option after AT guns and field artillery. Losses in the AT teams was high.

[This message has been edited by tero (edited 02-08-2001).]

[Guest tero]

>10 rounds per gun was truly a good day during the Winter War. They usually had to do with 7 rounds/day/gun.

So a four gun battery would average three ~10 round fire missions a day. Give or take. Not all fire mission request were acted upon to conserve ammo for the REALLY tight spots.

[Guest tero]

>The point was that German infantry were specifically trained to kill tanks, whereas Allied infantry - as best as I can tell from what I have read - were not.

Actually I think the Allies were trained to wait for suitable tools to be brought up to break the nut instead of using whatever is at hand to combat the menace (including a bottle of champaign posing as a Molotov's coctail in the Eastern Front used by a German officer to spook a pesky KV or T-34 that would not die or run away). That is why the US Shermans did not officially get the hot ammo which was reserved for the TD command. Procedure before practicality.

[Guest Andrew Hedges]

Originally posted by StellarRat:

Gasoline and diesel fuel oil are totally different. If you are dumb enough to drop a match in a barrel of gasoline you'll be in for a big surprise! Please do not ever try to light a large amount of gasoline by hand!

Language problem: a lot of languages have false cognates for petroleum products. British "petrol" isn't what Americans mean by petroleum. What Germans call Benzin is not the same as what Americans or British call benzene. Probably the same is true of kerosene.