Do Tanks Die Too Quickly In CM?

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV:

INVESTIGATIONS IN GERMANY BY Tank Armament Research<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mark IV, that is an excellent dig. Great stuff. One point in there I found particularly interesting is that German tanks started firing on the move in Normandy, and that it took very good gunners and power traverse to achieve hits. Meaning that they did achieve hits, and not just fired for suppression.

[Slapdragon]

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

Don't be silly. References are very welcome.

--Rett

[ 07-25-2001: Message edited by: CMplayer ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The book I quoted that interviews Evans is an excellent Oral history on the Hellcat. Evans was one of the team of TD commanders who helped design that tank, and was also a front line tank commander through out the war. His unit, the 704th TD, was a high scoring TD unit. The Hellcat could also fire on the move with practice. It had very light turret controls, and the driver had to be prepared for the recoil of the heavy gun on the small chasis, but a Hellcat gunner loader team would open up on a target at speed and rely on firing as fast as they could to get a hit, while the driver kept them from getting hit by the slower German turrets until they could reach cover again. Hellcats would use their speed to do this several times, until they had flanked two sides of a German tank unit, and forced them to withdraw or take it from the sides.

This was extremely successful, with some Hellcat units racking up 10 and 20 to 1 kill ratios. Combined with rush, hide, hit, run tactics, it allowed the mobility rather than the armor of the M18 to protect it.

[aka_tom_w]

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

The book I quoted that interviews Evans is an excellent Oral history on the Hellcat. Evans was one of the team of TD commanders who helped design that tank, and was also a front line tank commander through out the war. His unit, the 704th TD, was a high scoring TD unit. The Hellcat could also fire on the move with practice. It had very light turret controls, and the driver had to be prepared for the recoil of the heavy gun on the small chasis, but a Hellcat gunner loader team would open up on a target at speed and rely on firing as fast as they could to get a hit, while the driver kept them from getting hit by the slower German turrets until they could reach cover again. Hellcats would use their speed to do this several times, until they had flanked two sides of a German tank unit, and forced them to withdraw or take it from the sides.

This was extremely successful, with some Hellcat units racking up 10 and 20 to 1 kill ratios. Combined with rush, hide, hit, run tactics, it allowed the mobility rather than the armor of the M18 to protect it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

if that is all true.....

and if they REALLY did fire on the fast move, at top speed, AND score hits then I would say this is modeled VERY well indeed in the game, because the Hellcat is joy to command as you can send them darting quickly into ideal flanking positions while they continue to fire. ANd if they load AP or Tungsten they can penetrate the flank and/or rear aspect of almost any german tank at any distance.

-tom w

[Slapdragon]

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

if that is all true.....

and if they REALLY did fire on the fast move, at top speed, AND score hits then I would say this is modeled VERY well indeed in the game, because the Hellcat is joy to command as you can send them darting quickly into ideal flanking positions while they continue to fire. ANd if they load AP or Tungsten they can penetrate the flank and/or rear aspect of almost any german tank at any distance.

-tom w<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You have to remember at speed for a Hellcat cross country was not much faster than a Sherman, just 20 to 25 mphs with the drive governer off. The Hellcat was the most successful TD of the war if you count kills to losses as your criteria.

[Geier]

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

if that is all true.....

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tom, have you been doing any ROF tests with the Hellcat? Ie, how many rounds/minute can it squeeze off stationary, Moving and Moving Fast (possibly Reversing as well)? That could be interesting, I might volunteer to test that myself otherwise.

I would also add that my opinion(thass right, no hard facts as no one ever let me drive a tank) is that tanks should be allowed to fire while moving.

I respect both Treebursts and Rothers opinions (in Toms other thread) but hardcoding it would mean not firing even at 20 meters. I would definately agree that hitting something while moving (esp sideways) at "normal" tank engagement ranges (400 m and longer?) would be whatever is in the game now, ie, I have never seen it done but I suppose it might happen.

The rof is something I've never really thought about for moving tanks.

[jKMkIII]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by c3k:

Geier,

Yes, the T-72 gunner had to do it all. The auto-loading contraption was supposed to get the selected round, load it, close the breech and standby. Imagine that hydraulic linkage moving around, rising, dropping, spinning, gripping. Given the option of either having my arm ripped off or having to double as loader, I'd choose the latter option.

Ken<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What are your references for it being such bad system? My belief are little different, but anyway mailed my friend who was in tank forces and lets see what he says.

Edit.

My friend replied and according to him (gunner in T-72) autoloader in T-72 is not dangerous. And I believe my friends knows this better, unless you are one-handed ex-T-72 gunner

You might be thinking T-64 that I believe was first tank with autoloader and I think it had repuation of being little dangerous..

[ 07-25-2001: Message edited by: jKMkIII ]

[Slapdragon]

The T-64 had a scary autoloader according to my friend Pasha. They never disconnected them, but he said that the turret turned, and you had to shuffle around to keep from getting wacked with the gun, and if the gunner let go, the loader could be either behind the recoil element (whack!) or have his hand near the autoloader.

I was not aware that this was a similar problem with the T72, which has a turret basket.

[Spook]

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

Mark IV, that is an excellent dig. Great stuff. One point in there I found particularly interesting is that German tanks started firing on the move in Normandy, and that it took very good gunners and power traverse to achieve hits. Meaning that they did achieve hits, and not just fired for suppression.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed, that linked article is quite fascinating in its technical details. Regarding the statement of German tankers using moving fire, here is from the noted article:

Firing on the move without stabiliser had been practised after the Allied landings in Europe against Allied tanks. Success depended on the use of highly trained gunners, who were provided with power traverse and hand elevation.

This statement doesn't indicate as to how much of an "SOP" that moving fire had become with German tankers in '44, but it is useful for reference. It was also interesting to read the field test results of the 88mm "stabilized sight line" method.

BTW, Slap, in the kill/loss ratios cited for US M18 Hellcat TD's (ranging from 10:1 to 20:1), are these ratios considering only comparable German tanks/SPG's/TD's, or considering all German armored vehicles destroyed by M18's?

[Slapdragon]

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

Indeed, that linked article is quite fascinating in its technical details. Regarding the statement of German tankers using moving fire, here is from the noted article:

Firing on the move without stabiliser had been practised after the Allied landings in Europe against Allied tanks. Success depended on the use of highly trained gunners, who were provided with power traverse and hand elevation.

This statement doesn't indicate as to how much of an "SOP" that moving fire had become with German tankers in '44, but it is useful for reference. It was also interesting to read the field test results of the 88mm "stabilized sight line" method.

BTW, Slap, in the kill/loss ratios cited for US M18 Hellcat TD's (ranging from 10:1 to 20:1), are these ratios considering only comparable German tanks/SPG's/TD's, or considering all German armored vehicles destroyed by M18's?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have run into this problem before. The term used in several of the oral histories is "tanks". In a different oral history on towed AT guns, they used the term tank and specifically said that kills of tanks included "spgs and other tank hunters" while "trucks" included half tracks and 'jeeps'. There is no indication if a Wirlblewind or an Ostwind would be called a tank or something else, but armored cars were considered tanks when they were not broken out into their own column.

Right now my assumption is tanks are armed and armored tracked fighting vehicles and some armored cars, because halftracks often got counted in a "trucks" column or an "other" column.

I should note that not every Hellcat unit collected 20 to 1. The average stated in Valor is 10 to 1 kill ratio against "tanks" with some units getting better than 20 to 1, but that could also mean some units get 1-1 or 5-1.

It is also worth noting that TD command training was much better than AGF command for tankers, and many TD units were considered elite, and should be at least veteran in the game.

[Spook]

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

It is also worth noting that TD command training was much better than AGF command for tankers, and many TD units were considered elite, and should be at least veteran in the game.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In noting that, it makes the irony even greater to the abolishment of TD Command in 1946.

Regardless, the findings that led to TD Command's dissolution were understandable. US doctrine prior to fighting in NW Europe still held for TD's to engage enemy armor while the US tanks would "exploit." On the field, of course, that didn't hold up. US tanks invariably drew German armor against them, while US TD's sometimes were used also as infantry close-support because they were the only local "armor" on hand. The postwar finding was "make killer tanks, not tank killers," although US tank design wasn't quite so inspired or "killer" until the M1 Abrams series.

But per your point, Slap, the breakup of TD Command was hardly due to faulty performance from the US TD crews. If anything, their overall performance does indeed seem quite distinguished. Rather, the indictment was against the prewar tank/TD doctrine and vehicle designs in accordance to same.

[Username]

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

It is also worth noting that TD command training was much better than AGF command for tankers, and many TD units were considered elite, and should be at least veteran in the game.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Were there any Nisei or Afro-American Tank Destroyer units Slappy?

[Enoch]

I know of at least one afro-american TD(towed) unit. The 614th TD Battalion won the Presidential Unit Citation for its action near Climbach in December 1944.

I also just found at least two other colored TD Battalions: the 679th and the 827th.

There were also at least three colored Tank Battalions: the 758th Light, the 761st, and the 784th.

The 761st served with Patton's Third Army and was awarded the Presidential Unit Citation in 1978.

[ 07-25-2001: Message edited by: Enoch ]

[gunnergoz]

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

Were there any Nisei or Afro-American Tank Destroyer units Slappy?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

For what it's worth, all the Nisei units I've found were strictly infantry (one separate battalion and one separate regiment).

[Slapdragon]

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

I know of at least one afro-american TD(towed) unit. The 614th TD Battalion won the Presidential Unit Citation for its action near Climbach in December 1944.

There were at least two other colored TD Battalsions: the 679th and the 827th.

There were also at least three colored Tank Battalions: the 758th Light, the 761st, and the 784th.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The 761st also won a Presidential Unit Citation in 1978. Black soldiers were much more important at the front than is usually assumed, up to the partial integration that occurred to US Infantry units in 1945 with the "Fifth Platoon" program, essentially putting black NCOs, who took a bust in grade to private, into individual platoons. Most of those platoons where disbanded and the soldiers folded into white units where they fought side by side in combat the last two months of the war in Europe.

Another amazing fact is that the 761st tank battalion served in Europe for 8 months with no replacements except some ASF soldiers who were seconded to the unit in 1945. While it was down to half strength by the end of the war, it was incredibly successful, and was one of the most highly commended tank units.

The 827th Towed TD was considered one of the worst units in the European Theater. After the war, it was traced to poor leadership. Black units where very susceptible to poor leadership, because white units would dump their scrap on them.

The 969th and 333rd Field Artillery Battalions at Bastogne were a black units, and it was credited with a stellar performance side by side with the 101st Airborne. The 333rd had in fact suffered large casualties when the 106th Infantry division disentegrated in front of them and they where forced to fight with small arms and point blank artillery fire to cover the retreat of that division. It went into Bastogne and fought at times hand to hand for their weapons.

There were actually a number of TD units besides those already listed. The 630th, 701st and the 502nd where all black TD units. The 630th were noted for volunteering to leave their AT guns and choosing to join and infantry attack on the 5th Parachute Division during Bulge.

The highest award given to a black soldier during WW2 in the ETO (until it was changed in the 1960s) was a bronze star, given to a tanker which led a charge of a set of AT guns after several of his unit's tanks where knocked out. He had his jaw shot off, but choose not to be evacuated, and was killed 20 days later leading another charge.

[Col Deadmarsh]

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

A search of this BBS will yield far more threads where people are complaining that gunnery is too sloppy rather than too precise. When have had huge debates in such threads and came out feeling quite confident that CM's gunnery and balistic elements are fair representations of reality. There are no changes planned for CMBB in this regard.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Steve, just to give you an example:

In one of my games, my opponent had a Panzer IV and a Marder on a hill, both regular crews, both buttoned up, both behind some woods. I was trying to get my Sherman from behind one ridge to another and so I lofted some 60mm smoke rounds on top of the hill to block their vision as I made my run.

Well, the Panzer's vision was blocked but not the Marder's. My Sherman sped on by and fired 2 rounds at the Marder, both missing. This to me is realistic as I didn't expect him to hit being on the move, the Marder behind some woods, and the Marder probably hull down too since the hill he was on was enormous with me a good ways below him.

The Marder though fired once and killed me before I reached my destination. What bothered me at the time is that this crew took out my Sherman with their first shot. Now, with these details in mind, can you give me a ballpark figure as to what you think the percentage was in the Marder hitting my Sherman going full speed like that? I'm assuming that this was a lucky shot and rarely happens considering the Marder had a regular crew, was buttoned up, and was also behind a chunk of woods. It would seem very unlikely they would be able to hit on a first shot like that.

[Battlefront.com]

Colonel_Deadmarsh

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Now, with these details in mind, can you give me a ballpark figure as to what you think the percentage was in the Marder hitting my Sherman going full speed like that?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I haven't the slightest clue. Even if I had a calculator out I wouldn't be able to figure it, especially beacuse you have left out all sorts of important details. Range being critical here.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> It would seem very unlikely they would be able to hit on a first shot like that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup, but never confuse "unlikely" with "never". The Marder got lucky, you didn't. End of story as far as I am concerned. The history books are FILLED with accounts like this. One of my favorites is a 57mm AT gun taking out a Panther at about 300m in dense fog. The gunner saw a flash of light and assumed it was the hull ball MG. He lined up on it, and in one shot KO'd the Panther even though all he could see was the MG muzzle flash.

If you are interested in a more statistical look at the odds, check out the thread that Tom started. Remember, range is the single most important factor, all others simply ebb away at it.

Steve

[ 07-25-2001: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]

[Username]

I didnt really care if there were Nisei or Afro-American TD units. I just wanted to demonstrate that Slap would go into his "history of black troops" mode. Didnt say a damn thing about the Nisei. Its like pushing a button and he's full of stories about black troops fighting without pieces of their bodies and supplying excuses for any less than heroic behaviour.

Not that I give a damn about this either but how much CAN leadership matter in a towed AT unit? Its a rather defensive mission. But I am sure theres all kinds of ref's and reports and citations about it.

Thanks Slap for proving my point. Enjoy work tonight.

Lewis

PS If any person here takes offense at this. You are getting it wrong.

[Jeff Heidman]

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

I didnt really care if there were Nisei or Afro-American TD units. I just wanted to demonstrate that Slap would go into his "history of black troops" mode. Didnt say a damn thing about the Nisei. Its like pushing a button and he's full of stories about black troops fighting without pieces of their bodies and supplying excuses for any less than heroic behaviour.

Not that I give a damn about this either but how much CAN leadership matter in a towed AT unit? Its a rather defensive mission. But I am sure theres all kinds of ref's and reports and citations about it.

Thanks Slap for proving my point. Enjoy work tonight.

Lewis

PS If any person here takes offense at this. You are getting it wrong.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What in the world is your point?

You asked a specific question, and you got a specific answer. Whats the problem?

Jeff Heidman

[Enoch]

You can count me among those that missed the point.

In reading about the 92nd or 93rd(?) colored infantry division their poor battle record was attributed to indifferent leadership, lack of training etc. I would assume that the lack of training resulting from poor leadership would have a great deal to do with the performance of any unit.

[Spook]

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

PS If any person here takes offense at this. You are getting it wrong.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nah, I don't take offense. I take it as par for course.

There's already been several calls on this thread for a cease-fire, Lewis. Are you quite certain that your latest posts to Slap are abiding to it, if you were anticipating for Slap to "take some bait" instead?

[Andreas]

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

Didnt say a damn thing about the Nisei. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That would be difficult in the context of TD units, since most people who know anything about Japanese-Americans in teh US military know that they either served as infantry (442 RCT) or as specialists (interpreters etc.) I can make something up though if you like, although that won't be necessary, because you shurely know that the 442 RCT deserves the title of 'Most shabbily treated unit in the whole US Army in WW2'. That would go together with the title of 'Most decorated unit in the US Army in WW2'.

[Soddball]

I must admit, it's been quite tough to filter out the bile from the interesting thread.

Please guys, knock it off. Everyone's getting a mite touchy.

Soddball Associates

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

Bringing a little to the :mad:

[Slapdragon]

Lewis, quoting Martin Blanke from Grosse Pointe Blanke

"Do you really think there is something between us? Lewis, there is no us"

As for the fascinating subject of forgotten soldiers. I have next to no information on the Nisei, and I have to leave for work, but someday I going to get the book on Daniel Inoye from 442 RCT. Oddly enough the 92nd, 442 RCT, 758th Tank Battalion, the 1st Brazillian Expeditionary Force, and the 10th Mountain Division all fought side by side in Italy. The 92nd had some rough spots, again traced post war to really poor leadership. The 442nd RCT was the most decorated unit of the war, the 1st BEF was the only South American unit to participate actively in the ground war in Europe, and the 10th Mountain was the only mountain division of 10 planned to make it into actions. The 758th was not a bad unit, and was mostly assigned to support 442 RCT.

I will post more on this later tonight.

[Andreas]

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

I have next to no information on the Nisei, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you could do worse than starting with 'Lost Battalions' by Franz Steidl. I think he is married to a daughter of one of the 442 RCT soldiers (could be wrong) and it is a fascinating account of the Lorraine campaign.

[Battlefront.com]

Lewis,

Looks like it is time to read you the Riot Act again as you have been showing your true (mean spirited) side of your warped personality quite frequently in the last couple of days. Not that you have ever completely managed to act like a mature, civil adult even while on your "best behavior". So now is the time to remind you about Section 1 of our BBS Agreement. Just in case you had a hard time understanding the intent of the clause, I added a new sentence specifically designed to get it through your thick skull that your cronic, abusive, and simply mean posts are not welcomed here:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>1. No Flaming and/or Baiting. If you have a strong opinion, that is fine. But express it in such a way that is non-abusive and not emotionally charged. Any user who feels that a posted message is objectionable is encouraged to contact us immediately by email. Cronic violators of this simple, civil requirement are not welcomed here and will be banned. We like to think our gamers are mature, rational people. Please help us keep this opinion of you!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The only reason you have not been banned before is because we hate like Hell to ban someone who, at least occasionally, tries to contribute to CM's betterment. But your long history of abusive behavior has finally snapped the last tiny thread of good will towards you. You are harming and detracting from the mission of this BBS too much.

Meaning, that if you don't start acting like a model adult on this forum, as of this very minute, you will be removed from it. One slip, and I mean one, and you are out of here. I don't care HOW minor it might be. I have given you dozens of second chances over the last year and a half to clean up your act, even though I figured you were incapable of doing so. If you REALLY care about staying on this forum, knock off the baiting and abusive behavior.

Steve