Do Tanks Die Too Quickly In CM?

[RCHRD]

I applaud BTS' stance on what kind of posts and posters are welcome here. Thanks for stepping in. I don't have a beef with the gunnery but with the ease a buttoned up tank sees all, knows all.

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

[Mark IV]

Errr... a buttoned tank has reduced spotting. However, once a target IS spotted, why would being buttoned have any effect on accuracy? The gunner is looking through the same periscope/sight he would whether the TC was buttoned or not.

On the second and third shots, being unbuttoned might help the TC to spot overs and unders and provide adjustment data to the gunner. But in the one-shot complaint which started this, being buttoned would not have had any effect on the gunner's ability to plant one on an already-spotted tank.

[Warren Peace]

I was reading Patton's memoirs and there is an interesting (and quite racist) quote about the 761st tank battalion.

"Individually they were good soldiers, but I expressed my belief at that time, and have never found the necessity of changing it, that a colored soldier cannot think fast enough to fight in armor"

Given this attitude at the higheest levels of command it is perhaps not surprising that the highest award given to anyone in this unit was a bronze star.

However, Patton was not all bad. According to the figures in his book 3rd Army lost a total of 949 M4 tanks between July 25 and the end of the War. Interestingly, according to Cooper's book "Death Traps" the 3rd Armored Division lost 648 tanks alone! (3rd Armored was in the 1st Army). Thus perhaps Patton did know something about using Tanks effectively. Still, I find his racial attitudes appaling.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Warren Peace:

I was reading Patton's memoirs and there is an interesting (and quite racist) quote about the 761st tank battalion.

"Individually they were good soldiers, but I expressed my belief at that time, and have never found the necessity of changing it, that a colored soldier cannot think fast enough to fight in armor"

Given this attitude at the higheest levels of command it is perhaps not surprising that the highest award given to anyone in this unit was a bronze star.

However, Patton was not all bad. According to the figures in his book 3rd Army lost a total of 949 M4 tanks between July 25 and the end of the War. Interestingly, according to Cooper's book "Death Traps" the 3rd Armored Division lost 648 tanks alone! (3rd Armored was in the 1st Army). Thus perhaps Patton did know something about using Tanks effectively. Still, I find his racial attitudes appaling.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And, interestingly enough, part of Patton's career was made on thebacks of the black soldier.

Patton was an old Calvaryman. from 1918 to 1940 there where 6 calvary regiments in regular service, 2 of which where black, each of which fell under Pattons command at certain points in his career.

Most of the reason the 761st did not get a unit citation until 1978 was because of Patton. There is also a lot of feeling that the nothing higher than a bronze star was his ruling, since he was digusted by the political powers forcing the Navy to give a black sailor the Navy cross when all he did was shoot down two air planes with a 28mm AA gun (alone, while his ship sank under him.)

[Enoch]

I am certainly not trying to apologise for Patton but he did also say of the 761st:

"Men, you're the first Negro tankers to ever fight in the American Army. I would never have asked for you if you weren't good. I have nothing but the best in my Army. I don't care what color you are, so as long as you go up there and kill those kraut sonsabitches. Everyone has their eyes on you and expecting great things from you. Most of all, your race is looking forward to your success. Don't let them down, and, damn you, don't let me down!... They say it is patriotic to die for your country, well, let's see how many patriots we can make out of those German sonsabitches. "

I am not sure which quote came first or if Patton changed his mind.

[Slapdragon]

That quote came second, but Patton also confided to his command that "negroes do not have the reflexes to drive tanks, I don't know what we will use them for" on the same day.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I wonder if that was also the same day he stated that the Sherman was the best tank in the world

[RCHRD]

I made up a scenario to check the spotting of buttoned up tanks. A bunch of StuG's, all behind buildings. A bunch of shermans, buttoned, down range. I ran through it several times. Each turn a StuG broke cover into the LOS of one sherman. Every StuG but one was killed on the first shot. The longest elapsed time between entering the LOS and dying was 16 seconds, (which I thought was pretty accurate) the average was less. Two StuGs, out of forty, got kills of their own, one got two. One Stug was killed passing between two buildings. Total time for the buttoned sherman to spot, rotate and kill was two seconds. I'm not trying to be contentious, I'm just trying to find out how well this represents the historical reality of fighting in a buttoned up tank. Can anybody direct me to a source? How long does it take to engage a target after it's been spotted by a crew member?

[Battlefront.com]

Hmmm... I'd have to see that one to tell what is going on. I can tell you that two seconds to see, aim, and fire the gun is totally unrealistic and goes against everything I know about the targeting system. Not unless the StuG was *very* close, pretty much dead on, already spotted, and passing into the Sherman's LOS just as it made a target check. Still, two seconds is rather good for even a Veteran crew.

If you want to check out how piss-poor spotting is from a buttoned up tank, turn it 180 deg to the enemy. Sucker is blind as a bat Of course, due to the Absolute Spotting system, we can't make it as bad as it should be in some circumstances.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>How long does it take to engage a target after it's been spotted by a crew member?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Depends on the firing vehicle (i.e. Tiger vs Sherman 75), range, quality of LOS, speed of enemy vehicle, crew quality, and probably a few other factors I can't remember off the top of my head.

Steve

[ 07-26-2001: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

I wonder if that was also the same day he stated that the Sherman was the best tank in the world <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, you have to feel bad for the guy, he was polishing his pistols so often he was going blind.

I read an absolutely hilarious and probably not true book that claimed Patton was a closted homosexual. Now, bearing in mind that this book did not have the best prrof (just some stuff to make you wonder) try watching Patton again with that in mind through out the movie. Think Goering with Pearl handled revolvers.

[Warren Peace]

My step-father was a medic with the 5th Armored Division, and remembers Patton visiting his unit. Apparently Patton had a high pitched squeaky voice. He once said to me that Don Knotts would have been a more appropriate casting than George C. Scott!

[StellarRat]

Patton said a lot of things for show. You have to remember he was an actor just like Monty and McArthur. He certainly wasn't going to say "the Sherman is the most mediocre tank in the world" or "I don't think you guys can drive tanks, but give it a try." My feeling is that whatever he told his fellow commanders is probably closer to how he really felt.