Were AT-dogs actually effective?

[Smack]

Were they? You would figure that any German supporting infantry would shoot them before they got close to the armor.

Must have been scary though...

Thanks

[Hamsters]

No.

[Panzer Leader]

Of course they weren't effective. It was an anecdotal occurance, an understandable attempt. "Hey we got all these dogs and all these obedience schools - let's put them to use."

They were about as effective as kamikaze's or any other freakish wartime thing - effective in isolated occurances but in the scope of the war, as worthy of mention only as curiosities.

And I find the idea of a panzer division retreating at the sign of a pack of dogs laughable. Gimme a break, forget the dogs.

[Gyrene]

They were about as effective as kamikaze's or any other freakish wartime thing

Kamikase attacks were very effective late in the war during the Iwo Jima and Okinawa campaigns, and were the #1 threat to the US Navy in the Pacific at that time. Dog mines had nowhere near the physical or psychological impact of the Kamikaze, it just got many dogs and very few tanks killed.

There was some anecdotal evidence that some Dog Mines destroyed Russian tanks also, by returning to a more familiar smell.

[Panzer Leader]

Gyrene -

I suppose that is true, and I make no claims to be an expert on the subject of Kamikaze's, but from what I've seen and read, it was a pretty disastrous plan and fighters took great delight in shooting down those flying bombs.

My point was, however, and this relates especially to a game like CM, that these relatively rare and obscure permutations of the good war have no place in the game, due to their extremely small impact on the war.

I would much rather have an engineer able to clear mines in-game than have a dog with a mine belted to it.

[Gyrene]

I would much rather have an engineer able to clear mines in-game than have a dog with a mine belted to it.

Yes, absolutely, I think that CM has a long way to go before obscure frills like Dog Mines and Goliaths should be added to the game.

I for one would be very disappointed if either of the two (Or side cars and horses, for that matter) made an appearance in CM before M16 halftracks, or taper-bore guns did.

[Panzer Leader]

Now hold on there podna! I would much like to see Cossacks and other horsemen in CM2. They did have an actual place in small scale combat of CMs nature, both in Partisan raids and in the Soviet army.

I read an account the other night of Operation Uranus, the encirclement of Germany's 6th Army in Stalingrad, and SMG weilding horsemen played a great part in overruning the Austrian and Hungarian flanks during that epic struggle. The soldiers fired FROM HOSEBACK as they charged the collapsing lines of the Hungarians.

God, I would love to be able to recreate those battles, as well as some of the great partisan battles portrayed in a tactical board wargame that shall remain un-named.

[Michael Dorosh]

LOL! Good thread, guys, but you really are allowed to say Squad Leader without even adding the TM or anything!

Of course, seeing how many people (yours truly included) seem to base parts of their historical knowledge on poorly modelled or researched excerpts from the ASL Rulebook or musty copy of Up Front, perhaps its best you don't....

[Col Deadmarsh]

How did the dogs activate the mines? Did they just hurl themselves at the tanks? Also, were they used only for destroying tanks or were they used for infantry too?

As for those of you who want to play with calvary, go pick up a copy of Waterloo and stop talking this nonsense around here.

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

Youth is wasted on the young.

[Panzer Leader]

I like the mystique of not mentioning that venerable game, and I am NOT basing my want of Cossacks and horsemen on that game. I am basing it on actual sources which describe the usage of those troops in small to mid-size battles.

Horsemen DO have a place on the Russian Steppes. They do not in CM1 because they were not or rarely used.

The accounts I have read of the SMG Cossacks striking into the front lines of the Hungarians during Operation Saturn (actually Op Little Saturn) is the perfect reason why they should be modelled for CM2. They played, if not a decisive role, at least a major one. Those Cossacks along with the sappers who rode on the tanks into battle were the front lines of many Russian offensives.

They were a useful and well-used part of Russian Army Operations and in Barbarossa, there are many accounts of the Russian Cossacks in battle.

Why would anyone be AGAINST modelling them for CM2 anyway? It enriches the game, adds a useful and enjoyable aspect to the game and it makes for more varied and HISTORICALLY ACCURATE battles.

I have read a few other messages on horses in combat, but for the most part the only place I have read about where they took part in the battles at CMs level is in Russia and in Poland 1939.

[Dogface]

Well as dog is in my name i think ill chime in..

if i remember correctly they were only used a few times..

they way the red army trained them was to have them accociate the undersides of tanks w/ food....BUT they trained them w/ red army tanks so the poor dogs run out on the battle field see a tank and whammo - but the dogs only accociated the red army tanks w/ food so blammo scratch one soviet tank

[Michael Dorosh]

SIMMA DOW NOW!

Sorry, didn't mean to imply your wish was in any way frivolous - I was referring to another thread where two of us discussed basing our knowledge of ATMs and Mine Dogs on Avalon Hill classics. I am not opposed to the inclusion of horses in any way, shape or form.

[GriffinCheng+]

Soviets trained dogs to attack German armor by feed their dogs under tanks. Before the dogs went to attacked, they were starved and each had a mine strapped on the back. The dogs were sent to rushed towards the German tanks where they though food could be found. When a mine contacted the bottom of a tank, well you know what happen next.

However, since the dogs got used to the smell of Russina tanks, they tended to go back under the Russian tanks and worse, the Germans later were order to shoot any dogs on sight.

Griffin.

P.S. I think there was a thread about mine dogs but I gotta do a search.

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

"When you find your PBEM opportents too hard to beat, there is always the AI."

"Can't get enough Tank?"

Get the CMSOD at Combat Missing Command Post (CMCP) at http://www.angelfire.com/games3/CMCP/

[Abbott]

Originally posted by Gyrene:

They were about as effective as kamikaze's or any other freakish wartime thing

Kamikase attacks were very effective late in the war during the Iwo Jima and Okinawa campaigns, and were the #1 threat to the US Navy in the Pacific at that time.

This statement is not very accurate. Kamakazie attacks actually were very ineffective. Their largest success was damaging one fleet carrier and two escort carriers. Tactics employed by the Kamakazie's were defective, assigning one plane to one ship which allowed triple A fire to effectively engage the single targets. Psychologically they had an impact at their introduction, combat effectiveness was marginal at best.

[This message has been edited by Abbott (edited 04-05-2001).]

[Subvet]

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

Kamakazie attacks actually were very ineffective. Their largest success was damaging one fleet carrier and two escort carriers. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not sure where you are getting your info, but that is not correct at all. They sank a few escort carriers and a bunch of other ships and damaged many ships. I'm not saying that they were hugely successful or anything, but they had more success than you imply.

[CMplayer]

I'd be much more scared of some vicious

little lap-dog catapulted in through

an open hatch somewhere.

[Subvet]

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

I'd be much more scared of some vicious

little lap-dog catapulted in through

an open hatch somewhere.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, especially if it landed in your lap! Talk about a critical hit on a weak spot! :eek:

[Warren Peace]

My sources tell me that the dogs were not particularly effective because of German counter measures. Specficially the Germans would use captured Russian cats which would distract the dogs from their primary targets. The cats were trained to seek protection in American made trucks and thus several Russian trucks were blown up by their own Dogs.

Disgusted with the results the Russians switched to Hamsters.

[Fieldmarshall]

The Germans would have won the war had they had Telephone Sanitizors....

[olandt]

Sounds similar to later ideas (70s and 80s) of trying to attach explosives to dolphins and teaching them to ram enemy boats.

[MrSpkr]

I find myself agreeing with Dorosh and Panzerleader on this one (shhhh! Don't tell anyone!)

Horses have a definite place in the game, and on both fronts. People have become so enamored with the picture of German tanks and halftracks going off to the front that they have forgotten that horses comprised a significant portion of German transportation (particularly for field guns, supplies, etc.). Horse and cart teams widely were used by the Germans until the end of the war.

Cavalry charges, while extremely rare on the 1944-45 Western Front, certainly occurred prior to that (primarly on the Eastern Front). The Soviets fielded cossack regiments and partisans occasionally used horse transport for the first couple of years of the war.

Cavalry charges certainly occurred in WWII. One example that springs to mind is the charge of Polish Lancers in 1939 ( a terrible slaughter), as well as the aforementioned charge by Cossack divisions against the hapless Hungarians.

Horses are not in the current CMBO and are unlikely to be in CMBB because of problems modeling them accurately within the limitations of the game engine, not because they were rare or stupid or didn't exist.

[Snake Eyes]

IIRC, combined cavalry and armor raids were conducted by the Soviets. Usually these raids came from wooded areas and were against German flank and rear areas.

I think BTS feels they have enough on their plate already and including horses, motorcycles, bicycles, dogs, et al, is more than they want to take on at this time.

[ 08-14-2001: Message edited by: Snake Eyes ]

[Snake Eyes]

oops

[ 08-14-2001: Message edited by: Snake Eyes ]

[gunnergoz]

Isn't it amazing the way these topics keep resurrecting themselves as neo-grogs discover the game and the forum?

Coming in only a year ago myself, I've now seen threads do a full 360 several times.

It's too bad the search engine is out of order or whatever because it really is easier to point to old threads, than to rehash the ideas over again.

Now, about that quad .50...

[JasonC]

On the effectiveness of Japanese kamikazes, people are talking past each other. The average kamikaze was certainly shot down before it reached its target, but the same was true of ordinary manned bombers. US combat air patrols and walls of flak were stupendous by late in the war, particularly around the carrier task forces, which ran as high as 100 ships and 1000 planes.

But the Kamikazes did get hits when nothing else could any longer. The highest toll came from "picket" destroyers stationed 50 miles out from main fleets - especially fleets of transports rather than carrier groups - to provide radar warning time over the sea horizon. The second main target were the transport ships, better defended than the isolated DDs but much less defended than the fleet carriers.

Kamikazes killed 5000 naval personnel and disabled more than 100 ships off Okinawa. In ship numbers, the naval losses sustained due to them were as high as those sustained by any navy, by any means, in all previous naval history. Only the destruction of the Japanese navy in the same war, or submarine actions against civilian merchant ships, are in the same category, in terms of numbers of enemy ships put out of action.

For comparison, in the Battle of the Philipines sea ("the great Marianas turkey shoot"), the Japanese expended hundreds of land and sea based planes without achieving a single hit, with almost total loss of the planes and pilots to US CAP and flak. In the battle of Leyte gulf, Japanese conventional bombers took out only one ship, the carrier Princton (surface gunfire got a few more of course).

By any measure, therefore, the kamikazes were more dangerous than conventional bombers. Especially considering the fact that the pilots that achieved such results were very green by the standards of conventional bomber training. Sure, there was no point in the US using them, instead of dive bombing with SBDs. The SBDs didn't have to go through 100 miles of radar directed Hellcat CAP then fly through a wall of 5" heavy Flak and another umbrella underneath it of 20mm and 40mm AA, so thick it created artificial shade.