Accuracy While Firing On the Move (OR FAST) in CMBO

[Username]

Way to go tero. My thoughts exactly I am glad that someone here can be impartial and intelligent. Thats a new defense nowadays btw, "someones baiting me", boohoo. Why anyone would go to all the trouble of making a website and not maintaining it is beyond me.

So the M18 is destroying over 2000 tanks and SPGs now? This was in france, italy and germany I assume? What percentage is that of the german tanks and SPs that were fielded at the time(s)?

Did the brits get any of these? I have never heard of them using M18. They certainly liked the stuart with its speed. I am rereading Steel Inferno and if they were used at any part of those tank battles, and the brits were facing the real armor in the west, they would have been creamed. The artillery during these battles was intense.

As far as I am concerned, noone has given any reason why they would be any better at moving fire than any other vehicle. The only thing I see that is different is its suspension and that was no better than the german tanks. These TDs were probably held back most of the time and couldnt be used unless there was some massive rupture in the lines and they could freewheel around and put holes in panzers that had been pummeled by arty/ships/planes.

I believe the penetration of this 76mm was the same as the M4 76mm and M10 76mm?

Lewis

[Username]

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

In CM, AFVs like the US Stuart and Hellcat can Fast move and fire effectively because they have a fast turret speed to stay on target and a quick rate of fire while doing so. None of the German AFVs compare in that regard so aren't really 'suited' for that. \

Ron<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

While this may be correct in the game, in RL, it isnt true.

Fast turret speed only gets you in the ballpark fast. The gunner then must lay the weapon on target with, usually, a traversing wheel (and sometimes another finer adjustment wheel). Having a very fast turret speed can be a hindrance if you overshoot. Having a VARIABLE speed traverse is the best. Thats is when the speed is faster or slower depending on the input. I know that some US vehicles had this. It was a hand grip, like a closed shovel hand grip, that was vertical, and you rotated it clockwise or counter-CW to move the turret. The greater the angle (CW or CCW), the faster the speed in that direction. Kind of easy and intuitive. But still, if you wanted to slew 90 degrees and went full tilt on the handle, there was the chance to overshoot.

I believe that this arrangement was electric/hydraulic. That is, an electric motor was varied in speed to run the hydraulics pressure. Hydraulics are nice btw because they get things moving quick (but will slow down if the pressure drops), all electric is usually slower getting things moving initially but once moving is more controllable. The electric/hydraulic seems to be an attempt at getting the best of both worlds.

Lewis

[Slapdragon]

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

Way to go tero. My thoughts exactly I am glad that someone here can be impartial and intelligent. Thats a new defense nowadays btw, "someones baiting me", boohoo. Why anyone would go to all the trouble of making a website and not maintaining it is beyond me.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lewis -- there is no attempt at defense. You took an out of context web site, showed a single error on it, and tried to say that everything ever written by anyone on the M18 was false because of this. Tero then took a website I did not even write, attributed it to me, and said see, he is wrong all the time. These are just flame baits -- attempts to derail a discussion that is otherwise going smoothly.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

So the M18 is destroying over 2000 tanks and SPGs now? This was in france, italy and germany I assume? What percentage is that of the german tanks and SPs that were fielded at the time(s)?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I do not know, except that the three highest scoring units arrived in Europe in late 44. The number of German tanks / SPs fielded is meaningless here since it does not effect the number lost in the west. The British did not use them, and that is likewise meaningless.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

As far as I am concerned, noone has given any reason why they would be any better at moving fire than any other vehicle. The only thing I see that is different is its suspension and that was no better than the german tanks. These TDs were probably held back most of the time and couldnt be used unless there was some massive rupture in the lines and they could freewheel around and put holes in panzers that had been pummeled by arty/ships/planes.

I believe the penetration of this 76mm was the same as the M4 76mm and M10 76mm?

Lewis<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is because you have not read the previous pages. Rather than reposting what is already said, I will suggest you reread the previous posts for content.

Now, as to maintaining or not maintaining a website -- it is as I said, a flame bait and not germaine to this conversation. In earlier discussions this same thing led to flames, and this was intended to start a flame war. May I suggest that we just back off on flaming? Commenting on how someone's picture looks on their website, an article written by a person two years ago, a person health, or other issues such as this is baiting and does the conversation no good. This thread was running fine until this childishness was introduced. Please, for your own sake and mine, back off this and just stick with intellectual discussions. My maintaining or deciding not to maintain a web site is none of your business and has no part of this discussion, its being brought into the discussion is merely divising and silly.

[Username]

tero said:

Apart from the faulty stabilizer data you should revise your site even further:

"Most hellcats in Europe had a good 76mm cannon, but a few were equipped with 105mm cannon that fired all HEAT rounds to deal with Tigers and Panthers. " http://battletanks.com/m88_mod_hellcat.htm

Modified "Hellcat" mounting a 105mm howitzer on the M18 chassis. Not a successful design. Only one built.

He isnt saying that its YOUR website. He is just pointing out that there is another interesting M18 with a 105 (as in there WAS, not as in there wasnt , like your gyro equipped m18 website) and that you should put THAT in your website. Its your reading comprehension thats lacking here.

Now. I am not taking anything out of context. Its a fact that you think that there are M18/gyros. If not, take THAT out of the text of your website!! Whats your reason for not changing it?

No one is saying you are anything. Just fix your mistakes and learn to understand what others are saying. Its part of this thing called communications. Its part of knowledge. You make high claims here about how to research and think and deduce and study and statistics whatnot. Practice what you preach.

Sorry if you dont like people pointing out obvious mistakes.

Lewis

[Slapdragon]

As for what Tero had to say, he says:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Apart from the faulty stabilizer data you should revise your site even further:

"Most hellcats in Europe had a good 76mm cannon, but a few were equipped with 105mm cannon that fired all HEAT rounds to deal with Tigers and Panthers. " http://battletanks.com/m88_mod_hellcat.htm <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Asking me to modify "my" website to remove this from it since there was only one made and it was not successful. Please reread this for content.

Next -- pointing out a mistake I made over a year and a half ago is to support your argument that I am somehow wrong in my current understanding, then implying my failure of success at updating a website (you must have had to go though almost a thousand pages to find that one as it is not even linked to the top level, being a test site) is directly related to the data I am currently presenting is flame baiting. Andreas noticed it, I new it, and you obviously went to all that trouble to dig up an ancient article for some reason.

Lewis -- lets back off this silly flame baiting. I am asking you please to back off for both of our sakes. Personally I do not want to be banned for flaming, and I am hoping you care about that also. So lets back away from this.

[Username]

Actually the TD command was on the way out during the war...

The total number of battalions to be mobilized in 1942 was 222 (in an army of 114 divisions) for the troop basis of 1943. But massed armor was scarcely used against American Forces in 1943. The War Department authorized only 144 battalions. With the continuing postponement of a major ground offensive, the training centers were becoming over crowded and in April 1943 it was recommended to curtail the tank destroyer program to 106 battalions. This was substantially the number already active or in the process of activation. In October 1943 the War Department planned to cut the number of battalions to 64, which would require the inactivation of 42 battalions. On 29 October 1943, Army Ground Forces, seeing the 39 divisions had a personnel shortage of 45,293 (due mainly to replacement needs in Italy) inactivated 25 tank destroyer battalions, redesignating them as Armored Field Artillery, Amphibious Tractor, Tank and Quartermaster Battalions and as infantry replacements to fill depleted divisions. Inactivation went on into 1944 until only 78 Tank Destroyer Battalions remained.

[Username]

Lets get this strait. You are making a claim on YOUR website that there were HEAT packed 105mm M18s attacking Tigers and such.

tero is pointing out that you are wrong. Incorrect. That only one was made and it was deemed not worthy (he is using another website as a ref). tero would like you to modify YOUR website, just like I am asking (because of the folklore info about gyros), because someone doing research WILL pull up your website and it is full of wrong data.

Is this not clear? Whats the problem? Why is this 'baiting'/flaming/etc? Why not just be a man and drop it? Theres no sake involved.

If anything, this is an interesting thread and I like when urban legends, like sherman 75mm uber-HE , get exposed. You are a M18 pro-element here. Stand behind your words. I am just after the truth, I have nothing against M18s but just want the truth about them.

Lewis

[Slapdragon]

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

Lets get this strait. You are making a claim on YOUR website that there were HEAT packed 105mm M18s attacking Tigers and such.

tero is pointing out that you are wrong. Incorrect. That only one was made and it was deemed not worthy (he is using another website as a ref). tero would like you to modify YOUR website, just like I am asking (because of the folklore info about gyros), because someone doing research WILL pull up your website and it is full of wrong data.

Is this not clear? Whats the problem? Why is this 'baiting'/flaming/etc? Why not just be a man and drop it? Theres no sake involved.

If anything, this is an interesting thread and I like when urban legends, like sherman 75mm uber-HE , get exposed. You are a M18 pro-element here. Stand behind your words. I am just after the truth, I have nothing against M18s but just want the truth about them.

Lewis<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Except Lewis, the website Tero is quoting was not written by me and is not my website, and is not my control in any way. It is also wrong. There were a small run of M18s, designed to fight Tigers and be a better anti-infantry platform equipped with a 105mm cannon (the same howitzer used in ground artillery). It was not deployed to Europe (I am mistaken I think -- I do know they did not reach combat), and was cancelled. I do not claim dozens of HEAT packing M18s roamed the countryside, merely that the design was produced and was an attempt to deal with HE and heavier armor of German tanks.

I cannot control the accuracy of another site, nor can I control that this other site claims only one weapon when Chamberlin claims a "small production run".

So I pointed out Tero was wrong, and his reference was wrong. He and you are still trying to drag an old article from outside when faced with a lost argument, about like me saying you cannot make an argument because of your job status, mental health status, or how many points are on your license.

As to your quote, your original attempt was to create dissension. Your Sig is a childish attempt to create dissension that has been noted by many as silly. My maintaining or not maintaining a web site is a red herring that is merely flame bait on your part.

So, I would suggest that you look to your own manhood here. The thread did not have dissension until you brought it in. You are trying to derail the discussion without data. My request that you provide data of the M-18 being a lousy TD was ignored, my request that your repsond directly to the questions at hand was ignored, what you are doing is saying you have nothing, so lets cause problems on the way out the door.

As for the M18, reread the previous posts, everything has mostly been stated. Drop the flame baiting, address a particular answer, and discuss the answer like an adult and everything will be OK.

[Slapdragon]

Lewis,

You win. Rather than allow you to start a flame war, I will withdraw from this thread and go to Andreas thread. You are left with the battlefield.

Steve

[opfor6]

Well wasn't that a complete waste of time reading the last few posts.

If you don't have anything better to do than try to start fights I feel sorry for you.

The topic is Accuracy while firing on the move (or Fast) in CMBO. I didn't see the relevance to the topic in the last few messages. Let's try to stick to that.

[Slapdragon]

Opfor, if you want some of my data outside of this thread and want to discuss it away from the mess just e-mail me and I will send you my data. I would appreciate more eyes on it. My e-mail is public.

[Tero]

>Interesting. What does 'on hand' mean?

>Vehicles in workshops/replacement units

>included or not.

They are included in the figure. Even vehicles in England are in it. The losses are write offs. The number of KO'd vehicles is bound to be greater than the number presented here.

>Also, this shows that your earlier analysis

>was misleading. The average is meaningless

>in this case since in fact the vehicle

>number was built up considerably over 9

>months.

It is more misleading if you start count the percentages using the cumulative amount of vehicles, 2 140. With it the total loss percentage is "only" 5,61. Only, there were never 2 140 M18's present in ETO at any given point in time. Aren't statistics wonderful ?

It is actually more complex than that. How many of the vehicles listed were in the UK in replacement depots and thus inherently out of the circulation when it comes to the average number of vehicles available for combat ? How many were Cat 1-3 repairs and how did that affect the number of serviceable vehicles ready for action ? The average I used was the easiest to pick. A bit provocative I admit but not totally uncalled for IMO, given the variables present.

>Compare it to numbers of M10 or M36 to get a

>better indication of usefulness.

OK.

Here are more monthly figures from the same source

M10

691..... 1

743..... 17

758..... 28

763..... 40

486..... 71

573..... 45

790..... 62

768..... 69

686..... 106

M36

0....... 0

0....... 0

0....... 0

0....... 0

170..... 2

183..... 5

236..... 21

365..... 26

826..... 18

>I would venture a guess based on this that

>someone somewhere must have thought they

>were useful weapons.

Better than the M4

Here are the monthly figures for M4

2202.... 167

2093.... 121

2557.... 557

2423.... 436

2464.... 237

2832.... 257

4076.... 495

4561.... 585

0....... 0

The zeros for M4 denote the data was not available at the time I received the data.

Enjoy.

[ 08-09-2001: Message edited by: tero ]

[Tero]

>the website Tero is quoting was not written

>by me and is not my website, and is not my

>control in any way.

How could I know that ?

Your remark Yep, I wrote that almost a year and a half ago from a copy of Jentz that credited it with gyros (I was wrong of course)..... BTW-- what is your point of posting a quote from an ancient commentary I wrote about it? burned to my retina.

And the website I found it word for word when fishing for data on firing on the move and other related stuff is after all named slapdragon.org.

[Slapdragon]

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

>the website Tero is quoting was not written

>by me and is not my website, and is not my

>control in any way.

How could I know that ?

Your remark [qb]Yep, I wrote that almost a year and a half ago from a copy of Jentz that credited it with gyros (I was wrong of course)..... BTW-- what is your point of posting a quote from an ancient commentary I wrote about it? burned to my retina.

And the website I found it word for word when fishing for data on firing on the move and other related stuff is after all named slapdragon.org.[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Praps Tero you need to reread my comment -- I disagree with your other website, but I did not write that one and cannot change it at all.

[Username]

Hey look who's back.

I want to clarify some things about the M18 and the TD doctrine. I think it, the M18, was a slight improvement over the M10. The M10s problem in 1944-5 being it didnt have enough armor or HP to stay put or enough HP to move around. So the decision to lose the armor and beef up the engine is a return to the brit cavalry mentality. If the M18 could have been used in the desert , it would have been very well recieved.

But I would have still preferred an M10 Achilles over an M18. I would have also much preferred an M36 over a M18 also.

I view the whole M18 flap as a specialized vehicle needing specialized circumstances. Seems it needed rather special terrain, support, circumstances, etc to do its mission. In reality, the tank battalions were the one who the missions were really falling on. If the TD battalions really got priority over the rare and much needed HVAP ammo, I would say that it was endangering the US tank battalions who had 76mm armed shermans.

I dont believe theres a great body of evidence that the M18s, typically, would fire on the move at fast speeds. Certainly not presented here. I HAVE evidence that the speed of the vehicles WAS a great asset. But that relates to late war breakouts where M8s, trucks, M18s, Jeeps, etc. Could just haul ass into germany at great rates. They could also reinforce areas overnight quickly. During the bulge one unit moved over 160 miles.

Heres another website: http://purpleheart.org/m0597a3.htm

These guys are what I would call M18 elite. Extensively trained in the whole TD doctrine way back in the states (the other link below is to a late war converted pak TD unit) including portee type firing, etc. Not one of the vets mentions firing on the move. Ones nickname is "Hit'n'run".

I would imagine that M18 were used that way. Either from ambush, Hitting and then quickly running. Either in reverse or to another position. They would be ideal for the short halt type manuver. Since they had good visability, they would pick when to stop, shoot, and then haul ass using the great acceleration as a defense.

http://www.100thww2.org/support/824/824combat.html

The link gives a good example of M18 engine advantage. The units were good at driving deep into germany and shooting up volkstromm and german citizens. They dont mention if it was on the fly.

So I would much rather have had M36 TD units. The M36 had treads meant for the ETO. The M18 did not. Mud would have swallowed the M18 skinny treads. I bet they would have been hell on ice also.

Having 90mm TD units, apart from the obvious advantage, would have released 76mm HVAP to shermans, who could have used it.

So I am not saying that the M18 isnt a better alternative than the M10, just that it became a specialized vehicle. I also dont see, at least in the threads here, any real data on the thing firing on the move at substantial speeds.

Since the name of this thread is accuracy firing on the move. All of this is relevant.

Lewis

PS Heres a lineup of 76mm ammo. Notice the very small HE, HVAP and it looks like an uncapped AP on the right. The 76 HE must have been high velocity.

]

[ 08-09-2001: Message edited by: Username ]

[Username]

At the end of the war, the 12th army group had 27 M36 TD Bn and 13 M18 and the 5 other TD Bn were M10 and towed.

Wonder which one they liked best.

Lewis