Jump to content

Not another AAR!? Tux Vs. Juste


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 180
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Originally posted by John Kettler:

SLIM,

...

Also, I recently saw a Panther vid on breaching Kursk style defenses (below) on YouTube U.K. As you can see starting at ~8:30, the Panther crew gets pretty excited over a Molotov cocktail's detonating on the engine compartment. This being the case, what happens when the tank is basically a sheet of flame?

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=W8c_Tbr_fXQ

Regards,

John Kettler

While waiting for the next turns, I might ignite sumfink with the hint that the flic above is a German training movie. The crew is not excited but play the usual movie stuff - some freak out when facing danger but some cool dude remains cool and restores the situation.

Given the range of FTs - including those in vehicles - I doubt they were intended as AT wpns. Reading about them a week ago it appeared that British wasps mostly had a psychological effect. PzIII Flamms originally intended to help 6. Army in Stalingrad were so "successful" they got their guns back after Kursk - a whopping 2-3 months after their late debut.

It is interesting to note that American FT tanks were mainly used in the PTO - where they encountered few enemy tanks and weak AT weapons. The Brits had a heavily armored CS tank with a flame thrower but most vehicle based flamers were wasps (ie universal carriers). The Soviets had the FT replace an MG but left the main gun in the OT34 types. Read: The FT replaced an AP weapon. The Germans had the PzIII for a short while but otherwise used an obsolete chassis (PzII) - or the HT based variant.

Gruß

Joachim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joachim,

The point is this: Since it is a training movie, it logically follows that if the Molotov cocktail's detonating on the engine deck was of no consequence, there would've been no segment devoted to it. Since there is, it logically follows that the matter was one of real concern, and hence was precisely covered in terms of what the crew should do--should this happen in the field in combat.

I never said that a flamethrower was a primary antitank weapon, in either manportable or AFV mounted form. Rather, I argued from first principles and technical capabilities that it could kill tanks, to which JasonC categorically replied that no tanks were killed by flamethrowers of any sort during WW II, a position refuted by undead reindeer cavalry's stunning post.

Oh, if flame weapon effects were "mostly psychological," why is it so few crews survived capture, as opposed to the many gun tank crews taken prisoner?

Don't believe me? Watch this.

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting another piece of evidence with tanks collapsing trenches on overrunning infantry positions. And in a training video of all things.

Training videos although propoganda for tank crews still show methods it considered a viable options in combat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by John Kettler:

Tux,

Take pity on us, I beg you! An entire 3-day holiday weekend with no turn! Who takes school exams over the weekend?

Regards,

John Kettler

All in good time. I'm glad I have this thread to refer to - it's acting like a combat journal. Otherwise I fear I may have forgotten what's going on by now!

By all means discuss the merits of flame throwers meanwhile, it's interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guess then we all say the same, just at slightly different levels:

JasonC: Even a pair of bolt cutters can kill a tank, so FTs can do, too. But not that effective.

JohnK: Molotovs and FTs can kill tanks, but FTs are no primary AT wpns.

Me: Even toothpics can kill tanks, if handled by the notorious UberFinns. But main usage of FT is AP (including bunkers).

IIRC one of your recent links even mentioned a T34 surviving one of its (outer?) fuel tanks getting hit and igniting the rear deck.

It is not the deadliness of a weapon that influences crew survival. It is the kind of death it deals. Burning alive is horror to many of us, and so we tend to retaliate to such an inhumane act. Guess that's why FTs got banned long ago.

Regarding CM: IIRC I read an AAR in a MP-campaign where a 251/16 torched a T34m44 in a battle. Viz about 80m. But then... in similar viz there were Soviet sappers and THs killing tanks. All tanks were without close inf support.

So Tux might stand a chance with his PzIII flamm.

But for the same campaign I had an order ready to destroy houses before using them as cover. Igniting forward houses pre-battle to create permanent LOS blocks. Taking to the woods if necessary, but avoiding to defend "unprepared" CM villages. The reason for this was always massive direct HE before the attack came in. So Juste is pretty much doing SOP when flattening houses. IMHO setting up in them where they can receive direct HE was not a good idea... but it would be a shame to have no forward OPs, too. So you've gotta die one way or another.

Once the flamers are id'd as such and the moment of surprise is gone, I suggest walls of fire to block approach routes, block LOS and make some cover useless. Which brings us back on topic. :D

Gruß

Joachim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joachim,

I grant your argument--up to a point. Most people also have a dread of being cut, but we don't find the kinds of acts carried out against flamethrower operators being carried out on anyone found with a bayonet. It's weird, in that flame weapons are seen as "unsporting," but it's perfectly okay to burn down whole cities with incendiaries, drive over people with tanks, chop them to pieces with MG fire and blow them to shreds with HE.

Also, I disagree as to your characterization of JasonC's position. He dragged out the shooting the tank driver incident after undead reindeer cavalry made his stunning post, and I believe it was in an effort to make us forget what he'd said before. In essence, JasonC, was pooh-poohing URC's discoveries by trying to minimize them in the most effective, most belittling way he could. Great story and all that, but I know outright evasion when I run into it.

I shall be most interested to see what Tux is able to do with his Flammpanzer IIIs. Your battle plan might've been considered gamey by many during ROW, but it would've depended on how you executed it.

Certainly, large scale building burning for area denial would've generated howls to the tournament director, especially since the game didn't model the very real factor of fire spread.

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John,

I analyse Jason's posts regarding the data in them, not his behaviour.

In WW1 owners of bayonets with sawtooth faced death when caught by the other side: A bayonet kills and wounds, but a saw inflicts much worse wounds.

My battle plan is gamey. But I had reasons for that.

Gruß

Joachim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Patience, my friend. I have been promised a turn within the next day or so. It'll take me longer than usual to issue my orders because I'll need to refamiliarise myself with the situation, but I should be able to post a bried update before long. Either way it's the next minute's action we're all really looking forward to, and that's two email exchanges away! ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I'd love to say that progress was made whilst the forums were down, folks, but I'm afraid it's not the case. I haven't heard from Juste in quite a while now, but I'll annoy him again in a few days' time. Either way I'm not going to be able to play a turn until I return home next Friday or Saturday, so no updates can be expected until then.

Hope to continue this thread properly sometime soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Tux,

You must be a true Stoic. You're playing the guy, are deep into a hairy fight, and yet are far more philosophical about the to me incredible delay in getting a turn back from Juste than I am. Is he shipping in the Guinness World Record certification team to officially attest to his rapidly reaching record setting delay in getting one simple turn back? Frankly, I just don't get it. Unless he's got a very good explanation, he should also understand that people pay attention to such tendencies in prospective gaming foes. Seems to me that even if in it up to his eyeballs, a one line E-mail would be easy to do and would clear the air.

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kineas,

That thought had occurred to me, too, but OTOH, the guy was supposedly deeply immersed in academics. I was therefore prepared to cut him significant slack, having been in that very predicament myself. To finish my degree, I took 30 semester units in 35 weeks while working full time in military aerospace. Barely had time for basic hygiene! I hope Juste returns to the fray so we can see how this one plays out, but I agree the trend line isn't looking good at all.

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...