Some questions for Tank Grogs

[laxx]

Hi,

I am populating Chris' excellent CM2 spreadsheet into a filemaker pro database , and I am following his classification on AFVs: Tanks, Tank Destroyers, Assault Guns and "Vehicles" and "Armored".

I have some questions which needs help:

(a) Currently, "Vehicles" include half-tracks, armored cars, trucks, tankettes, jeeps etc. What other practical sub-classification should there be ? or is it okay to lump it as a single cat called "vehicles" or "AFV" (Do trucks count as a AFV ?)

( Are tankettes considered as Tanks, in the context of CMBB classification ? Case in Point is the T-38, i noticed it is sometimes called a tankette but is this AFV related to the Panzer 38(t) ?

© the current database for all vehicles under Hungary, Finnish, Poland, Italy are classified under "Armored". Can someone help to tell what these are (Tank, Tank Destroyer, Assault Gun, Vehicles (HT, Armored Cars, Trucks)):

Hungary:

--------

Toldi I

Toldi IIa

Toldi III

Turan I {35t}

Turan I late skirt {35t}

Turan II {35t}

Turan II late skirt {35t}

Zrinyi II {35t}

Zrinyi II late skirt {35t}

Nimrod (AA) {Landsverk}

Csaba

Ansaldo CV-35

Italy:

----

Carro Amato L.6/40

Semovente L.40 da 47/32

Carro Legerro CV-33

Romania:

--------

R-2 {35t}

Vanatorul de care R-35

R-35 Renault : tank

T-3

T-4G {PzIVG}

T-4H skirt {PzIVH}

T-4J skirt {PzIVJ}

T-38

TA Assault (PzIII) : tank destroyer or assault gun ?

TACAM R-2 TD {35t}

TACAM T-60 TD {T60}

BT-7 M1937®: tank

T-26S M1937® : tank

T-60 M1941® : tank

R-1 Tankette

222 late Armored Car (AA) : vehicle

251/1 HT : vehicle

Malaxa Carrier; vehicle

T-37® Tankette : vehicle

thanks!

[ February 19, 2003, 01:08 PM: Message edited by: laxx ]

[Nightshade]

AFV means armoured fighting vehicle and to the purest anything with armour that contributes to the fight. We (UK/US) call them tanks because the first one's were transported in large tanks liquid tanks.

PanzerKampfwagon is the same thing in German. They call them Panzer (to save time I would imagine !) literally 'armoured...'

even a partially armoured truck would not qualify since you would tend to get out before the shooting starts (or your gonna get FUBAR) but a hanomag (sdkfz 251) or a US half-track would, cos it has armour and usually an MG and you can ride them into battle. they are 'armoured fighting vehicles'

The term Tankette is usually applied to the variety of tiny little recon/training/concept tanks build pre-war by virtually everybody. They are characterised by having light armour, an MG main armourment and being very small and light. If you categorise your tanks as light/medium/heavy they are in a class before light possibly alongside most armoured car's. They are however still tanks or Panzer's.

The T38 is not the PZ 38(t) The T38 is a good example of a Russian tankette/recon tank, the PZ 38(t) is a light tank used by the Germans (among others) and origianlly czech (hence the (t)) it has more armour than a tankette and a 37mm gun along with 2 MG's.

Where this all get's dodgy for example would be with a panzer I. It too has all the characteristics of a tankette but is not generally referred to as one.

Bare in mind that these terms are a little flexible. The early STUG's priciple purpose was fire support (assault gun) but it was later used as an anti-tank device in place of tanks (Tank destroyer). And if you only have light tanks then they are medium to you aren't they ? Also every nation did not use the same terminology and certain concepts, armoured box's in place of turrets for example were not universal so a US 'tank destroyer' is not hte same as a German self propelled A/T Gun.

Now, your list of vehicles.

All the Toldi are light tanks.

The Turan are PZ 35(t) an early version of the czech tank above. The Hungarians refer to the first one as a medium tank and the second as a heavy tank (it has a larger gun put in the turret). Everyone else call's them light tanks.

Zrinyi are assault guns based I believe on the good old czech chassis again. The first has an anti-tank gun so could be called self propelled a/t but that term is generally not applied when you have a roof and decent armour (there are exceptions) then event the anti-tank armed seem to get called Assault guns.

Csaba are armoured cars.

CV-35 is the Italian L3 light tank (good example of an almost tankette)

The nimrod is an open topped self propelled AA/AT gun on the chassis of the Toldi

L6 is a light tank

Semovente are all self propelled assault guns except the L40 47/32 and M43 90/53 which are open topped self propelled anti-tank guns.

CV-33 as CV-35 but even closer example.

The R2 is the old Panzer 35(t) again (they got about a bit)

The R35 is the French R35 a medium tank.

T-3, T-4 and T-38 are just Rumanian designations for Panzer 3.4 and the 38(t) again. TA is their designation for a STUG Assault gun.

TACAM's are Rummanian rebuilds of other tanks. The R2 TACAM is the Panzer 38(t) with a captured soviet 76mm gun. The T60 is a captured Soviet T-60 with a 76mm gun in an open mount. I.e self propelled artillery ot anti-tank.

The next three are captured Russian tanks

The R1 is a czech tankette in every sense of the word. They were only used in the recon battalions of Rummanian Cavalry units.

222 Armoured car, whatever it's function cos it's got wheels and armour. is an AFV though.

251 armoured half track, AFV.

Malaxa is a French renault UE armoured carrier. An AFV.

T37 is a capturd Russian Tankette.

It would appear to depend on how you want to classify these vehicles. They are all vehicles, either armoured or unarmoured. among the armoured group are tanks tankettes etc. but this whole group are AFV's.

You would be better off listing them by function.

Armoured cars

Tankette and Recce tanks

Light tanks

Medium tanks

Heavy tanks

Tank destroyers and self propelled anti-tank guns

Assault guns and self propelled artillery

Armoured transports and tows

Un armoured transports and tows.

Tank destroyers and Assault guns are a similar concept, making use of a tank chassis to carry a (usually larger) artillery piece or anti-tank gun. Some are open topped some are not, some have heavy armour some do not. They are defined by their purpose.

Hope that helps, probably very little but the issue is far from clear cut.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Nightshade:

We (UK/US) call them tanks because the first one's were transported in large tanks liquid tanks.

Sorry to interrupt, but wasn't it originally a codename given by the Brits when they were taken to the front in WWI? Maybe I'm wrong, but that's the version I have seen up until now.

Hmm, my memory seems to faulter. The first tanks used in Somme in 1916 were given the designation The Heavy Section, Machine Gun Corps. But why would they be named after a method of transportation, and why would they be transported in liquid tanks? So that spys couldn't see them?

[Refug]

Hi

I'm doing something similar (mySQL and php) and have an other Q.

is ther an easy (known) way of calculating the "color code" of armor and penetration, or do I have to "look it up in the game"

[V]

Originally posted by Sergei:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Nightshade:

We (UK/US) call them tanks because the first one's were transported in large tanks liquid tanks.

Sorry to interrupt, but wasn't it originally a codename given by the Brits when they were taken to the front in WWI? Maybe I'm wrong, but that's the version I have seen up until now.

Hmm, my memory seems to faulter. The first tanks used in Somme in 1916 were given the designation The Heavy Section, Machine Gun Corps. But why would they be named after a method of transportation, and why would they be transported in liquid tanks? So that spys couldn't see them? </font>

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Nightshade:

We (UK/US) call them tanks because the first one's were transported in large tanks liquid tanks.

Wow! This is one I never heard before. Would you care to provide a source for this?

The version I've heard is closer to what Sergei said. The originals were actually begun by the British Admiralty while Churchill was First Lord there because the Army wasn't interested. I've heard they were first called 'Cisterns' to conceal their true purpose and this was later shortened to 'tank'.

Michael

[Snake Eyes]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Nightshade:

We (UK/US) call them tanks because the first one's were transported in large tanks liquid tanks.

Wow! This is one I never heard before. Would you care to provide a source for this?

The version I've heard is closer to what Sergei said. The originals were actually begun by the British Admiralty while Churchill was First Lord there because the Army wasn't interested. I've heard they were first called 'Cisterns' to conceal their true purpose and this was later shortened to 'tank'.

Michael </font>

[laxx]

NightShade: Heaps and heaps of thanks.

Your suggestion above is probably a more complete classification and I am thinking of taking up your suggestion, will you around to help out with forseeable Q&As ?

Two more questions to ask you before i rush off to make changes in the "Vehicle" camp:

(a) I noticed from the Achtung Panzer site, that names with country of origin in brackets like "Hetzer 38(t)" or "T-34/85 M1944 late 747®" are valid Names. Is "TA Assault (PzIII)" a valid name or is just "TA Assault" ?

( What about Captured or lendlease Tanks in the Allied Camps ? Did they have a name like "StuG IIIF(g)" for Captured StuG originating from Germany ? or just simply "StuG IIIF".

thanks once again.

[Aaron]

Originally posted by laxx:

What about Captured or lendlease Tanks in the Allied Camps ? Did they have a name like "StuG IIIF(g)" for Captured StuG originating from Germany ? or just simply "StuG IIIF".

The only use of a captured tank by the Allies that I know of is Oddball's Tiger. I'm not sure what it was designated.

I have seen pictures of americans using captured 251 halftracks though.

NOTE: When I read this question I assumed that "Allied" meant US/Britain/France. Guess I've been playing too much Totaler Krieg.

Aaron

[ February 19, 2003, 03:18 PM: Message edited by: Aaron ]

[V]

Originally posted by Aaron:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by laxx:

What about Captured or lendlease Tanks in the Allied Camps ? Did they have a name like "StuG IIIF(g)" for Captured StuG originating from Germany ? or just simply "StuG IIIF".

The only use of a captured tank by the Allies that I know of is Oddball's Tiger. I'm not sure what it was designated.

I have seen pictures of americans using captured 251 halftracks though.

Aaron </font>

[flamingknives]

is ther an easy (known) way of calculating the "color code" of armor and penetration, or do I have to "look it up in the game"

Roughly:

Red: Below 15mm

Orange: Below 30mm

Yellow: Below 50mm

Green: 90-100mm

Blue: 180mm +

(figures are Vertical plate equivalent, and might well be wrong. It's consistant, and looking at a few of the in-game tables will give a better impression)

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Aaron:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by laxx:

What about Captured or lendlease Tanks in the Allied Camps ? Did they have a name like "StuG IIIF(g)" for Captured StuG originating from Germany ? or just simply "StuG IIIF".

The only use of a captured tank by the Allies that I know of is Oddball's Tiger. I'm not sure what it was designated.

I have seen pictures of americans using captured 251 halftracks though.

Aaron </font>

[Hans]

I think the difference between a tank destroyer and an assault gun is that

The tank destroyer carries a high velocity AP firing gun while an assault gun carries a howitzer or gun primarily for throwing HE (with a secondary AT capacity)

[laxx]

Hi,

a. is the BT-5 medium tank ? some refer to it as a medium, while some refer it as Lite. Any thots on T-26, BT-7 ?

b. I have classified the Pathers as a Medium Heavy Tank (from Achtung Panzer site)

Actually, is there a authoritative site for Russian Tanks. I am quite confused jumping from one afv site to another...

[Patrick Moore]

Originally posted by Aaron:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by laxx:

What about Captured or lendlease Tanks in the Allied Camps ? Did they have a name like "StuG IIIF(g)" for Captured StuG originating from Germany ? or just simply "StuG IIIF".

The only use of a captured tank by the Allies that I know of is Oddball's Tiger. I'm not sure what it was designated.

I have seen pictures of americans using captured 251 halftracks though.

NOTE: When I read this question I assumed that "Alled" meant US/Britain/France. Guess I've been playing too much Totaler Krieg.

Aaron </font>

[Nightshade]

Thanks all for taking up the tank thread, I should have known you would make me check

Because of the degree of secrecy the boxes were marked up "with care to Petrograd" in the Cyrillic alphabet and a story was made up that the boxes contained mobile water tanks. So everybody could wander about talking about 'The tanks' nudge nudge wink wink :cool: without those listening walls getting in on it. Memory is going :confused: I'm sure you can see where the transported in water tanks bit comes from.........anyway which one of us is the porpoise ?

Laxx - yep you keep the questions coming and I'll keep trying to answer them. And as you can see if I get anything wrong, someone will definately let us kmow

Now the name thing. Gemany used letters in brackets when they used other people's captured kit.

(t) - Czech, (f) - French ® - Russian etc

but that was only part of the name.

If we take the French R35. In German service it was called Pzkfw 35R(f) in Romnian service it was still the R35. The czech LT vz 38 (I think that's right) became the Pzkfw 38(t) mentioned above in German service but the LT-38 in The new Slovakia and when the Romanian's got some in 1942 they called them T-38 despite calling there predessesor R-2. It's get's confusing.

I think the TA was just the TA, we could do with a Romanian to answer that one.

Now captured and lend lease. I would have to agree with everyone else as far as the Western front was concerned. captured kit is a ball ache from a logistics point of view so why use it if you don't need to ? With the amount of equipment pouring into France 1n '44 it just wasn't worth it. However I have seen plenty of photo's of captured stuff used in the desert, Matilda's panzer IV's and so on. Basically cos the navy was having trouble getting kit past the Italian Navy and German bombers in the med, so they had to.

Eastern front - diferent story. The Germans basically stuck Pzkfw at the front and ® at the back and as time went on pressed everyting Russina they could into service.

The Russians certainly used Panzer III,IV and 38(t)'s and probably others too but I don't think they named them anything new (any one know otherwise :confused: ) The lend lease stuff was certainly renamed. The Matilda was called the mark II or english worman. The early Valentine's were called mark III or if 6pdr armed the Mark VIII if British or mark IX if Canadian, or the American Valentine (best not mentioned to Canadiens this one). Valentines were all also called Pups. The M3 Lee and M3 Stuart were called M3L (light) and M3M (medium) or in the case of the Lee 'Grave for six brothers). The Sherman was called Emcha or M4. The T-40 was renamed SU-57 (classic exapmle of naming by use, it was a half track with an AT gun and hence is prefixed the same as other tank hunting Russian kit despite not being a tank)

I keep meaning to knock up a development of Self propelled guns of WWII essay. Perhaps I will do that and post it here. Wouldn't mind getting it straight in my own head for one thing.

All the best

[SFJaykey]

Regarding the classification system: cmbb uses slightly different rules for AFVs compared to vehicles: only AFVs can "Hunt," for example. So I think it is important to classify units based on the "family" they have been assigned to in CMBB for the resource to be useful.

According to CMBB: halftracks, tankettes and armored cars, as well as trucks, are all vehicles, not AFVs. Light tanks, assault guns, and tank destroyers are AFVs...the PzI, Pz38 and T-70 for example are light tanks, while the T-38 is a tankette. According to CMBB. Basically anything that shows up under "Armor" in the unit purchase screen is an AFV.

- Matt

[Wolfe]

Originally posted by laxx:

Is "TA Assault (PzIII)" a valid name or is just "TA Assault" ?

Hi, Laxx.

I added the {PzIII} designation solely to identify the chassis the AFV was built on for vehicles where it wasn't obvious what it was. It's not a part of the name.

That's some real good info from Nightshade. John Milsom classifies the BT series as a medium tank along with the T-34 and T-44. The T-26, T-60, and T-70 are light tanks.

Some good links for info on tanks can be found at:

http://www.onwar.com/

http://www.battlefield.ru/

http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/

- Chris

[ February 19, 2003, 06:41 PM: Message edited by: Wolfe ]

[laxx]

Hi,

thanks for the excellent advice, as usual.

I have decided to classify the vehicles into:

Light Tank

Medium Tank

Heavy Tank

Armored Transport

Unarmored Transport

Armored Halftrack

Armored Car

Tank Destroyer

Assault Gun

Tankette/Recon

(of coss there are many permutations (such as Flamethrowers, Infantry tanks, Light/Medium/heavy Tank destroyers etc). For simplicity and search/sorting in the final program, I think it would be best to the above.

a. All except the SdKfz 250/1 and SdKfz 251/1 are either Armored Cars or Armored Halftracks. SdKfz 250/1 and 251/1, I am classifying in to Armored Transport.

b. With lend-lease tanks, all the Shermans, Valentine and Churchill are Medium Tanks. While the Stuart is Light tank. and The matilda II is a heavy tank. Even though the Churchill tank is a Heavy Infantry support tank, most sites seem to classify it as a medium tank.

Comments please.

laxx

[JasonC]

Is very complicated, no? lol.

I think of things much more simply. There are "true AFVs", which includes tanks, TDs, and assault guns with thick armor and large main guns (what counts as each is a "moving target", however) and there is "light armor", which is all of the armored cars, halftracks, light tanks, etc.

These categories don't exactly coincide with the "vehicle" and "armor" categories in CM, mostly because even the lighter tanks are counted as "armor", when functionally they are "light armor".

BTs and T-26s are definitely light tanks. They are both 10 tons and less than an inch of armor; mediums tend to be 20-30 tons and 2-3 inches of armor, or several times as large and several times as thick. The only classification that might confuse them with mediums would be one that fixated on the caliber of the main gun, but that would not be a reliably guide at all.

The Germans dealt with the Panther as a medium tank because they had enough of them to do so, and because they had a heavier one, the Tiger, and because they used the Panthers organizationally in the same ways as the Pz IVs. But to every other participant, it was a heavy tank. At 45 tons, it was as heavy or heavier than - thick Churchills, Sherman Jumbos, Pershings, and IS-2s, and about the size of KVs. To me it is a heavy tank (functionally).

You asked for comments, you get comments...

[laxx]

posting cancelled. i found the answer to my question....

[ February 20, 2003, 07:59 AM: Message edited by: laxx ]

[laxx]

3 additional questions:

- I am stuck on the MG Carrier (english) M17 MGMC HT (american) Lend Lease, how many crews does it have.

- What is meant by "crew", is it the number of people that is needed to operate the vehicle or does it include the passengers as well. I found that some sites quote differently, ie. 251/1 is 2 +4, this is easy to understand, but when the 251/2 HT Motar is listed as 8, does the 8 include just the driver and persons to operate, or does it include passengers as well.

- lastly, more of a discussion than question, optics are listed as :

regular, good, binocular, long range, v. long range, dual mag, and narrow.

is it possible to give these optics a rating from 0 to 6 or are the types so different that you can't really compare them ? eg.

0- regular,

1 - narrow,

2 - good,

3 - binocular,

4 - dual mag

5 - long range

6 - V. Long range

higher number is better.

TIA.

[ February 21, 2003, 12:18 PM: Message edited by: laxx ]

[laxx]

* bump *

[JPS]

lastly, more of a discussion than question, optics are listed as :

regular, good, binocular, long range, v. long range, dual mag, and narrow.

is it possible to give these optics a rating from 0 to 6 or are the types so different that you can't really compare them ? eg.

0- regular,

1 - narrow,

2 - good,

3 - binocular,

4 - dual mag

5 - long range

6 - V. Long range

higher number is better.

My understanding (Steve replied to some question like this quite a long time ago, maybe search will help) is that at least dual mag is better than very long range in medium/short/bad visibility situations, so the answer would be no for "simple higher is better" -rating.

[Firefly]

Originally posted by laxx:

3 additional questions:

- I am stuck on the MG Carrier (english)

The Universal Carrier, of which the MMG Carrier was a sub-type had a crew of 3, as accurately modelled in CMBO and I assume CMBB, but I haven't used any in CMBB yet . Crew in this sense means the number normally used to operate the vehicle, so when a Universal Carrier was used as an AT Gun tractor it would carry the AT Gun crew as passengers as well as the crew.

[ February 22, 2003, 09:49 AM: Message edited by: Firefly ]