Nashorn and Marder- endangered species?

[John Kettler]

Andreas,

I think the control methods used simply reflect the limitations a) of the period (no RABFAC (radar assisted bombing, forward air control) beacons, as in Vietnam), of the formation sizes (hundreds of bombers in action simultaneously, rather than a three B-52 cell, and c) the difficulty of doing much more than area targeting in consequence.

Realistically, until things like AZON (azimuth only bomb, early form of precision guided munition) come along, there's simply not much more which can be done. Heavy bombers, used en masse, act as a giant maul, not a rapier, and thus require a lot of swinging room. As history shows,

sometimes even that wasn't enough.

I believe the period solutions chosen for attacking smaller targets requiring greater delivery precision were medium bombers (notably the renowned for its delivery accuracy B-26 in the ETO) and fighter bombers.

Regards,

John Kettler

[ March 13, 2006, 03:49 AM: Message edited by: John Kettler ]

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by Andreas:

That's my point, they did not target 89th in Totalize, or Panzerlehr in Cobra, or 70th on Walcheren.

ok, got it.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

Am working from memory here, but I believe the control method in Cobra at least was to simply draw a box on the map covering the designated target zone, mark it visually on the ground in some manner (seem to recall landmarks were involved; couldn't be seen because of smoke and dust once the bombs started hitting) and make sure the troops were X hundreds of yards back from the target area with recognition panels out. If you were in the impact box, you were screwed. Ditto if you weren't and the bombers dropped short--as happened. Twice.

it's been years since i read about Cobra, but in Totalize they used artillery and recon planes (?) to mark targets with signalling shells (coloured smoke).

bombing missions were quite inaccurate, some bombed Allied troops even as far away as Caen. sometimes a leading bomber of squadron would get hit before the target area, forcing it to empty its load which caused the rest of the squadron to empty their loads as well - sometimes right on Allied forces concentrated for attack.

the rigidity of Allied practices allowed German forces to evade some of the bombings by attacking the Allied forces concentrated at launch areas. i believe Wittmann got wasted in one such attack.

[John Kettler]

undead reindeer cavalry,

Concerning Wittmann...

(hastily slams helmet on head and sets off at a dead run for the slit trench (belay that) hardened bomb shelter).

You'll see why shortly.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Kingfish]

the rigidity of Allied practices allowed German forces to evade some of the bombings by attacking the Allied forces concentrated at launch areas. i believe Wittmann got wasted in one such attack.

Not that I disagree, but I think Wittman would have copped the golden BB on that day regardless of any bombing runs by the USAF. He was a bit of a reckless (note his actions near Villers-Bocage), and would have gone tear-assing down the Caen-Falaise road anyway. His luck just happened to run out on that day, and ended up being bagged by a Rocket-firing Typhoon / group of Polish Shermans / Firefly hiding in the apple orchard outside St. Aignan de Cramesnil / Pair of Canadian Fireflies hiding in Gaumesnil.

[Xenophile]

Originally posted by Kingfish:

... His luck just happened to run out on that day, and ended up being bagged by a Rocket-firing Typhoon / group of Polish Shermans / Firefly hiding in the apple orchard outside St. Aignan de Cramesnil / Pair of Canadian Fireflies hiding in Gaumesnil.

I didn't even think it was possible to sit on three fences at once...

[Guest Mike]

You need to have big balls to do so.

[Ellros]

Originally posted by Panther Commander:

As you alluded to, those were the old 105's and I would imagine that the new 120's make an even brighter signature.

Very much so. This site has several pics of day and night firing by an Abrams, and it's qite noticable.

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/abrams.htm

Pair of Canadian Fireflies hiding in Gaumesnil.

Pretty conclusive evidence points to Wittmann having been killed by Trooper Joe Eakins, gunner of a Firefly of the 1st Northhamptonshire Yeomanry, 33rd Armoured Brigade.

Most of the confusion comes from the fact that no one actually knew positively where his tank was destroyed until about ten years ago. Since then they have found his crew where German records said they should be.

The only British/Canadian unit whose records match that time and place is the Northamptonshire Yeomanry. This regiment destroyed a number of Tiger tanks in the right place and at the right time.

We'll never know 100% positively, absolutely that it was Eakins, but I think we can get 90% sure at the very least

[Kingfish]

Originally posted by Ellros:

Pretty conclusive evidence points to Wittmann having been killed by Trooper Joe Eakins, gunner of a Firefly of the 1st Northhamptonshire Yeomanry, 33rd Armoured Brigade.

Most of the confusion comes from the fact that no one actually knew positively where his tank was destroyed until about ten years ago. Since then they have found his crew where German records said they should be.

The only British/Canadian unit whose records match that time and place is the Northamptonshire Yeomanry. This regiment destroyed a number of Tiger tanks in the right place and at the right time.

We'll never know 100% positively, absolutely that it was Eakins, but I think we can get 90% sure at the very least

Up until the day Brian Reid released "No Holding Back" I was firmly in the Joe Ekins camp, but now I just don't know.

[John Kettler]

Kingfish,

Please tell us more about the work you cite. I certainly haven't read it.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Hetzer38]

"Dieter, tell me true, are we going to survive this stunt?"

"Thomas! Haven't you read the thread?

Out there are 7, 8, 9, whatever - too many of them!

Wir werden alle draufgehn! !"

( We're all gonna die!)

..........

[ParaBellum]

Now THAT's what I call a hull-down position.

Nice photo, thanks Hetzer.

[ December 14, 2006, 08:46 AM: Message edited by: ParaBellum ]

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by ParaBellum:

Now THAT's what I call a hull-down position.

Nice photo, thanks Hetzer.

Interesting photo.

Cannot help noticing that a tank in a similar position would present an even smaller target.

[John Kettler]

(arrives to report looking as though mauled by pride of lions)

Found it! Google was absolutely useless, but Ask.com found it instantly using the same search phrase that failed utterly on Google. Here is Grisha's thread with the devastating report to Eisenhower on how U.S. weapons stacked up/didn't against the German ones.

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=011118

Here's an excerpt specifically on the muzzle flash issue and related matters.

"Following are opinions (very abridged because of the size of this post) of members of the 66th and 67th Armored Regiments and 2nd Armored Division:

The consensus of opinion of all personnel in the 66th Armored Regiment is that the German tank and anti-tank weapons are far superior to the American in the following categories.

Superior Flotation.

Greater mobility. This is directly contrary to the popular opinion that the heavy tank is slow and cumbersome.

The German guns have a much higher muzzle velocity and no telltale flash. The resulting flat trajectory gives great penetration and is very accurate.

The 90-mm, although an improvement, is not as good as either the 75 or 88. If HVAP ammunition becomes available, it will improve the performance of both the 76-mm and 90-mm guns.

German tank sights are definitely superior to American sights. These, combined with the flat trajectory of the guns, give great accuracy."

Note particularly in the primary discussion, originally sourced to a link which no longer works, that the Germans were getting tank kills clear out to 3000 meters at times. In case you think the discussion is a fluke, please take a look at this thread, which really goes into the optics issue in depth.

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/011342-20.html

Thus, the nub of why the Nashorn performs so poorly in CM seems to lie in: huge silhouette, even hull down--definitely not modeled as being gun flush with ground as seen in that superb pic; Borg spotting, coupled with complete absence of huge advantage conferred by smokeless/flashless propellant, and apparent undermodeling of the very optics which allowed lethal fires to be delivered at 3000 meters by 88

equipped units.

Seeing as how even early war T-34s were getting tank kills at 1000 meters, is it any wonder that, hamstrung in so many ways as it is, the huge Nashorn doesn't last long at all at such range? The CM Nashorn is being forced to engage way too close, is too easy to spot when it does fire, and can't use terrain as effectively in game as the pic shows it clearly could.

I agree that engaging from much further out is a must, but since we can't fix the apparently still undermodeled optics, thus restoring the lost gunnery accuracy, the only other fix outside of using keyholing, buttoning and distraction that I can offer is to use elite crews always, preferably in conjunction with TRPs and alternate firing positions. The Nashorn is NOT a brawler. Rather, it is a highly specialized, brittle sniping weapon for killing tanks at ranges where they can't effectively hit back. As for the Marder, it doesn't have reach, is much smaller, thus harder to hit, but the basic tactical concept is the same.

If TRPs aren't available, or the AFV's already shifted to an alternate firing position, which could IRL also be prezeroed but not in the game, then Hunt, Reverse and Shoot & Scoot commands may prove useful. Brave souls may wish to risk bogging by backing farther into scattered trees, too, potentially breaking LOS if successful. Remember, too, that the closer the foe gets, the more angle you must cover to deal with an off axis target, particularly a moving one. Did I mention that German AFVs don't pivot worth a hoot in the game?

Regards,

John Kettler

[ December 17, 2006, 03:29 PM: Message edited by: John Kettler ]