Patton21 Posted November 12, 2003 Author Share Posted November 12, 2003 haha, good one. This is a party thread. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seanachai Posted November 12, 2003 Share Posted November 12, 2003 Originally posted by Patton21: Alright, there seems to be some confusion on my part. When I said that the round from my m10 landed behind the m10, that is exactly what i meant. The round came out of the gun, turned around and exploded behind the tank. Maybe it shot forward but the shell ran into the volleyball net that sprang out held between suddenly extruded metal arms from the German tank you were firing at, catching the shell and then propelling it back toward the firing tank? They nets retract quickly, so maybe you missed them. [ November 12, 2003, 02:43 PM: Message edited by: Seanachai ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted November 12, 2003 Share Posted November 12, 2003 Another way to see German and U.S. tank destroyer doctrine is a comparison with an actual hunt. rU.S. tank destroyer doctrine, as far as SP TDs are concerned, is like a chase hunt, a big bunch of jerks on horses going after the prey in violent pursuit. German tank destroyers are like the lone hunter waiting until his prey comes into suitable position. The differences are mostly made of different experiences. For the U.S. the preparation was against a tank raids, and that means a mostly-tank raid loose behind friendly lines and no idea where they are, as in France 1940. But in 1944 things were different: - tanks were better supported, at least initially - it turned out TDs were not easy to make cheap and fast enough, the M10 costs 80% of a 75mm Sherman and is not much faster - tank breakthroughs were easier to locate from better observation from the air - in practice, the ways that a large tank thrust can come through are limited and predictable The Germans with more experience with enemy tank breakthroughs by early 1944 figured that the original plan to just through a bunch of AT guns into a probably path is correct after all. They just went on to make them self-propelled for the Panzer divisions and later made them hard to destroy for enemy tanks to make up for inferior numbers. The U.S. doctrine was also designed to defend against a superior opponent but it wasn't suitable to reduce losses against an inferior opponent. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMplayer Posted November 12, 2003 Share Posted November 12, 2003 Originally posted by Patton21: The round came out of the gun, turned around and exploded behind the tank. I don't believe it. Unless you can provide a pbem file showing this happening, I will never believe it. You might have been seeing: 1) a round from another vehicle impacting near your M10. 2) a hand grenade, thrown by nearby infantry. 3) one of them nahverteidigungswaffe thingies jumping around 4) some other assorted steel of the sort that flies around on battlefields. [ November 12, 2003, 02:48 PM: Message edited by: CMplayer ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMplayer Posted November 12, 2003 Share Posted November 12, 2003 Redwolf that all makes a lot of sense. If you have time could you expand to compare TDs with modern ATGW equipped vehicles? How do they fit into the Fulda Gap type scenario? [ November 12, 2003, 02:46 PM: Message edited by: CMplayer ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted November 12, 2003 Share Posted November 12, 2003 Originally posted by CMplayer: Redwolf that all makes a lot of sense. If you have time could you expand to compare TDs with modern ATGW equipped vehicles? How do they fit into the Fulda Gap type scenario? Well, not counting IFVs for a moment, the early ATGM vehicles like the German Raketenjagdpanzer, M113 with ATGMs or BRDM ATs were pretty much organized like SP tank destroyers in WW2. The Soviets in particular provided precisely the same insertions of ATGM vehicle units into bigger unit to protect their flanks against enemy tanks attacks, the U.S. did the same but apparently parcelling out smaller groups to smaller units. The major difference is that the fighting would be much more mobile because the ROF of ATGMs sucks so bad and most vehicle-mounted launchers have to be reloaded while the loaded is not under armor cover. Shoot-and-scoot is a lot more important for them. I am not sure anybody ever made a true doctrine for IFVs with ATGMs. I think they are more like combat value enhanced APCs, with the exception of scout vehicles. The M3 Bradley CFV has reduced men capacity, mostly used for enhanced NBC defense stuff - and more TOW missiles. It is pretty obvious that they are expected to at least take out everything resembling enemy scouts, if not to hold up the first tanks appearing. Overall, I think nobody in a fulda gap scenario would give much about non-tanks for the actual ground struggle when main bodies clash. The reload times in face of quick and precise return fire both from tanks and artillery would put a quick stop on anything standing in the way of a major tank attack. In central Germany you also have pretty close terrain so that the ATGMs couldn't play their range advantage. Tanknet had a(nother) huge thread about an 80ties Warshaw Pakt attack what-if lately, thread was titled "battle of armor - the end of cold war". You will probably find it interesting if you didn't see it already. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted November 12, 2003 Share Posted November 12, 2003 The major difference is that the fighting would be much more mobile because the ROF of ATGMs sucks so bad and most vehicle-mounted launchers have to be reloaded while the loaded is not under armor cover. Shoot-and-scoot is a lot more important for them ROF for a single tube sucks, but most ATGM carriers mount at least two , more usually four. Plus there are systems like the Swingfire (are there others?) that can fire from defilade. Return fire doesn't help too much when your target is behind a big hill. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMplayer Posted November 12, 2003 Share Posted November 12, 2003 Redwolf, again I'm going to leave that without comment, but just wonder about the situation where the ground is more open. Basically the reason I ask is that I've been kicking AI butt in TacOps by using Bradleys or TOW-equipped Humvees about like the WWII German TDs. They pop in and out of LOS from extreme range, and engage at the same time as the main tank battle is going on. Artillery goes to suppress/destroy spotted OPFOR ATGW-equipped vehicles or dismounts. The T80Us die like flies, even when OPFOR gets thermal sights and all the rest of the jazz. The ratios are along the lines of OPFOR needs 3-1 attacking odds just to manage to take something with them when they die. So I wondered if this kind of tactics were taught, planned, prepared: or if they are just a feature of the game which would disappear against a competent human opponent. [ November 12, 2003, 03:48 PM: Message edited by: CMplayer ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Boggs Posted November 12, 2003 Share Posted November 12, 2003 You guys are being unfair to Patton. That exact same situation has happened to me at the bowling alley on at least two occaisions. Maybe more, but after the first two pitchers of beer, things get a little fuzzy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMplayer Posted November 12, 2003 Share Posted November 12, 2003 Originally posted by Jim Boggs: You guys are being unfair to Patton. That exact same situation has happened to me at the bowling alley on at least two occaisions. Maybe more, but after the first two pitchers of beer, things get a little fuzzy. The difference is that we expect that of you. Patton is a youngster; he's supposed to be a sharp cookie. I mean he's studying the freakin flippin neuron in its natural habitat for cripes sake. Personally I find him scary. Do you want the next generation of neurochemists to grow up delusional about what is and is not ballistically possible? The consequences are just too horrible to imagine. [ November 12, 2003, 03:57 PM: Message edited by: CMplayer ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Boggs Posted November 12, 2003 Share Posted November 12, 2003 Originally posted by CMplayer: Do you want the next generation of neurochemists to grow up delusional about what is and is not ballistically possible? The consequences are just too horrible to imagine. What exactly does a nuerochemist do? I thought nuero had something to do with the brain or nervous system? Does he make LSD or sumfink? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patton21 Posted November 13, 2003 Author Share Posted November 13, 2003 Well a neurobiologist/neurochemist studies the nervous system and the brain, which are one in the same. You study the action potentials of the brain which are the electrical signals your brain generates to send nerve impulses down your axons and dendrites. So this naturaly leads into study of MS and parkinsens disease. But im sticking to my guns, that round landed behind the m10 by god. It landed behind the m10!!!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted November 13, 2003 Share Posted November 13, 2003 Originally posted by Patton21: ...i think the smell of gunpowder and beer has driven some of you guys crazy...damn beer. That's right. The smell of beer does weird things to my neurochemistry. I'm liable to run amok any moment. If I were you, I'd get as far from my computer as is physically possible. Uh oh, I feel it coming on... RUN!!! Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Private Bluebottle Posted November 13, 2003 Share Posted November 13, 2003 Originally posted by flamingknives: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> The major difference is that the fighting would be much more mobile because the ROF of ATGMs sucks so bad and most vehicle-mounted launchers have to be reloaded while the loaded is not under armor cover. Shoot-and-scoot is a lot more important for them ROF for a single tube sucks, but most ATGM carriers mount at least two , more usually four. Plus there are systems like the Swingfire (are there others?) that can fire from defilade. Return fire doesn't help too much when your target is behind a big hill. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nippy Posted November 13, 2003 Share Posted November 13, 2003 Originally posted by Patton21: The middle e in my signature is to be crazy! And the m10 may be in tunisia but it has very thin armor and you could punch through it with anything a bit bigger then a rifle round. That will make it a good unit for people like me. Self abusive "Xtreme" tacticans that love CM:BB units like the German Marder series or the SU-76. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seanachai Posted November 13, 2003 Share Posted November 13, 2003 Originally posted by Patton21: But im sticking to my guns, that round landed behind the m10 by god. It landed behind the m10!!!! Perhaps it was a late war German tank? Those mounted large, U-shaped metal pipes that would catch the incoming shell, divert it back along the half-circle of the U, and send it back towards the firing tank. You are not 'sticking to your guns'. You are maintaining an idiotic statement. I choose to be kind and have decided you are simply insane. Thank God you are studying Neurobiology. The idea that you might study Engineering or Physics or something similar and end up working for the Space Program would otherwise keep me from my sleep. But I shall sleep well, knowing that your chosen field does not depend in any way on an actual understanding of ballistics, Wiley Coyote. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fly Pusher Posted November 13, 2003 Share Posted November 13, 2003 Originally posted by Seanachai: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Patton21: Alright, there seems to be some confusion on my part. When I said that the round from my m10 landed behind the m10, that is exactly what i meant. The round came out of the gun, turned around and exploded behind the tank. It turned around? Like in a Roadrunner cartoon? </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.