gibsonm Posted March 8, 2005 Share Posted March 8, 2005 Sure but being behind armour protects you from an awfull of things that ballisticly tolerant cotton shirts don’t. So if there are X thousand projectiles, shell splinters etc flying around a given grid square and you are mounted, most of those wont effect you, but the ones that do - really do. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted March 8, 2005 Share Posted March 8, 2005 Sure but being behind armour protects you from an awfull of things that ballisticly tolerant cotton shirts don’t. So if there are X thousand projectiles, shell splinters etc flying around a given grid square and you are mounted, most of those wont effect you, but the ones that do - really do. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wartgamer Posted March 8, 2005 Share Posted March 8, 2005 OK. But AT weapons have a habit of aiming. http://home.comcast.net/~the654th_tdb/index.html I was looking at this site today. I like the calander feature. Still trying to find that site which breaks down an armored divisions casualtys by the battalions. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wartgamer Posted March 8, 2005 Share Posted March 8, 2005 OK. But AT weapons have a habit of aiming. http://home.comcast.net/~the654th_tdb/index.html I was looking at this site today. I like the calander feature. Still trying to find that site which breaks down an armored divisions casualtys by the battalions. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wartgamer Posted March 8, 2005 Share Posted March 8, 2005 OK. But AT weapons have a habit of aiming. http://home.comcast.net/~the654th_tdb/index.html I was looking at this site today. I like the calander feature. Still trying to find that site which breaks down an armored divisions casualtys by the battalions. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted March 8, 2005 Share Posted March 8, 2005 Sure but unaimed shrapnel will still make a mess of your day, even if it didn’t mean to hit you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted March 8, 2005 Share Posted March 8, 2005 Sure but unaimed shrapnel will still make a mess of your day, even if it didn’t mean to hit you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted March 8, 2005 Share Posted March 8, 2005 Sure but unaimed shrapnel will still make a mess of your day, even if it didn’t mean to hit you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wartgamer Posted March 8, 2005 Share Posted March 8, 2005 How many pieces of 'shrapnel' were created in WWII? 100s of billions? More? So. There. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wartgamer Posted March 8, 2005 Share Posted March 8, 2005 How many pieces of 'shrapnel' were created in WWII? 100s of billions? More? So. There. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wartgamer Posted March 8, 2005 Share Posted March 8, 2005 How many pieces of 'shrapnel' were created in WWII? 100s of billions? More? So. There. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted March 8, 2005 Share Posted March 8, 2005 Sure, I’m just saying that for every “unprotected” infantryman these were dangerous (along with rifle, MG fire etc.) so for infantry its a more hostile environment. For armoured crewman the number of projectiles that could destroy / damage their vehicle was significantly less (although the effects of one of these hitting the vehicle would be more substantial). A very rough example. A German Company infantry assault against an US Platoon would expect to take fire from say 30 odd aimed automatic and semi automatic anti personnel weapons, plus Arty, Mortars and grenades - all of which were bad news for the infantry. A panzer involved in the same assault could expect rounds from one or two AT weapons to be coming their way (say one AT gun in the PL sector and one organic Bazooka). Each of these rounds needed to hit (helped by the fact they were aimed) and then penetrate to actually hurt the crew. It would be worse if the US were attacking a German position given the higher number of panzerfausts and panzerscheck per platoon (and arguably the quality of their armour). Certainly if the round penetrated then the crewmen would suffer terrible injuries (esp if the vehicle caught fire and the ammo started to cook off) but I still think you are safer in an AFV, than out of it. [ March 08, 2005, 01:06 AM: Message edited by: gibsonm ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted March 8, 2005 Share Posted March 8, 2005 Sure, I’m just saying that for every “unprotected” infantryman these were dangerous (along with rifle, MG fire etc.) so for infantry its a more hostile environment. For armoured crewman the number of projectiles that could destroy / damage their vehicle was significantly less (although the effects of one of these hitting the vehicle would be more substantial). A very rough example. A German Company infantry assault against an US Platoon would expect to take fire from say 30 odd aimed automatic and semi automatic anti personnel weapons, plus Arty, Mortars and grenades - all of which were bad news for the infantry. A panzer involved in the same assault could expect rounds from one or two AT weapons to be coming their way (say one AT gun in the PL sector and one organic Bazooka). Each of these rounds needed to hit (helped by the fact they were aimed) and then penetrate to actually hurt the crew. It would be worse if the US were attacking a German position given the higher number of panzerfausts and panzerscheck per platoon (and arguably the quality of their armour). Certainly if the round penetrated then the crewmen would suffer terrible injuries (esp if the vehicle caught fire and the ammo started to cook off) but I still think you are safer in an AFV, than out of it. [ March 08, 2005, 01:06 AM: Message edited by: gibsonm ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted March 8, 2005 Share Posted March 8, 2005 Sure, I’m just saying that for every “unprotected” infantryman these were dangerous (along with rifle, MG fire etc.) so for infantry its a more hostile environment. For armoured crewman the number of projectiles that could destroy / damage their vehicle was significantly less (although the effects of one of these hitting the vehicle would be more substantial). A very rough example. A German Company infantry assault against an US Platoon would expect to take fire from say 30 odd aimed automatic and semi automatic anti personnel weapons, plus Arty, Mortars and grenades - all of which were bad news for the infantry. A panzer involved in the same assault could expect rounds from one or two AT weapons to be coming their way (say one AT gun in the PL sector and one organic Bazooka). Each of these rounds needed to hit (helped by the fact they were aimed) and then penetrate to actually hurt the crew. It would be worse if the US were attacking a German position given the higher number of panzerfausts and panzerscheck per platoon (and arguably the quality of their armour). Certainly if the round penetrated then the crewmen would suffer terrible injuries (esp if the vehicle caught fire and the ammo started to cook off) but I still think you are safer in an AFV, than out of it. [ March 08, 2005, 01:06 AM: Message edited by: gibsonm ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wartgamer Posted March 8, 2005 Share Posted March 8, 2005 Thats stat came from a very comprehensive study of British tanks KOd. Hopefully I will get it in the mail soon. I need a constant flux of info or my balls start to shrivel. The crew losses to tankers had another effect. It broke up crews as 1-3 guys would be lost with each vehicle. Crew efficiency breaks down followed by morale. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wartgamer Posted March 8, 2005 Share Posted March 8, 2005 Thats stat came from a very comprehensive study of British tanks KOd. Hopefully I will get it in the mail soon. I need a constant flux of info or my balls start to shrivel. The crew losses to tankers had another effect. It broke up crews as 1-3 guys would be lost with each vehicle. Crew efficiency breaks down followed by morale. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wartgamer Posted March 8, 2005 Share Posted March 8, 2005 Thats stat came from a very comprehensive study of British tanks KOd. Hopefully I will get it in the mail soon. I need a constant flux of info or my balls start to shrivel. The crew losses to tankers had another effect. It broke up crews as 1-3 guys would be lost with each vehicle. Crew efficiency breaks down followed by morale. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted March 8, 2005 Share Posted March 8, 2005 Originally posted by Wartgamer: The crew losses to tankers had another effect. It broke up crews as 1-3 guys would be lost with each vehicle. Crew efficiency breaks down followed by morale. But the same thing happened to infantry. A squad/section loses 3-5 guys and becomes almost useless in combat until replacements can be integrated And I do mean integrated. Just having more warm bodies didn't usually do it. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted March 8, 2005 Share Posted March 8, 2005 Originally posted by Wartgamer: The crew losses to tankers had another effect. It broke up crews as 1-3 guys would be lost with each vehicle. Crew efficiency breaks down followed by morale. But the same thing happened to infantry. A squad/section loses 3-5 guys and becomes almost useless in combat until replacements can be integrated And I do mean integrated. Just having more warm bodies didn't usually do it. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted March 8, 2005 Share Posted March 8, 2005 Originally posted by Wartgamer: The crew losses to tankers had another effect. It broke up crews as 1-3 guys would be lost with each vehicle. Crew efficiency breaks down followed by morale. But the same thing happened to infantry. A squad/section loses 3-5 guys and becomes almost useless in combat until replacements can be integrated And I do mean integrated. Just having more warm bodies didn't usually do it. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soddball Posted March 8, 2005 Share Posted March 8, 2005 I've just been reading Stuart Hills' "By Tank into Normandy". He was a TC in the Sherwood Rangers and said he always felt sorry for the infantry because they were so much more vulnerable. He had three or four tanks shot out from under him, mostly Shermans and one Stuart (IIRC). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soddball Posted March 8, 2005 Share Posted March 8, 2005 I've just been reading Stuart Hills' "By Tank into Normandy". He was a TC in the Sherwood Rangers and said he always felt sorry for the infantry because they were so much more vulnerable. He had three or four tanks shot out from under him, mostly Shermans and one Stuart (IIRC). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soddball Posted March 8, 2005 Share Posted March 8, 2005 I've just been reading Stuart Hills' "By Tank into Normandy". He was a TC in the Sherwood Rangers and said he always felt sorry for the infantry because they were so much more vulnerable. He had three or four tanks shot out from under him, mostly Shermans and one Stuart (IIRC). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wartgamer Posted March 8, 2005 Share Posted March 8, 2005 I recall a documentary (believe it was Italy) where an infantryman would gladly take his chances against MGs firing rounds at 1200 rpm than the sherman tanke supporting him that were KOd like tin cans off a fence. The AT weapons had too much precision and effect. Artillery announces itself with the flight of the shell. MG fire, at all but the closest range, is somewhat a area fire weapon. Mortar fire, while not announcing itself with 'whistles' is decreased in effectiveness by the mere act of laying down. A human, unlike a tank, can radiacally reduce its target height in less than a second. Tanks are big and while faster than a human, it takes awhile to reach that speed. Tank crews are a team in a bigger sense than a squad of infantry. Throwing together different crewmen or worse new guys, really upsets the confidence of that team. Its a job specific team and everyone in that team is counting on the specific job getting done by one guy. An infantry squad could take on a few guys and just delegate them to other soldiers. "Just do what I do" would help the new guy at least incorporate himself without bringing the whole squad to a grinding halt. And if the new guy flakes, then leave him. If a new driver was flaky, you bet that tank crew would be thinking about bailing as soon as he stalled the tank under fire. Ie. the whole weapons 'system' has failed due to one guy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wartgamer Posted March 8, 2005 Share Posted March 8, 2005 I recall a documentary (believe it was Italy) where an infantryman would gladly take his chances against MGs firing rounds at 1200 rpm than the sherman tanke supporting him that were KOd like tin cans off a fence. The AT weapons had too much precision and effect. Artillery announces itself with the flight of the shell. MG fire, at all but the closest range, is somewhat a area fire weapon. Mortar fire, while not announcing itself with 'whistles' is decreased in effectiveness by the mere act of laying down. A human, unlike a tank, can radiacally reduce its target height in less than a second. Tanks are big and while faster than a human, it takes awhile to reach that speed. Tank crews are a team in a bigger sense than a squad of infantry. Throwing together different crewmen or worse new guys, really upsets the confidence of that team. Its a job specific team and everyone in that team is counting on the specific job getting done by one guy. An infantry squad could take on a few guys and just delegate them to other soldiers. "Just do what I do" would help the new guy at least incorporate himself without bringing the whole squad to a grinding halt. And if the new guy flakes, then leave him. If a new driver was flaky, you bet that tank crew would be thinking about bailing as soon as he stalled the tank under fire. Ie. the whole weapons 'system' has failed due to one guy. 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.