Swift Posted January 15, 2002 Share Posted January 15, 2002 While playing CM I started to think about what happens with all the destroyed and abandoned units. Every battle that results in one part taking terrain would result in a chance of capturing enemy equipment. A standard CM battle leaves several vehicles and guns left on the battleground.I would think that much of this could be repaired and reused by the capturer. I have read about Russians and Germans using each others tanks and guns on the east front but I haven’t seen anything about this on the west front. Did the Allies use German equipment (and vice versa) and to what extent? If not reused what did they do with all the captured equipment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeT Posted January 15, 2002 Share Posted January 15, 2002 BTS has long stated that to take over a captured vehicle during a battle is out, same for capture arty. CMBB is supposed to have captured vehicles on both sides as part of the TO&E. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boo Radley Posted January 15, 2002 Share Posted January 15, 2002 I wondered about that. Another thing that confused me is abandoned equipment. I had a crewman on a German infantry gun, he got panicky and ran away. Later, after he had calmed down, I put him back in position, but the gun was still abandoned. Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted January 15, 2002 Share Posted January 15, 2002 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Boo_Radley: I wondered about that. Another thing that confused me is abandoned equipment. I had a crewman on a German infantry gun, he got panicky and ran away. Later, after he had calmed down, I put him back in position, but the gun was still abandoned. Why?<hr></blockquote> The engine does not handle the remanning of equipment in the limited time frame of a battle. Sort of like, you may have ordered him back ot the peice, but hell if he is going get back on it just 10 minutes after he ran away. However, in operations, surviving crews will staff guns that are not knocked out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParaBellum Posted January 15, 2002 Share Posted January 15, 2002 OK. First, abandonned usually means the vehicle/gun has suffered enough damage for the crew to think it's better to leave it. So in order to use it again, you first had to repair it. I doubt that the usual US army repair facility had lots of spare parts for a Tiger... And the crews of guns were instructed to make the gun unusuable if they have to abandon it. I've seen some photos of Shermans with german markings but i don't know if they were actually used in combat or only for testing. I've read accounts that the US 83rd infantry division used several Tiger tanks, a few Mercedes cars, buses and even a Me 109, but I guess this was far from usual... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patolino Posted January 15, 2002 Share Posted January 15, 2002 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by MikeT: BTS has long stated that to take over a captured vehicle during a battle is out, same for capture arty.<hr></blockquote> Which is all wrong, of course! Überfinns would do that all the time. When I was visiting the Parola armour museum a couple of years ago, I stopped by and listened when a tank veteran was expaining how they used a captured, immobile T-26 in the Winter War -- after politely asking the former owners to vacate the vehicle -- to knock out other, still advancing 26's. Unfortunately, I cannot remember his name anymore. Then there's the case of one Vilho Rättö, who captured an abandoned 45mm AT gun, and single-handedly knocked out four Soviet tanks. As the men who had abandoned the gun had removed the sights, he aimed the gun by looking through the barrel (yes, the distances were short, 300 m or so if my memory serves me right). He got the Mannerheim cross for that (only 2nd class though), being the first ordinary grunt to receive it. (if any of the resident Finns has that book on Mannerheim cross knights on his shelf, could you check the distance & which tanks they were?) Of course, if a gun (or MG) has been abandoned due to HE shelling and the resultant damage makes it unbattleworthy, it's easy to see why it wouldn't be manned by its captors. But how about that Ami 57mm AT gun lying around whose conscript crew my veteran SMG squads directed elsewhere? It's brand spanking new -- just needs some green paint on the shield to cover the 9mm hit marks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfish Posted January 15, 2002 Share Posted January 15, 2002 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by patolino: But how about that Ami 57mm AT gun lying around whose conscript crew my veteran SMG squads directed elsewhere? It's brand spanking new -- just needs some green paint on the shield to cover the 9mm hit marks! <hr></blockquote> If it was manned by a conscript crew chances are it was broken long before your guys showed up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gyrene Posted January 15, 2002 Share Posted January 15, 2002 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr> When I was visiting the Parola armour museum a couple of years ago, I stopped by and listened when a tank veteran was expaining how they used a captured, immobile T-26 in the Winter War -- after politely asking the former owners to vacate the vehicle -- to knock out other, still advancing 26's. Unfortunately, I cannot remember his name anymore. <hr></blockquote> I thought the Finns knocked out T26's by picking them up and throwing them at other T26's, or by swinging mighty trees like golf clubs and sending the Russian tanks back to where they came from. Gyrene Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patolino Posted January 15, 2002 Share Posted January 15, 2002 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Gyrene: swinging mighty trees like golf clubs and sending the Russian tanks back to where they came from. Gyrene<hr></blockquote> True, but there's no hope of getting this into CMBB. BTS needs to do an engine rewrite first, because the current engine doesn't do terrain modification on the fly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illo Posted January 15, 2002 Share Posted January 15, 2002 IMO its kind of stupid you dont have abandon command for Guns. Mostly i really feel like saving my gun crew before they are getting slaughtered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jussi Köhler Posted January 16, 2002 Share Posted January 16, 2002 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Gyrene: I thought the Finns knocked out T26's by picking them up and throwing them at other T26's, or by swinging mighty trees like golf clubs and sending the Russian tanks back to where they came from. Gyrene<hr></blockquote> Damn, I´m too new on the board to know how this has started... Anyone remember what post "flamed" this kinda ûberFinn behavior... :confused: Our ûbertactic wont work in the future when everyone knows about it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tero Posted January 16, 2002 Share Posted January 16, 2002 Originally posted by Gyrene: I thought the Finns knocked out T26's by picking them up and throwing them at other T26's, or by swinging mighty trees like golf clubs and sending the Russian tanks back to where they came from. Nonononono. We needed the tanks BAD so why not take them from the enemy for free when they cost and arm and a leg on the free market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gyrene Posted January 16, 2002 Share Posted January 16, 2002 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr> Damn, I´m too new on the board to know how this has started... Anyone remember what post "flamed" this kinda ûberFinn behavior... Our ûbertactic wont work in the future when everyone knows about it... <hr></blockquote> Jussi, maybe Tero can point you out to the origins of the ÜberFinn phenomenom. No real harm is meant by any of it, matter of fact Finns can take a joke much better than either Americans or Australians, we could learn a thing or two from you guys. Gyrene Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jussi Köhler Posted January 16, 2002 Share Posted January 16, 2002 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Gyrene: Jussi, maybe Tero can point you out to the origins of the ÜberFinn phenomenom. No real harm is meant by any of it, matter of fact Finns can take a joke much better than either Americans or Australians, we could learn a thing or two from you guys. Gyrene<hr></blockquote> Yeah, Iknow its a joke Just wondered where and when it started so I could sleep better Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swift Posted January 16, 2002 Author Share Posted January 16, 2002 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Gyrene: No real harm is meant by any of it, matter of fact Finns can take a joke much better than either Americans or Australians, we could learn a thing or two from you guys.<hr></blockquote> Yes, normaly they wait for 10 seconds before they cut you with their knife... And I think that the ûberfinn thread started around 1941 or so [ 01-16-2002: Message edited by: Swift ]</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tero Posted January 16, 2002 Share Posted January 16, 2002 Originally posted by Jussi Köhler: Just wondered where and when it started so I could sleep better Another time honoured tradition (which goes way beyond the überFinnish tradition): do a frigging search ! You can use my member number as a criteria and you will find numerous interesting topics and debates on the überFinns and related subjects. [ 01-16-2002: Message edited by: tero ]</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tero Posted January 16, 2002 Share Posted January 16, 2002 Originally posted by Swift: Yes, normaly they wait for 10 seconds before they cut you with their knife... Have you seen Ameican movies ? They always come in guns blazing, shoot first and expect no questions are asked later. At least we have the courtesy to hear the guy out before starting a fight. And I think that the ûberfinn thread started around 1941 or so You ignoramus !!! November 30th, 1939 is of course the correct date. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swift Posted January 16, 2002 Author Share Posted January 16, 2002 Well, you lost the first try, didn't you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boo Radley Posted January 16, 2002 Share Posted January 16, 2002 But how did UberFinns get to be that way? Eating huge amounts of lutefisk? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tero Posted January 16, 2002 Share Posted January 16, 2002 Originally posted by Swift: Well, you lost the first try, didn't you! In the most strict sense of the word we "lost" both tries. But what does it really mean to lose a war ? Our army was not disarmed, it was demobilized and it got to keep all its arms (until when they were modernized in the 90's ). If you care to list the warring European capitals which were occupied by a foreign army during or after the war you will find Helsinki (our capital) is not on that list. In CM terms we snatched a tie from the jaws of defeat. In some of the Western histories the story goes our army miraculously recovered after the blow the Red Army gave it at the start of the summer offensive. In reality the retreat was in fact systematic (if somewhat chaotic) and the reinforcements were deployed on a place of our choosing, it was not fed in piece meal in an effort to stop the assault by holding on to each defensive position to the last (which is what the Germans did in both the Eastern and the Western front). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted January 16, 2002 Share Posted January 16, 2002 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by tero: Originally posted by Swift: [qb]Well, you lost the first try, didn't you! In the most strict sense of the word we "lost" both tries. But what does it really mean to lose a war ? [/QB]<hr></blockquote> I find it extremely ironic that the term "Finlandization" means to fold without a fight when faced with a alrger enemy after having scared away all your friends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abn_Ranger87 Posted January 16, 2002 Share Posted January 16, 2002 On the subject of captured equipment. I have read and listened to (being a member of the VFW has it's rewards...) accounts of American troops utilizing German armament. Problem with using such systems is that friendlys are usually quite aware of the differing signatures produced by enemy weapons and would be quick to pour surpressive fire into your area before checking to see the operator's nationality, so their employment would be a risky affair... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted January 16, 2002 Share Posted January 16, 2002 I know of a Canadian BN where the recon platoon used German guns when patrolling, because it would make the Germans hesitate when taking fire. Also, Germans used Shermans a few times (e.g. Herrlisheim), but I think it is indicative that Skorzeny's commandoes had very real trouble to get enough equipment out of the whole German army to equip themselves with US vehicles. Also, deployment numbers of Soviet tanks in the various army groups seems to have been low. In the Wehrmachtsausstellung however, there is an interesting picture from a large-scale anti-partisan operation in 1942, in which the Germans use a SU-76 SP gun, a BT-type (or somefink) light tank, and a Stug together. But this was a long way behind the frontline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gredeker Posted January 16, 2002 Share Posted January 16, 2002 Hey BTS - How about allowing captured weapons use, but only in the realm of designed scenarios? That is, allow the Russkies to have German LMG or HMG or panzerschreck teams (and vice versa), but the team would have a lower ammo level, possibly lower rate of fire, and possibly higher chance of jamming. None of these units would be available for purchase in a QB, but they would be available to scenario designers. As a cross-pollination from the ASL nostalgia thread, captured weapons use is one of the fun aspects of ASL which is a lot easier to implement than it is in CM. In the Pegasus Bridge campaign I'm playing, my Brits now have two German LMGs and a Pak38 to use against the counterattacking Germans. There's even an SSR specifying that the weapons aren't subject to captured use penalties because the Ox and Bucks trained on them in England before the battle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swift Posted January 16, 2002 Author Share Posted January 16, 2002 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by tero: In the most strict sense of the word we "lost" both tries. <hr></blockquote> Yes, but I don't want to rub it in I am, of course, only joking. I think that the Finnish effort during the winter war was truly heroic and I can understand that they joined forces with Germany in ’41 for a chance to get even. [ 01-16-2002: Message edited by: Swift ]</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts