France 1940 - Allied armor and the real German edge

[Tomb]

this graticle german sight is often touted but if you have a high velocity gun with a flat trajectory you dont need much in the way of sight adjustments at all, one of the PRO documents also points out that long range shooting with AP, it is damm near impossible to see the fall of the shot or even a strike (17pdr) and if i recall one of the PC tank battle games historical commentry, i have tells of gunners aiming high for the turret since most errors are in range and if its closer than you think then you hit the turret, if its further away you hit the hull. it was considered bad to drop a round short where it would be spotted by the enemy crew. i would recommend WW2online for as feel for the different sights in real time action, where in practice i set the sight to the most likely engagement range since its far more important to hit first time than hit with an "accurate" range , at close range i aim for the middle since high shots hit the turret unless its really close.

also in practice i use the sights as fixed since with practice you adjust your aim point on the target with range at normal engagment ranges.

long range shooting i would adjust the sights if german but even with the top weapon (88) you use the external binocular range finder and then dial it in to the gun sight, then fire, One factor the british sights had was better low light ability over the german sights which will only matter for the dawn or dusk and perhaps other low light conditions. (not reflected in ww2online that i noticed)

as John Salt says some of the PRO stuff can be quite revealing

remember the brit 95mm heat debate ?

thier are a few items on how to use it to kill tanks which CMBO seemed to have modeled quite closely

john salt since you like reading this stuff can i draw your attention to (if you havent already)

185/194 (tank shooting direct v bracketing)

185/195 (sighting for tanks, note comment about 17[pdr having moving graticle and illuminated sight)

291/324 (first round hit in A/T combat)

291/873 (bracketing drill tank gunnery)

291/1183 (obscuration)

291/1212 (range in AT battles)

291/1240 (moving targets)

291/90 (firing on the move)

291/1202 (gyro stab systems)

291/95 (tank battle anaysis)

little bit of bedtime reading for you, well i enjoyed it

regards

Tomb

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Tomb:

[snips]

john salt since you like reading this stuff can i draw your attention to (if you havent already)

185/194 (tank shooting direct v bracketing)

185/195 (sighting for tanks, note comment about 17[pdr having moving graticle and illuminated sight)

291/324 (first round hit in A/T combat)

291/873 (bracketing drill tank gunnery)

291/1183 (obscuration)

291/1212 (range in AT battles)

291/1240 (moving targets)

291/90 (firing on the move)

291/1202 (gyro stab systems)

291/95 (tank battle anaysis)

little bit of bedtime reading for you, well i enjoyed it

Read 'em all, years ago, in the case of the WO 291 series I believe shortly after accession. You will find key points from all the above, and plenty of others, summarised by me in the WW2 effectiveness file available from

http://www.britwar.co.uk/salts/

(thanks to Chris Wilson for hosting my pages at this site).

J. D. Fiddlespoon (of Fiddlespoon, Grognard & Claptrap) would just like to point out, in the interests of accurate citation, that the correct piece numbers for the bracketing in tank gunnery report is WO 291/882 (973 is on the Westkapelle assault), and the report on tank battle analysis should be WO 291/975.

All the best,

John.

[Tomb]

tks for that, very nice you have been busy

I usually lurk in the air 40 files but since CMBO and ww2online have been looking at a few other areas, so much to read and only 1 lifetime.

regards

Tomb

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by Tomb:

I usually lurk in the air

No kidding. 14 posts in 3 years! Well, no one can accuse you of spam.

[illo]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

Very interesting post, Ken. I didn't know that about German sights. Thanks.

Michael

Here is something from Panzer Elite site.

Zeiss sight

Take a look at the center large triangle. That triangle was calibrated to be "4 Strich" (in German) wide, or 4 mils. On 1000 meters range one mil resembles 1 meter if the gun was properly calibrated (thats a big "if"). Lets say there is a target 4 meters wide. Align the center triangle to the target and see if its larger or smaller and reduce the range accordingly. If the target is half the size of the triangle its twice a far away, ie. 2000 meters. If it is covering the large triangle and a small, ie. 6 mils wide, its:

4 mils = 1000 meters for 4 meter size, 6 mils = 750 meters for 4 meter size

So all you got to do is to know the targets size and match it against your sights. The small triangles are 2 mils, the large 4 mils, the distance between the small is 2 at their base, 4 mils at their tip. German gun crews knew the size of their targets from target tables and later instinctively knew distances. They practiced with their thumb all the time. Your thumb is on average 40 mils wide on 1000 meters, if you stretch your arm. Try it and guess ranges and verify if you're right or wrong. When aiming use the left and the right eye and the thumb will switch "targets". that jump is 100 meters or 100 mils at a distance of 1000 meters on average.

Now the exact range is NOT the range you want to aim to. Why? Because the shell would hit the ground exactly in front of your target, the range you guessed. But you want to HIT the target, ie. you have to aim higher. In order to hit the gunner has to change his "Visier" (turn the range wheel) of his sight which raises or lowers the aiming sight shown above, thus forcing him to lower or raise his gun to set the aiming sight again on target. The aiming sight of the Panzergranate 39 (Armor Piercing ammunition) was ranged form 0 to 4000 meters. Note that there is a different aiming set for each ammunition the tank carried because its flight path differs from the different muzzle velocity. Tanks with early Zeiss optics needed to add/deduct from their guessed range for each ammo type while later ones had different recticles for each.

German gunners were known to hit weak spots on enemy tanks. The gunner in German tanks sits to the left of the gun (to the right of the gun in American tanks). So the gun shoots a little over 70 centimeters to the right if you aim perfectly. The machine gun even hits over 1 meter to the right of the spot you aimed at. Also the shell is set to a spin and that spin will force the shell from its ideal path slightly to the left and down. All those factors were trained properly and the german gunners were experts taking those into account during combat.

In order to calibrate their guns they bore sighted it against a target they knew the size and range. They calibrated the optics to that target and test fired a few shells. Interestingly we needed to do that as well in the game in order to calibrate our software driven optics to the software driven muzzle velocity.

American sight.

The americans had poor optics and could NOT measure the range through them. All shots beyond 800 meters were lucky guesses on their part. This is an image of their M61 sight they used.

The early version was even worse. It was used through a persicope which was looking above and to the left of the gun and had poor recticles.

The only way to shoot is to raise the gun until your target matches the ranges horizon shown on the recticle.

[ June 12, 2002, 04:38 PM: Message edited by: illo ]

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Tomb:

tks for that, very nice you have been busy

I usually lurk in the air 40 files but since CMBO and ww2online have been looking at a few other areas, so much to read and only 1 lifetime.

regards

Tomb

I don't s'pose you know what became of the station records for RAF Thurleigh after mid-1943, do you?

If you ever happen to be in the PRO and see a large, bald, ginger-bearded loon with open-toed sandals and (probably) a bright orange knitted waitcoat, try walking up to him and saying "You are John Salt and I claim my free beer" (quietly, so we don't get thrown out by those odd bods in uniform). If it's me, I'll buy you a beer at a suitable nearby hostelry. If it turns out to be someone else, I advise you to fake a bilious attack and start talking French.

All the best,

John.

[Steiner14]

Very interesting posts. Especially Tom's (C3K) statements about the optics was complete new to me. Thank you.

What i miss in the discussion are 2 points: were there different approaches in training?

I mean that discipline was one of the main targets in german training, like in whole german culture.

But discipline was not only focused on commands - it was much more a way of seeing what life is for: the individual is not that important - what really counts is the whole community and that the individuum is ready to die, when it is necessary, that the nation can live.

I hope i can explain it with my poor English what i mean.

In this context i can tell you a small, but very interesting story from an uncle of mine, when he was 13 years old:

he was in a youth-camp of the Hitlerjugend, like every weekend, when he received the message, that his father had died (he was 13 years old). He went to his Fähnchenführer and told him about the bad news, crying while he spoke.

The Fähnchenführer laid his hand on his shoulder, looked at him and said: J.... very sorry to hear that. But, despite all of the pain you feel: a german boy doesn't cry. The character is prooved in hard situations, only. Now go home and take care of your mother.

Since this day, my uncle never again cried (he told me so).

This is only a small episode but i think it gives a quite good insight on how german culture trained the individual to be hard to itself to have more power to help the community.

I think it could also be called anti-decadent.

And if i think of the expanding-time of the british-empire (and even the colonialization of Northern America, with the Puritans) i see the same principles.

And we find similar examples further back in history, too: Hellas (the nation that created the antique greek culture) or the expanding Roman Empire: all those culture-creating nations were strictly non-decadent and had the same main principle: that the nation is more important than the individual.

The life of the real, knightly soldier, was the big model for the male youth.

I think this aspect sould also be taken into discussion, despite all the technical and tactical issues.

I have a question to the US-soldiers out there:

here in Germany the surviving soldiers of WWII are very amused about the hollywood war-movies.

In the movies it is quite common, that officers are insulted by subordinates - for example, if they think a command is a mistake.

Sometimes it even happens, that conflicts are solved with the fists.

Not to forget, to talk to an officer, while chewing a bubble-gum like a cow.

My question is: does this reflect reality?

Since my grandfather (4. Gebirgsjäger) told me, that even in hardest situations on the russian front a strong look from the officer was enough, i can't believe what we see in the movies all the time.

If US-officers would have needed their fists, till the subordinates accepted the command, all material in the world wouldn't have been enough to win the war.

Or, think of one of the newer movies: SavingPrivateRyan, where he just ignores the command, to return home - this looks quite aehm... strange, not to say ridiculous.

My second question is:

did the french-troops like the german had

"Auftragstaktik" (is job-tactic the right word? i'll try to explain in english: the command doesn't tell HOW the target can be reached - it only tells WHAT the target is and the officers can decide quite freely on their own, how they'll make it)?

I know, that the russians didn't have "Auftragstaktik". Ofcourse this had also quite simple reasons: not everyone was capable of reading maps.

My third question:

did the Allies (French in 1940) also had the possibility for officers to ignore commands, when the current situation of the fight made it necessary, without signing their death sentence?

This is an old prussian rule - ofcourse the officer voluntarily faced/ had to face the consequences afterwards.

Thanks in advance,

Steiner

[ June 12, 2002, 06:29 PM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ]

[Wisbech_lad]

Steiner 14

“This is only a small episode but i think it gives a quite good insight on how german culture trained the individual to be hard to itself to have more power to help the community

I think it could also be called anti-decadent”

Like helping the community by killing off all those decadent homosexuals/ Jews/ Communists/ Gypsies/ mentally disabled?

And tell me, how does your “The life of the real, knightly soldier, was the big model for the male youth” and “the individuum dying if it the nation to live” explain the rather unknightly behaviour of large sections of the German armed forces, plus their complete failure to save the Third Reich from destruction?

And for your information, the expansion of the British Empire was led by the most impressive bunch of scoundrels and pirates you could ever hope to meet (Clive of India, Rhodes, Drake) It was the ambitious, often unscrupulous poorer fringes of British society who went abroad and carved out an empire (so more Scots & Irish emigrated than English), often by dubious means, because in the UK, the law just wouldn’t let you take stuff that wasn’t yours.

The driving force behind the British empire was individual and capitalistic, not nationalistic. (I want a better life, so I am going abroad where there is more opportunity. Oh, and the people here have no guns, the nearest judge is a long way away, so I will just take what I want). And it was certainly not anti decadent. There was huge resentment of the massive fortunes and lavish lifestyles of men like Clive and Hastings. Hastings in the end was tried for corruption by parliament.

Of course, you might just be a wind up, in which case:

Hi mum!

[Sir Uber General]

It is not the soldiers duty to question orders which is how those terrible things happenned - they were doing their duty to thier country.

[Wisbech_lad]

Well, enough Germans didn’t think it was their duty to do such things to make that excuse invalid.

And if it was an individual’s duty & training to die for his nation’s survival, how come so many Germans decided to do exactly the opposite – leave the country ASAP and help fight for its complete destruction? Einstein being the most famous. The Allied war effort was helped immensely by these emigres.

[Michael Dorosh]

Wisbech Lad, what on earth are you on about this time?

Steiner - great story, thanks for sharing it. Indeed, soldiers of all the nations were living in very different - and difficult - times then. We have no way of knowing or understanding today. Especially Wisbech Lad, it would seem.

Had any Canadian soldier on the boats at Juno Beach been told that the country he was fighting and quite likely about to get killed for would one day grant marriage rights to homosexual couples, pay people unemployment insurance fr not working, have women chiefs of police, discriminate against people with white skin when hiring for government jobs, outlaw smoking in public places, forbid soldiers from using profanity, and encourage the mass immigration of visible minorities from around the world, he would have laughed, or, if he believed it, quite possibly refused to jump off the boat and die for such a country. To those of us today, we see these things as progressive.

All nations have seen enormous changes in mindset and viewpoint. I wouldn't profess to understand them so completely as you appear to.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Sir Uber General:

It is not the soldiers duty to question orders which is how those terrible things happenned - they were doing their duty to thier country.

I thought that this point of view had declined rather in popularity since the Nuremburg trials.

All the best,

John.

[c3k]

Gents, nice discussion.

Tomb, John, et al., thanks. Steiner, you touch upon the cultural differences. That is indeed a huge factor in the success (kill ratios/cohesion/etc) of German units under difficult conditions when compared to other units.

Wisbech_Lad, double your medication and try to troll another thread. You add nothing to this discussion.

Ken

[Steiner14]

Sorry for going off-topic now, but i don't know a better place to ask about.

Michael, thanks for your answer.

You also touched a question i ALWAYS wanted to ask:

how's the allied veterans piont of view about the western system after WWII?

I already assumed what you wrote, but i would be very interested in other people's point of view.

Well, from a generalizing, "old fashioned" german point of view (nowadays there is no german point of view anymore, we've become exchangeable consumption-fools), i think, we germans would have NEVER surrendered if we would have known, that only few decades later, all the fundamentals of european culture will be destroyed, that family with children will become equal to a homosexual-partnership, that homosexuals will be allowed to adopt children, that women will be lured to work instead of caring for the children, that the youth will be poisioned with drugs and completely brainwashed by TV, that 12 year old boys will become just for fun murderers or rapists, that women will be reduced to sexual-objects, and it will become dangerous for a woman to go out at night, millions of healty unborn children will be killed while millions of immigrants of complete different cultures, preferably non-white will be lured with money as labour-slaves into germany (Great Britain, France,... choose whatever you like) against the will of the majority, but with the help of the full power of the system's mass-media, that faeces will become a part of art, and the old art will be called "reactionary", that the pawn will become an agriculture-industrial, whose animals will never see a ray of sunlight or will smell dew-fresh grass, that animals will be put on ships, not having labour with the faeces, that in year 1990 over 40% of the german children will have allergies, 30% will have overweight, that grandmothers and grandfathers, who took care their whole life for the children will be put into age-homes and even will be left alone, when the last hour has come, while the children earn money or are on holydays, that in year 2000 70% of world's population will not have enough to eat or drink, while in the 1930s only 30% hadn't, that the climate will be destroyed,...

But human beeing is forgetting very fast. Yesterday's scandal is tomorrow's normality.

And the alien grip on the mass-media helps to forget the enormous changes even faster and manipulates us into the direction, that brings even more money to the forces behind the scenes.

Is my assumption right, that most of the allied veterans, also think/thought nowaday's system has nothing in common with the ideas they thought they were fighting for?

Steiner

[Wisbech_lad]

Belongs on the general forum methinks.

Point was that a significant number of Germans, having gone through the same cultural education, and having the same cultural background as others, did get the hell out of Germany in 1933-39 (and Austria after 1936). There were large émigré populations in US, UK, France and Russia. Many took an active role in defeating the Nazi regime, many indeed started the fight in Spain.

Ken (C3K). Post mid 1942, I was not aware of any major differences between Germans and Allied units in terms of kill ratios/ cohesion etc, after normalising for who was attacking. Between Germans and their minor allies yes (apart from uber Finns)

Steiner/ Michael. In the UK, the returning soldiers voted for a Labour (socialist) government, which suggests more liberalism than you give them credit for. Homosexuality was decriminalised, the Empire disbanded. and the UK most “liberalised” in the mid 1960’s, which is exactly when the war generation in the UK was at its political peak (the veterans were in their 40’s, 50’s and in positions of influence in the government and civil service) If anything, I think you could make the claim that the experience of war made them more tolerant.

Steiner. To claim that Germans “would never have surrendered” had they known. They didn’t– the Allies asked for unconditional surrender, the Germans refused, but didn’t have much choice in the end with Berlin occupied. Whereas in Italy there were spontaneous ant-fascist uprisings as the war came to an end, there were none in Germany. This suggests that the Germans were united in their gotterdammerung. However, it could also mean that the internal security was just that more efficient in killing all opposition (June 4th General’s plot, White Rose, plus the fact that most who had actively resisted the Nazi rise to power had fled, or were dead)

Anyway, back to the topic. I think JasonC presents convincing arguments that the German success with armour in early WW2 was due to C3 elements at a company level and above, and that at a platoon level this edge was not so apparent. Given that I mostly play with platoon numbers of tanks in CM, this is reassuring, as modelling those C3 defects of the early war, without removing a significant amount of control from the human player to AI, will be tough. So CM will remain a fantastic simulation for company plus sized actions, that starts to creak when larger actions are played.

[c3k]

Wisbech,

One post war study (sorry, since I've forgotten the reference in the dim passage of time, this can only be regarded with understandable scepticism) examined the level at which men in combat formed bonds. These were the "I'd charge a machine-gun nest with my buddy" level of bonds.

In the U.S. Army (not seeing combat until '43 in ETO/NA) the unit with which men identified was their squad.

In the German Army that level of identification/bonding was at the company level.

Hence, if a U.S. company was under fire, as long as their immediate squad-mates did not need them to do something above and beyond the call, the U.S. GI would do as required, not more. (Yes, it's a generalization, backed by this study - which I cannot reference.)

Their German counterpart squad, if part of their _company_ was under fire, would react much more vigorously.

Culture played a role. A lot of accounts/biographies of German soldiers talk about group singing. That would be an aberration in a U.S. unit, major holidays excepted.

Another study showed that for every 100 physical combat casualties the U.S. suffered, there were 103 deemed psychologically unfit for combat. In the German army for each 100 casualties there were only 5 deemed unfit for non-physical reasons. (Yes, I'm aware there could be many cynical reasons describing the vast difference.)

Ken (no quotable titles or authors so take it or leave it as you will. My memory may have introduced errors.)

[Wisbech_lad]

Ah, OK. Though you were talking about comparative casualty ratios.

I read Ben Shepherd's "A War of Nerves" a couple of months ago - essentially a history of battlefield psychiatry. Off the top of my head, there isn't much discussion of German WW2 methodology - whereas there is a fair amount on the German WW1 approach. He does note that there weren't nearly as many German soldiers withdrawn from combat, as you state, for breakdown.

I can't remember what reasons he opined this was due to. Think it was a mix of just not having the luxury of allowing men to withdraw, unit cohesion, and battlefield executions. Will re read and get back to you by email this weekend.

Interestingly the war with the lowest number of psychiatric casualties in the field (for the US) was Vietnam

Of course, not wanting to kill people in most societies, and not wanting to be killed is seen as a Good Thing...

Review of Shepherd's book here:

http://www.mca-marines.org/Gazette/BRBateman1.html

[GriffinCheng+]

Back 2 topic:

Knowledgable folks out there: did Rommel use similar tactics in the desert as described? IIRC, Rommel used his light panzers to lure the Commonwealth tanks into his "shooting gallery" of PaKs.

[Olle Petersson]

Originally posted by Sir Uber General:

... - they were doing their duty to thier country.

Not so true for the German soldiers, and this was a devious detail of Hitler's.

German soldiers didn't swear an oath to their country, but to der Führer himself.

Honor was regarded strongly, and breaking the oath would mean dishonor.

So, when faced with some "less pleasant" order the soldier had to consider the following;

Con:

- The ordered action could seem hideous and immoral, hence something he didn't want to do.

Pro:

- The ordered action was (usually) legal, by German and international law. ("Crimes against humanity" was a term invented after the war.)

- Refusing to follow the order would imply breaking an oath, with in turn implied dishonor (even if nobody found out about it).

- If the refusal was discovered the soldier would at best be imprisoned.

Had the German oath been to the nation Hitler would have had much less influence on the war and his generals. Many of Hitler's orders didn't serve the nation, and could therefore easily have been disregarded.

On the same line;

I watched a program on Discovery some time ago. It was a ducumentary about a US Trident submarine.

The CO claimed something like; "If I get an order from the president to launch a nuclear missile, neither me nor any of my crew will hesitate to do so."

I find this statement pretty interesting.

- Using nuclear warheads is a war crime, period.

- US servicemen are not allowed to perform war crimes.

- US servicemen are not allowed to follow orders that require them to perform war crimes.

- US servicemen are not allowed issue orders to perform war crimes.

- Should the president of the USA (or any other nation with NBC capability) issue an order to use NBC weapons (s)he is a war criminal.

- Any person following that order is also a war criminal.

- In addition to that the person following that order would be breaking domestic laws and/or regulations in most civilised countries.

How come USA has their subs crewed by potential war criminals?

Cheers

Olle

[c3k]

On topic again,

I've dusted off my copy of Jentz' "Panzertruppen, vol I", and found many references to tank tactics focussed on the platoon commander and company commander trying for the kill, with their entire command, against the enemy command tank. Then, fixing the rest of the enemy in position while a manuever element takes advantage of the confusion and attacks in the rear or on a flank.

More accurate sighting systems and better command and control seem to count for a lot.

The penalties involved in a one man or two man turret go far beyond a simple rate-of-fire issue.

As for Rommels specific tactics, I gathered more that he would absorb a bit of the attack, then accurately judge when the U.K./Commonwealth troops' momentum was slowing, then unleash an armored attack. He'd absorb the attack using a combination of Pak fronts and minefields.

That element of judgment was crucial. See his comments on El Alamein. He felt the timing for the counterattack had been missed.

Ken

[Brian]

Originally posted by Olle Petersson:

Was it? I seem to remember that the Kaiser was also charged with such a crime, after WWI.

[Marlow]

Originally posted by Olle Petersson:

[i find this statement pretty interesting.

- Using nuclear warheads is a war crime, period.

- US servicemen are not allowed to perform war crimes.

- US servicemen are not allowed to follow orders that require them to perform war crimes.

- US servicemen are not allowed issue orders to perform war crimes.

- Should the president of the USA (or any other nation with NBC capability) issue an order to use NBC weapons (s)he is a war criminal.

- Any person following that order is also a war criminal.

- In addition to that the person following that order would be breaking domestic laws and/or regulations in most civilised countries.

How come USA has their subs crewed by potential war criminals?

The answer to your question is that the U.S. does not have subs crewed by potential war criminals.

Your entire premise relies on the statement "Using nuclear warheads is a war crime, period." This is your opinion, and you are welcome to it; however, use of nuclear weapons in and of itself is not a war crime. Use of any weapon, from the club up to nukes can constitute war crimes, but it is entirely based on the context in which it is used.

For example, first strike with a nuclear weapon against a population center of no military value is almost certainly to be considered a war crime. On the other hand, use of a tunneling nuclear missile on a hardened enemy command bunker or missile silo where the only likely casualties are enemy military personnel is legitimate.

[Tomb]

John,

i`ll take you up on that beer sometime, have you tried trolling through the PRO website ?. its my first port of call to try and find out what i want to ask for, such a damm shame you cant actually read more than the title online.

my next away day as it were will be tank museum at Bovingdon since ive never been, and i`d like to touch the metal as it were, now if you fancy claiming a beer down thier..be my guest.

Regards

Tomb

[Andreas]

Tomb, are you going for the Tankfest?

[Terence]

Originally posted by Olle Petersson:

Maybe its not a US law, seeing as we've already dropped two nuclear weapons?