Armor over run attacks.

[Battlefront.com]

First of all, everybody listen to Abbot. Anybody that drove a M48 "for a living" is old enough to have earned the right to be listened to

Yes, you can overrun crewed weapons in CMx1. This includes AT guns, but does NOT include mortars and HMGs due to the problems with how we coded the game. All you can do for infantry (includes mortars and HMGs) is get them to move out of the way. CMx2 will put mortars and HMGS in with AT Guns where they belong.

As for realistic WWII tactics... driving over something like an AT Gun or HMG most definitely did happen. But then again, pretty much EVERYTHING happened in WWII at least once. 5 years and scores of millions fighting at any one time, the law of averages states that "if it can happen it did happen".

I think driving over stuff was more akin to dealing with an ambush. At some point the tank finds itself in a position where it can sit still in a dangerous spot or rush forward and hope for a better result. However, standing off and blasting stuff while the infantry mops up as being far superior. Least risky.

Ah... as soon as I saw the name Guy Sajer I braced myself for what would follow. Thank you JasonC for making sure I wasn't disapointed I loved reading the book in question, but after reading far too many debates on Sajer (here and elsewhere) I've concluded it is an excellent work of fiction. At BEST the author served during the war and stitched together fact and fiction to create the story. The problem is, we don't know what is fact (if anything) and what is fiction.

Steve

[David Chapuis]

Originally posted by JasonC:

No doubt the author considered it poignant symbolism, the blood of his heros ground into Prussian soil by communist steel. A metaphor for east Germany, perhaps. But no, there is no reason to believe it as relating any actual fact.

The writer believed "I have proudly glorified the honor of all German soldiers at a time in history when they were slandered and reviled. In my opinion this was my duty..." That political point was his aim, the book was the means.

He claims he wrote it out in the 50s, it was serialized in Belgium in the 60s and later published as a book. My personal take is that he was a vichy sympathizer who joined the SS and fictionalized aspects of his account for literary purposes - including the shift of the unit he claimed to serve in to GD. (Some of his insignia remarks are true of SS uniforms but not of GD ones, and it fits every other aspect of the case, from goal to writing style to fictionalism and evasiveness).

Fiction or no, it is a good book.

Since you were so kind to share about Sajer, do you have an opinion about The Long Walk by Slavomir Rawicz.

[kenfedoroff]

Originally posted by David Chapuis:

Since you were so kind to share about Sajer, do you have an opinion about The Long Walk by Slavomir Rawicz.

Is that the one where the Polish POW officer escapes from the prison camp in Siberia with some buddies, and walks all the way to freedom in India? That was a great story... Incredible if true...

Ken

[Seanachai]

Originally posted by stoat:

I have read many accounts of German tanks stopping over foxholes then gunning the engine and grinding the occupants to death. Also, if the ground was too hard they would put the tank in neutral, gunned the engine, and suffocated the occupants.

I demand that the poster styled as 'stoat' submit to mandatory drug testing before he/she/it is allowed to purchase CMx2.

[JasonC]

"do you have an opinion about The Long Walk"

I haven't read it, but on report I take it to be fiction. On both external evidence (how it was written) and internal (snowmen anyone?)

I also think Lost Horizons is fiction, and Journey to the End of the Night, and Man's Fate, and Darkness at Noon, and...

I also think any number of men were run over by tanks in WW II, mostly after they were already dead and simply because the bodies were in the way. I don't doubt that made a visual impression on sensitive people with vivid imaginations.

(edited because I can't remember Celine's pretentious titles)

[ September 17, 2005, 08:39 AM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[Tankgunner]

Originally posted by sgtgoody (esq):

Same here. Used it with great success in one of the Kasserine scenarios.

You can overrun the gun by a MG fire. You can't do it by tank itself.

Here is an example file (CMBB PBEM, no password)

http://www.kubinka.ru/gun-test1.txt

http://www.kubinka.ru/gun-test2.txt

note that units are out of ammo, and Matilda is not using its coax MG

And by the way, I'm rather young, but drove a live Pz38(t) ant dealt with other WW2 stuff...

[Abbott]

[ September 18, 2005, 09:33 AM: Message edited by: Abbott ]

[SgtMuhammed]

Never sweat your time of service, you did more than most.

As to not being able to run over guns. I'll trust Steve and my own experience. Both of which say it is possible.

And the bit about tanks smothering people in foxholes. How exactly is that possible when the exhaust comes from the top or back of the tank, not the bottom?

Yes people were run over by tanks just as individual soldiers were killed by strategic bombers. I can dig up a ton of stories but that still doesn't prove that it was a common or prefered tactic. As Jason said earlier, millions of men fought in WWII in nearly every terrain imaginable, nearly everything you can think of probably happened (and a lot that you can't) but that doesn't mean it warrents inclusion in a game that has to be played on a home computer.

[Battlefront.com]

I chose a different military route for a few years…that was not so patriotic if you will.

Uhmm... you became a tax collection enforcement officer?

That you peeking out from behind the, uhmmm, T-55? Man I hate T-54/55 identification. Once upon a time I thought nothing could be more confusing than the Panzer IV family... then I met the T-54/55 family

Steve

[David Chapuis]

Originally posted by kenfedoroff:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by David Chapuis:

Since you were so kind to share about Sajer, do you have an opinion about The Long Walk by Slavomir Rawicz.

Is that the one where the Polish POW officer escapes from the prison camp in Siberia with some buddies, and walks all the way to freedom in India? That was a great story... Incredible if true...

Ken </font>

[JasonC]

"As Jason said earlier, millions of men fought in WWII in nearly every terrain imaginable, nearly everything you can think of probably happened"

For the record, I believe Steve said that, not me. I don't disagree with it, but I was not the one who said it.

[Brent Pollock]

I don't know why your Matilda crew is so inept at overruns. I'd send you a CMBB Battle showing how Elefants in July '43 armed with nothing but smoke rounds (i.e. no AP nor HE, and they have no MGs at all) can crush 25 mm AA guns in (or out) of trenches, but you do not have an e-mail address associated with your profile. You can either set it up yourself in the editor, or send me an e-mail letting me know you want the file. I just tested it and got two dead guns, one in a trench, and one out of a trench. The Elefants can even run them over in reverse...and don't anyone go saying that CM modelled CO poisoning

Originally posted by Tankgunner:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by sgtgoody (esq):

Same here. Used it with great success in one of the Kasserine scenarios.

You can overrun the gun by a MG fire. You can't do it by tank itself.

Here is an example file (CMBB PBEM, no password)

http://www.kubinka.ru/gun-test1.txt

http://www.kubinka.ru/gun-test2.txt

note that units are out of ammo, and Matilda is not using its coax MG

And by the way, I'm rather young, but drove a live Pz38(t) ant dealt with other WW2 stuff... </font>

[tar]

maneuver their vehicles into a straddle position over the hole, have the driver gun the engine, and gas the trooper with carbon monoxide from the exhaust.

This seems truly incredible, with the meaning of unbelievable. I'm not an expert on tank layout, but it was my impression that the exhaust was vented out the top of the vehicle. It must be really tough getting enough CO into a foxhole, when the exhaust tubes point up.

In fact, I would think that considerations of crew safety from carbon monoxide, as well as a desire to have a more reasonable fording depth would dictate that you don't put the exhaust pipes on the bottom of the tank. Besides, that would make them a bit vulnerable to damage from all of the other stuff the tank is running over, wouldn't it?

[Tankgunner]

Originally posted by Brent Pollock:

I don't know why your Matilda crew is so inept at overruns. I'd send you a CMBB Battle showing how Elefants in July '43 armed with nothing but smoke rounds (i.e. no AP nor HE, and they have no MGs at all) can crush 25 mm AA guns in (or out) of trenches,

[/QB]

[Abbott]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Uhmm... you became a tax collection enforcement officer?

That you peeking out from behind the, uhmmm, T-55? Man I hate T-54/55 identification. Once upon a time I thought nothing could be more confusing than the Panzer IV family... then I met the T-54/55 family

Steve

Yes that is me behind that Iraqi tank. It was built in China and is a copy of the T54/A designated Type-59. The tank in the picture was captured in Iraq during Desert Storm by the 864th. (Combat heavy) Engineer Battalion. It has a few modern do-dads but (IMO) is inferior to the M-48A5.

--

“The Type 59 is similar to the Soviet T-54 and shares many of the same characteristics. More recent T-59 production models have infrared searchlights for the commander and gunner, a larger infrared searchlight mounted above the main armament that moves in elevation with the main armament, a laser rangefinder (fitted to some models) right of the infrared searchlight mounted over the main armament and night vision equipment that includes new periscopes for the commander, gunner and driver (not fitted on all models)”

Type-59

[ September 18, 2005, 09:34 AM: Message edited by: Abbott ]

[Michael Dorosh]

More reading on Sajer at my website for anyone interested - http://members.shaw.ca/grossdeutschland/sajer.htm

It would appear JasonC has memorized large tracts of it, including Mr. Brown's commentary on internal and external criticism.

Also interesting to see where the sponge soaks up its water.

Infantry Overruns in CMX1 would have been very silly indeed - how would a tank run over 10 men? At least with 1:1 representation you can lose one man.

I would imagine more men were killed by being run over their own tanks, than by enemy tanks. Accounts of the landing beaches at Dieppe and Normandy include the accidental running over of wounded (friendly) infantrymen. Probably happened more often then getting close to an enemy infantryman with your tank.

[Kurtz]

Advancing in cover behind your own tank could be interesting when the tank spots a Tiger and suddenly reverses! :eek:

Why would a tank stand still for several minutes to suffocate one or two men in a foxhole with the exhaust? Sounds very vulnerable to me. Apart from the fact pointed out about the direction of the exhaust pipes.

I'll wait for the Mythbusters to bust this myth.

[Aacooper]

When the US Army was training for WW2, the tankers were taught to run down AT guns. This turned out to be more difficult in practice, and I think the teaching was abandoned. I can't remember the source, it was from an autobiography written by an onery colonel who commanded a Combant Command.

Re: friendly overruns, I know in Battlefield 2 I'm constantly backing over friendly guys, so is that a good source?

[stoat]

Originally posted by Kurtz:

I'll wait for the Mythbusters to bust this myth.

No myth, just some stupid crap I posted from a book I knew to be inaccurate.

[Battlefront.com]

Abbot,

Damn, I almost guessed a Type-59! The give away is the Soviet models have a piece of steel going across the upper front hull and some other doodads. However, I thought they might have been removed for some reason. The other thing I think is the tell tale sign is the road wheels. The Soviets used a couple of different designs, but I am not sure any looked quite like that.

Sorry to hear your quest for fortune resulted in a wound. "Bummer" doesn't quite cut it, does it?

Back on topic.

There is another reason that tanks grinding trenches and significant foxholes probably wasn't done in real life as much as Hollywood (and fictional books) is because of throwing a track or even getting immobilized. For the latter, imagine what would happen to a tank that got itself parallel to a trench and not exactly straddling it. One side of the trench would give way and the tank would fall into it. Very difficult to get out of that even with the propper recovery vehicles.

Throwing a track is fairly easy to do when the edge of the track is slammed sidewise into an obstacle. Spinning around on top of even a moderate foxhole introduces this as a possibility.

Now, I am not saying that this stuff never happened, I am just saying tankers knew that whatever theoretical doctrine said it was a good idea was most likely ignored due to personal understanding that it was quite dangerous. Throwing a track during training is one thing, trowing it while in an active enemy MLR is a whole nother thing!

BTW, I have a friend who is in the National Guard as a tank gunner. He said that when they practice the M1A1 he trains on has its zero radius turn controls (which are separate from the normal controls) wired down so that they are inoperable. The reason? It is too easy to throw a track even on a flat field so they stop them from doing this so they don't have to spend the rest of the weekend getting the vehicle back into service!

Steve

[JasonC]

Mike - and the reason they are mostly wounded already is those ones can't get out of the way. Ordinarily, tankers rely on friendly infantry doing at least half of the collision-avoidance necessary.

On your site, sure it comes up on Google, along with Amazon reviews. When I want to know what most others think about something I google it, as I assume everyone does. On military history questions, I also just consult my own past reading, my books or a library's, etc.

On exhaust, it strikes me as a purely psychological fear rather than a tactic. Tanks avoid being within short infantry AT range of enemy infantry. When they are at such ranges, they move about vigorously and spray machinegun fire. You'd need a death wish to purposefully sit still for 5-10 minutes close enough to be touched by enemy soldiers.

[Abbott]

(snip) I have a friend who is in the National Guard as a tank gunner. He said that when they practice the M1A1 he trains on has its zero radius turn controls (which are separate from the normal controls) wired down so that they are inoperable. The reason? It is too easy to throw a track even on a flat field so they stop them from doing this so they don't have to spend the rest of the weekend getting the vehicle back into service!

Shutting that zero radius turn device off is a very good idea. Just driving a fully tracked vehicle requires some care in turning, just slamming the steering from one side or the other can throw a track and they require a lot of hard, dirty work to put back on.

I was thinking the same thing concerning trenches. Catching a track in one would peel it right off, then your done. I could picture trying to grind a couple of guys in a foxhole into mush in an extreme situation but it seems like that would be an exceedingly rare occurrence and only be brought on by an oversight or an emergency. Depending on the ground conditions it might not even be possible.

I heard a story from Korea about some Chinese soldiers who had been run over on a dirt road. The story went that thru the winter as the ice built up on the road and vehicles kept passing over the frozen corpses. That the corpses kept spreading out and looked thru the ice to be several times larger then normal size. No idea where the story came from or if it is true.

[ September 18, 2005, 11:14 AM: Message edited by: Abbott ]

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by JasonC:

"I have read many accounts..."

More to the point, you apparently believed them. Which would seem to be the problem.

Yeah...no way did any tank in ww2 ever physically run over an enemy unwounded soldier on purpose.

Now, since you have discarded eye-witness accounts as evidence of such occurances, how are we to prove it happened? Forensics reports? Im not sure there were super-many autopsies made directly after combat on guys that had been crushed by tanks, but I suppose thats what we'll have to find eh?

[stoat]

Originally posted by Leutnant Hortlund:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JasonC:

"I have read many accounts..."

More to the point, you apparently believed them. Which would seem to be the problem.

Yeah...no way did any tank in ww2 ever physically run over an enemy unwounded soldier on purpose.

Now, since you have discarded eye-witness accounts as evidence of such occurances, how are we to prove it happened? Forensics reports? Im not sure there were super-many autopsies made directly after combat on guys that had been crushed by tanks, but I suppose thats what we'll have to find eh? </font>

[JasonC]

"And then the T-34 crept up right on top of my foxhole. It became difficult to breath. The tank started to twist in place and the sides of the foxhole caved in. I was ground into a sticky paste".

(Skeptical looks, looks at each other, puzzlement)

"I got better..."