Armor over run attacks.

[Andrew H.]

Overruns with regular tanks aren't worth worrying about, IMO, but if the overrunning side is equipped with flail tanks - well, I think CM definitely needs to model this.

[Hortlund]

Still no answer then? Fine.by.me.

[Battlefront.com]

Hehe

I believe the Chinese guys in the road story. I have a picture in one of my many books that shows a German soldier on a road sometime near the end of the road. He is flatter than a pancake. Thankfully the picture was taken from a distance so you didn't get all the details. If you did you'd see that he wasn't so much flattened but spread out. More than a subtle difference as anybody that has seen a dead animal on low speed road can tell you (high speed impact tend to, uhm, scatter the poor critter).

Steve

[JasonC]

L.H. On what evidence would you believe Russian wizards turned German soldiers into newts, but they sometimes got better? Would you respond to someone who discounted such tales by saying, "we are supposed to believe there were never any small reptiles present on the battlefield in any theater of operations in WW II?"

[stoat]

Witches. Russian witches.

[Philippe]

And as everyone knows, Russian witches live in huts built on hen's feet. Great for mobility. Just ask Baba Yaga.

[stoat]

Newts are amphibians.

[JasonC]

lol. All amendments are friendly.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by JasonC:

L.H. On what evidence would you believe Russian wizards turned German soldiers into newts, but they sometimes got better? Would you respond to someone who discounted such tales by saying, "we are supposed to believe there were never any small reptiles present on the battlefield in any theater of operations in WW II?"

Well, the thing is, I wasnt there, neither were you, so all we've got to go on are stuff told by, or written down by people who were. That and images.

So, if you read first-hand accounts from the war, sometimes you come across eyewitness accounts on how tanks ran over soldiers, MG positions, AT guns. Ok, so far so good. Not so many have read eyewitness accounts of Russian sorcery though, so your counterexample is not as accurate as one would believe at a first glance.

Why do you think you are in a position to second guess those eye-witness accounts? I guess that is what my question really comes down to. They say they saw soldiers being run over by tanks. They were there, you were not. Yet you sit here saying stuff like "no, they were not, maybe some wounded guy was run over at some isolated incident, but thats it"...I mean...whats wrong with this picture?

Heck, now that I think about it, I remember seeing a set of photos of a German gun crew manning a 75mm arty piece in russia 1941 being attacked by a T-34. Attacked as in the tank is moving towards them, and they are shooting at it. In the last photo of that series, the tank is disabled something like 10 meters away from the gun + crew. Are you really sitting there saying that it is completely unthinkable that a tank in such a situation that was not disabled 10 meters away could run over that gun and some of the crew?

You'll find those three photos in Division Das Reich, by Otto Weidinger if you want to take a peak btw, its in the 3rd volume I believe (the one covering 41).

[Battlefront.com]

And Russian witches make a sound like: du-dada... du-du-dada. du-dada... du-du-dada-dada (and if I had my way, CMBB's startup music would have sounded the same ).

Steve

[Overman_XXX]

Good post LH!

I've READ several accounts (as many others here have) of Soviet tanks used as ramming weapons vs other tanks (Kursk), or simply to crush dug-in MG/ATG emplacements.

Interestingly, Coox's 'Nomonhan' details the events of Soviet tank brigades actively using BTs to crush entrenched infantry during night fighting, as well as overruning medical tents full of wounded and incapicated soldiers. Ouch!

[JasonC]

LH - actually, having read lots of accounts of WW II, I find such things did not regularly happen and all tactics of the period are falsified by the idea they were typical or effective. I find those telling tales about them frequently were not there either, just claim to have been, or are transparently writing fictional and literary accounts, or propaganda. With all the credibility of a Sergeant Rock comic book.

I find silly things in training manuals show up frequently in such fiction but not in the detailed tactical narrative. I find books pretending to give "what it was really like" personal color, are full of purple prose and gore of this kind, and never seem to recount any clearly determined passage of arms from start to finish, preferring instead colorful highlights and "just so" stories, about how uphill it was both ways. They track civilian misunderstandings, nuances of language. They obey all the rules of the art form known as melodrama, and none of the rules of tactics.

For instance, we find a typical infantry response to a tank attack was to let the tanks pass over them, then emerge to shoot up the infantry trailing them. We find assault guns pushed into good infantry positions without infantry accompaniment quartered by close assault. We find tanks catching infantry in the open, on the other hand, resulting in persistent machinegunning and frequent surrenders.

The title of the thread is about "overrun attacks". The military referent of that term has nothing to do with the subject being discussed. Overrun means enemy formations pass through friendly formations, or one or more friendly lines fail to hold them. But literalism suggests things to poets. When someone with any military knowledge points out the actual referent, a purple prose just-so story is available to cover the literal case.

Were some men probably run over by tanks during WW II? Certainly, especially those who could not get out of the way, the dead first among them. Some friendlies unintentionally as traffic accidents, no doubt. Occasionally someone surprised enough perhaps even deliberately, as something as rare as a plane crashing into a truck on the ground or what-not. Thus my "no newts" comment.

But deliberate defeat of entrenched infantry by physical impact and grinding is a just-so myth, borne of the language used to describe higher level military events. "The tank battalion crushed the infantry in its path and broke out" - in the hands of a fantasist.

How do I know this? Because there are far too many tank on infantry engagements traced in detail, with the motivations, tactics, and abilities of the respective forces clearly required for the battle to flow as it did, which would be nonsense from start to finish, if all one had to do was drive up to a hole and make a half-right.

There is a reason tank-heavy divisions failed completely and the tank-infantry mix drifted down, and it isn't that infantry is easily squashed by armor even when dug in. The reality is, tanks that penetrated dug in enemy infantry needed their own infantry to dig the remaining defenders out of their holes with grenades and small arms.

If an eyewitness claimed every time he yelled an enemy division surrendered, I'd know that was false too, without needing to be there. It falsifies all of history and its actual source (exaggerated bombast) is apparent. Same situation here, with the transparent motive only slightly altered.

[Abbott]

I think Jason is pretty on target. The argument is not if overruns happened, they did. Heavy armored vehicles ran over infantry, MG positions, mortars or guns if they happened to be in the way. The Eastern Front being particularly brutal I can believe men in hospital tents were run over intentionally when the opportunity presented itself. If you can imagine a D-8 Caterpillar at the dump then you have a good idea of how fast a WWII main battle tank moved in combat. A man has to have a reason to be unable to get out of the way and be overrun. You could roll on the ground fast enough to be missed by the tracks. You can crawl on your knees thru a trench while a tank rolls over MG’s firing and not suffer much more then crapping your pants. If it becomes routine then you don’t even have to stop to wipe. You can clean up after the shooting stops if your lucky enough to have more then a dirty rag available you’re a winner.

I can also see pushing a truck out of the way with a tank in combat. A WW II tank would not be rolling fast enough to go up and over a truck in a classic television overrun, it would most likely push it until it swung out of the way or tipped over if its tires hung up on something. Sure it could roll over it if it hit it just right and had enough momentum. Crashing into another tank? Hmm, maybe in desperation. I don’t think everyone in a tanks crew (either side) would walk away from a tank crashing into another tank with any kind of momentum. The inside of the vehicles would beat the hell out of both crews.

The point being as was earlier said; **** happens, especially in the massive conflict of WW II but **** doesn’t have to happen everyday. Writers and witnesses often tell the highlights of what they saw or cover the unusual events of the day. The normal events such as overrunning with MG fire, canister or HEP doesn’t make the books like an unusual event tends to.

[Ardem]

Combat doesn't happen everyday as well for each soldier, days of manning a front, guard duty before the next push, but in Combat mission we try and simulate the desperate times, the operation pushes via company level engagements.

So that why overruns and the other things should be included but at the penalty is already in infantry close assault).

-----------------------------------

Dorsh's Sajer Html I have read before and changed my opnion on Sajer, if it could change a 'GD officers opinion' (read the html) about him after talking to sajer directly then enough said.

And jason and the american 'officer' historian should stop spreading there own unproven evidence. It easier to discredit a person the credit one.

[Mace]

Originally posted by Abbott:

Crashing into another tank? Hmm, maybe in desperation. I don’t think everyone in a tanks crew (either side) would walk away from a tank crashing into another tank with any kind of momentum. The inside of the vehicles would beat the hell out of both crews.

I tend to agree.

The only documented cases I've read have been acts of desperation: Firefly vs King Tiger in Normandy, and T34/76 C vs Tiger during Kursk.

In both cases IIRC the rammers had suffered some sort of damage that prevented them from firing, and in the case of the T34 the majority of the crew had already bailed, the tank was on fire, and the driver obviously was sick of living.

After the ramming all involved AFVs were no longer in battle worthy conditions.

[JasonC]

Ardem - read the GD officer's statement again, and you will notice he calls himself factual and Sajer literary, and never says he believes a word of it. He does say he has new respect for him and will read him again - in reaction no doubt to Sajer explaining it was his duty to glorify the German soldier. In other words, before he thought him a poser, now he considers him a friendly propagandist.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Ardem - read the GD officer's statement again, and you will notice he calls himself factual and Sajer literary, and never says he believes a word of it. He does say he has new respect for him and will read him again - in reaction no doubt to Sajer explaining it was his duty to glorify the German soldier. In other words, before he thought him a poser, now he considers him a friendly propagandist.

Is this normal for you? To just make **** up, then pretend its a fact? Should we judge all your posts in such a light, or are you having an exceptionally bad day in this thread?

[GAGA Extrem]

Originally posted by Tankgunner:

But, at the same time, turning around on a trench is a bad idea and is generally a movie trick.

Oh, that actually happened at our town.

My grandma told me a story about a Volkssturm man who was pinned down in a trench. A tank drove over the trench, rotated and filled it with sand and soil until the guy had suffocated...

War is hell

[Battlefront.com]

Hortlund, watch your mouth. The Sajer debate has nothing to do with JasonC. It's been going on for decades and I've read enough stuff by enough people to have formed the same opinion that Jason has. Sajer is a fraud. The book called "Forgotten Soldier" is a wonderful work of fiction, but it must be treated as fiction. Personally, I think many of the events described in there happened, but probably not by one person and certainly not in the exact context of the story as it was written.

BTW, every time Sajer is debated there are some who violently reject the notion that there is no such person as Sajer (pen name or not) and that the book is fiction and not literal truth. But the evidence to support this side is weaker than the evidence to support the conclusion that the Sajer is a fake and the book a work of fiction. Or at the very best, a work of fiction drawn from some fact.

Steve

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by 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.

Undoubtedly.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Hortlund, watch your mouth. The Sajer debate has nothing to do with JasonC. It's been going on for decades and I've read enough stuff by enough people to have formed the same opinion that Jason has. Sajer is a fraud. The book called "Forgotten Soldier" is a wonderful work of fiction, but it must be treated as fiction. Personally, I think many of the events described in there happened, but probably not by one person and certainly not in the exact context of the story as it was written.

BTW, every time Sajer is debated there are some who violently reject the notion that there is no such person as Sajer (pen name or not) and that the book is fiction and not literal truth. But the evidence to support this side is weaker than the evidence to support the conclusion that the Sajer is a fake and the book a work of fiction. Or at the very best, a work of fiction drawn from some fact.

Steve

Im not commenting on the Sajer bit at all. I have not read the book and I could not care less whether he is made up or not.

What I object to is the sort of arguing Jason presented an example of in the post I quoted.

Look at the post I quoted. Lets break it down so I can explain what I object to.

read the GD officer's statement again, and you will notice he calls himself factual and Sajer literary,

Ok, so far so good.

and never says he believes a word of it.

He does say he has new respect for him and will read him again -

Ok, nothing factually wrong so far. There is an implication hanging there in the first sentence though, it gives us the impression that although he doesnt say it, he doesnt believe the story.

in reaction no doubt to Sajer explaining it was his duty to glorify the German soldier.

Stuff made up by Jason.

In other words, before he thought him a poser, now he considers him a friendly propagandist.

More stuff made up by Jason.

All taken together, the real stuff and the stuff made up by Jason gives the reader an impression that is not based by any facts...beyond Jasons free-fantasy-theoretizising.

Now, I dont know about you, but I find that sort of "arguing" extremely dishonest. And people who are prone to using that tactic usually have the same MO whenever they post. Its not often it is as easy to expose as in this example though.

Its just bad form.

[Battlefront.com]

I agree that Jason is mixing in his own opinion. People do that all the time, so I didn't even give it a second thought. The only relevant point is why Sajer is being mentioned in the first place. And that was as a supporting source for tanks grinding infantry into the ground. Since that is the debate we are having here is all about, then it is correct to cast doubt on Sajer as a source of accurate information. Jason did that and I think it is pretty clear what parts of Jason's posts, or mine for that matter, are personal "free-fantasy-theoretizising". So I'm not sure why you're all in a huff about it.

Steve

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

I think it is pretty clear what parts of Jason's posts, or mine for that matter, are personal "free-fantasy-theoretizising". So I'm not sure why you're all in a huff about it.

Steve

Jason is in the business of disregarding eye-witness accounts in this thread. When he is making **** up to disregard those eye-witness accounts, I take objection to it.

[The Colonel]

I've never driven a tank myself but I have two armor officers who were in the first gulf war working for me. They both agree that spinning over a trench in an M-1 would be a bad idea. However, on the first night they attached mine plows to some tanks and ran down the Iraqi trench line throwing sand into the trench to bury anyone in there. An interesting twist to overrun tactic I thought. They had to get pre-approval from the JAG to ensure they weren't going to violate any laws of armed conflict.

[MikeyD]

The WWII U.S. light tanks got around the trench problem in a novel way. If you look closely at M5 light tank photos in NW Europe you're likely to see an odd attachment at front. A small metal square held off from the hull on four steel rods. This is what it was used for. The tank would drive up to the offending trench/foxhole and the bow mg would be pointed to its max depression. The mg rounds would strike that steel square and be deflected straight down into the foxhole! I've only seen this on pre-war M2s(?) and M5 light tanks - on nothing else. But I've seen lots of combat photos of 'em on M5s.

About over-run. I recall one pretty good WWII movie (late 50s?). G.I.s fighting in hedgerow country. Suddenly one of them cries out "Tank in the road! Tank in the road!" and the men scramble to avoid being crushed/gunned down. One guy got both legs pinched off but still managed to disable the tank before he died. I believe the action as based on a real Medal-of-honor story.