LC- Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 Meaning when lets say the 101st assaulted a town and had AFV support, who reported to who? Did the tanks take orders in battle from the airborne Lts? Or did the tanks have free range to do as they wish and just take the airborne officers opinions? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wengart Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 I'm just talking out of my ass here, but I wanted to take a shot and see if I was right. It may be dependent on who is attached to who. So if the 101st was attacking a town with attached armored support from someone the armor was part of the 101st command and vice versa. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 Yup. Depends on status of command arrangements. Typically, I'd expect that it'd be an independant tank battalion that was attached to the division (whether it was the 101st A/B, or some infantry division doesn't matter), which in turn would mean that - normally - the tankies would be taking order from the infantry all the way down to platoon level. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 the tankies would be taking order from the infantry all the way down to platoon level. They might not be obeying them, though. "WHAT'S THAT? I CAN'T HEAR YOU FROM THE ENGINE! NO, THE DRIVER CAN'T CEASE REVVING BECAUSE THE BATTERY IS LOW! YOU GO AHEAD, WE'LL FOLLOW YOU..." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zukkov Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 somewhat related. every time i've watched the market-garden episode of band of brothers, when the troopers warn the british tanker there's a german tank hiding just up the street behind a building. the tanker refuses to fire at the building which would have revealed the german tank because they were under orders not to cause unnecessary damage. tell me that didn't really happen. tell me he wouldn't risk his tank and the lives of his crew because he wasn't supposed to damage property... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golani Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 somewhat related. every time i've watched the market-garden episode of band of brothers, when the troopers warn the british tanker there's a german tank hiding just up the street behind a building. the tanker refuses to fire at the building which would have revealed the german tank because they were under orders not to cause unnecessary damage. tell me that didn't really happen. tell me he wouldn't risk his tank and the lives of his crew because he wasn't supposed to damage property... Don't know if that truly happened but in this case it was not an order and there was no subordination, that was a force (XXX corps-Irish guards?) passing through another force. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zukkov Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 Don't know if that truly happened but in this case it was not an order and there was no subordination, that was a force (XXX corps-Irish guards?) passing through another force. oh i know. that's why i said 'somewhat related'. it's just something that's always bothered me. lol.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 Given that BoB was a dramatization of a Stephen Ambrose book, it's quite safe to say that it didn't happen... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaws Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 somewhat related. every time i've watched the market-garden episode of band of brothers, when the troopers warn the british tanker there's a german tank hiding just up the street behind a building. the tanker refuses to fire at the building which would have revealed the german tank because they were under orders not to cause unnecessary damage. tell me that didn't really happen. tell me he wouldn't risk his tank and the lives of his crew because he wasn't supposed to damage property... British Tankers... To name a few briliant moments of Britisch Tankers Villers Bocage Cagny Tilly sur Seullis Hill 112 Eerde Well lets stop it 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magpie_Oz Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 British Tankers... To name a few briliant moments of Britisch Tankers Villers Bocage Cagny Tilly sur Seullis Hill 112 Eerde Well lets stop it Yes let's, before we get to the point of realising all of these battle set up the utter destruction of the German Army in Falaise Pocket, wouldn't want reality or truth to get in the way of a good story 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 The battle of Dunkirk (and everything else the Brits did prior to August 1944) was just a set-up for the Falaise trap. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MengJiao Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 British Tankers... To name a few briliant moments of Britisch Tankers Villers Bocage Cagny Tilly sur Seullis Hill 112 Eerde Well lets stop it What's the problem with Hill 112? Didn't the initial attack cause Doll to kill himself? Didn't the 11th Armored pull back because Ultra showed 4 panzer divisions were lining up to counter attack? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaws Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 What's the problem with Hill 112? Didn't the initial attack cause Doll to kill himself? Didn't the 11th Armored pull back because Ultra showed 4 panzer divisions were lining up to counter attack? Well I have to agree it was not the Tankers fault at hill 112. After they reached the top of hill 112 they couldn’t hold the hill against the just arived 102 zw pz abt with their Tigers. The only thing that could be discussed about is why they didn’t consolidate in Eterville and Maltot instead on the hill 112 top. But to do that they would have needed more infantry. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MengJiao Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 Well I have to agree it was not the Tankers fault at hill 112. After they reached the top of hill 112 they couldn’t hold the hill against the just arived 102 zw pz abt with their Tigers. The only thing that could be discussed about is why they didn’t consolidate in Eterville and Maltot instead on the hill 112 top. But to do that they would have needed more infantry. I guess we will find out more about the dynamics of the fighting around Hill 112 when the Commonwealth module comes out. 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.