Jump to content


The Chieftain's Hatch: Undergunned in Italy


  • Please log in to reply
106 replies to this topic

Agentt_Orange #21 Posted Jan 07 2018 - 15:27

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 22360 battles
  • 303
  • [F_B_P] F_B_P
  • Member since:
    04-07-2013
Very nice exerpt, Chief!  Always good to try to get inside the minds of the movers and shakers.  As another video game (non tank) stated: "History is written by the observer... Propaganda is written by the victor. - Source Unknown"  It is good you are doing your best to be the Observer.    +1

screng #22 Posted Jan 07 2018 - 15:33

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 17195 battles
  • 193
  • [_SACK] _SACK
  • Member since:
    12-11-2012

View Postgeneral_scrubdriver, on Jan 07 2018 - 06:27, said:

 im not covering soft targets, like buildings, where he would be more effective. 

 

 

Curious, as my entire post was about them.



FrozenKemp #23 Posted Jan 07 2018 - 15:50

    Major

  • Players
  • 46534 battles
  • 7,161
  • Member since:
    04-24-2011

View PostTsarCidron, on Jan 06 2018 - 20:54, said:

From a logistic standpoint it makes sense.  

Route all the 75mm to Italy/North Africa which is a secondary theater compared to the upcoming Normandy theater.  And, route the 76mm and 90mm to Normandy makes the same sense.  Three ammo's available and in need.  Route the lesser to the lesser theater, and the better two to the primary theater.   Afterall, Italy is holding its own with the 75mm.  Why complicate supply lines and routes with changes to what is already working?  Also, hit the tougher German divisions with better armed tanks.

 

I agree with your point about simplifying logistics.  But - note that the US Army didn't initially land any 76mm-armed Shermans in Normandy either

Edited by FrozenKemp, Jan 07 2018 - 15:52.


Hurk #24 Posted Jan 07 2018 - 19:01

    Major

  • Players
  • 50475 battles
  • 16,443
  • [KGR] KGR
  • Member since:
    09-30-2012

View Poststalkervision, on Jan 07 2018 - 07:25, said:

 

​I don't buy that analogy whatsoever. When you may have only seconds to line up a shot on a tank that appears from no where or one that is hiding in a ambush position "firing at weak-spots" because your gun is so lame is totally impractical and near impossible in these situations. You take the fastest shot you can because it might be your azz otherwise. Chieftain you should know this. The German "elephant" commonly fired from cover in a dug in positions in Italy or even from caves and railroad tunnels to hide it from arty and air attack it was so big and the German panthers "shot trap" wasn't so easy to hit on the first shot and in fact the Germans pretty rapidly changed out that turret for one that had none.   

 

I equate the stories that tankers gave of bouncing shots up under a Elephant's front plate or very commonly bouncing shots off the Panthers turret into it hull to stories of P-47 pilots bouncing fifty caliber rounds up under the German tiger to take them out. Just tanker Bravado. More likely they were mobility killed by arty and then abandoned. I would just LOVE to see one example of a German elephant with a 75 mm round hole bounced up under it's front plate. :D

and this is where gameplay and reality divide. 

 

tank warfare was not a matter of seconds. it was a matter of days hours and minutes. its damn rare, even in modern combat, for tanks to get into pitched battles where any kind of tactical maneuvering matters. in WW2 it was even less so. 

 

this is a typical tank engagement in WW2:  

1. the defenders dig in, hours or days in advance, hide AT and AA weapons.

2. the attackers soften up the area through bombing and arty, trying to find the hidden weapons and fail. 

3. the attackers send in infantry and light armor to try and discover the hidden AT and AA weapons. 

4. the defenders AA weapons and infantry respond, the AT weapons stay silent as long as they arent needed or attack light armor or in response to being found.

5. the attackers call in more bombing and arty to try and destroy found AA/AT weapons, 

6. the attackers assess, then finally call in their own armor to move in to get rid of the remaining AA/AT weapons.

7. the defenders spot said armor moving into theater and call in their own bombing and arty to disrupt it. this includes their own armor firing indirect. 

8. AT weapons respond to the remaining armor that gets into range and takes their time to properly ambush it, so that effective fire can silence the threat before it can respond and destroy the AT weapons.

9. defender armor responds to break through, and once enemy armor is eliminated or severely crippled, advances to clear out remaining attacker force. 

 

the above can take days to play out or hours. during the war, it almost never happened in shorter spans of time that take place in game. tankers did not have "a moment" to think, they had minutes. because the first shots were almost always fatal or disabling. so there was no response. 

 

the amount of time people aimed in, and took their time to shoot at an engine (waiting for enemy tanks to be in flanking position, etc) was common. 

 

but you also have to remember, tanks rarely faught tanks. it was rare vs the amount of time they spend dealing with infantry, light vehicles and bunkers, etc. 

one of the quoted numbers i saw from ww2 was that less than 25% of M4 sherman engagements involved enemy armor, and that over 25% involved being assigned to artillery duties, firing indirect. 



general_scrubdriver #25 Posted Jan 07 2018 - 20:22

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 32099 battles
  • 537
  • [FKXX] FKXX
  • Member since:
    02-24-2013

View PostHurk, on Jan 07 2018 - 18:01, said:

one of the quoted numbers i saw from ww2 was that less than 25% of M4 sherman engagements involved enemy armor, and that over 25% involved being assigned to artillery duties, firing indirect. 

by the time we (US) got into the war, the bulk of germanys armor was either in or depleted by/in the russian theater. check those engagement percentages. i dont believe we hit any type of large armor fromations(and certainly not nearly as much until we got onto france proper) that were in action from ~1939 on the eastern front. 



stalkervision #26 Posted Jan 07 2018 - 23:55

    Major

  • Players
  • 58391 battles
  • 8,879
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013

View PostHurk, on Jan 07 2018 - 13:01, said:

and this is where gameplay and reality divide. 

 

tank warfare was not a matter of seconds. it was a matter of days hours and minutes. its damn rare, even in modern combat, for tanks to get into pitched battles where any kind of tactical maneuvering matters. in WW2 it was even less so. 

 

this is a typical tank engagement in WW2:  

1. the defenders dig in, hours or days in advance, hide AT and AA weapons.

2. the attackers soften up the area through bombing and arty, trying to find the hidden weapons and fail. 

3. the attackers send in infantry and light armor to try and discover the hidden AT and AA weapons. 

4. the defenders AA weapons and infantry respond, the AT weapons stay silent as long as they arent needed or attack light armor or in response to being found.

5. the attackers call in more bombing and arty to try and destroy found AA/AT weapons, 

6. the attackers assess, then finally call in their own armor to move in to get rid of the remaining AA/AT weapons.

7. the defenders spot said armor moving into theater and call in their own bombing and arty to disrupt it. this includes their own armor firing indirect. 

8. AT weapons respond to the remaining armor that gets into range and takes their time to properly ambush it, so that effective fire can silence the threat before it can respond and destroy the AT weapons.

9. defender armor responds to break through, and once enemy armor is eliminated or severely crippled, advances to clear out remaining attacker force. 

 

the above can take days to play out or hours. during the war, it almost never happened in shorter spans of time that take place in game. tankers did not have "a moment" to think, they had minutes. because the first shots were almost always fatal or disabling. so there was no response. 

 

the amount of time people aimed in, and took their time to shoot at an engine (waiting for enemy tanks to be in flanking position, etc) was common. 

 

but you also have to remember, tanks rarely faught tanks. it was rare vs the amount of time they spend dealing with infantry, light vehicles and bunkers, etc. 

one of the quoted numbers i saw from ww2 was that less than 25% of M4 sherman engagements involved enemy armor, and that over 25% involved being assigned to artillery duties, firing indirect. 

 

​Not quite but at least your trying.:)  Some of what you said is true.  In situations where armor meet counter armor attacks such as Kursk or other open terrain engagements the guy that got the first penetrating shot off was the winner. There was no "shooting at weakspots" That is exactly why the after war German Leopard was designed with so little armor in fact ! 

 

Tanks rarely met other tanks? Not exactly true. If this was true no tanker would have complained for a better gun !    LOL

 

" the amount of time people aimed in, and took their time to shoot at an engine (waiting for enemy tanks to be in flanking position, etc) was common."

 

 German Panthers and tiger never needed to flank allied tanks because of their better guns and armor, it was the other way round ! :teethhappy:

 

In ww 2 tanks were often used as mobile "fire brigades'" especially by the germans, sitting in the back till the enemy broke through their main lines and needed to be countered . This happened all throughout the war. Tank on tank combat did indeed happen and more then you want to admit. 

 

 Seriously?

 

 By that time your tank gunner waited for a weakspot he would be dead.. 



stalkervision #27 Posted Jan 08 2018 - 00:13

    Major

  • Players
  • 58391 battles
  • 8,879
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013
You know who could and did often go for tank weak spots? The Germans again't the Russian using their superior optics and flat firing/high velocity cannons and the open terrain of Russia. Keeping the enormous numbers of Russian tanks at long range was of paramount importance. 

Redwing6 #28 Posted Jan 08 2018 - 00:27

    Major

  • Players
  • 27265 battles
  • 4,256
  • Member since:
    03-26-2011
One thing you might have missed, is that very few troops in the UK had any combat experience. 

TsarCidron #29 Posted Jan 08 2018 - 03:27

    Major

  • Players
  • 6750 battles
  • 7,768
  • [RAIDM] RAIDM
  • Member since:
    03-16-2012

View PostFrozenKemp, on Jan 07 2018 - 06:50, said:

 

I agree with your point about simplifying logistics.  But - note that the US Army didn't initially land any 76mm-armed Shermans in Normandy either

 

Simple.  To valuable.  Land the more expendable armor first.  Soak up some shells, have the incoming shells reveal gun nests, etc.  Saving the better guns/tanks for later stages, such as the breakout and retaking of France, and the rush to the Rhine.

GySgtACE #30 Posted Jan 08 2018 - 06:20

    Private

  • Players
  • 4643 battles
  • 2
  • [NIN-] NIN-
  • Member since:
    04-09-2011
It says here T71s  are tank destroyer and wot portrayed them as light tanks?

Oagr_Patch #31 Posted Jan 08 2018 - 07:32

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 18711 battles
  • 215
  • [JOES] JOES
  • Member since:
    01-15-2016

What's the old joke... you could change 'plan' for 'gun' and it still holds true.

 


 

In the beginning was the plan.
And then came the assumptions.
And the assumptions were without form.
And the plan was without substance.

And darkness was upon the face of the Sergeants.
And they spoke among themselves saying,
“It’s a crock of crap (guess we can't use the real word here?) and it stinks.”

And the Sergeants went unto their Lieutenants and said,
“It’s a pail of dung and none may abide the odor thereof.” And the Lieutenants went unto their Captains and said, “It’s a container of excrement and it is very strong, such that none may abide by it.” And the Captains went unto their Lieutenant Colonels, saying, “It’s a vessel of fertilizer, and none may abide its strength.”

And the Lieutenant Colonels spoke among themselves, saying to one another, “It contains that which aids plant growth and it is very strong.” And the Lieutenant Colonels went unto the Colonel,  saying unto him, “It promotes growth and is very powerful.”

And the Colonel went unto the General, saying unto him, “The new plan will promote the growth and vigor of the command and morale, with powerful effects.”

And the General looked upon the plan and saw that it was good. And the plan became policy.


Edited by Oagr_19D30, Jan 08 2018 - 07:37.


basherbeast #32 Posted Jan 08 2018 - 07:53

    Private

  • Players
  • 27547 battles
  • 1
  • [MAST] MAST
  • Member since:
    04-19-2011

Cool article and insights into what people were thinking and why at the time of WWII.

 



Under_berg #33 Posted Jan 08 2018 - 12:48

    Private

  • Players
  • 36343 battles
  • 9
  • [BOC] BOC
  • Member since:
    02-27-2012

View PostGySgtACE, on Jan 08 2018 - 02:20, said:

It says here T71s  are tank destroyer and wot portrayed them as light tanks?

 

T71 was M36 prototype.

billyzbear #34 Posted Jan 08 2018 - 13:27

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 41329 battles
  • 77
  • [MUG-D] MUG-D
  • Member since:
    12-24-2016
Is there a website that has these pictures you are using? I really like seeing the old pics, says a thousand words...

general_scrubdriver #35 Posted Jan 08 2018 - 14:26

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 32099 battles
  • 537
  • [FKXX] FKXX
  • Member since:
    02-24-2013

View PostGySgtACE, on Jan 08 2018 - 05:20, said:

It says here T71s  are tank destroyer and wot portrayed them as light tanks?

 

dont take whats in this game too seriously, not only are some of the tanks real, that is in real life, but some of the 'under lying' community stories we hear on this web site can be misleading to one extent or the other, or the stories can be incomplete. this is a video game, a computer generated 'world', simulation. no real, real world similarities, other than sparking in our imagination at type of battlefield, uuum, game, or simulation, getting interests and people to log on. like back in the '70s and 80s, and complex board games. one i have is an original the third reich, eventually lead to computer games, this is one, one of the end results, at this time. not only to say prototype or tanks left on the drawing board, esp from different countries could seem to have the same 'tags', as i doubt many were 'named'. i dont think the current american t/7 light of the tag or name of t71 was even real. a lot of these tanks come from drawing boards, what we re playing here is just a game, some similarities to real life, a very few,,.   

Taiho #36 Posted Jan 08 2018 - 16:06

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 3081 battles
  • 591
  • Member since:
    01-10-2011

View PostGySgtACE, on Jan 08 2018 - 00:20, said:

It says here T71s  are tank destroyer and wot portrayed them as light tanks?

 

The T71 mentioned here is, as someone has pointed out, the prototype vehicle that became M36 Jackson. The T71 lights are also prototypes (for a light tank), one by Detroit Arsenal and one by Cadillac (IIRC), from the 1950s. Those two failed to beat the T92 in competition to replace the M41 Walker Bulldog and got cancelled.

 

The thing to remember is that Tanks used one prototype number system (or maybe up to 3 that was condensed into one at some point?), and motor carriages (Howitzer or Gun) used another (and armored cars might used another?). As a result, there is a good deal of prototype number overlap. For instance, there's the 37mm GMC T21 that became the M6 GMC (as opposed to the T21 light that got cancelled or the M6 heavy tank). Or the 75mm GMC T12 standardized as the M3 GMC (as opposed to the M3 Lee/Grant or the M3 Stuart). At some point, there was at least thought into condensing the M series numbers into one system, so the 37mm GMC M4 was re-designated M6 to avoid confusion with the M4 medium and after M7 there doesn't seem to be any number overlap anymore?



KilljoyCutter #37 Posted Jan 08 2018 - 16:55

    Major

  • Players
  • 8469 battles
  • 25,071
  • Member since:
    05-07-2011

View PostTaiho, on Jan 08 2018 - 10:06, said:

 

The T71 mentioned here is, as someone has pointed out, the prototype vehicle that became M36 Jackson. The T71 lights are also prototypes (for a light tank), one by Detroit Arsenal and one by Cadillac (IIRC), from the 1950s. Those two failed to beat the T92 in competition to replace the M41 Walker Bulldog and got cancelled.

 

The thing to remember is that Tanks used one prototype number system (or maybe up to 3 that was condensed into one at some point?), and motor carriages (Howitzer or Gun) used another (and armored cars might used another?). As a result, there is a good deal of prototype number overlap. For instance, there's the 37mm GMC T21 that became the M6 GMC (as opposed to the T21 light that got cancelled or the M6 heavy tank). Or the 75mm GMC T12 standardized as the M3 GMC (as opposed to the M3 Lee/Grant or the M3 Stuart). At some point, there was at least thought into condensing the M series numbers into one system, so the 37mm GMC M4 was re-designated M6 to avoid confusion with the M4 medium and after M7 there doesn't seem to be any number overlap anymore?

 

Even within WOT at one point they had both a low-tier SPG (GMC) and a high-tier heavy tank both called the T57.

Dain_Ironfoot_ #38 Posted Jan 09 2018 - 14:36

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 20259 battles
  • 1,805
  • [4HIM] 4HIM
  • Member since:
    05-14-2014

Block Quote

 For example, we just kill Ferdinands by bouncing rounds off the ground in front of it and into the lower hull.” (Yes, I know it’s an eyebrow-raising statement, which doesn’t even apply in the case of a hull-down vehicle, but that’s what he said). Or there’s the famous “Bounce off the underside of Panther’s mantlet and into the hull roof”.

 

Love that part... anyone had any luck doing this sort of stuff in the game?

 

Kinda reminds me of a documentary I watched that showed surviving crew members talking about some pretty amazing hits that occured in tank combat during WWII.



Huey2 #39 Posted Jan 09 2018 - 17:28

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 42527 battles
  • 11
  • [R3TRO] R3TRO
  • Member since:
    09-18-2013

Very nice info and conclusion Chief. Simplifying logisticts pays off in ways most people don't realize, unless your a logisticts Chief . One side bar not stressed is the issue of engines that may also have been a factor. The radial engines used in the earlier units were reliable and of sufficient power, however not universally loved because of maintenance requirements. Specifically these engines, in armor, suffered from fouling spark plugs mostly because sitting for long periods not running and/or running at low speeds, idle. Fouled plugs reduced power, made for hard starting and I would bet excessive smoke. Nothing like having an arrow point to your 'hidden" location. This was an aggravating  operational, maintenance and logistic problem. Ford engines didn't suffer from that. 2 plugs per cylinder, trying to change them 'in the field". Now lets mix up these engines within a unit. Standardization of anything is a gift. Not having it is a curse and additional burden to maintaining ready for use equipment. Also there is an old military axiom is see here. ' The supply tail wags the maintenance dog' if you have lived that then you know exactly what I'm talking about and perhaps those folks in Italy did too.

         



Trigger95 #40 Posted Jan 10 2018 - 01:22

    Private

  • -Players-
  • 21361 battles
  • 6
  • [ICY] ICY
  • Member since:
    11-08-2013

“We don’t fear the German tanks. For example, we just kill Ferdinands by bouncing rounds off the ground in front of it and into the lower hull.”

Can I have this mechanic in-game, please? i never see shots off the ground! lol (Unless its auto-aimed from a light tank... I guess I should say I never see AIMED shots purposefully bounce off the ground.)






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users