Matrix Games Forums

Buzz Aldrins Space Program Manager is now available!Space Program Manager gets mini-site and Twitch SessionBuzz Aldrin: Ask Me Anything (AMA) on redditDeal of the week Fantasy Kommander: Eukarion WarsSpace Program Manager Launch Contest Announced!Battle Academy 2 is out now on iPad!A closer look at rockets in Space Program ManagerDeal of the Week - Pride of NationsA new update for Piercing Fortress EuropaNew screenshots for War in the West!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Uncle Joe

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Uncle Joe Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Uncle Joe - 1/28/2013 3:55:28 PM   
Miller


Posts: 1644
Joined: 9/14/2004
From: Ashington, England.
Status: offline
Can ayone give me a rough idea what he will be fielding against me now my game has reached the 1st August 45? Number of Divisions? Aircraft? Navy?

Cheers...
Post #: 1
RE: Uncle Joe - 1/28/2013 4:00:53 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8649
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Miller

Can ayone give me a rough idea what he will be fielding against me now my game has reached the 1st August 45? Number of Divisions? Aircraft? Navy?

Cheers...


I've driven the USSR in an AI game. If you're Japan I wouldn't worry about the navy (meh) or the air force (too short-range.) As I recall it was trivial to get twenty divisions, mostly heavy armor and motor-rifle, and thirty arty units into a fight. The first two move with great speed, they're huge, and they don't get their morale down too much. If you're fighting the USSR in Asia you're cooked.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Miller)
Post #: 2
RE: Uncle Joe - 1/28/2013 4:06:30 PM   
Miller


Posts: 1644
Joined: 9/14/2004
From: Ashington, England.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: Miller

Can ayone give me a rough idea what he will be fielding against me now my game has reached the 1st August 45? Number of Divisions? Aircraft? Navy?

Cheers...


I've driven the USSR in an AI game. If you're Japan I wouldn't worry about the navy (meh) or the air force (too short-range.) As I recall it was trivial to get twenty divisions, mostly heavy armor and motor-rifle, and thirty arty units into a fight. The first two move with great speed, they're huge, and they don't get their morale down too much. If you're fighting the USSR in Asia you're cooked.


The game has been a blast so far and I have given out more than my fair share of punishment so I'm due a few painful months......I can muster upwards of a dozen or so divs in that area so it won't be a walk in the park for him if I fight in the right terrain.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 3
RE: Uncle Joe - 1/29/2013 2:05:48 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 5925
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Miller


... if I fight in the right terrain.

That's the key. There are only a couple of places where you can't get flanked. You need to get established in those places and dig-in. As long as you can keep your CAP in place, and "Joe's" bombers at bay, you can hold your line.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Miller)
Post #: 4
RE: Uncle Joe - 1/29/2013 1:08:10 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8649
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Miller


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: Miller

Can ayone give me a rough idea what he will be fielding against me now my game has reached the 1st August 45? Number of Divisions? Aircraft? Navy?

Cheers...


I've driven the USSR in an AI game. If you're Japan I wouldn't worry about the navy (meh) or the air force (too short-range.) As I recall it was trivial to get twenty divisions, mostly heavy armor and motor-rifle, and thirty arty units into a fight. The first two move with great speed, they're huge, and they don't get their morale down too much. If you're fighting the USSR in Asia you're cooked.


The game has been a blast so far and I have given out more than my fair share of punishment so I'm due a few painful months......I can muster upwards of a dozen or so divs in that area so it won't be a walk in the park for him if I fight in the right terrain.


I wish you well. You've never seen the armor the Soviets can bring. Nothing any side in the game can muster even comes close. Close off the rails; if he can use them there's nothing you can do to stop him. Terrain notwithstanding.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Miller)
Post #: 5
RE: Uncle Joe - 1/31/2013 1:24:32 AM   
crsutton


Posts: 7262
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
Yeah 2/45 in my game and about two thirds of my Russian units have upgraded to the t34-85. It won't be pretty when I set those dogs loose.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 6
RE: Uncle Joe - 1/31/2013 4:18:20 AM   
mike scholl 1

 

Posts: 1265
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline
In truth, the IJA was basically a light infantry army. And by 1945, they were totally outclassed by the Allies in everything but suicidal courage. The Soviets are about to unleash the veteran Tank Armies that defeated the German Panzers..., and do it not in jungle but on the Manchurian plains. "The Moose" is right..., things are about to get really ugly for Japan.

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 7
RE: Uncle Joe - 1/31/2013 1:07:25 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8649
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Yeah 2/45 in my game and about two thirds of my Russian units have upgraded to the t34-85. It won't be pretty when I set those dogs loose.


The T-34 was an amazing weapon system in life and is the game too. But the real "Whoop! There it is!" of the 1945 Soviet activation is the numbers of them in each division (look at the OOB for a heavy tank div), coupled with the awesome power of the artillery you get as well. Major metro areas you would have sieged for six weeks in 1942 are the work of 48 hours or less. I said the air force isn't useful because it can't keep up. The Red Army will RACE across Asia after activation if you put the stack together well. Arguments about hiding out in terrain? Well . . .

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 8
RE: Uncle Joe - 1/31/2013 2:05:59 PM   
jeffk3510


Posts: 4020
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Kansas
Status: offline
I am under the impression the T34 was just an average tank. (IRL, not talking about game.. never used the Soviets)

The pros were sheer numbers and how simple it was to keep it in the field.

_____________________________

Follow our WiTPAE team PBEM game against bilbow and hartwig.modrow http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2965846&mpage=1&key=?

Follow my WITPAE PBEM game against Schanilec. http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3495605

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 9
RE: Uncle Joe - 1/31/2013 2:39:21 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 3751
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline
No, the T-34 was IRL an excellent tank, in the view of many experts, THE tank design of the war.

1. It had sloped armour when many designs did not.

2. The Soviets had great pre-war experience using the Christie track system. Many other designs used other track systems which were inferior.

3. The T-34 was wide tracked, again many other designs were narrower.

4. The upguned T-34/85 had a very good gun, probably the best Allied tank gun of all.

5. The ultimate compliment was that the German Panther was very much designed along T-34 lines. The Panther was not a markedly superior tank, if that at all.

Alfred

(in reply to jeffk3510)
Post #: 10
RE: Uncle Joe - 1/31/2013 8:35:11 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 7262
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
Well I would say that the early T34s were average tanks. It was a good design with a few flaws. Slow turret, two man turret in the early version, weak transmissions and the lack of radios. But it got better with each version. T34-85 like the later American Shermans had most of the flaws worked out, and by the end of the war were radio equipped and a good gun to boot. Even with the heavy stuff the Soviets were cranking out, I suspect the T34 was their most practical and useful tank. Yeah, I would call it a great tank. Heck vs the average Japanese crappette the BT7 would come off like a panther..

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 11
RE: Uncle Joe - 2/1/2013 2:41:23 AM   
scout1


Posts: 1752
Joined: 8/24/2004
From: South Bend, In
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

No, the T-34 was IRL an excellent tank, in the view of many experts, THE tank design of the war.

1. It had sloped armour when many designs did not.

2. The Soviets had great pre-war experience using the Christie track system. Many other designs used other track systems which were inferior.

3. The T-34 was wide tracked, again many other designs were narrower.

4. The upguned T-34/85 had a very good gun, probably the best Allied tank gun of all.

5. The ultimate compliment was that the German Panther was very much designed along T-34 lines. The Panther was not a markedly superior tank, if that at all.

Alfred


many good pts ........ but wasn't it hampered by a 1 man turret ?

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 12
RE: Uncle Joe - 2/1/2013 3:25:17 AM   
srv24243

 

Posts: 52
Joined: 11/18/2012
Status: offline
If the t-34 was such a good tank how did the Germans manage to knock out thousands of them with their limited number of panzers. After the teething problems had been worked out the panther was a supremely better tank and was able to engage the t-34 at much greater ranges. Plus the jagdpanther has been normally ranked as the best tank killer of the war.

(in reply to scout1)
Post #: 13
RE: Uncle Joe - 2/1/2013 5:57:14 AM   
crsutton


Posts: 7262
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: srv24243

If the t-34 was such a good tank how did the Germans manage to knock out thousands of them with their limited number of panzers. After the teething problems had been worked out the panther was a supremely better tank and was able to engage the t-34 at much greater ranges. Plus the jagdpanther has been normally ranked as the best tank killer of the war.


I doubt it was the machine, but the Germans had radios, better training and leadership, and doctrine. But don't blame the machine which was as good as anything the Germans had.
Even at Kursk, Russian T34s did not really have radios. Unit commanders had one that could broadcast but the rest could only receive. Not very useful. Just like Japanese fighters, tanks without radios are soon tactically isolated on the battlefield and prone to get killed a lot faster and in greater numbers.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to srv24243)
Post #: 14
RE: Uncle Joe - 2/1/2013 1:09:55 PM   
Banzan

 

Posts: 265
Joined: 3/13/2010
From: Bremen, Germany
Status: offline
Excatly what crsutton said. Early models hat serveral flaws, but the T-34/85 was quite a good tank. It still suffered from bad leading on the own side, while german front officers adapting the situation fast (mobile defense instead of plain defense - if possible), good leading and fast construction of TDs using any possible hull to carry a big enough gun.
Also, the infantry AT weapons research made large progress durin WW2 - from AT-Rifles to HEAT Rockets like Bazooka and Panzerfaust, AT-Mines etc.

I remember a polish friend showing me a source of T-34 losses during WW2, claiming its was a bad tank. But the same source showed western allied Fighterbombers being highly usless due very bad kill vs sorties ratio. I don't think any german commander knowing the western front area would have agreed on that.

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 15
RE: Uncle Joe - 2/2/2013 6:20:19 AM   
Blackhorse


Posts: 1927
Joined: 8/20/2000
From: Eastern US
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: srv24243

If the t-34 was such a good tank how did the Germans manage to knock out thousands of them with their limited number of panzers. After the teething problems had been worked out the panther was a supremely better tank and was able to engage the t-34 at much greater ranges. Plus the jagdpanther has been normally ranked as the best tank killer of the war.


When the Germans invaded Russia in June of 1941 the T-34/76 was the finest tank in the world in active service. The German main battle tank at the time was the Pz Mk III -- which had only a 50mm gun. The less numerous German "heavy" tank, the Pz Mk IV had a short-barrelled low-velocity 75mm howitzer designed to fire high explosive shells in an infantry support role.

As soon as the Germans encountered the T-34, they realized they needed a better tank. As a stop-gap, they retrofitted the Pz IV with longer-barrelled 75mm guns that could fire an anti-tank round that had some hope of punching through the armor of a T-34. The first of these tanks were produced in March of 1942. But only a few hundred were produced, IIRC.

The Panther tank was designed as the German response to the T-34/76. When it finally entered production, in January of 1943, it was generally superior to the T-34. But from June of 1941 into early 1943 the T-34 was easily the best tank on the battlefield.

CRSutton has touched on some of the reasons why the Germans were able to succeed despite inferior tanks. One additional reason is that the initial German deep penetrations cut front-line Russian forces off from their lines of communication and supply. Many, perhaps most, T-34s and KV-1s, were not destroyed in combat, but abandoned by Russians when they ran out of fuel, or ammunition, or when they no longer could supply the maintance and spare parts to keep them running.

_____________________________

WitP-AE -- US LCU & AI Stuff

Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
Moriarty: Crap!

(in reply to srv24243)
Post #: 16
RE: Uncle Joe - 2/2/2013 10:04:37 AM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 5226
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse
When the Germans invaded Russia in June of 1941 the T-34/76 was the finest tank in the world in active service


+1

I thought this is pretty much an established fact among the armored warfare historians? I´m pretty well read on the eastern front and by all accounts I have read the T34 was a really nasty shock for the Germans. But better leadership, radios and superior crews managed to bridge the technological gap.

The Jap Tankettes would certainly be no threat to a T34.

(in reply to Blackhorse)
Post #: 17
RE: Uncle Joe - 2/2/2013 11:13:19 AM   
Encircled


Posts: 1033
Joined: 12/30/2010
From: Northern England
Status: offline
No doubting that the T-34 was the best tank in the world in 1941-42

I think the upgunned Mk IV Pz with the long 75mm gun was possibly the most produced German tank of the war, and was certainly a match for the T-34 until the T-34/85 came out.

One thing we can all agree on is that nothing Japanese is anywhere near as good as a T-34!

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 18
RE: Uncle Joe - 2/2/2013 11:41:46 AM   
Frank


Posts: 1676
Joined: 9/1/2000
From: Bayern
Status: offline
If I recall right, most soviet tanks including T34, were destroyed by German AT-guns, not German tanks.

_____________________________

If you like what I said love me,if you dislike what I say ignore me!

"Extra Bavaria non est vita! Et sic est vita non est ita!"


(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 19
RE: Uncle Joe - 2/2/2013 11:45:38 AM   
Frank


Posts: 1676
Joined: 9/1/2000
From: Bayern
Status: offline
Allied fighterbombers were crappy against tanks. If I recall right, over 1200 fb were lost for killing about 12 tanks or so.
But Fb weren´t designed to kill tanks but to disrupt supply and attack lightly armored vehicles. This task was performed well by fb.

So Japanese tanks are for hunting down Chinese infantry, soviet tanks were designed to kill German tanks. Soviet tanks will kill Nippon tanks with ease.

_____________________________

If you like what I said love me,if you dislike what I say ignore me!

"Extra Bavaria non est vita! Et sic est vita non est ita!"


(in reply to Banzan)
Post #: 20
RE: Uncle Joe - 2/2/2013 11:52:05 AM   
mike scholl 1

 

Posts: 1265
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Frank

Allied fighterbombers were crappy against tanks. If I recall right, over 1200 fb were lost for killing about 12 tanks or so.



I think you recall wrong. They weren't the tank-killers that say a Mk VI was on the Eastern Front..., but they were effective enough. Just ask Michael Wittman.

(in reply to Frank)
Post #: 21
RE: Uncle Joe - 2/2/2013 12:21:31 PM   
Gunner98


Posts: 1084
Joined: 4/29/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1
Just ask Michael Wittman.


A tricky thing to do, he was killed by either a Brit or Cdn Sherman Firefly during Op Totalize - a night attack with 4 Divs on a front of less than 6 Km, not by a Ftr Bmr. Although the stats quoted above seem out of whack, the Ftr bmr was much better suited to hunting and killing logistic and rear area forces than for killing tanks (which it could do if the tank was caught in the open) - in the end, shutting down the logistic system was much more devastating.

A T34/85 vs. a type 97! That would be more one sided than a US M1 vs. an Iraqi T-55 - and that one didn't work out too well for the Iraqis...

BG

(in reply to mike scholl 1)
Post #: 22
RE: Uncle Joe - 2/2/2013 10:58:28 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 953
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Lima and Toronto
Status: offline
The best bet for Japan would had been to get extensive # of panzerfaust/ bazookas, etc. Germany used them quite succesfully and I guess it could had delayed, although by just a bit, their inevitable defeat

I think Japan was still using anti tank rifles, lunge mines and molotovs as their primary infantry AT weapons; these could had been very succcesful in the late 30s, against tankettes like the T-26 but totally inadequate vs. real late war tanks


(in reply to Gunner98)
Post #: 23
RE: Uncle Joe - 2/3/2013 3:44:59 AM   
Dobey

 

Posts: 399
Joined: 12/28/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Frank

Allied fighterbombers were crappy against tanks. If I recall right, over 1200 fb were lost for killing about 12 tanks or so.



I think you recall wrong. They weren't the tank-killers that say a Mk VI was on the Eastern Front..., but they were effective enough. Just ask Michael Wittman.



Actually, if I recall correctly, on the Western front the bulk of Tiger and Panther kills were to allied air power, not ground forces.
I believe something like 80% of tiger kills and around 60% of Panther kills were to Typhoons and T-Bolts.

This is as much a reflection of how badly outclassed the Sherman was than anything else.

(in reply to mike scholl 1)
Post #: 24
RE: Uncle Joe - 2/3/2013 2:53:57 PM   
Frank


Posts: 1676
Joined: 9/1/2000
From: Bayern
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dobey


quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Frank

Allied fighterbombers were crappy against tanks. If I recall right, over 1200 fb were lost for killing about 12 tanks or so.



I think you recall wrong. They weren't the tank-killers that say a Mk VI was on the Eastern Front..., but they were effective enough. Just ask Michael Wittman.



Actually, if I recall correctly, on the Western front the bulk of Tiger and Panther kills were to allied air power, not ground forces.
I believe something like 80% of tiger kills and around 60% of Panther kills were to Typhoons and T-Bolts.

This is as much a reflection of how badly outclassed the Sherman was than anything else.


http://mr-home.staff.shef.ac.uk/hobbies/rocket.txt

..."This shows that a total of only 46 German tanks and self-propelled
guns were actually found in the battle area, and of these only nine
were considered to have been destroyed by air weapons."...

...."Of the 133 armoured vehicles of all types located by the ORS in the
'Pocket', only 33 had been the victim of any form of air attack. The
remaining hundred had been destroyed by their crews or simply
abandoned. Air attacks were far more effective against soft-skinned
vehicles. Of 701 cars, trucks and motor cycles found in the 'Pocket',
325 had been the victim of attack from the air, and of these 85 per
cent were hit by cannon or machine-gun fire"

..."Of the 150
tanks and self-propelled guns 98 were examined. None were found to
have been destroyed by rockets, nor were there any craters to suggest
rocket attacks had been made in the area. Most, amounting to some 81
per cent, had been destroyed by their crews or abandoned."


..."Considering that this represents the investigation of claims for the
destruction of 66 tanks and 24 armoured vehicles the effect of air
attack seems unimpressive; a maximum of seven out of 101 vehicles
examined, some six per cent. It was found that fighter-bomber attack
had also involved some wastage, with bombs dropped among tanks already
knocked out by American troops, and it is revealing that even when
these bombs landed within 15 yards of the tanks no additional damage
was done. Not surprisingly, the report concluded that, while the
contribution of the air forces to stemming the German offensive had
been considerable, this

was not by the direct destruction of armour, which appears
to have been insignificant; but rather by the strafing and
bombing of supply routes, which prevented essential supplies
from reaching the front."

These are results of Allied investigations!
It is interessting to read, that Allied Fbs claimed over 400 tanks killed, when there were only 240 in the area and only about 30 were destroyed by all menas!


So, Allied pilots were great in claiming tanks killed by air attack. Fact is, allied fighterbombers were lousy in this job. Losses were high, the results ridiculous.

This is not true for the tanks destroyed on rail transport or in factories. Here Allied bombers did a decent job in destroying tanks.





_____________________________

If you like what I said love me,if you dislike what I say ignore me!

"Extra Bavaria non est vita! Et sic est vita non est ita!"


(in reply to Dobey)
Post #: 25
RE: Uncle Joe - 2/3/2013 5:13:15 PM   
mike scholl 1

 

Posts: 1265
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Frank

..."This shows that a total of only 46 German tanks and self-propelled
guns were actually found in the battle area, and of these only nine
were considered to have been destroyed by air weapons."...

...."Of the 133 armoured vehicles of all types located by the ORS in the
'Pocket', only 33 had been the victim of any form of air attack. The
remaining hundred had been destroyed by their crews or simply
abandoned. Air attacks were far more effective against soft-skinned
vehicles. Of 701 cars, trucks and motor cycles found in the 'Pocket',
325 had been the victim of attack from the air, and of these 85 per
cent were hit by cannon or machine-gun fire"

..."Of the 150
tanks and self-propelled guns 98 were examined. None were found to
have been destroyed by rockets, nor were there any craters to suggest
rocket attacks had been made in the area. Most, amounting to some 81
per cent, had been destroyed by their crews or abandoned."


..."Considering that this represents the investigation of claims for the
destruction of 66 tanks and 24 armoured vehicles the effect of air
attack seems unimpressive; a maximum of seven out of 101 vehicles
examined, some six per cent. It was found that fighter-bomber attack
had also involved some wastage, with bombs dropped among tanks already
knocked out by American troops, and it is revealing that even when
these bombs landed within 15 yards of the tanks no additional damage
was done. Not surprisingly, the report concluded that, while the
contribution of the air forces to stemming the German offensive had
been considerable, this

was not by the direct destruction of armour, which appears
to have been insignificant; but rather by the strafing and
bombing of supply routes, which prevented essential supplies
from reaching the front."

These are results of Allied investigations!
It is interessting to read, that Allied Fbs claimed over 400 tanks killed, when there were only 240 in the area and only about 30 were destroyed by all menas!


So, Allied pilots were great in claiming tanks killed by air attack. Fact is, allied fighterbombers were lousy in this job. Losses were high, the results ridiculous.

This is not true for the tanks destroyed on rail transport or in factories. Here Allied bombers did a decent job in destroying tanks.




So apparently the major cause of German Tank losses on the Western Front was cowardly tank crews who blew up or abandoned their vehicles? Wonder what they were afraid of?

(in reply to Frank)
Post #: 26
RE: Uncle Joe - 2/3/2013 6:01:14 PM   
Barb


Posts: 1625
Joined: 2/27/2007
From: Slovakia
Status: offline
They simply run out of fuel/ammo as their transport vehicles were destroyed by fighter bombers. You can sit in a tank that is not going to move/fire if you want to :)

Actually there are three air force missions: Strategic bombing, air interdiction and close air support.
Of these strategic bombing could produce most significant results given the right conditions (air superiority etc.)
Air interdiction has its aim in cutting or limiting supply flow to the front. If the front is static it is not very effective as combat troops do not have such big fuel/supply consumption. Coupled with ground pressure, consumpion of the fluid battlefield rise up significantly.
Close air support is least effective of these three - you are trying to attack well hidden targets, dug in and covered by light flak. To effectively destroy a tank you need a direct hit. Mostly you can get a mobility kill - e.g. track thrown off.

_____________________________


"Hello IT. Have you tried turning it off and on again?"

(in reply to mike scholl 1)
Post #: 27
RE: Uncle Joe - 2/3/2013 6:30:55 PM   
Symon


Posts: 1502
Joined: 11/24/2012
From: De Eye-lands, Mon
Status: offline
Oh, c’mon Mike. You know better than that. Combat is not the antiseptic numbers game that computers suggest.

So here you are, a tank crew, and you are on a road with burning vehicles all around, you got no gas, your ammo resupply convoy is a burning smudge on the horizon, you got little or no commo, nobody knows jack about what’s going on. And the boogey man is on the roads and in the air. So, what cha gonna do?

I know what I’d do. I’d do exactly what they did; bundle up some thermites, toss them down the hatch (no point in leaving the bad guys with a gift), round up who I could, and proceed to seriously dee dee mau the hell outa there.

Cowardly? Heck yes! My butt is worth more than any machine. They can always build me another machine, but they can’t build me another me. So I’d be booking out and looking for better days. Don’t confuse combat soldiers with the literary paragons of military virtue. They bleed and want to get home, just like everybody else.

[ed] Whoops, sorry Barb, see you made the same point while I was ruminating

< Message edited by Symon -- 2/3/2013 6:33:22 PM >


_____________________________

Yippy Ki Yay

(in reply to mike scholl 1)
Post #: 28
RE: Uncle Joe - 2/3/2013 6:46:26 PM   
Frank


Posts: 1676
Joined: 9/1/2000
From: Bayern
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Frank

..."This shows that a total of only 46 German tanks and self-propelled
guns were actually found in the battle area, and of these only nine
were considered to have been destroyed by air weapons."...

...."Of the 133 armoured vehicles of all types located by the ORS in the
'Pocket', only 33 had been the victim of any form of air attack. The
remaining hundred had been destroyed by their crews or simply
abandoned. Air attacks were far more effective against soft-skinned
vehicles. Of 701 cars, trucks and motor cycles found in the 'Pocket',
325 had been the victim of attack from the air, and of these 85 per
cent were hit by cannon or machine-gun fire"

..."Of the 150
tanks and self-propelled guns 98 were examined. None were found to
have been destroyed by rockets, nor were there any craters to suggest
rocket attacks had been made in the area. Most, amounting to some 81
per cent, had been destroyed by their crews or abandoned."


..."Considering that this represents the investigation of claims for the
destruction of 66 tanks and 24 armoured vehicles the effect of air
attack seems unimpressive; a maximum of seven out of 101 vehicles
examined, some six per cent. It was found that fighter-bomber attack
had also involved some wastage, with bombs dropped among tanks already
knocked out by American troops, and it is revealing that even when
these bombs landed within 15 yards of the tanks no additional damage
was done. Not surprisingly, the report concluded that, while the
contribution of the air forces to stemming the German offensive had
been considerable, this

was not by the direct destruction of armour, which appears
to have been insignificant; but rather by the strafing and
bombing of supply routes, which prevented essential supplies
from reaching the front."

These are results of Allied investigations!
It is interessting to read, that Allied Fbs claimed over 400 tanks killed, when there were only 240 in the area and only about 30 were destroyed by all menas!


So, Allied pilots were great in claiming tanks killed by air attack. Fact is, allied fighterbombers were lousy in this job. Losses were high, the results ridiculous.

This is not true for the tanks destroyed on rail transport or in factories. Here Allied bombers did a decent job in destroying tanks.




So apparently the major cause of German Tank losses on the Western Front was cowardly tank crews who blew up or abandoned their vehicles? Wonder what they were afraid of?

In case you read the link, your question doesn´t make any sense. In case you haven´t, stopp trolling.
The tanks were abandoned near a bridge, which could not be passed by the heavy tanks.
In the second case, there wasn´t enough fuel to break from the encirclement, so the crew destroyed the tank to prohibit the capture of an intact vehicle.
Just to make you feel even more bad:
The Allies lost about 1200 fighterbombers in the first days of the invasion in France for destroying about 20 tanks.
If you want to see real tankkillers you have to look at the Ju87 with 37mm PAK or the Hs 129 tank cracker.
ju 87 destroying landing boats: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU6OK1zSxKg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Ju_87
HS 129 in interdiction role: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqTleVTB-_g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jm5yeUkp_Bg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henschel_Hs_129
So please, get real, fighter bombers were not the right tool to handle a tank problem.
Else the German Luftwaffe would have used them in this role! But there were major problems:
The planes were to fast to aim, the plane was to fragile to stand flak
Luftwaffe even tried an automatic Panzerschreck mount on FW190gs, but it didn´t work.
Lateron it was planned to mount wire guided antitank rockets (X7) in twoseat fighterbombers, but time went out and the war was over before it was really worked out.

Planes had to be slow to be able to hit a tank and they had to have the right punch. Both was not true for fighterbombers.

_____________________________

If you like what I said love me,if you dislike what I say ignore me!

"Extra Bavaria non est vita! Et sic est vita non est ita!"


(in reply to mike scholl 1)
Post #: 29
RE: Uncle Joe - 2/3/2013 7:05:20 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 7262
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
What bothers me is that many hard core tank and aircraft fans just rely in the basics to define what is good. "The panther was the best tank in the world because it had the best gun, gun sight and thick sloping armor." There really is so much more in determining if an weapon was the best. Just like ships and planes too many other factors have to be considers. A tank was not just a big gun stuck in a lot of metal. What about track life, rate of fire, turret rotation speed, mechanical reliability, and yes, comfort. All of these are important. I think both the t34 and the sherman were the best and most important tanks of the war. Reliable, useful, suited to multi-roles and easily mass produced and easy to modify and improve. In other words they were the best tanks for most situations and important tools in winning the war. Yes, we all know that if a sherman met a panther head on at 2,000 meters what the expected result would be but that does not make it or the T34 inferior.

Personally, in 1945 I think the best tank on the battlefield was the sherman "easy eight" with its special ammo, fast rate of fire, fast turret, HVSS suspension, wet stowage, superior track and engine life, and possibly a functioning gyrostablizer...My second choice would be the T34-85. Two excellent all around tanks.

The panther was my favorite tank but not the best. It's role was too defined and it was just too unreliable.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Frank)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Uncle Joe Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.146