RE: Uncle Joe

Matrix Games Forums

A look through the keyhole #10!

The Age of Shadows on Distant Worlds starts now!

Paypal System Update

Distant Worlds: Shadows Final Teaser!

Distant Worlds: Legends gets Updated!

Recruiting Testers for Commander: the Great War on Mac!

Armageddon invasion starts in 2014

Command Rommels Panzers in Battle Academy!

Servers Update

The Deal goes Fourth!

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: 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 >> RE: Uncle Joe

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Uncle Joe - 2/3/2013 7:36:56 PM

Symon

Posts: 281
Joined: 11/24/2012
From: De Eye-lands, Mon
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Frank
..."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."

I think, under the circumstances, that the vast majority of AFVs were operational losses. Now I'm just an arty puke, and everybody knows arty don't kill tanks, but there's some Internet sites (which means they must be true) of US Army analysis of the Italian campaign, that has the data. I'll try to find and post it.

Like all things military, it's not as simple as people would like. The VC didn't have tanks and the NVA were keeping their's very close, so I never got to shoot at a tank, but I was trained how to. What you do is shoot rapid with contact fusing; that craters the ground so they shed tracks; it puts a ton of shrapnell in the air, so they shut down. So they got teensy weensy viewports and a nasty terrain to cover. And while they are buttoned up, the infantry can get close and clean their clocks.

So how many were mission kills by the arty? Your call. Shred a track and can't fix it for all the MG hate coming your way, time to Dee Dee Mau. I kinda think that air missions had the same effect.

Can't see squat, don't know jack, all you get is info from your platoon/company leader. That was Germany's advantage. Unless and untill it was broken down and rendered nugatory by Allied air strikes at their HQ/Commo centers. It was a combined arms op. Something the game does not model very well. But hey !!!

_____________________________

Yippy Ki Yay

(in reply to mike scholl 1)

Post #: 31

RE: Uncle Joe - 2/4/2013 1:05:47 AM

Gr�fin Zeppelin

Posts: 1096
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline

Dont want to go to deep into this discussion but most of the soviet 1941 T-34 where destroyed by German standard anti tank measures which means killed by 37mm/50mm AT guns and PZ-IIIs.
The T-34 achieved also a horrible kill ratio against German tanks. Especially PZ-IIIs in 1941. 3.5 T-34 for Every Panzer III If I remember right.The tank vs tank ratio even shifts more against the T-34 if we include all AFVs (because of the Stug-III)
Of course there are reports about T-34s hit by dozens of German 37mm shells and still runing and front armor was inpenetrable by these except turret ring. but this also a hint about this tanks main problem, it was basically blind.

While it was certainly an inovative design it still had issues I think.
Afaik the German army really had troubles with the KV-1 tanks (in 1941), way more then T-34s

Please dont assume bias I just state what I know (or belive to know)

< Message edited by Gr�fin Zeppelin -- 2/4/2013 1:15:35 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Symon)

Post #: 32

RE: Uncle Joe - 2/4/2013 1:00:52 PM

Banzan

Posts: 190
Joined: 3/13/2010
From: Bremen, Germany
Status: offline

The ammount of tanks destroyed by FBs is not whats really counting for the success of their use. Preventing mobile movment in daylight does. The Panzer Lehr Division was orderd to move towards the invasion front in daylight and suffered dearly for doing it.
Special AT-planes the Ju87G and Henschel129 were designed and used at the eastern front, as air supprtiority was meaningles there, due the enormously space. If german would have tried to use them the same way on the western front, most of them would have been shot down without even getting close to their targets.

The KV-1 (and KV-2) was more difficult to destory for the german tanks, as they failed to even penetrate them from the sides/rear. The red army had like no experienced tank commanders, and no radios. The crews were too small and always needed the commander to fullfill second role.
Germany learned very early (before the war already), that the tank commander is needed to command only to get the maximum possible effency out of a tank. The french heavy tanks are even a better exampel for a strong design, broken by not adding enough crew and overfilling the crew with too many tasks.

Also, keep in mind, the red armys main strategie till '43/44 was to run straight towards the enemy. No matter how good your tanks are, you will suffer with these kind of "tactic". "Combined forces" can't work either, if you tank commanders can't call for help due the missiong radio.
Germany was often able to re-establish fronts after a breakthrough as the russian armor broke through but failed to exploit it. Instead they stand still till they got new orders, or were destroyed by rallyed and regrouped german troops.

(in reply to Gr�fin Zeppelin)

Post #: 33

RE: Uncle Joe - 2/4/2013 2:44:38 PM

mike scholl 1

Posts: 1174
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Banzan

The amount of tanks destroyed by FBs is not whats really counting for the success of their use. Preventing mobile movment in daylight does. The Panzer Lehr Division was orderd to move towards the invasion front in daylight and suffered dearly for doing it.

To this I would only add the loss of the support vehicles which made tanks usefull. A tank abandoned because FB's had destroyed it's fuel and ammo trucks and brought down all the bridges it could use to move was destroyed by Fighter-Bombers just as surely as if it had been hit with a 500lb bomb. It's what I meant by "what they were afraid of.".

(in reply to Banzan)

Post #: 34

RE: Uncle Joe - 2/4/2013 3:00:25 PM

crsutton

Posts: 6211
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Banzan

The amount of tanks destroyed by FBs is not whats really counting for the success of their use. Preventing mobile movment in daylight does. The Panzer Lehr Division was orderd to move towards the invasion front in daylight and suffered dearly for doing it.

To this I would only add the loss of the support vehicles which made tanks usefull. A tank abandoned because FB's had destroyed it's fuel and ammo trucks and brought down all the bridges it could use to move was destroyed by Fighter-Bombers just as surely as if it had been hit with a 500lb bomb. It's what I meant by "what they were afraid of.".

Not to mention accounts of tank units going to ground and staying concealed in clear a
Weather situations when Jabos were flying about.

_____________________________

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." Godwin's Law

(in reply to mike scholl 1)

Post #: 35