Matrix Games Forums

A new update for Piercing Fortress EuropaNew screenshots for War in the West!Pike & Shot is now available!Server Maintenance Battle Academy 2 gets updated!Deal of the Week: Advanced Tactics Gold Ask Buzz Aldrin!Pike & Shot gets Release Date and Twitch Session!Deal of the Week Espana 1936War in the West coming in December!
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]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Uncle Joe - 2/3/2013 7:36:56 PM   
Symon


Posts: 1480
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   
Gräfin Zeppelin


Posts: 1143
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 Gräfin 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: 258
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 Gräfin Zeppelin)
Post #: 33
RE: Uncle Joe - 2/4/2013 2:44:38 PM   
mike scholl 1

 

Posts: 1265
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: 7230
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.


_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to mike scholl 1)
Post #: 35
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Uncle Joe Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
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

0.066