allen%codon1.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (06/07/89)
From: allen%codon1.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU I've played a lot of WWII armored miniatures games and a lot of board games on the topic too. One thing I find hard to judge is the relative effectiveness of certain tactics compared to each other in real life. I can judge how effective they are in any particular game system. An example: I remember reading that in North Africa, the preferred mode of engagement for light tanks like Stuarts and Cruisers to engage AT guns was a zigzag approach until the tanks reached their effective firing range, hopefully using confusing dodges to make up for the lack of effective cover. Anybody have data on how effective such a tactic is in making a tank harder to hit? If such tactics are used by, say, a company of 15 Stuarts to attack a battery of, say, five 88's, are any of the Stuarts likely to make it close enough to take out any of the 88's if the LOS of the 88's is unimpeded by any considerations of ground? I'm assuming this is purely an exercise in targeting and rate of fire vs speed and dodging and shooting by the tanks because any hit by an 88 on a Stuart will pretty much trash it. Are there other tactics for the tanks that will do better? How much so? Assume the eighty eights are hastily set up and not in protected emplacements to begin with. If they are dug in, how much does this change the situation? If the defending AT guns are German 75s, how much does this change the situation? If they are 57s? What ratio of Stuarts to 88's are needed to overwhelm the AT guns ability to pick them off? How much does the situation change if we swap in Shermans for the Stuarts? What I guess I'm looking for is a database of situations that are simple enough in the real engagements to get a sense of the actual interplay of the factors involved. I'd like to have more than a set of wargamers' best guesses to go by. Perhaps to approach the problem in a different way, if I am trying to shoot an AT gun at a moving tank, how do the tank's speed, range, angle of approach, and frequency of jinking affect my probability to hit? How much does it matter if the ground is uneven, making the tank move up and down alot to a degree smaller than the height of the tank? What's the effect of the the tank occasionally dipping into dead ground on my aim? How much slower is the real rate of fire of AT guns under combat conditions than the ideal rate of fire under testing ground conditions? So does anybody have real data or experience to share that can help an armchair warrior evaluate these kind of questions? All replies appreciated, by e-mail or posting. Ed Allen (allen@enzyme.berkeley.edu)
bsmart@uunet.UU.NET (Bob Smart) (06/09/89)
From: vrdxhq!vrdxhq.verdix.com!bsmart@uunet.UU.NET (Bob Smart) In article <7208@cbnews.ATT.COM>, allen%codon1.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU writes: > A lot about employment of armor against AT guns, concentrating on North Africa. > Ed Allen (allen@enzyme.berkeley.edu) I always found Brazen Chariots by Robert Crisp to be a good first hand source on North Africa. Crisp was a tank commander in a Honey ( M-3 Stuart). The book concentrates on one campaign I believe Crusader. I often wish He had another book continueing on to cover the rest of the war ( or maybe he was out of it, I can't remember how it closes now.) The book first came out in the 50's I think. I have the Bantam edition from the late 60's. Does anyone have good first hand armor books? I have another one about the Churchill Crocodiles ( Flame throwers) that I can't remember the name of. I am looking for all periods, all theaters. Bob Smart (bsmart@verdix.com) [mod.note: I'll second the nomination for Brazen Chariots, with the caveat that it's tough to pull much useful gaming info out of it. It does a great job of portraying the feel of combat, though. At one point, Crisp mistakes a Crusader for a PzKwIII and opens fire, putting many rounds into it (and killing the gunner, as I recall). The Crusader commander later remarked, "that was bloody good shooting !" - Bill ]
kluksdah@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Norman C. Kluksdahl) (06/09/89)
From: kluksdah@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Norman C. Kluksdahl) In article <7208@cbnews.ATT.COM>, allen%codon1.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU writes: > > I read that in North Africa, the ... mode of > engagement for ... Stuarts ... to engage AT guns was > a zigzag approach until the tanks reached their effective firing range, > If such tactics are used by ... 15 > Stuarts to attack a ... five 88's, are any of the Stuarts > likely to make it close enough to take out any of the 88's? This reminds me of a book I once read about the battles in North Africa, especially the tank battles of Montgomery's army. There were quite a few Stuart tanks used, which created supply problems. The high-profile resulted from radial (? this point is muddy) engines, which required aviation petrol. Secondly, the book, "Brazen Chariots" outlines the escapades of one tank commander in a few days' battles, in which he had 5 or 6 Stuart tanks shot from under him. (The last one also took him out of action). In light of this data, I would not want to be one taking on an 88 with a Stuart. Or 3 Stuarts. Or 8 ....... Perhaps the name was inappropriately chosen for this tank. Perhaps it should have been the M5 Suicidal Insanity :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) [mod.note: Actually, it was the M3 at that stage of the war. The M5 came later; I don't know if it saw Sicily, but certainly was involved in France. Anyway, the Brits christened the M3 the "Honey", apparently more due to its automotive characteristics than anything else. - Bill ] ********************************************************************** Norman Kluksdahl Arizona State University ..ncar!noao!asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah alternate: kluksdah@enuxc1.eas.asu.edu standard disclaimer implied