Spotting and German Assualt Guns as Efficient Armor

[Blackcloud6]

Guys, this is game where the counter represents a platoon of four or five vehicles.  And the turn is 20 minutes long.  "Efficiency" in this context does not mean just the ability of the tank commander to to employ his weapon by turning the turret or turning his vehicle or get off a number of shots but covers the ability of the platoon leader to properly employ his platoon over the course of the 20 minute turn.  So yes, the assault guns should have efficiency when taken in this context because it accounts for a better trained and able platoon leader and better trained and experienced crews in the platoon.

Except that at this scale the time is 15 minutes per turn, and there is no way that an unturreted AFV platoon would be as fast on the draw as a turreted tank platoon in combat. STG-IIIs, Hetzers and the like were often lethal as "ambush predators" of Allied AFVs -- when on defense in urban settings, and in prepared, covered & concealed positions with infantry support.

NBGB and Peter are on the right track on this topic, IMHO.

Efficiency does not necessarily reflect "reaction" but more so leadership ability. The efficient tank platoon leader had properly deployed his platoon to cover flanks and secondary avenues of approach.  The simple notion that he has one of his tanks covering a crucial tank and that tank geta couple of shots off thus eliminating a step is what is also being modelled.  The dice decides if this is successful or not.

The converse is that the non efficient tank platoon has a leader that might not have considered this and has his platoon oriented in one direction.

[plloyd1010]

Out of context, many, if not most tanks in WWII used hand cranks for turret traverse. This was one, of many reasons why the Sherman was a superior tank because of its electric drive turret.

I did a quick check of the major combatants and here are some cursory findings:

• Germany: PzKw III and later have hydraulic powered traverse. Very early PzKw III might not. PzKw i & II are hand cranked.
  
• Soviet Union: T-34 & KV-1 electrically powered turret traverse. Tanks before them and the T-60 are hand cranked.
  
• United Kingdom: Tanks before the are Cromwell & Churchill are hand cranked, except for the Matilda II, which has electric powered traverse. The Cromwell, Churchill and later are hydraulic.
  
• Italy: M11/39 and onward have hydraulic powered traverse.
  
• United States: M3 Stuart, M10 Wolverine and onward electric variable speed traverse. Starting with the M4 & M18 there are also gun stabilizers, which are not extensively used until later in the war.
  
• Japan: Type 3 Chi-Nu and later designs have electrical power traverse. This wasn't produced until 1944.
  
• France: Char B1 bis & S35 electric power traverse. All one-man turrets and the Char 2C are hand cranked.
  

 

Oh, and do you remember the myriad of knocked out, turretless, SU-100, SU-122 and SU-85s that the Israelis -- in fast moving, turreted tanks -- outmaneuvered & levered out of their prepared positions in 1956 and 1967 in both Syria and the Sinai.

According to a recently retired tanker (battlecarrysabot), it is quicker to turn the vehicle than to traverse the turret when in a hurry. As this was with an Abrams tank, having a jet engine, it might not hold true for WW2 vehicles which have diesel engines.

[treadasaurusrex]

She is certainly correct about the quick turns possible in an M-1A1, if you have room, since it is much bigger than nearly all WWII tanks. It is surely quicker on the draw against threat targets.

Those hand cranked, tank turrets in WWII, come about very quickly, as well. However, even the early power-traversed ones come about fast - and offer a much broader field of fire when the vehicle is stationary - than any of the turretless, AFVs like the STG-III series, Jagdpanzers, Heaters, or the SU-85s of the day

[battlecarrysabot]

Out of context, many, if not most tanks in WWII used hand cranks for turret traverse. This was one, of many reasons why the Sherman was a superior tank because of its electric drive turret.

I did a quick check of the major combatants and here are some cursory findings:

• Germany: PzKw III and later have hydraulic powered traverse. Very early PzKw III might not. PzKw i & II are hand cranked.
  
• Soviet Union: T-34 & KV-1 electrically powered turret traverse. Tanks before them and the T-60 are hand cranked.
  
• United Kingdom: Tanks before the are Cromwell & Churchill are hand cranked, except for the Matilda II, which has electric powered traverse. The Cromwell, Churchill and later are hydraulic.
  
• Italy: M11/39 and onward have hydraulic powered traverse.
  
• United States: M3 Stuart, M10 Wolverine and onward electric variable speed traverse. Starting with the M4 & M18 there are also gun stabilizers, which are not extensively used until later in the war.
  
• Japan: Type 3 Chi-Nu and later designs have electrical power traverse. This wasn't produced until 1944.
  
• France: Char B1 bis & S35 electric power traverse. All one-man turrets and the Char 2C are hand cranked.
  

 

Oh, and do you remember the myriad of knocked out, turretless, SU-100, SU-122 and SU-85s that the Israelis -- in fast moving, turreted tanks -- outmaneuvered & levered out of their prepared positions in 1956 and 1967 in both Syria and the Sinai.

According to a recently retired tanker (battlecarrysabot), it is quicker to turn the vehicle than to traverse the turret when in a hurry. As this was with an Abrams tank, having a jet engine, it might not hold true for WW2 vehicles which have diesel engines.

Hi everyone!! I meant that it's faster for crews to pivot the tank and make small manual traverse adjustments rather than make large traverses with manuals only. So if I had to cover a large angle between targets from a stationary position, I would train a crew to 1) powered traverse, 2) pivot then manual refinements, 3) manual traverse (where in 2 and 3 the tank didn't have hydraulic power due to maint or enemy effects). I think that techinque 2 isn't that difficult to train a crew on for a full traverse turreted vehicle, and would probably be a very basic drill for a crew of a vehicle with limited traverse because it's the fastest engagement technique.

For the game, I agree with blackcloud6 that each turn encompasses the Platoon's cumulative actions over a 15min period, so assault guns having effeciency and flanking fire rules are realistic. For assault guns, this is a result of their crews employing drills over 15mins to engage mutliple targets, and for the flanking fire, I think it's a result of all armored Platoons executing the very basic tactic of action left/right to present the frontal armor to the target.

[treadasaurusrex]

Spoken like the highly skilled, very professional, armor officer that you are, Captain Bell.

Wish that you had been one of my tank company commanders, back in the day.

[joe_oppenheimer]

Let's not turn the game into ASL.

[Schoenwulf]

Let's not turn the game into ASL.

Agree on that. However, when I preorder from MMP, there is never a charge until the item is shipped. It's kind of refreshing.....