Company of Heroes: Eastern Front
Other discussions (Read-Only) => Eastern Front => Topic started by: regz321 on April 09, 2011, 04:46:31 AM
-
This is just discussion thread about WW2 Warfare:
Artillery Guns
Tanks
Infantry weapons
etc
Some quick examples can include:
Panzer IV
Panzerfaust
M1911
Thompson
MP40
M4 Sherman
& LOTS MORE, COMPARE ANYTHING FROM ANY NATION IN WW2
Feel free to argue, compare weapons, or provide information etc.
-
If this is about real life, i think it should go here:
http://easternfront.org/forums/index.php?board=7.0 (http://easternfront.org/forums/index.php?board=7.0)
Unless that's specifically about Eastern Front, i'm not sure. :-\
Either way, if your topic lacks direction, i don't think it will get very far...
-
Can anyone tell me difference between PzIV aufs H and sufs J? I read somewhere that one of them had inefficient turret traversing system.
-
Yeah it's based on real warfare weapons not anything in games
-
I think the topic is too general to get any popularity :/
If it were more specific I'm sure the rest of the community would be happy to chime in.
-
Well we do already have a question:
Can anyone tell me difference between PzIV aufs H and sufs J? I read somewhere that one of them had inefficient turret traversing system.
I would like to know the answer too. ;D
-
As far as I know, Ausf. J had the so-called Thoma-Schilde (armoured skirts in form of a grid) to reduce the weight of the Panzer and save marterial. Here a picture:
(http://warandgame.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/db86117.jpg)
-
Well we do already have a question:
Can anyone tell me difference between PzIV aufs H and sufs J? I read somewhere that one of them had inefficient turret traversing system.
I would like to know the answer too. ;D
My personal advice: Walter J Spielberg - Panzer IV and its variants.
Here u will find all this information.
Here a quick information about the differences:
The electrical turret traversing system was replaced by a manual system.
A new 200L fuel tank.
A new "Seitenrichtmaschine" (dont know the english term):
The new machine made it easier to turn around the turret by hand.
And one, two smaller changes in consequence of the "major changes".
The Thoma-Schürze was no special sign of Ausf. J. Old tanks were equipped with this Schürzen, too.
-
And was it better than PzIV aufs H or not? I mean in which one would you fight yankee tanks or soviet ones?
-
Well - this changes arent as important as the change from Ausf. E to Ausf. F late (with longer 7,5cm Kwk).
Out of my view both tanks had the same combat value. Ausf. J is a bit better to handle and to service.
-
Right, thank you :)
-
Can anyone tell me (compare) how many and what kind of guns did a division have ? I want to compare a normal German division with any allied division. I know that Germans usually had more direct fire guns (thick AT screen) while US/UK more howitzers but I dont know any details.
-
I have always been fascinated by these unkown rare units. Like the 500th SS parachute battalion or airborne firefighters for exampel or latewars prototypes such as the Maus. So I have always been woundering. Scuba divers unit?
Did these exist or anything? Like a speciall formed unit for scuba infantry or something like that. I Know SAS and other commando troops maybe used Scuba equipment for some missions but Iam asking about troops specially focus on Scuba warfare? ^^
Sorry if it sounds like Iam being unserious but I would love to know :D
Btw I can already say that Iam not intressted in hearing about mini uboats or those little gizmos. Just pure Scuba divers :D No ofc no they dont have to fight under water a lá James Bond XD
-
Can anyone tell me (compare) how many and what kind of guns did a division have ? I want to compare a normal German division with any allied division. I know that Germans usually had more direct fire guns (thick AT screen) while US/UK more howitzers but I dont know any details.
Soviet division had most artillery, US doctrine was 30% suppression/kill threshold. while soviet barrage at 30% was just getting started they aim to achieve 90%.
furthermore the artillery attack of US was more fluid an call in reliant as where a soviet barrage was planned for days or even weeks ahead of time. due to the lack of radios and communication in soviet army.
and soviet howitzers were employed in frequent direct fire mission for a number of reason, lack of ammo. or when you finished your barrage you were expected to tow your gun tot he front and contribute to assault!
I forget the source/number but im sure I could locate it again. it showed the ration of man hours needed to complete AT/howitzer guns between US/soviet/german plants.
So what have we learned? Soviet doctrine dictate that their number of guns was highest amongst country of the time. I want to say the commonwealth was second and US 3rd followed by the germans. this last paragraph is purely speculation
-
Do not forget, Soviet, Wermaht & Allies have different army organisation.
For exellent example - Frontline aviation.
Wermaht & RKKA army Air Force organisaton is Different ... subordination elements & army main perpose is different.
Artillery army perpose depend on frontline army tipe actions & army group strategy.
That was the difference.
Other measures - technological advance ...
-
Well we do already have a question:
Can anyone tell me difference between PzIV aufs H and sufs J? I read somewhere that one of them had inefficient turret traversing system.
I would like to know the answer too. ;D
My personal advice: Walter J Spielberg - Panzer IV and its variants.
Here u will find all this information.
Here a quick information about the differences:
The electrical turret traversing system was replaced by a manual system.
A new 200L fuel tank.
A new "Seitenrichtmaschine" (dont know the english term):
The new machine made it easier to turn around the turret by hand.
And one, two smaller changes in consequence of the "major changes".
I believe there were improvements to the optical systems as well.
Skirts and the use of Zimmerit were field mods not a design series.
The Pz IV J was developed to increase production more than to improve the fighting capabilities over the "H".
http://http://www.achtungpanzer.com/panzerkampfwagen-iv.htm#panzer4 (http://http//www.achtungpanzer.com/panzerkampfwagen-iv.htm#panzer4)
-
What was so special about the Stg44?
-
Its the worlds first assault rifle. If you think about that it haves a whole new type of bullet. The führer himself was agaisnt the weapon in the beginnening but the OKW ( Ober kommando wehrmacht?)
made it in secret because they saw its potential under the name mp44 so Hitler thought it just was a new smg. Later when he found out he also found out the great succses the mp44 had been so he renamed it to stg44 (sturmgewhr) and decided for full scale production.
Mikhaeil Kalasnikov took insperation from it and created his ak47. However mechanical and such the ak47 and stg44 are totally differant machines. The stg44 however stand ground for the future postwar G3 rifle ^^
I think thats right? XD (taken from head!)
-
Mikhaeil Kalasnikov took insperation from it and created his ak47.
thats not confirmed
-
Mikhaeil Kalasnikov took insperation from it and created his ak47.
thats not confirmed
Well the Stg44 looks like a smaller version of the AK-47
-
those two guns were completly different developments afaik
-
Its only uncomfirmed beacause all we have to go on is what Kalashnikov says and he'll never admit (if he really did) that the pride and joy of the motherland was based on German designs.
-
Its not a direct copy of the german gun. In fact the way both weapons function are different except the gaspressureloader (wrong word but didnt find the right one), which was known before the Stg44 was invented. So ...
Its like saying that the Horten Go 229 was the direct predecessor of the B2. Norten did have in fact own aircrafts. A test flight of the Horten wasnt even done.
-
I can only speculate based on the evidence as I see it, the two ARs look somewhat similar at least on the exterior, the AK afaik was in the developement stages in '45 post war and having all these STGs lying around its kinda hard not to study their design. Of course it has parts that are of his unique design, he'd never have any credibility if he presented (more or less) a carbon copy of the STG44.
-
Was The Stg44 useful in combat?
I think that it wasn't as good as it is in OF or EF
-
it performed well in combat and the soldiers loved it, but it wasnt produced in any significant numbers to make a big impact
in real life it wasnt the buzzsaw that it is in COH however
-
Was The Stg44 useful in combat?
I think that it wasn't as good as it is in OF or EF
It didnt have less recoil than Thompsons or more powerfull bullets than BREN guns. ;D It was just another smg - but with a better kick.
P.S.
The first assault rifle was the Russian Fedorov Avtomat made in 1915!!!:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fedorov_Avtomat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fedorov_Avtomat)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/Awtfed.jpg)
-
So the Fedorov Avtomat was the granddaddy of the Stg44 which is the granddaddy of the AK-47 which is the granddaddy of almost all modern assault rifles. Did i get it right?
-
I did not know where write so has wrote here. Has Seen on picture tank IS-3. This mistake. The First party these tank was released at the last days of the war in 1945 and participation in battles he did not take. He never met with german. Never!
(Forgive my english.)
-
Who cares. They are great Ingame
-
I did not know where write so has wrote here. Has Seen on picture tank IS-3. This mistake. The First party these tank was released at the last days of the war in 1945 and participation in battles he did not take. He never met with german. Never!
Who cares. They are great Ingame
as silly as it is, i understand why, the is-3 is a thorn in the side of any axis player
so they have, and will continue, to complain about anything seen as a credible threat
-
Getting back to the topic at hand...
Anyone have an actual documented account of the vampir(stg44 modified etc) weapons used in particular night fighting skirmishes that happened near the end of WW2..?
Been trying to ascertain credible accounts of these engagements.
-
So the Fedorov Avtomat was the granddaddy of the Stg44 which is the granddaddy of the AK-47 which is the granddaddy of almost all modern assault rifles. Did i get it right?
its a shaky theory, a very debatable one. but im sure theres at least some truth to that analogy. countrys tend to copy/reproduce and improve on one anothers military advances/technologys, and then they tend to deny that they have done so. so what you believe is open to interpretation
-
Not so shaky Tovarich. THe Fedorov used a rifle cartridge, (japanese to boot). THe THompson, M3, MP40 etc all used pistol ammunition, (optimized fo r25-50m range), and are referred to as SMGs or Machine Pistols. The SGT44 and subsequently the AK47 utilized specially designed rifle cartridges optimized for a range of < 300m. Fedorov did this too but the production economics of his cartridge were unacceptable to the Romanovs. An assault rifle fires rifle cartridges.
From the designer himself:
The AK-47 is best described as a hybrid of previous rifle technology innovations: the trigger, double locking lugs and unlocking raceway of the M1 Garand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Garand_rifle)/M1 carbine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_carbine), the safety mechanism of the John Browning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Browning) designed Remington Model 8 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remington_Model_8) rifle, and the gas system and layout of the Sturmgewehr 44 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmgewehr_44). Kalashnikov's team had access to all of these weapons and had no need to "reinvent the wheel", though he denied that his design was based on the German Sturmgewehr 44 assault rifle. Kalashnikov himself observed: "A lot of [Soviet Army soldiers] ask me how one can become a constructor, and how new weaponry is designed. These are very difficult questions. Each designer seems to have his own paths, his own successes and failures. But one thing is clear: before attempting to create something new, it is vital to have a good appreciation of everything that already exists in this field. I myself have had many experiences confirming this to be so."
-
Actually I believe 7.92x33 kurz and 7.62x39mm are refered to as Intermediate Cartridges
-
That's right Doc. ;) IIRC rifle cartridges are optimized for 1000m.
-
The AK-47 is best described as a hybrid of previous rifle technology innovations: the trigger, double locking lugs and unlocking raceway of the M1 Garand/M1 carbine, the safety mechanism of the John Browning designed Remington Model 8 rifle, and the gas system and layout of the Sturmgewehr 44. Kalashnikov's team had access to all of these weapons and had no need to "reinvent the wheel", though he denied that his design was based on the German Sturmgewehr 44 assault rifle.
So Kalashnikov had access to the Sturmgewehr 44 which by the sounds of it was an excellent weapon, made a weapon that looked like a Sturmgewehr 44 Jumbo and then denied that his design was based on the German Sturmgewehr 44 assault rifle.Sounds fishy to me.
In case I have offended someone please find it in your hearts to forgive me. And please don't ban me. I joined last week .:'(
-
I always thought it was funny that in CoH the G43 and the SVT are really powerful rifles, but the M1 Garand (which is more or less the same thing) is mediocre at best.
-
I always thought it was funny that in CoH the G43 and the SVT are really powerful rifles, but the M1 Garand (which is more or less the same thing) is mediocre at best.
One Word: Balance
-
It's also about those who wield it remember. For example, the K98 is used by both volks and Stormtroopers but the K98s that Stormies use are much better than those that volks use. Strelky mosins>conscript mosins etc.
Also balance of course.
-
I always thought it was funny that in CoH the G43 and the SVT are really powerful rifles, but the M1 Garand (which is more or less the same thing) is mediocre at best.
Unless you give M1 to a vet 3 Rifleman.
-
I have a question about soviet sniper rifles(and possibly german sniper rifles too). Why is it tht in alot of WW2 movies they wrap cloth around it? In addition, some games have they're snipers wrapped n cloth. What is the purpose of this? Is it for camoflaugue? Does it make it more resilient to weather? Easier to carry? Someone enlighten me please :P.
-
Camo I would think. A rifle is a fairly easy to spot thing. Play any shooter and your eye will recognise the shape of a rifle from a mile away.
-
I think the weapons are wrapped to prevent light from glinting off the piece thereby identifying the shooters location.
-
Questions about tank traps:
-How is it the Czech hedgehogs are so effective against tanks? Considering the weight of a tank, why cant it ram into it and push past? Why must it go around?
-Also, how did one get rid of tanks traps besides using demolitions? Was it effective?
-Are they still used today?
For those of you that don't know what Czech hedgehogs are they are the things that American engineers build called tank traps. Particularly on bridges ^^
-
1. I guess czech hedgehogs are dug deep in to the ground, making it almost imposible to move, even with great strenght. also tank's weigh counts only IF the hedegehog would be under the tank.
2. Demolitions propably were effective because they were ripping hedgehogs apart without digging it out of the ground.
3. For sure they are! As the most effective and cheaper than AT mines they surely will find out a way to get on the modern battlefields.
-
But what special tanks were used to clear Czech hedgehogs? I think bulldozers only work in the game since the hedgehogs are dug in.
Also, how do mine clearing tanks work? For example the Sherman flail. Why doesnt the mine damage or destroy the flail? Or tank rollers(aka Aunt Jemina ^^). Why dont they get a hole in them when a mine explodes under them?
-
Questions about tank traps:
-How is it the Czech hedgehogs are so effective against tanks? Considering the weight of a tank, why cant it ram into it and push past? Why must it go around?
-Also, how did one get rid of tanks traps besides using demolitions? Was it effective?
-Are they still used today?
For those of you that don't know what Czech hedgehogs are they are the things that American engineers build called tank traps. Particularly on bridges ^^
-the design of the hedgehog mean't that if a tank attempted to drive over it, the tank would either roll over or just get stuck. the hedgehog was also built to some tight specifications, one being that it had to survive a certain amount of force, (600 kN i believe) the other being the design itself, with cross beams that counteract weight so that the hedgehog could survive 10 times it's weight, as well as being dug deep in the ground.
-i believe the allies would just dig them out or use bulldozers, the hedgehog was not mean't to be dug in very deeply, it was made of 3 L shaped brackets, the L basically anchored the trap into the ground. allowing them to be moved relatively easily but widthstand massive weights.
-Of course, it's cheap, and effective, obviously the design has been improved with stronger allows and made slightly bigger to counteract the size of tanks today, but neverthless they are a cheap and effective soloution to the tank problem other than anti tank mines.
-
Another Q. Lets say a battle takes place an a bunch of soldeirs died :P. WHat happens to their gear? Do they collect it or just leave it there? I wouldn't think its left there or looting would occur and the enemy could take it. But what happens ???
-
The gear was often reused like the germans did in russia they used cannons and tanks that they had salvaged and they used russian winter gear becouse their own was just to bad.
-
Thanks. LOL your post count went up ^^
-
@Fishhunterx:
Regarding equipment left on the field of battle. One traditional method for evalualting victory in a battle has always been "who remains on the field at the end of the conflict. Recovery of equipment and plundering of the field has always been the perogative of the victor.Indeed the whole concept of plunder was a source of wealth for soldiers from times immemorial. Many "won battles" have been lost when the victorious army stopped to plunder the enemy camp rather than destroy the enemy forces.
@ Vast enemy: Thank you for the description of the Czech Hedgehogs. It should be noted that these Tank traps are only used to delay the enemy, not stop them. When backed up by dug-in Infantry, tank guns and artillery they become most potent. One of the reasons why the triple belts of hedgehogs were seemingly ineffective in the Westwall or Siegfried Line defenses was that the supporting equipment, armaments and communications systems built-in to stop the Allies during the thirties had been relocated to the Atlantic wall. Vegetation had not been cleared around defenses so that fields of fire were severely reduced or no longer extent. German troops assigned to the Westwall found the defenses to be ineffective, (particularly for want of communications equipment). Many German accounts cite that the many bunkers that would have been used in support of the hedgehogs, barbed wire, etc. were only usuable as protection from USA artillery strikes and not as a component of a coordinated defensive system.
-
I found 2 videos with these weird German weapons. Can someone (preferably a historian) confirm these were actually used in the field :P My favorite is the Flying panzerfaust ;D
unusual German WW2 Weapons (Part 1) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSCdIqcvjus#)
Unusual German ww2 weapons (Part 2) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmw7su-X1Aw#)
-
That StG 45 was produced in rare numbers, but never saw combat. It was a "counter- development" to the MP 44, produced by Mauser afaik.
I know that the "Volkssturmgewehr" was produced and used, however I am not sure of these particular designs.
Never heard of the Panzerwurfmine, but I looked it up and there is a wikipedia article claiming it was used by Luftwaffe Ground Forces. It seems it's more or less the warhead of the usual Panzerfaust...
As for the second video, especially this Fallschirmjager rifle is totally new for me. But there's already a thread to the Fliegerfaust i think.
-
Many of those weapons didnt see action no. Simple because they were prototypes made in few numbers. Well maybe one or another for field testing or some of them for last ditch defensiv arm everybody and defend the fatherland ( volksturm and volkgrenadiers mostly)<3 XD
My ansvers are NOT to be citated as being true because I havent an proffesor title in history or anything. This is only what I have heard and read on various places on the internet and could be completly wrong about everything. But its always something XD
Panzerwurfmine did see action yes. Remember seing an German training film about differant anti tank weapons and it was in it. But it werent so popular because the whole parachute desing of it made it kind of risky because of winds and such :P
Kraummlauf I have no idea if it ever saw battles. But I wouldnt be suprised if it did in small numbers. I heard a rumor that stg44 with just those gizmos were on some elephant tanks for close infantry defensiv from inside the tank. Just twisting it around shooting because the bullet would break because of the odd barrel making it like an auto shotgun lol :P
The mkb42 rifles did see action yes. But not in large numbers.
I am having hard times believing that the Fallschirmjäger bullpup rifle did see action because it was just an prototype. However it looks awesome XD
Volksgewehr 2 and Mg45 I think no. This were made for last defense of Germany but the war was over before they could hit the field.
Walther sturm karbiner 39 I think no. There is only a blue print of it. No actuall picture. PICS OR IT DIDNT HAPPEN :P
The fliegerfaust IMO did see little action in the battle of berlin in 1945. If it was succseful or anything I dont know. I dont even know if they fired it. They probaly used all weapons they could use. But it did particapte in the battle.
Source of this is an photo from the battles of Berlin and you could see one laying on the ground.
(you see it at 2.04)
The deathray pistol. NO XD
-
The deathray pistol. NO XD
Actually the poster of thses vids said that the death ray article was real. Maybe not the weapon but he said there was an article for this. Probably a hoax but I want one ;D
TY for responding though :)
-
Never heard of the Panzerwurfmine,
I think this is the AT grenade that the PE use isnt it? At least thats what the Icon looks like
-
I saw a documentary (serious) on the Death Ray system that Japan was developing to defend the Home Islands. They said they'd use intense microwave beams to kill people aboard landing craft that were headed to shore. Apparently it was rejected because it used a ridiculous amount of power but would've been very effective at stopping amphibious landings.
-
Yeh there was a two part doco on weird weapons a few years ago. One episode for the allies, one for axis.
Apparently the Japanese high command decided pursuing the death ray concept was more feasible than an atomic program and cancelled the latter.
Hahaha irony!
-
I saw an article about some giant dish shaped satellite/space station germany was going to build in space that was going to be used as a means to attack from orbit using the sun (hence the name "Sonnengewher"), it was meant to be an intimidation device to force nations into surrendering but I can see the Nazis using it A LOT.
(http://www.damninteresting.net/content/sun_gun.jpg)
(sorry for the swastika if anyone gets offended)
-
National Socialist Hubble telescope of death ;D
-
I have a Q. You know how the US and Britain gave alot of stuff to SU through lend lease. Did thy ever pay them back or did they just say:
"F@%K you guys, if your not a communist then Im not payng you. Besides, Im about to launch Operation Unthinkable on your ass!" - Joseph Stalin(JK)
-
Well technically yes, they did. The first Lend-Lease shipments were in fact payed with gold by Stalin himself (we have the order in display at some museum somewhere) And I believe they did pay it all of with gold later on, by the 1950s to be sure. Though I wouldn't have either....
-
Well technically yes, they did. The first Lend-Lease shipments were in fact payed with gold by Stalin himself (we have the order in display at some museum somewhere) And I believe they did pay it all of with gold later on, by the 1950s to be sure. Though I wouldn't have either....
Where did the Soviets get so much gold from :P?
-
Oh a couple of places, selling excess Grain that could have been used to feed the Ukrainians during the Famine to the West, Gulags, some other less less interesting places.
-
some other less less interesting places.
Like inside your house :P? I don't mean your house specifically I mean inside random Soviet houses ;D
-
Well sometimes, I was referring to pillaging the Germans, but ya that too.
-
Well sometimes, I was referring to pillaging the Germans, but ya that too.
I didn't think Europe had that much gold to begin with :P. I know there's alot of gold in Africa, hence the gold-salt trade :P. Salty ;D. I think there's a significant amount of gold in South America ???
-
man they got the gold from the national banks in all the soviet union
they didnt dig it up from the earth like with mines and shit
-
Well most of the gold in the Soviet Union did in fact come from GULAG miners and actual organized miners (as did a significant amount of our other raw materials) and sold grain. The Soviet National bank had a gold store left over from all this (and in case you guys don't know, Siberia is a very gold rich zone). I just double checked, in fact Stalin never did pay of all the debt, in fact in the 1980s the debt was pardoned.
-
Well he was dead by then so........... :P
-
well Kaiser wilhelm is dead too still germany payed until 2010 for WW1 :D
-
well Kaiser wilhelm is dead too still germany payed until 2010 for WW1 :D
LOL I heard about that on the news :D
-
but we finished our payments
we dont owe your for WW1 anymore ;D
-
What about ww2 :3?
Post Merge: October 09, 2011, 11:16:23 AM
Why is it Sherman tanks have the .50 cal MG behind the tank commander ???. In the pictures I've seen, the MG is at the back of the turret. How is anyone suppose to fire that without stepping outside ???
Here's an example:
-
I think its suppost to support the infantry. You cant see really much in a tank. So when the tanks slowly goes forward with the infantry taking cover behind it. Some poor soul from the infantry ( or the tank?) is upp there handling that thing.
A pure guess XD
-
jup
the game is wrong the gunners where on the back of the tanks most of the time
same with the greyhound
-
Then how do they use it :3?
-
They stand back on the tanks back. Making the turret like a wall you stand behind handling the mg ^^
Sherman v Tiger Kellys Heroes (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1eFePf6mWM#)
Here is a clip from Kellys heroes. ( One of my favs!) And there you see how they use it ^^
-
Would be redicilous cause you are more protected while sitting in the tank turret I think.
-
Ofc Walki! Thats absolutely true. However. The mg is placed in that way so if you are going to sitt in the turret hatch operating it. You are going to have a hard time aiming it . ( Notice that the germans had these mgs in the hatch itself making it possible to move around sitting in the hatch.)
The Sherman otherhand had it in the back or on the side of the hatch. So if the turret doesnt move in that direction it could be hard ^^
-
Looks like the gunner is pretty exposed :P
-
you try to take a pop at him while there are 50.cal bullets all around you man, real life is nothing like CoD ;D
-
Thats y u ambush him :3
-
Do those buildings from wehrmacht and PE base on true buildings in real life? Most PE's buildings look like big ass bunkers.
If those base on real buildings, please provide some pictures, I really dont know what keyword I should use in google :P (
-
How about something along the lines of "German WW2 Barracks" :P. IDK if that works :-\. Or "German WW2 Depot" or even "German WW2 headquaters"
-
I have tried, nothing special. German barracks actually look alike most other nations' barracks. What I want to know is: those buildings in CoH was inspired from real things or they just come from Relic's creative imagination :P
-
you know... paint shells FTW 8)
-
They're inspired more from bunkers than actual buildings, since units aren't actually constructed on the field obviously. In reality, Germans would use tents the same as US forces in the game I would imagine.
-
you know... paint shells FTW 8)
I think the Americans should have this abilety ;P <3
And no. I dont think there was any factorys disguised as bunkers producing war material 1 mile from the battlefield XD
-
During WW2 guns such as the Bren and the MG42 have interchangeable barrels to keep the barrels from over heating :P. Vickers guns implemented water cooling system. Basically, all heavy guns had a system to prevent the guns from getting too hot :P.
But what happens when the barrels gets too hot. What will happen if the gun is literally glowing bright red but you keep firing ??? Does the metal start to warp? Does it affect the bullets? I would imagine it would make them go faster (more heat = more energy = higher velocity)
-
The barrel could break/crack. :>
I heard stories of machineguns blowing up in peoples faces. But thats probaly more about the cartridge malfunction or something ^^
-
I heard stories of machineguns blowing up in peoples faces.^^
that would really suck
-
I would imagine 200o barrel pieces flying in your face would indeed "suck" ^^
-
Scarface FTW :P. But what about AT guns and Flak 88? what if they're over heated? Can they use snow or water to cool the guns down?
-
If there is snow or water near you to begin with ;D. Im just curious. Would pouring water on a gun like a Flak 88 cause it to rust ???
-
if its red hot it will crack and become brittle
-
if the gun barrel is really hot and you pour water on it, the water will evaporate and go of as steam and hot drops in all directions
very dumb idea i guess
-
NO the barrel would cool down but it would become weak.
-
Its not that dumb I guess. After all there are water cooled machine guns. I think the Vickers and .30 cal guns are watr cooled. But not all of them
-
Air-cooled MGs aren't designed to be water cooled. No pouring water on them directly. If needed, in dire need you must band some wet material around the barrel - it will decrease temperature ( because part of heat energy will 'jump' onto the material, so material will be affected with high temperature) without unnecesary risk. Same thing comes to big guns, however I can't imagine 88s barrel glowing red :o
-
There are different types of barrels? I know the inside might be different but I just thought all of them were made of steel :P
-
I have a Q. Why was the Nashorn made? It's basically an 88mm gun on wheels. But so is the Tiger and King Tiger :P. So why make it if its so delicate and easy to destroy?
And IDK which came first, the Jagdpanzer or Hetzer. But why was the latter made if both tanks did the same thing (destroy allied tanks :P) Its seems redundant. I mean I under stand if its a modification (maybe hetzer is better than Jagdanzer) but then why keep making the inferior one ???
The same goes for the Jagdpanther and Tiger. Why make the other when the previous one used the same exact gun and its armor was still effective :P
-
Limited amount of resources is the only guess I can give you.
-
the hetzer (wikipedia)
was made of the 38(t) tank which was captured by the Germans in Czechoslovakia. the hetzer was a gapfiller. id did the job but it was very cramped inside and when it faced bigger tanks it pretty much was no match for them
-
The tank destroyers/self-propelled guns were a way to upgun outdated tank designs cheaply, to increase their effectiveness and change their role. Some examples are:
Panzer III - Stug III
Panzer IV - Stug IV
- Jagdpanzer IV
Panzer 38(t) - Hetzer
- Marder III
Hotchkiss/Panzer II - Marder I (GWagon)/Marder II
Often, outdated tanks could have their turret replaced with a turretless superstructure that allowed for a much larger gun. This was a cheap way to make old tanks effective again. They weren't built new from factories (the Jagdpanther/Jagdtiger/Elefant are probably exceptions) but were rather taken back to factories to have turrets removed and superstructures/massive guns added.
-
and some of those gapfillers proved to be very effective
Wittman, the most succesfull tank ace of WW2 started in a Stug III
actually i think the CoH Wehrmacht is weird cause Stug III was way more common than Stug IV :D
-
In a movie I saw, US soldiers threw stones to make mines explode, can it work in real life? Because most of mines I know (and in that movie) was buried.
-
Yes, my brother is a pioneer in the Bundeswehr and he showed me a book with a lot of mines (all types). Anti infantry & Anti Tank: Almost every mine had the text: To defuse, trigger the mine from save distance by shooting or throwing something against it.
I.E. Butterfly mines they are defused by shooting at them.
-
Why the German flamthrowers wear goggles? Because of the "flash" from flame or the heat? If the heat then they have to wear a mask (with goggles in it) :P
By the way, the goggles with mask used in Africa I saw in games and movies are kinda... scary (and cool :D), is the goggles come with other stuffs like cloth and backpack all the time or some soldiers got it, some didn't?
I just found out the iron canister the grenadiers carry behind have a gas mask in it, imagine a blob of gas-masked grenadiers :P
-
Why the German flamthrowers wear goggles? [...]
Cause a flamethrower is very hot :p. Try to sit very close to a campfire and stare at it. I don't think you are able to face it for long and of course it was also as a protection.
-
Why the German flamthrowers wear goggles? [...]
Cause a flamethrower is very hot :p. Try to sit very close to a campfire and stare at it. I don't think you are able to face it for long and of course also as a protection.
i belive we call that a "good point"
-
If it's hot then just a goggles will not enough, just wear mask with goggles then.
-
Never had the effect that your eyes hurted after you sat next to a campfire but your face didn't hurt then :P.
-
i think also they wore masks because breathing burning gasoline fumes
isnt too good on the ol' lungs.
-
Neither is gunpowder :P
-
i think also they wore masks because breathing burning gasoline fumes
isnt too good on the ol' lungs.
Neither is most of the crap that soldiers were breathing. Breathing gas was the least of their worries.
-
After lurking some pages, Ive was surprised too see the Soviets and the Finish actually had their own battles. Were the Finns on the axis or allied side on? or were they just defending their land and then went neutral?
-
Ever heard about the winter war? XD
They were on the axis side. Partly? XD Not allied really, more like - we are fighting the same enemy lets help each other out? <3
Fun fact is that the finnish fought for a little time against the germans!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapland_War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapland_War)
-
sommarkatze pretty much summed it up. soviets fought finns when the soviet union and germany were still allied, and the finns used guerilla warfare to wear down the red army.
they were defending their land.
-
Hey guys. If you've ever seen the movie Enemy at the gates, you know that each Soviet conscript got either a gun or ammo and they charged at the enemy.
My Q is did this really happen ???. It seems so........unorthodox to me :P. And if it really did happen how often and when did it stop/start. Was this tactic implemented during the final days of the war ???
Also did conscripts ever get bayonets? It would seem so much more effecient when charging :P
In addition why don't soldiers ever leave their bayonets on their rifle. In the movies you always see them fumbling with their knife and then they get beat to death :-X. Why don't they just leave it there :P?
-
Hey guys. If you've ever seen the movie Enemy at the gates, you know that each Soviet conscript got either a gun or ammo and they charged at the enemy.
My Q is did this really happen ???. It seems so........unorthodox to me :P. And if it really did happen how often and when did it stop/start. Was this tactic implemented during the final days of the war ???
Also did conscripts ever get bayonets? It would seem so much more effecient when charging :P
In addition why don't soldiers ever leave their bayonets on their rifle. In the movies you always see them fumbling with their knife and then they get beat to death :-X. Why don't they just leave it there :P?
Here is what I gather due to reading and hearsay. I wasn't actually in the war so don't quote me :P
From what I read, yes, at some points the lowest ranking divisions often had to divi up their supply of ammo and guns like you described simply because of lack of arms. It's sort of exemplified in movies more so than I think it actually took place though. (This is the point of Conscripts the 4 men have rifles the others have ammo)
It would have been early war when it had happened. Sieges of Stalingrad and Leningrad often targeted their industries meant for making such weapons and if those are knocked out you have lack of supply.
Bayonets are pictured in propaganda photos: Soviets did not use bayonets.
If it were me and I was on the ground I would try to stab him in the foot before lunging at him with intent to kill. He'd be in a massive amount of pain and he would also find it extremely hard to move if you place your stab right. Then you can finish him off.
-
Well, bayonets proved to be very ineffective in WWI.
I read somewhere that not even half a percent of injuries taken in combat were caused by bayonets in the trenches of 1914-18.
In WWII, they were more often used for parades and as symbols than a real combat weapon (well, in Japanese melee attacks perhaps...)
Think about it, in close combat a rifle with a knife becomes pretty bulky and is repelled easily. You are much more agile with a knife or the good old rusty spade, striking faster and more accurate.
... bayonets look awesome though ;D
-
From what I've gathered, bayonets were first introduced to give soldiers of the line an effective weapon against charging cavalry. Also, given the nature of the muskets soldiers used back then (think 1700-1850ish) they fought in the packed battle lines we know from the Napoleonic wars and such. When charging such a tight line of soldiers a bayonet will be effective (hell, it's really hard to miss an enemy when your running at a wall of them).
However, when muskets became replaced by rifles, the need for close formations deminished, lowering the effectiveness of hack, slash, and stab weapons like bayonets.
-
Its absolutely nothing they did the entire war. Only like wizard said. Early war at desperate times like Leningrad and Stalingrad. Sadly many people get the picture of that this was the tactic of the red army the entire war XD
-
I have another q. Why did the US army favor the use of the M1 Garand over the M1 Carbine. Lets compare. Correct me if I'm wrong.
-The M1 Carbine was lighter weight wise. Thus the name Carbine. Some variants even had a foldable stock
-They both used the same .306 ammo so its not like one has a stronger bullet ::)
-I might be wrong byt the Garand my have performed better at long range but not by a significant amount
-The M1 Carbine had a 15 round magazine that could be taken out at any time while the M1 Garand had a 8 round clip that couldn't be removed and made a distinct ping noise, alerting the enemy you're out of ammo or at least you're reloading. That means the M1 had nearly double the ammo. And you could use a strriper clip to reload the same magazine fast
-The Garand might have been more money to make. Not 100% sure
-Both guns were accurate and semi automatic
-Yes the M1 Garand had a butt stock allowing you to hit ppl in close quarters but the M1 carbine could come with one too. The M1 Carbine could come with or w/o a foldable stock if Im correct
So why use the M1 Garand ??? Im jusr curious :P. Not trying to de fame the gun Patton called: "The best military innovation ever devised" Something like that :P
-
I think Garand had better accuracy since it got better mechanism and longer barrel. The structure of a rifle give it easier to aim at long range. Oh! Actually Garand and M1 carbine don't use the same ammo, same caliber but different other specs.
And they aleady produced alot of Garand when the M1 began its production. :P
This part is my guess: when in close range, a lightly wounded by gun-fire soldier will fight more crazier because of basic instict (fight to live) so M1 carbine sometimes could make things worse. Angry Japanese soldier is the best example. :P
-
If you're crazy at close range and a firing madly at least you'll have more bullets to fire with in the M1 Carbine than M1 Garand ;D. But I see your point :P
-
I have a question. In alot of WW2 movies you see soldiers firing AT guns(like a PAK 40) and for some reason, they dont see to do much damage. In fact they seem to absorb the shot and then shot and destroy the AT gun :o. Is this realistic(in that AT guns dont do much damage) or do movies simply do ths in order to be more dramatic ???
Also did anyone ever figure out why the M1 Carbine didn't replace the M1 Garand ???
-
More than likely not Fish I think its just to make the scene look more epic.
What film/films?
And what tank?
And as for the M1 Carbine it received mixed views during its usage, apparently it was mainly well praised but in a few battle, after action and even post war investigations some M1's were found to be faulty in various ways such as penetration, and stopping power. This could have been a reason but what I think is more likely is the costs of the rifles, as far as I know the M1 Garand is cheaper to produce than the M1 Carbine.
-
Well I was watching the movie Stalingrad and the AT guns didn't penetrate immediately. After like 3 or 4 shots the T-34 was halted. In a video clip from another WW2 movie(not sure what the name was) the guys fired an AT gun at a Panzer III IIRC and it kept moving. And in the movie The Breast Frotress the SU team fired a AT gun twice at the side of a Panzer III and it didn't die. And I think there was 1 more movie where this happened. Then again I haven't watched that many WW2 movies so I wouldn't know if it happened again.
BTW when Tanks take heavy rounds (lets say a Flak 88 shot hit a Sherman), do they explode, or do the just sorta sit there dead. And when shots do penetrate, do they explode inside the tank, smash and destroy something important, or do they act like a large bullet in the tank and kill the crew? I never really understood how rounds killed tanks or their crew.
-
What AT guns are used in the films? Because it would depend on various factors include the Gun, Distance, Round etc.
Well I suppose it would depend on what round it was and where it hit, if it was to ignite the munitions then it would definitely explode much like what happend to Micheal Wittman aka the Black Baron, a round ignited the munitions and blew the entire turret of the Tiger tank right off.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wittmann_Tiger_007.jpg
Fuel/Munitions would make it explode and of course the type of round.
A Flak 88 round if it penetrated which it more than likely would, would more than likely make the tank explode if it was a HEAT round and possibly if it was an AP round depending on exactly where abouts it hit.
-
Honestly I dont know what type of round was used. The soldier in "Stalingrad" didn't specify and the other 2 films were russian :P. But thank you for responding :D
Do tanks normally explode or do they just stop ??
Nice photo btw. Any soldiers near that tank must have been surprised ;D
-
I don't know this personally but I think in most cases that the Tank will explode or at least catch fire and burn destroying most of the internal controls, but in other cases the tank will just be knocked out, or abandoned by its crew.
Some tanks were just abandoned after the crew had ran out of munitions. Though they should have really destroyed the tanks to prevent the enemy from capturing them.
-
Hey fish on the rifle thing.the garand shoots a 30 06 round long range heavy round very accurate the carbine fires a 30 cal round lighter weight not as long range.Some sniper rifles used the 30 06 to give you an idea just a little info.
-
This sounds kinda dumb but how come the tank crew didn't just drive back to a munitions depot. I mean, I know it wasn't to convienitant and often times they were in the middle of a battle but it sounds better than running around with MP40's (which were commonly used by tank crews IIRC) and finding out that a bunch of tommies are driving your tiger tank.
And how were tank shells brought to the battlefield? By truck? And how many shells did tanks normally carry?
BTW TY bangalor. I didn't realize the rounds weight was different
-
If it's a movie then it could be affect by the principle of the evil marksmanship :P. Wiki it for more information.
Trust me, I saw a soviet movie that a guy with PTRD kill 2 Pz III with 2 shots :P. The fate of the tanks in movie is base on the decision of director or his crew not the AT's crew :P
If a Flak 88 shot hit a Sherman, there are lot of chance it will burn, explode or just being sit there dead base on various things. BUT the ammo usually explode on impact, rarely not. And most of tank's crew died because of explosion (sometimes burned to death and rarely died because of the round itself).
Become a soldier and you will know how the tanks have their ammo ;D. From ww2 until now, the army always setup various small supply depots along the advance or retreat so when soldiers and vehicles out of supply they will go there and get it. More comfortable is the supply will be carried to the front but very rarely.
-
when a round hits a tank, depending on the type of tank, it wont always explode immediately unless hit by something, huge (anything 150mm and above at at at a medium velocity, like that of an isu152) or if hitting the ammunition inside the tank (which wasnt easy when firing head on at a tank). shermans/ panzerIV/ panther all had a 75% chance of brewing up, aka catching fire, and afterwards ammunition would start to explode (later wet storage shermans had a much less chance of brewing up). so the perceptions in the movie is somewhat accurate, there are stories of tanks such as KV's and shermans being able to drive out of danger if hit in a non vital spot, even if the hit penetrated.
it also depended on the type of round that hit the tank. if the round had a small amount of HE filling in it (which early german and british tanks did), they would have a much better chance at setting the tank on fire or causing a explosion. HEAT rounds and regular AP rounds have a less likely chance than an HE filled AP shell
-
What is "wet storage". Did they litterally kept rounds wet? Or dd they have like a tank of water on stand by?
-
What is "wet storage". Did they litterally kept rounds wet? Or dd they have like a tank of water on stand by?
the rounds were kept in cases in the floor of the tank, which was surrounded by water. the water kept the rounds from going off most of the time when hit
-
LOL the rounds were actually kept wet
But didn't that water get everywhere? And since loaders constantly pulled out rounds, didn't that water get everywhere, screwing up the tanks internals ??
-
no not like that. the rounds were kept in a dry crate, with the crate and its contents being dry. surrounding the compartment was water, so that way the water did not get everywhere
-
I did actually not know about the water. Love this forum! :D
However there were bigger problems than water splashing around! There was smoke from all the gunpowder, crowded ( Like BIG TIME) you dont see almost litteraly anything on the outside (thats why you never attack without infantry support :>). I read from an relative who were in the tank corps that they actually had a guy dying because he was choked to death by the smokes! ( the fan wasent working propearly!)
And why they didnt go back to reload ? Well. They did, but you were an easy target retreating with no rounds to defend yourself with XD So I guess sometimes they abonned the tank in hope of getting back to the supply lines and get the news - we dont have any new tanks for you. So they could chill and relax for the rest of the day. I know I would XD
-
I have another question. By the end of WW2, did the M3 Grease Gun sort of phase out the M1 Thompson or were both still being made? Also did either gun see action after WW2?
-
both the Thompson and the greasgun saw some action after world war 2, mostly during the korean war. the m3 was intended to replace the thompson around1944-45, but its production rate was not high enough to replace all thompsons, so thompsons continued to be produced and both of them saw use side by side
-
Hey guys. I found out this really cool video. It shows how naplam was invented for military puroses during WW2. B/C of bats ;D. Just watch the whole thing to see what Im talking about ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcpdtcRLeVY&feature=g-vrec&context=G2a84243RVAAAAAAAAAA
BTW if you wanna see a V2 rocket explosion see this video. Skip to 4:20 if u want :D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHXTMn6cO2w&feature=BFa&list=ULCMANuNAFlDU&lf=like-suggest
-
The greasegun and Thompson aint in the US armoury this days. However some troops use them still today. Mostly guerillas and such but! I got a friend whos dad are from SouthAmerica somewhere, and when he did his army duty in early 2000 he shoot both Greasegun and thompsons! ( I dont think they were actually STANDART arment but some people got them!)
German fighter Aces are btw like the coolest shit ever!
-
nowadays cheap ak-47s are the cheapest and eaisiest to get. thats what the gangs use, thats what the drug lords use, and thats what some countries still use. if some troops are still using thompsons, they will get pwned.
-
i was watching a show about the thompson where a modern day state patrol guy carried one in his cruiser instead of like a shotgun or AR
-
AK-47s has signifcant recoil. Grease gun doesn't. And I think the thompson had a significant amount of recoil too. So AK isn't necessarily better :P
-
Long range Pwnage.
-
Yeah but the AK is by far the most reliable gun in the world it can get ran over by a tank and still work correctly, and because of its simple interior it can also be dropped in a barrel of water and still fire correctly.
-
m3 grease gun doesnt have recoil bcuz it doesnt have firepower. those things were designed to be dismantled into parts, used by paratroops, and that stuff.
-
I dont think it has high recoil b/c of its small bullet and its low rate of fire. Not necessarily it doesn't have stopping power. Getting hit with a bullet will stop you alright :P
-
But your body will keep moving due to Inertia.
-
But the force pushing the guy with the AK is higher than the guy with the M3(higher muzzle velocity I think). So that must be considered too
-
I thought we were discussing stopping power.
-
Just finished the dinner and I wonder what the soldiers in ww2 ate?
-
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=what+did+the+soldiers+in+ww2+eat%3F (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=what+did+the+soldiers+in+ww2+eat%3F)
-
the ak47 is an assault rifle, and the thompson is a submachine gun. its hard to compare the two because of how they each are meant to perform different tasks. some comparisons
thompson:
-better stopping power (has a larger bullet)
-higher rate of fire
-less recoil because of less powerful cartridge
-small size and not that heavy
ak47
-better penetration (larger cartridge)
-better range
-better accuracy
submachineguns are better when used in close combat like when assaulting a bunker or when in a house, while assault rifles are better as general purpose rifle. assault guns however have replaced most submachinegun use, but special forces and other special units still prefer their use because of light weight and use in close combat
-
Just finished the dinner and I wonder what the soldiers in ww2 ate?
Soldiers in WW2 used to eated canned food. I know US soliders ate rations (Brits may have used rations too). They had special letter designations. I think regular infantry had C-rations (nicknamed c rats), air borne had K-rations and so forth. They kinda sucked but thats all they had :P. Unless you wanted to shoot and roast any anmals u found. They also had mess halls (if you were back at base) where they served regular food.
I think germans had canned food too. But there were sometimes shortages and had to do other stuff (i remember reading a book where they ate the rats running around but the new soldiers didn't know. One kid barfed :P)
Not sure about Ruskies :P
Eventually the US army phased out rations cause they were havey and clunky and had a competion to fnd a new food unit. They decided to use the MRE (Meal Ready to Eat). It was lightweight b/c its in a tough baggy (made of a special material) and durable (can fall out of a plane with n problem). All you have to do is pur water in it and a special chemical inside heats up (extremely hot, like 200 F or 100C) so its good to eat. And I hear it taste good. They even have a vegitarian option.
-
thats true fish.Their not bad.Pretty good acturally.The water thing is unreal it really works.I've had german mres also.decent meals.But hey can't beat a steak.
-
LOL the most popular MRE is the pot roast, steak, and the egg noodle (cause thats the veggie option)
-
-small size and not that heavy
idk man I held a thompson once and it was pretty damn heavy for an SMG. I would say its even heavier than an AK47
I also thought the thompson felt pretty awkward when I put it to my shoulder and aimed down the sights. But I held a Sten once and awkward doesnt even begin to describe it.
-
-small size and not that heavy
idk man I held a thompson once and it was pretty damn heavy for an SMG. I would say its even heavier than an AK47
I also thought the thompson felt pretty awkward when I put it to my shoulder and aimed down the sights. But I held a Sten once and awkward doesnt even begin to describe it.
Whats wrong with the Sten ???
-
-small size and not that heavy
idk man I held a thompson once and it was pretty damn heavy for an SMG. I would say its even heavier than an AK47
I also thought the thompson felt pretty awkward when I put it to my shoulder and aimed down the sights. But I held a Sten once and awkward doesnt even begin to describe it.
Whats wrong with the Sten ???
Though I've never shot it, the fact that the mag goes in from the left and it had a very similar body design to the MP28. It also had a large brace (grip? Not sure how to say) on the back to help "Stabilize" the gun.
-
I guess the Brits kept making it caue it was so cheap :P.
How come they didn't just copy the MP40? I mean the magazines are literally the same and the concept of stamped sheets of metal are the same too.
-
I guess the Brits kept making it caue it was so cheap :P.
How come they didn't just copy the MP40? I mean the magazines are literally the same and the concept of stamped sheets of metal are the same too.
Before America joined the war Britain were lend-leasing and purchasing huge amounts of Thompson SMGs, and when the USA joined the allies the demand for Thompsons was extreme. Britain needed a "Carbon Copy" or at least their own SMG to supplement what the US could not give them. I suppose they took what they could find.
-
we should probably rename this thread to /K/
-
Why /K/ ???. What does that stand for ???
-
yeah im not following that one either
-
/k/ is 4chan's imageboard for discussing all types of weaponry, from tanks to guns and knives. but i was just joking.
-
Well this was a discussion on WW2 guns and their uses and production supplies so I believe it fits the context :P. But I appreciate the joke :D
BTW I was watch a clip from the show "Band Of Brothers" and a Sherman one shotted a Jagdpanther (or SuG III,no sure) Could this really happen in RL ???
-
i doubt it.
-
But since it is a TV miniseries, Why not ;D
-
If I remeber that episode right ( Its both a stug and a jagdpanther I think?) The sherman could yes penentrate it. Because they are like.. 100 meters away from each other? And they are coming from the side of them. Not sure about the Jagdpanther though.
-
a 75mm sherman was able to penetrate the stug IV at short range, while the 76mm could penetrate it at about normal range
75mm is incapable of penetrating the front armor of the jagdpanther at any range, but can penetrate the side armor easily at most ranges
here is a picture of a stug that was destroyed from the front by a 75mm sherman
caption: "Troops examine a knocked-out German StuG III assault gun near Cassino, 18 May 1944. Two 75mm AP rounds from a Sherman tank have neatly penetrated its front armour."
-
No in Band Of brothers a group of Shermans from 2nd armor came in to help the airborne troops. They had 75mm guns IIRC. They fired once and the StuG III exploded. Not aure about the Jagdpanther :-\
-
the round could have hit the ammunition, explosions are not as common as one thinks, usually it just sets a tank on fire
-
an interesting thing about the german panther tank is that in combat sherman's would fire at it at point blank range and it would do nothing.{spelling and not always but more often than a tank commander would like.}
-
an interesting thing about the german panther tank is that in combat sherman's would fire at it at point blank range and it would do nothing.{spelling and not always but more often than a tank commander would like.}
In the words of the COH panther crew: "Krup steel and Porshe engines! Who can defeat us?", "German Steel!"
Can I ask was the FG42 and effective weapon? Not in COh I mean in RL ::). Did it have high recoil like games suggest ???
-
an interesting thing about the german panther tank is that in combat sherman's would fire at it at point blank range and it would do nothing.{spelling and not always but more often than a tank commander would like.}
In the words of the COH panther crew: "Krup steel and Porshe engines! Who can defeat us?", "German Steel!"
Can I ask was the FG42 and effective weapon? Not in COh I mean in RL ::). Did it have high recoil like games suggest ???
if memory serves right it was effective for its compatibility and was used often by the falschimjager.
-
It never got used in paradrops.
-
It never got used in paradrops.
surprising it was built for them.
-
The recoil was insane at full automatic. But with the bipod it was a good universal rifle that the paratroopers liked. However it was expensive to make.
-
It never got used in paradrops.
surprising it was built for them.
After taking massive losses in Crete the Germans decided against future Airborne assaults... Fallschirmjäger were basically organised into elite motorised infantry divisions afterwards, in mid 1944 they stopped receiving Paratroop training altogether. FG42 was used during the successful glider mission to save Mussolini in 1943, and was probably used in the failed attempt to capture Tito in 1944... even though it was designed to be a handy Paratrooper weapon, it didn't get used much in Paradrops... by the time it was issued, Fallschirmjäger's paradropping days were over.
-
Did the FG42 have the same stopping power as a Kar98? StG44? Im just curious which is better :P
And can I ask whether or not the M1903 Springfield has greater distance than the M1 Garand. For some reason, the idea of putting a scope on a Garand came to me ;D
-
^ from personal experience, i can say that they both perform similarly at range
Also its funny how the FG42 looks almost exactly like the american M1941 Johnson machine gun. they were both designed for similar purposes but neither design influenced the other
-
^ from personal experience, i can say that they both perform similarly at range
If they have the same range then why wasn't a scope placed on a M1 Garand ???. Its semi auto which is neat and instead of loading it bullet by bullet, you stick a clip in there. And I read that US snipers really disliked the M1903 sniper variant and often used the enemies :P
-
^ from personal experience, i can say that they both perform similarly at range
If they have the same range then why wasn't a scope placed on a M1 Garand ???. Its semi auto which is neat and instead of loading it bullet by bullet, you stick a clip in there. And I read that US snipers really disliked the M1903 sniper variant and often used the enemies :P
it was used in the pacific. IIRC
-
I think it was used on all fronts :P. But does someone know the answer to my question ???
-
well you did ask if it was used ;D
-
In ww2 M1 garands with scopes were really really rare.However If we are going to out of the box straight rule box history I can surely think that some handy soldiers modified their M1 garands in the field and put captured scopes on them etc. What makes it easier to kill people, makes it easier to survive.
However in Korea and Vietnam they were much more common . ( Not standard rifle common but like, sniper rifle common XD)
Anybody know if the SS fallschirmjägers got their hands on fg42s btw? I know they used a various kind of equipment and uniforms but the fg42?
And I think that the Kar98 and Fg42 do have the same stoppingpower. Not identical but nearby each other. The stg44 uses a differant caliber however so I dont think so ^^
-
There was a Fallschirm-Panzer Division, did they have airborne tanks? ???
-
There was a Fallschirm-Panzer Division, did they have airborne tanks? ???
i dont think so, america tried to develop a airborne tank though!
-
America succeeded with the M22 Locust. They replaced Tetrarchs towards the end of the war.
There was a Fallschirm-Panzer Division, did they have airborne tanks? ???
No, but they would have had cars, trucks and halftracks :P
-
Was there really a tank glider or is that purely for COH gameplay ???
-
Of course, it's not something Relic just made up ;D
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Aircraft_Hamilcar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Aircraft_Hamilcar)
-
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_jVVDVzcqb9c/SwGFNZNMeLI/AAAAAAAAIxY/TsI70N34ZBw/s1600/russian_flying_tank.jpg)
The russian did have an litteraly flying tank XD
I need some help guys! I wounder about the Royal thai army during ww2. Like the ordinary soldier, the infantry. What kind of uniform did he wear? I know they had Adrian helmets but the uniform? Pictures would be lovely! Thanks! <3
-
loved the pic, sorry, i cant help you.
-
Here is the German's Tank glider
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Me_321 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Me_321)
-
Cool glider :P. I cant imagine there were that many of them :P
I have a question but wasn't really sure where to put it. Why is it that the Volks in game have a higher ranking symbol than the Grenadiers? It never really made sense to me (and many skin packs and mods change this too). By symbol I mean the little icon picture that appears in the black box when you slect them.
-
What about ww2 :3?
Post Merge: October 09, 2011, 11:16:23 AM
Why is it Sherman tanks have the .50 cal MG behind the tank commander ???. In the pictures I've seen, the MG is at the back of the turret. How is anyone suppose to fire that without stepping outside ???
Here's an example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPYFU4hXDg4 8) skip to 6:06. yes, I realise this is 8 pages old. But cmon, its badass.
-
Don't like that bit of BoB. The thought of being slowly squished by a StuG makes me feel ill. :-X
-
Hey who decides what number a division or company gets? For example, in WWII there was the 82nd airborne and then 101st airborne. Does that mean there are numbers 83rd to 100th airborne that died or were never reported? There is also the 716th German Infantry division. Does that mean there were 715th other German Infantry divisions before this one was made? Someone please clarify how these designations work :P.
-
Depends on strength of the company, battalion, squad or whatever.
There were also companies just called XXX corps like in Operation Market Garden
-
Depends on strength of the company, battalion, squad or whatever.
There were also companies just called XXX corps like in Operation Market Garden
So simply just random eh?
-
Yesch.
-
Depends on strength of the company, battalion, squad or whatever.
There were also companies just called XXX corps like in Operation Market Garden
Can I inquire why they were called XXX? Were they special or something?
-
So only guys who were into the plan were able to know it the company has armour for example.
-
Depends on strength of the company, battalion, squad or whatever.
There were also companies just called XXX corps like in Operation Market Garden
Can I inquire why they were called XXX? Were they special or something?
IMHO X=10, XXX=10+10+10 ;D. But I can we wrong ;).
-
Guess roman numerals suck bad.
-
Bish, you're correct. XXX equals 30 ;)
I = 1
II = 2
III = 3
IV = 4
V = 5
...
IX = 9
X =10
XX = 20
...
L = 50
...
C = 100
...
D = 500
...
M = 1000
So this year for example would look like this in Roman numerals:
MMXII
Or 1943 would be
MCMXDIII
Simple, isn't it? ;)
-
Just to complement Maxi post, when you read a roman number, you designate how is read by the following rules(more or less):
1) Reads from left to right.
2) Don't have negative numbers.
3) As any common numerical system, it has a progressive count(1,2,3,...,n).
4) If at the right of a number there's a higher number(V=5, I=1 then IV, like in Panzer IV ;)), means there is a substraction, the minor number is substracted from the higher.
MCMXDIII means 1000(M) + 1000 - 100(CM) + 50 - 10(XD) + 1(I) + 1(I) + 1(I)
5) If at the right of a number there's a minor number(V=5, I=1 then VI, like in Panzer VI "Tiger" ;)), it is added to it.
MMXII means 1000(M) + 1000(M) + 10(X) + 1(I) + 1(I)
So yes, in this case XXX Corps means 30th Corps.
EDIT: Forgot to mention, romans only used the addition only as basic operation(remember the substraction is not an real operation itself mathematically speaking - or at last that what our math teacher told us - but the additive inverse of a number).
-
30th Corps was the British Armor group right?
-
yup. served in north africa.
-
Hey who decides what number a division or company gets? For example, in WWII there was the 82nd airborne and then 101st airborne. Does that mean there are numbers 83rd to 100th airborne that died or were never reported? There is also the 716th German Infantry division. Does that mean there were 715th other German Infantry divisions before this one was made? Someone please clarify how these designations work :P.
Since You asked:
Use of Roman numerals to designate Corps comes from the time of the French Revolution. It reflected the Republican and anti-clerical stance of France at the time by honoring the pre-Christian virtues of the Roman Republic! Napoleon changed the definition of Corps from a group of specialists, (artillery,rifle, cavalry,engineer ...), To a Combined Arms force, of variable size, (Ideally as large as could be handled given the talents of its commander), Which could engage and delay an enemy army for one day; - to allow the rest of the French army to concentrate. It was also a "Division of March".
Napoleon's Chief of Staff - Berthier, probably instituted XXX/2Aus/4(bde)/23(rgt)/2(bt)/b(co) nomenclature to allow commanders to write clear orders concisely.
Ramses II divided the Egyptian army into 4 Divisions of March, When he invaded Canaan prior to the Battle of Kadesh, (c1200 BCE), IIRC they were named after the Gods Ammon, Pta, Ra and Set. These divisions of march, traveled by different routes and nominally joined together to fight as a whole. (At Kadesh PTa was diverted by the Hittites and never joined the battle).
The nomenclature used to describe military Formations is mostly a matter of logistical organization. Armies must be raised -regiments and companies); maneuvered, fed and marched to battle - divisions and corps); and Fight -Brigades and Battalions).
In raising armies the magic numbers seem to be 100 and 1000. Before Universal Conscription a man would raise a regiment, (~1000m). To do this he will employ leutenants to raise companies of 100 men. A successful Leutenant, (ie one who can raise ~100m) becomes a Captain. Regiments are named by sucessful Colonels, frequently after themselves or the region the group was recruited from. When regiments are mustered into service they are numbered in consecutive order of muster, (frequently with a regional affiliation tacked on); and organized into brigades. Brigades seem to have generic numbers assigned that are mutable until a brigade sized unit performs a deed of valor that allows it to be named. Divisions are fixed in number by peacetime policy considerations. Corps and Armies are normally wartime constructs; unless the Standing army is very large.
In England the naming convention worked a little differently because the nobility raised the regiments. Thus John Churchill raised a regiment to fight against Monmouth in his Rebellion. it bore his name. He was later in disgrace, (out of favor), and Feversham? took over the campaign, Churchill's Regiment was instrumental in defeating Monmouth, which according to legend occurred near a fast running stream; received the valor name Black Torrent. It was still Churchill's Regiment though. When Churchill was elevated to the Peerage and received the Title of Duke of Marlborough: the regiment became Marlborough's Black Torrent. Churchill went into disgrace again, (and again, and again), The regiment was not disbanded but was stationed at The Tower of London, (to guard the mint), and became known as the Black Torrent Guards. Eventually acquiring the name The Queen's (Anne) Own Black Torrent Guards. Then The King's (George) Own B.T.G.s etc. Berthier had a good idea!
Sometime in the 18th century English Regiments were renumbered consecutively. I don't know what number the QOBTG was given, But the Black Watch Became the 42 Blackwatch Regiment, The Cameron Highlanders became the 52 Cameroon Highland, etc. During the 20th century when many divisions were required during wartime the 42 Highland Division, 51 Lowland Division and 52 Highland Division (all Scottish), acquired the Valor names of their core Regiment, probably as a Morale Measure. British Military organizations also shrink. June 13(25? -the day after Mussolini declared war), 1940 the Western Desert Defense Force attacked Italian Outposts around Bardia. Its Core element that the 7 RTR, (Royal Tank Regiment), As fighting intensified the 7 RTR, (Desert Rats) was expanded to the 7 Armored BDE, (Jerboa=desert rat) then the 7 Armored Division(Jerboa), the core unit of XXX, (30) Corps,core unit of 8th Army, (Desert Rats)! -I don't think there were 30 Corps in the British Army during WWii. I think this was a subterfuge, the Brits can be a sneaky lot. After the war XXX Corps was dissolved. In 1954(?) the 7 Armor Division was disbanded, 7th Armor Bde remained, 7RTR are still Desert Rats, but the Bde patch is the Jerboa, with each Regiment using a different color.
In the Heer Corps, Divisions and Regiments were numbered consecutively. Regiments from former days using the British style conventions were placed among the order. During wwii there were ~ 4 million men in the Wehrmact. If a corps is 30,000 men; 4,000,000/30,000= CXXXIII corps. (OT the Luftwaffe had ~6000 fighter pilots during the war. ~100 survived). The Heer numbering system originated during Bismark's era, when the General Staff was formed. Armies were assigned letters. Corps Roman numerals, Divisions Arabic numerals; (although regional designations were retained), ...in order to make things clear on planning maps. Look at a map of the Schlieffen Plan -very orderly!
The USA adopted a 4 Bde/Division TO&E around the time of wwi. At that time the regimental numbering system was fixed. 28PA(national guard) division contained the US 109,110,111,112 regiments. During wwii the USA used a 3rgt/division TO&E but the regimental numbering system didn't change. If you talk about the 116 Regimental Combat team (4th regt of 29VANG in wwi), , I know you are talking about the 29VA(NG) Division which assaulted Omaha Beach on 6.6.44. (as seen in the opening scene of "Saving Private Ryan"). I also know the 4VA regt of CSA was a member of the Stonewall brigade. If you ask any member of the 29th USA division what the valor name of the 116th is they will tell you "Stonewall" -even though the relationship is really only a traditional one.
-
Hey who decides what number a division or company gets? For example, in WWII there was the 82nd airborne and then 101st airborne. Does that mean there are numbers 83rd to 100th airborne that died or were never reported? There is also the 716th German Infantry division. Does that mean there were 715th other German Infantry divisions before this one was made? Someone please clarify how these designations work :P.
Since You asked:
Use of Roman numerals to designate Corps comes from the time of the French Revolution. It reflected the Republican and anti-clerical stance of France at the time by honoring the pre-Christian virtues of the Roman Republic! Napoleon changed the definition of Corps from a group of specialists, (artillery,rifle, cavalry,engineer ...), To a Combined Arms force, of variable size, (Ideally as large as could be handled given the talents of its commander), Which could engage and delay an enemy army for one day; - to allow the rest of the French army to concentrate. It was also a "Division of March".
I didn't quote the whole thing but did you just write all this yourself?
-
Afraid so. I even edited it down. Didn't use wikipedia either. ;D
Edit: BTW airborne regiments and tank battalions use a different system in USA. Sort of like Heer Heavy Panzer battalions allways being in the 500s. - The krauts also used another numbering system for Hvy PZ Btn the 500s were the last AFAIK.
-
This project really caught my eye.
Name: The Zveno Project
Developed by: Soviet Union
Date Developed and Ended: 1930 - 1942
Bomber Aircraft Used: Tupolev TB-1, Tupolev TB-3
Parasite Fighter/Bomber Used: Tubolev I-4, Polikarpov I-5, Grigorovich I-Z, Polikarpov I-16
This project started in the 1930's it involved mounting "Parasite" Aircraft's on a Bomber aircraft, they were either mounted on top of the wing's or mounted below the wings, they also performed the first mid air docking. Though a request was made on the 16th of August 1941 for more AM-34FRN-engined TB-3s from the Air Force so that they could be converted into Zveno-SPB carriers, the request was denied by Stalin due to the the losses sustained by the Soviet Air force early on in the War. The limited action the Zveno Project saw was very successfull they were tasked in dive bombing certain facility's and a bridge, after roughly only 30 combat missions they were withdrawn from service in 1942, due to fears of the German Air Superiority and Aircraft.
Configuration's of the Zveno Project
Zveno-1
Tupolev TB-1 and two Tupolev I-4 on top of the wings. The normally sesquiplane I-4s had the bottom wings removed (with no ill effect on flight characteristics) due to clearance problems with TB-1 propellers. First flight 3 December 1931. The TB-1 was piloted by A. I. Zalevskiy and A. R. Sharapov, the I-4s were piloted by V. P. Chkalov and A. F. Anisimov. Vakhmistrov himself flew in the front gunner's turret.
Zveno-1a
TB-1 and two Polikarpov I-5 on of the wings, first flight September 1933. The TB-1 was piloted by Stefanovskiy, the I-5s were piloted by Kokkinaki and Grozd.
Zveno-2
Tupolev TB-3 and three I-5, the third aircraft was attached over the fuselage. First flight August 1934. The TB-3 was piloted by Zalevskiy, the I-5s were piloted by Altynov, Suprun, and Suzi.
Zveno-3
TB-3 and two Grigorovich I-Z under the wings.
Zveno-5
TB-3 and a single I-Z under the fuselage which attached and detached in the air as there was not enough ground clearance for the fighter. On 23 March 1935, TB-3 piloted by Stefanovskiy and I-Z with Stepanchenok at the controls performed the world's first mid-air docking between two aircraft.
Zveno-6
TB-3 and two Polikarpov I-16 which were attached on the ground with the landing gear retracted. First flight August 1935, with the TB-3 piloted by Stefanovskiy, and the I-16s piloted by Budakov and Nikashin. I-16s could only detach, not re-attach, in flight.
Zveno-7
TB-3 and two I-16s, all docked in the air. First flight November 1939, pilots Stefanovskiy, Nyukhtikov, and Suprun. Fighters could re-attach in flight due to two retractable trapezes, one under each wing. Docking, while possible, was deemed too difficult to be practical.
Aviamatka (Airborne mothership)
TB-3 with two I-16s under the wings, two I-5s on top of the wings, and one I-Z attached under the fuselage in mid-air. First flight 20 November 1935. The TB-3 was piloted by Zalevskiy, the fighters piloted by Stefanovskiy, Nikashin, Altynov, Suprun, and Stepanchenok. Vakhmistrov also worked on a larger Aviamatka with eight I-16s. In this scheme, the TB-3 would get airborne with two I-16s under the wings and the remaining six would attach in the air. Not all eight would attach at one time, but would rotate in and out during the flight, detaching and re-attaching as needed. These six aircraft could also refuel from the mothership. Although a few successful mid-air dockings and fuel transfers were performed in 1938 these being the Zveno 6 and 7, the eight-fighter configuration was never completed.
SPB (Sostavnoi Pikiruyuschiy Bombardirovschik - Combined Dive Bomber)
TB-3-4AM-34FRN and two I-16s under the wings, each armed with a pair of 250 kg (550 lb) FAB-250 bombs. Used operationally in World War II with good success.
Operational History
In 1938, Vakhmistrov devised Zveno-SPB (SPB: Sostavnoi Pikiruyuschiy Bombardirovschik, Combined Dive Bomber) which consisted of a Tupolev TB-3-4AM-34FRN mothership and two Polikarpov I-16 Type 5 fighters. Each of the fighters was armed with a pair of 250 kg (550 lb) FAB-250 high-explosive bombs. Although an I-16 Type 5 could get airborne on its own with no more than 100 kg (220 lb) of bombs, once hoisted in the air by the TB-3 it could reach 410 km/h (220 knots, 255 mph) at 2500 m (8,200 ft), had a service ceiling of 6800 m (22,310 ft), and could dive at up to 650 km/h (350 knots, 405 mph). Once the bombs were dropped, the SPB-launched I-16s performed like conventional Type 5s. The three-aircraft Zveno-SPB had a total takeoff weight of 22000 kg (48,500 lb), a top speed of 268 km/h (145 knots, 165 mph), and a range of 2500 km (1,350 NM, 1,550 mi). The use of a mothership increased the range of the I-16s by 80%.
The SPB first flew in July 1937, with TB-3 piloted by Stefanovskiy, and I-16s piloted by Nikolayev and Taborovskiy. Following the successful test program in 1938, Zveno-SPB was accepted into service. By 1 February 1940, Soviet Air Force was supposed to receive 20 TB-3s and 40 I-16s, with the same number going to the Soviet Navy. Vakhmistrov was also asked to investigate the possibility of using Tupolev TB-7, Tupolev MTB-2, and GST (PBY Catalina) as the motherships, as well as arming I-16s with 500 kg (1,100 lb) bombs. By 1939, the government support for the project had waned, the Navy canceled all of its orders, and the Air Force reduced the number of fighters from 40 to 12. However, Soviet military observers noted the success of the Luftwaffe Junkers Ju 87 dive bombers in the opening stages of World War II. As the Soviet Union had no dive bombers, it was decided to resume low-scale work on the Zveno-SPB. Testing of the first production Zveno began in June 1940. It differed from the prototype in using the much more powerful I-16 Type 24 fighters. A total of six mothership-fighter combinations (six TB-3s and twelve modified I-16 Type 24s) were completed. All were attached to the 2nd Special Squadron of the 32nd IAP (Fighter Regiment) of the 62nd Aviation Brigade of the Black Sea Fleet Air Force stationed in Eupatoria. Mirroring the nickname of the Zveno experiments, the squadron was dubbed Shubikov's Circus (Цирк Шубикова) after its commander Arseniy Shubikov.
Zveno-SPB saw limited but successful combat use during the German-Soviet War. In the opening stages, the Black Sea Fleet Air Force was tasked with destroying industrial targets in Nazi Germany-allied Romania. The most important of these was the King Carol I Bridge over Danube which carried the Ploieşti-Constanţa oil pipeline. After several failed attempts to destroy the heavily protected bridge with conventional bombers, the task was given to the Zveno squadron. As a combat test, it was decided to first attack the Constanţa oil depot. On 26 July 1941, two Zveno-SPB aircraft performed a successful attack on the depot in broad daylight with no losses. The fighters disconnected 40 km (22 NM, 25 mi) from the target and returned to the home airfield under their own power.
The first of the two bridge raids took place on 10 August 1941. For this mission, the I-16s were fitted with additional 95-liter (25 US gal) underwing fuel tanks for an additional 35 minutes of flight time. Of the three Zveno-SPBs, one had to turn back due to mechanical problems. The other two launched their fighters 15 km (8 NM, 9 mi) from the Romanian coastline. The fighters successfully dive-bombed from the altitude of 1800 m (5,900 ft) and returned home with no losses despite heavy anti-aircraft fire. The second raid took place on 13 August 1941. This time, all three Zveno-SPBs reached the target. The six fighters scored five direct hits on the bridge and completely destroyed one of the spans. On the way back, the fighters strafed Romanian infantry near Sulina and returned to Eupatoria with no losses. Following the successful sorties, two additional Zveno-SPB were brought to operational status, bringing the total to five. The main limiting factor was the lack of high-output Mikulin AM-34FRN engines, as the other versions were not powerful enough to get the aircraft airborne. On 16 August 1941, Admiral Kuznetsov asked Joseph Stalin for additional AM-34FRN-engined TB-3s from the Air Force so they could be converted to Zveno-SPB carriers, but the request was denied as the Air Force had suffered heavy losses in the opening days of the war. In the meantime, the five aircraft continued flying operational sorties, destroying a dry dock in Constanţa on 17 August and a bridge across the Dnieper River on 28 August, losing one I-16 in the process. During the repeat attack the next day, four Zveno-launched I-16s engaged several Messerschmitt Bf 109s, shooting down two. Despite the high success rate, Zveno missions ended by 1942 due to high vulnerability of the obsolete TB-3s and I-16s in the face of enemy air superiority. It is estimated that Zveno-SPB flew at least 30 combat missions.
-
Very impressive Killer. Where did you get the source material from? I've been looking for Soviet era sources since the berlin wall went down but had little success.
-
Got most of it off Wikipedia but also backed it up by searching the Project and getting various information from other websites including:
Image's - from http://www.picsearch.com/pictures/Vehicles/Aircrafts/Aircrafts%20U-Z/Vakhmistrov%20Zveno%20project.html
Model and a little more Information - http://www.swannysmodels.com/Zveno.html
Also I found it on the first Forgotten Hope: Secret Weapon mod for Battlefield 1942 - http://www.moddb.com/mods/forgotten-hope-secret-weapon/images/render-zveno-project
-
Pretty neat! Reminds me of that the Americans did something like this themself in the 20ths I think? But in the form of an airship/ Zepelin .
-
Yep, they were test airships. The information from the first one led to advances that came in handy when the second crashed 3 years later :P
-
They used Curtiss Sparrowhawk bi-planes as parasite fighters. The USS Akron and Macon were US Navy airships, the largest helium-filled craft in the world. Neither lasted very long, as a number of accidents led to the loss of both. The last surviving Sparrowhaw lives at the Air and Space Museum's big ol' hangar. I have a picture of it saved in my phone. :P
-
Having read up on it extensively as part of a novel I've been writing for a while and as part of a "why the hell not, I'm bored" mod I recently started tinkering with for CoH, I've read some pretty conflicting accounts about A Company, 2/116/29 ID (2nd Btn, 116th 'Stonewallers', 29th Infantry). Most accounts register the company (which is featured as the one the player controls for the first 2 missions of the original Company of Heroes, oddly enough--which is fairly silly since the CoH developers gave the riflemen in the opening cinema an Armored Division's logo for their assault jackets, but that's me be being a stickler) as sustaining a ~90% casualty rate during D-Day, after it was mashed together with elements of the 2nd Ranger Battalion during the landing. Other reports I've read indicate it was merely part of the 2nd battalion that pushed ahead and established the first command post in occupied europe on (date might be off, typing this late at night) D-Day +5, 6/11/44. Maybe some clarification on this subject from Mr. Halfhand would be due?
Also wondering if it would be considered accurate to follow the 29th through the norman hedgerows and have them assaulting a hill somewhere abouts the location of Hill 400, which was featured in Call of Duty 2, as part of the novel I mentioned. I realised that they link up with advancing Soviet forces after assaulting the Ruhr heartlands and crossing the Elbe river in-tow with the also assaulting 2nd Ranger Battalion, and was wondering if anyone knew if the 13th Guards Rifle Division ended the war anywhere near Mönchengladbach, the last commonly registered area where the 29th ID also ended it's tour on active (non parade ground) duty in Europe.
Any clarification on the 29th's relationship with the 2nd Ranger Battalion would also be appreciated, since the two units seem to fight relatively close to each other during the greater part of the normandy conflict, and even beyond that into the Ruhr and across the Elbe river.
-
All right Volks,
As a suggestion for your novel. Jeff Shaara novelized the Stonewallers during the Civil War in a couple of novels. You could use the family names from that series for your 20th century counterparts in the 116 RCT. The name Walker strikes a chord.
What is your source material for the 2 rgr bttn and the 29/116? Sadly I've lost contact with my main source a guy I used to work with from the 230 Artillery Bn.
I am a bit sketchy on operations of the 29th Division during WWII. (much more Knowledgible of the 28th and 30th Divisions, but they were all 1st Army so lets see). THe 116 was engaged on D-Day as go so graphically described. During Cobra they took part in the Capture of St Lo. After that the 29th raced across Brittany with 8th? corps. BTW could you Identify the ARmor patch 4th or 6th Div? brest was entered around the end of August, 1944. By September 23 the 1st Army was engaged around Aachen and the Hertengen Forrest. meaning they marched through Belgium. My father in law was with the 30th Old Hickory and always said the Belgian Girls were very friendly. THe 30th was at Aachen so the 29th was probably in the flooded Hertengen forrest. THe germans had blown the dams there. To the best of my knowledge the 29th had little involvement during the Bulge. Operations ended around the end of February in Aachen. You have stated the 29th crossed the Elbe so that would be around the 25th of April?
I do not know anything about the 2nd Rangers.
I may get to the Carlisle War College library next month and maybe down to Staunton VA where the 116th is headquartered now. (In a library no less). If I find out anything more I'll post it.
-
The names I've already solidified, as well as some high points in the plot. The majority of the names I basically pulled out of my ass, and some of them aren't too well thought out and sound a tad childish, last names like;
Raph
Halloom
Kajser
the O'Shaunessy brothers
Parker
Southgate
Ingham
Peterson.
I am well aware of the 29th's involvement in operation Cobra and their bloody street to street combat to take St. Lo, as well as later being stationed in the Hertengen Forrest around the time of the assault on the Seigfried Line. Yes, to my knowing the 29th crossed the Elbe sometime after the 2nd Rangers made their waterborne assault, though I haven't the foggiest on dates. Many thanks on your feedback. The name suggestions are also great, I'll definately take a look into those.
-
I have seen a number of pictures where Soviet infantry will hold their PPSH's by the magazine rather than the front part. Just out of curiosity why did they do this? Was it more accurate? Did the barrel heat up or something? Was it awkward to hold the frontal grip?
(http://i46.tinypic.com/30x7nz9.jpg)
-
Did the barrel heat up or something? -> jupp.
More accurate and better for your hands xDD
-
Can someone explain how the MP44 curved barrel worked? I would imagine the bullet would simply go through the curved part and just keep traveling straight. Was it ever used in real combat?
-
It was certainly used, and there was an episode of Mythbusters where they try something similar with a long tube which they continuously curve until they almost make a whole circle. As for how it works, I'm no physics nut but I'm fairly sure centrifugal forces come into play. However they only lasted around 90 shots (even less for some of the angles, they made 60°, 45°, 30° barrels). At some point the metal in the point where they hit became too brittle and they would break.
-
I read somewhere that some Elefant tanks were equipped with this as somekind of coaxial Mgs. Especially because the bullet ( of what I heard!) most of the times broke when firing cuz of the curved barrel. And that made it more of a auto shotgun then assault rifle. Good to have if you are being overun by infantry.
However, dont quote me on it because it can ofc be all made up.
-
Yea even the StG curved barrel was quite the same. It resulted in a one time shotgun effect.
-
I read somewhere that some Elefant tanks were equipped with this as somekind of coaxial Mgs. Especially because the bullet ( of what I heard!) most of the times broke when firing cuz of the curved barrel. And that made it more of a auto shotgun then assault rifle. Good to have if you are being overun by infantry.
However, dont quote me on it because it can ofc be all made up.
This is what I heard as well. The stress of the bullet being forced away from its normal trajectory meant it shattered into smaller pellets, like a shotgun and was excellent for clearing the area surrounding the tank as russians tried to get close to plant bombs etc.
-
I have seen a number of pictures where Soviet infantry will hold their PPSH's by the magazine rather than the front part. Just out of curiosity why did they do this? Was it more accurate? Did the barrel heat up or something? Was it awkward to hold the frontal grip?
(http://i46.tinypic.com/30x7nz9.jpg)
There are several tech reasons possible here: Heat of barrell could come into play but more as it reduced accuracy (it doesn't take much to throw off your aim and doctrine sais you only fire 3-4 round bursts. In this regard barrel chatter would act as a similar distraction. I have talked to several GIs who had this bitch with the M1 carbine too). There is another possibility here as well. The photographer may have posed the picture this way! It is clearly a posed shot. BTW Fish could you send me a copy or upload this pic. It is great. Especially the log cabin deatails.
Curved barrel on MP44: The curved barrel is a special attachment for sighting and shooting around corners, from concealment. The engineering characteristics were/are terrible. The barrels would last between 160 to 300 rounds depend on the barrel bend. Angles of 30 to 90 were issued. The shotgun effect was not the intent. Shooting around corners was. I have seen pictures of M3 grease guns with similar attachments.
Question: Were any of the MP43/44/STV44 series issued with soft jacketed or lead pistol ammo? - This would make the curved barrel last longer.
Edit: As far as I can tell the soldier front right has a molotov/ vodka bottle in left hand too!
-
There was a comic of the Japanese about tanks in WW2, what is its name?
-
Panzertales. It is sadly out of print
-
Thanks anyway :)
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGhrsmFrOoI&feature=g-vrec
Just a cool video about weird and funny looking Axis weapons ;D. There is an Allied video too but I have to find it :P
-
Hey was the 88 flak cannon ever used as an artillery piece like a M7 Priest or was it simply confided to AT and AA work?
-
During the last months Flak 88 was used in indirect fire combat. A number of 88 gun batteries e.g. bombarded us front lines at the morning of the 16th December 1944 ;)
-
The 88 was used indirect fire combat, on the eastern fornt early in the war, not just in 1944/45
-
The Flak 88 was used for combat support as fire brigades, I remember reading accounts of the 1940 camaign and in Western Desert so stating. Von Luck in particular used 88s in N.Africa to support the operations of his rcce battalion.
GIs in France called the 88 the Screaming Meemie. The sound of "incoming" was greatly feared by the infantry. Indirect evidence perhaps.
-
I think the Nebelwerfers were called Screaming Memies, not the 88 flak gun
-
You are quite right Fish, Screaming Memies were Nebelwerfers.
Otto, the 88 Flak sounds almost like an artillery piece (Possibly exactly like one)
-
I believe you are right. :) I must have confused the knickname. I believe I got the reference from "The Execution of Private Slovik", although it could have been from The Victors or Slaughterhouse Five. In any case I believe the 88 has a distinctive sound.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Slovik (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Slovik)
-
How often would an 88 actually hit a plane? It seem extremely unlikely :P
-
You'd have to take into account that the 88 would most likely be firing at masses of airplanes in the first place
-
Well flak guns (like the 88) use ammunition designed to detonate at a certain altitude. These shells were also built like Hi Ex rounds rather than Anti-Tank ones. So a gun battery would range in on a flight of planes (usually big ones that neither changed altitude, nor tried to evade) and set fuses for that altitude. Then they just tried to blanket the sky. If you're looking for a percentage of shells that actually hit an airplane, it would probably be real low. However, just looking at the number of aircraft downed, the numbers are probably higher than you may imagine. If it didn't work well, why was it used so often?
-
Well IIRC there was the flakvering quad gun (IDK the technical name, the 38?) and that did AA work and also the 88 was soon changed to AT work.
-
Hey was the 88 flak cannon ever used as an artillery piece like a M7 Priest or was it simply confided to AT and AA work?
while the 88 was able to fire in a howitzer style fashion, the high velocity it shot at meant that it could not hold as much of an explosive charge as , for example, a 25 pounder (which is also 88mm). the lack of incremental charges like a dedicated howitzer had also was a disadvantage compared to a dedicated howitzer when it came to shelling a target.
and it wasnt just the 88 that was used in indirect fire, an interesting fact here is that m10's and m36's were also equipped with indirect sighting equipment which allowed them to be used in indirect fire as well
-
During the battle of Belgrade 1944 german defenders running out of artillery support.
In time of need german commanders ordered anti tank units equipped with the 7,5cm Pak 40
to support troops by indirect "artillery fire". So crews had to jack the gun to "play artillery".
-
Do you'all know if proximity fusing or time delay fuses were used for 88's or the Wolverine or Jackson TDs when firing indirectly.
Regarding 88s, 20mm and 37mm flakvierling two different regimes of fire are used for AA work. 20/37 mm have a range of ~ 1 mile. Their rate of fire is ~ 200-300 rpm They are effective by producing a cone of metal of relatively high density in the same place and time as the enemy aircraft. The 88 was used in large batteries, radio controlled to target zones or arcs of horizen at ~ 25000 ft - 5 miles elevation. They caused damage to aircraft by concussion from HE and secondary shrapnel. A little concussion can cause a lot of loss in lift that can cause all sorts of problems to a bomber flying in tight formation. THe cone of metal concept is frequently cited in articles on MG 34/42 if my exlanation is unclear.
-
@Otto. Yeah I recently learned that :P. Im not trying to be sarcastic. I seriously watched a show recently about aircraft and AA guns and learned they used 5inch guns on ships in the Pacific that fire like a 88.
-
@Otto. Yeah I recently learned that :P. Im not trying to be sarcastic. I seriously watched a show recently about aircraft and AA guns and learned they used 5inch guns on ships in the Pacific that fire like a 88.
Yep, and battleships used in the European theater, like the uss Texas, also used their 5 inch guns to great effect. In fact, the 5in guns mounted on the US battleships and destroyers were considered the best of their class, combining good rate of fire and packing a deadly punch. The US still has reserves of the ammo in case any of the battleships come back into service
-
What was the "correct" way to hold an MP40? Like if you are firing it. Where are u supposed to hold it to achieve maximum stability? Obviously it depends on preference but I was just wondering what are u technically supposed to do?
Basically I've deduced that there are 3 (typical) places to hold it:
(http://s7.postimage.org/of9sfugu3/mp40_by_ww7.jpg) (http://postimage.org/)
If any of u have experience firing the weapon feel free to share.
-
Well the stock (the left most circle) unfolds and unless you are small enough (most Germans weren't) than it would be quite uncomfortable to hold it where the stock folds up, not enough room.
Most people held it by the magazine, which was bad as this caused the mag to rattle and sometimes even come out.
The best place is the top right most circle, the magazine well. Then again they had problems with holding that there too similar to the magazine holding problems
-
Holding by the magazine also could be really hot !
-
Holding by the magazine also could be really hot !
No, unless you are fighting in Africa and you forgot it in the sun then yes. The magazin always stays cool.
-
He means hot=smexy, that's what we call our chicks too, you know
-
He means hot=smexy, that's what we call our chicks too, you know
Well I certainly didn't view it from this angle but I guess they won't do it because it looks good. It's a weapon remember.
-
What if MP40 can hold as Center Axis Relock stance?
-
No, unless you are fighting in Africa and you forgot it in the sun then yes. The magazin always stays cool.
Well not the magazine itself. I mean the hand your are holding the magazine with. Especially if you are holding it like the top right circle.
Your hand is right under the shell ejector.
-
During the first year of the war on the eastern front the german army was ill equipped with winter equipment. Iam wondering during the rest of the year? What were the standards ? Did all units get winter equipment later on ( if we except units under siege like the poor souls in Stalingrad).