Soviet 746th Tank Regiment

[Raellus]

There is a major world of difference between leaving a damaged tank with a security section or for a following unit to recover...

I hadn't considered that, either. This sort of goes against my original argument but I suppose there could be instances when a commander orders his men not to scuttle disabled/immobile tanks because he believes that a counterattack can get them back. When the counterattack fails, the enemy has gained some trophy tanks to use against their former owners.

[Abbott Shaull]

There is a major world of difference between leaving a damaged tank with a security section or for a following unit to recover, and leaving a tank loaded with ammo and with its fire control/radios intact so that some gomer could salvage it and use it aginst US forces.

When I was active duty, we trained for dismounted action, how to disable the vehicle, what equipment had to be stripped and taken with you , etc. Yet here are reports of a M-1 being left in the street, and some Iraqis trying to use it against other M-1s...makes no sense what so ever.

Yeah I would think some officer would of grew a brain and realize it could be used against anyone else coming along later.

[dragoon500ly]

Yeah I would think some officer would of grew a brain and realize it could be used against anyone else coming along later.

When you disable a tank, there are certain items that are taken...the firing pin for the main cannon, the back plates and recoil springs for the machineguns. Items that you couldn't take, like radios, you zeroed the voice security system (cleared it), took the radios off the operational freqs, common sense stuff.

There was even a drill for a "quicky" disable, you simply dumped thermite grenades in the turret and let it do its thing.

So I kinda doubt that 40+ M-1 would have been left in fighting condition...at the very least I would expect the radios to be burned, the gunner's primary sights to be damaged if not outright destroyed. There may be a chance of the gunner's secondary sight remaining operational...but with the computer and primary sight being knocked out...

[Abbott Shaull]

When you disable a tank, there are certain items that are taken...the firing pin for the main cannon, the back plates and recoil springs for the machineguns. Items that you couldn't take, like radios, you zeroed the voice security system (cleared it), took the radios off the operational freqs, common sense stuff.

There was even a drill for a "quicky" disable, you simply dumped thermite grenades in the turret and let it do its thing.

So I kinda doubt that 40+ M-1 would have been left in fighting condition...at the very least I would expect the radios to be burned, the gunner's primary sights to be damaged if not outright destroyed. There may be a chance of the gunner's secondary sight remaining operational...but with the computer and primary sight being knocked out...

Yeah that would be the Soviets hurdle they would have to overcome with most US systems and lot of NATO systems is to get the computer up and going if everything else is relatively intact.

[helbent4]

Yeah that would be the Soviets hurdle they would have to overcome with most US systems and lot of NATO systems is to get the computer up and going if everything else is relatively intact.

Abbott,

It's possible there could be turncoats or others aiding this, although most likely the Russians would do without advanced systems. The usual view is that western systems are overly complicated, if only out of sour grapes. ("We can't do it ourselves, therefore it must suck!")

Particularly germane about the possibility of the Soviets using advanced equipment is the revelation that Iraqi insurgents hacked the video feed of Predator drones. One can certainly dismiss this as being something only relevant to the modern age. The truth is the Russians were perfectly capable of figuring out anything left behind by, say, M1A1 or Challenger II tanks abandoned by sick and dying crews after a nuclear or chemical attack.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009...-drones-hacked

Tony

[Fusilier]

I like the idea. There was a single battalion of the East German Army that was equipped with American armor and gear (bought from Vietnam), and I've used the concept before in my games.

I do think the numbers are way too high though.

[Legbreaker]

I vaguely recall there was an American unit in WWII using captured Tigers....
Anyone know anything about it

[dragoon500ly]

I vaguely recall there was an American unit in WWII using captured Tigers....
Anyone know anything about it

Examples of captured equipment was shipped back to Aberdeen Proving Grounds for testing, there is quite an extensive collection of equipment on public display if you happen to be in the area.

The only reference to any organized unit using captured equipment are five field artillery battalions that used former German 105mm howitzers due to shipping problems. The combat records for these units indicate that this was a short-term use only and by 1945, they had been re-equipped with US artillery pieces.

There are references to several companies using a captured Panther or Tiger but again, this was during a period when there were no replacement Shermans and as soon as Shermans arrived, the German tank was disabled.

What a lot of people forget is that the Panther/Tiger/King Tiger had a very poor maintenance record. Part of this was due to sabotage by the slave labor, but even more of it was caused by the over-engineering by the design staff.

For example, the Panther was designed to ford rivers via a snorkel, due to the large weight of the vehicle, and that most bridges in Eastern Europe were not designed to support the weight. Not a bad idea, right

The Panther engine was carefully designed to be water-tight. When the first Panthers went into service in Russia, they were found to have two major problems. The engines overheated rapidly, in the drive to be water-tight, the designers failed to allow room for air-circulation around the radiator. The other problem lay at the other end of the engine-cooling system, the intake fan. On the back deck of the Panther is something that looks like a overturned bucket, this is the cover for the intake fan. When the Panthers moved through forest, the vibrations caused by their movement would cause leaves to fall and soon blanket the vehicle. The leaves would actually cover the intake fan and eventually jam it. The Panther crews resorted to punching holes in buckets and tieing them to the intake vent and eventually welding them in place. You may see pictures of Panthers on the march with the rear escape hatch open and a crewman sitting in it, usually with a caption about getting fresh air in the turret. What was actually happening is that the crewman was sitting on the rim of the hatch, getting fresh air and watching over the intake filter to make sure that it wasn't covered in debris!

When you look on the back deck, on either side of the "overturned bucket" are two large fans, these are the exhaust fans for the radiators.

[helbent4]

There are references to several companies using a captured Panther or Tiger but again, this was during a period when there were no replacement Shermans and as soon as Shermans arrived, the German tank was disabled.

Lee,

Do you have something more to go on I'd like to follow up on. Using captured artillery wasn't all that uncommon for the western allies, but I'm unable to find reference anywhere captured tanks were used. (Motorcycles, trucks, even half-tracks, but not tanks.) In a way, it wasn't worth it. The western allies were never short of equipment and vehicles could be replaced within days or a week at most.

Unlike the Russians, who trained crews and support personnel on German equipment and organised a logistical chain, Americans/Commonwealth/etc. crews climbing into a Panther would be confronted by a completely unfamiliar and overly complicated machine with no spares and little chance of repair or resupply. Tactically it would seem like only in the most dire situation would a crew bother to man a captured German tank, but not out of the question.

There's also the danger of attack from the "American Luftwaffe". That is, the USAAF. Fratricide from ground-attack aircraft against marked Shermans were common enough, I can just imagine how a captured tank would fare!

At any rate, doing some research I see that that the British did use captured Italian tanks in North Africa and the Australians used both German and Italian tanks, but can't find any references in Europe after Normandy of the western allies or specifically Americans using captured German tanks.

Unrelated but fascinating: the "German Tank Problem". How statistical analysis of the serial numbers on captured tanks allowed for really accurate estimates of German tank production in WWII.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_tank_problem

Tony

[James Langham]

Lee,

Do you have something more to go on I'd like to follow up on. Using captured artillery wasn't all that uncommon for the western allies, but I'm unable to find reference anywhere captured tanks were used. (Motorcycles, trucks, even half-tracks, but not tanks.) In a way, it wasn't worth it. The western allies were never short of equipment and vehicles could be replaced within days or a week at most.

Unlike the Russians, who trained crews and support personnel on German equipment and organised a logistical chain, Americans/Commonwealth/etc. crews climbing into a Panther would be confronted by a completely unfamiliar and overly complicated machine with no spares and little chance of repair or resupply. Tactically it would seem like only in the most dire situation would a crew bother to man a captured German tank, but not out of the question.

There's also the danger of attack from the "American Luftwaffe". That is, the USAAF. Fratricide from ground-attack aircraft against marked Shermans were common enough, I can just imagine how a captured tank would fare!

At any rate, doing some research I see that that the British did use captured Italian tanks in North Africa and the Australians used both German and Italian tanks, but can't find any references in Europe after Normandy of the western allies or specifically Americans using captured German tanks.

Unrelated but fascinating: the "German Tank Problem". How statistical analysis of the serial numbers on captured tanks allowed for really accurate estimates of German tank production in WWII.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_tank_problem

Tony

Somewhere I have a photo of a British Panther crew in the winter of 44/45 in Europe. I seem to remember the vehicle was abandoned when it broke down.

Statistics can however be misleading, I seem to remember different factories were allocated different runs of numbers which weren't always used leaving gaps in the series.

[helbent4]

Somewhere I have a photo of a British Panther crew in the winter of 44/45 in Europe. I seem to remember the vehicle was abandoned when it broke down.

Statistics can however be misleading, I seem to remember different factories were allocated different runs of numbers which weren't always used leaving gaps in the series.

James,

That would be a cool photo! I'll keep looking.

Using the above formula on the serial numbers of captured German tanks, (both serviceable and destroyed) the number was calculated to be 256 a month. After the war captured German production figures from the ministry of Albert Speer show the actual number to be 255.

Only 1 off in a run of 255... not too shabby.

Shortly before D-Day, following rumors of large Panther tank production collected by conventional intelligence, analysis of road wheels from two tanks (consisting of 48 wheels each, for 96 wheels total) yielded an estimate of 270 Panthers produced in February 1944, substantially more than had previously been suspected; German records after the war showed production for that month was 276.[9] Specifically, analysis of the wheels yielded an estimate for the number of wheel molds; discussion with British road wheel makers then estimated the number of wheels that could be produced from this many molds.

Off by 6 out of an estimated 276. That's, like a 1% error Still pretty good!

Reading further in the article, I see it depended on where they got the serial. Some are more reliable than others.

Tony

[James Langham]

James,

That would be a cool photo! I'll keep looking.



Only 1 off in a run of 255... not too shabby.



Off by 6 out of an estimated 276. That's, like a 1% error Still pretty good!

Reading further in the article, I see it depended on where they got the serial. Some are more reliable than others.

Tony

Have a look at this link it shows a photo of a 6th Coldstream Guards Panther. Not the pic I'm thinking of but some useful bits. The detail on Soviet use is interesting and may provide some trivia for TW2000.

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/panzerkampfwagen-v-panther-sd-kfz-171.htm

I'm impressed at the accuracy of the statistics. Shame that pre-D Day we didn't even know that the Panther wasn't just being used in smaller heavy tank battalions like the Tiger.

[dragoon500ly]

Lee,

Do you have something more to go on I'd like to follow up on. Using captured artillery wasn't all that uncommon for the western allies, but I'm unable to find reference anywhere captured tanks were used. (Motorcycles, trucks, even half-tracks, but not tanks.) In a way, it wasn't worth it. The western allies were never short of equipment and vehicles could be replaced within days or a week at most.

Official records are really skimpy on this, the best source would be the Signal Corps photo collection, where there are several photos of Panthers with the Allied star painted on. There is a pitfall to watch for, Panzer Brigade 150, the outfit that tried to pass itself off as American armor during the Battle of the Bulge. This is sort of an ongoing research for me, if only because the SC collection is impressive to look over; I've only found three photos that show allied tankers using Panthers, the captions on the photos, however, indicate that this was being done as a training aid for inbound personnel, "know your enemy" sort of thing. The second source is the oral records of the Eisenhower Collection at the National D-Day Museum in New Orleans. There are two soldiers who talk about manning a captured German tank in Italy. Those are the only "official" records that I have seen.

Unlike the Russians, who trained crews and support personnel on German equipment and organised a logistical chain, Americans/Commonwealth/etc. crews climbing into a Panther would be confronted by a completely unfamiliar and overly complicated machine with no spares and little chance of repair or resupply. Tactically it would seem like only in the most dire situation would a crew bother to man a captured German tank, but not out of the question.

That's the problem in a nut shell.

There's also the danger of attack from the "American Luftwaffe". That is, the USAAF. Fratricide from ground-attack aircraft against marked Shermans were common enough, I can just imagine how a captured tank would fare!

At any rate, doing some research I see that that the British did use captured Italian tanks in North Africa and the Australians used both German and Italian tanks, but can't find any references in Europe after Normandy of the western allies or specifically Americans using captured German tanks.

The only references that I can find are for the late 1940/early 1941 fighting, as things moved into the Crusader battles, the Commonwealth use of captured armor seems to have ended. Records for the Germans do show the use of captured Crusaders (turrets removed and used to move fuel/ammo to front line units) and Stuarts (Rommel's HQ escort unit appears to have used over a dozen).

[Abbott Shaull]

I think during WWII especially 1944 on, things moved too fast for pilots to know where there front was on the western front. Especially since both sides various vehicles that looked similar. One of the things that you think the guy on the ground has hard time telling various vehicles with night vision devices.

Think about someone flying at tree top or higher where they have less time to debate what they have seen on the ground...

[dragoon500ly]

I think during WWII especially 1944 on, things moved too fast for pilots to know where there front was on the western front. Especially since both sides various vehicles that looked similar. One of the things that you think the guy on the ground has hard time telling various vehicles with night vision devices.

Think about someone flying at tree top or higher where they have less time to debate what they have seen on the ground...

Don't forget that the Air Forces training at that time was concerned with aircraft ID NOT vehicle ID.

This was often taken advantage of, especially in the Western Desert. The British Long Range Desert Group used a specialized item of equipment to fool enemy aircraft, taking advantage of the lack of knowledge about ground vehicles that the average airdale had, they issued a plywood "roundal" that would be strapped in place on the hoods of their vehicles when they entered enemy territory. One side had the Italian facist insignia, the other the nazi twisteed cross insignia. If they saw an aircraft heading toward and could ID as italian, then the nazi emblem was flipped upwards and every body waved at the "friendly" aircraft. How effective was it Not a lot of hard data behind oral/written accounts of the troopers who believed that it worked most of the time. And taking into account the tendency of people to "see" what they want to see....