"Tank deficiencies not covered by rules" Topic

I'm going through Hills' book and comparing some of the ranges with true distance per Google Earth. I looks like the distance from Fontenany-le-Pesnel to Ruaray is 2200 yds. From the farm hedgerow to the panzer in woods that Hills estimated the range to be 2,500 yards is about 1,600 yards.

BTW, there is a typo on page 106 as the 'June 25' should be 'June 26'.

MKenny – You still don't want to answer the simple question.

B

MKenny – You still don't want to answer the simple question.

Given the name you were using for me earlier I doubt you are open to persuasion. You obviously know me from elsewhere and until I know who you really are then I recomend a re-google of my online content in order to get the answer to your question.
Have a nice day.

1947 view of the area where Tiger '114' was knocked out.

Briish advance was from Fontenay Le Pesnil to Rauray

Tiger '114' in the position where she was knocked out.

Detail view of '114'

coloured mark indicates position on 1947 air view.

Below a photo taken June 24 1944, less than a week before the action. The Tiger was most likely somewhere along the yellow dashed line

mckenney I thought the Tiger might be where you indicate up by Fontenay. At least from the narrative time-line. From the photo it would seem that there are taller trees to the right side of the road. Up there the trees are to the left side.
So I would put it south of the lower photo where the Tiger was approaching the St. Nichcolas farm. Only there are the trees tall enough to match the photo.

GE has a street view of this road.

It just is not possible to firmly place the Tiger. It could be anywhere along that road. I might add that I believe a new 'road' was made to the right of the existing road.

It just is not possible to firmly place the Tiger. It could be anywhere along that road. I might add that I believe a new 'road' was made to the right of the existing road.

Though it is fun trying.
From the street view the hedgerows all look like trees so the tank could be placed anywhere along the road.

The Tigers at Fontenay and Ruaray are an interesting subject that modern tools like Google Earth and street view might be applied to. I added a page to my website on the subject.
panzer-war.com/page45.html

To get back on topic:

We don't represent tank minutia because its a random factor and easy to over value. Panthers broke down but in a game with 5 or so Panthers fighting (not necessarly moving) over a two hour period – what is the real chance that at this moment a fuel pump will give way? 1 in 10? 1 in 100? If this happens a screws up playbalance what have we gained? Russians win due to Germans getting a bad fuel pump roll?

Issue is a bit different for damage. No tank in invunerable. There should always be a chance to inflict damage. If you fire enough close range rounds something bad will happen. The invunerable tank myth comes from Flames of War with its crude d6 system. Easy to avoid by using dice with a wider range of possible results.

TomT

'334' has no sign of any hits on the front and the rear seems fairly intact. My belief is this is a Tiger not mentioned in the reports or any book.

[URL=http://imageshack.com/i/f0b112unj]

[/URL]
[URL=http://imageshack.com/i/p9P41BnYj] [/URL]

I think you have confused' 334' with the unknown 2nd kp Tiger which does have a hit centre of the drivers front plate.

[URL=http://imageshack.com/i/idewn5itj]

[/URL]

You can read '334' on the turret of the first of your pictures.
It also is on this photo.

And there is a 'scoop' out of the rear plate between the tow eye and the exhaust cover.

Oh, you may be right. The cable to the head light in the first tank is to the right of the lamp while on the other one it is to the left.

Just to be clear this

[URL=http://imageshack.com/i/iqqVWiKvj]

[/URL]

is not the same tiger as this

[URL=http://imageshack.com/i/ipLTBbouj]

[/URL]

That last Tiger looks like it has a '3' as the first digit of the number. Neither Tiger seems to have brewed up nor have a chink out of it's mantlet edge.

Believe me this tank has been scrutinisd closely and no number has been found.
It is a steel wheel model.
The marking show it is fromm 2nd kp. so number must be '2XX'.
It is also unusual with hull front extensions (the bit where the hole is for a towing shackle) matching that of a rubber wheel model.
By elimination it should be '233' but that is not confirmed.

The 'hit on the mantlet' matches up well with the hit on the mantlet of '114'

[URL=http://imageshack.com/i/iqtk2vSxj]

[/URL]

'233' is a wreck. It is missing its right hand sprocket and it has burned out that is why you can not see a number

[URL=http://imageshack.com/i/kpJIBwtyj]

[/URL]

I'll go along with the burnt out part.

Look at any Tiger photos taken from that same angle. The right hand track should be visible.

[URL=http://imageshack.com/i/kmAeSCHvj]

[/URL]

The hit on the mantlet on Tiger #114 is on the loaders side of the turret. Also, it looks like an ordinary non-penetrating hit. Unless a chunk of the mantlet broke off from the bottom edge and penetrated the turret roof this is not the hit on the edge of the mantlet.

Is this the elusive third Tiger? Why are German infantry taking cover around it? I thought all the photos were by the British.

WWII Myths – T-34 Best Tank of the war
The Soviet T-34 tank is well known by anyone who has an interest in WWII history. Books, articles, documentaries present it in triumphant terms. It was superior to everything the Germans had, it had revolutionary sloped armor, unprecedented mobility and was one of the reasons the Soviet side won in the Eastern front.

How realistic are these statements? Was the T-34 really a war winning weapon? How did it compare to German and Western tanks? How did it perform during the war? If we try to answer these questions by looking at actual data then things start to change. Instead of a mechanical marvel we get a poorly designed and built combat system that suffered horrific losses against ‘inferior' German tanks.
Let's start with debunking some of the most common statements…..

link

Pretty much on topic to the general theme of this thread – a web page which explores the manufacturing and ergonomic failures of the T-34 design.

Is this the elusive third Tiger? Why are German infantry taking cover around it? I thought all the photos were by the British.
Yes it is Tiger no 3, a 2nd kp vehicles. The infantry are wearing the more modern Mk III helmet

The only thing truly "revolutionary" about the T-34 was the highly sloped armor. Good, but not revolutionary, were its wide tracks and the ability of the Soviets to mass-produce it. It also had big problems, like the 2-man turret and lack of a radio.

One could make a case for the Panzer III and Panzer IV being equally "revolutionary" the year before, with their 3-man turrets and radios in every tank. Things unique at the time.

I'd say the Sherman was just as good a tank as the T-34. Also easily mass-produced, with good mobility; and much more reliable (at least given the US's better maintenance and recovery efforts). Its side and rear armor weren't as sloped as the T-34, but the most critical hull front was well sloped. And it had a 3-man turret and a radio.

Is this the elusive third Tiger? Why are German infantry taking cover around it? I thought all the photos were by the British.
Yes it is Tiger no 3, a 2nd kp vehicles. The infantry are wearing the more modern Mk III helmet

It's doubtfull as the height to width ratio doesn't match the British helmet, but to the German.

Plus that guy has a couple of stick grenades in his back belt. The guy lying down in the foreground has the German pattern hob-nail boots not the British pattern. (Now that guy could be a dead German.)

Look like standard british hob-nail boots to me. The Photo is from the IWM and was taken by a British cameraman. The soldiers are British. No doubt.

Donlowry – not exactly unique. Aside from the light tanks and the private venture Valentine, British tanks featured 3 man turrets and radios in every tank at the start of WWII.

One drawback of the Valentine was considered to be its two man turret crew. This was remedied for the MK III and V, but when the tank was uparmed with the 6 pdr and then the 75mm the larger gun necessitated reducing the turret crew back to two.

The Photo is from the IWM and was taken by a British cameraman. The soldiers are British. No doubt.

So, it we are to assume this was the third Tiger (not #114 or #334) there are only a few spots it could be. There are only a few houses with the roof line and profile like the one in the background. Per GE street view it could be up the road to the north of Tiger #334 about 100m. The infantry would be facing west to where the Mark IVs were. This Tiger would be facing north-east. The house near #334 would be in the background. The British would get to Amselgruber before Mobius as in his report. The photo view would be to the south.
Another spot that Tiger could be was along the road to the rear/south of Rauray. On the far side of the houses. In this case the photo would be taken to the west. The British infantry would be facing south. But the Tiger would be facing south-east. Firing south? It would be further from the British than #334 so would likely have to be knocked out after Mobius (in #334) contrary his report.

Or, the house in the background no longer exists or was significantly changed and then it's location remains unknown.

More for your blog
Note the newer style of helmet on the infantry.

The Panther is indeed facing east away from Tessel and the Tiger in the film sequence with some of Dring's crew on it is coming from Rauray heading towards Fontenay-which would suggest it was stopped south of the D139/173A cross-roads. The penetration in the Panther is arrowed.
A spur is a geographic feature and nothing to do with horses.

No need to assign me any credit!

I wonder why the M10 is facing north. From this photo it looks like the line of Shermans are coming south from Fontenay (passing the same Panther). If the Panther is facing east then it is not where Hills places it.

Thank for the help.

More photos of the area.

This Panther is another location and a later date of August 4th

Thanks for the photos. You know it's kind of a pain to make any kind of blog or webpage on a subject is that the major search engines send robots through it. Even when it's not complete it shows up in their search engine. Sort of like a feed back loop. Pretty soon when you want to find more research on a subject the only thing you can find is your own stuff.

Re MKennys 10/10 post – the Panther is partially burnt out, the suspension on the left hand side looks to have collapsed as a consequence of this. The M10 in the sequence is actually the more potent M10C with a 17 pounder – the long barrel with counterweight is a gveaway for that variant.

ou know it's kind of a pain to make any kind of blog or webpage on a subject is that the major search engines send robots through it. Even when it's not complete it shows up in their search engine. Sort of like a feed back loop. Pretty soon when you want to find more research on a subject the only thing you can find is your own stuff.

One of the biggest issues with this is that one error can get rapidly perpetuated until it appears to be the consensus opinion. I have found mislabelled iamges reproduced in multiple locations, all coming from one incorrect source.

Re MKennys 10/10 post – the Panther is partially burnt out, the suspension on the left hand side looks to have collapsed as a consequence of this.

Thanks to his photo help we agree that Hills in his book located the knocked out Panther at the wrong spot. I even found the location of the rubble pile next to it using Google Earth street view.

The M10 in the sequence is actually the more potent M10C with a 17 pounder – the long barrel with counterweight is a gveaway for that variant.

Some of the IWM captions describe it as an M10 and at other times it as an M10 Achilles.