Gammon bombs (?)
 

I was wondering if the GJS team has considered implementing the Gammon bomb as a close range AT weapon for the Brit AB infantry teams. Would be nice to have a little more firepower vs the 21st Pz, especially in the opening days.

AB AT.
 

Uberdave,

I believe the Paras do have Gammon bombs in GJS. If you look in the 'AP/AT' indicator in the game you'll see that the Paras have green bars in the 'AT'. Meaning that they have a certain AT capability at a limited range this indicates Gammon bombs. I think this is mentioned in the GJS PDF Read me file.

:)

I would apriciate Alies greater capability in close combat. I have stormed geran tanks several times just to find all my men killed.

Never slap a panzer with a dead fish.

Never storm German armor with plain-vanilla infantry ;)

The paras do have gammon bombs; but the short range of the device makes it imperative to use them at very close range. Not quite as effective as Panzerrfausts for that matter.

P.I.A.T.
 

Never underestimate the effect of a well placed Piat round!

Providing your Piat team hasn't s**t themselves first at the sight of a Tiger coming straight at them!! ;)

comon guys, most german tanks were "knocked-out' by allied aircraft!!!! That means that the vehicles were salvaged when possible and the used again. ALL allied armour was inferior on all fronts to German armor "except when attacked from the air".GJS only needs to employ the only element missing, that is allied air superiority,namley HEAVY BOMBERS and more NAVY!!

Allied Tank Crews.
 

"ALL allied armour was inferior on all fronts to German armour..."

Which makes those allied tank crews that took them on all the more courageous!:p

generally inferior, however, you must be happy to have M-10s and Fireflies. When a Sherman has a chance for speed, use it to your advantage. Same with a Stuart.

17 pdrs are deadly to German armor. Use them wisely, they will generally prevail.

Apparently some people don't understand the difference between the allies on the western front and the eastern front, but anyway didn't matter even the heaviest Soviet armor was still inferior!! That's why the Germans destroyed over 19,000. soviet aromred vehicles.The Stuart was a joke, the M-10 was no match. You see the Germans understood muzzle velocity as well as frontal armor. As well as having a wealth of knowledge from battleing the Soviets for so long. Ask any American either in a fox hole or in a battle wagon about the fear from having to face a Tiger and all that courage went down the pant leg!

Allied armor might in general have been inferior, but in the end they certainly did the job they were called upon to do. German equipment for that matter was far from indestructable.

OK, I was just having a little fun. Not trying to offend anyone. I still believe that it was the allied airforces that made the deciding difference, not tank-on-tank engagements. But it's only my opinion.

Atilla, perhaps you should post your Zetterling link here as well....

:D

Yes Allied tanks were inferior to German armor...even the Generals knew this!! that famous saying from one(cant remeber his name at the moment) when we send out 7 Tanks to take a Tiger we can count only only one returning!!!They knew that the only way was to out number the Tigers ...this is exacly what they did....thats how i deal with them in GJS .... Stuarts useless?? no way ....they are your best bet for Infanrty and armored vehicles...against Tiger's they make great bait :) You be surprized how many hits sometimes from a tiger they will sustain....before being destroyed...But this gives you the time (not always) to move your Flys and M10's in from the flank ...This works as long as your enemy doesnt have another three Tigers waiting for you or a shreck team close by ....;)

Atilla, Im assuming that the Gammon bomb is listed as the 'Grenade Special' type in the Para Lee Enf column in 'Soldier.adb' using QClone (?)

Posting the Zetterling link here too? Nah, one (over-)heated discussion is enough for me ;)

The Gammon bombs are the "Grenade special" indeed.

Atilla, if the Gammon bomb is hidden in the Soldier data file...wouldn't it be more appropriate to code such a device as an anti-tank/HT grenade rather than a 'special' one?

Anyone know the difference?

matter of semantics. call it special, or call it AT grenade, it still doesn't show up among the soldier's weapons. I just carried over the process that stock CC5 used.

You may believe what you want, but the allied air forces where not the main tank-killer during the normandy campaign. Let's look at some hard facts just to prove this. 176 PzKpfw V's (a.k.a. Panther) where lost during the Normandy campaign (6/6-31/8), 47 by AP-ammo, 8 by HEAT-ammo, 8 by HE-ammo, 8 by aircraft rockets, 3 by aircraft automatic cannons, 50 where destroyed by the crew, 33 where left intact by the crew, and 19 losses where of unknown reasons (most probably not by aircraft attacks, because their impact on a tank is easy to identify). This means that 11 of 176 Panthers where destroyed by the allied air force. "Deciding difference" my ass. The deciding difference was the material superiority of the allies.

Sorry for going OT, but some things need to be clarified.

/Johan

The Germans feared the allied airforce and artillery more than anything else, except when they were in range of the allied navy. sorry the Tigers of the HermanGoering Panzer division, which was an untried division despite it's "elite" title, were only stopped "on the sand dunes" by the allied navy! The Germans simply suffered casualties in normandy even before they ever where in theatre, I.E. do to air force attacks on units coming to the front after the attacks. And I do know that the HG division was in Italy before the Normandy campaign. U have to remember that most Panzer divisions weren't at the front to meet the invasion. Panzer crews heading for the front, upon seeing allied aircraft, would open all hatches and let off a smoke grenade to look "knocked out". I don't think they did this when confronted by allied armor!

The German tankers did indeed fear the Allied JABO's, but as feldgrau has shown, their fear wasn't exactly scientifically proved. Fear tends to be pretty irrational. If you see it that way the Allied airforce was pretty effective in making German tank crews always keep an eye on the sky.

The panzer divisions were IMHO delayed, not destroyed, by the allied fighter-bombers.

Agreeing with Tokarev. The main effect of the Allied air force during the campaign was the disruption it created at railroad junctions, supply routes and advance routes. The aircraft didn't destroy German tanks, it made it harder for the German tanks to destroy Allied ones. Tank forces which can't move aren't good tank forces, and the Allied air foce made it hard for the German tanks to move.

/Johan

Those same units moving up to the front lines suffered heavy losses, German soldiers often commented that they couldn't even take a crap with out aircraft intervening. Aircraft more than hampered the movement of troops to Normandie.

I'm interested in seeing a source for this. The numbers I've seen suggest that the claims the USAAF and RAF made for tank kills were generally exaggerated.

I believe what you are referring to is the smaller close support aircraft, but the western allies were hitting the reinforcing units with heavy bombers who wouldn't have been able to keep tallies of what was destroyed on the ground. It was standard pracitce to hit German position with arty and heavy and medium bombers prior to any attack.

Ok here we go: reposting the piece on the effectiveness of heavy bombers. I think medium bombers would have a lesser effect on the battlefield, especially on armor.

Here's a small part of the article on the effectiveness of carpet bombing. It basically states that losses resulting from the carpet bombing are not all that large, although the immediate effect on battle-readiness of the units bombed did have an impact on the outcome of the battle.

"A few points must be noted here. First, there are in fact very few occasions when heavy bombers hit armoured formations. Probably operation Goodwood and operation Cobra are the only real examples. Thus it can not be said that bombers "often wreaked havoc". Second, during the example given by Ellis, Operation Goodwood, the bombers hit one armoured formation, the 503. s.Pz.Abt. This unit suffered losses, but it was far from annihilated, since most of it remained fighting in Normandy until the end of the campaign. It seems that von Kluge was exaggerating grossly. It is clear that the carpet-bombing prevented the battalion from immediately intervening in strength, but the bombers did not annihilate it, rather it was temporarily incapacitated.

Another example is Pz.Lehr during operation Cobra. Ellis cited Bayerlein who has stated that all his forward tanks were knocked out. Either a large part of his tanks were not in forward positions or he was simply exaggerating. On 1 August Pz.Lehr reported that it had 67 tanks and at least 10 assault guns, if vehicles in workshops are included. The number of operational tanks had shrunk from 31 on 23 July to 27 on 1 August.

Unfortunately there is no information found in the archival records on the number of tanks in workshops during July. It must be emphasized that between 23 July and 1 August, several tanks must have been lost to American ground forces or abandoned during the retreat after 25 July. Whatever the case, the available evidence does not indicate that large parts of the division had been annihilated, even though the parts of it had been severely hit. Also, the division reported that it had a manpower strength of 11 018 men on 1 August, pretty impressive for a division that was supposed to be destroyed. For more information on the Carpet bombing of Pz.Lehr before operation Cobra see the narrative for the division.

A result of attacks by heavy bombers, both during Goodwood and Cobra, was the disabling of tanks, rather than destruction. Often the tanks were disabled due to the need to dig them out after the air attack. Thus it was absolutely necessary to follow up the air attack by immediate advance by ground forces. Otherwise the aerial bombardment would have little lasting effect."

Atilla's article should be enough really, but anyway. You first talked about the panzer divisions moving up to the front, yes? I would be very surprised if medium bombers could hit tanks moving up a road, considering the accuracy of Allied bombers.

I have no doubts that the Allied air forces weren't efficient in many, many ways. However, when it comes to actually killing tanks, they weren't so good.

Let's look at some numbers for Operation Goodwood (17-18 July 1944), and operation which was started with a massive attack of heavy and medium bombers (1 676 heavy bombers and 343 medium bombers dropped over 7 000 000 kilos of bombs July 18th), just what you, Pz_meyer, is talking about, right? Good.

Then let us take a look at German tank losses for that period. There are no numbers for the losses during just the Goodwood operation, but the whole Panzergruppe West lost 75 tanks during the period of 16-21 July. The official British history tells of 109 German tank losses (July 18th) caused by aircraft in the 1. SS PzDiv and 21. PzDiv, more tanks than they posessed at the start, and as you can read above, 34 tanks more than they really lost during the whole period of 16-21 July. It is also unthinkable that the Allied ground forces wasn't able to destroy a single German tank.

As read in my previous post, only 11 of 176 Panthers where destroyed by aircraft, and as we know that 1. SS PzDiv had at least 46 Panthers on July 18th, then I have to say that it seems very strange that very few of them where destroyed by the bombers if they where as effective as Pz_meyer says. It is also strange that the Germans managed to destroy 469 tanks from the Guards Tank Division, 11th Tank Division and the Desert Rat Division when the Allies had total control in the air.

The main effect of the bomber runs where not the destruction of tanks, but (as partly read in the text Atilla quotes) the burying of tanks under massive amounts of earth thrown up in the air by bombs, the killing of tank crews that didn't sit inside their tanks, the paralysation of crews and the temporary deafness that was created by the loud bangs (some German POWs couldn't be interrogated until the next day because of this).

I'm going back to my life as a conscript in the Swedish Armed Forces now so I won't be able to answer any questions for some weeks.

Sources:
Avgörandets Ögonblick (Swedish book) by Michael Tamelander and Niklas Zetterling.
Normandiekampanjen (Swedish university essay) by Mathias Forsberg

/Johan

Well Swedes were alweays neutral, and neuralized, but you all don't even see your selves. Let's see, german crews weren't even interrogated for, you say 1 day because of deafness. What in the hell eas that from. Either artillery or ALLIED AIR CONTROL. There were no sattelites in 1944-1945. Allied air contol was a pre-requisite of OPERATION OVERLORD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHY?????????? BECAUES HE WHO CONTROLS THE SKIES WINS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Oeration GOODWOOD was 1 single operation in wwII. All Swedes should go and hide in their bunkers and wait till they collect the golD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I had a feeling Zetterling and Gooderson would make an appearance in this thread sooner or later ;)

Uh okay... You don't need to be offended Pz_meyer. This is facts we're talking about, not trying to go and insult you. Ah heck, I'll jst go hide in my bunker, what do I know? :rolleyes:

[moderator mode]
OK - I see some differing opinions here, but nothing to get worked up about

carry on
[/moderator mode]

CSO_brent

I can see a wargamer forum fight coming on! :mad: :confused: By the way Brent like the moderator voice reminds me of those comedies when the voice of god booms out :D :p

And...

...and...

...and what has anything of this to do with anything of what I wrote earlier? Isn't it good with a viewpoint that is neutral? That might be something you have missed. Do you really think that official British history, or official German history tells the truth? Actually, in this case, it is more probable that the German history is more truthful.

And did you read what I wrote earlier? "The main effect of the bomber runs where not the destruction of tanks, but [...] the temporary deafness that was created by the loud bangs [...] ." And you don't have to scream it out either, I can read small letters as good as big ones.

I agree completely.

Wow, did you figure that out yourself?

And that was why USA technically didn't win the Vietnam war, or do you say that NVA and VC had air supremacy? You can't take ground with aircraft, it is as simple as that. Air power is just a way to ease the burden for the ground forces.

Yeah, it sure wasn't two different operations with the same name. Good thinking.

Why do you believe that we have bunkers? We are, as you said above, always neutral and neutralized, so why should we need any?

This discussion is really going forward, especially since Pz_meyer has such good arguments and sources for his statements...

/Johan

This discussion has been dead for days. And I don't believe the allies used carpet bombing just to blow out ear drums. Anyway who cares. Vietnam was first and foremost a political war and we can debate lazy american tactics that resulted in a defeat. Or we can talk a bout how the Afghans use of stingers took air supremacy from the Soviets, probably the first time in history that individual soldiers on the ground defeated a then super power. And If I CHOOSE to add emphasis to my words I WILL!

Well, talking about the German Panzerwaffe I think the most important thing is not frontal armor (look at a Pz IV) or muzzle velocity - these are important of course - but TACTICS. They always saw the GOAL, not the PLAN (as many Allied and Russian commanders did).