Infantry VS Armor

[Soren]

I dont have the game you mention, but the east front series has won a total of five realism awards that I know of, whilst squad leader has been around forever, and is very realistic. Incidentally we dont need a "strategy" simulation, we need a tactical simulation

In order for me to let the computer test your scenario, you will need to send me a rough sketch of your map, a well as the forces you want me to feed into the simulation. I can also get some of my colleagues in the design group that i contribute to, to test out the scenario as independant observers. Its about a fair as I can gat i am afraid.

PLease give some thought to your map, and send it to me, I will then be able to complete the excercise and get back to you

Ok will do Parsifal.

However the reason I recommend Combat Mission 3 is because it uses an advanced armor penetration calculator taking into effect armor slope, angle of impact etc etc and it uses the the real life penetration figures as reference as well an advanced lethal range of explosive rounds.

I am not familiar with any of the games you mention except Panzer Leader, which is far from realistic.

You can read about Combat Mission here: Combat Mission: Afrika Korps Overview Page

 

[parsifal]

Glider

Of the 2740 tanks attached to the 21st army group, some 1900 Shermans were maintained on establishment, whilst of this number, some 500 (approximately) were maintained as Fireflies. About 1 in 6 of british tanks held on strength at any given time were Fireflies.

The germans actually outproduced the britsh in terms of their Tiger production (as compared to Firefly conversions) , but the majority of these were serving on the eastern front. moreover the numbers produced in Germany (for all their heavy tanks) were the absolute maximum that they could put into the field, whereas the british were not constrained nearly so much by production difficulties. It was just that 500 fireflies was all they ever needed. by 1944, the british were fielding blended formations, because this was the optimal way of tackling the german threat.

It should not be forgotten as well that the US also fielded some better tanks than the standard Sherman. the 76mm equipped tanks, such as the M4A3E8, were not as good as the Firefly, but were nevertheless quite capable tanks.

Sherman tactics against German heavy armour was limited really to exploiting the superior turret traverse, and speed, coupled with the generally better crew training that existed in the allied units by that stage of the war. The aim was to try and get stern shots into the slower german tanks, at ranges below 500 metres. Against an expereinced tiger crew such as being described by Soren, the Allied tankers definately had their work cut out for them. However, by 1944, an experienced tank crew in the Wehrmacht was starting to become a rare commodity.

 

[Soren]

Absolutely confident that he never charged out blind through a smokescreen into an unknown enemy.

He charged straight at a British tank collumn and blew it to pieces, he later charged straight at what he thought was M4 Shermans, but were infact 7 Fireflies.

Also I don't think you quite understand the regular role of the Tiger tank on the battlefield. The Tiger tank was a breakthrough tank, thus it was mostly used to punching straight through enemy lines, often not knowng what it was up against and what was waiting on the other side.

People who do that, don't last long enough to become that good.

If sitting in a Tiger they obviously did, and there are many examples. For example Karl Körner who engaged 120 - 150 Soviet tanks and succeeded in knocking out 11 IS-2's and 28 T-34/85's in this single action.

Perhaps you should read this: PzKpfw VI TIGER I in ACTION!

Sure, Tigerphobia was rare

 

[parsifal]

Smoke can be laid as a creeping barrage to cover the advancing Infantry itself. An area of 1000 metres by 1000 metres (approx) is chicken feed as far as laying smoke is concerned. A good fireplan from the 24 supporting 25 pdrs (which someone pointed out would be a realistic number of support guns for an assault of this size) would be a snap.

IMO you would know the assault was coming, because you can see the smoke, but you would not be able to observe the individual members of the Infantry group, because they are shrouded in smoke. You can lay down suppressing fire with your tank mounted MGs, and maybe let off the occasional main armament discharge, but essentially it would have to be assumed that you are firing blind, in the general direction of the advancing Infantry. And all the while there are additional elements of the assault force working around on the flanks, and at the rear, completely un-engaged by the tiger.

Now, if you were to attach even a single squad of defending Infantry, the situation would change completely, but that would not be supporting your original argument, which was that unsupported tanks can defeat Infantry that does not have armoured support, and /or concentrated and heavy AT Support

 

[Soren]

From the Tiger Kompanie report:

The Tiger Kompanie was ordered to throw out the enemy who penetrated into a wood, and then continue to advance. About 12:15 hours, together with an Infanterie-Batallion the Tiger Kompanie started to attack. The thick forest caused extremely poor visibility (50 meters), and a narrow trail forced the Tiger-Kompanie to advance in a single row. The Russian infantry fled their positions as soon as the Tigers appeared. The anti-tank guns, which were pulled forward into position by the enemy within three-quarters of an hour after entering the woods, were quickly destroyed in spite of the difficulty of seeing the targets. Some of the anti-tank guns were destroyed by hits and some were rolled over. Numerous undamaged anti-tank guns fell into our hands.

After the lead Zug of the Tiger Kompanie advanced 2 kilometers through the forest, the Zug leader suddenly noticed knocked-down trees and saw a large muzzle-break (Josef Stalin) directly in front of him. He immediately gave the fire command: " Panzergranate! Cupola sight! Fire!" At the same time he was hit twice by 4.5 cm anti-tank gun shells that robbed him of his sight. In the interim, a second Tiger of the Zug driving through the woods pulled up on line with the Zug leader's Tiger. In spite of poor visibility, the Zug leader started the firefight at a range of 35 meters. In response, the Josef Stalin tank pulled back behind a small hill. In the meantime, the second Tiger had taken the lead and fired three shot at the enemy tank. When the round was fired, the Tiger itself was hit by a 12.2 cm shell on the front below the radio operator's section. Apparently this armor-piercing shell didn't penetrate through because the Tiger was standing at an angle from the target. The enemy tank was knocked out of action by a shot which penetrated the gun. A second Josef Stalin tank attempted to cover the first as it pulled back. During a short firefight, one of these two Tigers hit the second tank under the gun. This round penetrated, immediately setting the enemy tank on fire. The rate of fire of the Josef Stalin tanks was comparatively slow.

 

[Glider]

Parsifal
I don't disagree with you but the compliment for a British Armoured unit at D Day was 36 per Brigade 12 per Regiment. Which equals one per platoon so the point was clear. As the war progressed the proportion increased until in some units it was almost one for one.

What Soren has also forgotten were the TD units armed with 76mm or 17pd guns depending on the type in question. Specifically trained for this kind of work and available to support the infantry being in the British army anyway, attached to infantry divisions, let alone any AT guns that might be around.

 

[Soren]

In Normandy there were very few Firefly's, around 200, while there were more Tigers and Panthers, who in contrast weren't even close to as vulnerable, heck a regular StuG or Pz.IV was as lethal to the Firefly as the firefly was to it.

And regarding the 76mm American guns, well what can I say, one BIG dissappointment, they couldn't even penetrate the Tiger's frontal armor at point blank range, the projectile just shattered.

 

[Glider]

He charged straight at a British tank collumn and blew it to pieces, he later charged straight at what he thought was M4 Shermans, but were infact 7 Fireflies.

Also I don't think you quite understand the regular role of the Tiger tank on the battlefield. The Tiger tank was a breakthrough tank, thus it was mostly used to punching straight through enemy lines, often not knowng what it was up against and what was waiting on the other side.



If sitting in a Tiger they obviously did, and there are many examples. For example Karl Körner who engaged 120 - 150 Soviet tanks and succeeded in knocking out 11 IS-2's and 28 T-34/85's in this single action.

Perhaps you should read this: PzKpfw VI TIGER I in ACTION!

Sure, Tigerphobia was rare

Soren
You are falling into the trap of believing what you have been told and not checking your details

He certainly did attack the British armoured unit head on, but and this is the difference he knew what was there and took action accordingly. He did not charge out blindly.
Also the end result of the battle wasn't as one sided as most people believe. They hear about the attack but not the rest of the action.

In all some thirty British tanks were destroyed in and around Villers-Bocage on the morning of 13 June, as well as an unspecified number of other vehicles. On the German side eleven tanks were knocked out or disabled, among them six Tigers including Wittmann's Nr. 222. Three of these six vehicles were later salvaged and repaired. While Michael Wittmann may not have won the battle single-handedly as the German propaganda bulletins at the time suggested, his bold and instinctive action was without doubt the catalyst for an action that had driven the enemy out of Villers-Bocage and left them reeling and on the defensive; it was one of the very few occasions on which the Germans would have any sort of ascendancy during these last two years of the war
His suprise attack was devistating but once the suprise had been lost it was business as usual.

panzerace.net | introduction

 

[Soren]

No Glider, it is you who should check the details.

The British tank collumn (Containing a Firefly btw) was destroyed singlehandedly by Wittmann's Tiger, after this massacre he then continued into a nearby town and this is where he got into trouble - Urban areas isn't tank country.

From the site you linked:

Had it been any other man than Wittmann, and had he been commanding any other vehicle that the powerful Tiger I, the attack would have been seen as bordering on the suicidal. But Wittmann was both faster and more wily than the enemy; the Tiger rolled on relentlessly while enemy shells simply bounced off its thick armour plate. The first enemy vehicles Wittmann encountered were the two at the rear of the column, a Cromwell and a Sherman Firefly; by disabling these two tanks Wittmann had blocked off the exit for the remaining vehicles, which in turn allowed him to make it next move which was to head back up the column towards Villers Bocage. Meanwhile, two further Tigers from Wittmann's company made their way up to Hill 213.

As Wittmann's Tiger charged relentlessly towards them, the 'A' Sqn. crews - who had at the time been quietly enjoying a cup of tea and a cigarette at the side of the road - found themselves caught completely by surprise. They had little or no time to return to their vehicles, let alone manoeuvre them into any sort of position where they could have taken on the fearsome Tiger. Scattering and running for the nearest protection, the British crewmen abandoned their stricken vehicles, some of which still had their engines running. The Tiger's loader, SS-Sturmmann Günther Boldt, had to work like a man possessed to keep with this tremendous rate. Woll then grabbed his MG34, peppering the scout car which had been standing next to the head half-track with a hail of bullets.

While the bow machine gunner's relentless MG34 fire prevented any of the British crewmen from emerging from their hiding places, Wittmann turned his attention to the array of vehicles conveniently lined up along the side of the road. Two Cromwells and a Firefly were knocked out, before the fearsome 88mm KwK was turned on the first of the lighter tracked vehicles belonging to the 1st Rifle Brigade. On noting the ease by which these vehicles were destroyed, the remaining number were taken out with heavy fire from the pair of MG34s operated by Woll and bow gunner SS-Sturmmann Jonas. In all, by now a staggering fifteen vehicles and two 6-pounder anti tank guns were reduced to burning wrecks. Wittmann's Tiger now headed down Rue Georges Clémenceau towards the town of Villers Bocage itself, destroying three M3 Stuart 'Honey' light tanks belonging to the reconnaisance troop along thw way.


Enters the city

On entering the Villers Bocage, Wittmann encountered the four vehicles belonging to Regimental HQ. Three of these tanks were quickly taken out, including the two decoy command vehicles - Wittmann of course was not to know that these vehicles were not armed. Woll then slammed another 88mm shell into the scout car belonging to the RHQ Intelligence Officer, with the panicking infantry being showered by deadly shrapnel. Wittmann himself then grabbed the MG34 mounted on his cupola, and joined his gunner in razing the remaining half-track, that belonging to the medical officer. The disabled vehicle was blown into the middle of the road, preventing any throughway.

Not content with this, Wittmann relentlessly continued his advance, rolling westwards on the gently sloping road towards the centre of Villers-Bocage. Only a small number of enemy vehicles had managed to escape the initial barrage, among them the remaining Cromwell of the Regimental HQ of the 4th CLY commanded by Captain Patrick Dyas - who had intelligently backed his vehicle into a secluded side street. By this time 'B' Sqn., located west of Villers, had been alerted to the Tiger's presence.

As Wittmann's Tiger now moved cautiously towards the centre of town, it passed the side street where the Cromwell of Captain Dyas had been lurking; shortly after seeing the German vehicle rumble past up Rue Georges Clémenceau (today Rue Pasteur), Dyas rolled out after it, a scene witnessed by Lieutenant John L. Cloudsley-Thompson, whose own command vehicle had been one of the the three Cromwells 'brewed up' by Wittmann's Tiger. As Cloudsley-Thompson nervously watched Dyas slowly follow Wittmann up the road, Wittmann's next encounter was with a Sherman Firefly belonging to 'B' Sqn., commanded by Sergeant Stan Lockwood which had turned into Rue Georges Clémenceau from the Place Jeanne d'Arc. Having sustained a light hit from the 17-pdr cannon of Lockwood's Firefly, Wittmann half-turned into a section of wall, causing the rubble to fall down upon the British vehicle.

Amid this confusion Captain Dyas, who had up to this point kept his Cromwell at a safe distance in following Wittmann's Tiger, seized the opportunity to have a crack at his much larger adversary. The brave Dyas did manage to get two 75mm shots off against the massive German vehicle, but instead of claiming his prize he saw both shells bounce harmlessly off the Tiger's thick armour. Dyas was not to get a second chance; with Wittmann now aware of the danger the Tiger's massive gun quickly turned itself on the now helpless and exposed British vehicle, and an accurate shot from Woll succeeded in blowing Dyas clean out of his cupola, leaving him dazed but unhurt. His gunner and driver were not so fortunate, however.

Having turned away from the threat posed by the advancing Cromwells of 'B' Sqn. to the west, Wittmann passed Dyas's burning vehicle and headed back down Rue Georges Clémenceau, whereupon his Tiger was struck on the tracks - its weakest point - by a shell from a British 6-pdr anti-tank gun located in a small side alleyway. Given the earlier exchanges with far heavier Allied weaponry, that the mighty Tiger was disabled by the comparatively lightweight 6-pdr was more than ironic. With one of the drive sprockets damaged by the shell, Wittmann's vehicle ground to a halt in front of the Huet-Godefroy clothes store. Knowing that further resistance was impossible, Wittmann and his crew exited their vehicle in the hope that it might be later retrieved, and succeeded in making their way some fifteen kilometers on foot back to the HQ of the Panzer Lehr Division at Chateau d'Orbois, where Wittmann provided a thorough briefing on the situation. Later that day, tanks belonging to the Panzer Lehr initiated their own counter-attack, accompanied by the 1st Company of the 101st LSSAH led by SS-Hauptsturmführer Rolf Möbius. By this time the element of surprise had been lost, however; there was to be no repeat of that morning's rout.

In all, Wittmann's own calculations amounted to a roll call of some twenty-one enemy tanks and an unspecified number of half-tracks, troop carriers and Bren gun carriers; in what what one of the most astonishing feats of arms during the war, he had more or less single-handedly prevented the British advance. Naturally, the German propaganda agencies had a field day, and bloated kill figures were naturally thrown about: Wittman was initially credited with the single-handed destruction of 27 of the 30 British tanks that had been destroyed. Ever after a more sober analysis however, Michael Wittmann's achievement at Villers-Bocage still stands out as highly significant in the annals of armoured warfare; in one short sortie his Tiger had destroyed a staggering twenty-seven enemy vehicles, including a dozen tanks - five Cromwells, two Sherman Fireflies, three Stuarts, and two commands vehicles, one a Cromwell and the other an M4A4 Sherman.

In all some thirty British tanks were destroyed in and around Villers-Bocage on the morning of 13 June, as well as an unspecified number of other vehicles. On the German side eleven tanks were knocked out or disabled, among them six Tigers including Wittmann's Nr. 222. Three of these six vehicles were later salvaged and repaired. While Michael Wittmann may not have won the battle single-handedly as the German propaganda bulletins at the time suggested, his bold and instinctive action was without doubt the catalyst for an action that had driven the enemy out of Villers-Bocage and left them reeling and on the defensive; it was one of the very few occasions on which the Germans would have any sort of ascendancy during these last two years of the war.

 

[Soren]

Six Tigers for thirty British tanks and an equal number of halftrack, trucks etc etc is a pretty staggering feat, and this was done in Villers Bocage which mind you means very close range engagements and then proceeded into a town which is anything but tank country.

 

[Soren]

This is for all to watch, its an excellent documentary with many Tiger veterans and aces interviewed, amongst them Otto Carius, one the greatest.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8i1tFkez5Ig

Note that Otto Carious says he always kept his head outside of the turret, this was favored by most tank commanders to gain better vision.

Also amazing is his near death experience while in a trench assaulted by the Soviets, note how many times he was shot.

The rest of the series in proper order:


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-VmNadjSo4

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZvRQpHf2S0

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8i1tFkez5Ig

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2XZCJUfeb0

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSxwfBtygNE

 

[Freebird]

I'm looking for notable actions where infantry (from any side) were able to combat enemy armor enough to force a withdrawal, or reassessment of the situation. If possible, the actions without AT guns (i.e. 57mm M1, and other towed things) would be very interesting. I've found very few documentations of infantry against tanks at all, so it would be interesting to see how well some infantry did.

The US Abrams tank is so heavily armoured that it was very tough for the Iraqi's to destroy one.

One notable action was supposedly on Mar 27 {2003 presumably} when an Iraqi sniper shot the driver of the tank, which then drove off the bridge into a river, killing 3 other crew.


Abrams heavy tank proves its mettle in Iraq campaign

 

[Juha]

Heck
too many messages to read through, must get to work soon.
Soren
You give me 2 Shermans, and I took one Sherman Mk V (because good HE round)and one Sherman Mk VC for good A/T capability), so its you problem if it is diifficult to understand that in the combat unexpected might happened.
Fireflys: IIRC in June Allied troops under 21st AG had 316 Sherman Mk VCs and 2 Sherman Mk ICs, not so uncommon, Dear Soren.
And sorry for you #crack" W-SS crew, lesson 2, overconfidence is a great killer in wartime.

Juha

 

[Glider]

Six Tigers for thirty British tanks and an equal number of halftrack, trucks etc etc is a pretty staggering feat, and this was done in Villers Bocage which mind you means very close range engagements and then proceeded into a town which is anything but tank country.

14 tanks were destroyed by the solo attack which was by any measure an exceptional feat, for the loss of one Tiger.
When I say business as usual once surprise had been lost the facts are as follows.

Total losses were 6 Tigers and 5 other German Tanks (why do you always forget those?) and 30 British Tanks.
Which means that when surpise was lost in the rest of the fighting, 16 Britsh Tanks were lost for 5 Tigers and 5 other German tanks. As a loss ratio for France this was pretty good for the allies.

However we digress, the point was that he knew what he was getting into and didn't charge out blind into the attack.

 

[Glider]

The US Abrams tank is so heavily armoured that it was very tough for the Iraqi's to destroy one.

One notable action was supposedly on Mar 27 {2003 presumably} when an Iraqi sniper shot the driver of the tank, which then drove off the bridge into a river, killing 3 other crew.


Abrams heavy tank proves its mettle in Iraq campaign

Other Articles
Abrams tank showed 'vulnerability' in Iraq - Jane's Land Forces News

This relates to the first Gulf War
During the Gulf War only 18 Abrams tanks were taken out of service due to battle damage: nine were permanent losses, and another nine suffered repairable damage, mostly from mines. Not a single Abrams crewman was lost in the conflict. There were few reports of mechanical failure. US armor commanders maintained an unprecedented 90% operational readiness for their Abrams Main Battle Tanks
M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank

What I find interesting is that I understand that only now are these tanks being equipped with a telephone that will enable infantry to talk directly to the crew. This I think has been standard in the UK since the Churchill.

 

[parsifal]

well I produced a map based on the phot provided by Soren, and then fed in various force structures to try and test this theory. I was using a simulation called "west front" by Talonsoft, which allows editable scenarios to be fed into the computer.

I started with the single tank versus the 100 men scenario that we have been talking about, and it was a whitewash for the allies. I tried all manner of permutations. I gave the germans unlimited morale, and then ace shots, and then unlimted ammo. I tried German AI, I tried Allied AI, I even tried both AI. The result each time was that the tiger was destroyed.

So then I decided to modify the scenario a little to see at what point the scenario would reach a point of balance. If I reduce the amount of allied Infantry to 80 men, reduce the numbers of tanks on the allied side to just two, and increase the Germans to three Tigers, with ace crews and an armoured car (to act as an observer, plus I give them a high rating leader), I can, as a german commander and sometimes as the AI German manage to hold the town, but allied losses never exceed 15 Infantrymen. Both Allied tanks get brewed however.

Even when i set the AI to its dumbest level, the german tanks dont leave the cover of the village. However, whilst as a human player i can get into the village, and get into the buildings, I just cannot move the tanks out of the village. The Tigers just sit there taking potshots at the buildings. Generally, once i enter the structures, I suffer only single digit casualties for the remainder of the day


If my simulation is anywhere near accurate (and generally it is) I can draw a couple of conclusions. Firstly, the tanks most certainly do not cause heavy losses to the Infantry. Max losses, as i said, were 15 Infantrymen, and two tanks. With the three tank Tiger model the most losses I could inflict on the germans was one tank.

However, and conversely, the infantry have a great deal of trouble dislodging the tanks from their position. The tanks are very effective at pinning the Infantry down, and the Infantry has a great deal of trouble in closing with the tanks. Even when they do, they still have difficulty in doing anything to the tanks that cause them to move out of the village.

As expected, the smoke from the two batteries of 25 pdrs that i allocated to the allies were very effective at providing smoke cover for the Infantry.

I dont know if this test helps at all, but it is the nearest thing I could think of to actually t4esting the theories that we have been discussing. My conclusion is that the tanks are much more effective at delay than I had thought, but in no way were they able to inflict serious losses on the attacking infantry.

 

[Juha]

Hello
even if IMHO blind charge through smokescreen of unknown depth is mistake IMHO Soren's decision to move out of village was right. IMHO worst scenario to the crew of the Tiger is sitting in cover and suddenly find out that that there is enemy infantry swarming around their hiding place.
But I agree with Parsifal, that for a tank it's better to keep distance of at least 150m to nearest infantryman in open, especially in flanks and rear, at least unrtil the crew has figured out possible PIATs or Bazookas. IIRC both had max effective range against tanks appr. 100m but were not effective against frontal armour of Tiger. IIRC shell of PIAT penetrated appr 100m steel in tests but on battlefield it's ability to piece Tigers 82mm side and rear armour was unpredictable. So infantry couldn't be sure that they got an effective penetration with a single hit and crew of Tiger couldn't count on that their armour would held the blast.
IMHO even two PzIVs would have been better option than one Tiger because IMHO two tanks are at least trice as dangerous enemy than lonely tank, especially for infantry. Also PzIV with schürzen would look like Tiger, so have same moral effect and I guess would have better protected sides than Tiger against HEAT shells. I mean that I guess that the schürzen would effective protect the original armour against first generation HEAT shells and only holed if hit not blown away. Have anyone info on what effects PIAT or Bazooka shell had on German schürzen, would the schürzen stay in its place? Of course PzIV's turret front and driver's plate would be vulnerable to PIAT/Bazooka hits but if the infantry in the heat of battle thought that they were facing Tiger IMHO they would be inclined not to try head on shots.
Have anyone info on British A/T mines, were they powerful enough to break the track of a Tiger with some certainty?

Juha

 

[parsifal]

Soren, this is the map that I have redesigned, following yoou message to me, and a detailed look at the photo. I have removed the vegetation in front of the village, to give the Tigers a clearer view of the field.

If the field is 1000 metres across, then the village is about 6-800 metres, wide as well, and about 400 metres deep. These are estimates only but are the best I could do with the information yoou provided. Its not quite the same parameters as the diagram that yoou sent me, but photo analysis i did at work showed that youor estimate of distance on the photo was not correct either.

I have not worried about putting in special terrain beyond the 1250 metre mark from the village, because it is not all that relevant. The terrain that approaches the village is completely open, but it does have some low hills and trees on top of them (in places) on top of those low hills

Anyway, let me know if you are happy with the result, and I will sart the testing of this map as well.

 

[Soren]

Ok now I know what this game is (West front East front), it's like some sort of chess game, however it isn't realistic enough for this scenario Parsifal as it doesn't take into account many very important factors.

I tried the scenario in Combat Mission 3, the map being almost identical to the one I sent you, here are the details (Pictures are soon to follow)

Allied force:
British rifle company comprising of 4 x PIAT's teams, 2 x Mortars and ca. 120 men with various smallarms, plus I added 2 x US M4A3 Shermans and 2 x 25 pdr Howitzers as support.

German Force:
1 x Tiger Ausf.E with Elite crew and 50% fanatacism (Waffen SS afterall).

End result:

After about 15min of fighting in which both Shermans and both 25 pdr guns were destroyed, (despite smoke being used) the Allies starting routing. The Tiger was the whole time gradually moving forwards engaging both the infantry support. In the end the Tiger ran out of HE shells and only had very little ammunition for its MG's left, but at that point the allies were already routing.

Allied losses:
98 Casualties
2 x M4A3 Shermans destroyed
2 x Motars destroyed
2 x 25 pdr Howitzers destroyed

German losses:
None.

 

[Soren]

Heck
too many messages to read through, must get to work soon.
Soren
You give me 2 Shermans, and I took one Sherman Mk V (because good HE round)and one Sherman Mk VC for good A/T capability), so its you problem if it is diifficult to understand that in the combat unexpected might happened.
Fireflys: IIRC in June Allied troops under 21st AG had 316 Sherman Mk VCs and 2 Sherman Mk ICs, not so uncommon, Dear Soren.
And sorry for you #crack" W-SS crew, lesson 2, overconfidence is a great killer in wartime.

Juha

Poor Juha, if we were to follow the rules here you'd have NO AT or Artillery support what'so'ever! So I consider myself generous to let you have two Shermans and light artillery support as this wasn't part of what we were discussing in the first place! So now ofcourse you'd like to have a Firefly all of a sudden, clearly realizing your infantry will be cut to pieces without one, well sorry but you don't have one, so what do you do ??

As I said from the beginning the Allies were absolutely dependant on AT or artillery support when faced with German armour, otherwise it was a very onesided affair!

Now quit the patronising tone and stick to the original debate!

And about the availability of Firefly's in Normandy well according to my sources there were a mere 200 present.