Posted: Sun Sep 29, 2013 11:58 am Post subject: Re: TACTICS and STRATEGY 101
Crackwise,
Quote:
In this case: TIK has told about some historical thing and has supported it with some sources (how good or trustable is the source doesn't matter). Dima, on the other hand, counters him without giving any sources and further implies that TIK's WW2 knowledge sucks. Neutrally speaking, I think TIK has right to demand more sources or concrete things in this matter.
No, TIK has told a thing from his false interpretation of history.
Quote:
which is why Soviet infantry rode on their tanks during the Battle of Berlin, to protect them from infantry armed with Panzerfausts.
what sources did he quote supporting his words?
I can't see any proves in his questionable quote from Beevor:
Quote:
In the paragraph before where I began my quote. It's a long one which I won't copy fully, but let me take the important snippets out of it.
"...with the panzerfaust, they made their ambushes from basements and cellar windows. This was because the panzerfaust was very hard to fire accurately from above..." He goes on to say how the Volkssturm copied these tactics used by the Hitler Youth and SS. Then the next paragraph was - "Tank losses, especially in the 1st Guards Tank Army, prompted a rapid rethink of tactics. The first 'new tactic' was to cover each tank with sub-machine gunners who sprayed every window and aperture ahead as the vehicles advanced."
Quote:
Refuting an argument by simply saying "no it's not" is after all not a polite way to counter the argument.
Antony has given a good link for TIK that describes Soviet tactics in the Battle of Berlin very well:
Quote:
Well its not like they didn't use tanks in urban warfare during WW2. And probably did it with success.
http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/sovtanks/
Mind you its not like you said they didn't...
But it didn't help and he continued with
Quote:
which is why Soviet infantry rode on their tanks during the Battle of Berlin, to protect them from infantry armed with Panzerfausts.
Hope I explained my point well and my post was not unpolite to you as you seem to be a sensitive person .
Posted: Sun Sep 29, 2013 4:30 pm Post subject: Re: TACTICS and STRATEGY 101
Quote:
In this case: TIK has told about some historical thing and has supported it with some sources (how good or trustable is the source doesn't matter). Dima, on the other hand, counters him without giving any sources and further implies that TIK's WW2 knowledge sucks. Neutrally speaking, I think TIK has right to demand more sources or concrete things in this matter.
No, TIK has told a thing from his false interpretation of history.
What is his false interpretation of history? Tank riding? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_desant
Or the mere fact that they they rode there tanks during the Battle of Berlin, to protect them from infantry armed with Panzerfausts.
Or is it simply the to protect them from infantry armed with Panzerfausts part. You need to exsplain your point.Becuase if it was spelt out clearly then we could just talk about how its not a big deal.
Quote:
which is why Soviet infantry rode on their tanks during the Battle of Berlin, to protect them from infantry armed with Panzerfausts.
what sources did he quote supporting his words?
I can't see any proves in his questionable quote from Beevor:
Whats wrong with the beevor quote? Is it really that unbelievable. I can tell you dont like Anont beevor. Why? Im just wondering
Quote:
In the paragraph before where I began my quote. It's a long one which I won't copy fully, but let me take the important snippets out of it.
"...with the panzerfaust, they made their ambushes from basements and cellar windows. This was because the panzerfaust was very hard to fire accurately from above..." He goes on to say how the Volkssturm copied these tactics used by the Hitler Youth and SS. Then the next paragraph was - "Tank losses, especially in the 1st Guards Tank Army, prompted a rapid rethink of tactics. The first 'new tactic' was to cover each tank with sub-machine gunners who sprayed every window and aperture ahead as the vehicles advanced."
Quote:
Refuting an argument by simply saying "no it's not" is after all not a polite way to counter the argument.
Yea Antony has given a good link for TIK that describes Soviet tactics in the Battle of Berlin very well:
Quote:
Well its not like they didn't use tanks in urban warfare during WW2. And probably did it with success.
http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/sovtanks/
Mind you its not like you said they didn't...
Thank you. I admit, i posted that link becuase he said :
MYTH: Tanks should not be used in street fighting.
- Whilst this may be true in real life, this is not the case in Close Combat.
and that opposes my strong passionate belief that CC is the most realistic war game ever made. And that the rules governing the game are almost entirely explicable to real life. If not, then more than any other game made. What TIK said contradicted my belief. And tanks can/were used to urban warfare
But it didn't help and he continued with
Quote:
which is why Soviet infantry rode on their tanks during the Battle of Berlin, to protect them from infantry armed with Panzerfausts.
Well didn't they! Is it really that unbelievable. If your sure they didn't then fine. Thats ok..
Keeping in mind that the word "In battle" are ambiguous. and there are beater ways of correcting some one
Hope I explained my point well and my post was not unpolite to you as you seem to be a sensitive person .[/quote]
As you seem to be a sensitive person.. Nothing with that
Close Combat forums users have been having stupid augments for years. They dont troll like a 10 year old boys on youtube or gamewebsites. But instead they make overly poignant statements. Or overly vague statements. With a touch of sarcasm. (whats i thought you wee CSo even mean?) They tend to bait the other person over a period of time with this kinda stuff. Always subtle!. (this is not directed at you Dima) im just saying i see arguments and i just think to my self -How the fuck did this start? Or what are they talking about?
Im going to do this for my self. To help me understand. And mayb in the process ill help others. Question. What is the argument?
Well you can clearly see this all starts with Dima saying: They did not. Regarding: Soviet infantry rode on their tanks during the Battle of Berlin, to protect them from infantry armed with Panzerfausts.
Now if you dont mind me say.. a tad rude. A bit blunt. Mayb that doesnt matter to you.. or you dont see it that way.
There are a number of thing that could be influencing this. You can allways say that it simply doesnt matter. Or that it was not rude. Or you were just stating a fact.
IMO. (Please correct me if im wrong) you dont like the guy. The animosity can be seen here.
http://www.closecombatseries.net/CCS/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=9204&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15
and... here
Dimas says CC2 and CC3 are probably the least historical versions of CC....
Fair enough!
TIK inquired why.
Dima gives a good but brief insight to his opinion.
All hell breaks loose from AGS. I dont get it.
Dima and TIK continue with a back and forth discussion. But i still feel like you dislike him for having argued his point.
Like the "So TheImperatorKnight is your alter-ego? statement.
I think before you got annoyed (if you got annoyed) it was an interesting and enlightening discussion. Theirs nothing wrong with asking questions, You can tell he was genuine. And in the end very flexible.
CC3 is less accurate. But i would like to see something about CC2. How is that not accurate? Im curious.
Any way. Back to my points. I will continue the research :)
After the "they did not comment" TIK proceeded to say they did.
Dima said where do you see anything in this quote from Beevor proving your words (below)?
Imo it would of been better just to say to him him what you thought was wrong. Instead of asking him why does he think that, Its leading and drags it on. Its temping to do. I have done it iin real life. It happens when dealing with really ilogical ways of thinking. But in this case i don't think its beneficiary . So far it seems like the whole thing is about fucking riding on tanks.
Or alternatively riding tanks in battle. Or riding on them for the sake of defending from rocket attacks. 1 of the 3. I dont no what one.
You said: cool, where is the picture there showing "said tactics" in combat?
Well you dont think its cool.
This is the picture.
http://www.soviethammer.net/blog/911419-is-2-in-action/
Obviously it appears to me that you dont think the picture is NOT showing the"said tactics" in combat?
Well you can clearly see men riding the tank. So that cant be denied.
But im sure you mean some thing more specific.
TIK continues to talk about tank decent. A well known tactic.
He quotes Antony Beevor
Dima says
where do you see anything in this quote from Beevor proving your words (below)?
(wow when i spell it all out slowly i started to get it)
which is why Soviet infantry rode on their tanks during the Battle of Berlin, to protect them from infantry armed with Panzerfausts.
Thats what its all about. Dima is homing onto that statement.
My theory is - TIK believes the discussion is about whether or not troops mounted tanks into battle.
While Dimas is: which is why Soviet infantry rode on their tanks during the Battle of Berlin, to protect them from infantry armed with Panzerfausts: being a false statement in some way.
It being false in a way that i will explain in a moment.
Dima said
btw, quoting Beevor as a reference for the EF is just showing your level of WW2 knowledge.
I dont no what EF is. But i don't no why you feel the need to say that. Its a little bit rude. (thats if being rude maters to you) or if you consider it being rude. And of course theirs always the augment that TIK deserves your rudeness. IMO he does not. There are allot worst ppl out there than him. (not that i really no him, but hey) and i view rudeness as the ultimate thing. I allso believe in a eye for an eye. But thats just me. And in the context of real life. Not a forum.
Annnnnyyyyy way.. Lets continue. Im learning from this. I hate to ruin this good thread. But theres no way im not posting this. I have spent to much time on it.
OK.
You then said:
no, i don't see any soldiers riding tanks in combat, do you?
As if you do see such prove following that link, what can you tell about these pics:
[/quote]
The point of these photos is that they are simply riding the tanks on the way to a battle. Not during a battle.
(correct me if im wrong)
You should of just said this. Sop the deliberate confusion.
Instead of baiting him on and on.
I get the whole "you are stupid"look how stupid he is" style of arguing.
But its unnecessary.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I think people realize that allot of people are in a rush when they read forums. I my self have only just started to comprehend how fucking simple this argument is.
So why is it such a big argument? Because of that! Back a forth bull shit.
Mayb its not a big argument and its just my imagination.. but fuck!
Any way...
TIK continues.
Ok, Dima
Also, instead of picking holes in my thread, are you going to contribute and give some tactics and strategies to help others? I'm sure someone of your calabre has some good multiplayer tactics to share.
I think that he just wants just start of with a clean slate. He wants to get on topic. (Something im not doing after i post this. And im sorry) Dare i say it. But i think you were some what picking holes...
Pzt_Crackwise makes a great comment.
Then Dima makes a big comment. With heeps of quotes. Seen above.
(See the top of my post) If the info i say at the top contradicts the revelations i make at the middle and end. Then im sorry. I cant be bothered changing it.
MIND MY SPELLING, IM TIRED AND IM NOT GOING TO PROOF READ. MAYB L8er
THE END.
In this case: TIK has told about some historical thing and has supported it with some sources (how good or trustable is the source doesn't matter). Dima, on the other hand, counters him without giving any sources and further implies that TIK's WW2 knowledge sucks. Neutrally speaking, I think TIK has right to demand more sources or concrete things in this matter.
No, TIK has told a thing from his false interpretation of history.
Quote:
which is why Soviet infantry rode on their tanks during the Battle of Berlin, to protect them from infantry armed with Panzerfausts.
what sources did he quote supporting his words?
I can't see any proves in his questionable quote from Beevor:
Quote:
In the paragraph before where I began my quote. It's a long one which I won't copy fully, but let me take the important snippets out of it.
"...with the panzerfaust, they made their ambushes from basements and cellar windows. This was because the panzerfaust was very hard to fire accurately from above..." He goes on to say how the Volkssturm copied these tactics used by the Hitler Youth and SS. Then the next paragraph was - "Tank losses, especially in the 1st Guards Tank Army, prompted a rapid rethink of tactics. The first 'new tactic' was to cover each tank with sub-machine gunners who sprayed every window and aperture ahead as the vehicles advanced."
Quote:
Refuting an argument by simply saying "no it's not" is after all not a polite way to counter the argument.
Antony has given a good link for TIK that describes Soviet tactics in the Battle of Berlin very well:
Quote:
Well its not like they didn't use tanks in urban warfare during WW2. And probably did it with success.
http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/sovtanks/
Mind you its not like you said they didn't...
But it didn't help and he continued with
Quote:
which is why Soviet infantry rode on their tanks during the Battle of Berlin, to protect them from infantry armed with Panzerfausts.
Hope I explained my point well and my post was not unpolite to you as you seem to be a sensitive person .
Ok, speaking as someone with a 2:1 Degree in History, the first thing they teach you is not to trust sources on the internet, especially wikipedia or any site that doesn't have the .edu suffix. Such sites are untrustworthy because anyone and their mother can write anything they want and they don't have to back up what they say. Despite this, I know you'll be stubborn and not believe me on this point so let me quote from Wikipedia themselves -
Quote:
They also put men armed with panzerfausts in cellar windows to ambush tanks as they moved down the streets. These tactics were quickly adopted by the Hitler Youth and the First World War Volkssturm veterans.[19]
To counter these tactics, Soviet sub-machine gunners rode the tanks and sprayed every doorway and window, but this meant the tank could not traverse its turret quickly. The other solution was to rely on heavy howitzers (152 mm and 203 mm) firing over open sights to blast defended buildings and to use anti-aircraft guns against defenders posted on the higher floors.[19]
Here's the Link to the quote. You'll also note that Wiki actually references Beevor!
Even so, I know you'll still despute this. You'll probably say you can't trust Anthony Beevor or something, even though he is a very prestigious historian who wrote great books like Stalingrad, Berlin and D-Day. But he references his primary sources in his books and is very well regarded as a historian, unlike yourself who hasn't provided anything to dispute the evidence given.
If that's not good enough for you, maybe you can provide evidence that Soviet troops didn't ride tanks during the Battle of Berlin? Or better, you could travel back in time with a camera and take pictures that proves Beevor and his primary sources wrong. Or even better, you could just admit you were wrong and we can drop it - that would be so much easier.
As I said on page 4 of the Gameplay or Historical Accuracy thread - "I'm man enough to own up to my mistakes." And there's no shame in you admitting your mistake, Dima. It would be better than digging yourself a bigger hole.
I think a person in the CC community has the right to ask questions and comment on others' posts, regardless of how "new" they are in the community or how "well established" they are.
In this case: TIK has told about some historical thing and has supported it with some sources (how good or trustable is the source doesn't matter). Dima, on the other hand, counters him without giving any sources and further implies that TIK's WW2 knowledge sucks. Neutrally speaking, I think TIK has right to demand more sources or concrete things in this matter.
Refuting an argument by simply saying "no it's not" is after all not a polite way to counter the argument.
Ok, Dima Also, instead of picking holes in my thread, are you going to contribute and give some tactics and strategies to help others? I'm sure someone of your calabre has some good multiplayer tactics to share.
There are several similar links done by... for the same reason.
Drawing lines on a map is great, however it only shows some tactics, but doesn't discuss them. It's an AAR not a topic on tactics and strategies, and only refers to that one game. And although it's good to read, it doesn't teach a new player specific strategies or gives them tactics to use. You do talk about tactics etc later, but again they're specific to that game and not in general, plus you have to go through pages to get snippets of info.
The purpose of this thread is not to say "I've outflanked them" but to say "this is the best way to outflank them" and put them all in one location so everyone can see it. But obviously this thread is being (unsurprisingly) derailed.
Posted: Sun Sep 29, 2013 4:50 pm Post subject: Re: TACTICS and STRATEGY 101
Keep in mind that:
which is why Soviet infantry rode on their tanks during the Battle of Berlin, to protect them from infantry armed with Panzerfausts
You are wrong
is ambiguous.
Wait until he explains how your wrong. Or what part of the statement is wrong.
There are 3 ways you could be wrong. But he hasn't specified. What way.
I cant tell you because i don't no whether or not you are wrong. Its just so stupid... My advice. keep updating this page. So far there have been good links.
http://web.archive.org/web/20010509004213/http://user.tninet.se/~tnt654c/pages/entre.htm like this one. And then there Stawas very... interesting interpretation
This forums a wealth of information.
Posted: Sun Sep 29, 2013 4:57 pm Post subject: Re: TACTICS and STRATEGY 101
Quote:
So far it seems like the whole thing is about fucking riding on tanks.
Or alternatively riding tanks in battle. Or riding on them for the sake of defending from rocket attacks. 1 of the 3. I dont no what one.
...
My theory is - TIK believes the discussion is about whether or not troops mounted tanks into battle.
While Dimas is: which is why Soviet infantry rode on their tanks during the Battle of Berlin, to protect them from infantry armed with Panzerfausts: being a false statement in some way.
It being false in a way that i will explain in a moment.
Yes, as I said in my previous post, Dima is trying to derail the topic. His reasoning: I think he doesn't like me on a personal level.
This is why I'll keep expanding the first post to include more tactics and strategies, so if anyone wants to contribute, please do and I'll copy your tactics into there.
And just to be clear, Beevor's quote says they (for the Battle of Berlin) rode on their tanks so they could act as spotters for Panzerfausts and other AT units. Once they spotted them, they'd fire their weapons at the area to stop the enemy from hitting the tank. It's purely to defend them from "rocket attacks". They probably didn't ride them in battle for any other reason than that, although like your pictures show, they did ride them to battle and then dismounted.
Quote:
I dont no what EF is.
Eastern Front. He's saying Beevor can't be trusted as a source for the Eastern Front, despite that the historian in question has written a few books on the Eastern Front and is one of the best historians out there imho
Quote:
I think that he just wants just start of with a clean slate. He wants to get on topic. (Something im not doing after i post this. And im sorry) Dare i say it. But i think you were some what picking holes...
I do. I wanted this thread to be a useful source of information for all players, new and old. Sadly, it shows how selfish some members of this community are.
However, some people in this community are trying to help - yourself included Anthony. I appreciate it, so thank you. And though not all of us always see eye to eye, maybe we can persevere and help those members/lurkers out there that do need our help.
Posted: Sun Sep 29, 2013 5:06 pm Post subject: Re: TACTICS and STRATEGY 101
Just as a side note, I think that there are two things being confused here. The tactic described as "Tank Desant" was used, but it's not what Beevor is describing. Tank Desant was just acting like motorized infantry. Most armies did this. German FJ traveled in tanks during the battle of Normandy, for example. But when they where near the combat front, they dismounted and acted like infantry.
As for the actual tactic described by Beevor, I won't say anything because he is not one of my favorite writers...
Posted: Sun Sep 29, 2013 8:25 pm Post subject: Re: TACTICS and STRATEGY 101
TIK,
Quote:
Ok, speaking as someone with a 2:1 Degree in History, the first thing they teach you is not to trust sources on the internet, especially wikipedia or any site that doesn't have the .edu suffix. Such sites are untrustworthy because anyone and their mother can write anything they want and they don't have to back up what they say. Despite this, I know you'll be stubborn and not believe me on this point so let me quote from Wikipedia themselves -
Quote: <Select> <Expand>
They also put men armed with panzerfausts in cellar windows to ambush tanks as they moved down the streets. These tactics were quickly adopted by the Hitler Youth and the First World War Volkssturm veterans.[19]
To counter these tactics, Soviet sub-machine gunners rode the tanks and sprayed every doorway and window, but this meant the tank could not traverse its turret quickly. The other solution was to rely on heavy howitzers (152 mm and 203 mm) firing over open sights to blast defended buildings and to use anti-aircraft guns against defenders posted on the higher floors.[19]
Here's the Link to the quote. You'll also note that Wiki actually references Beevor!
Ok, now I see a support to your words by Beevor, thank you.
Quote:
If that's not good enough for you, maybe you can provide evidence that Soviet troops didn't ride tanks during the Battle of Berlin? Or better, you could travel back in time with a camera and take pictures that proves Beevor and his primary sources wrong. Or even better, you could just admit you were wrong and we can drop it - that would be so much easier.
well US Army Intellegence bulletin circa June 1945 (that Antony gave a link to) tells us a different story, don't you think?
http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/sovtanks/ "While attacking in the direction of the Ringbahn (loop railroad), the tank battalion was stopped in the northern part of Mecklenburgische Strasse by a reinforced concrete wall 8 meters wide and 2.5 meters high. The barricade was protected by strong machine gun and automatic fire and also by antitank grenade launchers installed in houses at the barricade itself. There were no detours. The commander decided to break through the obstacle. [b]He first sent out a group of submachine gunners whose mission was to annihilate the grenade launchers, which was accomplished in a short period of time. Then 122-millimeter guns opened fire on the houses where the enemy firing points were located. The tanks, advancing simultaneously with the artillery, also opened fire on the buildings on the other side of the barricade. Under cover of the artillery and tank fire assault engineers climbed up to the barricade with explosives. After three explosions in the barricade, a breach was made through which tanks and infantry rushed. The well organized mutual support guaranteed the success of the attack." [/b]
Of course for Beevor (and you as well apparently as you are so willingly accepts this stupidness) the more casualties are sustained by the RA infantrymen the better is for blood-thirsty Stalin and NVKD rear guards but for the normal researcher it's obvious that a single MG or StG firing from any window could mow down a full section of "tank riders" in no time and that's why the RA soldiers didn't do that:
Quote:
which is why Soviet infantry rode on their tanks during the Battle of Berlin, to protect them from infantry armed with Panzerfausts
I will even tell you another thing, a shot from 122mm gun with muzzle break (not speaking baout 152mm with MB) would blow away anyone from an AVF using such gun unless they are behind a turret.
Quote:
Even so, I know you'll still despute this. You'll probably say you can't trust Anthony Beevor or something, even though he is a very prestigious historian who wrote great books like Stalingrad, Berlin and D-Day. But he references his primary sources in his books and is very well regarded as a historian, unlike yourself who hasn't provided anything to dispute the evidence given
Beevor's Stalingrad and Berlin are just a bunch of myths and dirty propaganda boiled with real facts to look like a comprehensive research.
On the contrary David Glantz or Steven Newton are the real western EF historians, and AFAIK they don't praise Beevor.
Quote:
And just to be clear, Beevor's quote says they (for the Battle of Berlin) rode on their tanks so they could act as spotters for Panzerfausts and other AT units. Once they spotted them, they'd fire their weapons at the area to stop the enemy from hitting the tank. It's purely to defend them from "rocket attacks". They probably didn't ride them in battle for any other reason than that,
yes, thank you for nailing it - now your level of WW2 knowledge is clearly seen.
and yes, both you and your favorite historian Beevor are out of track here.
Quote:
As I said on page 4 of the Gameplay or Historical Accuracy thread - "I'm man enough to own up to my mistakes." And there's no shame in you admitting your mistake, Dima. It would be better than digging yourself a bigger hole.
yes, I believe it's a good time for you to start saying that again.
And btw,
Quote:
In the paragraph before where I began my quote. It's a long one which I won't copy fully, but let me take the important snippets out of it.
"...with the panzerfaust, they made their ambushes from basements and cellar windows. This was because the panzerfaust was very hard to fire accurately from above..." He goes on to say how the Volkssturm copied these tactics used by the Hitler Youth and SS. Then the next paragraph was - "Tank losses, especially in the 1st Guards Tank Army, prompted a rapid rethink of tactics. The first 'new tactic' was to cover each tank with sub-machine gunners who sprayed every window and aperture ahead as the vehicles advanced."
1st GTA lost 104 AVFs as total write offs in the streets of Berlin (and 232 in a total from the beginning of Berlin operation), of them 4% were lost by Infantry AT weapons - I hope you can calculate the number of tanks lost.
2st GTA lost also 104 AVFs as total write offs in the streets of Berlin (and 209 in a total from the beginning of Berlin operation), of them 17 were lost by Infantry AT weapons.
3rd GTA lost 114 AVFs as total write offs in the streets of Berlin (and 204 in a total from the beginning of Berlin operation), of them around 25% were lost by Infantry AT weapons as it acted mainly alone wothout support of intantry units
Why then:
"Tank losses, especially in the 1st Guards Tank Army, prompted a rapid rethink of tactics. The first 'new tactic' was to cover each tank with sub-machine gunners who sprayed every window and aperture ahead as the vehicles advanced." (c) Beevor.
funny .
Last edited by Dima on Sun Sep 29, 2013 9:16 pm; edited 1 time in total
Posted: Sun Sep 29, 2013 8:49 pm Post subject: Re: TACTICS and STRATEGY 101
"Tank losses, especially in the 1st Guards Tank Army, prompted a rapid rethink of tactics. The first 'new tactic' was to cover each tank with sub-machine gunners who sprayed every window and aperture ahead as the vehicles advanced"
Is this being argued against? I read Beevor's book as well but I don't remember that quote. I am going to say he didn't totally fabricate that. Lets give him the benefit of the doubt he found something that supports it but lets also say he overstated it.
Can we say for sure it never happened? No.
Is it plausible that it did happen? I think so.
Was this tactic developed into doctrine and used widely? No, not as far as I know.
I am sure if someone were to dig deep enough, they would find evidence that this tactic was used on a very small and limited scale, very late in the war for a very brief amount of time.
Join Discord for technical support and online games.
Posted: Sun Sep 29, 2013 9:02 pm Post subject: Re: TACTICS and STRATEGY 101
Mooxe,
Quote:
Is this being argued against? I read Beevor's book as well but I don't remember that quote. I am going to say he didn't totally fabricate that. Lets give him the benefit of the doubt he found something that supports it but lets also say he overstated it.
no, initially the argument was about this statement by TIK
Quote:
which is why Soviet infantry rode on their tanks during the Battle of Berlin, to protect them from infantry armed with Panzerfausts
but obviously Beevor is a source for that so yes. But I didn't say he fabricated it, that's just a false interpretation of SMG spotters for PzF-armed-enemy. In reality the RA didn't make a difference between PzF and RpzB (let's call them RPG) and even PzF had a range of 100-120m in Berlin so tank riders(c)Beevor would not help.
Quote:
Can we say for sure it never happened? No
The tactics was to employ forward patrols to scout the area in around 200m around a tank in order to spot and engage RPG gunners.
Quote:
I am sure if someone were to dig deep enough, they would find evidence that this tactic was used on a very small and limited scale, very late in the war for a very brief amount of time.
actually right on the contrary the tank riders tactics was used early in the war but was more or less forbidden due to heavy casualties of riders caused by enemy MG fire and splinters from close mortar/arty explosions.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
In August of 2004, Zappi, Homba, Bambam887, RedScorpion and MOOXE all pitched
in to create this Close Combat site. I would to thank all the people who have visited
and found this site to thier liking. I hope you had time to check out some
of the great Close Combat mods and our forums. I'd also like to thank
all the members of our volunteer staff that have helped over
the years, and all our users that contributed to this site!
.
.jpg)
[/quote]
Also, instead of picking holes in my thread, are 
