Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

LordofHats wrote:There is actually a habit in German logistics to count any tank disabled in battle as "destroyed" regardless of whether it was still functional. As a result, large numbers of German tanks listed as "destroyed" were actually just fixed and put back to service. Even tanks actually destroyed tended to be retrieved from the field, especially early in the war, and repaired back to serviceable condition.

The USSR did it too.

Not to mention both sides massively inflating the number of tanks killed

Battle Loss vs Battle destroyed

LordofHats wrote:I forget exactly when and where it happened, but on one occasion a single Russian KV stopped supplies to the 7th Panzer Division for 72 hours. The KV had rolled up through German lines before breaking down in a swamp, that happened to overlook the road the Germans were using to bring up supplies.

The Germans were unable to penetrate its armor with AT rounds and ultimately resorted to using dynamite to destroy the KV. It took them three attempts to finally destroy the KV, and even then, the crew had been killed by the blast of the explosion bouncing off the tank. The KV itself was fine.

Great story, thanks for that. Sums up the war perfectly, especially with the KV breaking down and still being a gak to destroy


Automatically Appended Next Post:

youbedead wrote:This is similar for both sides, commanders claimed a kill if they fired at a tank and it stopped moving, but it's really hard to actually destroy a tank beyond all repair


In addition if found the most usefull Ehow artivle ever http://www.ehow.com/how_8461680_destroy-tiger-tank.html

In addition to repairing tanks and putting them back into the field, they would also take apart destroyed tanks and scavenge parts.

There was also a lot of looted tanks, particularly Germans putting T-34s into the field.

It's one reason why possession of the battlefield was so critical after an engagement.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jihadin wrote:Battle Loss vs Battle destroyed

The Soviets, much like the Germans had before them, learned that single AT pieces were prone to being isolated and destroyed, so they began to deploy AT guns in groups at the company level.

This concentration of firepower was effective and of itself, but quickly led to a new tactic of its own. It became common that, when first firing on German tanks from an ambushing position, all guns in the unit would be ordered to concentrate on the lead tank, or whichever tank was most likely to be the command unit. They were aiming to hit this one tank over and over again, because they didn't want to just take it out but destroy it utterly or achieve a 'K' kill. This would maximise the chance that the officer would be killed and unable to co-ordinate any retaliation, at which point the guns could reload and begin picking off the other tanks.

This concept is still in use in in modern militaries today. Some things you need to take out of the fight, some things you need to wipe off the face of the Earth.

@seb Of the sources I've read it seem that that practice really wasn't as prevalent as it has been made out to be. There was probably around 1,000 captured tanks that were used against the soviets at most and some sources show even lower numbers. It's possible that as the eastern war progressed and fuel shortages become more common that the german were unwilling to use precious fuel on 'inferior' t-34, or it could be that there simply wasn't that many captured though I find that hard to beleive

youbedead wrote:@seb Of the sources I've read it seem that that practice really wasn't as prevalent as it has been made out to be. There was probably around 1,000 captured tanks that were used against the soviets at most and some sources show even lower numbers. It's possible that as the eastern war progressed and fuel shortages become more common that the german were unwilling to use precious fuel on 'inferior' t-34, or it could be that there simply wasn't that many captured though I find that hard to beleive

I suspect the unwillingness is less to do with using fuel in an inferior tank (considering that Panthers and Tigers made up a relatively small portion of German tanks, and the T-34 was superior to every beneath that, and this recognised widely among German command) and more to do with having to train a crew in a new vehicle, and maintain supplies for a vehicle you don't even manufacture parts for.

Even then 1,000 looted tanks is a significant number. There wasn't much more than a 1,000 Tiger tanks built during the whole war, so for the average soldier you were as likely to see a looted T-34 as you were to see a Tiger. And we all know how much people go on about Tigers.

That said, looted vehicles get stupidly overstated in FoW circles. One club I went to for a few games, this fellow spent the whole time talking to me about how he should be able to have looted Tigers in his Russian army, because there was this one Soviet looted Tiger that blew up some ridiculous amount of stuff. I remember I finished my game, that wasn't even against that guy, and when I came back the next week he picked up exactly where he'd left off, like mid-sentence.

I suppose if you compare the the number of tigers produced to t-34's captured then yeah it does come to a significant amount, but on a grand scale it was fairly inconsequential and really just made for good anecdotes.

As for the FoW guy tell him that you get use the ark of the covenant in your ss army, after-all there was totally some nazi's looking for it.

-In 53 B.C. Marcus Licinius Crassus set out go Parthia with 40,000 men. He frond the Parthin's near Carrhae. The Parthians had 11,000 men, all on horse. 1,000 Cataphrats and 10,000 archers. Crassus was whipped out. He was the richest man in Rome. The Parthians pourd gold down his throat.

-In Guam you can scuba dive and touch a WW1 wreck with one hand and a WW2 wreck with the other. The German-built, Russian-operated SMS Cormoran (formerly the Rjasan) and the Japanese Tokai Maru-both passenger/cargo freighters-lie atop one another in the bay.

-More US servicemen died in the WW2 Army Air Corps than the Marine Corps. While completing the required 25 missions your chance of being killed was 71%.

-A Roman century did not have 100 men as its name suggests. A Roman century was made up of 80 men. Some historians believe various support personnel made up the additional 20, though tied more to the legion than the century. On a similar note, a Roman legion of the late Republican/early empire era was comprised of the following men and units:
Tent Section: Smallest unit consisting of 8 men.
Century: 80 men made up of 10 tent sections.
Cohort: 480 men made up of 6 centuries. The first cohort had approximately twice as many men but one less century (the cohort was considered the smallest 'deployable' unit).
Legion: 10 cohorts numbered I thru X made a legion. With the double strength first cohort and 120 cavalry a legion had 5,240 fighting men. Around 760 officers and support personnel brought the total to 6,000.

-There were 34 sailors who could say they were at both the beginning and the end of the US Pacific theater of war. They were stationed at Pearl when it was attacked, and then they were stationed on the Missouri when the surrender was signed.

Several people have played themselves in "War Movies", Including Audie Murphy (To Hell and Back) and Pancho Villa (Life of Villa)

youbedead wrote:As for the FoW guy tell him that you get use the ark of the covenant in your ss army, after-all there was totally some nazi's looking for it.

My army is Soviet as well. I think maybe he thought I'd be sympathetic to him or something. Or everyone else had already heard his story a dozen times. I don't know, he was just a weird guy.

And yeah, on a grand scale they weren't that big. Because, well, there's really no scale grander than the Eastern Front.

-There is a sunken German battlefleet in Scapa Flow. Some of the metal from the fleet was used to create the chambers to test for levels radioactivity in people. This was necessary because at the time so many nuclear bombs had been set off there was enough added radioactivity in the air to contaminate any steel made after a certain time due to the air cooling used when smelting it. However these days we have developed equipment capable of filtering out the background radiation.

Makarov wrote:-In 53 B.C. Marcus Licinius Crassus set out go Parthia with 40,000 men. He frond the Parthin's near Carrhae. The Parthians had 11,000 men, all on horse. 1,000 Cataphrats and 10,000 archers. Crassus was whipped out. He was the richest man in Rome. The Parthians pourd gold down his throat.

Though a good story, Crassus' golden melty death is not attested outside of the histories of Cassius Dio, who wrote in the 3rd century AD, more than 300 year after the events he described, and who, to put it nicely, wasn't immune to the temptation to invent interesting details. What is interesting to add is that Crassus' second-in-command, who succeeded in salvaging a portion (estimates vary as to its size, ancient writers tended to exaggerate numbers, even of their own sides' defeats) of the Roman army, was none other than Gaius Cassius Longinus, who would go on to lead the conspiracy to assassinate Julius Caesar.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

4oursword wrote:It wasn't his original name, though. He was born Lars Johan Yngve Lannerbäck.

Which is why it's fething annoying. He persumably mangled his name like that on purpouse.

He did. Besides all that, he's an awesome guitarist.

During the Philippine-American War, US Marines were issued thick, leather collars to combat the high casualty rate due to neck wounds and decapitations...and the nickname "Leathernecks" stuck around.

mega_bassist wrote:During the Philippine-American War, US Marines were issued thick, leather collars to combat the high casualty rate due to neck wounds and decapitations...and the nickname "Leathernecks" stuck around.

Were they fighting Phillapino Ninjas?

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

mega_bassist wrote:During the Philippine-American War, US Marines were issued thick, leather collars to combat the high casualty rate due to neck wounds and decapitations...and the nickname "Leathernecks" stuck around.

Were they fighting Phillapino Ninjas?

The stock predates the Phillipines conflict and was worn by Royal Marines of the period as well. I cut and pasted this from somewhere, but it's factual and I didn't have to type it.
"Leatherneck: The nickname Leatherneck has become a universal moniker for a U.S. Marine. The term originated from the wide and stiff leather neck-piece that was part of the Marine Corps uniform from 1798 until 1872. This leather collar, called The Stock, was roughly four inches high and had two purposes. In combat, it protected the neck and jugular vein from cutlasses slashes. On parade, it kept a Marine's head erect. The term is so widespread that it has become the name of the Marine Corps Association monthly magazine, LEATHERNECK."

Ever seen a highly PO phillapino with a machete?

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

mega_bassist wrote:During the Philippine-American War, US Marines were issued thick, leather collars to combat the high casualty rate due to neck wounds and decapitations...and the nickname "Leathernecks" stuck around.

Were they fighting Phillapino Ninjas?

No but they often used swords, and were often very drugged up. It was one the reasons why the US military switched from .38 to .45 caliber for their pistols.

The Phillipino war was really more of a crime against humanity than a war...

Makarov wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

mega_bassist wrote:During the Philippine-American War, US Marines were issued thick, leather collars to combat the high casualty rate due to neck wounds and decapitations...and the nickname "Leathernecks" stuck around.

Were they fighting Phillapino Ninjas?

No but they often used swords, and were often very drugged up. It was one the reasons why the US military switched from .38 to .45 caliber for their pistols.

You mean switched BACK. The 38 Long Colt in the double action Colt M1892 replaced the 45 Long Colt of the M1873 Single Action Army, which was called back to service for the Phillipines. The Army also commissioned some 4,000 M1902 Colts in 45LC(which was simply a contract production of M1878 New Model Army(Double Action Army) serialzed for inventory). The anemic performance of the M1892 and 38LC led to the Thompson-LaGarde tests in 1904, leading to a minimum caliber restriction of .45. Browning had been developing a .41 caliber round for his automatic pistols but the new requirements cut off the development of a 10mm Browning cartridge. The 45 ACP provided comparable ballastics to the 45LC but a lesser known fact is that until the introduction of the 357 Magnum in 1935 the 45LC was the undisputed king of handgun rounds. 62 years of dominance from an Antebellum round is pretty impressive.

AustonT wrote:

Makarov wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

mega_bassist wrote:During the Philippine-American War, US Marines were issued thick, leather collars to combat the high casualty rate due to neck wounds and decapitations...and the nickname "Leathernecks" stuck around.

Were they fighting Phillapino Ninjas?

No but they often used swords, and were often very drugged up. It was one the reasons why the US military switched from .38 to .45 caliber for their pistols.

You mean switched BACK. The 38 Long Colt in the double action Colt M1892 replaced the 45 Long Colt of the M1873 Single Action Army, which was called back to service for the Phillipines. The Army also commissioned some 4,000 M1902 Colts in 45LC(which was simply a contract production of M1878 New Model Army(Double Action Army) serialzed for inventory). The anemic performance of the M1892 and 38LC led to the Thompson-LaGarde tests in 1904, leading to a minimum caliber restriction of .45. Browning had been developing a .41 caliber round for his automatic pistols but the new requirements cut off the development of a 10mm Browning cartridge. The 45 ACP provided comparable ballastics to the 45LC but a lesser known fact is that until the introduction of the 357 Magnum in 1935 the 45LC was the undisputed king of handgun rounds. 62 years of dominance from an Antebellum round is pretty impressive.

But the 45 ACP has surpassed that, with 101 years of service.

The 45 acp has never been the top of the heap in anything, it is a passable service round and little else. At best it runs second fiddle to the 9x19mm's 110 years of service.
You'll also note I said "dominance" not "service." In the hands of competent reloaders in modern handguns the 45ACP struggles to remain relevant and always has, the 45LC still carries a lot of punch in modern handguns, it comes in somewhat behind the 357 which in turn is out performed by the 10mm (full power) and 41 and 44 Magnums. It still makes it into the top ten most powerful hand gun cartridges in the world; against the likes of the 500SW Mag and 454 Casull (itself little more than a strengthened 45LC).

GalacticDefender wrote:The Phillipino war was really more of a crime against humanity than a war...

Indeed, the whole thing was an atrocity committed for the sake of Imperialism and yet many Phillapinos now name their kids Douglas after a certain famous American soldier. I guess it's a case of what have you done for me lately....

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

GalacticDefender wrote:The Phillipino war was really more of a crime against humanity than a war...

Indeed, the whole thing was an atrocity committed for the sake of Imperialism and yet many Phillapinos now name their kids Douglas after a certain famous American soldier. I guess it's a case of what have you done for me lately....

The Phillapinos hated the Americans for decades, they though conditions could never get worse. Till the Japanese came...

History Fact:

Never say it can't get worse. Cause a decade or so later, it's gonna bite you in the

The German Cruiser Emden during the first World War often fitted a false funnel, giving it four. Freighters would then think she was a British crusier, until the Emden got too close, but then it was too late.

Every surviving officer and crewman of the Emden received a special medal from the Kaiser to commermorate their final cruise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote:History Fact:

Never say it can't get worse. Cause a decade or so later, it's gonna bite you in the

I thought for sure this would be a PROTIP instead of a History fact. I thought I knew you, but you surprised me yet again!

Here's a good one, Mr Matt Taylor (b.1979) from Middlesbrough is easily the toughest man ever to wear the green beret, his deeds are legendary and his allies roar his name with vigour, whilst the enemies of his nation whisper it fearfully to terrify their children.

mattyrm wrote: Here's a good one, Mr Matt Taylor (b.1979) from Middlesbrough is easily the toughest man ever to wear the green beret, his deeds are legendary and his allies roar his name with vigour, whilst the enemies of his nation whisper it fearfully to terrify their children.

I call shenanigans

mattyrm wrote: Here's a good one, Mr Matt Taylor (b.1979) from Middlesbrough is easily the toughest man ever to wear the green beret, his deeds are legendary and his allies roar his name with vigour, whilst the enemies of his nation whisper it fearfully to terrify their children.

I used to get nightmares about that guy.

mattyrm wrote: Here's a good one, Mr Matt Taylor (b.1979) from Middlesbrough is easily the toughest man ever to wear the green beret, his deeds are legendary and his allies roar his name with vigour, whilst the enemies of his nation whisper it fearfully to terrify their children.

Real tough guys don't run around with a poofy hat they stole from some parisienne hooker.

helgrenze wrote:

mattyrm wrote: Here's a good one, Mr Matt Taylor (b.1979) from Middlesbrough is easily the toughest man ever to wear the green beret, his deeds are legendary and his allies roar his name with vigour, whilst the enemies of his nation whisper it fearfully to terrify their children.

Real tough guys don't run around with a poofy hat they stole from some parisienne hooker.

That's right! They buy thier own!