Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

All in the Mind? The psychological effect of Tiger Tanks and 88ís

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Cult Icon View Post

    "I was there" doesn't mean "I am right". Especially about large scale phenomenon that is beyond any one man's experience...

    The author Zaloga, who examines a lot of US primary information has also mentioned the misreporting of 88mm and Tigers as a collective habit. I collect a lot of secondary material myself and have seen this & generally ignore it when I see it.

    If 88mm guns were say, 5% of the German artillery pieces in Normandy then accounts do not reflect this proportion.
    I personally believe Tiger was a catch all term for any enemy tanks in most reports.

    As for rounds fired, you are 33 times more likely to be shot at by a 75mm PaK, and two hundred times more likely to be shot at by a 105mm leFH than an 88mm (all types).
    How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
    Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post

      I personally believe Tiger was a catch all term for any enemy tanks in most reports.

      As for rounds fired, you are 33 times more likely to be shot at by a 75mm PaK, and two hundred times more likely to be shot at by a 105mm leFH than an 88mm (all types).
      That is all well and good. However, it does not prove your position regarding 88mms or why the single KIA in lmc1's unit proves they were all bark and no bite.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by JustAGuy View Post

        That is all well and good. However, it does not prove your position regarding 88mms or why the single KIA in lmc1's unit proves they were all bark and no bite.
        Er..... if only one person is KIA in an infantry unit, it has not seen much combat. Most infantry battalions regularly have over 100% losses, ie more losses than their initial manpower strength. Further, if casualties are caused by enemy artillery, it will almost certainly be by a 105mm round, over 200 times more likely in fact..

        How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
        Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post

          Er..... if only one person is KIA in an infantry unit, it has not seen much combat. Most infantry battalions regularly have over 100% losses, ie more losses than their initial manpower strength. Further, if casualties are caused by enemy artillery, it will almost certainly be by a 105mm round, over 200 times more likely in fact..
          Again, what does this have to do with the 88mm was more bark than bite thing?

          Comment


          • Hi JAG, can't you see mate, he is, even if his quotes are strictly out of a book, determined to prove me wrong. In which case you are wasting your time. Cheers, lcm1
            'By Horse by Tram'.


            I was in when they needed 'em,not feeded 'em.
            " Youuu 'Orrible Lot!"

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post

              Er..... if only one person is KIA in an infantry unit, it has not seen much combat. Most infantry battalions regularly have over 100% losses, ie more losses than their initial manpower strength. Further, if casualties are caused by enemy artillery, it will almost certainly be by a 105mm round, over 200 times more likely in fact..
              Lets get this straight Nick, I have never made any claim of fantastic losses from 88s, in fact I never made any claim of 1 loss, You Did!!!!What I have always said is, it is very unpleasant being on the receiving end of an attack by 88s. The noise is nightmarish!! Right, now that little matter has been dealt with, perhaps we can slowly get around to being friends again. lcm1
              'By Horse by Tram'.


              I was in when they needed 'em,not feeded 'em.
              " Youuu 'Orrible Lot!"

              Comment


              • Originally posted by lcm1 View Post

                Lets get this straight Nick, I have never made any claim of fantastic losses from 88s, in fact I never made any claim of 1 loss, You Did!!!!What I have always said is, it is very unpleasant being on the receiving end of an attack by 88s. The noise is nightmarish!! Right, now that little matter has been dealt with, perhaps we can slowly get around to being friends again. lcm1
                I must add one more thing to what I have said about 88s, I have claimed that the German gunners were pretty good at their job regarding rate of fire and accuracy. lcm1
                'By Horse by Tram'.


                I was in when they needed 'em,not feeded 'em.
                " Youuu 'Orrible Lot!"

                Comment


                • I'm wondering why the Germans didn't report every shell that hit them as being from a 17 pounder.

                  Did they have more technologically advanced ears?
                  "Looting would not be tolerated within the Division, unless organised with the knowledge of C.O.'s on a unit basis."
                  - 15/19 Hussars War Diary, 18th March 1945

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Don Juan View Post
                    I'm wondering why the Germans didn't report every shell that hit them as being from a 17 pounder.

                    Did they have more technologically advanced ears?
                    They all were killed or wounded before they could...

                    Comment


                    • So perhaps the most effective "psychological" weapons have to be relatively survivable. This would certainly explain the reputation of Katyushas and Moaning Minnies.

                      Hmmm....
                      "Looting would not be tolerated within the Division, unless organised with the knowledge of C.O.'s on a unit basis."
                      - 15/19 Hussars War Diary, 18th March 1945

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by JustAGuy View Post

                        Again, what does this have to do with the 88mm was more bark than bite thing?
                        If a combat infantry battalion only has one KIA from artillery, we can safely assume the artillery was ineffective.

                        OTOH, given that a KIA means the unit was in combat, we can safely assume 88mm's were not effective.
                        Last edited by Nick the Noodle; 17 Nov 18, 17:18.
                        How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                        Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post

                          If a combat infantry battalion only has one KIA from artillery, we can safely assume the artillery was ineffective, or the unit was not in combat. Given that a KIA means the unit was in combat, we can safely assume 88mm's were not effective.
                          Well, they might not have been lethally effective, but they may nonetheless have been psychologically effective.
                          "Looting would not be tolerated within the Division, unless organised with the knowledge of C.O.'s on a unit basis."
                          - 15/19 Hussars War Diary, 18th March 1945

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post

                            If a combat infantry battalion only has one KIA from artillery, we can safely assume the artillery was ineffective.

                            OTOH, given that a KIA means the unit was in combat, we can safely assume 88mm's were not effective.
                            The sample size you are using is far too small to reach a conclusion, any conclusion, about the effectiveness of the 88mm.

                            OTOH your conclusion is just silly.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by JustAGuy View Post

                              The sample size you are using is far too small to reach a conclusion, any conclusion, about the effectiveness of the 88mm.

                              OTOH your conclusion is just silly.
                              I would like to make an explanation at this time for the benefit of those that do not know all of my background, the few weeks that I was attached to an Army commando unit aiming in the direction of Caen was enough to give me quite a broad description of fighting the Germans and the weapons they used, including the 88!! The tail end of the war in the 33rd was just the icing on the cake. lcm1
                              'By Horse by Tram'.


                              I was in when they needed 'em,not feeded 'em.
                              " Youuu 'Orrible Lot!"

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Don Juan View Post
                                I'm wondering why the Germans didn't report every shell that hit them as being from a 17 pounder.

                                Did they have more technologically advanced ears?
                                A 17-pounder is effectively a 76mm gun and therefore essentially in the ubiquitous class of 75-76mm guns. It's distinctive as to the barrel length, as compared to the average length of 75-76mm guns, but then again there were other long-barrelled 75-76mm guns in most armies. It also did not gain an early reputation (for the 88 this came in the desert, where the British had little that could reach out at the 88's range). And a towed 17-pounder looks like any large AT gun, unlike the AA 88mm with its distinctive mount.

                                OTOH, I'm under the impression that German troops in the East happened to report, at least from time to time, the presence of heavy Soviet tanks, and/or of T-34s, even when these were not on the battlefield.
                                Michele

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X