Close Combat Series :: View topic

through

[^/[Print]\]

Close Combat Series -> The Mess

#1: Smoke Vs Tank Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 10:47 am
—
A New thread is created so the main Close Combat Tank Kill thread don’t go OT:

Smoke Vs Tank
In this “how to movie” we se two ways to place smoke on the tank.
The problem is to make it “stik”. A grenade will not work that good, if the tank is mobil.

Instruction movie shows us:

1# method, liquid smoke acid in a bottle.

2# method use 2 smoke grenades with a rope between them and the chance they stick is higher.

Link to movie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bb7SixS9PAw

Link to a fact report about the liquid smoke bottle:

http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt/german-glass-smoke-grenades.html

Enjoy

Stalk

Last edited by AT_Stalky on Fri Sep 21, 2007 2:40 pm; edited 2 times in total

#2: Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 10:52 am
—
Post orginates from dimas post, has been moved here by moderator:

Dimas post:

Stalk, the document i've promised to show:

Well that document was already translated from german to russian but still will try to translate it to english as close as possible.

#5681/42 Secret
To the Engineer General of Army Group

Tests carried out by 396.ID on usage of smoke grenades to suppress tanx in close combat, especially T-34, gave following results:

1st test:
Tank stands on place, engine works, hatches r buttoned. SMoke grenade burns at point black range.

Results:
Fast penetration of concentrated smoke inside due to soaking up of air by engine and also via the holes of frontal entrance hatchet, steam barrier, MG mantlet.

Consequences:
Crew was forced to leave the tank in shortest time as they have started to get vomiting phenominas and they couldn't breath.

2nd test:
Same as 1st but with engine swtiched off.

Results:
Same as in 1st test but only driver was forced to leave the tank in several minutes.

3rd test:
Tank is on the move with buttoned hatchets. Smoke grenades were thrown and didn't remain on the tank.

Results:
Limited influence on crew combat readiness, mainly due to decreasing of visibility and in the lesser time due to penetration of smoke inside the tank.

4th test:
Tank is on move with hatches buttoned.

2 smoke grenades were tighten together with 2m cable and were thrown on gun barrel (the throw can be usually achieved after pretty short training). In results crew had to bail out in 0,5mins. Any mean of observation is impossible.

Note:
When the good spirit and morale is present, crew is able to take on gasmask and while turning turret avoid effects of smoke grande on 100% and move tank to the safe place. At least tank will be out of combat for some time.

Those tests show that smoke grenades can be effective source in order to supress enemy tanx. It's desirable to use that experience in every school on the front as well as rear.

was captured in January 1943 in the Caucasus.

Dima

#3: Author: ttpistol,

Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 3:42 pm
—
Using smoke was then,in era of ww2,a cheap trick to smokescreen the infantry from running away from that armored force.LETS USE SIMPLE EXPLOSIVES AND CHEAP INFANTRY.USE SMOKE TO PREPARE.PLEASE TANKS,STAY STILL UNTIL WE PUT MINES ON YOUR ARMOUR.Nobody use it today.Period.If it is any good how that today the bloody tanks throw smoke to cover THEMSELVES from rocets and other infantry antitank weapons?why ww2 era US soldiers take captured panzerfaust,bazookas,calling air support to fight against tanks and NOT wasting time with choking to death tank crews?Test is too basic,there is no enemy infantry which covers tanks and vice versa.

#4: Author: AT_Stalky,

Posted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 9:12 am
—

ttpistol wrote:

LETS USE SIMPLE EXPLOSIVES AND CHEAP INFANTRY.USE SMOKE TO PREPARE.PLEASE TANKS,STAY STILL UNTIL WE PUT MINES ON YOUR ARMOUR.

The LAW was in early war not that impressive, so this was the way it was done when guns failed.. And the tank stood still or allmost still when the infantry aproched, the teams was posted at places the tanks had to slowdown or come to a stand still. Mines, pits, or dragons or natural barriers was used for that.

ttpistol wrote:

Nobody use it today.Period.

Well, not really and when the infantry teams got faust and RPG in WW2 they dint need to use the DCED. But today it has developed, now use IED instead, or a car packed with explosives driven into a LAV.

ttpistol wrote:

If it is any good how that today the bloody tanks throw smoke to cover THEMSELVES from rocets and other infantry antitank weapons?

The WW2 era tanks throgh smoke to... to cover them self..

ttpistol wrote:

why ww2 era US soldiers take captured panzerfaust,bazookas,calling air support to fight against tanks and NOT wasting time with choking to death tank crews?

Smoke isnt for choking the tanks, but to blind them and confuse em and give the infantry some extra odds to deliver the ED. And you would have to struggle to find a faust or a RPG the first 3+ years in the war... As there was non..

#5: Author: ttpistol,

Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 4:44 pm
—
Beautifull!My reply made you to be more precise in explanation of usage of smokescreen.Honestly,in war you use every means possible to distract,anoy or even destroy enemy.I have done the similar thing now.Throwing smoke.Acctually I am in support to certain level,for smoke in defense purposes.Also colors of smoke have many different ways of showing friend/foe situation.Please make a reply on that today smoke is again developed by many armies to cover from termovision cameras.Even sticking to optical devices that today tanks are so dependant.That why I love ww2 tanks.It was man,man,man.Right stuff.Today its bloody tehnology.To change subject,lets mention AT rifles that could not penetrate armor of tanks in ww2(medium to heavy)but distract aiming or vision of tank crew,making light damage,forcing tanks to change plans for action.

Close Combat Series -> The Mess

output generated using printer-friendly topic mod. All times are GMT

Page 1 of 1