Profile of y3ivan

"One element of this action contains an important lesson that should be brought to the attention of all AT elements and particularly tank destroyer units.

(a) "The British gunners did not open until the enemy tank was well within effective range.

(b) "In addition to opening fire with the primary weapon -- the 57-mm -- the AT unit also opened with intense light machine-gun fire which forced the tank to button up and in effect blinded him. His vision apparently became confused and he was actually traversing his gun away from the AT guns when he was knocked out for good.

(c) "Once they opened fire, the British gunners really poured it on and knocked out one more heavy tank and six PzKw 3s. Also, for good measure, one armored car."

The conclusions to be drawn from this action, according to the British officer quoted, are:

(a) "The unobstructed vision of the gunner in a tank destroyer gives him a very real advantage over his opponent squinting through the periscope or narrow vision slits of a tank.

(b) "The tank destroyer unit must force the enemy tank to 'button up' by intense fire from every weapon he has, including machine-guns, tommy guns, and rifles."

The size and weight of a tank such as the PzKw 6 present many problems. It has been indicated from unofficial enemy sources that extensive reconnaissance of terrain, bridges, etc., was necessary before operations with this tank could be undertaken. Bridges have to be reinforced in many cases, and soil conditions must be good for its effective operation. It can therefore be assumed that its field of operation is limited.

Jump back to quoted post25 Feb 2015, 08:39 AMFaustCostBulletin

And you also glossed over how this fixes the Soviet call-in meta problem without re inventing the wheel. It fixes something you too acknowledge as a problem. Why ridicule it by casually saying "bad, bad idea"? Do you call every idea you don't agree with bad?