| 20 APR 2007 at 4:29am |
ComradePColonel
Posts : 6889
Joined: 1 JUL 2006
Location: NL
Status : Offline | I agreed with your points, but wanted to stress that the [i]mobile[/i] anti-tank assets were missing. You typed This left Fourth army very weak in AT assets but that's not necessarily true, as the infantry divisions still had the same amount of anti-tank equipment because StuG Abteilungen were corps/army support units and usually not attached to a specific division.
The most important difference between the operational deployment between, say, a PaK 38 and a StuG can be summed up by this sentence you posted: If the towed anti tank guns were spotted going into position, they would be subjected to bombardment. 76.2mm and 122mm guns didn't have the explosive potential or shrapnel capacity to harm a StuG except for a direct hit (the upper part of the StuG's frontal armour was specifically designed to shrug of, its own or the enemy's, blast damage, it's an artillery piece after all), whilst anti-tank guns are naturally more vulnerable to shrapnel and explosives.
I'd guess that the Fourth Army had captured enough 57mm or 76.2mm guns to form a unit with by this time, so its anti-tank potential was probably already better than it should be on paper.
It may be that they would have contributed little to the fighting, but the perception in Kluge's mind, and in the minds of the infantry, was very bad.
Fourth Army was quite cut up and this probably contributed to its overall poor showing when Typhoon was launched.
I'd say it was mostly a "morale" thing, and didn't effect the fighting all that much. StuGs are great for assisting motorised infantry or tanks, but can only form a "screen" for non-motorised infantry divisions. I also think that the fatigue caused by the constant fighting was the reason for the relative lack of success in later operation, as the casualty figures were relatively low and definately not out of proportion. Russian tankers were not experienced enough to exploit breakthroughs, so the Fourth Army had to fight a lot, but didn't really suffer from it. That's also the general trend for the fall/winter of 1941: nature caused a lot more problems to the Germans than the Russians. The Siberian divisions and the units around Moscow were like a Grim Teddybear compared to the Grim Reaper that was "General Winter".
|
| 20 APR 2007 at 6:54am |
KeunertCommander
Posts : 2364
Joined: 22 MAR 2006
Status : Offline | about t-34 and panzerIV:
[16] Guderian and his troops discovered, to their dismay, that new Soviet T-34s were almost impervious to German tank guns. As the general wrote, "Our T-IV tanks with their short 75 mm guns could only explode a T-34 by hitting the engine from behind."
T-34 was described by the Germans in the following statements: "Very worrying", Colonel-General Heinz Guderian, Commander of Second Panzer Army, "We had nothing comparable", Major-General F.W. Mellenthin, Chief of Staff of XLVIII Panzer Corps and "The finest tank in the world", Field-Marshal Ewald von Kleist, First Panzer Army.
I can stand brute force, but brute reason is quite unbearable. There is something unfair about its use. It is hitting below the intellect. Oscar Wilde
|
| 20 APR 2007 at 8:20am |
Paul MCenturion
Posts : 324
Joined: 18 APR 2006
Status : Online | You do realize that the short 75 on the Pzkw IVE was intended for infantry support right?
The T34 was the "best" tank of the war, and from it all modern tanks derive*. The Panther was a better tank, but it is basically a german version of the T34. Guderian's first suggestion when made Commisioner of Armoured Warfare (or whatever his title was) was to simply copy the T34 design and build it but for both obvious and not so obvious reasons that was not done.
It also pays to remember that at Kursk the most common german tank was the Pzkw IIIJ. The IVF2 was only coming into service in early 42, and the IVH was not common even by mid 43. The Pzkw IVH or IVJ was equivelent to the T34 more or less but they didn't become the standard MBT until later in the war (44-45). As late as winter '42 to early '43, the 8th Pz Division still was equiped with Pzkw 38(t)E's.
Its also worth remembering that Guderian's suggestion was to stand on the strategic defense in 43 and rebuild the Pz divisions. Fortunately Hitler decided that due to being kicked out of North Africa he needed a propoganda victory...hence Kursk...of course Guderian suggesting this and it being acted on are another big "what if" but certainly Kursk would have been different if they had more than the small numbers of heavy tanks they did have.
*There were better tanks that came after it, and it had deficiencies such as cramped crew quarters and so on but it is the first "modern" tank with a large caliber gun, sloped armour, and high mobility. Compared to the Pzkw IIIf or IIIh it is little wonder that the Russian observers nearly died laughing when they saw the german tanks.
|
| 20 APR 2007 at 8:52am |
BesilariusCommander
Posts : 1543
Joined: 14 NOV 2003
Status : Offline | Comrade, in combat and morale perception can be everything.
Nowadays, the term is "situational awareness", how a soldier understands his environment. The situational awareness of a soldier on the line can be very different from that of a pilot, a gunner, ora tanker.
By that point, the germans knew how tough the T34 and KVs were, but had discovered that like all tanks, their sides and rear were the vulnerable spots. Setting up batteries to give interlocking fields of fire was old hat to the german army after their use of machine guns in World War I. However, towed guns were simply not very flexible during the actual combat, and were very vulnerable on the move.
The stugs were very important to the morale of the troops as their "best" asset to hold back the soviet tanks. Taking them away was a seriousblow to the army.
Their actual contribution to the fighting may have been slim, but their withdrawal left the troops and their leaders feeling vulnerable and abandoned.
You might enjoy "Company Commander" by the future army historian Charles Roberts (who also wrote A Time for Trumpets on the Bulge). The effect of even one armored vehicle on a company of veteran infantry is well illustrated.
"When I must choose an officer to perform an act that requires a good brain, everything else being equal, I choose the one with the biggest nose." - Napoleon
"If you'll believe that, you'll believe anything." - the Duke of Wellington
|
| 20 APR 2007 at 9:03am |
ComradePColonel
Posts : 6889
Joined: 1 JUL 2006
Location: NL
Status : Offline | about t-34 and panzerIV:
[16] Guderian and his troops discovered, to their dismay, that new Soviet T-34s were almost impervious to German tank guns. As the general wrote, "Our T-IV tanks with their short 75 mm guns could only explode a T-34 by hitting the engine from behind."
T-34 was described by the Germans in the following statements: "Very worrying", Colonel-General Heinz Guderian, Commander of Second Panzer Army, "We had nothing comparable", Major-General F.W. Mellenthin, Chief of Staff of XLVIII Panzer Corps and "The finest tank in the world", Field-Marshal Ewald von Kleist, First Panzer Army.
Although those observations are often cited, they're probably more due to the initial surprise than actual performance. A tank is only as good as its crew, and that's the primary area where the Russians were seriously lacking. As such, German tankers could take out KV 1's and T-34's in the same way they had taken out S-35's and Char B1's earlier: engage the inexperienced crew after flanking the tank and spraying the tank with MG fire. A hit from a Panzer IIIH to the side of the hull from 200 meters would be enough to penetrate it, or at least to shatter part of the usually brittle armour. Due to the relatively high amount of kinetic energy, a hit from a StuG or Panzer IV could sometimes cause the armour of a KV 1 and T34 to shatter and would cause shrapnel to spread inside the tank, killing the crew without any penetration. Another thing to keep in mind that the quality of both the gun and the ammunition of any T34 was low, when you compare the calibre to penetration power. The T34's gun was comparable to the German 5cm L/60 in power, the T34-85's gun to the 7.5cm L/43 or L/48. The 7.5cm L/70 and the British 17 pounder were leagues ahead of the Russian guns, the same goes for all German 8.8cm and 12.8cm guns.
The Russian 57mm ZiS 2 AT gun (also in use mounted on a Komsomelets armoured artillery tractor as the ZiS 30 mobile AT unit) was better (and longer) than the T34's gun.
and from it all modern tanks derive
Not really, the IS III was more influential in that field than the T34.
The Panther was a better tank, but it is basically a german version of the T34. Guderian's first suggestion when made Commisioner of Armoured Warfare (or whatever his title was) was to simply copy the T34 design and build it but for both obvious and not so obvious reasons that was not done.
I got go into detail as to why the Panther was not a T34 copy, but I don't think that's necessary as your second sentence already contradicts your first one.
*There were better tanks that came after it, and it had deficiencies such as cramped crew quarters and so on but it is the first "modern" tank with a large caliber gun, sloped armour, and high mobility. Compared to the Pzkw IIIf or IIIh it is little wonder that the Russian observers nearly died laughing when they saw the german tanks.
As stated above, the gun was not good compared to its calibre. I can agree that sloped armour and high mobility made the T34 a decent medium tank, but the "high mobility" came at the price of stripping the interior of anything that was not deemed necessary, including radio's.
Had those Russian observers been in tanks during 1941, they would probably have died, but not whilst laughing. Those "inferior" Panzer IIIG's and H's would be at the gates of Moscow by the end of the year, leaving a large amount of destroyed Russian tanks behind them.
|
| 20 APR 2007 at 9:24am |
KeunertCommander
Posts : 2364
Joined: 22 MAR 2006
Status : Offline | sloped armor and tracks that work in difficult terrain: that's typical russian engineering, quite simple thoughts, easy to mass produce (60'000 pieces). the same goes for the ak-47, space technique and so on.
just imagine that germany had a decent medium tank produced in about the same numbers.
the german sure had better optics, better guns at the price of low production rates (6000 panzer V) and more mechanical problems. just look at the design sketches of the different panzer V proposals, daimlers design was a clear t-34 clone.
I can stand brute force, but brute reason is quite unbearable. There is something unfair about its use. It is hitting below the intellect. Oscar Wilde
|
| 20 APR 2007 at 10:02am |
ComradePColonel
Posts : 6889
Joined: 1 JUL 2006
Location: NL
Status : Offline | sloped armor and tracks that work in difficult terrain
There's no such thing as a "track that works on difficult terrain". Wider tracks tend to result in more control in difficult terrain, but also mean that the hull is wider. The Russians had an edge in cross country mobility on their tanks, but they suffered from mud in the same way as the Germans did. If there's enough mud to pull the entire tank down, the size of the tracks combined with the quality is more of an obstacle than an aid, due to the fact that the mud is spread out amongst a wider surface. As long as you don't get stuck, wide tracks help, that much is true.
the german sure had better optics, better guns at the price of low production rates (6000 panzer V) and more mechanical problems. just look at the design sketches of the different panzer V proposals, daimlers design was a clear t-34 clone.
The Germans have chosen quality over quantity in their weapon design, the Russians chose quantity over quality.
Yes, the Germans did want to make a T-34 clone at first, but they ended up with the Panther.
|
| 20 APR 2007 at 10:43am |
KeunertCommander
Posts : 2364
Joined: 22 MAR 2006
Status : Offline |
The Russians had an edge in cross country mobility on their tanks
this is what i meant
both nations had not much of a choice: germany had a capable industry, but a lot of different firms they could'nt just easily merge and the russians had central planning and all the ressources you could wish for.
in the end russians planning was more efficient. another point that favours russia: their tank models became better and better whereas germany wasted scarce ressources on such monstrosities as Ferdinands, Königstiger, Jagdtiger, Brummbär. I'm sure they would have done better with a thousend or so more panthers than with tanks that mostly defeated themself.
I can stand brute force, but brute reason is quite unbearable. There is something unfair about its use. It is hitting below the intellect. Oscar Wilde
|
| 20 APR 2007 at 11:00am |
ComradePColonel
Posts : 6889
Joined: 1 JUL 2006
Location: NL
Status : Offline | in the end russians planning was more efficient. another point that favours russia: their tank models became better and better whereas germany wasted scarce ressources on such monstrosities as Ferdinands, Königstiger, Jagdtiger, Brummbär. I'm sure they would have done better with a thousend or so more panthers than with tanks that mostly defeated themself.
All the German designs you mention were succesful and were better than their Russian rivals in their respective fields at that time, but most of them had reliability problems or were underpowered. I consider the "Sturmpanzer IV"/ the Brummbär to be the best effective close assault vehicle of the war, due to its StuH 43 [i]with[/i] AP shells and a reliable chassis, but that's just my opinion.
I wouldn't say that Russian planning was all that more efficient, as the Russians also designed tanks that were produced for a while but abandoned shortly after, like most of the 100mm gun tanks. The Russians had a country on war footing with factories working on single tank types, the Germans had a country that was not entirely on a war footing with factories working on single tank types.
Even though Russian tank design did indeed improve, the technology used in Russian tanks didn't come close to the technology in German tanks. Russian tanks were still being produced for use in quantity, not because of individual quality. Russian tanks also needed to be easy to maintain and drive, due to its largely rural workforce and soldiers, it was simply not possible due to practical reasons to develop a modern tank equipped with modern technology.
|
| 20 APR 2007 at 11:43am |
KeunertCommander
Posts : 2364
Joined: 22 MAR 2006
Status : Offline | if you fight on at least three different fronts, reatreating on all, without much aircover and less material i consider it foolish to produce little numbers of Brummbären or Kingtigers, each of them costing the same as 3 Panzer IV. each of them easily good visible and slow.
this is even more aggravated as the afv kill ratio between russia and germany decreased dramatically at the end of 43,and russia producing quite a lot more avf's and able to use them against one ennemy.
I can stand brute force, but brute reason is quite unbearable. There is something unfair about its use. It is hitting below the intellect. Oscar Wilde
|
| 20 APR 2007 at 12:50pm |
ComradePColonel
Posts : 6889
Joined: 1 JUL 2006
Location: NL
Status : Offline | If the Germans had only been fighting the Russians, their approach would probably have worked, but as you said: there were other fronts that also needed troops and equipment. Still, I think that the main problem was the delay prior to converting to a war economy. The German economy in the 1930's was build on the concept of short wars, peace, short wars, peace and so on. Production could easily be switched. However: not the entire production.
And of course: overall, the main source of the Wehrmacht's defeat was the political leadership. In World War II, they were really backstabbed.
|
| 20 APR 2007 at 1:19pm |
KeunertCommander
Posts : 2364
Joined: 22 MAR 2006
Status : Offline | i once read speers memories. it was surprising to read, that he could increase overall production until late 44 i think. one would think that all had been done to maximise production by 41 or 42 and that in 1944 allied bombing would decrease production, but that was not really the case.
but this also shows how poor a fascist state was lead, a lot of different organisations concurring with each other, no clear competence boundaries. speer assumed that this diffuse structures were wanted by hitler, so as every important decision had to be approved by him in personal. that way no one could gain too much power. but the effect this had on production and the army was unaffordable.
I can stand brute force, but brute reason is quite unbearable. There is something unfair about its use. It is hitting below the intellect. Oscar Wilde
|
| 20 APR 2007 at 1:28pm |
ComradePColonel
Posts : 6889
Joined: 1 JUL 2006
Location: NL
Status : Offline | Allied bombers often targeted the wrong targets, civilian targets or the war industry. Had they bombed power plants, the German industry would've collapsed. The war industry only suffered damage that could not be repaired from 1944 onwards.
Germany's and Italy's fascist regimes had problems related to the industry.
In the German case, there was layer upon layer of obscure organisations that were tasked with development or construction projects. It's almost a miracle that things were actually produced.
In the Italian case, companies often simply did not supply Mussolini with the equipment they had promised/they should deliver. In one example, Fiat was supposed to deliver 200 planes by the end of a specific month, something that could easily be achieved. Instead, Fiat send a message to Mussolini that "partisans had attacked the transport". The fact that there had been no partisan attacks at all in the area around the factory since the start of the war, because the area was pro-fascists, didn't seem to matter. Mussolini reluctantly send some troops to investigate. Of course, there were no signs of any partisan attack , but there was nothing Mussolini could do.
The RSI was a lot more functional.
|
| 21 APR 2007 at 5:25pm |
nereshadCenturion
Posts : 277
Joined: 9 JAN 2007
Status : Offline | All of the mentioned german tanks were superior in their field where they were built for. The Kingtiger f.e was a tank that wasn´t so easy defeated in tank combat. The real problem was, that there was no german airpower anymore. Most of the Kingtigers were destroyed threw enemy bombardments or lost threw to few fuel. They were slow, but for defensive work, where you don´t need much speed they were quite superior against any tank! Their armor was impenetrable on long range for any allied tank. The 12,8cm canon was one of the best of the war that could easily penetrate a Sherman at 2500m, a Pershing at 1800m and the IS-2 at 1200m. As support tank or tank destroyer the best of the war.
As best tank of the war I would choose the Panther or the Tiger. The Panther was the best compromise between firepower, speed and armour and the Tiger was the best from the psychological standpoint. The sighting of it was feared from all enemys and the morale of german soldiers was heightend on any battlefield it fought.
The Leopard battletank design is based on the old Panzer V and VI design.
|
| 22 APR 2007 at 3:02am |
palidianColonel
Posts : 3975
Joined: 28 OCT 2006
Status : Online | Crappy tanks? The vast majority (say, 13.000 out of all Russian tanks in 1941) were relatively worthless. The BT's were fast..and that was about everything in their favour. The T-34 was not a pleasure to drive, but likely Russia had a lot of peasants who were used to rough work or driving tractors, but even in that case: the tank was tiring to drive. The tank also didn't have a radio, nor a real "commander" in the early versions. Stuart's were not really a match for German tanks, but were better recon tanks than anything the Russians produced, and Valentine's were a problem for any German tank without at least a lengthy 5cm.
The US/UK tanks were if anything reliable, the US tanks could go 3 to 4 times farther then the German tanks, between breakdowns, and the Soviet tanks had serous drive train issues. A tiger dose you no good if it dose not reach the battlefield.
"Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear" --Thomas Jefferson
|
| 22 APR 2007 at 3:21am |
palidianColonel
Posts : 3975
Joined: 28 OCT 2006
Status : Online | Keep in mind that it is important for your tank to be reliable enough to show up for battle. I will take a Sherman that will show up for battle then a panther or tiger that might not. Most games do not accurately depict this. The Sherman gets underrated a lot, it has a lot of advantages, it armor was on par or better then the Mark IV, the 75mm had a really good HE round, in addition to smoke and WP, and a high rate of fire. The turret has a fast slue rate and the gun was gyrostabilized if the crew could handle it. The 76mm is better then a 88 L56 with HVAP. The tank was reliable. If you ran into a tight situation the US could call upon artillery or air support.
ORIGINAL: nereshad
All of the mentioned german tanks were superior in their field where they were built for. The Kingtiger f.e was a tank that wasn´t so easy defeated in tank combat. The real problem was, that there was no german airpower anymore. Most of the Kingtigers were destroyed threw enemy bombardments or lost threw to few fuel. They were slow, but for defensive work, where you don´t need much speed they were quite superior against any tank! Their armor was impenetrable on long range for any allied tank. The 12,8cm canon was one of the best of the war that could easily penetrate a Sherman at 2500m, a Pershing at 1800m and the IS-2 at 1200m. As support tank or tank destroyer the best of the war.
As best tank of the war I would choose the Panther or the Tiger. The Panther was the best compromise between firepower, speed and armour and the Tiger was the best from the psychological standpoint. The sighting of it was feared from all enemys and the morale of german soldiers was heightend on any battlefield it fought.
The Leopard battletank design is based on the old Panzer V and VI design.
"Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear" --Thomas Jefferson
|
| 22 APR 2007 at 5:05am |
nereshadCenturion
Posts : 277
Joined: 9 JAN 2007
Status : Offline | The german tanks only had such problems in the beginning of their battlefield time. The problems were based on to few testing and the lacking of some raw materials who have to be substituted threw other things. After some modifications most of the problems weren´t there anymore. Look at the Panther; it was faulty in the beginning, but after some modifications it was reliable as the Panzer IV was.
The Sherman was reliable I give you that, but look at the long time it was produced and tested. If there where faulty in the invasion (after some years testing in Russia and Nordafrika) it would be shame.
Germany lacked the time to test their designs. In my opion it also had done a failure to stop the research of medium and heavy tanks after France.
|
| 22 APR 2007 at 8:56am |
ComradePColonel
Posts : 6889
Joined: 1 JUL 2006
Location: NL
Status : Offline | The Sherman gets underrated a lot, it has a lot of advantages, it armor was on par or better then the Mark IV, the 75mm had a really good HE round, in addition to smoke and WP, and a high rate of fire. The turret has a fast slue rate and the gun was gyrostabilized if the crew could handle it.
I agree with the armour advantage, the high rate of fire and the availability of special ammo as an advantage for the Sherman, but there's a catch to all those points and the other points you mention:
The armour advantage over the Panzer IV was there, but every German tank gun could penetrate the armour of the Sherman at a decent range, whilst the Sherman in turn could usually not penetrate the armour of late war German tanks due to the lack of power of the 75mm gun. High rate of fire is not necessarily an advantage in tank combat, if you have to get close before you can actually cause damage to a tank. High rate of fire is good against fortifications.
The best way for a Sherman to defeat a Tiger II was to use ammo that contained a phosphor-like material and to simply fire it at the tank. Like water, the substance would creep into the tank and either burn or smoke everybody inside or would leave the crew bailing the tank.
Gyrostabilisation was still new and required a relatively experienced crew to be effective. In 1944, the Germans had 5 years of working with tanks like the Panzer IV behind them, whilst the Americans had one year of using Shermans against hostile tanks behind them. Experienced crews were not necessarily available.
All in all, the 75mm Sherman models were as suited for the 1944 battlefield as the Panzer III had been in 1941: they could work, but you had to be either skilled or lucky to take out enemy tanks.
Being able to call artillery or airstrikes to support the tank doesn't make the tank better, by the way, so that's not an argument in favour of the Sherman.
|
| 22 APR 2007 at 10:32am |
nereshadCenturion
Posts : 277
Joined: 9 JAN 2007
Status : Offline | ORIGINAL: ComradeP
The armour advantage over the Panzer IV was there, but every German tank gun could penetrate the armour of the Sherman at a decent range, whilst the Sherman in turn could usually not penetrate the armour of late war German tanks due to the lack of power of the 75mm gun. High rate of fire is not necessarily an advantage in tank combat, if you have to get close before you can actually cause damage to a tank. High rate of fire is good against fortifications.
I´ve read this with the armor. The sherman was better armored, BUT the Sherman had a overall better armor! That means he was better armored on the sides and on the back, but the front armor was less.
Here some outtakes on the Sherman wikipedia:
"When the Sherman first saw combat in 1942, its 75 mm M3 Gun could penetrate the armor of the German tanks it faced in North Africa at normal combat ranges. However, immediately following the invasion of Normandy, it was discovered that the 75 mm M3 Gun was completely ineffective against the front of the German Panther and Tiger I tanks at typical combat ranges. The 75mm M3 Gun was thereby rendered obsolete, and the European Theater of Operations quickly demanded deliveries of the Sherman armed with the 76mm M1 Gun, as well as tanks and tank destroyers carrying the 90mm M3 Gun. Although Shermans armed with 105 mm M4 Howitzers provided even more powerful high-explosive armament, they were of limited use in fighting enemy tanks due to the problems of hitting the small targets with a howitzer, and the lack of power traverse which hindered getting the howitzers on target in a timely fashion"
"Sherman armor was more evenly distributed and thicker at the side than the Panzer IV medium tank. The Sherman's frontal armor was designed to withstand a 50mm gun, which was a common German anti-tank gun and tank gun on the Panzer III medium tank during the North African Campaign in 1942. However, the Sherman's armor, while good for an early war tank, was inadequate against the German 75mm KwK42L70 (used only on the Panther or PzV tank) and the famous 88mm used on "Tigers." It was this deficiency in its frontal armor that made the Sherman very vulnerable to German high velocity 75mm and 88mm tank guns that German Tigers (PzVI series) and Panthers (PzV) series in 1944. The Sherman's armor was not invulnerable to the 75mm KwK40/42 used on the German PzIV-G/J series vehicles, but the lower velocity of the Pz IV guns and their vulnerability to the Sherman's main armament gave Shermans a competitive edge against the most common German AFVs."
|
| 22 APR 2007 at 1:51pm |
ComradePColonel
Posts : 6889
Joined: 1 JUL 2006
Location: NL
Status : Offline | its 75 mm M3 Gun could penetrate the armor of the German tanks it faced in North Africa at normal combat ranges.
That compared with: The Sherman's armor was not invulnerable to the 75mm KwK40/42 used on the German PzIV-G/J series vehicles leads to one of the points I made in the previous post: that late war German tanks (and other vehicles with a PaK 40 or better) could penetrate the armour of a Sherman from relatively long ranges. The Sherman had to get relatively close.
The Sherman also didn't have a realistic chance of penetrating the armour of a StuG from long range. I wonder which 5cm gun the Sherman armour could counter: the regular PaK 38 or also L/60's. I'd guess that Panzer III J DAK's could disable a Sherman at normal combat range too.
|
| 22 APR 2007 at 4:55pm |
SwatterCommander
Posts : 1280
Joined: 31 AUG 2003
Location: US, MO
Status : Offline |
ORIGINAL: palidian
Keep in mind that it is important for your tank to be reliable enough to show up for battle. I will take a Sherman that will show up for battle then a panther or tiger that might not. Most games do not accurately depict this. The Sherman gets underrated a lot, it has a lot of advantages, it armor was on par or better then the Mark IV, the 75mm had a really good HE round, in addition to smoke and WP, and a high rate of fire. The turret has a fast slue rate and the gun was gyrostabilized if the crew could handle it. The 76mm is better then a 88 L56 with HVAP. The tank was reliable. If you ran into a tight situation the US could call upon artillery or air support.
While there is truth in what you say, I have seen several interviews with Sherman veterans very bitter about the performance of the Sherman compared to the Panther. I wouldnt want to enter battle in a Sherman in Normandy, no way.
|
| 24 APR 2007 at 3:04am |
palidianColonel
Posts : 3975
Joined: 28 OCT 2006
Status : Online | However until Norway, the 75mm Sherman was as good if not better then the German tanks it encountered. Why expect anything different? The Panther was prolly the best tank of the war, however there was only 6,132 made. While the armor was better the gun on the Panther was the same as the 76mm with HVAP. There were 10,886 76mm armed Shermans produced, and 33,403 75mm Shermans produced. While I will admit that the Panther was a better AFV, that was not enough, and the Shermans had advantages that most games do not cover.
The armor on the early Shermans and the PZKWIIIL were about the same and the 75 has a slight advantage over the 50/60, however the 75 has a lot more options. The 75/43 on the Mark 4 was very effective however the armor was equal the early Shermans and inferior to the heaver armored Shermans, and the guns was not as good as the US 76mm. The F2 vs a M4A3 75 was almost an even match, then the advantages sides with the Shermans when it comes to smoke, and reliability.
A US infantry division has an armored battalion attached to it, so every time you engaged the United States you faced armor. The US made tanks to support infantry and the 75mm armed Shermans did this very well. US doctrine to engage enemy armor was to use the tank destroyers, the 90mm could take out all but the Jagdpanzer VI. I believe this was a flawed strategy, however it did work. When it was time to engage tanks that were only in armored divisions. The US, would have there heaviest hitters, and airplanes. Airplanes don't make your tanks better, however it just shows that if you control the air it dose not matter what tanks you have.
"Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear" --Thomas Jefferson
|
| 24 APR 2007 at 3:21am |
KeunertCommander
Posts : 2364
Joined: 22 MAR 2006
Status : Offline | does anyone know of a site where i can see the numbers of production- loss and kill ratios of axis and allied tank production?
I can stand brute force, but brute reason is quite unbearable. There is something unfair about its use. It is hitting below the intellect. Oscar Wilde
|
| 24 APR 2007 at 7:46am |
ComradePColonel
Posts : 6889
Joined: 1 JUL 2006
Location: NL
Status : Offline | However until Norway, the 75mm Sherman was as good if not better then the German tanks it encountered. Why expect anything different? The Panther was prolly the best tank of the war, however there was only 6,132 made. While the armor was better the gun on the Panther was the same as the 76mm with HVAP. There were 10,886 76mm armed Shermans produced, and 33,403 75mm Shermans produced. While I will admit that the Panther was a better AFV, that was not enough, and the Shermans had advantages that most games do not cover.
You mean "until Normandy" right?
The 75mm Sherman had a serious range disadvantage against anything with a 75mm L/43 or L/48, or any 88mm. That range disadvantage is clearly shown in games like Panzer General (where the German tanks with the aforementioned guns have a range of 2 hexes, whilst the 75mm Sherman has a range of 1 hex) and is usually abstracted in games with individual units like Steel Panther.
The 75mm Sherman also didn't have much of a chance against the average StuG beyond medium range.
I think you stress the advantage the HVAP ammo gave too much. The majority of the US armoured units didn't have that armour in significant numbers until the end of the war. The L/48 was as good as- and the L/70 was better than the 76mm with "regular" ammo. The only Allied tank gun that was fitted on a medium tank with a slight edge over the German 75mm guns was the 17 pounder, not anything the Americans fitted on their Shermans.
The armor on the early Shermans and the PZKWIIIL were about the same and the 75 has a slight advantage over the 50/60, however the 75 has a lot more options. The 75/43 on the Mark 4 was very effective however the armor was equal the early Shermans and inferior to the heaver armored Shermans, and the guns was not as good as the US 76mm. The F2 vs a M4A3 75 was almost an even match, then the advantages sides with the Shermans when it comes to smoke, and reliability.
What are the "options" you mention? The Pz III and Pz IV both had a lot more modifications, derived vehicles and versions than the Sherman.
A US infantry division has an armored battalion attached to it, so every time you engaged the United States you faced armor. The US made tanks to support infantry and the 75mm armed Shermans did this very well. US doctrine to engage enemy armor was to use the tank destroyers, the 90mm could take out all but the Jagdpanzer VI. I believe this was a flawed strategy, however it did work. When it was time to engage tanks that were only in armored divisions.
Most 1944 German frontline infantry divisions had PaK 40's and portable AT weapons, something the Sherman had little defense against. The German infantry units were also occasionally supported by StuGs or other SPAT units, something the Sherman also didn't have a real answer against.
US tank destroyers were more often than not open topped (some had nets like the Marder, but nets don't stop bullets). A single grenade could disable or destroy the vehicle, and any sniper with a height advantage of the SPAT unit could kill anyone behind the gun. The armour was also inferior to German AT units and only the frontal armour of the M36 had a chance against AT shots from medium range.
|
