It's What's Inside That Counts

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: 1 2 3 NEXT

J3 11/17/2008 6:53:46 AM

Once again you have gotten it factually wrong. "Superior American" tank crews did not defeat the Germans. In fact the German crews were either equal to or superior to American crews wherever they met until the last months of the war, when we had finally killled most of their experienced crews.

We defeated the German tanks not with superior crews but by overwhelming them with lots and lots of inferior American Shermans and very good Tac Air, mainly in the form mainly of P-47s (and British Typhoons) using high velocity air rockets. Examples abound, particularly in German battle report records, of small numbers of German Panther and Tiger tanks defeating large numbers of Shermans because the range and killing power of their high velocity 76mm and 88mm guns were greater than their American counterparts, and because, incredibly, the US continued to use gasoline engines, not diesel, right up until the end. A common German tactic was to destroy the first and last Shermans in a line, and then incinerate the ones in between.

All this raises one of the more interesting WWII questions, and that is why George Marshall insisted on fielding such burn boxes as the Shermans by the thousands throughout the later years of the war, when the Russians for years prior had been fielding the superb diesel T-34 with proven ability to destroy the best German tanks? One wonders why our tanks did not incorporate the charactaristics of the T-34 which made it so effective, such as its slanted sides of the armored turrets, diesel engines, and suspension system which after all was designed by an American, I believed named Crosby.

Quote Reply

StobieWan 11/17/2008 7:59:04 AM

The Germans used petrol engines throughout the war so that wasn't the major factor in the tendency of the Shermans to burn - it was the disposition of their ready ammunition.

The suspension designer was Christie, not Crosby.

Ian

Quote Reply

Captain Slog 11/17/2008 9:13:39 AM

Someone beat me to the comment that it was weight of numbers and airpower rather than tactics and training that lead to the defeat of German armour on the western front. Likewise on the eastern front, although the T34 had well sloped armour and good speed, and was initailly difficult for German tanks and ATGs to deal with, it was not really a match for Tiger 1 and Panther, even when upgraded to the T35/85, and certainly no match for Tiger 2. As with the western allies, it was sheer weight of numbers that counted for the Russians, plus air power to some degree, and also massed artillery attacks.

Being designed to work in Russian winters was another factor of course.

Also in the six day war, were Israeli tanks really that inferior?

Quote Reply

WarNerd 11/17/2008 12:48:39 PM

The Israeli tanks in the 6 Day War were a real hodgepodge of anything that they could lay their hands on and keep running. The best tanks that they had were some British Centurions, but the most common hull was probably the Sherman, including nearly 500 upgraded to "Super Sherman" with either a 75mm L70 gun (derived from the German WWII Panther) or the French 105mm gun (HEAT only).

The Arab forces were equipped mainly with Soviet T54/55 and T34/85 tanks and heavily outnumbered the Israeli tanks.

Given the lopsided casualty figures and extreme exploits reported, crew superiority seems like the only logical explanation. However, I suspect that it was not Israel had developed a superior training system, but that many of the arab crews (especially Syrian) seemed to have minimal training at best.

Quote Reply

JFKY Not numbers alone... 11/17/2008 12:58:54 PM

People keep talking about Soviet "numbers" burying the Wehrmacht. It was not, it was German incompetence, at the national level, at the production level, and a number of other levels. The Wehrmacht was good at the squad/company/battalion level, and that was about it...from 1943 on they stood on the defense, an inherently stronger position.

AND numbers mean things, too...the Germans COULD have produced as many tanks as the Soviets, they didn't...because they did not mobilize their populace, they continually made changes in production...how many versions of the Panzer Mk IV and Mk V were there? The US and the Soviets did not, they made long production runs of decent vehicles. They realized, numbers count...

Finally on the US side, accept the US Army got a lot of things right in WWII. Fundamentally, the Army had many good ideas, the best of which was that it was going to be an EXPEDITIONARY FORCE. That means that low weight, high reliability and simplicity are critical...the US Army is going to be fighting tens of thousands of kilometres from its production base and will have to bring everything it needs with it. And that meant NO DIESEL. The rest of the force was gasoline-driven and so would the tanks, to simplify the logistics tail. The Sherman was easy to maintain and easy to repair, that was a design feature...

Many of those fan-boy German tanks were nightmares to maintain and repair. The Tiger and the Panther, broken as much as they were operating...produced in small numbers (You guys do realize that half of the Wehrmacht tank force in 1944-45 was the Panzer Mk IV, right?). In short the Germans had fewer tanks, by their own decision, and of those fewer tanks fewer still were operational at any given time, as compared to their Soviet/Western counter-parts, and that it took longer to repair them than their Soviet/Western counter-parts...Fewer than 700 Pzkw VI were produced and never more than 300 were available for combat and in some instances fewer than 50% of that total number was actually on the line.

Here's a news flash to win you need thousands of tanks, not a few hundred...the Soviets and the Western Allies got far more right than their Wehrmacht counter-parts.

Lastly, as I always say in threads like this....1) 75-80% of all ammunition fired by tanks in WWII was HE. The enemy they fought was infantry and anti-tank guns, not other tanks 2) that the Sherman was the equal of the main German tank, the Pzkw Mk IV, meaning that the US and Brit's weren't as out-gunned or about-tanked as many like to believe.

Quote Reply

Nasty German Idiot 11/17/2008 3:38:03 PM

".Fewer than 700 Pzkw VI were produced and never more than 300 were available for combat and in some instances fewer than 50% of that total number was actually on the line.

Here's a news flash to win you need thousands of tanks, not a few hundred...the Soviets and the Western Allies got far more right than their Wehrmacht counter-parts.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Wow. Your incapability to use the Internet astounds me. It would have been very easy for you to look up production numbers, even a quick though would have revealed that 700 Pzkw IV are laughable and the Wehrmacht wouldnt even have conquered anything with that amount of tanks.

Here are some Tank Production numbers for Material for you :

Panzer IV: Ausführung:

A	35
B	42
C	134
D	ca.230
E	ca.220
F1	ca.460
F2	ca.190
G	ca.1.700
H	3.775
J	ca.1.750
Total	ca.8.500

Panzer IV

The Panzer IV was designed alongside the Panzer III. The Pz IV was a slightly larger and heavier tank, and with its large calibre low velocity gun, it was designed to break through enemy positions. Pre-war production was 211 tanks.

              1939  1940  1941  1942  1943  1944  1945

Pz IV (short)   45   268   467   124

Pz IV (long)     -     -     -   870  3013  3126   385

StuG IV          -     -     -     -    30  1006   105

Jagd IV          -     -     -     -     -   769        

Jagd IV/70       -     -     -     -     -   767   441

Sturm IV         -     -     -     -    66   215    17

Hummel           -     -     -     -   368   289    57

Hornisse         -     -     -     -   345   133    16

Mobelwagen       -     -     -     -     -   205    35

Wirbelwind       -     -     -     -     -   100     5

Ostwind          -     -     -     -     -    15    28



Source:

XXXttp://www.fact-index.com/g/ge/german_tank_production_during_world_war_ii.html

Although it is true in General that the German Tanks were not as well suited for Mass Production as the American, steps were taken to produce more and better tanks ... just time wasnt enough. (LOOK AT THE NUMBERS - even in 1945!) The German Tank Forces were much more defeated by Allied Airpower, and much less by the Allied Tank Forces. US Tankers feared the Tiger, Panther etc ... I have myself talked to US Tank Commanders and they told me - they world never try to match a Tiger 1 on 1 because it was suicide. And they would almost never have to. Germany had to have Tigers and Panthers to counter the very well designed Russian Models.

Quote Reply

Nasty German Idiot 11/17/2008 3:43:36 PM

Panzer VI (Tiger)

             1942  1943  1944  1945

Tiger I        78   649   623

Tiger II        -     3   377   100

Jagdtiger       -     -    61    16

Panzer V (Panther)

1943 1944 1945

Panther 1768 3777 439

Jagdpanther - 226 198

Quote Reply

Solomon2 11/17/2008 4:16:28 PM

victory tends to come to the side with the better crews

There's a lot more to it than that! A German heavy tank could beat up five Shermans, regardless of the quality of their crews. The majority of Soviet tank crews were "Category 6" soldiers - comparatively low-grade, and the Russians made up for that by employing their most talented as "reconnaissance" troops and conducting large-scale battles in a set-piece fashion. The Israelis succeeded in defending the Golan in 1973 partly due to the notable efforts of one teenage tank platoon commander who employed his tanks in imaginative fashion.

"victory tends - " has so many exceptions to it, it's just not useful.

Quote Reply

JFKY WOW, NGI 11/17/2008 4:26:19 PM

Amazing you produced the production results for the PZKW IV, good it proves my point that the vast number of tanks the US and Soviets faced were the IV...please note I said 700 PZKW VI (the Tiger). I may not be able to use the internet, but I can read....you might try learning, it's a useful skill.

Quote Reply

Heorot 11/17/2008 4:43:19 PM

You should try reading too. NGI's figures for the PZKW IV (Tiger 1) come to 1350, nearly double your figure.

Quote Reply

Nasty German Idiot 11/17/2008 5:18:45 PM

Thx Heorot ... When debating about the German Tank Weapon, one should also not forget the Tank-Hunters (Sturmgeschütze - Stugs) According to Wolfgang Fleischer (German Military Historian) - 20.000 enemy Tanks were knocked out by these weapons. The best Stug Commander (Fritz Lang of StuGabt. 232 with 113 Tanks knocked out , Nr. 10 in the list of German Tank Aces.) XXXttp://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?p=507478

Now about the so called "ineffectiveness" of the Panzer IV (no not the Tiger !):

When comparing the Gun, you will find that the 7,5 cm Gun doesnt differ much from the performance of the 8,8 - The Panzer IV was a good and reliable weapon and could deal with all sorts of enemy tanks till the end of the War. Although it was not able at the end phase of the War to counter the greater numbers of Shermans and T-34.

Armor breaking (acc. Fritz Hahn) of the 7,5cm L/48 and 8,8cm L/56:

V0 100 m 500 m 1000 m
7,5cm L/48 Pzgr39 790 106 96 87
Pzgr40 990 143 120 97

8,8cm L/56 Pzgr39 773 118 111 100
Pzgr40 990 170 155 138

Now whats much more imporant than the Tiger production numbers are the ones of the Panther - which had a better Gun - ( 7.5cm L70 ) and was much better at dealing with enemy Tanks because it had slanted armor.

Quote Reply

JFKY Heorot 11/17/2008 5:19:25 PM

No try again....Pzkw IV...no name, just the Mk IV

Pzkw VI (Tiger I)

Pzkw V (Panther)

Panzer Mk IV is just that the Panzer Mk IV, not the Tiger...Wiki it. ~8,870 produced, most produced German tank, IIRC.

Germany had about 80% of the USSR industrial capacity, and yet produced far fewer tanks. Germany made serious design and production errors.

Quote Reply

Nasty German Idiot 11/17/2008 5:25:41 PM

No try again....Pzkw IV...no name, just the Mk IV

Pzkw VI (Tiger I)

Pzkw V (Panther)

Panzer Mk IV is just that the Panzer Mk IV, not the Tiger...Wiki it. ~8,870 produced, most produced German tank, IIRC.

Germany had about 80% of the USSR industrial capacity, and yet produced far fewer tanks. Germany made serious design and production errors.

       1942  1943  1944  1945



Tiger I        78   649   623



Now we do it together:    78 + 649 = 727 

+ 623 = 1350



1350 is not 700.  It almost double that number.

Quote Reply

JFKY NGI 11/17/2008 5:32:43 PM

Reading comprehension is very low or English is the second language of many...no one has said the Mk IV was "ineffective." What I said was that the Sherman was EQUAL to the Mk IV. I guess by some transitive law, IF you believe the Sherman was INEFFECTIVE, THEN by the transitive law of Sherman = Mk IV the Mk IV is ineffective, but that's not what I said. I said Sherman = Mk IV....and that the Sherman was an effective vehicle.

Folks like to compare the Sherman to...the Tiger or the Panther. And in that comparison, on a straight tank-to-tank level the Sherman is wanting...but as half of the German tank park was Pzkw Mk IV's, that's not a good comparison...and then add on the fact that many Tigers and Panthers were broken at any given moment, and that it took much longer to repair them than a Sherman, and suddenly in toto the Sherman doesn't seem so bad....A Sherman force was larger, more sustainable, and more easily supported...in short a Sherman force was going to go a farther distance than a German Panther force, AND the Panther force is not going to be a majority of the German armour strength.

Finally, again, panzerfausts, mines, and PAK were the enemies of the Sherman, every bit as much as the Pzkw V and VI...as evidenced by losses and by ammunition employed. So I make the final point that to focus on the Sherman, SOLELY, as an anti-tank vehicle fighting Panthers OR Tigers is to miss the larger, and much more real point of combat in Northwest Europe 1944/45. It was FAR more than "my" Sherman v. "your" Panther...and when viewed in that light the Sherman gains in value.

Which is not to say that the US oughtn't have gone into D-Day with Easy-Eight and the Firefly and moved on from there....just that the Sherman was not the death trap it's painted out to be, or alternatively had the Germans been advancing thru the bocage in Panthers and TIgers, they'd have faired far worse, with a smaller tank park, a less reliable tank park, a more difficult to repair tank park, in the face of a dug-in infantry force defending against limited avenues of approach (i.e., had the roles been reversed). Had that been the case, the Germans would have been contained and lost the invasion.

Quote Reply

JFKY NGI 11/17/2008 5:34:11 PM

Quote Reply

Pages: 1 2 3 NEXT

	News As History - January 7, 2009
	Home News How to Make War Wars Around the World Austin Bay's On Point Dirty Little Secrets Features Al Nofi's CIC Prediction Market Wargames Measure of Respect On War and Warfare Videos Photos Jokes Community Military Discussion Boards Military Jokes Military Photos Military Book Reviews Military Movie Reviews Military Links Wargame Store StrategyPage Subscribe Login Feedback About Us Search Account Manager Advertise With Us