Allied tank technology

[Cobber15-08]

Howdy can anyone pass on some info regarding the WW2 Brit and later USA Tanks.
We all know that Nazi Tank technology was far advanced than western allies, esp during first few years when allied tanks were almost a joke in comparisson. The Matilda had great armour, but no speed and a smallish gun.

Why even in 1942/43 did the Brits and US boffins not have the capability to build a tank with enough armour, speed and a large enough Gun to take on the large Nazi tanks face to face?

I know for sure that after the 1941 Easter Battle and later battles in Tobruk & Western Desert gave the Allies varity's of disabled Nazi Tanks to ship off to Britan/USA for study which they did.

Yet as far as I know the Allies had problems placing a decent gun on their tanks for some years and not untill the end of the war does it appear to me that they had a Tank, that could of gone up against the Tigers Lepards etc and had a decent chance of destroying the enemy face to face.
I thank you in advance.

Cobber 15-08

[TheKiwi]

There was nothing stopping the allies from building tanks as good as the German ones. Indeed the Comet and M-26 were as good or better than the Tiger and Panther tanks they were largely facing (leaving out the Tiger II, most of which were lost to a lack of fuel).

What was a problem was a sense of complacency. The Sherman had been as good as the Panzer III/IV in the desert campaigns, so many thought it'd be good enough for the rest of the war. Also a lot of time was wasted on heavy designs that were too heavy to be of real use (The US M-6 Heavy Tank comes to mind). Remember also that the vast majority of allied tanks came from US factories. Heavier tanks require more shipping space, more fuel and so forth to support.

Even when it was recognised that the 75mm canon on the Sherman wasn't up to scratch, the 76mm was delayed by infighting amoung the armoured forces over whether it was needed or good enough.

Finally of course, quantity has a quality all of it's own... :D

[TheKiwi]

A couple of other points, the tanks of the early war like the Matilda and the German Panzer I' and II's were much of a muchness as far as guns were concerned. Indeed the Matilda's 2 pounder was more than good enough up until the uparmoured Panzer III's and the Panzer IV started to make an appearance.

[JRT]

Howdy can anyone pass on some info regarding the WW2 Brit and later USA Tanks.
We all know that Nazi Tank technology was far advanced than western allies, esp during first few years when allied tanks were almost a joke in comparisson. The Matilda had great armour, but no speed and a smallish gun.


If you take a look at the french campaign in 1940, you will find that allied tanks were actually technically superior to german tanks. Germany conquered France with Pz I's and Pz II's, which were inferior to both British and French armour of the day. Pz III and Pz IV numbers were actually very low in Wehrmacht that time.

Victory and defeat in France was dictated by superior doctrine and the element of surprise in the German side, not because they had better tanks. Allied tanks were far from a joke, they just used them in a stupid fashion.

[TheKiwi]

...Germany conquered France with Pz I's and Pz II's, which were inferior to both British and French armour of the day. Pz III and Pz IV numbers were actually very low in Wehrmacht that time.
....

Fewer than 300 all up I read somewhere recently.

[Basillicus]

I guess one significant factor might be that they didn't face the T-34 hordes the Germans faced, so the need for more capable tanks for tank vs. tank engagements was not seen as serious. The only serious challenge before 1944 were those few Tigers in NA, Pz III with 50mm guns and Pz IV with long 75mm were respectable adversaries for early war tanks but they still could be handled with pretty conservative ways and didn't encourage serious redesign.

[TheKiwi]

Correct. Allied higher command beleived that the Tigers the encountered in Africa and the Panthers in Italy were rare and would only be met occasionally. Normandy showed that to be incorrect, but by then it was less than 12 months to the end of the war.

[Connaught Ranger]

Why even in 1942/43 did the Brits and US boffins not have the capability to build a tank with enough armour, speed and a large enough Gun to take on the large Nazi tanks face to face?A lot of it had to do with the way the tank manufacturing process was set up, to swing over to a new design of a heavy tank was possible, just not feasible as it would have meant a major interruption in tank supply while the factories were rigged out.

Also remember that a new tank design in 42/43 would need lots of time for field trials and modifications (even the Germans made the mistake of sending untried and not fully tested vehicles out into combat and suffered losses for it.)

The general consensus was keep building what we have set up factories to build, (upgrade where possible) as numbers were more important than quality.

Connaught Ranger

[DPM_Sheep]

On the whole early German tanks weren't superior. Matilda IIs and Crusaders routinely ate Panzer III for breakfast. What gave the Germans the huge advantage early on was the 88mm FLAK gun. The Germans quickly leaned it could kill just about any allied tank in production and that stayed pretty much true through out the war.

As others have said, the allies didn't see the need to really push armor technology at a breakneck pace as air superiorty had largely neutralised the threat of a massed armour attack by the Germans (though the Battle of the Bulge proved that it wasn't impossible). Also, with the advent of the 17lbr equipped Firefly, even Tigers were vulnerable to the Sherman, (ask Michael Wittman). For the allies, numbers became much more important than overall quality.

That said, some of the late war, or immediate post war, tanks were better than anything the Nazis had on the drawing board let alone produced.

[JoaMei]

Actually in the beginning of the war, there was no technical superiority in Tanks on the german side. But experiences with T-34 forced new developments.

The T-34 was not a supertank, but it was good in all aspects (except fire control optics) and available in large numbers. The Sherman was only mediocre in best case (called "Tommy cooker" by german tankes), but also available in masses and always had massive air support.

In open combat a T-34 (not to speak of the Sherman) was no match to a Tiger, but Tigers ot Panthers were very rare and not easy to replace when lost.

[Mackie]

On the whole early German tanks weren't superior. Matilda IIs and Crusaders routinely ate Panzer III for breakfast. What gave the Germans the huge advantage early on was the 88mm FLAK gun. The Germans quickly leaned it could kill just about any allied tank in production and that stayed pretty much true through out the war.


German tank troops were superior in communication.

[Kilgor]

German tank troops were superior in communication.

And of course the way they were used, and with air support.

Its the complete package, often people focus too much on technology.

[Kitsune]

We all know that Nazi Tank technology was far advanced than western allies, esp during first few years when allied tanks were almost a joke in comparisson.

Firstly, they were German Tanks not "Nazi Tanks". As far as being superior is concerned, Germany in general may have certain technological abilities, especially so when it comes to tanks, at least, if the history after the war is any guide. Panzers like the Leopard I and Leopard II were considered to be among the very best, and the latter one is still considered to be the best MBT in the world by many.

But the German tanks weren't that superior in the early years of WWII - that is largely a myth. Germany came up with its tanks within a short period just before the war and they were neither especially big nor technologically perfect. In 1938/39 the Czechs had probably better tanks, and while the Poles did not, the French ones were larger, better armored and armed than the ones the Wehrmacht had. In Africa, German soldiers were usually up against larger tanks of their enemies as well (like the mentioned Matilda) and it got especially bad in Russia were the KV-1 tanks proved to be impervious to the fire of any early German tank and the T-34 (which fortunately was in the early years pretty rarely found in the western Sovietunion) being superior in almost any way.

In those early years of the war, the German armored forces enjoyed superiority in tactics, training, superior communication and superior targeting optics, that's it. Otherwise they were more often than not outgunned, outarmored and outnumbered. To cope with the superior Soviet tanks, new German panzer types were introduced, most notably the Panther and, of course, the Tiger. When those then met American and British tanks in 1944, the Western Allies were confronted with better armed and armored German tanks for a change (though still having the advantage of numbers), and that created these stories about the completely superior German panzers.

[Pandemonium]

On the whole early German tanks weren't superior. Matilda IIs and Crusaders routinely ate Panzer III for breakfast. .

Good one but not entirely true, the Mathilda had a powerfull armour that is true, but was to slow, and could easily be outgunned, the Crusader was fast but the armour was too thin and the armament always too weak.
The Germans could easily change their tactics and exploit these weaknesses. It wasn't untill the Grant and Sherman appeared on the battlefield that the Allied troops could really make a difference.

[Linedoggie]

For American Tanks It was a question of Doctrine.

HQ Army Ground Forces believed the best way to destroy a Tank was with Anti Tank (Tank Destroyer) forces. Tanks were for Infantry Support and Exploitation, not Slugging it out with Panzers.

LTG McNair had much to do with Undergunning the M4, he resisted all calls from the Armored Force for heavier hitting guns, This was one large reason the M26 got into service so late.

FM 18-5 Tactical Employment of Tank Destroyer Units was the TD Bible.

Because of this fact, the M4 series was late in getting the 76mm Gun. Many of the Army commanders didnt even want the 76mm M4 because it didnt have a useful HE shell for Infantry Support work.

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA954997&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

http://cgsc.leavenworth.army.mil/carl/download/csipubs/gabel2.pdf

Mechanically speaking the M4 series was able to be run with a Variety of powerplants

From Radial Aircraft engines(Continental R975,aka Wright Whirlwind) to Diesel(GM 6046's)

From the Multibank A57 ( 5 Chrysler 4.12 litre L-head inline six cylinder engines where placed around a central crank, producing a unique 30 cylinder 21 litre engine ) and the Ford GAA V8.

[Connaught Ranger]

Is it true the development of the U.S. Armor was held up by some high ranking U.S. officer and the situation did not advance until he was killed by a Blue on Blue incident (Air attack) in North Africa?

Connaught Ranger.

[Linedoggie]

Is it true the development of the U.S. Armor was held up by some high ranking U.S. officer and the situation did not advance until he was killed by a Blue on Blue incident (Air attack) in North Africa?

Connaught Ranger.

I believe you mean McNair, he was killed at Normandy by the 9th AAF during Operation Cobra.

McNair's policy was "Battleneed" aka Essential(as opposed to "Battleworthiness"), so as Head of the AGF he decided to standardize on a few systems to simplify the Logistics train.

Contact with Tiger I in North Africa spurred changes to T23E3 adding Heavier Armor and Armament. Production to Battlefield Lead times neccessitated Approval NLT Fall 1943. LTG Devers was Temporary CO of American Forces ETO until Eisenhower arrived for the Med.

He requested the approval, Ordnance Agreed, War Department Agreed

McNair dissapproved it. Here's McNairs words:

"The M4 Tank, Particularly the M4A3, has been widely hailed as the best tank on the battlefield today. There are indications that the Enemy concurs in this view. Apparently, the M4 is an ideal combination of mobility, dependability, speed, protection, and firepower.

Other than this Particular request- which represents the British view- there has been no call from any theater for a 90mm tank gun. There appears to be no fear on the part of our forces of the german Mark VI(tiger) tank"

There can be no basis for the T26 tank other than a Tank vs. Tank duel-which is believed unsound and unnecessary. Both British and American battle experience has demonstrated that the Anti-Tank Gun in Suitable Numbers and disposed properly is the master of the tank. Any attempt to armor and gun tanks so as to outmatch antitank guns is foredoomed to failure...... There is no indication that the 76mm anti-tank gun is inadequate to the German Mark VI tank"

As you can see, McNair was smugly able to determine what the sharp end needed and discount calls for Heavier guns capable of Tank vs. Tank as being the British View Many High ranking US Officers distrusted British Combat experience for Nationalistic reasons. Also the entire Tank Destroyer Branch was his Baby, he was the one who approved it. Dogfaces died because of it

Patton also wanted no part of the 76mm according to Gen. Bruce Clarke. Patton though a great armored Commander had Poor Technical judgement when it came to Tanks

In the First Month of the Normandy Fighting the US tank attrition rate was 32%- 4 times the expected rate of 7%

[Tanker31B]

The only thing that turned the Pather or Tiger into a legend is one thing.

The lack of a large gun on the Sherman, A 17 pounder or the American 90mm. They all knew what was coming, the tiger was in combat in 1942 with the Russians and the Americans ran into them in Sept of 1943.

The British bounced back and forth but by feb of 1944 they where at full production. But not enough..and the 17 pounder was thee gun for power/penatration at the end of the war.

If the beaches of Normandy unloaded every tank in firefly config, this would be a short thread. lol

Even with the lack of Armour on the Sherman it would of been the numbers that would make the difference.

I dont buy the idea about retooling plant, this is about a barrel, trunnion, different recoil cylinders, all ready develop by early 1944.

Put the damn Royal royce into the Mustang!

As mentioned the tank destroy concept through a wrench in things.

Old school thinking also plays a role. It takes a lot to get the old guard to change there minds.



Politics 101 Maybe.

[DPM_Sheep]

Good one but not entirely true, the Mathilda had a powerfull armour that is true, but was to slow, and could easily be outgunned, the Crusader was fast but the armour was too thin and the armament always too weak.
The Germans could easily change their tactics and exploit these weaknesses. It wasn't untill the Grant and Sherman appeared on the battlefield that the Allied troops could really make a difference.

As indeed they did. The Africa Korps' SOP was to engage british tanks then pull back behind a screen of AT guns and put the british armor in the difficult position of deciding wether to push on with heavy casualties from the 75mm and 88mm AT guns or break off.

I never said the German's tactics were flawed, just that the Pzkfw.III was. :)

[TheKiwi]

The Comet, in my opinion the best British tank to see service in the war used a cut down 17 pounder as it's main gun; called the 77mm to distinguish it. With APDS rounds, it could easily take down Panthers and Tigers. Unfortunately, it only saw service in the final few months of the war.

Going back to the early war, it was superior German tactics and (just as importantly communications) that saw them slice into France. French comms were a mess. Many tanks weren't fitted with radios (not an uncommon problem with other nations tanks too). To send orders from the battlefront to high command and back again could take 48 hours!

French tanks on the other hand were among the more advanced in Europe, the Souma S35 was very good indeed. French anti-tank guns were also good, but in a piece of bad timing, the French were exporting way more of them than they were accepting into service, right up until May 1940. French artillery was numerous and of excellent quality. You can only imagine what might have been acheived if only all of these were able to communication swiftly with one and other.

[Linedoggie]

As indeed they did. The Africa Korps' SOP was to engage british tanks then pull back behind a screen of AT guns and put the british armor in the difficult position of deciding wether to push on with heavy casualties from the 75mm and 88mm AT guns or break off.

I never said the German's tactics were flawed, just that the Pzkfw.III was. :) I dont think the DAK had many Pak 40's until late. They did have Pak 38's (50mm) which took their toll or Armor, and also the excellent Italian Cannone da 47/32 M34 / M35 in 47mm

[Minardiau]

Howdy can anyone pass on some info regarding the WW2 Brit and later USA Tanks.
We all know that Nazi Tank technology was far advanced than western allies, esp during first few years when allied tanks were almost a joke in comparisson. The Matilda had great armour, but no speed and a smallish gun.

Why even in 1942/43 did the Brits and US boffins not have the capability to build a tank with enough armour, speed and a large enough Gun to take on the large Nazi tanks face to face?

I know for sure that after the 1941 Easter Battle and later battles in Tobruk & Western Desert gave the Allies varity's of disabled Nazi Tanks to ship off to Britan/USA for study which they did.

Yet as far as I know the Allies had problems placing a decent gun on their tanks for some years and not untill the end of the war does it appear to me that they had a Tank, that could of gone up against the Tigers Lepards etc and had a decent chance of destroying the enemy face to face.
I thank you in advance.

Cobber 15-08

http://www.mheaust.com.au/Aust/Research/Sentinel/sentinelmk.htm

Read that. There was allied tanks designed and even built early in the war that could have been a good match against anything the Germans threw at it.

[DPM_Sheep]

I dont think the DAK had many Pak 40's until late. They did have Pak 38's (50mm) which took their toll or Armor, and also the excellent Italian Cannone da 47/32 M34 / M35 in 47mm

I believe that's correct. The DAK relied heavily on the '37 and '38, the '37 being by far the meaner weapon. PAK 40s began showing up around late '42, just prior to the 2nd Battle of El Alamein.

So as you say, it was late on ('42 -43 ish), they also started recieving several PAK 41 guns as well the Tiger Is of the 10th Panzer Division following Op: Torch.

[DutchInfantry]

On the whole early German tanks weren't superior. Matilda IIs and Crusaders routinely ate Panzer III for breakfast. What gave the Germans the huge advantage early on was the 88mm FLAK gun. The Germans quickly leaned it could kill just about any allied tank in production and that stayed pretty much true through out the war.

As others have said, the allies didn't see the need to really push armor technology at a breakneck pace as air superiorty had largely neutralised the threat of a massed armour attack by the Germans (though the Battle of the Bulge proved that it wasn't impossible). Also, with the advent of the 17lbr equipped Firefly, even Tigers were vulnerable to the Sherman, (ask Michael Wittman). For the allies, numbers became much more important than overall quality.

That said, some of the late war, or immediate post war, tanks were better than anything the Nazis had on the drawing board let alone produced.

In the early days yes..
But the Sherman had little chance alone against a Tiger.
3 Shermans for every german tank...but most german tanks where Stugs.
The Tiger coult take every tank up to 2000m.
The Shermans 75mm has a range of 500m.
Dont compare them please..:bash:
the 75mm and the 17 pndr where only efective at close range.
And only at the ass not even at the sides..
Compare gun and armour its like a T-55 against a Leopard2a6.
The M-26 came later so compare it whit the Tiger II.
The 7,5cm gun of the Panter had a bigger punch then the 100mm of the T-55 sounds strange but true.
Let alone the 128mm..

Most Tigers where destroyed by air or there own crews.
At the Battle of the Bulge they came out of fuel.

The german where way ahead..
Jet-fighters wich where better at all fronts.
The first asault-rifle the STG-44.
The First ICBM.
After the was germans built the first MIGs and even the rocket witch was send to the moon.
All based on german ww2 tech.
At the beginning of the war the germans espected a quick victory.
So major developments started later.
And big faults of the Furher ofcourse....
The STG was to ugly and the ME-262 was not that impresive to him.

The German war machine was the best of that time they lost due stupid mistakes..

[domokun]

the 75mm and the 17 pndr where only efective at close range.

The German war machine was the best of that time they lost due stupid mistakes..

No offense but 17 pdr could take out German tanks even from long ranges with wolfram/tungsten rounds. Even Germans had wolfram/tungsten rounds in eastern front, PzGr40 with that short barrel 75mm/L24 of Pzkfw IV D could take out T-34 on all practical ranges. Germans just ran out tungsten very fast. 75mm of normal Shermans and Cromwells was quite inefficient against Panthers or Tigers.

Wunder waffen were in some aspects amazing in battlefield, but they were never aweilable in numbers that could have made difference. 100 Shermans is lot better than 20 StuG III G's and 3 Panthers. When compared tank by tank, Panther G is probably best tank of WWII, but Soviets could make 5 or so T-34-85 and Americans 5 Shermans to face it in battlefield.

Germans had best tech to use, but grand strategy was against them. Lot of initial success in operation Barbarossa were possible due to massive Soviet mistakes. They learned. They basically used same tactics from '43 to end as Germans used on their prime, they had their own "twist" in it.

Soviets used captured German tanks in 2nd line units, those crews hated pretty much all German tanks as they weren't as reliable as T-34, that was made worse with lack of spares, Panthers and Tigers superior optics weren't that important in comparison when they had problems in marching on good roads. Soviet units liked best of captured German tanks they used Pz IV and StuG III, based on books I have read on subject as they were most reliable of German Tanks and they had most spares for those.

Late production German tanks had worse optics than earlier to make 'em more serial produtable. I have heard story about captured Panther that was used as test target by US being "knocked" out by .50 cal MG, apparently due to massive face hardening error in frontal hull armor plate. Germans had briliant designs like Panther or JagdTiger, they never had them in reasonable numbers or enough fuel to use them effectively.

Quality vs quantity, has some sort of answer in battle. Germans lost due to lack of numbers. In early war Germans had probably best trained personell, they died to hypothermia in 1st winter of Soviet campaign. Allies were capable to field increasing numbers of well trained or experienced troops, while comparable German numbers got lower as war progressed.

Germans, Soviets and Finns have most of those ace fighter pilots and ace tank crews. Why? Early war Finnish and German pilots and tank crews were very well trained. Soviets that survived had to be "natural talents" (in lack of better words). In later war that turned upside down, especially Germans that survived battles had to have luck and "talent" to survive. Erich Hartmanns (could have been Hans-Ulrich Rudels too... I'm too drunk to check sources) auto biography has rather sad comment about untrained pilots sent out to fight against American bombers and their escorts. 20 or something pilots were sent, due to bad weather they didn't find enemy. For same reason none of them returned to base as they didn't have instrument flying training.

Whole war was stupid mistake from German side, if some battles like Stalingrad or Kursk wound have been won due to possible better strategic decisions... nothing would have been changed but how long it took. War could have lasted month or two longer.

[Pandemonium]

true but please don't go there with the great IF-prognosisses again those lead to nowhere, or the comparison of tanks, they all had their good sides, they all had their bad sides, but it is too simplistic too just look at the numbers of tanks that where knocked out, compare the thickness of their armour and armament and choose your favorit.

[Tanker31B]

The Germans had the same problems as big three;

Build a 454 SS, truck was fast, hard on gas, only sell /build a few, doesnt help the company much, but sure was fun.

Dont get me wrong, love the 454 and the Tiger.

[TR1]

Fail to see what so amazing about German tanks. Wow, they managed to make superior vehicles to the Sherman and T-34, that weight from twice to three times as much.

[Tanker31B]

What about the effect your Tank has on you.

Sherman crew, "oh great another Tiger"
Tiger Crew "Traverse hard left, driver turn hard right, was that the tranny? Were is the fuel? We need support? How long to load on a train?"
Sherman Firefly Crew "Wish we had more of these"
T-34 crew.....they just want to kill something.

[domokun]

Fail to see what so amazing about German tanks. Wow, they managed to make superior vehicles to the Sherman and T-34, that weight from twice to three times as much.

You could give credit to them in good optics and other command and control stuff. They were forward in that stuff.

I'm not not sorry over fact that Soviets and Americans out did them quality/quantity fraction.

By pretty much all aspects Panther was better than T-34-85 or any Sherman variant... or JS-2 or M26. Thank god they weren't able to produce 'em in comparable numbers. Actually we don't have thank any non natural entity over that, Germans tried just to do too good equipment to counter enemy that had all advantages behind it, both quality and quantity in end.

[TR1]

Panther was hardly better than IS-2. Of course a comparison is rather moot (IS-2 being a breakthrough tank), but on the same weight IS-2 had better armor, far more devastating gun (Panther could shoot at faster rate though, being a more tank fighting oriented machine), late war Soviet optics were hardly inferior to German ones. In short, in terms of hard qualities I think Soviet designers had no problem matching or outdoing their German counterparts.



and of course Panther was better than T-34-85- it weighed over twice as much! Hardly an impressive feat...

[Linedoggie]

Fail to see what so amazing about German tanks. Wow, they managed to make superior vehicles to the Sherman and T-34, that weight from twice to three times as much.
Snazzy Camo, Zimmerit, Fancy Uniforms, and took most of Europe in a few months, other than that No Spare Parts train so Cannibalize was the odrer of the day, or send it back to Germany for Repair.

[domokun]

Panther was hardly better than IS-2. Of course a comparison is rather moot (IS-2 being a breakthrough tank), but on the same weight IS-2 had better armor, far more devastating gun (Panther could shoot at faster rate though, being a more tank fighting oriented machine), late war Soviet optics were hardly inferior to German ones. In short, in terms of hard qualities I think Soviet designers had no problem matching or outdoing their German counterparts.



and of course Panther was better than T-34-85- it weighed over twice as much! Hardly an impressive feat...

There was difference in roles, in weight IS-2 closer match to Panther than T-34-85. Tiger or Panther had better guns when it comes to tank fights than IS-2. IS-2 had bad rate of fire caused by two part round of 122mm cannon. German cannons had better penetration, both 75mm/L70 of Panther and 88mm/L56 of tiger, Tiger II had even better 88mm/L71.

Actually my point.. well once again I'm bit drunk, but allies both Soviets and Western could out do Germans in both numbers and quality in end.

In the end it's not machines decide combat, but men. Soviet and other allies over came Germans in later parts of war as Allied troop quality got better all the time due to training and combat experience. At same time German troop quality lowered, best German troops died in first two years of Soviet campaign.

Here in Finland we can give thanks to Stalins drive on Berlin to our standard of living and independence. And to Sinimäed (if I type it correctly) battle in Estonia, among other things.

T-34-85 was about 35ton tank, Panther was 45ton. Not twice but third heavier. They classified Panther as medium tank while little bit lighter IS-2 was heavy... We can call that irony. Americans called M26 Heavy tank even while it was medium based on weight. Morale purposes was behind that.

[commanding]

Snazzy Camo, Zimmerit, Fancy Uniforms, and took most of Europe in a few months, other than that No Spare Parts train so Cannibalize was the odrer of the day, or send it back to Germany for Repair.

very true, think the Germans in WWII were the first (??) to come up with anti magnetic mine protection (zimmerit the plaster wavy looking stuff on the surface of those tanks), the black uniforms of panzer crews to hide grease stains, the berets they wore were padded to protect them from head smacks, the Germans were among the first to have tank to tank radio commo, they also had the foresight to put the 88 gun on tanks which could punch holes in most other tanks, they went withe sloped armor on most of their tanks (compared to rounded on US shermans), their armor was MUCH thicker than US tanks (like a factor of 2 to 3 times), they ran diesel powered engines if I am no mistaken, the WAY they used their tanks (blitzkrieg warfare busting thru enemy lines and creating havoc behind enemy lines), and having special units of infantry to support tanks, rather than relying on regular infantry to do that.
Hitler, was nuts over tanks, and he spared no expense, and was open to new ideas on how to use them, and he had some darn good tank generals.

[TR1]

a few points -
T-34/85 was actually a bit over 30 tons...earlier T-34s were closer to 25 tons. Is-2 and Panther had almost identical combat weight. Regarding penetration, it's tru that a few German guns had better penetration, in the strict sense- but the 122mm often was more powerful due to raw power and weight of the shot, "overmatching" of the armor, and cracking and bending that occurred at the welds and seams of the armor when hit by such a large shell. Of course the rate of fire was still a problem, but as we know IS-2 wasn't made for the express purpose of taking out Panthers or Tigers (although it could, very well)..

[commanding]

Actually my point.. well once again I'm bit drunk, but allies both Soviets and Western could out do Germans in both numbers and quality in end.

At same time German troop quality lowered, best German troops died in first two years of Soviet campaign.

Americans called M26 Heavy tank even while it was medium based on weight. Morale purposes was behind that.

Agreed! I clipped out most of your post except parts I wanted to comment on. You hit the nail on the head, the US and soviets both produced tanks by the thousands....whereas Germany, kept the numbers much much smaller, and concentrated on making the tanks they had the best they could be. US sherman tanks were lightly armored, but there were a zillion of them. Ditto for the soviet tanks.
Germany lost the flower of the german army, especially the tank corps, in the Soviet push early on.
When I was a kid most of the grown men were ex World War two US soldiers, and some were tankers. One man in particular, was in a sherman in the battle of the bulge, and he told me stories that would make you puke and the hair stand up on your neck.
Those were heady times, may all the brave soldiers on all sides who perished, rest in peace!

[commanding]

from my collection.....
speaking of German Panzers, here is a token (like a coin) from World War II German Panzer unit:

and a couple other German military tokens from various WWII units:

[domokun]

a few points -
T-34/85 was actually a bit over 30 tons...earlier T-34s were closer to 25 tons. Is-2 and Panther had almost identical combat weight. Regarding penetration, it's tru that a few German guns had better penetration, in the strict sense- but the 122mm often was more powerful due to raw power and weight of the shot, "overmatching" of the armor, and cracking and bending that occurred at the welds and seams of the armor when hit by such a large shell. Of course the rate of fire was still a problem, but as we know IS-2 wasn't made for the express purpose of taking out Panthers or Tigers (although it could, very well)..

122mm often knocked out turret of Tigers and Panthers from turret ring. And effectively destroyed them, in some cases turret got blown on.. lot further away.

IS-2 was designed to primarilly knock out machine gun and anti-tank gun bunkers and "foxholes" (cant come up with translation to Finnish term Korsu, kind of lighter bunker...).

I think biggest maker difference wasn't quality of equipment, the issue that made difference was general quality of crews and personnel. Soviets took over in that aspect, even when Germans kept mostly theoretical advantage in quality of equipment. Theoretically Panther was better than T-34-85... but 3 or more T-34-85 were lot better than Panther. And in end Soviet crews got better than Germans as German crews were sacrificed in battle.

It's not about tanks, but Soviet offense in Finnish front in summer '44 was completely different from Winter Wars one. Troops had been cut to about third... still they got it better. Finlands independence was saved by Soviet rush to Berlin.

[TR1]

122mm often knocked out turret of Tigers and Panthers from turret ring. And effectively destroyed them, in some cases turret got blown on.. lot further away.

Indeed. An intersting thing to consider, is that sometimes in 1944 (i think) Soviet troops started noticing the frontal armor of the Panther Hull (very well armored) exhibiting huge cracks and fractures as a result of being hit by 122mm shells. This was because of the lack of resources available to Germany, hence lower quality armor production, and while this had little impact over penetration by smaller shells (like 76mm and even 85mm), it made all the difference for the IS-2.

IS-2 was designed to primarilly knock out machine gun and anti-tank gun bunkers and "foxholes" (cant come up with translation to Finnish term Korsu, kind of lighter bunker...).

I think biggest maker difference wasn't quality of equipment, the issue that made difference was general quality of crews and personnel. Soviets took over in that aspect, even when Germans kept mostly theoretical advantage in quality of equipment. Theoretically Panther was better than T-34-85... but 3 or more T-34-85 were lot better than Panther. And in end Soviet crews got better than Germans as German crews were sacrificed in battle.

It's not about tanks, but Soviet offense in Finnish front in summer '44 was completely different from Winter Wars one. Troops had been cut to about third... still they got it better. Finlands independence was saved by Soviet rush to Berlin.

To be fair, the Finns fought very impressively against the kind of forces arrayed against them.



.................................

[DutchInfantry]

true but please don't go there with the great IF-prognosisses again those lead to nowhere, or the comparison of tanks, they all had their good sides, they all had their bad sides, but it is too simplistic too just look at the numbers of tanks that where knocked out, compare the thickness of their armour and armament and choose your favorit.

You can compare the guns.
At that point the conclution is simple.

The soviet tanks where reliable becuse they where simple to produce them in great numbers.
That was there strength not quality US had thesame thing.
But indeed the Germans had a big shortige of good materials.

The stats are simple 3 to 1 for the germans..

Italy and Japan made tanks witch where no match for the M-4s.

[Lokos]

122mm often knocked out turret of Tigers and Panthers from turret ring. And effectively destroyed them, in some cases turret got blown on.. lot further away.

The gun which had this reputation was the 152mm howitzer. The 122mm to a lesser extent, maybe.

The Soviets designed their tanks as infantry support vehicles first. They packed more HE rounds in their combat load; their ammunition was in turn loaded with more explosive charge. The tank, from the Soviet point of view, was a vehicle of exploitation. In the case of the IS-series, it was also a breakthrough vehicle. While there was a disparity in terms of AP performance between German and Soviet guns, the Soviet guns generally had the better HE performance. Like the Americans, the Soviets viewed the AT gun to be the best method of destroying enemy tanks.

It should be mentioned that it was not a dearth of experience in making good AT guns that prevented the Soviets from fielding similarly high performing weapons. For example, even in 1941 they had the superb 57mm AT gun, that could handily take out any German tank of the time, and which exhibited superior AP performance characteristics to the 76mm... Later on, the 100mm AT gun became the premier performer, with an excellent AP capability. The main differential was doctrine and the manner in which tanks were deployed - aside from economics and war necessity.

L.

[oldsoak]

The British also designed their tanks as infantry support - but in this area, the Russians had far more capable designs.

[Schad]

It wasn't the tanks that gave the Germans superiority but their tactics in terms of all radio comms, PAK units, mobility, repair and air support - the tanks themselves were pretty average and apart from the very few big beasts were not much better and often far worse than those fielded by the allies.

[DPM_Sheep]

In the early days yes..
But the Sherman had little chance alone against a Tiger.
3 Shermans for every german tank...but most german tanks where Stugs.
The Tiger coult take every tank up to 2000m.
The Shermans 75mm has a range of 500m.
Dont compare them please..:bash:
the 75mm and the 17 pndr where only efective at close range.
And only at the ass not even at the sides..



You really have no idea what you're talking about.

A Sherman Firefly could and did kill Tiger Is with frontal Glacis hits at ranges of a 1000m+

As for the whole 5-1 crap, as I said earlier you might want to ask Michael Wittmann- oh wait, you can't, as his - and 5 other Tiger I ausf Gs and two Panzer IVs - got the holly smeg blown out of them by one Firefly and 3 Shermans of the Northamptonshire Yeomanry and two Fireflies and six Shermans of the Canadian Sherbrooke Fusiliers.

Hmm, 10 (including 7 Tigers) versus 12 (including 3 Fireflies)... Hardly the much vaunted 5-1 ratio is it?

So, :bash: right back at ya. p-)

[Kitsune]

A Sherman Firefly could and did kill Tiger Is with frontal Glacis hits at ranges of a 1000m+

Very few Shermans were Fireflies - and very few of those killed a Tiger.




In the end it's not machines decide combat, but men. Soviet and other allies over came Germans in later parts of war as Allied troop quality got better all the time due to training and combat experience. At same time German troop quality lowered, best German troops died in first two years of Soviet campaign.
It seems rather that German troops stayed superior in fighting efficiency per unit until late 1944, only after that did the Allies surpass them in this regard and that happened mostly because of German degradation not because the allies reached some extremely outstanding level because of their incredible cleverness. Up to that time German forces inflicted in general more losses on their enemies than they received themselves - and that goes especially for tanks. The allies won the war because of superiority in quantity, not because they had the smarter Generals, more intelligent engineers or braver soldiers.

I am sorry, but WWII is the prime example of a war during which quantity triumphed over quality and greater mass production of machines triumphed over superior engineering or the abilities of an excellent general staff. Of course, had the allies possessed these merits, the war would have been a short one: in 1939 even France and Poland, with a bit of support from the British, had everything they needed to defeat Germany within a few months.

[Eoin666]

You really have no idea what you're talking about.

A Sherman Firefly could and did kill Tiger Is with frontal Glacis hits at ranges of a 1000m+

As for the whole 5-1 crap, as I said earlier you might want to ask Michael Wittmann- oh wait, you can't, as his - and 5 other Tiger I ausf Gs and two Panzer IVs - got the holly smeg blown out of them by one Firefly and 3 Shermans of the Northamptonshire Yeomanry and two Fireflies and six Shermans of the Canadian Sherbrooke Fusiliers.

Hmm, 10 (including 7 Tigers) versus 12 (including 3 Fireflies)... Hardly the much vaunted 5-1 ratio is it?

So, :bash: right back at ya. p-)

I'm glad someone noticed that....


In the early days yes..
But the Sherman had little chance alone against a Tiger.
3 Shermans for every german tank...but most german tanks where Stugs.
The Tiger coult take every tank up to 2000m.
The Shermans 75mm has a range of 500m.
Dont compare them please..:bash:
the 75mm and the 17 pndr where only efective at close range.
And only at the ass not even at the sides..
Compare gun and armour its like a T-55 against a Leopard2a6.
The M-26 came later so compare it whit the Tiger II.
The 7,5cm gun of the Panter had a bigger punch then the 100mm of the T-55 sounds strange but true.
Let alone the 128mm..

17pdrs could easily penetrate the frontal armour of a Tiger at over 1000m (192mm armour penetration) using standard AP rounds tungsten rounds were superior but less acurate and rarely used

122mm D25 in IS2 in tests penetrated the frontal armour, crew compartment, engine block and rear armour of a Panther from 1500m

Soviet 100mm D10 was one of the best AT guns of the war and better armour penetration than the breakthough heavy explosive capacity 122mm penetrating 185mm at 1000m superior to German 75mm Kwk42.

British 20pdr (85mm) and even more powerful 32pdr (94mm) and US 90mm by 1945 were all on par or superior to the 88mm even the Kwk43 (200mm armour at 1000m)


very true, think the Germans in WWII were the first (??) to come up with anti magnetic mine protection (zimmerit the plaster wavy looking stuff on the surface of those tanks), the black uniforms of panzer crews to hide grease stains, the berets they wore were padded to protect them from head smacks, the Germans were among the first to have tank to tank radio commo, they also had the foresight to put the 88 gun on tanks which could punch holes in most other tanks, they went withe sloped armor on most of their tanks (compared to rounded on US shermans), their armor was MUCH thicker than US tanks (like a factor of 2 to 3 times), they ran diesel powered engines if I am no mistaken, the WAY they used their tanks (blitzkrieg warfare busting thru enemy lines and creating havoc behind enemy lines), and having special units of infantry to support tanks, rather than relying on regular infantry to do that.

If you're going to make statements don't put ?? as it then states you're not too sure....:oops:
Zimmerit was stopped in 1944 too time consuming and no real advantage when hollow charge rockets became more common, tank crews wore helmets, so as for padded berets being some sort of technological breakthrough :roll: Germans didn't develop sloped armour, sloped deflective armour was around for centuries on buildings and personal armour and the USSR first applied the lessons to tanks. The German Maybach engines powering the Tiger and Panther were petrol engines, the Germans adapted the 88mm after using it as an emergency AT gun in France and N. Africa, USSR etc.....not something originally intended with the AA gun!

Germany's great advantage was in their crew, operational and staff officer training and doctrines, not their vehicles......but even most of those lessons were originally developed but not taken up by the British, with Liddel-Hart and JFC Fuller military theorists both greatly admired by Guderian.


Very few Shermans were Fireflies - and very few of those killed a Tiger.

1 in 4 was a Firefly in each Sherman platoon (Cromwell units had Challengers and Churchill units had Achilles or Archers)

[Linedoggie]

Zimmerit was never Protection against HEAT, It was for Anti-Magnetic Mines the Soviets would either throw or hand place on the panzer.

It was stopped mainly due to 2 factors

1-unfounded complaints that it would catch fire when hit. (Zimmerit being 10 %Sawdust)

2-Added time at the factory to apply

[TR1]

Very few Shermans were Fireflies - and very few of those killed a Tiger.




It seems rather that German troops stayed superior in fighting efficiency per unit until late 1944, only after that did the Allies surpass them in this regard and that happened mostly because of German degradation not because the allies reached some extremely outstanding level because of their incredible cleverness. Up to that time German forces inflicted in general more losses on their enemies than they received themselves - and that goes especially for tanks. The allies won the war because of superiority in quantity, not because they had the smarter Generals, more intelligent engineers or braver soldiers.

I am sorry, but WWII is the prime example of a war during which quantity triumphed over quality and greater mass production of machines triumphed over superior engineering or the abilities of an excellent general staff. Of course, had the allies possessed these merits, the war would have been a short one: in 1939 even France and Poland, with a bit of support from the British, had everything they needed to defeat Germany within a few months.Compared to other Shermans, yes, but there were more Fireflies produced than Tiger I and IIs combined. Not to mention the 76mm US Sherman variant was produced in the thousands as well.

[Cobber15-08]

http://www.mheaust.com.au/Aust/Research/Sentinel/sentinelmk.htm

Read that. There was allied tanks designed and even built early in the war that could have been a good match against anything the Germans threw at it.


Thanks for the link Minardiau It triggered my memory, I had a resonable idea of the attempts, both failure and success of Australian Tank manufacturing. I allways thought that when the Aussie Divisons RTA in Jan 1942, that the 1st Aust armored Div who were slowly assembling and waiting for their equipment in The Holy Lands, should of been left to fight in the European threatre however the Politicans and Generals didn't know if they would be needed for defence of Aust.

Also thanks to everyone else for your information and knowledge on European Tank warfare and tech during WW2

[Minardiau]

Based on what I have read on the Sentinel it was a better tank then anything the allies came up with until the advent of the later war allied tanks.

Decent armour, sloped armour at that. Good speed. Awesome gun in the 17lb or the twin gun 25lb howitzer version prototype.

Shame we did not have the manufacturing capacity combined with out focus shifting to japan where Shermans and M3's were more then adequate against Japanese tanks/pillboxes/bunkers.

[Kragh]

Lots of heated arguments in here p-)

I'll stay out of the low flying flak and just recommend two very good books on the subject.

One dealing with tank combat in the desert war and one dealing with british tank design in second world war.


An easily read and very honest book describing in detail the development process in creating a tank and the questionable decision taken by the british.




This book is a goldmine describing tactics and seperate actions in detail.
It cover the first phase of the sesert war only and I a looking forward to the next book on the subject.

Link : http://www.schifferbooks.com/newschiffer/book_template.php?isbn=0764302264

[Eoin666]

Based on what I have read on the Sentinel it was a better tank then anything the allies came up with until the advent of the later war allied tanks.

Decent armour, sloped armour at that. Good speed. Awesome gun in the 17lb or the twin gun 25lb howitzer version prototype.

Shame we did not have the manufacturing capacity combined with out focus shifting to japan where Shermans and M3's were more then adequate against Japanese tanks/pillboxes/bunkers.


By 1944 fitting a 17pdr to anything turned it into a decent tank, like many intersting designs, we'll never know.

Had the Black Prince been rushed through that would've given a Tiger a run, although by then the Centurion was entering service and as was seen as few years later in Korea and M.E was more than a mach for anything from T-34/85, T-34/100, T-55, M-48 etc

[oldsoak]

The Centurion and the T-55 were quite evenly matched - both had their conception at roughly the same time. The Russian 85mm and 100mm rifled cannon were quite formidable weapons in their own right - certainly the Israeli Centurions vs T-55 scraps showed that armour and gun wise they were quite well matched. We have to give the Russians their due here, they did design good tanks.

[Kragh]

The Centurion and the T-55 were quite evenly matched - both had their conception at roughly the same time. The Russian 85mm and 100mm rifled cannon were quite formidable weapons in their own right - certainly the Israeli Centurions vs T-55 scraps showed that armour and gun wise they were quite well matched. We have to give the Russians their due here, they did design good tanks.

:) I agree

But training and tactics are equally important parameters when jugding tanks efficency versus each other (like Centurion verus T-62 etc.)
and the Israeli Defence Forces are second to none when it comes to training, tactics and making best use of the equipment they've got.

Slithly off-topic
I do wonder though how Centruion and M-48 compares to each other technically ?
I thnk Centruion has the better gun (even with a 20 pounder), approx. equal cros-country mobility and armour but a lousy range.

[DutchInfantry]

I'm glad someone noticed that....



17pdrs could easily penetrate the frontal armour of a Tiger at over 1000m (192mm armour penetration) using standard AP rounds tungsten rounds were superior but less acurate and rarely used

122mm D25 in IS2 in tests penetrated the frontal armour, crew compartment, engine block and rear armour of a Panther from 1500m

Soviet 100mm D10 was one of the best AT guns of the war and better armour penetration than the breakthough heavy explosive capacity 122mm penetrating 185mm at 1000m superior to German 75mm Kwk42.

British 20pdr (85mm) and even more powerful 32pdr (94mm) and US 90mm by 1945 were all on par or superior to the 88mm even the Kwk43 (200mm armour at 1000m)



If you're going to make statements don't put ?? as it then states you're not too sure....:oops:
Zimmerit was stopped in 1944 too time consuming and no real advantage when hollow charge rockets became more common, tank crews wore helmets, so as for padded berets being some sort of technological breakthrough :roll: Germans didn't develop sloped armour, sloped deflective armour was around for centuries on buildings and personal armour and the USSR first applied the lessons to tanks. The German Maybach engines powering the Tiger and Panther were petrol engines, the Germans adapted the 88mm after using it as an emergency AT gun in France and N. Africa, USSR etc.....not something originally intended with the AA gun!

Germany's great advantage was in their crew, operational and staff officer training and doctrines, not their vehicles......but even most of those lessons were originally developed but not taken up by the British, with Liddel-Hart and JFC Fuller military theorists both greatly admired by Guderian.



1 in 4 was a Firefly in each Sherman platoon (Cromwell units had Challengers and Churchill units had Achilles or Archers)


Come on..
The 88mm kwk43 was the best and most powerfull Tankgun of ww2..
The armour pof the german Panther and Tiger 1/2 where op to 3 times as thick as there best counterpart.
The Shermans and the fireflys had to outflank the tigers everybody knows that..
In many ways the germans where superior.
In tank tech to.

You cant admit that....:bash:

The biggest danger for the panzers where the Typhoons e.c.

Panther SpecificationsWeight44.8 tonnesLength6.87 m, 8.66 m with gun forwardWidth3.42 mHeight2.99 mCrew5 (Driver, radio-operator, commander, gunner, loader)Armor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_armour)15-120 mmPrimary
armament1x 7.5 cm KwK 42 L/70 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KwK_42)
79 roundsSecondary
armament2× 7.92 mm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7,92_x_57_mm) Maschinengewehr 34 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MG_34)
5,100 roundsEngineV-12 petrol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrol) Maybach (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maybach) HL230 P30 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maybach_HL230)
700 PS (690 hp, 515 kW)Power/weight16 hp (12 kW)/tonneSuspensiondouble torsion bar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torsion_bar), interleaved road wheelsOperational
range250 kmSpeed55 km/h (first models), 46 km/h (later models) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panther_tank#Engine)

Sherman firefly SpecificationsWeight36 tons (33 tonnes)Length19 ft 4 in (5.89 m)Width9 ft (2.75 m)Height8 ft 7 in (2.62 m)Crew4 (Commander, gunner, loader / radio-operator, driver)Armour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_armour)89 mm (turret front)Primary
armamentOQF 17 pdr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordnance_QF_17_pounder) (76 mm) gun
77 roundsSecondary
armamentFlexible .50 Browning M2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2_Browning_machine_gun) machine gun (12.7 mm)
Coaxial .30 Browning M1919 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1919_Browning_machine_gun) machine gun (7.62 mm)
5000 roundsEngineChrysler Multibank (5 x inline-6) petrol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline)
425 hpPower/weight11.8 hp/tonSuspensionCoil springOperational
range120 miles (193 km)Speed25 mph (40 km/h)

Pershing SpecificationsWeight46 short tons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_ton) (41.7 t (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonne))Length20 ft 9.5 in (6.34 m) (turret facing aft)
28 ft 4.5 in (8.65 m) (turret facing forward)Width11 ft 6 in (3.51 m)Height9 ft 1.5 in (2.78 m)Crew5 (Commander, Gunner, loader, driver, co-driver)Armor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_armour)1–4.33 in (25–110 mm)Primary
armament90 mm gun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/90_mm_gun) M3
70 roundsSecondary
armament2 × Browning .30-06 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1919_Browning_machine_gun)
5,000 rounds
1 × Browning .50 cal. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2_Browning_machine_gun)
550 roundsEngineFord GAF (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_GAA_engine); 8-cylinder, gasoline
450–500 hp (336–373 kW)Power/weight11.9/10.6 hp/tonneSuspensiontorsion bar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torsion_beam_suspension)Operational
range100 mi (160 km)Speed25 mph (40 km/h) (road)
5.25 mph (8.4 km/h)(off-road)

Kingtiger SpecificationsWeight68.5 metric tons (initial turret)
69.8 metric tons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_tons) (production turret)Length7.61 m
10.286 m with gun forwardWidth3.755 mHeight3.09 mCrew5 (commander, gunner, loader, radio operator, driver)Armor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_armour)25–180 mmPrimary
armament1× 8.8 cm KwK 43 L/71 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KwK_43_L/71)
84 roundsSecondary
armament2× 7.92 mm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7,92_x_57_mm) Maschinengewehr 34 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MG_34)
4,800 roundsEngineV-12 Maybach (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maybach) HL 230 P30 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maybach_HL230)
700 PS (690 hp, 515 kW)Power/weight10 PS/tonne (8.97 hp/ton)TransmissionMaybach OLVAR EG 40 12 16 B (8 forward and 4 reverse)Suspensiontorsion-bar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torsion-bar)Operational
range170 km (110 miles)Speed41.5 km/h (25.8 mph)

[oldsoak]

Fireflies did not need to outflank Tigers I's - they did need to avoid being targeted by them because Sherman armour would be pierced by the 88. The Fireflies 17pdr could and did pierce the Tigers frontal armour when it could get a shot in.
Fireflies were regarded as priorty targets , so in the long gun was camouflaged in an effort to reduce the chance of being targetted. Tigers were not encountered in anywhere near the same numbers as the Pzkfw 4 Ausf G/H ( who could defeat the Shermans armour ) or the Panther.

[Eoin666]

Come on..
The 88mm kwk43 was the best and most powerfull Tankgun of ww2..
The armour pof the german Panther and Tiger 1/2 where op to 3 times as thick as there best counterpart.
The Shermans and the fireflys had to outflank the tigers everybody knows that..
In many ways the germans where superior.
In tank tech to.

You cant admit that....:bash:

The biggest danger for the panzers where the Typhoons e.c.




You seem to have a bit of a love affair with all things German, unlike most Dutch people I know, if you are Dutch that is.....

Overall yes, the Kwk43 was the best AT gun, but as stated by 1945 allied guns were equal.

Panther armour which you state at 120mm and KT at 180mm max, how is that 3 times what allied armour was with 110mm M26, 102mm Comet, 160mm IS-2, 152mm Centurion.

Rockets fired by Typhoons/P-47 had a hit rate of about 4%, although their affect on German crew's morale was huge.

There were many instances of Tiger II being knocked out by IS-2 and M26s

As Oldsoak said German's first targets were the Fireflies so they counter-shaded their barrels to look like any other Sherman

[Eoin666]

The Centurion and the T-55 were quite evenly matched - both had their conception at roughly the same time. The Russian 85mm and 100mm rifled cannon were quite formidable weapons in their own right - certainly the Israeli Centurions vs T-55 scraps showed that armour and gun wise they were quite well matched. We have to give the Russians their due here, they did design good tanks.

Never knock the Ruskies for anything they produce, they're a very 'functional' people........

as an aside just reading about the Centurion and came across this

Nuclear Tests

Centurion 169041 of the British Army, nicknamed The Atomic Tank, was involved in a nuclear blast test at Emu Plains in Australia in 1953. It was placed about 500 meters from the bomb being detonated and left with the engine running. Upon return to the tank for subsequent examination it was found to have been pushed away from the blast point by about 2 meters and that its engine had only stopped working because it had run out of fuel. Antennas were missing, lights and periscopes were heavily sand blasted and the cloth mantlet cover was heavily carbonised but the tank was able to be driven away from the site. Had the tank been manned, it is unlikely that the crew would have survived due to the shock wave created by an atomic blast.

169041 was subsequently transferred to the Australian Army who later used it in the Vietnam War and is now located at Robertson Barracks in Palmerston, Northern Territory. Although other tanks were subjected to nuclear tests, 169041 is the only tank known to have withstood atomic tests and subsequently gone on for another 23 years of service, including 15 months on operational deployment in a war zone

[Lokos]

The 88mm kwk43 was the best and most powerfull Tankgun of ww2..

By what measure? Surely, you realize that most tank guns of WW2 spent the vast majority of their time in combat engaging soft targets, buildings and fortifications? And by that measure, the 88mm gun was not exceptional at all. As for its AT capability, yes, it was a very powerful weapon - but its analogues were present by late '44.


The armour pof the german Panther and Tiger 1/2 where op to 3 times as thick as there best counterpart.

Were they, now?

Can you compare the armor of the JS-2/3 to the Tiger I/II for me?

The Tiger II's armor ranged from 25mm to 180mm, for the record. The JS-2's ranged from 30mm to 160mm. And that was on a 20-ton lighter tank.

Let's take the rose-tinted spectacles off.

L.

[Finn76]

Cant really compare WW2 german and allied tanks directly to each other, since they were desinged on different roles, germans mainly for antitank and allies for infantry support.

IMHO tanks, compared on armor and gun, goes 1939 --> 1942 allied, 1942 --> 1944 german, 1944 --> 1945 on par.

[matthew.manhorn]

How did normal Sherman Tanks do against Panzer IV's at the western front?

Well Sherman vs Panzer IV which tank is better in terms of performance?

[Amethystfretchen]

more or less equal, depends on the exact type of each...

[DutchInfantry]

You seem to have a bit of a love affair with all things German, unlike most Dutch people I know, if you are Dutch that is.....

Overall yes, the Kwk43 was the best AT gun, but as stated by 1945 allied guns were equal.

Panther armour which you state at 120mm and KT at 180mm max, how is that 3 times what allied armour was with 110mm M26, 102mm Comet, 160mm IS-2, 152mm Centurion.

Rockets fired by Typhoons/P-47 had a hit rate of about 4%, although their affect on German crew's morale was huge.

There were many instances of Tiger II being knocked out by IS-2 and M26s

As Oldsoak said German's first targets were the Fireflies so they counter-shaded their barrels to look like any other Sherman

Hehe i like germany..
The M-26 has made one Tiger II kill.

The most german tanks where Stugs and PZ-IVs whitch where not that good.
They where upgrated from older versions.
Im pretty sure that the Kwk43 had a bigger range and penitration then all other AT-guns.
The german armour sufferd by a shortige of resources.
That made it weaker.
And most german panzers where destroyed by there own crew or by airpower and not enemy tanks.
The germans coult not move whitout being bombed to hell.
At that way they lost the SS Panzer Lehr Division in Normandy.
The german units like the SS where way better then there counterparts.
Leadership,training,experience and equipment.
Even the Stug had a 3 to 1 in kills.

Equal numbers woult be in favour of the germans right?

After the war Russia,USA and Britain where raceing for german secrets.
Germans where builing there weapons after the war in aviation and rockets.

[Deadline]

Cobber.
There are a lot of reasons why the allied tanks didn't catch up until late. One - they didn't have the experience the Germans did and they didn't have the vision of the Panzer division. But mostly, the British were not geared up for war and production facilities were limited. When they DID try to get going, as you say the existing tanks were badly under-gunned, but the turret rings were too small to accept larger weapons. It takes time to develop a new tank!

The Americans had similar problems but to an extent ovecame them with sheer industrial might. If you can make more Shermans than a Tiger has rounds...you win (a crude attempt to make a point but you get the idea).

As an aside, there was one very succesful Sherman variant, the Firefly. Somehow they managed to jam a British 17-pounder anti-tank gun into a Sherman turret and that COULD take on the Tigers and Panthers.

I could go on all night but if you want to mail me I can give you some more leads.

[Eoin666]

Hehe i like germany..
The M-26 has made one Tiger II kill.

The most german tanks where Stugs and PZ-IVs whitch where not that good.
They where upgrated from older versions.
Im pretty sure that the Kwk43 had a bigger range and penitration then all other AT-guns.
The german armour sufferd by a shortige of resources.
That made it weaker.
And most german panzers where destroyed by there own crew or by airpower and not enemy tanks.
The germans coult not move whitout being bombed to hell.
At that way they lost the SS Panzer Lehr Division in Normandy.
The german units like the SS where way better then there counterparts.
Leadership,training,experience and equipment.
Even the Stug had a 3 to 1 in kills.

Equal numbers woult be in favour of the germans right?

After the war Russia,USA and Britain where raceing for german secrets.
Germans where builing there weapons after the war in aviation and rockets.


Fvck me mate you just don't give up do you, talk about giving you enough rope....:)

Panzer Lehr, was an army unit not SS made up of instructors and experienced crews that's why they were elite. Waffen SS units were fanatical they achieved much but suffered accordingly from high attrition, in terms of training, that's debatable, but this thread is about allied tank technology not the SS.

Kwk43 was not really significantly better than allied AT guns by 1945.

How many M-26's were in use in WWII, not many, but when they met a Tiger II it was on near equal terms, just as the Russian IS-2's did. Yes a lot of Tiger II were demolished by their crews when they ran out fuel, but that says it all, waste of time and resources at a time when a smaller PzIV or Panther design was more appropriate, so it ultimately lead to a dead end of development. I don't think most German tanks on the eastern front were knocked out by air power, and as I said before rockets had a hit rate of 4%, and heavya allied bombing was generally strategic not tactical.
Post war, Russians developed the T54/55 onwards directly from the old T-34, US the M-46/47/48 from the M-26, UK the Comet and Centurion, even Germans looked to the allied lessons not the huge lumbering Tiger II for their development.

Germany was at war with everyone, how could they ever have equal numbers with the 50000 Shermans and 40000 T-34s alone

[Eoin666]

Cobber.
There are a lot of reasons why the allied tanks didn't catch up until late. One - they didn't have the experience the Germans did and they didn't have the vision of the Panzer division. But mostly, the British were not geared up for war and production facilities were limited. When they DID try to get going, as you say the existing tanks were badly under-gunned, but the turret rings were too small to accept larger weapons. It takes time to develop a new tank!

The Americans had similar problems but to an extent ovecame them with sheer industrial might. If you can make more Shermans than a Tiger has rounds...you win (a crude attempt to make a point but you get the idea).

As an aside, there was one very succesful Sherman variant, the Firefly. Somehow they managed to jam a British 17-pounder anti-tank gun into a Sherman turret and that COULD take on the Tigers and Panthers.

I could go on all night but if you want to mail me I can give you some more leads.

The UK was hampered by it's narrow railway gauge, which meant our tanks had to be relatively narrow, resulting in a smaller turret ring and small gun. The 17pdr and Sherman both were heavily modified to form the Firefly, changing the breech, losing the hull gunner, extending the rear of the turret etc. The Comet 77mm (actually 76.2mm same as the 17pdr) was a shorter breech and barrel of the same 17pdr but required its own ammo' due to the breech changes, but was only marginally less powerful than the 17pdr..

German heavy tanks had a huge amount of work required to get them ready for rail transport, which they desperately needed as the Panther's transmission in particular was very weak and prone to breakdown. Involving removal of the all the outer row wheels of the Tiger and fitting of narrow rail gauge tracks.

US tank philosophy was not tank v tank warfare even Patton was opposed to arming the M4 with more powerful AT guns, their phiosophy was tanks are best dealt with by specialised tank destroyers.

[oldsoak]

...puts on anorak....

UK railway guage is the same as the continent - this is the width of the rails. UK loading guage - ie the greatest width and height of the rolling stock allowed on the railway network is smaller than that of the continent. This is what Eoin refers to. Until we got proper tank carriers, we had to use rail with all its implied restrictions.

[Eoin666]

...puts on anorak....

UK railway guage is the same as the continent - this is the width of the rails. UK loading guage - ie the greatest width and height of the rolling stock allowed on the railway network is smaller than that of the continent. This is what Eoin refers to. Until we got proper tank carriers, we had to use rail with all its implied restrictions.

rofl......did you get those engine numbers as well

You educated me there, as I didn't realise it as the loading gauge, interesting. So by tank carriers, do you mean rail carriages designed to carry vehicles specifically?

[DutchInfantry]

Fvck me mate you just don't give up do you, talk about giving you enough rope....:)

Panzer Lehr, was an army unit not SS made up of instructors and experienced crews that's why they were elite. Waffen SS units were fanatical they achieved much but suffered accordingly from high attrition, in terms of training, that's debatable, but this thread is about allied tank technology not the SS.

Kwk43 was not really significantly better than allied AT guns by 1945.

How many M-26's were in use in WWII, not many, but when they met a Tiger II it was on near equal terms, just as the Russian IS-2's did. Yes a lot of Tiger II were demolished by their crews when they ran out fuel, but that says it all, waste of time and resources at a time when a smaller PzIV or Panther design was more appropriate, so it ultimately lead to a dead end of development. I don't think most German tanks on the eastern front were knocked out by air power, and as I said before rockets had a hit rate of 4%, and heavya allied bombing was generally strategic not tactical.
Post war, Russians developed the T54/55 onwards directly from the old T-34, US the M-46/47/48 from the M-26, UK the Comet and Centurion, even Germans looked to the allied lessons not the huge lumbering Tiger II for their development.

Germany was at war with everyone, how could they ever have equal numbers with the 50000 Shermans and 40000 T-34s alone

Yep i agree whit most things:).
Most of them are known facts ofcourse.
I agree the Tiger II/Jagd-Tiger and ofcourse the MAUS where to havy.
I wonder how good the Japaneese Panther copy was..

[oldsoak]

rofl......did you get those engine numbers as well

You educated me there, as I didn't realise it as the loading gauge, interesting. So by tank carriers, do you mean rail carriages designed to carry vehicles specifically?

- nah, I meant low loaders mate.

[mkenny]

The stats are simple 3 to 1 for the germans.

Not in Normandy. Some 3000 Allied losses to 2000 German.



It seems rather that German troops stayed superior in fighting efficiency per unit until late 1944, Up to that time German forces inflicted in general more losses on their enemies than they received themselves - and that goes especially for tanks.

Not in Normandy. See above. Personel losses were about even if I remember correctly.


And most german panzers where destroyed by there own crew

Interesting. So being totaly defeated in battle, having to run for your life and in the mad scramble to save your skin driving your tanks into the ground is a point of honour?
Surely the best tactic would be to turn around and face the pursuing tanks rather than run away?
Is it being claimed that if these 'throw away' tanks had turned and fought they would not have been destroyed?
Someone please explain how destroying your own equipment rather than standing and fighting is something to brag about?
If they were so good why did they have to run in the first place?

[Chiptox]

How did normal Sherman Tanks do against Panzer IV's at the western front?
About the same as they did against the Panthers and Tigers. The Shermans defeated them with numbers, air power, and artillery. The Panzer IV was a pretty good tank and the workhorse of german armor for the better part of the war.


Well Sherman vs Panzer IV which tank is better in terms of performance?
With the notable exception of the Firefly, the Panzer IV was the better machine of the two. In armor, firepower, and mobility it is the clear leader of the Sherman. Even the short-barreled early versions were a match for the late war M4A3(76)(W)HVSS Shermans.

The Sherman was intended as an interim development of the Grant/Lee (which itself was an interim development of the M2) and was only adopted for large scale production because it was "good enough" and available in huge numbers.

The Panzer IV, on the other hand, was built new from the ground up with knowledge and experience gained from the I and II. It also competed with the Panzer III in development and production. A competition that it won as it was built throught the war, where the Mark III production was stopped and allocated for newer designs.

If I were to compare the Sherman to a German tank, I would compare it to the Panzer III. A great tank in '42. Holding it's own in '43. Outclassed in '44. Obsolete in '45.



The best western tank used in any significant numbers would probably be the Cromwell or the Churchhill. The former having excellent mobility, the latter with excellent armor, and neither with a gun worth a crap. I read somewhere that after d-day they were re-gunning Churchills with discarded US 75's because it was found to be superior to the 6 pdr. Is there any truth to that?

[mkenny]

With the notable exception of the Firefly, the Panzer IV was the better machine of the two. In armor, firepower, and mobility it is the clear leader of the Sherman. Even the short-barreled early versions were a match for the late war M4A3(76)(W)HVSS Shermans.

That is a joke-right?

[Chiptox]

That is a joke-right?
Nope. I've made my case. The Panzer IV was a better tank than the Sherman. Better power/weight ratio, better armor, lower, better gun, etc etc.

[DPM_Sheep]

I read somewhere that after d-day they were re-gunning Churchills with discarded US 75's because it was found to be superior to the 6 pdr. Is there any truth to that?

Highly unlikely given the fact a completely new turret mantlet and basket would be needed and the US M3 75 was pi$$ poor. There are sources that say some were trialed in Tunisia as a way of giving squadrons a better HE round (at the expense of AP performance). I've seen stuff on wikipedia that implies this was done because the 75 was better but it's a pretty gross distortion of the facts.

Most Cromwell's mounted a British QF75mm from mid 1944 onward anyway, that fired the same ammo as the M3 75mm, so it would've been a pointless refit by the time of Normandy.

[mkenny]

Even a basic Wiki search shows the error of you claim

"During its production run from May 1942 to June 1943, the Panzer IV Ausf. G went through further modifications, including another armor upgrade. Given that the tank was reaching its viable limit, to avoid a corresponding weight increase, the appliqué 20-millimetre (0.79 in) steel plates were removed from its side armor..........................

These modifications meant that the tank's weight jumped to 25 tonnes (27.56 short tons), reducing its speed, a situation not improved by the decision to adopt the Panzer III's six-speed SSG 77 transmission, which was inferior to that of earlier-model Panzer IVs...............................

The electric generator that powered the tank's turret traverse was removed to allow the installation of an auxiliary 200-litre (44 imp gal) fuel tank; road range was thereby increased to 320 kilometres (198.84 mi), but the turret would have to be rotated manually."

A 1938 tank is not going to do well when compared to a 1942 design.
The claim that a short barrelled PzIV was better than a late war 76mm Sherman is not even worthy of a rebuttal.

The 'Sherman 75mm 'Churchills were real-but not for Normandy

Churchill 75 mm - This was a battlefield modification to a Churchill MK III or MK IV which used the existing turret fitted with the mantlet and 75mm gun from a destroyed or scrapped Sherman (known as NA 75 from North Africa where the conversions took place). Alternatively some had their existing gun re-bored to 75 mm and these were otherwise known as the MK III* or MK IV (75mm). More MK IV's were modified than MK III's, and their performance is virtually identical to the MK VI.

http://www.geocities.com/vqpvqp/nih/vehiclegallery/Na75.html

[Chiptox]

A 1938 tank is not going to do well when compared to a 1942 design.
The claim that a short barrelled PzIV was better than a late war 76mm Sherman is not even worthy of a rebuttal.
The 1938 build of the Panzer IV was completely new. Whereas the 1942 design of the Sherman was not. The powertrain and suspension which limited the delelopment of the whole package) were lifted entirely from the earlier American mediums.

I'm not saying that the short 76mm was great, just that it was good enough. It's shells weren't bouncing off Shermans as they were off of the T34s and KV's, but penetrating, when it was retired and replaced by the excellent long-barreled version. If the Panzer IV were to be considered inadequate it would be from eastern front experience, not from facing the Sherman.

[aop]

Good one but not entirely true, the Mathilda had a powerfull armour that is true, but was to slow, and could easily be outgunned, the Crusader was fast but the armour was too thin and the armament always too weak.
The Germans could easily change their tactics and exploit these weaknesses. It wasn't untill the Grant and Sherman appeared on the battlefield that the Allied troops could really make a difference.
IIRC there were only 22 Matilda MkII tanks and no Crusader tanks on mainland during BoF. They had earlier Cruiser tanks like the A13.

2pdr gun on Matilda MkII, A13 and Crusader MkII was as good as German 50mm L42 gun found in upgunned Panzer IIIs (later in war Panzer III series tanks had 50mm L60 that was superior to 2pdr).

[mkenny]

The 1938 build of the Panzer IV was completely new. Whereas the 1942 design of the Sherman was not. The powertrain and suspension which limited the delelopment of the whole package) were lifted entirely from the earlier American mediums.

There you go again. You completely fail to understand the word 'development'. If you design a new tank then you build on everything that went before. For instance there is no need to make an entire new set of road wheels if the ones you already have work quite well.
I find it odd that you completely ignore the fact the 1943 Pz IV chassis was so overloaded they had to start removing vital parts just so it could continue to waddle around the battlefield.


If the Panzer IV were to be considered inadequate it would be from eastern front experience, not from facing the Sherman.

Yet the OR reports done in Normandy tell another story. The Pz IV came bottom of the class. It was the easiest tank to penetrate and came in BELOW the Sherman for the number of hits it could survive.
Now remember you are trying to show the Pz IV had superior qualities rather than simply claiming it was effective.

[Chiptox]

There you go again. You completely fail to understand the word 'development'. If you design a new tank then you build on everything that went before. For instance there is no need to make an entire new set of road wheels if the ones you already have work quite well.
I find it odd that you completely ignore the fact the 1943 Pz IV chassis was so overloaded they had to start removing vital parts just so it could continue to waddle around the battlefield.
What I'm trying to say is pretty easy to get, that the Sherman was a new 1/2 tank and was limited in performance by the portions of it that were wholly lifted from the M3. The turret ring was limited by the suspension, which limited the gun that could be fitted. The suspension also limited up-armoring, which wasn't done to any real extent except on the Sherman Jumbo.

Yes the Pz IV was overloaded in '43. But so was the Sherman. The Sherman went through three major suspension redesigns. The first was the straight up M3 chassis. Second the springs were enlarged and the idler wheels relocated. And the third was HVSS. This was done because even without any significant uparmoring the Sherman was overweight.


Yet the OR reports done in Normandy tell another story. The Pz IV came bottom of the class. It was the easiest tank to penetrate and came in BELOW the Sherman for the number of hits it could survive.
Now remember you are trying to show the Pz IV had superior qualities rather than simply claiming it was effective.
Just because it finished last for the Germans, doesn't mean it was better than the Sherman. Just that it isn't as good as a Panther or Tiger.

The Sherman may have had better armor but at the time of Normandy the Mark IV had by far the better gun. This meant that the Panzer could kill the Sherman at ranges that the Sherman could not kill it. If the only factor in a tank being "good" or not was it's armored qualities we'd declare the mathilda II the best tank of WW2 and be done with it. However, mobility and firepower are important also. The 7.5cm KwK 40 gives them overwhelming firepower advantage over the 76mm.

[mkenny]

Just because it finished last for the Germans, doesn't mean it was better than the Sherman. Just that it isn't as good as a Panther or Tiger.

Sorry it finished last in a contest that INCLUDED the Sherman.
I clearly said:

It was the easiest tank to penetrate and came in BELOW the Sherman for the number of hits it could survive.



The Sherman may have had better armor but at the time of Normandy............ ... The 7.5cm KwK 40 gives them overwhelming firepower advantage over the 76mm.

Not much good if the average combat ranges are well withing the max is it-like in Normandy?
Why do you think it it took less hits to knock a PzIV out than it did a Sherman?

If firpower alone is the deciding factor (note the shifting criteria) then the lightly armoured Nashorn should be queen of the battlefield.

The Pz IV was right at the end of its life cycle in 1944. It only remained in service because production rates for the Tiger and Panther were too low. The Sherman however was upgunned and had a new suspension added-but it still was a Sherman.
Rotbart der Hauchdunne anyone?

Reality check for the Panzer obsessed. Tank v tank clashes were but a small part of an Armoured Units life.
Post war studies found that the most common tank targets were buildings and fortifications (40%)
Infantry (16%)
Enemy tanks (14%)
Artillery (13%)
Thus all these 'my tank is beter than yours' threads are doomed from the start because they fail to take into account that over 80% of a tanks life is spent on soft targets. Mobility/readiness and a decent high explosive gun are critical qualities.

[Mastermind]

Kitsune is probalby as right as condensed space allows on this topic.

I have come to the conclusion, based on my study of this subject, allied and German use of armor through WWII and the "mini-wars" prior, was a continuing experiment. The Germans had developed a moderately good tank with their Mk III and IV's leading into the war proper, but they were still insecure about them...and rightly so. The French almost certainly ahd the best tank designs of 1940 era...and the Russians were developing tanks on a never before heard of level up to that time. The Germans were ill served by their rapid battle field successes in Poland and France, giving them a totally false impression of themselves. It was their tactics and their advanced use of battlefield communications and tactical control that led to their success as much as their enemies being practically senile in their tactical prowess...Allied cooperation was spotty, inept and very outdated by German standards. The failure of the Germans to properly assess their successes led them to actually retard tank development and to stick to what had worked once so grandly....and this was arguably appropriate...almost irresitable by any commanders.

However, the allies were not cowed and quickly developed a very detailed analysis of what had been going on and why they had failed so miserably. Patton, for one, rapidsly gained a serious understanding of the German tactical advantage and So did the Russians. The developments by the Russian tank designers were very advanced and extreemly well suited to fighting on the eastern front. Thought they may have lagged in tactical finess, their massive production of very good tanks and their coupling them with ruthless, clever commanders, practically printed the German death sentence to the war effort.

We should also understand the allied , particularly the American corporate mind set as it funneled material and wepons to the maw of war. The tank design put on the factory floor, inthe Sherman designs, were paramount in meeting massive production schedules. They did not make the same mistake as the Gemran designers, which forced them to almost constantly re-tool their factories. Their several designs caused a massive amount of wasted effort and resulted in severe shortages and maintenance and supply nightmares. Allied tanks, by comparison, though many times inferior to their German counterpsrt had the quantitative advantage that in the end was simply insurmountable. Althugh a great many allied soldiers died fighting inferior tank-on-tank encounters, a fast majority of the casualties were casued by a very effective use of the dreaded antitank guns in sue by the Germans. Even the Russians suffered quite heavily at the hands of these lightly armored, but highly mobile and easilyhidden death traps. Don't forget, Patton was the master at the use of the AT gun...and his efforts led directly to the M-10s and Fireflys that inflicted so much damage to the German units. Huge tank-on-tank battles like Kursk were actually rare, with most fights more closely resembling the bocage fighting of Normandy. Throughout the war and even to this day, tanks were/are handled quite severly if they outrun their infantry...with some arguable exceptions regarding the Abrams-types rushing in alone against well placed AT forces. Most terrain is simply not suited for headlong tank-to-tank mass battles. That is not to say there have been some spectacular events of such..as in the Israeli conflicts, the North African experiences and of course, and the Eastern Front battles of un-paralleled ferocity.

overall, the poor performances by allied tank designers were simply due to the circumstances of production demands, the inevitable lag between the boffins and the "right-now" demands of the soldiers on the line, the rapid march of battle experience, and economic and bureaucratic sluggishness.

[loganinkosovo]

How did normal Sherman Tanks do against Panzer IV's at the western front?

Well Sherman vs Panzer IV which tank is better in terms of performance?


The Shermans were crap in mud because the track was so narrow. It sunk too deep. The wider track of the panthers and tigers distributed the weight better.

The Gasoline engines of the Shermans meant one hit and they were gone..."Tommy Cookers" and "Ronsons" were the some of the nicknames for them.

The Diesel Engined Shermans were sent to Russia under Lend-Lease and worked much better in that respect. In fact the russians would turn off one engine (the tank had two) to quiet the noise the tanks made and then sneak into the german positions at night to hit them from behind come dawn.

Funny how the Russians seemed to have got rid of all the Lend-Lease Sherman photos from that period. :)

I ran into an old guy at a Bierfest years ago who was a Tiger Commander in France and he was taken out by a Sherman. 5 Shermans attacked him. He took out 4 that were initianting a frontal attack while the 5th one got behind him and put a few rounds up his backside.

This was the usual toll on the Sherman equipped units when attacking the Tigers. Tank destroyers had it worse since they had almost no armor comparitively speaking. They were designed light to get in and get out fast.

I had a distant Cousin killed in a TD during the war. The TDs were open topped and a grenade was tossed into the turret from the second story of a house as they were moving through a German village towards the end of the war.


Whole companies of Shermans were wiped out by a few Tigers but there were a lot more Shermans then there were tigers so eventually a sherman would get them as my aquaintence's story points out.


The M-26s could have been ready in time for Normandy but as pointed out Doctrine and Infantry Generals nixed the Idea. Even Patton was at heart an Infantry General when all was said and done.

[loganinkosovo]

We have to give the Russians their due here, they did design good tanks.

Built on American Designed Running Gear!

:)

[mkenny]

The Gasoline engines of the Shermans meant one hit and they were gone..."Tommy Cookers" and "Ronsons" were the some of the nicknames for them.

The fires were due to ammunition and not the petrol engines




I ran into an old guy at a Bierfest years ago who was a Tiger Commander in France and he was taken out by a Sherman. 5 Shermans attacked him. He took out 4 that were initianting a frontal attack while the 5th one got behind him and put a few rounds up his backside.

The old myth about 5 Shermans for every Tiger. It is not true and the loss figures for tanks in Normandy was 3500 Allied to 2000 German.


This was the usual toll on the Sherman equipped units when attacking the Tigers.

Simply untrue

[TR1]

Built on American Designed Running Gear!

:)
Please. T-34 was long in the line of evolution from the BT-2, which did use American pioneered suspension.

[loganinkosovo]

The fires were due to ammunition and not the petrol engines





The old myth about 5 Shermans for every Tiger. It is not true and the loss figures for tanks in Normandy was 3500 Allied to 2000 German. nthat



Simply untrue

I didn't say 5 shermans for every one tiger...just his tiger.

The tigers and panthers did take a toll on the shermans, thats why they didn't like going up against them.

The British outside of Caen got the crap kicked out of them by a small number of Tigers.

The Petrol didn't help matters at all and thats why thy were called Ronsons and Tommy Cookers.

[loganinkosovo]

Please. T-34 was long in the line of evolution from the BT-2, which did use American pioneered suspension.

Just like the Russian army trucks aren't really a Lend-Lease 1940 Studebaker......they just look exactly like a Lend-Lease 1940 Studebaker.

:)

[TR1]

oh please, that I would never deny.

However calling the T-34s suspension american desighned is laughable.

[DPM_Sheep]

The fires were due to ammunition and not the petrol engines





The old myth about 5 Shermans for every Tiger. It is not true and the loss figures for tanks in Normandy was 3500 Allied to 2000 German.



Simply untrue

What he said.


The tigers and panthers did take a toll on the shermans, thats why they didn't like going up against them.

It had more to do with the fact that the 75mm didn't have the same penetrating power as the 88s and 75s. That gave Tigers and Panthers an advantage in tank on tank engagments but it wasn't the huge one myth like to make out.


The British outside of Caen got the crap kicked out of them by a small number of Tigers.

Where was this Villers-Bocage? What happened there was largely a german propaganda myth.


The Petrol didn't help matters at all and thats why thy were called Ronsons and Tommy Cookers.

Burnings were also largely a myth. One that was taken seriously enough to result in the introduction of Wet Stowage in late '44 but even examining US statistics from the time, less than 14% of Shermans burned.

Most M4 losses in the Normandy campaign or later were the work of anti-tank teams, either Panzerfausts or Pak guns.

[Cobber15-08]

Cobber.
There are a lot of reasons why the allied tanks didn't catch up until late. One - they didn't have the experience the Germans did and they didn't have the vision of the Panzer division. But mostly, the British were not geared up for war and production facilities were limited. When they DID try to get going, as you say the existing tanks were badly under-gunned, but the turret rings were too small to accept larger weapons. It takes time to develop a new tank!

The Americans had similar problems but to an extent ovecame them with sheer industrial might. If you can make more Shermans than a Tiger has rounds...you win (a crude attempt to make a point but you get the idea).

As an aside, there was one very succesful Sherman variant, the Firefly. Somehow they managed to jam a British 17-pounder anti-tank gun into a Sherman turret and that COULD take on the Tigers and Panthers.

I could go on all night but if you want to mail me I can give you some more leads.


Thanks Deadline, no need to Pm.
However; I have allways found it rather surprising that the Brits who I believe invented the tanks of WW1, just left it alone even years after the war to end all wars ended.

Cbr15-08

[Eoin666]

The best western tank used in any significant numbers would probably be the Cromwell or the Churchhill. The former having excellent mobility, the latter with excellent armor, and neither with a gun worth a crap. I read somewhere that after d-day they were re-gunning Churchills with discarded US 75's because it was found to be superior to the 6 pdr. Is there any truth to that?

Cromwell was very underated, it was better than a Sherman simply because it was more mobile but more importantly had a lower profile than the double decker bus Sherman.

The British 75mm was a re-bored 6pdr (57mm) the 6pdr was an early AT gun so had better anti-armour penentration than the 75mm but very little explosive power for assault, hence the switch to 75mm.

[Eoin666]

....Don't forget, Patton was the master at the use of the AT gun...and his efforts led directly to the M-10s and Fireflys that inflicted so much damage to the German units......

Patton had no impact on the development of the Firefly, and not only that the US army didin't want them initially, only very late in the war did they take up and offer from the British to convert their M4's but by then the war was almost over and the order later cancelled

[Eoin666]

The British outside of Caen got the crap kicked out of them by a small number of Tigers.

Yeah due to the idiot in command sending his tanks up a single narrow road with no infantry support.....and he was replaced immediately aferwards. The report showing Wittman knocking our dozens of tanks is a myth, there were half a dozen tanks the rest were half tracks, bren carriers and light vehicles. Look what happened to him when he tried charging the British and Canadian Firelflies not long after.....


I have allways found it rather surprising that the Brits who I believe invented the tanks of WW1, just left it alone even years after the war to end all wars ended.Cbr15-08

It was 1920's and lack of cash, don't need tank to quell tribesmen when you can bomb them, but if you care to look the Vickers light tanks were exported all over the world, the Russian T26 is a direct copy for example.
British military theorists Liddell-Hart and JFC Fuller first developed the ideas of blitzkrieg later perfected by German military doctrine especialy Guderian....as usual most of our ideas/invesntions get taken up by others before our own government wakes up, nothing changes there

[Mordoror]

British military theorists Liddell-Hart and JFC Fuller first developed the ideas of blitzkrieg later perfected by German military doctrine especialy Guderian....as usual most of our ideas/invesntions get taken up by others before our own government wakes up, nothing changes there

wasn't it perfected also by Tukashevski (and Guderian afterthat but on the Tukashevski work not directly on Liddell-Hart work ) ??

[Eoin666]

wasn't it perfected also by Tukashevski (and Guderian afterthat but on the Tukashevski work not directly on Liddell-Hart work ) ??

Guderian's biography says he apparently admired both Liddel_hart and Fuller but not that he took anything from them directly, so you may be right.

Interesting how things might have turned out if without any murderous dictator's involvment, had Guderian and Tukashevski faced each other in 1941.

[Chiptox]

However calling the T-34s suspension american desighned is laughable.
I would say that the suspension on the T-34 (and earlier tanks) are Christie-inspired. By the time the war had rolled around Soviet engineers had truly made it their own.

[Eoin666]

I would say that the suspension on the T-34 (and earlier tanks) are Christie-inspired. By the time the war had rolled around Soviet engineers had truly made it their own.

Christie based suspension was widely used from the BT series through to the T-34, from the British cruisers to the Cromwell. So you can't say they made it their own, it was simply a form of vehicle suspension widely used :roll:

[Kragh]

Cromwell was very underated, it was better than a Sherman simply because it was more mobile but more importantly had a lower profile than the double decker bus Sherman.


HiEoin666 - seems you have a keen interest in tank comat during WW II ? Not many know of the Cromwell tank,which did sterling service in Europe after the invasion.


I my opinion it was comparable to the 75 mm gunned Sherman i most respects and marginally better in some like the lower profile.
At least it was reliable performed well against infantry and most german AFV's with the exception of the Tigers ad Panthers.
The Comet tank which succeded the Cromwell was probaby slighty better that the 76 mm Sherman version, built built in very few numbers (approx 1.200)

I just read the book 'Troop leader: A tak commanders story' written by a young british tanker, it is absolutely worth reading.
This book describes everyday life for a 20 year young man leading a troop of 3 Cromwell tanks in 1944 and 1945.
I get the impression that the Cromwell was liked by it's crews.
The book is a prsonal account and is written in a very low-key language
It contains many 'amusing' and hair-raising stories (even though I am balding rapidly :roll:), but still told in a quiet and thrusworthy tone'.

[loganinkosovo]

Thanks Deadline, no need to Pm.
However; I have allways found it rather surprising that the Brits who I believe invented the tanks of WW1, just left it alone even years after the war to end all wars ended.

Cbr15-08

Pacifism took over after the War to end all Wars. Battleships were scraped. Any new developments were ignored and discarded by these Governments. Military Budgets were cut to the bone and then through it. Soldiers were though as a drain upon the citizens and a blight upon society once again.

The Depression didn't help matters either.

So in this environment where companies paid the cost of R & D and the Government wasn't buying then it is obvious why there was little tank development between the wars.

[Eoin666]

HiEoin666 - seems you have a keen interest in tank comat during WW II ? Not many know of the Cromwell tank,which did sterling service in Europe after the invasion.


I my opinion it was comparable to the 75 mm gunned Sherman i most respects and marginally better in some like the lower profile.
At least it was reliable performed well against infantry and most german AFV's with the exception of the Tigers ad Panthers.
The Comet tank which succeded the Cromwell was probaby slighty better that the 76 mm Sherman version, built built in very few numbers (approx 1.200)

I just read the book 'Troop leader: A tak commanders story' written by a young british tanker, it is absolutely worth reading.
This book describes everyday life for a 20 year young man leading a troop of 3 Cromwell tanks in 1944 and 1945.
I get the impression that the Cromwell was liked by it's crews.
The book is a prsonal account and is written in a very low-key language
It contains many 'amusing' and hair-raising stories (even though I am balding rapidly :roll:), but still told in a quiet and thrusworthy tone'.





Hmm, cheers Kragh I'll keep a look out for that. The Cromwell was maligned for it's performance in Normandy especially during the battles around Caen, yet in the aftermath during the breakout with more open ground its mobility came into its own, low profile and speed enabling out flanking attacks...all down really to the superb meteor engine a detuned RR Merlin, later also powering the Comet, Centurion etc.



Pacifism took over after the War to end all Wars. Battleships were scraped. Any new developments were ignored and discarded by these Governments. Military Budgets were cut to the bone and then through it. Soldiers were though as a drain upon the citizens and a blight upon society once again.

The Depression didn't help matters either.

So in this environment where companies paid the cost of R & D and the Government wasn't buying then it is obvious why there was little tank development between the wars.

I think another difference was the western allies were democracies, compared to Germany and USSR in terms of defence spending two countries which could and did devote almost all expenditure on defence

[Minardiau]

The German economy was not directed to the extent of the allies towards the war until 1943 and it was not until 1944 that the German economy was 100% directed towards the war effort.

Needless to say had the economy been directed towards a total war effort sooner many of the problems experienced by the forces of the German military machine would not have occurred. For example the initial problems of the Panther and Tigers, Me-262 ect.

[Linedoggie]

.

The best western tank used in any significant numbers would probably be the Cromwell or the Churchhill. The former having excellent mobility, the latter with excellent armor, and neither with a gun worth a crap. I read somewhere that after d-day they were re-gunning Churchills with discarded US 75's because it was found to be superior to the 6 pdr. Is there any truth to that?
Your thinking the NA75 version.

Some 200 Churchills were upgunned using M4 Shermans 75mm guns from Knocked out tanks under project "Whitehot". The Gun had to be turned 180deg in it's M34 mount to suit British practice.

The NA75 was a Churchill Mk. IV from a design by Capt. Percy Morrell, REME(MBE) 2ic, 665 Tank Troops Workshop Based at Le Khroub, Algeria.
It was a Fairly extensive modification to the turret face, as the Sherman mount was reclined vs. the flat face of the Churchill turret.

All 200 served in the Italian theater, not Northwest Europe. 25th Tank Brigade being a Major end user.

The upgunned Churchill with a 17 Pdr was the A43 Black Prince, project was cancelled since the Centurion was coming into production

[Rad Resistance]

The best allied tank was the ones they captured from German hands.

[Lokos]

The best allied tank was the ones they captured from German hands.

That's profoundly stupid.

L.

[Connaught Ranger]

The best allied tank was the ones they captured from German hands.

From the mouth of a child, words of wisdom:roll: go back to reading your comic books sonny!

[Rad Resistance]

What, no it is profoudly true as soon as allied armored divisions saw disrepaired or non scuttled german armored vechiles (mostly pathers), they would take command of one such tank, this was popular among America units and British, not so much with the Russia but by the end of the war the Russias were making tanks that could take out a pather with one shot but on the other hand most russia tanks could be taken out with a well placed high velocity shot from a tigers 88mm.

[Lokos]

I'm going to give you friendly advice.

It's simple: don't pursue this line of argument.

I know for a fact that you are mistaken, so if you go down that road the only place we can end up with is you being proven to be mistaken.

L.

[ggk]

What, no it is profoudly true as soon as allied armored divisions saw disrepaired or non scuttled german armored vechiles (mostly pathers), they would take command of one such tank, this was popular among America units and British, not so much with the Russia but by the end of the war the Russias were making tanks that could take out a pather with one shot but on the other hand most russia tanks could be taken out with a well placed high velocity shot from a tigers 88mm.

really? seriously...?

[Eoin666]

What, no it is profoudly true as soon as allied armored divisions saw disrepaired or non scuttled german armored vechiles (mostly pathers), they would take command of one such tank, this was popular among America units and British, not so much with the Russia but by the end of the war the Russias were making tanks that could take out a pather with one shot but on the other hand most russia tanks could be taken out with a well placed high velocity shot from a tigers 88mm.

What are you blathering on about, all sides pressed captured tanks into service, the Germans had thousands of French Char B's and Somua S35's, Russian T-34s, KV-1s, British Matildas, US Shermans....not to mention the 1400 Czech Pz38's and 3000 derived Hetzers and Marders in service to suppliment their own. A lot more than any allied nation had of German vehicles.

[Rad Resistance]

I read an article in WW2 weekly about US service men commanding German tanks mostly Panthers but it happened in few cases, Eoin you are right the Germans loved Matildas reminded them of Panzer IIIs but with better armour, also they did not capture Czech tanks the czechs just starting building tanks for the Germans producing the excellent 38(t) tank chassis that help create some of Germans early tank destroyers and produced the ever important Hezter.

[One Man Gang]

Generally, in the very few instances where an American unit DID get a German tank fired up, the thing usually broke down about 15 minutes later and blocked the road. Mostly these were rear-echelon units and intel troops. The lack of spare parts and know-how was the major factor in limiting such usage. Any armored vehicle is a maintenance hog - and no, I don't care what you think of you country's - they just are, get over it.

As all sides discovered, using enemy equipment (particularly something big and noticable like a tank) in combat tended to get you very dead, as you own troops generally employed a "shoot first and ID later" mind-set. Blue-on-blue was rampant in WWII as it was. Using something clearly enemy just compounded the problem.

As far as German use of captured Soviet tanks, Peter Chamberlain in the Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War II (pg 238) says this:


During the four years of war in Russia, a great deal of Russian Army equipment fell into German hands. ... the Russian armoured vehicles were generally put to good use by the units that captured them until, inevitably, they broke down and could not be repaired. ... The official OKH lists show how insignificant they were in the overall picture.

The list shows 50 T-34s on hand 31 May 1943 and 39 on 30 December 1944 for the entire German Army. The T-34s were the most numerous of all the Russian types on the list by far.


Of the fifty T-34 officially listed on 31 May 1943, only 17 were servicable. Twenty-five of the fifty were allocated to the SS Division Das Reich. Of the 39 listed at the end of December 1944, twenty-nine were allocated to the 100 Ski Jager Division.

Since the SKODA works in Czechoslovakia were technically under German ownership after 1938 (Thank You, Neville Chamberlain), those vehicles should not be considered "captured." Ditto the French tanks captured in 1940. The Germans owned the factories and could produce all the spare parts they needed.

[hambac]

I read an article in WW2 weekly about US service men commanding German tanks mostly Panthers but it happened in few cases, Eoin you are right the Germans loved Matildas reminded them of Panzer IIIs but with better armour, also they did not capture Czech tanks the czechs just starting building tanks for the Germans producing the excellent 38(t) tank chassis that help create some of Germans early tank destroyers and produced the ever important Hezter.

germans captured about 290 czech tanks - PzKpfw 35(t), which served in poland and france. serial production of 38(t) was just starting when german ocupation come - they only continued it

[loganinkosovo]

The best allied tank was the ones they captured from German hands.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqH_WEqNK5Y

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_ZDBinC0XI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qfHgoSTm48

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhrmYhsMmbA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3FHsXikR_s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8yi4ip3U2U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAT4_r6zvto

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Z2d73x8SPU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWhB_O7IxTU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUQZ6MkVPk0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcca0ih04tI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LL6vl0RCpOk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYvOTaWewO0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PTOTF5BMcs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAKRgGPsUOs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfv-Mvu3Pts

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHhv3fwVpCE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lUmABPD9kI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXh1bnO9qDo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDlznzsO8qc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dkBkLU6ItI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJqGC4TrKPk

[TheKiwi]

The best allied tank was the ones they captured from German hands.

*** MP.NET FLAME FORM ***
Dear:
[ ] Clueless Newbie
[ ] Lamer
[ ] Airsoft Nerd
[ ] Left Wing Godless Commie
[ ] Right Wing Fundamentalist Arsehole
[ ] Arrogant Eurotrash Pacifist Wussie
[ ] Ignorant Gun-toting American Redneck
[ ] Canadian
[ ] Pervert
[ ] Troll
[ ] Nerd
[ ] Mall Ninja
[ ] Freak
[ ] “OMFG D3LT4!!!11!!” fanboy
[X] Dumbass
[ ] Pre-teen

You Are Being Flamed Because:
[ ] You suck
[ ] You’re a noob
[ ] Your political views/ideology/religion are clearly wrong
[ ] You posted asking for pics of something when there’s an entire thread dedicated to that something.
[ ] Your first post was one asking for pics, without proper Netiquette and probably without any effort for a search yourself.
[ ] You quoted an ENTIRE post in your reply
[ ] You continued a long, stupid thread
[ ] You resurrected a long dead thread to post some inane BS.
[ ] You posted a "YOU ALL SUCK" message
[ ] You repeatedly failed to embed videos properly
[ ] You repeatedly repost
[ ] You posted a blatently obvious troll
[ ] You posted pretending to be a Vet or SF
[ ] You attempted to talk down to a Veteran.
[ ] You compared Airsoft to combat
[ ] You compared Reenacting to combat
[ ] You compared video games to combat
[ ] You posted a “KILL ALL ______” message
[ ] You posted a “I’m 14, what do I need to do after I get accepted into D3LT4, Rangers, SAS, etc.” message
[X] You suck
[ ] Your sig/alias/avatar sucks
[ ] You posted an “M-16 vs. AK” message
[ ] You posted in ElItE CaPiTaLs because you think that makes you cool
[X] You clearly haven't the faintest clue about what you are talking
[ ] You didn't do anything specific, but appear to be so generally worthless that you are being flamed anyway

To Repent, You Must:
[ ] Stop masturbating for a week
[X] Give up your MP.net account
[ ] Kill youself
[ ] Tell your Mommy you've been a bad boy
[ ] Give a Mod e-head.
[ ] Give Hellfish e-head
[ ] Actually post something relevant
[ ] Read the FAQ
[ ] Report for “Dumbarse of the Week” Roll-Call

In Closing, I'd Like to Say:
[ ] Blow me
[ ] Get a life
[ ] Never post again
[X] Age 10 more years before you post again
[ ] I pity your dog
[ ] Go to hell
[ ] Yer momma's so fat/stupid/ugly that etc...
[ ] Take your s**t somewhere else
[ ] Get f**ked, you pathetic loser
[ ] Learn to post or f**k off
[ ] All of the above

**END FLAME**
*This is an automated flame-form. You do not need to respond to this, as no-one will care.*

[Rad Resistance]

Ok fine, your real mature for a 39 year old.

[ronnieraygun]

Kiwi, that's epic. If you made that up yourself, I am in awe.


Rad, that's a cool Kraftwerk avatar.

[Rad Resistance]

Thanks and no.

[TheKiwi]

I neither know nor care how old you are. Nothing in your 11 post history indicates that it is worth listening to you. Go f*ck over a different thread knob head.

[Rad Resistance]

Ok thanks for the morale booster, you sure are a nice person.

[Linedoggie]

Eoin you are right the Germans loved Matildas reminded them of Panzer IIIs but with better armour, also they did not capture Czech tanks the czechs just starting building tanks for the Germans producing the excellent 38(t) tank chassis that help create some of Germans early tank destroyers and produced the ever important Hezter. Matilda II's you mean. Matilda I's had only 1 .303 Vickers AFV Machinegun and were mercifully lost at Dunkirk.

[domokun]

What, no it is profoudly true as soon as allied armored divisions saw disrepaired or non scuttled german armored vechiles (mostly pathers), they would take command of one such tank, this was popular among America units and British, not so much with the Russia but by the end of the war the Russias were making tanks that could take out a pather with one shot but on the other hand most russia tanks could be taken out with a well placed high velocity shot from a tigers 88mm.

French got hands on sizable quantity of Panthers during and after war, that many that it economical to produce some spares for those after war.

Panther is often said to be best tank of war, well only technically. Panther was plagued by bad reliability, caused by sub standard materials, slave labor used in production and haste in fielding them before design was fully tested. Generally it had better optics than Soviet tanks, it's theoretical mobility was better than opponents and it's long barreled 75mm L/70 main gun packed enough punch to knock out almost anything it could come up against in battle for pretty good ranges. IS-2 was well enough armored that Panther had to get pretty close to achieve frontal armor penetration, but Panther generally was able to fight almost all possible opponents. In later models design was improved and theoretical reliability improved lot, but production standards lowered all the time war progressed, it pretty much countered design improvements.

Soviets also captured German tanks in large enough numbers to be fielded in larger units. Soviet crews pretty much hated all German tanks even when they had many better features than Soviet tanks like more advanced optics. Reason is very simple reliability was even poorer than what German units had with same equipment as Soviets didn't have supplies and spares needed for operating them well. For Soviet tankers even better sights weren't exactly improvement as optics Soviet tanks had were simpler to operate and good enough for job in hand. Ironically of captured tanks Soviet crews liked Stugs and Pz IV's best as they were most reliable designs Germans had. Soviet units that were given on late war Panthers had very poor reliability, often when employed in operations many or even most tanks become damaged before reaching staging area of operation.

Soviets employed captured in early war where ever there was opportunity, but on later war units with captured tanks were mostly given secondary status and used mostly less active fronts.

[DutchInfantry]

Ok thanks for the morale booster, you sure are a nice person.

No problem mate.. Im on your side.
Where the Alies capable of building weapons like the V1/2 or the German jetfighters?
There was a difference in technology its a fact that the Alies used German tech after the war.
You guys blame him but its a fact that the Alies won only by numbers.
Showing vids whit destroyed German tanks dont make a differince in the numbers of kills.
The Germans had lots of top tank/fighterpilot aces no other army had that many not even half.

Tiger vs Sherman
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igp3k7z-YcQ

A series about the Panzers and there preformance.
Easternfront 5 to 1 on the westernfront 4 to 1.

One of five.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68XNwOkvhAo&feature=related

[loganinkosovo]

The Pershing was more than a match for the Panther and I'd bet money on the Pershings with the High Velocity 90mm tube against Tigers and their 88mm tubes.

Pershings were faster and more maneuverable to boot.

The Pershing's problem was finding Tigers to go up against.

The P-47s and the typhoons (flying Tanks) had already taken a lot of them out. Those that weren't abandon due beak downs lack of fuel.

[Linedoggie]

Biggest problem with the Pershing was the engine

It was the same Ford GAA V-8 as in the M4A3 but now had to move 16 Tons more.

[Kitsune]

If the war would have gone on for a few more decades, the German Leopard I would have kicked the Pershing's ass. p-)

(I just couldn't resist to to add an argument on a niveau that is appoprate for the discussion.)

[TR1]

Pershing was actually close to entering wide spread service. T-54 was not far off, and neither was M-46. Leo 1, on the other hand, was not in anyone's imagination at the time.:)

[TheKiwi]

Were the Alies capable of building weapons like the V1/2 or the German jetfighters?


How about the Gloster Meteor jet fighter, more than capable of taking on the ME-262, and could be produced in vastly superior numbers due to ... I don't know, not having vast fleets of Lancasters, B-17's and B-24's over the skies 24x7, escorted by hordes of Mustangs, Mosquito's and P-47's.

The allies had no need for the V1/V2 type weapons. They had bombers that could deliver way more explosives, and could even deliver it to a less random address than "the south of England".

Try a little less knob stroking over "ze German super science (now mit zombies)".

[Kitsune]

How about the Gloster Meteor jet fighter, more than capable of taking on the ME-262, and could be produced in vastly superior numbers due to ... I don't know, not having vast fleets of Lancasters, B-17's and B-24's over the skies 24x7, escorted by hordes of Mustangs, Mosquito's and P-47's.

The Gloster Meteor was inferior to the Me-262, not superior - Germany was ahead in jet and rocket technology at the time, period. As far as the statement about the great numerical superiority of airplanes of the Allies over the Luftwaffe is concerned, that is certainly true. And it certainly did not hurt here that Germany had to allocate her resources to fight the whole Soviet army (which includes a large airforce by the way) - while the Western allies, even when they truly joined the fighting on the ground late in the war, never took on so much as a third of the German ground forces. And, if I may add this, still had quite a few problems doing so. Considering this you might consider heeding your own advice and try a little less knob stroking yourself.

[nemowork]

Would the technology have made so much difference? The Mustang had a decent kill rate against 262's just by adopting the right tactics, Germany's big problem was firstly fuel and then trained manpower to actually use their wonder weapons. Its all very well having some Hitler youth in a plywood plane like the Volksjaeger but if you can't put cadets in the air to train them without a mustang turning up or spare the fuel to train them your going to be at a permanent disadvantage?

[Eoin666]

The Gloster Meteor was inferior to the Me-262, not superior - Germany was ahead in jet and rocket technology at the time, period. As far as the statement about the great numerical superiority of airplanes of the Allies over the Luftwaffe is concerned, that is certainly true. And it certainly did not hurt here that Germany had to allocate her resources to fight the whole Soviet army (which includes a large airforce by the way) - while the Western allies, even when they truly joined the fighting on the ground late in the war, never took on so much as a third of the German ground forces. And, if I may add this, still had quite a few problems doing so. Considering this you might consider heeding your own advice and try a little less knob stroking yourself.

It was superior in terms of swept wings and axial flow engines which meant narrow powerful engines, thin wings etc, which meant that compared to the meteor with centrifugal flow engines, less power, thicker wings, was slower...BUT, much, much more reliable. 262 engines had a mean time between rebuilds of only a few hours running, lack of materials for compressor blade manufacture had crippled them, meaning blades warped and broke easily.

But this thread is about AFV's...

Allies only won by numbers :roll:.....of course the resourses we had to divert to the far east, middle east and the US the whole Pacific count for nothing either....the USSR if anything was fighting on a single front and was viewed by Hitler as his major conflict so of course resourses were directed there.

[Cobber15-08]

But this thread is about AFV's...

Allies only won by numbers :roll:.....of course the resourses we had to divert to the far east, middle east and the US the whole Pacific count for nothing either....the USSR if anything was fighting on a single front and was viewed by Hitler as his major conflict so of course resourses were directed there.

I agree, the allies and their armour may never had come up against more than a third of the nazi German forces including the tanks, however we had huge forces, Land, Air and Naval fighting against the Japs on three definite fronts, Burma India, Sth West Pacific, South & Nth West/Pacific,
The Russians only had one real front as long as it was, same with the Chinese to a certain extent.
If the Allies, had just fought the Germans then the Italian & later Western front would of drawn huge German forces against them, and imo then the European war would of been very different. The amount of armour the allied nations could of placed against the nazi Germans would of been massive, even in comparasion to what they did use in western Europe. If we won in Europe by the weight of our numbers, then what would of happend if we had a extra million or so fighting men and their equipment.

[Kilgor]

How about the Gloster Meteor jet fighter, more than capable of taking on the ME-262, and could be produced in vastly superior numbers due to ... I don't know, not having vast fleets of Lancasters, B-17's and B-24's over the skies 24x7, escorted by hordes of Mustangs, Mosquito's and P-47's.



The first version of the Meteor was a dog, barely faster some piston aircraft.

[Minardiau]

The Gloster Meteor was inferior to the Me-262, not superior - Germany was ahead in jet and rocket technology at the time, period. As far as the statement about the great numerical superiority of airplanes of the Allies over the Luftwaffe is concerned, that is certainly true. And it certainly did not hurt here that Germany had to allocate her resources to fight the whole Soviet army (which includes a large airforce by the way) - while the Western allies, even when they truly joined the fighting on the ground late in the war, never took on so much as a third of the German ground forces. And, if I may add this, still had quite a few problems doing so. Considering this you might consider heeding your own advice and try a little less knob stroking yourself.

The Allies were also heavily engages in Italy, North Africa, Burma and the Pacific.

As well as providing all the convoys, convoy protection, naval blockades, naval warfare on an unprecedented scale.

It's all fine and dandy to be critical of the Western Allies in Europe but I guess shipping million man armies across oceans and providing the logistics for such an army is easy right?

[loganinkosovo]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=06f_1236040827



http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=23f_1234296073

[Rad Resistance]

How about the Gloster Meteor jet fighter, more than capable of taking on the ME-262, and could be produced in vastly superior numbers due to ... I don't know, not having vast fleets of Lancasters, B-17's and B-24's over the skies 24x7, escorted by hordes of Mustangs, Mosquito's and P-47's.

The allies had no need for the V1/V2 type weapons. They had bombers that could deliver way more explosives, and could even deliver it to a less random address than "the south of England".

Try a little less knob stroking over "ze German super science (now mit zombies)".

The Gloster Meteor was a piece of junk. Any jet designed by the allies sucked they were all inferior, and after the war the allies captured loads of unfinished German fighter jets that helped design some of the aircraft that was used in the Korean War.

[TheKiwi]

You keep posting, but all I see is fap fap fap fap.

Do you have a picture of Adolf sticky taped above your bed? Nazi pyjamas? A set of Ubermench handcreme to avoid chaffing?

[Moriarti]

German Pilot, flying Lufthansa 134 (a Boeing aircraft) out out Frankfurt calls the tower and requests take off clearance in GERMAN - the Tower comes back in German accented ENGLISH that he must speak in zie English on zie radio
- The pilot retorts:
"I am pflying from a German airport for a German airline - vie must I speek zie English??!"

A heavy british accent interjects -
"'Cause you lost the bloody war, innit?!?!"

Get over the Master Race's superiority. They were beaten down largely by the industrial might and willing attrition of the sons of the rejects of Europe...and THEY had to cart their crap all the way across the Atlantic to do it.

[11 Bravo]

Seems alot of the closet nazi mindset forgets that the the many skilled and decorated german "aces" of ground and air combat got that way simply because they were uniformly put into the line until killed or crippled with few exceptions. Whereas the allies tended to take such persons and send them to the rear to impart their experiances via training to the masses of greenhorns. Throughout the war the germans then the soviets had the highest percentage of their troops in combat roles vs REMF's , and both tended to live largely off the land they fought on/over...which can as history shows be a very bad achilles heel. At least the russians had lend lease spam and the like instead of ersatz stomach fillers.
German armor by 1944 was technically awesome , but technically a nightmare of over engineered flaws which as we all can see lead to their defeat. It might take 5 sherman or T34 tanks to actually take a Panther or Tiger out in battle , but the german armor took more of it's own out because of mechanical shortcomings and their reliance on the wrong kind of fuel.

[Eoin666]

Get over the Master Race's superiority. They were beaten down largely by the industrial might and willing attrition of the sons of the rejects of Europe...and THEY had to cart their crap all the way across the Atlantic to do it.

Rejects of Europe.......didn't your ancestors willing leave to emigrate, then that by definition means THEY rejected Europe not t'other way around. But you might want to add to your last paragraph mate, because the way that reads is; "we the USofA defeated Germany all on our own and had to cart our stuff across the ocean to do it"......no one else involved? ? ?

[Moriarti]

Rejects of Europe.......didn't your ancestors willing leave to emigrate, then that by definition means THEY rejected Europe not t'other way around. But you might want to add to your last paragraph mate, because the way that reads is; "we the USofA defeated Germany all on our own and had to cart our stuff across the ocean to do it"......no one else involved? ? ?

My attempt at humoUr obviously failed on you - mate, concerning being regect - watch the movie "Stripes" - I was kind of paraphrasing there.....BUT since you asked - not ALL of my ancestors "left europe willingly" - while most of 'em did, I imagine some were less than thrilled to leave Ireland and Scotland - further, a third of my ancestors were run off of ther land by the other 2 thirds. Here is the scene from stripes, mate.


Cut it out! Cut it out! Cut it out! The hell's the matter with you? Stupid! We're all very different people. We're not Watusi. We're not Spartans. We're Americans, with a capital 'A', huh? You know what that means? Do ya? That means that our forefathers were kicked out of every decent country in the world. We are the wretched refuse. We're the underdog. We're mutts! Here's proof: his nose is cold! But there's no animal that's more faithful, that's more loyal, more loveable than the mutt. Who saw "Old Yeller?" Who cried when Old Yeller got shot at the end?
[raises his hand]
John Winger (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000195/): *sarcastically* Nobody cried when Old Yeller got shot? I'm sure.
[hands are reluctantly raised]
John Winger (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000195/): I cried my eyes out. So we're all dogfaces, we're all very, very different, but there is one thing that we all have in common: we were all stupid enough to enlist in the Army. We're mutants. There's something wrong with us, something very, very wrong with us. Something seriously wrong with us - we're soldiers. But we're American soldiers! We've been kicking ass for 200 years! We're 10 and 1! Now we don't have to worry about whether or not we practiced. We don't have to worry about whether Captain Stillman wants to have us hung. All we have to do is to be the great American fighting soldier that is inside each one of us. Now do what I do, and say what I say. And make me proud.

and, BTW - I was careful, mate, to say that we did not do it alone:



Get over the Master Race's superiority. They were beaten down largely by the industrial might and willing attrition of the sons of the rejects of Europe...and THEY had to cart their crap all the way across the Atlantic to do it.

By largely I meant that the United States were overwhelmingly the deciding factor when it came to material - and probably manpower as well. That is not to say "we" did it alone, but that victory was in large part due to the efforts and blood of the USofA. IF that is too hard for you to swallow, I do appologize, however the facts remain.

[Rad Resistance]

You keep posting, but all I see is fap fap fap fap.

Do you have a picture of Adolf sticky taped above your bed? Nazi pyjamas? A set of Ubermench handcreme to avoid chaffing?

Nice sentence structure, No I have a picture of the Polesti raid Painted by Robert Taylor and signed by pilots and men who took part in the sucessful bombing raid, also have a picture of Franz Bake on my fridge German panzer ace.

[Lokos]

That is not to say "we" did it alone, but that victory was in large part due to the efforts and blood of the USofA. IF that is too hard for you to swallow, I do appologize, however the facts remain.

Rubbish.

Sorry, but rubbish.

L.

[TR1]

Rubbish.

Sorry, but rubbish.

L.
Indeed. WW2 won largely because of "blood of USoA". laughable. I know of some nations that bled a lot more.

[Linedoggie]

By largely I meant that the United States were overwhelmingly the deciding factor when it came to material - and probably manpower as well. That is not to say "we" did it alone, but that victory was in large part due to the efforts and blood of the USofA. IF that is too hard for you to swallow, I do appologize, however the facts remain.


Dont you know Top, nothing west of the Oder ever did anything to contribute to defeating the germans.

our material and manufacturing for ourselves and the allies who recieved it means nothing. only the Glorious Red Army counts.

To dare say otherwise is Heresy :roll:

[Connaught Ranger]

To dare say otherwise is Heresy :roll:

To say otherwise is Hershey (http://www.google.ro/search?hl=ro&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=zJC&ei=2PGwSaP6OqSE1QXE0emGAQ&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=1&ct=result&cd=1&q=Hershey+bars&spell=1) Comrade :p roflwoot

[Moriarti]

p-)
Dont you know Top, nothing west of the Oder ever did anything to contribute to defeating the germans.

our material and manufacturing for ourselves and the allies who recieved it means nothing. only the Glorious Red Army counts.

To dare say otherwise is Heresy :roll:

Apparently! Wow...I go from making a *bad* joke - and trying to explain how the industrial might (and a few million troops) made the difference in WWII - to getting bashed! I mean- just cuz the T34 was an American design - and just cuz half of the Red Army would have not even had weapons ammo or equipment had it not been for lend-lease - or that the brits would have been swallowed whole by Germany had it not been for the steady supply of liberty ships brining war stocks over - apparently means nothing.

Seriouisly guys - get over it - facts are facts - without the good ole' USofA you guys would all be goose stepping, speaking in that o-so-ghey Eurotrash accent and arguing over whether the StG44 was the father of - oh wait...that's right - Kalashnikov would have either ended up designing for HK or in an oven somewhere in Poland.

(donning nomex coveralls!)


To say otherwise is Hershey (http://www.google.ro/search?hl=ro&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=zJC&ei=2PGwSaP6OqSE1QXE0emGAQ&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=1&ct=result&cd=1&q=Hershey+bars&spell=1)Comrade :p roflwoot

(in best homer voice) *****mmmmmm chocolate***** 8-P~

[oldsoak]

Any nation that shed blood trying to defeat or resist the Nazis had a hand in winning the war, be they great or small. None of us did it alone, everyones got KIA's to prove it. Anyone who thinks they did should go stand in someone elses war cemetary and reflect on the tombstones there. Nobody hopped on a bus and drove to Berlin, Russian or Allied.
Russia hemmed in the east, Allies hemmed in the west. Hammer and Anvil. Without each other it would have taken a damn sight longer.

[Marsh]

Hi,
I agree with Old Soak. All made an impact. Without the bloody-minded tenacity of the UK and Commonwealth; Hitler and his nightmare regime would have won. Without the US and its enormous industrial might plus its ability to project military power over the oceans, the Nazis would have won. However, don't forget the immense sacrifice of the Russian people and her armed forces. I loathe Stalin, but if not for the sheer persistance and pressure of the Red Army the war would have dragged on for much longer.
cheers
Marsh

[California Joe]

Why, oh why, must every one of these threads turn into nationalistic dick measuring contests. :cantbeli:

[Trigger]

Why, oh why, must every one of these threads turn into nationalistic dick measuring contests. :cantbeli:

Apparently they always have their hands down their pants. It's just convenience really.

"Whatcha doin'?"
"Nothin'"
"Whatcha wanna talk about?"
"Dunno"
"I'm touching myself"
"Me too"
"Wanna see"
"OK"
"Mine's bigger"
"Nazi"

[domokun]

Biggest problem with the Pershing was the engine

It was the same Ford GAA V-8 as in the M4A3 but now had to move 16 Tons more.

Pershings had pretty bad reliability when they entered service. I might remember wrongly but didn't US army already have little bit lightened version coming up already during war. Pershings worst shortcomings were fixed mostly before Korean war, but it's reputation even amongst US crews was kinda bad.


Pershing was actually close to entering wide spread service. T-54 was not far off, and neither was M-46. Leo 1, on the other hand, was not in anyone's imagination at the time.:)

Too tired to check any resource... T-44 was entering service and Pershings were deployed on few regiments, if that isn't wide spread service...

T-44 was tested on front by one company or battalion, but no larger scale combat actions did happen. There were couple trained regiments ready to deploy by combat elements, but they didn't have logistical support or type trained mechanics so weren't sent to front.



But this thread is about AFV's...

Allies only won by numbers :roll:.....of course the resourses we had to divert to the far east, middle east and the US the whole Pacific count for nothing either....the USSR if anything was fighting on a single front and was viewed by Hitler as his major conflict so of course resourses were directed there.

Cry me a river. Germans were out numbered by quite huge margin. On same time they were out trained, German attrition rate on units was on level where they sent practically untrained soldiers and kids to front. Not to forget that little difference on production resources.

There is quite good reasons why there isn't too many allies on the top aces of war. Especially on west all soldiers were well trained and they fought with superior numbers, that reduced "visibility" of natural talent. German pilots for example were sent war in late parts with very little training, those that didn't have skills to survive got shot down and natural talents had target rich environment to fight in.

Allies fought on another front too but they had man power and industial capability to do so.

[Eoin666]

Why, oh why, must every one of these threads turn into nationalistic dick measuring contests. :cantbeli:

Usually because someone, intentionally or not makes a stupid or throwaway comment that is bound to inflame in what was otherwise a decent thread...


p-)

Apparently! Wow...I go from making a *bad* joke - and trying to explain how the industrial might (and a few million troops) made the difference in WWII - to getting bashed! I mean- just cuz the T34 was an American design - and just cuz half of the Red Army would have not even had weapons ammo or equipment had it not been for lend-lease - or that the brits would have been swallowed whole by Germany had it not been for the steady supply of liberty ships brining war stocks over - apparently means nothing.

Seriouisly guys - get over it - facts are facts - without the good ole' USofA you guys would all be goose stepping, speaking in that o-so-ghey Eurotrash accent and arguing over whether the StG44 was the father of - oh wait...that's right - Kalashnikov would have either ended up designing for HK or in an oven somewhere in Poland.


funny, offensive, peurile or banal you decide

[Moriarti]

Lulz - I actually agree that it was a global effort - I was JUST clowning the Jerries and everyone gets all deep "stand in a cemetary" and whatnot- to recap (see right off the bat - a joke):


German Pilot, flying Lufthansa 134 (a Boeing aircraft) out out Frankfurt calls the tower and requests take off clearance in GERMAN - the Tower comes back in German accented ENGLISH that he must speak in zie English on zie radio
- The pilot retorts:
"I am pflying from a German airport for a German airline - vie must I speek zie English??!"

A heavy british accent interjects -
"'Cause you lost the bloody war, innit?!?!"

Get over the Master Race's superiority. ANOTHER JOKE: They were beaten down largely by the industrial might and willing attrition of the sons of the rejects of Europe...and THEY had to cart their crap all the way across the Atlantic to do it.


My attempt at humoUr obviously failed on you - mate, concerning being regect - watch the movie "Stripes" - I was kind of paraphrasing there.....BUT since you asked - not ALL of my ancestors "left europe willingly" - while most of 'em did, I imagine some were less than thrilled to leave Ireland and Scotland - JOKE: further, a third of my ancestors were run off of ther land by the other 2 thirds. Here is the scene from stripes, mate.

JOKE EXPLAINATION:
Cut it out! Cut it out! Cut it out! The hell's the matter with you? Stupid! We're all very different people. We're not Watusi. We're not Spartans. We're Americans, with a capital 'A', huh? You know what that means? Do ya? That means that our forefathers were kicked out of every decent country in the world. We are the wretched refuse. We're the underdog. We're mutts! Here's proof: his nose is cold! But there's no animal that's more faithful, that's more loyal, more loveable than the mutt. Who saw "Old Yeller?" Who cried when Old Yeller got shot at the end?
[raises his hand]
John Winger (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000195/): *sarcastically* Nobody cried when Old Yeller got shot? I'm sure.
[hands are reluctantly raised]
John Winger (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000195/): I cried my eyes out. So we're all dogfaces, we're all very, very different, but there is one thing that we all have in common: we were all stupid enough to enlist in the Army. We're mutants. There's something wrong with us, something very, very wrong with us. Something seriously wrong with us - we're soldiers. But we're American soldiers! We've been kicking ass for 200 years! We're 10 and 1! Now we don't have to worry about whether or not we practiced. We don't have to worry about whether Captain Stillman wants to have us hung. All we have to do is to be the great American fighting soldier that is inside each one of us. Now do what I do, and say what I say. And make me proud.

and, BTW - I was careful, mate, to say that we did not do it alone:

By largely I meant that the United States were overwhelmingly the deciding factor when it came to material - and probably manpower as well. That is not to say "we" did it alone, but that victory was in large part due to the efforts and blood of the USofA. IF that is too hard for you to swallow, I do appologize, however the facts remain.

See - I agree!
kthxbai

[Linedoggie]

Any nation that shed blood trying to defeat or resist the Nazis had a hand in winning the war, be they great or small. None of us did it alone, everyones got KIA's to prove it. Anyone who thinks they did should go stand in someone elses war cemetary and reflect on the tombstones there. Nobody hopped on a bus and drove to Berlin, Russian or Allied.
Russia hemmed in the east, Allies hemmed in the west. Hammer and Anvil. Without each other it would have taken a damn sight longer.

True enough, but there seems to be certain elements which wish to discount the Efforts of the Western Allies(USA,UK, CAN) to both Fight on 2 Fronts of the European Theater, Fight 2 Fronts of the Pacific Theater, and Supply the Eastern Allies with Material, Ordnance, and foodstuffs, And supply the Liberated areas with everything the populace needed for life support.


How much material was exported West, or to China?

[Eoin666]

Cry me a river. Germans were out numbered by quite huge margin. On same time they were out trained, German attrition rate on units was on level where they sent practically untrained soldiers and kids to front. Not to forget that little difference on production resources.

There is quite good reasons why there isn't too many allies on the top aces of war. Especially on west all soldiers were well trained and they fought with superior numbers, that reduced "visibility" of natural talent. German pilots for example were sent war in late parts with very little training, those that didn't have skills to survive got shot down and natural talents had target rich environment to fight in.

Allies fought on another front too but they had man power and industial capability to do so.

Good points, reading about Hans-Joachim Marseille, they make the point that many time his wing men would avoid combat to leave the actual kill to him
'Historians Hans Ring and Christopher Shores also point to the fact that Marseille's promotions were based on personal success rates more than any other reason, and other pilots did not get to score kills, let alone become Experten themselves. They flew support as the 'maestro showed them how it was done', and often "held back from attacking enemy aircraft to build his score still higher'

[Moriarti]

Usually because someone, intentionally or not makes a stupid or throwaway comment that is bound to inflame in what was otherwise a decent thread...

OR - someone takes their national pride or opinon or themselves WAY too seriously and gets offended and pissed off at the smallest percieved slight. What are you the frackin opinion police? Or just the funny police? I know - the "intelligence" police - since it was a "stoooopid or throwaway comment" that was directed at another nationalist (or should I say national socialist?!?!) who had his nose firmly placed in the ass of Hitler's War Machine. At any rate - I am truely sorry that I offended your tender sensibilities. - Harden Up Nancy.


funny, offensive, peurile or banal you decide

Funny as fvck.

[Eoin666]

OR - someone takes their national pride or opinon or themselves WAY too seriously and gets offended and pissed off at the smallest percieved slight. What are you the frackin opinion police? Or just the funny police? I know - the "intelligence" police - since it was a "stoooopid or throwaway comment" that was directed at another nationalist (or should I say national socialist?!?!) who had his nose firmly placed in the ass of Hitler's War Machine. At any rate - I am truely sorry that I offended your tender sensibilities. - Harden Up Nancy.



Funny as fvck.

Hardy fvckin' ha, should be on TV mate....

:roll:.....actually I wasn't offended at all, you're entitled to your opinion but your comments were always going to piss someone off, and you're fvckin short sighted mate if you can't see that

[Moriarti]

Hardy fvckin' ha, should be on TV mate....

:roll:.....actually I wasn't offended at all, you're entitled to your opinion but your comments were always going to piss someone off, and you're fvckin short sighted mate if you can't see that

THank you :)
AND, Thank You :)

And I understand that someone may get pissed off - HOWEVER - one is not entitled to NOT being offended - p-)

[domokun]

Good points, reading about Hans-Joachim Marseille, they make the point that many time his wing men would avoid combat to leave the actual kill to him
'Historians Hans Ring and Christopher Shores also point to the fact that Marseille's promotions were based on personal success rates more than any other reason, and other pilots did not get to score kills, let alone become Experten themselves. They flew support as the 'maestro showed them how it was done', and often "held back from attacking enemy aircraft to build his score still higher'

I have read more than few memoirs or biographies of fighter or U-boat aces. They were all individuals, they all played their own game mostly by their own rules. For example Hans Ulrich Rudel was apparently he was nazi, egomaniac and complete a$$hole, according to many who actually knew him well... most didn't like him at all. He was pretty much godlike pilot and his will was more than strong, guy got shot down about 30 times and always returned to front as soon as doctors allowed. He still went extremes to keep his men alive, up to point, if remember correctly, that he stayed on guarding shot down friendlies so long that he crashed as he had spent too much fuel to give close air support while returning to base.

Erich Hartmann was really down to earth kind of guy, he's absolutely best fighter pilot ever and he describes him self as not too good shooter (kinda relative). He played decoy with his personal plane with distinctive black edelweiss insignia, he knew that most enemies would run away when he showed up, he often put new pilots under his command to fly it to keep them safe. He put newcomers to his own wingman to watch over them for few first combat sorties that they would be safe and survive that long that they got over n00b related issues. His kill statistics were insanely high, still he played for safe by using well proven tactic of single high speed pass, very close range opening of fire and almost never returned as enemies would be alerted. His own wing leader who also was also ace used completely different tactics, he basically sniped enemies from extreme range.

[Linedoggie]

In regards to the Churchill Tank NA 75 Conversion I mentioned earlier, I now have this to add:

http://www.track48.com/articles/research/na75/index.html

It's an interesting read about the Ingenuity of the REME, RAOC fitters

[Mastermind]

Man! I really enjoyed that. A treasure of a find. It goes practically without saying the efforts of the men and women who serve in support of the people at the interface of war most often go by unnoticed. Their acts of enginuity, hardship, dedication and just pure grit in often impossible situations have no doubt made the difference between defeat and victory. What's the old saying, "For want of a nail....?" This story almost perfectly epitomizes that saying.

God bless everyone concerned in this adventure.

And history certainly owes a debt to Major Morrell MBE for keeping the record of this gallant effort for posterity. Hopefully, it can set an example for all those folks who serve in future support battalians.