PDA

View Full Version : Best Tank of WWII



Pages : 1 2 [3]

pat322
07 Dec 08,, 13:29
T 34 knocked the socks off anything that came its way in ww2 germany didnt know what hit them !!!

zraver
07 Dec 08,, 15:44
That figure must include the number of is-1 tanks rearmed with the 122 mm tank cannon

quite possibly

bugs
07 Dec 08,, 16:00
front armor modifications on is 2

zraver
07 Dec 08,, 19:02
front armor modifications on is 2

seems I was wrong, but the Tiger I could still a IS-2 from the side past 1000m

bugs
07 Dec 08,, 21:17
Even 2000 m as the hull is sloped to 15° and turret to 20° .
I suspect that the germans calculated penetration at 30 ° for pzgr-39.?
The turret is however also sloped in the horizontal plane...( just to make the math a bit harder :) )

dalem
07 Dec 08,, 21:24
If you like it so much, why don't you marry it?

-dale

USSWisconsin
07 Dec 08,, 21:29
Another excellent all around tank was the British Comet, which had a Rolls Royce Meteor engine, good protection and a modified 17 pdr. It was produced in respectable numbers (though not as many as the T34 or M4). IMO it's 600+ HP and nimble size, combined with a superb gun (able to penetrate a Tiger I from the front at 1000m) made it the Western Allies best medium tank.

To really compete with the Panther or either Tiger, heavy tanks are in order -- the US Pershing, and the Soviet IS-II were better choices. The IS-III (May 1945) and the Super-Pershing (only 2 deployed) were even better, and could meet the German monsters on more equal terms.

bugs
07 Dec 08,, 21:57
If you like it so much, why don't you marry it?

-dale

math or the tank?
:biggrin:
( 20 deg sloping only ads 5-6 cm to efective crossection )

zraver
08 Dec 08,, 00:24
math or the tank?
:biggrin:
( 20 deg sloping only ads 5-6 cm to efective crossection )

I think he was talking to the guy that popped in saying the T-34 was God's chariot.

Triple C
08 Dec 08,, 04:29
Well, IS-2 had two major variants, the M43 and M44. The IS-2 M43's ballistic shape is somewhat reminicient of German boxy tanks and M44 had a one piece heavily sloped glacis. So German manuals might be refering to the former, which could be engaged and destroyed at 1,000 meters. Not so with IS-2 M44 which was at times erroneously identified as the IS-3 by German intellegence.

bugs
08 Dec 08,, 13:05
realy?

T_igger_cs_30
10 Dec 08,, 20:51
http://www.militaryfactory.com/tank_comparison_detail.asp

bugs
10 Dec 08,, 22:22
http://www.militaryfactory.com/tank_comparison_detail.asp

hmm the 7tp better than a Valentine, how could that be true...?

chakos
10 Dec 08,, 22:34
Why is the Panther referred to as a medium tank anyways? I have a friend whos a mad collector of those scale model collectible tanks (his wife isnt even allowed to dust the shelf they sit on) and the Panther sitting next to a Sherman, a MkIV and a T-34 makes them look insanelly small. I thought it was a scale issue on the models at first so i did some reading and i come to the conclusion that by the standards of the time the Panther was definatelly a heavy. Was it because the Tiger was considered the heavy therefore the Panther, being smaller than the Tiger had to be a medium by default?

Triple C
12 Dec 08,, 03:16
Why is the Panther referred to as a medium tank anyways? I have a friend whos a mad collector of those scale model collectible tanks (his wife isnt even allowed to dust the shelf they sit on) and the Panther sitting next to a Sherman, a MkIV and a T-34 makes them look insanelly small. I thought it was a scale issue on the models at first so i did some reading and i come to the conclusion that by the standards of the time the Panther was definatelly a heavy. Was it because the Tiger was considered the heavy therefore the Panther, being smaller than the Tiger had to be a medium by default?

The Panther tank's "medium" designation connotes the purpose of the design not its weight. At 45 tons, it was a heavy tank in any book but it was used as a medium, filling the ranks of regular panzer battalions in the Panzer Divisions as the main manoeuver tank. Heavy tanks on the other hand were reserved in elite breakthrough battalions that were attatched to other units as Corps or Army sees fit.

zraver
12 Dec 08,, 03:23
The Panther tank's "medium" designation connotes the purpose of the design not its weight. At 45 tons, it was a heavy tank in any book but it was used as a medium, filling the ranks of regular panzer battalions in the Panzer Divisions as the main manoeuver tank. Heavy tanks on the other hand were reserved in elite breakthrough battalions that were attatched to other units as Corps or Army sees fit.

edit, most heavy tanks (Tiger I and II). Some where found organically inside the individual (but elite) panzer divisions like Panzer Lehr.

The panther also had a medium scale gun at 75mm, even though it was high velocity, it also had medium class side protection.

ANZAC
29 Dec 08,, 01:36
For all round mobility, firepower, and protection I'd go for the Panther, hands down.

WarisHell
21 Jan 09,, 15:52
Late models Pz IIIs were good. As were the III and IV Stugs.

Triple C
22 Jan 09,, 03:48
Well, StuG isn't a tank. I like the Pz. III's history and aesthetics, but the late models weren't exactly what we'd call cutting edge technology. It was badly outgunned and under-dressed for the occassion...

Big K
22 Jan 09,, 09:51
we can state some 5 or 10 different models to debate on which was the best

but

who can state (with photos&datas) which was the WORST tank of ww2? :)

WarisHell
22 Jan 09,, 10:43
Well, StuG isn't a tank. I like the Pz. III's history and aesthetics, but the late models weren't exactly what we'd call cutting edge technology. It was badly outgunned and under-dressed for the occassion...

Sure. The 50/60L on the models with the 30 + 50 and 2 MGS werent too bad for most combat situations. Not as a tank destroyer, but against most things they encountered. Most of the IIIs however were underarmored for 44 and 45. In 42 and 43 they were not bad, but would have gotten a fright if they saw any T34s.

Against infantry however...

zraver
22 Jan 09,, 19:27
we can state some 5 or 10 different models to debate on which was the best

but

who can state (with photos&datas) which was the WORST tank of ww2? :)

Some contenders

M11/39
Matlida I
Vickers Dutchman
T-35
M2 Combat car
F-17 (having seen action in 1917-18)
Char 2C

Triple C
23 Jan 09,, 05:29
Sure. The 50/60L on the models with the 30 + 50 and 2 MGS werent too bad for most combat situations. Not as a tank destroyer, but against most things they encountered. Most of the IIIs however were underarmored for 44 and 45. In 42 and 43 they were not bad, but would have gotten a fright if they saw any T34s.

Against infantry however...

Would have got a fright with them Shermans too. 50mm was too little gun.

bugs
23 Jan 09,, 09:31
Would have got a fright with them Shermans too. 50mm was too little gun.

The 75 mm gun on the early Shermans was better against a Pz-III L armmor ?

Big K
23 Jan 09,, 12:40
Some contenders

M11/39
Matlida I
Vickers Dutchman
T-35
M2 Combat car
F-17 (having seen action in 1917-18)
Char 2C

and the winner is?

McFire
26 Jan 09,, 15:41
Anybody read "Death Traps: The Survival of an American Armored Division in WWII" by Belton Cooper? It's a pretty good read and the author was an ordnance liason officer with the 3rd Armored Division. He covers a lot of the Shermans many shortcomings.

sappersgt
26 Jan 09,, 16:19
Anybody read "Death Traps: The Survival of an American Armored Division in WWII" by Belton Cooper? It's a pretty good read and the author was an ordnance liason officer with the 3rd Armored Division. He covers a lot of the Shermans many shortcomings.

It's on my shelf. Parts of it are chilling. It does gives a real insight to the recovering of tanks in WWII.

zraver
26 Jan 09,, 22:23
It's on my shelf. Parts of it are chilling. It does gives a real insight to the recovering of tanks in WWII.

IIRC it is also factually wrong when he is talking about decisions made at a higher level like Patton turning down the M26 Pershing.

dalem
26 Jan 09,, 23:14
Anybody read "Death Traps: The Survival of an American Armored Division in WWII" by Belton Cooper? It's a pretty good read and the author was an ordnance liason officer with the 3rd Armored Division. He covers a lot of the Shermans many shortcomings.

I was disappointed in the ratio of plain opinion to real research it contained. It was basically a rant without enough numbers or details to give it any real weight, in my opinion.

-dale

Gun Grape
27 Jan 09,, 02:54
I was disappointed in the ratio of plain opinion to real research it contained. It was basically a rant without enough numbers or details to give it any real weight, in my opinion.

-dale


But Dale it wasn't written to be a historical document. Its a memoir.
He wrote about what he saw and experienced. Never intended to be anything more.

zraver
27 Jan 09,, 03:51
But Dale it wasn't written to be a historical document. Its a memoir.
He wrote about what he saw and experienced. Never intended to be anything more.


It was also a slice at a dead man's legacy. He doesn't like Patton and takes swipes at him so its a bit more than just a memoir.

bugs
16 Feb 09,, 14:15
and the winner is?

f-17 no doubt about it
7 km/h, 39 hp (29 kW) engine (6 hp/tonne),Operational
range 65 km. A excelent tank for 1919 but not for 1940.

dalem
17 Feb 09,, 01:30
But Dale it wasn't written to be a historical document. Its a memoir.
He wrote about what he saw and experienced. Never intended to be anything more.

I disagree. He spends a tremendous amount of time passing judgement on everything from the M4 to the slimmed-down 1944/45 armored divisions. It's far more than a simple memoir, it's an attempt at a sweeping critique with very few actual authoritative numbers or analyses as a foundation.

I found it quite distasteful.

-dale

Triple C
17 Feb 09,, 09:20
I recall several men who had the fortitude to read the book and cross-reference it with hard data told me how the numbers were all wrong, and his contention that George S. Patton killed American servicemen because he supported the M4 medium tank, were totally and completely incorrect.

Also, from reading the German records of armored units during the war, I don't find 3d AD's tank losses or casaulties to be extraordinary.

zraver
17 Feb 09,, 15:20
I recall several men who had the fortitude to read the book and cross-reference it with hard data told me how the numbers were all wrong, and his contention that George S. Patton killed American servicemen because he supported the M4 medium tank, were totally and completely incorrect.

Also, from reading the German records of armored units during the war, I don't find 3d AD's tank losses or casaulties to be extraordinary.

Its a grudge book, not history. Company Commander by McDonald is a much better memoir.

Triple C
18 Feb 09,, 05:59
For starters, Patton had no influence over tank development. He was not a technical expert by anymeans because he was a cavalryman. Bruce Clark would later say that "Patton knew as little about tanks as anyone I know". In the planning phase of Neptune, Patton was in the doghouse after the slapping incident, and spend his days "leading" a phantom army to land in Calaise.

Cooper singled out Patton because Patton made himself the visible target after defending the Sherman medium tank as an effective machine when the media's reportage of inferior American weapons reached its fever pitch. In fact, Patton was well aware of the superiority of the gun and armor of the heavy German tanks because it was his command that fought the biggest tank battle in the west in Lorraine. He felt that bashing army equipment without restrained sapped morale, just when the troops should be learning to fight aggressively. He was probably right.

McDonald served in the 4th Infantry Division during the battle of the Bulge, correct?

dalem
18 Feb 09,, 09:34
McDonald served in the 4th Infantry Division during the battle of the Bulge, correct?

23rd Regiment, 2nd Infantry as a "90 day wonder" post D-Day until the Bulge. He was wounded in the early Ardennes fighting, convalesced and came back, I think to the same regiment, same division, different company, for the rest of the war.

And I agree, great memoir. His A Time for Trumpets is a great operational and strategic analysis of the Ardennes development and resolution. If McDonald wrote it, I believe it. Cooper, not so much.

-dale

Johnny W
07 Mar 09,, 14:59
Here is an interesting video with a M26 Pershing taking on a Mark V Panther.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jt5bJQOkI1g

bugs
07 Mar 09,, 17:45
The Pershing tank did improve the american options of taking on the german tanks however i have found the video unfair to the Sherman tank.
The Pershing had a engine rated at 373 kW, the M4A3E8 Sherman a 336 kW engine.
The armor of the Pershing was not a significant improvement from the Sherman.
For instance the front hull was 76 mm for the Pershing, 64 mm Sherman , 80 mm Panther. The round gun mantlet of the Panther had 120 mm, compared to 114 mm of the Pershing and 90 mm of the M4a3 Sherman.
Because of those armor improvements ( and the 90mm gun turret) the Pershing weight is above 40 tonnes.
The 90 mm gun is a huge improvement , however the later versions of the Sherman carried 105 mm howitzers, 77 mm guns (Firefly), 105 mm guns (upgraded IDF tanks).

Triple C
08 Mar 09,, 05:25
I agree. The comparison is unfair as the Pershing was both 10 tons heavier, underpowered, and mechanically unreliable. But I thought Pershing had 100mm of armor upper front?

They should have just put 90mm gun turrets on M4A3's. Though they did not know it that at the time.

Btw,


The 75 mm gun on the early Shermans was better against a Pz-III L armmor ?

Early Sherman in Africa could be armed with either M2 or M3 guns, I think. 75mm M3 was an overkill against Pz. III L. Against the M2 armed Sherman Pz. III L could barely achieve parity. Both needed to get into 500mm to kill each other, but the Sherman would be a faster, more dependable tank. Besides that, how many Afrika Korps Pz. III were L's? At Gazala they only had a dozen III J's. By the time they had L's, I am pretty sure they'd be facing M3 gun armed Shermans too.

Pink
08 Mar 09,, 19:36
Although the T34 inspired the sloped armour of the Panther the comparisons end there. The engineering on the Panther was complex, which hindered it during battlefield repairs. Depending on which way the battle was swinging counted greatly on whether a track was fixed or the tank was knocked out by the crew. That said the Panther was vastly superior to the T34 and Sherman in all aspect bar production figures.
A great all rounder and to my knowledge the first to employ a suspension system which allowed the tank to fire accurately while moving at speed.

bugs
08 Mar 09,, 20:09
Early Sherman in Africa could be armed with either M2 or M3 guns, I think.
Only with M3 tank cannon


75mm M3 was an overkill against Pz. III L.
Maybe from the side.


Both needed to get into 500 m to kill each other, but the Sherman would be a faster, more dependable tank.
No argument here.

Besides that, how many Afrika Korps Pz. III were L's? At Gazala they only had a dozen III J's. By the time they had L's, I am pretty sure they'd be facing M3 gun armed Shermans too.

The Battle of Gazala ended in june 1942 , the L was produced after that.

Triple C
10 Mar 09,, 05:52
Bugs,

Well, with M61 75mm M3 could penetrate 60mm of armor inclined 30 degrees at 900 meters. Pz. III L has just 70mm of armor with next to no slope, so while not exactly an overmatch, the Pz. III would be outgunned.

Pink,

The Panther's mechanical performance is atrocious. The Pz. V is difficult to repair, but also alarmingly easy to break. Average readiness rate was 60% and during long range mobile operations much, much lower. The Panther's suspension, transmission and power train are all over-egineered and frankly very fragile.

Big K
10 Mar 09,, 12:38
The Panther's suspension, transmission and power train are all over-egineered and frankly very fragile.

i always heard that engineering of these parts were far more superior than its counterparts?
i wonder if i this fragility is a consequence of slave-worker system? i mean they were sabotaging the production as much as possible, werent they?

bugs
10 Mar 09,, 13:35
Bugs,

Well, with M61 75mm M3 could penetrate 60mm of armor inclined 30 degrees at 900 meters. Pz. III L has just 70mm of armor with next to no slope, so while not exactly an overmatch, the Pz. III would be outgunned.


Did you read this book by any chance ?

Pink
10 Mar 09,, 16:54
Pink,

The Panther's mechanical performance is atrocious. The Pz. V is difficult to repair, but also alarmingly easy to break. Average readiness rate was 60% and during long range mobile operations much, much lower. The Panther's suspension, transmission and power train are all over-egineered and frankly very fragile.Sure the Panthers were over engineered and the Drive units were weak but I think you'll find the 60% readiness figure mainly down to allied bombing of components factories and consequently field workshops not receiving adequate parts supply.

I'd sooner be in a panther taking a hit from a sherman than vice versa. The Shermans were atrocious in battle when pitted against a Tiger, Panther or 88'

Triple C
11 Mar 09,, 00:54
Bugs,

That's one book I WANT to read. However, now that my days of finanacial irresponsibility is at an end, I will have to hold on to that for now. Do you also recommend it? Any hard data from a reputable source that contradicts me would be very welcomed. =)

Pink,

The Panther's dependability really is terrible. The final drive's life is as low as 150km, and the gear box is a nightmare and engineering disaster waiting to happen. This is only to be expected since the engine and suspension were designed for a 35 ton vehicle not a 42 ton. Inherent failure rates would be very high even assuming a reasonable supply of spare parts.

I would prefer to be in a Sherman tank to running away from a cauldron battle on foot because my column got surrounded and my tank broke down.

Pink
11 Mar 09,, 01:34
Pink,Hello!:)


The Panther's dependability really is terrible. The final drive's life is as low as 150km, and the gear box is a nightmare and engineering disaster waiting to happen.The shermans protectability was terrible as well, there are lots of witness's to this fact, unfortunately the vast majority were toasted after only one hit.


This is only to be expected since the engine and suspension were designed for a 35 ton vehicle not a 42 tonCorrect it was too heavy for the drive unit, that doesn't stop it being a better engineered tank than a Sherman, a motorised fish tank offers more protection than that contraption.


Inherent failure rates would be very high even assuming a reasonable supply of spare parts.Better to have an inherant failure rate than a crew obliterated after 1 hit!...like a sherman for instance. I'm just not having it that you think a Sherman dust bin is better than a Panther, in a tank on tank scenario.


I would prefer to be in a Sherman tank to running away from a cauldron battle on foot because my column got surrounded and my tank broke downTell that to the Sherman crews in the bocage or the Ardennes in 44'...we for instance lost 300 shermans during Goodwood .........Shermans were over rated mass manufactured teapots that brewed up on demand.

Shermans:rolleyes: give me strength!!!

tankie
11 Mar 09,, 01:43
Tell that to the Sherman crews in the bocage or the Ardennes in 44'...we for instance lost 300 shermans during Goodwood .........Shermans were over rated mass manufactured teapots that brewed up on demand.


The reason the Germans called them Tommy cookers .:(

Pink
11 Mar 09,, 01:50
The reason the Germans called them Tommy cookers .:(Quite!

tankie
11 Mar 09,, 01:56
Quite!

They had a good point tho Pink , there was lots of them , ;)

Pink
11 Mar 09,, 02:02
They had a good point tho Pink , there was lots of them , ;)Yeh, lots of targets. Luckily we had the airforce to camoflage how bad they were.;)

zraver
11 Mar 09,, 02:22
Hello!:)

The shermans protectability was terrible as well, there are lots of witness's to this fact, unfortunately the vast majority were toasted after only one hit.

Correct it was too heavy for the drive unit, that doesn't stop it being a better engineered tank than a Sherman, a motorised fish tank offers more protection than that contraption.

Better to have an inherant failure rate than a crew obliterated after 1 hit!...like a sherman for instance. I'm just not having it that you think a Sherman dust bin is better than a Panther, in a tank on tank scenario.

Tell that to the Sherman crews in the bocage or the Ardennes in 44'...we for instance lost 300 shermans during Goodwood .........Shermans were over rated mass manufactured teapots that brewed up on demand.

Shermans:rolleyes: give me strength!!!

If your talking about the M4, A1 or A3 sure you are correct. However the same does not apply to the A2 or any of the 75w or 76w varaints. The M4A3(76W) had a gun close to that of the panthers in the anti-tank role, was far more reliable, could fire on the move with single axis stabilization, and had frontal armor superior to a Mk IV. The last and best version of the Sherman in American service was very close to the Panthers performance and 12 tons less, 10x more.

The M4A3E8 HVSS the famed "Easy Eight" and the M4A3 (76W) HVSS that was the production version vs the panther

armor location and thickness/slope M4A3E8 v. Panther Auf G
Front lower hull= 108/56 v. 60/55
Front upper hull= 63.5/47 v. 80/55
side hull= 38 v. 50/30 upper hull 40/0 lower hull
Turret front= 63/40-45 v.110/11
mantel= 89 v. 100
Turret sides= 63/13 v. 45/25
vehicle weight= 33 tons v. 45.5
engine gas 500hp v gas 700hp
p2Wr 15.15 per ton v. 15.38 per ton
speed= 42km/h v. 46 km/h
range= 160km v. 170km
penetration (US M93 v/ Ger Pg40/42)
500m/ 30deg= 157mm v. 174mm
1000m/ 30 deg= 135mm v. 149mm
1500m/30deg= 116mm v. 127mm
main gun rounds carried= 71 (in wet storage) v.81 (in open storage)
Turret traverse full 360 deg= 15 seconds v. 25 seconds
Reliable in the feild?= yes v. no
Easily produced?= yes v. no

bugs
11 Mar 09,, 05:50
armor location and thickness/slope M4A3E8 v. Panther Auf G
Front lower hull= 108/56 v. 60/55

Very unusual armor layout.
Your thoughts on this mater ?

Triple C
11 Mar 09,, 08:29
Hello!:)
The shermans protectability was terrible as well, there are lots of witness's to this fact, unfortunately the vast majority were toasted after only one hit.


Generation for generation, Sherman tank actually has thicker armor and signficantly better gun controls than Pz. IV and any of the StuGs. Actually, burning up is a problem common to all tanks of WWII and this had been misattributed to egine fuel types ad nauseum. The culprit was vulnerable ammo storage, and the only Army that did anything about it was the US Army. Using wet storage, burn rate was reduced to 10-20 per cent.

A Panther tank of any type had a burn rate of 90%. Like a Roman candle. Because all of its ammo storage were oddly placed at the places most likely to be hit or penetrated, and its notorious leaking fuel cells, any crew in a compromised Panther hull is likely to be incinerated.



Correct it was too heavy for the drive unit, that doesn't stop it being a better engineered tank than a Sherman, a motorised fish tank offers more protection than that contraption.


Guderian called the Panther D/A unbattle-worthy. It had great armor and great gun. The internals and everything under the hood was an utter mess. The steering system was a joke and the suspension stripped itself.



Better to have an inherant failure rate than a crew obliterated after 1 hit!...like a sherman for instance. I'm just not having it that you think a Sherman dust bin is better than a Panther, in a tank on tank scenario.


Basic principle of war disagrees. Better to burn men and tanks to achieve objectives than to lose because you cannot move. A tank army that cannot conduct mobile operations through wide spaces is a dead army. It doesn't matter if you win tactical engagements but lose operationally because once you are bagged, you die by artillery and CAS. Which happened time and time again to the Wehrmacht.



Tell that to the Sherman crews in the bocage or the Ardennes in 44'...we for instance lost 300 shermans during Goodwood .........Shermans were over rated mass manufactured teapots that brewed up on demand.

Shermans:rolleyes: give me strength!!!

Tell them to the panzer regiments in the German Army. I bet they would liked to switch sides even if they had to swap tanks.

German tank crew losses absolutely darwfed the allies.

Triple C
11 Mar 09,, 08:41
People seem to forget AT guns and mines claimed the absolute majority of tank lossess in WW2. Allied tanks fired three rounds of high explosive for every armor piercing.

zraver
11 Mar 09,, 12:32
Very unusual armor layout.
Your thoughts on this mater ?

Probably due to the casting process.

Albany Rifles
11 Mar 09,, 13:47
People seem to forget AT guns and mines claimed the absolute majority of tank lossess in WW2. Allied tanks fired three rounds of high explosive for every armor piercing.

And Shermans fired more machine gun ammo than anything. US Army doctrine was for tanks to break through and use their machine guns tearing up the rear area. Tank destroyers were supposed to fight tanks.

The Sherman was a good one size fits all solution. By 1944 it was relaible, the burning when hit issues had been pretty much handled and they were plentiful.

BTW, of the 300 Shermans knocked out during Goodwood, do you know how many were returned to service?

S2
11 Mar 09,, 16:44
I'm a big proponent of the Panther. It's final versions were, IMHO, the finest tank of the war. It's evolution, though, was too little, too late given that the quality of allied armor also continued to rise while reliability remained generally superior.

"German tank crew losses absolutely darwfed the allies..."

German crew losses of any type likely dwarfed the allies. There was no respite for the vast majority short of crippling wounds or death. Pilots flew and tankers fought until they were no more.

Rare was the German who started battle in 1939 and lived till 1945 while remaining fully in battle. Even more rare would be those who did so without wound. Many, many men carried multiple wounds. Some at ridiculous levels.

I suspect many, many German commanders and soldiers from top to bottom remained in combat with wounds which by policy would have put our guys stateside permanently.

Pink
11 Mar 09,, 21:04
German tank crew losses absolutely darwfed the allies.Only because of the allied airforce. Your average US sherman rarely knocked a panther out if ever. The only Sherman that could knock a panther out in a front engagement was the British firefly version with its 17 pounder.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/ShermanFirefly.jpg

Albany Rifles
11 Mar 09,, 21:08
Only because of the allied airforce.

The biggest killer of German armor when they faced Americans was US artillery fire....and I am not talking anti tank guns. Massed US artillery was devestating to German armor.

PS....Nice Belgian Tank picture

dalem
11 Mar 09,, 22:19
Only because of the allied airforce. Your average US sherman rarely knocked a panther out if ever. The only Sherman that could knock a panther out in a front engagement was the British firefly version with its 17 pounder.

Lots of fallacies in there. For instance, losses to air attack were always overstated.

Shermans, even vanilla 75mm Shermans, could and often did come out ahead of Panthers. Far more important than the platform was the position - attacking forces always lost proportionately higher numbers of tanks. Also crew experience was an important factor - look at the effectiveness of Sherman-equipped forces in the Lorraine and Stolberg campaigns. Veteran Sherman crews did quite well against their Panther-equipped opponents. Lots of smoking big cats on the fields afterwards.

The 76mm-armed Shermans, if using HVAP, could and sometimes did kill Panthers from the front, but that wasn't something anyone would want to bet on. ;)

All that said, I still stand by what I posted earlier in this thread:

What tank would I want if I had a primitive industry, poor logistical ability, and an uneducated soldiery? T-34.

What tank would I want if I had to equip armies across two oceans? M4 Sherman.

What tank would I want to BE in once I passed all the other strategic and logistical hurdles and was actually in harm's way? PzV Panther.

-dale

zraver
11 Mar 09,, 22:22
Only because of the allied airforce. Your average US sherman rarely knocked a panther out if ever. The only Sherman that could knock a panther out in a front engagement was the British firefly version with its 17 pounder.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/ShermanFirefly.jpg

Incorrect, the US M1A1C gun had the power to do so. The M69, M73, and M93 all could do it at varying ranges with the M93 beign the best. The M93 could drill a panthers turret in excess of 1000m. The M1A1 gun may not have

Pink
11 Mar 09,, 22:39
The biggest killer of German armor when they faced Americans was US artillery fire....and I am not talking anti tank guns. Massed US artillery was devestating to German armor.

PS....Nice Belgian Tank picture
Exactly! the shermans that were fielded in Normandy were inferior because of bad intel on Panther numbers. We thought we'd just be up against PIV's in the main. Consequently we fielded an inferior tank and paid the price.

Artillery?? my backside!:rolleyes: We had air superiority on the western front. Refering to the Falaise gap as an example of artillery taking tanks out is totally misleading. Falaise was a unique situation that enabled artillery plus ground attack aircraft to smash the German armour that had been trapped.

Pink
11 Mar 09,, 22:51
Lots of fallacies in there. For instance, losses to air attack were always overstated.

Shermans, even vanilla 75mm Shermans, could and often did come out ahead of Panthers. Far more important than the platform was the position - attacking forces always lost proportionately higher numbers of tanks. Also crew experience was an important factor - look at the effectiveness of Sherman-equipped forces in the Lorraine and Stolberg campaigns. Veteran Sherman crews did quite well against their Panther-equipped opponents. Lots of smoking big cats on the fields afterwards.

The 76mm-armed Shermans, if using HVAP, could and sometimes did kill Panthers from the front, but that wasn't something anyone would want to bet on. ;)

All that said, I still stand by what I posted earlier in this thread:

What tank would I want if I had a primitive industry, poor logistical ability, and an uneducated soldiery? T-34.

What tank would I want if I had to equip armies across two oceans? M4 Sherman.

What tank would I want to BE in once I passed all the other strategic and logistical hurdles and was actually in harm's way? PzV Panther.

-dale;)........Spot on :))

Triple C
11 Mar 09,, 22:52
Only because of the allied airforce. Your average US sherman rarely knocked a panther out if ever. The only Sherman that could knock a panther out in a front engagement was the British firefly version with its 17 pounder.


This view has never been endorsed by any research. Read any AARs by the Germans or the Americans would reveal that allied tanks was a serious threat to German armor inspite of their inferiority in weaponry and armor.

The Germans lost massive numbers of Panther tanks in tank vs. tank engagements in Normany, Lorraine and Ardennes. Those were documented and verified by allied intellegence in battle field post mortems. They are reliable because the Germans left their panzers behind, and there was ample time for examination. A good example would be fighting during the early stages of the Bulge at the north where there was no allied CAS but still heavy German armor losses.

On the other hand, USAAF's kill claims during WWII was massively inflated at about ten times actual. The fact is that CAS were ineffective against armor as a destructive instrument compared to having tank or TD support.

Bde Gen Clark, The commander of CCA 4th AD which fought the largest single armored engagement in the west in Aracourt, France said that at no time during that battle the contribution of airpower was critical. In that engagement his 75mm gun armed Shermans utterly dominated two Panther forces that outnumbered them 2:1 each.

The Panther might be invulnerable to frontal fires but there were just too many places on the battlefield to hide and shoot from. Even with the Panther's impressive firepower and armor, they were often knocked out by flank shots. German armor could not risk making day light movements in good weather for the fear of arty and CAS, fighting were often made in small groups and at close range. Under these circumstances Shermans could and did kill a lot Panther tanks.

Pink
11 Mar 09,, 22:57
A deformed Sherman?......

A tank designer having a bad day?

http://www.tankstogo.com/United_States/images/USlee-1.jpg

Hide your head in shame!:rolleyes:

Triple C
11 Mar 09,, 22:58
Artillery?? my backside!:rolleyes: We had air superiority on the western front. Refering to the Falaise gap as an example of artillery taking tanks out is totally misleading. Falaise was a unique situation that enabled artillery plus ground attack aircraft to smash the German armour that had been trapped.

Once ground units engage, artillery was FAR more important than airpower.

Pink, easy on the pics. We do have to conserve bandwidth. That was a M3 Grant tank which was a substitute for Shermans until 75mm gun turrets could roll off the assembly line.

Pink
11 Mar 09,, 23:03
Pink, easy on the pics. We do have to conserve bandwidth. That was a M3 Grant tank which was a substitute for Shermans until 75mm gun turrets could roll off the assembly line.sry about that! took me by surprise;)

Pink
11 Mar 09,, 23:10
That was a M3 Grant tank which was a substitute for Shermans until 75mm gun turrets could roll off the assembly line. Yeh I think we (Brits) used it first in N. Africa in 42'

Triple C
11 Mar 09,, 23:15
I'm a big proponent of the Panther. It's final versions were, IMHO, the finest tank of the war. It's evolution, though, was too little, too late given that the quality of allied armor also continued to rise while reliability remained generally superior.


What do you think about the limited operational mobility of the Panther tanks? In your opinion, would Pz. V's lack of dependibility make fast deep battle like the early blitzkrieg impossible, as Ordn. sometimes claim?

You wouldn't hear arguements from me that the Panther was anything less than the best German tank of the war, btw. And one of the only three tanks that can claim to be the best of the war.



I suspect many, many German commanders and soldiers from top to bottom remained in combat with wounds which by policy would have put our guys stateside permanently.

I don't think Germans allowed badly wounded soldiers to be discharged at all. They take a convalescence leave and a wound badge. There was no equivalent to the million dollar wound.

Pink
11 Mar 09,, 23:41
This view has never been endorsed by any research. .Correct!



The Germans lost massive numbers of Panther tanks in tank vs. tank engagements in NormanyCertainly not from shermans they didn't


Lorraine and Ardennes. Those were documented and verified by allied intellegence in battle field post mortems. They are reliable because the Germans left their panzers behind, and there was ample time for examination. A good example would be fighting during the early stages of the Bulge at the north where there was no allied CAS but still heavy German armor losses.Ah well thats because the Shermans were modified to mount larger guns at this point, Guns which had been in short supply in June 44.


On the other hand, USAAF's kill claims during WWII was massively inflated at about ten times actual. The fact is that CAS were ineffective against armor as a destructive instrument compared to having tank or TD support.We had 18 rocket firing Typhoon squadrons involved in the falaise gap carnage. They destroyed a massive amount of German armour, thats a fact not an opinion!


Bde Gen Clark, The commander of CCA 4th AD which fought the largest single armored engagement in the west in Aracourt, France said that at no time during that battle the contribution of airpower was critical. In that engagement his 75mm gun armed Shermans utterly dominated two Panther forces that outnumbered them 2:1 each.Sounds like US propoganda, I mean it was such a big battle that nobodies heard of it....Tank Battle at Aracourt ....hmmmm???



The Panther might be invulnerable to frontal fires but there were just too many places on the battlefield to hide and shoot from. Even with the Panther's impressive firepower and armor, they were often knocked out by flank shots. German armor could not risk making day light movements in good weather for the fear of arty and CAS, fighting were often made in small groups and at close range. Under these circumstances Shermans could and did kill a lot Panther tanksWith vastly improved gun barrels!

zraver
12 Mar 09,, 00:31
Correct!


Certainly not from shermans they didn't

Yes they did you stupid little troll.


Ah well thats because the Shermans were modified to mount larger guns at this point, Guns which had been in short supply in June 44.

They were still in short supply in September when Arracourt was fought. 1/37 armor sliced the hell out of the SS it faced.


We had 18 rocket firing Typhoon squadrons involved in the falaise gap carnage. They destroyed a massive amount of German armour, thats a fact not an opinion!

If we were talking about trucks, wagons and carts you would be correct. Were not we are talking about tanks.


Sounds like US propoganda, I mean it was such a big battle that nobodies heard of it....Tank Battle at Aracourt ....hmmmm???

people have heard of it, you haven't.

During the Lorraine campaign in September 1944, the German 5th Panzer Corps massed the largest concentration of German tanks seen since the battles at Caen and Mortain in July 1944. This counterattack force included over 300 tanks, with the majority being new Panther tanks.

Their opponet was the 4th Armoured Division, knwon as "Patton's Best", a well trained, well-led division which had become battle hardened since the fighting for Coutances in July 1944. From 19 to 22 September 1944, the 4th Armored Division broke the back of the German counteroffensive near Arracourt, destroying 107 tanks and 30 assault guns for the loss of only 14 M4 tanks and 7 M5A1 light tanks.

Two of the new panzer brigades were wiped out in the fighting, and by the end of the fighting for Arracourt, the 4th Armored Division had destroyed 285 German tanks and armoured vehicles for the loss of 25 medium tanks and 7 tank destroyers.

At the same time, the veteran French 2e Division Blindee smashed another panzer brigade putting an end to the largest German armor operation in the West until the Battle of the Bulge.

[The M4 Sherman at War: the European Theatre 1942-1945 (Steven J. Zaloga; Concord Publications Company: 1994)]

Note that the victory ratio was 32:285, or almost 1:9 in favour of the Americans.

Of the units in the 4th Armored Division, one unit in particular distinguished itself. This was the 37th Armored Regiment, commanded by Creighton Abrams (Lieutanent-Colonel, then Colonel).

Here is a description of the 37th actions around that time:

The 37th spent those days spreading confusion and terror in the German rear areas. From 19 September through 22 September 1944 the Germans tried to push the 37th back across the Moselle. It was one of the largest tank-to-tank engagements of the war, at Mayenvie, the 37th lost 14 Shermans while knocking out 55 Panthers and Tigers. Needless to say, the German counterattack was unsuccessful.

On 22 September the 37th's M4s swept south again through Coincourt and Bures to the Rhine-Marne Canal. Counterattack followed counterattack as the desperate Wehrmacht tried to dislodge the 3rd Army from its position, but as the toll of Panthers mounted, the attacks dwindled in intensity and finally ceased.

The 37th was relieved on 12 October 1944 by elements of the 26th (Yankee) Infantry Division. For its tenacity in the Moselle Valley, the 37th was awarded its second Croix de Guerre with Palm by a grateful French Government (it's first coming in Normandy). The 37th's tankers were pulled off line for a rest after 87 straight days of combat.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/2-37ar.htm

The victory ratio for the 37th was 14:55 or almost 1:4.

By comparison, the battle around Prokhorovka during the Battle of Kursk - supposedly the largest tank battle in history - saw 32 German AFV's lost as opposed to 259 Russian AFV's.

http://www.uni.edu/~licari/citadel.htm

If these figures are accurate, a single American armored regiment at an little known battle had actually destroyed more German vehicles than the Russians at the reputedly largest tank battle of WW2!

Here are some descriptions of actions fought during the battle:

A section of M-4 tanks were in an outpost position south of Lezey when the first Panther suddenly loomed out of the fog-hardly seventy-five yards from the two American tanks. The Panther and two of its fellows were destroyed in a matter of seconds, whereupon the remaining German tanks turned hurriedly away to the south.

Capt. William A. Dwight, the liaison officer who had reported the enemy armor, arrived at Arracourt and was ordered to take a platoon of the 704th Tank Destroyer Battalion to aid the tanks at Lezey. Just west of Bezange-la-Petite Dwight's platoon saw a number of German tanks moving through the fog. The tank destroyers quickly deployed in a shallow depression and opened fire at about 150 yards. In the short fight that followed, three of the four American tank destroyers were lost, but not until they had destroyed seven enemy tanks.

The superior mobility of the American tanks and self-propelled tank destroyers gave the defenders a decided advantage. When the Panthers turned away, after the abortive attack at Lezey, Captain Lamison took four tanks from C Company and raced the enemy some three thousand yards to a commanding ridge west of Bezange-la-Petite. Arriving on the position about three minutes before eight Panthers appeared, Lamison's tanks got set and knocked out four of the German tanks before they could return the fire; then they withdrew over the crest of the ridge, moved south a short distance, reappeared, and finished off the remaining Panthers.

In the late morning the German attack turned west toward Réchicourt-la-Petite, attempting to drive around the town, first to the north, then to the south. Here again the American artillery, tanks, and tank destroyers inflicted severe losses on the enemy armor. A platoon of tank destroyers from the 704th netted eight Panthers and succeeded in driving the rest of an enemy tank company back in flight.

The company of medium tanks which had been sent to Lunéville returned in the afternoon and Colonel Clarke was ready to counterattack. A combined force from Companies A and B, 37th Tank Battalion, led by Maj. William L. Hunter, wheeled south through Réchicourt, caught the Germans in the flank, and knocked out nine Panthers with the loss of only three tanks. As the day ended, the 37th Tank Battalion turned its attention to mopping up the German infantry west of Moncourt, and finally, guided through the night by burning German tanks, assembled in the vicinity of Lezey.

For more information, please refer to:
http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/wwii/lorraine/lorraine-ch05.html

The most amazing thing about this battle was that the Americans had fought it with inferior weapons. They were armed with 75mm Sherman tanks, 3-in M10 Tank Destroyers, and the 76mm M18 Tank Destroyers. Most of the German tanks were Panthers.

Another point is that most of the American vehicles had seen continuous combat since Jul 44, and had been in the dash across France since Operation Cobra. The German panzer brigades, on the other hand, were fresh and armed mostly with factory new tanks.

Further of note as well was that much of the actions around Arracourt was fought in fog, which neutralised the Allied superiority in the air.

It is curious that while the Battle of Kursk, Rommel's dashes across North Africa, and other battles were very well known, this American victory had not received much notice. Perhaps because it was simply treated as part of the larger American victory in France. Perhaps compared to the greater drama of the Battle of the Bulge, this battle seemed so lop-sided.

Whatever it is, the American armored units, and in particular commanders such as COL Creighton Abrams, deserved more recognition for their achievements, using inferior and worn-out tanks to defeat superior and brand-new tanks.


Quoted from the post by ogukuo72
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-68465.html


With vastly improved gun barrels!

Thank you for illuminating your ignorance. The M1A1, M1A1C and M2 were 76mm high velocity guns, not short barreled 75mm field guns. Strengthening the gun barrel had nothing to do with it.

Triple C
12 Mar 09,, 00:34
The Germans lost massive numbers of Panther tanks in tank vs. tank engagements in Normany
Certainly not from shermans they didn't


Yes, they did. Your claims are becoming absurd, as all German After Action Reports from their armored units reported losses to Allied tanks.



Ah well thats because the Shermans were modified to mount larger guns at this point, Guns which had been in short supply in June 44.




First of all, few Shermans were armed with the 76mm. This weapon was incapable of confronting Panthers frontally except at point blank range, but both the 75mm and the 76mm could penetrate Panther side armor from medium to long range.

The German assault on Krinket-Rocherath was stopped entirely by a independent battalion of 75mm gun armed Shermans and bazookas. They faced two Panther companies of the 12th SS Panzer Division. This division would not deploy its Panther companies for the remainder of the Ardenes Battle. 3d AD had about just 1/3 of its Shermans armed with the 76mm. It engaged the 1st and 2d SS Panzer. Both units were armed to the teeth with Panther tanks. By the way, the German Tiger II crews in La Gleiza reported they had all been put out of action by tank fire and we know those were Sherman tanks from 3d AD.



We had 18 rocket firing Typhoon squadrons involved in the falaise gap carnage. They destroyed a massive amount of German armour, thats a fact not an opinion!


Shooting up columns caught in a traffic jam bumper to bumper, that is. MUCH harder to hunt down moving packs of armor.



Sounds like US propoganda, I mean it was such a big battle that nobodies heard of it.


Actually, it is widely known major battle. General Hasso von Manteuffel commanded the Fifth Panzer Army on the German side. By his battle reports to Model, the German acknowledged that all of his tanks had been destroyed after 48 hours of combat, and the American kill records matched exactly the German rollster. 111st and 113d Panzer Brigades entered combat full strength, armed almost completely with Panthers, and outnumbered their adversary 2:1 each.



With vastly improved gun barrels!


No. Every allied AT gun including the pathetic 57-mm is capable of killing a Panther with flank shots.

dalem
12 Mar 09,, 00:35
Pink, I can appreciate your interest in and enthusiasm for the topic at hand, but a little less energy and a little more "listening" would serve you well.

You can like or dislike a particular armored mount for any of a dozen reasons, but you can't change history. Shermans were NOT designed for the AT role and were not in the same AT class as Panthers, but they did "well enough" even with 75mm guns. That is of course no consolation to anyone who was sitting in one when a Panther got the drop on them, but it is still true.

CAS was still in its infancy in WWII and was never very effective right at the front line except as a morale booster for whoever wasn't getting shot up, and far too often it was the friendly side on the receiving end.

-dale

bugs
12 Mar 09,, 00:45
Probably due to the casting process.

Except for land mines that's the last likely place for a tank to get hit.

Pink
12 Mar 09,, 00:51
Pink, I can appreciate your interest in and enthusiasm for the topic at hand, but a little less energy and a little more "listening" would serve you well.


-daleAnd I appreciate your concern;) . On my part I would like to recommend you develope a sense of humour, or is that not allowed on here?

zraver
12 Mar 09,, 00:54
Except for land mines that's the last likely place for a tank to get hit.

But it takes a beating in normal use and cradles the final drives. Maybe it was simply over engineered.

Pink
12 Mar 09,, 00:58
Yes, they did. Your claims are becoming absurd, as all German After Action Reports from their armored units reported losses to Allied tanks. Has the penny not dropped yet?


Shooting up columns caught in a traffic jam bumper to bumper, that is. MUCH harder to hunt down moving packs of armor.Ah so you acknowledge the event!




Actually, it is widely known major battle. General Hasso von Manteuffel commanded the Fifth Panzer Army on the German side. By his battle reports to Model, the German acknowledged that all of his tanks had been destroyed after 48 hours of combat, and the American kill records matched exactly the German rollster. 111st and 113d Panzer Brigades entered combat full strength, armed almost completely with Panthers, and outnumbered their adversary 2:1 each. Aracourt? No mention of it in Charles B Mcdonalds book:confused: do you have a source?

Triple C
12 Mar 09,, 01:08
Ah so you acknowledge the event!


You just don't get it. Air claimed 10 times more kills than they made.


Aracourt? No mention of it in Charles B Mcdonalds book:confused: do you have a source?

R. Weigley, Max Hastings, S. Zaloga. These people did their research with both US and German AARs.

dalem
12 Mar 09,, 01:39
Whatever it is, the American armored units, and in particular commanders such as COL Creighton Abrams, deserved more recognition for their achievements, using inferior and worn-out tanks to defeat superior and brand-new tanks.

I created a nice little scenario for my WWII miniatures ruleset that attempts to recreate the 9/8/1944 destruction of the 106th Panzer Brigade at Mairy by elements of the 90th Division.

The 106th Panzer Brigade, at platoon scale in 1/285 scale metal, looks pretty much like this. (http://www.dmancini.com/pictures/games/Picture%20100.jpg)

-dale

zraver
12 Mar 09,, 01:41
I created a nice little scenario for my WWII miniatures ruleset that attempts to recreate the 9/8/1944 destruction of the 106th Panzer Brigade at Mairy by elements of the 90th Division.

The 106th Panzer Brigade, at platoon scale in 1/285 scale metal, looks pretty much like this. (http://www.dmancini.com/pictures/games/Picture%20100.jpg)

-dale

Nice, minis can be fun.

dalem
12 Mar 09,, 01:48
Nice, minis can be fun.


Indeed. :)

Different, fictional setting, same scale:

Linky. (http://www.dmancini.com/pictures/games/Picture%20099.jpg)

-dale

Albany Rifles
12 Mar 09,, 02:14
I created a nice little scenario for my WWII miniatures ruleset that attempts to recreate the 9/8/1944 destruction of the 106th Panzer Brigade at Mairy by elements of the 90th Division.

The 106th Panzer Brigade, at platoon scale in 1/285 scale metal, looks pretty much like this. (http://www.dmancini.com/pictures/games/Picture%20100.jpg)

-dale

Where are the smoke and flames?

Oh, and since the 90th ID (Tough 'Ombres) had no organic armor....who killed the tanks? Could it have been the attached armor battalion? Attached AT Battalion? 4 Battalions of division artillery? 1 attalions of corps artillery?

Kernow
12 Mar 09,, 02:18
General Hasso Von Manteuffel, a fine Tank Commander, also fought at the Bulge.

Pink may not of heard of the Battle of Arracourt (note spelling), due to the fact that it does not exists in either American or German records, however if you looked at 'German Counter Attack near Arracourt', you would be more accurate I think you will find. I trust this is of some use!

dalem
12 Mar 09,, 02:51
Where are the smoke and flames?

Oh, and since the 90th ID (Tough 'Ombres) had no organic armor....who killed the tanks? Could it have been the attached armor battalion? Attached AT Battalion? 4 Battalions of division artillery? 1 attalions of corps artillery?

If I remember correctly there was a company of attached Shermans from divisional armor Bn, but most of it was 57mm ATG work. Come to think of it, the attachments might have been 3" TD (towed) and not Shermans. Only us Yanks would call an ATG a "TD". :rolleyes:

Fun little battle - the Germans definitely forgot to take their "don't suck" pills that morning.

-dale

bugs
12 Mar 09,, 02:56
.
The 37th spent those days spreading confusion and terror in the German rear areas. From 19 September through 22 September 1944 the Germans tried to push the 37th back across the Moselle. It was one of the largest tank-to-tank engagements of the war, at Mayenvie, the 37th lost 14 Shermans while knocking out 55 Panthers and Tigers. Needless to say, the German counterattack was unsuccessful.


Order of battle (31 Aug 1944)
At the disposal of the 5. Panzerarmee
275. Infanterie-Division
LXXXVI. Armeekorps
711. Infanterie-Division
346. Infanterie-Division
LXXIV. Armeekorps
331. Infanterie-Division
344. Infanterie-Division
271. Infanterie-Division
LXXXI. Armeekorps
353. Infanterie-Division
49. Infanterie-Division
85. Infanterie-Division
I. SS-Panzerkorps
18. Feld-Division (L)
Kampfgruppe 6. Fallschirmjäger-Division
LVIII. Panzerkorps
47. Infanterie-Division
Panzer-Lehr-Division (part)
348. Infanterie-Division
48. Infanterie-Division
II. SS-Panzerkorps
9. Panzer-Division
116. Panzer-Division
2. SS-Panzer-Division “Das Reich”
9. SS-Panzer-Division “Hohenstaufen”

Order of battle (16 Sep 1944)
XXXXVII. Panzerkorps
21. Panzer-Division
Panzer-Brigade 111
Panzer-Brigade 112
Panzer-Brigade 113

Order of battle (28 Sep 1944)
LVIII. Panzerkorps
11. Panzer-Division
XXXXVII. Panzerkorps
15. Panzer-Grenadier-Division
21. Panzer-Division

bugs
12 Mar 09,, 03:05
Although Panzer-Brigade 112 was of the second wave of stronger Panzer-Brigades, it had not a favourable building up. The separate elements were hastily gathered on the training grounds of Grafenwöhr in Bavaria in the beginning September and only after one week of formation and training they were on their way to Lorraine. The entire brigade was detrained on September 10th in de vincinity of Lunéville, near Nancy. Panzer-Brigade 112 was planned for the counterattack in the direction of Reims, which Hitler was planning since August.
Just after the arrival a crisis developed south of Nancy, when elements of the French 2nd Armoured Division broke through and encircled the 16th Volksgrenadier-Division. This threat could cause the breakdown of the entire German front south of Nancy and Colonel-Generaal Blaskowitz of Army Group G ordered an immediate counterattack to save the division and restore the frontline by clearing the area from French incursions. Panzer-Brigade 112 was relieved from the reserve to tackle the situation, supported by elements of Panzer-Division 21.
On September 12th the untested Panzer-Brigade 112 headed south in two columns. The western column consisted of the 1st battalion of Panzer-Regiment 29, armed with Panther tanks, while Panzer-Battalion 2112, armed with Mark IV tanks, formed up the eastern column with the bulk of armoured infantry. They arrived in the area of the French infiltration without any obstacle or disruption, but failed to detect the French troops.
In the evening the western column arrived in Dompaire and decided to encamp and spend the night in this village, which was situated in a depression surrounded by forested hills. Lack of reconnaissance or even a hint of the whereabouts of the enemy apparently did not disturb the command, because they preferred to stay in the lower exposed village than in the surrounding forests on the high ground where they could camouflage their tanks. The inexperienced troops also turned out to be "good weather soldiers", because they did not send out any patrols nor posted any guards during the rainy night, but sought the comfort of the village houses.
Meanwhile the villagers warned the French troops in the neighbourhood of the presence of the Germans in Dompaire and their strength. The French commanding officer Langlade decided to engage the Germans. Although his force was outnumbered two by one in both tanks and men he knew that he could call in artillery and airforce. He decided to block the roads east and south to the village with his forces in the following morning and await help from the airforce. The German got a rude awakening when the village was attacked by the feared American P-47 fighter-bombers, which were called in by Langlade the evening before.
After the initial fighter-bomber attack the French closed on the village in with their tanks to engage the suprised and bedazzled Germans. A second sortie of the airforce added to their part to the confusion among the Germans, who started to grow desperate by the bombing, shelling and firing at the village from literally all sides. Lots of tanks were out of action due to hits or simply abandoned by their frightened crews. The high ground offered the French good observation view to direct fire from both the ground and the air to any German movement.
The German commander of the 1st battalion of Panzer-Regiment 29 called his colleague of the eastern column for immediate help. This help from the east could have reversed the fortunes in favour of the Germans by attacking the French troops of Langlade in the back, but French civilians came to the help once more. Langlade was timely informed by the size and direction of the relief force and set up a roadblock with all he had left, a few jeeps with machine guns and tank destroyers. This force would in a normal case be no match for two companies of armoured infantry and 15 tanks. Nevertheless the Germans did not manage to break through. Their inexperienced infantry was dispersed by bold action from the crew of the jeeps with the mounted machineguns and after the loss of a few tanks they lost the appetite to engage.

bugs
12 Mar 09,, 03:14
The creation of Panzer-Brigades happened in the aftermath of the onslaught of Army Group Centre in June 1944. Their formation was ordered on July 24th 1944 and ten brigades were planned. Hitler issued this order personally and against the advice of Heinz Guderian, inspector of the German tank forces. According to Guderian the creation of Panzer-Brigades would hinder the replacement of losses at the front and above all the necessary refitting of the worn out Panzer-Divisions.
The priority of men and equipment given to the Panzer-Brigades actually led in the long term to the weakening of the Panzer-Divisions – half the tank production of Panthers in August went to the Panzer-Brigades. The report "Refitting of tank forces in the West" late November 1944 clearly shows that the organic second battalion of the Panzer-Division's tank regiment often had to be replaced by an assault gun battalion to give the Division the full complement of tanks. This was due of the lack of valuable medium tanks, previously allocated to the Panzer-Brigades and lost in the battles fought by those brigades in autumn 1944.
Although German tank production reached a wartime peak during the summer 1944 the shortage of trained crew delayed the formation of the new units. This caused the formation of two kinds of Panzer-Brigades. The first wave, numbered 101 to 110, consisted of one tank battalion and one battalion of mobile infantry. The actual tank strength was 36 Mark V Panther medium tanks, 11 Panzer IV/70 tank destroyers and Flakpanzer anti aircraft tanks in support. The infantry was fully motorised and equipped with armoured carriers.
The second generation, numbered 111-113, had two battalions of tanks and one mobile infantry battalion. This led to an establishment of approximately 90 medium tanks and 10 assault guns, making the Panzer-Brigade appear strong, equalling an average German Panzer-Division in tank strength. But as a brigade it lacked the necessary supporting combat units, like artillery and engineers, which made the Panzer-Division into a lethal combination of weapons. It seems that with the creation of the Panzer-Brigade the Germans forgot all lessons about combined weapons and relied completely on their superior tanks.
The Panzer-Brigade was almost exclusively a Heer project, which was a rarity in a time when almost all branches of the armed forces were deploying tank forces and frontline units were raised in every branch with available manpower. There is for example only one account of a formation of a Waffen-SS Panzer-Brigade, although in 1944 they made up almost a quarter of the German tankforces. Another exceptional unit was Panzer-Brigade 150 under the command of SS-Sturmbannführer Otto Skorzeny, which was actually more a special operations unit than a battle formation. This unit therefore falls out of the context of this article.
Panzer-Brigades were raised around cores of veterans from the shattered divisions, which had been destroyed during the Russian offensive in June 1944. The commanders were of "eastern stock" which would have its consequences fighting in the West. Nevertheless the majority of the troops were drafted from reserve and tank training battalions and therefore inexperienced. A typical example of a Panzer-Brigade build up is the formation of Panzer-Brigade 105. It was formed around the approximately 950 survivors of the smashed Panzer-Grenadier-Division 18. The tank battalion was mainly made up from tank training units, who were send to a special training course for the Panther tank. The brigade received circa 50 Panther, 11 Panzer IV/70 and approximately 100 armoured personal carriers. On September 1st the brigade was hurriedly send to Belgium after just one month of training.
On paper a Panzer-Brigade was a strong and mobile unit fitting the purpose of a quick counterstrike force. Nevertheless the Panzer-Brigade had some organic deficiencies which could cause problems in operational circumstances. First of all the Panzer-Brigade had no organic reconnaissance unit, which is vital to locate the enemy before attacking. Secondly the Panzer-Brigade was lacking maintenance equipment, especially recovery vehicles. This made losses hard to sustain and it also troubled patching up damaged vehicles, because workshops heavily depended on usable parts from vehicles recovered from the battlefield.

Apart from the organic constitution the organisation of a Panzer-Brigade left much to be desired. The Panzer-Brigades were hurriedly formed, which took its toll from the basic training of the men, but above all from the training as a cohesive unit. Sometimes the component units and commanders did not meet until detrained at the staging area of the planned attack, for example in the preparation for the campaign in the Lorraine during September 1944. The only strength of the brigades was pure force of superior armour, but the shortcomings in training, formation and organisation made the Panzer-Brigade into a makeshift unit in every way

S2
12 Mar 09,, 03:42
Thomas Jentz has done the best work on German armored forces that I've read in W.W.II. His two vol. series- PanzerTruppen: The Complete Guide To the Creation And Combat Employment Of Germany's Tank Force 1939-1943 (Vol 1) and 1943-1945 (Vol. 2) is a stunning piece of work. I've been reading of the war since 1964 and seen nothing so good.

Jentz has got his act totally wired. Battalion deployments to Russia, Divisional and regimental orders of battle, after-action reports galore. Epic and detailed work.

The finest.

I haven't read it yet but he's also written Germany's PANTHER Tank- The Quest For Combat Supremacy. It's supposedly superb. Does anybody own it?

40mm side armor was a known flaw BEFORE Kursk. Evidently, according to Oberst Decker, Cdr. 10th Pz. Bde-the H.Q. formed in Germany to control Pz Abts. 51 & 52 (Grouped under Pz. Regt. 39) and Grossdeutschland Pz Regt, had huge issues on July 5th breaching minefields and had a number of vehicles bog, hit AT mines, and others that were hit by both A.T. fire and artillery at the breach sites.

They began with 202 Panthers. Two burned out with engine fires roadmarching from the trains to their staging areas.

200 went into battle. For all their troubles on July 5th, Pz. Regt. 39 reported 184 Panthers ready for battle at 1800 hrs that evening. By the morning of July 6th, the regiment was again in operation and had, by all accounts a successful day of battle-though again at cost. Despite returns from the 16 damaged Panthers the day before the intense combat had began attriting the force. By 1800 hrs July 6th Pz. Regt. 39 was reporting only 168 Panthers ready for battle-down another 18.

Here's where it gets weird. Oberst Decker, commanding 10 Pz. Bde., is ordered to report to XLVIII Pz. Corps. cdr., Von Knobelsdorff. What and why isn't explained. However he doesn't resume command of his brigade again until July 11. In his absence, the brigade is commanded by the commander of G.D. Pz. Regt. Graf von Strachwitz.

On July 7 Strachwitz, according to Decker, goes berzerk in Decker's absence and employs the Panthers in an attack on a narrow front and without forces covering their flanks. The two panther abteilungen enter battle that morning with 168 tanks. By 1800 hrs that evening they reported 40 panthers fit for battle the next day. Despite further returns from their maintenence section on the thirty-two cumulative losses accrued thus far, they were down 128 vehicles-virtually all hits to the flank by tank/AT guns to include kills from weapons estimated at near three klicks.

When Decker resumes command on July 11, he's down to 12 Panthers between the two abteilungen. Von Lauchert, the commander of Pz. Regt. 39 was near an emotional collapse.

According to Decker, von Strachwitz was a trippy guy. He'd turn his radio off and refuse to adhere to brigade orders. Clearly a massive mess. Who knows the truth but something terribly bizarre happened on day three at Kursk.

It had to be awful seeing that.

"What do you think about the limited operational mobility of the Panther tanks? In your opinion, would Pz. V's lack of dependibility make fast deep battle like the early blitzkrieg impossible, as Ordn. sometimes claim?"

"Ordn."?

I don't know but that the later models (A & G) weren't more than adequate. Still, if the Panther was finally up to all of it's considerable promise, nothing else was.

The Germans saw a consistent degradation in virtually all facets required to conduct these operations to depth beyond the vehicles themselves.

dalem
12 Mar 09,, 18:26
Perhaps another useful time to post another Dale Generalization from earlier in this thread:

Remember that the Germans won all their early battle with relatively inferior tanks, and that they lost all their mid- and late- battles with relatively superior tanks.

-dale

gunnut
12 Mar 09,, 18:34
Perhaps another useful time to post another Dale Generalization from earlier in this thread:

Remember that the Germans won all their early battle with relatively inferior tanks, and that they lost all their mid- and late- battles with relatively superior tanks.

-dale

So the moral of the story is to use crappy tanks?

tankie
12 Mar 09,, 19:28
So the moral of the story is to use crappy tanks?

No mate , the moral of the story is , there is strength in numbers , crappy or not ( which i thought the early shermans were ,as a tank ,), BUT ,there were lots n lots of em , a veritable swarm in fact , i voted for the T34 for that reason and the fact they could knock out any other tank on the field with a 75mm , and same as the sherman , a swarm of em , Tigers were as an MBT for the time ,a great heavy tank IMO, but not enough of them ,and thirsty , and could still get knocked out by :crappy tanks: if the circumstances were right .;)

dalem
12 Mar 09,, 19:51
So the moral of the story is to use crappy tanks?

The user is more important than the tool.

-dale

tankie
12 Mar 09,, 19:58
The user is more important than the tool.

-dale

Very correct , but one on one ,sherman V Panther ,or T34, or Tiger i know which would be my last choice .;)

gunnut
12 Mar 09,, 20:16
The user is more important than the tool.

-dale

That was my 2nd guess...:biggrin:

zraver
12 Mar 09,, 21:16
Very correct , but one on one ,sherman V Panther ,or T34, or Tiger i know which would be my last choice .;)

Assuming

Pz V aufs A, M4A3, PzVI aufs H, T34m.42

T34.m42 obviously

thinnest armor, no radio, Russian crew, horrible reliability, poorest optics, 2 man turret w/ manual traverse. Only thing it really has going for it is the diesel engine, wide tracks and good cross country speed.

Triple C
13 Mar 09,, 07:11
S-2,

I think it might have been Army Ordnance that said they did not believe they could do another Battle of France on Panthers.

Zraver,

I agree, but T-34-85 was still very dangerous.

tankie
13 Mar 09,, 11:50
Only thing it really has going for it is the diesel engine, wide tracks and good cross country speed.

And , not to forget a lowish profile tank , harder target to hit , and best armament at the time 75mm ,as i said zraver , on a one to one situation i would not have taken the Sherman , radios would not come into the equation , its down to the crew , T34 at the time was a very dangerous tank . My choice ;)

zraver
13 Mar 09,, 11:52
S-2,

I think it might have been Army Ordnance that said they did not believe they could do another Battle of France on Panthers.

Zraver,

I agree, but T-34-85 was still very dangerous.

The T-34/85 definitely narrowed the gap between allied armor and German Panthers and Tigers and had the best dual use gun of the tanks in the war.

tankie
13 Mar 09,, 11:56
The T-34/85 definitely narrowed the gap between allied armor and German Panthers and Tigers and had the best dual use gun of the tanks in the war.

Agreed

Albany Rifles
13 Mar 09,, 14:44
If I remember correctly there was a company of attached Shermans from divisional armor Bn, but most of it was 57mm ATG work. Come to think of it, the attachments might have been 3" TD (towed) and not Shermans. Only us Yanks would call an ATG a "TD". :rolleyes:

Fun little battle - the Germans definitely forgot to take their "don't suck" pills that morning.

-dale

The 3 inch towed were in the 27 TD battalions...they used the towed M6 3 inch gun pulled behind a M3 halftrack...and US infantry divisions in WW 2 had neither a divisional tank battalion or assigned TD battalion. All organic AT assets were in the AT and/or Cannon companies in the infantry regiments (57 mm for AT; 105 mm for Cannon Co). The 57mm AT guns were called AT guns, not TDs.

Anti tank guns were towed infantry weapons organic to infantry battalions/regiments. Tank Destroyers were 75 MM or bigger, could be SP or towed, and were always in independant battalions attached to divisions. It was our doctrine from Louisianna in 1941 to the end of the war.

http://http://www.tankdestroyersociety.com/tanks.htm

dalem
13 Mar 09,, 17:53
The 3 inch towed were in the 27 TD battalions...they used the towed M6 3 inch gun pulled behind a M3 halftrack...and US infantry divisions in WW 2 had neither a divisional tank battalion or assigned TD battalion. All organic AT assets were in the AT and/or Cannon companies in the infantry regiments (57 mm for AT; 105 mm for Cannon Co). The 57mm AT guns were called AT guns, not TDs.

Anti tank guns were towed infantry weapons organic to infantry battalions/regiments. Tank Destroyers were 75 MM or bigger, could be SP or towed, and were always in independant battalions attached to divisions. It was our doctrine from Louisianna in 1941 to the end of the war.

http://http://www.tankdestroyersociety.com/tanks.htm

All true on paper but the reality was that some TD and tank Bns were attached for so long they became effectively divisional assets. And don't forget that each rifle Bn had an organic ATG platoon in addition to the assets available from Regiment. Still, a very nice summary.

-dale

S2
13 Mar 09,, 17:53
"...and had the best dual use gun of the tanks in the war."

Z,

You're referring to the AAA origins of these weapons? You liked the Soviet 85mm gun slightly or much better than the German L56 88mm? m/v the reason? Better ammo?

I presume the L70 88mm was an anti-tank weapon only- no AAA-which is why you didn't include it?

Albany Rifles
13 Mar 09,, 19:06
All true on paper but the reality was that some TD and tank Bns were attached for so long they became effectively divisional assets. And don't forget that each rifle Bn had an organic ATG platoon in addition to the assets available from Regiment. Still, a very nice summary.

-dale

That was known as a habitual relationship.

I beleive the ATG platoons were still the 57mm variety.....very late war may have switched to M6.


Just for clarity

zraver
13 Mar 09,, 19:29
"...and had the best dual use gun of the tanks in the war."

Z,

You're referring to the AAA origins of these weapons?

Origins is less important


You liked the Soviet 85mm gun slightly or much better than the German L56 88mm? m/v the reason? Better ammo?

D5-T fired a 9.5kg HE shell vs a 9.21kg HE shell for the 88. Not much of a difference, but it is the biggest HE charge of the 4 tanks being talked about. The lower velocity (about 100 m/s slower) should also mean a longer barrel life. Of course the 85 and 88 outperformced the 95, 105, 122, 152 in the dual use roel over all when things like AT performance, rate of fire, infantry support value are equally weighed.


I presume the L70 88mm was an anti-tank weapon only- no AAA-which is why you didn't include it?

The 88mm kwk43L70 was a high velocity gun. It could fire the the same ammo as the L56, but this was under utilizing the gun with its short barrel life.

zraver
13 Mar 09,, 19:34
That was known as a habitual relationship.

I beleive the ATG platoons were still the 57mm variety.....very late war may have switched to M6.


Just for clarity

Most were 57mm until the end of the war.

57mm convinces a Panther the war is over for them, then gets used in the anti-sniper role.

http://www.thetroubleshooters.com/80th/aladeen0001.html

S2
13 Mar 09,, 21:56
Tracking. Dual-Use threw me to their AAA origins of all these weapons in this class to include the Yank 90mm gun.

HE vs. AT was your area of emphasis...

zraver
13 Mar 09,, 22:05
Tracking. Dual-Use threw me to their AAA origins of all these weapons in this class to include the Yank 90mm gun.

HE vs. AT was your area of emphasis...

Ya sorry, I was talking dual use in the term of the role the tank would employ it in.

PanSonic
13 Mar 09,, 22:35
The T-34 towards the end of the war kicked the hell out of anything else.

zraver
13 Mar 09,, 23:02
The T-34 towards the end of the war kicked the hell out of anything else.

Really, what evidence do you offer to support that? What model T-34? T-34/85 or the T-43m43. How did the T-34/85 stack up against the M4A3E8 when they faced each other? etc

dalem
13 Mar 09,, 23:23
That was known as a habitual relationship.

I beleive the ATG platoons were still the 57mm variety.....very late war may have switched to M6.


Just for clarity

No, you're absolutely right. I'm not trying to counter, just clarify - I love US WWII TO&E stuff and can't get enough of it.

As far as the organic AT platoons, I don't remember reading anything about official upgunning to the 3"ers but I wouldn't be at all surprised to find some had found their way into the OB unofficially, especially for units that were in a defensive position for long. Kinda like the .50cals that would migrate off of their pintle mounts into trenchlines and bunker positions for a while.

-dale

PanSonic
14 Mar 09,, 12:02
Really, what evidence do you offer to support that? What model T-34? T-34/85 or the T-43m43. How did the T-34/85 stack up against the M4A3E8 when they faced each other? etc


The Sherman was sent to eastern front, it didn't much the standards of the T-34.
But here are some reasons; Innovative design (Slopped armor), open to changes (76 mm to 85 mm, 2 man crew to 3 man crew), easy the produce and in masses (in that way they moved the production facilities to very close to the front lines, good mobility, technical ease.

Even tho the Tiger that was better from armor and gun point of view, range of fire, not innovative as the T-34 and not easy technically to hold, mobility and range of movement.
The Tiger B, has little mobility and ate up too much fuel.

The panther featured many of the T-34 (slopped armor, wide tracks, gun)
eventually the best medium tank of the war.
But not as close Innovative as the T-34.

Under the general circumstances IMO the T-34 was the best and most effective.

chakos
14 Mar 09,, 13:36
No, you're absolutely right. I'm not trying to counter, just clarify - I love US WWII TO&E stuff and can't get enough of it.

As far as the organic AT platoons, I don't remember reading anything about official upgunning to the 3"ers but I wouldn't be at all surprised to find some had found their way into the OB unofficially, especially for units that were in a defensive position for long. Kinda like the .50cals that would migrate off of their pintle mounts into trenchlines and bunker positions for a while.

-dale

You need to give Steel Panthers WW2 a run if you havent already. Its freeware and its been ruining my life for quite a few years now.

Triple C
14 Mar 09,, 15:37
I have met an enthusiast researcher who claims that the low grade steel used in the 85's high explosive rounds produced few fragments and were not partularly deadly compared to Sherman's 75.

Pansonic,

The Shermans did fight in the east and armed three of the elite Mechanized Corps. That makes a strong statement about how well the Shermans matched up to Eastern Front's standards. The Shermans actually met the T-34 in battle during the Korean War and accounted for itself quite well.

bugs
14 Mar 09,, 16:31
But here are some reasons; Innovative design (Slopped armor),

evolution

S2
14 Mar 09,, 18:41
My dad served in the 70th Armor Battalion (Heavy). Attached to 1st Cav Div in August of 1950. He fought north with the battalion in September during the breakout.

They employed a mix of M-26 Pershing and M4A3E8 Shermans. Lots of T-34/85 kills and plenty of Crew chiefs and officers that preferred the Sherman. Nobody "hated" the M-26. Everybody "loved" the M4.

Steve

dalem
14 Mar 09,, 19:26
You need to give Steel Panthers WW2 a run if you havent already. Its freeware and its been ruining my life for quite a few years now.

Combat Mission has my heart for WWII PC tactical gaming. :)

-dale

zraver
14 Mar 09,, 20:44
The Sherman was sent to eastern front, it didn't much the standards of the T-34.

BS, the Russian's used it for the exact mission it was designed for, exploitation. Once a hole was breached the Shermans would race through and cause holy hell. They ran longer the T-34 without breaking down, had more radios to talk to the forces behind them and had more machine guns. About half the Shermans sent to the East were equipped with the 76mm M1A1 anti-tank gun which about matched the D5-T 85mm in the anti-armor role. The other half had the M3 75mm gun which was about even with the Soviet F-34 76.2mm gun.



But here are some reasons; Innovative design (Slopped armor),

It wasn't the first.


open to changes (76 mm to 85 mm,

Sherman went from 75mm dual purpose gun to 76mm anti-tank gun.


2 man crew to 3 man crew)

The two man crew was a design flaw the Sherman never had


easy the produce and in masses

So was the Sherman

Total Sherman production was 49,234 from 41-45

Total T-34 production was 54,985.

But the Americans not only built tanks, but enough trucks to supply them and the T-34s.


good mobility,

Here is one of the T-34's real innovations. However by midwar every one was using wide tracks.


technical ease.

Which is a double edged sword it also meant poor reliability, poor optics, lack of a power traverse, lack of radios


Even tho the Tiger that was better from armor and gun point of view, range of fire, not innovative as the T-34 and not easy technically to hold, mobility and range of movement.

A company of Tigers properly employed could destroy a Soviet attack. When the Tiger was in its heyday its 88mm/L56 could eat Soviet armor all day long and remain invulnerable to return fire. The Soviet 76.2mm F-34 tank gun was no more useful vs German heavy tanks than the American M-3 75mm



The Tiger B, has little mobility and ate up too much fuel.

I think your confusing speed with mobility. The Tiger II was very mobile thanks to its wide tracks.


The panther featured many of the T-34 (slopped armor, wide tracks, gun)
eventually the best medium tank of the war.
But not as close Innovative as the T-34.

The Panthers 75mm/L70 had nothing to do with the Soviets.


Under the general circumstances IMO the T-34 was the best and most effective.

I'd argue the 76mm wet Sherman's. More reliable, better vs infantry, more radios, could fire on the move with a stabilized gun, more machine guns vs infantry, protected ammo storage

chakos
15 Mar 09,, 00:38
Combat Mission has my heart for WWII PC tactical gaming. :)

-dale

Might give it a try.. better not be as good as SPWW2 otherwise i may just find my ass divorced

S2
15 Mar 09,, 05:02
"Combat Mission has my heart for WWII PC tactical gaming.:)"

Concur. I fight regimental-sized kampfgruppes with CAS and arty against small soviet divisions. Just finished a battle that put eight german infantry companies, a composite panzer company, a StuG III Abt. against a Soviet Guards Tank Brigade AND five infantry battalions over 120 turns.

Really, really sophisticated battlefield with a TON of entrenchments, bunkers, minefields, wire, hamlets, forests and grain fields.

Big game. My VISTA ate it right up. Slowest thing is playing god for all of that on one side down to the section level. Issuing commands takes forever but really allows you to appreciate the inter-relation of actions on a battlefield. During game-play, you see it unfold.

From a variety of viewing angles, you're seeing a regimental kampfgruppe in battle across the width of the frontage and into the depth up to 3 klicks or so. Lots going on in these heavy battles if this is any clue...

...and it seems to be.

bugs
15 Mar 09,, 12:13
open to changes (76 mm to 85 mm, 2 man crew to 3 man crew),


the t-34/57mm used in the Battle of Moskow.
Plagued by ammo shortages, few available guns and poor HE shells. The armor piercing capability however deserves mentioning.

dalem
15 Mar 09,, 18:55
the t-34/57mm used in the Battle of Moskow.
Plagued by ammo shortages, few available guns and poor HE shells. The armor piercing capability however deserves mentioning.

They only made a handful.

-dale

Andrey Egorov
16 Mar 09,, 09:30
2 man crew to 3 man crew

T-34 had 4-man crew from the beginning until T-34-85 which had five. T-26 and BT series had 3 man crew. T-40, T-60, T-70, T80 had 2 man crew. Haven't you mixed up something?

zraver
16 Mar 09,, 16:41
T-34 had 4-man crew from the beginning until T-34-85 which had five. T-26 and BT series had 3 man crew. T-40, T-60, T-70, T80 had 2 man crew. Haven't you mixed up something?

T-34 started with a 2man turret, I think thats what he was tal;king about.

Stitch
16 Mar 09,, 22:37
Sherman went from 75mm dual purpose gun to 76mm anti-tank gun.

. . . . and the Israelis managed to shoehorn a 105mm French gun into the Sherman turret; talk about an upgrade!

zraver
16 Mar 09,, 23:41
. . . . and the Israelis managed to shoehorn a 105mm French gun into the Sherman turret; talk about an upgrade!


US had a 105mm fieldgun in a Sherman in WWII.

dalem
17 Mar 09,, 05:11
US had a 105mm fieldgun in a Sherman in WWII.

Yeah, but the ISherman was somethin' else again. :)

-dale

S2
17 Mar 09,, 08:52
Yeah but wasn't the Israeli 105mm Sherman a soft-recoil French gun? Put an M-68 in it and THAT would have been killer-cool.

Triple C
17 Mar 09,, 13:44
There really wasn't THAT much of a difference between the T-34-85 and Sherman 76 . The 85 probably had more concussive power but the 76 outperforms it with HVAP. The Sherman had more sophisticated gun controls, but alledgly the T-34-85 actually had great optics. Mobility wise, T-34-85 and E8's ground pressure were about the same and the Sherman edged out the T-34 quite a bit in mechanical endurance.

Neither were anything special by 45. Better than Wehrmacht's workhorse vehicles, but both were easy meat for 75 L/70 and the 88s.

zraver
17 Mar 09,, 14:21
the T-34-85 actually had great optics.

The T-34/85 had a copy of the gun sight taken from a Pz IVG. IIRC late production Shermans had good optics too, the early runs used inferior lenses but this was corrected as time went on. The early Shermans used the M39A2 sight. However the latter 76mm versions used the M4A1 periscope with integral M47A2 area sight giving the Sherman gunner the best situational awarenss sof any tank gunner in the war. Once combat was started he would switch to the M71D telescopic sight at the same magnification power as the Panther A. The M71D was also illuminated for low light conditions.

bugs
17 Mar 09,, 14:33
The 85 probably had more concussive power but the 76 outperforms it with HVAP.


HVAP ammo was rare during ww2, a production figure around 10.000 rounds per month to my knowlege.
For armmor piercing the sherman relied on M79 or M62 shells .

Triple C
17 Mar 09,, 15:17
HVAP ammo was rare during ww2, a production figure around 10.000 rounds per month to my knowlege.
For armmor piercing the sherman relied on M79 or M62 shells .

You are most certainly correct. In this matter the Red Army was better off than the Americans. On average, a T-34-85 tank would have about half a dozen APCR onboard as opposed to just two rounds of M93 ammo for a M4 tank in the US Army. I suspect this accounts for the German Army's experience that Russian tanks opened fire at the Panther usually at 500 meters as oppoed to 300 meters for the 76mm/3 in. gun armed US AFVs.

The Korean War clearly demonstrated that the Sherman 76 and T-34-85 had more then enough gun to kill each other all day without the need for any special ammunition.

Triple C
17 Mar 09,, 15:28
The T-34/85 had a copy of the gun sight taken from a Pz IVG.

Built with Zeiss machine tools they sold to the Russians in the thirties, no less.


However the latter 76mm versions used the M4A1 periscope with integral M47A2 area sight giving the Sherman gunner the best situational awarenss sof any tank gunner in the war. Once combat was started he would switch to the M71D telescopic sight at the same magnification power as the Panther A. The M71D was also illuminated for low light conditions.

Interesting. Now I have always thought that all Sherman tank had a dedicated area optic for the gunner. Are you refering to an improved device or is it a completely new innovation in late production Sherman tanks?

dalem
17 Mar 09,, 17:31
Plus the M4 series, like most U.S. built tanks, had a gyrostabilized gun. I've read that it was often disconnected, but not always. So that's a nice thing.

-dale

zraver
17 Mar 09,, 18:26
Built with Zeiss machine tools they sold to the Russians in the thirties, no less.



Interesting. Now I have always thought that all Sherman tank had a dedicated area optic for the gunner. Are you refering to an improved device or is it a completely new innovation in late production Sherman tanks?

I am not sure... I think the big improvement was in the later tank sight M71D vs the earlier M39A2. I do know the 76mm gunned Shermans used a different turret, one taken from the T-23.

Did the 75mm M4 Shermans have the 60mm mortar in the roof for smoke like the 76mm versions?

Triple C
18 Mar 09,, 01:58
1. You might be entirely correct on that count. The only reference book I have that discuss this in detail was Zaloga's but that book was specifically about M4A1/A3(76) tanks.

2. I don't think so. The 76mm was incapable of firing white phosphorus shell, a munition critical to US anti-tank tactics as you are probably aware. The 75mm could fire WP on its own so the need for such a device is obviated.

EDIT: I found online that there existed a field manual issued by Army Ordnance on an item called "Periscope M8A1 with Telescope M39A2". Would that be the earlier unitary unit that was replaced by the M71D?

ANZAC
18 Mar 09,, 07:00
Must have been tough on being a tanker in a Sherman, facing Panthers & Tigers, especially when they were prone to catastrophic ammunition fires after a hit & trapping men, burning them alive. The Sherman gained grim nicknames like "Tommycooker" from the Germans, & the British called them "Ronsons", after the cigarette lighter with the slogan "Lights up the first time, every time!", while Polish tankers referred to them as "The Burning Grave" although the problem was eventually fixed, it was no help to many poor guys early on.

It's a pity that the Army didn't push for quick development of the T26, a forerunner of the Pershing in '43, after what they could see what damage the Germans were doing with their heavyweights & American tankers screaming for something with a heavier gun, but according to the Army doctrine of the time, tanks were not supposed to engage other tanks, this was the role of tank destroyers, and the Sherman's [infantry support] had to battle along best they could & only about 400 Pershing's made it to Europe just before the war ended.

One good idea was the Brits up gunning some Sherman's with the 17 pounder, which gave them a chance against the Tigers, [they got Tiger ace Michael Whitman [138 kills] with a firefly]

The T-34 was the top tank in the world between '41 & '42, when they & the K-1 scared the heck out of the Germans when they first came across them, & the T-34/86 is often referred to as the best all round Allied tank of the war.

zraver
18 Mar 09,, 15:39
1. You might be entirely correct on that count. The only reference book I have that discuss this in detail was Zaloga's but that book was specifically about M4A1/A3(76) tanks.

2. I don't think so. The 76mm was incapable of firing white phosphorus shell, a munition critical to US anti-tank tactics as you are probably aware. The 75mm could fire WP on its own so the need for such a device is obviated.

true enough


EDIT: I found online that there existed a field manual issued by Army Ordnance on an item called "Periscope M8A1 with Telescope M39A2". Would that be the earlier unitary unit that was replaced by the M71D?

Probably

zraver
18 Mar 09,, 15:41
Must have been tough on being a tanker in a Sherman, facing Panthers & Tigers, especially when they were prone to catastrophic ammunition fires after a hit & trapping men, burning them alive. The Sherman gained grim nicknames like "Tommycooker" from the Germans, & the British called them "Ronsons", after the cigarette lighter with the slogan "Lights up the first time, every time!", while Polish tankers referred to them as "The Burning Grave" although the problem was eventually fixed, it was no help to many poor guys early on.


All the tanks except the Russian's had the exact same problem with gasoline engines, and all tanks except the improved M4's had the same ammo problem.

Triple C
19 Mar 09,, 02:28
Didn't the T-34 have a magnesium-alluminum engine? I am no chemist, but that sounds really combustible.

What tankers should have been scared of is the mountain pile of ammunition that they sat on. Even with better placement of ammunition storage, it is not as if WWII tankers really followed safety procedures. Veteran tank crews on all sides routinely maxed out their ammo load. Pz. III/IV and Sherman 75 crews routinely carried more than 100 rounds of ammunition and I would expect to see the same with other tank types.

Tanks really are death traps, as M21 Sniper said a long time ago.

Andrey Egorov
19 Mar 09,, 21:23
Aluminium should be crushed very finely to fire up. It was fuel tank under front armor. If shell could set fire to diesel fuel that was spread inside tank after breach it was nearly impossible to extinguish a burning tanker. Truly a death trap.

Triple C
20 Mar 09,, 05:14
Thank you for the info. I have been trying to find out what was the cause of T-34's crew survivability for a long time. You mean to say that the fuel tank is placed in the front of the tank without a second layer of protection between tank and interior?

Andrey Egorov
20 Mar 09,, 06:22
Sadly, I have no credible source to say yes or no. Here's the fact. Between 5th and 6th july 1943 losses of 2nd Guards Tank Corps were 17 "burned" tanks to 11 "destroyed"

Update: Corps main force were 4th, 25th and 26th Guards Tank brigades, 32 T-34 and 21 T-70 in each.

Update: Here's the result. T-43 m.1943

http://talks.guns.ru/forums/icons/forum_pictures/001871/1871540.jpg

Did some digg and found, that there was a report #101 about these explosions. One of listed protective measures was "Placing fuel tanks behind hermetic armored walls". I wonder why fuel tanks were there from the beginning.

Another one http://talks.guns.ru/forums/icons/forum_pictures/001929/1929966.jpg
And yet another one http://talks.guns.ru/forums/icons/forum_pictures/001934/1934435.jpg
And yet another http://talks.guns.ru/forums/icons/forum_pictures/001921/1921725.jpg

bugs
20 Mar 09,, 08:42
The t-34-85 had 8 internal fuel tanks, 4 on front and 4 back. Either way diesel fuel ignites harder than the fuel most tanks used.

Andrey Egorov
20 Mar 09,, 09:06
The fuel itself - surely, that's the main reason for placing them along sides of hull. But fumes of solar oil detonate the same way that fumes of gasoline.
I'll try to translate that report in the evening if someone interested. It claimed that tank filled up to 10-15% multiplies explosion energy by 2-4, thus making 76.2 mm AP shell equal to 152 mm AP

Triple C
20 Mar 09,, 10:52
Interesting. Diesel fuel tanks when properly arrayed could be used actually as a form of extra protection, but this does not seem to be the case here.

Andrey Egorov
20 Mar 09,, 10:59
Diesel fuel tanks must be full to form a protection. The moment you start to comsume the fuel, fuel tank becomes a bomb. The more you consume, the more explosive tank become.

zraver
20 Mar 09,, 21:38
Diesel fuel tanks must be full to form a protection. The moment you start to comsume the fuel, fuel tank becomes a bomb. The more you consume, the more explosive tank become.

The reason full tanks are more protective than tanks that are less than full is where the air/fuel line is. A tank that is 1/4 full but gets hit below the air/fuel will not explode acting as if it was full. But the chance of a round hitting above the line increases with each gallon consumed.

Vapor suppression systems and tank baffles can reduce this even further. If you can keep the fuel from sloshing around its less likely to aerosol inside the tank. And if you can keep the vapors evacuated the round has a harder time sparking a fire.

Andrey Egorov
21 Mar 09,, 00:26
It's 2 AM, I slept 4 hours during last 40, so sorry for errors, misprintings and overall lack of skills. Inside {} - my comments.


Ref. № 632/3
11/IX-44 y.

Report of spec.lab. NKV № 101-1 on theme:
Examination of hitting features of T-34 tank fuel tanks with armor-piercing/high-explosive and cumulative (armor-burning){HEAT} shells of german fascist army.
Resp. executors: Rozov, Kaminsky, Shchurov
Superviser: Sarafanov

1. History of question
In the battles of spring-summer 1943 tank army, tank corps and tank brigades commanders begin to note that cases of T-34 tanks combat losses with catastrophic explosions of fuel tanks or fire in engine compartment became more frequent. For instance, cases of burn T-34 tanks in battles of summer 1943 near Kursk exceeded those of T-70 tanks by 4-9%...
By order of chief of BTU GBTU of Red Army engeneer-colonel Afonin, 11 Sept. 1943 a comission was formed to study this problem.
Our group studied possibilities of T-34 fuel tank explosion with various armor-piercing tools and valuation of its probable impact on crew and inner equipment.

2. Target setting
Comission's survey of 72 destroyed during Kursk battle tanks on SPAM {field repair} bases have shown that most of them (68%) were destroyed by fire originated in result of fuel tank depressurization with subconcious inflammation of diesel fuel.
All mentiond tanks have breach in hull side or underskirt by AP, armor-burning shells or field charge.
About 1/3 abovementioned tanks lack one or two front fuel tanks and have demolition inside or partial, or even complete destruction of hull's welded seams, caused by internal explosion.
Only little part (8%) of tanks have signs of inner explosion with singns of flames, whereas 24% of machines were destroyed with explosion without any signs of iner flames. Often even ordinance was completely unharmed in chest. According given order our group researched this particular type of destruction - fuel tank explosion.
Members of comission engeneer-colonel Gurov and MVTU associate professor Krutov assumed after inspection of exploded tanks that given damage was caused by explosion of front fuel tanks placed inside crew compartment of T-34 after impact of some specific german ammunition.
Engeneer-major Firsov expressed opinion that such explosion could happen in result of burst of high temperature ammunition based on thermite or electron {aluminium or alloy powder and mixed with rust}
Group of com. Sarafanov recieved a task personally from chief of GBTU to explore the possibility of T-34 fuel tanks detonation after hit by various types of armor-piercing ammunition of german fascist army
{part missing}

4. Study equipment.
To verify assumtions of coms. Gurov, Firsov and Krutov, three sections layouts of 35 mm thick armoured steel with 135 l. {35 gallons} fuel tank established inside were built by NII-48 and Uralmashzavod. Also according to cover letter № 312-a from 21.IV-44 y. a T-34 hull with turret and equipment but without weapons was put to testing ground by BTU.
{part missing again}

5. Experimenting on location.
First shelling of layouts was on 12/XII-43y. from ballistic cannon m.40 from 30 meters distance.
1. During the test fuel tank was full of diesel fuel, recieved by cover letter of com. Afonin from 5/XII. Total spent 8 m.38 shells, 5 m.39/40 shells and 5 armor-burning shells. The results are the following:

During tests fuel tank was completely destroyed 3 times, diesel fuel was flamed 4 times. Explosions were not recorded.
When the fuel tank was hit by fragments of m39/40 shell they were abruptly dragged. Many of fragments did not break through.

Conclusions: 100% filled fuel tank of T-34 tank cannot be a source to inner explosion of T-34 tank, but even serves a protection from fragments of armor and cores of m.39/40 shells. {Guess it's the exact meaning of these fuel tanks}
2. Since com. Krutov expected that petrol cannot explode either if tank is full, with com. Fedin sanction a tank of petrol was installed into section. 3 shots was fired with m.38 shell and one armor-burning. Explosions were not recorded, in 2 tests petrol flamed.

Second stage of trials was began 9/II-44y. For trials the same weapons were used with addition of 88mm recoilless cannon m.1943, firing 88mm armour-burning mines.
According to trials program partially filled tanks were tested. Prior to the test shootings the tank was carried on a truck for 1-2 hours on service roads on testing area. After that fuel was poured off according to test conditions and tank was being installed on layout.

4th series of shooting. Tanks filled to 10-25%. Tank exploding from hit of coherent jet being filled to 25% or less. Equivalent bursting power was near 30-50 gramms of trotyl. The hatch cover on roof of layout made to lift off the tanks was smashed out. In case of filling with petrol explosiveness reducing on avearge 1.5 times comparing to diesel fuel. Fuel tank detonation caused hatch cover to open. Welded seams of layout remained intact.
Another picture is observed when inside almost empty tank a high explosive part of 75mm armor-piercing shell with red ring (80 gramms of trotyl with detonator of 20 gramms of phlegmatized tan{I don't know how to translate it, it seems to be acronym. Pretty sure some one of military or defence professionals would recognize it, but I' not} in aluminium cup) is bursting. In this case exploding effect of the shell is heavily (several times) increasing. Welded seams of underskirt was destroyed by explosion, after that shock wave ripped underskirt offand partly destroyed the roof of layout. Layout admitted off.

6. Conclusions:
The best ratio for detonation of T-34 fuel tank is when it's 10-15% full and AP shell m.38 bursting inside. Burst causes immediate detonation fuel's vapour which adds to shell's explosion, mmultiplying it by 2-4, which corresponds with effect of 105-122mm AP shell.
Even better summary effect is reached when domestic 76.2mm AP shell БР-350А which contains 150 grmms of trotyl bursts. Summary effect corresponds with 152mm AP shell БР-540Б type, which contains 400 gramms of trotyl.
With reducing caliber of AP shell probability of fuel tank explosion decreases dramatically. 37mm and 45mm AP shell cause almost non existing detonation. It should be noted that further increasing of AP caliber do not lead to significant increase explosive power of ammunition bursting inside the fuel tank. The presence of 75-85mm containing 50-100 gramms of trotyl or less amount of morre powerful blasting substances (for instance, 30-80 gramms of A-1X-2 mixture or 25-50 gramms of phligmatized gexogen) is optimal, The capacity of fuel tank should not be less than 100 litres. 30-50 litres do not make significant increasing of AP ammunition blasting power.

Countermeasures:
1. Do not allow placing of fuel tanks in crew compartment
2. During action spend the fuel from rear tanks first as their hit is less probable
3. Try to lessen accumulation of fuel vapour and formation fuel vapour of high concentration inside tank with constructing measures.
4. Lessen volume of fuel tanks inside crew compartment at least twice.
5. Place fuel tanks behind armoured leaktight wall

Rozanov {such as in document}
Kaminsky
Shchurov
Chief of the group Sarafanov

So now I clearly see that not only fuel tank ventilation system, but even simple dividing one tank into two or three smaller ones could greatly improve crew protection of T-34. Thus the idea of protecting crew with fuel tanks becomes more resonable. The point is configuration of the tanks.

zraver
21 Mar 09,, 02:58
It's 2 AM, I slept 4 hours during last 40, so sorry for errors, misprintings and overall lack of skills. Inside {} - my comments.



So now I clearly see that not only fuel tank ventilation system, but even simple dividing one tank into two or three smaller ones could greatly improve crew protection of T-34. Thus the idea of protecting crew with fuel tanks becomes more resonable. The point is configuration of the tanks.

That is why modern fuel tanks are baffled, to reduce the amount of fuel turning into an aerosol from sloshing around.

Yermak
14 Apr 09,, 09:14
The best all around tank was definatly the T-34, but if I could only manufacture the same quantaties of one tank throughout the war I would rank them in the following order:
1. Tiger
2. Panther
3. T-34
4/5. PzIV/Sherman (depending on modifications of each)
6.Churchill

Oh and don't forget the KV-1 and 2's that scared the crap out of Germans in the early stages of the war. Probably more of a fear factor than the T-34-76. And also the IS-2 and 3 tanks which where a good match against the Tiger. Of course the American Pershing was a nice heavy tank too.
Just my 2c.

Kernow
07 May 09,, 05:19
Challenger II fuel tanks are baffled and is also fitted with fuel bags. Real git to change mind. They also have breathers so the tanks do not implode.

Triple C
17 May 09,, 08:36
Now that I am a lot more acquainted with Russian tanks than I first posted on this thread, where do we stand on JS-122?

Andrey Egorov
17 May 09,, 09:10
Into the prototypes? It differed from JS-2 only with muzzle brake

bugs
17 May 09,, 19:54
Low ammo load .
the js-1 had a effective load of ammo despite his gun, being inferior to the 88'th.

Andrey Egorov
17 May 09,, 20:17
With its firing rate JS-2 could not spend more ammo during one battle anyway

dalem
18 May 09,, 02:45
I'm reading Zaloga's "Armored Thunderbolt", a nice, and authoritative, counter to Belton Cooper's axe-grinding "Death Traps". Very informative.

-dale

Triple C
18 May 09,, 07:13
I suppose IS-2 M44 is a much less confusing nomelcature. I felt the IS-2 was the best breakthrough tank of WWII, far better than the Tiger E and I see Tiger B as basically an abject failure. The ammunition load of 39 rounds was not an issue for an offensively line-breaker, as the expoitation and mopping up would be handled by the T-34s. It probably had the best tank gun of the war in terms of striking a balance between HE and AP performance. All that in a package about the weight of the Panther. Not bad!

bugs
18 May 09,, 17:42
I suppose IS-2 M44 is a much less confusing nomelcature. I felt the IS-2 was the best breakthrough tank of WWII, far better than the Tiger E and I see Tiger B as basically an abject failure. The ammunition load of 39 rounds was not an issue for an offensively line-breaker, as the expoitation and mopping up would be handled by the T-34s. It probably had the best tank gun of the war in terms of striking a balance between HE and AP performance. All that in a package about the weight of the Panther. Not bad!

Triple C may i remind you that the Tiger tank first appeared on the battlefield on September 1942 (near Mga) and the Is-2 on February 1944.
The 122 mm gun has obvious better HE performance but the tiger tank carried 92 rounds opposed to 28 in the Is-2.
The soviets had stick to the IS-2 until the end of the war as opposed to the germans who discontinued Tiger I production in august 1944. One could argue that the resources used in the Tiger B could be used in fielding another thousand Tiger I in late 44/ early 45.
The two tanks engaged each other on rare occasions and at combat ranges which favored the tank who could reload faster and bring his gun to target quicker.

Big K
18 May 09,, 18:55
this thread seems to continue longer than the war it self :D:D:D

bugs
18 May 09,, 19:00
this thread seems to continue longer than the war it self :D:D:D

3 years already :biggrin:

Triple C
19 May 09,, 02:36
Let's see if this can be kepting going... unlike the disappointing short war :biggrin:

Bugs,

I have never been a big fan of the Tiger B. Too undependable, even by German standards it was a plodding machine. The Russians captured an example and shot the hell out of it with different types of tank rounds. They found 122 hit at the edges of the weld seams would tear the plating open, and massive spalling was recorded found all over the tank with non-pepentrating hits.

Tiger Es were technically inferior to late war IS-2s. The earier Joseph Stalin tanks had a "step" like chasis that almost appears to be an immitation of the superstructure/hull set up on German tanks. It was 120mm of not so well sloped armor on top of thinner, IIRC well sloped 60mm armor. This type was vulnerable to 88mm L/56 guns. I suspect that was what Gross Deutland ran into as they reported they could neutralize the IS-2 at the range of about 1,100 meters but Russian fire at longer ranges could knoch the Tigers out. That encounter was sufficient to convince Hasso von Manteuffel that the IS-2 "was the best tank of the war".

Late production IS-2 has 90mm-110mm of one-piece face plate sloped at 60 degrees, thickness depending on from which factory it was manufactured. The 90mm hulls were made with better cast steel plate. This model, according to German estimates, could not be penetrated by the Tiger E's weaponry even at 100 meters. The Panther's more powerful 75mm L/70 could penetrate IS-2 armor at 700 meters, again according to German sources. The IS-2's 122mm could return the favor at 1,000 meters. For a breathrough tank, the late war IS-2 M44 was a deadly design. It certainly deserves to be on the list.

bugs
19 May 09,, 04:02
http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/588189-post503.html

Triple C
19 May 09,, 05:35
See that on battlefield.ru too, but evidently it's you that posted it on the WAB answering my question the first time :rolleyes: getting old before my time, not good.

Vasilyi Fofanov on tank net assert that the late IS-2 M44's glacis armor, though, had varaible thickness from 90mm-110mm but never 120mm. The better steel quality, the thinner the plate. Maybe it's a concious weight saving measure.

I would be interested to see a history of Soviet war time metallurgy.

bugs
19 May 09,, 07:01
For a breathrough tank, the late war IS-2 M44 was a deadly design. It certainly deserves to be on the list.

Certainly on the list.
By late 44 / early 45 german metallurgy was suffering from a chronic shortage of rare metals reducing not only the quality of alloys used in they're tanks but also the number of APCR rounds available.
The Is-2 tank was exposed needlessly by Zhukov during the Berlin street fighting ( i don't know if it was overconfident in the tank or eager to finish the fighting , maybe both ) bearing the brunt of german infantry HEAT weapons.

Andrey Egorov
19 May 09,, 07:37
Talking about line breaching tanks one should keep in mind T-35 and especially KV-2.

bugs
19 May 09,, 17:32
Talking about line breaching tanks one should keep in mind T-35 and especially KV-2.

i remember 5 pages on this thread about it:


As for AP- at what point? A 152mm HE blast to the front armor of ANY tank then would ruin it's day. The barrel and optics would be particularly vulnerable. So too the tracks. A firepower kill and mobility kill equal a total tank kill, even without penetration. Anti-armor certainly wouldn't have been this vehicle's primary mission.
Reinforced concrete aside, this weapon would have been a god-send to any infantry battalion commander heavily engaged attacking a complex of defensive earthen, log-reinforced entrenchments. BTW, that's what you'd commonly find back in the day for a hasty or semi-prepared defensive network. Likewise, in urban battle, brick and mortar wouldn't tolerate 152mm HE fire very long.
36 152mm HE shells is an awful lot of attention to discretely apply to most point targets.

Unfortunately for the kv how one of the former contributers pointed out:
It was never used in this role...

Big K
19 May 09,, 17:52
Let's see if this can be kepting going... unlike the disappointing short war :biggrin:

thats the spirit :) keep pushing dude:biggrin::biggrin:

leib10
12 Jun 09,, 00:13
Let's see if this can be kepting going... unlike the disappointing short war :biggrin:

Bugs,

I have never been a big fan of the Tiger B. Too undependable, even by German standards it was a plodding machine. The Russians captured an example and shot the hell out of it with different types of tank rounds. They found 122 hit at the edges of the weld seams would tear the plating open, and massive spalling was recorded found all over the tank with non-pepentrating hits.

Tiger Es were technically inferior to late war IS-2s. The earier Joseph Stalin tanks had a "step" like chasis that almost appears to be an immitation of the superstructure/hull set up on German tanks. It was 120mm of not so well sloped armor on top of thinner, IIRC well sloped 60mm armor. This type was vulnerable to 88mm L/56 guns. I suspect that was what Gross Deutland ran into as they reported they could neutralize the IS-2 at the range of about 1,100 meters but Russian fire at longer ranges could knoch the Tigers out. That encounter was sufficient to convince Hasso von Manteuffel that the IS-2 "was the best tank of the war".

Late production IS-2 has 90mm-110mm of one-piece face plate sloped at 60 degrees, thickness depending on from which factory it was manufactured. The 90mm hulls were made with better cast steel plate. This model, according to German estimates, could not be penetrated by the Tiger E's weaponry even at 100 meters. The Panther's more powerful 75mm L/70 could penetrate IS-2 armor at 700 meters, again according to German sources. The IS-2's 122mm could return the favor at 1,000 meters. For a breathrough tank, the late war IS-2 M44 was a deadly design. It certainly deserves to be on the list.

You forgot to mention that the 122mm's gun took all day to reload and ammo storage in the tank was pretty limited. ;)

randwick
06 Jun 16,, 03:27
.
This question is not very clear ,WW2 started at different times for some countries , tanks went through an accelerated evolution and "peaked " then became somewhat obsolete
is the best tank the , punchier , best armored , best against AT weapons ,best range and cross country ability , easiest to manufacture ?
for my money , 1939 the German PZKW 3 was pretty good overall , 1940 the PZKW 4 ruled OK , 1941 definitely the T34 ,1942 also the T34 , in North Africa the Sherman was the best the British had , but that's not saying much , 1943 the T34 was showing its age the up-gunned PZKW 4 was really a problem , 1944 the Panther , 1945 the panther
the Sherman was OK , but its best use was as infantry support ,
the Tiger was a wonderful machine but was slow , very thirsty , and never could be made in sufficient number
the Soviet JS2 was quite impressive but came late ansd was designated as a breakthrough tank for assaulting fortified position

Monash
06 Jun 16,, 09:20
Randwick, welcome aboard. If you haven't already done so I suggest you check out the Achtung Panzer and Armchair General forums/websites for info on these topics. For the rest there might shortly be some 'necro post' i.e. resurrected old thread comments incoming.

FYI - I agree with you about the question - asking 'which is the best' without first defining the parameters of the questions is usually a bit pointless. You start arguments rather than getting precise answers.

For the rest, in general I agree with your assessment of the types you named. Although I think it's important to to note the difference between technical superiority and availability. There's no point in designing the best weapon system in the world if it's so complex and hard to produce that few, if any arrive at the front lines. Far better to have to have an 'OK/will do' system widely available in large numbers.

I suggest you come up with a new question on the topic that interests you and post - I'm sure you will get responses from some very knowledgeable WAB members.

P.S. I don't include myself in that number.

Albany Rifles
06 Jun 16,, 16:05
Randwick

Welcome to the World Affairs Board.

We ask new members to go to the following link and introduce themselves to the group. Tell us a little about yourself and what your interests are.

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/showthread.php?t=61571&page=125&p=1007162#post1007162

When you are done there it is highly recommended that you go to the following link and review some great points a veteran poster has come up with to make your stay more rewarding.

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/showthread.php?t=46580

Good luck!

TopHatter
06 Jun 16,, 16:13
And with that, we'll close out this thread and let it fade away...