Originally posted by 1979
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
question regarding Sherman variant
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Triple C View PostZ,
The 4th AD did not engage many crack German armor units either. Its largest battle was fought against two Pz Bde's that were not well-trained. It fought 1st SS PzD in Bastogne but the 1st SS was burned out by that point.
The 3d AD on the other hand was consistently the spearhead unit for the First Army and had to handle some deeply unpleasant missions such as frontal assault against the West Wall, and had the misfortune of having a poor division commander during the Normandy campaign. I think successfully containing KG Peiper, 2d SS and 116th PzD plus a VGD at the same time should earn the 3d AD some respect.
Do I rate it as highly as 2d or 4th AD, probably no. But compared to 7th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 14th ADs? 3 AD's performance was a last above average.
17th SS was another new unit, yet unlike a lot of mid-war on German units it didn't break or fold and managed to stay in the fight. It gave gallant service in the defense of Metz but will forever be stained by the war crimes it committed.
Comment
-
Originally posted by clackers View PostSteve Zaloga puts the blame on both the machinations of the Ordnance Branch, and the deliberate strategy imposed by the AGF's Lesley McNair to restrict it ... a 'battle need' requirement that unlike other nations systematically delayed any innovation or upgrading. What was possibly the best tank in the world in 1942 changed very little up to D-Day, even as new threats appeared.
There wasn't one. No army field manual has ever stated that tanks shoudln't fight tanks.
If you can find one, let me know. I'll show him that he was wrong.
Originally posted by clackers View PostZaloga ends his history of the Sherman with a spirited defence of the vehicle, saying:
"Like the Energizer Bunny, the Sherman just kept running, and running, and running. This was not luck, but the result of deliberate AGF policy that placed a premium on durability. The Wehrmacht did not place the same value ... and its panzer units suffered from high breakdown rates, especially in the last year of the war ... Most American tankers would have preferred to be sitting in a more powerful tank likethePanther,but no commander would have been content to substitute his many Shermans for a much smaller number of Panthers."
I'd rather have a mediocre tank that moved than an advanced paper weight."Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.
Comment
-
Originally posted by gunnut View Post
Panthers and other advanced German tanks were great on paper. The problem was they broke down too often due to their complexity. Most advanced German tanks were lost due to mechanical break down than anything else. The most dependable late war German tanks were Pz IV. Shermans were more likely to encounter a Pz IV than a Panther or a Tiger.
I'd rather have a mediocre tank that moved than an advanced paper weight.
Comment
-
German late war commanders don't seem to be particularly good at establishing logistic lines or maintaining road discipline. It sure looks like some of their problems with keeping POL flowing and their tanks functional are self-inflicted.All those who are merciful with the cruel will come to be cruel to the merciful.
-Talmud Kohelet Rabbah, 7:16.
Comment
-
The Germans were hurting at the end of the War; whereas in 1944 they were running out of trained pilots/tankers, by 1945 they had the personnel but not the equipment (or the fuel). Several hundred German AFV's were abandoned in 1945 due to insufficient ammunition and/or fuel supplies; the tanks couldn't fire and/or move, so they were simply abandoned.
The Panther (though not necessarily the Tiger) was a VERY reliable platform, (except for the final drive on the Panther), especially toward the end of the War when they had (mostly) solved the engine fire problem (better engine compartment ventilation); there's a reason the Russians captured as many Panthers as they could for use against their former owners. Apparently, the Panther and the Tiger II were VERY popular with Russian crews due to their excellent protection and firepower (apparently, something they weren't used to)."There is never enough time to do or say all the things that we would wish. The thing is to try to do as much as you can in the time that you have. Remember Scrooge, time is short, and suddenly, you're not there any more." -Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge
Comment
-
The Russian army's official policy was to operate captured Panther tank until it breaks down, after which it is abandoned without attempting to recover or repair it. It was probably honored more in the breach than the observance. I am have seen photographs of captured Tiger Bs too, even though official policy said it was verboten to use this breed of unreliable tanks. If memory serves, the 3d Armored Division tankers were very interested to use Peiper's abandoned tanks in la Gleize, but it turned out they had all been rendered inoperable. One of the British armored regiments actually used a captured Panther tank for infantry support missions where its flat shooting gun and good armor was much appreciated. l sometimes wonder why the Americans never used captured German tanks as "Judas Goats" for infiltration.All those who are merciful with the cruel will come to be cruel to the merciful.
-Talmud Kohelet Rabbah, 7:16.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Triple C View PostThe Russian army's official policy was to operate captured Panther tank until it breaks down, after which it is abandoned without attempting to recover or repair it. It was probably honored more in the breach than the observance. I am have seen photographs of captured Tiger Bs too, even though official policy said it was verboten to use this breed of unreliable tanks. If memory serves, the 3d Armored Division tankers were very interested to use Peiper's abandoned tanks in la Gleize, but it turned out they had all been rendered inoperable. One of the British armored regiments actually used a captured Panther tank for infantry support missions where its flat shooting gun and good armor was much appreciated. l sometimes wonder why the Americans never used captured German tanks as "Judas Goats" for infiltration.
Here is a trivia question, what weapon manufactured in WWII Germany is still seeing combat today?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Triple C View Postl sometimes wonder why the Americans never used captured German tanks as "Judas Goats" for infiltration."There is never enough time to do or say all the things that we would wish. The thing is to try to do as much as you can in the time that you have. Remember Scrooge, time is short, and suddenly, you're not there any more." -Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge
Comment
-
Originally posted by Stitch View PostSort of like the ersatz M-10's the Germans constructed for Operation Greif in 1944?
On a different note, my Armored Thunderbolt by Steven Zaloga had just arrived. He has this to say about US Army's combat experience in Sicily and Italy:
One of the unfortunate consequences of the Italian Campaign was that it produced complacency in the US Army about future German threats. For the Wehrmacht Italy was strictly a sideshow, and the units there did not have high priority for new weapons.All those who are merciful with the cruel will come to be cruel to the merciful.
-Talmud Kohelet Rabbah, 7:16.
Comment
-
Comment