Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Tanks 101

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by IronDuke View Post
    Exceptionally well put, although one caveat (for me) would be that the Sherman only looks that good at the macro level for the Allies because of their logistics. For any nation on the defensive, with little or no POL reaching front line units, the Sherman was fit for little more than keeping out the rain.

    However, your thesis fits the veteran's evidence, which is more than can be said for some....

    Regards,
    ID
    I think you're being rather too harsh on the Sherman here, as it had near parity (75mm M3) and easy parity (76mm M1) with the PzKpfw IV in tank-to-tank engagment; and was very good to better in other areas; especially as the PzKpfw IV, though ageing, was still considered a perfectly respectable and viable fighting tank by both sides. In this respect therefore, I don't think "fit for little more than keeping out the rain" is either fair or objective; unless you are going to apply it to all tanks with gun/armour attributes falling that degree or more short of PzKpfw V and VI, and this must include PzKpfw IV of course.

    Having said this, I do understand your apparent irritation at the way some folks appear to dismiss (or in some cases, actually do dismiss) the obvious gun/armour superiority of Panthers and Tigers. As an individual tank crewman in a Sherman or Cromwell, faced with a Tiger or Panther, I would certainly want to be extremely cautious as to how I went about it. I value my own hide very highly indeed.

    The clear and very substantial gun/armour advantage held by the likes of Panther and Tiger, as well as some of the other heavy German AFVs, should not be dismissed so lightly at all and I am 100 percent on board with both yourself and Gerry in this regard. Don't let the fact that I haven't mentioned it in this discussion (until now) deceive you on that particular point.

    As in all such discussions, there is a rational balance to be had and it falls some distance away from those at either of the poles of this matter. For that reason, I try to resist the polarizing effect this topic tends to have on people.

    Once again, I am straying from the core subject of Nick's thread but at least this time I am talking about WW2 tanks themselves, rather than battles, campaigns and the outcome of the war.
    Last edited by panther3485; 07 Dec 12, 21:46.
    "Chatfield, there seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
    Vice Admiral Beatty to Flag Captain Chatfield; Battle of Jutland, 31 May - 1 June, 1916.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by panther3485 View Post
      Having said this, I do understand your apparent irritation at the way some folks appear to dismiss (or in some cases, actually do dismiss) the obvious gun/armour superiority of Panthers and Tigers.

      What I see being articulated is that despite a paper superiority the Sherman (as a class of tank) was able to outperform the uber-panzers as a war winning weapons system. Stating the panzers were 'superior' in guns and armour is true but despite the handicaps Sherman losses were not excessive and crew deaths were not crippling. Ineded they compare favourably with known German crew losses. Thus the German technical or individual 'superiority' was not able to be translated into superior group performance.


      On the critical importance of tanks:

      At the back of Hasting's Overlord book you will find the UK ammo consumtion rates for 21st AG in 1944.
      The 17pdr fired a round every 3 days on average!
      A 6 pdr never more than 1 round every 2 days on average.
      75mm rates (tank guns only) from 1 round a day to one every 2 days on average.

      Compare this to a 25 pdr which fired 20-70 rounds a day.
      The 5.5 inch 10-45 rounds a day
      Even a 3.7 AA gun managed to fire over 12 million rounds 1944-45 compared to a total of 777,000 75mm rounds.
      The 25pdr fired over 13 million rounds.

      I know that tank units fought intensely for a few days and then rested but the ratio of tank ammo to Artillery usuage is striking.

      Comment


      • I actually don't have that volume with me, but I remember agreeing with some of the theories and statistics.

        My view on the Panther tank is that it was considerably more useful (against JS-series, T-34/85, heavy tank destroyers) than the Panzer IV (and thus, the Sherman or Cromwell) on the Eastern Front (1944-1945), but in the Western front (1944-1945) its effectiveness in tank to tank combat was only marginally better due to the short ranges. Since you have the volume, there should be discussions about the typical tank to tank ranges during the Normandy battles among other things that I have referenced. Including how many hits it took to KO a panther or a sherman and with what caliber of weapon.


        Originally posted by IronDuke View Post
        Is this Jarymowycz's book you are referring to?

        "Reasons for the stalemate from 6 June to mid August 1944 included allied inexperience, German advantage in the defence, and the absence of Allied attack doctrine. The list is long, but one could also simply say "Tigers and Panthers." They stopped the Allies cold. Niothing could knock them out, nothing could withstand their firepower."

        Tank Tactics - Roman Jarymowycz - Page 257.

        What you have said is the crux of it. The Allies were forced into a series of tactical expedients (use of smoke, attempting to manouvre onto the flank etc) in order to take the CATs out. If a CAT has LOS on a Sherman, it was gone, regardless of the aspect.

        Because the Sherman broke down less frequently and was very useful during the last week in August, these core facts get ignored.

        regards,
        ID
        I don't know if I would be so bold as to come to this conclusion, but German infantry in normandy put up a hard fight, and their grenadiers at this point were heavily armed with anti-tank guns and Panzerfaust/panzershrecks. Flak guns were frequently used in the ground role, as well.

        As for the Panther- yes indeed it's front plate did make it harder to destroy, however, tanks are supposed to be offensive weapons- not just glorified tank destroyers. To use them as tank destroyers is often necessary, but it is not why an armored force has tanks. Tanks are offensive instruments.

        One key point from 'Tank tactics' is that tactics, skills, and coordination matter more than armor, and armor can be overcome with the right tactics.

        Another book I have is the 'Hitler's Ardennes Offensive: German view' with is essentially a series of lengthy interrogations with the bigwigs: Sepp Dietrich, Chief of staff Fritz Kramer, Brandenberger, and Manteuffel. I believe that the Panzer IV is mentioned as the most suitable tank for the Ardennes offensive. The Panthers, not as much, and the Tiger IIs could not keep up.

        Overall, I am not convinced that the 'technical' aspects of the Panther were a big advantage in offensive action when dealing with Shermans. Can somebody add to this?

        Comment


        • Late model German tanks had sloped armor and better high velocity guns, while the Sherman remained the same shape - high and boxy with a tremendous exposed flank - until the very end.

          The entire rationale behind the Sherman - cheap and easy to make, small meaning more shipped per vessel, and simplicity of design - is simply an attempt to rationalize a mediocre design that was outmatched by German equipment.

          It is worth noting that the Soviets, who were considered by everyone to way behind in the design department, fielded an excellent all around design with the T-34, and by war's end had designed, built and fielded tank, TD and Assault Gun AFV's that were bigger, better and more massively gunned than the Germans had.

          Only two nations failed to come up with better tanks, Britain at least trying while America merely kept trying to "improve" the Sherman far beyond any reasonable hope of a decent return for the investment.

          For a comparison, take a look at aircraft designs and naval warship designs for America from 1941 to 1945 - constant innovation, upgrades and new designs - while the Sherman plodded on.
          Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

          Comment


          • Another key point from 'Tank Tactics' (or some other volume, I don't recall) is the evolution of the tank on the battlefield.

            The early years were most ideal for this weapon- 1939-1942 if one could use it right. Infantry divisions from every side were simply not that effective when defending against large armored assaults, and they did not know, due to lack of experience, proper coordination, and proper equipment, how to stop these attacks cold.

            The later years 1943-1945 saw the proliferation of more and more effective antitank weapons and better & better anti-tank doctrines, and the 'power' of the tank in achieving a great breakthrough with minimal losses declined. The numbers of tanks and anti-tank weapons per kilo of the front time increased dramatically, enhancing anti-tank defense.

            The Infantry 'rose' again, and armor became more and more subservient to them. Attacks by Armor groups against infantry divisions became less strategically powerful. So attrition-like aspects of battle gained more prominence over maneuver.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by IronDuke View Post
              " ... This is a thread about tank quality."
              I thought it was a thread about classifications, definitions and roles: and how certain types of tanks fit within those or other groups; and questions revolving around that general theme. I do admit though, that I have engaged in discussion about tank quality, as have others. It's hard not to go from one subject to another one that is related to it; and I take it that this is what you meant?

              Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
              In your opinion concerning WW2:

              What is a tank?

              What is/are the main role(s) of a tank?

              What is a heavy tank and what are its roles?
              What is an infantry tank and what are its roles?
              What is a medium tank and what are its roles?
              What is a cruiser tank and what are its roles?
              What is a light tank and what are its roles?
              What is a MBT (or Universal tank) and what are its roles?

              What are the atrributes most important to each classification of tank?
              Was a MBT or 'Universal' tank a possibility in WW2?
              Could the MBT role be carried out by another class of tank to an acceptable level in all its roles?

              What are the requirements of different nations concerning tanks?
              How does a nations strategy determine TO&E that includes tanks?
              How effective was a nations units TO&E that included tanks in practise?

              The scope of this thread is to understand the role of tanks, rather than the focus on a particular tank. It is also a top down approach to look at what was desired, what was feasible, and what was actually deployed and why .

              Originally posted by IronDuke View Post
              " ... Who mentioned the MKIV"
              I tend to mention it in most of these kinds of threads; and I think mkenny has mentioned it at least once in this one? In my case, the usual reason for mentioning it is that I regard it as one of the foremost 'benchmark' tanks of WW2. Much the same status as I accord the Sherman and the T-34.
              Last edited by panther3485; 08 Dec 12, 01:40.
              "Chatfield, there seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
              Vice Admiral Beatty to Flag Captain Chatfield; Battle of Jutland, 31 May - 1 June, 1916.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by IronDuke View Post
                How many tanker veteran's reunions do you get invited to?
                How many submariner vets reunions, and in particular U-Boat vets reunions, does anyone get invited to? I believe the latter suffered the highest losses of any arm of service, for any nation in WW2? Or have I got that wrong?
                "Chatfield, there seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
                Vice Admiral Beatty to Flag Captain Chatfield; Battle of Jutland, 31 May - 1 June, 1916.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                  The entire rationale behind the Sherman - cheap and easy to make, small meaning more shipped per vessel, and simplicity of design - is simply an attempt to rationalize a mediocre design that was outmatched by German equipment.
                  Well something was having an effect on German tanks.
                  June losses:
                  125 Pz IV
                  80 Panthers
                  19 Tigers

                  July:
                  149 PzIV
                  125 Panther
                  14 Tigers

                  start of August (before the flight):
                  45 Pz IV
                  49 Panther
                  15 Tigers .

                  That's 623 before the start of the dash for home.

                  Combined Aug/Sept losses:
                  593 Pz IV
                  540 Panther.
                  95 Tiger

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by IronDuke View Post
                    If I have a company of Panthers and a battalion of Shermans, and they annihilate each other, your statement is true. However, it is far from the whole story is it not? Safety is an expression of the number of engagements, the number of hits absorbed and the number of casualties suffered when the final penetrating hit knocked the vehicle out.

                    In other words, your analysis takes no account of survivability. I don't doubt that once penetrated, crew casualties would be roughtly similiar in Tiger and Sherman, there is after all AP shot ricocheting around inside.

                    However, if Tiger has abosorbed several hits before being penetrated, but sherman took one and was finished, we can make some judgement on relative safety.
                    Inclined to agree here, in principle if not in all the details.

                    All other things being equal, I would feel safer in a Tiger or Panther than I would in a 'stock' WW2 Sherman (i.e. not a Jumbo, Firefly or very late model with 76mm, wet stowage and HVSS. Wet stowage in particular made a big difference for secondary safety and IIRC no German tank had it).

                    Better armour protection and a 'longer arm' certainly tip the balance for me (again, all other things being equal, of course). And yes, I do know there are plenty of situations where the better armour and gun would not offer a significant advantage but even if they offer an advantage in only a percentage of scenarios, I will still eagerly reach for that advantage. Every card stacked in my favour will be appreciated when my arse is going on the line.
                    "Chatfield, there seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
                    Vice Admiral Beatty to Flag Captain Chatfield; Battle of Jutland, 31 May - 1 June, 1916.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by m kenny View Post
                      " ... despite a paper superiority the Sherman (as a class of tank) was able to outperform the uber-panzers as a war winning weapons system. ... "
                      I could not disagree with this.


                      Originally posted by m kenny View Post
                      " ... Stating the panzers were 'superior' in guns and armour is true but despite the handicaps Sherman losses were not excessive and crew deaths were not crippling. Ineded they compare favourably with known German crew losses. ... "
                      I woudn't question this as a basic fact in itself. However, more often than not I think there would be additional variables at play, forming a complex interactive web of factors beyond mere differences in armour and gunpower, affecting outcomes one way or the other. I would suggest that during the 1944-45 period particularly, these additional variables would usually have tended to favour the Allied side, overall. But the question is, how much?

                      As I see it, the difficulty for us, in our analysis, is evaluating those additional variables to quantify their influence on the final result. A shorter way of saying this is that other factors were far from always being equal and we need to take those into account; but beyond the realization that "baby, it just ain't so simple", this doesn't help us either.

                      What I would say is, that on those admittedly relative few occasions when it was simply a contest of gun vs armour - and especially at more open ranges - Sherman or Cromwell crews could feel like one-legged men in an arse-kicking contest when faced with Tigers or Panthers; or the better German TDs. And it would not have needed to happen all that often, to raise some serious concern among Allied tank crews. (Note for the benefit of all: Concern, not 'phobia' )


                      Originally posted by m kenny View Post
                      " ... Thus the German technical or individual 'superiority' was not able to be translated into superior group performance. ... "
                      I would say you are right in a broadly general sense; that it was not often and/or not regularly able to be so translated. But I would say that it was able to be on isolated occasions. In other words, not nearly as often or as consistently as the Germans would have liked or might have reasonable expected, due to factors I have partly alluded to above.


                      Originally posted by m kenny View Post
                      On the critical importance of tanks:

                      At the back of Hasting's Overlord book you will find the UK ammo consumtion rates for 21st AG in 1944.
                      The 17pdr fired a round every 3 days on average!
                      A 6 pdr never more than 1 round every 2 days on average.
                      75mm rates (tank guns only) from 1 round a day to one every 2 days on average.

                      Compare this to a 25 pdr which fired 20-70 rounds a day.
                      The 5.5 inch 10-45 rounds a day
                      Even a 3.7 AA gun managed to fire over 12 million rounds 1944-45 compared to a total of 777,000 75mm rounds.
                      The 25pdr fired over 13 million rounds.

                      I know that tank units fought intensely for a few days and then rested but the ratio of tank ammo to Artillery usuage is striking.
                      Cheers.
                      Some interesting and useful data there.
                      Last edited by panther3485; 08 Dec 12, 06:00.
                      "Chatfield, there seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
                      Vice Admiral Beatty to Flag Captain Chatfield; Battle of Jutland, 31 May - 1 June, 1916.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by panther3485 View Post
                        The Ardennes offensive was nothing more nor less than a desperate effort that had no realistic hope of changing outcomes for Germany. IMO, it should be seen in precisely that light.
                        No realistic hope means it had an unrealistic hope. An unrealistic hope is better than no hope. It caused the Allies a few problems and was probably the only unrealistic hope they had left.

                        It would have been abundantly clear to any rational leadership that defeat was inevitable by this stage.
                        The German Leadership wasn't rational.

                        The pragmatic, and only realistic option was surrender, which would have spared many lives on both sides.
                        As above, Hitler seems to have decided on a darwinian gotteramadung by this point. It was all or nothing. In Hitler and Stalin, history contrived to pit two rather pitiless figures against each other for who'm life was cheap and of no consequence. He remained convinced the western Allies would turn on the Soviets or vice versa just before the end thus saving Germany, and felt the German people were failing him so deserved their end either way.

                        Pragmatism and realism were not words in the Nazi lexicon. If anything, they were words to be overcome by unyielding force of will. It's why the Nazis are difficuly to work out sometimes. Their world view really was different to everyone else's, at least at the very top.

                        It would not have changed the surrender terms but it would have been doing everyone a huge favour, including the Germans themselves. Hitler and his senior cronies could have topped themselves or attempted to escape,
                        See above, no argument, except it was never going to happen.

                        but either way the Ardennes offensive was futile and could not change the outcome, only prolong the agony in the remote chance that it had succeeded.
                        It was very likely futile, but when all other options are absolutely pointless and without reason, the very probably futile is the most attractive of a bad bunch.

                        A nation in the situation Germany was by late 1944, cannot be compared with a boxer on the ropes who is responsible only for his own personal suffering. The fate of a people was in the balance and a leadership is ultimately responsible for the fate of its people; and to make a sound decision that would end their suffering and avoid hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of further totally futile deaths.
                        My analogy was lightweight and not meant as some sort of moral equivocation so this probably wasn't required. Suffice to say what you have written is eminently sensible, but not realistic given what we know of the Nazi mindset in general and the Hitlerian mindset in particular.

                        .... and we already know why the Nazis were not prepared to take the only decent option left to them, don't we.
                        Yes, so why are we surprised that they didn't? The Ardennes offered an option, and those heading into oblivion will always take any option, regardless of how unlikely.

                        But to discuss this further would de-rail the thread as we are going waaayyy OT here.
                        I've already been charged with that, so on the three strikes rule, I had better tread carefully....

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by panther3485 View Post
                          How many submariner vets reunions, and in particular U-Boat vets reunions, does anyone get invited to? I believe the latter suffered the highest losses of any arm of service, for any nation in WW2? Or have I got that wrong?
                          Mkenny said it was the infantry. He hasn't actually left (as I predicted) so maybe we can ask him.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by panther3485 View Post
                            I think you're being rather too harsh on the Sherman here, as it had near parity (75mm M3) and easy parity (76mm M1) with the PzKpfw IV in tank-to-tank engagment; and was very good to better in other areas; especially as the PzKpfw IV, though ageing, was still considered a perfectly respectable and viable fighting tank by both sides. In this respect therefore, I don't think "fit for little more than keeping out the rain" is either fair or objective;
                            Point conceded, lets say rain and machine gun fire...

                            I suppose my point is simple. The Sherman's chief attributes were simply not attributes of the Sherman but of the Allied logistics system. Take that system away, and the Sherman is still the same tank, with all the same characteristics, but not nearly winning at anything.


                            That's my point. Or put another way, if Allied engineering and production and POL supply had had the Panther, and the Germans had had Sherman (or the "Ludendorff"), would the war have ended sooner or later?

                            unless you are going to apply it to all tanks with gun/armour attributes falling that degree or more short of PzKpfw V and VI, and this must include PzKpfw IV of course.
                            PZIV was a very successful weapons system (as was the sherman) but was similarly outdated by 1944 (just like the Sherman). What saved it in the west was actually the Sherman, in that you're not out of date if the other Guy is wearing yesterday's gear as well. In the east, though, it was outclassed by T34/85 and above and I don't doubt needed to jump through tactical hoops to take out an ISII.

                            Having said this, I do understand your apparent irritation at the way some folks appear to dismiss (or in some cases, actually do dismiss) the obvious gun/armour superiority of Panthers and Tigers. As an individual tank crewman in a Sherman or Cromwell, faced with a Tiger or Panther, I would certainly want to be extremely cautious as to how I went about it. I value my own hide very highly indeed.
                            My point exactly. The only people who praise the Sherman tend to be people who have never fought in one. They can also be people for who'm AXIS equipment is de facto inferior. I've seen plenty of AXIS "Fanboys" and can understand some people's irritation at that as well, but in this instance, it simply isn't a valid argument to favour Sherman over Panther/Tiger, at least not on the basis of the sort of stats that get presented here as evidence.

                            Nick's arguments re the Churchill are not to my liking, but I can at least see the logic behind the thinking when he details his case for it to be one of WWII's finest because he adds his analysis. There is analysis there I can attempt to refute and I can disagree but remain relatively chilled about that.

                            For others, I see no logic, no argument, only an attempt to present un-critiqued figures with superficial analysis and attempt to carry the day because the range of facts or photos they have presented is impressive. That doesn't wash with me. A historian without analysis is a tank without ammo. Absolutely pointless no matter how impressive the steel hide looks as it catches the sun at breakfast time.

                            The clear and very substantial gun/armour advantage held by the likes of Panther and Tiger, as well as some of the other heavy German AFVs, should not be dismissed so lightly at all and I am 100 percent on board with both yourself and Gerry in this regard. Don't let the fact that I haven't mentioned it in this discussion (until now) deceive you on that particular point.
                            I've always valued your interventions because you command more respect than I do hereabouts, are less likely to be sarcastic (and thus offputting) and are not nearly as aggressively partisan, which means you easier to warm to for those of us who are aggressively partisan.

                            I have always understood your general position on this matter since you intervened in the infamous "Tiger penetrated frontally by Sherman 75mm at 1000 yards" section of the last great barrage on this subject.

                            The only thing that can stymie operational advantages are tactical reverses. I suspect the Germans did so well in the east for so long because they could negate operational disadvantages by winning at the sharp end. The Allies won despite Sherman, not because of it, because the Germans couldn't inflict enough tactical reverses to outweigh the overwhelming operational advantages the Allies had.

                            As in all such discussions, there is a rational balance to be had and it falls some distance away from those at either of the poles of this matter. For that reason, I try to resist the polarizing effect this topic tends to have on people.
                            I just wish people would listen to the veterans. They can tell us precious little about the operational side of things, most Senior Officers are gone now, and the operational side of things is not always easy to see in the middle of a battle as ordnance erupts around you anyway, but they can tell us about the sharp end, and what they say about the sherman is pretty unequivocal.

                            Interestingly, I am generally the only one who quotes from secondary sources, because recent armour historians like Buckley and Jarymowicz are polar buddies of mine rather than the oppositions when it comes to this matter. That's what grates. No professional historian would have a problem with what I've said. If there was one, I would be more sober, but Buckley and Jary both admit to a "tank gap".

                            Once again, I am straying from the core subject of Nick's thread but at least this time I am talking about WW2 tanks themselves, rather than battles, campaigns and the outcome of the war.
                            As I said, Nick has given me a polite heads up re this, so I agree we should move on.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                              Late model German tanks had sloped armor and better high velocity guns, while the Sherman remained the same shape - high and boxy with a tremendous exposed flank - until the very end.

                              The entire rationale behind the Sherman - cheap and easy to make, small meaning more shipped per vessel, and simplicity of design - is simply an attempt to rationalize a mediocre design that was outmatched by German equipment.

                              It is worth noting that the Soviets, who were considered by everyone to way behind in the design department, fielded an excellent all around design with the T-34, and by war's end had designed, built and fielded tank, TD and Assault Gun AFV's that were bigger, better and more massively gunned than the Germans had.

                              Only two nations failed to come up with better tanks, Britain at least trying while America merely kept trying to "improve" the Sherman far beyond any reasonable hope of a decent return for the investment.

                              For a comparison, take a look at aircraft designs and naval warship designs for America from 1941 to 1945 - constant innovation, upgrades and new designs - while the Sherman plodded on.
                              Excellent points. In 1942, Sherman, P40 and Wildcat. In 1944, Sherman and Hellcat, Mustang and Corsair (Has there ever been a better looking aircraft than the Corsair?)

                              America produced much better naval and air equipment by 1944 and still managed to pump out prodigous amounts. She didn't need to stick with the same core design to outproduce everybody.

                              Now, I can see why american doctrine and logistics might have liked the Sherman, but that shouldn't hide its flaws and problems.

                              Regards,
                              ID

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by IronDuke View Post
                                Excellent points. In 1942, Sherman, P40 and Wildcat. In 1944, Sherman and Hellcat, Mustang and Corsair (Has there ever been a better looking aircraft than the Corsair?)

                                America produced much better naval and air equipment by 1944 and still managed to pump out prodigous amounts. She didn't need to stick with the same core design to outproduce everybody.

                                Now, I can see why american doctrine and logistics might have liked the Sherman, but that shouldn't hide its flaws and problems.

                                Regards,
                                ID
                                Some posts of yours I don't agree with. This is not one of those.
                                Less effort was spent on tank design by the US than ships and aircraft. It may have been due to the potential post WW2 commercial benefits of better ships/boats as Dogdodger pointed out.

                                However, to imply that the early Shermans were the same as the latter ones is wrong. It is like calling a Cavalier a Comet, except that the early Shermans were actually very good tanks compared to the British designs.

                                Alistair McNair had a lot to answer for. He was right on reliability and quantity in basic designs. What he did not understand was that sometimes you need a bit of quality as well. As an example, Panzer divisions led the attack on the Southern Front at Kursk. The Panzer divisions Mediums were spearheaded by Heavies in the independant tank units. This does not mean the Tigers were better than the PzIV's and III's, it was just that the Heavies were being used as the Germans envisaged them to.

                                Another example is an amphibuous assault. You can only land a certain amount of weight at a time, whether men, tanks or oil etc. This is when you need quality kit, and when you need the right kit. The medium tank in this instance is the wrong

                                To state German tanks were better than W Ally tanks at destroying tanks is probably true. To state Panthers would have done better in US hands, due to their resources, is probably not true. As Belton Cooper states in Deathtraps, the US armoured division had a large proportion on non combatants. If they were using a less reliable tank than the Sherman, say a tank in the reliability class of the Crusader, the US armored divisions would not of been able to destroy as many units in France 44 as they did.

                                The Sherman was the wrong tank for the initial stages of D-Day. It was the right tank for Operation Cobra.
                                How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                                Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X