History buffs; A Project

[SMIDSY]

well, i have the combined knowledge of 5 different forums full of history buffs. plus i have a fancy for early war tank combat.

[OOZ662]

I still need major help on late war tanks. I'm also in need of general war movement info, but I figure on Googling that.

[joeblogs]

Take a look at Buderi's "The Invention that Changed the World." everything you need to know about the development of Radar in WWII. Great bibliography too.

For AC engine development, look at Schlaifer & Heron's "The Development of Aircraft Engines and Fuels."

-Blogs

[E25280]

Originally posted by OOZ662
I still need major help on late war tanks. I'm also in need of general war movement info, but I figure on Googling that.

Sorry, ooz662, been really busy as of late and didn't feel I had enough time to do justice to what you want.  Also figured someone else would have jumped in by now.  Still don't have a lot of time, so this will be sketchy. . . .

East front, 44 and 45 (late war).  Germany had introduced heavy tanks (tiger and panther) mid war.  Germany had also introduced several low-slung turretless TDs with sloped armor and high-velocity guns.  Thus the T-34 with the 76mm gun was becoming increasingly ineffective.  In response, they upgunned the T-34 to hold an 85mm gun.  This gun was still not capable of taking out a Tiger or Panther at long range on a front shot, but vs side, rear and/or close in it was deadly.  Unlike the German upgrades of the PzkwIV, however, the T-34/76 could not be "field modified" to hold the new gun as the turret had been totally redesigned.  Thus the T-34/85 was introduced through new production, and the existing T-34/76s remained in service to the end of the war.

The Russians were still looking for more firepower and heavier armor.  They introduced the JS (sometimes call IS - stands for "Joseph (Iosif) Stalin") heavy tanks.  At first they were armed with the 85mm gun, but were soon upgunned to hold first the 100mm, then finally the 122mm gun.  This very large gun was finally able to kill the heavy German tanks at range.  The JS-III was an up-armored version (same thickness as the King Tiger)introduced in 1945, but IIRC none saw action.

Russia also produced some turretless tank destroyers, but these were not used as often as the Germans were relying on their turretless tanks.  The SU-85 for example gained some measure of fame, but T-34s were usually in enough supply that true tanks remained the backbone of Russian armor.  Despite the heavy tank and TD introductions, most Russian tanks produced in late war continued to be the T-34/85.  This was their armored strategy -- produce a good tank, certainly not the best on the field, but produce a lot of them.  Overwhelm the enemy with numbers.  Being Russia, the losses didn't matter as long as in the end there were enough that it guaranteed a Russian tank would be the last one standing.

Germany, as I stated, had upgunned and somewhat up-armored the PzkwIV, ultimately to the H version we have in the game in 1944.  Panther and Tiger were already introduced.  Germany continued to try to use technological superiority to overcome the numeric inferiority, producing heavier tanks and Tank Destroyers (TigerII or King Tiger, JagdPanther (88mm gun), and JagdTiger (128mm gun!) for example).  In other posts you can find the "Maus" super-heavy tank, which was only experimental but is indicative of where the Germans were trying to go.

In the end, in most cases in the late war, a single German tank head-to-head with a Russian tank would win.  A fully upgraded PzkwIV would have a chance even vs. the T-34/85.  BUT -- it was never a one-on-one battle by that time.  Russian tank losses were always heavy in the armored duels of the late war, but they were replaced.  The numbers of German armor continued to decline in relation, and were ultimately overwhelmed.

Sorry for the sketchiness, but that is all the time I have for now.  

[indy007]

Back on the Western front, and in Africa, the Allied forces were learning how bad of an idea that a gasoline powered tanks could be. Simultaneously, they were preparing for a numbers war to fight off the German tactics of advancing armor across a very narrow front. In practice the German's did not often get to use these tactics against the Allies.

While Russia & Germany were locked in an arms racing trying to outmass each other's turretless tank destroyers, the US took a radically different approach. US designs were fast, manuverable, lightly armored, but most still retained a turret. The earliest was simply an M3 with a M1897 75mm gun, mounted on a limited traverse turret, stuck on the back. Some mounted guns heavy enough to require a counterweight on the back, which can be seen on the M10 Wolverine & M36 Jackson. The M18 Hellcat was probably closest to this ideal, with a great suspension, very fast top speeds, and a 76mm gun. In July 1944 M18s claimed 53 Panthers & Tigers for 17 losses. Yugoslavia still fielded M18s up until the early 1990s.

Many, many US infantry divisions had an attached tank destroyer battalion, and frequently a tank battalion also. In practice they were used interchangably, so they went to battle with under-gunned tanks, or under-armored tank destroyers. This lasted until the end of the war, and the arrival of the M26 Pershing heavy tank.

[E25280]

Quick notes on basic armored tactics. . .

Early German - mass your armor in armored (panzer) divisions.  Concentrate the divisions in one area, use them to shock your enemies and split the line.  Follow through with your armored reserves and mobile infantry to run roughshod over rear areas.  Let your slower footsoldiers move up to protect the flanks.  Main purpose is to surround and demoralize enemy, causing them to surrender, i.e. win by manouver.  (Thus the early victories despite inferior armor.)

Late German (after going on defensive) - still mass armor whenever possible.  Organize them into mobile fire brigades.  When the enemy attacks and is about to break through your infantry lines, send the mobile reserve to plug the gap.

Russian -- attack across a broad front with superior numbers.  Pull armor back from strong resistance and tie down the enemy with artillary fire.  Re-deploy armor to weaker areas of the line.  When a breakthrough has been acheived (unlike the Germans) -- turn against the flank and roll up the line.  Main purpose is to kill the enemy, i.e. win by brute force.

Early British and French -- Spread your tanks out.  Doctrine calls for direct support of infantry, almost WWI style.

Later British -- Armor becomes more concentrated, but never moves completely away from "infantry tanks" that are heavily armored, yet slow (see Matildas and Valentines).

American -- Schizophrenic.  Armor design and doctrine calls for the Sherman to be a direct close support tank to the infantry, with mobile anti-tank batalions to fight all tank v tank duels.  Army is heavily motorized to fight the same mobile warfare that gave Germans so many successes.  In practice, most American generals including Ike tend to advocate broad front strategies that use attrition to wear down and defeat the Germans.  Lack of "heavy tanks" makes US armor ill-suited for this type of warfare.

Notable exception is Patton, who subscribes to the mobile warfare and narrow thrust strategy.  Unlike German strategy, the breakthrough is acheived by infantry assault. After the breach, mobile infantry and armor pour through the gaps.  Like the early Blitzkriegs, Patton drives very quickly and very far into the enemy rear so the bypassed Germans become hopelessly cut off.  (One Third Army tanker once boasted "we hold the roads, the Germans hold the shoulders.")

[E25280]

Already described outright up-gunning of tanks.  Every nation did this.

Of course, redesigning, field modifying and at times outright developing larger, more powerful guns takes time.  A different approach would be to change the type of ammunition.

June of 1941 and Barbarossa found the Germans in 37mm and 50mm armed tanks going against thicker armored Russian opponents.  The smaller steel shot AP rounds would at times actually shatter against the thick Russian armor.  The Germans found that a solution was to use tungsten, which was more dense than steel and would not shatter.  However, a shot made from tungsten would be too heavy -- the gun breeches would blow out given the amount of propellant necessary.  They solved this by designing a round that had a tungsten core surrounded by lighter alloy metals.  The resulting shot, called AP40 or Arrowhead by the Germans (also known as HVAP or High Velocity Armor Piercing by the US, and APCR or Armor Peircing Composite Rigid by the Brits), was actually lighter than standard AP rounds, thus had a higher muzzle velocity.  Unfortunately, because of the poor weight to diameter ratio, the shot lost velocity much more quickly too.  Thus it was more deadly at close ranges, but at longer ranges the standard shot was actually better.  Also unfortunately for the Germans, tungsten was in short supply, so the special ammunition was never as available as they would have liked.

For the PzkwIVs that were still using the low velocity howitzer, the Germans developed a HEAT round (High Explosive Anti Tank).  HEAT is essentially a very large shape-charge weapon that channels the explosion down a narrow channel.  This essentially acts as a blowtorch that melts the armor and sends hot material and gasses inside the tank, killing the crew.  The obvious advantage of this round is that it does not depend on the velocity of the gun firing it, making it ideal for low velocity guns.  Eventually the US and Britain would develop their own HEAT rounds for their howitzers as well.

The Brits in 1944 introduced APDS, or Armor Peircing Discarding Sabot rounds, for their 6 pounder (57mm) and 17 pounder (76mm) guns.  The direct decendants of these rounds are still used today.  These were the first rounds that had a small, solid, dense core surrounded by a "sabot" that separates from the core as teh round leaves the muzzle.  Because the shot is light, the velocity is very high.  Because it loses the outer shell (unlike the AP40 round), it maintains excellent carrying power over range.  Because it is dense, it does not shatter.  The 17 pounder with the Sabot round even exceeded the Tiger II's 88mm gun in pure armor penetrating power.  The Brits by 1944 had mounted the 17 pounder on the Sherman chassis, creating the "Sherman Firefly".  This was in effect the deadliest tank destroyer in the field.

[OOZ662]

That's all the info I need; thanks greatly.

Now, to find images...

[MOIL]

Some great reads fellas:aok

Thanks for sharing with the community!

[indy007]

Originally posted by OOZ662
That's all the info I need; thanks greatly.

Now, to find images...

M3 destroyer


M18 Hellcat


M10 Wolverine (model, but real pics I found didn't show the open top)
Open top on a tank turret... not such a smart idea...


M26 Pershing, too late of an arrival to have a serious effect on WW2.