Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: dirt911 on April 16, 2009, 01:34:26 AM
-
it seems like a good tank
85 mm armour
76 mm cannon or 105 mm howitzer(optional)
speed 40 km/h
-
also
kv-8
76 mm cannon
90 mm armour 35 km/h
tiger 2
88 mm cannon
180 mm armour
38 km/h
IS-2
122 mm cannon
160 mm armour
42km/h
Panther G
75 mm long gun
110 mm armour
46 km/h
-
B-52H
Eight Pratt & Whitney engines TF33-P-3/103 turbofan engines
# The B-52 can carry 27 internal weapons. Authoritative sources diverge as to maximum munition loads, with some suggesting as many as 51 smaller munitions and 30 larger munitions, while others suggest maximum loads of 45 and 24, respectively. The Heavy Stores Adaptor Beam [HSAB] external pylon can carry only 9 weapons which limits the total carry to 45 (18 external).
# The AGM-28 pylon could carry lighter weapons like the MK-82 and can carry 12 weapons on each pylon, for a total of 24 external weapons, for a the total of 51. However, the AGM-28 pylon is no longer used, so the B-52 currently carries on HSABs, limiting the external load to 18 bombs, or a total of 45 bombs.
See? I can name random equipment too.
-
B-52H
Eight Pratt & Whitney engines TF33-P-3/103 turbofan engines
# The B-52 can carry 27 internal weapons. Authoritative sources diverge as to maximum munition loads, with some suggesting as many as 51 smaller munitions and 30 larger munitions, while others suggest maximum loads of 45 and 24, respectively. The Heavy Stores Adaptor Beam [HSAB] external pylon can carry only 9 weapons which limits the total carry to 45 (18 external).
# The AGM-28 pylon could carry lighter weapons like the MK-82 and can carry 12 weapons on each pylon, for a total of 24 external weapons, for a the total of 51. However, the AGM-28 pylon is no longer used, so the B-52 currently carries on HSABs, limiting the external load to 18 bombs, or a total of 45 bombs.
See? I can name random equipment too.
(http://www.mateerlabs.com/hooray.gif)
(http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/3914/taxidriver.gif)
Add the B-52!!1!!!!1!
wrongway
-
hey come on people have been wanting more tanks in the game for years atleast help
-
hey come on people have been wanting more tanks in the game for years atleast help
Then heres an idea: Put words like "It would be nice if we could get this, because...", and THEN put it in the RIGHT BLOODY FORUM!!! I'm getting REALLY tired of seeing posts where people just name a vehicle and post its stats, and leave it at that, no explanation as to why the **** they posted to begin with.
-
Then heres an idea: Put words like "It would be nice if we could get this, because...", and THEN put it in the RIGHT BLOODY FORUM!!! I'm getting REALLY tired of seeing posts where people just name a vehicle and post its stats, and leave it at that, no explanation as to why the **** they posted to begin with.
Now don't be so negative my minion. :D
What Serenity is getting at is; follow this example: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,262675.msg3265407.html#msg3265407 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,262675.msg3265407.html#msg3265407).
Ignore what the thread becomes. But, The Crossed Fox gives the best example of why anyone should care about what you want them to have some interest in. He shows a genuine interest and makes it so others will want to be interested too.
Don't care what others think? Then it's just a list.
wrongway
-
Now don't be so negative my minion. :D
What Serenity is getting at is; follow this example: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,262675.msg3265407.html#msg3265407 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,262675.msg3265407.html#msg3265407).
Ignore what the thread becomes. But, The Crossed Fox gives the best example of why anyone should care about what you want them to have some interest in. He shows a genuine interest and makes it so others will want to be interested too.
Don't care what others think? Then it's just a list.
wrongway
Holy crap that's one of the best wishes I have ever seen! I hope the kid gets it!
-
hey come on people have been wanting more tanks in the game for years atleast help
This topic has been talked about ,pontificated upon and ground into the ground so many times that scuzzy on more then 1 occasion has shut down the thread, mostly because of me.
The Sherman tank especially the 75mm armed version doesn't stand a chance in tank vs tank duels. Even the 76mm armed version won't be a world beater. Most guys who actually do a fair bit of gving would rather see something on the lines of a Panther. The Panther would or should be available in mw and lw just like the tiger, from a mw perspective it would give the gver something else to up instead of the Tiger that has the ability to kill tanks at range plus make the average gv battle a little more interesting. Should the Sherman be added????? I think so but down the road a bit. Turretless tanks have also been talked about with mixed opinions. I do think that they should be added. So what if there is no rotating turret, I'm sure that in no time at all there would be some very capable tank destroyers born that would give the turreted tanks a run for their money. It's all about learning the machine just like all the other planes and tanks in the game. The super uber tanks I think do not have a place in the game for some time. There are too many other tanks that would make battles a little more competitive.
I can just see it if the King Tiger was added. Some guy would up one at 3am in TT spend 2 hours climbing the hills getting into position over the spawn and then picking off every other tank that spawns in. Doesn't sound like fun at all.
-
I agree wholly and completely with BigPlay, the Tiger I has already made armored advanced difficult to blunt, just imagine what it would be like with the Tiger II aka King Tiger :t. Someone would spend the 2-3 hrs to climb all the hills just to flame some tanks until a lank comes and bombs the crap out of the SOB :cool:, it will completely throw off the ground combat aspect of this game As a group of even 2 or 3 will steam roller the defenses and roll over the base. it is like in the Israeli six day war, where two Challenger I (I think, but the Israel had bought 2 British tanks) destroyed an entire armored division or T64's, no mean feat as a full strength armored division totals 60 tanks, and not a single Challenger tank was lost, thank you western enginering :aok!!! :salute BigPlay
-
(http://www.mateerlabs.com/hooray.gif)
(http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/3914/taxidriver.gif)
Add the B-52!!1!!!!1!
wrongway
:lol
-FYB
-
I agree wholly and completely with BigPlay, the Tiger I has already made armored advanced difficult to blunt, just imagine what it would be like with the Tiger II aka King Tiger . Someone would spend the 2-3 hrs to climb all the hills just to flame some tanks until a lank comes and bombs the crap out of the SOB , it will completely throw off the ground combat aspect of this game As a group of even 2 or 3 will steam roller the defenses and roll over the base. it is like in the Israeli six day war, where two Challenger I (I think, but the Israel had bought 2 British tanks) destroyed an entire armored division or T64's, no mean feat as a full strength armored division totals 60 tanks, and not a single Challenger tank was lost, thank you western enginering !!! BigPlay
Those British tanks were probably Centurions, first came into service in May 1945, just too late to see action. They were still in service in some countries in the 90s.
-
Thank you baggy, it was the centurion!!! AWwrgwy and serenity, you guys crazy, you skiped like four bombers, I think the B52 is still in service today unless I'm thinking of a different bomber. That would be like me saying to add the F22, or the A10 :rofl!!! No offence :salute
-
Thank you baggy, it was the centurion!!! AWwrgwy and serenity, you guys crazy, you skiped like four bombers, I think the B52 is still in service today unless I'm thinking of a different bomber. That would be like me saying to add the F22, or the A10 :rofl!!! No offence :salute
Haha, yeah, no...
B52 is still in service and will remain to do so. With a 70,000lbs bomb load, its hard to say kick it cause its old; be like throughing a 70 year old who is protecting you with a 12 gauge shotgun, right out the window.
-FYB
-
Haha, yeah, no...
B52 is still in service and will remain to do so. With a 70,000lbs bomb load, its hard to say kick it cause its old; be like throughing a 70 year old who is protecting you with a 12 gauge shotgun, right out the window.
-FYB
It has a NOOK!!1!!!1!
No offence taken.
ADD TEH A-10!!!1!
wrongway
-
Hey BIGPLAy, it sound like a whole LOT of fun, lol.
My comparison after the m4 was introduced was the T-3475...., its gun is is very underpowerd, and it is almost useless accept that most field ack bounces off almost every part of it but the tracks.
I didnt believe it was fair (and I still dont) that the sherman be introduced in its uber configuration, when the T34 was not..
I still believe the thing isnt perked enough, and see the panther being introduced as yet another awsome german ride that would be highly perked, and yet be meat on the table to the likes of the sherman...
I say bring it up to date with more gv's, but adjust the perk cost accordingly....
Im reminded that the reason the f4uc is perked is to keep people from flying only that version of the plane, perhaps the Shermans short barreld little brother would have the same effect on gv'ing if it was introduced...?
-
I agree with Big Play, the M4 sherman will be to vulnerable to some of the biger tanks, sure it is the equivelant of the panzer IV aka panther, but I would rather have that than the sherman as they still fared better due to a more powerfull engine.
-
I agree with Big Play, the M4 sherman will be to vulnerable to some of the biger tanks, sure it is the equivelant of the panzer IV aka panther, but I would rather have that than the sherman as they still fared better due to a more powerfull engine.
The Panzer IV was also known as the Panzer IV. The Panther was the Panzer V.
Anyway... I think that more early war tanks would add to Scenarios and FSO's, which are continually adding more and more ground action, but constantly have to make sacrifices in substitution due to our anemic EW vehicle set.
-
Unless I am forgeting something, they never made a panzer seven, which would be the tiger II according to you, only a panzer VI (tigerII) and that would make the panzer V the tiger.
-
Indeed there was no Panzer VII (Loewe) built.
The Panzer VI Ausf. E was known as the Tiger I and the Panzer VI Ausf. B was known as the Tiger II according to what I've read. But the Panzer V was certainly the Panther, and earlier versions of the Panzer had no cat name.
We have the Panzer IV Ausf. H in game btw :)
-
Ok, thanks Motherland, I guse I was mistaken. thanks :salute
-
(http://www.mateerlabs.com/hooray.gif)
(http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/3914/taxidriver.gif)
Add the B-52!!1!!!!1!
wrongway
:rofl :rofl :rofl
Dirt I agree some of those tanks should be added, you might also want to include the production #.
-
If you want a western allies tank with some interesting specs, the Comet would be interesting.
40 mph with a gun similar to the Firefly. Armor somewhat similar too.
40 mph Firefly....bad :devil
-
Interesting spec. How does it translate to its effectiveness? Does it fly with that speed or what? :)
-C+
-
Ahh, I see my blunder. The Cromwell had 40 mph, but the Comet was geared down to 32 in order to be reliable on tracks. Still 17 hp for the tonne on a 33 ton tank. It's a mean one, heavier than a T-34 (26.5 tons), and equally fast.
The Cromwell however, with 40 mph would also be interesting. There you have something with perhaps the firepower of a T-34, but 40 mph. Hmmm. I always die in the first shot anyway :devil
-
I agree with charge, interesting is the best way to describe it's specs. One thing I would ask is how effective is that gun against some of the larger tanks such as the new soviet tank? another thing I would ask is that it says 102mm armor, does that mean it is evenly distributed or that that is the measurment in the front? If everything else is avarage then the only advantage I could see would be it's speed.
-
you guys are wrong there was a tank that could stand up to the king tiger
is-2 the big fat tank 122mm gun 160mm armour
its a good tank
-
Big baddie, and a potential tiger killer as well as an effective town destroyer. WOuld see useforsure.
I'd go for a 40 mph tank with a decent gun though. Or a 32mph tank with almost the same firepower as the Firefly....
-
If you want a western allies tank with some interesting specs, the Comet would be interesting.
40 mph with a gun similar to the Firefly. Armor somewhat similar too.
40 mph Firefly....bad :devil
It came very late and really didn't see much action, so it wouldn'tmeet the criteria of HT
-
The comet was in action in Germany in 1945 and did see combat.
The Cromwell (the 40 mph one) did see more combat. It's flaw (throwing of the tracks at high speed, which is why the later comet was restricted to 32 mph)) would not be modelled in AH....
Both valid.
-
It came very late and really didn't see much action, so it wouldn'tmeet the criteria of HT
It saw little, but big action.
-FYB
-
From the crossing of the Rhine until Berlin. Comets were in some (not big) numbers in the fights through Germany.
-
The comet was in action in Germany in 1945 and did see combat.
The Cromwell (the 40 mph one) did see more combat. It's flaw (throwing of the tracks at high speed, which is why the later comet was restricted to 32 mph)) would not be modelled in AH....
Both valid.
only a handful of comets saw action. There are too many other additions that are more valid then the comet.
-
For AH? For being used I mean.
Probably the JS, and the Panther would be Uber, since it's main flaw would not be modelled. Same goes with the Cromwell, It's faster than the T-34 with a 75mm gun, and same weight.
Apart from those, which?
-
"Panther would be Uber, since it's main flaw would not be modelled"
You got my attention -again. What is that flaw?
-C+
-
Same "area" as the Cromwell. Driving.
-
"Panther would be Uber, since it's main flaw would not be modelled"
You got my attention -again. What is that flaw?
-C+
What do you consider the Panther's main flaw?
-
It had severe maintenance and track problems. Basically an insanely cool tank, but the baby diseases were not ironed out, so in combat it had serious problems with reliability.
Just like the Cromwell, which had so much power and yet was as heavy as a T-34. It would be known to throw the tracks off, which is why the Comet was restricted to "only" 32 mph.
These are issues that would not appear in AH.
-
It had severe maintenance and track problems. Basically an insanely cool tank, but the baby diseases were not ironed out, so in combat it had serious problems with reliability.
Just like the Cromwell, which had so much power and yet was as heavy as a T-34. It would be known to throw the tracks off, which is why the Comet was restricted to "only" 32 mph.
These are issues that would not appear in AH.
Well, the only real problems that I have read about was transmission related. From my understanding Panther drivers were instructed on driving techniques to avoid transmission breakdowns. I know of now other maintenance issues regarding the Panther. The Panther was a dream to repair, engines could be removed and replace in just hours many other maintenance procedures. Most if not all of the Panthers teething problems were worked out by the G model, can you be more specific on problems.
-
ty stodd anyways well even though a tank didnt see a lot of action doesnt mean it didnt when the russian army deployed the tank the tiger 2 and is2 were pretty well on even hands armour wise yet to any other tank against an is2 would be totally helples as one option would be presented
RUN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Ok, Bigplay, - specific problems. From Wiki for a start.
- The inner road wheels were a pain to replace if needed.
Then this:
"The weakest parts in the tank were, throughout its career, the final drive units. The main reason was that the units could not be manufactured using hollow spur gears, due to the shortage of suitable gear-cutting machinery in Germany during the war. The final drives were in fact so weak that their fatigue life was sometimes as low as 150 km."
In Combat, notably the big one at Kursk:
"The Panther first saw action at Kursk on 5 July 1943. Early tanks were plagued with mechanical problems: the track and suspension often broke, and the engine was dangerously prone to overheating and bursting into flames. At Kursk, more Panthers were disabled by their own failings than by enemy action"
Those issues were tackled with and problems ironed out as well as could be done. But in AH, this would not be featured any more than the track problems on the Cromwell, so in AH, a 1943 Panther would be an evil tank with only one weakness, and the Cromwell an evil cruiser tank with it's 40 mph....
-
"Panther would be Uber, since it's main flaw would not be modelled"
"so in AH, a 1943 Panther would be an evil tank with only one weakness"
What is that weakness that would remain in game when you count out the reliability problems which would not/cannot be modeled?
It seems that the limitation of Cromwell's speed was not only reliability but more the limitations of Christie suspension, which, of course, was quite advanced for its time but even it could not cope with weight of a heavier tank. I'm sure that on the road it could have maintained 40mph but cross-country was a different matter due to much increased stresses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christie_suspension
-C+
-
See Rule #4
-
I touched a nerve?
Why do you not correct Wiki by the way?
Did you read the quotations?
What the problem was : "The main reason was that the units could not be manufactured using hollow spur gears, due to the shortage of suitable gear-cutting machinery in Germany during the war"
It's not the skill, it's not the design, it's the war. It's tool shortage.
The suspension also was a teaser in the beginning. It's called a teething problem, and is nothing that "ever so perfection-minded Germans" are immune to. The goal was speed and a smooth ride, and the Panther surely lived up to it's name in that department.
Doctrine? Field workshop vs crew repair. Make your choice, it's even debated today. The Leopard is rather like the Panther, and it's about as fine as it gets. Doesn't change the fact that the Panther had a bumpy beginning due to teething problems, which were cured as well as possible depending on the circumstances.
As for the weak point (Charge) its just side armour basically.
And the 109? AFAIK 5% lost in landing accidents, which is somewhat normal for the types and time. Never heard a claim with your figure DieHard. For a teaser though, Werner Mölders once quoted that the British fighters (Spitfire and Hurricane) were ridiculously easy to land. That is something for another thread.
Back to AH and tank wishes. IMHO the normal Shermy will be requested until it's there, nd it's a very little job, so why not. Maybe the freaky variants could then be added later.
The Panther is a must. Would be perked. Would shine in AH.
The JS, oh man, mean.
The Cromwell. Since the Comet was downgeared to fix the track problems, which would not be modelled anyway, the Cromwell would then have a place in AH. Later models had the same gun as the Comet anyway. Slightly less armoured than a Comet, with almost the firepower of a Firefly and 40 mph, what do you think?
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
-
See RUle #2
-
sure the tracks would be throne off at high speeds but in ww2 really tanks wouldnt have run that fast probably yet a governed and restricted speed level which was used on panther would fix its highest flaw
-
See Rule #2
-
Seems like I inadvertently hit a nerve. Sorry Angus, not my intention. I don't know who this "Izzy" person is, but you just keep ranting if you want to; won't make a bit of difference. I just hope I've brought a few tidbits of good valid information to counteract this thread's copious amount of rubbish.
Everyone should just read the previous M4 Sherman thread that I linked to. Everything was pretty much dealt with there.
-
See Rule #2
-
See Rule #2
-
Angus getting out of the closet... ;)
"As for the weak point (Charge) its just side armour basically."
Hmm, side armour of the Panther? Bad? Could you rather say that compared to front armour it IS bad and at the same time being almost as good as the side armour of any other late war tank?
If you have maximum permissible weight for a design where would you put most of it? Top, back, bottom, sides or .... maybe front?
If, say, in the late years of war it is seen that penetration of enemy tanks and AT weapons gets better and better, would it be more beneficial to scatter the weight of the armour all around the chassis or put more in front so that the side that is mostly towards enemy (or should be) would provide even some protection rather than practically none at all for all sides? As later in the war with those penetrations available the tanks could not afford the weight of the armour that would make them immune to latest AT rounds. Of course there were such designs but their field value was practically nil. So it is actually a design choice and I'm sure that were quite many German tank crews that were very thankful that there was that much steel between them and the enemy when all the schxxxxe hit the fan.
Look the brighter side of it Angus. If the Panther had a thick skin in all sides you could not kill it with your Cromwell/Comet (or what ever) no matter how high corner velocities you could develop by driving 40mph circles around and shooting such lumbering beast. :lol
I'm not sure where they put the weight in Cromwell but I would't feel too confident in it: http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger1.htm ;)
-C+
-
I am not pitting the Cromwell against the Panther, just pointing out how both would be nice in AH.
The Panther would be a fast killer. The Cromwell would be a very fast Town killer. Depends on the gun used though.
And their problems would not show in AH. Panther would be like a Tiger on steroids. And a Cromwell like a Firefly on steroids.
Anyway, getting to the subject of side armour, it was a common practice of the Allied tanks (being weaker in most occations) to flank and go for the sides. If you lob a good AP into the side of the Panther, it's a lot better than hitting the nasty sloped front. You may disable it's mobility, or penetrate. Didn't they incorporate extra hanging armour later on, or am I confusing it with another tank. Now it's not necessarily weak, it's just WEAKER than the very strong front. The heel of Achilles was every bit as strong as any other heel if you get my point.
The problem with the German armour seems to be of a totally different nature. It has nerves. Touch them and you get questioned with "trolling", or even having a thing about "the ever so perfect minded Germans". I had a lot of those straws thrown at me in the past from people that have ever so much less to do with Germans than I have. So DieHard, I touched your nerve by allowing myself to give some "idiotic" wiki points on the Panther, and the very civilized reply of course includes my inability to learn. Things such as this:
"I’m always amazed that people are so willing to believe some of these outlandish criticisms and actually believe that the German army would not have demanded a redesign of the suspension if it was that problematic. To think that the ever so perfection-minded Germans would have accepted a deficient suspension system on some of their most important weapons of war from 1942 to the end of the war is simply silly. This myth is as silly as the “one third of the 109’s were lost in landing accidents” myth."
This is a bit off...the real world. Enough for a whole thread. And reminds me of Izzy, which BTW was a 109 hot-head who could not bear a word of criticism of that fine fighter. I was frequently named a German hater back then, as well as inable to learn, or see the light. That's all.
Anyway, regarding the Panther and the Cromwell, I think both would be really great for AH. And a normal Shermie to add, would be a piece of cake for HTC.
-
What part of that quote is "off...the real world"? And what exactly do you mean by "off...the real world"?
Angus, seeing how English is not your first language, what do you think "perfection-minded" means? I see you misquoted me with "the ever so perfect minded Germans".
-
The real world of WW2 would now always allow you to put up perfect production. And the real world of Nazi Germany also would not necessarily take the perfect measures in many cases. It is a perfectly real thing. Rather perfection-minded. OOoops, perfect minded. Getting that mixed up would have gotten me shot had I been in the wrong place at the wrong time. And my German is even worse than my English. That's why it's bearable for me to read Wiki, because I cannot understand half of what's there anyway :devil
-
Angus, what do you mean by "this is a bit off...the real world"?
What part of this quote that you singled out from my post is "a bit off...the real world" ?
"I’m always amazed that people are so willing to believe some of these outlandish criticisms and actually believe that the German army would not have demanded a redesign of the suspension if it was that problematic. To think that the ever so perfection-minded Germans would have accepted a deficient suspension system on some of their most important weapons of war from 1942 to the end of the war is simply silly. This myth is as silly as the “one third of the 109’s were lost in landing accidents” myth."
What do you think "perfection-minded" means? Don't you think the Germans were perfection-minded?
Please answer my questions.
-
I am not pitting the Cromwell against the Panther, just pointing out how both would be nice in AH.
The Panther would be a fast killer. The Cromwell would be a very fast Town killer. Depends on the gun used though.
And their problems would not show in AH. Panther would be like a Tiger on steroids. And a Cromwell like a Firefly on steroids.
Anyway, getting to the subject of side armour, it was a common practice of the Allied tanks (being weaker in most occations) to flank and go for the sides. If you lob a good AP into the side of the Panther, it's a lot better than hitting the nasty sloped front. You may disable it's mobility, or penetrate. Didn't they incorporate extra hanging armour later on, or am I confusing it with another tank. Now it's not necessarily weak, it's just WEAKER than the very strong front. The heel of Achilles was every bit as strong as any other heel if you get my point.
The problem with the German armour seems to be of a totally different nature. It has nerves. Touch them and you get questioned with "trolling", or even having a thing about "the ever so perfect minded Germans". I had a lot of those straws thrown at me in the past from people that have ever so much less to do with Germans than I have. So DieHard, I touched your nerve by allowing myself to give some "idiotic" wiki points on the Panther, and the very civilized reply of course includes my inability to learn. Things such as this:
"I’m always amazed that people are so willing to believe some of these outlandish criticisms and actually believe that the German army would not have demanded a redesign of the suspension if it was that problematic. To think that the ever so perfection-minded Germans would have accepted a deficient suspension system on some of their most important weapons of war from 1942 to the end of the war is simply silly. This myth is as silly as the “one third of the 109’s were lost in landing accidents” myth."
This is a bit off...the real world. Enough for a whole thread. And reminds me of Izzy, which BTW was a 109 hot-head who could not bear a word of criticism of that fine fighter. I was frequently named a German hater back then, as well as inable to learn, or see the light. That's all.
Anyway, regarding the Panther and the Cromwell, I think both would be really great for AH. And a normal Shermie to add, would be a piece of cake for HTC.
If your referring to me as having less to do with Germans than you then you made another mistake...... I am first generation American, both my parents were from Europe, my mother from Germany and father from Holland. My father saw the German army first hand since his country was occupied for most of WW2 and my Mother lived through the bombing and the raping Russian hordes. I am not defending the Nazi regime and it's henchmen. However ALL of my relatives are still in Europe and I haveinsite from the common German and Dutch viewpoints about the war .This topic is on tanks so I will stick to the topic. Angus DieHard has provided some very comprehensive data that you seem to ignore. He shed light on both armor thickness and how German armor was stronger then allied armor, so the the thickness of German armor actually equates into thicker armor. All that I have read about the Panthers suspension was that it was on the cutting edge of tank design. It offered the smoothest ride for it's crew and offered them a super stable shooting platform while moving something that no allied tank had. It also had overlapping wheels offering layered protection in that area. Side skirt armor was there for hand held projectiles not for tank on tank battles. It was meant to detonate the projectile before reaching the tanks main armor. All late war German armor was designed with the Russian threat in mind. Standoff tank battles of the Russian steppes was what the Panther was designed for, side armor was not as important. Besides the Germans used their panzer grenadiers for flank protection for both enemy armor and infantry attacks. From a maintenance standpoint German tanks were not designed for field repair but field repair stations that were always placed just behind enemy lines. Maintenance was designed more on remove and replace then fix while their. No argument that the suspension was complex but like stated was not intended to be fixed in short order.
-
What do you think "perfection-minded" means? Don't you think the Germans were perfection-minded?
That depends. Do you mean to say that no other country is "perfection-minded?" Are you further saying that such "perfection-minded" people are above making any mistakes?
I think what Angus is trying to politely say is that you often come off as a Geman fanboi with comments such as this.
"Zee Germans vere too "perfektionminden" to haf any flawz in zeir dezeins."
The mechanical reliability of German armor under battlefield conditions was not up to par with the allied nations, and when they did break down, they were not as easy to repair in the field. I believe this is the gist of the commentary. There is no claim it makes them "failures" or "bad tanks." Not sure why all the defensiveness over the subject.
-
Fanboi? Is that a French word ?
:devil
Anyway, DieHard, E25280 (what a name) sort of answered my question.
And Bigplay:
"If your referring to me as having less to do with Germans than you then you made another mistake...... I am first generation American, both my parents were from Europe, my mother from Germany and father from Holland. My father saw the German army first hand since his country was occupied for most of WW2 and my Mother lived through the bombing and the raping Russian hordes. I am not defending the Nazi regime and it's henchmen. However ALL of my relatives are still in Europe and I haveinsite from the common German and Dutch viewpoints about the war"
Did I? If so I am sorry, although your statement may be wrong....unless you know more of me than I do ;) Interesting background though, so I guess we could go through many a beer with many many stories. BTW all of my relatives and most of my wife's relatives are also in Europe, and so am I. Her grandfather was a cavalryman in WWI, her other grandfather was an engineer in the Kriegsmarine. Her grandma once booked on the Wilhelm Gustloff, but luckily never got on board. Both are alive and well today, and willingly tell me their stories. That includes bombing and being a prisoner of the Red army. From my side then, some of those I know were involved in WW2, on both sides. Since I worked and lived in Germany there was also a lot I got to know. Not all stuff you would find in a book, nor could one live with it easily as a "Fanboi" Should we perhaps start a thread about the subject of how one relates to WW2? About friends/family etc, and how they connected with WW2, and all the twists of fate? I am game, and pretty sure there is lots to share.
Anyway, back to tanks. E25whatever: "The mechanical reliability of German armor under battlefield conditions was not up to par with the allied nations, and when they did break down, they were not as easy to repair in the field."
While this would perhaps be true in 1945, it was not so before. The British were stunned about the Panzers in N-Africa, since damaged tanks could often be fixed with bits from other tanks in the field, - that not necessarily the same model. Meanwhile, the British had a complete logistics nightmare with their own gear, - too many sorts and types and sub-types etc. But they learned from this, and the lesson was about complete in 1944 or so.
Here:
"There is no claim it makes them "failures" or "bad tanks." Not sure why all the defensiveness over the subject."
Exactly. and in AH even more markedly. No failing modelled.
-
That depends. Do you mean to say that no other country is "perfection-minded?"
First of all I don’t think Angus needs you to answer questions for him. Secondly, no I don’t think any other nation during WWII was so perfection-minded as Germany, with the possible exception of Japan.
Are you further saying that such "perfection-minded" people are above making any mistakes?
No, where did you get that?
Let me ask you this, do you think the German army would have accepted a so deficient suspension system that it was a “nightmare” (Angus’ word) to maintain on some of their most important weapons of war from 1942 to the end of the war? Don’t you think the German army would have demanded a redesign of the suspension if it was that problematic?
Would any army of any nation have accepted a suspension system for service if it was a “nightmare” for four years and not demanded it be redesigned?
I think what Angus is trying to politely say is that you often come off as a Geman fanboi with comments such as this.
"Zee Germans vere too "perfektionminden" to haf any flawz in zeir dezeins."
That’s not what I said. My post was a response to, among others, Angus’ claim that:
The biggest issue is probably the tracks and suspension. This is where the German Panther was a nightmare.
I responded with my rather longwinded post I recited earlier in this thread. However even after being corrected by several posters in the other thread Angus continue to propagate the inaccurate myths in this thread (and who knows how many others):
It had severe maintenance and track problems. Basically an insanely cool tank, but the baby diseases were not ironed out, so in combat it had serious problems with reliability.
You would think he had learned a thing or two in the old thread, so that’s why I consider him a troll.
The mechanical reliability of German armor under battlefield conditions was not up to par with the allied nations…
Complete and utter nonsense. Read the other thread.
-
Anyway, DieHard, E25280 (what a name) sort of answered my question.
No he did not.
Angus, what do you mean by "this is a bit off...the real world"?
What part of this quote that you singled out from my post is "a bit off...the real world" ?
"I’m always amazed that people are so willing to believe some of these outlandish criticisms and actually believe that the German army would not have demanded a redesign of the suspension if it was that problematic. To think that the ever so perfection-minded Germans would have accepted a deficient suspension system on some of their most important weapons of war from 1942 to the end of the war is simply silly. This myth is as silly as the “one third of the 109’s were lost in landing accidents” myth."
What do you think "perfection-minded" means? Don't you think the Germans were perfection-minded?
Please answer my questions. However, I don’t think you will answer them, because you’re just trolling, and trolls like you are the reason good informative threads are closed.
and in AH even more markedly. No failing modelled.
Try diving a Mossie or a Frank at high speed and see if the control surfaces fail. I wouldn’t be surprised if Hitech chooses to model track failures if you drove the tank too fast (downhill for example).
-
This one:
"I’m always amazed that people are so willing to believe some of these outlandish criticisms and actually believe that the German army would not have demanded a redesign of the suspension if it was that problematic. To think that the ever so perfection-minded Germans would have accepted a deficient suspension system on some of their most important weapons of war from 1942 to the end of the war is simply silly. "
The Germans designers frequently were ahead of the materials or tools or even technology available. And it was war. It was the real world...
You shout me out as a troller. What is this:
"Wikipedia is usually written by idiots who don't know better"
For one, rude.
-
You're still not answering my questions:
Angus, what do you mean by "this is a bit off...the real world"? Are you really unable to articulate your meaning?
What part of this quote that you singled out from my post is "a bit off...the real world" ? Are you really unable to point out what you think is ""a bit off...the real world"?
"I’m always amazed that people are so willing to believe some of these outlandish criticisms and actually believe that the German army would not have demanded a redesign of the suspension if it was that problematic. To think that the ever so perfection-minded Germans would have accepted a deficient suspension system on some of their most important weapons of war from 1942 to the end of the war is simply silly. This myth is as silly as the “one third of the 109’s were lost in landing accidents” myth."
If you think that quote is "a bit off...the real world" the please point out the errors.
What do you think "perfection-minded" means?
Don't you think the Germans were perfection-minded?
-
You shout me out as a troller. What is this:
"Wikipedia is usually written by idiots who don't know better"
For one, rude.
Unless you wrote that wiki-article then I was not rude to you.
-
I answered your question. Just try to understand the answer.
The REAL world is not a perfect world. A perfection minded designer may do his stuff easily in a perfect world, but not necessarily in the real one. Many a design in WW2 had that problem. Lots of teething problem and flops, which the perfection-minded Gerries were not immune to.
Now, to something different....or not. The Panther. I was looking at the overlapping wheels, partially because of them being a part of the armour. Then I was tempted to go surfing on google and wiki (I know, completely ignorant stuff...but...) and I could not find an heir to the Panther. None of today's tanks have that system as far as my 5 minutes showed me. But WHY? It looks good, forms a part of the armour, there is a claim that it's no worse in the field than other systems, it gave s superbly smooth ride etc at the time and so on. So why did the design die? Or didn't it?
-
I answered your question.
First of all I asked several questions, not just one, and you haven't answered any of them.
Secondly, not once did I mention "German designers", I was talking about the German army and the German people as a whole.
So, what do you mean by "this is a bit off...the real world"? Are you really unable to articulate your meaning?
What part of this quote that you singled out from my post is "a bit off...the real world" ? Are you really unable to point out what you think is ""a bit off...the real world"?
"I’m always amazed that people are so willing to believe some of these outlandish criticisms and actually believe that the German army would not have demanded a redesign of the suspension if it was that problematic. To think that the ever so perfection-minded Germans would have accepted a deficient suspension system on some of their most important weapons of war from 1942 to the end of the war is simply silly. This myth is as silly as the “one third of the 109’s were lost in landing accidents” myth."
If you think that quote is "a bit off...the real world" the please point out the errors.
What do you think "perfection-minded" means?
Don't you think the Germans were perfection-minded?
The Panther suffered from the same fate as most German equipment of WWII: Germany lost the war. Why would the companies of the victorious allies promote any other piece of engineering and weaponry than their own? Of course they didn't. The French were the only ones who turned down the Americans' offer of more M4 Shermans and Pershings, and rather salvaged and repaired some 50 Panthers, which they used until they could develop better tanks themselves. The Panther served with the French army into the 1950's.
-
Fanboi? Is that a French word ?
:devil
Anyway, DieHard, E25280 (what a name) sort of answered my question.
And Bigplay:
"If your referring to me as having less to do with Germans than you then you made another mistake...... I am first generation American, both my parents were from Europe, my mother from Germany and father from Holland. My father saw the German army first hand since his country was occupied for most of WW2 and my Mother lived through the bombing and the raping Russian hordes. I am not defending the Nazi regime and it's henchmen. However ALL of my relatives are still in Europe and I haveinsite from the common German and Dutch viewpoints about the war"
Did I? If so I am sorry, although your statement may be wrong....unless you know more of me than I do ;) Interesting background though, so I guess we could go through many a beer with many many stories. BTW all of my relatives and most of my wife's relatives are also in Europe, and so am I. Her grandfather was a cavalryman in WWI, her other grandfather was an engineer in the Kriegsmarine. Her grandma once booked on the Wilhelm Gustloff, but luckily never got on board. Both are alive and well today, and willingly tell me their stories.
You sure you don't want to edit your statement? My Grandfather (mothers) was also in WW1 and WW2, he died back in the 70's If your wifes Grandfather is still alive he would have to be in his 100's. I believe that there are 1-3 WW1 vets still alive in this country .
-
DieHard, you die...hard.
Here:
""I’m always amazed that people are so willing to believe some of these outlandish criticisms and actually believe that the German army would not have demanded a redesign of the suspension if it was that problematic. To think that the ever so perfection-minded Germans would have accepted a deficient suspension system on some of their most important weapons of war from 1942 to the end of the war is simply silly. This myth is as silly as the “one third of the 109’s were lost in landing accidents” myth."
If you think that quote is "a bit off...the real world" the please point out the errors."
It's one big error. Or would you rather have it from the E-guy:
"Zee Germans vere too "perfektionminden" to haf any flawz in zeir dezeins
In the real world of WW2, designers frequently designed things that could not be manufactured properly due to the circumstances. Is that simple enough or are you going to repeat the question?
-
I guess people are going to just base all their opinions on wiki and wiki alone, Even after all that information that DieHard provided their sticking with the reliability factor of German armor. I have read many fist hand books from former German tank commanders, I would consider them to have first hand knowledge of how their machines worked better than any second of third hand source. May I suggest reading Will Fey's book " panzer battles on the eastern front" or Otto Carrius's book "Tigers in the mud"or Ernst Barkmann's chapters in "SS Panzer battles at Normandy "
Not one of those or any other tank commander had any complaints with the Tiger, or Panther past the D model as far as reliability went that I have read. Otto Carrius did mention that he felt that the Jadgtiger was a waste of Germany's resources but had nothing but praise for the Tiger. Ernst Barkmann loved the Panther and felt that it was superior to anything the allies had. I just am passing along what I have read. Now some people are still going to dispute what they said and make stupid comments like " what else do you expect a nazi to say" but with anything written about history if there are first hand accounts about any subject I consider that to be gospel over some authors opinion.
Thery had a episode on Tank Rebuilders and I know there are a few different shows but one was on restoring a Comet. These guys were actually British that were rebuilding it and many times throught the show were complaining about how poorly the thing was designed as far as maintance and repairs were concerned, once again first hand.
-
DieHard, you die...hard.
Here:
""I’m always amazed that people are so willing to believe some of these outlandish criticisms and actually believe that the German army would not have demanded a redesign of the suspension if it was that problematic. To think that the ever so perfection-minded Germans would have accepted a deficient suspension system on some of their most important weapons of war from 1942 to the end of the war is simply silly. This myth is as silly as the “one third of the 109’s were lost in landing accidents” myth."
If you think that quote is "a bit off...the real world" the please point out the errors."
It's one big error. Or would you rather have it from the E-guy:
"Zee Germans vere too "perfektionminden" to haf any flawz in zeir dezeins
In the real world of WW2, designers frequently designed things that could not be manufactured properly due to the circumstances. Is that simple enough or are you going to repeat the question?
The E-guy at one time had me fooled into believing he had some better than average tank warfare knowlege but as of late has become more opinion than fact. He needs to start backing his statements up with something other then wiki info.
-
I also googled. Same results, and always the same quote from Guderian. So I guess we are both outlandish and non-perfection minded, and bringing up things from google is just ... stupid and further underlines my inability to learn. Or should I say....see the light?
Anyway, seriously, since I stumbled across it, why has the Panthers superb wheel/track/suspension system of overlapping wheels not been adapted by modern tanks?
-
I also googled. Same results, and always the same quote from Guderian. So I guess we are both outlandish and non-perfection minded, and bringing up things from google is just ... stupid and further underlines my inability to learn. Or should I say....see the light?
Anyway, seriously, since I stumbled across it, why has the Panthers superb wheel/track/suspension system of overlapping wheels not been adapted by modern tanks?
Nobody is using WW2 allied tank suspension or wheel layout either. They are however using the independent track system that the panther was the first to employ . Guderian was a tactician not a tank commander. I heard no complaints from Rommel and he had command of the French coastal protection during Normandy. If I had my choice I'd put my money on Rommel rather then Guderian. Take it easy , I never said you had a learning disorder. Cant we just agree that we disagree, I'm not taking it personal.
-
It is pointless BigPlay. Angus is just trying to push your buttons; he deliberately posts inaccurate information hoping it will rile someone into an augment. Then he dances around the subject posting more inaccurate information while disregarding any attempt at correction. He avoids any direct questioning which can decide the argument because he has no answer and it is not in his interest to resolve the argument, but to keep it going. He will continue to try and agitate you until you lose your temper and do something that catch the attention of the moderators; just like in the other thread. Soon enough someone will mention how evil the Nazis or SS were and this thread will end like the other.
Angus calls it "teasing", I call it by its proper name: Trolling.
He is good at it though. I'll give him that.
-
It is pointless BigPlay. Angus is just trying to push your buttons; he deliberately posts inaccurate information hoping it will rile someone into an augment. Then he dances around the subject posting more inaccurate information while disregarding any attempt at correction. He avoids any direct questioning which can decide the argument because he has no answer and it is not in his interest to resolve the argument, but to keep it going. He will continue to try and agitate you until you lose your temper and do something that catch the attention of the moderators; just like in the other thread. Soon enough someone will mention how evil the Nazis or SS were and this thread will end like the other.
Angus calls it "teasing", I call it by its proper name: Trolling.
He is good at it though. I'll give him that.
That's really the problem with posting, when you do post something in rebuttal people start piling on to incite some reaction. This as most treads are is nothing more then political banter. God forbid someone actually bringing some pertainant info to the table without it turning into a total waste of time. A big fat <S> to you for your time and knowledge in regards to this and past tank related subjects. I actually learned something from you rather then polishing up on my debating skills with the other misinformed posters.
-
You too BigPlay <S!>
-
Do the two of you need some alone time?
:D
-
The Germans never even considered repairing a wheel or maintaining the suspension on the battle field. What you seem to lack is a general understanding of the difference between German and Allied/Soviet doctrine. The Soviets, Britons and Americans designed their tanks so that a farm boy could fix them in the field, often compromising quality and weight in the process. The Germans designed their tanks to be as good as they could make them, obviously negating the “farm boy” factor, but made them so they could easily be repaired and maintained at a field shop.
On a more serious note, this is the part I don't understand. If you admit that the Germans engineered their equipment to the extent that they could not be repaired and maintained in the field, but rather needed to be towed back to a repair depot -- then how can you object to the characterization that they were de facto more difficult to maintain in the field?
IIRC, soon after the M-16 was introduced, it was fairly well disliked because of the time and care needed to keep it clean and in proper firing condition. This was especially true when compared to the communists' weapon of choice, the AK-47, which as the joke went, fired better when crusted in mud.
Similarly, when compared to the simpler/more rugged/"farm boy friendly" Allied tanks, the German armor was more difficult to maintain in the field.
It would seem to be an accurate statement to me.
-
BigPlay:
Nobody is using WW2 allied tank suspension or wheel layout either. They are however using the independent track system that the panther was the first to employ . Guderian was a tactician not a tank commander. I heard no complaints from Rommel and he had command of the French coastal protection during Normandy. If I had my choice I'd put my money on Rommel rather then Guderian. Take it easy , I never said you had a learning disorder. Cant we just agree that we disagree, I'm not taking it personal.
Oh. Torsion bar is the word on both the Leopard and the M1, same goes with the T-72, but the Brits have gone other ways. Now the single wheel layout seems to be the norm, while I fail to find the double system of the Panther on any post war tank of some merit.
Now, the Horstmann system, so well probed on the Centurion is still in combat use. Introduction: 1922.
Guderian now. Was he not a tank commander? Hello? Anyone there? You are talking about the master of the blitzkrieg, basically one of the architects, and he frequently operated as the leader in the campaign of the new panzer warfare. He did not earn the name "quick Heinz" for sitting behind a desk. This is also the very person who tried to persuade Hitler NOT to take a "southern swing" in the Russian campaign in 1941 due to the logistics and seasonal problems involved, - now who was right?
IMHO, discarding Guderian as a mere "Tactician" is rather wrong. Rommel was smart and IMHO in the same category, but both of them lived....in the real world. Not the perfect one.
BigPlay, a tad more:
"Take it easy , I never said you had a learning disorder. Cant we just agree that we disagree, I'm not taking it personal."
I never claimed you did. That's from DieHard. I'd rather not mix you together, for although you share your opinions, there is a difference of the approach. Nothing personal here M8, and I re-state that we probably should start a swap-story thread.
DieHard gives me the honour of being a "good" troller. In the same line he accuses me of "inaccurate information", "more inaccurate information", and "disregarding any attempt at correction". My plan is apparently to make people blow their top, and get them under the banning hammer.
I do fail to see the corrections though, but I do see unsupported claims about my wiki-ish sources being wrong. However, a quick browse does not give me much mistakes from my behalf, except the blunder of mixing up the max speeds of the Comet and the Cromwell. 40 - 32. Very close to the beginning and end of the Panther. If you can trust Wiki.....
-
Don't bite.
-
Nibble?
Anyway, today I am particularly concerned with design flaws and teething problems, since it so happens that I operate a machine which is the first in it's production line, and riddled with little errors that tend to stop me in the field. Once all things have been learned and problems fixed, it's a fine machine.....
-
NM, not worth it.
-
I dont think you can compare a rifle to a tank. Be that as it may the M-16 was launched as a rifle that never needed cleaning, "believe it or not". So troops either didnt clean them or cleaned them with the lousy cleaning materials issued to them. Add to that early 5.56 ammo used dirty burning, high spiking, ball powder that can really foul up a rifle. Most of all an auto-rifle with such tight tolerances....you see the problem?
And lastly, to add to the perfect storm, Army brass hated the idea of a Gee-whiz kid, space age plastic battle rifle chambered in a squirrel hunting cartridge. The brass were more then happy to set the rifle up for failure.
Once proper cleaning tools and procedures were adopted the rifle did fine. And today its the premier rifle in the field. With proper lubes you can even fire it dirty as long as you keep the contact points/bolt assembly lubed with the right stuff.Since I started using FP-10 Ive never had a problem.
On a more serious note, this is the part I don't understand. If you admit that the Germans engineered their equipment to the extent that they could not be repaired and maintained in the field, but rather needed to be towed back to a repair depot -- then how can you object to the characterization that they were de facto more difficult to maintain in the field?
IIRC, soon after the M-16 was introduced, it was fairly well disliked because of the time and care needed to keep it clean and in proper firing condition. This was especially true when compared to the communists' weapon of choice, the AK-47, which as the joke went, fired better when crusted in mud.
Similarly, when compared to the simpler/more rugged/"farm boy friendly" Allied tanks, the German armor was more difficult to maintain in the field.
It would seem to be an accurate statement to me.
Anyway Im off topic. So I'll quit.
-
I agree that the rifle/tank comparison is overly simplistic, but it is also outright wrong. The T-34 was by far more prone to breakdowns than the Panther and required more labor intensive maintenance. If the rifle/tank comparison had any merit the Vietnam-era AK-47 would have to jam a lot more than the M-16, but be easier to clear. This was not the case.
Again I recite from one of my posts in the other tank thread:
All tanks have teething problems that only become apparent when the tank is tested in combat, and the Panther was no different. However, generally speaking most WWII tank designs had their worst bugs fixed after about six months. Combat vehicles also tend to get bad reputations if they have particularly bad teething problems. The early M4’s suffered from engine reliability issues and that nasty ammo storage problem that more often than not killed the crew if the tank was hit. As a result the Sherman got a bad rep on both sides of the front; the Germans nicknamed it the “Tommy coocker” (Tommy being their nickname for the British), and the British called it the "Ronson" (cigarette lighter). This was based on the Ronson Company's famous slogan, "lights first time, every time." After the ammunition storage had been redesigned the bad reputation was no longer deserved, but even to this day British (and many American) WWII tankers will attest to having little or no confidence in the Sherman.
A not well known fact is that the T-34 suffered serious teething problems with its transmission and engine. Tracks would also wear out very fast and many crews carried spare tracks over the hull to provide fast repairs (but also because Soviet logistics was unable to ship them in time). In addition, many of the vital parts of the T-34 proved to be poorly manufactured: The air filters were too poor and let dust inside the engine, rapidly wearing it down. The transmission was prone to breaking down and clutches were weak. Maximum theoretical speed was rarely achievable under normal conditions, and the T-34 required a major engine overhaul after less than 100 hours of use. Things became better when a new transmission was introduced in 1943, but as I noted earlier the T-34 was easy to repair … but it needed to be. However, because the T-34 literally saved the Soviet Union from defeat in December 1941 and outclassed all German tanks in this period of the war, the T-34’s success outshines its early problems and it got a good reputation from the start.
The Panther Ausf. D really wasn’t ready for service in July 1943 when it was thrown into the cauldron of the Battle of Kursk. Engine and transmission were prone to breaking down and there were numerous other problems. This gave the Panther a bad reputation of mechanical unreliability that would stick to the vehicle for some time. Problems were experienced with blown head gaskets. As advised by Dr. Ferdinand Porsche, this was corrected by installing copper rings pressed into grooves to seal the heads of Maybach HL 230 P30 motors starting with serial number 8321466 in September 1943. Other modifications were introduced at the same time including improved coolant circulation inside the motor and a reinforced membrane spring installed in the fuel pump. In November 1943, starting with Maybach HL230 P30 motor number 8322575, the governor was already set at the factory for a maximum rpm of 2500 rpm under full load and the motors were outfitted with a hand operated temperature control on the oil cooler. Overheating was overcome by fitting a second cooling pump and modifying the cooling distribution. Later Panthers proved very much more reliable than the vehicles involved in the Kursk debacle.
Before the fixes were implemented the Panther Ausf. D had an appalling 35% operational readiness. However with the introduction of the Ausf. A two months later the op. readiness rose to 65% and by early spring 1944 it had risen to more than 80%. After the D-Day landings the Panter’s readiness level would again drop to below 50%, but that was a result of the increasingly desperate supply situation. Something as simple as a worn out air filter would ground a Panther because the spare parts simply didn’t reach the front.
Production of the Ausf. D merged into that of the Ausf. A, with many of the changes associated the Ausf. A actually introduced on late production Ausf. Ds, while others were not immediately introduced. The new cupola can be found on late Ausf Ds, while the machine gun ball mount was not present on all Ausf As until later in 1943.
The Panther may have had a rougher debut than most other tanks of its time, but with the correction of the production-related mechanical difficulties, the Panther became highly popular with German tankers and a fearsome weapon on the battlefield. While the Panther was initially intended to only equip one tank battalion per Panzer division, by June 1944 it accounted for nearly half of German tank strength on both the eastern and western fronts.
-
LoL, Die Hard, how long did it take you to write all that? But in all seriousness, I agree, you CAN NOT compare a rifle to a tank with ANY accuracy. That would be like me comparing an anti tank weapon with an aircraft, or an anti tank weapon with an infantry man' weapon or maby his training....kinda, I'm not sure if anything can match that comparison. And E25280, you say the Allied Sherman was easier to maintain, while that is true, they were also under powered, under armed, and under armored. A captured German officer once said that it would take 6 allied tanks to knock out one tiger, and a Tigers gun could knock out a Sherman at ranges the Sherman had NO hope of killing the Tiger at.
-
All true.
The Shermie is was more of a multi-purpose machine though (look at all the variants), it could be landed on a beach, and would drive very long on one set of tracks.
I've seen a Shermie trying to cross a steep sand ridge and it's performance there was not impressive. But it was the normal one. (narrow tracked). However, it would always just start and drive, that old one.
But an LVT, that one rocks in sand!
-
LoL, Die Hard, how long did it take you to write all that?
This time it was mostly cut and paste, but when I originally wrote it it took... a while. ;)
-
Perhaps Ernst Barkmann's exploits in 1944 France are better able to convey the merits of the Panther than any statistic or comparison of numbers. His story also aptly describes how the Germans went about repairing and maintaining their tanks (I've marked these passages in bold):
In late 1943, Ernst Barkmann was promoted to the rank of SS-Unterscharfuhrer. In early 1944, the entire division was transferred to Bordeaux area in southern France for rest and refitting as a panzer division. Following the D-Day (June 6 of 1944), 2nd SS Panzer Division Das Reich was ordered to move northwards and was committed to battle.
In early July of 1944, Das Reich was moved to Saint Lo to halt the advance of the US Army's 9th and 30th Infantry Divisions and the 3rd Armored Division. On July 8th, Barkmann's Kompanie was a spearhead of Regiment's attack on the advancing American units. On this day, Ernst Barkmann knocked out his first Allied Sherman tank near St.Lo. On July 12th, he destroyed two more Shermans while disabling the third one. During that engagement Barkmann moved his camouflaged Panther to ambush position and awaited for more Allied armor, knocking out three Shermans. After that Ernst Barkmann's tank was hit by an anti-tank gun which caused a fire. He decided to evacuate his burning Panther and along with his crew he quickly put out the fire. After that engagement his Panther ended up in the workshop for repairs. After a day of rest, in morning of July 14th, Barkmann was ordered to recover four Panthers that had been cut off behind enemy lines. He succeeded in his task and added three more Shermans to his score.
On the same day at noon, Ernst Barkmann was ordered by the Regimental Commander SS-Obersturmbannfuhrer Tychsen to recover wounded German soldiers from their American captors. Once again he succeeded and in the evening his own Panther was returned to him from the workshop. On July 26th, Barkmann's Panther suffered from engine problems and was sent to the field workshop. While the mechanics were working on it, the field workshop was attacked by Allied fighter-bombers and Barkmann's Panther was hit in the engine compartment. By dawn of July 27th, his Panther was repaired but he was cut off from the rest of the Kompanie and was on his way to rejoin it.
On his way back, near the village of Le Lorey, Barkmann was stopped by retreating German infantrymen who reported that the Americans were closing in. Ernst Barkmann decided to send two of his men to verify that report. They soon returned with news of an American column made up of some 15 Shermans and other vehicles approaching. Barkmann then moved his tank up the road to the crossroad where he positioned his Panther in the surrounding oak trees, awaiting the enemy. When the American column approached, Ernst Barkmann opened fire, knocking out the two leading tanks and then a tanker truck. Two Shermans tried to go around the burning wreckage that blocked the road and one of them was knocked out followed by the other one seconds later. In response, the Americans retreated and called up tactical fighter support and Barkmann's Panther was damaged with some of the crew members wounded. Using the element of surprise two Shermans attacked wounded Panther but were also knocked out. Barkmann and his crew repaired their Panther and knocked out single Sherman while retreating. His driver managed to move their damaged Panther to safety in the nearby village of Neufbourg. During that brave engagement often called "Barkmann's Corner", Ernst Barkmann destroyed approximately nine Sherman tanks and many other vehicles.
(http://www.achtungpanzer.com/images/panter6.jpg)
On July 28th, Barkmann reached Coutances and joined the rest of his Kompanie. During two day period, he destroyed fifteen Shermans and several other vehicles. On July 30th, the Americans surrounded Granville but Barkmann towing one more damaged Panther was able to break out. In order to destroy their disabled Panther their crew decided to set it on fire and soon by mistake both Panthers caught fire. Both crews were forced to make their way to the German lines 7 kilometers away on foot. Barkmann reached Avranches on August 5th, and was warmly welcomed by his comrades who heard about his exploits. For his bravery and skills Ernst Barkmann was recommended for the Knight's Cross which was accepted on August 27th, and was awarded on September 5th.
SS-Oberscharfuhrer Barkmann continued his successful career and took part in the Ardennes Offensive in December of 1944, where on December 25th he was seriously wounded. During the Ardennes Offensive, Barkmann's Panther drove into a group of American tanks from the 2nd Armored Division. Quickly combat ensued and though outnumbered Barkmann managed to knock out a few Sherman tanks. One Sherman rammed Barkmann's Panther but didn't cause much damage although both tanks got stuck and Panther's engine stalled. After few minutes, Barkmann's mechanic managed to restart the engine and the Panther retreated with a jammed turret. Even with the damage, Barkmann knocked out the Sherman that was pursuing him and retreated to safety.
In March of 1945, Barkmann was once again fighting the Soviets in the area around the town of Stuhlweissenburg, where he knocked out four T-34s and brought the total score of the Das Reich Division for the war so far to 3000 enemy tanks destroyed. At the time Das Reich was exhausted by non-stop fighting and lack of replacement tanks. Barkmann's unit alone had only nine fully operational vehicles from which three were soon lost to Soviet Josef Stalin tanks. The remaining six Panthers were ordered to link up with the remnants of the Panzer Regiment of the 1st SS Panzer Division Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler commanded by SS-Standartenfuhrer Jochen Peiper. By April of 1945, Barkmann saw action south of Vienna during the fighting in Austria. There his Panther was accidentally hit by friendly fire and Barkmann along with his crew members were wounded. Later on his Panther was disabled in a huge bomb crater and was destroyed by its crew. Ernst Barkmann was able to reach the British zone of operations where he surrendered and was taken captive.
During his very successful career, Ernst Barkmann earned Knight's Cross for his bravery and skills along with the Panzer Assault Badge for 25 and 50 engagements with the enemy. He survived the war and lives in Kisdorf, Germany, where he for most of his postwar years served as the fire chief and also as mayor.
-
Reminds one of the other guy in his Tiger at the Bocage. What was his name again..
-
This is part of a 1943 Allied intelligence bulletin on German army organization (more accurate and detailed descriptions can be found in postwar publications, but should not be posted here for reasons of copyright):
GERMAN TANK MAINTENANCE AND RECOVERY
1. INTRODUCTION
The German Army attaches the utmost importance to the effective maintenance and prompt recovery of vehicles. In the German armored divisions, each tank company, battalion, and regimental headquarters has a repair section. Moreover, each tank regiment is provided with a workshop company consisting—for a regiment of six companies—of a headquarters platoon, 1st and 2d (repair) platoons, 3d (recovery) platoon, an armory section, workshops for communications equipment, and a company supply section. Larger regiments may be given added strength. According to pre-war organization, a tank regiment of three battalions had—in addition to its workshop company—a light workshop platoon. Although little information about the workshop platoon has been available since 1940, it is believed that the strength of the unit has been increased.
2. DUTIES OF UNITS
a. Repair Sections
Repair sections are responsible for the general maintenance of tanks, their armament, and their radio apparatus.
In camp and rest areas, a repair section checks the serviceability of vehicles in the unit to which it is attached; during this period, mechanics are sent to the workshop company for advanced training, or else master mechanics are brought in to give instruction.
On the march, repair sections travel with the tank units and deal with all vehicle or equipment breakdowns that can be repaired with field equipment and in less than 4 hours. If a tank breaks down, the repair section leader inspects it to determine the nature of the damage. If the damage warrants it, the tank is handed over to the recovery platoon of the workshop company to be towed away. Otherwise, two mechanics with a motorcycle and sidecar stay with the tank to make repairs, while the other elements of the repair section travel in the rear of the column—if possible, on higher ground, from which they can spot breakdowns. In this way, one vehicle after another of the repair section stays behind—ordinarily the motorcycles, but if the damage is serious, a converted PzKw I tank without turret or armament. The repair section truck always stays with the repair vehicle left farthest to the rear.
In battle, the company repair sections are under the order of the battalion commander and are directed by a battalion motor-transport officer. On the march, they follow closely behind the fighting units and range over the battle area, looking for broken-down tanks. If a tank cannot be repaired on the spot, it is made towable, and its position is reported to the workshop company's recovery platoon.
Repair sections are not allowed to undertake the welding of armor gashes longer than 4 inches. In battle, the regimental headquarters repair section is attached to a battalion.
b. Workshop Companies
(1) General.—The workshop company operates as far as 15 to 20 miles behind the fighting tanks of its regiment, except that the recovery platoon works in the battle area, mainly to tow out disabled tanks. The workshop company handles repair jobs which take up to 12 hours. Repair jobs requiring up to 24 hours are sent back to rear repair bases.
The workshop company has its own power and light system, power tools, a crane, and apparatus for electric welding and vulcanizing. Existing facilities on the spot, such as factories, are used whenever possible.
(2) Tank Recovery Platoon.—According to information received from prisoners of war, the towing vehicles and trailers of the recovery platoon are sent forward to regimental headquarters and operate under its direction. The current method is to send two or three recovery vehicles forward with the fighting units. These vehicles advance in the line of attack and cruise across the width of the battle front. The Germans believe that hostile forces will be preoccupied with the German tanks and therefore will not attack the recovery vehicles, even when they come very close.
If a member of a tank crew orders the driver of a recovery vehicle to tow his tank to the rear, the former assumes responsibility for the action (in case it should later prove that the damage was unimportant and could have been fixed on the spot by a repair section). It is always permissible, however, to request that a damaged vehicle be towed away if it is in danger of being shot up.
The towing vehicle usually goes forward alone, and tows a disabled tank away by tow ropes. Towing is used in preference to loading on a trailer. A prisoner of war explains that in the North African desert the latter operation may take as long as 20 minutes—and time is precious in front-line recovery. Prisoners state that trailers are being used less and less and that their use is confined chiefly to roads. On roads a higher speed can be maintained, and the trailers neither cut up the road surfaces nor weave as much as a towed tank. In roadless parts of the desert, trailers are resorted to where the ground is bad, and towing is done where the ground affords reasonably good going.
The recovery platoon is not given the whole responsibility for the important work of salvaging tanks. In case of retirement, the Germans use combat tanks to tow disabled tanks. Instances have been reported in which, even during battles, combat tanks have been employed both to protect towing operations and to assist in the towing.
Recovered tanks are towed to an assembly point behind the combat area. Trailers may be used to take the disabled tanks from the assembly point to a workshop company.
According to prisoners of war, the drivers of recovery vehicles have done front-line duty for about 8 days at a time, and then worked at the rear, between assembly points and workshops. One prisoner who had been a driver reported that he usually had a crew of two unskilled men with him. It was his opinion that skill was not so necessary as a fair amount of intelligence and plenty of courage.
c. Light Workshop Platoon
A German document from North Africa gives detailed instructions for organizing a workshop platoon in a two-battalion tank regiment (which normally would not have this unit). In this case, a good illustration of how flexible German organization can be, personnel was obtained for the platoon by breaking up the battalion headquarters repair sections of the two battalions. This platoon was smaller than the workshop platoon designated by the pre-war organization for a tank regiment of three battalions, and was to operate in place of the battalion headquarters repair sections, under direct regimental command. The platoon was to serve as a link between the workshop company and the company repair sections. Like the latter, it would handle work requiring less than 4 hours. In attack, it would follow the central axis of advance, keeping in close touch with the workshop company's recovery platoon.
The light workshop platoon was to work on brakes, gears, and clutches of PzKw II's; on damaged gear-mechanisms of PzKw III's; and on valve defects in all types of truck and tank engines, except PzKw III's and PzKw IV's. Also, the platoon was to repair electrical and fuel systems; salvage and tow wheeled vehicles; repair wheeled vehicles; perform autogene welding and soldering work; and charge and test batteries and electrical apparatus.
-
Oh, Wittmann it was.
Anyway, did anyone hear of this Sherman guy:
"Lafayette G. Pool was born on July 23, 1919, on a farm in Odem, Texas. He graduated from high school in Taft, Texas in 1938. He attended an all boys Catholic Academy where he graduated as class valedictorian. Afterwards, he enrolled in Texas, A and I College, as an engineering major. He left college to enlist in the Army on June 13, 1941. He took basic training at San Antonio, Texas, and then was sent to Camp Beauregard, Louisiana, to the newly forming 3d Armored Division. He landed with his unit at Normandy in June, 1944. As an M4 "Sherman" Tank Commander in Company I, 3d Battalion, 32d Armored Regiment, he led his crew across France and Belgium and led his Task Force in 21 separate attacks. In 80 days he and his crew destroyed 258 German vehicles, captured 250 German soldiers, and killed an estimated over 1000 German soldiers. In his final battle SSG Pool was blow from the turret of his tank and his right leg was shattered and had to be removed. He was discharged from the Army in June of 1946. He was recalled to active duty in 1948 to serve as an instructor with 3d Armored Division at Fort Knox, Kentucky. He retired from the Army on September 19, 1960 as a Chief Warrant Officer 2d Class. His military decorations included Distinguished Service Cross, Silver Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart, French Croix de Guerre with Bronze Star, Belgium Fourragere. Lafayette Pool passed away in his sleep on May 30, 1991."
Link
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-4346.html
More, although some things there may make one cough...
http://www.3ad.com/history/wwll/pool.pages/armor.myths.htm
And more...
http://www.3ad.com/history/wwll/pool.lafayette.htm
-
Oh yes, "Lafe" was an exceptional tank commander. Got 12 German tanks to his credit and hundreds of other vehicles, and only lost three Shermans in the process. No wonder the US Army wanted him back after the war to serve as an instructor.
-
Sort of brings it into the light that the main target of a tank would not typically have to be another tank.
-
The main target of most tanks are other tanks. In France though there were far more allied tanks around than German. The Germans didn't even credit other targets than tanks, even if Wittmann had his own private scoreboard for AT guns. In his opinion they were the worst enemy.
-
Well, with Lafe's score, the main VICTIMS were definately not other tanks....
-
You can say that about many things, but you don't see P-47 pilots painting little trucks and cars on the side of their Thunderbolts. Tanks like the M4 or Panther were designed and deployed to engage and kill other tanks. Naturally there are a lot more half-tracks, trucks and jeeps on a battlefield than tanks, but while it is the job of a tank to destroy any enemy vehicle it encounters only the enemy tanks actually offer a challenge. Given enough time, fuel and ammunition a single M4 could have destroyed every German half-track, truck and car in Europe with ease. No big deal.
So while other vehicles were more numerous, they were secondary targets to tanks. It's quite obvious really; if confronted by an enemy tank and a truck what would a tank gunner engage first? The truck? I think not. :lol
-
Main=main. I should have said more frequent or most common.
And the P47's might have run out of space if they counted that :D
I must disagree on the purpose though. Was the Sherman built to kill primarily tanks? You had variants for many roles, and isn't the specification "infantry support"? You also have the restrictions of weight and such, ending in a compromise.
Of course the most deadly threat becomes the primary target at once (if there is a chance to kill it), but for instance, not all fighters were necessarily built just to fight fighters, however being bounced by enemy fighters would change a pre-planned strike or interception into a dogfight.
What is an army consisting of anyway? Do you realize the value of vehicles in WW2? At operation Barbarossa, the majority of the German army relied on horse transport, or so they say. Killing out the supply lines, which rather have some tanks there as cover rather than the bulk gives a good stranglehold, so I think that the importance of killing cars and trucks should not be overlooked.
Same goes with strongholds, pillboxes, arty hidden inside buildings etc. Targets they are, all of them.
So, you had shermies in many shapes and sorts, although restricted mostly to a certain frame.
-
The most common target will always be the most numerous enemy vehicle, and that will always be light utility vehicles like jeeps and trucks; so yes, they should be overlooked. You don't measure the mettle of a tank commander by how many trucks he's destroyed or how many helpless infantrymen he's machinegunned. I'm infinitely more impressed with the 12 tanks "Lafe" destroyed than the hundreds of other vehicles and infantry; they're just fluff.
One M4 Sherman vs. 1,000 trucks = No danger, no effort, no contest. No respect.
One M4 Sherman vs. one PzKpfW IV = Mortal danger, Panzer is very difficult to kill, life or death combat. Respect.
Simple really.
-
You forget halftracks, gun positions and such. Much metal flying through the air with a madman sticking out of the hatch all the time :D
1000 vehicles vs one shermie....aww.
1 Sherman vs a Panzer IV, mortal danger for both, depending on just about everything, the most important question being what gun the Shermie has. Is it a firefly or not? Then the question is the one hit.....
-
Pointless to discuss anything with you Angus. Good bye.
-
On a more serious note, this is the part I don't understand. If you admit that the Germans engineered their equipment to the extent that they could not be repaired and maintained in the field, but rather needed to be towed back to a repair depot -- then how can you object to the characterization that they were de facto more difficult to maintain in the field?
IIRC, soon after the M-16 was introduced, it was fairly well disliked because of the time and care needed to keep it clean and in proper firing condition. This was especially true when compared to the communists' weapon of choice, the AK-47, which as the joke went, fired better when crusted in mud.
Similarly, when compared to the simpler/more rugged/"farm boy friendly" Allied tanks, the German armor was more difficult to maintain in the field.
It would seem to be an accurate statement to me.
two big differences between the M-16 and the ak-47. The M-16 is a precision and very accurate firearm. The Ak is not. I knew a couple special froces guys who were in Viet nam. One did carry around the Ak for a while but opted not to use it. One reason was that he didn't want to be confused as the enemy because of the Ak's distinctive sound and it was a very hard gun to shoot accurately. Your also wrong about the M-16. When Colt first introduced the weapon it was a sound firearm. The US Army were the culprits with the constant changes that they put it through I am surprised that it even worked as well as it did. My brother in law was in the Army in Viet Nam and he had nothing to say bad about the weapon. We went shooting one day and someone brought a AR-15 with them. After all these years he was able to field strip and reassemble the thing in a matter of minutes. The owner was squeaking the whole time while he was doing it afraid that he would leave him with a pile of parts.
-
Now, to something different....or not. The Panther. I was looking at the overlapping wheels, partially because of them being a part of the armour. Then I was tempted to go surfing on google and wiki (I know, completely ignorant stuff...but...) and I could not find an heir to the Panther. None of today's tanks have that system as far as my 5 minutes showed me. But WHY? It looks good, forms a part of the armour, there is a claim that it's no worse in the field than other systems, it gave s superbly smooth ride etc at the time and so on. So why did the design die? Or didn't it?
Because contrary to the propaganda being spewed in this thread by some people, the Panther design has many flaws and was not all that revalutionary. Frankly the road wheel system and automotive setup had the same flaws as the Sherman. IE, the engine in the back forces you to run a drive shaft through the hull under the turret. THis is what made the sherman so tall, it did the same for the panther. On top of that, the transmission and final drives in the Panther were NOT easy to change. You had to pull the whole drivers compartment to get to them. Atleast on the sherman the whole front of the hull unbolted so you could get to everything easy.
If you look at post war tank design. Just about every tank has the motor, tranny and final drives all in the back. Calling the interleaved road wheels good because they were armored seems like looking at the bright sideof things and not the flaws. Notice not one single modern or post war AFV uses suspension like that. I really doubt its as claimed "because the winners didnt like that better stuff". The US was incorperating the lessons learned from fighting german tanks into it's later tank designs.
My sources are not wiki, but the excelent books on the Panther by Jentz. The combat reports on the Panther are amusing. In many cases in Normady like 40% were abandoned by their own crews. Seems odd for such a perfect weapon.
-
You forget halftracks, gun positions and such. Much metal flying through the air with a madman sticking out of the hatch all the time :D
1000 vehicles vs one shermie....aww.
1 Sherman vs a Panzer IV, mortal danger for both, depending on just about everything, the most important question being what gun the Shermie has. Is it a firefly or not? Then the question is the one hit.....
The 76mm gun on the later shermans had no trouble at all with the Panzer 4.
-
Haha, I thought I was alone with my rather humble opinions.
"Calling the interleaved road wheels good because they were armored seems like looking at the bright sideof things and not the flaws. Notice not one single modern or post war AFV uses suspension like that."
This is what I called for. Well the overlapping wheels. I mean, if the design was that superb, being flawed only by material problems, why did it not carry on and rule the design AFTER the war???
Anyway, "Pointless to discuss anything with you Angus. Good bye."
Had a lot of people trying to get me into a religion. All in vain. So chao for that. Go for hot chow.
BTW, just wondering, has anyone here being doing heavy machinery in dirt, or driving on tracks?
Just a caterpillar will run rounds about a WW2 tank if it's sandy or boggy. It will weight less though.
Was lucky enough to see a bulldozer doing a lot of fixing and tugging of both tanks and half-tracks. WW2 stuff. It did baffle me how quickly they had problems in loose sand. Very little elevation and all is bad.
-
In many cases in Normady like 40% were abandoned by their own crews. Seems odd for such a perfect weapon.
Now, why do you think that was? Do you think they broke down?
I dispensed with the rest of your post because it was just opinionated bull.
-
The 76mm gun on the later shermans had no trouble at all with the Panzer 4.
Yes it did.
-
The Firefly has more firepower than the PZIV.
The Sherman however has a problem with getting hit by the PZIV.
The Firefly can also make serious trouble to Panthers and Tigers. The gun allows a shootout, but the armour doesn't.
Probably opinionated bull though :uhoh :huh
-
See Rules #4, #2
-
The Firefly has more firepower than the PZIV.
The Sherman however has a problem with getting hit by the PZIV.
The Firefly can also make serious trouble to Panthers and Tigers. The gun allows a shootout, but the armour doesn't.
Probably opinionated bull though :uhoh :huh
This is a glaring display of how little you know about tanks,. The Firefly isn't armed with a 76mm gun it's armed with a British 17lber. At standoff firing distances the Firefly is at a disadvantage against both Tiger and Panther. At dropoff penetration distances where the 17lber where it cant penetrate frontal armor of both tanks , both the Tiger and Panther can kill a Sherman at the same distance.
-
If you want a chuckle read the thread on the Tiger and how M-8's ap rounds can pierce the Tigers Turret because they came across some combat report that said they did. There is also a pentration chart on the 37mm gun that proves it can. Funny how I have never read a thing about a M-8 taking out a Tiger. Considering that most German tanks battled with panzer grenadiers and other like tanks I can't imagine a M-8 even attacking a Tiger without bringing a world of hurt down on them.
For someone that claims to be some sort of historical expert on World War II, you really should think about updating your resource library.
The story about the M8 did happen and is well documented. That engagement along with others in the Battle at St. Vith is used by the US Army as an example of armor in the defense.
The Battle at St. Vith Belgium 17-23 December of 1944: An Historical Example of Armor in the Defense U.S. Army Armor School (http://books.google.com/books?id=0ByG34sfo24C&pg=PA32&lpg=PA32&dq=action+was+reported+to+Major+Donald+P+Boyer+Jr.+S3,+38th+Armored+Infantry+Battalion,+by+Captain+W.H.+Anstey+(Commanding+Company+A,+38th+Armored+Infantry+Battalion)&source=bl&ots=llRvlvpBwM&sig=QxgfI0NP0RXE1QuDQEjyDlmnCKE&hl=en&ei=ca0ISuWWMpve7APyhf2iCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3#PPP1,M1)
Though, I'm sure you'll dismiss this as you do with everything else when you've been proven wrong.
ack-ack
-
Ack-Ack, I've read that book as well, but I have several reservations against the description of that particular engagement. First of all the Tiger's rear armor is described as "thin", when in fact it was as thick as the side armor at 80 mm. I've asked around for some form of confirmation of this engagement, but have found little or nothing to support it. While I don't really doubt the engagement happened I think it is far more likely the M8 ambushed a PzKpfW IV rather than a Tiger. A fact lost on many is that in France the Americans and British often referred to all German tanks as "Tigers".
If you have more substantial information on the engagement I would love to read/see it. At least if I were that M8 commander (and if the battle conditions allowed for it) I'd take a picture of that kill!
-
This is a glaring display of how little you know about tanks,. The Firefly isn't armed with a 76mm gun it's armed with a British 17lber. At standoff firing distances the Firefly is at a disadvantage against both Tiger and Panther. At dropoff penetration distances where the 17lber where it cant penetrate frontal armor of both tanks , both the Tiger and Panther can kill a Sherman at the same distance.
I didn't say Panther or Tiger, It's PZ IV, Panzer IV, our AH Panzer, which is why the Firefly is perked. The Firefly outguns the Panzer IV. And the gun will kill a panther and a tiger, depending on range or angle. They are not safe from a Firefly unless they kill first.
-
For someone that claims to be some sort of historical expert on World War II, you really should think about updating your resource library.
The story about the M8 did happen and is well documented. That engagement along with others in the Battle at St. Vith is used by the US Army as an example of armor in the defense.
The Battle at St. Vith Belgium 17-23 December of 1944: An Historical Example of Armor in the Defense U.S. Army Armor School (http://books.google.com/books?id=0ByG34sfo24C&pg=PA32&lpg=PA32&dq=action+was+reported+to+Major+Donald+P+Boyer+Jr.+S3,+38th+Armored+Infantry+Battalion,+by+Captain+W.H.+Anstey+(Commanding+Company+A,+38th+Armored+Infantry+Battalion)&source=bl&ots=llRvlvpBwM&sig=QxgfI0NP0RXE1QuDQEjyDlmnCKE&hl=en&ei=ca0ISuWWMpve7APyhf2iCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3#PPP1,M1)
Though, I'm sure you'll dismiss this as you do with everything else when you've been proven wrong.
ack-ack
The reason I have trouble believing the story AkAk is because books I have read made mention to Tigers being hit 30 times in a single tank engagement from tanks with larger caliber guns then a 37mm. I am sure that these tanks we using AP rounds as well and the hits were not just the front of the tank but the sides of the turret as well as the chassis. Now, maybe this m-8 somehow disabled the motor and was claimed as a kill on a Tiger but I seriously doubt that the armor was penetrated in this engagement. Many claimed tank kills were nothing more then a tank being disabled not destroyed. The Germans didn't consider it a tank kill unless the tank was destroyed. As far as everyting I have read about typical tank engagements regarding the Tiger and the typical order of battle that was common at that time and area makes me have a difficult time believing this story. It appears that DieHard isn't sold on this story either.
-
It is more basic than that BigPlay... Any author who describes the Tiger's rear armor as "thin" should not be taken very seriously, because he's already proved himself ignorant of the reality of the situation.
-
I don't know about the rest of these guys, but I will take the words of the men who were THERE over the words of some dude on a forum who thinks he knows more then they do.
It is great you have made up you mind Bigplay/diehard, but you act as if your the last word on the subject and we should all just listen to you as if you know anything. Granted you seem to know a fair amount but I think your judgment is clouded by an unreasonable need to defend German stuff. Stop taking history so personally and try and have a bit of an open mind.
And if you going to question the reports of US Soldiers who were at the scene, back it up with more then just your opinion of why its impossible. Post a report from the german side showing a tiger wasn't lost or something. No one cares (no one with any ability to reason) that you THINK it couldn't have happened.
Your opinion is just what you keep pointing out in others. An opinion. Duh.
-
Oh, I seriously doubt the author of the book The Battle at St. Vith was "there". No actual report has been produced by the author or anyone here.
-
Yes it did.
Front armor Panzer 4 80MM Source (http://www.wwiivehicles.com/germany/tanks-medium/pzkpfw-iv-ausf-h.asp)
Armor Penetration 76MM M62 APC 500 Meter Penetration 116MM 1000 Meter Penetration 106MM
Source M4 (76mm) Sherman Medium Tank 1943-65 Steven Zaloga.
-
I don't know about the rest of these guys, but I will take the words of the men who were THERE over the words of some dude on a forum who thinks he knows more then they do.
Especially after numerous sources were listed, including a manual written and used by the US Army. I am also a little surprised that they keep taking the comment from the AAR about the thin rear armor out of context. It is clear that the person in the report is comparing the thickness of the armor in relation to other areas on the tank. So the witness was correct in saying that the armor on the Tiger is thin in the rear in relation to other parts on the Tiger.
ack-ack
-
Oh, I seriously doubt the author of the book The Battle at St. Vith was "there". No actual report has been produced by the author or anyone here.
I don't really care what you think guy, your opinion is clear you keep repeating it over and over. Thanks for sharing though, maybe you can let other people share without you telling them to "read more"?
-
See Rule #4
-
Oh, I seriously doubt the author of the book The Battle at St. Vith was "there". No actual report has been produced by the author or anyone here.
The book I linked to is a manual used by the US Army in teaching how to use armor in the defense, using the Battle of St. Vith as a text book example. It is made up entirely of AAR reports from the units that took part in the battle from Dec 17 - 23. So while the "author" of the text book might not have been there, the AAR reports that make up the book are written by people that were there and had taken part in not only the battle of December but also took part in the recapture of St. Vith a few weeks later in January.
ack-ack
-
The book does not simply recite the reports; the author of the book interprets the reports for us and gives us his conclusion. I read the first edition of that book, and while it is a good read as a tactical and historical analysis, the details like this "thin rear armor" Tiger is best overlooked and forgiven, but should under no circumstance be used as a "source".
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rules #2, #5
-
No, the next step is to place all parties involved in the personal attacks on a 1 week ban.
-
I hope it's not going kaboom, since then my looking-into on the Firefly and later-gunned Shermans fire power (penetration) will need another thread.
Anyway, need some help on this. Tony Williams had a site if I recall right, on ammo, ROF, penetration, kinetic energy, warheads and all. I cannot find it, and am also wondering if it included tank guns. Anyone?
-
Everyone has been warned. I see no reason for this to get closed.
-
I hope it's not going kaboom, since then my looking-into on the Firefly and later-gunned Shermans fire power (penetration) will need another thread.
Anyway, need some help on this. Tony Williams had a site if I recall right, on ammo, ROF, penetration, kinetic energy, warheads and all. I cannot find it, and am also wondering if it included tank guns. Anyone?
This is Mr. Williams site: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/index.htm but you won't find that much about tank guns
A good tank gun comparison site is: Guns vs. Armor: http://gva.freeweb.hu/index.html
-
Front armor Panzer 4 80MM Source (http://www.wwiivehicles.com/germany/tanks-medium/pzkpfw-iv-ausf-h.asp)
Armor Penetration 76MM M62 APC 500 Meter Penetration 116MM 1000 Meter Penetration 106MM
Source M4 (76mm) Sherman Medium Tank 1943-65 Steven Zaloga.
Yeah, those are pretty numbers, but those numbers alone does not reflect reality. The Panzer's 80 mm plate overmatch the 76 mm round. In 1944 this meant that the 76 mm APCBC rounds suffered from the "scatter gap" effect. When the armor equaled or overmatched the shell diameter the 76 mm round would shatter at velocities above about 2,000 fps. US Navy tests during WW II against 3 inch armor using 76mm APCBC, resulted in 50% penetration at about 2,069 fps impact, and then the hits failed from 2,073 fps through 2,376 fps. So the 76mm M1 gun firing an APCBC projectile the shatter gap occurs between about 200 yards and 1,200 yards, when the target plate is 80-100 mm thick and hard, such as typical German vehicle armor. That is why the 76mm M1 gun was a Tiger I killer on the charts, but not in real life. When it was fired in tests it tended not to shatter because American test plate was somewhat soft, so the shatter gap was not revealed by the testing and development program.
Against an 80 mm German plate 76 mm hits would be expected to fail from 200 yards up to 900 yards, and then penetrate from 900 to 1,200 yards. Closer than 200 yards the round would penetrate even when it shattered. From 1,200 yards to 1,500 yards the round would be defeated by the 80 mm plate at any side angle more than 12 degrees. Beyond 1,500 yards the 80 mm plate would defeat the 76 mm round at any angle. These numbers are of course only indicators and many more variables would change them for better or worse, so "lucky shots" could and did happen at any range.
The APCR/HVAP rounds did not suffer from this flaw and easily penetrated the Pz IV's front armor. Unfortunately, HVAP rounds were very scarce until very late-1944/early-1945 and even then they were far from common.
Considering the typical engagement range in 1944 France was 400-600 yards... Yeah, the 76 mm gunned Shermans did have considerable trouble with the Pz IV. Conversely the Pz IV had no problem killing Shermans up to about 2,000 yards and did not suffer from ammunition deficiencies at typical combat ranges.
-
I hope it's not going kaboom, since then my looking-into on the Firefly and later-gunned Shermans fire power (penetration) will need another thread.
Anyway, need some help on this. Tony Williams had a site if I recall right, on ammo, ROF, penetration, kinetic energy, warheads and all. I cannot find it, and am also wondering if it included tank guns. Anyone?
Pentration charts sometimes are not always applicable to battlefield situations. Many units were not provided with the most effective ap rounds or at best were deployed in small increments to tank crews. Take the American 76mm gun. It was really only a deadly gun with the type of AP ammo that was always in very short supply, so it's effectiveness was many times not all it should have been.
-
I hope it's not going kaboom, since then my looking-into on the Firefly and later-gunned Shermans fire power (penetration) will need another thread.
Anyway, need some help on this. Tony Williams had a site if I recall right, on ammo, ROF, penetration, kinetic energy, warheads and all. I cannot find it, and am also wondering if it included tank guns. Anyone?
The British 17 pounder was a truly excellent weapon. Even better in my opinion than the Panther's KwK 42 which is often laureled as the best tank gun of the war.
-
Yeah, those are pretty numbers, but those numbers alone does not reflect reality. The Panzer's 80 mm plate overmatch the 76 mm round. In 1944 this meant that the 76 mm APCBC rounds suffered from the "scatter gap" effect. When the armor equaled or overmatched the shell diameter the 76 mm round would shatter at velocities above about 2,000 fps. US Navy tests during WW II against 3 inch armor using 76mm APCBC, resulted in 50% penetration at about 2,069 fps impact, and then the hits failed from 2,073 fps through 2,376 fps. So the 76mm M1 gun firing an APCBC projectile the shatter gap occurs between about 200m and 1200m, when the target plate is 80-100 mm thick and hard, such as typical German vehicle armor. That is why the 76mm M1 gun was a Tiger I killer on the charts, but not in real life. When it was fired in tests it tended not to shatter because American test plate was somewhat soft, so the shatter gap was not revealed by the testing and development program.
Against an 80 mm German plate 76 mm hits would be expected to fail from 200 yards up to 900 yards, and then penetrate from 900 to 1,200 yards. Closer than 200 yards the round would penetrate even when it shattered. From 1,200 yards to 1,500 yards the round would be defeated by the 80 mm plate at any side angle more than 12 degrees. Beyond 1,500 yards the 80 mm plate would defeat the 76 mm round at any angle. These numbers are of course only indicators and many more variables would change them for better or worse, so "lucky shots" could and did happen at any range.
The APCR/HVAP rounds did not suffer from this flaw and easily penetrated the Pz IV's front armor. Unfortunately, HVAP rounds were very scarce until very late-1944/early-1945 and even then they were far from common.
Considering the typical engagement range in 1944 France was 400-600 yards... Yeah, the 76 mm gunned Shermans did have considerable trouble with the Pz IV. Conversely the Pz IV had no problem killing Shermans up to about 2,000 yards and did not suffer from ammunition deficiencies at typical combat ranges.
Maybe you should post some sources like I did so we can see how much of this is your opinion and whats based on sources.
The Panzer 4 H was the only one with 80MM of frontal armor. The rest of the models had 50MM front plates.
The turret armor was also easy to penetrate at only 50MM for the front and none of it has much slope to it.
Hell that site Lusche posted has all the numbers for everyone to check and see. Even the Sherman 75mm gun could handle the Panzer 4 from under 1000 yards.
[ur] http://www.freeweb.hu/gva/weapons/usa_guns5.html[/url]
-
I am reading a Report I found online called Tankers In Tunisia, it is interesting none the tankers interviewed mention thinking the Panzer III and IV were a match for the Sherman but they all feared the Tiger.
You can find the report at :
Www.lonesentry.com
-
Direct link to Tankers In Tunisia
http://www.lonesentry.com/manuals/tankers/index.html (http://www.lonesentry.com/manuals/tankers/index.html)
Interesting read.
-
Maybe you should post some sources like I did so we can see how much of this is your opinion and whats based on sources.
I'm afraid not. I'm writing most from memory; I have to look up some numbers now and then, but that's all. I'm not going to look up everything and post book lists and pages; I simply can't be bothered to do that.
So, I'm afraid you'll just have to take everything I post at face value, which probably isn't much to you. Guess you'll just have to disregard my arguments like you have been up till now. :)
The Panzer 4 H was the only one with 80MM of frontal armor. The rest of the models had 50MM front plates.
The Ausf. H was the only Pz IV in service in 1944 until production switched to the Ausf. J in June 1944. The Ausf. H having been in production since August 1943. The earlier models had by then been converted to StuG IV's or JagdPanzer IV's, or other Pz IV based vehicles like ammo carriers and engineering vehicles.
Both the Ausf. H and J had 80 mm front armor, and the late-1942 Ausf. G's had their 50 mm armor augmented by adding a spaced 30 mm plate for a total of 80 mm front armor. The spaced 50+30 mm arrangement was in some ways superior to the later single 80 mm plate, though the 30 mm plate did not cover the driver's vision slit or the bow machinegun, so there were weak spots.
The turret armor was also easy to penetrate at only 50MM for the front and none of it has much slope to it.
What you need to understand is that the front armor of the turret of most tanks is shielded by the gun mantlet. The Pz IV Ausf. H's turret front had 50 mm of armor, but the gun mantlet acts as a shield increasing the effective front turret armor to 100 mm; a hit outside the mantlet would likely only result in a glancing hit or ineffectual penetration.
Hell that site Lusche posted has all the numbers for everyone to check and see. Even the Sherman 75mm gun could handle the Panzer 4 from under 1000 yards.
Not in 1943-1945. The maximum penetration of the 75 mm M3 on that page is 76 mm at 457 meters. That's not enough to ensure penetration of the Pz IV's 80 mm front plate or the turret's 100 mm, though it is close enough to make it possible under favorable conditions. Ironically the old 75 mm M3 was a better gun at close range than the 76 mm M1 that replaced it due to the unfortunate ammunition deficiencies of the M1.
Direct link to Tankers In Tunisia
http://www.lonesentry.com/manuals/tankers/index.html (http://www.lonesentry.com/manuals/tankers/index.html)
Interesting read.
I'm sure it is. I'll have to read it later. Thanks for sharing. :)
-
I'm afraid not. I'm writing most from memory; I have to look up some numbers now and then, but that's all. I'm not going to look up everything and post book lists and pages; I simply can't be bothered to do that.
So, I'm afraid you'll just have to take everything I post at face value, which probably isn't much to you. Guess you'll just have to disregard my arguments like you have been up till now. :)
Take your posts at face value?
No, since you can't come up with even a single source I will take your posts as I always have, with a HUGE grain of salt.
Without any kind of reference your just a poster with an opinion who refuses to back up his posts with any references. I would love to read a source on your claims about the tank ammo since not a single recent book I have read on the Sherman mentions anything like it. The only thing any of them talk about is the poor performance of the basic round APC round in the 76MM gun and those are the numbers I used.
So again I would love to read any sources you have on these ammo problems you mention.
Oh and on the mantlet acting as extra armor, ok sure, but have you take a close look at the Panzer 4? the mantlet does not take up the full turret face. On top of that, turrets rotate, so the sides take hits all the time. 30MM is not enough to stop even the 75 under 1000 yards.
Before you come back with the rounds were unreliable again, please back it up with something. Even if its a book I have to hunt down at a library.
-
Take your posts at face value?
No, since you can't come up with even a single source I will take your posts as I always have, with a HUGE grain of salt.
That will work too. :)
Without any kind of reference your just a poster with an opinion who refuses to back up his posts with any references. I would love to read a source on your claims about the tank ammo since not a single recent book I have read on the Sherman mentions anything like it. The only thing any of them talk about is the poor performance of the basic round APC round in the 76MM gun and those are the numbers I used.
So again I would love to read any sources you have on these ammo problems you mention.
Ok, but just because it is you!
You can read this very well done Tiger site, or pick up just about any half-decent WWII tank book dealing with the Western front.
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger1-02.htm
I'll even quote the relevant text... Just for you! ;)
"Another fact that helped the Tigers a lot was the "shatter gap" effect which affectted allied ammunition, a most unusual situation where rounds with too high an impact velocity would sometimes fail even though their penetration capability was (theoretically) more than adequate. This phenomenon plagued the British 2 pounder in the desert, and would have decreased the effectiveness of U.S. 76mm and 3" guns against Tigers, Panthers and other vehicles with armor thickness above 70 mm. It should be noted that the problems with the 76 mm and 3" guns did not necessarily involve the weapons themselves: the noses of US armor-piercing ammunition of the time turned out to be excessively soft. When these projectiles impacted armor which matched or exceeded the projectile diameter at a certain spread of velocities, the projectile would shatter and fail.
Penetrations would occur below this velocity range, since the shell would not shatter, and strikes above this range would propel the shell through the armor whether it shattered or not. When striking a Tiger I driver's plate, for example, this "shatter gap" for a 76mm APCBC M62 shell would cause failures between 50 meters and 900 meters. These ammunition deficiencies proved that Ordnance tests claiming the 76 mm gun could penetrate a Tiger I's upper front hull to 2,000 yards (1,800 meters) were sadly incorrect."
For some light reading I reccomend By Tank into Normandy by Stuart Hills, who was a WWII M4 tanker, not just some historian. IIRC he mentions the shatter gap problem.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tank-Normandy-Cassell-Military-Paperbacks/dp/0304366404/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top
Very good book.
If you want to get more technical on the guns check out the books by Ian Hogg.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/ref=ntt_athr_dp_sr_1?_encoding=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books&field-author=Ian%20Hogg
If you want a good introduction to the M4 in WWII check out M4 Sherman at War.
http://www.amazon.com/M4-Sherman-War-Michael-Green/dp/076032784X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1242179452&sr=1-2
If you want to get really anal about the 76 mm M4 get M4 (76mm) Sherman Medium Tank 1943-65.
http://www.amazon.com/76mm-Sherman-Medium-1943-65-Vanguard/dp/1841765422/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1242179452&sr=1-1
It can get tedious in its detail at times, but still a very good read if you like the M4 (like I do).
Oh and on the mantlet acting as extra armor, ok sure, but have you take a close look at the Panzer 4? the mantlet does not take up the full turret face. On top of that, turrets rotate, so the sides take hits all the time. 30MM is not enough to stop even the 75 under 1000 yards.
The side and rear armor on the Pz IV couldn't stop much in the way of gun fire of caliber larger than 37 mm (and not even that in many cases), but that's true of most WWII tanks, especially those in the Pz IV weight range.
-
Not in 1943-1945. The maximum penetration of the 75 mm M3 on that page is 76 mm at 457 meters. That's not enough to ensure penetration of the Pz IV's 80 mm front plate or the turret's 100 mm, though it is close enough to make it possible under favorable conditions.
Except that it says that it is 76mm when striking the armor at 30 degrees. Shouldn't one logically conclude that striking an 80 degree surface rather than a 30 degree surface should result in greater penetration?
What you need to understand is that the front armor of the turret of most tanks is shielded by the gun mantlet. The Pz IV Ausf. H's turret front had 50 mm of armor, but the gun mantlet acts as a shield increasing the effective front turret armor to 100 mm; a hit outside the mantlet would likely only result in a glancing hit or ineffectual penetration.
I tried searching a few images to see what a PzkwIV turret front looked like without the mantlet -- came up empty. However, here are some pics that basically show what I believe to be true of the PzkwIV or any other tank mounting a relatively large caliber gun. The first pic is of a chaffee tank, the others from a conversion of a churchill tank to convert it from sporting a 6lbr gun to a 75mm gun. What I am pointing out is that the mantlet covers what is essentially a large gaping hole in the front of the turret. Pay particular attention to the last pic, which shows just what is attached to the mantlet -- the gun, coaxal MG, sighting equipment and elevation gear. A direct hit to the mantlet does not receive any benefit from additional armor - penetration of the mantlet would most likely mean damage to any of the mentioned equipment if not metal fragments bouncing around inside the turret harming the crew.
(http://www.mmvc.org/IndexFiles/MemberVehicles/ChaffeeTank/5.JPG)
(http://www.track48.com/articles/research/na75/3779%20B6.jpg)
(http://www.track48.com/articles/research/na75/3779%20A6.jpg)
(http://www.track48.com/articles/research/na75/3779%20B3.jpg)
If you have pics of the PzkwIV's turret without the mantlet attached (that isn't one of the 75 pages of frigging plastic models I waded through to get these pictures :mad:) I would be very interested to see if they show the same thing.
As for a "glancing hit or ineffectual penetration" -- the actual mantlet on the PzkwIV sure looks A LOT smaller than the turret front to me . . . There is plenty of area for a hit to be both non-glancing and most likely very effective.
(http://www.theeasternfront.co.uk/Graphics/pzkfw4.jpg)
(http://www.czolgiem.com/niemcy/foto/pz4h_2.jpg)
(http://accel10.mettre-put-idata.over-blog.com/518x354/0/39/65/84/july-2007/02428.jpg)
(http://media.photobucket.com/image/Panzer%20IV(H)%20tank%20turret%20front/kamehouse-uk/Bovington%20Tank%20museum/BovingtonWW2German040.jpg)
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/86/216405014_b0aa28d389.jpg)
-
Quote from: GtoRA2 on Today at 07:54:54 PM
“Take your posts at face value?
No, since you can't come up with even a single source I will take your posts as I always have, with a HUGE grain of salt. “
That will work too.
See that’s the spirit, this shouldn’t be personal. I recognize you know a lot about Armor, I just do not agree with your conclusions. I have an open mind, if your right about the rounds breaking up I want to know about it.
Quote from: GtoRA2 on Today at 07:54:54 PM
“Without any kind of reference your just a poster with an opinion who refuses to back up his posts with any references. I would love to read a source on your claims about the tank ammo since not a single recent book I have read on the Sherman mentions anything like it. The only thing any of them talk about is the poor performance of the basic round APC round in the 76MM gun and those are the numbers I used.
So again I would love to read any sources you have on these ammo problems you mention.”
Ok, but just because it is you!
You can read this very well done Tiger site, or pick up just about any half-decent WWII tank book dealing with the Western front.
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger1-02.htm
You know that’s interesting, I have not seen that site on the Tiger, there is another a little like it that is insanely detailed on the Tiger 1. Like pictures of all the internal systems etc. Like a Jentz book online.
Here is the site I am talking about.
Tiger I information center (http://www.alanhamby.com/tiger.html)
I really wish there were sites like this for US Armor.
“I'll even quote the relevant text... Just for you!
"Another fact that helped the Tigers a lot was the "shatter gap" effect which affectted allied ammunition, a most unusual situation where rounds with too high an impact velocity would sometimes fail even though their penetration capability was (theoretically) more than adequate. This phenomenon plagued the British 2 pounder in the desert, and would have decreased the effectiveness of U.S. 76mm and 3" guns against Tigers, Panthers and other vehicles with armor thickness above 70 mm. It should be noted that the problems with the 76 mm and 3" guns did not necessarily involve the weapons themselves: the noses of US armor-piercing ammunition of the time turned out to be excessively soft. When these projectiles impacted armor which matched or exceeded the projectile diameter at a certain spread of velocities, the projectile would shatter and fail.
Penetrations would occur below this velocity range, since the shell would not shatter, and strikes above this range would propel the shell through the armor whether it shattered or not. When striking a Tiger I driver's plate, for example, this "shatter gap" for a 76mm APCBC M62 shell would cause failures between 50 meters and 900 meters. These ammunition deficiencies proved that Ordnance tests claiming the 76 mm gun could penetrate a Tiger I's upper front hull to 2,000 yards (1,800 meters) were sadly incorrect."
Now, this makes sense, and I have some of the books the site references so I will have to read through them again, but it seems to me like they are talking about the Tiger I and it does not apply nearly as well to the Panzer 4.
The penetration information I linked is from the book you recommended below M4 (76MM) Sherman Medium Tank 1943-65 by Zaloga and I used the poorest performing AP round the 76MM shot, any of the other rounds would fair better. Not against the Tiger per say, but the Panzer 4, even with 80MM of frontal armor going to fair well at the ranges fought in Normandy and Northern Europe. At least that’s my take based on the accounts I have read, and the books you reference below.
For some light reading I reccomend By Tank into Normandy by Stuart Hills, who was a WWII M4 tanker, not just some historian. IIRC he mentions the shatter gap problem.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tank-Normandy-Cassell-Military-Paperbacks/dp/0304366404/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top
Very good book.
If you want to get more technical on the guns check out the books by Ian Hogg.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/ref=ntt_athr_dp_sr_1?_encoding=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books&field-author=Ian%20Hogg
If you want a good introduction to the M4 in WWII check out M4 Sherman at War.
http://www.amazon.com/M4-Sherman-War-Michael-Green/dp/076032784X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1242179452&sr=1-2
If you want to get really anal about the 76 mm M4 get M4 (76mm) Sherman Medium Tank 1943-65.
http://www.amazon.com/76mm-Sherman-Medium-1943-65-Vanguard/dp/1841765422/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1242179452&sr=1-1
It can get tedious in its detail at times, but still a very good read if you like the M4 (like I do).
On your book links:
By Tank into Normandy by Stuart hills.
I have never heard of this one but I will buy it soon. I am on an armor kick so its all I have been reading about for months.
The ian Hogg one isn’t coming up on Amazon but I will poke around and figure that out.
The M4 Sherman at war by Green is great. Lots of good info, great pictures. Pretty good info. I don’t recall anything in here about the Panzer 4 being much of an issue but they agree with you more on the Panther. I will read through the 76 sections again. I had I though this morning but though it was pretty light, about 2 pages of info if that. Ill check again. Really a great book though.
On the M4 (76MM) Sherman Medium Tank 1943 to 65 by Zaloga
Also a great little book. Covers the 76MM gun tanks, the small run o f 17Pounders the US Army was having made for them and later war variants. It does have a longer section on the 76MM gun and I will read through it again to see if I missed anything on the rounds breaking up against the Panzer 4. Tiger sure, I recall them talking about the shocking penetration issues with the new 76 and Ike being annoyed he was told it was more then enough to handle the Panther and Tiger. Good read.
Quote from: GtoRA2 on Today at 07:54:54 PM
Oh and on the mantlet acting as extra armor, ok sure, but have you take a close look at the Panzer 4? the mantlet does not take up the full turret face. On top of that, turrets rotate, so the sides take hits all the time. 30MM is not enough to stop even the 75 under 1000 yards.
The side and rear armor on the Pz IV couldn't stop much in the way of gun fire of caliber larger than 37 mm (and not even that in many cases), but that's true of most WWII tanks, especially those in the Pz IV weight range.
That is kind of my point, the Panzer 4 wasn’t anything special in its class. Nothing I have read, indicates US tankers thought much of the Panzer 4 or 3. The Tiger and Panther they rightfully feared.
Read that report I linked and note all the comments about the Pz 3 and 4 and how they would prefer the Sherman.
Hell the US Army thought the 75MM Sherman was up to the task of fighting the Panzer 4 before Normandy(well that’s not the whole story, they were still clinging to there silly tank destroy doctrine). It was the shocking loss rate and high number of Panthers that finally got them to push the 76MM Sherman’s into Europe. (That’s all from the Zolaga book you linked above)
Die hard, this was really fun, I like a good debate. It seems I have read much of the same material you have I just come to different conclusions. Granted I read some of it years ago, so I am going to go back and make sure I am not basing some of my opinions on wrong memories, but 2 of the books you linked, hang out in my bathroom and I re read sections all the time =D.
I would love to have another discussion on the Panther at some point. I think I could keep from going personal if you can. Thanks for the post and the book links, it looks like I have some new library additions soon.
-
Except that it says that it is 76mm when striking the armor at 30 degrees. Shouldn't one logically conclude that striking an 80 degree surface rather than a 30 degree surface should result in greater penetration?
I tried searching a few images to see what a PzkwIV turret front looked like without the mantlet -- came up empty. However, here are some pics that basically show what I believe to be true of the PzkwIV or any other tank mounting a relatively large caliber gun. The first pic is of a chaffee tank, the others from a conversion of a churchill tank to convert it from sporting a 6lbr gun to a 75mm gun. What I am pointing out is that the mantlet covers what is essentially a large gaping hole in the front of the turret. Pay particular attention to the last pic, which shows just what is attached to the mantlet -- the gun, coaxal MG, sighting equipment and elevation gear. A direct hit to the mantlet does not receive any benefit from additional armor - penetration of the mantlet would most likely mean damage to any of the mentioned equipment if not metal fragments bouncing around inside the turret harming the crew.
If you have pics of the PzkwIV's turret without the mantlet attached (that isn't one of the 75 pages of frigging plastic models I waded through to get these pictures :mad:) I would be very interested to see if they show the same thing.
As for a "glancing hit or ineffectual penetration" -- the actual mantlet on the PzkwIV sure looks A LOT smaller than the turret front to me . . . There is plenty of area for a hit to be both non-glancing and most likely very effective.
To help ilustrate that point.
Here is a photo of a very lucky shot on a Pershing in Europe. One of 2 or 3 lost I think. This one was fixed from what I read.
(http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f47/gtora2/pershing2.jpg)
-
Except that it says that it is 76mm when striking the armor at 30 degrees. Shouldn't one logically conclude that striking an 80 degree surface rather than a 30 degree surface should result in greater penetration?
Sure, which is why I said "it is close enough to make it possible under favorable conditions." Getting a dead-on shot on any armor surface is very "favorable".
I tried searching a few images to see what a PzkwIV turret front looked like without the mantlet -- came up empty. However, here are some pics that basically show what I believe to be true of the PzkwIV or any other tank mounting a relatively large caliber gun. The first pic is of a chaffee tank, the others from a conversion of a churchill tank to convert it from sporting a 6lbr gun to a 75mm gun. What I am pointing out is that the mantlet covers what is essentially a large gaping hole in the front of the turret. Pay particular attention to the last pic, which shows just what is attached to the mantlet -- the gun, coaxal MG, sighting equipment and elevation gear. A direct hit to the mantlet does not receive any benefit from additional armor - penetration of the mantlet would most likely mean damage to any of the mentioned equipment if not metal fragments bouncing around inside the turret harming the crew.
First of all let's clarify the terminology: Ineffectual penetration does not mean that the tank or crew don't take damage, but that the tank remains in a fighting condition. The hit may damage equipment or wound crew, but will most likely not knock the tank out of the fight.
Secondly, there are several mantlet designs, some sporting a shield, some only protecting the gun port. The Germans favored adding shields to their mantlets, especially on their mid-late war designs.
Lets take a closer look at the Panther's mantlet (couldn't find a detailed Pz IV either):
Here you can see the mantlet... but it isn't the big rounded shield. The mantlet is the big square armor box with the visible machingun port.
(http://storm.webvis.net/pbrech01.jpg)
Here's the shield lying by itself:
(http://storm.webvis.net/pbrech07.jpg)
Ironically this picture of a destroyed Tiger is the best I could find to illustrate its huge shield that actually protects the entire front face of the turret:
(http://www.afrikakorps.org/_photos/501/813-823-4.jpg)
And an interior shot just for good measure:
(http://www.achtungpanzer.com/images/tigint.jpg)
And here the large shield of a Pz III Ausf. L:
(http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p293/Cacadore/Tank%20photos/IMG_0320.jpg)
The interesting part about the Pz IV is that it originally didn't have a shield; it was added later to add protection:
(http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/quarters/4635/tanks/pz4/pz4_turrets.jpg)
As you can see the the early Ausf. A's only had a simple internal gun mantle, but later versions added a shield.
As for a "glancing hit or ineffectual penetration" -- the actual mantlet on the PzkwIV sure looks A LOT smaller than the turret front to me . . . There is plenty of area for a hit to be both non-glancing and most likely very effective.
Now this is a very useful picture:
(http://behance.vo.llnwd.net/profiles/57492/projects/56908/574921201283662.jpg)
The gun mantlet and shield covers about half to two thirds of the turret face. A lucky shot to the right of the mantlet could pass through the gunner's primary sight, and a penetrating shot lower and closer to the mantlet would kill the gunner. A penetrating shot to the left of the mantlet would most likely be ineffectual, but might wound the loader. A shot to the mantlet itself could indeed damage the gun, but it wouldn't kill the tank. However, disabling the gun would be a victory to the M4 as the Pz Iv's only option would then be to retreat.
However the picture illustrates really well how small a profile the turret has compared to the rest of the tank. Hitting that sweet spot in the gunner's face would have to be considered a lucky shot (although the gunner might disagree!).
-
Now this is a very useful picture:
(http://behance.vo.llnwd.net/profiles/57492/projects/56908/574921201283662.jpg)
The gun mantlet and shield covers about half to two thirds of the turret face. A lucky shot to the right of the mantlet could pass through the gunner's primary sight, and a penetrating shot lower and closer to the mantlet would kill the gunner. A penetrating shot to the left of the mantlet would most likely be ineffectual, but might wound the loader. A shot to the mantlet itself could indeed damage the gun, but it wouldn't kill the tank. However, disabling the gun would be a victory to the M4 as the Pz Iv's only option would then be to retreat.
However the picture illustrates really well how small a profile the turret has compared to the rest of the tank. Hitting that sweet spot in the gunner's face would have to be considered a lucky shot (although the gunner might disagree!).
I removed all the tiger stuff, since this thread is on the sherman, and we should stick to tanks in its class, and I think we can all agree a tank can be killed by a lucky hit through the site or coax ports on the turret or the direct view ports and a bow MG ports. The Turret weak spots re mane on some modern designs but all post war designs got rid of direct view ports and bow machine guns. It makes no sense to have a large hole in the front plate of your hull for an MG of dubious value.
I see a fair amount of 50mm armor on that turret face a 76MM Sherman would have no trouble hitting. Any frontal turret hit has a decent chance of hitting that thin armor. Any hit on the turret under 1000 yards has a good chance of disabling or killing the tank. I would say that means it wont have much trouble with the Panzer 4.
Also what makes you think any penetration would only hurt the crew and not kill the tank? Any shot that gets inside could cause the tanks loss, you have no idea were the rest of that round is going to go inside, it could hit crew, ready ammo, electronics causing fires etc or be harmless. Plus crews have a tendency to panic and bail out when a crew member gets hit.
They are pretty comparable tanks really.
-
You know that’s interesting, I have not seen that site on the Tiger, there is another a little like it that is insanely detailed on the Tiger 1. Like pictures of all the internal systems etc. Like a Jentz book online.
Here is the site I am talking about.
Tiger I information center (http://www.alanhamby.com/tiger.html)
I really wish there were sites like this for US Armor.
That's a great site! I use www.onwar.com a lot for looking up technical stuff quickly. Great site for what it is.
Now, this makes sense, and I have some of the books the site references so I will have to read through them again, but it seems to me like they are talking about the Tiger I and it does not apply nearly as well to the Panzer 4.
The shatter problem was observed with all armor that over matched the round. The 80 mm plate on the Pz IV did after all equal the Tigers side armor and the Panther's front armor in thickness (but not slope).
That is kind of my point, the Panzer 4 wasn’t anything special in its class. Nothing I have read, indicates US tankers thought much of the Panzer 4 or 3. The Tiger and Panther they rightfully feared.
The Pz IV was a good match for an M4(76); similar gun performance (disregarding the ammo deficiencies), similar weight (though the Pz IV was on the light side), similar mobility, similar protection (Pz IV had better hull protection, but the M4 had better turret armor). The M4 suffers a bit a longer ranges due to its size and that huge front plate that wasn't really thick enough. The Pz IV suffered from very poor side armor (however, in France the Pz IV had the advantage of ambush).
Now, the Tigers and Panthers got all the attention, but I would have a healthy respect for the Pz IV too, and I'm sure the allied tankers did too. In fact I would fear anything that had a long German 75 mm sticking out of it!
Die hard, this was really fun, I like a good debate. It seems I have read much of the same material you have I just come to different conclusions. Granted I read some of it years ago, so I am going to go back and make sure I am not basing some of my opinions on wrong memories, but 2 of the books you linked, hang out in my bathroom and I re read sections all the time =D.
I would love to have another discussion on the Panther at some point. I think I could keep from going personal if you can. Thanks for the post and the book links, it looks like I have some new library additions soon.
Yeah, my book stash keeps growing steadily too. However I have to split my attention between tanks, aircraft and subs. Which topic I select for bed-time reading depends on my mood. ;)
I'd love to discuss more armor with you at a later time but my bedtime grows near, and after this thread I think I will choose... subs. ;)
Good night gentlemen.
-
and after this thread I think I will choose... subs. ;)
Good night gentlemen.
Maybe we would get lucky and HiTech would post some pictures from his Dad's submarine career.
ack-ack
-
Another night watching multiple 88mm's bounce off Shermans turrets...
QUESTION... why didnt the allies supply tanks built entirly from this Uber armor? :aok
-
See Rules #2, #4 (enjoy the week off, you were warned)
-
That's a great site! I use www.onwar.com a lot for looking up technical stuff quickly. Great site for what it is.
I have not seen Onwar.com before, interesting site. I like the timeline. More stuff to read. eheh
The shatter problem was observed with all armor that over matched the round. The 80 mm plate on the Pz IV did after all equal the Tigers side armor and the Panther's front armor in thickness (but not slope).
So now I am confused a bit. Is this a problem with Allied tank rounds or a problem for all guns and it was just worse for the allied stuff because the German armor was heavier?
So back to that text:
"Another fact that helped the Tigers a lot was the "shatter gap" effect which affectted allied ammunition, a most unusual situation where rounds with too high an impact velocity would sometimes fail even though their penetration capability was (theoretically) more than adequate. This phenomenon plagued the British 2 pounder in the desert, and would have decreased the effectiveness of U.S. 76mm and 3" guns against Tigers, Panthers and other vehicles with armor thickness above 70 mm. It should be noted that the problems with the 76 mm and 3" guns did not necessarily involve the weapons themselves: the noses of US armor-piercing ammunition of the time turned out to be excessively soft. When these projectiles impacted armor which matched or exceeded the projectile diameter at a certain spread of velocities, the projectile would shatter and fail.
Penetrations would occur below this velocity range, since the shell would not shatter, and strikes above this range would propel the shell through the armor whether it shattered or not. When striking a Tiger I driver's plate, for example, this "shatter gap" for a 76mm APCBC M62 shell would cause failures between 50 meters and 900 meters. These ammunition deficiencies proved that Ordnance tests claiming the 76 mm gun could penetrate a Tiger I's upper front hull to 2,000 yards (1,800 meters) were sadly incorrect."
So it says there is a chance? Did they do a study of any kind that shows percentages of failure? Did it only affect the M62 round? From the chards that Standard M79 AP will penetrate 92MM at 914 meters, was this round effected? They do not mention it.
I assume the M93 HVAP round was less affected by this?
Also would the Panther and Panzer 4 be effected by this as well when firing against the JS-2 100MM plates? If yes, the rate was less because the German ammo was better?
The Pz IV was a good match for an M4(76); similar gun performance (disregarding the ammo deficiencies), similar weight (though the Pz IV was on the light side), similar mobility, similar protection (Pz IV had better hull protection, but the M4 had better turret armor). The M4 suffers a bit a longer ranges due to its size and that huge front plate that wasn't really thick enough. The Pz IV suffered from very poor side armor (however, in France the Pz IV had the advantage of ambush).
Now, the Tigers and Panthers got all the attention, but I would have a healthy respect for the Pz IV too, and I'm sure the allied tankers did too. In fact I would fear anything that had a long German 75 mm sticking out of it!
I agree, on how close they are, they mainly why I said the later Shermans didn’t have any trouble with the Panzer 4. In my opinion, it would come down to the tactical situation and crew quality with a large advantage going to Germans for being on the defense. I personally wouldn’t want to be in either though with the other shooting at it.
Yeah, my book stash keeps growing steadily too. However I have to split my attention between tanks, aircraft and subs. Which topic I select for bed-time reading depends on my mood. ;)
I'd love to discuss more armor with you at a later time but my bedtime grows near, and after this thread I think I will choose... subs. ;)
Oh the books I would buy if I won the lottery lol. Never have enough.
Good posts Diehard! Thanks for going to the trouble.
-
So now I am confused a bit. Is this a problem with Allied tank rounds or a problem for all guns and it was just worse for the allied stuff because the German armor was heavier?
It was an ammunition related problem. Many guns suffered from shells shattering; the British were plagued by this in Africa against German FH plate armor, and the Russians gave up on APCBC due to the shatter problem and mostly used APBC which is just a blunt-nosed solid shot with a ballistic cap. German gun effectiveness was due in large part to the superior performance of the ammunition, which is related to nose hardness. British tests against homogeneous armor resulted in:
102 mm penetration for German 75 mm APCBC at 2000 ft/sec impact velocity.
90 mm penetration for U.S. 76 mm APCBC at 2000 ft/sec impact velocity.
75 mm penetration for Russian 76 mm APBC at 2000 ft/sec impact velocity.
The shot shatter problem was also "stacked" in Germany's favor in 1943-1945 since German armor generally over matched allied AT rounds (armor thickness >= round diameter) and German AT guns generally over matched allied armor.
So it says there is a chance? Did they do a study of any kind that shows percentages of failure? Did it only affect the M62 round? From the chards that Standard M79 AP will penetrate 92MM at 914 meters, was this round effected? They do not mention it.
I assume the M93 HVAP round was less affected by this?
The author of that site is a bit vague on that. At or close to the end of the "shatter gap" (900-ish yards for the 76 mm APCBC vs. 80 mm plate) the rounds would sometimes fail, sometimes penetrate. As I mentioned earlier the US Navy tests against 3 inch (76.2 mm) armor found that the 76 mm APC/APCBC round failed 50% of the time at an impact velocity of 2,069 ft/sec, and 100% from 2,073 ft/sec to 2,376 ft/sec. So the "transitional" range where rounds would shatter only sometimes is very narrow and covers perhaps 50-100 yards. While other factors modify these numbers, generally speaking the "shatter gap" for the 76 mm M1 was 200-900 yards against an 80 mm plate, and 50-1,200 yards against a 100 mm plate.
The tungsten APCR/HVAP rounds were not affected by the "shatter gap" phenomenon, but all standard AP ammunition was (AP, APC, APCBC).
Also would the Panther and Panzer 4 be effected by this as well when firing against the JS-2 100MM plates? If yes, the rate was less because the German ammo was better?
I haven't heard/read anything about the Germans having shatter problems at all against Russian armor. There are many probable reasons for this, chief among them the high quality of German ammunition and the poor quality of Russian cast armor. To shatter an incoming shell the armor needs to have a very hard surface, and you only get that with high quality plate armor.
The following numbers are what I consider the relative armor strength in WWII. These are not "scientific" numbers, but they should be in the ball park:
German/Western Allies plate armor: 100% efficiency (i.e. the yardstick) and the only armor that regularly shattered soft-nosed AT shells.
(Late 1944-1945 German plate armor: 70-90% efficiency due to lack of good alloying metals.)
Western Allies cast armor: 80% efficiency.
Russian cast armor: 50-70% efficiency (quality varied a lot)
So when comparing armor thickness consider the quality of armor involved.
-
Lusche, thank you for the website link. This is excellent!
Now, I did claim that the 17 pounder could afford a shootout with the German guns, although the allied armour (notably the Firefly) could not allow any "exchange". Here is what the website gave me:
The 17 pounder with Apcbc ammo (muzzle velocity 884 m/s, projectile weight 7,71 kg) could penetrate 140mm at 457 m range, 130 at 914m, 120 at 1371m, and 111 at 1828m.
With an apds round, you had a projectile up to 3.71 kg’s and a muzzle velocity of 1204 m/s. Penetration in the same ranges would be 208mm, 192mm, 176mm and 161.
The Tiger I’s main gun, 88mm KwK36, could fire shells in the range of 7.3 to 10.2 kilogrammes, and penetrate at best (APCR, 7,3 kgs, 930 m/s) 170 mm at 100 meters, 155 at 500, 138 at 1000, 122 at 1500 and 110 at 2000.
The Panther’s main gun, KwK 42 would fire it’s anti tank round (apcbc) of 4.75 kg at 1120 m/s and penetrate 194 mm at 100 meters, 174 at 500, 149 at 1000, 127 at 1500, and 106 at 2000.
All figures take aim of 30 degrees angle.
So, I didn't even bother to take the Panzer IV into the comparison, these are the vaunted Tiger and Panther tanks.
The 17 pdr is, thereby quite well in the club, wouldn't you say.
BTW, Tiger's thickest part is 110mm? And the strongest part of those two would be the front of the panther?
-
The strongest part was the Tiger's turret front which was protected by the mantle shield. A total of 200-210 mm. The best any WWII tank gun could hope to do against that at combat ranges would be to disable the gun.
-
So, it would be the last thing to aim for. Anyway, if you want to kill a tough tank, you do well if you can disable it's mobility and then utilize that to get a better shot. Or try getting a shot into the hull to kill the crew.
-
One thing about the Sherman...and others. Does anyone know what the turret traverse was? I mean, how fast. I recall it to be claimed to be quite fast. And the Tiger? From some source I heard 1 minute, but that seems too slow. And the Panther?
-
"From some source I heard 1 minute, but that seems too slow." I'm not sure but it may have been even slower than that. It was best to steer the whole tank to get the gun quickly to target.
-C+
-
That does not help if your tracks are screwed. Neither will it in a stationary position, - ambush.
-
That does not help if your tracks are screwed. Neither will it in a stationary position, - ambush.
I just looked it up, in a great book on the Tiger I
Germany's Tiger Tanks D.W. TO Tiger I: Design production and modifications by Thomas L Jentz and Hilary L. Doyle
http://www.amazon.com/Germanys-Tiger-Tanks-D-W-Modifications/dp/0764310380 (http://www.amazon.com/Germanys-Tiger-Tanks-D-W-Modifications/dp/0764310380)
Page 52 under traverse drive. The fastest it could rotate was 360 degrees in a minute.
I will see if I can find info on the Sherman.
-
I will see if I can find info on the Sherman.
From "M4 Sherman at War":
"The minimum time required for traversing 360 degrees with either type of powered-traverse systems was 17 seconds."
-
From "M4 Sherman at War":
"The minimum time required for traversing 360 degrees with either type of powered-traverse systems was 17 seconds."
Wow. That's a huge difference.
Thanks for finding it.
-
The Tiger's hydraulic powered turret was designed to provide very fine adjustment for long range combat. In spite of Angus' claim, a slow turret traverse is inconsequential for ambush effectiveness; indeed most purpose built tank destroyers of the day were turretless.
-
The normal sherman's tactics against a tiger actually utilized this. If they could de-track it they would try and approach from many sides. Dangerous game none the less.
Wonder about the Panther. Ans as well, since I never drove a tank (Just bulldozers and excavators) how the control is. I mean, only one setting or what?
Today, speed of turret traverse is regarded as important. The new British Challenger does the round in 9 seconds..
BTW, tank destroyers. That would be something for AH perhaps.
-
Tactically surrounding a tank is risky business also because of supporting infantry, not just other tanks.
Back in those days when you had the most armour in front the best option was always to turn you front in general direction of enemy. In modern tanks with reactive armour and facing AT weapons with incredible power it is not that important, but to utilize the speed and mobility where a fast turret comes very handy.
The doctrines were actually quite practical. For fast attack purpose the tank needs to be relatively light and fast with good cross-country capabilities where fast turret speed helps (especailly if the terrain provides lot of cover) and for defensive tactics a heavy and slow tank with big gun is OK. Of course in open terrain a big tank may fare better since it can endure more battering before getting disabled.
And de-tracking does not disable the tank's ability to turn unless both sides are de-tracked. It just disables its ability to move to a tactically better place which is already a huge handicap.
-C+
-
Pahh.
A de-tracked tank will only turn it's hull in ONE direction as long as it CAN. And in such a position a slow-turning turret is NO advantage. Getting hit means that somebody already got an aim on you.
In the case of facing the Firefly, German armour had to cope with one of Murphy's finest rules of combat. If the enemy is in range, so are you. :t
-
Pahh.
A de-tracked tank will only turn it's hull in ONE direction as long as it CAN.
What kind of warped logic is that? :huh Why only one direction?
-
That is left OR right. Try that for a few circles on a soft ground and see what happens.
(Sometimes being a farmboy allows you to see things)
-
Apparently being a farm boy allows you to see things a tanker can't; if your right track is disabled you turn the tank to face the enemy by rotating the left track forward if you want to turn right, and reverse the left track if you want to turn left. The the disabled right track or bogies are the pivot point.
-
Yes, and do some more of that jig-jag on a 45-60 tonne tank and you're also moving DOWN.
Being de-tracked is basically a very bad thing. That's all.
-
You underestimate the power of these vehicles, and you overestimate how far you'd need to turn to face the enemy. Unless the enemy is driving in circles around you it wouldn't be a problem. The Swedish S-Tank for instance had to turn the whole vehicle to aim the gun, and they never complained about digging themselves down in the process: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fARGfVA7Mm8
Also, while one minute to traverse the turret 360 degrees sounds like a lot, it isn't that slow when you see it; you'd have to be real close in an M4 to out run it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ki3imFOc0So
-
Have you ever seen a stuck tank? Or a tank having trouble getting through loose ground? Modern bulldozers run rings around WW2 tanks. That's all there is to it.
Turn a bulldozer in a tight constant circle and you will dig in a loose ground. You can even do this with a normal tractor. And on a tank, once the clearance is gone, you're flat on the belly, and VERY stuck. You will not be able to access the broken track either.
Want to kill a detracked tank? Approach from the side of the intact track :devil preferably from 2 sides.
I had some living with both M4's, M-3's and LVT's in sand BTW. I was baffled how far away they were from a CAT ;)
The LVT had some spirit though.
-
Well, I used to drive an M113 back in the 1970s, but what do I know... Farm boy here has all the answers. :rolleyes:
-
I guess you ripped the track off one side and kept driving....for the test...
Anyway, the M113 is light and reasonably powered for the weight. It has a lot better performance than the LVT, which in turn will get to places that will bog down all the heavy tanks of WW2.
Since you mentioned the "S-tank", that one is an ambush speciality and by the way, digs itself down. Just like you can do with some roughness on an excavator or a bulldozer.
Now, for turret traverse and trouble, as well as some serious driving, - no overlapping wheels though, look here and have fun ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGyNzXUOdGg&feature=PlayList&p=974265F29C998FB3&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=54
-
No, I won't. I'm through trying to talk sense into you.
-
You underestimate the power of these vehicles, and you overestimate how far you'd need to turn to face the enemy. Unless the enemy is driving in circles around you it wouldn't be a problem. The Swedish S-Tank for instance had to turn the whole vehicle to aim the gun, and they never complained about digging themselves down in the process: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fARGfVA7Mm8
Let me get this straight -- You are saying that Angus's statement that a tank without its track will dig itself down in soft earth is false by showing how a lighter tank with it's tracks in place performs? :confused:
-
No, I won't. I'm through trying to talk sense into you.
You cannot make me see any sense in a detracked tank in battle having anything but big trouble, and not being very *cough* mobile. Nor can you make me see any sense in turning the tank on one track adding up for a slow traverse of turret, and giving an unlimited chance of facing the frontal armour at all times to an attack.
Pity you won't see the video from the link. I did look at the S-Tank, but I'd seen it before. There is another one about the S-Tank which has something in common with the link I posted, which actually does touch a fine part of the "normal" Sherman (not the Firefly), - one Sherman merit that shines under some cirkumstances.
Maybe others will look and figure out....
-
Let me get this straight -- You are saying that Angus's statement that a tank without its track will dig itself down in soft earth is false by showing how a lighter tank with it's tracks in place performs? :confused:
I'm saying that Angus' statement is loaded, and thus pointless, in that unless the tank is completely alone on the battlefield it will never have to make complete circles or repeatedly turn back and forth to face the enemy. Depending on how firm/loose the ground is any tank with one good track would be able to change facing multiple times. Also, while tractors and bulldozers don't have flat undersides, tanks do; even when tanks get stuck and cannot move they are often still able to turn in place (albeit slowly).
-
Excavators pretty much do. If you end down on the underside you're quite stuck by the way. You can do so by messing about in a soft ground too much, -without needing to have a disabled track. They are, btw, normally somewhat lighter than a WW2 heavy, and with wider tracks.
For the excavator there is a rescue though. . . .
Now the tank does not have to be completely alone on the field. Neither does it have to be in advance. And the only thing you know, if you get hit in the tracks and disabled that way is that you are already in range. So, quite bad really.
-
Being in range so that a track can be damaged is not the same as being in range so that your armor can be penetrated. A well aimed (or lucky) shot from a T-34 or M4(75) can damage the track of a Tiger at beyond 2,000 yards. However they would still have to drive a mile closer to have a realistic chance of killing the Tiger.
-
Now that is true. For a Tiger. But not for every tank.
-
We have been talking about the Tiger for the last two pages. And the same is true for every German tank on the western front in 1944, even the Pz IV; the Pz IV and Panther would also be more dependent on getting their front armor to face the enemy than the Tiger.
-
Exactly. And killing them with one or no track is much easier than killing them with both.
The Panther would really have to guard it's sides.
BTW, didn't the Panther have a good ROF, somewhat better than Tiger?
-
Exactly. And killing them with one or no track is much easier than killing them with both.
The Panther would really have to guard it's sides.
BTW, didn't the Panther have a good ROF, somewhat better than Tiger?
From my reading, my impression is in most cases when a tank loses mobility in combat the crew bails and leaves the vehicle behind. Were Tiger crews more prone to stay with their imobile tank because it was well protected?
I really doubt that's the case with the Panther and its thin side Armor, since a large percent of the loses in Normandy were due to the crews abandoning their Panther, I would think lost tracks would be the number one cause of that but the book didnt go into detail of what an abandoned tank meant.
-
angus im cool with someone being russian german chinese japanese or just a mix of the whole friggin world but no matter which way you put it each person is respectable you have a problem with a foreinor then shutup and keep it too your self but to me no matter where ya come from you and diehard shoulsd stop arguing and fighting or whatever.
-
Could you please write this in understandable English?
(Which, by the way is not my first language)
-
I would rather see HTC fix the damage model then add more tanks.
-
Al, there was a damage modeling thread a while back, sorry if you missed it, but how many planes do we have....? and how many tanks do we have........? EXACTLY :aok!!!! besides unless you are talking aboud better damage modeling for the fighters where you loose lift for each bullet you take then drop it; buffs have a hard enough time already.