Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: DaveBB on July 11, 2015, 09:57:13 AM
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNjp_4jY8pY
Here are some myths about U.S. armor that are dispelled. This is actually very good. The U.S. armor board was not as incompetent as they have been made out to be.
*Spoiler alert*
My favorite part was that the Army anticipated needing a bigger gun on the Sherman in the early months in 1942, and even mounted a long barreled 3" canon on the Sherman. But they just couldn't get it to work in the cramped turret. So they had to design a new turret for it (actually taken from the T-23). It talks about tank destroyers also. Their primary role was purely defensive.
-
Really liked this video. That guy has one of the best jobs in the world, I imagine.
-
presented by a gaming company that changes RL stats to accommodate gaming needs.
semp
-
:rofl
:)
:rofl
-
presented by a gaming company that changes RL stats to accommodate gaming needs.
semp
Are you saying he lacks credibility because WOT adjusts stats of their not a simulator game for gameplay reasons? I'm not sure I see a rational point to be made.
-
Are you saying he lacks credibility because WOT adjusts stats of their not a simulator game for gameplay reasons? I'm not sure I see a rational point to be made.
(http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view1/3829042/lighten-up-francis-o-s.gif)
-
I'll believe what I read from actual historians, not a videogame company's shill, thanks.
-
I do like the man and most of his videos are informative and fun. This is not one of them. While I agree that the Sherman has an undeservedly bad reputation The Chieftain is clearly cherry picking data to support his point of view here. He is also neglecting to mention some very important problems that plagued Allied tanks in the crucial period following D-day.
Most important was perhaps the quality problems with the APCBC ammo for the 75 mm and 76 mm guns. The infamous "shatter gap". A most unusual situation where rounds with too high an impact velocity would fail even though their penetration capability should be more than adequate. This phenomenon plagued the effectiveness of US 76mm and 3" guns against Tigers, Panthers and other vehicles with armor thickness above 70 mm. The caps of the APCBC ammunition 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. In France Allied tankers often found themselves in the ridiculous situation of being too close to achieve penetration against German armor.
Another point I find very hard not to criticize is his extreme cherry picking of data on Tiger I encounters. Only three? Really? Some of the most famous and published tank actions in France after D-Day involved Tigers from the Heavy SS-Panzer Battalion 101. SS-Hauptsturmführer Michael Wittmann alone accounts for more Tiger battles in France than what The Chieftain claims as a total in his video. Including the battle where he died in a Tiger I, at the hands of a Sherman Firefly gunner.
"The Tigers now attacked from the flank against the Polish Armoured Division. They opened fire from 1800 meters. The first enemy tanks blew apart. The wave of Shermans which was rolling toward Cintheaux was smashed. One Allied attack after another broke down in front of the thin front held by the handful of Tigers. The battle raged for hours. One of the Tiger commanders who survived reported that Wittmann's Tiger had destroyed three more enemy tanks."
He is also very careful in specifying Tiger I which I find deceitful since this model was out of production by this time of the war. Historians generally agree that the Tiger I and II had a 12:1 kill ratio against all models of the Sherman tank.
-
He is also very careful in specifying Tiger I which I find deceitful since this model was out of production by this time of the war.
The last Tiger Is were produced in Aug 1944. Whittmann was killed Aug 8 1944.
Being out of production does not mean it was not used anymore.
-
Sure, but him specifying the Tiger I is cherry picking data to make a point that is contrary to what was reality.
-
I don't feel that he was cherry picking that data at all. I felt it was a very informative, and interesting presentation. I think it would be safe to say that most Shermans were knocked out of action by anti-tank guns.
-
Shermans fought against Tiger Is longer than they did Tiger IIs.
-
His time frame was D-Day to VE-Day. The Tiger II first saw combat with s.H.Pz.Abt. 503 in Normandy in July 1944.
-
s.Pz.Abt. 503 was transferred to Normandy with 33 Tiger I and 12 Tiger II (almost all with Porsche turrets), reaching action in early July 1944. In Sept, it was sent to Hungary.
-
I cannot say that the film contributed to the humanity in any greater way. Was a lot of obvious thing in it. German armour was greatly outnumbered and always short on fuel and ammo. The superior tanks couldn't compensate for the overwhelming numbers of Allied Tanks/aircrafts/and so on. Quantity is also quality. Not even if the Germans had a hundred Abrams they would have won in France. A tank is no good if u don't get fuel and ammo to it.
Shermans were comparable to PzKw IV And they matched each other fairly well. With the support they had the Shermans could compensate for the fact that they were inferior to Panthers and Tigers.
-
s.Pz.Abt. 503 was transferred to Normandy with 33 Tiger I and 12 Tiger II (almost all with Porsche turrets), reaching action in early July 1944. In Sept, it was sent to Hungary.
Your point? (If you have one.)
-
I cannot say that the film contributed to the humanity in any greater way. Was a lot of obvious thing in it. German armour was greatly outnumbered and always short on fuel and ammo. The superior tanks couldn't compensate for the overwhelming numbers of Allied Tanks/aircrafts/and so on. Quantity is also quality. Not even if the Germans had a hundred Abrams they would have won in France. A tank is no good if u don't get fuel and ammo to it.
Shermans were comparable to PzKw IV And they matched each other fairly well. With the support they had the Shermans could compensate for the fact that they were inferior to Panthers and Tigers.
Like aircraft, the training and skill of the crews mattered. He mentioned the large scale action of Panthers vs Shermans (which I have read about elsewhere). 20 Shermans were destroyed, while 80 Panthers were destroyed.
-
Once Germany posted Panzer Lehr into a combat slot, their goose was cooked for armored warfare. Much in the same way they couldn't train pilots to be much use late in the war.
-
Your point? (If you have one.)
Thought it would be obvious but since it isn't for some people, Allied tanks would be 3 times more likely to come across a Tiger I than a Tiger II, at least for 503.
-
Like aircraft, the training and skill of the crews mattered. He mentioned the large scale action of Panthers vs Shermans (which I have read about elsewhere). 20 Shermans were destroyed, while 80 Panthers were destroyed.
No he even admit he was wrong, it was 80 armoured veichles, not 80 panthers
-
Thought it would be obvious but since it isn't for some people, Allied tanks would be 3 times more likely to come across a Tiger I than a Tiger II, at least for 503.
In July 1944 yes. In January 1945 though. How many Tiger I took part in the Ardennes offensive? None. After August 1944 the Tiger I numbers would dwindle to almost nothing leaving the Tiger II the only Tiger, with a few notable exceptions, the Allies would meet in combat until VE-Day, 8th May 1945.
-
In July 1944 yes. In January 1945 though. How many Tiger I took part in the Ardennes offensive? None. After August 1944 the Tiger I numbers would dwindle to almost nothing leaving the Tiger II the only Tiger, with a few notable exceptions, the Allies would meet in combat until VE-Day, 8th May 1945.
4th Company of sPzAbt 506 was equipped with Tigers Is and took part in the Ardennes battle.
-
Normandy was also very ill suited for Tank operations and Panthers lost their advantage in engaging at long ranges.
And as said, quality of German tanks meant nothing against the superior numbers of Allied tanks.
For ex Operation Cobra in july -44: 2.451 allied tanks and tank destroyers vs 190 on the German side. 13 to 1 for the Allied side. They could probably just have charged head on against Tigers and Panthers and still have enough tanks left to kill them when they got within range to do so.
-
One of the myths about WWII US armor vehicles is that it is an interesting subject.
-
germany always had the better tanks. been many accounts of german tankers that they say their tanks where so superior to the allieds that it would take 2 allied tanks to kill 1 german. problem was is that the allied always seem to have 3 around.
semp
-
The German Cats were always breaking down. Tanks do not operate in a vacuum. Under a very specific set of circumstances they were better. That being purely defensive, not having to cross any bridges, not having to be transported by rail, not having to perform road marches, and not having to have quick maintenance done on the road wheels.
Even when the M-26 was about as reliable as the Panther, the War Department would not release the M-26 into ETO as being unfit for combat.
-
https://www.benning.army.mil/training/eArmor/2001/SEP_OCT/ArmorSeptemberOctober2001web.pdf
pg 38
more myths of American armour.
-
Even when the M-26 was about as reliable as the Panther, the War Department would not release the M-26 into ETO as being unfit for combat.
The Pershing saw limited combat during the war in Europe, though in small numbers. The small number of Pershings in theater had nothing to do with the War Department considering it unfit for combat, it's operational delay was due to design and production problems. The US Army wanted more but because of the delays in the M-26 program, only 20 were ready for deployment and were split between the 3rd and 9th AD's.
-
The Pershing saw limited combat during the war in Europe, though in small numbers. The small number of Pershings in theater had nothing to do with the War Department considering it unfit for combat, it's operational delay was due to design and production problems. The US Army wanted more but because of the delays in the M-26 program, only 20 were ready for deployment and were split between the 3rd and 9th AD's.
The link I posted has some info on the Pershing.
-
He is presenting a lot of his summaries as fact. I don't think that the vast amount of data out there actually agrees with him on a lot of his summaries.
-
I cannot say that the film contributed to the humanity in any greater way. Was a lot of obvious thing in it. German armour was greatly outnumbered and always short on fuel and ammo. The superior tanks couldn't compensate for the overwhelming numbers of Allied Tanks/aircrafts/and so on. Quantity is also quality. Not even if the Germans had a hundred Abrams they would have won in France. A tank is no good if u don't get fuel and ammo to it.
Shermans were comparable to PzKw IV And they matched each other fairly well. With the support they had the Shermans could compensate for the fact that they were inferior to Panthers and Tigers.
I'll take the bait.... the M4 Sherman, armed with the 75mm gun, was equal to the Panzer IV in armor thickness and speed. The longer 7.5cm main gun on the Panzer IV F/H was superior in AP performance and an equal in HE. Rate of fire was similar. Optics were superior on the Panzer IV albeit a low magnification.
Tank vs tank, the odds were in the favor of the Panzer IV F/H over the 75mm M4 Sherman (and still a tad bit superior than the 76mm). Bring in all the other variables by 1944 and the tank vs tank comparison is not viable. :)