Printable View
This thread may sound silly to you. German tanks were one of the best in WW2. Panther, Tiger, Tiger2 and many more outclassed their opponents. On the other side I think they were overdesigned. It took too many resources and menhours to build them. They were too susceptible against technical defects.
IMO it was just a part of the war competition.
They had to do it just because of the fact they could't breach several tanks armor with their previous armor.
Also they had to improve their tanks armor not to allow enemies breach it to easily.
Sorry if this is too messy.
P.S. E.G. Soviet IS 1 or 2 breached panther's ( if I am not mistaken) from quit a distance.
Yes, I think you have to look at cost-effectiveness. The Sherman, for example, is often looked down upon because tank for tank it was clearly inferior to the Panther. But technically, the Sherman was a pretty decent tank - for example, compared to the lauded T-34. And some writers have assessed it as more cost-effective than the Panther, if you factor in its lower cost of production.
As IllaDIN implies, I suspect our perception of WW2 tanks is rather influenced by the timing of development cycle in each country. Up until 1942, German tanks were not so superior in hardware. But no one noticed much, because they were used so effectively. What people focus on are the Tigers and Panthers rushed out to counter the T-34. In turn, by 1945 the Allied tanks were starting to benefit from the effort to counter the Tigers and Panthers. But it was pretty much all over by the time they (Pershing, Joseph Stalin series etc) came on in numbers.
As I may have posted before, the unquestionable superiority of the Tiger over, say, the Sherman or T34 is put into some perspective when you realise that about 1400 Tigers were manufactured compared to more than 40,000 each of the Sherman and T34 (including an incredible 21231 Shermans in 1943, compare peak production of the Panther at 3777 in 1944). Even the British managed to make over 8000 of the not-very-good Valentine tank.
Another factor that can be overlooked is that to be any use you have to get a tank to a battlefield in working order. The T34, for instance, was tolerant of poor maintenance and bad conditions, important factors when it was being operated in a Russian spring thaw by troops and mechanics who may never have seen a motorised vehicle before. Both T34 and Sherman were also easier to transport than heavier tanks.
Final observation is that, possibly characteristic of a gangster regime, armoured vehicle design and production was factionalised. Guderian was most frustrated to find, when he was put in charge of overall design and production of all panzers, that this did NOT include SPGs (these being classified as artillery not as Panzers). Contrast this with the Russians efficient standardisation on two chassis only (T34 and KV, laterly used as the chassis for the JS heavy tanks) or the Americans equally efficient use of the M4.
Finally the tactical conception of the tank was different, in the American army at least. Tank-tank combat was primarily to be carried out with tank destroyers, tanks being used to make advances against enemy positions being held with infantry, AT guns and artillery. So, although this concept too was flawed, it would be a fairer comparison to compare an M10 or M36 with the Panther rather than the (clearly profoundly outclassed) Sherman.
I wouldn't say that the Germans did wrong in beginning to dabble with heavier tanks. After all the Tiger was a very old project that got up to speed due to the T-34, and the Panther was a direct counter, simply because the Germans had no counter to the T-34.
True the Pz IV was equipped with the long barreled 75mm, and it could thus do something about it, but that kind of tank wasn't available when the either project when ahead.
Also, the Germans knew they culdn't hope to outproduce the Russians when they were geared for war. Thus a slightly inferior tank was not the answer to countering hordes of enemy tanks.
One could argue that Hitler perhaps jumped the projects too much, and forced changes on both Tiger and Panther production. Initially the Panther was not meant to have been heavier than 30 tons (the same with the Tiger), and the 'T-34' version of the Panther (looks uncannily like a T-34) was in fact much lighter than the resulting Panther, but it was felt it was too obvious it was copied from the Russians.
I recently saw the show “Top Ten Tanks” on the military channel (I love TV ~D ). The show ranked the Tiger #3 and noted that the tanks biggest weakness was that it was too complex to produce rapidly and in mass. It also noted that the Tiger was the first tank to have 2 way radios in each one. It would have been pretty tough to organize a good blitzkrieg without them.
There was a small part in the Tiger segment were they talk about the Tigers armor and actually show a Tiger that took IIRC 270+ hits from Shermans and wasn’t destroyed. They were definitely over-designed but what great crew survivability (at least against the shermans ~;) ).
Link to #3 of the top 10
http://military.discovery.com/conver...deshow_08.html
Odd ranking system... Fear factor included, which is a very strange thing as all tanks are very scary if haven't got the weapons to stop them.
Also, certain tanks are ranked lower because they weren't poduced in large numbers (Merkerva for instance), but that doesn't take into account that those that scored high on that were produced in war, meaning they had a good reason to use more assemblylines for tanks. And it doesn't take into account that the country might not want to build that many tanks, or can't due to limited industry.
While I agree with most of the list I find their way of handling it flawed.
German Armored Superiority wasn't, for the most part, a product of their tanks.
1939-1942, their real success was in using those tanks in the aggressive and non-stop manner that maximizes the "shock" value of armor.
The Pz-Is and IIs of the Polish campaign were better than Polish tankettes, but not by much. About 25% of German armor were the Czech 35s and 38s, a very limited light tank (albeit a good one in its class).
The Pz-IIs and IIIs of the French campaign were, at best, equal to the French armor, and were inferior to the Char-1. British armor was inferior, except for the Matilda, which was almost invulnerable to German armor.
Soviet armor in '41 was often inferior to the Germans, aside from a handful of T-34a's, but they had something approaching 20-1 numbers.
In all 3 campaigns, the Germans tore their opponents apart because they used their armor en masse and for penetration -- the Blitzkrieg.
From 1942 on, Germany produced good tanks, and sometimes excellent tanks, but the number one factor in their success was the better artillery that they carried. The Long 50, Long 75, Extra Long 75, 88, and 88 Long weapons mounted by virtually every mark of German tank from mid-1942 on easily outclassed almost every tank or tank destroyer gun they faced until late 1944 or 1945, and they weren't really surpassed as tank weapons until the late 1950's.
German tanks were often labor intensive, and the early models suffered from teething problems which, during the press of war, were not ironed out before deploying them. German tank guns, however, whether mounted on an STG or a Pz-Vg, almost always grossly outshot their opponents and allowed the Germans to face ridiculous odds with some hope of success.
Allied tanks were often mechanically more reliable (the M4 and T-34 chasses famously so) and they were much cheaper to produce, but they had to be -- cause they got killed in much worse ratios as well. The First tank to have both a main gun and frontal armor that definitively outclassed the Pzkw-vG was the M-48. The penetration factor (key to a tank kill) of that extra long 75mm weapon was staggering. The Russian 100L and 122L and German 88L's were no better despite their better throw-weight.
Seamus
I would say that the IS-2 was better than the Panther in a one-shot situation. Better frontal armour, smaller size (though not much) and a much heavier gun (though not much better for the AP part). And that tank was definately on the scene prior to the M-48.
Also the 88mmL71 was definately superior to the 75mmL70 of the Panther. The L51 of the Tiger I was not much better, and in some cases it was slightly less effective than the 75mm of the Panther.
Okay. I've reviewed some of my materials on this and I must concur with you about the 88L71. Though comparable at point blank ranges, the 75L70 simply didn't have the penetration of the 88 at medium and long range.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraxis
However, I would actually favor the Vg in a one-on-one with the IS-2, the Panther's frontal armor was thicker than the shell fired by the IS-2 and hence not prone to the added penetration effect. Moreover, the frontal armor of the Panther was much more sharply sloped than that of the IS-2, giving it an equivalent frontal thickness and a greater capacity to "shrug off" imperfectly placed hits. While the IS-2 was heavily armored, that armor was of inferior quality metalurgically and was more vulnerable to pentration at range than the Panther. While the match is a tight one, I would put the edge the other way.
The IS-2 and 3, as you know, did not remain in Front line service for very long. Had they borne another name, I supsect the Soviets might have switched directions even earlier.
Seamus
I don't even think the IS-3 saw actual service in the WWII, to many mechanical problems. Though otherwise Russian tanks were the least prone to mechanical failure.
The Panther btw is not a heavy tank, the Germans themselves classified them as medium tanks and deployed them as such. This tank gets my vote for best WWII tank. It could kill a T34-85 at a range of 2 kilometres, had descent mobility and excellent armour.
T34-85 could destroy a Panther when close enough, but all things considered I think it's outclassed by the Panther. The only other two tanks I can remember that have a fighting chance are the M26 Pershing and the IS-2, wich both fall into the heavy tank catagory.
Costwise though, the Panzer IV w75 is better.
It may have already been mentioned, but the emphasis on superiority over production was a concious decision.
Speer and his people knew fairly early on that they could not out produce the allies.
However, the Germans did have a clear superiority in their tank crews.
So they could make a whole lot of relatively poor tanks, even though they still couldnt out produce the allies, and throw away those crews.
Or they could do what they did and focus on a lesser number of highly superior tanks that could be expected to combat several hundred allied tanks and succeed.
When German diplomacy failed, it was a lose - lose situation. However, if I was in Hitler's shoes i would have gone for quality over quantity as well. German crews were far more valuable than their tanks.
One of the big mistakes of the German industry was to use slave labor to propuce their tanks, so that the able-bodied men could fight at the front- even though this dramatically slowed down their production.
In my opinion, the Germans should have taken a lesson from the Russians and used Penal brigades- this would have countered the Russian human waves to a point, as well as speeding up tank production, and production in general.
Don't forget that there is more to tanks than how well they are 1 on 1. Would you rather have one Tiger or 10 or so T-34's? Also remember what good is a tank if when it brakes you can't fix it easily? But it seems the germans had no choice because out-producing the russians would be impossible. Still it seems the Tiger gets alot of credit. I'm no tank expert but what good is my tank if it sucks up gas at an amazing clip,is extremely difficult to fix, can't traverse harsh terrain. Seems like it has a bigger ego than use. I'm prolly asking to get ripped by some German fellow who knows what hes talking about eh... ~:handball:
Hey, the Tiger was a Porsche, so of course its admirers are fanatics! ~:)
Seriously, to address your question, at 10-1 odds, the Tiger was probably toast if up against the T-34/85. Against the T-34-76c, it would all depend upon terrain. Those puppies had to get CLOSE to kill a Tiger. Remember, however, that Tigers were, whenever possible, deployed with Pzkw-IIIs and a batch of infantry as support forces -- precisely to stop the swarming problem you rightly emphasize.
Oh, and by the way, 10-1 in Shermans and/Cromwells all too often ended up 0-10 for the allies.
Seamus
The Jagdtiger with its 128mm cannon was a representative of modern tank,google it.
How many planes did it take to finish a Tiger?
One Tiger, by a long shot.Quote:
Don't forget that there is more to tanks than how well they are 1 on 1. Would you rather have one Tiger or 10 or so T-34's?
Thats a bit overblown. All tanks are difficult to fix when they are first introduced. German tanks get a very bad rap because they were constantly being introduced during the war! The russians had a difficult time repairing the T-34 when it was first indroduced too - and it had reliability problems. Mechanincs need to get to know new machinery no matter how simple it is.Quote:
Also remember what good is a tank if when it brakes you can't fix it easily?
Youre right, but I think your overblowing it a bit. Just like what has happened to the Panther's reputation.Quote:
I'm no tank expert but what good is my tank if it sucks up gas at an amazing clip,is extremely difficult to fix, can't traverse harsh terrain. Seems like it has a bigger ego than use.
You'd have to find a german fellow who knows what hes talking about lol. ~DQuote:
I'm prolly asking to get ripped by some German fellow who knows what hes talking about eh...
Also factor in the crew experience. I would give that Tiger damned good odds against those '85s. Not because the Tiger was so much better than the '85, but because the Tiger crew was.Quote:
Seriously, to address your question, at 10-1 odds, the Tiger was probably toast if up against the T-34/85. Against the T-34-76c, it would all depend upon terrain. Those puppies had to get CLOSE to kill a Tiger. Remember, however, that Tigers were, whenever possible, deployed with Pzkw-IIIs and a batch of infantry as support forces -- precisely to stop the swarming problem you rightly emphasize.
Theres a common myth that the German kill ratio vs Russian tanks was due to German armor superiority. As someone else mentioned, the number of "big cats" built was amazingly small. Germans did most of their killing in sub-par or simpy par tanks because they were damned good, not their equipment.
The Germans are ridiculous at how amazing they are at keeping with their cultural maxim of being excellent at producing quality goods. Their products are usually the kind manifested in the supercars of today: expensive, usually complicated - but of scrupulous quality.
I'd like to know more about the ratio performance / cost. I know that during the Kursk battle the soviet lost five times as many tanks as the Germans. However, both sides lost a lot due to air attacks. The Tiger's had a loss/kill ratio of 18.
Has anybody figures about the capacities needed to built those tanks? I mean steel, manpower, money etc.?
http://www.battlefield.ru/is2_3.html
http://www.iremember.ru/tankers/loza/loza1.html
I confess most of my knowledge of tanks comes from wargames, but in those, Tigers are typically far from being all conquering uber-tanks. For example, the idea of 10 T-34s being worth one Tiger would not be true in most cases. I recall an old Squad Leader scenario - paw of the Tiger - or some such, which illustrated such a scenario (based on a historical incident). But the Tigers were in a very favourable position - on a hill, with excellent line of sight and "bore sighting" (i.e. having prepared some kill zones) plus some support. In less ideal set-ups, the 10 T-34s would generally win.
PJ might have a point however, that sometimes the Germans could use 10 Tigers more effectively than the Allies could use 100 T-34s or Shermans.
Without getting drawn into the "how many T 34's would it take to kill a Tiger" debate (I don't have any data, although like SA I would say from wargaming that Tigers are not the uber-tanks they are sometimes presented as), IMHO we are overlooking the fact that a lot, possibly a majority, of tank losses come from something other than being knocked out by an AP shell from an enemy tank. Artillery will kill a heavy tank (very very nearly) as easily as a medium tank. Driver error can get you stuck in a ditch or rolled just as easily (possibly easier) in a heavy tank as a medium tank. A minefield will immobilise a heavy tank as readily as a medium tank. Air attack has already been mentioned, again, a heavy tank is not that much harder to kill from the air as a medium tank. Engines fail, propshafts break. And so on. So as a (armchair) general, I would take the 10 T34's every time. it spreads the risk of these attritional losses
We are also getting too hung up on tank v tank battles. A lot of the tank's tasks were much more varied; assaulting infantry behind an AT screen, spreading out from a brealthrough, and so on. If you had to assault an AT screen, would you want 10 (fast) targets, 10 76.2mm guns chucking out HE shells and 20MGs, or one slower target, one 88 mm gun and 2 MGs? Seems a no brainer to me. OK, the Tiger or Panther is considerably harder to kill, but not THAT hard. Tigers could be taken out even by the British 6 Pdr (57mm) AT gun, if the gunners kept their nerve and held fire until the Tiger was under 500 yds or so.
Look at it this way. Suppose you have 5 AT guns, and a field and rate of fire that means each gun can fire 10 shots before an assaulting tank it upon it. That's 50 shots to take out the attackers. With ten tanks, each one has to either be missed by or survive only five shots. With one tank, 50 shots. And even an invulnerable tank has tracks, suspension, etc.
IMHO as PJ says if it wasn't for the quality of the German tank crews the quality vs quantity decision the Germans took would have been shown to be mistaken much earlier.
There were different scenarios for tanks:
1. Break through the defense
From Guderians original concept this was not the job of the tanks but of the infantry. However, the longer the war took the more tanks and Sturmgeschütze were involved. The Brits had a different point of view and so they had the class of Infantry tanks.
2. Fight enemy tank concentration
3. Make trouble behind the lines
The most important one in the Blitzkrieg conception. Move fast, destroy all supply, command and artillery units behind the enemy lines.
To solve all these tasks a good mix seems to be the optimum. Shermans and T34 were good enough to support the infantry attack. German Sturmgeschütze too. Fighting enemy tanks a some heavy tanks can be helpful. But German Jagdpanzer and mobile Antitank guns would be also sufficient. To rumble behind the lines the T34 was also very good. It was fast and strong enough to break some resistance. And with its big numbers he was able to appear art many different places. One problem with German superheavies was that they consumed a lot of fuel with a relatively small tank. So their range was limited.
Well, about the metallurgy you are only half right. Beginning in the summer of 44 the German quality of steel was beginning to decline, until about the winter when it rapidly declined until the end. The tanks were still built good enough, but the quality of the materials declined sharply. In fact an internal Russian report of testing against a captured King Tiger showed that its heavy armour was strong but it would crack after a few shots, and then the armour would simply break apart after a few more. It was brittle, the mark of rushed production.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
If anything the Russian steel was too soft, but in general it was never brittle. And you can be sure that the IS-2 got the better quality steel (it was still a propaganda weapon).
The only real advantage the Panther had over the IS-2 was optics. The Russian optics were not good, while the German optics were the best to be found (which is part of the German supremacy in tank vs tank battles, they simply hit more).
And it is completely fair to compare the two tanks. Just because the Germans termed the Panther a medium tank doesn't make it such. It was heavy by all standards, even German. I find it applaudable that it was made so well that it could act like a medium tank, but it simply wasn't.
An SUV like the Porche Cayenne can act like a sports car, but is it a sportscar?
I don't get your point about the Panther having heavier armour than the shell fired by the IS-2... In any case that is not right, the IS-2 had a 122mm gun, and the Panther had 90-110mm armour in front. Sloped on the hull. But the IS-2 had armour of up to 130mm in front while the Panther had a 75mm gun. But as we know muzzlevelocity was/is important so I still don't get the point.
And just to point out, the IS-2 was relatively good at cross country because of its realatively low weight. At the same time the Panther was actually superior to the Sherman in cross country, a thing almost always overlooked or directly misinformed about. Sherman tank crews complained that the Panther would cross areas they could not (the Sherman was faster though). No wonder they felt like livestock for the slaughter (outmaneuvered, outgunned, outarmoured).
We need Redleg here. Certainly in one battle I have read about in detail (el Alamein) one of the main tasks of British divisional artillery was to shell the forming up areas used by German tanks preparing counter attacks. To the extent that, when successful which they often were, the counter attack could not even be launched.Quote:
Artillery was not used for targetting tanks in the middle of an engagement, artillery was used to soften up the enemy before an assault.
Firing on tanks heading at speed over open ground, no.
I remember a documentary about Montgomery, specificly a part about El Alamein. The way they deployed artillery there was most unusual, though effective in this case. I remember it because I heard a soldier saying that it was the first time that he ever saw artillery being deployed like this, and was astonished that Montgomery wasn't there to witness it himself. He went to bed early and let his commanders handle it ~D
The crew of a tank is indeed as important then the tank itself. Early on the kill ratio of German vs Russian tanks was enormously in favour of the Germans, but later while Germany's more experienced troops got thinned out the rates dropped to almost 1 on 1.
http://pedg.org/panzer/public/website/prod.htm#loses
In the same documentary I mentioned above, it mentioned how British soldiers in north Africa were first outraged that German fighter pilots would kill tank crews as they left their destroyed tanks, later to learn that it was only logical. Tanks could be reproduced easily enough, it took 18 years to grow another batch of soldiers.
About the IS-2, I heard that if the armour got penetrated by a shell the armour would splinter into pieces, often killing the crew. Can anyone confirm this?
Poor British. I do not know about tank crews. However a crew member that left the tank is still able to fight.Quote:
Originally Posted by Germaanse Strijder
I read that during the Battle of England Göring asked his squadron leaders if they would attack enemy pilots that left their planes. He explained too that the pilot is much more dangerous and irreplacable than the plane. They refused and Göring did not insist.
I also read that he Allied fighter were ordered to shoot at German pilots that had to leave the Me 262. They were all experts and killing them was very important.
I'm not exactly an expert at artillery, but I do know that it is possible to target a tank during the middle of a battle, especially if they are advancing as a dense armored column (fairly easy to hit, fairly linear movement). HE-FRAG shells probably won't do anything to tanks unless they hit directly though, so artillery wouldn't be that effective at destroying the tanks, although fragments would probably force the tanks to button up and sharply limit their movement and targeting abilities as well as take out the optics, radio masts, top mounted machine guns etc.
Good point about declining quality. Who knows how well the Germans might have done with a sifficient supply of Tungsten to keep manufacturing APCR rounds. Those were key to their tank-on-tank success in '41 and '42, but they were short on a lot of critical metallurgy components as the war progressed. As to the IS-2, I had read in one source that they were brittle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraxis
Spot on with this comment. Made the Germans a lot more effective in Naval gunnery than they had a right to be given the quality of their Naval artillery. Any gun that hits works better than a mega-gun that won't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraxis
The Germans attempted to deploy the Panther as a medium, but numbers and constant combat attrition rarely allowed a German Panzer division to have a full battalion of anything during '44 and later. I'd say you're comparison is valid, because any battle tank had a good chance of facing an opposing battle tank. Only recon units might not have been a fair comparison.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraxis
WWII pentration shots worked most effectively when the variables create a score of between 260 and 300 on the Brinell Hardness Index (BHN). This score is a product of ammo point hardness, armor angle, armor thickness, armor quality [soft is bad, but so is brittle], effective muzzle velocity, weight and diameter of shell. In general, a shell with a diameter greater than the plate it was facing had an advantage in penetration. The excellent angling of the Panther's armor gave it a greater degree of safety here than the thickness of the plate itself would indicate. This was, of course, less true for the turret than the hull.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraxis
Russia's emphasis on wide tread was a huge advantage off road. The Germans went to school on that for the Panther, and so did the rest of the world later. Of course, given Russia's road system at the time, designing a tank for maximum road speed would have been a bit dim. ~:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraxis
Seamus
(not going to you personally here EA)Quote:
Originally Posted by English assassin
Take note that the artillery was aimed at the stagingarea for the German tanks. That was a very effective usage of artillery against tanks, and eth Germans used it as well in Russia (late in the war the few shells of the artillery was often used for this rater than bombard advancing infantry). So why was this effective? Obviously the shells weren't too effective against the armour.
Well, in the stagingarea the tanks would be tended to by the mechanics, the crews would be out and help or in the process of loading up fuel and ammo. Lots of trucks or other softer vehicles vital to the tanks would be around. So the artillery would not affect the tanks themselves beyond a few damaged tanks and some others immobilized. But the crews, their mechanics and all the tending vehicles would be hit hard. I think it is obvious why the tanks wouldn't be able to attack right away.
About the IS-2... Hmmm... Interesting that it would be brittle. I expected it to be a continuation of the T-34 in terms of steel. And you can see the pictures of those knocked out have no breaking lines around the penetrations (a captured Jagdpanther from Normandy shows these very clearly in Bovington I think). So I expected it to be perfected with the IS-2, but perhaps the Russians went too far with the hardness, trying to overcome the softness.
So I guess the armour of either side would be fairly equal at the time when they would be expected to meet. I do not think the Panther had a marked advantage in sloping armour.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/l...601536_JPG.jpg http://www.twenot.nl/Specials/Panther/breda03.jpg
If one really has to argue about them, I would say the IS-2 has a small advantage in that it's hull is significantly lower and that it is more evenly built (upper glacis the same sice as the lower). But it is very limited how much of a difference there can be.
No worries I'm not taking it personally. I'm no kind of expert on artillery or on armoured warfare.
It may well be that casualties are caused by hitting the fueling tankers, or the crews having a fag break, it might even be as basic as breaking the ground up so the tanks ground out, but I guess the point that having fewer better tanks is worse than more less good tanks would still apply, since all those factors are independent of the quality of the tank itself.
As for direct destruction, you do see pictures of tanks, inc heavy ones like the KV1, on their sides or even overturned by a shell, but whether it was common or very rare I have no idea.
This reminded me of Wittmann's adventures at Kursk. I wish the book i read it in was here so I could directly quote it.Quote:
We are also getting too hung up on tank v tank battles. A lot of the tank's tasks were much more varied; assaulting infantry behind an AT screen, spreading out from a brealthrough, and so on. If you had to assault an AT screen, would you want 10 (fast) targets, 10 76.2mm guns chucking out HE shells and 20MGs, or one slower target, one 88 mm gun and 2 MGs? Seems a no brainer to me. OK, the Tiger or Panther is considerably harder to kill, but not THAT hard. Tigers could be taken out even by the British 6 Pdr (57mm) AT gun, if the gunners kept their nerve and held fire until the Tiger was under 500 yds or so.
Basically, Wittmann simply ran over a great number of German artillery pieces, destroying them instead of wasting ammo on them. He had an interesting tactic(which is in the book :shame: ) to get right up close to them without being targeted and just ran them over!
Another advantage of the Tiger.. brute strength! ~D
Hmmm... Interesting, when did the Germans convert him from the Russian side? ~;pQuote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJager
But you should remember that Wittmann was a very special case, he could read the ground, spot the guns and calculate a safe route to the gun's rear. Not all could that. But granted the Tiger did have the mass to do it, though it must be pointed out that the T-34 did similar things in Barbarossa.
I haven't seen pictures of upturned KV-1s, but as far as I know they had a nasty tendency to explode furiously, perhaps that is the reason for the upturned tanks.
The only pictures I have seen of upturned tanks are the propaganda shots of a Tiger on its side after a barrage of battleship shells.
It seems extremely unlikely that the few kilos of explosives in a 150mm shell could turn over a tank of over 40 tons.
LoL woops.. Those would be Russian artillery pieces he ran over. :rolleyes3:
El Alamein and the Battle of Britain have two things in common that the attacker went for the support infrastructure.
The British attacked the tank staging grounds and the Germans attacked the airfields. I think the Germans would have won the Battle of Britain had they continued to attack military infrastructure.
----
The Tigers had superior communications... command and control.
While the British in the BoB had radar... so they also had superior command and control.
----
Anyone know why the SAS are called the Special Air Service and what their role was?
----
Or the role of U-boats too.
----
So the role of tanks in some armies was to attack military infrastructure or engage in asymetric battles not other tanks.
Yes, that's my understanding too. I think the reason most countries tanks were under-gunned for much of the war is that they were supposed to do other things apart from engage other tanks. The Germans were supposed to breakthrough and hit the infrastructure; the French/British were supposed to support infantry or do some strange cavalry charge thing; the Americans were supposed to leave the tanks to their tank destroyers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
However, I think gradually the armies discovered the best thing to battle a tank was another tank (or tank destroyer).
AT guns were too immobile and vulnerable. Infantry needed to get too close. Aircraft were not available in sufficient numbers. Artillery, as has been said, was pretty ineffective.
Hence the upgrading of tank guns and armour until you end up with the main battle tank concept, perhaps first fully realised in the Panther.
It finds its extreme in the contemporary Abrams, whose main gun is not even supposed to be fired at infantry (I wonder if the effectiveness of the heavy tank in combating infantry in urban Iraq is leading to a rethink of this?).
I would say the T-34 was the first of the real tank vs. tank tanks. Others had previously been made to combat tanks but this was the first that could do it all (and did it all).
The Abrams is lucky to have a nice compatriot in the Bradley, with a nice little group of infantry in tow. And of coruse the alltime biggest infanty killer, artillery is also nearby. The tank has become a shock-troop, rather than a true warrior, it is intended to roll on, and keep rolling. That is actually a return to the old tanks of early WWII, say a Pz II for isntance.
The Abrams does have HEAT shells as well as SABOT rounds, so in theory it could be used against infantry and I bet HEAT would be preferable for attacking buildings and other "soft" targets.
Re: The SAS in North Africa, their full title was the Special air service brigade, the idea being if any of them got caught and gave away their unit name the Germans would think there was a full airborne brigade in the North african theatre.. the name has stuck since. The Light vehicle raider group referred to is I imagine the LRDG (Long Range desert Group). IIRC The SAS only tried one airborne insertion(In North Africa), which ended in a sandstorm related disaster, after that the LRDG would show them the way to their targets using their specialist survivalist knowledge. They both (the LRDG and the SAS) wreaked textbook style commando havoc in North Africa.
To get back on topic however, my opinon on German tanks is that their training and motivation was supremely well handled. However the Later Tiger designs ignored the Blitzkrieg philosophy (This is understandable, they were under attack from all sides) The Tiger and Tiger II, and to a lesser extent the Panther, where mobile fortress' that couldn't go too far from their support lines. A May 1940 Blitzkrieg using Tigers would have stalled - they would have run out of fuel. The German army changed a lot between 39 and 44. The Army of 44 based its defense around Tank Fortress' of Tigers and Panthers that were superior to the opposing tanks, whilst the Wermacht of 39 to 42 used inferior tanks with superior command and control techniques to wreak havoc in the enemies rear areas.
Hear endeth my drunken rant.
RE: The SAS being support for the LRDG it was (IIRC) the other way round. The Lrdg, who predated the SAS, ended up calling them selves the long range taxi group, because their main role was to deliver the SAS to their targets and then show them the way home!
RabidGibbon you were a bit misleading, the SAS had excellent survival skills and often had to walk many miles (can remember a desert treck of 70 iirc specifically, it was the norm not the exception) and were famed for their harsh training and unbelievable endurance. I use the past tense as I do not know if all of that is still true, though I know their training is still famous for its harshness.
Probably, but it would not have made any difference whatsoever in strategic terms. The Germans lacked a strategic bomber and could not have hammered British industry outside of the SW quadrant without hideous losses. Moreover, even air supremacy over the channel would not have enabled an invasion. The disparity in fleet units meant that, regardless of casualties, the RN could have stopped an invasion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Spot on, C-cubed-I is the key to success in modern war.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
The only tool at Germany's disposal that could have defeated Britain. Had Doenitz prevailed and all of the effort and tonnage devoted to Bizmarck, Tirpitz, Scharnhorst, Gneisnau, Graf Spee, Deutschland, et. al been channeled into the submarine program, giving him the hundreds he sought by 1939, the British economy may well have been crippled.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
The Blitzkrieg emphasized breakthrough and deep penetration to savage command, control and logistics. Part of that involved the ability to smash armored reserve formations, particularly if they could be caught off-balance, but that was secondary to inducing a strategic "shock" effect on the enemy formations. Once shock set in, fighting effectiveness went way down and - despite the bravery of many such units - defeat was almost inevitable. This was particularly true of armies that were relatively inflexible in doctrine and training such as Russia, France, and most of the "minor" combatants.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Seamus
I could make an argument for the Pzkw-3g, since I think it went operational first and the 50 was thought to be an excellent main gun for tank-to-tank at the time, but I have to agree that the T-34 was the first one designed from the first to do tank v. tank and penetration assault.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraxis
True, though there were a couple of phases in gulf 1 and gulf 2 where it functioned as the point of the spear in tank on tank fashion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraxis
Seamus
Well, I didn't intend to say that it wouldn't fight tanks head on. It is obviously intended for first and foremost, given that 100% of its ammo is AP (either sabot or HEAT). But it has been learned that a tank doesn't need to be particularly effective against the soft targets, its shock-effect and the fact that it is rummaging in the rear is more than enough. The follow-up troops can clean the house, while the tanks roll on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
I think that it could be argued that the M1 A2 Abrams follows more the traditition of German tanks then Allied ones.It is also very heavily armored,has a very good gun and relyes wery much on hightech.It also consumes huge amount of gasoline.The tactics used by Abrams is also very much the same that was used with Tigers.Hit the enemy from so far away,that they doesnt even have the chance to penetrate your own armour.
After burying way too many Sherman drivers and other crew between '42 and '54, US design efforts increasingly focused on creating a main battle tank that combined the mobility of the T-34 and M-4 series with the relative fighting power of the Pzkw-Vs and VI's. The Abrams is the culmination of these efforts. As Kraxis points out, in the attack the number one job is indeed the blitzkrieg shock effect, and the Abrams is fast and reliable enough to do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by kagemusha
As to killing at range, engagement ranges in open terrain have been increasing for years -- the Abrams is not the only tank out there that can hit and kill at those ranges, just one of the better ones at doing the job. Optics, laser-sighting etc. have greatly increase potential tank engagement ranges over the WW2 era. You combine the those advantages with excellent training and then set an Abrams platoon against under-trained opponents in a tank whose basic design is 10-15 years older and has not/cannot be upgraded to modern electronic standard (the T-72) and the result is very nasty on the receiving end.
All tanks guzzle fuel. Given that an Abrams weighs in at around 63 English tons, and is designed to haul that weight off-road at 40+kph, it's mileage isn't bad. No AFV is going to compete with hybrids any time soon. ~:)
Seamus
I think you are right Seamus. :bow: But i feel there is one tank in the world wich maybe even better then Abrams series.Merkava 4 from Israel.It is a true multi-role vehicle.Ofcourse it´s main role is the main battle tank of Irael,but it is also an APC,since it can carry eight infantry soldiers inside it.It also has internal 60mm mortar system wich shoots also HE ammunation.Last it can shoot with high angles and its new EL OP fire control system that allows it to shoot even assault helicopters.Here is a link with some information about it. :bow:
It depends on where you will use, and how you will use, the Merkerva.
If we send it into a full battle on some plain in Europe or in the desert against a mobile enemy, it will show serious deficiencies. It is a tank that has been created for the very special needs of Israel. It needs to have infantry skintight, and to have a better chance of survival against unconventional weapons. Speed is not much of an issue when you are supposed to chase infantry around, nor when you are supposed to defend the border.
The Abrams was developed as a tank of maneuver. It was argued that the limited numbers of western tanks couldn't stand up to the hordes of Russian tanks in a normal battle. Thus the tank was supposed to shoot-and-scoot, staying away from major enemy formations while inflicting losses from afar. As we have seen, that has been rather successful, but then again the desert is the natural habitat for a tank like the Abrams, while the Russian tanks with their smaller size and in general better speed (though lesser stabilization) are perfect for the broken European terrain (a village here, a wood there, small river over there, little hill in front). In such terrain it would have a good chance of closing with the enemy, if he opted to stay in place. The endresult would be a matter of doctrine.
The Merkerva is more of a Tiger, while the Abrams is more of a T-34, though neither are great comparisons.
Krax' is spot on with that last post.
Seamus
The Merkava is a neat tank ~:) that is one of the few in service that was actually developed in war time and with a lot of input from tank crews being taken into consideration for its design. The Israelies knew how important a good tank crew was worth and designed it with maximum crew survivability in mind; it even includes an egress hatch in the rear for deploying those 8 troops or for the crew to make a quick escape if in danger. Good tank for its role but it isn’t really in the same league as the M1A1 or the Challenger, their armor and weapon systems are too advanced. :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by kagemusha
Artillery is a highly effective weapon against armor. It is a myth that you need to score a direct hit to destroy a tank. A 155mm HE round exploding within 30 meters of a tank of that era (as well as today) would have caused considerable damage, if not destroying it. You don't necessarily need to score direct hits to take a tank out of action. A tank's treads could easily be disabled by shrapnel, and an immobile tank is for all practical purposes a nearly useless one. Shrapnel can also disable gun sights, gun tubes, communication equipment ect.
Source(s) for this? Shrapnel has, historically, killed and injured a lot of soft fleshy bodies, but failed to cut wire or penetrate reinforced defenses. Yet you claim it can de-track a tank with a near miss? This is counterintuitive. The only artillery success versus armor I was able to swat up was with 88mm field guns against WW2 german tanks over open sights at 600 yards.
Seamus
.303 rifles could stop the tracks of tanks... I can't see why shrapnel could not.
You are at least partially right. They did indeed have absolute geniuses working for them. That gave them great tanks. But from what I've heard from discussions on History International channel, the Soviets had much better tanks but were poorly upkept and it's crew poorly trained. How they got those tanks? Search me!Quote:
Originally Posted by Franconicus
Good question. The Russian tanks were not much better with the exception of the T-34[1], based on an American design that the US military rejected. But some Russian general must have had a good eye to pick up the design - clearly Stalin did not kill all the talent in the Red Army in the 1930s purges. Or is there a tragic story to this too?Quote:
Originally Posted by Derfasciti
[1]The KV-1 was also an amazingly powerful tank for the early war period - there's a story about the Germans spending a whole day trying to knock one out when they first encountered it. But it was not produced in the quantities to have the kind of war-affecting impact of the T-34.
Suspension... The suspension was the part they kept of the Christie tank. The rest they came up with themselves. So it wasn't based on the Christie.Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Appleton
Personally I would say that the Russian designs were better. They were not individually as good as the German ones, but had the Russians had the same doctrine to tank warfare and had the same training and experience I believe we would have seen comparable losses.
I said almost the same thing, yet I was ignored by the posters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Longshanks
I definitely disagree with these statements. AT artillery in WW2 was most certainly an effective counter-measure to tanks and had an important role in the tactical methods of all armies fighting at the time.Quote:
The best thing to fight tanks is tanks. AT artillery doesn't cut it.
The idea of AT artillery is not that one gun or perhaps even two will defeat a high-quality tank, but that if you get enough pieces into a defensive line in concealed positions, and the enemy armor attacks them, they'll at least take out enough enemy tanks to allow friendly armor to finish the job later on.
What's more, AT artillery on many occasions in WW2 was enough to stop tanks cold, decimating their ranks and forcing them to call in support. This was especially true with German AT artillery vs Allied tanks, though even as a German panzer commander I would be very nervous using armor against a prepared, unsoftened defensive line.
Tanks in their proper use are for exploiting enemy weak points and operating in enemy flank and rear areas-- it is the infantry's job to take down strong defensive positions. This is best illustrated by the US Army's tactics during the First Gulf War-- Combat Engineers, supported by Helicopters, took on the Iraqi defensive wall; the tanks drove around and struck at the soft underbelly.
..
The reason that tank-vs.-tank effectiveness is so important is NOT because tanks are the best solution to kill tanks-- they most certainly are not. But if an enemy armored division breaks through your line, or comes around the rear, what else can you hope to counter it with?
And if you use your armor to break through your enemy's line, or come around their flank, what are your tanks most likely to face next?
Hence armor vs. armor.
DA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Longshanks
COULD, theoretically, a .303 bullet or a piece of shrapnel from a shell that exploded a full 30m away disable a tank?Quote:
a .303 round could take out tank tracks
Maybe.
Is it likely? I would say that the body of historical and engineering evidence would say most definitely NO.
Near-hits from HE shells most certainly have been and are dangerous for tanks, but they would have to be much nearer than 30m to have a serious chance of disabling or destroying.
And while HE artillery barrages can indeed be effective against tanks, they are certainly less efficient than direct fire from appropriate weapons.
And while I'm sure that a .303 bullet could stop a tank track, or shoot the TC dead for that matter, the odds have gotta be slim, or they never would have invented AT rockets or any of that great jazz.
..
But I'll agree that there are alot of things that can go wrong with a tank, alot of ways to hurt it, and that's one of the reasons why infantry always was and continues to be so important.
DA
But of course there is tragedy, you are speaking of Stalinist Russia! The Soviets were, briefly the leaders in combined arms thinking -- Germany even sent folks there to train and observe -- including Guderian (Stolpi, "Hitler's Panzers East"). The key Ruski was a chap named Tukhachevskiy, who advocated the use of massed armored formations to achieve breakthrough followed by rapid exploitation. He assiduously backed the development and use of the Christie Suspension tanks (BT & T-34 series). His reward?Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Appleton
Soviet Russia disbanded its large armored formations in 38 and 39, only going back to them in late 40 and early 41 when German success indicated that Tukhachevskiy had been right all along. Had he not gotten whacked, the Germans may not have been the ones launching an assault in 1941.Quote:
n Soviet Russia, Thomas G. Mahnken describes the military's attitude towards tanks as "largely unencumbered by tradition". In fact while British commanders originally felt the need to separate tanks from infantry to preserve roles, Russian commanders viewed the tank within a combined arms context. As Mahnken describes, "a future battle would unfold in two phases. The first would consist of a massed, echeloned attack along a narrow front by mechanized divisions operating in conjunction with infantry, artillery, and aviation. Once through the front lines, this force would attempt to convert the tactical breakthrough into an operation success by penetrating into the enemy's rear areas, disrupting his command and control, and destroying his reserves." This description should seem hauntingly familiar, having heard the German concept of blitzkrieg. Unfortunately for the Soviets, Stalin was a major proponent of the cavalry and sought to protect that ancient tradition from encroachment. On June 12, 1937, Stalin executed Mikhail N. Tukhachevskiy and several other commanders who were at the forefront of combined arms advocacy.
Seamus
Del:Quote:
Originally Posted by Del Arroyo
To both agree and disagree....
Yes AT guns were effective components of almost all of the defensive efforts in European and African combat in WW2. They produced a significant percentage of all tank kills recorded. So why were they phased out?
Answer = mobility & survivability. Towed AT guns, however powerful, were vulnerable to infantry and standard artillery response. As the war progressed, both the Soviets and the Germans, and to some extent the US/UK shifted to Assault guns because of their mobility and survivability. Towed AT weaponry even ended up being thrown away, as with the Sovs at Kursk, simply to slow an attack down a bit -- no transport provided, just shoot until overrun.
Assault guns, tanks, and tank destroyers were subsequently found to be funtionally interchangeable in practice, so why bother to build several types of AFV, just concentrate on a better battle tank.
AT guns weren't bad as guns, just superceded (though never entirely replaced, I'l admit) in practice.
As to the other artillery fans out there, I have yet to see any compelling sources provided for artillery used in an effective anti-tank role during WW2 unless firing over open sights at fairly close range. HE concussion and light-weight shrapnel do not seem likely to damage any but the lightest of AFV's.
Seamus
I was under the impression that AT artillery was phased out because we had guided AT missles and stuff like that...
DA
True, but AT guns were less and less prominent in arsenals beginning in the 1950's. AT Missiles didn't achieve prominence until the Yom Kippur war of '73, though they had been deployed before that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Del Arroyo
A lot of the early assault guns/tank destroyers (Marder, JPZ-I) were, essentially, AT guns on a chassis with armor. The mobility/protection combo was more and more preferenced as the war progressed.
Seamus
What kind of tank is being discussed in this statement?Quote:
a .303 round could take out tank tracks
Soviet Artillery JournalQuote:
"The mobility of tanks depends upon the proper functioning of the suspension parts — sprocket (small driving wheel), idler (small wheel in the rear), wheels and tracks. All of these parts are vulnerable to shells of all calibers. A particularly vulnerable part is the sprocket.
I remember veterans of D-Day saying that they fired .303 at tank tranks to get inbetween the tread and wedge inside the tracks leaving the tank immobile (well one tread was so they could still do doughnuts ~;) )... it wasn't the preferred method, but more one of desparation.
Its not exactly evidence but...
As I may have mentioned I am the proud owner of a Ferret armoured car, 1959 manufacture. Now, an armoured car is not a tank. But even if you assumed the armoured body was completely impervious to shrapnel, there is a lot of suspension that sits outside the body on the ferret. I believe that is true for tanks as well. The suspension is pretty tough and overengineered, sure, but I'm sure its not bulletproof. And I have inspected it pretty close up (what :furious3: idiot :furious3: put :furious3: this :furious3: bloody :furious3: oil :furious3: filler :furious3: here....)
Also the episcopes leave a lot to be desired when you are sealed up. They are covered by bulletproof glass, of course, but its not scratchproof and wouldn't take all that much to make it opaque.
Finally, airbursts. Engine decks don't look that robust to me, and they are not heavily armoured. Might an airbursting shell put out enough power to get shrapnel through the engine deck? I'd guess yes.
Finnish forces used field artillery as AT with some succes in winterwar,and that was not direct but indirect fire.Here is a llink.At the bottom of the page is a paragraph of Soviet tank losses at Karelian Isthmus,there is stated that Finnish artillery destroyed total of 955 tanks.At the time the main caliber of Finnish artillery was 76mm .If you scroll down the page there is another less sophisticated method to immobilize tanks.Here is a picture of this mighty weapon.
http://www.winterwar.com/Weapons/FinAT/halko.jpg
Some have covered it - the use of artillery against tanks.
Some basic information about artillery against tanks.
What many are forgetting is where is the fuel tanks for most armored vechicles? What are the most vulnerable areas of the Tank to artillery fire? What munitions have the most effect on these weakness? Is a mobility kill prior to the battle more important then the physical destruction of the Tank.
For instance - The primary weakness of the T-34 through T-72 was the location of the fuel tanks. An Artillery Plan of attack on these tanks prior to DPICM munitions included a heavy artillery barrage of HE/PD and HE/VT or HE/TI, followed by WP to burn any fuel that should have been caused to leak by the HE. (This actually works more then you might think)
Now for the munitions used during WW2 the mix of shells against armor would of been primarily the HE/PD (High Explosive/point denonating) and HE/TI (HE/Time fuze). What this does is strip any radio anteneas, can cause moblity kills by causing the track to come off of the tank, destroy road wheels which keep the track, damage engines, kill crew, and cause the tanks to shut hatches - which in turn slows them down.
The lucky stray shot for the artillery could destroy the tank if the round was heavy enough to penerate through the top armor and had the angle of fall necessary to insure that peneration. Being that most tanks during that time had less armor protection on the top.
Engine compartments were the most vulernable since they were also normally acessed through the top of tank.
Kag:
A source! Thank you. Pulling from it though:
I have never argued that tanks were impervious against a direct hit by indirectly fired artillery. Some of the lightly skinned early war tanks would, indeed have been killed by a lucky direct hit from an HE round. Moreover, tracks are vulnerable enough during a direct hit on all tanks throughout the war that artillery fire could not be ignored by armor -- paricularly if they were firing at a concentration point or tank laager. Earlier posts, however, argue that misses at distances of up to 30 meters had a realistic chance of disabling the tank. I expect that such instances were actually pretty rare.Quote:
While the main task of the barrages was to pin down or disperse any infantry attacks, that were following the tanks, some lucky hits on individual tanks was scored.... Even a 76 mm artillery shell was powerful enough to destroy a light tank, or severe the tracks from even a bigger vehicle. A hit by a heavier shell almost always disabled a light T-26 or BT tank
Yes, the engine deck of a WW2 era tank is comparatively lightly armored, and bullet resistant periscopes are not immune to scratches etc. But it takes very little to stop shrapnel -- which is precisely the point of an infantryman's helmet. Shrapnel, fired correctly, tends to burst in the air above a target. Softer targets can be badly treated by such attention. Things of metal, such as barbed wire, tank engine grills, and APC's tend to survive. Tank tracks were usually covered from above to protect them further from such risks.
A far greater risk to the AFV was the concussive blast from an HE round. These could break things on a tank, but had to secure a direct hit or very near miss to do so. In this, the bigger the explosive charge of the round, the greater the threat.
Direct fire of all sorts at a tank tread was more risky for the tank. Anything mechanical can be broken or "monkey-wrenched," and as Pappy noted, tanks doing doughnuts are not quite as scary ~:) . This, however, was a direct fire scenario, not indirect artillery. Direct fire chances to disable a tank always went up with the caliber of weapon used in the role. Even fired directly, nobody counted on a cal 30 round getting a "golden BB" hit on a linkage point, but in desperation, you'll take the 1 in 10k chance over 0 chance every time.
Brave infantry could actually disable a tank more readily during close assault. If you are actually able to stick a bundle of grenades in the bogeys or have a couple of blokes shove a small log into the gearing and tread, you will immobilize it. There are certain risks in running right up to the tank, however, particularly if your artillery hadn't whacked or grounded the infantry support first.
The Finns in the Winterwar had better success against armor than any infantry army prior to them. To do so, they improvised well and did some things requiring a LOT of cojones. Actually, given the limited resources available, the entire Finnish defense against the Sovs was a textbook for using forces effectively. Hard to think of a better example of defense against the odds than that campaign.
Seamus
I remember the story of a Thunderbold pilot fighting over Normandy. He said that they attacked Tigers but could not penetrate the armor. Thunderbolds have 8 heavy maschine guns. Then they tried something else. When the tank was driving on the street they fired at the street in frint or behind him. The bullets were reflected and hit the soft undercarriage. That made the Tigers burn.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Well, I never believed that story ~;)
Of course this includes AT guns, which probably accounted for the lion's share of losses (the article, like Redleg, talks about indirect artillery causing the odd "lucky hit").Quote:
Originally Posted by kagemusha
I agree with Seamus, WW2 AT guns could be deadly, especially with the element of surprise. The German 88mm gun is the clearest example. But their weakness is that once their position is revealed, they are very vulnerable to artillery or other means of attack. The Finns excelled at hit and run attacks, so did well with very limited AT resources. The article kagemusha links to has a nice vignette showing some Finns hastily abandoning their obsolete gun after it fired one shot. But just imagine what they could have done with hundreds of T-34s and KV-1s. ~:eek:
One of the first instance of Germans facing KV-1s and T-34s was a rather pathetic attack. It included 1 KV-1 and a couple of T-34s as escort, nothing else.
The German 37mm AT guns had of course no effect, neither did the tanks fare well. Luckily these tanks were crewed by inept soldiers, so they didn't hit much themselves. But pure brute strength forces them into the German rear, right into the terrain covered by a couple batteries of 105mm artillery guns (not infantry guns). The crews stayed put, a testament to their courage, and attempted to knock out the Russian tanks with direct fire. Though repeated hits were scored, no kills were reported (though I would not have liked to be in one of those tanks). In fact a comment went like this :"each time we hit the monsters they reared up, then fell back again to proceed forwards." Eventually they ran over the guns (indicating that their own guns or optics had been knocked out by the hits).
Direct hits by 105mm HE shells were not enough, then I doubt that a 150mm 30 meters away would have much better success against better tanks.
Fascinating case, Kraxis, although I would have to say the determination of the Russian tank crews, however inept, was a testament to their courage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraxis
Virtually every contemporary German account of Barbarossa as well as later combat on the Eastern front spoke highly of the bravery of the Russians in combat. They may have questioned their judgement, skill, training, or equipment, but never their cran.Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Appleton
Seamus
Unfortunately Finland had only one armored division in the whole war 1939-1944.Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Appleton
80 T-26,8 T-28,7 T-34 and 2 KV-1s,all taken from the Soviets.The best armour in WWII Finish possessed was 59 STUG III assault guns,wich Germans didnt even consider as armour because those didnt have a turret. :disappointed:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraxis
Image if you will - that a 155mm high explosive shell weighs 96.5 pounds on average. I could go into square weights of the shell which are simply a varition from standard of 1.1 pounds per square weight from the standard of 4 square. Then fired with the maximum charge of the howitzer - with during WW2 and up until around the 1980's was Charge 7 M4A2 powder. This created a muzzle volecity of over 454 meters per second. If you do the physics - the round serves as a huge kinetic energy weapon if you do not use a fuze on the projectile. Placing a fuze on the round does lessen this impact - however to kill a tank does not always require its destruction. A direct hit from an artillery round will often cause problems for the tank and more important the crew inside
Now back to WW2 when the tank armor was still in its developmental stages. WW1 being infant - WW2 armor is adoslent (SP). One of the soviet lessons learned was how to use artillery and anti-tank weapons together to kill tanks. Several battles show how effective such a systems is. The germans also did this (along with the Finnish as already pointed out)
From a translated WW2 German document
http://www.combatmission.com/article...ard/panzer.aspQuote:
9. When antitank weapons are encountered at long or medium ranges, you must first return fire and then maneuver against them. First make a firing halt in order to bring effective fire to bear - then commit the bulk of the company to maneuver on the enemy with the continued support of one platoon.
10. When antitank weapons are encountered at close range, stopping is suicide. Only immediate attack at the highest speed with every weapon firing will have success and reduce losses.
11. In combat against the antitank guns you may never - even under the protection of strong fire support - allow a single platoon to attack alone. Antitank weapons are not employed singly. Remember - lone tanks in Russia are lost!
17. Always prepare dug in positions and camouflage against the possibility of air or artillery attack. Being sorry afterwards is no excuse for losses taken by these causes.
Notice what this actually tells you about the combinaton of Artillery and Anti-Tank weapons used together.
To set an effective Armor Ambush is a very difficult thing to do - but is every Infantry commanders dream from WW2 on. Whole doctrines were invisioned from using exambles from WW2. Anti-Armor Guns - now missles - used with effective and planned Artillery support can cause great harm to any armor attack.
Artillery is not to be dismissed, as this material confirms. But nor is it the greatest theat to armor. The piece later notes:
Killing blows by artillery v armor are the exception.Quote:
20. Support from artillery fire or dive bombers must be used immediately, that is to say, while the fire is still hitting the objective. Afterward, when the fire has stopped it is too late. You must know that mostly such fires only produce a suppressing effect, not a destroying one. It is better to risk a friendly shell or bomb than to charge into an active antitank defense.
Seamus
I agree.I think the most important anti tank weapons introduced in WWII were panzerfaust and Panzershreck and their Allied eqvalents(spelling).One hit to the side of the tank could destroy any tank of that day. :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Slipping a bit off topic, away from WW2, but indulge me: Nowadays, it seems as if the pendulum has swung back. The Abrams and Challengers in the Iraq War seemed impervious to infantry, despite very close range encounters. I think there was a story of one Challenger being hit by 60+ RPGs. Is that just because the Iraqis were badly equipped? Or do even well equipped modern infantry lack the means to threaten todays best tanks?Quote:
Originally Posted by kagemusha
Note that I didn't say that direct hits by 150mm were inefficient, I said that 30 meters away they would not be such a massive threat due to their cuncussion or shrapnell, considering that direct hits by 105mm failed to do anything obvious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
I have seen the results of direct hits of 150mm HE on a captured Panther by the Russians (they really liked to test their weapons against enemy equipment). It is not pretty, with a massive part of the frontal glacis blown in. That would have been an obvious kill had it happened in a battle.
Today, 150mm HE wouldn't be as dangerous of course, but would still make a serious impact (pardon the pun).
But what was the soldiers' consideration on artillery? I have never read or heard of tankers saying "Man... There was only one thing that really scared me, and that was when they opened up with their artillery on us." But I have heard them say they feared the Panzerfaust/schrek or AT guns in general.
Yes, they were revolutionary weapons really. Portable AT weapons that were not as bulky or unwieldly as the AT-rifles, and had a much more powerful punch, and better cahnces of destroying the target in case of penetration (AT-rifles needed to be aimed at a spot where it could be expecte to hit crewmen of equipment behind).Quote:
Originally Posted by kagemusha
But they were also good in other departments. They were effective weapons against bunkers and pillboxes, even occupied houses and trenches (in case of the Panzerfaust which dropped away at once).
But most important, they were extremely cheap! A Panzerfaust costed 6 Reichmarks, a Bazooka or Panzerschrek was more expensive but it was nothing compared to the AT-rifles or AT-guns.