Anti-tank solution

[Decker]

I'm liking the discussion on the tanks very interesting. The thing that is bothering me with it though. Is how we have left out the M-10 Wolverine and the later Pershing which showed great Panther stopping power in the famous Cologne engagement.

An interesting note about the British firefly, is that its long barrled 17 pdr. gun made it stand out easily among a group of Shermans. As the firefly's were deployed with about 1 or 2 per tank plt. the germans learned quickly that this was their main at capability and would quickly knock them out.

As for the 75mm used in the German armed forces. I found that it was also VERY effective on the assault guns such as the StuG series. I can't quite remember which gun was used on the Hertzer but that tank was also a solid tank killer and proved its worth on the Eastern Front.

That brings me to the eastern front. The Russians employed some solid tanks that generally made German tankers sweat. Early on it was the T-34 with its sloped armor. But due to technological incompetence, any massed armored attacks during the early stages of Barbarossa negated this advantage. They also had the KV-1's and 2's who also played havoc on the early German armored formations but again they struggeled due to technological incompitence. We then move up to the
T-34/85 which proved to be an excellent tank, yet I have read many accounts were they were knocked out faster than they could get at the German armor. Despite this they had the ability to knock out a good majority of Germany's tanks put on the field. You then can go on to look at the
SU-122 and the other assault guns which were fielded, but I haven't read many accounts of them in battle and as such I do not know a whole lot about them . Then the bigger guns come into play. The JS-1's. Wholy Mollee(or however you spell it), these were massive. I read about on the of the first encounters with these behemoths and it went ill for the Ruskies. But, their size and gun gave them some advantage over their German counterparts and were able to keep a somewhat even keel with the Tiger and Panther...though I'm not sure how they faired against the King Tiger

Most of this is off the top of my head so if I made any mistakes please forgive

And for the main topic of the thread. I've read many accounts by Marine and Army tank crews from the Pacific that when they were using Stuarts. The Japanese (especially on Guadalcanal), would swarm from the brush and mob the tanks. Due to this tactic, the crews would advance in column so when one would get mobbed, the tank behind would use all of its machine guns and canister to clean off the Japanese soldiers!! And when you look at early Stuart models, it had about 3-4 machine guns, which would mean a whole lotta holes in the enemy soldiers

[Mangudai]

Very good description of WWII tanks Decker. In that period there were several hybrid types, not technically tanks. The Stug was an assault gun, it had no turret. It could be used like a tank, but it was better suited for assaulting fortifications and cities, than for true mobile warfare. The M-10 Wolverine was classed a tank killer, it had an open turret (i.e. no roof), it was best suited for overwatch and support.

The best tank game ever, Steel Panthers, is available free at

http://www.spwaw.com


The core engine has been open source for over 10 years. Enthusiasts have modeled the characteristics of all the different tanks, etc as accurately as possible.

[Decker]

Very good description of WWII tanks Decker. In that period there were several hybrid types, not technically tanks. The Stug was an assault gun, it had no turret. It could be used like a tank, but it was better suited for assaulting fortifications and cities, than for true mobile warfare. The M-10 Wolverine was classed a tank killer, it had an open turret (i.e. no roof), it was best suited for overwatch and support.

Oh thanks Mangudai

I guess you could say hybrids, though for instance the StuG and other assault guns found themselves often acting as mobile AT guns in a lot of cases as their stopping power and range made them ideal for sniping Russian tanks.

That is true about the M-10, but when the Shermans would run into an enemy tank, usually M-10's(when they were finally put into full production) were called into action after the Shermans were withdrawn. In these cases, the M-10's might have come into contact not only with enemy armor, but also with enemy infantry. so they might have had to take on some regular tank roles in these incidents.

[Mangudai]

The Stugs were very suitable to be posted in an AT role in a keyhole line of sight zone. Stugs were widely used in this role because they were available in large numbers. The Germans produced better tank destroyers, but in smaller numbers. The Marders and Jagerpanzers had similar cannon, (long 75mm) but better aiming systems. Later the Germans made some really powerful tank destroyers like the Elephant, Nashorn, and Jagdtiger with the 88, but they didn't have the numbers to check the red tide.

The Stugs were produced in large numbers. Essentially it is a PzKpf-IV with the barrel protruding from the front hull instead of a turret. The Germans had industrial problems (probably related to allied bombing) they were producing PzKpf-IV chassis much faster than the turrets.

The Stug B and Stug E had short barrel 75mm cannon not suitable for armor piercing at long range. The Stug F and Stug G had long barrel 75mm, which were deadly at long range. There were also several models of outrageously large caliber Stugs like the Stug 33B with a 15cm gun, intended solely for putting high explosive into fortifications. The Stugs began to appear in 1940 and became very common in '42 and '43 (probably related to the industrial problems producing turrets). They remained in production throughout the war because the PzKpf-IV chassis was very reliable. The Germans had lots of problems with breakdowns in its heavier AFVs.

You are exactly right about the M-10 Wolverines supporting Shermans, that was their primary role. I also like the Hellcat, which is almost like the Wolverine but with minimal hull armor so its much faster. Both of these vehicles were vulnerable to artillery bombardment, and infantry inside of grenade range. Usually they were backup support, when a Panther or something was discovered the tank destroyers were called up. A wise commander did not expose them until absolutely necessary. Let the Shermans do the dangerous duty.

I'm a big fan of certain light tanks especially ones with a 20mm autocannon. The PzKpf-II was so armed as well as the T-30 and T-60 Russian tanks. These guys could not pierce the hulls of heavy tanks, but they could tear up everything else in a hurry.

After Kursk the Red army reported that rate of fire and rate of traverse were the extremely important features in a target rich environment. The KV-2 with it's monstrous turret and cannon performed poorly at Kursk.