German Tanks in WW2 - the wrong conception

[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.

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.

[Kagemusha]

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.

[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.

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

[Kagemusha]

I think you are right Seamus. 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.

[Kraxis]

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.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Krax' is spot on with that last post.

Seamus

[yesdachi]

I think you are right Seamus. 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.

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.

[Longshanks]

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.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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

[DemonArchangel]

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.

I said almost the same thing, yet I was ignored by the posters.

[Del Arroyo]

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.

a .303 round could take out tank tracks

COULD, theoretically, a .303 bullet or a piece of shrapnel from a shell that exploded a full 30m away disable a tank?

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