# Best/Favourate Tank in the west



## Yeomanz (Feb 16, 2005)

Well what is your favourate tank from North Africa ...?

i think ive got most of them but it would only let me do so many , so i left out the M 13/39
M3 Stuart
and MkI Cruiser


----------



## plan_D (Feb 16, 2005)

I take it we don't seperate tanks from tank destroyers, or self-propelled guns. 

The Tiger was the best in the desert, although it extremely limited service. My favourite from the desert has to be the Matilda, since it created many oppurtunites for victories in the desert. So often only stopped by the FlaK 18 36 88mm cannon. 

I'm confused as to why you put Pz.IIF, as it really makes no difference as it was crap. 

It's either got to be the Matilda or Pz. Kpfw IV F/2, as my favourites but the vote goes to the Matilda.


----------



## Soren (Feb 16, 2005)

Well I'd have to chose the Tiger, but as Plan_D mensioned is wasnt used until the very end of the African campaign.

So my choice for the best tankk in the desert before the Tiger, would be the PzIV F2 without doubt. It had better optics than the British and U.S. tanks could ever hope to get, and a better main gun (7.5cm L/43).


----------



## plan_D (Feb 16, 2005)

The optics on the Mark IV 'Special' weren't remarkable. Certainly nothing I feel would be worth mentioning when comparing them to British or US tanks. In fact, I only ever mention their superiority against the Soviet tanks because they made a lot of difference on that front because Soviet tanks were equipped so badly! 

Discounting the Tiger though, the IV F/2 was certainly the best. Although the M4 Sherman was a very close match-up for it. In fact, I'd give it largely to crew skill than tank when those two met.


----------



## Soren (Feb 16, 2005)

The 'Zeiss' optics used on the PzIV were 'Far' superior to any U.S. or British tanks optics. Thats a fact 

And the Allied tanks in the Desert also learned this the hard way, as the PzIV F2 would have no problem in making first round hits at 1000-1500m. And this wasnt because their gun was more accurate, it was the Zeiss optics with build in range-scales !


----------



## plan_D (Feb 16, 2005)

The optics on the Pz. Kwpf IV Ausf F/2 were not amazing. I fail to see where you get that idea. TZF5f had a maximum range of 3,300 metres with high explosive (HE) ammo, reduce that to 2,500 metres in tank combat for the armour piercing round. 
The KwK40 L/43 could penertrate 63mm at 2000 metres. The M4 Sherman, however, had 75mm armour maximum armour. Therefore, the IV F/2 will only be bothering the Shermans with good hits at those ranges. A few hits would destroy but we'll delete them at this moment, since a lot of tanks can have very unlucky moments. 

The Sherman M4s cannon, M3 75mm, could destroy the F/2 at around 1000 metres. I know for a fact that the Shermans optical sights were able to provide the vision required for armoured battles at those ranges. Normal combat range being 400 - 600 metres, the Sherman was in a good solid position against the IV F/2. As the F/2 was not in full position to destroy the Sherman until at 1000 metres, the same distance for the Sherman. 

Both tanks optics gave them good sighting at 1000m. 

The only reason the Pz. Kpfw IV F/2 was in such a good battle ground in the desert was because the British tanks facing it were so obviously inferior. The best facing it were 40mm armed Matildas and Crusaders. 

Also, the KwK40 L/43 was more accurate than the M3 75mm. The German cannons were so good because of their high velocity and accuracy.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 16, 2005)

Since I lost all my knowledge of tanks many years agao, Ill stick with my favourite from that list, the Sherman 8)


----------



## Soren (Feb 16, 2005)

As a matter of fact Plan_D the the Zeiss optics on the PzIV accurate enough to consistently make the 7.5cm L/43 cannon on the mod.F2 hit first time at 1500m. 

The sight on the Sherman would almost never get a first round hit at 1000m or even at 800m, I dont know where you've been told the 7.5cm M3 gun on the M4 Sherman was capable of that, but it certainly aint the case most of the time ! 

The M3's dispersion was simply too great to make a first round hit at 1000m


----------



## toffigd (Feb 16, 2005)

Why no one votes for the underestimated M 13/40? It couldn't be as bad as most people think, as it was widely used by Germans and British (Australian) as well.


----------



## plan_D (Feb 16, 2005)

The lack of accuracy on the part of the M3 has nothing to do with the optical sights used. You've just back-tracked, big time. 

The reason the KwK40 L/43 was capable of striking distance of 1500 metres is because the gun itself was remarkably accurate, as most of the German guns were. 

In fact, I even stated that the KwK40 L/43 was more accurate than the M3 75mm in my last post. You just can't read. 

The fact of the matter is, the optics on the F/2 were not giving it the amazing advantage in the desert as you like to make out. It's cannon was. 
Combat between M4s and F/2s would take place around, mostly below, the 1000 metre mark. In that range area both tanks could hit, and destroy one another. I never stated that the F/2s optics weren't any better than the M4s, I stated that the M4s were capable of the job at which its M3 was capable of destroying the enemy. 
On top of all of that, the M4 had a Gyro-Stabiliser. It could keep on the move while firing.


----------



## Soren (Feb 17, 2005)

> The lack of accuracy on the part of the M3 has nothing to do with the optical sights used. You've just back-tracked, big time.



Yes the M3's optics actually made a difference ! But i guess you just don't know what it was.



> The reason the KwK40 L/43 was capable of striking distance of 1500 metres is because the gun itself was remarkably accurate, as most of the German guns were.



As a matter of fact the 7.62cm M1A1-2A guns on later Shermans (Easy 8's and the like) had a lower dispersion than the 7.5cm L/43 on the F2, but they couldnt make first round hits as frequently as the 7.5cm L/43 at 1500m. This was because of the much better 'Zeiss' optics used by the Germans.



> In fact, I even stated that the KwK40 L/43 was more accurate than the M3 75mm in my last post. You just can't read.



Never said you did, but you said the M3 was accurate at 1000m, wich it wasnt 



> The fact of the matter is, the optics on the F/2 were not giving it the amazing advantage in the desert as you like to make out. It's cannon was.
> Combat between M4s and F/2s would take place around, mostly below, the 1000 metre mark. In that range area both tanks could hit, and destroy one another. I never stated that the F/2s optics weren't any better than the M4s, I stated that the M4s were capable of the job at which its M3 was capable of destroying the enemy.
> On top of all of that, the M4 had a Gyro-Stabiliser. It could keep on the move while firing.



Do you even know how useless that Gyro-stabilizer was ?! Allied tank crews sometimes had them removed, and the british didnt want them in the first place !! 

Also the long stretches in the desert would often mean very long range engagements where the F2 had a definitive advantage


----------



## plan_D (Feb 17, 2005)

Again, you've failed to read. I stated that the optics equipping the M3 were capable of sighting the targets at 1000m. It was then left to the M3 accuracy, to strike the target. 
The US, Soviet or British tank cannons were never as accurate as German cannons (save the 17 pdr QRF). That is why the F/2 could strike first. 

Now, again, provide a source for this remarkable advantage the F/2 had, solely because of its sights. Or shut up. 

The stabiliser was not removed, it was all situational on if you use it or not. But you wouldn't know that.


----------



## Soren (Feb 17, 2005)

> The US, Soviet or British tank cannons were never as accurate as German cannons (save the 17 pdr QRF). That is why the F/2 could strike first.



Haha !!  Soviet guns might not have been accurate, but later U.S. and british guns sure were !! 



> Now, again, provide a source for this remarkable advantage the F/2 had, solely because of its sights. Or shut up.



My primary source would be: "WWII projectiles and ballistics by Lorrin Rexford and Robert Livingstone 



> The stabiliser was not removed, it was all situational on if you use it or not. But you wouldn't know that.


----------



## plan_D (Feb 17, 2005)

Did I say that US and British guns were inaccurate? Nope, certainly didn't. Someone isn't reading properly, again. I said they were never as accurate as German guns, which is a fact. And I also seem to state the 17 pdr as being on par with German guns...oh...OH...what's that, IT WAS BRITISH..!?! Well...there we go then, someone needs to read the posts a bit better before typing...   

TOODLE-SQUAT...  You gotta love these facts...and a SOURCE...my word...where can I buy it...!?


----------



## Soren (Feb 17, 2005)

plan_D said:


> Did I say that US and British guns were inaccurate? Nope, certainly didn't. Someone isn't reading properly, again. I said they were never as accurate as German guns, which is a fact.



It isnt a fact, and it never will be  What you just said is a Total 'LIE' !

If you'd known every U.S., UK and German guns Dispersion data then you would know that


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 25, 2005)

> TOODLE-SQUAT





that has to be my word of the day........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 25, 2005)

And my word of the day?

Poo.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Jul 2, 2005)

Im going to stick with the good old American Sherman M4 because she was a fast tank! (Perfect for the dessert)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 2, 2005)

ah yes, the tommy cooker......


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Mar 1, 2006)

I have to say the M4 sherman, They were numerous, mobile and fast. Their 75mm cannon made them a good adversary to the Panzer IV. they were vunerable to flak 88s and Tigers, but which american or british tank wasn't


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Mar 1, 2006)

Yeomanz said:


> i left out the... M3 Stuart



Grrr!  


The Crusader fulfilled a good role as a FlakPanzer and gun tractor etc.


The PzIII G E/50 was competitive when compared with enemy tanks in NA from August '40 'till the end.


The StuGIII could deal with a Mathilda from it's introduction, as could the PzIV when using HEAC/CPHE rounds. When the G and F2 models respectively were released, they stayed formidable.

- I'm gonna plump for the StuGIII. 8) 


*PlanD:*



> Discounting the Tiger though, the IV F/2 was certainly the best. Although the M4 Sherman was a very close match-up for it.



It had less chance than a T34/76.



> The M4 Sherman, however, had 75mm armour maximum armour. Therefore, the IV F/2 will only be bothering the Shermans with good hits at those ranges.



That's a maximum, the hull front for e.g. was a favourite aiming point for German gunners.

The PzIV's fume port and other ports like the driver's etc were also unable to stand upto even a Boys AT rifle though!



> A few hits would destroy but we'll delete them at this moment, since a lot of tanks can have very unlucky moments.



A wise move, thank you D. However this applies when matching RoF's...



> Normal combat range being 400 - 600 metres, the Sherman was in a good solid position against the IV F/2.



The ranges here can be more like 6+ miles!!



> Also, the KwK40 L/43 was more accurate than the M3 75mm. The German cannons were so good because of their high velocity and accuracy.



You are correct, a high-velocity, well mounted cannon makes the job much easier.


*Soren:*



> The 'Zeiss' optics used on the PzIV were 'Far' superior to any U.S. or British tanks optics. Thats a fact



It can count for nothing. Sand storms and the weird effects of heat can render any optical equipment useless, it's like aiming underwater at times!



> the PzIV F2 would have no problem in making first round hits at 1000-1500m.



Yes, on a good day. The Sherm ain't gonna be able to do that, the M10 might though...



> optics with build in range-scales !



Wow! I bet the Allies/Soviets wish they had that!  

The only time range-related equipment that amazes me is the laser range finder on the very late Panthers. 8) 



> Never said you did, but you said the M3 was accurate at 1000m, wich it wasnt



Course it was.



> WWII projectiles and ballistics by Lorrin Rexford and Robert Livingstone



Thanks again Soren! I take it you've already got the (Nation's) Artillery series of books?




toffigd said:


> Why no one votes for the underestimated M 13/40? It couldn't be as bad as most people think, as it was widely used by Germans and British (Australian) as well.



Because it was available, that's why. The gun is arguably themost important part of a tank and on the Carro this was good. The armour was worse than useless though and the gun couldn't make up for it.




P38 Pilot said:


> Im going to stick with the good old American Sherman M4 because she was a fast tank! (Perfect for the dessert)



It had pathetic floatation unlike the fantastic T34. 8) 

The rubber pads also had a habit of melting!  

Good tank, but not in the desert, though it was probably the best tank around when introduced (but called a Swallow).




Vassili Zaitzev said:


> they were vunerable to flak 88s and Tigers, but which american or british tank wasn't



The Mathilda and Chuchill had a degree of survivability here, but were just too damn sloow!  


The best points of the PzIV and Sherman had was mechanical reliability, something only the Stuart, Valentine Pz/StuG III could match?

Belly armour is also a huge consideration. I know of a Sherman that survived a mine, dunno if it was AT or not.


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 1, 2006)

Your complaining he missed off the M3, if you look he also missed off the Panther...


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Mar 1, 2006)

You're right there knomey, how could he??  

- I'll get my sharpest knife...  - only kidding!  

I suppose the Panthers were rare is why they're excluded?

I think the AusfG was used in North Africa IIRC?

IIRC it was the early G only though, I think the Late G came out after Germany left North Africa?

- Then again I thought the _Early_ G came out after Germany had left North Africa!  ('44)


Even so, that was probably the best, you're right Gnomey, can't believe I forgot it!


----------



## MacArther (Mar 1, 2006)

I'd take the M3. Sure, the gun layout was a limitation, but it also helped it, because while the tank was manuevering to use the 75mm gun, the 37mm gun would hit any potential weak points on an enemy tank, or just make any light vehicles nearby into scrap.


----------



## Soren (Mar 1, 2006)

Fine Schwarz, dig up some old dirt  



> It can count for nothing. Sand storms and the weird effects of heat can render any optical equipment useless, it's like aiming underwater at times!



Schwarz do you seriously think that I was talking in case of a sandstorm ?!



> Yes, on a good day.



Any day the weather is clear...



> The Sherm ain't gonna be able to do that, the M10 might though...



Neither the Sherman or the M10 can... And btw, the M10 entered service in late 42, a bit late compared to what the Germans possesed by then.



> Wow! I bet the Allies/Soviets wish they had that!



I bet they did. All they had were rough estimates, "worth sh*t" as one US tank commander once said. 



> The only time range-related equipment that amazes me is the laser range finder on the very late Panthers. 8)



Laser range finder ? Schwarz, laser equipment was first developed in the 1960's  



> Course it was.



It sure wasn't ! And just by looking at the actual gun, someone just a little knowledgeable about ballistics will tell you the same !


----------



## MacArther (Apr 17, 2006)

I think he means the Infared spotlight that some panzer units and panzer support units mounted.


----------



## elmilitaro (Apr 19, 2006)

MacArther said:


> I think he means the Infared spotlight that some panzer units and panzer support units mounted.





Did the allies have any of these?


----------



## MacArther (Apr 19, 2006)

Nope. I'll try and find the picture of the SDKFZ (or whatever the initials were for the armored personel carriers) that has an Infared Spotlight on it. These were used to illuminate the target, which the Panthers and other late model tanks could see by means of some device. Whether or not this type of action was used before wars end is debatable.


----------



## terriles (Jun 13, 2006)

I like the mathilda mk2 and the italian´s tank m13/40



THE PANZER II


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 20, 2006)

Well the title of the thread is Best/Favorite tank in the West and since the Afrika campain was not considered the Western Campain I will have to say the Panther and Tiger were the best in the West.


----------



## JeffK (Jul 31, 2006)

Best and favourite, but only one table to vote on.

Favourite, the Tillie.

Best, the bloody Tiger!


----------



## CCM von Hausser (Aug 11, 2006)

No dubt! Tiger!!


----------



## Joe2 (Oct 26, 2006)

The churchill, no contest. It had more armour than the tiger and its 75mm gun could take out panzer IVs very easily. The only weapons that could defeat it was the 88mm and the tiger. And if we are talking about the western desert (egypt, Libia ect) then only the 88 could kill it, as Rommel was promised a load of tigers but they didnt arrive....probably torpedoed by the Royal Navy whilst still on ships 

And the Eastern bit of desert (morrocco, Tunisia ect) there where only 20 Tigers anyway8) 


But why are cromwells on the list? I thought they only appeard in '44


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 26, 2006)

Joe2 said:


> The churchill, no contest. It had more armour than the tiger and its 75mm gun could take out panzer IVs very easily. The only weapons that could defeat it was the 88mm and the tiger.



Where did you come from. It is a proven fact the 3 best tanks of WW2 were the Tiger, Panther, T-34. No arguement can be made. The Tiger could kill anything the allies put up without much dificulty.


----------



## Joe2 (Oct 28, 2006)

the churchill had more armour than the Tiger mkII actually


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 28, 2006)

Not than the MkII (King Tiger) - 180mm front - and only 2mm (had 102mm front) more than the Tiger I (100mm front)...

Churchill tank - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Tiger I - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Tiger II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tiger I:

Armor Thickness (mm) 26 - 1005
1009
Front: 1007
Side: 807
Hull Front, Upper 1002,3
[email protected]°, [email protected]°4, [email protected]°8
Hull Front, Lower [email protected]°
[email protected]°4, [email protected]°8
Hull Sides, Upper 82
60-802,3
[email protected]°4, [email protected]°8
Hull Sides, Lower 62
[email protected]°4
Hull Rear 802,3
[email protected]°, [email protected]°4, [email protected]°8
Hull Top 252,3
[email protected]°4
Hull Bottom 252,3
[email protected]°4
Turret Front 100-1202,3
[email protected]°-11°, [email protected]°4, [email protected]°8
Mantlet: [email protected]°4
Turret Sides 802,3, 82
[email protected]°4, [email protected]°8
Turret Rear 802,3, 82
[email protected]°4, [email protected]°8
Turret Top 252,3, 26
[email protected]°-90°4, [email protected]°8

Germany's Panzerkampfwagen VI Ausf E, Tiger, SdKfz 181

Tiger II - King Tiger:

Armor Thickness (mm) 25 - 1504
Front: 1806
Side: 806
Hull Front, Upper 1505, [email protected]°3, [email protected]°7,8
100-1502
Hull Front, Lower [email protected]°8, [email protected]°3, [email protected]°7
Hull Sides, Upper [email protected]°3, [email protected]°7, 802
Hull Sides, Lower [email protected]°3
Hull Rear [email protected]°3, 802, [email protected]°7
Hull Top [email protected]°3
402
Hull Bottom [email protected]°3
25-402
Turret Front 1005, [email protected]°3, 1802, [email protected]°7
Porsche: [email protected]
Turret Sides [email protected]°3, 802, [email protected]°7 Porsche: [email protected]°3
Turret Rear [email protected]°3, 802, [email protected]°7
Porsche: [email protected]°3
Turret Top [email protected]°3, 402, [email protected]°7
Porsche: [email protected]°3

Germany's Panzerkampfwagen VI Ausf B, Königtiger, SdKfz 182

Churchill MKIV:

Look here (can't be bothered to sort and copy it)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 28, 2006)

Yeap and the gun on the Tiger could cut through any Allied Armour with pretty good ease. 

The only tank that one can argue with was better than the Tiger and Panther was the T-34 and that has to be argued and is not easily proven because the Germans countered the T-34 with better versions of the Tiger and Panther which made the T-34 more vulnerable.


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 28, 2006)

I could never, even with sodium pentathol, say that the T-34 was better than the Panther... 

More numerous, hell yea.... The Russians proved that u can win over technology with sheer brute numbers... It was a great tank and all, but nowhere superior to the Panther or Tiger...

As for the Poll, he may have labeled the Title of the Thread wrong, as his poll says North Africa, so I have to agree with the consensus and say the Tiger Mk VI.....


----------



## ndicki (Oct 29, 2006)

The Tiger and the Panther were too bl**dy unreliable, being mechanically far too complex. The RAC built a couple of new Panthers out of parts on the production line - part of the evaluation - at the end of the War, and took them back to Bovvie for trials against the Centurion MkI. They did not do as well as expected. There was the vague idea that the British army might even adopt the Panther, but that one did not last long!

T-34/85? Soldier-proof, relatively reliable, 85mm gun - albeit not a very good one, but still. Diesel engine, so less likely to brew up, decent armour protection, quite fast and manoueverable, nice wide tracks with good grip... a lot to be said for it. And, like the Centurion, it soldiered on well into the 1990s, if not actually until the present day. But it's not my favourite by any stretch, just the one I'd hope to have if for some reason they had to force me at gunpoint into one of those horrible things. Give me a nice hole anyday!


----------



## ndicki (Oct 29, 2006)

Did he say North Africa? Didn't read it. The best was therefore not the Panther, at any rate, as they didn't serve there. All things considered, the Churchill MkIII did solid work there, as did the Sherman MkI and II. Not as hard hitting as the Tiger, but far more likely to reach their destination!


----------



## plan_D (Oct 29, 2006)

The Churchill did not do well in North Africa, Britain was after replacing the lumbering wreck. It was no good in armour conflicts. It made it's name as an infantry support weapon because AT guns had a hard time destroying it. 

The Pz.kpfw IV Ausf F/2 and beyond made relatively easy meat of the Churchill as they raced around it and destroyed it from the side and rear, with their superior cannon. And that's not mentioning the several design faults and pathetic line of sight given by the Churchill's over-extended tracks. 

The best in the desert was the Pz.Kpfw VI Ausf E 'Tiger' as no other tank had a chance against it. The Allies never produced a tank that could go toe-to-toe with the Tiger, the Centurion Mk.I would have been able to but it wasn't in the war on time. 

The Churchill had slab-sided armour, to compare anything on the Churchill with the King Tiger is stupid. The King Tiger would slaughter anything in anyone's arsenal when in combat. It was the most powerful AFV in the war. 

And, while not in North Africa, the 6th Coldstream Guards got hold of a Panther Ausf G in full working order in the Ardennes Offensive. It held the road better than the Churchills and was a far superior attacking weapon. The Guards had it for weeks but were more than upset when it broke down. It saved many British lives in that unit.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 29, 2006)

Hmm interesting. I did not know that they captured and used a Panther. I would have been afraid that allied aircraft would have attacked it not realizing that it was being used by there own forces.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 30, 2006)

Picture for you, Chris:


----------



## redcoat (Oct 30, 2006)

plan_D said:


> The Churchill did not do well in North Africa, Britain was after replacing the lumbering wreck. It was no good in armour conflicts. It made it's name as an infantry support weapon because AT guns had a hard time destroying it.


Actually, until Tunisia there were grave doubts about the Churchill, and it was only its perfomance in this theater that ensured its continued production.

It should also be noted that in the only Tiger 1 and Churchill combat in North Africa, the Churchill ( armed with a 6 pdr gun ) Ko'd the Tiger


----------



## m kenny (Oct 30, 2006)

plan_D said:


> The Churchill did not do well in North Africa, Britain was after replacing the lumbering wreck. It was no good in armour conflicts. It made it's name as an infantry support weapon because AT guns had a hard time destroying it.





Some 'lumbering wreck'!
Between 20th-30th October 1944 31 Churchill tanks of 34th Tank Brigade were hit and 'knocked out' In Holland. Of this total only 7 were a total loss. 24 were repaired and put back into service. A further 7 Churchills were damaged by mechanical means, i.e falling into craters, hitting the gun on obstructions ect. 
The following German wrecks were listed and the location given where the vehicle could be found. They were 'total losses'.

1 x Jagdpanther.
3 x 105mm Stug.
9 x 75mm Stug.

All were destroyed by the Churchills.
Marks on the ground showed that a number of other German vehicles had been recovered and towed back behind their lines. Thus we do not know the total number of German vehicles 'knocked out'.
Thus 7 Churchills (and 3 Stuarts) for 13 SP guns. Not bad for a 'lumbering wreck'.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 30, 2006)

I admit my mistake concerning the Churchill, double checking more sources it was the fights in the hilly terrain of Tunisia which secured the prolonged life of the Churchill. 

On your second point, however, I cannot find anything. The only battle report I have of Tigers meeting Churchills is during the German spoil attack Operation _Fliederblute_. Two Tigers attached to III.BN FJR 5 attacked with Pz.Kpfw IV F/2 and Pz.Kpfw III L units and destroyed many British tanks, although after a 6 pdr round struck Tiger "131" the crew panicked and fled the machine. This machine was then captured. In no way was it disabled, in my sources. The only problem was the turret was jammed. The British units lost four Churchills to 50mm, 75mm and 88mm fire (I'm not aware of other tank losses, all I have is 'many were lost'). The Germans lost two Pz.Kpfw III, one Pz.Kpfw IV and one Pz.Kpfw VI.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 31, 2006)

m kenny said:


> 1 x Jagdpanther.
> 3 x 105mm Stug.
> 9 x 75mm Stug.



Note that those are not Tiger, Panther, and King Tigers. Granted the Jagdpanther is derived from the Panther.

The top 3 tanks of WW2 are without arguement the Tiger, Panther, and King Tiger.


----------



## redcoat (Oct 31, 2006)

plan_D said:


> I On your second point, however, I cannot find anything. The only battle report I have of Tigers meeting Churchills is during the German spoil attack Operation _Fliederblute_. Two Tigers attached to III.BN FJR 5 attacked with Pz.Kpfw IV F/2 and Pz.Kpfw III L units and destroyed many British tanks, although after a 6 pdr round struck Tiger "131" the crew panicked and fled the machine. This machine was then captured. In no way was it disabled, in my sources. The only problem was the turret was jammed.


Odd?
First you say it wasn't disabled, but then you say it was, but only the turret 

Obviously the crew thought it was disabled, because they abandoned it !8) 

This Tiger Tank is the one which is now restored and on permanent display at the Bovington Tank Museum 
The unit credited with this victory is the Churchill equipped 4th troop B Squadron 48th RTR of the 21st Tank Brigade 

[


----------



## plan_D (Nov 1, 2006)

m kenny -

I stated previously that the Churchill was effective in infantry support operations, which was mostly the case in Holland. Most of the time the Allies were just blocked by a FlaK 88 or a single StuG with ten or so infantrymen with Panzerfausts. 

You have given me ten days where one unit had thirty-one Churchills knocked-out of action either indefinately or for a period of time. Seven of which were total losses. Which is a very precise time and place, this doesn't give an overall picture. Even this doesn't show the Churchill's worth. 

The enemy armour only worth mentioning is the Jagdpanther. The "StuG 75mm" and "StuG 105mm" were both based on the Pz.Kpfw III chassis with little armour protection compared to the greater AFVs of the war. The StuG 105 is not an armour battling machine, it's cannon was low-velocity designed for knocking out bunkers and buildings. It was simply an assault weapon, so I don't consider a Churchill vs. StuG 105 worth a mention as it's obvious the Churchill will wipe it out in most cases. 

The StuG III (75mm) wasn't capable of battling the Churchill on equal terms. It's cannon couldn't penetrate the frontal armour of the Churchill, so it had no chance of winning a straight on shooting match. So, this is also no new news for me. 

The Jagdpanther is impressive but no tank is invincible. The Churchills would have managed to flank it and destroy it, well done to them. The Jagdpanther probably destroyed the majority of the AFVs lost in those ten days, that or any FlaK 88s the 34th Tank Brigade came across. 

And of course the Germans would have retrieved damaged vehicles, this says nothing. They would have been repaired and put back into action. 

redcoat -

There's nothing odd there. Having the turret jammed has not disabled the Tiger. The crew could have driven it back to their lines. What the crew thought at the time, in the heat of battle, and reality are two different things. The Churchill was credited by the Allies has a destroyed, but in reality the Tiger wasn't destroyed. 

And that battle proves that in a meeting between Tigers and Churchills, it wasn't one sided. Since on Tiger to Churchill losses - it's 4:1 in the Tiger's favour. And the Churchills were lost to 50mm, 75mm and 88mm fire. So, a Tiger obviously destroyed one or two Churchills.


----------



## redcoat (Nov 1, 2006)

plan_D said:


> redcoat -
> 
> There's nothing odd there. Having the turret jammed has not disabled the Tiger. The crew could have driven it back to their lines. What the crew thought at the time, in the heat of battle, and reality are two different things. The Churchill was credited by the Allies has a destroyed, but in reality the Tiger wasn't destroyed.



I never said it was destroyed, I said it was KO'd, and was it, or was it not , knocked out of the battle 


> And that battle proves that in a meeting between Tigers and Churchills, it wasn't one sided. Since on Tiger to Churchill losses - it's 4:1 in the Tiger's favour. And the Churchills were lost to 50mm, 75mm and 88mm fire. So, a Tiger obviously destroyed one or two Churchills.


You really need to work on your maths.
Seeing that 4 Churchills were KO'd (not destroyed ) and that the loss's are attributed to 50mm 75mm and 88mm fire the maximum that could have been caused by the Tiger tanks is two, so at max its 2:1, and from my understanding the single Churchill ko'd by 88mm fire was from a AT gun.

ps if we add the other known German losses it turns the known losses for both sides to 5:4 in the Allies favour.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 1, 2006)

Shermans have knocked out Tigers before, does that make the Sherman better than the Tiger? 

That is the logic that I see here....


----------



## plan_D (Nov 1, 2006)

You mean illogic. 

Redcoat, you need to work on your English reading skills. I stated on Tiger to Churchill losses (no indication of Tiger against Churchill only) was 4:1 in the battle. And I did state later on that Tigers could have knocked out one or two Churchills - or did you forget to read that part? 

Since your understanding seems to fail you at the moment, I'd rather not go off "your understanding". 

And how do you know the Churchills were not destroyed? 

On top of that, the Tiger was knocked out of the battle but with hindsight we can see that the Churchill achieved a lucky hit, and it was still able to drive back to it's lines. Which is more important than the crew panicking and abandoning when talking on technical terms.


----------



## Soren (Nov 1, 2006)

The Tiger Ausf.E in question was infact fully functional and needed not have been abandoned, however as Plan_D pointed out the crew panicked as the turret jammed because the Chuchill's round had lotched itself in the turret ring. 

The Tiger Ausf.E was a far superior tank to the Churchill, being capable of knocking out the Churchill past 2,000 m in a head on attack and being alot faster as-well.


----------



## redcoat (Nov 2, 2006)

Soren said:


> The Tiger Ausf.E in question was infact fully functional and needed not have been abandoned, however as Plan_D pointed out the crew panicked as the turret jammed because the Chuchill's round had lotched itself in the turret ring.
> 
> .


Please explain how a tank can be *fully* functional with a jammed turret.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 2, 2006)

What he means is this. The tank could have pulled back retreated and with some repairs been put back into action. It was not destroyed....


----------



## m kenny (Nov 2, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> What he means is this. The tank could have pulled back retreated and with some repairs been put back into action. It was not destroyed....



If........maybe..........but..........!!!!! 

Am I the only one suprised that we have people seriously arguing that a disabled and abandonned tank, captured and taken as a trophy is not a total loss? Should they still list it as 'ready for combat (once we recapture it!)'
Uber Tiger is 'cool ' and rules!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 2, 2006)

m kenny said:


> If........maybe..........but..........!!!!!
> 
> Am I the only one suprised that we have people seriously arguing that a disabled and abandonned tank, captured and taken as a trophy is not a total loss? Should they still list it as 'ready for combat (once we recapture it!)'
> Uber Tiger is 'cool ' and rules!



Dont......Get......Your.....Panties.......In......A.....Bunch........!!!!!!

I am not defending his arguemenent that it was not a loss, but rather stating what I think he meant.


----------



## redcoat (Nov 2, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> What he means is this. The tank could have pulled back retreated and with some repairs been put back into action. It was not destroyed....


Has anybody even suggested that the Tiger was destroyed ???


----------



## Soren (Nov 3, 2006)

Yes Adler you've got that right, so don't bother yourself with those two and there meaningless remarks.

Fact is if the crew hadn't panicked over the fact that the turret had jammed, they could've just pulled away without even being in danger of being taken out. 

The Tiger Ausf.E in question was infact in such good shape that after it was captured it was shipped back to England, the lotched round was removed, and the tank was then tested thuroughly - and despite having taken a direct blow to the turret the gun proved remarkably accurate in the tests, achieving first round hits all way out to 1500y. The British were infact astonished over the overall performance of the tank. And all functioned as it should.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 3, 2006)

redcoat said:


> Has anybody even suggested that the Tiger was destroyed ???



Has anybody suggested that I was implying that you said the Tiger was destroyed ???


----------



## MacArther (Nov 3, 2006)

I'm sorry, but you're all wrong, the best tank in the West, especially in North Africa would *have* to be the M3 Grant  . I mean, what can you possibly do against 2.3 inches of armor?  Still, I do really like the tank, because of the unorthodox layout, which was both a help and a hindrance.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 3, 2006)

she was undercrewed for having two guns, i do like the novelty though......


----------



## redcoat (Nov 3, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Has anybody suggested that I was implying that you said the Tiger was destroyed ???


Somebody must have. Otherwise why is almost everyone insisting it wasn't ?


----------



## redcoat (Nov 3, 2006)

Soren said:


> Yes Adler you've got that right, so don't bother yourself with those two and there meaningless remarks.
> 
> .


Is there anything more meaningless than stating a tank was *fully *functional even when you know it had a jammed turret 

You'd make a good used car salesman


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 3, 2006)

redcoat said:


> Somebody must have. Otherwise why is almost everyone insisting it wasn't ?



No you implied that I was saying it....


----------



## plan_D (Nov 4, 2006)

redcoat,

From a technical point of view, the Tiger would have been able to drive back to it's lines and be repaired within a few hours. The lucky hit by the Churchill gives no indication that the Churchill could defeat a Tiger. 

What you did imply though, was the "only engagement" between the two in North Africa saw the Tiger knocked out. You seemed to forget to mention that four Churchill's were knocked out in the same battle.


----------



## Henk (Nov 4, 2006)

I read a eyewitness report of a US tank crew man on a Sherman who said that they engaged a King Tiger and the King Tiger knocked out 8 of them and then reversed slowly and then drove away and disappeared without being damaged. 

Now the fact is that the Churchill did have a lucky hit thus not disabling the tank but crippling her. If she was knocked out she would not be able to drive and the crew would be unable to use the tank, for anything. 

I think someone does not know the meaning of words and must get a better dictionary, gees I am not even a english speaking person and I know that.


----------



## m kenny (Nov 5, 2006)

Henk said:


> I read a eyewitness report of a US tank crew man on a Sherman who said that they engaged a King Tiger and the King Tiger knocked out 8 of them and then reversed slowly and then drove away and disappeared without being damaged.



Please post it and we can all have a laugh.............



> Now the fact is that the Churchill did have a lucky hit thus not disabling the tank but crippling her. If she was knocked out she would not be able to drive and the crew would be unable to use the tank, for anything.



It must really hurt that the uber-panzer was hit and captured. Notice how the true believers engage in gymnastics to try and salvage the Tiger myth.



> I think someone does not know the meaning of words and must get a better dictionary, gees I am not even a english speaking person and I know that.



Words may confuse you but myths don't?


----------



## m kenny (Nov 5, 2006)

Another complete and 'indestructable' Tiger captured in Normandy. A couple of Shermans fired at it and the crew baled out and ran away.


----------



## Erich (Nov 5, 2006)

doubtful as it was abandoned by the 1st W-SS crew


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 5, 2006)

m kenny said:


> Please post it and we can all have a laugh.............



Not saying it happened, but it is believable. The Koenigs Tiger was better than any tank the allies could throw at it. Even Sherman fans know there tank was undergunned and underarmoured compared to the Tiger, Panther and Koenigs Tiger.





m kenny said:


> It must really hurt that the uber-panzer was hit and captured. Notice how the true believers engage in gymnastics to try and salvage the Tiger myth.



The Tiger was not undefeatable but it was still better than any tank the allies could throw at it. Believing that the Sherman and anything else was better is quite naive.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 5, 2006)

Not a fan of wikipedia because I find lots of errors in it but I used it just for a quick search here.

Tiger

_Tigers were capable of destroying their most common opponents, the T-34, Sherman, or Churchill IV at ranges exceeding 1,600 m. In contrast, the T-34s equipped with the 76.2 mm gun could not penetrate the Tiger frontally at any range, but could achieve a side penetration at approximately 500 m firing the BR-350P APCR ammunition. The T-34-85's 85 mm gun could penetrate the Tiger from the side at over 1,000 m. The IS-2's 122 mm gun could destroy the Tiger at ranges exceeding 1,000 m from any aspect.

The M4 Sherman's 75 mm gun could not penetrate the Tiger frontally at any range, and needed to be within 500 m to achieve a side penetration. The British 17-pounder as used on the Sherman Firefly, if firing its APDS round, could penetrate frontally at over 1,500 m. The US 76 mm gun, if firing the most common APCBC ammunition, could not penetrate the Tiger frontally at any range, and needed to be within 1,000 m to get a side kill. However, if the 76 mm was firing HVAP ammunition (usually in short supply), frontal penetrations were possible at 1,000 m.

As range decreases in combat, all guns can penetrate more armour (with the exception of HEAT ammunition, which was rare in WW2). The great penetrating power of the Tiger's gun meant that it could destroy many of its opponents at ranges at which they could not respond. In open terrain this was a major tactical advantage. Opposing tanks were often forced to make a flanking attack in order to kill a Tiger. American tank crews were told that the safest and surest way to kill a Tiger was "to get it by its ***" - that is, to manoeuver behind it and hit it in the engine compartment, where the armour was thinnest._

and 

_The Tiger's armour and firepower, however, were feared by all its opponents. In tactical defence, its poor mobility was less of an issue. Whereas Panthers had been the more serious threat to the allied tanks, Tigers had a bigger psychological effect on Allied crews, causing a "Tiger hysteria". Allied crews would sometimes evade rather than confront Tigers, even if a tank only looked like one, such as the Panzer IV with turret skirts applied. In the Normandy campaign, it could take four to five Shermans to knock out a single Tiger tank by manoeuvring to its weaker flank or rear armour; the Soviet T-34s fared similarly against the German tanks, as had the German PzIII earlier against the Soviet heavy tanks. An accepted Allied tactic was to engage the Tiger as a group, one attracting the attention of the Tiger crew while the others attacked the sides or rear of the vehicle. Since the ammunition and fuel were stored in the sponsons, a side penetration often resulted in a kill. This was, however, a risky tactic, and often resulted in the loss of several Allied vehicles. It took a great deal of tactical skill to eliminate Tiger units._

and

_On 7 July 1943, a single Tiger tank commanded by SS-Oberscharführer Franz Staudegger from the 2nd Platoon of 13th Panzer Company of 1st SS Panzer Grenadier Division "LSSAH" engaged a Soviet group of some 50 T-34 tanks around Psyolknee (the southern sector of the German salient in the Battle of Kursk). Staudegger used up his entire ammunition after destroying some 22 Soviet tanks, while the rest retreated. For his achievement, Franz Staudegger was awarded the Knight's Cross._

and

_The Tiger is particularly associated with the name of SS-Haupsturmführer Michael Wittmann of schwere SS-Panzerabteilung 101, who was one of the most successful tank commanders of World War II. He worked his way up, commanding various vehicles and finally a Tiger I. In one day he destroyed over two dozen Allied vehicles including several tanks; and single-handedly held up an entire advance until his tank was knocked out and abandoned at the Battle of Villers-Bocage.

Over 10 Tiger tank commanders had over 100 kills on their account, including: Johannes Bölter with 139+ kills, Otto Carius with 150+ kills, Kurt Knispel with 168 kills, and Michael Wittmann with 138 kills._

and

_In May 1943, a Tiger of the Afrika Korps (turret number 131) was captured after a fight with Churchill tanks in Tunisia. It was repaired and displayed in Tunisia before being sent to England for a thorough inspection. *The Western Allies, however, did little to prepare for combat against the Tiger despite their assessment that the newly-encountered German tank was superior to their own.* This conclusion was partly based on the correct estimate that the Tiger would be produced in relatively small numbers. It was also based on the doctrine of the United States Army, which did not place emphasis on tank-versus-tank combat, relying instead in the use of tank destroyers. The British army, on the other hand, hastened their efforts to get Cruiser tanks armed with 17 pounder guns into operation after assessing the Tiger, albeit without a great deal of success._

and

_An oft-quoted statistic for weapons systems is the kill ratio. Against the Soviet and western Allied production numbers, even a 10:1 kill ratio would not have been sufficient for the Tigers. *Some Tiger units exceeded the 10:1 kill ratio, including 13. Kompanie/Panzer-Regiment Grossdeutschland (16.67:1), schwere SS-Panzer-Abteilung 103 (12.82:1) and schwere Panzer-Abteilung 502 (13.08:1).* These numbers must be set against the opportunity cost of building the expensive Tiger. Every Tiger built, for example, cost as much as four Sturmgeschütz III assault guns. One measure of cost-effectiveness, therefore, would be whether the Tiger's kill ratio was four times as high as the Sturmgeschutz III._

Tiger I - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## m kenny (Nov 5, 2006)

Erich said:


> doubtful as it was abandoned by the 1st W-SS crew



Well it was from sSS PzAbt 101. It was captured on 26/27th June 1944. Several Shermans fired at it and the crew baled out and ran away. The Tiger was taken as a prize and driven by men of The Nottinghamshire Sherwood Rangers Yeomanry. It was sent to the UK and used up in gunnery trials. A detailed account of the acrtion can be found in Stuart Hill's book 'By Tank Into Normandy' page 107. (Cassell 2002)


----------



## Soren (Nov 5, 2006)

Well no tank is indestructable M_kenny, so I really don't get that comment of yours.

Here's an early Tiger Ausf.B also taken about by a Sherman from the side at point blank range - this again serves to demonstrate just how desperate the Allies got when'ever faced by a Tiger:


----------



## m kenny (Nov 6, 2006)

The above is from 18/7/44 and Operation Goodwood. Not a good example to use as crew accounts from the Tiger II say the commander panicked and drove backwards through a hedge into the Sherman. The (decorated for this act)Sherman commader says he saw it and drove forward to ram it.

Of course the Germans then claim it was hit in error by German PAK (this is not 'discovered' until the 1960's by the way) as no Sherman could ever knock out a TII!


----------



## plan_D (Nov 6, 2006)

m kenny, you live in a dream world. The Tiger and King Tiger were no myths, they were far superior to anything the Allies produced in firepower and armour. And the Panther - well that was better at everything. There was no better rounded tank than the Panther. 

If you're so sad, m kenny, as to not see the facts then that's your problem. But the facts remain, the Tiger captured in North Africa was in good enough shape to drive it back to the German lines. It was a lucky hit, whereas if the Tiger had hit the Churchill in the same place - the Churchill turret would have gone missing from the chassis.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 6, 2006)

I think it is a matter of not being able to admit the Germans were able to produce something better...


----------



## m kenny (Nov 6, 2006)

plan_D said:


> m kenny, you live in a dream world.




A 'Tigers are cool' dream world?



> If you're so sad, m kenny, as to not see the facts then that's your problem. But the facts remain, the Tiger captured in North Africa was in good enough shape to drive it back to the German lines. It was a lucky hit, whereas if the Tiger had hit the Churchill in the same place - the Churchill turret would have gone missing from the chassis.



Yep the Tiger was 'unlucky' and the crew ran away.

Tiger '114' in Normandy was 'unlucky' and the crew ran away.

The TII in Goodwood was 'unlucky' because the commander 'panicked' and tried to reverse out of trouble........

It was 'unlucky' that it had to be knocked out by its own A/T guns (course I believe it)

The 100+ Tigers that were destroyed in the 8 weeks of the Normandy campaign were 'unlucky.

Gosh what an 'unlucky' tank it was!

7 'unlucky' Tigers in Russia.


----------



## Erich (Nov 6, 2006)

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz this thread needs to be closed


----------



## Soren (Nov 6, 2006)

Yes M_Kenny its all one big conspiracy, cause like we all know the Germans won the war so they wrote the history books and we all know what that means ! OMG, we've all been fouled ! Panic !!

Christ !


----------



## m kenny (Nov 7, 2006)

Soren said:


> OMG, we've all been fouled ! Panic !!



Panic!...........Just like the TII Commander during the Goodwood offensive?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 7, 2006)

It it is actually funny. It seems like m kenny takes offense and is all butt hurt because others see things differently. I think it is kind of hard to argue that the Tiger, Panther and King Tiger were not the best tanks of WW2.

No one here said they were in invinsible, yet m kenny takes it upon himself to put words in everyone elses mouth rather than see what they are really saying.

No allied tank was better armed or better armoured than the Tiger, King Tiger or Panther except maybe varients of the T-34.

The western allies approach to building tanks was not the same as the Germans. The allies wanted to have a tank that was easy to build, could be mass produced and was cheap. Hense came the Sherman. The allies new that there tanks were inferior and hense they created tactics to stop the German Panzers and the tactics is why huge numbers of Tigers, Panthers and King Tigers were destroyed. With those tactics and superior numbers and using decoys the allies became very successful against the Germans. 

It is not a shame to not have a tank that was better than the German tanks. I dont understand what the problem is here.Opinions are one thing and are fine but mocking to the point of insult because someone disagrees is just plane ignorant.


----------



## m kenny (Nov 7, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> It it is actually funny. It seems like m kenny takes offense and is all butt hurt because others see things differently.



Not offended but just tired of the same old rubbish about uber tanks




> I think it is kind of hard to argue that the Tiger, Panther and King Tiger were not the best tanks of WW2.



No it isn't. But it is hard to argue against myths and propoganda.



> No one here said they were in invincible, yet m kenny takes it upon himself to put words in everyone elses mouth rather than see what they are really saying.



'They' are saying the German tanks were far better than everything else and everyone should be able to see it. Well I can counter it with referenced instances where the uber weapon was bested. No more no less. 




> No allied tank was better armed or better armoured than the Tiger, King Tiger or Panther except maybe varients of the T-34.



So the M4A3E2 Sherman (photo below. note the gouge on the glacis and the others on the mantlet) that shrugged off 3 X 8.8cm hits before a 4th 'lucky' shot penetrated through the gun telescope opening was not as well armored as a Panther or Tiger?



> With those tactics and superior numbers and using decoys the allies became very successful against the Germans.



Neve heard of any decoys before. 



> Opinions are one thing and are fine but mocking to the point of insult because someone disagrees is just plane ignorant.



I am not offended at all by anyone elses comments. However I find it funny that when remarks such as :

"you need to work on your English reading skills"

"Since your understanding seems to fail you at the moment, I'd rather not go off "your understanding".

"Yes Adler you've got that right, so don't bother yourself with those two and there meaningless remarks"

"Believing that the Sherman and anything else was better is quite naive."


"m kenny, you live in a dream world"

"If you're so sad, m kenny"

are aimed at those in this thread who do not accept the uber weapon myth then there is not a peep about 'insults'.
I can live with this banter and I know you can.


----------



## Hunter368 (Nov 7, 2006)

M Kenny,

I have not seen anyone say that the German tanks undefeatable. All weapons can be beat, just some are harder then others to beat.

Allies had numbers on their side and that is what won the day in tank battles. Thousands of Shermans vs few hundred German tanks.....Shermans are going to win.

One vs One I would not want to be in a Sherman vs a Tiger or Panther tank. But if I had 5 Shermans vs 1 Panther or Tiger well then I would choose the Sherman.

I am not saying German tanks are "uber" or "undefeatable" they do have more armor and bigger gun. Thats all guys here are saying is that German tanks (Tiger, Panther, Tiger 2) were better 1 vs 1 with the Sherman.

Not sure if that seems to be a problem for you to except or not but it is fact. They have very detailed measurements of German and Allied tank armor as well as their gun performances. It is all simple fact that 1 vs 1 the Sherman will lose more times then it will win vs a Tiger or Panther or Tiger 2.

Do you agree with what I have said? (I am not a champion for German or Allied tanks, just the truth)


----------



## m kenny (Nov 7, 2006)

The only flaw the mantra of 1:1 combat is that rarely, if ever, did 0ne tank attack one tank.
It was always Unit v Unit and thus any paper advantage was lost in the melee.


----------



## Hunter368 (Nov 7, 2006)

m kenny said:


> The only flaw the mantra of 1:1 combat is that rarely, if ever, did 0ne tank attack one tank.
> It was always Unit v Unit and thus any paper advantage was lost in the melee.



In my post I said the Allies far out produced the Germans in tanks. I agree but you are side stepping my question.

Which tank would you sooner be in yourself in a 1 vs 1 battle. Sherman or Tiger/Panther/Tiger 2. Thats all I am asking you. Please answer.


----------



## Erich (Nov 7, 2006)

Personally I think armor sucks eggs ............. but I see Michaels points as well as others. probably we could agree that the Panther and especially variants of the Tiger I and II were quite well suited for ambush and the defensive terrain of the Reich towards 1944 and wars end. As an attack vehicle just too much demand on the crews, slowness / lack of power, rotating turret, faulty engines and mechanics, and just plain heavy in sloppy mud.

did the 7.5 and 8.8cm have the hitting stopping power ? without a doubt. did the Panther and Tigers have excellent optics ? without a doubt. maybe the thread needs to be changed in some way to see which of the German armored vehicles was best suited for the Normandy bocage or literally go back to the original title of Afrika. No panthers and no Königstigers and the Tiger 1 was just plain crap in the desert due to engine/filter problems. I'm actually putting in for a big fat 0 on any of them. How about the 8.8cm Flak 18 ? ............ guess we can't do that


----------



## MacArther (Nov 7, 2006)

> go back to the original title of Afrika.


I've been waiting for someone to say something. Anyway, in North Africa, I would call it a close call between the Shermans and the Pzr IV F2's (at least, I think they made it to that theatre). The later Pzr III with the 60 caliber barrel was nice, but by the time it showed up, the gun was just a *tiny* bit on the small side. Still, it probably worked well as an ambush tank, because from looking at pictures, it would seem that it had a lower profile than say the Sherman. M3 Stuart though, it takes the real prize, for being thrust into a situation it really wasn't meant for, and still managing to perform well, which in turn is a testament to the quality of the crews and the mechanics.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 8, 2006)

Erich and Hunter I agree and that is what I have been trying to say the whole time.

m Kenny what I am talking about with decoys was a common tactic by atleast the American Tank units and they would send out one sherman that would get the attention of a Tiger and then the rest of the unit would come around and flank it and hit it in the vulnerable spots.

If you would read the long posts above it explained that quite well.


----------



## Hunter368 (Nov 8, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Erich and Hunter I agree and that is what I have been trying to say the whole time.
> 
> m Kenny what I am talking about with decoys was a common tactic by atleast the American Tank units and they would send out one sherman that would get the attention of a Tiger and then the rest of the unit would come around and flank it and hit it in the vulnerable spots.
> 
> If you would read the long posts above it explained that quite well.



Chris what I find funny is that I ask a simple question and he will not answer it. That in itself tells me something.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 8, 2006)

That my friend is typical in many threads here when someone strikes a point.


----------



## Hunter368 (Nov 8, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> That my friend is typical in many threads here when someone strikes a point.



Yup he has a total of 22 posts, none of them about World War 2 aircraft, he is disregards other people points, disrespectful to long standing members. He does not answer questions that are convenient for him to answer b/c they prove him wrong.

Seems like a pattern of other newbies who lasted a very short time here. They come here thinking they know everything and after they are proven wrong they never come back. None of us miss them here. Lets see if he comes back with a new attitude, if he does not his stay here could get rough for him.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 8, 2006)

Well I have posted facts about the armour and penetration ability of the tanks guns... that is proof eneogh for me.


----------



## Hunter368 (Nov 8, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Well I have posted facts about the armour and penetration ability of the tanks guns... that is proof eneogh for me.





Agreed.

How does it go......."you can't argue with a fool".


----------



## m kenny (Nov 8, 2006)

Hunter368 said:


> Chris what I find funny is that I ask a simple question and he will not answer it. That in itself tells me something.




Well I chose what and how I reply. I do not have an opinion on the matter. It is not germain to the thrust of my posts and whatever you think is important may not have the same resonance for me. Is that clear enough?




DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> decoys was a common tactic by atleast the American Tank units and they would send out one sherman that would get the attention of a Tiger and then the rest of the unit would come around and flank it and hit it in the vulnerable spots.



US units did not even see a Tiger until rather late in the 1944 campaign. I see nothing other than' common belief' to sustain such an assertion. I am, however, open to persuasion if you can show a reference..



Hunter368 said:


> Yup he has a total of 22 posts, none of them about World War 2 aircraft,



Strange that I make no mention of aicraft in a thread about 'Best/Favourate (sic)Tank in the west '? 
Perhaps it can be explained why this would be a barrier to expressing an opinion ?







Hunter368 said:


> He does not answer questions that are convenient for him to answer b/c they prove him wrong.



There are no absolutes in this world. Even the most extreme standpoint will have arguments in its favour. This desire to utterly demolish your opponent indicates a failure to fully grasp the definition of 'opinion'



Hunter368 said:


> Seems like a pattern of other newbies who lasted a very short time here. They come here thinking they know everything and after they are proven wrong they never come back.



I am far from a 'newbie' in this area. Unlike many here I do not profess to 'know everything' and you vastly inflate your ability to 'prove' me wrong




Hunter368 said:


> None of us miss them here. Lets see if he comes back with a new attitude, if he does not his stay here could get rough for him.



Rough for me? I think you may be the one 'proved wrong'




DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Well I have posted facts about the armour and penetration ability of the tanks guns... that is proof eneogh for me.



Penetration tables are one of the most contentious areas of research. What most people mean is they find a set of statistics that suit their beliefs.
Others with another set of values challenge them and we are subjected to pages of mind numbing data about slope(from horizontal or vertical) nickle content, brittleness, shatter gap, overmatching and downright lies.



Hunter368 said:


> Agreed.
> 
> How does it go......."you can't argue with a fool".



Oh now we enter the more intellectual areas of your expertise! 
You do not know me other than you 'think' you have superior understanding and insight. I sincerely hope you are able to sustain this elevated opinion of your ability.
Perhaps you could drop in in some of my postings at 

Axis History Forum :: Viewing profile

Maybe you could show me how 'foolish' I was in say this thread there.

Axis History Forum :: View topic - Whose Tiger is it?

Could I ask if those with greater understanding than me could add to the threads conclusions?
A peer review from some real 'experts' would be greatly appreciated.


German speakers can call me to task here:

Suchen - Panzer-Archiv


----------



## Hunter368 (Nov 8, 2006)

m kenny,

Lets see where to start, I will start here:

You say "Well I chose what and how I reply. I do not have an opinion on the matter. It is not germain to the thrust of my posts and whatever you think is important may not have the same resonance for me. Is that clear enough?"

I say yes it is very clear, you do not want to answer my question b/c if you do it will prove you wrong if you say "Tiger/Panther/Tiger2 or if you answer picking the Sherman then you are nuts. 1 vs 1 a Sherman dies a very high percentage of the time.

You say "Strange that I make no mention of aicraft in a thread about 'Best/Favourate (sic)Tank in the west '? 
Perhaps it can be explained why this would be a barrier to expressing an opinion ?"

Yes the thread is about tanks but the vast amount of the site is about World War 2 planes......mmmmmm funny thats why they call it www.ww2aircraft.net ! Does that mean we can only enjoy your imput on this forum if it has to do with tanks?  

You say "There are no absolutes in this world. Even the most extreme standpoint will have arguments in its favour. This desire to utterly demolish your opponent indicates a failure to fully grasp the definition of 'opinion'"

I agree there is nothing wrong with opinions, but you did not just state an opinion here. You are debating trying to prove your point, if you want to post a opinion fine then don't debate. If you want to debate, post a opinion and debate. I do not wish to utterly demolish you, I am just debating your opinion. By doing so I asked you a very simple question that you have not answered b/c it proves you point wrong. You are just to proud or stuborn to admit it, thats not my problem.

You say "I am far from a 'newbie' in this area. Unlike many here I do not profess to 'know everything' and you vastly inflate your ability to 'prove' me wrong"

Seems you do not listen or except other people's opinion when they differ from yours....seems pretty arrogant to me. I inflate my ability to prove you wrong? Nope you do that for me.

You say "Rough for me? I think you may be the one 'proved wrong'"

You have no idea how bad it could get for you if you tick off the wrong people here. You will learn or be banned I know that forsure. If you think you are going to come here with a attitude and talk to Mods or long term members with disrespect.....well it will be funny watching you try. I welcome you to try.  

You say "Oh now we enter the more intellectual areas of your expertise! 
You do not know me other than you 'think' you have superior understanding and insight. I sincerely hope you are able to sustain this elevated opinion of your ability."

Sarcasm is one of my most loveable triats.....thank you. If I see a spade, I call it a spade. I think you have "tone" and are "disrespectful" to our members, you dismiss their opinion out of hand. That is my only problem with you. I don't care if it is German or Allied tank, best is the best. You came to this thread with your baised opinion and can't except it when people prove you wrong. If you posted a opinion and someone proved you wrong and you said ok, then I would have no problem with you (and no one else would either).

I never claimed to have superior understanding then you in anything. You just keep giving examples of a single action here and there and call it proof. Thats not proof those are isolated examples of where a weaker tank was able to take out a better tank. Numbers do prove that Tiger/Panther/Tiger2 tanks are better 1 vs 1. Where the Germans failed is that they believed that their superior tanks (in limited numbers) could take on inferior Allied tanks (in vast numbers). Germans were proven wrong, Allies swamped Germans with huge numbers of tanks and the Germans could not kill them fast enough. Allies had better plan but the Germans had a better tank when you compare them 1 vs 1.

A different example is if you take the Heavy weight champ (Tiger/Panther/Tiger2 tank) in boxing and ten normal guys (Sherman tank). Then put them in fight Heavy weight champ vs 10 normal guys. The 10 normal guys are going to win most times. But if you take the Heavy weight champ vs 1 normal guy.....the normal guy gets his butt handed to him the most times. 

As far as your replies to Chris's posts go I will let him answer for himself.


----------



## m kenny (Nov 8, 2006)

> I say yes it is very clear, you do not want to answer my question



Yes, I am frightened of your cunning trap.



> b/c if you do it will prove you wrong if you say "Tiger/Panther/Tiger2



Another example where your superior understanding allows you to trap the unwary?




> or if you answer picking the Sherman then you are nuts.



Oh I see. Disagree with you and you are 'nuts'.




> Yes the thread is about tanks but the vast amount of the site is about World War 2 planes......mmmmmm funny thats why they call it www.ww2aircraft.net ! Does that mean we can only enjoy your imput on this forum if it has to do with tanks?



I am a firm believer that one should only offer an opinion if one is au fait with the subject.



> I agree there is nothing wrong with opinions, but you did not just state an opinion here. You are debating trying to prove your point, if you want to post a opinion fine then don't debate. If you want to debate, post a opinion and debate. I do not wish to utterly demolish you, I am just debating your opinion.



Now you can read my mind ?




> By doing so I asked you a very simple question that you have not answered b/c it proves you point wrong.



My every utterance plunges me deeper into the pit!





> Seems you do not listen or except other people's opinion when they differ from yours....seems pretty arrogant to me. I inflate my ability to prove you wrong? Nope you do that for me.



As you said earlier, anyone daring to disagree with you is 'nuts'.



> You have no idea how bad it could get for you if you tick off the wrong people here. You will learn or be banned I know that forsure. If you think you are going to come here with a attitude and talk to Mods or long term members with disrespect.....



Oh sorry, I give in .You are right and I am 'nuts' 




> well it will be funny watching you try. I welcome you to try.



A quote from a Dirty Harry film ? 



> I think you have "tone" and are "disrespectful" to our members, you dismiss their opinion out of hand.



Well I am nuts




> You came to this thread with your baised opinion and can't except it when people prove you wrong.



Proved me wrong?.........Those whom the Gods wish to destroy............... 



> If you posted a opinion and someone proved you wrong and you said ok, then I would have no problem with you (and no one else would either).



Your arrogance is breathtaking. Someone proved me 'wrong' and the only course is for me to submit and cry uncle!
Did it ever enter your head that you might be wrong.....naw, probably not.

Anyway is it possible you can give me a link where I can see some examples of your posts on other Forums please?

Now the above is a direct question and we know your opinion on those who dodge such simple requests.

It would be interesting to examine the history of your research in this area


----------



## Hunter368 (Nov 8, 2006)

kenny kenny,

At least you admit when you are trapped and you can't worm your way out by side stepping / avoiding questions. Thank you  

By disagreeing with me does not mean you are nuts. This is why I think you are nuts if you choose the Sherman:

TigerII - 69.8 tonnes
180mm frontal armor
80mm side armor
88 mm KwK 43 L/71 main gun

vs

Sherman - 35 tons
2.8 inches front armor
1.6 inches side armor
75mm main gun

Those are just two models of each kind. There is others we can compare (different models of all Shermans, Tigers, Tiger2 or Panther) if you want.
In a 1 vs 1 fight you think it is better to choose the Sherman?  

You want a Dirty Harry quote? sure ok. Go ahead Punk make my day.  

You said "Someone proved me 'wrong' and the only course is for me to submit and cry uncle!"

Nope just you stop repeating isolated examples of a Sherman destroying a Tiger or Panther and calling that proof will do fine. Thanks  

You said "Anyway is it possible you can give me a link where I can see some examples of your posts on other Forums please?"

Mmmmm does posting your biased opinions on more than one forum make you an expert? I guess you have that one on me. Well done. Azzholes are just like opinions, everyone has one and they are free. See its easy to answer a person's question. I am not about to list my collection of hundreds of books on WW2.

But you still have not answered my first question other than saying "Well I chose what and how I reply. I do not have an opinion on the matter."

Sounds more like you are afraid to answer it. Seems you want to dodge my question by trying to argue with me. Answer my question its really very simple.

In a 1 vs 1 battle Sherman vs Tiger/Panther/Tiger2 which would you choose? All other things being equal ie terrain etc. Which would you choose? This is not brain surgery, just a simple question. You are so eager to have your opinion heard why do you refuse to give it here? Which would you choose? Show us your expert opinion here. I have stated my choice, I would take the Panther/Tiger/Tiger2 any day over the Sherman. Which would you choose?


----------



## Matt308 (Nov 8, 2006)

This is almost better than the political threads.


----------



## Hunter368 (Nov 8, 2006)

Maybe this one will be closed also.


----------



## Matt308 (Nov 8, 2006)

Don't make me pray again. He will begin to suspect my requests are trivial.


----------



## Hunter368 (Nov 8, 2006)

Matt308 said:


> Don't make me pray again. He will begin to suspect my requests are trivial.



If you are the little boy who cried.......who is the wolf?


----------



## Matt308 (Nov 8, 2006)

Lanc


----------



## Hunter368 (Nov 8, 2006)

Matt308 said:


> Lanc




   He is always looking for sheep?


----------



## Matt308 (Nov 8, 2006)

See my humor does come through on occasions.


----------



## Hunter368 (Nov 8, 2006)

Matt308 said:


> See my humor does come through on occasions.



Matt you are one of the funniest sarcastic bastards on this site.  



Thats why I like to read your posts.


----------



## Matt308 (Nov 8, 2006)

Thanks. I do like this place. Of course eventually I am likely to piss someone off. And then I'll have to pack my dittybag and saunter off into the proverbial sunset.

Until then, backhanded comments for everyone!


----------



## m kenny (Nov 9, 2006)

Hunter368 said:


> kenny kenny,
> 
> At least you admit when you are trapped and you can't worm your way out by side stepping / avoiding questions. Thank you



Indeed you are myopic. 
'Trapped'? 'worm'?'avoiding'?
What could I be doing thinking I could outwit such a genius!



> Thank you se the Sherman:
> 
> TigerII - 69.8 tonnes
> 180mm frontal armor
> ...



Would these revealing statistics have been gleamed from your 'collection of hundreds of books on WW2'. All very basic and, if I may say it , schoolboy'ish'.



> But you still have not answered my first question other than saying "Well I chose what and how I reply. I do not have an opinion on the matter."
> 
> Sounds more like you are afraid to answer it. Seems you want to dodge my question by trying to argue with me. Answer my question its really very simple.



Error piled upon error. 'I have no opinion on the matter' is in fact an answer.
What you are struggling to articulate here is that you dont like the answer. A subtle difference that appears to be lost upon you.



> In a 1 vs 1 battle Sherman vs Tiger/Panther/Tiger2 which would you choose? All other things being equal ie terrain etc. Which would you choose? This is not brain surgery, just a simple question. You are so eager to have your opinion heard why do you refuse to give it here? Which would you choose? Show us your expert opinion here. I have stated my choice, I would take the Panther/Tiger/Tiger2 any day over the Sherman. Which would you choose?



You can almost smell the adrenaline here.
I 'must' answer!
You 'insist' upon a reply!
Very immature and I would think an indication of your age.



> Mmmmm does posting your biased opinions on more than one forum make you an expert? I guess you have that one on me. Well done. Azzholes are just like opinions, everyone has one and they are free. See its easy to answer a person's question.



Asked and answered. You have no track record. 



> I am not about to list my collection of hundreds of books on WW2.



Hundreds? Have you coloured them all in yet?
Please share the references that allow you to form such firm an immutable opinions as to tank effectiveness in Normandy.

A few more 'isolated' examples of Tigers destroyed by inferior tanks.


----------



## Soren (Nov 9, 2006)

M_kenny you are infact the one being very immature here ! 

You keep posting pictures of Tigers having been taken out in order to try and convince us that the Tiger was a piece of S**t, yet you ignore the true and simple points pointed out to you by other members on this board.

So you might as-well answer the question M_kenny, childish or not - which tank would you most prefer to be sitting in, a Tiger or a Sherman ??

And before you start posting anymore pictures you may want to know that the Tiger Ausf.E has a 10 to 1 kill ratio - And don't start your "but Tiger crews overclaimed" theory, cause thats all it is, a theory. (I bet he's going to refer to an incident with Wittman now )


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 9, 2006)

Okay first of all I will break this down into several posts. Not for spam but because each has its own point.

Everyone in this forum, as a moderator I am telling you to calm the hell down.

Hunter dont provoke m kenny please. We need to keep the peace here.

m kenny you need to calm down as well. With your 26 posts you have no right to come in here and insult members of the forum.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 9, 2006)

Second post. 

m kenny you have not proven a single thing in this thread what so ever at all. You keep telling us to prove to you that the Tiger was better than allied tanks and I am telling you that you are the one that needs to prove to us.

*What have you given us so far. Nothing!*

*You keep posting pics of destroyed Tigers which prove nothing. Not a single person here is dillusional eneogh to say that the Tiger and above were invincible. Ofcourse it can be destroyed. There are plenty of pics out there of destroyed Allied tanks. So what is your point! Nothing.*

You want me to believe that the Sherman, Cromwell, Cruisader what ever tank you wish I dont is better than a Tiger, Panther, King Tiger then you have to prove it to me.

I know more about Aircraft than I do about Tanks but I can tell you one thing it is common knowledge that the allied tanks with the exception of the Firefly, T-34 and a few others could not match the Tiger, Panther, King Tiger 1 on 1. Do you see that 1 on 1 the Tiger was a superior to the US and British Tanks. Even the US and the British knew this and they developed tactics and superior numbers.

Those tanks that you show pics of up there were not destroyed on 1 on 1 battles but by superior numbers of allied tanks.

Is that so hard to understand?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 9, 2006)

3rd and Last post. Here is some more facts:

All of this info is from: Achtung Panzer! - Panzer Profiles !

*Panther*

_*According to US Army Ground Forces statistics, destruction of a single Panther was achieved after destruction of 5 M4 Shermans or some 9 T-34s.*_ 

_"To destroy a Panther, a tank destroyer with a three inch (Gun Motor Carriage M10) or 76mm gun (Gun Motor Carriage M18 Hellcat) would have to aim for the side or rear of the turret, the opening through which the hull-mounted machine gun projected, or for the underside of the gun shield (mantlet)." - U.S. Army report prior to September of 1944._

Panther Cannon Penetration

Penetration of Armor Plate at 30 degrees from Vertical. 
Ammunition: 100m 500m 1000m 1500m 2000m 
Panzergranate 39/42 138mm 124mm 111mm 99mm 89mm 
Panzergranate 40/42 194mm 174mm 149mm 127mm 106mm 


Pzgr.39/42 (APCBC) - Armor Piercing Composite Ballistic Cap 
Pzgr.40/42 (APCR) - Armor Piercing Composite Rigid (Tungsten Core) 

*Tiger*

_"I have inspected the battlefield at Fais Pass in Tunisia, being with the force which retook it. Inspection of our tanks destroyed there indicated that the 88mm gun penetrated into the turret from the front and out again in the rear. Few gouges were found indicating that all strikes had made penetrations." - Report by American Colonel from Tunisia, 1943._

_"...the Pz Kpfw VI with its heavy armour, dual purpose armament and fighting ability was basically an excellent tank, and, constituted a considerable advance on any allied tank..." - British Report from 1943 based on a study of Tiger I captured in Tunisia. (with full tropical air filter 'Feifel' system - November 1942 to August 1943)_

Tiger Cannon Penetration chart

Penetration of Armor Plate at 30 degrees from Vertical. 
Ammunition: 100m 500m 1000m 1500m 2000m 
Panzergranate 39 120mm 110mm 100mm 91mm 84mm 
Panzergranate 40 171mm 156mm 138mm 123mm 110mm 


Pzgr.39 (APCBC) - Armor Piercing Composite Ballistic Cap 
Pzgr.40 (APCR) - Armor Piercing Composite Rigid (Tungsten Core) 

*King Tiger*

_*The Panzerkampfwagen VI Tiger II Ausf. B "Königstiger" (Sd.Kfz.182) / VK4503(H) was the most powerful combat tank of World War II. Up to the end of the war, the Allies did not introduce anything that could effectively counter it. The Tiger II combined a powerful and effective gun with armor that was virtually impervious to any Allied tank or anti-tank gun.*_

_*"One day a Tiger Royal tank got within 150 yards of my tank and knocked me out. Five of our tanks opened up on him from ranges of 200 to 600 yards and got five or six hits on the front of the Tiger. They all just glanced off and the Tiger backed off and got away. If we had a tank like Tiger, we would all be home today." - Report by tank commander Sergeant Clyde D. Brunson from 2nd Armored Division, 1945. *_

King Tiger Penetration Chart

Penetration of Armor Plate at 30 degrees from Vertical. 
Ammunition: 100m 500m 1000m 1500m 2000m 
Panzergranate 39 203mm 185mm 165mm 148mm 132mm 
Panzergranate 40/43 237mm 217mm 193mm 171mm 153mm 


Pzgr.39 (APCBC) - Armor Piercing Composite Ballistic Cap 
Pzgr.40/43 (APCR) - Armor Piercing Composite Rigid (Tungsten Core) 

Again more facts. I guess facts are not worth anything today though.


----------



## m kenny (Nov 9, 2006)

Soren said:


> And before you start posting anymore pictures you may want to know that the Tiger Ausf.E has a 10 to 1 kill ratio - And don't start your "but Tiger crews overclaimed" theory, cause thats all it is, a theory



The Tiger had a 10:1 kill ratio? I would like to see the data you are using to support this claim.
Perhaps it would be easier if you give the examples from Normandy where this happened.


----------



## m kenny (Nov 9, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> m kenny you need to calm down as well. With your 26 posts you have no right to come in here and insult members of the forum.



Having been called a fool and worse I believe the 'insulting' started somewhere else.

I really can not believe the problem. This is a simple thread where the usual stuff about German tanks being better than everything else is being posted. I join in, simply show a couple of examples where the super tanks came off second best and the roof falls in!
Why are some posters determined to make me 'admit' I am wrong?
Is it against the rules here to disagree?
I said nothing about tank A being better than tank B.
I never said the Tiger sucked.
I never said the Sherman was superior.
I never said the Cromwell was better.
I never gave any opinion on the value of any tank.
I deal in cold hard facts.
Opinions are not my forte.
If anyone says I am posting lies or falshood then expose me.


----------



## Hunter368 (Nov 9, 2006)

Ok Chris I will stop giving him a hard time and good post.

Kenny,

As per Chris request I will not respond to your last post at the risk of flaming this thread anymore.

But I will start over, from the start. Ok you will not answer my question, Tiger/Panther/Tiger2 or Sherman. Ok then. I will move on to next question for you. You claim to know more than I (and others) on tanks and perhaps you do. I have never claimed to be an expert on anything. But perhaps you could enlighten us folk on the specs of the following tanks: Sherman, Tiger, Panther, Tiger2

I would like to see the following information if its not too much to ask:

- Model of tank
- Armor thickness (all sides)
- Weight
- Gun specs (incluing ammo types used)
- Year that it was introduced
- Produced numbers before the end of the war
- Radio or no radio
- Width of tracks
- Kill ratio if you can provide it

That should be a good start and then we can continue our chat on tanks. Also you can refrain from posting destroyed German tanks b/c it proves nothing. We could just as easly post destroyed Allied tanks. That would prove nothing either. Lets just keep this to facts, not fiction. You post those stats and then we can keep chatting.

Chris that is about as nice as I can be. I am trying to be nice to him. Lets see if he brings back anything I asked for.....meaning facts.


----------



## m kenny (Nov 9, 2006)

Soren said:


> And don't start your "but Tiger crews overclaimed" theory, cause thats all it is, a theory. (I bet he's going to refer to an incident with Wittman now )




Not just Tiger crews. All German tankers overclaimed.
All tankers of every nationality overclaimed.
In Russia the practise was to apply a 33% to 50% reduction across the board to all German tank kill claims.
This was done by the Germans themselves.
Yet we still have those putting forward raw Unit CLAIMS as if they were CONFIRMED kills.

Wiitmann at Villers Bocage is the perfect example of overclaim as it can be conclusively shown that he did not destroy even half of the kills he was awarded. 

If you can show otherwise then be my guest................


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 9, 2006)

m kenny what I getting at here is this:

You keep posting comments about the uebertanks and pictures of them destroyed.

What does that prove? Nothing.

Answer these questions for me. Was the Sherman superior one on one against a Tiger?

Was the Churchill, Cromwell, or Cruisader superior to the Tiger one on one.

Which tank the Tiger or the Allied tanks had overall superior penetrating power with there cannons?

Which tank had the better armour overall?

I think you will find that the superior tanks were the German tanks from the Tiger and beyond.

What made the allies more superior was superior numbers. You throw 30 Shermans or whatever kind of allied tank you wish against 3 Tigers and who do you think is going to win? The allies ofcourse.

m kenny facts are facts and the facts are written in stone everywhere. The Tigers had superior stopping power and superior armour. The allies however used superior numbers and tactics to defeat the Tiger.


----------



## Hunter368 (Nov 9, 2006)

m kenny said:


> Having been called a fool and worse I believe the 'insulting' started somewhere else.
> 
> I really can not believe the problem. This is a simple thread where the usual stuff about German tanks being better than everything else is being posted. I join in, simply show a couple of examples where the super tanks came off second best and the roof falls in!
> Why are some posters determined to make me 'admit' I am wrong?
> ...



If all you wanted to say was that here are a few examples of a inferior tank taking out a superoir tank than you did in a very strange way.

Seems most of us on this thread misunderstood your intentions. It is fine to disagree with anyone here. But if you do prepare to back up your stance. If you don't want to back up your stance...... just say so. But you tried to do both... at times you refuse to answer me (and others) and then you try and convince us again of your stance.

You say you deal in facts, then my last post before this one I ask you for facts.


----------



## Hunter368 (Nov 9, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> m kenny what I getting at here is this:
> 
> You keep posting comments about the uebertanks and pictures of them destroyed.
> 
> ...



Agreed 100% Seems like common sense to the most of us.


----------



## Hunter368 (Nov 9, 2006)

m kenny said:


> Not just Tiger crews. All German tankers overclaimed.
> All tankers of every nationality overclaimed.
> In Russia the practise was to apply a 33% to 50% reduction across the board to all German tank kill claims.
> This was done by the Germans themselves.
> ...



Wow I agree with you on something....thats a start. All nations over claimed tank kills. All nations over claimed air kills. Whats your point?


----------



## ndicki (Nov 9, 2006)

Just to add my two-pennyworth - how many of these Tigers were actually mechanically functional when they were destroyed? It strikes me that Tigers particularly were mechanically rather fragile, and prone to engine and transmission problems. That alone makes the tank-to-tank kill ratio suspect, as a sitting target is an easier one, not to mention that retreating crews might deliberately destroy their vehicle rather than let it fall more-or-less intact into Allied hands.

It is rather difficult to say what "better" actually means in this context. If we are talking about one-on-one combat for a limited period of time - Tiger, easily - or massed armour assaults, in which case you have to admit that the sheer numbers of adequate vehicles did for the low numbers of very dangerous ones.

Which makes you wonder about the NATO doctrine of quality versus quantity in the 1970s - 1980s Third World War in Germany projections.


----------



## Hunter368 (Nov 9, 2006)

I agree with you.

I will add this also. Syscom said on different thread the following (which I agree with):

Shermans would of had a much harder time of it in France 1944 if the Allies did not have so many fighter-bombers. If they had less F/B their would of been allot more dead Shermans on the battle field. Allies still would of won don't get me wrong but there also would of be allot more dead Shermans.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 9, 2006)

ndicki said:


> Just to add my two-pennyworth - how many of these Tigers were actually mechanically functional when they were destroyed? It strikes me that Tigers particularly were mechanically rather fragile, and prone to engine and transmission problems. That alone makes the tank-to-tank kill ratio suspect, as a sitting target is an easier one, not to mention that retreating crews might deliberately destroy their vehicle rather than let it fall more-or-less intact into Allied hands.



Absolutly correct. The Tigers, Panthers and King Tigers as a matter of fact were prone to breaking down. A tanks breaks down on the battle field I dont care how good the tank is you are going to get knocked out. That is where the shear numbers of Shermans come in. 

Allied tank crews new not to attack a Tiger from the front. The allied tank guns could not penetrate the frontal armour. For instance the American crews would send out one Sherman to get the attention of a Tiger and then the rest of the unit would flank it and attack it from either the side where it was more vulnerable or from the rear which would tank out the engine and set the fuel on fire.



ndicki said:


> It is rather difficult to say what "better" actually means in this context. If we are talking about one-on-one combat for a limited period of time - Tiger, easily - or massed armour assaults, in which case you have to admit that the sheer numbers of adequate vehicles did for the low numbers of very dangerous ones.
> 
> Which makes you wonder about the NATO doctrine of quality versus quantity in the 1970s - 1980s Third World War in Germany projections.



Agreed. The Tiger was more superior however the shear numbers of allied tanks is what did them in.


----------



## Hunter368 (Nov 9, 2006)

Agree 110%


----------



## m kenny (Nov 9, 2006)

Hunter368 said:


> Wow I agree with you on something....thats a start. All nations over claimed tank kills. All nations over claimed air kills. Whats your point?




My point?
one example (from many) 



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> _*According to US Army Ground Forces statistics, destruction of a single Panther was achieved after destruction of 5 M4 Shermans or some 9 T-34s.*_



There are no such 'US Ground Force Statistics' that say 5 Shermans (or 9 T34's) were needed to destroy a single Panther. 
Let me repeat there are no such statistics. 
They are internet myth or invention. 
In the Normandy campaign the overall loss rate for Allied to German tanks was less than 2:1 in the German favour.


----------



## Soren (Nov 9, 2006)

M_kenny please prove to us that the Tiger doesn't have a 10 to 1 kill ratio and that Wittmann didn't even score half of his claims. Also please explain why the Allies 'themselves' as a general rule of thumb claimed that it took 5 Shermans for every Tiger destroyed ? 

Yes thats right M_kenny, we both that the point you're trying to stress is total bulls**t. So you better start supporting your bold claims with some hard evidence from now on M_kenny.



Sorry Adler, but thats as polite as I can be at this moment.


----------



## Soren (Nov 9, 2006)

m kenny said:


> My point?
> one example (from many)
> There are no such 'US Ground Force Statistics' that say 5 Shermans (or 9 T34's) were needed to destroy a single Panther.
> Let me repeat there are no such statistics.
> ...




HA ! You're on a total frenzy of lies !

However please try to prove these untrue claims of yours.


----------



## Hunter368 (Nov 9, 2006)

Soren said:


> M_kenny please prove to us that the Tiger doesn't have a 10 to 1 kill ratio and that Wittmann didn't even score half of his claims. Also please explain why the Allies 'themselves' as a general rule of thumb claimed that it took 5 Shermans for every Tiger destroyed ?
> 
> Yes thats right M_kenny, we both that the point you're trying to stress is total bulls**t. So you better start supporting your bold claims with some hard evidence from now on M_kenny.
> 
> ...



 

At least one us was able to hold back.


----------



## Hunter368 (Nov 9, 2006)

m kenny said:


> My point?
> one example (from many)



Mmmm ok with that line of logic, the Allies also over claimed .......so I guess that makes them even.


----------



## Hunter368 (Nov 9, 2006)

Hunter368 said:


> Ok Chris I will stop giving him a hard time and good post.
> 
> Kenny,
> 
> ...



Kenny,

Whats wrong you seen all the other posts before and after this one of mine. Are you choosing not to comment on these questions of mine also? Or maybe you just did not see them? yeh that must be it. Now that I have pointed it out you I am sure you repley to it, right?

Please repley to my questions kenny, I am not trying to prove you wrong, I am just trying to glean a tiny bit of your knowledge of tanks. Please educate me. Sincerely I do want to increase my knowledge of tanks and apparently you are the man to ask.


----------



## m kenny (Nov 9, 2006)

Soren said:


> M_kenny please prove to us that the Tiger doesn't have a 10 to 1 kill ratio and that Wittmann didn't even score half of his claims.




Seems like you stanfd things on their head. It is not for me to prove a negative. Howeverit would seem the killer fact would be: 


Tank losses, Northern France 1944: 

USA 
June 231 
July 291 
Aug 665 
Sept 350 
Total = 1,537 


British.

June – 146 
July – 231 
August – 834 
September - ? 
Total = 1,211 [est. 1,568]


June – 1 Pz-IV(k), 124 Pz-IV(l), 80 Pz-V, 19 Pz-VI (L56) = 224 
July – 149 Pz-IV(l), 125 Pz-V, 14 Pz-VI (L56) = 288 
August – 49 Pz-IV(l), 41 Pz-V, 15 Pz-VI (L56) = 105 
September – 12 Pz-IV(k), 581 Pz-IV, 540 Pz-V, 72 Pz-VI (L56), 23 Pz-VI (L70) = 1,228 
Total = 1,845 

Let us take the J/J/A monthly totals (the German August totals are incomplete)

48 Tigers lost= 480 Allied tanks.
All Tigers on the British front. Total UK losses to August = 1211. 
Thus 40% of all British losses to Tigers? 
Silly isn't it?

Now you provide me with proof, any proof, for a 10:1 kill ratio.

Wittmann is easy. If you take the route he took into Villers Bocage then he saw only 10(12 absolute max) tanks. 2 were Stuarts and 2 Artillery OP tanks
That is the upper limit of his kills. If he was the only Tiger engaged (and he was not. 2 others were firing down this road) then the limit is 12 kills before he was knocked aout and had to flee. Why then his award citation saying he destroyed 20+ tanks?



> Also please explain why the Allies 'themselves' as a general rule of thumb claimed that it took 5 Shermans for every Tiger destroyed ?



Asa I explained earlier there is no such Allied rule. It was inventented by people like you and it infests the net. Without a single scrap of evidence to back it up Uber Tiger deciples repeat it in the hope the gullible will be taken in by the lie.
Now all you have to do is find the document that prints this 'rule' and you can completely destroy my credibility. Then you can silence me. Dont get your hopes up though because it is a complete invention. A lie, a myth, wishful thinking or whatever you want to call it. Bull****.
Can I be any more certain for you? 

Caution.
A WEB SITE IS NOT A REFERENCE.



Hunter368 said:


> Mmmm ok with that line of logic, the Allies also over claimed .......so I guess that makes them even.



The problem with trying to be clever is sometimes you make redundant posts
as I said in the original post you partialy quoted:

*"All tankers of every nationality overclaimed"*

However you are to be commended for getting there on your own and without any help from me!


----------



## Hunter368 (Nov 9, 2006)

Kenny I am glad you are starting to actually use some numbers now, good. The one big thing I noticed right away from you Allied and German losses is that......we never asked what the German losses for their light and med tanks were. You are posting numbers (finally) but you are posting numbers about nothing we are talking about currently. We are talking about Allied tank losses vs German Tiger/Panther/Tiger2 losses.

You keep calling everyone here a uberGerman tank fan, I don't see any here. I see people here who know that a good tank from a inferior one. We don't care if it is German, British, USA or anyone else's.

No one here is saying that a lighter tank with a smaller gun and thinner armor can't take out a bigger tank with a larger gun and thicker armor. We are just saying that in a 1 vs 1 battle the lighter tank is going to lose more often then the heavier tank. Not sure why you can't accept that point. You seem to just want to argue over something as clear as the nose on your face. Everyone here sees it why can't you?

By quoting numbers about things we are not even talking about you appear just to be side stepping the hard questions. That is a major part of our fustration with you. You try and stir the pot then you get it all worked up but you never answer the hard questions, you dodge them.

Just telling you how I see it, am I judging you wrong?


----------



## m kenny (Nov 9, 2006)

Hunter368 said:


> Kenny,
> 
> Whats wrong you seen all the other posts before and after this one of mine. Are you choosing not to comment on these questions of mine also? Or maybe you just did not see them? yeh that must be it. Now that I have pointed it out you I am sure you repley to it, right?



Let me repeat I have no interest in being drawn into juvenile and purile opinionating on the relative safety of one tank over another, This area I leave to you because obviously you find the subject fascinating.




> Please repley to my questions kenny, I am not trying to prove you wrong, I am just trying to glean a tiny bit of your knowledge of tanks. Please educate me. Sincerely I do want to increase my knowledge of tanks and apparently you are the man to ask



If the information you try and impart is the sum of your understanding then this would be a Herculean task. I fear that even with my advantages I would be hard put convicing you of anything. When you 'know' something instinctively then why cloud this opinion with awkward facts?



> Sincerely I do want to increase my knowledge of tanks and apparently you are the man to ask:



Always willing to help those who realise their limitations...............


----------



## Udet (Nov 9, 2006)

Hello, do not have much time to remain logged on, but may I warn you guys abour this m kenny?

The fact of the matter being there is nothing to be warned about anymore as this individual has already shown the sort of sorrowful creature he is.

As you all have noticed, this individual requires professional help, and should be sent to some mental institution.

He is a sick keeper of the truth at its purest form. Keepers of the truth are fundamentalists, therefore, when you deal with this type of lifeform there is nobody out there to really discuss with.

I met this man in a forum a long time ago, and dealt with him accordingly. I am sure he will remember me (painfully).

Cheers


----------



## m kenny (Nov 9, 2006)

Udet the last time we spoke (via AHF) it was quite civil. When I saw you looking here I was going to PM you and ask how things are in Mexico. Should I not bother now?


----------



## Hunter368 (Nov 9, 2006)

Udet said:


> Hello, do not have much time to remain logged on, but may I warn you guys abour this m kenny?
> 
> The fact of the matter being there is nothing to be warned about anymore as this individual has already shown the sort of sorrowful creature he is.
> 
> ...




Udet!! Welcome back. Good to see and even better to hear from you. Yes as always we have newbies come to our forum trying to prove something. They are not interested in debating or opinions they just want to preach their our ideas. That is until they get banned b/c they ticked off the wrong person. I hope to see you back more often.

Don't work too hard. Damn happy to have you back!


----------



## m kenny (Nov 9, 2006)

Hunter368 said:


> You are posting numbers (finally) but you are posting numbers about nothing we are talking about currently. We are talking about Allied tank losses vs German Tiger/Panther/Tiger2 losses.



Oh I see. Well you know the ratio of Tigers/Panthers to PzIV's in Normandy so how can you seperate such a large number out from the other German tank involved?

As I said earlier the loss ratio would be just under 2:1 in the German favour. 5:1 ratios are fiction.

Udet was banned from the forum he mentioned for his extreme right wing views and threatening physical violence against those who opposed him.


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 9, 2006)

And how many of those German tanks were destroyed by allied airpower. In Normandy anything that moved in the day was shot up (if it was German). A large percentage of those German losses would of been as a result of aircraft and not allied tanks. If it was only allied tanks the loss ratio would be more like 5:1 and less like 2:1...


----------



## Hunter368 (Nov 9, 2006)

m kenny said:


> Oh I see. Well you know the ratio of Tigers/Panthers to PzIV's in Normandy so how can you seperate such a large number out from the other German tank involved?
> 
> As I said earlier the loss ratio would be just under 2:1 in the German favour. 5:1 ratios are fiction.
> 
> Udet was banned from the forum he mentioned for his extreme right wing views and threatening physical violence against those who opposed him.




Ok so you are acknowledging that Germans had close to a 2:1 ratio in their favor.

Being that we are talking at the moment just about Tiger/Panther/Tiger2 tanks vs Allies tanks. Do you agree that the 2:1 ratio would be higher if we could remove the lighter German tank losses?

I am sure the kill ratio would be close or approaching to the 5:1 ratio if we had the information available to accurately gage it. Do you agree? If not tell me what you think the kill ratio would be after you remove all the lighter German tanks killed. (just Tiger/Panther/Tiger2 tanks I am talking about here)


----------



## m kenny (Nov 9, 2006)

Gnomey said:


> And how many of those German tanks were destroyed by allied airpower. In Normandy anything that moved in the day was shot up (if it was German). A large percentage of those German losses would of been as a result of aircraft and not allied tanks. If it was only allied tanks the loss ratio would be more like 5:1 and less like 2:1...



No. Directly destroyed armour would be around 10%.

Try here for some concrete evidence.

Axis History Forum :: View topic - Planes vs Tanks

By the way this is the standard tactic used to reduce the total of German tank losses. Every possible method is used to remove german tanks from being described as a loss whilst every Allied tank hit is included as a kill. 

The figures for losses run at less than 2:1 .




I


----------



## Hunter368 (Nov 9, 2006)

Gnomey said:


> And how many of those German tanks were destroyed by allied airpower. In Normandy anything that moved in the day was shot up (if it was German). A large percentage of those German losses would of been as a result of aircraft and not allied tanks. If it was only allied tanks the loss ratio would be more like 5:1 and less like 2:1...




110% agree I said that before but that was one of several questions he will not answer of mine.


----------



## m kenny (Nov 9, 2006)

Hunter368 said:


> Ok so you are acknowledging that Germans had close to a 2:1 ratio in their favor.
> 
> Being that we are talking at the moment just about Tiger/Panther/Tiger2 tanks vs Allies tanks. Do you agree that the 2:1 ratio would be higher if we could remove the lighter German tank losses?



You are talking about half the German tanks. 'Light' does not enter it. The only other TANK (not SP Guns) would be the PzIV
800 Panthers/Tigers and 900 PzIV

Once you start upping the heavies score you take nearly all the kills away from the PzIV's, Anti-tank guns, mines, infantry ect. Nothing is left for anyone else.
With the overall loss rate ( 3000:1800 roughly) 5:1 is simply not possible.


----------



## Hunter368 (Nov 9, 2006)

m kenny said:


> You are talking about half the German tanks. 'Light' does not enter it. The only other TANK (not SP Guns) would be the PzIV
> 800 Panthers/Tigers and 900 PzIV
> 
> Once you start upping the heavies score you take nearly all the kills away from the PzIV's, Anti-tank guns, mines, infantry ect. Nothing is left for anyone else.
> With the overall loss rate ( 3000:1800 roughly) 5:1 is simply not possible.



Not sure what you are trying to say in the first paragragh. I want to know is this.

-How many Tiger/Panthers/Tiger2 were lost to Allies tanks in those months.
-How many Allied tanks were lost to the Tiger/Panther/Tiger2 tanks in those months.

I know that is a hard question but I have to ask it. Not sure if you or anyone else can tell me that but what the heck. I am not trying to up any numbers, I am just trying to get to some understanding that we both can agree on here.

What I was trying to say is if the Germans had a 2:1 kill ratio in their favor (including all German tank losses). If you were to included only the Tiger/Panther/Tiger2 losses and compared that to what they actually killed I think the number would be higher than 2:1 ratio in favor of the Germans.


----------



## m kenny (Nov 9, 2006)

500 German tanks kill 1000 Allied tanks

ratio 2:1

of the 500 give 200 of them 5:1

now we have the same overall ratio but 300 German tanks have no kills at all.

Once you up the score of a few tanks the majority of them become losers.

I did illustrate it in an earlier post

Let us take the J/J/A monthly totals (the German August totals are incomplete)

48 Tigers lost= 480 Allied tanks at 10:1.
All Tigers on the British front. Total UK losses to August = 1211. 
Thus 40% of all British losses to 50 Tigers? 
Silly isn't it?

Can I ask why people are saying there is a 5:1 kill ratio?
Is there some proof posted somewhere that I have missed?
Tell me what it is that makes you think the ratio is valid.
I can tell you there is absolutely no official figure anywhere that quotes it.
What on earth started this rumour in the first place


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 10, 2006)

I got an idea... Why dont u take ur "I wanna prove the world wrong" attitude somewhere else... U are caustic to everyone here and a [email protected] who think their stats are the only right stats....

All these numbers ur putting out here are numbers that are not 100% accurate, just like everyone elses, so u need to take ur holier-than-tho attitude and shove it up ur @ss.... 

Where on earth did the rumour start up about there only being a 2:1 ratio??? I can find no official figures anywhere that quote it.... Oh wait a minute, if kenny says its so, it must be the gospel written from up high... I soooo very glad we have the worlds leading tank expert here with his 100% accurate statistics... Gimmie a freaken break....

Heres some Moderator advice... Give up the attitude pal, otherwise ur stay here will be short... Ur quest to quell the internet boogeyman and the bogus stats of the world shall not be fulfilled here...


----------



## m kenny (Nov 10, 2006)

lesofprimus said:


> I got an idea... Why dont u take ur "I wanna prove the world wrong" attitude somewhere else... U are caustic to everyone here and a [email protected] who think their stats are the only right stats....




Well a 'wise ass' should be easy to discredit. Instead of general abuse show me where the figures are wrong.




> All these numbers ur putting out here are numbers that are not 100% accurate, just like everyone elses, so u need to take ur holier-than-tho attitude and shove it up ur @ss....



And you need to understand that a big mouth does not give you the right to discredit 'statistics' that are indeed 'accurate'. 
Perhaps you could tell me why the official US Army figures for destroyed tanks are 'not 100% accurate?
Why are the German monthly round ups of tanks lost in Normandy 'not accurate'
Have you found mistakes in the UK table of tanks lost in June/July and August of 1944?
They are not 'my numbers' so please show me where they are wrong.
I can see your problem though. The figures punch a huge hole in the mythical 5:1 Panther/Tiger ratio. To get back to this distortion you do need to ignore the real totals.



> Where on earth did the rumour start up about there only being a 2:1 ratio??? I can find no official figures anywhere that quote it.... Oh wait a minute, if kenny says its so, it must be the gospel written from up high... I soooo very glad we have the worlds leading tank expert here with his 100% accurate statistics... Gimmie a freaken break....



Other than invective can you add anything here? 
By the way you misquoted me. I said:

" Can I ask why people are saying there is a 5:1 kill ratio?"

Rateh than your distorted

"Where on earth did the rumour start up about there only being a 2:1 ratio???"

If you believe the conclusion to be wrong then show why. Losing your temper may be theraputic but it is rarely informative.






> Heres some Moderator advice... Give up the attitude pal, otherwise ur stay here will be short... Ur quest to quell the internet boogeyman and the bogus stats of the world shall not be fulfilled here...



I should defer to those who recycle myth as reality?
This is forum policy?

The way I see it 'pal' is my information has upset a lot of people here.
They constantly tell me I am 'wrong'
The deride my information.
They insult me.
But they not one of them has posted a fact that casts the slightest doubt on anything I wrote.
I do not claim that 'I' am right.
It is not 'my' discovery.
It is in the monthly loss tables. 
I have just given them more exposure.

Show the facts are wrong. Prove the figures are bogus.
Do that instead of hysterical chest thumping and you might get somewhere.

To make it simple.

Can anyone here give me examples where a Tiger Unit in Normandy achieved a 10:1 kill ratio?
Cite specific examples where individual Tigers took on and beat 10 Shermans,?
5 Shermans?

As this 5:1 was the norm there should be mountains of evidence to back it up.

We already know about Wittmann and Barkmann but I am after the ordinary everyday German tanker and his 5 kills.
Please do not bother posting Willy Feys account of August 7th. It is bogus.

No screaming or little girl tantrums now, just the facts.


----------



## redcoat (Nov 10, 2006)

lesofprimus said:


> I got an idea... Why dont u take ur "I wanna prove the world wrong" attitude somewhere else... U are caustic to everyone here and a [email protected] who think their stats are the only right stats....


While I think this argument has got a little out of hand. I'm going to have to say something

While I can understand a moderator warning a member about insulting another members, warning a member because he's insulting a tank is a first  



> All these numbers ur putting out here are numbers that are not 100% accurate, just like everyone elses, so u need to take ur holier-than-tho attitude and shove it up ur @ss....


So far, the numbers he's put up for the total number of tanks lost by both sides in the Normandy battles are correct.
If you can find different figures please post them, so we all can share


> Where on earth did the rumour start up about there only being a 2:1 ratio??? I can find no official figures anywhere that quote it.... Oh wait a minute, if kenny says its so, it must be the gospel written from up high... I soooo very glad we have the worlds leading tank expert here with his 100% accurate statistics... Gimmie a freaken break....


while m kenny might be a little caustic in his attitude, his knowledge of German tanks in Normandy is greater than anybody else on this forum.
He has given figures to back up his statements, we are still waiting for the other side to give theirs.
We may have a long wait 



> Heres some Moderator advice... Give up the attitude pal, otherwise ur stay here will be short...


I suppose you are going to warn the other members about their personal insults towards m kenny as well  


[


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 10, 2006)

Nope, but I will give both of u @ssholes a warning... Redcoat, mind ur own business....


----------



## Soren (Nov 10, 2006)

M_kenny you are infact the one who is making stuff up.

But Ok M_kenny, whats your source exactly ??

Also please prove that the Allied rule of thumb that it took 5 shermans for every Tiger is wrong - I'm very interested in this since a very regarded expert on these matters from bovington told me about this fact.

Now read a book by Thomas L. Jentz would you, cause you desperately need to !


----------



## redcoat (Nov 10, 2006)

lesofprimus said:


> Nope, but I will give both of u @ssholes a warning


Actually could you do me a favour, and remove me from the members list... I no longer wish to be associated with this forum. 

Bye folks


----------



## m kenny (Nov 10, 2006)

Redcoat this is exactly the purpose of the harassment. Do not give in to it. When no one can touch your source they have to play the man.


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 10, 2006)

No-one can touch your source if it doesn't exist...


----------



## m kenny (Nov 10, 2006)

Gnomey said:


> No-one can touch your source if it doesn't exist...



Please be so good as to indicate which source you doubt. Then I can dispell your cofusion.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 10, 2006)

m kenny said:


> Well a 'wise ass' should be easy to discredit. Instead of general abuse show me where the figures are wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That is the thing m kenny. Is we dont have to prove anything especially with stats. We know the stats are there. No one is saying that Tigres were not destroyed. What we are saying is technologically the Tiger was more advanced than any allied tank and was one on one superior. No one is challenging your stats. So as some one else said get off your high horse!

I dont care what you know about German tanks or what you dont know about them. I know with common sense that with a better gun, better armour the Tiger is better than anything that the allies put up. So get off your fricken national pride because I dont care about it!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 10, 2006)

m kenny said:


> Redcoat this is exactly the purpose of the harassment. Do not give in to it. When no one can touch your source they have to play the man.



He does not want to be part of this forum, he is gone.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 10, 2006)

redcoat said:


> Actually could you do me a favour, and remove me from the members list... I no longer wish to be associated with this forum.
> 
> Bye folks




Goodbye dont let the door hit you on your way out.


----------



## m kenny (Nov 10, 2006)

Soren said:


> M_kenny you are infact the one who is making stuff up.



Now is your chance. Show everyone my fabrication and I am finished. 



> But Ok M_kenny, whats your source exactly ??



Source for what, exactly?
Give me a specific example where you want clarification.





> Also please prove that the Allied rule of thumb that it took 5 shermans for every Tiger is wrong - I'm very interested in this since a very regarded expert on these matters from bovington told me about this fact.



And this 'very regarded expert ' from Bovington is............. Name him and we can check how well regarded he is ourselves. If neccessary I will contact him to see why he would say this.
Do you realise what you ask? 
I have to prove your case for you do I?
It would be far easier for you to give examples of this ratio-if you had any examples-I know you have none.
If you want to enter a name dropping contest with 'regarded experts' then I can oblige you.

Do you want to know which German Tiger super expert asked me for help on his last book about Normandy Tigers? Only one specific area but still.........

Which UK 'regarded expert' game me a credit in his last article in After The Battle Magazine (no.132)

How many articles have you been asked cast your eye over before they go for publication?

I will stop there before I am accused of bragging.



> Now read a book by Thomas L. Jentz would you, cause you desperately need to !



Which one? Pick one of my titles and I will read it. I have 32 books by Jentz.

After all this chest thumping can we get back on topic?

Can anyone show the official loss figures are incorrect, mistaken or downright falsified?


----------



## m kenny (Nov 10, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> So get off your fricken national pride because I dont care about it!



Another miss. I am Irish. What national pride did you think was involved?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 10, 2006)

m kenny said:


> Another miss. I am Irish. What national pride did you think was involved?



I dont give a damn if you are Irish, Japanese, or Zwahili, you dont get off your high horse you can get out of here as well.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 10, 2006)

Oh and by the way. I dont give a damn what books you helped out on. 

*YOU CAN BITE ME!*

You see when you tell me to go and Bite you, I will help you leave! No one I repeat no one in this forum will tell me to Bite Them!


----------



## Hunter368 (Nov 10, 2006)

Wow kenny,

I don't think I have every seen anyone make such a butthead out of themselves as you have.

You "claim" to have all these "facts" to prove us wrong??? Where I see none of them. Still have me asking ans asking you to post facts you have done nothing. All you have posted yet is numbers from France in 1944 which like I have twice now are totally not on subject. Would you like me to post fighter production numbers of German in 1944? If I did it would make about as much sense as the numbers you have posted. So despite you claiming to be a tank expert you have shown me nothing to even get me to check your numbers. You just say how the german tanks were not "that" good but you post no facts what so ever. When I person such as yourself claims to be a genuis about something and you can't back up your claims you look like the a jackass. No one here but your yourself claims to be an expert on anything.

I tried to do you a favor and warn you about you attitude but you choose to ignore my friendly warnings. Now I am guessing you stay will be here less then 24 hours from now. You have pissed of the wrong person on this forum, the Minister of Whoopass and Chris. See Les is the local Great White Shark here, he takes care of morons that come to this site. Chris is also the law here and it seems you have ticked him off also. I am guess this will be my last post to you so, Good bye.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 10, 2006)

You see what I wish to see is how is a Sherman or any other allied tank superior to the Tiger, King Tiger, or Panther. That is all I want to see.


----------



## Hunter368 (Nov 10, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> You see what I wish to see is how is a Sherman or any other allied tank superior to the Tiger, King Tiger, or Panther. That is all I want to see.



I know Chris thats all you, and I keep asking him. But he cannot or will not post anything about that. B/c he knows the Tiger/Panther/Tiger2 are better. You and I don't care if they are better but we at least acknowledge they are better. We call it as we see it, good is good and bad is bad, we don't care if it German or USA or British or anything else. But he is so clearly baised in favor of Allied tanks its not even funny.

Add into the mix he is rude, abrasive, arrogant and thinks he knows waaaaay more than he actually does. Thats a bad mix. Chris you know I don't get into many (almost none) arguements but this guy is too much to just sit here. He calls us all Uberpanzer fans and I take that as a insult to me and to this forum and the people on this forum.


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 10, 2006)

m kenny said:


> Please be so good as to indicate which source you doubt. Then I can dispell your cofusion.



I would like to see you state one source which so far you have failed to do.



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> You see what I wish to see is how is a Sherman or any other allied tank superior to the Tiger, King Tiger, or Panther. That is all I want to see.



Yep, that is what I am waiting to see as well.


----------



## ndicki (Nov 10, 2006)

Excuse me for being thick, but I really do fail to see how showing us pictures of books about SP artillery, carriers, tractors, etc, is going to resolve a debate about Tiger tanks; I have lots of books about roses, aeroplanes, military insignia, and even a few Tom Clancys, but I'm not going to post a photo here, as I'm not sure that'd be frightfully useful.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 10, 2006)

ndicki said:


> Excuse me for being thick, but I really do fail to see how showing us pictures of books about SP artillery, carriers, tractors, etc, is going to resolve a debate about Tiger tanks; I have lots of books about roses, aeroplanes, military insignia, and even a few Tom Clancys, but I'm not going to post a photo here, as I'm not sure that'd be frightfully useful.






Exactly


----------



## Hunter368 (Nov 10, 2006)

ndicki said:


> Excuse me for being thick, but I really do fail to see how showing us pictures of books about SP artillery, carriers, tractors, etc, is going to resolve a debate about Tiger tanks; I have lots of books about roses, aeroplanes, military insignia, and even a few Tom Clancys, but I'm not going to post a photo here, as I'm not sure that'd be frightfully useful.




Thank you!! I have said that exact thing to him over and over. I think he chooses to ignore those comments b/c he has no facts. Big opinions with no proof and a huge ass sitting on his shoulders....yup thats kenny.

He posts random pictures of tanks, posts random numbers and calls that facts!! They are not facts they are just what they appear to be....ramblings of a fool. He has not posted one piece of relevant information yet.


----------



## Soren (Nov 10, 2006)

M_kenny you know perfectly well what claims I want sources for, now provide them and stop dodging the issue. 


Isn't it funny guys, M_kenny has been posting allot of figures yet he hasn't even once named the source of his figures - bet its all in his imagination.


----------



## m kenny (Nov 10, 2006)

ndicki said:


> Excuse me for being thick, but I really do fail to see how showing us pictures of books about SP artillery, carriers, tractors, etc, is going to resolve a debate about Tiger tanks; I have lots of books about roses, aeroplanes, military insignia, and even a few Tom Clancys, but I'm not going to post a photo here, as I'm not sure that'd be frightfully useful.



Well let me see.
I get a message from Soren telling me to read a book by Jentz.
He does not specify what title.
I show him the Jentz titles I have to hand.
I ask him to tell me which one of the titles I should read.
Got it now?



> but I really do fail to see how showing us pictures of books about SP artillery, carriers, tractors, etc, is going to resolve a debate about Tiger tanks



If you took the time to look closely you would notice at least 8 are specific to the Tiger tank. 
Jentz himself is considered one of, if not the, world expert on the mechanical aspects of the tank.
You would be hard put to do any work on the Tiger without reference to Jentz or his works.

I hope this helps clear up the confusion.


----------



## Hunter368 (Nov 10, 2006)

The point that everyone is making to you that you seem to not understand is that by showing pictures of burn out Shermans or Tigers proves NOTHING!!


Is there an echo in here? How many times do we have to tell you that. Hello?????? Anyone home???


----------



## m kenny (Nov 10, 2006)

Soren said:


> M_kenny you know perfectly well what claims I want sources for, now provide them and stop dodging the issue.
> 
> 
> Isn't it funny guys, M_kenny has been posting allot of figures yet he hasn't even once named the source of his figures - bet its all in his imagination.



In your dreams maybe.

First source.

Reports on the status of sPzAbt 503 in Normandy:

Kept at Bundesarchiv-Militararchiv (BA-MA) Freiburg Germany

Monthly reports about sPzAbt 503 are kept in file BA-MA RH 10/220

Daily tank strengths are to be seen in:

BA-MA RH 21-5/50
BA-MA RH 10/220

and at NARA Washington DC USA.

T313 R420 F871388
T78 R313 F6265849
T313 R420 F8714036
T313 R420 F8714042 
T313 R420 F8714118

This is the original wartime documentation where you can find the data for June-August 1944.

There were several hundred German Units in this campaign. Do you want all the Archive references typed out?
It may help if you got Zetterlings book 'Normandy 1944' where all the reference numbers are given for information used in the compilation of Zetterling's book.

For SS Units I can only recomend the book 'Waffen SS Panzer Units In Normandy 1944'
This book by M Wood and J. Dugdale is useful because it shows the original German documents alongside clear typed copies of the information. Sample at the bottom of this post.
What you do is compare the originals and subtract those tanks that no longer appear as on strength as losses.
Note that on the sheet that shows TAC symbols that the strengths are written underneath the signs.
Do I have to post the whole of every source I have ?


----------



## m kenny (Nov 10, 2006)

This is another example of the type of information used to compile the data I gave. This is not for the summer of 1944 but it is to show the type and style of information included in German documentation:

According to Anlage zu Gen.Qu.Nr. I, Panzerlage und Sturmgeschutzlage, Truppenmeldung Stand: 30.12.1944: 

from left to right... operational/in repair/on route 

AG Sud 
Pz. II 6/6/0 
Pz.III 20/15/2 
Pz. IV 187/127/70 
Pz. V 167/180/65 
Pz. VI 21/16/45 
StuG 185/125/120 

AG A 
Pz. II 3/0/0 
Pz.III 22/6/0 
Pz. IV 176/20/99 
Pz. V 111/6/72 
Pz. VI 52/1/0 
StuG 522/76/99 

AG Mitte 
Pz. II 9/1/0 
Pz.III 22/13/0 
Pz. IV 165/53/94 
Pz. V 150/65/0 
Pz. VI 118/24/3 
StuG 782/71/49 

AG Nord 
Pz. II 0/0/0 
Pz.III 15/3/0 
Pz. IV 22/18/0 
Pz. V 17/30/0 
Pz. VI 18/11/0 
StuG 254/156/0 

Norway and Denmark 
Pz. II 0/0/0 
Pz.III 85/13/0 
Pz. IV 30/2/0 
Pz. V 0/0/0 
Pz. VI 0/0/0 
StuG 49/3/0 

AG Westen 
Pz. II 4/1/0 
Pz.III 29/5/3 
Pz. IV 345/205/176 
Pz. V 240/211/162 
Pz. VI 58/58/7 
StuG 335/341/413 

AG Sud-westen 
Pz. II 1/0/0 
Pz.III 27/8/0 
Pz. IV 137/23/17 
Pz. V 20/12/0 
Pz. VI 28/4/0 
StuG 253/95/17 

AG Sud-osten 
Pzs all zeros 
StuG 16/8/0 

Tanks produced January to Febuary 1945: 

Pz IV L43/48 330 
Pz IV L70 390 
Pz V 337 
Pz VIa - 
Pz VIb 82 
StuG III/IV 664 
StuH 95 
StuPz 14 
JagdPz 832 
JagdPanther 114 
JagdTiger 23


----------



## m kenny (Nov 10, 2006)

Some British sources.

In the PRO, Ruskin Avenue, Kew, Richmond, Surrey the following OR Reports/papers can be consulted (sample of contents listed)


Cause of loss for German tanks is given for a select set in O.R.S. 2 

No.2 OR Section, Report No.3 

Investigation of an Attack on a German Column Near La Baleine 

Report No.4 

Air Attacks on Enemy Tanks and Motor Transport in the Mortain Area, August 1944 

Report No 12 Analysis of 75 mm Sherman Tank Casualties 6 June to 10 July 1944

Report No 17 Analysis of German Tank Casualties in France 6 June to 31 August 1944. Data collected by 2 ORS and 20 WTSFF.

Report No 18 Tank Casualties during the exploitation phase after crossing the Seine

Report No 27 concerns anti tank in the Ardennes and examines US TD Bns, towed and SP.


For Western Europe 1944 ORO-T-117 the sample gives a total of 50.9% of US tanks lost to gunfire (1051 from 2065) and 59.2% of British losses to gunfire (621 from 1048). Canada lost 54.8% to gunfire (161 from 294). 

The Canadian study of Sherman casualties (RGd 24:Report No 12) 
about 3% of German 75 mm hits failing to penetrate but the 88 mm had a 100% penetration rate. a further 124 tanks were inspected that had 83 hits that failed to penetrate. 
73% of AP hits brewed up on penetration 


Overall cause of loss for tanks according to WO 291/1186 in the ETO 

Abstract.

Mines 22.1% 
AT guns 22.7% 
Tanks 14.5% 
SP Guns 24.4% 
Bazooka 14.2% 
Other 2.1%

I presume that I will have to post every word of every report to prove they are real?
This is a partial list of sources used to compile the figures I use. It is not complete because the references are extensive.


----------



## Soren (Nov 10, 2006)

M_kenny how about you show us how many German tanks were actually taken out by Allied tanks ? - Yes, thats a very small percentage.


Some Tiger units had a kill ratio of over 16 to 1 ! : Tiger I Information Center - Loss Ratios


----------



## m kenny (Nov 10, 2006)

Soren said:


> M_kenny how about you show us how many German tanks were actually taken out by Allied tanks ? - Yes, thats a very small percentage.



and the data fused by you to reach this conclusion is...............?

it can be found at ...............................?

It is published in the book....................?




> Some Tiger units had a kill ratio of over 16 to 1 ! : Tiger I Information Center - Loss Ratios



Oh a web site. 
Please then list his sources. 
Remember how you squelaed for mine...........

Another fat zero for soren.


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 10, 2006)

I am impressed that u posted such accurate refrences kenny... Good to know that u are thorough...


----------



## m kenny (Nov 10, 2006)

An example of a really accurate web site.


Tiger I Information Center - Unit Histories

From the entry about sPzAbt 503.

"18 July 1944 3/503 is bombed during Operation Goodwood, but only two Tigers are lost, one burnt out and the other was flipped over by a near miss. 13 Tigers lost during the day to all causes"

Really? Then why are there photos of 4 wrecks? To pre-empt replies. These 4 Tigers are directly disabled by the bombing and not any of the '13 Tigers lost during the day to all causes'.
Perhaps it should be noted that the info on the site is a word for word copy of Schneiders 'Tigers In Combat 1'. 
Schneider has a great admiration for the Tiger and attributes nearly every loss to non-combat action!
The total of 13 Tigers lost this day is probably an error as it should be nearer 10 than 13.
Oh and the last two photos are not the same tank.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 10, 2006)

Yes but none of your sources prove that the Tiger was inferior to the allied tanks which it was not.

The Tiger outgunned the allied tanks. The Tiger was better armoured than the allied tanks. I dont have to list references for this because you look at any source and it will prove this.

What killed Tigers was not that the allied tanks were better because they were not but rather the overwelming amount of allied tanks and allied air power.

Sorry m kenny if you actually think that a Tiger was inferior to an allied tank, you are dillusional.

All you have shown is that Tigers were killed. We know that. All of us do. So what is your fricken point?


----------



## m kenny (Nov 10, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Yes but none of your sources prove that the Tiger was inferior to the allied tanks which it was not.



Who said it was? Hunter was desperately trying to get me to say something like that and I told him I do not get involved in 'which tank was best' arguments.



> What killed Tigers was not that the allied tanks were better because they were not but rather the overwelming amount of allied tanks and allied air power
> Sorry m kenny if you actually think that a Tiger was inferior to an allied tank, you are dillusional.



Again I ask who said that?



> All you have shown is that Tigers were killed. We know that. All of us do. So what is your fricken point?



The point I was making is that the site given in the link was used to 'authenticate' high kill rates for the Tiger.
If I had dared to suggest it might not be correct then I would have been vilified again. I posted proof and thus head off this possibility.

The root of everything I post is simple. There were no 10:1 kill ratios for Tigers in Normandy. 

There simply were not enough dead Allied tanks to even get up to 5:1 for the Panzer fleet.
True some ace's could and did get multiple kills in excess of this but I am only trying to put right the 5:1 AVERAGE exchange rate for the German tanks.
Truth is the Tiger was hardly noticed in Normandy. The Tiger II made its debut in France and there is not a single account that suggests they had any effect whatsoever. In all 45 TII's went into action up to September and were simply flattened by the advancing Allies with very little trouble.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 10, 2006)

Ofcourse they did not make an impact because there were not eneogh of them. That is not even an arguement here. Yes we know that more German tanks were killed overall, that is not an arguement here.

I think we are all just shooting past each other hear talking on a completely different level. Each with there own agenda and frankly we are not getting any where.


----------



## Hunter368 (Nov 10, 2006)

m kenny said:


> Who said it was? Hunter was desperately trying to get me to say something like that and I told him I do not get involved in 'which tank was best' arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ok Kenny,

After reading this post you seem to be changing what you are saying some what. Backpedling or your message you are trying to say is not coming out clearing. Not sure which.

All Chris or I have been saying from the start is this:

- Tiger/Panther/Tiger2 were better tanks 1vs1 than anything the Allies had until very late 1945. You will not compare tanks so I guess that ends everything we were chatting about.

This is what I never said:

- I never said anything about 10:1 ratio or even claiming there was 5:1 ratio. If you think I did find it please and point it out to me.


We all know how WW2 ended so we all know that numbers (with other factors of course) won the day for the Allies. In the end quality German tanks in limited numbers could not match the huge tank forces of the Allies. No one is arguing that fact with you.


----------



## Hunter368 (Nov 10, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Ofcourse they did not make an impact because there were not eneogh of them. That is not even an arguement here. Yes we know that more German tanks were killed overall, that is not an arguement here.
> 
> I think we are all just shooting past each other hear talking on a completely different level. Each with there own agenda and frankly we are not getting any where.




100% agree. Seems I and Chris are talking about totally different things/points than Kenny wants to talk about. Maybe we just all misunderstood each others points and got off to a bad start with each other, then it snowballed from there.


----------



## Soren (Nov 11, 2006)

Guys, all M_kenny can give us is numbers, he can't tell which tank was taken out by which tank. Fact is Tigers 'were' noticed in Normandy, and there are many accounts. And can tell you this as-well - Allied tank crews were genuinely and thuroughly scared of the Tiger and Panther, so much so that they, because of pure psychological terror, often called PzIV's Tigers and retreated emmidiately - something that often happens during high psychological stress is you only see what you fear to see.

Anyways....

The StuG and PzIV's didn't prove too succesful in Normandy as the distances were short and therefore they couldn't take advantage of their superior firepower, and armor on these tanks was either equivalent or inferior to the Sherman. The Tiger's and Panther's on the other hand not only had overwhelming firepower but also lots of armor, so much that a head on attack by nearly any Allied tank would prove no trouble at all. And the Tiger and Panther sure did make a notice of themselves in Normandy, one Tiger taking out an entire British armored collumn consisting of Shermans and other type AFV's. (And the numbers of AFV's taken out corresponds well to Wittmans claim) 

This may be of interest concerning the number of Tigers which were present in Normandy: 
_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrC70ll9b_s_

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u97bUSOmlhw_

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ia1YXqei3ks_

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKRSv7d9_QQ_


----------



## m kenny (Nov 11, 2006)

Soren said:


> Guys, all M_kenny can give us is numbers, he can't tell which tank was taken out by which tank.



Anyone saying they know 'which tank was taken out by which tank' must have the most complete and detailed combat records ever kept. Was it a shock when you found that the actual numbers destroyed your cosy little world ?





> Fact is Tigers 'were' noticed in Normandy, and there are many accounts. And can tell you this as-well - Allied tank crews were genuinely and thuroughly scared of the Tiger and Panther, so much so that they, because of pure psychological terror, often called PzIV's Tigers and retreated emmidiately - something that often happens during high psychological stress is you only see what you fear to see.



Yes The Allies were so petrified by the big bad high scoring Panzers. They stood paraylised by fear and as we speak still sit shaking in the fields of France.

Anyways....



> The StuG and PzIV's didn't prove too succesful in Normandy as the distances were short and therefore they couldn't take advantage of their superior firepower, and armor on these tanks was either equivalent or inferior to the Sherman.



Here I see your new tactic. Write of all the other German tanks/SP's and now you can award all their kills to the Tigers and Panthers!




> The Tiger's and Panther's on the other hand not only had overwhelming firepower but also lots of armor, so much that a head on attack by nearly any Allied tank would prove no trouble at all. And the Tiger and Panther sure did make a notice of themselves in Normandy



Yes for a whole 8 weeks-then the front broke and the war was lost for Germany.



> one Tiger taking out an entire British armored collumn consisting of Shermans and other type AFV's. (And the numbers of AFV's taken out corresponds well to Wittmans claim)



You really out to read more. The hoary old Wittmann myth. He knocks out maybe 12 tanks and suddenly he is credited with the single handed destruction of a whole Armoured Brigade!
I recommend you get hold of Daniel Taylors book 'Villers Bocage Through The Lens'

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrC70ll9b_s_

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u97bUSOmlhw_

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ia1YXqei3ks_

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKRSv7d9_QQ_[/QUOTE]

The above are the same source video chopped up and made into small bite size sections.
The errors in the original are repeated of course and so many mistakes are included that they are worthless as a reference.
Danile Taylor appears in one clip and he(if you had his book you would know this) completely demolished the old 'lone Tiger' fantasy in his work. Yet here the compilers include him as if he validates their version! Well if it sells that is all that matters.
Daniel recently did an update of his book in After The Battle Magazine no. 132.
This is about 3 months ago and I was quite suprised he saw fit to mention me in this article. Wonder why he did that when, as you constantly parrot, I know nothing.
Simon Trew also appears in some of these clips. Simon has started posting at AHF 

Axis History Forum :: Viewing profile

Perhaps you should ask him for some help in this area because you are struggling badly at the moment?
This is not really fair though. I am heavily involved in the current research into Villers Bocage and have access to sources and materiel not widely known or distributed. I assure you there is nothing published you can show me that I am not already aware of.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 11, 2006)

I find this funny that an argument about the Tiger has been pulled down to the Tiger in Normandy, and then even further about the Tiger in Villers-Bocage. I assume, m kenny, you're choosing the ignore the Tiger had been on the battlefield since 1942. 

You claim constantly not to get into this "which was better" argument because it's only opinion. Well, that's a stupid comment because in the real world it's obvious that some things are superior than others. It takes people to interpret data and experience to come to this conclusion. And it's obvious the Tiger was superior in more areas than the Sherman was. 

More importantly, you laugh and joke about the Allies "not" being scared of the Tiger. Well, that's funny because I've read and seen interviews, and spoken to a couple of British tankers myself who have all said the Tiger was a great war machine and they would fear it on the battlefield. 

The Tiger inflicted tons more losses on the Eastern Front than on the Western because A) There were more there, and B) There were more targets. 

You might have all the numbers for Normandy, but look a little further beyond Normandy and you'll see the Tiger was a great war machine. And the King Tiger was the most powerful AFV in the war. 

The Allies and Soviets had to adapt tactics to the Tigers, the Tigers didn't need to fear the Shermans. 

On top of all this, there's plenty of pictures showing ALL AFVs destroyed. So, showing Tigers and King Tigers destroyed isn't impressive nor does it prove anyones case. 752nd Tank Battalion got plenty of Tiger kills ...I'm sure they'll give you a hard-on.


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 11, 2006)

Bout time u chimed in pD...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 11, 2006)

pD it does not matter. What you have been saying is what I have been saying the whole damn time, but m kenny chooses to ignore this. I too find it funny that he think we should believe what he says over interviews and statements by allied tanks crews. Like he is more creditable than the guys who actually fought in the war. I dont even know who this m kenny guy is, and frankly dont give a damn who he is either.


----------



## Soren (Nov 11, 2006)

Thank you M_kenny but I'll go with what Cpt. Diaz says, I have a feeling is abit more into things than you are. (Despite what some of your fellow writers might say)


----------



## plan_D (Nov 11, 2006)

Sorry, Dan, been a bit busy recently acing my aerospace engineering course. Finished my first assignment last week, three weeks before due date. Already been marked - full marks! If anyone cares I could send 'em it (in pieces)

Doing my first hydraulics assignment at the moment. Easy!


----------



## m kenny (Nov 11, 2006)

plan_D said:


> I find this funny that an argument about the Tiger has been pulled down to the Tiger in Normandy, and then even further about the Tiger in Villers-Bocage. I assume, m kenny, you're choosing the ignore the Tiger had been on the battlefield since 1942.



I think you narrow the boundry too much. I suggest you take it that I am on about the whole of the Normandy campaign. Villers just stands out as the most overhyped example concerning the Tiger tank. Because it was so well documented it is also the easiest to expose.
As for Russia, I know it fought there but I repeat an earlier statement of mine. I refuse to talk about a subject where I believe I do not have the information to argue authoratively. If I don't 'know' I dont 'say'.
I would add this though. German tank kill claims in Russia are astronomical.
The totals were so over the top that the German High Command automaticaly gave a 33%-50% reduction before they collated them for intelligence purposes.
I have yet to see any account or Unit report that admits this when they tabulate their 'kills'. The initial raw and unadjusted claim is ALWAYS used.

In Normandy Will Fey (sSS PzAbt 102)claimed some 14 Shermans and 'too many to count' other vehicles on 7/8/44. Checking the British accounts we find not a mention of this great act in any of the Units supposedly hit.





> More importantly, you laugh and joke about the Allies "not" being scared of the Tiger. Well, that's funny because I've read and seen interviews, and spoken to a couple of British tankers myself who have all said the Tiger was a great war machine and they would fear it on the battlefield.



Being scared of a superior vehicle is a normal reaction. I presume PzIV crews were 'scared', Stug. crews were 'scared', Jagdpanther crews were 'scared'. Anybody with an ounce of sense would have been scared. However to go further and suggest that a Tiger only had to poke its nose round a corner for panic to grip the Allied tankers is a step too far. Tigers were taken in combat wherever they were seen and a good number were despatched for their trouble.



> The Tiger inflicted tons more losses on the Eastern Front than on the Western because A) There were more there, and B) There were more targets.



or C) The Russian records do not allow us to check the claims and thus by default they are accepted? 




> You might have all the numbers for Normandy, but look a little further beyond Normandy and you'll see the Tiger was a great war machine. And the King Tiger was the most powerful AFV in the war.



Some 500 tanks introduced late and without any back up. Met in penny packets and not able to alter the course of any action in which they took part. Might be the most 'powerful' but it was never close to being the most effective. 
Check the accounts about sPzAbt 506 at Arnhem and you will see that there are photos of 3 knocked out TII's and 4 had to be towed away damaged.
sSS PzAbt 501 didn't exactly cover itself in glory in the Ardennes either

Tigers in the Ardennes

page The Battle 26 December - 2 Janua

*"The actions to support Kampfgruppe Peiper took a heavy toll of s. SS-Pz.Abt. 501. At least 12 Tigers had been knocked out or abandoned between Stavelot and La Gleize, and many more were unavailable due to mechanical failure. The battalion regrouped and moved into an assembly area east of Vielsalm to refit and reorganize. The 1. Kompanie handed its tanks over to the other companies and departed for Sennelager in Germany to receive new tanks. The remaining Tigers, approximately 15, were grouped into a kampfgruppe commanded by SS-Hauptsturmführer Möbius. This unit fought alongside Peiper’s remaining tanks as the 1. SS-Panzerdivision attacked south of Bastogne on 30-31 December in an attempt to cut the corridor that U.S. forces had opened to that beleaguered city. At least two more Königstigers were lost in those battles. The remainder withdrew with the rest of the division at the beginning of January to refit in the Köln area.

The 501st SS Heavy Tank Battalion did not fight again as a unit. The bulk of the battalion accompanied the 1. SS-Panzerdivision to Hungary in late January and fought through Hungary and Austria to the end of the war. Part of the 1. Kompanie and other elements that had remained in Germany drew a few new tanks and continued to fight as the Americans approached Bielefeld. In early April the surviving crewmen were moved by train to Austria and united with the rest of the battalion. SS-Obersturmbannführer von Westernhagen had died on 20 March 1945 in Hungary. The remnants of his battalion surrendered to the Americans in Austria. The Tigers had roared their last."* 




> The Allies and Soviets had to adapt tactics to the Tigers, the Tigers didn't need to fear the Shermans.



The average Allied tanker never saw a Tiger in Western Europe. They were rare beasts indeed and hardly ever encountered. 



> 752nd Tank Battalion got plenty of Tiger kills ...I'm sure they'll give you a hard-on.



I advise caution. I repeat that ALL tank kill claims are considerably in excess of reality. Check first before you commit yourself to this Units claim.



Soren said:


> Thank you M_kenny but I'll go with what Cpt. Diaz says, I have a feeling is abit more into things than you are.



It is actualy Captain Pat Dyas. Pat has been dead a few years now but I have met and spoken to John Cloudsley Thompson. He was with Pat that day in Villers Bocage and was also hit by Wittmann. All his crew got out alive (88's did not always destroy everything).
John liked and respected Pat (Pat was John's best man) but disputes Pat's version of the days fighting. All very technical and not really important-other than to let you know I have met many of the British soldiers who fought and served in 4th CLY. I have a lot of contacts in this area. 



> Despite what some of your fellow writers might say



Fellow writers? Daniel Taylor was quite a friend of Pat Dyas. 



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> pD it does not matter. What you have been saying is what I have been saying the whole damn time, but m kenny chooses to ignore this. I too find it funny that he think we should believe what he says over interviews and statements by allied tanks crews. .



I doubt if anyone is going to change their mind on anything.
Pauline conversions are rare and nothing I say could ever change what people 'know' is true. I am unable to believe anything not allowed by the figures.

Impasse!

No one changes but the world keeps turning. It is not something I worry about
and I presume the same applies to the others.



> Like he is more creditable than the guys who actually fought in the war.



The logic of the above is that no one other than a combat veteran can ever write with any authority. Every WWII author born after 1940 is therefore 'not credible'-except of course, when he agrees with you(or me)




> I dont even know who this m kenny guy is, and frankly dont give a damn who he is either.



Decorum would prevent me from giving the appropiate reply (Ditto in spades!)


----------



## mkloby (Nov 11, 2006)

hey pD - i'd actually be very interested in reading what you have written, if you would oblige.


----------



## Soren (Nov 11, 2006)

M_Kenny, two of Pat's crew actually died following the hit by the 88, Pat says this very clearly - now don't even think for a second thats an ordeal you'd just forget !


----------



## m kenny (Nov 11, 2006)

Soren said:


> M_Kenny, two of Pat's crew actually died following the hit by the 88, Pat says this very clearly - now don't even think for a second thats an ordeal you'd just forget !



The 'trouble' with Dyas's recollection has nothing to do with him getting hit. It is about when and where he was hit. It has no connection with the subject in question. The detail is complicated and of no interest to the general reader.
It is a side issue.


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 11, 2006)

kenny said:


> In Normandy Will Fey (sSS PzAbt 102)claimed some 14 Shermans and 'too many to count' other vehicles on 7/8/44. Checking the British accounts we find not a mention of this great act in any of the Units supposedly hit.


So I suppose he was lying, even though he had his tank mates there to confirm this??? 

If its not in Brtish accounts then it must be a fabrication then... If it cant be confirmed it must be made up BS....

There are things that my Grandfather did as a member of VMF-214 that arent documented and cant be confirmed, so I suppose he was lying as well???

Gimme a break...

How bout this... How bout u guys channel ur energies in proving why or why not the Sherman was better than the Tiger rather than bitchin at each other like 2 pregnant chicks.......... Its becoming redundant and rather boring...

kenny, if u please, why not enlighten us somewhat to ur idea that the Sherman is superior???


----------



## m kenny (Nov 11, 2006)

lesofprimus said:


> So I suppose he was lying, even though he had his tank mates there to confirm this???



Well the fact is he didn't have his 'mates there.
Briefly he says he was alone in an open field.
Other Tigers where nearby but didn't take part.
He engaged 15 Shermans.
All the German Infantry retreated and left the Tiger alone.
He was hit several times and had a track knocked off.
2 crew wounded
Both MG's destroyed.
Attacked constantly by Fighter bombers whilst immobile.
shelled by artillery.
Shot at by several anti-tank guns.
All whilst in the middle of an open field.
Had to send a crew member to the other Tigers to borrow 2 rounds(why did they not help?)
attacked by the 15th Sherman after destroying the other 14.
One shell glanced off the last Sherman
with the very last borrowed shell he knocked out the very last Sherman!

and that was not even counting the "armoured cars,reconnaisssance vehicles, half tracks and other vehicles which were impossible to tally"

Clark Kent could not have performed better!



> If its not in Brtish accounts then it must be a fabrication then... If it cant be confirmed it must be made up BS....



Problem for Fey is the Unit he says he engaged did not have that many tanks running at the time he says he knocked them out. Nor is there any mention in any account of this setback.
No one other than Fey mentions it.



> There are things that my Grandfather did as a member of VMF-214 that arent documented and cant be confirmed, so I suppose he was lying as well???



Perhaps a little information about Feys claims and his late war 'award' might help?

Feldgrau.net :: View topic - Wili Fey


----------



## plan_D (Nov 11, 2006)

> I think you narrow the boundry too much. I suggest you take it that I am on about the whole of the Normandy campaign. Villers just stands out as the most overhyped example concerning the Tiger tank. Because it was so well documented it is also the easiest to expose.
> As for Russia, I know it fought there but I repeat an earlier statement of mine. I refuse to talk about a subject where I believe I do not have the information to argue authoratively. If I don't 'know' I dont 'say'.
> I would add this though. German tank kill claims in Russia are astronomical.
> The totals were so over the top that the German High Command automaticaly gave a 33%-50% reduction before they collated them for intelligence purposes.
> I have yet to see any account or Unit report that admits this when they tabulate their 'kills'. The initial raw and unadjusted claim is ALWAYS used.



If you only know about Normandy, how can you go on about the "myth" Tiger or "uber-Panzer" where all the information you have is from Normandy. Where the Tiger wasn't in large numbers. 
I'm not an expert on Normandy on the ground, most of my books about Normandy are on the air power. But the mentions of the ground war in some detail doesn't say the Tiger did it all. I've read the Tiger was a very tough opponent and it _along_ with StuGs, Pz.Kpfw IVs and various other AFVs caused considerable damage in Normandy. 2:1 AFV kills is a good number, and that doesn't include the amount of support vehicles the Germans destroyed. 



> Being scared of a superior vehicle is a normal reaction. I presume PzIV crews were 'scared', Stug. crews were 'scared', Jagdpanther crews were 'scared'. Anybody with an ounce of sense would have been scared. However to go further and suggest that a Tiger only had to poke its nose round a corner for panic to grip the Allied tankers is a step too far. Tigers were taken in combat wherever they were seen and a good number were despatched for their trouble.



I'm glad you finally state the Tiger is a superior vehicle. Allied tankers were trained soldiers, and *most* of them would not panic. This doesn't mean that fear touched all their hearts when a Tiger did appear. 



> or C) The Russian records do not allow us to check the claims and thus by default they are accepted?



Well, any report or interview I've seen on a Russian battle that involved Tigers always mentions the crews panicking at the sight of Tigers. And there's always the overclaiming on their side.



> The average Allied tanker never saw a Tiger in Western Europe. They were rare beasts indeed and hardly ever encountered.



They were rare, but tactics (or at least the nominal tactic) in most situations after the hedgerows was to open up and flank it. Taking one head-on was a sure fine way to get your turret blown off. 



> I advise caution. I repeat that ALL tank kill claims are considerably in excess of reality. Check first before you commit yourself to this Units claim.



I'm well aware that everyone over claimed. The Allies often mistook a Pz.Kpfw IV for a Tiger, and some claimed a Pz.Kpfw IV destroyed as a Tiger. But the 752nd provide pictures of some of their kills for your troubles. (Must have had an eager photographer in the unit.


----------



## Soren (Nov 11, 2006)

Lets stop all this off topic talk, and get back on track:

Which was the best Tank in the west ?

Looking at the stats its either the Panther or the Tiger - I'm definitely leaning towards the Panther.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 11, 2006)

The Panther. Ausf G was the best tank of the war, in my opinion. And the 6th Coldstream Guards probably agree.


----------



## Hunter368 (Nov 11, 2006)

Panther in my opinion.


----------



## MacArther (Nov 11, 2006)

On a more serious note, I'm stuck between the Churchill, and the Cromwell. Although, the last Valentine models were pretty good to, despite the lower than acceptable amor.


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 12, 2006)

plan_D said:


> The Panther. Ausf G was the best tank of the war, in my opinion. And the 6th Coldstream Guards probably agree.



I would agree with that, the Panther is the best tank of the war for me too.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 12, 2006)

I go with the Panther as the best as well. I like the Tiger better but I think the Panther was a better overall vehical. It combined the good protection of the Tiger with sloped armour.

Ofcourse to counter this opinion m kenny will show pics of destroyed Panther Tanks.


----------



## ndicki (Nov 12, 2006)

Pity the Centurion didn't make it - the thing is _STILL_ in service here and there!

They tested a couple of Panthers at Bovvie against Centurion Is, and they found that the Cent was better. Just.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 12, 2006)

So they let them shoot at each other.... test each others armour against each other?


----------



## plan_D (Nov 12, 2006)

I would rank the Centurion superior to all German armour of the war. It was very adaptable to modern technologies too.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 12, 2006)

I dont eneogh about it. Armour was never really what I cared to study. I know the basics and nothing more. Aircraft on the other hand....


----------



## Soren (Nov 13, 2006)

The Centurion with its 105mm gun was certainly superior to any WWII tank, no doubt about it - even beat the crap of the T-72.


----------



## Hunter368 (Nov 13, 2006)

plan_D said:


> I would rank the Centurion superior to all German armour of the war. It was very adaptable to modern technologies too.




PlanD,

I was just wondering, b/c I am not sure, how many Certurion tanks were made and reached active units (combat) before the end of WW2?


----------



## m kenny (Nov 13, 2006)

Hunter368 said:


> PlanD,
> 
> I was just wondering, b/c I am not sure, how many Certurion tanks were made and reached active units (combat) before the end of WW2?



6 Centurions were sent to Europe on 14th May 1945. They were tested by Gaurd's crewmen attached to 7th Armoured Division. They returned to the UK in July 1945. The tanks were found to be inferior to the Cromwells (and even the Chaffee!) in cross country performance.

David Fletcher, in his book on 'The Universal Tank' points out that it was easy to get carried away with praise for the Centurion but in most respects it was no more than the equal of the Panther tank-and it was from 1943.


----------



## Hunter368 (Nov 13, 2006)

m kenny said:


> 6 Centurions were sent to Europe on 14th May 1945. They were tested by Gaurd's crewmen attached to 7th Armoured Division. They returned to the UK in July 1945. The tanks were found to be inferior to the Cromwells (and even the Chaffee!) in cross country performance.
> 
> David Fletcher, in his book on 'The Universal Tank' points out that it was easy to get carried away with praise for the Centurion but in most respects it was no more than the equal of the Panther tank-and it was from 1943.



Thanks


----------



## Soren (Nov 13, 2006)

The first centurion was nothing special, however the later versions were very potent machines.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Nov 14, 2006)

For a tank that came in 1946 it was a pretty modern looking tank, the first MBT in IMO


----------



## plan_D (Nov 14, 2006)

The Centurion I was just a benchmark and wasn't even put into full production. It is a shame the six sent to the 22nd Armoured Brigade were a little too late, it certainly would have been a shock to the German armoured units. 

Cross-Country the Centurion was supposed to match the Comet, I doubt it did because it was quite a bit heavier. Which became a problem in Korea because of the light bridges. I'm not surprised it couldn't match a Chaffee in cross-country...

It arrived in 1945, Hussars. It was just a little too late for the war.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Nov 14, 2006)

Details Details  The machine still proved itself, it served with distinction with the Israeli Army


----------



## plan_D (Nov 14, 2006)

Well, being a year out isn't a MINOR detail, hussars. And I must point out the Centurion I didn't look like the picture you showed.


----------



## ndicki (Nov 14, 2006)

That Cent is at least a Mk10 or so - it has the 105mm L7 gun used on later types, although it was retrofitted to earlier vehicles, bringing about a change in mark number. The very first Cent Mk1s had a 17Pdr with a co-axial 20mm cannon; the Mk3, which served in Korea with great distinction - proving by the way that it was able to reach points where tanks were supposedly unable to operate... - was the first service version to carry the 20Pdr gun. The fume extractor was introduced on the 20Pdr guns of the Mk5/2.

Incidentally, it's hardly useful to compare a light recce vehicle - the Chaffee - with a fully-fledged MBT.


----------



## ndicki (Nov 14, 2006)

Just out of interest, these are Olifant Mk1Bs of the South African Army - there's a Centurion under there if you look very hard  ! Still in service.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 14, 2006)

Pretty cool.

There are still several nations that still use WW2 tanks. In Africa there are still nations using the Sherman. When I was in Kosovo several years ago we found some Shermans in a warehouse there with Serbian markings on them. They had just been upgraded.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Nov 15, 2006)

The Iraqis in the First Gulf War used them


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 15, 2006)

Yeap and during the Iran Iraq war as well. I think the Iranians used them during that time as well. I am going to have to look at my pics from the Iranian bone yard in Iraq that I visited. I think there were Centurians (looks like the ones in the pic up there) in Iranian markings. Not sure though.


----------



## ndicki (Nov 15, 2006)

Adler, according to my Jane's AFVs for 1987, Iraq had no Cents, unless they had reused captured Kuwaiti ones.

Iraq did have Chieftains, on the other hand, presumably captured from Iran.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 16, 2006)

I was talking about Iran not Iraq.

But yes you are correct they are Chieftains not Centurians.


----------



## ndicki (Nov 16, 2006)

Iran didn't have Cents, either - but both had Chieftains - so at the end of a misunderstanding, we're both right!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 16, 2006)

That is what I said:



> But yes you are correct they are Chieftains not Centurians.





I have to find the pics of the Chieftains. Here are some pics of the boneyard though. It was an old Iraqi dump where they put in Iranian equipment that they captured in the Iran/Iraq War and then after we went into Iraq we started filling it with Iraqi equipment as well.

There were litterally hundreds of tanks and AFVs there as well as hundreds of artillary pieces.

It was pretty neat to go through it. We climbed into the tanks and everything and then went exploring some more. I pulled out an Iranian flag from a BMP and several BMP and T-55 manual (cant read a thing in them though). There also were several building just filled to the sealing with Iraqi Helmets and Gasmasks. Was pretty neat to go thought it all. Even though the room with the gasmasks scared me. There also were dozens of used anthropene injectors in the room as well. Kind of made me wonder...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 16, 2006)

I need to find the pics of the Chieftains though. It was actually a buddy of mine whos dad was a Canadian Tanker who pointed it out and said "Wow that is fricken Chieftain!"


----------



## 102first_hussars (Nov 17, 2006)

I was always wondering why there wasnt more armoured resistance then there was during the invasion of Iraq, maybe that was why, they junked a shit-load of them


----------



## ndicki (Nov 17, 2006)

Pity you couldn't bring a load of that junk home with you - if a few more people had managed to at the end of WW2, we'd have a far better collection today in our museums. This'll all get broken up too.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Nov 17, 2006)

Hey, i wish they had real WW1 planes around but they dont


----------



## ndicki (Nov 17, 2006)

102first_hussars said:


> Hey, i wish they had real WW1 planes around but they dont



You see what people will say about T-72s and BTR-60s in a hundred years.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 17, 2006)

ndicki said:


> Pity you couldn't bring a load of that junk home with you - if a few more people had managed to at the end of WW2, we'd have a far better collection today in our museums. This'll all get broken up too.



I brought some stuff back. I am a militaria collector remember. I specialize in 3rd Reich uniforms and equipment but I collect anything and everything militaria. 

Obviously I could not bring back a tank or anythign but I brought back the Iranian flag that I found in the BMP, Iraqi flag that I pulled off a T-72, 2 Helmets, a Republican Guard uniform (I bought that one though from an Iraqi vendor), and the manuals and TMs that I pulled from the Iraqi and Iranian tanks.


----------



## ndicki (Nov 17, 2006)

Much better than it might have been, I agree.

I wonder if the next step in militaria and historical collecting is not to collect the people themselves. I have a genuine SS Panzer Lieutenant - as shown by the tattoo - in a large jar of formaldehyde in my study; would anyone like to exchange him for a Heer Grenadier Officer? Captain or Major?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 17, 2006)




----------



## Gnomey (Nov 17, 2006)

ndicki said:


> Much better than it might have been, I agree.
> 
> I wonder if the next step in militaria and historical collecting is not to collect the people themselves. I have a genuine SS Panzer Lieutenant - as shown by the tattoo - in a large jar of formaldehyde in my study; would anyone like to exchange him for a Heer Grenadier Officer? Captain or Major?





I have an Russian tank Lieutenant of one of the Guards Divisions do you except?


----------



## ndicki (Nov 17, 2006)

No, sorry, Gnomey, only if he is of eastern origin - Mongol or that sort of thing. Unlikely for an officer. What else have you got?

If you've got a Luftwaffe fighter pilot I'd agree, even with slight singeing.


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 17, 2006)

Haven't got much info on him, he is believed to be Kazahk and appartently went to America for the war effort before heading back to the front where is was killed in 1945...

Pilotwise only got an Italian and a couple of Chinese.


----------



## ndicki (Nov 17, 2006)

Naah, your Chinese are copies;they make them by the thousand in Taiwan, and then pass them off as mainlanders. 

The Kazakh might be fun. Did you get the white or the red pattern?


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 17, 2006)

I got the red one, the store I was buying them from had better quality red ones than whites ones for the same price so I went with the red.


----------



## ndicki (Nov 18, 2006)

Pity. I wanted a white one to go with my Vlassov collection!

Tell me more about your Italian - is he in VGC, singed or badly holed?


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 18, 2006)

An ace of the North African campaign aswell as bloodied over Malta before being indisposed early in the Sicilain Campaign. One of the top Italian aces (very rare these days), his condition isn't perfect for his plane was badly shot up however the blemishes are hard to see now he has a new uniform. If you remove the uniform he is a bit singed and has a couple of holes but otherwise is fine.


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 18, 2006)

U people are twisted...


----------



## Soren (Nov 18, 2006)

Was just about to say the same..


----------



## ndicki (Nov 18, 2006)

Sounds just great, Gnomey - I'll trade him for my Waffen SS Panzer officer, if you'd like - he's in grade 1 condition, except that his head wobbles a bit when you knock the jar - no significant holing, although his left hand falls off now and again when the formaldehyde eats through the string... What d'you think?


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 18, 2006)

While some of these items sound rare and collectable, my neice has an original Adolf Hitler mini-clone that has unfortunatly possessed her....

Heres a pic...


----------



## ndicki (Nov 18, 2006)

Look, this one's the original! He's in a private collection in Russia which I got to see last summer!


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 18, 2006)

ndicki said:


> Sounds just great, Gnomey - I'll trade him for my Waffen SS Panzer officer, if you'd like - he's in grade 1 condition, except that his head wobbles a bit when you knock the jar - no significant holing, although his left hand falls off now and again when the formaldehyde eats through the string... What d'you think?



I'll take him. Can you through in a copy of the real Hitler too?


----------



## ndicki (Nov 19, 2006)

Right, I'll just get my jars out... Where did I put my cloning tweezers?

Did you want the clone alive, and if so, what age do you want him arrested at?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 19, 2006)

You guys crack me up!


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 19, 2006)

ndicki said:


> Right, I'll just get my jars out... Where did I put my cloning tweezers?
> 
> Did you want the clone alive, and if so, what age do you want him arrested at?



Alive would be best, would make a great source of entertainment at dinner parties. Preferably before he gets Parkinsons and before the onset of paranoia say around 1939ish so in his late 30's or at the time of the Munich Putsch.


----------



## ndicki (Nov 19, 2006)

Anybody got any physical relics of Erich Hartmann? I'll swop then, depending on condition, for an authentic thigh bone from Josef Goebbels, recognizable from being twisted out of shape, vgc with provenance and expertise from Sotheby's.


----------



## ndicki (Nov 19, 2006)

More fun with the paranoia, if you ask me - half way through the (gefillte) fish, you could tell him the cook's Jewish! and sit back to watch! 

Any bits of Hartmann for Adler?


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 19, 2006)

ndicki said:


> Anybody got any physical relics of Erich Hartmann? I'll swop then, depending on condition, for an authentic thigh bone from Josef Goebbels, recognizable from being twisted out of shape, vgc with provenance and expertise from Sotheby's.



Nope sorry saw one a couple of years ago but dunno where it is now, the price would of been astronomical though it wasn't for sale. I too would love to have one.

I only have one of Guy Gibson of the famous airmen.


----------



## ndicki (Nov 19, 2006)

No, I do only Axis ones - Commonwealth war graves people get a bit sensitive sometimes.


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 19, 2006)

ndicki said:


> No, I do only Axis ones - Commonwealth war graves people get a bit sensitive sometimes.



Yeah they do, got him on a shady deal from someone in Botswana.


----------



## ndicki (Nov 19, 2006)

Bl**dy dog got into my collection, knocked over two of my jars of formaldehyde, and bu**ered off with my Panzer Officer's left arm. I've still got his hand, but it looks a bit silly just floating there with a bit of string. He got a live AT mine, too. I'm waiting for the bang - any minute now...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 19, 2006)

We are way off topic now....


----------



## 102first_hussars (Nov 19, 2006)

to the pictures posted by NDicki, the turret looks more like from the Israeli Merkeva tank than that of a Centurion


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 19, 2006)

Here are some pics of some German Armoured Vehicals that I took at the Sinsheim museum on Saturday.

The Panther is a fully functional Panther and even drove the museum under its own power.


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 19, 2006)

Excellent shots Chris.... Really sweet lookin place...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 19, 2006)

It is a nice museum. I am going to start a thread of it showing the pics I took. The museum also has a Concorde, Tu-144, 3 Ju-52s, Ju-87, Ju-88, Bf-109G-6, Fw-190A, original parts such as armoured plating and 15in cannon from the Tirpitz that were recovered when she was broken up, 2 Fiesler Storchs, He-111, tons of allied tanks, great Afrika Korps setting. It normally has a Tiger and a King Tiger as well but they are on loan and restoration respectively at the moment.

There are over 3000 exhibits at the museum.


----------



## mkloby (Nov 19, 2006)

very nice pics


----------



## MacArther (Nov 20, 2006)

Two questions.... One what is that tank in picture 7 from the top? Second, what's the deal with the gun malet on the 10th picture from the top? It looks like someone got an extra dose of iron in their diet! But yes, very good pictures.


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 20, 2006)

Good pics Adler!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 21, 2006)

The seventh pic is a Panzer III.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 21, 2006)

Actually I think I just told you wrong what that was.

I think it is a Panzer 35(t)

Please someone correct me if I am wrong though I am not that up to date on the tank identification accept for the obvious tanks.


----------



## Matt308 (Nov 21, 2006)

I like the jungle cammo on the T-62


----------



## Hunter368 (Nov 21, 2006)

Chris,

Last night I watched this program on the history channel above these guys in Califoria rebuilding a German Panther tank. It was very cool program. It talked about in detail all that was good and bad about the mechanics of a Panther tank. Very very interesting. They almost had to rebuild the whole tank from scratch, it had been damaged very badly. Great show.

You would of liked it. Here is a tiny bit of information on it.

History : On TV


----------



## Matt308 (Nov 21, 2006)

MacArther said:


> Two questions.... One what is that tank in picture 7 from the top? Second, what's the deal with the gun malet on the 10th picture from the top? It looks like someone got an extra dose of iron in their diet! But yes, very good pictures.



Good question. Looks like battle damage that has been highlighted with red paint...kinda like interior detail models. Strange.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 21, 2006)

T-62? Where is a T-62? Are you talking about my pics?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 21, 2006)

I really dont know how that damage occured there. I dont recall anything at the musuem saying how either.


----------



## Matt308 (Nov 21, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> T-62? Where is a T-62? Are you talking about my pics?



Yeah sorry, Adler. Brainfart.


----------



## m kenny (Nov 21, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Actually I think I just told you wrong what that was.
> 
> I think it is a Panzer 35(t)
> 
> Please someone correct me if I am wrong though I am not that up to date on the tank identification accept for the obvious tanks.



It is a LTH Czech tank. 24 were built in Switzerland under licence in 1939.
In Swiss service it was called Pz. 39. 
The design finaly developed into the Czech LT-38 (38t in German service)

http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/switzerland/Praga.jpg

Switzerland


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 22, 2006)

Aha thankyou. I was looking at it again after I said it was Panzer III and I knew that it was not a Panzer III. I really dont know why I said it was that at first. Thanks anyhow on the proper identification.


----------



## ndicki (Nov 23, 2006)

And a late model one at that - the early ones - up until Barbarossa - had a three part driver's/hull gunner's plate - only the later ones had a flat/straight one. That makes it an Ausf G if I remember rightly.


----------



## Seawitch (Jan 11, 2007)

I chose Cromwell
No Tank expert but interested. My choice is influenced by something my Father thought. He served for 26 years in the 2nd Royal Tank Regiment, I'm bound to rely on him.
I wonder if the 'in the west' restriction here is to exclude the T34?
The best Tank isn't necessarily the right Tank.
A Tiger was a monster on the battle field of course, but also one to get there, I'll swear they would have done better to produce the many Panzer IV they would have got for their efforts instead of one Tiger.
Seawitch


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 12, 2007)

i wouldn't count the T-35 as being in the west..........


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Jan 17, 2007)

Hunter368 said:


> Last night I watched this program on the history channel above these guys in Califoria rebuilding a German Panther tank. It was very cool program. It talked about in detail all that was good and bad about the mechanics of a Panther tank. Very very interesting. They almost had to rebuild the whole tank from scratch, it had been damaged very badly. Great show.
> 
> You would of liked it. Here is a tiny bit of information on it.
> 
> History : On TV



Soren wouldn't, it explains how the Maybach was a crap engine.

To be fair, it did make one mistake: It blamed the Panthers unreliable gearbox on straight-cut gears, stating the helical-cut type of the Shermans as superior. Straight-cut gears are a hell of a lot stronger than helicals, as any engineer knows. I wonder what the engagement method was? It also has a Panther vs T34/845 suspension comparison, which is hilarious.

It downplays British innovations though, like regenerative steering and gun stabilization.


----------



## bigZ (Jan 21, 2007)

Wh


----------



## bigZ (Jan 21, 2007)

Valentine


----------



## Civettone (Feb 9, 2007)

schwarzpanzer said:


> It downplays British innovations though, like regenerative steering and gun stabilization.



Which British tank used gun stabilization?

Kris


----------



## renrich (Feb 13, 2007)

Fine pictures of tanks. Is the one with 224 on the turret the Panther?


----------



## 102first_hussars (Feb 13, 2007)

renrich said:


> Fine pictures of tanks. Is the one with 224 on the turret the Panther?




I always thought the Panther was big like the Tiger, but I swear that looks like the High Velocity 75mm gun, so it must be the panther


----------



## Gnomey (Feb 14, 2007)

Yeah it is a Panther but to me the wheelbase looks a bit short however the rest of it looks like a Panther which means it is (likely) one.


----------



## Soren (Feb 14, 2007)

Don't tell me you guys actually doubt its a Pzkpfw. V ??!


----------



## Gnomey (Feb 14, 2007)

I don't doubt it, it is a Panther but most of the pictures I have seen it has what appears to be a longer wheelbase than this one - probably just the angle of the photo though.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 14, 2007)

Yes that is a Panther with the 224 on it. I took the picture a few months ago.


----------



## Jackson (Mar 7, 2007)

The US 90 MM retrofitted to a M4 Jumbo


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 8, 2007)

The M4 in my opinion can not be considered the best tank based of its design. The M4 was under armoured and under gunned compared to the Tigers and Panthers which in my opinoin were better tanks only because they could destroy the Sherman at ranges before the Sherman had a chance of penetrating there armour.

The 90mm armed M4s were actually tank destroyers and the armour was unchanged and could still be taken out at greater ranges by Tigers and Panthers.

The reason the Sherman was successful is only because of superior numbers when compared to the Tigers and Panthers and better tactics.

One on One a Sherman does not have a really good chance unless he has the surprise advantage over a Tiger or Panther.


----------



## Jackson (Mar 8, 2007)

there was a retrofit kit available for the M4 to fit the 90MM gun to most Shermans..

The "Jumbo" version of the M4 had 100+ MM added to its existing armor.

This gave the Jumbo more frontal armor than the Panther or Tiger..

I read a very good story about a Tiger, arrogantly sitting on top of a hill, silhouetted by the setting sun, exposing its sides and firing on the Jumbos enhanced frontal armor..

Of course it merely bounced off the Jumbo, with its obviously superior armor to the Tiger..

The commander fired this 90mm M82 round at 2000 meters and killed the Tiger..



I supposed he thought it was an "undergunned, under armored" Sherman also, most Germans are unaware of this vehicle and made the same fatal mistake.

Check out the Jumbo.. 160 mm frontal armor.., don't make the same arrogant mistake the Tiger commander did.


----------



## Jackson (Mar 8, 2007)

but of course, you are generally correct..

But my favorite is the M4 "Jumbo" fitted with the 90mm... most never knew what they were dealing with..


Assault Tank M4A3E2 Sherman Jumbo belonging to the Patton Museum of Cavalry and Armor. 


The extra armor welded to the glacias of this Jumbo Sherman is immediately apparent, along with the new turret and very thick gun shield. Fixtures such as headlights and sirens have been omitted from the hull front, however the bow machine gun was retained. This tank lacks the extended end connectors on its T48 tracks which helped to reduce ground pressure. 

Medium Tank M4 Sherman


I like that kind of surprise, I find it appealing..


The 90 mm retrofit could be identified by its lack of muzzle brake.

776th Tank Destroyer Battalion Combat History

776th TD Battalion Slugger, displaying its powerful 90mm main gun. (Informal History of the 776th TD Battalion) 


Photo- (non "jumbo" Sherman)

http://www.100thww2.org/support/m36front.jpg



The M36B1 was constructed by mating the 90mm M36 gun turret with the hull of the late-production M4A3 Sherman. Internal stowage was rearranged to accommodate the larger 90mm rounds.


90mm GMC M36


----------



## Jackson (Mar 8, 2007)

160 mm frontal armor

wrong 

Only 140 mm frontal armor


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 8, 2007)

Jackson said:


> Check out the Jumbo.. 160 mm frontal armor.., don't make the same arrogant mistake the Tiger commander did.



Excuse me, did I insult you anywhere? Dont make smart as comments to me. If you wish to carry on a decent conversation that is fine and we can learn from each other but dont be a smart ass, especially when you are newbie!


----------



## Soren (Mar 8, 2007)

> I read a very good story about a Tiger, arrogantly sitting on top of a hill, silhouetted by the setting sun, exposing its sides and firing on the Jumbos enhanced frontal armor..
> 
> Of course it merely bounced off the Jumbo, with its obviously superior armor to the Tiger..
> 
> The commander fired this 90mm M82 round at 2000 meters and killed the Tiger..




Too bad its a fairytale..

Btw the pictures in the link you posted all show the result of artillery fire, and has nothing to due with the M36.

Also the only Jumbo to appear during WW2 with a 90mm gun was a Howitzer


----------



## Jackson (Mar 8, 2007)

Photo #6

Captain Jack Rothschild, 776th TD Battalion, examines the wreckage of the first Hunting Tiger ever destroyed on the Western Front, killed by the crew led by Lieutenant John C. Britz. Near Rimling, January 1945. (NA)

776th Tank Destroyer Battalion Combat History

One photo is worth, as we say 1000 words..you can also check out the 90mm M4 Sherman in photo #2

776th TD Battalion Slugger, displaying its powerful 90mm main gun. (Informal History of the 776th TD Battalion) -Obviously a Sherman 




and I am unaware of any American 90mm 'Howitzer'.... //?


maybe you mean the 105 mm Howitzer, which could consistently penetrate a Panther at 600 yards...

check the links..

U.S. Test No.2

U.S. Test No.3

I have seen these documents elsewhere, but these are handy at the moment..




*Anyway, my favorite is the Sherman Jumbo with the 140 mm thick armor and the 90mm gun.. Most Germans were clueless about them and never knew what hit them.* This ignorance cost them their lives..


----------



## Jackson (Mar 8, 2007)

Pather tests

U.S. Test No.2

8) 90mm Gun, M1A1, AA
AP M77 will penetrate front glacis slope plate up to 600 yards, the gun mantlet up to 1,000 yards and the turret up to 1,500 yards.

9) 105mm Howitzer, M4, mounted on Medium Tank, M4
HEAT M67 will penetrate front glacis slope plate and gun mantlet at 500 yards (see assumption made in paragraph 1c).


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 8, 2007)

Jackson said:


> *Anyway, my favorite is the Sherman Jumbo with the 140 mm thick armor and the 90mm gun.. Most Germans were clueless about them and never knew what hit them.* This ignorance cost them their lives..



Favorite does not mean the best...

Sherman was far from it and that is fact. The Sherman won the war though because it was easy to build, superior numbers and superior tactics.


----------



## Soren (Mar 8, 2007)

Jackson, that is not a Sherman with a 90mm gun - its a M36 Jackson.

Also the sites photo description of the destroyed JagTiger is wrong, it was NOT destroyed by AT fire, it fell victim to artillery fire - the 776th armored TD battalion found it later as it looks on the picture.

Btw, by U.S. definition only 50% of the projectile has to penetrate to the other side of the test-plate (AKA a partial penetration) for the result to be considered a full penetration. By contrast the German definition of a full penetration is 100% of the projectile passing straight through the armor, thus a 100% penetration.


----------



## Jackson (Mar 8, 2007)

I suppose I like the M4 Jumbo, because I have met few Germans who have even ever heard of it and it fun to pull their legs about it. -you may dispute whether it was fitted with the 90mm...

I think it 'best' because the Germans thought they were dealing with something other than what it was.

Only a few hundred 90 MM Sherman field modification conversion kits were shipped between late summer '44 and spring '45..

First photo-

90 MM Sherman in Battle of the Bulge, (retro fit, no muzzle brake and the turret is definitely not the modified M-10 /90mm (M36) 'pyramid' variety)

see link:The Battle of the Bulge: Images

And yes, there were more US 90mm equipped AFV in the West than Tigers and Panthers of all sorts combined. 










*Another 'fun one' is the US 155 SP AFV*..fitted with the Pozit (proximity fuse) elsewhere voted the deadliest vehicle on any battlefield.

This is what stopped Piefer at LeGlieze

The Battle 21-25 Dec

Many fine photos etc in this link


Although Huge Cole, in writing the official US Army history of the battle discounts this as over hyped..

But other books, like 'A Time for Trumpets" McDonald dispute Cole.

Patton, considered a historian in his own right, would not talk to Cole, he considered him an idiot.

Chapter 25-THE ARDENNES: BATTLE OF THE BULGE

Two battalions in the VIII Corps artillery had been issued some rounds of VT ammunition, but so far as can be determined none were fired on the first day of the German attack. Actually this highly secret ammunition was employed on only a few occasions prior to the Allied counterattack in early January, and then usually at night or in poor weather when the American gunners could not get sensing for normal time fire missions. The postwar claims as to the value of the much touted [655] VT fuse in halting the German advance are grossly exaggerated. (1/4 down the page)

This on line book is fairly decent reading and fairly accurate with plenty of post battle / post war interviews.. and it is free.

>You cannot always trust some accounts, Fritz Bayerlien in "Breakout and Pursuit" (Cobra) accounts for more losses than the official Wehrmacht records for instance.

The European Theater of Operations - U.S. Army Center of Military History




More on the SP 155

Aachen, used to hunt snipers..

http://cpof.ida.org/MOUT-Aachen-1944.pdf

Urban Operations - An Historical Casebook

The Siegfried Line Campaign: Chapter 13


With the concrete busting (delayed) fuse it was used to blow through 5-6 houses, then it could destroy a Panther at the end of a row (block) of town houses. (Koln)

(The surrendered German commander complained bitterly about such tactics..)

Many Germans also seem unaware of this vehicle and the direct fire effect of its 50kg round on a tank. Its range was approximately 30-40 Km. (18-24 miles) and yes it could kill a Tiger at more than 100 meters..(or 20,000 meters like at Le Glieze)


The vehicle also used the 8 inch (203mm) naval cannon and the M40 was fitted both ways and if supported by a platoon, it was very effective in all roles.

from link

Daniel brought up his attached 155mm self-propelled gun for the purpose. To protect it, he ordered tank destroyers to fire into the intervening cross streets. To protect the tank destroyers, infantry secured the buildings within panzerfaust range of the armor. Once in place, the 155 utterly demolished the "pillbox," which later proved to be a camouflaged tank.[36]

The 2/26 continued its methodical advance on 17 and 18 October (see Map 6). The 1106th Engineer Group continued to displace forward to cover the battalion's flank. As it advanced, the 2/26's front widened. The 1st Infantry Division attached Company C (1/26 Infantry) to Daniel's command, where it assumed responsibility for a zone on the right flank.[37]

During this period, the 2/26 found itself taking fire from the rear, despite all its precautions to assure that no Germans were bypassed. After a careful search, the Americans discovered that the fire was coming from a church steeple that had been reinforced with concrete, making it a fortified observation post. This position proved to be impervious to both small arms and 75mm tank destroyer fire, whereupon Daniel again called upon his 155mm artillery piece. One shot from the 155 brought the entire structure crashing to the ground.[38] This use of a 155mm gun as an anti-sniper weapon is perhaps the epitome of "Knock 'em all down."


You can google "Aachen 155 mm Daniel" for more..


----------



## Jackson (Mar 8, 2007)

the gun test results speak for themselves, this was not Aberdeen..

please read the test results-, we are not talking what the "US Army" did, we are talking about a bunch of colonels and sargent's, This was a bunch of tank guys in Normandy ..


M40

M40 GMC - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Jackson (Mar 8, 2007)

maybe this will help you to identify both types..

Sherman Register - Sherman encyclopedia > Iran

Iranian M36's of both varieties..

http://web.inter.nl.net/users/spoelstra/g104/images/iran_m36_tikrit_4.jpg

http://web.inter.nl.net/users/spoelstra/g104/images/iran_m36_tikrit_5.jpg

Geoff Walden took pictures of several Sherman-type vehicles in the Iraqi military base on Highway 1, about 10 miles north of Tikrit. This must have been another base than the one filmed by the CNN crew. 
The M36B1 (top) was seen alongside the road, among several other vehicles that had been lined up to plug a gap in the perimeter fence. The M36 (bottom) was seen at a distance, off of Highway 1. Possibly these two vehicles were recently on the empty plinths that are at the base entrance nearby. 



other


M36B1 90 mm M4A3 

Results 1 - 10 of about 1,270 for M36B1 90mm M4A3 . (0.39 seconds

M36B1 90mm M4A3 - Google Search

US Library of Congress

Table of contents for American armored fighting vehicles



here is alink to the US Tank Destoyer home page..

*the vehicle shown in their banner, most likely did exist and was used..*

or at least, I would like to assume so..

Note the lack of a muzzle brake..

http://www.tankdestroyersociety.com/images/mm36b.GIF

m36.gif

and it appears to me, as an M4A3 "Jumbo" with the field conversion kit.




Smilarly

On page 42 of the Squadron book "US Tank Destroyers in Action," and on page 62 of the Concord book "US Tank Destroyers in Combat 1941-1945" is the same head-on photo of an M36B1 in what looks like a forward area. It is identified as being with the 654th TD Bn in support of the 35th Division, Ninth Army. Also noted are 4 victory markings (Nazi flags) on the mantlet representing 2 Pz IV and 2 Tiger tanks knocked out (!).


----------



## Soren (Mar 8, 2007)

Sorry but the second picture is also a M-36 Jackson.

Here's another M-36, notice the identical turret: 






I repeat there was NO Sherman fitted with the 90mm M1A1 gun during WW2.


----------



## Jackson (Mar 8, 2007)

and you are wrong, but you may repeat anything you wish-as can I

The many published books, *including Hunnicut* seem to disagree with you however..

as can I

On page 42 of the Squadron book "US Tank Destroyers in Action," and on page 62 of the Concord book "US Tank Destroyers in Combat 1941-1945" is the same head-on photo of an M36B1 in what looks like a forward area. It is identified as being with the 654th TD Bn in support of the 35th Division, Ninth Army. Also noted are 4 victory markings (Nazi flags) on the mantlet representing 2 Pz IV and 2 Tiger tanks knocked out (!).

and this photo, the banner for a US WWII tank Destroyer Association homepage..is most telling..


I repeat their were HUNDREDS of 90mm Shermans..*and this supported by every published book on the subject that I have seen*


----------



## Chief (Mar 8, 2007)

I have to say that the M4 was not the best Tank. Early in the war, it was ok but only for a short time before the Panther and the Tiger tanks wer unvailed. 

I wish America would've been intellegent and continued work on the M26 Pershing. That thing was a beast.

The M4 was a favorite by many. Best...not so much.


----------



## Soren (Mar 8, 2007)

Nope Jackson, its a M-36 Jackson, and nomatter how much you try you can't find evidence to the contrary - I guarantee it.


----------



## Hunter368 (Mar 8, 2007)

Chief said:


> I have to say that the M4 was not the best Tank. Early in the war, it was ok but only for a short time before the Panther and the Tiger tanks wer unvailed.
> 
> I wish America would've been intellegent and continued work on the M26 Pershing. That thing was a beast.
> 
> The M4 was a favorite by many. Best...not so much.



It was what it was. Cheap, fast to make, easy to maintain, cookie cutter design, produced in the thousands. One on one it was ...crap. When it out number a Tiger 1 to 10 it was a good tank LOL. Numbers won out in tanks and in the air in WW2. Not saying there was not some damn good allied planes in WW2, but they also enjoyed numbers.


----------



## Jackson (Mar 8, 2007)

Sure M36B1 Jackson...as in a (M4A3 Sherman 90mm) M36B1


*site page numbers and publications..* 


Now could you site which publications that you really upon, page numbers etc..


The US library of Congress is about 15 minutes away and any book you quote can be in my hands -quickly..


Please, quote your sources, like I do..ISBN Page number please

(page 42) Squadron book "US Tank Destroyers in Action" ISBN 0 – 89747 – 385 – X

(page 62) U.S.Tank Destroyers in Combat, 1941-1945 ISBN-13: 978-9623616096


ISBN Page number please

Otherwise, you are only really blowing smoke grenades.


 and repeating yourself is not exacatly "APBC or APCBC " heh


----------



## Soren (Mar 8, 2007)

Like I said its a M-36 Jackson, and every book about the tank says this - there's you source 

The M-36B1 is a M4A3 Sherman chassis with a tin-can turret and lower maneuverability than the much better std. M-36. And despite what you claim no Jumbo was ever fitted with the 90mm M1A1 gun during WW2.

And why you would choose the M-36B1 over the std. M-36 is beyond me as either one is dead meat if hit by a Panther or Tiger all the way out to 2,500m and in most cases beyond.


And what does this mean ?: _" and repeating yourself is not exacatly "APBC or APCBC " heh"_


----------



## Jackson (Mar 8, 2007)

No ISBN page number huh?


----------



## Soren (Mar 8, 2007)

Read the books you supposedly have Jackson, they'll tell you the same, I've probably got them all as-well if you say they're from Hunnicut.


----------



## Jackson (Mar 8, 2007)

APBC= Armor piercing ballistic cap (an A/T round)

ISBN Page numbers=APBC

Smoke grenades= ineffective at any range


----------



## Soren (Mar 8, 2007)

Jackson said:


> APBC= Armor piercing ballistic cap (an A/T round)
> 
> ISBN Page numbers=APBC
> 
> Smoke grenades= ineffective at any range



Whats your point ?? Are you demonstrating your skills at abstract humor ?


----------



## Jackson (Mar 8, 2007)

I still wait your ISBN Page numbers..


----------



## Soren (Mar 8, 2007)

Again read your own books, for example your recent quote 

None say its a Sherman with a 90mm gun, no its a M-36 Jackson. And to repeat myself; No Jumbo was ever fitted with the 90mm M1A1 during WW2 !


----------



## Jackson (Mar 8, 2007)

No ISBN Page number still --

ZZzzz....


----------



## Soren (Mar 8, 2007)

Tell you what, try to prove to me that its not a M-36 and that a Jumbo was ever fitted with the 90mm M1A1, then I'll gladly give you the ISBN nr. to some books you desperately need to read - deal ?


----------



## Jackson (Mar 8, 2007)

Simple enough..

WWII Tank Destroyer Society

we call these people..

Organized at Ft Benning

I am in Washington, let me call the Pentagon's "Center for Military History"


Your choice..


again, look at their page

http://www.tankdestroyersociety.com/images/M10_04.jpg

The officially sanctioned US Army WWII Tank Destroyer Society


Note painted on the side of the vehicle, on the officially santioned US Army WWII Tank Destroyers web page titled "our vehicles" 

the inscription *M36B1*

http://www.tankdestroyersociety.com/images/M10_04.jpg


Deal? 

YYou need to buy some glasses..


OFFICIAL US ARMY WWII TANK DESTROYERS SOCIETY


WWII Tank Destroyers


"M36B1"


You cannot site anything- Sorry you are the weakest link

*contact them and tell them to change thier web page- lol*


Or at least get them to cut out the words "M36B1", from the photographs of their equipment..

har har har


WWII Tank Destroyers


Maybe they are wrong about thier history/ you know better probably ? 


I guess they are condused...

right? 

I mean really..


----------



## Jackson (Mar 8, 2007)

I guess they are not as knowlegable as you..

I mean how stupid of them ///
>showing a vehicle with the inscription *M36b1*! painted on it..


*You call them up and tell them to fix it OK!!*


lol


----------



## Jackson (Mar 8, 2007)

I wonder how they got that Wolverine to look like a Sherman?

photoshopping at their age..

MY MY -tsk


Those WWII vets, always with the funny stuff..


----------



## Soren (Mar 8, 2007)

Thank you Jackson, again you proved that its a M-36 Jackson, you even made it clear in bold letters.

Now lets see you disprove your own theory about the 90mm M1A1 armed Jumbo as-well, then we're back at where we're supposed to be


----------



## Jackson (Mar 8, 2007)

Fort Hood 60th Anniversary


----------



## Jackson (Mar 8, 2007)

I don't think so..

burn all your books and take up a new hobby is my best advice to you..


----------



## Jackson (Mar 8, 2007)

Soren said:


> I repeat there was NO Sherman fitted with the 90mm M1A1 gun during WW2.



barf


----------



## Soren (Mar 8, 2007)

Its not a Sherman, its a M-36 - if you haven't noticed it yet its actually got a different turret


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 9, 2007)

Soren said:


> Its not a Sherman, its a M-36 - if you haven't noticed it yet its actually got a different turret



Yep, I mean how stupid can you get... Everything he says proves everything to the contrary of what he is trying to say. I will also repeat what Soren has said there were no 90mm armed Sherman Jumbo's all had the 76mm gun. The M36 and the M26 Pershing had the 90mm not the Sherman (although it was fitted after the war to some - the Israeli's fitted a 105mm to it in the M51 Super Sherman.)

I must though it is funny trying to watch him prove that a tank with "M36B1" on the side of the turret is a Sherman Jumbo with a 90mm


----------



## Jackson (Mar 9, 2007)

*""The M36B1 was constructed by mating the 90mm M36 gun turret with the hull of the late-production M4A3 Sherman. Internal stowage was rearranged to accommodate the larger 90mm rounds.""*

see link for definition of an M36B1 (90mm M4)

90mm GMC M36


----------



## Jackson (Mar 9, 2007)

> =Soren;Sorry but the second picture is also a M-36 Jackson.





> I repeat there was NO Sherman fitted with the 90mm M1A1 gun during WW2.



This is obviously dis-proven..


http://www.tankdestroyersociety.com/images/M10_04.jpg

*YES, there was an M4A3 with a 90MM*

The M36B1 painted on the side of this vehicle says it all, as the M36B1 was a 90 mm Sherman essentially.

To wit M36B1= Sherman M4 mated to a 90mm gun

*""The M36B1 was constructed by mating the 90mm M36 gun turret with the hull of the late-production M4A3 Sherman. Internal stowage was rearranged to accommodate the larger 90mm rounds.""*

see link for definition of an M36B1 

90mm GMC M36




As far as proving that that tank shown in the "Official WWII Tank Destroyers Society" 'vehicles' web page is a Jumbo. I absolutely made no representation of that. It is, however. the M4 based M36B1, a 90 mm Sherman, by definition. 


At this point, I was only proving this quote is wrong..


wrong



Soren said:


> I repeat there was NO Sherman fitted with the 90mm M1A1 gun during WW2.



(obviously wrong)


Anyone can see that is NOT a Jumbo, But it is an M4 based M36 tank destroyer- an M36B1, specifically..

How absolutely stupid can YOU get?

You both must go to the same eye doctor either that or you are purposely misrepresenting my comments in an obtuse manner. 


dis-proven at this point:



> I repeat there was NO Sherman fitted with the 90mm M1A1 gun during WW2.





Do you guys even know what an M36B1 is?

90mm GMC M36

*The M36B1 is an M4 with a 90 mm*= (that is the definitinion of an M36B1)

//?

Simple question, what is an M36B1, then, if not a 90mm M4?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 9, 2007)

Jackson said:


> I suppose I like the M4 Jumbo, because I have met few Germans who have even ever heard of it and it fun to pull their legs about it.



So that is why you keep saying *arrogant* and *ignorant* huh? What is your real agenda? Oh and by the way dont play those games with me. I am an American...

...I suggest your learn who is in this forum before you play games.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 9, 2007)

Jackson said:


> Geoff Walden took pictures of several Sherman-type vehicles in the Iraqi military base on Highway 1, about 10 miles north of Tikrit. This must have been another base than the one filmed by the CNN crew.
> The M36B1 (top) was seen alongside the road, among several other vehicles that had been lined up to plug a gap in the perimeter fence. The M36 (bottom) was seen at a distance, off of Highway 1. Possibly these two vehicles were recently on the empty plinths that are at the base entrance nearby.



That is near Camp Speicher. I crewed Helicopters out of there for 14 months. I think maybe you are talking about the camp outside of Behji near Tikrit. Saw many of those in the bone yard near Tikrit. I have posted pictures of the boneyard here in another thread. 


I also I would like to hear some factual information about how many 90mm equiped Shermans were in service on the West Front from you.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 9, 2007)

Jackson you have not earned the right to insult anyone in this forum with your 35 posts. You want to prove your point (which you are doing very lousy at by the way) that is fine but you will do it withouth insulting any member of this forum or call any member of this forum stupid or insult them as you have in several of your threads. 

I am giving you your first warning now. I will only give only one. You got that!


----------



## Jackson (Mar 9, 2007)

Originally posted by Soren



> I repeat there was NO Sherman fitted with the 90mm M1A1 gun during WW2.



definition of a M36B1:

The M36B1 was constructed by mating the 90mm M36 gun turret with the hull of the late-production M4A3 Sherman. Internal stowage was rearranged to accommodate the larger 90mm rounds


I have only posted on 4 threads..

This one- insults received/ returned
P80 (none)
25 K for a Me262 ride (none)
FW190 retrieved from sea bottom (none)

It is my understanding that approximately 343 (M36 90mm) conversion kits were shipped to the ETO, most were put on the M10 chassis. They are identified by the lack of a muzzle brake.

Some were put on the M4 (Sherman chassis), no particular number is offered by me, I would guess 10-25 percent of the 343 kits. 40-80..

This is a field modification, I doubt the records are available. 

Much like Patton up armoring many of his tanks, as a field modification, to the "Jumbo" standard. This was done after he forbid the use of sand bags and lumber products as additional protection. I also doubt much is available as to specific numbers. Many EZ8's were generally up armoured. 

However, I have read (and related) the story of a "Jumbo" based M36B1 having surprised Tigers.

I am not sure may factory M36B1's were shipped before the end of the war.. I speculate all in the ETO were field modifications, I have never seen a photo of an ETO M36B1 with the muzzle brake.

I stand by this.

And yes, as a youngster my I lived in Iran with my USAF fighter pilot father, who was an F-4 IP , so I have seen the Iranian M36's first hand also.


So...

and post count...If that is your standard..No comment, do as you please.



I notice M Kenny and a few others including Christian Ankerstjerne do not post here anymore either.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 9, 2007)

Jackson said:


> I have only posted on 4 threads..
> 
> This one- insults received/ returned
> P80 (none)
> ...



You started it you get it in return. You decided to continue with it, I gave you a warning. You dont like it, tough! I have given plenty of warning to these very same members you are instulting so dont start up with anything else about giving and taking.

They for the most part decided it was better to teach and learn in a respectful manner. If you wish to be respectful you will be fine here. 



Jackson said:


> So...
> 
> and post count...If that is your standard..No comment, do as you please.



No I was making a point that you dont come into a forum and throw your weight around like that. You can learn and teach with others in a respectful manner. I am sure you parents tought you respect and manners. For instance you dont throw the words around arrogant and ignorant when you dont know the person. Especially when you are assuming things that you really dont know.



Jackson said:


> I notice M Kenny and a few others including Christian Ankerstjerne do not post here anymore either.



And no one told them to leave. They could not handle the fact that some people disagreed with them and they decided to not use respect and manners. No one told them to leave. They can stay here if they wish to be respectful.

This goes for anyone and everyone, not just you, so dont play the "Oh poor me, stop picking on me" as so many others before have.


----------



## Jackson (Mar 9, 2007)

please delete my account..

and you are more than welcome to delete all my posts..


thank you for your immediate attention 

> have given plenty of warning to these very same members 

Funny- I can believe that, somehow

M Kenny, he is really quite decent, and knowledgeable..


----------



## Jackson (Mar 9, 2007)

Christian? 

#1 on the net in his area of expertise


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 9, 2007)

Whatever do as you please. I am not going to beg you to stay, there are plenty of people that wish to learn and teach there knowledge and debate in respectful ways. You can do so if you wish too, up to you. You can decide whether you want to be the *weakest link* or not...


----------



## Soren (Mar 9, 2007)

Jackson, stop proving yourself wrong over and over again and start elaborating on your 90mm M1A1 armed Jumbo please.

And a little something to think about - I know Christian Ankerstjerne from the Axis History forum and he wouldn't agree with you either


----------



## Jackson (Mar 9, 2007)

You don't know jaques merde


originally posted by Soren:



> I repeat there was NO Sherman fitted with the 90mm M1A1 gun during WW2.



You are out of your league, burn your books, take up whittling or basket weaving..

Besides it is a M3 gun, doofus

M1A1
Towed anti-aircraft gun. Production began in 1940. Featured the M8A1 spring rammer. Rate of fire 20 rounds per minute.


M3
An anti-tank version of the gun. It was used to equip the 90mm Gun Motor Carriage M36 and Heavy Tank M26 Pershing. It is also known as 90 mm L/50.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 10, 2007)

I think you are the one that is out of your league. You are proving that with your post. And do me a favor please learn how to use a forum because you deleted posts are annoying.

Besides this is just getting stupid anyhow. You keep repeating the same stuff over and over that just proves you wrong.


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 10, 2007)

Jackson said:


> M3
> An anti-tank version of the gun. It was used to equip the 90mm Gun Motor Carriage M36 and Heavy Tank M26 Pershing. It is also known as 90 mm L/50.



Neither of which where an M4 Sherman or a Sherman Jumbo. The M36 may of been built on a Sherman chassis but that doesn't make it a Sherman it is a totally different tank.



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I think you are the one that is out of your league. You are proving that with your post. And do me a favor please learn how to use a forum because you deleted posts are annoying.
> 
> Besides this is just getting stupid anyhow. You keep repeating the same stuff over and over that just proves you wrong.



Agreed.


----------



## Jackson (Mar 10, 2007)

My bad, I can't find the delete button..

Yeah, I am wrong, an over night field modification, retro fitting a new turret on an *existing M4 body and chassis is a totally 'different " tank..*

I will bet they might have even, spent half the night to grind out all the parts serial numbers and then repainted the whole thing top to bottom just so nobody knew its prior designation. So it was "totally differnt" they probably secretly changed the names of the crews overnight too, just to keep things straight. 


OK, what ever...I am wrong..

You people with a 'superior knowledge' of all this could at least get the gun model and type correct. I mean you are telling Jackson about the "Jackson".


And my old 5.0 Mustang, I have bolted on a bunch of Saleen parts, I better buy some 'Saleen' name plates for it, becuse I changed the intake manifild and ported it, beefed up the suspension and otherwise 'bullet proofed' it. 

I will be contacting the Department of Motor Vehicles here becuase I better change the registration certificate and title- right. 


Yeah, I will just drop it.. You are obviously all experts on the M36B1. I picked my nick (Jackson) here by mistake, it should have been "M4A3/90 mm M3/ L50".


I gotta go for a ride out to "Bullrun", silly me, I call it Manassas.. (that is an a "Stonewall joke")


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 10, 2007)

Now are you just being silly. I enjoyed reading that because it made me laugh real hard. You dont have many friends in real life do you? 

Why dont you just calm down and debate like an adult rather than a child.


----------



## Jackson (Mar 10, 2007)

Yeah, nobody likes a funny "auditor" lol.. 


Everyone around the world hates people 'with a sense of humor' 8) I can't get laid either. 

My wife only married me because I can cook and my partners here at the firm would dump rat poison in my coffee except that I am the only one that really understands our tax software. 

I don't know how I ever make any 'rain'.. I think it is only because my client base is mostly alcoholics. BTW, they are mostly ex military, defense contractors.. We all hang out at the Crystal City restaurant, in Pentagon City dreaming of hooking up with an 'adult entertainer" on crack. 

CRYSTAL CITY RESTAURANT: About Us

You have much to look foward to after retirement.


LOL

regards, 

Stonewall

 


PS I am gonna link this thread to a couple of 'Sherman' experts I know. 

Y'all can teach them a thing or two..heh


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 10, 2007)

Go right ahead. All we are saying the Jackson was not technically a Sherman. Based off of it, but not a Sherman.

If you had worded your words differently, people might have agreed with you. If you had not come off as such an ass at first calling people arrogant and then stupid. This might have goon more smoothly for you.

You will learn in time.


----------



## Jackson (Mar 10, 2007)

and the troops called them a ?

M36B1 or a 90 mm Sherman

I know, every German tank was a Tiger..

here is an interesting link

644TD-TD's WWII-2

I wonder if the 90 mm M3 shot down the aircraft listed


----------



## Soren (Mar 11, 2007)

Hey you're the one who brought up the "90mm M1A1" Jackson, not me...

Btw, the 90mm M3A1 and M1A1 are the same except one is for AA use and the other is modified to fit inside a tank.. 

And again, just to refresh your memory, its a M-36 and there was no Jumbo fitted with a 90mm gun during WW2.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 11, 2007)

Oh well to loosen things up a bit and go to a different rought here. Here are some pics that I took at a museum here in Germany a few months ago.


----------



## Jackson (Mar 11, 2007)

Just to refresh your memory I will never agree with you, ever

and I never said, "M1A1".. except to quote one of your many mistakes, errors and misconceptions.

However, go ahead and find a quote.. I just checked this whole thread..

Otherwise -I suppose it is just another one of your errors.

LINK (ME)?

QUOTE (ME)?


Here is another thread where *YOU* introduce this error/mistake into the discussion..

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/ww2-general/17-ponder-vs-us-90-mm-7270.html


This is another funny quote from you ..

*a)* *Also the only Jumbo to appear during WW2 with a 90mm gun was a Howitzer *

I have already been warned not to insult you, so I will merely ask for your support for this "observation" *a)* of yours..

From your last post on the page, I would like to hear more about this *90 mm Howitzer* comment, please expain in detail, with links etc..

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/ww2-general/best-favourate-tank-west-708-20.html


So, feel free to find me using the 'M1A1' reference other than to repeatedly point out one of your many obvious mistakes. 


I did find one link for a black powder *""90 mm howitzer""*

us army " 90 mm howitzer" - Google Search




regards

"Jackson"


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 11, 2007)

Christian Ankerstjerne has never posted here as far as Im aware, and kenny just wanted to start trouble, and we dont tolerate that here so....


----------



## Soren (Mar 11, 2007)

Oh Jackson you poor little think, did I hurt your feelings by not falling for your little scam, is that it ?

And here's the qoute you requested:
_"90mm Gun, M1A1, AA
AP M77 will penetrate front glacis slope plate up to 600 yards, the gun mantlet up to 1,000 yards and the turret up to 1,500 yards"_

And about the 90mm Howitzer, well it was actually a 105mm, my mistake thats what happens when you rely on memory, small details get screwed, but the difference between you and me Jackson is I happily admit it.

So onto the 90mm armed Jumbo, lets see you explain why you were so convinced it existed ? (Which it didn't btw )


----------



## Jackson (Mar 11, 2007)

TOO FUNNY..

90mm Gun, M1A1, *AA*


*A*nti *A*ircraft


Please again, quote me where I said that *AA* gun was ever mounted on a Sherman chassis..

U.S. Test No.2

You are just too much *FUN*


I gather you never checked the link and read the information ..


http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/ww2-general/best-favourate-tank-west-708-20.html

SPECIFICALLY



Jackson said:


> Pather tests
> 
> U.S. Test No.2
> 
> ...





Here is a *clue* as to the differece- (SEE ABOVE)
>*AA*
>*mounted on Medium Tank, M4*



again, quote *me* saying that gun was ever mounted on a Sherman chassis and hull..8)


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 11, 2007)

What? You pretty much just reinforced what Soren said (alongside a lot of BS)...


----------



## MacArther (Mar 11, 2007)

Seriously dude, you just cited the source that Soren used, but instead of trying to disprove it or something, you cite the *105mm* citation about the Sherman. I can tell you flat out, there was never a Sherman with a 90mm gun in WW2. *After* the war, the Isralis had some surplus ones that the _Israelis_ modified to carry a larger gun and armor. These were NOT related to the Sherman Jumbo. Before you counter with your quip about the Jackson 36 carrying the 90mm and being based off of a Sherman hull, I would like to ask you this: Do the Priest's based off of the M3 medium tank hull go roaring into combat alongside their tank cousins, or are they of a different breed?


----------



## Jackson (Mar 11, 2007)

Seriously dude, the Official US Army sanctioned "WWII Tank destroyers Association Inc" has photos of the (M4A3 hull and chassis based) M36B1 on their 'our vehicles' web page.

WWII Tank Destroyers


The following books reference them

On page 42 of the Squadron book "US Tank Destroyers in Action," and on page 62 of the Concord book "US Tank Destroyers in Combat 1941-1945" is the same head-on photo of an M36B1 in what looks like a forward area. It is identified as being with the 654th TD Bn in support of the 35th Division, Ninth Army. Also noted are 4 victory markings (Nazi flags) on the mantlet representing 2 Pz IV and 2 Tiger tanks knocked out (!).

This 654th Tank Destroyer web page also lists them 

644TD-TD's WWII-2



Google Hunnicutt M36B1 187

hunnicutt M36B1 187 - Google Search


He states 187 in the ETO (widely quoted)

and finally here is a lengthy discussion at tank.net about the 90 mm on the M4A3 hull and chassis..

Thread Title: Death Traps

Tanknet > Shermans- death traps?

Death Traps The Survival of an American Armored Division in World War II, by Belton Y Cooper

Presidio Press, 1998. 384. Dimensions (in inches): 1.05 x 6.90 x 4.20 . $6.99. ISBN:0891418148.


None of these 'tank freaks' seem to be disputing their existence.


You folks take a few minutes to read this and get back to 

Okay


The thing is in 6 pages of this *TANKERS* forum, nobody disputes their existence



Additionally, I would like to reference the United States Library of Congress..

Table of contents for American armored fighting vehicles


But you could be right, maybe..

But I doubt it..


----------



## Jackson (Mar 11, 2007)

The Sherman registry


Sherman Register - US Army references

It was an overnight job to fit the 90 mm field modification kit on the M434..


----------



## Jackson (Mar 11, 2007)

This was an attempt to install the 90mm gun in a M10. The initial test was a failure in that the gun made the vehicle unstable and the weight made for a poor ride. A large hollow bustle was designed for placement at the rear of the turret to act as counter weight to compensate for the gun. The counter weight made the vehicle a success at this point and was thus named the T71 (when based on the M10A1 chassis powered by Ford it was called a T71, it was the T71E1 when powered by GM). Vehicles returned to the factories and those already in production were upgraded to the T71 standard. In July 1944, the vehicle was standardized as the M36. In the Fall of 1944, GM began producing a variation of the M36 using the M4A3 chassis. This became known as the M36B1. The 90mm main gun could penetrate 6" of armor at 1000 yards, and with 2 rounds, penetrate 5' of concrete.

The M36 became very popular because of it's firepower and protection. This popularity resulted in it being often used in the role of a combat tank rather than just as a tank killer. The drawback was the open top. In the Spring of 1945, this was corrected and an add-on shield was issued. 

Production quanities are as follows:
M36 - 1413
M36B1 - 187
M36B2 - 724


United States Self Propelled Guns


----------



## Jackson (Mar 11, 2007)

>there was never a Sherman with a 90mm gun in WW2



M36B1 – wieża M36 na czołgu M4A4 Sherman, używana w czasie "Bitwy o wybrzuszenie" w Ardenach. Oficjalnie pojazdy te nie wzięły udziału w tej kampanii, ale istnieje wiele zdjęć pokazujących M36B1 z tego okresu czasu. 


Niemiecka Ofensywa w *Ardenach,* znana także jako bitwa o wybrzuszenie (ang. Battle of the Bulge), rozpoczęła się w grudniu 1944 r. i była ostatnią dużą operacją ofensywną wojsk niemieckich na zachodnim froncie w czasie II wojny światowej.


M36B1
M4A3 Sherman-Panzer mit dem Turm des M36. Eingesetzt bei der Ardennenoffensive im Winter 1944-45. Offiziell nahmen diese nicht daran teil, aber es gibt sowohl Fotos als auch Berichte von Augenzeugen aus erster Hand die zweifelsfrei bestätigen daß sie an den Kämpfen beteiligt waren.


M36B1: Mezzo dotato di torretta del Jackson montata però su uno scafo standard del carro medio M4 Sherman.Verso la fine del 1944 venne realizzato in circa 300 esemplari come soluzione di emergenza. 


M36B1, M36:n torni M4A3 Shermanin rungolle 

These vehicles, designated M36B1, were rushed to Europe and used in combat alongside standard M36s. 


M36B1 Jackson
Bij de M36B1 Jackson was de geschutskoepel van de M36 op een onveranderde romp van de M4A3 Sherman middelzware gevechtstank geplaatst. Ze werden gebouwd in een oplage van 187 stuks vanaf oktober 1944 bij Fisher Tank Arsenal, maar ze kwamen nooit in actie aan het front. Ze werden alleen gebruikt voor trainingsdoeleinden.


M36B1: una versione ad hoc per venire incontro alla crescente richiesta di cacciacarri armati con il 90 mm. Utilizzava lo scafo dello M4A3 e la torretta aperta dell’ M36. 187 veicoli prodotti tra lì ottobre ed il dicembre del 1944 presso il Grand Blanc Arsenal


M36B1 Jackson
Bij de M36B1 Jackson was de geschutskoepel van de M36 op een onveranderde romp van de M4A3 Sherman middelzware gevechtstank geplaatst. Ze werden gebouwd in een oplage van 187 stuks vanaf oktober 1944 bij Fisher Tank Arsenal, maar ze kwamen nooit in actie aan het front. Ze werden alleen gebruikt voor trainingsdoeleinden.



M36 Jackson - Vikipedi

M36 Jackson - Wikipedia

M36 Jackson - Wikipedia, wolna encyklopedia

M36 Jackson - Wikipedia

M36 Jackson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

M36 Jackson

M36 Jackson Scala 1


The rest of the world disagees


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 12, 2007)

Just because it is built off the M4A1 chassis doesn't make it an M4A1...

Is the Priest an M3 - no. Is the the M36 an M4 - no.

Simple logic really. *Same chassis and a different turret with a different role = a different tank!!!!* Something you seem unable to grasp despite everyone proving you wrong (including yourself). Perhaps you should quit digging that hole before you burn yourself in the centre of the earth...


----------



## Jackson (Mar 12, 2007)

Like I could really care..

Here is the "tankers forum", nobody seems to disagree with comments such as: "nothing but a Sherman with a differnt turret"

Tanknet > Shermans- death traps?


So what exactly is your point?

I can think of about 5-6 different turrets off hand.


Dig?


I did not know the M7 had a turret?

BTW it was an M4A3. not an M4A1


So.. do you have anything new to tell Jackson about the the Jackson?


----------



## Jackson (Mar 12, 2007)

for instance, nobody seemed to challenge these comments

"The M36B1 TD was nothing but a standard M4A3 fitted with a 90mm turret from M36."

"It still seems unlikely that 90mm Shermans would have been in the hands of the troops before the end of 1944."


"Why? The M36 TD is a Sherman-derived hull with a 90mm turret on it, and they were in the ETO at least by August."

"In his book Sherman, R.P. Hunnicutt states that the main reason the 90mm Sherman was not rushed into production in the late summer of 1944 was the promise that the M26 would be available in quantity before the 90mm Sherman would be available."

"He also mentions a 6 month lead time in getting the 90mm Sherman into quantity production. "


The role of this vehicle included breaking up reinforced bunkers and as divisional artillery. In comparisons to the Firefly, they talk of its superior abilities in other roles than as a TD.

*It seems that many others like Jackson, who are familiar with the 'Jackson' think and speak in similar terms..*

Tanknet > AFV Forum


Maybe you should go over there an straighten them all out. Somehow I doubt that you will have much success however. But hey this is an aircraft forum, so I don't expect anyone here is as familiar enough with the subject to really carry any weight. 

While some here seem to even dispute its existence or talk of 90 mm Howitzers.

But nobody even bothers to dispute their comments.


So... again, ask me if really feel any "worries".


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 12, 2007)

I'm don't see the point in arguing any more. Your head is so far up your arse about this it isn't even worth discussing any more. You are not going to change your mind in anyway so there is no point in trying to convince you that you are wrong.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 12, 2007)

I will repeat again. A M36 is not a M4 even if it was built on the chassis of a M4.

The original Land Rover was built on the chassis of a Jeep. Does that make the original Land Rover a Jeep? No ofcourse not it was a Land Rover. Same for the M36.


----------



## Jackson (Mar 12, 2007)

Showing results 1 to 3 of 3 
Search took 0.07 seconds. Search: Key Word(s): M36B1 
Thread / Thread Starter Last Post Replies Views Forum 
Sticky: Poll: Best/Favourate Tank in the west ( 1 2 3 ... Last Page) 
Yeomanz Today 09:55 AM
by DerAdlerIstGelandet 358 6,769 WW2 General 
17 ponder vs US 90 mm 
Jackson 03-08-2007 11:49 PM
by Soren 3 47 WW2 General 
best allied tank? ( 1 2 3 ... Last Page) 
The Nerd 11-07-2005 11:10 PM
by schwarzpanzer 72 2,306 WW2 General 




Nobody had ever even mentioned this subject here before I posted about it..

and somehow I think if my opening post on this thread had been "M36B1" the response would have been: *"Whiskey Tango Foxtrot.."*

as "90 mm Sherman" is a common reference to this vehicle, much like the common WWII soldier referred to it as such from what I gathered


I notice none of you 'fly boys' are going over the the tankers forum to straighten them out. Because that is how it is discussed on a variety of "Tank" forums.

Would you rename a B-26 with the 75 mm mounted in the nose? Is it deffernt than the quad 20 

or is it a B-26/75 mm

Well..

The Landrover with a jeep chassis was a prototype, pre production model and it did not have the Jeep body (hull) 


Would I call a Land Rover body and chassis a "Jeep" because it had a jeep luggage rack? that would be a better comparison (not quite but almost) ..


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 12, 2007)

This is kinda silly.... Adler, Gnomey, MacArtur and Soren, please read and go through his links and verify or discount them....

Jackson, ur little snyde comments like:


> I notice none of you 'fly boys' are going over the the tankers forum to straighten them out.





> But hey this is an aircraft forum, so I don't expect anyone here is as familiar enough with the subject to really carry any weight.


Those kinda comments are not needed or required.... Insulting people here for no other reason than to "prove" ur knowledge is "superior" will get u nowhere...

That being said, things like the following:


> Your head is so far up your arse about this it isn't even worth discussing any more.





> Oh Jackson you poor little think, did I hurt your feelings by not falling for your little scam.


Those are also not needed.... Jackson has presented alot of info concerning the subject.... Dont discount it until u read it first... Argue with facts....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 12, 2007)

I have allready told everyone including Soren and Jackson to quit with there insulting comments. I seem to be ignored by them, which is not a good thing for them....


----------



## Jackson (Mar 12, 2007)

would a rose smell any sweeter?

OK two mods.. I will drop this subject, Period..

I will not post to this thread..

Under any circumstances..



fa'r enuf


thank you for your consideration


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 12, 2007)

You see that is just childish...


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 12, 2007)

Yes it was, and Im the one trying to back up Jackson on this, cause of the amount of info that he's produced for the naysayers to discount...

Just stop with the bullsh!t replies....


----------



## Jackson (Mar 12, 2007)

Seriously gentlemen..

I was not thinking of doing anything but ending this discussion..

I have alread recieved a demrit and now your intervention..

I do not see this as productive..

I came here to learn more about aircraft, not to discuss my favorite tank..

As you say, I have posted enough links..

again, thank you for your consideration..


regards


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 12, 2007)

Dude, dont put urself on invisible, thats just plain chickensh!t.... Im not sure why u recieved a warning in the first place...


----------



## Jackson (Mar 12, 2007)

Best/Favourate Tank in... 03-09-2007 09:17 AM Never 5 Insulting members of this forum. DerAdlerIstGelandet 


I always go "stealth"..

But if you suggest otherwise, I will take it heart.

Best Regards..

Jackson


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 12, 2007)

Subject is dropped from me anyway.


----------



## Soren (Mar 12, 2007)

Ok I've made one snyde remark at him, but take a look at Jackson's attitude from the beginning ! I have been calm throughout this "debate" (If you can call it that), however because I knew Jackson was wrong he took it personal and started acting rude.

PS: I've read trough all of Jackson's links and like I've said from the beginning the M-36 is an M-36, not an M4 Sherman. The funny part however is that Jackson keeps reinforcing this by quoting all of links designating it *M-36B1*.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 12, 2007)

Allright Soren just let it go. If you guys want to discuss this that is fine but lets keep it civil.


----------



## Soren (Mar 12, 2007)

Was I being uncivil ?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 12, 2007)

I am meaning in general Soren. You know what I mean.

Now lets get this back on topic please.


----------



## Soren (Mar 12, 2007)

I guess I know what you mean Adler, and no there'll be no'more of that.

Ok, back on track with the thread:

Well its obviously the Tiger Ausf.E, it was nearly indistructable in the African campaign.


----------



## Gnomey (Mar 12, 2007)

Yes it was and in second I would say is probably the Panzer IVF2 Special with the Long Barrelled 75mm gun. Not as much armour as the Tiger but would of still be able to knock out allied tanks before they could knock it out.


----------



## Civettone (Mar 12, 2007)

Christian Ankerstjerne has already been mentioned... 
If he were here, he would tell you that there never was a Pz IVF2...



Kris


----------



## Soren (Mar 12, 2007)

Err, why would he say that ?


----------



## Jackson (Mar 12, 2007)

well

one thing about the IV

It was in production on 1 Sept 1939 and May 8, 1945


I cannot think of anything else that can lay that claim

It makes it one of my favorites


----------



## Jackson (Mar 12, 2007)

AFV I mean


----------



## Civettone (Mar 13, 2007)

Soren said:


> Err, why would he say that ?


Well, the answer can be found on his website: panzerworld.net but I have copied it for your convenience.
_The Pz.Kpfw.IV Ausf.F2 and Pz.Kpfw.IV Ausf.G were not seperate vehicles, but merely different designations for the same vehicle. The Ausf.F2 designation appeared in two manuals before the designation was changed to Ausf.G, and thus the designation made it into post-war literature as being a seperate vehicle._
So IVF2 seems to have been a temporary and unofficial designation.

Other fictitious names:
Hetzer
Brummbär
Königstiger (or Kingstiger)
Panzer IV/70 Zwischenlösung
Saukopfblende
These were all allied names/words which were never officially used by the Germans. Whenever you even mention these words, you'll get a reaction by Christian. You can set your clock on that! 

Kris


----------



## Soren (Mar 14, 2007)

I see, I knew about the "KingTiger" designation but I didn't know about the Pz.IV Ausf. F-2 and Brummbär - thanks for the info Civettone ! 

So most of the Pz.IV Ausf.F-2's with the ball like muzzle brake were infact just early Ausf.G's.


----------



## plan_D (Mar 15, 2007)

That's interesting about the Pz.Kpfw IV F/2. If it was temporary it doesn't make it fictious though and surely if it was in manuals it makes it official. There were changes in the vehicles though, different muzzle brake (as Soren said), a system to transfer coolant to another Pz.Kpfw and elimination of vision ports. 

So, would it be better to call it an early Pz.Kpfw IV Ausf G. That does generate problems though because the late Pz.Kpfw IV Ausf G is almost impossible to distinguish from the early Ausf H. Once the 7.5cm KwK40 L/43 came along the Pz.Kpfw IVs really molded from one mark to the next.

As I understand it the reason for the name Pz.Kpfw IV F/2 is simply because the new long-barrelled 7.5cm KwK40 was ordered onto Pz.Kpfw IV Ausf F chassis already in production. 

Basically, the others are probably fictious but the fact that the designation was mentioned in German war manuals as F/2 makes it real. And they weren't built initially as the Ausf G; making them upgraded Ausf Fs in my mind. Calling it the F/2 has been drilled into my head for too long; and there's not enough reason to change it.


----------



## Soren (Mar 16, 2007)

I agree, and eventhough it might technically be incorrect I'll still refer to it as the Ausf.F-2, simply because then most people will know exactly which I'm talking about, avoiding any misunderstandings.


----------



## Civettone (Mar 17, 2007)

Of course there's no need to stop using the term. Everybody else uses it, so that would just be creating difficulties.

But I have to point out that -although it appeared in two manuals - it was never an official designation. I assume that manuals are drafted from the same company that builds the weapon. But in order to make it official, it has to be mentioned by the German authority. That never seems to have been the case. 
If you would have gone back to 1942/1943 and demanded to see a Pz IVF2, they would have told you there was none.

Next time I see Christian, I have to ask him if there ever was a Pz IVF1, or just a Pz IVF...

Kris


----------



## Derfman (Dec 19, 2007)

Tough choice

I voted Pzkpfw IV

I'm not a fan of the Tigers as "good Tanks", due to the mobility issue. On the Tiger I, mobility was not so bad to make it a "bad" tank, but enough to take away top slot for "good".

Tiger II was a "very poor" tank except when its enemies came to it (which happened a lot as Germany was losing). The Tiger II was GREAT for hurting an enemy military that was attacking you, but near worthless for making offensive moves of your own. Even the Sherman was FAR better for offensive action. (painful for the Sherman when they met, I know, but the Sherman COULD do offensive mobility, and the Tiger II could not).

If the Sherman had a better gun in Africa, I'd be tempted put it on par with the Panzer IV, but it didn't.

For the record, my votes "best Tank" in the war are split between the T34 and the Panther, depending on if you count production ease. (M26 gets Honorable mention, but was to late to really count)


----------



## 'Lil'tyger (Dec 19, 2007)

i think that the tiger2 was the best tank in ww28)


----------



## Derfman (Dec 20, 2007)

'Lil'tyger said:


> i think that the tiger2 was the best tank in ww28)




The Tiger II was WORTHLESS for the one thing that wins war: "Offensive action" Even the much flawed Sherman was better.

During offensive action, heavily armored and heavily gunned Tiger IIs could waste fuel trying to get in range of the enemy, but thats all they could do.

Of course, once the enemy BEAT the other German forces that the Tigers FAILED to support, then the Tigers could kill a bunch before they died in DEFENSIVE fights, but they sure as heck would not kill anything where and when it counted for "offensive" action, as they were to slow and poorly mobile to keep up.

Tiger II would be great for trench warfare.

Panther was a great Tank. But not the Tiger II.


----------



## Freebird (Dec 20, 2007)

toffigd said:


> Why no one votes for the underestimated M 13/40? It couldn't be as bad as most people think, as it was widely used by Germans and British (Australian) as well.



The self-propelled coffin?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 20, 2007)

I have allways gone with the Panther and the Tiger.

Ofcourse the Shermans were built in numbers that could win the war however.


----------



## Soren (Dec 20, 2007)

Derfman,

The Tiger II was far from worthless on the offensive, it could negotiate worse terrain than both the Sherman T-34 and boasted a similar top speed. The only real problem plagueing the Tiger II was the lack of spare parts fuel, the lack of which meant that the bulk were abandoned and blown up by their own crew. The weight was ofcourse also a problem, not many small bridges would support 68 - 70 tons of pure killing machine !


----------



## SoD Stitch (Dec 20, 2007)

Soren said:


> Derfman,The only real problem plagueing the Tiger II was the lack of spare parts fuel, the lack of which meant that the bulk were abandoned and blown up by their own crew.



That and the overstressed engine; the PzkPfw VI Ausf. B used the same Maybach petrol engine as the Tiger I, which was not overpowered to begin with. Add another 15 tons, but no more power, and you've got an engine that's operating at it's limit.

The Tiger II was, however, superlative in the defensive role; the only weapon the Allies had that could hope to take out a King Tiger was air power. Allied tanks didn't stand a chance against it in a 1-v-1 (or even 2-v-1) engagement.


----------



## Soren (Dec 20, 2007)

The engine wasn't overstressed, the transmission often was however when an inexperienced driver was behind the wheel - a big problem in late 44 to 45.

A more powerful engine would've been nice no doubt, but it was unnecessary, 700 HP was enough. A better transmission would've been great, although extremely non-great for the Allies.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Dec 20, 2007)

Soren said:


> The engine wasn't overstressed, the transmission often was however when an inexperienced driver was behind the wheel - a big problem in late 44 to 45.
> 
> A more powerful engine would've been nice no doubt, but it was unnecessary, 700 HP was enough. A better transmission would've been great, although extremely non-great for the Allies.



However, I understand the transmission was excellent, in terms of maneuverability, with it's regenerative steering; the King Tiger was as maneouverable as a much smaller tank thanks to it's advanced (though, apparently, weak) transmission.

Soren: I know they installed a very successful diesel engine in the second PzkPfw. VIII Maus prototype, a Daimler-Benz MB 517, with 1200 HP (895 kW). Do you think that engine would've worked in the King Tiger, or was it too big? 

I know they were also, just before the end of the War, working on a "boosted" version of the Maybach HL230, with direct fuel injection, that would've put out close to 1,000 HP (736 kW); that would've been a big help (but that would have also meant designing a new transmission, probably).


----------



## Soren (Dec 20, 2007)

SoD Stitch said:


> However, I understand the transmission was excellent, in terms of maneuverability, with it's regenerative steering; the King Tiger was as maneouverable as a much smaller tank thanks to it's advanced (though, apparently, weak) transmission.



The transmission was an engineering marvel, no doubt, but it was designed for a 45 ton tank, not a 70 ton one. Thus while a truly great design, it wasn't rugged enough to survive the punishment delivered by an inexperienced driver for any long period of time.



> Soren: I know they installed a very successful diesel engine in the second PzkPfw. VIII Maus prototype, a Daimler-Benz MB 517, with 1200 HP (895 kW). Do you think that engine would've worked in the King Tiger, or was it too big?



It was sadly abit too big. Would've done good in the E-100 though! 



> I know they were also, just before the end of the War, working on a "boosted" version of the Maybach HL230, with direct fuel injection, that would've put out close to 1,000 HP (736 kW); that would've been a big help (but that would have also meant designing a new transmission, probably).



Yes, this engine would've done the Tiger II good but what was really needed was a more rugged transmission, and a new and more powerful engine wouldn't have lessened this need.


----------



## Soren (Dec 20, 2007)

Had the war lasted another half a year then this beast would've been facing the Allies:












Notice that 128mm KwK44 L/60 with muzzle brake, not even a IS-3 could've felt safe at 3km from that gun.


----------



## Derfman (Dec 20, 2007)

On the King Tiger

I know for a fact that a number were abandoned on both east and west fronts, in situations where more mobile armor was able to keep up with mobile forces in retreat.

I also know that in the battle of the bulge, they did contribute much at all, again, due to poor mobility, and "on top of that", were abandoned at the end (for fuel reasons in that case).

To be clear: I've no doubt that the Tiger II had the mobility to move around a battlefield, but I seriously doubt its ability to "reach an active battlefield in time to be meaningful" during "fast paced" offensive action.


----------



## Soren (Dec 20, 2007)

Again the battle of the bulge ran to a stand still because of a lack of fuel, not because the Tigers were too slow. The Tigers that were abandoned were so because no fuel was available or because they had broken down, and thats a fact. 

In terms of mobility the Tiger Ausf.B was excellent, only being trumpfhed by the Panther. So the myth that the Tiger Ausf.B was immobile is just that, a myth.


----------



## Derfman (Dec 21, 2007)

Derfman said:


> I also know that in the battle of the bulge, they did contribute much at all, again, due to poor mobility, and """"""""on top of that"""""""", were abandoned at the end (for fuel reasons in that case).
> 
> To be clear: I've no doubt that the Tiger II had the mobility to move around a battlefield, but I seriously doubt its ability to "reach an active battlefield in time to be meaningful" during "fast paced" offensive action.


x


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 21, 2007)

I have to agree with the King Tiger nay sayers here. 

The Tiger and the Panther were superior to anything the allies had out there or atleast were good eneogh to get the job done.

The Germans should have upped production of the Tigers and Panthers instead of wasting there time on the King Tiger when it was clearly not needed.


----------



## ToughOmbre (Dec 21, 2007)

Superior numbers and superior tactics were the only way American tankers could achieve success on the battlefield against the Panthers and Tigers. It's an indisputable fact that the Germans had the *best* tanks in WW II; fortunately the allies had the *most* tanks.

TO


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 21, 2007)

ToughOmbre said:


> Superior numbers and superior tactics were the only way American tankers could achieve success on the battlefield against the Panthers and Tigers. It's an indisputable fact that the Germans had the *best* tanks in WW II; fortunately the allies had the *most* tanks.
> 
> TO



I agree and that is why I say there was no need for the King Tiger or for any of these other crazy designs such as the Maus, etc...


----------



## Denniss (Dec 21, 2007)

The Tiger II Königstiger (Bengal Tiger is correct english translation, King Tiger would be König Tiger) was OK, they should have dropped the Jagdtiger and the monster Maus and the even heavier types.

And even upgunning the Königstiger was not needed at all, the 88mm KwK43 L/71 was powerful enough to punch holes in the IS-3.

Edit: And the germans should have phased out the Panzer IV as tank in late 1943 but continue using the chassis for self-propelled guns like StuG IV or Jagdpanzer IV. The Panther had much more value in many aspects (gun, mobility even in rough terrain and especially armor protection.


----------



## Derfman (Dec 22, 2007)

Apologies for derailing the thread 

But its not a very bad derailing, just mildly off "exact" topic.

Having said that....

The Tiger II did have SOME mobility issues. It was not a complete mobility failure like the Maus, nor was it an almost complete mobility failure like the Hunting Tiger, but it DID have mobility issues, especially when trying to keep pace with mobile offensive operation.

When I say "Mobile offensive operations" I am NOT talking about driving around an active battlefield.

When I say "mobile offensive operations" I am talking about making a 300 mile blitz.

For the record, the Tiger II was outstanding for the situation Germany was in during 1944/1945. If the enemy comes to you, you don't need Blitz mobility.

The Panther, on the other hand, was the best tank of WWII, unless you count the ease of production for the 85mm armed T34. (I'd give the M26 and the Centurion and even the Panther II honorable mention, but they were to late to really count).


----------



## Soren (Dec 22, 2007)

> And even upgunning the Königstiger was not needed at all, the 88mm KwK43 L/71 was powerful enough to punch holes in the IS-3.



Indeed it was, however not frontally at 3km like the 128mm KwK L/55 60 

But your right the 88mm KwK43 L/71 would still be more than enough to deal with the IS-3, being capable of penetrating its frontal armour way past the 122mm D-25T's effective accurate range. And therefore the KwK43 wouldn't be phased out any time soon, it was afterall a far superior tank mounted AT gun than any the Allies had produced.


----------



## Denniss (Dec 22, 2007)

KwK43 and KwK44 should be equal at about 2.5 km, the KwK 43 is better on shorter ranges and the KwK 44 at longer ranges as it's mass hold the energy better.

KwK44 has L/55 caliber length, the L/61 gun was the 128mm FlaK that was not used on tanks unless on two prototype self-propelled guns (Sturer Emil).


----------



## Soren (Dec 22, 2007)

No Denniss, the PaK44 is slightly ahead all the way with the std. APCBC round, approx. by a 25mm better penetration capability at 3km. The greater mass of the 128mm projectile doesn't give it any advantage in energy retention compared to the 88mm projectile up until about 3.5km though.

The 128mm KwK44 L/60 was the planned armament for the E-100, exactly the same gun as the 128mm PaK44 L/55 Flak40 L/61 except being in between in lenght.

And to avoid any confusion; Many sources list the 128mm Pzgr.40/43 for PaK44 as a APCR projectile, it isn't, its a APCBC projectile and it weighes 28 kg. No APCR projectiles were ever made for the 128mm PaK44 or FlaK40. The other projectile often listed is the Pzgr.39, but it is not a APCBC projectile like the heavier Pzgr.39-1, Pzgr.39/43 Pzgr.40/43, its a solid shot APBC projectile originally developed for Flak pieces, like the 88mm Flak18 128mm Flak40.


----------



## Ramirezzz (Dec 29, 2007)

I like the M4. Easy to produce, to maintain, decent armour and speed. A weapon to win the war.


----------



## Kurfürst (Dec 29, 2007)

Derfman said:


> The Tiger II was WORTHLESS for the one thing that wins war: "Offensive action" Even the much flawed Sherman was better.During offensive action, heavily armored and heavily gunned Tiger IIs could waste fuel trying to get in range of the enemy, but thats all they could do.



I suggest you read a bit about the combats of the 503 sPzAbt in Hungary, automn 1944 at the great tank battle of Debrecen. Tiger IIs were far from worthless, they penetrated deep into the Soviet line.

BTW I think you also misunderstand the role of the Tiger II. It was a heavy tank, like the IS, KV, Churchill etc. series. Its role was a specialised one, to break through enemy lines, and the let the more lightly armored but numerous mediums pour in the gap. The Tiger`s job was to open the gap for them without heavy losses.



> Panther was a great Tank. But not the Tiger II.



No, just different tanks for the different roles.


----------



## Ramirezzz (Dec 29, 2007)

Kurfürst said:


> I suggest you read a bit about the combats of the 503 sPzAbt in Hungary, automn 1944 at the great tank battle of Debrecen. Tiger IIs were far from worthless, they penetrated deep into the Soviet line.


How deep? That wasn't even an operational breakthrough - it was enough to encircle some of soviet forces which were advanced simply to far, but that's rather a defensive kind of operation - defensive in counter-attacking. 
For a real breakthrough the Tiger II wasn't good enough from the operational point of view - it was very unbalanced weapon - good in a "static" defence and particulary good in "active" defence but not that good in other roles. 
I even doubt if it's correct to call a Tiger II a "breaktrough" tank -usually the tanks assigned to that role carry a lot of HE and only a small amount of AP shells.


----------



## Derfman (Jan 7, 2008)

On the subject of the original post, I'll stand by choosing the Panzer IV, although the Sherman would be my choice as a close 2nd (with a better gun, I'd rate it first).

But as for later, I'll also continue to stand by my choice of either the later Panther, or the T34/85 as the "overall" best tank.

I'd vote Late Panther as clearly best for tank vs tank in the field.
I'd vote T34/85 as best if all aspects of the Tank are included, including production cost, maintainence, etc.

As before, I'll give honorable mention to the M26 Pershing and Centurian, but they were to late to count.


----------



## Soren (Jan 7, 2008)

The M26 Pershing featured worse reliability than the Tiger Ausf.B so I can't see why you'd ever consider that.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Jan 7, 2008)

Soren said:


> Had the war lasted another half a year then this beast would've been facing the Allies:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Nice E-100, Soren. Where's that one from? I notice it's missing the "side skirts".

I'm currently working the 1/35th DML E-100, but it doesn't come with a muzzle brake; I might steal the one from my Maus and put it on the E-100.


----------



## Soren (Jan 7, 2008)

Its from Missing-lynx.com - homepage, they have a good collection of models there, enjoy


----------



## ralphwiggum (Mar 21, 2008)

I'm no expert but I LOVE the Jagdpanther It looks SO cool


----------



## joy17782 (Mar 21, 2008)

in north africa i would go with the PZKPFW IV the tiger at that time had some problems were all aware of , the sherman 2nd then the matilda, ,dont get me wrong i love the tiger but at that time i just would,nt have wanted too be a crew member, but as the war goes give me the panther or the jagpanther, sexy tanks with the a$$$ too back up the looks !!!!!!!!!!


----------



## CPWN (Mar 22, 2008)

The tank is my favorite,although it looks some weird.


----------



## B-17engineer (Mar 22, 2008)

I know nothing about tanks, but i do know that the TIger had an 88mm gun and good armor so I will go with that


----------



## MacArther (Apr 15, 2008)

Out of curiosity, how effective was the Pnzer III's L/60 gun (aka, the longer version of the 50mm Hitler had installed) against Allied armor in Africa? I keep hearing that it was a bit light, and really only useful against light armor, but the penetration tables I _kinda_ remember would seem to bely that. Also, what sort of armor penetration could be enacted from the L/24 75mm gun used by the early Panzer IV's and the Panzer III Ns (I think they got the 75mm short gun from the N on, but I could be wrong).



> I know nothing about tanks, but i do know that the TIger had an 88mm gun and good armor so I will go with that


Eh, good choice, but not enough were produced to change the war, but then thats about one of the few arguments against it.


----------



## Soren (Apr 15, 2008)

If its about the best in North Africa then it's the Tiger ofcourse, as for the whole war in the west well then it's the Panther.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 15, 2008)

To argue that one weapon system alone can win battles is a silly argument. If there is one thing that blitzkrieg theory teaches us, its that its an all arms affair. The correct answer to this whole question of which tank is better, is to look at the roles they fulfilled. and this argument that the tiger is, or is not an offensive tank is a nonsense as well

Tiger I and II were neither offensive or defensive tanks, they were support tanks. In an ideal battle they fulfilled this type of role....the enemy attacks your defensive position, you decimate him with your heavy tanks, then countersttack with your lighter vehicles, (Mks IV and V), with the Mk Vs leading the arrowhead formations. The Tigers are still in support, sitting, preferably from some hilltop vantage point, just blasting anything that tries to move.

What is true is that the Tiger was a terrible close in fighting tank. It was simply too slow, turret traverse rate was horrible, and no tank is completely invulnerable from all angles. What it excels at is the support role, sitting back at a distance and picking off targets at range.

Germans were never able to concentrate enough armour , AND provide the air support in anything like proper quantities, to pull this type of arrangement properly. Thank god for air superiority


----------



## bf109 Emil (May 11, 2008)

a firefly might be the sherman you are seeking...
as this video points to an almost fatal or flaw in American tank design...to bad the British had to modify theirs and not the production in the American factories done this to all tanks...just an interesting clip you might want to view...
bf109 Emil 
_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBp4eWqXfno_


----------



## Kruska (May 11, 2008)

Hello Parsifal,

Very well put in a few sentences. 

Regards
Kruska


----------



## bf109 Emil (Jun 5, 2008)

if a tank has no fuel, what good are optics


----------



## dragonandhistail (Feb 3, 2009)

The Sherman wins hands down. It was mechanically reliable, well armored in the desert compared to most, had a strong gun for that time period, was available in large numbers, and was easy to maintain. Don't forget it chased the Afrika Corps out of Egypt all the way to Tunisia and if anyone had been planning El Alamein besides Montgomery it would have routed the Germans and Italians and been in Tunis long before the Germans could have reinforced the bridgehead. Fascination with defensive siege machines like the Tiger is misguided. They are great in long range open terrain defensive shoots. While it had thicker armor, better optics, and a better gun it was slow, awkward, mechanically very complex, heavy on fuel consumption, and prone to breakdown. The bottom line like in aerial combat is the crew and the leadership make all the difference. Inferior vehicles win because they outmaneuver the others through training and guile and get the side or rear shot where no one has thick armor. The Sherman, like the T-34 was a war winner. The Germans should have stuck with the long barreled MK IV alone and not wasted time on giant behemoths that took too much effort to produce at such great expense. You could produce 2-4 MKIVs for every Tiger or Panther. I'd rather have a platoon of MK IVs than one Tiger.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 3, 2009)

It is silly to compare Tiger with other tanks in N.Africa: the thing was there for couple a months, while others soldiered from 1940 on.

Sherman was a choice there. From pure combat qualities, to the logistical ones.
It's German counterpart, the Pz IV was also a good machine, but it's armor left something to be desired.

It's a misconception that Germans were better off without Panther*. It costed a little more then Pz III/IV, while it gave Russkies and W. Allies a good run for their money. It was Tiger that was expensive, both in RM and man-hours.

*not implying that Panther was ideal - it was far from it.


----------



## Amsel (Feb 3, 2009)

I would rather have 1 Tiger then 4 Shermans. Especially if Whittman was the commander.


----------



## MacArther (Feb 3, 2009)

> I would rather have 1 Tiger then 4 Shermans. Especially if Whittman was the commander



Even if the 4 Shermans were all Firefly type? The Tiger was great for defensive action but incredibly taxing on the monetary and material points. The Sherman was the opposite: not so good at defense, great maneuverability, decent speed, cheap and easy to produce. Once a high-velocity 76mm gun or a 17 pounder gun was introduced to the basic Sherman, it was more than adequate for anti-armor duties. This rings especially true because while there may be 1 really good Tiger and crew, there would also be 4+ Shermans (not including the Firefly of the troop) converging on that one Tiger.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 3, 2009)

One on one, I would take that Tiger over a Sherman.

The Sherman however was a war winner as was pointed out. Why? Because they were cheap and easily built. You could mass produce them easier. In a war like this, you need to be able to put out more than your opponent.


----------



## MacArther (Feb 3, 2009)

Agreed. If it were one on one Tiger vs Sherman, I'd take the Tiger, and If I was in the Sherman I would pray to God that the first shot from the Tiger missed and that I somehow shot somewhere that disabled the site for the main gun or the rotation of the turret. Considering how unlikely this is given the normal shot range and accuracy of the Tiger VS the Sherman, I'll whole heartedly agree that going mano a mano with a Tiger while in a Sherman was tantamount to signing a last will and testament. Still, by the time the Tiger's were available in large numbers, the Shermans and other Allied tanks were opposing 1 tiger with 4 and usually more of their own against one Tiger.

PS: Sorry if it sounds like I'm repeating the same lines over and over, but I'm at college and currently with out all my technical books and personal account books from ANY war.


----------



## Valo300 (Feb 9, 2009)

The Tiger I was not a good tank simply because it was too expensive, complex, and trouble prone. As a 1 on 1 duelist chariot, sure, it was great. But as a tank built to win a war for it's nation, it was a total disaster.

The best Western tank of WWII that actually fought and contributed was clearly the (US) M4A3E8(76) "Easy Eight" Sherman (With HVAP-T ammunition an Easy Eight sherman could defeat the frontal armor of a Tiger at 1000m). The best British version of the M4 was the excellent 17lb gun armed Firefly V.

The best overall Western tank DESIGN of WWII was the Centurion.


----------



## Doughboy (Apr 23, 2009)

The Pzkpfw IV might be the best.


----------



## Doughboy (Apr 23, 2009)

Valo300 said:


> The Tiger I was not a good tank simply because it was too expensive, complex, and trouble prone. As a 1 on 1 duelist chariot, sure, it was great. But as a tank built to win a war for it's nation, it was a total disaster.


I aggree...It used alot of oil also.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 23, 2009)

Didn't the Centurion get in rather late in the war?


----------



## Soren (Apr 23, 2009)

Despite what one person here has said the Pzkpfw.V was about as ideal as a tank could be during WW2. The Panther was fast, reliable(Not to begin with), very well armoured and excellently armed (Featured the allround best AT gun of WW2) All in all the Panther was probably the tank which gave the biggest bang for the buck made doing WW2, I mean the beast could knock out a Sherman at 3.5 km, outrun it navigate over far greater obstacles.

The bst tank of WW2 is without any doubt the Pzkpfw.V Panther, and it was lucky for the Western allies that German didn't sieze the production of vehicles like the Tiger Pz.IV's and concentrated on the Panther. The Tiger, nomatter the version, was completely 'overkill' as the modern generation would put it.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 24, 2009)

While being one of the best tanks of WWII, Panther did have some issues.

The drive train suspension problems were rectified with Ausf A and/or Ausf G, so late 1943-early 1944. The suspension was complicated, dictating interlocked wheels that clogged with freezing mud. Also the suspension added height, which ramped up the hull volume needing protection. It also made Panther a better target. 
The armour protection was somewhat light for a heavy tank; M 26 was lighter and better protected, while IS series offered much ticker armour at the same weight.
The gun was potent armour killer against any medium tank, but HE shell was to light for such a big expensive piece of hardware. Since the soviets fielded during the war some 100 000 (yep, 100K) pieces of ZiS-3 guns alone, the need for a heavy HE shell was there*.
The turret ring was to narrow to permit installation of a 8,8cm gun, not L56 nor L71 versions. 

Saying all that, many of allied tankers woud've wanted to use the Panthers against the former users.


*I know that this is a N. Africa thread, but since we're talking about Panthers..


----------



## Soren (Apr 24, 2009)

tomo,

The interlocking wheels is about the only area where the later Panthers could have some issues, and that mostly involves the difficulty in replacing them if they were damaged.

As for the turret ring, you seem to be mixing up some info regarding the Pz IV with the Panther, cause the turret ring of the Panther was more than big enough for an 8.8cm gun. However the turret itself was too small to permit fast reloads with a gun like the 8.8cm KwK43. But the Germans were already making a turret fitted with the 8.8cm KwK43 for the Panther, but the rear of the turret needed to be extended to allow better space of reloading and possibly ammunition storage.

As for the 7.5cm KwK42, it was more than adequate for dealing with any Heavy tank the Allies possessed which included the IS-2, so the M26 Pershing wasn't going to be a problem. Furthermore the Pershing wasn't better armoured than the Panther, it was roughly the same. But most importantly the Pershing was mechanically extremely unreliable, the engine transmission being even more prone to failure than those same parts in the 68 ton heavy Tiger Ausf.B.


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 24, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> One on one, I would take that Tiger over a Sherman.
> 
> The Sherman however was a war winner as was pointed out. Why? Because they were cheap and easily built. You could mass produce them easier. In a war like this, you need to be able to put out more than your opponent.



100% agree, that what I tried to get Kenny to agree to. But he seems unable to see the simple facts. 

Can't debate with people who fail to admit the truth due to their own personal issues or agendas.

1 vs 1 Tiger kills Sherman 9/10 times.

During a war I would also take the Sherman due to the reasons you listed already. We with open minds can see and agree on these things others refuse to see the simple facts.


----------



## m kenny (Apr 24, 2009)

Hunter368 said:


> 100% agree, that what I tried to get Kenny to agree to. But he seems unable to see the simple facts. Can't debate with people who fail to admit the truth due to their own personal issues or agendas.




Failure to agree with your opinion is a 'personal issue'? A clearer example of hubris could not be found.
Maybe you should have a warning at the top of each thread informing potential dissenters of the 'simple facts' so they do not make the mistake of contradicting the 'truth'.
Perhaps I just lack your superior insight?





Hunter368 said:


> 1 vs 1 Tiger kills Sherman 9/10 times.


Yet actual combat (rather than unrealistic encounters specificaly designed to give your prefered choice the edge) is 95/100 times a large scale encounter between massed tanks. 
Perhaps you can give some examples where single Tigers met single Shermans in real life?



> We with open minds can see and agree on these things others refuse to see the simple facts.



Again I can only appologise for my inability to see the Emperors new clothes.


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 24, 2009)

m kenny said:


> Failure to agree with your opinion is a 'personal issue'? A clearer example of hubris could not be found.
> Maybe you should have a warning at the top of each thread informing potential dissenters of the 'simple facts' so they do not make the mistake of contradicting the 'truth'.
> Perhaps I just lack your superior insight?
> 
> ...




It is not my opinion, you were asked a simple question over and over. Simply answer the question. You always refused to give a simple answer to a simple question b/c you refused to post the fact it would be safer to be in a Tiger then a Sherman. You were just being silly and stuborn. 

Funny how you combined my two seprate paragraghs assuming I was referring to you in both. Hmmmmm Feeling a little guility perhaps?

The question set to you was never said to be to be realistic. It was as simple as black and white or 1+1=2 question. 1 vs 1 which would you sooner be in? Tiger or Sherman. Simple but you refused page after page b/c you knew the Tiger was better. Let go of your pride and just say it, I promise it will not hurt you to admit it. I quit debating with you then as I am soon to again b/c your pride refuses to let you admit the truth. A person cannot argue with a fool or someone so filled with pride to admit the truth.

Trying to get you to post anything postive about anything that is not Allied made seems to be impossible so why waste my time and effort. You will choose to believe whatever you want dispite what anyone tells or shows you.

1 vs 1 or 30 vs 30 it does not matter. Equal numbers of tanks Tiger will beat Sherman nearly everytime. The reason what made the Sherman tank better was it was so simple to make in massive number compared to the Tiger.

If numbers were 5 Shermans vs 1 Tiger, then I would choose the Sherman. But this was not the question.


----------



## m kenny (Apr 25, 2009)

Hunter368 said:


> . I quit debating with you then as I am soon to again b/c your pride refuses to let you admit *the truth.* A person cannot argue with a fool or someone so filled with pride to admit *the truth.*
> You will choose to believe whatever you want dispite what anyone tells or shows you.




I know it's frustrating when other fail to follow your reasoning but you will just have to learn to accept it.
I am sure the barrage of sourced and referenced posts you put out will eventualy wear me down. Until that day comfort yourself with the knowledge you are the keeper of '*the truth'.*


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 25, 2009)

Hi, Soren,

The interlocking wheels "double torsion bars suspension" (my term, but it's pictoresque nevertheless  ) were not a necessity for Germans to employ for Panther. The Pz-III suspension pattern was one of the best in the world, so they've just could scale that up. Or copy the same system from captured KV tanks. 
Of course, their choice was the pattern from half-tracks, more complicated, more expensive, dictating the higher hull etc. The mud was clogging for sure.

As for turret ring, I'm not sure that the bigger gun could be mounted in it. It was never fielded anyway. 
And, the most prominent new turret for Panther was named Schmallturm, "Narrow turret" in English. For that one it's even less likely to have anything bigger than 7,5cm installed.
I have no "quarrels" about penetrating abilities of the Panther's gun*;the 6kg HE shell is to shabby for a 45 ton tank.


*at least until confronted against IS-2's frontal armour that is.


----------



## Soren (Apr 26, 2009)

tomo,

I can assure you that the turret ring was large enough, it was the same size as that of the Tiger Ausf.B IIRC, which was big enough to accommodate the 12.8cm PaK44 L/55 gun. The part needing to be enlarged was the turret, and the designs were already there.

As for the Panther's suspension, it was a work of art, it provided the smoothest ride of any tank, which is exactly the reason that it was chosen for both the Tiger Panther. The downside was the complex setup, which meant repairs were very time consuming.

Finally the 7.5cm KwK42 was more than adequate even in a headon engagement with an IS-2. The only safe spot on the IS-2 in a long range engagement was it's upper front glacis plate, the lower front hull front turret was vulnerable to the 7.5cm KwK42 even at very long range. Hence why a small number of Tiger Ausf.E's were able to slaughter 15 IS-2's in a headon engagement taking place at a distance of 1500 meters in early 1944.


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 26, 2009)

m kenny said:


> I know it's frustrating when other fail to follow your reasoning but you will just have to learn to accept it.
> I am sure the barrage of sourced and referenced posts you put out will eventualy wear me down. Until that day comfort yourself with the knowledge you are the keeper of '*the truth'.*



Dance around as much as you like Kenny you can't avoid it.

It's not my reasining I am asking you to follow, I am telling to look at the facts on each tank. Which you know as well or better then me. Anyone who would suggest a Sherman is better then a Tiger in one on one fight is beyond reason or common sense.

Sourced and referenced posts????? I don't need any look at the facts in any books showing both tanks. Pick one book any book with their stats and that is good enough. You are amusing Kenny for someone who knows the facts already and yet refusing to admit them. Thats sad it really is, it shows your true character. If you can't look at two machines made by two different countries and just admit one is better then the other even if it was not a Allied machine. Very sad.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 26, 2009)

Hi Soren,

Any info about Tiger II being equipped with 12,8cm in a rotating turret? 
Again, even if there was a possibility of arming a Panther a bigger gun, it was never fielded.

As for the Panther's suspension: it was indeed a work of art. But the Panther was a war machine, not a sculpture. The implementation of KISS (=keep it simple, stupid ) strategy there would be better for that part.


----------



## m kenny (Apr 26, 2009)

Hunter368 said:


> Anyone who would suggest a Sherman is better then a Tiger in one on one fight is beyond reason or common sense.



One should reflect that no person has espoused such a case. 
What you failed to realise is YOU invented this scenario and now you rant and rail against your own invention!
Oh the irony...............



Hunter368 said:


> Sourced and referenced posts????? I don't need any look at the facts


More so when you are in possesion of '*the truth*

Basicaly what we have here is one poster throwing a tantrum because someone else fails to agree with his '*'truth'* 
Demanding that everyone should be forced to answer contrived scenarios and then suggesting they have 'issues' if they decline to become ensnared in your trap are typical playground bullying tactics.

Go to it tiger (ironic play on words), make me say 'uncle'!


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 26, 2009)

m kenny said:


> One should reflect that no person has espoused such a case.
> What you failed to realise is YOU invented this scenario and now you rant and rail against your own invention!
> Oh the irony...............
> 
> ...




Is it my scenario I am asking you to answer? Yes, but you refuse to b/c the answer goes against your beloved Sherman. You keep trying to change the subject or the question and I will not let you. So you can weasel your way around it as much as you like. Answer my question and if you do not you are as good as admitting I am correct. So being we have this round and round for pages and you will not answer my question I will take it then you refuse to b/c you know I am correct. I am not ranting or mad I am just ammused you will not answer a simple question. Thanks

I am not asking you to agree with me just answer the question I have asked over and over. By not answering it again I will take that as your admission you know I am correct. Thanks

"contrived scenarios" is what you call it? I call it simple question again that is you trying the worn your way out of answering it. Again thanks your lack of an answer is clear to me "you know".

"ensnared in your trap are typical playground bullying tactics" - LOL thanks again I am glad for are so easily of a push over. Trap? Nope just a simple question which is no trick, just a question. Again you refuse to answer showing me you know the answer and are just too little to post it. Sad really.

Your last post really has shown me the type of poster you are. Afraid to answer anything that does not agree with his agenda or ideas. Thus a waste of time. Truely sad, just another type of troll poster. Trolls are not worth responding to.


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 26, 2009)

Perhaps this is the wrong thread for this but what the heck.

Which would you all sooner have as a Med Main Battle Tank? Sherman or T-34?


----------



## Amsel (Apr 26, 2009)

T-34


----------



## m kenny (Apr 26, 2009)

Hunter368 said:


> I will not let you...........
> Answer my question...........
> *I am correct.* ...........
> you will not answer my question ..........
> ...



You vill answer my questions, ve haff vays of making you talk..............


----------



## m kenny (Apr 26, 2009)

Soren said:


> I can assure you that the turret ring was large enough, it was the same size as that of the Tiger Ausf.B IIRC, which was big enough to accommodate the 12.8cm PaK44 L/55 gun.



Spielberger, Panther Its Variants:

_"The three-man turret rotated through a full 360 degrees
and supported itself on a carrier ring resting on the turret
bearing race of 1650 mm diameter."_

Spielberger, Panther Its Variants, page 171.

"Turret ring diameter 1650mm"
ibid, page 233.

in Spielberger's book 'Tiger I and II And Their Variants' page 195 
_"Turret:
diameter of turning circle 1850 mm"_

Thus a difference of 200 mm (8 inches)



Soren said:


> a small number of Tiger Ausf.E's were able to slaughter 15 IS-2's in a headon engagement taking place at a distance of 1500 meters in early 1944



Details please, I want to check that out.


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 26, 2009)

Amsel said:


> T-34



Agreed, while the Sherman had its plus to it T-34 was a beast.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 26, 2009)

m kenny said:


> You vill answer my questions, ve haff vays of making you talk..............



That is pretty rude. Your British, are your teeth throwing gang symbols?

Now that I have stepped as low as some of the members here and become insulting, I will state it one more time. If this thread becomes personal, infractions will be handed to all parties!

Does everyone understand?


----------



## Hunter368 (Apr 26, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> That is pretty rude. Your British, are your teeth throwing gang symbols?
> 
> Now that I have stepped as low as some of the members here and become insulting, I will state it one more time. If this thread becomes personal, infractions will be handed to all parties!
> 
> Does everyone understand?



Understood, I was stated in my last post I am done responding to any trolls regardless of who they are. Thanks Chris nice to see you again, I have been gone too long.


----------



## Soren (Apr 26, 2009)

tomo pauk said:


> Hi Soren,
> 
> Any info about Tiger II being equipped with 12,8cm in a rotating turret?



None were built, but the turret ring was big enough to support it (Although not as big as the Tiger's as I recalled). The only reason the Tiger Ausf.B wasn't equipped with the 12.8cm L/55 gun to begin with was 1.) That the 8.8cm KwK43 was already overkill against anything the Allies possessed, and 2.) That the reloading time of the PaK44 was absolutely awful compared to the KwK43, and 3.) That there wasn't space for more than 20 or so 12.8cm projectiles their cartridges.

Just to give an impression of the difference in size between the 8.8cm 12.8cm rounds:






> Again, even if there was a possibility of arming a Panther a bigger gun, it was never fielded.



That's true, and that because it simply wasn't needed.



> As for the Panther's suspension: it was indeed a work of art. But the Panther was a war machine, not a sculpture. The implementation of KISS (=keep it simple, stupid ) strategy there would be better for that part.



Well I disagree as it allowed the Panther to smoothly navigate over obstacles with unrivalled speed, being the tank in the world with by far the best offroad performance.


----------



## MacArther (Apr 26, 2009)

> That's true, and that because it simply wasn't needed.


Then why was the late model of the Panther tank turret redesigned to take the 88mm? Could be wrong and be talking about the Panther II, but I think even the normal Panther was eventually considered for the 88mm.


----------



## Soren (Apr 26, 2009)

Well in part because the Germans knew that the Soviets were soon gonna come up with a heavier tank, so they wanted to be prepared, but for the most part because they wanted the better HE capability of the 8.8cm round. 

But war is always a race of arms, so.


----------



## bigZ (Apr 26, 2009)

I am no tank expert but wasn't the panthers final drive unit weak due to lack of suitable gear cutting machinery towards the end of the war? Also was difficult to service due to the design of suspension?

The sherman on the other hand had the superior double helical gear and a few bolts to undo the front to gain access.


----------



## Soren (Apr 26, 2009)

Yeah the final drive could prove troublesome, but with a good driver it was fine.


----------



## MacArther (Apr 27, 2009)

> with a good driver it was fine.


How many of those were there in late 1944 through 1945?


----------



## Soren (Apr 28, 2009)

It wasn't that hard MacArther, it was just a matter of not overstressing the drive by being to abrupt with the clutch. It was much worse with the Tiger Ausf.B, that tank really needed a good driver to keep the drive alive for any long period of time.


----------



## hartmann (Apr 29, 2009)

Hello to all ¡

Soren, I didn´t knew about upguning the Tiger II with the 12,8 cm, just only with a 10,5 cm 65 calibres developed by Krupp. Could You post more info abut this?

A lot of thanks and best regards


----------



## Stitch (May 15, 2009)

AFAIK, the PzKpfz 182 was never considered for the KwK 44, it was simply too large for the chassis; they had enough trouble trying to fit it in the Sd. Kfz. 186 _Jagdtiger_. However, both the Maus and the E-100 were capable of handling the KwK 44 L/55.


----------



## GeeGee (May 20, 2009)

plan_D said:


> posted in 2005
> 
> The optics on the Pz. Kwpf IV Ausf F/2 were not amazing. I fail to see where you get that idea. TZF5f had a maximum range of 3,300 metres with high explosive (HE) ammo, reduce that to 2,500 metres in tank combat for the armour piercing round.... []
> 
> ...



Hi,
I know that this is a pretty old post from 2005, but I'd still like to throw in my 2 cents, as the original poster obviously doesn't know what he's talking about...., so here goes:

The optics used in the Panzer IV were in fact superior. Interesting enough, the Russians copied the TZF 5f (as far as I know they got the manufacturing tools directly from Zeiss, in the 1930s) and employed the copy in their T-34 later on.

Let me quote a vital part with a veteran account collected by G. Green (from Green's book "Panzers at War", page 60):



> Quote from "Panzers at War", by G. Green, page 60
> 
> "German optical sights were far superior to anything the Western Allies or the Red Army mounted on their tanks during World War II.
> Tom Sator, an M4 Sherman medium tank crewman who served in the U.S. Army's 4th Armored Division in Western Europe from late 1944 through the end of the war, remembers his first chance to look through the gunner's sight on a Pz.Kpfw.IV with the long 75mm gun tube:
> ...



Another quote, from "M4 (76mm) Sherman Medium Tank 1943 - 65" by Steven J. Zaloga, page 6, discussing the shortcomings of the earlier versions of the M4 (with the 75mm gun), particularly the periscopic gun sights in the early versions (M39A2 i guess):



> "The fighting in North Africa revealed the inadequacy of periscopic sights for gun aiming, and both US and British officers recommended following the German example and shifting to a high-power telescopic sight. As a result, the M1 gun was mounted on the modified M34A1 combination gun mount with a new telescopic sight. Trials revealed that the internal counterweight that the internal counterweight was not adequate to balance the turret. Rather than simply graft another counterweight to the rear of the existing turret, Pressed Steel Car Company was authorized to manufacture 12 M4A1 (76M1) tanks with a modified cast turret with an integral counterweight. The first of these was delivered in February 1943 to the Armored Board at Fort Knox. The trials concluded that internal turret space in the tank was unsatisfactory, and the design was criticized as an improvised "quick fix" not suitable for troop use."



That means that the 75mm Shermans deployed to the African theater did not have telescopic sights, and the badly equipped tank destroyers (with their open turrets) probably didn't have these either. 
The 76mm Shermans with telescopic sights then weren't put into mass production before mid 1943 (maybe even later, at the end of the same year, I would have to look it up), and, due to various disputes among officers in the Armoured Board and the Ordnance office, they weren't even directly sent to the Italian theater, although US tankers in Italy desperately demanded the deployment of the 76mm Shermans, as they had to face Panthers for the very first time (some time after the landings at Anzio, Italy), along with upgraded Panzer IVs, with both being enemy assets that proved the 75mm Shermans to be less effective, or even absolutely ineffective when firing at a Panthers sloped front glacis or gun mantlet (see sources covering the US trial in 1944, where 76 mm guns (M10?) fired at a captured Panther tank, unable to penetrate the Panther's glacis at all, the projectiles just bounced or just inflicted minor damge (dents ) - not even at close range, as the sloped 80mm front armor equates to a vertical 120mm armor plate , while being able to penetrate the mantlet - but at very short ranges only - I think 200 yards, IIRC).

These disputes (mostly about ammo supply, as the 76mm version needed different ammunition, and it was less effective as infantry support tank, due to different size of HE chambers, and due to the fact that their crews had ZERO experience) led to a situation where 76mm Shermans weren't even scheduled for the Normandy operation in 1944, although they were available in numbers - with them just sitting in the UK, at least until operation Cobra.

Regarding the British tanks being "inferior":
Well, their guns were inferior, but not their armor. The Matilda II tank was basically invulnerable to the Panzer III's 50mm gun at medium and long range (if it didn't fire the rare AP rounds with tungsten cores) - the Panzer III was the work horse of the Germans in Africa all through the desert campaign, but, in turn, the Matilda's 40-mm gun did not have the penetration power to destroy German tanks at medium or long range. The Valentine and Crusader were faster / more mobile, but still lacked penetration power as they all employed the 40-mm gun. The distribution of Panzer IVs and the removal of the Panzer II from frontline service changed things tremendously, as it totally negated the initial British superiority in armor protection (compared to Italian tanks and German Panzer I-III).

But the real tank killer (in defensive actions, and until the Tiger I appeared in North Africa) was the 88mm Flak, as it featured Zeiss optics that were even better (and bigger) than the relatively small ones in the Pz. IV F2, where the gun's accuracy and range enabled Flak crews to kill Allied tanks at ranges of up to 1,800 meters.

That said, German sights were superior, at this stage of the war for sure, at least.


----------



## Soren (May 21, 2009)

The German optical sights were far superior to anyone elses throughout the war, but they were also time consuming and expensive to make. 

The tank gun telescopic sights used were either of binocular or monocular type, and they featured two selectable magnification settings of 2.5x or 5x. The lower magnification provided a wider field of view for target identification. The higher magnification assisted in precise aiming at long ranges. Two adjustable range scales allowed the gunner to register the exact range to the target for what'ever type ammunition used.


----------



## GeeGee (May 21, 2009)

Soren said:


> The tank gun telescopic sights used were either of binocular or monocular type, and they featured two selectable magnification settings of 2.5x or 5x.



While this may be true regarding later TZF devices employed in the Panther and Königstiger tanks, the *TZF 5b* employed in the Pz IV Ausführung B-F featured 2.5x magnification and the TZF 5f employed in those Pz IVs that had been upgraded with the long barreled 75mm gun (Pz IV Ausführung F2) featured 2.5x magnification only, as well.

German military optics


----------



## Soren (May 21, 2009)

That is true GeeGee, but you forgot to mention the Tiger Ausf.E


----------



## GeeGee (May 21, 2009)

Soren said:


> That is true GeeGee, but you forgot to mention the Tiger Ausf.E



Nah, that's why I mentioned Panthers and Tigers... 

I should add that the TZF 5f had been employed in Pz IV Ausf. G as well, so 5x magnification wasn't available in the African theater, at least not in Pz IV models.

In turn, the *M39A2* employed in 75mm Shermans featured *1.8x* (!!!) magnification only, and the periscopic sight had a lower quality than comparable Zeiss optics used by the Germans, so this added to the Allied disadvantage.

The 76mm Shermans finally received 5x gun sights (M71D), which provided a FOV of 13 degrees only lol, though.

So you can tell that German optics were up front regarding performance and quality, mostly.

http://www.simcentrum.com/uploads/USTank-optics.pdf


----------



## renrich (May 22, 2009)

Whichever one of those which was the Panther. I believe that once the bugs were ironed out the Panther was the best tank to see major action in the war. If it had seen much action it would be interesting to compare the Panther and the Pershing.


----------



## Soren (May 22, 2009)

The Pershing sadly wasn't a very good tank. Unlike most other US tank designs the Pershing was very unreliable, even more so than the German Tiger Ausf.B, which is saying a lot really. The protection was good, and so was the armament, but compared to the German tanks already in service it just wasn't enough, the 75mm KwK42 on the Panther being capable of punching straight through the gun mantlet like a hot knife through butter even at 2,000 + meters.


----------



## Juha (May 23, 2009)

Soren
Quote: "the 75mm KwK42 on the Panther being capable of punching straight through the gun mantlet like a hot knife through butter even at 2,000 + meters. "

Wasn't the gun mantlet of M26 14% thicker than that of Panther? So that worked to both directions.
And maybe even more to other direction, 7,5cm KwK 42 and US 90mm having almost same penetration power at 1000y 121mm vs 120mm homogenous armour at 30deg, KwK being better under 1000y distances, 90mm being better over 1000y distances.

Juha


----------



## renrich (May 23, 2009)

From reading in Wiki, it seems that the Pershing was pretty effective against other tanks including the Tiger but had teething problems early on, just like Tiger and Panther. The AD I was in in early 60s was equipped with offspring of the Pershing and the M41.


----------



## Soren (Jun 11, 2009)

Renrich,

The teething problems that the Pershing suffered were worse than those of the Tiger Ausf.B and much worse than those of the Tiger Ausf.E, and this is while adding no significant improvement in protection over say a Jumbo and no improvement in firepower compared to the already available TD's. So the Tiger Pershing can't really be compared. 

Furthermore the Pershing hardly saw any combat, and when it did it was in close range engagements where it was very carefully used, which was the main reason it usually did well in the engagements it paticipated in. It wasn't used in any spearhead action, the Sherman was still dedicated to that role even when the Pershing was available, and mainly because it really wouldn't have made any difference except for losing a Pershing instead of a Sherman, and since the Pershing was the more expensive the choice was simple. 

A good example of this is a famous filmed action with a Pershing equipped regiment in Germany. A Sherman EasyEight was selected to spearhead an attack inside a city while the assisting Pershing was carefully used in the same manner as the very lightly armoured TD's. What ended up happening was that the Sherman EE ran into a Panther and got blown up, the driver radio operator getting killed emmidiately with the first shot and the rest of the crew escaping badly burned. The Pershing then carefully began stalking the Panther, catching it by surprise from the right flank and putting two AP rounds into its' thinly armoured side, killing the driver and radio operator (Seems like the worst spot for any tanker by now  ).

Good tactics won the day.

3 Pershings got knocked out before the war ended, two by Tiger I's and one by a Nashorn TD. The first was by a Tiger which fired an AP shell through a building which then continued through the side of the Pershing's turret.


----------



## m kenny (Jun 11, 2009)

Soren said:


> Renrich,
> 
> The teething problems that the Pershing suffered were worse than those of the Tiger Ausf.B and much worse than those of the Tiger Ausf.E, and this is while adding no significant improvement in protection over say a Jumbo and no improvement in firepower compared to the already available TD's. So the Tiger Pershing can't really be compared.
> 
> ...



The information on the Pershing casualties can be found on pages 9-32 of Hunnicutt's book 'A History Of The Medium Tank T20 Series'.
The 3 casualties were
'Fireball' number 38. Knocked out at Elsdorf by a Tiger on 25/2/45. Hit 3 times one of which penetrated through the co-ax MG port. Another bounced off the turret and a third hit the muzzle brake. The tank was repaired and was back in action by 7/3/45.
Number 22. Hit by 2 large calibre (Field Artillery?)high explosive rounds 1/3/45. The crew were inspecting the damage caused by the first hit when the second struck, killing one man. The tank was repaired and returned to service.
Number 25. Hit by a Nashorn at 300 yds. penetrated through the lower hull front. All crew escaped unharmed. Tank written off as unrepairable

The following is a Tiger that was attacked FRONTALLY by a Pershing. The Tiger was pentrated and knocked out.


----------



## m kenny (Jun 11, 2009)

This is the Tiger that knocked out Fireball. It got stuck in the rubble and the crew fled


----------



## m kenny (Jun 11, 2009)

First 2 pics are no.22. Destroyed by Artillery hit 1/3/45.

Next is no.38, Fireball ko'd 28/2/45 by a Tiger. 

Lastly no.25, hit by the Nashorn 1/3/45. All photos from Hunnicutt


----------



## Soren (Jun 11, 2009)

Wow! Did the Pershing REALLY penetrate the Tiger Ausf.E's FRONTAL armour at 200 yards or less ?? Damn! That's like 110 mm of vertical armour!


----------



## Soren (Jun 11, 2009)

Some other pictures:

As can be seen only one shot bounced off, and that because it was a glancing hit.


----------



## Soren (Jun 11, 2009)

Btw, it is said that the Pershing (Fireball) was hit only twice, the projectile which struck the muzzle brake is the same which hit the upper right hand corner of the turret, it just continued through the muzzle brake.


----------



## m kenny (Jun 11, 2009)

Soren said:


> Wow! Did the Pershing REALLY penetrate the Tiger Ausf.E's FRONTAL armour at 200 yards or less ?? Damn! That's like 110 mm of vertical armour!



One of the hits was through the manlet.
There are those who like to say things like:

_'The Pershing then carefully began stalking the Panther, catching it by *surprise* from the right flank and putting two AP rounds into its' *thinly* armoured side'_

so I thought I would give an example where a Pershing attacked from the front. No way to insuinuate it was _stalking_ or _suprisimg_ it's victim here!

I never mentioned the range and your source for the _200yds or less_ does not agree with the account in Hunnicutt. There you find the range was 900yds. The T26 (Pershing)No. 40 hit the Tiger twice with AP (T30E16 Projectile) and twice with HE. It then engaged 2 PzIV's at 1200 yds and despatched both with one hit each.


----------



## Soren (Jun 11, 2009)

Haha, you're the most easily agitated man on this forum! Say one thing that can in extreme cases be taken like some sort of negative insinuation about an Allied tank and you go nuts. lol

Well m_kenny I'm sorry but the camera man himself mentions that the Pershing was stalking the Panther and caught it offguard from its' right flank. That having been said it was a close call as the Panther's turret had begun to swivel in the Pershing's direction just before the first shot.


----------



## Soren (Jun 11, 2009)

Btw, the T30E16 projectile was the US 90mm HVAP round. With HVAP rounds even a 6 pdr could prove a danger to a Tiger because of its straight armour, albeit only at close range.


----------



## comiso90 (Jun 11, 2009)

The Pershing was so scarce that it's not even worth mentioning... it is a footnote at best. I wouldn't even consider it as a combatant in WW2..

I put it in the same curiosity category as the TA-152 and the HE 162

.


----------



## Doughboy (Jun 11, 2009)

comiso90 said:


> The Pershing was so scarce that it's not even worth mentioning... it is a footnote at best. I wouldn't even consider it as a combatant in WW2..
> 
> I put it in the same curiosity category as the TA-152 and the HE 162
> 
> .


Well said.


----------



## m kenny (Jun 11, 2009)

Soren said:


> Haha, you're the most easily agitated man on this forum! Say one thing that can in extreme cases be taken like some sort of negative insinuation about an Allied tank and you go nuts.



I simply try and help out when someone posts without checking the veracity of his contribution

Take this for example:


Soren said:


> 3 Pershings got knocked out before the war ended, two by Tiger I's and one by a Nashorn TD. The first was by a Tiger which fired an AP shell through a building which then continued through the side of the Pershing's turret



Tigers did not destroy 2 Pershings and there was no 'shot through a building'. 



Soren said:


> A good example of this is a famous filmed action with a Pershing equipped regiment in Germany. A Sherman *EasyEight* was selected to spearhead an attack inside a city while the assisting Pershing was carefully used in the same manner as the very lightly armoured TD's.















No HVSS there is there?



Soren said:


> ]What ended up happening was that the Sherman EE ran into a Panther and got blown up, the driver radio operator getting killed emmidiately with the first shot and the rest of the crew escaping badly burned. The Pershing then carefully began stalking the Panther, catching it by surprise from the right flank and putting two AP rounds into its' thinly armoured side



US Tanks were advancing down a number of streets to reach the Cathederal. A check of the After The Battle Magazine No. 104 shows just how many Shermans were present. The Panther fired at the Shermans (Plural) in front of it in Komodien-Strasse. Almost at the same time a Pershing advancing down Marzellen-Sreasse saw the Panther and within seconds of the Sherman being hit knocked out the Panther. No stalking or creeping about involved.













Soren said:


> Well m_kenny I'm sorry but the camera man himself mentions that the Pershing was stalking the Panther and caught it offguard from its' right flank.



Which cameraman? There were several present:
Captain Charles Malley.
Sargeant Voight Carrell
Sargeant Harold Robert.
Tech/5 John Himes
Tech/3 Leon Rosenberg
Tech/4 James Bates
Fred Ramage
Eric Schwab
Allan Jackson

A link for more info

http://www.anicursor.com/colpicwar2.html


----------



## Soren (Jun 11, 2009)

Well that was actually an excellent coverage of what happened. It was in a National Geographic documentary that one of the camera men were interviewed and he said the Pershing was stalking the Panther after the Sherman had been hit. 

The Panther apparently opened fire from over 300m away and knocked out the Sherman. After that the Panther continued straight ahead closing on the burning Sherman, and when it was about 120m away the Pershing came in from a street to the left of the Panther, (The guy says it had been stalking it) knocking it out with 3 shots. And looking at the link you provided that is indeed what is described there as-well.


----------



## m kenny (Jun 11, 2009)

Soren said:


> The Panther apparently opened fire from over 300m away and knocked out the Sherman. After that the Panther continued straight ahead closing on the burning Sherman, and when it was about 120m away the Pershing came in from a street to the left of the Panther, (The guy says it had been stalking it) knocking it out with 3 shots. And looking at the link you provided that is indeed what is described there as-well.



Fred Ramage (who took the photo of the crewman falling from the back of the Sherman) was present when the tank was hit. He states that the Panther was visible to the Shermans.
The film of the Panther being hit was taken by Rosenberg and Bates and they say that the Panther was in full view of them and they thought it was knocked out. It did not move and they were suprised when it started firing at The Shermans. That is when they started filming it and they caught the Pershing knocking it out. The building they were in (from the link) precludes them seeing the Panther if it had fired from the tunnel.
Note the link says :
_*"When the Panther had shot he probably was located in or near the dark tunnel (white arrow) and the US troops were not able to see it there before."*_

Ramage says he could see it.

_*"There are records saying the Panther was already located at the crossing when the Sherman reached Komödienstrasse and they thought it was knocked out."*_

Clearly the author decides to discard these records.

_*"Tank positions are yellow points, red point the tunnel Trankgasse, from where the Panther probably had shot."*_

'Probably' shows that even with as well a documented an event as this not everything was clear to all the participants.


----------



## Soren (Jun 11, 2009)

Well m_kenny it really doesn't matter wether it was at 340, 200 or 120 meters away that the shot was made, the 7.2 kg APCBC shell fired by the Panther would've cut straight through the Sherman had it even been 2 km away. 

I however find it quite unlikely that the Sherman commanders could've missed a Panther sitting out on a street in open sight, so it seems a lot more logical that it fired from the dark tunnel some 340 meters away. And esp. since you can't see the Panther out on the street in any picture before the Sherman was hit or emmidiately after.

So the link describes the incident completely accurately if you ask me. You are ofcourse free you draw your own conclusions, but this is mine.


----------



## Soren (Jun 11, 2009)

Here's a great video of it from youtube (Quite thrilling piece of music too): 
_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qfHgoSTm48_


----------



## Soren (Jun 11, 2009)

Here's the clip I saw, just found it on youtube: 
_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jt5bJQOkI1g_

As you can see the Pershing did stalk the Panther.

As for the Sherman hit, if you look at the loader jumping out you can actually see his leg fall off before he himself falls overboard the tank and bleeds to death.

War is a terrible thing.


----------



## Doughboy (Jun 11, 2009)

I have a question...How in the world does the M4 Sherman have 14 votes? The tank that is famous for bursting into a fireball!


----------



## comiso90 (Jun 11, 2009)

Doughboy said:


> I have a question...How in the world does the M4 Sherman have 14 votes? The tank that is famous for bursting into a fireball!



The Sherman did the job it was supposed to do.. fast, agile, versitle, easy to maintain, cheap. IMO, When deciding on "The Best" (favorite can be anything), you have to consider how well the machine is fulfilling the doctrine it was designed to execute. I didnt vote for it but just because it couldn't stand up to Germany's best in a shoot out, doent mean it was a bad tank.

What would you rather have? 15 Shermans or 1 Tiger?

Tank on Tank violence was only part of the equation... supporting infantry was the primary role.

.


----------



## Soren (Jun 11, 2009)

Also people tend to ignore the fact that the Sherman was nomore prone to bursting into flames when hit by the German 75 88mm guns than the Soviet T-34. 

Tiger crews reporting about the effectiveness of the 88mm gun mention that the Soviet T-34 had a high tendency to emmidiately blow its own turret sky high after just a single hit by the 88mm main gun. T-34s bursting into flames seemed more rare than the ones exploding emmidiately after having been hit. 

So atleast in the Sherman you had a small chance of escaping, while in a T-34 you'd usually be blown to bits and pieces after the first hit.


----------



## m kenny (Jun 11, 2009)

Soren said:


> Here's the clip I saw, just found it on youtube:
> _View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jt5bJQOkI1g_
> 
> As you can see the Pershing did stalk the Panther.




You must always be careful when viewing edited sequences. The mistake is to believe they were sequential.
Note the buildings bing hit by tracer at 0:49 - 0:52 are the same ones being shelled at 1:40 - 1:46.
Also that the Pershing at 1:22 has no jerrican on the engine deck
At 1:38 it has the jerrican
At 1:46 it has gone again.
Only by viewing the raw footage can one be sure of the timeline.



Soren said:


> Also people tend to ignore the fact that the Sherman was nomore prone to bursting into flames when hit by the German 75 88mm guns than the Soviet T-34.
> So at least in the Sherman you had a small chance of escaping, while in a T-34 you'd usually be blown to bits and pieces after the first hit.



The survey of Allied tank crew casualties showed that the AVERAGE tank hit had 1 dead and 1 wounded crewman. It also showed that you were more likely to be wounded outside your tank than in it. Small arms/mortars/mines were just as lethal as A/P hits.
As for burn rates the Normandy surveys showed 80% of 'dry' Shermans burned when hit. For the Panther it was found 60% caught fire. Not that much in it really


----------



## Doughboy (Jun 11, 2009)

comiso90 said:


> The Sherman did the job it was supposed to do.. fast, agile, versitle, easy to maintain, cheap. IMO, When deciding on "The Best" (favorite can be anything), you have to consider how well the machine is fulfilling the doctrine it was designed to execute. I didnt vote for it but just because it couldn't stand up to Germany's best in a shoot out, doent mean it was a bad tank.
> 
> What would you rather have? 15 Shermans or 1 Tiger?
> 
> ...


Well.....Considering that if I chose the 15 Shermans, I would be causing alot of tankers to die.... So I guess 1 Tiger... I care more about the people in the tanks, than how many tanks I produce.IMO


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jun 11, 2009)

I thought the reason why Shermans burned "so well" was due to the use of aviation gasoline whereas the Panther was diesel.


----------



## m kenny (Jun 11, 2009)

Doughboy said:


> Well.....Considering that if I chose the 15 Shermans, I would be causing alot of tankers to die.... So I guess 1 Tiger... I care more about the people in the tanks, than how many tanks I produce.IMO




That only works if you expect to lose 15 Shermans as opposed to 1 'Tiger'. That clearly did not happen and thus the logic is flawed.
Doubly flawed if you realise that there were 48,000 other German AFV's that were not Tigers.


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 11, 2009)

vikingBerserker said:


> I thought the reason why Shermans burned "so well" was due to the use of aviation gasoline whereas the Panther was diesel.



You are confusing Shermans with the 'aviation' radial engine.


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 11, 2009)

m kenny said:


> That only works if you expect to lose 15 Shermans as opposed to 1 'Tiger'. That clearly did not happen and thus the logic is flawed.
> Doubly flawed if you realise that there were 48,000 other German AFV's that were not Tigers.




Thank goodness doughboy was not a strategist for the US. If human lives were deemed more valuable than the strategic accomplishment, we likely would have lost the war.


----------



## Soren (Jun 11, 2009)

vikingBerserker said:


> I thought the reason why Shermans burned "so well" was due to the use of aviation gasoline whereas the Panther was diesel.



Nope, both were gasoline powered. 

One possible reason for why Allied tanks tended to brew up so easily was the fact that the Germans primarily used APCBC-HE shells to dispatch enemy tanks. These shells contained a small explosive charge (A very smart type of gravity fuze was used, the BdZ type, and unlike its' Allied equivalent this one actually worked) which was set off once the projectile had penetrated the first layer of armour, generating a high overpressure inside the tank which alone would either kill the crew emmidiately in the case that the tank was completely buttoned up, or set off the ammunition due to either the pressure or the melting hot fragments sent flying around inside the tank.

Allied tankers however tended to prefer subcaliber AP rounds as their main round for dispatching enemy armour, mostly because of the fact that the std. TD only had a 76mm L/53 gun which wasn't particularly powerful with the std. APBC round. And while the subcaliber HVAP round was deadly in that if it penetrated it sent deadly fragments flying around inside the the tank, it would usually have to hit vital parts of the tank to take it out of action with the first hit. For this reason Allied tankers tended to spend a lot more shells pr. knocked out tank than did the Germans for example.

The Germans experienced the exact same however in the early phases of the war on the eastern front, where in 1941 their 37mm 50mm AT guns had to use subcaliber AP rounds to be effective against the new Soviet heavy tanks such as the KV-1 2 as-well as the new medium tank the T-34. So the Germans learned their lesson early on.

So in short it wasn't really a design flaw which led the Sherman to brew up so easily, it was more the type of rounds used by the Germans which created the problem.


----------



## m kenny (Jun 11, 2009)

On average, it took ...
... 1.2 hits and 1.2 pens to KO a Pz IV. It also took 1.5 hits and 1.5 pens to brew a Pz IV.
... 2.55 hits and 1.9 pens to KO a Pz V. It also took 4.0 hits and 3.24 pens to brew a Pz V.
... 4.2 hits and 2.6 pens to KO a Pz VI. It also took 5.25 hits and 3.25 pens to brew a Pz VI.
... 1.63 hits and 1.55 pens to KO a Sherman. It also took 1.97 hits and 1.89 pens to brew a Sherman.

Pz IV gets the booby prize.


----------



## Doughboy (Jun 11, 2009)

Matt308 said:


> Thank goodness doughboy was not a strategist for the US. If human lives were deemed more valuable than the strategic accomplishment, we likely would have lost the war.


I would have made the Sherman so it would run off Diesel, not gasoline....I would also make the Sherman so that it had sloped armor.


----------



## Soren (Jun 11, 2009)

m kenny said:


> On average, it took ...
> ... 1.2 hits and 1.2 pens to KO a Pz IV. It also took 1.5 hits and 1.5 pens to brew a Pz IV.
> ... 2.55 hits and 1.9 pens to KO a Pz V. It also took 4.0 hits and 3.24 pens to brew a Pz V.
> ... 4.2 hits and 2.6 pens to KO a Pz VI. It also took 5.25 hits and 3.25 pens to brew a Pz VI.
> ...



I'm quite sure those figures can't be trusted much at all. I for one, having read about a lot of actions on both the Western Easterin front, wouldn't put as much as a dime on their trustworthiness. 

Take for example all the times that Allied tankers in vain spended as much as 10 rounds at a German tank only to observe all their rounds just bounce off German armour and then be blown to smithereens by the first return shot fired. Such instances could never be recorded in a statistic like that as there was no'one left to record it. Only the German could record that he'd used a single shot to knock out the Sherman, while the poor guys in the sherman were likely all dead and didn't live to tell how they expended maybe 10 shots or more in vain on the German tank.

Hence why such statistics are worth absolutely nothing really.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jun 11, 2009)

There actually were some Shermans had diesel engines.


The "Encyclopedia of Weapons of WWII" states the Panther used a Maybach diesel, then "Tanks and Amored Fighting Vechiles" by Jackson states the exact same engine but used gasoline. Oui-Fricken-Vais........


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jun 11, 2009)

Matt308 said:


> You are confusing Shermans with the 'aviation' radial engine.



Gotcha, thanks for the education.


----------



## Soren (Jun 11, 2009)

The Maybach HL230 P45 P30 has always been and always will be a gasoline engine.

*HL230 P30 specs:*
Type: Water-cooled 60° 23 liter V12 gasoline engine
Displacement: 23,095 cm³ 
Output: 690 HP (700 PS) [515 kW] at 3,000 rpm
Torque: 1,850 Nm at 2,100 rpm (1,364 lbf)


Check out the torque! Massive!


----------



## m kenny (Jun 11, 2009)

Soren said:


> I'm quite sure those figures can't be trusted much at all. I for one, having read about a lot of actions on both the Western Easterin front, wouldn't put as much as a dime on their trustworthiness.



We can pick and chose what we want to believe. The figures however do not rely on leaps of faith. They were derived from the examination of actual tanks found destroyed in Normandy.



Soren said:


> Take for example all the times that Allied tankers in vain spended as much as 10 rounds at a German tank only to observe all their rounds just bounce off German armour and then be blown to smithereens by the first return shot fired.



Yes we all know no German tank was ever knocked out, they all ran out of petrol.



Soren said:


> Such instances could never be recorded in a statistic like that as there was no'one left to record it.



Wrong. The tank destroyed would be left on the battlefield and the one hole in it would be surveyed and included in the statistics. Also once the super-duper Panzer with the 10 dents in it was 'blown up' by the flleing crew after it ran out of petrol it too would be surveyed and the dents counted.




Soren said:


> Only the German could record that he'd used a single shot to knock out the Sherman,



One thing has puzzled me for years, perhaps you can help me out.
If the '88' was so deadly and could get a first time hit with the super-duper German optics how come the made MILLIONS of AP rounds for it? Surely they only needed a couple of thousand for the whole war.
Where exactly did these millions of rounds go? It looks like they expended hundreds of AP rounds per destroyed tanks. Why? 

Take this example:
Operation Sonnenblume 1941.
May 17 1941.
I./Flak Regiment 33
British lost 65 Matilda mk 2s and 29 Cruiser Tanks for a total of 94.
Flak Regiment "claimed" 79 of these Even tho the entire 5th and 8th Panzer Regiments were in action along with the 5th Leichte Division.
Let us accept that the 88's got all the tanks It seems they expended 1,680 AP rounds to do it. Not very efficient or 'one round one kill' is it?

For comparison AA expenditure was around 1 million rounds a month in 1944 and they calculated they fired 16000 rounds per kill. 



Soren said:


> while the poor guys in the sherman were likely all dead and didn't live to tell how they expended maybe 10 shots or more in vain on the German tank.



How could the Sherman crew be 'all dead' when the survey done on real men who experienced real hits in real tanks found an average of only 1 dead crewman per penetrated tank? Thus whilst there could be cases where the whole crew were killed this means there were 4 other tanks where no one was killed!



Soren said:


> Hence why such statistics are worth absolutely nothing really.



Worth nothing to those wedded to myths about Uber-Panzers you mean?


----------



## Soren (Jun 11, 2009)

Sure m_kenny, suuure... 

You calmed down now?

Ok, I'll tell you what, you can make all the fairytale conclusions you want, but I don't have to do the same. alright? 

If you believe that every single AP round fired was a perfectly aimed one, or that it was used against only tanks, then be my guest, but you're the one believing in myths and fairytales then my friend, not me. Also worth notice might be the fact that A LOT of the ammunition manufactured wasn't ever gonna get fired yet it was lost anyhow.

But you know what, I bet you're the guy who ran around counting dents and holes and made all the statistics, so you must know for sure how accurate they are. Oh yeah, believe in it...

Man I feel so sorry for the guy who had to walk around the battlefield with a pencil a clip board having to guess which one of those seven holes in that burned out tank knocked it out and then which one started the fire. I bet he figured it out in the end though with his powerful telekenetic mind powers! 

Oh btw, I'm curious, why is it that the US have enough nukes to blow the entire planet to pieces 10 times ? Are they planning on bombing themselves as-well ?


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 11, 2009)

Doughboy said:


> I would have made the Sherman so it would run off Diesel, not gasoline....I would also make the Sherman so that it had sloped armor.




You do understand that a diesel engine cannot be converted to a gasoline engine (and vice versa), right?


----------



## m kenny (Jun 12, 2009)

Soren said:


> Sure m_kenny, suuure...
> 
> You calmed down now?
> 
> Ok, I'll tell you what, you can make all the fairytale conclusions you want, but I don't have to do the same. alright?



Continue with your belief that:
_*"Take for example all the times that Allied tankers in vain spended as much as 10 rounds at a German tank only to observe all their rounds just bounce off German armour and then be blown to smithereens by the first return shot fired. Such instances could never be recorded in a statistic like that as there was no'one left to record it"*_

and I will just have to be satisfied with WQ 291/1186. This survey of 3700 tank casualties in Italy, N. Africa and NW Europe is the one that found that 2.2 of a Shermans crew became casualties per hit tank.




Soren said:


> If you believe that every single AP round fired was a perfectly aimed one, or that it was used against only tanks, then be my guest,



I just wonder why it is always claimed the 88 was deadly with its first shot but they had to fire 160+ rounds per CLAIMED knocked out tank. Even if you allow for multiple hits and non-armoured vehicles the ammo expended is still going to be in the 100's per destroyed vehicle. At least you are now saying they missed a lot more than they managed to hit. The ammunition that a gun had with it was limited and thus having to fire 100+ rounds per kill would severely limit the number of kills per gun. Do you not see that?



Soren said:


> but you're the one believing in myths and fairytales then my friend, not me.



Yes you only believe that every Sherman was _blown to smithereens by the first return shot fired_ The *first* return shot mind you. Not the *first 160 *return shots!






Soren said:


> I'm curious, why is it that the US have enough nukes to blow the entire planet to pieces 10 times ? Are they planning on bombing themselves as-well ?



Maybe they just realise that 'they' might miss a few times and thus need plenty of spare ammo. They obviously do not believe in 'one shot one hit' fairy tales.


----------



## Soren (Jun 12, 2009)

Oh I see how your logic works M_kenny! According to you it took 4.26 hits exactly from 6 pdr to knock out a Pzkpfw.VI at any range from any angle. 

Also every round manufactured was according to you fired and perfectly aimed and always used against another tank, there were no rushed shots in the heat of battle and no stores of ammunition ever went sky high as the result of being bombed by a/c or artillery or getting lit up inside a struck vehicle. Oh and ofcourse every shot ever made was done under ideal conditions were the target was clearly visible, with no obstructions in the way and the target didn't move and no wind was present. So therefore we can safely assume from knowing the number of rounds produced vs the amount enemy tanks knocked out, that a tank gun had exactly a 1 in 16,127th of chance of hitting anything it aimed at. Yes ofcourse that makes perfect sense! 

And again I feel so sorry for that guy with the pencil clipboard, tough job for sure. I wonder how he found out which hit knocked out the tank and which started the fire... inny minny miny moe ?

Anyway, keep believing in all those home brewn fairytales you come up with m_kenny, I prefer not to.


----------



## m kenny (Jun 12, 2009)

Soren said:


> Oh I see how your logic works M_kenny! According to you it took 4.26 hits exactly from 6 pdr to knock out a Pzkpfw.VI at any range from any angle.



I am sorry if the scientific examination of the German wrecks found that on average each knocked out Panther had 2.55 hits(of which 1.9 penetrated). . Examination of real burnt-out Panthers showed that it took 4 hits and 3.24 pens to set it alight. 
The PzIV seems to have been a death trap as only 1.2 hits KO'd it and 1.5 hits set it alight. It fared worse that the Sherman!



Soren said:


> Also every round manufactured was according to you fired and perfectly aimed



No, that is what you say. Here is how you put it:

_*Allied tankers in vain spended as much as 10 rounds at a German tank only to observe all their rounds just bounce off German armour and then be blown to smithereens by the first return shot fired*_ 
I know that a lot of rounds went astray. I gave you fiigures that show a lot missed the target.




Soren said:


> Oh and ofcourse every shot ever made was done under ideal conditions were the target was clearly visible, with no obstructions in the way and the target didn't move and no wind was present.



Strange that you never mentioned this before. 



Soren said:


> So therefore we can safely assume from knowing the number of rounds produced vs the amount enemy tanks knocked out, that a tank gun had exactly a 1 in 16,127th of chance of hitting anything it aimed at. Yes ofcourse that makes perfect sense!



If you have the survey that reached such a conclusion then feel free to identify it so we can share in your scepticism.



Soren said:


> And again I feel so sorry for that guy with the pencil clipboard, tough job for sure. I wonder how he found out which hit knocked out the tank and which started the fire...



Operational Research is:
_ an interdisciplinary branch of applied mathematics and formal science that uses methods such as mathematical modeling, statistics, and algorithms to arrive at optimal or near optimal solutions to complex problems._

See here:
Operations research - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Extract:

*Blackett's team undertook a number of crucial analyses that aided the war effort. Britain introduced the convoy system to reduce shipping losses, but while the principle of using warships to accompany merchant ships was generally accepted, it was unclear whether it was better for convoys to be small or large. Convoys travel at the speed of the slowest member, so small convoys can travel faster. It was also argued that small convoys would be harder for German U-boats to detect. On the other hand, large convoys could deploy more warships against an attacker. Blackett's staff showed that the losses suffered by convoys depended largely on the number of escort vessels present, rather than on the overall size of the convoy. Their conclusion, therefore, was that a few large convoys are more defensible than many small ones.

In another piece of work, Blackett's team analysed a report of a survey carried out by RAF Bomber Command. For the survey, Bomber Command inspected all bombers returning from bombing raids over Germany over a particular period. All damage inflicted by German air defenses was noted and the recommendation was given that armour be added in the most heavily damaged areas. Their suggestion to remove some of the crew so that an aircraft loss would result in fewer personnel loss was rejected by RAF command. Blackett's team instead made the surprising and counter-intuitive recommendation that the armour be placed in the areas which were completely untouched by damage in the bombers which returned. They reasoned that the survey was biased, since it only included aircraft that returned to Britain. The untouched areas of returning aircraft were probably vital areas, which, if hit, would result in the loss of the aircraft.


Map of Kammhuber LineWhen Germany organised its air defences into the Kammhuber Line, it was realised that if the RAF bombers were to fly in a bomber stream they could overwhelm the night fighters who flew in individual cells directed to their targets by ground controllers. It was then a matter of calculating the statistical loss from collisions against the statistical loss from night fighters to calculate how close the bombers should fly to minimise RAF losses.

The "exchange rate" ratio of output to input was a characteristic feature of operations research. By comparing the number of flying hours put in by Allied aircraft to the number of U-boat sightings in a given area, it was possible to redistribute aircraft to more productive patrol areas. Comparison of exchange rates established "effectiveness ratios" useful in planning. The ratio of 60 mines laid per ship sunk was common to several campaigns: German mines in British ports, British mines on German routes, and United States mines in Japanese routes]

Operations research doubled the success rate of aerial attacks on submarines by recommending a shallower detonation setting on the depth charges being dropped by aircraft. The depth charges had previously been set to detonate at the depth where the shock of the explosion would be most efficiently transferred through the water, but submarines were unable to reach that depth in the limited time available after being spotted by the aircraft. Shallower detonation depth settings reduced the distance of the detonation from the submarine: a close detonation with lower shock transmission efficiency was more destructive than a more distant detonation with better transmission.

Operations research doubled the on-target bomb rate of B-29s bombing Japan from the Marianas Islands by increasing the training ratio from 4 to 10 percent of flying hours; revealed that wolf-packs of three United States submarines were the most effective number to enable all members of the pack to engage targets discovered on their individual patrol stations; revealed that glossy enamel paint was more effective camouflage for night fighters than traditional dull camouflage paint finish, and the smooth paint finish increased airspeed by reducing skin friction.

On land, the operational research sections of the Army Operational Research Group (AORG) of the Ministry of Supply were landed in Normandy in 1944, and they followed British forces in the advance across Europe. They analysed, among other topics, the effectiveness of artillery, aerial bombing, and anti-tank shooting.*



so I wish you well in your desperate ettempts to discredit OR so you can continue to believe in tall tales such as:



Soren said:


> Allied tankers in vain spended as much as 10 rounds at a German tank only to observe all their rounds just bounce off German armour and then be blown to smithereens by the first return shot fired



I always smile when I see the Uber-Panzer fans denigrate OR when it shows German tanks burned as easily as a Sherman. They never have any problems accepting the OR Reports that show how many Shermans burned. Maybe they do not realise that it was Allied OR Surveys that established the facts?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 12, 2009)

Soren, m_kenny don't let this conversation get out of hand. So far this is a good convo with lots of info...

Don't ruin it for yourselves or for anyone else!


----------



## parsifal (Jun 12, 2009)

I didnt know that the British used OR to analyse anti-tank defences....but it is entirely plausible.

I do know about Blacketts research into convoys. He explained his findings to a sceptical admiralty in the following terms.....(more or less)...."imagine the convoy is a flock of ducks and the U-Boat a duckhunter with a shotgun.....if the flock flys past the duckhunter and the duckhunter fires, he will kill a certain amount of those ducks. But he will only get one shot at the flock....now imagine the flock breaks up into four or five smaller flocks, separated by a few minutes. now the duckhunter gets four or five shots at the ducks, each shot does less damage, than the single shot into the big flock, but overall, the number of ducks shot is far less". Blacketts research was tested, and found to be chillingly accurate.....


----------



## Soren (Jun 12, 2009)

Sorry M_Kenny but I'm gonna have to call the BS card on you.

There's simply no way a statistic like that can be anywhere near accurate, and primarily for the reasons below:
1.) Range is not listed
2.) The location of hits is not listed, which is problematic since Allied tankers loved to flank German tanks as quite frankly Allied tanks were usually just gun fodder for German tanks in a head on engagement.
3.) There would be no way for an analyzer to conclude which hit caused what occurence unless he was there when it happened, but sadly he hardly ever was. In short if any of these post action analyzers were to find a tank with 3 or 4 holes in it, all clean penetrations, and burned out, then they'd have no way of establishing which round KO'd the tank and which one started the fire. It might as well have been the first shot as it could've been the last one. And this alone renders the statistic completely useless in every way. 

Furthermore a single tank which withstood 10 or more strikes would screw up the statistic for the next 10 ones knocked out, regardless of what caliber weapon knocked out each particular tank at each particular range at each particular angle.

Now considering these problematics would you consider such a statistic anywhere near accurate ? I can tell you this much, any self respecting intelligence officer would consider such a statistic the result of pure idiocy.

So to sum it all up the stastic is sadly worthless and a waste of time and it doesn't take much of a logical sense to figure that one out either. 

But you go ahead and keep believing in your fairytale statistics m_kenny, I could care less.


----------



## Soren (Jun 12, 2009)

parsifal said:


> I didnt know that the British used OR to analyse anti-tank defences....but it is entirely plausible.
> 
> I do know about Blacketts research into convoys. He explained his findings to a sceptical admiralty in the following terms.....(more or less)...."imagine the convoy is a flock of ducks and the U-Boat a duckhunter with a shotgun.....if the flock flys past the duckhunter and the duckhunter fires, he will kill a certain amount of those ducks. But he will only get one shot at the flock....now imagine the flock breaks up into four or five smaller flocks, separated by a few minutes. now the duckhunter gets four or five shots at the ducks, each shot does less damage, than the single shot into the big flock, but overall, the number of ducks shot is far less". Blacketts research was tested, and found to be chillingly accurate.....



Problem is that tank warfare is a fundamentally different thing all together with a whole list of problem factors which didn't exist with naval warfare.


----------



## Doughboy (Jun 12, 2009)

There actually were some Shermans that had diesel engines. 

Interesting....I didn't know that.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 12, 2009)

I thougtht the fundamental statistic that MK had brought forward was not so much which shot had caused the "kill" rather the number of shots, on average needed to achieve that kill.

I also would not think it that difficult to determine which hit did the most damage or which hit was likley to be the lethal one. Ballistics does that sort of analysis all the time, so why would tank ballistics be so very different to just about every other field of ballistics?

What i dont understand is what benfit the alleged OR into AT statistics would yield? Did the British determine the types of shots most likley to brew a given type of tank???? was WWII tank gunnery so accurate as to be able to choose the point of impact. Perhaps the research was trying to determine the optimum range with which to engage the target. But I would have thought that sort of information could be much more accurately deduced from an analysis of the gun and armour chacteristics.

OR was a very powerful tool that yielded a great deal of beneficial, and at times crucial information to the allies. Ther is no doubt in my mind about that. But I just cant get my head around how it might help devise the right tactics to employ in a tank versus tank engagement.


----------



## m kenny (Jun 12, 2009)

Soren said:


> There's simply no way a statistic like that can be anywhere near accurate.....blah blah blah blah....................So to sum it all up the stastic is sadly worthless and a waste of time and it doesn't take much of a logical sense to figure that one out either.



You fail to understand the nature of the statistics. They were many other OR Reports listing such things as location of hits and size of shell holes ect. You should consult them before you burst another blood vessel
Nothing can change the fact that the broken hulls of Pz IV's, Panther and Tigers were examined in detail. You simply do not like the result. Now there is a suprise!




parsifal said:


> I thougtht the fundamental statistic that MK had brought forward was not so much which shot had caused the "kill" rather the number of shots, on average needed to achieve that kill.



Quite correct.



parsifal said:


> What i dont understand is what benfit the alleged OR into AT statistics would yield? Did the British determine the types of shots most likley to brew a given type of tank????



One thing they found that Shermans took hits in the ratio of:
55% were side hits
29% were frontal hits
15% were rear hits.

Let us suppose doubling the frontal armour would reduce casualties by 50%. Now they have the data to work out that this 50% reduction in frontal hits would only save 15% of losses rather than halve the total.
In effect they know it is not going to be the answer to the problem.





parsifal said:


> But I just cant get my head around how it might help devise the right tactics to employ in a tank versus tank engagement.



The whole of NATO's response to the percieved Soviet Tank Steamroller was the product of these OR Studies.



parsifal said:


> Perhaps the research was trying to determine the optimum range with which to engage the target. But I would have thought that sort of information could be much more accurately deduced from an analysis of the gun and armour chacteristics.



A number of studies did look at ranges and force ratios to work out how to counter any Soviet advance.


----------



## Soren (Jun 12, 2009)

> I thougtht the fundamental statistic that MK had brought forward was not so much which shot had caused the "kill" rather the number of shots, on average needed to achieve that kill.
> 
> I also would not think it that difficult to determine which hit did the most damage or which hit was likley to be the lethal one. Ballistics does that sort of analysis all the time, so why would tank ballistics be so very different to just about every other field of ballistics?



Parsifal this is not like some crime scene from a murder case, there's no blood spatter, there's no biological evidence such as time of death etc etc as tanks aren't living beings. All you have to work with is an armoured shell with holes in it and so how on earth are you going to conclude which hit caused what occurrence at what time ? You wouldn't even be able to conclude which of the holes was caused first.

Hence why the effectiveness of different ammunition and armament types was established on the testing range where you can control exactly where to hit at what range and therefore know exactly what to look for. In such tests the true accuracy destructive power of a weapon can be explored.

Knowing you're a smart person with a lot of knowledge, which I respect, I'm sure that you will agree with me on this Parsifal.



m kenny said:


> You fail to understand the nature of the statistics. They were many other OR Reports listing such things as location of hits and size of shell holes ect. You should consult them before you burst another blood vessel
> Nothing can change the fact that the broken hulls of Pz IV's, Panther and Tigers were examined in detail. You simply do not like the result. Now there is a suprise!



M_kenny, then for goodness sake why weren't they applied to the statistic ?? I'll tell you why: 

1.) Cause nothing worthwhile could be concluded from it. There was simply so many different ways of destroying a tank that looking at a knocked out tank and counting the dents and holes on it would most of the time yield no answer at all as to which shot knocked it out of action and which one set it ablaze. 

2.) The statistic would be way too long and complicated to be of any worth.


----------



## m kenny (Jun 12, 2009)

Soren said:


> then for goodness sake why weren't they applied to the statistic ?? I'll tell you why:



HALT!
They were _applied to the statistics_

Here is WO 171/601 Detailing Panther penetrations.

Upper Glacis.................... 1
Mantlet and turret front ...2
Turret and sides ............10
Hull sides ......................23
Turret rear ....................1
Hull rear ........................5
Total of 42 penetrations.

Non-penetrating hits
Upper Glacis.................... 7
Mantlet and turret front... 2
Turret and sides .............4
Hull sides........................1
Turret rear.....................0
Hull rear........................ 0
Total of 14 hits that glanced off.

For comparison here is a list of aspect hits for the Sherman v The Panther. It is not part of the original report and I just think it is revealing.

 Sherman and Panther hit comparison

.........................Panther hits.................................Sherman hits
Frontal hits...............12 (22%)......................................29%
Side Hits..................38 (67%)......................................55%
Rear hits..................6 (10%).........................,..............15%

It looks like side hits were the real killers and the Panther had thin sides!


----------



## Juha (Jun 12, 2009)

Hello
offtopic but I read Blackett's Studies of war or something like that decades ago but still remember something of it, his participation in Jutland as a midshipman, analyze why a/c at first observed clearly more subs on right of their flight path than on left, why it was right thing to set the fuses of air dropped depht charges to shallower depht and the cynical analyze why the info that AA batteries near coast were shooting down more enemy a/c than those batteries well inland was bogus, etc. IIRC really excellent book.

Juha


----------



## Soren (Jun 12, 2009)

M_kenny, you're speaking nonesense by now. 

42 penetration and 14 glancing off of what ? Where ? When ? And with what weapon ?

You see that's why the statistic is worthless as you at the very least need the below covered at every case, which is IMPOSSIBLE:
1.) Range
2.) Angle location of impact
3.) Weapon used
4.) Time of impact

If you were to find a tank sitting burned out with 4 holes in it, all clean penetrations, then you'd have no, and I repeat, NO way of finding out at what range the tank was hit at, which hit knocked out the tank or which one set it ablaze. 

Stuff like this will screw up any statistic, 12 hits, no penetration:


----------



## Juha (Jun 12, 2009)

Interesting figures, m_kenny
I might have seen them before but not that Panther and Sherman hit comparison side by side.
IMHO only 2 surprises, Turret and sides 10:4, knowing the thin turret sides of Panther there must have been many shallow angle hits, but when one thought it that isn’t so surprising, turret turned faster towards potential danger than whole tank.
The second is that only 29% hits on Shermans were frontal, without knowing timeframe, I tended to think that many hits were from A/T guns, or from Pzs or StuGs on A/T mission.
The results clearly indicate that the correct answer to Sherman’s weakness was to put more powerful gun in it. One could not put good all around armour, good gun and good mobility in 30 ton tank in 43-45 period, cannons were too powerful for that. Interestingly Germans postwar chose mobility and firepower over protection in Leopard I, British on the other hand put gunpower and protection over mobility. Maybe both saw more clearly downsides of their late WWII tanks than their good points.

Juha


----------



## Juha (Jun 12, 2009)

Soren
even if your beloved Panther is shown not to be invincible, if you cool down and think you'll find out, that your list isn't a task impossible to an OR team in at least many cases.
And clearly in 44 Panther wasn't very suspectible to after hit fires even if its armour was penetrated.

Juha


----------



## m kenny (Jun 12, 2009)

Juha said:


> I might have seen them before but not that Panther and Sherman hit comparison side by side



Sorry but I did not make it clear I added that comparison table. I used data from the Sherman study and put it side by side with info from the Panther study. I should have made it clear in the initial post and I will edit it in.

.


Juha said:


> IMHO only 2 surprises,.................



I think the reports are full of suprises. They are just raw data and thus not slanted or weighted towards proving anything. After the War was when the raw data was worked on and when I contacted one of the authors of ORO-T-117 (probably the largest study ever done of WWII tank losses) I was 'suprised' to be told it was compiled and published during the Korean War specificaly to help find ways to counter the Soviet Tank Threat.



Juha said:


> Soren
> even if your beloved Panther is shown not to be invincible, if you cool down and think you'll find out,



It seems he is so busy trying to rubbish the whole concept of OR that he missed the fact that of 8 hits on the Panther front plate 7 failed and only one penetrated.



Soren said:


> 42 penetration and 14 glancing off of what ? Where ? When ? And with what weapon ?



I used the words 'glancing off'. The report simply describes them as 'failures'.
'Off what' is quite simple. If a round is describe as a 'failure' on the hull side then I presume it failed to penetrate the side of the hull.
'Where' ? I think the location of the wreck has no bearing on anything.
'When', Normandy (or France 1944) seems detailed enough for me.
'And with what weapon' is covered because the hits are broken down by type-17pdr, 75mm, 3 inch and 6pdr. However there is a limit to how much formating I can do for these posts...................!
I get the feeling however that even this is not good enough for you. Nothing will ever disabuse you of the 'fact' that:
*Allied tankers in vain spended as much as 10 rounds at a German tank only to observe all their rounds just bounce off German armour and then be blown to smithereens by the first return shot fired *


----------



## Soren (Jun 12, 2009)

I am exceedingly curious as to how ANYONE by looking at a tank full of holes could establish both the range at which each hit was made and then exactly which one out of all the hits that knocked out the tank. Alone this impossibility makes the whole statistic worth nothing at all, and that is all I am trying to get at here, I'm not trying to advocate any tank, so you might as-well get that thought out of your head right away.

But I guess I might as-well give up as it's impossible to reason with people like Juha m_kenny. You two can go ahead and believe in what'ever you want, I'm not gonna waste anymore of my time on this.


----------



## m kenny (Jun 13, 2009)

Soren said:


> If you were to find a tank sitting burned out with 4 holes in it, all clean penetrations, then you'd have no, and I repeat, NO way of finding out at what range the tank was hit at, which hit knocked out the tank or which one set it ablaze.



Correct.
However if you find a burnt out Tiger with 5 failed penetrations and 4 holes in it then you can say that this Tiger needed 9 hits to despatch it.
If you find 10 wrecked Tigers with 58 failed penetrations and 22 holes between them then you can say that ON AVERAGE each Tiger suffered 8 hits. 
That each Tiger ON AVERAGE needed 2.2 penetrations to knock it out.
That each Tiger ON AVERAGE had 5.8 failed penetrations
If 5 unburnt Tigers had 9 penetrations and 5 burnt out Tigers had 13 penetrations then you can say:
It took 1.8 hits to knock out a Tiger 
It took 2.6 hits to make a Tiger burn. 
*NOTE: All numbers picked at random for illustrative purposes only.*

That should show you, or more realistically show the unbiased reader, that:

_1.) Range
2.) Angle location of impact
3.) Weapon used
4.) Time of impact_

have absolutely no bearing on a survey aimed solely at finding THE AVERAGE *number of hits* needed to knock out a tank/make it burn.



Soren said:


> I am exceedingly curious as to how ANYONE by looking at a tank full of holes could establish both the range at which each hit was made and then exactly which one out of all the hits that knocked out the tank



If you show me the section where any of the above are claimed in this survey then you might have a case. As it stands this is a classic Straw Man argument.

The survey showed it took only 2.5 hits to KO a Panther and 4.2 to KO a Tiger. This news does not sit well with one who believed it took more than 10 hits to do the same. The follwing was even advanced as an exemplar:


*Take for example all the times that Allied tankers in vain spended as much as 10 rounds at a German tank only to observe all their rounds just bounce off German armour and then be blown to smithereens by the first return shot fired*

Who now would dare vouchsafe such a scenario?


Your nitpicking arguments Lack validity or essence. In a word your whole case is spurious!


----------



## Soren (Jun 13, 2009)

Keep the excuses coming m_kenny but I'm not the one with a spurious case here, that would be you.

You keep confusing hits with penetrations, there's a big difference between the two.

In your own typothetical example it doesn't take 2.6 hits to KO the tank, it takes 2.6 *penetrations*! Big difference!

If you honestly believe that it one average took 4.2 hits to KO a Tiger then I say you lack even a basic sense of logic, esp. seeing that Tigers often were hit many times during battle to no effect. There's even an incident in which one got hit 246 times, yet it kept on fighting!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 13, 2009)

Keep it nice you two...

I hear the beach calling.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 13, 2009)

Guys.....how about just debating the topic, and not trying to go at each other incessantly. Soren is a great believer in German Tank technology....good for him. Kenny present arguments to refute that position....good for him too. I suggest you just present your respective cases, and just respectfully agree to disagree on those points you cannot reach agreement on. It will be us, the readers that decide, in our own minds, what to think


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 13, 2009)

parsifal said:


> Guys.....how about just debating the topic, and not trying to go at each other incessantly. Soren is a great believer in German Tank technology....good for him. Kenny present arguments to refute that position....good for him too. I suggest you just present your respective cases, and just respectfully agree to disagree on those points you cannot reach agreement on. It will be us, the readers that decide, in our own minds, what to think



Spoken like a wise man...


----------



## Juha (Jun 13, 2009)

Hello m kenny
I wasn’t surprise that Upper Glacis was 1:7, rather hopeless target to Allied guns
or that mantlet and turret front was 2:2 it was the weakest point of Panther’s frontal armour which was usually in sight
etc.

Juha


----------



## Soren (Jun 13, 2009)

Parsifal,

I'm not trying to advocate any tank here, I'm just pointing out how the statistic m_kenny presented is completely inaccurate and useless, and so for a good number of reasons.

Now had he instead presented actual field testing results then there'd be nothing to complain about, cause then all the parameters are known.

The whole argument started because someone mentioned how easily the Sherman lit up if hit (not that guys fault btw). I then explained that it wasn't because of poor design as some people suggest, but probably more due to the type of AP rounds the German were using. 

M_kenny then flung out his statistic where it is stated that it on average it took X amount of "hits" to knock out or lit up a tank. Problem is that not all "hits" penetrate the armour or do any serious damage, esp. not if the power of the attacking weapon is insufficient. 

He then went on claiming that I didn't like the statistic because it showed that it only took 2.6 hits to KO a Panther, but that I missed that only roughly every 8th hit penetrated the front glacis plate. Problem with that however is that most Allied guns could nothing but dent the front glacis plate of the Panther, so 8 hits from one of these would never result in a penetration. And the guns which could penetrate the Panther' glacis were few and far in between plus only capable at close ranges. M_kenny's statistic however would suggest otherwise, and that's because it obviously neither takes the engagement range, type of weapon or angle of impact into consideration.


----------



## Juha (Jun 13, 2009)

Soren
In Commonwealth forces, IMHO 17pdr had best chances penetrate the upper glacis of Panther and in Summer 44:
AT Regiments in infantry divisions - 4 batteries each 8 × 17-pdr and 4 × 6-pdr in 3 troops.
AT Regiments in Armoured divs had 24 x 17pdr towed plus 24 x 17pdr SP (Achilles and also Archers later on) plus of course the Fireflies in ArmRgts. There were A/T guns also in other units in div but not 17pdr guns but both could also have attached units, so not so few in British sector where most panzers were. And 6pdr could easily penetrate through side armours of German tanks and StuGs but Tigers.

Juha


----------



## Doughboy (Jun 13, 2009)

parsifal said:


> Guys.....how about just debating the topic, and not trying to go at each other incessantly. Soren is a great believer in German Tank technology....good for him. Kenny present arguments to refute that position....good for him too. I suggest you just present your respective cases, and just respectfully agree to disagree on those points you cannot reach agreement on. It will be us, the readers that decide, in our own minds, what to think


Great post.


----------



## m kenny (Jun 13, 2009)

Soren said:


> He then went on claiming that I didn't like the statistic because it showed that it only took 2.6 hits to KO a Panther, but that I missed that only roughly every 8th hit penetrated the front glacis plate. Problem with that however is that most Allied guns could nothing but dent the front glacis plate of the Panther, so 8 hits from one of these would never result in a penetration..



Large numbers of knocked out Panthers that have no hits AT ALL on the glacis?(warning: not all hits were on the fron). The high failure rate of glacis hits has no effect on the 87% of hits on the SIDES or BACK of the tank.
I just took a quick look through Zaloga's Panzers In The Gunsights I/II and US Tank Battles in France noticed that most of the panther hulks hadn't even a dent in the front.
Here are the clearer examples.


----------



## m kenny (Jun 13, 2009)

Soren said:


> You keep confusing hits with penetrations, there's a big difference between the two.
> In your own typothetical example it doesn't take 2.6 hits to KO the tank, it takes 2.6 *penetrations*Big difference!



Read it again:
_If you find 10 wrecked Tigers with 58 failed *penetrations* and 22 holes between them then you can say that ON AVERAGE each Tiger suffered 8 *hits. *_
However in the hypethetical instance I chose I did slip and write 2.6 hits instead of 2.6 penetrations.
Never said I was perfect!




Soren said:


> If you honestly believe that it one average took 4.2 hits to KO a Tiger then I say you lack even a basic sense of logic,


The men on the ground who inspected the wrecks checked the actual number of penetrations/failures per tank (i.e holes/gouges) Are you saying they lied?




Soren said:


> If esp. seeing that Tigers often were hit many times during battle to no effect. There's even an incident in which one got hit 246 times, yet it kept on fighting!



Perhaps you could tell us the calibre of the hits. I believe the vast majority were small A/T rifle strikes. You do have that information I presume?
There are other 'incidents' where 1 hit destroyed a Tiger. (examples available upon request)What does that prove?

Where are the '10 hits' on these real life knocked out examples from sSS Pz Abt 101?
Top pic of Tiger '334' knocked out in Rauray 27/6/44
next '214' destroyed by the Poles in August '44
Lastly another Tiger (114) from 27/6/44. Taken frontaly by a troop of 75mm Shermans and thus subject to intense close range fire from multiple sources. Even this text book example of frontal attack only has 8 hits on the front, one of which partialy penetrated in through the drivers visor


----------



## Juha (Jun 13, 2009)

Hello
Normandy was an excellent place to that kind of OR because almost all, say 95%, of heavier German AFVs, those from Marders, incl, upwards committed to the battle were lost there. IIRC not a single Tiger recrossed Seine but maybe a few recovered early in the battle for reconstruction/factory level repairs in Germany. So they were at least in theory available for research. And there were ca 2500 of them according to Zaloga.

Juha


----------



## m kenny (Jun 13, 2009)

Juha said:


> Hello
> IIRC not a single Tiger recrossed Seine but maybe a few recovered early in the battle for reconstruction/factory level repairs in Germany..



I used to believe that. However recent discoveries have shown a few made it. The numbers are very small (half a dozen?) Not enough to make any difference to anything.


----------



## Juha (Jun 13, 2009)

Hello m kenny
Thanks for correction.

Juha


----------



## m kenny (Jun 13, 2009)

It is claimed that 10+ hits were routinely shrugged off by Tiger tanks.
I did some digging and it is hard to find a Tiger from Normandy with any hits on the front

This is a sequence showing 3 Tigers of sPzAbt 503 waiting to cross the Seine in August. These Tigers had seen lots of action and thus 'should' be pock-marked with the claimed hits. However only the rear Tiger has a hit on it's front. One hit for 3 veteran tanks!


----------



## m kenny (Jun 13, 2009)

7 Normandy Tigers. Curiously they do not seem to have any frontal hits


----------



## m kenny (Jun 13, 2009)

There are a few photos showing frontal hits. The first is from SS 101 and has 5 hits-not far from the norm for a Tiger in Normandy.
The bottom 2 pics are again from SS 101 and the Tiger shows 3 hits.
I have yet to find anyTiger* from Normandy* with 10 hits on the front.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jun 13, 2009)

m kenny said:


> That should show you, or more realistically show the unbiased reader, that:
> 
> _1.) Range
> 2.) Angle location of impact
> ...



I have to disagree with a few of these. 

_3) Weapon Used_
Just because a weapon hits a tank does not mean that weapon is capable of destroying it. By your method, if a Tiger was hit 9 times by a 20mm, and once by a 150mm, then it took an average of 10 hits to destroy it - which abviously is not the case. 

_4) Time of Impact_
Counting the number of hits also assumes that the tank was not destroyed until the final shot when it actually could have been the very first shot.


----------



## m kenny (Jun 13, 2009)

vikingBerserker said:


> I have to disagree with a few of these.
> 
> _3) Weapon Used_
> Just because a weapon hits a tank does not mean that weapon is capable of destroying it. By your method, if a Tiger was hit 9 times by a 20mm, and once by a 150mm, then it took an average of 10 hits to destroy it - which abviously is not the case.



Why stop at 20mm? Why not count .303 strikes as well?
The smallest A/T gun was a 6pdr And the shot count only counted 6pdr, 75mm, 3 inch and 17pdr. 20mm or 150mm (which would be H.E ) were not tabulatedand and thus do not skew the figures in any way.
I know of no tank destroyed by 150mm anyway but if you have information on such a hit (or how frequently such a strike occurred) please share it with us.



vikingBerserker said:


> _4) Time of Impact_
> Counting the number of hits also assumes that the tank was not destroyed until the final shot when it actually could have been the very first shot.



That line or reasoning would REDUCE the number of hits and make the German tanks MORE VULNERABLE. The method used by the OR people thus is the WORST POSSIBLE CASE SCENARIO for German tank vulnerability.
Did you really mean to say that a Tiger did not need 4+ hits to be knocked out??


----------



## m kenny (Jun 13, 2009)

I looked at the destroyed/captured Tiger II's in the West to find evidence of the 10+ deflected Allied tank gun hits that were said to be 'normal'.
However these strikes are just as elusive as they appear to be on Tiger I's.
Anyone have pics of TII's in The West with multiple deflections they can share?


----------



## m kenny (Jun 13, 2009)

Here are 2 pics that show deflections. The first appears to have two shallow groves on the glacis.
The second has 4 strikes on the glacis and what appears to be a penetration in the turret face plate.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jun 14, 2009)

m kenny said:


> Why stop at 20mm? Why not count .303 strikes as well?
> The smallest A/T gun was a 6pdr And the shot count only counted 6pdr, 75mm, 3 inch and 17pdr. 20mm or 150mm (which would be H.E ) were not tabulatedand and thus do not skew the figures in any way.
> I know of no tank destroyed by 150mm anyway but if you have information on such a hit (or how frequently such a strike occurred) please share it with us.



I was mearly throwing out 2 extreme calibres to illustrate my point (150mm were not only HE). I am curious however exactly how could they tell which calibre left marks/holes? A 37mm fired at point blank range (which was not included in the study) could potentially leave a mark simiular to a 75mm fired at 1,830m (which would have been included).




m kenny said:


> That line or reasoning would REDUCE the number of hits and make the German tanks MORE VULNERABLE. The method used by the OR people thus is the WORST POSSIBLE CASE SCENARIO for German tank vulnerability.
> Did you really mean to say that a Tiger did not need 4+ hits to be knocked out??



It would not make the tank(s) any more or less vulnerable as reality is reality, however it could change the interpretation of the data which is exactly what you want. As a person who uses statistics on a daily basis for work, I can tell you it could scew the results whic is exactly what you don't want. I can also tell you studies made in an uncotrolled environment can lead to bad data. But you have my curiosity up, ss there a link to this study?


----------



## m kenny (Jun 14, 2009)

vikingBerserker said:


> I was mearly throwing out 2 extreme calibres to illustrate my point (150mm were not only HE). I am curious however exactly how could they tell which calibre left marks/holes? A 37mm fired at point blank range (which was not included in the study) could potentially leave a mark simiular to a 75mm fired at 1,830m (which would have been included).



Fist one would have to establish how common a 37mm/150mm A/T gun was in the Allied Arsenal. But you may be right and all the Tigers and Panthers were destroyed at point-blank range by M5/Stuart light tanks. 
Note that I did not include the part that broke the hits down by type. I know this is an area where error can occurr (as did the compilers who noted just such a caution) so I simply used the hole-count .
Thus all the doubts about that subject have no standing because I did not say that 37mm/57mm/75mm/77mm or 150mm made specific holes.




vikingBerserker said:


> It would not make the tank(s) any more or less vulnerable as reality is reality, however it could change the interpretation of the data which is exactly what you want.



Which is what I said. I merely pointed out that any error in this area makes it possible that each German tank was knocked out by fewer hits -or even one hit. Thus the actual survey that found 4+ hits were needed per Tiger is the maximum possible result. Although it could not be more than 4 hits it could be a little as one hit. It eastablishes a ceiling but not a floor.
.



vikingBerserker said:


> As a person who uses statistics on a daily basis for work, I can tell you it could scew the results whic is exactly what you don't want. I can also tell you studies made in an uncotrolled environment can lead to bad data. But you have my curiosity up, ss there a link to this study?



The oft quoted 'fact' that a Sherman caught fire easily is the product of one of these surveys
RGd 24 Report No.12. Canadian 2nd Army. Anaylsis Of 75mm Sherman Tank Casualties 6th June-10th July 1944 found that 82% (i.e. 37 of 45) Shermans caught fire after penetration.

This investigation found 45 destroyed Shermans from 6th June to 10th July 1944.

40 were AP penetrated.
25 were hit once.
11 were hit twice.
2 were hit 3 times.
1 was hit 4 times
1 one hit 8 times.

37 caught fire after loss.

I have posted the contents of this report may times on a number of Forums and it generates little heat.
Not one person has made a claim it used faulty methodology
However whenever I post the same type of report that has data as to the flammability or mortality rate for German tanks I always get at least one reply that casts doubts as to the authority, methodology or conclusion. I wonder why?


----------



## Soren (Jun 14, 2009)

Viking,

M_kenny doesn't seem to understand that a statistic which doesn't take into account the range of the engagement, angle of impact, location of impact and type of attacking weapon is completely useless. He also seems unable to understand that accurately establishing these factors is only possible in a simple firing range test where all the parameters are known, which completely unlike his statistic is actually useful for the fighting men as all they wanna know is what to aim for.

The ONLY thing a survey of hits penetrations on enemy friendly material can be used for is to assess in how many of the incidents the attacks were from the front, sides or rear. And unless there's just one penetration then there's most often no way of fidning out which "hit" knocked out or lit up the tank.

So all in all the statistic is useless, and so for very obvious reasons.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 14, 2009)

I dont see such a survey as being useless....the engagement ranges (and all the other factors you mention) are a variable that contributes to the outcomes, and hence the average number of hits needed to knock out the tank. Thats what OR does, it is a "results driven" statistical analysis.

If indeed, the average number of hits needed to knock out a German tank was about ten, as you say, then one would expect to see a lot of German wrecked tanks with "about ten hits" on them. If we cant find that, then the original paramnreter has to be interrogated. If it was "about ten" needed to knock out a Tiger, why cant we find the evidence of that????

One explanation that might partially answer the issue is that many German tanks were not casualties from anti-tank fire.....perhaps they were knocked out because they ran out of fuel, perhaps some simply broke down, and there was not time to fix them....perhaps the tank was cornered and ran out of ammunition.....there are other variables at play that might skew the dataset....however, to try and say that the variable within the actual combat loss dataset is to fail to understand how OR works. 

As an example (hypothetical....I am just trying to explain how the OR results might work)....say there are two units in the field that are exactly identical, except that one tends to engage Tigers at 1000 metres, and the the other at 200. The first takes, on average 10 hits to kill the Tiger, but loses 5 tanks in doing this, and for every enemy tank engaged, 5 escape ....The second unit only takes 2 hits to kill the Tigers, on average, but its loss rate is say 7 tanks to kill the tiger, however in this case for every 5 tanks engaged, 2 are destroyed. 

Breaking this down it should be clear that engaging at 200m is better than engaging at 1000 even though the shorter range incurs a higher casualty rate for the friendly units. For a 40% increase in ones own casualties, one achieves a 100% increase in lethality of your attacks. For the allies, if these hypothetical figures were correct, the engagement advisory to be sent out to the field formations should be to close to 200 metres to engage the tigers.

So while the material presented by MK does tend to corroborate that the numbers of hits needed to knock out a Tiger was not ten (and this already and automatically takes into account the variable of range etc) I dont see how it can be of benefit to the frontline forces unless the circumstances of each engagement are known.


----------



## m kenny (Jun 14, 2009)

Soren said:


> Viking,
> So all in all the statistic is useless, and so for very obvious reasons.



...........that they prove the Tiger and Panther took less hits than most would have us believe?



Soren said:


> . There's even an incident in which one got hit 246 times, yet it kept on fighting!



The devil is in the detail.

Page 34/35, Panzer Truppen 2 by T Jentz.

227 hits from *A/T RIFLE* 
14 x 5.7cm/4.5cm hits
11 x 7.62 hits

total 252

Coupla hit and vision blocks lost. Turret hatch jammed shut. Smoke dischargers wrecked and smoke entered the Tiger and for a short time the crew 'couldn't function'. Mantlet hit and gun brackets snapped. Gun stuck at full recoil. Radio wrecked. Engine caught fire. Several wheels and suspension arms wrecked. Idler worked lose from its mounting bracket. Several weld joints failed. Right track and suspension heavily damaged. Fuel tanks ruptured and leaking.

It could not _keep fighting_ because it lacked a main gun. 
In effect it was knocked out. The wheels kept turning and thats about it!

Can you find me a pic of a Tiger or Panther (caution: do not post a photo of a Panther being used in a shot trial) that has evidence of '10 hits' on its front?
Surely if this was 'common' it would be easily seen in period photos?


----------



## m kenny (Jun 14, 2009)

Soren said:


> M_kenny doesn't seem to understand that a statistic which doesn't take into account the range of the engagement, angle of impact, location of impact and type of attacking weapon is completely useless.



If there is any confusion it is deliberate and done to cover up the fact that these tanks did not routinely shrug of 10+ frontal strikes as claimed (I use frontal hits because by and large side strikes penetrated)

What is being measured is *THE NUMBER OF TIMES A KNOCKED OUT TANK WAS HIT*
It does not matter about range or angle of impact.
It was not done to work out the lethality of any gun
It was not done to find the best range at which to engage the enemy
It is a simple count of wrecks and any holes/gouges in them
They counted the holes. They counted the gouges and the counted the dents.

I am not a great fan of the interminable 'ballistic properties threads'. I leave the endless arguments about the theoretical pentration ability/angle from vertical or horizontal/face hardened /shatter gap properties ect. of super-duper ammo X from wonder-gun Y to others.



Soren said:


> The ONLY thing a survey of hits penetrations on enemy friendly material can be used for is to assess in how many of the incidents the attacks were from the front, sides or rear.



It is also a killer if you believe a Panther or Tiger tank routinely shrugged off 10 Allied A/T l hits and the wrecks only have evidence of 5 hits per tank.



Soren said:


> And unless there's just one penetration then there's most often no way of fidning out which "hit" knocked out or lit up the tank.



True but do you realise this is admitting each Tiger could have been knocked out by *ONE* hit?
Let me re-word it and tell me if you think this is more accurate?

_The average number of hits per Tiger was 5. Thus though we can say that 5 was the Average number of hits it is possible that most of the hits could be post-mortem and that:

*the actual number needed to knock out a Tiger is in the range 1-5 hits.*_

Any problems with that?



parsifal said:


> So while the material presented by MK does tend to corroborate that the numbers of hits needed to knock out a Tiger was not ten (and this already and automatically takes into account the variable of range etc) I dont see how it can be of benefit to the frontline forces unless the circumstances of each engagement are known.



It is not being claimed it was of use for any tactical purpose. A large amount of data was collected in 1944/45. It took months to tabulate and study. Any benefits were a long time in the future. 
Too much is being read into the info so why not take it as it is, a simple list of the number of holes/gouges/strikes on X number of knocked out tanks.
The one thing that cannot be disputed is that the everage number of hits per destroyed Panther/Tiger tank was less than 5.


----------



## m kenny (Jun 14, 2009)

The Sherman Study is available here:

http://www.wlu.ca/lcmsds/cmh/back i...lties Between 6th June and 10th July 1944.pdf

You can see that there are several sections and the 'hits per knocked out tank' is but one part of a larger study.

Though I mentioned this report earlier I again notice not one person has bothered to comment on it or rubbish it. The Report on German losses however is STILL being slated after 50 posts!


----------



## Juha (Jun 14, 2009)

m kenny
Thanks a lot for the link!

Nice to notice that Canadians drew the same conclusion than I from the results, ie uparmouring wasn't a viable option so upgunning was the answer.

Juha


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 14, 2009)

Here is just my question to all parties.

Is it or is it not true, that overall Panthers and Tigers were better designed than the average allied tank? Did they or did they not for the most part have better armor and better armament? Just a question...


----------



## Soren (Jun 14, 2009)

parsifal said:


> I dont see such a survey as being useless....the engagement ranges (and all the other factors you mention) are a variable that contributes to the outcomes, and hence the average number of hits needed to knock out the tank. Thats what OR does, it is a "results driven" statistical analysis.
> 
> If indeed, the average number of hits needed to knock out a German tank was about ten, as you say, then one would expect to see a lot of German wrecked tanks with "about ten hits" on them. If we cant find that, then the original paramnreter has to be interrogated. If it was "about ten" needed to knock out a Tiger, why cant we find the evidence of that????
> 
> ...




Parsifal,

Lets just be clear that I never claimed that it on average took 10 hits to knock out any tank, that is just another one of m_kenny's fabrications.


----------



## m kenny (Jun 14, 2009)

Soren said:


> Lets just be clear that I never claimed that it on average took 10 hits to knock out any tank, that is just another one of m_kenny's fabrications.



What was said:

1)



Soren said:


> Take for example *all the times *that Allied tankers in vain spended* as much as 10 rounds at a German tank* only to observe all their rounds just bounce off German armour and then be blown to smithereens by the first return shot fired. Such instances could never be recorded in a statistic like that as there was no'one left to record it. Only the German could record that he'd used a single shot to knock out the Sherman, while the poor guys in the sherman were likely all dead and didn't live to tell how they expended maybe* 10 shots or more  *in vain on the German tank.



2)


Soren said:


> If you honestly believe that it one average *took 4.2 hits to KO a Tiger* then I say you lack even a basic sense of logic, esp. seeing that *Tigers often were hit many times during battle to no effect.* There's even an incident in which one got hit 246 times, yet it kept on fighting!



Perhaps you could give a figure you believe to be more realistic? 



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Is it or is it not true, that overall Panthers and Tigers were better designed than the average allied tank? Did they or did they not for the most part have better armor and better armament? Just a question...



I never like to comment on this type of question. It is an opinion thing with too many variables to be able to reach a definitive conclusion. One mans opinion is worth no more than anyone elses.


----------



## Soren (Jun 14, 2009)

Again you confuse hits with penetrations m_kenny.

*Adler,*

The Panther is considered the best tank developed during the war by many experts, and the Tiger Ausf.E was definitely ahead of its time when it first appeared and was first matched in 1944 by heavy Soviet designs, by which time the Germans had even better tanks in service. So to answer your question yes the Germans were definitely leading in tank design technology, and the Panther Tiger E were usually a lot better armed armored than Allied tanks. Now people can go ahead and call me biased for saying this but it is actually the general consensus between experts.

With that having been said the Germans used a lot more money on their tanks as they were a lot more advanced than anyone elses, and the question is then was it worth it in the end ? Some people suggest that the Germans would've been better off building more PzIV's, but in reality the problem plaguing the Germans the most wasn't the lack of tanks, but more the lack of fuel and spare parts. The German industry simply wasn't big enough to provide both all the weapons needed and then the spare parts they'd be needing once things wore out. 

Anyway I know that you already know all of this so I'm not gonna bore you with it anymore


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jun 14, 2009)

m kenny said:


> I have posted the contents of this report may times on a number of Forums and it generates little heat.
> Not one person has made a claim it used faulty methodology
> However whenever I post the same type of report that has data as to the flammability or mortality rate for German tanks I always get at least one reply that casts doubts as to the authority, methodology or conclusion. I wonder why?



I would make any claim until I ahd all the facts. I can only state that of a few items I know, something do not make sense to me. Is there a website that has all of the dat and studies or is this something I can get fro, you?


----------



## parsifal (Jun 15, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Here is just my question to all parties.
> 
> Is it or is it not true, that overall Panthers and Tigers were better designed than the average allied tank? Did they or did they not for the most part have better armor and better armament? Just a question...



My opinion is that qualitatively the germans were clearly superior. But the 64 dollar question is by how much.... Allied and Soviet tanks were cheaper to build, so it gets down to the issue of how much bang did the germans get for the additional bucks they spent on their tanks. A Panther cost 2.6 times that of a Sherman, so are you better off having one Panther to 2.6 Shermans.......the equations gets very hard to make any conclusions aboput when you look at it in those terms


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 15, 2009)

m kenny said:


> I never like to comment on this type of question. It is an opinion thing with too many variables to be able to reach a definitive conclusion. One mans opinion is worth no more than anyone elses.



How is it an opinion based thing? One tank has better armor? One tank has a better weapon, etc...



parsifal said:


> My opinion is that qualitatively the germans were clearly superior. But the 64 dollar question is by how much.... Allied and Soviet tanks were cheaper to build, so it gets down to the issue of how much bang did the germans get for the additional bucks they spent on their tanks. A Panther cost 2.6 times that of a Sherman, so are you better off having one Panther to 2.6 Shermans.......the equations gets very hard to make any conclusions aboput when you look at it in those terms



I agree completely, and I already know that. I was just looking for each persons individual answer.


----------



## m kenny (Jun 15, 2009)

vikingBerserker said:


> I can only state that of a few items I know, something do not make sense to me.


Share your fears. What exactly is it you are worried about?
Do you think that the Sherman was not as flammable as previously thought or are your concerns limited to studies on German tanks? 



vikingBerserker said:


> Is there a website that has all of the data and studies or is this something I can get fro, you?



Only the Sherman study is online in full. I presume the 'errors' you have found would be present there as well. Use it to show us where the methodology goes wrong.



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> How is it an opinion based thing? One tank has better armor? One tank has a better weapon, etc....



The 'opinion' thing enters the arena when you try and quantify the qualities assumed to mean 'better', better' armour, 'better' gun ect. If these were the only parameters then 500 ton monsters would automaticaly assume pole position in any race for 'the best'.
I would say a 'better' way would be to look at a tanks overall impact on the war. Thats when the complications arrive. One example? Germany thought she had pretty good tanks. However one she invaded Russia it was found the T34 outclassed everything she possesed. Thus at different times different tanks were 'better'. Many would pick the TII but others would say the circa 450 built and in service for under 11 moths had little impact on the war, that is when the 'opinion thing' comes into play


----------



## Amsel (Jun 15, 2009)

You have your Sherman and I will vote Tiger I. I don't live in a twisted world where a Sherman is superior to a Tiger I.


----------



## m kenny (Jun 15, 2009)

Amsel said:


> You have your Sherman and I will vote Tiger I



Fine so far...........



Amsel said:


> I don't live in a twisted world where a Sherman is superior to a Tiger I.



As is normal in these type of debates there are those who take any refusal to say a Tiger is not the automatic best (whatever 'best' may be) as a personal slight and a sign of impared cognitive ability.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 15, 2009)

MK

I could follow your argument if you are going to argue on the basis of cost, or mobility, or even serviceability. But you cannot be seriously arguing that a sherman can match a tiger toe to toe in the straight up gun/armour area, surely....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 15, 2009)

m kenny said:


> The 'opinion' thing enters the arena when you try and quantify the qualities assumed to mean 'better', better' armour, 'better' gun ect. If these were the only parameters then 500 ton monsters would automaticaly assume pole position in any race for 'the best'.
> I would say a 'better' way would be to look at a tanks overall impact on the war. Thats when the complications arrive. One example? Germany thought she had pretty good tanks. However one she invaded Russia it was found the T34 outclassed everything she possesed. Thus at different times different tanks were 'better'. Many would pick the TII but others would say the circa 450 built and in service for under 11 moths had little impact on the war, that is when the 'opinion thing' comes into play



I don't think you understand that one can compare different tanks. In a war like WW2, I would rather have 10,000 Shermans than 1500 Tigers, so in that sense the Sherman was the better tank for the war. However if you compare tank on tank (and no I am not talking about battle field, I am talking about characteristics, armor, armament, etc), the Tiger is going to come out on top.

It is the same in the aircraft world. We can compare individual aircraft all day long. I think you fail to do so. You only look at one aspect of it. 

I think you bring tons of great information, but you spoil it by only looking at things from a very narrow point of view. Not trying to be insulting or anything, so please do not take it that way. That is just something that has been bugging me. Don't worry either, I could say the same thing about your friend Soren. He is the complete other spectrum that you are...

Like I said in the end the Sherman was the right tank for the war. Easy to build, cheap, and there were mass numbers of them. The Sherman itself however was no where near the best tank of the war in itself though.



Amsel said:


> I don't live in a twisted world where a Sherman is superior to a Tiger I.



Compared to a Sherman, I agree completely. The Tiger was a very superior tank overall. It had better armor, it was more of a modern tank design, it had better armament. Enough said, no one can argue that.

I would however take lots of mass produced Sherman's over a hand full of Tigers any day. During WW2, superior numbers in the end is what will win on the battle field most of the time.


----------



## Catch22 (Jun 15, 2009)

I think we can safely say that tank on tank, any German tank Panzer V or later is quite superior to the Sherman, or most Allied tanks for that matter. The Sherman's strength didn't really lie within the tank itself per se, but rather its ease of manufacture.


----------



## Juha (Jun 15, 2009)

Hello Adler
On Panther and Tiger, strickly on armament and armour, answer is yes, at least to the emergence of Comet, which while having weaker and oldfashioned hull armour had better armoured turret than Panther and had almost as good gun with better reliability in 33 ton package. Not better tank than Panther but more suited to deep armoured trusts that were the order of the day for Allied in 1945.
On heavy tank, Tiger I and II were better armoured than contempory Soviets heavy tanks and had 88 mm guns which were better armour piercers than guns in Soviet heavy tanks, but tank guns needed also good HE ammo, after all one main function of Soviet heavy tanks was shoot the Soviet infantry through German lines and 122mm HE was in that work better than 88mm HE. So Soviet heavy tanks were better in infantry support, if we forget the limited ammo storage but worse in tank vs tank combat.
Personally I liked Tiger I, expensive but IMHO necessary tool for WM at that time even if not the wunderweapon that Hitler and some others expected.
On the other hand IMHO Panther was too big as MBT for WM and for the industrial resources of Germany of the time. At least Germans should have first try to get the original prototype with 60mm glacis arrmour and 75mm L/60 gun working properly. That would have been entirely adequate in 43 before uparmouring and upgunning it. Every ton spared in growth would have made it easier to solve running gear and powertrain problems which mostly born out from the fact tha Panther's weight rose from 30-35 tons to 43,5 tons during design and development. Now during the very important year 43 Germany was burdened by thirsty and unreliable MBT even if when it worked it was deadly. Just my oppinion.

Juha


----------



## m kenny (Jun 15, 2009)

As I said I don't contribute to this type of thread because frankly there are large numbers who enter the debate 'knowing' the answer. Usualy it descends into name-calling and insult and I have better things to waste my time on. 
I would say that my case is typical. Anyone who refuses to accept the percieved wisdom that the Tiger was 'it' gets lots of aggro from those who can't understand why he will not accept the obvious. Why bother even having such a thread if the answer is so obvious?
I do not think the Tiger was the greatest tank ever. Far from it. It was a heavy that had no real opposition for 2 years. It is easy being tough when you are being attacked by Pygmies. That said I never claim the Sherman was 'the best' either. Despite eveyone ASSUMING I did. Why is it that failing to back the Tiger for the job means you have to support the Sherman?
A tank is has to perform a number of missions and being a long range tank killer is just ONE ot its jobs. Wars are won by Infantry boots on the ground and tanks/Artillery/ships and aeroplanes are there to put those boots where they make the most impact. It is no good inventing artificial conditions where tanks sally forth to do individaul combat between the lines like lousting knights. In such acontrived meeting then the heavier armoured tank is bound to have the advantage. In fact I wonder why, in a thread where it asks which was 'the best' tank is it considered that heavy armour and large gun is considered THE critical factor. 

I think the most succesful tank nation was the Soviets. They consistently produced good all round types that did everything the finely honed Western or over-engineered Panzers types ever did did and at a much smaller cost. 
There I said it now tell me how stupid I am because I don't accept the obvious.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 15, 2009)

m kenny said:


> As I said I don't contribute to this type of thread because frankly there are large numbers who enter the debate 'knowing' the answer. Usualy it descends into name-calling and insult and I have better things to waste my time on.
> I would say that my case is typical. Anyone who refuses to accept the percieved wisdom that the Tiger was 'it' gets lots of aggro from those who can't understand why he will not accept the obvious. Why bother even having such a thread if the answer is so obvious?
> I do not think the Tiger was the greatest tank ever. Far from it. It was a heavy that had no real opposition for 2 years. It is easy being tough when you are being attacked by Pygmies. That said I never claim the Sherman was 'the best' either. Despite eveyone ASSUMING I did. Why is it that failing to back the Tiger for the job means you have to support the Sherman?
> A tank is has to perform a number of missions and being a long range tank killer is just ONE ot its jobs. Wars are won by Infantry boots on the ground and tanks/Artillery/ships and aeroplanes are there to put those boots where they make the most impact. It is no good inventing artificial conditions where tanks sally forth to do individaul combat between the lines like lousting knights. In such acontrived meeting then the heavier armoured tank is bound to have the advantage. In fact I wonder why, in a thread where it asks which was 'the best' tank is it considered that heavy armour and large gun is considered THE critical factor.
> ...



*1. No one said you were stupid, so why bring it up?* 

2. The problem is that you think the same thing about the people that believe in the "obvious", maybe not directly, but that is how you come across...

3. I think you fail to realize that this is a public forum and the vast majority of people are not tank "experts". I sure as hell know that I am not one of them. I am interested in tanks, and that is why I read this thread, so that I can learn. That is why the "obvious" discussion as you call it comes about. Does that make them stupid, or not worthy of your "great knowing" conversation? Sort of seems that way. 

So I will put my summary (which you probably do not care about, because I am ordinary, obvious, and probably not "tank intelligent enough").

1. The Tiger and Panther were not the greatest tanks every built, neither was the T-34 and certainly was not anything that the Western Allies fielded in any large numbers during the war.

2. The Tiger and Panther had much better armor than just about anything the Western Allies put out in the field in any large numbers.

3. The Tiger and Panther had better armament than just about anything the Western Allies put out in the field in any large numbers.

4. The Tiger and Panther* were overall a better tank *than anything the western allies put out in the field any large number. Pretty obvious answer huh? But it is true...

5. The Sherman and most Western Allied tanks were better suited for infantry support than the Tiger and Panther. Another pretty obvious answer huh?

6. The Tiger or Panther would beat most western allied tanks one on one, most of the time. There goes another one of those pretty obvious ones, but hey it is true! But then again you don't carry on those kind of conversations with us normal people...

7. Though the Tiger and Panther were overall better tanks, the were not war winners, because the allies could produce "good and reliable" tanks in mass numbers and very cheap.

*There now tell me I am stupid...*


----------



## plan_D (Jun 15, 2009)

Can I just point out that the job of a tank in World War II was not to destroy another tank, however the tanks greatest enemy was another tank. And I can I also point out that the three features of a tank that are a required element, if it is to be the best of the best are mobility, firepower and protection. 

The major issue in tank debate, however, is down to the fact that different 'tanks' are built for different roles. The Tiger I was never built to fulfil the same role as the Sherman, it was a "Heavy/Breakthrough" tank, designed to destroy the initial enemy resistance and open gaps in the enemy lines. The Sherman was a "Medium/Cruiser" tank, it's role was to capitalise on any break in the enemy lines and run riot behind them, thus preventing the enemy from re-grouping, the Wehrmacht equal was the Pz.IV. 
The Western approach to warfare saw other methods of breaking the enemy line (artillery/airpower/numbers) thus used the easily built Sherman which was supported by Tank Destroyers; the Destroyers remove the tank threat, the infantry remove the anti-tank threat, the Sherman runs riot. 
The German approach was to have tanks capable of that initial breakthrough and have the smaller, faster armour run riot. Imagine the short-barrel Pz.IV as the Tiger I and the late Pz.IV as the early Pz.III. 

What I'm saying is...no tank was designed for the sake of it, so to compare them equally and on a fair and level playing field you should ask "Were they the best at what they were designed to do?" Because the Tiger I would blast almost any other tank in the war to pieces without problem, but a T-34 would drive from Moscow to Berlin without missing a beat.


----------



## Soren (Jun 15, 2009)

Mobility, armament protection. These are the three most important quailities a tank must possess, Plan_D is completely right about this. 

However before we start talking about what each tank was designed to do, the Sherman T-34 were actually both designed to be superior as soon as they entered the battlefield, and in the case of the T-34 it certainly succeeded. Both tanks were designed during a time where the deadliest gun on a German tank was the 50mm L/42 of the PzIII, and the 75mm M3 was definitely superior to this gun and more than capable of dealing with the 30mm frontal armour of the PzIII. Furthermore the Sherman's armour was designed specifically to withstand hits from the 50mm L/42, which it did beautifully. And the exact same can be said about the T-34 eventhough it sported an even better gun and armour protection than the Sherman.

So it terms of design both the Sherman T-34 were designed specifically to counter the present German threat, the PzIII, and they both more adequately achieved this.

Now that the Germans would come up with a solution to this problem as quickly as they did no'one could've ever foreseen. The Germans were however blessed with the two best gun manufacturers in the world, Krupp Rheinmetall, and they came up with a solution in record breaking time: The 75mm L/43 gun, and not long after that Henschel Son had ready what was to be the most fearsome tank of the war, the Pzkpfw.VI Tiger, a tank which was atleast 2½ years ahead of its time and to no surprise stunned everyone who first saw it.


----------



## m kenny (Jun 15, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> *1. No one said you were stupid, so why bring it up?*
> 
> Does that make them stupid, or not worthy of your "great knowing" conversation?
> (which you probably do not care about, because I am ordinary, obvious, and probably not "tank intelligent enough").
> ...



As I said when I was first asked to comment there never seems to be any middle ground and it always starts to get personal. It is my own fault for bothering to reply.

However:

* The Tiger and Panther had much better armor than just about anything the Western Allies put out in the field in any large numbers*

Not true. There were Allied tanks that had as much armour as the Tiger. The Churchill, as designed had frontal armour of 88mm compared to the Tigers 100mm. By the Time of Normandy the Churchill frontal plate was 150mm. The IS2 had slightly thicker armour but much better slope. 
The Panther had a good *Glacis* but very thin sides. As some 80% of hits were on the sides/rear then the glacis only helped in the 20% of shots that hit the front.

*The Tiger or Panther would beat most western allied tanks one on one, most of the time*

This much talked about scenario is a staple of these threads. One-on -ones were never a consideration in any tactics manual I know off. 

I see this is going nowhere. therefore I retreat to my initial position-i.e. I see no point in this type of thread.


----------



## Njaco (Jun 15, 2009)

Well, since this is a thread for your _favorite _tank I picked the Pzkfw Mk IV.

Because I like the way it looks.

I don't care that a bazooka could take it out. Or the box shape was obsolete.

I like the way it looks.

Argue all you want about armour thickness and gun barrels and engine strengths....

I like the way it looks.

It did ask what my favorite was without any qualifiers, right?


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jun 15, 2009)

m kenny said:


> Share your fears. What exactly is it you are worried about?
> Do you think that the Sherman was not as flammable as previously thought or are your concerns limited to studies on German tanks?



Worried? I'm not worried about anything I was just asking questions on the data. The questions I was asking you were about the data you were presenting in regards to the German tanks.


----------



## m kenny (Jun 15, 2009)

vikingBerserker said:


> Worried? I'm not worried about anything I was just asking questions on the data. The questions I was asking you were about the data you were presenting in regards to the German tanks.


Could you be more specific about your doubts.
What do you think is 'wrong'?


----------



## Soren (Jun 15, 2009)

Njaco said:


> Well, since this is a thread for your _favorite _tank I picked the Pzkfw Mk IV.
> 
> Because I like the way it looks.
> 
> ...



Well not much bad to asy about it, it was an excellent tank with great mobility, armament and very comfortable for the crew. Definitely also one of my favorites.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 16, 2009)

plan_D said:


> Can I just point out that the job of a tank in World War II was not to destroy another tank, however the tanks greatest enemy was another tank. And I can I also point out that the three features of a tank that are a required element, if it is to be the best of the best are mobility, firepower and protection.
> 
> The major issue in tank debate, however, is down to the fact that different 'tanks' are built for different roles. The Tiger I was never built to fulfil the same role as the Sherman, it was a "Heavy/Breakthrough" tank, designed to destroy the initial enemy resistance and open gaps in the enemy lines. The Sherman was a "Medium/Cruiser" tank, it's role was to capitalise on any break in the enemy lines and run riot behind them, thus preventing the enemy from re-grouping, the Wehrmacht equal was the Pz.IV.
> The Western approach to warfare saw other methods of breaking the enemy line (artillery/airpower/numbers) thus used the easily built Sherman which was supported by Tank Destroyers; the Destroyers remove the tank threat, the infantry remove the anti-tank threat, the Sherman runs riot.
> ...



Great post, great to have you back!



m kenny said:


> As I said when I was first asked to comment there never seems to be any middle ground and it always starts to get personal. It is my own fault for bothering to reply.



Do not get butt hurt. You started it, I only responded to your post. Is it okay for you to talk to us in such a manner, but us not allowed to do the same to you?



m kenny said:


> * The Tiger and Panther had much better armor than just about anything the Western Allies put out in the field in any large numbers*
> 
> Not true. There were Allied tanks that had as much armour as the Tiger. The Churchill, as designed had frontal armour of 88mm compared to the Tigers 100mm. By the Time of Normandy the Churchill frontal plate was 150mm. The IS2 had slightly thicker armour but much better slope.
> The Panther had a good *Glacis* but very thin sides. As some 80% of hits were on the sides/rear then the glacis only helped in the 20% of shots that hit the front.



Notice my key words. I used the words *just about anything*, that does not mean *everything*. So no, my statement was not false. Read what I say, and do not change my words. You can not pick and chose other people words to support your statement.



m kenny said:


> *The Tiger or Panther would beat most western allied tanks one on one, most of the time*
> 
> This much talked about scenario is a staple of these threads. One-on -ones were never a consideration in any tactics manual I know off.



That is how you compare two tanks from a technical stand point. Sorry most of us are mortals... 



m kenny said:


> I see this is going nowhere. therefore I retreat to my initial position-i.e. I see no point in this type of thread.



Then why do you post in it? If you do not like our thread (or forum for that matter), go someplace that you would much prefer. I think it would be a shame, because you do have great knowledge on this subject. 

I however do not want someone here that does not want to be here.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 16, 2009)

m kenny said:


> As I said I don't contribute to this type of thread because frankly there are large numbers who enter the debate 'knowing' the answer. Usualy it descends into name-calling and insult and I have better things to waste my time on.
> I would say that my case is typical. Anyone who refuses to accept the percieved wisdom that the Tiger was 'it' gets lots of aggro from those who can't understand why he will not accept the obvious. Why bother even having such a thread if the answer is so obvious?
> I do not think the Tiger was the greatest tank ever. Far from it. It was a heavy that had no real opposition for 2 years. It is easy being tough when you are being attacked by Pygmies. That said I never claim the Sherman was 'the best' either. Despite eveyone ASSUMING I did. Why is it that failing to back the Tiger for the job means you have to support the Sherman?
> A tank is has to perform a number of missions and being a long range tank killer is just ONE ot its jobs. Wars are won by Infantry boots on the ground and tanks/Artillery/ships and aeroplanes are there to put those boots where they make the most impact. It is no good inventing artificial conditions where tanks sally forth to do individaul combat between the lines like lousting knights. In such acontrived meeting then the heavier armoured tank is bound to have the advantage. In fact I wonder why, in a thread where it asks which was 'the best' tank is it considered that heavy armour and large gun is considered THE critical factor.
> ...



There is a degree of truth to what you say, but I think to be honest you are being deliberately obtuse.

Postwar tank design tends to support the notion that best does not equate necessarily to heaviest and most armoured. That is the basis of the modern MBT concept....a mixture of armament, armour, and mobility basically. So, to that extent you are correct.

However, in the context of WWII, the concept of a MBT was not quite there yet. Perhaps the design that came closest to the concept was the T-34. So again I would alrgely agree with you.

However, this still does not get to the heart of WWII era warfare, namely that no tank can lay claim to being a complete "allrounder" in the sense of a modern MBT. The design theory just wasnt developed to that level of sophistication. What tended to happen was that there were tanks that tended to specialise.....in the British concept you had "Infantry" and "cruiser" tanks. This was progressively melded as the war progressed, to produce a mixed breeed, starting with the Cromwell, before progressing to the Centurion. But the cruiser-Infantry tank classification was badly misguided in my opinion, what was needed (in the sense of separating roles for a tank, which in itself is an outdated concept), was a tank carrying the firepower to achieve the breakthrough (one might call this a heavy tank), and a tank to exploit that breakthrough, which one might call a breakthrough or medium tank. What was needed in reality was a tank that blended these often competing prioties to achieve the best blend of compromise between the three elements of mobility, firepower and protection.

Added to that equation is the simple tyranny of numbers, quite simply the cheaper the tank, the more you can fild, the more you can fild, the more effective are your armoured formations.

Now, given that there were not really any tanks that successfully combined all these competing elements (though I admit that there are quite a number that come very close, with the T-34, Panther, Mk IV, Sherman and Cromwell all up there vying for the position of best all round tank), one has to simply accept that tanks were specialised, and choose which one does its particular job the best when getting into these sorts of debates.....and to this point I believe you have disingenously dodged the issue, trying to label this forum as biased, one-eyed and the like. I can assure you that the majority here are none of the above...sure there are the odd zealots, but the majority are simply sitting back and spectating at this point. I believe that within its specialised roles, the tiger was a formidable weapon system. I have read, for example, that it could take out a T-34 at three miles....The tiger could not do everything, in fact its roles were quite limited....it had poor range, and its mobility was extremely limited...it cost a packet to build, and its serviceability was questionable....but as a battlefield weapons platform it was pretty formidable, greatly feared by its opponents....So I see you doing a great disservice to the brave men that had to fight these behemoths when you appear to belittle their battlefiled effects by suggesting they are not that big a threat.

If I have misunderstood you I apologize. I do not think or say you are stupid, quite the contrary, but it is annoying to watch you duck and weave, and avoid explaining yourself, which is to the detriment of the value of this forum.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jun 16, 2009)

m kenny said:


> Could you be more specific about your doubts.
> What do you think is 'wrong'?



?? It's what all my posts were about.


----------



## Soren (Jun 16, 2009)

The best tank will always be the one with the best combination of firepower, mobility protection, and the Pzkpfw.V Panther is considered the best tank of the war because of this.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 16, 2009)

Plenty of material for disagreement on this page  :

Adler:


> 2. The Tiger and Panther had much better armor than just about anything the Western Allies put out in the field in any large numbers.


Tiger's armor was indeed in a league of its own when compared against Western tanks before Normandy, but all British infantry tanks carried armour tick enough to compete against the Panther's of the era.

Soren:


> Now that the Germans would come up with a solution to this problem as quickly as they did no'one could've ever foreseen. The Germans were however blessed with the two best gun manufacturers in the world, Krupp Rheinmetall, and they came up with a solution in record breaking time: The 75mm L/43 gun, and not long after that Henschel Son had ready what was to be the most fearsome tank of the war, the Pzkpfw.VI Tiger, a tank which was atleast 2½ years ahead of its time and to no surprise stunned everyone who first saw it.



Don't know where to start 

"as quickly as noone could've ever forseen"??? What a heck??? Were they developing Sputnik, or pieces of steel?
"blessed with the two best gun manufacturers in the world, Krupp Rheinmetall" ??? Sentences like that belong in the propaganda material of those companies, not in a WWII forum.
"in record breaking time"??? Both 7,5cm PaK40 and Tiger were in development before 1940, so no record-breaking here. 

parsifal (while I agree with the most of the post):


> Postwar tank design tends to support the notion that best does not equate necessarily to heaviest and most armoured. That is the basis of the modern MBT concept....a mixture of armament, armour, and mobility basically. So, to that extent you are correct.


I disagree. The Brits, Israelis, US and new European (Leo2 and Leclerc) opted for more armor, and then the gun engine as big as it's possible. 
The Brits wanted the heaviest armor most notably, and their most successful tanks were the ones with the heaviest armor available. From Matilda on.


> Added to that equation is the simple tyranny of numbers, quite simply the cheaper the tank, the more you can fild, the more you can fild, the more effective are your armoured formations.


The most expensive part of armor unit are not the tanks themselves, but the trained/experienced crews. If one puts them into the tinclads, the result would be disastrous in any war against a tough opponent.
But, since the bean counters (politicians) control the armed forces, for most of the countries the cheap tank is a good tank, so that's why T-55/Leo1/AMX-30 were so popular during the cold war.

Soren:


> The best tank will always be the one with the best combination of firepower, mobility protection, and the Pzkpfw.V Panther is considered the best tank of the war because of this


Fire power was crappy for a 45 ton vehicle (HE shell was comparable with Pz-IV, weighting 20-22 tons), Valentine tank (under 20 tons!) had the same armour protection, the suspension was troublesome during the 1st year. And we haven't calculated the price yet.
If we want a German tank to be the best so badly, the Tiger Tiger II did have at least the fire power armor protection being top-notch.
The Panther might be considered by some as being the best, other people rate T-34, or Tiger II as the best.

Great post by plan_d


----------



## m kenny (Jun 16, 2009)

vikingBerserker said:


> ?? It's what all my posts were about.



Are you sure?


----------



## plan_D (Jun 16, 2009)

Soren, you are absolutely right about the Sherman being designed to withstand the (and destroy) the Pz.III but that wasn't it's one and only design point. The designers recognised the enemy of tanks, being tanks, and built the Sherman to remove that threat by being superior to it's opposition. The tank was not designed to be a breakthrough machine nor was it a tank hunter... the American chain of thought shines through with the Pershing, I cannot remember the exact quote but the High Command was disturbed by its high powered armament as they stated it would encourage crews to hunt down enemy tanks, and that was the job of the tank destroyer. 

The MBT concept did not exist in World War II. The closest to the modern MBT concept came in the dying throws of World War - the Pershing, the Centurion and the IS-3. And for me the closest was the Centurion - but it certainly wasn't designed as a MBT. All World War II tanks were designed with a role in mind.


----------



## Juha (Jun 16, 2009)

Hello Tomo Pauk
in fact Churchill Mk IV was almost as well armoured as Tiger, 88mm front and 76mm turret sides, 65 mm hull sides, some had 20mm appliqué armour added and Mk VII was clearly better armoured with 152mm front armour and 95mm side armour. Of course it was not equal to Tiger in tank vs tank duel because of its medium velocity 75mm gun.

Juha


----------



## m kenny (Jun 16, 2009)

parsifal said:


> So I see you doing a great disservice to the brave men that had to fight these behemoths when you appear to belittle their battlefiled effects by suggesting they are not that big a threat.



Nothing could be further from the truth. I find stories about Allied tankers 'running away' or refusing to combat Tigers or Panther extremely offensive. I have amassed a mountain of references on British Armoured Formations and their exploits in NW Europe 1944/45. In fact this area is my PRIMARY field. All the Tiger info and loss data arise from this reading. Stories about a Shermans 'sneaking' round the back of a Tiger while its 3 friends sacrifice themselves at the front have no basis in reality. Every time I see a story about a Tiger Ace swatting Shermans I ALWAYS check the original Units reports for that day. To date it appears these kill claims are grossly inflated and never match reality. 



parsifal said:


> and to this point I believe you have disingenously dodged the issue, trying to label this forum as biased, one-eyed and the like.



I never said the FORUM was biased. I said this type of thread alway ends in tears IF SOMEONE DARES TO SAY THE TIGER WAS NOT 'THE BEST'. I am someone who does not think that. Over the years this has brought me a mountain of trouble. This very thread illustrates the problems. Therefore I find it is best to avoid saying it in a 'Best Tank' thread. My mistake was to break that silence. I have no problems talking about the specifics of any individaul action. If it is claimed Tiger 'X' knocked out 10 Shermans whilst surviving 12 frontal hits then I am only too happy to post the Unit accounts fron the Sherman Regiment said to have been the victim..



parsifal said:


> but it is annoying to watch you duck and weave, and avoid explaining yourself, which is to the detriment of the value of this forum.



I simply see no point in getting involved in pointless arguments. An opinion is an opinion and I have far better things to do than keep defending my 'opionion'.



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Do not get butt hurt. You started it, I only responded to your post. Is it okay for you to talk to us in such a manner, but us not allowed to do the same to you?



I do not get offended or waste much worrying over slights. 



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Then why do you post in it? If you do not like our thread (or forum for that matter), go someplace that you would much prefer. I think it would be a shame, because you do have great knowledge on this subject.
> 
> I however do not want someone here that does not want to be here.



Because you asked. It was a mistake that I will not repeat. I make no bones about my problems with the Uber-Panzer myths. I would say I am one of the few here(or anywhere) who bothers to check Allied accounts when the I see stories of multiple kills by a Tiger or Panther in Normandy. 
This means I get a lot of grief from those who believe otherwise.
If I decline to admit the Tiger was the best of anything I get lots of 'advice' from those who think it was.
I can cope with it but it just seems a waste of time over nothing. That is why I chose not to contribute in these comparisons. I might post in the thead but I don't say X was better than Y because I don't really care which was best. longer, heavier ect. My interest is in what actualy happened, the outcome of a battle and the actual numbers of destroyed tanks.

If I am welcome or not is not my decision. I am me and no matter what anyone tells me here I can categoricaly tell you that refusing to say the Tiger was 'the best' generates heat on the majority of forums.
I do not think it was the best. I have my reasons but do not wish to keep going over them. My reasons are based on an overview of all aspects of a tanks role and not confined to technical aspects or performance in hyperthetical or contrived situations. I believe I take the wider view.


----------



## Soren (Jun 16, 2009)

I don't think the Tiger was the best tank of the war either, I however don't seem to get a lot of heat for that, I wonder why? Maybe because I admit that it was a very strong tank which was a VERY big danger to any enemy tank it met? Maybe because I actually acknowledge that it had some excellent features?

You see that's the problem with you m_kenny, you NEVER, and I repeat, NEVER acknolwdge anything German. In the now 5 years that I've known you (Axis History forum) I have not seen you post as much as a single positive thing about any form of German equipment. Why is that ?? 

Now I am considered to be a pretty darn biased person by some people, but even I acknowledge a lot of Allied equipment. So why is it we NEVER see you do the same as regards to German equipment?


----------



## Soren (Jun 16, 2009)

plan_D said:


> Soren, you are absolutely right about the Sherman being designed to withstand the (and destroy) the Pz.III but that wasn't it's one and only design point. The designers recognised the enemy of tanks, being tanks, and built the Sherman to remove that threat by being superior to it's opposition. The tank was not designed to be a breakthrough machine nor was it a tank hunter... the American chain of thought shines through with the Pershing, I cannot remember the exact quote but the High Command was disturbed by its high powered armament as they stated it would encourage crews to hunt down enemy tanks, and that was the job of the tank destroyer.
> 
> The MBT concept did not exist in World War II. The closest to the modern MBT concept came in the dying throws of World War - the Pershing, the Centurion and the IS-3. And for me the closest was the Centurion - but it certainly wasn't designed as a MBT. All World War II tanks were designed with a role in mind.



The closest to a MBT during WW2 is IMO the Panther, but ofcourse such a thing is debatable as like you rightly pointed out; there was no real MBT during WW2. 

But lets not forget that the MBTs of today usually weigh around 70 tons and sport a lot of armour firepower, so perhaps they do have more in common with the German Tiger tanks than anything else. It certainly seems like the German approach has lived on when it comes to tank design.

The MBT concept was to begin with a tank which was to have good armour, firepower mobility, while not too much of anything, a recipe most western tank designs followed a good number of decades after the war. One good example being the M48 Patton tank. This whole line of thought however seemed to change when the Germans came up with the Leopard 2 tank in the 1970's. This tank sported a lot more armour protection than was usual with any other MBT then in service, and its main armament, the 120mm L/44 gun by Rheinmetall, was by then the most powerful main armament to be put on any tank in the world.


----------



## Juha (Jun 16, 2009)

Hello Soren
IMHO Leo2 shows that Germans moved away from mobility and firepower oriented Leo1 towards British firepower and armour oriented designs while keeping the mobility aspect OK. In fact the move to better protected tanks was universal at least in West, casualty avoidance having to become much more important politically in West. After all from Centurion onwards British MBTs have had good protection and excellent guns, powertrain on the other hand being at least time to time a problem.

Juha


----------



## Soren (Jun 16, 2009)

What I was trying to point out was that tanks today actually have more in common with tanks like the Tiger tank than anything else really, they're heavy, extremely well armed heavily armoured, just like the Tiger tank was in WW2. So the German approach has lived on.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 16, 2009)

tomo pauk said:


> Plenty of material for disagreement on this page  :
> 
> Adler:
> 
> Tiger's armor was indeed in a league of its own when compared against Western tanks before Normandy, but all British infantry tanks carried armour tick enough to compete against the Panther's of the era.




Again, look at my *key* words. I said almost everything, not everything...



m kenny said:


> Because you asked. It was a mistake that I will not repeat. I make no bones about my problems with the Uber-Panzer myths. I would say I am one of the few here(or anywhere) who bothers to check Allied accounts when the I see stories of multiple kills by a Tiger or Panther in Normandy.
> This means I get a lot of grief from those who believe otherwise.
> If I decline to admit the Tiger was the best of anything I get lots of 'advice' from those who think it was.
> I can cope with it but it just seems a waste of time over nothing. That is why I chose not to contribute in these comparisons. I might post in the thead but I don't say X was better than Y because I don't really care which was best. longer, heavier ect. My interest is in what actualy happened, the outcome of a battle and the actual numbers of destroyed tanks.
> ...



Then quit wasting our time as well as your time!



Soren said:


> You see that's the problem with you m_kenny, you NEVER, and I repeat, NEVER acknolwdge anything German. In the now 5 years that I've known you (Axis History forum) I have not seen you post as much as a single positive thing about any form of German equipment. Why is that ??



You see where other people are coming from in regards to you?


----------



## m kenny (Jun 16, 2009)

Soren said:


> I don't think the Tiger was the best tank of the war either, I however don't seem to get a lot of heat for that, I wonder why?



Because you also say thing like they could survive 10 hits and then blow away any Allied tank with one return shot? 



Soren said:


> Maybe because I admit that it was a very strong tank which was a VERY big danger to any enemy tank it met? Maybe because I actually acknowledge that it had some excellent features?



And thus it follows that everyone MUST agree with this opinion and make a post acknowledging the same?



Soren said:


> In the now 5 years that I've known you (Axis History forum) I have not seen you post as much as a single positive thing about any form of German equipment. Why is that ??



I don't remember making positive statements about any piece of equipment, Allied or German. As I said many times before I do not post in 'Which 'X' was best' threads. I think the real problem is that I defend Allied Units and Allied actions. 




Soren said:


> Now I am considered to be a pretty darn biased person by some people, but even I acknowledge a lot of Allied equipment. So why is it we NEVER see you do the same as regards to German equipment?



You are confused Your assumption that everything German is 'fab dabby dozy' reflex kicks in when you find posters who hold oppossing views. You further compound this error by assuming someone (i.e.me) who starts doing original reseach into claims that Wittmann knocked out 24 British tanks at Villers and Will Fey destroyed 14 Shermans on 7.8.44 must be anti-German. I am anti nothing but very pro truth. I am so confident in my ability to get the facts right that I never post under anything other than my real name. If I make a mistake them it is forever linked to me.



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> You see where other people are coming from in regards to you?




I can live with criticism because I take into account who is doing the criticising


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 16, 2009)

m kenny said:


> I can live with criticism because I take into account who is doing the criticising



You know what is funny? That comment was not even directed at you. It was directed at Soren, because he gets the same **** as you do from the other members of the forum in other threads. Get over yourself, not everything revolves around you...

Also your smug arrogant attitude is not going to get you anywhere. Don't talk down to me, I am not an ignorant child. It is a showing of your character that you resort to such personal attacks (especially when the original comment was not directed at you). I have been civil with you this whole conversation, yet you choose to resort to this.


----------



## Soren (Jun 16, 2009)

M_kenny that you haven't ever acknowledged Allied equipment is an outright lie, and if you continue to claim such a thing I will have no problem providing plenty of examples of your love for Allied equipment. You're as biased as they come.



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> You see where other people are coming from in regards to you?



I know I can seem very biased at times Adler, I think I've had that confirmed more than a few times by now. But atleast I do acknowledge Allied equipment just as I acknowledge German equipment. I just post a lot more info on German equipment than vice versa, that is where the confusion arrives from I believe. But I've decided to keep a cool head about insults from other members from now on, after all people are free to believe in what they want, so if insults start flying I'll simply just sieze to take part in the conversation.


----------



## m kenny (Jun 16, 2009)

Soren said:


> M_kenny that you haven't ever acknowledged Allied equipment is an outright lie, and if you continue to claim such a thing I will have no problem providing plenty of examples of your love for Allied equipment. You're as biased as they come.



Feel free to post all the information you found where I say an Allied tank was is 'the best'. While you are at it remind me of all the times I said a Panther or Tiger were rubbish. Don't forget all the times I expressed my 'love' (undying or unrequited?) of anything

Also be so good as to expalin what you mean by 'acknowledge'. My reading is that this means "to admit to be real or true; recognize the existence, truth, or fact of". If so then I freely confess. I recognise that Allied equipment was real and existed. Finding anything where I say that German equipment did not exist or was not real is going to be a problem for you.

I find it comical that a simple refusal to say a Tiger was 'the best' is considered such a heinous crime.




__________________


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jun 16, 2009)

m kenny said:


> Are you sure?



Pretty sure, I never mentioned anything about the Sherman data, it made sense to me.


----------



## Catch22 (Jun 16, 2009)

m kenny said:


> Feel free to post all the information you found where I say an Allied tank was is 'the best'. While you are at it remind me of all the times I said a Panther or Tiger were rubbish. Don't forget all the times I expressed my 'love' (undying or unrequited?) of anything
> 
> Also be so good as to expalin what you mean by 'acknowledge'. My reading is that this means "to admit to be real or true; recognize the existence, truth, or fact of". If so then I freely confess. I recognise that Allied equipment was real and existed. Finding anything where I say that German equipment did not exist or was not real is going to be a problem for you.
> 
> ...




I've been reading this thread for a while now, since you and Soren have gone back and forth.

NOBODY IS SAYING THAT YOU'RE COMMITTING A CRIME FOR SAYING THE TIGER ISN'T THE BEST. Nobody has said that, ever! 

And you're treating VB with contempt for no reason.

What is your position? You keep saying that you don't think the Tiger is the best. Fair enough, I don't think it was either, I'm more partial to the Panther. I don't know enough to really discuss. But you don't really ever say which you DO think is the best. You've basically repeated the same thing over and over and over again without really stating your position, other than you feel like you're being singled out because you don't think the Tiger's the best, which is absolutely false!

If I'm out of line Chris, feel free to delete this.


----------



## Stitch (Jun 16, 2009)

OMG, let's bring this discussion back down to a normal level, please? 

Yes, everybody is biased, me included; yes, I am partial to German equipment, just like Soren, and a lot of other people. Was it perfect? Far from it. Was it good? Qualitively, yes; quantitively, no. But you've got to hand it to the Germans: they produced some outstanding pieces of hardware. They certainly didn't win the War, but they made a good show.

In the end, it was quantity, not quality, that made the difference. However, this is all water under the bridge; yes, the Germans excelled in the area of advanced armaments but, as I said, this didn't win the War for them. We can certainly admire them for the many advances they made in the area of military hardware, but it was their flawed racial _gestalt_ philosophy that ultimately brought them down.


----------



## m kenny (Jun 16, 2009)

vikingBerserker said:


> Pretty sure, I never mentioned anything about the Sherman data, it made sense to me.



A bit like the Curate's egg then?



Catch22 said:


> And you're treating VB with contempt for no reason..



In my opinion(much as I hate giving one!) VB is playing a game.



Catch22 said:


> What is your position? You keep saying that you don't think the Tiger is the best. Fair enough, I don't think it was either, I'm more partial to the Panther. I don't know enough to really discuss. But you don't really ever say which you DO think is the best. You've basically repeated the same thing over and over and over again without really stating your position, other than you feel like you're being singled out because you don't think the Tiger's the best, which is absolutely false!
> .



My position is to intervene when I see something I know to be incorrect. The likes of 10 hits bouncing of a Tiger or how many hits it took to knock out a German tank. I posted the contents of Allied studies done in 1944 that show the actual number of strikes on each destroyed tank. Information you would think was beyond dispute.
A few posters have taken grave exception to the fact I will not say the Tiger was 'best'.
That about sums it up.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jun 16, 2009)

m kenny said:


> A bit like the Curate's egg then?



Actually in regards to the German tanks, I have not seen any logic to your points.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 16, 2009)

Hi TP
In reply to your earlier Post.....


_I disagree. The Brits, Israelis, US and new European (Leo2 and Leclerc) opted for more armor, and then the gun engine as big as it's possible. 
The Brits wanted the heaviest armor most notably, and their most successful tanks were the ones with the heaviest armor available. From Matilda on_.[/I]

Doesnt explain why postwar tanks actually dropped in weight relative to the end of war heavies being designed and built by the major combatantsat the end of the war.....the tiger II weighed over 150000 lbs, the IS-3 were about 115000, the British Tortoise were 174000 lbs, the Pershings were about 95000 lbs. The Maus represents the "next generation" of the "Heavy Tank" design and had a weight of over 410000 lbs!!!

Compared to this the 1st generation postwar tanks were actually lighter in many cases, but were far more mobile and carried a far heavier armament. The Leopard I weighed 93000 lbs, the AMX-30 about 80000 lbs....Soviet Tanks were about 90000 lbs. Second and third generation tanks are still about 83000 to 145000 lbs, with some nations abandoning the armoured component almost entirely and producing light vehicles under 40000 lbs (such as the Brazilian X1A2).

Whilst todays MBTs are beginning to approach the weights of the end of war heavies, they do not by any means represent the "heaviest armour" that can be installed into the design. The difference is in the power to weight ratios....modern MBTs typically are powered by engines in the 800-1500 hp bracket, whereas the end of war "heavies" were powered by engines in the 600 hp bracket. On the basis of engine power, which was one of the major constraints to heavy tank development at the end of the war, there is no reaon that I can see to prevent tanks in the 2-300000 lb range...But countries dont do that, because the Heavy tank concept cannot fulfil all the functions of mobility, and firepower is far more important than protection, and simply because tanks of that size and power would be prohibitively expensivei



_The most expensive part of armor unit are not the tanks themselves, but the trained/experienced crews. If one puts them into the tinclads, the result would be disastrous in any war against a tough opponent.
But, since the bean counters (politicians) control the armed forces, for most of the countries the cheap tank is a good tank, so that's why T-55/Leo1/AMX-30 were so popular during the cold war._


Err only half true. The cost of a Panther Tank was RM 176K, whilst the cost to train its crew to a high standard was about RM 135K. One could reasonably expect similar costs for the other medium and heavy tanks produced by Germany .

By comparison, the cost to train a Soviet T-34 Tank crew has been estimated at under RM 10K, whilst the cost of the tank itself costs about 25K. I dont know the crew training costs for the US or the british, but I expect it will be less than the Germans, because training times were shorter (about 7 months, to about 9 months, and the costs of fuels, accommodation, and just about everything else you can think of to support the crew whilst they are being readied was cheaper for the allies. The Americans in particular got the training regime for their various specilaist arms (including tank crew training) down to a fine art .

So it is just not true that the crew training costs are more than the cost of the hardware. It varied massively from nationality to nationality, but consistently it was less than the cost of the hardware. 

And lastly, the tanks you mention as being the products of political intervention (AMX-30 etc) were in fact representative of every modern tank of their era....I know of no tanks that tried to outweigh these tanks to any significant extent....even the Chieftain was only moderately heavier at 120000 lbs, and in my opinion suffered serious mobility issues as a result. It was not a case of nations penny pinching, rather it was a case of nations relaizing that numbers do count, mobility does count, andd making tanks too heavy simply makes them expensive, imobile (and unable to be moved across the existing infrastructure) targets in innsufficient numbers


----------



## plan_D (Jun 17, 2009)

The weight : protection isn't always higher protection, higher weight. Armour technology is far superior to that of the WWII machines - for example, the Chobam armour on the M1A1 is equal to 600mm, but it certainly ain't 600mm! Hence the reason post-war and modern MBTs were lighter than their WWII counter-parts. 

Oh yeah, and you're all completely wrong the Renault FT-17 was the best tank in the West - 2,500 machines stemmed the tide of the Wehrmacht...for a couple of seconds; was the most modern design in 1917 though.


----------



## m kenny (Jun 17, 2009)

vikingBerserker said:


> Actually in regards to the German tanks, I have not seen any logic to your points.



I feel the same way about your inability to get to the point.


----------



## Njaco (Jun 17, 2009)

Lets not let this get out of hand.


----------



## Soren (Jun 17, 2009)

m kenny said:


> A few posters have taken grave exception to the fact I will not say the Tiger was 'best'.



You seem very fond of lying all of us right into the face. Show me proof that anyone here ever took you on for not saying the Tiger was the best. I find the very idea very humorous as pretty much no'one here has ever claimed the Tiger to be the best tank of the war, and that includes me. So just what the heck is it you're on about m_kenny ?? 

I think the truth of the matter here is that you can't stand it when someone compliments a German tank, you get so upset that you do your best make anything German seem bad and then when no'one will listen to your nonesense you end up feeling that you've been singled out. Fact of the matter is YOU single YOURSELF out!


----------



## Juha (Jun 17, 2009)

Hello m kenny
have you info on Churchills? From the books I have gleaned that it did not catch fire as easily as Sherman when hit and even when it catch fire the crew had usually more time to bail out. 
And do you know how commonly used the 20mm applique armour was ? I know from photos that at least some Churchills had it but how many?

TIA
Juha


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 17, 2009)

Catch22 said:


> If I'm out of line Chris, feel free to delete this.



No you are not out of line. I have been banging my head against the wall as well.









m kenny said:


> A few posters have taken grave exception to the fact I will not say the Tiger was 'best'.
> That about sums it up.



No one has!

Just because not everyone has the same opinion as you, you feel pushed against wall and offended! Get over it!


----------



## plan_D (Jun 17, 2009)

This is getting pretty pathetic. It's obvious this discussion has become more of a personal matter than a discussion about the "best" tank in the West. 

m_kenny, if you believe there's any game being played then simply remove yourself from it. I'm not going to go all out and claim you're anti-German, because if you are that's an issue you really should be dealing with, but I am going to point out that you need to deal with the idea that some people are going to be supporting the German armour over the Allied armour, and they will argue point after point after point.
You're probably getting infuriated by Soren because of his love of German armaments; been there, done that. I can't remember the amount of times I've argued with him, but he's a knowledgeable person and you discuss with facts and he'll chuck some back at you - turn it personal and you lose. 
And I'm not having a go at you; everyone on here knows what I've called Soren in the past - in fact, there's not many people on here who haven't heard abuse hurled at them from me. I know there may be from time to time personal insults from Soren too. And there's certainly no place to be having a go at Adler, he's not here to win an argument like some people - he's actually got a passion for it. 

As for the discussion itself, I personally believe the Panther to be the superior design of the war. There were tanks with thicker armour, more powerful weapons, more reliable and faster but I don't believe there was an all-rounder like it. 
You could say the Churchill had thicker armour; ask the 6th Coldstream Guards to compare the Panther G to the Churchill. You could say the Tiger II had a more powerful weapon (being the most powerful tank of the war), but when could it operate effectively compared to the Panther...maybe the Tiger II could be considered an overkill. 

Whatever the job, the Panther could do it. Give the Tiger a pursuit role, no chance. Give the T-34 a breakthrough role, no chance (unless in massive numbers). Give the Valentine an anti-armour role, c'mon.


----------



## m kenny (Jun 17, 2009)

plan_D said:


> I am going to point out that you need to deal with the idea that some people are going to be supporting the German armour over the Allied armour, and they will argue point after point after point.



They can believe what they want because opinion won't change reality of the survey.
I stick firmly to those points that can be refuted with solid evidence. Thus the claim that 10 shots would bounce of the front of a Tiger/Panther brought forward the studies that showed it was on average 5 hits per Tiger into play.

More interesting figures:

NW Europe, % of destroyed tanks lost to gunfire 
source ORO-T-117 and BRL-MR-798.

German..............43% (sample 1100)
British/Canadian...56% (sample 1350)
US....................51% (sample 2100)






Juha said:


> Hello m kenny
> have you info on Churchills? From the books I have gleaned that it did not catch fire as easily as Sherman when hit and even when it catch fire the crew had usually more time to bail out.
> And do you know how commonly used the 20mm applique armour was ? I know from photos that at least some Churchills had it but how many?



I have read accounts that say it burned more slowly than other tanks but I don't have any hard evidence. The crew casualy study did find that a Churchill crewmember was not much safer than a man in a Sherman.
A note in The War Diary of 9th RTR says:

_"The Churchill stands up well to A/T fire. If set on fire it burns slowly and the crews have a good chance to bale out. Panthers on the other hand tend to blow up"_

The above is from Fletcher's' Mr Churchill's Tank' 
Mr. Churchill's Tank: The British Infantry Tank Mark IV: David Fletcher: Amazon.co.uk: Books
Fletcher is unable to say how many Churchills were upgraded.


----------



## Juha (Jun 18, 2009)

Hello m_kenny
Churchill was an infantry tank so its crew might well be more susceptible to dangers of infantry and artillery fire and anti personnel mines in bail-out situation, but because Shermans were also used in infantry support role, the statistical effect of that might well been insignificant. So it seems that there is not at the moment hard facts in our knowledge which would support the view, which seemed to have been fairly common among Churchill crews that their tank catch fire more seldom and when it catch fire burnt more slowly than Sherman.

Juha


----------



## Juha (Jun 18, 2009)

Plan_D
in fact T-34s were often used as infantry support tank, they took losses but Germans themselves noted that after 43 Soviet breakthrough attemps as rule succeeded.
Most famous use of Panther as breakthrough tank was at Kursk and we all know how that went, and its weak points as a break through tank are well known, a bit weaker side armour than that of T-34, the difficulty to repair mine damage because of overlapped roadwheels. And they remainned through its career. I cannot recall other real breakthrough actions by Panther units but in Normandy during counter attacks against intrenched troops they tended to suffer badly just because of the thin side armour. Proportion of side hits tended to be higher in attacking tanks than in defending tanks so the weak, for 45 ton tank, side protection had more significance in attack than in defense.
And I doubt how suitable Panther would have been in deep penetrations, during the retreat from Normandy many seems to have been lost because of mechanical breakdowns even if Panther’s reliability was better in 44 than in 43 and Germans had more or less solved its technical problems but those of final drive, at least that was Guderian’s opinion at the time.

Of course Panther had excellent frontal armour and its gun has excellent anti-tank performance and it was very accurate, but it also had small HE shell for a 45 ton tank. Also the commander cupola was excellent but the loader was "blind", without means to observe what happened outside. etc Panther design had many excellent features but it had also its weak points as all tanks.

Juha


----------



## m kenny (Jun 18, 2009)

Juha said:


> I cannot recall other real breakthrough actions by Panther units but in Normandy during counter attacks against intrenched troops they tended to suffer badly just because of the thin side armour. Proportion of side hits tended to be higher in attacking tanks than in defending tanks so the weak, for 45 ton tank, side protection had more significance in attack than in defense.




As a rule attackers of any type suffered greater losses than the defenders. This can be seen in BRL-MR-798. 129 actions from August-December 1944 were studied in detail. The attack/defend data said:

_The "advantage" of the defender is used in the sense of lower expected loss rate and does not consider the success or failure in accomplishing the mission of the engagement or the practicability of its extensive use in mobile warfare.
Shown in Table III is a breakdown of the considered engagements with respect to the attacker, defender,
and weapon type. In the forty considered engagements in which they were on the attack, the Allies lost 100
of 437 employed weapons while the defending enemy lost forty-five of 135. In the thirty-seven engagements in which the enemy were attacking, they lost eighty-three of 138 weapons while the Allied defenders lost fourteen of 205.
The figures in Table III indicate that both the Allies and enemy had fewer casualties when used in the defensive role. This simply reaffirms that it was more costly in terms of local losses to take a position than to hold it once it was obtained._

Note: A = Allied and E = Enemy


----------



## Juha (Jun 18, 2009)

Hello m kenney
thanks a lot for the info

Juha


----------



## plan_D (Jun 18, 2009)

The T-34 being used as an infantry support tank, doesn't make it a breakthrough tank. I am aware of the usage of Russian AFVs, and will point out that generally the Russians used the T-34s as a flanking weapon (the sword) in conjunction with masses of infantry (the shield). The Germans may have noted a success in Russian breakthrough attempts, post 1943, but that's simply down to the situation that the Germans were in; rather than the ability of the T-34 as a breakthrough tank (which it most certainly isn't). 
Ideal infantry support AFVs would be heavy armour, slow moving and low-velocity HE weapons - the T-34 was not an ideal machine for this job; just as much as it wasn't ideal for the initial breakthrough. The Red Army had a lot of them though...

In Kursk, the Tiger was the main breakthrough tank of the German battle - the Panther was a supporting machine and a debut. Of course, there's no denying the Panther's weak-points - everything has weak points - but as an all-round performer the Panther (in my opinion) excelled in more areas than any other machine.


----------



## Juha (Jun 18, 2009)

Hello D
if you look Kursk, southern sector, III PzCorps had Tiger battalion to support its breakthrough, IISSPzCorps had only the Tiger Coys of its 3 SSPzGrDs and XXXXVIIIPzCorps, number from memory, which attacked straight towards Kursk with GD, 3PzD and X, cannot remember the 3rd unit if any. had the Panther Brigade as its heavy mailed fist plus the Tiger Coy of GD. The use of Panthers explained the very heavy Panther losses on the first day of the attack. This is from memory can check from literature if you want.

On T-34s, there are much Soviet film material of T-34s helping infantry through German trench systems. Also in Finnish front one can see from unit attachements that also T-34s were used as infantry support tanks on the main attack sector. And on the other hand the most effective deep penetration group was eguipped with JS heavy tanks, not T-34s/T-34-85s.

Juha


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 18, 2009)

Hi, parsifal,

Think that we should compare weights for the mainstay-tanks, not for the one-offs oddities (eg. Maus). The Brits went from 30-40 ton (Cromwell, Churchill) to 50-60 (Centurion, Chieftain) tank, US didn't stay in 30 ton range (M4) and went for 50 tons (M-26, M-47/48), russkies continued to develop their heavy tanks (up to the T-10), while the armour tickness for the medium tanks almost trebled (T-34-85 vs. T-55).
So it's safe to say that armour protection (=mass + quality), along with cannon power, was almost all the time in the ascendance from the WWII days. 

As for the engine power, the correct numbers would be 1500HP for the M1, Leo2, Merk 4, Arjun and Type 90, while Russians, Brits, Italians and Chinese are fielding circa 1200HP engines. So no 800HP for any modern MBT.

The crew vs. tank prices you've stated represent only a tip of an iceberg, not the whole iceberg. In order to replace the losses, one may buy produce tanks more easily than it is possible to wait 20 years for a man to grow to the fighting age, plus the training itself. The German armed forces after 1943 are the clearest best known example.
The thing we missed when talking about prices is the vetronics (situational awareness, ballistic aids, hunter-killer capabilties with all that thermo-vision, GPS, best radios money can buy), the most expensive non-human piece of a tank.
So if one thinks it's better to buy 1000 medium tanks then, say 700 heavy MBTs (thinking that the price per fleet would be the same), he'd better think again. 
There is 300 extra vetronics sets to buy, at least 300 more crews to train, 300 more tanks to maintain. So the price would be higher for the 1000 mediums, then for 300 heavies.

The country with the largest post-WWII usage of tanks, Israel, decided to go for a 55 ton tank to build from the scratch. On it's sucessful combat debut, attack at Lebanon in 1982, the only thing Israely tankers had to say about Merkava was: "We want more".

(addition)Regarding the AMX-30 and Leo1, it is quite telling that both French and Germans discarded the medium tanks class quarter a century ago. And Japanese did the same with their Type 90.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 19, 2009)

Juha,

I'm not being funny, but you have just stated that the Tigers were the main fist of the Kursk battle - where available. "Supporting" units of Tigers were the knuckles of the armoured fist, hence the reason they were there. The Panthers were mostly following behind, the heavy and hard hitting Tigers. 

There's film footage of Valentines racing across the North African desert, it doesn't make them suitable pursuit tanks. I've never denied that the T-34 was not used as an infantry support tank; I'm saying that the T-34 was not an ideal infantry support tank - and probably was only used because that's pretty much all the Soviets had; armour is armour, when it comes to the crunch - you'll use anything. 

The most effective deep penertration group? Explain. Given the lateness of the war when the IS-2 entered service, I can't help but feel it might have had something to do with a German fighting retreat? Then again I never said that the IS-2 wasn't capable of deep penertration, but for routs the T-34 was better equipped for the job, while the IS-2 would be better suited to infantry support; given it's heavy armour and low velocity, high calibre weapon.


----------



## Juha (Jun 19, 2009)

PlanD
the main Heer attacking unit didn't have other Tigers than the Coy of GD and the Panther Brigade attached to it, III PzCorps, which had a Tiger battalion attached and its coys attached one to each PzD under the Corps,was a flank protection force to whole souther pincer, was attacking further east. SSPzCorps Tigers were needed in that Corps sector, so the XXXXVIII Corps, which was the Corps which object was Kursk itself had only one coy of Tigers, that of GD= PzGrD GrossDeutchland so there were need to use Panthers in breakthrough.

On JS in deep penetration As I wrote, in Finnish sector. That group slipped trough a hole in Finnish VT line opened by attacking SU forces, moved diagonally to rear and surprised the HQ of FInnish Cav Br, whose troops were holding the line from breakthrough area to the sea, causing panic and helping to unhinge the southern part of VK line. That was a very much simplyfied description of very complex operational situation.

Just an example that SU forces could do unexpexted things

Juha

ADDUM
checked the third PzD under XXXXVIII PzCorps was 11th, Corps' attacking force also incl 332 InfD and 2/3 of 167 InfD, so almost 5 div force attackin all divs side by side with only some 14 Tigers, the two other attacking Corps (IIIPz and IISSPz) had ca 45 Tigers each


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 19, 2009)

Hi, plan_D,

Just a disagreement about the muzzle velocity for IS-2's gun: it was not a low value; 800m/s is quite a decent muzzle velocity even today, when firing full-caliber projectiles.


----------



## Soren (Jun 19, 2009)

The muzzle velocity of the 122mm D-25T was 780 m/s, which would be considered high velocity that is correct.

*Juha,*

I don't really think that you can compare the performance of any Soviet tank against the Finnish with the same tanks performance against the Germans. You see besides for the few StuG IV's recieved late in the war, the Finnish didn't have many effective AT weapons. The Germans on the other hand had plenty of guns capable of taking out an IS-2 frontally at 2km or more, and thus they could deal with such heavy tanks a lot easier than could the Finnish. 

The most effective breakthrough tank that the Soviets possessed was probably the T-34/85, and that simply because it featured a fast reload rate, decent armour protection and good speed. The IS-2 was IMO not a very good tank, it had a 3 man crew, a terribly slow reload rate (And when your optics are sh*t you want as many chances to fire as possible!) and was virtually as vulnerable from the front as the T-34 considering the type of guns the Germans fielded by the time of its arrival. 

That the Soviets didn't mount the 100mm D-10 in the IS-2 instead for the slow 122mm D-25T was a big mistake, and one which atleast a few Soviet designers already had seen coming and were trying to correct but no avail as some of the fools at the top felt that bigger was always better.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 19, 2009)

Yep, with 100mm gun and better optics set the IS-2 would've been the ideal tank of WWII; the ammo count would've benefited too. According to Soviet sources, the 122mm was chosen since it was readily available (100mm was naval calibre until 1944, so the production numbers were not up to what Russians were used to have).

The crew numbered 4, though. Three in turret.


----------



## Juha (Jun 19, 2009)

Hello Soren
on Finnish A/T capabilities, yes Finns had fewer heavy A/T guns than Germans but we got 210 PaK 40s, and 46 the hybrid PaK 97/38, French 75mm on Pak 38 carriage. Germans had more but if you checked what an average German InfDiv had, they were not well eguipped with PaK40s either and after all there were not SO many 88s around. One reason why Soviet major attacks as a rule went through German MDLs after 43. And one detail correction just for accuracy, we didn't have StuG IVs but IIIs

IIRC JS had 4 man crew

One reason for 122 instead of 100mm was tube and ammo supply situation when the JS was designed, there were lot of more 122mm ammo and 122 tube production was higher.

Juha


----------



## Juha (Jun 19, 2009)

Hello Tomo Pauk
again you beat me

Juha


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 19, 2009)

No problem


----------



## Njaco (Jun 19, 2009)

Since everyone started to talk about Tigers, Kursk and tank losses, I wanted to post this. Not sure how accurate.

The Battle of Kursk

"...Myth #6: German forces were heavily supplied with Panthers, Tigers, and Elefant tank destroyers. While the Germans did decide to delay their attack so that more new weapons, such as the Panther and the Elefant, would be available, these weapons were not present in large numbers. A grand total of 119 Panthers went into battle with the Gross Deutschland Division (GD) on July 5th. After 65% of those went out of action, either damaged or destroyed, on the first day they ceased to play a crucial role in the remaining week's worth of combat. Note that there were absolutely no Panthers available to any other unit besides GD. The paintings and drawings of Panthers in battle at Prokhorovka are absolutely wrong: none of the three SS Panzergrenadier divisions used Panthers at Kursk. A total of 90 Elefants were available, and all of them were used by the 9th Army to help its divisions crack through the defensive lines on the north face of the Kursk salient. Despite the Soviet accounts which have Elefants participating in practically every battle on the north and south faces, Elefants were used only by the 9th Army, and only on the north face (primarily in the German assault on the town of Ponyri). Most of them were lost in the first few days of the fighting. Tiger tanks were equally rare. On the entire south face of the salient, only 89 Tigers started the battle. About half of these were in the heavy battalions of the three SS Panzergrenadier divisions and the GD. These four divisions started with 12 to 15 Tigers each, but by the second or third day of fighting, they were down to about 4 to 6 operational Tigers each. This situation remained until the end of the fighting. Popular drawings and paintings of waves of Tigers rolling toward the Russians are pure fantasy. The battle where Tigers are supposedly present in droves, at Prokhorovka, featured just 4."


----------



## Juha (Jun 20, 2009)

Hello Njaco
Your quote is in essence correct but with a number errors in detail
Some correction, the so called Panther Brigade, correct designation PzR 39 which had under it PzAbtn 51 and 52 and had 200 Panthers, of which at least 2 burned out during the march from railhead to initial position. On the first dayy of attack it was stopped by a ravine and had that evening 184 Panthers ready action, on second day it attacked with other tanks of GD the second defence line of Soviets and that evening it had 166 Panthers ready to action, the third day something went badly wrong and in the evening there were only 40 Panthers ready action. On the evning of 10 July only 10, but after that the work of repair org began to show and on 17 July there was 44 Panther operational.
IIRC correctly the total losses of Elefants was 39 out of 90, so most of them were not lost.
The divisional Tigers were in heavy companies of divisional tank regiments not in battalions.
The number of tanks at Prokhorovka depended how one definite the area of battle, if the definition is between railway bank and Psel river at front the figure 4 sounds right without checking the number of operational Tigers on 12 July in Tiger Coy of LAH.

Juha


----------



## Njaco (Jun 20, 2009)

Thanks for the correction. Thought it was an interesting site.


----------



## Soren (Jun 20, 2009)

The IS-2 had 4 crew members (Which was too few), you guys are absolutely correct, don't know why I wrote 3.

As for the StuG's in Finnish Service, you were right there Juha, they were infact StuG III's. But the point stands, they were in short supply. 

Regarding the weapons that the German divisions had I will have to disagree though Juha, the Germans did on average have a whole lot more guns available at the front line than the Finnish, and esp. if you include the mulitude of tanks TD's deployed. Also you need to remember that the various divisions worked in conjuction with each other, assisting each other when needed. 

But you're right about the 88's, many people believe there were huge numbers of these deployed on every front, but in reality not very many were available.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 20, 2009)

Njaco said:


> Since everyone started to talk about Tigers, Kursk and tank losses, I wanted to post this. Not sure how accurate.
> 
> The Battle of Kursk
> 
> "...Myth #6: German forces were heavily supplied with Panthers, Tigers, and Elefant tank destroyers. While the Germans did decide to delay their attack so that more new weapons, such as the Panther and the Elefant, would be available, these weapons were not present in large numbers. A grand total of 119 Panthers went into battle with the Gross Deutschland Division (GD) on July 5th. After 65% of those went out of action, either damaged or destroyed, on the first day they ceased to play a crucial role in the remaining week's worth of combat. Note that there were absolutely no Panthers available to any other unit besides GD. The paintings and drawings of Panthers in battle at Prokhorovka are absolutely wrong: none of the three SS Panzergrenadier divisions used Panthers at Kursk. A total of 90 Elefants were available, and all of them were used by the 9th Army to help its divisions crack through the defensive lines on the north face of the Kursk salient. Despite the Soviet accounts which have Elefants participating in practically every battle on the north and south faces, Elefants were used only by the 9th Army, and only on the north face (primarily in the German assault on the town of Ponyri). Most of them were lost in the first few days of the fighting. Tiger tanks were equally rare. On the entire south face of the salient, only 89 Tigers started the battle. About half of these were in the heavy battalions of the three SS Panzergrenadier divisions and the GD. These four divisions started with 12 to 15 Tigers each, but by the second or third day of fighting, they were down to about 4 to 6 operational Tigers each. This situation remained until the end of the fighting. Popular drawings and paintings of waves of Tigers rolling toward the Russians are pure fantasy. The battle where Tigers are supposedly present in droves, at Prokhorovka, featured just 4."



I think also that you need to treat this guy with some caution. I have not checked the veracity of his claims, but I will concede that they may be correct, with one important omission....he suggests that the tanks temporarily knocked out were recovered.....not true, because within a few days the Russians had overrun the German forward positions, denying the Germans the opportunity to recover the broken down tanks on the battlefield. This caused the germans tank losses to mushroom in the latter part of the campaign, something which this guy does not appear to acknowledge


----------



## Juha (Jun 20, 2009)

Hello Soren
Yes Finns had, IIRC, only 29 StuG IIIs available on 1 Jun 44 plus some war booty T-34s and KVs rest of our tanks were mostly war-booty T-26s and BTs.
But only German Corps, which A/T numbers in June 44 I found easyly is IX Corps, it had 2 divs (to be exact one InfD and one KorpsAbt) and 26 (or 23) 50mm and 57 75mm or bigger. Numbers are on the eve of Soviet big Summer offensive, Oper Bagration. Not very much when compared to British InfD, which TOE in NW Europe incl 110 A/T guns.

Juha


----------



## Juha (Jun 20, 2009)

On the 3rd day Panther losses, I dont have a good source on GD sector, but it seems that they were lost during the frontal attack on fortified village of Syrtsevo when attacking tanks run into minefield and were shot up by the strong A/T defences.

Juha


----------



## Soren (Jun 20, 2009)

By June 1944 the Germans were however well equipped with weapons such as the Panzerfaust and also to a good degree the Panzerschreck. This made the ordinary infantrymen just as much of a hazard to the Soviet armour as did their guns, as many of these hand held AT weapons could penetrate over 200mm of armour, and sloping armour didn't help against them.

So besides the AT guns, tanks TD's the Germans also had weapons at ordinary infantry level which were extremely deadly to even the heaviest Soviet armour available. The Finnish didn't enjoy this luxury, they had to make good with their advantage of having a perfect defensive landscape.


----------



## Soren (Jun 20, 2009)

tomo pauk said:


> Yep, with 100mm gun and better optics set the IS-2 would've been the ideal tank of WWII; the ammo count would've benefited too. According to Soviet sources, the 122mm was chosen since it was readily available (100mm was naval calibre until 1944, so the production numbers were not up to what Russians were used to have).
> 
> The crew numbered 4, though. Three in turret.



Don't know if it would've been ideal but it certainly would've been a whole lot better, esp. if other areas such as the radio communication equipment and so was improved as-well. 

But one also has to think within the boundaries of possibility, and the gun was possible in the 100mm D-10, but the Soviets still lacked the know how and precision equipment to build proper optics, and their radio equipment wasn't particularly good either. Furthermore the 4 man crew was best increased to a 5 man one, and space inside the tank was best to be increased as-well to permit faster reloads, and that would nessicate a larger tank, probably in the 55 to 60 ton category. And by that point getting an engine powerful enough would've proven a challenge.


----------



## Juha (Jun 20, 2009)

Hello Soren
Finns had also Panzerfausts and Panzerschrecks. Promlem on the first 2 days was that the stock was so secret that front line troops saw them first time when they were supposed to use them. A couple days late during the fighting in VT line that wasn't anymore that acute problem, troops had had 3-4 days to use to them.
Promlem with these was that they didn't always kill the tank, evemn if they penetrated, Soviet callled those small holes those hits made to armour as kisses of witch, IIRC.

It seems that standard German InfD had in summer 44 30-33 75mm or heavier A/T guns, that incl towed ones, SPs and StuGs, depending has it 2 or 3 inf regiments. 

Juha


----------



## Soren (Jun 20, 2009)

That's odd Juha, cause according to all I've ever read the Panzerfaust Panzerschreck usually only needed just one hit to destroy a Soviet or Western Allied tank. And having seen what happens to a tank being hit by hollow charge weapon I can tell you that I find it highly unlikely that anyone would refer to them as "kisses", esp. seeing that it's a rather violent way of taking out a tank with the crew being cooked alive and all.

I do however remember something similar being said by a Soviet tanker who refered to hits by AT rifles on his KV-1 tank, which is a whole different deal. So are you sure this isn't the same as what you're remembering?


----------



## Juha (Jun 20, 2009)

Hello Soren
as I wrote, I wrote from memory but in this I'm rather sure. The Soviet antidose was not to lock turret hatches, so that the overpresuure caused by HC penetration dispaciated more easily. If nothing ignitate and nobody was in line of the melted metal, one closed hatches and continued action. It was nasty and bad for ears of course. And same happened in west. The first generation hollow charges had a good penetration power but lethality wasn't on the level of later HC ammo. Of course if something ignated that if the melted metal hit somebody that was lethal. And that goes only turret hits, hull hits had much better chance to ignite something.
And of course it is possible that the Soviets called A/T rifle hits on same name, even very possible that the name was first given to A/T rifle hits and later non lethal HC hits were called on same name.

Juha

Juha


----------



## Soren (Jun 20, 2009)

Well I must say that I've never heard of it and I highly doubt it as-well. Also opening hatches wouldn't have helped much as besides for the overpressue generated a large number of melting hot fragments are also sent flying around inside the tank. 

Also wouldn't it seem rather illogical to close the hatches after already having been almost impossibly lucky to survive the first hit as another one was soon to follow if the tank as much as moved an inch? I'm quite sure the preferred thing to do if you survived a hit by a Panzerfaust or Panzerschreck was to get the heck out of the tank at once and pray you didn't get shot in the attempt! 

In short, knowing how hollow charge weapons work and having seen what effect they have many times, I very highly doubt that hits by Panzerfausts Panzerschrecks were ever referred to as "kisses", esp. seeing that 99% of the time it took just a single hit to destroy a tank. The instense shockwave, immense overpressue and temperature rise created inside a tank which armour has been breached by a HC projectile doesn't really seem like something someone would refer to as a "kiss".


----------



## Soren (Jun 20, 2009)

The Panzerfaust Panzerschreck in action:

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQSFWXzcx14_

As one can see the effects of these weapons are very powerful violent, and to no surprise the survival rate of men in tanks hit by these weapons was very low.


----------



## Juha (Jun 20, 2009)

Hello Soren
as I wrote, HCs were developed over the time, Panzerfaust being one shot weapon, supporting infantry usually in hand. Open hatch is a call for handgrenade.
Bailing out when enemy infantry is within 30-90m is very risky.
Any sources to beck up that 99% claim?
Troops are cynical, that's why they called they tanks Ronson or aircraft Quarented Laquered Coffins etc. And after all the name wasn't kiss but kiss of witch, a bit difference.

Juha


----------



## Juha (Jun 20, 2009)

I don't need to look You Tube for Panzerschreck shots, having seen that in real world.

Juha


----------



## Soren (Jun 20, 2009)

So let me get this straight. The Soviet tankers would drive around with open hatches in the hope of diminishing the effects of a possible Panzerfaust/Panzerschreck strike, ignoring the otherwise obvious danger of driving around with open hatches in a hot zone. Yet when hit by a HC weapon and being exceedingly lucky enough to survive it they'd suddenly reverse their tactics and close their hatches to protect themselves from handgrenades, ignoring the fact that if they'd been hit once by a HC weapon then there'd be a very high chance of them being hit once more, esp. if they started to move in any way.

Anyway the point stands that the Germans were very well equipped with both Panzerfausts Panzerschreck by the summer of 44, and these weapons rarely required you to hit more than once to destroy a tank.

As for the "99% claim", every related account I've ever read describes how easily both weapons set enemy tanks ablaze and that usually 1 hit is more than enough. If you don't believe me though you're more than welcome to present evidence to the contrary, but I suspect you'll find that a very tough task.

Btw, if you've seen the effect of a HC weapon then why are we even argueing this ? You then know as well as I do how terrorfying such a weapon is if it succeeds in breaching the armour of a vehicle.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 20, 2009)

Soren said:


> Don't know if it would've been ideal but it certainly would've been a whole lot better, esp. if other areas such as the radio communication equipment and so was improved as-well.
> 
> But one also has to think within the boundaries of possibility, and the gun was possible in the 100mm D-10, but the Soviets still lacked the know how and precision equipment to build proper optics, and their radio equipment wasn't particularly good either. Furthermore the 4 man crew was best increased to a 5 man one, and space inside the tank was best to be increased as-well to permit faster reloads, and that would nessicate a larger tank, probably in the 55 to 60 ton category. And by that point getting an engine powerful enough would've proven a challenge.



Hi,
Since the 3 crew members were located in turret, the possible 5th crew member would've to be seated next to the driver with almost no role in battle. The 100mm gun itself would've allow faster reloads, since it used unitary ammo.
The next major Russian tank type, the T-54/55, sported 100mm gun, armor up to 8in (yep, 203mm), almost the same engine, and weighted 20% less then IS-2. The Leo1 and AMX-30 have had 105mm installed, again weighting under 40 tons and being of modest size.
So I see no need to increase the tank. 

I agree that the Russkies could've used the better optics radios though.


----------



## Juha (Jun 20, 2009)

Hello Soren
hatch closed but unlocked as I wrote earlier
I doubt the 99% but accept that usually only one hit which penetrate was enough
as a combat engineer I know thet there might well be a difference between how spectacular an effect of an explosition against armour shows outside and what is its effect inside the armour. All HE explositions on surface seem spectacular to those who had not seen them often. We even shot a LAW rocket against a target leaning against a big boulder, effect was dramatic, the target disintegrate but a quick glance on the surface of the boulder revealed nothing, we might have found something if we had looked more carefully but we had much more spectular show to do next, so we were in hurry to make the final toutches to our effort to empty a small lake/a pond by explosives, a bit eggaration but we shot lot of water and most of the ice skyhigh, and it was really spectacular sight in afternoon sunlight.

Juha


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 20, 2009)

Hi, Juha,

I disagree about what you've said about unlocked/unbuttonned tanks.

The Russian tankers used to have their tank's hatches closed and locked.
After the rough experience with Panzerfausts, killing and wounding the crew, they weren't locking their hatches any more, in order to allow friendly troops to open the hatch pull out the ones that survived.
Since the Russkies learned the hard way the pluses of mutual support and started to use the knowledge, it was unlikely that enemy infantryman could both run to the tank, climb up, open the hatch, throw the hand grenade inside, and live to tell about that; the other tanks and friendly infantry would've not allow that in most of the cases.
Also, the tank crews started to mount steel sheets, or even the bed springs to the turrets in order to invoke the premature detonation of the incoming projectile's warhead. The German tanks of the WWII did gave a lot of inspiration for that.


----------



## Juha (Jun 20, 2009)

Hello Tomo Pauk
maybe, IIRC I read the story from a caption in a book written by a Yank or a British, so maybe something was lost in translation. And yes those bed springs are well known. Anyway, the story that not all HC penetrations were lethal was known also in West, in fact I recall reading first on cases in West before I saw the abovementioned caption

Juha


----------



## Soren (Jun 20, 2009)

Well it seems you are beginning to agree with me then Juha.

I've seen the effect of high explosives on armour as well plenty of times, and yes it can look very spectacular from the outside while an after inspection will reveal that it hasn't done squat, and so yes it can be VERY decieving. But I'd also like to point out that I'm not talking about hollow charge weapons here, just ordinary explosives. HC weapons don't just look spectacular from the outside, they also create a real mess on the inside.

Btw found a really good video on the Panzerschreck, here you also see a plate of armour being penetrated. The effect looks identical to that of a RPG-7:

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_C-vOIVzmA_


----------



## Juha (Jun 20, 2009)

Hello Soren
our main A/T weapon, meaning we combat engineers, was kevyt sinko 55, tube 55mm but rocket had a diametr of 88mm, of all diameters. Maybe it had something to the fact that we had used Panzerschrecks

Juha


----------



## Soren (Jun 20, 2009)

tomo pauk said:


> Hi,
> Since the 3 crew members were located in turret, the possible 5th crew member would've to be seated next to the driver with almost no role in battle. The 100mm gun itself would've allow faster reloads, since it used unitary ammo.
> The next major Russian tank type, the T-54/55, sported 100mm gun, armor up to 8in (yep, 203mm), almost the same engine, and weighted 20% less then IS-2. The Leo1 and AMX-30 have had 105mm installed, again weighting under 40 tons and being of modest size.
> So I see no need to increase the tank.



The 5th guy would be the radio operator and a hull machine gunner if such a thing was added, as in the German tanks. This was the way forward. The hull machine gun was extremely effective when enemy infantry was in the area.

As for the T-54, remember only the front turret had 204mm armour, the hull only had 99mm and the sides were pretty weak as-well. And again, a 4 man crew. And along with the T-72 the T-54/55 was when eventually tested by the British US considered a deathtrap, it was waay too cramped for one.


----------



## Soren (Jun 20, 2009)

I believe the ideal heavy tank of WW2 would've been a Tiger Ausf.B with a stronger drivetrain and the fuel injected version of the HL230 engine producing 1,000 PS (737 kW) of power. The armament, armour, optics, radio equipment, ride comfort etc etc of the tank was already pretty much perfect, all that was really needed was a stronger drivetrain, while a more powerful engine is always useful.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 20, 2009)

Soren said:


> The 5th guy would be the radio operator and a hull machine gunner if such a thing was added, as in the German tanks.
> 
> *T-34, KV-1, Sherman etc all featured the hull machine gunner.*
> 
> ...


.


----------



## Soren (Jun 20, 2009)

The hull machine gunner has been removed from modern designs as tanks today are far more mobile and the angle of the hull rarely allows one to be installed, plus the turrets have much faster travers and the gun stays locked on target even if driving through the toughest types of terrain. All of this means that the hull machine gun isn't necessary on new tanks, but on a WW2 tank it was essential, and that the IS-2 lacked it just put it at a disadvantage.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 20, 2009)

Boy ,don't i like to talk about tanks 

The only shortcomings I find to the Soren's proposal was the late war entry (late 1944?) and usage of gasoline engine (but that goes along with German technology of the time, so only a minor issue).

My proposal would be the KV-1 with 107mm cannon; feasible in 1940.
The Russians did have the similar KV-3 prototype tested, but found it having unreliable drive train suspension because of the weight of the added armor to the KV-1's hull.


----------



## Soren (Jun 20, 2009)

> Boy ,don't i like to talk about tanks



Me too! Check out the video I posted in the OffTopic section, named "I want one!"


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 20, 2009)

Soren said:


> The hull machine gunner has been removed from modern designs as tanks today are far more mobile and the angle of the hull rarely allows one to be installed, plus the turrets have much faster travers and the gun stays locked on target even if driving through the toughest types of terrain. All of this means that the hull machine gun isn't necessary on new tanks, but on a WW2 tank it was essential, and that the IS-2 lacked it just put it at a disadvantage.



The trade-off for not having a hull machine gunner was the better integrity of the glacis plate for IS-2. From my point of view that decision was right.

I disagree that those were the reasons for deleting the hull MG*, but even if they were**, the Centurion, Conqueror, IS-3, T-44 -55, AMX-30 -50, Leo-1 - the 1st generations of those tanks did have more in common with WWII designs, then with 1980's ones. Yet, the most notable thing was, again, the lack of hull machine gunner position. 
My conclusion is that the designers regarded the hull machine gun was a thing of the past, what's fine for me.

*I disagree that hull MG position was essential for a WWII tanks. It adds up to the volume to be armor protected, reduces integrity of the glacis plat, further adding to the engine power requirements, fuel consumption, added training. 
**The M-26 -47 did have well sloped glacis, yet sported the hull MG. So the angle was not a reason against hull MG.


----------



## Juha (Jun 20, 2009)

Hello
while looking a good photo on A43 Black Prince, maybe a nearest what british got as a heavy tank, from Fletcher's The Universal Tank, noticed on same page info on British "A Survey of Casualties Amongst Armoured Units in North West Europe". According to that survey only 50-60% Panzerfaust and Panzerschreck hits actually penetrate armour of British tanks. IMHO surprisingly low, I have been thinking that something like 66-80% of hits penetrate.

I had thought that Black Prince would have been one candidate for a good breakthrough tank with its 152mm frontal and 95mm side armour, but it seems that the rumour that one of the 6 protos has Meteor engine cannot be comfirmed. With 350hp Bedford engine the type was hopelessly underpowered with its 48 tons weight. IMHO in mid 40s weight over 50tons made life of combat engineers too difficult, same to recovery crews.

Juha


----------



## Juha (Jun 20, 2009)

On hull machine gun
IMHO two reasons, the integrity of glacis plate and the need of room for enough main gun ammo. The later was reason why Fireflies didn't have hullmg, IIRC.

Juha


----------



## Soren (Jun 30, 2009)

If you look at most modern tanks you'll realize that a hull mounted MG isn't a possibility. The balanced gun and fast precise turret traverse also makes it unnecessary.

Now while you say than the absence of a hull MG on the IS-2 improved the integrity of the glacis you'd be wrong. Why ?: 

1.) Cause there simply wasn't room for a hull MG. Thus the absence of the hull MG wasn't a design choice in order to improve armour integrity, it was simply left out because there wasn't room for it. To sorta make up for that an MG was placed at the rear of the turret.

2.) The viewing slot compelety ruined what'ever advantage there might have been of not having a hull MG, leaving glacis vulnerable to rounds from even the StuG's. And if that wasn't bad enough the front turret was only a mere 100mm thick, making it vulerable to a StuG and Panzer IV past 1,000 m. This fatal design flaw meant that the IS-2 never seriously threatened the old Tiger Ausf.E. 

In mid august 1944 a unit of just 3 Tiger Ausf.E's managed to destroy 15 IS-2's in a long range full frontal engagement, the range never getting closer than 1,500 meters, for no losses in return. Here's a picture taken after the engagement (The IS-2 in front was taken out by a single hit which penetrated the upper part of the glacis plate and exploded inside the tank setting off the ammunition storage):


----------



## m kenny (Jun 30, 2009)

Do you have more information on the Unit that claimed the 15 IS II's in August 1944? 

The photo of these 3 IS II's have lots of claims attached to them. The Squadron/Signal book 'Soviet Panzers In Action' dates them to Feb 17 1945 near Konisberg and claims them as victims of GD.
The Wydawnictwo book 'Grossdeutschland Vol II' again says it was GD but now it is April 1945 and location is Romania. Varrious other books give even more dates/locations.
In order to make the photo look more impresive the propoganda boys manipulated it by bringing the rear 2 tanks further forward and thus we have:









Soren said:


> Now while you say than the absence of a hull MG on the IS-2 improved the integrity of the glacis you'd be wrong. Why ?:
> 
> 1.) Cause there simply wasn't room for a hull MG. Thus the absence of the hull MG wasn't a design choice in order to improve armour integrity, it was simply left out because there wasn't room for it. To sorta make up for that an MG was placed at the rear of the turret.



There is a 'fixed' front hull MG on the IS II.


----------



## m kenny (Jul 1, 2009)

The bow MG on the IS II


----------



## Soren (Jul 1, 2009)

A fixed hull MG requires almost zero space and also has ZERO effectiveness in battle. Adding a fixed MG on the hull of a tank is pure stupidity on the part of the designer.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jul 2, 2009)

Soren said:


> If you look at most modern tanks you'll realize that a hull mounted MG isn't a possibility.
> 
> *I've looked at many (all?) modern tanks and I realize it is possible. But no one wants to bother, since the shortcomings outweight the benefits, one of them is indeed:*
> 
> ...



.


----------



## Soren (Jul 3, 2009)

tomo,

m_kenny's post doesn't clear the issue as it shows a 'fixed' hull MG, which requires nearly no space and was put there merely as an act of desperation. In combat it would be useless, and I believe it was in general removed.



> If we say that 100mm tick mantlet was a "fatal design flaw", it's safe to say that Panther, for example, was riddled with flaws.



Riddled with flaws ? How so ? It featured a 100 mm mantlet as-well.

The reason it was rather odd on the IS-2 was that the turret was the prime target on that tank, the turret being as large as it was. For some odd reason they chose to upgrade the glacis plate instead of the turret, which was a huge mistake cause not only was the glacis a small target, but the lower hull was kept at 120mm sloped 30 degrees, making it also vulnerable at that spot beyond 1,000m for most German guns.

It is quite understandable that German tank crews saw the T-34/85 as a greater threat than the IS-2.



> The IS-2 used to threat with 122mm gun usually. So the crews of the old Tiger got to be rather careful when IS-2 were around.



At close range it was a real danger, sure, but not much at long range as German tank crews reported again and again that beyond 800m the IS-2 could hardly hit anything.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jul 3, 2009)

Re. the fatal flaws,
The Panther, with the same weight and the much lighter turret cannon carried much less armor then IS-2. So if we say that IS-2 had a fatal flaw because of only one piece of armor, it is also safe to say that Panther was riddled with flaws since it was less armored every other spot.

A quick look at the Armour penetration table site reveals that only 8,8cm L/71and 12,8cm German guns had a chance to beat the lower glacis plate (120mm @30deg ) of the IS-2 beyond 1km. Since the AP shell would've been at the descending part of the path (further spoiling the impact angle), the shot needed to be strictly at the front of the plate (almost 0 deg head-on).
On the other hand, the T-34-85 was a fair game for the venerable 7,5cm pak similar stuff (Pz-IV, StuG-III etc). So those represented less threat for the Germans, since the IS-2 was vulnerable to the 7,5cm as the T-34-85 to the 5cm pak, (= invulnerable beyond 500m).

Please post some links that describe the inabillity of the IS-2 crews/guns to hit anything beyond 800m.

The hull MG installation of the IS-2 a pretty stupid idea, but perhaps the brass is to blame for that, not the designer that make real their requirement
m_kenny's post clears the issue wether the IS-2 had the hull MG 
Ceterum censeo, if a small (15-30 tons) tanks had the room for a hull MG crewman installation, the lack of space is hardly a reason for not having the same for a 45+ ton tank.


----------



## Soren (Jul 3, 2009)

The weight of a tank doesn't correlate to how roomy it is inside tomo, to assume such a thing is to lack a lot of understanding on the issue. Soviet tanks, small large (Esp. the large ones though) are known for their cramped interior, so much so that German as-well as US tankers often have referred to them as deathtraps for the poor crews inside in the event anything went wrong.

As for the IS-2's lower frontal hull, both the 7.5cm KwK42, 8.8cm KwK36 7.5cm PaK41 could punch straight through it at beyond even 1,500 meters. And the 7.5cm Kwk40 was capable at up to 600m atleast.

Keep in mind that the armour quality of the IS-2 was poor throughout the war, with hits from guns such as the numerous PaK40 often causing lethal spalling inside the tank even when it hit heavily armoured places such as the glacis. The armour way too brittle.



> Re. the fatal flaws,
> The Panther, with the same weight and the much lighter turret cannon carried much less armor then IS-2. So if we say that IS-2 had a fatal flaw because of only one piece of armor, it is also safe to say that Panther was riddled with flaws since it was less armored every other spot.



The problem with that theory is that both tanks were built for different purposes. The Panther was designed to combat other tanks, providing excellent mobility, great space of ammunition storage and crew comfort, great protection from the front and excellent firepower. The IS-2 on the other hand was designed as a heavy infantry support tank, and was kept small but heavily armoured and armed, with little room for both crew ammo, in short it wasn't a very good tank. 

The T-34/85 was better than the IS-2 in that it was more spacious inside, it had a high rate of fire and great mobility and speed. The armament of the T-34/85 was also sufficient most of the time, and was dangerous to the flanks of any tank.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 4, 2009)

The figures for the armour protection on the IS-2 are misleading as the IS-2 armour was not tempered, which made the armour splinter when struck. The Soviets found the process of tempering to be complex and costly, so the problem was allowed to remain throughout the war. In relation to the Panther, the IS-2 was found to be unable to penetrate the frontal armour above 600m; at this distance the IS-2 was vulnerable to the Panther. 

There are combat reports of IS-2s withstanding 8.8cm rounds from distances up to and including 1000 - 1500m, but combat is not a paper report and physics can be altered by so many different fundamentals. I've read of a IS-2 withstanding three 8.8cm hits at 1000 - 1200m, and then being knocked out at 700m by the same vehicle - which indicates the possible strength of the IS-2 armour and possibly the inability of the IS-2 to return effective fire? 

Most open field armour conflict took place at 400 - 600m (something like 40% of Soviet tank losses were at that distance); but unfortunately for the Soviets the Germans could bring down effective fire on them while closing to that distance. If I remember correctly approximately 20% of Soviet losses were at distances over 1000m. 

The IS-2 did make Heinz Guderian get worried about the Tiger crews driving around the battlefield without worry, because he believed the IS-2 was the tank that removed the invulnerability of the Tiger.


----------



## Juha (Jul 4, 2009)

Hello Plan_D
Quote:" the IS-2 was found to be unable to penetrate the frontal armour above 600m; at this distance the IS-2 was vulnerable to the Panther. "

If one look the penetration tables that is true for Panther's glacic plate but the turret front of Panther was penetrable to 122mm shell up to 2000+m. It was a clearly smaller targer than the glacic but also more often visible. And even without penetration a shell as heavy as 122mm might knock the turret out.

Juha


----------



## plan_D (Jul 4, 2009)

That is true [apologies for missing out the turret], but the IS-2 crews were not going to hit any target at 2,000m. Combat reports show the IS-2 was not up to design specifications, which I believe were something like it should be able to withstand a direct-hit from a 8.8cm round at over 1000m and be able to penetrate 160mm armour at the same distance. In fact, combat after combat showed the IS-2 to be vulnerable to the Panther, Tiger and Tiger II at all relevant combat ranges - obviously the vulnerability to the Panther was not at the same distances as the Tigers. 

This doesn't mean the IS-2 was a particularly poor tank design; mostly the production process and "creature comforts" [like decent optical equipment] let it down. And when handled correctly the IS-2 was a dangerous machine, 13th August, 1944, 71st Independent Heavy Tank Regiment's 11 IS-2s blocked an attack made by 14 Tiger IIs, destroying four and damaging seven with a loss of three and seven damaged. Not too bad, but it wasn't an open field for long distance shooting - they engaged at 600m.


----------



## Juha (Jul 4, 2009)

Hello Plan_D
I wnted only to show that JS-2 was capable of knocking out Panther from distances from where it had reasonable chances to hit it. It doesn’t so much suffer from lack of firepower than lack of good optics and ammo capacity.

Juha


----------



## plan_D (Jul 4, 2009)

In my opinion it did lack in firepower, given it's time of design and benchmarks (Tiger and Panther); the IS-2 should have been much more capable.


----------



## Soren (Jul 4, 2009)

Fully agreed Plan_D.

The D-10 could've sufficiently solved that problem however. Unfortunately it was prevented by some stupid heads in the Soviet army command. All nations made stupid mistakes during the war, and this was one of the Soviet ones.


----------



## Juha (Jul 5, 2009)

First of all, as Tomo and I have already wrote in this thread, 122mm gun was chosen over 100mm gun because of supply consideration. During war one used what one had. Nothing stupid on that, its much better to have 122mm gun and ammo to it than not have a gun or at least ammo to the gun. Noting stupid on that decision. the design team tried to answer the critic which their KV series had got and the appearence of T34/85 put them in tight spot.
Now IS-2 was capaple to knock out same sized German tank from normal battle ranges and had much better side protection than Panther. That it had trouble with 50% heavier Tuger II should surprise anyone and because Soviets were advancing towards Berlin not retreating towards it their heavy tank solution was much lighter than Germany's and IMHO rightly so. Simply IMHO 68ton tank was too heavy for 40s. And Soviets didn't put so much weight on A/T capacity of their heavy tanks than Germans and so have much heavier HE shell in their disposal.
BTW this thread wasn't on Eastern Front

Juha


----------



## Soren (Jul 5, 2009)

Sorry Juha but it was a stupid decision, pure and simple. The 122mm gun while powerful was waaaaay too slow. It was not a smart choice to put such a large caliber gun on such a small tank, there was hardly any room for ammunition ket alone the crew.


----------



## Juha (Jul 5, 2009)

Soren
Yes, JS series tanks suffered from low RoF and limited ammo supply but what were the other options?
100mm gun was in short supply and its ammo production low.
85mm, I don't know was it officially out but at least the KV series had got much critisism because it carried same gun than the medium T-34 there were lot of talk that that was not very satisfactory situation. There was also much critisim on the whole heavy tank concept because they had tendency to be left behind during a rapid advance, had problems with bridges and at times wrecked roads and so made life of supply and construct troops miserable. With T-34/85 the team knew that they needed to put a heavier gun in their new heavy tank and also top brass might well wanted heavier HE than the 85mm shell. The new T-34 could deliver 85mm fire and SUs heavier for breakthrough support. As I wrote earlier the design team was in a tight spot.

Juha


----------



## Soren (Jul 8, 2009)

Yet a shift wasn't made when the D-10 became readily available in late 44 ? 

The IS-2 simply shouldn't have entered production before the D-10 entered full scale production, which was sometime late 44, it's that simple. The SU-100 entered production in late 44 after full production of the D-10 had ensued. 

It had been far better to build more T-34/85's until the 10cm D-10 became available. Putting the 12.2cm gun on the IS-2 was pure stupidity and rendered the tank nomore effective in tank combat than the T-34/85, and in most cases even less effective actually. The overly cramped space meant that even Jagdtiger crews could reload their 12.8cm gun twice as fast as the IS-2 crews could their 12.2cm gun. 

Also if you plan to put a gun on your tank which will only fire once every 30 seconds then you better also plan to put some damn good optics on it so you can take full advantage of each shot. But did the Soviets atleast do that ? No, nothing even approaching proper optics was put on that tank, further nessicating the need for a fast firing gun.


----------



## Juha (Jul 8, 2009)

Soren
are you sure that there was enough D-10s and ammo to them to arm both SU-100s and JSs with it? After all part of SU-100 chassises were armed with 122mm gun. I cannot remember was that what was planned or because of supply problems with D-10 or/and its ammo.

Juha


----------



## m kenny (Jul 8, 2009)

Soren said:


> then you better also plan to put some damn good optics on it so you can take full advantage of each shot. But did the Soviets atleast do that ? No, nothing even approaching proper optics was put on that tank, further nessicating the need for a fast firing gun.



You keep saying this but so far I have not seen a single source. What _refernces_ do you have that show the capabilities of Soviet Optics?

How about this?

_"When I fired at the T-34 in the valley, I wasn't aware that there were a number of those monsters waiting *two kilometers away* at the edge of the forest. No sooner had I pulled the trigger than the Russian behemoth began firing. For once, the Russians struck our tank with their first round. _"

from:

Rudolph Salvermoser, A Grodeutschland Veteran

and I gave several other instances earlier that are worth repeating:

Jentz, Panzertruppen 1

 page 205:

_ 
The Russian tanks usually formed in a half circle, open
fire with their 7.62 cm guns on our Panzers already at a range
of *1000 meters*  and deliver enormous penetration energy with
 *high accuracy.* 
Our 5 cm Kw.K. tank guns can achieve penetrations only
on vulnerable locations under very special favorable condi-
tions at very close ranges * under 50 meters.*  Our Panzers are
already knocked out at a range of  *several hundred meters.* 
Many times our Panzers were split open or the complete
commander's cupola of the Pz.Kpfw.lll and IV flew off from
one frontal hit. This is proof that the armor is insufficient, the
mounting for the commander's cupola on our Panzers is de-
ficient, * and the accuracy and penetration ability of the Rus-
sian 7.62 cm tank guns are high.* _

page 206 
_The Panzer crews know they can already be knocked out * at long range*  by enemy (Soviet) tanks_

page 231
_In correctly recognising his technical superiority in weapons the T34 already opens fire on German Panzers at ranges * from 1200 to 1800 meters*_ 

page 233

_Russian tank forces are good.  The level of training also good_
page 233
_The rumors that Russian armor quality has become poorer are emphaticaly denied._
page 243
_firing at  long range they cause considerable losses to the German Panzers_ 


_The  fantastic combat moral of the Russian tank crews has led to having to destroy stationary tanks that have already been hit five or six times.........the Russian crews remained fighting in their tanks so long as their weapons still could be fired_


Sights of Soviet Tanks

I have yet to see a thread/site that has reliable data that shows Soviet Optics were not up to the job.


----------



## Soren (Jul 9, 2009)

For one who hasn't seen either sides optics in real life you seem to bring forth a good case m_Kenny, but gaving seen the optics in person I can tell you that the Soviet ones are of very poor quality. Hence why you see it mentioned so many times in books on the subject, and hence why other countries who obtained Soviets tanks emmidiately changed the optics. 

Also maybe you should take a look at the German Waprüf tests for an assessment on the Soviet optics. No praise is given, I can tell you that.

The quotes you present don't prove any form of acccuracy of the guns or quality of the optics, it simply states some incidents where Russian tank opened fire at 1,000 meters or more, which was very common btw. What was uncommon was for the Soviet tanks to hit anything at that range, hence Salvermoser's astonishment when the a Soviet tank *for once* hit with its first round.

Btw, Std. German practice was to open fire at distances much greater than 2km away. Nashorn crews reported IS-2 tanks were knocked at distances as great as 4.6km.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 10, 2009)

Those quotes seem to be from 1941 - 1942 when the Panzers in reference are 3.7cm KwK36 and maybe 5.0 KwK38 Pz.Kpfw IIIs and short-barrelled 7.5cm Pz.Kpfw Ds. It's no surprise that the Pz.IIIs, especially those without the L/60, had to close to 50 metres to gain a favourable condition to destroy a T-34. They didn't have to close to 50 metres to strike the tank; but it's clear it would have been ineffective. 

It's also no surprise that a German tank crew would state that the T-34s were destroying them at "long range" when they felt they had to close to distances well below the usual combat ranges that we know from 1943 onwards (400 - 600m). If you think about a crew having to close to 100m to destroy its opponent, if the opponent can kill them at 300m - then it's three times the distance and a long way! 

Those highlighted points, m_kenny, seem to be the reason that Tigers, Panthers and better weapons were available to the Wehrmacht a year or two after. 

Let's not forget that the T-34 was the best tank in the world for some time after it's creation - but in 1941, there weren't that many. In Panzer Leader - Heinz Guderian states his shock during the initial invasion at meeting three T-34s in a village, which had to be dispatched at close range with 5.0cm AT weapons. In 1941, meeting a T-34 must have been like an American meeting a Tiger in 1944.


----------



## m kenny (Jul 12, 2009)

Soren said:


> Also maybe you should take a look at the German Waprüf tests for an assessment on the Soviet optics. No praise is given, I can tell you that.



Would love to. Despite many years around the forums I have never seen anything substantive about how effective Soviet optics were. Many claims are made but no hard information. The query is not how they compared toGerman models but rather if they were good enough to get hits at 1000 mtrs. ect.
In short did they do the job rather than did they win a design award.
The UK technical study of a T34 (completed in 1943) noted that though the way the optics were assembled was pretty basic and low tech it appeared to work.


----------



## river (Jul 13, 2009)

Hi,

My favourite is the PzKpfw IV, especially the F2 variant.

My choice for best would be the Panther.

river


----------



## Civettone (Jul 21, 2009)

river there's no F2 variant... It is a G but was called F2 in a manual or something.

sorry to be nitpicking dude 

Kris


----------



## river (Aug 1, 2009)

Hi,

You're not nit-picking. But nor are you correct. 

There was an F2 variant and it was different from the G model.

The initial F model (Chassis numbers 82001 to 82614) were built from April 1941 to March 1942 - a total of 462 were produced, and 25 were converted to F2 models.

The F2 (chassis numbers 82370 to 82650) were built from March to July 1942 - a total of 175 were produced, including the aforementioned 25 conversions from the initial F model.

The initial F model could not combat the Russian KV-1 and T-34 AFV and an order was issued to mount the KwK40 L/43 gun on the F model. This caused a month's loss of production in March 1942, and the F series was completed with the L/43 and was designated Aus F2.

Differences between the F and F2 was largely, but not completely, due to the larger gun. Ammunition storage was modified to house the larger shells, and the gunners and commanders seats were changed to allow for more room. The elevation mechanism was modified and an auxilliary hand traverse was installed. Because of the long barrel, a coil-spring counter balance was installed for the L/43. The hull rear armour went from 20mm @ 9degrees slope on the F to 20mm with 0 degrees slope on the F2.

The G model (chassis numbers 82651 to 84400) were produced from May 1942 to June 1943 - a total of1,687 being produced. Actually, 1,750 were made, but only 1,687 were built as G models, as 10 chassis were used for the Hummel (Bumble Bee) and 53 chassis were used for the Brummbar (Grizzly bear).

From late March 1943 the KwK40 L/48 was installed, instead of the L/43 - with a total of 1,275 G models (out of 1,687) having the L/43. G models with extra armour, bolted or welded on, began on 20th June 1942.

The G model had vision ports eliminated in the turret sides and in the loader's side of the turret front. The hull rear was 20mm @ 9 degrees slope. In the summer of 1942 changes included a new style of muzzle brake, as well as installing a system that allowed the transfer of coolant from to another MkIV to aid cold weather starting. Smoke discharges were installed on the turret side instead of on the hull. In January 1943 the drivers episcope (KFF2) was eliminated. Schurzen were added in 1943. The very late G models got a new type of drive sprocket and the radio antenna was moved to the left hull rear, making it almost impossible to distinguish a late G model to an early H model.

Model F2
weight - 23 tons
length - 5.62 metres
width - 2.84 metres
height - 2.68 metres
range - 200km

Model G
weight - 23.5 tons
length - 6.62 metres
width - 2.88 metres
height - 2.68 metres
range - 210km

So, the F2 is a distinct variant of the MkIV. Sure, it may be very close to the G version, but it was different enough to warrant the F2 designation, and I have yet to read any text that says there was no F2, and they were all G models.

river


----------



## Civettone (Aug 1, 2009)

First of all, how come the G model is 1 meter longer? Is that a typo??

Anyway, fFrom Christian Ankerstjerne's site panzerworld.net

_The Pz.Kpfw.IV Ausf.F2 and Pz.Kpfw.IV Ausf.G were not seperate vehicles, but merely different designations for the same vehicle. The Ausf.F2 designation appeared in two manuals before the designation was changed to Ausf.G, and thus the designation made it into post-war litterature as being a seperate vehicle._

Kris


----------



## river (Aug 2, 2009)

Hi,

It could be longer if they were taking in the length of the later G model with the L/48?

As quite a few things relating to WW2 equipment, some texts say one thing and others say another.

river


----------



## Civettone (Aug 2, 2009)

G model would have been roughly 5 x 75mm longer, so 37,5 cm. 

Listen, the F2 was renamed into G, and there was NO difference between them. Later G's were obviously altered but there is NO difference between the F2 and G. 
One can say there was a F2 at a certain point but as they were renamed G one can only talk about the IV G. 

Kris


----------



## Messy1 (Aug 11, 2009)

How does a A34 comet compare?


----------



## Juha (Oct 3, 2009)

Hello Messy
A34 Comet
Plusses
Excellent gun (almost as good in A/T work as the Panthers 7,5cm KwK 42) with APCBC ammo, with shorter ranges with APDS even better than 7,5cm KwK 42 with APCR shot.
Fast
Very good power weight ratio
Reliable
Reasonable good armour protection

Minusses
old-fasioned boxlike hull
narrow tracks

Juha


----------



## Messy1 (Oct 6, 2009)

Good info Juha!


----------



## vinnye (Jan 6, 2010)

That looks like a lot of good plusses for the Comet and not too may minuses!

If the frontal armour was more sloped and less boxy - the protection offered would be increased for little / no weight gain. By the time the Comet was being designed - the Allies must have been aware of the T34 - and should have been able to learn from it.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 6, 2010)

I thought also that the Comets used a scaled down versiion of the 75mm gun, that decreased the firepower of the tank....not sure, but I thought I read it somewhere


----------



## fastmongrel (Jan 6, 2010)

The Comet used a gun called the 77mm even though it was actually a 3 inch 76.2mm gun but to save confusion with other 76mm tank guns it was labelled 77mm.

It used the same projectiles as the 17 pounder but used a smaller powder case taken from the 3 inch 20 cwt AA gun. The smaller powder charge cut performance of the projectiles by about 12 %. It was reckoned by tank crews to be a good accurate gun and the trade off between lower performance and much easier ammo handling with the smaller round was accepted. 

The 77mm doesnt seem to have suffered the problems of wild shots that plagued the 17 pounder when firing APDS, caused by the sabot petals not seperating possibly because of the lower velocity.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 6, 2010)

The only thing Comet 'lacked' was service date; in practice it was good as Panther, while beating Russian tanks in many categories.


----------



## Juha (Jan 6, 2010)

I’d say that Comet was the best tank for British in 45, it would have been the best for them also in 44 if available. Fast and reliable 33 ton tank with reasonable protection and very good gun. The narrow tracks were not so important in Western Europe. Panther on the other hand suited very well to Germans from 44 onwards when worst defects were eliminated. Being very good defensive tank with excellent frontal armour and excellent gun for A/T work. In defence the rather weak side armour for a 45ton tank wasn’t so important than it would have been in offensive. And T-34-85 suited for Soviets, better HE ammo, always useful against A/T guns and mg nets, reliable and broad tracks were important in Eastern Europe.

Juha


----------



## vinnye (Jan 7, 2010)

http://www.wwiiequipment.com/index....iser-tank-a34&option=com_content&view=article

The Comet was essentially an enlarged version of the Cromwell, in 1943 attempts were made to mount Vickers' new high velocity 75mm gun in a Cromwell but despite many months and plans to have the tank in production shortly it was found that the gun would not fit into the Cromwell after all. This 75mm weapon was then modified to fire 17 Pounder ammunition and was known as 77mm so that there would not be confusion over ammunition supplies. The High Velocity 77mm was extremely accurate, more so than the regular 17 Pounder and was mounted on the Comet tank.

It had been planned to have the first crews equipped and trained with the Comet by December 1944 but due to the German offensive the crews did not have time to train until the new year, the Comet tank ultimately arrived too late but it's high speed was put to good use in Germany, this high speed also allowed to Comet to power its way through rough terrain that other tanks could not.


----------



## fastmongrel (Jan 7, 2010)

Juha said:


> I’d say that Comet was the best tank for British in 45, it would have been the best for them also in 44 if available.
> 
> Juha



I reckon the Comet would have been the ideal tank for 1944 and it really should have been available 6 months earlier than it was. The ideal tank for 1945 would have been the M26 or the Centurion.


----------



## Juha (Jan 7, 2010)

Hello fastmongrel
Centurion just missed the war, so it arrived a bit too late for the British Army.
IMHO M26 at least at that time still lacked reliability when compared to Comet and as heavier was more problematic logistically, for ex in bridging requirements. And 77mm was almost as good as 90mm in penetration power with APCBC ammo. Hull protection of M26 was clearly better but in turret protection there wasn’t so much difference. Comet’s mobility was clearly better. So IMHO for the situation which British faced in 45 Comet suited better.

Juha


----------



## vinnye (Jan 7, 2010)

Just checked on the M26 and found this -
M26 Pershing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Heavy Tank M26 Pershing was an American heavy tank used during World War II and the Korean War. It was named after General John Pershing, who led the American Expeditionary Force in Europe in World War I.

Development of the M26 during World War II was prolonged by a number of factors, the most important being opposition to the tank from Army Ground Forces (AGF). As a result, only the initial 20 M26 (T26E3) tanks deployed to Europe in January 1945 saw combat in World War II. The M26 and its improved derivative, the M46 Patton, both saw more combat in Korea. The M26 was underpowered and mechanically unreliable and so was withdrawn from Korea in 1951, in favor of the M46, which had a more powerful engine. The lineage of the M26 continued with the M47 Patton, and was reflected in the new designs of the later M48 Patton and M60 Patton tanks.

I thought the Centurian only became available in 1946 - but could be wrong! An excellent tank though as its service record suggests - one of the very best!


----------



## Juha (Jan 7, 2010)

Hello Vinnye
some Centurions were on the way to the front when the war ended, IIRC they had just arrived to continent when the war ended, so they missed the war by a couple weeks.

Juha


----------



## vinnye (Jan 8, 2010)

Thanks Juha - i has seen the Cent as having a service history from 1946 onwards. But after reading your post I looked again and found this -
Manufacture of the Centurion began in January 1945, and six prototypes arrived in Belgium soon after the war in Europe ended in May 1945


----------



## Freebird (Jan 9, 2010)

Juha said:


> Hello Messy
> A34 Comet
> Plusses
> Excellent gun (almost as good in A/T work as the Panthers 7,5cm KwK 42) with APCBC ammo, with shorter ranges with APDS even better than 7,5cm KwK 42 with APCR shot.
> ...



And the Comet was probably the first really decent all round British tank.

But since we are talking about the Desert War, how about this - (IMO) In the period January - June 1942 the British Commonealth had *THE BEST* (non-Soviet) tank, but it was never used in combat. 

Instead they used the unrealiable weak Crusader, or the slow Matilda, directly contributing to the defeat at Gazala.


----------



## Juha (Jan 9, 2010)

Hello Freebird
don't forget Valentine the only British tank the Soviets definitely liked and asked more. It was at least reliable. And its small size was sometimes an advance. As story goes, one soviet tank brigade (T-34-85s) was stopped after loosing some tanks to a PzVI in a good ambust position. After some head scratching the decision was to sent a 6pdr Valentine, of which the recon unit of the brigade still had, to flank the Tiger because Soviets figured that so small tank might by skillful use of terrain got near unnoticed. The Valentine succeeded to get near the tiger and destroyed it by a couple flanking shots.

Juha


----------



## vinnye (Jan 9, 2010)

The Matilda along with several other early British desgns was for Infantry support. That was why it was slow - it was firew support for attacking infantry to call upon. It had heavy armour protection and a gun that was usually used to fire high explosive shells at enemy strong points. So it was not supposed to be used against other tanks where speed and mobility are advantageous. It is worth ointing out that a counter attack by several Matildas frightenend the German army at Dunkirk. It was the use of the anti aircraft 88mm gun on them that was the only effective weapon the Germans had at the time all other calibres bounced off it. Pretty impressive for a tank that was desgned for other functions!


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 9, 2010)

vinnye said:


> The Matilda along with several other early British desgns was for Infantry support. That was why it was slow - it was firew support for attacking infantry to call upon. It had heavy armour protection and a gun that was usually used to fire high explosive shells at enemy strong points. So it was not supposed to be used against other tanks where speed and mobility are advantageous. It is worth ointing out that a counter attack by several Matildas frightenend the German army at Dunkirk. It was the use of the anti aircraft 88mm gun on them that was the only effective weapon the Germans had at the time all other calibres bounced off it. Pretty impressive for a tank that was desgned for other functions!



matilda have not HE shells... (88 was not the only effective weapon, also 105 howitzer were effective (and all larger artillery), and there are ever other not guns weapons)


----------



## parsifal (Jan 9, 2010)

Vincenzo said:


> matilda have not HE shells... (88 was not the only effective weapon, also 105 howitzer were effective (and all larger artillery), and there are ever other not guns weapons)



Your right to correct Vinnye Vincenzo. The Matilda did not have an HE capability. However, it was impervious to just about all the early war AT weapons except the 88, and would use its MGs to suppress the enemy Infantry, ir CS tanks which were fitted with HE firing weaponary.

Matildas were extremely effective in breaking the Italian defences during O'Connors conquest of Cyrenaica in 1940-41


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 9, 2010)

parsifal said:


> Your right to correct Vinnye Vincenzo. The Matilda did not have an HE capability. However, it was impervious to just about all the early war AT weapons except the 88, and would use its MGs to suppress the enemy Infantry, ir CS tanks which were fitted with HE firing weaponary.
> 
> Matildas were extremely effective in breaking the Italian defences during O'Connors conquest of Cyrenaica in 1940-41



for true the 88 was not a AT weapons in eary wwar was AA weapons..

true this is that italian divisional artillery were principally 75mm this aren't enough versus matildas (and also versus T-34 as show in russian campaign), and the AAG were rare and ever 75mm (idk the results of eventually encounter of 75 AA versus matilda)

p.s. when i talking of 75 AAG i'm talking of new 75 AAG not the old (this is surely not enough versus matilda, this was the field gun on AA carriage)


----------



## Freebird (Jan 9, 2010)

parsifal said:


> Your right to correct Vinnye Vincenzo. The Matilda did not have an HE capability.



Indeed. 
None of the British tanks had HE, (AFAIK) because they all had only the 2 pdr in the first half of 1942. Even though the Grant tank had a 75 mm gun, it was badly hampered by the low-velocity sponson mount.

There was really only one decent Allied tank in the first half of 1942 - the Canadian Ram II (6 pdr) - first production began Jan 1942. 

1.) It was the only Allied tank to have the 6pdr gun, as the Crusader Valentine did not get the 6 pdr until the end of 1942 or later. It had HE ammo, unlike the 2 pdr guns

2.) It was capable of 25 mph, as fast as the Pz III or Pz IV, and almost twice as fast as the Matilda II. It was faster than the Axis tanks off-road

3.) It's 6 pdr gun could penetrate any Axis tank.

4.) It's armour was more than double that of a Crusader (87 mm vs 40mm) and more than 50% better than the German tanks. The Ram tank was all but impenetrable by German 37mm guns early 50mm guns 

5.) It was much more reliable than the Crusader.


Had the British been smart enough to send these tanks immediately to Africa, they would have been in time for the Battle of Gazala, and the difference would have been dramatic


----------



## Soren (Jan 9, 2010)

Hey Freebird! Welcome back! Been missing you mate


----------



## Freebird (Jan 9, 2010)

Soren said:


> Hey Freebird! Welcome back! Been missing you mate




Hey Soren, nice to see you. 

Am I correct about the German tanks by the way?

IIRC, the AfricaKorps Pz III had only the short barrel 50mm in the first half of 1942, they did not have the L60 until later?

From my reading about Gazala, the critical failure is that the British tanks could not match the Germans in "The Cauldron", as the British 2 pdrs were much less effective vs the Pz IV with 50mm armour, than they had been against the earlier 30mm versions.

On the other hand, the 50mm KwK 38 was much more effective against the Crusader's 40mm armour


Two questions Soren:

1.) At "Gazala" May 1942, did the Germans have some Pz III with the KwK 39 (L60), or was it only the older KwK 38 (L43) model? 

2.) Do you have penetration stats for that period?

a. British 2 pdr vs 50mm German armour
b. 6 pdr vs 50 mm armour
c. Axis 50mm (L43) vs 40mm armour
d. 50mm (L43) vs 87mm armour
e. 50mm (L60) vs 87mm armour
f. 75mm (L24) vs 87mm armour


----------



## parsifal (Jan 9, 2010)

hi Freebird

Welcome back, we have missed you, hope everything is well for you.

Indeed the Ram tank series were a missed opportunity, and the design was a very fine one indeed. But whilst the British Tanks of the period had their faults, they were not failures per se. What caused the repeated British defeats was not the inferiority of their equipment, it was their atrocious tactics and total misuse of their armour. 

Contrary to what most people think, Tanks are not the best weapons sytem to engage other tanks, and you dont use ones tanks to chargee, cavalry style, the enmies position. Rommel had this type of madness completely covered ....he would use his limited tank numbers to lure the British tanks out, and draw them over his AT screen of 88s and 50mm guns. That British Taanks would oblige and generall attack, unsupported just made the whole thing an even bigger slaughter. British Armoured Divisions had far too little in the way of indigenous support, and this continued until the latter part of 1942. Once the British realized how to support their armoured formations properly, the superior numbers, and massive artillery advantages within the division, made a British armoured Division a very potent weapon. 

RAM Tanks were not actively deployed, but the hull was used to build the Sexton SPG, which I think was far superior to the M7 Priest that it supplanted. Rams were also used in a turretless form as Kangaroo APCs, which offered far better protection to the Infantry than any other APC that I know of for the period. RAMs also were used as ARVs and as mobile observation posts with a turret but a dummy gun. These were attached to the Sexton Batteries in Europe.


----------



## Njaco (Jan 9, 2010)

parsifal said:


> hi Freebird
> 
> Welcome back, we have missed you, hope everything is well for you.
> 
> ...



I seem to remember the Aussies learned that lesson and used it to good use at Tobruk.


----------



## Soren (Jan 9, 2010)

Freebird,

Yes, the Germans did have Pz.III's armed with the 5cm KwK39 L/60 at Gazala. And it did prove a good weapon, esp. its' accuracy was appreciated. With APCR ammunition it proved capable of taking on even the Matilda, which usually had to be taken care of by the Pak40's, 8.8cm FlaK guns or the longer barreled 7.5cm equipped Pz.IV's when they arrived. But the 5cm KwK39 lacked a good explosive round, and when equipped with HEAT rounds the short 7.5cm KwK37 L/24 gun proved just as good a tank killer as the 5cm KwK39 except when using APCR at close range.

I'll give penetration figures in my next post.


----------



## Soren (Jan 9, 2010)

*5cm KwK39 L/60 penetration performance against vertical 240 BHN RHA armour:*

APC projectile:
100m = 101mm
500m = 82mm
1,000m = 64mm
1,500m = 49mm
2,000m = 38mm
2,500m = 30mm
3,000m = 23mm

APCR projectile:
100m = 149mm
500m = 108mm
1,000m = 72mm
1,500m = 48mm
2,000m = 32mm
2,500m = 21mm
3,000m = 14mm

The above performance was enough to be effective against most Western Allied tanks in 1942 out to 1,000m, beyond that range tanks such as the Sherman were hard nuts to crack with this weapon unless a full broadside was exposed.


----------



## Soren (Jan 10, 2010)

The US 7.5cm M1 L/31 gun's performance against vertical 240 BHN RHA armour for comparison:

APCBC projectile:
100m = 78mm
500m = 72mm
1,000m = 65mm
1,500m = 58mm
2,000m = 52mm
2,500m = 47mm
3,000m = 42mm

On top of that an effective HE round.

When one takes into account that the Sherman was designed to combat tanks like the Pz.III one suddenly realizes that the Sherman was no bad tank at all and that it had this role covered. That the Germans came up with the upgunned Pz.IV as quickly as they did no'one involved in designing the Sherman could've predicted.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 10, 2010)

Njaco said:


> I seem to remember the Aussies learned that lesson and used it to good use at Tobruk.



Yes, they did, it was the first time since the beginning of the war that the German Panzers had suffered a major defeat on land, unless one wants to claim the counterattacks at Arras or DeGaulles attack near the Somme as some kind of victory....


----------



## vinnye (Jan 10, 2010)

Thank you for pointing out that the 2 pdr did not have HE rounds. I assumed that as the tank was designed for infantry support it would use HE to take out enemy strong points? 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matilda_II_(tank)
"Matilda could average only about 6 miles per hour (9.7 km/h). This was not thought to be a problem because the Matilda was specifically designed in accordance with the British doctrine of infantry tanks, that is, heavily-armoured but slow-moving vehicles designed to provide support to infantry. Under this thinking, a speed equal to the walking speed of a man was considered sufficient.
At the time it was designed, this armour protection could not be penetrated by any antitank gun in the world,[15] although early models of German 88mm anti-aircraft artillery was able to defeat the Matilda's armour at short range."
In my previous post I should have written -
It was the use of the anti aircraft 88mm gun on them that was the MOST effective weapon the Germans had at the time all other SMALLER calibres bounced off it!


----------



## Soren (Jan 10, 2010)

vinnye,

The 8.8cm FlaK18/36 could punch a hole in the Matilda II frontally at ranges well exceeding 2.5km, some were knocked out at nearly 4km range by FlaK18/36's in Africa. And the 7.5cm KwK40 was able to the same out to 2km range. The 5cm KwK39 L/60 was also quite capable out to around 500 to 600m.


----------



## Freebird (Jan 10, 2010)

Soren said:


> The US 7.5cm M1 L/31 gun's performance against vertical 240 BHN RHA armour for comparison:
> 
> APCBC projectile:
> 100m = 78mm
> ...



Are you sure that is the right version? It looks like the L38, not the L31 version?

M2
A version used on the early Medium Tank M3.

Barrel length: 31 calibres 
Muzzle velocity: 588 m/s (1,929 ft/s) 
Shell weight (M72 AP): 6.32 kg (14 lbs) 
Armour penetration (M72 AP shell, 457 m, at 90 degrees): 60 mm 

M3
Longer derivative of the M2. Equipped American and British vehicles such as the Medium Tank M4, the later models of the Medium Tank M3 and the Churchill III/IV (scavenged from General Sherman tanks in the North African theatre). 

Barrel length: 38.5 calibres (3 m) 
Muzzle velocity: 619 m/s (2,031 ft/s) 
Shell weight (M72 AP): 6.32 kg (14 lbs) 
Armour penetration (M72 AP shell, 457 m, at 90 degrees): 76 mm 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also, I believe that the Pz IV F2 KwK 40 was not at Gazala, it only began production Mar 42, and if any had arrived in Africa by May, they had not made the trek to the front line


----------



## parsifal (Jan 10, 2010)

Soren said:


> vinnye,
> 
> The 8.8cm FlaK18/36 could punch a hole in the Matilda II frontally at ranges well exceeding 2.5km, some were knocked out at nearly 4km range by FlaK18/36's in Africa. And the 7.5cm KwK40 was able to the same out to 2km range. The 5cm KwK39 L/60 was also quite capable out to around 500 to 600m.



At 600metre, the 50mm gun could not be guarateed a sufficient margin of safety as to ensure a kill with every hit. Moreover, at that range the matildas could call in their CS guns or even use their MGs to neutralis the targets.

I accept the lethality of the 88mm, but whilst engagements at 2.5 km did occur Rommel would more often only enagements to occur at closer ranges. I strongly suspect this had something to do with conserving ammunition,and the low probability of scoring a hit. The most extreme range for an 88 to engage British tanks was a little over 1200 metres, with the more usual range for firing to commence. Usually the Germans had predetermined the ranging requirements at those ranges. They would use covering Infantry or their own armour to engage the Charging British Tanks to stop their advance and return fire to the covering forces. Once so halted, they became an easy target for a first round kill from the 88s


----------



## Soren (Jan 10, 2010)

parsifal said:


> At 600metre, the 50mm gun could not be guarateed a sufficient margin of safety as to ensure a kill with every hit.



Oh I agree, but it was dangerous out to this distance and beyond, so it was not to be taken lightly.



> Moreover, at that range the matildas could call in their CS guns or even use their MGs to neutralis the targets.



You can't really neutralize any armoured thread with MG fire, that would be fruitless.



> I accept the lethality of the 88mm, but whilst engagements at 2.5 km did occur Rommel would more often only enagements to occur at closer ranges. I strongly suspect this had something to do with conserving ammunition,and the low probability of scoring a hit. The most extreme range for an 88 to engage British tanks was a little over 1200 metres, with the more usual range for firing to commence. Usually the Germans had predetermined the ranging requirements at those ranges. They would use covering Infantry or their own armour to engage the Charging British Tanks to stop their advance and return fire to the covering forces. Once so halted, they became an easy target for a first round kill from the 88s



Usually fire was opened up at around 1,200m to 1,500m range, and that to ensure the maximum number of hits were obtained whilst at the same time not being in danger of return fire. The British were usually quickly halted once this slaughter started, and it was when they were pulling back that the long range kills were achieved, the 88's not ceasing fire until the British tanks were completely out of sight, knocking out many British tanks at ranges in excess of 3 km. The assistance provided by dedicated range finding equipment also helped ensure very accuracy at long ranges.


----------



## Soren (Jan 10, 2010)

freebird said:


> Are you sure that is the right version? It looks like the L38, not the L31 version?
> 
> M2
> A version used on the early Medium Tank M3.
> ...




No it was actually info on the 7.5cm M1 L/31 gun I provided, MV is listed as 1,850 fps. I didn't notice that on the other page the 7.5cm M3 L/38.5 was mentioned, here is its' performance:

7.5cm M3 L/38.5 penetration performance against vertical 240 BHN RHA armour:

M72 APCBC, MV = 2,030 fps:
500m = 81mm
1,000m = 73mm
1,500m = 65mm
2,000m = 59mm
2,500m = 53mm
3,000m = 47mm



> Also, I believe that the Pz IV F2 KwK 40 was not at Gazala, it only began production Mar 42, and if any had arrived in Africa by May, they had not made the trek to the front line




I don't believe any were at Gazala either, I was just mentioning the F2 because it arrived just after the battle of Gazala and the Pz.III was still extensively used at that time, and engaging the Matilda at ranges of over 500m was generally left for the Pz.IV F2s, 88's Pak40's to do.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 10, 2010)

QUOTE=Soren;619290]
You can't really neutralize any armoured thread with MG fire, that would be fruitless.
.[/QUOTE]

Im referring to the Towed ATGs, not the tank mounted guns. MG against the crews of Towed ATGs was extremely effective, at ranges of 600 metres or less. Rommel tended not to use his tanks in armoured clashes, though there were many exceptions to this, as it was the British intention to always engage his armour head on, and in the words of Montgomery "write it down". 

Rommel would tend to use his tanks as bait, to lure the British onto his AT Traps. This was because the many of his tanks were not even equipped with 5cm short barrelled weapons. In March 1941, 5pz regt had 20PzIs, 45 PzIIs, 71 PzIII (Gs) and 20 PzIVDs (with short barrelled Infantry support guns) . Even as late as October 1942, 44 of the 77 Mk IIIs were of the G model, and there were only 18 Mk IV F2s on strength with the regiment. The 15 Panzer Div in January 1942, prior to the commencement of Rommels drive to Alamein, had 29 mkIIs, 131 Mk IIIs (a mix of short barrelled Gs and H's) and 22 MkIV Ds. I believe the first long barrelled Ausf Ls and Js did not arrive until May 1942, along with some MkIVf-2s.In August further assets were absorbed, including Panzerjager 38s with Russian 7.62 cm ATGs fittedsome italian Semovente and M14-41s 

Rommel in '42 relied heavily on captured Russian 76.2 mm guns, which he used mainly in the ATG role. 

I do not believe the germans possessed a qualitative superiority to British tanks until the latter part of 1942, and by then the Sherman was being introduced. This explains why the british were always willing to accept an engagement with German Tanks, and Germans were far less willing to do so. The damage to the British Tank forces did not come from German Panzers, it was delievered by the ATGs attached to DAK. On those occasions that pure tank versus tank engagements occurred, the british actually did quite well. But if the the germans were able to take the field (which they often did....eventually) they could recover and repair many of the tanks they had lost. If they wre forced to retreat, the shortage of ARVs in the desert meant that they tended to lose a big perccentage of their broken down vehicles


----------



## Soren (Jan 10, 2010)

The reason that Rommel avoided pure tank on tank engagements was not that his tanks were inferior to the British, no it was because he simply had far fewer tanks than the British. And his tactic of luring British tanks into the AT traps was so successful that he saw no need to risk losing his panzers in tank on tank fighting.


----------



## m kenny (Jan 10, 2010)

Soren said:


> knocking out many British tanks at ranges in excess of 3 km. The assistance provided by dedicated range finding equipment also helped ensure very accuracy at long ranges.



Panzer Tracts title _The Dreaded Threat. The 8.8cm Flak 18/36/37 In The Anti-Tank Role _
2001 and thus 4 years after his Tiger books gives the hit probability/penetration for the Flak gun on page 15


9.5 kg Pzgr 810m/s
1000m 95% (64%) 87mm
2000m 58% (23%) 72mm
3000m 32% (10%) not given

Pzgr 39, 10.2kg..800m/s 

1000 95% (60%) 106mm
2000 54% (20%) 88mm
3000 not given

These figures are lower than the results given for the Tigers main gun.

page 42. An engagement at 3-3.5 km.

_"Because of the long range and poor visibility results could not be determined"_
Note: the time was 'early mornimng so bad light was not the problem

Page 44. Engagement at 2.5-3 km.

_"Result:
because of the long range, could not be clearly determined"_

Page 47. Engagement at 4000 yds (3.65 km).

_"the chance of scoring a hit at this range was slight._



Soren said:


> The 8.8cm FlaK18/36 could punch a hole in the Matilda II frontally at ranges well exceeding 2.5km, some were knocked out at nearly 4km range by FlaK18/36's in Africa.




Given that there was no way of clearly seeing a target at 4km and even at 3 km only 10% of shots could be expected to hit a stationary target I think the claims of effective fire at 4 km is well nigh impossible.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 10, 2010)

Soren said:


> The reason that Rommel avoided pure tank on tank engagements was not that his tanks were inferior to the British, no it was because he simply had far fewer tanks than the British. And his tactic of luring British tanks into the AT traps was so successful that he saw no need to risk losing his panzers in tank on tank fighting.




err only half true...from the arrival of DAK there was an advantage in numbers, slightly, but 10th armoured that met Rommel initially was undertrained and lacking in most of its support. The first real clash between DAK and trained elements of the RAC occurred in May 1941, during operation Brevity, when the numbers were equal. Thereafter the British were in no conditions for any offensive action until the tanks from the Tiger convoy arrived and had been absorbed....that added 238 Tanks to the allied inventory. Balancing this, in June the 15 panzer arrived with over 120 Tanks attached, 5th Light wasable repair most of the losses it had suffered in the previous months, and the Italian Ariete armourewd Div, and very decent tank force that was to show its mettle in the following battle of Bir Hacheim, also arrived and possessed about 120 tanks. There were various odds and ends available to the Axis as well, whereas most of the independant brigades that had been serving in the western desert on the allied side were elsewhere engaged in Greece, the Levant, Iraq and Ethiopia at that time. Far from enjoying any advantage in tank numbers, the allies were lucky to have parity, or less. 

Comparing a Crusader III or a Matilda II to a Mk III (g) is going to show very little difference in the AT performance and protection for any of these tanks, but remember that MkIIIs only accounted for a little over half his German forces, and well below that for the total axis force structure. The qualitative edge enjoyed by the British forces in their tanks was a definaite factor in determining the strategy and tactics used by Rommel in the desert.

Later on, mostly from Crusader on, what you are saying is valid....Allied numerical advantages did become a factor in the equation.


----------



## Soren (Jan 10, 2010)

m kenny said:


> Panzer Tracts title _The Dreaded Threat. The 8.8cm Flak 18/36/37 In The Anti-Tank Role _
> 2001 and thus 4 years after his Tiger books gives the hit probability/penetration for the Flak gun on page 15
> 
> 
> ...



It should be noted that the penetration figures are against 30 degree angled plates of very high quality. Why accuracy figures are lower is simply a matter of there being greater difficulty in sometimes accessing wether a hit was made or not. It was not uncommon to fire at the same tank with numerous rounds even after it had been knocked out, if it didn't explode or burst into fire gun crews often couldn't see wether the enemy tank was defeated or not.



> Given that there was no way of clearly seeing a target at 4km and even at 3 km only 10% of shots could be expected to hit a stationary target I think the claims of effective fire at 4 km is well nigh impossible.



If the range was judged correctly, which with the help of range finding equipment could be done quite easily (Range finding equipment was far from a common asset though, but some used them), then obtaining hits at ranges of 3+km was definitely possible and kills were registered at ranges exceeding 3km in Africa. On the eastern front Nashorn crews even achieved knocking out IS-2's at over 4km range. So it was possible, and it was done. But usually obtaining hits at such great distances was a matter of luck, but during long engagements with numerous rounds being fired hits were scored and enemy tanks were taken out.


----------



## Freebird (Jan 10, 2010)

parsifal said:


> hi Freebird
> 
> Indeed the Ram tank series were a missed opportunity, and the design was a very fine one indeed.
> 
> Contrary to what most people think, Tanks are not the best weapons sytem to engage other tanks, and you dont use ones tanks to chargee, cavalry style, the enmies position. Rommel had this type of madness completely covered ....he would use his limited tank numbers to lure the British tanks out, and draw them over his AT screen of 88s and 50mm guns.



Although it was the relative weakness of the British Crusader Cruiser tanks that made this such a problem



Soren said:


> Usually fire was opened up at around 1,200m to 1,500m range, and that to ensure the maximum number of hits were obtained whilst at the same time not being in danger of return fire. The British were usually quickly halted once this slaughter started, and it was when they were pulling back that the long range kills were achieved, the 88's not ceasing fire until the British tanks were completely out of sight, knocking out many British tanks at ranges in excess of 3 km. The assistance provided by dedicated range finding equipment also helped ensure very accuracy at long ranges.



This is the point that I was making - Of the British armour ONLY the Matilda II had any real chance to withstand AT hits at even long range (750 - 1,500m) but the lack of HE on the 2 pdr guns meant that they had no effective way to return fire. (As you pointed out) 



parsifal said:


> I do not believe the germans possessed a qualitative superiority to British tanks until the latter part of 1942, and by then the Sherman was being introduced. This explains why the british were always willing to accept an engagement with German Tanks, and Germans were far less willing to do so. The damage to the British Tank forces did not come from German Panzers, it was delievered by the ATGs attached to DAK. On those occasions that pure tank versus tank engagements occurred, the british actually did quite well. But if the the germans were able to take the field (which they often did....eventually) they could recover and repair many of the tanks they had lost. If they wre forced to retreat, the shortage of ARVs in the desert meant that they tended to lose a big perccentage of their broken down vehicles



The Sherman was crap (pardon my bluntness)
The point that I was making was that Gazala was the perfect chance to crush Rommel's Africa Corps, but the chance was lost because the British Tanks were too weak to get the job done. Instead they lost the battle, surrendered 35,000+ men in Tobruk, and retreated all the way to Egypt In this battle (unlike at El Alamain, there were significant tank on tank battles, and while making a mobile attack could not use the 88's in the same degree as they could on the defensive.

We know from accounts of the battle that the British 6 pdr AT performed very well, knocking out a good number of Axis tanks. The Grant tank also made a good impression.

However, had they used the Ram Tank they could have won the battle:

The Ram tank was invulnerable except from 88's, and from the Pak 38/40's, and 
The Pz Kwk 39 could punch through a Grant or Crusader at 2,000 m or more, but not on the sloped armour of a Ram Tank beyond about 500 m, if even that. (Remember that the KwK 39 was found to be largely ineffective against the KV-1, and the Ram tank was more heavily armoured than that (Ram - 87mm, KV-1 - 70 - 75mm)

On the other hand, the Grant Crusader (51mm 40mm) were vulnerable to ALL German tank guns, 37's, 50's short 75's

If I remember correctly the UK 6 pdr was similar in performance to the US 75mm, and superior to the short 75 of the Grant.

At this point in mid-42 Rommel had a limited numbber of 88's (about a dozen?), and very few of the newer Pak 40's

Does anyone have any info the OB's at Gazala?



Gazala Battle said:


> Rommel's plan started to go wrong at Bir Hacheim. The Ariete and Trieste divisions of XX Motorized Corps and elements of 21st Panzer Division were held up for three hours by 7th Armoured Division's 3rd Indian Motor Brigade, dug in some four miles south east of Bir Hacheim and suffered heavy losses from their guns before over-running them.[12] The Bir Hacheim box, defended by the 1st Free French Brigade under Marie-Pierre Koenig, also proved to be a bigger problem than Rommel had anticipated, and the Ariete failed to take the position while suffering heavy losses from the French 75mm guns in the process.[13][14]
> 
> Further to the east the 15th Panzer Division had engaged 7th Armoured Division's 4th Armoured Brigade which had been ordered south to support the 3rd Indian and 7th Motorised Brigades, and* inflicted heavy casualties but also took significant losses, surprised by the range and power of the 75mm guns on the newly arrived Grant tanks.* The 4th Armoured Brigade then withdrew towards El Adem and spent the night bear the Belhamed supply base east of El Adem.
> By late morning the Axis armoured units had advanced more than 25 miles (40 km) north but by midday their momentum had been blunted when they came into contact with and were held by 1st Armoured Division in heavy fighting which saw both sides taking losses.
> ...


----------



## Soren (Jan 11, 2010)

I wouldn't really call the Sherman crap Freebird, it possessed a decent gun for the time when one considers the HE capability and the fact that most German tanks were thinly armoured. It also had pretty decent armour, although much of it was cast (not so good), but later versions featured RHA armour. It was designed to combat tanks like the Pz.III, and it could do that effectively as long as the range wasn't too long; The L/38.5 gun while packing the punch to be lethal against the Pz.III at long range simply lacked the MV to make it accurate at ranges in excess of 1,000m. But as pointed out the Sherman did have a good HE round, capable of bringing down a small house, so not something you'd want sent your way! 

The Sherman was an ok tank IMO, it was just too often sent into situations it was never designed to be able to handle; The long stretched wide open battlefields of North Africa were ideal Panzer territory.


----------



## Freebird (Jan 11, 2010)

Soren said:


> I wouldn't really call the Sherman crap Freebird, it possessed a decent gun for the time when one considers the HE capability and the fact that most German tanks were thinly armoured. It also had pretty decent armour, although much of it was cast (not so good), but later versions featured RHA armour. It was designed to combat tanks like the Pz.III, and it could do that effectively as long as the range wasn't too long; The L/38.5 gun while packing the punch to be lethal against the Pz.III at long range simply lacked the MV to make it accurate at ranges in excess of 1,000m. But as pointed out the Sherman did have a good HE round, capable of bringing down a small house, so not something you'd want sent your way!
> 
> The Sherman was an ok tank IMO, it was just too often sent into situations it was never designed to be able to handle; The long stretched wide open battlefields of North Africa were ideal Panzer territory.




Ok, maybe not crap (the British armaments planning was crap  )

The problem was that it was just barely adequate in the summer of '42, and went downhill from there.

The Sherman was inferior in every way to the Ram tank, so the British choice to go with the Sherman over the Ram was political, and stupid.

The Ram's armour of 87mm vs the 51mm (Sherman front hull) and 38mm (sides) gave it tough protection vs 1942 Axis guns, and better chance vs the later Kwk40 88mm at longer ranges (compared to Sherman)

The 6pdr gun was effective vs 1942-1943 PzIII PzIV. Obviously going to be inadequate vs Tiger but so was the Sherman's 75mm gun.

It has been mentioned that the Ram's turret ring was to small for the 75mm gun, but this is not actually correct. The smaller Aussie Sentinal had the same size turret ring, yet was modified to take the 17 pdr.

They could have very easily modified the Ram in 1943 to take a 17pdr, which would give you the same firepower as a Sherman Firefly, but with 50% better protection. In fact, a 17pdr armed Ram would be reasonably equal in power to a Panther, unlike the weaker armed Sherman75mm.


----------



## dunmunro1 (Jan 11, 2010)

In fact the Ram could accept a 75mm gun, since the UK designed the 75mm OQF to fit any tank that could accept a 6 pdr. A number of RamII tanks were sold to the Netherlands, post war after conversion with 75mm OQF guns. The decision to abandon the 6 pdr as a tank main armament and the decision to not use the Ram in combat was a very bad mistake, IMHO. The Ram could have been present in limited numbers at Gazala and in much larger numbers at El Alamein. The 6 pdr APDS combination would have made the Ram almost equal to the Firefly in AT effectiveness, and far superior to any 75mm gunned Allied tank.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 11, 2010)

i know for Gazala battle there were 4 italian tank btls (around 220/230 M-1314) and around 300 german tanks (Pz II, III, IV, a few of PZ III with 50/60 (~20)) for italian intelligence (so need a check from british source) there were 4 "british" tank btls and 5 "british" tank brigade (3 in the armoured division and 2 as army assets) for 650 tanks (many Grant)

p.s it's not clear if the 4 "indipendent" btls were part on army tanks brigade


----------



## Freebird (Jan 11, 2010)

Vincenzo said:


> i know for Gazala battle there were 4 italian tank btls (around 220/230 M-1314) and around 300 german tanks (Pz II, III, IV, a few of PZ III with 50/60 (~20)) for italian intelligence (so need a check from british source) there were 4 "british" tank btls and 5 "british" tank brigade (3 in the armoured division and 2 as army assets) for 650 *tanks (many Grant)*
> 
> p.s it's not clear if the 4 "indipendent" btls were part on army tanks brigade



There were 167 Grant tanks at Gazala, most in the 4th brigade.

The Montreal factory had built ~160 Ram mk II by mid-March 1942, so they could have been sent over straight away to Africa.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 11, 2010)

i found this Axis History Forum • View topic - Gazala OoB


p.s. for the italian OoB i just saw a error, the 3° gruppo of Lancieri di Novara was not there the 26th may, the first L-6/40 come in Africa the 30th may


----------



## Freebird (Jan 12, 2010)

Vincenzo said:


> i found this Axis History Forum • View topic - Gazala OoB
> 
> 
> p.s. for the italian OoB i just saw a error, the 3° gruppo of Lancieri di Novara was not there the 26th may, the first L-6/40 come in Africa the 30th may



Thanks for the link!



> In fact the Ram could accept a 75mm gun, since the UK designed the 75mm OQF to fit any tank that could accept a 6 pdr



In fact there would be little point in converting a 6pdr to the 75mm, as it was weaker vs tanks. 
And that was vs. the L38, the Grant's L31 was even worse performance

(From Soren's gun penetrating ranking)

12. 7.6cm M1 L/55
13. 7.5cm KwK40 L/48
*14. 5.7cm 6 pdr*
15. 5cm KwK39 L/60 
16. 7.62cm F34 Zis-5 L/41.4
*17. 7.5cm M3 L/38.5 *


----------



## Juha (Jan 12, 2010)

Hello Freebird
one must remember that good HE round was also essential, that's why of tank's ammo load at least half was usually HE shells. British had learned in N Africa how dangerous A/T guns were, so they needed a decent HE shell, that's why the selected the 75mm gun as their main tank gun. They had hoped to get HV 75mm gun into Cromwell but that didn't work out. British were usually able to desigh very good AP shots but because of their tank guns had so high MV, their HE ammo was often, at least initially, rather ineffective. Germans instead usually succeeded to develop good AP and HE rounds for their tank guns.

Juha


----------



## dunmunro1 (Jan 12, 2010)

Juha said:


> Hello Freebird
> one must remember that good HE round was also essential, that's why of tank's ammo load at least half was usually HE shells. British had learned in N Africa how dangerous A/T guns were, so they needed a decent HE shell, that's why the selected the 75mm gun as their main tank gun. They had hoped to get HV 75mm gun into Cromwell but that didn't work out. British were usually able to desigh very good AP shots but because of their tank guns had so high MV, their HE ammo was often, at least initially, rather ineffective. Germans instead usually succeeded to develop good AP and HE rounds for their tank guns.
> 
> Juha



In 1943 there was a very lively debate in the UK over whether to keep the 6 pdr or move to the 75mm OQF, and although they were hopes of fitting the 77mm to the Cromwell and Churchill, this proved impossible to do. Those who argued for the 6 pdr stated that the lack of a 6 pdr HE round in North Africa had created an unfortunate impression against the 6 pdr as a tank main armament. They (including the UK minister responsible for tank production) argued that the 6 pdr HE round, which became plentiful in 1943 was sufficiently effective and that the increased AP performance of the 6 pdr made it a far better choice than the 75mm. Unfortunately, UK troops in Italy preferred the better HE of the 75mm, probably because German armour was relatively rare in Italy in 1943 and the terrain did not favour tanks. However, in Normandy, the 21st AG soon found itself facing 70-90% of all German armour in Francem during the entire Normandy campaign, and the lack of the 6 pdr in their tanks was a disaster.

I think it is very clear that the 6 pdr was a far superior tank gun than the 75mm M3/OQF and the Normandy campaign would have ended much sooner if 21st AG tanks had the 6 pdr as their primary armament because German tank losses would have increased while Allied tank losses would have decreased, and inevitably this would have led to the collapse of the German position much sooner. The 75mm gun allowed the Tiger, Panther and SP guns to effectively counter 21st AG numerical superiority in tanks by destroying them from hull down positions. The 6 pdr, especially with APDS, would have increased losses to German armour in hull down positions, and thus reduced Allied tank losses. It would have also greatly increased Allied tank moral by giving them a weapon capable of dealing with most German armour, even when met in hull down positions.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 12, 2010)

i'm not a expert of ammos supply but i think that 6 pdr APDS were very rare at time of normandy campaign, also if with APCBC the 6pdr was best of 75 US but not of 75 british
Data from "Fire nad Movement" RAC Tank Museum, Bovington 1975
6 pdr mk 3 or 5 APCBC penetration 80 mm at 1000 yds 30° MQ
same APDS 117 mm
same for 75 M2 or M3 APCBC 62 mm 
same for 75 Mk 5 APCBC 94 mm


----------



## m kenny (Jan 12, 2010)

Vincenzo said:


> i think that 6 pdr APDS were very rare at time of normandy campaign




217,000 rounds in 1944.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 12, 2010)

that it's the production of all'44 and not the availability in a day in normandy campaign

and this need also for 6 pdr ATG..


----------



## dunmunro1 (Jan 12, 2010)

> 6 pdr mk 3 or 5 APCBC penetration 80 mm at 1000 yds 30° MQ
> same ADS 117 mm
> same for 75 M2 or M3 APCBC 62 mm
> same for 75 Mk 5 APCBC 94 mm



The 6 pdr APDS round was available from the first day of the Normandy campaign. Supplies were limited initially, but then the standard APCBC round was quite capable of tackling most Axis tanks and the APDS could be reserved for handling hull down tanks and the frontal armour of Tigers, etc. The 75mm APCBC MkV round, OTOH, seems to be extremely rare and probably saw little service in WW2.

The data for the 6 pdr APDS penetration is probably for the Mk3 L43 gun, which was obsolete by D-day.


----------



## Freebird (Jan 12, 2010)

dunmunro1 said:


> Those who argued for the 6 pdr stated that the lack of a 6 pdr HE round in North Africa had created an unfortunate impression against the 6 pdr as a tank main armament. positions.



There were some HE rounds, just not enough.



> There are accounts of British 6 pdr anti-tank gun crews making their own case shells for close defence against infantry assault. This was done by removing the A.P. shell head, filling the cartridge with a suitable piece of cloth, filling the shell case with stones and gravel, and sealing it with another piece of cloth or encasing the shrapnel content in thick axle grease. This tactic was quickly improvised in the North African campaign, und there is some indication that tank crews employed it with the 6 Pdr. L.45 as well.


----------



## vinnye (Jan 17, 2010)

May be old news to some - I have just seen the Discovery Channel investigation into who killed Michael Wittmann.
I am not sure that the ranges quoted in Villers Bocage engagement were exactly right - if they were it suggests that even at 50 yds a British tank could not take on the frontal armour of a Tiger! Could not say if the tanks knocked out by Wittmann's Tiger were Cromwell's or Churchills - I think the former. But both would have been fitted with 6 pdrs? 
One British tank had a perfect side on shot at point blank range - but could not shoot because the gunner was out of the tank relieving himself! How lucky / unlucky is that!
During the engagement were Wittmann's Tiger was knocked out - a Yeomanry Sherman Firefly engaged 3 Tigers from a position about 800m away (in a wood) knocking them out!
Wittmann's Tiger was engaged by Canadian Shermans from his left flank at under 200m. It looked like the hit that brewed up his Tiger hit at the rear left corner and set the fuel on fire - which ignited the ammo blowing the turret off!
I like to see the technical arguments that some of you guys have - using test data - but the real performance that matters is in the field. The Firefly guys said they could engage a Tiger out to 1200m but preferred to do so at 800m if they could.


----------



## dunmunro1 (Jan 17, 2010)

vinnye said:


> May be old news to some - I have just seen the Discovery Channel investigation into who killed Michael Wittmann.
> I am not sure that the ranges quoted in Villers Bocage engagement were exactly right - if they were it suggests that even at 50 yds a British tank could not take on the frontal armour of a Tiger! Could not say if the tanks knocked out by Wittmann's Tiger were Cromwell's or Churchills - I think the former. But both would have been fitted with 6 pdrs?
> One British tank had a perfect side on shot at point blank range - but could not shoot because the gunner was out of the tank relieving himself! How lucky / unlucky is that!
> During the engagement were Wittmann's Tiger was knocked out - a Yeomanry Sherman Firefly engaged 3 Tigers from a position about 800m away (in a wood) knocking them out!
> ...



IIRC, Whitman's Tiger at Villers Bocage was crippled by a 6 pdr hit, and he ended up walking away from that battle. However, during that battle the majority of Cromwells and Churchills were most likely armed with the 75mm OQF gun, which was much less of a threat to a Tiger than the 6 pdr, especially on the frontal armour.


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 17, 2010)

here is part 5 of the excellent show which discussed the demise of Wittman the conclusion was that tank of the Sherbrooke Regiment knocked off wittman from a range pf 142 metres it was impossible for the Yeomanry guys to even see Wittmans tank

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qp2GKAEup5I_
All the previous 4 parts are are here also
. The show is a very recent production of the canadian History channel


----------



## vinnye (Jan 17, 2010)

You may well be right Dunmunro1 - the Cromwells and Churchills could well have been fitted with the 75mm.
But even so for them to have engaged at near to point blank (under 100yds) and not take the Tiger out would have been very un-nerving to say the least!


----------



## dunmunro1 (Jan 17, 2010)

vinnye said:


> You may well be right Dunmunro1 - the Cromwells and Churchills could well have been fitted with the 75mm.
> But even so for them to have engaged at near to point blank (under 100yds) and not take the Tiger out would have been very un-nerving to say the least!



According to the documentary, Whitman's Tiger was penetrated on the rear hull, at ~150 yds, and at this range even the 75mm M3 could penetrate the Tiger's side armour.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 17, 2010)

dunmunro1 said:


> In 1943 there was a very lively debate in the UK over whether to keep the 6 pdr or move to the 75mm OQF, and although they were hopes of fitting the 77mm to the Cromwell and Churchill, this proved impossible to do. Those who argued for the 6 pdr stated that the lack of a 6 pdr HE round in North Africa had created an unfortunate impression against the 6 pdr as a tank main armament. They (including the UK minister responsible for tank production) argued that the 6 pdr HE round, which became plentiful in 1943 was sufficiently effective and that the increased AP performance of the 6 pdr made it a far better choice than the 75mm. Unfortunately, UK troops in Italy preferred the better HE of the 75mm, probably because German armour was relatively rare in Italy in 1943 and the terrain did not favour tanks. However, in Normandy, the 21st AG soon found itself facing 70-90% of all German armour in Francem during the entire Normandy campaign, and the lack of the 6 pdr in their tanks was a disaster.
> 
> I think it is very clear that the 6 pdr was a far superior tank gun than the 75mm M3/OQF and the Normandy campaign would have ended much sooner if 21st AG tanks had the 6 pdr as their primary armament because German tank losses would have increased while Allied tank losses would have decreased, and inevitably this would have led to the collapse of the German position much sooner. The 75mm gun allowed the Tiger, Panther and SP guns to effectively counter 21st AG numerical superiority in tanks by destroying them from hull down positions. The 6 pdr, especially with APDS, would have increased losses to German armour in hull down positions, and thus reduced Allied tank losses. It would have also greatly increased Allied tank moral by giving them a weapon capable of dealing with most German armour, even when met in hull down positions.



I agree with most of this, except there are a few observations that migh affect the debate. To start with the 75 mm calibre was the standard tank armament adopted by the Allied forces, and this was because the majority of tanks being fielded into the front line formations were US Shermans. By standardizing the ammunition supply, the Allies achieved a far better logisitical situation that the Germans could only dream of. Given the logistical difficulties faced by the allies following the breakout, I would think attention to logistics to be a far more important issue than an increase in lethality.

You also mention that there was some kind of disaster facing the Allies in their tank formations. Whilst I am the first to acknowledge the tough fight faced by the allies in the Hedgerows, I hardly think it was a disaster.....Allied Tank losses were heavy, but never cataastrophic (unlike the germans experiences). There is much debate in this and other places about the ratio of losses for specific battles, but overall the loss exchange rate was actually heavily in favour of the allies, after the debacles of Falaise, Cobra and the Ardennes are taken into account. As an example, during the vaunted Ardennes campaign, Peipers battlegroup suffered the loss of no less than 33 Panthers for no loss to the US forces, in just one engagement. I am unsure yet as to whether the Panthers were immobilised for lack of fuel (it seems likley), but so what..... a win is a win in my book, and just because the germans chose to adopt a plethora of differnt types, and pursue production choices that sealed their own fate, is still part of the equation in my book.

I actually think the decision to adopt the 75mm calibre was the right decision, whan the whole picutre is considered.


----------



## dunmunro1 (Jan 17, 2010)

parsifal said:


> I agree with most of this, except there are a few observations that migh affect the debate. To start with the 75 mm calibre was the standard tank armament adopted by the Allied forces, and this was because the majority of tanks being fielded into the front line formations were US Shermans. By standardizing the ammunition supply, the Allies achieved a far better logisitical situation that the Germans could only dream of. Given the logistical difficulties faced by the allies following the breakout, I would think attention to logistics to be a far more important issue than an increase in lethality.
> 
> You also mention that there was some kind of disaster facing the Allies in their tank formations. Whilst I am the first to acknowledge the tough fight faced by the allies in the Hedgerows, I hardly think it was a disaster.....Allied Tank losses were heavy, but never cataastrophic (unlike the germans experiences). There is much debate in this and other places about the ratio of losses for specific battles, but overall the loss exchange rate was actually heavily in favour of the allies, after the debacles of Falaise, Cobra and the Ardennes are taken into account. As an example, during the vaunted Ardennes campaign, Peipers battlegroup suffered the loss of no less than 33 Panthers for no loss to the US forces, in just one engagement. I am unsure yet as to whether the Panthers were immobilised for lack of fuel (it seems likley), but so what..... a win is a win in my book, and just because the germans chose to adopt a plethora of differnt types, and pursue production choices that sealed their own fate, is still part of the equation in my book.
> 
> I actually think the decision to adopt the 75mm calibre was the right decision, whan the whole picutre is considered.



I have to disagree. IMHO, the adoption of the 75mm gun was a seriously retrograde step that allowed heavy tanks such as the Panther and Tiger to remain almost invulnerable when in hull down positions. Consequently Allied offensives that relied upon armour to punch a hole through the German lines in Normandy, simply stalled when faced with even a handful of hull down tanks or SP guns. The German army found the static, towed, AT gun to be relatively less effective in Normandy than elsewhere because of the intensity of Allied artilliery fire and the complete Allied aerial supremacy. Only AFV borne AT guns could retain their effectiveness after an Allied prepartory bombardment, and these AFVs repeatedly stalled Allied attacks, since Allied tanks simply could not cope with them with the OQF/M3 75mm gun, since the narrow frontage of 21st AG attacks precluded gaining a flanking position, in most cases.


----------



## Freebird (Jan 17, 2010)

dunmunro1 said:


> I have to disagree. IMHO, the adoption of the 75mm gun was a seriously retrograde step that allowed heavy tanks such as the Panther and Tiger to remain almost invulnerable when in hull down positions. Consequently Allied offensives that relied upon armour to punch a hole through the German lines in Normandy, simply stalled when faced with even a handful of hull down tanks or SP guns. The German army found the static, towed, AT gun to be relatively less effective in Normandy than elsewhere because of the intensity of Allied artilliery fire and the complete Allied aerial supremacy. Only AFV borne AT guns could retain their effectiveness after an Allied prepartory bombardment, and these AFVs repeatedly stalled Allied attacks, since Allied tanks simply could not cope with them with the OQF/M3 75mm gun, since the narrow frontage of 21st AG attacks precluded gaining a flanking position, in most cases.



Well it just goes to show how one out-of touch senior commander can screw things up. Just as Admiral King had some disasterous naval policies, the US choice to reject any replacement of the 75/76mm guns was the work of Gen McNair, head of the AGF 

Lesley J. McNair - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

----------------------------------------------------
Tactical doctrine controversies
McNair also espoused controversial theories on armored support of infantry forces, theories which were later found to be inadequate. He particularly came in for criticism over tank destroyer doctrine. As an artillery officer, McNair favored towed anti-tank artillery over self-propelled tank destroyers, even after it had become apparent that German forces were converting their anti-tank forces into self-propelled guns as soon as such vehicles could be produced. Due to inherent delays in deploying such towed guns, combined with greatly increased crew exposure to German small arms and mortar fire, American towed anti-tank artillery was never really effective during the war in Europe; instead, some units were tasked as substitute howitzers firing conventional artillery missions. When used in their original role as towed anti-tank guns against German tanks and defensive emplacements, the towed battalions suffered disproportionate casualties compared to the self-propelled tank destroyer battalions.

the M4 Sherman seemed to be the answer that addressed concerns about firepower against the German tanks. However, all participants in the debate were completely unaware of the inadequacy of the 76mm gun against the Panther tank's frontal armor. *Ordnance, the Armored Force Board, and AGF had all failed to research the effectiveness of this gun against the new German tanks*, which had already been encountered in combat.


----------



## vinnye (Jan 18, 2010)

Hi Dunmunro1,
The original quote for the range at which a British tank could take on the Tiger was taken from the account regarding Villers Bocage -

"I am not sure that the ranges quoted in Villers Bocage engagement were exactly right - if they were it suggests that even at 50 yds a British tank could not take on the frontal armour of a Tiger! "

Wittmann's Tiger as you correctly pointed out was hit from the side at somewhere around 150yds. If it had been on the frontal armour - who knows if it would have disabled the Tiger?


----------



## Freebird (Jan 18, 2010)

vinnye said:


> Hi Dunmunro1,
> The original quote for the range at which a British tank could take on the Tiger was taken from the account regarding Villers Bocage -
> 
> "I am not sure that the ranges quoted in Villers Bocage engagement were exactly right - if they were it suggests that even at 50 yds a British tank could not take on the frontal armour of a Tiger! "
> ...



With the US 75mm gun it is unlikely that they could, however a 6pdr could penetrate the frontal armour of a Tiger at 100 - 150 yards.




Soren said:


> 7.5cm M3 L/38.5 penetration performance against vertical 240 BHN RHA armour:
> 
> M72 APCBC, MV = 2,030 fps:
> 500m = 81mm
> ...





Soren said:


> Here's a complete specifications list for most of the tank guns used during WW2.
> *5.7cm 6 pdr L/52*
> 
> Projectile weight: 3.23 kg Mk.9T APCBC
> ...






Soren said:


> Sure can, but like I've said before APDS was a poor ammunition type during WW2, it was inaccurate and poor against sloped armour, had poor killing power once penetration was achieved and in short supply. So I really do not understand why you're so obsessed with this projectile type. APCBC rounds were the most lethal AP projectiles used during WW2, and were prefered for that very reason, Firefly gunners prefering the APCBC over the APDS round.
> 
> *5.7cm 6pdr L/52 gun with APDS:*
> 500m = 160mm
> ...


----------

