P38 Pilot
Tech Sergeant
Cool
best allied tank?
- Thread starter The Nerd
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
schwarzpanzer
Senior Airman
- 662
- Aug 8, 2005
Correct NS. 
Panzerschreck - 'tank terror'
Panzerfaust - 'tank fist'
NB: German usually doesn't translate exactly (e.g. Vorsprung Durch Teknik) but the above are what they mean.
The 'Shrecks proper name was Raketenpanzerbüchse (RPzB) or it could be called the Ofenrohr ("Stove Pipe"). I think someone on this site actually has one?
The Soviets called them Fausts, as they did with the PzFaust.
102hussars, you missed 2 c's from the German spelling of Panzershreck but shreck is often Anglicised to Shrek, so you're not wrong really either.
BTW: Shrek (Disney) is named that for that reason I think?
Panzerschreck - 'tank terror'
Panzerfaust - 'tank fist'
NB: German usually doesn't translate exactly (e.g. Vorsprung Durch Teknik) but the above are what they mean.
The 'Shrecks proper name was Raketenpanzerbüchse (RPzB) or it could be called the Ofenrohr ("Stove Pipe"). I think someone on this site actually has one?
The Soviets called them Fausts, as they did with the PzFaust.
102hussars, you missed 2 c's from the German spelling of Panzershreck but shreck is often Anglicised to Shrek, so you're not wrong really either.
BTW: Shrek (Disney) is named that for that reason I think?
102first_hussars
Tech Sergeant
Nope the Disney Shrek means really ugly.
102first_hussars
Tech Sergeant
I was helping my nephew out with his homework on Martin Luther, not king, the guys who was responsible for the Protistents breaking from the Catholic Church, after all this time of hating Hippie protesters didnt realise i was one.
You are correct with you translations there. German does not translate literally to english, in most cases it just can not be done.
HealzDevo
Staff Sergeant
I think I will go for the M-36 Jackson as it actually had the power in its canon to do some damage to German tanks such as the Kingtiger and Panther. It also had the ability to deal with infantry- An important thing for a tank destroyer considering Germans would consider anything that could take out their tanks within a few shots from the front and that, a threat.
P38 Pilot
Tech Sergeant
I think any tank could be an infantry tank. If you see the one coming at you from the opposite side, run like hell!
And it catches you in the open ground and kills you. You want to be as close as possible to enemy tanks, there vision is restricted, making it easy for you to destroy it.
And the Jackson wasn't a tank, it was a tank destroyer. And it couldn't destroy the Panther or King Tiger in head on combat.
And the Jackson wasn't a tank, it was a tank destroyer. And it couldn't destroy the Panther or King Tiger in head on combat.
trackend
Chief Master Sergeant
plan_D said:
Can we have a demo please PD
a guy where I used to live got close to a tank and knocked it out with a PIAT he got a medal for doing it.Infantry where nearly always mixed with amour to take care of the AT artillery and any threats from infantry held weapons.
Pure amour against amour battles where very rare.
It depends on the situation. In open field combat, armour vs. armour was the norm. The supporting infantry in armoured divisions should always be behind the armour to support in urban, forest or swamp conditions. And, also, to hold ground captured by the armour up-front.
When the full complement in an armoured division does clash, it will be a mixture of battles between infantry and armour. The easiest scenario to picture is an urban battle between two armoured units, in this case it's up to the infantry to get in close to nullify the tanks weapon range.
The problem with Allied soldiers were that they were too scared of the tank. Even when they weren't supported by infantry, the Allied soldiers would run away or hide (not hide to kill the thing, just hide). German troops, however, got in close and destroyed the enemy armour from nearby where the tanks view is restricted.
You will, most likely, have to fight infantry but it's better to be fighting in close than letting the enemies tank force slaughter you at a distance.
For those who can't understand what I mean, just watch the Band of Brothers episode where they attack Foy. They have to draw the combat in close, so they have to get across the open field quickly. By doing so they rid the German forces (artillery and tanks) of any range advantage, and the tanks quickly lose much of their capability, while the artillery is basically knocked out of the fight.
Obviously, there's always counter-measures to this. On the defence, the tank must be behind the first line of defence making it the furthest target on the battlefield. The range of it's cannon will make up for the fact the tank isn't actually at the front. Whenever in a position where the tank will get in close (urban warfare) supporting infantry should always lead the way, and keep the tanks clear of enemy infantry.
All basic principles of that kind of warfare ...but it's never going to work out the way you want it!
When the full complement in an armoured division does clash, it will be a mixture of battles between infantry and armour. The easiest scenario to picture is an urban battle between two armoured units, in this case it's up to the infantry to get in close to nullify the tanks weapon range.
The problem with Allied soldiers were that they were too scared of the tank. Even when they weren't supported by infantry, the Allied soldiers would run away or hide (not hide to kill the thing, just hide). German troops, however, got in close and destroyed the enemy armour from nearby where the tanks view is restricted.
You will, most likely, have to fight infantry but it's better to be fighting in close than letting the enemies tank force slaughter you at a distance.
For those who can't understand what I mean, just watch the Band of Brothers episode where they attack Foy. They have to draw the combat in close, so they have to get across the open field quickly. By doing so they rid the German forces (artillery and tanks) of any range advantage, and the tanks quickly lose much of their capability, while the artillery is basically knocked out of the fight.
Obviously, there's always counter-measures to this. On the defence, the tank must be behind the first line of defence making it the furthest target on the battlefield. The range of it's cannon will make up for the fact the tank isn't actually at the front. Whenever in a position where the tank will get in close (urban warfare) supporting infantry should always lead the way, and keep the tanks clear of enemy infantry.
All basic principles of that kind of warfare ...but it's never going to work out the way you want it!
The Germans were always able to use the Infantry together with Panzers very well. They sort of mastered the idea behind it.
trackend
Chief Master Sergeant
A Good post D however it was a bit unfair to say that . Its a lot easier to take on armour when you know the weapon you have will knock it out all beit from close rang for example Wittman was credited with knocking out a pile of enemy tanks if the Germans had been given Shermans with a 75mm pop gun and the allies had been given Tigers with 88s I somehow suspect Mr Wittman would have just been another brewed up corpse and an allied tank commander would have been a top ace. And if their infrantry had PIATs and Bazookas against Tigers, Panthers ect then they would have headed for the hills as it was virtual suicide to even attempt to stop German armour with what the allied troops had to use.plan_D said:
schwarzpanzer
Senior Airman
- 662
- Aug 8, 2005
HealzDevo:
What is wrong with this statement? - Nothing! The Panther could be killed damaged and the KT was not invulnerable, that 90mm was pretty effective! That's a good point HealzDevo.
It wasn't so hot there, me and PlanD discussed this just recently.
I think you're meaning Stugs and support tanks, similar, but different.
Anal as ever I see
he's near enough, it had a turret, though you are right. It could destroy a Panther head on, as even an M10 managed this, with difficulty though.
BTW some Jacksons were tanks, hactually.
A PIAT could even destroy a KonigsTiger with a skillful operator, though the commanders cupola MG42's on some made this extra difficult.
Funnily enough some PzIII's, PzIV's and StuG's were almost immune! (due to Schurzen)
Very true, this was ideal, but not practised as often as it should.
No they were pretty common.
You will, most likely, have to fight infantry but it's better to be fighting in close than letting the enemies tank force slaughter you at a distance.
A hitler youth tried that on the front of my uncles heavily appliqued Churchill. Last thing he ever did.
Russian Tankovy Desant made this practise suicidal.
What you say is broadly true PlanD, but HE (particularly on short 75mm's), cupola MG's, co-ax's, bow guns, mortars Nahverteidigungswaffe, pistol ports and even the treads
were used against infantry.
Remember, some tanks like the Sherman and others were designed to attack infantry, not tanks.
Decent link on the subject:
http://www.custermen.net/nahvert/nah.htm
Also don't forget about Schurzen!
PanzerGrenadiers were good, but Tankovy Desant were better IMHO.
trackend:
It was a bit unfair (Arnhem for e.g.), but unfortunately broadly true.
The Allies were told that the US 76mm firing new APC would be able to easily destroy German 'heavies' - they were lying! AP was then retro-issued.
Yes, but there were a few Fireflies in the Villers-Bocage engagement, easily capable of destroying a Tiger.
I posted a US test on a deleted thread. Sould I find it? (Again NS! )
What is wrong with this statement? - Nothing! The Panther could be killed damaged and the KT was not invulnerable, that 90mm was pretty effective! That's a good point HealzDevo.
It wasn't so hot there, me and PlanD discussed this just recently.
I think you're meaning Stugs and support tanks, similar, but different.
Anal as ever I see
he's near enough, it had a turret, though you are right. It could destroy a Panther head on, as even an M10 managed this, with difficulty though.BTW some Jacksons were tanks, hactually.
A PIAT could even destroy a KonigsTiger with a skillful operator, though the commanders cupola MG42's on some made this extra difficult.
Funnily enough some PzIII's, PzIV's and StuG's were almost immune! (due to Schurzen)
Very true, this was ideal, but not practised as often as it should.
No they were pretty common.
You will, most likely, have to fight infantry but it's better to be fighting in close than letting the enemies tank force slaughter you at a distance.
A hitler youth tried that on the front of my uncles heavily appliqued Churchill. Last thing he ever did.
Russian Tankovy Desant made this practise suicidal.
What you say is broadly true PlanD, but HE (particularly on short 75mm's), cupola MG's, co-ax's, bow guns, mortars Nahverteidigungswaffe, pistol ports and even the treads
were used against infantry.Remember, some tanks like the Sherman and others were designed to attack infantry, not tanks.
Decent link on the subject:
http://www.custermen.net/nahvert/nah.htm
Also don't forget about Schurzen!
DerAdler said:
PanzerGrenadiers were good, but Tankovy Desant were better IMHO.
trackend:
It was a bit unfair (Arnhem for e.g.), but unfortunately broadly true.
The Allies were told that the US 76mm firing new APC would be able to easily destroy German 'heavies' - they were lying! AP was then retro-issued.
Yes, but there were a few Fireflies in the Villers-Bocage engagement, easily capable of destroying a Tiger.
I posted a US test on a deleted thread. Sould I find it? (Again NS!
)
