the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
artillery can be used in a number of fashons..............
Best German Weapon of WWII
- Thread starter Yeomanz
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I think you have been reading too many clear cut situations, my friend. Read many small scale armour battles, especially on the Eastern front, and you will find out that German range advantage was significant in many of their offensive actions.
It was not always as easy as hiding your tanks and waiting for the enemy which you seem to think it is.
Artillery can be used in many different roles, as lanc as correctly stated. The Self-propelled guns were actually designed to lay down direct fire on enemy positions spotted by the assault troops. One such instance was on the Vistula in 1944 when the Russians had left behind their truck-borne artillery due to the rapid advance and laid direct support via by the Su-152s with them...this action took out many German AT guns and tanks while keeping many a German soldier on the deck. All this was directed by the Russian troops attacking the German positions themselves. Range was an advantage for the offence!
The Tiger was a mere 30cm taller than the Pz. IV. The German tank crews all had their own personal preference on tank, only the elite were handed the Tiger though.
After the Normandy campaign, the Sherman was still in trouble when meeting Panthers and Tigers. Their mobility did not save them in the many open fields of NW Europe. The 'tactic' was to swamp a single Panther with at least 15 Shermans, for any chance of success.
The Sherman Firefly proved to be a brilliant improvement, capable of battling the Tiger and Panther on nearing equal terms - in firepower.
It was not always as easy as hiding your tanks and waiting for the enemy which you seem to think it is.
Artillery can be used in many different roles, as lanc as correctly stated. The Self-propelled guns were actually designed to lay down direct fire on enemy positions spotted by the assault troops. One such instance was on the Vistula in 1944 when the Russians had left behind their truck-borne artillery due to the rapid advance and laid direct support via by the Su-152s with them...this action took out many German AT guns and tanks while keeping many a German soldier on the deck. All this was directed by the Russian troops attacking the German positions themselves. Range was an advantage for the offence!
The Tiger was a mere 30cm taller than the Pz. IV. The German tank crews all had their own personal preference on tank, only the elite were handed the Tiger though.
After the Normandy campaign, the Sherman was still in trouble when meeting Panthers and Tigers. Their mobility did not save them in the many open fields of NW Europe. The 'tactic' was to swamp a single Panther with at least 15 Shermans, for any chance of success.
The Sherman Firefly proved to be a brilliant improvement, capable of battling the Tiger and Panther on nearing equal terms - in firepower.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
in a film i saw, can't remeber which one, it wasn't tBoTB, two hits from a tiger didn't take out a sherman but one shot from the sherman to the tiger took it out 
wmaxt
Staff Sergeant
the lancaster kicks ass said:in a film i saw, can't remeber which one, it wasn't tBoTB, two hits from a tiger didn't take out a sherman but one shot from the sherman to the tiger took it out
If so it was an accident. The Shermans early versions were shit and the later versions while better, were never real competition with the German tanks. The Shermans were designed/intended to support ground troops against hard points, tank killing was for mobile antitank wepons basicaly an artillery piece on a tank base.
The Shermans were Never intended to go tank to tank - but it happened. You'll probably find the Sherman was intended to go tank-on-tank when it was designed in 1942. When it was designed the best the Germans had was the Panzer IV Ausf F/2 which the Sherman could match.
The Sherman wasn't intended to support infantry. This is always wrong when concerning tanks, especially those as mobile as the Sherman, that they are designed to support infantry. That is wrong, the Sherman (as with all British classified Cruiser tanks) were designed to entact deep breakthroughs and fast advances. With the British finally getting the idea about armoured divisions in N. Africa 1942 and passing the information to the Americans - both countries realised that tanks were supposed to be able to take on everything and everything supported the tank, not the other way around. That is why everything from infantry to artillery ran on the internal combustion engine, to keep up with the tank.
You're right though about the mobile AT platforms, the Tank Destroyers. Tank Destroyer companies (consisting, in US Armoured, of M10s, M36s and M18s - generally) were attached to armoured advances and were tasked with hunting enemy tanks to clear the way for the cruiser Shermans.
The Pershing was actually delayed because the US Ordance Department stated that a tank as good as that with a 90mm cannon will influence tank crews to hunt enemy tanks, and that's a job of the tank destroyer...silly-silly people.
I would like to make an addition to the last post, a German counter-offensive around the Polish village of Borowe in Jan. 1945. Elements of 2nd Byelorussian Front were counter-attacked by Panzergrenadier Div. 'Grossdeutschland' and took the village under intense fire from ISU-152s of the 390th Guards Independant Artillery Regiment. This is long-range direct fire on the defensive, also reminding you all that the Germans were conducting counter-offensives all the way up 'til the fall of Berlin. A local counter-offensive is all part of the grand defence.
On the offensive, 1st Ukrainian Front's break-out from Sandomierz Bridgehead over the river Vistula. Marshal Konev used ISU equipped regiments to increase the initial artillery barrage and when the assault troops moved forward, poor visibility disallowed any air support or close artillery support. So, the only direct fire was given by the ISU-152 and ISU-122s advancing with the assualting infantry.
The Sherman wasn't intended to support infantry. This is always wrong when concerning tanks, especially those as mobile as the Sherman, that they are designed to support infantry. That is wrong, the Sherman (as with all British classified Cruiser tanks) were designed to entact deep breakthroughs and fast advances. With the British finally getting the idea about armoured divisions in N. Africa 1942 and passing the information to the Americans - both countries realised that tanks were supposed to be able to take on everything and everything supported the tank, not the other way around. That is why everything from infantry to artillery ran on the internal combustion engine, to keep up with the tank.
You're right though about the mobile AT platforms, the Tank Destroyers. Tank Destroyer companies (consisting, in US Armoured, of M10s, M36s and M18s - generally) were attached to armoured advances and were tasked with hunting enemy tanks to clear the way for the cruiser Shermans.
The Pershing was actually delayed because the US Ordance Department stated that a tank as good as that with a 90mm cannon will influence tank crews to hunt enemy tanks, and that's a job of the tank destroyer...silly-silly people.
I would like to make an addition to the last post, a German counter-offensive around the Polish village of Borowe in Jan. 1945. Elements of 2nd Byelorussian Front were counter-attacked by Panzergrenadier Div. 'Grossdeutschland' and took the village under intense fire from ISU-152s of the 390th Guards Independant Artillery Regiment. This is long-range direct fire on the defensive, also reminding you all that the Germans were conducting counter-offensives all the way up 'til the fall of Berlin. A local counter-offensive is all part of the grand defence.
On the offensive, 1st Ukrainian Front's break-out from Sandomierz Bridgehead over the river Vistula. Marshal Konev used ISU equipped regiments to increase the initial artillery barrage and when the assault troops moved forward, poor visibility disallowed any air support or close artillery support. So, the only direct fire was given by the ISU-152 and ISU-122s advancing with the assualting infantry.
HealzDevo
Staff Sergeant
There is only one theatre of war the Sherman did really well in late in WW2 and that is the Pacific, where the Japanese tanks were laughable. I know Japan is an islands nation, but did they really think that such laughable tanks would get them anywhere. In Bf1942: Forgotten Hope, it takes the Japanese tanks about 6 shots to get you half-way from a small distance, and yet it only takes the Sherman 3. If this is indicative of how good Japanese tanks were, then one wonders how they would have stood up to a German attack, once Germany decided it wanted sole control of the whole world.
The Japanese tanks were appalling. Most of the Japanese warfare was fought in jungles or impassable tank terrain though. In Burma in 1941 the British 2nd Royal Tank Guards with M3 Stuart Light Tanks destroyed any Japanese tanks they came across with ease but found the terrain of raised roads and soggy paddy fields their worst enemy. Many fell off the side and couldn't be recovered.
Japanese artillery was also poor. The only good machinery they had was their planes and ships. And even then, the AVG with P-40s gave the Japs hell. And when the USN got its act together at Midway, and the RAF got decent equipment to the CBI the Japs planes and ships were inferior.
You know the Japanese had a Panther and a Tiger?
Japanese artillery was also poor. The only good machinery they had was their planes and ships. And even then, the AVG with P-40s gave the Japs hell. And when the USN got its act together at Midway, and the RAF got decent equipment to the CBI the Japs planes and ships were inferior.
You know the Japanese had a Panther and a Tiger?
HealzDevo
Staff Sergeant
I hadn't been aware. Got any pictures of this Panther and Tiger in Japanese colours? I mostly play a bit of BF1942: Forgotten Hope which is a cool mod and very realistic in some of its battle portrayals.
I don't think they ever got painted for Japanese operations. They were Japanese owned but never left Germany and were loaned to Germany to defend the Reich.
The picture is Japanese buying the Panther Ausf D, they also purchased a VI 'Tiger' but I can't find any pictures of that.
The picture is Japanese buying the Panther Ausf D, they also purchased a VI 'Tiger' but I can't find any pictures of that.
Attachments
HealzDevo
Staff Sergeant
Cool photo that one.
the lancaster kicks ass
Major General
- 19,937
- Dec 20, 2003
and what a usefull investment.............
HealzDevo
Staff Sergeant
It still would have been something better than what they did have, and could have been useful to the Japanese as the basis for a better tank more suited to Jungle Combat.
trackend
Chief Master Sergeant
Kongo Otto
Airman
My persoanl favorite: 8,8cm Flak 36
trackend
Chief Master Sergeant
Unfortunately its not on the list otto but if it was I think you are quite right
a brilliant weapon. And as an anti tank/field piece devastating.
a brilliant weapon. And as an anti tank/field piece devastating.
trackend
Chief Master Sergeant
Typical swedish playing both sides of the field 
