MacArther
Staff Sergeant
Dunno if we've already discussed it, but what was both the Allied and Axis verdict on the anti-tank capabilities of the Semovente M 41M da 90/53?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
swallow your national prides guys. The germans were the tank bulder par excellance, and the TD builders par ecxcellance as well. For the allies and the Soviets, this particular part of the war was just all about the numbers. We couldnt match em for quality, not in a month of Sundays
Apart from the lead given by the Tiger and the Panther in late 1942 I see no prior evidence of this superiority.
As is well known the whole German tank arm was rendered obsolete in June 1941.
In 1944 the IS series put the Russians back in the game. In terms of cost effectiveness the IS was the best tank of WW2.
The only way Germany stood out was in the engineering standards of her late war tanks and this aspect-though much lauded here-proved fatal to her ability to field enough bread and butter designs.
It should be remembered that TD's were in effect ersatz tanks built so as to avoid the complications of a turret. It was a choice dictated by circumstance rather than free will. They were makeshift responses to an inability to field enough tanks. If you have enough tanks you do not need TD's.
The Allies only used TD designs so as to get bigger guns into action than could be fitted in a current tank turret.
By what? BTs?
T-26s?
T-40s perhaps?
Highly mobile, well armed and armored T-34s, which's overall fighting potential in practice was reduced to nil by non-existant internal and external communications? Commanded by an overloaded tank-commander/gunlayer, in the extremely cramped turret - shared with a loader who was supposed to load the gun from ammo boxes he was standing on, while running around as the turret traversed as no turret basket was provided - who was supposed to aim to gun AND observing the terrain which latter task he simply could not perform from inside because the utter lack of a commander cupola or any suitable observer devices? Or alternatively, having to expose himself for observation (meanwhile he could not operate the gun), which as an added bonus gave him means to communicate with the rest of his tank platoon via hand signals and flags, provided they were unbuttoned too?
No wonder the hulks of burned out Soviet tanks marked the Wehrmacht's way from the Polish border to Moscow, sharing the same fate as the well-armored, decently gunned and from the command and control view, hopelessly flawed French tanks had received a year before.
To me the IS 2 seems to be a rather compromised tank for a special purpose, with some major limitations, namely very limited ammunition, cramped internals and a chassis that was rather outdated already in the KV series, and was never considered reliable. It was crude but sufficiently effective, overall having roughly similar combat potential, fire power and armor as the Panther, without the refined technology - ie. running gear - offered by the latter.
As for its costs, I don't think I have seen evidence that the IS 2 was particularly cost effective - certainly not from you.
There was never any chance that Germany could outproduce her enemies nor any chance she could overcome them with invulnerable monsters. The next stage of her tank designs would have put her deeper in the holeThe German approach - trying to outweight quantity with quality - was a reasonable one, given that Germany could not hope to match the production of its enemies. Say if the Germans would start producing the T-34 or Sherman, they would be still hopelessly outproduced in sheer numbers.
The only sensible approach, followed by the post-war NATO as well, was to try to rely on quality, rather than quantity.
The German Tank Park in June 1941 was some 5300 vehicles. The assault gun total was around 500. By the middle of 1944 the tank park climbed to 7,500 whilst SP totals rose to 4,200. The summer 1944 tank losses shrank the Tank Park to 1941 levels and it never rose above 6000+ again. Stug figures kept rising until they reached 6500 by the start of 1945. A major advantage the SP had over the tank was its readiness rate. Stug. service rates of 85%+ were the norm when tanks veered between 55-90%. At the end of the war they still had some 4000 tanks in service so I know the numbers. However they never managed to marry up the unsexy support vehicles with the sexy tanks/Stugs. Short answer is too little and too late. The last year of the war gained Germany nothing but utter destruction Smarter Generals would have surrendered in the summer of 1944.Also a fact needs to be mentioned, the Germans were not particularly lacking in the number of tanks being available, as a matter of fact, like in the case of the aircraft, they never had as many tanks in the war than they had by late 1944, the number fielded constantly increased.
and this is why Stug. and JgdPz's were issued to tank Abteilung in Panzer Divisions instead of tanks-because they performed better than tanks!It should be noted that all this is rubbish and that the Sturmgeschützen were a pre-war German concept to provide the infantry with direct armored support.
The M10/36/18 TD's were turreted vehicles (and thus not 'cheap' fixed gun types like German SP's)and made so as to be llightly armoured tanks with bigger guns. SU's were again larger gunned vehicles (for their time) than the T34's/KV's/IS tanks they were basesd on. In no case where they substitute for a tank. Stugs were used in place of tanks in Panzer Divisions.Well, the several thousand of Sherman-chassis based American M 10s etc. mounting the same capacity 76mm gun as the later Shermans seem to argue with that as well. Not to mention Soviet SU 85s, ISU 122s etc.
It is somewhat true to the re-using of the older British tank chassis, but those were generally quite hopeless - see ie. Matildas, various Cruiser designs - when it came to their upgradeability.
M_kenny said:As is well known the whole German tank arm was rendered obsolete in June 1941.
The jagdpanther, no question about it. More agile than the Jagdtiger and more deadly than a Tiger 1.
The panther derivative was also much cheaper to build. All of which makes it difficult to understand why only 430 were produced during the war
German test data actually required that the best quality round penetrate the plate five times in a row in a condition where the HE was capable of detonating properly. When you see that the Tiger 88mm Pzgr 39 penetrates 120mm at 30 degrees and 100m, that means that the best quality 88mm ammo penetrates 120mm/30 degree five times in a row at the velocity associated with 100m within a velocity of 10m/sec.Glen, you are still clueless about which you talk. You're a gamer, I had that figured out from the start.
First of all your criteria citings are completely wrong.
These are the true criterias used by each country:
German test criteria
2/3rds (66 %) of the projectiles fired must penetrate the plate completely, ei. 100% of the projectile.
This usually is considered to be 80% criteria.from Datenblatten: said:"The effect of the projectile inside the tank and the probability of hitting the target are not considered in these graphical charts;thus only the COMPLETE PENETRATION WITH THE TOTAL EFFECT INSIDE THE TANK IS CONSIDERED. As a rule, this effect is of annihilating power when using armor-piercing shells with a high-explosive charge. When using hard core projectiles, steel or soft iron core projectiles, or hollow charge projectiles, completely annihilating effect cannot always be expected with a single shot, because the crew, located in the dead space of the tank, cannot be hit under certain conditions. A LIMITED EFFECT, WITHOUT PIERCING THE TANK BY THE PROJECTILE (effect produced by back-spalling of armor plate and punching holes (Stanzpfropfen) is frequently achieved with plates that are 10% thicker than the thickness presented in the graphs."
British Criteria seems to be 80% too.Glen, you are still clueless about which you talk.
British test cirteria
50% of the projectiles fired must completely penetrate the plate, ei. 100% of the projectile.
Is this Aberdeen data from documents you obtained from Aberdeen or from a book that quotes it being from Aberdeen? I'm just curious as to why Aberdeen posted tabular data in meter ranges in the 1940s while all other original documents I have are in yards. But there is one book that seems to have mixed up yards for meters for Aberdeen German gun data.Again quit posting bullsh*t Glen.
At Aberdeen the penetration performance of the 8.8cm KwK36 L/56 8.8cm KwK43 L/71 against vertical 240 BHN RHA armor at 100m was as follows:
8.8cm KwK36: 162mm
8.8cm KwK43: 232mm