Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
You are aware that 50% of all Grants were destroyed at Gazaala? would you know by how many Africa-corps tanks?Hi,
I'm not trying to make the claim that the M3's were overall better tanks than the Panzer IVs, but rather the main point I was trying to show is that since the Panzer IV Auf F2's were not available in North Africa until later in 1942 (with only 27 having been delivered by August of that year), while the M3 Grants were in service and operational in North Africa from May of 1942 there was a period of time where the M3s were likely more powerful than any tank that the German's had available in North Africa for several months of that year, as appears to be borne out by the reference from the book by Hans von Luck.
As such, I am just trying to clarify that a statement along the lines that "Valentines, Crusaders, Mathilda's, Grants. all inferior against Panzer IV or a T-34/76 if fielded in equal numbers." is not necessarily 100% correct, as there was a discernable period of time during the battles in North Africa, where the Panzer IV was only available in its short barrel low velocity 75mm gun versions, while the M3 Grant was fielding its higher velocity 75mm gun and a 37mm gun as well.
Regards
Pat
PS. As for the M3's after the M4'sbecame available, I believe that they remained in service in North Africa for some time, with the similar M3 Lee also serving alongside the M4's in the US Army during Operation Torch (Nov 1942) and following battles in North Africa.
Hi,You are aware that 50% of all Grants were destroyed at Gazaala? would you know by how many Africa-corps tanks?
Yes the couple of 88's certainly also paid off
It all comes down to numbers - unless one sets the terms for a comparison at even odds, any comparison is just meaningless
Regards
Jagdflieger
Ooops, Sorry about that. You are right, the focus should be on modern day stuff.It's funny that this thread has somehow morphed from post-2022 to post-1942.
It is interesting, though, to see how armor concepts shifted during the course of the war.It's funny that this thread has somehow morphed from post-2022 to post-1942.
As noted previously this is supported by written comments from some German officers of the time such as Mr. von Luck. In addition, it is even said that Rommel was quoted as saying "Up to May of 1942, our tanks had in general been superior in quality to the corresponding British types. This was now no longer true, at least not to the same extent."
Much like world airforces and their preconceived notions how an air war would/should be fought in the late 30's, world armies had a different concept as to how armored warfare was going to be used on the battlefield during that same time.
Update the capabilities of active anti-ATGW systems and the MBT is back in charge…. when used properly.I wonder how much rethinking of the armored concept is going on as we write given the success of cheap, semi-automated drones in taking out AFVs? This is clearly the, repeat the, new threat to MBTs. I wonder if we won't see the resurrection of light AA onto tanks either as secondary weapons (a la WWII), or in the form of light, tracked accompanying vehicles? Tiny is actually pretty hard to fight, I bet.
As I wrote above, i think tanks sill have a solid place in combined arms, but I'd hope and imagine that this war is providing lessons in what to do and more importantly what not to do.
Update the capabilities of active anti-ATGW systems and the MBT is back in charge…. when used properly.
When mentioning the T-34 for the most people it is if it was the first that it was used. It wasnt. And while we were on the subject i thought i mentioned it. Carry on.I don't think anyone said it was invented for the second war.
Yes, but we can't assume that one side will stay still while the other innovates. The next gun based, tracked air defence systems may use electromagnetic railguns to win over the missile armed aircraft.Gun based tracked Air Defence systems are outranged by the missiles of the aircraft they are supposed to be defending against
What a dilemma. Use the railgun and lose reception or get hit and lose reception.Won't that play havoc with the crew's cell phones?