WWII quality....the manufacturers.

[Soren]

The Ram would've faired no better at all, the 88's of the DAK would turn the Ram inside-out at ranges of up to 3km, just as they did to Monty's Matildas, and the Pzkpfw. IV with the 7.5cm L/43 gun would outfight it just as easily as it did the Sherman, Grant Matilda.

The 6 pdr was a short range weapon, at long ranges its performance was poor, so it certainly wasn't a very good gun on the long range desert battlefield. It was only really effective when firing APDS rounds at close range.

 

[The Basket]

I remember reading about a factory fresh Spitfire been destroyed on its first mission. It lasted about an hour.

So you could argue that any combat machine would have a low life expectancy and should be built accordingly.

That where the Soviets scored.

 

[AL Schlageter]

The Ram would've faired no better at all, the 88's of the DAK would turn the Ram inside-out at ranges of up to 3km, just as they did to Monty's Matildas, and the Pzkpfw. IV with the 7.5cm L/43 gun would outfight it just as easily as it did the Sherman, Grant Matilda.

Yet the Sherman help push the DAK out of North Africa and all the way back to almost Berlin.

 

[Freebird]

The Ram would've faired no better at all, the 88's of the DAK would turn the Ram inside-out at ranges of up to 3km, just as they did to Monty's Matildas, and the Pzkpfw. IV with the 7.5cm L/43 gun would outfight it just as easily as it did the Sherman, Grant Matilda.

The 6 pdr was a short range weapon, at long ranges its performance was poor, so it certainly wasn't a very good gun on the long range desert battlefield. It was only really effective when firing APDS rounds at close range.

Yes, and the British 17 pounder antitank gun could crack open German tanks at that range too!
The goal was not to engage the emplaced 88's with your tanks!!!

There were no Pz IV L/43's until mid '42, by the time of El Alamein there were still less than 30. The Ram could have been in Africa by the beginning of 1942.

The point is that the better armour profile of the Ram would be much better against the 300 - 500 German tanks in Africa with the 50mm or short 75mm, and would still improve its chances against the 25 - 30 Pz IVs with the long 75mm gun. There were also a good # of the German 37mm 50mm antitank guns, they were certainly not all 88's

The 6 pounder was by no means the "ideal" weapon, but as all other British tanks in early '42 had the 2 pounder 40mm gun (a few CS Matilda's had 75mm howitzer) the 6 pounder was certainly an improvement. The 6 pounder field gun had some good success at Gazala Alamein.

The battle at El Alamein was more of a defensive engagement, with a strong British assault slowly battering through Rommel's minefields defences. My point was that the Ram would have made a bigger difference in the early '42 battles, in which there was more movement less "set-piece" defence. It would be hard to argue against using the best tank available, compared to what was on hand, Crusaders Valentines, which had less armour smaller gun.

 

[Freebird]

The question from DerAdler was how it would hold up to the German tanks. Yes, any Allied tank was probably scrap if it ran into emplaced 88's, just as the German tanks would be hammered if they tried to push through the British 17 25 pounder guns. That was the trick that Rommel used several times, to lure the Allied tanks into his line of 88's.

The British were in a fairly good position after the end of "Crusader" (Nov/Dec 1941) when they had beaten Rommel and captured several hundred German tanks. After a several month lull, there was the key battle at "Gazala" beginning on the 26 of May 1942. There was a large tank vs tank battle lasting several days in the "Cauldron". The British nearly had Rommel beaten, but a German Panzer counterattack (early June) could not be contained by the British armour, and broke the British position. The result of the battle was a disaster for the British, who lost Tobruk and retreated all the way into Egypt. The Ram tank would certainly have done far better against the German Panzers, compared to the weaker Crusaders Matilda's etc.

 

[Soren]

I don't think so freebird. The Ram did after-all feature the same chassis as the Sherman, and so the lower hull was a huge weak spot, a weakspot the Churchill and Matilda didn't have and yet they were turned inside out by DAK's panzers as-well.

As to 17 pdr's in the desert, well they first saw action in 43, and again they lacked the long range optics and rangefinders used by the Germans.

The 25 pdr wasn't going to prove much effective as an AT gun as it was a howitzer

 

[Glider]

The difference is that the British were using the Crusader, Matilda and Valentine and there is little doubt that the Ram was a significant inprovement over these tanks.
The PzIVF2 in use in the desert did have the formidable 75L43 but its armour was weak and over the normal combat ranges the 6pd in the Ram would have been very effective. It should also be remembered that the majority of German tanks were Pz III normally with the 37mm or 50L42 against which the Rams armour would also have been effective.

The 17pd would have been deadly in the desert but wasn't around in time so doesn't count. The 25pd did get used as an A/T gun in the desert in the early years as the 2pd was very ineffective. The main problem with the 25pd wasn't its lack of penetration agains the early German targets, it was its size making it difficult to hide.

 

[Freebird]

Glider you are correct. I was in fact talking about the period from Jan - Jul1942 BEFORE the Germans had the Pz. IV 75mm L43, at the main engagement (Gazala) it had not yet arrived. The Germans had about 150 - 200 Antitank/AA guns but only about 30 of the 88's. By the time of El Alamein (Oct 1942) there were only 24 of the 88's left in the Africa corps. In August 1942 Rommel had attacked again but was repulsed, mainly because the new General (Monty) had his tanks hull-down, and refused to be tempted out of position into the waiting trap. (of German AT guns) Take a look at the British tanks available at Alamein: 167 Stuarts, 223 Valentines, 6 Matilda II's, 421 Crusaders, 246 Grants, + the new arrivals: 3 Churchills and 285 Shermans (both in their first African battle)

 

[Freebird]

The difference is that the British were using the Crusader, Matilda and Valentine and there is little doubt that the Ram was a significant inprovement over these tanks.
The PzIVF2 in use in the desert did have the formidable 75L43 but its armour was weak and over the normal combat ranges the 6pd in the Ram would have been very effective. It should also be remembered that the majority of German tanks were Pz III normally with the 37mm or 50L42 against which the Rams armour would also have been effective.

The 17pd would have been deadly in the desert but wasn't around in time so doesn't count. The 25pd did get used as an A/T gun in the desert in the early years as the 2pd was very ineffective. The main problem with the 25pd wasn't its lack of penetration agains the early German targets, it was its size making it difficult to hide.

I guess if you are going to drive through the enemy AntiTank guns you need one of THESE!! LOL

 

[Soren]

That would've certainly helped on some occasions, however I'm quite sure that beast right there wasn't hugely mobile, much less so than the Tiger atleast.

 

[Juha]

Soren
On 17 pdr, it just made it to the Battle of Medenine on 6 March 43 when they made their first contribution and were partly responsible on destruction of some 50 out of 140 attacking German panzers.

Usually German tanks were very good but IMHO late Shermans did it rather well against 50% heavier Panthers. French, who used both after WWII thought that crew saw better out from Sherman and that odds were that Sherman could fire first in surprise confrontation.

"German guns projectiles were also of unmatched quality throughout the war"

There was one exception in this rule and it is the gun type which German doctrine saw as the cornerstone of their defence, namely field artillery. IMHO there was nothing exceptional in German field guns, the only exception was the corps level 17cm Kanone, which was very good indeed but the overwhelming majority of German field guns were only average quality, 10cm K18 maybe below par.

"German optical range finders on tanks"

Only German tank rangefinder I can recall was in the prototype Schmalturm for Panther, so they had no operational significance.

Juha

 

[Soren]

Soren
On 17 pdr, it just made it to the Battle of Medenine on 6 March 43 when they made their first contribution and were partly responsible on destruction of some 50 out of 140 attacking German panzers.

So ? Thats not unsurprising for the first action of such a powerful gun, the Germans undoubtedly hadn't counted on such firepower from the British.

Usually German tanks were very good but IMHO late Shermans did it rather well against 50% heavier Panthers.

Also despite being totally inferior to the Panther when'ever the engagements took place over open plains ? Or despite being split open like sardine cans by the Panthers Tigers in France, Holland Belgium ?? Heck the Panzer IV's usually made a total mess out a of a Sherman when'ever they met each other.

Fact is the Sherman EasyEight had nothing over the Panther, absolutely nothing. The EasyEight's new gun, which was supposed to be able to penetrate the Tiger Ausf.E's frontal armour at up to 800 - 1000 y but in action it very unfortuntaly failed to ever even punch partially through at 300m! The projectile shattered on impact, much to the dismay of the American tank crews.

The Panther was clearly the best tank to emerge from WW2, it had a supurb gun, good protection, excellent optics stunning mobillity, it was the perfect combo (Or atleast the best to see action in WW2).

French, who used both after WWII thought that crew saw better out from Sherman and that odds were that Sherman could fire first in surprise confrontation.

That sounds very odd I must admit, did they say anything specific about why that was, pointing at any specific blind spots ? Otherwise I just can't believe it I'm sorry as the Panther was always considered to provide very good vision for its crew, so what you claim is very new to me.

There was one exception in this rule and it is the gun type which German doctrine saw as the cornerstone of their defence, namely field artillery. IMHO there was nothing exceptional in German field guns, the only exception was the corps level 17cm Kanone, which was very good indeed but the overwhelming majority of German field guns were only average quality, 10cm K18 maybe below par.

I'm gonna have to disagree again Juha, the 10.5cm LeFH(M) 18 was a great artillery piece with greater range than its Allied counterpart, and reportedly also better accuracy. German artillery was infact often superior to its Allied counterparts, and like an American officer said:

"We were impressed with the accuracy of German field artillery. I've seen a 150-mm battery concentration hit a crossroads so consistently that engineers had to be called on to make it passable for a 2 1/2-ton truck. As far as thoroughness goes, the Germans get more out of a round than the devil himself gets on a lump of coal.""

Only German tank rangefinder I can recall was in the prototype Schmalturm for Panther, so they had no operational significance.

Hehe, I'm not talking about the trigonometry type rangefinders Juha (Although these were often used by German tank commanders). The rangefinder was built into the German optics, it featured a very smart actual size comparison method to estimate range, and it was this very precise system which allowed German gunners to engage targets at such record distances. The gunsights made by Zeiss were simply unrivalled.

PS: The rangefinder put on the SchmallTurm was to be fitted on the turret of Tiger Ausf.B as-well

 

[pbfoot]

too bad they couldn't make underwear or were they so advanced that they only made a few thousand pairs

 

[comiso90]

too bad they couldn't make underwear or were they so advanced that they only made a few thousand pairs

 

[Juha]

Soren
IIRC it took only a platoon of Shermans to stop KG Peiper in Ardennes, they destroyed 3 point Panthers without a loss and rest of Peiper's vanguard turned tail and withdrew to think it over. And after all one Firefly brewed up Witmann's Tiger plus 2 others and the British gunner had shot IIRC only two rounds in training before that. We can always pick examples but Firefly was capable to handle Panthers and Tiger Es and later Sherman's could penetrate Panther's turret at usual battle ranges, Panther glacis was the problem. Late shermans with wet storage didn't brew up so easily etc

"Fact is the Sherman EasyEight had nothing over the Panther, absolutely nothing."

Now it was much more reliable, Panther with broken down final drive was rather common phenomenon and not anything super anymore. Panther's fast turret transfer needed more coordination between crewmembers than that of Sherman. And as I wrote because the only viewing device for the gunner was his itself excellent sight it usually took clearly more time for Panther to open fire than for Sherman, that according to French who used both side by side in 45 – 47. And that had significance.

On field artillery
According to my sources leFH 18M max range was 12.325m and that of 25pdr, with supercharge, was 12.253 m so after all range difference was only 72 m, rather irrelevant, I think and I would not count very much on that difference in combat. On the other hand British 5.5" gun-howitzer had an range of 14.800 m, or 16.460 m with LR shell when German sFH 18/40 had an range of 13.300m.

And if you think that artilleries of other countries could not hit cross-roads, what to say, pity?

Juha

 

[Soren]

Soren
IIRC it took only a platoon of Shermans to stop KG Peiper in Ardennes, they destroyed 3 point Panthers without a loss and rest of Peiper's vanguard turned tail and withdrew to think it over.

Juha that doesn't prove anything.

But OK, I can play that game too, no problem:

"On his way back, near the village of Le Lorey, Barkmann was stopped by the retreating German infantrymen who reported that Americans were closing in. Ernst Barkmann decided to send two of his men to verify that report. They soon returned with news of American column made up of some 15 Shermans and other vehicles approaching. Then Barkmann moved his tank up the road to the crossroad where he positioned his Panther in the surrounding oak trees, awaiting the enemy. When the American column approached, Ernst Barkmann opened fire, knocking out two leading tanks and then tanker truck.Two Shermans tried to go around burning wreckage that blocked the road and one of them was knocked out followed by the other one.In the response, Americans retreated and called up the tactical fighter support and Barkmann's Panther was damaged and some of the crew members were wounded. Using the element of suprise two Shermans attacked "wounded" Panther but were also knocked out.Barkmann and his crew repaired their Panther and knocked out single Sherman while leaving.His driver managed to moved their damaged Panther to the safety of nearby village of Neufbourg. During that brave engagement often called "Barkmann's Corner", Ernst Barkmann destroyed approximately nine Sherman tanks and many other various vehicles."

During the next two days Barkmann's Panther was responsible for another fifteen Shermans knocked out!

Btw the incident you refer to took place at close quarters Juha, even the most powerful tank is vulnerable at close quarters.

And after all one Firefly brewed up Witmann's Tiger plus 2 others and the British gunner had shot IIRC only two rounds in training before that.

Wittmann's Tiger wasn't faced with just a single Firefly, it was amongst two other Tigers attacked by several hiding FireFly's from "A" Squadron whilst moving over an open field. The Tiger's were knocked out by the FireFly's from approx. a 800y distance – only one Tiger managed to once return fire before being knocked out itself. Ironicly only Wittmann's Tiger blew up, killing the entire crew instantly.

We can always pick examples but Firefly was capable to handle Panthers and Tiger Es

It was usually capable of handling the Panther Tiger Ausf.E if it got in the first shot, but most often it did not, and the whilst the 17 pdr certainly increased the survivability of the Sherman on the Battlefield the Sherman FireFly remained allot more vulnerable to attack, the Panther Tiger both being able to knock it out frontally from 3.5km away! The 17 pdr while very powerful had very slim chances of hurting either the Panther or Tiger past 1,000m.

But just a reminder, very very few FirFly's actually saw service, and on the western front there were fewer present than Tigers.

and later Sherman's could penetrate Panther's turret at usual battle ranges, Panther glacis was the problem.

What ranges are those ? Esp. considering the poor penetration performance of the APC round in use. At 500m just a little agnle and the Panther needed not wrooy about its front turret being penetrated, but the flanks always had to be watched.

Late shermans with wet storage didn't brew up so easily etc

Absolutely correct compared to the earlier Shermans, but just a single 75mm round through the turret and you'd have yourself a fireworks display, wet storage or not.

The wet storage was effective only if a small fire broke out, for example after a hit by a APCR projectile. But against the German APCBC projectile the wet storage was absolutely useless in every sense of the word, the pressure alone from the high explosives being enough to easily ignite the ammunition if not done so by schrapnel. One thing is for sure though, crew survivability after a penetration by a APCBC projectile was very small.

Now it was much more reliable,

No, not really. The late Panthers were very reliable.

On field artillery
According to my sources leFH 18M max range was 12.325m and that of 25pdr, with supercharge, was 12.253 m so after all range difference was only 72 m, rather irrelevant, I think and I would not count very much on that difference in combat. On the other hand British 5.5" gun-howitzer had an range of 14.800 m, or 16.460 m with LR shell when German sFH 18/40 had an range of 13.300m.

Why leave out all the other German artillery ?

And if you think that artilleries of other countries could not hit cross-roads, what to say, pity?

And whats thats supposed to mean ??

The Americans were impressed at how accurate German field artillery was, noting that an entire battery was able to consistantly hit a crossroad, thats fact.

 

[Juha]

Soren it 2 am here so only a couple short notices.

"The late Panthers were very reliable"

Now that new to me. I know that other components but final drive clearly got better but because the weakness of final drive was design error/failure it was still a fundamental problem. Still in Jan 45 Gen. Thomales bitterly complained on that. French calculated that average life expectancy of Panther's final drive was only 150 km. No strategic mobility with that kind of tank.

As I wrote earlier, Panther was almost 50% heavier than Sherman or T-34/85. If we think what tank was 50% heavier than Panther there was only PzKpfW VIB Kingtiger, Panther weight as much as Allied heavy tanks Pearshing and IS 2. It's usually difficult to fight against 50% heavier opponent a bit like PzKpfW II vs British Valentine. At least late Shermans could pierce Panther's armour except glacis and mantel. After all 45 mm sides and turret sides were rather thin for medium tank and thin for 45 ton tank.

"The 17 pdr while very powerful had very slim chances of hurting either the Panther or Tiger past 1,000m."

In NW Europe that was usually enough.

"very very few FirFly's actually saw service, and on the western front there were fewer present than Tigers."

In Dec 44 21st AG had 605 Fireflys plus 123 in tank parks, how many Tigers there were around at that time?

"crew survivability after a penetration by a APCBC projectile was very small."

In fact I doubt that and after all Panther wasn't fireproof either.

"Why leave out all the other German artillery ?"

What? The main divisional artillery pieces of German divisions were those mentioned, or maybe I must add 10,5cm leFH 18, without M, max range 10.675 m

Then there was 10cm sK 18, of which PzDivs had 4 during early part of war, it had the range, max 19.075 m, but its problem was that its shell weight only 15.1 kg which was a little for a cannon weighting 5.642kg.

When we think Soviet field guns, their 122mm howitzer weighted 2.200 kg, shell weight 22.1 kg max range 12.100m and their 152mm gun-howitzer was heavy but had a long reach 7.128 kg shell weight 43,5 kg max range 17.250 m.

So, German 10,5 cm leFH 18M had about same max range than its British and Soviet counterparts, had 3,5 kg heavier shell than 25pdr but the latter had 360 deg field of fire, which feature Germans began to appreciate during the war, leFH 18/18M had 56deg fof. On the other hand Soviet 122mm had 7,3 kg heavier shell than leFH 18.

The main German medium gun, sFH 18 lacked range and the much more rare sK 18 had very light shell. So IMHO German field artillery wasn't as good as that of Allied mainly because of sFH 18's comparatively short range.

Its now past 3 am here, so that's that.

Juha

 

[Soren]

Soren it 2 am here so only a couple short notices.

Now that new to me. I know that other components but final drive clearly got better but because the weakness of final drive was design error/failure it was still a fundamental problem. Still in Jan 45 Gen. Thomales bitterly complained on that. French calculated that average life expectancy of Panther's final drive was only 150 km. No strategic mobility with that kind of tank.

As I wrote earlier, Panther was almost 50% heavier than Sherman or T-34/85. If we think what tank was 50% heavier than Panther there was only PzKpfW VIB Kingtiger, Panther weight as much as Allied heavy tanks Pearshing and IS 2. It's usually difficult to fight against 50% heavier opponent a bit like PzKpfW II vs British Valentine. At least late Shermans could pierce Panther's armour except glacis and mantel. After all 45 mm sides and turret sides were rather thin for medium tank and thin for 45 ton tank.

No Juha, the problem wasn't the final drive, the real problem was the drivers. Inexperienced drivers could easily damage a final drive. The very same problem was experienced by some of the Tiger Ausf.E B units, however by 1944 the Tiger Ausf.E was seen as a VERY reliable tank, and this wasn't because of any mechanical improvements, it was mainly because the drivers of these tanks had experience and didn't put unnecessary stress upon the engine.

In NW Europe that was usually enough.

If the the FireFly got to achieve a deadly hit first, yes, however as it was the FireFly hardly ever got in the first hit or even got to open fire first when engaged at such a range with the Panther or Tiger. To achieve a deadly hit on a Panther from 1,000m away demanded allot more time to estimate range for the British gunner than it did for the German gunner which only needed 2 sec's to identify the precise range of the target by virtue of the excellent sights available to him.

In Dec 44 21st AG had 605 Fireflys plus 123 in tank parks, how many Tigers there were around at that time?

Sorry I didn't make myself clear: I was thinking units present in France Belgium. By Dec 44 there were considerably more FireFly's available. But still, 605 FireFly's aint much, atleast not compared to how many Panthers Tigers there were alltogether on the western front.

In fact I doubt that

You doubt it ???

Let loose an explosion 3-4 times as powerful as a grenade inside a confined space and see what happens! The pressure created alone is lethal! Now factor in that shrapnel is going to be flying all over the place.

and after all Panther wasn't fireproof either.

If an APCBC round exploded within the Panthers turret then it was goodbye Panther, not doubt about it.

What? The main divisional artillery pieces of German divisions were those mentioned, or maybe I must add 10,5cm leFH 18, without M, max range 10.675 m

The LeFH (M) was std. piece by 1943.

Then there was 10cm sK 18, of which PzDivs had 4 during early part of war, it had the range, max 19.075 m, but its problem was that its shell weight only 15.1 kg which was a little for a cannon weighting 5.642kg.

What ?! Now I'm sorry Juha but thats complete nonsense on your part. Take a look at the reach of the Sk18, its 19,075m, and its a 10cm artillery piece we're talking about here! With such range 5,642 kg of gun isn't much, its actually lighter for its capability than its Allied counterparts!

When we think Soviet field guns, their 122mm howitzer weighted 2.200 kg, shell weight 22.1 kg max range 12.100m and their 152mm gun-howitzer was heavy but had a long reach 7.128 kg shell weight 43,5 kg max range 17.250 m.

Geez, whats the point of comparing a smaller caliber artillery piece to larger caliber ones ???

How about you compare those Soviet artillery pieces to the German 12cm, 15cm 17cm artillery pieces ??

So, German 10,5 cm leFH 18M had about same max range than its British and Soviet counterparts, had 3,5 kg heavier shell than 25pdr but the latter had 360 deg field of fire, which feature Germans began to appreciate during the war, leFH 18/18M had 56deg fof.

Huh ?! Any artillery piece which can be turned around has a 360 degree field of fire, so how exactly is it that you have come to silly conclusions here ?

On the other hand Soviet 122mm had 7,3 kg heavier shell than leFH18.

Like I said don't compare smaller caliber artillery pieces with larger ones.

The main German medium gun, sFH 18 lacked range and the much more rare sK 18 had very light shell.

Hehe...

15.1 kg is a heck of a lot for a 10cm HE shell and is in no way a light round! Heck it weighed as much as the 10cm Soviet AP shells! (Note that AP shells for any given caliber usually always way allot more than the same caliber HE shells)

So IMHO German field artillery wasn't as good as that of Allied mainly because of sFH 18's comparatively short range.

Well considering the pretty silly conclusion to arrived at above I'm not surprised.

 

[Glider]

I would be very suprised if the Germans had 605 Panthers and Tigers facing the allies in the West.
Can you tell me how many they did have?

 

[AL Schlageter]

numbers produced

Panzer V (Panther)

1943 - 1944 - 1945 - Total

Panther - 1,848 - 3,777 - 507 - 6,132
Jagdpanther - 1 - 226 - 198 - 425

Total - 1,849 - 4,003 - 705 - 6,557

Panzer VI (Tiger)

1942 - 1943 - 1944 - 1945 - Total

Tiger I - 78 - 649 - 623 - * - 1,350
Tiger II - * - 1 - 377 - 112 - 490
Jagdtiger - * - * - 51 - 28 - 79
Sturmtiger - * - * - 18 - * - 18

Total 78 - 650 - 1,069 - 140 - 1,937