WWII quality....the manufacturers.

[Glider]

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

Interesting but not the question. The question was how many were facing the West in Dec 1944.
Huge numbers had been destroyed by the end of 1944 and the majority of the remaining forces deployed against the Russians.
I would be suprised if the Germans had more Panthers and Tigers facing the British to match the 605 Fireflys the British had.

 

[AL Schlageter]

I know it was not the question Glider.

This site might be of some help.
Tiger I Information Center - Unit Histories

 

[Juha]

Soren
21st AG had in June 44 318 Fireflys in tank formations plus 24 in tank parks of which 6 were doing "bunker busting" I don't think that that was "very, very few".

On final drive, IMHO French knew more on Panther's final drive than either of us and General Thomale even more. If they disagree with you I'm inclined to believe them, sorry.

Now even if Germany used 105mm and 150mm artillery pieces other nations were free to chose their own calibre. So for British the main field gun was 25 pdr ie appr 87,7 mm gun-howitzer and the 4,5 (114mm) gun and the 5.5 inch (140mm) gun-howitzer were standard medium artillery equipment. Now leFH 18M was a bit heavier than 25pdr but fired a heavier shell. Max range was almost the same.
But British 5.5in gun-howitzer was 200 kg heavier but fired 2 kg heavier shell 1½km further than sFH 18 and with the lighter shell its max range was over 3 km longer than that of sFH 18. IMHO at least on paper 5.5in was better gun. The 4.5in gun has appr. same weight and max range than its German counterpart 10cm sK 18 but fired over 50% heavier shell. The couple books I have read on German artillery pieces agreed in that the Germans were not satisfied with the sK 18 mainly because of the lightness of its shell, and I and they meant that the shell was light as a medium artillery shell not as a 10,5cm shell. And surprise surprise British thought that even the 25kg shell of 4.5in gun lacked lethality and right after the war standardized 5.5in gun-howitzer as their standard medium equipment. So IMHO 4.5in gun was better than sK 18. So IMHO British medium artillery pieces were better than their German counterparts.

On 360 deg field of fire, look photos of 25 pdr on firing position or photos of 10,5 cm le FH 43 prototypes or in matter of fact post-war Soviet 122mm light field howitzer, which used the same idea from Skoda than leFH 43. You might understand what I meant.

Juha

 

[Juha]

Glider
IIRC some 330 Panthers and 88 Tigers in Normandy during June-Aug. Plus maybe 17 replacement Panthers. So appr 1 to 1Firefly vs (Panthers+Tigers). British converted appr 100 Sherman Vs to VCs per month IIRC.
Juha

 

[Glider]

I know it was not the question Glider.

This site might be of some help.
Tiger I Information Center - Unit Histories

Excellent site, many thanks

 

[Soren]

Glider,

IIRC there were over 2,000 Panthers on the Western front by late 1944. I'll check as soon as I get home.

Juha,

Take a look at the weight of German, British, US Soviet 10.5cm HE shells:
101

Like I said 15.1 kg is around the usual for a 10.5cm shell of that time, infact its slightly heavier as the norm was around 14.8 kg.


The British 4.5in howitzer was of 11.4cm in caliber, so again no wonder the shell was heavier, but this gun didn't have the same range as the German Sk 18.

 

[Juha]

Soren
4.5in was a cannon, not a howitzer, I'm talking on medium artillery. British medium artillery regiments had 5.5in gun-howitzers and 4.5in cannon or gun as their standard weaponary in NW Europe. 4.5in howitzer was entirely different weapon, if there was such a weapon, probably there was but I'm not sure and I don't have time to check that just now.
On your link, if you noticed, the GB's 4in guns were naval and we are talking on army weaponry. Once again, the problem of sK 18 was that it was a 105mm cannon, others used bigger calibre cannons for same work, British 4.5in and US its 155mm cannon, Soviets their 152mm gun-howitzer, US and Soviet weapons were heavier but at least to US that wasn't a big problem because they had enough heavy gun tractors. Russia have had 107mm cannon and Soviet army used it and a modernized version of it but in late 30s decided to substitute it with a heavier weapon. And as I wrote it seemed that also Germans began to think that they needed heavier shell for counter-battery work.

BTW Your over 2000 Panthers is a way too high a figure, maybe over 2000 panzers, StuGs and heavy and medium JgPzs altogether.

Glider
IIRC Germans got also some 24 Tigers more in Normandy in late July incl some Kingtigers

Juha

 

[Kurfürst]

"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.

Your logic is odd.

First you limit the discussion to divisional arty pieces, but when it comes to the Soviets, suddenly the criteria goes to the garbage can - probably because by far the most common Soviet divisional arty was not 152 or even 122mm calibre, but formed by light 76,2mm field guns...

I fail to see what importance 360 degree traversing is of any importance for a field gun, really. IMHO it`s just unneccesary complication and weight added to a small sized gun that can be turned manually 360 degree in a few seconds anyway..

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.

I think you are wrong in that. Ranges :

15cm sFH 18 : 13 325 m

15cm sFH 36 : 12 500 m (this was a shortened barrel, light &compact gun weighting only 3500/3200 kg which was not produced for too long because of it was alloy-hungry)

15cm sFH 18/40(42) : 15 100 m

15cm sFH 18/40 : 15 675 m

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.

But you seem to forget the German field arty had different (heavy) pieces for the long-range as well, and frankly, I can hardly think of a more potent gun for the job as below :

 

[Juha]

Glider
Germans units participating Ardennes offensive had 1550 tanks, StuGs and PzJgs altogether so a bit over 2000 tanks, StuGs and PzJgs altogether on Western Front in early Dec 44 is a good estimate, so maybe 500 – 600 Panthers.

Kurfürst
"I fail to see what importance 360 degree traversing is of any importance for a field gun, really. IMHO it`s just unneccesary complication and weight added to a small sized gun that can be turned manually 360 degree"

For some reason German army insist 360 deg for their new leFH 43 and for some reason Soviets adopted the same carriage for their post-war 122mm field howitzer. It's pity that You and Soren were not in hand when the Germans draw their specifications for a new leFH, they would clearly needed your expertise.

"15cm sFH 18/40(42) : 15 100 m"
I don't identify the gun, so I cannot comment

"15cm sFH 18/40 : 15 675 m"

To my understanding only 46 were made and troops saw it way too complicated and only 22 were distributed to troops. If you think that Germans produced in 1944 2.295 sFH 18s, the sFH 18/40 was irrelevant. Just noticed that 15cm sFH 18/40 was originally my mistake, in my 11-21 message I meant sFH 18, but in a hurry I typed the wrong type.

Other armies also had heavy artillery and I mentioned in my first message 17cm K18 which was an excellent gun but it weighted 17.520 kg and only some 340 were made altogether.

I cannot identify the gun in picture but the production run of 15cm K 18 was 101, 15cm K 39 64, 21 cm K 39, 40 and 41 altogether 61 so they could not have much influence in battlefields.

Juha

 

[Glider]

Thanks for the info, its roughly what I was expecting. Have to agree with the rest of the posting as well.

 

[Kurfürst]

Kurfürst

"I fail to see what importance 360 degree traversing is of any importance for a field gun, really. IMHO it`s just unneccesary complication and weight added to a small sized gun that can be turned manually 360 degree"

For some reason German army insist 360 deg for their new leFH 43

For some reason they had not bothered to put it into production.

And below you argue a small production run for several German guns making them 'irrelevant'... I guess prototype German guns aren`t..!

I am still wondering what enourmous gains were coming from that addition, that raised the super-hyped 25 pdr above all others. You kindly tell me.
It seems to me it was one of the British funny ideas of the war by which others did not feel particularly pressed to follow during WW2 (or after), certainly in the fashion they did not follow the British practice of choosing a too small caliber.

Everybody else went for bigger calibers for standard pieces, even the British figured out the wisdom, though it took them more time than for the others.

and for some reason Soviets adopted the same carriage for their post-war 122mm field howitzer

Well that proves a lot, there`s a gun of similiar design out there. Yes, of course. Hardly proves anything, especially not that it was some kind of miracle technical solution you trying to make it look like.

It's pity that You and Soren were not in hand when the Germans draw their specifications for a new leFH, they would clearly needed your expertise.

No, the pity is that you have a sort of stupid agenda, born out of ignoranc and bias. Your sad little rheterics won`t make up for your failings on those fields. Clearly, you need to some work on those areas to improve yourself.

You have came up with a blanket statement about an alleged defiency of German divisional field artilerry due to short range.

Even your own data, which ignored more advanced types of German divisional howitzer alltogether, being compared to supercharged UK divisional howitzers and army-level heavy arty did not support that.

We`re trying to tell you to keep the playing field even; compare like with the like, divisional arty with divisional arty; heavy arty w. heavy arty etc.
When it`s about a 10,5cm divisional arty piece, it should be compared to other divisional arty pieces of similiar role/calibre; but no, you start to compare them with army-level heavy arty of incomparably larger size and caliber...

This makes about as much sense as comparing the load carrying capability of a common Ford Focus to some Big Mac truck, and then arguing the Focus is not up to it`s task.. ridiculus. And when the trying to make the playing field even again, by comparing like with the like, heavy arty pieces tasked with counter-battery roles and preparation of strategic breakthrough, you dismiss them being not relevant.

Here`s the sobering part. As much as you`re trying to add 4.5" and 5.5", they were not part of the divisional arty. Period. If you wish to add them into the comparison, be sure to compare like with the like.

If you wish to compare divisional arty, it is sobering. 105-150-152mm pieces on one side with the division. 83mm pieces on the other. One makes you cover-up in your foxhole, the other makes the foxhole and you just disappear and leave a 7-meter wide crater behind.

"15cm sFH 18/40(42) : 15 100 m"
I don't identify the gun, so I cannot comment

"15cm sFH 18/40 : 15 675 m"

To my understanding only 46 were made and troops saw it way too complicated and only 22 were distributed to troops. If you think that Germans produced in 1944 2.295 sFH 18s, the sFH 18/40 was irrelevant. Just noticed that 15cm sFH 18/40 was my mistake, I meant sFH 18, in a hurry I typed the wrong type.

Right, then address please the existance of the other improved forms of the sFH 18 in existance during the war. In any case, even the basic sFH 18 - ie. a standard German divisional piece - at the start of the war had longer range (not to mention punch) than the 25 pdr howitzer ( ie. a standard British divisional piece). Ie. your original statement made no sense.

Other armies also had heavy artillery and I mentioned in my first message 17cm K18 which was an excellent gun but it weighted 17.520 kg and only some 340 were made altogether.

Well you`ve already mentioned the heavy artillery of other armies and strikingly enough you compared them to German divisional artillery.

Therefore, I again left puzzled why you`re bringing up all the excuses again. It`s heavy. Funny that was not a problem with British 5.5" or the Soviet 152mm guns... etc.

I wonder why you`re so unable to apply the same standards everywhere.

I cannot identify the gun in picture but the production run of 15cm K 18 was 101, 15cm K 39 64, 21 cm K 39, 40 and 41 altogether 61 so they could not have much influence in battlefields.

Juha

Well the same can be said about 5.5" British guns, for example.
Not particularly numerous in the British division TOEs, are they? To be more precise, there were none in the TOE tables. That leaves a British division with a small-caliber gun with a puny 11kg shell and with a maximum range of about 12 clicks.

Now I`d certainly won`t like if I`d have some incoming CB fire from the opposing guy`s 16 kg shells from the same 12 clicks away, and even less so when those 45 kg shells are start to fall around me, fired from 13-15 clicks away, which could easily mean in practice that my fancy 25 pdr battery is getting shredded by enemy artylerry pieces firing 4,5 times bigger shells than mine, out of my gun range.

Even if I don`t have incoming enemy CB fire, the head-scratching starts with any support role calling for something more than the punch a 11 kg shell can offer. Most armies have for that purpose guns in 150-155mm range issued directly to divisions. There are task the normal scare-guns just can`t do.

 

[Glider]

The 25pd was the first weapon of its type to be able to swing through 360 degrees easily and without distrupting the emplacement.
Comments have been made that this is easily achieved by any weapon. I suggest you try it, I wouldn't fancy it. Guns are emplaced to fire in one general direction think about it.
No one is saying that this is the be all and end all of a guns capability, but it is a useful tactical benefit, one that has been taken up by other countries for similar weapons.

It was designed as a gun howitzer and the size of the weapon a deliberate choice to get the benefit of both.

As for the observation that weapons with tiny production runs and experimental versions types are not part of the debate due to the fact that they had no impact on the war, I can only agree with.

Juha' s summary is pretty much spot on.
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.

Re the heavier weapons
The sFH18/40. My understanding was that they were outranged by the Russians and modifications were made but most were for reliability. Changes were made to obtain extra range but these were not implemented due to the impact on the barrel and recoil system.

Compared to the 5.5in the German weapon lacked range (not for the first time). I don't know the difference in shell size, but at a weight of 100lb it wouldn't have been far short of the German weapon. True, the 100lb shell was replaced by the 80lb shell, but this had less metal and more explosive so its effectiveness was increased.

Comment about the size of calibre are amusing but totally miss the point.

 

[Soren]

The German 17cm Kanone 18 featured a 360 degree field of fire and a range beyond that of any comparable Allied artillery piece (30km) plus a much heavier shell at 68 kg. So in the 17cm Kanone 18 the Germans had an excellent long range artillery piece of unequalled performance.

And lets not forget the 15cm Kanone 18 either, with its 43 kg heavy high explosive shell and a range of 25km it was an excellent artillery piece, much better than the Soviet 15.2cm artillery pieces. It featured a 360 degree field of fire as-well btw.

Some 10.5cm LeFH 18 pieces began featuring a 360 degree field of fire platform from 1943 and onwards as-well, so the 25 pdr didn't have anyhing over the LeFH 18.

At any rate turning a light artillery piece like the LeFH 18 isn't in any way hard for experienced presonnel Glider, I know, so I don't see why the 360 degree platform provided for the 25 pdr was such a big advantage - esp. not considering that such big corrections to the direction of fire was hardly ever needed.

And as to the accuracy of fire, well the Germans were indeed more accurate here in terms of concentration of fire according the Ian V. Hogg and American intel reports. This was mostly because of the German method of establishing range actual position to expected position. Hence the comment made by the American Officer. The actual accuracy of the guns wouldn't have been much different.

 

[Juha]

Kurfürst
"For some reason they had not bothered to put it into production."

To my understanding you can blame Soviets for that they happened to appear in Berlin and put all German projects to end.

"Well that proves a lot, there`s a gun of similiar design out there. Yes, of course. Hardly proves anything, especially not that it was some kind of miracle technical solution you trying to make it look like."

Now Soviet Union liked to keep thinks simple for sake of production and maintenance happened to select the system for their standard light field howitzer. That should make you think twice the merits of the system.

"No, the pity is that you have a sort of stupid agenda, born out of ignoranc and bias."

I would say that You and Soren are too full of Übermensch ideology to see that even if many of German weapons were good or even world beaters, they also made some average or even below average weapons.

"army-level heavy arty"

Heh, what army-level heavy artillery I have mentioned, except Soviet 152mm gun-howitzer and and that because of Soviet had most centralist artillery organisation of 3 nations mentioned, Germans had most decentralized. 5.5in gun-howitzer and 4.5in gun/cannon were equipment of RA MEDIUM regiments, RA HEAVY regiments had 7.2in howitzers and 155mm gun/cannon as their equipment. British used more centralised artillery system and every Corps had an Artillery Group, usually with one heavy and 3 medium regiments. Alone in Normandy Brits had 24 medium regiments that is 384 5.5in and 4.5in guns, this for 15 divs (Polish Armoured Div incl as well as Canadian divs). Germans on other hand divided their medium artillery between divisions, corps and armies, but in both cases medium artillery was there. So for every div 21st AG had 25 medium artillery pieces. Because I don't have in hand Germany's OoB for Normandy, I cannot calculate the German equivalent but if they had half of their medium artillery in line divisions and half in higher level units they had 24 medium artillery pieces per div. in average. And I doubt that there was even that many medium artillery pieces around because after 1941 the number of higher level medium artillery battalions were declining and there were only 54 in 1 July 43, if there were 50 in 1 June 44 that's 2,11 medium artillery pieces per div in average in higher level units, there were 284 German divs at that time. If those in Normandy had twice the average they had 12+4=16 medium field artillery pieces per division there.


Soren
Yes as I have mentioned 17cm K 18 was excellent gun but as a heavy artillery piece it was rather rare, probably there were ever more than 200 in service in same time, and keeping in mind the huge losses on Eastern Front from 1943 onwards I doubt that there was over 150 around in June 44 that a bit over ½ gun per div ( there were 284 German divs around in 1 June 44) so they could not be everywhere.
Production run was 1941-91, 1942-126, 1943-78, 1944-40 and 1945-3.

"The 10.5cm LeFH 18 began featuring a 360 degree field of fire platform from 1943 and onwards as-well"

All of them or only new production? Is that surprising when according to you 360 deg fof is entirely unnecessary?

Finns were not overly impressed on German firing methods, but maybe they suited better to more open terrain. At least north of Tornio in autumn 44 Finns notice some very good shooting by German field artillery.

Juha

 

[Soren]

I would say that You and Soren are too full of Übermensch ideology to see that even if many of German weapons were good or even world beaters, they also made some average or even below average weapons.

Thank you very much for that personal attack Juha! Can't remember when I ever attacked you personally or tried to personify you to deserve that. Oh well..

As to the 360 degree platform, it wasn't necessary at all Juha, it just made it abit easier for the personnel in some rare situations - hence why many modern atrillery pieces don't feature this platform, it simply aint worth the trouble. Traversing the piece normally is easily quickly done.

The famous American 155mm Long Tom didn't feature a 360 degree field of fire either, it had the same 60 degree field of fire as the std. 10.5cm LeFH 18 M.

And as to the Soviet artillery pieces, well I can't find a single area where they were superior to those of the Germans. The German 150mm 173mm K-18 are completely superior to any heavy Soviet artillery piece, and the LeFH 18 (M) is better than the Soviet howitzers of similar caliber

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Juha try to keep the posts unpersonal okay.

 

[plan_D]

"And as to the Soviet artillery pieces, well I can't find a single area where they were superior to those of the Germans. The German 150mm 173mm K-18 are completely superior to any heavy Soviet artillery piece, and the LeFH 18 (M) is better than the Soviet howitzers of similar caliber"

I can, Soren, there was more of them. The idea of a Soviet artillery barrage was enough to put chills up any Axis spine. All German histories of the eastern front mention Soviet artillery as their greatest enemy, well the ones I've read do.

 

[Soren]

But ofcourse Plan_D, but I was talking individually.

The Soviets did have the advantage of having so many pieces that they could lay down a barrage so intense that the air would be sucked right out of anyones lunges unfortunate enough to be in the middle of it. (German vets often tell you about this)

 

[plan_D]

I know you were talking individually; but it does bring up the question of build. Which of these artillery pieces was the easiest to produce in large quantities, after all it is weight of fire that decides the fight where artillery is concerned.

I understand the argument for superior individual piece, but in equal industrial position which piece would be fielded in most numbers and ultimately lay down more fire? In reality the Americans and Soviets had more artillery at hand solely due to their massive industrial base, and this was discovered on the field of battle and recorded with dismay in German histories.

Interesting read, by the way, I'm learning a lot about artillery here - something I'm not up to date with.

 

[Glider]

The German 17cm Kanone 18 featured a 360 degree field of fire and a range beyond that of any comparable Allied artillery piece (30km) plus a much heavier shell at 68 kg. So in the 17cm Kanone 18 the Germans had an excellent long range artillery piece of unequalled performance.

And lets not forget the 15cm Kanone 18 either, with its 43 kg heavy high explosive shell and a range of 25km it was an excellent artillery piece, much better than the Soviet 15.2cm artillery pieces. It featured a 360 degree field of fire as-well btw.

I am not trying to ignore these weapons which were as good as any in the world at the time. That is not in question, I am trying to deal with the questions and points raised iro the smaller weapons.

Some 10.5cm LeFH 18 pieces began featuring a 360 degree field of fire platform from 1943 and onwards as-well, so the 25 pdr didn't have anyhing over the LeFH 18.

I suspect the main difference is that nearly all the 25pds had this ability and only a handful of the LeFH 18. It is interesting that the German forces did decide to include this ability, they must have decided that it was beneficial although as I said earlier, it wasn't the most important feature of the weapon.

At any rate turning a light artillery piece like the LeFH 18 isn't in any way hard for experienced presonnel Glider, I know, so I don't see why the 360 degree platform provided for the 25 pdr was such a big advantage - esp. not considering that such big corrections to the direction of fire was hardly ever needed.

I would certainly agree that the 360 degree ability is not a huge advantage but it is an advantage. It should be remembered that the 25pd was always designed to be able to act as an AT gun and this ability in a fast moving close range battle must help. As for turning around a 'normal weapon' if its dug in, then you stand no chance of moving it in a hurry.

And as to the accuracy of fire, well the Germans were indeed more accurate here in terms of concentration of fire according the Ian V. Hogg and American intel reports. This was mostly because of the German method of establishing range actual position to expected position. Hence the comment made by the American Officer. The actual accuracy of the guns wouldn't have been much different.

The British had to learn some lessons in France which was done and by 1942 a number of individually small changes were made that made a big difference when put together.
What the British were able to do was bring a much bigger concentration of fire down, much faster than any other army in the war. They were also far more flexible than most armies due to the trust given to the observers.
This would go some way to making up any difference in accuracy which by 1942 would have been marginal at best.