Veteran sherman crews also understood shot traps, and even learned to bounce rounds up into german tanks by hitting the ground under the tank. They also knew to use WP to force german crews to abandon their tanks.
The russians used HE to stun german crews and then move in for the kill. German tanks were vulnerable too, just like everyone ele’s tanks.
Experienced american tankers didn’t shy away from engaging the heavier german tanks and routinely defeated them. Read about Arracourt, moncourt, and lafayette g. pool
The canadians in italy had some decent showings against panthers in 75mm armed shermans in tank vs tank battles
Hosted by Darren Baker
Why W.Allies used whole war obsolete tanks ?
Shermania
Joined: January 30, 2013
KitMaker: 537 posts
Armorama: 531 posts
Posted: Monday, March 09, 2020 - 03:49 PM UTC
Scarred
Joined: March 11, 2016
KitMaker: 1,792 posts
Armorama: 1,186 posts
Posted: Monday, March 09, 2020 - 03:59 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextQuoted TextThe US never formally recognized E. Germany
Hardly related to the topic, but the Hallstein doctrine was abandoned in the early '70s. By 1974 the US had full diplomatic relations with East Germany.
No, we did not. In Berlin we did not recognize the Authority of the DDR or it's officials.
The official speed limit in the zone (Between Helmstedt and Berlin was 100 kilometers per hour. One fine day I was riding my bike through the zone at over 100 MILES per hour. A VoPo had his car halfway buried in a revetment in a hull down position while he himself lay on the side of the road, pointing his radar sniper style at oncoming "Verbrecher."
He jumped up and ran into the middle of the roadway waving a lighted stop sign. I damn near ran his dumb @$$ over. So I stopped, (just short of killing or seriously maiming him) and he started demanding my identification. I turned around and pointed to my USA plate and said
Ich möchte mit einer Sowjetische Offizier reden, which he clearly did not want any more than I did. He was powerless to do anything more than call the Soviet officials.
He then explained to me that here in the People's German Democratic Republic we only drive on the right hand side of the road, and we limit our speed to 100 kph. I thanked him, gunned the throttle, and left a rubber patch on the LEFT hand side of the road while he vanished in my rear view mirror.
Patrick, if that censored word began with "S" and rhymed with "Hatch" then yeah, we called it the same thing.
Oh yes the good old travel orders. I got a couple of those floating around here somewhere. I never drove thru to the zone but always took the duty train, it was free, had good cabins and beds, my girlfriend and I would drink a good bottle of wine, eat some sandwiches we brought and have a pleasant ride.
I didn't smoke but would bring a couple packs of smokes and while waiting for the Russian guards to check our documents and the train we'd lean out the windows and I'd toss them to the guards outside. I got a couple nice pins and rank insignia that way. We'd have parties in the Duppel housing area and moon the soviet and east german guards. I'm sure in the Stazi and KGB archives are pictures of my rear end and the rear end's of my entire platoon.
And snatchurally it rhymed with hatch. I got there in Oct 84 and it had been changed to INSCOM from ASA and believe it or not we still had Spec5's and Spec6's as instructors. I was in Echo Co. the unit closest to the snack bar and one nite Delta Co barracks caught fire. All the alarms in the battalion went off, it was late in the evening the sun was down, and they wanted a head count of the entire battalion so we were in the quad and couldn't go back to bed yet. I had been shooting pool in the day room and had my boom box, thing was MASSIVE, so I took it with me to the formation. After head count we kinda had a party and I had a mix tape with "The Roof is On Fire" on it. So I cranked it up and everyone started singing along with it. It was funny, but the MP's and fire fighters didn't like it and tried to take my boom box. So I flipped the tape over which had metal on it and played that. For some reason AC/DC and Van Halen didn't offend them.
Zildjian1819
Joined: March 06, 2020
KitMaker: 43 posts
Armorama: 42 posts
Posted: Monday, March 09, 2020 - 04:16 PM UTC
Sherman had to get close.We developed special tactics...had to adapt.Like I said ...we had to fight with what we had. It would work occasionally, but cost lives. The Sherman was’nt obsolete, but it was’nt the best either.
RobinNilsson
TOS Moderator
Joined: November 29, 2006
KitMaker: 6,693 posts
Armorama: 5,562 posts
Posted: Monday, March 09, 2020 - 06:43 PM UTC
Quoted Text
And why does air power and artillery have to be used to knock out Panthers and Tigers? Could it be because the Sherman could’nt? So what it all boils down to is fight with what you’ve got.
Yep! And there is no point in moaning about what you haven't got
RobinNilsson
TOS ModeratorJoined: November 29, 2006
KitMaker: 6,693 posts
Armorama: 5,562 posts
Posted: Monday, March 09, 2020 - 07:47 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextAnd why does air power and artillery have to be used to knock out Panthers and Tigers? Could it be because the Sherman could’nt? So what it all boils down to is fight with what you’ve got.
The germans used artillery and airplanes against American tanks too, it’s called combined arms tactics.
Shermans could and did kill tigers, there are many instances when a single sherman took out a tiger mano a mano. Here’s a link to a documented battle between a 75mm armed sherman and a tiger 1 and the sherman won
http://www.752tank.com/cecina.html
This bit, from the article linked above, was interesting:
"Company A of the 752nd lost eleven of its fifteen tanks in Cecina. Despite the heavy loss of tanks, only six enlisted men and one officer were wounded, and two enlisted men captured. No 752nd tankers were lost in the heavy fighting in Cecina."
Eleven tanks lost, 7 wounded, none killed ...
Scarred
Joined: March 11, 2016
KitMaker: 1,792 posts
Armorama: 1,186 posts
Posted: Monday, March 09, 2020 - 10:56 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextQuoted TextAnd why does air power and artillery have to be used to knock out Panthers and Tigers? Could it be because the Sherman could’nt? So what it all boils down to is fight with what you’ve got.
The germans used artillery and airplanes against American tanks too, it’s called combined arms tactics.
Shermans could and did kill tigers, there are many instances when a single sherman took out a tiger mano a mano. Here’s a link to a documented battle between a 75mm armed sherman and a tiger 1 and the sherman won
http://www.752tank.com/cecina.html
This bit, from the article linked above, was interesting:
"Company A of the 752nd lost eleven of its fifteen tanks in Cecina. Despite the heavy loss of tanks, only six enlisted men and one officer were wounded, and two enlisted men captured. No 752nd tankers were lost in the heavy fighting in Cecina."
Eleven tanks lost, 7 wounded, none killed ...
Even today our tanks don't go in alone. There is usually artillery and air support available. A artillery shell is a lot cheaper than a main battle tank and can punch thru the top of a tank with ease. Smart munitions with multiple shaped charge sub-munitions are more dangerous to enemy armor than a tank. A salvo of those can take out a company of enemy tanks without a shot being fired by one of ours.
The other thing to remember is there were shortages of armor piercing rounds. A lot of their work against enemy tanks was done with HE and other rounds.
Bonaparte84
Joined: July 17, 2013
KitMaker: 338 posts
Armorama: 331 posts
Posted: Monday, March 09, 2020 - 11:45 PM UTC
I've read this whole thread with great interest, but I feel by now the discussion has ground to a halt, so I'll try to add something new. The OP has long retracted from the discussion, probably with a few I things to dwell on as to what makes a valuable tank. The discussion has since devolved into an intra-American one, with one side forcing the crew members' perspective and the other going the "we won the war" route.
What I believe the former has a difficulty coming to terms with (and why we have repeated posts of the same tenure) is how the Western commands, looking at a tank to tank comparison, was willing to send crews into battle with tanks that in terms of protection (mostly, but also guns) were inferior to their German counterparts. In other words, command was willing to expose the crews to a risk that this view considers unnecessary because better technology was theoretically available. Maybe, for the same perspective this seems even more strange since the German opponent, the Nazi regime, was absolutely reckless when it comes to the value of an individual human being, yet supposedly undertook more effort to protect its crews.
If that is the case, than here are my thoughts on this:
1. German leadership did not chose to better protect their crews for the love of the human being. It was a necessity since Germany (at no point in time during the war) (a) had enough manpower to win a classic war of attrition with similar losses on both sides, (b) had enough resources to build and operate a similar number of tanks than did the Western Allies. The focus on good protection was an attempt to prevail on the battle field long enough to kill sufficient numbers of enemies to outweigh these issues. It didn't work out (luckily), also due to some poor engineering choices across all arms and lack of standardization. If anything, the German way to conduct the war in particular in the later stages is absolutely reckless towards its own troops (besides everyone else).
2. Even the good guys going to war will have to sacrifice people to win it. It doesn't make their actions cynical. It simply is the price to pay. The offense taken at the fact that the tank crews were not given the best/better protection available back then is probably very much influenced by today's view of conflicts and the (lack of) willingness to sacrifice people in them. The less a conflict seems necessary and unavoidable (probably no armed conflict the West is currently involved in fares too well against those two criteria), the harder it will be to "sell" the casualties to the public at home. 1944 was a very different time and the need to win this war probably understood and supported by a vast majority. There are of course differences in how you employ your troops, and whether in each given situation this is morally justifiable (the useless frontal assaults of Word War I come to mind). In the grand scheme of things, and looking at the casualty numbers etc., there doesn't seem to be anything morally questionable in how the Western Allies equipped and employed their armored troops.
3. As to the perspective of the tank crews, it would be understandable IF they felt let down to some degree (or others for them) when the opponent manages to field superior tanks and they have to face them. However, as others pointed out, in total Allied tank crews did not fare too badly in terms of survival. And finally, as in every war, some will have to bear more risks than others, whether it's the guy taking point, a raid party on a "suicide mission" or a specific branch. It is inherent to war, and I don't see the point complaining about it, especially if the overall concept worked out. Wasting thousands after thousands of human lives for nothing is worth criticizing, but that is generally not the story of the Western Allies in WW2.
4. As to the eternal question, in which tank I'd rather sit in in a tank engagement, the answer is not the "Sherman", whether I'm an Ally, fighting with numerical superiority or a German, fighting with numerical inferiority. A better chance at penetrating the enemy tank and a better chance at withstanding his shots (e.g. sitting in a Panther) will always be most welcome. This does not take away any merit the Sherman has on a strategic level (including logistics). Obviously, this thought experiment is limited to the actual tank on tank encounter and therefore provides hardly any insight into any relevant dimension of warfare other than the mere confrontation on the individual level.
Just my 2 cts...
What I believe the former has a difficulty coming to terms with (and why we have repeated posts of the same tenure) is how the Western commands, looking at a tank to tank comparison, was willing to send crews into battle with tanks that in terms of protection (mostly, but also guns) were inferior to their German counterparts. In other words, command was willing to expose the crews to a risk that this view considers unnecessary because better technology was theoretically available. Maybe, for the same perspective this seems even more strange since the German opponent, the Nazi regime, was absolutely reckless when it comes to the value of an individual human being, yet supposedly undertook more effort to protect its crews.
If that is the case, than here are my thoughts on this:
1. German leadership did not chose to better protect their crews for the love of the human being. It was a necessity since Germany (at no point in time during the war) (a) had enough manpower to win a classic war of attrition with similar losses on both sides, (b) had enough resources to build and operate a similar number of tanks than did the Western Allies. The focus on good protection was an attempt to prevail on the battle field long enough to kill sufficient numbers of enemies to outweigh these issues. It didn't work out (luckily), also due to some poor engineering choices across all arms and lack of standardization. If anything, the German way to conduct the war in particular in the later stages is absolutely reckless towards its own troops (besides everyone else).
2. Even the good guys going to war will have to sacrifice people to win it. It doesn't make their actions cynical. It simply is the price to pay. The offense taken at the fact that the tank crews were not given the best/better protection available back then is probably very much influenced by today's view of conflicts and the (lack of) willingness to sacrifice people in them. The less a conflict seems necessary and unavoidable (probably no armed conflict the West is currently involved in fares too well against those two criteria), the harder it will be to "sell" the casualties to the public at home. 1944 was a very different time and the need to win this war probably understood and supported by a vast majority. There are of course differences in how you employ your troops, and whether in each given situation this is morally justifiable (the useless frontal assaults of Word War I come to mind). In the grand scheme of things, and looking at the casualty numbers etc., there doesn't seem to be anything morally questionable in how the Western Allies equipped and employed their armored troops.
3. As to the perspective of the tank crews, it would be understandable IF they felt let down to some degree (or others for them) when the opponent manages to field superior tanks and they have to face them. However, as others pointed out, in total Allied tank crews did not fare too badly in terms of survival. And finally, as in every war, some will have to bear more risks than others, whether it's the guy taking point, a raid party on a "suicide mission" or a specific branch. It is inherent to war, and I don't see the point complaining about it, especially if the overall concept worked out. Wasting thousands after thousands of human lives for nothing is worth criticizing, but that is generally not the story of the Western Allies in WW2.
4. As to the eternal question, in which tank I'd rather sit in in a tank engagement, the answer is not the "Sherman", whether I'm an Ally, fighting with numerical superiority or a German, fighting with numerical inferiority. A better chance at penetrating the enemy tank and a better chance at withstanding his shots (e.g. sitting in a Panther) will always be most welcome. This does not take away any merit the Sherman has on a strategic level (including logistics). Obviously, this thought experiment is limited to the actual tank on tank encounter and therefore provides hardly any insight into any relevant dimension of warfare other than the mere confrontation on the individual level.
Just my 2 cts...
RobinNilsson
TOS ModeratorJoined: November 29, 2006
KitMaker: 6,693 posts
Armorama: 5,562 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 10, 2020 - 12:19 AM UTC
This Wikipedia article has summaries of the production of German armoured vehicles:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_armored_fighting_vehicle_production_during_World_War_II
The average German tank would seem to have been a Pz IV. There were Panthers and Tigers but also Pz III and upgraded Pz II so I would say that the average German tank was the equivalent of a Pz IV.
The average German tanker served in a tank that was slightly better than the Sherman .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_armored_fighting_vehicle_production_during_World_War_II
The average German tank would seem to have been a Pz IV. There were Panthers and Tigers but also Pz III and upgraded Pz II so I would say that the average German tank was the equivalent of a Pz IV.
The average German tanker served in a tank that was slightly better than the Sherman .
Bonaparte84
Joined: July 17, 2013
KitMaker: 338 posts
Armorama: 331 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 10, 2020 - 01:32 AM UTC
Quoted Text
This Wikipedia article has summaries of the production of German armoured vehicles:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_armored_fighting_vehicle_production_during_World_War_II
The average German tank would seem to have been a Pz IV. There were Panthers and Tigers but also Pz III and upgraded Pz II so I would say that the average German tank was the equivalent of a Pz IV.
The average German tanker served in a tank that was slightly better than the Sherman .
Interesting numbers. If you go year by year and leave out other uses of chassis than for a turreted tank, at the latest by 1944 the Pz. IV was not the average tank anymore, i.e. not for the major confrontations on European mainland between Germany and the Western Allies. Also, by 1943 the Panzer II had changed its role from "normal" tank to tracked reconnaissance vehicle, and therefore shouldn't be counted in for the tank on tank confrontation.
RobinNilsson
TOS ModeratorJoined: November 29, 2006
KitMaker: 6,693 posts
Armorama: 5,562 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 10, 2020 - 02:56 AM UTC
If we look at the years 1943-1945
Gun tanks:
Pz III 1943:414
Pz IV total 8298 (1943:3013, 1944:3126, 1945:385)
Pz III + Pz IV 1943-1945 = 6110
Panther total 6132 (1943:1848, 1944:3777, 1945:507)
Tiger I & II total 1840 (1943:649, 1944:623+377, 1945:112)
Panther + Tiger 1943-1945 = 7893
The number of Panthers and Tigers produced during 1943 to 1945 is higher than the number of Pz II and IV.
During this period Germany also produced a lot of non-turreted tanks, 425 JagdPanther, 79 Jagdtiger and 12536 "JagdPz" + 4308 "JagdPz" on Pz 38(t) chassis.
When a Sherman was fired at by a mobile 75 mm or larger the chances that it was a Panther or Tiger wasn't overwhelming. There were also some French chassis rebuilt with 75 mm guns ...
In addition to this there were also towed AT-guns, landmines, Panzerfaust & Panzerschreck ....
Going by the numbers alone the risk of getting shot by something else than a Tiger or Panther was a lot more than 50%.
The numbers above are total production so some of those Panthers and Tigers went to the eastern front where they possibly met some Shermans in Soviet service.
Germany continued to produce Pz IV in 1945 even if the Panther and Tiger II were build to counter the threat of Soviet T-34s.
Going back, with a twist, to the original question: Why did Germany continue to use obsolete tanks?
Didn't all the German tankers prefer to ride in a Panther or Tiger instead of a Pz IV, StuG or JagdPanther?
Gun tanks:
Pz III 1943:414
Pz IV total 8298 (1943:3013, 1944:3126, 1945:385)
Pz III + Pz IV 1943-1945 = 6110
Panther total 6132 (1943:1848, 1944:3777, 1945:507)
Tiger I & II total 1840 (1943:649, 1944:623+377, 1945:112)
Panther + Tiger 1943-1945 = 7893
The number of Panthers and Tigers produced during 1943 to 1945 is higher than the number of Pz II and IV.
During this period Germany also produced a lot of non-turreted tanks, 425 JagdPanther, 79 Jagdtiger and 12536 "JagdPz" + 4308 "JagdPz" on Pz 38(t) chassis.
When a Sherman was fired at by a mobile 75 mm or larger the chances that it was a Panther or Tiger wasn't overwhelming. There were also some French chassis rebuilt with 75 mm guns ...
In addition to this there were also towed AT-guns, landmines, Panzerfaust & Panzerschreck ....
Going by the numbers alone the risk of getting shot by something else than a Tiger or Panther was a lot more than 50%.
The numbers above are total production so some of those Panthers and Tigers went to the eastern front where they possibly met some Shermans in Soviet service.
Germany continued to produce Pz IV in 1945 even if the Panther and Tiger II were build to counter the threat of Soviet T-34s.
Going back, with a twist, to the original question: Why did Germany continue to use obsolete tanks?
Didn't all the German tankers prefer to ride in a Panther or Tiger instead of a Pz IV, StuG or JagdPanther?
ninjrk
Joined: January 26, 2006
KitMaker: 1,381 posts
Armorama: 1,347 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 10, 2020 - 04:26 AM UTC
One of the joys of being a docent at the American Heritage Museum is I get to talk to an awful lot of WW2 and Korean tank veterans. 10-12 of the former and at least 20 of the latter. Where I've had the opportunity to bring up this topic the responses have been varied but certain themes have come up.
They bounce between wanting a bigger gun and more armor. Those who didn't have many tank fights wanted more armor over the gun, they were much more concerned with Panzerfausts and towed AT guns.
They liked the 90mm much more so than the 76mm because of the HE. Several, including Clarence Smoyer, made the point that they were much more concerned with towed anti-tank guns, hence why the 90mm was favorable since it blew up those crew much more effectively than a 76mm. Same with the armor and why they often commented how much they liked the "Jumbo" because it could take a Pak hit and keep going. They also really treasured the reliability of the M4 and weren't always thrilled with how the T26 did in thta area. Interestingly, several Korean war veterans have commented that their M4's were continually towing out bogged down Pershings. With better ammunition they felt that the M4 was much better than a T-34/85 and had few fears of them in Korea.
I got answers from 4 WW2 vets on whether they would trade 2 M4's for 1 T26 and all said "no" though one said the higher ups should have figured it out! 3 gave an answer along the lines of have the bulk be M4's with a small number of T26's and Jumbo's to deal with enemy tanks or Pak's. Kind of similar to how the British used Fireflies. Interestingly, 2 of them really liked the concept of the M10's and M36's acting as reaction forces which was interesting, aside from complaining about the open turrets many of the veterans really were on board with the TD forces.
Matt
They bounce between wanting a bigger gun and more armor. Those who didn't have many tank fights wanted more armor over the gun, they were much more concerned with Panzerfausts and towed AT guns.
They liked the 90mm much more so than the 76mm because of the HE. Several, including Clarence Smoyer, made the point that they were much more concerned with towed anti-tank guns, hence why the 90mm was favorable since it blew up those crew much more effectively than a 76mm. Same with the armor and why they often commented how much they liked the "Jumbo" because it could take a Pak hit and keep going. They also really treasured the reliability of the M4 and weren't always thrilled with how the T26 did in thta area. Interestingly, several Korean war veterans have commented that their M4's were continually towing out bogged down Pershings. With better ammunition they felt that the M4 was much better than a T-34/85 and had few fears of them in Korea.
I got answers from 4 WW2 vets on whether they would trade 2 M4's for 1 T26 and all said "no" though one said the higher ups should have figured it out! 3 gave an answer along the lines of have the bulk be M4's with a small number of T26's and Jumbo's to deal with enemy tanks or Pak's. Kind of similar to how the British used Fireflies. Interestingly, 2 of them really liked the concept of the M10's and M36's acting as reaction forces which was interesting, aside from complaining about the open turrets many of the veterans really were on board with the TD forces.
Matt
Shermania
Joined: January 30, 2013
KitMaker: 537 posts
Armorama: 531 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 10, 2020 - 04:29 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Sherman had to get close.We developed special tactics...had to adapt.Like I said ...we had to fight with what we had. It would work occasionally, but cost lives. The Sherman was’nt obsolete, but it was’nt the best either.
The Tiger and Panther were designed for defense in places with huge view ranges. They were not able to conduct offensive operations due to their lack of mechanical reliability, they were simply a desperate rushed attempt to slow down the Russian onslaught.
designed to hunker down and see things from a miles away, with their inferior turret traverse systems and their lack of panoramic sights, they took long to acquire targets. In arracourt, moncourt, and again in the battle of the twin villages. The expensive, difficult to maintain, and difficult to produce vehicles were taken out by the cheap, easy to maintain, and easy to produce M4s, M10s, M18s, and M36s
You see these late war german vehicles that everyone raves about now basically producing very little on the battlefield especially in relation to their cost and the early smaller more mobile german vehicles that most people ignore now were the ones that created most of the success Germany had during the war and those tanks were arguably obsolete when the war started.
No one is talking about significance of crews and crew training, by the time Germany was making tigers and panthers instead of focusing production on the versatile panzer IV, germany had already lost most of it’s best tankers.
Germany started the war with obsolete tanks that were proven and with highly trained crews. Then ended the war with untested unreliable expensive tanks that LOOK amazing but were essentially prototypes that should’ve never been mass produced.
At this point to compound the issues with these unproven machines Germany is dealing with severe shortages of all types and crew training took a massive hit with many new tankers getting to fire only one live round during a very abbreviated training course.
Given the situation Germany found itself in 1944 with supplies, lack of crews etc... Even if the tigers and panthers had been as good as expected they were still too expensive, took too long to manufacture, and required too much raw materials make and to run.
A smaller, cheaper, easy to produce tank should’ve been the direction to take with dwindling supplies of everything. Oh wait, they already had that tank in production but instead diverted valuable materials to gambling on unproven, expensive, overweight designs.
Let’s be honest, when a sizable percentage of the population bought into delusions of grandeur (master race etc.) chances are the biggest issue facing Germany during the war was probably a lack of reality especially at the leadership positions. At some point you access the situation, cut your losses, and accept your limitations. Then you can make the best of things in a way that is rational or you can have some of your best people developing 200 ton tanks as your population and soldiers starve to death...
This post was removed.
This post was removed.
This post was removed.
ninjrk
Joined: January 26, 2006
KitMaker: 1,381 posts
Armorama: 1,347 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 10, 2020 - 05:01 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextSherman had to get close.We developed special tactics...had to adapt.Like I said ...we had to fight with what we had. It would work occasionally, but cost lives. The Sherman was’nt obsolete, but it was’nt the best either.
The Tiger and Panther were designed for defense in places with huge view ranges. They were not able to conduct offensive operations due to their lack of mechanical reliability, they were simply a desperate rushed attempt to slow down the Russian onslaught.
designed to hunker down and see things from a miles away, with their inferior turret traverse systems and their lack of panoramic sights, they took long to acquire targets. In arracourt, moncourt, and again in the battle of the twin villages.
This last is a very good point and deserves more attention. I had the very good fortune to talk to a Panther gunner a few years back and he loved his tank. However, he quickly transitioned into much complaining about it in towns, tight spaces, or close terrain. He really hated acquiring targets. The poor bastard got a Jagdpanzer 38T when his Panther got killed and he was most vocal on his hatred of that thing!
Bonaparte84
Joined: July 17, 2013
KitMaker: 338 posts
Armorama: 331 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 10, 2020 - 05:34 AM UTC
Quoted Text
If we look at the years 1943-1945
Gun tanks:
Pz III 1943:414
Pz IV total 8298 (1943:3013, 1944:3126, 1945:385)
Pz III + Pz IV 1943-1945 = 6110
Panther total 6132 (1943:1848, 1944:3777, 1945:507)
Tiger I & II total 1840 (1943:649, 1944:623+377, 1945:112)
Panther + Tiger 1943-1945 = 7893
The number of Panthers and Tigers produced during 1943 to 1945 is higher than the number of Pz II and IV.
During this period Germany also produced a lot of non-turreted tanks, 425 JagdPanther, 79 Jagdtiger and 12536 "JagdPz" + 4308 "JagdPz" on Pz 38(t) chassis.
When a Sherman was fired at by a mobile 75 mm or larger the chances that it was a Panther or Tiger wasn't overwhelming. There were also some French chassis rebuilt with 75 mm guns ...
In addition to this there were also towed AT-guns, landmines, Panzerfaust & Panzerschreck ....
Going by the numbers alone the risk of getting shot by something else than a Tiger or Panther was a lot more than 50%.
The numbers above are total production so some of those Panthers and Tigers went to the eastern front where they possibly met some Shermans in Soviet service.
Germany continued to produce Pz IV in 1945 even if the Panther and Tiger II were build to counter the threat of Soviet T-34s.
Going back, with a twist, to the original question: Why did Germany continue to use obsolete tanks?
Didn't all the German tankers prefer to ride in a Panther or Tiger instead of a Pz IV, StuG or JagdPanther?
Quoted Text
During this period Germany also produced a lot of non-turreted tanks, 425 JagdPanther, 79 Jagdtiger and 12536 "JagdPz" + 4308 "JagdPz" on Pz 38(t) chassis.
When a Sherman was fired at by a mobile 75 mm or larger the chances that it was a Panther or Tiger wasn't overwhelming. There were also some French chassis rebuilt with 75 mm guns ...
I think you are completely changing the conversation by suddenly looking at anything with a gun, when the whole discussion was centered around tanks vs. tanks comparisons...
Quoted Text
Germany continued to produce Pz IV in 1945 even if the Panther and Tiger II were build to counter the threat of Soviet T-34s.
Going back, with a twist, to the original question: Why did Germany continue to use obsolete tanks?
Didn't all the German tankers prefer to ride in a Panther or Tiger instead of a Pz IV, StuG or JagdPanther?
Germans fielded whatever they could, resources, air war and loss of whole armies and even army groups (and overall poor choices of hierarchy) allowing. It's not like they didn't at least try to have the upper hand technologically. I don't think their situation from 1943 on in that regard is comparable in any way to that of the Western Allies. Also, I'm not sure what exactly you mean with "obsolete tanks"? The Pz IV was at least on par with the tanks predominantly used by the Allies, and not "everything with tracks" is a tank...
Also, StuGs and Jagdpanthers were generally well-liked by their crews, so I'm not sure about your last statement.
Scarred
Joined: March 11, 2016
KitMaker: 1,792 posts
Armorama: 1,186 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 10, 2020 - 06:14 AM UTC
Come to think on it, I'd rather be in a StuG or Jagdpanther. Designed to ambush it's prey. Shoot 'n Scoot. No need for head-on confrontations, a platoon of these shoots up a column and then runs like heck.
RobinNilsson
TOS ModeratorJoined: November 29, 2006
KitMaker: 6,693 posts
Armorama: 5,562 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 10, 2020 - 07:29 AM UTC
Quoted Text
I think you are completely changing the conversation by suddenly looking at anything with a gun, when the whole discussion was centered around tanks vs. tanks comparisons...
.
.
.
.
Germans fielded whatever they could, resources, air war and loss of whole armies and even army groups (and overall poor choices of hierarchy) allowing. It's not like they didn't at least try to have the upper hand technologically. I don't think their situation from 1943 on in that regard is comparable in any way to that of the Western Allies. Also, I'm not sure what exactly you mean with "obsolete tanks"? The Pz IV was at least on par with the tanks predominantly used by the Allies, and not "everything with tracks" is a tank...
Also, StuGs and Jagdpanthers were generally well-liked by their crews, so I'm not sure about your last statement.
The original post was about the Sherman being obsolete since Germany had better tanks in 1944-45 than the tanks that the Sherman had fought against earlier (North Africa). I tried to flip this argumentation over by noting that Germany also had tanks which were competitive earlier and then the Panther (and Tiger II) was designed to counter the threat posed by Soviet tanks. The question isn't really why the western allies continued to use obsolete tanks but rather why any armed force continues to use equipment that may have been made obsolete by the enemies latest and greatest equipment.
A part of the continued argumentation was the tank vs tank duel scenario and how the poor souls sitting in Shermans which were no match for Panthers and Tigers feared for their lives in their "Ronsons". Many Sherman crews might never even meet a Panther or Tiger in battle BUT there were plenty of other threats. Lots of Shermans were disabled or completely destroyed but Panthers/Tigers were not the largest threats. This is were all the non-tanks come in, a Sherman could get knocked out by a number of threats but Panther/Tiger is NOT in the majority. Crossing hedgerows where the thin belly of a tank gets exposed might be just as dangerous as meeting a Panther
There is also the question: Which tank would you prefer to be inside in battle, Sherman or Panther.
I suppose that the desired answer is: Panther. Hence my question about the German tank crewman, would he rather be in a Panther, a Pz IV or a Pz III. It is not about criticising the German tankers, it is about ripping apart this method of argumentation (Sherman tankers would rather be riding a Panther so the Sherman is obsolete and it is a crime to send tankers to war in Shermans why did the western leaders to this to their own tankers) If German tankers would also rather ride a Panther then the discussion can move to a higher level of abstraction: Why would any military leadership send their troops to war with anything less than the very very best of everything?
Answer: Go to war or go to the design office when attacked, if you don't go to war the enemy will win while you are in the design office drawing the latest and greatest weapons.
Everybody fielded what they could given their respective circumstances.
:-) Robin
Zildjian1819
Joined: March 06, 2020
KitMaker: 43 posts
Armorama: 42 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 10, 2020 - 10:04 AM UTC
Wow! I never thought of the bouncing of shot underneath the tank.I imagine if one used HE it would really shake up the crew if not blow a hole into the thin belly armor. I know of the shot traps around turret in front, turret ring. Would’nt an HE shell exploding underneath the tank act like a mine? Diorama time!
RobinNilsson
TOS ModeratorJoined: November 29, 2006
KitMaker: 6,693 posts
Armorama: 5,562 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 10, 2020 - 10:26 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Wow! I never thought of the bouncing of shot.I imagine if one used HE it would really shake up the crew if not blow a hole into the thin belly armor.
The mantlet on the Panther tank was redesigned to prevent shots from being deflected down through the hull roof by the mantlet.
The bad design of mantlet:
The redesigned mantlet
Going for the wheels and a mobility kill was another option.
The Soviet method was a bit more brute force. High explosive large caliber shells would blow the turrets of (must be unpleasant for the tank crew ....).
Didn't work so good with the turretless Ferdinand/Elephant though ...
18Bravo
Joined: January 20, 2005
KitMaker: 7,219 posts
Armorama: 6,097 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 10, 2020 - 10:28 AM UTC
I'd like to see documentation for that. If the round is going to skip off of the ground, why isn't going to deflect off of the admittedly thinner belly armor, especially now that it's lost at least some portion of its kinetic energy? Aside from that, as an 18 Bravo (not that you have to be one) we know that ricochets tend to flatten their trajectory even further. I might even go so far as to
Now a planned belly shot as the tank crests a hill or obstacle, yeah, we were taught that at the Harmony Church School for Wayward Boys during LAW training.
Even if there's anecdotal evidence I'd be skeptical of skipping an AP round into the belly.
Remember how every gun was an 88, every tank a Tiger, every Iraqi unit folks encountered was the Republican Guard?
A once in a lifetime accident I MIGHT buy, but personally I'd go with attempting to damage the gun before I'd go throwing rounds into the ground intentionally.
Now a planned belly shot as the tank crests a hill or obstacle, yeah, we were taught that at the Harmony Church School for Wayward Boys during LAW training.
Even if there's anecdotal evidence I'd be skeptical of skipping an AP round into the belly.
Remember how every gun was an 88, every tank a Tiger, every Iraqi unit folks encountered was the Republican Guard?
A once in a lifetime accident I MIGHT buy, but personally I'd go with attempting to damage the gun before I'd go throwing rounds into the ground intentionally.
Zildjian1819
Joined: March 06, 2020
KitMaker: 43 posts
Armorama: 42 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 10, 2020 - 12:07 PM UTC
Yep. My 2 friends said M-26.( My cousin said M-46 vs T-34.)And as for AT guns and Panzer Schreck and Faust,absolutely. Many times more of those weapons available. Very deadly. Easy to be concealed.
AikinutPGH
Joined: April 25, 2015
KitMaker: 45 posts
Armorama: 31 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 10, 2020 - 01:17 PM UTC
At the beginning of WW II the French had better tanks than the Germans! But, the Germans concentrated their forces in a combined arms arrangement. Later the western Allies used radios, tactics, and air power to overcome the "superior" force.
Zildjian1819
Joined: March 06, 2020
KitMaker: 43 posts
Armorama: 42 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 12, 2020 - 08:53 AM UTC
Yep.But they HAD better tanks than Pz4. I wonder how many German tankers would’ve preferred Tiger or Panther if mega quantities were available. U.S.did’nt have anything better than Sherman until M-26.U.S. ( needed in mega quantities.)
 |
WEB HOSTING BY
Copyright ©2021 Armorama and Kitmaker Network, a subsidiary of Silver Star Enterprises
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.