View Full Version : "The Tiger Tank That Wouldn't Die"
The Tiger had it's share of issues but it was apparently one tough cookie:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raAx57MHH7k
Don't remember the specs on a Tiger, but Sherman's were very, very vulnerable.
Diamondback
05-31-21, 22:38
Don't remember the specs on a Tiger, but Sherman's were very, very vulnerable.
The other problem was Sherman vs Tiger was like putting a Middleweight boxer against Foreman or Tyson, the brass were too slow getting Pershings out for a proper competitor.
The other problem was Sherman vs Tiger was like putting a Middleweight boxer against Foreman or Tyson, the brass were too slow getting Pershings out for a proper competitor.
It was easier to ship a boatload of Sherman's than a comparable tank. At least we weren't using jeeps with a turret like the Japanese. Ironically we could have used a lot more Sherman's in the Pacific.
Actual Tiger vs Sherman battles on the western front were not as common as most people think. Allied air power was more likely to take on armor on the western front. Still the name Tiger struck fear sin allied tankers and many times other German tanks, tank hunters or assault guns were misidentified as Tigers. There are many after action photos that show a MKIV identified or other German AFV as a Tiger. My, dad a WW2 vet has a picture of him and his tank crew on a knocked out MK IV that he always called a Tiger.
Their legend and mystique was earned and rightfully so on the Eastern front.
crusader377
06-01-21, 11:02
The Sherman was a much better tank than people give it credit for. I would go as far as argue it was one of the best tanks in WWII. It was reliable, mobile both tactically and operationally, reasonably well armed and armored, it was survivable if hit, especially the late model Shermans with the wet storage of its ammunition, had excellent crew ergonomics for the time, easy to mass produce, easy to deploy worldwide (Remember the standard crane at shipping ports was in the 35-40 ton class) a heavier tank like the Panther or Tiger could not be deployed Worldwide. Plus the Sherman was easily upgradable.
In contrast, although the Panther and Tiger were more powerful when they worked, the when they worked was often the issue.
For example, the 45 ton Panther had an operational readiness rate often below 50% in units. Furthermore, Panther although it had good tactical mobility, it had terrible operational mobility. Unlike the Sherman which you could easily drive hundreds of miles without issue, Panther could not do long distance movement for a host of reliability reasons.
The 56 ton Tiger was probably a better built tank than the Panther but it was extremely expensive and still difficult to maintain.
The 32 ton Sherman punched well above its weight especially the late model M4E8 with the 76mm gun.
vicious_cb
06-01-21, 15:46
The Sherman was a much better tank than people give it credit for. I would go as far as argue it was one of the best tanks in WWII. It was reliable, mobile both tactically and operationally, reasonably well armed and armored, it was survivable if hit, especially the late model Shermans with the wet storage of its ammunition, had excellent crew ergonomics for the time, easy to mass produce, easy to deploy worldwide (Remember the standard crane at shipping ports was in the 35-40 ton class) a heavier tank like the Panther or Tiger could not be deployed Worldwide. Plus the Sherman was easily upgradable.
In contrast, although the Panther and Tiger were more powerful when they worked, the when they worked was often the issue.
For example, the 45 ton Panther had an operational readiness rate often below 50% in units. Furthermore, Panther although it had good tactical mobility, it had terrible operational mobility. Unlike the Sherman which you could easily drive hundreds of miles without issue, Panther could not do long distance movement for a host of reliability reasons.
The 56 ton Tiger was probably a better built tank than the Panther but it was extremely expensive and still difficult to maintain.
The 32 ton Sherman punched well above its weight especially the late model M4E8 with the 76mm gun.
Boom! Dropping truth bombs like its 1944. I wish more people would educate themselves rather than repeat false tropes and myths.
I like how people think Shermans were death traps but never talk about horrendous casualty rates in the B-17.
titsonritz
06-01-21, 16:15
Shermans won the day because they were present and fueled, Tigers not so much.
Diamondback
06-01-21, 17:33
Boom! Dropping truth bombs like its 1944. I wish more people would educate themselves rather than repeat false tropes and myths.
I like how people think Shermans were death traps but never talk about horrendous casualty rates in the B-17.
One in three never made it home... and IIRC B-24s weren't any better.
I dunno squat about armor but I was told that if you look at the M4 for what it was (kind of a proto-Bradley) then it was exceptionally advanced for its day.
A lot of kraut armor gets fangirled over but the engines were weird, unreliable, and they weren’t all that.
Had this sucker come a bit earlier, that would have been their ass
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/47/76/d9/4776d99ec52fb3e6890660629f895ee4.jpg
Of course aesthetics wise I thought the Firefly was pretty cool
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/British_Sherman_Firefly_Namur.jpg
Okay you tread-head buffs, I have a question: Which would have been the most difficult to fight against (assuming they made it to the battlefield): the Tiger, Panther, or Panzer?
Averageman
06-01-21, 19:01
Tiger was an all around good tank. Tiger.
Averageman
06-01-21, 19:06
It was easier to ship a boatload of Sherman's than a comparable tank. At least we weren't using jeeps with a turret like the Japanese. Ironically we could have used a lot more Sherman's in the Pacific.
I remember reading somewhere that the "Super" Sherman was available, but to retool, retrain and install more cannon was a delay they considered not worthy of the time and effort.
Lookup all of the M4 Sherman YouTube videos by “The Chieftain”, as he goes all into your questions or beliefs. He even documents that there were only like 4 direct Tiger on Sherman attacks in the whole war.m
Also recall that our tank doctrine was that the tank was an infantry support vehicle.
HardToHandle
06-01-21, 20:49
The Easy 8 kicked ass. Effectively it was fighting on the frontlines for 40+ years.
That really could not be said for the Wehrmacht tanks, as they simply did not age well. The German Panzer IV is probably the closest analogue to the Sherman, even if a bit older, and which was progressively improved throughout WWII. The Syrians did deploy a few late model Panzer IVs against the Israelis as late as 1967, but the marginally better trained Israelis made mincemeat of the old Nazi tanks.
From my studies, the Panzer Kampfwagen V (Panther) was a great all-around piece of armor.
The Sherman was a much better tank than people give it credit for. I would go as far as argue it was one of the best tanks in WWII. It was reliable, mobile both tactically and operationally, reasonably well armed and armored, it was survivable if hit, especially the late model Shermans with the wet storage of its ammunition, had excellent crew ergonomics for the time, easy to mass produce, easy to deploy worldwide (Remember the standard crane at shipping ports was in the 35-40 ton class) a heavier tank like the Panther or Tiger could not be deployed Worldwide. Plus the Sherman was easily upgradable.
In contrast, although the Panther and Tiger were more powerful when they worked, the when they worked was often the issue.
For example, the 45 ton Panther had an operational readiness rate often below 50% in units. Furthermore, Panther although it had good tactical mobility, it had terrible operational mobility. Unlike the Sherman which you could easily drive hundreds of miles without issue, Panther could not do long distance movement for a host of reliability reasons.
The 56 ton Tiger was probably a better built tank than the Panther but it was extremely expensive and still difficult to maintain.
The 32 ton Sherman punched well above its weight especially the late model M4E8 with the 76mm gun.
Sure, all that. But I think the biggest factor for the Sherman was the quantity in which we could produce and deliver vs. uber tank designs from the Germans. Kind of like how the Russians flooded the fields with T-37s which may have been inferior to German designs in some respect or another but still overwhelmed them.
crusader377
06-01-21, 23:19
Okay you tread-head buffs, I have a question: Which would have been the most difficult to fight against (assuming they made it to the battlefield): the Tiger, Panther, or Panzer?
I would argue probably a Tiger then followed by a Stug III or Stug IV (Tank Destroyer). Tiger because it was extremely powerful and chances are they were manned by a better than average crew. Stug III because of low profile, ambush tactics, and again the success rate for the Stug III was one of the best out of all German armor vehicles.
crusader377
06-01-21, 23:34
Sure, all that. But I think the biggest factor for the Sherman was the quantity in which we could produce and deliver vs. uber tank designs from the Germans. Kind of like how the Russians flooded the fields with T-37s which may have been inferior to German designs in some respect or another but still overwhelmed them.
The Germans although they definately could design very powerful vehicles but their execution left much to be desired. The late war German tanks like Tiger and especially Panther had a host of problems when they entered the field. Also the Germans although great engineers, in many ways were extremely stupid. For example the thought process of building a very complex armor vehicle like the Panther and use slave labor to build the thing wasn't really the brightest idea. That combined with having extremely limited inchangeability of parts and not manufacturing enough spare parts caused a lot of problems.
For example at Kursk, with the Panthers combat debut, the Germans lost more Panthers to mechanical breakdowns than to enemy fire. Same pattern repeated itself in Northwest Europe.
Ready.Fire.Aim
06-01-21, 23:36
I read in a WW2 tank book ( maybe Adam Makos) that on the Western front, US field artillery and an observer with a radio killed more Germàn tanks in combat than any other method ( tanks or fighter planes).
One in three never made it home... and IIRC B-24s weren't any better.
I don't know that the planes were so bad so much as formation flying was a pipe dream of a self sustained defense and the Luftwaffe really took it to you when you were over home territory.
P-51s, and to an extent P-38 escorts made those bombers much safer.
It's hard to defend any plane when interceptors are capable of 100 mph+ advantages and don't have to stay on course for a bomb run. Luftwaffe ran into similar problems when they tried to cross the channel in 1940 and bomb England into submission.
Then there is the fact that the US chose daylight "precision bombing" as a strategy in order to hit vital targets effectively, but it came with a cost vs. area bombing at night which is what the English did.
If we had long range fighters from the beginning I don't think we'd have lost nearly as many B-17s and B-24s. But I know my grandfather bailed out of two 24s that were shot to shit during his time over Romania and Germany. Several guys didn't get out. As it was explained to me when the plane is in a flat spin and full of smoke it's hard to get where you are going if you even know what it the correct direction to be going.
I would argue probably a Tiger then followed by a Stug III or Stug IV (Tank Destroyer). Tiger because it was extremely powerful and chances are they were manned by a better than average crew. Stug III because of low profile, ambush tactics, and again the success rate for the Stug III was one of the best out of all German armor vehicles.
That was an interesting read. I vaguely knew the Stug III even existed much less how effective it was due to effective tactics. While a fan of all things WW II (absolutely fascinating subject) I know the major players and the major events and have an idea of how well this one stacked against that one.
I knew production of German super tanks were problematic, but I didn't know how badly they failed in action. I know lots of guys feared the Tiger because they never even saw a Panther. As noted earlier we had a far more effective strategy of using P-51s and similar as tank killers rather than running armor head to head like they did in the east. Using Shermans as infantry support was probably the most sound but guys like Patton seemed to want to Blitz with them.
From my studies, the Panzer Kampfwagen V (Panther) was a great all-around piece of armor.
Panther was the best overall German tank from my reads as well. Years ago I was commissioned to build a replica scale model Tiger for a German WW2 vet who fought in one on the Eastern front. When he was asked about which tank he preferred, he commented..Panther. He fought in those as well, I still have the thank you letter he sent me. It was probably one of the best models I ever built.
The Tiger and King Tiger were massive tanks but over engineered and required a lot of maintenance, but the heavy armor and that high velocity 88mm were feared by the Allies
Later in the war, the Tiger tank became more of a ambush type of weapon....
Shermans ... for all its early flaws, someone in Russia said it best: ”Quantity had a quality all its own!”
For survivability, The Chieftain, as previously mentioned, has an excellent series of videos of all the tanks and in regards to the M4 Sherman, goes into the ‘why they did what they did’, showing the actual military orders or contracts. Bonus info includes the logistics of shipping heavier tanks et al, or ‘waiting’ for the Pershing development, which was fraught full of setbacks.
One of his most interesting videos is where he times himself (albeit a tall man at that) in escaping the various tanks and tank positions and the Sherman was the fastest to escape.
Coal Dragger
06-02-21, 14:40
Okay you tread-head buffs, I have a question: Which would have been the most difficult to fight against (assuming they made it to the battlefield): the Tiger, Panther, or Panzer?
If they’re all working correctly and it’s an armor vs armor fight then Panther all day every day. The 75mm high velocity gun on the Panther had more penetration than the 88mm on the Tiger I, and the angled glacis plate of the upper hull, and angled turret armor on the Panther gave superior protection. Plus it had a better power to weight ratio so mobility was much better.
In the real world we know that maintenance was a huge hurdle for the Germans.
crusader377
06-02-21, 23:07
If they’re all working correctly and it’s an armor vs armor fight then Panther all day every day. The 75mm high velocity gun on the Panther had more penetration than the 88mm on the Tiger I, and the angled glacis plate of the upper hull, and angled turret armor on the Panther gave superior protection. Plus it had a better power to weight ratio so mobility was much better.
In the real world we know that maintenance was a huge hurdle for the Germans.
This is a good read on the Panther. The Panthers reputation among historians post-war is overrated and its actual performance didn't match its reputation.
https://www.warhistoryonline.com/instant-articles/german-panther-best-tank.html
This is interesting too. The Sherman may have actually had a better kill ratio than the Panther.
In a study of 30 different tank engagements with between 3rd and 4th Armor division units in 1944, Shermans killed over 3.5 Panthers for every Sherman lost.
https://www.wearethemighty.com/mighty-history/the-sherman-was-actually-a-great-wwii-tank/
Coal Dragger
06-02-21, 23:57
Lots of real world factors lead to late war German armor being less effective as noted.
All else being equal, a fully functional Panther with an equally experienced crew would be more than a match for a Sherman. Of course thankfully those other factors were never equal.
However the overall concept of the Panther combining decent mobility (when it was running), with good armor protection via sloped armor, and a gun primarily focused on killing other tanks was the progenitor of the MBT of today. The M26 Pershing, and British Centurion followed the formula of the Panther, with the benefit of being made correctly of appropriate materials and crewed by well trained tankers. Infantry support tanks quickly ceased production post war, and the concept of the MBT started by the Panther’s mobility, protection, and anti-armor firepower were the new norm.
As far as the best tank of WWII, even though it was too late to the party to see action the Centurion was probably the best tank developed before the war ended.
Lots of real world factors lead to late war German armor being less effective as noted.
All else being equal, a fully functional Panther with an equally experienced crew would be more than a match for a Sherman. Of course thankfully those other factors were never equal.
However the overall concept of the Panther combining decent mobility (when it was running), with good armor protection via sloped armor, and a gun primarily focused on killing other tanks was the progenitor of the MBT of today. The M26 Pershing, and British Centurion followed the formula of the Panther, with the benefit of being made correctly of appropriate materials and crewed by well trained tankers. Infantry support tanks quickly ceased production post war, and the concept of the MBT started by the Panther’s mobility, protection, and anti-armor firepower were the new norm.
As far as the best tank of WWII, even though it was too late to the party to see action the Centurion was probably the best tank developed before the war ended.
In the end while the Me262 might have been more advanced than the P-51 and the Stg44/45 was more advanced than the M1 Garand, it didn't matter. No amount of super tanks, super guns or super planes was gonna tip the balance back towards Germany.
24 guys with Sturmgewehrs were still going to get annihilated by 240 guys with M1 Garands. And it was like that all across the board, closing in on both sides. The only thing German wonder weapons might have accomplished is dragging out the war until late 1945 and the atom bomb being dropped on Berlin rather than Hiroshima. The only other real difference would have been the iron curtain dropping over more German and European territory.
The Germans had an ICBM (non nuclear) and it still didn't matter. They couldn't produce enough V2s for it to make a difference. Even with the industrial wizardry of Albert Speer keeping production at max levels all through the late years of the war, it could still never compete with US production. Hitler effectively lost the war when he declared war on the US following Pearl Harbor on Dec 11.
Japan was actually the greater threat in most ways as they had a Navy that could enforce their will across most of the pacific. But that didn't necessarily mean they would be landing in California, even Japan knew that. They had no need to invade the US, they were after natural resources and those were in Manchuria and the Dutch colonies of the Pacific. They were glad to have the Philippines as well as a staging area to check US dominance of the Pacific, but that was before Midway and the loss of their carrier fleet.
Had Hitler managed to keep the US out of the European conflict, we might have been dealing with a two front Cold War against Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Of course if Fuchs still gave Stalin the bomb, he might not have permitted a post war Nazi Germany.
So many things could have gone so many different ways and the actual history turned on unlikely and unexpected events. But rifles, tanks and planes weren't necessarily gonna change the game for anyone. It was more about how many rifles, planes and tanks you could make and get into theater and into the most hands.
Coal Dragger
06-03-21, 01:11
Exactly.
However immediately post WWII every major power took those new and effective concepts and started to refine them. From that point on:
1.) New infantry small arms were developed resulting in today’s select fire intermediate caliber necked cartridges. Aka Sturmgewehr. It had its issues and didn’t turn the tide of the war but anyone with a functional brain could see the potential.
2.) Armored vehicles made to fight other armored vehicles followed the formula of the Panther into what is now the MBT. Again the Panther had operational issues relating to wartime production, reliability issues, lack of numbers, lack of fuel, and lack of good crews. However when it worked and it had a good crew it had the potential to be very deadly.
3.) No one developed another piston engine fighter aircraft from that point on. The turbojet, fickle and delicate was still obviously the way forward.
4.) Also consider that once the type XXI U boats fell into Allied hands no one going forward ever designed a submarine that primarily operated surfaced. A game changer for the Germans? Nope, but post war it sure was.
5.) Cruise missiles and ballistic missiles? Yep V1 and V2 didn’t turn the tide, but we’re still using the concepts today.
6.) Guided bombs or missiles? The Fritz X has entered the chat.
Exactly.
However immediately post WWII every major power took those new and effective concepts and started to refine them. From that point on:
1.) New infantry small arms were developed resulting in today’s select fire intermediate caliber necked cartridges. Aka Sturmgewehr. It had its issues and didn’t turn the tide of the war but anyone with a functional brain could see the potential.
2.) Armored vehicles made to fight other armored vehicles followed the formula of the Panther into what is now the MBT. Again the Panther had operational issues relating to wartime production, reliability issues, lack of numbers, lack of fuel, and lack of good crews. However when it worked and it had a good crew it had the potential to be very deadly.
3.) No one developed another piston engine fighter aircraft from that point on. The turbojet, fickle and delicate was still obviously the way forward.
4.) Also consider that once the type XXI U boats fell into Allied hands no one going forward ever designed a submarine that primarily operated surfaced. A game changer for the Germans? Nope, but post war it sure was.
5.) Cruise missiles and ballistic missiles? Yep V1 and V2 didn’t turn the tide, but we’re still using the concepts today.
6.) Guided bombs or missiles? The Fritz X has entered the chat.
Well we weren't stupid. Werner Von V1/V2 got us to the moon.
Kalashnikov has a lot of direct assistance from Hugo Schmeisser.
There is the reason the F-86 Sabre and the MiG-15 were virtually identical with first flights in late 1947 and introduction in 1949. In a lot of projects we both had scientists from the same German project teams.
It's almost a shame the Mauser engineers bailed to Spain or we might have gotten CETME rifles instead of M-14s.
Averageman
06-03-21, 02:07
If they’re all working correctly and it’s an armor vs armor fight then Panther all day every day. The 75mm high velocity gun on the Panther had more penetration than the 88mm on the Tiger I, and the angled glacis plate of the upper hull, and angled turret armor on the Panther gave superior protection. Plus it had a better power to weight ratio so mobility was much better.
In the real world we know that maintenance was a huge hurdle for the Germans.
And Machine Guns?
Because this;
Hull machine gun
The early Panzer V Panther tanks were not fitted with an armoured ball mount for the 7.92 mm MG34 machine gun. A rectangular ‘letterbox’ slit was cut into the front sloping glacis plate to enable the radio operator to fire his machine gun when necessary. A small armoured door covered this opening. He had two periscopes fixed to the roof of the chassis: one faced forward and the other to the right side of the tank.
Just doesn't ooze confidence.
Lots to discuss here. As mentioned before The Chieftain has many wonderful videos on all the tanks.
Two things not yet mentioned here..
One, circumstances in the war, especially after Kursk, dictated that the tanks were used in ways not designed for and for periods without maintenance not designed for. That led to a lot of failures in the field. When the maintenance manual says to replace the final drive after 150km, but you can't and then it breaks at 180km, is that the tank's fault? The Panther was also sent out way early before the bugs were worked out because they needed them right now. The Sherman didn't suffer from that. The T-34 needed transmission replacement on average after 110km. But no one mentions that. USSR produced over 40,000 T-34's. About 1200 Tigers were produced... for the entire war.
Second, with so few tank's available towards the end of the war, it was often 1, 2 or 3 German tanks, alone, against a tank battalion with supporting infantry and TD's. Many stories of that one or two tanks taking out a bunch of other tank's before breaking down or taken out themselves. Make no mistake, a German tank in good working order was a formidable foe.
Sherman Firefly was the British answer using the 17 pdr. Two things, the 17 pdr with armor piercing shells wasn't very accurate. The turret was so cramped it was difficult to load. The Easy Eight with the 76mm was a better answer, but guess what? Most tankers preferred the standard 75 as it had a better HE round amongst other things. Also, E8's and Fireflys were targeted first when spotted.
The Chieftain and Military History Visualized are two good YT channels to get some well researched info.
https://youtu.be/tMDWWFKQgLQ
Good story making my point. Worth the watch.
I believe I read somewhere that, during the war, Germany was short of certain critical elements/ingredients to make some grades of high quality steel for things like final drives. So lower quality steels had to be substituted, which lacked the desired durability.
I believe I read somewhere that, during the war, Germany was short of certain critical elements/ingredients to make some grades of high quality steel for things like final drives. So lower quality steels had to be substituted, which lacked the desired durability.
That's true, and it was certainly more than that. They lacked tungsten for instance so armor piercing shells were in short supply. Final drives were the biggest weakness for the Panther and it was sent out with very substandard drives and not allowed to develop what was needed. Many Panthers were lost to broken final drives than enemy action.. The final drives were finally made to last 4-500km in Oct 44, but too little too late.
Many tanks were lost due to lack of petrol to run them.
German tanks had their plusses and minuses for sure. Take hatches on the Panther...bad! But you don't hear nearly as much with the failures of allied vehicles. Take the early Soviet tanks, especially the heavies, for example. They were horrid.
Coal Dragger
06-06-21, 22:35
And Machine Guns?
Because this;
Hull machine gun
The early Panzer V Panther tanks were not fitted with an armoured ball mount for the 7.92 mm MG34 machine gun. A rectangular ‘letterbox’ slit was cut into the front sloping glacis plate to enable the radio operator to fire his machine gun when necessary. A small armoured door covered this opening. He had two periscopes fixed to the roof of the chassis: one faced forward and the other to the right side of the tank.
Just doesn't ooze confidence.
Uhh you realize the hull machinegun was virtually useless on pretty much every tank that had one. So much so that by llmid 1944 US tank units in Europe largely didn’t man the position because the bodies were needed elsewhere and replacements weren’t showing up fast enough to waste a 5th man in the tank.
Point to a single MBT utilized today with hull MG mount. Hint: there are none.
crusader377
06-07-21, 10:49
Definately some good discussion.
Although earlier in my study of WW2 when I was younger, I would have definately said that the Panther was the best medium tank of the war due to its hard specs (Even though weight wise it would qualify as a heavy tank in all of the allied armies). However, its atrocious reliability (often well under 50% readiness rate) and poor operational mobility (Panther due to its reliability could not reliably be counted to do a 100-200 mile road march and arrive on the battlefield in operational condition) I think makes its a non-starter for best all round tank of the war.
Personally, if I was a company/battalion/ or brigade/regiment commander and I had to pick what vehicle I would want to go to war in 1944/45, I would probably go with the M4E8 Sherman especially if I could get the 76mm HVAP round, or the British Comet tank (which was IMO a very underrated tank).
Definately some good discussion.
Although earlier in my study of WW2 when I was younger, I would have definately said that the Panther was the best medium tank of the war due to its hard specs (Even though weight wise it would qualify as a heavy tank in all of the allied armies). However, its atrocious reliability (often well under 50% readiness rate) and poor operational mobility (Panther due to its reliability could not reliably be counted to do a 100-200 mile road march and arrive on the battlefield in operational condition) I think makes its a non-starter for best all round tank of the war.
Personally, if I was a company/battalion/ or brigade/regiment commander and I had to pick what vehicle I would want to go to war in 1944/45, I would probably go with the M4E8 Sherman especially if I could get the 76mm HVAP round, or the British Comet tank (which was IMO a very underrated tank).
Yep, most of us studied the war and quite honestly were pretty advanced if we even knew what a Panther was or a Sturmgewehr, but it takes something of a tank or firearm authority to know what the limitations of a Panther or Sturm actually were. I think everyone agrees it was time well spent in our youth reading everything we could about WWII than most of the other crap that other kids were reading, assuming they were reading at all.
And while some have said it already, really appreciate you bringing your expertise to this thread.
crusader377
06-08-21, 14:02
And while some have said it already, really appreciate you bringing your expertise to this thread.
Appreciate your kind remarks. I'm not a professional historian or anything like that, I'm well read and combined with operational military experience (Artillery Officer) with experience as a Company FSO in Afghanistan and an Assistant Brigade FSO in Iraq during the Invasion in 2003 I think I have a decent perspective on things.
Diamondback
06-08-21, 14:31
Appreciate your kind remarks. I'm not a professional historian or anything like that, I'm well read and combined with operational military experience (Artillery Officer) with experience as a Company FSO in Afghanistan and an Assistant Brigade FSO in Iraq during the Invasion in 2003 I think I have a decent perspective on things.
As a historian myself, I can tell you that just like engineers, too often we get hung up on the paper specs and theoretical capabilities without the Paul Harvey "REEEEEEEST Of The Story" on operational conditions that would cause under-, or on rare occasions OVER-, performance. (Like how the recently passed Ross Shulmister used to take F-106's like 5000 feet over "design" ceiling and because the engine became so much more efficient at that altitude get an extra hour's flight time.)
If memory serves, MiG-15 is evolved from Kurt Tank's unflown Focke-Wulf Ta183 "Whizzer" prototype; Sabre is a blend of Whizzer with the Navy's FJ-1 Fury carrier jet that NAA was already building. (Later-model Furies from FJ-2 on were basically navalized Sabres, having almost nothing in common with the older "Dash Ones" other than a name. Shades of Super Hornet there?)
eightmillimeter
06-08-21, 14:48
Total fatal combat losses for the armored corps in ww2 was like 2%.
By any actual measurable standard Sherman usually ranks very high.
Tigers were tough sure, but Sherman’s were killing them even before the 76 and firefly existed.
crusader377
06-09-21, 09:19
As a historian myself, I can tell you that just like engineers, too often we get hung up on the paper specs and theoretical capabilities without the Paul Harvey "REEEEEEEST Of The Story" on operational conditions that would cause under-, or on rare occasions OVER-, performance. (Like how the recently passed Ross Shulmister used to take F-106's like 5000 feet over "design" ceiling and because the engine became so much more efficient at that altitude get an extra hour's flight time.)
If memory serves, MiG-15 is evolved from Kurt Tank's unflown Focke-Wulf Ta183 "Whizzer" prototype; Sabre is a blend of Whizzer with the Navy's FJ-1 Fury carrier jet that NAA was already building. (Later-model Furies from FJ-2 on were basically navalized Sabres, having almost nothing in common with the older "Dash Ones" other than a name. Shades of Super Hornet there?)
I don't think it is a fault with historians so much as simply not knowing better because I think it is very difficult understanding the complexities and chaotic nature of war without having some experience.
I'm going back to the Panther as my example. Let's say I'm a German Brigade Commander on the Eastern Front in 1944. I have a Panther Battalion with 50 tanks along with 2 panzergrendier battalions (motorized infantry) and an artillery battalion. My Brigade is serving as a fire brigade and has orders to counterattack against a Russian breakthrough 100km north of my current location. So immediately, I have a few additional problems that my counterpart in an American or British outfit with Shermans doesn't have to worry about.
First what is my actual readiness of the 50 tanks. Is it 40%? 50%? so I'm now have 20 or 25 available tanks. So I'm conducting an attack with a greatly reduced element size. In contrast, a Sherman battalion commander can reliably count on 90-95% plus of his vehicles ready to go on any given day unless engaged in heavy combat.
Second a 100KM road march, a Panther's final drive is good for 150km so I'm going to lose 5 or 10 tanks on the Road March? My Allied counterpart with Shermans doesn't have that issue.
So now the mission that Division or Corps was expecting a full Panther Battalion of 50 tanks might only have 15 that actually show up to the fight. So now that Division or Corps commander is asking himself do I need to commit a other assets in order for the counter attack to be successful? Do I have those assets available? Can they get their in time?
War is very chaotic and good commanders are flexible but at the same time want to control as many of the many variables that they can.
Panther, altough a very good tank when it worked, simply introduced alot of added problems in the decision making process that a Sherman would not have.
Diamondback
06-09-21, 10:02
An excellent example, also illustrating that hoary old Clancy-ism about "amateurs study strategy, but professionals study logistics."
The other thing that doesn't help is, by the time we enter the game there are usually none of a system left operational, few to none left alive who knew how to operate them, and cost-prohibitive to build or restore to fully operational for practical experiments. For example, they didn't exactly have hard numbers to quantify maneuverability in sailing warships of the Napoleonic era (not much better now, really) and frequently didn't record speed performance, which is a challenge trying to make sure they stack up against each other in the game my client publishes as they would have in reality. (There is literally only one ship of the line of any size left anywhere in the world, and HMS Victory is so structurally compromised she's been drydocked for a hundred years and is literally impossible to make seaworthy again--and there isn't enough acreage of English Oak left in Britain to build another.)
crusader377
06-09-21, 10:28
An excellent example, also illustrating that hoary old Clancy-ism about "amateurs study strategy, but professionals study logistics."
The other thing that doesn't help is, by the time we enter the game there are usually none of a system left operational, few to none left alive who knew how to operate them, and cost-prohibitive to build or restore to fully operational for practical experiments. For example, they didn't exactly have hard numbers to quantify maneuverability in sailing warships of the Napoleonic era (not much better now, really) and frequently didn't record speed performance, which is a challenge trying to make sure they stack up against each other in the game my client publishes as they would have in reality. (There is literally only one ship of the line of any size left anywhere in the world, and HMS Victory is so structurally compromised she's been drydocked for a hundred years and is literally impossible to make seaworthy again--and there isn't enough acreage of English Oak left in Britain to build another.)
Very true indeed. Even with WW2 which there are many good records of, there are alot of myths and beliefs that simply aren't true. The further you go back in history the harder it is to put together information.
With your Napoleonic sailing warships as you mentioned, you will never know everything because like you said only HMS Victory remains and furthmore when it was Nelson's flagship at Trafalger in 1805, it was manned by an experienced crew, many sailors having spent 10-15 years at sea. We have to assume that they got very good at their job and their is absolutely no way to recreate that and how it sailed. Plus Nelson had the wind advantage but we don't know the exact weather conditions in 1805 off the coase of Spain.
One side note to the Panther reliability. Later models were much better, and some sources say by mid 44 that availability was 78%. Probably lots of conflicting evidence and analyses. While a lot of the problems were fixed over time, the final drive was never overcome as a problem, though there were mitigations put in late that made things better. Also, interesting to note that the final drive as manufactured in the Panther was not what the designer had put in the original design, but due to lack of suitable machines for manufacture of gears and the like they had to substitute with a drive more suitable for mass production.
Actually, final drive (really the Panther's Achilles heel) was solved Oct 44. However, even as you allude, machinery, metals, skilled labor and etc., all conspire to undermine the game here. Hell, they couldn't even get reliably made face hardened steel by that point. Being bombed to hell and back will do that. Americans didn't have that problem. Reliable and experienced tank crews were an issue. (Like pilots for Luftwaffe at that point) The war didn't happen in a vacuum and us Monday morning QBs forget the details.
On the M4E8 quote earlier, the existing battalion commanders of the time would highly disagree. Fact is, the "Easy Eight" was best at tank vs tank engagements but took a back seat for everything else a tank was asked to do. Tank vs tank engagements were fairly rare and only a Tiger or front facing Panther provided a problem for the standard Sherman. A Panther from side or rear ( or turret) was penetrable at range with the standard 75 with AP. The Tiger was figured out by the Soviets at Kursk. The commander's cupola was especially vulnerable and could be penetrated by their big anti tank rifles.
Maintenance... German tanks required a lot of maintenance but that was accounted for in the doctrine. But when you don't have replacement parts and your mechanics were given a rifle and sent to the line, well?? Some of the criticisms are legit and real. Replace a road wheel? Interleaved wheels made that a chore... nightmare really, (but provided less ground pressure and coupled with torsion bar suspension, a better ride). Transmission replacement... fuggiaboutit. Fuel system on the Tiger? Terrible.
However, what if I told you that in the time it took a Sherman to change a transmission, the Panther could replace a whole engine? In the time it took a Panther to change a transmission, the Sherman could replace an engine. How many of you have understood that fact?
The Sherman went through a lot of growing pains and through an extensive evolution of earlier tanks (over a few years) to arrive at the product sent to Europe. Panther had not that luxury. I am not a German tank shill.... but I do feel a need to keep it real when I see some unwarranted criticisms or myths thrown around. You want a comparison, how about a 1941 T-34 or KS-1 vs anything the Germans had.
Averageman
06-10-21, 11:46
Uhh you realize the hull machinegun was virtually useless on pretty much every tank that had one. So much so that by llmid 1944 US tank units in Europe largely didn’t man the position because the bodies were needed elsewhere and replacements weren’t showing up fast enough to waste a 5th man in the tank.
Point to a single MBT utilized today with hull MG mount. Hint: there are none.
Absolutely;
Without a turret mounted and a coax machine gun, it get's really dicey in MOUT.
Diamondback
06-10-21, 13:22
Absolutely;
Without a turret mounted and a coax machine gun, it get's really dicey in MOUT.
This. Tech didn't exist in WWII, but if I was designing an Abrams refit for MOUT, I'd start by slapping a CROWS onto the turret bustle, maybe a full "secondary turret" like Brawl in Transformers. Probably start with CROWS retrofit; quicker, COTS and less re-engineering. Why build a cannon if all you need is a flyswatter?
Coal Dragger
06-10-21, 23:19
Absolutely;
Without a turret mounted and a coax machine gun, it get's really dicey in MOUT.
The Panther had a co-ax MG34, and a turret hatch mounted MG as well.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.