[Interview with Leutnant Günter Martens, PzGren Lehr Rgt 901]

Interesting read. Seems quite believable to me. The Allies were fully aware of the dangers of being pushed into the sea at Normandy.

And this bit jived with something I read in another veterans interview. ie Gary:

The Americans finally caught up with them, and told them they could keep their pistol sidearms if they wore a white armband. They agreed, and came down out of the hills to a labour camp, then were shipped off to the border with the Russians and according to Gary trained for three weeks with the US Army, in preparation for a war with the Soviets.

compared to Rudolf Salvermoser:

Anyway, here we were with the remnants of Großdeutschland, right beside the American 45th Infantry Division. I could not figure out why the Americans treated us so cordially and respectfully. I always thought when a soldier surrendered to the enemy, the first thing he did was to deliver his weapons to his captors. This was not the case, however, so I could only speculate on their reasons for allowing us to remain armed. Earlier, while we were still on the road from Linz, we met several German infantrymen who were toting their weapons and headed east. We stopped and asked them where they were going, that the Russians were coming and, if they were looking for their unit, they could come with us. "No," they replied, "we are going east to fight the Russians because the Americans are going to aid us!" Our lieutenant thought that this was ridiculous because it was highly unlikely that an enemy would turn around and, after beating you, would help you fight their own allies. Knowing this, it struck me that, perhaps, this was the reason for our remaining armed. Maybe the Americans are simply biding their time because they think we are the ones who will be sent east again to fight the Russians.

From this interview

[What exactly is the role of assault guns?]

Well, that's going into my Stug reference notes. This bit I liked too:

The Russians went for gun caliber while the Germans went for maximum muzzle velocity. That tended to make the German guns better AT weapons, especially at long range (MV is a twofer on penetration and accuracy), while the Russian ones had better HE performance. Since the Russians were attacking and the Germans defending - with fewer AFVs and as many towed guns as AFVs - that difference makes perfect sense.

I've gotten into some nasty arguments with Russianophiles about the guns that German vs Russian tanks came with, and this makes the most sense, that each made what best suited their particular needs.

[Question about the Sherman]

Sherman with a 76mm: Easily can kill a Tiger at 1500m with Tungsten....76mm with normal AP can probably kill a Tiger at about 1000m depending on where the hit falls.

Will the Tiger rotate to oblique when facing the Sherman to give the armor angle?

[The "myth" of burning Shermans and non-burning Panzers.....]

A punctured hydraulic line would certainly be bad, firewise. Not only is all hydraulic fluid I know of petroleum based and quite flammable (its a lightish oil), but (in the heavy construction and ag equipment I'm familiar with anyway) the lines are under at least 2500 psi pressure when under use. That is a lot of pressure considering a car tire runs around 28psi. Any puncture and there is hydraulic oil sprayed everywhere.

[Questions about Russian MGs.]

Interesting post Jason, as always. The one thing that comes to my mind though is that drops in operational readiness do not necessarily translate into poorer automotive characteristics, or more time required for maintenance. It may, of course, but the Tigers were also put into the heaviest fighting normally. For example the amount of Soviet tanks knocked out per Tiger at Kursk was something phenomenal, but in return they all took terrific non-fatal poundings, all of which take time to repair.

This famous quote from Guderian illustrates the point:

a Tiger was hit 227 times by anti-tank rifle shots, besides receiving 14 hits by 52mm shells and 11 by 76.2mm shells, none of which penetrated the armour. The roadwheels were shot to pieces, two torsion bars were knocked out, several anti tank missles were jammed in the transmission and the tank had driven over three mines. Yet it managed to run another 60km across country...

This tank would take a long time to repair, certainly, but it would have nothing to do with unreliable components.

[Weaponry that should have been]

1. A manportable high blast one shot HE (like a faust but designed for use against infantry).

A Panzer faust 150 with shrapnel ring would probably do. Link and photo here

Or maybe a

'Schrappnellfaust' ("Shrapnel Fist")

a Panzerfaust-like but reloadable weapon designed to attack infantry. It weighed 8kg (17.6 lb)and projected its warhead to a range of up to 400m (440 yd.). A time fuse detonated the warhead as an airburst at 2 - 3 meters (6.5 - 10 ft.) above ground. About hundred were undergoing weapon trials with the Wehrmacht when the war ended.

[Weaponry that should have been]

You mean the Panzerjäger Bren 731(e)?

Link here

Also a similar Borgward model, with 6 Panzershrek tubes.

[Questions about Russian MGs.]

Percentage operational, from Jentz:

EASTERN FRONT WESTERN FRONT

Pz IV Panther Tiger Pz IV Panther Tiger

31May44 84 77 79 88 82 87

15Sep44 65 72 70 80 74 98

30Sep44 65 60 81 50 57 67

31Oct44 52 53 54 74 85 88

15Nov44 72 66 61 78 71 81

30Nov44 78 67 72 76 71 45

15Dec44 79 69 79 78 71 64

30Dec44 72 61 80 63 53 50

15Jan45 71 60 73 56 45 58

15Mar45 54 49 53 44 32 36

Overall 68 62 70 71 65 65

[Questions about Russian MGs.]

Originally posted by Scott B:

anecdotal evidence at the least suggests that the higher complexity (albeit rarer) "big cats" required immense amounts of servicing time compared to the norm.

Not necessarily. There were advances in the design of the Panther and Tiger chassis that included central greasing and easy track adjusting that made servicing quicker.

From an American evaluation of a captured Panther in 'Weapons of Pattons Armies':

1. Tracks. Track blocks are removed by knocking out two drift pins. Track tension is adjusted by turning one large nut. Crews agreed that track adjustment and maintenance were easier on the Mark V than American tanks. During approximately 75 miles of operation, both on roads and -country, tracks have given no trouble except for track guides. These were broken when the tank was recovered.

2. Lubrication. A master grease fitting inside the turret lubricates all bearings in the tank. This is a desirable feature.

Compare this to T-34 (Russian Battlefield):

I must notice that track tensioning was a real pain for the crew, the tracks could be tensioned by three men equipped with one sledge-hammer and a couple of a hundred coarse words. All attempts to simplify this process failed and the rest of the war Soviet tankers troubled with tracks tensioning.

[IS-2 Tank Role and Gun Selection]

The selection of AP vs APBC may have had something to do with the amounts of Tigers I's faced vs Panthers. As the amounts of Tiger I's dropped and Panthers and Tiger II's increased, it would have made more sense to stick with APBC.

Some quotes from 'Tiger vs Stalin' Notes for Panzer Troops:

1. Most Stalin tanks will withdraw on encountering Tigers without attempting to engage in a fire-fight.

Soviet recognition that the Stalin was not optimum for taking on the German heavies? Best to fall back and bring up a SU-100?

Stalin tanks generally only open fire at ranges over 2,200 yards and then only if standing oblique to the target

Oblique to target takes advantage of the heavy side armour, much like Tiger I's were trained to do. Still they sound convinced that the Tiger will hit first and are trying to minimize the chance, and the damage afterward. What was the loss rate of Stalins?

Enemy tanks crew tend to abandon tanks as soon as hit

Recognition that once the Tiger 'has the range' its best to get out of Dodge? Or emphasis from armour fragments flying through the crew compartment from the tempering problems?

The other points are very cautionary for Tiger crews, including:

Stalin tanks should not be engaged by Tigers in less than troop strength. To use single Tigers is to invite their destruction.

Translation 'This ain't no T-34.'

[Questions about Russian MGs.]

Originally posted by gunnergoz:

[if I were alter the question a bit, I'd ask: "Which country produced the best tank it could come up with AT THE TIME."

To such a question, I'd have to give the not to first the Russians, second the Germans, third to the US and fourth to the Brits.

The most sensible thing anyone has said here so far.

[Questions about Russian MGs.]

In the US, the T34 and KVI were considered superior to the M3 and M4 medium tanks - again, something which wasn't hard.

I wouldn't get too carried away. T-34 was revolutionary design, but Soviet tanks have always had a habit of looking better on paper than they perform in real life. The little things mean a lot. The Americans were impressed in some ways by their T-34 and KV, but disappointed in many others by the sample they had. And I reckon its not a Soviet problem so much as a Communist problem.

Hands up those of us here driving a Lada or Yugo

[PPSch41 vs all]

Another bit of info on the PPsch41, from the On War forum:

I have two disarmed PPSh in my little home so I have some basic knowledge on their interior. They are not simple, I tell you, the MP40 is much more simple in the inside. The PPSh was easier to make, thanks to its crude appearance but this doesn’t mean that it was simplicity itself. Germans liked it, yes. Why? Few soldiers in the Wehrmaht and not too many in the Red Army was equipped with SMGs. Basically, only special assault units on both sides plus officers and sergeants. So what the simple grunt had was either a Mosin or a Mauser, not the best thing for urban combat; of course they took the first enemy SMG from the enemy. Use it then throw it away, there always another one. The western allies also liked the MP40 very much, so what? Front soldiers often took the enemy weapon as a prize, as a symbol of their courage. But since I had both the PPSh and the MP40 in my hands, I would choose the MP40, simply because it FITS, it’s so much more user-friendly. I regard such a quality the most important, screw the RPM or ammo load, if I win a half a second due to that I don’t have to trouble around with my awkward SMG, that well save my life in close combat. Just look at how many modern SMGs are based on the MP40`s characteristics and how many on others. I don’t really say that the PPSh was very unreliable or such, but I hate such nonsense’s which state that the PPSh was reliability itself while the MP40 jammed all the time - something I will hardly believe after I saw both SMGs broken down to their smallest parts. I just prefer the MP40`s qualities (compact, accurate, VERY handy) vs. the PPSh`s (high ROF, large magazine), that’s all.

[PPSch41 vs all]

Originally posted by Puff the Magic Dragon:

[QB]Even if you don't use a strictly math formula to calculate the fp, I see no technical reason to weaken the PPSch41, but some to make it still better: reliably, ammo, uncomplicated...

PPsch41 had greater effective range, but otherwise had problems. 71 capacity drums were tough to fill and carry and not too reliable, so were replaced by 35 round curved magazines. The gun was heavy, long, and prone to fire when dropped. High rate of fire was also a problem (MP38/40 had a rate of fire reducer to keep them at a more controllable 400-500 rpm).

Still a good gun, just not a 'wonder weapon'. It was retired from the Soviet army immediately after WWII and was replaced by the PPsch 43, which was smaller, used the 35 round magazines, lower rate of fire, etc.

[IS-2 Tank Role and Gun Selection]

Originally posted by rexford:

U.S. firing tests with 122mm APBC predict that 122mm APBC will defeat excellent quality Panther glacis at 1450m against 85mm plate thickness, and 1850m against 80mm plate thickness.

The site also says here :

Further, after the first encounters between the JS-2 and German heavy tanks, it turned out that the sharp-nosed 122 mm APHE round - the BR-471 - could only penetrate the frontal armour of a Panther up to 600-700 metres. The less powerful frontal armour of a Tiger could be penetrated at distances up to 1200 metres. However, at such distances only very well trained and experienced gunners could score a hit. The vertical armour of a Tiger I, although thicker than that of a Panther, was more easily defeated by the sharp-nosed projectile of the JS-2 Main Gun, whilst it often ricocheted off the sloped armour of a Panther. Later, Soviet designers noticed the blunt-nosed projectiles worked fine against sloped armour....The first results of the IS-2 in combat (backed by the results of its tests at the Kubinka testing grounds in January of 1944) forced designers to look for new solutions to its problems....

...However, in the summer of 1944, the problem of the poor AP performance disappeared. The performance of the D-25T gun of the JS-2 against the German tanks improved dramatically. The reports from the front described cases where the BR-471 APHE round 122 mm projectile fired from 2500 metres ricocheted off the front armour of a Panther leaving huge holes and cracks in it.

This was explained by an interesting change of circumstances in the Summer of 1944. The Germans experienced a shortage of manganese and had to switch to using high-carbon steel alloyed with nickel, which made armour very brittle, especially at the seam welds.

Another report at the same website here gives the 122mm as penetrating Panther glacis as up to 2500, with the 100mm only up to 1500, and the L/71 88mm far behind at only 650 meters!

While tables here give different penetration values again! Here the 122 and 100 are very similar.

What gives? Are any of the tests accurate, or were they just skewed to fit the results wanted at the time by the particular government official?

[Nebelwerfer]

An account from a Soviet infantryman on the receiving end of a Nebelwerfer attack.

...quite a lot of the men had flung their guns away and were screaming at the tops of their voices, throwing off their equipment so that they could run faster. Others had collapsed trembling and crying or were having spasms like epilepsy...

...The officers were desperate. If a unit did not reach its objective the commanders- in those days anyway- were held responsible and were either summarily executed or arrested, tried and then shot...

...At the end of the third attempt we had shrunk to less than half strength and the attack was called off...

...It was a weapon which broke our regiment inside a quarter of an hour and as I have said before, we were not green troops.

Complete text here.

[Accuracy of Jagdtigers]

No idea what range this was about, but while on the subject of Jagdtiger stories, here's one from George Forty.

As a very young officer, newly commissioned in the summer of 1948, I remember vividly being taken to visit the battlefields in the Ardennes area and coming across what seemed to be an entire regiment of Sherman tanks which had been completely annihilated. There were Shermans lying in heaps everywhere one looked, turrets blown off, hulls ripped apart, most had clearly been brewed up -not for nothing was the Sherman known as the 'Tommy Cooker'. They had been advancing with the grain of the country and clearly been taken by surprise from a flank. The follow-up echelon had then turned right-handed towards their tormentor, but had found little cover along their new line of advance. The author of all this carnage was one single Jagdtiger, whose immense bulk still occupied a perfect fire position in a farmyard at the top of a commanding hill feature. The Jagdtiger itself had been burnt out, either by air attack, or perhaps by its own crew when they ran out of ammunition. The memory of the scene has remained with me for nearly 40 years, a perfect example of a tank destroyer doing its deadly work.

[Accuracy of Jagdtigers]

They did have SF 14Z commanders scissors periscopes as standard for rangefinding, which would have helped.

Typically, these binoculars provided spectacular views of terrestrial objects, greatly magnifying the perception of depth in a scene as well as the appearance of modeled relief. They were also used as rangefinders in both wars.

The gunners sight were graduated for that distance as well.

The range scales were adjustable from 0-8000 meters for the Spr.Gr., and 0-4000 meters for the Pz.Gr.43 ammo.

Still, 4 km is a long way away.

[ February 04, 2002, 10:56 AM: Message edited by: Paul Jungnitsch ]

[Tank Hunter rangefinders]

Nice new article in AFV interiors on the Jagdtiger, including this bit on use of stereoscopic periscope/rangefinders by the crew. These seem to be standard issue for Jagdtigers and JagdPanthers. Maybe also on Stugs and the other tank hunters, as well as some Tigers and Panthers. Bonus for long range accuracy for the vehicles that carried these?

There seem to have been a couple of different stereo binoculars used in German AFVs in WWII, but the SF 14Z that was normally used in the Jagdtiger was probably the most common. These optical instruments were a development of commercially available binoculars manufactured by Zeiss before the war. In Germany they were called "Scherenfernrohr" or scissors telescope (Zeiss called them "Relieffernrohre,"), but they were not a commercially successful product for the company when sold to the general public. An 8x20 model was offered from 1894 to 1906, and a 10x25 model from 1895 to 1908. This is probably the design that was later bought in vast numbers by the German military and used in both World Wars with little change.

Typically, these binoculars provided spectacular views of terrestrial objects, greatly magnifying the perception of depth in a scene as well as the appearance of modeled relief. They were also used as rangefinders in both wars by several service branches of most of the participants in the conflict, particularly the Germans. The smaller hand-held scissors periscopes were about 6x30 power, with objectives that could extend to 18 inches, and the usually included a folding hinge to reduce the overall length for transport. Larger tripod mounted instruments sometimes had 50mm objectives, very helpful for use at dawn and dusk, and these larger periscopes were the ones typically found in armored vehicles. The SF 14Z had a magnification of 10x, a field of view of 5 degrees, eye relief of 12.5mm, and inter-ocular distance of 57mm+ as stereo, and 58mm+ as periscope. Normally, the graticle in the right eyepiece showed 10mil squares with 2mil gaps at 5mil intervals. There was an interrupted cross at the center for the datum or aiming point. The graticle could be illuminated by an internal light bulb, and it also incorporated a small clinometer that was also graduated in mils. In our photo you can see the electrical wire and plug for the graticle light, the plug seen hanging on the right side of the periscope mount.

Exterior view:

Interior view:

Complete article on the Jagdtiger here

[ January 30, 2002, 12:24 AM: Message edited by: Paul Jungnitsch ]

[CMBB: T-34 Armor Flaws?]

MikeyD, you may find this interesting, what the Soviets thought of the Aberdeen report.

This quote from Russian Battlefield shows the type of problems the Soviets could have with armour, in this case with the Stalin:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr> In March 1944, firing tests were conducted with a 76.2 mm Gun ZiS-3 firing at an JS-2 tank from 500-600 metres. The tank's armour was penetrated from all sides of the tank. Whilst while most of the projectiles did not penetrate the armour completely, they created major splintering and fragmentation inside the turret. This explains the considerable losses of JS-85 and JS-122 tanks during the Winter-Spring of 1944.<hr></blockquote>

[CMBB: T-34 Armor Flaws?]

While the tank the Soviets sent the British seemed to be a high quality one, the one they sent the Americans had a lot of manufacturing problems. Strangely enought, the armour of this one was too soft, if I understand this passage right:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>A chemical analysis of the armor showed that on both tanks the armor plating has a shallow surface tempering, whereas the main mass of the armored plating is made of soft steel. In this regard the Americans consider that by changing the technology used to temper the armored plating, it would be possible to significantly reduce its thickness while preserving its protective ability.<hr></blockquote>

Maybe more evidence of the variable armour quality. Link to Russian Battlefield article.

[Suugestions for CMBB Combat: Panther Glacis Resistance and IS-2 Ammo Use]

Similar reasons for upgunning the T34, as far as I can see, not anti infantry and artillery, but anti tank:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>In his introduction, V.A.Malyshev noted that the victory at the Battle of Kursk cost the Red Army a high price:

"Enemy tanks opened fire on ours at distances of up to 1,500 metres, while our 76 mm tank guns could destroy "Tigers" and "Panthers" at distances of only 500-600 metres. Imagine the enemy has a kilometer and a half in his hands, while we have only half a kilometer. A more powerful gun needs to be put into the T-34 quickly."

In actual fact, the situation was significantly worse than Malyshev painted it, though attempts to correct the situation had been undertaken at the beginning of 1943.<hr></blockquote>

[Suugestions for CMBB Combat: Panther Glacis Resistance and IS-2 Ammo Use]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Analyzing the results of those (note these battles were tank vs tank) battles, the GBTU came to the conclusion that the armament and protection of the JS-1 didn't correspond to its intended tasks and was inferior to the German heavy tanks. GBTU recommended increased armor protection and rearming the JS-1 with a more powerful weapon<hr></blockquote>

Again, no mention of rearming the Stalin because it was needed to take out infantry better...

[ 01-22-2002: Message edited by: Paul Jungnitsch ]</p>

[Suugestions for CMBB Combat: Panther Glacis Resistance and IS-2 Ammo Use]

From what I've read the Stalin was upgunned specifically because it was viewed as inferior with the 85mm against the heavy German tanks. Infantry and artillery were not the driving concern. Again, from Russian Battlefield:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>The first person to suggest arming the JS tank with a gun larger than 85 mm was the Director and Chief Designer of Factory #100, Zh.Y.Kotin. He realized in August 1943, after studying the results of the Kursk battle, that the most effective anti-tank weapon employed against German Tigers was the Corps 122 mm Field Cannon A-19 Model 1931<hr></blockquote>

and:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>In regards to fighting the Panther tanks the tests at Kubinka clearly show that the 122 mm D-25 gun (V=780-790 m/s; g=25 kg) is superior to the 100 mm D-10 gun (V=890-900 m/s, g=15.6 kg).<hr></blockquote>

[ 01-21-2002: Message edited by: Paul Jungnitsch ]</p>

[Joe's Particle Effects]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>And with all the mods there is like 100 or more tanks.<hr></blockquote>

Including some heavy iron, Maus and E100:

[ 12-11-2001: Message edited by: Paul Jungnitsch ]</p>