PJungnitsch

Thought the colors looked a little wild, then I remembered this picture from Lindan and Warpheads site: Did the Germans really go for such color schemes on the field of battle? Trying to break up the outline? [ 10-12-2001: Message edited by: machineman ]

The 88's at range, the variable Panther/Kingtiger turret rotation speed are a few things that come to mind. No doubt there is a few things on the Allied side as well though and at any rate the point system is designed to even out the play balance. More effective weapons equals greater cost. However from the grog side of things it will be interesting what changes take place in CM2.

This was the original 17 kill quote, that I posted a while back: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And AFAIK most of that reputation was built when they could outrange their enemy: "...two Tigers acting as an armoured point...Normally the Russians would stand in ambush at the safe distance of 1235 meters...the Tigers...made use of their longer range...within a short time they had knocked out 16 T-34's which were sitting in open terrain, and when the others turned about, the Tigers pursued the fleeing Russians and destroyed 18 more tanks."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It was meant to illustrate that Tigers WERE capable of living up to their reputation if conditions were favorable, ie outranging their opponent in OPEN terrain, which is what I thought the whole thread was about. In case this is not clear enough, it was not meant to be an average (cough)JasonC(cough). There was no close terrain that enabled the T-34's a flanking shot from close in, the T--34's were not dug in, there was no airforce or artillery or mines interferance etc, and they were T-34/76's AFAIK, not Stalins. This was also one of the first uses of Tigers and the long range accuracy of the 88 came as a surprise to the Soviet force. I sort of assumed the debate is not about the effectiveness of Tigers in the whole war, it is about their accuracy at long ranges in favorable conditions, which didn't happen all the time, Kursk probably being a good example. Certainly there would be factors other than muzzle velocity such as optics, accuracy of tube manufacture, accuracy of traversal and gun-laying manufacture, etc to consider, but I still think it may be as simple as giving the crews that used rangefinders an accuracy bonus at ranges over 1000 meters or so, especially when firing from defense. For the Tigers it would be occasional crews, while for Nashorns, JadgPanthers, JagdTigers and A/tk 88's it would be more general from what I remember. Stugs also should benefit somewhat. Jeff correct me if I am wrong on the rangefinder use. [ 10-11-2001: Message edited by: machineman ]

That's a pretty good summary, and this quote is probably what this thread boils down to. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The point is not that the Tigers weren't capable of exceptional performances, but how typical was it, and what are the variable that made these possible?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> BTW, the engagement I posted was not, as has been pointed out, meant to glorify the Tiger as an all around wonder machine (there was actually an engagement in the same book in which the Tigers did extremely poorly -close range fighting in soft terrain ). But it was meant to show that for a time at least mid war Tigers could wreak havoc especially if they could take on the T-34 opposition at the extended ranges this thread is about. As far as factors that would enable them to do this (aside from the high velocity of the gun) could be listed precision manufacture of gun and aiming components, heavy stable gun platform, high resolution optics, and well trained crews. Use of rangefinders by at least some gave an added advantage. Plus as well I imagine the policy of using the heavy battalions as 'firefighters' gave the crews lots of practice while the heavy armor kept them alive, which would help moving the talented crews up the 'ace' ladder.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This must be the most inept armor attack in history. If this story is taken at face value an entire tank battalion (+) was unable to advance more than 300 meters against a single tank.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> There's a reason why the Tiger has a more fearsome reputation today than say, a Valentine or Crusader And AFAIK most of that reputation was built when they could outrange their enemy: "...two Tigers acting as an armoured point...Normally the Russians would stand in ambush at the safe distance of 1235 meters...the Tigers...made use of their longer range...within a short time they had knocked out 16 T-34's which were sitting in open terrain, and when the others turned about, the Tigers pursued the fleeing Russians and destroyed 18 more tanks."

In air combat that type of thing is called the 'ace factor'. During WWII it was estimated that the top 5% of pilots got 80% of the kills, or some such. Pilots were divided fairly sharply into either 'eagles' or 'turkeys', with very little inbetween.

I believe it is flotation as in 'not sinking so much into soft ground', ie: "Wherever we have seen Tiger and Panther tanks they have not demonstrated any inferior maneuverability. Near Puffendorf, Germany, several Tiger Royal tanks were encountered. These Tiger Royals were able to negotiate very soft ground and their tracks did not sink as deeply into the soft ground as did our own. Our tracks should be widened to a point where there would be no question of adequate flotation. The makeshift solution of adding paddle feet is not satisfactory."

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I have difficulties believing that this is historically accurate, given the sophisticated suspension and powerful motor. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It does seem odd, being as the Panther chassis was build specifically to have good flotation. Maybe it was just too much on the heavy side. Still... "It has been claimed that our tank is the more maneuverable. In recent tests we put a captured German Mk V against all models of our own. The German tank was the faster, both across country and on the highway and would make sharper turns. It was also the better hill climber." "The Mark V and VI in my opinion have more maneuverability and certainly more flotation. I have seen in many cases where the Mark V and VI tanks could maneuver nicely over ground where the American M4 would bog down." "We want wider tracks. This new E8 suspension is a lot better as far as flotation is concerned than our old suspension system, but the German tanks still have better maneuverability in the field." "The consensus of opinion of all personnel in the 66th Armored Regiment is that the German tank and anti-tank weapons are far superior to the American in the following categories. Superior Flotation. Greater mobility. This is directly contrary to the popular opinion that the heavy tank is slow and cumbersome"

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonC: The Germans made 2 million AP rounds for 88 long. Not the FLAK, nor the gun in the Tiger I, nor HE. For only 5000 weapons (70% of them towed PAK, incidentally). There were 400 AP rounds made for each of those weapons. If, as some seem to think, the kill chance per round had to be 1/5 or something, and if at least half the rounds weren't KOed or overrun unused, then every one of those weapons would have KOed 40 enemy tanks.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's a LOT of building on a shaky foundation. Stockpiles of certain late war German weaponry were huge compared to the numbers that made it into the field, due to the collapsing transportation system. Other factors, like the tendency to hit enemy tanks not once, but again and again until they burn, or the massive late war withdrawals in bad conditions (in which the big awkward 88's and their ammo was probably the first to be left) all could put a monkey wrench into careful calculations like that. Still an an interesting theory but there must be figures from the field on actual shell consumption that would depend on a less convoluted chain of reasoning.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Range estimation is the key to the equation here.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That kind of talk brings back memories. Maybe the simplest thing would be to add an accuracy bonus to the guns and tank destroyers that were documented to carry rangefinders?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>WWII would have changed dramatically if the Japanese had been victorious there.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Scary thought. A Japanese victory would have meant a Japanese attack from the East to coincide with Barbarossa, therefore no transfer of Siberian troops to save Moscow, therefore no USSR. With no USSR German victory over England would have been assured and WWII would have been over. The Soviet purchase and development of Christie's designs couldn't have been money better spent.

"It has been claimed that our tank is the more maneuverable. In recent tests we put a captured German Mk V against all models of our own. The German tank was the faster, both across country and on the highway and would make sharper turns. It was also the better hill climber." -Lt. Col. Wilson M. Hawkins, Commanding 3rd Battalion, 67th Armored Regiment "It has to our mind greater maneuverability, being able to turn in the space it's sitting in, while our mediums require half a field The consensus of opinion is that the German Mark V can out-speed, out-maneuver and out-gun us, in addition to their added protection of heavier armor. What the American tanker wants is a high-velocity weapon, as high or higher than the Germans, mounted on a tank of equal maneuverability, and added armor plate. " -Rains M. Robbins, Sergeant, Tank Commander -Walter McGrail, Corporal, Driver

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And we can only ask questions why Hitler wanted to defend this encircled peninsula, instead of redrawing forces by ships to the Germany to defend the Reich itself.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> From what I understand the idea behind this was to hold the Baltic coast as long as possible, as much hope was placed on the new type submarines which were training there to cut the Atlantic lifeline (which by all accounts they may have been able to do). The best steel also went to these subs, leading to such diverse things as the short life of Me-262 jet engines and the front plate of Hetzers being limited to 60?mm. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Big stuff as keeper of museum explained to me, that these wepons where called "mooing cow" (my transl.), there was 300m (on the left) and 240mm versions, it was rocket projectile and the "warhead" contained fuel and little bit of HE, so the fuel was spread and ignited creating vacuum in certain area. Can someone provide more details on this?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sounds like a fuel air bomb. This shows one going off. (slow to load) <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Hope you liked it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Nice post.

Fully agree with JasonC's points. But if the conclusion is that gun and armor is only a marginal concern, someone had better tell the US government to stop spending billions of dollars on M1's when the M48's would have worked just as well, and the Israelis to stop fiddling with their Merkavas when their Shermans can still be rebuilt. Like it or not, all modern armies except the Soviet type have gone the WWII German route, and are all driving machines that are as well armoured and armed and sophisticated as possible, modern day King Tigers. The problem with taking that type of lesson from WWII (if indeed that is what I am hearing), is that the side with the poorer tanks always had overwhelming advantages in other factors. This coincidence does not justify producing substandard tanks. The Germans got away with the early battles in Russia despite most of their tanks being outclassed by T-34's and KV-1's, in the same way that the Western allies got away with pitting Shermans against Panthers and Tigers in the war in the West.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Or maybe even more accurate still to say the Germans were defeated by the operational and strategic capabilities of Allied weapon systems.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Agreed. That is pretty much summed up by this quote from that link I put up: "The only reason that we've gone as far as we have is summed up in "Quantity and the Cooperation of Arms." The Germans were basically fighting a 'poor mans war' that was doomed from the start in the west. Superior tanks were one of the few things that held it together for so long. BTW, for the original poster (if he is still reading) here's an interesting link on how King Tigers were actually used. Kingtigers in action Note the key words 'very cautiously' and 'always with other tanks and infantry'.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Now, my general impression is that in the few RL opperations where the Germans attacked with armor (in the ETO) they did not perform very impressively at all, and allied armor was able to hold its own.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Remember this famous list of opinions from American tankers at the time: the Eisenhower report One quote that stood out: "As we go now every man has resigned himself to dying sooner or later because we don't have a chance against the German tanks. All of this stuff that we read about German tanks knocked out by our tanks makes us sick because we know what prices we have to pay in men and equipment to accomplish this. For the general comparison of the equipment of the Germans and of ours. I believe that on a whole our equipment is superior to the Germans, but our tanks are no match for the Panther and Tiger tanks, and it is just suicide to tackle them."

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As for the quality of German tanks hansfritz. First you have to realize that German tanks were killed on the Western front. They were killed by the thousands, and the biggest killer was allied tanks and tank destroyers, followed closely by allied planes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Maybe then more accurate to say that the biggest killer of German tanks on the Western front was the fuel and supply situation, a 'Materialschlacht' or however that word is meant to be. While overwhelming artillery and airpower wasn't much good at killing German tanks specifically, it was good at blowing up fuel trucks, repair depots, ammunition supplies, infantry, transport, etc, making the job of the Shermans and the tank destroyers much less costly then it would have been if they would have had to tackle the Panthers and Tigers on a more level playing field.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As for the quality of German tanks hansfritz. First you have to realize that German tanks were killed on the Western front. They were killed by the thousands, and the biggest killer was allied tanks and tank destroyers, followed closely by allied planes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Agree with a lot of the post, but tend to disagree with this point. This may be of interest: "It is interesting to see the causes for losses of Panther tanks. Three British studies of captured Panther tanks (or wrecks of Panther tanks), two of them during Normandy and one during the Ardennes battle gave the following results: Armour Piercing Shot 63 Hollow Charge Projectiles 8 High Explosive Shells 11 Aircraft Rockets 11 Aircraft Cannon 3 Destroyed by crew 60 Abandoned 43 Unknown 24 Evidently two of the main causes for losing Panthers were abandonment and destruction by the crews. These two categories accounted for nearly half the Panthers lost and during the period in August they constituted 80 % of all the Panthers lost." From Zetterling, here

We had a big discussion on the Puppchen a while ago. Ian Hogg states in 'Tank Killers' that the Puppchen was a more complex version of the Panzershreck, fitted with a combination cartridge/rocket firing system that gave more range and mounted on a light wheeled carriage that gave more accuracy, but that there were problems with the perfection of it. The other view I remember was that it was an early attempt at a bazooka-type weapon, and when the Germans captured some bazookas and tested them they realized that the shoulder-fired design was plenty good enough and switched production to the Panzershrek. Either way there wasn't a whole lot of them made. The reasons the KV's didn't have more impact than they did had more to do with lack of numbers, maintenance, repair and crew training than anything else. Some of them did give the Germans fits but there was simply not enough to make a difference.

Zetterling certainly thinks so: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It is sometimes said that the Sherman had an advantage over the Panther due to its powered turret traverse. It is questionable if this really was much of an advantage. First of all the Panther had powered traverse, not electric but hydraulic. This meant that the speed with which the turret could be traversed was dependent on the engine speed. If the driver, gunner and commander of the tank were trained together this was not much of a problem. The driver could select a suitable gear to ensure quick traverse of the turret. If this was done the turret could be rotated 360° in 15 to 18 seconds. This corresponds to an angular velocity of 20 - 24 °/sec, which was only marginally slower than the Sherman.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The Panther does idle more around 1200 rpm, but 'working rpm' is 1800 to 2000, which is only a second or two away. Hopefully BTS has not given up on this for CM 2, there will be a lot of Panthers there too...it will be interesting if the first mark of the Panther, which DID have a slow single speed turret, will be modeled with a slower turret yet, or whether they will leave it the same.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Right Skipper! I ran a big 12 cylinder Fairbanks-Morse diesel in the navy. That sucker didn't have any glow plugs and didn't need any electicity to start. A bit of compressed air, some diesel fuel, and 24 pistons 8 1/8" in diameter is all she needed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I helped overhaul (more like wash the parts for) a big diesel Belarus tractor engine once when I was still in school. V-12 with pistons like paint cans. The rumor was that the tanks ran the same engine. Really interesting, apart from the size of the thing. Nothing was really balanced or shimmed inside, the philosophy seemed to be just make it a huge size and turn it slow, it would make the power needed and everything would hold together.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The problem with Diesels in cold weather has nothing to do with the temperature of the air being taken in (The colder the better, as far as internal combustion engines are concerned), but it has everything to do with the fact that Diesel fuel has the nasty tendency to turn to jelly in very cold weather.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Here in the 'Great White North' anyway, diesel gelling is relatively easy to sort out. Special winter fuel or additives to regular summer fuel all work (I think during WWII the Soviets got good at adding the right amount of gasoline or kerosene to the diesel to lighten it up.) The big problem I'm assuming is diesel engines rely on the heat of compression to start them off, and that is just not as reliable or hot as an electric spark. For industrial engines here in the winter glow plugs themselves are marginal, therefore ether cans are everywhere. Plus when they are going they are much slower to get up to operating temperature, hence all the idling diesels rattling around town all winter. Big truck engines especially are usually not shut off, but idle all night long outside motels and truckstops. One of the disadvantages mentioned of the T-34 is that it took much longer to get it warmed up and going in the winter than German tanks that used gasoline engines.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>but really don't think they will take the time to model experimental, incredibly rare weapons.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> They were widely used, AFAIK, the SD-1's and SD-2's were for use against soft targets such as trucks, while the hollow charge SD-4HI were for use against armoured targets. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>At the start of the war, the most common fragmentation bombs were the SD-10 (22 lbs.) and SD-50 (110 lbs.). As the war progressed, it became apparent that there was a need for an area-saturation fragmentation weapon, rather than the earlier models that more or less required an accurate drop. The SD-2 was procured and mass-produced, and at the start of the Russian campaign was in widespread use. Initially, the bomblets were hung individually on aircraft (the Bf-109 and Ju-87, for instance, could carry 96 of them), but time went on, a plywood dispenser container was created and used by many airframes. In the largest size used, these plywood containers could carry up to 248 of the SD-2 bomblets. A low-level profile was needed for accurate drops, which became increasingly difficult due to ground fire. Of more use on the front was the SD-1 bomblet, which at 2.2 lbs offered a larger spread for the same size dispenser. With the design of a popular new dispenser, the AB250, this bomb case could be more accurately dropped in more profiles and would release about 225 SD-1s. For attacking armor, however, both the SD-1 and 2 were ineffective. After discovering that conventional bombs often were ineffective at scoring hits on moving or dispersed armor, the Germans introduced the 8.8 lb SD-4HI cluster bomblet, which had a hollow charge warhead that could penetrate as much as five inches of armor. As many as 78 SD-4HIs were packed into 1,100 lb containers and were used heavily by Ju-87 Stukas, which had the means to accurately drop them in steep dives.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> From here

Big gas engines tend to run hot, go through a lot of fuel, and don't last very long. Diesels tend to run cooler, are MUCH easier on fuel, and can last almost forever with proper care. The downside of extra weight is generally not a problem in machines that are heavy to begin with. Heavy equipment from trucks to bulldozers to earthmovers is all diesel now. Diesels are hugely better for heavy slow machines in the same way as gas engines are hugely better for light fast machines like motorcycles.

I've got the 'Handbook on German Military Forces' as well, and although it is interesting as a snapshot of what the US Army (or at least what the person writing it for the US Army) thought at that point in time from the observations that were made up to then, by no means is it a definitive work. Some of it, like that of the MP-44 given, is, as far as I know, simply wrong. But that was not the point of the Handbook. It was something thrown together quickly to give an idea of what the US would be facing in the last few months of the war, not meant to be the be-all and end-all.