PJungnitsch
-
Posts
192 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by PJungnitsch
-
-
Nice post, appreciate the work that went into it. Agree mainly, but would conclude myself that low visibility conditions, artillery superiority, superiority in numbers, and air superiority can make up for inferior tanks and doctrine, especially when defending.
Specifically the 'infantry tank only' Sherman 75mm was a mistake, since they ended up fighting other tanks anyway, and get hammered even when all the other conditions are for them. Better to have a gun with better A/tk capability even at the expense of some anti infantry. Ergo a 'main battle tank' with a hi velocity 76mm or 90mm gun.
Also the very light armor, open top, and marginal gun of the M10 tank destroyers is not a problem as long as 1)they get the first shot in from close range 2)the Germans do not have much artillery, do not have ground attack aircraft, do not have infantry prowling around....
The US experience in the west show more how crushing material superiority plus favorable conditions could make poor armour, and poor armour doctrine, work.
-
This site explains a lot of abbreviations.
eg: HVAP
Hyper Velocity Armour Piercing. The USA name for an APCR projectile in World War II.
or: APCR
Armour Piercing Composite Rigid. An anti-tank projectile which has a high density solid core (the penetrator) of smaller calibre than the gun bore. The penetrator is carried by a full calibre sabot of light weight material. In an APCR projectile the sabot remains with the penetrator in flight after firing, unlike an APDS projectile in which the sabot is discarded. In the USA this type of projectile was called HVAP. More information about this and other ammunition types is in the Background Information section.
A nice site all around, actually.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I had heard a number like that before also but assumed it was meant for mg gunners on bombers. Now I am curious, was the life expectancy of flyboys better or worse compared to infantry?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That would depend so much on who they were flying for, at what time, and with what aircraft.
Allied bomber losses were very high mid war during daylight bombing before the Mustang escort fighters entered service, while after that point it was very dangerous to be a German fighter pilot in the west, with turnover per MONTH hitting 30 to 40%, AFAIK. Another factor is that German pilots flew until they were dead or disabled, while Allied pilots (at least in the West), were rotated out after a certain time. Some of the top German aces, with hundreds of victories, were themselves shot down 10 or more times and just happened to get lucky and survive.
And then of course there is the so-called 'Ace Factor' in that most pilots in a tough environment die relatively quickly, while those that survive can become almost unbeatable. The top ace of the war ended it with 352 victories.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Yet this is exactly what the Germans did when they introduced the Marder series and the Nashorn on the Eastern Front.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
They knew they were building deathtraps, but Marders and Nashorns were thrown together as 'stop-gap' vehicles, just to get SOME mobile anti tank capability out there. All the newer models took pains to be as low and as heavily armored as possible ie Jagdpanzer IV, Jagdpanther, Hetzer. Low to conceal in ambush positions, and armored so you don't have to gamble on always getting in the first killing shot.
As Jason points out, the US had so many other advantages that the deficiencies of the lightly armored, open-topped US tank destroyers (or the Sherman 75's) were simply not nearly the problem they could have been.
But as I've stated before, you don't always have the opportunity to fight an enemy that is outnumbered and short of fuel and supplies under conditions of complete air superiority and crushing artillery superiority. Skies filled with German tank hunting aircraft would have doomed the tank destroyers, as would have artillery barrages on the scale the Allies had. And this is what I think doomed the US tank destroyer concept after the war.
It's not that the Allies won the war in the west, that was going to happen no matter how many bad decisions they made, it's why it took so long and cost the casualties it did when they had such overwhelming odds on their side.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Soooo...is the consensus then that we keep the Shermans to support the PBI (who incidentally were getting killed in numbers that vastly outstripped the poor bloody tankers), but send along the odd Pershing just in case those naughty Germans managed to bring something tougher than a PzKW Mk. IV to the party? (This is in our imaginary ideal tank battalion.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Better yet would be welding a roof on an M36 turret w/90mm and dropping it into the Sherman chassis (which did fit and was done) so they could cope if the Pershing was late to the party.
Pretty much the same as what the Soviets did with the T-34/85 and the Stalin.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>By WWII the British had under development a new calibre and a new weapon (a semi-auto) BUT with the demands of war the ability to change courses in mid-stream prevented it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
"The combination of severe economic problems and vast quantities of standard .303" weapons and ammunition in store after the First World War militated against the adoption of any new calibre. The 1930s rearmament programme therefore saw such weapons as the American Browning aircraft machine gun and the Czech ZB30 (better known in its British incarnation as the Bren Gun) expensively redesigned to fire the rimmed cartridge."
A nice explanation of the progress of British military rifle cartridges
-
There doesn't seem to be a lot of information around on US TD's. Everytime Slapdragon goes off on one of his 20 to 1 uber Hellcat tangents I try to find some info and come up nearly empty.
They did seem to improve considerably throughout the war, which is complicated by the fact the opposition grew less and less as things drew to a close. The impression I have right now is that late in the war in a 'scavenger' role, picking apart the collapse of an opposing army with no airpower, little fuel, and low on artillery, tanks and trained manpower they did ok, although with a lack of tanks to fight they often used in an infantry support role blasting strong points, for which they would have better been a tank or Stug.
In heavier going, say for the conditions the Germans or Soviets faced on the Eastern front, lightly armored TD's without overhead protection would have been deathtraps, unless used for indirect fire like a SU-76 or maybe as a type of fast tracked reconnaissance vehicle, like a Lynx.
I think that was the conclusion post-war, that any success they had was a product of the very favorable condions at the time, which would be unlikely to be repeated facing the Soviets or anyone else.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>(The US and Commonwealth effectiveness on the ground was because of copious use of very high quality artillery from the 60mm US mortar to the 240mm canon, wide availability of the M4 and M10 in infantry support roles, extreme mobility, and a very high quality logistics and communication system.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Fully agreed. And I don't agree with Slapdragon very often.
And on the air superiority thing: Infantry tactics get a lot easier when anything that moves on the other side gets strafed and rocketed as a matter of course, and when attacks are preceded by carpet bombing on a massive scale by the heavies and followed by spot attacks by the mediums on anything that is left. Advanced German small unit tactics that increased the firepower and effectiveness of each unit kept the Germans in the game, but could not by itself overcome everything else stacked against them. The stories of how the Allies suffered when they were caught in 'friendly fire' airpower incidents show what a difference command of the air makes. The ability to pound your opponents to mush with artillery and aircraft before the PBI occupy the ground can make inferior small unit infantry tactics look pretty good.
-
That's about the best summary of the situation I've read. Instead of throwing all their weight behind the Pershing, or alternately upgunning the Sherman with the 90mm so it could at least throw a good punch, interdepartmental squabbling and tank destroyer doctrine doomed the Sherman crews to fight with the med velocity 75mm and 76mm.
BTW, for anyone near Calgary, AB, there is nice upgunned ex-Israeli Sherman at Olds, sitting outside the Legion. Supposedly it fought in Europe, was sold to the Israelis who upgraded it and eventually sold it back when it became obsolete.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>the gift of total isolation from the war<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That's the key to the problem. The US adapted as quickly as anyone once they actually started heavy fighting. The Germans were also outgunned when they started the war, and the Soviets had thousands of light tanks that were chewed up when they started fighting.
No one seemed to learn until they got their nose bloody.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The main reason the US stuck with the smaller guns was turret size/weight. Limitations of production time, available space for shipping tanks overseas, etc dictated a turret on the Sherman that just couldn't handle the stresses of a gun that generated much higher recoil forces.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The M36 turret with the 90mm gun will drop straight in to the Sherman chassis, and some M36's were in fact created this way.
Going to the 76mm instead of the 90mm was just one of those dumb decisions AFAIK. The 76mm was thought to be enough, and it simply wasn't up to it.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And yes, Guy /Gun is correct about the German philosophy re LMGs and infantry combat. Their view of the roles of the LMG and the individual rifleman were fundamentaly different than the US and British. And it worked well enough that the US eventually adopted it as its own (post war).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The writeup I have states:
"In effect, a German infantry squad was just one big machine-gun unit. While the MG-42 gunner blasted away, the other men in the squad spotted targets, provided protection, and of course, carried a lot of ammunition."
However it then goes on to say that when the MP-44 came out the infantry company was reorganized with less men overall, less machineguns, but still a net increase in firepower due to the increased effectiveness of the MP-44 compared to the K98.
-
The electric Sherman traverse was very similar to that in the PanzerIV, with a seperate small motor running a generator dedicated to powering an electric traverse motor. As long as that small engine was running turret speed was fast.
Heavier guns and turrets demand more power to turn so the first model of Panther as well as all models of Tiger I had a more powerful hydraulic driven traverse with one speed, which was slow. All other Panthers as well as all Tiger II's had an improved hydraulic traverse with speed dependent on engine rpm. At the recommended 'working speed' for the engine Panther and Tiger II turret speed should be similar to a Sherman, while at engine idle they would be much slower.
-
Almost forgot that argument, but from what I remember the main rebuttal was that it would be difficult for the driver to rev up the engine a bit to get max turret rotation. To me this reasoning always seemed weak. Enough to downgrade the speed from 'fast' to 'medium' perhaps, but all the way to slow seems excessive.
I don't have the Panther specs but the King Tiger, which ran a similar system, rotated the turret at 19 seconds at 2000 rpm, which, coincidentally, was the specified speed the engine SHOULD be at while driving along, in any gear.
The Tiger I, on the other hand, did have a slow turret, as did the very first Panther model and the last Pz IV, which had had a similar system to the Sherman but lost it due to shortages of copper.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: There was no gyro system for the 90mm gun already on hand.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hi Steve, that may well be right. Also Mark IV's article mentions that the Germans rejected stabilization for the 88 because the necessary mechanism was too large. Could have been easier to set up on the smaller guns.
I'll just throw in a little more I found, then I've got to finish packing the motorcycle...
Another interesting excerpt from the same site, this time from a more modern system on the M60A3:
"M60 crews typically enjoy a love/hate relationship with their stabilization systems... gunners love them and loaders hate them. While trying to stand in the bouncing turret, the loader must quickly find and pull the round (called out by the commander) from a storage tube and shove it into the breech. With the tank traveling quickly over broken ground, it is hard enough to just stand up. But when the gunner is locked onto a target the breech is bouncing up and down while the turret is rotating back and forth, and the loader still has to get that round smartly into that moving breech opening. Once the round is shoved home, the loader hits his safe switch and yells "UP", bracing himself on anything handy for the shock of the gun firing and its recoil, then readies himself to grab another round. It is handy to be able to disengage the stabilization system on occasion, especially if it is malfunctioning."
And from the T-54:
"Even with the 2-axis Tsiklon gun stabilization system added with the T-54B, note, it was mentioned earlier in the article that the the T-54A, the first Soviet tank with stabilization, had only single axis vertical the tank could only accurately fire on the move when the driver maintained a steady course and speed, which is almost impossible during most battlefield situations. Normally, the commander would order the drive to halt the AFV for each shot and then move on as the gun was elevated and reloaded and a target again acquired by the commander."
-
Well guess who posted while I was writing that one up....
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV:
INVESTIGATIONS IN GERMANY BY Tank Armament Research<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thanks Mark IV, nice to see some actual info coming out of this discussion.
Checking out the AFV interiors web site, I came up with this:
From the 'Pershing' page:
"Interestingly, the M3 gun as fitted into the Pershing had no stabilization equipment, although the 105 howitzer support version of the vehicle, the M45, did have elevation stabilization. Perhaps Sherman crew's less than enthusiastic reports about the stabilizer in that AFV convinced the designers to forgo similar equipment in the M26 turret."
From what I remember way back when, Steve said that information on the effectiveness of US gyro stabilization in WWII in combat was confusing and contradictory. They did have a copy of a factory test which showed the device working well, and so they decided to give an advantage, but he stressed that it was small. It is possible too much of an advantage was given.
My feeling is that while gyros did become an important post-war feature in tanks eventually, this does not mean that they were any good in WWII. Electronics, servo mechanisms, and tank suspensions have come a long way since then.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Commissar:
Another thing about the East Front's Unit Handbook, it states that the IS-2's cannon could hit with such force that it would shear the turret off enemy tanks. I've heard of the ISU-152 doing this to Panther turrets but I've never read an account of IS-2s doing this. the 122mm was a very powerful gun so it wouldn't surprise me but I've never read an account stating so. Anyone know of any sources?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Before the battle that nearly took my life, we were informed of a new Russian tank, the Josef Stalin III, that weighed forty-six tons and fired 122 mm projectiles. Because of its thick (120 mm), sloping armor, our 75 mm rounds would simply bounce off its skin unless we hit it from the side at a very close range. When I fired at the T-34 in the valley, I wasn't aware that there were a number of those monsters waiting two kilometers away at the edge of the forest. No sooner had I pulled the trigger than the Russian behemoth began firing. For once, the Russians struck our tank with their first round. The projectile hit our vehicle between the barrel and the barrel sleeve of our cannon. It tore our cannon off where it struck and, incredibly, entered the exposed chamber where it detonated, causing our loaded round to detonate as well. This tremendous explosion caused our waiting rounds, though not the magazine, to instantly explode as well. Eyewitnesses stated that our welded assault gun's armored roof was propelled from its position by a sheet of flame that rose about 100 meters into the air. I am sure this must have been an exaggeration, the force necessary to wrench that massive steel roof away from our tank and fling it through the air had to be considerable. Apparently, my training in mounting and dismounting in Bamberg as well as in Rastenburg paid off for I must have subconsciously crawled off the tank and sought cover behind it. Since our assault gun was totally destroyed and our crew miraculously lived through the ordeal, it became known as the "Miracle Tank of the Eastern Front."
The whole story is here
-
This is interesting to:
Prototype T-44 with captured Panther. From the Panther add center mounted turret for more accurate shooting, drivers hatch relocated from the front glacis to the roof for a stronger front plate, torsion bar suspension for better ride....and the 'Pantherization' of the T-34 is complete.
T-34 inspires Panther, Panther inspires T-44, T-44 becomes the father of the T-54 and thus all following Soviet tank designs.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Damn, that front turret is small on the kingtiger compared to the glacis too. Oh well.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It's quite a design with most of the frontal area being very heavily sloped to deflect oncoming rounds, leaving only a small heavily armoured vertical portion with no shot traps.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sirocco:
As a point of interest, I've always wondered, how do you pronounce the "jagd" in "jagdpanzer", "jagdpanther" and "jagdtiger"?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The German J is pronouced as the English Y, and A's are not any different, so I'd guess 'jagdpanther' is 'yagdpanther'.
Paul Jungnitsch
[ 07-07-2001: Message edited by: machineman ]
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1:
Stug's alone are credited with the destruction of over 20,000 AFVs during WW2<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
One of the things that seemed to come out of the optics thread was that rangefinders would give an edge, especially when fighting defensively, and use may have been common on Stugs, a branch of artillery that they were. Any info on that in the Jentz book, or was it just folding periscopes without the ranging function that were used?
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Firefly:
As for Monty being the worst general of the war, it's such a ludicrous statement that I doubt the originator of the claim was serious. Monty had plenty of faults, but was he worse than the Italian generals in their invasion of Greece?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Certainly not the worst, but probably one of the most overrated.
-
From what I understand while the 75mm L/43 and L/48 Stugs went to the anti tank role, the 105mm L/28 StuH carried on the 'pure' infantry support tradition of the original Stug assault guns.
On the note of Stug effectiveness I've come upon some interesting accounts from Drs S and R Hart:
"244th Assault gun brigade, which distiguished itself (Battle of the Bulge) by destroying 54 American tanks for the loss of only 2 assault guns"
"190th Assault Gun Brigade..defensive fighting in West Prussia..on 26 February 1945 alone, claimed a staggering 104 tank kills for the loss of only 4 vehicles...3rd March passed its one-thousandths tank kill since it's debut."
These would be of course exceptional accounts, but not bad for a vehicle in the last year of the war that production wise was basically a simplified Panzer III.
Useful, flawed Ian Hogg artillery book!
in Combat Mission Archive #3 (2001)
Posted
For the Canadians out there it is available at Smithbooks for 9.99 Canadian, even cheaper!
Handy when there was a thread going on about anti-tank rifles.
150 of the PAK 41 were made, which Hogg calls 'undoubtedly the best anti-tank gun in existence' (in 'Tank Killers' another excellent book of his). The squeeze bore gave the shell the short range punch of HVAP and the long range punch of APDS, without the inaccuracy.
It was the gun the Tiger was originally designed around, and the reason it ended up so overweight when they had to squeeze the 88 in instead.