Mr. Tittles

3rd DIVISION VEHICULAR COMBAT LOSES 29 June 1944 to 22 April 1945 (231 combat days) Medium Tanks 633 Light Tanks 147 Artillery Pieces 17 Assault Guns 38 Half-Tracks 204 Armored Cars 53 Motorcycles 115 2.5-ton Trucks 88 Jeeps 340 Others 197 TOTAL 1832 In addition to the losses reflected in the above table, there were "temporary" losses resulting from combat operation. Crews of the Division Maintenance Battalion repaired a total of 6,324 vehicles of all types. Of this number there were 1305 Medium Tanks, 395 Light Tanks, 728 Half-Tracks, 1063 2.5-ton trucks, and 1260 jeeps.

The study showed that German tanks did not have an advantage at close ranges (either attacking OR defending). Reasons for this are that guns (almost ALL guns) made exposing ones flank suicide because side armor was so much weaker than frontal armor. The Tiger was probably one of the last WWII vehciles that had some degree of side armor protection. Even this was not for most hits at 90 degrees. Other reasons were being outnumbered, facing excellent artillery (smoke and HE and concentration) and airpower (both against the panzers and the supply train system). The US M10s certainly had success in Normandy (mostly due to favorable terrain) but the later battles showed even the M36 and most all US armor was being hopelessly outclassed. This was due to open tarrain that allowed the Germans to utilize the advantage of armor, gun, sight, ROF (Panther could out-fire a M36!) and mobility. The US armor, with its narrow tracks, were at a distinct disadvantage in muddy terrain. Another mandatory reading is the comparison of US vs German equipment report to Ike in 1945.

3rd DIVISION VEHICULAR COMBAT LOSES 29 June 1944 to 22 April 1945 (231 combat days) Medium Tanks 633 Light Tanks 147 Artillery Pieces 17 Assault Guns 38 Half-Tracks 204 Armored Cars 53 Motorcycles 115 2.5-ton Trucks 88 Jeeps 340 Others 197 TOTAL 1832 In addition to the losses reflected in the above table, there were "temporary" losses resulting from combat operation. Crews of the Division Maintenance Battalion repaired a total of 6,324 vehicles of all types. Of this number there were 1305 Medium Tanks, 395 Light Tanks, 728 Half-Tracks, 1063 2.5-ton trucks, and 1260 jeeps. [ October 12, 2004, 03:30 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

The Super Pershing was in Beltons book Death Traps. He welded on extra armor to both the turret and hull. Even using parts of a panthers bow armor I recall. http://3ad.com/history/wwll/special.photos.htm/super.pershing.htm An ordinary pershing was KOd by a Tiger I and another by a Nashorn. Both at short range. That same website has details about those actions also. [ October 12, 2004, 03:26 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

Do you have a particular battle in mind? In general, the US seemed particularly unhampered by superior German tanks during the summer of '44 </font>

It also reflects the absense of allied AT from being effective. In other words, German superiority. The study is a fairly recent work but I forget the title. I know of a university library that has it so I may drop in there to read it again.

DUEL AT DESSAU 3AD's "Super Pershing" vs. Germany's "King Tiger" http://3ad.com/history/news/super.pershing.1.htm

Theres a very good study of ETO armored battles. The bottom line(s) is that the German tech advantage was only decisive at medium and long ranges. Another thing is that most allied AFV were destroyed by AT fire while most German were not.

The M8 Armored car was actually supposed to be a light TD. It ended up being used in recon roles because there was nothing better for it to do. It was not a good vehicle to drive into an ambush because it had crappy off road capabilty and was difficult to turn around.

http://www.battletanks.com/images/M8_SP_Howitzer-1.jpg Heres the M8 GMC. Notice the open top TD style turret. A 57mm would make this a neat little TD for flanking enemy tanks/SP. The later versions had twin V8s and trannys. I wonder if it could turn in place then? I know of no other mortar SP besides the halftrack 81mm versions used by US and German armies. Certainly no one had a 120mm or 4.2 in mortar carrier. having a fast moving vehcile that could quickly point a mortar in any direction is very desirable.

I worked with a guy who was a warrant officer in WWII. He claimed that M12s were used against immobile Panzers at great range. This was one of the earliest SP weapons of WWII. It mounted a 155mm gun on the M3 Tank chassis. The engine was moved forward to provide a working space at the rear of the hull. In this space, the WWI Model M1917 or M1918 155mm gun was mounted. The rear of the hull carried a heavy spade which was lowered to the ground before firing to absorb recoil. About 100 M12s were built and put into storage. In 1943, with the invasion of Europe being planned, 74 were refurbished and put into service. It proved to be a powerful and effective weapon providing support to fast moving armored columns. It could demolish German tanks and was greatly feared by the enemy. It could be used in a direct fire support role. When the 155mm rounds were fitted with concrete piercing fuses, they could penetrate up to 6 feet of concrete before exploding. The Artillery Board asked for more but this was not possible since the supply of WWI 155mm guns was exhausted. http://www.battletanks.com/m12_gun_motor_carriage.htm http://www.battletanks.com/images/M12-4.jpg

Yeah right. The US 37mm was pretty much useless in 44-45. The AP was weak, the HE was a contact detonating small round that failed on soft ground and the cannister was short ranged (probably the best round of all actually). The M8 greyhound would have been better off with some auto cannon. The M5 tank was hopelessy outclassed in 44-45. [ October 10, 2004, 02:16 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

The problem, AFAIK, is that mortars are mouth-fed weapons and need huge elevation clearance. This isn't practical for turret mount. Also, having them mounted on HT allow them to be fairly easily dismounted, where turret mounted ones would be longer to remove, if at all possible. Turret mounted mortar where designed and built though during the cold war (was it Brandt in Belgium ? I don't remember.) but I don't know what was said about their usefulness. </font>

The US did have the M8 SPG (the 75mm howitzer mounted in a Stuart type chassis. This was an open topped vehicle itself. How much modification to get a 57mm ATG in there? How much moddding to get a M4 105mm sherman to have power traverse? Same for putting a mortar in a M8 armored car or a 90mm AA gun in a priest? A friend of mines father was in a US cav unit in WWII. He said the loot was primo but the ambushes were hell. Since they had first crack at looting towns, they had a morale incentive. They would drive around half hanging out of thier vehciles so as to be able to abandon them immediately.

I think my main thoughts are what could the US have done to make the summer of 1944 battles in ETO less hampered by superior German tanks. Aside from rearming with foriegn weapons or complete new tank designs, the US should have showed more ingenuity towards field modding equipment. In Seek, Strike and Destroy, its clear that the inbred US TD policy was naive of the German combined arms approach to warfare. Its actually fascinating that the US was not schooled by the Brits about what the Hienies were going to do to them. The Germans would attack slowly and deliberately in the desert and do so under cover of superior AT fire (88mm towed weapons). They would coordinate arty and other assets to determine the best way to suppress the enemy and attack the objective. The US use of lightly armored halftracks and even 37mm mounted on the back of tracks was suicide against such an attacker. Other naive aspects of the US TD policy was that crews of KOd TD vehicles were to continue the fight with small arms/grenades/etc and get to the enemys supplies! Kind of sad really.

The US armored cav units in WWII had to use armored cars, halftracks, jeeps and light tanks. The US TD units also used armored cars. I would envision the mini-hellcat being used by both. Both units needed fast units. The M5 chassis was quite fast. The M5 would have been much better than the armored cars (which had miserable turning ability when ambushed) for TD units (and adding a real TD punch) and cav units. The M18 was the ideal TD if the US was going to use its TD policy (which was naive at best). The M18 was too long in development and the M10 was the real TD to be used (after some initial battles using the halftrack/75mm). The M10 was really just an open top tank of sorts. Gen Bruce did not like it and would have preferred the M18. The mini-hellcat would have given the M10 units some real speed to augment the M10s. The bottom line is that all US units seemed to get into shootouts. They would run into armor sooner or later. The M4 105mm HEAT round had the penetration and accuracy that would have made this a multithreat tank. Mission oriented thinking or not, this weapon could have been a Panther deterent. The US mortar halftracks fired through the rear (mostly). Having a turreted mortar is much preferable. It would have been a field modification, not a production redesign. The US had field mods for this vehicle such as belly armor kits, etc.

The US should have made mini-hellcats on the M5 chassis. This would be a 57mm ATG mounted in an open turret on the light tank chassis. If a good HVAP or accurate APDS was made also, this light weapon would give some teeth to this obsolete light tank. They should have also made M4 shermans with 105mm that had power traverse. The powerful HEAT round for this weapon could destroy a panther head on. Another weapon could be the M8 armored car with a 81mm mortar in a rotating turret. This would give the TD units better smoke (WP) throwing capability and also the cav units an indirect fire weapon.

6 pdr AP on Panther Exposure Success % 0º 45º 90º 135º 180º Full view 90 % - - 750 - 900 50 % 50 800 1350 800 1200 30 % 100 1200 1800 1200 1800 Hull down 90 % - 100 100 50 50 50 % - 300 850 300 800 30 % 50 700 1150 800 850 6 pdr APCBC on Panther Exposure Success % 0º 45º 90º 135º 180º Full view 90 % - - 850 - 1150 50 % 50 750 1650 1000 1450 30 % 100 1500 2200 1400 1950 Hull down 90 % - 50 50 50 50 50 % - 250 850 250 850 30 % 50 800 1150 850 1150 WW2 hit probabilities WO 291/171, Effectiveness of British anti-tank guns Dated 1943. Ranges in yards, armour as detailed in notes. Basically this data says that HD panthers are susceptible to 57mm fire from 30% of the cases at 50 yards range. I would assume a high hit probability at this range.

TDs were often used as artillery. So were 90mm AA guns and anything else that could shoot HE. The US had a shortage of 105mm ammo towards the end of the war and anything that could shoot HE was used to fill the gap (even captured German guns). Tanks, even if not shooting indirect, will expend more HE typically than AP.

I believe that firing HEAT rounds into fuel cells that had a interior honey-comb mesh (sort of like 3D mesh that stopped the fuel tanks from exploding when empty) would defeat the early shaped charges. This was certainly a surprise since fuel cells were always vulnerable parts of vehicles. The idea of using a fuel cell as a layer of protection was quite a bonus. Perhaps the 'forged' liner is interrupted as it is constantly meeting metal (the fine mesh in all directions) and then encounering the fuel (diesal). I read where the 'jet' is actually more solid than many imagine. An experiment proved it by taking the conical liner and slicing it into three small rings and then reassembling it. When fired into a deep pool, they found three distinct pieces of elongated metal at the bottom. The had not fused together!

The reality is that the M10 was hardly used as it was supposed to according to the US TD doctrine (SEEK, STRIKE, DESTROY or whatever the slogon was). TD battalions were often split up and companys/platoons doled out to support armored attacks/defend crossroads. TD battalion HQs were actually units without real purpose. I can support this with data. By the end of the war, the real TD quality was a gun that could hit hard. The 90mm was the preferred TD (especially the gasoline version with HP). [ October 08, 2004, 11:18 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

Hardly plausible. The Germans would certainly use asstes like Tigers/Nashorn against any doctrine just due to the fact that there was nothing else that could stop hordes of enemy AFV. They were spread too thin and the enemy too thick. The Allied attack in Europe was dominated by superior firepower through air supremecy and artillery (ammo) overkill. The plentiful AFV and infantry had the Germans rocking on thier heels. I see no reason to assume that the US would use any vehicle like the Germans did.

In France, most M10s and other TDs were parceled out as AT assets to attacking tank battalions, etc. They were not the 'forward' elements but typically held to the near-rear to respond to threats. The Germans did this with Marders also. They were used in attacks but as overwatch, etc.

WO 291/1271 The ranging and dispersion of HE M67 (Anti-Tank) Shell in the 105mm Tank Howitzer An interesting alternative was the 105mm howitzer. This was installed in shermans and had the ability to penetrate the Panther front (including sloped armor)with HEAT rounds at any range. It did not have power traverse and given the shermans need for large turns to change direction, it was not suited to mix it up with panthers (which could quickly change hull direction if needed and had power traverse). Using Priests in the direct fire mode probably was done but the need for HEAT ammo would limit this. The HEAT ammo for this weapon was surprisingly accurate. This gun ranges in close agreement with the firing tables for the 105mm howitzer in the M7 howitzer motor carriage. Percentage hits expected, once the MPI is adjusted on to the target: Range (yds) Panther turret 5 ft × 2 ft Panther head-on 12 ft × 10 ft Panther side-on 23 ft × 7 ft 500 89 100 100 1000 43 100 99 1500 21 94 89 2000 12 76 73 2500 7 56 55 3000 4 35 36 3500 2 19 20 It is considered that a hit probability of 50% is a good line for "satisfactory" engagement range, so it is recommended that engagements be conducted at 900 yards on hull-down targets and 2500 yards for hull-up ones.

The 90mm would probably not be able to be fitted to a US halftrack due to its weight. I would suggest using a Priest with the 105mm removed. This would give it better mobility than any halftrack. It would be about equal or better than a US Sherman tank in terms of mobility. US tanks were generally very poor at cross country in muddy conditions. The report to Eisenhower stressed that. Not till the M4A3E8 (late in the war), did the US have a good 'mudder'.