Michael Emrys Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 Grav tanks are WAY too cool... I take it you are a member of the Star Wars generation? Y'know, the one that is permanently disconnected from reality? Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LUCASWILLEN05 Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 I think the tank may well be in a long, slow decline like that of cavalry duruing the late 19th Century considering the new ATGM technologies whch may eventually become too expensive and/or difficult to counter. However I don't see the tank becoming obsolete in the short or even medium term. It may well not happen until a future big great power conflict (one of global proportions perhaps) and even then the right technolgies and circumstances woud need to be in place to ensure the death of the tank as we know it. Rathe like cavalry was essentially rwendered obsolee during the course of WW1. An extended conventional conflict of this nature migh well see a replacement weapons system. Even then taks would likely remain a feature on the battlefield for some time after that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 Nano-robots. The first country that weaponizes and mass produces these is liable to turn warfare on its head. And if they get it wrong, the entire planet turns to grey goo. You thought nukes and chem and bio were WMDs? They got nothin' on the destructive potential of nanomachines. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 And if they get it wrong, the entire planet turns to grey goo. You thought nukes and chem and bio were WMDs? They got nothin' on the destructive potential of nanomachines. That's just one of a number of ways we might stumble upon a solution to the over-population problem that turns out to be more drastic than we bargained for. Frankly, I think that if matters continue on the present course, there is a better than even chance that the human race will no longer be around a century from now. Not saying it has to go that way, but given the way we cling obstinately to our various stupidities, we seem to be plunging headlong in that direction. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 Let us recall in WWII the US tank force was positively butchered on the battlefield, though we won the war the US tank command came out of the war thoroughly demoralized. The French tank force had been positively butchered at the start of the war too. And the Russians got slaughtered, and eventually so did the Germans. Go to the 1973 war, the Israeli tank force got butchered. The US had to draw from its own warfighting stock to resupply Israel with tanks during the war. In the Kuwait war the Iraqis got butchered. So tanks being left smoldering heaps on the battlefield is more the rule than the exception. The usual way war works is you hope you achieve victory before all you men and material are used up. The concept of minimal casualties/max protection while fighting a war is a relatively recent phenomenon. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
db_zero Posted December 4, 2014 Author Share Posted December 4, 2014 That's just one of a number of ways we might stumble upon a solution to the over-population problem that turns out to be more drastic than we bargained for. Frankly, I think that if matters continue on the present course, there is a better than even chance that the human race will no longer be around a century from now. Not saying it has to go that way, but given the way we cling obstinately to our various stupidities, we seem to be plunging headlong in that direction. Michael My aren't we in a grim mood today I remember back in the 70's they we're predicting and making movies about 2K where people were being turned into green crackers to feed an overpopulated earth. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacEwan Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 Let us recall in WWII the US tank force was positively butchered on the battlefield, though we won the war the US tank command came out of the war thoroughly demoralized. The French tank force had been positively butchered at the start of the war too. And the Russians got slaughtered, and eventually so did the Germans. Go to the 1973 war, the Israeli tank force got butchered. The US had to draw from its own warfighting stock to resupply Israel with tanks during the war. In the Kuwait war the Iraqis got butchered. So tanks being left smoldering heaps on the battlefield is more the rule than the exception. The usual way war works is you hope you achieve victory before all you men and material are used up. The concept of minimal casualties/max protection while fighting a war is a relatively recent phenomenon. This is very true, and the only reason there is a "minimal casualties/max protection" mentality developed in recent years is because of low intensity conflicts. We haven't had a good 'ol fashioned high intensity conventional war in modern times yet. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 Let us recall in WWII the US tank force was positively butchered on the battlefield Why would we recall that, when it isn't true? :confused: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 It is true. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocal Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 It is true. In what fights? I seem to recall US armor routinely tooling the Germans in Normandy and the Bulge. 98 engagements were identified, including 33 from the Ardennes fighting.The average range Shermans inflicted kills on the panzer's was 893yds, and the panzer's averaged kills at 946yds. The study concluded that the most important factor was spotting and shooting first. Defenders fired first 84% of all engagement, inflicting 4.3 times more casualties on the attackers then suffered. When the attackers fired first, they inflicted 3.6 times as many casualties on the defenders compared to own losses. 29 engagements involved Panthers and Shermans. The Shermans had an average numerical advantage of 1.2:1. The data showed the Panther had a 10% advantage over the attacking Sherman when the Panther defended, but the Sherman was a whopping 8.4 times more effective then attacking Panthers when the Sherman defended. Overall, the Sherman was 3.6 times as effective as the Panther in all engagements. German A/T guns however, were by far the most effective anti-Sherman weapon they had. From the study itself: Data on World War II Tank Engagements Involving the U.S. Third and Fourth Armored Divisions According to Table II, the most common type of engagement was Shermans defending against Panthers, and the Shermans fired first. In 19 engagements, involving 104 Shermans and 93 Panthers, 5 Shermans were destroyed compared to 57 Panthers. The second most common engagement was US Tank destroyers defending against Panthers, with the TDs firing first. In 11 engagements, involving 61 TDs and 19 Panthers, 1 TD was lost compared to all 19 Panthers. The most successful enemy weapon was antitank guns defending. In 9 engagements (3rd most common), 19 a/t guns inflicted 25 casualties on 104 total attacking Shermans, losing 3 guns in exchange. The 4th most common engagement was Shermans attacking Panthers, and the Shermans fired first. In 5 actions a total of 41 Shermans fought 17 Panthers, losing 2 and taking 12 Panthers in return. In 40 actions in which the US forces were attacking, they had 437 weapons and lost 100 (23%). The Germans had 135 and lost 45 (33%). In 37 actions in which the Germans were attacking, the US had 205 weapons, losing 14 (7%), and the Germans lost 83 of 138 (60%). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted December 4, 2014 Share Posted December 4, 2014 In what fights? I seem to recall US armor routinely tooling the Germans in Normandy and the Bulge. Wow. If true, those numbers are far better than I would have dreamt possible. They certainly put the lie to the "Deathtraps" myth. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocal Posted December 5, 2014 Share Posted December 5, 2014 Wow. If true, those numbers are far better than I would have dreamt possible. They certainly put the lie to the "Deathtraps" myth. The figures for the post were pulled from this book: http://www.amazon.com/Data-World-War-Tank-Engagements/dp/1470079062 Which is in turn based on a Ballistics Research Laboratory memo. Obviously this single monograph, covering only two armored divisions over a five month period, doesn't tell the complete story so if MikeyD wants to support his assertion that the American tank arm was "positively butchered on the battlefield" he's certainly free to do so. I'm just skeptical he can, given that the number of major tank battles throughout western Europe from '44-'45 number somewhere south of fifty total. Most of us on the forum know them by name and more than a few posters know the outcomes of every single one. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
db_zero Posted December 5, 2014 Author Share Posted December 5, 2014 Wow. If true, those numbers are far better than I would have dreamt possible. They certainly put the lie to the "Deathtraps" myth. Michael I disagree this puts the "Death Trap" idea to mythical status. There is merit in it. Some of the above mentioned narratives sounds like the may be from the histories of the 4th Armored Division which was a very crack Armored division. The CO had a very well deserved reputation for knowing how and when to use armor and other supporting arms in a coordinated combined manner and maneuvered his forces in such a way that when they were committed they often had an advantage. At the lower levels of command they were also quite competent and experienced in the business of war. There may have also been other factors involved like artillery –which was a huge American advantage the German despised and airpower. Units like the 4th Armored were probably at the exceptional end of the scale and not the normal part of the spectrum. No question other armored units were like the 4th, while others were not so exceptional to far less competent. Just like in the Battle of the Budge. Some divisions like the 106th crumbled, others like the 99th did well and the crack airborne units gained notoriety. There much room for nuance when discussing these sorts of things. Put 10 guys off the street and give them the latest and most advanced assault rifles, combat gear and pit them against a well trained, experience group of 5 men armed with bolt action 22s and gear from the Goodwill store and a smart betting man would put money on the later group. Put 10 men vs 10 men with equal levels of experience, motivation and skill and I would venture to say differences in weapons and gear will make a large difference. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted December 5, 2014 Share Posted December 5, 2014 Oh, absolutely. I completely agree. If you - like Kettler - prefer militant ignorance and myth over reality then it has tremendous merit. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted December 5, 2014 Share Posted December 5, 2014 Some of the above mentioned narratives sounds like the may be from the histories of the 4th Armored Division which was a very crack Armored division. The CO had a very well deserved reputation for knowing how and when to use armor and other supporting arms in a coordinated combined manner and maneuvered his forces in such a way that when they were committed they often had an advantage. At the lower levels of command they were also quite competent and experienced in the business of war. There may have also been other factors involved like artillery –which was a huge American advantage the German despised and airpower. Units like the 4th Armored were probably at the exceptional end of the scale and not the normal part of the spectrum. No question other armored units were like the 4th, while others were not so exceptional to far less competent. I don't disagree with any of that, but it is beside the point. The "Deathtraps" argument is that Shermans were always at a disadvantage against the heavier German armor and ordering them into battle was tantamount to ordering them to commit suicide and that only a fortunate or exceptionally skilled few survived to tell the tale. Which is plainly not the case even among units not at the end of the scale of the 2nd., 3rd., and 4th. Armored. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocal Posted December 5, 2014 Share Posted December 5, 2014 I disagree this puts the "Death Trap" idea to mythical status. There is merit in it. -American armor traded equal with German armor for the most part. -American tanks sustained fewer casualties per knockout, on average, than German tanks. -American tanks were less likely to brew-up after being penetrated than German tanks. Where is this merit? Some of the above mentioned narratives sounds like the may be from the histories of the 4th Armored Division which was a very crack Armored division. The CO had a very well deserved reputation for knowing how and when to use armor and other supporting arms in a coordinated combined manner and maneuvered his forces in such a way that when they were committed they often had an advantage. At the lower levels of command they were also quite competent and experienced in the business of war. There may have also been other factors involved like artillery –which was a huge American advantage the German despised and airpower. Units like the 4th Armored were probably at the exceptional end of the scale and not the normal part of the spectrum. No question other armored units were like the 4th, while others were not so exceptional to far less competent. Yes, part of using tanks well is using them as part of a combined arms force. Yes, the 4th Armored Division was better than most, but the 3rd Armored Division was not and its organization unsuited (too many tanks, too few infantry) to the war as it was being fought. They still managed to do better than break even against equivalent German formations. There much room for nuance when discussing these sorts of things. Sure there is. But your side isn't presenting a nuanced argument. It began with the bold, unsupported statement that US armor had been beaten up on the battlefield and ended the war demoralized. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted December 5, 2014 Share Posted December 5, 2014 Germany lost the war and its army was decimated. 'Coming out even' is hardly high praise. That's like saying we both lost the same number of fingers in the meat grinder. By January '45 the US was cutting up brand new low mileage Sherman hulls to double up the armor of their remaining tanks, making erzats jumbos. How can we be doing marvelously well in the war and still have hundreds of latest model Sherman hulks available for cannibalizing? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted December 5, 2014 Share Posted December 5, 2014 How can we be doing marvelously well in the war and still have hundreds of latest model Sherman hulks available for cannibalizing? Because we made so damn many of them? The sentence seems self contradictory, maybe I am missing your point. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted December 5, 2014 Share Posted December 5, 2014 -American armor traded equal with German armor for the most part. -American tanks sustained fewer casualties per knockout, on average, than German tanks. -American tanks were less likely to brew-up after being penetrated than German tanks. Where is this merit? Yes, part of using tanks well is using them as part of a combined arms force. Yes, the 4th Armored Division was better than most, but the 3rd Armored Division was not and its organization unsuited (too many tanks, too few infantry) to the war as it was being fought. They still managed to do better than break even against equivalent German formations. Sure there is. But your side isn't presenting a nuanced argument. It began with the bold, unsupported statement that US armor had been beaten up on the battlefield and ended the war demoralized. Actually the 3rd was no slouch either and it's commander Maurice Rose was very highly regarded. It had the same ToE as the 2nd. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leakyD Posted December 5, 2014 Share Posted December 5, 2014 I take it you are a member of the Star Wars generation? Y'know, the one that is permanently disconnected from reality? :p/quote] Hah! No, just saying "who knows which direction tech will take us". 20 yrs ago, modern smartphones were "fantasy". Heck, most modern warfare tech of today was "fantasy" 20 yrs ago. Robots are definitely the future...but in what format? Large? Small? Micro? Nano? ... all ... some... other...??? Robotic grav tanks... sweet.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted December 5, 2014 Share Posted December 5, 2014 How can we be doing marvelously well in the war and still have hundreds of latest model Sherman hulks available for cannibalizing? Because there were far fewer combat losses than we had expected and planned for? Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
db_zero Posted December 5, 2014 Author Share Posted December 5, 2014 Coopers book was more of a personal memoir based on his perspective as an Ordnance officer. Still there were plenty of complaints about the Shermans flaws and hearings were held during the war if I'm not mistaken so its all not just myth. Keep in mind too that unless I'm mistaken the big tank battles in Normandy were in the British and Canadian sector. They faced the best German divisions and the bulk of the German armor and those encounters were very bloody and probably highlighted the Shermans flaws to a greater degree. The American operated in a relatively weak sector. The British/Canadians pinned down the stronger German sector while the American forces task was to break through a weaker sector and move forward fast-something for which the Sherman was well suited for. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocal Posted December 5, 2014 Share Posted December 5, 2014 Germany lost the war and its army was decimated. 'Coming out even' is hardly high praise. That's like saying we both lost the same number of fingers in the meat grinder. I thought we were arguing actual battlefield performance. If you're instead talking about outcomes over the whole war, the US stood on the winning side with it's army completely intact. By January '45 the US was cutting up brand new low mileage Sherman hulls to double up the armor of their remaining tanks, making erzats jumbos. How can we be doing marvelously well in the war and still have hundreds of latest model Sherman hulks available for cannibalizing? When you build 25,000 of something and only lose ~4000 of them, you might be tempted to put all those spares to productive use... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
db_zero Posted December 5, 2014 Author Share Posted December 5, 2014 Gotta love it. Thread started out about tanks in the modern era and their future and has evolved into the Sherman vs Tigers, Panthers and death trap debate. Won't be long before we're debating the merits of universal health care... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skwabie Posted December 5, 2014 Share Posted December 5, 2014 Coz here it's all history grogs and small arms fetishists... Go read this thread http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=90432 or head over to the Stealbeasts forum for some tank love. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.