Unstoppable Juggernauts (OT but Historical)

[Terence]

Comrades

,

Ive been playing enough and reading enough on the board to realize that the German tanks are awfully good -- maybe not indestructible super tanks, but awfully good.

Anyhow, if you can accept that premise, here's the question*:

_Why_ were German tanks so good? Was there some sort of proprietary tank building algorithm that German engineers had that nobody else did? Better engineers? What?

*If you can't accept the premise, I'd certainly like to hear about that too.

All the best,

Terence

[Maj. Bosco]

It's as much what the allies didn't do as what the Germans did.

Sherman tanks, the mainstay of the Western Allied armored forces, were under-armored and under-gunned compared with their German counterparts.

American thought on tanks is that we would have one type to support infantry (the Sherman) and one type to deal with tanks (the Tank Destroyers). Unfortunately this is impractical on a real world battlefeild. Tanks often have to deal with other tanks and Shermans just weren't designed to do that well.

Another factor contributing to the supperiority of German armor was that they'd been actively working on it longer. I'd wager that Shermans would have been a more respected tank on the battlefeild of 1939. Unfortunately for Sherman crews they were on the battlefeild of 1944-45. Remember, the Germans had been at war with Russia for years and the war on the Eastern Front spurred many developments in German armor.

My 2 cents on the subject anyway.

[Terence]

ok. so there was

1) A mitake in doctrine on the US part.

and

2) A strong evolutionary pressure from the East on German tank development.

Did we see the same type of evolutionary pressure start to work on US tanks and British tanks once they entered the war?

[Jeff Heidman]

Absolutely. Which is why, after much gnashing and wailing of teeth from that idiot McNair, the Sherman was eventually upgunned, and the M26 eventually reached production.

These things just happened almost an entire year later than they could have had the Army Brass had an iota of humility (so they could accept that their ideas might be wrong) and an ounce of foresight (to see that the excellent Sherman of early 1943 probably wasn't going to be so impressive in mid to late 1944 - Damn those Germans for having the audacity to actually improve their vehicles while the US stagnated!).

The American bombadier that dropped the short round on McNair did US Army infantrymen and armor crews a huge favor.

Jeff Heidman

[Croda]

Another factor in the American tanks being "sub-par" compared to the German tanks is the Atlantic Ocean. The American tanks had to be built to a standard that allowed for ease of transportation. The smallish Sherman fit that role well. Add to that the fact that Germand tank doctrine was years ahead of the American doctrine from the East Front fighting.

Maybe I'm wrong, but is there anywhere that American tanks were used in large part (especially in Anti-Tank roles) prior to America's entry in WWII? Either by the U.S. or other countries? That would explain a lot about the Shermans not being equal to other tanks.

------------------

WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! -

THIS SIG FILE BELONGS TO A COMPLETE FOO.

MR T WOULDN'T BE SO KIND AS TO WRINKLE AN EYEBROW AT THIS UNFORTUNATE BEING. PLEASE OFFER HIS PARENTS AND COHABITANTS ALL SYMPATHY POSSIBLE. MAY BE CONTAGIOUS. CONTAINS ARTIFICIAL SWEETNER, INTELLIGENCE AND WIT. STAND WELL CLEAR AND LIGHT WICK. BY ORDER PETERNZ

[patboivin]

When the Allies saw the Tiger, yes.

In large part though they just decided to go for more air support.

The Shermans weren't that bad, when you take their sheer number into account.

So they are not as good as some of their opponents' tanks. So what, if you have five tanks and they have two.

Gradually the Shermans got better.

I still like the T-34 better than the Jumbos though.

[Terence]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by patboivin:

When the Allies saw the Tiger, yes.

The Shermans weren't that bad, when you take their sheer number into account.

So they are not as good as some of their opponents' tanks. So what, if you have five tanks and they have two.

.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I was asking about individual tanks, but you raise a good point. Is it possible the army said "Well, the sherman kinda sucks but its what we got right now and we sure can make a lot of them...." A deliberate decision to drown the enemy with numbers of tanks?

However to argue the other side of the issue:

If 3 or 4 of your 5 have to die to handle their 2, then its a problem, a non-trivial one, at that.

(Not that I'm any grand tactician, but wouldn't you win faster if you lose fewer tanks than the enemy? )

Also if two German tanks can hold up 5 of yours when some of those 5 could be driving to Berlin or smashing supply columns in the rear or destroying German artillery parks or whaterver, than thats also a problem.

[Lindan]

I think the crown of tank development has to go to the Russians.When Russian engineers were invited to Germany in 1939 to visit the tank-construction program, they suspected treachery because they didn't believe that the Pz. IV could possibly be the heaviest German design.

Take a look at the T34 and the time it was available:

christie(sp?) suspension, powerful gun, sloped armor. Not to mention the monstrous KV-series. I dread the battles in CM2 when I have to face a T34 company with my grandfathers army.

The Tiger I still did not feature sloped armor (THIS would have been fun!), in spite of the concept being proved by T34's happily defeating the guns of the Pz.IIIs, IVs, 38(t)s etc. . The Panther was more or less a Germanized T34 (finally: sloped armor)

Funny thing is, when you stand next to a King Tiger it doesn't look like a Tiger at all, it looks like an oversized Panther.

------------------

-----------------------

Croda: "You hang out with a guy named "Warphead?"

"Nuts!" "

visit lindan.panzershark.com

[CKibler]

The German tanks' optics (sighting equipment) was much superior also.

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Croda:

Another factor in the American tanks being "sub-par" compared to the German tanks is the Atlantic Ocean. The American tanks had to be built to a standard that allowed for ease of transportation. The smallish Sherman fit that role well. Add to that the fact that Germand tank doctrine was years ahead of the American doctrine from the East Front fighting.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank God the US Army no longer has the idea that they should build inferior tanks so they can fit more on a ship! The Gulf War would have been a lot more costly if the US had the idea that twice as many T-72s were preferable to M-1A2s.

Hindsight is 20-20, but it clearly shows that the decision to build a huge number of mediocre tanks was a mistake. The end result was more dead infantrymen and tankers, and lots of shiny new tanks crewed by inadequately trained replacements. This is even ignoring the inevitable delays in the offensive created by the proverbial single Tiger holding a crossroads that delays and advance until air support show up and blows it away.

BTW, the M-26 weighs only 10 tons or so more than an M4A1(75). So they got (roughly) ten Shermans (~320 tons) for the shipping weight of 8 (~320 tons) Pershings. I believe that those 8 Pershings, which could go head to head with a Panther or Tiger, would have been worth far more than 10 75mm armed Shermans, so the shipping argument really does not hold up very well.

Jeff Heidman

[Terence]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CKibler:

The German tanks' optics (sighting equipment) was much superior also.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

yes, ive heard that quite often on this board. But was this because the Germans had some optics technology unavailable to the allies? if not, then WHY was it superior.

[Terence]

so that quote of patton's that I keep seeing -- that the US LOVED to see the King Tiger or royal tiger come into the field--

is bull****, right?

us tankers didn't say "great! lambs to the slaughter" when the KT or Royal Tiger or whatever rolled up the street?

[Maj. Bosco]

That's a whole 'nother can of worms. Better tank design, better doctrine, and more feild-testing manifested themselves in part in the optics though. If you want an entirely too in-depth discussion of German optics then do a search of the board using the word "optics".

Incidentally, the Christie suspension that helped to make the T-34 such a deadly tank was actually of American design! The army rejected it for some idiotic reason. I saw some footage of the original Christie tank on the History Channel the other day. The armor on that thing was sloped like 70+ degrees! No turret, actually kinda looked like an open topped hetzer. The real kicker was the speed. Christie said his tank could go up to 100 mph. The army only tested it up to 70 mph but apparently it could go faster.

I have to agree with Lindan though: The Russians made the best tanks. I can't wait till CM 2!

[Maj. Bosco]

Patton talked a lot of trash. The only US personnel who loved to see KTs rolling onto the field were Jabo pilots because it meant a big slow target for them to bomb back into the stone age.

Perhaps even more significant than the tank doctrine that came out of WWII was the realization of the power of the airplanes.

[Snake Eyes]

The Germans were VERY surprised when they first encountered the Russian T34 and KV in 1941. They had nothing in their inventory that could stand up to these Russian behemoths. The German MBT was the PzIII with its 50mm main gun and 30mm armor. The T34 and KV boasted 76mm main guns, thicker and well sloped armor, as well as great speed. It is reported that a single KV tank delayed the 6th Panzer division for two days.

Because of this shock, the Germans rushed the Tiger I into production and began designing the Panther. The Tiger I made its appearnce in late 1942. Some initial Panther designs bear a remarkable resemblance to the T34. It took two years of development before the Panther appeared on the battlefield.

The Sherman was a very good tank in 1942. It was probably the best tank in North Africa on its debut. However, due to the desperate need to create a large number of armored units as quickly as possible the basic Sherman design was maintained. From 1942-1943 the Sherman was a match for the German PzIV, which was their MBT. However, as the US encountered more and more Tiger I's and Panthers it became clear that these heavy German tanks were far superior to the Sherman.

The M26 Pershing made its appearance in early 1945 and brought balance back to the technological battle. The Pershing was a match for Tiger I and Panther, but was still inferior to Tiger II.

So you see, the real tank masters were the Russians. Their excellent pre-war designs put them well in the lead. However, a good design does not win battles, and due to better tactics the Germans won most of the early battles on the eastern front.

Even the excellent T34 had some major deficiencies, such as a two-man turret. It wasn't until 1943 that this was overcome by the introduction on the T34/85.

So, as you see, it seems to take about two years to notice a need and then develop an AFV that will meet that need. The US, and Brits for that matter, stayed pretty much on the same tact as all the other ETO belligerents of WWII.

------------------

It is easy to be brave from a safe distance. -Aesop

[Triumvir]

In the rush to condemn the Sherman in a tank v tank battle, the small fact that the Sherman is a brilliant operational tank has been overlooked.

At a tactical level, the Sherman clearly had neither the staying nor the hitting power of a front-line tank. But it was designed to be an exploitation tank; to follow up once the main lines of resistance had been breached and tear into the enemy rear.

As Patton showed in his breakout, when properly used the Sherman was better than the Panther; how many Shermans lay discarded by the side of the road thanks to mechanical failures or lack of fuel?

When put up against the T-34 though... that's a whole different kettle of fish.

[Snake Eyes]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Triumvir:

When put up against the T-34 though... that's a whole different kettle of fish.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually the Sherman did pretty well against the T34 during the Korean War.

------------------

It is easy to be brave from a safe distance. -Aesop

[Maj. Bosco]

That German tanks that got left to the side of the road because of mechanical failure or lack of fuel does not necessarily imply that they were flawed. It means that allied bombing campaigns designed to strangle the German war machine by denying it fuel and replacement parts were incredibly sucessful. I don't think anyone on this board would deny that the Allies owned the sky for virtually the entire war.

I will grant that in general the German designs were a little too complex I would not say that this deficiency made them any worse as operational tools. I'd wager that even if the Germans had tanks as rough & ready as the Sherman we'd still have plenty of pictures of discarded German tanks. Mechanical things break, and if you don't have the parts to fix them then you're SOL.

In defense of the Sherman though: It was an excellent anti-infantry tank. I'd take it over any german tank for purposes of infantry support any day. Some AA capability too. Never underestimate the .50 cal.

[Edited because I'm too dense to make tenses agree today]

[This message has been edited by Maj. Bosco (edited 12-12-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Maj. Bosco (edited 12-12-2000).]

[Snake Eyes]

Too often, I fear, we overlook the big picture and only concentrate on the tank vs tank aspect of combat. In reality a lot of things must precede the battle. Just getting to the battlefield is one important factor. The Sherman was one of the most reliable, if not the most reliable, tanks of WWII. Panther and Tiger I & II were far less reliable and prone to various breakdown problems.

Another factor is weight. Heavy vehicles are restricted to roads and strong bridges. Cross country not only risks bogging but also increases fuel consumption dramatically.

This brings us to speed and agility. The M18 Hellcat was well liked by its crew (even though its armor was only 1/2") due mainly to its speed of 55mph; the fastest AFV of WWII, IIRC. It's nice to be able to get in and get out fast. The Sherman was agile, too.

I've raised but a few of the overall factors that make US AFV's a better package. But when you're man-y-mano on the CM board and your M4 is facing his Panther, all these factors become moot.

------------------

It is easy to be brave from a safe distance. -Aesop

[Maj. Bosco]

If you look at the big picture you also can't overlook trains. Panthers and other big boys were able to get around a lot because of intelligent logistics.

It all comes down to a question of doctrine. The argument that tanks have to get there and there have to be a lot of them to support infantry and fulfill a calvery role is the WWII era US opinion. You can read the memoirs of some Sherman tankers to find out how well that held up on the battlefeild. Getting to the battle is part of the fight, but the only part that really really matters is getting out of the fight alive.

[Snake Eyes]

Speaking of trains, the Tiger I had special narrow tracks to replace their battle tracks for the purpose of rail transport. The battle tracks overhung far enough to cause problems when being transported on trains, thus the narrow ones were used. This is another example of the overhead required to field these 'superior' AFV's.

------------------

It is easy to be brave from a safe distance. -Aesop

[Hans]

Bad news for Jeff Heidman

in regards to your comments about present US designs to "fit on a ship"

US Army Selects New LAV

December 10, 2000; The US Army has selected the LAV-III for its new medium

brigades. This is an improved version of the eight-wheeled armored car used

by the Marines as the LAV. While the Marine version has a two-man turret

mounting a 25mm cannon, the Army version will have only a remotely-operated

weapon station mounting a .50-caliber machinegun or a 40mm grenade launcher.

The LAV-III weighs 19 tons. It is 23.5 feet long, 8.5 feet high, and 8.8 feet

wide. It has full-time four-wheel drive and selective eight-wheel drive. The

main advantage is strategic mobility. A C-5 transport jet that could carry

two M1 tanks or two M2 Bradley Fighting Vehicles could carry eight LAV-IIIs.

A C-17 (which could carry two Bradleys or one tank) can carry two LAV-IIIs.

The key, however, is that a C-130 which cannot carry a tank or a Bradley,

could carry one LAV-III. The Army plans to spend $4 billion buying 2,131 of

these vehicles. The Army was so impressed with the LAV-III that it agreed to

delay the introduction of the vehicle in order to wait for production to

begin. The Army could have bought other vehicles for immediate delivery. Part

of the delay, however, is due to Congressionally-ordered head-to-head tests

against the M113. There are many critics of wheeled combat vehicles who point

out that the M113 may be a better protected and more effective vehicle while

weighing about the same. Even critics of the medium brigade concept, however,

agree that providing these vehicles to the light infantry units (which

currently have no vehicles for the front-line soldiers) would make them

viable in modern mobile combat. The Army LAV-III will carry a two-man crew

and a nine-man dismounted squad. The vehicle will be the basis of ten

variants, including NBC reconnaissance, fire support (forward artillery

observer), mobile gun system (a tank destroyer with a 105mm cannon),

anti-tank guided missile, command, engineer (with mine plows and rollers),

reconnaissance, mortar carrier (with 120 mm, 81mm, or 60mm tubes), and a

medical evacuation vehicle. In theory, every vehicle in a brigade (except for

supply trucks and the ubiquitous Humvees used for errands) would be based on

this chassis, allowing the unit to move as a cohesive mass and greatly

simplifying maintenance. Because every variant has a winch to pull itself out

of mud or other problems, there won't be a dedicated recovery variant.

Ordnance teams will use the standard armored personnel carrier model. The

LAV-III has armor sufficient to protect the passengers and crew from 14.5mm

cannon shells, fragments from 155mm artillery shells, and land mines. It can

be fitted with additional armor (after being unloaded from an aircraft)

sufficient to stop rocket-propelled grenades and other short-range anti-armor

rockets. The LAV is fast. It can travel at 60 miles per hour on roads or

hard-packed ground. Its convoy speed is 40 miles per hour, considerably

faster than trucks which are limited to 25 miles per hour.

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snake Eyes:

Actually the Sherman did pretty well against the T34 during the Korean War.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The T-34 was an amzing design, even with its flaws, in 1941.

By 1945 it was nothing special, even with the 85mm gun.

Jeff Heidman

[Terence]

this is the part that worries me about the new LAV:

"The LAV-III has armor sufficient to protect the passengers and crew from 14.5mm

cannon shells, fragments from 155mm artillery shells, and land mines. It can

be fitted with additional armor (after being unloaded from an aircraft) sufficient to stop rocket-propelled grenades and other short-range anti-armor rockets."

Even in Somalia, there were many many many RPGs around, and even cannon bigger than 14.5mm. I hope they do install that extra armor and never take it off.

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snake Eyes:

So, as you see, it seems to take about two years to notice a need and then develop an AFV that will meet that need. The US, and Brits for that matter, stayed pretty much on the same tact as all the other ETO belligerents of WWII.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The thing is, given a modicum of insight, the US Army did NOT have to suffer from the same problem. The Soviets and Germans could only look to each other and the battlefield to see what worked and what didn't. The Brits were extrmely limited both logisitcally, and economically.

The US was not designing tanks in a vacuum. If they (meaning US Army procurement brass) were not so ego-centric and short sighted, they could have looked at what was happening on the East Front and take some lessons. It was blindingly obvious in 1942 that the pace of AFV development had increased considerably, and that the M4 that was so successful in North Africa was not going to cut it in France.

The US managed to produce the best rifle used in the war, *before* they even knew they were going to be in the war! They managed to lay down the design for arguably the best battleship and fleet carriers a year before the Japanese bombed Pearl. The basic design for the B-17 was done before 1941.

I have immense respect for the US's ability to design, engineer, and produce the very best equipment. This was not done in the almost unique case of AFV production based upon the will of a relatively small number of Army beaurocrats. The know-how, the abilty, the logistics, and the need all existed. The T26 design could have been on the beach in 1944. At least half of all Shermans could have been armed with the 76mm gun before a single US soldier set foot in Normandy. Rather than 100 75mm armed Shermans, there could have been 30 75mm M4s, 30 76mm M4s, and 25 Pershings.

These things were not done not because the US could not figure out how to do it. We managed to figure out how to obliterate a city with a single bomb, we could have figured out how to make a freaking Panther and ship it Europe!

They were not done because someone decided that it just wasn't important when the data made it abundantly clear that it was. That is the sad part of the story of the US Army Armored forces in WW2.

Jeff Heidman