Unstoppable Juggernauts (OT but Historical)

[RMC]

heh, heh,

HELLO! That's why I said "if there were no other limitations." Crewing and manhours are a completely different issue.

Actually, the 20 times figure was mistaken (my failing memory). It's really 9.27 times for the plain jane M1 and 19.58 times for the M1A1.

But look at it another way: an M60 can drive 19.58 times as far per dollar as an M1A1. So when you head down to Budget to rent your tank to go see grandma, it'll cost you $8.06 per mile to go in an M60A3 clunker or $157.80 per mile in your Abrams caddy.

Top reparable cost drivers for the M1A1:

Engine module rear @ $180k

Engine gas turbine @ $487k

Engine module forward @ $207k

Top reparable cost drivers for the M60A3:

transmission @ $86k

engine @ $117k

gunner's display @$29k

Here's another goody. Why does the US suck at designing tank guns? Discuss.

[von Lucke]

To bring things back from 1994 to 1944:

I'm sure most here are familiar with the M36 Gun Motor Carriage? Yes, it was technically a Tank Destroyer, and most of the chassis' to roll out of Detroit were upgrades of the M10, but there was also an expedient upgrade to about 200 Sherman M4A3 hulls that resulted in the M36B2.

To break it down for ya: A 90mm equipped Sherman variant available in late 1944. (So what's all this talk about M26's, eh?)

Oh, and as someone else pointed out, CM models the extreme tip of the proverbial pointed stick, so all Operational and Strategic considerations are about 20 km to yr rear by the time the shooting starts. And when it comes to that ever-so-pointy tip, the German heavy AFV's have a definite advantage (in CM terms).

Even historically speaking, with a lack of adequate supply and maintenance, the Germans where operating with "shortened lines of communication" which made it easier to move around what little they had to where they needed it most. (The Germans weren't idiots --- if moving convoys during the day got you dead, you switched to moving at night!) And yes, there weren't that many Tigers left by late '44, but they tended to be in the hands of those who could use them to best effect --- insert Gulf War anology here if you like.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by von Lucke:

To bring things back from 1994 to 1944:

I'm sure most here are familiar with the M36 Gun Motor Carriage? Yes, it was technically a Tank Destroyer, and most of the chassis' to roll out of Detroit were upgrades of the M10, but there was also an expedient upgrade to about 200 Sherman M4A3 hulls that resulted in the M36B2.

To break it down for ya: A 90mm equipped Sherman variant available in late 1944. (So what's all this talk about M26's, eh?)

Oh, and as someone else pointed out, CM models the extreme tip of the proverbial pointed stick, so all Operational and Strategic considerations are about 20 km to yr rear by the time the shooting starts. And when it comes to that ever-so-pointy tip, the German heavy AFV's have a definite advantage (in CM terms).

Even historically speaking, with a lack of adequate supply and maintenance, the Germans where operating with "shortened lines of communication" which made it easier to move around what little they had to where they needed it most. (The Germans weren't idiots --- if moving convoys during the day got you dead, you switched to moving at night!) And yes, there weren't that many Tigers left by late '44, but they tended to be in the hands of those who could use them to best effect --- insert Gulf War anology here if you like.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The pointed stick of course is correct -- the average "take that hill" multi-company assualt AAR would have Americans with too few infantry and all the arty in the world plus a platoon of attached tds / tanks / priests attacking a hill with lots of German infantry with a little bit of arty and no tanks. German tanks and god forbid half tracks were not all that common if you look at the numbers and the AARs, so when I play Germans, I should play like 3-4 games with no tanks or just some eratz tanks for every game that I get a tank unit in, while my American opponent will have a good chance to have tanks everytime they attack.

Next -- the Jentz availability figures for Tigers / Panthers / and MkIVs make the German high command look like idiots. They were the ones who most lamented the Tiger / Panther / King Tiger's lack of reliability. The Panther was sent through continual changes trying to get its mechanicals right on a scale that dwarfs the allied tinkering with the M4 (HVSS and grousers for the tracks). If that table was correct, then Rommell should have been shot way before he was forced to commit suicide - since he like the MkIV for its reliability and was complained about the Tiger's cross country capability and easy bogging.

[Iron Duke]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>They constantly burn themselves up or are succumbing to Foreign Object Damage.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

RMC, I am not sure where you are getting this information but it is just not true. Granted, maybe out of the 5000 or so M1's around the world, a lot of packs would seemingly go out. But understand, when the turbine has a problem, the Army doesn't keep running it until it is beyond repair. In fact, the idea behind pulling the pack and popping in a new/rebuilt one allows us to reuse the turbines over and over again. And simplifies maintenance out in the field. Since you are so into bean counting you should appreciate this. As far as succumbing to "Foreign Object Damage" (does capitalizing it make it 'Official?' ), that is blatantly untrue. You seriously think the Army spent over 10 years in development, million (billions) of dollars, hundreds of thousands of manhours designing the M1 only to forget that it lives on the ground? In amongst debris, dirt, rocks, and anything else you can imagine? I have NEVER seen an M1 succumb to foreign object damage. Every evening during the Gulf, we cleaned out over 20 pounds! of fine silt sand out of each V-pack. (The air filters,3 of them) I bet if I looked in my old desert dress uniforms, I could STILL find sand in them, so if any foreign object was going to kill the turbine, it would have been sand...but it didn't. We carried on.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>HELLO! That's why I said "if there were no other limitations." Crewing and manhours are a completely different issue.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How is crewing and manhours a completely different issue? When you say:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>an M60 can drive 19.58 times as far per dollar as an M1A1. So when you head down to Budget to rent your tank to go see grandma, it'll cost you $8.06 per mile to go in an M60A3 clunker or $157.80 per mile in your Abrams caddy<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

WHO is driving this thing? A tank without a crew is pointless. It is a useless piece of scrap iron. And I don't understand why, when you are concerned with the economics of operating and maintaining an M1, you conveniently leave out some of the more obvious drains on your overhead? Such as the crew and maintenance, etc...

If you want to get down to some more beancounting, lets look at the only example you provided. First off let me reiterate your premise:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Actually, the 20 times figure was mistaken (my failing memory). It's really 9.27 times for the plain jane M1 and 19.58 times for the M1A1.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then your only example:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Top reparable cost drivers for the M1A1:

Engine module rear @ $180k

Engine gas turbine @ $487k

Engine module forward @ $207k

Top reparable cost drivers for the M60A3:

transmission @ $86k

engine @ $117k

gunner's display @$29k<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well I'm no math genius but the sum of the first three divided by the sum of the latter is 3.767... Where is the 9 -20 times difference? Once again, one can draw conclusions from skewed data and come up with any number of arguments.

So we are back to...and this proves what?

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

One shot...One Kill

[Guest wwb_99]

I've actually heard that Tigers (and Panthers) had great cross country mobility compared to western tanks. IIRC one of the main reasons the Soviets hated Shermans was that they bogged down left and right due to thin tracks and a narrow treadbase.

Put a Sherman next to a Panther and the difference is obvious, and I believe this is reflected in ground pressure figures. Also note that the Tiger's suspension was amazing. While it was not fast, it could go flat-out cross country with minimal crew discomfort. And it was capable of fording streams, etc. Not that that feature mattered, by the time Tigers hit the front in numbers, the Germans were the ones defending the bridges.

One thing to keep in mind about Desert Storm. It was a live campaign, but it was a quick campaign. And those M-1s came right back to the shop for maintenence after a few days of fighting. No one knows how well they will hold up to weeks, much less months, of front-line combat. M-60s are clearly robust, serving in 3rd world armies around the world. If Pakistan can maintain combat-ready brigades of them, I have no doubt they are quite robust.

Take a look at the readiness numbers for the PanzerKorps. They remain very high in 1939 and 1940 when the Panzers fought quick campaigns and then were recalled and serviced. Once the fighting became constant (1941) the readiness numbers drop and never reach pre-Barbarossa levels again.

WWB

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

Before battle, my digital soldiers turn to me and say,

Ave, Caesar! Morituri te salutamus.

[Iron Duke]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And those M-1s came right back to the shop for maintenence after a few days of fighting.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did they really? Wow! I guess someone forgot to tell us! Hell, we pulled guard duty on the Kuwait/Iraq border, driving up and down constantly patrolling our given sectors. Hmm, I guess we were stuck out there for another 5 months of constant roving patrols at all hours, in all weather, and the desert has severe weather changes: 40 to 60 degree temp. changes, downright deadly sandstorms, and of course the frick'n heat.

So tell me wwb_99, what else did I do?

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

One shot...One Kill

[Guest wwb_99]

Sorry, I was writing at work, and time was rushed. I will clairify.

The M-1s used in Iraq were not forced to undergo continued combat stress. Yes they were used, but they were not pressed into service without regard for maintenence. Yes life in the desert was rough. But it was nowhere near as rough as the Ostfront.

WWB

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

Before battle, my digital soldiers turn to me and say,

Ave, Caesar! Morituri te salutamus.

[Iron Duke]

WWB...

LoL, man I could really lay in now, but I won't.

Ok, I see where this is going and I humbly refrain. I return the thread to Terence and 1944.

One last thing wwb: You do realize that the M1 has been in service now for roughly 2 decades? Has served all in almost every climate? Is battle proven? Hell, as you say, if a 3rd world country can use them...Kuwait and Saudi Arabia have had M1's since 1991, I think even the Canadians' have them! (Just Kidding to all Canadians...please do not send over Air Strikes, Ground Assaults,...beer strikes or whatever it is you guys do! )

Canadians are kick ass mofo's! (LoL)

(Should of kept your trap shut Duke, you know this is why you don't post more often...)

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

One shot...One Kill

[Guest wwb_99]

I can see where this one is going as well, and will refrain from further comment.

WWB

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

Before battle, my digital soldiers turn to me and say,

Ave, Caesar! Morituri te salutamus.

[RMC]

Duca di Ferro ,

I get my information from the maintenance folks that repair the engines in the DS+ shops. The FUPP is the achilles heel of the M1 and one of its most important assets at the same time. I capitalize Foreign Object Damage because most of the time it is just called FOD. It's a term that pops up at just about every CMTC rotation.

The AGT1500 is an old design and most of the production is flawed in one way or another. TACOM (Tank Automotive Command) says that only 17 of the original production engines met all tolerances. All the others were flawed in some way and have reduced life expectancy as a result. We repair them over and over. Supposedly we will be fielding an improved turbine in the near future that will be more reliable.

I am guessing you were a 19K. I can't remember the MOS for M60 crewman, but somehow I don't think putting a 19k in a tank is somehow much more expensive than putting a old tanker in an M60. Certainly the M60 cost less to produce. I was never trying to claim that fielding 20 M60s costs the same as 1 M1. You have pointed out a lot of the other factors involved that make this a more complicated comparison. I just posted this stuff in reaction to Slapdragon's comment about the US tanks always having been cheap to maintain. It does make for an interesting discussion about how much more effective the M1 is than the M60 and whether it is "worth" the additional maintenance costs per system.

Those figures I posted were derived from two separate things. The 19.58 times per mile is a reflection of two cost elements: Fuel and Class IX. Fuel costs are not as dramatic but here they are:

M1 per mile: $5.41

M1A1 per mile $5.20

M60 per mile $1.50

Class IX repair parts: (per mile)

M1. $69.30

M1A1. $152.60

M60. $6.56

The cost drivers I showed were the top big dollar costs for the systems. The prices were UNIT PRICES in FY94 i.e. the eingine for an M60 costs $117k each and the turbine costs $487k each. They cost a little more today ($520k). You can see that the drivetrain is the most costly and maintenance intensive part of the tank followed by the fire control system. Tomorrow I will post the total annual costs for each system since you seem dissatisified with what I have presented so far.

[This message has been edited by RMC (edited 12-14-2000).]

[Guest machineman]

About that 'US tanks are all reliable' statement, AFAIK the M60 series is quite reliable, but the long line of tanks leading up to them were not, with many of the same problems the Tigers had. How does "engine failures after only 1000 miles, range of only 75 miles, engine, transmission, track and suspension problems" of the M48 sound? It seems it was just tough to build a reliable heavy tank back then.

http://147.238.100.101/dtdd/armormag/ja98/4cameron98.pdf

Quite a bit of info in Armour about the Abrams as well, if I remember right.

[This message has been edited by machineman (edited 12-14-2000).]

[Maj. Bosco]

I'm going to go way back. Oldschool even, on this thread, by pointing out the title of the thread. Unstoppable Juggernauts. The original question was why were German tanks so much better than allied tanks? Well, if you accept my original answer that German tanks were so good because of allied tanks and you accept the premise that tanks aren't going to be great cars then I think the Sherman's short-comings are clear.

If the fight was all about who gets the best millage and can stay out of the shop longest then my '89 Honda Civic is the greatest tank ever built. Almost never breaks down. 33+ miles per gallon and it goes pretty fast considering the dinky little CVC engine in it. My Civic would make it to every fight with an hour or two notice. 50,000 Shermans? I bet they could have made an order of magnitude more Civics. It could manuever the hell out of German tanks. However, I think in the end those German tanks that were built half a century before my car would win. Why? Because whatever BB gun you could mount on my car would bounce many rounds off the German tank, and the German tank would put a couple of rounds through me. Though it has an excellent slope in some places I'd bet that my car's armor is only 4 - 5 mm at best.

You see, the Sherman is kind of like an upgunned Honda Civic. Cheap, great mileage for a tank, reliable, and stands a snowballs chance in hell against a German heavy tank. A 76mm armed Sherman with Tungsten ammo (very rare in 44-45 mind you) is a better option. That tank still can't take a hit though.

Sure Shermans were great anti-infantry weapons. So is my car though. I bet I could run down 20 or 30 joggers before my car called it quits. The problem is that if you have a supported tank facing unsupported infantry then those infantry are pretty well screwed anyway. German heavy tanks might not have had as many machine guns, but they were able to deal with supported infantry as well as unsupported infantry.

As for the Sherman vs. the Pershing. The Pershing was IMO a superior anti-infantry weapon. Just as many MGs, carried more ammo, and had a better main gun. In addition it could stand it's own against anything the Germans could feild. As someone said earlier when you're shipping tanks it's not size that matters, it's mass. If we had had 80% of the tanks we had, and those tanks were all, in combat terms, at least twice as good then we would have come out ahead on that deal. Add to that the experience the tank crews would gain from continuing to live. Have you heard of any lighters named after Pershing nicknames? Mechanics might have cursed it but we were rarely concerned about raw materials like parts for tanks. We were concerned about being unable to replace the squishy things inside the tanks. Anyway. 2 cents end of rant and all that.

PS: I am truly impressed. A (fairly) civil thread has gone on this long! Wow!

[Terence]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maj. Bosco:

A (fairly) civil thread has gone on this long! Wow!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have that effect on people.

[Guest Andrew Hedges]

As someone pointed out earlier, the Germans didn't conquer most of Europe with the tanks we see in CMBO. They conquered most of Europe with Pzkw II's, Pzkw 38(t)s, and some short barrelled Pzkw III's and IV's. These tanks were far inferior to the Sherman, and some of them even fought the Sherman. Indeed, these tanks were mostly inferior to the tanks they did face: French Char B's were better armed and armored than any German tanks, and the Somuas were as good as any German tanks. KV 1's and 2's and T-34 greatly outclassed the German tanks they encountered, but this didn't prevent them from being defeated by horribly inferior Pzkw II's and 38(t)'s; such matchups make a Panther vs. Sherman battle look like even odds. These early tanks were the real juggernauts.

Quick, name a German victory in which the Panther played a role.

As someone else pointed out, CM's lack of rarity factors can give a skewed picture of WWII armor battles. The most numerous German AFV (in general and at this time) was the StuG III, followed by the Mk IV. Panthers were not common (although I wouldn't call them rare), but King Tigers were extremely rare.

[Bastables]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Andrew Hedges:

As someone pointed out earlier, the Germans didn't conquer most of Europe with the tanks we see in CMBO. They conquered most of Europe with Pzkw II's, Pzkw 38(t)s, and some short barrelled Pzkw III's and IV's. These tanks were far inferior to the Sherman, and some of them even fought the Sherman. Indeed, these tanks were mostly inferior to the tanks they did face: French Char B's were better armed and armored than any German tanks, and the Somuas were as good as any German tanks. KV 1's and 2's and T-34 greatly outclassed the German tanks they encountered, but this didn't prevent them from being defeated by horribly inferior Pzkw II's and 38(t)'s; such matchups make a Panther vs. Sherman battle look like even odds. These early tanks were the real juggernauts.

Quick, name a German victory in which the Panther played a role.

As someone else pointed out, CM's lack of rarity factors can give a skewed picture of WWII armor battles. The most numerous German AFV (in general and at this time) was the StuG III, followed by the Mk IV. Panthers were not common (although I wouldn't call them rare), but King Tigers were extremely rare. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Singling

At this stage of the war the Panther was just as rare as a PIV, the only theater of war that saw more PIV's than Panther's was Italy. The StuG being part of many PanzerJaeger-Abtelung of the Infantry Div and eveything else were more evident, mixed with PaK 40s and Hetzer/Marder depending on the date.

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

From the jshandorf

"Why don't we compare reality to the game like Bastables likes to do all the time?"

Mr T's reply

"Don't touch me FOO!"

<BilgeRat> synopsis= "Im a dickhead"

[This message has been edited by Bastables (edited 12-14-2000).]

[Slapdragon]

Back to the original thought. Sure the Pershing is great, but to get it DDay would have had to of been delayed by a year (that long because no one wanted to do any invading when the English Channel was in storm season or fight in France during late winter.

So -- assuming that the Pershing team was hurried and finished the T26 for mass production 1943 turning them over to the plants that could handle those castings: Chalmers and FMC. Production ramp up in 1943 would be like the M4 ramp up in 1942 (why the M3 was adopted), so the first tanks roll out to training units Q1 1944. Assuming that the 6 month rush on the T26 did not make it a dog 1300 of them are in line Q1, and production sky rockets through out 1944 (as more factories replace their casting and parts get subcontracted).

Next the Mod 1 and 2 LCM are no good. Only the Mod 3 could carry the Pershing. Need a bunch of those, so Ignalls, Boston, and all those other guys have to change. That is tough.

Amoo has to change -- that is easier though.

Still, not enough Pershings in service in 1944 -- the US would have gone ashore with Shermans, and less of them, or the US would not have gone ashore. 1945 April depending on the weather is your next slot.

[Forever Babra]

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

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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

One word: Swarowski.

Best optics in the world, then and now.

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

Scarred on a hundred fields before

Naked and starved and travel-sore

Each man a tiger hunted;

They stood at bay as brave as Huns

The last of the Old South's splendid sons

Flanked by ten thousand shotted guns

And by ten thousand fronted

[CATguy]

ohhhh my... having been in AVR and been involved in maintenance of M113, Bradleys, and M1's I can say they are far superior to anything else out there in terms of Maintenance manhours involved for each machine. Also the crews are also highly trained in maintenance of their own vehicle and at school have basically gone through a whole school on maintenance. To say the least our armor crews are very high in Elan`..... and yes desert storm was a good test for the Abrams and it performed superbly with a high availibility rate in the 90's...

[Major Tom]

Jumping to the end of the discussion, so, I am not sure wether this has been stated yet.

You can't just look upon the M4 and the Panther (or tiger, whatever) and feel free for an equal comparison to take place. It is like comparing in 1940 the Panzerkamphwagen II vs. the Matilda II.

To understand where the Allies were and the Germans were on the western front in 1944 you have to take a look at the history of armoured warfare during WWII.

In 1939, the Germans had sub-standard, poor quality tanks. They were mostly of ill armed and ill armoured Pz I and II tanks. These were supplemented by some new designs (Pz III and IV, whose early marks were of poor quality as well). They were supplimented by attaining a variety of Czech tanks. All that they encountered as an armoured force in 1939 were Polish 7TP (?) tanks. These were, on average, better than the German light tanks (Pz 35, Pz I and Pz II). The III, IV and 38 tanks were just as good as the 7TP. Luckilly for the Germans, the Polish only had around 150-200 modern AFV's.

France 1940. German tanks either met their equals (British Cruiser Sieries, French Samoua 35) or met their masters (Matilda II, Char B1 bis). The Allied light tanks were also better than their German counterparts. The Renault and Hotchkiss tanks were better than their German counterparts (their guns = the calibur of German Medium tanks). The British Mk VI, was probably about the equal of the Pz II, and definitely the superior to the Pz I. The main problem about French tanks was their poor turret layout (the main reason for the Germans not just producing French tanks after 1940!). The British Matilda II's were captured in too few numbers, and were too complicated to be copied. The reason for German success was tactics over equipment, plus the Allies didn't field their heavy tanks in large numbers.

By 1941, the Germans had met little in resistance of enemy tanks, primarily due to numbers and deployment. HOWEVER, in response to meeting the Allied heavy tanks (Matilda II, Char B1 bis) they started designing the Tiger. When they went into Russia, they yet again were met with superior AFV's. Russian medium and light tanks weren't very good (compared to their western counterparts) but they were better than the German's light tanks, and the Russian medium and heavy tanks were infinitely better than any German, or even Allied tank of that time. The Allies had only the Panzer I, II, III and IV to fight, which their present tanks could defeat in battle.

So, in response to meeting heavy tanks, in large numbers in Russia Germany set about a way to counter them. This was in 1941.

The Allies didn't encounter the Tiger tank until late 1943. The Sherman tank was put into production in 1942. At that time it was as good, if not better than any German tank on the field (around the same time as the introduction of the Panzer IVF2?). So, the Allies, unlike the Germans, didn't encounter any armour they couldn't defeat, or had any trouble in defeating until 1943. It took the Germans 2 years from first meeting heavy Soviet armour in large numbers to get their own out in the field. It took the allies less than 2 years from first meeting heavy German armour in large numbers to get their own out in the field.

Necessity is the mother of all invention. The Allies didn't need a replacement of the Sherman until they met Tigers in late 1943. The Germans had to have a replacement for their Panzer III and IV tanks as early as 1941. You will notice that throughout military history, that when one side creates a weapon, the other creates something to counter it, and so on. In 1944, the Allies were at the point where they met something 'new' and had to counter it.

This is why Allied armour was 'sub-par' to German armour in 1944.

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Andrew Hedges:

As someone pointed out earlier, the Germans didn't conquer most of Europe with the tanks we see in CMBO. They conquered most of Europe with Pzkw II's, Pzkw 38(t)s, and some short barrelled Pzkw III's and IV's. These tanks were far inferior to the Sherman, and some of them even fought the Sherman. Indeed, these tanks were mostly inferior to the tanks they did face: French Char B's were better armed and armored than any German tanks, and the Somuas were as good as any German tanks.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Incorrect. While the French tanks had decent armor and guns, they almost never had radios, and usually had two man turrets. These were *critical* failings. Failings that were shared by the Soviet vehicles of the time.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

KV 1's and 2's and T-34 greatly outclassed the German tanks they encountered, but this didn't prevent them from being defeated by horribly inferior Pzkw II's and 38(t)'s; such matchups make a Panther vs. Sherman battle look like even odds. These early tanks were the real juggernauts.

Quick, name a German victory in which the Panther played a role.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What's your point?

The French had poor tanks, without effective command and control. Further, they refused to mass them and use them decisively. They paid for that mistake.

The Soviets suffered from inept leadership at all levels, lack of training, spare parts, and fuel. They had lost 90%+ of their air force in the first days of Barbarossa, and their tanks also lacked radios.

All you are saying is that a better tank does not guarantee that you will win the war. Well, I think that has already been established. So what?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

As someone else pointed out, CM's lack of rarity factors can give a skewed picture of WWII armor battles. The most numerous German AFV (in general and at this time) was the StuG III, followed by the Mk IV. Panthers were not common (although I wouldn't call them rare), but King Tigers were extremely rare. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Panthers were as common as the MkIV. They were built in almost equal numbers, and the west front saw a disproportionate amount to boot. Indeed, MkIV production was scheduled to cease entirely once the Panther got the kinks worked out, with those facilities switching to Panther production. The only reason this did not occur was the expense and difficulty of switching the factories over. The actual cost of the Panther was actually the same as a MkIV due to increased production efficiencies.

Jeff Heidman

[This message has been edited by Jeff Heidman (edited 12-14-2000).]

[Terence]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Forever Babra:

One word: Swarowski.

Best optics in the world, then and now.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, not to be irritating, but why were they the best optics? surely the US and the British and the Soviets all had equal incentive to produce good tank optics. Why were the Swarowski optics so good? Why weren't they bettered or equalled by equally rich creative nations?

[Jarmo]

I thought the superoptics were Zeiss?

To the question why not similar quality in other countries:

You don't build a tradition of precision craftmanship

by need alone. Besides, I doubt the optics were seen as

a critical factor in tank performance. And I doubt they are..

[Major Tom]

Actually, one of the problems about French Armour wasn't dispersal, but, over concentration. They had just as many all armour formations as the Germans (4 Armoured Divisions, and 3 Light Mechanized Divisions, actually Heavy Tank Divisions). The problem was, that the French grouped their armour into too large formations without significant Infantry support. Their Armoured Divisions had maybe a battalion of accompanying infantry. Their Mechanized Divisions were much better, around a brigade of Infantry.

Most of their armour never engaged the German armour, as, it was concentrated in Belgium, outflanked and defeated without fighting. Lack of Radios were a severe handicap, but, in the few Tank vs. Tank battles, the French and British proved themselves able to fight 1 on 1 with their German counterparts.

Allied tanks, on the whole for 1940 were better, but, had less future for upgrading as the German tanks (ie. their turrets were too small, or mass construction too difficult). Reliability was just about the same, but, more French tanks were lost because of unreliability because they were retreating. The Germans could recover all of their broken down vehicles.

[Guest Andrew Hedges]

Jeff Heidman writes:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Incorrect. While the French tanks had decent armor and guns, they almost never had radios, and usually had two man turrets. These were *critical* failings. Failings that were shared by the Soviet vehicles of the time.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I understand the radio and two-man turret problems (although German Is and IIs and their Czech tanks also had two man turrets). The point I am making is that the quality of the armor matters much less than the skill of the people using the vehicles, as well as the actual doctrine governing the use of armor.

Jeff writes:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>What's your point? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> My point refers to the topic of this thread: "unstoppable juggernauts". The German army armed with Mk III's and Pzkw 38(t)s was very close to being an "unstoppable juggernaut." The German army equipped with Panthers, Tigers, Elefants, etc. was no where close to being an unstoppable juggernaut

Jeff writes

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>All you are saying is that a better tank does not guarantee that you will win the war. Well, I think that has already been established. So what?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First, see the topic of the thread for the context. Second, I am not convinced that a hypothetically Pershing equipped June 44 army would have had significantly fewer losses than the real Sherman equipped army. So much of tank fighting, as you mentioned in your post, had to do with having the proper doctrine and good, experienced crews. I don't believe that the Pershings would have fared any better in the bocage, and I don't believe that Cobra would have been much more successful with Pershings, as it was hugely successful with Shermans. Finally, I don't believe that US equipped troops in the bulge would have had much better (or worse) luck fighting the Germans with Pershings over Shermans.

Of course the Germans would have had to deal with Pershings differently than they did with Shermans, but I suspect that they would have been equally successful until the US crews gained experience.