Knowing a tank is dead...

[Kingfish]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Capt Canuck:

[QBI believe the video was shot in the ruins of Hamburg, a very frightening video indeed. There were Shermans in the Russien Tank Armies though, but I'm pretty sure they were only earlier models, and not many to say the least. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

Dave[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The film clip is from the American attack on Cologne. You can see the cathedral and especially the two huge spiers in the background. The action played out in the city square between a Pershing and Panther.

[JasonC]

Iron Chef said "the shermans grew obsolete very fast". While it is correct that lend lease armor was a minor contribution on the eastern front, the idea that tanks were only sent through 1942 is incorrect. There was no US LL in 1941; the US wasn't even in the war yet. Sherman 76s (A2 model) were still being sent in 1944, and one unit, the 1st Guards Mechanized Corps, even switched from T-34/85s to use them.

The Russians valued 2 lend-lease models, the Sherman and the Valentine, while not being impressed with the rest. The Brits actually kept the Valentine in production because of Russian demand for them, and 42% of Valentines produced (including all the Canadian built ones) went to Russia - 3500 of them. The US sent 4100 Shermans, half of them 76mm. Early on the US also sent about 1250 each of Stuarts and Grants, and the Brits sent 1000 Matildas.

What the Russians appreciated most about the Sherman and Valentine models was their better mechanical reliability, compared to Russian built tanks. Russian tanks were designed for a short operational life, on the theory that once in combat, the life expectancy of a tank was small. Even without domestically produced spares, the western tanks outlasted them in running time. Later on, the Russians used the Valentines for training, because of this edge; it spared their own vehicles mileage they could ill afford to waste from a maintenance point of view.

There are some amusing anecdotes about this feature of LL tanks. Those that survived the war had their turrets and weapons removed and were used as tractors, or to push around equipment in rail yards and the like. Some were used in one rail yard in southern Russia this way - light duty, but regularly maintained as a useful tool. The last of these Sherman chassis was retired from RR service and placed in a museum - in the 1990s! LOL. (If ~1/4 survived the war, that would mean a half-life of about 5 years for the remaining Shermans).

Valentines and Matildas were decently armored for 1942. Shermans were not as well armored as the T-34 of course, but the gun in the 75mm versions had about the same performance as the standard Russian 76mm, and the 76mm later version had about the same AT performance as the Russian 85mm (though a smaller HE charge).

As for the mix of domestically produced Russian AFVs, it was superior to the mix in the west in armor terms, because of the superior slope of the T-34 armor (the thickness is not greater than the Sherman), but the gun mix was not noticably heavier, over the whole war. It did become so in the last year, however. 1/4 of Russian AFVs had 85mm and up guns, while 1/2 had the 76mm, which was about the same as the US or UK short 75mm. The other 1/4 mostly had 45mm guns, with a portion using only 20mm (the T-60s, mostly used in 1942).

Many of the 45mm tanks, which made up the bulk of the pre-war fleet, were destroyed in 1941, but the Russians continued to make light tanks into 1943. Eventually the light tank chassis were switched to SU-76 production, which remained high to the end of the war.

As for the IS, ISU, and improved SU varieties, most of them were fielded only in 1944, along with the T-34/85. And for the first half of the year, the bulk of the fleet continued to be T-34/76s. There were some earlier SUs - 1100 SU-122 with short howitzers, roughly equivalent to a Sherman 105, and 700 SU-152s which were superior to anything in the west. Those were out in 42 and 43, but not very numerous.

The SU-85 was fielded in the fall of 1943, thus getting some 85mm guns to the front before the T-34/85s were out, but most of the 2000 built were also in 1944. The greatly improved SU-100s did not see action until early in 1945. T-34/85s came out at a rate of ~1500 a month from spring 44 on, so they mattered in the mid 1944 campaigns, but made little difference before them.

The ISU-122 and 152 were produced throughout 1944, getting to the front months before the IS-2s. 4000 were built all told, stretched or around 250 per month until the end of the war. So they only became a significant front line presence in the last year, from Bagration onward really. 3800 IS-2s were fielded, starting in summer of 1944; by fall 1944 they were an important presence.

Thus, gun-wise as opposed to armor-wise, the Russian fleet followed a reasonably familiar pattern. 45mm in 1941, mixed 45mm and 76mm in 1942, mostly 76mm in 1943, upgunning in the course of 1944 to 85mm, with a portion heavier still. By 1945, the fleet was mostly upgunned (only the SU-76s and surviving T-34/76s were exceptions) and significant numbers of considerably heavier guns were available (IS and ISU mostly).

By comparison, in 1941 in the western desert the Brits were using 40mm, in 1942 they started mixing 75mm with them, in 1943 the bulk of the western armor used 75mm, in the course of 1944 it upgunned from 75mm to mixed 75mm and higher velocity 76mm and 17-lber.

The upgunning move is about 6 months earlier in Russia and is more thorough when it arrives, and there are more late war vehicles (mid 44 on) with significantly better guns (long 122mm, 152mm, eventually some high velocity 100mm). The main difference earlier on is armor rather than guns - the T-34 and KV were armored much more than Shermans, of course.

If you look at the whole war mix in the west, it is 1/4 upgunned (76mm, 17-lber, 105mm), with the rest split 3/8 75mm and 3/8 37-40mm from early war (Matilda, Valentine, Crusader) or light armor (Stuarts in both categories, plus M-8s, Staghound, Daimler).

The whole war portions of fielded AFV guns on both fronts with the performance of a Russian 76mm/US 75mm or below, is the same, 3 out of 4 vehicles. The westerners continued to use light armor in the late was and the Russians had about 10% of the force with guns significantly better than western 76mm - Russian 85mm, but those are marginal differences. The main one was better Russian armor, from 1942 on.

As for the overall contribution made by both lend-lease AFVs and diverting German armor to other fronts (North Africa, Sicily, Italy) before Normandy, the net result was to raise the pure production based relative armor odds the Germans faced through the end of 1943, from about 2.25 to 1 if they had only had to face the Russians, up to more like 3 to 1.

The 2.25 ratio vs. the Russians only, mostly reflects slow German mobilization of their economy. A portion is due to a smaller starting fleet, but that difference was largely wiped out by the successes of 1941. The Germans matched Russian production in 1943 and the first half of 1944, but the lead the Russians got in 1942 was never made good. And the influx of the western produced fleets made the production odds hopeless from mid 1944 on.

For what it is worth.

[aka_tom_w]

bump for interest sake

great comment

-tom w

[dfgardner]

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

hehehehehee...Why am I lauging?

Oh me, no reason...Lets just say we got this particular matter well in hand in CMBB..Well indeed..

Madmatt<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well I'm confused. I thought it was standard experience to look on in awe and wonder as your tank fires several shots at the enemy tank...all of them missing...while the enemy tank fires one shot and gets mine!

:eek:

Perhaps CMBB could introduce a 'hysterical laughter' modifier, in which the enemy tank crew, after seeing the number of misses my crews usually do, are immobilized for several minutes. Perhaps a new .bmp file showing the enemy crew doubled over in laugher is in order?

[Enoch]

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

There was no US LL in 1941; the US wasn't even in the war yet. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not to be picky but the Lend-Lease act was actually passed on March 11, 1941. I have conflicting sources that say shipments began to the USSR in either June or November of 1941.

Not that this has anything to do with Gyrene's point about knowing when tanks are dead in the game which I am glad will be dealt with in CMBB.

[Gyrene]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> hehehehehee...Why am I lauging?

Oh me, no reason...Lets just say we got this particular matter well in hand in CMBB..Well indeed..

Madmatt <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Excellent news. BTS, please don't fix all the problems with CM, we need something to bitch about.

Gyrene

[ 10-08-2001: Message edited by: Gyrene ]

[lcm1947]

God I hope Madmatt doesn't mean that the tanks will roll over or some goofy thing like that when actually knocked out. That would look silly.

[Ace Pilot]

Just to provide some input from modern times. I have a friend that served as a Marine tanker in the Gulf War. When I asked him how he knew when he no longer needed to engage an enemy tank, he said his tank crews are trained to "shoot 'em 'til they change shape."

It will be interesting to see if this is the philosophy that needs to be applied in CMBB.

[killmore]

Seen that video. Pershing was hunting Panter in the West germany. I would guess Aachen.

Commander of the panther was escaping with just one leg...

[Patgod]

while not real(duh) wwii online does show this rather well. before i got sick and tired of the bugs i would fire and wonder "i hit him...is he dead....he isnt moving, or shooting back. ok next target" then *THUD* "wtf, who....oops, he isnt dead crap crap crap"