Jump to content

Are King Tigers Modelled Correctly?


Recommended Posts

People seem to have difficulty to compress this thread, so let me post a little AAR on the 95mm issue here. Please correct me, but don't take it as an attempt to open the can of worms again. It should serve as a one-stop read summary.

1) CM uses a formular, not tables for penetration. However, this applies to the computation of the effect of one shot at given distance, angles etc. based on a base penetration capability in the case of HC rounds. This is in contrast to the AP shot model, where even the base penetration is the result of a formula, and only exceptions like the US 76mm are special-coded.

2) The HC model in CM bases the base penetration capability on test reports for each round and then applies the actual shot computation on top of that..

3) The only actual data on the 95mm HC round is the British one quoted by Jason, and it is used in CM. The test in question tested both the US 105mm and the British 95mm.

4) CM uses the 95mm values from this test, but not the 105mm values. For the 105mm HC, there is more test data available, which was considered more reliable and is significant less than the British test of both.

5) For the 95mm, there is no other data available, so the data is used as is. The finding that the 105mm from this test was way too high did not lead to a lowering of the 95mm values from the same test.

6) [my guess] It seems that this test was flawed and a probable explanation is that the test was done without rotation of the rounds. That explains why the 105mm was tested to be better than in practice.

7) [remaining question] Even assuming the test was done without rotation and that is the reason why the 105mm value is too high, that doesn't neccessarily mean the 95mm value must be too high for the same reason. Because we don't know how much the 95mm was rifled (maybe not at all) so the test data could reflect reality for the 95mm, but not for the 105mm. In that case the CMBO would be correct...

8) [my opinion] ... however I cannot imagine that the 95mm HC was this powerful. The discovery that this round was this powerful would have lead to modifications in the production program. I don't want to expand on the point here, as people's interpretation of my wrinting are too far apart and ruin the thread's focus on facts, so please email redwolf@cons.org if you want to discuss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 259
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Looking for specific Tiger II losses to SC rounds, hand held or gun delivered i have not found much to report ie, S.Pz.Abt 506 lost 1 Tiger II on 24.09.44 to an 'PIAT'. S.Pz.Abt.510 lost 1 Tiger II on 02.04.45 to an 'hand held anti-tank weapon'.

Their is an interesting photo of one of s.SS.Pz.Abt.501's abandoned Tiger II's taken at La Gleize, by members of the 82nd Airborne. The photo was taken after live fire tests with bazookas, vs the Tiger II, frontal armor, the glacis alone shows over 8 SC impacts, & i can see 1 SC impact on the turret front, none of which penetrated.

The caption for the photo reads:'Imprevious to bazookas'. Unfourtnatly its an frontal aspect picture only so i cant tell if they fired vs the side hull/turret armor.

The 1947 French report on the Panther states that 105mm SC is the lowest calibre SC round that will defeat the Panther glacis, & that the Panzerfaust will defeat the Panther's armor from any aspect.

Regards, John Waters

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Penetration stats for 0 degree obliquity From: L. Bird & R. Livingston’s “Armor & Gunnery”

UK 95mm HES….127mm

US M67 105mm HEAT…128mm

================================

Penetration stats for 0 degree obliquity against RHA From: Hunnicutt’s “Sherman”

US M67 105mm HEAT…4 inches (~102mm)

===================================

Penetration stats from “Handbook and Engineering Data For Ammunition. Vol 2 76mm to 105mm, Army Ballistic Research Lab, Aberdeen”

US M67 105mm HEAT vs. RHA 0 degree obliquity…4.5 inches (~114mm)

==========================

A post war study conducted by Office of Science and Research and Development Washington DC, on Explosives indicates:

US M67 105mm HEAT @ normal incidence (0 degree obliquity for normal folks) against RHA…4 inches (~102mm)

===========================

P. Chamberlain in “British and American Tanks of WWII” indicates

UK 95mm HES….110mm RHA @ 30 degree obliquity.

===========================

“US ARMY Catalogue of Standard Ordnance Items”, 1944 indicates:

US M67 105mm HEAT will penetrate 4.5 inches of RHA armor.

============================

“Fire and Movement”, RAC Tank Museum, Bovington, 1975:

UK 95mm HES….110mm RHA @ 30 degree obliquity.

US M67 105mm HEAT…100mm RHA @ 30 degree obliquity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

A small dose of reality here... very little information out there agrees on a particular issue 100% of the time in 100% of the possible situations.

True.

So like any good researcher/scientist, all things must be looked at in as broad a context as possible.

How did you combine and disseminate factors from this broader context ?

For example I get a gut feeling the weapons and weapons systems are rated by their mount more than by the "inherent" qualities of the weapons themselves.

The penetration values stay the same but there seems to be more mount related factors that affect the outcome of a shot. A Sherman on the move performs better than a stationary concealed (which is not truly concealed) Stug. There seems to be indications the non-turreted weapons systems for example get short changed as things stand. And that seems to be by design, not necessarily by some historical facts of ability to KO them but because there are aspects in the game engine that are geared to favour the other weapons systems (turreted tanks in this case).

It also seems the the difference in the silhouette values between the two vehicles engageing each other has more impact on the outcome than it realistically should have.

Gut feelings and other ellusive things raising doubts one can not quite put the finger on. smile.gif

If two pieces of "real world" data (forget about CM for now!!) don't agree with each other we have to figure out why. This is unfortunately what we spend much of our time doing because so little can be counted on as "correct" or "complete".

What kind of a sample base did you cather to get a statistically representative and relevant database to work from ?

It is all a balancing act of detective work, if you will. It is subject to error and interpretation, which is why there is often disagreements between people who are looking at the same exact "facts".

Yes.

There are millions and millions of possible different permutations that would have to be recored, multiple times, for this method to work. Since this is practically impossible, it was not done. However, when we (BTS, testers, or customers) found a situation which did not appear to be correct, then tabulation and experimentation was done.

I take it things like the penetration values were not tested within the game engine as they would have been tested in RL test grounds. Ordnance fired at a slab of metal X millimeters thick. Instead, the test was made by firing the gun (weapons system) mounted on a mount fired at the finished product ? How were the adjustement made and how were they balanced with relevant factors correlating with each other ? How were anomalies treated ? What was the threshold for accepting the anomaly to stay in ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>The only actual data on the 95mm HC round is the British one quoted by Jason<hr></blockquote>

What is the exact reference here and what exactly does it say. If it is one of Jason's typical Internet based references what is the URL? Or is this a military secret.

With respect to some of the AAR's eluded to regarding the 105mm M67 HEAT round KO'ing Tiger II's what are the exact references...perhaps scanning and posting these AAR's would help the non-believers and fence sitters on the merits of some of the arguments being presented here.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Because we don't know how much the 95mm was rifled (maybe not at all) so the test data could reflect reality for the 95mm, but not for the 105mm. In that case the CMBO would be correct...<hr></blockquote>

The 95mm was based upon a cut down barrel of the British 3.7 inch anit-aircraft gun married up with the breech of a 25-pounder field gun. It was supposed to fire rounds being manufactured for the British 3.7 inch Mountain Howitzer. And yes the weapons barrel was rifled. A real piece of work rigged together from spare parts if one believes David Fletcher’s description of the thing.

It is interesting to note the reluctance of Lt. Bill Cotton to employ his CS Cromwell in the close-in fighting of Villers-Boccage (post Witmann rampage). One would presume that the closed nature of the Village would have made his “uber” 95mm HES the ideal weapon for engaging the Tigers of Schwere Abteilung 101. Instead, this experienced N. African tanker reveals his faith in the 95mm’s tank killing abilities by dismounting his CS tank parking it away from the impending fray and subsequently directing the fire of his Firefly and 6-pdr Cromwells while on foot.

From “Villiers-Boccage Through The Lens” by Daniel Taylor…”Cotton’s Cromwell CS, being armed with a 95mm Howitzer was of little use against armour so he decided to dismount and direct the fire from his other tanks from the ground”.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

"Iron Chef", there is a big difference between a manual produced in 1944 and a 1956 study of air power that defined the use of TAC aire for the Western powers for the next 45 years. One is a manual written very fast for the consumption of soldiers who in 1944 averaged a 4th grade education, and the manual had no research checks and balances in it. The 1956 study took 4 years to complete (in part because of the Korean war data). The other studies are similar although less earth shaking, while the quotes from TAC Air guys come from statistics on hand when the books in question where written.

A major problem of course with judging research is the bias of we who read it of course, which is why, as Steve pointed out with the Russian example, it is very important to approach information from a neutral perspective. In the case of the manuals they were not really flawed. The 1944 Army Ground Forces assesment of the German Army was based oin research done up to 1943 and was not that far off the mark for that time: US and Commonwealth tanks near the end of the Desert campaign and in Italy were almost invicible except for a few exceptions that had been tactically dealt with. But by the end of 1943 new equipment was coming on line for the Germans, while the Allies where having problems getting their next generation gear on line (or in some cases even recognizing the need for a "next generation" of gear) resulting in the general inferiority on the ground of Allied equipment in early 1944 (although this would end by late 1944 with an increased number of Fireflies, the Comet starting to come on line, the M-36, the gradual replacement of the A3/75 with the E8 76mm Shermans in the US Army, and increasing problems with fuel and production problems with the Germans.)<hr></blockquote>

if what you say is true and the us and commonwealth tanks near the end of the desert campaign werein fact nearly invincible, explain how the battle of kesserine pass happend then? or did i read something wrong and someone just imagined what transpired there during the end of the desert camapign? the american and commonwealth tanks at no time during the war were almost invincible, with the exception of the matildas wich were heavily armored but were easily dealt with by 88 anti tank batteries, and say the b1bis chars, agains wich the 88 solved any question of assumed invicibilites, oh and later with the kv-1 and t-34's

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

Basically, when I learned research methods in university, I was taught not to dismiss research based upon its counhtry of origin, the race, religion, or gender of the researcher, or the political belief's of the research system. While positional bias is important to consider, usually a report is impeached by proving its tenant or methodology wrong.

The reports created by the USAF in conjunction with the RAF are very important because they are the basis of the current system of tactical air power used in the west. While it may be nice to impeach them based upon a bias against the United States, the reports themselves are from a large number of diverse groups all finding similar things from different sources of data. I do treat all these numbers as softish, so a 35% would not surprise me to find out the actual number was 25% or 45% since that is the nature of this sort of research.

I should also note that this is not research that is based upon the whims of the researchers. For example, if I wanted to judge the sloppiness of a salute as part of a research program first I would have to define what a sloppy salute was, and that would indeed be arbitrary, so if you ever read anyone saying that czechs are sloppy saluters you could justly accuse that person or research group of nationalistic / saltue bias (in this case against the Czechs). With a tank and data taken from land surveys of destroyed tanks created by US, UK, Australian, Polish, French, and German organizations, and with a simple variable (what killed this tank), you have a fairly simple data set and a very deep background of data in which to work in (at least many groups generated fairly equivilant numbers).

A way to impeach these data sets is to find alternate data set (not a History channel show presented by the soi disant Iron Chef) and present just a tid bit about it. Assuming that it is of high quality, then you have inroads into proving that airpower sucked / was the greatest or whatever you want to prove, changing the current understanding that airpower in WW2 was useful and deadly when used correctly.<hr></blockquote>realy? well what about russian researchers who claimed that the slaughter of 7000 polish officers was the fault of the germans, wich it was not, the nkvd massacred them, 7000, during russian occupation of poland in 1940, it wasnt discovered till many years after that it was indded the russians who comitted the atrocites and not the germans in that particular case. russian researches who were told by stalin to have it look as though it was the germans. so again you trust all research no matter the country? well that is your decision but that doesnt make it fact

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jason,

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Report WO 185/178, 1943. Records the penetration of 95mm HEAT as 90mm@30 degrees, not 110mm, and notes only a small behind armor effect.

Interesting. Finally some evidence to support your claim the shell is over rated. However, this does not prove your case, only begs the question which of the two values is correct. It also must be taken into account with the results posted by John and Jeff (thanks for the info!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Redwolf, you may want to take a look at production figures for AFV armament in the British Army for your answer.

Also, ask yourself how many 95 mm weapons the US produced, and how many 75 mm weapons they had from US sources.

Then read the British Parliamentary debate - as late as the autumn of 1944 - on how adequate (!) the 75mm armed Sherman tank was.<hr></blockquote>ok dorosh i think we agree on something for once, i do not think the sherman was an awful tank. it was an adequet tank. it was a work horse and did its job. could it have been better? much, was it as good as a tiger one on one? not even close, but there were not even as close to many tigers as there were shermans. i veiw the panther as an exceptional tank. i view the sherman as an adequete tank. if you want somethign below average, see the italian armor, and japanese armor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can only assume that Jason’s reference to WO185/178 “Tank Armament Versus Armour, 1943” is based upon the extremely abridged version of the report provided by John Salt on his web site. The actual document is quite voluminous and spans a period from Oct 1942 to April of 1943. Much of the content focuses on the tough time the British were having with German Armour in North Africa. The first mention of the 95mm CS weapon and its HES round doesn’t really appear until the tail end of the report...April of 1943. It is evident that the 95mm was still under development at that time. The actual report indicates the following with regards to penetration performance of the 95mm HES round:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Performance against Homogeneous Plate at 30 degrees Angle of Attack

“Minimum of 90mm at all ranges”<hr></blockquote>

Clearly the “minimum” indication should raise some flags regarding what this number represents. It is a conservative estimate that presumably was put forth by engineers unwilling to hang their hats on data for test firing that was probably still being conducted coincident with the generation of WO185/178.

I had obtained an original copy of WO185/178 about a year ago from PRO, Kew. There are only about 3 pgs of the unabridged report that actually elaborates on the 95mm and its shaped charge capability. Bear in mind the whole report is about 120 pages long and contains numerous letters, tables and graphs. I have scanned the pages that actually address the 95mm and posted them at:

http://www.geocities.com/jeffduquette/stuff8/95mmHES.html

This document is real history…not watered down stuff. There are actually letters in this report addressed to Winston Churchill.

The real issue IMHO has been briefly touched on by the rather erudite comments of Lt. Tankersley in his post on pg 6 of this thread. There are other issues at play here which should reduce the “Real World”TM effectiveness of the 95mm.

It is also pretty evident from Lt. Cotton’s account of Villers-Boccage that the 95mm was not the weapon of choice in a tank on tank engagement...even at extremely close quarters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai:

if what you say is true and the us and commonwealth tanks near the end of the desert campaign werein fact nearly invincible, explain how the battle of kesserine pass happend then? or did i read something wrong and someone just imagined what transpired there during the end of the desert camapign? the american and commonwealth tanks at no time during the war were almost invincible, with the exception of the matildas wich were heavily armored but were easily dealt with by 88 anti tank batteries, and say the b1bis chars, agains wich the 88 solved any question of assumed invicibilites, oh and later with the kv-1 and t-34's<hr></blockquote>

Iron Chef, I don't have time to teach you all about research, or why your claim about the "report" about the 7000 (actually 14,000) Polish officers killed by Soviets), is apples and oranges to the reports cited by all sides. It is sort of like me showing you a report on the splitting of the atom and subatomic particles and you claiming it is false because a letter you got from the psychic friends network was wrong one time. The two are not equivilant, and I am not sure if you are just trying to argue absurdities for fun, or if you really believe what you arte writing (and I will not get into the discussion of who you "really are" because it is not relevant for this discussion).

As for Kasserine, if you think poor armor is what caused that fiasco then you need to write an article on it, since Patton, Bradley, Eisenhower, Monty, the AGF, Rommel, the 8th Army, and a post war study by the early NATO all assign blame for that battle to poor training, poor leadership, and faulty communication by green troops. In 1943, before the Tiger really took hold, the M4 with its 75mm gun ruled the battlefield. It was not for some magic reason, just that the M4 was designed to fight the early war German technology and beat it. The Germans in fact, faced with the T-34 and M4 in British and Russian hands, started a whole new series of vehicles to replace the Pz IV and III.

The T-34 and the M-4 scared the heck out of the Germans, and really put a dent in the 1940 style tactics they used. In fact, British M3 and M4s where called "devil" machines by the Germans at El Alemien, and they complained that their short 50 and 75s were not useful against these vehicles. To many ill informed people think the British and the Americans developed weapons systems designed to fail on the battlefield while the Germans were the technical masters of the war. In fact, the balance went from one side to the other all through the war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding the armor quality modelling of King Tigers.

Everyone seems to agree that Rexford's research is the best extant on this. Accordingly the sides should be 100% quality, and only the front plate is 90%. In CM it is 90% all around.

The question is, in CM what do you do with this? Use 100% and get the front wrong, or 90% and get the sides wrong?

Here is a solution to the problem that will make everyone happy. Set the armor quality to 100%, then make the front plates be 9/10 as thick. Or, leave the quality at 90% and make the side plates be 89mm.

Is there something I don't understand about the penetration computation that would make this not work?

The only problem left would be grogs posting from time to time to tell you your numbers are wrong. But they would shut up with a very brief response telling them why/what has been done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

Iron Chef, I don't have time to teach you all about research, or why your claim about the "report" about the 7000 (actually 14,000) Polish officers killed by Soviets), is apples and oranges to the reports cited by all sides. It is sort of like me showing you a report on the splitting of the atom and subatomic particles and you claiming it is false because a letter you got from the psychic friends network was wrong one time. The two are not equivilant, and I am not sure if you are just trying to argue absurdities for fun, or if you really believe what you arte writing (and I will not get into the discussion of who you "really are" because it is not relevant for this discussion).

As for Kasserine, if you think poor armor is what caused that fiasco then you need to write an article on it, since Patton, Bradley, Eisenhower, Monty, the AGF, Rommel, the 8th Army, and a post war study by the early NATO all assign blame for that battle to poor training, poor leadership, and faulty communication by green troops. In 1943, before the Tiger really took hold, the M4 with its 75mm gun ruled the battlefield. It was not for some magic reason, just that the M4 was designed to fight the early war German technology and beat it. The Germans in fact, faced with the T-34 and M4 in British and Russian hands, started a whole new series of vehicles to replace the Pz IV and III.

The T-34 and the M-4 scared the heck out of the Germans, and really put a dent in the 1940 style tactics they used. In fact, British M3 and M4s where called "devil" machines by the Germans at El Alemien, and they complained that their short 50 and 75s were not useful against these vehicles. To many ill informed people think the British and the Americans developed weapons systems designed to fail on the battlefield while the Germans were the technical masters of the war. In fact, the balance went from one side to the other all through the war.<hr></blockquote>

i never once said the american and britsh tanks were poor, didnt you see my reply to dorsh? i bbeleive they were adequete tanks. and as far as poor tactics and trtaing at the kesserine pass, mabe so, but you seem reluctant to give rommel and his superior tactics and better trained men some credit. the t-34's were dented onften by the 88, i did not refer to the panzer3's or 4's did i? last time i checked the panzer3'3 at that time were equiped with that anemic 37mm until the j series where they got the 50mm, wich still had trouble, i was refering to the 88's ability to penetrate all allied armor in world war 2 at even long distances. so part of your argument with me is infact with yourself because you manufactured things in your mind that i did not write

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and as far as your claim, in 1943 before the tiger took hold the allied 75 ruled the battlefield? took hold of what exactly, find me a tank with thunbs for one. the allied 75 never once ruled the battlefield, in fact i can't point to one single gun , weapon, tank, plane, scout car, rocket,bayonet, shovel, grenade, rocket, or anything else that ruled a battlefield at any point of the war. i am assuming your wondering why i mentioned shovel, it is because it was a better weapon in stalingrad then bayonets by the accounts of many a soviet and german soldier. and if the tiger didnt take hold in 1943, you may want to inform the few soviet vets of the battle of kursk that the tiger was not feared on the battle field. in 1943 the tiger had been out for a year. and again i am not saying that allied weapons were worthless. if you take a 75mm shell and hurl it out a barrel and mach whatever and it comes in contact wiht something, usualy somehting bad is going to happen. do you honestly think soldiers on the battle field were like, oh thats only a 50mm shell chances are it may bounce off the hull unless they get a flank shot wich has a 79.3% chance of penetrating wich could cause us crew member serious injuries, or may just kill our tank commander so we'll be ok, just perhaps thrown into shock for 120 seconds or so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Even 1 in 100 chances become "routine""

The chance of a bazooka killing a KT with a side hit in CM today is not 1 in 100. It is above 1 in 2. The chance of KOing the KT with 2 hits is around 80%. See my post on zook tests. As Wreck mentions, by now the grogs understand this is due to undermodeling the quality of the KT side plates, by using a single armor quality number. And he suggests a perfectly reasonable solution.

Steve merely "found interesting" the point about present CM zook penetration numbers implying they could just as routinely KO T-34s, when in fact they failed to do so, with multiple hits from flank and rear. Which are infantry AT engagements with some of the most detailed AARs in history - Task Force Smith. But he can't be bothered to listen to such "interesting" observations, because he is afraid I might maintain the same thesis a month from now.

Here is my cockamamie stubbornness - I maintain that any sim that says Task Force Smith should have torched all the T-34s instead of being overrun by them, doing the same things they did, is flat wrong about the penetration capabilities of the 60mm bazooka. And you can spin until George Stephanopolous gets dizzy, and I'll say that again.

If a kill at 45mm@60 degrees was as routine as e.g. Panther lower front hull penetrations are in CM today, against 60mm@55, then Task Force Smith would not have been overrun. (They might still have been flanked by the NK infantry, but that is another story altogether). TFS was overrun. The 60mm bazooka was not a panzerschreck.

As for the 95mm document, most of its comments were repeated in the summary I've seen, but it is useful to have the actual undigested report, certainly, to verify what it does and doesn't say.

Notice that they are worried about behind armor effect (BAE) and think it will be inadequate. They were probably half-wrong about that - greater familiarity with HEAT would show more spalling inside besides the actual penetration hole, at least when the round has the power to penetrate the armor more than marginally. That is the evidence from other HEAT rounds. The small hole did not necessarily mean small BAE.

But also notice the report says the penetration "compares favorably to the 6-pdr". It does not say "is comparable to the 88mm APCBC". The numbers in that report for 88mm APCBC are marginally lower at 1000 yards than what CM gives the 95mm HEAT, and marginally higher at 500 yards. Meaning, at the ~700 yards mentioned at an opening range for the 95mm, its performance in CM is equal not to the 6-pdr or a little better, but equal to the 88mm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Iron Chef Sakai:

i never once said the american and britsh tanks were poor, didnt you see my reply to dorsh? i bbeleive they were adequete tanks. and as far as poor tactics and trtaing at the kesserine pass, mabe so, but you seem reluctant to give rommel and his superior tactics and better trained men some credit. the t-34's were dented onften by the 88, i did not refer to the panzer3's or 4's did i? last time i checked the panzer3'3 at that time were equiped with that anemic 37mm until the j series where they got the 50mm, wich still had trouble, i was refering to the 88's ability to penetrate all allied armor in world war 2 at even long distances. so part of your argument with me is infact with yourself because you manufactured things in your mind that i did not write<hr></blockquote>

Iron Chef, again it is very hard to conduct this discussion because you are so far out of touch with the historical realities of those battlefields, but I will try one more time. The 88 was a single, defensive weapon in the German arsenal that was very good at plugging enemy tanks, but was also very vulnerable to artillery fire, HE, and a load of other counter measures. You just need to read the British reports of the advantage the 75mm gun gave them at El Al to understand what a profound effect it had on the battlefield. When I say the Tiger had not yet taken hold, it was not very common in Africa and never would be. Until 1944 the western allies just did not face meny of them. So you say you were not talking about the Pz 3 and 4, but you were because you replied that no allied weapon ever ruled the battlefield, and I pointed out that in its day the 75 was far superior to what was carried by the German opposite numbers, just that its day was short.

Again, I cannot take you step by step through yoru misconceptions, perhaps caused by poor history channel.

I would like to suggest you read Morshead : Victor at Tobruk and El Alamein which is about a nearly legendary Australian commander in the desert and includes discussions of desert fighting, your school library will be able to order it by interlibrary loan, it is by Oxford University Press and a well known scholar David Combes. That will give you some background on the war in 1941-1943. Then I would read the more technical War in the Desert: The Eighth Army at El Alamein which covers more on the equipment and tactics of the war in 1942. This book is by James Sidney Lucas and is a basic primer for many on the desert war. You can also look for a book by Chamberlain and Ellis called The Sherman which covers the whole career of this tank.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was at the tail end of the Tunisian campaign that the Churchill was being upgunned - to a 75mm gun! One wants to be careful of viewing history with perfect hindsight. The adequacy of the 75mm was probably viewed a lot different in spring 1943 than in spring 1945. Again, as late as autumn 1944 many senior officials - both civil and military - were trying to insist that the 75 was an adequate tank weapon.

In its intended role - as an anti-infantry weapon - indeed it was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

quote:

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

JasonCs' bit:

The 1st Battalion refused to panic and set to work with bazookas against the flanks of the blinded tanks. One of the panzers was crippled, but the crew compartment proved impervious to bazooka rounds (perhaps this was a Tiger).

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

Read my previous post. I said that such reports are utterly useless. It is vague in the extreme. Heck, they don't even have the targeted tank positively identified. All I see here is that some Bazooka guys shot at some sort of German AFV from some unknown angle POSSIBLY on the flank. It also states that one was crippled. What does that mean? Lower hull penetration, track hit, knocked off the radio attena? What?? This is hardly a good piece of evidence to present.<hr></blockquote>

This action occured sometime between 1840 and 2230 on 17th December 1944, approx 1km east of Rocherath in the open ground around the Lausdell crossroads. Units involved were 1st Bn, 9th Infantry Regt, 2nd Infantry Div on the US side, and elements of the 12th SS Panzer Div. In particular II Bn 25th SS PzGren Regt and 12th SS Panzerjager Bn. 12th SS Panzerjager Bn was equipped with Jagdpanzer IV/48s and JagdPanthers. There were no Tigers (I or II) in this area.

Incidentally, these are the same units which overran Charles MacDonalds I Company in the forest on the morning of the 17th, an incident related in his book "Company Commander"

Other contacts from the same time (ie over the next few days) and place (ie around Krinkelt-Rocherath) refer to "Jagdpanzers and other panzers", and in the area 12th SS PzDiv used MkIV and MkV panzers in addition to the Mk IV Jagdpanzers and MkV Jagdpanthers. However, the narrative indicates that "...During the night (of 17-18 Dec), using the din of battle to cover their noise, a company of tanks from I PzBn, 12th SS PzRegt had crept to within direct fire distance of the US foxhole line..." In other words, the Panthers and MkIVs weren't involved until the morning of the 18th Dec. The JagdPanthers didn't turn up till later. Therefore, the 'panzer' of the Bone-Roberts contact was most likely a JgPz IV/48.

'Crippled', in this specific instance, is described as follows: "one of these panzers was hit in the track and disabled by an American bazooka round...". The narrative goes on "...Lt Melesnick and several other bazooka teams fired at it in order to finish it off, but its armour shrugged off four of their rockets..." Then there is the bit about the siphoned petrol and the thermite grenade.

No mention of the angle or facing at which the zooks were fired at is made, however, the narrative does note that the vehicle continued to fire its cannon and MGs, wounding at least one man. From that, approaching from the side would seem to be the order of the day.

Hope this helps to claify matters relating to this particular engagement.

Regards

JonS

Oh yeah, I lifted this from:

Vannoy and Karamales "Against the Panzers"

MacDonald "Company Commander"

MacDonald "A Time For Trumpets"

[ 11-11-2001: Message edited by: JonS because I haven't teased The Anglophile recently ]

[ 11-11-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Tunisia the Sherman came as quite a shock to the Gemans as did the Grant, because the Shermans 75mm gun had no trouble dealing with the German PzKpfw III or PzKpfw IV at battle ranges while the German 5.cm L/42, L/60 & 7.5cm L/24 all had trouble penetrateing the Sherman armor out to & above 600ms, while the Sherman & Grant both could kill the German tanks at ranges up to 1400ms, Ie:

*Excerpts from an German report concerning US Grant tanks from Pz.Regt 8

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Effect of our weapons against the American Mark III (Pilot), known as the Grant 1 in a British manual:

a. Clean penetration of the side at a range of 500 meters when hit perpendicular to the surface by 5 cm Pzgr.39 rounds fired by the 5cm Kw.K. L/42 or L/60.

b. Definitely determined to be penetrated from the front at a range of 200 to 300 meters by the 5cm Kw.K L/60.

d. Not a single penetration of the Mark III(American medium tank) was achieved at a range of 700 meters by any kind of 5 cm round.

2. Effect of the 7.5cm tank gun in the American tank:

a. Even when strikeing at sharp angles, penetrations were achieved on the front of the PzKpfw III and PzKpfw IV at ranges from 1200 to 1400 meters.

b. It cleanly penetrated the front of the PzKpfw III with additional armor (20mm spaced armor in front of the 50mm base plate)at a range of 500 to 600 meters.<hr></blockquote>

Another excerpt from 21st Panzer Division concerning the Grant:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Effect of German armor piercing weapons:

a. The 5 cm Kw.K kurz (L/42) with Pzgr. penetrates the front at ranges under 600 meters and the sides at ranges under 800 meters.

c. No experience with Pzgr. fired by the 7.5 cm Kw.K kurz (L/24) Sprenggranaten (high explosive shells) are effective against the suspension componets. <hr></blockquote>

The introduction of 7.5 cm Kw.K L/43 redressed the situation somewhat, but like the Tiger the PzKfw IV langs were only encountered in small numbers in the theater & the 75mm on te Grant & Sherman, could still defeat the PzKpfw IV F2 etc frontal armor at standard battle ranges.

The same case evolved in the West as 75mm Shermans were equal matches for the PzKpfw IV H, with some advantages over the PzKpfw IV as well Ie, reliability, turret traverse speed etv, and outnumbered the PzKpfw IVs as well. It was only when faceing the Panther in numbers that the 75mm Shermans shortcomeings surfaced.

*See: Jentz Thomas L. Panzer Truppen Volume 1 p.179

Regards, John Waters

[ 11-11-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The history of 12. SS Pz. has two pages about the 17. December fight you mention. Although the book is more precise about the fight earlier that afternoon in Rocherath (1 Platoon Jagdpanzer IV and 1 Platoon infantry), it is "quite" clear that the bigger fight further east was done by Jagdpanzer IV as well.

[ 11-11-2001: Message edited by: redwolf ]</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1:

The same case evolved in the West as 75mm Shermans were equal matches for the PzKpfw IV H, with some advantages over the PzKpfw IV as well Ie, reliability, turret traverse speed etv, and outnumbered the PzKpfw IVs as well. It was only when faceing the Panther in numbers that the 75mm Shermans shortcomeings surfaced.

*See: Jentz Thomas L. Panzer Truppen Volume 1 p.179

Regards, John Waters

[ 11-11-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]<hr></blockquote>

And the Panther was as big a surprise to the Allies as the 75 armed Sherman was to the Germans leading to 90mm and 17pdr armed TDs, and eventually, a 90mm and 17 pdr armed tanks with better armor protection, along with interim steps such as a 17 pdr armed version of the Sherman and the 76mm gun (which was TD command only originally.) On the eastern side, the Panther led to the 85mm and 100mm armed tanks and TDs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

It was at the tail end of the Tunisian campaign that the Churchill was being upgunned - to a 75mm gun! One wants to be careful of viewing history with perfect hindsight. The adequacy of the 75mm was probably viewed a lot different in spring 1943 than in spring 1945. Again, as late as autumn 1944 many senior officials - both civil and military - were trying to insist that the 75 was an adequate tank weapon.

In its intended role - as an anti-infantry weapon - indeed it was.<hr></blockquote>

when did i say the 75 was not an adequate gun? it was a great gun, though it came in many flavors. the high velocity 75mm that were on the panthers and panzerIV's were great. darei say even better then the allied 75's. and as far as the north african campaing is concerned there are no legendary brish genrals in that campaign, and i will state my OPINION as to why. the german Afrika corps were not sent to northern africa to conquer it. the british and common wealth were moping the floor with the italian army. Hitler sent the afrika corpse there to basiclay stall for time and keep the british forces from quicky conquering libya wich would have happend had the italian been left to their own defenses. Rommel took what he had and turned into an elite fighting force that rampaged across the desert. they just were;nt supposed to do that, the britsh were shocked. even with the success of Rommels army Hilter still balked at suplling him. Rommel never received the man power , fuel and equipment that he needed to wage a war to remove the brittish from eqypt. just the fact the he lasted so long is a testemet to the fighting prowess of his men and the ingenious tactics that he brought to bear. here is a quick little example of a an actual happening during the african campaign. the britsh had in my opinion the best spies in the world at the time. they decoded the enigma code germany used for years with out them catching on. so in essence the allies always knew what germany was going to do most of the time. well churchill took great persoanl interest in the decoding at blechly park and often would read them. one day he read of an intercepted and decoded messege from rommel to hitler saying that he lost all his tank and was in great need of resupply imedietly. curchill himself ordered an attack on rommel lines, he told his general that the germans were out of tank and for good reason ordered and attack, the attack was an utter failure, the brits went in think one thing, but were shocked ot see there were tanks and got mauled in the short battle. the reason rommle messeged hitler that he was out of tanks was the only way he could receice new ones, that was how hard it was for him to resupply his army. not until the afrika corps under maned and out of fuel and ammo and using scrounged alllied tanks and trucks, and backed up all the way into tunisia with the americans and britsh closing in from both sides did hitler decide to send tank troops guns, everythign in great number, when it was completly too late and the prospect of vicotry was long gone. Rommel was furious as who wouldnt be, in the fact that if he simply recieved supplies of that umber at any other point in time he could have conquered egypt. and almost did anyway. Montgomery was far from a good general in my opinion. his army i will give credit to, but not him. he was a pompous over rated glory hound. he put his armies lives at uneccessary risk on a regualr basis in a quest for persoanl gain , and glory, patton was this way as well, it's a shame that Bradley is constantly overlooked. he was a better commander then either patton or monty. Hitler saw the north afrika campaing not as a campaing at all, but simply a side show to the up and coming invasion of russia, he was too busy planning with that to be bothered with rommel pretty much, wich cost germany greatly in the war

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...