German tanks-not good enough?

[Slapdragon]

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

Actually, there is documented evidence for frontal penetration of Tiger 2s.

Actually there is no evidence. No Tiger II was penetrated on front glacis during battle in WW2.

And the reference on Valera's Russian military zone Dubious. Hundreds of hits from point blank range, until the armor as lost its resitance. It was also done using post war ammo.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, there is even a good NARA photograph of the penetration. It hit along a fault and in essence took the front glacis from the side, even though the tank was head on. The destroyed tank was killed at point blank range by an unit not mentioned in the documentation (it was a field survey document), and the investigator felt failure was due to poor manufacture.

Next time I am in DC I will find that photograph again and order a copy. This is not to say that this was a daily event, just that poor manufacture was a problem with German heavy armor at certian points causing weakness in armor. The fact was that most King Tigers were captured or blown by their crews when they bogged or broke down.

[Dan Robertson]

There was also one verified single shot frontal penetration of the KingTigers glacis.

After a battle in which a king tiger had been abandanoned an American soldier tested a PanzerFaust on it from a distance of 30m.

The result a neat penetration of the frontal armour.

The glacis of the Tiger II should really be invulnerable to any AP shell until 1966 when 120mm APDS came out. HEAT and HESH are another thing altogether.

[Roksovkiy]

I'd like to see the photo of that Tiger II.

US infanrty men reported they had trouble knocking out the Panther with a Panerfaust 60 from the front glacis, and would always try side or turret shots. The only certainty they said was a panzer IV from the front.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dan Robertson:

There was also one verified single shot frontal penetration of the KingTigers glacis.

After a battle in which a king tiger had been abandanoned an American soldier tested a PanzerFaust on it from a distance of 30m.

The result a neat penetration of the frontal armour.

The glacis of the Tiger II should really be invulnerable to any AP shell until 1966 when 120mm APDS came out. HEAT and HESH are another thing altogether.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This may be the same tank, as the survey was ambigious about the killing unit, only listing a "frontal penetration."

[Jeff Duquette]

The Panzerfaust against the Tiger II is relayed by Belton Copper in “Death Traps”. Copper indicates he used a Panzerfaust100 fired from a range of 30yrds. He aimed for the face-plate of the turret to one side of the mantlet. Penetration was ½” to ¾” in dia. And according to Copper went clear through the face plate. Page 257.

Copper also relays how a column of Shermans ambushed by King Tigers succeding in KO'ing two Tiger II's by firing WP rounds at the glacis. Crews presumed that the smoke from the WP meant that their tank had been hit and was begining to burn. Last one out is a french fry.

[Gunny_ Bunny]

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

I think german tanks have been made to easy to kill.....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Several months ago tungsten rounds came out for the allies. There was a big debate whether the board became unbalanced.

Was this debate ever decided ?

Do the tungsten rounds give the allies such an advantage that the board becomes unfair, unbalanced and perhaps, no longer worth playing ?

Thx,

GB

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gunny_ Bunny:

Several months ago tungsten rounds came out for the allies. There was a big debate whether the board became unbalanced.

Was this debate ever decided ?

Do the tungsten rounds give the allies such an advantage that the board becomes unfair, unbalanced and perhaps, no longer worth playing ?

Thx,

GB<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do not feed the Troll gentlemen. Gunny Bunny version two has returned to darken our doorways.

[M Hofbauer]

Now, to use a PzF 100 penetration as an example is just not fair The hollow charge warhead of the Panzerfaust with a penetration of way over 200mm will slice through anything.

What the gentleman was probably asking for with his "no penetrations on a KT" was a reference to a Königstiger being taken out from the front as a regular hit, such as they occur in CM, *not* weak spot hits, *not* post-battle tests involving Panzerfausts, and *not* some Russians using a KT as a hard target on the firing range.

Now, *personally*, I have come to peace with CM's portrayal of the tank batles, but indeed a strange doubt back in the subconscious depths of the brain remains as to the abysmal performance of german armor when compared to what we had learned pre-CM from WWII literature and battle reports. I know I can't put a finger onto it. All I know is that I prefer american tanks most of the time over german ones.

Maybe part of this *is* because combat in CM does take place at very close ranges. OTOH, when you are putting tanks at ranges in excess of 750m in CM, they won't hit anything at all. Larger guns at that range do not seem to enjoy the inherent advantage in accuracy they have at such ranges, a 37mm hits just the same or better, and optics are not really taken into account. To put it into simple words, in CM the Nashorn sucks, it sucks bad, and it sucks so bad one wonders why these things were ever built.

sorry, getting late, not meant as a flame.

[ 09-24-2001: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]

[Vanir Ausf B]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

What the gentleman was probably asking for with his "no penetrations on a KT" was a reference to a Königstiger being taken out from the front as a regular hit, such as they occur in CM, *not* weak spot hits, *not* post-battle tests involving Panzerfausts, and *not* some Russians using a KT as a hard target on the firing range.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If round hit a MG port it could certainly go through. At least I can't think of a reason it wouldn't.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Now, *personally*, I have come to peace with CM's portrayal of the tank batles, but indeed a strange doubt back in the subconscious depths of the brain remains as to the abysmal performance of german armor when compared to what we had learned pre-CM from WWII literature and battle reports. I know I can't put a finger onto it. All I know is that I prefer american tanks most of the time over german ones.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Certainly the short ranges are a big part of it. That emphisizes the Allied tank's faster turrets. I can think of a few other things:

1. German use of smokeless powder not modeled.

2. Shatter gap effect vs. Tiger I mantlet undermodeled.

3. Allied tungsten availability to high(?) Don't know for sure on this one. No one has been able to prove it.

4. Panther armor quality too low.

Of course, in a few ways German armor is also overmodeled.

1. KT armor quality too high (should be lower than Panther in any case).

2. Ability of all turretless vehicles to rotate in place makes them more effective at close ranges than they should be.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>To put it into simple words, in CM the Nashorn sucks, it sucks bad, and it sucks so bad one wonders why these things were ever built.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They weren't built with Western Europe in mind. They were built to be used on the Eastern Front. They are a fish out of water in the CM knife fights. I suspect they will be more usefull in CM2.

[M Hofbauer]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

If round hit a MG port it could certainly go through. At least I can't think of a reason it wouldn't.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

*that* is a *weak spot*. I specifically excluded these above.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

Certainly the short ranges are a big part of it. That emphisizes the Allied tank's faster turrets.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was not referring to maneuverability or faster turrets (again, where the Panther turret speed is open to dispute), but to simply shootouts.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

They weren't built with Western Europe in mind. They were built to be used on the Eastern Front. They are a fish out of water in the CM knife fights. I suspect they will be more usefull in CM2.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well of course it doesn't work well in the bocage or in city fighting. To make it clear: put the Nashorn into an environment for which it was designed, make a scenario with 1km++ of visibilty, and you will see that the Nashorn still sucks. That's what I was referring to.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Ya know, one other thing just occured to me. In RL the Germans had the advantage of being on the defense most of the time in the ETO, so their armor could operate from ambush. In CM they are just as likely to be on the attack as the defense. Now, my general impression is that in the few RL opperations where the Germans attacked with armor (in the ETO) they did not perform very impressively at all, and allied armor was able to hold its own.

Food for thought.

[Vanir Ausf B]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

I was not referring to maneuverability or faster turrets (again, where the Panther turret speed is open to dispute), but to simply shootouts.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for the clarification, but I don't see how you can exclude those factors. Even if you do exclude them, the fact remains that it is easier to flank in a knife fight than in a long range duel. Flanking is important for Allies, rarely so for Germans.

I agree that Panther turret speed is open to debate.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>To make it clear: put the Nashorn into an environment for which it was designed, make a scenario with 1km++ of visibilty, and you will see that the Nashorn still sucks. That's what I was referring to.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll take your word for it. 1 km+ engagements are so rare in CM its almost a moot point. I think it is generally accepted that the CM gunnery model begins to degrade as you go much past 1 km, but it rarely matters. It sounds like BTS is going to address this in CM2 (optics modeling, ect.) where it will matter.

[ 09-25-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[Gen-x87H]

Bah that is nothing. Just wait until you lose a Panther to a Daimler AC at 250 meters in a frontal shot.

Gen

[Vanir Ausf B]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gen-x87H:

Bah that is nothing. Just wait until you lose a Panther to a Daimler AC at 250 meters in a frontal shot.

Gen<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I assume it was a weak point penetration.

[PJungnitsch]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Now, my general impression is that in the few RL opperations where the Germans attacked with armor (in the ETO) they did not perform very impressively at all, and allied armor was able to hold its own.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Remember this famous list of opinions from American tankers at the time: the Eisenhower report

One quote that stood out:

"As we go now every man has resigned himself to dying sooner or later because we don't have a chance against the German tanks. All of this stuff that we read about German tanks knocked out by our tanks makes us sick because we know what prices we have to pay in men and equipment to accomplish this.

For the general comparison of the equipment of the Germans and of ours. I believe that on a whole our equipment is superior to the Germans, but our tanks are no match for the Panther and Tiger tanks, and it is just suicide to tackle them."

[Vanir Ausf B]

Eh, ok. I'm not sure what that specifically has to do with German offensive armor operations in the ETO, but it's an interesting quote...

[Brian Rock]

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

Maybe then more accurate to say that the biggest killer of German tanks on the Western front was the fuel and supply situation, a 'Materialschlacht' or however that word is meant to be.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Or maybe even more accurate still to say the Germans were defeated by the operational and strategic capabilities of Allied weapon systems.

There's not much point in winning the tactical battles if you lose the campaign/war.

It's a point that often gets overlooked by people who get fixated on gun-and-armor stats. Shooting up the soft units was easier and more effective than going head-to-toe with heavy German armor - although admittedly not always an option.

[Gunny_ Bunny]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

[QB]3. Allied tungsten availability to high(?) Don't know for sure on this one. No one has been able to prove it.[QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I did not realize it was a matter of availability. I was thinking of pure hitting power. In WWII tungsten probably gave the Allies an advantage, however, when we play CMBO with equal points, if one side has a distinct advantage in equipment quality, how can the game _not_ be skewed.

Regards,

GB

[Vanir Ausf B]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gunny_ Bunny:

I did not realize it was a matter of availability. I was thinking of pure hitting power. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

At one time there was a bug in CM that caused tungsten to be way too effective against highly sloped armor. It was fixed.

Keep in mind that CM2 will have improved modeling of armor and AT gunnery. Modeling of optics is planned and new info contained in Rexford & Co.'s book should improve penetration accuracy.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

At one time there was a bug in CM that caused tungsten to be way too effective against highly sloped armor. It was fixed.

Keep in mind that CM2 will have improved modeling of armor and AT gunnery. Modeling of optics is planned and new info contained in Rexford & Co.'s book should improve penetration accuracy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Be careful Vanir, there has been some Trolling on this subject recently...

[Roksovkiy]

I thought this Tiger II was penetrated from the front. It Turns out to be the front lamp,

lol.

I was surprised that the Russians measured the King Tiger they tested on Valera's site with a 190mm fron turret instead of the 180mm that is normally used. Seems like the over-armoring Rexford talks about.

[PJungnitsch]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Or maybe even more accurate still to say the Germans were defeated by the operational and strategic capabilities of Allied weapon systems.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed. That is pretty much summed up by this quote from that link I put up:

"The only reason that we've gone as far as we have is summed up in "Quantity and the Cooperation of Arms."

The Germans were basically fighting a 'poor mans war' that was doomed from the start in the west. Superior tanks were one of the few things that held it together for so long.

BTW, for the original poster (if he is still reading) here's an interesting link on how King Tigers were actually used. Kingtigers in action

Note the key words 'very cautiously' and 'always with other tanks and infantry'.

[JasonC]

I have a different challenge. I would like those who think gun-n-armor grog stuff ever mattered at the operational level to name a single large campaign in which such factors proved decisive. Any front, any time in the whole war.

Oh, I can think of individual 2-3 day attacks where the winning side had better tanks, and they arguably helped. Even those are decidedly rare (Goodwood is an example). What I don't see even a -single- example of, is a case where the side with the better tanks won a month-long serious operational battle -because- they had better tanks, in gun and armor terms (not radios or doctrine, etc).

Not one. Let's go through them.

Poland. Yes the Germans had tanks and won. It was overdetermined in every respect, and the advantage that mattered was tanks vs. none on the breakthrough sectors, not gun-dueling with Pz IIs.

France. The French and Brits had the better tanks in gun and armor terms, on the defensive. They lost decisively because of overall operational factors, employment of armor, and doctrine.

The Balkans. Armor vs. none, like Poland above.

North Africa. The tanks on the rival sides were comparable in gun and armor terms. By late 42 the Germans had some Pz IV long and a number of uparmored Pz III 50 long, but by then the Allies had Shermans in the theater, and the Germans started losing.

Tunisia. The Germans had better tanks, with a few Tigers in the region and many Pz IV long. They lost to Brit tanks with 6-lbers and US Shermans, Grants, and Stuarts. Sicily and Italy were similar stories, though more Shermans were available and some M-10s.

1941-42 Russia. The Russians had the best fielded tanks in gun and armor terms, in the KV series and T-34. They lost.

Late 42 to mid 43 Russia. The Germans still had an older tank mix and the Russians had T-34 hordes. The Russians did make progress, but for operational reasons - overloading Axis minors on the flanks of 6th army, etc - and the front was successfully stabilized by early 43. Columns of T-34s that pressed too far into enemy territory were chopped up.

Mid 43 to mid 44 Russia. The Germans fielded Tigers, Elephants, Panthers, and large numbers of Pz IV long and StuG III, uparmored to 80mm in most cases. The Russians still had T-34/76 only. The Germans lost the decisive battles of the war.

Normandy to Cobra. The Germans had Panthers, some Tigers, some Jagdpanzers. The Allies had mostly 75mm Shermans, plus M-10 TDs and a modest number of Brit Fireflies. No tungsten was available. The Germans lost.

Lorraine. The Germans threw brigades of Panthers at Shermans and lost. Eventually their infantry, plus Allied fuel and weather conditions, stopped Patton's 3rd army.

The Bulge. The Germans threw Tiger IIs, Jadgpanthers, and large numbers of Panthers at Shermans (by now many of them upgunned) and TDs. They lost.

Alsace-Nordwind. The Germans used Jadgtigers and Panthers against upgunned Shermans and TDs. They lost. The counterattacks at Remagen were the same story.

Bagration. The Russians by now had T-34/85s and the SU and ISU stable was making itself felt as well. But the German Panthers and Tigers were still superior in gun and armor terms. They lost.

Late war in the east. By then the Russians had basically caught the Germans in gun armor terms, with IS-2s in quantity, better ISUs, and fleets of T-34/85s. The Germans held them from time to time with only approximate equality in gun and armor specs. But eventually were defeated by numbers.

You simply can't find cases where month or longer operational campaigns were decided by having a better tank on the field in gun and armor terms. They aren't there. Technical superiority in such terms was undoubtedly useful, and welcome to the tankers themselves who benefited from it. But whatever scale of effect the real differences had, was swamped by much larger factors from odds, supply, fire support, doctrine, operational maneuver, etc.

I've made this point before. Usually around this time someone says something to the effect of "yeah, sure it didn't matter for generals or even colonels, but every tanker in a weaker tank died because of it". Which is nonsense, because every tanker didn't die. Casualties in western tank units, some of the most outmatched of the war, were 1/3rd or less those in infantry units of the same size. German casualties were lowest in the early war period when they had the worst tanks. Winning at the operational level is better protection for tank crews than gun and armor specs are. And winning at the operational level did not depend on gun and armor specs.

Armor grog differences are a tactical factor. They are important indeed at a small enough scale. But armies have enough ways of dealing with events on a small scale (reinforcement, echelon effects giving local odds, attrition and more rapid replacement, local or operational maneuver, concentration of fire support, etc) that they simply do not amplify upward to higher echelon effects. Instead, they are strongly damped as the scale of analysis increases. By the time you are at the level of operational, month-long campaigns, tactical gun and armor effects have evaporated - lost in the noise of other factors at that level.

Someone who thinks otherwise should not rest with mere overall, vague impressions of what was supposedly important, but state actual cases. In the such-and-such campaign, the ability of the Whatsis to defeat the Dosits led to this victory for the Whatsis side. You won't find them. They aren't there.

[PJungnitsch]

Fully agree with JasonC's points. But if the conclusion is that gun and armor is only a marginal concern, someone had better tell the US government to stop spending billions of dollars on M1's when the M48's would have worked just as well, and the Israelis to stop fiddling with their Merkavas when their Shermans can still be rebuilt.

Like it or not, all modern armies except the Soviet type have gone the WWII German route, and are all driving machines that are as well armoured and armed and sophisticated as possible, modern day King Tigers.

The problem with taking that type of lesson from WWII (if indeed that is what I am hearing), is that the side with the poorer tanks always had overwhelming advantages in other factors. This coincidence does not justify producing substandard tanks. The Germans got away with the early battles in Russia despite most of their tanks being outclassed by T-34's and KV-1's, in the same way that the Western allies got away with pitting Shermans against Panthers and Tigers in the war in the West.

[Thermopylae]

It should also be worth noting that armor can be deployed command free and completely combat ready. You never see a column of tanks rollign down aroad in CM, there's perfect communication between all branches, tankers don't wonder where their lead tank is, and all those other friction free expereinces that are present. I assure you allied armro would do much worse if CM battles started out the wya they did in real life...a column of tanks rolling down a road or advancing ina v across an open field.No they are neatly held to the rear, as if the armor wasn't really part of the advancing force to begin with, but rather magically appeared behind trees and houses.

Point two: ALL vehicles can turn on a dime. American WWII veterans remeber one of their biggets problems with tanks in tight country was it took them half of a field to turn, while a panther could pivot in place.