German tanks-not good enough?

[Panzer_Meyer]

Has anyone noticed that HansFritz hasn't even repsonded back. I think he doesn't care that much about this. I think he just lost to the AI and was pissed about it.

[JasonC]

"someone had better tell the US government"

Medium brigades. I think they know.

At greater length, the Brits did invent Chobham armor in the post war period. It did make a difference in the relative ease of uparmoring and upgunning, whereas before its arrival, it had always been possible to upgun sufficiently to meet any armor increase. The "eggshells with hammers" approach, quite effective before then. I don't know of any post WW II case of a MBT without it, or a derivative, stopping the rounds actually faced. With the modern development of smart indirect shells and top-attack ATGMs, that dynamic is returning.

The M-1 was certainly a revolutionary and successful MBT in the meantime. At least half of its superiority, though, comes from superior gunnery, vision, and fire control equipment. Few are aware of it, but Bradley's (having only those advantages) were also highly successful in the Gulf war, without the benefit of the heavy armor. But then that result was overdetermined.

[Mark IV]

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

Nomonhan? The ability of the Red Army's superior armor to defeat the Japanese tanks led to this victory for the Soviet side.

Oversimplification, I know... but you asked.

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

"someone had better tell the US government"

Medium brigades. I think they know.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The medium brigades are not a replacement for the armored brigades. They are a different beast altogether, filling a different role and intended to fight a different kind of conflict. The US Army is keeping the heavy brigades (most of them). The medium brigades are being created for logistical reasons.

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

[Andrew H.]

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

"someone had better tell the US government"

The M-1 was certainly a revolutionary and successful MBT in the meantime. At least half of its superiority, though, comes from superior gunnery, vision, and fire control equipment. Few are aware of it, but Bradley's (having only those advantages) were also highly successful in the Gulf war, without the benefit of the heavy armor. But then that result was overdetermined.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't forget the M-1's speed and reliability: it's hard to encircle enemy forces if your tank moves at a crawl and breaks down every 15 miles. Also, the armor on the M-1 was not of decisive importance as very few M-1's were even hit by Iraqi tanks.

[JasonC]

Yeah, that is what they are telling the tankers and "for now". But when all the threat guys have top-attack ATGMs and smart IR-homing HEAT mortar rounds (which the Swedes will already sell to anybody with hard currency), the M-1 will go the way of the dinosaur.

It makes sense to keep them today because there are so many old T-62/T-72 critters out there, which are scrap metal with the M-1s in the force but would become reasonably tanks without them. But that is a matter of obsolete equipment in potential enemy inventories, only.

Now, as for the other question, why they are going with LAV varients instead of the obvious and superior choice - the Brad - that is a different story. That is just bureaucratic stupidity and logistical bean counting and make-work for contractors, indeed.

Incidentally (not that anyone brought it up), why is the Brad better? It has a gun. And a turret. And an ATGM. And tracks. And the troops already know how to fight in them. And we already have them. Just little things, you know, like that.

Why did they pass over it anyway? Modest weight savings, and of course the fact that training and readiness funding only wins wars and saves lives, while new procurement dollars go to the friends of congressmen. They should have spent the LAV money on more lift capable of using the Brad.

But I am drifting from the topic...

[Mark IV]

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

Why did they pass over it anyway?... They should have spent the LAV money on more lift capable of using the Brad.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

One complaint of the Brad is that the gun is just too small for the urban warfare likely to be part of a 21st century mission. They want an air-deliverable building knocker-downer that will fit in streets. Like the Sheridan, or like the Wiesel, "the Ontos that works".

Recoilless, non-wire-guided tubes with big HE capabilities, and no recoil to trip up a light little platform, has some merit. So do short big-bore cannon (for HE and cannister) with ATGM capabilities (for main battle tanks). The 25mm just doesn't make masonary disappear like the big guns did. Neat little vehicles, but the infantry still feels outgunned in urban environments.

[Tero]

Originally posted by 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.

Not one. Let's go through them.

There are a few are missing from your lineup.

Poland.

Finland - a veritable anti-Poland when it comes to the effects of decent armour due to unsuitable tactics and doctrine.

North Africa.

......

Mid 43 to mid 44 Russia

The Red Army offensive against the Finns in the summer (June - July) of 1944. Finnish Stug-III's and assorted captured Soviet models along with massed artillery, AT guns and handheld AT weapons againts the latest Red Army armour, ie. T-34/85, IS-2, ISU/JSU-152 etc.

While the Finns did not exactly win the campaing (ultimately it resulted in the armistice between URRS and Finland) it is certain the superior quality of the Finnish armour (namely the Stugs) contributed significantly to the blunting of the Red Army offensive and failure of the Red Army to reach its ultimate objectives.

Normandy to Cobra.

......................

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).

A valid point. However, for some reason the Allied sources have been very reluctant to disclose the true cost of their victories. Until recently all you got was the generic "the German armour was better but we won anyway because our cause was just" type of "detailed" info. The German losses have been tabulated carefully but the Allied tank losses have been elusive.

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.

What constitutes better when talking about armour ? Can you exclude features like crew layout or radios when rating vehicles which leave the factory with one installed ?

Everybody knows a Porche is better than a Lada. But does that apply in all conditions ?

Do the battles in the Eastern Front constitute a whole or is it or can it be chopped into campaigns of a few months ?

At one point PzKw-IV was better than the T-34/76 because of the 75L43 and 75L48 guns. Even the PzKw-III with its 50L60 was at one time better than the T-34/76, IF you allow such inherent things like crew layout, intercom and radio to be included in the criteria. And the Germans did win longer campaigns and operations with the help of them.

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.

Also, the involvement and significance of other battlefield assets like infantry and artillery can not be ignored. The number of pure large scale tank-vs-tank engagements is very small indeed.

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.

In 1945, how many tankers were left from the ones who started out in 1939 ? Attrition and casualty rates are not the same as life expectancy. Oddly enough individual tankers were ultimately more concerned about the life expectancy than the casualty rates.

[ 09-26-2001: Message edited by: tero ]

[Jeff Duquette]

URANUS

El Alamein

PERCH

EPSOM

GOODWOOD

CHARNWOOD

TOTALIZE

[M Hofbauer]

Al-'Alamayn ?

how?

[JasonC]

"the superior quality of the Finnish armour (namely the Stugs)"

Um, that is laughable. A StuG is certainly not superior to T-34/85s etc. They may well have been used better, but as technical equipment, but gun and armor specs, they aren't even close to what the Russians had. Which only furthers my point - having technically superior tanks didn't make any difference, because other factors were more important.

As for superior in what sense, in grog gun and armor specs. The sort of thing people pretend were the dominant aspects of armored combat - what range A could penetrate B and vice versa. The whole point is that such differences, while often important tactically (meaning, you do things differently in case one or in case two, depending on that match up), were not important operationally (meaning, who won a month-long battle was not determined by it, one way or another).

As for the "but how expensive was it?" question, I have already pointed out that losses in western tank units - among the most outmatched in gun and armor terms - were 1/3rd those in infantry units. In a typical armor battalion, you see 75 KIA for the entire war. Lost vehicles from all causes generally run 1 to 2 times the initial strength. Overall loss figures run about 100% for the average western armor division, but that reflects the infantry battalions turning over 3-4 times. In case anybody forgot, the western Allies had a replacement crisis in riflemen, not in tanks.

These figures do vary somewhat based on when a unit entered action, and the most intense week of fighting for a given formation often contains half its losses for the whole war. But for the rest of the time in action, you see net losses of 1-2 tanks per week, while actively campaigning. And many of these losses were from PAK, AT mines, infantry AT, etc.

The western Allies just didn't face all that much German armor. The armor odds were only close to even on the scale of month long fights (as opposed to counterattacks lasting a few days or what-not) for Normandy and the Bulge. In both cases, with the Germans sending lots up front but very little in the way of ongoing replacements for losses (just what could be salvaged near the front, for many units). Almost none of the German armor got away in the first case, and no more than half did in the second.

In the east the whole war is longer and bloodier, of course. For both sides, once you get beyond the relatively bloodless '41 campaign, for the Germans. And the absolute losses are higher for the Russians, after that initial 6 months, by about a factor of 2 only. Two thirds of the German heavy AT weapons in action through the end of 1944, though, were towed guns not AFVs. The majority of the AFVs themselves were technically comparable, in gun-armor terms, to the Russian makes - not superior (Pz IVs and StuG IIIs vs. T-34s). The fleet mixes just weren't all that different, limiting the strategic impact of better types compared to greater numbers, etc.

I know every German AFV is supposed to have KO'ed 5-10 times its own number, the latter if it had good tech specs or good crews or both. Problem is, if you believe such claims the Russian fleet is dead several times over, and the Russian AFV fleet at the end of the war should have been a negative number with six digits, instead of a positive one with five. Such ratios are mostly the result of apples to oranges comparisons of known own-side total write-offs, against mere claims about the other side.

I'll address the other fellow's list of fights in a seperate post.

[hansfritz]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rommel22:

Has anyone noticed that HansFritz hasn't even repsonded back. I think he doesn't care that much about this. I think he just lost to the AI and was pissed about it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure I'm pissed,I did'nt think it should happen.I'm a new member and I'm sorry if I ask questions that have come up before,but I do enjoy the Inteligent and funny reply's(unlike yours).By the way there were only 2 reply's to my question when I last logged off.

[hansfritz]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rommel22:

Has anyone noticed that HansFritz hasn't even repsonded back. I think he doesn't care that much about this. I think he just lost to the AI and was pissed about it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure I'm pissed,I did'nt think it should happen.I'm a new member and I'm sorry if I ask questions that have come up before,but I do enjoy the Inteligent and funny reply's(unlike yours).By the way there were only 2 reply's to my question when I last logged off.

[hansfritz]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rommel22:

Has anyone noticed that HansFritz hasn't even repsonded back. I think he doesn't care that much about this. I think he just lost to the AI and was pissed about it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure I'm pissed,I did'nt think it should happen.I'm a new member and I'm sorry if I ask questions that have come up before,but I do enjoy the Inteligent and funny reply's(unlike yours).By the way there were only 2 reply's to my question when I last logged off.

[Agua Perdido]

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

Is this biased by the American programmers,do they refuse to see the Sherman,like most allied tanks were ****.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Was this your question? The answers are "no" and "that depends what you mean by Sh*t." BTS has certainly programmed into the game the fact that Shermans had weaker guns and less armor than ubertanks like Tigers, Panthers and their Jagd versions. As many posters have noted, however, a Tiger won't beat a Sherman every single time. The ubers are tough, but they aren't invincible, and they're not a substitute for good tactics.

The later marks of Sherman, upgunned and uparmored, weren't so bad--much better than a PzIV, say. And even the 'worst' Sherman generally has advantages over the German ubers in ground speed, turret speed, anti-infantry firepower, and cost.

Agua Perdido

[M Hofbauer]

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

"the superior quality of the Finnish armour (namely the Stugs)"

Um, that is laughable. A StuG is certainly not superior to T-34/85s etc. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

mind you, he was specifically mentioning the IS-2, too

BUT...what are all those petty russian tanks compared to a full handful of finnish StuG IIIs ?

[Richard Morgan]

Piggdogg (The other Richard)

In lurk mode on this one, I was a footslogger, not a donkey walloper

Ch...ohbloomin'eck

Richard.

[RMC]

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

Yeah, that is what they are telling the tankers and "for now". But when all the threat guys have top-attack ATGMs and smart IR-homing HEAT mortar rounds (which the Swedes will already sell to anybody with hard currency), the M-1 will go the way of the dinosaur.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The tankers are well aware of the imminent demise of their beloved tank. People at the armor school are drawig up specs for its replacement. The drivnig force behind dropping the Abrams is not about vulnerability to new weapons. It's about getting there quickly and with a minimum of logistical tail. It is driven by the knowledge that desert shield build up phases are a thing of the past. The new system should weigh in about the smae as a Brad and be configurable like a traditional tank, an IFV/APC, ambulance and other versions. It will not have the same level of armor as hte M1 but it is being designed to have the same level of survivability using sensors, nonLOS standoff weapons, ECM etc. It may end up going the way of the MBT 70. We'll see.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It makes sense to keep them today because there are so many old T-62/T-72 critters out there, which are scrap metal with the M-1s in the force but would become reasonably tanks without them. But that is a matter of obsolete equipment in potential enemy inventories, only.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The new system shouldn't need to worry about these "legacy" systems.

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

Now, as for the other question, why they are going with LAV varients instead of the obvious and superior choice - the Brad - that is a different story. That is just bureaucratic stupidity and logistical bean counting and make-work for contractors, indeed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The LAV is an "interim" vehicle. The new thing wil replace it too. Unfortunately a lot of people seem to forget the history of other "interim" systems in the US Army - Vulcan, Chaparral etc. The debate about the new systems being tracked or wheeled is still going on. Both have advantages and disadvantages. Right now the wheels seems to have the edge in the deployability arena.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Incidentally (not that anyone brought it up), why is the Brad better? It has a gun. And a turret. And an ATGM. And tracks. And the troops already know how to fight in them. And we already have them. Just little things, you know, like that. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But the LAV can carry the same and better weapons up to 105mm. Training is a good point. The brigades undergoing conversion don't have their new toys yet.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Why did they pass over it anyway? Modest weight savings, and of course the fact that training and readiness funding only wins wars and saves lives, while new procurement dollars go to the friends of congressmen. They should have spent the LAV money on more lift capable of using the Brad.

But I am drifting from the topic...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not sure if it was even entered in the competition. There were some tracked platforms in the mix, though.

[ 09-26-2001: Message edited by: RMC ]

[M Hofbauer]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Agua Perdido:

And even the 'worst' Sherman generally has advantages over the German ubers in ground speed, turret speed, anti-infantry firepower, and cost.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

in CM, yes.

but that is exactly the issue here.

think again and answer for yourself - is your above statement really true for the Panther *outside* CM (aside from cost) ?

[M Hofbauer]

It may end up going the way of the MBT 70. We'll see.

you mean it will have a toilet inside the vehicle ?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>RMC:The new system shouldn't need to worry about these "legacy" systems.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

it will have to worry about these just as much as a dozen GIs have to be aware of a couple hundred Montagnards with bows&arrows.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>RMC:But the LAV can carry the same and better weapons up to 105mm.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am CONVINCED that if you can modify a *LAV* to carry and fire a 105mm, and from a turret at that, then it should be possible to modify a Bradley to do same.

[PJungnitsch]

"It has been claimed that our tank is the more maneuverable. In recent tests we put a captured German Mk V against all models of our own. The German tank was the faster, both across country and on the highway and would make sharper turns. It was also the better hill climber."

-Lt. Col. Wilson M. Hawkins, Commanding 3rd Battalion, 67th Armored Regiment

"It has to our mind greater maneuverability, being able to turn in the space it's sitting in, while our mediums require half a field

The consensus of opinion is that the German Mark V can out-speed, out-maneuver and out-gun us, in addition to their added protection of heavier armor.

What the American tanker wants is a high-velocity weapon, as high or higher than the Germans, mounted on a tank of equal maneuverability, and added armor plate. "

-Rains M. Robbins, Sergeant, Tank Commander

-Walter McGrail, Corporal, Driver

[Terence]

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

I am CONVINCED that if you can modify a *LAV* to carry and fire a 105mm, and from a turret at that, then it should be possible to modify a Bradley to do same.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I usually operate from a position of blissful ignorance, and now is no exception.

Still, I wonder if this statement of yours is true.

I suppose that it is, in the sense that you can modify anything into anything if you work at it for long enough -- turn a tricycle into a B-52, a shovel into a steam ship.

But I suspect that the changes you would have to make to the Bradley to make it mount and fire a 105mm gun would be substantial enough that it would no longer be a Bradley, but some other thing.

On the list of things you might need to change could be such diverse elements as: turret, turret ring, battery and electrical systems, hydraulic systems, drive train, transmission, suspension, engine, (these last three to account for extra weight perhaps) ammo storage, crew positions, targeting systems, armor(?).

If you change all that stuff, and maybe more besides, is the thing still a Bradley? or some other thing that you might as well have designed from the ground up...

[ 09-26-2001: Message edited by: Terence ]

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

The consensus of opinion is that the German Mark V can out-speed, out-maneuver and out-gun us, in addition to their added protection of heavier armor.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not coincidentally, this also describes the Mk V vs. the Sherman in CM.

Obviously, it out-guns every model of Sherman and has better armor than every model except perhaps the Jumbo (I'd have to look).

As far as manneuverability goes, it varies quite a lot depending on what version of the Sherman you are comparing it to. The early Shermans were markedly slower than the Panther, but latter ones with the more powerful engine were about the same or a little faster. Also, the early Shermans with the narrow tracks had poor ground pressure, while latter wide tracked versions were much better.

All of this is modeled quite nicely in CM.

As far as turning in place, it is true the Panther could do this and the Sherman could not. However, most other German tanks could not, and most British tanks could.

Generally speaking, Allied tanks were mechanically more reliable than German tanks, a factor that is not modeled in CM at all.

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

think again and answer for yourself - is your above statement really true for the Panther *outside* CM (aside from cost) ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ground speed: depends greatly on the version of Sherman you're talking about.

Turret speed: Debatable. IIRC Panther turret could be about as fast if the engine RPMs were high enough. I've also read that a Panther on a hillside could not swivel the turret uphill.

Anti-infantry firepower: Sherman has the edge, no doubt. It was primarilly an anti-infantry tank to begin with and that is where it really shined.

[RMC]

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

you mean it will have a toilet inside the vehicle ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, it will have an automatic fecal extraction device that will recycle siad feces into rations.

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

I am CONVINCED that if you can modify a *LAV* to carry and fire a 105mm, and from a turret at that, then it should be possible to modify a Bradley to do same.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think it could be too. The difference is the LAV already exists in this form and the brad does not.