An excellent article on tank comparisons, very relevant to CM2

[PzKpfw 1]

Originally posted by jasoncawley@ameritech.net:

Why do I feel like I am talking to the crickets outside, while the Baptists and the Episcopelians shout it out inside?

The Panther was a better tank. The problem is, the German army did not consist of Panther tanks. It consists of StuG IIIs and Pz. IVs, with an occasional stiffening by Panthers.

Dunno who is arguing they did consist of Panthers?. I also question the occasional stiffening by Panthers remark as Pz Div returns show the number of Panthers climed in the East, as the West recieved a lower priority from late July - Sept, basicly what are we discussing Pz Div employment? or Army Group deployments on sectors? or are we lumping it all into one catagory.

Regards, John Waters

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

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the

German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. February 1945.

[PzKpfw 1]

Originally posted by Skipper:

err. it's "was" and "did". Since then things changed somewhat.

Well I thought we were discussing WW2,& have things changed?, Ie, the M1A2 has no real HE capability, as HEAT is basicly useless vs Inf etc.

Regards, John Waters

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

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. February 1945.

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 03-04-2001).]

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

Are your reading the same thread I am? The one you've been writing on, you know? The one with the death traps and the blood hosed out and the "not better for the crews"? That is what Germany was putting almost all their tank crews in - eggshells with hammers.

Are you reading the thread with the debate over 1 Panther or 5 T-34s or Shermans? And the failed tanks don't fight tanks doctrine, and the failed TD program, and the Panthers seen in *wargames* "decimating attacking hordes"? And the tanks do fight tanks is the purpose of Panthers and Tigers?

Nowhere in that entire discussion has there been the barest hint, that the Germans were doing exactly the same thing and sending off almost all of their tankers in AFVs armored to resist shellfire and light ATGs and nothing further. So, where the Germans hosing out the StuGs to reuse them? And the Pz IVs? Or perhaps they all fell into Allied hands.

Nor has their been any notice taken of the fact that it was not 1 Panther vs 5 T-34s, it was more like 1 Panther, 1 Pz IV, and 2 StuGs against 9 T-34s, 3 upgunned SU series TDs, 1 ISU-2, 2 Cromwell, 1 Firefly, 2 Sherman 76, 2 US TDs, and 5 Sherman 75. It was 4 to 1 *counting* all the StuGs and Pz IVs, which were 2/3rds of the German late-war fleet, being generous.

Oh, how horrid to condemn so many poor serfs to death in their horrid, squalid little death trap, the T-34, or its poor relations the Sherman and Cromwell. No one ever died in a Pz IV or a StuG. ISUs and SU-100s and Sherman Fireflies and Jackson TDs, do not exist. Neither do Pz IVs and StuGs.

The best operational AFV in the German late war fleet, produced in numbers large enough to even exist in the TOE of ordinary unit types, is compared to the plain vanilla run of the mill Allied AFVs. The conclusions drawn from the comparison have no relation to reality, because the fact that one is cream and the other milk, in similarly differentiated fleets, is simply not mentioned.

It is noteworthy that the conclusion you drew from the eastern front loss figures, that the Germans were "still" killing Russian tanks 4 and 5 to 1 in 1945, was lined up with the purely hypothetical dream of 1 Panther or 5 T-34s. The clear implication was that the Germans were in Panthers, and were killing 5 T-34s for each tank lost with these losses on both sides occurred in tank to tank combat. Both parts of which are false.

What the figures actually showed, as another fellow pointed out, was the both sides lost 80% of their new tanks available, in the same year they became available. This is not particularly surprising. Tanks are not, in fact, "durable goods" in a war, but a stock that requires a continual flow to be maintained. The Russians lost more AFVs in that year, because they made more to lose. The Germans lost just as high a portion of the ones they made. Which were, in fact, less armored on average, contrary to your death trap and hosing blood rhetoric.

"But the Germans destroyed 3 to 1". With their tanks? No one has even begun to hint it. It has not been argued or even stated, and was contradicted already, in a learned but subdued fashion, by one other fellow on the thread already. Tanks smash up infantry formations. Infantry are equipped with PAK, heavy FLAK, mines, and of much lesser importance the Panzerfaust wielded by Hans, the ubermenschen-of-the-month in Tank-Killer magazine.

How many? More heavy PAK and heavy FLAK than AFVs of all types. 6 times as many as Panthers, in fact. 2,800 anti-tank mines for every Panther. Any of those kill any Russian tanks, while they were attacking, do you think? Think the Germans lost as many of their tanks, to anti-tank mines, on the defensive?

The Brits report the following causes of tank losses in Italy - 40% tanks or TDs (mostly the latter, incidentally), 15% towed gun, 15% "bazooka", 30% mines. They estimated 600 AT mines emplaced to KO one tank, but they were probably less effective than that outside Italy (hills -> passes, good for AT mines).

I do not doubt in the least that Tigers and Panthers killed 3 and 5 to 1, maybe even on average. But that will not make the tank losses run at 3 or 5 to 1, not even within earshot of it. It only adds .75 to 1.25 (the ratio, times the portion of the fleet doing it, which is *small*), to whatever the other ~.75 of German AFVs did - and then all of that only times the portion of Allied AFV losses that were from tanks and TDs.

If the Pz IVs and Stugs traded 1 for 1 on average, despite the odds they faced, then you'd have an overall AFV kill rate of 3:2 to 2:1, counting those lesser types. And that would only effect the 65%, or 50%, or 40% of Allied AFV losses, whatever it actually was, which were to German AFVs. Those 24,000 T-34s were going down to PAK and FLAK and StuG and Pz IVs - the hammers. And in return, they were destroying *Army Group South*, not just 8,000 German AFVs.

As for my point about "periodically stiffened", the western Allies faced a total of less than 1000 AFVs that could stop a short 75mm round in Normandy. After they ate those (wasn't fun, but they ate 'em), there weren't any more in quantity until the Bulge and Alsace. And after the Bulge and Alsace, there weren't any more.

The first month and a half, and another month and a half half-way through the campaign - only 1/4 of the time overall - the Allies faced significant numbers of uparmored AFVs. About 1000 at each "dose", with 1500-2000 "filler", in the form of hammer-wielding eggshells, added each time. If that isn't "occasionally stiffened", then what would be?

As for the east front, it got a fair number of the heavier types to recover from Bagration, and later to hold off the jump to the German border in early 45. And at the other times, it didn't, and *collapsed*. If that isn't "occasional stiffening", then what would be?

"But then, aren't you saying they *did* make a difference?" Of course they made a difference. But they were not the basic armor story in the war in this period. The basic story was, when they did show up, they still died, just like other tanks do in combat. Made a difference until they did, but that was a few months at most. And when they weren't there - and much of it, when they were - the war was a fight between T-34s and Shermans - vs a fleet of hammer wielding eggshells aka StuGs, PAK, and FLAK.

[Bry Barnard]

On the discussion of relative merits of tanks it is interesting to note post-war trends.

In WW2 the Germans built tanks that were of relatively high quality: good armour, good guns and reasonably mobile but expensive/difficult/slow to produce whereas the 'Allies' tended towards mass-produced lower quality tanks: armour not as good, a gun, fairly mobile and easy/cheap to produce.

Post-war the Germans built the Leopard 1 in large numbers with not very good armour, a gun, fairly mobile and cheap/easy to produce whereas the 'Allies' went for higher quality tanks with heavy armour, a good gun, lower mobility and expensive/difficult to produce.

The Russians built 'low' quality tanks in WW2 and continued the same philosophy after the war.

Only recently (in the lasy few years) has everybody tried to produce 'high' quality tanks that might last a bit longer and, more importantly, keep their crews alive.

[PzKpfw 1]

Originally posted by jasoncawley@ameritech.net:

Are your reading the same thread I am? The one you've been writing on, you know? The one with the death traps and the blood hosed out and the "not better for the crews"? That is what Germany was putting almost all their tank crews in - eggshells with hammers.

Well i have no idea why the sarcasm mode Jason, but what of it? you have already stated your egg shell & hammer position repeatedly here. Guess i must be another of those poor misguided/unlearned 'crickets' you have come to save on this poor board.

Anyway yes i read your posts, so what, I disagree because I consider the T-34, Sherman, PzKpfw IV etc death traps? or because i point out the cost? or dont see things the same as you so? because i speak of the remains of the previous crew; i'm spouting rhetoric etc, whatever....

Regards, John Waters

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 03-05-2001).]

[Mattias]

Why is it that so many Soviet (or post Soviet) texts take the stance of an hard pressed defender, making his final appearance in front of a court of law.

Spending half the time throwing accusations towards the perceived opposition, killing the myths of others with myths of ones own. At every turn compelled to point at how badly the own side has been represented in the past.

It is a bit of a rhetorical question of course but it strikes me that this tone seems to prevail even after the cold war mud slinging is supposed to have calmed down a bit.

Having been brought up a bit on the side line of the post war mess, mostly having access to German and British sources I remember being taken aback by the acidity of the American and Soviet interpretation of history.

At the time, early 80's, the Soviet stance was one of a cornered beast, viciously defending itself, whereas the Americans were going full tilt with the Mc WorldWar2 ™ stereotypes.

I guess I was hoping to see the light in the tunnel by now. No such luck it seems.

Just wish people would skip the amateur, emotional, simplified, pre packed perceptions of reality and realise that it is infinitely more complex.

Well, at least CM serves a purpose in that a lot of issues are brought up for discussion.

M.

[Guest machineman]

Don't have time to comment on everything here, but while I agree with a lot of what is being said, there's a few things...

For example, this 'tanks don't fight tanks' idea. That is, indeed, the opinion of one writer on the Soviet military zone. One OPINION, only. For my OPINION I'd say for the SOVIETS that may have been PARTLY true, as indeed they did not face as many tanks per man as the Germans did, but for the Germans it was definatly not. The Panther's 75, the King Tigers long 88, and the long 50mm and 75mm guns on the Mk III's and IV's were not developed to fight infantry and A/tk guns. They were especially there for fighting Soviet tanks.

And even for the Soviets this could be simply a rationalization for sub optimal anti-tank performance. For example while it could be said that the 122mm gun was especially picked for the IS-II on the basis of greater HE effect than the 100mm, it is more likely (from what I have read) that it was picked on standardization purposes as the 122's ammunition was more common. Another possibility is Stalin, like Hitler, was a bit of a 'bigger is better' type of guy, and the tank designer played to that, sacrificing armor-piercing ability and (more importantly) rate of fire, something which doomed many IS-II's if the first shot was a miss.

[PzKpfw 1]

That's the whole problem i have with the tank doesn't enage tank; theory or even the 2/3rds couldn't stop a 7.5cm L/24 round etc. WW2 tank development was simply a gun armor race that has still not ended.

Gun power increased as armor increased Ie it didn't matter how many Panthers or Tigers their were or wern't, as obvious by the measures taken to combat them Ie, 76mm, 17Lb, 85mm, 90mm, 122mm etc, these were all in response to German tank devlopments Ie armor that only appeared on a few tanks.

Concerning, German tank guns the 7.5cm L/48 was more thn adequate to defeat the Sherman, T-34-76, T-34-85 etc, while th Soviet 76mm & US 75mm were hard pressed to defeat the PzKpfw IV H's FH 80mm glacis even at 500ms.

So the eggshell theory applies to the main allied tanks as well; except the Germans had an adequate hammer to go with their eggshell's & the Allies had a lot more eggshells.

So despite small numbers of tanks that had 'good' armor etc, all nations continued to build tanks to fight these handful of tanks, till the end of WW2 Ie, the IS-3 was built to defeat the Tiger B, & this practice carried on into the Cold War Ie, the IS-3 gave NATO nightmares for years & led to continuing the gun armor race.

Many thought with the development of ATGMs that the era of the tank had passed, yet it was only another phase of the gun/armor race, which still goes on today.

I'm also no clear on the eggshell theory as concernin 'fleets of T-34-85s' as it implied the PzKpfw IV drasticly outnumered the Panther, which it did not in fact as the Eastren Front tank returns show Panther's were almost as numerous as PzKpfw IV's & even outnumered the PzKpfw IV' at times: Ie, PzKpfw IV returns below, PzKpfw V returns in ( )'s:

15.09.44 - 610 (728)

30.09.44 - 579 (721)

31.10.44 - 707 (672)

15.11.44 - 687 (658)

30.11.44 - 697 (625)

15.12.44 - 704 (737)

30.12.44 - 768 (726)

15.01.45 - 736 (707)

15.03.45 - 1239 (762)

This also goes to the later war Pz.Div atacks & CA's in th ast where the Panther Abt's led the operation's while th PzKpfw IV's guarded the flanks. The Panther was numeicly a more common foe then some peoples posts would indicate & this does not pertain Stug's, TD, SP's, PAK numbers etc but only to tanks.

Regards, John Waters

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

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the

German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. February 1945.

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 03-05-2001).]

[rexford]

There is a book written by a famous GrossDeutschland vet that describes a large scale Soviet infantry attack where Soviet "asians" were sent into the assault without weapons! Infantry were running towards the German lines without guns!

The author described them as Asians because that is what he observed.

Not a fairy tale at all, and not Georgians.

Tanks do fight tanks. Panther formations fought large groups of IS-2m's, panzers fought Russian tank formations (read Jentz's books).

Kursk, where T70's on one hill fought panzers on another.

El Alamein.

Tobruk.

The fairy tale is that tanks don't fight tanks, which is a completely short-sided view.

One Panther is worth more than five T34 if they come out one or two at a time facing the Panther, or all come out at once at 2000m.

One Panther is worth at least three Sherman if the Panther jumps out and suprises the enemy at 100m, and starts shooting, before they can maneuver. Barkmann's corner.

A PzKpfw IVH would not have survived as well.

If tanks meet and there aren't any anti-tank guns or mines or infantry with bazooka, what I said holds.

Tank comparisons depend on specific situations. Panzers trying to stop a Sherman breakthrough at short range, or a horde of T34's at long range, is likely to represent tank-vs-tank combat.

Tank-vs-tank isn't a high percentage of tank losses but it is size-a-bull.

When people hear stuff that is contrary to their own fairy tales, they call it names such as a "fairy tale".

[Jasper]

Originally posted by rexford:

There is a book written by a famous GrossDeutschland vet that describes a large scale Soviet infantry attack where Soviet "asians" were sent into the assault without weapons! Infantry were running towards the German lines without guns!

The author described them as Asians because that is what he observed.

Not a fairy tale at all, and not Georgians.

Gotta be careful about anecdotal evidence. I keep reading about aliens in the supermarket lines, but I don't accept the evidence as gospel (despite what jasoncawley says about Baptists and the Episcopelians!)

Personally I'd say this is in the 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary support' class. Right next to the story that grown men where supposed to have mounted their horses, lowered lances and charged German tanks during the invasion of Poland.

I start asking things like - how would you know something like this? Can you imagine a set of circumstances where an adult would do something like this? Is there a simpler explanation? Where the Soviet "asians" only men? Or did they send unarmed women to? What is an unarmed soldier, but a civilian? So this veteran is describing the slaughter of civilians?

What's more likely in Russia - ordering unarmed men to battle or mowing down civilians? POW's - whatever.

I think the racial term is suggestive of where to lean on this one.

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

Check out http://www.geocities.com/funfacts2001/ or

http://hyperion.spaceports.com/~funfacts/ or

http://www.britwar.co.uk/members/FunFacts/ for military documents written during WWII.

[This message has been edited by Jasper (edited 03-05-2001).]

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

"this does not pertain Stug's"

Which is why it is the purest horsefeathers.

Yes Panthers and Pz IVs were about equally numerous. So was their production, and I cited the figures that said so. But the StuGs were more common than either, and had the same gun and armor characteristics as the Pz IV, not the Panther. And this is not true of the types more heavily armored than the Panther, as though they would balance it.

Upgunning made sense. It was indeed the right answer to uparmoring. And of course there was a gun-armor race. It is merely that even the armor war did not consist in, and was not decided by, that race. Why? Because only a modest fraction of any side's fleets were involved.

[Skipper]

> That is, indeed, the opinion of one writer

> on the Soviet military zone.

Geez, that was the opinion of soviet general staff, which issued several ORDERS, prescribing to avoid using tanks in AT role whenever possible. It did not mean that tanks had to back off whenever they saw an enemy tank, it meant that putting a tank in a defensive AT position was the last thing to do (but not prohibited - when there were not enough AT guns or TDs around).

For soviet side this doctrine obviously worked, because soviet armor development continued along those same lines for many years after WWII.

Germans did not have that sort of philosophy, that's also true.

> Well I thought we were discussing WW2,&

> have things changed?

Yes, and they did. There are almost no tank destroyers around anymore. Notably, there were none in 1939, too. In peacetime it doesn't make sense building them - with vehicle's service life expectancy of 20-30 years, the bigger production costs don;t matter that much.

> Stalin, like Hitler, was a bit of

> a 'bigger is better' type of guy

Not in military matters. He rather had consistent bias towards "more is better".

> Why is it that so many Soviet (or post

> Soviet) texts take the stance of an hard

> pressed defender, making his final

> appearance in front of a court of law.

Between 1985 and 1995 was a period when russian society completely dismantled own mythology. Unfortunately, many antimyths were launched at the same time (mostly borrowed from western cold-war myths).

Fortunately, somewhat balanced version of WWII history is showing up in the last few years - but not many people are interested. So, the antimyths are what most modern day russian (!) teenagers believe. IMHO that's seriously bad for Russia's future.

This kinda explains why I have a special passion for stereotypes like "unarmed asians" or "comissars hosing their own troops with machine-guns" or "coffins on tracks" etc. I guess, this shows on this here BBS

[Mattias]

Skipper,

The CM chat certainly has a "balance" of it's own. Not much of a surprise that it is the western side of the coin that is mostly being discussed here.

If you care to see something much more Soviet slanted, head over to this site:

http://disc.server.com/Indices/145020.html

M.

[Olle Petersson]

A comment on the use of StuG IIIGs;

Not counting these amongst tanks would be futile. Not only because they were technically comparable to the PzKw IV, but also because they were sometimes used as replacement tanks within tank battalions.

About TDs in general:

Originally posted by Skipper:

There are almost no tank destroyers around anymore. ...

There are an increasing number of TDs right now. In the Swedish army TDs have outnumbered tanks since 40 years or so.

Most have been recoilless ATGs mounted on unarmoured cars or tracked ATVs. Then we've had the Ikv91, a light tracked AFV with a low pressure 9cm gun. There's also a couple of SP ATGM launchers, with and without armour.

The most recent additions(?) are CV90105 and CV90120, TDs of the CV90 family armed with tank guns (105mm and 120mm, respectively) not sure if these are in active service yet.

Cheers

Olle

[Vanir]

One could argue that the American M1A1 is a tank destroyer. Killing tanks was what it was designed to do and it doesn't carry a single round of HE.

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

What a bunch of horsecrap. -Steve

[PzKpfw 1]

Are we discussing tanks? or are we discussing all AFVs employed by each country in one lump? as German tanks operated in Panzer Divs. Yes i saw your posts for production #'s etc; my post dealt with actual returns. The myth of PzKpfw IV being the most common German 'tank' does not stand up under scrutiny, (this should give nervous breakdowns to some purists on this board ).

Yes Stugs were numerous and yes they did provide replacements as the war went on in the Pz Div's etc Ie, as of 10.06.44 their were 158 Stugs operating with the Pz.Divs deployed in the West. By 15.03.45 thier were 545 Stug's operating with Panzer & Pz.Gren Div's on the Eastren Front with 603 PzKpfw IV, 776 PzKpfw V, & 212 PzKpfw VI. In th West as of 15.03.45 their were 126 Stug, operating with Panzer & Pz.Gren Div's, with 59 PzKpfw IV, 152 PzKpfw V, & 28 PzKpfw VI.

Question is do we add the Indepenent Stug, TD formations as well in these discussions or do we stick to one type, so far this topic has skipped to whatever someone fancied at the time they posted. My stance is the number of tanks fluxuated directly with Pz.Div employment, and that Stugs have no context in the Pz. Div until they start being a factor in replacements in late 1944. & any other discusion concerning Stugs earlier involves the use of the Independent Stug formations & Pz.Gren.Div employments etc.

Regards, John Waters

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

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the

German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. February 1945.

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 03-06-2001).]

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

"Stugs have no context in the Pz. Div until they start being a factor in replacements in late 1944"

This is just plain false. Half of the mobile divisions in Normandy had 38-44 StuG in them, in June not in "late" '44. Only one of them was Pz Gdr, the 17th SS. The other 4 were SS Panzer divisions. Heer ones had 16 more, plus 40 captured French creatures.

And the German army no more consisted of Panzer divisions, than their AFV fleet consisted of Panthers. The infantry divisions heavily dominated the force mix, and the only AFVs they had were the StuGs and Hezters and Marders, when they had any at all.

But to give an idea of just how distorted is the picture being peddled here, in the cartoon of the fully armored Germans against the unarmored Russians, try this little exercise. Rate the Russian AFV fleet from top to bottom, do the same with the German, and then go down the list pairing off vehicles. You will not find the T-34s matched against Panthers.

Ahead of the T-34/85s there are ~4k IS-2s, ~5k upgunned SUs (85mm and up), ~5k KVs, and ~5k ISUs. Which means one of those creatures for every Tiger II, Jadgtiger, Elephant, Jadgpanther, Tiger I, Panther, Jadgpanzer, and even Hezter, with 3000 to spare, and ignoring the fact that the Germans are also facing the Western Allies, altogether. (Incidentally, I'd put the Pz IV ahead of the Hezter, but who is counting? Either way they get to face KVs).

With the leftovers added, the T-34/85s then get to match the Pz IVs, and the StuGs, and the Marders. The T-34/76, in nearly equal numbers to the above combined, and supplimented by some SU-76s, are left to go after PAK and FLAK. The lend lease tanks can go after the little 50mm ones.

That is what the match up really is between the German and Russian fleets, not counting the western allies at all. Counting them, the Germans get to face the same match ups but with 2:1 odds against them down every rung of the scale, too.

[PzKpfw 1]

Originally posted by jasoncawley@ameritech.net:

This is just plain false. Half of the mobile divisions in Normandy had 38-44 StuG in them, in June not in "late" '44. Only one of them was Pz Gdr, the 17th SS. The other 4 were SS Panzer divisions. Heer ones had 16 more, plus 40 captured French creatures.

As of 10.06.44 the Below is the Strength returns listing Stug's operateing with Pz., SS.Pz,& Pz.Gr Divs, in Normandy Ie:

9th Pz.Div - 5

11th Pz.Div - 8

116th Pz.Div - 6

1st SS. Pz.Div - 45

2nd SS Pz.div - 42

17th SS. Pz.Gr.Div - 42

Pz.Abt.FKL 302 - 10

Total Stug's operating with 'mobile' Divs in Normandy totaled 158, only 2 SS. Pz Div's & 1 SS.Pz.Gr Div had more then 40 Stugs. In August we see the following Stug returns for additional units deployed in the West:

3rd Pz.Gr.Div - 37

Pz.Brig. 111 - 10

Pz.Brig. 112 - 10

Pz.Brig. 113 - 10

Which equates to 1 Pz.Gr. Div & 3 Pz Brigades, with Stugs inn TO&E In Sept, Oct, & Nov not 1 'mobile' Div employed in the West contained Stugs, Ie,

Pz.Div Lehr.

Pz.Brig. 107

Pz.Brig. 108

1.Kp.SS.Pz.Regt.10

s.Pz.Kp. Hummel

s.Pz.Abt. 506

Pz.Abt.FKl. 301

Returns for the December, Ardennes Offensive show the following Stugs on hand:

2nd Pz.Div - 24

116th Pz. Div - 14 Stug's in transit

2nd SS. Pz. Div - 28

9th SS. Pz. Div - 28 (14 in transit)

3rd Pz.Gr.Div - 41

15th Pz.Gr.Div - 30

17th SS. Pz.Fr. Div - 17

Pz.Brig. 150 - 5

Fuehrer.Gr.Brig - 11

Pz.Kp.FKL 319 - 5

Total Stug strength operating with 'mobile Div's as of 14.12.44 was 189 Stugs with another 28 in transit at the date of returns, with another 409 Stugs operating independently outside the 'mobile' Divs. And that is why i stated 'late 44'.

As well as I have been discusing Panzer/Pz.Gr Divs not independant Stug formations etc, & have asked for a definition of this topic repeatedly rather then jumping around willy nilly to suit fancies. Nor have i disputed the Allied material advantages, the Pz Div's were not the predominat force for the Germans but they were the heart & the offensive striking power of the German forces, & later the defensive key as well.

Regards, John Waters

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

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. February 1945.

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 03-08-2001).]

[Skipper]

> There are an increasing number of TDs

> right now. In the Swedish army TDs have

> outnumbered tanks since 40 years or so.

No offense, strv is an interesting machine, but swedish army is no mainstream, if you see what I mean. Now, if you would be so kind to point me to a lot of modern tank destroyers in russian or american arsenals, that would be another story.

> One could argue that the American M1A1 is

> a tank destroyer.

This is it's primary design requirement, apparently. However, it is a tank.

[Mattias]

Olle and Skipper,

The reason the JgPz IV type TD has disappeared from the battlefield is that the design and concept is outdated. It would lose against a modern tank in an offensive / duel situation and it can easily be replaced by a host of light and efficient ATGM type carriers in a defensive situation. Over all an “uneconomical” vehicle.

So, there is no such thing as a “modern” tank destroyer if the concept of a TD is confined to a WWII concept.

The statement that TD’s have been in the majority when compared to the number tanks is the Swedish army is confusing because, judging by your text Olle, you include every kind of self propelled weapons platform that could possibly engage a tank with some measure of success. By that standard there is no modern army in the world that doesn’t have more TD’s than they have tanks, simply because light platforms are much cheaper.

You can’t put the large calibre CV90’s into the TD slot either. They are part “export” tanks (with all that implies) and part concept vehicles, catering for the perceived future need of high firepower rapid deployment vehicles. And since the Swedish army doesn’t really need an air mobile capacity I doubt they will be adopted unless they get them for the small foreign mission force.

Skipper, I don’t think Olle even considered the Strv 103 a TD. It was designed as a turretless tank and not a TD, and was also deployed as such. The design, while incorporating a lot of interesting features was ultimately a failure.

“Strv” is short for tank and means nothing in itself unless you add the model number.

M.

[Olle Petersson]

Originally posted by Mattias:

1) The reason the JgPz IV type TD has disappeared from the battlefield is that the design and concept is outdated. ... So, there is no such thing as a “modern” tank destroyer if the concept of a TD is confined to a WWII concept.

2) Olle, you include every kind of self propelled weapons platform that could possibly engage a tank with some measure of success.

3) You can’t put the large calibre CV90’s into the TD slot either.

4) And since the Swedish army doesn’t really need an air mobile capacity I doubt they will be adopted ...

5) I don’t think Olle even considered the Strv 103 a TD. ...“Strv” is short for tank and means nothing in itself unless you add the model number.

1) Of course I didn't narrow TD down to "turretless AFV with desent armour", but went more to the TD concept in general: A vehicle that's not an MBT and specifically designed (although mostly based on available chassis) and deployed to counter enemy armour.

2) As explained above I do not include tanks, IFVs or vehicles that have other primary purposes than fighting enemy armour (usually using shoot-and-scoot tactics). The Swedish army has been mainly infantry since WW2, first with bicycles and then ('70ies) with trucks. All rifle companies have an AT platoon. Most of these platoons have had TDs in one way or the other, most commonly the 4x4 mounted RR (first Volvo 9031, then Volvo 9111). These were replaced by the ATTV mounting, and have only been removed from the line units sometime the last decade. Currently it's all up to ATGMs in various mountings.

The Ikv91 isn't really a TD in my mind, but I've read about it being described as such too many times to ignore it. (I'd rather rate it as a light infantry support vehicle.)

3) Why not? They fit the TD concept perfectly: Good AP performance, high mobility, no troop transport capability, light (medium?) armour. I'd say they're the modern equivalent of the M18 in WW2.

4) What's air mobility got to do with it? We need something that's;

- cheaper than MBTs (LCC wise)

- have good mobility in most terrain types (= swamp, marsh, woods, fields, heath, paved road, ...)

- can knock out modern MBTs fairly easily

- low and cheap on maintenance

Let's face it: The CV90120 fits like a hand in a glove! (Air mobility is only a bonus feature that follows with the rest.)

5) Right on the money! Strv103 was a full fledged MBT, state of the art in the early '70ies.

It was mainly the later development in gun stabilisers (allowing turreted AFVs to actually hit targets when firing on the move) that made it obsolete later on.

Strv is short for stridsvagn, that in German translates directly to Kampfwagen, fighting vehicle, but it is used exactly as the English military term "tank".

Cheers

Olle

[Mattias]

Olle,

Look, I don’t want this to turn into some kind of massive hair splitting but:

Under 1 and 2, as you put it, I am addressing what I felt to a confusion of terms between you and Skipper. Thus it is not intended to rectify, but rather clarify. My point being that the proliferation of mobile AT systems in modern armies has watered down the concept of unique tank destroyers, possibly with the exception of armoured ATGM carriers.

3. Follows up on this points 1 and 2. It is not economical to field a gun carrying LAV, alongside MBT’s , if it’s sole purpose is to destroy tanks. And a multi-mission capable vehicle is not a TD just because one of it’s missions is to destroy tanks.

4. Ok, enter one of the hottest subject in current armour doctrinal debate. Suffice to say that there are those who thinks MBT’s are a thing of the past, others who say they are not.

Personally I can’t see why Sweden would need any of the alternatives

5. Yes, I would have described it much the same way.

If you get the chance I suggest you look up one of the latest issues (last few months or so) of “Pansarhistorisk tidskrift” and check out the article presenting an operational history of the Strv 103. Sort of a debriefing now that the Strv 103 has been taken out of service.

M.

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

If you want post WW II examples of the same basic TD concept, as the U.S. and U.K. deployed them (rather than some uparmored German and Russian types), there are plenty of examples that are close.

Improved TOW Vehicle

AT LAV w/ TOW

Hummers with TOW

Luchs ATGM

BRDM-AT

M551 Sheridan

And of course, the reason IFVs bother to carry ATGMs is to fufill the same function, in addition to their other roles - BMP, Brads (especially scout version), etc. They aren't M113s or BTRs, for a reason.

Basic idea is to take any existing and common chassis, and put a high-powered, long-ranged AT weapon on it, mobile, without thick armor. The only reason these types aren't as heavy as WW II is that better missles allow light armor to carry such firepower, without needing e.g. a Marder's Pz II chassis or more just to carry a decent-sized gun.

Incidentally, if you want to know the modern sort of weapon that ought to be keeping heavy tankers awake at nights, Bofors makes and will sell for export to anyone with hard currency, smart 120mm mortar HEAT rounds with passive IR terminal guidance. The seeker is smart enough to tell burning wrecks and decoys from live tanks and get a hit rate of about 50%. The angle of attack is straight down. The warhead will blowtorch through 2 feet of rolled homogeneous steel. The range is ~6 kilometers, indirect, fire and forget, nobody has to be able to see the target at all. They cost around 25 grand a pop and can be fired from any existing 120mm mortar in the world, which can fire from a wide variety of light vehicle mounts for shooting and scooting. All the usual rate of fire of simple mortars, and very little extra training needed for the crews.

The U.S. has similar rounds. Like that helps. The point is, such whiz-bang toys are not going to stay in only U.S. or NATO shops. They are too cheap to make and getting cheaper all the time, and somebody will sell them. And resellers will sell them again, and by the third party it is "anybody with cash".

[Olle Petersson]

Originally posted by jasoncawley@ameritech.net:

... there are plenty of examples that are close. ...

Just want to add my favourite to the list: The Ontos! Recoilless six-shooter, what else can you wish for?

Cheers

Olle

[Olle Petersson]

Originally posted by Mattias:

a) It is not economical to field a gun carrying LAV, alongside MBT’s , if it’s sole purpose is to destroy tanks.

And a multi-mission capable vehicle is not a TD just because one of it’s missions is to destroy tanks.

c) If you get the chance I suggest you look up one of the latest issues (last few months or so) of “Pansarhistorisk tidskrift”

a) Agreed, if you mean "fielding" as in "fielding on the same battlefield".

This is not the issue here though. The tanks are fielded with the armoured or mechanised brigades, TDs with the infantry brigades. That would usually mean hundreds of miles between the operational areas of TDs and (friendly) tanks.

TDs also have some huge strategic advantages in the northern half of our country. Tanks are pretty much required to use (the very few) roads and railways in this area when performing strategic movement, while the lighter tracked vehicles can use other routes for flanking manoeuvres.

What other possible missions are there (that couldn't/weren't done by TDs in WW2)?

c) I'll see if I can dig this up at some library. Seems like a "must read" for me.

Cheers

Olle