Jump to content

Most successful tank buster in the war for both Axis and Allies...


Recommended Posts

Originally posted by Gaylord Focker:

Also worth noting was the competitions going on for the "prize" of Berlin which created so much recklessness on the part of the Soviets that Russians were firing on Russians at times!

Is that the same 'recklessness' as displayed during the race for Baghdad in 2003, where US forces were firing on US forces at times!

Inquiring minds want to know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 70
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Originally posted by Andreas:

Is that the same 'recklessness' as displayed during the race for Baghdad in 2003, where US forces were firing on US forces at times!

Inquiring minds want to know.

No, I'd say it's more like the "recklessness" at the kickoff of Operation Cobra that sent General Lesley McNair on to that great War College in the sky.

Good luck on achieving any consensus on the "most successful tank buster" of WW2. About the only things I haven't seen mentioned are the air, surface, and submarine attacks on convoys carrying tanks. To my knowledge no tank on a sinking ship ever managed to shoot back at the attacker. I contend that makes the navies and air forces the "most successful" tank busters. :D:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Andreas:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Gaylord Focker:

Also worth noting was the competitions going on for the "prize" of Berlin which created so much recklessness on the part of the Soviets that Russians were firing on Russians at times!

Is that the same 'recklessness' as displayed during the race for Baghdad in 2003, where US forces were firing on US forces at times!

Inquiring minds want to know. </font>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Gaylord Focker:

There is a difference between confusion and wrecklessness.

Stalin set up a race between rival Soviet Commanders and the finish line was Berlin.

This did not occur during Operation Iraqi Freedom to my knowledge Andreas.

Well, I would be interested to hear from you why you think that the reason for blue-on-blue was recklessness in one case, and confusion in another. Please enlighten me as to why it was not confusion in both cases.

What about the short-bombing incidents in Cobra and Tractable? Confusion? Recklessness? What about the British APCs blown up in GW I? Confusion? Recklessness?

If I were you, I would not answer here, but instead sell the immense expertise in military matters that you must possess to be able to make such judgements to a defense corporation. They pay good money for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Gaylord Focker:

Stalin set up a race between rival Soviet Commanders and the finish line was Berlin.

This did not occur during Operation Iraqi Freedom to my knowledge Andreas.

The man's right: Stalin didn't set up a race between rival Soviet commanders during Operation IF!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Dave H:

About the only things I haven't seen mentioned are the air, surface, and submarine attacks on convoys carrying tanks. To my knowledge no tank on a sinking ship ever managed to shoot back at the attacker. I contend that makes the navies and air forces the "most successful" tank busters. :D:D

Good point. One of the most powerful uses of airpower was to sink ships. When everything clicked, as it did in the Battle of the Bismark Sea for instance, it was devastating.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Andreas:

Well, I would be interested to hear from you why you think that the reason for blue-on-blue was recklessness in one case, and confusion in another.

Are you sure? After all i did read toward the lower half of your post that you do not want me to respond to this, care to explain that one? I know it pains you to see anything that may possibly make sense coming from a screen name such as mine but please bear with me on this one... ;)

Please enlighten me as to why it was not confusion in both cases.
It almost surprises me that you yourself would not already know the cut and dry differences between Red Army politic and Allied Army politic.

In the Soviet Union under Stalin reign (of terror) if he told Zhukov to jump through a flaming hoop --it would be done.

You forget that in the places Stalin would speak to his "comrades" there was a bell that would go off to let them know it was OK to stop clapping as before that was implemented no one would stop clapping because none of them wanted to be the first to stop clapping.

Now in the Allied case, Churchhill and FDR, and Eisenhower were more level headed than say an ultra paranoid murderous dictator. Monty was allowed to "take his time" for instance, to clear mine fields in safer ways than i don't know, say just marching your soldiers right through them to save time to please a blood thirsty tyrant?

Mistakes did occur on the Allied front, but were mistakes and the High Command learned many a lesson from them too i might add.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say the Soviet System of recklessness was by design-- Stalin literally set up a competition between Zhukov, and i forget the other guys name right now to take Berlin. That is reckless, as the confusion was not a mistake but simply a slight inconvenience as Stalin did not lose any sleep with Soviets shelling Soviets and such as long as his sought after prize was in his hands as soon as possible, even if Berlin could have been taken with less Soviet casualties.

The French and British were eager to land in France, but careful planning was not thrown by the wayside in order for a vengeful Churchill to occupy Paris, even if it meant pitting Allied General against Allied General in a Super Bowl type war where friendly fire incidents were not an issue-- ever.

Not even Patton marched his soldiers purposely through uncleared mine fields.

What about the short-bombing incidents in Cobra and Tractable? Confusion? Recklessness? What about the British APCs blown up in GW I? Confusion? Recklessness?
What about them? I would say that those incidents are not as cut and clear as Berlin but could be debated in another thread.

If I were you, I would not answer here
Do you have ADD? Just a paragraph ago you were interested in what i had to say on this matter.

but instead sell the immense expertise in military matters that you must possess to be able to make such judgments to a defense corporation. They pay good money for it.
If only i had chose a different handle that would make it appear I'm an expert, then i would suddenly have knowledge, oh darn.

Instead of Gaylord, i could chose GD Lord, oh well. :D

[ August 28, 2003, 11:15 AM: Message edited by: Gaylord Focker ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 'other chap's' name was Konev.

I think you are labouring under a large number of misconceptions about how the Soviet system worked in the direction of the war, what actually happened when, who was involved, and generally on how military operations proceed, if you think that the Soviets used less planning than the western allies for their late-war operations. You also appear to know very little about the Berlin operation, so I would go out on a limb here and say that your interpretation is just plain wrong.

Whether Stalin set up a competition or not is not proven. This interpretation is based on Konev's memoirs, who himself interpreted Stalin not giving him a firm boundary beyond a certain point as an invitation to move north. Which he did. When friendly fire became a risk though, a firm boundary was immediately established, even though it meant that the capture of the Reichstag was postponed a bit.

The initial setup was such that friendly fire was a physical impossibility - the bridgeheads were too far apart. When the pincers met, friendly fire possibly happened, but in the confusion of the battle that was hardly unexpected, and it was rapidly sorted out by the establishment of a boundary.

What mine-field clearance has to do with this is completely beyond me. That friendly fire was not an issue during the Normandy campaign is probably news to the casualties from friendly fire in Normandy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point was that human life was worth far less to the Soviets when compared to the Allied point of view.

Marching your soldiers through a mine field as a system of mine clearance is not only reckless, but sickening. The soldiers were not being uber patriots and coming up with this brilliant tactic on their own in a top gun way of defying orders to save the day after all.

I would say that has everything to do with the Soviet High Command which jumped when Stalin said jump, or disappeared when he said disappear mind you.

Did Stalin loosen his grip slightly as the war dragged on, certainly, but he never let loose the reigns from his hands. All temporary as Stalin was gearing up for more crimes against humanity after wars end, luckily he died before things really got going again.

So in closing the example of "minefield clearance" has everything to do with the Soviets System as it was thought up and ordered by their High Command.

As for the other text you thought up and attempted to pawn off as my thoughts, well it's quite hard to put words in ones mouth when everything i typed out is all in text.

You can assume and imply what you wish, but it is hardly one of the four food groups for a healthy and productive discussion.

[ August 28, 2003, 02:11 PM: Message edited by: Gaylord Focker ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, thanks for refreshing my memory on Konev, i debated adding in that name for a half a second but decided not to, but now i know instead of wasting time second guessing myself in that other post.

I was in a hurry while i typed it out.

Come to think of it i even rushed the last post I made when i did not even have to....well at least there is an upside to my posting that may be met someday.... :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Gaylord Focker:

My point was that human life was worth far less to the Soviets when compared to the Allied point of view.

I think you have taken a valid point and exaggerated to the point where it is misleading. Certainly the Soviets were ferocious and ruthless fighters, but they didn't throw away their soldiers' lives just for the fun of it. Sometimes through incompetence, yes, but that declined as the war wore on.

And on the Allied side there was acceptance of casualty levels that would horrify the public today. Eisenhower ordered the paratroops into Normandy assuming that they would be slaughtered and was relieved and gratified when a majority survived the battle. One could, if not blinded by prejudice, discover many more examples in all the armies.

The stories of Soviet callousness, while not entirely groundless, are mostly German propaganda that attempts to demonize the Soviets and explain away their own failures. That they have survived so long is due to several factors, prominent among them the Soviet refusal to allow Western historians access to their archives until recently.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Gaylord Focker:

As for the other text you thought up and attempted to pawn off as my thoughts, well it's quite hard to put words in ones mouth when everything i typed out is all in text.

I have no clue what you are talking about. What did I put in my post that you did not say?

But I note that instead of addressing the point of whether friendly fire incidents in the Red Army were the results of recklessness, as you claimed, you have resorted to talking about something completely unrelated. Oh well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

The stories of Soviet callousness, while not entirely groundless, are mostly German propaganda that attempts to demonize the Soviets and explain away their own failures. That they have survived so long is due to several factors, prominent among them the Soviet refusal to allow Western historians access to their archives until recently.

Michael

At Stalingrad alone the Soviets murdered roughly around 13,000 of their own soldiers. Thats a whole Division, give or take a couple grand.

It was not only the NKVD doing the shooting either as some Officers in the Red Army had no problem shooting a fellow soldier to make an example to the rest.

I am not implying that ALL Red Army soldiers/commanders were mindless kill-bots fighting in perfect steam roller unison patriotically surfing the human wave into Berlin, though i can see where one could draw different conclusion as i did not make a thorough enough post previously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Andreas:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Gaylord Focker:

As for the other text you thought up and attempted to pawn off as my thoughts, well it's quite hard to put words in ones mouth when everything i typed out is all in text.

I have no clue what you are talking about. What did I put in my post that you did not say?

But I note that instead of addressing the point of whether friendly fire incidents in the Red Army were the results of recklessness, as you claimed, you have resorted to talking about something completely unrelated. Oh well. </font>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Gaylord Focker:

Let's just chalk this one up as a misunderstanding and get this thing back on track, though i must warn you that i am refreshing/learning as i go along here.

Well...[grudgingly]...okay...but I still think you ought to beat your breast while pronouncing 116 mea culpas, then sprinkle ashes on your head. I mean...where's your sense of style, man?

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to add a note about the Soviets marching troops through minefields, or rather two notes.

On another thread it was noted that many vets simply viewed minefields as an irritant rather than a real battlefield killer.

As for Soviet doctrine, it was simly taken that if they marched their troops around the fields than the German defences would inflict just as many casualties as if they had just gone through the minefield, so, they went through it, got to the place they wanted and met no defensive forces whilst doing so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Gaylord Focker:

[snips] Let's just chalk this one up as a misunderstanding and get this thing back on track, though i must warn you that i am refreshing/learning as i go along here.

Returning to the topic of the thread, then, the following table is taken from PRO document WO 291/1186 "The comparative performance of German anti-tank weapons during WWII", dated 24 May 1950, detailing the causes of loss of British tanks in three different theatres.

The percentage of tank losses, by cause, is given as follows:

Theatre (tks)____Mines__ATk guns_Tanks__SP guns_Bazooka_Other___Total

NW Eur (1305)___22.1%___22.7%___14.5%___24.4%___14.2%___2.1%___100%

Italy (671)_____30%_____16%_____12%_____26%______9%_____7%_____100%

N Afr. (1734)____19.5%___40.3%___38.2%___nil______nil______2%_____100%

Mean values_____22.3%___29.4%___25.3%___13.5%____6.1%___3%_____100%

of which destryd_20.3%___29%_____24.4%___12.7%____5.4%___—_______91.8%

of which dmgd___2%______0.8%____0.9%____0.8%____0.7%___—________5.2%

The "damaged" figures should be treated with caution because of variability in reporting.

It is stated that tanks and SP guns should be considered together, as war diaries often

show doubt over what exactly caused a tank loss. This seems to have been done for the North Africa figures.

Clearly, mines are important, but caused nowhere near 50% of tank losses; nor is the "Bazooka" category (Panzerschreck and Panzerfaust) a contender for the top position, but they make a very respectable contribution.

Personally, I doubt whether the information exists anywhere to estimate the relative contributions of different tank or gun types.

All the best,

John.

[ August 29, 2003, 10:22 AM: Message edited by: John D Salt ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by John D Salt:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Gaylord Focker:

[snips] Let's just chalk this one up as a misunderstanding and get this thing back on track, though i must warn you that i am refreshing/learning as i go along here.

Returning to the topic of the thread, then, the following table is taken from PRO document WO 291/1186 "The comparative performance of German anti-tank weapons during WWII", dated 24 May 1950, detailing the causes of loss of British tanks in three different theatres.

The percentage of tank losses, by cause, is given as follows:

Theatre (tks)____Mines__ATk guns_Tanks__SP guns_Bazooka_Other___Total

NW Eur (1305)___22.1%___22.7%___14.5%___24.4%___14.2%___2.1%___100%

Italy (671)_____30%_____16%_____12%_____26%______9%_____7%_____100%

N Afr. (1734)___19.5%___40.3%___38.2%___nil_____nil_____2%_____100%

Mean values_____22.3%___29.4%___25.3%___13.5%____6.1%___3%_____100%

of which destryd_20.3%___29%_____24.4%___12.7%____5.4%___—_______91.8%

of which dmgd___2%______0.8%____0.9%____0.8%____0.7%___—________5.2%

The "damaged" figures should be treated with caution because of variability in reporting.

It is stated that tanks and SP guns should be considered together, as war diaries often

show doubt over what exactly caused a tank loss. This seems to have been done for the North Africa figures.

Clearly, mines are important, but caused nowhere near 50% of tank losses; nor is the "Bazooka" category (Panzerschreck and Panzerfaust) a contender for the top position, but they make a very respectable contribution.

Personally, I doubt whether the information exists anywhere to estimate the relative contributions of different tank or gun types.

All the best,

John. </font>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Code13:

Just to add a note about the Soviets marching troops through minefields, or rather two notes.

On another thread it was noted that many vets simply viewed minefields as an irritant rather than a real battlefield killer.

As for Soviet doctrine, it was simly taken that if they marched their troops around the fields than the German defences would inflict just as many casualties as if they had just gone through the minefield, so, they went through it, got to the place they wanted and met no defensive forces whilst doing so.

Are you mad???

Clearly on could come up with a better way to clear a path through a minefield.

For example, I believe the Americans had a flail attachment for their Shermans that did the job quite nicely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...