T-34/85 on the Ost Front...

[Jack Carr]

How much of a difference did the introduction of this tank make? It certainly puts a whole new spin on things for late war scenarios in CMBB. I can't afford to trade shots with unidentified Russian tanks for too long without wondering, "Is that a 76mm or an 85mm?"

Also

The "invulnerability" of the Tiger and Panther breed has been played up quite a bit in various circles, especially Hollywood movies. Obviously these tanks could be knocked out but what was doing it? I went to a re-enactment in Bedford, PA this past weekend and had an interesting conversation with a gentleman from Aberjona Press who said that they will be coming out with a book shortly about the Tiger tank. He said there would be some interesting information in the book about what was the biggest killers of these feared panzers.

#1 - Mechanical Failure and subsequent abandonment.

#2 - Minefields and inability to recover because of enemy fire or vehicle weight compared to available recovery vehicle.

#3 - Enemy Tanks

#4 - Air power

Everything you hear about the German panzers being knocked out all the time by fighter-bombers is not what it's cracked up to be according to the information in this forthcoming book. I am going to keep an eye out for this book by the way. I picked up a few others they put out that are good reads. Check out some of the books these folks are putting out. They are really good.

Has anyone read any books which talk about this?

[JasonC]

Sure plenty, but mines did not KO half as many as tanks and ATGs. Also, a large portion of the "mechanical breakdown" or "abandoned" classification includes battle damage at some point. If a tank had a track blown off, was repaired, and later broke down again, it was "mechanical failure". But the cause of the failure might well have been 155mm HE or 76mm AP in the wrong place.

Similarly, many tanks were hit and recovered, kept for spares, and "abandoned" only when the front moved a long way and they couldn't be moved. The more valuable the tank, the more likely this becomes. Air power on the other hand was a tiny factor in tank destruction. It did more by depriving them of fuel than directly. Tanks are very hard targets, particularly heavier ones, and air to ground weapons were primitive against anything but soft targets until well after WW II.

As for the difference the T-34/85 made, like 76mm Shermans it reversed the range edge to pro-allied against the plain vanilla German types, the Pz IV and the StuG. Neither was in the same category with Panthers and Tigers. At close enough range either could kill those with a hit in the right spot, and at longer range they could kill them from the flank. But dueling frontally at range, the Allied vanilla types, even the upgunned ones, were completely outclassed by Panthers and Tigers. Only IS-2s were in the same class.

[MikeyD]

I also heard artillery wasn't as big a threat to tanks as one might think, either (though all reports indicate tanks hastily exited the area if they thought they had been targeted).

The 'invulnerability' of the big cats has been played up in Hollywood mostly because that's how returning U.S. war veterans remembered it. If your platoon of 75mm gun Shermans gets killed in quick order by a single Tiger at 2,000m range you don't stop to consider that you're facing a single Tiger because the rest of his platoon had broken down on the march!

[flamingknives]

Not directly relevant, but interesting is the following, taken from PRO document WO 291/14/6 on the Conqueror Hy gun Tank:

Russian 122mm gun Vs. Conqueror at range of 1000 yds (slightly under 1km)

Chance of hit: 98%

Chance of a kill, given a hit: 51%

The frontal armour of the Conqueror is proof against the 122mm gun at any range.

The figures given are:

"averaged over all directions of attack in accordance with the d.p.v. ..."

So basically side and rear hits have to be taken into account.

If someone knows what d.p.v. means, I'd like to know.

[Mr. Tittles]

I saw a good book in a University library that examined US-German armor battles in Normandy till the end of the war.

One of the surprising things is that the real advantage for the Germans was only at long range. At medium ranges, it was a marginal advantage and they were at a disadvantage at close range. I forget the actual definitions of these ranges. This is taking into account the numbers of tanks fielded in typical battles.

The use of Panther tanks with inexperienced crews (unlike Tiger units which were mostly elite) was a disaster and negated the advantage of the equipment.

The book was well researched and agreed that German tank losses from AP fire was a minority compared to abandonment and self destruction. Arty and air force were also minority factors but added to causes for abandonment, etc. German Mech forces, like most military forces, could not stand overwhelming air superiority.

I will have to find the book again and give it a real read. The number of Allied tanks destroyed by AP is a majority, I believe.

[88mm]

Air power on the other hand was a tiny factor in tank destruction. It did more by depriving them of fuel than directly.

Tell that the GroBdeutchland div. who was poundered from a massiv bombardment, nearly whiped out the whole div. Such scale of AIr-op was clearly needed for a sucsesfull breakthrough. Allied Pz. weren't capable of it, hence the mass losses of Monty at Caen.

Anyway, the Pz. did take more damage then only "fuel"-shortage.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by 88mm:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Air power on the other hand was a tiny factor in tank destruction. It did more by depriving them of fuel than directly.

Tell that the GroBdeutchland div. who was poundered from a massiv bombardment, nearly whiped out the whole div. Such scale of AIr-op was clearly needed for a sucsesfull breakthrough. </font>

[MikeyD]

I thought massive sustained air power did-in the German defending armor around Falaise (this might be what he's referring to?).

[Andreas]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

I thought massive sustained air power did-in the German defending armor around Falaise (this might be what he's referring to?).

a) no it did not

Grossdeutschland was nowhere near Falaise as a division (elements may have been)

[JasonC]

Tittles - I know the book you are talking about. Has a subtitle like "armor tactics from Normandy to Lorraine". The range definitions were under 500 yards short, 500 to 1000 yards medium, over 1000 yards long. The Germans had an edge in the outcomes examined only at "long". The dominant factors in outcomes, however, were who was attacking and odds. The tactical attackers were the ones that got hurt most of the time, as well as small forces. Forces of platoon size were usually wiped out, company size and upward rarely were. The winner often got off scot free.

All meaning, armor engagements are very far from "fair fights". They are often an attacker blundering into a ambush kill zone, getting shot to heck and withdrawing. Or they are a mere platoon getting run over by a company or more. Or they are 500 yard "quick draw" fights where the first side to score runs away with it.

As for the other fellows comments about air, he is obviously trying to refer to Panzer Lehr getting hit by strategic bombers during Cobra, not to Grossdeutschland. No doubt it wasn't fun, but Lehr was a shell before the bombing, with something like 40 running tanks. It was first reduced, early, in the Brit sector - when it arrived in the US sector it was about half its original runners.

But it was still a serious panzer division, with 100 AFVs. It lost close to half of the remainder in one day in its ill fated counterattack into the US St. Lo steamroller on July 11. During the bombing, Lehr was serving as a coordinating HQ for KGs collected from half a dozen fought out infantry divisions. It certainly lost a significant number of men in the bombing, but tank losses were not high. In early August it still had 33 runners (12 Panther, 15 Pz IV, 6 Jagds).

The breakthrough fight still took 3 US infantry divisions 2 days. The Germans had basically run out of front line infantry in the sector, from the cumulative losses since the start of the July St. Lo operation. The US then put several fresh armor divisions into the line, which outnumbered all remaining German armor in the west.

The Germans tried to stop them with the 116th Panzer division, which had been in reserve and was fresh, and 2 StuG brigades. This was about as much reserve armor as was available to stop Goodwood in the Brit sector a few days previously. (116 PD had over 150 AFVs and the 2 StuG brigades had over 50 more between them). The US 2nd Armor division ran right over them.

None of the "it's all Goering's fault" crowd have ever managed to explain how 116 PD did so poorly against the US 2 AD just days from the time Goodwood was reduced to a burning shambles by a similar sized armor force. From the 2 ADs website "26-31 July 1944: In this 6 days( inclusive) the 2nd Armored Division fought elements of fourteen German divisions and one Battle Group, They were as follows: 2nd Panzer Div. 1st SS Panzer Div, 10th SS Panzer Div., 17th SS Panzer Div., Panzer Lehr Div., 116th Panzer Div., 5th Parachute Div., 84th, 91st, 243rd, 266th, 275th, 353rd, Infantry Div. and the Battle Group Kentner 30. The above listed units had over 5000 ( five thousand) casualties and 5000 prisoners taken in this 6 days. The 2nd Armored Divisions losses were around 600 casualties. wounded or KIA or MIA).

[rum]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

Russian 122mm gun Vs. Conqueror at range of 1000 yds (slightly under 1km)

Chance of hit: 98%

Chance of a kill, given a hit: 51%

The frontal armour of the Conqueror is proof against the 122mm gun at any range.

flamingkives, as far as i understand the CM engine have one serious drawback in the DM modelling. It doesnt count the the HE effect on the target armor, only the AP effect is considered.

I remember Apex did a short test: he positioned the immobile (due to terrain) Jagttiger without the ammo in front of the ISU-152.

ISU-152 fired round by round, scoring hit by hit into Jagdtiger front. Without any effect at all.

Same picture with the 122 mm shells.

In the real life, even the single 122mm shell explosion on the armor would (temporary) incapacitate the crew. Continous explosion of 152mm HE shells (40-50 Kg each) should spread the crew bodies on the inner surface of the armor, even if armor would not me penetrated.

[stikkypixie]

What is a Conqueror? i don't remember seeing or hearing about it. One thing i know for sure wasn't available to the allies during WOII.

Could someone enlighten me.

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by stikkypixie:

What is a Conqueror? i don't remember seeing or hearing about it. One thing i know for sure wasn't available to the allies during WOII.

Could someone enlighten me.

With absolute pleasure sir.

web page

Originally posted by rum:

flamingkives, as far as i understand the CM engine have one serious drawback in the DM modelling. It doesnt count the the HE effect on the target armor, only the AP effect is considered.

I remember Apex did a short test: he positioned the immobile (due to terrain) Jagttiger without the ammo in front of the ISU-152.

ISU-152 fired round by round, scoring hit by hit into Jagdtiger front. Without any effect at all.

Same picture with the 122 mm shells.

In the real life, even the single 122mm shell explosion on the armor would (temporary) incapacitate the crew. Continous explosion of 152mm HE shells (40-50 Kg each) should spread the crew bodies on the inner surface of the armor, even if armor would not me penetrated.

Actually, a firing test against a Conqueror (WO 194/375) using 120mm HE in place of 122mm shells records that, apart from a few unpleasant incidents involving loose hatch covers, 120mm HE is unable to damage the tank from front or sides.

The hatch business comes from two cases:

1) fragments enter fighting compartment via a vent and

2) a hit to the turret front popped the drivers hatch open, exposing that area to blast.

The HESH round fired by the 120mm gun mounted on the Conqueror was considered capable of defeating 130mm of armour, by obtaining good contact between explosive and armour (hence transmitting the shockwave well) and causing severe spalling.

Regular HE shells (unless they're really big) aren't very good at killing armour.

[CKibler]

Originally posted by Andreas:

IIRC, the Grossdeutschland served entirely on the East Front -- nicht wahr?. If "elements" of the GD were near Falaise, they must've been on leave -- which was rare, probably, as the elements of that elite division could be little spared by 1944. :}

[Andreas]

Originally posted by CKibler:

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

IIRC, the Grossdeutschland served entirely on the East Front -- nicht wahr?. If "elements" of the GD were near Falaise, they must've been on leave -- which was rare, probably, as the elements of that elite division could be little spared by 1944. :} </font>

Grog Dorosh, AKA Pestilence is better informed about Elite Forces of the Reich - I have some weird (and probably wrong) recollection that some part of GD at some point was sent to Normandy.

Well, where is Pestilence when you need him...

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by Andreas:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by 88mm:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Air power on the other hand was a tiny factor in tank destruction. It did more by depriving them of fuel than directly.

Tell that the GroBdeutchland div. who was poundered from a massiv bombardment, nearly whiped out the whole div. Such scale of AIr-op was clearly needed for a sucsesfull breakthrough. </font>

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Berlichtingen:

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

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by 88mm:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Air power on the other hand was a tiny factor in tank destruction. It did more by depriving them of fuel than directly.

Tell that the GroBdeutchland div. who was poundered from a massiv bombardment, nearly whiped out the whole div. Such scale of AIr-op was clearly needed for a sucsesfull breakthrough. </font>

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by CKibler:

IIRC, the Grossdeutschland served entirely on the East Front -- nicht wahr?.

Well, to pick nits, Großdeutscland fought in France in 1940

More relevent, the Führer Begleit Brigade (part of Großdeutschland) was involved in the Ardennes offensive

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Oh yeah, for the breakout, it is definitely Panzerlehr. Bayerlein was a bit of a drama queen, it seems, but of course the Kool-Aid os US Air Superiority addicts like to take his writing as proof just how darn efficient airpower is.

Rock on.

Oh it was effective... it screwed up the roads and such so bad he couldn't move... but it didn't destroy much in the way of tanks

[CKibler]

Originally posted by Berlichtingen:

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

IIRC, the Grossdeutschland served entirely on the East Front -- nicht wahr?.

Well, to pick nits, Großdeutscland fought in France in 1940

More relevent, the Führer Begleit Brigade (part of Großdeutschland) was involved in the Ardennes offensive </font>

[Bastables]

No unit of GD was ever deployed to Normandy. The Panther abt of GD was posted to France as part of 116 Panzer Division while 116 own Panther abt continued training in Germany. But I./ Pz regt GD was sent back to the east before 116th div was ordered to Normandy.

116 div departed and arrived in Normandy with the 76 Panthers of I./Pz regt 24, detached from the 24th Pz Div.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Bastables:

No unit of GD was ever deployed to Normandy. The Panther abt of GD was posted to France as part of 116 Panzer Division while 116 own Panther abt continued training in Germany. But I./ Pz regt GD was sent back to the east before 116th div was ordered to Normandy.

116 div departed and arrived in Normandy with the 76 Panthers of I./Pz regt 24, detached from the 24th Pz Div.

Thanks - that is what I was thinking of.