Guns vs Armour

[JasonC]

"Operating ahead of the tanks. Hunting down enemy armour to open up the front and allow the tanks to penetrate the rear areas"

This is utter nonsense. US doctrine was that TDs *defended* against enemy armor *attacks*, by flocking to the scene of a penetration and attriting the enemy armor by direct fire.

The whole idea was to stop "blitzkrieg", to avoid the Germans being able to do to the US army what they did to the Polish or French armies.

There was no requirement or idea or foggiest notion, that they were to charge the enemy army to destroy his armor to prepare breakthroughs.

It is sheer slander. It is also the formal fallacy "moving the goalposts".

As it has been established beyond argument that TDs succeeded in their doctrinal role, he invents new ones out of whole cloth in order to allege they didn't perform something. He might as readily complain that SP TDs did not destroy the Luftwaffe.

AD forces expected to break through themselves at points of their own choosing by they own organic means - lots of medium tanks, SP arty suppressing ATGs, and armored infantry for combined arms and infantry roles and to hold stuff taken etc.

If breakthrough fighting needed to be prepared by attrition, that mission was to fall to IDs supported by tank battalions and copious artillery, who operated by repeated barrage then infantry probe, typically battalion scale.

[JasonC]

It is indeed revealing that he isn't a CM player. It accounts for the fact that he has no idea how useful TDs are in the force mixes and match ups actually present in 1944. It accounts for his silly idea that the marginal extra armor thickness of a Sherman's sides matters for anything.

He simply does not know what all the weapons are and can do and how useful it is to have a weapon that can kill any enemy tank, when the enemy relies on frontal armor invulnerability of his ubertanks. In fine he cannot be expected to know tactics with any independent judgment or sense, and is at the mercy of what he reads.

Of course a force of Jacksons in vastly preferable to a force of Sherman 75s, when the mission is stopping a German armored attack. Anyone actually trying to use either tactically, knows this crushingly and directly. He apparently does not, for the simplest reason - he has never tried to do either, so he has no idea.

[michael kenny]

Originally posted by JasonC:

It is indeed revealing that he isn't a CM player. It accounts for the fact that he has no idea how useful TDs are in the force mixes and match ups actually present in 1944. It accounts for his silly idea that the marginal extra armor thickness of a Sherman's sides matters for anything.

Thats right. Only those people who play computer simulations have any real idea of warfare. I have no idea about anything because, sorry to admit this, I only know about the things I read.

I was led astray by the printed word. Rather than accepting Jason's amazing discovery that US armour 'outscored' the Germans every time they met I continued to cling to the fiction of the real losses. I simply could not admit the medium I use is so useless. All the detailed records kept by the US Quartermasters where they listed the tanks the struck off are are no good. Jason is the only one who saw through their deception.

In fine he cannot be expected to know tactics with any independent judgment or sense, and is at the mercy of what he reads.

Thus is dismissed the whole sum of human knowledge to date..............

so he has no idea.

Woe is me, undone by a geek with a keyboard!!!!!

As a matter of interest Jason can you link me to somewhere where you post about the real thing instead of all the virtual stuff...........you do post in historical forums don't you?

[Hammer-n-Sickle]

Michael, Jason. You two aren't by any chance a couple are you? You sure argue like a couple.

[michael kenny]

"TD's had a very specific role in mind. Operating ahead of the tanks. Hunting down enemy armour to open up the front and allow the tanks to penetrate the rear areas.

Perhaps I should have been more precise in my wording.

TD's were to deal with the Panzers.

Rush to where they were.

Swarm all over them like ants.

Hit them from the rear and sides.

Scoot fast to get away from the retaliation.

The analogy used was :

"Hit him (Joe Lewis)behind the ear with brass knuckles. Then get the hell out before all Harlem breaks loose"

No slugging match because they had glass jaws.

Tanks were to penetrate the front lines and deal with the soft targets after the Panzers had been destroyed by the TD's.

It accounts for his silly idea that the marginal extra armor thickness of a Sherman's sides matters for anything.

Marginal?

..................M4..............M10...........M3A3(StuartV)

HULL

Front.......2.0.............1.5/2.0............1.0/1.75

Side.........1.5.............1.0/0.75..........1.0

Rear........1.5.............1.0/0.75...........1.0

Top..........0.75/0.5.....0.75/0.375.......0.5

Floor.......1.0/0.5........0.5..................0.5/0.375

TURRET

Front......3.0.............2.25.................1.5

Side........2.0.............1.0..................1.25

Rear.......2.0.............1.0...................1.25

Top........1.0..............0.75(add-on)....0.5

The TD's were made with lighter armour because the were to be a LIGHT tank with a HEAVY tank gun.

Right then, that is it. There is no need to keep repeating it. We disagree and it is pointless to keep posting 'Yes it is'/'no it isn't'.

Angels on the head of a pin and all that,great fun if you are in the fight but boring when you are merely an observer.

I have given you some data you can use to make your games a bit more realistic. I hope your aversion to the printed word will not preclude your using the figures to correct your misconceptions.

[Corvidae]

Mr Kenny, you are perhaps missing a point here

"I was led astray by the printed word. Rather than accepting Jason's amazing discovery that US armour 'outscored' the Germans every time they met I continued to cling to the fiction of the real losses. I simply could not admit the medium I use is so useless. All the detailed records kept by the US Quartermasters where they listed the tanks the struck off are are no good. Jason is the only one who saw through their deception."

In fact many american losses were due to minor mechanical failures which the germans would have repaired. You appear to have not grasped this.

Due to the abundance of replacement vehicles, American crews were quite willing to simply abandon a tank or TD rather than bother to salvage it. A clogged jet on a carburetor, or a bent stem on an exhaust valve, could stop a tank.

And the americans would often write off such vehicles as lost or destroyed. The crew were simply given a new tank. There is no deception.

Jason is fully aware of the wastefull practices of a forward rushing army with a huge surplus of spares. So is almost every person who bothers to actualy look at the habbits of recovery efforts on tanks for all armys. The Americans did not feel a need to salvage and canibalize their tanks for spares.

Germans DID salvage their tanks, and everyone elses.

German loss rates are higher than their production rates simply because the same hull might be killed and salvaged a dozen times before being placed beyond recovery. (ie; overrun)

There is no discovery here. Nothing amazing, and no deception. Your bombast is missplaced.

As to your dissmissal of the game.

As you said, You have never played it. So your condescention is from ignorance.

Maybe you should consider learning something about the CM games before you heap ridicule upon them.

"Battleships" indeed

[michael kenny]

Originally posted by Corvidae:

In fact many american losses were due to minor mechanical failures which the germans would have repaired. You appear to have not grasped this.

How do you know this? Where is it so I can 'grasp' it?

Due to the abundance of replacement vehicles, American crews were quite willing to simply abandon a tank or TD rather than bother to salvage it. A clogged jet on a carburetor, or a bent stem on an exhaust valve, could stop a tank.

And the americans would often write off such vehicles as lost or destroyed. The crew were simply given a new tank. There is no deception.

So even though Units were only at some 86% of full strenght on 1/12/44 you say they simply abandoned perfectly good tanks? Shermans were in short supply throughout the campaign in the West.

Monthly totals of actual Shermans to allotted in 12th AG:

1 September..2108/2204 = 95%

1 October....1710/1988 = 86%

1 November...360/2632 = 89%

1 December...2366/2768 = 86%

1 January....2476/3215 = 77%

1 Febuary....2845/3155 = 90%

5 March .....3455/3785 = 91%

5 April......3498/3785 = 92%

5 May........3455/3785 = 91%

Things were so bad that 500 Shermans were returned to the US from British stocks.

Jason is fully aware of the wastefull practices of a forward rushing army with a huge surplus of spares. So is almost every person who bothers to actualy look at the habbits of recovery efforts on tanks for all armys. The Americans did not feel a need to salvage and canibalize their tanks for spares.

See my reply above.

Germans DID salvage their tanks, and everyone elses.

German loss rates are higher than their production rates simply because the same hull might be killed and salvaged a dozen times before being placed beyond recovery. (ie; overrun)

Yes the Germans were fanatical in their recovery practice. From page 105 of Pallud's Bulge book for ATB(sorry about the use of such a poor reference source as the printed word) we can read about Willi Fischer who went into Krinklet to recover his Panther which was disabled on Dec 19th. The tank was towed out and made it back to the repair shop. Heinze Linke had to go Dom Butgenbach for his Panther. He got it out and was being towed back on Dec 24th when artillery targetted him, hit his Panther and left it in flames.

Now how many times was Linke's Panther claimed?

As Fischer got his Panther back should it be 'subtracted' from the kill claims?

Thats the problem with field claims and thats why they are of no use when trying to calculate actual losses.

There is no discovery here. Nothing amazing, and no deception. Your bombast is missplaced.

Claims about losses and ratios are being made that have not the slightest contact with reality.

I happen to know the claims are wrong because I took the trouble to ask those with the actual figures to share them with me. I posted the figures. I would like to think I was helping others to make proper comparisons by using the real figures.

It seems I was wrong.

Nobody has challenged the figures.

As to your dissmissal of the game.

As you said, You have never played it. So your condescention is from ignorance.

Maybe you should consider learning something about the CM games before you heap ridicule upon them.

"Battleships" indeed

Look if you start dishing it out I am going to give you it back. If you want me to act like an adult then do the same yourself.

[ December 30, 2006, 04:34 PM: Message edited by: michael kenny ]

[coe]

OK OK I am responsible for diverting this thread and I don't like the name calling, everyone looking down upon eachother, I'm going to pull rank here (having the low membership number) and ask for peace!!

As for the M10 armour thickness there is a point:

side and rear armour seems to be 50% of the M4

(e.g. since we are used to seeing armour in mm: 23.5mm as opposed to 47mm). Front too..that does have weight and protection implications. I won't go into the physics but if the M4 has 100% more armour on the sides and 30-50% more armour on the front...that isn't trivial. You can go from not being able to stop a door knocker to being able to stop one and having much better odds against a 50mm (at least based on the side increase).

We should ask if the TDs were ever used in an offensive mode against German Armour - we know that German SPs were used in offensive modes and kinda didn't do so well. In the time of an offense , were the TDs shuffled off to the rear ready to react or what would be done if artillery wasn't available and there were heavily armoured Panzers sitting there (NOT on the offensive) to oppose the offensives?

The counterpunch can work but I assume the idea isn't to counter punch head on into an attack but to rather make favorable jabs at the flanks and possibly rear areas - cause losses and then withdraw (or if you sense winning big go for it)...in that sense it could be better than just sliding forces in front of the enemy becasue you will be facing their front.

Incidentally if I remember correctly - Goodwood, the Germans did the TD doctrine, massing to destroy british armour from good ground etc....I guess however in the end their losses were about even? But is that heavily due to the Air attack before hand? which makes me wonder if their were huge carpet bombing attacks on the Allies, would the TDs come out better or in the case of Goodwood, would the germans have come out just as well if they used "lightly" armoured TDs (I say lightly with quotes because we are debating if the TDs are lightly armoured.

Don't forget the spirit of the season!

[ December 30, 2006, 08:49 PM: Message edited by: coe ]

[David I]

My, oh, My. It's all fun and games until someone gets their eye poked out.

DavidI

[JasonC]

Now you are just flat out lying. Of course I've challenged the figures - you tried to cite US losses for 3 armies for 2 months including light tanks against German losses of full AFVs in the bulge proper for one month.

And yes, marginal, if you know what 75L48s the weakest gun on any German tank of the period do, that would be blatantly obvious. It has also been repeatedly pointed out to you, in the direct challenge to name what is supposedly bouncing from the Shermans and not the TDs.

You also never even managed to state whether you accept that US SP TDs fufilled their defensive role just fine, despite repeated challenge to do so, which is ducking the question. And to explain the lower TD losses compared to Shermans, even proportionally, and how it fits any supposed greater vulnerability of the TDs.

[Corvidae]

Mr Kenny,

Will you consider a possibility that we may in fact be talking about two different periods in the northern european campaign?

Perhaps early american wastefullness led to the shortages you bring up.

I am willing to consider that early wastefullness may have been exadurated by the propaganda industry. And that wastefullness could have contributed to later shortages.

I am willing to consider the possibility that the wastefullness was pure 'official history', and was created for newsreels.

I am willing to consider any suggestion, with a grain or two of salt.

By the way. I consider being at 86% of strength to be a fairly normal state, not a crisis.

But thats just my perception.

[michael kenny]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Now you are just flat out lying. Of course I've challenged the figures - you tried to cite US losses for 3 armies for 2 months including light tanks against German losses of full AFVs in the bulge proper for one month.

Unable to refute the totals you are reduced to trying to cause confusion over dates. Again I gave you the figures by month.

Tanks/TD ETO

20/10 to 20/11= 268 M4--83 Lt.-62TD(413)

20/11 to 20/12= 523 M4-134 Lt.-127TD(784)

20/12 to 20/01= 614 M4-208 Lt.-122TD(944)

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

1st Army alone for 13/12/44 to 19/01/45.

M4 = 432

M5/M24 = 116

TD = 90 (est.75% of montly total)

Total = 638

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

1st Army alone for 13/12/44 to 28/12/44

M4 = 301

M5/M24 = 74

TD = 60 (est,half months total)

Total = 435

compare this directly with German losses for 16th - 31 December:

Tanks = 222

SP's = 102

Total = 322

Now the dates do not exactly mesh but we get

322:435.

Now I hear someone wishes to exclude the M5/M24's. Why I do not know because there is no dispute that they are actualy tanks but lets give it a go:

322:361

But remember to get down to this, the lowest possible exchange rate, we have to ignore the fact that we are comparing 1st Army losses alone against all German losses on the Western Front.

We also ignore all losses in 3rd Army who were attacking the same Germans.

Is there any dispute that 3rd Army were taking losses before December 31st?

The total German loss figure you parrot(800) is the absolute maximum (it is more around 600-650)and is the total of all losses in the whole of The Western Front-yet here you quibble over including 3rd Army losses in the US total.!

if you know what 75L48s the weakest gun on any German tank of the period do, that would be blatantly obvious.

Yes I know absolutely nothing and am wrong on every point. My understanding in minimal and I am making everything up. I don't play simulations, read too many books and lack your superior research skills. Strange that I found the actual loss figures and you, who did not posses a single one before I put them up here, managed to work out loss ratios to 2 decimal places.

Boy you sure are a genius!

It has also been repeatedly pointed out to you, in the direct challenge to name what is supposedly bouncing from the Shermans and not the TDs.

You also never even managed to state whether you accept that US SP TDs fufilled their defensive role just fine, despite repeated challenge to do so, which is ducking the question. And to explain the lower TD losses compared to Shermans, even proportionally, and how it fits any supposed greater vulnerability of the TDs.

I refer the honourable gentleman to my earlier reply, quoted below in case he missed it. The TD 'debate' is over as far as I am concerned.

"Right then, that is it. There is no need to keep repeating it. We disagree and it is pointless to keep posting 'Yes it is'/'no it isn't'.

Angels on the head of a pin and all that,great fun if you are in the fight but boring when you are merely an observer"

YAY.

YRA

[ December 30, 2006, 09:15 PM: Message edited by: michael kenny ]

[michael kenny]

Originally posted by Corvidae:

Will you consider a possibility that we may in fact be talking about two different periods in the northern european campaign?

All the figures I give have dates attached so I do not really understand what the confusion is.

By the way. I consider being at 86% of strength to be a fairly normal state, not a crisis.

But thats just my perception.

I don't think it is a 'crisis' either . But given the situation (77% half-way through)I think writing tanks off for minor mechanical failures would not be a common practice.

[JasonC]

First figure for November - pointless, nothing to do with it. Figure that starts in late January - same. Neither has anything to do with the bulge.

Only relevant time period is the mid Dec to mid Jan one. For which two figures, 523 Sherman and 127 TD for the entire theater, and 432 and 90 for 1st Army.

German losses are not 323, they have a net drawdown of at least 600 not whole theater but specific units in the Bulge 16 Dec to 16 January only, net of over 100 replacements sent. Source Dupuy, already mentioned repeatedly.

TWO accounting without concern about dating of losses again? Most likely.

TDs were 1/4 of the strength in the battle. Why are they less than 1/4 of the losses?

TDs have higher kill to losses in the tactical accounts.

If TDs are outperforming Shermans and the whole German offensive is failing, how is their thinner armor rendering them ineffective?

If TDs are more vulnerable to non-AFV causes of loss than Shermans and are still losing fewer overall, how can they be underperforming them specifically vs. AFVs?

If total losses are near parity and TDs are outperforming Shermans, how are Germans outscoring TDs in TD vs armor matchups?

It is a completely falsified thesis, but none of it is admitted. Instead we get the argument ad naseum, complete with the literal statement that nobody is disputing what people have vigorously disputed for 9 pages.

Will he ever admit that TDs were effective in their doctrinal role of stopping armor attacks? Will he instead invent six other imaginary things for them to supposedly be required to do? Will he claim the argument is over and then post another four pages?

Who cares?

[michael kenny]

Originally posted by JasonC:

German losses are not 323, they have a net drawdown of at least 600 not whole theater but specific units in the Bulge 16 Dec to 16 January only, net of over 100 replacements sent. Source Dupuy, already mentioned repeatedly.

Post it then. Instead of giving us your precis give us your data and then we can examine it. I am not afraid of others using my figures so why are you scared of posting yours?

You always shy away from giving us your raw data.

Your opinions are interesting but without any detailed information are worthless to a serious researcher.

Oh and just in case anyone missed it this is the confirmed US losses in the same period as the German estimated losses

20/12 to 20/01= 614 M4-208 Lt.-122TD

Total 944 v 6-800

TDs have higher kill to losses in the tactical accounts.

Worthless for compiling final figures.

TDs were 1/4 of the strength in the battle. Why are they less than 1/4 of the losses?

You say 1/4 because you use my reckoning of 20 TD Battalions but the flaw is I did not seperate out which Army they served in. So how do you know it was 25%? As you desperately want to confine the figures to 1st Army then you are asserting that ALL the TD battalions were in 1st Army?

If TDs are outperforming Shermans and the whole German offensive is failing, how is their thinner armor rendering them ineffective?

If TDs are more vulnerable to non-AFV causes of loss than Shermans and are still losing fewer overall, how can they be underperforming them specifically vs. AFVs?

If total losses are near parity and TDs are outperforming Shermans, how are Germans outscoring TDs in TD vs armor matchups?............Will he ever admit that TDs were effective in their doctrinal role of stopping armor attacks? Will he instead invent six other imaginary things for them to supposedly be required to do? Will he claim the argument is over and then post another four pages?

I again refer the gentleman to my previous reply about the TD debate.

Who cares?

Obviously you!

[ December 30, 2006, 10:53 PM: Message edited by: michael kenny ]

[michael kenny]

How did the Germans see the battles?

Tanks/Stug in the West( i.e every front)total and (operational)

15/12/44.......................[] 30/12/44...[]..15/01/45

Stug = 598.......(410)......[]...676(335)..[]...716(340)

PzIV = 503.......(391)......[]...550(345)..[]...594(330)

Panth = 471.....(336)......[]...451(240)..[]...487(221)

Tiger = 123......(70).......[]...116(58)....[]...110(64)

Total = 1695.....(1216)...[]..1793(978)..[]...1907(955)

Obviously the JgdPz. figures are not here and the full accounting has not been completed but you can see the trends.

They are also at odds with the calculations done on December 31st but that is the problem we have with the original figures, they rarely are in a form that allows like for like comparison.

31/12/44 loss figures are in brackets after the net loss figures in the operational Panzers for 30/12/44 from the above tables:

Stug = 75(102)

PzIV = 46(77)

Panth = 96(132)

Tiger = 12(13)

As 'tactical claims' seem to be given undue weight perhaps we should also factor in the German claims:

1700 tanks destroyed and 100 captured.

The puzzle is that we know captured US tanks were used by the Germans-so when they were knocked out by the US are they to be included in the US or German totals!

I think that is it for this topic as well.

All the relevant figures are in and anyone can do the calculations to work out whatever they want.

Bye bye..........

[Corvidae]

It appears that the tread has degenerated into an

"I'm always right on all points and you are just stupid"

contest.

From a psychological viewpoint, there appears to be a lot of overcompensation going on.

In short, its become a 7th grade pissing contest.

And on that note... How was everyones xmass?

,

[JasonC]

No I am not relying on the silly person on TDs, there were 18 battalions that actually fought in the Ardennes, all listed in Dupuy.

He is perfectly free to go look at the raw data in appendix F of Dupuy "Hitler's Last Gamble". As it runs 8 pages I see little point in typing it here. Dupuy gives vehicle strengths for every division for 16 December, 24 December, 2 January, and 16 January, divided tank and SP. (The OOB including US TDs down to company in places is D).

Not some global front accounting total that pretends something just leaving the factory means nothing was KOed in the Ardennes. The net reduction in German full AFV strength net of returns and replacements is 600. See the previous poster above on replacement sent (over 300) and arrived (more like a little over 100).

As for the "refer to previous" comment, it is again a dodge. As far as I can tell, the silly person remains committed to the nonsense that TDs were ineffective fighting against attacking German armor because they were too poorly armor - which is clearly false.

He can either actually say "OK, they were effective fighting against attacking German armor", or he can be wrong - or (typical) he can dodge because he knows he is wrong.

Or he can say "tah tah" at the end of each of his next 40 posts without ever shutting up - after previously trying to pull the "nobody questions me" nonsense just because nobody can be bothered to refute every piece of silliness 9 pages deep into the thread.

[ December 31, 2006, 10:13 AM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[Hetzer38]

Ha !

I figured it out !

JasonC and michael kenny are the same person!

Happy new year to all of you !

[JasonC]

While he serves passably as a witless foil so I can see how you might suspect that, alas no, I play CM and the silly person does not. And the same attribute does not apply and not apply to the same subject in the same sense.

[Corvidae]

Ending a 600 point, 40 turn ME.

I would say that at least THIS SP AT gun was effective

So how do I add kill rings to the barrel?

[Michael Dorosh]

Wasn't this whole thing resolved on page 4?

Basically, kenny attempted to come aboard JasonC by taking exception to a minor point and providing a quote from Hunnicutt, which as Kingfish pointed out lacked relevance.

[JasonC]

Not to worry, the silly person is now spewing his self important bilge at me in private email. One can hope he will spare the rest of you indefinitely.

[Shmavis]

Hah! Hello, Jason. Only you would be here on this day...and me, but I'm on vacation. Happy New Year, crankypants.

[Corvidae]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Not to worry, the silly person is now spewing his self important bilge at me in private email. One can hope he will spare the rest of you indefinitely.

Damm, thats unfair to you.

Still the guy was rather infuriating. Seems to have an 'All Or Nothing' approach.