Shermans and Burning Too easily.....

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by busboy:

Hehe, unfortunately if there is a Patton vs. Monty thread, I'm usually the culprate. This is unintentional, I assure you, but you cannot bring up one without the other it seems.

I have never understood why some "fans" of Patton seem to think his reputation is so insecure that it can't be mentioned without bashing Montgomery. I've also never understood why Monty-bashers so seldom bother to acquaint themselves with the facts before attacking.

Originally posted by busboy:

As for the numbers, if you'd like I can dig out my sources, but the disatvantage that the Germans, stretched thin already, were confronted with were astounding. If I recall off the top of my head, the British had a 4 to 1 superiority in armor and a 10 to 1 superiority in artillery, and something like a 3 to 1 ratio in general manpower. (again, these are purely off the top of my head, I'd have to look it up to be sure.)

Purely off the top of your head, and straight through your hat, I'm afraid.

The following numbers are taken from page 163 of "The Imperial War Museum book of the Desert War 1940-42", and show the force ratios for Operation Supercharge, Allied : Axis

Personnel

195,000 : 104,000 (50,000 German)

1.9 : 1

Tanks

1,029 : 489 (211 German)

2.1 : 1

Guns

2,311 : 1,219 (644 German)

1.9 : 1

Tactical aircraft

530 : 350 (150 German)

1.5 : 1

According to Wolf Heckmann's "Rommel's War in Africa", 470 of the British tanks were Grants or Shermans, and 500 of the guns were 2-pdrs.

There is little to be gained from this sort of bean-counting by category, as the ratios that would have been more of interest would be Axis anti-tank guns against Allied tanks and Axis mines against Allied engineer strength, but is at least clear that claims of 10:1, 4:1 or 3:1 in any category of asset are nonsense.

All the best,

John.

[rleete]

Originally posted by Captain Wacky:

Grogs, pounce!

The phrase "shooting fish in a barrel" comes to mind. With a very big gun, and a very small barrel.

[fire-fox]

Originally posted by Captain Wacky:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by fire-fox:

You are saw, saw, rong:

A)....read Achtung Panzer! by Guderian.

....The Panther's were sniping tank's (remember the Ferlise highway).

C)....in france the germans used a lot of capterd Czech-built 38t tank's.

D)....The gun of the sherman M4A1 fails point blank on a Pz Kw III

E)....and if you think that any sherman can take out a kingtiger you wont your head cheked.

F)....the resen americens advansed that fare in france is because thay were only up agensed 1/5th the german strength in france were as the Brit's and the canadens were up agenst 3.5/5th's inkluding the Das Rich, and all if not most ove the then operashanol king niger and nebulwafer units in westen europe. :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

Grogs, pounce!</font>

[fire-fox]

Originally posted by R_Leete:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Captain Wacky:

Grogs, pounce!

The phrase "shooting fish in a barrel" comes to mind. With a very big gun, and a very small barrel.</font>

[PJungnitsch]

I've always thought that in an ideal world the abilities of Patton and Montgomery perfectly complimented each other. Montgomery breaks the Germans at El Alamein, then hands off to Patton who finishes off Rommel in the pursuit phase. Or Patton chasing the Germans across France, then leaving the Metz fortress battles to Montgomery.

Unfortunate they couldn't seem to stand each other.

[fire-fox]

Originally posted by Paul Jungnitsch:

I've always thought that in an ideal world the abilities of Patton and Montgomery perfectly complimented each other. Montgomery breaks the Germans at El Alamein, then hands off to Patton who finishes off Rommel in the pursuit phase. Or Patton chasing the Germans across France, then leaving the Metz fortress battles to Montgomery.

Unfortunate they couldn't seem to stand each other.

you wont to have Patton's baby.

P.s. stop suving your nose up Patton's arse

[Shosties]

Hi Mom!

[busboy]

Fire-fox,

I'm afriad you're dead wrong on so many issues, and so heavily so that its obvious to most people here and not even worth debating.

Furthermore, your l33t d00d style is so distracting that it looks deliberately foolish, not just accidentally.

Third, I don't understand why you feel personally insulted and are ritiously declaring a flame war. No one insulted you, there is no reason for insulting anyone, or anyone's intellegence.

Finally, to respond anyway:

A. I have Actung Panzer, actually. Its just way down on my reading list right now. I go to school full time and work almost full time hours. My leisure time is slim, but I am looking forward to reading it when I get the chance. (Maybe I should cut down on my message board posting for more reading time )

B. Well, I don't understand what this has to do with the debate about strategic use of armor. Thats a tactical point.

C. Indeed they did, the majority of the German panzer forces were either PzKw 35(t)'s or 38(t)'s, or the PzKw I and II's that were completely ineffective against anything larger than tankettes or light tanks. 38(t)'s still broke down as well.

D. I'll quote you:

"The gun of the sherman M4A1 fails point blank on a Pz Kw III"

I believe you're saying that the Sherman's gun was only able to KO a PzKw III at point blank range, in which case its the armor that fails point blank, not the gun. Regardless, this is inaccruate.

First off, which gun do you mean? The short 75 or the long 76? Which mark of PzKw III are you refering to?

The short 75mm gun of the Sherman fired an APC shell at 701m/sec. If I recall, this could pierce the 100mm frontal armor of a Tiger at (literally) point blank range (and by that I do mean single diget yards.) The short 75 was not a great AP weapon, but yes it could KO a PzKw III.

Later, the long barreled 76mm could fire a HVAP round at 1036m/sec. The standard AP round was not really effective against frontal armor of Panthers and Tigers untill less than 500m, but it was fairly capable.

E. I never ever hinted that a Sherman could penetrate a King Tiger's frontal armor. In fact, practically nothing in WW2 could have. Furthermore, if I recall, nothing is proven ever to have pierced KT frontal armor.

F. This is inaccurate. If you'd like I can dig out numbers (I won't attempt to throw anything out of the top of my head again. )

So firefox, calm it own please. I'm enjoying this debate and don't want it locked because someone felt insulted.

John Salt,

"I have never understood why some "fans" of Patton seem to think his reputation is so insecure that it can't be mentioned without bashing Montgomery. I've also never understood why Monty-bashers so seldom bother to acquaint themselves with the facts before attacking. "

Heh, every time this kind of debate comes up, I get this. I am NOT trying to turn this into a Patton vs. Monty debate, or launch into an attack on the latter. The discussion turned to that. I admit I have not studied Montgomery's campeigns in the detail that I have studied Patton's because Montgomery's methods and battles just didn't inspire any interest in me. I admit a lesser amount of knowledge, but I am not completely ignorant.

As for those figures, are those the figures of what was actually present at El Alimain? Or merely operational strength?

Paul Jungnitsch, thats a pretty fair point. The two characters were insulted by eachother (in fact, lots of commanders were insulted by one or the other. When Eisenhower at one time said over the BBC that Montgmery was "the greatest soldier that ever lived" Omar Bradley almost resigned.

However, the differences aside, the idea you are mentioning is true. You have one commander strategically fixing the enemy, the other breaks through and persues. It works, but in history thats not how it happened.

Eisenhower had to either choose between a broad front strategy in Europe, or thrusts. He chose thrusts, and from there had to choose where to send supplies to. So while Bradley's Army group had to stop at the German border, Montgomery got the bulk of the supplies. His attempt at a thust is of course well known. Market Garden could have been an outstanding sucess, but it was a fluke that they went ahead with it even when recon showed German Panzers massing in the area.

I do admire the audacity and potential of Market Garden, but it should have been scrubbed. Instead an assualt petered out, and Bradley's army group paused long enough to allow the Germans to couterattack in the Ardennes.

Every one thing effected everything else, thats why fans of Patton and Montgomery get sore at each other. Its not insecurity, but the whole "if my guy had more supplies, he could have done better than the other."

I'm not going to get into that, thats a supposition that only rises up blood. Everyone can guess my opinions on the matter, and that is enough.

The issue of Montgomery's role in changing British Armored tactics is still interesting to me, though. What were British Armored opps like after the Failiese (sp) pocket?

[busboy]

"you wont to have Patton's baby.

P.s. stop suving your nose up Patton's arse"

Firefox, PLEASE calm yourself. Disagree in a logical manner, and please be nice. This is a good debate, and I don't want it locked down.

[Ex Bellator]

Hehe, I'd forgotten I'd dipped into this thread in a waspish mood last night, might as well continue.

El Alamein was a heavily fortified postion surveying open terrain and with no turnable flanks. The mine marshes in front of it were miles deep.

The 2 to 1 tank superiority enjoyed by the Commonwealth was useless until the mines had been cleared and the AT defences breached by the infantry. Only then could they be moved forward through narrow corridors to attempt the breakout.

As most people here know, artillery is not usually enough to clear fortified postions, and the defenders artillery will be much more effective.

So then, for days it was down to the P.B.I. alone to attempt to dig out a tenacious foe, on a narrow front clearing mines all the way, advancing thru miles of open terrain pre-registered for targets by the enemy. 2 to 1 odds for that? Care to try it in CMBB let alone real life?

In the pursuit the heavy rains bogged the Commonwealth attempts to outflank the retreating force in the sand, while the Axis had the luxury of the coast road to move along. Despite this large numbers of men were left behind.

I saw figures once for the amount of men who made it back from the Alamein positions through Halfaya Pass, and the Axis losses were staggering, virtually all their heavy equipment having to be left behind. It was a mere shadow of the force that had moved to Alamein, and it was a large injection of fresh troops into Tunisia which dragged the fighting out there.

The poster who says Patton 'finished Rommel off' in the pursuit phase should be aware that of the two allied armies fighting in Tunisia, the US provided only one Corps, the performance of which is a matter of much debate. At the final capitulation of Axis forces 230,000 prisoners were taken, more than twice as many than as at Stalingrad.

Anyone still awake?

[Bastables]

Originally posted by busboy:

Heh, every time this kind of debate comes up, I get this. I am NOT trying to turn this into a Patton vs. Monty debate, or launch into an attack on the latter. The discussion turned to that. I admit I have not studied Montgomery's campeigns in the detail that I have studied Patton's because Montgomery's methods and battles just didn't inspire any interest in me. I admit a lesser amount of knowledge, but I am not completely ignorant.

?[/QB]

I think you'll find that the first mention of Patton along with a anti- Monty stance was made by you. Along with fairly tendentious figures and analysis of El Alamin.

Ignore the Fox chap, he's looking for a banning.

[Captain Wacky]

Originally posted by fire-fox:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Captain Wacky:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by fire-fox:

You are saw, saw, rong:

A)....read Achtung Panzer! by Guderian.

....The Panther's were sniping tank's (remember the Ferlise highway).

C)....in france the germans used a lot of capterd Czech-built 38t tank's.

D)....The gun of the sherman M4A1 fails point blank on a Pz Kw III

E)....and if you think that any sherman can take out a kingtiger you wont your head cheked.

F)....the resen americens advansed that fare in france is because thay were only up agensed 1/5th the german strength in france were as the Brit's and the canadens were up agenst 3.5/5th's inkluding the Das Rich, and all if not most ove the then operashanol king niger and nebulwafer units in westen europe. :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

Grogs, pounce!</font>

[rleete]

Wacky, do not feed the troll.

[busboy]

Bastables, I am trying, I really am...give me that. I understand that no one wants another ego debate, I'm really trying to avoid that.

Again, I was wondering that the figures posted above about El Alimain...were those the figures of what was actually present in the battle, or merely paper strength? I recall much different numbers.

Patton most certianly did not finish off Rommel. What he did do was whip the American II Corps into fighting shape, defeat the 10th Panzer in a several day long battle, and then the II Corps was given to Bradley while Patton was sent to prepare for the invasion for Sicily. Bradley executed the Coup de Gras.

Patton's accomplishments in Africa, though vital, were not all enough to give him supreme credit for any sort of victory in Africa. Certianly without the British persuit, the Americans would have had a considerably tougher time with things, especially whiel Fredentall was in command of II Corps with his nice bomb-proof HQ 70 miles from the front.

Again, trying to get this thread away from an ego debate, I am curious about British armored operations and would like to learn about them. How active were the British in Italy? I've read a few great accounts of actions there, but I don't have a feel for their campeigns. (I did read about a Churchill that went on a rampage and knocked out 2 88s and terrified every German within a 5 mile radius... )

Also, other than bocage bogging and the thrust of Market Gerden, I don't know mush about British operations in the north of Europe. Market Garden really was doomed to fail if the Germans were able to mount any appreciable resistance (which they were and did) so I don't consider it a good showing of British armored tactics. (when you're on deadline, and there's only one road to go down, and its defended... yuck.)

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by busboy:

That particular quote comes out of the easily found coffee table book "The Quotable Soldier" available at any bookstore chain I've ever been in.

BEWARE of coffee table books. They tend to be thin on the facts and some of them are an out-and-out scam.

:eek:

Michael

[rleete]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

BEWARE of coffee table books. They tend to be thin on the facts and some of them are an out-and-out scam.

I'm not so sure it's an out-and-out scam. More of a "this sounds cool, and it will sell". Lack of checking references is more like it. Al la the History channel "facts".

[fire-fox]

I appolegise to every one that i have offended, and i know my speeling sukes big time it's sumthing that i carnt help. and i olse appolegise for geting realy pissd off it will never hapen agen.

P.s if u read Ach Panzer you will get every thing about the way germany fort.

PPS, onse gaen i am sory

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Originally posted by gunnergoz:

...SNIP... Mind you, this comes from the one country besides Italy which could not manage to produce ONE decent medium tank the whole war. Even the Brits admit their tank designs were flawed from the start. The Churchill and Valentine had strong points (pun intended) but were of limited utility.

Ermmmm...Comet? I believe that particular medium tank design was pretty well regarded by the Brits for its speed, reasonable protection and its killing power with the modified 17 pdr as the main gun.

Regards

Jim R.

[busboy]

Don't forget the Centurion was a WW2 design even though it didn't see service. It is to date (with upgrades) still a very potent tank.

The Comet certianly was the best British tank to see action, but it still suffered from poorly designed armor. (It was fairly thich though.)

What interests me is why the British and to a lesser extent the Americans held on to vertical armor for so long. I know some thought that "Oh well, tanks won't engage each other straight on anyway, and if we slope the armor and they're attacked from a different height it might negate the effect." That arguement seems so flawed, though I suppose hindsight is 20/20, but it just makes sense.

As for that quote book I mentioned, its actually a very good book. Its written by a soldier, and just compilations of quotes and such. It certianly is one of those "this looks neat" books. I bought it because its got some great quotes from folks that I have yet to have the chance to study. (Middle Age warfare, for instance, is an era I am sorely lacking.)

It has great quotes on war from literature, philosophers, and warriors. From ancient history to modern. In almost all cases, it cites a work that the quote came from (as only the most modern quotes really can come from anywhere else. Not too many quotes of Caesar that we have that weren't transcribed by him or one of his soldiers that finished his Commentaries.) The Hemmingway quote, for instance, is quoted in Michael Reynolds' "Hemingway: The Final Years" (1999).

Point: its not a poorly researched gimick book, but its supposed to sell as hot as one.

Firefox...apology accepted. I look foreward to reading Actung Panzer.

[Michael Emrys]

About coffee table books: I was making a general observation, which I stand by. But if in this case I have defamed an otherwise fine book, I apologise to one and all. It's just that the one quote you produced didn't immediately incline one to respect.

Michael

[busboy]

Oh, I know. I don't blame you, I'm not at all offended. I don't know your location sir, but if you are an American I am sure you can find this book in the military history section of any chain bookstore, such as Barnes and Noble.

Its a quaint book, not anything else.

The date is obviously wrong, that is sure. I should have realized it myself, but I was just copying what was in there. (Like I should have noticed that my one bad sourse noted an inline V engine...but I'm not too inclined with the mechanical specifics of engines. Still, I know the difference.)

Still, I bet you the quote is a real one, just the wrong time noted.

There really is a lot of good stuff in this book, much of which you have seen before, some you haven't probably. Particularly interesting are Victor Hugo's quotes on Waterloo from Les Miserables, which is actually my night time reading (along with Dracula for school.)

Again, it most certianly is a coffee table book in the sense that its not providing anything really insightful about the military...its just a collection of quotes in a small hardcover volume with a cover designed to catch the impulse buyer's eye.

[Battlefront.com]

Coming into this a bit late...

Fire-Fox, please understand that apologizing is a good thing, but a repeat performance like you displayed in this thread will get you banned. You violated a couple of the most basic Forum rules and there is no excuse for that. If you had not apologized you would already be gone, so consider this fair warning.

Steve

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann:

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

...SNIP... Mind you, this comes from the one country besides Italy which could not manage to produce ONE decent medium tank the whole war. Even the Brits admit their tank designs were flawed from the start. The Churchill and Valentine had strong points (pun intended) but were of limited utility.

Ermmmm...Comet? I believe that particular medium tank design was pretty well regarded by the Brits for its speed, reasonable protection and its killing power with the modified 17 pdr as the main gun.

Regards

Jim R.</font>

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by busboy:

As for those figures, are those the figures of what was actually present at El Alimain? Or merely operational strength?

I have no idea, and I'm not even clear as to what distinction you are trying to draw. Given the source, I imagine that they derive from Playfair's official history.

I'm afraid I can't find much else on my shelves about the force ratios at Alamein. The Dupuys' "Collins Encyclopedia of Military History" gives 150,000 to 96,000 in men (1.6 : 1)

and 1,114 to nearly 600 tanks (1.9 : 1).

John Ellis' "WW2 Data Book" does not give strengths, but gives the organisations that faced off against each other at Alamein (p. 157). He shows Panzer Armee Afrika as having 4 armoured Divisions (2 Italian), 2 Light divisions (both German), 2 motorized divisions (both Italian), 5 infantry divisions, an Italian para divisions and a German para brigade, a total of 14.5 divisions (counting brigades as halves). Eighth Army has 3 armoured divisions, 2 armoured brigades and 1 tank brigade, and 7 infantry divisions, a total of 11.5 divisions (counting brigades as halves).

None of this looks much like overwhelming Allied superiority to me, even for open warfare, never mind a break-in operation against prepared defences behind extensive minefields.

If your sources differ markedly, then do please quote them, just as I have quoted mine.

Originally posted by busboy:

The issue of Montgomery's role in changing British Armored tactics is still interesting to me, though. What were British Armored opps like after the Failiese (sp) pocket?

I have never heard anyone suggest that Monty changed British armour tactics, although he did insist on a return to the orthodoxy of centralisation for artillery command (easier to do when your infantry at last have an adequate anti-tank gun, and don't need to keep "borrowing" field batteries for A/Tk defence). In any case, I think you are bound to miss the essence of Monty's greatness if you regard him as a tactician; his great contribution was as a trainer, a builder of military skills and fighting morale. It is easier to understand his apparent mania for self-publicity when he is viewed in this way, too.

All the best,

John.

[flamingknives]

From seeing a few films of modern armour (T72s, I think) taking hits and brewing up, I'd be inclined to say that it's the propellant that goes up, possibly after being strewn about the inside of the tank a bit.

The M1 (and derivative varients) have ammunition compartments which are essentially outside the fighting compartments and are equipped with 'blow-out' panels to prevent a catastrophic explosion wrecking the tank.