Lend Lease, and giving the Sherman its due

[busboy]

The U.S. submarine force suffered the heaviest percentage of casualties out of American forces in WWII, the German U-boat crews suffering the highest casualty rates out of all services in WWII.

One thing that the 85mm gun on the T-34/85 was superior in compared to the Sherman's guns was HE power, however tank guns make for poor field pieces and are best used for supression so infantry can get up and clobber the enemy, or atleast allow the tank to get close enough to use its machine guns.

While not totally accurate, it must be considered that when it comes to comparing HE rounds on standard combat tanks, then a HE round is an HE round.

[Nippy]

"These brew up problems crop up again in T-62 and T-72 variants as well"

Soveit tank design priorites:

1st Mobility

2nd Fire power

Survivability be damned!

[coe]

hey did the lend lease shermans all come with radios?

[Andrew H.]

Originally posted by Grisha:

The first Shermans to be sent to the Soviet Union were gasoline engines. Stalin complained about this due to the easy brew-ups, and soon thereafter lend lease Shermans to the USSR were all diesel-powered. T-34s were diesel-powered as well.

There have been some lengthy threads on the brew-up topic, but, basically, gasoline engines didn't cause tanks to brew up; igniting ammunition caused tanks to brew up. That's why wet storage fixed the problem in Sherms. The Germans and CW countries also used gasoline-powered tanks.

[gunnergoz]

Originally posted by coe:

hey did the lend lease shermans all come with radios?

Loza, in his book "Fighting for the Soviet Motherland" makes a point of praising the radios found in the Shermans. First - they all had them; second - they worked. IIRC some tanks may have had the radios cannibalized to use for artillery spotters, etc. Check the book out on Amazon.com, it's really good, esp. about the Sherman as that was his favorite wartime mount.

[V]

Originally posted by Bastables:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Shosties4th:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />From me, in C & C and Buttoned Up Tanks:

I can see it now: QBing with Guards units (veterans+ say) with lend lease M4s prior to the 34/85 becoming available will be seen as gamey when the ground conditions are dry.

The spotting ability and responsiveness of radio-equipped tanks with a non-distracted and unbuttoned tank commander counts big time.

Based upon how those M40s handle in Yelnia Stare, would you want to take them in an attack or ME against Mk. IIIs and IVs?</font>

[Bastables]

Originally posted by V:

But I would imagine that NK or Chinese crews were far inferior tankers than their American counterparts.

Americans having much more tank experience.

Don't know if that does the T-34/85 justice.[/QB]

You're wrong. The North Korean Tankers and Infantry had been fighting since WWII as part of the PLA, read they were battle hardened Vets. The American army on the other hand was widely criticised as being the worst fighting force the US has ever deployed to a War.

[gunnergoz]

Originally posted by Bastables:

[QB

(snip)

The American army on the other hand was widely criticised as being the worst fighting force the US has ever deployed to a War.[/QB]

I think that may be a bit of hyperbole. Yes the units initally sent were pretty sucky. As the war went on, though, units filled up with a lot of recalled WW2 vets and things changed quite a bit.

As far as the initial deployment goes (i.e. the hapless, helpless TF Smith) you're unfortunately correct.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by gunnergoz:

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

[QB

(snip)

The American army on the other hand was widely criticised as being the worst fighting force the US has ever deployed to a War.

I think that may be a bit of hyperbole. Yes the units initally sent were pretty sucky. As the war went on, though, units filled up with a lot of recalled WW2 vets and things changed quite a bit.

As far as the initial deployment goes (i.e. the hapless, helpless TF Smith) you're unfortunately correct. [/QB]</font>

[gunnergoz]

NK tanks in Korea were really only a threat when facing unready, inexperienced US troops first rushed there, as well as the equivalent South Korean troops. These intital forces were armed only with 2.36 bazookas (the anemic WW2 version), the M-24 and very little 105mm AT ammo. Later, follow on forces brought with them M-4's and M-26's and even M-46's. By then, the NK armor had been vanquished, a great deal of it by UN airpower.

Had the Soviets intervened, however, things would have been much more in doubt. Stalin had sent tank armies equipped with 200 new JS-4's (the follow on to the IS-2, actully coming after the JS-3) to the Far Eastern borders. Imagine what the US would have had to do facing tanks whose armor basia for hull/turret was 160mm/250mm?

As it happened, the US deployed nukes into the area and let drop the word that, if Stalin intervened, we were prepared to use them. End of intervention threat.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by gunnergoz:

NK tanks in Korea were really only a threat when facing unready, inexperienced US troops first rushed there, as well as the equivalent South Korean troops. These intital forces were armed only with 2.36 bazookas (the anemic WW2 version), the M-24 and very little 105mm AT ammo. Later, follow on forces brought with them M-4's and M-26's and even M-46's. By then, the NK armor had been vanquished, a great deal of it by UN airpower.

NK armour losses to air attack as a US army ORS reports (Penned in 1951) were severely over inflated. Just looking at the Navy and Air force claims of over 3000 NK tanks served is just slightly at odds with the NK only ever deploying around 700 AFV through the whole war. The Report notes just as the British ones of German tank losses in Normandy that the biggest killer was abandonment then Gun penetrations from Tanks/Antitank guns with air power only being slightly more effective than artillery kills right at the bottom of the list.

Again when T34-85s met M4A3E8s the former came off second best.

qui? The M24 Chaffe was armed with a short 7,5cm gun, I'm not sure they could use 10,5cm AP shells even if they had been supplied with them.

[ September 12, 2002, 12:52 AM: Message edited by: Bastables ]

[Guest Mike]

Yeah - but how many of them abandonded tanks were abandoned because airpower had interdicted their supply routes so they weer out of gass, or out of sheer fear of an air attack?

Somewhere in the Journal of Strategic Studies there's an article on asessment of tank KO's by aircraft in Normandy, and the conclusion was that vast nubmers were abandoned in perfect running order, with gas, just because of fear of air attack - sometimes there'd be a bomb crater nearby, usually not!

I dont' recall what volume of JSS it's in, but it would be pre 1985 - prolly late '70's.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Mike:

Yeah - but how many of them abandonded tanks were abandoned because airpower had interdicted their supply routes so they weer out of gass, or out of sheer fear of an air attack?

Somewhere in the Journal of Strategic Studies there's an article on asessment of tank KO's by aircraft in Normandy, and the conclusion was that vast nubmers were abandoned in perfect running order, with gas, just because of fear of air attack - sometimes there'd be a bomb crater nearby, usually not!

I dont' recall what volume of JSS it's in, but it would be pre 1985 - prolly late '70's.

The German army in Normandy did not have enough fuel to transport to its units from France any case (2000 Zetterling). Those German tanks were also abandoned during the retreat and were out of fuel more because the Commonwealth and USA armies were physically astride their supply routes.

Quite what any of it has to do with the match up of M4A3E8s verses T34-85s in Korea I’ll probably never know.

[ September 12, 2002, 05:20 PM: Message edited by: Bastables ]

[wade]

Thats very interesting that the freighters were sunk in the artic sea with the shermans.It would be great to see one. Almost makes me want to win a lottery ticket and find some of those puppies. TO bad there problyall damn rust by now. How did the freighters sink? WW2 weapons are pretty interesting to me.To bad i only seen 2. A jeep(not a weapon but oh well) and a 105mm cannon in a city park.

[Ari Maenpaa]

Originally posted by Renaud:

I noticed that the battlefront.com 'Changes since CMBO' document 'Optics' section states:

Dual-Magnification: Can switch between two different magnification levels, to optimize both spotting and tracking. Used by late-model Panthers. Crew must be veteran or better to use without penalties.

This seems to indicate that CMBB will not include such dual magnification for the late-war tiger, but only the Panther, or that they just didn't mention it in the brief 'Optics' section.

I really hope that the dual magnification isn't limited to the late-model Panthers only, because also the King Tiger had such a sight. So let’s see:

Panther - two magnifications, 2.5X and 5X from late November/early December 1943

(Turmzielfernrohr 12a).

Tiger I - two magnifications, 2.5X and 5X from April 1944 (Turmzielfernrohr 9c).

King Tiger - two magnifications, 3X and 6X (Turmzielfernrohr 9d).

And very likely there were others too. But these were easy examples to find.

Ari

[Andreas]

How many Tiger Is were produced between April 1944 and August, when IIRC the production stopped? Were older Tiger Is rebuilt (after destruction on the battlefield) and kitted out with the new sights?

[Ari Maenpaa]

Originally posted by Andreas:

How many Tiger Is were produced between April 1944 and August, when IIRC the production stopped? Were older Tiger Is rebuilt (after destruction on the battlefield) and kitted out with the new sights?

Numbers given by Jentz:

new - rebuilt

094 - 03 - Apr44

085 - 05 - May44

104 - 05 - Jun44

065 - 08 - Jul44

016 - 11 - Aug44

000 - 06 - Sep44

000 - 01 - Oct44

000 - 18 - Nov44

000 - 04 - Dec44

000 - 02 - Jan45

000 - 03 - Feb45

Total of 430 Tiger Is built or rebuilt after the new sight came into production, but I'm not sure if all the rebuilt ones got the new sight.

Ari

[Andreas]

Thanks Ari, very interesting figures.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Bastables:

The M24 Chaffe was armed with a short 7,5cm gun, I'm not sure they could use 10,5cm AP shells even if they had been supplied with them.

The 105mm AP rounds were, naturally enough, fired by 105mm howitzers. I think they only got a couple of kills with them, though.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Bastables:

...the Commonwealth and USA armies were psychically astride their supply routes.

Wow! ESP in WW II! Why haven't I heard of this before???

Michael

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

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

...the Commonwealth and USA armies were psychically astride their supply routes.

Wow! ESP in WW II! Why haven't I heard of this before???

Michael</font>

[gunnergoz]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

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

The M24 Chaffe was armed with a short 7,5cm gun, I'm not sure they could use 10,5cm AP shells even if they had been supplied with them.

The 105mm AP rounds were, naturally enough, fired by 105mm howitzers. I think they only got a couple of kills with them, though.

Michael</font>

[rexford]

A few notes on M4A2 vs T34/85:

1. Gun Penetration

76mm APCBC outpenetrates 85mm APCBC during Russian tests against Tiger II, as noted on Russian Battlefield site. Difference in ranges is significant.

U.S. ammunition is harder than Russian, and APCBC holds penetration better with range than blunt nose APBC.

2. Armor Resistance

When 75mm German APCBC hits T34/85 front hull, 45mm at 60 degrees from vertical, high hardness brittle plate acts like 93mm of good quality vertical plate. 2.5" glacis at 47 degrees on M4A2 resists like about 120mm of good vertical plate. M4A2 wins hands down against a 75mm Pak 40.

U.S. plate quality improves starting 10/43 when quality control and heat treatment gets ALOT better, Russian armor on T34/95 stays about the same throughout war.

BUT, M4A2 has rubbish nose armor and a nice. big and flat 89mm mantlet, while T34/85 has all that curved mantlet and turret front armor.

3. Sights

German sights much superior to American and Russian cause they had better light gathering properties.b Stories from Russian front have Tigers shooting up T34 formations through fog, and Russians cannot see where shots are coming from.

Report to Eisenhower on German-vs-U.S. equipment says German sights great in all light conditions, U.S. sights only good in bright light. I believe M4A3E8 has sight which was great improvement on earlier stuff.

M4A2 with 75mm and 76mm probably not as good a sight as Germans, and maybe comparable to Russian.

4. Many Shermans rot on soft ground, Tigers, Panthers and even Tiger II's race over mud that bogs or slows down Shermans. T34/85 has fairly good tracks.

5. Typical Combat Ranges

Alot of German reports list combat at 3000m to 5000m for guns like 88L71 and 75L70. M4A2 76mm probably better than 85mm at these ranges (not too good).

6. Blast Problems

Didn't early 76mm Shermans without muzzle brakes have big difficulties with smoke and dust obscuring the view?

[Bastables]

Originally posted by gunnergoz:

As to the over-inflated numbers of NK tank kills by US airpower, if they report killing 3000 tanks but really only killed 600 and the NK only had 700, well then the NK is still in the hurt locker, don't you think?[/QB]

Considering the ORS reports revised Airpower kills to 15%. Coupled with the ORS findings that only 354 NK tanks were knocked out by all arms. I think 600 Air kills by the Air force could be considered, a substantial overstatement. The 3000+ figure is pure fantasyland created with the claming of hitting T34 hulks as kills.

Where did you find the 600 Airpower kills?

T-34 July Nov 1950 Dealing with 223 T-34 Hulks

Armour=89 Destroyed 8 damaged (the M4 destroyed 41)

Air=27 Destroyed 2 damaged

Arty/Mortar=20 Destroyed 8 damaged

Infantry Weapons=24 Destroyed 15 Damaged

Captured/unknown=63

[gunnergoz]

Nice bit of research, Bastables, I must hand it to you for doing your homework.

My figures were hypothetical, given only to make a point. I've never seen the data you cite, which is indeed very indicative of the tank vs tank weighing of the losses. I was only going on old presumptions that were clearly wrong.

One wonders if air could have had a greater impact if Korean weather were more favorable, or if the country were so mountainous? IIRC, air had a hard time dealing with armor in the Balkans during the latest unpleasantness in the Balkans.

One thing seems certain...Desert Storm's conditions have to have been some of the most ideal ever imagined for air power to go tank busting!