US shortcommings and how did they win.

[Squatdog]

Uh huh. And could this wonderous MG put out more sustained fire than a Sherman, or a battery of 105mm, or both at the same time?

Combined arms. It's what wins wars.

Because the typical rifle platoon always has an M4 or 105mm howitzer at their immediate disposal, amirite?

[sburke]

Once again, the M4 was hugely outclassed by the Panther in particular and the tank destroyer doctrine meant that the open-topped M10s (which STILL had trouble dealing with German armor) were often miles away.

The Americans weren't the only ones to be slow about upgrading their armor when faced with superior enemy vehicles. The German Army first encountered the T34 in June 1941. It took until March 1942 before a 75 mm Pz IV would see production. While the Sherman was definitely at a disadvantage relative to the Tiger and Panther, it wasn't an insurmountable issue and the fact that the German Army essentially collapsed in the West in August 1944 would further have delayed the impetus to deploy something better. The Pershing saw it's debut in January 1945, but again any further demand for large scale deployment faded rather quickly. For Germany however it was clear that things were not going well rather early and the German army could only count on tactically out fighting the Russian for so long.

Retooling factories and deploying new armor to Europe would be an intensive process (as JonS had pointed out to me previously :-P ) and considering the state of the German Army, whether it could be done quickly enough to alter conditions in Europe was questionable.

[Squatdog]

The Americans weren't the only ones to be slow about upgrading their armor when faced with superior enemy vehicles. The German Army first encountered the T34 in June 1941. It took until March 1942 before a 75 mm Pz IV would see production. While the Sherman was definitely at a disadvantage relative to the Tiger and Panther, it wasn't an insurmountable issue and the fact that the German Army essentially collapsed in the West in August 1944 would further have delayed the impetus to deploy something better. The Pershing saw it's debut in January 1945, but again any further demand for large scale deployment faded rather quickly. For Germany however it was clear that things were not going well rather early and the German army could only count on tactically out fighting the Russian for so long.

Retooling factories and deploying new armor to Europe would be an intensive process (as JonS had pointed out to me previously :-P ) and considering the state of the German Army, whether it could be done quickly enough to alter conditions in Europe was questionable.

The difference here is that once the Germans had identified the problem of the T34s being a generation ahead of their armour, they practically fell over themselves coming up with weird and wonderful solutions (obsolete tanks used as chassis for tank destroyers, assault guns up-gunned and redesignated etc.) until they could produce the Panther, which was designed to supersede the T34.

Even the British gave it their best shot with the Firefly as a stop-gap measure.

[JonS]

Because the typical rifle platoon always has an M4 or 105mm howitzer at their immediate disposal, amirite?

... or 81mm or 60mm or a Stuart or 155mm or a Thunderbolt or ...

[sburke]

The difference here is that once the Germans had identified the problem of the T34s being a generation ahead of their armour, they practically fell over themselves coming up with weird and wonderful solutions (obsolete tanks used as chassis for tank destroyers, assault guns up-gunned and redesignated etc.) until they could produce the Panther, which was designed to supersede the T34.

Even the British gave it their best shot with the Firefly as a stop-gap measure.

LOL c'mon isn't that a bit of a double standard? Germany took 2 years to produce the Panther and it was an absolute necessity that they come up with a way to handle Russian armor. The US debuted the first Pershing less than two years after encountering the Tiger and didn't actually need it to defeat Germany. As I'd noted in August/Sept 1944 it looked like the war would be over before Christmas, yet you cite the German response as better? Something isn't jiving here. The US didn't really need it but produced it faster, Germany did need it and produced it slower, yet it is the US we are faulting? The allies also had stopgaps in the M10 and later in the Hellcat as well as 76mm and 17 pdr Sherman variants. All arguably more effective than turretless vehicles, though I do admit to a softspot for the StuG. Don't ask why, I have no idea.

[Paper Tiger]

<ach! Who cares>

[Squatdog]

LOL c'mon isn't that a bit of a double standard? Germany took 2 years to produce the Panther and it was an absolute necessity that they come up with a way to handle Russian armor. The US debuted the first Pershing less than two years after encountering the Tiger and didn't actually need it to defeat Germany. As I'd noted in August/Sept 1944 it looked like the war would be over before Christmas, yet you cite the German response as better? Something isn't jiving here. The US didn't really need it but produced it faster, Germany did need it and produced it slower, yet it is the US we are faulting? The allies also had stopgaps in the M10 and later in the Hellcat as well as 76mm and 17 pdr Sherman variants. All arguably more effective than turretless vehicles, though I do admit to a softspot for the StuG. Don't ask why, I have no idea.

The Pershing arrived far too late to have any significant impact on the war and in the meantime, US forces were forced to make do with the hopelessly out-matched M4, which was still inadequate against German tanks, even with the 76mm gun. As was the open-topped M10.

Meanwhile the Germans had rushed into service an assortment of tank destroyers that were perfectly capable of tanking down the T34 at range and continued to supplement the Panzer forces even after the Panther entered service.

Yes, Stugs are great (and cheap in CMx1).

[Michael Emrys]

...the M4 was hugely outclassed by the Panther...

You seem to be under the impression that the only criterion for assessing the value of a tank is how it fares in a one on one toe to toe matchup against its equivalent opposing tank. But in fact, after North Africa, the Western Allies were confronted with such tank vs. tank duels with declining frequency. The vast (since that is one of the words you love to sling around so much) majority of the time, the M4 was dealing with non-armored targets, particularly after D-Day. Good tank vs tank performance is of course desirable, but the outcome of the war did not hinge on it. The 75mm gun was completely satisfactory against the bulk of the targets it was faced with, and the tank could carry lots of those rounds, which meant it could stay in the line and keep shooting after the 76 had to pull back to resupply. It was good to have some tanks around with the better anti-armor gun in case of need, but up-gunning the entire fleet would not have won the war any sooner.

Michael

[womble]

The Pershing arrived far too late to have any significant impact on the war...

That's because the war was already won. It's not actuall an argument for US inferiority in any regard.

British armour design, maybe, with their successive failures to get new, better armoured and better armed tanks into service, but even then, the timescales weren't that much worse than the Germans.

...M4, which was still inadequate against German tanks...

It was only inadequate when it had to duel front on. Given the numerical superiority allowed by both superior numbers in theatre and superior reliability, duels were something Sherman platoon commanders didn't need to engage in. Yes, on ground of its choosing, with supported flanks, the Panther could pop Shermans til it ran out of ammo. Once a flank got turned though, the Sherman had the advantage with its speed and fast turret: the Panther's flank armour was entirely penetrable. As was its front armour to the 76 if the range could be closed, as it often could in the congested terrain of Normandy.

[Crinius]

The TD doctrine worked fine, when it needed to. The 'problem' was they didn't realise what a paper tiger the German armoured force was.

I´ve read so many books about armored warfare but this is the first time I read that the TD doctrine worked fine.

Heres a Quote from a report of General Lynch after the Tunisia campaign

"The separate TD arm is not a practical concept on the battlefield. Defensive antitank weapons are essentially artillery. Offensively, the weapon to beat a tank is a better tank. Sooner or later the issue between ground forces is settled in an armored battle - tank against tank. The concept of tank destroyer gropus and brigades attempting to overcome equal numbers of hostile tanks is faulty unless the tank destroyer are actually better tanks than those of the enemy."

Taken form Mr. Zalogas excellent book Armored Thunderbolt.

[JonS]

Yeah, the Purple Heart Boxes were a poor subtitute for a proper TD. But with the later SP TDs - M10, M18, M36 - the doctrine worked the way it was supposed to, when it were needed to.

What didn't work so great was pretending they were proxy tanks when the Germans ran out of armour, which they did with increasing regularity from NA onwards.

[TrailApe]

Offensively, the weapon to beat a tank is a better tank

Well that was not the case in Normandy was it?

Because German tactical doctine demanded immedeate counter attack onto lost objectives, the allies could quickly switch from offensive to defensive and allow German armout to impale itself on the infantry anti-tank (6lbers) and overwatching allied armour. This is were the germans lost most of their armour (apart from the ones that broke down or ran out of fuel and had to be abandoned) in Normandy.

Which of course makes sense - a lurking stug is harder to hit than a Panther moving out in the open.

I don't know much about this General Lynch, but he's obviously lusting after uberpanzers, I'd bet he was of the tread head variety rather than a footslogger.

Bet he had 'Death before Dismount' as his motto:)

[Magpie_Oz]

The Pershing arrived far too late to have any significant impact on the war and in the meantime, US forces were forced to make do with the hopelessly out-matched M4, which was still inadequate against German tanks, even with the 76mm gun. As was the open-topped M10.

Meanwhile the Germans had rushed into service an assortment of tank destroyers that were perfectly capable of tanking down the T34 at range and continued to supplement the Panzer forces even after the Panther entered service.

Yes, Stugs are great (and cheap in CMx1).

and yet the T34's and M4's annihilated the Uberpanzers.

[Magpie_Oz]

Well that was not the case in Normandy was it?

John Buckley in his book British Armour in Normandy attributes 50% of Allied tank losses to German armour.

[Kuderian]

"US shortcommings and how did they win."

From every history book etc. I have ever read my impression is until very late in the war the only game in town as far as the German Army was concerned was fighting the Soviets on the Eastern Front with all other theatres such as North Africa,Italy and even Normandy etc. largely irrelevant. Therefore ".. how did they win" is a moot point. Although this is not to take away from the vast aforementioned logistics supplies from America to Soviet Union.

[TrailApe]

John Buckley in his book British Armour in Normandy attributes 50% of Allied tank losses to German armour.

look Oz, don't give me facts ok? It's myths were discussing here.

Anyway this tactical flexibilty based on MG squads used by the Germans was just a way of getting out of bayonet charges - now that's real fighting, mano a mano, it's the proper way to 'do business'.

If those damn boche had went toe to toe with our lads back in 1940 non of this would have happened - but no, they had to hide behind MG34's, tanks and Stukas when our brave lads were advancing in open order, rifles high port looking for somebody to charge.

No wonder we got annoyed and stated using advanced artillery techniques strategic bombing and an attritional broad front strategy.

Serves the bounders right!

Good book that Buckley one, got it myself.

[Magpie_Oz]

look Oz, don't give me facts ok? It's myths were discussing here.

Oh sorry my bad.

In that case it should read: 2 retarded 12 year old Hitler Jugen shared a Panther and accounted for 50% of British armour losses in Normandy. The other 50% spontaneously combusted because they were that crap.

I too enjoyed the Buckley book and it confirmed a long held suspicion for me. I could never understand why the Tiger I which was produced and in action for less than 3 years was much vaunted as one of the best tanks ever produced and yet the Centurion, which could be considered something of a contemporary of the Tiger, has served for approaching 70 years in all theatres around the world and has rarely lost a fight yet receives very few accolades.

It seems Myth is far more romantic and desirable than fact.

[Thomm]

Well, one area where Germany was definitely and undeniably world leader was: propaganda. Hitler & Göbbels were masters in this art. Quite unfortunately since they were idiots everywhere else.

This propaganda still works in the brains of some of my countrymen and others all over the world.

... has to be quoted every ten pages of this thread.

Best regards,

Thomm

[Black Jack Pershing III]

and yet the T34's and M4's annihilated the Uberpanzers.

I think your logic is faulty.

I have now learned that:

1) everything the US produced (from rifles, to LMGs to Tanks) sucked a**

2) US military doctrine sucked a**; however

3) the US and Brits did somehow defeat the Germans in NW Europe

therefore, the only possible explanation is that the average US soldier was totally uber!

QED

[Bigduke6]

No, not so. The SU felt evacation and expansion of tank construction was extremely important, it all got out in 1941, especially the critical Kharkov factory. Ditto the steel produciton and milling capacity from the Donbass and around Moscow. Tank manufacture was an absolute top priority and the Soviets pretty much kept the entire production process from raw materials to finished product domestic.

Lend Lease provided the Soviets lots of things. Probably at the top of the list was automotive, something like 2/3 of the Red Army trucks and light vehicles were made in USA. The arguement is this allowed the Reds to field more, faster mechanized formations, although there is a counter-argument that they weren't limited so much by numbers of light vehicles as a training system that couldn't crank out mobile-warfare capable soldiers and officers as fast as they could, with the help of the Americans, equip it. Glantz says this is a big reason behind his estimate that if the Soviets had fought the Germans alone, it would have taken them about 18 more months to take Berlin - because without the Allies the Red Army would have been a lot less capable of deep operations and massed mechanized warfare.

Other Lend Lease big ticket items: alumuminum, food, fuel, and explosives. I've read estimates that something like 1/3 of all Soviet shells fired during WW2 contained US potash mined in Minnesota or wherever they get it, and so if that hadn't have been available, the Soviet munitions dud rate would have gotten a good deal closer to the Germans', who of course for the second portion of the war were using unskilled slave labor to produce their shells. Tanks were also important, something like 10 per cent of the entire Red Army tank fleet was imported - although for almost the entire war the tanks the Soviets were making were by almost any standard better combat vehicles. But numbers help, and Lend Lease did.

So again, the conclusion is Lend Lease was a big help to the Soviets but not a decisive factor in their defeat of Germany.

It would not have been shut down, more so factories which had built rails cars and engines but now built T-34s would never have been converted. Lend lease allowed the Russians to concentrate on producing certain weapons. They probably could have managed to build enough trucks and rail engines for themselves, they would have had a lot less tanks though.

[Vark]

Roll up! Roll up! For all the fun of the mumfly bashin the Allies thread! We have the slagging off of the Sherman, we ave the extollin of the Hem Gee Fooorty Twooo! We av the ignorin of the Allied strengfs an the focusin on the mitey German infanry mahn, oo singul andedly took on the entire wurld an nearly wuhn!

Don't worry folks, we av not missed aht the rubbshin of the US Tee dees and the worshippin at the altah of the oooberkitties. An finahly we ave the, Len Leece saved are Rusky pals, overwise the mitey Gtjerman supah soljah wud av ad Ivans numbah!

Nex week, Squatdog, whill be explanin ow an orse an cart are a bettah way of supplyin an ahrmy than a lorry and ow aving loads of unreliable and complex kit, what uses diffrent bits to all the uver kit is bettah than avin a few bits of not so complex, reliable kit. EE will also, at no xtra cost, be explanin ow tactical success is bettah than hoperational and strerteegic success, an how losin a war makes you a bettah army van the winnah! Roll up! Roll Up!

[Michael Emrys]

Roll up! Roll up! For all the fun of the mumfly bashin the Allies thread! We have the slagging off of the Sherman, we ave the extollin of the Hem Gee Fooorty Twooo! We av the ignorin of the Allied strengfs an the focusin on the mitey German infanry mahn, oo singul andedly took on the entire wurld an nearly wuhn!

Don't worry folks, we av not missed aht the rubbshin of the US Tee dees and the worshippin at the altah of the oooberkitties. An finahly we ave the, Len Leece saved are Rusky pals, overwise the mitey Gtjerman supah soljah wud av ad Ivans numbah!

Nex week, Squatdog, whill be explanin ow an orse an cart are a bettah way of supplyin an ahrmy than a lorry and ow aving loads of unreliable and complex kit, what uses diffrent bits to all the uver kit is bettah than avin a few bits of not so complex, reliable kit. EE will also, at no xtra cost, be explanin ow tactical success is bettah than hoperational and strerteegic success, an how losin a war makes you a bettah army van the winnah! Roll up! Roll Up!

Immortal.

Michael

[Georgie]

Immortal.

Michael

Bumpk, bumpk.

[sburke]

Roll up! Roll up! For all the fun of the mumfly bashin the Allies thread! We have the slagging off of the Sherman, we ave the extollin of the Hem Gee Fooorty Twooo! We av the ignorin of the Allied strengfs an the focusin on the mitey German infanry mahn, oo singul andedly took on the entire wurld an nearly wuhn!

Don't worry folks, we av not missed aht the rubbshin of the US Tee dees and the worshippin at the altah of the oooberkitties. An finahly we ave the, Len Leece saved are Rusky pals, overwise the mitey Gtjerman supah soljah wud av ad Ivans numbah!

Nex week, Squatdog, whill be explanin ow an orse an cart are a bettah way of supplyin an ahrmy than a lorry and ow aving loads of unreliable and complex kit, what uses diffrent bits to all the uver kit is bettah than avin a few bits of not so complex, reliable kit. EE will also, at no xtra cost, be explanin ow tactical success is bettah than hoperational and strerteegic success, an how losin a war makes you a bettah army van the winnah! Roll up! Roll Up!

Sorry Squatdog, but this is funny as all hell. Nothing wrong with being able to laugh even if it is at yourself. Heck I do it all the time.

[Squatdog]

and yet the T34's and M4's annihilated the Uberpanzers.

Uhhhhhhh...no?

John Buckley in his book British Armour in Normandy attributes 50% of Allied tank losses to German armour.

Stop confusing them with facts!

USA! USA! USA!