|
Retarded Pimp posted:Even by the US Civil War, rifled barrels plus the minnie ball meant a good shot with an Enfield or Springfield could hit a man sized target out to a few hundred yards, add to that the first telescopic sights and a brightly colored officer or his horse became a prime target. "They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance." Gen. John Sedgwick, killed at Spotsylvania Courthouse (the American Civil War is worth studying for the geography alone) by, you guessed it, a sniper at a whopping (estimated/claimed) 1,000 yards. He was the highest ranking Union officer killed in the war. gradenko_2000 posted:Why did it take so long for the Allies to come up with an answer for the German 88? Didn't they have 100mm (I think also known as the 4" / 50 cal?) and 105mm guns by as early as 1941? For some reason "really high velocity guns are great against armor, let's repurpose some antiaircraft guns" took a long time to work its way through Allied high command. The Germans were mass producing heavy AA far more than the Allies were, so they had the assembly lines set up to get a lot of 88s deployed. There was a deliberate choice made to go with large numbers of medium tanks, which couldn't stand up to an 88 at any range versus heavy tanks that could. Once the AT guns announced themselves we'd flank them or call in fire support. Without well coordinated support, numbers or enfilading terrain, a well emplaced unit of 88s or their equivalent in any army was something best avoided by any force. The 88 was my favorite part of World War 2 Online; using it properly you basically griefed any Allied column that came along.
|
| # ? May 14, 2012 09:19 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2013 22:11 |
|
|
mllaneza posted:For some reason "really high velocity guns are great against armor, let's repurpose some antiaircraft guns" took a long time to work its way through Allied high command. What did Germans have that would have required the direction of heavy AA guns to deal with? Pz I, II, III and IV could all be knocked out by standard AT guns. V and VI didn't come in numbers until Allied armies were driving full steam towards Berlin, and by then there were also heavy AT guns that were better suited for the job than AA guns. The AA guns were also needed more desperately to guard targets against Luftwaffe strikes especially early in the war when Germany was on the offense, and losing them and their crews to enemy artillery in the frontline would have been terrible. Germans didn't do what they did because it was the best use of the AA asset, they did it because they were out of options.
|
| # ? May 14, 2012 09:44 |
|
|
Nenonen posted:What did Germans have that would have required the direction of heavy AA guns to deal with? Pz I, II, III and IV could all be knocked out by standard AT guns. V and VI didn't come in numbers until Allied armies were driving full steam towards Berlin, and by then there were also heavy AT guns that were better suited for the job than AA guns. The AA guns were also needed more desperately to guard targets against Luftwaffe strikes especially early in the war when Germany was on the offense, and losing them and their crews to enemy artillery in the frontline would have been terrible. Germans didn't do what they did because it was the best use of the AA asset, they did it because they were out of options. Earlier AT guns had a drat hard time with some German tanks. Also range is a huge factor; one of the big things about the 88 was that it could take down Allied tanks from ridiculous ranges for the time, where less powerful Allied guns sometimes couldn't touch German tanks until they got within a couple hundred meters.
|
| # ? May 14, 2012 09:50 |
|
|
My Great-great grandfather on the German side was an AA operator in World War 1 (and later on in WW2 during Stalingrad). Given planes were not much more than a highly experimental way to lob bricks at people, what was WWI AA like?
|
| # ? May 14, 2012 09:53 |
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Why did it take so long for the Allies to come up with an answer for the German 88? Didn't they have 100mm (I think also known as the 4" / 50 cal?) and 105mm guns by as early as 1941? The Soviets put the 85mm AA gun into SU-85 and later T-34/85 when the Germans finally got tanks that the 76.2mm ZiS-3s and F-34s couldn't deal with.
|
| # ? May 14, 2012 13:16 |
|
|
WebDog posted:My Great-great grandfather on the German side was an AA operator in World War 1 (and later on in WW2 during Stalingrad). Given planes were not much more than a highly experimental way to lob bricks at people, what was WWI AA like? I imagine WW1 AA was simply being given a heavy machine gun at the start and an elevated position but I too am curious at the evolution of Anti-Air weaponry of WW1. Somebody work their magic and tell us please.
|
| # ? May 14, 2012 14:14 |
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:I imagine WW1 AA was simply being given a heavy machine gun at the start and an elevated position but I too am curious at the evolution of Anti-Air weaponry of WW1. Somebody work their magic and tell us please. Say hello to my 37mm Maxim HMG.  The pom-pom was was an enlarged version of the Maxim machinegun, these were used during WW1 by Brits and Germans. In the Second Boer War both sides used these.
|
| # ? May 14, 2012 14:32 |
|
|
LimburgLimbo posted:Earlier AT guns had a drat hard time with some German tanks. Also range is a huge factor; one of the big things about the 88 was that it could take down Allied tanks from ridiculous ranges for the time, where less powerful Allied guns sometimes couldn't touch German tanks until they got within a couple hundred meters. The British 2 pounder was fine vs Panzer Mk I, II and could deal with III and IV without a problem. It wasn't very mobile and tended to be a slightly too large a target compared to the German 37mm, but it was fine for what was needed. The 6 pounder was all ready to go into production in 1940...only Dunkirk happened and there wasn't time to retool for it. It was delayed a year and can handle anything up to a Tiger (and can take on Tiger's and Panther's from the side, and dealt with them Tiger's Tunisia pretty well). The 17 pounder could deal with anything the German's had, but by that time you're getting into really heavy AT guns and it really needs to be mobile in a tank turret (aka, Comet tanks and Sherman Fireflies). The 3.7" AAA gun had a better firing rate than the 88 (as it has a semi-automatic loader!) but was a lot heavier- it was never designed for mobile warfare, which the 88 was. Later in the war 3.7" batteries spent much more time doing direct fire support, with less of a Luftwaffe problem. But by then you had 17 pounders around as well.
|
| # ? May 14, 2012 15:47 |
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:I'm not sure what you're asking. Each of the major combatants in the European theater had roughly similar artillery pieces from the outset of the war, including AA guns. The Soviets had their 85mm, the Americans their 90mm, and the British their 3.7 inch (94mm). Similar to the German 8.8cm FlaK carriage, the Soviet and British guns were provided with carriages that could be depressed to fire armor-piercing rounds at ground targets, such as tanks. Sorry, I meant why it took so long (or it didn't?) for the Allies to come up with a TANK that had a big enough gun to compete with a Tiger's 88. Or really, the Tiger's armor, because wasn't it an issue that the earlier model Shermans couldn't penetrate except with side or rear shots?
|
| # ? May 14, 2012 15:47 |
|
|
mllaneza posted:"They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance." Did officers ever get bounties put on them by a national army? Or was it always just a practical matter that you shot the guy leading the guys shooting at you and there was no need to have people singled out specifically.
|
| # ? May 14, 2012 16:06 |
|
|
KildarX posted:Did officers ever get bounties put on them by a national army? Or was it always just a practical matter that you shot the guy leading the guys shooting at you and there was no need to have people singled out specifically. It was considered somewhat "bad sport" to specifically target officers, but of course it happened all the time anyway.
|
| # ? May 14, 2012 16:09 |
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Sorry, I meant why it took so long (or it didn't?) for the Allies to come up with a TANK that had a big enough gun to compete with a Tiger's 88. Or really, the Tiger's armor, because wasn't it an issue that the earlier model Shermans couldn't penetrate except with side or rear shots? I think it was more the fact that Tigers were so low in numbers that refusing to deploy tanks unless they could slug it out against Tigers would be counter productive. By the time the Allies reached Normandy tank platoons had more than enough resources to deal with German heavy vehicles, even if the regular Shermans couldn't take down a Tiger from the front the supporting Jumbos, Fireflies and Hellcats would make sure to put the German tank down. It's the same reason for the Soviets using the T-34 even when they could in theory mass produce IS tanks. Why bother with such expensive tanks to deal with an enemy tank that isn't really that common to face? It would also put those heavy Tigers into pressure. Should they shoot that BT or T-34? Or are those tanks decoys that were sent forward so that the heavy stuff could spot the Tiger? A lot of Tigers were neutralized not while fighting but when fleeing because sure, a Tiger can destroy the majority of Allied tanks, but if they're outnumbered than that can spell doom for the Tiger.
|
| # ? May 14, 2012 17:17 |
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Sorry, I meant why it took so long (or it didn't?) for the Allies to come up with a TANK that had a big enough gun to compete with a Tiger's 88. Or really, the Tiger's armor, because wasn't it an issue that the earlier model Shermans couldn't penetrate except with side or rear shots? The Tiger wasn't that common, and later on neither was the Panther, compared to the amount of tanks the US Army would have. Note the British DID come up with some tanks that had guns able to take on a Tiger - notably the Sherman Firefly with a 17 pounder. That didn't stop the US Army from doing the same thing, beyond pure bloody mindlessness. Something all armies suffer from, though the classic example is the US Navy Torpedo scandal. At least no one designed a tank gun that couldn't actually fail to shoot, fail to hit or fail to explode on the target and then spend years saying it's the user's fault.
|
| # ? May 14, 2012 18:06 |
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Sorry, I meant why it took so long (or it didn't?) for the Allies to come up with a TANK that had a big enough gun to compete with a Tiger's 88. Or really, the Tiger's armor, because wasn't it an issue that the earlier model Shermans couldn't penetrate except with side or rear shots? Tigers showed up in the fall of 1942, and the Soviets started designing the SU-152 that winter and the SU-85 in early 1943, both of which had guns capable of taking out Tigers and Panthers.
|
| # ? May 14, 2012 18:13 |
|
|
Comstar posted:The Tiger wasn't that common, and later on neither was the Panther, compared to the amount of tanks the US Army would have. It's also worth noting that even though in June/July 1944 the British had a Panther-killer medium tank and the US didn't, the British didn't do any better on an operational level facing the German heavy tank formations than the US did. Obviously there's a lot of factors involved, but it shows that having tank destroyers and high quality infantry carried AT weapons, having lots of them, and using them properly could more than make up for a weaker medium tank gun.
|
| # ? May 14, 2012 18:17 |
|
|
gohuskies posted:It's also worth noting that even though in June/July 1944 the British had a Panther-killer medium tank and the US didn't, the British didn't do any better on an operational level facing the German heavy tank formations than the US did. Unlike the Brits, the US forces did not face any formidable German tank formations in Normandy. No part of the US tank destroyer doctrine was ever viable and the entire concept was correctly discontinued, as it should never have existed.
|
| # ? May 14, 2012 18:52 |
|
|
Nenonen posted:Unlike the Brits, the US forces did not face any formidable German tank formations in Normandy. Panzer Lehr isn't a formidable German tank formation? 2nd SS Panzer Division isn't either? There weren't battles at Saint-Lô? Operation Cobra never happened? Nor Operation Lüttich? The Brits faced the heavy German tanks first, but the US still had to fight them.
|
| # ? May 14, 2012 19:08 |
|
|
Nothing comparable in quality nor quantity to what the Commonwealth faced. US Army did not prevail in Normandy because of the TD battalions, it did so regardless.
|
| # ? May 14, 2012 19:23 |
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Sorry, I meant why it took so long (or it didn't?) for the Allies to come up with a TANK that had a big enough gun to compete with a Tiger's 88. Or really, the Tiger's armor, because wasn't it an issue that the earlier model Shermans couldn't penetrate except with side or rear shots? Ah, well. In that case it was just a matter of how design and procurement works. Early stages of design for the tank that would eventually become the Tiger began a couple of years prior to the war, and some prototypes had been produced. During the Battle of France the Germans finally encountered significant armored opposition, which impressed on them the necessity of a heavy tank equipped with a powerful, long-range gun, to complement their inventory of PzKpfw III and IV medium tanks. Development was proceeding at a normal pace until the Germans met the Soviet T-34 and KV tanks, which were shockingly advanced and resistant to standard German tank and anti-tank guns at most ranges. The Germans quickly accelerated the design schedule for the Tiger, allowing them to field the Tiger in Autumn 1942. Typically for the Germans in WWII, they had rushed it, and the tank wasn't ready for combat service due to mechanical unreliability. Further refinements rendered it a serviceable tank by early 1943. Effectively, the Tiger had the jump on the opposition because its development cycle started earlier. Heavy armor deployed by other countries, like the Soviet KV series, tended to mount the same guns as their medium tanks. The Germans were the first to mate a very powerful gun with heavy armor. It's also worth noting that the Tiger's head start was bad in some ways, for example work began before the Germans knew about sloped armor, so it was less well-protected than it should have been for that tonnage. At any rate, responding to an emerging threat like this wasn't easy or fast, because tanks are complex machines. Mounting a much longer, larger gun usually required an extensive redesign of the turret and often the gun itself, and could affect other factors like the power-to-weight ratio, ground pressure, and so forth. The British recognized the threat of heavily armored German tanks immediately, but it took about a year of work to mate a 17-pounder with the M4 Sherman, resulting in the Firefly being deployed by early 1944. The Soviets also responded quickly, although in their case they were immediately engaged by the cream of German forces, so they didn't have the luxury of carefully developing their solution. They concentrated first on turretless self-propelled guns like the SU-85 and SU-152, which could be fielded more quickly and cheaply. Development of the T-34-85 and IS-1 heavy tanks allowed their delivery to the field in early 1944, similar to the Firefly. The IS-1 was only a stopgap and was quickly superseded by the IS-2, armed with a long-barreled 122mm. Meanwhile, the USA already had an answer in the form of their tank destroyers. We've been over the argument as to whether these were a good idea or not at least twice, so I don't think we need to do it again. What matters is that the M10 tank destroyer mounted a 3" gun, which with tungsten-cored HVAP ammunition was easily capable of defeating the frontal armor of Tiger and Panther tanks at ranges out to 1000 meters. The later 76mm gun, used on the M18 tank destroyer and late-model M4 tanks, had similar to better performance. I believe HVAP was in short supply even for tank destroyer units, but theoretically speaking the Americans had the tools to defeat German heavy armor before even the Brits and Soviets (since the M10 hit service in time for Tunisia, late 1943). The US Army could probably have fielded large numbers of upgunned M4 Shermans in about the same timeframe as the British and Soviets deployed their own versions, but they lacked the same sense of urgency. In practical terms, the real answer to the Tiger was CAS, artillery, and superior mass. Although the Germans were sometimes able to exploit the advantages of the Tiger to great effect and inflict disproportionate casualties, having superior tanks is nice but is not as vital to victory as some people think. The French and British actually had the better tank models in 1940, but they lost anyway. Similarly, the Soviets had superior tanks in 1941 and 1942, but took savage beatings anyway. EvanSchenck fucked around with this message at May 14, 2012 around 19:58 |
| # ? May 14, 2012 19:54 |
|
|
gohuskies posted:Panzer Lehr isn't a formidable German tank formation? 2nd SS Panzer Division isn't either? There weren't battles at Saint-Lô? Operation Cobra never happened? Nor Operation Lüttich? The Brits faced the heavy German tanks first, but the US still had to fight them. Oh it's time for another round of 'gohuskies ignores every single source and commentator, including the US Army, in furtherance of his hard-on for TDs'. 
|
| # ? May 14, 2012 20:43 |
|
|
Alchenar posted:Oh it's time for another round of 'gohuskies ignores every single source and commentator, including the US Army, in furtherance of his hard-on for TDs'. I know you like getting worked up about this every time TDs are mentioned even in passing, but I'm being perfectly reasonable here. I pointed out that the US Army and the British Army had pretty similar operational performance in Normandy despite having different guns in their tanks, because there are a litany of factors more important on an operational level. Nenonen said that the US didn't face German heavies in Normandy. I mentioned instances when they did. Pretty simple and no TD evangelism. Anyways, EvanSchenck had a very good post that answers the original question about Tiger development and the Allied response better than any of the rest of us did. So congratulations EvanSchenck. gohuskies fucked around with this message at May 14, 2012 around 21:03 |
| # ? May 14, 2012 21:01 |
|
|
The US Army and the British Army fought pretty different battles in Normandy. The British (and Canadians/Poles/etc.) fought an armor-centric battle around the plains of Caen and the US Army had to fight an infantry-centric battle through the Norman bocage. It's not really the best basis for comparison.
|
| # ? May 14, 2012 21:25 |
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Sorry, I meant why it took so long (or it didn't?) for the Allies to come up with a TANK that had a big enough gun to compete with a Tiger's 88. Or really, the Tiger's armor, because wasn't it an issue that the earlier model Shermans couldn't penetrate except with side or rear shots? To add on to what EvanShenck was saying: The Tiger was recognized as a relatively rare breakthrough variant. Tank on tank combat was comparatively rare for the Western Allies in the ETO, and the 75mm armed Sherman was actually better suited for infantry support (IIRC, faster rate of fire, and a better HE round), which was the more common scenario. The Americans developed a bunch of heavy tanks throughout the war, but didn't really deploy them in large numbers; the T1E2 was developed in '42 and was intended to mount a 3 inch cannon. My understanding is that the Americans realized that a M26 Pershing would take up twice the cargo space of a M4 and didn't really think it was worth the trade off, given how rare tank-on-tank combat was. The Americans did continue to develop some heavier tanks (for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank).
|
| # ? May 14, 2012 22:41 |
|
|
I would quibble with the use of the word 'rare' to describe the frequency of tank on tank combat in the ETO, but it is true that it was definitely less common and on much smaller scale than the armored fighting on the Eastern Front. I don't have stats, but would guess that the biggest killer of allied tanks in the ETO was probably German anti-tank guns and Panzerfausts.
|
| # ? May 14, 2012 22:52 |
|
|
Comrade_Robot posted:My understanding is that the Americans realized that a M26 Pershing would take up twice the cargo space of a M4 and didn't really think it was worth the trade off, given how rare tank-on-tank combat was. The Americans did continue to develop some heavier tanks (for example 0=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank). There are three lines on this: 1) The US army board decided that 2 M4's for the space of a M26 was a fair trade and that they'd just flood the Germans with tanks. Not much thought given to the morale effect on the tank crews, but hey. 2) McNair and his loving stupid TD doctrine held up the resources necessary to develop the M26 so it wasn't ready in time. 3) Actually, problems with developing the gun meant that no matter what happened, the M26 and the upgunned M4 were never going to be ready in numbers for Normandy anyway so it didn't matter. e: ^^ the biggest killers of tanks in all circumstances ever was AT guns. The difference between theatres was at the range Tanks engaged at. In Africa they'd typically engage at max range. In Normandy it would be effectively point-blank. On the Eastern front it could be anything in between. Alchenar fucked around with this message at May 14, 2012 around 22:55 |
| # ? May 14, 2012 22:53 |
|
|
New Division posted:I would quibble with the use of the word 'rare' to describe the frequency of tank on tank combat in the ETO, but it is true that it was definitely less common and on much smaller scale than the armored fighting on the Eastern Front. Anecdotally my grandfather was a Staff Sargent in the Army, and the worst memories he had from the war was having to clean what was left of the crews of Shermans out after they fought Tigers or Panthers. At least among him and his comrades they all were bitter about the US not having tanks more up to the challenge of the tank on tank combat they did see.
|
| # ? May 15, 2012 00:14 |
|
|
Alchenar posted:2) McNair and his loving stupid TD doctrine held up the resources necessary to develop the M26 so it wasn't ready in time. Okay, what is this TD doctrine that I've heard so much of in the last page?
|
| # ? May 15, 2012 02:49 |
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:Anecdotally my grandfather was a Staff Sargent in the Army, and the worst memories he had from the war was having to clean what was left of the crews of Shermans out after they fought Tigers or Panthers. At least among him and his comrades they all were bitter about the US not having tanks more up to the challenge of the tank on tank combat they did see. Not to impugn your grandfather, but there was a lot of instances of American soldiers incorrectly reporting contact with and attributing kills to Tigers. There really weren't all that many Tigers made (around 2000 of both types), compared to 6,000 Panthers and 9,000 PzIVs; to an inexperienced soldier they all pretty much looked the same. As such there was sort of an understandable tendency to assume that everything they encountered was a Tiger. Also while I'm sort of on the subject I think that the US (and to a much greater degree the USSR) got it right when it came to tank design during WWII...you were much better off having several mediocre medium tanks that always ran and were easy to repair versus a couple of heavy tanks that were none of these things. The US could have designed the Sherman better (and eventually they did, by the end of the war it was excellent) but the general idea was absolutely sound.
|
| # ? May 15, 2012 03:12 |
|
|
Nenonen posted:Say hello to my 37mm Maxim HMG. that is some Death Korps of Krieg-looking poo poo, right there.
|
| # ? May 15, 2012 03:39 |
|
|
Farecoal posted:Okay, what is this TD doctrine that I've heard so much of in the last page? Sorry, but the topic was thoroughly mined ages ago and I doubt anybody in the thread feels like rehashing it. You can read the argument here: http://forums.somethingawful.com/sh...5#post387363950 It goes on for several pages. Also, Wikipedia has an entry that explains what the concept was and how it performed in practice.
|
| # ? May 15, 2012 03:51 |
|
|
Farecoal posted:Okay, what is this TD doctrine that I've heard so much of in the last page? Check out The Tank Killers by Harry Yeide, the only book written as a history of specifically the tank destroyer force. There's a lot of misinformation out there that Yeide corrects, and no, he's not just a TD fanboy like I am. He covers the bad and the good fairly. If you buy it, read it, and are dissatisfied, let me know and I will paypal you the $5 it costs used. Seriously. And that offer goes for anyone reading this thread.
|
| # ? May 15, 2012 04:13 |
|
|
bewbies posted:Not to impugn your grandfather, but there was a lot of instances of American soldiers incorrectly reporting contact with and attributing kills to Tigers. There really weren't all that many Tigers made (around 2000 of both types), compared to 6,000 Panthers and 9,000 PzIVs; to an inexperienced soldier they all pretty much looked the same. As such there was sort of an understandable tendency to assume that everything they encountered was a Tiger. I don't think you'll find a British or US WW2 Tanker who didn't feel angry and betrayed by their army when they were told that they were going to war with equipment that was every bit as good as the enemies and then found themselves going head to head with Panthers and Tigers that they simply could not penetrate from the front. You can't ignore the human cost this policy had, not merely in absolute terms of casualties but in the morale effect of the Tank Corps driving into battle knowing that if a Panther or Tiger showed up then they simply could not match it.
|
| # ? May 15, 2012 09:07 |
|
|
"Wow, 60+ new replies, must be about tanks." *is about tanks* So in the same vein, what was the greatest armored conflict/battle after WWII? As in something where large numbers of tanks fought other tanks.
|
| # ? May 15, 2012 09:23 |
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:"Wow, 60+ new replies, must be about tanks." Battle of 73 Easting in the Gulf War probably or maybe an engagement in one of the Arab/Isreali wars.
|
| # ? May 15, 2012 10:10 |
|
|
Alchenar posted:I don't think you'll find a British or US WW2 Tanker who didn't feel angry and betrayed by their army when they were told that they were going to war with equipment that was every bit as good as the enemies and then found themselves going head to head with Panthers and Tigers that they simply could not penetrate from the front. I'm sure the superiority of the Tiger was an enormous consolation to the German soldier being deluged with high explosive and bullets by a swarm of inferior Allied tanks, particularly while it was stuck in a ditch twenty miles away.
|
| # ? May 15, 2012 10:17 |
|
|
Alchenar posted:I don't think you'll find a British or US WW2 Tanker who didn't feel angry and betrayed by their army when they were told that they were going to war with equipment that was every bit as good as the enemies and then found themselves going head to head with Panthers and Tigers that they simply could not penetrate from the front. Here's the thing; American and British tankers, as was said above, spent most of their time supporting infantry. Tanks were knocked out with mines, anti-tank guns, and panzerfausts, none of which were going to be helped by heavy tanks; a mine will kill a heavy tank just as dead as a medium. Even when American tanks fought other tanks, the most common German tank was the Pz IV, which was roughly equivalent to the Sherman, being about the same weight, carrying more or less a similar gun, and with about similar armor (The StuG III was the most common German AFV of the war). The Panther was heavier than the Sherman, but was also a less common variant. Same with the Tiger and the King Tiger and whatever. However difficult life was for American and British tankers, the casualty rate in the tank corps was much lower than the casualty rate for infantry. It's worth noting that if we define heavy tanks as those weighing between 125,000 and 145,000 pounds combat loaded, heavy tanks have never really stuck around in the American arsenal, even today. A bigger cannon usually means a larger recoil system, a larger turret, and larger ammunition stowage space (or less ammunition), all of which add weight. This results in a much heavier and bulkier tank which tends to heave mobility issues: You can solve ground pressure problems by making the tank wider, but now it's hard to transport the tanks by railroad, and if your engine and transmission aren't up to the job, this means your tanks are even less mobile. The longest lasting American heavy tank (1953 - 1968), the M103, was pretty much a modified heavy tank with a heavier turret (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M103_heavy_tank. The Wikipedia article now assures us that of the extant M103's, one is in service as a rattlesnake nest.) Famously, in the Battle of the Bulge, the King Tigers were placed at the rear of armored columns, because they broke down so often they just got in the way.
|
| # ? May 15, 2012 10:20 |
|
|
Veins McGee posted:Battle of 73 Easting in the Gulf War probably or maybe an engagement in one of the Arab/Isreali wars. The Valley of Tears in 1973 involved an Israeli armored battalion (around 100 tanks) defending against over 1,000 Syrian tanks. This was over a front ~50km long, I doubt there has been another engagement with such a concentration in such a small space since WW2. Chawinda (1965, Pakistan v. India) is also quite large, involving about 600 tanks. Other than those two, maybe something in the Iran-Iraq war, but I am not familiar at all with that conflict.
|
| # ? May 15, 2012 13:44 |
|
|
what happend in Holland between Marked-Garden and VE-Day. Was it just a giant trench/no mans land between the german and allied armies?
|
| # ? May 15, 2012 15:52 |
|
|
Arguments about the alleged inferiority of the Sherman tank are fairly pointless and will always roil around the same handful of points on either side. I think there's really only two things that need to be said about the issue. 1) The Ordnance Department recognized early in the M4's service life that it was already becoming obsolescent. Development of a replacement went ahead and yielded an improved model (the M27 medium tank) which would have been ready to enter production in 1943--but the army didn't want it. They refused the M27 for the same reasons they later tried to block production of M4s armed with the 76mm gun. The existing model was good enough for infantry support, the 76mm HE wasn't as effective against soft targets as the 75mm HE, anti-tank work was supposed to be done by the TD Battalions, making the standard tank effective against German armor would just encourage them to go hunting German armor instead of doing their jobs, etc. Of course, in the case of the upgunned Shermans these arguments didn't last and eventually delivery of 75mm-armed tanks was halted in favor of the upgunned version. By that time, however, the M27 had been effectively scotched and it was too late to put it into production in any meaningful way. 2) In spite of its poor armored warfare doctrine, mediocre medium tank design, and lack of heavy tanks, there were enough obsolescent M4s and the other branches of the US Army were effective enough that the balance of force still heavily favored them, and they still defeat the Germans. This should be obvious. It's possible that if the US Army had come up with a better doctrine, and the M27 had replaced the M4 in units at the "tip of the spear", that American armor would have been more effective and fewer tankers would have died. But the difference would not have been that significant in terms of the overall war. tl;dr the Americans could have done better than the M4, and this was broadly recognized, but for doctrinal reasons they opted not to exercise their other options. In practice, this did not matter that much except to the tankers who were unlucky enough to be run into the rare Tigers and Panthers. Trench_Rat posted:what happend in Holland between Marked-Garden and VE-Day. Was it just a giant trench/no mans land between the german and allied armies? The reason for the incredibly ambitious vertical envelopment invasion planned in Market-Garden was that the terrain in the Netherlands was so favorable to the defensive. After the attempt failed, operations by Commonwealth forces (mainly Canadians) slowly ground away at the Germans. Meanwhile, the Dutch withheld assistance to the Axis war effort and the Germans punished them by cutting them off from food supplies, triggering a famine in the winter of 1944 (the Hongerwinter). Eventually Canadian forces entered the Netherlands from the east, via German territory, and took a large part of the country. German forces in the western part of the Netherlands held out until VE Day. EvanSchenck fucked around with this message at May 15, 2012 around 17:42 |
| # ? May 15, 2012 17:39 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2013 22:11 |
|
|
Alchenar posted:I don't think you'll find a British or US WW2 Tanker who didn't feel angry and betrayed by their army when they were told that they were going to war with equipment that was every bit as good as the enemies and then found themselves going head to head with Panthers and Tigers that they simply could not penetrate from the front. I think my point was it really didn't matter if they were angry or upset or if their morale was hurt, they had the more effective weapon. It always sucks to be on bullet sponge duty, whether it is from a Tiger tank or from an NVA ambush or from an IED, but someone has to do it. I guess it was kind of mean to tell them that their tanks could take on Tigers (did this happen?) but in the end it really didn't matter much.
|
| # ? May 15, 2012 22:41 |
|
