Jump to content


Tiger 1 homage


  • Please log in to reply
118 replies to this topic

Omega_Weapon #101 Posted Jul 30 2016 - 18:48

    Captain

  • Players
  • 42224 battles
  • 1,352
  • [GRIEF] GRIEF
  • Member since:
    11-15-2011

View Postaethervox, on Jul 30 2016 - 11:00, said:

You have to realize, Omega Weapon, that there are 'know it alls' in The Forums here who think their view is the only correct view so they slag anyone who doesn't have their view.

These types (clowns) also use false accusations and argument misdirection to bolster their stupidity.

The prime example of this above is Matt Wong and his reference to white supremists  (like, how did that get in there?).

 

 

Its usually fun for me to debate WW II and tank related matters. When people drag their hate filled views into the mix however it turns intellectual jousting into a sh*t flinging contest. Best to step back and let such types wallow in excrement by themselves. Wulfehound has conducted himself fine for the most part so I take no offense regarding his differing opinions. Mr mattwong on the other hand is a different matter.

Edited by Omega_Weapon, Jul 30 2016 - 18:53.


Wyvern2 #102 Posted Jul 30 2016 - 21:43

    Major

  • Players
  • 35817 battles
  • 3,124
  • [_D_] _D_
  • Member since:
    06-08-2011

View PostOmega_Weapon, on Jul 30 2016 - 18:35, said:

 

Reliability matters. It especially matters in longer time frames like campaigns or the war as a whole. Its still a soft stat rather than a hard stat though because in an individual battle reliability is not as important as the 3 big aspects of armour, firepower and mobility. Same goes for crew comfort, fuel range etc... . A tank can be the most reliable, most ergonomic and have the longest fuel range, but it isn't winning if it has a bad gun, bad armour and bad mobility (in comparison to its opponents). A Volkswagen Bug has more reliability, comfort and fuel range than a Sherman. Doesn't mean it can beat the Sherman. German tanks were less reliable and this often reduced the number of tanks readily available for a battle. Out of 100 tanks, 10 to 20% could easily be "unfit" to enter the battle because of requiring urgent maintenance.The reliability was not so bad that they could not usually engage in battle to great effect. The 80% that were in working condition usually carried their weight in battle well enough to make up for the reduced numbers overall. Otherwise it would make zero sense for the Germans to continue building and using such tanks.

The problem is that german tanks had anywhere up to 50% unavailability at times and sucked up a disproportionate amount of logistical resources to keep on ticking, EG Tiger battalions which had something like a regiments worth of logistics/maintenance support. That is not good when you're already outnumbered. Lack of numbers stacked on top of lack of availability also means that tanks arent there to support infantry, which they do something like 90% of the time, and this means infantry suffers far more heavily. Even the red-headed stepchild USMC got enough tanks to get by, german infantry divisions often made do with a handful of StuG's, if they were lucky.

Also, as displayed in most major tank on tank engagements in the west, the german tanks didn't carry their weight, in fact, they didn't even carry their weight relative to their allied peers. During the engagement that saw Wittmans Tiger being KOed, the only tank that gave better than it took was a single panzer IV, which reportedly took out 3 shermans before being killed, this situation repeats itself throughout the bulge, at arracourt, during villers bocage etc. The most useful/significant german armor by late war was TD's such as the JpzIV and StuG. The fact of the matter is that the PzIV was already on its last legs as a viable battle tank in 1943. By 1944 it was beginning to suffer and needed a replacement. Unfortunately, most of the traits that had made it a pretty good tank in its time(and kept it useful until the wars end) were absent in the Panthers design, which was its dedicated replacement. The decision to produce KT's/Panthers is more a sign of desperation and the German's inability to design+manufacture anything better than an actual demonstration of sound thinking. The removal of the Tiger from production caused no problems, the removal of the StuG caused an uproar, we can pretty clearly see what the German's combat officers thought of the decision making related to armored vehicle production.


Edited by Wyvern2, Jul 30 2016 - 21:44.


Omega_Weapon #103 Posted Jul 31 2016 - 07:28

    Captain

  • Players
  • 42224 battles
  • 1,352
  • [GRIEF] GRIEF
  • Member since:
    11-15-2011

View PostWyvern2, on Jul 30 2016 - 15:43, said:

The problem is that german tanks had anywhere up to 50% unavailability at times and sucked up a disproportionate amount of logistical resources to keep on ticking, EG Tiger battalions which had something like a regiments worth of logistics/maintenance support. That is not good when you're already outnumbered. Lack of numbers stacked on top of lack of availability also means that tanks arent there to support infantry, which they do something like 90% of the time, and this means infantry suffers far more heavily. Even the red-headed stepchild USMC got enough tanks to get by, german infantry divisions often made do with a handful of StuG's, if they were lucky.

Also, as displayed in most major tank on tank engagements in the west, the german tanks didn't carry their weight, in fact, they didn't even carry their weight relative to their allied peers. During the engagement that saw Wittmans Tiger being KOed, the only tank that gave better than it took was a single panzer IV, which reportedly took out 3 shermans before being killed, this situation repeats itself throughout the bulge, at arracourt, during villers bocage etc. The most useful/significant german armor by late war was TD's such as the JpzIV and StuG. The fact of the matter is that the PzIV was already on its last legs as a viable battle tank in 1943. By 1944 it was beginning to suffer and needed a replacement. Unfortunately, most of the traits that had made it a pretty good tank in its time(and kept it useful until the wars end) were absent in the Panthers design, which was its dedicated replacement. The decision to produce KT's/Panthers is more a sign of desperation and the German's inability to design+manufacture anything better than an actual demonstration of sound thinking. The removal of the Tiger from production caused no problems, the removal of the StuG caused an uproar, we can pretty clearly see what the German's combat officers thought of the decision making related to armored vehicle production.

 

​Valid points about the huge drain on logistics and the fact that not enough tanks were around to properly support the infantry. As for the German tanks not carrying their weight in the west you need to remember that the western front was always secondary to the Russian front. Most of the resources, and experienced units were kept busy fighting Russia in the east. Less than 3 months after D-Day the Allies had 4500 Shermans in France which was 3 times as many tanks as the Germans had there in total. Add the various other allied tank and tank destroyer types to that mix as well. The allies after D-Day always had total air superiority, forcing the Germans to move units only at night, no fuel shortages like the Germans did to restrict their tactical flexibility, and usually had far superior artillery support available whether attacking or defending. In the light of all those major advantages one could have expected the German forces to be quickly wiped out with ease and with minimal loses to the allied side. The fact that the Germans managed to hold the allies back that long and destroy allied tanks in a better than 1 to 1 ratio is already a huge accomplishment. That is why I say that they carried their weight. Regarding StuGs being better than Tigers, if you plan to fight predominantly defensive battles then the mass production of StuGs is a more efficient and cost effective idea than producing limited numbers of Tigers. The flexibility and combat potential of a single Tiger is still higher than that of a single StuG though. That power gap increases significantly if they are expected to fight on the offensive.


Edited by Omega_Weapon, Jul 31 2016 - 08:05.


aethervox #104 Posted Jul 31 2016 - 08:39

    Major

  • Players
  • 25007 battles
  • 2,845
  • [PFLL] PFLL
  • Member since:
    08-19-2011

View PostOmega_Weapon, on Jul 30 2016 - 18:48, said:

 

Its usually fun for me to debate WW II and tank related matters. When people drag their hate filled views into the mix however it turns intellectual jousting into a sh*t flinging contest. Best to step back and let such types wallow in excrement by themselves. Wulfehound has conducted himself fine for the most part so I take no offense regarding his differing opinions. Mr mattwong on the other hand is a different matter.

 

Agreed. +1 for you, Omega Weapon.

Wyvern2 #105 Posted Jul 31 2016 - 08:56

    Major

  • Players
  • 35817 battles
  • 3,124
  • [_D_] _D_
  • Member since:
    06-08-2011

View PostOmega_Weapon, on Jul 31 2016 - 07:28, said:

 

​Valid points about the huge drain on logistics and the fact that not enough tanks were around to properly support the infantry. As for the German tanks not carrying their weight in the west you need to remember that the western front was always secondary to the Russian front. Most of the resources, and experienced units were kept busy fighting Russia in the east. Less than 3 months after D-Day the Allies had 4500 Shermans in France which was 3 times as many tanks as the Germans had there in total. Add the various other allied tank and tank destroyer types to that mix as well. The allies after D-Day always had total air superiority, forcing the Germans to move units only at night, no fuel shortages like the Germans did to restrict their tactical flexibility, and usually had far superior artillery support available whether attacking or defending. In the light of all those major advantages one could have expected the German forces to be quickly wiped out with ease and with minimal loses to the allied side. The fact that the Germans managed to hold the allies back that long and destroy allied tanks in a better than 1 to 1 ratio is already a huge accomplishment.

Except they didn't even maintain a 1-1 damage ratio. Even the 3rd armored division, made famous by Death Traps, suffered fewer losses in armor than it inflicted on the germans, and that's including losses to all weapons, which would mostly be artillery/infantry weaponry to begin with.  In the biggest armor engagements that weren't one off skirmishes, the western allies almost always came out on top in KDR. The air support narrative is beloved and essentially irrelevant in armor vs armor fighting. It's even mroe irrelevant when one considers that some of the biggest defeats of german armor were inflicted by units with little-no air support and sometimes even without artillery support. Arracourt being the most famous example. There's also the fact that the allies considered every loss, whether breakdown or catastrophic destruction, as a loss when counting "casualties". The Germans only considered an irrecoverable loss to be a true "loss". How many tanks the allies had overall is irrelevant when considering tank on tank performance. It only meant they could actually cover all of their infantry's needs. There's also the fact that in 1944, the Germans lined up something like 800 AFV's in the Ardennes when they had ~2k on the entirety of the Eastern Front(iirc). Density of armor was not in fact always in favor of the western allies. Also, equating German success with superiority in armor is pointless.  Being on the defensive is a huge boon in and of itself, as was the fact that they were largely fighting in fairly defensible terrain(at least initially). It's like saying that German armor somehow prevented the Allies in Italy from achieving a major breakthrough... Simple statistics show that German armor failed to score a single major victory of any sort against the Allied armor from D-Day until the end of the war. The fact that allied armor casualties were probably higher is simply the result of being on the offensive against prepared enemy positions. Marine+Army M4's suffered heavy casualties to the Japanese despite the latter having next to no armor support(and what little armor support they had was irrelevant vs the M4)

That is why I say that they carried their weight. Regarding StuGs being better than Tigers, if you plan to fight predominantly defensive battles then the mass production of StuGs is a more efficient and cost effective idea than producing limited numbers of Tigers. The flexibility and combat potential of a single Tiger is still higher than that of a single StuG though. That power gap increases significantly if they are expected to fight on the offensive.

A single Tiger is harder to hide, has a gun that is not particularly more effective vs the target tanks the two are facing(both essentially helpless vs a Jumbo, IS-2 or Churchill VII, completely adequate vs just about everything else), weighs twice as much, takes far more logistics, is far more manhour intensive to produce, has insignificantly better front armor etc. Also, while the StuG's side armor was garbage, it should be remembered that turrets are not particularly crucial to a vehicle being successful at responding/being flexible(at least with WW2 technology). As late as the 1960-70's, the Swedish testing showed that the Strv 103 engaged targets faster than a Leo 1 when unbuttoned, and only slightly slower when buttoned up(which from what I've gathered, most experienced TC's do not do, even in this day and age)

 


Edited by Wyvern2, Jul 31 2016 - 08:58.


Omega_Weapon #106 Posted Jul 31 2016 - 19:12

    Captain

  • Players
  • 42224 battles
  • 1,352
  • [GRIEF] GRIEF
  • Member since:
    11-15-2011

View PostWyvern2, on Jul 31 2016 - 02:56, said:

Except they didn't even maintain a 1-1 damage ratio. Even the 3rd armored division, made famous by Death Traps, suffered fewer losses in armor than it inflicted on the germans, and that's including losses to all weapons, which would mostly be artillery/infantry weaponry to begin with.  In the biggest armor engagements that weren't one off skirmishes, the western allies almost always came out on top in KDR. The air support narrative is beloved and essentially irrelevant in armor vs armor fighting. It's even mroe irrelevant when one considers that some of the biggest defeats of german armor were inflicted by units with little-no air support and sometimes even without artillery support. Arracourt being the most famous example. There's also the fact that the allies considered every loss, whether breakdown or catastrophic destruction, as a loss when counting "casualties". The Germans only considered an irrecoverable loss to be a true "loss". How many tanks the allies had overall is irrelevant when considering tank on tank performance. It only meant they could actually cover all of their infantry's needs. There's also the fact that in 1944, the Germans lined up something like 800 AFV's in the Ardennes when they had ~2k on the entirety of the Eastern Front(iirc). Density of armor was not in fact always in favor of the western allies. Also, equating German success with superiority in armor is pointless.  Being on the defensive is a huge boon in and of itself, as was the fact that they were largely fighting in fairly defensible terrain(at least initially). It's like saying that German armor somehow prevented the Allies in Italy from achieving a major breakthrough... Simple statistics show that German armor failed to score a single major victory of any sort against the Allied armor from D-Day until the end of the war. The fact that allied armor casualties were probably higher is simply the result of being on the offensive against prepared enemy positions. Marine+Army M4's suffered heavy casualties to the Japanese despite the latter having next to no armor support(and what little armor support they had was irrelevant vs the M4)

 

Total German tank loses on the western front = 4000.

American Sherman loses on western front = 4400.

American light tank loses on western front = 1500 (mostly Stuarts with some Chaffees).

British tank loses on western front = 3000.

Free French tank loses on western front = 549.

 

The numbers seem to have been rounded off but the ratio is very clear. Even on the western front, the allies lost more than 2 tanks for every tank that Germany lost. From 1942 onward the Germans did not win many battles. If you don't hold the battlefield after the battle, you can't recover any tanks. Something else to remember is German tank loses include all the tanks destroyed by their own crews after they broke down or ran out of fuel. There were many instances of such "self inflicted" losses.

 

As for tactical air power, it did not rack up huge totals of destroyed tanks, since direct hits on a tank are not that easy to achieve. But tank units are suppressed by air activity (not free to move or act aggressively in the open). Near misses can damage or immobilize tanks (In one air raid American bombers carpet bombed a formation of Tigers. The Germans suffered few direct loses, but the surviving tanks had their gun sights all knocked out of alignment by the force of the bombardment). Air power also attacks the rear areas, so the supply lines and maintenance areas for panzer divisions (already stressed) cannot function properly. Air supremacy is a major factor and its wrong to minimize the advantage it provides.


Edited by Omega_Weapon, Jul 31 2016 - 19:14.


caramel #107 Posted Jul 31 2016 - 19:18

    Major

  • Players
  • 8008 battles
  • 3,781
  • [MLPVA] MLPVA
  • Member since:
    05-11-2011

View PostOmega_Weapon, on Jul 31 2016 - 10:12, said:

 

Total German tank loses on the western front = 4000.

American Sherman loses on western front = 4400.

American light tank loses on western front = 1500 (mostly Stuarts with some Chaffees).

British tank loses on western front = 3000.

Free French tank loses on western front = 549.

 

The numbers seem to have been rounded off but the ratio is very clear. Even on the western front, the allies lost more than 2 tanks for every tank that Germany lost. From 1942 onward the Germans did not win many battles. If you don't hold the battlefield after the battle, you can't recover any tanks. Something else to remember is German tank loses include all the tanks destroyed by their own crews after they broke down or ran out of fuel. There were many instances of such "self inflicted" losses.

 

As for tactical air power, it did not rack up huge totals of destroyed tanks, since direct hits on a tank are not that easy to achieve. But tank units are suppressed by air activity (not free to move or act aggressively in the open). Near misses can damage or immobilize tanks (In one air raid American bombers carpet bombed a formation of Tigers. The Germans suffered few direct loses, but the surviving tanks had their gun sights all knocked out of alignment by the force of the bombardment). Air power also attacks the rear areas, so the supply lines and maintenance areas for panzer divisions (already stressed) cannot function properly. Air supremacy is a major factor and its wrong to minimize the advantage it provides.

 

But at the end of the day, german losses would still be smaller then Allied losses unless the allies completely and utterly steamrolled every battlefield they hit, making every tank irrecoverable. This was not the case, and since Germany only considered irrecoverable a loss, while every other nation considered ANY kind of damage a "loss" {The US and USSR were both particularly bad about it, not so sure about the Brits/french}, its easy to claim the kill count was higher for the german then the Americans; but if you actually strip it down to numbers produced/vs/lost its a much more telling story


Quite simply, even WITH American and USSR engineering and manufacturing behind it, a flat two to one loss ratio would put a serious strain on any nation. And the thing about the shermans and T-34's is they were designed for rapid rebuild and redeployment capabilities, able to be retracked, or have new parts swapped in quite quickly, while the Tigers and Panthers had to have much more work put into them to bring them back online, meaning of course the US tended to take more losses as they could pull that tank that lost its track { Counted as a loss} off the field, retrack it, and push it back out in a few hours, where as IIRC, A tiger losing a track was cause for it to be abandoned, or outright scuttled if they thought it was about to be captured, and was a whole day ordeal thanks to its tracks. {Could be wrong on that, not entirely up on how long each repair part took on german maintenance. I do know tigers tended to be cannibalized for spares, though.}
 

A better example would likely be a transmission blow-out, if you blew out a transmission on a tiger or a panther, you were looking at a lot of work, with the Shermans you could pull off the front, pull out the whole unit, and pop in a new one, bolt it back on, and be out the door in a few hours.

 

Also keeping in mind that the Kill Counts for all sides would be in much smaller numbers in {Exclusively}  tank vs tank engagements.



Legiondude #108 Posted Jul 31 2016 - 19:26

    Major

  • Players
  • 20134 battles
  • 23,025
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    08-22-2011
It's also because of the Sherman's rapid repairability that by the time Belton Cooper arrived in France, Germany had moved on to the tactic of ensuring Allied armor was obliterated(usually by firing until it combusted) in order to try and halt their progress

Omega_Weapon #109 Posted Jul 31 2016 - 19:29

    Captain

  • Players
  • 42224 battles
  • 1,352
  • [GRIEF] GRIEF
  • Member since:
    11-15-2011

View PostWyvern2, on Jul 31 2016 - 02:56, said:

A single Tiger is harder to hide, has a gun that is not particularly more effective vs the target tanks the two are facing(both essentially helpless vs a Jumbo, IS-2 or Churchill VII, completely adequate vs just about everything else), weighs twice as much, takes far more logistics, is far more manhour intensive to produce, has insignificantly better front armor etc. Also, while the StuG's side armor was garbage, it should be remembered that turrets are not particularly crucial to a vehicle being successful at responding/being flexible(at least with WW2 technology). As late as the 1960-70's, the Swedish testing showed that the Strv 103 engaged targets faster than a Leo 1 when unbuttoned, and only slightly slower when buttoned up(which from what I've gathered, most experienced TC's do not do, even in this day and age)

 

Yeah it is bigger, harder to manufacture and more maintenance heavy, but it still has more advantages than disadvantages. Tiger's gun still has more penetration, so it will defeat tanks at greater distance. The larger shell does more damage, especially the HE. The larger tank holds far more ammunition than the small StuG can. Most of all it has a turret which is a huge advantage. Turreted tanks have more flexibility to move and shoot in different directions. If a turretless tank destroyer is in restrictive terrain where it can't rotate the hull or the track gets broken, game over. There is a reason turretless tanks were abandoned by most tank designers after the war. They are inferior except when you plan to fight defensively only. Sweden was fine with the defense only concept. The Strv 103 also has a very complex hydro-pneumatic suspension system coupled to a fire control computer that allows it to aim effectively. Its more effective than regular turretless TDs were exactly because it is no longer cheap or simple to produce. Even then it is less capable offensively than a contemporary tank with a turret.



caramel #110 Posted Jul 31 2016 - 19:30

    Major

  • Players
  • 8008 battles
  • 3,781
  • [MLPVA] MLPVA
  • Member since:
    05-11-2011

View PostLegiondude, on Jul 31 2016 - 10:26, said:

It's also because of the Sherman's rapid repairability that by the time Belton Cooper arrived in France, Germany had moved on to the tactic of ensuring Allied armor was obliterated(usually by firing until it combusted) in order to try and halt their progress

 

Combusted / warped beyond usability.

 

Also just for the record, P. Chamberlain, while taking this with a grain of salt, estimated that the Germans  lost roughly 50,000 tanks, assault guns, tank destroyers and self-propelled guns, keep in mind thats total losses, not irrecoverable, 33,000 on the eastern front, 17 on the western. The us "Offically" lost 10,000 according to both Zalgia and the SHAEF

 

Edit: In spot to above: as I recall, and I could be wrong, the Tigers 8.8 was actually inferior in terms of it's HE shot due to the velocity needed for the gun, as it was using the modified AT version {Again, I could be wrong}, the Panther most certainly was inferior in HE performance to the US and USSR guns, its HE performance was considered to be absolute dreck.


Also, I can't speak for other nations, but the US abandoned the Tank Destroyer role as we found the Mediums {At that point transitioning into Main Line Battle} were sufficent for all roles we needed them for, thus also retiring Heavy tanks as well, only Light Tanks really survived the purge of armored units from the US armed forces, and we've since, far as I'm aware, retired all light tanks, which have been replaced with AFV's {Minor correction, I guess the M551 Sheridan are still in service in the US armed forces.}


Edited by caramel, Jul 31 2016 - 19:37.


Omega_Weapon #111 Posted Jul 31 2016 - 19:47

    Captain

  • Players
  • 42224 battles
  • 1,352
  • [GRIEF] GRIEF
  • Member since:
    11-15-2011

View Postcaramel, on Jul 31 2016 - 13:18, said:

 

But at the end of the day, german losses would still be smaller then Allied losses unless the allies completely and utterly steamrolled every battlefield they hit, making every tank irrecoverable. This was not the case, and since Germany only considered irrecoverable a loss, while every other nation considered ANY kind of damage a "loss" {The US and USSR were both particularly bad about it, not so sure about the Brits/french}, its easy to claim the kill count was higher for the german then the Americans; but if you actually strip it down to numbers produced/vs/lost its a much more telling story


Quite simply, even WITH American and USSR engineering and manufacturing behind it, a flat two to one loss ratio would put a serious strain on any nation. And the thing about the shermans and T-34's is they were designed for rapid rebuild and redeployment capabilities, able to be retracked, or have new parts swapped in quite quickly, while the Tigers and Panthers had to have much more work put into them to bring them back online, meaning of course the US tended to take more losses as they could pull that tank that lost its track { Counted as a loss} off the field, retrack it, and push it back out in a few hours, where as IIRC, A tiger losing a track was cause for it to be abandoned, or outright scuttled if they thought it was about to be captured, and was a whole day ordeal thanks to its tracks. {Could be wrong on that, not entirely up on how long each repair part took on german maintenance. I do know tigers tended to be cannibalized for spares, though.}
 

A better example would likely be a transmission blow-out, if you blew out a transmission on a tiger or a panther, you were looking at a lot of work, with the Shermans you could pull off the front, pull out the whole unit, and pop in a new one, bolt it back on, and be out the door in a few hours.

 

Also keeping in mind that the Kill Counts for all sides would be in much smaller numbers in {Exclusively}  tank vs tank engagements.

 

​Shermans and T-34s were strategically superior to German Tigers and Panthers. They were war winning designs and I have no problem admitting that. I only get my back up when people try to claim they were even superior on a one to one basis because that's just nonsense.

 

Here are the loss figures I found so far for the war overall:

 

40 000 German tanks lost (4000 western front, 34 000 Russian front)

83 500 Russian tanks lost ( 63 229 of which were destroyed/unrecoverable)

15 844 British tanks lost (total does not include infantry tanks like the Churchill)

Still haven't found total American tanks lost other than the 6000 lost on western front mentioned above. (Italian front? African front? Pacific theatre?)

 

Going by the admitted totals from Russia, it seems that 25% of their tank loses were considered recoverable. Safe to assume a similar percentage for the American and British tanks.



caramel #112 Posted Jul 31 2016 - 19:52

    Major

  • Players
  • 8008 battles
  • 3,781
  • [MLPVA] MLPVA
  • Member since:
    05-11-2011

View PostOmega_Weapon, on Jul 31 2016 - 10:47, said:

 

​Shermans and T-34s were strategically superior to German Tigers and Panthers. They were war winning designs and I have no problem admitting that. I only get my back up when people try to claim they were even superior on a one to one basis because that's just nonsense.

 

Here are the loss figures I found so far for the war overall:

 

40 000 German tanks lost (4000 western front, 34 000 Russian front)

83 500 Russian tanks lost ( 63 229 of which were destroyed/unrecoverable)

15 844 British tanks lost (total does not include infantry tanks like the Churchill)

Still haven't found total American tanks lost other than the 6000 lost on western front mentioned above. (Italian front? African front? Pacific theatre?)

 

Going by the admitted totals from Russia, it seems that 25% of their tank loses were considered recoverable. Safe to assume a similar percentage for the American and British tanks.

 

The 10K are sourced both from Zaloga {German fans seem to like to disregard his stuff} and the Supreme Headquarters Allied Expiditionary Force, 10,000 is the rounded number and includes all fronts and operations, the european theater claiming roughly 4,000 shermans and 900 tank destroyers, italy claiming 1500 {1200 shermans} and  several hundred lost in the Pacific theater.

 

The Russian numbers seem about right, though.

 

I'm fairly certain the 10K is "Irrecoverable losses", not just "losses in general", 

 

Records on the eastern front seem to hold at about 33K losses for the germans, western front details are much sketchier and harder to find.

 

Edit: also, keep in mind, while looking for american losses you have to look for theaters, not fronts, as thats what we classified them by.  And I can't speak for the Brits or french as I've never looked to deeply into their stuff.

 

missed a point, but, as for claiming SUPERIOR? When it came down to hard stats, the German Big Cats really only had two major hard stats over their USSR/US counterparts, a better gun {at least from an AT standpoint} and better armor {Arguable depending on what model of sherman it was, but irrefutable in the case of the T-34}, otherwise the M4/T-34 did tend to trounce the Tigers/panthers all around. The M4 also had far more innovations then the Panther and Tiger did in terms of advancing tank technology.

 

Also, there WAS prototype models of the Sherman with a mounted 90MM IIRC, but it was basically shut down in favor of the 76MM being "Adequate" and the development of the pershing making it redundant. So if that had came to be the "Gun" wouldn't even be a topping hard stat over the sherman, either, though we eventually mounted it on the M4 Derivitive, the Jackson.


Edited by caramel, Jul 31 2016 - 20:05.


Omega_Weapon #113 Posted Jul 31 2016 - 23:32

    Captain

  • Players
  • 42224 battles
  • 1,352
  • [GRIEF] GRIEF
  • Member since:
    11-15-2011

View Postcaramel, on Jul 31 2016 - 13:52, said:

 

The 10K are sourced both from Zaloga {German fans seem to like to disregard his stuff} and the Supreme Headquarters Allied Expiditionary Force, 10,000 is the rounded number and includes all fronts and operations, the european theater claiming roughly 4,000 shermans and 900 tank destroyers, italy claiming 1500 {1200 shermans} and  several hundred lost in the Pacific theater.

 

Also, there WAS prototype models of the Sherman with a mounted 90MM IIRC, but it was basically shut down in favor of the 76MM being "Adequate" and the development of the pershing making it redundant. So if that had came to be the "Gun" wouldn't even be a topping hard stat over the sherman, either, though we eventually mounted it on the M4 Derivitive, the Jackson.

 

Thanks. Those numbers are interesting and a bit surprising. Actually higher than I expected. Is there somewhere I can look that up online, or do I have to buy Zaloga's book?

 

There were clear reasons for the Germans to cancel all Tiger I production in August 1944. They realized it was losing its advantages and was on the verge of becoming obsolete. If the U.S. had decided to upgrade the E8 Sherman with a 90mm gun, then the Sherman would have probably equalled the combat power of the Tiger at that point. As it was the U.S. introduced the Pershing instead which was more than a match for the Tiger I. But by then the Germans had Tiger 2 in production as well, so the superiority game continued right up until the end of the war.



Cmdr_Adama_BSG75 #114 Posted Mar 17 2017 - 23:37

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 31175 battles
  • 112
  • [HAL-X] HAL-X
  • Member since:
    05-04-2013

 Wow, I just now caught up on this thread. I'm amazed at the information provided by you guys. I just asked a simple question and posted a simple personal opinion. This developed into a history lesson! And I enjoyed all of it.

 I'll say it again though. The Tiger should be "top dog" at its tier. And I still want a 131 tribute upgrade "package", make mine look like the 131, and give the tank a 5% bump across the board. I'd give'em 20 bucks for that, especially if 50% went to Bovington.



landedkiller #115 Posted Mar 20 2017 - 05:56

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 7788 battles
  • 1,405
  • Member since:
    04-01-2013

View PostCmdr_Adama_BSG75, on Mar 17 2017 - 16:37, said:

 Wow, I just now caught up on this thread. I'm amazed at the information provided by you guys. I just asked a simple question and posted a simple personal opinion. This developed into a history lesson! And I enjoyed all of it.

 I'll say it again though. The Tiger should be "top dog" at its tier. And I still want a 131 tribute upgrade "package", make mine look like the 131, and give the tank a 5% bump across the board. I'd give'em 20 bucks for that, especially if 50% went to Bovington.

 

I see no point in creating a premium unless it was different in some way from the reg tiger 1 a mission with the inscription as an award would be better of course it is coming this year I think tank ace series

harley001 #116 Posted Mar 20 2017 - 07:07

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 5303 battles
  • 38
  • Member since:
    02-01-2013

View Postdmckay, on Jul 22 2016 - 00:39, said:

 

I hate to be a neggie but the Panther was far far from the best tank in WWII. "The best".....not even close. It was a mess as was the Tiger. The Tiger was not even a factor in Europe. Only 3 documented engagements between American tanks and Tiger from D-Day to the end of the war. Why?  There were simply very very few of them. Russians killed most of them.  BUT don't take my word for it.  Check it out.

 

 

Actually they were consindered good tanks. PROBLEM was that the country building them was having a labor and resource shortage. Making a tank that requires top of the line parts and lots of maitance when your short on resources=bad idea. 



PrimarchRogalDorn #117 Posted Mar 20 2017 - 07:51

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 25 battles
  • 812
  • Member since:
    01-03-2017

View Postharley001, on Mar 20 2017 - 01:07, said:

 

 

Actually they were consindered good tanks. PROBLEM was that the country building them was having a labor and resource shortage. Making a tank that requires top of the line parts and lots of maitance when your short on resources=bad idea. 

 

If they were in a defensive position with clear fields of fire, maybe (although vehicles like a StuG or Jpz IV would do that job better with a lower profile). However, the Panther suffers numerous flaws, including but not limited to:

Final drives had an average mean time between failures of 150km

Frontal torsion bars overstressed by the amount of armor

Long gun barrel reduced maneuverability in tight spaces

Transmission and final drives would fail if neutral steel was used

Transmission and final drives would fail if the tank was turned while reversing

Fuel lines leaking in the engine compartment, which caused fires

Lack of unity sight/periscope for the gunner

Thin side armor for its weight, which made it highly vulnerable to antitank rifles

 

That does not a good tank make.


Edited by PrimarchRogalDorn, Mar 20 2017 - 07:52.


harley001 #118 Posted Mar 20 2017 - 12:10

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 5303 battles
  • 38
  • Member since:
    02-01-2013

View PostPrimarchRogalDorn, on Mar 20 2017 - 06:51, said:

 

If they were in a defensive position with clear fields of fire, maybe (although vehicles like a StuG or Jpz IV would do that job better with a lower profile). However, the Panther suffers numerous flaws, including but not limited to:

Final drives had an average mean time between failures of 150km

Frontal torsion bars overstressed by the amount of armor

Long gun barrel reduced maneuverability in tight spaces

Transmission and final drives would fail if neutral steel was used

Transmission and final drives would fail if the tank was turned while reversing

Fuel lines leaking in the engine compartment, which caused fires

Lack of unity sight/periscope for the gunner

Thin side armor for its weight, which made it highly vulnerable to antitank rifles

 

That does not a good tank make.

 

Most of those issues come from faulty parts which I already mentioned was due to a resource short Germany.

 

German tanks were able to out perform american and soviet tanks. You could argue that soviet tanks had poor crews which was true. BUT they proved against western forces that their tanks were better. Its not me being a wehraboo in cases were a German panzer was able to engage in a tank vs tank battle or a ground based battle without pesky aircraft ruining it. They outperformed the American and Soviet tanks when they were functioning properly. 

 

The only two things you mentioned that didn't have to do with faulty parts or poor maintenance was gun barrel length, periscope, and side armor. 

1. Side armor is always thin and weak to anti tank rifles. Only very heavy tanks (Tiger II, IS 2) were had good enougth side armor to resist anti tank weapons to the side. 

2. Gun length, tanks ALWAYS perform badly in confined spaces. Its so much easier to shoot a tank when you can hide behind a building and sneak up on it! Most armies had special vehicles for urban warfare. Germany had some, but due to shortages often had to use improper tanks for urban combat. 

3. The periscope, okay that just sounds like a design flaw. I'll admit that one.


Edited by harley001, Mar 20 2017 - 12:12.


PrimarchRogalDorn #119 Posted Mar 20 2017 - 16:59

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 25 battles
  • 812
  • Member since:
    01-03-2017

View Postharley001, on Mar 20 2017 - 06:10, said:

 

Most of those issues come from faulty parts which I already mentioned was due to a resource short Germany.

 

German tanks were able to out perform american and soviet tanks. You could argue that soviet tanks had poor crews which was true. BUT they proved against western forces that their tanks were better. Its not me being a wehraboo in cases were a German panzer was able to engage in a tank vs tank battle or a ground based battle without pesky aircraft ruining it. They outperformed the American and Soviet tanks when they were functioning properly. 

 

The only two things you mentioned that didn't have to do with faulty parts or poor maintenance was gun barrel length, periscope, and side armor. 

1. Side armor is always thin and weak to anti tank rifles. Only very heavy tanks (Tiger II, IS 2) were had good enougth side armor to resist anti tank weapons to the side. 

2. Gun length, tanks ALWAYS perform badly in confined spaces. Its so much easier to shoot a tank when you can hide behind a building and sneak up on it! Most armies had special vehicles for urban warfare. Germany had some, but due to shortages often had to use improper tanks for urban combat. 

3. The periscope, okay that just sounds like a design flaw. I'll admit that one.

 

Those flaws I mentioned weren't caused by faulty parts. The transmission and final drive failures were caused because those were designed poorly. For example: the final drives used straight-cut gears. An advantage of straight-cut gears is that it takes less time to make them. Downsides are that they can't handle as much of a load as helical-cut gears. On top of this the final drives and transmission were designed for a tank weighing 30-33 tonnes, not 45.

 

German tanks will outperform Soviet or American ones? That's why they lost at Arracourt with fairly minimal casualties in the American side, that's why Tiger IIs got knocked out by T-34-85's on their first combat use in the Eastern Front.

 

I brought up the side armor because the IS-2 weighs nearly the same as a Panther yet doesn't have that problem. When your 45 tonne tank is vulnerable to antitank rifles that the people you're fighting against happen to have a lot of, that's not good.

True.


Edited by PrimarchRogalDorn, Mar 20 2017 - 23:29.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users