A Terrible Day in History :(

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[Thtb]

Someone was stuh/g/Puma spamming then

[Armandillo]

Someone was stuh/g/Puma spamming then

yeah he should be concentrating in ostwind spam

[acker]

I don't know the actual numbers myself but he is talking about tank on tank battles, so he could be right. Allied air superiority kick the crap out of German armour which is probably where your getting your numbers from.

What about the Allied tanks killed by Panzerfausts, 88s, and Paks?

Allied air superiority kicked the crap out of soft-skinned vehicles, which delays tanks, which kicks the crap out of armor/mechanized divisions. But Allied air superiority did not kick the crap out of tanks. I'm willing to bet that German 88mms took out at least twice as many tanks in comparison to Allied air superiority.

What you don't realize is that pure tank on tank battles don't exist in terms of statistics. No one in his right mind/right tools charges six Shermans at an entrenched Tiger to take it out. One calls down artillery fire, roots out the Tiger, then takes it out as it repositions. The Germans thought the same way as well, anywhere from 15% to 60% of total Allied tank casualties came from AT guns and mines, with a further 5-10% from handheld AT weapons. Hell, in Russia, the Germans destroyed the vast majority of Russian tanks with artillery fire (up until 1942-43). However, since the total statistics vary so much, and are rarely accurate, it's impossible to tell which ones are from tanks, and which ones are from other causes. Therefore, the only real way to tell tank losses is from total losses, which are caused by *gasp* combined arms.

So, how did he figure out a 6:1/5:1 ratio? Please don't say memoirs/anecdotes.

More importantly, a 6:1 Sherman to Tiger/Panther death ratio pretty much means that the Allied breakthrough through France took place with negative numbers of tanks (even accounting for Allied production). It also means that no Stug, Panzer IV, Marder, etc. ever took out a Allied Sherman in Normandy.

[UnLimiTeD]

But there existed quite a few battles where one side had only tanks, mostly in form of ambushes.
Not to mention Africa, where Hordes of M10s and Crusaders rushed through the dessert and hoped to kill dug in german Tanks by spped and sheer numbers.

[acker]

...But, in your example, the Axis had 88s and Paks almost every single time the Allies made a notable rush, and the Axis tanks were only sent in after the tank rush was crushed by AT fire. The percentage of Allied tanks destroyed by Axis AT fire is even higher in Africa than it is in Normandy, I believe. Something about the terrain, and Rommel's unorthodox usage of AT guns.

The Allies, incidentally, didn't have very many M10s in that time period. The "horde" generalization would probably be better suited to the numbers of Allied M4/M3 (light/medium) tanks.


Once again; since no reliable statistics are present for pure, uncomplicated tank vs. tank combat it's impossible to quantify how many tanks it took to kill a tank. Especially since practically all tank battles took place in a combined-arms universe.

[Bodybag2224-Armor]

They should use the PIAT.

[Prydain]

The percentage of Allied tanks destroyed by Axis AT fire is even higher in Africa than it is in Normandy, I believe. Something about the terrain, and Rommel's unorthodox usage of AT guns.

Tut tut tut. The rocky dust plains of North Africa where obstructions are the occasional larger than normal rock is different from the endless shrubbery and overgrowth of Normandy. AT guns where obviously going to be more effective in that situation, for both sides. Rommel did not use AT guns in some great effective way, that would not be up to him, don't give him credit for what he could not control.

The North Africa campaign was a great length of a scenario, the start of the campaign saw the Matilda as "the queen of the desert" and only dedicated anti-tank could take its thick armour on. When the Cruiser tanks became the mainstay of the force; AT guns had been so relied upon because of the Matilda that they did a lot of damage. When Lee and Grants (M3s to Americans) became available they where easy to hit because of their silhouette (something that plagued the Sherman too).

[acker]

Rommel came up with the rather risky tactic of pushing AT guns as far up as possible in order to increase hits. I'm also under the impression that he was the commander that unleashed the 88s in North Africa as well (though 88s had been used as AT guns in Russia before). Never knew the Allies had anything like the 88. Rommel may or may not have been suited for high command, but he was very, very good at small-scale warfare.

Though the Matilda did have thick armor, it was primarily armed with a 2-pounder gun. No real point in having all that armor if you can't kill anything. And, though the M3 Lee/Grant had a very high silhouette, the armor was quite adequate for the tank combat of the day, and the 75mm LV gun could nail any Axis tank of the time period at superior ranges (also had a 37mm gun, which kinda worked on anything smaller than a Panzer IV/III). The British were quite pleased to get M3s, even if they weren't up to par with, say, the Panzer IV 75mm HV.

The Sherman, with the commander's cupola, is roughly one shoe higher than a Panzer IV with a commander's cupola. No idea where you get "massive profile" from.

*Straying off-topic. Will shut up now.*

[Prydain]

Rommel came up with the rather risky tactic of pushing AT guns as far up as possible in order to increase hits.

Again, Rommel was a Field Marshal, in control of an army group, he did not control the teaching in military academys and therefore had no power over the placement of AT weapons, nor had he the time to position each AT gun like you suggest.

I'm also under the impression that he was the commander that unleashed the 88s in North Africa as well (though 88s had been used as AT guns in Russia before).

Now I don't know what your knowledge of the FlaK 36 (88) being used is but judging from this quote I assume you don't know that FlaK 36s where used as AT weaponry during the Spanish civil war and when Matilda I tanks broke through German lines in the Battle of Arras the FlaK 36 was the only anti-tank gun that could blunt the attack as PaK 36s could not penetrate the Matilda I.

Never knew the Allies had anything like the 88. Rommel may or may not have been suited for high command, but he was very, very good at small-scale warfare.

Actually any history GCSE passing student knows that Rommel was a man of pinpoint and focused warfare, this is far from stating that he was excellent at small scale warfare. Operation Compass was a great British success but stretched lines of supply and communication effectively halting a defensive line being formed and when British forces where moved from North Africa to defend Greece it created perfect situation for the Panzer Army Africa and the reinforced Italians.

Though the Matilda did have thick armor, it was primarily armed with a 2-pounder gun. No real point in having all that armor if you can't kill anything.

The 2 Pounder main armament was still effective against enemy tanks, the problem with the 2 Pounder was not its inability to defeat enemy tanks, it was more the problem of range against a weapon that could fire destructive rounds at a great distance, (ie the FlaK 36).

And, though the M3 Lee/Grant had a very high silhouette, the armor was quite adequate for the tank combat of the day, and the 75mm LV gun could nail any Axis tank of the time period at superior ranges (also had a 37mm gun, which kinda worked on anything smaller than a Panzer IV/III). The British were quite pleased to get M3s, even if they weren't up to par with, say, the Panzer IV 75mm HV.

The Lee was not well regarded by the Commonwealth, its high silhouette was a large drawback with few improvements over other models. However the MoD did request the Lee be upgraded to new standards which created the Grant, this was well liked but could not perform tasks other tanks could like effective zig-zagging under fire and forced charges at high speed like the Cruisers could.

The Sherman, with the commander's cupola, is roughly one shoe higher than a Panzer IV with a commander's cupola. No idea where you get "massive profile" from.

Who said "massive profile"? You are placing quotation marks around those words yet I did not write that at all. I said "something that plagued the Sherman too", its silhouette that I am talking about, the surface area that a Sherman presents. I have seen both Panzer IVs and Shermans used in the 1960s in Israel, I have seen Fireflys on display in the UK and I can tell you that little margin of size is quite recognisable.

[acker]

...And thank you for making me break my word for this topic. I'm neglecting homework for this, dammit.


Rommel was in control of an Army Group. He did not teach tactics in academies. However, I can't for the life of me see how these two things contradict the following: that he pushed his AT guns up as far as possible in order to kill tanks. Or does something about command of an Army Group and tactics in academies prevent field expediency?


Your next statement is irrelevant, and has no bearing on what I said.


Are you trying to imply that Rommel wasn't excellent at small-scale warfare? Or are you trying to imply that he was better at large-scale warfare than I might have suggested? I don't know the purpose of this paragraph.


2-pounder stats:

http://www.tarrif.net/cgi/production/all_penetration_adv.php
http://www.achtungpanzer.com/panzerkampfwagen-iii.htm

In short: The most powerful 2-pounder cannon commonly available to the British Army could penetrate 52 millimeters of armor at 500 meters. The Panzer III H (1940-41) and the Panzer III J/L (1942)  had 30+30 mm and 50+20 mm of frontal armor respectively. That said, the 2-pounder could penetrate up to 66 mm of armor at 100 meters...if the tank got that close...in the desert. The inadequate HE shell is also a bigger problem, considering that enemy AT guns>enemy tanks in terms of kills. I'm also quite certain that the Panzer III H/J was the most prevalent tank in North Africa. Let's not forget the relatively common usage of the Panzer IV.

So, how was the 2-pounder not outdated? In comparison to, say, the 6-pounder or 75mm?


I didn't specify the M3 Grants for the last sentence. Damn. That's actually a pretty big slipup *I'm not being sarcastic here*. Btw, the Cruiser-class tank in existence at this time was primarily armed with a 2-pounder gun (perfect against AT guns/tanks *I am being sarcastic over here*), and had 32 mm of armor. It also suffered from mechanical problems. About the only thing it could do was go really fast. I don't think I can name even a semi-prevalent British tank that's armed with anything larger than a 2-pounder gun before El Alamein (the famous one, not the other one).

The M3 outclasses British tanks in firepower and maintenance. Armor, too (51 mm), unless you consider the Valentine (65 mm), which was armed with a 2-pounder (The Grant had 76 mm on the upper turret front, but still 51 mm otherwise). Considering that the 75mm could kill any German tank up to and somewhat beyond El Alamein from a minimum distance of 1,000 meters, armor isn't too much of a problem, nor is mobility. It has a very good HE round, too. About the only bad things about it were the profile and limited turret traverse (if the Axis tanks ever managed to get that close). Up to the Panzer IV 75mm HV, that is.

A note: shooting while moving was an exercise in futility up to the invention of the gyroscopic stabilizer. And even then, pretty tricky.


I misquoted you...once again, sorry.

I've seen those tanks, too (well, not the Isreali ones, and a normal M4A3, not a Firefly)! Now, seriously, did you consider the distance between the tracks in relation to the height? Because the Sherman is considerably more narrow than the other tank, and that causes size distortion. Something about the way the brain is wired. But I can't read your mind. Maybe you can sort stuff like that out.


BACK TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTION THAT AFRICA WAS ORIGINALLY SUPPOSED TO SHOW: HOW CAN YOU QUANTIFY TANK VS. TANK ACTIONS WHEN ACCURATE STATISTICS DO NOT EXIST? I don't care much for Africa, I just want to type about the question.

[salan]

i do enjoy reading the discussion eitherway

[Krazytym]

I think Im going to post a screnie of puddin' dead vet 3 tiger tank...=D

[Unkn0wn]

Puddin actually got a unit to vet 3?
Sound the alarm!

[Thtb]

Matching the Thread title of course

Say yeah Puddin: