World War II in colour

[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

[brn4meplz]

Or firing some of the Artillery you have massed in reserve trenches at the obscene rate of 3 guns to every metre of frontage.

[Akranadas]

or just used a tank buster plane like the mosquito. Which could fire it's bullets under the tanks, so they would deflect up into the unarmoured belly.

[Malevolence]

Watching that vid its not like Company of Heroes where tanks take about 11 shells of fire. 2 shells and that panther is out.

Depends on luck, mostly. There are times when tanks can take direct hits and it penetrates, or direct hits and it glances off. Hell I've seen pictures of the aftermath of a shell penetrating the coaxial machine gun (extremely lucky hit) on a Pershing, or taking off the muzzle brake at the end of the barrel. Spalling isn't that huge a deal if it doesn't penetrate, though - most tanks were designed properly so that a non penetrating hit wouldn't shred the interior with shrapnel, but penetrating spalling killed the crew very often, as well as did things like set off the ammunition stores.

Really it's all about where the gun hits, followed by how strong it is. German tanks had a very big weakness in the rear left track, if you could hit them there - only about 20mm of armor between your gun and the ammo box.

Then again, sometimes you can get penetrating hits that do nothing at all...

or just used a tank buster plane like the mosquito. Which could fire it's bullets under the tanks, so they would deflect up into the unarmoured belly

That never actually happened, it was likely some pilots talking bravado and how awesome they were at killing tanks. Allied air command claimed that it destroyed roughly four times the total number of german tanks built during the entire war according to its pilots, after all.

Also a mosquito was more of a precision bomber/night fighter/long range support plane than a tank killer, generally speaking.

[AmPM]

You want a real tank buster, you get the IL-2.

[bristiler]

i doubt many question rommel...

I heard enough times in my college history class about the allied shipping being on the brink due to uboats.  wonder how many we could have lost and still managed.

the factories were frinishing liberty ships, which were the main cargo ship in WW2 at least one a day, so we were in no trouble as far as ships go.

Quote
or just used a tank buster plane like the mosquito. Which could fire it's bullets under the tanks, so they would deflect up into the unarmoured belly

That never actually happened, it was likely some pilots talking bravado and how awesome they were at killing tanks. Allied air command claimed that it destroyed roughly four times the total number of german tanks built during the entire war according to its pilots, after all.

While Im not saying it did happen the germans could have been pulling their tanks back and repairing them. The russians did this quite succesfully, however I do not believe the germans used this method.

[Akranadas]

It's not that if didn't happen, but it happened enough to make the German Army scared to move their tanks via roads.

[gamesguy2]

The resources were probably piling up because the Brits were sinking the ships and the Luftwaffe can only airlift so much in a day.

Someday you should try transporting fuel and munitions for 200 tanks across enemy water.

And Rommel sure made do with what he had.

Nope. Completely wrong.

1. Luftwaffe wasn't airlifting shit.

2. The Italians controlled the med more or less.  They had their own pearl harbor style attack except with frogmen planting demo charges on British battleships in harbor and sank quite a few.   As a consequence Rommel got all his supplies delivered straight to Africa.

3. The supplies were piling up in port in Africa because the German army did not have the logistics to move all those supplies from port across the desert to the army.

4. Rommel was a terrible strategist, he over-extended himself and got into a massive set piece battle that hugely favored the British and lost the campaign.

[gamesguy2]

Watching that vid its not like Company of Heroes where tanks take about 11 shells of fire. 2 shells and that panther is out.

a tiger tank took 120+ shells to its hull and managed to destroy 12 shermans (prolly more since i saw this about 2 weeks ago and cant remember exactly)

Panthers and tigers were vastly overrated.  The men crewing them mattered much more than the tank itself.

In 1954 the US Army's Ballistics Research Laboratory conducted a study of tank vs tank engagements fought by the 3rd and 4th Armored Divisions from August to December 1944.

98 engagements were identified, including 33 from the Ardennes fighting. The typical engagement involved 9 US Shermans against 4 German AFVs. Only 1/3 of the total involved more then 3 German AFVs. The average range Shermans inflicted kills on the panzers was 893yds, and the panzers averaged kills at 946yds.

The study concluded that the most important factor was spotting and shooting first. Defenders fired first 84% of all engagement, inflicting 4.3 times more casualties on the attackers then suffered. When the attackers fired first, they inflicted 3.6 times as many casualties on the defenders compared to own losses.

29 engagements involved Panthers and Shermans. The Shermans had an average numerical advantage of 1.2:1. The data showed the Panther was 1.1 times as effective as the Sherman in defense, but the Sherman was a whopping 8.4 times more effective then the Panther when on the defense. Overall, the Sherman was 3.6 times as effective as the Panther in all engagements.

There is a good reason for that.  As American troops were often far better trained at this stage than the wehrmahct, and the sherman had quite a few not so obvious advantages that you don't normally see if you just did a straight up comparison of armor and firepower.   For example, the sherman had a state of the art wide-scope range-finder that enabled it to rapid identify and engage targets.    This allowed it to get off the first shot most of the time, and the first shot in tank combat is often the decisive shot.

More info below:

3rd Armored fought 14 engagements before Ardennes, and 17 after. 4th Armored fought 34 actions from 19 Sept to 6 December.

According to Table II, the most common type of engagement was Shermans defending against Panthers, and the Shermans fired first. in 19 engagements, involving 104 Shermans and 93 Panthers, 5 Shermans were destroyed compared to 57 Panthers.

The second most common engagement was US Tank destroyers defending against Panthers, with the TDs firing first. In 11 engagements, involving 61 TDs and 19 Panthers, 1 TD was lost compared to all 19 Panthers.

The most successful enemy weapon was antitank guns defending. In 9 engagements (3rd most common), 19 a/t guns inflicted 25 casualties on 104 total attacking Shermans, losing 3 guns in exchange.

The 4th most common engagement was Shermans attacking Panthers, and the Shermans fired first. In 5 actions a total of 41 Shermans fought 17 Panthers, losing 2 and taking 12 Panthers in return.

One table gives the average ranges for 6 areas of battle. The one with the longest average range of allied casualties, Arracourt, 1260yds, also had the most German casualties by far, 74, more then twice the next most Germans losses at Sarre (35) with an average range of 1116 yds for each allied kill. The least number of Germans casualties came with the shortest average distance to allied tank losses, 476 yds. No German tanks were lost against 26 allied tanks at Stollberg.

As you can see, the whole "german tanks were better at long range!" is a myth.   Ironically, the longer the range, the worse the German tanks do.   Because they had shitty range finding equipment, American tanks had a much easier time identifying and targetting a german tank at long range than the vice versa.     Arracourt, which is the biggest tank battle in the western theatre(and arguably biggest tank battle in the entire war), proved decisively that superior allied training was the deciding factor.

During the Lorraine campaign in September 1944, the German 5th Panzer Corps massed the largest concentration of German tanks seen since the battles at Caen and Mortain in July 1944. This counterattack force included over 300 tanks, with the majority being new Panther tanks.

Their opponent was the 4th Armoured Division, known as "Patton's Best", a well trained, well-led division which had become battle hardened since the fighting for Coutances in July 1944. From 19 to 22 September 1944, the 4th Armored Division broke the back of the German counteroffensive near Arracourt, destroying 107 tanks and 30 assault guns for the loss of only 14 M4 tanks and 7 M5A1 light tanks.

Two of the new panzer brigades were wiped out in the fighting, and by the end of the fighting for Arracourt, the 4th Armored Division had destroyed 285 German tanks and armoured vehicles for the loss of 25 medium tanks and 7 tank destroyers.

The myth of German tank superiority is just that, a myth.  In reality Americans won the vast majority of tank battles and with favorable kill ratios as well.    Its telling that the most dangerous anti-tank weapon of the nazis was the panzerfaust, and the most effective tank was the humble stug.    Panthers and tigers were fancy but in reality they weren a waste of money.   

Everyone talks about how a wittman's tiger ambushed a convoy of tanks and trucks and destroyed 20 or whatever.  No one talks about how four M-18s attacked a panzer division and with superior tactics and mobility destroyed over 30 tanks including tigers and panthers, stalling the entire German attack for several days.

[BigDick]

Watching that vid its not like Company of Heroes where tanks take about 11 shells of fire. 2 shells and that panther is out.

a tiger tank took 120+ shells to its hull and managed to destroy 12 shermans (prolly more since i saw this about 2 weeks ago and cant remember exactly)

Panthers and tigers were vastly overrated.  The men crewing them mattered much more than the tank itself.

Tigers Vs Shermans = like my Dick vs yours  ?

[brn4meplz]

When it comes to tanks equipment makes a huge difference, Especially in an era when they were first starting to use slopped armour, It essentially turns the armour into twice it's thickness against level shots. So don't even try saying the tanks themselves didn't matter.

[gamesguy2]

Watching that vid its not like Company of Heroes where tanks take about 11 shells of fire. 2 shells and that panther is out.

a tiger tank took 120+ shells to its hull and managed to destroy 12 shermans (prolly more since i saw this about 2 weeks ago and cant remember exactly)

Panthers and tigers were vastly overrated.  The men crewing them mattered much more than the tank itself.

Tigers Vs Shermans = like my Dick vs yours  ?

Seek therapy.

[gamesguy2]

When it comes to tanks equipment makes a huge difference, Especially in an era when they were first starting to use slopped armour, It essentially turns the armour into twice it's thickness against level shots. So don't even try saying the tanks themselves didn't matter.

Reality has an allied biase.

This is exactly what I mean when I say people just look at armor and firepower and ignore everything else.   Thats foolish.  Allied tanks broke down much less often resulting in more tanks at the front actually fighting.  Allied tanks had superior equipment such as the rangefinder I mentioned.

In reality superior allied training meant they won the majority of battles and with favorable kill ratios.   For example, battle of Arracourt, 4th armored division consisting of mostly shermans took on 5th panzer corp consisting of mostly panthers and lost 21 tanks in exchange for 107 German tanks(mostly panthers) and 31 assault guns(stugs).   

[AmPM]

The advantages of the Sherman were speed, ease of use and repair/upkeep, the rangefinder, and its gyrostabilized gun.

These things allowed allied armor to close range in order to get side and rear shots that they NEEDED to penetrate tanks like the Tiger and Panther short of using a dedicated heavy TD (m-36, etc.).

If you want to see how these tanks perform vs roughly equal tanks to the Sherman in open country, look at North Africa, or the Eastern Front.

The advantages of range and hitting power were lost in the relatively close combat of the West.

Its why my love has always been for the STuG (Wittman's first command) and other self propelled guns and TDs.

The STuG and Hetzer were some of the finest designs to come out of German, hell, the STuG III served from the Battle of France till 1945 with only a slight up armoring and change from a short 7.5cm to a long 7.5cm.

Fantastic equipment there.

That and the big ones are hot too, the Nashorn/Hornisse with its long Pak43, one of the few vehicles to kill an m26 Pershing in combat.

The reality is, most German tank design was for fighting the Russians, they were made to be used with long open ranges of fire, not for the battlefields of Europe.

However, the earlier designs, like the Panzer IV, STuG and other tank destroyers did well.

[brn4meplz]

I never said ignore anything else but if you think That the vehicle your riding in doesn't matter then your retarded. All through history the equipment has mattered, Egyptian chariots=garbage, Roman Chariots=fantatic awesome vehicles of awesomeness.

in the battle you cited The Panzer group had already been through several months of supply and equipment shortarges, Manpower depletion's, even barely escaping the Falaise pocket, The replacements they received to reformulate their ranks were mere ghosts of the Tank crews who served in the opening and even the mid war years. Not to mention the Panzer groups commander at the time had ony been on the western front for 2 weeks at the time of the battle. He fought Russians for the entire war almost, Soviet tactics differ greatly from British and American ones. I can't fault them for getting mauled by a Armoured division that had extensive training and combat experience. Theres too many factors in play to say it was only... THIS, or only THAT. Battles are won and lost on the most mundane things, While training and experience account for a lot the equipment your using makes a good portion of your potential a tangible asset.

[AmPM]

As for supplies building up in Tunisia, and who had control of the Med, the allies actually sank most everything sent across it.

How? They had broken German encryption and knew when, where, and what was being shipped. They would then send a recon plane to spot the convoy (so as not to tip there hand) and then sink the ships.

I've actually been reading about the North African campaign from the allied side recently.

The Americans had an even worse logistics problems on the march from Morocco to Tunisia. Rommel lost when it became a 2 front war with him in the middle. Actually, the allies did really badly in Africa, but it was where they learned all their lessons.

[gamesguy2]

The advantages of range and hitting power were lost in the relatively close combat of the West.

Thats the exact opposite of what actually happened though.   In the tank battle with the longest average range(arracourt), the Germans got mauled.

In the tank battle with the shortest average range(Stollberg), the Germans lost nothing in exchange for 26 allied AFVs.

I never said ignore anything else but if you think That the vehicle your riding in doesn't matter then your retarded. All through history the equipment has mattered, Egyptian chariots=garbage, Roman Chariots=fantatic awesome vehicles of awesomeness.

in the battle you cited The Panzer group had already been through several months of supply and equipment shortarges, Manpower depletion's, even barely escaping the Falaise pocket, The replacements they received to reformulate their ranks were mere ghosts of the Tank crews who served in the opening and even the mid war years. Not to mention the Panzer groups commander at the time had ony been on the western front for 2 weeks at the time of the battle. He fought Russians for the entire war almost, Soviet tactics differ greatly from British and American ones. I can't fault them for getting mauled by a Armoured division that had extensive training and combat experience. Theres too many factors in play to say it was only... THIS, or only THAT. Battles are won and lost on the most mundane things, While training and experience account for a lot the equipment your using makes a good portion of your potential a tangible asset.

Training and tactics matter far more than equipment.   Korean war, where the outnumbered Chinese divisions overran American mechanized divisions with what amounted to little more than light infantry.  

6 day/Yom Kippur war, where the Israelis were outnumbered and often outgunned, with upgraded WWII tanks like the super sherman fighting against post war Soviet T55s and T62s.  

How about a more recent example, Israeli invasion of Lebanon.  Hezbollah light infantry with vastly inferior equipment but superior training, doctrine, and morale, beat the Israelis with their tanks and jets and artillery but who has long since forgotten how to fight a conventional war and has been training for counter-insurgency warfare for decades.

Can you find me a single war since WWII where a force with superior equipment but inferior training won over a force with superior training but inferior equipment?

[gamesguy2]

As for supplies building up in Tunisia, and who had control of the Med, the allies actually sank most everything sent across it.

How? They had broken German encryption and knew when, where, and what was being shipped. They would then send a recon plane to spot the convoy (so as not to tip there hand) and then sink the ships.

I've actually been reading about the North African campaign from the allied side recently.

The Americans had an even worse logistics problems on the march from Morocco to Tunisia. Rommel lost when it became a 2 front war with him in the middle. Actually, the allies did really badly in Africa, but it was where they learned all their lessons.

For the Americans that was their first land conflict since WWI, so obviously they're gonna have problems.   North Africa taught the allies a lot, and by 1944 the American army had much better tactics and training than they did in North Africa.   The American war machine at that point haven't kicked into gear yet.  By Normandy the Americans would have so many trucks its ridiculous.   

Rommel marched too far from his supply lines.  He should've halted his advance and dug in after the initial victories.

[Bubz]

nukes, rofl

[perfil02]

Lol, sherman optics weren't better than the german tanks ones, until 1943 the sherman optic was really bad, with a lot of stabilizing problems. Then the M-70 was developed, it had an effective range of 1000m, and it had many problems to use if was poiting next to the sun.
The german optic mounted on PIV TZF 5f (2,5x24º) was made of 2 mobile parts, escaled for Gr34 and the Mg from (0 to 3400m).

More than 6000 sherman tanks were lost during the campaing, some units as the 3rd Armored Division suffered 580% of its strenght looses.

[AmPM]

We're not arguing about whose tactics and training were better. You were stating that German tanks were not as superior machines as people think.

In what matters during a fight, they were. Where they lacked was in logistics for those vehicles.

Given equal numbers, training and command, you would have a German victory.

As seen when the Germans fought the British and French in the Battle of France, it wasn't lack of training or a difference in equipment that proved the defeat of the French and British, it was their strategic use of the tanks.

I found these to be interesting factoids.

During the First Army breakthrough battles in July and August, the 2d Armored Division tankers had learned how to fight German Panther and Tiger tanks with their M4 Shermans. They knew that the ammunition of the 75-mm. gun with which most of the M4's were armed (a low-velocity shell about 13 inches long, as compared with the 28- to 30-inch high-velocity 75-mm. shell of the Panthers) would not penetrate at any range the thick frontal armor of the Panthers and Tigers, but could damage the sides and rear. Therefore the tankers had used wide encircling movements, engaging the enemy's attention with one platoon of tanks while another platoon attacked from the rear. They had suffered appalling losses: between 26 July and 12 August, for example, one of 2d Armored Division's tank battalions had lost to German tanks and assault guns 51 percent of its combat personnel killed or wounded and 70 percent of its tanks destroyed or evacuated for fourth echelon repair. But by using flanking tactics and by enlisting artillery support to fire directly on enemy tanks, the Americans had won their battles and even managed to inflict heavy losses on the Germans.

-Chapter 17, On Ordnance Department: On Beachhead and Battlefront, US Army.

The Opposing Weapons Although winter in the Ardennes placed severe limitations on the use of armor, the tank was a major weapon in the hands of both antagonists. The Sherman tank, a medium of the thirty-ton class, bore the brunt of all American armored action, while the light tank was relegated to minor tactical tasks. The Sherman (M4) was battle tested, and most of the mechanical bugs had been removed. Its major weakness-tank gun and armor-by this time were well appreciated by the user. . . .



The Germans had a family of three main battle tanks. The Mark IV, which received its first real combat test in May 1940, weighed twenty-seven tons, had somewhat less armor than the Sherman, about the same maximum road speed, and a tank gun comparable in weight of projectile and muzzle velocity to the 76-mm. American tank gun but superior to the short-barreled 75-mm.


The Panther, Mark V, had proved itself during 1944 but still was subject to mechanical failures which were well recognized but which seemingly could not be corrected in the hasty German production schedules. This tank had a weight of fifty tons, a superiority in base armor of one-half to one inch over the Sherman, good mobility and flotation, greater speed, and a high-velocity gun superior even to the new American 76-mm. tank gun.


The Tiger, Mark VI, had been developed as an answer to the heavy Russian tank but had encountered numerous production difficulties (it had over 26,000 parts) and never reached the field in the numbers Hitler desired. The original model weighed fifty-four tons, had thicker armor than the Panther, including heavy top armor as protection against air attack, was capable of a speed comparable to the Sherman, and mounted a high-velocity 88-mm. cannon. A still heavier Mark VI, the King Tiger, had an added two to four inches of armor plate. Few of this model ever reached the Ardennes, although it was commonly reported by American troops.


Exact figures on German tank strength are not available, but it would appear that of the estimated 1,800 panzers in the Ardennes battle some 250 were Tigers and the balance was divided equally between the Mark IV and the Panther. Battle experience in France, which was confirmed in the Ardennes, gave the Sherman the edge over the Mark IV in frontal, flank, and rear attack. The Panther often had been beaten by the Sherman during the campaign in France, and would be defeated on the Ardennes battleground, but in nearly all cases of a forthright tank engagement the Panther lost only when American numerical superiority permitted an M4 to get a shot at flank or tail. Insofar as the Tiger was concerned, the Sherman had to get off a lucky round or the result would be strictly no contest.


Chapter XXV, The Ardennnes: Battle of the Bulge, US Army.