44 replies to this topic

[S3dition]

Just an interesting tidbit. Note that this guy was paid to go around to many countries and declassify old and forgotten archives. He compiled an enormous amount of data and has released them episodally as Down the Chieftain's Hatch. He's done an immense amount to further historical understanding and accuracy. In this series specifically he dispels many long running myths about US armor in WW2. It's certainly worth a watch for anyone interested in historical or tank warfare:

[Tank]

US stop making myths about me....

But thank you for the video - will defiantly watch.

[Anjian]

To be more precise, he works for Wargaming.net, who does the World of Tanks, Planes and Warships. He is sort of a loremaster for them. Wargaming has a staff that goes around museums and around different countries, researching archives that can be used for let's say creating new vehicles for WoT and WoWS. This includes sketches and proposals for vehicles that will forever remain stillborn.

[The Great Unwashed]

Took about 20 minutes before I heard anything new, but then it got really interesting!

Edited by The Great Unwashed, 06 October 2015 - 05:23 AM.

[S3dition]

The Great Unwashed, on 06 October 2015 - 05:23 AM, said:

Took about 20 minutes before I heard anything new, but then it got really interesting!

Yeah, a lot of it I've already been preaching. But there are still some good nuggets of info there.

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

I've seen this. I've also written a 20 page paper on why the M4 Sherman was one of the best tanks of the war.

The arguments he makes are also the arguments I made in my WW2 History class paper. Needless to say, my teacher was impressed, she usually got papers talking about Allied aircraft or how the German tanks were god-tier.

[Anjian]

Just so long you don't play Shermans on WoT or War Thunder. I keep a collection of them actually, and it doesn't take long to find out severe problems in tank to tank PvP combat.

1. They are a bit high, which makes them easy to get picked off.

2. Tiger tanks have flat armor, but experienced drivers know how to angle the tank when they face you. That dramatically increases their slope facing you, and their effective thickness. The 75mm M3 and 76mm M1 guns on the Shermans have trouble penetrating a Tiger 1 tank when angled; the 75mm M3 won't penetrate them at all even at the front and at a close distance. The Shermans have to hit them at the side.

3. I was wondering how my Shermans keep blowing up so easy in War Thunder. Fortunately the game has an instant replay with 3D cut away views of the tank for post mortem analysis (awesome game feature) that shows you how the shell penetrates and what components it would hit. Turns out the Sherman has ammo stores in the front corners of the tank, as well as on the side. The front might be sloped armor but the sides are flat and thin. A shell hit on the side that goes through, and you get an instant ammo racking. On the later models of the Sherman like the E8, the ammo stores are relocated more towards the center of the tank. The weak flanks also compromise the ability of the Sherman to do armor angling as well as doing peek a boos on corners, since its the flank corner of the tank that becomes visible when you peek. You really need to face your enemy to the front.

4. The 76mm M1 has problems trying to penetrate the sloped frontal armor of the Panther. Won't penetrate the Tiger 2 at all. These would require HVAP (APCR) use. However HVAP are solid shots (no explosive filler), their needle point shape means its more prone to deflection than a more blunt regular APHEBC round, their light weight and non aerodynamic shape also means they lose more energy in flight at longer distances, which lessens their penetration in relation to the APHEBC round. The regular APHEBC round on the 76mm M1 does not have as much burst charge filler as the shells used by the Germans and Russians, which reduces the chance of a single hit knockout. There is no perfect gun on the Sherman, the gun with the good explosive filler doesn't do good penetration (75mm M3) and the gun with good penetration doesn't have good explosive filler (76mm M1). But the German 75mm KwK 40 and 42 has no such issues, and neither is the Russian 85mm ZiS and D-5T. The issues with the guns, leads to many Sherman players to use the tank with the 105mm howitzer for "derp". This has a really powerful HE shell that explodes on contact, or an HEAT shell for penetration.

5. The Pershing in a way, is already obsolete when it reached the front lines. The German 88mm guns on the Tiger 1 and Tiger 2 has no problems penetrating it, and so does the 75mm KwK 42 on the Panther, all using regular APHEBC. The Pershing can be penetrated by the Panzer IV's 75mm KwK 40 using APCR or the Russian 85mm D-5T or ZiS-3 (T-34-85) using APCR. No way in hell it could face up to the IS-2's 122mm cannon. The Pershing's 90mm cannon though, is absolute boss. The tank has to be played like a glass cannon.

6. The narrow tracks on the Sherman tends to dig deep on soft terrain (like some maps in War Thunder), which lessens speed. It feels more sluggish compared to a T-34, the latter tank is very good for quick rushes.

7. The Shermans are best used in a hull down position, which makes use of the tank's good gun depression, and allows the gun to peep over the hump. This way it minimizes the tank's height and increases the slope of the hull armor. The gun mantlet though on the turret is prone to penetrations however.

Edited by Anjian, 10 October 2015 - 07:53 PM.

[S3dition]

Anjian, on 10 October 2015 - 07:48 PM, said:

Just so long you don't play Shermans on WoT or War Thunder. I keep a collection of them actually, and it doesn't take long to find out severe problems in tank to tank PvP combat.

1. They are a bit high, which makes them easy to get picked off.

2. Tiger tanks have flat armor, but experienced drivers know how to angle the tank when they face you. That dramatically increases their slope facing you, and their effective thickness. The 75mm M3 and 76mm M1 guns on the Shermans have trouble penetrating a Tiger 1 tank when angled; the 75mm M3 won't penetrate them at all even at the front and at a close distance. The Shermans have to hit them at the side.

3. I was wondering how my Shermans keep blowing up so easy in War Thunder. Fortunately the game has an instant replay with 3D cut away views of the tank for post mortem analysis (awesome game feature) that shows you how the shell penetrates and what components it would hit. Turns out the Sherman has ammo stores in the front corners of the tank, as well as on the side. The front might be sloped armor but the sides are flat and thin. A shell hit on the side that goes through, and you get an instant ammo racking. On the later models of the Sherman like the E8, the ammo stores are relocated more towards the center of the tank. The weak flanks also compromise the ability of the Sherman to do armor angling as well as doing peek a boos on corners, since its the flank corner of the tank that becomes visible when you peek. You really need to face your enemy to the front.

4. The 76mm M1 has problems trying to penetrate the sloped frontal armor of the Panther. Won't penetrate the Tiger 2 at all. These would require HVAP (APCR) use. However HVAP are solid shots (no explosive filler), their needle point shape means its more prone to deflection than a more blunt regular APHEBC round, their light weight and non aerodynamic shape also means they lose more energy in flight at longer distances, which lessens their penetration in relation to the APHEBC round. The regular APHEBC round on the 76mm M1 does not have as much burst charge filler as the shells used by the Germans and Russians, which reduces the chance of a single hit knockout. There is no perfect gun on the Sherman, the gun with the good explosive filler doesn't do good penetration (75mm M3) and the gun with good penetration doesn't have good explosive filler (76mm M1). But the German 75mm KwK 40 and 42 has no such issues, and neither is the Russian 85mm ZiS and D-5T. The issues with the guns, leads to many Sherman players to use the tank with the 105mm howitzer for "derp". This has a really powerful HE shell that explodes on contact, or an HEAT shell for penetration.

5. The Pershing in a way, is already obsolete when it reached the front lines. The German 88mm guns on the Tiger 1 and Tiger 2 has no problems penetrating it, and so does the 75mm KwK 42 on the Panther, all using regular APHEBC. The Pershing can be penetrated by the Panzer IV's 75mm KwK 40 using APCR or the Russian 85mm D-5T or ZiS-3 (T-34-85) using APCR. No way in hell it could face up to the IS-2's 122mm cannon. The Pershing's 90mm cannon though, is absolute boss. The tank has to be played like a glass cannon.

6. The narrow tracks on the Sherman tends to dig deep on soft terrain (like some maps in War Thunder), which lessens speed. It feels more sluggish compared to a T-34, the latter tank is very good for quick rushes.

7. The Shermans are best used in a hull down position, which makes use of the tank's good gun depression, and allows the gun to peep over the hump. This way it minimizes the tank's height and increases the slope of the hull armor. The gun mantlet though on the turret is prone to penetrations however.

You REALLY shouldn't base your info off video games.

Good tank drivers don't know where the enemy is going to be in order to angle their tank. Real life doesn't have a HUD that points out the enemy.

The Sherman was high, yes. Whether or not this is a disadvantage is situational. In general, it would have been better to have a lower profile. But as far as foibles go, there are worse.

The tracks were small, but many tanks had small tracks. Wider tend to be better, but smaller tracks also reduce a lot of weight, and the Shermans could cross bridges that German and heavier Soviet tanks couldn't.

The Pershing wasn't obsolete. All tanks could have their armor penetrated. Every tank today can have its armor penetrated. The brand new T14 can have its armor penetrated. That does not indicate obsolesce. The 90mm on the Pershing could penetrate the armor on the Tiger as well. HVAP rounds from the 76 could penetrate the Tiger. It wasn't obsolete, it was just wasn't a very good tank for the cost and size, which is why we used the Sherman.

Shermans were fast and had decent gyroscopic stabilizers. They were best used on the offensive and their performance was solid.

You really should NEVER base your information on a game. The rules do not reflect reality, but a method to sell tanks and premium time. It is not an indication of any sort of reality.

[Anjian]

The height problem is a problem because the turret doesn't deflect shots, and the gun mantlet provides little protection at all. In contrast the German gun mantlets puts a layer of armor over the turret armor, to create a spaced armor effect.

Part of being a good tank crew is having superior situational awareness. In games, this basic attribute is further maximized. Its the one skill that prevents you from getting one shotted all of a sudden.

Actually the T-34, Tiger 1 and II tanks, and the Panthers have wide tracks. The Germans learned that from the Soviets, that wide tracks improved mobility vastly on softer ground by lowering the track pressure per square inch, which makes the tank float a bit more even on soft ground. From then on, everyone had wide tracks. The wide tracks proved decisive in the Ostfront, and particularly around the Baltics where there are bogs and swamps.

When the Pershing came out, it can already be penetrated by existing guns using standard APHEBC. That's usually not a good idea. If the Pershing requires HVAP to penetrate the Tiger II but the Tiger II only requires standard APHEBC, the Pershing is already in a serious disadvantage, since HVAP deployment is actually rare in the battlefield, and only few tanks gets to carry this expensive ammunition. Furthernmore, HVAP/APCR losses penetration and accuracy at range because they are lighter, have non aerodynamic profiles and lack an internal explosive filler which requires a spalling effect to kill a tank. Yet antispalling measures can be taken within a tank. It is also interesting to see the Pershing abandoned the Sherman suspension design and took a suspension design that looks almost literally, like the Panzer III's which the US was able to obtained a captured sample.

The Chieftain's presentation is also bizarre in a way when he showed those escape hatches. This is very bizarre, considering how many tanks he has shown those escape hatches from. For example, he showed only the early T-34 hatches, which makes it difficult to escape. What he didn't show was the LATER T-34 turrets had DUAL cupolas, which means two hatches that allows two people to escape at once, including the commander and the gunner. And the fact that later T-34s also have an escape hatch in the hull for the driver. Or the fact that the Panther has an escape hatch at the BACK of the turret in addition to the top, which enables the crew to escape without facing enemy fire from the front.

My impression with the Sherman is that its a good tank, if you are the winning army with overwhelming logistics, numbers and airpower. But its not a tank you might want to have when your side is losing or when you don't have the logistics at your side.

Edited by Anjian, 11 October 2015 - 12:19 AM.

[S3dition]

Anjian, on 11 October 2015 - 12:14 AM, said:

The height problem is a problem because the turret doesn't deflect shots, and the gun mantlet provides little protection at all. In contrast the German gun mantlets puts a layer of armor over the turret armor, to create a spaced armor effect.

Part of being a good tank crew is having superior situational awareness. In games, this basic attribute is further maximized. Its the one skill that prevents you from getting one shotted all of a sudden.

Actually the T-34, Tiger 1 and II tanks, and the Panthers have wide tracks. The Germans learned that from the Soviets, that wide tracks improved mobility vastly on softer ground by lowering the track pressure per square inch, which makes the tank float a bit more even on soft ground. From then on, everyone had wide tracks. The wide tracks proved decisive in the Ostfront, and particularly around the Baltics where there are bogs and swamps.

When the Pershing came out, it can already be penetrated by existing guns using standard APHEBC. That's usually not a good idea. If the Pershing requires HVAP to penetrate the Tiger II but the Tiger II only requires standard APHEBC, the Pershing is already in a serious disadvantage, since HVAP deployment is actually rare in the battlefield, and only few tanks gets to carry this expensive ammunition. Furthernmore, HVAP/APCR losses penetration and accuracy at range because they are lighter, have non aerodynamic profiles and lack an internal explosive filler which requires a spalling effect to kill a tank. Yet antispalling measures can be taken within a tank. It is also interesting to see the Pershing abandoned the Sherman suspension design and took a suspension design that looks almost literally, like the Panzer III's which the US was able to obtained a captured sample.

The Chieftain's presentation is also bizarre in a way when he showed those escape hatches. This is very bizarre, considering how many tanks he has shown those escape hatches from. For example, he showed only the early T-34 hatches, which makes it difficult to escape. What he didn't show was the LATER T-34 turrets had DUAL cupolas, which means two hatches that allows two people to escape at once, including the commander and the gunner. And the fact that later T-34s also have an escape hatch in the hull for the driver. Or the fact that the Panther has an escape hatch at the BACK of the turret in addition to the top, which enables the crew to escape without facing enemy fire from the front.

My impression with the Sherman is that its a good tank, if you are the winning army with overwhelming logistics, numbers and airpower. But its not a tank you might want to have when your side is losing or when you don't have the logistics at your side.

Situational awareness in tanks? LOL. Look at combined arms and armored doctrines for every country in the world, then get back to me. Then I'll explain why those huds are magic wizardry and belong with unicorns instead of real historical discussion.

The turret can and did deflect rounds. Look it up. Happened all the time.

I said it before your reply, but I'll say it again. All tank armor can be penetrated before they even release the prototype. All tank armor. ALL TANK ARMOR.

Name a single instance where a Pershing fought a Tiger II. So then why should anyone care? Furthermore, you're comparing a heavy tank to a medium tank. The Tiger II was nothing in the war. I'm pretty sure flies caused more problems for the allies in WW2 than Tigers did, and the Tiger II is totally irrelevant. What they did have, Panzer IVs, bounced rounds off of them. Do not bring up the old and tired "tiger vs everything all at once" argument. They were totally worthless in the scope of the war. It has been proven over and over again that the Panther was a mediocre tank and that Tigers were horrible tanks with a good gun.

When did I say nobody used wide tracks? I said a lot of other tanks had smaller tracks. Even today the BMP, Bradley, and M113 have smaller tracks (in fact, many IFVs). Lighter tanks require smaller tracks to remain the same compression area and pressure.

There is nothing bizarre about what he showed. The purpose was to outline the design methodology of the Sherman, which was crew first. What he did is what most people do in reverse - showing late year German and Soviet tanks vs early American tanks. You NEVER see people compare a 90mm jackson with what it, 99.9% of the time, would have fought. This outlines what actually happened - the US brought along a solid tank and nothing else that Germany built was ready for combat or as good as it was made out to be. They had some good stuff, some half baked stuff, and some horrible stuff they rushed into production out of desperation.

The British WERE losing in North Africa when we started giving them tanks. The PURPOSE of the M4's design was to make logistics easier. You need LESS logistics to repair and maintain them. The English struggled to maintain logistics. They were far, far, far more capable than you're putting them out to be. We didn't just start winning by default and "oh yeah, have tanks so might as well roflstomp". No, the tank is part of why we won. It was highly effective and better than anything Germany deployed. Panthers were mechanical failures with a transmission 15 tons too light. A lot of Tigers broke down 100m from where they were built and spent the rest of the war there. Others broke down so frequently they were just abandoned. Only a tiny handful of Tigers were ever combat ready.

And as he pointed out, air power was a non-factor in tank warfare.

Edited by S3dition, 11 October 2015 - 09:06 AM.

[jlawsl]

S3dition, on 11 October 2015 - 08:44 AM, said:

Situational awareness in tanks? LOL. Look at combined arms and armored doctrines for every country in the world, then get back to me. Then I'll explain why those huds are magic wizardry and belong with unicorns instead of real historical discussion.

The turret can and did deflect rounds. Look it up. Happened all the time.

I said it before your reply, but I'll say it again. All tank armor can be penetrated before they even release the prototype. All tank armor. ALL TANK ARMOR.

Name a single instance where a Pershing fought a Tiger II. So then why should anyone care? Furthermore, you're comparing a heavy tank to a medium tank. The Tiger II was nothing in the war. I'm pretty sure flies caused more problems for the allies in WW2 than Tigers did, and the Tiger II is totally irrelevant. What they did have, Panzer IVs, bounced rounds off of them. Do not bring up the old and tired "tiger vs everything all at once" argument. They were totally worthless in the scope of the war. It has been proven over and over again that the Panther was a mediocre tank and that Tigers were horrible tanks with a good gun.

When did I say nobody used wide tracks? I said a lot of other tanks had smaller tracks. Even today the BMP, Bradley, and M113 have smaller tracks (in fact, many IFVs). Lighter tanks require smaller tracks to remain the same compression area and pressure.

There is nothing bizarre about what he showed. The purpose was to outline the design methodology of the Sherman, which was crew first. What he did is what most people do in reverse - showing late year German and Soviet tanks vs early American tanks. You NEVER see people compare a 90mm jackson with what it, 99.9% of the time, would have fought. This outlines what actually happened - the US brought along a solid tank and nothing else that Germany built was ready for combat or as good as it was made out to be. They had some good stuff, some half baked stuff, and some horrible stuff they rushed into production out of desperation.

The British WERE losing in North Africa when we started giving them tanks. The PURPOSE of the M4's design was to make logistics easier. You need LESS logistics to repair and maintain them. The English struggled to maintain logistics. They were far, far, far more capable than you're putting them out to be. We didn't just start winning by default and "oh yeah, have tanks so might as well roflstomp". No, the tank is part of why we won. It was highly effective and better than anything Germany deployed. Panthers were mechanical failures with a transmission 15 tons too light. A lot of Tigers broke down 100m from where they were built and spent the rest of the war there. Others broke down so frequently they were just abandoned. Only a tiny handful of Tigers were ever combat ready.

And as he pointed out, air power was a non-factor in tank warfare.

I agree with most of what you say, but I must point out that even though confirmed anti tank kills by aircraft may have been minimal, their psychological impact was enough to make many German tank crews abandon their vehicles. They weren't in the day and age where news got around accurately or fast, so they most likely heard of massive fighter bomber strikes that wiped out entire units of German tanks. By the time the allies were on Normandy, the German military was already stretched thin and poorly trained at that point due to their failure in Russia, Africa and Italy. When you have a bunch of fresh guys in a tanks hear Thunderbolts and Hurricanes coming in for a strafing run, they most likely ditched the tank if it hadn't broken down on them already from the questionable workmanship from the beleaguered factories at the time. Add to that, the German's total lack of air support mid to late war and their ineffective armored brigade formations with little to no anti air support and you have a recipe for disaster, as they were subject to.

People tend to forget, America(for the most part) and Britain(as much as they could) were fighting the conflict all around the world at the time. They had to ship material and supplies over oceans and continents, while making parts readily available and easy to maintain. Germany and Russia, on the other hand had relatively smaller theaters of operation-Build a tank and put it on a train a few hundred miles from the factory and they were ready to drive to the front. It is most likely the reason why tanks like the German heavies were even noteworthy in theater. Tigers were first encountered by the Allies produced dismal results, especially in North Africa. As S3dition said, they had an excellent gun and good optics with slabs of questionable quality armor, everything else was plagues with problems, from the tracks to the transmission. By the time the bugs were worked out, allied bombing had taken its toll and production value decreased. The numbers of Tiger I and II as well as Panther tanks were a total non factor in the conflict overall. Tigers and Panther's total production numbered around 7800. Sherman and T-34 production easily beat that number by nearly twenty fold. The workhorses of German armor during WW2 are always relegated to side notes of these two tanks even though they had little to no impact on the conflict overall. The odds of meeting a Tiger or Panther in combat, especially on the western front were few and very far between.

I believe that things like the Jackson and the HVAP rounds could have been produced in greater quantity, but in the end, for all of their supposed "super" tanks(armored tractors with guns), the Third Reich thankfully fell less then a year after the Noramandy landings and less then 4 1/2 years after Germany's invasion of Russia(July 1941) and declaration of war against the US(Dec 1941). My real issue with early American tanks of WW2(mainly Shermans and previous models) were the front drive/rear engine designs that gave them a high profile and the lack of a good diesel engine. Other then that, the tanks performed well in every theater of the War, from the Pacific to the Russian front(lend lease) and all the way to Africa, Italy and the Western Front. A noteworthy achievement to say the least. I would pay to see a Tiger or Panther floundering in the South Pacific jungles and beaches. I bet nobody would be putting them on a high horse after seeing that disaster...that is if they didn't break down first on ship.

[Anjian]

S3 Edition, You are really full of BS.

To say that all tank armor can be penetrated is just BS. Quite frankly a lot of them won't be penetrated at range. You need to get close enough or hit them in the flanks. The Panther isn't going to be penetrated by the Sherman's 75mm M3 gun from the front. Heck, the Sherman's M3 gun won't penetrate the little Hetzer. When the Matilda came out, existing antitank guns had problems penetrating it. When the KV-1 first came out, existing guns (certainly what the Germans had then) had problems with it. When the Tiger 1 first came out, existing guns had problems with it (its not going to get penetrated at range by the Sherman 75mm M3 or the T-34's 76mm F34 gun or the KV-1's 76mm F32 or ZiS 5 or L-11 guns). When the IS-3 came out, existing guns would have problems with it including the 88mm L56 on the Tiger 1, and the 75mm KwK 42 of the Panther.

Let's go back to the Sherman.

Unlike the turrets in lets say, the T-34, the Sherman tank turret is not sloped both in the front and in the sides. That guarantees instant penetration. Jezus Christ, the Americans didn't get the idea of sloping turrets until the M48.

The flank of the Sherman tank isn't just tall, its flat and the armor is thin. If you notice some other tank design, their flank armor tends to be angled with the side exposure minimized. The Sherman on the flank is a barn door waiting to be shot.

Situational awareness? Tank units conduct their own recon. You don't charge, you survey.

Little tracks? Sigh. These vehicles you mention have small tracks because they prioritize internal space. It doesn't change that wider tracks give superior floatation over soft terrain and decrease pressure per square inch. Wide tracks gave the T-34 superior mobility over the Panzer III and IV that bogged down over marshes.

Tigers didn't cause any problems for the Allies? You probably think Allies is just US and UK. The vast amount of German tanks fought in the Eastern Front. In fact, comparing the tank battles in the west is roughly skirmishes. At the end of the Eastern War, the total amount of tanks lost to both sides over the years amounted to tens of thousands (83,500 Soviet vs 42,000 German --- compare that to the 6000 in the Europe for Germans, 12,000 for the Allies). By far most of the Tigers and Panthers were in the Eastern Front. For the most part, the Schwere Abeitlungs (Heavy Tank Battalions) performed extermely well, despite the circumstances, achieving kill ratios in excess of 10:1. (If you factor the Tigers lost were half to 2/3rds from mechanical breakdowns, the KDRs go up to 20:1)

The Tigers and the Panthers were a problem enough for the Soviets that they countered with upgunning the T-34 (T-34-85, which I consider probably the best medium tank of the war unless you want to claim the StuG III is a tank) and IS series.

Despite the small numbers of Tigers, the fact they had such a powerful psychological effect is a big problem since the Allies attribute every German tank they see as a Tiger. The Shermans are getting shot at by Panzer IVs, which when you have the spaced armor, gives it a look similar to a Tiger at a distance. The common 75mm KwK 40 L48s used by Panzer IVs and the StuGs (more tanks are killed by StuGs than any other AFV) readily penetrates the Sherman and just about every Allied tank in the war except for the IS tanks. Its also the reason why every antitank gun the Allies tend to see is an "88" despite the most common German antitank gun and one that is extremely effective is the 75mm PAK 40.

The Panther? I would rather be in a Panther than a Sherman. Why? Tanks are not for historians looking to prove some form of exceptionalism. Tanks are kill or be killed. Its really about better armor and a better gun in the end. I would rather have something with better armor and a better gun. Heck I would rather be in a Panther than a Tiger, the Panther's gun has better penetration and accuracy. And the King Tiger over the Panther, and the IS-3 over the King Tiger.

You should try participating in the tank discussions in the forums in World of Tank and War Thunder. I am not going to repeat again and again what's been talked about there. Everything you said has been already been long REBUKED over there.

It was the early Panthers (the D model) that was unreliable. What new weapons system that was brought to the war that never had teething problems. Whatever problems the first Panthers had, was quickly fixed in the later models, and in fact, the cost of making the later models have fallen that they barely cost more than a Panzer IV to make.

All tanks break down and break down a lot. But there were so many Shermans and T-34s, broken ones were quickly issued new ones as these were repaired.

As for the German tanks breaking down, here is another thing I found out from reading studies of their tank battalions. Its not about the tank being unreliable, but because the German logisitical chain has broken down to a point from air attack (many factories under Allied bombing), the supplies have thinned out, their maintenance depots constantly being attacked, making it very difficult to repair and maintain the tanks.

Yet despite these, there is quite a bit of parts standardization with the heavier German tanks. The Panther, the Tiger 1 and the Tiger II for instance, all use the same tracks and they have the same 700hp engine. The Sherman on the other hand, has four different engines (GMC vs. Continental vs. Ford vs. Chrysler). That's why the Shermans are labled A1, A2, A3 and A4. The engine on the British Sherman III and Firefly is a different engine from the ones used by the US Army (Chrysler vs. GM), and the Shermans given to the Soviet Army in the Lend Lease program, had different engines from the British and the US Army. Yet some of these A2s are also in the US Army. This is not a good logistics picture. Compare to that to the T-34, where the vast hordes are powered by one single engine type that is very easy to maintain and being diesel, quite economical and won't catch fire as easily. (The Chrysler engine used on the Shermans is a complicated multi bank engine that seems fit more for an aircraft, while the Ford V8 is surprisingly modern ---- all aluminum, multivalve per cylinder --- but also quite complex. All are gasoline engines that just drinks ton of gas.)

Edited by Anjian, 12 October 2015 - 12:04 AM.

[Heffay]

(Just kidding, I'm actually enjoying the back and forth... )

[S3dition]

Anjian, on 11 October 2015 - 10:53 PM, said:

S3 Edition, You are really full of BS.

To say that all tank armor can be penetrated is just BS. Quite frankly a lot of them won't be penetrated at range. You need to get close enough or hit them in the flanks. The Panther isn't going to be penetrated by the Sherman's 75mm M3 gun from the front. Heck, the Sherman's M3 gun won't penetrate the little Hetzer. When the Matilda came out, existing antitank guns had problems penetrating it. When the KV-1 first came out, existing guns (certainly what the Germans had then) had problems with it. When the Tiger 1 first came out, existing guns had problems with it (its not going to get penetrated at range by the Sherman 75mm M3 or the T-34's 76mm F34 gun or the KV-1's 76mm F32 or ZiS 5 or L-11 guns). When the IS-3 came out, existing guns would have problems with it including the 88mm L56 on the Tiger 1, and the 75mm KwK 42 of the Panther.

Let's go back to the Sherman.

Unlike the turrets in lets say, the T-34, the Sherman tank turret is not sloped both in the front and in the sides. That guarantees instant penetration. Jezus Christ, the Americans didn't get the idea of sloping turrets until the M48.

The flank of the Sherman tank isn't just tall, its flat and the armor is thin. If you notice some other tank design, their flank armor tends to be angled with the side exposure minimized. The Sherman on the flank is a barn door waiting to be shot.

Situational awareness? Tank units conduct their own recon. You don't charge, you survey.

Little tracks? Sigh. These vehicles you mention have small tracks because they prioritize internal space. It doesn't change that wider tracks give superior floatation over soft terrain and decrease pressure per square inch. Wide tracks gave the T-34 superior mobility over the Panzer III and IV that bogged down over marshes.

Tigers didn't cause any problems for the Allies? You probably think Allies is just US and UK. The vast amount of German tanks fought in the Eastern Front. In fact, comparing the tank battles in the west is roughly skirmishes. At the end of the Eastern War, the total amount of tanks lost to both sides over the years amounted to tens of thousands (83,500 Soviet vs 42,000 German --- compare that to the 6000 in the Europe for Germans, 12,000 for the Allies). By far most of the Tigers and Panthers were in the Eastern Front. For the most part, the Schwere Abeitlungs (Heavy Tank Battalions) performed extermely well, despite the circumstances, achieving kill ratios in excess of 10:1. (If you factor the Tigers lost were half to 2/3rds from mechanical breakdowns, the KDRs go up to 20:1)

The Tigers and the Panthers were a problem enough for the Soviets that they countered with upgunning the T-34 (T-34-85, which I consider probably the best medium tank of the war unless you want to claim the StuG III is a tank) and IS series.

Despite the small numbers of Tigers, the fact they had such a powerful psychological effect is a big problem since the Allies attribute every German tank they see as a Tiger. The Shermans are getting shot at by Panzer IVs, which when you have the spaced armor, gives it a look similar to a Tiger at a distance. The common 75mm KwK 40 L48s used by Panzer IVs and the StuGs (more tanks are killed by StuGs than any other AFV) readily penetrates the Sherman and just about every Allied tank in the war except for the IS tanks. Its also the reason why every antitank gun the Allies tend to see is an "88" despite the most common German antitank gun and one that is extremely effective is the 75mm PAK 40.

The Panther? I would rather be in a Panther than a Sherman. Why? Tanks are not for historians looking to prove some form of exceptionalism. Tanks are kill or be killed. Its really about better armor and a better gun in the end. I would rather have something with better armor and a better gun. Heck I would rather be in a Panther than a Tiger, the Panther's gun has better penetration and accuracy. And the King Tiger over the Panther, and the IS-3 over the King Tiger.

You should try participating in the tank discussions in the forums in World of Tank and War Thunder. I am not going to repeat again and again what's been talked about there. Everything you said has been already been long REBUKED over there.

It was the early Panthers (the D model) that was unreliable. What new weapons system that was brought to the war that never had teething problems. Whatever problems the first Panthers had, was quickly fixed in the later models, and in fact, the cost of making the later models have fallen that they barely cost more than a Panzer IV to make.

All tanks break down and break down a lot. But there were so many Shermans and T-34s, broken ones were quickly issued new ones as these were repaired.

As for the German tanks breaking down, here is another thing I found out from reading studies of their tank battalions. Its not about the tank being unreliable, but because the German logisitical chain has broken down to a point from air attack (many factories under Allied bombing), the supplies have thinned out, their maintenance depots constantly being attacked, making it very difficult to repair and maintain the tanks.

Yet despite these, there is quite a bit of parts standardization with the heavier German tanks. The Panther, the Tiger 1 and the Tiger II for instance, all use the same tracks and they have the same 700hp engine. The Sherman on the other hand, has four different engines (GMC vs. Continental vs. Ford vs. Chrysler). That's why the Shermans are labled A1, A2, A3 and A4. The engine on the British Sherman III and Firefly is a different engine from the ones used by the US Army (Chrysler vs. GM), and the Shermans given to the Soviet Army in the Lend Lease program, had different engines from the British and the US Army. Yet some of these A2s are also in the US Army. This is not a good logistics picture. Compare to that to the T-34, where the vast hordes are powered by one single engine type that is very easy to maintain and being diesel, quite economical and won't catch fire as easily. (The Chrysler engine used on the Shermans is a complicated multi bank engine that seems fit more for an aircraft, while the Ford V8 is surprisingly modern ---- all aluminum, multivalve per cylinder --- but also quite complex. All are gasoline engines that just drinks ton of gas.)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

I forgot, no German tanks were ever destroyed. They can't be penetrated. It's impossible. Tanks are INVINCIBLE!!!11!1111!f

Go back to WoT. All your info comes from mario land. I'm not wasting any more time with someone who quotes video games for historical fact.

[Anjian]

Wow you are so pathetic. These information are not from the video games, which are themselves used real life armor and ballistic data. The information I posted are basic information about the war.

Total German losses from the War --- around 50,000 including not just tanks but all manner of AFVs including tank destroyers and self propelled guns. Since they lost, all their tank production is considered loss, including the hundreds of tanks they still had when they surrendered.

42,000 of them were lost in the Eastern Front, making it by FAR the most important tank battle there ever was.

6000 was lost in Western Europe after D-Day. 2000 were lost in North Africa, Italy and the roll through France. The Western Allies contribution is quite small.

In return,

83,500 Soviet AFVs were destroyed, but some numbers put it as high as 96,000.

15,500 British tanks were destroyed.

After D-Day, the US lost around 6000 tanks, over 4,400 were Shermans, the balance were light tanks like M24 Chaffees. These does not include another 1400 in Gun Motor Carriages aka tank destroyers (M10s, M18 Hellcats, M36s, etc,)

The French is said to have lost over 1,700 tanks in 1940. They lost several hundred tanks loaned to them after D-Day, and for that matter, the Canadians and Polish also lost several hundred tanks each.

Sherman losses are higher than US figures alone since a lot were sent to the British, the USSR, and other allies.

All losses include all causes.

So for the most part, the Germans seriously kicked tank booty despite being vastly outnumbered and outresourced, though you are probably looking at 2:1 ratio. The T-34s took the greatest brunt of the Germans, died the most and yet in the end, managed to roll them back. The Soviet tanks already won the bloodiest and most decisive tank battles while crossing far more territory, even before Normandy (where around 4,000 Allied tanks were lost), and continued to roll with even more bloodier battles (the Battle of Berlin).

Edited by Anjian, 12 October 2015 - 06:57 PM.

[S3dition]

You're quite the unpleasant individual, aren't you? Not interesting in reading anything else you post. Certainly not the last two walls of gibberish. I'll let my initial video stand on its own.

[Anjian]

All that video says is that the Sherman isn't as bad as it's reputation deserves. But guess what, tanks are also about psychological impact, similar to "branding" is for the commercial world. Germany built less than 2000 Tiger I and IIs but they got ENORMOUS psychylogical payback from them. That is a Good ROI, never mind that that the far more cost efficient StuGs killed more Allied tanks than any German AFV.

Shermans did not give that psychological impact, and they still died in numbers that are too many considering they are fighting an already defeated enemy with inferior numbers, air support and logistics. Towards the last year of the war, it was a race to Berlin, and the Soviets won that one.

Edited by Anjian, 13 October 2015 - 06:20 PM.

[S3dition]

Anjian, on 13 October 2015 - 06:19 PM, said:

All that video says is that the Sherman isn't as bad as it's reputation deserves. But guess what, tanks are also about psychological impact, similar to "branding" is for the commercial world. Germany built less than 2000 Tiger I and IIs but they got ENORMOUS psychylogical payback from them. That is a Good ROI, never mind that that the far more cost efficient StuGs killed more Allied tanks than any German AFV.

Shermans did not give that psychological impact, and they still died in numbers that are too many considering they are fighting an already defeated enemy with inferior numbers, air support and logistics. Towards the last year of the war, it was a race to Berlin, and the Soviets won that one.

Actually we agreed to let them take Berlin and they only got half of it in the end. Look up the Yalta Conference, Berlin Air Lift.

We won the war, and I'd say that's a better ROI. I'll take winning the war over armies of neck beards saluting the tanks of my overwhelming vilified political party any day.

[Heffay]

S3dition, on 13 October 2015 - 08:16 PM, said:

We won the war, and I'd say that's a better ROI. I'll take winning the war over armies of neck beards saluting the tanks of my overwhelming vilified political party any day.

Not to mention we looked better doing it. I mean anyone can fight and lose. Few people can fight and win. And only the Shermans can fight, win, and look fantastic all at the same time.

[Anjian]

S3dition, on 13 October 2015 - 08:16 PM, said:

Actually we agreed to let them take Berlin and they only got half of it in the end. Look up the Yalta Conference, Berlin Air Lift.

We won the war, and I'd say that's a better ROI. I'll take winning the war over armies of neck beards saluting the tanks of my overwhelming vilified political party any day.

Let the Russians take Berlin? Around the time of the conference, Soviet forces were already 40 miles off Berlin. Yalta Conference was about getting the USSR to join the Pacific War, and dividing Berlin and Europe. For keeping part of Germany, the Western Allies literally ceded Eastern Europe into Communism, consolidated the Soviet Union in Manchuria and the Sakhalins, which paved the way for Communism in the Far East.

In the end, the Yalta Conference didn't do good.

"We" won the war. The Soviets already won it before we even invaded Normany.

Edited by Anjian, 14 October 2015 - 09:27 PM.