Thats a myth, while they manage to bring the workhours to something very reasonable in the end in materials it was quite expensive, or at least not cheap. The aluminum engine alone was stressfull to Soviet resources.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Are we basing all of this off of the sheer quality and stats of an individual tank, or also taking into account how easy it was to produce, and how easily it could be upgraded and/or repaired?
i thought when i said "points wise" it was relatively clear i was talking about a game, especially after the 40k nonsense earlier.
I think it is safe to say that the British got a very nasty surprise in Normandy, where their experience of tank fighting in North Africa proved to not only be useless, it was outright faulty in the Bocage. What individual platoon and company commanders saw wasn't the faults at higher levels of command, they only saw their tanks getting destroyed by what they perceived to be superior enemy tanks and that their 75mm rounds often failed to penetrate the front glacis of Panther tanks.
So instead of revising the idea of "tank charges" and tightening Armour/Infantry co-operation, the Brits decided they needed more heavy guns on their tanks. It was a reaction to a very real problem, but it is doubtful if it solved the problem to any real extent.
yes, it will allow some free space for tactics, as in war not everything go according to plan!
The British choose Firefly because they had a very good AT gun, they don't know about American next gun, and they don't have good air support like the American?!
For some reason the T34s don't need a Firefly version!
And yet somehow, it's still a better design than most of the crap the Nazis drew up on napkins in a frantic effort to win the war.
The 85mm I'd imagine had a better HE round than the 17-Pdr, though don't quote me on that. In terms of HE though there is nothing to recommend any of the three over the standard Sherman 75mm which offered a very good HE round.
In terms of armour penetration the 85mm offered some edge over the 76mm. Still inferior to the 17-Pdr though.
I'd suggest the Firefly was employed in the right proportions by Commonwealth forces. They tended to be issued 1 per troop of 5 tanks. Taking a Cromwell troop for example, you'd have the platoon commander in a Cromwell with either a 75mm or 95mm close support weapon, three normal Cromwells with 75mm, and a Firefly to add some extra anti-armour punch without compromising all round effectiveness.
In this regard, the 76mm Sherman does have an edge in that it is superior as an all rounder. Whilst the Firefly could serve in a normal armoured role, it was more of a dedicated tank killing asset and excelled at that. Fielding more than a single Firefly per troop would probably have been inefficient. Meanwhile one might stick as many 76mm Shermans into a Platoon as one wanted, with only a slight decrease in effectiveness compared to 75mm Shermans in return for increased anti-armour capability.
Or essentially as I've said; both the American and Commonwealth approaches were effective and did the job, each having its own strengths and weaknesses. On the whole though it wasn't as important as is sometimes made out as the standard Sherman 75mm was effective against the bulk (70-80%) of German armour at normal engagement ranges and those vehicles which it wasn't effective against could be countered by superior maneuverability, other assets, etc...
Not all British armoured formations had previously been engaged.
7th Armoured Division and 4th and 8th Armoured Brigades had served in North Africa. The remaining formations hadn't.
Actually several formations did highlight the problems of tactics and armour-infantry cooperation.
7th Armoured almost immediately adopted an ad-hoc mixed brigade structure (though this subsequently lapsed), and 11th and Guards also moved onto it. There were also attempts to tie infantry battalions to armoured regiments, the problem was that this was hard to do outside the armoured divisions because armour had to be continually moved around the front to where it was needed.
As far as tactics go, the "tank charge" was by no means universal, it tended to be Guards who were most often guilty of it. You actually see a variety of tactical approaches, some better than others. Some units tended to practice an offhand approach, simply using their tanks as self-propelled artillery and supporting the infantry from a distance. Others worked closely with the infantry. This was a natural result of how the British Army handles doctrine; it tends to be a localized decision on what exactly is to be done, and though overall guidance may exist there is a lot of leeway for your average field officer.
As for the fixation on getting more 17-Pdrs, I wouldn't say it was so misguided given that there was also a call for an improved HE round for the 17-Pdr. If you look at the results of the British tank push late war you will see a pair of very fine vehicles. The first, the Comet, was superb. The second, the Centurion, was a monster. These were in part the result of these influences.
Last edited:
- 1
From my (very) limited reading I would say the allies were quite suprised by the number of heavy assets in France, with the eastern front still raging. Although, it is easy to forget about our level of hindsight when Talking about this "panic". We of course all know that those German tanks were not nearly enough to turn the tide of the overlord campaign, but for the allied leaders at the time, it makes sense, since they had ALOT riding on the success of overlord.
Honestly there weren't that many "heavy assets" in Normandy. Or indeed in the Wehrmacht as a whole. Something like 80% of the armour the Allies faced in Normandy was of comparable or lesser quality than the standard Sherman/Cromwell 75mm.
The main issue in that regard was overreporting. Until confirmed otherwise, every gun was an 88mm and every tank was a Tiger. This leads to truly hilarious overcountings like US forces claiming to have knocked out more Tigers than there were in Normandy as a whole, within the space of a couple weeks, despite there having been no Tigers deployed against the US forces during this time.
I found this in internet ---- Apparently, US Tankers Encountered Tiger tanks between D-Day and VE-Day a grand total of three times.---- That support what you have said if it is right.
If you're referring to the three times thing, I'd suggest it's bollocks.
You didn't link an article, just a Reddit post. I'd suggest that the point the poster was making was probably correct; that the original claim of 3 encounters was incorrect but there was certainly an overstatement of the presence of Tigers (though obviously Tiger IIs and other heavies should also be counted).
I also seem to remember that the 76mm HVAP round which was not as penetrative as the 17pdr SABOT, but far more accurate wasn't available until after overlord.
Since the soviets lost 96k tanks (irrecoverable losses) that number seems legit... however without a source... but at this point talk crap without any idea is just the normal standard so continue.
Also the thread was about T-34 and Pz IV in 1945 but somehow half of the posts are about the sherman...LOL
Last edited:
The T34 was a piece of junk. one of the reasons the Soviets lost so many of them was the armor was so poor any hit would cause lethal spalling on the inside of the overcrowded tank
and kill everyone inside. Even the US army considered it useless.
and kill everyone inside. Even the US army considered it useless.
A terrible tank for any Soviet tanker caught inside when hit, but in the greater scheme of things, it is what the Soviets could produce with what they had, that won the war.
All tanks spalled and Pz4s weren't exactly known for their spacious interiors either.
Which variant of which tank?
For 1945, it would make the most sense to compare the Pz.Kpfw IV Ausf J to the T-34-85 Model 1945.
There is no debate that the T-34 was more cost-effective than any German tank. Additionally, many of the weaknesses of the T-34 series had been either resolved or lessened by 1945. Beyond that, the T-34-85 Model 1945's 85mm gun was bigger (therefore, longer-ranged, the projectile had more momentum behind it, and HE projectiles could contain more explosive and therefore be more effective against infantry).
For 1945, it would make the most sense to compare the Pz.Kpfw IV Ausf J to the T-34-85 Model 1945.
There is no debate that the T-34 was more cost-effective than any German tank. Additionally, many of the weaknesses of the T-34 series had been either resolved or lessened by 1945. Beyond that, the T-34-85 Model 1945's 85mm gun was bigger (therefore, longer-ranged, the projectile had more momentum behind it, and HE projectiles could contain more explosive and therefore be more effective against infantry).
- 1