Sematics. The war was won. Won by the side you claim had inferior tanks and huge tank crew casualties. By 1945 ammo had improved so much no tank was invulnerable to the latest shot. The invulnerable frontal aspect of the Panther was history.
-
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.
Sematics. The war was won. Won by the side you claim had inferior tanks and huge tank crew casualties. By 1945 ammo had improved so much no tank was invulnerable to the latest shot. The invulnerable frontal aspect of the Panther was history.
The western allies could have won without even using tanks at all and instead using the resources to produce tanks for something else as German army was in no shape for a war then the invasion started.
A strong argument could be said that Panzar III was the best tank of the war because of the enormous success of Stug III but the reality is that Stug III turned a mediocre tank into the most successful tank destroyer (not tank) in the war.
Im pretty sure that Stug III hold + score against all major tank classes of the war.
However Stug III owe its success mostly thanks to that Germany lost in the end.
A strong argument could be said that Panzar III was the best tank of the war because of the enormous success of Stug III but the reality is that Stug III turned a mediocre tank into the most successful tank destroyer (not tank) in the war.
Im pretty sure that Stug III hold + score against all major tank classes of the war.
However Stug III owe its success mostly thanks to that Germany lost in the end.
Last edited:
Both the UK and the USA developed heavily armed and thickly armoured tank s just like Germany. The Allies however refused to put a slow breakdown-prone tank into the front line. 1000s of Allied tanks were manufactured that never saw combat because a performace on par with that of the Panther failed the Allied test for an effective tank. The Allies scrapped what the Germans used as a standard!
In 1945 true. However they only got to that stage because in 1944 they totally destroyed the German panzer arm. They reaped the rewards of their earlier pain. It was something they planned to do. Something they carried out and something that worked perfectly. They were not gifted victory. They worked hard for it!
Well from the Allies perspective they were doing a lot of winning based on mobiliy. Can't pen the Tiger from the front? That's alright, attack with a squad of 5 and blow it to kingdom come from the flanks and rear. American infantry was increasingly mechanized throughout the war, making it hard for a heavy tank to keep up with the front lines. I doubt we would have been able to close the Falaise Gap in heavy tanks and that's where most resistance in France collapsed. At the Falaise gap the speed of lighter American armor forced the destruction and abandonment of nearly all the remaining German armor in France simply due to outflanking and cutting them off from supplies.
It's of note that the opportunity was nearly lost because the Canadians and British on the north of the pincer got bogged down with their Churchills and nearly got to argentan too late.
A heavy tank really doesn't fit into that kind of mobile warfare scheme in the first place, although that does raise the question about do you design your strategy around equipment or build equipment to fit the strategy. Nonetheless I don't see a real use for a heavy tank in American delployment, not with the way they fought.
It's of note that the opportunity was nearly lost because the Canadians and British on the north of the pincer got bogged down with their Churchills and nearly got to argentan too late.
A heavy tank really doesn't fit into that kind of mobile warfare scheme in the first place, although that does raise the question about do you design your strategy around equipment or build equipment to fit the strategy. Nonetheless I don't see a real use for a heavy tank in American delployment, not with the way they fought.
Last edited:
Yes, victory was far from given but with correct play Germany had no chance, I don't think tanks was needed if western allies could use the resources in a very good way but tanks was probably the most correct way to go.
The interesting fact is that Stug III was how Panzar III became the tank killer it was supposed to be.
Last edited:
Did you not watch this...
A tank with wide tracks and heavy weight is in many was beneficial for off road mobility... the Sherman and many earlier German and Western tanks lacked this trait. The Russians pioneered the ability to build good cross country tanks out of necessity, which the German copied with the Panther. You can see how it perform in the video above and how it perform in different situations. The video is NOT about showing of the Panther, it was a test the Swedish military did because they wanted to know what made a tank good at cross country mobility since this is very important in the terrain which is dominating in Sweden.
There are some things that only a tank can do. German armored counterattacks such as at the Bulge would have been a lot harder to cope with if ALL we'd had to throw back at them was the m18 and infantry. We would have lost a lot more of both.
Every tank in WWII can do the things see in that video. The Sherman could do it probably as well, and I've seen the T-34 put on some shocking turns of speed, when you get someone in the driver's position with the superhuman strength required to shift into top gear.
Furthermore the Panther's interleaved road wheels are a horrible liability in cross country performance since anything that collects where the road wheels overlap, such as mud, grit, or especially ice, can cause them to suddenly seize up, immobilizing the tank.
Sweden tank design are most similar to Soviet (including early use of autoloaders), probably because of poor infrastructure. Sweden liked to make their medium tanks have as little weight as possible even with the disadvantages because weight will always make your mobility worse.
The heavy weight of a tank is actually beneficial over lighter weight which was why some later heavier Russian tanks and tanks like Panther had better cross country performance. The importance is the ground pressure, size. The size and weight of the tank is also important when driving around in heavy vegetation and rocky terrain..
Did you look at the video... it compared the Panther, Sherman and Churchill???
I don't need to look at that video to know that the Panther's off road performance suffers from some serious issues that will only show up after extended wear and tear, which I doubt these field tests would expose. The interleaved road wheels will work fine for awhile, but constant use will bring out their problenms.
It is true that it would have problem with snow and mud turning to Ice if it was not properly maintained and cared for. The Germans did try with a system that did not use the interlocking system but the cross country performance was reduced too much so it was discarded. Even other tanks had these problems so its not exclusive to the Panther or German vehicles in particular.
You should also note that the German half-tracks used this system as well and they had some good experience from them. They also suffered the same issues and was still regarded as having very good cross country performance in comparison with other half tracked vehicles.
You may think and have whatever opinion you want... the tank had excellent mobility in open country which is reflected by everyone that used it... including the French and the one who were up against it and experienced it. The French also actually highlighted the Panthers superior mobility over allied tanks at that time.
If you find any actual evidence to the contrary I would be eager to look at those sources... we all know the weakness of the interleaved wheel system had some issues but in this case the benefit was higher than the drawback.
Last edited:
I will start with afv:s numbers at Kursk.My source Pansarslaget vid Prochorovka by Walter Schüle and Martin Månsson.Germany had 2450 tanks and stugs and the Soviets had 3300 + 1600 in reserve.Germany lost 278 totally destroyed and Red Army 1614 totally destroyed.About the II. SS Panzer Corps they had never 90 Tigers every PzGr division had an heavy company of 14
Tigers thats 42 Tigers together.Now to the operational status of panzers on the eastern front 1943,source Panzer Truppen page 110. 30/6-43 had Germany 2584 available tanks and 2287 were
operational. 20/7-43 had Germany 2471 available tanks and 1471 were operational. That means that about 800 tanks neded repairs. The lowest figures was 30/9-43 when the
Germans had only 605 operational tanks.After that it raised to 1043 tanks 31/12-43.
Okay, then it seems like I fail at reading comprehension. The APDS is the only thing with an accuracy problem, and that's not exactly a common ammunition to be firing. And it's kind of new. So, the British have every reason to remain confident of their 17 pound guns, and the Firefly can kill lots of tanks even with crappy accuracy on the APDS ammo.
i
Yes I watched it. Did you see the photo of the 3 bogged Jagdpanthers I posted?
Sweden is not NWE. Any tanker who charges at trees in NWE is taking a big risk. It looks good in films but in the real world it is a sure way to belly or lose a track.
Yes I watched it. Did you see the photo of the 3 bogged Jagdpanthers I posted?
Sweden is not NWE. Any tanker who charges at trees in NWE is taking a big risk. It looks good in films but in the real world it is a sure way to belly or lose a track.
This is completely irrelevant... it only proved that those tank got stuck and it is not hard to find such pictures on any tank even modern tanks such as the M1A2. I found over several dozen pictures of bogged down Shermans with a simple Google search. This type of reasoning are on a child's level...
So... there are no forest, wetlands (other soft ground), wide ditches, steep hills, rocky terrain or never any snow or heavy rain in NWE?!?!
The often smaller lighter tanks of early WW2 were not too good at cross country mobility in other then relatively flat and dry terrain. The Russians built their tanks for cross country performance for a reason and so did the Germans once they learned the hard way they needed them.
Last edited:
I consider it more 'childish' to try and ignore a picture showing 3 tanks with claimed 'superior floatation' that have bogged down.
Yes there is. Look at the photo of the 3 bogged Jagdpanthers and you can see some of it.
Tell me exactly what conclusion am I to draw from a picture of three tanks like that. It does not prove or even indicate anything since ANY tank can and have ended up like that... there are plenty of pictures just like this one for every other tank type. So exactly what does it prove?!?
Have anyone claimed that a Panther could not get bogged down?
I'm not dismissing or ignoring anything... you are just soiling the discussion with completely irrelevant nonsense so please stop it...
So first you say that type of terrain is not important and then it is... or what do you mean?
Last edited:
- 1