Sir, our Armor got slaughtered last offensive...

[Athalian]

I was an anti-tanker by training. From my understanding, from looking at tanks as targets, the German mistake was in gross over engineering in areas that really didn't matter (such as gears and whatnot made to long out live the life expectancy of any armored vehicle on a battlefield) and over complexing the drive train.

The attrition on German heavy armor was ridiculous. I don't recall the exact numbers, but iirc, it was somewhere in the area of 25% + didn't make it from the lagger to the fight in average engagements. That was just from drive train breakdowns.

Something that is almost always overlooked in the discussions on WW2 Soviet armor is the absolutely craptastic optics in the gun sights. Many gunners found it more effective to punch out the glass and stretch wire across the sight tube to use as a reticle.

Summing up the Germans' efforts in armor design from mid to late war, it always seemed to me the Germans were more interested in building propaganda status pieces, rather than effective fighting tools.

Well, that the loving fuhrer decided that the factories would focus on producing tanks. This is great in theory and on paper as more tanks are produced. Unfortunately this also meant that nearly no spare parts were made. Which meant that even failures which could be fixed easy in field would be hard due to lack of spare parts.

 

[unmerged(194215)]

Well, that the loving fuhrer decided that the factories would focus on producing tanks. This is great in theory and on paper as more tanks are produced. Unfortunately this also meant that nearly no spare parts were made. Which meant that even failures which could be fixed easy in field would be hard due to lack of spare parts.

And god thanks to that

 

[Lockerius]

Not that we are on OT, but I can sum it up real quick:

Tiger tank = AWESOME TANK, but a little heavy (hard to go places, especially with bridges not being able to handle the 65+ tons...

T34 = Good, solid tank, made in numbers Hitler could only DREAM of...

As Stalin once said:

"Quantity has a quality of its own."

Nuff said.

 

[Mjarr]

Summing up the Germans' efforts in armor design from mid to late war, it always seemed to me the Germans were more interested in building propaganda status pieces, rather than effective fighting tools.

And let's not forget: what was the most common vehicle T-34 or Sherman would probably encounter? Late war Panzer IV or StuG III\IV.

Generally speaking if we ignore Panther, any medium tank vs medium tank engagement in late WW2 was basically identical in terms of what could happen. Cromwell vs PzIV, Sherman vs StuG, StuG vs T-34 and the list goes on. Somewhere under 700 yards (roughly) the tank who managed to score a damaging hit somewhere was usually the winner, and at those distances basically every tank mentioned could penetrate eachother frontally. Then it became the question of optics, tank crew training, accuracy, fire control among other things - and since in hedgerow hell in Normandy was not exactly like Ukraine, it certainly was close enviroment to fight in. Even the germans - those few cases when they made some sort of attacks in the western front during '44 - often complained about same issues as US tankers that initial vehicle losses can skyrocket quite easily. Then it also becomes a question if the attack is succesful or not and can the vehicles be recovered - if yes, then can they be repaired.

Tigers and such were not the mainstray of German AFVs, even though they certainly caused quite alot of morale issues with their limited numbers. But then again, so did KV-1s and such early in Barbarossa.

 

[unmerged(38985)]

As you can see, OP, it's very hard to gather such intelligence about your enemies tanks so that your armor wouldn't get slaughtered. You see, when people have hard time agreeing today about well known tanks of the time, I cannot imagine the job of the intel guy who was supposed to have some of this info back in the 40's :rofl:

 

[unmerged(144107)]

If i recall it was the sheer number of tanks the soviet hurled against the Germans that surprised them ,not the tank model itself.

And on the topic of god/bad tank..How do you measure that? The T-34 was excellent for the front,scenario,industry and doctrine. They won right?

 

[Net-Viper X]

Just to clarify on someones earlier comment about the Germans calling the Sherman the Ronson, its a reference to the old Ronson oil lantern slogan "Lights the first time every time", since due to its poor armor and the use of gasoline rather than diesel, it only took one shot to turn one into a fireball.

 

[Mjarr]

since due to its poor armor and the use of gasoline rather than diesel, it only took one shot to turn one into a fireball.

Basically every medium tank in the war (ignoring Panther) had 'poor armour' as by 1944 regardless if it was T-34, PzIV, StuG, Sherman, Cromwell or so - everyone was capable of penetrating anyone frontally under 700 yards. Beyond that germans had minor advatange but again, it becomes a hassle of diffrent variables which will effect the battle. Please bear in mind that tanks such as Tiger, IS-2 or such are NOT medium tanks which would make notable majority of your AFVs in medium tank category.

And the reason why Shermans tended to light up like zippos was due lack of wet storage. Later Shermans with wet storage rarely light up when knocked out compared to the earlier ones.

 

[unmerged(155409)]

And where did you find this information? The US Army tested all the WWII tanks and rated them. The T-34, while innovative in some aspects, was considered one of the lowest quality tanks of the period. The favorite Tank among the Soviet Armor Corps was the M4 Sherman, of which they had thousands.

Im not sure where your getting this from, everything I have ever read suggested the russians were very dubious of the american tanks they received.

T-34 was good at a strategic level- very mass produceable, very simple to repair and excess of spare parts, efficent mileage with a diesel engine, very simple to drive, designed for use in sub arctic temperatures. It had no end of flaws too- no platoon radio, slow turret traverse, dire optics, diesel smoke- but when you consider the tanks it was facing- pzII, pzIII, later PzIV- it completely cleaned house in terms of armour and armour penetration.

 

[womble]

And let's not forget: what was the most common vehicle T-34 or Sherman would probably encounter? Late war Panzer IV or StuG III\IV.

No. Let's forget that, since the surprise of the T-34 had somewhat faded by the time there were any long 75s introduced to the Eastern Front.

Generally speaking if we ignore Panther, any medium tank vs medium tank engagement in late WW2 was basically identical in terms of what could happen. Cromwell vs PzIV, Sherman vs StuG, StuG vs T-34 and the list goes on.

StuG wasn't a tank.

Somewhere under 700 yards (roughly)...

In environments which permitted it (largely the plains of the east) this is where german gunnery, high velocity guns and sight optics told. They were capable of engaging and neutralising the enemy tanks at greater ranges than this, so had the advantage. Not, as you say, germane in congested terrain such as the bocage of Normandy, but at least a reason for fitting good sights.

 

[Mjarr]

No. Let's forget that, since the surprise of the T-34 had somewhat faded by the time there were any long 75s introduced to the Eastern Front.

Maybe, but StuGs and Panzers' front armour (overall, especially PzIV turret) still would be unable to protect them from enemy shells under such ranges.

StuG wasn't a tank.

True, but for the sake of simplicity (yes, I know it is technically raping the term) I decided to label it under that category.

In environments which permitted it (largely the plains of the east) this is where german gunnery, high velocity guns and sight optics told. They were capable of engaging and neutralising the enemy tanks at greater ranges than this, so had the advantage. Not, as you say, germane in congested terrain such as the bocage of Normandy, but at least a reason for fitting good sights.

When the range permitted - mostly on the eastern front - germans did have some advatange due optics and such. Now the question is the following: what are the odds you can land accurate hit AND knock enemy AFV out beyond 1000+ yards? Other than Tiger, 88 AA guns and few other specific tanks or very rare, isolated cases with tank destroyers it just doesn't happen that often. Tiger itself was the first tank to actually be able to KO efficiently enemy tanks past 1000+ yards, something that was really hard thing to do with other tanks. Even with experienced crew it would not be guaranteed.

We could really go and debate this all year but basic armanent of any medium tank (or assault gun) by 1944 was capable of defeating other similiar vehicles most of the time under certain ranges. Germans did have marginal advatange beyond that, but if we go to 1000+ yard engagement between T-34 and let's say PzIV, the odds for penetration are very low for both sides.

 

[wolf1455]

Wow you really follow my topic.
I just wanted to show that some sort of report from inteligence service could be nice.
Like:
Losses commanders, unit participated, equipment present. And losses estemated on particular unit and equipment.
Well for me it would help both giving me a flare of the era and a feeling how good my troops and equipment is.
But continue talk about tanks, its interesting to see what people believes.

 

[Jos de trol]

and information about the government

 

[poweraxe]

Im not sure where your getting this from, everything I have ever read suggested the russians were very dubious of the american tanks they received.

Right, that's what I read too. While I'm sure the Russians used their lend-lease Shermans a lot, as far as I know they still preferred the T-34 overall to the Shermans they were given.

 

[unmerged(187032)]

If you ever watch the Military Channel on cable tv, they have shows that rate the top 10 of different military weapons, such as helicopters, assault rifles, submarines and yes, tanks. I believe that the T34 was rate among the top, if not THE top, tank of all time. The Abrahms is up there, the Tiger of course and the German Leopard. I've seen different versions of the show that have slightly different ratings, but the T-34 is the overall top rated WWII tank.

 

[unmerged(168898)]

Researching 'Decryption' will help you gather intel of visible units. If opponent has a high value in 'Encryption' tech then it's gonna be harder.

Hope it helps.

 

[unmerged(109424)]

And where did you find this information? The US Army tested all the WWII tanks and rated them. The T-34, while innovative in some aspects, was considered one of the lowest quality tanks of the period. The favorite Tank among the Soviet Armor Corps was the M4 Sherman, of which they had thousands.

Wrong. T-34/85 was amongthe best tanks all the allies used, despite it being a bit rugged. M4 Sherman wasn't good (its nickname was Tommyburner due to the poor crew survivability if hit). It was shit! Sure, US doctrine didn't call for the Sherman to be used against enemy tanks, but it was used against German tanks. Allot. I remember this analogy to the Sherman made by someone:

Does the Xbox float well on the seas? no. Was it asked to float well on the seas? Yes. Many times actually.

Also, as far as I know ALL western tanks were universally hated by the Russian crews. Bad armour and gun and simply terrible tracks, not fit for Russian enviroment.

Also, the Shermans high profile and front armour made it an easy prey.

PS. Yes, orginal T-34's had production problems. But they were gradually solved and the tank evolved into a very lethal machine.

 

[unmerged(109424)]

If you ever watch the Military Channel on cable tv, they have shows that rate the top 10 of different military weapons, such as helicopters, assault rifles, submarines and yes, tanks. I believe that the T34 was rate among the top, if not THE top, tank of all time. The Abrahms is up there, the Tiger of course and the German Leopard. I've seen different versions of the show that have slightly different ratings, but the T-34 is the overall top rated WWII tank.

I remember wathing something like that on youtube, top 10 fighters or something. Pretty bad program imo, just picked what the American audience wanted to see.

 

[unmerged(158218)]

Just to clarify on someones earlier comment about the Germans calling the Sherman the Ronson, its a reference to the old Ronson oil lantern slogan "Lights the first time every time", since due to its poor armor and the use of gasoline rather than diesel, it only took one shot to turn one into a fireball.

Thats a common mistake and the US themselves believed this to be the reason why they went up so easily. Upon further investigation they found that is was infact caused by the ammunition.

Either the shell itself or the shrapnel hitting the ammunition would cause them to blow up. The rest of the ammo tended to follow suit.

The problem was greatly rectified by storing the ammo in different locations with additional armour plate to protect them.

This video shows what happens to ammo cooking inside a tank http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbxNvG2DEvI

 

[Mjarr]

Also, as far as I know ALL western tanks were universally hated by the Russian crews. Bad armour and gun and simply terrible tracks, not fit for Russian enviroment.

How many fucking times (being nice doesn't seem to cut it) it has to be said: it's not matter of armour anymore by 1944 as almost EVERY basic medium tank that saw service in Europe could be knocked out by other medium tank or assault gun under 700-800 yards. Whether it was PzIV, Sherman, Cromwell, T-34 or so - none of them were capable of surviving a hit from enemy shell under that distance. Beyond that, maybe. Beyond 1000+ yards - yes. Unless someone brought in tank destroyer, Panther, Tiger or something that had enough firepower (and accuracy) to knock enemy tanks properly beyond such ranges. Sherman had poor armour? How about PzIV itself? No sloped armour virtually and the front turret had less armour than Sherman's flanks.

Now considering that 1000+ engagements were virtually absent in the western front, if Sherman or so engaged enemy medium tank or assault gun it was a matter of who hit first. Germans just tended to have some variables on their side like terrain, defensive positions, experienced crews among other things. On the eastern front it might have been bit diffrent story as open plains and accurate gun can dominate certain areas, but you still had greater odds of seeing medium tank or assault gun than Tiger.

Logistical preferences is another story, but simply comparing medium tank vs medium tank in terms of firepower or armour in late war it's basically not worth it. 1941, 1942 or even 1943 might still have some notable diffrence here and there (too soft US AP shells, anyone?), but by 1944 they're quite identical when it comes to basic capabilities.