History, Politics And Current Affairs

Opinions expressed here are personal views of contributors and do not necessarily represent the companies, organizations or governments they work for. Nor do they necessarily represent those of the Board Administration.
It is currently Mon Feb 19, 2018 6:50 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 28 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2015 12:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 5:51 am
Posts: 885
DaveAAA wrote:
Nick does have a dream job. He gets paid to write and do video about tanks. He has done some interesting stuff under "The Cheiftain's Hatch" label.

Didn't know that was him. He is a pretty knowledgeable guy.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: SOP on meeting Tiger II
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2015 2:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 2:25 pm
Posts: 1520
surely American or british tanks meeting a Tiger does not happen in a vacuum, but as part of a directed action?
The allies had air supremacy and the RAF had invested hugely in rocket firing anti-tank, ground attack aircraft. In June 1944, 2 tactical airforce had 18 operational squadrons of Typhoon IBs. By March 1945, over 400 Typhoons were flown daily against the Germans.
The Germans had powerful tanks because they had a lopsided force structure.

_________________
Western civilization is experiencing something worse than barbarians at the gate: we now have idiots in the loft.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2015 9:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 2:48 am
Posts: 2616
Dig around on his website and he has some scathing remarks on Typhoon et al's actual record against tanks. They were great for busting up supply lines and workshops, but their score against tanks was so so. One other thing that comes up again and again is just how effective Panzerfaust were. You need the tanks to take out the hardpoints, but you need the infantry to protect the tanks from Panzerfaust.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2015 2:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:45 am
Posts: 5201
Location: EGUD
M.Becker wrote:
I think the real issue with the M4 and the whole ‘deathtraps’/Tiger fever was not armour but firepower! A Marder, Pak40, Stug, Pz.IV could kill an M4 but an M4(75mm) could just as easily kill them. Tiger and Elephants had enough frontal armout to make them immune to the 75mm gun but they were so rare that running into an enemy AFV an M4 could not kill almost never happened.
 
That’s what changed in 1944. Confrontations with Tigers happened much more often, not to mention the much more common Panther. Now not being able to kill an enemy AFV became a frequent occurrence. If M4’s would have had the guns and the ammo to penetrate the frontal armour of said German tanks at normal ranges nothing would have changed from the tankers perspective: “They can kill us, we can kill them.”
 
But M4’s had the wrong guns and ammo. 75mm shells bounced off glacis plates even at very short ranges and that must have undermined the confidence in the M4.

I get the feeling that the reputation of the Sherman was that bit better in British service than in American, and this comment has got me wondering. Since the British Sherman deployments tended to have Fireflies hanging around which did have the firepower to deal with the newer German tanks, is that the reason for the apparent difference in attitude?

_________________
War is less costly than servitude. In the end, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau. - Jean Dutourd


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jul 12, 2015 8:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 2:48 am
Posts: 2616
You could (I have) spend hours reading up on this on Moran's site. One big difference is time - when the first Shermans were used in the NA campaign they had speed and reliability, a decent gun, and decent armour. They weren't necessarily the best for every attribute but as a package they were better than the British designs, and of course they were up against a fairly manky selection of tanks, mostly <40mm light tanks, not Panthers or Tigers or even PzkW IVs.

The Americans first used them in anger in the bocage, where Panthers could sit hull down and the Sherman's 75 mm didn't penetrate the glacis. Sherman's armor was not Panther proof, and their speed etc were not usable in the bocage (the high turret was no bad thing tho). Once they were out of Normandy the Shermans could drive past the Panther and it wasn't a problem any longer, but by that time the reports had been filed and the reputation made.

The various gun upgrades (76mm, 17 pdr) do seem to have been a bit of a mixed bag. The UK sabot round was very effective, when it hit, but its accuracy was hopeless.

One interesting stat, Allies needed 2.2 Shermans per German tank to win, Germans needed 1.5 tanks per Sherman to win. Good thing for us we had a zillion Shermans.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2015 7:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 4:47 pm
Posts: 3498
Location: Germany
pdf27 wrote:
I get the feeling that the reputation of the Sherman was that bit better in British service than in American, and this comment has got me wondering. Since the British Sherman deployments tended to have Fireflies hanging around which did have the firepower to deal with the newer German tanks, is that the reason for the apparent difference in attitude?


What WarshipAdmin said. Plus the M4 was being amended/replaced by the Cromwell in British service and from a BBC docu I recall that tankers were very unhappy because of the narrow escape hatches the Cromwell had inherited from pre-war cruisers.

_________________
trekchu wrote:
It was worse than he had expected. It was so incomprehensibly bad that he'd rather watch Pearl Harbor on a constant, never-ending loop than...


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jul 20, 2015 2:27 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 10:48 pm
Posts: 501
Location: Near St Curtis' desk
I have lost track of the time I have spent going through Nick's videos at this, but I should not be awake at 2:26am. Dave, the driver's "hatch" on the Comet was indeed funny as heck.

_________________
Defend civilization - drink beer!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jan 08, 2018 10:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 11102
I've included a second video which goes into this in a bit more detail.

This is the history of the tank destroyer arm and goes into a lot of detail about what its role really was.

_________________
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 28 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group