OT: German vs Allied Tech in WW2

[Sanjuro]

This thread was inspired by a post in the thread "In defence of the Red Army" by 95th Rifleman, which I partly disagree with:

WW2 is a good point.

Every allied nation was behind Germany in terms of tech and yet Germany still lost.

Compare the M4 Sherman to the later model Panzer IV's let alone the Panther and Tiger. The German Panzerfaust and Panzerschrek were superior to both the Bazooka and the joke (sorry, by joke I mean the british PIAT). The Germans had the jet aircraft which were superior in every way to the allied fighters.

The problem Germany had was numbers and fuel. In a WW3 scenario the Russians have a massive numerical advantage and this could prove as telling as it was in WW2.

If it takes ten T72's to kill an Abrams and the Russians have those tanks to spare, the Abrams will die. It's how the American shermans killed Tigers.

Germany's tech lead was nothing like as clear cut as that; in a few sectors they had a clear lead, but failed to exploit it. In other areas they were completely left behind.
In the example of aircraft: Germany began WW2 with what appeared to be an unbeatable air force, yet within a year was beaten comprehensively by a smaller opponent. On paper Germany had superior aircraft, yet a combination of rapid technical innovation (eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Shilling's_orifice ) and greatly superior command and control completely negated their advantages.
Later in the war, both Germany and Britain built jet fighters. The ME262 suffered from 2 problems- the first was Hitler's asinine idea that it should be a bomber. The second, lesser known, was that the engines kept failing- for many months in service over 50% of missions had to be aborted because of (non-combat) engine failures. The British jet engine, on the other hand, was a lower-tech device with a centrifugal compressor- which at the time was a much more practical engine because there was one large casting, instead of dozens of fragile compressor blades.
The Panzerfaust and Panzerschrek were based (with improvements) on Bazookas captured from the Soviets [source: Modern Small Arms, by Frederick Myatt MC]: fair point about the joke though!

[raketenjagdpanzer]

The "German technical superiority" claim is one that always sticks in my bearings. Yes, there is some truth to it. However, the Germans weren't all equipped with wunderwaffen that only true grit, saving private ryan and Band of Brothers was able to overcome.

The German infantry rifle, the Kar98k, was a WWI-era bolt action rifle. As early as the Civil War, the US Army proved that volume of fire from smaller numbers of rifles is vastly more important than sheer numbers of rifles. I'll take a squad of men with Garands against a platoon with Kar98ks all experience being equal.

The "tech" behind the German heavy tanks was often very poorly thought out - aircraft engines and transmissions (I'm looking at you, Maybach) too lightweight to do the job. Pie-in-the-sky ideas like having a full diesel engine...that runs an electrical generator which actually powers the roadwheels...terrible. (Admittedly the Sherman's gas powered engine was pretty terrible, too).

Also, on the Armor front? Yeah the Sherman was massive overkill versus the PzKpfw I-III, about an even match for the IV. It wasn't much of a match for the Tiger but that's not doctrinally what it was for, either.

The Germans never gave serious consideration to nuclear weapons. Yes, they had Heavy Water experiments in Norway, but even if the Allies had left them untouched and the war had dragged on (which the Soviets weren't going to do - they were after blood, the Western Front be damned), there's no way they'd have had a tested and working bomb before the Reds got to them.

As pointed out, German jet engines were crap. Also, regarding jets? The British flew the Gloster prototype in '41 - about the same time the Germans were taking their first steps with jet engine combat a/c. Wasn't built because - surprise! - the Germans were still using prop a/c. The US' entry into the field was '43 with the Shooting Star and even before then with the P59 Airacomet which, while not much faster than piston a/c, carried a very hefty bomb-load and cannon (37mm main gun supported by dual .50s, and a 2500lb bomb-load - half what a B-17 could carry in a short-duration mission).

The Allies overcoming the Germans wasn't just because we kept pouring tons of crap weapons on top of their technically superior weapons. The T-34 in spite of its almost laughable human engineering faults was generally technically superior to most German designs prior to the PzKpfw Tiger Ausf.-b. And even then the Nazis steered clear of the '34 when it could be helped. Moreover, the Germans captured and used the T34 frequently on their retreat from the Russian Front.

The reality is more than "we had bad weapons but had more than they had, so we won". Likewise I feel like I should point out the same regarding NATO v. Soviet weapons. Where the Soviets would have hurt us wouldn't have come primarily from "Well we can swamp one division with ten of inferior men and armaments" - it would've come in the opening hours of the war with their massive intelligence coups, special operations groups, and the like. Remember, the Walkers (may all of them rot forever) essentially gave the Soviets every piece of operational information about the US Navy they could. Everything from classified stats on Fleet deployments down to F-14 fuel consumption and turning ratios. The consequence of not living in a nightmare police state which is what everyone east of the Berlin Wall lived under until 1990, but rather a free and open society was that the Soviets were able to pre-position Spetsnaz groups and equipment throughout western europe.

But this idea that NATO somehow put on blinders and decided to exactly imitate the Nazi military mindset of producing super-tanks and I don't know what is just ridiculously fallacious, and I wish we could drop it.

Our fucking Abrams Tank was designed to survive a fight with a dozen slave labor produced T72s because we as a society decided not to let ourselves live like slaves, throwing huge portions of our GDP into a war machine poised to invade the East (in spite of what the authors of T2k seem to think).

I recommend those of you not acquainted with it read Air-Land Battle and see what it set out to accomplish. Also, for extra homework, look up what the Soviet tactics designed to counter it were. They were so confident in the ability of their divisions full of illiterate conscripts and disposable tanks that from D+1 they were planning on using thousands of tons of biological and chemical agents on concentrations of NATO troops that their own glorious People's Army was unable to overcome, as well as tac-nukes in the rear areas.

I'm sorry if that's ranty and I know people are going to jump on this post but this notion that the Nazis had unbeatable wonder weapons and could've won the war given a few extra months is a lie, and likewise the BMPs on the Seine by D+10 is an equally monstrous lie.

[B.T.]

I normally do not qoute myself, but this is the exception from the rule. I posted this on the "In defence of the Red Army":
"One should not forget, that the German society was in a constant state of paranoia. Even in the developement of weapons, several agencies tried, to convince all others, that their approach would be the best. And that led to a situaton, where different groups worked on the development of certain items, but a central "power" was lacking. Look at the development of a modern infantry rifle, as an example: Fallschirmjägergewehr and Sturmgewehr both were interesting designs, both were really influential. But in the end, a lot of labour and intellectual manpower were wasted. Because everyone tried his thing, ignoring the work of others. (As an aside: This seems to be repeated in the current US: SOCOM, Marines and Army all search for a specific new rifle. But every force uses a different approach. Or look at the developement of helmets: Marines and Army both replaced the PASGT helmet, but both forces developed their own design!)
The majority of the German units in WWII were still equipped with an old rifle (Kar 98), even in the end of the war. And most soldiers did not ride in fancy halftracks, they moved on foot."

There are some more facts, that have to be kept in mind:
The war economy of Germany was concentrated on building the more expensive and important planes, tanks, etc.
But Germany does not have that many natural resources, as several other countries have. The quality of very basic items got worse, during the war. Everything had to be spared. Germany had not enough leather or textiles. The late war uniforms were made of recycled materials, that were of inferior quality. The boots (and later on shoes) got worse. And production of a lot of other things could not catch up with the losses.
And: When the war began, the German forces had been trained for the war. Although the Reichswehr of the Weimar Republic should have been a small force, Germany violated the Versailles treaty on numerous occasions. Compared to the allies, the Germans were ready for that war.
Take a look at several other states: The U.S. had been in their "Isolationism"-period with a very small Army. The Soviets had just slaughtered the bulk of their professional officers in the 30ies. I'm not sure about the situation in the UK, but IIRC, the British forces had to be build up from scratch, after the Dunkirk desaster.
Yes, in several aspects or trades, the Germans were "superior", but the best airplane, rifle or tank, does not work, if you do not have the resources, to produce fuel or ammunitions for the technically advanced items. All in all, the German military lost some kind of advantage, the longer the war lasted. And those few fancy "Wunderwaffen" or high-tech gimmicks were just that: gimmicks, that could not change the course of the war.

[RN7]

Briefly: Germany had very few technological clear cut leads over the Allies in WW2, and in industrial efficiency and the development of nuclear weapon they were well behind.

In ballistic and radio controlled missiles they where well ahead of the field, in fact the post-war US and Soviet missile and space programmes were largely based on German developments. In jet engines only Britain was even near them, but in other areas of aviation British and American aircraft technology matched or even surpassed them throughout the war, and in electronics and radars the British were probably ahead of everyone.

On land the larger German tanks were better armed and protected than anyone's expect for the Russians, but German tanks also had reliability issues. The allies also deliberately mass produced the Sherman and others because they were available and they could build them in huge numbers. If the M26 Pershing and Centurion had been available at D-Day in 1944 instead of 1945, they could have handled anything the Germans had thrown at them with ease.

At sea the Germans were probably behind Britain and America outside of submarine technology, and the only lead that Germany had was with certain submarine engine types and torpedoes and the technology was far from the finished article and British ASW countermeasures largely kept pace anything Germany developed.

[Raellus]

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to go with Max Hastings on this one. In WWII, the Allies had some superior weaponry- the P-51 Mustang, M-1 Garand, and the T-34/85 are all examples. Overall, they also had superior artillery. Allied naval superiority isn't really a matter of debate (aside from the Japanese Yamato class super-battleships which were impressive but anachronistic by 1941 and a couple of advanced German U-boat classes).

On the other hand, the Germans fielded a clearly superior GPMG in the MG-42, the word's first assault rifle, the STG-43/44, and the deadly 88mm DP gun. Most WA tanks crews would have gladly traded in their Sherman or Churchill for a Panther or Tiger, depite their often finicky engines. The ME-262 had is problems and vulnerabilities, but it still gave the allies fits in the air. Most ME-262s that were shot down were done so when they were landing. The Brits might have had jet aircraft first, but they didn't field them in any significant numbers until the war was nearly over. ASFAIK, there weren't any Meteor aces. The Germans also developed the world's first ballistic missile and the first radio-controlled ASMs.

The German's biggest mistake was devoting so much of their war industry on small production runs of extremely complex and complicated wonder-weapons. That, coupled with a delay in converting to a war economy and late-war shortages of fuel and raw materials due to strategic bombing and sabotage meant that the Germans would never be able to translate any technological edge into a decisive strategic advantage.

No one can argue that the correlation of forces was not the decisive factor in the Allies' victory. We had numerical advantages of at least 3-to-1, and in some cases 5-to-1 or more, in every major category of weaponry, from tanks to fighters to warships to men in uniform.

Now back to the Red Army. In WWII, the Soviet Union lost more citizens and soldiers than any other nation on earth. The U.S. had the lowest casualties of any major combatant. With all of their technology, the U.S. and UK combined to kill approximately 500,000 German men at arms during the entire war. The Soviets killed about 4.5m. The Red Army began the war with a decimated officer corps, outdated infantry weapons, and generally very poorly equipped troops. Four years later, they were a juggernaut.

As for arguments about doctrine- no plan survives first contact with the enemy. The idea that superior doctrine would have won the war assumes a short war with flawless execution, no surprises, and a fairly predictable, cooperative enemy. In a longer war, both sides learn to make adjustments.

Hitler expected the U.S.S.R. to collapse in a matter of weeks. "Kick in the door and the whole rotten building will collapse" he said. For a few weeks, it looked like he might be right. Four years later, the Red Army was at the gates of Berlin.

[Panther Al]

Let me hit some high points that was brought up by Raketenjagdpanzer.


For starters, yes, it was a rant, and no need for cursing... but I get where you are coming from so no worries.

I've never bought into the whole, "Another 6 months (Or Year, or whatever) they would have pulled it off" mentality. There was far too many reasons why that was a pipe dream.

But there is a few errors there.

Lets start with the Mauser 98. For starters, its not a WW1 era rifle. Its actually older than that. But thats minor - the point here is that even though its a old design, being old isn't something that makes it obsolete or useless: In fact, the Mauser 98K is still on active service as a top notch sniper rifle by various countries in its original form - and its action has been copied by about 75% of every other high end sniper system on the planet. Not exactly garbage that. Yes, I would agree the M1 was a better battle rifle - being a semiauto is a huge advantage over bolt action designs. But the M1 isn't used anymore - even for sniping unlike the 98k. And lets not forget the MG42 - still in frontline use today, and still the better of anything anyone else uses - and I've used the MG3 and the M240 in combat, and I'll take a 3 any day of the week.

Secondly, you are spot on for the Heavy tanks. By and large - and I will except the original Tiger I from this - heavy tank designs such as the Tiger 2, Jagdtiger, and the Ferdinand/Elefant was a colossal waste of time and resources that had no business being pushed beyond proof of concept stage. It was a waste of effort, manpower, and resources that has no excuse. However, Maybach doesn't make trannies: just the engines. Transmissions was made by ZF. Who, by the by, is the go to source in europe to this day for transmissions. In fact, those of us that have a BMW for example, have a ZF transmission. Now, the problem that German tanks had isn't because of one thing or another: the root of it is that no Panzer ever was actually built at its designed weight. Take the Pz4. It was designed to be a 22 ton tank. Its transmission, engine, and final drives (And it was the Final Drives that was the killer of german tanks) was geared for a 22 ton tank. Not the 30+ ton tank it wound up being. Same goes for the Tiger, it was designed to be a 45 ton tank, and was a good bit more than that. The Panther, for all its bashers, was almost an exception to the rule. It was meant to be a 40 ton tank, and unlike every other tank they built, they kept it from creeping up to much - it pegged out at 45 tons. Still enough that you had to keep an eye on the final drives, but much better. Also, as far as german tanks go, it was actually the only on that was overpowered. Yes. Overpowered. In order to cut costs, instead of going with a modified engine that was used on the IV, they decided to take the one out of the Tiger. This gave the panther a power to weight ratio that is the equal of the Challenger 1. War time production constraints did cause issues in the reliability of the engines, but thats no fault of the design.

And the Sherman - while a great tank from a reliability and production standpoint - wasn't the equal of a later model IV (G and onwards). More like a late III (L or M). The PzIII was almost un-german in its reliability. For some weird reason, the design was just solid all around. Half the mechanical issues the IV had, could be trusted to work when needed, and had the same armour package as the IV. Its downfall was that it was too small to take larger gun than the 5cm. And don't let that 5cm fool you: it was a better AT weapon than the 75mm in the Sherman. The only advantage the Sherman had over the III was it had a better HE round. But armour was equivalent, as was reliability of the the Early Shermans that was fielded at the same time as the III was. The IV's long 75 was *much* better than the 75 used on the Sherman. All comes down to barrel length and the velocity it allows. The German 75 was a long barrelled, high velocity gun, while the Sherman was a low velocity stubby gun designed to deliver HE rounds to take out MG nests: it was not meant to engage tanks except in an emergency.

You are right about the nuke program, and on the Jet front: the key difference is that the Germans actually tried to field large numbers of Jets where the US still thought it was a dumb idea.

The T34 was the great tank of the war. It was so good, the US actually imported a few in 41 and gave serious though to using it instead of the Sherman. Very Very serious thought. The transmission is what killed the deal though: the ones they sent us was the first flight T34 that made a german Tiger II look like a finely built swiss watch in the reliability department. Once they fixed those issues in 42, it was a whole new tank. And it was the T34 and not the Sherman that convinced the Germans to dump the III and go for the IV (and later the panther). The Panther was the better tank: It was actually equal in reliability to the T34 (Still those transmission issues on the case of the T34) when properly maintained, its armour was vastly better, and had a much better gun. And that includes the DT-5 85mm the later T34's had: Russians have always, to the day, had issues with propellent in large calibre guns that have forced them to built bigger to get equal performance.

Now the rest of the post, I couldn't agree more by and large: Yes, it could be said that we was doing the German thing, and look how that worked out for them, but that ignores the fact that unlike the germans the NATO armies would be properly supported to a degree that the Wehrmacht never was. And like it or not, the M1 was designed to be the ultimate tank - Creighton Abrams himself, when the program was started (Before it was known as a M1, and just after the debacle that was the MBT70) said, "I want a Tiger 2 - just one that works." And they did so: The designers spared no expense in making sure that every facet of the design was maxed out: Protection, Speed, Firepower. Usually you got to give a little in one category to get a little in the other, but they added the forth ingredient: Cash. Toss enough money at any engineering problem, you'll find a way to get around it. Pity he didn't live long enough to see it bear fruit. I could just see him taking the first one out for a spin with 'Thunderbolt 9' painted on the side.

Air-Land Battle is a good source, and like you, I recommend any who hasn't read it, to do so. Its a great way to get a feeling for how the US was planning on fighting WW3. But also, dig deeper than what is found on the internet to see what the Soviets was planning: A lot of what you see there is based on supposition and jingo-ism. The Soviets knew they was facing an uphill battle post 84 - a lot of generals said that once the Reagan build up got solidly underway (I've heard dates of 88-90), there was no longer any real hope of winning without NBC warfare - and they planned accordingly. Falling back on NBC doesn't mean they was throwing in the towel: they was just coming up with a plan that would probably work. Post GW the Soviets really knew they was done for. I think that played a huge role in the end of the Soviet menace. Pre-88, they was still confident of a win - just wouldn't be easy. And they had reason to be reasonably confident. I am nbot going to say they was right, or wrong, but they had solid plans in place to counter the effects of the AirLand Battle, and recall, there wouldn't be much Air in the FEBA - There the Soviets was justly and fairly confident that they had the upper hand thanks to the efforts put into forward air defence.


I have no idea how WW3 in the 80's would have wound up: My gut feeling is the further from 1980 and the closer to 1990 the less likely the Soviets would have pulled it off without going nuclear. Using hindsight, everyone pretty much all the professionals agree it would have been us breaking out the portable buckets of sunshine (Thats 80's air force speak for Nukes) if they kicked off between 75-83 - the western armies, especially and most importantly the US - was a hollow threat.

[Panther Al]

Originally Posted by Raellus

The German's biggest mistake was devoting so much of their war industry on small production runs of extremely complex and complicated wonder-weapons. That, coupled with a delay in converting to a war economy and late-war shortages of fuel and raw materials due to strategic bombing and sabotage meant that the Germans would never be able to translate any technological edge into a decisive strategic advantage.

Here you hit the nail on the head:

Germany was running on the equivalent of peace time production well into 43: It took Speer a lot of work to convince Hitler to allow German industry to work overtime hours, and more than one shift!

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to go with Max Hastings on this one. In WWII, the Allies had some superior weaponry- the P-51 Mustang, M-1 Garand, and the T-34/85 are all examples. Overall, they also had superior artillery. Allied naval superiority isn't really a matter of debate (aside from the Japanese Yamato class super-battleships which were impressive but anachronistic by 1941 and a couple of advanced German U-boat classes).

On the other hand, the Germans fielded a clearly superior GPMG in the MG-42, the word's first assault rifle, the STG-43/44, and the deadly 88mm DP gun. Most WA tanks crews would have gladly traded in their Sherman or Churchill for a Panther or Tiger, depite their often finicky engines.

And the Allies fielded a superior light machine gun; The Bren Gun, the world's first real infantry support weapon, still used by the British Army until the 1980's and still built in India. The Allies also fielded the M2 Browning, the best heavy machine gun ever made and still the standard heavy machine gun of every NATO and western country and many more besides. Despite its limitations the Germans also had a very healthy respect for the Sherman Firefly, who's 17 pounder chewed up some Panthers and Tigers in Normandy after D-Day, and are credit with killing the Tiger tank commanded by Michael Wittmann who was Germany's top scoring tank ace of WW2. The Allied tank commanders would no dount have prefered to have gone into battle against the Germans with the M26 Pershings and Centurion but the Sherman weighed 33 tonnes as opposed to 46 tons for the Pershing and I think the Centurion was even heavier. I think the logistical problems of transporting them across the sea in landing craft and then putting them on the beaches may have played a part in prolonging their introduction as the smaller Shermans were doing a good enough job and their were thousands available.

Originally Posted by Raellus

The ME-262 had is problems and vulnerabilities, but it still gave the allies fits in the air. Most ME-262s that were shot down were done so when they were landing. The Brits might have had jet aircraft first, but they didn't field them in any significant numbers until the war was nearly over. ASFAIK, there weren't any Meteor aces. The Germans also developed the world's first ballistic missile and the first radio-controlled ASMs.

The Germans were well ahead of the rest of the world in ballistic and radio controlled missiles. The Brits didn't have any need to field the Meteor in any significant numbers until the war was nearly over as the Allied air superiority over Western Europe and Germany was so great they werent needed. Also the RAF forbid Meteor pilots to fly over German occupied territory or to go east of Eindhoven in Holland until January 1945, to prevent downed aircraft being captured by the Germans or the Soviets. There werent any Meteor aces because there were relatively few German fighters flying in 1945 and the Meteor never actually encountered any German fighters.

Originally Posted by Raellus

The German's biggest mistake was devoting so much of their war industry on small production runs of extremely complex and complicated wonder-weapons. That, coupled with a delay in converting to a war economy and late-war shortages of fuel and raw materials due to strategic bombing and sabotage meant that the Germans would never be able to translate any technological edge into a decisive strategic advantage.

No one can argue that the correlation of forces was not the decisive factor in the Allies' victory. We had numerical advantages of at least 3-to-1, and in some cases 5-to-1 or more, in every major category of weaponry, from tanks to fighters to warships to men in uniform.

True

Originally Posted by Raellus

Now back to the Red Army. In WWII, the Soviet Union lost more citizens and soldiers than any other nation on earth. The U.S. had the lowest casualties of any major combatant. With all of their technology, the U.S. and UK combined to kill approximately 500,000 German men at arms during the entire war. The Soviets killed about 4.5m. The Red Army began the war with a decimated officer corps, outdated infantry weapons, and generally very poorly equipped troops. Four years later, they were a juggernaut.

The Germans also killed three times as many Soviets as the Soviets killed Germans. Outside of air and naval operations the only major land battlefield between the UK/USA and Germany from 1940 until the invasion of Sicily in 1943 was North Africa, a small side show compared to the Eastern Front. The UK/USA armies were only realy able to get to grips with the Germans with their full military forces in a geographicaly open battleground after D-Day. The German army casualty rates in the west after D-Day were every bit as severe as they were in the east, and Western air power was superior in technology and also in numbers to even the Soviets.

Originally Posted by Raellus

As for arguments about doctrine- no plan survives first contact with the enemy. The idea that superior doctrine would have won the war assumes a short war with flawless execution, no surprises, and a fairly predictable, cooperative enemy. In a longer war, both sides learn to make adjustments.

Hitler expected the U.S.S.R. to collapse in a matter of weeks. "Kick in the door and the whole rotten building will collapse" he said. For a few weeks, it looked like he might be right. Four years later, the Red Army was at the gates of Berlin.

The Allies could have taken Berlin before the Soviets, in fact the Germans probably wanted them to take Berlin before the Soviets. But the decision who was to take Berlin was decided at the Yalta Conference in February 1945. Eisenhower’s halted the Western Allied advance at the Elbe River.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

Let me hit some high points that was brought up by Raketenjagdpanzer.


For starters, yes, it was a rant, and no need for cursing... but I get where you are coming from so no worries.

I've never bought into the whole, "Another 6 months (Or Year, or whatever) they would have pulled it off" mentality. There was far too many reasons why that was a pipe dream.

But there is a few errors there.

Lets start with the Mauser 98. For starters, its not a WW1 era rifle. Its actually older than that. But thats minor - the point here is that even though its a old design, being old isn't something that makes it obsolete or useless: In fact, the Mauser 98K is still on active service as a top notch sniper rifle by various countries in its original form - and its action has been copied by about 75% of every other high end sniper system on the planet. Not exactly garbage that. Yes, I would agree the M1 was a better battle rifle - being a semiauto is a huge advantage over bolt action designs. But the M1 isn't used anymore - even for sniping unlike the 98k. And lets not forget the MG42 - still in frontline use today, and still the better of anything anyone else uses - and I've used the MG3 and the M240 in combat, and I'll take a 3 any day of the week.

Secondly, you are spot on for the Heavy tanks. By and large - and I will except the original Tiger I from this - heavy tank designs such as the Tiger 2, Jagdtiger, and the Ferdinand/Elefant was a colossal waste of time and resources that had no business being pushed beyond proof of concept stage. It was a waste of effort, manpower, and resources that has no excuse. However, Maybach doesn't make trannies: just the engines. Transmissions was made by ZF. Who, by the by, is the go to source in europe to this day for transmissions. In fact, those of us that have a BMW for example, have a ZF transmission. Now, the problem that German tanks had isn't because of one thing or another: the root of it is that no Panzer ever was actually built at its designed weight. Take the Pz4. It was designed to be a 22 ton tank. Its transmission, engine, and final drives (And it was the Final Drives that was the killer of german tanks) was geared for a 22 ton tank. Not the 30+ ton tank it wound up being. Same goes for the Tiger, it was designed to be a 45 ton tank, and was a good bit more than that. The Panther, for all its bashers, was almost an exception to the rule. It was meant to be a 40 ton tank, and unlike every other tank they built, they kept it from creeping up to much - it pegged out at 45 tons. Still enough that you had to keep an eye on the final drives, but much better. Also, as far as german tanks go, it was actually the only on that was overpowered. Yes. Overpowered. In order to cut costs, instead of going with a modified engine that was used on the IV, they decided to take the one out of the Tiger. This gave the panther a power to weight ratio that is the equal of the Challenger 1. War time production constraints did cause issues in the reliability of the engines, but thats no fault of the design.

And the Sherman - while a great tank from a reliability and production standpoint - wasn't the equal of a later model IV (G and onwards). More like a late III (L or M). The PzIII was almost un-german in its reliability. For some weird reason, the design was just solid all around. Half the mechanical issues the IV had, could be trusted to work when needed, and had the same armour package as the IV. Its downfall was that it was too small to take larger gun than the 5cm. And don't let that 5cm fool you: it was a better AT weapon than the 75mm in the Sherman. The only advantage the Sherman had over the III was it had a better HE round. But armour was equivalent, as was reliability of the the Early Shermans that was fielded at the same time as the III was. The IV's long 75 was *much* better than the 75 used on the Sherman. All comes down to barrel length and the velocity it allows. The German 75 was a long barrelled, high velocity gun, while the Sherman was a low velocity stubby gun designed to deliver HE rounds to take out MG nests: it was not meant to engage tanks except in an emergency.

You are right about the nuke program, and on the Jet front: the key difference is that the Germans actually tried to field large numbers of Jets where the US still thought it was a dumb idea.

The T34 was the great tank of the war. It was so good, the US actually imported a few in 41 and gave serious though to using it instead of the Sherman. Very Very serious thought. The transmission is what killed the deal though: the ones they sent us was the first flight T34 that made a german Tiger II look like a finely built swiss watch in the reliability department. Once they fixed those issues in 42, it was a whole new tank. And it was the T34 and not the Sherman that convinced the Germans to dump the III and go for the IV (and later the panther). The Panther was the better tank: It was actually equal in reliability to the T34 (Still those transmission issues on the case of the T34) when properly maintained, its armour was vastly better, and had a much better gun. And that includes the DT-5 85mm the later T34's had: Russians have always, to the day, had issues with propellent in large calibre guns that have forced them to built bigger to get equal performance.

Now the rest of the post, I couldn't agree more by and large: Yes, it could be said that we was doing the German thing, and look how that worked out for them, but that ignores the fact that unlike the germans the NATO armies would be properly supported to a degree that the Wehrmacht never was. And like it or not, the M1 was designed to be the ultimate tank - Creighton Abrams himself, when the program was started (Before it was known as a M1, and just after the debacle that was the MBT70) said, "I want a Tiger 2 - just one that works." And they did so: The designers spared no expense in making sure that every facet of the design was maxed out: Protection, Speed, Firepower. Usually you got to give a little in one category to get a little in the other, but they added the forth ingredient: Cash. Toss enough money at any engineering problem, you'll find a way to get around it. Pity he didn't live long enough to see it bear fruit. I could just see him taking the first one out for a spin with 'Thunderbolt 9' painted on the side.

Air-Land Battle is a good source, and like you, I recommend any who hasn't read it, to do so. Its a great way to get a feeling for how the US was planning on fighting WW3. But also, dig deeper than what is found on the internet to see what the Soviets was planning: A lot of what you see there is based on supposition and jingo-ism. The Soviets knew they was facing an uphill battle post 84 - a lot of generals said that once the Reagan build up got solidly underway (I've heard dates of 88-90), there was no longer any real hope of winning without NBC warfare - and they planned accordingly. Falling back on NBC doesn't mean they was throwing in the towel: they was just coming up with a plan that would probably work. Post GW the Soviets really knew they was done for. I think that played a huge role in the end of the Soviet menace. Pre-88, they was still confident of a win - just wouldn't be easy. And they had reason to be reasonably confident. I am nbot going to say they was right, or wrong, but they had solid plans in place to counter the effects of the AirLand Battle, and recall, there wouldn't be much Air in the FEBA - There the Soviets was justly and fairly confident that they had the upper hand thanks to the efforts put into forward air defence.


I have no idea how WW3 in the 80's would have wound up: My gut feeling is the further from 1980 and the closer to 1990 the less likely the Soviets would have pulled it off without going nuclear. Using hindsight, everyone pretty much all the professionals agree it would have been us breaking out the portable buckets of sunshine (Thats 80's air force speak for Nukes) if they kicked off between 75-83 - the western armies, especially and most importantly the US - was a hollow threat.

I think I'd agree with most of that except for the fact that you missed the Sherman Firefly, which was a very effective tank killer at standard combat ranges.

The problem with post-war American tanks was that they weren't much better than anything the Soviets had and they had fewer tanks. The M60 was basicaly a progressive development of the WW2 M26, via the M47/M48. None of these tanks were bad tanks, just they not much better if at all than the Soviet T-55/T-62/T-64 generation. US tankers in Europe from the late 60's until 1980 must have been looking at the BAOR in NORTHAG with their 60 ton Chieftain tanks with 120mm rifled guns and saying to the Generals in the Pentagon "why cant we have one of them?"

[pmulcahy11b]

Let me reiterate the experience of the late Michael March, my next-door neighbor and former Sherman crewman (started as a driver, and eventually worked his way into the TC's hatch). He got to Europe about two weeks after D-Day, and his crew was given a "reissue;" the Sherman had been hit a short time before and the entire crew was killed or wounded. The repair troops patched the Sherman up, but weren't very effective at cleaning up the mess inside. Mike told me that every time they started up the vehicle and the engine started getting warm, you could smell the previous crew.

He (and other Sherman crewman) were told straight out that in fight with a Tiger or Panther, they would lose four Shermans in the process of knocking out that German tank. The Shermans were inferior technology, but the Germans couldn't match our production rate. Given a hypothetical WW3, NATO would find themselves on the opposite side of equation -- The Warsaw Pact would mob us with tons of inferior tanks and vehicles, inferior tech aircraft, and troops that have been taught to rock and roll instead of using aimed semiautomatic fire.

The only thing that might save us is superior technology that is so superior that it equalizes the fight. And, in another parallel to the Nazis, we had a lot of wunderwaffen, but not enough to be an equalizing force. Another thing that achieve a partial equalization might be the large amounts of B-52s and B-1s that we still had in the 90s.

Unfortunately, I fear that what would happen is that a lot of Pershings would unwrap...

[Webstral]

The 98k is an interesting case of a superb system that is not well adapted for the circumstances of its use. I probably don’t need to elaborate with this crowd regarding the excellence of design of the 98k or of its lasting impact on the design of bolt action rifles. As Panther Al points out, the legacy of the 98k endures. However, the legacy is as a sniper rifle, not a battle rifle. The Germans had a superb weapon that was not optimized for infantry combat the way it actually occurs—especially in restricted terrain. The 98k was very poorly suited for the fighting in Stalingrad, where numbers of Sturmgewehr would have been warmly welcomed.

One of the important aspects of technology is knowing how to use it. As has been pointed out, the Me-262 could have had a very significant impact on the air war over Europe if Hitler hadn’t been so fixated on turning it into a bomber. The Battle of the Atlantic could have been turned around much sooner if the US has put more B-24s in at the beginning. The Germans realized early on just how flexible and powerful the 88mm was. The US developed the remarkable Norden bomb sight but tested it in the American Southwest, where sunny skies predominate. The whole concept of daylight bombing was predicated on good visibility from high altitude—conditions that don’t reliably occur over Germany. The Germans realized early on that the turret needs to include most of the tank crew and a radio; thus, with fewer and less combat-worthy tanks than the British and French, they won the Battle of France. I could go on and on, but most of us here know everything I’ve written so far. The inherent qualities of the machine are but a modest slice of the pie that is their success on the battlefield.

[Panther Al]

RN7 is right that I missed the Firefly (A Tank my grandfather finished the war in) and, as well, the Easy 8 - which is probably the best Sherman ever built. Both of these, and even the 76mm armed M4, was a much better Sherman. But they was still a small fraction of the total number of Shermans in the field before the last few months.


I would rate either the Firefly or the E8 as better than any IV, and almost equal to the Panther (Armour still sucks in comparison).


Now, as to why the M26 didn't see combat till March....



Blame the Pentagon. The M26 should have been fielded in time for the push up the Italian boot, not to mention D-Day. It was, for all intents, capable of being ready in time. However, the staffers in the puzzle palace believed that the Heavy Tank was an evil that needed to be purged from the US Army, the main argument was that resources devoted to building, and transporting, the M26 could easily be used to send 3 Sherman's to the front. Considering how good the stock Sherman was compared to the IV, it don't think it passes the smell test. The Pershing was *not* the equal to the Tiger 2. It was however the Equal to the Panther, and the Tiger 1. Its armour protection (depending on where exactly you point too - in spots it was less) was the same as both tanks, and the 90mm gun wasn't as hot as you'd might think - it was based on the 90mm AA gun yes, and the stock 90mm AA gun was the equal to the 88L71, but the gun mounted in the Pershing was basically a sawed off version, not allowing the ammo to get to full velocity before leaving the barrel and hindering its terminal performance. However, that performance was equal to the 88L56 and the 75L70, and its mobility was the equal as well.

[Panther Al]

Originally Posted by Webstral

The 98k is an interesting case of a superb system that is not well adapted for the circumstances of its use. I probably don’t need to elaborate with this crowd regarding the excellence of design of the 98k or of its lasting impact on the design of bolt action rifles. As Panther Al points out, the legacy of the 98k endures. However, the legacy is as a sniper rifle, not a battle rifle. The Germans had a superb weapon that was not optimized for infantry combat the way it actually occurs—especially in restricted terrain. The 98k was very poorly suited for the fighting in Stalingrad, where numbers of Sturmgewehr would have been warmly welcomed.

One of the important aspects of technology is knowing how to use it. As has been pointed out, the Me-262 could have had a very significant impact on the air war over Europe if Hitler hadn’t been so fixated on turning it into a bomber. The Battle of the Atlantic could have been turned around much sooner if the US has put more B-24s in at the beginning. The Germans realized early on just how flexible and powerful the 88mm was. The US developed the remarkable Norden bomb sight but tested it in the American Southwest, where sunny skies predominate. The whole concept of daylight bombing was predicated on good visibility from high altitude—conditions that don’t reliably occur over Germany. The Germans realized early on that the turret needs to include most of the tank crew and a radio; thus, with fewer and less combat-worthy tanks than the British and French, they won the Battle of France. I could go on and on, but most of us here know everything I’ve written so far. The inherent qualities of the machine are but a modest slice of the pie that is their success on the battlefield.

I'm not saying the 98K was a great battle rifle: note I mentioned the M1 was better in that regard. But it was a rifle they had a great deal off from the first world war, they didn't have to do anything but dust off the machinery to get production going again. In this case, this was a rare example of the German military taking the sensible road when it came to procurement. It was designed for open field battle: where its range could come into play. Deserts of Afrika? Yeah... it was a dominating rifle there. Once you got into the cities, the tighter woods, yeah... Thats why I believe there was such an emphasis on the Machine Pistol post 43. They saw the problems, and unlike anyone else, actually took steps to find the right answer: the StG44 (MP44).

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by RN7

And the Allies fielded a superior light machine gun; The Bren Gun, the world's first real infantry support weapon, still used by the British Army until the 1980's and still built in India.

Don't get me wrong, I like the Bren, but the MG-42 was superior to the Bren Gun in nearly every way except maybe weight. The modern German version of the MG-42, the MG-3, is still in use around the world today, as is the M60 which was modelled on the MG-42.

Originally Posted by RN7

The Allies also fielded the M2 Browning, the best heavy machine gun ever made and still the standard heavy machine gun of every NATO and western country and many more besides.

Good call.

Originally Posted by RN7

Despite its limitations the Germans also had a very healthy respect for the Sherman Firefly, who's 17 pounder chewed up some Panthers and Tigers in Normandy after D-Day, and are credit with killing the Tiger tank commanded by Michael Wittmann who was Germany's top scoring tank ace of WW2.

Yes, the 17-pounder was a badass AT gun. It was the gun the Germans respected, not the tank it what mounted on.

Originally Posted by RN7

The Germans also killed three times as many Soviets as the Soviets killed Germans.

Very true. But the Soviets still won. I only bring this up as it supports my premise in the Defense of the Red Army thread.

Originally Posted by RN7

The German army casualty rates in the west after D-Day were every bit as severe as they were in the east, and Western air power was superior in technology and also in numbers to even the Soviets.

I don't think your first claim is very accurate. During the five weeks of Operation Bagration, launched in June of '44, the Red Army destroyed Army Group Center and bagged the Soviets 17 German divisions utterly destroyed and 50 others shattered. The Soviets claimed 400,000 Germans killed, 2000 tanks destroyed, and 158,000 prisoners taken. By contrast, the Germans lost about 200,000 men killed, wounded, and missing, and 250,000 men captured during the entire Normandy campaign, including the Falaise Pocket battles (all told, nearly three months of fighting). That's just the most glaring example.

Your second claim is right on the money.

Originally Posted by RN7

The Allies could have taken Berlin before the Soviets, in fact the Germans probably wanted them to take Berlin before the Soviets. But the decision who was to take Berlin was decided at the Yalta Conference in February 1945. Eisenhower’s halted the Western Allied advance at the Elbe River.

The Western Allies were also much more reluctant to take casualties and so Eisenhower decided to let the Soviets earn Berlin with their blood. Stalin and the Red Army generals were more than willing to oblige.

[95th Rifleman]

Allies where behind he curve right up to 1944.

Look t the British, we didn't even have a tank that could fire HE and AP untill we bought the American M3's! We had to have one tank in every squadrn equipped with a howitzer to provide smoke and HE shells because the 6 pounders on everything else could only fire AP.

The Firefly was a quickfix because nothing in the British inventory could carry the 17pouner and we had to turn it on it's side to squeeze it into the the sherman. Only one in eery 4 tanks was a Firefly at best and the Germans learned to knock them out first.

[Panther Al]

Originally Posted by 95th Rifleman

Allies where behind he curve right up to 1944.

Look t the British, we didn't even have a tank that could fire HE and AP untill we bought the American M3's! We had to have one tank in every squadrn equipped with a howitzer to provide smoke and HE shells because the 6 pounders on everything else could only fire AP.

The Firefly was a quickfix because nothing in the British inventory could carry the 17pouner and we had to turn it on it's side to squeeze it into the the sherman. Only one in eery 4 tanks was a Firefly at best and the Germans learned to knock them out first.

Exactly, which was what the Brits (And the yanks) learned to do in Africa when the long gunned IV's started showing up, so turnabout always sucks.

[Legbreaker]

It's worth noting that besides the American M1, virtually everyone else where using bolt action rifles. And the M1, although semi-automatic, had a bit of a serious drawback - that pesky "ping" announcing to the world it was empty.

[Sanjuro]

RN7 said

in electronics and radars the British were probably ahead of everyone.

True: and then there is computing and codebreaking. The world's first electronic computer, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossus_computer , and a cryptology facility so advanced that for over thirty years no one even believed their achievements were even technically possible. Britain was even able to sell captured Enigma technology all over the world as "unbreakable coding machines" and then happily read everyone's encrypted messages...
On the subject of Gloster jets... in my first flying instruction job, there was a retired pilot who taught groundschool. He had been a Hurricane pilot early in WW2, then after several combat tours he was "rested" by being assigned to fly with the ATA delivering aircraft to combat stations.
One day he was ordered to collect a new aircraft- with two engines. Not having much multi-engine experience, he read all he could about multi-engine handling techniques on the train to the airfield. On arrival, he was told "it's behind the hangar, help yourself"- but was very confused because the aircraft had no propellors.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by raketenjagdpanzer

...I'm sorry if that's ranty and I know people are going to jump on this post...

Um yeah, I am going to jump on a few things here but probably not the ones people think. In fact what I'm going to say means I am quite happy to jump to Raellus's defence for his original post in defence of the Red Army.

Originally Posted by raketenjagdpanzer

...The Germans never gave serious consideration to nuclear weapons. Yes, they had Heavy Water experiments in Norway, but even if the Allies had left them untouched and the war had dragged on (which the Soviets weren't going to do - they were after blood, the Western Front be damned), there's no way they'd have had a tested and working bomb before the Reds got to them...

Jury is still out I think on this, I've read statements from German scientists from after the war saying that they actively prevented the development of atomic weapons even though they believed that they could have achieved production. In particular, they claimed that by using technical language involving physics and higher math, they were able to confuse the issue enough that they never truly conveyed the power of atomic weapons to the Nazi regime nor the ability to produce them.

And I've also read claims that the Germans didn't have the knowledge to do so or that they didn't have the necessary uranium resources and so on, so it seems that the whole issue is never going to be particularly clear...

Originally Posted by raketenjagdpanzer

...The consequence of not living in a nightmare police state which is what everyone east of the Berlin Wall lived under until 1990, but rather a free and open society was that the Soviets were able to pre-position Spetsnaz groups and equipment throughout western europe...

I personally know Czechs, Russians and Poles who were living behind the Iron Curtain and yes indoctrination played a huge part in the development of their cultures and the secret police played a significant part in their lives (even more so with East Germany) but for the majority of people living outside the Soviet Union, life was actually pretty damned good some of the time. Free and I mean COMPLETELY free education and medical care and if you didn't have a job one would be found for you (if however, you were a lazy swine who didn't want to work, you would often be thrown in forced labour prisons or conscripted)

In Poland and Czechoslovakia for example, they had more freedoms than the Soviets and more consumer goods and generally more food, clothes and luxury items in the shops. My Czech work colleague used to be a coal miner and the liberties extended to miners would never happen in the West simply because the communist regimes relied heavily on the mines and gave the miners a lot of leeway - such as the ability to refuse conscription and the "exchange rate" was pretty good, three years in the Army or one year in the mines.

True the mines were dangerous but no more so than mines in any Western nation. My work colleague stayed as a miner for many years and was able to afford such luxuries as a brand new colour TV from West Germany - TVs that were regularly sold in Czechoslovak department stores.

Hungarians had a rather "too easy" time crossing the border into Austria during certain years of the Cold War because memories of the Austro-Hungarian Empire were still very strong and the border guards of both nations might sometimes be related by old family ties. Hungarians often went into Austria to shop for items that they then sold on to the Soviets!

Originally Posted by raketenjagdpanzer

... a dozen slave labor produced T72s...

Many Soviet workers actually took pride in their work and firmly believing the crap that the Soviet State indoctrinated them with, many of them felt that they were contributing to the security of the Motherland and helping to keep the world free. That plus the Soviets massive expenditure on Civil Defence shelters and training compared to the West convinced many Soviet citizens that the State did care about their ability to survive any aggression from the West.

You have to consider that despite the harshness of the State, the Russians in particular lived in a harsh land and were used to making sacrifices for Rodina (that plus the fact that they have been invaded by significant military forces nearly every two hundred years tends you make you more accepting of the need for sacrifice).

The Soviet Union did have significant problems, food & clothing shortages particularly, but the idea that everyone east of the Berlin Wall lived under a nightmare police state is hyperbole and propaganda and dare I say, indoctrination, from the West.

[Mahatatain]

Originally Posted by Raellus

The Western Allies were also much more reluctant to take casualties and so Eisenhower decided to let the Soviets earn Berlin with their blood. Stalin and the Red Army generals were more than willing to oblige.

If I remember correctly (I read this book quite a few years ago) in Stephen E. Ambrose's biography of Eisenhower (Eisenhower: Soldier and President) he says that Eisenhower resisted pressure to take Berlin and chose instead to engage the major remaining elements of the German Army, approaching his strategy from a military rather than a political point of view.

Ambrose then went on to say that when Eisenhower became President he recognised that the political point of view sometimes outweighs the military and that he may have made a strategic mistake in not driving straight to Berlin when he could have.

We will never know however.....

[copeab]

A few points:

The undergunning of the Sherman was largely the result of the flawed doctrine of the US in having tank destroyers (like the M-10, M-36 and M-18) kill other tanks.

The Arado Ar 234 was the blitz bomber Hitler wanted the Me 262 to be, but had it showed up a few months earlire in it's role as recon plane, the Germans would have almost certainly spotted the D-Day invasion fleet assembling (at that time, the Germans really had no effective air recon over England).

The Me 262, with engine development problems, probably would not have entered service much sooner even without Hitler's meddling.

The US viewed solders as interchangable pieces and had a disgraceful method of replacing dead/wounded soldiers with new ones. The "we'll sacrifice four Shermans for one Panther" was just an extension of this.

The M-1 carbine (and especially M-2) could be viewed as an early version of the PDW concept -- a light, handy weapon for use by troops whose primary job isn't a rifleman.

Although the Germans get all the attention, the US successfully used guided glide bombs in the Pacific, mostly for destroying bridges in the CBI Theater.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Yes, the 17-pounder was a badass AT gun. It was the gun the Germans respected, not the tank it what mounted on.

The Germans respected French tanks in 1940 because on paper they were better than their own, but their now just an afterthought in WW2 history. The Allies coverted 2,300 Sherman Fireflies which was probably equivalent to most of the German tank fleet in Western Europe from 1944-45.

Originally Posted by Raellus

Very true. But the Soviets still won. I only bring this up as it supports my premise in the Defense of the Red Army thread.

There are many reasons why the Soviet won and the Germans lost, and there isn't enough time or space in this thread to fully discuss it.

Originally Posted by Raellus

I don't think your first claim is very accurate. During the five weeks of Operation Bagration, launched in June of '44, the Red Army destroyed Army Group Center and bagged the Soviets 17 German divisions utterly destroyed and 50 others shattered. The Soviets claimed 400,000 Germans killed, 2000 tanks destroyed, and 158,000 prisoners taken. By contrast, the Germans lost about 200,000 men killed, wounded, and missing, and 250,000 men captured during the entire Normandy campaign, including the Falaise Pocket battles (all told, nearly three months of fighting). That's just the most glaring example.

German frontline strength during Operation Bagration were 400,000 troops, under 500 tanks and assault guns, with another 400,000 support and non combat personnel. The Soviets had over 2.3 million troops and 4,000 tanks and assault guns. The Germans were outnumbered 3:1 to one or 6:1 if you only count frontline German troops. The actually German casualties in Bagration were 400,000 total casualties (killed, missing and wounded) and the Soviets lost 780,000 men and 2,900 tanks.

In Operation Overlord from the 6th June until the 25th of August the Allies had over 2 million troops as opposed to just over 1 million Germans. German casualties were 209,000 troops and 2,200 tanks and assault guns, while the Allied casualties were 226,000 troops and 4,000 tanks. During Operation Dragoon, the other less well known Allied invasion of southern France in August 1944 200,000 Allied troops faced 300,000 Germans. Allies casualties were 20,000 as opposed to 27,000 Germans.

Basically the battles fought on the Eastern Front throughout the war were one a titanic scale, as whoever lost faced extermination due to the polar opposite ideologies and the Nazi racial element that was brought into the war. Losses throughout the war were staggering but the Soviet tended to lose a lot more even in victory until 1945 when Germany was all but defeated. For most of the war the German troops were far better trained and led than their Soviet counterparts, but were let down by supply problems and political interference from Berlin. However German land forces were less dominant throughout the war against Western forces excluding the catastrophic problems the Allies had in 1940 for various reasons. The casualty rates of German troops versus American and British troops are generally similar on both sides in North Africa, Italy and NW Europe after D-Day with a few exceptions, but in general the Allies inflicted heavier casualties against the Germans than what they received, and more importantly they generally won the battles and had manpower and supply problems that the Germans only dreamed of having.

Originally Posted by Raellus

The Western Allies were also much more reluctant to take casualties and so Eisenhower decided to let the Soviets earn Berlin with their blood. Stalin and the Red Army generals were more than willing to oblige.

Stalin had a lot less respect for human life than any Western General

[Panther Al]

RN7,

This might feel like I am bashing, but I swear, I'm not...


A couple more fallacies in the last one you put up. In 1940, on the whole, the French Tanks *was* the best out there. True, they did have problems (One man turrets anyone?), but by and large the latest generations (S35 and H35/39 - not to mention the Char B-1) of French tanks was much better than most of what was fielded by the germans. It was German Tactics - and french strategic stupidity - that allowed the Fall of France.

While manpower losses might be accurate for Overlord, the Tank loss numbers you have came from allied sources. Which are massively overstated by almost a factor of 10. I've seen the daily strength reports of the German Units involved in the normandy campaign, and while they did lose a lot of tanks, they never fielded that many in the first place on the western front at any one time. The strongest, and only up to strength, Panzer Unit there was the Panzer Lehr, and they only had 162 Panzers. The various SS Panzer divisions was averaging around a hundred each. The 21st was at a lower number. Replacements sent to the front from June to September amounted roughly 300 Panzers of all types (This doesn't include new units arriving). At peak: 31 August, the total Panzer Strength in the western front topped out at 784. Including those in workshops - which amounted to half of that number. Just taking Panthers alone, only 1130 was sent west before Sep 1, of those, 397 was still on the books as operational, 240 (I don't have the exact number for this handy, want to say it was between 240 and 250) in workshops, with another 124 withdrawn to other fronts.


Panthers accounted for half of all the panzers (including StuG's) on the western front between 6 June and 6 August. Of those present (484 with 1.SS-Pz.Rgt 1, 2, 9, 12; 1.Pz-Rgt 3, and 6, each of 79 (Save for Pz-Rgt6 with 89)) only 131 was wrote off as a total loss. By this time 32 was sent from ordnance depots, and another 73 from Mailly-le-Camp training school upping totals to 458 on hand. Oddly enough, it wasn't till August that Panthers stopped being the bulk of Panzers sent to the west - August to September was when the Panzer Brigades arrived, and they was only 1-3 in panther/other panzer strength.

Part of the accounting issue for German Panzer losses between German Sources and Allied, is that we counted Halftracks as Panzers: Which is stupid, but there you go. And the Lehr's Infantry Regiments was fully equipped to the last man with all the latest armoured halftracks for rides. The only division (Heer or SS) to be so equipped - and they took heavy losses in those rides while serving as fire brigades.

Granted, come november, the strength reports ballooned for the Ardennes offensive, but thats not important to this point.


Copeab is spot on as to why the Sherman was under gunned. It was never meant to take on tanks in the first place: it was supposed to be an Infantry Support Tank.

[Raellus]

If you're comparing German casualty figures on both fronts after June 6th, 1944, I think you need to take into consideration the fact that a lot of Germans surrendered to WA formations because they didn't want to be captured and/or killed by the Red Army. These voluntary surrenders would presumably be counted in the tally of overall casualties, skewing that number slightly in favor of the WA (making the WA look more effective than they actually were). I think that this is misleading, because it happened almost by default. If anything, this willingness of some German units to surrender to Western forces indicates that the Red Army was in some ways a force modifier, its mere existence helping the WA (in that they didn't have to fight Germans hoping/seeking to be captured by them). In other words, if it weren't for the threat posed by the Red Army, some of those German units in the west would have fought as hard as the ones on the Eastern Front did.

[LAW0306]

we have a differnt helmet because we do differnt things. with out getting into secrets on a forum. do your homework before you bash the best army in the world or the United States Marine Corps.

[LAW0306]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

It's worth noting that besides the American M1, virtually everyone else where using bolt action rifles. And the M1, although semi-automatic, had a bit of a serious drawback - that pesky "ping" announcing to the world it was empty.

True leg it does make a ping....but as you know we fight in teams like you aussies do. So please stick your head up and my battle buddy will smoke you or the attached MG team. just not a very good point. we never fight one on one...thats tv and movies...we fight as teams....war is a team sport.

[Adm.Lee]

Something to consider when comparing the WW2 Wehrmacht and NATO's forces is that those German wonder-weapons were pretty rare on the ground.

They equipped only some of their formations as panzer and panzergrenadiers, the vast majority of German soldiers fought with the Kar98k, hardly any armored support, and artillery from captured Soviet 76mm guns pulled by horses.

The Western Allies in WW2, and NATO in the Cold War, had the wherewithal to back up their "just good enough" and "dependent on firepower" forces and doctrines when they fought. You can say that the King Tigers and Jagdpanthers were a luxury force, deployed in small numbers and overwhelmed by heavy odds, but the Leopards and Challengers and Abrams tanks were meant to equip *all* of the NATO armies.

Second item: check out the book Death traps by Belton Cooper. He was a WW2 Ordnance officer in the 3rd Armored Division. In his version, the Ordnance Corps offered Patton and others the Pershing tank in the winter of 1943-44, but they turned it down, not wanting to a) deal with the inevitable teething troubles, and b) have a disruption in the supply chain, especially one that would cut the number of tanks shipped by a factor of 2 or 3. Given the Allies' superiority in airpower, artillery, and the presence of 90mm TDs, that might be a compromise to consider.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

RN7,

This might feel like I am bashing, but I swear, I'm not... .

Oh no fell free to contradict all you like!

Originally Posted by Panther Al

A couple more fallacies in the last one you put up. In 1940, on the whole, the French Tanks *was* the best out there. True, they did have problems (One man turrets anyone?), but by and large the latest generations (S35 and H35/39 - not to mention the Char B-1) of French tanks was much better than most of what was fielded by the germans. It was German Tactics - and french strategic stupidity - that allowed the Fall of France.

Well I sort of presumed that you knew I knew the reasons why the French were so poor in the Battle of France as I think every knows them, hence why I said later in my reply to Raellus “excluding the catastrophic problems the Allies had in 1940 for various reasons”

Originally Posted by Panther Al

While manpower losses might be accurate for Overlord, the Tank loss numbers you have came from allied sources. Which are massively overstated by almost a factor of 10. I've seen the daily strength reports of the German Units involved in the normandy campaign, and while they did lose a lot of tanks, they never fielded that many in the first place on the western front at any one time. The strongest, and only up to strength, Panzer Unit there was the Panzer Lehr, and they only had 162 Panzers.

I think I included September figures as well, strike that it’s a typo.

From my sources Panzer Lehr had either 188 tanks (89 Panthers and 99 Pz IV and 41 Stug) or 144 tanks (52 Panther, 92 Pz IV and 40 Stug) on the 1st of June 1944. Obviously a few discrepancies in combat ready/short term and long term repair reports.

Originally Posted by Panther Al

The various SS Panzer divisions was averaging around a hundred each. The 21st was at a lower number.

Off the top of my head at the start of D-Day the following German divisions had....

Panzer Lehr Division: 188 tanks (89 Panther, 99 Pz IV, 41 Stug)
1st SS Panzer Division: 88 tanks (38 Panther, 50 Pz IV, 45 Stug)
2nd Panzer Division: 166 tanks (70 Panther, 96 Panzer IV, 19 Stug)
2nd SS Panzer Division: 92 tanks (37 Panther, 55 Pz IV, 42 Stug)
3rd Fallschirmjager Division; 0 tank
10th SS Panzer Division: 39 tanks (39 Panther, 38 Stug)
12th SS Panzer Division: 148 tanks (50 Panzer, 98 Panzer IV, 2 Stug)
17th SS Division: 0 tanks
19th SS Division: 0 tanks (42 Stug)
21st Panzer Division: 112 tanks (112 Panther)
716th Infantry Division: 0 tanks

Originally Posted by Panther Al

Replacements sent to the front from June to September amounted roughly 300 Panzers of all types (This doesn't include new units arriving). At peak: 31 August, the total Panzer Strength in the western front topped out at 784. Including those in workshops - which amounted to half of that number. Just taking Panthers alone, only 1130 was sent west before Sep 1, of those, 397 was still on the books as operational, 240 (I don't have the exact number for this handy, want to say it was between 240 and 250) in workshops, with another 124 withdrawn to other fronts.

Panthers accounted for half of all the panzers (including StuG's) on the western front between 6 June and 6 August. Of those present (484 with 1.SS-Pz.Rgt 1, 2, 9, 12; 1.Pz-Rgt 3, and 6, each of 79 (Save for Pz-Rgt6 with 89)) only 131 was wrote off as a total loss. By this time 32 was sent from ordnance depots, and another 73 from Mailly-le-Camp training school upping totals to 458 on hand. Oddly enough, it wasn't till August that Panthers stopped being the bulk of Panzers sent to the west - August to September was when the Panzer Brigades arrived, and they was only 1-3 in panther/other panzer strength.

Part of the accounting issue for German Panzer losses between German Sources and Allied, is that we counted Halftracks as Panzers: Which is stupid, but there you go. And the Lehr's Infantry Regiments was fully equipped to the last man with all the latest armoured halftracks for rides. The only division (Heer or SS) to be so equipped - and they took heavy losses in those rides while serving as fire brigades.

I believe German tank reinforcements for June was 48 Tiger I, 256 Panther and 121 Pz IV. Losses were 19 Tiger 1, 80 Panther, 125 Pz IV and 27 Stug.
In July they received 42 Tiger 1, 83 Panther, 31 Pz IV and 56 Stug. Losses were 14 Tiger 1, 125 Panther, 149 Pz IV and 68 Stug plus others.
In August they received 14 Tiger 1, 11 Pz IV and 59 Stug. Losses were 15 Tiger 1, 41 Panther, 49 Pz IV and 78 Stug plus others.

I believe the total German tank losses were 224 for June, 288 for July, 105 for August and 1,228 for September for a total 1,845. The September figure obviously increases total German tank losses.

[Panther Al]

Originally Posted by RN7

Oh no fell free to contradict all you like!



Well I sort of presumed that you knew I knew the reasons why the French were so poor in the Battle of France as I think every knows them, hence why I said later in my reply to Raellus “excluding the catastrophic problems the Allies had in 1940 for various reasons”



I think I included September figures as well, strike that it’s a typo.

From my sources Panzer Lehr had either 188 tanks (89 Panthers and 99 Pz IV and 41 Stug) or 144 tanks (52 Panther, 92 Pz IV and 40 Stug) on the 1st of June 1944. Obviously a few discrepancies in combat ready/short term and long term repair reports.




Off the top of my head at the start of D-Day the following German divisions had....

Panzer Lehr Division: 188 tanks (89 Panther, 99 Pz IV, 41 Stug)
1st SS Panzer Division: 88 tanks (38 Panther, 50 Pz IV, 45 Stug)
2nd Panzer Division: 166 tanks (70 Panther, 96 Panzer IV, 19 Stug)
2nd SS Panzer Division: 92 tanks (37 Panther, 55 Pz IV, 42 Stug)
3rd Fallschirmjager Division; 0 tank
10th SS Panzer Division: 39 tanks (39 Panther, 38 Stug)
12th SS Panzer Division: 148 tanks (50 Panzer, 98 Panzer IV, 2 Stug)
17th SS Division: 0 tanks
19th SS Division: 0 tanks (42 Stug)
21st Panzer Division: 112 tanks (112 Panther)
716th Infantry Division: 0 tanks




I believe German tank reinforcements for June was 48 Tiger I, 256 Panther and 121 Pz IV. Losses were 19 Tiger 1, 80 Panther, 125 Pz IV and 27 Stug.
In July they received 42 Tiger 1, 83 Panther, 31 Pz IV and 56 Stug. Losses were 14 Tiger 1, 125 Panther, 149 Pz IV and 68 Stug plus others.
In August they received 14 Tiger 1, 11 Pz IV and 59 Stug. Losses were 15 Tiger 1, 41 Panther, 49 Pz IV and 78 Stug plus others.

I believe the total German tank losses were 224 for June, 288 for July, 105 for August and 1,228 for September for a total 1,845. The September figure obviously increases total German tank losses.

*waggles his fingers* Those numbers are not the ones I have, though with all things when it comes to german records you never do know.

However, the 21st's numbers is *way* off. The 21st had NO panthers at all in its TOE. Also, while September was a murderous month for the Panzer forces, by this time there was only 3 Panther Regiments left by 9 Sept: they had all been withdrawn, so a lot of those losses was older models. Not to mention I do believe - though I have scant evidence, just enough to make me think this - that the loss numbers are slightly exaggerated. Most of my numbers come from actual strength reports as reported by the units, coupled with delivery information. While none are fully and totally reported, and there is always room for 'inflation' on the combat reports, I feel comfortable about them.

The Pocket trapped a lot of German Equipment, but the legend of all the Panzers being left behind is largely that: Legend. A lot was abandoned don't get me wrong, but the Germans knew how important it was to get the armour out, and they recovered more than was believed at the time. Not enough to make a huge difference, but...

Ritgen mentioned - at least I want to say it was him, but I know I read it one of the post war memoirs, that it was pretty common to have units overstate its losses to a slight degree in order to encourage the rear to increase its importance in receiving replacements. Early in the war, it was to the advantage to overstate strength, but by the time the war was heading to its conclusion, it was felt it was better to try to find any reason to get to the head of the line for replacements.

Its this, and the aformentioned scarcity of solid info due to the destruction of files and records that makes this such a point of debate.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

*waggles his fingers* Those numbers are not the ones I have, though with all things when it comes to german records you never do know.

However, the 21st's numbers is *way* off. The 21st had NO panthers at all in its TOE.

Sorry that was a typo, the 2st had 112 Panther IV, I also made one with the 12th SS Panzer: Should be 50 Panther, 98 Panzer IV and 2 Stug.

I'm also looking at a German source (7AOK Kriegtagbuch from captured German documents) that show the 2nd panzer battalion of the 21st Panzer Division was still using some ex-French Somua tanks at the beginning of June, and the 3rd battalion was due to be refitted with Panthers.