Author Topic: WW2 Tanks: Sherman v. Panther v. Tiger  (Read 14267 times)

MoneyLovinOgre4Hire

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 25631
  • It's just my goth phase
Re: WW2 Tanks: Sherman v. Panther v. Tiger
« Reply #30 on: 15 February 2018, 01:16:22 »
And then the Germans got so desperate for tanks (and all other war materials) that they ended up completely ending all quality control at their factories.

On the subject of numbers, The Elefants are a red herring, all ninety-one were effectively private venture construction from Porsche on the assumption he'd get the heavy tank contract.  That the German system allowed that sort of thing to happen was symptomatic of everything wrong with their arms procurement model, but it doesn't really say anything about German industrial capacity and if the Ministry of Armaments had had it's way not even one of them would have been constructed.  That they decided to do something useful with the unwanted chassis was merely thrift - and the reputation of the Elefant has undergone some rehabilitation in recent years too.  When one looks at it's combat effectiveness on the Eastern Front it seems to have a been a very effective tank killer and not many were lost to enemy action.

Actually, what happened was that the Soviets were using SU-152s.  Their HE shells would usually kill the Elefant's crew in one hit but leave the vehicle intact, allowing it to be recovered and put back into service (though I can't imagine that it was at all pleasant for the replacement crews).  And the Elefant wasn't the only oversized vehicle that the Germans produced, since, you know, there was kind of an obsession with such things in the upper echelons.  I mean, they thought that the Maus was a good idea.
Warning: this post may contain sarcasm.

"I think I've just had another near-Rincewind experience," Death, The Color of Magic

"When in doubt, C4." Jamie Hyneman

Bren

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 629
Re: WW2 Tanks: Sherman v. Panther v. Tiger
« Reply #31 on: 15 February 2018, 01:19:44 »
I think this is what the gentleman in the video was referencing re: Tiger encounters

Steven Zaloga:
When you read unit accounts, whether it’s the actual unit after action reports or the published books, everyone talks about Tiger tanks. But in looking at it in both German records and US records, I’ve only found three instances in all the fighting from Normandy to 1945 where the US encountered Tigers. And by Tigers I mean Tiger 1 ...  I’m not talking King Tigers, the strange thing is that the US Army encountered King Tigers far more often than Tigers. That’s partly because there weren’t a lot of Tigers left by 1944, production ends in August 1944. There were not a lot of Tigers in Normandy, they were mostly in the British sector, the British saw a lot of Tigers. Part of the issue is that US tankers were notorious for identifying everything as a Tiger tank, everything from Stug III assault guns to Panzer IV and Panthers and Tigers.

There was one incident in August of 1944 where 3rd Armored division ran into three Tigers that were damaged and being pulled back on a train, they shot them up with an anti-aircraft half-track. And then there was a single Tiger company up in the Bulge that was involved in some fighting. And then there was one short set of instances in April 1945, right around the period of the film, where there was a small isolated Tiger unit that actually got engaged with one of the new US M26 Pershing tank units. They knocked out a Pershing and then in turn that Tiger was knocked out and the Pershing tanks knocked out another King Tiger over the following days. So I found three verifiable instances of Tigers encountering, or having skirmishes with US troops in 1944-45. So it was very uncommon. It definitely could have happened, there are certainly lots of gaps in the historical record both on the German side and the US side. I think the idea that the US encountered a lot of Tigers during WW2 is simply due to the tendency of the US troops to call all German tanks Tigers. It’s the same thing on the artillery side. Every time US troops are fired upon, it’s an 88, whether it’s a 75mm Pak 40 anti-tank gun, a real 88, a 105mm field howitzer, they were all called 88’s.

Kidd

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3535
Re: WW2 Tanks: Sherman v. Panther v. Tiger
« Reply #32 on: 15 February 2018, 02:33:47 »
Not according to US doctrine.  Tank Destroyers and anti tank guns were considered purely defensive options.  That vehicles like the Hellcat, Wolverine, and Jackson were getting used offensively was because they were pretty much tanks and they were being used to bust bunkers for it too.
Okay... but I was talking about the Sherman.
Had, for example, the German forces NOT suffered the pre-and-out-of-battle breakdown rates they did, Kursk might've turned out somewhat differently.
Unlikely, given the other factors and forces arrayed against them - I believe the German attack touched only 3 out of 8 Soviet defensive belts. But that's beside the point...

Some if not many of the breakdowns were attributed to the Russian winter; the German AFVs (not just Tigers) would not only bog down in mud, the mud would subsequently freeze. The Tigers did have the worst of it due to their interleaved wheel system. This issue isn't exactly a mechanical fault per se; the Tiger just wasn't designed for the Russian climate.

Breaking down outside of battle is a strategic mobility issue. Breaking down during battle is a tactical issue. When comparing the flaws of say T-34 and Tiger, we should keep this in mind.

And then the Germans got so desperate for tanks (and all other war materials) that they ended up completely ending all quality control at their factories.
Indeed. So again - were the Tiger, King Tiger et al bad because of design flaws? Or because the system supporting them was steadily breaking down? How would the Tiger have fared in the hands of say the US Army?

P.s. It also pays to consider the source of the facts and claims. Some of these documentaries and historians are a little suspect.... I've seen 1 which downchecks the MG34/42 for its high rate of fire claiming it overburdened German infantry squads with carrying "too much" ammo...  ::)

MoneyLovinOgre4Hire

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 25631
  • It's just my goth phase
Re: WW2 Tanks: Sherman v. Panther v. Tiger
« Reply #33 on: 15 February 2018, 03:17:26 »
To be honest, in an alternate history where the US tried building the Tiger first, I think that they would have ended up with a radically different end design that was lighter and had a much more robust suspension system, among other changes.  But the US Army never really seemed to like the idea of using a heavy tank too much before the entire concept of the heavy tank was abandoned in favor of the Main Battle Tank.
Warning: this post may contain sarcasm.

"I think I've just had another near-Rincewind experience," Death, The Color of Magic

"When in doubt, C4." Jamie Hyneman

Getz

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 752
Re: WW2 Tanks: Sherman v. Panther v. Tiger
« Reply #34 on: 15 February 2018, 08:01:37 »
And the Elefant wasn't the only oversized vehicle that the Germans produced, since, you know, there was kind of an obsession with such things in the upper echelons.  I mean, they thought that the Maus was a good idea.

That's not quite the whole picture.  Dr Porsche and Hitler thought the Maus was a good idea.  On the other hand, the German Armaments Ministry thought it was a terrible idea and moved heaven and earth to (successfully) kill the project.

From the end of 1943 onwards, the Armaments ministry wanted to manufacture only two tanks - Panthers and Tiger IIs - with Pz IV production tolerated because they could not afford to stop production at the Nibelungenwerk factory to retool the line.  Interestingly, this mirrors almost exactly the Hi-Lo mix both the British and American armies adopted in the early cold war when facing the same threat of massed Soviet armour - a 45 ton "universal" tank (Panther/Centurion/M46) and a 70 ton heavy gun tank to support it (Tiger II/Conqueror/M103)


To be honest, in an alternate history where the US tried building the Tiger first, I think that they would have ended up with a radically different end design that was lighter and had a much more robust suspension system, among other changes.  But the US Army never really seemed to like the idea of using a heavy tank too much before the entire concept of the heavy tank was abandoned in favor of the Main Battle Tank.

Check out the US M6 heavy tank - that's what the US Ordnance Department was thinking of when it comes to heavy tanks circa 1940 so it's more or less contemporary with the Tiger (in fact, the Tiger is the earlier design).

It does not compare well with the Tiger...
« Last Edit: 15 February 2018, 08:13:12 by Getz »

I fell out of favour with heaven somewhere, so I'm here for the hell of it now...

monbvol

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13267
  • I said don't look!
Re: WW2 Tanks: Sherman v. Panther v. Tiger
« Reply #35 on: 15 February 2018, 11:47:21 »
Okay... but I was talking about the Sherman.

And by doctrine the Sherman was the antipanzer unit of choice offensively.  It actually did it fairly well.  Just the US got a bit overconfident and didn't want to build up the logistical base to support the 76mm HV gun which didn't have as good an HE round for bunker busting on top of the 75mm that did have a good HE round and was perfectly capable of taking out everything the US encountered so far.

worktroll

  • Ombudsman
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 25569
  • 504th "Gateway" Division
    • There are Monsters in my Sky!
Re: WW2 Tanks: Sherman v. Panther v. Tiger
« Reply #36 on: 15 February 2018, 12:10:14 »
US and British tanks missed on the evolutionary developments that the Germans and Russians got on the ostfront. Similarly, US and British tankers lacked - for the most part - actual combat experiencel. Max Hasting's book on Overlord makes it clear how little experience most Allied soldiers had in 1944, and how commanders hoarded their combat vets like gold - and then wore them down by using them to deal with hard problems.

It's a personal opinion, but I see the mirror of that in the Ardennes offensive - the Germans lacking experienced troops, and having to ask too much from a small combat core. The Americans by that time had learned enough to blunt the once-feared Wermacht attack.
* No, FASA wasn't big on errata - ColBosch
* The Housebook series is from the 80's and is the foundation of Btech, the 80's heart wrapped in heavy metal that beats to this day - Sigma
* To sum it up: FASAnomics: By Cthulhu, for Cthulhu - Moonsword
* Because Battletech is a conspiracy by Habsburg & Bourbon pretenders - MadCapellan
* The Hellbringer is cool, either way. It's not cool because it's bad, it's cool because it's bad with balls - Nightsky
* It was a glorious time for people who felt that we didn't have enough Marauder variants - HABeas2, re "Empires Aflame"

VhenRa

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2251
Re: WW2 Tanks: Sherman v. Panther v. Tiger
« Reply #37 on: 15 February 2018, 13:11:17 »
Another factor there is, most of the Commonwealth (And US, but I am not sure with them) veterans of North Africa... had been sent to Italy IIRC.

Garrand

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 656
  • "Nicht kleckern, klotzen!"
Re: WW2 Tanks: Sherman v. Panther v. Tiger
« Reply #38 on: 15 February 2018, 13:38:54 »
Interestingly, this mirrors almost exactly the Hi-Lo mix both the British and American armies adopted in the early cold war when facing the same threat of massed Soviet armour - a 45 ton "universal" tank (Panther/Centurion/M46) and a 70 ton heavy gun tank to support it (Tiger II/Conqueror/M103)
Quote

Not sure I would go with that parallel. Only around 100 Conquerers were built in two marks, and around 100 M103s used by the US Army (the rest, something like over 200 went to the marines who were screaming for a heavy tank apparently...). Even then those tanks only served for a short period. THe M103 was either out of service or going out of service by the time M60s were being issued. The M60s gun could fire sabot rounds & actually hit things reliably with it, whereas the 120mm on the M103 & Conquerer (same gun, in fact) were still limited to APCBC or HEAT rounds (AFAIK never got an APCR round).

As an aside, the accuracy of the 17pder firing APDS was pretty dreadful (somewhere around 50% hits at 1000yds, compared to nearly 100% with the old 75mm). THis was because the rifiling favored ol fashioned AP rounds rather than APDS. When the US Army tested the weapon in IIRC '42, they rejected it in favor of the 76mm M1 due to these accuracy issues, and the 90mm was already well under way & had near similar penetration performance firing APCR rounds with MUCH better accuracy...

Quote
Check out the US M6 heavy tank - that's what the US Ordnance Department was thinking of when it comes to heavy tanks circa 1940 so it's more or less contemporary with the Tiger (in fact, the Tiger is the earlier design).

It does not compare well with the Tiger...

It was a terrible design, extremely conservative & again only around 100 or so were built & put into service (none saw service overseas).  Keep in mind that the Army had already grappled with the issues of heavy tanks & rejected them for much of the war: a heavy tank was more expensive to manufacture, created a greater logistical strain in fielding them, as well as taking up more cargo capacity & space getting them to Europe. It really wasn't until the T26E3 that the Army reversed its stance, nearly too late for service in Europe (the war would go on only for a few months more by the time they entered combat), and even then post war -- and especially with the powerplant mods that created the M46 -- it was redesignated & used as a medium tank. So whatever lessons the Army learned from heavy tanks in WWII they were never really enthusiastic enough on it...

Damon.
Book Blog: bookslikedust.blogspot.com
Minis Blog: minislikedust.blogspot.com

Istal_Devalis

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4127
  • Baka! I didnt change my avatar because I like you!
Re: WW2 Tanks: Sherman v. Panther v. Tiger
« Reply #39 on: 15 February 2018, 13:52:29 »
It was brought up before, but as it's one of those myths (Like the Ronson thing) that refuses to die...

US Army Doctrine was that tanks were offensive units. They would engage targets across the board, which included other tanks. The entire point of the 75mm gun was that it could take out the German armor of the time. If they saw enemy tanks, they were EXPECTED to try to kill it. They were never designed to be infantry support. This myth got started due to a misunderstanding about the nature of the tank destroyer units.

Tank Destroyer formations were DEFENSIVE units meant to counteract attacking armor. They weren't designed to replace tanks in the tank killing role, they were there to free up the tanks for offensive operations.

Now, we did have armored vehicles designed purely for infantry support. These used mortars and howitzers. This did include a Sherman mounting a 105mm Howitzer.

As a note, another thing that tends to get glossed over with the Sherman was how easy it was to repair and modify. Beyond the fact they were mass produced with standardization in mind, all the major components could be swapped out with a minimum of equipment in comparison with other tanks of the time.

Matti

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5085
  • In Rory we trust
Re: WW2 Tanks: Sherman v. Panther v. Tiger
« Reply #40 on: 15 February 2018, 14:39:44 »
How would the Tiger have fared in the hands of say the US Army?
I guess it would have been about the same as with Pershing: replaced by Shermans after breaking down
You know what they say, don't you? About how us MechWarriors are the modern knights errant, how warfare has become civilized now that we have to abide by conventions and rules of war. Don't believe it.

The Eagle

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2308
  • This is what peak performance looks like!
Re: WW2 Tanks: Sherman v. Panther v. Tiger
« Reply #41 on: 16 February 2018, 00:36:26 »
I don't recall the source, but I remember learning that one of the primary reasons the M6 didn't enter service -- and why there was such push-back against heavy tanks in the US to begin with -- was actually because the standard cargo cranes used in US ports couldn't lift them.  There was a hard cap on tank weight because it would have been too difficult to actually ship any heavy tanks overseas because of this.
RIP Dan Schulz, 09 November 2009.  May the Albatross ever fly high.

Hit me up for BattleTech in the WV Panhandle!

MoneyLovinOgre4Hire

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 25631
  • It's just my goth phase
Re: WW2 Tanks: Sherman v. Panther v. Tiger
« Reply #42 on: 16 February 2018, 01:23:13 »
I've always heard that the M6's weight was a problem, though I've also heard that there were other factors that contributed, like its crew compartment being awkward, its height, and it being hard to maintain.

IIRC, the only use it actually got was in stunt shows for the promotion of war bond sales.
Warning: this post may contain sarcasm.

"I think I've just had another near-Rincewind experience," Death, The Color of Magic

"When in doubt, C4." Jamie Hyneman

lrose

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 261
Re: WW2 Tanks: Sherman v. Panther v. Tiger
« Reply #43 on: 16 February 2018, 08:18:58 »
Actually Tank Destroyers were originally intended as offensive weapons per Field Manual FM 18-5 Tank Destroyer Field Manual June 1942

Quote
* 9. ROLE.-a. Tank destroyer units are especially designed for offensive action against hostile armored forces. They are capable of semi-independent action but preferably operate in close cooperation with friendly units of all arms. They are allocated to large units as indicated in paragraph 36.
b. When supported units are engaged in offensive action, tank destroyers protect them against armored counterattack
and thus allow full exploitation of their success.
c. When a supported unit is engaged in defensive action, a minimum of antitank weapons are located to cover obstacles and establish a first echelon of defense disposed in depth against tanks while a maximum of mobile antitank weapons are held in reserve, prepared for immediate offensive action. Organic antitank weapons of front line units are used for this first line of defense; tank destroyer units form the mobile
reserve.

and
Quote
* 37. EMPLOYMENT.-Tank destroyer units are employed of­fensively in large numbers, by rapid maneuver, and by surprise.
* 38. OFFENSIVE ACTION.-Offensive action allows the entire strength of a tank destroyer unit to be engaged against the enemy. For individual tank destroyers, offensive action con­sists of vigorous reconnaissance to locate hostile tanks and movement to advantageous positions from which to attack the enemy by fire. Tank destroyers avoid "slugging matches" with tanks, but compensate for their light armor and diffi­culty of concealment by exploitation of their mobility and superior observation.

So initially the Tank Destroyers (which were equipped with self-propelled guns) were intended to be used in an offensive role, or to launch a counter attack against an enemy offensive.  It was later in the war (as the US forces gained combat experience) that the role of the Tank Destroyer began to change.  In  1943 a number of TD units were converted to towed guns and the role of the tank destroyers was change from an aggressive one of seeking out enemy tanks to a defensive one of protecting other troops from enemy tanks.



monbvol

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13267
  • I said don't look!
Re: WW2 Tanks: Sherman v. Panther v. Tiger
« Reply #44 on: 16 February 2018, 12:04:48 »
I do wish the US Army did change the numbering because the 44 manual has the exact same number(18-5) and does make the TD much more of a defensive unit.

Matti

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5085
  • In Rory we trust
Re: WW2 Tanks: Sherman v. Panther v. Tiger
« Reply #45 on: 16 February 2018, 13:25:19 »
Actually Tank Destroyers were originally intended as offensive weapons per Field Manual FM 18-5 Tank Destroyer Field Manual June 1942
Well, someone in here has actually bothered to read the damn thing. I have done some reading myself and watched YouTube videos on the subject (by "Chieftain" Nicholas Moran). TDs were meant to attack in large groups, as quoted by lrose. However, many officers did it wrong and send them in small groups. Maybe someone got frustrated with it and decided to replace losses with towed guns in order to reduce their abuse in offensive operations. Also towed guns were 17 pounders (or whatever USA calls them).

And 1 more reason why USA didn't accept 17 pounder for Sherman: it's too damn big! Crew can't operate effectively with it, which means reduced rate of fire compared to smaller guns. Brits just decided to suck it up and roll with Firefly anyway. Also number of Shermans with 76 millimeter gun were field modified with 75 millimeter gun, because crew is more familiar with it.
You know what they say, don't you? About how us MechWarriors are the modern knights errant, how warfare has become civilized now that we have to abide by conventions and rules of war. Don't believe it.

Kidd

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3535
Re: WW2 Tanks: Sherman v. Panther v. Tiger
« Reply #46 on: 16 February 2018, 13:47:13 »
Well, someone in here has actually bothered to read the damn thing. I have done some reading myself and watched YouTube videos on the subject (by "Chieftain" Nicholas Moran). TDs were meant to attack in large groups, as quoted by lrose. However, many officers did it wrong and send them in small groups. Maybe someone got frustrated with it and decided to replace losses with towed guns in order to reduce their abuse in offensive operations. Also towed guns were 17 pounders (or whatever USA calls them).
I read the '42 version, and a couple of post-WW2 analyses. Didn't know there was a '44 version.

1 big point against that doctrine is that it was almost never used the way it was intended, except for a single battle in the African campaign. And during that battle the TDs took more losses than were expected - something like one TD for every 2 panzers, IIRC, which though a favourable exchange ratio was not what was intended at all. And AT guns had performed better or just as well in that fight.

The massive German blitzkrieg that was expected was never engaged by the West as they had all been chewed up during Ops Bagration and Citadel. (I'd love to read a good tactical analysis of the latter by the way.) Artillery and AT guns were found to be better at killing panzers, so those were most often used, proving especially effective at battles like Mortain.

It seems to me that while the standard Sherman was indeed the jack-of-all-trades of WW2 tanks and a very effective one at that, possibly making it the grand-daddy of MBTs, in the end for mobile anti-tank work the Allies tended to use tank destroyers like the Sherman Firefly (Brits) and M10/18/36s (US). Making the other tanks and the standard Sherman de facto infantry support tanks.

monbvol

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13267
  • I said don't look!
Re: WW2 Tanks: Sherman v. Panther v. Tiger
« Reply #47 on: 16 February 2018, 14:10:55 »
I read the '42 version, and a couple of post-WW2 analyses. Didn't know there was a '44 version.

1 big point against that doctrine is that it was almost never used the way it was intended, except for a single battle in the African campaign. And during that battle the TDs took more losses than were expected - something like one TD for every 2 panzers, IIRC, which though a favourable exchange ratio was not what was intended at all. And AT guns had performed better or just as well in that fight.

The massive German blitzkrieg that was expected was never engaged by the West as they had all been chewed up during Ops Bagration and Citadel. (I'd love to read a good tactical analysis of the latter by the way.) Artillery and AT guns were found to be better at killing panzers, so those were most often used, proving especially effective at battles like Mortain.

It seems to me that while the standard Sherman was indeed the jack-of-all-trades of WW2 tanks and a very effective one at that, possibly making it the grand-daddy of MBTs, in the end for mobile anti-tank work the Allies tended to use tank destroyers like the Sherman Firefly (Brits) and M10/18/36s (US). Making the other tanks and the standard Sherman de facto infantry support tanks.

Well the Chieftan in the video I linked does quote from a US tank manual that tanks do fight other tanks in US doctrine, but I'll have to see which FM he pulls the quote from.  I wouldn't be surprised if it was another revised manual with the same number contradicting earlier information.

Garrand

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 656
  • "Nicht kleckern, klotzen!"
Re: WW2 Tanks: Sherman v. Panther v. Tiger
« Reply #48 on: 16 February 2018, 15:31:13 »
Maybe someone got frustrated with it and decided to replace losses with towed guns in order to reduce their abuse in offensive operations. Also towed guns were 17 pounders (or whatever USA calls them).

US did not use the 17pder in the ATG role (or at all except for a handful of Fireflys on loan from the Brits IIRC). The US developed its own 76mm ATG based on the M7 cannon from the M10 Tank Destroyer (or rather they had similar lineages).

Damon.
Book Blog: bookslikedust.blogspot.com
Minis Blog: minislikedust.blogspot.com

Vehrec

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1198
  • Mr. Flibble is Very Cross
Re: WW2 Tanks: Sherman v. Panther v. Tiger
« Reply #49 on: 18 February 2018, 23:44:57 »
German tank reliability problems were a multi-level affair that can't be pinned to any one point-but if I were to point to the biggest problems, they would be Adolf, Interchangeable Parts, and Winning The War.  Hitler is a problem for tank reliability, because he likes making new tanks instead of making spare parts, and meddles to see to it that rather than repair existing tanks, they build new ones and put them into new tank divisions.  Rebuilding old units doesn't excite him like making new ones does, so we get spare parts arriving at depots where they are immediately seized by armed parties from armored divisions.  Your tank breaks down?  Good luck finding the part you need, thanks to Hitler.  Next is the nature of the parts themselves-like the British and the Soviets, German parts aren't really identical enough to swap between tanks or to install without some tweaks.  Not every part mind you, but enough of them have tolerances tighter in fitting than in manufacturing.  So you need a proper machine shop at your repair depot, instead of just a crane-type thing to lift up heavy equipment while you install it.  At the very least, you need a trained machinist who knows how to fit things together-and he would be better used in a factory than in your depot.  So the very parts themselves are more difficult to install.  The final point, Winning the War, is one of those things where the Nazis, being rushed, rushed weapons into production that simply weren't ready.  The old myth that the Me-262 could have won the war had it arrived a year earlier isn't just false-it's doubly false because like so many other Nazi wonderweapons, it simply couldn't have been rushed into service that much sooner.   Indeed, many of these weapons were delivered too soon, with too little testing done.  If the Panther had had it's introduction delayed until '44 or '45, they could have caught all the mechanical issues before they became serious problems.  But since the Nazis were losing the war, a wonder-weapon today that spends most of it's time in a garage is better than one that's spending all it's time on a testing range.  The A4 was hardly going to win a war by terror-bombing.  But dammit, they could try, and the fact that it used slave labor in the production process was, to the Nazis' a neat bonus, combining their racial-war ideals with their needs for weaponry.  Not Trying Hard Enough is not something you can accuse them of in '42 onward.
*Insert support for fashionable faction of the week here*

MoneyLovinOgre4Hire

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 25631
  • It's just my goth phase
Re: WW2 Tanks: Sherman v. Panther v. Tiger
« Reply #50 on: 19 February 2018, 01:21:33 »
German tank reliability problems were a multi-level affair that can't be pinned to any one point-but if I were to point to the biggest problems, they would be Adolf, Interchangeable Parts, and Winning The War.  Hitler is a problem for tank reliability, because he likes making new tanks instead of making spare parts, and meddles to see to it that rather than repair existing tanks, they build new ones and put them into new tank divisions.  Rebuilding old units doesn't excite him like making new ones does, so we get spare parts arriving at depots where they are immediately seized by armed parties from armored divisions.

He was also obsessed with building bigger tanks than everyone else.  Every new tank had to have thicker armor and a bigger gun, and that ended up resulting in tanks that were too heavy for their suspension systems, moved slowly, broke down under their own weight, and took a lot more resources to build and maintain.
Warning: this post may contain sarcasm.

"I think I've just had another near-Rincewind experience," Death, The Color of Magic

"When in doubt, C4." Jamie Hyneman

Getz

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 752
Re: WW2 Tanks: Sherman v. Panther v. Tiger
« Reply #51 on: 19 February 2018, 06:54:51 »
He was also obsessed with building bigger tanks than everyone else.  Every new tank had to have thicker armor and a bigger gun, and that ended up resulting in tanks that were too heavy for their suspension systems, moved slowly, broke down under their own weight, and took a lot more resources to build and maintain.

This is not entirely correct.  Neither the Panther nor Tiger was too heavy for their suspension, and neither was slow moving for their weight class.  What they were was too heavy for their transmission systems.

Meanwhile, the late Pz IV models were overloaded, as they had piled upwards of 25 tons of guns and armour onto a suspension system only designed for 18 tons.

I fell out of favour with heaven somewhere, so I'm here for the hell of it now...

Garrand

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 656
  • "Nicht kleckern, klotzen!"
Re: WW2 Tanks: Sherman v. Panther v. Tiger
« Reply #52 on: 19 February 2018, 11:23:08 »
This is not entirely correct.  Neither the Panther nor Tiger was too heavy for their suspension, and neither was slow moving for their weight class.  What they were was too heavy for their transmission systems.

To whit the Panther could do 28mph at a time when most medium tanks could only do 24 to 26mph...

Damon.
Book Blog: bookslikedust.blogspot.com
Minis Blog: minislikedust.blogspot.com

Matti

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5085
  • In Rory we trust
Re: WW2 Tanks: Sherman v. Panther v. Tiger
« Reply #53 on: 19 February 2018, 12:35:22 »
This is not entirely correct.  Neither the Panther nor Tiger was too heavy for their suspension, and neither was slow moving for their weight class.  What they were was too heavy for their transmission systems.

Meanwhile, the late Pz IV models were overloaded, as they had piled upwards of 25 tons of guns and armour onto a suspension system only designed for 18 tons.
At least one general wrote a report/letter where he says he'd rather have more Panzer IV than Panther/Tiger.
You know what they say, don't you? About how us MechWarriors are the modern knights errant, how warfare has become civilized now that we have to abide by conventions and rules of war. Don't believe it.

VhenRa

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2251
Re: WW2 Tanks: Sherman v. Panther v. Tiger
« Reply #54 on: 20 February 2018, 05:03:44 »
Honestly, I would rather have the true gem of the German AFV production.

StuG IIIs. At least they worked!

HobbesHurlbut

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 3089
  • Live Free or Die Hard
Re: WW2 Tanks: Sherman v. Panther v. Tiger
« Reply #55 on: 20 February 2018, 08:02:09 »
Honestly, I would rather have the true gem of the German AFV production.

StuG IIIs. At least they worked!
You mean the one that was built on a Panzer III chasis?  8)
Clan Blood Spirit - So Bad Ass as to require Orbital Bombardments to wipe us out....it is the only way to be sure!

Garrand

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 656
  • "Nicht kleckern, klotzen!"
Re: WW2 Tanks: Sherman v. Panther v. Tiger
« Reply #56 on: 20 February 2018, 10:02:14 »
I've always been partial to the StuG IV, even if it was a waste of resources. Better looking AFV IMHO...

Damon.
Book Blog: bookslikedust.blogspot.com
Minis Blog: minislikedust.blogspot.com

marauder648

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8157
    • Project Zhukov Fan AU TRO's and PDFs
Re: WW2 Tanks: Sherman v. Panther v. Tiger
« Reply #57 on: 20 February 2018, 10:24:22 »
In reality the Panzer IV with the long 75 was perfectly good for dealing with ANY allied Tank until something like the Comet or IS-1 came along.  Building more of them and working on that chassis would have been more workable than the Zoo.

The Panther, Tiger and Tiger II were magnificent machines, and the Panther along with the T-34 helped set the development of modern AFVs, but what the Germans needed was easier, quicker to produce and cheaper machines, and they had that with the Panzer IV. 
« Last Edit: 20 February 2018, 10:30:38 by marauder648 »
Ghost Bears: Cute and cuddly. Until you remember its a BLOODY BEAR!

Project Zhukov Fan AU TRO's and PDFs - https://thezhukovau.wordpress.com/

HobbesHurlbut

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 3089
  • Live Free or Die Hard
Re: WW2 Tanks: Sherman v. Panther v. Tiger
« Reply #58 on: 20 February 2018, 10:33:32 »
In reality the Panzer IV with the long 75 was perfectly good for dealing with ANY allied Tank until something like the Comet or IS-1 came along.  Building more of them and working on that chassis would have been more workable than the Zoo.

The Panther, Tiger and Tiger II were magnificent machines, and the Panther along with the T-34 helped set the development of modern AFVs, but what the Germans needed was easier, quicker to produce and cheaper machines, and they had that with the Panzer IV.
The problem was the limitations of the Panzer IV, long 75 gun was right up there. They could not put in a better model or a bigger gun like the 88. Panther had a longer 75 that the IV could not realistically support as a turret gun.
Clan Blood Spirit - So Bad Ass as to require Orbital Bombardments to wipe us out....it is the only way to be sure!

marauder648

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8157
    • Project Zhukov Fan AU TRO's and PDFs
Re: WW2 Tanks: Sherman v. Panther v. Tiger
« Reply #59 on: 20 February 2018, 10:48:13 »
Oh indeed, but the long 75 they had on the Panzer IV was still perfectly good as an AT weapon until the end of the war, again unless you ran into a IS-1 or a Comet.  But it's performance wasn't at Panther 75 levels, meaning it had to get closer to engage, and that meant that it was at risk too. 

Its a case of swings and roundabouts.  The Germans couldn't really do the WAllies/Soviet approach of 'good enough' and then churn it out by the gigaton.  With a smaller manpower base, the Germans couldn't afford to trade losses.  So making a superior tank, that can engage before the other side can and get them home again makes sense.  At which point it then becomes more expensive/harder/slower to produce at which point you're going to be massively outnumbered and even your more advanced tank can be drowned in numbers. 

So what do you do. Build a 'good enough' like the Panzer IV and accept heavier casualties, or build a lesser number of superior tanks and be outnumbered.
Ghost Bears: Cute and cuddly. Until you remember its a BLOODY BEAR!

Project Zhukov Fan AU TRO's and PDFs - https://thezhukovau.wordpress.com/