StuG III Thread (and also other German vehicles I guess)

[Beer]

14 minutes ago, heretic88 said:

Just showing that the "unfixable" poor design of the Panther is far from reality. What I mentioned are actual plans that werent implemented due to war. 

 

That's still irrelevant because the very basic thing about any plan is that it must be realistically possible. 

[LoooSeR]

2 minutes ago, heretic88 said:

Just showing that the "unfixable" poor design of the Panther is far from reality. What I mentioned are actual plans that werent implemented due to war. 

    Stabilised sights weren't unknown at this time to other nations. Changing long 75 to 88 wouldn't fix any of the main problems of Panther. Optical rangefinder is also was known at this time by all other major participants of the war. All of major AFV-making countries had plans for better vehicles, like T-34M and other. Having great plans for you currently flawed AFV doesn't mean it is good AFV or that it is some sort of advanced design that is ahead of it's time. 

   In industrial war like WW2 cost, ability to produce vehicles in numbers, work hours required to complete parts of the vehicle, avaliable materials, qualification of avaliable workforce, qualification of avaliable crews, avaliable time to train them and so on will breathe down your neck all the time. Somebody understand that, somebody tries to put all new hot gizzom stuff into single vehicle and get gold plated vehicle that industry can put out in completely irrelevant quantities, or completely miss the mark and plop out some sort of Maus. 

   Hell, Soviets after experiencing WW2 designed AK to be mass producable and still designed a specific wartime version of AK that instead of 18 man hours cost 14 man hours to make. That version wasn't better than normal AK, or more advanced.

 

   And BTW, on paper you can fix anything with power of imagination and pump out some napkinwaffe.

   IS-4 also could be still in service, just change engine, transmission, gun, loading systems, turret parts, add modern sights, panomaric sight for commander, RCWS, Arena-M APS, Shtora, put T-72 rollers on it, add ERA, side armor modules and it will be capable tank. It is very easy if you not count money, time, avaliable resources and alternatives that can "suck" resources from your hands, political situation and so on.

[Beer]

1 hour ago, heretic88 said:

Wrong. Only in 1944 it became variable, and and only from second half of 1944 became shitty.

 

Tests of early German (and Czechoslovak) vehicles shown a lot of brittleness, spalling. For example:

Quote

However, despite the decreased hardness of anti-shell armour of PzIII tanks compared to anti-bullet armour, the amount of brittle damage is significantly higher. The behaviour of vehicle #233 is characteristic of the tanks: 75% of all penetrations resulted in fragments up to 3 calibers in size spalling off, as well as through cracks, resulting in the armour plate falling into pieces. Identical behaviour was observed with the surface-hardened armour on vehicle #131.

Source: http://www.tankarchives.ca/2014/05/german-steel-vs-soviet-steel.html

 

This is easy to see on photos as well. You can find plenty of photos of early Panzers with cracked armor plates. 

 

 

Chemical, structure, hardness properties, heat treatment evaluation of Panther ausf.A, Tiger ausf.H, both built definitely prior 1944. Big variety in samples. Often two same armor plates from different sample vehicles on the opposite end of the results. Nearly all plates not meeting German own requirements in chemical composition. 

http://www.tankarchives.ca/2020/02/thick-skin-of-german-beasts.html

 

 

And finally one quote from Guderian himself. 

Quote

"In November of 1941, high ranking engineers, industry representatives, and armament directorate officers came to my tank army in order to familiarize themselves with the Russian T-34 tank. Frontline officers suggested that we should build tanks exactly like the T-34 in order to correct the unpleasant position of our armoured forces, but this position did not receive support from the engineers. Not because they were opposed to imitation, but because it was not possible to rapidly set up manufacturing of important components, especially the diesel motor. Additionally, our hardened steel, whose quality was dropping due to a lack of natural resources, was inferior to the Russians' hardened steel."

H. Guderian, "Panzer Leader", page 268

 

[Beer]

1 hour ago, heretic88 said:

Lets assume Walkür successful. Hitler dead, wehrmacht generals evicts nazis from power. Germans leave all occupied western countries, ceasefire in effect with allies. With the resources freed up, germans are able to stop soviets at the original 1939 borders. Both armies totally exhausted, so ceasefire in the east too. Would the designers drop the whole concept of the Panther? Highly doubt. Now there is finally time to fix and improve the tank, as originally planned. The following improvements materialize: new and reliable final drive. Improved, and much more powerful HL-234 engine. 88mm KwK 43 gun (yes it was possible thanks to the big hull, that could accept a larger turret ring without problems).

Stabilized gun sight. Optical rangefinder. This "1946" version would still be a beast. Significantly better than the T-44, and still better than the M-26 Pershing. Quite similar to early Centurions, although with less firepower. 

 

Come on, this is an irrelevant what if bullshit not worth of discussion. 

 

 

[delete013]

 

Quote

"Tad better". I think you mean "200+mm LoS at the thickest, 138mm on the driver's step initially, 240 on the 1944 version".

And the sides are "only" 95mm.

Perhaps IS-2 was just, you know, rationally designed with an eye towards production (nearly 4000 made vs Tiger's ~1300) rather than hoovering up scarce materials and manpower?

100mm front hull under 60deg angle. That is no effective 200mm, especially not against German caped shells. The rest of the vehicle is 90 at negligent angles, compared to 80mm on tiger 1. Hence a tad more. The best about it are rounded angles and few flat surfaces, smth Soviets were good at. But anw, for Soviets was that enough to give trouble to panther's and tiger 1's and they finally solved their acute problem of being constantly outgunned at long ranges. Finally they could counter fire brigades that so easily dismantled Soviet breakthroughs before. But for that IS-2 had no spectacular performance, no double digit tank aces. Germans would be exhilarated if they could live with such a tank, they couldn't. 20-30 seconds reload. But what if facing 10 tanks? Not ideal.

Quote

As for the load of features dispensed with - the insane turret traverse system, perhaps?

Perhaps the insane interleaved wheel suspension that literally nobody found worth the time after Kniepkamp wasn't in a position to profit off of it?

Engine powered turret rotation was unavoidable, not a wanted feature. I think anyone can see that. J version of Pz4 had none, just tells what Germans had to cope with.

 

Quote

Their armour quality was variable-to-shit, though.

Because you read somewhere that in the second half of the war Germans lacked rare metals?

 

Quote

German guns weren't bad for the era. Bulky and running at rather conservative pressures, but not bad. They could have learned from whoever came up with the casings for the long 50mm ammunition though - all the other German stuff was hilariously long for some reason.

If you want the real secret to the success of German guns though - their shells. Just good, well-designed shells with careful attention being paid to alloying and tempering.

Nope. 17 pounder was a monster. It ran at monumental pressures and spat out a very heavy shell (7.7kg vs 6.8 for the German 75mm) very fast, from a very short barrel. All British guns were like this, actually - high-pressure beasts which performed well above what their contemporaries could given the same barrel real-estate. There's a reason the 17-pounder spawned the 20-pounder and, eventually, the 105mm. While the German stuff spawned nothing much.

Check the penetration tables? KwK42 is almost identical to 17pdr, with a lighter shell, less gunpower and higher speed. So far as I know this is exactly what one wants for higher reload, flatter shooting trajectory, less fumes and more ammo in a tank. That is all thanks to better gun powder, manufacturing and shell design. All belligerent countries featured similar caliber categories but German guns were almost by the rule always at least slightly better.

 

Quote

Yes, the successful French program of noodling around with German ideas for a while before discarding them completely. And then eventually copying/reinventing (depends on who's telling it) what the West Germans were doing by making a less successful Leopard 1 clone.

Maybe they just didn't succeed? Maybe they lacked German skill? Leopard 1 came much late in time when solid steel armour had no effect anymore. The engine and transmission evolution also allowed for longer hulls. Since armour was irrelevant there was no need for overlapping wheels and by the 70ies, alloys in torsion bars allowed for 60tonne tanks without the complex arrangement. But heavy tanks were needed in 40s, not later and Germans could field them whereas Allies were stuck with obsolete infantry tanks and moving bunkers.

 

Quote

easy-to-maintain suspension system with generous weight margins. And it's still in service!

That suspension was an interwar design. Ask yourself why all but the British bothered with torsion bars during or after war. As I understand it, British tanks just aren't maneuver vehicles. They are to occupy a good spot (hence good climb) and shoot at a distance (armour and firepower over mobility), then relocate. But good luck running away from Soviet "hordes".

 

Quote

Jumbo Sherman begs to differ with you.

A mere moving bunker with overstressed drive train. That thing barely moved.

 

Quote

Nope, I re-ran the numbers using the dimensions provided by Heretic and got the same result: 0.28W/cc.

Correct, I admit.

 

Quote

That this "compact, powerful" petrol engine is mediocre?

It isn't mediocre lol, the numbers are still in its favour. There are a number of other technical advantages which I don't understand, so I will focus on it being shorter (less long), which allowed precisely what you mentioned later, centered turret and also more space for the crew. That is I believe, quite important for crew performance. Engine in a panther is pushed in one third while it is almost half of a t-34. This isn't my observation but that of German designers, all nicely explained in Spielberger's "Panther and its variants". Btw, Russians are until today obsessed with short drive train which reduces power loss when turning. This is perhaps the most ignored popular fact of tank design. Western tanks have quite some issues cooling the heat in transmission due to this fact.

 

Quote

And then, even more galling: if you actually lay out the components in Panther you'd notice that they squandered any space they may have saved by making the hull longer than it needed to be so that the turret could sit in the centre of the hull.

More stable, better weapon platform (in any direction), less suspension failures.

 

Quote

Because M4 and T-34 did the latter while still being perfectly capable of criticism for their shortcomings.

Should I mention how horrendous losses t-34 and sherman incurred after 1942? I better not.

[Jeeps_Guns_Tanks]

9 hours ago, delete013 said:

Well, I guess I have rather radically different opinion on German tanks than the community here. I am a total amateur, so whatever I write please don't take as holy truths. May I also remind that I don't claim that panther was the pinnacle of tank design. It obviously had issues. Anyways, let's do this..

 

 

 

You sure are sure of yourself for someone who admits to being ignorant.  

7 hours ago, delete013 said:

no.

 

 

 

 

Where did I screw it up?

 

Nearly everything.  Do you run around acting like an expert while being an ignorant twat on other subjects? 

 

7 hours ago, Toxn said:

For a guy on a history-centric forum you know fuck-all history.

Go read about West Germany sometime.

 

It's mind boggling, or maybe we've just not had an actual boo around here in a while.   Between the Panther post on Walt's page, and the other thread here about the Panther, there really is very little excuse for this level of ignorance. 

[Beer]

7 minutes ago, delete013 said:

But for that IS-2 had no spectacular performance, no double digit tank aces. 

 

Dear God... You are in a wrong place if you want to use arguments like this. 

 

8 minutes ago, delete013 said:

Should I mention how horrendous losses t-34 and sherman incurred after 1942? I better not.

 

What horrendous losses? 

[Sturgeon]

7 hours ago, delete013 said:

no.

 

 

 

 

Where did I screw it up?

 

Opened your mouth.

[Sturgeon]

4 hours ago, Beer said:

 

True that but these things actually worked and lead to a plethora of direct descentants in all armies after the war. 

 

Yes it was very nice of the Nazis to set up a bunch of research projects while they desperately needed those resources to win the war, so the Allies could swoop in and scoop up whatever projects they hadn't already been working on!

[Jeeps_Guns_Tanks]

13 hours ago, Beer said:

 

IMHO this is an interesting phenomenon. Due to the fact that there were quite many German weapons which indeed were a generation ahead of the opponents people tend to generalize to an entire German war industry seeing everything German as wonder weapons. We can agree that things like Me-262, Fritz-X, StG-44, Hs-293, V1, V2 and some others really were sort of ahead of the time but that doesn't mean everything German was. 

 

 

Even this stuff is overblown. 

 

Yeah the 262, made it into service, it was trash, and the P-80 and Meteor were better. Granted the P-80 didn't see combat, but that's because the US was taking its time testing it. The Germans put their trash into the sky as soon as it was viable, because they were desperate. 

 

They had the Fritz-X we had the BAT. 

 

The STG-44 was not very good, was issued with a single magazine and there was a shortage, making it kind of useless.  The AK was not based on it.  Even so, I guess we can give them a little kudos here for producing a trash Weapon that would have influence on the future. 

 

On the HS-293, V1 and V2, they get credit. So that's one and half to far. 

 

Not a single tank could make the list of buck rogers like weapons.   They had that one stupid sub, that was a good idea, but was so poorly built, like most German stuff, it wasn't really viable. 

 

Now, if you really want to talk about where the German of WWII was innovative?  Mass Murder.  After years of trial and error, they figured out how to murder millions of people and destroy the bodies! They were truly on the cutting edge of mass murder technology!

 

Things they sucked at? Food productions, ships of any kind, logistics and winning wars. 

 

Things the Allies do not get credit for that were actually pretty amazing for their time.

 

The US 90mm M1,2, and 3 radar controlled AA guns. The 88 was a trash AA guns, the 90 was very good. 

The Proximity fuze. 

Code breaking and useful military intelligence systems.

Long range Bombers. 

Aircraft engines. 

Sonar and Radar.

The Stabilizer system in the Sherman and Lee. Yes the fucking Lee had a stabilizers on BOTH GUNS!  

Factories with production lines 

Automated Welders. 

 

Also, the Atomic Bomb. And no, the Nazis were not even close. 

 

So Nazi Germany gets Rockets and the technology of Mass Murder.   The people making excuses for their shitty equipment make themselves look like ignorant twats at best, or a fucking Nazi apologist at worst.  

 

[Sturgeon]

3 hours ago, heretic88 said:

Anyway, lets play with ideas a bit. Even if history doesnt like the word "if".

Lets assume Walkür successful. Hitler dead, wehrmacht generals evicts nazis from power. Germans leave all occupied western countries, ceasefire in effect with allies. With the resources freed up, germans are able to stop soviets at the original 1939 borders. Both armies totally exhausted, so ceasefire in the east too. Would the designers drop the whole concept of the Panther? Highly doubt. Now there is finally time to fix and improve the tank, as originally planned. The following improvements materialize: new and reliable final drive. Improved, and much more powerful HL-234 engine. 88mm KwK 43 gun (yes it was possible thanks to the big hull, that could accept a larger turret ring without problems).

Stabilized gun sight. Optical rangefinder. This "1946" version would still be a beast. Significantly better than the T-44, and still better than the M-26 Pershing. Quite similar to early Centurions, although with less firepower. 

 

Oh indeed, and no doubt they wouldn't stop there. Germans are very resourceful after all! They'd also redesign the hull for a low profile, sponsonless arrangement with rear drive, switch from interleaved roadwheels to a Christie type arrangement, delete the bow gunner, redesign the exhaust system, replace the troublesome turret traverse mechanism, integrate new unity periscopes for every crew station, delete the unnecessarily complex and difficult to replace dual torsion bars with a slicker single bar arrangement, redesign the KwK 43 to have a concentric recoil mechanism and enlarge the bore to 105mm for new Hohlladungsgeschosse projectiles, delete the interlocking plate welding scheme and use automatic welders, convert over to production lines, switch the manufacturer from MAN to Daimler Benz, and have the tanks license-produced in the USA.

[Lord_James]

IIRC, someone said previously that the Panther influenced allied designs post war? I’m too lazy to go back through the comments, but it would seem that the KV-1 had more to do with post war allied tank development than the pzkfw. V, if you want to believe this article: 

https://warspot.net/300-voroshilov-abroad 

Rear transmission, turret bustle, and single torsion bar suspension are all things found in post war western tanks, and missing on the Panther (and pretty much all kraut-made tanks, except the King tiger and Pz.38(t), the pz.3’s having storage baskets mounted to the rear). The only thing “from the Panther” I can see on post war tanks is the sloped armor, which was actually copied from German experience with the T-34 and her sloped armor. The Sherman also had a sloped glacis plate, but I’m not 100% sure if that specifically influenced later tanks, @Jeeps_Guns_Tanks would know better.
 

The high velocity gun is found in several nations at the time (the 17-pdr being specifically mentioned, but also the 57mm ZiS-2 and 76mm M1, even the 75mm type 5 if you want to be generous).

 

The large commander’s copula (and separate commander / gunner / loader stations) was probably derived from previous German tanks (Pz.3 and 4), and was most definitely a product of the war in general, most nations figuring out that the commander was most effective when he only had to focus on commander things. 

I honestly can’t think of too much that came exclusively out of Nazi Germany that was used much post war, sans their rocket tech; everyone just loved those “ex” nazi rocket scientists. 

[Toxn]

7 hours ago, delete013 said:

 

100mm front hull under 60deg angle. That is no effective 200mm, especially not against German caped shells. The rest of the vehicle is 90 at negligent angles, compared to 80mm on tiger 1. Hence a tad more. The best about it are rounded angles and few flat surfaces, smth Soviets were good at. But anw, for Soviets was that enough to give trouble to panther's and tiger 1's and they finally solved their acute problem of being constantly outgunned at long ranges. Finally they could counter fire brigades that so easily dismantled Soviet breakthroughs before. But for that IS-2 had no spectacular performance, no double digit tank aces. Germans would be exhilarated if they could live with such a tank, they couldn't. 20-30 seconds reload. But what if facing 10 tanks? Not ideal.

Engine powered turret rotation was unavoidable, not a wanted feature. I think anyone can see that. J version of Pz4 had none, just tells what Germans had to cope with.

I'm struggling to understand your take here. You can't calculate armour thickness values (120mm at 60' is over 200mm btw), but the Germans would be thrilled to have the IS-2 regardless.

Also, the Tiger's turret rotation et al sucked but (per your previous) Tiger had a 'load of features' that the IS-2 was poorer without.

 

Also LOL at "dismantling breakthroughs". Glad to see that the Germans were heroically repulsing the enemy while being pushed back to Berlin. Rather than, you know, getting pushed back and then launching local counter-attacks to provide time for the line to reform to the rear.

 

7 hours ago, delete013 said:

Because you read somewhere that in the second half of the war Germans lacked rare metals?

Because I'm right, you putz.

 

7 hours ago, delete013 said:

Check the penetration tables? KwK42 is almost identical to 17pdr, with a lighter shell, less gunpower and higher speed. So far as I know this is exactly what one wants for higher reload, flatter shooting trajectory, less fumes and more ammo in a tank. That is all thanks to better gun powder, manufacturing and shell design. All belligerent countries featured similar caliber categories but German guns were almost by the rule always at least slightly better.

Man, that KwK42. So much better than 17 pounder because it gets slightly less performance out of an L70 barrel than the British got out of an L55 one. Truly a wonder of design rather than just being, you know, fine.

 

7 hours ago, delete013 said:

Maybe they just didn't succeed? Maybe they lacked German skill? Leopard 1 came much late in time when solid steel armour had no effect anymore. The engine and transmission evolution also allowed for longer hulls. Since armour was irrelevant there was no need for overlapping wheels and by the 70ies, alloys in torsion bars allowed for 60tonne tanks without the complex arrangement. But heavy tanks were needed in 40s, not later and Germans could field them whereas Allies were stuck with obsolete infantry tanks and moving bunkers.

Funny how other tanks of comparable weight to Panther didn't need double torsion bars and interleaved road wheels to work, no?

 

7 hours ago, delete013 said:

That suspension was an interwar design. Ask yourself why all but the British bothered with torsion bars during or after war. As I understand it, British tanks just aren't maneuver vehicles. They are to occupy a good spot (hence good climb) and shoot at a distance (armour and firepower over mobility), then relocate. But good luck running away from Soviet "hordes".

The similarities to Panther just keep cropping up, don't they? I'll say it again: Centurion is just Panther done competently.

 

7 hours ago, delete013 said:

A mere moving bunker with overstressed drive train. That thing barely moved.

Wrong. God's sake, man. Read up on things before you spout whatever drivel got poured into your ear by the History Channel or that one kid on YouTube. Jumbos lead columns on long road marches (you know, that thing that Shermans did that Panthers certainly didn't) specifically to soak up anti-tank fire. The only major problems with them were ground pressure and the fact that the US only saw fit to make a few hundred rather than a few thousand.

 

7 hours ago, delete013 said:

It isn't mediocre lol, the numbers are still in its favour.

It's the definition of mediocre. Literally middle of the road in terms of power density.

 

7 hours ago, delete013 said:

There are a number of other technical advantages which I don't understand, so I will focus on it being shorter (less long), which allowed precisely what you mentioned later, centered turret and also more space for the crew.

Again, the thing doesn't even use that advantage. It manages to be mediocre in terms of crew comfort as well. So your train of logic goes something like: use taller engine to save length -> make longer anyway for more crew comfort -> don't make the crew particularly comfortable.

 

That's the precise problem with the Panther from a design standpoint - there were all of these compromises made due to features that "had" to be put in for reasons of preference rather than design necessity (the front-mounted transmission and drives, the turret in the centre of the hull, the interleaved road wheels, the thicker front hull), the compromises then leading to further compromises which just made the whole thing worse. So the result is that you have a 47-tonne tank packing all the features of a 35-tonne one (including a 1.65m turret ring). Hell, even it's contemporaries in terms of weight (like M26) managed to have more armour, upgrade potential and mechanical reliability. And they were considered flawed beasts.

 

Do you see how insane your arguments are once you step back from gormlessly defending the damn thing and look at the bigger picture?

 

7 hours ago, delete013 said:

That is I believe, quite important for crew performance. Engine in a panther is pushed in one third while it is almost half of a t-34. This isn't my observation but that of German designers, all nicely explained in Spielberger's "Panther and its variants". Btw, Russians are until today obsessed with short drive train which reduces power loss when turning. This is perhaps the most ignored popular fact of tank design. Western tanks have quite some issues cooling the heat in transmission due to this fact.

More stable, better weapon platform (in any direction), less suspension failures.

Which, again, the Panther didn't manage because it's suspension setup was overloaded, prone to jamming and clogging and hard to service. Again - stupid decisions lead to design compromises that erased any theoretical advantages.

 

7 hours ago, delete013 said:

Should I mention how horrendous losses t-34 and sherman incurred after 1942? I better not.

This has been dealt with already. Again, know your history. 

[Toxn]

7 hours ago, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

 

 

Even this stuff is overblown. 

 

Yeah the 262, made it into service, it was trash, and the P-80 and Meteor were better. Granted the P-80 didn't see combat, but that's because the US was taking its time testing it. The Germans put their trash into the sky as soon as it was viable, because they were desperate. 

 

They had the Fritz-X we had the BAT. 

 

The STG-44 was not very good, was issued with a single magazine and there was a shortage, making it kind of useless.  The AK was not based on it.  Even so, I guess we can give them a little kudos here for producing a trash Weapon that would have influence on the future. 

 

On the HS-293, V1 and V2, they get credit. So that's one and half to far. 

 

Not a single tank could make the list of buck rogers like weapons.   They had that one stupid sub, that was a good idea, but was so poorly built, like most German stuff, it wasn't really viable. 

 

Now, if you really want to talk about where the German of WWII was innovative?  Mass Murder.  After years of trial and error, they figured out how to murder millions of people and destroy the bodies! They were truly on the cutting edge of mass murder technology!

 

Things they sucked at? Food productions, ships of any kind, logistics and winning wars. 

 

Things the Allies do not get credit for that were actually pretty amazing for their time.

 

The US 90mm M1,2, and 3 radar controlled AA guns. The 88 was a trash AA guns, the 90 was very good. 

The Proximity fuze. 

Code breaking and useful military intelligence systems.

Long range Bombers. 

Aircraft engines. 

Sonar and Radar.

The Stabilizer system in the Sherman and Lee. Yes the fucking Lee had a stabilizers on BOTH GUNS!  

Factories with production lines 

Automated Welders. 

 

Also, the Atomic Bomb. And no, the Nazis were not even close. 

 

So Nazi Germany gets Rockets and the technology of Mass Murder.   The people making excuses for their shitty equipment make themselves look like ignorant twats at best, or a fucking Nazi apologist at worst.  

 

You forgot liberty ships, penicillin and the pigeon-guided bomb. You know the Nazi's would have wet themselves over the first two. And would have fielded the last and then awarded the pigeons tiny iron crosses posthumously 

 

I guess the cavity magnetron (which is why allied radar was so far ahead of the Axis stuff) should also count. The Germans actually stole this one the first chance they could.

 

[DogDodger]

7 hours ago, Beer said:

No, no and no. Tank is not a tank destroyer at least not in most of army doctrines. This is a misconception or an outright ignorance. In the doctrines you find terms like breakthrough, explotation, infantry support but nowhere it is written that tank is a primary anti-tank weapon. Fuller, Hart, Guderian, Tukhachevsky and others saw tanks as a primary tool to exploit breakthroughs to an operational depth capturing vital transportation and communication hubs and not as a weapon to be used in tank to tank brawl in WoT style. 

Depends on what military leaders and which doctrinal publications one reads, I suppose. In October 1941 Armored Force commander Major General Jacob Devers was on the record saying the desired defense to have versus enemy tanks was more tanks, which echoed the viewpoint of the previous Armored Force commander, Major General Adna Chaffee. US medium tanks M2 and M3 and light tanks M2A4/M3/M5 were all topped by extant 37 mm antitank guns, and it was intended to arm the M4s (along with the 75 mm gun and 105 mm howitzer thanks to its interchangeable turret front plate) with the 3" antitank gun later found in the GMC M10 and heavy tank M6 (which was armed with both 37 mm and 3" antitank guns). The 3", of course, turned out to be too unwieldy for the medium tank turret, hence the 76 mm gun's genesis. But on the subject of doctrine, Armored Force field manuals consistently listed enemy tanks as potential targets for friendly medium tanks. In March 1942, FM 17-10 Armored Force Field Manual: Tactics and Technique directed, "Medium tanks...protect the light tanks against the attack of hostile tanks. When the enemy is composed of mechanized troops, a large medium tank component, if available, is held in the reserve." Referring to GHQ tank battalions, this manual advised, "[Medium tanks] are used offensively against hostile tanks...During the course of an attack GHQ tank units may be used offensively, in conjunction with other available antitank measures, to attack hostile mechanized forces threatening to break up or disorganize the main effort...GHQ tank units attached to army corps or divisions may be used in large numbers to break up hostile mechanized formations." The September 1942 edition of FM 17-33 Armored Force Field Manual: The Armored Battalion, Light and Medium included the "support by fire [of] the advance of light tanks, other medium tanks, or infantry in tank versus tank action" among the uses of medium tanks. The December 1944 revision of FM 17-33 asserted that medium tanks may be used "[w]hen necessary, against enemy tanks", and indeed one purpose specifically assigned to 76mm gun medium tanks was to "reinforce the antitank defense of a supported infantry unit." Similarly, technical manuals for the Sherman also evinced the intention of taking on enemy armor with both 75mm and 76mm guns. TM 9-731B Medium Tank M4A2 from January 1943 suggested that fully 40% of the 75 mm ammunition loadout should be armor-piercing, and TM 9-759 Tank, Medium M4A3 from September 1944 alleged that both the 75 mm and 76 mm guns were "employed chiefly against enemy tanks and other ground objectives." So while not all FMs said tanks were the primary antitank weapon, taking on enemy armor was a main mission listed in others. Indeed even the Tank Destroyers themselves recognized this: FM 18-5 Tank Destroyer Field Manual Organization and Tactics of Tank Destroyer Units from June 1942 says of TD battalions attached to armored divisions or GHQ tank groups: "Tank destroyer battalions with armored divisions are not the only units fitted for offensive engagement against hostile tanks as is the case with other types of divisions..." The July 1944 edition of FM 18-5 Tactical Employment Tank Destroyer Unit noted in the section describing TD attachment to armored divisions, "Since the armored division can meet strong armored attacks with effective organic weapons, tank destroyers may execute secondary missions on rare occasions, even when a hostile armored attack or counterattack is imminent."

 

During study and the extractions of lessons directly after WW2, the General Board of the European Theater explicitly stated in its postwar studies that "[t]he European campaign demonstrated that tanks fight tanks," and also that the "current thought is that the medium tank is the best anti-tank weapon." The January 1946 report by the War Department Equipment Board agreed with the General Board, saying, "The best antitank weapon is a better tank."

 

Re: the other mechanization proponents listed, there seems to be agreement that tanks are an important, if not primary, antitank weapon. In Tanks in the Great War, Fuller describes his view of future war: "The tank fleets under the cover of dense clouds of smoke, or at nighttime, move forward, not against the body of the enemy's army but against his brains...What is the answer to this type of brain warfare? The answer is the tank; the brains will get into metal skulls or boxes, the bodies will get into the same, and land fleet will maneuver against land fleet...If the enemy will not accept peace terms forthwith, then, wars in the air and on the earth will take place between machines to gain superiority. Tank will meet tank and, commanded from the air, fleets of these machines will maneuvre between the defended ports seeking each other out and exterminating each other in orthodox naval fashion." In Armoured Warfare, he says, "...the art of attacking will largely consist in establishing moveable strong points from which carefully directed fire can be brought to bear on the enemy's machines, whilst other forces of moving machines drive him towards them...In these battle tactics there is one minor point that requires examination, and that is--how wil tank engage tank? I think the eventual answer to this question is likely to be that normally tank will not engage tank, but instead that tank unit will engage tank unit." Indeed, Holden Reid says of Fuller: "Fuller's view of mechanized battles was...[t]he decisive act of battle would be the tank versus tank encounter or, depending on conditions, the tank verus anti-tank gun. Tanks should be armed, then, with small calibre armour piercing guns which could destroy their own kind."

 

In the Christopher Duffy translation of Achtung--Panzer!, Guderian says of tank-versus-tank combat: "Military literature tends to steer clear of this subject, invoking as an excuse our lack of experience. This attitude cannot be sustained over the long term. We will unfailingly be presented with the reality of tank versus tank action in the future, as we have already established, and the outcome of the battle will depend on the issue of that combat, irrespective of whether or not we are cast in the role of attackers or defenders...The tank's most dangerous enemy is another tank. As soon as a tank force identifies enemy machines, and is in a state to do battle with them, that force is duty bound to drop all its other missions and engage in combat. This also happens to be the best service we can render to our own infantry, since they will be in as much danger as our tanks if the enemy manage to break through with an armoured counter-attack...We cannot be content with training for individual combats of tank against tank. We must reckon on the appearance of large forces of tanks, and it is much more useful to work out how to manage combat on this scale." In Constantine Fitzgibbon's translation of Panzer Leader, he says of the equipment being discussed for the German armored forces, "Our opinion then was that for the eventual equipment of the Panzer Divisions we would need two types of tank: a light tank with an armour-piercing gun and two machine-guns, one in the turret and the other in the body; and a medium tank with a large caliber gun, and two machine-guns as before...We had differences of opinion on the subject of gun calibre with the Chief of the Ordnance Office and with the Inspector of Artillery. Both these gentlemen were of the opinion that a 37 mm. gun would suffice for the light tanks, while I was anxious that they be equipped with a 50 mm. weapon since this would give them the advantage over the heavier armour plate which we expected soon to see incorporated in the construction of foreign tanks."

 

Simpkin and Erickson quote Tukhachevsky's New Question of War: "...Decisive success in battle will go to the formation which has more gun tanks capable of destroying enemy tanks.

 

"Thus, for conflict with armies which have mechanised formations, our mechanised formations must be equipped not only with armoured personnel carriers and engineer and other specialist tanks, but with gun tanks--despite the fact that this is an unnecessary luxury for combat with infantry forces."

7 hours ago, Beer said:

 

US didn't field 76 mm Sherman for quite some time not because it was not available but because the units resisted to it - because it was worse than 75 mm against everything except tanks and for fighting tanks there were M10 tank destroyers (which per the doctrine were to fight the tanks allowing the tank units to do their job). Don't you think that if they were scared of the German tanks they would happily take the tanks with 76 mm gun? 

Once they became scared of German tanks they happily did, but this took until the invasion of France to occur. As above, tanks were more than cleared to engage enemy armor per Armored Force doctrine, and this was acknowledged in TD doctrine. In June 1944 it was intended to field 75 mm and 76 mm gun tanks in a two-thirds to one-third ratio, and they weren't employed at all until late July. By the time of the Rhine crossings in March 1945, however, experience had swayed this opinion so that approximately 40% of the Shermans in European Theater stocks were armed with the 76 mm gun. Indeed, production of 75 mm gun tanks totally ceased that quarter. Internecine politics may also have played a role in the 76 not being fielded until Cobra: Baily, for example, asserts that, contrary to the enthusiasm it showed for the idea in 1942, the Ordnance Department may have been opposed to the 76 mm Sherman in 1944 since it had the potential for interfering with the procurement of the T23...

[delete013]

8 hours ago, Beer said:

 

Dear God... You are in a wrong place if you want to use arguments like this. 

It's a taboo? Or people don't believe in them?

Quote

What horrendous losses? 

Sorry to break it to you, but these numbers are proven wrong.

Besides that, I meant losses in equipment. The about 10k (or for the sake of politeness, over 7k) written off shermans and the god-awful five digit for t-34s.

EDIT: don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to shit on those two tanks. The numbers were a consequence of good German and bad Allied decisions. T-34 was the best medium in 1941, Sherman at its introduction in 1942.

[delete013]

17 hours ago, BaronTibere said:

 

Franz Halder would like a word.

I assume you mean his role in being an unofficial editor of the Historical Division?

[delete013]

1 hour ago, DogDodger said:

Depends on what military leaders and which doctrinal publications one reads...

Excellent reply!

[TokyoMorose]

What really makes me laugh about Panther, was it wasn't even the best design the Germans cooked up. DB's incredible "I can't believe it's not a T-34!" entry into the Panther design contest was the superior vehicle in almost all regards, and lost because of corporate politics and violating sacred cows (an all-rear powerpack?! leaf springs supporting a non-interleaved running gear?!) of Wa Pruf 6.

 

It was actually reasonably sized, not over-engineered, and even had a diesel (which was an off-the-shelf powerplant to boot!). Sure the hull hatch arrangement was less than optimal (similar to Comet in this regard, lol corner hatches), and the turret may have been a wee bit cramped...

But I seriously doubt the turret would have been less cramped than the combination in MAN's proposal was.

 

[delete013]

10 hours ago, Beer said:

 

Tests of early German (and Czechoslovak) vehicles shown a lot of brittleness, spalling. For example:

Source: http://www.tankarchives.ca/2014/05/german-steel-vs-soviet-steel.html

 

This is easy to see on photos as well. You can find plenty of photos of early Panzers with cracked armor plates. 

I don't know about the Czech steel but early pz3 and 4 had good quality face hardened steel that offered more protection than their thickness would suggest. Germans knew that such surface can crack monobloc shots, which kept Allies and Soviets fairly confused until 1942. But the face hardened plates were thin and could logically crack. This is fairly different from late war thicker German plates that cracked due to lack of ductility enhancing metals, such as molybden.

10 hours ago, Beer said:

 

Chemical, structure, hardness properties, heat treatment evaluation of Panther ausf.A, Tiger ausf.H, both built definitely prior 1944. Big variety in samples. Often two same armor plates from different sample vehicles on the opposite end of the results. Nearly all plates not meeting German own requirements in chemical composition. 

http://www.tankarchives.ca/2020/02/thick-skin-of-german-beasts.html

 

 

And finally one quote from Guderian himself. 

 

That is true, Germans had to reduce rare metal content fairly soon. This however does not hold for tiger 1's frontal plate which remained top quality, not sure if until the end of production. Someone on axishistory had more detailed info with exact plate name and specifications.
Panther's plates were prone to inconsistencies due to mass production and electricity outages, resulting in improper tempering and quenching procedures.
https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=118212

Later on Germans appear to have decided for high carbon, high hardness and brittleness plates that were better at deflecting shots but also prone to cracking.

[Toxn]

29 minutes ago, TokyoMorose said:

What really makes me laugh about Panther, was it wasn't even the best design the Germans cooked up. DB's incredible "I can't believe it's not a T-34!" entry into the Panther design contest was the superior vehicle in almost all regards, and lost because of corporate politics and violating sacred cows (an all-rear powerpack?! leaf springs supporting a non-interleaved running gear?!) of Wa Pruf 6.

 

It was actually reasonably sized, not over-engineered, and even had a diesel (which was an off-the-shelf powerplant to boot!). Sure the hull hatch arrangement was less than optimal (similar to Comet in this regard, lol corner hatches), and the turret may have been a wee bit cramped...

But I seriously doubt the turret would have been less cramped than the combination in MAN's proposal was.

 

It seems the transmission was the real achilles heel of the DB design (the prototype broke on startup during trials). Although MAN calling the DB transmission complex and unreliable was an epic case of the pot calling the kettle black.

 

This article lays it out in some detail: https://www.tankarchives.ca/2020/08/panthers-ancestors.html?m=1

 

I'd say that, realistically, the DB design (if chosen) would have eventually been boxed into almost the same corner as the historical Panther - forced to accept a front transmission, interleaved suspension and pre-designed Henschel turret.

[delete013]

27 minutes ago, TokyoMorose said:

What really makes me laugh about Panther, was it wasn't even the best design the Germans cooked up. DB's incredible "I can't believe it's not a T-34!" entry into the Panther design contest was the superior vehicle in almost all regards, and lost because of corporate politics and violating sacred cows (an all-rear powerpack?! leaf springs supporting a non-interleaved running gear?!) of Wa Pruf 6.

 

It was actually reasonably sized, not over-engineered, and even had a diesel (which was an off-the-shelf powerplant to boot!). Sure the hull hatch arrangement was less than optimal (similar to Comet in this regard, lol corner hatches), and the turret may have been a wee bit cramped...

But I seriously doubt the turret would have been less cramped than the combination in MAN's proposal was.

 

Well, it was more cramped, had shorter range, poor suspension and the new turret didn't fit on it. Spielberger explains pretty well the circumstances and no, the party politics played little role beyond Hitler's hard limits of that 80mm front plate. It actually had interleaved road wheels. Leaf springs were considered cheap but bad in German opinion. They prefered MAN's suspension. When they were deciding over the prototypes Germany was not yet going downhill and plenty of feats remained in final model in an effort not to interrupt the production.

 

 

1 hour ago, Toxn said:

 

There were attempts to simplify the panther. Panther 2 with Schmalturm and paired interleaved wheels. But Germans were either too desperate by then or not bothered enough by the first panther.

[Toxn]

I think part of the reason that we never saw a true t-34/M4 equivalent from the German side (besides the obvious that PzIV worked more or less well enough and that the proposed 30-35 tonne vehicle meant to replace it bloated up by 10 tonnes) is that the Germans just seemed to struggle with suspension systems in general.

 

It's interesting to see, for instance, the development of the PzII and just how many things they tried over the course of its run, as well as the endless troubles they had with the PzIII suspension (Pz IV's suspension seems to have been tolerated but not emulated). This, again, wasn't helped by Kniepkamp and his determination to shove his own (patented) solution onto every project. But it shows that, unlike the US (who got VVSS and later HVSS to work, then just refined it until torsion bars were ready) or the Russians (who stuck with Christie as a stop-gap and went to torsion bars as and when they could) the Germans just never settled on a solution that their engineers were happy with. Instead it was just tinker, get shoved towards a politically-motivated solution, tinker, repeat.

 

German designers of the period seem very fond of tinkering in general, come to think of it.

[Beer]

28 minutes ago, delete013 said:

I don't know about the Czech steel but early pz3 and 4 had good quality face hardened steel that offered more protection than their thickness would suggest. Germans knew that such surface can crack monobloc shots, which kept Allies and Soviets fairly confused until 1942. But the face hardened plates were thin and could logically crack. This is fairly different from late war thicker German plates that cracked due to lack of ductility enhancing metals, such as molybden.

 

I gave you reports in my post which clearly speak about German early tanks and specifically Pz.III as having brittle armor and producing a lot of spalling. If you just delete it from quote of my post it won't disappear from history.  

 

So again:

Quote

However, despite the decreased hardness of anti-shell armour of PzIII tanks compared to anti-bullet armour, the amount of brittle damage is significantly higher. The behaviour of vehicle #233 is characteristic of the tanks: 75% of all penetrations resulted in fragments up to 3 calibers in size spalling off, as well as through cracks, resulting in the armour plate falling into pieces. Identical behaviour was observed with the surface-hardened armour on vehicle #131.

 

Here you go with just a few photos of early Panzers with cracked armor 

[delete013]

2 hours ago, Beer said:

 

I gave you reports in my post which clearly speak about German early tanks and specifically Pz.III as having brittle armor and producing a lot of spalling. If you just delete it from quote of my post it won't disappear from history.  

 

So again:

 

Here you go with just a few photos of early Panzers with cracked armor 

 

Thin plates crack under larger calibers? Logical. It's not as if Soviet fared any better, or?