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

[delete013]

On 2/24/2021 at 8:50 AM, Toxn said:

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.

Yeah, excellent cannon, optics, working environment, mobility, armour + excellent doctrine and training. Tiger was an unavoidable success.

Quote

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.

Charkow? Chir river? Prokhorovka?

 

Quote

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.

I said it has almost equal performance.

Quote

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

Really? Which one? The slow IS-2? The immobile M26? The suspension wrecking jumbo? Good luck maneuvering in those things. They were for a reason heavy and panthers medium tanks. Maybe you should consider why there is a difference in tank classes?
 

Quote

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

Yep, a good tank we agree. But I've smth for you from Munro's "Centurion tank":

Quote

Comparative Armour Tests
The 17-pounder anti-tank gun showed that it could defeat the armour of a Tiger, but how would the Centurion, armed with the same gun have fared against a Panther, the most powerful (the Tiger excepted) of the German Panzers?
[...]A captured Panther provided an opportunity to compare, in Agust 1945, its armour against that of a Centurion and vice versa. A report from Tank Armour Research found some close similarities in their performance, although the Centurion was longer and heavier and the Panther carried more side armour above the tracks. Both featured an angled glacis plate.
The guns used for the test were the most powerful available, the British 17-pounder as fitted to the MkI Centurion, and two German guns, the 75mm fitted to the Panther and the PAK 88mm anti-tank gun. The test showed that the survivality of both tanks was very similar: at closer ranges the Centurion's armour proved superior, whilst the Panther had the edge beyond 150yd (140m).

With a two years delay the British, untouched by lack of resources or industrial interrupts, managed to match a panther. Missing the war and appearing when there were no panzers to fight anymore. How convenient. So who was the better tank designer? You operate in this bubble of panther criticism as if the rest of the world didn't exist. If panther was bad, the rest was worse. Ergo, panther was the best of the worst?

 

Quote

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.

American opinion, not mine. It is a problem if tank can't climb or navigate rough terrain. Most geography in Europe is tank unfreindly.

 

Quote

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

Well, what was better?

 

Quote

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.

What are you talking about? Panthers were perfectly fine. Or you allude to the British motion studies where they complained over misaligned gunner's seat and his pedals?

 

Quote

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.

Which 35t tank has panther's features? Cent had the same stats for more weight. IS-2 perhaps? But its a heavy tank with heavy tank's mobility. Pershing is pointless to mention.

 

Quote

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

 

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.

Wait what? Where is the link between overloaded suspension and clogging? The only German complaint was frozen mud and extended disassembly time. A cost for fielding highly mobile heavy tanks with good armour? Diesel engines also freeze in winter, are they "stupid" designs?

Quote

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

Bloody hell..

[Beer]

41 minutes ago, delete013 said:

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

 

This is how good quality paper thin armor behaves. Anyway you are arguing against Guderian himself who complained about bad German steel quality already in 1941.

[delete013]

19 minutes ago, Beer said:

 

This is how good quality paper thin armor behaves. Anyway you are arguing against Guderian himself who complained about bad German steel quality already in 1941.

I honestly don't know. I can't tell with what the other tanks were hit by, you might as well be right.

[delete013]

23 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

 

Arracourt begs to differ.

What about Arracourt? There is so little info one can find and all is written from American perspective. Hardly a good example.

23 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

Oh, you mean it have beeg gun n thicc armor. Yes, so did the Char 2C, yet nobody pretends it's anything but a dead end.

You mean Char B1? It was indeed of ageing design but the armament and armour were still sufficient in 1940. It was nothing like German tanks especially not like the heavies.

23 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

Perhaps the answer lies in a difference of nationality? 🤔

What do you mean by that?

[Beer]

4 hours ago, delete013 said:

What about Arracourt? There is so little info one can find and all is written from American perspective. Hardly a good example

 

It was one of the biggest tank battles of the western front and the initial part of it happened in a fog and was therefore very messy (the foggy day was chosen by the German side to avoid airforce). In the period of 10 days the 5. Panzerarmee was literally obliterated in their failed offensive with US loosing just 25 Shermans and 7 Hellcats. The 5th Army had 11. Panzer Division, 111. and 113. Panzerbrigades both armed with Panthers. The whole 5. Panzerarmee had only 62 tanks and StuG operational after 10 days of fighting from the initial 262. 

 

The weird thing about this battle is that while today we know it was a German failure in that time the German leadership thought that the massive losses were justified by forcing the allied advance to stop. They didn't know Eisenhower ordered to stop the advance one day before the battle for logistical reasons. 

[heretic88]

21 hours ago, Beer said:

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

On the other hand, StuG armor was judged excellent...

 

21 hours ago, Beer said:

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.

Please... no. T-34 was never a problem for germans. It was a damn good excuse for generals to explain their failures. The REAL bane of german tanks was the KV-1. That one also worth a discussion, how underestimated this tank is. Just like the Panther, it had reliability problems, but its battlefield performance was excellent. A really, really excellent tank in 1941-42.

 

20 hours ago, Beer said:

What horrendous losses? 

The Sherman didnt suffer so serious losses, but the T-34... Maybe almost 45.000 irrecoverably lost during the war? 82% of production? These are horrible numbers for a tank on the winning side... The Sherman wasnt a death trap. But the T-34 definitely was. And even though it isnt mentioned in books about this tank, its successor, the T-44 was the proof of the failure of the T-34. The Panther didnt really influence future designs (except Centurion). But neither the T-34. 

 

10 hours ago, Toxn said:

endless troubles they had with the PzIII suspension

What problems? Standardized in Ausf.E, worked well. And I do not entirely agree with the "tinkering". Germans did settle on a solution: torsion bar. Yes, there were some moronic, and very unsuccessful projects of a certain F.Porsche, but these were small scale productions.

 

 

 

[heretic88]

27 minutes ago, Beer said:

t was one of the biggest tank battles of the western front and the initial part of it happened in a fog and was therefore very messy (the foggy day was chosen by the German side to avoid airforce).

Exactly that is why it cannot be used for evaluating the Panther's performance. As I told earlier, try looking for literature about the 1944-45 battles in Hungary. 

[heretic88]

On 2/23/2021 at 4:51 PM, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

Yeah the 262, made it into service, it was trash,

It was an excellent fighter in its time. The chronic lack of fuel, and the barely trained pilots werent its fault.

 

On 2/23/2021 at 4:51 PM, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

The STG-44 was not very good,

One of the best infantry weapon of the war... again, lack of magazines wasnt its fault. 

 

On 2/23/2021 at 4:51 PM, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

 The people making excuses for their shitty equipment make themselves look like ignorant twats at best, or a fucking Nazi apologist at worst.  

Yes, thats why allied soldiers envied german equipment... 

 

On 2/23/2021 at 4:51 PM, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

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!

Please, do not bring politics here! Until now this was a technical/historical discussion. Should remain that. 

(but if you really want to... khmmm... holodomor... great famines in 1930s... mao's china...)

[Beer]

47 minutes ago, heretic88 said:

Please... no. T-34 was never a problem for germans. It was a damn good excuse for generals to explain their failures. The REAL bane of german tanks was the KV-1. That one also worth a discussion, how underestimated this tank is. Just like the Panther, it had reliability problems, but its battlefield performance was excellent. A really, really excellent tank in 1941-42.

You are argueing with Guderian on the internet in 2021. I doubt he hears you. 

 

Military History Visualized by the way dug out of archives that creating a T-34 was indeed a topic and one of things officially asked by  Wehrmacht towards the industry in late 1941 but the whole idea was rejected. And it is a historical truth that wording "Absolute Überlegenheit" (Absolute superiority) was used in regards to T-34 and there was no request to copy KV. 

 

A proof that this is historically true

 

You have to take into account that Wehrmacht used a lot of captured T-34 till the end of the war and therefore knew the tank very well. 

 

47 minutes ago, heretic88 said:

The Sherman didnt suffer so serious losses, but the T-34... Maybe almost 45.000 irrecoverably lost during the war? 82% of production? These are horrible numbers for a tank on the winning side... The Sherman wasnt a death trap. But the T-34 definitely was.

You try over and over to derail the discussion to T-34, Sherman or anything else. That's whataboutism. 

 

44 minutes ago, heretic88 said:

Exactly that is why it cannot be used for evaluating the Panther's performance. As I told earlier, try looking for literature about the 1944-45 battles in Hungary. 

You can't just pick engagements which you like. Once there is fog, once there is airforce, once there is mud, once there is sand, once the tanks are too new and not mature. Both sides can defend themselves with gazzilion similar excuses. 

 

You know what? The Germans deliberately chose foggy weather because they believed it was the advantageous conditions for them. Now you play it a disadvantage but in fact it just showed that the weak side armor was really important factor and that the lack of situation awareness was an important factor too becaue battless somehow rarely happen in ideal conditions especially if you don't have strategical initiative.

[ADC411]

I hate to be that guy, but speaking of whataboutism:

 

14 minutes ago, heretic88 said:

 

Please, do not bring politics here! Until now this was a technical/historical discussion. Should remain that. 

(but if you really want to... khmmm... holodomor... great famines in 1930s... mao's china...)

 

With the classic Wehraboo talking points, and now this sudden defensiveness at the mere mention of the Holocaust, that 88 in your username is starting to seem just a bit suspicious. 

[TokyoMorose]

11 hours ago, Toxn said:

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.

 

I know, I've read that piece. Just had DB been able to keep their design independence it was a lot more promising. Said independence is of course, the biggest obstacle to them winning in the first place.

 

11 hours ago, delete013 said:

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.

 

I know the new turret didn't fit, DB designed their own and the Rheinmetall-provided turret as used on production Panthers wasn't a terribly good design in any case. The late war efforts at a Schmalturm were actually *reviving* the general concepts DB was working on for their turret. More cramped is relative, as that would depend on how the internal arrangement is laid out - on paper Panther has lots of room, in practice the internal layout is a trainwreck and wastes this. Go watch Moran stumble around the various positions.

 

The cheap but bad leaf spring bogies carried the German army on their back on the endless Panzer IVs and derivations. Which were actually largely reliable, and simple to repair unlike the doubled-torsion-bar set up on Panther. But yes, I had forgotten that the DB did have a simple interleaved setup (only 2 layers, of single road wheels).

 

And you can hardly say that politics didn't play a role - Maybach aggressively pushed against diesels to maintain their AFV monopoly, MAN enthusiastically wooed Kniepkamp and crammed as many of his ideas as they could into their changing proposals. MAN did everything they could to please as many other major firms, while DB basically went it alone.

[Lord_James]

51 minutes ago, heretic88 said:

Please, do not bring politics here! Until now this was a technical/historical discussion. Should remain that. 

(but if you really want to... khmmm... holodomor... great famines in 1930s... mao's china...)

I’m not 100% sure how toxn’s statement was political... its historical fact that the Nazi’s were mass murderers. This doesn’t absolve or distract from the crimes-against-humanity of other states and governments; nor do the other states’ crimes justify what the Nazi’s did. They’re all horrible, and cherry-picking one as being “less horrible” is ridiculous and dishonest. 

[delete013]

1 hour ago, heretic88 said:

Please, do not bring politics here! Until now this was a technical/historical discussion. Should remain that. 

(but if you really want to... khmmm... holodomor... great famines in 1930s... mao's china...)

You.. hm heretic!

[delete013]

2 hours ago, heretic88 said:

REAL bane of german tanks was the KV-1.

It is quite impressive how advanced and heavy layout Soviets fielded already in 1941. German methods against them remind more of a mammoth hunt than any credible anti-tank defence.

Fortunately for them, Soviets got almost everything else wrong.

2 hours ago, heretic88 said:

The Sherman didnt suffer so serious losses, but the T-34... Maybe almost 45.000 irrecoverably lost during the war? 82% of production? These are horrible numbers for a tank on the winning side... The Sherman wasnt a death trap. But the T-34 definitely was.

Let's face it, shermans were in the same sack from 1943 onwards. It think that both tanks could have avoided their fates if they were at least paired with some long range overwatch. Both countries lacked quality ordnance institutions that allowed Germans to make a tank killer out of any carriage. I can imagine IS-2 as being big relief for t-34 crews.

 

2 hours ago, heretic88 said:

 

 

[Beer]

2 minutes ago, delete013 said:

Let's face it, shermans were in the same sack from 1943 onwards. It think that both tanks could have avoided their fates if they were at least paired with some long range overwatch. Both countries lacked quality ordnance institutions that allowed Germans to make a tank killer out of any carriage. I can imagine IS-2 as being big relief for t-34 crews.

 

You guys live in some parallel universe. 

[LoooSeR]

19 minutes ago, Beer said:

 

You guys live in some parallel universe. 

   This thread keeps delivering.

[Sturgeon]

3 hours ago, heretic88 said:

Exactly that is why it cannot be used for evaluating the Panther's performance. As I told earlier, try looking for literature about the 1944-45 battles in Hungary. 

 

AHAHAHAH WOW

[Sturgeon]

3 hours ago, heretic88 said:

Please, do not bring politics here! Until now this was a technical/historical discussion. Should remain that. 

 

Ohohoh, you'd like to be a moderator would you? I can arrange that.

[Jeeps_Guns_Tanks]

5 hours ago, heretic88 said:

It was an excellent fighter in its time. The chronic lack of fuel, and the barely trained pilots werent its fault. ( Wehraboos love the 262, no suprise you think it was good. )

 

One of the best infantry weapon of the war... again, lack of magazines wasnt its fault.   (lol Another Wehraboo trait. Lack of Magazines was not the guns fault you retard because you can't blame a gun for Nazi Germanies problem with logistics and knowing how to do them.)

 

Yes, thats why allied soldiers envied german equipment...  (LOL Another common boo myth. Of course you buy into it because you are a boo. An extreme case bordering on Nazi Apologia)

 

 

Please, do not bring politics here! Until now this was a technical/historical discussion. Should remain that.  

(but if you really want to... khmmm... holodomor... great famines in 1930s... mao's china...)

 

 

Go fuck yourself.  If you think pointing out the Nazi Germans were only truly good at one thing, and that one thing was Mass Murder, has anything to do with politics, you're a strait up Nazi Apologist. Politics and Mass murder are not supposed to mix unless you're a Nazi asshole or a commie.   

 

And real smart argument you fucking twat, "hey look, if your going to bring up war crimes about my favorite war time powers, the Nazi, I'll totally own  you by bringing up Soviet Atrocities".    

 

Here's a clue, no one here admires to soviet union or their war crimes. A few of us are not so shot through with Nazi Propaganda, we can talk about the T-34 and soviet equipment without defending the regime.  

 

What's the 88 in your name stand for? Normally I wouldn't suspect the person with 88 in their name of being a Nazi Apologist or worse, but your posts sure warrant it.  

[Donward]

This has been a successful Wehraboo Hunt. 
Their impenetrable Wehraboo skulls, harder even than Krupp steel shall adorn our lodges. comieboo younglings shall listen in awed silence while grizzled hunters recount their kills as the Wehraboo beast flesh sizzles over the campfire.

As a wise woman once said, long ago on the television, “It’s a Good thing”.

[DogDodger]

21 hours ago, delete013 said:

Excellent reply!

Thanks

 

18 hours ago, delete013 said:

Really? Which one? The slow IS-2? The immobile M26? The suspension wrecking jumbo? Good luck maneuvering in those things. They were for a reason heavy and panthers medium tanks. Maybe you should consider why there is a difference in tank classes?

The Pershing was labeled a heavy tank from 29 June 1944 to May 1946, mostly for morale purposes. It was begat from a program to replace the M4 medium tank, and there were actual heavy tanks being concurrently developed. The M26, though more heavily armored than its T25 sibling, still weighed over 34,000 lb less than the heavy tank M6. In September 1944, i.e., two months before the 90 mm gun, 92,000 lb T26E3 emerged from the T26E1, the Ordnance Committee recommended the development of the 105 mm gun, 141,000 lb T29 and the 155 mm gun, 142,000 lb T30. These were the US heavy tanks. Production of 1,200 T29s was requested on 1 March 1945, but of course the war ended before this could occur.

 

Also, the passage of the post being replied to was referencing the suspension systems specifically, as I understood it? The M26's relatively low power:weight became an issue in the mountains of Korea, but cross-country its single-torsion bar suspension (and automatic transmission?) could be quite an improvement over even much lighter tanks: A race was held at Aberdeen Proving Grounds' Churchill cross country area involving T26E1, T25E1, HVSS M4A3, and VVSS M4A3. The T25E1, being torsion bar-sprung and having a pretty sprightly weight, came in first with a 23-minute time. The heavier T26E1 was second at 26 minutes. The M4A3s, with the same engines but ~13,150-17,750 lb less weight than the T26E1, crossed the line in 28 minutes 25 seconds for the HVSS machine and 30 minutes 40 seconds for the VVSS machine. So perhaps "immobile" is a bit unfair, and perhaps the double torsion bars were in fact a bit of luxury.

[delete013]

5 hours ago, DogDodger said:

The Pershing was labeled a heavy tank from 29 June 1944 to May 1946, mostly for morale purposes. It was begat from a program to replace the M4 medium tank, and there were actual heavy tanks being concurrently developed. The M26, though more heavily armored than its T25 sibling, still weighed over 34,000 lb less than the heavy tank M6. In September 1944, i.e., two months before the 90 mm gun, 92,000 lb T26E3 emerged from the T26E1, the Ordnance Committee recommended the development of the 105 mm gun, 141,000 lb T29 and the 155 mm gun, 142,000 lb T30. These were the US heavy tanks. Production of 1,200 T29s was requested on 1 March 1945, but of course the war ended before this could occur.

 

It was meant figuratively, of course. As a medium, Pershing was not a finished vehicle. I usually exercise skepticism over prototypes good on paper but never reaching service (or being half useful in the opinion of the army)

 

It is, imo, still better to have armoured weapon platform assaulting strong points than nothing. Jumbo likely saved many already by being a hard rock, attracting fire.

[delete013]

[Jeeps_Guns_Tanks]

6 hours ago, DogDodger said:

Thanks

 

The Pershing was labeled a heavy tank from 29 June 1944 to May 1946, mostly for morale purposes. It was begat from a program to replace the M4 medium tank, and there were actual heavy tanks being concurrently developed. The M26, though more heavily armored than its T25 sibling, still weighed over 34,000 lb less than the heavy tank M6. In September 1944, i.e., two months before the 90 mm gun, 92,000 lb T26E3 emerged from the T26E1, the Ordnance Committee recommended the development of the 105 mm gun, 141,000 lb T29 and the 155 mm gun, 142,000 lb T30. These were the US heavy tanks. Production of 1,200 T29s was requested on 1 March 1945, but of course the war ended before this could occur.

 

Also, the passage of the post being replied to was referencing the suspension systems specifically, as I understood it? The M26's relatively low power:weight became an issue in the mountains of Korea, but cross-country its single-torsion bar suspension (and automatic transmission?) could be quite an improvement over even much lighter tanks: A race was held at Aberdeen Proving Grounds' Churchill cross country area involving T26E1, T25E1, HVSS M4A3, and VVSS M4A3. The T25E1, being torsion bar-sprung and having a pretty sprightly weight, came in first with a 23-minute time. The heavier T26E1 was second at 26 minutes. The M4A3s, with the same engines but ~13,150-17,750 lb less weight than the T26E1, crossed the line in 28 minutes 25 seconds for the HVSS machine and 30 minutes 40 seconds for the VVSS machine. So perhaps "immobile" is a bit unfair, and perhaps the double torsion bars were in fact a bit of luxury.

 

 

The reliability problems with the Pershing were solved fairly fast from what I've read, and the tanks on the Zebra Mission are not all that different than the ones that served in Korea. The only big item I can think of is the final drive housing braces.  The longstanding problem that was never worked out was a bad driver could cause fan belts to pop off.  US standards for reliability were so far ahead of the Germans, the M26 would have been considered almost impossibly reliable to them. 

[Beer]

2 hours ago, delete013 said:

It was meant figuratively, of course. As a medium, Pershing was not a finished vehicle. I usually exercise skepticism over prototypes good on paper but never reaching service (or being half useful in the opinion of the army)

 

From a staunch Panther supporter this is somewhat funny statement.