WWII 1943 Platoon vs. Current 2003 Platoon

[telewinz]

WoW...Are your finger sore?

US 3rd Armor Division losses:
648 medium tanks destroyed in combat
Over 160 M5 tanks destroyed
1100 in need of repair, 750 of these were knocked out in combat
This means our finest heavy tank divison lost 1350 medium tanks
in combat or 580%. Normal TOE: 232 Sherman and 10 Pershing tanks. "It was obvious why we soon ran out of trained tank crews and had to use raw infantry recruits during the Battle of the Bulge". "The Germans had a QUALITATIVE superiority of as much as five to one over our M4 Sherman". "The Panther could go places the Sherman could not", The Panther had wider tracks and lower ground pressure than any Sherman model. Quotes are from an ordnance officer serving with the 3rd armored division in WW2. "Their medium T34 and heavy Stalin tanks were equipped with more powerful guns, heavier armor, and wider tracks than the Sherman". "Due to the arrogance of certain high-ranking officers, the M26 was given a low production priority". "Where as the Shermans HAD TO get within 600 yards of a Panther and HOPE for a flank shot the Panther could knock-out the Sherman at 2000 yards HEAD-ON" Trying to prop-up the Sherman tank with isolated incidents or comments does not turn a turkey into a falcon. Your best approch would be to compare the 90mm "Hellcat" tank destroyer against the Panther of Tiger. What matter does it make whether the German 75mm or 88mm goes through two tank turrets or just one? You are just as dead! Their is a case where that happened, A Panther 75mm went thru one Sherman Turret and penetrated a second Sherman tank several meters behind knocking both out! There are other cases where after firing through brick walls, Shermans were penetrated Through and Through.

 

[trapshooter]

I'll repeat, for the forth or fifth time, (Tam has tried to make this clear, several times):

Captains study tactics, Generals study logictics.

Production does not equal delivery at the front.

Shipping weight/deck space required of any machine is not limited to the machine itself, but to the materiel needed to sustain it. (Fuel, parts, ammo, etc.)

The Kreigsmarine was not fully 'done in' until late 1943, IIRC.

Now, we can argue anything. Patton's competence notwithstanding, there are other officers who were cut off at the knees as well. Crerar on the north side of Argentan-Falaise comes to mind. Fratricide. Yeah, right. (See, I DO know more than one. I also know how to spell DeGuingand, I think, without looking it up. Something I have studiously avoided, to this point.)

I also know that the XX (or was it the XXI?) Air Force knocked out more tanks than any other U.S. Army unit in the European theater, 1944-1945. P-47's are cool. (Patton thought so, as well, interestingly enough).

I really am done with this thread, as hindsight being what it is, this is kind of like playing "if only Lee had..." at Gettysburg. Amusing for a time, but pointless in many ways, once the primary lesson is learned. Adios to this thread.

 

[telewinz]

Not that simple...

Although their has been some what if's, even that has been pretty much based on fact. I am amazed at logic and research that has gone into this "debate". I do feel that just about everyone who read this very long thread learned something. I enjoy people disagreeing with me AND giving an intelligent reason/fact why they disagree. Their are so many facts to be found that now days almost anything can be argued as valid, its called "spin" or "PR" or the art of advertising. The people who contributed to this thread should be proud, they gave an informed opinion rather that just an opinion. This is the internet at it's best and I am not suprised that it happened on The High Road.

 

[Stephen Ewing]

Yeah, there is lots of stuff out there detailing the Shermans' advantages. Just trying to share some of it with the heathens. Still, very little "what if" in this, and what there has been is in the nature of trade-offs. Does 2x=4y, or some such. Nobody is playing "Could the war have ended differently?"

To begin with, if anybody says the T-34 had a more powerful gun, check their medication. That one is just not an ingredient in a well-considered criticism. Further note on how superior the Russian stuff was, from Grossdeutschland: "In many T34 tanks the armor walls were created from pieces of 1cm thick steel with 6cm filling of cast iron or other material, and then a second piece of 1cm thick steel." Bad as the cast iron is, I'm curious what the other material was? Bread? Spam? Fruitcakes?

Another reason the Germans weren't universally happy with heavy tanks. 13 Ko/Pz Regt Grossdeutschland: "Tigers have to detour around bridges and ford rivers." The ability of the Sherman to get to point B rested on more than its superior reliability. It also rested on its roadworthiness and its ability to leave fallen companions to recovery vehicles. The Germans don't appear to have wasted much time building pontoon bridges for Tigers, right? Its disadvantage here was never brought into play because it was the defender, but that doesn't lessen the Sherman's advantage.

The best case Sherman is still the Firefly, which had quantitative equality and also had the gun to decisively engage the Germans at any range. Alternatively, the Jumbo went the hard way to be in no more danger from the Germans than vice-versa. For the rest of the Shermans, it wasn't hopeless: Consider the routine criticism of Sherman crews in Nachrichtenblatt der Panzertruppen for leaving perfectly fine tanks after the first hit. The same point is frequently made about JS crews, as well. Since I know where that's headed, the Notizen fur Panzertruppen criticizes T-34 crews for leaving the tank without even being hit.

Actual battlefield results? We can do that: German victory claims (not the fantasy numbers of B-17 gunners, but still claims with the obvious uncertainties) from 6-6-44 to 7-3-44: 227 Allied tanks of all types claimed destroyed by Panzers. German complete write-offs, excluding StuGs 6-6-44 to 7-8-44: 324. Now, I can hear the "Shermans couldn't have done that!" already, so let's examine the 110 Panzers the British captured by 8-7-44: 53 killed by AP, 8 by HEAT, 9 by Arty HE, 1 by mine, 7 by aircraft rocket, 3 by aircraft cannon, 7 by own crew, 4 simply abandoned, and 18 unknown. Educated guess puts roughly 60% of their casualties by Allied tanks? Fudge the "claims" into genuine write-offs, remove the Pz IV against Churchill incidents, take our best shot at the rest, and we're really not all that far apart in applied lethality, considering sizes of forces engaged. Certainly not far enough for the six decades of shrieking like Frenchmen because the other fella can actually shoot back.

Curiously, once we leave the Normandy hedgerows behind and move to the open "tank" country where long range shots from better guns with better sights are supposed to matter, the stats get absolutely hilarious from 8-8-44 to 8-31-44: Total 223 Panzers recovered by the British, 24 destroyed by AP, 1 by HEAT, 4 by Arty HE, 7 by aircraft rocket, 1 by aircraft cannon, 2 by bombs, 108 by own crew, 63 simply abandoned, and 13 unknown. The math on this one speaks for itself. Again, it's not just that the darn things break down; it's that they can't be recovered when they do. The detailed reports read like a Clairol commercial. One Tiger breaks down, so a second starts to tow it. When that breaks down, two more tow them, and so on, and so on, and so on...... until the battlefield is littered with Panzers and not a working transmission to be found. Examples? I Ko/Sch. PzAbt 503 11-13 Nov 44, or II Abt/Pz-Regt 23 on both 9-9-43 and 9-20-43 gave very interesting reports, sch SS PzAbt 101 on both 5 and 7 July 1944 makes for fun reading, or almost the ENTIRE sch Pz Abt 503 on 11-25-44. Oberstleutnant d.G. Rohrbeck's 2-27-44 report from Anzio has highlights like, "A Panzer is hardly ever seen in the front lines." Panzertruppen really did ask for lighter tanks, not heavier. The 17th Pz Div's commander wrote a lengthy and informative letter in response to a request from his corps commander (LVII Panzer Korps) on 24 April 1943 about what was needed in Panzers, and the Tiger is singled out as an example of what is wrong. Having operated both mediums and heavies, the Germans understood that the "teeth to tail" ratio is just not good.

Eisenhower usually defended the Sherman (admittedly pro forma, but I believe he was essentially correct) by noting that it had design requirements which simply did not exist on any other AFV in the world, and no other tank could have done the Sherman's job so well. Tigers on landing craft would have been amusing to face, no?

Steve

 

[telewinz]

The T-34 did have a better gun and armor than the MAJORITY of the Sherman models. Only the British 17 pounder (1944) using the standard (most used) AP shot could surpass the Russian 76mm (1940) using the "standard" AP round. Tungston steel AP rounds were used in a small amount by both sides, it would even turn the Allied 50mm anti-tank into a potent AP round, but it still would not be a "Better" tank gun, only an improved AP shot that would boster the performance of any round. Are you confusing the American 76mm with the British 17 pounder? They are not the same round, nor did they have the same performance. The Russian 76mm was so good it was adopted for use by the Germans, the 85mm that came later was even better. What you say about Tigers and their transportation problems is true. Yet they overcame this problem with tank transporters and simple solutions such as changing to the narrow tank treads for transportation only. The 90mm heavy tanks(not the M26) the Americans had before 1944 had the same problems but were never shipped overseas because we never devoted much effort to solving the problem, we just gave up. I cannot give credit to a Sherman tank because a Panther ran out of gas and was abandoned by its crew. Again, Germany was already defeated in '44 and faced many shortages, gas being just one of the few. Shermans sunk while onboard cargo ships are not credited to German AFV's either In general, the Sherman suffered losses of 5-1 when pitted against the Panther or Tigher. The British FireFly had the firepower to defeat the Panther or Tiger but still did not have the armor for survival in an equal contest. It's 17 pounder was as good but not better, making the Firefly an up-armored slower moving anti-tank AFV. The American 76mm gun allowed the Shermans crews to live a little longer and fire a little farther away from the Panther or Tiger. A very wise tactic on the Sherman's part. The best Sherman Tank performance wise was about equal to the MK4F2 German tank. A tie for 5th or 6th place as the best tank of WW2 isn't bad, you can't blame the Sherman crews for trying to survive by adding sandbags, logs, and concrete to there hulls. It was a disgrace then and a disservice now to put a "pretty face" on a terrible situation.

 

[Scott Evans]

In my opinion…

Best use of combined arms wins battles. Further; communications and information that enhances battlefield awareness will always dictate. That is provided there is training among commanders, at all levels, to properly and effectively employ such so as to facilitate the maximizing of any weakness of the adversary while minimizing your own. Likewise; discipline at all levels, tempered by individual initiative, must blend so units on the ground meet the unpredictable challenges necessary to achieve objectives. Individual weapons of the infantryman are less of a factor then the above and all things considered the modern military is far more capable of the destruction of the enemy then our WWII forces.

All that said I would still like to see ½ of the M-16’s in the modern rifle squad replaced with M-14’s or AR-10’s.

 

[Med 10]

Hey telewinz. You hittin the books yet?

I know someone who is.

 

[telewinz]

I hit them once to get the AP performance Stats and the quotes. Better than mis-information, if we are going to debate, do it responsibly (like gun ownership) and don't use comic books for your source.

 

[telewinz]

Ive got the M-14 and SP1, I'd pick the Sp1 over the AR10 or M14 hands down. If I am in a static positon, like a roadblock or such then I'll take the FAL in 308. But then I never felt Patton was much of an expert on the Garand(have one of those too) either "the greatest battle implement ever devised". I'd take the FN49 over the Garand any time. Patton was a darn good pistol shot, he had "peal" grips as I understand it. He was better at giving one-liners than Will Rogers, they laughed at him too.

 

[Stephen Ewing]

Telewinz, I've spent about all the time on this that I can. Frankly, you can't reach the correct conclusions as long as your data is so flawed, and I've suggested a few topics in this thread, although I'll suggest paying particular attention to the origin and actual meaning of the 5:1 ratio and German heavy recovery capability, as those appear to be particularly vexing for you. Causes of losses of both sides might be worth a look if you can find it. German dissatisfaction with their tanks is very illuminating. While you're at it, take a second look at Patton. He may not have been Manstein or Lee, but he wasn't Budenny. Even before that, I'm begging you, straighten out the Soviet 76mm AT performance before you do anything else. Once you're working off better information, the rest falls into place. Seriously, run, do not walk, and check up on that Soviet 76mm. Good luck and good reading.

Med 10, sorry if twice being the second guy to hit the books offends you. One of the history walls is 10' from my computer, my current reading is WW2, and my conclusions agree with the majority of the data, so retaliation is easy, I admit. I've been dealing with three people either regurgitating or paraphrasing Cooper's hatchet-job, and it's not all the same set of rules.

Take care,

Steve

 

[telewinz]

I think we keep comparing apples to oranges, the Russian 76mm was the best AFV anti-tank round of 1940, the only Sherman gun tube that exceeded it was the 76mm American and the British 17 pounder. They did not reach the battlefield until 1944, by then the T-34 had the 85mm gun tube. Also what book are you getting your information from? All my stats are based on the most common type of AP round used by ALL sides, that creates an even playing field for comparison. If the WW2 90mm or 88mm had a tungston core, it could still be used today and would be effective against most AFV's.

Again in reading German interviews and comments, by in large they did not have a particular fear of any Sherman of any model. The T-34 is often mentioned along with the monsters that came later like the IS-2 and IS-3. In reading interviews and comments of allied tankers (British & American) their opinions pretty much mirror my conclusions, only they expree their opinions as facts. They have that right, they were there and I am just an outsider trying to understand WW2. My conclusions stand, as an AFV touring France the Sherman was outstanding, as a MBT of 1944-45 it was a sad excuse and someone in our leadership should have been brought to account for their poor judgement. We only learn from our KNOWN mistakes. Maybe if they had the M60 never would have been our MBT for so long and the Abrams would have served us 10 years sooner.

 

[Tamara]

telewinz,

All my stats are based on the most common type of AP round used by ALL sides, that creates an even playing field for comparison.

That's like saying 9mm is ineffective because we're not counting JHPs, only ball.

If the WW2 90mm or 88mm had a tungston core, it could still be used today and would be effective against most AFV's.

Guns of that type were phased out in the late '50s-early'60s, even with tungsten-cored discarding sabot. The US did continue to use the 90mm up through the early M48 models, and the Brits built their own version to use common ammo in the Centurion. It was the first standard NATO tank gun. It got replaced by the 105mm L7. (Most tanks today are designed to defeat long-rod penetrators from 120-125mm guns, at least over their frontal arc, although the Israelis have had success against Syrian T-72s with the L7 using APFSDS...)

 

[telewinz]

I made a point not to say main battle tanks, just seeing if you were paying attention. Also I am aware that they have been by and large replaced but PERFORMANCE wise with tungston core AP the 90 and 88mm could still do alot of damage to a modern AFV especially the ones under developement that feature plastic or aluminum "armor". Their are still some light armored AFV's that in the main are wheeled (not tracked) with a turret and upwards of a 105mm gun tube. The old Soviet bloc still has the PT-76 as an example.

Also comparing a 9mm fmj for expansion with a HP 9mm is hardly an even playing field, a poor hp looks great against any fmj if expansion is being tested.

I'll be back.

 

[Blain]

Looks like this thread has the honor of being the longest thread on THR so far! Horrah!

 

[telewinz]

I feel like having a reunion. How about 5 tables for the Panther/Tiger survivors and 1 table for the Sherman survivors?

 

[Blain]

And 4 tables for General Patton Fanatics!!!

 

[telewinz]

I have studied WW2 more than guns, its hard to Shut-up on this subject. I will cease (and choke) and wait to see if anything developes.

 

[jimbo]

I know for a fact the Tiger Tank was a major WEANNIE! Not a one, not a SINGLE one could withstand even a glancing blow from a measwy wittle 15-inch Naval shell. Wimpy German tanks!

 

[cool45auto]

Jeez, my eyes are sore! Lots of good information guys!

 

[telewinz]

Jimbo

You forget that the Tiger tank had face-hardened armor plate, in tests conducted after the war, the USS New Jersey let loose a salvo of 16 inch AP rounds at a Tiger tank located on the naval target range (island) in the Pacific. Their were 5 direct hits and 3 near misses at a range of 17,000 yards, yet the Tiger tank shook the hits off and was driven to the wash rack UNDER ITS OWN POWER, to wash off the dust! I just hope Saddam only has T-72's or T-80's tanks or God help us all!


PS: I'm pulling your leg