Tamara
Senior Member
Using Wittmann as an example of your typical panzer commander is like using Alvin York as an example of your typical doughboy. 
WWII 1943 Platoon vs. Current 2003 Platoon
- Thread starter Blain
- Start date
- Status
jimbo
Member
Tank vs. tank encounters, while critical to the crews, are vastly over-rated on this thread. The fact of the matter is, a German tank had far less to fear from a Sherman's weak 75mm or a Pershing's high-velocity 90mm cannon. It was 105mm howitzer shells raining down on the paper-thin top-plate armor of German tanks that caused so many to fall to ruin. US artillery was queen of the battlefield in WWII, and Panzers had far more to fear from spotters directing accurate fire on their heads than they had from anti-tank encounters.
Dannyboy
Member
I never said he was a typical panzer commander. It's probably a good thing he wasn't or things may have been somewhat different. Knowing you were fighting against someone like Wittman doesn't do much for morale, IMO.
Here's an excerpt from Steel Inferno by Maj. Gen. Michael Reynolds:
For some time after the war it was thought that Wittman had died when his tank was surrounded by a number of Canadian Shermans and shot to pieces. Later, in the 1980's, credit was given to A Squadron of the British 1st Northamptonshire Yeomanry which, it will be remembered was in a defensive position just south of St. Aignan-de-Cramesnil during the period in question, and most commentators were content with this version. However, Hubert Meyer, the former Chief of Staff of 12th SS, recently added to the controversy by writing in the (Old Comrades) magazine Der Freiwillige, that tank number 007 (Wittman's) was hit in the engine compartment by a rocket fired from a Typhoon which blew off the turret.
Personally, I believe Mr. Meyer because he had nothing to gain by saying this. Unlike the Allied units involved that all wanted credit for killing Wittman.
Jimbo and Danny boy are correct IMHO
While Whittman was not a typical example of the German AFV crew of WW2, he wasn't far from it. The length and quality of training of the panzer crews was the best of any combatant country and they pretty much maintained that high standard till the end of the war. German tank crew morale was always very high and they had a great deal of confidence and trust in their AFV's till the end. It's for sure no allied tank crew had their german counterparts confidence after '42/43. By the end of '44 American manpower for FRONTLINE service was becoming scarce and hard to come by. Bloated rear support units were raided and turned into combat replacement troops. Since it was a common belief that the war "wouldn't last much longer" the US Army had already shut down most of their tank schools . By late '44 and all of '45 often times untrained troops were given a FEW hours of instruction (less than a day) in tank operation and then committed to frontline battle. Needless to say their survival in the "Ronson Lighter" was shorter than most. England's severe manpower shortage finally occurred soon after Normandy. Thats another reason Monty became even more careful and timid in battle, he was informed by his government that large manpower losses would/could not be replaced and he was ordered to restrict his operations accordingly, the situation only worsened as the war continued. A "Bridge too Far" was a gamble by Monty to end the war while he still had the manpower to fight. The operation was considered to be a 90% success, if that matters.
Question: how do you determine the length of a german tank tube? They expressed the length of their gun tubes by a multiple of there caliber.
a 50 mm L70 barrel would be: 50X70=3500mm, 3500 divided by 25.4 (=inch)=137.79 inches divided by 12 (a foot)= about 11.5 feet long. I must be dumb, but it took me years of research before I found a book that explained their formula. The authors would always give the demensions of the AFV in feet and inches and then quote the barrel length as something like 88/L70. Maybe the authors didn't know the fomula either
While Whittman was not a typical example of the German AFV crew of WW2, he wasn't far from it. The length and quality of training of the panzer crews was the best of any combatant country and they pretty much maintained that high standard till the end of the war. German tank crew morale was always very high and they had a great deal of confidence and trust in their AFV's till the end. It's for sure no allied tank crew had their german counterparts confidence after '42/43. By the end of '44 American manpower for FRONTLINE service was becoming scarce and hard to come by. Bloated rear support units were raided and turned into combat replacement troops. Since it was a common belief that the war "wouldn't last much longer" the US Army had already shut down most of their tank schools
. By late '44 and all of '45 often times untrained troops were given a FEW hours of instruction (less than a day) in tank operation and then committed to frontline battle. Needless to say their survival in the "Ronson Lighter" was shorter than most. England's severe manpower shortage finally occurred soon after Normandy. Thats another reason Monty became even more careful and timid in battle, he was informed by his government that large manpower losses would/could not be replaced and he was ordered to restrict his operations accordingly, the situation only worsened as the war continued. A "Bridge too Far" was a gamble by Monty to end the war while he still had the manpower to fight. The operation was considered to be a 90% success, if that matters.Question: how do you determine the length of a german tank tube? They expressed the length of their gun tubes by a multiple of there caliber.
a 50 mm L70 barrel would be: 50X70=3500mm, 3500 divided by 25.4 (=inch)=137.79 inches divided by 12 (a foot)= about 11.5 feet long. I must be dumb, but it took me years of research before I found a book that explained their formula. The authors would always give the demensions of the AFV in feet and inches and then quote the barrel length as something like 88/L70. Maybe the authors didn't know the fomula either
Stephen
B) Whittmans cause of death has been cleared up, his tank and his remains were discovered by retreating german infantry. They buried Whittman and his crew on the spot and made a full report.
D) Both would be considered 2nd or 3rd string at best in the German Army of WW2.
G) the Sherman Firefly was an improvement developed by the British first (17 pounder) then pretty much forced upon the American armor board (" it can be done")with the 76mm. Although a more powerfull anti-tank/aircraft gun than the weak 75mm, it was never a match against the Panther or Tiger except at close range or a side or rear shot at long range. It stiil had inferior armor and optics compared to the Germans but it was a pretty fair match against the MKIVF2 which was much more common on the battlefield than either the panther of tiger for which it was often mistaken for "Tiger Fever". Another Sherman modification was the "JUMBO" with additional heavy armor applied. But again the increased protection did not make it a worthy match, it turned a fast medium tank into a slow moving german target. Its' importance like the Firefly was that it helped toimprove the morale of the American tankers who increasingly viewed there duty assignment as suicidal.
H) I have never heard or read that point of view about McNail. He was one of the most highly regarded and respected soldiers of the American Army, by his speers. Besides, McNair had little input on tank design or production, he was an administrator not a combat general. He was in Europe seeking input and advice from fellow generals, not giving it. Its a matter of record that Patton vetoed the early introduction of the M26, we all make mistakes.
I) True
J) Valid point but the late model XXI(?) was not yet perfected but it was good enough to be the best. The VIIC could dive deeper (record or 920 ft) and turn on a dime but none the less the german sub service had the highest losses of ANY service in WW2 75%!
K) Again the US was involved with Japan, the B29 was never deployed to Europe, the Americans only had 3 bombs, one for test and two for Japan. America had no more nukes and it would be months before they had the materials to produce another(Stalin was aware of this). Current events demonstrate that it takes months(about 6, at best) to deploy forces it probably would have taken 1945-46 America longer. By the time we amassed our forces(what did we do with Japan, surrender?) who would we bomb with our two or three bombs, London, Paris, Madrid? Do you really believe that after the 20 million+ losses they had suffered and endured at the hands of Germany that they would surrender now? The russians were already in Europe, their production output was almost as good as ours, their armies out numbered ours with better/more lethal equipment in most cases, plus they STILL had plenty of manpower. Maybe our Air Forces could have held them off for a year or so but I doubt it, after our first 100,000 losses we would have negotiated an "honorable" peace and beat a path home, hung Patton in the village square and quoted Washington's advice about "entanglements with other nations".
B) Whittmans cause of death has been cleared up, his tank and his remains were discovered by retreating german infantry. They buried Whittman and his crew on the spot and made a full report.
D) Both would be considered 2nd or 3rd string at best in the German Army of WW2.
G) the Sherman Firefly was an improvement developed by the British first (17 pounder) then pretty much forced upon the American armor board (" it can be done")with the 76mm. Although a more powerfull anti-tank/aircraft gun than the weak 75mm, it was never a match against the Panther or Tiger except at close range or a side or rear shot at long range. It stiil had inferior armor and optics compared to the Germans but it was a pretty fair match against the MKIVF2 which was much more common on the battlefield than either the panther of tiger for which it was often mistaken for "Tiger Fever". Another Sherman modification was the "JUMBO" with additional heavy armor applied. But again the increased protection did not make it a worthy match, it turned a fast medium tank into a slow moving german target. Its' importance like the Firefly was that it helped toimprove the morale of the American tankers who increasingly viewed there duty assignment as suicidal.
H) I have never heard or read that point of view about McNail. He was one of the most highly regarded and respected soldiers of the American Army, by his speers. Besides, McNair had little input on tank design or production, he was an administrator not a combat general. He was in Europe seeking input and advice from fellow generals, not giving it. Its a matter of record that Patton vetoed the early introduction of the M26, we all make mistakes.
I) True
J) Valid point but the late model XXI(?) was not yet perfected but it was good enough to be the best. The VIIC could dive deeper (record or 920 ft) and turn on a dime but none the less the german sub service had the highest losses of ANY service in WW2 75%!
K) Again the US was involved with Japan, the B29 was never deployed to Europe, the Americans only had 3 bombs, one for test and two for Japan. America had no more nukes and it would be months before they had the materials to produce another(Stalin was aware of this). Current events demonstrate that it takes months(about 6, at best) to deploy forces it probably would have taken 1945-46 America longer. By the time we amassed our forces(what did we do with Japan, surrender?) who would we bomb with our two or three bombs, London, Paris, Madrid? Do you really believe that after the 20 million+ losses they had suffered and endured at the hands of Germany that they would surrender now? The russians were already in Europe, their production output was almost as good as ours, their armies out numbered ours with better/more lethal equipment in most cases, plus they STILL had plenty of manpower. Maybe our Air Forces could have held them off for a year or so but I doubt it, after our first 100,000 losses we would have negotiated an "honorable" peace and beat a path home, hung Patton in the village square and quoted Washington's advice about "entanglements with other nations".
Stephen Ewing
Member
Some amplification:
B) Wittman’s death is still pretty murky: Cross (1997) says tanks; d’Este (1983, 1994) seems to think tanks; Edwards (1989) is another believer in tanks; Kurowski (1992) asserts tanks while his editor mentions the Typhoon but doesn’t make a call; Reynolds’ (1997 again) next sentence after the earlier quote from Steel Inferno was “The only thing therefore which can be said with any certainty is that Wittman did not survive the 8th August fighting against the British, Canadians, and Poles,†while he also points out that most accounts rely heavily on “supposition and uncorroborated statements;†the 1944 belief in tanks started with the aforementioned Oberfuhrer Meyer’s interrogation of the Germans nearby; Tout (1998) flatly contradicts the Typhoon idea in detail and supports the tankers case at length albeit subjectively while pointing out that the remains-still in and around the tank-were in the hands of the British the next day; Hastings (1984) says tanks, and I don’t have it handy, but I believe Tiger Ace says tanks; Jentz’ Panzertruppen is annoyingly silent. I believe I’m on pretty firm ground when I say we simply do not know how Wittman died, and I’m gonna agree with Reynolds, while what little amount I would bet on this one still goes with the majority of the authors I can find on the subject who actually take a stand.
D) I guess we need heroes and Patton and Monty were the closest thing. I still think they were both very good, with some blemishes, and I’ll not argue either was exceptional and in Guderian or Manstein's class (or Lee or Wellington's), but winning has to count for something, doesn’t it?
G) Advantages of the Firefly over the T-34/85: Better armor, better gun, better radio, approx three times the operating time between failures. Advantages of the Firefly over the Panther: No torsion bar failures, no serious shot traps, engine doesn’t get rebuilt every 10 tanks of gas, Firefly needs external help to catch fire. Advantages of the Firefly over the Tiger: Recovery vehicles could actually pull a Sherman, ground loading permitted movement through mud, much faster turret traverse than any German tank, no major blind side (right for the Tiger) problems, replacing a road wheel didn’t require disassembling half the tank, five times the track life of any German tank. There is more to tank evaluation than gun+glacis, and on this forum more than any other, I expect reliability to count heavily in any weapons comparison, which the Firefly wins going away, as well as mobility. Also, I’d suggest that the German optics meant more on the Russian front than against the Anglo-Americans, since German tanks all alone in the middle of open country had this habit of blowing up on the western front, which tended to discourage sniping, as well as closing distances to the point where armor was less decisive. Don’t knock the M4A3E2, BTW. It did quite well as the designated target at the head of convoys. The fact that a 30 ton Sherman derivative needs 45 and 60 ton German tanks to get relative inferiority in any sphere ain't bad, though.
H) McNair was the fella who started the idea that high velocity tank rounds only result in destroying the rifling that much faster, and got American guns limited to those cheesy little rounds which were easy on the tubes. Yeah, he was an administrative type, and what later generations of G.I.s would call a REMF. Patton’s thoughts on the M26 are, in retrospect, a mistake, but in his defense, M4s did more in Korea than M26s, which seems to say something. What it says I’m not sure, but I’ll suggest that Korea supports my Firefly fetish as it illustrates the mobility and reliability of the chassis, as well as supporting the notion that it was better than the T-34/85. I’m trying to tie the Panthers that fell victim to up-gunned Shermans in Israeli hands into this, and I’m darned if I can pull it off.
J) The crash dive times of the VII are what made it able to handle its environment better than any contemporary boat. The U-bootwaffe was unique in that it remains the only submarine force ever to be involved in a real shooting war against a truly ticked-off first class opponent, let alone two at once or in multiple wars. Their casualty rates reflect that quality opposition, but there is every reason to believe that nobody else would have done half as well. If you were to switch U-47 and the USS Cavalla, I firmly believe the Cavalla would have done U-47’s job worse than the other way around, whichever way the crews go.
K) Let’s concentrate for a moment on why the Germans never even attempted to fight a battle of maneuver with the Anglo-Americans in Europe, preferring to dash from one line to the next: The 8th and 9th USAAFs together with the RAF had ~30,000 front line aircraft and the only source of either jets or high-octane fuel in Europe by VE day. Adding the 15th AF, whatever friendly Germans can be found, strategic bombers and this is not any better for the Red Air Force than it is for the Red Army’s logistical train, and both would last a matter of weeks at best facing the overwhelming air assets already in theater, although Soviet offensive operations become impossible immediately in the face of western aerial supremacy. The USAAF-induced “Deutsche Blick†would have become the Russian Look very quickly, and then the Russians would face the only completely motorized army in the world with their limited ability to supply an army at the front all but destroyed, with what was left of their air force operating on low-octane fuel, with a meaningful cut in their food supply, no replacements for trucks or locomotives (the USSR built precisely eight locomotives in 1945) destroyed by Anglo-American airpower, and without any meaningful source of boots or telephone wire. Remember those M4A3E8s and T-34/85s in Korea? Add in superior American artillery with VT fuses, vastly superior Anglo-American counter-battery fire, ridiculously superior Anglo-American radios and C3, those friendly Germans again, and I’m not going to cut the USSR much slack on the ground forces comparison, and the American mobility would be as rude a shock to the Soviets as the Anglo-American tactical airpower. The English-speakers don’t even need to convoy anymore and gain a 30% supply increase simply from shipping congestion disappearing, so logistics get even more lopsided. Add to the above second transportation plan the fact that by VJ day the US had 2,500 operational B-29s, and that the Soviets had absolutely no conceivable means of stopping them or conquering enough of Africa, Alaska, and all of Asia to trouble their bases, and little enough means of stopping B-17s or Lancasters, and Soviet war making capability goes downhill in a hurry. Make no mistake: It would have cost us much more than 100,000 casualties for no conceivable gain, but it could only have gone one way, and that was east. Oh, and take a look at the Olympic plans. Start with a half-dozen nukes….
When pulled over for speeding, try the following: "Actually officer, I'm a laboratory mouse engaged in the early stages of a plot to take over the world. Rest assured that my regime, when successful, will result in substantially increased funding for law enforcement."
Steve
B) Wittman’s death is still pretty murky: Cross (1997) says tanks; d’Este (1983, 1994) seems to think tanks; Edwards (1989) is another believer in tanks; Kurowski (1992) asserts tanks while his editor mentions the Typhoon but doesn’t make a call; Reynolds’ (1997 again) next sentence after the earlier quote from Steel Inferno was “The only thing therefore which can be said with any certainty is that Wittman did not survive the 8th August fighting against the British, Canadians, and Poles,†while he also points out that most accounts rely heavily on “supposition and uncorroborated statements;†the 1944 belief in tanks started with the aforementioned Oberfuhrer Meyer’s interrogation of the Germans nearby; Tout (1998) flatly contradicts the Typhoon idea in detail and supports the tankers case at length albeit subjectively while pointing out that the remains-still in and around the tank-were in the hands of the British the next day; Hastings (1984) says tanks, and I don’t have it handy, but I believe Tiger Ace says tanks; Jentz’ Panzertruppen is annoyingly silent. I believe I’m on pretty firm ground when I say we simply do not know how Wittman died, and I’m gonna agree with Reynolds, while what little amount I would bet on this one still goes with the majority of the authors I can find on the subject who actually take a stand.
D) I guess we need heroes and Patton and Monty were the closest thing. I still think they were both very good, with some blemishes, and I’ll not argue either was exceptional and in Guderian or Manstein's class (or Lee or Wellington's), but winning has to count for something, doesn’t it?
G) Advantages of the Firefly over the T-34/85: Better armor, better gun, better radio, approx three times the operating time between failures. Advantages of the Firefly over the Panther: No torsion bar failures, no serious shot traps, engine doesn’t get rebuilt every 10 tanks of gas, Firefly needs external help to catch fire. Advantages of the Firefly over the Tiger: Recovery vehicles could actually pull a Sherman, ground loading permitted movement through mud, much faster turret traverse than any German tank, no major blind side (right for the Tiger) problems, replacing a road wheel didn’t require disassembling half the tank, five times the track life of any German tank. There is more to tank evaluation than gun+glacis, and on this forum more than any other, I expect reliability to count heavily in any weapons comparison, which the Firefly wins going away, as well as mobility. Also, I’d suggest that the German optics meant more on the Russian front than against the Anglo-Americans, since German tanks all alone in the middle of open country had this habit of blowing up on the western front, which tended to discourage sniping, as well as closing distances to the point where armor was less decisive. Don’t knock the M4A3E2, BTW. It did quite well as the designated target at the head of convoys. The fact that a 30 ton Sherman derivative needs 45 and 60 ton German tanks to get relative inferiority in any sphere ain't bad, though.
H) McNair was the fella who started the idea that high velocity tank rounds only result in destroying the rifling that much faster, and got American guns limited to those cheesy little rounds which were easy on the tubes. Yeah, he was an administrative type, and what later generations of G.I.s would call a REMF. Patton’s thoughts on the M26 are, in retrospect, a mistake, but in his defense, M4s did more in Korea than M26s, which seems to say something. What it says I’m not sure, but I’ll suggest that Korea supports my Firefly fetish as it illustrates the mobility and reliability of the chassis, as well as supporting the notion that it was better than the T-34/85. I’m trying to tie the Panthers that fell victim to up-gunned Shermans in Israeli hands into this, and I’m darned if I can pull it off.
J) The crash dive times of the VII are what made it able to handle its environment better than any contemporary boat. The U-bootwaffe was unique in that it remains the only submarine force ever to be involved in a real shooting war against a truly ticked-off first class opponent, let alone two at once or in multiple wars. Their casualty rates reflect that quality opposition, but there is every reason to believe that nobody else would have done half as well. If you were to switch U-47 and the USS Cavalla, I firmly believe the Cavalla would have done U-47’s job worse than the other way around, whichever way the crews go.
K) Let’s concentrate for a moment on why the Germans never even attempted to fight a battle of maneuver with the Anglo-Americans in Europe, preferring to dash from one line to the next: The 8th and 9th USAAFs together with the RAF had ~30,000 front line aircraft and the only source of either jets or high-octane fuel in Europe by VE day. Adding the 15th AF, whatever friendly Germans can be found, strategic bombers and this is not any better for the Red Air Force than it is for the Red Army’s logistical train, and both would last a matter of weeks at best facing the overwhelming air assets already in theater, although Soviet offensive operations become impossible immediately in the face of western aerial supremacy. The USAAF-induced “Deutsche Blick†would have become the Russian Look very quickly, and then the Russians would face the only completely motorized army in the world with their limited ability to supply an army at the front all but destroyed, with what was left of their air force operating on low-octane fuel, with a meaningful cut in their food supply, no replacements for trucks or locomotives (the USSR built precisely eight locomotives in 1945) destroyed by Anglo-American airpower, and without any meaningful source of boots or telephone wire. Remember those M4A3E8s and T-34/85s in Korea? Add in superior American artillery with VT fuses, vastly superior Anglo-American counter-battery fire, ridiculously superior Anglo-American radios and C3, those friendly Germans again, and I’m not going to cut the USSR much slack on the ground forces comparison, and the American mobility would be as rude a shock to the Soviets as the Anglo-American tactical airpower. The English-speakers don’t even need to convoy anymore and gain a 30% supply increase simply from shipping congestion disappearing, so logistics get even more lopsided. Add to the above second transportation plan the fact that by VJ day the US had 2,500 operational B-29s, and that the Soviets had absolutely no conceivable means of stopping them or conquering enough of Africa, Alaska, and all of Asia to trouble their bases, and little enough means of stopping B-17s or Lancasters, and Soviet war making capability goes downhill in a hurry. Make no mistake: It would have cost us much more than 100,000 casualties for no conceivable gain, but it could only have gone one way, and that was east. Oh, and take a look at the Olympic plans. Start with a half-dozen nukes….
When pulled over for speeding, try the following: "Actually officer, I'm a laboratory mouse engaged in the early stages of a plot to take over the world. Rest assured that my regime, when successful, will result in substantially increased funding for law enforcement."
Steve
Tamara
Senior Member
More on "Nazi supertanks"...
Debut of T-34/85 vs. Koenigstiger: In sPzAbt 501s eastern front debut, Lt. Oskin used his T-34/85 to get k-kills on 3 PzKw-VIbs at Ogledow.
Russkie supertanks,
Exerpts from Chrysler's 1951 analysis of captured T-34/85: "Rough steering due to clutch-and-brake steering control", "rough ride due to an absence of shock absorbers", "excessive [interior] noise due to a solid mounting of the engine to the hull and the absence of a muffler, all-steel tracks contributed to this", "clash-shift transmission and dry clutch", "liquid cooling system vulnerable to loss of coolant from small arms fire and concussion", "wholly inadequate engine air filters could be expected to allow early engine failure due to dust intake", "no turret basket", "poor fire-fighting equipment", "poor electrical weatherproofing", "no aux. generator to keep batteries charged", and "lack of a means to heat engine oil for cold weather starts". Incidentally, more than one T-34 radiator was found to have its capacity reduced by as much as half due to sloppy soldering.
The M-4 pioneered quick-change powerpacks, wet ammunition stowage, and gyrostabilization of the main gun. As Stephen Ewing pointed out, "There is more to tank evaluation than gun+glacis".
Those Panthers and Tigers sure looked really cool, though, and had big guns and thick armour. Wonder why modern tanks don't use electric drive and interleaved road wheels?
Debut of T-34/85 vs. Koenigstiger: In sPzAbt 501s eastern front debut, Lt. Oskin used his T-34/85 to get k-kills on 3 PzKw-VIbs at Ogledow.
Russkie supertanks,
Exerpts from Chrysler's 1951 analysis of captured T-34/85: "Rough steering due to clutch-and-brake steering control", "rough ride due to an absence of shock absorbers", "excessive [interior] noise due to a solid mounting of the engine to the hull and the absence of a muffler, all-steel tracks contributed to this", "clash-shift transmission and dry clutch", "liquid cooling system vulnerable to loss of coolant from small arms fire and concussion", "wholly inadequate engine air filters could be expected to allow early engine failure due to dust intake", "no turret basket", "poor fire-fighting equipment", "poor electrical weatherproofing", "no aux. generator to keep batteries charged", and "lack of a means to heat engine oil for cold weather starts". Incidentally, more than one T-34 radiator was found to have its capacity reduced by as much as half due to sloppy soldering.
The M-4 pioneered quick-change powerpacks, wet ammunition stowage, and gyrostabilization of the main gun. As Stephen Ewing pointed out, "There is more to tank evaluation than gun+glacis".
Those Panthers and Tigers sure looked really cool, though, and had big guns and thick armour. Wonder why modern tanks don't use electric drive and interleaved road wheels?
Cosmoline
Member
The two platoons would go out for brewskies.
sixgun_symphony
member
This reminds me of the criticism being heaped on Col. Charles Askins for being such a killer. Hell, the man had a military career. That was his job.
I also recall reading about criticism being heaped on snipers by regular infantrymen. The regular grunts didn't like the snipers because they were such "killers". Such criticism seems odd to me because its a soldier's job to kill the enemy. What is a sniper but a superior rifleman?
Snipers have almost always been looked down on by others. Its more the circumstances of the kill and the often lack of any fair play. The target might not be armed but because of the distances involved the option of the "target" surrendering is removed. Kind of like being killed by bombs or shells. It's a fact of war and the purpose of war but its always been viewed as lacking honor and courage. Sgt. York and Audi Murphy killed fewer enemy soldiers than any of the F-117's flying in Iraq but because it require greater personal courage on their part, they got the medals and the pilot just got another mission. Being a sniper (despite the training) does have alot in common with murder. If the shoe fits wear it, if you don't like it then do what everyone else does, join a more honorable trade. It may require more personal courage but no one ever said Honor comes easy.
Last edited:
sixgun_symphony
member
That does not seem logical to me. A rifleman is there to shoot the enemy. A sniper is simply a superior rifleman with greater effective range.
I think the criticism levelled at snipers for being such killers is evidence that there is some truth to the theory that only 15% of infantrymen are shooters.
I think this increasing pacifism shows through in Western society. The anti-war marches in the United States and Europe a few days ago were larger than anything seen in the 1960's. The gun control movement and the anti-death penalty movement also bear this out.
Stephen
Most of your comments are good as long as your conclusion is:
1. The combat vets of WW2, for good reason would have preferred the protection and gun tubes of the Panther, Tiger I, Tiger II, and T-34 plus a half a dozen other ATF's instead of the Sherman. Note: Their is a documented case where a Grayhound armored car (37mm) defeated a Tiger tank in combat one on one, no tricks. Yet that doesn't make a serious case for the Grayhound being a match against the Tiger does it. Putting a 105mm on the Sherman made it more lethal but not the better tank.
2. Was the T-34 a manufactured masterwork? Heck no but it got the job done better than the Sherman in most cases, not all. Some T-34's went to battle without a paint job, that doesn't change their combat performance. Their were defects in their armor due to mass production and they may have been more uncomfortable for their crews due to their bare bones design but they were still more lethal than the M-4. If I was a Sherman tank (any WW2 version) crewman going up against a german or russian tank I would hope(pray) my tank breaks down BEFORE I ever got close to the shooting.
3. The Sherman was used in Korea and was more common than the M26 because of the massive budget cuts after WW2. The Army and the Navy were hard pressed to get money from congress. The Air Force was the "War Winner" and got the money. Remember, Korea was called the WWII "war surplus" war because we pretty much used WW2 left overs, but not by choice.
TAMARA:
If I remember correctly, the Tigers were deployed on unfavorable ground and were in single file due to the muddy road conditions and driving thru a wooded area. Hitler insisted they be deployed as soon as they were unloaded against the better judgement of his generals who wanted to wait for better road conditions. They were ambushed, not unlike the Grayhound incident mentioned above. The Panther Model 'D' fared even worse went it was first deployed. Again, against the wishes and advise of Hitlers generals. Still they were both superior tanks to the T-34. When are you going to mention the J. Stalin tank with it's 120 mm main gun?
Most of your comments are good as long as your conclusion is:
1. The combat vets of WW2, for good reason would have preferred the protection and gun tubes of the Panther, Tiger I, Tiger II, and T-34 plus a half a dozen other ATF's instead of the Sherman. Note: Their is a documented case where a Grayhound armored car (37mm) defeated a Tiger tank in combat one on one, no tricks. Yet that doesn't make a serious case for the Grayhound being a match against the Tiger does it. Putting a 105mm on the Sherman made it more lethal but not the better tank.
2. Was the T-34 a manufactured masterwork? Heck no but it got the job done better than the Sherman in most cases, not all. Some T-34's went to battle without a paint job, that doesn't change their combat performance. Their were defects in their armor due to mass production and they may have been more uncomfortable for their crews due to their bare bones design but they were still more lethal than the M-4. If I was a Sherman tank (any WW2 version) crewman going up against a german or russian tank I would hope(pray) my tank breaks down BEFORE I ever got close to the shooting.
3. The Sherman was used in Korea and was more common than the M26 because of the massive budget cuts after WW2. The Army and the Navy were hard pressed to get money from congress. The Air Force was the "War Winner" and got the money. Remember, Korea was called the WWII "war surplus" war because we pretty much used WW2 left overs, but not by choice.
TAMARA:
If I remember correctly, the Tigers were deployed on unfavorable ground and were in single file due to the muddy road conditions and driving thru a wooded area. Hitler insisted they be deployed as soon as they were unloaded against the better judgement of his generals who wanted to wait for better road conditions. They were ambushed, not unlike the Grayhound incident mentioned above. The Panther Model 'D' fared even worse went it was first deployed. Again, against the wishes and advise of Hitlers generals. Still they were both superior tanks to the T-34. When are you going to mention the J. Stalin tank with it's 120 mm main gun?
Last edited:
sixgun_symphony
member
If war broke out between the USA and the USSR back in '45, I think US air power would have made all the difference.
US infantry with M1 Garands would have had greater effective range over Soviet units armed primariy with PPSH41 SMG's and have had greater firepower than Soviet troops still using the old Mosin-Nagant bolt rifles.
Shermans -vs- T34? Shermans with American air support will win everytime. The mobility of the Sherman would be an asset in the vastness of the Russian front.
US infantry with M1 Garands would have had greater effective range over Soviet units armed primariy with PPSH41 SMG's and have had greater firepower than Soviet troops still using the old Mosin-Nagant bolt rifles.
Shermans -vs- T34? Shermans with American air support will win everytime. The mobility of the Sherman would be an asset in the vastness of the Russian front.
Tamara
Senior Member
Stephen Ewing,
It took me a second read of your post to catch this:
ROTFLMAO!
Maybe MAN picked up some unemployed ex-Heinkel engineers from the He-177 project on the cheap.
It took me a second read of your post to catch this:
ROTFLMAO!Maybe MAN picked up some unemployed ex-Heinkel engineers from the He-177 project on the cheap.
Six-gun
Air power didn't need the Sherman, its the other way around. Our air power is the only thing that had a chance to slow down the Russian advance. Airpower accounted for more destroyed German tanks than the Sherman or any American or British AFV. With poor weather, air power could not have stopped the Russian Juggernaut, I don't think they could have stopped the Russian advance even on a bright shiney day, just hinder it. It would have taken the Russians longer to count the allied prisoners and dead than to send them back across the channel (3-5 weeks) but I think the politians would have surrendered sooner to prevent more horrible losses. It would have been the Battle of the Bulge all over again but with a very different outcome. IMHO.
Air power didn't need the Sherman, its the other way around. Our air power is the only thing that had a chance to slow down the Russian advance. Airpower accounted for more destroyed German tanks than the Sherman or any American or British AFV. With poor weather, air power could not have stopped the Russian Juggernaut, I don't think they could have stopped the Russian advance even on a bright shiney day, just hinder it. It would have taken the Russians longer to count the allied prisoners and dead than to send them back across the channel (3-5 weeks) but I think the politians would have surrendered sooner to prevent more horrible losses. It would have been the Battle of the Bulge all over again but with a very different outcome. IMHO.
Tamara
Senior Member
telewinz,
We are not talking "loveably crude", like an AK or PPsH, here; we are talking "suffering from major design and manufacturing defects". There's a reason that supposedly inferior German tanks could outfight them; your tank could have the thickest armor and best gun in the world, but if the crew's been pounded senseless and deafened in a cramped, hot, stinking space on the drive into combat, and then the engine overheats, or the driver stalls out shifting the crash gearbox (did you know that the KV-1 couldn't shift gears while moving?) it doesn't do you much good... There's more to a tank than "Main gun + glacis".
Easy Eights and Fireflies did okay against T-34/85s in Korea, would there be some magic ingredient in the European air to change that?
We are not talking "loveably crude", like an AK or PPsH, here; we are talking "suffering from major design and manufacturing defects". There's a reason that supposedly inferior German tanks could outfight them; your tank could have the thickest armor and best gun in the world, but if the crew's been pounded senseless and deafened in a cramped, hot, stinking space on the drive into combat, and then the engine overheats, or the driver stalls out shifting the crash gearbox (did you know that the KV-1 couldn't shift gears while moving?) it doesn't do you much good... There's more to a tank than "Main gun + glacis".
Easy Eights and Fireflies did okay against T-34/85s in Korea, would there be some magic ingredient in the European air to change that?
It was a 122, actually. The IS-3 and its successor, the T-10M were the bogeymen of the West for a long time post-war, sparking the design of such inanities as the Conqueror. Until, that is, Israelis shot them up left and right with Super Shermans and 20-pounder Centurions...
Med 10
Member
American airpower, American airpower. Its nice to see some things never change. We always place our total cofidence in our airpower. As good as it was, however it still would not have stopped the Soviets because by the time the war ended the Soviets were already mass producing some really good fighters and ground attack aircraft. So they didnt have a long range heavy bomber; THEY DIDNT NEED ONE!.
The soviet Yak 9 for instance was so dominant in combat that the Luftwaffe ordered its pilots to avoid intercepting any Yaks below 16,400ft. German pilots also reported formations of soviet groundattack planes so thick they could not see where the formation started and ended. Soviet airpower concentrated on airsuperiority and groundattack.
Keep in mind that everything the Russians built was getting better toward the end of the war and like telewinz said they STILL had tons of manpower even after gettin the tar stomped out of them by the Germans. Yes the Mustang was awesome, the Typhoons and P-47's were all absolutely AWESOME planes, and the mighty 8th was the stuff of legends, and while they were all fine and good, the Russians would have found a way to deal with them just like they had found a way to deal with whatever the Germans threw at 'em.
As far as arty goes, yes American equip. and fire and control were second to none. Everybody knows that the Soviets were relativley crude in comparison.{heck most T-34's didnt even have radios the comander having to stick his head out the hatch and give hand signals!} Nevertheless, the reason that Stalin refered to his arty as the Russian god of war was sheer numbers! The Soviets had SO MANY artillery pieces! I would not have wanted to be that poor German on the recieving of that bombardment.
I'll wrap it up by saying that It wouldnt have been easy for the Soviets but with decent equip, equal production, superior manpower, equal leadership, YEARS of fighting the best the world had to offer? Lets just say its a good thing Patton kept his big mouth shut.
The soviet Yak 9 for instance was so dominant in combat that the Luftwaffe ordered its pilots to avoid intercepting any Yaks below 16,400ft. German pilots also reported formations of soviet groundattack planes so thick they could not see where the formation started and ended. Soviet airpower concentrated on airsuperiority and groundattack.
Keep in mind that everything the Russians built was getting better toward the end of the war and like telewinz said they STILL had tons of manpower even after gettin the tar stomped out of them by the Germans. Yes the Mustang was awesome, the Typhoons and P-47's were all absolutely AWESOME planes, and the mighty 8th was the stuff of legends, and while they were all fine and good, the Russians would have found a way to deal with them just like they had found a way to deal with whatever the Germans threw at 'em.
As far as arty goes, yes American equip. and fire and control were second to none. Everybody knows that the Soviets were relativley crude in comparison.{heck most T-34's didnt even have radios the comander having to stick his head out the hatch and give hand signals!} Nevertheless, the reason that Stalin refered to his arty as the Russian god of war was sheer numbers! The Soviets had SO MANY artillery pieces! I would not have wanted to be that poor German on the recieving of that bombardment.
I'll wrap it up by saying that It wouldnt have been easy for the Soviets but with decent equip, equal production, superior manpower, equal leadership, YEARS of fighting the best the world had to offer? Lets just say its a good thing Patton kept his big mouth shut.
Tamara you are correct
But designers have to put a priority on the many desirable features in a tank. Had the T-34 provided for better crew comfort and had radios it would be considered the best tank of WW2 not the second best. All tank designs of WW2 had short comings but the final factor/judgement is their ability to out-survive the enemy AFVs on the battlefield. That is why the Panther, ect. are considered the best but not the perfect tanks of WW2. That animal still doesn't even today.
Six gun:
Do I feel military snipers have honor performing their trade? IMHO no
We like to believe and teach our soldiers that their is honor in War. For a soldier to have honor, he (not his weapon) must be respected. Was their honor and respect in WW2? Yes mainly between the British and the Germans. Has their been much in the way of honor on the battlefild since WW2? Not as much as I would like to believe. I think it's a thing of the past by and large and may not even belong on the modern battlefield. Military snipers IMHO are like gas/bio warfare, it exists but that doesn't mean ii isn't evil.
But designers have to put a priority on the many desirable features in a tank. Had the T-34 provided for better crew comfort and had radios it would be considered the best tank of WW2 not the second best. All tank designs of WW2 had short comings but the final factor/judgement is their ability to out-survive the enemy AFVs on the battlefield. That is why the Panther, ect. are considered the best but not the perfect tanks of WW2. That animal still doesn't even today.
Six gun:
Do I feel military snipers have honor performing their trade? IMHO no
We like to believe and teach our soldiers that their is honor in War. For a soldier to have honor, he (not his weapon) must be respected. Was their honor and respect in WW2? Yes mainly between the British and the Germans. Has their been much in the way of honor on the battlefild since WW2? Not as much as I would like to believe. I think it's a thing of the past by and large and may not even belong on the modern battlefield. Military snipers IMHO are like gas/bio warfare, it exists but that doesn't mean ii isn't evil.Six gun
Med 10 is right again, plus that fact that even through allied air power in the long run MAY have defeated Russian air power(would not have happened over night you know), by the time they would have obtained air superiority (and been able influnce the ground war) the issue would have been already decided in favor of the russians on the ground. The Russian air force didn't need to win the air war, just buy time for their ground forces and delay the allies' victory in the air. It would be a repeat of May/June, 1940 all over again, the only difference is the AFV's would have had Red Stars painted on them.
Med 10 is right again, plus that fact that even through allied air power in the long run MAY have defeated Russian air power(would not have happened over night you know), by the time they would have obtained air superiority (and been able influnce the ground war) the issue would have been already decided in favor of the russians on the ground. The Russian air force didn't need to win the air war, just buy time for their ground forces and delay the allies' victory in the air. It would be a repeat of May/June, 1940 all over again, the only difference is the AFV's would have had Red Stars painted on them.
sixgun_symphony
member
The Finns were doing quite well with F2A Brewster Buffalo and German ME-109 fighters against the Soviet air force.
Bring in the American Air Force with P-51, P-47, and P-38 fighters and the Soviet Air Force would be shot out of the air. B-17 and B-24 bombers will have had some impact on Soviet industry and oil fields. With diminished industrial capacity, to say nothing of the end to lend-lease, the soviets would quickly run out of equipment and spare parts necessary to fight a mechanized war.
The Soviet Union would also soom be fighting a second front as the US comes in from the east. B-29 airbases in Siberia would destroy even more of the Soviet industry.
Lets not forget about the USN. The Black sea, the Baltic Sea, and the Barents Sea would be quickly secured.
Bring in the American Air Force with P-51, P-47, and P-38 fighters and the Soviet Air Force would be shot out of the air. B-17 and B-24 bombers will have had some impact on Soviet industry and oil fields. With diminished industrial capacity, to say nothing of the end to lend-lease, the soviets would quickly run out of equipment and spare parts necessary to fight a mechanized war.
The Soviet Union would also soom be fighting a second front as the US comes in from the east. B-29 airbases in Siberia would destroy even more of the Soviet industry.
Lets not forget about the USN. The Black sea, the Baltic Sea, and the Barents Sea would be quickly secured.
Last edited:
sixgun_symphony
member
telewinz,
You sound like the old British redcoats complaining about the American frontiersmen that were taking aimed shots with longrifles.
Again, a sniper is merely a superior rifleman. They do what all riflemen are supposed to do which is to engage the enemy with aimed fire.
Now in the "real world", alot of people believe in the spray & pray principle. I guess that the "common man"with an aversian to killing would prefer this method as they can just close their eyes and shoot full auto in the general direction of the enemy. (Assuming the theory about 15% rule is really true)
I fail to see how it is more honorable. I only see it as ineffective.
You sound like the old British redcoats complaining about the American frontiersmen that were taking aimed shots with longrifles.
Again, a sniper is merely a superior rifleman. They do what all riflemen are supposed to do which is to engage the enemy with aimed fire.
Now in the "real world", alot of people believe in the spray & pray principle. I guess that the "common man"with an aversian to killing would prefer this method as they can just close their eyes and shoot full auto in the general direction of the enemy. (Assuming the theory about 15% rule is really true)
I fail to see how it is more honorable. I only see it as ineffective.
Sorry Sixgun, you are gettin desparate
Your conclusions avoid a great deal. First, Japan was not defeated yet, by the time they were, the Russians would have finished us off in Europe. Our Pacific forces would have been our ONLY effective allied military force by the end of '45. If the Marines invaded Siberia, woo be to them as they battled the MIGHTY Sherman tank. You know where the russians sent all the allied armor we lend-leased them? Siberia! Even the Russians considered the Sherman only superior and worthwhile in combat against the Jap tanks(they were superior against to Ital's tanks also). All Shermans and other inferior imports were sent to Siberia in order to release the more effective Russian tanks (on guard against possible Jap invasion even after 1941/42) to the west to fight against the Germans. The Brewster was a bad joke, but it could hold its own against the biplanes the russians first used.in 1941. Like Med-10 said, there was a huge difference between 1941 and 1945 and I don't mean just time.
Why do you assume China would permit our flying B-29's from their airfields to attack Russia? Would not have happened unless we were planning to take on China also
Your conclusions avoid a great deal. First, Japan was not defeated yet, by the time they were, the Russians would have finished us off in Europe. Our Pacific forces would have been our ONLY effective allied military force by the end of '45. If the Marines invaded Siberia, woo be to them as they battled the MIGHTY Sherman tank. You know where the russians sent all the allied armor we lend-leased them? Siberia! Even the Russians considered the Sherman only superior and worthwhile in combat against the Jap tanks(they were superior against to Ital's tanks also). All Shermans and other inferior imports were sent to Siberia in order to release the more effective Russian tanks (on guard against possible Jap invasion even after 1941/42) to the west to fight against the Germans. The Brewster was a bad joke, but it could hold its own against the biplanes the russians first used.in 1941. Like Med-10 said, there was a huge difference between 1941 and 1945 and I don't mean just time.
Why do you assume China would permit our flying B-29's from their airfields to attack Russia? Would not have happened unless we were planning to take on China also
- Status
Similar threads
