Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Palindrome wrote:
You may be confused with the Comet which was designed to mount the 77mm HV gun. The Original design brief for the Cromwell was for a tank that would would replace the Crusader in 1942 and the 6 pounder was the most effective weapon available.

Apparently the 77mmHV was designed with the intention of mounting it on the Cromwell but it was very quickly realised that it was too large for the Cromwell's turret so the it was earmarked for the Comet instead.

That's what I was saying, yeah? The British expected to have a high velocity gun on the Cromwell, but when that was no longer going to happen, it left the British without a tank able to engage the Panther at standard combat ranges... therefore the Firefly as a temporary fix.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:
It was only around 2,000. That was all they needed to make British and Commonwealth Sherman units a 1:1 ratio.

Okay, as a high watermark in Firefly numbers before the British moved on to newer models, I can see that.

While discussing armor thickness and gun size is all well and good, I'd like to draw attention to one very important factor, probably the most important factor, the crew.

Like most german equipment (the Bf 109 being the obvious example) the better engineered german armor could be used to devastating effect at the tactical level with good crew and good commanders. However with poor crew and poor commanders those expensive german tanks turn into scrap metal in no time.

Example, the battle of Arracourt. Elements of the US 4th Armored Division, with limited air support took on the 5th panzer army in September of 1944. The german unit in question had just received a large amount of Panthers (107 to be exact) and was facing mostly 75mm armed shermans. However with poorly trained and inexperienced crews the germans were soundly beaten losing 87 armored vehicles to the US's 32.

Sherman crews had the luxury of not having to relearn how to use a new tank and instead US tankers pretty much drove the same vehicle from Kasserine Pass right to the Remagen Bridge

Good point Emil.

The Day of the Panther, a book written about a company in the 3rd ID, and their attached Shermans, discussed how one of the Shermans had a crew noted as being one of the best. The loader was so good at his job, there was a German commander who after surrendering asked if he could witness the new "automatic" tank that the Americans had developed. Their gunner was so good that instead of trying to punch through the front armor of a Panther with his 75mm gun, he just sniped the gun barrel off of it, putting 2 rounds cleanly through the barrel, and in that way incapacitated the tank.

You'll hear much the same from a lot of pilots out there as well. Sometimes the equipment doesn't matter. It's who is operating it that makes all of the difference.

 djones520 wrote:
.....The loader was so good at his job, there was a German commander who after surrendering asked if he could witness the new "automatic" tank that the Americans had developed............

It seems like Jerry was always saying that, there's a similar story about British 25pders. I just think Nazi's liked to suck up to people kicking their arses.

 notprop wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
.....The loader was so good at his job, there was a German commander who after surrendering asked if he could witness the new "automatic" tank that the Americans had developed............

It seems like Jerry was always saying that, there's a similar story about British 25pders. I just think Nazi's liked to suck up to people kicking their arses.

Or more likely Allied commanders making up stories about how even the "unbeatable germans" thought the Allies were awesome

 EmilCrane wrote:

 notprop wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
.....The loader was so good at his job, there was a German commander who after surrendering asked if he could witness the new "automatic" tank that the Americans had developed............

It seems like Jerry was always saying that, there's a similar story about British 25pders. I just think Nazi's liked to suck up to people kicking their arses.

Or more likely Allied commanders making up stories about how even the "unbeatable germans" thought the Allies were awesome

That is always possible as well, but it kinda runs counter to your own point then.

If they had just made Stealth Bombers and tomahawk cruise missiles, they would have saved a lot of time and lives.

Stupid Grandparents. Greatest Generation my ass! Suck it, Tom Brokaw!

 sebster wrote:

That's what I was saying, yeah?

Not quite, as I said it was originally designed to mount a 6 pounder. The 77mm HV was a later aspiration. Basically its eventual armament was a sidegrade rather than a downgrade.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:
Sometimes the equipment doesn't matter. It's who is operating it that makes all of the difference.

I remember reading about the Das Reich division during the battle fo Kursk where one of their formations managed to wipe out a Soviet force twice their number without taking a single loss. Both sides were equipped exclusively with T34/76s and the Germans simply shot the exposed fuel tanks on the Soviet tanks.

How were Germans armed with T34s?

 Frazzled wrote:
How were Germans armed with T34s?

I don't know about that particular instance, but Germans and Russians tended to steal each others gear. Several Tigers and Panthers were repainted after Kursk with a big Red star on the side. It was rarer for the Germans but they did occasionally capture and use enemy equipment.

 Frazzled wrote:
How were Germans armed with T34s?

I've never heard of a unit equipped with Russian tanks, let alone a battle taking place between the two.

There was one engagement where the Germans captured a T34 and put it at the front of a column and headed out. They crossed another column of T34s at night which didn't catch they were Germans. The Nazis turned and shot them up.

Thats ok my relatives still burned Berlin. Suck it Nazis!

The Germans captured so many t34s during the first months of operation Barbarossa they they were able to equip a large part of 2 SS Panzer division with them

I'm a little late to the party, but I'd like to add my own personal view the debate between Allied and German armor. Many posters have rightly noted that WWII was a war of production, and in this sense the Germans were doomed from the start because Hitler was reluctant to switch the country to a total war economy until 1943. With this understanding, it's easy to slag the Nazis for producing overengineered AFVs like the Tiger and Panther because that simply wasn't the way to win the war. However, when you consider that Germany was at a major manpower disadvantage, would you not consider that maybe it was prudent to produce vehicles that were technologically more sophisticated even if it meant they were outnumbered? I'm assuming it took just as many men to crew a Tiger or Panther as it did a Panzer IV, so maybe that's a more practical consideration that often gets overlooked.

That's the thing though. The Tiger's technology wasn't that advanced. It notable lacked sloped armor. Really the Tiger was just big and mean using most of the same technology from the PzIII that went into the STuG, PzIV, and the Panther. The T34 was comparatively more technologically advanced, as was the later IS series of tanks.

The Panther was a design marvel but most of its features were ultimately dead ends and it most incorporated technology from other vehicles.

In terms of advancedness, German armor was more developed tactically and operationally, but in raw technology was no more advanced than anything the US or Russia could field. Even British tanks weren't technologically inept, just mechanical disfunctional and improperly designed. The idea that German technology was way ahead of the Allies is pure myth mostly born from all the money and development poored into the V weapons. If anything by 1943 they were falling behind in most areas.

Alright, perhaps "technologically more sophisticated" wasn't the right way to put it, but the Tigers and Panthers were unequivocally more threatening than the Panzer III or IV. So my point still stands, although restated. If you have fewer men to go around, as the Germans did, it doesn't seem all that impractical to produce fewer but more fearsome AFVs.

Now, I'm not saying that was necessarily the right thing to do. In fact, the outcome of the war tells us it was certainly not the way to go, I'm just throwing in my 2 cents on the Allied/Axis numerical disparity.

They weren't that short of tank crews. If anything, their tank crews had a knack for surviving. German tank crews often ended up waiting around for a replacement vehicle. Many were trained in cardboad boxes because there were no vehicles available.

Germany had a manpower shortage, but their material shortage was much more severe (By 1944 they were short on everything).

At one point in my career I was sent to Germany and assigned to a ground recon unit. There was a bookstore there and I got to know the owners pretty well. One was a German tanker in WWII and the other was an American who had married his sister and came back to live in Germany when he retired. The three of them owned the bookstore.

The American had come to shore on D-day assigned to the 741st (They lost all but 5 tanks before they reached the shore) and two were left by nightfall. His was not one of them. He was medically evacuated to England and on recovery was reassigned to another tank unit. He made it to the end of the war losing two more M4's along the way. One to fire from a haystack (88 hiding inside) and another to an US air force pilot who no doubt got an award for killing his tank while they were breaking track on another one.

The German had been assigned to 24th Panzer Division of 4th Panzer Army. His last fight was at Stalingrad in a Panzer III. They abandoned it when they had no more fuel or ammo. He said by the time they surrendered most could no longer fight due to starvation. The Soviets released him in 1950. He said the vast bulk of those taken prisoner in 43 starved to death in the Soviet prisons and forced labor camps.

We would talk about wars and the tanks they had been assigned and the one I was on (M551 AR/AAV) They both thought mine was a rolling death trap (so did most of our crews but you could swim it and throw it out the back of an airplane at speed, even if the hull was beer can aluminum). I had got them both inside a Sheridan during a 4th of July open house the unit had done. They were more impressed with our mess section than our tanks... (this was before the M1).

They both agreed that being able to feed the tank and the crew was far more important than anything else. Both thought have a whole lot of just good enough was far better than having a few of much better.

Both thought wars are stupid and countries get into them when everyday people take their eye off their leaders or allow they to bend the rules for a "good" cause.

Looking back, I have to agree.

 djones520 wrote:
You'll hear much the same from a lot of pilots out there as well. Sometimes the equipment doesn't matter. It's who is operating it that makes all of the difference.

Not just how skilful the crew is, but perhaps more importantly how effectively the unit is deployed and commanded.

The classic example is Nazi Germany, who had good planes but fairly crappy tanks and very few motorised troops available for the war with France. And yet aggressive combined arms attacks broke clean through the French lines. Their victories over the Soviets in the early stages of Barbarossa were even more emphatic, and once again achieved mostly with the fairly mediocre Panzer III making up the bulk of the tank forces.

By the time the Panther arrives on the scene, the high watermark of the Nazi war effort has largely passed. By now the Allies have adapted their methods of war to resist the German offensive and that as much as anything else is what mattered in the end.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Palindrome wrote:
Not quite, as I said it was originally designed to mount a 6 pounder. The 77mm HV was a later aspiration. Basically its eventual armament was a sidegrade rather than a downgrade.

Oh okay, thanks for the correction.

Hmm, twice corrected in one thread. I think I better get back in the habit of double checking my memory before I post...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
They weren't that short of tank crews. If anything, their tank crews had a knack for surviving. German tank crews often ended up waiting around for a replacement vehicle. Many were trained in cardboad boxes because there were no vehicles available.

Germany had a manpower shortage, but their material shortage was much more severe (By 1944 they were short on everything).

But the material shortage goes some way to explaining why the Germans refocused their tank designs as they did. When you have a shortage of raw materials but a vast industrial base, you might as well use what materials you have to build complex machines with loads of machine hours each.

I read a really fascinating argument by a fellow on another forum a little while ago, in which he was arguing that the army and gear you end up with is more than anything simply a product of your society. The example he gave was to compare the German and Soviet winter jackets. The Soviet jacket was simply stitched, in one size fits all (soldiers were expected to restitch the buttons themselves to give it a personal fit), and lined with cotton mulch. More or less what you'd expect of a country with vast natural resources and a need to produce vast numbers of jackets very quickly. Meanwhile the German winter jacket was lined with animal fur and very highly tailored, fitted to each soldier. Exactly what you'd expect of a country largely dependant on confiscated civilian stores, and a vast supply of prison labour that could be quickly put to work on all that stitching.

Perhaps the same argument could be made for the Panther in comparison to the Sherman. Given the US strengths in mass manufacturing and vast natural resources, a tank like the Sherman was exactly what you'd expect. Whereas given the German strengths in craftsmanship, but also their considerable weaknesses in natural resources, a highly engineered tank like the Panther should be exactly what we'd expect them to produce.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
Looking back, I have to agree.

Great story, thanks for that.

 sebster wrote:

I read a really fascinating argument by a fellow on another forum a little while ago, in which he was arguing that the army and gear you end up with is more than anything simply a product of your society.

The quality of equipment available can also have a significant impact on the quality of the army, I think a good example of this was the Winter war. Finland had a tiny defence budget which meant that it was mostly armed with relics from the Imperial Russian armies (often with dangerously low ammunition stocks) which forced them to concentrate on field craft, small unit tactics,encouragement of initiative at NCO and junior officer level and basically how to be really good soldiers. The Soviets on the other hand had a vast defence budget and were lavishly equipped with everything from automatic rifles to heavy tanks but were poorly trained at all levels. The end result was that the Soviets, who were judged to have the strongest army in the world at the time, got absolutely spanked (although technically they won) by a sparsely populated Scandinavian country.

If FInland had a slightly bigger defence budget (at least so that they would afford a decent number of anti tank guns and artillery shells) the Soviets probably won't have even managed to breach the Mannerheim line but if they had a much bigger defence budget they may well have lost.

Its obviously more complex than that (not least by Stalins purges of the Soviet military) but its a good example of training being far more important than kit.

The thing with the Winter War though was that Russian forces were still reeling from the effects of Stalin's purges. They lost a lot of good officers and that caused tactics and training to suffer as a result.

The Russians did not lose because they had good equipment and that made them lazy. They suffered because their entire command structure had been crippled.

 Palindrome wrote:
Its obviously more complex than that (not least by Stalins purges of the Soviet military) but its a good example of training being far more important than kit.

Sure, but my point wasn't just about training vs kit, but about how all of it is a product of the society you come from. That Winter War example you give is a classic example, it wasn't that the Finns decided to focus on fieldcraft and other training elements, but the lack of tanks was a product of the Finnish economy of the time, while the training was a product of the society of the time. Similarly, it wasn't as though the Soviets opted to build impressive weapons of war while leaving their army poorly trained and even poorly led, the former was the product of the impressive industrialisation of the economy, and the latter was the product of the purges and the passive culture it forced on military leaders afterwards.

I'm not arguing for any kind of historical inevitability or anything like that, just saying that things we often credit to cleverness or stupidity are actually just circumstance.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
The thing with the Winter War though was that Russian forces were still reeling from the effects of Stalin's purges. They lost a lot of good officers and that caused tactics and training to suffer as a result.

The Russians did not lose because they had good equipment and that made them lazy. They suffered because their entire command structure had been crippled.

Also they are the bad guys and the Finns are the good guys. Bad guys always lose.

 sebster wrote:

Sure, but my point wasn't just about training vs kit, but about how all of it is a product of the society you come from

I wasn't disagreeing, its just that having poor kit is not always a bad thing. I don't think that having more/better tanks would have helped the FInns anyway given how badly their armoured forces performed during the Winter War.

Stalin's purges obviously had a significant effect but there is a lot more to it than that, not least the abysmal training that the RKKA troops had. Thats basically my point though, as a generalisation the Soviets concentrated their resources in kit while the Finns concentrated their resources in training.