WWII 1943 Platoon vs. Current 2003 Platoon

[Tamara]

telewinz,

The panther was the best tank of WWII,

Probably so.

the Tiger was the most feared,

No doubt.

the T-34 was the second best tank

History isn't as kind to that conclusion. It was, however the perfect tank for the Russians; cheap to make, good gun and armour, and low ground-pressure for good all-terrain maneuverability.

the Sherman was guarding the frozen wastelands of Siberia against a Jap invasion that never came.

That is simply incorrect; Soviet units using Shermans were quite involved in Eastern Europe in '44-'45

How can you possibly praise a tank which require 5 to beat one panther.

It took four Americans to kill one German, and not because they had bigger rifles and thicker uniforms, but because (all else being equal) the attacker is going to take heavier casualties than the defender.


Yes, the Panther was a better tank overall than even the best Shermans, but not by as wide a margin as most folks think. (...and as far as the T-34 v. Sherman thing goes, other than Task Force Smith, I'd challenge anyone to find an incident where a force equipped with T-34s beat a force equipped with Shermans. They've met in combat plenty of times, from Lebanon to the Golan to Korea to the Sinai to Uganda and beyond, and the T-34's come out on the short end every time. )

As far as the decision not to re-equip with the M-26, bear in mind that at the time the decision was made, we were in the middle of an armour intensive advance at the far end of a trans-oceanic supply route; hardly the time to change your primary tank, especially for one that is harder to transport and that couldn't cross most European bridges of the day. Replacing your MBT means replacing all your stocks of motors, wheels, tracks, suspension components, other spare parts, ARVs; we were winning with the Sherman, so why switch? History seems to vindicate the decision by my lack of knowledge of the German tongue...

most of all, how can you ignore the common feelings and experience's of the WW2 tankers who disagree with you and Steve. You are ignoring historic fact and expert opinion, talk about revisionism

I'm not; there's plenty of recorded bitching about the Sherman. Of course, these are American troops we're talking about; I could find you plenty of recorded bitching about every weapons system that the Army, Navy, Air Force or Marines have ever issued, starting with the Charleville musket.

Dannyboy,

The Sherman may have been a good all around tank but it was nowhere near the best tank in WWII.

*sigh* I didn't say it was, it's just that most people look at "main gun + glacis" and deduce things that ain't necessarily so. Incidentally, the Sherman's thickest armour was a whopping 20-40mm thinner than the Panther's (depending on the version); they were a lot closer in armour than most people think, but the Panther had vastly superior optics and a generally better gun, although the general availability of HVAP for the 3-inch Shermans closed the gap considerably. Also, later models of Sherman had wet ammo stowage, which increased the chances of the crew surviving and the tank being able to be returned to service in the event of a penetrating hit. The Panther's ammo-stowage arrangement wasn't very well thought out, as almost any penetration in the forward arc would cause a catastrophic ammunition explosion in the forward stowage panniers.


Speaking of ammo stowage, the earlier-mentioned IS-2 had internal stowage available for only 28 rounds, and was too cramped inside to stow more, so Russian crews would stack spare ammo on the rear deck of the tank (much to the delight of anyone with a machinegun and a belt of tracer or API... ).



Anyhow...

When folks start talking about Jets and Tigers and 88s and StG-43s, I know we're in for one kind of military discussion; when they start talking about code-breaking and jeeps and deuce-and-a-halfs and Liberty Ships and C-47s and pressurized heavy bombers and Higgins boats, I know we're going to talk about war.

 

[Oleg Volk]

AFAIK, most folks underestimate the degree of Soviet dependency on the US medications, fuel, some types of food, field artillery and ammunition and trucks for moving all of that. The major limitations of the USSR by 1945 were the lack of manpower (they were drafting 15y.o. kids by then) and lack of trained manpower for the air force and other, similarly technical applications. That explains, among other things, why their artillery preferred firing point blank/by direct observation whenever possible (poor coordination, lack of experience for effective indirect fire.

My guess is that the Soviets would have been massacred without a couple of months. It probably would have made for prolonged low-level conflict in Europe...I doubt that US efforts to re-build all of that continent would have been sustainable.

 

[Dannyboy]

Tamara, your "main gun + glacis" idea has merit but every tank is judged on 2 things, survivability and killing power. Like death and taxes, that's guaranteed. Everything else is secondary.

FWIW, most Germans I've heard seemed to think the Tiger was pretty comfy.

 

[Tamara]

Dannyboy,

FWIW, most Germans I've heard seemed to think the Tiger was pretty comfy.

Did someone here say it wasn't?

The only real weaknesses of the Tiger I were the usual ones associated with the interleaved roadwheel suspension (you'll note that type of suspension hasn't been a resounding success) and the tendency of the powered traverse mechanism to burn out. It was an excellent heavy tank, and far better all-around than the later King Tiger.

...every tank is judged on 2 things, survivability and killing power.

...and mobility, and reliability. Without the last two, all you have is an expensive bunker, like the Ferdinand or JagdTiger.

 

[telewinz]

Tamara

For the most part we agree, where we disagree seems to be based on research. My research says the Sherman was considered inferior for deployment on the eastern front by the Russians, based on my reasearch that was a wise decision on their part. My only explanation the the photo of a Sherman in Berlin in 1945 is, photo is dated incorrectly, it was a german war trophy (quite possible, we did the same prior to '45) or its Patton's personal command tank and he got to Berlin ahead of the Russians. The Germans felt they had the best tanks for combat after 1942, based on the german morale of the tank crews and kill ratio, I agree. The Sherman crew members after 1942 felt they had an inferior tank when commited to tank battle against the Panther model 'D, A, and G. and against the Tiger I and Tiger II. Their low morale reflected these beliefs and so did their kill ratio. Please quote the author(s) that state this conclusion is incorrect. I am always interested in reading other points of view. What book states the Sherman of any model was the superior tank on the European battlefield of 1944-1945. I don't believe that book exists except maybe at the high school level.

Sherman 75mm, 2030 feet per second
Pentration@ 1000 meters -59mm
Sherman 76.2mm, 2600 fps, penetration@1000meters- 89mm
49,000 made during WW2
Panther 75mm L70, 3068 fps
pentration @ 1000 meters-121mm @ 2000meters- 88mm
5508 made
Tiger I 88mm L71
1354 made
penetration @1000 meters- 215 mm, @4000meters -80mm

30 degree armor plate in all cases

 

[telewinz]

Please explain

Why do you feel the Tiger I was better than the King Tiger?

 

[Sam1380]

Two words

Chesty Puller

 

[telewinz]

Oleg

Russia did not have a manpower shortage in '45 if compared to the other combatants of WW2. They always a shortage of trained personel during the war. Their artillery was always considered suitable for anti-tank work even before 1941, german artillery (77mm) had some success against allied tanks during WWI, thats why the Infantry tanks like the Matilda II had so much armor, for protection from artillery not other tanks.

 

[Stephen Ewing]

Telewinz, not to suggest that your data is flawed, but you've got your Tiger guns backwards. Tiger I had L/56, Tiger II had L/71. Jentz shows 193mm penetration at 1000m at 30 degrees for the L/71 firing Pzgr.40/43, and 138mm for the L/56 at 1000. That aside, you remember how we established that I'm not the one arguing for the inferior gun? I'm also not the one relying on "tidbits of extreme cases." At one end, the Firefly is not the least numerous tank in the discussion, and on the other, I can document entire COMPANIES of Tigers experiencing 100% noncombat casualties in a morning if you like. I will also grant that the German 88 terrified the American tankers. Then again, it also terrified the American infantry, and sloppy authors (Ambrose!) have been known to refer to anything that went bang as an "88" to further propagate the legend even today, but legends aren't reality. Incidentally, when my copy of the Tiger manual isn't offering doggerel, or talking about shooting giant naked blondes (not kidding about that; anything to keep the Tiger crew's attention, I guess) and obsessing about cloverleafs, it describes the T-34 as "fast, agile, very powerful weaponry and strong armor," and the Sherman as "fast, agile, heavy armor and powerful weaponry." Not exactly the sort of thing one finds in the average high school, but it doesn't seem to find much difference between the American and Soviet designs. Did I mention that it obsesses about cloverleafs?

As an aside, the Russians equipped entire Guards Tank Armies with M4A2s. Note "Guards." The massive reliability edge (~3X) of the Sherman over any comparable Russian vehicle, combined with acceptable tactical mobility, justified its use by Guards units on deep penetrations. The Soviets explicitly and openly adopted the "running tanks are better" philosophy on this one, and turned to the Sherman.

In the end, the Firefly could engage any turreted AFV of its era with complete equality, even being able to compete on a level playing field with tanks that outweighed it by 130%, which isn't a bad achievement. At the least, that merits it consideration in any discussion of best tanks of the war, and yet it always gets ignored since the grass is always greener. You asked why it wasn't adopted more widely? Two reasons. The first is the most important and also the reason nobody talks about it today, since both of its parent countries wanted an entirely domestic solution. That part is pure politics and pride. The second is actually a legitimate problem, and you're going to love this, as I'm going to finally tell you what actually removes it from consideration as the "perfect tank." The darn thing was unable to fire anything but AP. This is a crippling shortcoming, I believe, and while I'm not sure if it was better or worse than the reliability/mobility/recovery/etc. problems the Germans experienced, it's close enough not to discard out of hand.

And just to be perverse "The Mark IV (Sherman) is one of the finest weapons on the battlefield."---Dwight David Eisenhower, July 22, 1943, letter to Vernon Edwin "Prich" Prichard.

And I'm STILL waiting for a Russophile to tell me what could possibly replace lend-lease aviation fuel, locomotives, trucks, telephone wire, boots, food, etc. Dialectic may feed the bulldog, but it don't feed an army.

Steve

 

[Tamara]

telewinz,

My only explanation the the photo of a Sherman in Berlin in 1945 is, photo is dated incorrectly, it was a german war trophy (quite possible, we did the same prior to '45) or its Patton's personal command tank and he got to Berlin ahead of the Russians.

Hahaha... anyways...

Not sure of the unit # of the Russian Shermans in Berlin, however, the 9th Guards Tank Brigade, at the sharp end of the 1st Guards Mechanized Corps (the unit that took Budapest) was a Russkie Sherman outfit. Several tank outfits of the 2nd Ukrainian Front (the spearpoint of the Soviet drive into Czechoslovakia) were Sherman-equipped, too. All these places are kinda far from Siberia.

What book states the Sherman of any model was the superior tank on the European battlefield of 1944-1945.

What post of mine has called it "superior"? I merely stated that it was adequate, and history seems to bear me out.

Why do you feel the Tiger I was better than the King Tiger?

Uh, the difference between "tanks" and "bunkers" is that "tanks" can move. Something the Tiger I could do that the Tiger II couldn't. The Tiger II's drivetrain was designed for a 40 metric ton vehicle, and suffered from leaking seals and blown gaskets when run at anywhere near top speed for more than a couple of minutes. The first Tiger II's received by Panzer Lehr were destroyed by their own crews before they ever saw combat due to the fact that every last one of them broke down in transit. Three of the first Tiger IIs recieved by sPzAbt 505 burned out completely due to engine compartment fires before ever encountering the enemy. These are not good things. The Tiger I, on the other hand, was a completely reliable tank, with lower ground pressure and a higher top speed, both on the road and cross-country. The Tiger II, however, did have a more powerful gun and thicker glacis...

 

[natedog]

Wasn't this supposed to be about a plattoon of infantry?

 

[telewinz]

The Tiger II and the Jadtiger were not very mobile but since Germany was fighting a defensive war at this time the enemy met them more than halfway. Later production models of the Tiger I got rid of the interleaven wheel system. I stand corrected on the L71, it was the L56, but a light weight L70 was developed but not utilized in the Tiger 1. I disagree that the Sherman was adequate after 1943, but my feeling on this is as if I was a crewman in a Sherman. Again, the M26 could have been introduced as early as 43 if Patton (mainly) would had accepted a temporary production showdown while the transition in manufacture was made. The Sherman could travel farther and more reliably from point A to Point B IF it didn't have to cross a battlefield on the way . The MKIIIN did have a 75mm, I stand corrected again but it was a short barreled 75mm with the same poor anti-tank performance as the early MKIV. It was a compomise for the small turret ring. Also the record distance for a kill was 7224 meters with a one shot kill by a Panther Model 'D against a T-34

If my facts are right (ot at least close) their were less than 7000 Panthers, Tiger I's,and Tiger II's made in WW2. Their were 6000 Lee/Grants, 49,000 Shermans, 40,000 T-34's, and over 2200 IS'2's (100-122mm) Russian heavy tanks made.

 

[Med 10]

Tamara, the trend of German tank builders toward the end of the war centered more on firepower and less on mobility. If you notice all the German tanks were heavier and hit harder because they were planning on fighting a more defensive battle. you seem to conclude that German tanks had reliability issues as a rule and this is just not true. When the first Panthers were built they had bugs which were worked out. When the first Tigers were built they were deployed on unsuitable ground and were forced to advance single file and were then chewed up.

Initialy the Panther was to have 60mm of armor on the front glacis but Hitler intervened and it went up to 80mm. Their were problems with the Maybach HL during the DEVELOPMENTAL stages only that were cured with the adoption of the HL 230 engine that gave it a top speed of 28mph. Despite teething problems such as engine over heating, the Panther remained in production till may 1945.

As far as the Tiger or PzKpfwVI goes, it too had DEVELOPMENTAL problems cured by the HL 230 engine. The tiger was never used to spearhed many offensives due to its weight and slow speed, but when deployed defensivley it gave the Allies many headaches. The thing with the german tanks was that they needed to be maintained religiously and if so kept, were very effective.

You know all this sounds VERY much like the argument that the US military has had for decades; you know the whole quality vs. quantity thing. To qoute American M1-Abrams tankers" We can fight Russian T-72's 4 to 1 and still win" Well I'm sure thats what the Germans were saying in their AFV's during WW2. !



Back to the Russia vs the Allies:

The Russians didnt need any more troops they already had over 12,000,000 + reserves.

I seriously doubt the russian troops would have starved.

How many times do I have to say this; The Soviets already had a HUGE airforce of purpose built planes. U.S. bombers would have to fight their way through ThOUSANDS of Russian fighters to hit there targets.

The Russians designed thier aircraft engines to run on low octane avgas which they still do to this day.

The Russians have HUGE petroleum reserves. They just needed to tap them.

Trucks are easy to build.

How many American moms would have let 15 yearolds go to war.

The Russians were consumed with hate of the enemy and were fighting with all they had. SPIRIT.

The U.S. would have sued for peace cause the American population cant stand to see the body bags pile up.

Naval power would not matter much. Those hellcats and Dauntlesses sure had alot of punch! yea, right.
Besides, how can you blockade a country the size of Russia.

The Brits simply had no more manpower.

I could go on but I dont want to use up any more band width.

 

[hops]

Shermans in Budapest and perhaps Berlin? Yeap. Had a Prof in College 20 years ago who was in Budapest back then. He though the Americans had arrived because the Tanks, Halftrack and Trucks all had white stars painted on them. Needless to so he was quite shocked to learn that the Russians had arrived instead.

Do not discount the Soviet manpower shortages for their combat troops. Oleg is quite correct. Even the Soviets did not have unlimited manpower available. Some source I read 20+ years ago stated that German combat troops were quite shocked when running in to 15 and 16 year old Soviet kids at the front in early 1944.

Have some great first hand accounts of WW2 combat experiences from my great uncle (Gross Deutschland '39 - to the end) and other long time friends of the family. Like all people, the combat experiences affected them all differently.

 

[Dannyboy]

Have some great first hand accounts of WW2 combat experiences from my great uncle (Gross Deutschland '39 - to the end) and other long time friends of the family. Like all people, the combat experiences affected them all differently.

I would love to hear some stories, first-hand, from the "other side."

 

[Med 10]

Oh, one more thing. They also had HUGE supplies of iron ore.

Russian production capabilities were more than a match to ours.

Radar wouldnt have mattered much. Besides the russians and japs were both experimenting with radar and the soviets would have have it in short order.

Medicine saves lives, but I dont think the Russkies were too concerned about saving lives to achieve their gains.

Back to the food issue; The black sea region is home to some of the most fertile farm land and soil in the world. I know, that doesnt matter cause then just like now, all we have to do is bomb 'em.

Speaking of bombing, the B-29's didnt exactly have to face much in the way of Jap air supeiriority; a fact that would have been much different trying to bomb Russia in its vastness. Russian fighters had excellent high altitude perfomance and were for the most part all cannon armed. I still maintain much to the disagreement of most that the U.S. bombing campaign over Japan went by and large unapposed. Not completely, but the Japanese were never able to mount a full scale defence of the puny home islands like the Luftwaffe was able to over Germany.

sorry, i'll quit now.

 

[telewinz]

Amen to Med-10

Med 10 is painting an over-all accurate picture of the "world order" of 1945. If Russia had 15 year olds fighting they were most likely volunteers(The Russians do call it the "Great Patriotic War")! Russia also had female combatants but not because they didn't have enough men. Manpower-wise Russia was in far better shape than any other western combatant and even the issue of training was only going to get better as it had been for two years. America by April 1945 was cancelling war contracts and had already closed down a part of their tanker school in late '44. As far as the B-29's are concerned, Russia already had several impounded and was in the process of making their own look-a-like version, which they did. Russia with it historic unlimited supply of manpower would have flown bi-planes if they had to. Remember, Russia had more 2nd Lt's KIA's than we had pivates KIAs, that should give anyone a moment of pause. Almost without exception, 1940's era carrier aircraft were inferior to their EQUAL landbased aircraft due to the design limitations of landing and taking off from a carrier. That doesn't mean a Hellcat could not shoot down a Mustang P-51(not to be confused with the the "Finnish Mustang") or a land based Zero but the Zero by 1944 was flown for the most part by inferior pilots and considered a'dated' design by many in 44/45 compared to the Hellcat. I do not know if this holds true today, I have heard that an F-15 or F-16 would be superior to an F-14 or F-18 in equal combat (ooh-noo) but I can't say one way or another.

 

[Med 10]

wher did everyone go?

 

[telewinz]

I don't think the topic is getting old, I think they are busy hitting the books instead of talking off the cuff. I enjoy this all to heck, especially the informed different points of few.

 

[Med 10]

hey! someone came back to play! This has been a great thread and I have a great deal of respect for the knowledge of WW2 that you all have.

I think in WW2 the gap between land and carrier based planes was more pronounced than today. Example using American planes: I think the P-51 would have the edge over the Hellcat, but a harder time with the corsair.

But I think an F-18 would probly be able to hold its own against an F-16.

 

[telewinz]

If you will recall when they first tried to use the Corsair on carriers they pulled them because of the high accident rate. The Corsair was considered a very "hot" airplane that was more than a match for the Zero. The "gull wing" design wasn't for performance but to allow the propeller to clear the deck, it's engine and propeller were that big! IIRC The Marines insisted it be re-assigned to carriers and it was. Also don't underestimate russian flyers, when Russian Pilots (secretly) flew the Mig-15 against American F-86's, the Russians had the higher kill ratio (they kept score).

 

[telewinz]

Stephen...

I can't agree that the Firefly was equal to any AFV (tank) of WW2. It might engage but it would not win most encounters (unless it was 4-5 to one) if the panther, or TigerI or Tiger II were firing back. In each case the Firefly is out gunned and is lacking in armor. Remember, the Allies fired on the run, the germans fired stationary and they had better optics to boot. In "tank country" the Firefly would be racing to its death IN MOST cases, in the woods, it would be a more equal match.

 

[sixgun_symphony]

If land based aircraft are so much better than carrier based aircraft, then why were the Finns getting so much good use out of the Brewster F2A Bufallo, a naval aircraft design, against Soviet land based aircraft? Hmmm...?

I think the Grumman F6F Hellcat was a much more capable aircraft than the Brewster F2A Bufallo.

That the Japanese pilots were considered inferior at the end of the war is because we shot down all their good pilots earlier in the war. Thats when we were using Grumman F4F Wildcats against the superior Mitsubischi A6M Zero fighter.

On mentioning the closing down of armor schools and cancelling munitions contracts in the USA, I don't think it would have taken much to get remobilized.

The Germans may have had some big, powerful tanks, but they were too few and came too late to win the war for Germany.

The M4 Sherman had worked fine in dealing with Soviet T-34's through much of the Cold War. Thus the M4 Sherman would have been adequate for a war against the Soviets in '45 as suggested by Gen. Patton.

 

[telewinz]

"Equal aircraft design", there were plenty of obsolete aircraft in the Russian inventory in 1941 to feed the Buffalo. The Buffalo served on the Saratoga but was removed in 1938 IIRC. Wildcats were considered inferior to the Zero, it was only when the Hellcat (oversized Wildcat) was operational that we had a superior fighter. The Wildcat was limited in the tactics it could use to defeat the Zero. Attack from above, the "Thatcher Weave", and never turn with a Zero were some of the common warnings. But many experts feel that in the hands of an experienced pilot the Zero could be effective during the entire war. No armor plate and a lack of seal-sealing tanks came with a price.
The 1945 russian tanks out gunned the Sherman tank also. I don't know of any meaningful (of any size) encounters between the Sherman and the T-34 or Stalin tanks. Korea didn't have much to offer in the way of "Tank Country". I do know we had to rush deliever some 3.5" bazooka's because our 2.75"(?) was inaffective against the T-34. HMMM I hear the 2.75 worked fine against the Sherman. Also which Patton our we talking about? The one who stated in the early 30's that the Calvary was superior to the tank? He always knew which way the wind was blowing before he said anything. At the time the calvary officers were in charge and it was best for a major's career to agree with the boss. Before 1940, Ike was considered our "tank expert" also but Marshall must have seen something in IKE he didn't see in Patton.

 

[hops]

The Japanese Navy Zero pilots were 1st class. However, the Flying Tigers with the P-40's did a pretty good job against the Japaneese Air Force in China as I recall.
'God is my Co-Pilot' was a pretty good book when I was 12 - was my step-dad's childhood copy and one of the first american war books I read - once I could read english.

The Soviets had incredible industrial capacity and natural resources. If I remember correctly, they dismatled whole factories and moved them east of the Urals - when possible. Took time to rebuilt those factories though. American lend lease helped hold them up.

Also do not forget that Germany did not go to full war production until 1942. The German civilian ecconomy actually grew in '39, '40 and '41. Hitler had to keep the people happy to a point. He did not have total power like Stalin. Close but not that close.