[Neutrino 123]

Whoops, I forgot to mention the Sherman's high profile, making it an easier target. It also had a gyrostabilizer, which let is fire …..was only useful sometimes.

More like almost never. It didn’t work. It had it but they couldn’t use it in combat. Technology was not good enough. It works in modern tanks, of course, but back than, it’s a myth that it was working (made by Americans as one of things they believed supremely was that they were technically much more advanced than the rest). The idea was there, but it didn’t work. Misleading us you are!

It worked often. However, just the effects of the gyrostabilizer were only small. Shooting on the move is complicated, and the gyrostabilizer only helped a little. Modern tanks have much more then a gyrostabilizer to help them fire on the move (and even the best ar still somewhat better when firing at rest).

The onwar site I linked to has details

Where are the sources for that site? I’m quite curious, as I hesitate something written on the internet at face value. All too often these online sites turned out to be bogged with allied propaganda ‘facts’.

I haven't found any technical data on the site that is wrong (though if I combed it, I might find some minor points). If you searched a bit with google, you would find other sites with the same technical data. I have seen the same data in multiple books and the game, Combat Mission.

When the T-34 was designed, it was by far the best (it entered service well after the war began). When the Sherman was designed, it was adequate. However, the Sherman was designed later in the war. The actual abilities of the tanks are quite similar.

You are wrong on all points. T34 was best yes, but it entered the war as it started, not ‘well after’! It fought with less powerful gun early, but it was there all the time. That’s why the Germans got a shock first time they encountered it, and that wasn’t Kursk… To say Sheraman and T34 on actual abilities is similar sounds all too much as a powerful US made myth.

Is English your first language? I can almost always understand you, but I am not sure if you can always completely understand what I say. In this paragraph, I am not sure what you are saying...

The T-34 entered units in 1941 or maybe late 1940. This was well after the war started, though of course, at the time the USSR got involved, the T-34 was already part of thier force (first encountered in the Battle of Smolensk? I'm not exactly sure...).

If you asked most people with a passing knowledge of militaqry history, they would say that the Sherman was inferior to the T-34. However, as the specifications I showed on the first page indicate, that is not the case. The Sherman and T-34 were about the same. Each had some advantages and disadvantages over the other, but these roughly balanced out. If you have technical data that differs from my original posting, or a different interpretation of the tactical abilities of these tanks, by all means, show it.

but the Sherman had decent off road mobility. The late model Shermans had improved HVSS suspension, and excellent off-road ability on par with the late T-34s (which were actually worse off-road then the mid T-34s due to added weight from the new turret and gun).

Shermans with it’s narrow tracks were poor off road, sorry, that’s another misleading statement. T34 had by far the best suspension design, one adopted later by all main battle tanks. And it wasn’t because they liked ‘all russian’ I think.

This s completely wrong. Later models of the Sherman DID have improved suspension and tracks that gave them better cross-country mobility. It wasn't as good as the T-34, but it was still quite good. Almost any article on the Sherman will mention the improved suspension in the later models. Just do a simple Google search.

Before the improved suspension Shermans came along, the Sherman still had better off-road ability then the MkIV. It's not that the Sherman was horrible in this regard, it's just that the T-34 was very good.

You are thinking of the later German tanks. The early ones were less reliable then the Sherman and T-34, but were not overweight, underpowered (though they did have poor off-road ability due to small tracks), or fuel hungry.

Well, the early things germans had were not really tanks, but tankettes. Mk1s and Mk2s were a joke, and Mk3 was hardly any good either. All their guns were bad, they were unreliable and thirsty.

Well, the MkI could be considered a tankette, but the MkII was technically a tank, though it certainly had very poor armerment. These things got decent fuel efficientcy for their weight, which was very low, of course.

There really was a fast sweeping German blitzkrieg machine. Poland, France, and Barbarossa are clear examples of this.]

Now you floored me with this. You are so wrong about this! Those were won by infantry, and Luftwaffe supporting the tanks. Sure they were fast, it achieved victories because (and going in your order)

The German Army was obviously mostly infantry divisions, but its attack spearheads were the panzer divisions. These divisions were powerful and highly mobile, capable of creating and exploiting breakthroughs. The Luftwaffe helped, of course, but its effect was largely morale-based (with a few notable exceptions). Even the late-war Allied air forces with attack aircraft had little efficientcy in killing tanks.

1. Because Allies didn’t protect it. Poland held on for more than a month, or you think it did fall in 2 weeks? No 1 month. Poland. You know the joke about cavalry attacking tanks? Know where it came from? That cavalry wreaked damage to german supplies. And I wish I had the sources with me, but let me assure you, germans lost A LOT of tanks in that 1 month. You’d be surprised how much.

I did learn how much when I was less then 10, and I was VERY surprised. The Poles put up a great fight for such poorly equipped forces (~600-700 German tank losses?). If I recall correctly, they inflicted proportionally more casulties then the well-equipped French in 1940.

I believe the cavalry myth originated when the Poles launched a successful cavalry attack (small-unit scale) against a German infantry unit. German tanks arrived, and the Poles retreated. Since tanks and cavalry were in the area at the same times, the Germans started the cavalry-charging-tanks myth.

2. French in first major tank fought off german attack very well. They defeated them. It was later the brits that abandoned the French (and doomed a 600000 belgium army to surrender) that lead to victory (much like Allies abandoning Finland to fight USSR because it thought it was pointless (like in case with France and Poland!). Had the French actually fought germans all the way – the war might have just finished there. Unfortunately the French doctrine always believed they were not powerful enough to defeat germany on their own – hence they relied on Britain. When Britain decided to cut losses and retreat, French collapsed. But the Maginot line still stood and they had to send emissars to tell them France surrendedred. Germans could not take it.

The French won a tactical armored engagement due to their superior tanks, but they were taken care of by 88s (the British also attacked and did well with Matildas). Britain didn't really abandon France. The whole Belgian group (including the French and Belgians present) needed to retreat to the channel ports, or else they would be surrounded by the panzer spearheads.

3. Barbarossa… well, barbarossa failed, if that’s any news. They went to Moscow and that was it. Mechanized Russians were able to retreat very fast and fight another day. The casualties were huge, but this is hardly an example of german super power. You are wrong completely about blitzkrieg.

It doesn't matter that Barbarossa failed. For several months, the Germans conducted warfare at a very fast pace, and they made huge territorial gains. Their casulties were indeed large, but Soviet casulties were far greater. The Russians lost over 20,000 tanks in 1941! Their mechanized forces did NOT conduct a fast retreat. They were thrown into poorly conducted counterattacks and destroyed. The Russians had to reorganize their new tanks into brigades due to casulties, and only later regained the tank corps (division sized) (and later, of course, tank armies).

There was no blitzkrieg. What there was in fact was bunch of incompetence at the top of Allies that lost wars in Poland, France and needed a reason to justify it. Germans were all too happy to go along with it. However the wars were won on the ground, by infantry. Not by mechanized armies, thundering (and in sarcasm mode now) down highways, with kilometres of trucks and horses behind. Germans used aviation with it, and were good at that, but once they lost superiority in air, it was that. Poland was perfect example. They destroyed polish airforces piece by piece and dominated battle field. They bombed their own – and in succession learned to better coordinate, which enabled them to be so good in france. See my posts in D-day about how efficient the germans were in in flying 3-4 times more sorties than Allies and thus making them think they were against a much bigger airforce (while they lost 3/4s of their transport airforce in parachuting operation in Netherlands in 1940!!!). Not to mention their airforce was inferior in equipment to british and even French.

Just because the Allies were incompetant does not mean the Germans couldn't conduct fast warfare. In fact, the Germans conducted the French attack in just such a way as to maximize the effects of the Allies incompetance.

Your are right about the inefficientcy of the French Air Force. However, the fighter of the Luftwaffe (Bf109) was superior to the British Hurricane (there were no Spitfires in France) and also the French planes (though certainly not vastly superior, and the Hurricanes and French planes had better turning abilities, so they could do well with proper tactics).

The early German tanks had good road-movement ability, a useful component in a blitzkrieg (off-road comes in mainly in tactical situations). Remember, though, that the operational speed of mechanized units is corrolated with tank speed, but there are other factors. The panzer and motorized divisions were able to move fast enough to cause confusion behind enemy lines, and to surround units

. Only with support of infantry and airforce. When allies tried it, they failed miserably. If Blitzkrieg worked, massive tank offensives would work. They didn’t. They didn’t at Kursk, didn’t at Caen, didn’t at Ardennes, and didn’t in many other places. You forget – tank grinded to a f*cking hault as soon as it came to a minefield. French found out the hard way in 1940. So much for the super mobility.

The Panzer Divisions came with two mechanized/motorized infantry regiments, and coordianted well with the infantry (unlike the Allies). Also, there were motorized infantry divisions following the panzer divisions, and regular infantry after that. All were important, but it was the mechanized units that gave the ability to properly exploit breakthroughs.

Also note that the operational speed of a 'fast' large unit would be considered quite slow compared to its individual vehicles.

And what’s the point of an individual vehicle?

?

This is true, and is one of the few mistakes that Patton made (he supported this concept). However, the U.S. forces were well-supplied with tank destroyers with 76.2mm guns (medium velocity), which could deal with the Tiger and Panther at shorter ranges. The tank destroyers were actually quite effective against enemy armor, but idiot commanders would often use them as tanks, resulting in additional losses (they had thin armor and open roof turrets - making them vulnerable to artillery and the lighter German AT weapons like the 50mm gun).

The tank destroyer of Allies was a wuss compared to jagdpanzers the germans made, who had them heavily armed and as you mention, actually had a roof. Germans could tie down all allied advancements with cleverly Anti Tank guns. When it came to using a tank, germans were much better than Americans or british. The ace stories are not so bogus!

This is true. However, just because the tank destroeyers were bad compared to the equivalent German units does not mean they should be dismissed. They did well against German armor.

I only try to be impartial here. I am Russian and have every reason to hate SS and Nazi germany till my eys turn red, but I am only looking at military composition. And it’s clear – allies created a myth of invincible german blitz machine to compensate for their failures in beginning of war, and germans later believed in that myth, and Hitler (luckily) believed in it best. They also followed Fuller’s ideas to the letter on tank warfare. But Stalin after finland somehow learned from mistakes, while allied and germans continued to belive in it faithfully. Time and time again, huge mechaniezed armies got bogged down due to poor terrarin, poor air support, and poor logistics. But theories didn’t teach to deal with it. They implied tank would always get through. You see, tanks didn’t. The war was often won the old fashioned way. There were others theories, sure, but its THIS one and one about Bomber that tied the doctrines of Allies and Germans and Russians together. It was a false theory. And that millions of men died trying to prove it is a testament to that.

Whatever myths the Allies created, it is well-known among military historians that their incompetance in the early war was a huge factor for their lack of success.
The USSR learned some thigns from Finland, but they didn't learn enough to prevent decisive defeat during Barbarossa. Also, some Soviet generals like Zhukov (of course) already knew how to fight well. Have you read about Khalin Gol (spelling?) against Japan?
Many things could stop an offensive, but offensives with flexible armored spearheads were clearly more successful then those without.

This is a great topic, would there be any objections to moving it to the Tanksim forum? There will still be a pointer here.

I didn't even know this forum existed...