Myths Of American Armor With Nicholas Moran

[Rickard N]

 

Besides; why should anybody pay attention to your opinion? You're just a poster on an internet forum

 

 

 

Ok, this has to be THE best comment in any thread anywhere, anytime...

 

/R

[Corinthian]

 

 

 

Besides; why should anybody pay attention to your opinion? You're just a poster on an internet forum

 

 

Ok, this has to be THE best comment in any thread anywhere, anytime...

 

/R

Made doubly so as it applies to the guy who said it.

[Marek Tucan]

To get back on topic, this was posted on another board:

 

 

I do like the man and most of his videos are informative and fun. This is not one of them. While I agree that the Sherman has an undeservedly bad reputation The Chieftain is clearly cherry picking data to support his point of view here. He is also neglecting to mention some very important problems that plagued Allied tanks in the crucial period following D-day.

 

Most important was perhaps the quality problems with the APCBC ammo for the 75 mm and 76 mm guns. The infamous "shatter gap". A most unusual situation where rounds with too high an impact velocity would fail even though their penetration capability should be more than adequate. This phenomenon plagued the effectiveness of US 76mm and 3" guns against Tigers, Panthers and other vehicles with armor thickness above 70 mm. The caps of the APCBC ammunition turned out to be excessively soft. When these projectiles impacted armor which matched or exceeded the projectile diameter at a certain spread of velocities, the projectile would shatter and fail. In France Allied tankers often found themselves in the ridiculous situation of being too close to achieve penetration against German armor.

 

Another point I find very hard not to criticize is his extreme cherry picking of data on Tiger I encounters. Only three? Really? Some of the most famous and published tank actions in France after D-Day involved Tigers from the Heavy SS-Panzer Battalion 101. SS-Hauptsturmführer Michael Wittmann alone accounts for more Tiger battles in France than what The Chieftain claims as a total in his video. Including the battle where he died in a Tiger I, at the hands of a Sherman Firefly gunner.

 

"The Tigers now attacked from the flank against the Polish Armoured Division. They opened fire from 1800 meters. The first enemy tanks blew apart. The wave of Shermans which was rolling toward Cintheaux was smashed. One Allied attack after another broke down in front of the thin front held by the handful of Tigers. The battle raged for hours. One of the Tiger commanders who survived reported that Wittmann's Tiger had destroyed three more enemy tanks."

 

He is also very careful in specifying Tiger I which I find deceitful since this model was out of production by this time of the war. Historians generally agree that the Tiger I and II had a 12:1 kill ratio against all models of the Sherman tank.

 

 

Is there deceit and cherry picking in the video?

 

More like deceit and improper understanding with the poster Also nice to see the ratio comment, that is pure and unadultered bollocks for reasons mentioned by others.

 

As for the combat episode mentioned, flanking fire in open terrain would lead to serious Allied losses whatever tank they were using (except maybe Maus or IS-3). and describing it as "attack" is also quite misleading, as it was ambush from prepared positions. If the author wants to rely on anecdotes, why doesn't he describe the first deployment of Tiger II in the Eastern front (or Tiger I for that matter)? I can use it and claim that in combatt conditions, one T-34/85 should be expected to destroy three Tiger II without taking losses

 

As for ammo issues, they seem to be putting cart before the horse, as they concern failures against targets where 17pdr would also likely fail (Panther front).In the real conditions the important thing was who fired first - which naturally favours the defender. German tanks did not fare any better when attacking a prepared Allied defense, once the 37mm guns and M3 GMCs were replaced with 57mm and 3" gun platforms.

[Rickard N]

 

 

 

Besides; why should anybody pay attention to your opinion? You're just a poster on an internet forum

 

 

Ok, this has to be THE best comment in any thread anywhere, anytime...

 

/R

Made doubly so as it applies to the guy who said it.

 

That was pretty much what I thought too

 

If I'm not very off in my language department that might very well be the defionition of irony.

 

/R

[swerve]

 

There was a noted lack of coordination between tanks and infantry on the allied side in the initial phases of the advance inland from the beaches, that lack of coordination costs the tanks dearly, such as the British Columbia Regiment getting slaughtered. There was a lot of training, but some significant gaps in it.

In Normandy you have to count the factors of the naval assault, and the terrible tank terrain. Hedgerows and hills just miles from the shore and the massive supply chain. And IIRC from Grenadier and Panzer Commander the Germans had that key advantage. Hans von Luck was, maybe, responsible for more tank kills than any SS Sturmsuppertroop, and all he had was ATGs, very well placed granted, but nothing more.

 

Believe it or not, I'd not heard of von Luck, so I looked him up. Born & grew up in the same town as some of my family. But they preferred Danish to German, so they may not have moved in the same circles.

[lastdingo]

@ Andres Vera

 

I can't help it if you don't understand the meaning of English words.

Everything has been explained about your misunderstanding. I'm not backpedaling on anything here. You're merely not understanding or not paying attention to what I wrote.

 

 

@EnsignExpendable:

 

WOW, another one who cannot comprehend simple English texts and makes up nonsense, then goes up claiming that someone else claimed that nonsense to be true.

Feel free to do a text search on whether I ever wrote the word "garbage" in this thread - or anything else of what I allegedly wrote according to you.

 

----------------------

 

Seriously, people who don't pay attention to what others ACTUALLY wrote are useless sources of noise and trolls in a discussion.

[EnsignExpendable]

I'm not making up anything. Your opinion goes against that of notable experts in the field. You claim it's supported by some books, and yet you cannot even name any, let alone provide a proper citation. Don't get mad at me when I call you out on it.

[BLAH]

I don't think losses are a good way to judge a tank, really.

 

There's many causes for that unrelated to the tank design; poor training and whatnot (with possible good training for the opfor), offensive and/or defensive actions, and whatnot.

 

It's kinda like maligning the M1 Abrams because of the Iraqis.

[scotsman]

I'll second the observation on Allied artillery. Many instances of German Eastern Front veterans fighting in Normandy saying that they had never experienced anything like the weight and responsiveness of Allied artillery on the eastern front. The Russians could plan and execute significant prep. fires, but there is a world of difference between that and every platoon in the front being able to call for 'all available' (or William target if your British) at the drop of a hat.

 

Eastern front veterans had never experienced anything like that as Russian artillery was generally centrally controlled. You only have to look at the historical record of some of the German counterattacks to understand the difference between the Allied and Russian capabilities to bring air and indirect fire to the target.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[lastdingo]

I'm not making up anything. Your opinion goes against that of notable experts in the field. You claim it's supported by some books, and yet you cannot even name any, let alone provide a proper citation. Don't get mad at me when I call you out on it.

 

What I wrote - not what you fantasized about what I wrote - is supported by Eike Middeldorf's "Taktik um Russlandfeldzug", for example.

You lied about me being unable to name any book example. Apparently you are as inaccurate in your writing as in your reading, since all you could have claimed was that I did not do it yet.

So you don't deserve more pointers at sources than this one, due to your manners.

 

 

Your claim isn't nearly as supported as you insist. The T-34 was under control quality-wise in 1943-45. The IS series was the big Eastern Front scare in 1944/45. As I mentioned all along, the quality shock of the T-34 was mostly a phenomenon of 1941. Long 75 mm guns arrived in quantity during 1942 and were normal equipment (along long 50 mm guns and stubby 75 mm guns with sufficient HEAT) during 1943. The T-34 had been reduced to a quantity challenge, especially since repairs of knocked-out T-34 and exaggerated kill reports made the OKH believe in about twice as many T-34 than were produced.

Edited July 16, 2015 by lastdingo

[Cinaruco]

There's another issue as well:

M4 Sherman crews were trained by a rather tank battle-inexperienced army and were mostly busy supporting infantry on the attack.

 

German tank crews - particularly those considered good or promising enough to ride Panthers or Tigers - were trained with a much greater wealth of experience and with the expectation of tough Eastern Front tank battles against T-34, KV series. Their training wasn't terribly hampered by fuel shortages until fall 1944 and the armor divisions in France during summer of 1944 had enjoyed a lot of training and bonding time.

 

The Sherman crews were likely simply inferior.

Sorry lastdingo, but I don't English like you.

[Cinaruco]

 

 

There was a noted lack of coordination between tanks and infantry on the allied side in the initial phases of the advance inland from the beaches, that lack of coordination costs the tanks dearly, such as the British Columbia Regiment getting slaughtered. There was a lot of training, but some significant gaps in it.

In Normandy you have to count the factors of the naval assault, and the terrible tank terrain. Hedgerows and hills just miles from the shore and the massive supply chain. And IIRC from Grenadier and Panzer Commander the Germans had that key advantage. Hans von Luck was, maybe, responsible for more tank kills than any SS Sturmsuppertroop, and all he had was ATGs, very well placed granted, but nothing more.

 

Believe it or not, I'd not heard of von Luck, so I looked him up. Born & grew up in the same town as some of my family. But they preferred Danish to German, so they may not have moved in the same circles.

 

Really? That's truly amazing is a small world indeed. von Luck was a great soldier, plus an old school Prussian gentleman. He became good friends with several of his foes in WW2.

 

He was at the battle of Moscow and at Normandy. Kurt Meyer in Grenadier makes a somewhat poetic description of allied firepower, just can't find it. I'll google flu.

[Cinaruco]

Wiki of all places:

 

The misery around us screams to high heaven. Refugees and soldiers from the broken German armies look helplessly at the bombers flying continuously overhead. It is useless to take cover from the bursting shells and bombs. Concentrated in such a confined space, we offer unique targets for the enemy air power. The forest areas are full of wounded soldiers and the sundered bodies of horses. Death shadows us at every step. We are lying as if on a salver in full view and range of the 4th Canadian and 1st Polish Divisions' guns. It is impossible to miss

 

 

This was the commander of the 12th SS...

[Ken Estes]

 

A good example of previous work is:

Charles M. Baily “Tank Myths,” Armor 110:5 (September-October 2001), 36-38.

I'll try to find it, the Benning website is rather troublesome.

 

 

Thanks to Bigfngun, I have it here:

 

ETA: enlarged

Edited July 16, 2015 by Ken Estes

[demosthenes]

Are those pics the intended size?

[FlyingCanOpener]

 

A good example of previous work is:

Charles M. Baily “Tank Myths,” Armor 110:5 (September-October 2001), 36-38.

 

I'll try to find it, the Benning website is rather troublesome.

Thanks to Bigfngun, I have it here:

 

 

Actually, get it while you can right now.

 

Direct link: https://www.benning.army.mil/training/eArmor/2001/SEP_OCT/ArmorSeptemberOctober2001web.pdf

[Ken Estes]

I can't open those, were you using a CAC card login?

 

Being on the road in Olde Yurrop, I am a security suspect, of course.

[Walter_Sobchak]

Weird, in the past I have been unable to download any armor issues from 2001 to 2010 due to lack of CAC login. Now that I am using Chrome, I got some warnings about the site not being secure, but once I told the browser to ignore it's security concerns, I was able to download the issues.

 

I guess I will be at the computer a while tonight downloading all these issue now...

[FlyingCanOpener]

I can't open those, were you using a CAC card login?

 

Being on the road in Olde Yurrop, I am a security suspect, of course.

No, I just went to the Benning website and went from there. Google Chrome gave a small whimper like Walter's but I got to it fine. Took a while for it to download though. It may be an issue with you trying to access them from Europe considering how DoD gets loopy with who they let onto ostensibly open websites here in the States.

[zaarin7]

I had no problem down loading it.

 

US artillery was IMHO the best in W W II and the UK was right with us. As someone posted above I've encountered accounts from German east front vets from the enlisted all the way up to senior officer's who commented on the shock of US/UK artillery and airpower when transfered west. Rommel pre-invasion tried to let the western commanders know what he had experienced in North Aftika but nobody seemed to want to listen to him.

[Mobius]

The APCBC M61 shell is credited with penetrating 100mm sloped armour at 500 meters. If the numbers are right it should have been effective against Tigers and Panthers.

I've seen that too. That comes from a British report. It may be a M61 with inert filler. US data doesn't go this high. But it gives a MV of 2650 f/s.

[EnsignExpendable]

What I wrote - not what you fantasized about what I wrote - is supported by Eike Middeldorf's "Taktik um Russlandfeldzug", for example.

You lied about me being unable to name any book example. Apparently you are as inaccurate in your writing as in your reading, since all you could have claimed was that I did not do it yet.

So you don't deserve more pointers at sources than this one, due to your manners.

I didn't lie, you didn't give me a book supporting your claims. Ok, you named a book, care to give me a quote from it to show you're right? Oh, I don't deserve sources, we should all trust you at your word, is that it?

 

Your claim isn't nearly as supported as you insist. The T-34 was under control quality-wise in 1943-45. The IS series was the big Eastern Front scare in 1944/45. As I mentioned all along, the quality shock of the T-34 was mostly a phenomenon of 1941. Long 75 mm guns arrived in quantity during 1942 and were normal equipment (along long 50 mm guns and stubby 75 mm guns with sufficient HEAT) during 1943. The T-34 had been reduced to a quantity challenge, especially since repairs of knocked-out T-34 and exaggerated kill reports made the OKH believe in about twice as many T-34 than were produced.

Ah yes, spherical 75 mm guns in vacuum. Let's take a look at an actual breakdown of shots fired at a T-34 against the UFP.

 

 

50 mm bounces: 35% of all hits

50 mm penetrations: 4.6% of all hits

75 mm bounces: 7.3% of all hits

75 mm penetrations: 1.8% of all hits

 

That's not "in quantity". The vast majority of all guns that the T-34 faced were short 50 mm guns or weaker. If you take a look at the figures here and here, the T-34 in 1942 was about as resilient to enemy artillery as the Tiger and Panther were in 1944 in Normandy. So please stop making vague hand-wavy statements. Give me actual hard figures if you want to make claims about specific things.

[Jabberwocky]

Does that chart indicate that the 50 mm was more likely to penetrate on hit than the 88 mm (4.6% vs 3.6%)?

[EnsignExpendable]

Does that chart indicate that the 50 mm was more likely to penetrate on hit than the 88 mm (4.6% vs 3.6%)?

That's percentage of total. 4.6% of all hits were 50 mm penetrating shots, whereas 3.6% of all hits were 88 mm penetrating shots. 35% of all hits were 50 mm shots that did not penetrate, but no tanks examined has any bounces from an 88 mm gun.

[bojan]

IOW while 88s were rare they made an impression when they fired on tanks, while 50mm were ubiquitous but not really capable of combating tanks.