Germany vs SU WW2 (But no B-17s, etc))

[bojan]

His T-34 experience was with older 76 models however. Matildas were probably most hated LL tanks. Churchills had some fans, but I have never read any Soviet veteran's positive opinion about Matilda.

 

[R011]

13 minutes ago, bojan said:

His T-34 experience was with older 76 models however. Matildas were probably most hated LL tanks. Churchills had some fans, but I have never read any Soviet veteran's positive opinion about Matilda.

 

And he noted the Sherman was not without faults.  They apparently tipped easier than other tanks, for instance.  Interestingly, he doesn't complain about the things Western tankers, experts, and "experts" complain of.  They seem to have had reasonable mobility in mud and snow and the armament seems to have been quite adequate.

I found his opinion on the Churchill interesting.  He says mud got packed easily in the suspension making them not very suitable for Western Soviet conditions.  Users in other muddy places, like New Guinea jungle, found them better than Shermans.  I can only assume from this that jungle mud and steppe mud aren't the same thing.

[Argus]

5 hours ago, R011 said:

<snip> Users in other muddy places, like New Guinea jungle, found them better than Shermans.  I can only assume from this that jungle mud and steppe mud aren't the same thing.

Perhaps its the stereotypical frozen mud?

[Perun]

12 hours ago, RichTO90 said:

Maybe because they didn't? Just what parts of the T-34 were"copied" by the Germans?

I put the word copied in "". Germans didnt copied T-34 for real but copied concept. They didnt copied Shermans concept and surely they didnt copied Grants concept

[RichTO90]

1 hour ago, Perun said:

I put the word copied in "". Germans didnt copied T-34 for real but copied concept. They didnt copied Shermans concept and surely they didnt copied Grants concept

What "concept" was that? Two-man turret? Rear drive? Diesel engine? Please don't say "sloped armor".

[Perun]

18 minutes ago, RichTO90 said:

What "concept" was that? Two-man turret? Rear drive? Diesel engine? Please don't say "sloped armor".

Yes, sloped armor in Panther

[old_goat]

19 hours ago, bojan said:

Even reliability often quoted for Sherman was based on the conditions of it's use, and variations in maintenance, area of operation etc could make large difference in reliability.

Well, yes, this is true. But actually, this is the exact source of the myth that the T-34 was a reliable tank. Post war, rebuilt and also new production polish, czech tanks were indeed more or less reliable. But WW2 ones. No, not at all. T-34/76 in 1941-42 were atrociously unreliable. From there, quality went up constantly. But even end of the war production T-34/85 couldnt be considered truly reliable. The big improvement came only in the 1950s upgrades.

In hungary, we mainly used mostly ww2 production, rebuilt/repaired tanks. These had lots of problems. Gearbox and clutch failures were especially common, but the steering system was also problematic. It overheated quicky, and became unoperational. (germans had same experience with captured tanks). Electric systems were also horrible. The only reliable thing was the armament. No problems there at all. And was quite accurate. We had a few czech or polish tanks too, those were considerably better. Later in the 60s when the T-54s appeared here... night and day... Totally different world. Far more reliable, far more comfortable. 

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

8 hours ago, R011 said:

And he noted the Sherman was not without faults.  They apparently tipped easier than other tanks, for instance.  Interestingly, he doesn't complain about the things Western tankers, experts, and "experts" complain of.  They seem to have had reasonable mobility in mud and snow and the armament seems to have been quite adequate.

I found his opinion on the Churchill interesting.  He says mud got packed easily in the suspension making them not very suitable for Western Soviet conditions.  Users in other muddy places, like New Guinea jungle, found them better than Shermans.  I can only assume from this that jungle mud and steppe mud aren't the same thing.

Hang on, did the Australians use Churchills? I thought they mainly used Matildas.

[Perun]

Sherman vs. Churchill
 

It was considered by the trials team that overall the Churchill was preferable to the Sherman for operations in jungle. The main advantages of the Churchill over the Sherman were listed as:

1. Superior manoeuvrability, especially at low speeds.

2. More suitable low gear ratio for low speed running during infantry co-operation.

3. Greater armour thickness.

4. Marginally better performance when crossing creeks and during hill climbing.

5. Greater ground clearance.

The Sherman was judged to be superior only in the areas of visibility, due to its larger periscopes which had wider fields of vision, and its ability to steer more easily on side slopes. The inherent reliability of the Sherman was also considered to be advantageous.

Following the trials, the tanks remained in New Guinea for a further three and a half months, after which they were returned to Australia, where some further trials were conducted. Those trials confirmed the results of the New Guinea tests, and so the Australian Government ordered 510 Churchills for the Army. This order was cancelled at the end of the war, after a total of 51 Churchills (comprising six trials vehicles and 45 production tanks) had been received.

http://anzacsteel.hobbyvista.com/Armoured Vehicles/australianshermansph_4.htm

[Perun]

“The Battle of the Bulge exposed deficiencies in the M4 so glaringly obvious, what became known as the Sherman Tank Scandal would be splashed across front pages all over the Allied world.”

According to British historian Sir Max Hastings, “no single Allied failure had more important consequences on the European battlefield than the lack of tanks with adequate punch and protection.” The Sherman, he added, was one of the Allies’ “greatest failures.”

https://militaryhistorynow.com/2017/09/12/tank-busting-blowing-up-the-myth-of-the-mighty-m4-sherman/

[Stuart Galbraith]

Thanks for that. So no, it doesnt sound like they actually used them.

I was interested to note in the videos of the Australian Armour Museum, the Australian Army had a LOT of Grants, and even went so far as to modify them with anti grenade screens. They clearly anticipated using them in combat, but in the event, other than one brief battle, seem to have neglected to use them. What was wrong? Or did they just get on better with Matilda's and wanted to stick with C/S equipped ones?

[Perun]

I think that main reason why tanks wasnt used in large numberd in Pacific front was because there wasnt much tank terrain but mainly dense jungle

[Perun]

11 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Thanks for that. So no, it doesnt sound like they actually used them.

I was interested to note in the videos of the Australian Armour Museum, the Australian Army had a LOT of Grants, and even went so far as to modify them with anti grenade screens. They clearly anticipated using them in combat, but in the event, other than one brief battle, seem to have neglected to use them. What was wrong? Or did they just get on better with Matilda's and wanted to stick with C/S equipped ones?

👍 Ta

[Perun]

Now back to topic 🙂

Best evidence that Germany couldnt defeat Soviet Union is 1941. and real history. Soviets were in shock, ill prepared for war while Germany had secured back in west (no bombardmend of cities by British and US air forces), intact industry and intact and experianced oficers corp. Not to mention that there wasnt even remote chances of large ampfibious operation

[old_goat]

1 hour ago, Perun said:

ill prepared for war

Lots of debate about that. 

And also, remember that german AFV production ramped up only later. North african campaign also used lots of resources. I still think western allies were absolutely necessary to defeat germany.

 

[bojan]

5 hours ago, old_goat said:

...But even end of the war production T-34/85 couldnt be considered truly reliable...

In which case Shermans also can not be considered trully reliable, since 10 y/o, WW2 production T-34-85s needed only as much as 30-50% more maintenance time for similar availability as did almost brand Shermans. And that is despite almost total lack of spares for T-34s and plenty of spares for Shermans.

Quote

 The big improvement came only in the 1950s upgrades.

Yes, which made them need less maintenance than Shermans for similar availability and people who transferred from Shermans to T-34-85 were quite happy about that.

Quote

...Later in the 60s when the T-54s appeared here... night and day... Totally different world. Far more reliable, far more comfortable.

Well, there is no real way to compare WW2 and post-WW2 tanks. M47 was not considered most reliable tank and it needed only 75% of maintenance hours as Sherman for similar availability. T-55 needed even less, IIRC 60% of Sherman's. And T-72 even less.*

Ofc, part of that reduction was in the fact that crew could no longer do certain things, unlike T-34 and Sherman where crew/unit maintenance could almost rebuild whole tank, M47, T-55 and T-72 needed a trip to factory/real maintenance depot more often.

*It is same way some people says "Tigers were reliable", by looking at availability while ignoring all the maintenance hours used for those, 2-3+ times more than needed for Pz-IV. That is called "Hangar queens" in aviation word.

Only real way to measure reliability is how much maintenance hours and spares various tanks needed for the same availability.

[Perun]

From my experiance Soviets builted more "user friendly" equipment

[RichTO90]

10 hours ago, Perun said:

Yes, sloped armor in Panther

Because of course no one except the Soviets had realized the advantages of sloped armor? 🤣

[RichTO90]

7 hours ago, Perun said:

“The Battle of the Bulge exposed deficiencies in the M4 so glaringly obvious, what became known as the Sherman Tank Scandal would be splashed across front pages all over the Allied world.”

According to British historian Sir Max Hastings, “no single Allied failure had more important consequences on the European battlefield than the lack of tanks with adequate punch and protection.” The Sherman, he added, was one of the Allies’ “greatest failures.”

https://militaryhistorynow.com/2017/09/12/tank-busting-blowing-up-the-myth-of-the-mighty-m4-sherman/

Max Hastings is a journalist - and a fine one. Russell Weigley, who also gets quoted, was a historian, and a fine one, but unfortunately knew little about the actual history of American tank development.

On the other hand, Christian M. DeJohn, who wrote the article quoting Hastings, is a well-known crank on the order of Belton Cooper and He Who Shall Not Be Mentioned. The article is filled with inaccuracies, non sequitur, and typos - "Lewin" Campbell, for example, was Levin Campbell, Chief of Ordnance. James Jones actually said nothing about the "Sherman", so what does he have to do with anything? Like too many, he likes "comparing" the Medium Tank M4 with the Panther, Koenigstiger, and Stalin and "quoting" out of context.

Rubbish.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Max Hastings not so long ago praised the tactical superiority of the Germans, something along the lines of 'They were better than us.' Which probably gets your latest book sold, but somewhat explains how the Germans kept being beaten from 1943 on if it were true. He has written good books, his book on the Korean war remains excellent. But he is a Journalist, with all the positives and negatives that implies.

41 minutes ago, RichTO90 said:

Because of course no one except the Soviets had realized the advantages of sloped armor? 🤣

Exactly. Even the Matilda II had sloped armour. For that matter, so did the Sherman.

[RichTO90]

42 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Max Hastings not so long ago praised the tactical superiority of the Germans, something along the lines of 'They were better than us.' Which probably gets your latest book sold, but somewhat explains how the Germans kept being beaten from 1943 on if it were true. He has written good books, his book on the Korean war remains excellent. But he is a Journalist, with all the positives and negatives that implies.

The Germans in general were tactically superior for most of the war. Their doctrine, TTPs, and small unit leadership were generally excellent, better on average than any of the Allies. OTOH, that is on average, there were better and worse on both sides, but for most of the war the average Landser had better basic and small unit training and stronger small unit leadership, and weapons well-designed for the doctrine and tactics employed.

[glenn239]

1 hour ago, RichTO90 said:

Because of course no one except the Soviets had realized the advantages of sloped armor? 🤣

I was curious so I asked a guy that's a WW2 armor enthusiast.   

 

To my knowledge, no they did not experiment with sloped armor before the T-34 was encountered.

Germans thought that their non-sloped armor was adequate for anti tank weapons of the time. This attitude was likely a combination of arrogance (they still believed the armor was adequate even after running up against some good French/British tanks and suffering heavy losses in May 1940) and not being aware of the advanced state of the Russian tank industry. The loss in interior space/ergonomics/etc when using sloped armour may have also been a consideration but this is speculative on my part.

In late 41 a program was launched to investigate German tank losses in Russia (which were far higher than expected). The result of this was a technical study of Russian tanks including the T-34, and this eventually lead to the Panther. Only studying the tanks after Barbarossa was not an oversight -- the advanced state of the Russian tank industry was not known in Germany and they were caught offguard when T-34s (and more convention crap such as KVs) appeared on the battlefield. 

As for whether they “copied” the sloped armor from the Russians? I don’t know if I’d say that. Certainly they were familiar with the concept beforehand. It may be more accurate to say that they were “encouraged” to adopt it after the Russians demonstrated its combat effectiveness. I don’t think the Germans truly appreciated how useful it was until they encountered the T-34.

As an aside: the develop program that lead to the Panther is interesting. Some people think the Panther was designed to be the “German T-34”. It was not – the program that lead to the Panther evolved from essentially a T-34 direct copy (the German government did like the concept of that), to an improved “Germanified” T-34, to finally the first “main battle tank” (Panther). Some interesting prototypes were made during various stages, including the VK3001DB which is far more of a T-34 copy than the Panther.
 

[bojan]

4 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

...To my knowledge, no they did not experiment with sloped armor before the T-34 was encountered...

Sure, nothing sloped there.

[RichTO90]

58 minutes ago, bojan said:

Sure, nothing sloped there.

But, but, but, he "asked a guy that's a WW2 armor enthusiast"!

You would do better to put that one on ignore. Improves the ambiance of this Grate Sight quite a bit if you ignore shitposting and shitposters.

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 hour ago, RichTO90 said:

The Germans in general were tactically superior for most of the war. Their doctrine, TTPs, and small unit leadership were generally excellent, better on average than any of the Allies. OTOH, that is on average, there were better and worse on both sides, but for most of the war the average Landser had better basic and small unit training and stronger small unit leadership, and weapons well-designed for the doctrine and tactics employed.

I'm struggling to find his actual quote, but I'm pretty sure it was something you would have scoffed at. He did write an article in 1985 asserting they had the better army, which was bad enough.