Tank dilemma

[Drago]

From the Vatican Guard?

 

[Joey Shabadoo]

Interesting site - https://wwiiafterwwii.wordpress.com/2015/05/24/idi-amins-shermans/

 

[Illaveago]

That piece abou the early encounters could be said of nearly every tank though. They operate best in open country, not streets.

That is what they thought operation Goodwood would be like but it proved to be ideal for anti tank guns.

 

[Yellow Fang]

I've been looking up what the Americans thought of the Firefly. It's surprising the number who say it wasn't really any better than a standard Sherman once it had been upgraded with the 76mm gun, or the Easy 8 Sherman with the improved suspension. They says the ergonomics in the Firefly was poor. That tanks weren't designed to fight tanks. Cobblers, American tank crews would have ripped your arm off if they'd been offered a swap.

 

[Yellow Fang]

I went to Bovington Tank Museum today.


Sherman Firefly, Cromwell, Churchill

And this is what they were up against:


Tiger, Panther, Panzer IV

 

[ozboz]

I am thinking of changing my vote. I was reading about Tiger tank ace Michael Wittmann. He left a trail of carnage at Villers-Bocage. In quarter of an hour he destroyed thirteen or fourteen tanks, two anti-tank guns, thirteen to fifteen transport vehicles. Well, most of them, there were several other Tigers in his platoon. I read this sorry state of affairs was largely put down to the incompetence of the British commanding officers. Anyway, Wittmann was finally put out of action for good after he fell into a British-Canadian Firefly trap.

I saw that programme, the gun on that firefly which fired that shot ( for those who didn't see the prog) literally blew the turret off Whittmans tiger ,
The Allied crews that were in that attack played it right , laid in wait , moved out as the Tigers rumbled about and bagged him ,
A tank is a mobile gun platform , having them lined up and charging at each other was not the best way to utilise these weapons , from what I was told when in the Army there were heavy losses in N Africa and the Battle of the Bulge due to those these charging tactics

 

[Illaveago]

A lot of our tank losses weren't due to tank versus tank situations but we're taken out by concealed anti tank guns and sometimes the lack of coordination between different sections of the army. I think there were some gains made by a squadron of tanks in Operation Goodwood which had to be given up due to lack of support.
I think I saw a programme which said that the attack carried out by Whittman at Villers Bocage would have resulted in a similar way regardless of what tanks we had.
The fact that the American Army officials refused to equip their tanks with the 17 pounder and so make them more available to the allies, even when asked to be equipped with the gun by their own tank crews would have put them at a disadvantage. Even Eisenhower complained when the gun the officials chose as a replacement for the 75mm proved to be worse.
The Axis forces certainly didn't like it when our forces were equipped with a comparable gun.

 

[Drago]

I see in the news this week some interesting info on the tank front.

The militaries of the world regarded the German Leopard as the tank to have. Agile, fast, big gunned, well armoured. All the western armies dribbled at the sight of them.

The Turks have some Leopards and have sent them in to Northern Syria in their pogrom against the Kurds. Alas, the Leopards are getting hit very badly and being knocked out. The question now arises as to whether there is some major flaw in the Leopards design, or whether the Turks, who aren't famed for their effective military doctrine, are simply deploying them like muppets.

 

[Illaveago]

I see in the news this week some interesting info on the tank front.

The militaries of the world regarded the German Leopard as the tank to have. Agile, fast, big gunned, well armoured. All the western armies dribbled at the sight of them.

The Turks have some Leopards and have sent them in to Northern Syria in their pogrom against the Kurds. Alas, the Leopards are getting hit very badly and being knocked out. The question now arises as to whether there is some major flaw in the Leopards design, or whether the Turks, who aren't famed for their effective military doctrine, are simply deploying them like muppets.

I don't know which ones they are using but I have read in a couple of books regarding the Challenger 1 and it's replacement, that the Leopard tank was one of the tanks tested in the competition. I think that there were certain aspects of the Leopard that our test team didn't like.
What came up in the book was how much punishment the Challenger's predecessor the Cheiftain could take as proven in the Iran Iraq war.
It is interesting that I think this is the first time that the Leopard has been tested in combat .

 

[Drago]

I think the Turks have underestimated the Kurds. Well trained in conventional and guerrilla tactics, well equipped, and very well motivated. They're not going to roll over like the Cypriots did in '73.

Indeed, folk forget that Turkey maintains an illegal army of occupation in Cyprus, and are responsible for human rights abuses on the island. Its fashionable to single out Israel, or occasionally Russia over Crimea, but Turkey, who are every bit as naughty, never gets a mention.

 

[Profpointy]

I went to Bovington Tank Museum today.

View attachment 394327 View attachment 394328 View attachment 394329
Sherman Firefly, Cromwell, Churchill

And this is what they were up against:

View attachment 394330 View attachment 394331 View attachment 394332
Tiger, Panther, Panzer IV

Look at production numbers. From wiki

Total axis tank numbers manufactured - some 49000. Of those 6500 were panthers and less than 2000 tigers of both types. Ok there were assault guns as well but its a figure

Something like 49000 shermans were produced - as many as all types of german tanks put together. And the sherman was as good or better than any but the tiger or panther, and likely more relaible than either.

The russians built rather more t34s of various models as well

If you say the shermans balance the non tigers, that still leaves 50000 t34s to deal with the 2000 tigers.

And that's not even reckoning the churchills crommwells matildas, is and kv heavy tanks, lees, grants, french tanks in 1940 etc etc

 

[Dirk]

I wouldn't want to be in any tank, if the opposition was capable of putting any of these in the air.....

 

[Drago]

Oh aye, you've just gotta love the Longbow. Its a shame the RAH-66 Comanche scout and attack helicopter was binned after only a couple of prototypes.

 

[Yellow Fang]

A lot of our tank losses weren't due to tank versus tank situations but we're taken out by concealed anti tank guns and sometimes the lack of coordination between different sections of the army. I think there were some gains made by a squadron of tanks in Operation Goodwood which had to be given up due to lack of support.
I think I saw a programme which said that the attack carried out by Whittman at Villers Bocage would have resulted in a similar way regardless of what tanks we had.
The fact that the American Army officials refused to equip their tanks with the 17 pounder and so make them more available to the allies, even when asked to be equipped with the gun by their own tank crews would have put them at a disadvantage. Even Eisenhower complained when the gun the officials chose as a replacement for the 75mm proved to be worse.
The Axis forces certainly didn't like it when our forces were equipped with a comparable gun.

The Americans did cock up big time. Apparently the turret was sent across for evaluation, but they did not rate its accuracy. They had their own tank killers in development. Besides there was some doctrine that tanks don't fight tanks. Basically you suspect the American evaluators discounted it for patriotic reasons. Yes the Pershing was better but it was not ready in time.

 

[Drago]

Anyone here a fan of the Maus?

http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2-german-prototypes/panzer_maus.php