Hitler's last gasp...

[Oddball]

And let's not forget this badboy, the Shrman firefly, one of the best tanks ever to see combat.

The Firefly was one of those Brit variations and upgrades upon the American theme that the Americans --for some unfathomable reason-- were recalcitrant to accept.

Fercryinoutloud, boys, the 17lb gun was the Allied answer to the 88!!

 

[Xenophon]

A lot of the Pz III J/L/N models were re-equipped with the high velocity 75mm gun.
Panzer III Ausf. N (PzKpfw IIIN)

The Pz IV was a better tank than anything the Americans had until the Pershing.

In any case we're both right in that the tactics and misuse/misallocation of hardware are what lost the battle and the war.

Have to disagree, the Pzkw IV was an old design, hard to manufacture and had flat plate armor with no sloping, whereas the standard M4 had well sloped armor.

A good gun (not superior to the US 76mm or the British 17pounder, both used on Shermans) could not make up for the IV's outdated design.

A standard Pzkw IVH had 80mm (3.15 inch) of armor on its forward vertical plate.

All shermans had 76mm frontal armor at a 30 degree angle, which is superior to the vertical plates of the ageing Krupp design.

 

[Oddball]

Pz IV: Low profile...Equal if not superior firepower....Didn't catch fire like a gasoline soaked rag.

Sherman: Only had the incidentally sloped armor on the front...Low velocity gun until the Easy-8...Gasoline engine with a vulnerable fuel tank.

I dunno....

 

[Ringel05]

A lot of the Pz III J/L/N models were re-equipped with the high velocity 75mm gun.
Panzer III Ausf. N (PzKpfw IIIN)

The Pz IV was a better tank than anything the Americans had until the Pershing.

In any case we're both right in that the tactics and misuse/misallocation of hardware are what lost the battle and the war.

Have to disagree, the Pzkw IV was an old design, hard to manufacture and had flat plate armor with no sloping, whereas the standard M4 had well sloped armor.

A good gun (not superior to the US 76mm or the British 17pounder, both used on Shermans) could not make up for the IV's outdated design.

A standard Pzkw IVH had 80mm (3.15 inch) of armor on its forward vertical plate.

All shermans had 76mm frontal armor at a 30 degree angle, which is superior to the vertical plates of the ageing Krupp design.

Hitler's mind set was still mainly WWI. He didn't fully appreciate many of the armored technological advancements, hence he always wanted bigger, not necessarily better. Hell when the Panther was in design competition stage the only other competitors' design was an improved version of the Russian T34 that was simple and easy to manufacture. Since it wasn't a purely German design it was rejected out of hand in favor of the Panther design, with all its German engineered complexities.

 

[Oddball]

Hitler's mind set was still mainly WWI. He didn't fully appreciate many of the armored technological advancements, hence he always wanted bigger, not necessarily better. Hell when the Panther was in design competition stage the only other competitors' design was an improved version of the Russian T34 that was simple and easy to manufacture. Since it wasn't a purely German design it was rejected out of hand in favor of the Panther design, with all its German engineered complexities.

You slope the armor on a Pz IV and modify the turret so it can hold an 88 and that tank wins the war.

 

[Ringel05]

Hitler's mind set was still mainly WWI. He didn't fully appreciate many of the armored technological advancements, hence he always wanted bigger, not necessarily better. Hell when the Panther was in design competition stage the only other competitors' design was an improved version of the Russian T34 that was simple and easy to manufacture. Since it wasn't a purely German design it was rejected out of hand in favor of the Panther design, with all its German engineered complexities.

You slope the armor on a Pz IV and modify the turret so it can hold an 88 and that tank wins the war.

I agree but if I remember my reading correctly, they studied the 88 option on the Pz IV and decided not to do it. I think it was because of the whole redesign issue. (Just don't go back in time and tell them).
In reality the biggest problem came down to production and logistics, logistics primarily in the eastern theater of operations.

 

[Oddball]

They had logistics coming out their ears.

The problem was that they had a CiC who wouldn't turn over military strategy to military strategists, or industrial production to industrial producers.

Not to derail, but if the Nazis attack the Kursk salient in May, with available hardware, they rout.

 

[Ringel05]

They had logistics coming out their ears.

The problem was that they had a CiC who wouldn't turn over military strategy to military strategists, or industrial production to industrial producers.

Not to derail, but if the Nazis attack the Kursk salient in May, with available hardware, they rout.

Not really, Multiple challenges on the eastern front. Russian rail gauge was different then the standard European and there were only to Russian rail lines running to that area. The Germans tried to extend standard gauge as fast as they could but weren't very successful in their efforts. That meant tons of supplies were continuously bottle necked at the two main transfer stations. Add to that the lack of available motor transport, cold, snow and the quagmire of mud during the spring and fall. Their most reliable transport were the hardy Russian horses and Panji carts, slow but they could get through anything.
Add on top of that the partisan activities which primarily targeted the supply lines and became much more effective as the German occupation went on. That doesn't even take into account the vast distances on the poorest roads. In that region a Russian highway was equivalent to a German cart track.

 

[elvis]

what if Hitler attacks in may 1941, not June? he had to wait because Mussolini wasn't doing so well in the Balkans. what if the von ribbentrop/malotov accord hadn't been signed, giving Russia the baltics?

 

[Ringel05]

what if Hitler attacks in may 1941, not June? he had to wait because Mussolini wasn't doing so well in the Balkans. what if the von ribbentrop/malotov accord hadn't been signed, giving Russia the baltics?

He was pissed at Mussolini because it forced him to set back his time table on Operation Barbarossa to deal with the problem in the Balkans plus the landing of British troops in Greece.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What I never understood is, how is it the Tiger and Panther were in production since 42 and 43, yet when we land at Normandy in June 44, we're facing them with tin cans with pop guns? What was the thinking at Army HQ regarding tank design?

 

[PatekPhilippe]

What I never understood is, how is it the Tiger and Panther were in production since 42 and 43, yet when we land at Normandy in June 44, we're facing them with tin cans with pop guns? What was the thinking at Army HQ regarding tank design?

Quantity and speed. A Sherman was faster than the Tigers, Tiger II's and Panther, had less maintenance per hour of operation and we were making them at 1 1/2 tanks per hour. The operational range of the Sherman exceeded some German tank designs as well. But one thing was of the utmost importance....fuel. We had gasoline coming out of our ears while the Germans had nearly none.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What I never understood is, how is it the Tiger and Panther were in production since 42 and 43, yet when we land at Normandy in June 44, we're facing them with tin cans with pop guns? What was the thinking at Army HQ regarding tank design?

Quantity and speed. A Sherman was faster than the Tigers, Tiger II's and Panther, had less maintenance per hour of operation and we were making them at 1 1/2 tanks per hour. The operational range of the Sherman exceeded some German tank designs as well. But one thing was of the utmost importance....fuel. We had gasoline coming out of our ears while the Germans had nearly none.

We'd have been better off building 1 better armored, better gunned tank per hour.

The diesel powered Soviet T-34 became a legitimate Tiger killer once it was mounted with the 85mm gun in late '43 I don't know why we were so, so, so late to catch on and why we insisted on learning the hard way when the Soviets already had a PhD in battling and defeating German armor.

 

[Xenophon]

What I never understood is, how is it the Tiger and Panther were in production since 42 and 43, yet when we land at Normandy in June 44, we're facing them with tin cans with pop guns? What was the thinking at Army HQ regarding tank design?

There are a lot of reasons for this.

The first is, the US 'froze' the Sherman design so they could mass produce it, and made their landing craft the correct size to carry it.

The next is, US doctrone was that US tanks were for rapid movement, true Biltzkrieg, not tank vs tank stuff, for that US doctrone insisted on tank destroyers.

These are just open top motor gun carriages, such as the M10 with a 76mm gun, and the M36 Jackson with a 90mm. The Pershing was actually held up because it was felt it would not be needed!!

The final piece is, the US relied on air and artillery far more then any other power, the enemy was litteraly burried in shells before they could get near US forces was the idea.