Matrix Games Forums

Characters of World War 1Sign of for the Pike and Shot Beta!More Games are Coming to Steam! Deal of the Week: Combat Command Return to the Moon on October 31st! Commander: The Great War iPad Wallpapers Generals of the Great WarDeal of the Week Panzer CorpsNew Strategy Titles Join the FamilyTablet Version of Qvadriga gets new patch
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Sherman Tanks and Panthers

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command Ops Series >> Sherman Tanks and Panthers Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Sherman Tanks and Panthers - 5/22/2013 11:48:50 PM   
Haudrauf1962

 

Posts: 430
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Plymouth, MA, USA
Status: offline
I tried a scenario with the newest patch and was a bit puzzled, that 6 Sherman tanks were able to drive around unharmed for hours during day time and with a line of sight in about 1000 to 1500 meters distance form a company of 12 German Panthers. In the real war those Sherman's had a life expectancy of minutes due to the effective and precise gun of the Panther.

Am I missing something or is this wanted as designed??

_____________________________

Haudrauf

Life is too short to drink bad wine ;-)
Post #: 1
RE: Sherman Tanks and Panthers - 5/22/2013 11:57:36 PM   
danlongman

 

Posts: 393
Joined: 3/27/2012
From: Over the hills and far away
Status: offline
Sometimes I wonder just how much time those Panzertruppen actually spent inside their machines.
You know with everybody eating SauerKraut and pumperknickle and drinking stale beer they prolly spent a lot of time standing
around outside dreading the order to get in just to go shoot half a dozen Shermies. Maybe they wouldn't bother til there were more...

_____________________________

"Patriotism: Your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." - George Bernard Shaw

(in reply to Haudrauf1962)
Post #: 2
RE: Sherman Tanks and Panthers - 5/23/2013 12:01:46 AM   
Haudrauf1962

 

Posts: 430
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Plymouth, MA, USA
Status: offline
That must be it !!

_____________________________

Haudrauf

Life is too short to drink bad wine ;-)

(in reply to danlongman)
Post #: 3
RE: Sherman Tanks and Panthers - 5/23/2013 8:10:00 AM   
dazkaz15


Posts: 1196
Joined: 12/14/2012
Status: offline
Hi Haudrauf

I think you need to send in some screen shots for us to try and answer that.

Was there any fog, or rain at the time limiting visibility?
Any kind of hill obstruction in the way?
Did the Panthers have ammo? (armour piercing ammo, HE would not work on the Sherman's)
Was its aggression set to min?
Where there other targets that the Panthers may have been concentrating on?
Was it fatigued?
Where they being suppressed , by artillery or other incoming ant-tank fire?
Where they retreating, or retreat recovering?
What was the Intel level on the enemy Sherman's?
What was the formation, and facing of the two units?
What was the deployment of the two units? (moving, deployed, taking cover, dug in, entrenched)
What was the difference in elevation? (units on a hill get a bonus on ones lower down, Not sure if this applies to attack or defence, or both though)
Was ambush selected as an order option?
What kind of terrain where they both in? (different terrain affords different bonuses to defence from direct fire, and bombardment)
What did the threat indicator tool say about the Sherman's? Did the Panthers consider them a threat?



The units do seam to be a lot more resilient than they used to be for sure, but that applies to both sides.

< Message edited by dazkaz15 -- 5/23/2013 8:43:33 AM >

(in reply to Haudrauf1962)
Post #: 4
RE: Sherman Tanks and Panthers - 5/23/2013 4:22:33 PM   
Haudrauf1962

 

Posts: 430
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Plymouth, MA, USA
Status: offline
Hi Dazkaz,

I checked those factors. I think yo are right that units die a lot harder than during the war. An Infantry company in open terrain, not dug in and shelled by mortars, artillery and 30 Panthers should also have a very short life span, at least you'd expect high casualties very quickly, but they are all real die hards.

Sometimes units literally sit on top of each other and still both get away with moderate casualties. Also penetrating a forrest line seems to be way to easy. Units just slip in although hammered by machine guns from several angles and walk on behind your lines as if nothing ever happened to them.

The game is a lot of fun, but I'd say the combat model lacks realism in certain situations. I still try to figure out how to avoid the enemy just walk behind my lines and mess with my supply.

_____________________________

Haudrauf

Life is too short to drink bad wine ;-)

(in reply to dazkaz15)
Post #: 5
RE: Sherman Tanks and Panthers - 5/24/2013 12:09:05 AM   
Arjuna


Posts: 17769
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline
Yes screen shots and saves are essential.

_____________________________

Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor
www.panthergames.com

(in reply to Haudrauf1962)
Post #: 6
RE: Sherman Tanks and Panthers - 5/24/2013 12:55:48 PM   
rfrizz


Posts: 88
Joined: 4/7/2011
Status: offline
Saved games are also good for you, are they not? Ex: I have a situation saved in which my arty won't fire because of "friendlies in the way" even though there are none of my units with a footprint close enough to be a problems.

Another is the frequent inability to click on the "cross" of a destroyed/surrendered/disbanded enemy unit to see which one it was.


Do you want to see these?

(in reply to Arjuna)
Post #: 7
RE: Sherman Tanks and Panthers - 5/24/2013 2:19:20 PM   
dazkaz15


Posts: 1196
Joined: 12/14/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rfrizz

Saved games are also good for you, are they not? Ex: I have a situation saved in which my arty won't fire because of "friendlies in the way" even though there are none of my units with a footprint close enough to be a problems.

Another is the frequent inability to click on the "cross" of a destroyed/surrendered/disbanded enemy unit to see which one it was.


Do you want to see these?

If I remember right, there is a 100m zone around the bombardment area to allow for stay rounds. If you want to fire Danger close, you can uncheck the avoid friendlies box in the fire orders menu.

(in reply to rfrizz)
Post #: 8
RE: Sherman Tanks and Panthers - 5/24/2013 4:26:43 PM   
jimcarravallah

 

Posts: 536
Joined: 1/4/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rfrizz

Saved games are also good for you, are they not? Ex: I have a situation saved in which my arty won't fire because of "friendlies in the way" even though there are none of my units with a footprint close enough to be a problems.

Another is the frequent inability to click on the "cross" of a destroyed/surrendered/disbanded enemy unit to see which one it was.


Do you want to see these?


First thing I'd do with this message is check to see if the fire is direct or indirect fire.

If there's a line of sight between the firing unit and the target, it can be direct fire, particularly if the firing unit does not have weapons capable of conducting indirect fire, or the range to target is below the minimum allowed for indirect fire.

_____________________________

Take care,

jim

(in reply to rfrizz)
Post #: 9
RE: Sherman Tanks and Panthers - 5/25/2013 8:32:36 AM   
rfrizz


Posts: 88
Joined: 4/7/2011
Status: offline
For clarification, the closet unit's footprint edge was more than 600m from the edge of bombardment. I don't know why I didn't think to uncheck the Avoid Friendlies box. Durrr.

(in reply to jimcarravallah)
Post #: 10
RE: Sherman Tanks and Panthers - 6/5/2013 7:25:11 AM   
RockinHarry


Posts: 2948
Joined: 1/18/2001
From: Germany
Status: offline
Well, if considering the Shermans all have an overall frontal armor of 100mm +, there´s some issues, the more when paired with elite/high morale units, like in Return to St. Vith maybe. I repeatedly cursed lacking performance of german armor in there and german player is far from repeating historical successes vs. US medium armor, particularly with small units. At least it is so in St Vith IMO.

The single, averaged armor values (as opposed to seperated hull/turret) also give some problems, if considering deployed units receive hull down position bonus, making Shermans a small target with still 100mm + "turret" armor, although actually there is no seperated calculation for "turrets".

_____________________________

RockinHarry in the web:

http://www.myspace.com/rockinharryz
http://www.youtube.com/user/rockinharryz
https://www.facebook.com/harry.zann

(in reply to rfrizz)
Post #: 11
RE: Sherman Tanks and Panthers - 6/5/2013 11:22:13 AM   
dazkaz15


Posts: 1196
Joined: 12/14/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rfrizz

For clarification, the closet unit's footprint edge was more than 600m from the edge of bombardment. I don't know why I didn't think to uncheck the Avoid Friendlies box. Durrr.


Sorry if you think this insults your intelligence, but sometimes its easy to miss details that others take for granted.

You are aware that the footprint for the unit often extends way beyond the actual unit icon you see on screen.
You can see this when you click on the unit, and you will see an open ended box that extends around it. It is shaped depending on the formation, and can often extend way beyond the unit counter Icon, especially with large units in road column formation.
Your men are inside this area in formation, all be it in an abstracted kind of way, as the formation footprints in the current Version of Command ops wont follow roads and tracks exactly, but stays in a kind of strait line.
Hopefully this will be addressed one day in a major game engine update.

(in reply to rfrizz)
Post #: 12
RE: Sherman Tanks and Panthers - 6/12/2013 7:28:36 PM   
rfrizz


Posts: 88
Joined: 4/7/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dazkaz15


quote:

ORIGINAL: rfrizz

For clarification, the closet unit's footprint edge was more than 600m from the edge of bombardment. I don't know why I didn't think to uncheck the Avoid Friendlies box. Durrr.


Sorry if you think this insults your intelligence, but sometimes its easy to miss details that others take for granted.

You are aware that the footprint for the unit often extends way beyond the actual unit icon you see on screen.
You can see this when you click on the unit, and you will see an open ended box that extends around it. It is shaped depending on the formation, and can often extend way beyond the unit counter Icon, especially with large units in road column formation.
Your men are inside this area in formation, all be it in an abstracted kind of way, as the formation footprints in the current Version of Command ops wont follow roads and tracks exactly, but stays in a kind of strait line.
Hopefully this will be addressed one day in a major game engine update.


No prob -- I didn't feel insulted it all.

It was really strange clicking on all nearby units and seeing the actual footprints nowhere near the bombardment box. Someone asked about this; is was bombard and not direct fire.

(in reply to dazkaz15)
Post #: 13
RE: Sherman Tanks and Panthers - 6/18/2013 11:11:10 PM   
GoodGuy

 

Posts: 1501
Joined: 5/17/2006
From: Cologne, Germany
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: RockinHarry

Well, if considering the Shermans all have an overall frontal armor of 100mm +, there´s some issues, the more when paired with elite/high morale units, like in Return to St. Vith maybe. I repeatedly cursed lacking performance of german armor in there and german player is far from repeating historical successes vs. US medium armor, particularly with small units. At least it is so in St Vith IMO.

The single, averaged armor values (as opposed to seperated hull/turret) also give some problems, if considering deployed units receive hull down position bonus, making Shermans a small target with still 100mm + "turret" armor, although actually there is no seperated calculation for "turrets".


Hi Rockinharry!

I agree with you regarding the averaged value, and with you assessing that it's a problem not to factor in the different thickness of turret and frontal armor, if the CO engine really generalizes like that.

I don't know whether you gathered that info (100mm) from the unit/tank detail screen (since I don't own BFTB) or if it reflects your state of knowledge/information, though.

So let me copy and paste a contribution I posted in the Close Combat forum in 2008:

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoodGuy

quote:

ORIGINAL: User statement

I wouldn't say the Sherman is overpowered. Remember you are generally dealing with 76mm armed Shermans, not the earlier 75mm version. The 76mm, with it's weakest round, (APCBC) will penetrate 88mm of armor at 1 kilometer. The Panther doesn't have that level of armor anywhere other than the turret face and gun mantlet. The Sherman with 76mm M1 should be able to penetrate the hull easily from the front at the engagment ranges typical in this game.

Nope.
The Panther's regular AP round could penetrate 111 mm of armor at 1 km, where the special round (with tungsten core) could penetrate 150 mm of armor at the same distance, the production of these special rounds had to be halted in July 1943, due to the lack of sufficient amounts of tungsten, though. The Panther's 75mm gun had more penetration power than the Tiger's 88mm gun.

Regarding the Panther's protection, I don't know if you know the numbers regarding its armor, and you seem to forget to consider the slope modifiers:

The Panther Ausf. G's (March 1944) gun mantlet consisted of 120 mm armor (curved), the turret face had around 100-110mm of armor. The upper front's armor (driver/radio operator compartment) featured 80mm of armor (35°). The lower front (35° as well) had only 60mm armor, but a hit at this part of the tank was unlikely to happen, as it was part of the tub floor.

So, the only parts where a Sherman commander could hope to penetrate the Panther were those plates which were almost vertical (turret face, 80°), but the Sherman's shells then still had to go through 100-110 mm of armor.

The glacis, the driver compartment part, had a slope of 35° !

That said, in a frontal engagement, a Sherman with a 76mm gun (using regular AP rounds) could only hope to penetrate the Panther's armor if engaging at really close range (below 200 yards), aiming at the less curved/sloped parts of the mantlet/turret or at the nose (the small lower part with 60mm armor), although shells actually used to bounce off even the 60mm parts, due to the slope. The slope modifiers reduced the effectiveness of the ACP or ACPBC rounds tremendously.

quote:

ORIGINAL: U.S. Army Test No.2
Firing Tests conducted 12-30 July 1944 by 1st U.S. Army in Normandy.

7) 3-inch Gun, M5, mounted on Motor Carriage, M10
a) APC M62, w/BDF M66A1 will not penetrate front glacis slope plate at 200 yards. Will penetrate gun mantlet at 200 yards and penetrate sides and rear of the 'Panther' Tank up to 1500 yards.

b) AP M79 will not penetrate the front slope plate or the mantlet at 200 yards. It holds no advantage over APC M62 ammunition w/BDF M66A1.


http://www.wargaming.info/armour06.htm#2

The tested 3 inch gun (76mm M5) was mounted on a M10 carriage, so, when looking at this US Army test, you have to consider the fact that the M5 guns basically fired the same shell as the 76mm Shermans, but the M5's rounds had different chambers, providing a somewhat higher velocity.

The British 17-pounder and the US 90mm rounds had 100% more chamber capacity than the M1 shell, thus way higher velocities. Last but not least, the M5 was a pure AT gun, not designed to be employed in Shermans.

The 76 mm M1 employed in the Shermans really had a waaaaay lower performance regarding penetration.

According to the US field test, the M10's M62 shell did not penetrate the Panther's sloped frontal armor (80mm - 35°) at 200 yards (182.88 meters).

The US thought they had a great upgrade for the Sherman (75), but they were really disappointed regarding the 76mm's actual performance in the field, when facing Panther tanks. The british employed a different gun in their Sherman "Firefly" variant (the 17 pounder AT gun i mentioned before, which was the most effective Allied AT gun during the war), which had an actual chance against a Panther. Their loss/kill ratio was better. The US passed when the Brits offered to share these guns.

According to what I've read so far, the US Sherman's usage ratio of AP and HE ammo was 1:4 even until the Korean war, they often avoided to engage heavier enemy battle tanks (like the Panther) as they used to be destroyed before they could score a substantial hit, and they passed the job to the tank destroyer units or Allied heavy battle tanks, while they were focusing on engaging Panzer IV and providing Infantry support.

When a Panther was hit, the Sherman's M1 rounds mostly just bounced off. With Panther Version A, there were rare instances, due to the Panther's gun mantlet design, where rounds bounced off the mantlet deflecting the projectile almost vertically right down into the driver compartment, killing either driver or radio operator. These Panthers were usually still operable as they could still use their guns - engine or ammunition did not blow off, and they could be repaired. Version G's gun mantlet design fixed this.

The 76mm gun's performance was actually rather comparable to the gun of the Panzer IV and the late long-barreled version of the StuG III.

The effectiveness of the new HVAP rounds (July 1944) had been discussed somewhere in this forum i think, it had a somewhat better chance of penetrating the Panther's armor (I found infos stating HVAP T-4 could penetrate up to 120 mm of armor, I tend to think that these tests had been conducted using vertical steel plates - 90°, though), but the vital fact here is that this type of ammo was not available in sufficient numbers, the actual slope modifiers of the Panther reduced its effectiveness anyways, so even with HVAP the glacis could not be cracked at close range. The glacis of a Panther was still largely immune to 76mm HVAP, due to the slope.

Also, the distribution of the low numbers of HVAP was prioritized to US tank destroyer units.

With HVAP rounds, the Sherman 76mm had an actual chance to penetrate a Panther when firing at the less curved parts of the mantlet/turret at close range, as these parts had a slope of 80°, the question is whether the projectile then really got all through the 100-120 mm armor.

The Sherman was badly outclassed by the Panther tank, especially if you consider the Panther's effectiveness at long range (it could penetrate 111 mm at 1000 meters with regular AP rounds), with a clear LOS - a Sherman could rarely get close. SHAEF estimated a loss ratio of 8:1 and even 10:1 (means loosing 8-10 Shermans before 1 Panther could be cracked). Mass production and storming with sheer numbers was the Allied strategy here, as sufficient numbers of heavy tanks were not available (20 Pershings in the European theater?). The few Pershings had been distributed to several units, where each unit received 1 Pershing tank.

The real downside of the Panther was its side and rear armor, both were relatively weak, the turret's side consisted of 45 mm (65°) of armor only, the hull (upper part) 50 mm (60°), the hull (lower part) 40 mm (90°) and the rear had 40 mm armor (60°).

.... if i am correct, an armor plate of 60mm sloped back at 60 degrees from the vertical (or , if you will, 30 degrees from the horizontal) would be the equivalent in protection to about 120mm. So the 80 mm sloped glacis of the Panther proved to be a nut too hard to crack for the Shermans.


I outlined the German advantage regarding tank and heavy gun optics in this forum already, like a year or 2 ago, an advantage dealing with view range - which adds to the general advantage the Panther had when it came to thickness of armor, its gun's precision and its design of the front glacis and turret face/mantlet.
On a sidenote, due to the advanced optics, even PzIV tanks could engage Shermans at ranges of ~1000 to 1200 meters and score a hit with the 1st or second round, which was well above the range where a Sherman crew could reliably identify/detect the enemy and where it took a Sherman 4 rounds to just score a hit (most likely no penetration in a frontal attack, as outlined in my little article above) at 800 meters, due to the inaccuracy of the gun and due to the amount of blur in their optics, according to veteran reports collected by Zaloga and others.

In turn, the M4 Sherman's glacis consisted of 76mm sloped armor, but which the Panther's gun could hit and penetrate easily, even at ranges of 1000 meters. The very first Easy-8 (M4A3E8 with the 76mm gun, counter-weight and muzzle-brake), the variant that was deployed as a test run, got to see combat in Europe in December 1944, but was only available in relatively low numbers, afaik. The Easy-2, while having better armor protection than a Tiger I, was even more seen as a "test run" of that version, with even fewer vehicles deployed to the European theatre, was generally equipped with the 75mm gun, with few exceptions, and meant as support tank to crack enemy fortifications.

After the firing tests in Normandy, it was pretty obvious to US Army executive officers, that Shermans, even if equipped with the 76mm gun, would be able to fight Pz.IV tanks and StugIII assault guns, but that they would be essentially ineffective (unless they would be sent as flanking force, attacking in numbers) during frontal attacks against Panther tanks. As a result, in the main, Shermans were withdrawn and deployed in an infantry support role, while Tank destroyers, AT guns or heavy tanks (if available) were supposed to combat Panthers, Tiger IIs and the like.

According to Zaloga, even in 1945, still only half of the M4 Shermans and variants had the 76mm gun, while the rest were still either equipped with the 75mm gun or with the 105mm howitzer, another indicator for shifting the Shermans from a tank combat role to an infantry support role.

It would be desirable if the CO engine would factor in these historical and technical facts.

< Message edited by GoodGuy -- 6/19/2013 10:20:48 AM >


_____________________________

"Aw Nuts"
General Anthony McAuliffe
December 22nd, 1944
Bastogne

---
"I've always felt that the AA (Alied Assault engine) had the potential to be [....] big."
Tim Stone
8th of August, 2006

(in reply to RockinHarry)
Post #: 14
RE: Sherman Tanks and Panthers - 6/19/2013 1:52:00 PM   
RockinHarry


Posts: 2948
Joined: 1/18/2001
From: Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoodGuy


Hi Rockinharry!

I agree with you regarding the averaged value, and with you assessing that it's a problem not to factor in the different thickness of turret and frontal armor, if the CO engine really generalizes like that.

I don't know whether you gathered that info (100mm) from the unit/tank detail screen (since I don't own BFTB) or if it reflects your state of knowledge/information, though.



M4 Sherman armor values is from ingame data tables and armor is averaged to be at 30° slope (as is all AT gun Pen stuff). There´s multiple factors involved to resolve Armor vs. Armor performance, so I highly recommend to try the BFTB demo as is also includes the mentioned Return to St. Vith scenario.

_____________________________

RockinHarry in the web:

http://www.myspace.com/rockinharryz
http://www.youtube.com/user/rockinharryz
https://www.facebook.com/harry.zann

(in reply to GoodGuy)
Post #: 15
RE: Sherman Tanks and Panthers - 6/19/2013 8:53:58 PM   
Perturabo


Posts: 2261
Joined: 11/17/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: GoodGuy

After the firing tests in Normandy, it was pretty obvious to US Army executive officers, that Shermans, even if equipped with the 76mm gun, would be able to fight Pz.IV tanks and StugIII assault guns, but that they would be essentially ineffective (unless they would be sent as flanking force, attacking in numbers) during frontal attacks against Panther tanks. As a result, in the main, Shermans were withdrawn and deployed in an infantry support role, while Tank destroyers, AT guns or heavy tanks (if available) were supposed to combat Panthers, Tiger IIs and the like.

Weren't Shermans always intended for infantry support and breakthrough exploitation, not tank fighting?

_____________________________

Without social solidarity manifested in the form of welfare state, people inhabiting one territory are a non-nation of mortal enemies engaged in competition for survival.

(in reply to GoodGuy)
Post #: 16
RE: Sherman Tanks and Panthers - 6/19/2013 9:50:26 PM   
jimcarravallah

 

Posts: 536
Joined: 1/4/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

. . .

Weren't Shermans always intended for infantry support and breakthrough exploitation, not tank fighting?


Based on the doctrine at the time, they entered production with a design thought capable of defeating the best Axis had in the field (Pz IV) with a dual role of supporting the US infantry support and doctrine.

However, US design and development didn't keep pace with the Germans when it came to tank technology.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/540138/Sherman-tank


_____________________________

Take care,

jim

(in reply to Perturabo)
Post #: 17
RE: Sherman Tanks and Panthers - 6/20/2013 12:13:54 AM   
Perturabo


Posts: 2261
Joined: 11/17/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jimcarravallah


quote:

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

. . .

Weren't Shermans always intended for infantry support and breakthrough exploitation, not tank fighting?


Based on the doctrine at the time, they entered production with a design thought capable of defeating the best Axis had in the field (Pz IV) with a dual role of supporting the US infantry support and doctrine.

However, US design and development didn't keep pace with the Germans when it came to tank technology.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/540138/Sherman-tank


Taking in account that anything bigger than a SA-18 gun could kill any German tank at that time, it doesn't mean much. Also, the doctrine is the main reason why Sherman didn't keep pace with German tanks/wasn't replaced.
The main purpose of Sherman tanks was to swamp the enemy rears with medium tanks.

Which is similar to how stuff worked in 1940 for Germans. They had to use anti-air guns and 105mm guns against French Char B1 tanks, but had a lot of light and medium tanks to swamp places that didn't have French heavy/medium tanks.

_____________________________

Without social solidarity manifested in the form of welfare state, people inhabiting one territory are a non-nation of mortal enemies engaged in competition for survival.

(in reply to jimcarravallah)
Post #: 18
RE: Sherman Tanks and Panthers - 6/20/2013 12:08:39 PM   
jimcarravallah

 

Posts: 536
Joined: 1/4/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

quote:

ORIGINAL: jimcarravallah


quote:

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

. . .

Weren't Shermans always intended for infantry support and breakthrough exploitation, not tank fighting?


Based on the doctrine at the time, they entered production with a design thought capable of defeating the best Axis had in the field (Pz IV) with a dual role of supporting the US infantry support and doctrine.

However, US design and development didn't keep pace with the Germans when it came to tank technology.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/540138/Sherman-tank


Taking in account that anything bigger than a SA-18 gun could kill any German tank at that time, it doesn't mean much. Also, the doctrine is the main reason why Sherman didn't keep pace with German tanks/wasn't replaced.
The main purpose of Sherman tanks was to swamp the enemy rears with medium tanks.

Which is similar to how stuff worked in 1940 for Germans. They had to use anti-air guns and 105mm guns against French Char B1 tanks, but had a lot of light and medium tanks to swamp places that didn't have French heavy/medium tanks.


Well, then to put it into different terms, the Sherman had difficulty defeating a Panther because the Panther did not exist at the time the design criteria for the Sherman was written by the combat developers who were crafting a largely infantry support doctrine for US forces that included defeating the best tanks the enemy possessed at the time, the Pz IV.




_____________________________

Take care,

jim

(in reply to Perturabo)
Post #: 19
RE: Sherman Tanks and Panthers - 6/21/2013 3:17:46 AM   
Perturabo


Posts: 2261
Joined: 11/17/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jimcarravallah


quote:

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

quote:

ORIGINAL: jimcarravallah


quote:

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

. . .

Weren't Shermans always intended for infantry support and breakthrough exploitation, not tank fighting?


Based on the doctrine at the time, they entered production with a design thought capable of defeating the best Axis had in the field (Pz IV) with a dual role of supporting the US infantry support and doctrine.

However, US design and development didn't keep pace with the Germans when it came to tank technology.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/540138/Sherman-tank


Taking in account that anything bigger than a SA-18 gun could kill any German tank at that time, it doesn't mean much. Also, the doctrine is the main reason why Sherman didn't keep pace with German tanks/wasn't replaced.
The main purpose of Sherman tanks was to swamp the enemy rears with medium tanks.

Which is similar to how stuff worked in 1940 for Germans. They had to use anti-air guns and 105mm guns against French Char B1 tanks, but had a lot of light and medium tanks to swamp places that didn't have French heavy/medium tanks.


Well, then to put it into different terms, the Sherman had difficulty defeating a Panther because the Panther did not exist at the time the design criteria for the Sherman was written by the combat developers who were crafting a largely infantry support doctrine for US forces that included defeating the best tanks the enemy possessed at the time, the Pz IV.

Germans have changed their policy only after it turned out that they are facing masses of T-34s and KVs in Russia. After France they were still confident enough in the successful "tank destroyer policy" (letting 88s and 105s handle the heavy armour) to attack Russia without tanks capable of fighting heavy tanks.

Americans in Normandy faced a situation where only 30% of enemy tanks were Panthers or Tigers and generally they would be encountered in small numbers, which was more similar to the situation that Germans have faced in France than the situation that Germans have faced in Russia.

_____________________________

Without social solidarity manifested in the form of welfare state, people inhabiting one territory are a non-nation of mortal enemies engaged in competition for survival.

(in reply to jimcarravallah)
Post #: 20
RE: Sherman Tanks and Panthers - 6/21/2013 10:47:57 PM   
henri51


Posts: 1079
Joined: 1/16/2009
Status: offline

quote:

Germans have changed their policy only after it turned out that they are facing masses of T-34s and KVs in Russia. After France they were still confident enough in the successful "tank destroyer policy" (letting 88s and 105s handle the heavy armour) to attack Russia without tanks capable of fighting heavy tanks.


Correct me if my memory is defective, but as far as I remember, using 88s as an antitanmk weapon did not originate in the 1941 battle for France, but either in Africa or during the Operation Goodwood battle (Von Luck) against the British after the invasion of normandy. If so it could not have been a policy during the invasion of Russia.

Henri

(in reply to Perturabo)
Post #: 21
RE: Sherman Tanks and Panthers - 6/21/2013 11:44:32 PM   
Brindlebane


Posts: 43
Joined: 3/5/2013
Status: offline
88s were first used in the Spanish civil war by the Condor Legion i believe,as anti-tank and artillery.There were four versions of the 88 in the course of the war.Flak 18,36,37,41.I thought Rommel had revolutionised the use of the 88 in Africa also but apparently not.

(in reply to henri51)
Post #: 22
RE: Sherman Tanks and Panthers - 6/22/2013 2:03:12 AM   
Txema

 

Posts: 231
Joined: 5/9/2003
From: Basque Country
Status: online
Several 88s were also used in anti-tank role by Rommel at the infamous counter-attack executed by the allies at Arras, in 1940, during the battle of France.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Arras_(1940)

Txema

(in reply to Brindlebane)
Post #: 23
RE: Sherman Tanks and Panthers - 6/22/2013 9:00:18 PM   
Perturabo


Posts: 2261
Joined: 11/17/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: henri51


quote:

Germans have changed their policy only after it turned out that they are facing masses of T-34s and KVs in Russia. After France they were still confident enough in the successful "tank destroyer policy" (letting 88s and 105s handle the heavy armour) to attack Russia without tanks capable of fighting heavy tanks.


Correct me if my memory is defective, but as far as I remember, using 88s as an antitanmk weapon did not originate in the 1941 battle for France, but either in Africa or during the Operation Goodwood battle (Von Luck) against the British after the invasion of normandy. If so it could not have been a policy during the invasion of Russia.

They were already used in 1940 in France to destroy B1 and Matilda tanks. Most of B1 tanks destroyed by gunfire were destroyed by 88s and 105s. 88s had AP ammo at least since 1939 or even from the start.

Also, they were already used in AT role during Spanish Civil war.

But the use of heavy AA guns against tanks goes back even further - to WWI. In battle of Cambrai 88mm K-Flak guns have destroyed 64 British tanks.

By the way, Germans still got almost to Moscow (taking territory larger than both France and Poland together) despite not having heavy tanks and Russians having lots of them. They got into the superweapon fetishism only after they practically lost the war.

_____________________________

Without social solidarity manifested in the form of welfare state, people inhabiting one territory are a non-nation of mortal enemies engaged in competition for survival.

(in reply to Txema)
Post #: 24
RE: Sherman Tanks and Panthers - 6/23/2013 1:16:32 PM   
altipueri

 

Posts: 165
Joined: 11/14/2009
Status: offline
There were a couple of occasions when the 3.7 inch British AA gun was used in anti tank role - in the desert I think. Our great war department refused to consider developing an anti tank round for it.


(in reply to Perturabo)
Post #: 25
RE: Sherman Tanks and Panthers - 6/28/2013 6:10:29 AM   
GoodGuy

 

Posts: 1501
Joined: 5/17/2006
From: Cologne, Germany
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Perturabo


They were already used in 1940 in France to destroy B1 and Matilda tanks. Most of B1 tanks destroyed by gunfire were destroyed by 88s and 105s.


Correct. Mostly by 88mm Flak 36 units, others by howitzers (also used in Russia).

quote:

88s had AP ammo at least since 1939 or even from the start.


The original "Handbook for the artilleryman" from 1939 points out, that 88mm Flak 36 crews had shells with impact fuzes (direct fire mode, or ballistic artillery fire mode), time fuzes (AA-role or to lay series of air-bursts on enemy infantry in woods or over trenches/fortifications) and AP rounds at their disposal.
So it's safe to say that the 88mm Flak pieces had AP ammunition since 1939, at least.

quote:

Also, they were already used in AT role during Spanish Civil war.


What's your source for this?

Right at the beginning of the Spanish Civil War, Germany helped Franco with initial small arms deliveries and sent 2 warships to escort and protect Nationalist troop transports from Spanish West Africa through the Straight of Gibraltar to Southern Spain. Without that help the Coup would have failed right in the beginning already, most likely. During another operation, which took several months, around 15,000 troops were transported by German JU 52s (with quite some of them being Spanish Foreign Legion troops) from Spanish Morocco to Cadiz and Malaga in Spain. The most important factor, though, before the deployment of Germany's "Legion Condor", was the vital financial aid. The Germans founded a company for handling the financial and military aid, and obtained - as compensation for that aid - mining rights for (rare) raw materials amounting to 480 Million Reichsmark. The idea behind that was to secure vital raw materials for Germany's armament industry, such as tungsten, lead, copper, iron, tin, cobalt and nickel, resources that were then delivered to Germany until 1944.

Germany sent volunteers, the Luftwaffen unit "Legion Condor", small arms and the most important factor: vital amounts of money. Some sources indicate that light tanks were delivered as well, but afaik "high tech" weapons, such as modern AA guns, newest fighter planes etc. were not handed over.


EDIT:
quote:

ORIGINAL: Perturabo

Germans have changed their policy only after it turned out that they are facing masses of T-34s and KVs in Russia. After France they were still confident enough in the successful "tank destroyer policy" (letting 88s and 105s handle the heavy armour) to attack Russia without tanks capable of fighting heavy tanks.


The Russians didn't have masses of KV and T-34 tanks. On the onset of the German invasion, the Russians had ~960 T-34 and ~500 KV tanks, according to Erickson, which includes the rather low amount of KV-2 tanks, most likely.
These roughly 1500 tanks were concentrated into 5 corps (of a total of 29 mechanized corps).

While the appearance of KV-1 (and KV-2) tanks might have been an unpleasant surprise to the Germans, the appearance of the T-34 was a shock. A relatively low profile, sloped armor and decent mobility in difficult terrain could have presented a great showstopper for the German onslaught.

In reality, the Russians lost ~20,000 tanks in 1941 and lost more than 7 tanks for every German tank killed, according to Zaloga and Fowler. Krivosheev and Erickson assess that 2,300 of these losses (in 1941) must have been T-34s and more than 900 of them heavy tanks (mostly KVs).
That means that even replacements that just had left the factories and got handed over to the units, either got destroyed or broke down quickly as well. The mechanical reliability (eg. gearbox) of early T-34 was pretty low.
According to Solonin, the 5 Corps, that were equipped with the new tanks, had lost most of their T-34 and KV tanks within weeks only.
Zaloga concluded, that at least half of the losses during summer/autumn were the result of mechanical breakdowns, (subsequent) abandonment or lack of fuel, and not the result of direct fire from tanks or German artillery.

While there were situations where say a single KV-2 (rotated in and out of a group of around 5) was able to stop the bulk of a Recon Bn, and even the Division itself for 1 or 2 days, the fact that the Germans' mobile forces were equipped with radios consistantly, giving them a higher tactical mobility, enabled them to flank or ship around Russian heavy tanks, or to try to bring forward some 88s to either track or to destroy such tanks.

Also, unlike the rare situation described above, tactical handling of the precious Russian tanks was poor, quite often.

quote:

By the way, Germans still got almost to Moscow (taking territory larger than both France and Poland together) despite not having heavy tanks and Russians having lots of them. They got into the superweapon fetishism only after they practically lost the war.


The first sentence of your assessment is correct, I corrected your "lots of them" assessment above, already. Military planners and officers in charge of supplies and armament stressed - before the attack on Russia, that the level of supplies and fuel would not be sufficient to support the campaign for more than 6 months, where some materiels would even only last 3 months only. In a way, despite the capture of fuel and weapons depots, the stubborn Russian defense near Moscow in Winter 1941, the bad weather conditions and the corresponding partial immobility of forces at the front, and the massive loss of German vehicles during the Russian counter-offensive, saved the Germans from a total collapse of the supply system.
The German High Command ignored these warnings from the supply officers, as they saw the Russian military machine to be in shabby condition and most if not all of their tanks as outdated. They thought that the lack of firepower of the bulk of the German tanks and anti-tank guns could be made up by superior use of combined arms and higher mobility. A common thought was, that the war would be over by x-mas.

Superweapons:
The Germans had massive rail guns and mortars, which I would consider to range in that class, well before things went downhill.

Even though the Germans inspected captured T-34 tanks thoroughly, the Germans had experimented with sloped armor before, but it did not make it into more serious design phases. It seems like reports from the Russian front, about successful Russian T-34s raids or operations, resulted in plans for the predecessor of the Panther, the VK 20.02 (M), though.
Mass production of the Panther was then planned to start in late 1942 already, at a point where the Germans had rolled over the Crimea and where the fight in North Africa was still raging. Probably delivery problems of parts/resources (Allied bombing efforts started to increase too), probably coupled with problems caused by the design of the new undercarriage, delayed the start of the serial production, which finally started January 1943. The output numbers did not increase sufficiently until May 1943.
While the Panther wasn't exactly a superweapon, it was a perfect tool to counter the T-34 and even heavy tanks, and it was planned/designed way before the Germans had to go onto defensive.

Also, the Germans had examined the KV-2 and the T-35 and had figured that such beasts were unpleasant opponents, but not mobile enough to avoid being flanked. They were also really big targets for the German airforce. In general, the Germans saw such (Super)Heavy tanks as obsolete and outdated.

Only the Maus, the Super Heavy Tank project, started on direct order from Hitler (which he made in 1941 already), may have picked up elements of the Russian heavy and super heavy tank concepts.
Hitler envisioned superior armor and tremendous fire power, basically turning them into mobile fortresses or "rolling bunkers", though. Initially, 150 tanks were supposed to be produced. Difficulties with the engine (187 tons toal weight, a motor fuel engine that was supposed to deliver enough electricity for 2 E-engines acting as main drive) and Allied bombings delayed production and assembly of the 2 prototypes, so that the first Maus couldn't be assembled for testing before December 1943.

In turn, the Tiger II tank was supposed to be superior to every Allied tank out there. Due to the attempt to streamline the design of (shared) parts for the upcoming Panther II tank, the production of the first prototype was delayed until December 1943 (although ordered and planned to be finished in January 1943). The changing situation at the Russia front also influenced design and delayed the serial production even more, as better protection for the crews and better armament was favored over speed now. Specs for this tank were issued by the Heereswaffenamt in August 1942 already, though.
So if you consider this project to be "fetishism" too, then it was initiated well before Germany went onto the defensive.

I would agree with you if you would consider projects like the V2 or the Horton flying wing to be such fetishism, as the Germans hoped that these and other projects could lead to tools able to reach say New York for example, and eventually turn the tide in their favor. All these projects were based on long-term research and development either started before or early in the war, though, with the Nazi government really digging most of these concepts when things went downhill already, though.

< Message edited by GoodGuy -- 6/28/2013 1:00:45 PM >


_____________________________

"Aw Nuts"
General Anthony McAuliffe
December 22nd, 1944
Bastogne

---
"I've always felt that the AA (Alied Assault engine) had the potential to be [....] big."
Tim Stone
8th of August, 2006

(in reply to Perturabo)
Post #: 26
RE: Sherman Tanks and Panthers - 6/28/2013 8:31:58 AM   
Bletchley_Geek


Posts: 3052
Joined: 11/26/2009
From: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: GoodGuy
Germany sent volunteers, the Luftwaffen unit "Legion Condor", small arms and the most important factor: vital amounts of money. Some sources indicate that light tanks were delivered as well, but afaik "high tech" weapons, such as modern AA guns, newest fighter planes etc. were not handed over.


The direct military involvement of Nazi Germany in the Civil War was quite substantial, deploying equipment which would see a lot of action during WW2. Condor Legion didn't comprise just "voluntary" Luftwaffe personnel, was the blanket term that denominated the Wehrmacht expeditionary force into Spain (see Hugh Thomas, History of the Spanish Civil War, http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Spanish-Civil-Hugh-Thomas/dp/0141011610).

  • Luftwaffe component

    Arrived in Spain in November 1936, under the command of Von Sperrle and with Von Richtoffen as chief of staff. Regarding planes early in the war the Condor Legion was equipped with at least 48 Ju-52 for troop transport, so the part of the Spanish Army that supported Franco could ferry substantial amounts of personnel from the Spanish colony in Morocco.

    Here you have the OOB of the Condor Legion in November 1936

    Jagdgruppe J/88: 4 Heinkel He 51 staffeln (48 planes).
    Kampfgruppe K/88: 4 Junkers Ju 52 staffeln (48 planes).

    This Luftwaffe detachment latter included all the models which would later see action in the World War, He-111, Ju-88 which were used to bomb the Basque city of Gernika and Barcelona, as well as the Do-17 and a experimental Ju-87 unit (5 planes).

    Bf-109s were also deployed along the war fronts, although details on their organization are sketchy:

    http://www.zi.ku.dk/personal/drnash/model/spain/bf109.html

    piloted by either Luftwaffe personnel, or Spanish personnel trained by Lufwaffe officers.

  • Heer component

    A "proof of concept" battalion-size kampfgruppe, including AA and AT artillery, along with two Panzer "companies", equipped with 4 Panzer I each along with amored cars. This force was under the command of Von Thoma, and at some point during the war it had the 88mm.

    Later in the war, Von Thoma would take command of a German equipped and Spanish crewed armored unit (organized in four battalions), which had a decisive impact in the offensive that cut Catalonia (north eastern Spain) from the rest of the Spanish Republic in early 1938.

    There was also a Kriegsmarine component, which doubled in service of the blockade on weapons deliveries to Spain enacted by the ill-fated League of Nations (allowing weapons and materiel being delivered to Franco controlled harbors, of course).

    Compared with the Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany direct involvement was quite small but qualitatively substantial.

    I don't say "Germany" because there was a good deal of Germans (and Italians) fighting for the Spanish Republic in the International Brigades.

    EDIT: Whoops, I cut out something and forgot to glue the text together.

    < Message edited by Bletchley_Geek -- 6/28/2013 8:45:08 AM >


    _____________________________

    Nullius in Verba since February 2013 - http://panthergames.com
    -----
    Life in the Internets: http://steamcommunity.com/id/mvorkosigan
    ----
    I'm a real person as well: http://au.linkedin.com/in/miguelramirezjavega

    (in reply to GoodGuy)
  • Post #: 27
    RE: Sherman Tanks and Panthers - 6/28/2013 9:16:05 AM   
    Bletchley_Geek


    Posts: 3052
    Joined: 11/26/2009
    From: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia
    Status: offline
    Some more references (I don't want to derail the thread):

    Condor: The Luftwaffe in Spain 1936-1939
    Patrick Laureau, 2001
    http://www.amazon.com/Condor-The-Luftwaffe-Spain-1936-1939/dp/1902109104

    Hitler's Luftwaffe in the Spanish Civil War
    Raymond L. Proctor, 1989
    http://books.google.com.au/books/about/Hitler_s_Luftwaffe_in_the_Spanish_Civil.html?id=GBJpAAAAMAAJ&redir_esc=y

    Hitler And Spain: The Nazi Role In The Spanish Civil War, 1936-1939
    Robert H. Whealey, 2004
    http://books.google.com.au/books/about/Hitler_And_Spain.html?id=zB1vx7v5iC8C&redir_esc=y

    Regarding ground forces:

    Soldiers of Von Thoma: Legion Condor Ground Forces in the Spanish Civil War
    Lucas M. Franco, 2008
    http://www.amazon.com/Soldiers-Von-Thoma-Legion-Spanish/dp/076432926X

    There's a substantial review-spoiler on Amazon:

    quote:


    The Condor Legion is commonly associated only with Luftwaffe "volunteers" and aircraft, such as Werner Molders and Adolf Galland, (who flew both He-51 biplanes, and Bf-109s in Spain), as well as with the Stuka, Ju-52, and He-111 squadrons which assisted Franco's Nationalist forces.

    There was however, also a lesser known German Army ground contingent which befell beneath the overall aegis of the Condor Legion known as Gruppe IMKER (Group BEEKEEPER) commanded by a future general, Oberstleutnant Wilhelm Ritter von Thoma, which with his staff coordinated and maintained all direct communications to Germany. IMKER's Panzer units were codenamed Gruppe DROHNE (Group DRONE). These ground contingents were to establish training centers throughout Nationalist Spain for the following: infantry officers; infantry officer candidates; infantry NCOs; tank, antitank, and flamethrowing training; artillery training; and signals training.

    On September 20, 1936, the officers, NCOs, and men from the 1st and 2nd Battalions, Panzer Regiment 6 "Neuruppin" of the 3rd Panzer Division, were assembled at their base and asked by their commanders if they would be willing to participate in a foreign undertaking of historical significance. Before giving their answer, they were informed that to volunteer meant possible imprisonment if captured or, at worst, death. They accepted the challenge. They then stored all their personal belongings and were transported to Doberitz, near Berlin, and then onto to Stettin, where the 1st Panzer Company boarded the SS Passages and the 2nd Panzer Company boarded the SS Girgenti. Crated Panzerkampfwagen 1 Ausf. As and Bs, trucks, weapons, and ammunition were also placed on board below decks.

    On October 7, 1936, both ships entered Spanish waters and were met there by the pocket battleship Admiral Scheer, the Deutschland, and the torpedo boat See Adler. Later that day, the men were offloaded with the crates and traveled by rail from Seville to Caceres where they were welcomed by General Franco. Their first class of Spanish students began on October 22, 1936 and once the class was completed, the Spanish troops retained these tanks and took them to the front.

    The German training companies would then receive another supply of tanks to be used for the next training session. Army ground personnel in Spain never exceeded 600 men at any time. Besides the regular German Army personnel, a number of Germans residing in Spain, who were veterans of World War I, also participated as instructors and translators. These individuals were extremely valuable for not only had they mastered the Spanish language, but also understood the mentality of the Spanish soldier.

    All-in-all, 56,000 Spaniards took part in one or more of the training programs, a significant contribution to Franco's Nationalist cause. Whenever a need for technical services arose (infantry, artillery, signals, and anti-tank), there the Germans could be found. During the summer campaigns of 1937, they took over the means of all communications in Nationalist Spain, especially the telephone and telegraph at the fronts. Such operations were generally carried out by a mixed German/Spanish crew with German equipment and under German supervision.

    After the first Spanish tank companies had been trained, equipped, and sent to the front, German crews were then allowed to take an active part in the fighting (Thoma personally led the Nationalist armored attack on Madrid in November, 1936). They remained close to the Spanish companies, however, to advise and assist them if the occasion rose. It should be noted that while Luftwaffe volunteers were automatically rotated back to Germany, the Panzer troops could remain in Spain longer than the normal nine months if they wished.

    Von Thoma, for example, was active in Spain from 1936-1939, with only one leave at home. Also, all officers, NCOs, and men were promoted one full rank while in Spain, but were demoted back upon return to Germany. This compelling book contains both new historical information, color illustrations, and some never before published photographs.

    SOLDIERS OF VON THOMA: LEGION CONDOR GROUND FORCES IN THE SPANISH CIVIL WAR, 1936-1939 is in the truest sense of the phrase, a remarkable contibution to the military history of the Spanish Civil War-so much so that this book establishes itself, immediately, as the definitive work on the Condor Legion's ground contingent and its charismatic commander Oberstleutnant Wilhelm Ritter von Thoma.


    _____________________________

    Nullius in Verba since February 2013 - http://panthergames.com
    -----
    Life in the Internets: http://steamcommunity.com/id/mvorkosigan
    ----
    I'm a real person as well: http://au.linkedin.com/in/miguelramirezjavega

    (in reply to Bletchley_Geek)
    Post #: 28
    RE: Sherman Tanks and Panthers - 6/28/2013 11:30:40 AM   
    GoodGuy

     

    Posts: 1501
    Joined: 5/17/2006
    From: Cologne, Germany
    Status: offline
    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Bletchley_Geek

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: GoodGuy
    Germany sent volunteers, the Luftwaffen unit "Legion Condor", small arms and the most important factor: vital amounts of money. Some sources indicate that light tanks were delivered as well, but afaik "high tech" weapons, such as modern AA guns, newest fighter planes etc. were not handed over.


    The direct military involvement of Nazi Germany in the Civil War was quite substantial, deploying equipment which would see a lot of action during WW2. Condor Legion didn't comprise just "voluntary" Luftwaffe personnel, was the blanket term that denominated the Wehrmacht expeditionary force into Spain (see Hugh Thomas, History of the Spanish Civil War, http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Spanish-Civil-Hugh-Thomas/dp/0141011610).


    My statement you quoted was a list of components that were sent. By saying "volunteers" I meant volunteering forces of various types, then the "Legion Condor", and so on.

    The ground forces comprised of up to 3 (the number changed throughout the civil war, afaik) tank companies, an anti-tank commando and few support contingents, plus instructors from several different branches of the Army serving in spanish military schools. The Officers and NCOs of these tank companies were delegates from the German Panzerregiment 6, taking turns training the spanish crews and leading them into combat.

    quote:

    This force was under the command of Von Thoma, and at some point during the war it had the 88mm.

    If there was a 88mm (sources?), it surely must have been operated by German crews, especially since target acquisition and leading with the aiming device of a 88 in a direct fire role (aiming at a moving enemy tank) takes well trained crews. Hence my posting before, where I doubt that complex/sophisticated/new (high tech) equipment was handed over to Spanish troops. Even at the time, the Pz I was ordered and used as training vehicle only, despite its actual combat use by the German army from 1939 to its decomission in 1941.

    Also, IF there was a 88 deployed and used against tanks, as described by Perturabo, then this 88 must have served as part of the rear support elements, and not as part of the AT-commando, which was most likely equipped with Pak 36s or similar guns, or - even more likely - with anti-tank rifles, which could penetrate such tin cans like 1936 light tanks easily.

    quote:

    ...part of the Spanish Army that supported Franco could ferry substantial amounts of personnel from the Spanish colony in Morocco.


    I mentioned that part in my posting already. Ju 52s were also used for bombing missions, where in the very beginning the JU 52s did not have bomb bays or bomb mounts, bombs had to be dropped by the crew (by hand), according to vet accounts on German TV.

    quote:

    He-111, Ju-88 which were used to bomb the Basque city of Gernika and Barcelona, as well as the Do-17 and a experimental Ju-87 unit (5 planes).


    The HE-111 did not hit serial production stage before 1939, with the P and H-models. Heinkel produced batches of pre-series, and the Luftwaffe incorporated these into their ranks quickly, though:

    The very first plane of the A-mini series (7 planes) left the factory in May 1937, but all of these 7 planes were quickly sold to China, because the engines turned out to be too weak, and serial production was canceled. The B-series (300 planes), starting in January with the B-1 series, and later on the B-2 series, were bombers delivered to the Luftwaffe. The C-series was a civil version mini-series (5 planes delivered to Lufthansa), but the order was canceled because the airline assessed that the engines were too weak, so the planes (with canvas wings) ended up as recon planes for the Luftwaffe.

    Even though some sources indicate that 30 HE 111 B-2 were used by the Legion Condor for testing purposes eventually, starting around March 1937, the initial bombing of Guernica was executed by a single Do-17, which then led 3 Italian Savoia-Marchetti SM.79 medium bombers to the target area around 10 minutes later, followed by 27 Ju 52 bombers dropping their bombs around 90 minutes later. Escorts comprised of German HE-51 fighters of the 3rd squadron of Jagdgruppe 88 and Bf 109s of the 1st and 2nd squadron of Jagdgruppe 88.
    The Kampfgruppe 88, with the Jadggruppe 88 (fighter group) the main component of the Legion Condor, received the first HE 111 in late April 1937, several days after the bombing of Guernica, but did not had full complements of HE 111 squadrons at its disposal, at first.

    Initially, the Ju 52s used to be the main bomber component of the Kampfgruppe 88, until the appearance of fast Russian fighter models had made daylight bombings almost impossible, due to their (the Ju 52s) low speeds. After additional crew training for the new types in germany, the experimental "Versuchsbomberstaffel 88" ("test bomber squadron") had received 4 HE 111, 4 Do-17 and 4 JU-86D in February, and eventually, in August 1937, the experimental squadron was dissolved, its HE 111 planes incorporated into the Kampfgruppe 88 (as 4th Squadron), while its Do-17 were re-assigned to the Recon Squadron 88. All remaining Ju86D were deemed to be obsolete and were handed over to Fanco's airforce, the Aviacion Nacional, as the Legion was going to receive 3 Ju-87A in January 1938, with the following delivery of 2 JU-87A during the Battle at the Ebro in July 1938. Later on, these 5 planes were replaced by 5 new JU-87B.

    quote:

    There was also a Kriegsmarine component, which doubled in service of the blockade on weapons deliveries to Spain enacted by the ill-fated League of Nations (allowing weapons and materiel being delivered to Franco controlled harbors, of course).


    I roughly outlined that already when I mentioned the 2 warships. Now, I could have mentioned that there were a couple of German submarines involved, with more or less fruitless missions, as the Germans feared that the unmarked subs could have started an international uproar, if their origin had been discovered, where that risk made them pull out the subs out of the mediterranean eventually, and I could have mentioned general German patrol operations conducted by surface vessels to control shipping lines (as part of an international effort to block approaches to Spanish harbours, officialy) in favor of the Nationalists, but I tried to keep my posting short.

    quote:

    Compared with the Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany direct involvement was quite small but qualitatively substantial.


    Correct assessment. My original point was, though, that the "high tech" equipment, maybe with the exception of some light tanks/outdated tanks of German origin (the Panzer I you mentioned), was operated by German personnel and not handed over to Franco's troops. Equipment deemed to be outdated (it's possible that monoplanes or biplanes with open cockpits, like the HE-50 and the Hs 123, might have been handed over, but there are sources that clearly indicate that the outdated JU-86s bombers were handed over), was given to the Aviacion Nacional, where all of these planes were in fact used planes with a high amount of operation hours on their belts, already. Considering how much maintenance pre-war planes and their engines needed, and the low amount of operation hours before parts and engines had to be overhauled and/or replaced completely, this equipment was almost scrap.

    In general, both sides - Nationalist troops and Republican troops - were forced to use a high amount of outdated equipment, with the Republicans having advantages regarding materiel quality (in terms of firepower or operation hours) and quantity at the beginning, and with the Nationalists, despite the support from Italy, Germany and few other sources, being forced to use captured outdated Republican equipment as well. Vital numbers of the Republicans' small arms were up to 60 yrs old, as they had to obtain weapons on the international weapon market, with 30 different sources eventually. The only semi-high tech tools there might have been the russian (monoplane) fighter planes, actually.

    For training purposes, Spanish nationalists were accepted into the ranks of Kampfgruppe 88, starting in August 1938.

    quote:

    I don't say "Germany" because there was a good deal of Germans (and Italians) fighting for the Spanish Republic in the International Brigades.


    Of the 35-40000 troops of the "international brigades", around 5000 were Germans, indeed. The Germans, the 4000 Italians and 7500 French, the 3000 Polish citizens and 2800 Americans formed the biggest contingents there.

    The German contingent comprised of communists with either jewish or christian background. I believe there weren't many non-communists involved, probably just a few anti-fascists, or Jews, whatsoever, all must have sympathized with the republic, for their own reasons. Most of them either had to leave Germany, as they were persecuted or endangered to be persecuted, or they had decided to leave fascist Germany after the Nazis had come to power.

    < Message edited by GoodGuy -- 6/28/2013 4:09:23 PM >


    _____________________________

    "Aw Nuts"
    General Anthony McAuliffe
    December 22nd, 1944
    Bastogne

    ---
    "I've always felt that the AA (Alied Assault engine) had the potential to be [....] big."
    Tim Stone
    8th of August, 2006

    (in reply to Bletchley_Geek)
    Post #: 29
    RE: Sherman Tanks and Panthers - 7/1/2013 4:11:46 AM   
    Bletchley_Geek


    Posts: 3052
    Joined: 11/26/2009
    From: Living in the fair city of Melbourne, Australia
    Status: offline

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: GoodGuy
    My statement you quoted was a list of components that were sent. By saying "volunteers" I meant volunteering forces of various types, then the "Legion Condor", and so on.


    Well, I read it as if you were dismissing, what I think it's proven fact, that Spain was the proving grounds for Nazi Germany weaponry (including high-tech planes, even in small quantities), tactics and doctrine (up to where Franco allowed the Germans to go).

    Thank you for the precisions regarding deployment times, etc. Nazi Germany involvement in Spain has been muddled up over the years, especially by the Franco-led Spanish government, as they tried to develop a working relationship with the United States and NATO during the 1950's.

    _____________________________

    Nullius in Verba since February 2013 - http://panthergames.com
    -----
    Life in the Internets: http://steamcommunity.com/id/mvorkosigan
    ----
    I'm a real person as well: http://au.linkedin.com/in/miguelramirezjavega

    (in reply to GoodGuy)
    Post #: 30
    Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
    All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command Ops Series >> Sherman Tanks and Panthers Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
    Jump to:





    New Messages No New Messages
    Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
    Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
     Post New Thread
     Reply to Message
     Post New Poll
     Submit Vote
     Delete My Own Post
     Delete My Own Thread
     Rate Posts


    Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

    0.152