Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > War and Military History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

War and Military History War and Military History Forum - Warfare, Tactics, and Military Technology over the centuries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old June 25th, 2012, 01:57 PM   #61
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 877

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bish View Post
No, PaK is for a towed Anti Tank gun. Self propelled AT guns were jagdpanzer's. Sturmgeschutz means assault gun.

nope PAK means the purpose of the weapon is designated anti tank not towed. just as the designation stug and/or SIG is infantry support weapon.. not the tank class. the vehicle's class designation is the Pz.Kpfw or SDKFZ designation.

so the stug III f.. is an Sd.Kfz 142 with a 7.5 cm StuK 40 L/43 gun.

the jagd panther is SdKfz 173 with 8.8 cm Pak 43/3 gun..

PzKpfw VI Ausf. E, 88 mm KwK 36 L/56 gun.. that i believe is a tiger 1 tank.. notice the flak designation of the gun..

lol we call gasoline, petrol.. i thought shermans ran on diesel? is that a wrong assumption.

Last edited by amazedkat; June 25th, 2012 at 02:24 PM.
amazedkat is offline  
Remove Ads
Old June 25th, 2012, 02:11 PM   #62

Bish's Avatar
Pain in the butt
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk.
Posts: 7,882

Quote:
Originally Posted by amazedkat View Post
nope PAK means the purpose of the weapon is designated anti tank not towed. just as the designation stug is infantry support weapon.. not the tank class.

lol we call gasoline, petrol..
Correct, but the designation mostly refers to towed guns.Yes, the guns on the Pzjagd's were called PaK's, but we are confuseing the designation of a vehcile with that of its gun.

But that's not always the case. The PaK 40, KwK 40 and StuK 40 were basically the same gun but had different names depending on the vehicle it was mounted in.

StuG refers to the vehcile, not the gun.
Bish is offline  
Old June 25th, 2012, 02:16 PM   #63

redcoat's Avatar
Hiding behind the sofa
 
Joined: Nov 2010
From: Stockport Cheshire UK
Posts: 6,810

Quote:
Originally Posted by amazedkat View Post
lol we call gasoline, petrol.. i thought shermans ran on diesel? is that a wrong assumption.
The Sherman had a number of different engines installed in its various marks, both petrol and diesel, but the ones used by both the US and British army in the Med and Europe were petrol engined, the diesel engined versions were mainly sent to the Soviet Union as part of lend-lease, and by the USN Marine Corps in the Pacific.
redcoat is offline  
Old June 25th, 2012, 02:19 PM   #64

CuriousHistorian's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Albion (twinned with Numenor)
Posts: 375

Quote:
Originally Posted by amazedkat View Post

lol we call gasoline, petrol.. i thought shermans ran on diesel? is that a wrong assumption.

Shermans came with both petrol and diesel engines. Most of the diesel ones, I believe, ended up with the Brits and Canadians, and the USMC.
CuriousHistorian is offline  
Old June 25th, 2012, 02:26 PM   #65
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 877
Smile


Quote:
Originally Posted by redcoat View Post
The Sherman had a number of different engines installed in its various marks, both petrol and diesel, but the ones used by both the US and British army in the Med and Europe were petrol engined, the diesel engined versions were mainly sent to the Soviet Union as part of lend-lease, and by the USN Marine Corps in the Pacific.
oh right, okay .. thanks..

Quote:
Shermans came with both petrol and diesel engines. Most of the diesel ones, I believe, ended up with the Brits and Canadians, and the USMC
well maybe that's what mixed me up..
amazedkat is offline  
Old June 25th, 2012, 02:37 PM   #66

redcoat's Avatar
Hiding behind the sofa
 
Joined: Nov 2010
From: Stockport Cheshire UK
Posts: 6,810

Quote:
Originally Posted by amazedkat View Post
german tanks ran on petrol while allied tanks for the most part ran on diesel, has any one mentioned that?
No, because as far as the Western front is concerned all the major tank types ran on petrol.
redcoat is offline  
Old June 25th, 2012, 02:40 PM   #67

redcoat's Avatar
Hiding behind the sofa
 
Joined: Nov 2010
From: Stockport Cheshire UK
Posts: 6,810

Quote:
Originally Posted by Curious Historian View Post
Shermans came with both petrol and diesel engines. Most of the diesel ones, I believe, ended up with the Brits and Canadians, and the USMC.
Sorry, but the British and Canadians didn't receive any diesel engined Shermans.
redcoat is offline  
Old June 25th, 2012, 02:56 PM   #68

redcoat's Avatar
Hiding behind the sofa
 
Joined: Nov 2010
From: Stockport Cheshire UK
Posts: 6,810

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam-Nary View Post
They might have gotten farther as the Sherman was faster then the Tiger and King Tiger tanks, but the issues of fuel probably would have still been a problem.
Indeed, the Sherman tank was a noted 'gas guzzler', the British found its high fuel consumption a major problem during the pursuit of the Africa Corps after the Second Battle Of El Alamein.
redcoat is offline  
Old June 25th, 2012, 05:25 PM   #69

Sam-Nary's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: At present SD, USA
Posts: 6,171

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poly View Post
Supply was a problem. Having faster tanks doesn't mean you advance further or faster as your supply still moves at the same speed.An armored column mover between 2.5 and 5 MPH

The Tiger II (or King Tiger) was not the heaviest tank ever built. There may be more but I can think of at least two heavier tanks: The British Tortoise and the "hunting" version of the Tiger II.

Edit: I just looked it up, the American T-28 was also heavier.

Are you saying the Pz IV was better protected than a Tiger II ?

Beyond the resources the Germans had, specifically fuel and air power.

You mean surrender in the West after Normandy? Not sure what Stalin would've thought about that.
I never said that supply wouldn't be a problem.

Also, the examples you have of "heavier" tanks were all turretless tank destroyers. A tank has a turret. The Turtle, the Jagtiger, and the American T-28 "Super Tank" were all assault guns, not tanks. It's a technicality, I know, but they were not true tanks.

No, I'm saying the Panzer IV was still good enough to take on the vast number of Shermans the Allies built.

And what I'm saying is that they shouldn't have fought the Western Allies. I don't think America would have accepted a surrender unless it was also given to the Soviets as well... BUT if the Germans simply let the Americans overrun their country while they fought the Soviets and and the Allies met on the Oder rather then the Elbe... and THEN surrendered to all sides, they might have been off. Stalin probably would have hated it, conversely FDR would have have hated what Stalin did to Eastern Europe had he lived longer, and Truman DID hate what Stalin did to Eastern Europe. So it isn't like Stalin was some innocent child victimized by the Nazis.
Sam-Nary is offline  
Old June 25th, 2012, 06:27 PM   #70

Sultan44's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: Al-Ta'If, Makkah, Saudi arabia.
Posts: 529

They were not assault Guns either bro, They are Self-Propelled guns (SPG), a nickname given to any armored Fighting vehicle with a gun mounted on it; Weather a cannon (Howtizer) Or an AT Gun, The ones you are talking about are called tank destroyers, Which are often Without a turret, Such as the Jagdpanther, However some Tank-Destroyers Had turrets.

the Allied view of tank destroyers is that they would be Very lightly armored and fairly fast and have firepower, The German point of view on tank destroyers is that they would be Low-Profile, Highly accurate, Often Well-armored whenever possible, And have decent firepower to penetrate Armored fighting vehicles most-used by the enemy, the Soviet point of view for Tank destroyers was fairly similar, however they had few tank destroyers, and were often Un-reliable (Except for ones armed with the 57mm ZIS-3 AT Gun)

Edit: SPG Is an armored fighting vehicle with a gun MOUNTED on it, Not like a tank with a turret, But something like a self propelled artillery piece, such as the M7 Priest.
Sultan44 is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > War and Military History

Tags
battle, bulge, chance, nazis, stood, winning



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What was the chance of Mexico winning the Mexican-American war? DeliciousTomatoesYay American History 40 March 6th, 2015 06:39 PM
What chance did the Axis powers have of winning WWII? Salah War and Military History 104 April 26th, 2012 01:51 AM
Did The Boers Have any chance of winning The Second Boer War??? The Cell Speculative History 23 April 13th, 2012 11:04 AM
Did the British have much a chance of winning the American War for Independence? Salah American History 69 February 15th, 2012 07:57 PM
The men who stood up to the Nazis Naomasa298 European History 29 August 24th, 2011 02:40 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.