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 26th, 2012, 04:10 AM   #71

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sultan44 View Post
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)
.
The Soviets had a number of powerful and effective tank destroyers.
SU-76 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

SU-85 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

SU-100 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

SU-152 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
redcoat is offline  
Remove Ads
Old June 26th, 2012, 04:52 AM   #72

Diced's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: May 2012
From: Groningen, Netherlands
Posts: 221

Quote:
Originally Posted by redcoat View Post
Nice, Zveroboy (beast killer), how fitting.
Diced is offline  
Old June 26th, 2012, 05:30 AM   #73

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by redcoat View Post
Sorry, but the British and Canadians didn't receive any diesel engined Shermans.
Foot in mouth time again
I was working off memory, always a bad idea with me

After doing some research, I found that Britain received 5,000 Sherman M4A2's (Sherman Mk III) the diesel engined version of the Sherman out of a total supply of 17,000.

Sorry folks
redcoat is offline  
Old June 26th, 2012, 12:40 PM   #74

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by redcoat View Post
Foot in mouth time again
I was working off memory, always a bad idea with me

After doing some research, I found that Britain received 5,000 Sherman M4A2's (Sherman Mk III) the diesel engined version of the Sherman out of a total supply of 17,000.

Sorry folks
Well, I might have been right about the Brits getting the bulk of the M4A2s, but I thought the majority of Shermans we got overall were diesel, and as your figures show, they weren't. So much for that theory.

A small detail on Mutual Aid supply of tanks. Following the Bulge, the US asked for several hundred M4A4s back from 21st Army Group, to help with the immediate re-equipment needs of 12th Army Group. A similar thing (although it may have been a diversion of deliveries rather a request for return) happened in SEAC after the Japanese offensive in China; this was the reason some 14th Army armoured regiments finished the war still in M3s.
CuriousHistorian is offline  
Old June 27th, 2012, 08:22 AM   #75
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: Georgia, USA
Posts: 6,208

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diced View Post
I'm trying to follow your reasoning however I'm absolutely positive the STUG was very much capable of the anti-tank role when its armament was upgraded. I might even go as far as to say that it became its primary function, or at least for the STUG IV's. The armament of 7.5 cm KWK 40 was certainly capable of destroying enemy tanks. .
Indeed when the StuG III F arrived it had a long barreled L43 75mm gun (later up gunned) with the L48.

The G version was better still and is the most numerous.

The F modol had a variant with a 105mm howitzer which I don't think carried an anti-tank round.

However at the start of the war the StuGs carried low velocity short barreled guns unsuitable for anti-tank roles.

Last edited by Poly; June 27th, 2012 at 08:28 AM.
Poly is offline  
Old June 27th, 2012, 08:48 AM   #76
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: Georgia, USA
Posts: 6,208

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam-Nary View Post
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.
Well almost all tanks (Main Battle Tanks & light tanks) have turrets but not all such and the Swedish S tank.

The first British and German tanks in WWI were turret-less too.
The T-28 was designed to blast through the German Siegfried line but also had an anti-tank role too and was re-designated a "super heavy tank".
The British designated the Tortoise as: Tank, Heavy Assault, (A39)

The Jagd Tiger was a hunting tank also and not an assault gun but I take your point - the Tiger II was the heaviest turreted tank ever built (the Maus V1 / V2 excepted).

Quote:
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.
That would mean surrendering in the West and fighting on in the East.

I'm not sure how that would have affected morale on the Eastern front.

Last edited by Poly; June 27th, 2012 at 08:54 AM.
Poly is offline  
Old June 27th, 2012, 09:27 AM   #77

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

British doctrine in WW2 did not encompass the concept of a tank destroyer along either the US or German lines. US-built tank destroyers in British service were designated as "Self-Propelled Anti-Tank Guns" and employed in that fashion.

As far as the British were concerned, late war, a tank destroyer was a tank carrying a large anti-tank gun. Thus, the Sherman Firefly and Challenger were "tank destroyers" in employment, but were desginated as tanks. This carried on post-war with the Charioteer (a way to get more 20lbrs into front-line regiments when Centurion production could not meet demand) and Conqueror.

Before anyone mentions Avenger, it might have looked like a tank destroyer, but it was still an SP A/Tk gun to the Brits

As for giving in in the West and holding the line in the East, which Stalin feared, that was the reason the Allies agreed Zones of Occupation and then publicised the fact; so the Germans would know that idea wouldn't work.
CuriousHistorian is offline  
Old June 27th, 2012, 10:23 AM   #78
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: Georgia, USA
Posts: 6,208

Quote:
Originally Posted by CuriousHistorian View Post
British doctrine in WW2 did not encompass the concept of a tank destroyer along either the US or German lines. US-built tank destroyers in British service were designated as "Self-Propelled Anti-Tank Guns" and employed in that fashion
I'm not sure I know the difference between an SP anti-tank gun and a tank destroyer.

The British Archer was very similar as say the German Nashorn:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archer_(tank_destroyer)

If you could differentiate between the Nashorn and the Archer I'd be interested in what the difference is.

Quote:
...as far as the British were concerned, late war, a tank destroyer was a tank carrying a large anti-tank gun. Thus, the Sherman Firefly and Challenger were "tank destroyers" in employment, but were desginated as tanks. This carried on post-war with the Charioteer (a way to get more 20lbrs into front-line regiments when Centurion production could not meet demand) and Conqueror...
I don't think the British ever designated the Sherman Firefly as a tank destroyer (or Comet) but rather accepted that tanks with the 17 Pdr gun were needed to kill the heavier German tanks...and thus deployed them throughout the armored force.
(the Comet's 77mm gun was a modified 17 Pdr)

Quote:
...as for giving in in the West and holding the line in the East, which Stalin feared, that was the reason the Allies agreed Zones of Occupation and then publicised the fact; so the Germans would know that idea wouldn't work.
Indeed...I think that if German forces simply surrendered in the West, the formations in the East would suffer a severe blow to their morale.
Poly is offline  
Old June 27th, 2012, 12:54 PM   #79

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

sorry but the SU-152 IS'n A Tank destroyer, its gun is more a Howie, The SU-76 Was a failure of a tank destroyer, The SU-85 Was Semi-effective, These guns had low penetration, Especially the 76mm F34, The 57mm Was maybe a lower end gun but it had the best reputation for both accuracy and penetration

The british tank destroyers were In some way the worst (Worse then russian ones too) Their armor was often in the tens or even twenties of MM, The PzIII J Variant was upgraded with a 50mm Cannon that gave it the ability to knock out most british Medium Tanks/Tank destroyers, and it was a light tank, until the british produced more effecient and well armored tanks they had nothing on most Panzer tanks
Sultan44 is offline  
Old June 27th, 2012, 02:18 PM   #80

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poly View Post
I'm not sure I know the difference between an SP anti-tank gun and a tank destroyer.

The British Archer was very similar as say the German Nashorn:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archer_(tank_destroyer)

If you could differentiate between the Nashorn and the Archer I'd be interested in what the difference is.
The difference is in the way the system is deployed, not in how it looks. The US concept was to use tank destroyers to conduct mobile anti-tank operatio, to actually go hunting enemy tanks. The British concept was to use SP anti-tank guns as anti-tank guns that could deploy themselves, and operate under artillery and small arms fire, rather than in a more mobile role.



Quote:
I don't think the British ever designated the Sherman Firefly as a tank destroyer (or Comet) but rather accepted that tanks with the 17 Pdr gun were needed to kill the heavier German tanks...and thus deployed them throughout the armored force.
(the Comet's 77mm gun was a modified 17 Pdr)
If you re-read my post - the bit you quoted - you will see that I specifically said that the British designated the Firefly as a tank, not a tank destroyer. But the Firefly and the Challenger had the primary role of destroying enemy armour, which was a "tank destroyer" concept. Doctrinally, the primary role of tanks in British service was not anti-tank but "shock action" - this was why the British wished to retain the 75mm, which had better HE performance than the 76mm. Of course, this is not how the cavalry and RTR tank crews themselves saw it; not unnaturally they saw enemy tanks as the major threat to themselves (although statistically they were not). The failure to properly combine tank and anti-tank units (as the Germans did) was the major cause of failure in the Western Desert battles up to 1942.
CuriousHistorian 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.