Started By
Message

re: How were German armored divisions so much more elite than their US counterparts

Posted on 10/25/14 at 10:08 am to
Posted by H.M. Murdock
B.A.'s Van
Member since Feb 2013
2113 posts
Posted on 10/25/14 at 10:08 am to
quote:

I think that the movie "Fury" takes place mostly in 1945


I did see the movie and SPOILER BELOW:
























Of course its a movie, but the platoon of shermans were sent to gaurd the crossroads. 4 tanks what appear to be Fury (M4e8) and 3 M4's are traveling down the road toward their objective. They are attacked by a hidden Tiger in a hull down position across a large field from Fury's 3 o clock position.

Of course the heavy Tiger then advances out of his perfect hull down position into a muddy field to engage the 3 remaining US tanks... i could not get over this. lol. A veteran Tiger commander would simply use his superior position and gun range rather then advance through a field likely get stuck. ahhh...movies.
This post was edited on 10/25/14 at 10:10 am
Posted by Ace Midnight
Between sanity and madness
Member since Dec 2006
89517 posts
Posted on 10/25/14 at 10:09 am to
quote:

No they dont. The T34 is overrated, period.


The Soviets would have defeated Nazi Germany, without the second front, no later than 1947. It would have been on the back of T-34s.

I'm not endorsing Soviet tactics, but the equipment itself was fairly revolutionary and ultimately influenced post-war tank design to this very day.

I'm not saying the T-34 is perfect, either. And there's a lot to be said about 1200 units a month - when you consider the final count was some nearly 50k T-34s produced, roughly the same as all German tank production, combined from about '36 to '45.

But, various features of the T-34 were adopted in the design of the Panther - and I consider the Panther the best all around tank in the world until the Soviets produced the T-55, some 10 years after the war.

But even the Panther had problems - weak side armor, final drive problems made it relatively unreliable, etc. The perfect is the enemy of the good.

No U.S. tank was the equal of German or Soviet contemporaries until the Pershing - and only limited numbers and action are available to evaluate this late war U.S. design.

But our tactics and logistics were superior, particularly our offense against the Germans defense.
This post was edited on 10/25/14 at 10:10 am
Posted by H.M. Murdock
B.A.'s Van
Member since Feb 2013
2113 posts
Posted on 10/25/14 at 10:12 am to
quote:

The Soviets would have defeated Nazi Germany, without the second front, no later than 1947.


No they wouldnt. Brief points because I dont have the time. Without a western front the Nazi's were already at the steps of Moscow. Without the Lend Lease act the Soviets would have no means/equipment/fuel/trains/etc.. to fight.
Posted by jeffsdad
Member since Mar 2007
21411 posts
Posted on 10/25/14 at 10:16 am to
It is amazing the amount of material the US gave the Russians in WWII. I had a friend that worked on the supply line thru Iran? i think. He said it was 24/7, everyday he was there.. trucks loaded to the hilt.
Posted by tbrig3211
New Orleans
Member since May 2006
2601 posts
Posted on 10/25/14 at 10:19 am to
quote:

The Soviets would have defeated Nazi Germany, without the second front, no later than 1947. It would have been on the back of T-34s.




Without the Allies on the western front the Vemork Hydroelectric Plant would have never been destroyed. Hitler would have had his wonder weapon and would have used it ruthlessly to crush Bolshevism.
Posted by Ace Midnight
Between sanity and madness
Member since Dec 2006
89517 posts
Posted on 10/25/14 at 10:19 am to
quote:

Without the Lend Lease act the Soviets would have no means/equipment/fuel/trains/etc.. to fight.


That's a different question. Without U.S./U.K. support, the Soviets might very well have starved and had no equipment with which to fight until they got their production shifted to the Urals. I don't dispute that.

quote:

Without a western front the Nazi's were already at the steps of Moscow.


Not really. By April '44, (months before Overlord), they were well into Poland and about to re-enter the Baltics. Moscow and Stalingrad were long won by the Soviets and there were no German replacements for the casualties. The German army never fully replaced the manpower lost in Barbarossa, particularly Stalingrad, and the Red Army was getting stronger by the hour from '43 on.
This post was edited on 10/25/14 at 10:24 am
Posted by Ace Midnight
Between sanity and madness
Member since Dec 2006
89517 posts
Posted on 10/25/14 at 10:23 am to
quote:

Vemork Hydroelectric Plant


That was done by irregulars prior to Overlord.

There is a dispute if the Germans were even on the right track with heavy water, anyway. I'm not sure, with the self-inflicted brain drain (recall that Einstein fled Nazism and Fermi fled Facism - the person most responsible for the U.S. funding the Manhattan Project, and the single scientist most responsible for the U.S.'s successful nuclear energy/weapons program, respectively).

Posted by LSUZouave
Gulf Coast
Member since Nov 2007
410 posts
Posted on 10/25/14 at 10:25 am to
quote:
I think that the movie "Fury" takes place mostly in 1945


I did see the movie and SPOILER BELOW:
























Of course its a movie, but the platoon of shermans were sent to gaurd the crossroads. 4 tanks what appear to be Fury (M4e8) and 3 M4's are traveling down the road toward their objective. They are attacked by a hidden Tiger in a hull down position across a large field from Fury's 3 o clock position.

Of course the heavy Tiger then advances out of his perfect hull down position into a muddy field to engage the 3 remaining US tanks... i could not get over this. lol. A veteran Tiger commander would simply use his superior position and gun range rather then advance through a field likely get stuck. ahhh...movies.


I think the reason the Tiger advanced was to press his advantage. His vision was obscured by smoke. If he would have just stayed at his current location and continued to get covered by smoke, the American tanks could have easily flanked him. By pressing through the smoke he was able to engage the Americans head on, which was to his advantage.
Posted by RogerTheShrubber
Juneau, AK
Member since Jan 2009
260404 posts
Posted on 10/25/14 at 10:26 am to
quote:

The Sherman Easy Eight was probably a better tank than the Panzer IV. It certainly was not a "lightweight" compared to the Panzer IV.


The Panzer IV H&J models came out the same year as Easy Eight and had more armor and a larger gun. It was less reliable though, supposedly.
Posted by H.M. Murdock
B.A.'s Van
Member since Feb 2013
2113 posts
Posted on 10/25/14 at 10:27 am to
Yes, the smoke. However I believe the tiger should have gotten a second side shoot at one of the Sherman's before they found his position and smoked him. It's a movie though.
Posted by tbrig3211
New Orleans
Member since May 2006
2601 posts
Posted on 10/25/14 at 10:28 am to
quote:

That was done by irregulars prior to Overlord.


I never said post overlord. It was still carried out by the Allies who were very much involved in 1943 with air raids and heavily involved in North Africa. They, not the Russians, planned the sabotage mission carried out by Norwegian specialist. Sure Einstein and others fled Nazi Europe, but there were plenty of brilliant scientist left in the Reich. Hence paper clip after VE day.
Posted by H.M. Murdock
B.A.'s Van
Member since Feb 2013
2113 posts
Posted on 10/25/14 at 10:29 am to
You seem to study the war as I do. Wish I wasn't on a phone or I could debate and agree with you for a good bit.
Posted by jefforize
Member since Feb 2008
44092 posts
Posted on 10/25/14 at 10:30 am to
Fascinating thread gents, thanks.
Posted by Ace Midnight
Between sanity and madness
Member since Dec 2006
89517 posts
Posted on 10/25/14 at 10:31 am to
quote:

Hence paper clip after VE day.


That was mainly for the rockets though. We knew we were on the right track for the bomb. The Germans were already using ballistic missiles - the Russians had their shopping list and we had ours.

Set the stage for a great space race 15 years later, though.
Posted by Ace Midnight
Between sanity and madness
Member since Dec 2006
89517 posts
Posted on 10/25/14 at 10:36 am to
quote:

I never said post overlord.


Well, the implication is that without the Second Front (Overlord) - the Soviets would have lost. In reality, Stalin was pushing for it to take the load off his guys. Churchill was pushing for it to save as much of Western Europe as possible from Soviet occupation. FDR was reluctant because we still needed to fight the Japanese (which he knew was his electorate's priority, and would be less so for Sir Winston and Uncle Joe), and wanted to keep U.S. losses in the ETO at a minimum.

Thus all the wheeling and dealing between the Big Three.

Posted by tbrig3211
New Orleans
Member since May 2006
2601 posts
Posted on 10/25/14 at 10:54 am to
quote:

Well, the implication is that without the Second Front (Overlord) - the Soviets would have lost.


Without US troop involvement, not just Overlord, I firmly believe that Soviet Russia loses the war. Germany can use the divisions, and Rommel, from Africa and more troops from fortress Europe against the Soviets. This would have been enough to destroy the red army.
This post was edited on 10/25/14 at 10:56 am
Posted by JawjaTigah
Bizarro World
Member since Sep 2003
22501 posts
Posted on 10/25/14 at 11:19 am to
quote:

German tiger tank... nearly impenetrable by US tanks.

How did we get so far behind? How big was the gap?
So many what-ifs. On paper, Germany should have won after Dunkirk, North Africa, before invading Russia, before Pearl Harbor. But... inexplicable. I attribute a lot of those things to acts of God.
Posted by Ace Midnight
Between sanity and madness
Member since Dec 2006
89517 posts
Posted on 10/25/14 at 11:32 am to
quote:

Without US troop involvement, not just Overlord, I firmly believe that Soviet Russia loses the war.


I used to believe that, too.

quote:

Germany can use the divisions, and Rommel, from Africa and more troops from fortress Europe against the Soviets.


All true. Of course, a lot of that would have been tied down in France expecting an invasion. The only way to have guaranteed no invasion would have been to take Britain - and that would have posed its own challenges.

quote:

This would have been enough to destroy the red army.


Germany didn't have enough, short of developing nuclear weapons, to destroy the Red Army - once Soviet production was relocated to the Urals.

The Soviets put almost 35 million men in the field during the war - around half of the total pre-war population of Germany.

Staggering - think about that - 35 million - and a 1/4 of those guys got killed.
This post was edited on 10/25/14 at 11:33 am
Posted by tbrig3211
New Orleans
Member since May 2006
2601 posts
Posted on 10/25/14 at 11:41 am to
quote:

I used to believe that, too.


Funny thing is I used to believe what you believe. With Afika Corps the Nazi's cut off the oil fields of Azerbaijan from the Soviets and prevent Soviet breakthroughs around Stalingrad, starving them of vast supplies of oil. Without the oil the Soviet T-34 is useless. Accomplishing this objective would have also allowed the Nazi's to use less resources in developing synthetic oil.
Posted by SadSouthernBuck
Las Vegas
Member since Dec 2007
748 posts
Posted on 10/25/14 at 11:48 am to
There was a good article in WWII magazine recently that compared tank manufacturing philosophies between the US, USSR and Germany.

The basics were:

Tiger tanks took between 200,000-300,000 man hours to produce an cost $320,000 each.

Shermans took 10,000 man hours to produce and cost $33,500 each.

T-34's took 35,000 to 50,000 man hours to produce and cost $50,000 each.

Additionally the Soviets did a study and found that the average life of a tank was six months and the combat life expectancy was only 14 hours. They didn't put a lot of time/manpower in creating technologically superior tanks because they would be 'dead' in a relatively short period of time. Someone mentioned that the T-34's transmission was crap. The Soviet philosophy was "Why design and manufacture a superior transmission that will last 1,500 miles when the tank will not live that long?"

Regarding Lend-Lease, one of the best assets the Soviets received from the US were soft skinned vehicles. The US sent over 400,000 jeeps and trucks to them allowing for increased logistics. Most German units stilled relied upon horse drawn transport for most of the war:

"Despite highly ballyhooed emphasis on employment of mechanized forces and on rapid movement, the bulk of German combat divisions were horse drawn throughout World War II."

LINK
Jump to page
Page First 6 7 8 9 10 ... 13
Jump to page
first pageprev pagePage 8 of 13Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram