2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on May 3, 2018 17:45:40 GMT -5
I have always been fascinated with armored warfare (especially WW2). There are lots and lots of myth and legends especially regarding German Armor with much exaggeration and misinformation which only fairly recent research has either debunked or reinforced. Below are 15 quiz questions that some of you might enjoy taking on.
1. Which was the most widely produced German TANK of WW2:
A. The Panther B. The Stug III C. The PZKMFWGN Mk IV D. The Tiger I
2. Which was the most widely produced Armored Vehicle:
A. The Panther B. The Stug III C. The Pzkmfwgn No IV D. The Tiger I
3. Which German TANK was in production throughout the WAR?
A. The Pzkmfwgn MkIII B. The MkIV C. The Tiger I D. The No V
4. Which TANK design was in response to Soviet KVIs and T34s?
5. Who designed the Massive Ferdinand SP TANK Destroyer?
6. What TANK was designed to become Germany's primary TANK
(Pre war plans). (Mix war plans)
7. What were the Tiger tanks fatal flaws? List four
8. At what range was the Tiger tanks frontal armor commonly vulnerable to a Sherman M4s 75know gun?
9. What about the Panthers front Armor?
10. At what range was the side armor of a Tiger commonly vulnerable?
Same question for a Panther?
11. What was the biggest killer of German tanks?
A. Attack Aircraft B. Direct fire AT weapons. Including allied tanks C. Bazooka and other Infantry portable weapons (PIAT etc.) D. Mines.
12. Which was more powerful the main gun of the Tiger I or the British 17 pounder on the Sherman Firefly?
13. What were the main challenges with German TANK radios vs US?
14. What color were German tankers uniforms and piping?
15. What was the most prevalent TANK color on German tanks after 1942?
A. Panzer Grey B. Desert Yellow C. Mud brown D. A mix of Grey and Green
Bonus Question: while there no doubt may have been more, how many verified encounters were there between U.S. Sherman (M4s) and German Tiger tanks?
|
|
shiftysgarand
Corporal
BangbangbangbangbangbangbangbangPING
Posts: 1,165
|
Post by shiftysgarand on May 3, 2018 20:19:21 GMT -5
1. The most commonly produced TANK the Germans had was, I’m guessing, C, the Panzer Mk IV.
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on May 4, 2018 0:58:39 GMT -5
Indeed. The MKIII was supposed to be the main tank for the Germans with the IV as a low volume support tank but once a more powerful main gun was obviously needed and the smaller turret ring of the MK III couldn't support it the MK IV became the mainstay and was in production throughout the WAR with numerous significant upgrades and variants. It was not the highest volume armored fighting vehicle however.
|
|
stuka
Sergeant
The one and only
Posts: 1,205
|
Post by stuka on May 9, 2018 16:37:10 GMT -5
Question 12: the 17 pounder
|
|
|
Post by volkssturm on May 10, 2018 15:46:14 GMT -5
Question 3: Again, the PZKW Mk.IV. Production started before the war, though only relatively small numbers were fielded in Poland and the Battle of France.
Question 4: the Panther or PZKW Mk. V
(Thought I'd do two, since 2d Bat kind of gave away #3)
|
|
|
Post by volkssturm on May 11, 2018 22:14:28 GMT -5
#8. The front plate on the Tiger was 100mm. On paper a couple of the AP rounds for the 75mm gun on the Sherman could penetrate 100mm at 100 meters. In the real world, the front plate was virtually impervious.
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on May 15, 2018 2:37:51 GMT -5
The TIGER indeed had to be attacked from somewhere other than the front even point blank. The 17 pounder British gun was a nasty surprise for the Germans as indeed it did pack even higher velocity than the TIGERs famous 88. The U.S. Rejected it and thought it comically over the top. The flame produced completely obscured the gunner for a long time after firing and created a tremendous blast. The British included one Firefly in every 4 TANK troop.
|
|
|
Post by volkssturm on May 16, 2018 14:11:52 GMT -5
One of the initial complaints about the US 76mm gun was that the muzzle blast tended to kick up a big dust cloud, making it hard for the gunner to see where the round went. There were even suggestions that they should have another tank spot for them. Eventually Ordnance realized that the answer (which the Germans had been using for some time) was a muzzle brake. I've read that some tankers would salvage the muzzle brakes off the German 75mm and weld them on their 76's. Sometimes it seems like US Ordnance was in its own little isolated world.
Anyway, for the Panther, the glacis plate was 80mm, but it was sloped giving it the equivalent of close to 100mm, so the 75mm M3 was essentially useless from the front. The lower plate was 60mm, but also sloped. On occasion a lucky hit on the lower plate would be deflected towards the ground, then ricochet back upwards underneath the tank where the armor was very thin. The side armor was 40mm. A 75mm depending on the round could penetrate from 500 to 750 meters.
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on May 16, 2018 23:43:30 GMT -5
Volks, again your information is spot on. Another weak point for the Panther front was it a round hit below the gun mantle and was reflected downward. In late Panthers the Germans altered the shape to prevent the downward richochete.
The Panther side armor was vulnerable out to 1200 yards for our 76 when armored piercing rounds were used but these specialized "silver bullets". Typically had to be traded for with T D units. Another factor was that exotic metals used to create hardened steel became less and less available so German Armor was often weaker and prone to cracking. Lots of penetration that on paper shouldn't have happened and likewise lots of bounced offs that defied the physics.
Allied tankers learned quickly to attack flanks and since 1200 meters was often beyond line of sight in Western Europe it usually came down to who saw who first and got off the first shot.
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on May 17, 2018 0:58:14 GMT -5
Incidentally for the bonus question . In spite of hundreds of reports of U.S. Tankers encountering TIGER tanks there were only 3 confirmed occassions during the entire war. Most reported TIGERs were Landed MkIVs with armored skirting on their turrets which looked a lot like Tiger tanks at range and the heat of battle. Add the extensive amount of foliage added as camo and the mistakes are understandable German after action reports thoroughly documented what units and what vehicle types were where. And only after the war did we realize how rare Tiger tanks were.r
No doubt there were in fact more than three encounters but probably not more than 15. The British, Canadians and Frence armored units all had some as well but even for the Grits not many. Fortunately with their Firefly 17 pounder they could cope. Their never was a battle between our M26 heavy and a Tiger as these fabulous tanks arrived very very late and in small numbers.
|
|
|
Post by volkssturm on May 17, 2018 10:25:32 GMT -5
Henry Yeide has some good books on US armor, as does Steven Zalonga. The Army did extensive research during and after the war on armor engagements. One of the conclusions they came to was that most of the time the side that shot first was the side that won. Since the US was usually advancing and attacking in NW Europe that gave the Germans an advantage. Also somewhat surprisingly given the Sherman's reputation for "brewing up" when hit, the statistics averaged out to one fatality for every destroyed tank. Obviously there were tanks where several crew or the entire crew dies, but there were a lot where everyone got out. The weaknesses of the early Shermans were largely addressed with wet ammo stowage and applique armor after 1942. And statistically, the Sherman was no more liable to catching fire than contemporary British and German tanks. WWII armor is an interesting subject you can waste an enormous amount of time on.
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on May 18, 2018 0:55:38 GMT -5
I have always been fascinated with armored warfare (especially WW2). My father was shocked that I requested and got infantry as my branch rather than armor. I mistakenly believed that armor dominance had ended with the prevalence of shoulder fired HEAT anti armor weapons.
Ceramics and layered armor was unknown to me.
To your point volks when the numbers were equal and even when the Germans had somewhat better numbers if they were in the attack or in classic movement to contact operations they lost. Arracorte being a case in point. That battle had more Panthers than MKIVs and the Germans were in the rare happenstance where they outnumbered the U.S. Armored force. On paper the U.S. Should have lost badly but instead it went entirely the other way. Creighton Abrams proved to be an incredible Armored commander and reserved have our amazing current M1 TANK named after him.
|
|
|
Post by volkssturm on May 18, 2018 13:44:15 GMT -5
Arracourt was one of the rare instances where the tank destroyer doctrine actually worked according to the book, though the defending force was mixed tanks and TD's. Favorable terrain for "shoot and scoot" tactics, weather conditions (mist) that eliminated the Germans' range advantage, a high proportion of low experience German tank crews. Bad day for the panzers.
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on May 28, 2018 13:42:33 GMT -5
Even though German tanks were greatly outnumbered Strategically on a tactical basis there were many many occasions where at a tactical level (company level engagements and below). Armor numbers were fairly equal. As pointed out invariably the side that was and engaged the enemy first usually came out ahead. The U.S. May not have knocked out the German TANK with the initial shot but once in a reactive mode it was tough to recover. An interesting myth is that it took five Shermans to knock out a Panther which was simply in true. We frequently had a full platoon of five tanks and weren't about to tell any of the other four platoon members. "Hey fella's, hold back I got this.". To defeat a Panther at combat range the Shermans needed to attack from the flank and that typically required team work.
on this Memorial Day it's nice to consider the bravery those encounters required.
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on Jun 7, 2018 0:04:28 GMT -5
The most numerous German armored vehicles during the war (by quite a bit). Was the Stug III. It was on the excellent and (by German standards) reliable chassis. Where we attached an Armored Battalion of tanks and often a battalion of TANK destroyers to every Infantry division the Germans by design attached Stub Assault gun battalions to most every divisions.
The PZKFWGN III main production facility was never bombed so production throughout the WAR was relatively unhindered. By leaving off a turret, costs and assembly time were greatly reduced which also helped production numbers.
The vehicle was fairly small but it's size helped it considerably in its ambush role. Together with the Czech t38th based "Hetzer" they accounted for a lot of allied TANK losses. From a strategic basis the Germans would have been well served to have built fewer TIGERs and more Stubs and Jagpanzers.
|
|
|
Post by volkssturm on Jun 10, 2018 16:30:08 GMT -5
#5 The Ferdinand SP anti-tank gun was designed by …. drum roll.... Dr.FERDINAND Porsche. Porsche and Henschel were in competition to design what became the Tiger I heavy tank. Henschel won out that competition, but Porsche had invested considerable resources in designing their tank and had actually started building hulls for them. So they recouped their investment by redesigning the superstructure as a TD.
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on Jun 21, 2018 0:27:19 GMT -5
That is correct. The Tiger II or "King Tiger" also in some cases featured the Porsche designed turret which was somewhat different.
|
|