|
Post by CharleyNovember on Nov 23, 2013 11:41:57 GMT -5
|
|
shiftysgarand
Corporal
BangbangbangbangbangbangbangbangPING
Posts: 1,165
|
Post by shiftysgarand on Nov 23, 2013 12:38:43 GMT -5
Very interesting. Never knew about Pool, or any American tank ace.
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on Nov 23, 2013 15:24:31 GMT -5
Another viable nominee for top Tank Ace would be Lt. Col Creighton Abrams who went on to become a General and Commander in Vietnam after Westmoreland. In WW2 he was a battalion commander with the 4th Armored Division under Patton. he lead from the front and his unit and his specific tank had a very impressive kill ratio vs better armed and more effectively armored opponents. His was the first tank into Bastogne following the relief of our forces there and earlier in the war his batalion had an extremely impressive success rate in the largest armored battle of the war in the Western Front at Arracourt. This battle is little known as it took place over several days away from but during the Market Garden campaign.
The US force of roughly 75 tanks and Tank Destroyers was attacked by 3 German Brigades lead by Gen Hasso Von Manteuffel (roughly 300 medium tanks with more then half being Panthers). Weather during the intial phases prevented the US Army Air Corp from being a factor but resulted in closer engagement distances which essentially eliminated the German tanks armored advantages. Losses were extremely lopsided with 43 German Medium tanks lost in the first clash to US losses of 3 M18 Hellcat TDs and 5 M4 Shermans. In the second main engagement the Germans lost 98 tanks (mostly Panthers and Mk IVs) to a US loss of 14 Shermans and 5 Light Tanks.
The German tank myth is legendary and quite legitimate in many ways. Theoretically a Panther Sherman fight is not a fair one at all but the reality of the European Terrain is that engagement ranges seldom allowed the inherant advantages in forepower and armored thickness to play as significant a role as wargamers would have you believe. Most (in the 90th percentile) of armored clashes in Western Europe occured less then 700 meters apart. If you've visted the battlefield there or just been to Europe you can clearly see why. Line of sight is seldom more then that. the fact is the tank that spotted the enemy frst and got off the first shot typically scored a kill. US tankers knew better then to engage a German tanks frontal armor and almost always had a side shot available to them.
For tank engagements it comes down to training, tactics, terrain and happenstance. We vastly outnumbered the Germans due to superior production capabilities and this was greatly enhanced by the huge gap in reliability and logistics. During many phases of the war for every battle loss the Germans had an equal number of mechanical failures. A german tank typically couldn't manage 100 miles of operation without significant repair or maintenance requirements where our Shermans and Stuart based vehicles often exceeded a thousand miles of operational efficiency. Our turrets turned faster and our radio communications was vastly superior and these were hugely important at the platoon and company level engagements.
The tank vs tank dynamics have always fascinated me and I spent hours mulling over after action reports and US Army doctrinal assesments of WW2 tank battles. My wargaming buddies back in the day insisted on the lopsided effects tables created that showed a huge superiority in field capabilities of German tanks that were rediculously one sided. The reality in fact was quite different although for the poor US tanker who watched round after round bounce off an enemy tanks frontal armor and saw a single round ignite every tank around him the myth was all too real.
|
|
|
Post by volkssturm on Nov 26, 2013 18:57:44 GMT -5
Very interesting article. Thanks. Henry Yeide and Steven Zaloga both have several books out on American armor in the war. Yeide has one book on the tank destroyers, which is an interesting topic if you want to wonder "What were they thinking?" Zaloga has a section on the battle of Arracourt, which is one of the instances where the tank destroyer tactical thinking (light armor, big gun and speed to ambush enemy tanks) actually worked. The M18 Hellcats, which were very thinly armored with a max of 12mm, very fast, 45-50 mph, and carried the 76mm gun which wasn't to far inferior to the German 75, did very well against Panthers. They were able to use the terrain to their advantage and ground fog at times reduced engagement ranges to 75 - 150 yards. One of the might have beens of the war was the US M27 medium tank, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T20_Medium_Tank which was standardized in mid-1943 but switching over would have interrupted the mass production of Shermans, so only a couple hundred were produced and they never went into combat. On paper at least it would have been closer to a match for the Panther.
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on Nov 26, 2013 22:22:11 GMT -5
A very small numbef of M26 Persings did make to the european battlefield but very very late in the war. There is footage of a street batle in Calogne (I think) with one taking on a Panther. The US Tank won that confrontation. The Persing was an excellent tank and was based on experienced learned from the T-20 project. The 90mm gun was very very good. Not as potent as the British 17 pounder which actually out did the German 88. The key aspects of the M26 remained present and fairly standardized on all US Main Battle tanks through the M60A1s of our era. It is fascinating that we Americans Developed the excellent Christie Suspensions between the world wars but were the last major belligerant to adopt it.
|
|
|
Post by shiftsup on Dec 10, 2013 12:26:17 GMT -5
linkThe appearance of the Pershing knocking out the Panther in Köln begins around 2:30 and the hits on the Panther are around 3:10 with its crew members escaping. I believe that Panther burned for 3 days afterwards. Also this: link
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on Dec 10, 2013 13:33:48 GMT -5
During the war, tank fires were usually blamed on the Fuel but in fact it was generally the ammo propellant that ignited. US wet stowage improved this somewhat but our thin armor meant that a hit was likely to penetrate and if it resulted in a fire the tank was a complete loss. Many Shermans that were knocked out and didn't burn were recovered and repaired.
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on Dec 29, 2013 16:28:12 GMT -5
There is an excellent TV Series on the Military Channel called Greatest Tank Battles and while they depict armor on armor clashes throughout history most are WW2. the program uses a lot of CG effects combined with actual historical footage, interviews with survivors from both sides and excellent specifications and data sheets about the key weapons. The format is entertaining and informative but as with all these things it's important to view them with a certain level of caution. Often times the footage is a montage that often depicts events from a campaign other then the one being discussed. Some of the first person accounts are suspect. Not deliberate but incidental errors. Foggy memory, myopic views of the battlefield, the confusion of battle. In one section from the Battle of the Bulge the American veteran describes his 57mm tank crew knocking out five TIGER tanks at a battle where historical facts and the destroyed tanks at that site were PZ IVs. With one TIGER II knocked out. This in no way deminishes his bravery or his crews abilities or his bravado. Any tank encounter was a big deal (especially when armed by the pea shooter 57mm AT gun) and a PZIV with its shrouds and camouflage at range looms as large and intimidating as a TIGER. German tanks were commonly misidentified as TIGERs throughout the war. In this case his recollections are sonewhat incorrect. The part that is interesting is that the Royal Tiger destroyed there was as described by this witness destroyed by the building falling on it which was the result of this little guns actions.
A key fact throughout the series is the invulnerability of Panther and TIGER frontal armor while demonstrating that when attacked from the side or rear even the TIGERs could be destroyed. The other thing the show helps demonstrate is how engagements were often up close where the German advantages is lethality and defensive capability were mitigated considerably.
|
|
|
Post by volkssturm on Dec 29, 2013 19:45:32 GMT -5
The 57mm (6 pounder to the Brits who developed it) is underappreciated. It had better penetration at 500 yards than the 75mm on the Sherman and could pretty easily penetrate the side of a Panther. But not the front unless you were extremely lucky. Like a 57mm gun at the Battle of Mortain which took out a Panther by scoring a lucky hit on the hull machinegun which allowed the enter the hull. With a lighter projectile it had a shorter range, of course, and the problem with all towed AT guns was that the best you could expect was to trade one AT gun for one tank, because after the first shot they were a sitting duck.
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on Dec 30, 2013 2:23:41 GMT -5
By the Bulge most of the Tank Destroyer units were equipped with M10s, M18s or M36s There were still a number of towed AT units within the Infantry Regiments but many of them had transitioned to the 76mm AT gun. As mentioned by Volks the only survivability for towed guns (57mm or 76mm) were side shots and locations where they could initiate fire from either a reverse slope as the tanks crested a ridge or a series of angled enfilade shots with cover to their front. Both greatly limited their ability to track and be ready for that initial shot but typically was the only way they were likely to get off several. One saving grace for towed guns was they could be well camouflaged and tankers in a moving tank (especially when buttoned up) couldn't see much. tank fire and anti tank fire however created quite a muzzle signature when fired.
A anti tank crew that had the guts to stay with their guns after engaging tanks hauled their balls in a wheel barrel as far as I'm concerned. Definitely courageous.
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on Dec 31, 2013 1:23:45 GMT -5
The inability to quickly move after you initiate fire is pretty much a death sentence when facing multiple approaching tanks. We airsofters can certainly appreciate this as once we open up (no matter how good or position is) if we remain in that spot we will get eliminated. Just like the lightly armored Tank destroyers of WW2 we have to tactically select our spot and consider before the fact how we will engage an assortment of enemy approach patterns and where and how we will relocate. The smart player works all that out before the firefight. Like tank destroyers side shots and whenever possible getting behind your opponent is always a worthwhile plan.
|
|