Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(War is Boring)   Germany's Nashorn tank destroyer. Farking back of the map campers   ( warisboring.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, World War II, satisfactory tank destroyers, Jagdpanther tank destroyers, Panther tank, various times-serious shortcomings, Soviet tanks, superior Red Army, Panzer III/IV chassis  
•       •       •

4253 clicks; posted to Geek » on 17 Apr 2017 at 9:50 AM (31 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



76 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2017-04-17 09:04:06 AM  
Paper thin armor.  Yeah, you'd better hide.
 
2017-04-17 09:09:51 AM  
The mage of armored combat.
 
2017-04-17 10:02:15 AM  

Polish Hussar: Paper thin armor.  Yeah, you'd better hide.


Tank Destroyers, as a class, are glass cannons. They're designed to shoot and scoot.

The battlecruiser was a similar idea.
 
2017-04-17 10:04:07 AM  

Polish Hussar: Paper thin armor.  Yeah, you'd better hide.


The ZiS-30 was a similar design that had no armor. Without a gun as good as the 88 it was doomed to failure.
 
2017-04-17 10:13:21 AM  

Polish Hussar: Paper thin armor.  Yeah, you'd better hide.


From stabbing?
 
2017-04-17 10:17:32 AM  
Not even Germany liked the St. Emil to upgrade.
 
2017-04-17 10:26:18 AM  

This text is now purple: Polish Hussar: Paper thin armor.  Yeah, you'd better hide.
Tank Destroyers, as a class, are glass cannons. They're designed to shoot and scoot.
The battlecruiser was a similar idea.


Tank Destroyers seemed to work when the army used them as intended (which implies that the army sometimes used them properly (shooting and scooting).  I'm not aware of a navy using battlecruisers in similar way.  I'm not even sure there *was* a similar way to use battlecruisers: if you need to punch through that much armor, you are duking it out with a ship of the line and are going to get sunk.  Unless the whole point was shore bombardment of places without fixed defenses, I'm coming up blank.

I've read similar claims (from fark links or links from fark discussions) that claim that all US WWII tanks were never intended to fight German tanks (Japanese tanks weren't that significant) and that tank destroyers (and towed weapons) were expected to do that duty.  They also seemed a better idea than losing 5 Shermans for every Tiger killed (even though we *could* manufacture more than enough Shermans).
 
2017-04-17 10:37:17 AM  

yet_another_wumpus: This text is now purple: Polish Hussar: Paper thin armor.  Yeah, you'd better hide.
Tank Destroyers, as a class, are glass cannons. They're designed to shoot and scoot.
The battlecruiser was a similar idea.

Tank Destroyers seemed to work when the army used them as intended (which implies that the army sometimes used them properly (shooting and scooting).  I'm not aware of a navy using battlecruisers in similar way.  I'm not even sure there *was* a similar way to use battlecruisers: if you need to punch through that much armor, you are duking it out with a ship of the line and are going to get sunk.  Unless the whole point was shore bombardment of places without fixed defenses, I'm coming up blank.

I've read similar claims (from fark links or links from fark discussions) that claim that all US WWII tanks were never intended to fight German tanks (Japanese tanks weren't that significant) and that tank destroyers (and towed weapons) were expected to do that duty.  They also seemed a better idea than losing 5 Shermans for every Tiger killed (even though we *could* manufacture more than enough Shermans).


It was more 9 Shermans for every Tiger. But there was slways a tenth ready to come up from behind all sneaky.

If i'm not mistaken, ww2 allied tank crews had some of the lowest survivability rates of the war.
 
2017-04-17 10:37:44 AM  
Nein! Kontrollieren Sie die Kontrollleuchte wieder?
 
2017-04-17 10:49:20 AM  

yet_another_wumpus: This text is now purple: Polish Hussar: Paper thin armor.  Yeah, you'd better hide.
Tank Destroyers, as a class, are glass cannons. They're designed to shoot and scoot.
The battlecruiser was a similar idea.

Tank Destroyers seemed to work when the army used them as intended (which implies that the army sometimes used them properly (shooting and scooting).  I'm not aware of a navy using battlecruisers in similar way.  I'm not even sure there *was* a similar way to use battlecruisers: if you need to punch through that much armor, you are duking it out with a ship of the line and are going to get sunk.  Unless the whole point was shore bombardment of places without fixed defenses, I'm coming up blank.


Mebbe he meant light cruisers?
 
2017-04-17 10:53:08 AM  

yet_another_wumpus: I'm not aware of a navy using battlecruisers in similar way.  I'm not even sure there *was* a similar way to use battlecruisers: if you need to punch through that much armor, you are duking it out with a ship of the line and are going to get sunk.  Unless the whole point was shore bombardment of places without fixed defenses, I'm coming up blank.


They sort of got used in WWI. The idea was something that could chase down cruisers and hit as hard as a battleship.

The idea sort of fell by the wayside after Jutland, when the BCs got their asses handed to them by the full BBs while operating in confined space. They did okay in the Falklands, when they were chasing after cruisers.

Mostly, the idea got upgraded into fast battleships. Sort of how the various TDs and heavy tanks got rolled into the idea of the main battle tank during the cold war. The MBT is basically a very fast medium/heavy tank. It gets the fast idea from the tank destroyers, but armors itself way up.
 
2017-04-17 10:58:39 AM  

yet_another_wumpus: I've read similar claims (from fark links or links from fark discussions) that claim that all US WWII tanks were never intended to fight German tanks (Japanese tanks weren't that significant) and that tank destroyers (and towed weapons) were expected to do that duty.


American doctrine was that tanks were to work as part of a combined-arms operation in combination with/support of infantry. The TDs were to hunt down packs of enemy tanks. The idea was to counter Blitzkrieg with a counter-punching TD force.

It worked okay in rapidly flowing battlefields, but in practice, infantry and tanks tended to be found together, and semi-static fronts had a lot of tank vs tank fights. They were still useful for hitting occupied tanks, and tended to get repurposed as a high-speed light artillery force or as light tanks.
 
XSV
2017-04-17 10:58:42 AM  

Smoking GNU: yet_another_wumpus: This text is now purple: Polish Hussar: Paper thin armor.  Yeah, you'd better hide.
Tank Destroyers, as a class, are glass cannons. They're designed to shoot and scoot.
The battlecruiser was a similar idea.

Tank Destroyers seemed to work when the army used them as intended (which implies that the army sometimes used them properly (shooting and scooting).  I'm not aware of a navy using battlecruisers in similar way.  I'm not even sure there *was* a similar way to use battlecruisers: if you need to punch through that much armor, you are duking it out with a ship of the line and are going to get sunk.  Unless the whole point was shore bombardment of places without fixed defenses, I'm coming up blank.

I've read similar claims (from fark links or links from fark discussions) that claim that all US WWII tanks were never intended to fight German tanks (Japanese tanks weren't that significant) and that tank destroyers (and towed weapons) were expected to do that duty.  They also seemed a better idea than losing 5 Shermans for every Tiger killed (even though we *could* manufacture more than enough Shermans).

It was more 9 Shermans for every Tiger. But there was slways a tenth ready to come up from behind all sneaky.

If i'm not mistaken, ww2 allied tank crews had some of the lowest survivability rates of the war.


yeah, the problem with sneaking up behind the tigers though was if you accidentally loaded a paint round.

writeups.orgView Full Size


/always with the negative waves.
 
2017-04-17 11:16:25 AM  
War is Boring

Yeah, so is TFA. Really dry delivery, no real explanation of why the tank destroyers were created, they just kind of touch on it, but it's not really interesting. This reads more like a textbook entry than an interesting article, it's just kinda flat.
 
2017-04-17 11:17:16 AM  

This text is now purple: yet_another_wumpus: I'm not aware of a navy using battlecruisers in similar way.  I'm not even sure there *was* a similar way to use battlecruisers: if you need to punch through that much armor, you are duking it out with a ship of the line and are going to get sunk.  Unless the whole point was shore bombardment of places without fixed defenses, I'm coming up blank.

They sort of got used in WWI. The idea was something that could chase down cruisers and hit as hard as a battleship.

The idea sort of fell by the wayside after Jutland, when the BCs got their asses handed to them by the full BBs while operating in confined space. They did okay in the Falklands, when they were chasing after cruisers.

Mostly, the idea got upgraded into fast battleships. Sort of how the various TDs and heavy tanks got rolled into the idea of the main battle tank during the cold war. The MBT is basically a very fast medium/heavy tank. It gets the fast idea from the tank destroyers, but armors itself way up.


The major issue with that was that the British leadership was filled with people who believed that the BC was a good idea despite all of the evidence to the contrary.  If you can shoot at the Bismark, she can shoot you back.  Battlecruisers were a flawed idea from the beginning.
 
2017-04-17 11:22:42 AM  

Smoking GNU: yet_another_wumpus: This text is now purple: Polish Hussar: Paper thin armor.  Yeah, you'd better hide.
Tank Destroyers, as a class, are glass cannons. They're designed to shoot and scoot.
The battlecruiser was a similar idea.

Tank Destroyers seemed to work when the army used them as intended (which implies that the army sometimes used them properly (shooting and scooting).  I'm not aware of a navy using battlecruisers in similar way.  I'm not even sure there *was* a similar way to use battlecruisers: if you need to punch through that much armor, you are duking it out with a ship of the line and are going to get sunk.  Unless the whole point was shore bombardment of places without fixed defenses, I'm coming up blank.

I've read similar claims (from fark links or links from fark discussions) that claim that all US WWII tanks were never intended to fight German tanks (Japanese tanks weren't that significant) and that tank destroyers (and towed weapons) were expected to do that duty.  They also seemed a better idea than losing 5 Shermans for every Tiger killed (even though we *could* manufacture more than enough Shermans).

It was more 9 Shermans for every Tiger. But there was slways a tenth ready to come up from behind all sneaky.

If i'm not mistaken, ww2 allied tank crews had some of the lowest survivability rates of the war.


I don't have much knowledge about Allied crew casualty rates, but I do wonder how things would have shaken out if development of the M26 Pershing, the Sherman's successor, hadn't been slowed down.  General Leslie McNair thought we didn't need heavy tanks because tanks shouldn't be fighting other tanks, tank destroyers should be fighting tanks.

And there were elements in the Army that didn't want the Pershing because a lot of bridges in Europe couldn't accommodate their weight* and it's harder to ship 45 ton tanks across an ocean than 30 ton tanks.  And the Sherman had been perfectly adequate against the German tank types they'd fought in North Africa earlier in the war.

*Probably the Pershing's most notable combat action in WWII was when 9 of them helped spearhead the drive to the Ludendorf Bridge at Remagen.  However, once the bridge was captured, they were too heavy to use the damaged span to cross the Rhine.  The Shermans were light enough to get across, though.
 
2017-04-17 11:25:01 AM  

Mikey1969: no real explanation of why the tank destroyers were created


img.fark.netView Full Size
 
XSV
2017-04-17 11:25:21 AM  

rummonkey: This text is now purple: yet_another_wumpus: I'm not aware of a navy using battlecruisers in similar way.  I'm not even sure there *was* a similar way to use battlecruisers: if you need to punch through that much armor, you are duking it out with a ship of the line and are going to get sunk.  Unless the whole point was shore bombardment of places without fixed defenses, I'm coming up blank.

They sort of got used in WWI. The idea was something that could chase down cruisers and hit as hard as a battleship.

The idea sort of fell by the wayside after Jutland, when the BCs got their asses handed to them by the full BBs while operating in confined space. They did okay in the Falklands, when they were chasing after cruisers.

Mostly, the idea got upgraded into fast battleships. Sort of how the various TDs and heavy tanks got rolled into the idea of the main battle tank during the cold war. The MBT is basically a very fast medium/heavy tank. It gets the fast idea from the tank destroyers, but armors itself way up.

The major issue with that was that the British leadership was filled with people who believed that the BC was a good idea despite all of the evidence to the contrary.  If you can shoot at the Bismark, she can shoot you back.  Battlecruisers were a flawed idea from the beginning.


bad decisions eventually cancel out? the Brits had the 1 thing the bismark couldn't hit:
upload.wikimedia.orgView Full Size
 
2017-04-17 11:36:40 AM  

rummonkey: This text is now purple: yet_another_wumpus: I'm not aware of a navy using battlecruisers in similar way.  I'm not even sure there *was* a similar way to use battlecruisers: if you need to punch through that much armor, you are duking it out with a ship of the line and are going to get sunk.  Unless the whole point was shore bombardment of places without fixed defenses, I'm coming up blank.

They sort of got used in WWI. The idea was something that could chase down cruisers and hit as hard as a battleship.

The idea sort of fell by the wayside after Jutland, when the BCs got their asses handed to them by the full BBs while operating in confined space. They did okay in the Falklands, when they were chasing after cruisers.

Mostly, the idea got upgraded into fast battleships. Sort of how the various TDs and heavy tanks got rolled into the idea of the main battle tank during the cold war. The MBT is basically a very fast medium/heavy tank. It gets the fast idea from the tank destroyers, but armors itself way up.

The major issue with that was that the British leadership was filled with people who believed that the BC was a good idea despite all of the evidence to the contrary.  If you can shoot at the Bismark, she can shoot you back.  Battlecruisers were a flawed idea from the beginning.


They weren't designed for a stand-up fight with battleships. Their flaw was that they'd eventually find themselves in that battle. However, their concept found its way into mainline battleship construction.
 
2017-04-17 11:44:49 AM  

Smoking GNU: It was more 9 Shermans for every Tiger. But there was slways a tenth ready to come up from behind all sneaky.

If i'm not mistaken, ww2 allied tank crews had some of the lowest survivability rates of the war.


You are mistaken about survivability, but it's a very common misconception so it's understandable. I think the thought must be that the US was able to produce so many Shermans that they must have been cutting corners. That's not the case- the US produced a lot of Shermans because they had a massive and uncontested industrial base.

This video was posted to Fark some time ago, and I found it convincing:

Myths of American Armor. TankFest Northwest 2015
Youtube bNjp_4jY8pY


TL;DR version:

1) The Sherman had nearly as much frontal armor (with a 60 degree slope) than a Tiger 1 (with essentially no slope). The Tiger's 88mm gun was vastly superior to the Sherman, but most guns on the battlefield were not 88mm guns. Smaller caliber guns were far, far more survivable.

2) The Sherman had incredibly well designed hatches that allowed crew to evacuate in seconds, where other contemporaries might take a minute or two.

3) Shermans were statistically very safe places to be on the battlefield. As a very rough comparison, an infantryman was at least 6 times more likely to be killed in Europe than a Sherman crew member.

Incidentally, he also addresses the "5 Shermans to take out a Tiger" in this same video, pointing out that Shermans were deployed in a platoon of 5 tanks.
 
2017-04-17 11:46:12 AM  
"Germany's Nashorn tank destroyer. Farking back of the map campers"

AKA TF2 snipers. I hate those characters and it was always my pleasure to grief them with spies when possible.
 
2017-04-17 11:49:25 AM  
In case anyone was curious, AFV production from the major WWII combatants:

USA:  102,253
USSR:  106,104
Germany:  46,937
UK:  36,252
Italy:  4,333
Japan:  5,369

The USA actually cut back production in 1944 because we were making more than we needed. Germany had a 4:1 advantage over the USSR in coal production and steel production in 1942 and 1943.

Source:
2013 International Conference on WWII - Kursk The Epic Armored Engagement
Youtube N6xLMUifbxQ
 
2017-04-17 11:54:39 AM  

Polish Hussar: In case anyone was curious, AFV production from the major WWII combatants:

USA:  102,253
USSR:  106,104
Germany:  46,937
UK:  36,252
Italy:  4,333
Japan:  5,369

The USA actually cut back production in 1944 because we were making more than we needed. Germany had a 4:1 advantage over the USSR in coal production and steel production in 1942 and 1943.

Source:
[iFrame https://www.youtube.com/embed/N6xLMUifbxQ?start=1702 - 480x270]


Germany also had a navy and an air force.

The USSR had no naval capabilities, and had an air farce. Half of what they flew was Allied hand-me-downs, and much of the rest was a bomb flown by a sewing machine with wings.

They did build doomstacks of armor and artillery, though.
 
2017-04-17 11:56:25 AM  

facepalm.jpg: Smoking GNU: It was more 9 Shermans for every Tiger. But there was slways a tenth ready to come up from behind all sneaky.

If i'm not mistaken, ww2 allied tank crews had some of the lowest survivability rates of the war.

You are mistaken about survivability, but it's a very common misconception so it's understandable. I think the thought must be that the US was able to produce so many Shermans that they must have been cutting corners. That's not the case- the US produced a lot of Shermans because they had a massive and uncontested industrial base.

This video was posted to Fark some time ago, and I found it convincing:

[YouTube video]

TL;DR version:

1) The Sherman had nearly as much frontal armor (with a 60 degree slope) than a Tiger 1 (with essentially no slope). The Tiger's 88mm gun was vastly superior to the Sherman, but most guns on the battlefield were not 88mm guns. Smaller caliber guns were far, far more survivable.

2) The Sherman had incredibly well designed hatches that allowed crew to evacuate in seconds, where other contemporaries might take a minute or two.

3) Shermans were statistically very safe places to be on the battlefield. As a very rough comparison, an infantryman was at least 6 times more likely to be killed in Europe than a Sherman crew member.

Incidentally, he also addresses the "5 Shermans to take out a Tiger" in this same video, pointing out that Shermans were deployed in a platoon of 5 tanks.


I remember hearing somewhere that the source of a lot of misconceptions about the Sherman was a book by an officer whose job during WWII was to examine knocked-out tanks.  I think the book was called "Deathtraps."  And since he only saw dead Shermans, this slanted his views.  Does the video get into that at all?
 
2017-04-17 11:56:45 AM  

Smoking GNU: yet_another_wumpus: This text is now purple: Polish Hussar: Paper thin armor.  Yeah, you'd better hide.
Tank Destroyers, as a class, are glass cannons. They're designed to shoot and scoot.
The battlecruiser was a similar idea.

Tank Destroyers seemed to work when the army used them as intended (which implies that the army sometimes used them properly (shooting and scooting).  I'm not aware of a navy using battlecruisers in similar way.  I'm not even sure there *was* a similar way to use battlecruisers: if you need to punch through that much armor, you are duking it out with a ship of the line and are going to get sunk.  Unless the whole point was shore bombardment of places without fixed defenses, I'm coming up blank.

I've read similar claims (from fark links or links from fark discussions) that claim that all US WWII tanks were never intended to fight German tanks (Japanese tanks weren't that significant) and that tank destroyers (and towed weapons) were expected to do that duty.  They also seemed a better idea than losing 5 Shermans for every Tiger killed (even though we *could* manufacture more than enough Shermans).

It was more 9 Shermans for every Tiger. But there was slways a tenth ready to come up from behind all sneaky.

If i'm not mistaken, ww2 allied tank crews had some of the lowest survivability rates of the war.


There's a reason the Krauts called it the Tommykocher (Tommy cooker). They also called their field kitchens "Gulaschkanone" so maybe they just liked ironic names.
 
2017-04-17 12:02:50 PM  

Smoking GNU: If i'm not mistaken, ww2 allied tank crews had some of the lowest survivability rates of the war.


Im glad my Grandfathers survivability rate was 100%.

/he rolled out in Stuarts
 
2017-04-17 12:06:23 PM  

Polish Hussar: I remember hearing somewhere that the source of a lot of misconceptions about the Sherman was a book by an officer whose job during WWII was to examine knocked-out tanks. I think the book was called "Deathtraps." And since he only saw dead Shermans, this slanted his views. Does the video get into that at all?


Yes he does.

The thing to note is that the video is purely from the American perspective during the war, where a larger number of German tanks where on the eastern front and it was the Brits who took what armour the Germans had in France on the chin and not the Americans.

The thing no one wants to mention is that there were no good tanks in WW2. The panzers were garage queens who broke down a lot, the British tanks were far too small inside and under-gunned, the American tanks were under-gunned and too big and the T-34 was poorly built and difficult to operate. Most peoples understanding of WW2 is filtered through generations of propaganda.
 
2017-04-17 12:07:12 PM  

facepalm.jpg: Smoking GNU: It was more 9 Shermans for every Tiger. But there was slways a tenth ready to come up from behind all sneaky.

If i'm not mistaken, ww2 allied tank crews had some of the lowest survivability rates of the war.

You are mistaken about survivability, but it's a very common misconception so it's understandable. I think the thought must be that the US was able to produce so many Shermans that they must have been cutting corners. That's not the case- the US produced a lot of Shermans because they had a massive and uncontested industrial base.

This video was posted to Fark some time ago, and I found it convincing:

[YouTube video]

TL;DR version:

1) The Sherman had nearly as much frontal armor (with a 60 degree slope) than a Tiger 1 (with essentially no slope). The Tiger's 88mm gun was vastly superior to the Sherman, but most guns on the battlefield were not 88mm guns. Smaller caliber guns were far, far more survivable.

2) The Sherman had incredibly well designed hatches that allowed crew to evacuate in seconds, where other contemporaries might take a minute or two.

3) Shermans were statistically very safe places to be on the battlefield. As a very rough comparison, an infantryman was at least 6 times more likely to be killed in Europe than a Sherman crew member.

Incidentally, he also addresses the "5 Shermans to take out a Tiger" in this same video, pointing out that Shermans were deployed in a platoon of 5 tanks.


Another reason for the difference in production numbers is that the Germans contracted with heavy equipment (think tractors, combines, and construction vehicles) manufacturers to build tanks, where the Americans had auto manufacturers used to building large numbers of vehicles quickly. The soviets moved their whole industrial base very quickly and had massive factories where they built the T-34.
There's a good reason the allies had so many more tanks than the Germans. It just wasn't because they had to replace more vehicles lost in combat.
 
ecl [TotalFark] [BareFark]
2017-04-17 12:14:01 PM  

This text is now purple: Polish Hussar: In case anyone was curious, AFV production from the major WWII combatants:

USA:  102,253
USSR:  106,104
Germany:  46,937
UK:  36,252
Italy:  4,333
Japan:  5,369

The USA actually cut back production in 1944 because we were making more than we needed. Germany had a 4:1 advantage over the USSR in coal production and steel production in 1942 and 1943.

Source:
[iFrame https://www.youtube.com/embed/N6xLMUifbxQ?start=1702 - 480x270]

Germany also had a navy and an air force.

The USSR had no naval capabilities, and had an air farce. Half of what they flew was Allied hand-me-downs, and much of the rest was a bomb flown by a sewing machine with wings.

They did build doomstacks of armor and artillery, though.


Tom Bergeron ruined it for me honestly.
 
2017-04-17 12:23:07 PM  

This text is now purple: Polish Hussar: In case anyone was curious, AFV production from the major WWII combatants:

USA:  102,253
USSR:  106,104
Germany:  46,937
UK:  36,252
Italy:  4,333
Japan:  5,369

The USA actually cut back production in 1944 because we were making more than we needed. Germany had a 4:1 advantage over the USSR in coal production and steel production in 1942 and 1943.

Source:
[iFrame https://www.youtube.com/embed/N6xLMUifbxQ?start=1702 - 480x270]

Germany also had a navy and an air force.

The USSR had no naval capabilities, and had an air farce. Half of what they flew was Allied hand-me-downs, and much of the rest was a bomb flown by a sewing machine with wings.

They did build doomstacks of armor and artillery, though.


Watch further to where he gets into detail about German tank production methods.  There were some horrible inefficiencies there that persisted throughout the war that the Americans and the Soviets managed to avoid.

Although, I do wonder what the steel allocation was between the various services in Germany.  That would help to contextualize that number a great deal.

Still, even with the competing demands and Lend-Lease to the Soviets; with that big of a resource advantage, having a 40% bigger economy than the USSR and the huge disruptions to Soviet industry during 1941-42, I think the production disparity still indicates that Germany didn't get as much out of its industry as it could have by a fair margin.
 
2017-04-17 12:23:13 PM  

scottydoesntknow: Mikey1969: no real explanation of why the tank destroyers were created

[img.fark.net image 600x345]


As in "Why weren't tanks perfectly capable of destroying other tanks?" in the first place... They covered it, but in the most boring way possible.
 
2017-04-17 12:34:37 PM  

Norfolking Chance: The T-34 was poorly built and difficult to operate.


One of the things Parshall mentions in the video I posted is that poor Soviet build quality was at least partially by design.  By their studies, the average life of a T-34 was less than 6 months, and less than 14 hours once it got into combat.  They needed as many tanks as possible ASAP, so they weren't going to waste resources building tanks that were going to last longer than that.  The design life of a T-34 drivetrain produced during the war was 1,500km.
 
2017-04-17 12:40:46 PM  
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-04-17 12:49:56 PM  

This text is now purple: Polish Hussar: Paper thin armor.  Yeah, you'd better hide.

Tank Destroyers, as a class, are glass cannons. They're designed to shoot and scoot.

The battlecruiser was a similar idea.


I once destroyed 6 tanks in a single battle in my jagdpz iv. I even went muzzle to muzzle with an O-I. I took his tracks with my first shot and his shots just kept bouncing. It took about 3000 years for me to kill him even with the 88 I was sporting.

/ it probably didn't hurt that he was the dumb
 
2017-04-17 12:51:15 PM  
Get 'em on the respawn.
 
2017-04-17 01:12:47 PM  

El Dudereno: Another reason for the difference in production numbers is that the Germans contracted with heavy equipment (think tractors, combines, and construction vehicles) manufacturers to build tanks, where the Americans had auto manufacturers used to building large numbers of vehicles quickly. The soviets moved their whole industrial base very quickly and had massive factories where they built the T-34.
There's a good reason the allies had so many more tanks than the Germans. It just wasn't because they had to replace more vehicles lost in combat.


To add to that a bit, the US and USSR converted non-automotive heavy industries to tank production (mostly railroad manufacturers in the US, tractor factories in the USSR) as Germany did.  However, unlike in Germany, they used automotive style mass production techniques (most notably the production line).  In the talk about tank production I posted earlier, the guy goes into detail at the main Tiger factory.  Stand based production is no way to build tanks, son.
 
2017-04-17 01:15:15 PM  

Intrepid00: Not even Germany liked the St. Emil to upgrade.


That's why free XP was invented.

The Boomsig makes it all worth it tho :D
 
2017-04-17 01:21:05 PM  
A tank destroyer is only good if it has a powerful cannon, accurate, and is fast enough to avoid being a target itself. But unless you also have air superiority.... BRRRRRRRRRRT!
 
2017-04-17 01:23:32 PM  
The thing about tanks in call of Dooty is there scripted
 
2017-04-17 01:23:55 PM  

This text is now purple: The USSR had no naval capabilities, and had an air farce.


img.fark.netView Full Size


They built something like 30,000 of these.  You didn't want to be in a German tank anywhere near one of them.
 
XSV
2017-04-17 01:26:04 PM  

iheartscotch: This text is now purple: Polish Hussar: Paper thin armor.  Yeah, you'd better hide.

Tank Destroyers, as a class, are glass cannons. They're designed to shoot and scoot.

The battlecruiser was a similar idea.

I once destroyed 6 tanks in a single battle in my jagdpz iv. I even went muzzle to muzzle with an O-I. I took his tracks with my first shot and his shots just kept bouncing. It took about 3000 years for me to kill him even with the 88 I was sporting.

/ it probably didn't hurt that he was the dumb


talking WoT? I got all the way to the Ferdinand, maybe got to the Jagdtiger before getting more interested in other tech trees.

best games with the German TDs were either in the stug or the Jagdpanther

/ferdinand pissed me off unless you could get set up in just the right place
//and pray to God their arty didn't find you.
///this was before they split the German TD tree
 
2017-04-17 01:27:52 PM  

Polish Hussar: Norfolking Chance: The T-34 was poorly built and difficult to operate.

One of the things Parshall mentions in the video I posted is that poor Soviet build quality was at least partially by design.  By their studies, the average life of a T-34 was less than 6 months, and less than 14 hours once it got into combat.  They needed as many tanks as possible ASAP, so they weren't going to waste resources building tanks that were going to last longer than that.  The design life of a T-34 drivetrain produced during the war was 1,500km.


Yes it was deliberately shoddily made but the more your soldiers are fighting the tank the less they can fight the enemy.

Now the Russians only cared about volume rather than efficiency but it doesn't take away from the fact that if you had a choice you would rather drive a M4 than a T-34
 
2017-04-17 01:34:49 PM  

Polish Hussar: Paper thin armor.  Yeah, you'd better hide.


The armor was only against infantry fire.  They were tank destroyers not tank fighters.
 
2017-04-17 01:38:41 PM  

SirDigbyChickenCaesar: This text is now purple: The USSR had no naval capabilities, and had an air farce.

[img.fark.net image 650x234]

They built something like 30,000 of these.  You didn't want to be in a German tank anywhere near one of them.


The Russians also loved the P-39 Airacobra & P-63 King Cobra for their tank busting capabilities, much
moreso than the USAAF.
 
2017-04-17 01:39:09 PM  

SirDigbyChickenCaesar: This text is now purple: The USSR had no naval capabilities, and had an air farce.

[img.fark.net image 650x234]

They built something like 30,000 of these.  You didn't want to be in a German tank anywhere near one of them.


they are good up until a whirble, ostwind or they fly low enouph to say high to the 88 or 75.

ad-2 is supreme ground pounder.
 
2017-04-17 01:54:03 PM  
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-04-17 01:54:07 PM  
There was a German tank officer,  can't recall who but he supposedly said " A Tiger is worth 10 Shermans but you always had 11."

The Sherman was also called The Ronson" after a  popular brand of cigarette lighter of the time as like the lighter's slogan " It lit first time every time "    later this was somewhat mitigated by implementing wet storage* for the ammo.

*the ammo is stored in a container surrounded by a jacket of water to protect it from accidental  detonation caused by enemy fire.
 
2017-04-17 02:11:11 PM  

XSV: Smoking GNU: yet_another_wumpus: This text is now purple: Polish Hussar: Paper thin armor.  Yeah, you'd better hide.
Tank Destroyers, as a class, are glass cannons. They're designed to shoot and scoot.
The battlecruiser was a similar idea.

Tank Destroyers seemed to work when the army used them as intended (which implies that the army sometimes used them properly (shooting and scooting).  I'm not aware of a navy using battlecruisers in similar way.  I'm not even sure there *was* a similar way to use battlecruisers: if you need to punch through that much armor, you are duking it out with a ship of the line and are going to get sunk.  Unless the whole point was shore bombardment of places without fixed defenses, I'm coming up blank.

I've read similar claims (from fark links or links from fark discussions) that claim that all US WWII tanks were never intended to fight German tanks (Japanese tanks weren't that significant) and that tank destroyers (and towed weapons) were expected to do that duty.  They also seemed a better idea than losing 5 Shermans for every Tiger killed (even though we *could* manufacture more than enough Shermans).

It was more 9 Shermans for every Tiger. But there was slways a tenth ready to come up from behind all sneaky.

If i'm not mistaken, ww2 allied tank crews had some of the lowest survivability rates of the war.

yeah, the problem with sneaking up behind the tigers though was if you accidentally loaded a paint round.

[www.writeups.org image 500x548]

/always with the negative waves.


In those cases, why not make a deal-deal. Maybe he's a Republican.

\Loves me some "Kelly's Heroes"
 
2017-04-17 02:20:33 PM  

This text is now purple: yet_another_wumpus: I'm not aware of a navy using battlecruisers in similar way.  I'm not even sure there *was* a similar way to use battlecruisers: if you need to punch through that much armor, you are duking it out with a ship of the line and are going to get sunk.  Unless the whole point was shore bombardment of places without fixed defenses, I'm coming up blank.

They sort of got used in WWI. The idea was something that could chase down cruisers and hit as hard as a battleship.

The idea sort of fell by the wayside after Jutland, when the BCs got their asses handed to them by the full BBs while operating in confined space. They did okay in the Falklands, when they were chasing after cruisers.

Mostly, the idea got upgraded into fast battleships. Sort of how the various TDs and heavy tanks got rolled into the idea of the main battle tank during the cold war. The MBT is basically a very fast medium/heavy tank. It gets the fast idea from the tank destroyers, but armors itself way up.


The 3 British battlecruisers sunk at Jutland were all the work of the guns of the German battlecruisers.  Lutzow, the only German battlecruiser sunk in the battle was a casualty of the British battle line (actually it was scuttled by its crew).  The German battlecruisers had much more robust armor compared to the British ships and withstood terrific punishment and all except the Lutzow returned to port.
 
2017-04-17 02:27:57 PM  

Polish Hussar: facepalm.jpg: Smoking GNU: It was more 9 Shermans for every Tiger. But there was slways a tenth ready to come up from behind all sneaky.

If i'm not mistaken, ww2 allied tank crews had some of the lowest survivability rates of the war.

You are mistaken about survivability, but it's a very common misconception so it's understandable. I think the thought must be that the US was able to produce so many Shermans that they must have been cutting corners. That's not the case- the US produced a lot of Shermans because they had a massive and uncontested industrial base.

This video was posted to Fark some time ago, and I found it convincing:

[YouTube video]

TL;DR version:

1) The Sherman had nearly as much frontal armor (with a 60 degree slope) than a Tiger 1 (with essentially no slope). The Tiger's 88mm gun was vastly superior to the Sherman, but most guns on the battlefield were not 88mm guns. Smaller caliber guns were far, far more survivable.

2) The Sherman had incredibly well designed hatches that allowed crew to evacuate in seconds, where other contemporaries might take a minute or two.

3) Shermans were statistically very safe places to be on the battlefield. As a very rough comparison, an infantryman was at least 6 times more likely to be killed in Europe than a Sherman crew member.

Incidentally, he also addresses the "5 Shermans to take out a Tiger" in this same video, pointing out that Shermans were deployed in a platoon of 5 tanks.

I remember hearing somewhere that the source of a lot of misconceptions about the Sherman was a book by an officer whose job during WWII was to examine knocked-out tanks.  I think the book was called "Deathtraps."  And since he only saw dead Shermans, this slanted his views.  Does the video get into that at all?


Early Shermans had a tendency to catch fire but it was a design flaw that was correctly pretty quickly.
 
Displayed 50 of 76 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report