2008 FOV Image Collection

[DomiUK]

Id actually like to see that as well

My understanding is normally you would get 3 squadrons of shermans per regiment. (the 4th being recce and stuff)

the squadrons being 4 groups of 4 tanks, 4 of which would normally be fireflys. (so 1 in 4)

It was also apparently a preference to add another firefly when available) so this could drop to 1 in 2/3.

production numbers for Fireflys ran to somewhere between 200 and 250 per month (arguments abound on if it was guns or tanks that slowed production at times).

Of course its not just fireflies, the allies remember used tanks and tank destroyers as a doctrine. The idea being Tank destoyers and AT guns fought tanks NOT tanks.

[DomiUK]

As always with internet sites accuracy may not be certain but ...

http://www.wwiiequipment.com/17pounder.aspx

Note the nearly 10,000 17pdr guns made in the UK alone between 1943 and 1945. (ie that is not imported from the commonwealth)

As I said before that Tiger is still a deathtrap if hit by one of these.

111 mm of Steel at 2000 yds is still quite a punch with relatively std ammunition.

[jrs.]

Its been said numerous times, so I would say this is over! We all know about the superior Axis Armor in a one on one comparo.

As stated it wasnt a one on one fight! While the germans built great weapons systems the allies simply built a better army!


Germans built great tanks, we built great fighter bombers to kill them, they lost.

[DrMindbender]

This reminds me of a similar debate which has interesting parallels to be made....AK-47 vs M16. I will just leave it at that. (sorry if the comparison as already been made as i am too lazy to read through the entire debate.)

[GooglyDoogly]

Like others have said, comparing Tigers to Shermans is a bit unfair.

But to compare a Panzer IV Ausf. H/J to a standard M4 75mm gun Sherman is a also a little unfair. The Panzer IV H/J are the upgraded versions, designed for tank vs. tank combat.

A better comparison would be a 75mm Sherman, vs a Panzer IV ausf. D, or earlier models. Both tanks have a low-velocity 75mm gun, and both tanks were designed for infantry support, rather than fighting enemy tanks. In that comparison, the Sherman is better than the Panzer IV.

You should compare a Sherman "Easy-Eights" to a Panzer IV ausf. H/J.

[Panzer_M]

not really.

you compare what is fielded at the time of the engagement... unless thet were "updated" PzKpfw.IV ausf Ds which did happen in the werks, D chassis upgunned or refitted for the "standard"

Although I'd have to say......heck Any Shorts up to the Ausf F1 weren't common in Panzer Division To&E Circa Summer '44 in France.

Italy '43 and North Africa would maybe see Short 75L24 Panzer IVs and IIIs fighting M4(Then at the time only with the M3 GP 75mm)..I remember reading about Panzer III ausf. Ns still in Italy at the end of the war. But by the time of Kasserine, Panzer IV ausf F2 and ausf.G might have been more common than the Short barrelled Panzers IVs in the field.


Although, IIRC 21st Panzer Division, Might have had issued to it some PzKpfw IVs with the 75L24, what models I can't say, whatever got dug out of the Reich's Training fields and Material Depots...but the number and how they were issued in the Panzer Regiment, either as Staff or Combat vehicles eludes me at the moment. But then 21st was a mix-mash of armour..I don't remember the Kampfwert class given( example: I. is good for offensives, III. only good for defensive operations)...but I do recall it was unsuited for the Eastern Front.

[GooglyDoogly]

not really.

you compare what is fielded at the time of the engagement... unless thet were "updated" PzKpfw.IV ausf Ds which did happen in the werks, D chassis upgunned or refitted for the "standard"

Although I'd have to say......heck Any Shorts up to the Ausf F1 weren't common in Panzer Division To&E Circa Summer '44 in France.

Italy '43 and North Africa would maybe see Short 75L24 Panzer IVs and IIIs fighting M4(Then at the time only with the M3 GP 75mm)..I remember reading about Panzer III ausf. Ns still in Italy at the end of the war. But by the time of Kasserine, Panzer IV ausf F2 and ausf.G might have been more common than the Short barrelled Panzers IVs in the field.


Although, IIRC 21st Panzer Division, Might have had issued to it some PzKpfw IVs with the 75L24, what models I can't say, whatever got dug out of the Reich's Training fields and Material Depots...but the number and how they were issued in the Panzer Regiment, either as Staff or Combat vehicles eludes me at the moment. But then 21st was a mix-mash of armour..I don't remember the Kampfwert class given( example: I. is good for offensives, III. only good for defensive operations)...but I do recall it was unsuited for the Eastern Front.

But isn't comparing an upgraded, upgunned, and uparmored Panzer IV, to just a "standard" Sherman a tad too unfair? Why not also compare the Panzer IV to an upgunned, uparmored Sherman? Why not compare a Panzer IV to a Firefly? Because if you're comparing tanks in terms of what's been fielded, then it's quite correct to compare an Easy-Eight or a Firefly, to a Panzer IV Ausf. H, seeing that all these tanks have met each other in combat, at more than one point in time.

[Panzer_M]

because it this simple:

Summer 1944:

German Panzer Division...let's say 2.Panzer Div "Wein"

3. Panzer Regiment. II. Abteilung: Issued Panzer IV ausf H

It's the Standard Equipment.

The Panzer IV ausf. D is dated to the 1940 campaigns

If it not in the conflict, then comparing it is rather pointless.

As for the Sherman 76/17lbs.... Let me qoute:


Patton's 3rd Army in Lorraine, Sept.44 had in it's To&E

165: M5 stuarts
596: M4 sherman 75L40
76: M4 76mm
450: M10 and M18 TD

[blurx7]

I keep opening this thread thinking its a new listing about new product. Since this thread seems to have been coopted by a different discussion, can we open a new thread devoted to the 2008 FOV offerings?

[GooglyDoogly]

because it this simple:

Summer 1944:

German Panzer Division...let's say 2.Panzer Div "Wein"

3. Panzer Regiment. II. Abteilung: Issued Panzer IV ausf H

It's the Standard Equipment.

The Panzer IV ausf. D is dated to the 1940 campaigns

If it not in the conflict, then comparing it is rather pointless.

As for the Sherman 76/17lbs.... Let me qoute:


Patton's 3rd Army in Lorraine, Sept.44 had in it's To&E

165: M5 stuarts
596: M4 sherman 75L40
76: M4 76mm
450: M10 and M18 TD

It's not really pointless, considering that most of these tank vs tank debates revolves around tank specs (how thick the armor, how lethal the gun, etc), more than anything else.

So my contention is that people should compare tanks in terms of what they are designed to do, and what their specs are.

The Panzer Ausf. D/E/F1 has a low velocity 75mm gun like the basic M4 Sherman, because it was designed to be as an infantry support tank, just like M4 Sherman.

So let's see....you want to compare an upgunned, uparmored, upgraded for tank vs tank combat Panzer IV...to a an infantry support tank.

I bet if someone started comparing JS IIs, or even the T-34/85s to the Panzer IV H/Js, many German armor enthusiasts would cry foul too. But according to you, it would be quite valid to compare the above-mentioned tanks, because that's what the Russians had fielded in the Eastern Front, and the workhorse of the German panzer arm is the Panzer IV.

[uksubs]

Problem is in War you can't pick & choose who you do battle with
Shermans did come face to face with Tigers & Panthers

[Hanomag]

All very true....

I wonder why nobody really talks about battles between Panzers and Allied TDs?
As that was the TDs job. Not that I'm inviting ANOTHER debate (or encouraging this one for that matter), I was just thinking I've never really read like that.

-H

p.s. I don't remember the last time we had a 5-pager (and going) around here.

[olifant]

I have no firm facts or figures to bear this out, but my understanding is that the TD divisions didn't really have large formations of panzers to meet head to head. If we had a west front "Kursk" this would have been a different story. Most Wehrmacht and SS units were woefully depleted by the time they reached the front in Normandy, and until the BOB were not really concentrated for the TD units to hit.Unfortunately they were not at the front in large numbers at the time. Not being organically attached to smaller units they were not very flexible and unable to respond to the panzers which showed themselves in dribs and drabs.

I don't mean to fan the flames but I get the impression that some here feel the need to defend the Sherman. The Sherman was marvelous to both produce and repair, which translated into huge numerical advantages at the front. It had good cross country performance and supported the troops extremely well. That being said it was terribly outclassed by the panzers, hence the user nickname of the "Ronson." It was not designed to go head to head with the panzers, but did time and time again. Can we really apologize for it's inferiority?

[Panzer_M]

All very true....

I wonder why nobody really talks about battles between Panzers and Allied TDs?
As that was the TDs job. Not that I'm inviting ANOTHER debate (or encouraging this one for that matter), I was just thinking I've never really read like that.

-H

p.s. I don't remember the last time we had a 5-pager (and going) around here.

Really cause the US army really F'd up there TD battalions in Europe.

Saddly cause of combat in North Africa, The Brass decided Towed AT Guns over SPG AT assets were the priority...I'm guessing they came to this cause at the time of Africa..Most TD bats, were either Towed 37mm and 57mm or Mounted M3 halftracks...over which I would give the AT Gun better survival ability over the M3 mounted guns. Since at the time there just weren't enough M10 TDs in 1943.

The opinion shifted to SPG by the time of Normandy, but restructing all the fielded TD battalions would take time.

For more on this Read: Harry Yeide: The Tank Killers, A history of America's World War II Tank Destroyer Force.

[GooglyDoogly]

The funny thing is, despite the losses, the Russians considered the T-34 is one of the key things that helped them win the Great Patriotic War. While in the West, the Sherman is often maligned and German tanks put onto pedestals.

People sometimes forget that no matter how good German tanks may be, they ultimately failed in their mission. And isn't that what counts?

The Germans put their money and resources on big, powerful tanks. Great. But did those tanks stopped the Soviet/Allied advance? No.

Even in an offensive, when it mattered, the vaunted Tigers/Kingtigers/Panthers/etc failed to make much difference. The Battle of Kursk? The German big cats failed to help smash the Pak fronts. The Battle of the Bulge? The mighty Kingtigers of the SS 501st were made to drive around in circles by a small force of American engineers.

One other curious thing. Soviet crews who were issued Sherman tanks absolutely loved them.

PS: I don't see a problem with having debates such as this. It's been very civilized and informative.

[Panzer_M]

If we had a west front "Kursk"

closest would be the Panzer Offensives of Mortain(Aug '44) and Lorraine(Sept.44) As of Aug.44 there were 184 Panzers in the west, Plans from Hitler and OKW were to have 712 Panzers and Assault Guns by Sept.44 in the sector to face 3rd Army(US).

Lorraine saw the destruction of the newly formed Panzer Brigades sent into the area, along with more bleeding of Panzer Divisions in the West.

Engaged in the battle(s) would be, under the First Armee(Knobeldorff), Fifth Panzer Armee(Manteuffel), Nineteenth Armee)(all in Armee Gruppe G commanded by Blaskowitz) Panzer Lehr(elements), 116. Panzer, 17. SS PanzerGrenadier, 21.Panzer(again elements or Kampfgruppen), 11. Panzer, 3. PanzerGrenadier, 15. PanzerGrenadier, 106. Panzer Brigade, 111. Panzer Brigade, 112. Panzer Brigade, 113. Panzer Brigade.

Plus with the following Infantrie Units in support: 5. Fallshirmjäger Division, 19. Volksgrenadier Div, 36. Volksgrenadier Div, 559. Volksgrenadier Div, 16. Infantrie Div, 716. Infantrie Div, 189. Ersatz Division, 338. Infantrie Div, 159. Ersatz Div, 198. Infantrie Div

This is as of Sept. 16, 1944

Versus: Third Army under George S. Patton which comprised at the time:

XX Corps
2nd Cavalry Reconnaissance Group
7th Armoured Div
5th Infantry Div
90th Infantry Div

XII Corps(Eddy's command)
106th Cavalry Recon Group
4th Armoured Div
6th Armoured Div
35th Infantry Div
80th Infantry Div

XV Corps
79th Infantry Div
French 2nd Armoured Div

XIX Tactical Air Command (A deciding factor in the battles)
100th Fighter Wing
303rd Fighter Wing

[Big Duke 6]

Stryker looks cool !

[aferguson]

God forgive me for jumping in here but to say the german tanks failed in their task is a bit unfair. The german army was, by its leaders, pitted against an allied force (USSR, US, Britain, Canada, etc etc) that was gigantic in its proportions. To really have had any serious chance of winning after 1942 (and don't forget they almost won the war by then, if not for a couple of small twists of fate and the Lucy spy ring), they would have had to have had modern day tanks.

After Kursk there was absolutely nothing the german army or its panzers could do, except delay the inevitable, which they did very well for almost two more years.


The T-34 was a war winning tank. Anyone who defends the Sherman and its attributes is, whether they know it or not, defending the T-34 as well. It had everything the Sherman had (easy maintainance, good reliability and high production rate) PLUS better armour, lower profile and better armament. The russians bore the brunt (over 75%) of the german forces for nearly 4 years. The combined western allies fought a weakened 25% of the german forces for less than a year.

[Col.Pickle]

Aferguson has a good point. The german armor was superb considering what it was up against. I mean, the Canadians were fighting agaisnt them for crissakes. And everyone know that you can't win a war against the Canadians (unless you make a generous peace offer somehow involving donuts and beer )

[Panzer_M]

actaully now Time is showing the Wehrmacht came closer to Victory at Kursk than was first realized.

The Soviet Airforce, of 3000 planes was negated by the luftwaffe early, and at Prohavoka(Sp) the famous Largest Tank battle, German losses were not as severe, as the soviet losses.

The turning point was the allies in Italy/Sicily, that's when Hitler decided to halt the Kursk salient offensive and divert critical units to Southern Europe.

At the time of the transfer, the Red Army was exhausted, as was the Germans.

The Failures of the Ferdinand and Panthers were lack of testing. The Vehicles had not been put through complete trials at the proving ground in Germany before being deployed to the front. Although the Ferd was Freak with it's planentary drive, electrical motors and other absurd ideas Porsche and his firm made, Although 200mm of armour is nice to have when 76mm shells are hitting you. If it was deployed as mobile AT assets instead of a Assualt Tank the Ferd would have been more sucessful. If give a MG34 or two from the start or S mines that would have helped too.

The Panther was just too new, it's baptism of fire was about as good as the Tigers was at Leningrad in the winter of 1942. Just too new of Tech, and the crews and engineers had not the time to work out the quirks and Bugs of the new tanks. By the time of the Ausf. G, the Panther is qouted as the best tank of the late war. Time is all was needed to perfect the machine. Even then, The Panther esp in the west was used improperly against the role it was attended. It was not a close assualt tank and alot of Panther were killed in Urban areas where in close confines it's advantages over tanks were negated, and still as always one of the best tank killers in the well armed infantryman.

On the other Hand with the Kursk offensive, The Sturmpanzer IV(Brummbär) was considered a good assault tank, able to get in close with Russian strongpoint and blow them to hell with it's 15cm gun, plus it's 100mm of armour kept it alive.

Also the StuGs Brigades proved their worth at Kursk, As always the StuG III 75mmL48 was a capable tank killer, and those deployed made their share of Russian Scrap Metal on the field.

[aferguson]

Interesting.

The Ferdinand is often considered a failure but i'm not sure why. With its supurb gun, it destroyed Russian tanks at a ratio of about 12:1. Meaning 12 russian tanks were knocked out for every Ferdinand lost and that is lost by all means, including the many that were victims of mechanical breakdowns and other technical problems, not caused by enemy action.

Had they been deployed more sensibly in combat, the loss rate would have been less and their kill ratio probably much higher.

The big reason the Kursk offensive failed was the good ole Lucy spy ring (same reason the Germans lost at Stalingrad). The russians had inimate details of the kursk offensive including the exact day and time it was to begin. As a result they were able to build exhaustive defensive positions, accumulate enormous reserves in the area etc. Even with that big advantage, the Russians still almost lost the battle...so imagine if they hadn't had the benefits of the intel.

Few people really know much about the Lucy spy ring but the world owes a big debt of graditude to the dozen or so german generals that constituted it. If not for them, the Nazis just might have won WWII and the world would be a very different place today.

[ostketten]

Prohavoka(Sp) the famous Largest Tank battle, German losses were not as severe, as the soviet losses.

Prokhorovka... a small non-descript village, not unlike thousands of similar villages that dot the Russian steppes in the Belgorod region. The name would have faded entirely into obscurity had it not been for the famous tank battle you mentioned. While it may be true that the Soviets suffered more tank losses in the great Kursk battles, these were losses they could easily absorb while the Germans could not. For the Germans the losses suffered were irreplaceable, and the German army was completely on the retreat on every front henceforth after Kursk, with the exception of a few brief spasmodic affairs like the Ardennes offensive.

The T-34 was a war winning tank. Anyone who defends the Sherman and its attributes is, whether they know it or not, defending the T-34 as well. It had everything the Sherman had (easy maintainance, good reliability and high production rate) PLUS better armour, lower profile and better armament. The russians bore the brunt (over 75%) of the german forces for nearly 4 years. The combined western allies fought a weakened 25% of the german forces for less than a year.

Good point. The Soviets realized what they had in the T-34, and concentrated a considerable portion of their war production efforts on it, and it served them well. The Germans on the other hand fielded a bewildering array of different vehicle types and sub-types, which placed an enormous strain on the German war industries, as well as a huge burden on the supply and maintenance branches of the German army. When combined with the effectiveness of the allied strategic bombing campaign, this played no small role in wearing down the German capacity to continue essential war production.