2008 FOV Image Collection

[ostketten]

For anyone who is interested in Kursk and the great armored clashes associated with it, I would recommend the book "The Battle of Kursk" by Col. David Glantz. With Glantz's unprecedented access to Soviet archival materials, this is probably the best English language resource on the subject to date. Kursk was an unmitigated disaster for the German army, and one from which they could not, and would not recover. The Soviets were completely aware of and prepared for the German assault, and the Russian victory at Kursk eventually allowed to Red Army to launch Operation Bagration, which resulted in the virtually complete destruction of German army group center in the summer of 1944. Bagration saw the Red Army sweep the Wermacht out of the Ukraine and Belorussia, and march through Poland and East Prussia, to the Vistula river and the very gates of Berlin.

[ostketten]

Elefant..... Near useless in the offense, especially in the steps of Russia where there was little cover. well placed, and heavily armored, it could hold it's own as long as it had ammo, distance and time on it's side. Once flanked it was dead or useless (it war the same thing).

I'm glad you mentioned that Grog.... Extremely vulnerable to infantry attack, many Elefant's succumbed to specially trained Soviet tank killer squads. Somewhere in my digital library I have an English translation of a Red Army booklet that was used in training these Soviet squads in the methods for attacking the Elefants, their vulnerable points etc. Like Red hunters, they stalked them like great prehistoric beasts. If I can manage to find it I'll post some pics, fascinating stuff.

UPDATE: I believe I have a more elaborate version of this somewhere, but for the time being this will have to do, "How To Destroy Ferdinand"... http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?opt ... Itemid=114

[Hanomag]

On the comments about the Ferdinand and Panthers, how the Germans didn't take the time to test and train on these things before they went into combat. That's exactly why the US didn't get a new tank until almost the end of the war. We took the time to test and train, and were scared that the M26 or the M24 would end up like the Ferds.

I can't speak for the M24, but the M26 was held back by 2 reasons I can remember off the top of my head.

1. They would have to slow the production of Shermans to tool up and produce Pershings which would cause a gap in tank exports. Not good when you're fighting a war of attrition.

2. One General's opinion that it weighted too much and would bog down in the mud. Despite the fact that it had much wider tracks and thus it's Lbs per Sq inch was considerably less than a Sherman.

Both could have been worked around and put the Pershing in battle much sooner.

-H

[aferguson]

what Grognard described seems to me to be a 'human wave' type tactic, only applied to armour. It doesn't seem logical to me, however, to lose 30 tanks to destroy 1. Plus as distance closes the enemy's tank kill rate would probably go above 50%.

It may be a viable strategy, to overwhelm your enemy with sheer numbers, but it's kinda tough on your crews and i'm surprised the US army adopted such a strategy, as they generally seem to value human life higher than that.

However, that was the basic strategy behind the use of the Sherman and it was that way because the US army knew the sherman was generally inferior to the German armour.

Compare this to operation Desert Storm, where the US Army was also on the offensive, but in wide, open terrain, also had air supremacy (so a similar situation to Western Europe in '44) but the only difference being that they had a superior tank, in the Abrams....they obliterated their enemy without loss of a single Abrams. This is why i feel that the Sherman, while it accomplished its mission, was not a very good tank. It was simply pretty much all there was to use at the time.

[aferguson]

oh and it's a bit of a myth that the Ferdinands were destroyed in large numbers by Russian infantry...a myth the Russians propagated to their advantage.

Of the fifty or so Ferdinands lost at Kursk only 2 were taken out by infantry attack and one of them had already been imobolized by a mine. Most of the Ferd's lost at Kurks were taken out by mechanical breakdown or mines. It was overall an excellent defensive vehicle but pressed into action too soon and used as an offensive weapon in mine fields that should have been cleared prior to attack (but weren't for some strange reason....the german's were generally pretty efficient about stuff like that but dropped the ball big time prior to Kursk). Once it got a bad reputation, it was relegated to the backwaters of Italy (where it performed very well in the defensive role for which it was designed).

[Hanomag]

I'm fairly sure the Sherman Wave method of attack was a result of what they had to work with. We had crappy tanks....but man we had alot of 'em.

The Sherman was a good design (mostly) , the US just suffered from Generals (the decision makers/SOP writers) who came from WWI were all tanks were was Infantry support. It reminds me of the saying: "Back then it was good enough for me, it's good enough for you."

..(sigh)..makes me think of my Dad when I got my first car.

-H

[jrs.]

It was in another thread but those crappy Shermans tended to do a hell of a job in numerous places. BOB especially. A handful of M4s and a few M10s reaked havoc on German Armor. Numerous accounts are out there.

I dont think much else can be said that already hasnt been, but the sherman was damn reliable, I would rather have three Shermans that run then three Tigers IIs that dont.

In the end if you were to ask the germans commanders if they could have traded there small number of Tigers and Panthers ( throw in a few thousand IVs and IIIs) a few thousand in the West at best, for the 50,000 Shermans that were produced in the war, my bet is that to a man they would take the Shermans.

[uksubs]

It was in another thread but those crappy Shermans tended to do a hell of a job in numerous places. BOB especially. A handful of M4s and a few M10s reaked havoc on German Armor. Numerous accounts are out there.

I dont think much else can be said that already hasnt been, but the sherman was damn reliable, I would rather have three Shermans that run then three Tigers IIs that dont.

In the end if you were to ask the germans commanders if they could have traded there small number of Tigers and Panthers ( throw in a few thousand IVs and IIIs) a few thousand in the West at best, for the 50,000 Shermans that were produced in the war, my bet is that to a man they would take the Shermans.

I bet if you ask tank crews in WW2 if he could have the choice of a Tiger or a Sherman 99% would go with a Tiger
They did not call Sherman Tommy cookers for no reason

[OzDigger]

Meanwhile back at FOV HQ

I'm looking forward to the General Lee and Mark IV diecast tanks.

I just hope they will be in TRUE 1/72 scale as most of the "1/72" FOV tanks to date have been closer to 1/76 being smaller than the Dragon version(s).

As for actual tank design, it has been long recognized that Armour is the most important requirement ,followed by Armament then Mobility/availabilty.

The Sherman met the final requirement but fell short in the first two which is why it suffered on the battlefield. This combined with the incorrect US Army tank doctrine resulted in excessive US and Commonwealth losses that could have been avoided if more note was taken of prior action(s).

[EnemyAce]

Meanwhile back at FOV HQ

I'm looking forward to the General Lee and Mark IV diecast tanks.

I just hope they will be in TRUE 1/72 scale as most of the "1/72" FOV tanks to date have been closer to 1/76 being smaller than the Dragon version(s).

That's not true about FOV being anything less than true 1:72. They match up with my scale 1:72 scale models and other diecast armor perfectly. Check out this comparison page at diecast72.com:

http://www.diecast72.com/compare.asp

[tmanthegreat]

That's not true about FOV being anything less than true 1:72. They match up with my scale 1:72 scale models and other diecast armor perfectly. Check out this comparison page at diecast72.com:

http://www.diecast72.com/compare.asp

I would have to agree, as they do match up scale-wise. The FOV vehicles, with only a few exceptions, are actually quite nice when compared to the competition. They also have a fair bit of diecast construction, weathering, and most importantly in my opinion, a figure standing in the hatch! That gives the vehicle a bit of personality

[OzDigger]

Meanwhile back at FOV HQ

I'm looking forward to the General Lee and Mark IV diecast tanks.

I just hope they will be in TRUE 1/72 scale as most of the "1/72" FOV tanks to date have been closer to 1/76 being smaller than the Dragon version(s).

That's not true about FOV being anything less than true 1:72. They match up with my scale 1:72 scale models and other diecast armor perfectly. Check out this comparison page at diecast72.com:

http://www.diecast72.com/compare.asp

Check again. For example get out your Dragon Tiger I and the FOV version and put them side by side.

You will note that the FOV version is clearly smaller than the Dragon Tiger and you can even see this difference on the diecast 72 website if you care to have a close look. Granted the difference is not great as 1/72 is very close to 1/76, but it is worth noting.

You will notice an even bigger difference in size between the FOV Grant (M3) and a Dragon Sherman (M4). The FOV Grant is significantly smaller yet in real life they were very similar in size. In fact the real Grant was a bit wider than the Sherman.

There is also a difference in size between the FOV Churchill (actually a Crocodile flamethrower version) and the earlier Matchbox model.

I don't have a FOV King Tiger but I suspect it will be a bit smaller than the Dragon.

That said, it isn't a major concern and hasn't stopped me buying FOV stuff, but I thought it was worth mentioning to see what others think.

[OzDigger]

I'd have to disagree on that last point about armor being the most important of the triad. The quest has always been to balance the three, armor, firepower and manouverability. This is personified in the US armor patch. Most american tank designs were based on a balanced approach. In the WWII era, tank missions were stratified, and as such balance was much like a modern portfolio, you adjusted the three to meet the mission, not the optimum tank.

Hence, you see in WWII the tankette (mobility), the Light Tank (mobility, and some armor), The medium tank (a close balance), the heavy tank (firepower and armor), and the tank destroyer (firepower and mobility). Each version had a role on the battlefield, and as such one aspect of the triad outweighed the others.

The Sherman, for all its faults (many of which german tank designs shared), was an attempt at a balanced vehicle. The tactics expected drove this decision more than anything else. The US had to have a design that fit on almost every road, bridge, barge, landing craft, and cargo ship in use leading up to and across the battlefield. This did put some constraints on design. Secondly, the vehicle had to be fairly self supporting since we planned on shipping it 2000 miles across an ocean and then run them across 600 miles of northern europe to Berlin. Add in the fear of sub attacks, air attacks, and the attrition of the offensive, and you need a lot more than are required. Next you have to concider resources, fuel consumption rates, and the amount of steel, available weapon systems and resupply rates.

On the othe hand, the Germans faced a different set of requirements. The battlespace (distance from production to front line) was more on the lines of 500 miles. The Germans were always out numbered on tanks, so vehicle surviveability was more important than mobility. Firepower was more important than armor (hence the large number of porely armored mobile guns). Logistics were more critical, but the OKW was willing to sacrifice cross country ability, bridge crossings, and urban operations because the battles were becoming more defensive in nature. Last, the germans had no need as the war progressed to be concerned about transporting items to theater. The biggest concerns were rail cars, and hence the "transport track" and removeable skirts so these bigger vehicles fit on the train. another issue, was germans had a lousy recovery system, and almost non-existant logistics support vehicles. We tend to forget that most of the support was still horse drawn in 1945. Thre were no army tanker trucks to bring fuel, and few vehicle that could pull a broken tiger to a maintenace collection point.

There's alot more to producing a quality vehicle than slabs of steel and cool guns. As you look into all the competing requirements you have to make serious choices. The national command will make those choices on the strategic level, not the tactical level. In the end, it's the total effect that makes or breaks a war.

The only difference between German and US logistical constraints was that the US needed to transport their tanks on ships.

In effect the Germans were prepared to put the extra effort into continuing to improve tank armor to protect their troops.

Yet the US seemed to arrive to that conclusion late in the game.

Btw, I've been thru this exact debate on a number of forums over a number of years and I see the same old excuses for the continued use of the Sherman passed its use by date over and over.

The fact is that it was a poor design and cost way to many allied lives. But it was better than nothing and there were plenty of them - shame about the crews.

[EnemyAce]

Meanwhile back at FOV HQ

I'm looking forward to the General Lee and Mark IV diecast tanks.

I just hope they will be in TRUE 1/72 scale as most of the "1/72" FOV tanks to date have been closer to 1/76 being smaller than the Dragon version(s).

That's not true about FOV being anything less than true 1:72. They match up with my scale 1:72 scale models and other diecast armor perfectly. Check out this comparison page at diecast72.com:

http://www.diecast72.com/compare.asp

Check again. For example get out your Dragon Tiger I and the FOV version and put them side by side.

You will note that the FOV version is clearly smaller than the Dragon Tiger and you can even see this difference on the diecast 72 website if you care to have a close look. Granted the difference is not great as 1/72 is very close to 1/76, but it is worth noting.

You point out the the Dragon Tiger 1 is about 1mm smaller than the Dragon equivalent. When I have measured them out against the statistics of the real thing, I have found both to be within the tolerances of scale. (Surviving examples can be off by 3-4" in size due to the imprecise manufacturing techniques of the era.)

Please take note that the FOV King Tiger and M1 Abrams are both actually a mm or so *larger* than their Dragon equivalent, and the T-34 and 251 halftracks are exactly the same length. So you are completely off base in saying that their is any significant size disparity between the two companies models, or that the FOV models are generally smaller. Though I do agree that any two individual model companies' product will have slight differences in dimension and proportion. This is the same as the differences between, say, 1/72 Revell and Italieri kits of the same subject will have.

You will notice an even bigger difference in size between the FOV Grant (M3) and a Dragon Sherman (M4). The FOV Grant is significantly smaller yet in real life they were very similar in size. In fact the real Grant was a bit wider than the Sherman..

Where did you get this? I have a Dragon M4A1 in front of me next to the FOV Grant, and the are the same length and width. The Grant model may actually be too big, as the Grant was about 4 inches or so shorter than the sherman. They were the same width - 8'7", which was the max allowed for rail shipping in the US.

There is also a difference in size between the FOV Churchill (actually a Crocodile flamethrower version) and the earlier Matchbox model..

These two are the same length, but the FOV is wider than the other.

I don't have a FOV King Tiger but I suspect it will be a bit smaller than the Dragon.


That said, it isn't a major concern and hasn't stopped me buying FOV stuff, but I thought it was worth mentioning to see what others think.

As I said above, the FOV King Tiger is maybe a mm longer than the Dragon, and the FOV M1 Abrams is also larger than the Dragon M1. But again, only by a mm or so - a couple inches in a full-size equivalent.

I'm not disputing that the FOV tanks came from different molds than the Dragons, but that you were being very misleading by claiming that the FOV tanks are smaller than true 1:72 scale. The M1, King Tiger, 251, and Churchill are all, in at least some dimensions, larger than their Dragon equivalent. And all are so close in size to the Dragon versions that the real-life difference in size would usually end up being a matter of 3" or less, hardly worth even pointing out, and certainly not noticeable when looking at the two models on the same shelf or table.

For my money, FOV is making the best True 1:72 vehicles on the market!

[OzDigger]

The FOV Grant is clearly smaller than the Dragon M4's. If you can't see this obvious difference, especially when the tanks are inverted, I suspect I'm wasting my time discussing the other differences with you.

[demonclaw]

Well since I own both a Fov 1:72 Grant and a Dragon Sherman I made two comparison pics , looks ok to me

[OzDigger]

In the pic where the tanks are face to face to you see that the Grant model is narrower. Yet in the actual vehicles the Grant is actually a bit wider than a Sherman.

Clearly the model Grant could only be narrower than a Sherman model if the scale was slightly different.

Don't get me wrong guys, I have these models and I like them, in fact I feel the Grant is a better mold.

But that doesn't change the fact that some of the FOV gear isn't consistent in size.

For example it should be clearly obvious to even the casual collector that most of the FOV 1/32 German's are in fact 1/35 scale. Which makes me wonder why some of you have trouble accepting that their 1/72 models may not be all kosher.

Btw this isn't a big deal to me as the models are cheap. It's not as if we are paying big bucks for gross errors such as on some of the King and Country models.

[demonclaw]

In the pic where the tanks are face to face to you see that the Grant model is narrower. Yet in the actual vehicles the Grant is actually a bit wider than a Sherman.

But not by much and the height and length seems pretty spot on . The Grant is not a perfect model but you can't spot the errors unless you make a close up comparison .

[uksubs]

[quote="OzDigger"]In the pic where the tanks are face to face to you see that the Grant model is narrower. Yet in the actual vehicles the Grant is actually a bit wider than a Sherman.

Clearly the model Grant could only be narrower than a Sherman model if the scale was slightly different.

Don't get me wrong guys, I have these models and I like them, in fact I feel the Grant is a better mold.

But that doesn't change the fact that some of the FOV gear isn't consistent in size.

For example it should be clearly obvious to even the casual collector that most of the FOV 1/32 German's are in fact 1/35 scale. Which makes me wonder why some of you have trouble accepting that their 1/72 models may not be all kosher.

Oz I've had my Minichamps tanks next to my FOV stuff & there miles bigger

[ostketten]

it should be clearly obvious to even the casual collector that most of the FOV 1/32 German's are in fact 1/35 scale.

Sorry, but I disagree with that statement, and I would not call myself a "casual" collector either. I've built dozens of 1:35 scale German armor kits over the years from Tamiya, Italeri, and pretty much all the big name kit manufacturers, and while I don't have any of these around anymore for comparison pics, I can tell you without hesitation that when I had them displayed side by side with my 1:32 scale 21st and FOV armor of the same vehicle type they were ALL quite noticeably smaller, no question about it. These scale debates are a controversial subject for sure, and while all the 32X class of FOV vehicles might not be absolutely precisely 1:32 scale, they are closer to 1:32 than they are to 1:35, that much I'm certain of. Maybe the Minichamps is the model that's out of scale and not FOV.

[ostketten]

These are not "German" tanks, but I think it pretty clearly illustrates the size difference between FOV 1:32 and Minichamps 1:35... Click the link below, then scroll down a bit to the FOV/Minichamps/Newray section, then click the individual pic for an enlarged view. Left to right in the pics: FOV, Minichamps, Newray.

http://www.mikes-tanks.com/Comparison.htm

[Panzer_M]

it should be clearly obvious to even the casual collector that most of the FOV 1/32 German's are in fact 1/35 scale.

Sorry, but I disagree with that statement, and I would not call myself a "casual" collector either. I've built dozens of 1:35 scale German armor kits over the years from Tamiya, Italeri, and pretty much all the big name kit manufacturers, and while I don't have any of these around anymore for comparison pics, I can tell you without hesitation that when I had them displayed side by side with my 1:32 scale 21st and FOV armor of the same vehicle type they were ALL quite noticeably smaller, no question about it. These scale debates are a controversial subject for sure, and while all the 32X class of FOV vehicles might not be absolutely precisely 1:32 scale, they are closer to 1:32 than they are to 1:35, that much I'm certain of. Maybe the Minichamps is the model that's out of scale and not FOV.

Again FOV is not 1/35.