The Firearms Forum banner

Is the Main Battle Tank obsolete?

  • Yes, get rid of the MBTs and concentrate on newer weapons systems.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Yes, but they still play a significant role. Phase them out slowly.

    Votes: 7 14.9%
  • No, the MBT will be the key to land warfare for the foreseeable future. Build more tanks!

    Votes: 10 21.3%
  • No, but we should not neglect newer weapons systems in favor of tanks.

    Votes: 30 63.8%

Is the Main Battle Tank obsolete?

7K views 36 replies 11 participants last post by  FPDoc 
G
#1 ·
Ever since their invention in World War I, there have been those who have predicted the demise of the Main Battle Tank (MBT) as viable instrument of warfare. In more modern times--especially since the collapse of the Soviet Union--the argument has been that with modern artillery and strike aircraft capabilities, its days are numbered. Some argue that instead of these very expensive and often difficult-to-deploy-and-support pieces of machinery, our military should move away from them and spend its budget on more efficient weapons and tactics, such as, for example, attack chopers armed with Hellfires and such.

Opinions and comments?
 
#2 ·
There is still a role for the tank in battle as evidenced by both Iraqi wars. A most helpful tool in both was the latest version of the Abrams tank. In any situation where war is fought on the ground, they will continue to be valuable.

At the same time, we should continuously brainstorming any other modes of fighting that will assist in gaining an objective. We should tailor our weapons toward winning at any fight and must be at all times up-to-snuff, as my Colonel cousin used to say.....
 
G
#3 ·
Agreed, Marlin. My own view is that the MBT, as it is improved over time, will remain an integral part of any fully capable national military force over the foreseeable future. In essence, the equation remains as it has always been: offensive force v. defensive counter measures. Modern armor is very resistant to weapons designed to take it out, the M1 A2 Abrams being a prime example of that. Yet anti-tank weapons continue to improve in both power and accuracy, and sooner or later the counter-measures will catch up to, and ultimately overcome, the defensive capabilities of the tank. Before that occurs, it behooves us to develop still more efficient materials for armor protection and more effective main gun armament to keep the tank a viable and survivable weapons system.
 
#4 ·
You still gotta "take the high (or flat) ground and hold it"......which you can't do from a "Warthog" or B-2, or F/A-18......or from a bunch of 155's behind the lines.

In a fast moving, mobile environment, the MBT can't be beat. As an example, look at "Stormin' Norman" Schwarzkopf's "Left Hook" in Gulf War I.

Granted, there are situations and terrains where the tank just isn't suitable, but when & where you need 'em, ya gotta have 'em......and if the enemy has 'em and you don't, you're in a world of hurt.
 
G
#5 ·
Granted, there are situations and terrains where the tank just isn't suitable, but when & where you need 'em, ya gotta have 'em......and if the enemy has 'em and you don't, you're in a world of hurt.
Like the Mekong Delta, for example. :D But yeah, I entirely agree, X. Air power is a magnificant force multiplier, but it can't take and hold ground. For that, the only solution is boots on mud, and for that to be effective, if the enemy has armor (and most do), we had better have it too or we're up the proverbial odiferous tributary without apposite means of locomotion. ;)
 
#6 · (Edited)
Tanks in Vietnam

My father in law served with the 1st Cavalry Regiment Americal Division in Vietnam. According to his division history when U.S. forces first went into Vietnam they did not bring armored units because it was believed that Vietnam was not good tank country.

Latter studies showed that much of Vietnam was good for tank use, such as open areas around rice paddies. Other areas such as heavy jungles tanks were less useful.

I think for U.S. forces tanks will remain useful for many years to come. We have air superiority. Countries who face a heavy air threat will see the usefulness of tanks decline.

I don't see attack helicopters as a more efficient system. I see them becoming more vulnerable as time goes by and light man packable anti-air systems become more common. It is much easier to add armor to a tank thanit is to add it to a helicopter. And helicopters are even more expensive than tanks, and require huge amounts of maintenance to keep them in action.

I will make the prediction that the M-1 will be the last "traditional" main battle tank that the U.S. builds. It will be in the U.S. Army and Marine inventories for many decades to come. They will see a lot of action, and many upgrades. But some thing new that will be "tank like" will replace it. What that will look like I don't know, but it will probably be faster and lighter, with more fire power and protection. How about a jet propelled hover tank?
 
G
#7 ·
Re: Tanks in Vietnam

My I will make the prediction that the M-1 will be the last "traditional" main battle tank that the U.S. builds. It will be in the U.S. Army and Marine inventories for many decades to come. They will see a lot of action, and many upgrades. But some thing new that will be "tank like" will replace it. What that will look like I don't know, but it will probably be faster and lighter, with more fire power and protection. How about a jet propelled hover tank?
You could well be right, 17th. The M1 is a fantastic tank, in fact, I'm inclined to argue that it is the best tank every designed and it has many years of service left in it with upgrades. Yet, as we've seen just over the last 25 years or so, weapons systems evolve, battlefields change, and so must tactics. I would not bet against a "hover tank" or something similar in years to come. One area of enormous improvement I look for will be in main gun armament. It would not surprise me to see an evolution away from a projectile-firing weapon and the development of some sort of particle beam weapon or the like. Another possibility lies in propulsion. As good as the M1 is, it is a major gas hog. How about a hydrogen fueled tank?
 
#8 · (Edited)
No countries on earth have economies that can afford to develop, train with and MAINTAIN modern heavy armored forces except the democracies that will probably never war against us, and most of them can't afford them either.

Any heavy tanks left any of our potential adversaries (China, Russia, and clones) can be dealt with with our newer lighter armored units, LAVs, Bradleys with TOWs, along with our close air support. And they will never be even as good as the Abrams, they simply can't afford the $5-7mil a pop it would take. But frankly, it's getting to the point we almost can't either.


Our "Armored Companies" in the future will consist of two platoons of fast moving LAVs and/or the next gen Bradly type IFVs with an intrinsic platoon of forward based attack helicopters operating as a single command.

CAVALRY will ALWAYS be with us, but it just won't have heavy armor.


Now this won't happen overnight, so we have to keep our Abrams we have up for a while, just in case someone in the next 10 years or so with leftover Russian or Chinese crap doesn't get it, but we don't need to be wasting any money developing a replacement....we can use the money on technology, better low tec weapons, better and faster logistics moving capacity, and frankly, MORE PERSONNEL.


And unfortunately, we can have this same discussion over manned fighter aircraft too....I lament that it's days are coming to an end as well....
 
#10 ·
And will it be SO good it will stop ITSELF just like most of the crappy Panthers and Tigers did in that war? Usually while trying to pivot around and shoot at the M4s in their REAR and throwing a track, if they didn't already strip a gear in the fragile Maybach transmission too flimsy for a CAR? And that is of course if they managed to get it STARTED that morning.....


Face it, PS, the Germans only made once or future "scrap metal," the only tanks they could ever WIN with were Czech-made....;)
 
G
#11 ·
Polish, once again you mistake insufficient industrial capacity and production numbers for designed capability. Yes, the German Tigers and Panthers did have their mechanical problems, stemming mostly from manufacturing problems late in the war, and from insufficient time to work out the bugs before they had to commit the tanks to actual battle. What simply cannot be ignored, however, is that, tank for tank, even tank for several tanks, the American M4 simply could not stand up to either the Tiger or the Panther. It was barely a match even for the earlier German tanks, the Panzer IIIs and IVs. The problems were simple: lack of armor and lack of a main gun that could penetrate the German tanks except with a lucky, close-range shot from the rear, or a plunging artiller shot from above. The Americans tried everything they could think of to add armor and firepower to the M4, and while these measures helped somewhat, the German 76mm high velocity and the 88mm high velocity guns went through the M4 like it was made of soft cheese, even with a hit on the frontal armor. The ONLY tank we had (and we only had a few of them even at wars end) that could SOMETIMES stand up to the Tigers and Panthers was the M26 Pershing with its 90mm main gun. And even the Pershing could be penetrated by the German 88. Face it, Polish, we won the tank war with numbers, not with better technology.
 
#12 ·
No we did NOT win the war with sheer numbers, PS, that is one of the MYTHS of WWII....

The numbers HELPED, granted, but is it a FAULT to any tank to be easily built in high numbers and THEN shipped thousands of miles to ANY battlefield and still reliably do the job assigned? The Germans could have LEARNED from the M4....and would have been better off with a tank equivalent to it, rather than trying to make a heavier dinosaur....


No reliability and MOBILITY is the main weapon of any AFV, and ANY German tank after the PZ III and IV simply did NOT have it....

You have to face it, PS, panthers were a failure because of mechanical reliability, even though on paper they were perhaps the best design of the war, and both Tigers were underpowered and too heavy to be tactically effective even WITH enough fuel and transmissions that worked....

No, PS, the M4 was a VASTLY superior tank to any German tank when it came to doing what tanks were designed to do.....



In WWI, when the Allies had the reliable and relatively mobile and quick Renault and the Whippet and even the Mk IVs, the Germans only developed the A7, which was nothing but a slow unreliable underpowered PILLBOX....

At the end of WWII they were back to square one, in a war of rapid mobility, which the kicker is THEY pioneered, they developed only slow and unreliable PILLBOXES that they ended up with....
 
#13 ·
Gosh, who resurrected THIS one?;)

Did you notice my new avatar, PS? An "Easy 8!"

Slap on a bustle and mount a 105mm tube and you have the Israeli "Super Sherman," able to beat any Soviet Armor up to the T60, and viable even against the T72 and T80...and probably STILL a viable MBT And it was first fielded with the 76mm in 1944...as mobile as the T34, and just as fast...

(I actually just figured out what an avatar WAS much less how to add it...:p)

My wife and I hit the Patton Museum at Ft Knox during our anniversary trip last week, and I got some good pictures...some of them pretty creative if I say so myself, since we hit the Jim Beam Distillery and sampler on the way!;):p
 
G
#14 ·
Gosh, who resurrected THIS one?;)

Did you notice my new avatar, PS? An "Easy 8!"
I couldn't possibly guess who might have the unmitigated audacity to resurrect such a dastardly thread Polish, dead horses and all. :D Could it be some delusional Polack with a "thing" for the M4 Sherman Tiger target, er, I meant to say, tank? :p;)

I would only have noticed your new avitar had you used a Tiger tank, Polish, i.e., a machine that truly qualifies as a battle tank instead of a piece of tinfoil wrapped around a potato gun. :eek::D

Polish, face it. The Sherman tank could run, but it couldn't hide, not when it actually encounted opposition from German armor. Fortunately for "our side" the Germans didn't have many Tigers or Panthers so, yes, the Sherman did its intended job, its hellacious losses notwithstanding. Success through overwhelming numbers alone does not, however, determine the degree of quality and design efficiency. The Germans only managed to build about 1300 Tigers, the Americans built nearly 50,000 Shermans. They had to; they kept getting blown up from impacts of 88mm shells and Panzerfaust fire.
 
G
#15 ·
Gosh(I actually just figured out what an avatar WAS much less how to add it...:p)
Hmmmm, that may explain a lot Polish. Let's see . . . resistance to modern technology, unwillingness to try something new and innovative . . . Yup, now I'm finally beginning to understand why you like the M4 tank so much! ;) Since it wasn't much improved over the French tanks of WWI, I can see why you admire it. :D;):p

 
#16 ·
Hey Pistol from the looks of Polish's "avatar" you are beginning to look like you are "out gunned!":eek: I wonder with all the gemany technological abilities, especially the Benze aircraft engine that was such a marvel, why they could not build a engine with enough power to pull those tigers along at a reasonable speed...AS I recall they were powered by a diesel engine, something on the order of 500+ h.p. Really only about half of the power needed to really "move" that kind of weight. Shermans on the other hand were equipted with several moters, each with more power than the last, Multiple Caddy moters to radial aircraft engines. All were gasoline powered if I am not mistaken. I guess this leads ot the question, did the germans have to supply two types of fuel, gas and diesel to move there army? Best reguards, Kirk
 
G
#17 ·
They were indeed gasoline powered, 300, which is why the M4 acquired the nickname "The Ronson" . . . because it would light every time! :D Any hit that penetrated the M4's armor, which almost all of them did due to its thinness, was automatically catastrophic.
 
#19 ·
Ah, beware the "cheap" wive's tails of History, and those who repeat them...ESPECIALLY after they were REFUTED...;)

I can show you many quotes, where German Tankers claimed their Panthers "burned too easily," where Soviets called the (Diesel!) T-34 "Their little Lighter..." But everybody that feels the NEED to slam the M4 "conveniently" remembers the British called the EARLY model "the Ronson." (AMERICANS would have called it the ZIPPO.:p ) EARLY models without wet storage of ammo, or the applique armor over the sponsons where the ammo was stored, DID brew up more quickly than most Gasoline powered tanks (and MOST were still powered by gasoline!) But AFTER the "Wet" modification, showing again the VERSATILITY of the design, , which virtually ALL of ours after 1943 WERE, except the MANY early ones that SURVIVED to roll into Germany in '45 of course...they "brewed up" with no MORE frequency than OTHER gasoline powered designs, the Cromwell, the Churchill, or even the Pzkw IVs, Panthers and Tigers! YES they were "Petrol powered" as WELL!.. (BTW, PS, how many German tanks made in 1942 were still in action in 1945?)

This really DOES get tiring, PS, ;) ESPECIALLY having to defend the tank that actually helped WIN the war, against proponents of the tanks that actually HASTENED the defeat of Germany!

Bill and 300, they made the Sherman in Diesel too, that did NOT "light up" any faster than other diesels AFTER the wet stowage, but the Army refused them just SO we wouldn't have to ship two types of fuel over 3000 miles TOO...the USMC, as well as the Free French, Polish (which made no sense, we had to supply THEM diesel in Europe too....) and the Russians via lend-lease used them...the M4A2s...

The one thing the M4 ALSO brought to the table that no German design could match was VERSATILITY, but that's another story, even though PS and the Sherman detractors ignore THAT too...like the M10 and M36 TDs with guns that DID defeat German armor rather easily? Like the M4A3 105mm that could ALSO defeat all German armor with HEAT, BESIDES giving tremendous HE support?

The M4A1s and M4s (Kinda funny the A1 was produced BEFORE the standard 'M4,) had the radials, the M4A2 had the Diesel, the M4A3 (the most common US type after '43) had the three Ford V-8s, the M4A4 (used mainly for training, none supposedly saw combat) had the weird 4 or even 5 Chrysler engines hooked together. And YEAH, the three Fords gave 500hp power for a much lighter tank than the 600hp of the Maybach in the Tiger or Panthers...but better than that they usually STARTED each morning, not like the German crap...:p

The limiting factor on the horsepower though, for the Germans, was not that they couldn't MAKE bigger engines, they could! It's just that they couldn't make TRANSMISSIONS that could handle the wear and tear of anything much larger than a ton and a half TRUCK! Almost as MANY of those "parked" Panthers and Tigers you see captured almost unscathed (as opposed to the ones burned out from getting smoked by Jabos or by the fast moving Sherman's (or M10s, M36s or Hellcat TDs!) hitting them in the flank and from behind by surprise, are parked because of a stripped tooth on a ring or pinion gear, or a smoked clutch, as from lack of FUEL!

One of the very FIRST definitons of a "Tank, what they were DESIGNED for, includes the term "MOBILITY."

You can have as much armor and gun as you want, but without MOBILITY that you can DEPEND on, you have a PILLBOX. A very DIFFICULT pillbox to destroy possibly, but one that should have used non-strategic CONCRETE instead of STEEL to save valuable RESOURCES....

One thing PS and all the other "German Superiority" preachers NEVER discuss is where the line of ABSURDITY of German Tank design in WWII was crossed...they ALWAYS spout, almost with PRIDE, and with the Prussian Marching Music almost AUDIBLE in the background, the "Invincible Tiger II, or Panther..." but what about the 100 ton Sturmtiger, the 240 ton Maus, or the even HEAVIER German designs and prototypes actually being TESTED at the of the end of the war armed with NAVAL guns and ALSO eating up precious resources and industrial capacity??? If bigger is BETTER, why not extoll THEM, in your wistful fantasies of "What if?????"

I actually simply place the line of absurdity, in front of the Tiger II. It really was as absurd as the Maus, any tank that takes 150000 man hours apiece to build, too heavy for all BRIDGES on a continent where river crossings are a fact of military LIFE, and have been for CENTURIES, so they have to waste time experimenting with SCHNORKLES is "Absurdity" in neon lights!

The PANTHER is another story, and it is TRULY a good thing it was too little too late, still a little too complicated for the state of the mechanical aptitude of the German tanker and mechanic, and rushed into service before any of the bugs could be worked out, and crews could be adequately trained in it. When it WORKED as designed, it was the toughest adversary the Shermans (and T34s) had, thank God they had relatively only a few, and those few broke down as much as they did, so they did not affect the outcome of the war.

Horrendous losses? More wives tails...I've said it before, but PS doesn't hear well;)...knocked out Shermans averaged one (do you HEAR that PS? ONE!) casualty for EVERY Sherman "Knocked out." American tankers did NOT suffer "horrendous" casualties due to their "Inferior tank!"

That rate is actually BETTER than the average casualty rate of MOST tanks of the war, INCLUDING the Germans!

Yes many more American/Allied tanks WERE knocked out in Western Europe than German...WHY??????

For the ENTIRE war they were ATTACKING, which is what tanks were DESIGNED for....the GERMANS only "attacked" at the BEGINNING...(with "inferior tanks," by the way the only ones they WON with...;)) and when the Allies learned how to STOP them, they rarely EVER attacked again.

The OTHER thing PS ignores, is Tank vs tank encounters in Europe, from June 6th 1944 until VE day were RARE. One on one "Shootouts at high noon" which is what is envisioned when people ONLY refer to published gun/armor ratios and thus "pronounce" the "best tank", NEVER happened!

For EVERY instance where "one Tiger held up an entire army and destroyed 30 Shermans," I can show you SEVERAL incidents where one 76mm WHEELED US AT gun or an M10 tank destroyer at Bastogne or Elsenberg ridge did the same THING in reverse to the Panthers and PZKW IVs! (Granted, not to any Tiger IIs, because remember they were too HEAVY for the terrain to be USED in the main attack through the Ardennes at the Bulge, so for Germany's "last Gasp," it's "Best" :p tanks could only play a minor role in a feint in the SOUTH, that fooled no one, especially Georgie Patton, driving up from the South in a maneuver even the GERMANS thought was impossible with TANKS and SMASH into their flank, with of course. "inferior" M4A3s...;)

MOST of those "horrendous" losses PS cites were to entrenched towed Anti tank GUNS usually 75mm, (giving the devil his due, they had GREAT 75mm AT guns!) NOT 88s.. and PANZERFAUSTS carried by INFANTRY in built up areas, and the cheap, reliable and easily made tiny and quick HETZER Tank Destroyer with the LOW velocity 75mm gun, based on a small. RELIABLE Czech chassis and engine!

My point is simply that the Sherman, ALL things considered, that it was made and TRANSPORTED many thousands of miles to hostile shores to carry out a doctrine that it was built and specifically TAILORED to carry out, SUCCEEDED wonderfully, in a really epic campaign of rapid MANEUVER and MOVEMENT that probably will never be equaled by armored forces, and is probably the only tank that COULD have done it......

....while late war GERMAN tanks, (after YEARS more of armored experience than anyone else, ((heck they INVENTED "Blitzkrieg"!)) they SHOULD have gotten it right, but DIDN'T) that could be DRIVEN from the factories to the front, still were designed to be RAILROADED to the front because the road march would cause too much wear and tear, (AND when designed, the designers even KNEW air superiority was LOST, so there might not BE any railroads left!) and were fragile mechanically, and many times too HEAVY to maneuver around a battlefield due to available BRIDGES did NOT succeed...so were FAILURES.

And thus, the M4 series Shermans were BETTER tanks, all things considered...

Counselor, your witness...:D;):D:D:D
 
G
#20 · (Edited)
Polish, there is a word whose definition you should look up and consider well before you assert you have "refuted" anything about the weaknesses of the M4 Tiger Target. That word is "sophistry." :D;):p By the way, have you considered taking up a new profession after your recovery is complete? My suggestion would be speech writer for a Democratic politician. You'd make a killing!!! :D
 
#21 ·
Anytime your enemy can turn a mega-buck investment into scrap with a couple of hundred grand or less of ATW, its time to re-think the investment. Yes, the M-1 is a good tank, and with care ought to be around for quite a while, but its extremely vulnerable to a mobile adversary. (A tank out of fuel is just so much static ironmongery - and M-1s are thirsty - neccessitating a highly vulnerable soft skin supply train.)

What will replace the MBT ? Probably something not 'track-laying', with far greater range and efficiency using various modes of concealment just now emerging. >MW
 
#22 ·
millwright,
I wonder if the next tank or tank type replacement will be equipted with a piston engine. Turbines are noteably ineffencent, especially in this type of application. They do bring to the table very high power/size/weight ratio's, but besides being hard on fuel, do not alow troops to fallow close behind. I have always been amazed that the army chose such a design. As for tracks, I think they are hard to beat, and offer a way to get verry heavy weight over very soft ground. Some thing a tire can only wish it could do. So untill the weights are reduced, or the requirement that they operate "of road" are in effect, tracks will still rule. Just my opinion, Kirk
 
#23 · (Edited)
Actually PS, I deal in FACTS, not myths no matter how entrenched they are....so I would work better with "Conservative Republicans..." It's kind of like explaining 'Supply Side Economics" to the masses, no matter HOW much sense it makes, AND how it's ALWAYS worked every time it's been tried, just as advertised, the people have been "brainwashed" by the repetition of "myths" and by our poor school system so they believe what people have TOLD them and not what they learn for themselves...;)



And the MORE I've thought about it all day, if ANYONE has made any absurd statements, I BELIEVE it was someone who claimed ALL German tanks of WWII were superior...was that YOU PS?

Germans won by superior DOCTRINE, and LOST when they got AWAY from that doctrine, and started building tanks that DENIED their forces the very mobility it need to WIN the war! So what did the Germans do? Conveniently claim that THAT doctrine was DEAD, and go back to using large, virtually immobile tanks, as merely "ambush" weapons that could NEVER win the war no matter how well they performed THAT assignment, hoping at BEST to fight a war of attrition against an enemy from both sides that they KNEW could EACH outproduce and outman them...even though at that VERY time their OWN doctrine of "Blitzkrieg" was being executed AGAINST them, in most cases better than THEY executed it themselves, by not only the Western Allies, but the RUSSIANS as well, if but a little cruder in application...:cool: And they were losing WHOLE ARMIES, just as they had once CAPTURED whole armies themselves..by MOVEMENT, and mobility....not static defenses....


When they WON it was with INFERIOR tanks: the Panzer I was actually a 7 ton LMG only armed "Tankette," inferior to ANY Allied tank, including the Polish TKM tankette!...the Pzkw II, was armed with the SAME gun the TKM had, a 20mm AIRCRAFT gun! Later on it became a passable recon tans armor could be penetrated by a .30 caliber AP round! (The Panzer I could be pierced by .30 caliber BALL at the right angle....) And keep in mind the PZKW I and II were the most numerous of ALL the GERMAN designed tanks in front line service right up until the gates of MOSCOW....

The Panzer III COULD have been a decent tank earlier if they went with the long 50mm SOONER, but the short 50mm most models carried was still inferior to the 2 pounder and barely BETTER than the 37mm, that replaced the measley 37mm the Pzkw III originally had AFTER the war started....and it's armor was LESS at first than MOST medium tanks it was facing...even though a LOT of them it was facing had 45mm or 47mm High Velocity guns! But even though on PAPER the "main" German tank at the start of Barbarossa, it was never produced in adequate quantities, enough to actually BECOME the main German MBT, until 1942...(possibly the FIRST indication that the Germans were having trouble producing "heavier tanks," even though it was only about 20 tons????)


The Panzer IV at FIRST, in fact about all the way TO Moscow, was only designed to be a close support tank, with a short 75mm howitzer, that they didn't even have a proper AP round FOR at first!


Yeah, it became their BEST and most reliable tank over time, but when IT finally became a match for the T34/76 and the M4s and M4A1s, it was essentially a 30+ ton tank on a suspension, powerplant and transmission designed for at MAXIMUM a 25 tonner...and every up-gun and up-armor it faced after that stressed it out even more, and it's reliability rates suffered accordingly...

BUT it's reliability rate was head and SHOULDERS above the Panther and Tiger II....and closer, but still much better than the Tiger I...

The Tiger I, designed with a VERTICAL glacis plate AFTER the war started?


And the Panther and Tiger II, too heavy for available German Automotive technology, both designed to travel by Railroad because the designers KNEW they could not survive "excessive" road marches...(like ANY???), but BOTH too wide for railroad tunnels in Europe, so BOTH designed with narrow "shipping" tracks, and the wide ones would have to be removed along with the outer road wheels , and it took a DEPOT level repair facility to reinstall them in any length of time...which by definition on a fluid battlefield, COULD be miles away from the fighting, so the "road march" was inevitable ANYWAY!

And this feature was designed into them AFTER the designers knew that Germany had lost air superiority, and probably would have NO railroads to USE????....

The "abandoned" but "pristine" German tanks you see at the end of the war in so MANY Pictures, usually with an M4 rolling PAST towards the East? There is as MUCH chance, possibly MORE, that they were abandoned due to a broken tooth on a gear or pinion in the weak Maybach transmission or final drives, a burnt out clutch, or just flat out engine failure, as it was they were out of FUEL.


and besides that the Tiger II too heavy for BRIDGES in the main area it's designed to fight, INCLUDING Railroad bridges, in which riverine crossings are and have BEEN the NORM, not the exception...

AND both of them designed with an interleaved suspension that when caked with mud, or snow, would freeze SOLID over night, and immobilize them, worse than ANY contemporary tank in the cold, so the suspension had to be meticulously cleaned each night... but the crew has to REMOVE the outer wheels to reach the INNER wheels,...I betcha the crews were swearing in both high and LOW German at the "Superior German Designs." :p:D:D

Even a good CLEANING didn't guarantee they would move after a hard freeze, so many Tankers on the Eastern Front BESIDES keeping watch and maintaining the tank had to gather enough wood (tough to DO on the steppes!;)) to tend the FIRE built under the tank if they were to be SURE they could even move when the Russians attacked at dawn...yep, THEY were "well rested...." ESPECIALLY Manstein's "Fire Brigades...." 'Sleepfighting" is more like it....

And not even considering that ALL German tanks were more complicated to build, so NONE of them had the potential to EVER truly be produced in even adequate quantities, but they got MORE heavy and complex as the war went on, meaning ALL tank production was slowed???


No PS, the German tank DESIGNS, for the ENTIRE war were sub-par at BEST compared to their adversaries...I maintain patently INFERIOR...

The fact that they WON at the beginning had to do with DOCTRINE that nobody else even understood, and the influx of the ONLY reliable tanks the Panzertruppen ever HAD in WWII...the CZECH 35s and 38s...which was actually their MAIN MBTs right up until Moscow in 1941, and WITHOUT which, the entire war up to that point could NOT have been fought, at least the way it was, by Hitler...so the very BEST "German" tanks weren't even designed by GERMANS...(which is probably why they WORKED as designed.....;):p:D:D:D


No PS, German Tank Design really SUCKED in WWII....it is a tribute to their Professional Army Officers and General Staff and their well trained and disciplined troops, for at least the first 3 years of the war, before most were killed or captured, that they did as WELL as they did with what they had....ALL things considered....

Sophistry, PS?

I think all it shows in reality is I have "done my homework," with an OPEN MIND.....:p
 
G
#24 · (Edited)
Ah, so it is facts you want. OK, here you go! :D

M4A1 Sherman Tank Specifications

Weight: 33.4 tons

Armor: 19-91 mm

Main Gun: 75 mm (later 76 mm)

Secondary Armament: 1 x .50 cal. Browning M2HB machine gun, 2 x .30 Browning M1919A4 machine gun

Engine: 400 hp Continental R975-C1 (Gasoline)
Range: 120 miles
Speed: 24 mph

Tiger Tank Specifications:

Weight 68.5 tonnes (initial turret)
69.8 tonnes (production turret)
Armor 25-180 mm
Primary armament 1× 8.8 cm KwK 43 L/71
84 rounds
Secondary armament 2× 7.92 mm Maschinengewehr 34
4,800 rounds
Engine V-12 Maybach HL 230 P30
700 PS (690 hp, 515 kW)
Power/weight 10 PS/tonne
Transmission Maybach OLVAR EG 40 12 16 B (8 forward and 4 reverse)
Suspension torsion-bar
Operational range 170 km
Speed 41.5 km/h

Unit Losses Kills Kill/Loss Ratio, Tiger Tank

schwere Panzer-Abteilung 501 Losses 120, Kills 450, Ratio 3.75
schwere Panzer-Abteilung 502 Losses 107, Kills 1,400, Ratio 13.08
schwere Panzer-Abteilung 503 Losses 252, Kills 1,700, Ratio 6.75
schwere Panzer-Abteilung 504 Losses 109, Kills 250, Ratio 2.29
schwere Panzer-Abteilung 505 Losses 126, Kills 900, Ratio 7.14
schwere Panzer-Abteilung 506 Losses 179, Kills 400, Ratio 2.23
schwere Panzer-Abteilung 507 Losses 104, Kills 600, Ratio 5.77
schwere Panzer-Abteilung 508 Losses 78, Kills 100, Ratio 1.28
schwere Panzer-Abteilung 509 Losses 120, Kills 500, Ratio 4.17
schwere Panzer-Abteilung 510 Losses 65, Kills 200, Ratio 3.08
13./Panzer-Regiment Grossdeutschland Losses 6, Kills 100, Ratio 16.67
III./Panzer-Regiment Grossdeutschland Losses 98, Kills 500 Ratio 5.10
13./SS-Panzerregiment 1 Losses 42, Kills 400, Ratio 9.52
8./SS-Panzerregiment 2 Losses 31, Kills 250, Ratio 8.06
9./SS-Panzerregiment 3 Losses 56, Kills 500, Ratio 8.93
schwere SS-Panzer-Abteilung 101 (501) Losses 107, Kills 500, Ratio 4.67
schwere SS-Panzer-Abteilung 102 (502) Losses 76, Kills 600, Ratio 7.89
schwere SS-Panzer-Abteilung 103 (503) Losses 39, Kills 500, Ratio 12.82
Total Losses 1,715 Kills 9,850 Ratio 5.74
 
#25 · (Edited)
Aha, I gotcha now, PS!:p

One of the most famous lessons I ever learned was from an old navy Chief, in fact a flying crew chief on a Navy PB4Y that flew a lot of top Navy Brass around....

"Figures Lie and Liars Figure"

ESPECIALLY, when comparing tanks and weapons "On Paper!"

First, we can have "dueling specs" all day, like your specs on the M4, why not give the specs for the M4A3, with the 500bhp V-8 Fords, and the 47 degree glacis AND the added armor to 100mm, that was the tank MOST used by US forces?


And why use some of the least favorable numbers you can find for the Sherman, while at the same time using the MOST favorable numbers for the Tiger? (for example, I have about 5 different sources on my bookshelf right NOW, not counting the scores of others I have read since I was 12, that vary GREATLY on something as simple as maximum armor thickness on the M4A3, from 75mm to 120...)

And, I can show you specifications in ONE of my books that give the Maybach P30 as only developing 600bhp at 3000rpm, and giving the Tiger II an operational range of only 68 miles! And while we're at it, 600bhp/68 tons, 500bhp/32 tons...power to weight ratio anyone?

And SPEEDS! The "road speed" of the M4 is ACTUAL road speed, they could do and DID, the entire war, in COMBAT...(I believe the 24 hour sustained road march record is STILL held by the M4s, and OTHER mechanically superior US vehicles, under Patton!) while the "road Speed" listed for the Tiger, and MOST other German Tanks as well, is from their TRIALS...the THEORETICAL road speed, wink wink nudge nudge, because everybody KNEW they NEVER could do that in real life WITHOUT breaking down, throwing a track, and in the case of the TIger, running into ANOTHER pesky bridge they couldn't cross!

Where is THAT notated on your "paper stats?" You have to read DEEPER than paper stats!

But I am not CONTENDING that the Panther or Tiger was NOT better armed, for that first shot! OR better armored....

Only that wars are not fought..."on paper!"

But how do you quantify ON PAPER the fact that the majority of the time the tank in Europe was NOT firing at another TANK, how do you qualify the MAXIMUM RATE OF FIRE of that main tank weapon, how do you quantify on PAPER the gyrostabilized gun that the Sherman had, meaning it would ALWAYS hit first in any engagement, granted, maybe not with a killing blow BUT WP or HE would allow it to ESCAPE, or more likely CLOSE to kill at 300 yds, from the FLANK, if it SAW the German at the same time? How do you quantify ON PAPER the SLOW traverse of the Tiger? Meaning it had BETTER hit the T-34 or M4 with it's FIRST shot, it was a rare feat to GET a second....

You must read about TACTICS, and about how they were USED in combat...

The Tiger was relegated to ONLY being truly effective as an "Ambush" weapon. READ about it, PS, it's enlightening! Was it GOOD at that? YES!

But the fact it was used as a DEFENSE at Nuremburg, the propaganda photographs taken for the consumption of the German People of Pieppers Tigers in "Action" during the Battle of the Bulge...they were taken no where NEAR the fighting, the "brave German Panzer Grenadier" with the MG belts around his neck, or the ones "charging" the enemy (the worng WAY!:p) were STAGED...

They were used to prove Piepper could not have been anywhere NEAR Malmedy. so could not have committed the "massacre," BECAUSE TIGERS WERE TOO HEAVY FOR THE BRIDGES IN THE ARDENNES.

Sorry, if your "BEST" tank cannot even take PART in your last gasp OFFENSIVE? Sorry, but it SUCKS...

And as for your ratios, those are for the entire war, the units fought with MANY tanks, not just Tigers...

Do me a favor and break those down by year and make of tank each unit was using, and if you can, exactly WHAT the kills were....MANY of those are "inflated" with the 10-15000 or so of the obsolete Russian T-26 and T-35 heavies killed just in the first offensive of Barbarossa.

And I ALSO gave them a LOT of credit for USING their inferior tanks so WELL from 1939 to about mid-1942...

And while you are at it tell me if just maybe your sources of the kill ratios are only GERMAN....

You know how inflated the German kills reported by German "Aces," were...they had a WHOLE different way of "confirming" kills than the allies had in the air, and it would have been TOUGH confirming "kills" on enemy tanks after 1943 or 1944, when the Germans were always RETREATING....


No the ONLY "statistic" or scorecard that really matters is how many operational tanks were still capable of combat IN GERMANY in April 1945...

Allies- THOUSANDS

Germany- ZERO.


It all goes back to that ONE little fact you cannot refute, and it GRATES on you.... (and to your credit you are not alone, many OTHER otherwise very well informed people and scholars make the same mistake, and spend too much time just looking at the "specs," and wondering WHY and then must make "excuses...")







I realize that many times I am challenging LONG held "beliefs," and many times people's first reaction is defensive, like I am challenging deeply held RELIGIOUS beliefs.

I did NOT come to this position LIGHTLY however...I TOO have had professors giving me the "Company Line", that I refused to accept a lot of times because SOMETHING was missing...(and not only in THIS either!;))

Then I get OBSESSED with finding through my OWN research what is REALLY the true story, not just what the "crib notes" tell me....

And that is why I LOVE studying history...just about ALL the time, there is "The Rest of the Story" just waiting to be found!

The only real problem is that it is patently IMPOSSIBLE to go that in-depth in EVERY facet of History....so to to that , one must "specialize" much like a Doctor.

Many Historians are "General Practioners," while I look at myself more of "Cardiologist..." (PS however might say "Proctocologist....":D:D:D)
 
G
#26 ·
Polish, not only are you stooping to sheer sophistry, now you are bordering on revisionism!

polishshooter said:
No the ONLY "statistic" or scorecard that really matters is how many operational tanks were still capable of combat IN GERMANY in April 1945...

Allies- THOUSANDS

Germany- ZERO.
In logic, the kind of argument you present is called a "Fallacy of Accident," Polish. Your conclusion has nothing to do with the original argument. It breaks down like this:

P1. The United States and its Allies won the Second World War against Germany.
P2. The United States and its Allies used the M4 Sherman tank against Germany.
P3. Germany lost the Second World War to the United States and its Allies.
P4. Germany used Tiger and Panther tanks against the United States and its Allies.

THEREFORE: The M4 Sherman tank was a better tank than the Tigers and Panthers.

Such arguments prove nothing. It is patently obvious that the Allies won World War II against Germany using the M4 tank. That proves absolutely nothing about the quality or capability of the M4 vs. the German tanks, only that Germany lost the war, a fact already conceded. The true operative question is, "why did Germany lose the war?" It lost for many reasons, not the least of which was a population base too small to stave off the massive forces arrayed against it, and the relative lack of production capability to construct the tools of war in sufficient quantities. Contrary to what you are trying to argue, the loss of the war has nothing logically to do with the relative merits of Allied v. German tanks. I suspect the Allies would have won had they used only British Matildas or American M3 Stuarts, assuming they built enough of them. No, Polish, the statistics I quoted are indeed relevant if the argument focuses on tank capability qua tank capability.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top