Achtung Panzer! Armor Discussion Thread

[Empire of Cats]

[quote="Husseinarti";p="31222783"][quote="Empire of Cats";p="31221949"][quote="Schwere Panzer Abteilung 502";p="31221716"]
This is an annoying argument that needs to die. Up until December 1944, the vast majority of Allied tankers were 100% happy with their tanks. After that, they wanted more heavily armored tanks, and those that got the Jumbo were satisfied. Anyway, it is a fact of life that soldiers are never going to be happy with what they have. The facts still bear out that the Sherman was more effective than any of the German AFVs. And as was said, panzerfausts didn't account for that many tank casualties in the first place.



[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_operation]The USSR didn't use mass wave attacks any more than any Western allies.[/url] The Waffen-SS unironically were probably the greatest users of it.[/quote]

I'm aware that the Panzerfaust wasn't typically a leathal weapon. But it did kill a few tanks nonetheless. Second, no tank is ideal. I'm pretty sure allied crews were satisfied, but 100%? I'm not so sure. As for the "mass waves", while I'm not saying that they were common, did happen. There's quite a few stories that relate how Soviet soldiers were sent into battle early in the war with no weapons and told to simply pick up the rifles they needed from those in front of them who had been killed.

[url]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shtrafbat[/url][/quote]

Look i found a wikipedia article that has some really egregious errors i'm right!

Yes, penal units were deployed in some cases without weapons. The Germans did the same. I don't see how that makes it true about the statement of the 'Asiatic hordes' or whatever. Sorry to tell you, but even in the very crazy early war the Soviets were conducting tactics that wasn't just "IVAN ADVANCE URAAAAAAAAAA"

By the late war, the Soviet machine was becoming better and better and WW2 helped them perfect the 1930s concept of 'Deep Battle'[/quote]

A) I never said anything about "Asiatic hordes".
B) Soviet tactics are more advanced than human wave assaults, I'm aware of that. But in several cases in the early part of the war, there are reports of human wave assaults. Also during the Winter War. There are reports of lines of troops armed with naught but bolt-action rifles charging into combat against well-entrenched Finnish positions. I'll get you the source soon, I'm not able to access my books right now.
C) Wikipedia is not a good source, but it was late and I wanted to get my point across.

[Dostanuot Loj]

Do you know that the United States army studied that USSR doctrine very thoroughly (There is also a British model) made some changes and took it for their own?

Did you know that is wrong?

The United States, leading into WW2, really liked dudes like Charles de Gaulle and Liddell-Hart on how tanks would have been integrated into their armies. They considered at some point infantry to be obsolete for the attack, but that was like 1937~ish, before WW2 kicked off.

There was a really nice pdf I had that is now lost that covered us armor theory development in the 1920s and 1930s.

I should have that somewhere. This is the US conceptual pdf right? I forgot the name, but it talks about developments in the US EMF and how they related to foreign concepts. Heavy emphasis on the 1929 trials runs. I'll take a look this weekend and see if I can find it, Kyiv probably has a copy somewhere too.

All modern tank theory, and all successful theory of the last century, can be tracked back to one event and one man: Cambrai 1917, and J.F.C Fuller. From there things spread (primarily) through DeGaulle and Tukhachevsky (Learned about it as POWs together), Fuller (Directly involved), and Liddel-Hart (Argued with Fuller).

Also: The Germans (Especially the Waffen-SS) were probably the worst users of these concepts. They only managed success because either everybody had gotten sick of a prima donna (Western Europe) or everyone who could conduct them was purged (Eastern Europe). When the allies started putting their own operational concepts to work they rolled over the Germans with ease.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Few people know that Charles de Gaulle was one of the military minds who came up with the concept of what would become known as the Blitzkrieg.

True. De Galle advocated for tanks to be used in separate armored divisions as opposed to the common practice in French armies to use tanks piecemeal for infantry support instead of combining them into an armored division. France had more tanks and some pretty good designs, like the Souma S35.

One man turrets are not good designs.

[Uxupox]

True. De Galle advocated for tanks to be used in separate armored divisions as opposed to the common practice in French armies to use tanks piecemeal for infantry support instead of combining them into an armored division. France had more tanks and some pretty good designs, like the Souma S35.

One man turrets are not good designs.

What the hell is thing.

[Empire of Cats]

True. De Galle advocated for tanks to be used in separate armored divisions as opposed to the common practice in French armies to use tanks piecemeal for infantry support instead of combining them into an armored division. France had more tanks and some pretty good designs, like the Souma S35.

One man turrets are not good designs.

For its time, the Souma S35 was a relatively agile tank and was superior in armor and armament to its fellow French tanks and even to the Pz. III. It was tactically effective but its advantages were negated by the French command's tactical blunders.

[Hurdergaryp]

True. De Galle advocated for tanks to be used in separate armored divisions as opposed to the common practice in French armies to use tanks piecemeal for infantry support instead of combining them into an armored division. France had more tanks and some pretty good designs, like the Souma S35.

One man turrets are not good designs.

Given how the Renault FT-17 was the first true modern tank, the French stayed loyal to the concept of one man turrets. De Gaulle had to work with the vehicles available to him, he did the best he could.

[Dostanuot Loj]

You're forgetting the other factor: Army doctrine. Tanks were supposed to support the infantry, tank destroyers were supposed to fight enemy armor.

This terrible meme needs to die alongside the "German X was the best" crap. The US quite openly applied TDS to cover breakthroughs. They were intended to be operationally mobile enough to be moved when needed and as needed. A breakthrough was intended to involve tanks, and thus they were expected to kill tanks, but so we're regular tanks.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

One man turrets are not good designs.

For its time, the Souma S35 was a relatively agile tank and was superior in armor and armament to its fellow French tanks and even to the Pz. III.

And it has a one man turret.

[UCE Watchdog of the Puppets]

For its time, the Souma S35 was a relatively agile tank and was superior in armor and armament to its fellow French tanks and even to the Pz. III.

And it has a one man turret.

Being unfamiliar with tanks, I have to ask what's so bad about one-man turrets. Does it overburden someone with too many tasks? Too dangerous? Too cramped? Or something else?

[Empire of Cats]

For its time, the Souma S35 was a relatively agile tank and was superior in armor and armament to its fellow French tanks and even to the Pz. III.

And it has a one man turret.

I get the feeling that if it didn't have a one-man turret, you'd like the Souma S35.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

And it has a one man turret.

Being unfamiliar with tanks, I have to ask what's so bad about one-man turrets. Does it overburden someone with too many tasks? Too dangerous? Too cramped? Or something else?

Yes. A one-man turret requires the commander to also be the gunner and loader.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HV2nIkqnG ... e=youtu.be

[Immoren]

Not that it helped them in the ende, but I do remember reading accounts that French tanks with single man turrets had higher accuracy than their german two man turret counter parts, because French commander/gunners were more meticulous about aiming and hitting that german gunners, but that might've also been training related issue.

And it has a one man turret.

Being unfamiliar with tanks, I have to ask what's so bad about one-man turrets. Does it overburden someone with too many tasks? Too dangerous? Too cramped? Or something else?

One-man turrets had same person acting as both tank commander and gunner for main gun, so yes. There were some multi-tasking related detrimetns

[UCE Watchdog of the Puppets]

Being unfamiliar with tanks, I have to ask what's so bad about one-man turrets. Does it overburden someone with too many tasks? Too dangerous? Too cramped? Or something else?

Yes. A one-man turret requires the commander to also be the gunner and loader. It's also more cramped.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HV2nIkqnG ... e=youtu.be

Ah! Now I've heard that three-man crews have a similar problem but not that it was also linked with the one-man turret. That does not sound like a good arrangement.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Yes. A one-man turret requires the commander to also be the gunner and loader. It's also more cramped.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HV2nIkqnG ... e=youtu.be

Ah! Now I've heard that three-man crews have a similar problem but not that it was also linked with the one-man turret. That does not sound like a good arrangement.

A three-man crew is acceptable if the vehicle has an autoloader or autocannon, like the Bradley.

[San Marlindo]

Ah! Now I've heard that three-man crews have a similar problem but not that it was also linked with the one-man turret. That does not sound like a good arrangement.

A three-man crew is acceptable if the vehicle has an autoloader or autocannon, like the Bradley.

I think even more so if the turret is unmanned.

[The Conez Imperium]

A three-man crew is acceptable if the vehicle has an autoloader or autocannon, like the Bradley.

I think even more so if the turret is unmanned.

The only modern tank I know that has an unmanned turrent is the T-14 Armata

[Ascoobis]

Out of curiosity, what is everyone's personal view on the M4 Sherman line of vehicles?

Hey Wash!

A rather superb tank compared to others of its calibre and role.

And even better under the Israelis.

[San Marlindo]

I think even more so if the turret is unmanned.

The only modern tank I know that has an unmanned turrent is the T-14 Armata

The Jordanians have been developing an unmanned turret since 2003 and have successfully mated it to the Al-Hussein tank.

And if you count light tanks, the US developed the Teledyne expeditionary tank a few years ago, which also has an unmanned turret.

[Husseinarti]

Did you know that is wrong?

The United States, leading into WW2, really liked dudes like Charles de Gaulle and Liddell-Hart on how tanks would have been integrated into their armies. They considered at some point infantry to be obsolete for the attack, but that was like 1937~ish, before WW2 kicked off.

There was a really nice pdf I had that is now lost that covered us armor theory development in the 1920s and 1930s.

Few people know that Charles de Gaulle was one of the military minds who came up with the concept of what would become known as the Blitzkrieg.

Blitzkrieg is a meme name made up by a British dude in 1940.

Its just combined arms.

Few people know that Charles de Gaulle was one of the military minds who came up with the concept of what would become known as the Blitzkrieg.

True. De Galle advocated for tanks to be used in separate armored divisions as opposed to the common practice in French armies to use tanks piecemeal for infantry support instead of combining them into an armored division. France had more tanks and some pretty good designs, like the Souma S35. Problem was that French tactical doctrine won out over De Gaulle's voice in the wilderness.

Yes, the SOUMA S35 was a good vehicle for its day. However, it lacked a radio in most tanks, with even commanding vehicles having radios if they were lucky, being resigned to the old fashioned signal flags and other things.

True. De Galle advocated for tanks to be used in separate armored divisions as opposed to the common practice in French armies to use tanks piecemeal for infantry support instead of combining them into an armored division. France had more tanks and some pretty good designs, like the Souma S35.

One man turrets are not good designs.

No, they aren't in hindsight.

One man turrets are not good designs.

What the hell is thing.

Thats the rear of two S35s and a 75mm in the foreground.

One man turrets are not good designs.

For its time, the Souma S35 was a relatively agile tank and was superior in armor and armament to its fellow French tanks and even to the Pz. III. It was tactically effective but its advantages were negated by the French command's tactical blunders.

More or less, this. The SOUMA S35 had better armor, a better gun, etc but lacked the communication abilities of the Germans.

For its time, the Souma S35 was a relatively agile tank and was superior in armor and armament to its fellow French tanks and even to the Pz. III.

And it has a one man turret.

You are harping on a single thing, care to expand or just be set on repeat?

Single turret French designs nearly cut the German advances many times during the invasion of France. And the concept of a single-man turret wasn't exclusive to the French. The Czechoslovakian designs, the LT vz. 34, LT vz. 35, had single man turrets. When the Germans captured the 250~ or so vz. 35s and modified them into Pz.kpfw 35(t)s, they removed ammunition space in the turret and added an additional crewman to reduce the workload, they also added a radio and crew intercom system. These were things the Czechs planned on doing, also adding an infantry telephone as well, but never did because ~munich diktat~.

Commander's learn to deal with certain vehicle design constraints. Again, the Germans nearly lost most of their panzers to getting cut off by French tank counterattacks.

And it has a one man turret.

Being unfamiliar with tanks, I have to ask what's so bad about one-man turrets. Does it overburden someone with too many tasks? Too dangerous? Too cramped? Or something else?

Yes.
Yes.
Kinda?
and yes.

French designs were kinda dumb because you had to fucking open up a hatch on the back of your turret and sit outside to look around properly, were other tanks you could lift the hatch on top, peek out and duck back in. In a French tank you had to expose your entire body to get a good look around.

Ah! Now I've heard that three-man crews have a similar problem but not that it was also linked with the one-man turret. That does not sound like a good arrangement.

A three-man crew is acceptable if the vehicle has an autoloader or autocannon, like the Bradley.

Or if your the Czechs, the British or the Russians in WW2.

The British Vickers Model E, the single most prolific armored fighting vehicle before WW2 started had a three man crew. The BT series had a three man crew, and the Czechs used three man crews.

Also, the Panzer II had a three man crew.

Hindsight is 20/20.

[Novus America]

The only modern tank I know that has an unmanned turrent is the T-14 Armata

The Jordanians have been developing an unmanned turret since 2003 and have successfully mated it to the Al-Hussein tank.

And if you count light tanks, the US developed the Teledyne expeditionary tank a few years ago, which also has an unmanned turret.

There was also an experimental version of the M1 with an unmanned turret. Unmanned turrets have some advantages, the turret can be smaller and the crew kept safer. But have major disadvantages as well.

You lose a lot of situational awareness as you cannot pop a hatch to look around very well.
Big issue especially in urban combat.

Also you can only remotely target the gun with some sort of electronic camera. If it is disabled the gun is dead.

Also if the gun jams you cannot easily service it either. Usually only by getting out of the tank, climbing on top, opening some sort of access cover.

[San Marlindo]

There was also an experimental version of the M1 with an unmanned turret. Unmanned turrets have som advantages, the turret can be smaller and the crew kept safer. But have major disadvantages as well.

You lose a lot of situational awareness as you cannot pop a hatch to look around very well.
Big issue especially in urban combat.

Also you can only remotely target the gun with some sort of electronic camera. If it is disabled the gun is dead.

Also if the gun jams you cannot easily service it either. Usually only be getting out of the tank, climbing on top, opening some sort of access cover.

Doesn't the US military use the Stryker MGS, which has an unmanned turret? I know it's not a tank, but still. Seems like if a vehicle like that actually went into service instead of just being a one-off experiment somebody must have been confident about the concept.

[Novus America]

There was also an experimental version of the M1 with an unmanned turret. Unmanned turrets have som advantages, the turret can be smaller and the crew kept safer. But have major disadvantages as well.

You lose a lot of situational awareness as you cannot pop a hatch to look around very well.
Big issue especially in urban combat.

Also you can only remotely target the gun with some sort of electronic camera. If it is disabled the gun is dead.

Also if the gun jams you cannot easily service it either. Usually only be getting out of the tank, climbing on top, opening some sort of access cover.

Doesn't the US military use the Stryker MGS, which has an unmanned turret? I know it's not a tank, but still. Seems like if a vehicle like that actually went into service instead of just being a one-off experiment somebody must have been confident about the concept.

The Stryker MGS is in service. But it has all the disadvantages outlined above.
The concept can work, but like everything has advantages and disadvantages.

Also as you note it is used differently than a tank.
Whether the advantages outweigh the disadvantages depends on the role you use it for.

The MGS is not designed to be an independent vehicle but instead is assingned to infantry companies to give them additional fire support. (Akin to old "infantry tanks").

I think it is fine for that type of platform. Not as good for a modern tank which is designed for more independent actions.
Hence why the US decided to not use an unmanned turret for the M1.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

And it has a one man turret.

You are harping on a single thing, care to expand or just be set on repeat?

Three heads are better than one.

Single turret French designs nearly cut the German advances many times during the invasion of France.

Right, nearly.

And the concept of a single-man turret wasn't exclusive to the French. The Czechoslovakian designs, the LT vz. 34, LT vz. 35, had single man turrets. When the Germans captured the 250~ or so vz. 35s and modified them into Pz.kpfw 35(t)s, they removed ammunition space in the turret and added an additional crewman to reduce the workload, they also added a radio and crew intercom system. These were things the Czechs planned on doing, also adding an infantry telephone as well, but never did because ~munich diktat~.

So they made it a two-man turret.

Commander's learn to deal with certain vehicle design constraints. Again, the Germans nearly lost most of their panzers to getting cut off by French tank counterattacks.

Nearly.

A three-man crew is acceptable if the vehicle has an autoloader or autocannon, like the Bradley.

Or if your the Czechs,

They lost and their tank was turned into a four-man tank.

the British

Mostly used 4- or 5-man crews except in their light tanks, which were scouts mostly and thus small size was more important than a full crew.

So I stand corrected. A three-man crew is acceptable if the vehicle has an autoloader or autocannon, or is a scout.

Then again, the Chaffee had a five-man crew.

or the Russians in WW2.

The BT series was fodder. T-34 was godlike in the Atheist sense, which is why they also made sure to include a third place in the turret for the upgrade.

The British Vickers Model E, the single most prolific armored fighting vehicle before WW2 started had a three man crew. The BT series had a three man crew, and the Czechs used three man crews.

Guess what tanks they stopped building when they got better (read: four-man) tanks during WWII.

Also, the Panzer II had a three man crew.

The Panzer II used an autocannon.

http://i.imgur.com/wiKnizW.mp4

Hindsight is 20/20.

Indeed, which is why they looked back and realized they should have four-man crews for their tanks.

[Empire of Cats]

By the way, the source for my "Soviet Wave" assault, for those curious, is "The Atlas of World War II" by Dr. John Pimlott. The quote goes as follows:

"It happened in the initial fighting in December that the Russians would advance in close formation, singing, and even hand in hand, against the Finnish minefields, apparently indifferent to the explosions and the accurate fire of the defenders. The fatalistic submission which characterized the infantry was astonishing." - Marshal Mannerheim

While this isn't the whole "IVAN WE CHARGE NOW URIIIIIII" suicidal charge that might come to mind, but is an indication that Soviet troops were brave to the point of almost suicidal actions in order to achieve success.

Anyway, I digress. OK, which was better - the T-34 or the Panzer III, as they were often engaged in combat with each other.



Also, saw this and thought it was pretty funny.

[Uxupox]

By the way, the source for my "Soviet Wave" assault, for those curious, is "The Atlas of World War II" by Dr. John Pimlott. The quote goes as follows:

"It happened in the initial fighting in December that the Russians would advance in close formation, singing, and even hand in hand, against the Finnish minefields, apparently indifferent to the explosions and the accurate fire of the defenders. The fatalistic submission which characterized the infantry was astonishing." - Marshal Mannerheim

While this isn't the whole "IVAN WE CHARGE NOW URIIIIIII" suicidal charge that might come to mind, but is an indication that Soviet troops were brave to the point of almost suicidal actions in order to achieve success.

Anyway, I digress. OK, which was better - the T-34 or the Panzer III, as they were often engaged in combat with each other.

You can be brave when you expect a shot in the back if you turn around.