Login

russian armor

Myths of American Armor (food for thought)

22 Jul 2015, 02:25 AM
#1
avatar of braciszek

Posts: 2053

I put this here because it has nothing to do with the game.



Afterthoughts? (If you actually watched the entire 45ish minutes)

"Sherman bounced 75mm shells more often than not"

"American TD doctrine was strictly DEFENSIVE"

"Pershing sucks"

"17 pounder sucks" (well, he doesnt say that, but he points out its awful accuracy)

And this especially:

IL-2 and whatever other german ground attack plane were very effective because they were designed to kill armor. Typhoon, P47's etc were not quite so effective at all (numbers to show) because they were FIGHTERS

"Americans engaged only 3 Tiger I's. First time the shermans won. Second time the Pershing lost. Third time wasnt fair as it was in the process of being loaded onto a flatbed"

Also, no one called the m10 the wolverine, so the name randomly came out of somewhere XD
22 Jul 2015, 02:36 AM
#2
avatar of dart_striker

Posts: 136

Very interesting, thanks for the post.
22 Jul 2015, 11:01 AM
#3
avatar of squippy

Posts: 484

Interesting.
22 Jul 2015, 11:35 AM
#4
avatar of Kisiel
Benefactor 115

Posts: 90

Nice video. I will allow myself to post link to forum thread of a fellow game with tanks that busts some more ww2 myths.
22 Jul 2015, 11:40 AM
#5
avatar of Ulaire Minya

Posts: 372

Funny, the Pershing was reported to outfight both the Panther and Tiger.
22 Jul 2015, 13:34 PM
#6
avatar of AvNY

Posts: 862

I put this here because it has nothing to do with the game.



Afterthoughts? (If you actually watched the entire 45ish minutes)

"Sherman bounced 75mm shells more often than not"

"American TD doctrine was strictly DEFENSIVE"

"Pershing sucks"

"17 pounder sucks" (well, he doesnt say that, but he points out its awful accuracy)

And this especially:

IL-2 and whatever other german ground attack plane were very effective because they were designed to kill armor. Typhoon, P47's etc were not quite so effective at all (numbers to show) because they were FIGHTERS

"Americans engaged only 3 Tiger I's. First time the shermans won. Second time the Pershing lost. Third time wasnt fair as it was in the process of being loaded onto a flatbed"

Also, no one called the m10 the wolverine, so the name randomly came out of somewhere XD



This was awesome!

Thanks!

You forgot to add other takeaways from this:

- The Shermans arriving by mid-44 were damn fine tanks that were well designed, extremely survivable, posed a real threat to Panthers, and were probably a superior tank at that point to any version of the PIV. (Late model M4 > late model P4)

- The US armored command was by no means brain-dead and was wise enough to say "No" to any sexy bit of kit that was designed.

- US tankers suffered some of the lowest rates of combat deaths of any nation in the European theater.
22 Jul 2015, 13:34 PM
#7
avatar of MajorBloodnok
Admin Red  Badge
Patrion 314

Posts: 10665 | Subs: 9

Moved to the Library
22 Jul 2015, 14:21 PM
#8
avatar of OrionHunter88

Posts: 141

I haven't watched the video yet (since I'm at work) but will later.

I've read a lot of Steven Zaloga's work on his research of armor - probably not best to base most of my in-depth WW2 tank knowledge on one writer but I can only read so much and I like the way he writes.

I'd like t point out another myth that often gets overlooked about german/US armor that often gets overlooked. Most sources state that the Panther was the "best tank of WW2". In terms of armor/gun it was really good - for fighting other tanks. Mechanically it was inferior though (some of this was due to the state of german industry)

Sherman had a number of advantages over the panther - In battle of the bulge nearly HALF the panthers were sidelined for mechanical failure only 2-3 days into the campaign, while only 10-15% of shermans were sidelined for mechanical failure during the entire campaign.

A lot of tank analysis in popular sources is in terms of tank vs tank, which was actually not nearly as common as the average consumer would think. In terms of vs infantry/fortification combat the Sherman was actually better due to it's extremely potent HE shell.

There is also a rather interesting fact that in more or less equal tank duels (so even if it was panther vs panther). The attacking tank force would lose approx 3x as many tanks as the defender. (This is based on testing done by both the brits and the US after WW2, and data losses recorded from tank vs tank actions in the later part of the war).


So a Giant myth is that Tiger/Panther were roughtly 4-5x as effective as a sherman. What people get that from is that the shermans were often on the attacking side. In the rare cases the germans attacked (Avranches, Lorraine, battle of the bulge) In scenarios where shermans (and similar tanks/TDs) were in defensive positions they inflicted ballpark 3:1 casualties on the attacking forces. It's just that in 1944-45 German attacks/counter attacks were so rare, and tank on tank was not common that those encounters are relatively few.

On the other side, I do think it's interesting that the Panther and Tiger had better ground pressure than the early-mid production sherman (meaning that despite their heavier weight they could navigate soft terrian more easily). Late production shermans had modified tracks that did help the issue, and modifications were made to the tracks of existing shermans. but still..


Anyways, i'll check this video out.
22 Jul 2015, 14:38 PM
#9
avatar of Array
Donator 11

Posts: 609

jump backJump back to quoted post22 Jul 2015, 13:34 PMAvNY


- US tankers suffered some of the lowest rates of combat deaths of any nation in the European theater.



Surely this is also because they fought the least tank battles or tank led attacks on heavily defended positions rather than a difference in quality of equipment or doctrine?
22 Jul 2015, 14:40 PM
#10
avatar of __deleted__

Posts: 830

jump backJump back to quoted post22 Jul 2015, 14:38 PMArray



Surely this is also because they fought the least tank battles or tank led attacks on heavily defended positions rather than a difference in quality of equipment or doctrine?


I agree with this!
22 Jul 2015, 15:39 PM
#11
avatar of AvNY

Posts: 862

jump backJump back to quoted post22 Jul 2015, 14:38 PMArray



Surely this is also because they fought the least tank battles or tank led attacks on heavily defended positions rather than a difference in quality of equipment or doctrine?



Only in part. A lot of tanks of all nations were still lost to AT guns. But in the video he shows that there was a lower killed-crew-to-tank-destroyed ratio in M4s than other tanks and a lower ratio in US Shermans than in British Shermans (Brit crews did not wear helmets while in the tank).

Part of this was that by mid-44 every Sherman coming off the production lines was much better designed for survivability. They had wet storage in the hull, US ammo cooked up less easily than that of other countries, and the tanks were designed for more ease of exit.

The lecturer has other videos showing how hard/easy it was for a driver to enter or exit the driver's hatch of various tanks and the Shermans' hatch is by far the easiets (even coming with a spring loaded hatch).

So yeah, they lost fewer men (in fact remarkably few) but they also lost fewer men per lost tank than other countries, and your argument can't account for that.
22 Jul 2015, 16:21 PM
#12
avatar of Array
Donator 11

Posts: 609

Thanks for the reply with the context. I recall one statistic from a documentary focusing on a British tank regiment north of Caen holding an exposed hill. If I remember it was an 80 tank unit. During the battle they received 900 replacement Shermans.
22 Jul 2015, 16:50 PM
#13
avatar of AvNY

Posts: 862

jump backJump back to quoted post22 Jul 2015, 16:21 PMArray
Thanks for the reply with the context. I recall one statistic from a documentary focusing on a British tank regiment north of Caen holding an exposed hill. If I remember it was an 80 tank unit. During the battle they received 900 replacement Shermans.



A link or citation would be nice. That statistic (1100% turnover in one engagement) would be completely astounding for a single battle even if by "battle" you mean all the operations until the British broke through Caen.

It is not astounding for a wartime operation. The 3rd Armored from Normandy through to the end of the was lost 650 tanks and had another 700 tanks knocked out and restored to operations, out of a TO&E of 232 tanks. So 580% turnover in 10-11 months. But the knocked out tanks equals less than 300%.
22 Jul 2015, 17:17 PM
#14
avatar of Array
Donator 11

Posts: 609

This was the series and it was episode 2

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/world-war-ii-the-last-heroes/episode-guide

I think it will be hard to find YouTube versions have been deleted by copyright owners.

It is just a documentary so taken with a pinch of salt but the episodes were all based on the recollections of veterans including the commander of this unit.

My recollection is a little hazy so my facts may be off But I'm pretty sure on the numbers though the regiment may have been bigger. As the the time period I'm tempted to say the whole battle of Normandy but my recollection was that it was for a key 2-3 week period. I do recall the veteran saying he was shot out of two tanks in one day
22 Jul 2015, 17:26 PM
#15
avatar of Array
Donator 11

Posts: 609

I found the video but I can't find the section making me think it was a different documentary. This does have some interesting perspectives but is a bit populist

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xz7i1p_world-war-ii-the-last-heroes-e2_shortfilms
22 Jul 2015, 17:27 PM
#16
avatar of OrionHunter88

Posts: 141

As to British tank losses rate. They had a particularly high tank loss due to the tactics they employed. It was pretty typical that for every Sherman tank knocked out an average of only 1 crew member would die.

Given that British had a manpower deficiency, commanders would frequently use Sherman tanks to spearhead the more dangerous missions. At least that's what I've read.
22 Jul 2015, 17:39 PM
#17
avatar of Array
Donator 11

Posts: 609

Here is the correct documentary its BBC and features interviews with veterans so is fairly reputable. He gives the quote at 43 minutes in. The unit had 150 tanks and received 1073 replacements but he doesnt give a timescale though the implication is that it is post dday and during the 4 week battle for Tilly

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8cO66nTMs0
22 Jul 2015, 18:35 PM
#18
avatar of AvNY

Posts: 862

I guess it is just plain normal in the annals of veterans recollections that you saw the defficiencies in your own equipment and the strengths of the enemies.

US tankers will remember vividly every on-target bounce, but not take as natural that their tank is able to reverse out of the fight reliably. Heck, they probably think every bounce was lucky even though many might have stories of such "luck".

Likewise German veterans would be astounded at the availability of reinforcements, artillery and reinforcements. While the recollections are of heroism and ability to withstand they assuredly would hve rather been in the opposite situation, having the equipment, fuel, ammunition, support, etc themselves.

think of this story, that 1100 vehicles could be replaced for one Regiment in 4 weeks is in itself astounding. The German units in Normandy had lost 1/3 of their fighting strength by that time, while their opponents were only getting stronger and figuring out the tactics they would need.
22 Jul 2015, 18:49 PM
#19
avatar of Array
Donator 11

Posts: 609

jump backJump back to quoted post22 Jul 2015, 18:35 PMAvNY

think of this story, that 1100 vehicles could be replaced for one Regiment in 4 weeks is in itself astounding. The German units in Normandy had lost 1/3 of their fighting strength by that time, while their opponents were only getting stronger and figuring out the tactics they would need.


The second documentary I posted says exactly this - it is a 'reassessment' (not exactly - this view is not new) of the battle puncturing some myths and claiming that the losses and 'failures' were just part of this plan.

Must finish the rest of the OP's video post though. New data is always good
22 Jul 2015, 18:53 PM
#20
avatar of somenbjorn

Posts: 923

jump backJump back to quoted post22 Jul 2015, 18:35 PMAvNY
I guess it is just plain normal in the annals of veterans recollections that you saw the defficiencies in your own equipment and the strengths of the enemies.


+1 This


It feels like over the last couple of years alot of the stuff I've read have all been very much focused on the individual accounts, and as you point out and is said in the video these might be quite inaccurate. (All guns are 88s all tanks are Tigers sort of thing)

I still enjoy reading it but I think the best (Historically speaking) stuff I've read is the stuff researched by historians and not interviewed by journalists. :)

1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

SHOUT IT OUT!

No ProfanityNumber of ShoutsRefresh Shout Box
Willy Pete: I think it was nuts with any engine damage. Especially on superheavies
Today, 07:03 AM
aerafield: Personally I think without the ram ability, it's worse than loiters for example
Today, 00:09 AM
Willy Pete: It combined well with most slowing abilities, not just ram stuns
Yesterday, 23:36 PM
Willy Pete: Only??? I think not being able to shoot it down and the ramp up effect also had something to do with it
Yesterday, 23:34 PM
Willy Pete: Really
Yesterday, 23:30 PM
aerafield: AT overwatch was broken only because it came with the faction of T34 ramming
Yesterday, 22:29 PM
Willy Pete: Love to see Relic really learning from their past mistakes. Let's bring back the dumbest ability in coh2, and charge money for it
Yesterday, 20:34 PM
Willy Pete: New DAK commander will have AT overwatch as alternate choice to elefant
Yesterday, 20:33 PM
aaa: Funy thing new players dont know that. And are trying to compete vs hacks
Yesterday, 10:33 AM
aaa: Online gaming is trash in general, not just coh. On high level there are all cheats in most games
Yesterday, 10:24 AM
aaa: 2 cheaters in 3 days. MH and DH
Yesterday, 09:57 AM
aerafield: I am a simple man, I build Humvees with Pathfinders and Missile Launchers inside, I am happy
Last Tuesday, 20:57 PM
Lady Xenarra: aerafield lamevee spammer confirmed :nahnah:
Last Tuesday, 20:42 PM
aerafield: those who know, know: https://www.reddit.com/r/CompanyOfHeroes/s/fPk4yLIgmK
Last Tuesday, 15:40 PM
adamírcz: Might be onto somethin here, combine side armour existing, maps where flanking is a viable option, and hopefully also heavies actually being less manouverable than mediums (lookin at you coh2), and it might be fun gameplay
Last Monday, 13:39 PM
Willy Pete: Shouldn't coh3 heavies actually have insane front armor values? The glory days of 400+ Kt armor wouldn't be as bad when side armor is a thing. Not to say its a good idea lol
Last Friday, 23:14 PM
aerafield: But then again, maybe CoH3 superheavies should actually have insane armor values because the whole game is designed for the clumsy & inept anyway :snfPeter:
Last Friday, 23:04 PM
aerafield: It's like you have to coordinate an entire orchestra of abilities and the correct units, meanwhile your opponent just clicks his 1 superheavy tank occasionally...
Last Friday, 23:01 PM
aerafield: the giga frontal armor also made these units too oppressive in average or low ELO games
Last Friday, 22:59 PM
aerafield: Massive HP pool but reasonable amount of armor is way healthier design
Last Friday, 22:57 PM
aerafield: Say what you want, but the titanium frontal armor design of coh2 superheavies was bullshit. Too many bad players not getting punished for their bad micro because penetration RNG carries them
Last Friday, 22:57 PM
Willy Pete: Also the attack ground with the pak40 looked perfect, that Pershing should be dead
Last Friday, 19:18 PM
Willy Pete: Ahh just saw the other one that died. Some bad rng I think but there was an AT gun at med range for a chunk of that fight
Last Friday, 19:14 PM
Willy Pete: Which KT? I saw one got almost deleted but it also showed its side to a hellcat AND the m5. I think the player even admitted he got lucky
Last Friday, 19:10 PM
Lady Xenarra: I understand that the devs want to sell the Allied part of the DLC, but the KT got swiss cheesed like a COH2 bunker on treads :S
Last Friday, 15:16 PM
SupremeStefan: They should make dlc separataly for axis and alies
Last Friday, 10:28 AM
SupremeStefan: 25$ is actually a ok price for 40 abilites = 8 commanders = 4 battlegroups. But problem is that it comes in bundle
Last Friday, 10:24 AM
Willy Pete: Have they shown the actual trees yet for the new commanders? Skimmed through the deep dive today, didnt see em
13 Feb 2025, 22:29 PM
Rosbone: Big Tonk boners incoming :hansGASM:
13 Feb 2025, 17:38 PM
donofsandiego: Probably not
12 Feb 2025, 14:57 PM
Lone-Wolf: Hi guys. Error code -4. Any fixes?
08 Feb 2025, 17:09 PM
donofsandiego: Probably not
07 Feb 2025, 16:57 PM
SkYisTheLimiT_CoH: any coh2.org admin there ?
07 Feb 2025, 12:43 PM
Lady Xenarra: Ever the contrarian, aerafield.
07 Feb 2025, 11:59 AM
aerafield: I havent seen the new units in action yet (whose BGs will not be purchased by too many people as they are pretty expensive I recon), but I can say with 100% confidence that the Pershing needs a buff
07 Feb 2025, 02:31 AM
Lady Xenarra: I would think lots more players would come/return since there's so many iconic units being added in the new BGs. I just don't want to hear another 8+ yrs of Pershing need buff complaints
06 Feb 2025, 23:22 PM
adamírcz: If I had my supply of copium, Id say they might at least get enough money to not have to wait 5 months with problems that should be a matter of bi-weekly hotfix
06 Feb 2025, 23:10 PM
adamírcz: I mean, its overpriced,
06 Feb 2025, 23:10 PM
Rosbone: Will it help or hurt the current player base is the real question. Should add more players, but may drive many away.
06 Feb 2025, 19:17 PM
Rosbone: Yes you too can play with a persdhing for the low price of $24.99 USD. Or be the poor schlub who gets his rectum reconfigured who doesnt have the latest pay to win stuffs.
06 Feb 2025, 19:16 PM
donofsandiego: persdhing in coh 3? 😳
06 Feb 2025, 18:42 PM
Rosbone: @aerafield Ahhh, I think I made a pershing like twice in my life since that commander is pretty bad in 4s.
05 Feb 2025, 23:20 PM
aerafield: @Rosbone coh2 pershing has the same ability so, whatever. Though it's probably gonna be a 30 seconds ability to make it super broken pay to win, then 2 months later it will get "hotfixed" into a skillshot like coh2 pershing
05 Feb 2025, 22:00 PM
Rosbone: How do we feel about Pershing shooting thru multiple buildings?
05 Feb 2025, 19:43 PM
Rosbone: I am just happy Relic was smart enough to put this out now because the community was falling asleep waiting 3 months between patches. And a new/old map was shown :banana:
05 Feb 2025, 19:38 PM
aerafield: Not even the trailer can hide the trash sound effects
05 Feb 2025, 18:46 PM
Lady Xenarra: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSvwH2mXje8 Well this should result in 'interesting' reactions... :rofl:
05 Feb 2025, 18:43 PM
Ginaaa: how do i send replay to get him banned?
05 Feb 2025, 00:11 AM
Ginaaa: `just caught cooper47/ maphacking
05 Feb 2025, 00:11 AM
adamírcz: Oh well, I might look it up on dickcord and try upload anyway
02 Feb 2025, 00:27 AM
adamírcz: shiit, saw clean through me
02 Feb 2025, 00:26 AM
aerafield: That's exactly what a drophacker would say
01 Feb 2025, 22:37 PM
adamírcz: Just to be clear, Im askin cause I want someone banned, not coz I would wanna synchhack
01 Feb 2025, 15:10 PM
adamírcz: Do Relic still banana people for synchhacks in CoH2 or is it only for CoH3 now
01 Feb 2025, 15:09 PM
Lady Xenarra: Great, we're all getting somewhere B-)
30 Jan 2025, 21:32 PM
Rosbone: @Lady Xenarra Yes, I am more than happy that Kill Counts were added. I apologize for the insane rant. Like everything else, if you want it done right you have to do it yourself :romeoHairDay:
30 Jan 2025, 19:44 PM
adamírcz: Damn, didnt expect to trigger such impressive rant, but there is nothing I disagree with there :rofl:
30 Jan 2025, 19:33 PM

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

261 users are online: 261 guests
1 post in the last 24h
5 posts in the last week
43 posts in the last month
Registered members: 51801
Welcome our newest member, JamardfManning
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM