Allied Tanks vs. German Armor | Forums

[DarkAutumn]

http://www.valourandhorror.com/DB/BACK/Cd_Tank.htm

-For those who found German tanks hard to knock out in the game, the real-deal was even harder.

[SgtGarand]

Yea the Germans really had the upper hand with their tanks, but we just had more...thats all
Good thing we got with the program and now have the M1 Abrams

[punjisticks]

When the Germans first started off, their tanks weren't that great. In fact, if the French knew how to deploy their tanks, their heavy tanks could have taken out what Germany fielded during the blitzkrieg of France. And of course when the Germans first encountered the Russian T-34 they were shocked. They were able to inflict heavy losses because they were better trained than their Russian counterpart and they were also able to communicate between tanks since they had radios.
After the T-34, then the Germans started building the Tiger I and Panther...they were deadly, but complicated to build...so they took longer to get into the field, where the Americans were able to mass produce the Sherman because they were easier to fabricate and of course, we did the same prior to the war with automobiles. It usually took 5 shermans to knock out one tiger, but when you build 56 thousand Shermans, I guess you are willing to take those losses.

[Bump-USMC]

A little while back there was an interesting Military Channel show about Blitz Krieg where they indeed talked about inferiority of German armor early in the war. Not just quality but quantity. What they did understand a lot better is how to use combined arms to exploit the strengths of each component to make up for weaknesses of others.

As Punji mentioned later German tanks were technologically superior to anything the allies could throw against them. But they had reliability problems and consumed too many resources to build, maintain and operate. So Allied tanks like the Sherman could employ wolfpack techniques to knock 'em out. A very expensive proposition. Unfortunately life was cheap then. There were reports of a single Tiger knocking out more than a dozen Shermans before getting out manouvered and destroyed from behind. In hind sight it is inexcusable that the Allies didn't field a better tank till late in the war. Thankfully tanks like the Abrams, Challenger and LeClerc are more than a match for Soviet armor. Of course the Germans still make Leopard tanks and those are just as good. You can always trust a German to make a good tank

For some Hollywood 'evidence' of the lack of punch that a Sherman provides I recommend the movie 'Battle of the bulge' where Telly Sevallas shoots at Germans and complains how he's shooting with tennis balls as his rounds are simply bouncing off. In a related anecdote on a square in Bastogne there is a Sherman with an AT hole in it to commemorate the bravery and sacrifice of the Allies to stop the counter attack. At least it was there 15 years ago. I assume it's still there.

[ryan_v]

American armor was the way it was because the US plan was for fast, mobile tanks that directly supported the infantry (thus the decision for the low velocity 75mm gun on the Sherman). American planners still believed in the infantryman as the primary offensive weapon. The American armor force was not designed for a battle of attrition like in Normandy. After the breakout, American armor's mobility really shined by moving very swiftly to the borders of Germany. Where America went wrong was in the belief that mobile "tank destroyers" (lightly armored vehicles, like halftracks, with anti tank guns on them) could deal with the tanks. By the time America learned its lesson about needing heavy tanks to take out German tanks, it was too late.

[RMaule]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SgtGarand:
now have the M1 Abrams <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

maybe so but us Brits have the Challanger Mk2 tank its newer and better then the abrams. check its info out:

Crew 4
Length Gun Forward 11.55m;
Hull Length 8.3m;
Height to Turret Roof 2.49m;
Width 3.5m;
Ground Clearance 0.5m;
Combat Weight 62,500 kg;
Main Armament 1 x 120mm L30 CHARM Gun (CHallenger main ARmament);
Ammunition Carried Typically 50 rounds - APFSDS, HESH, Smoke;
Secondary Armament Co-axial 7.62mm chain gun; 7.62mm GPMG Turret Mounted for Air Defence;
Ammunition Carried 4000 rounds 7.62mm;
Engine 1200bhp Perkins-Condor CV12;
Maximum Road Speed 59km/h;
Average Cross Country Speed 40km/h

[DarkAutumn]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> maybe so but us Brits have the Challanger Mk2 tank its newer and better then the abrams. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think I'm in love.
What's the form for upping with a Brit Armored Reggy?

[RMaule]

WTF!!!

[DarkAutumn]

WTF???

Well, Canada's only 'real' tanks are 60's-era Leopards.
Granted, they've received upgrade packages over the years.
But they're still only a Medium Battle Tank.

And the Canadian government has NO intention of buying modern tanks.
Instead, their brilliant notion is to go with the wheeled Mobile Gun System AFV.

As a former tanker, that Challenger tank is just gorgeous to my eyes.
Hence, "I think I'm in love"...

[RMaule]

Sorry mate i just never understood what you wrote properly, anyway dad loved the tank, he was in the Brit Infantry and trained with both the Challanger MK1 and 2, and in my Army interviews my second choice was a Tank commander.