Fact of German Tank Superiority battle of Caen

[Porsche]

The Germans weathered the massive bombardment, and an improvised line of Tiger tanks and 88mm Flak guns ripped the British attack force apart. Confusion reigned in the British ranks, and the attack stalled without breaching the German lines. Some 270 burning hulks of British tanks littered the battlefield.

The Villers Bocage, Goodwood, and other battles showed up the tremendous technological superiority of German tanks over their Allied opponents. The Tiger I, Panther, and, to a lesser extent, Panzer IV all had far greater range, hitting power, and armored protection than the American Shermans or British Cromwells and Churchills. A Tiger or a Panther could survive frontal hits from Allied tanks' guns at ranges greater than 984 ft (300 m). The long 75mm on the Panther or the 88mm in the Tiger could cut through the thin armor of a Sherman at 6,561-9,842 ft (2,000-3,000 m). Allied tanks had to close to within suicidal ranges of German tanks to stand even the remotest chance of knocking them out. Only the British Sherman Firefly, which had the excellent high-velocity 17-pounder installed, could take on the Germans on anything like equal terms. This, however, was still in short supply during the Normandy battles.

 

[Koenigstiger]

German Tanks were superior to most Allied Tanks in terms of Firepower and Armour, but they lacked a very important quality and that is quantity. it doesn't matter how many a Tommy Kocher you set off when there's a hundred thousand more coming your way and you've only got 90-120 rounds

The Panther might have solved this had they more time but they did not

"WE HAVE NO CHASSIS FOR THE TURRETS, PUT EM IN THE GROUND!"

 

[Fuchs]

Complicated designs, deteriorating steel quality and appalling engine reliability evened it out. In the time it takes to produce one Tiger II you can produce a whole lot more M4's.

Rommel once advocated for a pure defensive production, only tank hunters and anti-tank guns. I think that would have been even more effective.

 

[VonMudra]

Ok, let's go over a few things.

The Panther and the Tiger were of course, heavier and better armed than most (MOST) allied tanks.

This does not make them superior by a large margin in combat. Tank versus Tank losses in the Normandy campaign averaged a 1.5-2/1 KDR in favour of the Germans, not that great considering the germans spent most of the time on the defensive anyways. In fact, post-normandy allied commissions found that allied tankers needed a 2.2/1 tank superiority over the Germans to be assured 100% success rates in combat, and Germans needed a 1.5/1 ratio to assure their own chances of 100% success. This means, in a wide gulf that included equal numbers, it was fair game for anyone (thus also helping to bust the idiotic myth that it "took 5 shermans to take out a tiger", which is utter bullshit, especially by operating under the hair-brained assumption that german tanks fought alone).

Now, you must also remember that the majority of German tanks in normandy were NOT Panthers or Tigers. They were the Panzer IV, which had a slightly superior gun to the sherman/cromwell's 75mm, and slightly heavier frontal armour. This meant that it's hull armour could deflect rounds from the allied 75mm and 76mm guns, but all the rest of it, including the frontal turret plate, was easily penetrable. In turn, the Panzer IV could knock out both Shermans and Cromwells at most ranges to the front, but was slower moving. So not all that much of a superiority, in fact rather balanced in terms of combat capability.

The real reason the Germans tended to win armour engagements with fewer tanks is that the German tank crew experience was much better than that of the allies, most of whom had never seen combat. This however began to wain towards the end of the campaign as the experienced German tankers were killed, and by September/October of 1944 in France, the German tankers were far more likely to suffer horrendous casulties against american and british tank forces (At Arracourt in September of 1944, a pure tank battle with German armoured superiority and surprise ended in a 3/1 KDR in favour of the americans).

If you have any questions about this stuff, feel free to ask.

But now, to the more crucial point, how will we represent this ingame?

Simple, it will be historically accurate. Allies will have access to greater numbers of tanks, but of course they will be historically presented with their generally weaker guns and armour compared to most German tanks. German tanks will be less numerous, but also historically presented. If tigers/panthers were used in a battle in any numbers, they will be in there, roaming around. Beyond that, it comes down to player competency. A good player in a sherman can easily defeat a good player in a Panther, all it takes is flanking without being spotted, or getting a lucky hit. Same goes for the Tiger. Just as well, a really good player in a panther/tiger/panzerIV/stug/whatever can dominate a map, but only if he is cautious and knows how to ambush and protect his flanks by working with other tankers.

Allies do, however, have trump cards. The british used the 17lber, a gun equal and superior, respectively, to the German 75mm L/70 (panther's gun) and 88mm. It was mounted both in tank destroyers like the Achilles, Shermans (the Sherman Firefly, which had a ratio of 1 per tank squad), and on it's own anti-tank gun mount. The british 6lber, when using sabot rounds, was perfectly capable of penetrating a Tiger's front with ease, and the Churchill tank, whilst still using the 75mm, had heavy armour that could deflect 88mm rounds. So the British will have tanks perfectly capable of taking on German tanks with advantage.

 

[Roughbeak]

Mudra is sooooo good at history.

 

[Kevino]

Mudra is sooooo good at history.

 

[calgoblin]

Mudra is sooooo good at history.

Wrong. Mudra IS history.

 

[oxigebr]

Only me have read all the text?

 

[VonMudra]

They're referring to the fact that, as historical researcher for the mod (and a real life historian), I can out-history just about everyone here.

Anyways, that was a repost from an older thread (I was lazy so I just went and found my old post and copied pasted it, since it answered the thread's topic). If you need more info on why German tanks weren't the unstoppable killing machines mythos has them as, feel free to ask away.

 

[Alex]

What do you think was the most efficient German armored vehicle of the Normandy conflict, Mudra?

 

[VonMudra]

Stug IIIG- also the most effective armoured vehicle of WW2 in terms of tank kills.

 

[Pjosip]

Stug IIIG- also the most effective armoured vehicle of WW2 in terms of tank kills.

And it just so happens to be my favourite WoT tank

 

[Kevino]

happy bday alex btw... kettenkrad is most definitely the answer!

 

[Swaffy]

happy bday alex btw... kettenkrad is most definitely the answer!

I wouldn't mind driving that to school. Eheh.

 

[Koenigstiger]

And it just so happens to be my favourite WoT tank

Schwimmwagen! >:^(

 

[Koenigstiger]

Stug IIIG- also the most effective armoured vehicle of WW2 in terms of tank kills.

An infantry support Tank excelling as a Tank destroyer

Huh who'da thunk.

 

[Fuchs]

A matter of evolution, Panzer IV started the same way with that short barrel 75mm gun. Unbelievable how fast the 'evolution' of tanks excelled in 10 years from 1936 to 1946.

 

[Porsche]

Ok, let's go over a few things.

The Panther and the Tiger were of course, heavier and better armed than most (MOST) allied tanks.

This does not make them superior by a large margin in combat. Tank versus Tank losses in the Normandy campaign averaged a 1.5-2/1 KDR in favour of the Germans, not that great considering the germans spent most of the time on the defensive anyways. In fact, post-normandy allied commissions found that allied tankers needed a 2.2/1 tank superiority over the Germans to be assured 100% success rates in combat, and Germans needed a 1.5/1 ratio to assure their own chances of 100% success. This means, in a wide gulf that included equal numbers, it was fair game for anyone (thus also helping to bust the idiotic myth that it "took 5 shermans to take out a tiger", which is utter bullshit, especially by operating under the hair-brained assumption that german tanks fought alone).

Now, you must also remember that the majority of German tanks in normandy were NOT Panthers or Tigers. They were the Panzer IV, which had a slightly superior gun to the sherman/cromwell's 75mm, and slightly heavier frontal armour. This meant that it's hull armour could deflect rounds from the allied 75mm and 76mm guns, but all the rest of it, including the frontal turret plate, was easily penetrable. In turn, the Panzer IV could knock out both Shermans and Cromwells at most ranges to the front, but was slower moving. So not all that much of a superiority, in fact rather balanced in terms of combat capability.

The real reason the Germans tended to win armour engagements with fewer tanks is that the German tank crew experience was much better than that of the allies, most of whom had never seen combat. This however began to wain towards the end of the campaign as the experienced German tankers were killed, and by September/October of 1944 in France, the German tankers were far more likely to suffer horrendous casulties against american and british tank forces (At Arracourt in September of 1944, a pure tank battle with German armoured superiority and surprise ended in a 3/1 KDR in favour of the americans).

If you have any questions about this stuff, feel free to ask.

But now, to the more crucial point, how will we represent this ingame?

Simple, it will be historically accurate. Allies will have access to greater numbers of tanks, but of course they will be historically presented with their generally weaker guns and armour compared to most German tanks. German tanks will be less numerous, but also historically presented. If tigers/panthers were used in a battle in any numbers, they will be in there, roaming around. Beyond that, it comes down to player competency. A good player in a sherman can easily defeat a good player in a Panther, all it takes is flanking without being spotted, or getting a lucky hit. Same goes for the Tiger. Just as well, a really good player in a panther/tiger/panzerIV/stug/whatever can dominate a map, but only if he is cautious and knows how to ambush and protect his flanks by working with other tankers.

Allies do, however, have trump cards. The british used the 17lber, a gun equal and superior, respectively, to the German 75mm L/70 (panther's gun) and 88mm. It was mounted both in tank destroyers like the Achilles, Shermans (the Sherman Firefly, which had a ratio of 1 per tank squad), and on it's own anti-tank gun mount. The british 6lber, when using sabot rounds, was perfectly capable of penetrating a Tiger's front with ease, and the Churchill tank, whilst still using the 75mm, had heavy armour that could deflect 88mm rounds. So the British will have tanks perfectly capable of taking on German tanks with advantage.

There is one historical aspect that everyone seems to forget these days. The Allied command was reading Germany's battle plans. The Allied command knew of each attack and the strength the Germans were throwing in. The only time they did not know this information was during the Battle of the Bulge (Ardennes Offensive). This fact alone was the result of the destruction of the German army in Normandy.

 

[Porsche]

I had the pleasure of attending the 40th anniversary of D-Day in 1984. I will never forget meeting many veterans British and American. Each veteran said the same thing. If Hitler had released the panzers earlier they would never have had a chance. This has stuck in my mind over the years. The releasing of the fact the Allied command was reading the German Battle plans almost the entire war did not surface until the late 1970's. It was not until the middle to late 80's that historians started to add this analysis into their views of the battles of WWII. And even today it is very rarely mentioned when analyzing battles of WWII. Can you imagine trying to defeat an enemy and that enemy knows exactly where and when you will attack and with the exact numbers you have. This retards any true historical numbers in terms of the weapons and effectiveness they had against other weapons on the battlefield in WWII in the European theater.
I am not trying to argue with anyone here. I have just noticed how over time the perception of history and especially WWII has changed since the advent of the internet. I am fascinated with the documents they declassify and how history as we know it keeps changing. On the other hand VonMudra states some statistics that are available to the public that were not available in the 1970-80's. The fact that the U.S. Sherman was available in the numbers it was undoubtedly played a major role in the defeat of the German army. A battle of attrition arose which the Germans were going to lose any way you look at it.
Let us not forget that Germany is the size of roughly Pennsylvania. They were fighting a 1,000 mile front on the Eastern Front. Try to imagine what you are talking about there. On top of that the Allies invade France. It is truly amazing that Germany could hold off that long.
I enjoy the comments people post here and love to see the interest younger people have in this conflict. I grew up with all of the Vets. Most would not speak of their experiences, however the ones that did each had a story that would be worthy of a Hollywood movie. This game really excites me because I see a development team that is trying to get it as accurate as possible. I think the game engine is for the first time going to give the ability to do this. Along with the talent we see already in the development. This game really looks like it is going to be successful. I wish the team the best of luck and will be eagerly waiting their updates.

 

[VonMudra]

Veterans can never give a good assessment of an entire battle, just like generals can never give a good assessment of individual skirmishes and clashes of soldiers. Releasing the tanks would have led to their utter annihilation. The Germans did as much at both Anzio and Salerno, sending their Panzer Divisions right down onto the allied beach heads, and in many cases driving all the way to the beaches. Only to be utterly destroyed by the allied battle fleets. As one case, 16th Panzer Division at Salerno lost 60% of their tanks to naval gun fire, a rather shocking result. Same at Normandy, 21st Panzer actually DID make it to the beaches only to have those tanks that arrived be ripped apart by battleship, cruiser, and destroyer fire. Put simply, anyone who says that "if only the panzer divisions had been released, the germans would have won" is greatly underestimating the power of the allied battlefleet parked off the beaches. With FDC units working on the ground and tanks being relatively easy targets for massed HE battleship and cruiser guns that only have to hit nearby to spall or overturn German tanks, they would have never stood a chance.

In essence, the Germans simply were never going to stop the allied beach head. They lacked the air power and navy to deter amphibious assault, and so were doomed from the start. With all respect to veterans, these are things they simply never had to deal with in real life, and so few can relate anything but their own individual stories. Whilst these individual stories are incredibly important to understanding the combat and lives of the common soldier, they cannot represent higher levels of combat. As a historian, we must use all available means to understand the situation, not just people who only know the area that was in their immediate vision. Also, never ever say "this fact alone." In history, there is never a consensus and there is never merely one reason for something happening. I can give a massive myriad of reasons for German defeat in Normandy, that have nothing to do with allied intelligence operations. Such things include allied generalship successes, failures in german generalship, troop training and mismanagement, air power, naval power, supply, replacements, morale, logistics, artillery, tank usage, industry, etc etc.