Ardennes Offensive

[privatehudson]

Oh yes, and I noticed your attempt to disprove that it was average for allied forces to take heavy losses against german armour. The bulge and the 2nd armoured were exceptional

 

[onejayhawk]

The attack was not insane, but it was definitely a do or die gamble. Obviously Hitler died. The goal of reaching Antwerp was vapor. It was much too far away. However there was a real opportunity to drive several areas back on an impassible river and cut them up, as well as a legitimate chance to break the line and savage the rear.

I know a Lt. tank commander from 3rd Army, under Patton, which was famously rushed to the Bastoine encirclement. He says that the General was talking about a winter campaign as early as October, because of the battle remains, which among other things had no winter clothing, consisted only of older armor units, etc. Patton had his people cutting contingency orders for several days before the attack. It was in some opinions the most brilliant staff action of the war.

J

 

[Sarevok]

indeed, that is some interesting additional info. The ardennes was do-or-die there is no question about that. Despite all of this knowledge being passed, you dont hear about it as much as stalingrad or D-day yet the fighting there was at least if not more savage than those 2 (actually probably not stalingrad).

 

[Case]

Originally posted by privatehudson
Oh yes, and I noticed your attempt to disprove that it was average for allied forces to take heavy losses against german armour. The bulge and the 2nd armoured were exceptional

I don't see how the 2nd was particularly exceptional - while it was a great division, some other American Armoured Divisions were just as good, and the British 11th and Guards Armoured built up excelent reputations during the European campaign. Even the British 7th Armoured was perfoming well by 1945 (though it's perfomance in Normandy left an awful lot to be desireed). You seem to be trapped in the belief that the German Armoured formations were automatically superior to the Allies.

 

[Sarevok]

they were, so when an allied armored division distinguished itself it became very well known because it had stood up to the strength of the wehrmacht's panzers.

 

[privatehudson]

You seem to be trapped in the belief that the German Armoured formations were automatically superior to the Allies.

Not at all, I'm more of the belief that whilst good too many things played against the formations during the entire or majority of the period, be it bad tactics, bad equipment or bad situations. I tend to look at the whole situation, the allies superior performances came during a period when the Germans found themselves outnumbered, without air support mostly and woefully lacking in supplies.

Whilst I agree certain formations outfought the germans on many occaisions, or entire periods the notion that this was under fair conditions is more often than not laughable. I could cite the heavy losses incurred by the Guards in Market Garden, but this is hardly fair given the situation they were in. Similarly placing an understrength german formation comprising ad-hoc units with bare minimum supplies and making them dodge allied planes is not a fair way to judge their performances either.

And I did not intend my comment to indicate that the 2nd armoured were the sole formation, but rather that in such a situation as the bulge, the germans after the initial shock were doomed anyway, the situation was much in the favour of the advancing allies such as 2nd armoured and losses that light are to be expected in any such like situation regardless of the unit. Also my main point was to remark on the exceptional or otherwise nature of the losses, not the abilities. The fact that low losses occurred in that battle or others does not make this the norm, hence my comment about it being unusual/exceptional.

They weren't automatically superior no, I did not indicate this, I have just stated my beliefs that the german armoured formations would more often than not outfight their opponents if they faced them evenly, and since this was rarely the case, of course they would often be outfought. Rare is the occaision that you can isolate the result of an armoured clash to just the formations involved and their abilities or otherwise.

 

[Sarevok]

germny tanks typically were better then allied tanks though.

 

[Case]

Originally posted by Sarevok
germny tanks typically were better then allied tanks though.

That's highly arguable. Most French and British tanks were better then their German foes in 1940. The tanks which made up the bulk of the Soviets vast fleet in 1941 weren't all that inferior to the German tanks, and the relatively scarce T-34 and KV-1 were undoubtably superior. The Germans had the edge over the Soviets in 1943, but this was eroded in 1944 as the Joseph Stalin and T-34/85 tanks were introduced along with the SU-122 and 152 tank destroyers (anyway, the Tigers and Panthers were only available in limited numbers in 1943).

Throughout the war the Pz-III and Pz-IV made up the vast majority of the German tank fleet (the Pz-III numbers declined while the Pz-IV numbers increased). Neither tank was ever really significantly superior to thier main oponents, with the T-34 and Sherman, the mainstays of the Allied tank fleets, being somewhat superior to both the main German models.

 

[Sarevok]

the sherman i dont agree with but the T-34 i do, and poanzer IV's were actually very good.

 

[Zardnaar]

The panzer mark 4 was lower than a Sherman (smaller target) and had a better gun than most models of the Shermans.

 

[joespaniel]

Originally posted by Case
Most French and British tanks were better then their German foes in 1940. The tanks which made up the bulk of the Soviets vast fleet in 1941 weren't all that inferior to the German tanks, and the relatively scarce T-34 and KV-1 were undoubtably superior.

The Germans made up for the inferiority in tanks by massing them at critical points, while the British and French spread thier armor out (too thin).

The Germans also had unity of command, better commo and motivation in 1940.

 

[Case]

Originally posted by joespaniel


The Germans made up for the inferiority in tanks by massing them at critical points, while the British and French spread thier armor out (too thin).

The Germans also had unity of command, better commo and motivation in 1940.

Yep, and that, along with air-superiority made the difference. If the allies knew what they were doing in 1940, the Germans probably would have been stoped cold, much like they were in 1944.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Indeed, when the Germans unleashed blitzkrieg in 1940, the Allies were more or less taken by surprise; but by war's end, everybody was using the same tactics. Or used to them.

Except for the Japanese though, note how successful was the Soviet blitz against the Japanese forces in Manchuria in 1945.

 

[privatehudson]

Throughout the war the Pz-III and Pz-IV made up the vast majority of the German tank fleet (the Pz-III numbers declined while the Pz-IV numbers increased).

Not during the Normandy and following campaigns, the panzer IV there was no more numerous at this stage than the panther. Also german armour could still go toe to toe with the later vehicles you mention, the JSII and tank destroyers, the Jagpanther series was pretty much the best vehicle of the war and the Jagpanzer IV was a decent vehicle also. The erosion only occurred to a certain extent depending on the formation as these vehicles were at least the equal of their soviet enemies.

 

[Sarevok]

I dont think that shermans could even penetrate the armorof the panther's either.

 

[rilnator]

Originally posted by Sarevok
I dont think that shermans could even penetrate the armorof the panther's either.

A sherman firefly could, easily and so could a Pershing. Although neither of these vehicles were overly common in allied armoured formations nor was the Panther. The American M-36 was viewed as superior to the Jagdpanther. It was quicker, had a rotating turret and a 90mm gun.
While on the subject of Pz IVs I don't think you can sum them up as just Pz IVs in Gerneral. I mean the later model Pz IVs with extra armour skirting and the L-70 75mm can hardly be compared to the Pz IV A.

 

[privatehudson]

Originally posted by rilnator

A sherman firefly could, easily and so could a Pershing. Although neither of these vehicles were overly common in allied armoured formations nor was the Panther. The American M-36 was viewed as superior to the Jagdpanther. It was quicker, had a rotating turret and a 90mm gun.
While on the subject of Pz IVs I don't think you can sum them up as just Pz IVs in Gerneral. I mean the later model Pz IVs with extra armour skirting and the L-70 75mm can hardly be compared to the Pz IV A.

The Jackson was inferior in armour though making it vulnerable to german vehicles in the same way the Firefly was. It was also sometimes vulnerable to infantry as it was open topped. Also the Panzer IV was never equipped with the L/70 version of the 75mm gun as this was the gun that was in the Panther, the largest the Panzer IV ever used as a tank was an L/48 (I think, in the 40's anyway). The later Jagpanzers used the L/70 though.

And from what I've seen online, the difference in speed was neglible, the Jagpanther could manage 55/30 km/h (on/off road) and the M36 42/32 km/h, which would indicate the opposite of what you mention. Those were from www.onwar.com

 

[Sarevok]

seems like the jagdpanther was a better thank, which is easier to believe. German tanks were good and effective. This was also because they had excellent commanders.

 

[rilnator]

Originally posted by privatehudson


The Jackson was inferior in armour though making it vulnerable to german vehicles in the same way the Firefly was. It was also sometimes vulnerable to infantry as it was open topped. Also the Panzer IV was never equipped with the L/70 version of the 75mm gun as this was the gun that was in the Panther, the largest the Panzer IV ever used as a tank was an L/48 (I think, in the 40's anyway). The later Jagpanzers used the L/70 though.

And from what I've seen online, the difference in speed was neglible, the Jagpanther could manage 55/30 km/h (on/off road) and the M36 42/32 km/h, which would indicate the opposite of what you mention. Those were from www.onwar.com

I got my information from Janes armoured fighting vihicles of WW2 and it states that the M-36 had max of 48kmph while the Jagdpanther was 42kmph. The question I answered was regarding Sarevok's claim that the Sherman didn't have the firepower to take out a Panther not which is the best all round tank.

 

[privatehudson]

I've usually considered the Jagpanther faster as it is always rated as such in wargames were such a difference counts. Whomever is right there the difference is neglible as to make little point anyway. As for the point on the sherman, it really depends on the mark as you stated, I was just correcting what I saw as a series of errors in your post and replying to your point about the M36 being a superior vehicle. Some shermans had the firepower, at least half I would guess even in 1945 did not though which is where the ambiguity as to it's capacity to engage panthers comes from.