nonconformist
Miserable
Oh okay. I didn't understand you comment. I thought you said Australians played little part in WWII. Sorry 
.
.
Best army of WWII
- Thread starter nonconformist
- Start date
rilnator
Emperor
Darth Civ
Chieftain
But they didn't have infinte manpower like people say thy had. Although alot smaller in landmass they had much higher population density. The germans also had more resoureses
sabo
My Ancestors were Vikings
Yeah right, tank against infantry is always easy, the only anti-tank weapon the US infantry had was a bazooka, and it wasn't that effective except at close range. I'll bet your teacher never went in front of Pattons 3rd Armor. Even the German general staff agreed that Patton was a force to be reconded with.
nonconformist
Miserable
Actually, tank against infantry is extremely difficult, especially in urban settings. Firstly, in a tank, the vision ports are so obstructive that it is near impossible to see infantry. Even if infantry are seen, there is little to do. Infantry will run all over the tank. It is a prime target for flamethrowers. Though not destroying the tank, they disable it enough that the crew has to bail out. The infantry will shove burning rags into open vision ports, or use handguns. They will put grenades into vwentilation shafts, open hatches, if they were left unlocked, or down the tank barrel. In urban settings, molotov cocktails, and other such weaponry can be thrown from houses top levels, where the tank can do nothing. That is why infantry always generally follow and support tanks. If the tank get in close range, then Bazookas, PIATs(Projector Infantry Anti Tank), Panzerfausts and Panzerschrecks wll be used. They use High Explosive Anti Tank rounds. This type of ammunition is as deadly used at 1 metre than at 10. The range is not a factor. It explodes on contact with the tank, and sends a jet of liquid metal burning through the armour. The range, as long as a round actually touches the armour of a vehicle is not a factor.
Case
The horror, the horror
Not exactly. American infantry battalions each had three 57mm AT guns with another 9 available in the Regimental cannon company. Each US Infantry Division in Europe normally also had a tank battalion and/or a tank destroyer battalion attached on a permanent basis.* So while the bazooka was inadequete by itself against Panther and Tiger tanks (though it could deal with the more common Pz IV), it was actually something of a last ditch weapon, and tanks and AT guns, not to mention air support, were normally available to deal with enemy armour.
When attacked by armour without such support, the standard American infantry tactic appears to have been to fight a delying action, falling back on armoured/AT gun reinforcments.
*Incidently, the German formations organised on this scale were their famed (and few) 'Motorised' and 'Panzergrenadier' divisions (though the Panzergrenadiers were slightly better equiped in that they had at least one infantry battalion mounted in halftracks. Everyone else rode in a truck though).
Mrogreturns
The Ghost Who Posts
I have no idea which specifc units he fought against and I dare say that he probably didn't have much idea either. I'm just relaying a first-hand account- I can't help it if you don't like it.
joycem10
Deity
All that being said, american armor in general was inferior to german armor. The Sherman in its earlier incarnations may have been close to the abilities of the Pzkw IV but was totally overmatched by the later Panther and Tiger. There were upgrades to the Sherman but they still were not a one on one match.
Given that, I can understand his geography teachers statements.
This didnt change until late in the war with the introduction of the m26 pershing and the m18 wolverine tank destroyer. The Persing saw limited action but the Wolverine was introduced shortly after D-Day.
Given that, I can understand his geography teachers statements.
This didnt change until late in the war with the introduction of the m26 pershing and the m18 wolverine tank destroyer. The Persing saw limited action but the Wolverine was introduced shortly after D-Day.
sabo
My Ancestors were Vikings
That is true the American armor was small compared to the German armor, the Americans didn't have a decent heavy tank until late in the war, it was the Pershing with a 90MM main gun which could stand up to any panther or tiger on the field. The Pershing wasn't introduced into Europe until Nov 1944 and only 2,000 were built. The reasoning behind the design of the lighter Stuart and Sheman tanks is because the Americans were the only combatant that had to cross thousands of miles of ocean to get to the war. There is only so much freight a ship can handle and I suppose Eisenhower and Franklin preferred Quantity over Quality.
nonconformist
Miserable
An estimate uesses that five Shermans are needed to attack every Tiger. The best Anti-tank weaponry the Allies had was Air Supremacy-the use of "Jabos" or fighter-bombers.
privatehudson
The Ultimate Badass
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2003
- Messages
- 4,821
Indeed, the 57mm A/T gun after all didn't stand much chance of destroying a Panther or Tiger if it's British version is much to go by, IIRC it was the equivalent of the 6pndr roughly, and that couldn't do much more than scratch the frontal armour of either. Thank god for the 17pndr is all I'll say 
I also think I remember reading somewhere also that the US theory on armour tactics for a bit of the war concentrated on the ideal that to destroy tanks, you used the tank destroyers, not tanks (in the main) which meant the woefully underarmed (but cheaply made and kept running) sherman was retained for quite some time rather than seriously look into upgrading it.
I also think I remember reading somewhere also that the US theory on armour tactics for a bit of the war concentrated on the ideal that to destroy tanks, you used the tank destroyers, not tanks (in the main) which meant the woefully underarmed (but cheaply made and kept running) sherman was retained for quite some time rather than seriously look into upgrading it.
nonconformist
Miserable
The armour of the Westen Alies was indeed terrible. The standard tank was a Sherman 75mm. This had amost no chance against heavily armoured Panters and Tigers, and was completely outgunned by the Tiger 88mm g,and the powerful Panther 75mm gun. The Sherman was then upgraded, on certain models, to carry a 76mm gun with alot more power. This was enough to take out some German tanks, but was still not powerful enoug. There wasals a "Jumbo Sherman" with extra armour. The ristish took the Sherman, and installedthe powerful 17Pdr gun inside, renaming their new creation the Sherman Firefly. This was, in most cases, easily enough to take out erman tanks, but still kept theddvantage of little armour. The Wolverine was the 76mm gun mounted on a tank chassis, but with little armour,less than a Sherman, andit was open topped. This meant it was very vulnerable to infantry climbing up. The best anti-tank weaon te Allies had were aircraft.
AceChilla
Goedheiligman
I think we are tottaly forgetting the glorious Dutch army here, we grounded German forces for days on The Grebbeberg and in West-Friesland. Altough we had inferiour weapons and no tanks I think our fighting spirit was the best of all.
The Germans had to resort to killing civilians on massive scale (the bombing of Rotterdam) to break our resolve.
Nah, I'm just kidding
It was obviously the German army that was the best, but you should also take into account that Germany was preparing for war almost since Hitler came to power and thus had a headstart in training their troops and developing weaponry. If the US, Brittain or Russia had begon to train and develop their army from that time I think Germany would have much tougher opposition.
I have read somewhere that 1 german soldier equaled 2 British of Americans soldiers and 10 Russian soldiers.
The Germans had to resort to killing civilians on massive scale (the bombing of Rotterdam) to break our resolve.
Nah, I'm just kidding
It was obviously the German army that was the best, but you should also take into account that Germany was preparing for war almost since Hitler came to power and thus had a headstart in training their troops and developing weaponry. If the US, Brittain or Russia had begon to train and develop their army from that time I think Germany would have much tougher opposition.
I have read somewhere that 1 german soldier equaled 2 British of Americans soldiers and 10 Russian soldiers.
Case
The horror, the horror
Originally posted by privatehudson
Indeed, the 57mm A/T gun after all didn't stand much chance of destroying a Panther or Tiger if it's British version is much to go by, IIRC it was the equivalent of the 6pndr roughly, and that couldn't do much more than scratch the frontal armour of either. Thank god for the 17pndr is all I'll say
The American 57mm gun was exactly the same weapon as the British 6 Pounder, and it was a very good one. While you're correct to observe that it was inaduqute against the frontal armour of Panthers and Tigers, it proved extreamly effective against the tanks and assault guns which made up the vast majority of the Germans armoured fleet.
While the 17 Pounder was a fine weapon, it was too heavy to be used effectively - the gun could only be moved by trucks, while the 6 pounder could be dragged around by its' crew. British AT regiments in 1944-45 generally consisted of 2 6 pounder batteries and 1 17 pounder battery, something which strongly sugests that the 6 pounder was still a very useful weapon. During the Korean War Commonwealth battalions tended to leave their 17 pounders on the docks upon arrival in Korea, requipping themselves with the more mobile and versitile 6 pounders and recoilless rifles.
privatehudson
The Ultimate Badass
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2003
- Messages
- 4,821
But nethertheless proved useless when faced with heavier tanks, and whilst the panzer IV and assault guns were numerous, the panther was hardly a rarity in comparison, leaving the 6pndr almost usless unless it was lucky enough to get in a flank or rear shot. By comparison, the 17pndr could and would when used knock out both Panther and Tiger. It's a bit like the comparison between using the sherman 75mm or firefly, I know what I'd much rather be in
I'd say it suggests more that 17pndr numbers and volume of ammunition were never high enough to supersede the 6pndr as either a tank or anti-tank gun, hence the reliance on the smaller gun. Just as it was impossible to replace the Sherman with the 76mm or Firefly throughout the army. Not necessarily just a case of it still being useful, more a case of numbers preventing it's withdrawl. It could still destroy some german vehicles, but many it could not and they were not so infrequent as it's claimed.
Though heavy, British formations were in the main very well motorised/mechanised and therefore the problem was lessened. Korea though probably proved more of a problem through terrain plus the fact that the T34's faced there were not as heavily armoured as the Tiger and other heavy tanks. Nonetheless, taking those things into consideration, I'd much rather face off against German armour with a 17pndr battery (with transport naturally) than the 6pndr equivalent.
Also, for a period of the war the 6pndr wasn't even provided with HE ammunition as it was considered "unessecary" making it very unhelpful when facing infantry
It was useful, but it certainly wasn't that good that it could alone stop an armoured attack. Frankly, if it ran up against the likes of tigers and panthers, the chances weren't a huge deal better than using a bazooka.Ebitdadada
Master Baiter
About the Sherman:
A Joke I heard, think it was a German one but don't know.
It is said that a Tiger can always defeate 5 Shermans... unfortuanatly there is always the 6th.
Another Random German War Joke
If the plane is black its the Brits if its White its the Americans. If you can't see it then its the Luftwaffe.
Now Something serious
Does anyone know what the casulty / captured ratios were ex. Brits v. Germans ect.? That would be a pretty good indicator on who was the best.
I have heard from several sources that Patton's captured/ killed / wounded ratio vs. the Germans was pretty good but I don't know exactly what it was. I think I heard 25 - 1 but that's pretty high and is probably not an accurate picture of total US v. Germany casualty ratios.
Edit: That said I really don't know much about the millitarty aspects of WWII
A Joke I heard, think it was a German one but don't know.
It is said that a Tiger can always defeate 5 Shermans... unfortuanatly there is always the 6th.
Another Random German War Joke
If the plane is black its the Brits if its White its the Americans. If you can't see it then its the Luftwaffe.
Now Something serious
Does anyone know what the casulty / captured ratios were ex. Brits v. Germans ect.? That would be a pretty good indicator on who was the best.
I have heard from several sources that Patton's captured/ killed / wounded ratio vs. the Germans was pretty good but I don't know exactly what it was. I think I heard 25 - 1 but that's pretty high and is probably not an accurate picture of total US v. Germany casualty ratios.
Edit: That said I really don't know much about the millitarty aspects of WWII
lol aobut the tank thing
no, russian tanks whear much much better, the kv-1s whear so heavly armored, and the german lack of knoled of ther even existing, realy gave them a nasty sruprise. the t-34, being so relable, fast, well armoed, ect, was the beast of ww2, it outclased the tigers becus it chold easly out mauver them nd take them out from behined. tje stalin tanks ect chold blow away any german tank. not oanly that, but the russain tanks whear much faster to build
tossi
Der kleine Prinz
Yes but i think about a one on one battle. The later russian takes were very good and there will be always the debate russian tanks vs german tanks, but one thing is for sure: German tank crews had the better training.
nonconformist
Miserable
And in the early war, there is pretty much no doubt about it,
Russian tanks were not very good.
Russian tanks were not very good.
TrailblazingScot
I was kittenOFchaos
That wouldn't be any good as an indicator as it doesn't indicate the nature of the fighting in any way shape or form.
Patton did well in Normandy largely as he headed up the breakthrough force, a breakthrough possible due to a failed German offensive against the American 2nd Army which was crushed by artillery (the Americans had been forewarned by ULTRA which also helped). Also he was aided by the fact that the British had fought to a standstill virtually all the German armour in the area. Hell, he was helped also by the German airforce being effectively neutralised and for the most part by avoiding German resistance to help seal in the German army for one of the largest mass surrenders in the war.
The America forces also would benefit from the figures that would be accounted for in the BEF defense of the Low Countries, Norway, Greece and Crete which were all defeats largely due to losing in the air and a cronic lack of armour.
Personnally, I'd put my money on the Germans having the best soldiers that gave a good account for themselves in terms of fighting prowess throughout the war despite often being against very long odds.
I am disappointed to see so many people here thinking that the SS was a mark of elite soldiers (not to say there were not elite SS formations). It was not, but there units were made of political desirables and were alloted the best equipment.
That the Americans beat the German Army (well, at least parts of it, the best having died in Russia) forgets the situations into which the Americans entered, the dilution of German armour formations due to losses (and for Hitler to invent new divisions) and also when air power was something that the allies had the upper hand in.
Similar threads
