The latest versions of the Pz IV were not able to pierce only tanks such as the IS-IIs. They could match almost anything they faced in the battle field.

I still do not buy that in actual tank-to-tank combat, the Americans or the British with 75mm Shermans could effectively face German tanks. With Fireflies, 76mm guns and M-18s it can be very different. But still, the greatest part of German tanks destroyed was caused by Allied air power, artillery and blown up by the Germans because of mechanical failures, certainly not because of average Shermans...

__________________
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd, French veteran of both world wars

"A mon fils: depuis que tes yeux sont fermes les miens n’ont cessé de pleurir." - Mère française, Verdun

Freddy - That is wrong. Analysis by the No. Operational Research section of 21st army group produced a report, covering the period 6 June to 31 August, which stated that 48% of german casualties were caused by AP shot. Now obviously these were not all tanks but infantry anti-tank weapons such as the 6 and 17pdr. Surprisingly rocket projectiles from aircraft such as the Typhoon account for only 6%. Artillery fair only little better at 8%. there is an unfortuanate belief that the allied tanks and anti-tank guns could not touch german tanks. This is simply not true. Unfortuanatly there has become a belief, based upon german soldiers beliefs, that the allies won, especially in normandy, by sheer weight of firepower and air power. Unfortuanatly, this has led to criticism of the allied tank forces.

__________________
Thoughts on Military History
Cornish Scale Modellers
Ross' Military Modelling and Art

Anti-tank guns! There's your answer! As in North Africa, the tanks didn't do that much of the job. Anti-tank guns and tank-killers being available in quantity and certainly very well-coordinated made a substantial difference there. And sorry if I wasn't clear, but I included anti-tank guns within the artillery, which was undoubtedly the best and strongest of - at least in the American Army - the Allied forces. I am not saying either that Allied tank crews and officers were bad, but most of their equippment certainly was. That's why many veterans still complain about it and get very angry when listening how good the Sherman looked on paper...

And the Germans at Normandy were indeed overwhelmed by very superior fire power and number. And of course, a lot of quality and good leadership. [img]smile.gif[/img]

__________________
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd, French veteran of both world wars

"A mon fils: depuis que tes yeux sont fermes les miens n’ont cessé de pleurir." - Mère française, Verdun

In fact it was a Hitler-style mistake of the Americans to delay M-26 Pershing production, preferring masses of the Sherman only. If lots of Pershings would have arrived earlier in Europe, the lifes of many US tank crews would have been saved.

__________________
If someone tries to remove the speck in your right eye, will you turn to him the other also?

The mistake was in cancelling several interm models of tank in favor of producing the M-26. The manufacturers of the latter assured the Army that they would have quantity production going by July 44 and made the recommendation to cancel the interm models (T-25E1...300 produced enough to equip one armored division 130mm frontal armor, 90mm gun, 35 mph available in June 44 (for those interested it is a US "Panther"). Or the M4A3 with M26 turret mounting a 90mm gun...yes, the M-26 turret will fit the turret rings are identical in size. A few prototypes were produced. Available in June 44 in quantity if proceeded with.). Had the interm models been accepted the US would have come ashore in Normandy equipped totally with 90mm tanks. It was simply short sightedness on the part of both the Army and manufacturing companies not to argue for an insurance policy in case production was delayed which turned out to be the case. See:


http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/U...usmt-T25E1.jpg

[ 15. December 2003, 07:25 PM: Message edited by: T. A. Gardner ]

American armored doctrine didn't see tanks fighting tanks; that was supposed to be the job (in theory) of the tank destroyers. And so many of the higher US commanders resisted replacing the 75mm with the 76mm because the larger gun didn't have as effective a high-explosive round as the smaller one did. It took the bitter experience of combat, first in Normandy, and later in the Ardennes, before the higher-ups realized that their beautiful theory was utterly at variance with the brutal facts of the battlefield.

Yours,
Paul

And so was the German generals' belief too, Paul. It wasn't until the T-34 showed up that they realised they needed something more mobile than an anti-tank gun to kill it...

__________________
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd, French veteran of both world wars

"A mon fils: depuis que tes yeux sont fermes les miens n’ont cessé de pleurir." - Mère française, Verdun

Gottfried did I understand your statement that the Pz IV long rod 7.5cm could not crack open a Soviet IS 2 ? If so that is incorrect.....

Well, I didn't say it, but I didn't deny it...

I've read it perfectly could knock out even IS-IIs. Just not as easy as a Tiger II...

In that case, the Pz IV had an advantadge over the IS-II, which is superior manœuvrability and speed, along with a powerful gun. However, if the IS-II manages to hit you with a 122mm piercing shell... [img]redface.gif[/img]

__________________
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd, French veteran of both world wars

"A mon fils: depuis que tes yeux sont fermes les miens n’ont cessé de pleurir." - Mère française, Verdun

being vague again Fried ? simply put the gun was quite effective especially with Stug ausf G brigades and abteilungs in 1945. sure without a doubt a 122mm blast is going to knock you out, but the only chance a Pz IV will have is a shot from concealment and a hit(s) from the side or rear of the monster. this is the same application as discussed many times here of the M4 facing a Tiger or Panther. Fact is that during the Ardenne battles a lone M4 was to knock out several Panthers from the rear near Oster, including 3./Kompanie RK winner W-SS Veith of Das Reich. The M4 was soon destroyed by other Das Reich Panthers in the area of Freineux-Lamormenil. The M4 was very hard to detect as the Sherman crew had expertly camouflaged their tank amongst the rubble of the village.

I do not think that the late Panzer IV versions were faster than a IS-2, however they were probably more agile.

__________________
If someone tries to remove the speck in your right eye, will you turn to him the other also?

On sloppy terrain on the Ost front especially in Ost Prussia the answer would be yes. The Stalin was heavy, although powerful it suffered the same problems as the Königstiger; it got bogged down easily due to weight disadvantage

I'll tell you what I positively despise about the Stalin--that anemic ammunition load! Twenty-eight rounds! Sheesh! Give me the Panther's 82 rounds (on the G model) any day.

BTW, I don't recall the ammunition load for the later Panzer IV variants (H and J). Does someone have the figures? Thanks.

Yours,
Paul

The Stalin had (almost exactly) the same weight as a Panther, not as many HP, but yet a remarkably better power/weight ratio than the Königstiger.

__________________
If someone tries to remove the speck in your right eye, will you turn to him the other also?

Maybe gunners with a sore arm from manually rotating the turret

__________________

Tell that to the guys who faced up to the tiger 1 that took 120+ rounds to the front armour and limped "back to base" (I'll get more details of this later...)

other accounts:

Soviet tank crewman's report preblinka 1944

Better to fire 28 rounds and know that when they penetrate, it will be all you need! Besides, if we were to think like a russian in 1944, the life expectancy of a Russian Tanker could not have been that high, not with their strategies anyhow, so why put 60 more rounds in when it's going to be wasted

__________________
Der große Stoß Büstenhalter auf Ihrem Kopf!!

Maybe so, Bratwurst, but I'd still feel happier and safer with 82 rounds in a Panther G than 28 rounds in a JSII--and let's not forget that not all ammo rounds a tank carries are AP; it also has to have HE rounds. And the machine guns can take out targets not worth wasting a main-gun round on.

Yours,
Paul

You are still underrating the IS-II.

82 shells inside your Panther, 28 shells in-side a IS-II. If you spot an IS-II 800 metres away, you might not pierce its frontal armour with your 75mm gun. But if the IS-II shoots accurately at you just ONCE, an AP 122mm shell fired from 800 metres...

You and your crew in your Panther are more than dead.

Besides, the IS-II might not break down as much as your Panther.

And just a thought about the Tiger II. According to my book on the tank, I discovered how technologically advanced and how good it was. It was not only the armour, the gun and the excellent optics. But even if it weighed 70-tons it had a lower pressure on the ground than the Sherman and a slightly lower silhoutte. And of course, 38 Kilometres per hour on a motorway, for a 70-ton thing!

Of course it wasn't a Blitzkrieg tank, but certainly not bad at all.

Its only major flaw was that it caused problems to engineers and transport men...

__________________
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd, French veteran of both world wars

"A mon fils: depuis que tes yeux sont fermes les miens n’ont cessé de pleurir." - Mère française, Verdun

But I happen to think that a worthwhile ammo load for sustained combat is a good idea, Friedrich. The idea of going into combat with a limited amount of ammo is rather revolting.

Thanks for reminding me of the value of camouflage and proper positioning; also sheer cunning. I'll remember that next time I'm playing Panzer Commander and am faced with Stalins ...

Yours,
Paul

Just use them the way they were intended to be used: The IS 2 is a support vehicle for the T-34's. It should be using long-range fire to "shoot in" the T-34's onto their objective. The idea should be to give the Germans a delimma. If you engage the IS 2's the T-34's overrun you and you lose. If you shoot up the T-34's the IS-2's shoot you up and you lose. It's hard to remember that your objective was initially to drain the swamp when you are up to your a#$ in alligators.
In this mode, the 28 round ammo supply onboard a IS 2 isn't that big a problem as the crew can take careful aimed fire from long range rather than shoot as quickly as possible trying to get in the first round.

T.A. is more than right!

Again tactics come to make almost every technicism irrelevant! [img]tongue.gif[/img]

__________________
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd, French veteran of both world wars

"A mon fils: depuis que tes yeux sont fermes les miens n’ont cessé de pleurir." - Mère française, Verdun

Let's not forget the value of training, as well as tactics. Although individual Tiger and Panther crews could rack up huge scores at times--especially against the tactically more inept Soviets--there were just too few of them to stem the tide, and besides, even if the Allies (east and west) had numbers on their side, it wasn't just numbers that won the