first of all someone seems a bit touchie. second they are all interesting and and accurate facts however slightly of the subject of a battle tank, all which are designed for 'battle' no matter what they face, as long as you get back at the end of the day with your tank crew and infromation it dson't matter.

Ok so your saying you cant compare the STuG III (or any of the StuG models) to any other AFV unless it is an assualt gun, you cant compare the honey to the puma, the sexton (priest) to the Hummel (wespe, nashorn) because you can because they are all 'battle tank' both are key words.

The germans designed the StuG as an infantry support weapon right? to knock out strong points? yes, what happened when it hit tanks during there advance, and say the STuG's have tank destoyer support. What if the tank destoryers get destoyed by the defending tanks are the STuG' jjust going to turn and run because they don't have abililty to destroy them? no thats why they started creating tanks like the StuG III to do both.

The Puma is an excellent example of what im saying the puma can fight if need be and win, while the stuart, honey and the t-70's don't have the fire power, so they scout see a tank and run, great tactic.


I thought that this was a "What If' forum meaning nothing is impossible, beacuse here in this forum history can be reinvented no? So thats how germany could do it, bacause what if they did have the same resources, man power, economy, industial power and will. the battle would come down to tactics, strategy, and guts.

temper temper lol this is great like i said just remember what this forum is about
here is it if you forgot
What If? Alternate History: Speculate about WWII battles that never were. Could the Axis have won? What if Hitler had the bomb?

All of the AFVs you have mentioned here are not tanks you would rely on to achieve a Breakthrough, the StuG has no turret so will just get a 75/76/57mm shell into it's side.

These vehicles where not designed to fight tanks. Like you said, they run away upon seeing a Panzer. If you want to have a large, slow and heavily armed and armoured tank to scout, then you might as well use your entire army. Besides, a small tank is hard to spot from inside a tank Turret, so It isn't exactly hard to get away when you have a small and fast vehicle.
Sextons, Priests and Hummels are not tanks at all. They are Artillery vehicles. designed to fire shells over many miles. Sending one into battle is even something my cat would not do.
'Battle Tank'. Where did you get that designation from anyway?

__________________

You missed the point, all tanks whether they be artillery support, sp guns, tank destroyers, recon tanks, or other support tanks should be able to do at least the bare minimum of all aspects required of war.

Battle Tank:
Tanks and armoured fighting vehicles of ww2 by jim winchester
tanks and armoured vehicles of ww2 by jam surmondt
weapons of the waffen SS by flemming

all these books mention the term battle tank to describe
A battle tank: armored vehicle having caterpillar traction and armed with machine guns, cannon, rockets, or flame throwers which means all of theses artillery support, sp guns, tank destroyers, recon tanks, or other support tanks except the ones with wheels and axles.

oh and those artillery support tanks are close support artillery which means they will come in contact with the enemy armour not just retaliation shelling and aircraft, so they need to be equipped to deal with the threat.

And, in the context of this thread, giving the Germans "equal resources" at Normandy, who has which tank or AFV is largely irrelevant. What matters is what ships are present. Any concentrated tank assault will whither and die in minutes under naval gunfire. Tigers, Panthers, Stuarts, it doesn't matter. A deluge of even 6" shells such as Savanah or Philidelphia delivered on German tank attacks at Salerno proves this point.
One such cruiser can deliver 60 to 90 shells a minute accurately up to as much as 25,000 yards away. This is equivalent of a whole field artillery regiment or more on the ground.
If the Allies have a navy and the Germans don't (and, there is absolutely, positivitely no way Germany could match Allied naval power) the Germans lose. Its that simple.

__________________
Truth is stranger than bullshit!

To be honest I missed it too, can I be considered a waste as well, I always wanted to be a waste.

__________________
"Well, I don't believe that climate change is just an issue that's convenient to bring up during a campaign. I believe it's one of the greatest moral challenges of our generation."
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/
Barack Obama

Exactly. And you have also got the 14 and 15" Guns of the Allied Battleships. I don't think many German troops had had shelling of that caliber before. It was enough even to make the SS crack.
Tomcat, for the Umpteenth time the Stuart IS NOT a battle tank. It may fill in your requirements of one, but it isn't. Simple as that. The SP artillery like Priests and Hummels don't provide close support. That is for the Assualt guns, E.G the M8 Scott or the StuH.

__________________

Be my guest, a waste is a waste, regardless of colour, creed, sex, political affiliation, whatever you please. Oh, nothing like the smell of waste in the morning! If I were a waste man, yoobidibbybibbydbbydibbydibbydibbydoom!

__________________
Bah!

if the Allies would have attacked where Hitler thought they were going to attack then the they would have got their butts kicked. The Atlantic Wall was insane.

Haha
GERMAN STEEL
I want to agree with you, but the truth was very different. The opening of the west front only hastened the ending of the war. The failure of the German army to bring forth the speedy collapse of Russia was the key to Germany's defeat. Germany and France would have been overrun by the Red Army sometime in 1946-47 had the allied not invaded.(Not mentioning the possibility of being nuked by the americans)

I would suggest reading up on the "Atlanic Wall". It wasn't as invincible as some Believe. Right now I am reading "The Atlantic Wall,Rommel's plan to stop the Allied Invasion!" by Alan F. Wilt. Alot of interesting facts and information about the builing of it and the forces manning it from 1940-1944.

__________________
For the first time I have seen "History" at close quarters,and I know that its actual process is very different from what is presented to Posterity. - WWI General Max Hoffman

The problem was the Allies weren't stupid.

__________________
Bah!

Another good read on the "Atlantic Wall" is 'Along the Atlantic Wall:Rommel's Last Battle" by Jeremy Gypton.

MilitaryHistoryOnline.com - Along the Atlantic Wall: Rommel's Last Battle

"Ost troops proved to be unreliable, as expected, and often times turned on their German handlers once Allied troops were near enough that they could surrender. As for the Luftwaffe, an essential part of Rommel’s strategy and promised to him by OKW, “only 36 German aircraft were seen in the British sector [on D-Day]...of which 7 were shot down.”(46) Even fewer made an appearance over the American beaches. The Atlantic Wall, touted by Hitler as being ready to stop the Allied invasion on the beaches – able to throw it back into the sea – had turned out to more akin to a line of ink on a map than the impregnable barrier it was characterized to be. The defenses, neglected for years by a regime more interested in conquering than in possessing, were not enough to hold off the massive Allied invasion.

Indeed, the layered combination of obstacles in the water, on the beaches and inland presented the Allied with many challenges, and cost the invaders dearly in lives, equipment, and time. However, static defenses, regardless of strength, seemed at this point in time to be dated – remnants of the Great War. The Germans had made this painfully clear to the French when they used maneuver to marginalize the value of the Maginot Line in 1940. Without mobile units and reserves to fill the gaps that would eventually develop in these static lines, such defenses were useless, and served only to stave off inevitable defeat. Rommel seemed to know this, and strove for a cooperative defense, built not only of concrete and barbed wire, mines and welded steel obstacles, but also panzers, mobilized infantry, artillery, rockets, and air forces.

Severely limited by time, the Desert Fox was given neither the material nor manpower support he requested, and in retrospect, sorely needed. Contradicting his own order that the invasion would be fought off by forces under one, on-site commander; Hitler spread control out among several officers in the theater: Rommel, von Rundstedt, his stooge in Goering, and others, and kept some of the most essential units under his own control.

Had Rommel been given the support and freedom he requested, the outcome may well have been different. His four belts of underwater obstacles were unfinished at the time of the invasion, and yet still cost the Allies lives and time. Hundreds of troops were killed when their gliders broke up while landing in fields planted with “Rommel asparagus.” German troops did in many places fight to the last man, or at least in the case of Cherbourg, destroy anything and everything of worth to the Allies before being captured or surrendering. Omaha was nearly lost due to a mistake in Allied intelligence; the Americans were totally unaware that an extra German division moved up to the coast just days before the invasion.

This final point gives rise to the possibility that had more units been deployed forward, along the coast instead of inland, the other beaches might have been more like Omaha, or worse. Had the panzers been at Sword and Juno, and had the Nebelwerfers Rommel had asked for been near Utah, it is highly possible, if not probable, that the Allied landings would have stalled on some or all beaches, or may have failed entirely. The losses sustained due to Allied air dominance took away much of the strength of fresh units such as Panzer Lehr Division, and the 12th SS Panzer Division; forward deployment before the invasion would have eliminated these losses completely. Allied aerial bombings, which immediately preceded the landings, fell well inland of German positions, and therefore would not have exacted a heavy toll on armored units dug in along the coast. While naval artillery would have shook these units, as it did the many emplacements on all five beaches, the presence of such fresh, mobile units as the panzers along the coast would have had a significant impact on the Allied invaders."

__________________
For the first time I have seen "History" at close quarters,and I know that its actual process is very different from what is presented to Posterity. - WWI General Max Hoffman

Ya think?

__________________
Best Regards,
JW

And they did such a good job FOOLING Hitler and others into thinking they would land somewhere else LOL. And Hitler still considered that for awhile after the landings too.

__________________
For the first time I have seen "History" at close quarters,and I know that its actual process is very different from what is presented to Posterity. - WWI General Max Hoffman

But what if the germans had the capabilities of the allied naval, what if the bismarck, tirpitz, sharnhorst, graf spee and and those other battleships, pocket battle ships, and cruisers light and large survived and what if the germans put more time and money into there navy and matched the allied armada, could they have repulsed the allies and destoy there navy or at least wreck it? And what if the airforce matched and although the germans possesed no heavy bombers as such what if they had flight after flight of he 111, and the dorniers, Me 262, 109 and so on could germany had won.

Quote(tomcat) A battle tank: armored vehicle having caterpillar traction and armed with machine guns, cannon, rockets, or flame throwers.(end)

but you agree right here with this quote

firepower - armed with machine guns, cannon, rockets, or flame throwers.
protection - armored vehicle
mobility - having caterpillar traction

so there not just my requirements but yours as well so are our requirments wrong of a tank because a tank is a battle tank desrcribed by both my quote and yours. And as for the sp artillery what good is your artillery if it can't see or hit what its aiming at, spotters? not the most reliable targeting info, 'compared' to the gunners eye.

That is certainly the most uninformed view of artillery that I've seen. The field artillery of the allies had a maximum range of beyond 10km. Obstructions both natural and man-made meant that most artillery engagements would be indirect. With forward observors artillery could be frightenly accurate.