Armor vs Firepower

Can I have a delivery address for this giant economy sized tin of worms?
It's bleedin' massive and they're escaping all over the depot.

 

One only has to look at the battle of the bulge to see how ineffective Tigers were in any situation but ambush.

 

Now that I look at it, I can agree with you on that. They did have a lot of tank kills but those victories weren't enough.

 

Any situation? The Ardennes is not what I would call "tank country."

 

Konigstigers not mobile enough, needed too much gas which the Germans did not have enough of..[ and does not konig, with the umlaut, mean king?? ] defense does not win wars

 

Gaines is right in that things were in a constant state of flux during the war..."upward", in terms of increasing armour and protection, bigger and better penetrating guns, and better mobility/speed...

But you have to remember what drove that progression...I.E. what the enemy was doing, or going to do next with theirs

That's why, while the Tigers had no real influence at all on the outcome of the war - they had a major impact on how the war was fought...or rather, how trends in armour progressed after it appeared.

Right at that moment ALL sides were trying to develop a "heavy" tank....American and British tank development in WWII is absolutely littered with heavy tank designs that just didn't work....or took so long to develop that "heavy" had passed them by! The Germans got there first....and for one brief time they re-set trends for years afterwards.


There are however two more things to think about....

1/ the tank's REAL job wasn't fighting other tanks.....it was providing infantry support. The tank vs. tank "role" was a speciality role that developed between them. Therefore.....the protection and the climbing ability for rough terrain etc. was what came first in tank designers' priorities - hence tank chassis being tested sans turrets etc. A tank had to BE there to be any use, when enemies met on the battlefield - and it was its armour and mobility that got a tank to where it was supposed to be.


2/ the REAL enemy of a tank wasn't another tank it was the anti-tank gun or, increasingly as the war went on - the practical handheld antitank weapon...

In other words - the infantry's weapon(s) to fight tanks with.....you know, the infantry that tanks were supposed to be there supporting?

And at the start of the war....and right at the end...and all the way through - there were ALWAYS a hell of a lot more infantry around with a hell of a lot more anti-tank guns and weapons than there ever were tanks.

 

The myth of Tigger not being mobile enough, eh?
Tiger (1&2) mobility was hindered by reliability. Surprisingly nimble otherwise.
I am no fanbois, quite the opposite in most cases, but Tigger's problems are far more complex than any base accusation of 'lumbering', really.

Not fair to see Tigger as purely an ambush weapon. Tigger was one of the first expressions of a true MBT with a BFG. Give Tigger the support, and tigger could indeed dominate terrain in attack or defence.
But... oh the details, the horrible devilish details that shine light into corners. Tigger was just another machine (little less, little more) acting as part of the military extension of a failing state. That's where Tigger's problems really lie.

(Cross-posted with Phylo above - Phylo speaks wisdom here.)

 

I would think the combined arms concept to work the best<>infantry with tanks [ to protect infantry from other tanks ] the anti tank guns weren't as mobile as tanks...and you have to get close with the infantry AT weapons...this combined arms team could move far and fast, or wherever needed.,,,etc et

 

AARs confirm that AT guns likely killed more armour than any other arm.
Though many people don't like to talk about that, they seem to prefer telling lies about air kills.

[member='bronk7'], thinking armour usually protects infantry is a dubious misconception in WW2 terms. Obviously it swings both ways, but on the whole, and in most situations, very much the other way around.
Infantry is the primary weapon. Still.

 

roger, the infantry has to get the boots in....I would think the tank-infantry has a mobility advantage....you say the AT guns likely killed more?? how many of those were 88s on Allied tanks?? I thought the standard US AT was the puny 57mm?

 

But originally....tanks couldn't move faster than motorised infantry, towed guns, even horse artillery could move faster than tanks. Look at Polish horse-towed A/T guns, for instance...

Eventually - progress through the war meant that tanks enjoyed a crosscountry speed that equalled anything that any other arm of an army could enjoy - and with their obstacle climbing ability etc. often better, in that they could cross obstacles and gaps better than any 4x4, or 6x6 or even 8x8-wheeled vehicle or AFV. So they ended up MORE "mobile"....

It didn't help for an even progression of tank design that for three years trends were being set in such a level playing field....LITERALLY ...like the Western Desert.....

While at the same time, German designs were reacting to Soviet developments in far more nadgery terrain

...and in turn WE were reacting to the German changes and advances They were making changes for fighting two very different enemies in two very different terrains at the same time....thus saving time on development. A Tiger designed to best the T34 would..almost incidently...wipe the eye of anything the British and Americans had or were to have for the next two years.

The real problem for tank designers was exactly the same as it was for aircraft designers - lead time. Development and testing requires TIME. If you look carefully, it was rare for a successful tank design to take less than 18 months during the war, from first specifications issued to entering service. The best designs took closer to or over two years. When this was "bettered" - reliability ALWAYS suffered, or armour suffered, or gun penetrating power suffered - because trends in ALL these areas - mobility, speed, armour and guns - all moved at DIFFERENT paces. Turning a tank from drawing board to battlefield in a year...as the British did on a couple of occasions - resulted in tanks that were significantly weak in one or more ways.

 

Yes. No matter who, where or when - the PBI still has to tramp over the ground...every inch of it...and "police" it up.

 

What Von Poop said in post #29. A tank without infantry is very vulnerable. Yes armor can give protection to infantry, but armor relies heavily on infantry for protection.

 

good point phylo---where do you get lead time at?? I'm kind of familiar with that, since I am in an engineering section.......we research, design, build, then test.....then if it passes, send it to the plant....BUT, ,of course there might be/probably are problems after passing the test!.....let me tell you, even with computers and expensive design software, our engineers still can't get simple things right!..just to build a simple food warmer takes time!!!

 

combined arms/etc

 

Don't focus too much on the 88 either.
If we take Normandy, Italy or even Africa as our theatre, the HV 75 was cutting through any and all attacking armour eventually, if given the chance. The chance was not always given...
Churchill had the thickest front armour of any WW2 tank (152mm? from memory). Might as well have been any machine up to 20 years postwar and at bocage ranges it'd still have been defeated. This stuff is complex. don't disregard complexity.

Also, don't dismiss the 57mm or 6pdr too easily.
That pleasant and informative chap, Mr Gerry Chester, who was there, has been very interesting over the years on how Tigger didn't so much worry his mob's Churchills and their 6pdrs. Traverse speed and encounter ranges meaning their main fear was 'lesser' machines like the Mark IV. Again; 'complexity'.
(I couldn't recommend Gerry's site more highly, by the way. well worth a few hours browse: North Irish Horse)

 

I like the link Von Poop!

 

The histories of most tanks that made it into service is pretty well recorded and written about...as is their problems! It's relatively easy to find out when the Mechanisation Board or Tank Design Bureau issued specs to a given supplier, and trace the work done, and when the first wooden or mild steel fabrications were photographed, when the first motorised chassis went for testing, how long the tests took, changes to be made...and finally when production contracts issued on contract card (Bovington keeps those)...and finally, when the first items were delivered to units...

Thus you have dated mileposts all through the process, from first "blue sky thinking" to the first day a "service" item went into service.

 

The 6pdr was far from puny. With the right ammunition it could see off the vast majority of its enemies
The UK was never behind the curve on AT gun and ammo development.Indeed the UK equivalent of the 8.8cm (3.7in AA) was superior in nearly every performance aspect and if the UK had been desperate enough (i.e no 6pdr or 17 pdr)to use it as an AT gun it would have been at least as good.

 

what's 6pdr in mm?