Sherman Vs. Panzer

No, I don't think Shermans got stand-off armour plates like PzKpfw IVs and StuGs got.
They where used to defend against hollow charge rounds such as bazooka rockets.

EDIT-Hang on, you asked this question in the same thread!

 

Name 5!

No, he asked a different thing and it was on this thread. No, 4th Wilts, that offset armour idea was almost exclusively German.

 

I thought the plates were to protect vs AT rifles. Seam to recall the plates may actually have been counter productive as far as shape charges are concerned. Of course that doesn't mean that wasn't their purpose.

 

They were, but they also worked to pre-detonate hollow charge projectiles, such as bazooka and HEAT.

 

If you really want me to...

1.To turn the water at the bottom of the toilet yellow
2.To release from your bladder
3.To water the plants if outside
4.To wash wounds on the Battlefield
5.If there's nothing else, it is drinkable

Back on topic, when where the plates first used?

 

French tanks were indeed hampered by their one-man turret, and an impractical approach to SA, but British and German tanks certainly were not. As for HE, that was provided by infantry support tanks like the PzIV D, StuGIIIb and the British CS tanks. However, artillery was the infantryman's worst enemy.

The panzers were able to run miles ahead of their supporting infantry in the event.

None of this has anything to do with the infantryman's anti-tank capabilities, mind.

 

There was no panzer army of 1,000 Mk111's. They were mostly 1s, IIs and Pz 35/8ts. Not sure what this has to do with the subject at hand.

 

As has already been pointed out, that was US doctrine. And it was a pretty poor one.

The majority of the tanks in the Battle of France were equipped with an Anti-tank gun.

The Tiger was described as a "breakthrough" tank by the Germans, the idea was that it would be the point of the spearhead, followed by the lesser marks. Pretty offensive, basically.

 

If I may query a detail, the British CS tanks were 2 to a squadron, IIRC. All the others were 2pdr gun tanks, devoid of an HE shell, relying on their machine guns only. (And I doubt the 37 and 50mm HE shell abilities, that's why the Germans "invented" the Pz IV and StuG )

No great problem with the rest of your post, you are correct with the artillery being the infs worst enemy, although arty takes a heck of a long time to start effective fire on a new target.

 

But pre-detonating may actually have increased their penetration. Doesn't mean they knew that at the time but ...

 

No great problems with your posts, I was just originally refuting the supposed "mauling" of tanks by infantry in 1940.

 

Depends on spacing, angle of impact, warhead specifics, etc, etc.

Yes, even the infanty wasn't really equipped to face tanks. Not too many Panzerfäuste in the B.E.F.

 

Drucius.

Please bear in mind where this started. It was never about the infantry mauling armour. It was that the Germans experienced that sending unsupported armour in close country/cities, was not a clever idea.

Jaeger

 

Oh yes it was. Give me some evidence and we can tango.

 

Sorry Drucius but you probably did not pay attention to what I was disussing at the time. The text above started the shift in the discussion.

I remarked that the Germans learned this lesson before the first Warsaw rising.

Evidence is everywhere. From the battle at Kvam in April 1940 where the 15th brigade stopped the german tanks, through the end of the war.

In close country the afv needs supporting infantry. The tank is blind and deaf, it will not know of entrenched AT guns/Hollowcharges made from buckets/AT rocketry before it is too late.

The rambling about AT rifles is irrelevant. The infantry has got plenty of AT weaponry that it cannot carry on it's back. Or perhaps you think that AT guns isn't part of the infantry?? If that is the case then read up on some OOB's.

 

The text above doesn't actually say anything.

The eight anti-tank guns stopped the German tanks, not the infantry.

Effective hollow charge AT weapons don't appear until later than 1940. The first generally acknowledged HEAT weapon is a British rifle grenade of 1940, but I've never heard of it actually being used. The idea that someone in 1940 fashioned a HEAT weapon with a bucket is just fantasy.

Of course AT guns are infantry weapons, but I wouldn't call infantry properly equipped with AT guns PBI.

 

What? Have you never heard of the famous Buckethohlladung?

 

Hessa ladning. It's the name we have for the bucket shapecharged device.

As for AT guns not in the PBI... Read some OOB's. What of the Support platoons/coy (pending nations), are they not part of the battalion??

This is getting old.

 

I'd like to know more on the bucket charge. A proper shaped charge is something carefuly built and finely tuned, it cannot be very much improvised or i won't have much effect.

And yes, infantry does carry in its TOEs some form of AT armament, more or less effective, depending.

 

I have several books that describe how to build improvised HEAT warheads. One recommends using a wine or martini glass with the stem cut off! But, the bucketcharge..... [rolleyes]