Overlord: Same resourse

with this quote isn't the JS-I and II included in this.

great detail on the combat report, however how many pershings stopped a german advance or did enough damage such as Mike Wittman and his Tiger. That is my point the Germans created tanks that worked and wroked well and even the allies knew it.

 

The sad fact is that the concepts behind war have no changed since the first one started. The weapons have as well as the tactics, but what Professor Tzu are as applicable today as they were before he wrote them down.

Not to give the perception that everyone is piling on but if you expect every tank to be able to hold its own in all circumstances, there has never been a good tank built.

Generally it would not be a single Tiger or KV-1 that would hold up anything but a group of them.

TomCat are you trying to ask who had better generals or who were better soldiers? If this is what you are after, you may be trying to make your point the hard way.

 

the answer goes back to my original thread, If both the allies and the axis had the same amount of resources at there command what would have happened at D-day I know there have been similar threads about what if overlord failed, but was about what if they had the same resources. There would be a great chance that the germans would have won at normandy, but then what, would the germans invade britian and make it a one front war against russia, or mov forces to russia? Somewhere we lost the plot to the origianl question.

 

The reasons the Pershing and the Comet did not stop any German advances single-handedly is because by the Time they where at the Front line, the Germans Where not advancing!
You 'Battle tank' designation is rubbish. In WW2 there where several types of fully-tracked AFVs.
Light Tanks-Or Reconnaissance tanks. Light and fast.
Medium Tanks-Sherman, Cromwell, T34, Panzer IV....
Heavy tanks-KV, Tiger, Churchill....Heavily armoured and slow. Some have a large gun, others (KV and Churchill) have a medium tank's gun.
Tank Destroyer-A large anti-tank Gun on a lightly armoured Chassis. For taking out tanks at close range.
Blah blah blah...I could go on all day.
HOWEVER
At the beginning of the War, the British had two types of tanks, Infantry and Cruiser. The Infantry tanks would be heavily armoured and designed to help the Infantry advance. The Cruisers would be a sort of modern cavalry. BUT because the British had not been on the receiving end of tanks in WW1, they did not produce tanks which had a combination of Infantry Tanks and Cruisers. By the end of WW2, we had the Comet and Centurion, 'Universal' tanks, or the forerunner of todays MBTs.

And anyway, why would a Comet or a Pershing want to hold up an entire German advance?They where only equal to the Tiger, while the Tiger was devastating to Cromwells, Shermans and T34s because the Tiger was a Heavy tank, while the others where mediums! This is like comparing the M1A1 Abrams with the T-62, for example. They are different classes of Tanks altogether. Comparing the M60 with the T-62 is Like comparing the Panzer IV with the Sherman. Roughly equal. Comparing different classes of Tanks never gets anyone anywhere.

Making every AFV able to hold their own in Tank vs Tank combat is madness. Try and use a Tiger for gathering reconnaissance and what do you get? Not much information for a start! The Puma is an excellent Recon vehicle-In case it needs to fight for it's information. T-70s and Stuarts don't need to fight. They use their speed to get the Information home.

Try telling that to Your Tiger Crewman who's tank has just broken down for the Umpteenth time!


As for your original question-It's impossible. How can one Country have as many men as the largest countries in the world? By 1944 almost the whole world was against Hitler. From the East, West and south The Allies where coming for him. Hitler hoped never to have a two-front war. In Fact he Got three. The Western Allies could support a war on Two Fronts (Three counting the Pacific) because they where many nations, while the Axis was only one at this time. And how could the Largest Country in the world not be able to support a single front war?

 

Which just confirms what kind of an ignorant you are.

Which also confirms the above, by not being able to recognise sarcasm when you see it.

What a waste!

 

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.

 

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

 

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!

 

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.

 

The problem was the Allies weren't stupid.

 

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."

 

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.