Captured equipment. German Quatermaster and Maintenance nightmare

Yes? Which ones in your expert opinion?

That's the point. It was entirely stupid and unecessary strategic mistake from the part of the German nation starting a war with everybody at the same time. Had the Soviet Union declared war to Germany? No. So why start a war against them? Had the United States of America declared war to Germany? No. So why start a war against them? Ditto for everybody else, but these were the 400-pound gorillas.

So German leadership effectively had the bright idea of effectively bring a very small knife to a firefight.

I really can't understand why some people have this brainless adulation for all things Nazi. It must be the kewl uniforms.

 

Not sure if this is a sarcastic remark, but models like the M2, M3, etc. The M-4 was the second most produced tank of the war after the T-34..yet I'm positive that much of the ~55K + units didn't see action given loss and operational rates during their use in the North Africa/West/Italy.

The US built huge numbers of small arms, yet production seemed to be far greater than their actual use by troops (like the 1.7 million tommy guns,etc.)

However, most Soviet Tanks saw action given the much larger scale of tank actions in the East.

 

The political leadership of the Third Reich was absurd- they clearly had no realistic picture of their own strategic reality.

I think adulation for the German Armed Forces comes naturally with their combat achievements in face of vastly unequal odds (at a numerical and a logistical level) in the assault and the defense. Tactical excellence, Economic & Strategic Amateurism.

 

M2 was not produced in any numbers during WW2, the M3 (I suppose you mean the M3 Medium) was a transitional model while the M4 was not ready.

With the M3-M5 Light I have no quarrel as it was the best family of light tanks of the war. I hope you do not hold it against the US for their comparatively low loss rate.

"combat achievements in face of vastly unequal odds (at a numerical and a logistical level)"? "Tactical excellence"?

True at the beginning of the war when they ran circles round other armies with more antiquated doctrines, but later on? And if they were facing such unequal odds it means it's bad grand strategy when your leadership provokes war with the wrong guys, thereby effectively betraying the Ländser through megalomania.

 

The production run of the M3 Lee was about Aug 1941–Dec 1942 and was about 6,258 including varients. The M4 started production in Oct 1941 shortly after the M3. The production run was approx 50,000 not including all the vehicles based on the M4 Chassis.

 

But getting back once again to the original topic. The US military did not have to deal with the mass amounts of foreign vehicles and weapon systems. Standardization. Making it much eaiser to provide the parts and the ability to repaier them and return them to service.

 

Have to disagree on the M3-M5 being the best. they were the ones to contribute more to the war effort but the best is really the M24.

I agree that the fighting against an enemy with more Industrial capacity and better logistical platform is in no way a means to evaluate the finesse of an army. Except if they won which they didn't. It just goes to show how crippled their leadership was.
And regarding these foreign parts, as was mentioned in another thread, there were simple ways to improve the logistical nightmare but they were not undertook.
And the US building more weapons than they could use shows a clear "think ahead" doctrine that the Germans lacked. Should the Germans have built weapons in series (actually it can be argued that they had some assembly lines latter in the war such as the Panther plant and the MG-42 production which was done in series) like the Americans did, and when Guderian went to ask for more tanks those might actually be ready and substitutions occurred faster.
think of those extra weapons as the US logistical reserves. For instance if you were a crewman in a panther and your tank got totalled, your substitution tank could take weeks to arrive. In the case of the US, the brand new tank was already built. Sure it can be argued that this had the inconvenience of changes in the models taking longer to be introduced but, on the other hand, you could have more numbers of ready tanks, sub-machine guns, aeroplanes, etc...




Cheers...

 

I don't think light tanks were that useful on the battlefield or that extravagantly deployed (although their elements remained) in the force structure of US armored divisions due to their vulnerability. This is one of the reasons why M4 shermans suffered much greater losses.

light tanks is strange category, as the Panzer Mark III was a medium tank in early war and a light tank late war.

I think the interest resides in the achievements of German ground forces at the tactical, rather than strategic level. Naturally, this would focus on their elite mobile elements, which had far greater combat ability due to the high density of heavy weapons and thus bore a disproportionate brunt of the fighting compared to German immobile units like their infantry divisions, etc.

I mean, even when the German armed forces were reduced to a wreak and in their low quality state pre-Normandy...they still managed to inflict high combat losses against their enemies despite enduring an overwhelming inferiority in material and numbers until the end of the war.

 

I see, Brad, sorry if I sounded picky

Compare the numbers and time in production during the war... The M-24 was the successor of the M-5, learning from operational experience. It had to be better...

Did you read me saying light tanks were useful in the battlefield? I guess no. And what the hell do lt. tks. have to do with the M4 having more or less casualties?

Jeez, always the same mindless adoration, isn't it?

I suppose the PBI would just sit aside while the knights in shining armour would win all the Iron Crosses against the Oriental Hordes!. This is just too much for my stomach! I'm fed up with juvenile nazi-wannabe wet dreams.

 

US Light tanks were often used in the "assault gun" role in late war, reducing enemy positions in areas where the threat of enemy counterattacks with tanks and heavy A/T gun fronts was marginalized.

Light tanks were generally not sent against strong German defenses or sent against German armored formations, so they benefited accordingly.

The Panzer divisions performed well for much of the war, that is well known. They were the ones with much of the material. And their stories are well documented by both sides.

 

But getting back once again to the original topic. The US military did not have to deal with the mass amounts of foreign vehicles and weapon systems. Standardization. Making it much eaiser to provide the parts and the ability to repair them and return them to service quickly.

 

This seems to have morphed into "German Usage of Combined Arms During the Assault Phase"

SO to bring this back to task again......

Not only did the German face issues of repairing and operating captured equipment, they also had to deal with communicating with "conscripted" soldiers from the "liberated" countries who fought alongside the regular German forces.

 

We had went over this in the "Worst" tank thread with smleshooter about the same subject LOL.

 

Concerning statement one, you are mixing light tanks up with something else, but I'm not going to tell you what. Other more educated members will know what I mean.

And your statement 2 is contradictory to 1. 1 - They were used as assault guns; 2 - Light tanks were not sent against strong defences. So which is which?

SWAGPOOYA. Look it up.

 

What's the point in not telling me if that is the case?

A tank can't be used in the "assault gun" role against sparse opposition?

The US had a plethora of tanks to pound their targets, and light tanks were often used to support infantry against milder opposition. Much more powerful T/Ds were often removed out of their stated role and deployed in this manner, as well.

The Chaffee was the best light tank thanks to the 75mm short, but I'm under the impression that older models armed with the almost ineffective 37mm gun were far more common.

 

The US Army used light tanks in a number of very valuable roles; none of them involved fighting enemy armor. These included (adapted from the US Army's Armor-Cavalry History):

Acting defensively in a screening, blocking, or gap filling mission
Acting as a mobile reserve
Acting as a security and line of communications force

This was in addition to their primary (but not the most common) mission of reconnissance. US Army doctrine also directed cavalry units "to engage in combat only to the extent necessary to accomplish their mission."

Many cavalry regiments (two squadrons normally) had a battalion of engineers, battalion of tank destroyers, and one or more self-propelled or towed artillery battalions attached on a regular, if not continious, basis.

Anyway, having a bunch of light tanks around to do things like escort supply convoys forward or act as armored messenger units between headquarters in more exposed areas would seem like a good idea.

Aside from all of the above, the M3/5 also proved very capable in the Pacific were it was generally a match or more for Japanese tanks and could provide excellent firepower to support infantry. Its lighter weight meant it could operate in more locations than the heavier Shermans in many cases too.

 

Thank you very much, Terry, you summed up the role of Armored Cavalry very nicely.

Because as you know so much already you should know about this clanger as well.

Maybe tomorrow I'll remember to tell you what you are mixing up the light tanks with. I'm already sleepy enough and have better things to do other than filling up your voids.

It's funny how you put up so many questions threads but are so full of opinions.

 

Hey Jeff!! You are right. . LOL