The best tank killer of WWII

What this means in terms of physics is that out to about the one second flight time of a round a tank gunner need only lay his sight such that the point of aim is at or below the top of the target vehicle. At the one second mark of flight a round drops about six feet (in round number terms.. this varies slightly by weight, aerodynamics, wind, air pressure, etc.,). This means the gunner will pretty much be ensured a first round hit out to that point.
The higher the velocity of the gun and the heavier the round the further out this point is, particularly with respect to velocity. This distance varies on WW 2 tanks from about 500 to 1500 yards.
So, what becomes important below that point is who can get their gun on target first. History shows that to be the US tanks most of the time.

 

IMHO in long hand it means that since very few engagements happened at long ranges(most on the Western Front about what?? 500-1000 yards) what mattered most was how fast your turret traversed.

 

He is talking about setting nr.2, for quick traverse, as he mentions "To traverse quickly onto a target" and makes the mistake of not clarifying this, saying that speed of traverse was dependent on engine speed, which is only the case on setting nr.2. In actual fact the hydraulic traverse mechanism is so precise that it was used to precisely place the gun on target in the horizontal axis at practically all ranges when put on setting nr.1. Only when on setting nr.2, which was dependent on engine rpm, was the traverse handwheel ever needed for fine adjustments in traverse. Otherwise only the elevation was manual. Jentz didn't do a good job of explaining this indeed, but neither to his credit did he contradict it.

Btw, to Gardner: Maximum traverse speed was accomplished at 2,000 rpm, so your theory that maximum turret traverse put strain on the engine is false as-well.




If the hydraulic unit was already put on setting nr.2, then it would probably be abit impractical having to set it back onto setting nr.1 if you were in the middle of a combat situation (Unit sits at the bottom of the turret platform). In that case using the manual traverse handwheel right next to you would be a lot quicker. If it was on setting nr.1 from the beginning however no manual traverse was needed for fine tuning the aim, only manual elevation. In all US, British, Soviet and most German tanks (except the Tiger I-II, Panther & Pershing), final gunlaying could only be accomplished by use of both manual traverse & elevation.

That is the system explained in more detail than what Jentz does in his Tiger I Heavy Tank 1942-45 book, but then again Osprey publishing has never been a terribly accurate at editing, so maybe Jentz is not at fault here. However IIRC he explains exactly what I've just written in one of his other books.

 

Haha, what? You got any statistics to back up that claim?

You're just making these things up as you go along arent you?

 

How many actions would you like? With the exception of the occasional German tank ace and very exceptional tank on tank battle the US gives as good or better than it gets in tank on tank actions in the ETO.

A good example of this would be TF Hunter (Co. C 37th Tank Bn+) against a column of Panther tanks from the 113th Pz Bde on Sept 19 1944 outside Moncourt France. Here the two sides were both maneuvering and discovered each other at a range of about 500 yards or less. In the ensuing action the US tanks initially destroyed 3 panthers for no losses. The US tankers then broke into two units. One under Capt. Lamison pulled up on ridge west of Bezange-la-Petite where his platoon + reengaged the German tanks in the flank knocking out an additional nine for no losses.
The other section ducked behind a ridge and maneuvered onto the other flank of the German column where they reappeared and destroyed a further four panthers.

There is another action near this one with M18's where the Germans and US engaged at about 200 yards. There the US lost 3 M 18 for 7 panthers destroyed.

Krinkelt and Rohrath the "Twin Villages" in the Ardennes is yet another example.

Most of the US tank losses in the ETO are to enemy AT guns, enemy tanks and tank destroyers in camoflauged defensive positons and mines. In open maneuvering between the two the Germans usually come off far worse than the US. Like I said, there are exceptions usually when one of the rare German tank aces is present. Of course, the same can be said for US tank aces who tipped battles also.

 

I have no idea how such a few accounts can have you reach such conclusions, esp. when there are many more where the outcome went the complete other way around. It is more than likely than not that superior tactics won the day in the incidents you describe than anything else.

Again, I'm sorry, but it was the other way round mate.

Likewise most German tank losses in the ETO were to enemy AT guns, infantry action, mines, aircraft and last but not least abandondment caused by a lack of fuel.

In actual maneuvering engagements the German tanks usually gave better than they got, which is supported by Allied analysises made during the war as-well.

 

Feel free to show some ones that prove the Germans were superior......

Feel free to put the data up to show it.

 

Just what Jentz books do you have? How much did you pay for them? You cite Osprey but the ones I have are each close to 200 pages long much thicker then Osprey series. I have 4 of Jentz's boos along with several by Walter Spielberger each set mew back alot more then something from an Osprey series.
BTW...
Maximum speed of traverse for the Tiger II was 19 seconds at 2000 RPM's now 9 seconds was possible if you runned the engine at 3,000 RPM's ,I think that was What TA Gardiner was talking in relation to straining the engine.

 

Osprey doesn't publish the Jentz books, at least not the ones I have. Schiffer Military History Publishing does.

 

Yes I agree TAG but some of the Osprey series also have Jentz for an author I just went ovewr to Amazon to double check. Notice Mr. Proeliator's last sentence in his previous post it mentions a book titled "Tiger I heavy Tank 1942-1945" and alluded to Osprey publishing not doing an always great job of editing. There is an Osprey published book by Jentz by that name published in 1993 all something like 48 pages of it selling for maybe $20.00 at the most new,$2.93 used. My book that I quoted from set me back about $37.00 and still costs about that much and around $30.00 used. It is also about 175 pages in length.
The Osprey book...
http://www.amazon.com/Tiger-Heavy-1...=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1275884847&sr=1-8

Now my book....
http://www.amazon.com/Germanys-Tige...r_1_11?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1275884955&sr=1-11

 

There is an Opsrey book, I have it, I have all Jentz's work, and he's great, although not without his minor flaws. Anyway the Osprey book is where the phrases Gardner quoted are from.

Why he refrains from explaining the two settings available I don't know, but it could be Osprey Publishing at fault or it could be that he simply gathered that setting nr.2 was the most frequently used and therefore there was no need explaining the system in more detail. In urban or heavily vegetated areas there's no doubt that setting nr.2 was used.

 

No problem.

Allied battlefield analysises established that just over 60% of all Allied tanks lost due to enemy action were so by penetrations inflicted by AP projectiles of 75 to 88mm in diameter (So either by tank or AT gun fire). Where'as only 40% of German tanks lost due to enemy action were so to AP projectiles of all calibres.

Next we could cite the tank losses of each nation, which won't favour the Allies.

 

and??? Just who was on the defensive? How good of defensive terrain did the Germans have in the West? Attackers tend to suffer far more losses then do defenders just like the German attackers did in the Ardennes.Far far more Allied tanks were knocked out by mines, PanzerFausts, AT guns, SP and AT guns rather then Tiger or Panther tanks. Frequently Tigers or Panthers got credit for tank kills that were actually done by supporting cast members. Tank versus tank the Germans didn't do near as well as has been historically recorded . Also just what caused the other 60% of German tank losses due to enemy action?
Arracourt? That was a case of equal numbers of 75mm armed M4's & Panthers engaging one another without interference from aircraft or artillery with US Shermans cleaning the German's clock. There were also some US units with M3 75mm armed Shermans who were quite adept at knocking out German heavy tanks by using WP rather then AP ammo.
You seem to be going against Jentz so just what is your source for refuting his assertions?

 

I'm not going against Jentz at all. My sources include him. Jentz uses German tank manuals for much of his data, same do I. You can read all about the hydraulic system in the German manuals, how it works and all. Why Jentz left out that there were two settings in that book I don't know, but IIRC he explains it in detail in one of his other books. Interestingly T.A. Gardner overlooks the fact that he already quoted that there were two settings in one of his earlier posts in the Kingtiger turret traverse speed thread:

 

And? Well the Germans lacked fuel, spare parts, trained personnel and air power amongst other things. When'ever the Germans had air supremacy they won, somehow that wasn't the case for the Allies.

And if over 60% of allied tank losses were due to 75 to 88mm AP shells, then a good portion must have been lost to Panthers & Tigers. There's a reason they feared those tanks.

 

Using the old standby d = .5 * a * t * t and pluging in 32 ft/sec*sec for gravity I get a drop of 16 feet at 1 second out. At about .6 seconds I get a 6 foot drop. What am I not understanding?

 

COMMENT: Only about 25%(maybe 30%) of Allied tanks were knocked out by Tiger & Panther tanks. Even if what you say is true about 60% of Allied tanks being knocked out by 75mm & 88mm guns you must remember that MK. IV's were armed with 75 mm guns along with all those Stg III's ,Marder's, Jagd IV's ,you then also have all those 75mm PAK 40's ,8.8cm PAK 43's,8.8 cm FLAKout there shooting at Allied tanks. As far as fear of Panthers & Tigers well alot of that fear was based on the perception that it was fire from Panther's/Tiger's that knocked them out when in actuality it was far more often then not it was fire from SP's,Panferfaust's, AT gun fire and mines that did the damage.
If Allied AP rounds only knocked out 40% of the Panzers just what knocked the rest of them out?

 

And how many StuG's could be made per 1 Jagdpanther?

 

According to a study post war the average tank versus tank engagement in Western Europe involved 9 US tanks & 4 German ones,less then a 1/3 involved more then 3 German AFV. The average range where US inflicted kills on German tanks was 893 yards,The Germans averaged 946 yards against the US AFV's. The study concluded the most important issue was who sighted who first ,engaged first and hit first. The defender having a very distinct advantage being in a stationary,well camouflaged position. The defender typically had all avenues under survilliance and the ranges pre-determined which increased their accuracy of their guns. Of the incidents the defenders fired first 84% of the time,when defenders fired first the attackers suffered 4.3 times more casualties then the defenders. When attackers fired first ,the defenders suffered 3.6 times more casualties then the attackers.


In 29 engagements involving Shermans & Panthers the Shermans only had 1.2 to 1 numerical advantage over the Panthers . The data shows the Panther being 1.1 to 1 more times effective then the Sherman when fighting from the defence,while the Sherman had an 8.4 to 1 advantage while being on the defensive against the Panther. Overall in these engagements the Sherman was 3.6 times more effective then the Panther despite outnumbering them only 1.2 to 1.


Thus the old time myths of a Panther being 5 times as effective as a Sherman or it taking 5 Shermans to knock out a Panther are just that,myths. Now tatical situations can outwiegh technical ones and things such as crew training are important HOWEVER evidence seems to indicate a mediocre crew in a mediocre tank hiding in an ambush situation had a distinct advantage over an excellent crew in an excellent tank advancing forward.

And just who was doing the majority of the defending in ambush positions?

 

Have you read pages 136-137 of "Tiger I & Tiger II : Combat Tatics" ? Especially section III "Types of Losses Suffered by the Tiger from Hits and the Resulting Damage during the First Seven days and Nights in Action from 20 to 26 September 1943" parts 10,11,15, 16, and Section IV Mechanical Failures and Observations .