German Wündertanks vs Shermans

ugly

LE
Moderator
All blown up by US engineers in Tunisia after being abandoned, just as RE sappers and German pionere were doing
I take they either broke down or ran out of fuel then? As has been mentioned a few times now, German logistics really sucked!
 
And better armour.

As has been said, different tank, designed to meet different criteria by different country’s.
The Sherman had at least the same & more often greater thickness armour over the frontal area & at a similar slope. Its turret was thicker, as was the hull floor. Sides were similar thickness.
On top of this, the quality & uniformity of the armour was also superior.
There's a side by side test of both out there on the www somewhere using 57 & 76mm A/T & the Sherman consistently fared better in almost all circumstances.
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
For all those tankers lost we actually had been stockpiling fuels in the UK for bout 5 years before the war and had problems with storage, the rationing was needed for the first four years, it was done to get everyone on a wat footing straight away. We had so much materials and food stored that foot ball stadiums were taken over to use as ration dumps in the UK. Old Traffords upper tiers full up until 1949. We were being realistic about a war that could have gone on for a lot longer!
 
You might want to check that.

Anyway, as we're touching on massive amounts of subjects here, I'll argue the toss over some bits, sorry if I missed you. This is a flying post while I have a few seconds spare.

Earlier we were talking about Submarines, and shipping losses, one poster mentioned that the Submarines would be increased if Germany wasn't at war with Russia. Well if you're allowed to make that change to history, I'll make the much more minor change about keeping deployment of the Hedgehog with the DMWD instead of transferring it to DNC. There wouldn't have been a U-boat afloat within 18 months!

But that's the thing about What if's, take the one given above, Hitler doesn't turn round and lamp Stalin in the face. The problem with that is, if that doesn't happen then you don't have Hitler in charge, and thus other actions don't happen and we end up in a different world.
That said, and I'm going to neatly sow up oil, Alternative scenario's, Lend-lease shipments and British wünder-tanks here all in one here.


HMAT Walrus here Served in Iraq, which is the best scenario for a what if. What if the Golden square revolt had actually worked, and the Germans had obtained control of Iraq. Then they would have had their oil, the Soviets would have been denied a major lend-lease route in the form of transfer through Iran (after we had battered them flat).
The German attempts at backing up the revolt was (as usual with German plans) bloody half-assed, but the Iraqi's could have ended any resistance quickly if their army had been a bit more forceful, and/or the officers of RAF Habbaniya had been slightly different people.

Another shot of the glorious armoured wünder tanks HMAT Walrus and seal:


Fear them, The Iraqis who tried to press the front gate of RAF Habbaniya did (well them and the Assyrian levies in bunkers with Vickers guns, and suddenly the Iraqi massacres of Assyrians didn't seem like such a good idea...)
 
vanity project to outdo Patton, are you having a laugh. Patton commanded an army, Montgomery commanded Armies.
I've said before on this thread, I can't recall ever reading anything that put forward any real evidence to substantiate the MYTH that there was personal rivalry between the two men.
 
German logistics really sucked
Indeed.

Which makes the capacity of Herman tactical formations and units to improvise in order to sustain extraordinary levels of endurance and combat effectiveness all the more impressive, and worthy of close study.

Irrespective of fact that they were acting at the direction of an atrocious, obscenely barbaric, criminal regime.
 
Indeed.

Which makes the capacity of Herman tactical formations and units to improvise in order to sustain extraordinary levels of endurance and combat effectiveness all the more impressive, and worthy of close study.

Irrespective of fact that they were acting at the direction of an atrocious, obscenely barbaric, criminal regime.

The German Army of 1939-45 was no more mechanised than the British Army of 1914-18.
The key difference was that the supposedly ‘stupid’ British Generals of 1917-18 had come to the conclusion that using some 40% of its logistics chain to feed the armies horses was imparing their ability to mount operations. And while the British rapidly embraced the new fangled truck, the German Amy right up till VE Day had over a million horses on hand, complete with vast resources in veteneary services, stud farms, fodder growing, training vast numbers of men in animal husbandry and German industry suppling mountains of horse tack and carts.
The number of man hours a day a German infantry battalion had to put into caring for and feeding its horses was staggering. Only in North Africa did the Germans ever field a properly motorised army, and even then, over half their trucks were captured British ones.
 
I've said before on this thread, I can't recall ever reading anything that put forward any real evidence to substantiate the MYTH that there was personal rivalry between the two men.
TBF I would not put it past Patton to have a serious cause of Jealousy about Monty.
 
The German Army of 1939-45 was no more mechanised than the British Army of 1914-18.
The key difference was that the supposedly ‘stupid’ British Generals of 1917-18 had come to the conclusion that using some 40% of its logistics chain to feed the armies horses was imparing their ability to mount operations. And while the British rapidly embraced the new fangled truck, the German Amy right up till VE Day had over a million horses on hand, complete with vast resources in veteneary services, stud farms, fodder growing, training vast numbers of men in animal husbandry and German industry suppling mountains of horse tack and carts.
The number of man hours a day a German infantry battalion had to put into caring for and feeding its horses was staggering. Only in North Africa did the Germans ever field a properly motorised army, and even then, over half their trucks were captured British ones.
. . . and still, even when their nation, overstretched, blockaded, bombedtobuggeration, beset by overwhelming forces on two fronts, and at the whim of staggeringly inept political leaders, was on the verge of destruction - their common or garden tactical formations and units (often units comprising pressed men of non-Herman ethnicities and natural loyalties) routinely performed in the field feats of endurance which were regarded in our own Army as beyond the reach of all but the most elite British capbadges.

Nothing to be learned there, apparently.

Our Regimental System ( which had ceased to function in all but name long before 1944) must - above all else - be revered as the Secret Of British Superiority until Doomsday

Apparently :)
 
Doubt it.

Other than a brief charge across Sciliy, they did their own thing with separate CoCs in separate front and nether makes more than the odd passing remark about the other in their diaries.
For God's sake, there's all the evidence you need courtesy of Hollywood. The movie's even called "Patton"! What more do you need?
 
. . . and still, even when their nation, overstretched, blockaded, bombedtobuggeration, beset by overwhelming forces on two fronts, and at the whim of staggeringly inept political leaders, was on the verge of destruction - their common or garden tactical formations and units (often units comprising pressed men of non-Herman ethnicities and natural loyalties) routinely performed in the field feats of endurance which were regarded in our own Army as beyond the reach of all but the most elite British capbadges.

Nothing to be learned there, apparently.

Our Regimental System ( which had ceased to function in all but name long before 1944) must - above all else - be revered as the Secret Of British Superiority until Doomsday

Apparently :)

I would put that down to the way the Heer were trained to fight.
(I exclude the SS who were often as bone headed as the average Kamikazi).

Their ability to reform on the fly into ad hoc ‘Kampfgruppes from surving small units was stunning and allowed even disparate stragglers from logs, artillery, infantry and armour to reform quickly into effective combat units.
Could a British or American low to middle rank Officer exercise such authority over disparate units without orders from HQ?

ETA: when a shortage of reserves saw the disbandment of AA and similar units in 1944, the British Arny didn’t gain much bar disgruntled gunners not keen on playing soldiers.

The Heer by comparison always saw nothing wrong with Gunners without guns or tankers without tanks grabbing a rifle and reverting to infantry.
 
Last edited:
Having read much the same sources as others, maybe after awhile, you start to critique decisions and probably start to see history through a modern lense. So I apologise, it was not my intention to besmirch Monty or anyone, just not a fan of his, read his biography, which didn't form a favourable impression on me. Whereas, Frosts Biography, made a much more favourable impression.

If anyone has read the war diary of 116th Panzer Division, you see how stretched the German Army really was, even in a well equipped and well led unit. Its staggering, they were able to get so much out of so much poor material (very young, middle aged men) and keep fighting for so long.

On tanks, one of big what ifs for me, was if we could have got say a 150 Matilda IIs in France 1940. Given the tank was designed years earlier, it could have made a massive difference.
We had more tanks (nearly double) than the Germans but deployed them poorly in penny packets.
 
Heer by comparison always saw nothing wrong with Gunners without guns or tankers without tanks grabbing a rifle and reverting to infantry
. . . nor, seemingly, did their Gunners, Tankies, Loggies etcetera see this as anything but natural.

It goes way beyond mere 'training'

It's about mindset, in a way that is really hard to define.

Of one thing I am sure, though: it's a mindset incompatible with that which sustains the Brit myths surrounding the so-called Regimental System beloved of our Army
 
And quantity.

Like that line in the Michael Caine classic:

"Zulus, Sah! Faahsands of 'em!"
Hmm; 49,000 reliable (for a given value thereof) Shermans vs 84,000 T34/76 & T34/85.

Like Rorke's Drift, I think I'd give it to the quality rather than quantity side.
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Top