Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to join our community
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site, connect with other members through your own private inbox and will receive smaller adverts!

German Wündertanks vs Shermans

What were the educational levels and attainments of the recruiting pools the common soldiers were drawn from in each country during peace time? That may have some relevance to the issue as well.
I might be wrong but I'd hazard a guess you have hit the nail on the head. The officers were still largely 'Chaps with the right background', the ranks came from the otherwise unemployable. One proof of being middle class or even skilled working class was you wouldn't have anything to do with the fighting parts of the army. In a conscripted force this doesn't [can't] occur. One of the strengths of my old TA unit was that while the officers were definitely still R&R the senior NCOs were mostly lower middle class, often with civilian management experience.
 
One Platoon Leader/Commander in a Wehrmacht Infanterie Kompanie was by Billet supposed to be an NCO going back before 1939.
By 1939, and (I believe) to this day, the Coy establishment includes but a single officer Pl Comd, who in effect is there as an apprentice Coy Comd, starting on the shop floor.
 
Fallschirmjaeger - a Luftwaffe component - as per my previous.
Not the mid '44 ones - many reports of Luftwaffe groundcrew being issued with some fancy cammo gear and a funny Stahlhelm and told to get on with it - none of that worthless training rubbish - hence why the replacement units were crap during the Battle of the Bulge

I'll try and find the story of one such poor sod I read a while back but meanwhile Operation Stösser: Last Airborne Offensive of the Fallschirmjägers

A Ragtag Army Of One in Five Trained
With only a week to prepare, Student ordered each of the battalion commanders of the First Parachute Army to send von der Heydte a hundred of their best men. Unfortunately for the Germans, the Fallschirmjaeger of 1944 were not the highly trained soldiers who jumped onto Fort Eben Emael in 1940 or Crete in 1941. Many of them were not even parachute-qualified. On D-day there were 150,000 men in the Fallschirmtruppen, but only 30,000 were actually trained parachutists. And worse yet, some of the parachute regimental commanders dumped their undesirables, including some inexperienced soldiers fresh from basic training, on von der Heydte rather than sending him their best men.

Von der Heydte had to send 150 men back to their units as unsuitable candidates. He had only a few men with previous combat jump experience and only about 20 percent of his composite unit was qualified to jump with weapons, so containers had to be used. The operation would be a night jump.

After 1943, the requirements for the award of the paratrooper’s insignia upon the completion of basic parachute training included at least one night jump. But this would be the first and only nighttime combat jump. They would also jump into the woods, something the Germans had practiced in training. The preparations for Operation Stoesser were rushed. The Fallschirmjaeger were issued additional equipment, and some received hasty jump training. There was little time for any training or organization as a cohesive unit. To complicate matters, von der Heydte’s transport of about a hundred Junkers Ju-52s were piloted by mostly young and inexperienced crews.
 
It was standard practice in the german army in the time for an NCO to run a platoon. Not an exception because there was no officer present. The Sgt was earmarked to run a platoon. A leutena to run a company and a major to run a battalion. This was peace time.
Coy Comd was a Hauptmann post, on paper, at any rate. Once hostilities commenced, all bets were off. ISTR that the biography of the near legendary Von Luck of Op GOODWOOD fame has him formslly commanding seriously large groupings at (to Brit eyes) oddly junior ranks. Herman doesn't seem to get so wrapped around the axle about rank Vs appointment, perhaps because it's taken for granted that everyone is trained by default to function effectively two levels up in the first place.
 
Rather than "pressed into use", I believe FLAK 18 was designed to be dual purpose (albeit generally intended for AA use), and AP rounds were issued from the outset. Agreed on the practicality of digging in and manouevring all the Flak88s - AND the PAK 41/43. However, the split trail PAK 43/41 "Barn door" was only a stopgap whilst Messrs Krupp sorted out the slightly more user friendly cruciform carriage on the PAK 43, which not only made it more mobile (for a given value of mobile), it also allowed the crew to get into action faster, and reduced the size of the gun pit required.

We were actually well equipped throughout the war with anti tank guns.* The 2 Pdr was an excellent gun for its time, although often defeated by heavier armour by 1942; the 6Pdr was still an effective tank killer in 1945, and the 17Pdr was the best available - and as you say, right at the limit of size for practical use. The organic ATk Platoons within Infantry Battalions were usually equipped with weapons capable of dealing with what they were facing.

*Of course some poor sod hefting a Boyes .55" antitank Rifle around France and Belgium in 1940 might take issue with this...
Can't find it yet but I'm sure I've read that using the flak 88 predominately in the anti tank roll required the AA follow the dial sighting system to be modified. Similar to when they tried the 3.7 in a direct fire mode it would require modifications as it had no direct fire sights and the layer/gunner were facing the wrong way. I will have a further search tonight at work.
 
.........and don't get me started on Luftwaffe Field Units.........absolute shite, but what did they expect? Well, they expected SS style fanaticism and Army style fighting capacity so the OKH was not impressed when they proved capable of neither - but then how may infantrymen could fix aircraft?
 
.........and don't get me started on Luftwaffe Field Units.........absolute shite, but what did they expect? Well, they expected SS style fanaticism and Army style fighting capacity so the OKH was not impressed when they proved capable of neither - but then how may infantrymen could fix aircraft?


To be fair, the OKH was also seriously underwhelmed by the SS, but we’re digressing, the Luftwaffe wasn’t the Army.
 
After Alamein, rarely, as the preferred operational model was to wait until you had a massive overmatch in forces before moving then, having reached said stated goals, sit back and repeat.
Great for wining 'The' Battle, not so great for exploitation… time and again the Germans were able to regroup and fight their way away to fight another day..
However they couldn't really run very far could they? How many Hun in the bag in Tunisia? I'd rather have Monty and a 3-1 superiority than pull another Goose Green out of the bag!
 
I recall reading that the UK started the war with NCO lead platoons and Germany with Officer lead platoons
The Germans swapped because of the manpower issue. I dont recall reading why the British changed post Dunkirk
I m inclined towards a theory that
A) With the rapid expansion of the army more LT were required to stream into company command and higher and this was the simplest method of garnering experience for junior officers
B) Losses in Junior officers were so high it was the only way of ensuring someone was around for Captaincy
Frankly we would have kept WO's and NCO's running platoons if it hadn't been for the volunteers of Canloan god bless them!
 
The idea of back engineering a T 34 was considered by the Germans but ran into a major problem which hasn't been mentioned here that I can see.

The power plant for the T 34 was a V 12 diesel engine made mostly from aluminium. The Germans had no equivalent engine nor the ability to manufacture aluminium engine blocks from scratch.

By the time you've worked out the design problems of getting a Maybach engine to fit, you may as well design a new tank from the ground up utilising the good features found on the T 34.

If the Germans had noted the somewhat rougher finish on the T 34 and moved away from over engineering the Panther to making it easier to produce that might have had some effect on the numbers available to them.

A Swiis watch is a lovely thing to have but if it has a life expectancy of a couple of weeks then twenty Timexes is the way to go.

I believe that some metallic components on aircraft of the time reacted badly with other ones. But if you're only looking to get a few days flying time before it is destroyed or otherwise bent why bother?

A bit of a problem with modern restorations of vintage aircraft.:(
 
Similar to when they tried the 3.7 in a direct fire mode it would require modifications as it had no direct fire sights and the layer/gunner were facing the wrong way. I will have a further search tonight at work.

But it did, there was a telescope/periscope combination on the mount for the gunner, and at least pre-war there was training for Atk work.

OVERLORD'S BLOG: The British 88?

The main reason why you don't see 3.7" commonly being used DF is that it is an anti-aircraft gun, so should be shooting down aircraft. Unlike the Germans, our Atk guns were perfectly good enough to smash German panzers.
 
The idea of back engineering a T 34 was considered by the Germans but ran into a major problem which hasn't been mentioned here that I can see.

The power plant for the T 34 was a V 12 diesel engine made mostly from aluminium. The Germans had no equivalent engine nor the ability to manufacture aluminium engine blocks from scratch.

By the time you've worked out the design problems of getting a Maybach engine to fit, you may as well design a new tank from the ground up utilising the good features found on the T 34.

If the Germans had noted the somewhat rougher finish on the T 34 and moved away from over engineering the Panther to making it easier to produce that might have had some effect on the numbers available to them.

A Swiis watch is a lovely thing to have but if it has a life expectancy of a couple of weeks then twenty Timexes is the way to go.

I believe that some metallic components on aircraft of the time reacted badly with other ones. But if you're only looking to get a few days flying time before it is destroyed or otherwise bent why bother?

A bit of a problem with modern restorations of vintage aircraft.:(


The T-34 was design for mass production, and even them, the Russians made it ever cheaper and cheerful. Why two headlights? One will do. Why dress welds?

From Zologas book.

For comparison, a Tiger was hand built by skilled machinists and fitters, superbly finished - and took 300,000 man hours.

1529694259101.png
 
You are being a bit vague here. What is "bollocks"? That the UK ever received samples of the T-34 and KV at the time, that there were ever any engineering studies being conducted into what would be involved in producing them in the UK, or are you simply saying it would not have been a practical idea? In the case of the latter I think I've already outlined in a previous post why it would have been unlikely to have been seen as practical.

Sorry if I was unclear, I meant the concept that the British were ever going to build the T34 and KV series.

Any contemporary records of British evaluations of the T-34 and KV would be very interesting both for the information they recorded on these tanks as well as what it might tell us about what the British thought to be important in tank design at the time as opposed to post-war retrospective evaluations which may be coloured by subsequent experience.

I agree this conversation has reminded me that I should look them up at some point. I've found pictures of a T-34 at MVEE (with a TOG 2 in the background :D) in 1954.

The power plant for the T 34 was a V 12 diesel engine made mostly from aluminium. The Germans had no equivalent engine nor the ability to manufacture aluminium engine blocks from scratch.

Cracking, a nice light soft metal that contributed to the shitty reliability of the T-34. Especially that gearbox.
 
But it did, there was a telescope/periscope combination on the mount for the gunner, and at least pre-war there was training for Atk work.

OVERLORD'S BLOG: The British 88?

The main reason why you don't see 3.7" commonly being used DF is that it is an anti-aircraft gun, so should be shooting down aircraft. Unlike the Germans, our Atk guns were perfectly good enough to smash German panzers.

From mid war, British 3.7’s were often used as indirect fire artillery
 

New posts

Top