Posted on 10/23/2014 8:09:23 AM PDT by C19fan
The Ronson nickname refers to the tank survivability, not crew survivability, as far as I know.
Incorrect. This is one of the hardest myths to debunk, since it seems stuck in peoples' psyche.
The German tank line all used a single family of Maybach V-12 gasoline (petrol) engines, increasing in displacement as the tanks got bigger.
It's easy enough to look up.
The Americans, with the M4A6 diesel-engine Sherman, used more diesel tanks than the Germans. It's the Russians that went big on diesel tank engines during WWII.
Tank destroyer battalions had the job of killing tanks. These TDs were fast, lightly armored, packed large caliber, high velocity guns to engage the enemy tanks. The TDs were in their element when in ambush positions that allowed them to shoot and scoot. However, in a head-to-head fight, their thin armor put them at huge risk.
As things turned out, the Army's two tier doctrine did not work. Tanks were used more and more for tank vs. tank fights along with infantry support. Because they “looked” like tanks, Army commanders used TDs as if they were tanks. The TDs with their thin armor were not suited to the task and the TDs got killed in tank vs. TD fights. Post-war, the Army discarded the tank destroyer concept and the tank was to provide infantry support as well as doing tank vs. tank fighting.
That is, starting with the MkIII, their first true medium tank. I don't want to get tripped up with generalities. The earlier tanks used 4 and 6 cylinder gasoline engines.
“The fact that we put our guys in those things to go against what the Germans had was nothing less than disgraceful.”
Logistics in part dictated the decision to use a medium tank like the Sherman. You have to be able to transport heavy tanks to use them.
The Shermans didn’t fight alone. We had M36 tank destroyers that look very much like a Sherman but which were armed with a high velocity 90mm gun. That gun could put a hole in a Tiger or a Panther. And M2 90mm anti-aircraft guns were used for shooting them as well.
Your post is a succinct and well written summary of US tank strategy and findings during WWII. Everything worked fine when used as defined. TDs killed a lot of German tanks. The problem was that war was messy. You can’t always deploy the right tool out of your Swiss army knife, even when given the vast resources of the US Army.
The Germans also had a tank destroyer problem. Whereas, US tank destroyers “looked like tanks” as you say, they had a turret and mounted the latest AT gun but with open tops and light armor, the Germans went a different route. The Germans found all those big and expensive tanks they made, the ones the movies love, well, big and expensive. To bump up production in an attempt to match the allies, and try and give everyone an armored vehicle that needed one, they took tank chassis and built up the armor sides and plopped in a gun on a pintle mount. This resembles what the Confederates did with their ironclads in the US Civil War, vs. the turreted monitors of the north.
They did away with expensive turrets and turning gear, making the vehicles cheaper. They turned out tons of open-topped and closed variants, some for infantry support, others for anti-tank use. What they weren’t supposed to be were tanks, i.e. blitzkrieg inducing offensive gear meant to tear up an enemy’s flank.
Just like the Americans, the German crews used anything with a gun as a tank, and found that the limited gun traverse and tactical vulnerability caused problems. Just as an example, the Hetzer, a reasonably useful vehicle cobbled up from an obsolete Czech tank chassis had three of the four crew sitting in line behind each other, for a very cramped and poor communication situation.
Both the Germans and Russians played with the TD concept a bit after the war, but for the most part came to the same main battle tank conclusion as the Americans.
Thank you MasterGunner. Excellent post, and much appreciated!
“...found that the limited gun traverse and tactical vulnerability caused problems...”
The Nashorn and Elefant SPGs at Kursk and other Eastern front battles are a good example of what you say...
Your Kursk example is correct. An analogy would be an unbalanced infantry regiment, with too many snipers and not enough general combat platoons. It would work fine in some situations, but your enemy would figure out your vulnerabilities and take advantage of them.
RE Kursk:
I seem to recall reading (don’t remember the source, but will research it) that Russian infantry units SWARMED over the Nashorn and Elefant crews and basically destroyed them before they could make any difference in the fight. Open-topped vehicles, no crew protection from air, artillery, morters, etc...
When the Nazis lost the air—they lost the war. Should have invested in more Me 262s. But, after D-Day the war was lost for them. Should have given up—Generals should have assassinated Hitler and given in. The real war was with Russia—and it was a bloodbath—Lord, let us never face a WW III.
The PzKw VI Ausf. E (Tiger I) was very heavy at 56 tons. It had a KwK 36 88mm L56 gun. Recovery of knocked out Tigers usually required another Tiger to recover them and so many tanks that should have been fixed and returned to service had to be destroyed in place.
The PzKw VI Ausf. B (Tiger II) was even heavier and larger than the Tiger I. The Tiger II up-gunned to the KwK43 88mm L71 gun. Weight increased to 75 tons and the tank's great weight hampered mobility and recovery when broken down or damaged.
Total production for PzKw V (all versions) was about 6,000; production for all PzKw VI Ausf. E was 1,347; production for all PzKw VI Ausf. B was 492. These were Germany's best tanks and total production was 7,839. In comparison, America not only produced all manner of armor for its own use, but for its Commonwealth allies and Russia. America buried its enemies under a flood of production.
I was a tank commander on an M48A3 Patton tank in Vietnam. It was an excellent tank combining the very good aspects of mobility, firepower and armor protection. Maintenence was fairly simple and the whole power pack (engine and trans) could be swapped out in an hour or so.
Three seperate tank models, the M-46, M-47, and M48 were designated Patton tanks. The M-48 series Patton was the most refined and up to date.
My kid loves military movies. At what age should kids see this movie?
“..hould have invested in more Me 262s. ...”
Once again, the hand of the Mad Bavarian Corporal intervened; I remember an interview with Adolph Galland; he was an ME-262 jockey and said Hitler had ordered them turned into “fighter-bombers” which of course slowed them down considerably.
Hell, that thing was the first jet air superiority fighter... and they had the Arado 234 “Blitz Bomber” already, so that was a stupid move.
Interesting side note: Galland was, later on, head of the Argentinian Air Force, equipped with Gloster Meteors (British jet fighter, came in late at the end of the war). having flown both of those first generation jets, the interviewer asked him what he thought would have been the result had they met up.
He said: “Our ME-262 would have wiped up the sky with them...”
Which goes back to what DesertRhino said earlier, up-thread:
“Germans are something else. They either do things perfectly, or they use their intelligence to screw it up in a manner that leaves everyone in wonder....”
“...lowly Wikipedia...”
Haha! Wiki gets it right sometimes...
“... The PzKw VI Ausf. E (Tiger I) ...”
SS Captain Michael Wittman did some serious damage with one of those... at Villers Bocage, right after D-Day. He took out some 14 British tanks, 15 personnel carriers along with 2 anti-tank guns within the space of 15 minutes.
“...America buried its enemies under a flood of production....”
True that... saw a film clip of B-24 Liberator production a couple nights back on History channel. They were cranking those things out every couple hours.
Could we do that level of war again? I don’t know...
Hey, it served Bogie OK in Sahara. ;)
They were successful only because the Germans tried to shoot them down, and that's where we won a huge victory. Germany wasted 30% of its military effort trying to stop the bombers, which in the process led to us shooting down their fighters in the air.
It's not a comment on the courage of the British crews, any more than saying Market Garden was useless. Strategically, it didn't accomplish a thing.
I reiterate that German production increased in no small part due to the fact that they imported millions of slave laborers. When your life is on the line, you tend to work pretty hard---or hard enough to stay alive.
“R” rated. Violence. Not any graphic sex. Language bad. Oh, and did I say violence? Very much so...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.