Fun thought experiment: modern jet, old war

[Nickdfresh]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
LOL, then you could be Australia that buys a bunch of them, can't drove them 2,000 miles to get them to where they need to be, and then can't drag them through the train tunnels to get 100 miles inland.

We are seriously dumb...


I'm not sure, but there aren't many alternatives. The German Leopard 2 will have the same issues (the M-1 Abrams main rival for contracts). Not sure if Australia's previous tank, the Leopard 1 fared much better on rail cars. But its armor certainly wouldn't hold up against roadside bombs like the M-1's did. And they certainly wouldn't do well against even Indonesian antitank weapons and tanks...

 

[Wolf359]

Boy we sure went far afield of the original concept. Anyway, Panzer V was the Panther, not Tiger.

And if you're talking kill ratios, that includes action on the eastern front where lots of T-34 and older light tanks were destroyed earlier in the war. Stalin was just as bad as Hitler initially in the war, he demanded immediate attacks so it was easy for the Germans to destroy one small force, then pivot and destroy the next. After Stalin stopped and let his general marshal his forces, they did a little better.

Anyway, this time travel is always fun but even Stephen Hawkings says it's impossible. I think he even had a party for time travelers where he posted the date after the party and no one showed up.

 

[Nickdfresh]

Originally Posted By: Wolf359
Boy we sure went far afield of the original concept. Anyway, Panzer V was the Panther, not Tiger.


You are correct sir. I was off the top of my head and confused as the Tiger was in development prewar, so I always assume since it came before the Panther that it is V. But the Tiger is Panzer Mk VI...

Quote:
And if you're talking kill ratios, that includes action on the eastern front where lots of T-34 and older light tanks were destroyed earlier in the war. Stalin was just as bad as Hitler initially in the war, he demanded immediate attacks so it was easy for the Germans to destroy one small force, then pivot and destroy the next. After Stalin stopped and let his general marshal his forces, they did a little better.


Agreed generally speaking. Many early war tanks were obsolete on all sides. The Soviet T-26 was hopelessly obsolete and it was the majority of the "thousands of Soviet tanks destroyed". The T-34, at the beginning, suffered from teething problems and many were lost initially due to mechanical failures leading the Germans to underestimate and discount them despite their captured examples' excellent armor and guns.

Stalin also refused to put his forces on alert and wouldn't believe the Germans were about to launch Barbarossa despite repeated warnings from a vast array of intelligence sources, even spies in the Werhmact. His commanders in Poland were screaming the Wehrmacht was about to attack in a major offensive but he dismissed it out of the egotistical notion that Hitler would never fool him regarding the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. But he did. Stalin threatened to execute any Red Army commander that put their unit on alert. Many did anyways by "conducting live fire war games".

Antony Beevor's Stalingrad is the source for that...

Quote:
Anyway, this time travel is always fun but even Stephen Hawkings says it's impossible. I think he even had a party for time travelers where he posted the date after the party and no one showed up.


I think I saw something on PBS Nova once with a theory about it being possible with the catch that you have to set it up in the present, but there could be a wormhole built to bring things from the future. Physics is all above my pay grade...

 

[Wolf359]

The whole concept of tank on tank warfare was generally to avoid that because you'd lose lots of tanks and they were expensive. Those are the encounters history buffs tend to fixate on, but not something that tankers wanted. The whole theory was to use them to attack weaker enemy positions and bypass stronger fortification, surround them and let other forces finish them off.

Anyway, the strength of the panzer division was in the numbers. While Stalin had lots more tanks, they were spread out amoung infantry units, not concentrated like panzer units. The T-34 and KV-1/KV-2s were hard to knock out, which is why a lot of 88's had to do the job. But they didn't encounter that many of them initially.

We could also talk about battleships, there were only a few battleship vs battleship encounters, they were enormously expensive and didn't end up doing much for the war as air power replaced them. The two that Hitler built didn't end up doing much, Bismark was sunk after it was slowed down by planes. Japan actually had the world's greatest battleships with 18" guns, but both were sunk by air power.

 

[fdcg27]

If you look at the history, Japan's great battleships were lost more due to poor naval command from the top down than due to their obsolescence as military hardware.
A good battleship in a task force with good air defense was a formidable force in raining explosive shells on positions pretty far inland at far lower cost in both dollars and manpower than raining bombs from aircraft.
Deployed properly, Japan's battleships would have made the island hopping Pacific front untenable for American forces.
Of course, a couple of new design weapons deployed by a couple of B-29s would have ended the war in the Pacific in any event and there were more on deck if needed.

 

[pandus13]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
...
Of course, a couple of new design weapons deployed by a couple of B-29s would have ended the war in the Pacific in any event and there were more on deck if needed.

I think they din't even needed any of the nuclear weapons...
just the "dam breaker" would have been enough....

Didn't they end the war also by finishing creating a conventional bomb almost as powerful as a nuclear one?

 

[Panzerman]

I don't know where you guys are getting your information, just take a look at the Battle of Kursk to see the kill ratio of German tanks. The Sherman was useless against German tanks except for the outdated Panzer IV. Why they had to upgrade the gun in the Firefly Sherman's. It was noted as a Irony that the Sherman was called the Sherman who was so good at burning things because they often overheated and caught on fire and burned up.
German Jadgpanzer towards the end of the war was equipped with a 122 mm cannon that could shoot tanks 2000 meters out which was well out of range for anything Russian or American. The British and French tanks we're a joke.
Tell me how a Jadgpanzer was not a match for any other tank when it can hit you before you are in range, low profile harder to hit and faster.
At Normandy Two Tiger Tanks destroyed 22 Allied tanks in one firefight. So I don't know where you guys are getting this Sherman's were awesome.
They were cheap mass produced tanks that only won by sheer overwhelming numbers. They were high profile easy targets and death traps for the crew.
My whole point was the Germans should mass produced the Jadgpanzer because contrary to your beliefs it was a suitable tank v.s tank adversary and spent all the resources they saved on Tiger tanks for jet bombers and fighters which would have made a bigger difference. Look at tank battles statistics to back me.

 

[Panzerman]

Battle of Kursk. The Germans list 60 tanks, the Russians lost 822 but it was still considered a Russian victory because of the outnumbered ratio.
Look up horrors of the Sherman Tank and then tell me how awesome the Sherman was.
Stop reading U.S Army propaganda- it was a death trap and they knew it.

 

[Panzerman]

University of Illinois States the Sherman Tank did well against lesser tanks like the Panzer IV but at Normandy they against Panther and Tiger tanks they lost 580% higher losses than the German tanks.
That ought to bust your bubble.

 

[Nickdfresh]

Read some books, get some context, and then get back to us, "Panzerman". In any case, this is getting a bit silly. But here's some info on the Battle of Arracourt:

Quote:
On 18 September, with the weather deteriorating and heavy fog settling in, U.S. tactical air forces were unable to locate and destroy advancing German armored units. However, while shielding the German advance from air observation and attack, the weather also handicapped the 5th Panzer Army. Poor visibility combined with a lack of motorized scouting and reconnaissance units in the new "Panzer Army" formations prevented German armored forces from properly coordinating their attack, which soon degenerated into a disjointed series of intermittent thrusts.[3]

The first German attack, mounted by the 111th Panzer Brigade, fell on the 2nd Mechanized Cavalry Group and the 4th Armored Division's Reserve Command at Lunéville on 18 September 1944.[3] In sharp fighting, the understrength U.S. forces, augmented by reinforcements from both the U.S. 4th and 6th Armored Divisions, managed to beat back the attack, destroying two dozen panzers.[3] Generals Wood and Eddy, believing the Lunéville engagement to be only a local counter-attack, initially decided to proceed with a planned corps offensive;[3] however, reports of increased German activity throughout the night of 18–19 September led to postponement of the attack.[3] The Fifth Panzer Army, having failed to take Lunéville quickly, simply bypassed it, and began moving north to strike at CCA's exposed position in and around Arracourt. The battle that resulted was one of the largest armored engagements ever fought on the Western Front.[3]

Combat Command A's dispositions around Arracourt consisted of a thinly-held salient, using an extended outpost line of armored infantry and engineers supported by tanks, tank destroyers, and artillery.[3] At 0800 on 19 September, company-sized elements of the 113th Panzer Brigade penetrated CCA outposts on the east and south faces of CCA's salient.[3] Two tank destroyer platoons and a medium tank company engaged the panzers in a running fight that extended into the vicinity of CCA's headquarters, where a battalion of M7 Priest self-propelled howitzers engaged the panzers with close-range direct fire.[3]

Poor tactical deployment of the German tanks soon exposed their weaker side armor to Shermans which flanked and knocked out 11 panzers using the fog as cover. As 5th Panzer Army was not equipped with integral scouting units, the Germans were forced to advance blindly against the Americans, whose positions were shrouded in thick morning fog.[3] Reinforced with additional tank, infantry, and cavalry elements, and aided by the Germans' persistence in repeating the same plan of attack, CCA was able to locate and prepare for battle on ground of its own choosing.[3] A combination of concealed defensive positions, command of local terrain elevations, and adroit fire-and-maneuver tactics allowed CCA to negate the superior armor and firepower of the German AFVs.[3][7] While the advancing Germans were continually exposed to American fire, U.S. armor was able to maneuver into favorable defensive positions, staying hidden until the German armor had closed to within effective range then inflicting heavy casualties. The fog that had allowed German forces tactical surprise and protection from U.S. air attack also negated the superior range of their tank guns.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Arracourt#Battle

...

 

[Nickdfresh]

Originally Posted By: Panzerman
University of Illinois States the Sherman Tank did well against lesser tanks like the Panzer IV but at Normandy they against Panther and Tiger tanks they lost 580% higher losses than the German tanks.
That ought to bust your bubble.


Post the link!

Oh, BTW, did you know a Panther tank's side could be penetrated by a 40mm AA BOFOR gun with AP ammo?

 

[Panzerman]

The allies destroyed more German tanks with aircraft then with Sherman tanks.
Which just gets back to my main point air superiority was so important to the Germans more than tanks.

 

[Nickdfresh]

Originally Posted By: Panzerman
The allies destroyed more German tanks with aircraft then with Sherman tanks.


FALSE: It's a myth that the Allies relied on airpower to kill tanks, because it was extremely difficult to hit tanks from the air and the Germans didn't make it easy for them to do so. Very few tanks were destroyed by aircraft. Allied airpower was far more effective at destroying German Army trucks/lorries in columns and deprived the panzers of their logistical support. They also dramatically slowed the German advance to the coast after D-Day...

Quote:
Which just gets back to my main point air superiority was so important to the Germans more than tanks.


It was important to everyone. But Germany was incapable of producing enough of anything given their problems with industrial expansion and the fact that they were under strategic bombing...

 

[Nickdfresh]

Originally Posted By: Panzerman
I don't know where you guys are getting your information, just take a look at the Battle of Kursk to see the kill ratio of German tanks. The Sherman was useless against German tanks except for the outdated Panzer IV. Why they had to upgrade the gun in the Firefly Sherman's. It was noted as a Irony that the Sherman was called the Sherman who was so good at burning things because they often overheated and caught on fire and burned up.
German Jadgpanzer towards the end of the war was equipped with a 122 mm cannon that could shoot tanks 2000 meters out which was well out of range for anything Russian or American. The British and French tanks we're a joke.
Tell me how a Jadgpanzer was not a match for any other tank when it can hit you before you are in range, low profile harder to hit and faster.
At Normandy Two Tiger Tanks destroyed 22 Allied tanks in one firefight. So I don't know where you guys are getting this Sherman's were awesome.
They were cheap mass produced tanks that only won by sheer overwhelming numbers. They were high profile easy targets and death traps for the crew.
My whole point was the Germans should mass produced the Jadgpanzer because contrary to your beliefs it was a suitable tank v.s tank adversary and spent all the resources they saved on Tiger tanks for jet bombers and fighters which would have made a bigger difference. Look at tank battles statistics to back me.


Um, oh boy. The Sherman was named after a Civil War general like most other US AFVs such as the Lee, Grant, Sheridan, Jackson, and Stuart. You're referring to dark jokes referring to the Sherman as "the Tommie Cooker" or Ronson (lighter). The early Shermans had problems "brewing up" because of poor ammo stowage, the problem was largely solved with wet stowage using water jackets to dampen sparking.

A Sherman tanker was more likely to die from a landmine, artillery strike, or from German infantry using AT guns and Panzerfausts/shrecks than from enemy tank or TD fire...

The M-4 Sherman was primarily designed to kill people and to attack targets in the enemy rear, which it did very well with the 75mm "short gun" that fired an excellent HE round. It was upgraded with the deadly 17-pounder in British service and the Americans produced the final M-4A3E8 (76mm) HVSS version that was used into Korea and bettered the Soviet T-34/85 there.

Initially, the US relied on tank destroyers to fight tanks and actually wanted the Shermans to avoid 'slugging matches' of tank vs. tank battles. They grudgingly upgraded the Shermans with higher velocity guns and began work on heavy tanks such as the M-26/46 Pershing/Patton tank...

Quote:
German Jadgpanzer towards the end of the war was equipped with a 122 mm cannon that could shoot tanks 2000 meters out which was well out of range for anything Russian or American. The British and French tanks we're a joke.


If French tanks "were a joke" how come the Germans used so many of them?

I think you mean the "Jagdtiger" actually, and it was a 128mm gun. Germany made a whopping 80 or so, against about 50,000 Allied tanks *****. They were complex, unreliable and absurdly expensive and a very stupid design actually that was simply a waste of resources...

But of course, the US had it's own silly tanks designs such as the T-28 Super Heavy Tank project. But we had to ship them overseas as we were winning the war. The Germans didn't have that winning problem of shipping things over the sea.

 

[DoubleWasp]

Kursk was considered a Russian victory because the Germans walked away from it. Russia had too much cannon fodder to throw at the game.

One mission in an F15E? Waste of time. No game changing ground mission. No game changing air-air mission. No mention of 2017 intelligence. Blow up probably less than a single bomber group.

Any psychological effect would be lost as the event was forgotten and chalked up to exaggeration or instrument error. Would just become a pilot ghost story.

If I were in that position, I'd keep the thing on the ground and have the men give as !much hands on instruction on jet fighter development. They would learn quite a few significant things.

I'd arm it with heat seeking missiles, so those could be studied as well.

Probably wouldn't make a difference for WW2, but the Russians would learn quite a few bad lessons in Korea years later.