Historical talk (again)

The place if you want to talk about historical facts. No politics allowed!
SchlagtSieTot
Posts: 30
Joined: 27 May 2015, 05:45

Re: Historical talk (again)

Postby SchlagtSieTot » 10 Apr 2016, 19:34

About HVAP rounds, yes there was few available - but the allied didn't really have anything else to shoot them at then Panthers and Tigers, so they didn't exactly need to have an abundance. The 76mm gun wasn't useless without HVAP, just to clarify.

With the HVAP, Shermans could take out Tigers at 2 km distance. It equalized the two tanks, except the one was faster, smaller, higer ROF, stabilized gun, and a number of other edges.

German cats were so limited in numbers and the Shermans was swarming. At the beginning of the end, American and British crew were also fully experienced veterans while Germany was lacking experienced crew. This factor not only effected the German armored ranks but the army as a whole.

User avatar
Jalis
Posts: 286
Joined: 25 Nov 2014, 04:55
Location: Canada

Re: Historical talk (again)

Postby Jalis » 10 Apr 2016, 23:00

theorical penetration, is a bit pointless.

IIRC first 76 mm Sherman bataillon was operational in France by august 1944. Logistic had show in december, near 95 % shells this bataillon fired were HE. Conclusion ?

I dont know, except apcbc-he-T and hvap penetration is more important in games than it was on battlefield. Victory key was elsewhere.

PIV and tiger 40 km/h... on highway after gaining speed. Crosscountry, turn right then left, then cross a trench and it s an other matter for underpowered panzer like tiger and PIV H were. Probably here panther was more quick ... with a skilled driver.

Last I had read " if german had built lighter tanks" ect ... They could have built has many tanks you want. There was no more oïl for them, no skilled crews. A panzer without oïl what is it ?

Well, ok, ok, at Hollywood a tank can win the war even it cant move. It just need Brad Pitt as tank commander.

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 2517
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Blitzkrieg Mod 4.9.5 Patch

Postby Warhawks97 » 12 Apr 2016, 00:32

Der Major wrote:
3) "deployed in bigger numbers"... you mean actual deployement OR Produced? if the later... at the end of the war they had more AFVs (StuGs and Panzers) than tank crews... the man power was a far bigger problem than the amount of produced tanks for them...


And thats a funny fact. In the first years (till approx 42, but especially 40) they had more crews and men available that finished training (refering to pilots) as airplanes produced per month. In 44 production of tanks and figher planes got increased by a lot (even at cost of cancelled truck, bomber etc production). That was achieved by changed production. More factory plants got involved, other stuff cancalled (trucks, bombers as i said) and also simplified production. In fact it was before 44 when germans started to introduce versions of airplaned/tanks that could be mass produced. Take a sample the M109. Even the G version always had lots of special subversions. The K was the first that was completely desingned for pure mass production.

But also in factories worked so far only "slaves" which also was a reason that tanks were cheap in money (doesnt mean cheap in production effort, materials etc).



Also the Panther was the most produced german tank in 44 (even more than stugs). Just the germans had large problems to keep all the tanks running at the same time. In a paper ive spotted once had been the ammount combat ready tanks in several tank units. Often this ammount of combat ready tanks was often not higher than 60%, not seldomly less.

The logistic and ammount of oil was cruical for the victory of allied and the endless production capabilties with huge factories.


XAHTEP39 wrote:Der Major, it is Interesting, what are the disadvantages were late German tanks (Pz. IV - V - VIE - VIB) ?


The supply was the main problem. In the german forces there had been 1 logistic solider for 4 soldiers at the frontline. The US had for each soldier at the frontline approx 4 men in logistics. They simply could maintain and increase the supply. They also build more or less the entire russian railway and also build all the trucks for russia (millions. Russian didnt produce any real logistical stuff and no trucks afaik).

And the nonstop allied air raids crippled the logistics further. Railways, truck convoys, frontline workshops and lots of other stuff got destroyed which is necessary to keep tanks and spare parts in supply.



And about disadvantages of armor you might take a look at BHN scale of armor plates. Cons and pros of hard/soft steel.

Looking purerly at the design etc i would say that the Panther had no real disadvantage. The fuel consumption was not higher as that of a sherman (depending on version even less as those). "weak side armor" maybe but it was not weaker as those of other tanks (tiger was simply an exception with its side armor).

The long barrel was sometimes a disadvantage in the towns and hegdrows at the western front.

@all dudes: Stop that 76 sherman vs Tiger stuff. srsly. Till august all tigers in the west were lost already. But first in august the 76 came in larger numbers. 76 shermans actually never met tigers. US tank crews faced 3 tigers in total in france and just in one shermans battled a tiger. The British troops faced the majority of tigers in combat in france.

Armacalic
Posts: 125
Joined: 09 Dec 2014, 02:04

Re: Blitzkrieg Mod 4.9.5 Patch

Postby Armacalic » 12 Apr 2016, 01:38

Warhawks97 wrote:@all dudes: Stop that 76 sherman vs Tiger stuff. srsly. Till august all tigers in the west were lost already. But first in august the 76 came in larger numbers. 76 shermans actually never met tigers. US tank crews faced 3 tigers in total in france and just in one shermans battled a tiger. The British troops faced the majority of tigers in combat in france.


One thing is discussing historical facts, and the other is discussing likely scenarios. I believe most people already know of that little fact above. But that doesn't mean that people can't or shouldn't draw conclusion from the facts they have.

Like measuring up the average penetration of the 76mm/3'' cannon against the average thickness Tiger I's armor, giving the a good chance that the M4(76)s, and any other vehicle equipped with said guns for that matter, could beat a Tiger I from the front at meaningful ranges.

User avatar
Der Major
Posts: 19
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 18:04
Location: Deutschland

Re: Historical talk (again)

Postby Der Major » 12 Apr 2016, 06:01

SchlagtSieTot wrote:About HVAP rounds, yes there was few available - but the allied didn't really have anything else to shoot them at then Panthers and Tigers, so they didn't exactly need to have an abundance. The 76mm gun wasn't useless without HVAP, just to clarify.

With the HVAP, Shermans could take out Tigers at 2 km distance. It equalized the two tanks, except the one was faster, smaller, higer ROF, stabilized gun, and a number of other edges.

yes but HVAP was reserved for the TDs... as i said: crews could be happy if they got 3 or so... then count in the huhge amounr of times a crew mistook a Panzer III or IV for a Tiger... also "Faster"... well.. the Tiger was better cross country then the pre HVSS Shermans... so if we go through terrain.. nope... and the stabilized gun iirc wasnt all that helpful... took a time to load up... only limited time of use... useful only at slow speed... was more used by the gunner to keep his sight on target

also they did have other stuff... solid shots and APCBC e.g. but those had shattering issues... reducing the penetration from over 1km away to mere 50 yards

German cats were so limited in numbers and the Shermans was swarming. At the beginning of the end, American and British crew were also fully experienced veterans while Germany was lacking experienced crew. This factor not only effected the German armored ranks but the army as a whole.

Panther only was the second most common tank of hte germans in 1944... and iirc they had a few veteran crews from africa but alas the US still had lots of green crews

PIV and tiger 40 km/h... on highway after gaining speed. Crosscountry, turn right then left, then cross a trench and it s an other matter for underpowered panzer like tiger and PIV H were. Probably here panther was more quick ... with a skilled driver.

yes that's road speed... Tigers offroad speed still was between 15 to 20km/h... and that is still average to better than most other WWII tanks

IIRC first 76 mm Sherman bataillon was operational in France by august 1944. Logistic had show in december, near 95 % shells this bataillon fired were HE. Conclusion ?

well tbf the brits faced most of the german tanks (alas before Caen) and the US were fine off (despite them wanting us to believe that there was a tiger around every corner) and the brits had their 6 and 17 pounders

Often this ammount of combat ready tanks was often not higher than 60%, not seldomly less.

just that this ended up being roughly the overall ready rate for all Panzers

Like measuring up the average penetration of the 76mm/3'' cannon against the average thickness Tiger I's armor, giving the a good chance that the M4(76)s, and any other vehicle equipped with said guns for that matter, could beat a Tiger I from the front at meaningful ranges.

really only with HVAP and see above... that was mostly reserved for the M10 and M18 TDs with Sherman crews being lucky if they got 3

User avatar
Jalis
Posts: 286
Joined: 25 Nov 2014, 04:55
Location: Canada

Re: Historical talk (again)

Postby Jalis » 12 Apr 2016, 11:51

Der Major wrote:

IIRC first 76 mm Sherman bataillon was operational in France by august 1944. Logistic had show in december, near 95 % shells this bataillon fired were HE. Conclusion ?

well tbf the brits faced most of the german tanks (alas before Caen) and the US were fine off (despite them wanting us to believe that there was a tiger around every corner) and the brits had their 6 and 17 pounders



August to december, perhaps we have to remind august events. For exemple, Falaise Pocket in the west and Livron bridge sabotage on the South. With such huge, heavy material and vehicles looses, what target for tanks ? Germans have been kicked out from most of France at this period as fast as french in 1940. Bagration consequences in the east was probably even worst.

Armacalic
Posts: 125
Joined: 09 Dec 2014, 02:04

Re: Historical talk (again)

Postby Armacalic » 12 Apr 2016, 19:07

Der Major wrote:
Like measuring up the average penetration of the 76mm/3'' cannon against the average thickness Tiger I's armor, giving the a good chance that the M4(76)s, and any other vehicle equipped with said guns for that matter, could beat a Tiger I from the front at meaningful ranges.

really only with HVAP and see above... that was mostly reserved for the M10 and M18 TDs with Sherman crews being lucky if they got 3


Not really "just" with HVAP, the penetration tables for the 50% success rates are not there to make the Sherman not look bad, but to let the crews know that at least half of their shots made with the M62 ammunition will punch through as much as 106mm of armor at 90º, range 1000m for example. (Granted, one wants the shell to hit at a slight angle because a direct 90º hit could result in shattering, regardless of type of shell.)

A 50% chance that the M79 ammunition will penetrate as much as 107mm of armor doesn't sound too shabby, when it's average penetration is 92mm...

What? "The Tiger's armor is 100mm at the front." Yes, my dear Panzerphile, you are correct that the Tiger I's hull armor was at most 100mm. But it wasn't 100% 100 em-em. The lower glacis, the driver's slit and the ball machine gun were usually less armored and irregularities in material, wear and tear reduced nominal armor. Even the weakest ammunition for the 76mm Sherman had reasonable chances to go through the front at 1000m.

Der Major wrote:the US were fine off (despite them wanting us to believe that there was a tiger around every corner)


Rather than them wanting everyone to believe, they fell prey to the rumors of the Tiger tank. Quoting Nicholas "The Chieftain" Moran.

"(...) -Everything is a Tiger!- And here's the problem, if you look at a Panzer IV with the blocky super structure and the muzzle break, you think it's a Tiger because it's the thing you're most afraid of; and when the thing is aiming at you, you aren't going to be sitting there taking copious detailed notes."

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3200
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: Historical talk (again)

Postby Tiger1996 » 12 Apr 2016, 20:22

Saying that; "theoretically according to some accurately summed math values.. that the US 76s 'could' actually penetrate the Tiger's tank frontal armor very reliably even from far distances as well" is exactly like saying for example that also "theoretically" the IS-2 is in fact able to penetrate the front of a Maus so reliably from whatever range!
I mean that Hawks actually mentioned a very interesting fact up there.. that the US tanks almost never really fought a Tiger at any possible historical point! Except in movies and games for sure. The Americans always relied just mainly on arty and airstrikes.. nothing more or even less... Plus that the US 76mm guns were produced only starting from 1944 by the time of the Normandy landing has been launched. These guns are much newer than the Tiger of which is apparently 2 years older... The reputation of this tank was obviously represented, been created or strongly qualified only BEFORE 1944! Because as Jalis said.. by reaching 1944 the Nazis downfall had already begun due to several reasons. And even Wittmann btw died on August too.. it must have been such a very bad month for the Germans.
So, my point here is.. if anyone is srsly looking for the Tiger's tank best/top period... Then just take a look at it on 1942 when it's first appeared in combat, there.. it was truly a nightmare as it has also been the best tank on the battleground ever for quite some time ahead until late 1943! Which is not a short time anyhow during such a deadly kind of war.
Note that it would be also nonsense to ever manage comparing a 1945 tank such as the Pershing with a 1942 tank like the Tiger! That's why many believe that the Tiger was simply just an early unexpected engineering masterpiece...

Armacalic
Posts: 125
Joined: 09 Dec 2014, 02:04

Re: Historical talk (again)

Postby Armacalic » 12 Apr 2016, 20:51

Tiger1996 wrote:I mean that Hawks actually mentioned a very interesting fact up there.. that the US tanks almost never really fought a Tiger at any possible historical point! Except in movies and games for sure. The Americans always relied just mainly on arty and airstrikes.. nothing more or even less... Plus that the US 76mm guns were produced only starting from 1944 by the time of the Normandy landing has been launched. These guns are much newer than the Tiger of which is apparently 2 years older...


Meet the M4 Sherman (QF 76), date August 1942. From The Chieftain's Hatch

3inch (76.2mm) gun
The pilot of the weapon, named 3 inch Gun T10, was ready by September 1941.

M4E6, later known as M4A1 (76), May 1943. (Granted, production actually started on June of the same year.)

76mm Gun M1, then gun used for every M4 (76), already in use by 1943.

It's literally not like the Tiger caught the americans by surprise. But they'd already made too many 75mm Shermans to leave behind.

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3200
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: Historical talk (again)

Postby Tiger1996 » 12 Apr 2016, 21:20

I am not arguing when exactly the US 76 guns were made.. nor I am arguing about when the Tigers were exactly made either! These guns might have been available earlier... Same to the Tiger, it might have also been earlier available than 1942 as well but only in the factories for testing purposes yet. However that they only fought or been truly used in combat later after a while... But anyway this is not my concern at all; as I am here arguing that the US 76s never really met a Tiger face to face excepting very few times perhaps! Of which aren't really enough to evaluate anything precisely. Developing these guns started on 1941 or even earlier but they were only used by US against Germans on 1944 when they landed in Normandy.. same to the Tiger, developing this heavy tank started on 1939 or even earlier btw... But it was only used in real combat against Russians and Brits in 1942! If u get my point.

Armacalic
Posts: 125
Joined: 09 Dec 2014, 02:04

Re: Historical talk (again)

Postby Armacalic » 12 Apr 2016, 21:31

Tiger1996 wrote:I am not arguing when exactly the US 76 guns were made.. nor I am arguing about when the Tigers were exactly made either! These guns might have been available earlier... Same to the Tiger, it might have also been earlier available than 1942 as well but only in the factories for testing purposes yet. However that they only fought or been truly used in combat later after a while... But anyway this is not my concern at all; as I am here arguing that the US 76s never really met a Tiger face to face excepting very few times perhaps! Of which aren't really enough to evaluate anything precisely. Developing these guns started on 1941 or even earlier but they were only used by US against Germans on 1944 when they landed in Normandy.. same to the Tiger, developing this heavy tank started on 1939 or even earlier btw... But it was only used in real combat against Russians and Brits in 1942! If u get my point.


Yeah, got ya. I kind of already conceded about the historical part. Right now, it's more a what if scenario of if the vehicles in question did fight against each other.

I know that historically it did not happen, but we know the specs of both to make polite guesses, don't we? :lol:

User avatar
Panzerblitz1
Team Member
Posts: 1344
Joined: 24 Nov 2014, 00:12
Location: Paris, right under the Eiffel tower.

Re: Historical talk (again)

Postby Panzerblitz1 » 13 Apr 2016, 12:47

Well the Tiger phobia wasn't a dream, and was truly very real among the allies tankers, it started in north Africa... imagine, its 1942, allies tanks were mostly equipped with 2 pdr (40mm) and 6 pdr (57mm) with an average 40mm/50mm frontal armor, and your tank commander spot for the first time the Tiger I... i mean just imagine, the gun is longer than you tank, and the shape of this tank look like the Atlantic wall fortification... the guys were shocked! shocked because they were putted in flames from far away land, and shocked that any of their guns could scratch the paint of that thing at long mid/long range, even the French 75mm anti tank gun shell who had great success on others tanks were bouncing off the Tiger hull at 50 meters range! its at that time the Tiger phobia started and begun to grow among allies tankers.

When in 1943 the British miraculously capture the Tiger I "131" in Africa and look at that thing, they were numb... what the hell is that thing? and how the F/://k they could put a gun that big? at that time put this kind of gun on a tank was a premiere, aiming optics were top notch and could engage precisely any target at 1500 meters, the deadly 8.8cm guns was already very well known by the British, especially with Rommel who used it from the very first time against British tanks with great success, the "normal" tank tactics at that time was to engage at around 800 meters max, so you imagine the engineers the first time they put their eyes of the Tiger aiming sight...

Just remember we are in 1942, and the brand new U.S. "better/greater tank" 75mm Sherman is still on the road to UK and Africa, yes to see that thing was a horrible vision for the allies, all their great expectations were trashed in a second when seeing that 60 tons thing, it was a real nightmare, they had to rethink everything, and it will cost them even more, including the brand new Sherman 75mm low velocity gun...later nicknamed "Tommy cooker"

The damage was done, and the Nazi propaganda used it intensively with good reasons, nothing could match that tank, and the allies will loose precious years to come back with better guns against the Germans cats.


<<Over time, the fearsome and intimidating reputation of the Tiger grew to mythic proportions. Maj. Christopher W. Wilbeck noted in his study of German heavy tank battalions that whenever a German tank appeared, regardless of type, “Among the Allied armies, units continually reported that Tiger tanks were in their sector or that they had destroyed Tiger tanks.”>>

Yes, allies will get better anti tank guns, yes the Tiger will be destroyed by allies but at great costs, the Tiger fear will stay among allies troops, and that until in the end of the war, simply because it was the first of his kind, and marked his time too deeply.

<<In March 1943 s.Pz.-Abt. 501 was succeeded by s.Pz.-Abt. 504. During the two months it operated in Tunisia before the surrender of all Axis troops in Tunisia, s.Pz.-Abt. 504 destroyed more than 150 enemy tanks and had a kill ratio of 18.8 enemy tanks for every Tiger lost.>> 18.8 kill ratio...

At the end, if Tigers were spotted, tactical air fighter-bombers using rockets and bombs were called and proved to be the most effective countermeasure against the Tiger tank.

More infos here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501st_Hea ... _Battalion
Attachments
Tiger-Tunisia.jpg
Image

User avatar
Jalis
Posts: 286
Joined: 25 Nov 2014, 04:55
Location: Canada

Re: Historical talk (again)

Postby Jalis » 13 Apr 2016, 12:59

Best tank is subjective, and anyway tiger had too much weakness to claim the title. Unmatched when it was released is more accurate.

However, I think it s true to say, he was, and still is, the best propaganda weapon for the WW2.

User avatar
Panzerblitz1
Team Member
Posts: 1344
Joined: 24 Nov 2014, 00:12
Location: Paris, right under the Eiffel tower.

Re: Historical talk (again)

Postby Panzerblitz1 » 13 Apr 2016, 13:08

Jalis wrote:Best tank is subjective, and anyway tiger had too much weakness to claim the title. Unmatched when it was released is more accurate.

However, I think it s true to say, he was, and still is, the best propaganda weapon for the WW2.


Im not saying he was the best tank, im just saying he was the first of his kind and shocked allies minds until the end of the war, even with the newly armor like the Panther tank, who was from my point of view a much more capable vehicle an a much better tank.
Image

User avatar
Jalis
Posts: 286
Joined: 25 Nov 2014, 04:55
Location: Canada

Re: Historical talk (again)

Postby Jalis » 13 Apr 2016, 13:12

Best wasnt for you, Panzerblitz. Propaganda weapon on an other hand was in right way of your post.

It s know in Normandy, each time allied tankist detect a german panzer, they acted like if it was a tiger, and often believed it was one.

User avatar
Tiger1996
Posts: 3200
Joined: 06 Dec 2014, 15:53
Location: I'm from Egypt, but I live in Qatar.
Contact:

Re: Historical talk (again)

Postby Tiger1996 » 13 Apr 2016, 13:55

each time allied tankist detect a german panzer, they acted like if it was a tiger, and often believed it was one.

True, because it was an early unexpected beast.. a mighty response to the Russian Kv-1s and T-34s! Allied only responded to this like 2 years or even finally after 3 years by building the Pershing.. the 76s were also some kind of a response to the Tiger, but as said... They never really faced a Tiger anyway. US relied always on planes and arty strikes!! Brits on the other hand had 17Ps and that was the only thing that could penetrate a Tiger reliably but it was used on Fireflys again only after landing on Normandy in 1944. So, just like Pzblitz pointed out.. Tigerphobia was definitely real for several reasons apart from only being the propaganda unlike few are claiming or trying to disbelieve.

Armacalic
Posts: 125
Joined: 09 Dec 2014, 02:04

Re: Historical talk (again)

Postby Armacalic » 13 Apr 2016, 17:00

Yo, people. Remember that tactical air did not have that great an effect on enemy armor.

Tiger1996 wrote:Allied only responded to this like 2 years or even finally after 3 years by building the Pershing..


Not really, as I previously mentioned, the 76mm and 3in cannons were already being fielded by the allied forces by late '43; arty, and subversive tactics like laying minefields worked just as well on Tigers than with any other tank.

We often also forget that on war, the side that's defending usually has the advantage. "Arracourt is a case in point, germans attacked with 260 vehicles and about a hundred Panthers." The best tanks Col. Abrams had to defend with were 75mm Shermans, yet there was only a loss of around 20 Shermans compared to the 80 vehicle (mainly tanks) loss from the germans. Granted, this was done thanks to the supporting arms.

At the same, time, Panzer battallions weren't composed literally of just tanks, they also had supporting arms of their own.

18.8 K/D? Let's also not inflate the numbers, a 6.8 kill ratio was still good though. The entire battallion was lost.

... Then again, from another point of view, the K/D ratio could be counted as 75/1, because only two Tigers were total destructions to direct fire (AT, handheld, arty, air support). 4 Tigers destroyed, if you count abandoned due to crippling enemy fire. Think about it, of the 22 Tigers in Africa, all were lost, 4 of those to direct enemy action.

Yes, the phobia was real, but some of the numbers have been inflated due to specific circumstances. Real world performance some times cannot be trusted, because the situations entail more than just a few individuals shooting at each other until one gets killed.

User avatar
Jalis
Posts: 286
Joined: 25 Nov 2014, 04:55
Location: Canada

Re: Historical talk (again)

Postby Jalis » 13 Apr 2016, 20:03

Armacalic wrote:Yo, people. Remember that tactical air did not have that great an effect on enemy armor.


I would be more nuanced. Like for U boot, planes, just by their presence prevented panzer to move on daylight, and forced them to hide in forest or like. Shortly because of jabos germans had precious weapons they were unable to use. Germans tankiste had the Jabophobia ;)

Last some days before Arracourt, an other fight occured at Dompaire. Here P47 made good job vs panzer in collaboration with ground forces. At arracourt Jabos were unable to assist first two days due too poor visibility, without it prevent US to dominate. Crews quality was probably an important factor.

Angrial
Posts: 1
Joined: 18 Sep 2016, 15:24

Re: Historical talk (again)

Postby Angrial » 19 Sep 2016, 18:25

All this talk about strategy against tanks. remember that the tank is usually in the role of infantry support(historically). WW2 comes along and the doctrine of blitz you have armored vehicles carrying troops on their backs and other troop carriers going along with in this caravan of death. The Ruskies even had refueling tankers driving up to tanks and refueling on the fly.Unbelievable ability to move across the battlefield from foe to foe with tanks supporting infantry and infantry supporting tanks. If the tanks you have are bigger and tougher than the enemies they don't get destroyed so easy you can win. In Africa, the Sherman and the panzer IV were closely matched.
The Panther and certainly the Tiger could launch an attack from a great distance. The problem with tanks is they're on the ground so fighters or dive bombers could destroy them from above. Before the invention of the Bazooka Rangers were issued with heavy antitank grenades. My uncle said they were so heavy that you throw out your arm trying to hit the target at any distance. Still, the COH damage is greatly exaggerated, the best that you could do is run over to the tank while it was going by, set the grenade on top of the tread and run like hell. The explosion would break the thread and they could take over from there. The commands introduced them to a sticky bomb with a delay acid fuse and plastique. They came up with sock axel grease and TNT to do the same thing. Bazookas were short to mid range but would do penetrating damage to the side and rear armor. If you were lucky mortars could sometimes hit the top of the exhaust cage on a tank and catch the engine on fire. That would stop them dead and the crew would dismount. The Rangers only had one mortar company. sometimes they had half-tracks in support with an artillery gun mounted.

User avatar
XAHTEP39
Posts: 208
Joined: 09 May 2015, 12:34
Location: Saint-Peterburg, Russia

Re: Historical talk (again)

Postby XAHTEP39 » 27 Nov 2016, 17:52

Warhawks97 wrote:
XAHTEP39 wrote:Eventually, the Fw.190A is prefered for "Straffing run", becouse it uses as fighter-bomber often (many gun barrels: 2 MGs, 2 or 4 autocannons).
Really, it is not a claim for Devs; Bf.109 - it`s ok; if it will be Fw.190A - it` great.


The A was fighter. And usually used to stop heavy US bombers. Had, depending on version, up to 4x 20 mm (2x MG/FF and 2x 151/20) and 2x 7,92 or later 2x 13 or 15 mm. Also underwing canons possible (20 mm and 30 mm). Max it could carry 6x 20 mm... 2 wings and 4 underwing.

The fighter bomber version you are talking about is the F version. Standard armament here was 2x 7,92 or later 13 or 15 mm and 2x 20 mm. In the outer wings it had nothing to spare weight and bombs could be mounted there. The A sturmbock version with underwing 30 mm or 20 or double 20 had also no guns inside the wing pannels. Some had instead of underwing stations the short Mk 108 30 mm inside the wings.


Just saying you shouldnt mistake the A with F. Majority build were F but so far all of them for anti bomber purpose and called "Sturmbock". Those had also heavier armor to survive the US bomber defensive fire better. But they were unable to dogfight allied fighters as they were too heavy and as the FW 190 engine sucked above 6700 meter with huge power drop. Later D versions (finally Ta 152) had water cooled Jumo engine and turbo charger instead air cooled engine with compression that made the fw190 formidable at higher altitudes as well.

And going so far we could might as well use fw190 as bomber that drops either 8x50 kilo bombs or simply one heavy 500 KG bomb. (Stuka max was 1x 1000 kg).

Just saying :P


I am not fully agree with you.
1) Yes, Fw.190F is a special model with improved armor for attacking ground targerts, but it is not so mass, as Fw.190A, therefore Fw.190A is used against ground targets often too. Also Fw.190A has bomb loading similar as Fw.190F.

Fw.190A has more guns and is more survivable then Bf.109, and enough mass produced. That`s why i doubted about Bf.109 as "Straffing run" in Luft-doctrine (viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1496&p=14713#p14704).

2) I agree with many variants of armaments Fw.190, but what is you mean "2x 7,92 or later 13 or 15 mm" ? 15-mm Mg-151/15 is never installed as synchro MG at Fw.190 and Bf.109 , only as motor-MG on Bf.109F-2 and as hull-MG on early Hs.129B .

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 2517
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Historical talk (again)

Postby Warhawks97 » 27 Nov 2016, 19:26

y. The 13 mm had been the largest syncro guns on fw 190. The Me 109 K version or at least some of them got 15 mm MG´s shooting syncro and a 30 mm in the screw. But low ammo and supposed for short and fast hit and runs on bombers.

Sure, both the F and A had so called "Rüstsätze" (attachments). The very first fw 190 had no canons at all. Only small mgs. But very early replaced by MG 151/20 in the wing roots and mgff in the outer wings.

The A was mainly a fighter. But soon (starting with A 5) they became bomber killers. Armament and bonus armament steadily increased as well as armor to resist bomber defense fire better. And the Fw190 could carry basically everything the german weaponary produced. Automatic so called "schräge Musik" (fly below bomber and canons shoot upwards) vs bomber but also experimental vs tanks. WGr. 21 rockets. Used also to break bomber formations from far.
Sometimes even dropping bombs into bomber formations (only in 43 sometimes).
Also Mistels (google them... flying bombs) or X-4 wire guided missiles could be used (never saw action).

The F was more the fighter bomber and mainly used in the east.
At the western front the Luftwaffe barely provided air support for ground forces. With the beginning of the bombing campaign the germans withdrew approx 70% of their fighters back to germany for the defense of the Reich. Operation Bodenplatte was a rare exception of german fighters targeting western front targets on the ground.

User avatar
XAHTEP39
Posts: 208
Joined: 09 May 2015, 12:34
Location: Saint-Peterburg, Russia

Re: Historical talk (again)

Postby XAHTEP39 » 27 Nov 2016, 20:01

15-mm synchro-MGs on Bf.109Kurfurst is a myth. I explored this once. It was only unsuccesseful experiment, all serial Bf.109K has 2*13,2+1*30 armament.
Non used in planes 15-mm Mg-151/15 give away to ground as improvised heavy MGs for Volksturm and as triple AA based on Sd. kfz. 251 (Sd. Kfz.251/21 — mittlerer Schutzenpanzerwagen Drilling MG 151 - Hello for US Quad-AA M16 :P )
...The A was mainly a fighter...

... of course, but secondary is a bomber. Fighter-bomber ! :D

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 2517
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Historical talk (again)

Postby Warhawks97 » 27 Nov 2016, 21:27

for which they created the F version. They are so far same just F has two canons less and more options for different bomb load outs and experimental stuff. To pretty much A version they diverted or produced an F version.

Sure, they made the F after they figured out how usefull the fw190 A could be after several so called rüstsätze got used.

So the F got even more options for ground attack tools. But they had less good flying performences due to the bomb carriers that were mounted and all arround armor (especially vs flak).

So A was fighter and the so called secondary fighter bomber is the F version.

User avatar
XAHTEP39
Posts: 208
Joined: 09 May 2015, 12:34
Location: Saint-Peterburg, Russia

Re: Historical talk (again)

Postby XAHTEP39 » 27 Nov 2016, 21:44

The main difference between Fw.190A and Fw.190F is armor, and iirc engine, and F has little bit more bombs and Panzerblitz anti-tank rockets.
So if the purpose of chiefs requires a ground attack but there is only Fw.190A, just to pick up some bombs (8*50, 1*500, 4*50+1*250) and make "Straffing run" attack.
Arrangement of Fw.190A allow to use it as frontline-bomber (fighter-bomber) - if it needs; but it is not transformed Fw.190A into Fw.190F .

User avatar
Warhawks97
Posts: 2517
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 21:45
Location: Germany

Re: Historical talk (again)

Postby Warhawks97 » 28 Nov 2016, 02:42

idk if the A could carry the 500 kg bombs or any heavy types. That so called ETC 500 was standard equipment on F. Idk if the A could also get that bomb carry attachment.

The F had good armor and better gear. The A strong frontal armor because of the gunners and their heavy cal 50 guns.

The Panzerblitz rockets came very late. A changed version of the R4M air to air missile (that got fired en masses in bomber formations from 600 meters distance). The fw190 could carry 12 of these panzerblitz. But came first in 45 and saw action in final battles. Although axis had the first guided bombs, guided gliding bombs and "cruise missiles" they never really used simple air to ground missiles such as allied did with their RS-82 and 132 (russia), 3.5 inch missile, 5 inch missile HVAR (USA) or RP-3 (CW).


Return to “History/Realism”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest