Jump to content


1946 - Hitler's Super Tanks vs Western Armour


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
57 replies to this topic

killer etzi0 #21 Posted 05 January 2016 - 04:15 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 59617 battles
  • 19,116
  • [47R]
  • Member since:
    06-20-2014

View PostDRG Kurokuma, on 05 January 2016 - 10:09 AM, said:

For the sake LOL lets say Germany didn't have a shortage of fuel and crews. I think the E-50 and the E-75 would stand a chance considering the IS-7 was a auto loader...it would be funny if WG added that lol.

 

IS-7 auto loader.... shush....

"When you can't make them see the light, make them feel the heat."

 

Ronald Reagan
 

 


JStudebaker #22 Posted 05 January 2016 - 04:28 PM

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 9428 battles
  • 176
  • Member since:
    03-08-2015

Germany's war effort was so hampered by micromanaging nutcases I don't think these later designs were up to anything they'd find on an actual battlefield. Someone with the historical knowledge maybe can tell us which tanks were designed by engineers with military input and which were doodled by a bureaucrat on a cocktail napkin.

 

Does WG provide any data on average scores on each tank? That would probably answer part of the original question, if the designs they wanted could be produced and maintained would they have been effective. Is the OP talking simple tank vs tank or are we calculating in air support and other factors?


Edited by JStudebaker, 05 January 2016 - 04:28 PM.


Matthew J35U5 #23 Posted 05 January 2016 - 04:40 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14028 battles
  • 12,033
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    09-09-2013

View Postkiller etzi0, on 05 January 2016 - 11:15 AM, said:

 

IS-7 auto loader.... shush....

View PostDRG Kurokuma, on 05 January 2016 - 11:09 AM, said:

For the sake LOL lets say Germany didn't have a shortage of fuel and crews. I think the E-50 and the E-75 would stand a chance considering the IS-7 was a auto loader...it would be funny if WG added that lol.

It was a loading assistance mechanism similar to autoloaders used on later Soviet mbt's, nothing like the revolver-style autoloaders used by tanks in this game. 

View PostJStudebaker, on 05 January 2016 - 11:28 AM, said:

Germany's war effort was so hampered by micromanaging nutcases I don't think these later designs were up to anything they'd find on an actual battlefield. Someone with the historical knowledge maybe can tell us which tanks were designed by engineers with military input and which were doodled by a bureaucrat on a cocktail napkin.

 

Does WG provide any data on average scores on each tank? That would probably answer part of the original question, if the designs they wanted could be produced and maintained would they have been effective. Is the OP talking simple tank vs tank or are we calculating in air support and other factors?

Well, the E-75 and E-50 were basically the Tiger II and Panther, with interchangeable parts. If we were pretending that there were no logistical issues, like in WoT, then they would be more-or-less indistinguishable. One would hope that they would be more logistically sound, but wouldn't be an upgrade like building IS-3's and T-44's or T29's and Pershings would be. (Assuming anyone wanted a T29...)

 

I think the OP is open to things other than tank v tank combat. 


KeystoneCops, on 14 June 2015 - 12:51 PM, said:


Uranprojekt #24 Posted 05 January 2016 - 04:40 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 8338 battles
  • 3,437
  • Member since:
    08-19-2013

View PostDRG Kurokuma, on 05 January 2016 - 04:09 PM, said:

For the sake LOL lets say Germany didn't have a shortage of fuel and crews. I think the E-50 and the E-75 would stand a chance considering the IS-7 was a auto loader...it would be funny if WG added that lol.

 

The IS-7 didn't have the type of autoloading mechanism that I suspect most people think it is. Naturally, when people hear/read autoloader they automatically think of the drum magazine autoloading mechanism which is fair enough. However, the IS-7 had two prototype autoloading mechanisms and neither of them used a drum magazine. The first prototype was a pneumatic loading system which was essentially an early version of the automatic loading system used on modern MBTs but was deemed to be too bulky and was replaced. The second prototype loading mechanism was a simpler and smaller chain drive powered by an electric motor. This worked much the same as the pneumatic system; loaders place the ammunition on to the loading tray and the automatic system does the rest, but took up less space in the turret. Depending on the system used the IS-7 could achieve a rate of fire of between 6-8 rounds per minute.

 

Also, the IS-7 was barely into the prototype stage in 1946. In fact, I believe that it was still in the wooden mock-up stage in 1946. The first four prototypes weren't ready for initial trials until ~1948, of which only one remain today. I know one caught fire and was destroyed, I can't remember what happened to the other two.


War does not determine who is right, only who is left - Bertrand Russell

 

I write things, things which can be found in Historical Discussions. Things like this article on the Soviet invasion of Manchuria in 1945 and this article on the Spanish Civil War.

 

To those of you who don't molest the English language, I salute you. For everyone else, there's this handy link; http://www.reverso.n...elling-grammar/


Sqn Ldr B #25 Posted 05 January 2016 - 04:42 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 6141 battles
  • 18,352
  • Member since:
    02-14-2014
I would reckon that they would perform very well, but only in individual cases. Strategically they'd be a nightmare, especially with the allied control of the skies and the Luftwaffe being more or less non-existent. Assuming the war went on for as much as a year longer than in reality, you'd be seeing an increasing amount of new tanks from the Allies as well, the Centurion, Tortoise, Black Prince, Pershing, maybe Patton, some of the T29 to 32 series, the T28 and what not. From Russia you'd be seeing some of the later JS series tanks, probably the T-54 getting into service too. And with France liberated, you may even expect to see a few French designs getting stuck in, perhaps the ARL 44 and whatever else they had on the go. I think the allies' new tanks would be very capable of dealing with the new German stuff, and combined with control of the skies and almost no German supply lines or resource and fuel sources left, as well as destruction of industry in the Ruhr, you'd be seeing the Germans being more or less destroyed.

"Remember that you are an Englishman, and have consequently won first prize in the lottery of life" ~ Cecil Rhodes

Click For a Compilation of My Ideas


DStegCat #26 Posted 05 January 2016 - 10:46 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 25012 battles
  • 2,031
  • [BACON]
  • Member since:
    05-24-2014

Are we sure this isn't at times Hysterical Discussions?

 

Germany feared massed artillery late in the war whether it came from the West or East.  End of discussion.


nam et ipsa scientia potestas est (for knowledge is itself power)  Francis Bacon - 1597

More Bacon


Uranprojekt #27 Posted 06 January 2016 - 12:03 AM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 8338 battles
  • 3,437
  • Member since:
    08-19-2013

View PostDStegCat, on 05 January 2016 - 10:46 PM, said:

Are we sure this isn't at times Hysterical Discussions?

 

Germany feared massed artillery late in the war whether it came from the West or East.  End of discussion.

 

Germany feared many things late in the war; Allied bombing raids, oil/fuel shortages and food shortages to name a few. The fear of massed artillery was mainly a fear of massed artillery coming from the East, nobody conducted concentrated barrages of artillery like the Soviets did.


War does not determine who is right, only who is left - Bertrand Russell

 

I write things, things which can be found in Historical Discussions. Things like this article on the Soviet invasion of Manchuria in 1945 and this article on the Spanish Civil War.

 

To those of you who don't molest the English language, I salute you. For everyone else, there's this handy link; http://www.reverso.n...elling-grammar/


KaiserVonKrieg #28 Posted 06 January 2016 - 03:37 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14915 battles
  • 5,286
  • [-NS-]
  • Member since:
    02-02-2015

View PostUranprojekt, on 05 January 2016 - 07:03 PM, said:

 

Germany feared many things late in the war; Allied bombing raids, oil/fuel shortages and food shortages to name a few. The fear of massed artillery was mainly a fear of massed artillery coming from the East, nobody conducted concentrated barrages of artillery like the Soviets did.

 

Hell ye, have you seen their military death count?

If I was that bad I would play scumbag arty too.

Damn tomatoes and their SPGs

Spoiler

 



Matthew J35U5 #29 Posted 06 January 2016 - 03:39 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14028 battles
  • 12,033
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    09-09-2013

I found it significant that while the Americans produced more of everything than anyone else, and in most cases, everyone else, the Soviets had them beat on two things. Tanks (which is likely as a result of Soviet accounting practices), and artillery. No-one loved artillery like the Soviets. 

 

Spoiler

 


KeystoneCops, on 14 June 2015 - 12:51 PM, said:


SlummyZeru #30 Posted 06 January 2016 - 03:46 AM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 10865 battles
  • 4,555
  • [KMD]
  • Member since:
    09-19-2013
How much damage would one katyusha rocket to to a maus or e100 if hit it dead on the front hull?

 

o.o


MrWuvems #31 Posted 06 January 2016 - 03:48 AM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 10629 battles
  • 8,091
  • Member since:
    11-08-2013

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 05 January 2016 - 09:39 PM, said:

I found it significant that while the Americans produced more of everything than anyone else, and in most cases, everyone else, the Soviets had them beat on two things. Tanks (which is likely as a result of Soviet accounting practices), and artillery. No-one loved artillery like the Soviets. 

 

Spoiler

 

 

The US didn't just produce a ton of everything, the US Army has been insanely good at logistics for a while even during WW2, notable exceptions being HVAP ammo and supplying the 101 pre-Ardennes. That means for tanks, the supply train always had repair parts closer to the field and the T-34 in particular had a short lifespan in terms of travel miles.

 

It actually makes me wonder how the US would have fielded heavy tanks before the Pershing came into service. Heavies requiring more parts if only due to bulk and weight and more fuel thirsty.



WidowMaker1711 #32 Posted 06 January 2016 - 03:58 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 11835 battles
  • 10,002
  • [BNKR]
  • Member since:
    02-12-2014

View PostSection47ABH, on 05 January 2016 - 12:59 PM, said:

 

Best.   Laugh.  In. Ages.

 

(Seriously, look up what he was actually doing in that war...  gives Christopher Lee a run for his money for the title of 'most colourfully murky past;)

 

Depends when you look. Early war he was in Greece and the Middle East. Then after being invalided back to Blighty even hes a bit sketchy


For Russ and the Allfather

 

 


Matthew J35U5 #33 Posted 06 January 2016 - 04:02 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14028 battles
  • 12,033
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    09-09-2013

View PostSlummyZeru, on 05 January 2016 - 10:46 PM, said:

How much damage would one katyusha rocket to to a maus or e100 if hit it dead on the front hull?

There seems to have been three MLRS in use in the Soviet Union during WWII. A 82 mm variety, which I imagine would do nothing to a super-heavy tank. A 132 mm variety, which would probably be scary, but unless German armour quality was garbage, probably wouldn't substantially damage the super-heavy or the crew. And apparently a 300 mm variety (with~5x as much explosive as the 152 mm HE rounds), that I would imagine would substantially damage a tank. 


KeystoneCops, on 14 June 2015 - 12:51 PM, said:


JAG THE GEMINI #34 Posted 06 January 2016 - 05:36 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 65186 battles
  • 2,428
  • [FAUST]
  • Member since:
    02-15-2014

View PostUranprojekt, on 05 January 2016 - 01:50 PM, said:

 

The Leopard 2 didn't exist in 1946. In fact, the Leopard didn't even exist in 1946 so that point is null and void.

 

 

Look up who came up with the Leopard 2 first.. That was for sure not me. I was just respnding.

 

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 05 January 2016 - 04:45 PM, said:

Gee, its almost as if the point I was making was that it was irrelevant how superior any German tanks were in 1945, because they were done regardless. Perceptive, aren't you?

Spoiler

 

 

The fact that you came up with the Leopard 2 made your post almost.. Delusional..

 

And I was not talking about german super tanks which never existed nor did I deny the existence of the BL9.. I said something about a certain "behaviour" regarding that gun... :ohmy:


 

 

My youtube channel:https://www.youtube....w_as=subscriber


WidowMaker1711 #35 Posted 06 January 2016 - 05:49 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 11835 battles
  • 10,002
  • [BNKR]
  • Member since:
    02-12-2014
:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:

For Russ and the Allfather

 

 


JAG THE GEMINI #36 Posted 06 January 2016 - 07:01 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 65186 battles
  • 2,428
  • [FAUST]
  • Member since:
    02-15-2014

View PostWidowMaker1711, on 06 January 2016 - 06:49 AM, said:

:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:

 

:bush:   :bush:   :bush:   :bush:    :bush:

 

 

My youtube channel:https://www.youtube....w_as=subscriber


Uranprojekt #37 Posted 06 January 2016 - 09:36 AM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 8338 battles
  • 3,437
  • Member since:
    08-19-2013

View PostJAG THE GEMINI, on 06 January 2016 - 05:36 AM, said:

 

 

Look up who came up with the Leopard 2 first.. That was for sure not me. I was just respnding.

 

 

The fact that you came up with the Leopard 2 made your post almost.. Delusional..

 

And I was not talking about german super tanks which never existed nor did I deny the existence of the BL9.. I said something about a certain "behaviour" regarding that gun... :ohmy:

 

I completely missed Matthew mentioning the Leopard 2. Now that I look at it, I'm pretty sure, and he can correct me if I'm wrong, that Matthew referenced the Leopard 2 because he was sarcastically implying that even if Germany had produced such a tank back in 1946, they still wouldn't have stood a chance of winning the war despite it being regarded by some as the best out of the current crop of modern MBTs.


War does not determine who is right, only who is left - Bertrand Russell

 

I write things, things which can be found in Historical Discussions. Things like this article on the Soviet invasion of Manchuria in 1945 and this article on the Spanish Civil War.

 

To those of you who don't molest the English language, I salute you. For everyone else, there's this handy link; http://www.reverso.n...elling-grammar/


Section47ABH #38 Posted 06 January 2016 - 11:00 AM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 12126 battles
  • 1,849
  • Member since:
    08-08-2015

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 06 January 2016 - 04:02 AM, said:

There seems to have been three MLRS in use in the Soviet Union during WWII. A 82 mm variety, which I imagine would do nothing to a super-heavy tank. A 132 mm variety, which would probably be scary, but unless German armour quality was garbage, probably wouldn't substantially damage the super-heavy or the crew. And apparently a 300 mm variety (with~5x as much explosive as the 152 mm HE rounds), that I would imagine would substantially damage a tank. 

 

Added to which, 'single rocket' is something that only really happens on proving grounds, and certainly not in Soviet doctrine of the period: artillery and rocketry was massed for the assault and they didn't have enough of a solid base of educated citizens to get many really good artillery observers/commanders, so they over-massed and pre-planned their fire so as to cover the weakness they had in flexibility.    "It's in that grid square, Ivan, flatten the lot." At which point, even if you're not the target, 3-500 pieces per mile of front are going to be very loudly saying "KNOCK KNOCK MOTHERHUBBARD WHO ORDERED THE BEATING?"  They shovelled it on, which you can train illiterate transuralian peasant conscripts to do, if they've got an NCO who can read the fire-plan and set the gun accordingly. 

 

One battery of katyushas - four trucks - could put four and a bit tonnes of high explosive into a six-hundred metre square.  Using only the 82mm BM-13 rocket.  In ten seconds or less.  And they never used just one battery... By war's end, the soviets had produced over ten thousand of these things - records are sketchy because the design was simple enough they could be knocked together in light industrial shops all over the country.  For a high-value  like a Nazi superheavy?  You can bet they'd fling the lot, down to and including the kitchen sink.  And "Stalinorgel" was particularly feared by the Wehrmacht.  Long-range massed indirect fire that was cheap, too fast for counterbattery and screamed as it came

 

Even if no single rocket penetrates the tank, some or all of the crew are, if the thing isn't hardened appropriately, going to be either overpressure or psychiatric casualties* under the kind of bombardment the soviets would hand out.  And their infantry support all just died, fled or went MIA in small pieces all over the surrounding vegetation. .  The survivors, if any, would be in foxholes on reverse slopes, of no use supporting an armoured fighting vehicle.

 

 

 

 

 

*Which is how Tiger 131 ended up mission-killed and in the Bovington Tank Museum, of course.   A couple of hundred rockets would, I imagine, be a lot scarier than a single lucky turret-ring hit.


Terranis Holds.  FOR THE EMPEROR!

Matthew J35U5 #39 Posted 06 January 2016 - 03:35 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14028 battles
  • 12,033
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    09-09-2013

View PostUranprojekt, on 06 January 2016 - 04:36 AM, said:

 

I completely missed Matthew mentioning the Leopard 2. Now that I look at it, I'm pretty sure, and he can correct me if I'm wrong, that Matthew referenced the Leopard 2 because he was sarcastically implying that even if Germany had produced such a tank back in 1946, they still wouldn't have stood a chance of winning the war despite it being regarded by some as the best out of the current crop of modern MBTs.

Yes. I was being flippant, and thought for sure everyone would understand the joke. I can see that I was mistaken. 


KeystoneCops, on 14 June 2015 - 12:51 PM, said:


Uranprojekt #40 Posted 06 January 2016 - 03:46 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 8338 battles
  • 3,437
  • Member since:
    08-19-2013

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 06 January 2016 - 03:35 PM, said:

Yes. I was being flippant, and thought for sure everyone would understand the joke. I can see that I was mistaken. 

 

Remember that time I made a joke about silly Americans being unable to recognise a Tiger and it started a flame war because a diehard fan of a certain band didn't get the joke?

 

Yeah, offhand jokes and flippant remarks don't tend to go down too well around here. I thought you'd have known that by now... :P


War does not determine who is right, only who is left - Bertrand Russell

 

I write things, things which can be found in Historical Discussions. Things like this article on the Soviet invasion of Manchuria in 1945 and this article on the Spanish Civil War.

 

To those of you who don't molest the English language, I salute you. For everyone else, there's this handy link; http://www.reverso.n...elling-grammar/





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users