German armored vehicles/weapons if the war continued?

[Michael Kenny]

1) It confirms that the German front held during Goodwood ('I am able to report that the front has been held intact until now' - fourth to last paragraph).

But it did not hold. It was broken. Check the start line and the end line. You make the common mistake of thinking an Allied advance that does not achieve all its objectives is a stunning German victory and abject Allied defeat. The German losses in EPSOM ended all hope that the Allies could be pushed back into the sea and GOODWOOD pinned the German tanks around Caen so Bradley could launch COBRA against a relatively tank-free area. It would have been interesting to see how the planned double GOODWOOD-COBRA attack would have played out but as Bradley could not make it to the start line in time Monty went ahead on his own.

In the fall of 44' the German armored force was outnumbered in the region of 15:1 -20:1.

Really? That is interesting. Can you give me the numbers for the summer of 1944?
While you are at it what happened to the 2000 German AFVs that were originally in Normandy?

[KDF33]

In the fall of 44' the German armored force was outnumbered in the region of 15:1 -20:1.

Really? That is interesting. Can you give me the numbers for the summer of 1944?
While you are at it what happened to the 2000 German AFVs that were originally in Normandy?

I never wrote that! You are misattributing the quote, made by Cult Icon here:

In the fall of 44' the German armored force was outnumbered in the region of 15:1 -20:1.

This is reaching the level of self-parody. You're not even keeping track of who writes what.

[Michael Kenny]

How did you decide that Lasting until July 25th was a good result?

Where did I write that?

Where did I say you wrote it?

Where did I defend German resistance in June and July as 'a sign of superior military performance'?

Where did I say you defended it?

[Michael Kenny]

I never wrote that! You are misattributing the quote, made by Cult Icon here:


This is reaching the level of self-parody. You're not even keeping track of who writes what.

Indeed it is. It is a quote from you quoting him. As you defend him I presume you agreed with him

When their side is outnumbered 2:1, 3:1 or worse on the ground, get little in the way of reinforcements while the Allied divisions are getting a steady supply of replacements, several times numerical superiority in armor, and ten times in artillery making great offensive gains is a non-starter. What they can do is to spare what is leftover, frequently small resources, to counterattack breaches and maintain the line & stop breakthroughs. With these efforts the Normandy campaign became a "static front" for a long time despite the over insurance of the Allies & clever hedging of their military politics.

The numerical superiority of the allies in armor, air support, and artillery was extreme to an unprecedented degree, even the most experienced Generals cannot attack and win against 10:1 odds in armor & artillery ammunition plus air support. In the fall of 44' the German armored force was outnumbered in the region of 15:1 -20:1.

I note you used it to distract from the bogus Goodwood claim you posted.

[KDF33]

Where did I say you wrote it?

You misattribute here:

Where did I say you defended it?

Here:

[KDF33]

I note you used it to distract from the bogus Goodwood claim you posted.

What 'bogus' Goodwood claim did I post?

[Michael Kenny]

I note you used it to distract from the bogus Goodwood claim you posted.

What 'bogus' Goodwood claim did I post?

It is all in my original reply.

[Terry Duncan]

I think this, what can only be described as either an exercise in trolling or a misunderstanding of such epic proportions that it is beyond the present power of human communications to fix, can be stopped and the conversation return to the actual topic of the thread.

Terry

[Michael Kenny]

I think this, what can only be described as either an exercise in trolling or a misunderstanding of such epic proportions that it is beyond the present power of human communications to fix, can be stopped and the conversation return to the actual topic of the thread.

The thread title is German armored vehicles/weapons if the war continued but the thread was allowed to deviated into performance in NWE on page 3.

[Peter89]

'Germany was defeated in the West by the Allies who had an overwhelming numerical and material advantage'

The original quote is the 'we wuz outnumber/ not a fair fight ' excuse.

I saw you quoting this "fair fight" idea from time to time. However, I don't see it explained anywhere. I mean, is there a theory out there in which the Allied numerical superiority doesn't play a role in Germany's defeat? Or is there a theory in which the Allies deploy 1:1 ratio in aircrafts, tanks, etc. and then the Germans win - in mid-1944?

What is this "fair fight" idea actually?

[Michael Kenny]

I saw you quoting this "fair fight" idea from time to time. However, I don't see it explained anywhere.

It is an excuse used to explain any German defeat. Any reverse must be for a reason other than they were outfought.

I mean, is there a theory out there in which the Allied numerical superiority doesn't play a role in Germany's defeat?

Given Germany attacked a huge number of countries then she was always outnumbered. This handy fact has become the default reason as to why they 'lost'. It is always true and thus is a really handy tool. The linkage that the only reason Germany lost is because she was outnumbered is the error.

Or is there a theory in which the Allies deploy 1:1 ratio in aircrafts, tanks, etc. and then the Germans win - in mid-1944?

The only people I know who bring up the 'fair -fight' argument are fans of the German military. It is deeply rooted in the Tiger/Panther v Sherman 1:1 fair fight in an open field absurdity. Variations are 'the German Army in 1944 was not the German Army of 1939/40/41'. That 'TAC was needed to destroy the panzers' and 'most German tanks broke down/ran out of fuel/were destroyed by the crew' etc.

What is this "fair fight" idea actually?

An excuse for failure.

[Peter89]

I mean, is there a theory out there in which the Allied numerical superiority doesn't play a role in Germany's defeat?

Given Germany attacked a huge number of countries then she was always outnumbered. This handy fact has become the default reason as to why they 'lost'. It is always true and thus is a really handy tool. The linkage that the only reason Germany lost is because she was outnumbered is the error.

I think it is entirely plausible to think that the lack of production, resources and manpower was a decisive factor in Germany's defeat in WW2. Not the only reason, but undoubtedly a decisive one.

Here's what I think of this. In the formula of the fighting power (Quantity of Material × Quality of Material × Quantity of Non-Material x Quality of Non-Material), the Germans fell behind in every aspect by 1944.
Quantity of Material: they had less of everything
Quality of Material: most of the stuff they used was technologically at the same level or below that of the Allies
Quantity of Non-Material: they had less men
Quality of Non-Material: even those were less trained and less able-bodied

Or is there a theory in which the Allies deploy 1:1 ratio in aircrafts, tanks, etc. and then the Germans win - in mid-1944?

The only people I know who bring up the 'fair -fight' argument are fans of the German military. It is deeply rooted in the Tiger/Panther v Sherman 1:1 fair fight in an open field absurdity. Variations are 'the German Army in 1944 was not the German Army of 1939/40/41'. That 'TAC was needed to destroy the panzers' and 'most German tanks broke down/ran out of fuel/were destroyed by the crew' etc.

I think this is related to the quality of material and the quality of the non-material, but no one can seriously think that mechanized warfare did not require infrastructure. One of my ancestors worked as a mechanic on German tanks in 1944/1945 and it was an absolute carnage from an upkeep perspective. About 40-60% of the aircrafts or AFVs will be claimed by noncombat causes. AFAIK the Japanese lost more aircraft to NC causes than in combat. Using it as an excuse is kind of funny.

As for the non-material, we know how the training of the troops declined, as well as how their health and morale fell. The Wehrmacht in 1944 was indeed not the Wehrmacht in 1939-41.

What is this "fair fight" idea actually?

An excuse for failure.

Okay, but I still don't get it; is there anyone who seriously thinks that if the Allies would deploy 1 Sherman for 1 Panther, 1 Mustang for 1 Me 109 and 1 GI Joe for 1 Landser, then the Germans could win in mid-1944?

[Cult Icon]

Going back to the OP, I think there are cheap ways to improve the Panther tank significantly in light on combat experience from June 1944- May 1945. The tank had some disadvantages in how fast it could react if the opponent fired first.

1. improvements in situational awareness. The Pz IV had a lot of viewing ports, and the Sherman gunner had access to a periscope. The Panther was curiously missing these features, which made it more "blind" than these medium tanks.

2. a greater emphasis on numerous smoke generators, attached externally. In the event of an ambush, the tank could release the smoke, covering a fall-back.

3. Increase the turret rotation speed with a powered, rather than a hand-cranked turret.

4. Improvements in night vision capability and an external communications phone mounted on the rear of the tank.

[Michael Kenny]

4. Improvements in night vision capability and an external communications phone mounted on the rear of the tank.

Like on the M4?

https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item ... /205162311

[Cult Icon]

Also, the situation in the West, which saw the breakdown of the combined arms team and the frequent use of small armor-infantry groups for limited objective attacks, plus the sturdy buildings in village/town and urban combat demanded heavier cannons than the 75mm.

They could design a short-barrelled 150mm howitzer mounted on a Panther chasis (a superior version of the overloaded Brummbar and the Stug 105mm assault howitzer), then a reorganization of tank battalions structure and training, to something more similar to the assault gun brigades (3 companies Panther, 1 company assault howitzer). This intermediate solution should avoid the problems of the overlong and overweight Jagdpanther and the excesses of the Sturmtiger.

The increased firepower of the howitzer assault guns and improved short range fighting capability of the Panther should somewhat decrease the amount of infantry needed for the short attack, and reduce the vulnerability of assault reserves to defensive fires from allied artillery and motors.

This structure should be OK in the East as well.