Originally Posted by Doppleganger

The implication that Guderian and others suggest is that Rommel may really only favoured placing Panzer divisions up near the beaches because he felt that Allied airpower would make any large scale movements of those same divisions all but impossible. This would suggest that Rommel might have preferred to keep the Panzer divisions as a mobile reserve, if he thought this was practical. Then again Guderian stated that "it is nevertheless a matter of considerable regret that Rommel failed to understand the need for possessing mobile reserves" (p331, Panzer Leader). This suggests that Rommel was not as clued-up about the proper use of armour as is commonly proclaimed. I myself might be prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt given his successes in Africa. Guderian too seemed to hold Rommel in quite high regard, aside from the above decision of course.

Once again I find myself in disagreement with both Doppleganger and Guderian, I have never been a ardent fan of Rommel but I believe his assessment of D-Day was 100% spot on.

It is my contention that his experiences in Africa gave him an understanding about the effects of allied air power and an understanding that any established allied beach head in France meant it was all over because lack of air superiority meant that there was no way they could possibly dislodge the allies.

As far as the mobile reserve went I think it was a deluded idea held by German Generals trapped in the 1939-41 frame of mind as even with all the armour/fuel they could ever want and a phenomenal superiority in vehicle quality they were just going to get annihilated without the Luftwaffe to lead the way.

hello

quallity only:
heavy tank: tiger/IS2
medium tank: panther G
light tank: T-70

overall impact:
heavy tank: IS2
medium tank: T-34/sherman
light tank: T-70

Originally Posted by MontyB

As far as the mobile reserve went I think it was a deluded idea held by German Generals trapped in the 1939-41 frame of mind as even with all the armour/fuel they could ever want and a phenomenal superiority in vehicle quality they were just going to get annihilated without the Luftwaffe to lead the way.

It wasn't so much about "to get annihilated", the effect of Allied air superiority was different.

Marches at night were reasonably safe and standard procedure, but slower.

Bridges were blown up, that slowed down road and rail traffic a lot (due to "interdiction" missions by modern vocabulary).

The railroad network was mostly smashed in northern France, which meant that the non-motorized infantry and para divisions were very slow on the march. Destroyed railroad crossing, railroad bridges, railroad stations, many small damages to the railroad lines due to sabotage and individual bombs and a huge loss of locomotives to mine and air attacks took away much of the classic infantry division mobility as enjoyed in about 1860-1943.

The armored divisions were able to move at night and - if well-prepared and -organized) at nearly the same speed as they could have at daylight.

The "annihilation" problem was acute for actual employment of armor - the preferred doctrine called for a great concentration in one place for decisive effect, but neither the terrain with its short lines of sight and concealment/cover for infantry nor allied tactical air power allowed such a use of armor.

I wouldnt disagree with any of that but night operations during WW2 were extremely limited and in reality they could only use the cover of darkness for redeployment any real counter offensive was going to force them to bring the armour out during the day at which point the allied air forces would have reduced them to a pile of perforated metal.

Hence the argument that I believe Rommels fight them at the shoreline was the only option they had to defeat the Western allies in Europe, once they were established ashore the war was over for Germany.

Originally Posted by viewer

hello

quallity only:
heavy tank: tiger/IS2
medium tank: panther G
light tank: T-70

overall impact:
heavy tank: IS2
medium tank: T-34/sherman
light tank: T-70

I really like this list although I probably wouldnt include the IS2 even though it was an excellent tank it was never deployed in the numbers required to make a difference.

If you say Tiger you might as well say King Tiger. In my opinion neither were that good because while they were ineed very powerfull in every sens of the word they were also very expensive to make and broke down alot...

Originally Posted by SHERMAN

If you say Tiger you might as well say King Tiger. In my opinion neither were that good because while they were ineed very powerfull in every sens of the word they were also very expensive to make and broke down alot...

I disagree the Tiger I was an excellent heavy tank but was of the older "box" type, it had its faults but what tank didn't however when you talk to most people of German WW2 tanks I will bet that a sizable number will think of the Tiger I.

As far as picking it as best heavy tank of WW2 goes I don't think it an unreasonable choice given the fear it generated among allied soldiers to the point that there are many reports of PzIVs and Panthers being reported by soldiers as Tigers due to this fear.

On the other hand the Tiger II was not a good tank despite a large number of excellent features, it was rushed into production without much thought to the operational conditions it was going to have to operate under and without any real development and troubleshooting, on top of this it was not as good as the IS2.
It is my opinion that Panther II probably would have been a better tank.

Well, by the time Panther 2 would be out there the allies would have had the M-26, the Centurion, and the T-44-100.

Originally Posted by MontyB

I wouldnt disagree with any of that but night operations during WW2 were extremely limited and in reality they could only use the cover of darkness for redeployment any real counter offensive was going to force them to bring the armour out during the day at which point the allied air forces would have reduced them to a pile of perforated metal.

Hence the argument that I believe Rommels fight them at the shoreline was the only option they had to defeat the Western allies in Europe, once they were established ashore the war was over for Germany.



I really like this list although I probably wouldnt include the IS2 even though it was an excellent tank it was never deployed in the numbers required to make a difference.

i really wasn't sure if i should include IS2 in the overall impact category, i knew that IS2 was superior to tiger and a bit inferior to tiger 2, so i used wiki and found out that 3800 IS2 (i'm not sure if all during the war but i may assume that most were build during the war cause the russians switched to IS3 production after the war) tanks were built and only around 1350 tigers which convinced me to make this choice.
plus if i may add some interesting reading (an example how russians can cancel advantages of great tanks ) :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tannenberg_Line
i read this article few monthes ago and i remember something about lots of KOed IS2 cause the russians used them in close assault without infantry support which canceled their armour advantage.

edit: sherman,as monty stated the tiger1 wasn't breaking as often as tiger2, wasn't as fuel hungry , plus if we look at the date of it's 1st combat use under leningrad you could see that no other nation had a decend rival to the tiger 1, it was totally superior to any allied tank for nearly 1.5 years. tiger 2 on the other hand saw combat almost in the same time with IS2. and they were almost equal. and i must agree on the fear impact of tiger1 it was the stuka of the wermacht

No doubt the Tiger I was a fearsome weapon. But Ican never shake of the feeling that had the Germans consentrated their efforts on building more medium tanks(specfically the Panther), they would be in better shape. anyone has penetration figures for the 88mm vs the 76.2 and the 17 pounder?

not the best penetration table for the T-34 m1941-m1943 but:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-34_tank_gun (it had a chance against tiger only when using its sabot rounds at ranges below 500m)
didn't bother to look for the 88mm table cause i'm 100% positive the 88mm L56 gun took out T-34 at 1500 meter ranges. the germans mounted 88mm L71 gun on their kingtigers/elephants/jagdpanther, this gun could take out T-34 on any range.
the 88mm L56 has very similar characteristics to the 75mm L70 gun of the panther (at small-medium range the panther's gun is a bit superior while at big ranges the 88mm of the tiger1 outperforms the 75mm, i think due to the caliber).
i took less interest in the western front but as far as i remember sherman firefly (equipped with the 17 pounder) could penetrate tiger's1 frontal armor at 500m and panther's front at 250m.