"Slobbering German Freak"

[James Tainton]

I wonder what some the reactions may be to this "letter to the editor" from Cookie Sewell. It was in this months (vol.34 no. 13) Military Modelling
http://members.shaw.ca/jadgtiger/cookiecooker.jpg

[Uruk-Hai]

I saw it myself. :o

I wonder what makes a pretty well known builder like Mr Sewell slash out like that without the knowledge? I always believed he knew more about WWII armour but this letter totally changed that.

I know the tone is usually pretty harsch in that magazine but that isnt gonna make anything better.

[general zod]

Articles/letters like this make me wanna laugh If the Allies tanks were so superior to the Germans,why did it take at least 3 if not more to knock one out? Yes the Allies won,thank God,but at what cost? As much as I like building Sherman tanks,they were a joke in one-on-one duels with German armor
I just wonder how many of the Sherman supporters of today wouldhave been willing to go up against a better armored and armed tank

If I could change history I would have put on either a 17lber or a 90mm on the Shermans If we are gonna send people to war then lets give them the best weapons we can

I didn't say this to flame anybody I really didn't God knows those Sherman crews will always get my respect to my dying day

[Jaybe]

I can't see how anyone can benefit from this post. But as long as it's here shouldn't the playing field be leveled a bit by seeing the exact piece that Mr. Sewell is referring to? Does anyone have it to post?

[Guest]

why don't you register

[James Tainton]

well here you go Mr"Jaybe". (you really should register to give credibility to your posts, with your real name and everything)
From what I've heard Mr. Sewell doesn't even build German models. So I guess the reason for posting this is to ask peoples' opinions on the information Mr. Sewell has provided in his letter.
http://members.shaw.ca/jadgtiger/mm11.jpg

[James Tainton]

Some other responses;

"Sounds like he's a GWMCOS- 'Guy With Monumental Chip On Shoulder' Instead of bolstering the position that US armor was better than people think, he chooses the rather weaker tactic of trying to trash the idea that German armor was excellent. I can see him just getting more and more annoyed that 'everyone' thinks German armor was so great. The whole thing's a silly argument anyway because 'best' is a completely subjective idea; it's totally dependent on what the claimant considers relevant parameters...

What the hell is a naif anyway?"

"I do not know what this was written in response to, but all of those were good points. However, many of them seem moot. Yes, in some situations the heavy German tanks were defeated and sometimes they were a burden rather than a blessing. However, it still remains that they were incredibly deadly in combat, and that they racked up many a kill on the battlefield of both Western and Eastern Europe.

Whenever this argument comes up, with fervent supporters and disbelievers on either side, the main argument of the disbelievers always seems to be a few situations where German heavy tanks did not fight well, whereas the German supporters use overall facts. I had the same discussion on another message board where the argument over whether the King Tiger was better or worse than the IS-2. Of course, it was a very complex debate, but in the end the only real evidence that the pro-IS-2 crowd could produce were a few select engagements where the IS-2 did very well against the Tiger-B. Situations in which, most of the time, the Tiger crews were taken by surprise or were broken down.

While I dislike the usual rabid Germanophiles as much as any other armour enthusiast who finds the full spectrum of AFVs interesting, these sorts of "counter attacks" are usually as arbitrary and, often times, pointless as the arguments for them. Perhaps all we can really ask is that people realize that the German heavy tanks were not going to win the war for the Germans, and that they did not have as huge an effect as some would like, but they were still an important aspect of the German fighting force as well as the overall development of armoured warfare."


"Interesting that the author brings in Tom Jentz , but it seems he had unserstood only 50% of Toms work . He wants to fight against predjudices that german tanks were technical superior but uses the other hand of predjudices to do that . If I have to judge the whole text , I would would say :

Much words , but nothing new , no fitting argumentation ..."

"Considering that a total of only 30 Tigers were lost to aerial bombardent and fighter-bombers (plus five from aerial friendly fire), it's quite a large exaggeration that they 'wrecked havoc'..."

"My belief is that tanks like the Panther was better performing then any other russian or american counterpart of the time. BUT, it wasn't best for germany. It was as he said too complex to build and because of that it broke down too much. What germany would have needed was to improve the Panzer 4 and make it easier to build and then massproduce it. America had the Sherman and the russians had the T34, they were both very simple and easy to maintain machines and they were made in hundreds of thousands. At the time germany didn't have time nor the funds or materials to build new tanks over and over again. The end result of this will only lead to poor quality and hard to maintain, many flaws.

The Tiger however that I am a bit of an expert in I'd say that it is a perfect tank for a country that is defending itself. Only flaw is that it's easy to spot from the air.

But what I want to say is that america and russia did not win because they're machines were better but because they were massproduced."

[James Tainton]

and just to be thorough...

http://members.shaw.ca/jadgtiger/pantherreview.jpg

[Selrach]

It was always my impression that the American armor in WW2 was inferior in terms of armor and firepower, but we won because we could out produce german output.

Isn't that the commonly held opinion?

[James Tainton]

here is another response I got..

But what I want to say is that america and russia did not win because they're machines were better but because they were massproduced.

"exactly... the fact remains that Germany in the earlier years, didn't have the need to produce 20,000 tanks a year... the war wouldn't last that long
it's my beleif that instead of mass-producing a couple of models (t-34, kv, sherman etc) the Germans relied on a technical superiority, and better tactics
and as for the tanks being handmade as a fault... need I remind them of the amazing numbers put out in '44 under speer, and with heaving allied bombing
I don't think half of us would be interested in German tanks if they had one or two models produced en masse
I think what attracts people to the study of german arms in general, is their superiority and advancement of their day.. a tribute to that would be the jagdtiger... better than anything NATO had for the first 18 years of it's existance..
since when is mass-production is a sign of quality?"

and this;


since when is mass-production is a sign of quality?


"Well said. I find it difficult to believe that many people will support the idea that mass produced vehicles have better quality than hand-made ones. Many of the components of the German heavy tanks were mass-produced, but the complete vehicles probably needed a bit of custom fitting in order to integrate the systems. This makes production slower, but the result might be effective enough to make up the difference, or it might not."

[ShermiesRule]

It has always been my understanding, even before this article, that the Germans built themselves a bunch of heavy monsters armed with big guns that performed well if and when they were operational. I have always been under the impression that their tanks were very prone to breakdown and were out of service as much time as they were ever in service. To be honest I am not sure where I got that impression over the years and cannot cite any specific source to back it up. It just comes from general reading over many year.

As for Allied tanks, I have always believed them to be much much more reliable as far as being in service but lacked sufficient firepower and armor in a straight up fight.

Perhaps it comes to interpretation. The US strategy was never really to build a superior tank but to build one that was reliable, mobile and able to exploit weak spots and cause havoc in the enemy lines. To that effect the Sherman was the perfect tank. It performed all it's intended fuctions of which killing enemy tanks was not one of them.

German tanks were designed to killer enemy tanks, which it did extremely well, but could not kill enough Allied tanks to stop the enemy advance.

Given the varying doctrines of the two sides, the Sherman was much more effective being quick, reliable and mass produced than German tanks were at being effective tank killers. Even I will concede one vs one the German tanks were possibly superior when running, but given the end result is to win the war, the Sherman was better suited

BTW I have never heard of Slobbering German Freaks. I have heard Nazi Morons, Dunkelgelb Dorks and even Fuhrer Fanatics.

[James Tainton]

Thanks for the input here is another response; (and it should be "Fuhrer"
sorry to be so anal but just to get it right... );)

Okay, now I'm really confused about Mr. GWMCOS's (aka Cookie Sewell) raving reply- in his original article ABOUT MODELS, he only mentions two issues with the Panther- non-interchangability of parts, and slow turret traverse- neither of which I've ever even heard of before. There are no complaints in print from former Panther crewmen or mechanics that I'm aware of on either issue. I would think that if these issues were so serious that they'd be mentioned quite regularly in anecdotes, but in fact, just as is the case with most machines, the users' opinions are for the most part quite high.

I was totally expecting Mr. Hone's letter to be a major trash-job of US armor vs. German armor or even have some kind of statement(s) that put German armor on an unrealisticly high pedestal, but he only addresses the issues mentioned by Sewell in a very mild-mannered, matter-or-fact fashion; he simply states a some facts that contradict Sewell's poorly referenced statements... hardly the response of a "Slobbering German Freak". It actually looks like it's Sewell who's an Slobbering Anti-German Freak.

Statistics and Specifications are all well-and-good for direct, strictly theoretical comparisons of capabilites, but but these should be considered in the context of actual, practical experience. It has long been my opinion that the best people to consult about how good or bad something is are the actual users because those whose lives depend on something are likely to be the most critical. This being the case, wouldn't you expect to hear a huge number of complaints or insults from those people if something were truly bad? Does anyone know of any major reporting of dissatisfaction with the turret traverse speed or the interchangibility of parts- or anything more than the underpowered engine (after the initial, granted numerous, design flaws were worked-out I mean)?

Just to answer your question James- I have never heard there were any parts problems with the Panther. I find thiw quite odd considering Sewell claims that Jentz says this; I don't recall anything about that in his book Germany's Panther Tank. If this were really a significant problem, I'd expect to have heard of lengthy repair delays and semi-functional equipment at the front, but as Mr. Hone states, German repair units seem to have been quite adept at keeping the majority of vehicles combat-ready. This should have been extremely difficult if not impossible if part fit was a problem. The turret traverse issue is also one I've never read any complaints about. As Mr. Hone correctly mentions, the Panther's 7,5cm Kw.K 42 L/70 had very similar performance to the Tiger's 8,8cm Kw.K. 36/L56 meaning that it had a very long reach. Targets could thus be engaged at long range and the longer the range, the smaller the angle change necessary to switch from one target to another. In such cases a slower power traverse wouldn't make much difference. Only at very close range would this be a problem- but I would think the drawback of slow turret traverse could be all but negated if the vehicle turns as well as the turret. All the Sturmgeschütze and Panzerjäger had virtually no gun traverse and relied mainly on moving the whole vehicle- and they fared quite well for themselves. Add the ability of a traverseing turret and I'd think a tank could acquire new targets even more quickly.

Sewell's conclusion that the Panther was not a very good tank is a perfect illustration of my first statement- that such a label is largely dependent on the point-of-view of the claimant. Here it sure looks like a case of sour grapes more than anything. Sewell seems to be quite annoyed that most people believe that the Panther was the best medium tank of the war, or even best overall, and it is for that reason, at least in part, that he has chosen to dislike the Panther.

[Uruk-Hai]

I believe that due to shortage of raw materials because of bombings and blocades, Germanys only option was to build fewer but better and heavier tanks.
This also gives the crew higher chance of survival which leads to experience.

They couldn build as many as the western or eastern allied, nor man them.

[Kurt Laughlin]

Originally posted by panzerfaust@Dec 19 2004, 04:53 PM
. . .

Interesting that the author brings in Tom Jentz , but it seems he had unserstood only 50% of Toms work . He wants to fight against predjudices that german tanks were technical superior but uses the other hand of predjudices to do that

. . .

But what I want to say is that america and russia did not win because they're machines were better but because they were massproduced.

. . .
At AMPS 2001, I believe it was, Tom Jentz (a former tanker himself) led a tour through APG's vehicle park pointing out various aspects of the German tanks displayed there. I forget the exact question that was asked, but it was something like "Weren't German tanks better than Russian or American ones?" Tom's answer, however, sticks in my mind: "Technology does not win wars. Success in combat depends on the soldiers, their training, their equipment, their food, and a thousand other things. The one who wins is the one with the best overall system. You know who won on May 7th 1945. That should tell you who was better."

The thing I don't understand is why people - modelers - care about this so much.

KL

[David Doyle]

I believe Cookie is correct. And here is my basis. Germany produced a superior military motorcycle. Germany fell, and the Soviets packed up the plant, lock, stock and barrel, and shipped it to Russia, and there proceded to produce clones. Production continued until relatively recently. Some Boeing B-29s were interned in Russia during the war. They were disassembled, backward engineered, and clones produced. The Soviets even produced a copy of the GMC DUKW, although slightly modified.

The German's produced a superior rocket, the A-4 (V2), the US packed up dozens of rockets and carried them away. Missing or short supplied components were duplicated by U.S. firms.

The French were supplied with numerous Panther's at wars end, and I seem to recall that another country - Hungary perhaps - also had some. The Brits captured a Panther factory, and even had a few copies ran off for evaluation.

If in fact these vehicles were vastly superior to anything else, why then weren't more made by allied forces? Why then did they not continue to serve the French, Syrians, etc.? If the Russians can move a motorcycle factory, surely for a much more tacticla important vehicle - a tank - that manufacturing equipment could be moved as well.

If the French Panthers were the best tanks in the world, as some would have us believe, then the French would have seen to it that there was an ongoing supply of parts, if not entire vehicles.

Private collectors are now remanufacturing parts for Panthers - including a turret - if one man can afford to have these types of components built from scratch - then surely a national economy could have as well, IF truly it were such a vastly superior weapon.

The M1A2 Abrams is armed with a Rhienmetall cannon - what postwar Allied tank was armed with the Panther or Tigers gun, if it were so much better than allied guns at the time?

The fact that none of these could haves did happen indicates to me that careful, contemporary study indicated that the German tanks weren't that much - if any - better than the allied tanks of the time. "National pride" didn't keep the Russians from flying B-29 clones, or the U.S. using V-2s - thus wouldn't have stopped the Panther from equipping the postwar 2nd armored instead of continuing production of the Pershing.

My .02,
David Doyle

[stevo]

Well PF you really are going to stir the pot with this one :).
Steve

[ShermiesRule]

I don't think it should be as much as an issue as everyone is making it out to be. If the original statement is defined properly then there is only one obvious answer.

Which tank was better suited to winning WW2? The Sherman with it's reliablity, quickness and ease-of-mass production. The Sherman performed perfectly for it's design and purpose. Outnumber, overwhelm and exploit German weak points.

Which tank was better in a one on one battle? Most German heavies with one caveat. They were harder to repair and were often out of service, but when active were markedly superior tank killers. They engaged and destroyed the enemy tanks with ease but could not stop overwhelming numbers.

[James Tainton]

Originally posted by ShermiesRule@Dec 21 2004, 09:18 AM
I don't think it should be as much as an issue as everyone is making it out to be. If the original statement is defined properly then there is only one obvious answer.

Which tank was better suited to winning WW2? The Sherman with it's reliablity, quickness and ease-of-mass production. The Sherman performed perfectly for it's design and purpose. Outnumber, overwhelm and exploit German weak points.

Which tank was better in a one on one battle? Most German heavies with one caveat. They were harder to repair and were often out of service, but when active were markedly superior tank killers. They engaged and destroyed the enemy tanks with ease but could not stop overwhelming numbers.
I think the original purpose of this post may be getting lost- it is about Mr. Sewell's original comment that the Panther tank was not "very good" and the subsequent arguments to bolster or deny that argument. It is not about which side had the best tank to "win the war". Also I wonder if it really helps his (Mr. S) argument (or anyone's) to revert to name calling?

[Uruk-Hai]

Originally posted by Kurt Laughlin@Dec 20 2004, 10:02 PM
"Technology does not win wars. Success in combat depends on the soldiers, their training, their equipment, their food, and a thousand other things. The one who wins is the one with the best overall system.
This is very true, Kurt. However there are other factors as well, such as how high casualtys a nation can take or how supported the war are among the people of that nation. What could be gained or lost for the nation are other important facts.

[Guest]

Originally posted by Uruk-Hai@Dec 21 2004, 01:20 PM
This is very true, Kurt. However there are other factors as well, such as how high casualtys a nation can take or how supported the war are among the people of that nation. What could be gained or lost for the nation are other important facts.
That's all part of the system, Ur (if may be so forward as to use a nickname).

KL

[Frank De Sisto]

The post-WW2 French AMX13 was armed with a 75mm gun based on that of the Panther. This gun was also later seen on the Israeli M50 Supersherman.

Frank

[sherm1241]

As David Doyle stated both the Russians and the U.S. copied some of Germany's best technology, but other technologies were also adapted. One of the most successfull adaptations was the French adaptation of the Panther's 75 mm gun into a design that was utilized on their AMX-13 as well as being used on the Israeli MK50 Sherman. This was highly successful and was in service up to 1973. This gun has also been the basis of the French 90 mm. As mentioned in another post U.S. combat philosophy was for the tank to be used to exploit a breakthrough, which the Sherman did really well. As far as one on one, yes the German cat's had significant advantages in terms of armor and armament but crew training, tactics and quick response played a significant role in who came out on top. Yes, it would have been nice to have the Pershing in significant quantities in 1944 but because of Army policy this didn't happen. I for one am not a big fan of German Armor as the people who manufactured these weapons were responsible for exterminating around 10 million people, but from a technical standpoint, I can appreciate some of the finer points about the German cat's design. I guess as long as people buy German WW-2 armor the manufacturers will continue to make kits of everything under the sun from that standpoint, and I guess I will have to be content with the Allied equipment that Dragon, Academy, Trumpeteer and Itaeleri give us as well as the aftermarket stuff that Tiger Model Designs, Formations and Accurate Armor produce.

[moebius]

I really like these threads that seek to take a close look at long-held tuths and myths that seem to be numerous in our hobby; it brings out the best in us modellers/historians to be a little skeptical and shake up the odd sacred cow. There have been some great posts regarding lots of side issues, but I want to get to the one issue of the letter that started this thing.
What this Cookie guy seems to have done, is just make a bit of a fool of himself, I think. I realize he's a modeller of some note and all that, but his raving attack on that poor bloke, as well as his rant against the Panther has probably done his rep. more harm than good. He uses lots of 'kinda' truths and exaggerations to support some sort of vendetta on this tank and the Tiger, which, even to those of us who haven't memorized the works of Spielberger and Jentz/Doyle et al, just dosen't ring true.
The fact is, when compared to its contemoraries, and even with its immediate successors, the Panther was more than just 'good'. It had a rough beginning, and was never free of flaws, but by the time the G model came out, it was a whole lot different to the engine burning fragile youngster that fought at Kursk.
It's wrong to go around declaring that the German cats were some sort of uberpanzer, designed by engineering gods that swept all before them, but Cookie's simply doing the opposite, which is ridiculous! I'd like to read that Jentz piece that he sites that says they were all hand-crafted with no interchangable parts, too...

BTW, it's been interesting reading the Sherman posts too, very interesting.
Cheers
Tim (slobbering German yadda yadda...)

[gordy]

fun and games are over, each side's had it's say...