Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

Sherman limitations were also due to the tank destroyer doctrine (they were supposed to avoid tank vs tank combat), and therefore carried initially a low velocity gun, adequate for infantry support role; and as already mentioned, once they added better guns (like 105mm) it became capable of taking care of T-55s and T-62s

Also important to mention that it was good enough against the most likely adversaries: Pz IV and StuG IIIs

Panthers and Tigers were super sophisticated, but difficult to mass produce, and therefore, only 6,500 and 2,000 were built (respectively)... that is a lot less than the 50,000 Shermans built. And in total war, quantity have intrinsic quality

Also, by 1944, air superiority was so vast that, assuming good weather, any panzer concentration would be destroyed from the air as soon as it was spotted

So, definitively not the best, but good enough to win the war

what shouldn't be forgotten though is how the kill rates of the tanks you quote were and what the nation, in this case Germany, was able to produce. Germany couldn't produce, let alone SUPPLY 50.000 Shermans. They could produce their Panthers and they also could supply them (the Panzer Divs weren't in a bad shape until the end of the war). If you leave everything else aside that could kill a tank, in the end, the 6500 Panthers you stated can kill the 50,000 Shermans and both sides would be out of tanks. Of course tanks are used for a lot more things than just tank vs tank warfare but for the German, their way was the right way, quality over quantity because they couldn't build and couldn't supply the quantity.

First thing to point out:

Lanchester's Square
A major aspect of all warfare is the simple formula, known as the Lanchester's Square Law, that the relative combat power of a combat unit in contact with each other to the relative combat power of an enemy of a given size, all other factors being equal, is the square of the number of members of that unit:

One tank obviously has the combat power of one tank. (1² = 1)
Two tanks have four times the relative combat power of a single tank. (2² = 4)

From this it is derived that twice as many tanks will quadruple the relative firepower — relative that is, to the amount of firepower the enemy has per member of the friendly unit; one could also express this by saying that their relative punishment from enemy action is reduced four times, which is the same thing — as not only their own absolute number is doubled, but the number of enemy tanks relative to each of their own, is thereby halved also.

Thus, concentrating two divisions into one point and attacking generates a far greater force than is achieved by spreading two divisions into a line and pushing forward on a broad front.

Concentration of force requires mobility to prevent the enemy detecting the point of attack in time to reinforce the section of the defence, and concentration of firepower to be effective in combat once concentrated. The tank embodies these two properties, and so constitutes the primary weapon in armoured warfare.

Second point:

Bagration operation: (note number of destroyed tanks on one and other side)
"The battle has been described as the triumph of the Soviet theory of "the operational art" - because of the complete co-ordination of all front movements and signals traffic to fool the enemy about the fundamental nature of the offensive attack. Despite the huge level of forces involved, Soviet front commanders left their opposite numbers in complete confusion about the main axis of attack until it was too late for the Germans to recover the situation."

1.7 million russian troops attacked the 800,000 men of Army Gruppe Center, and killed, wounded, and captured 670,000 men and destroying and capturing 2,000 tanks.

Soviet losses were 60,000 killed, 110,000 wounded, and about 8,000 missing, with 2,957 tanks, 2,447 artillery pieces, and 822 aircraft also lost.

Russians in a whole operation lost lil bit more than tanks than Germans. Considering its an offensive operation and anty tank guns probably made most of those losses its obvious how overrated tigers/panthers were

How Soviets killed tiger 1 tanks with shermans:

Dmitriy Loza, tank commander of Matilda, T-34 and Sherman
- What would you like to say about the German Tiger?

- It was an extremely heavy vehicle. The Sherman could never defeat a Tiger with a frontal shot. We had to force the Tiger to expose its flank. If we were defending and the Germans were attacking, we had a special tactic. Two Shermans were designated for each Tiger. The first Sherman fired at the track and broke it. For a brief space of time the heavy vehicle still moved forward on one track, which caused it to turn. At this moment the second Sherman shot it in the side, trying to hit the fuel cell. This is how we did it. One German tank was defeated by two of ours, therefore the victory was credited to both crews. There is a story about this entitled "Hunting With Borzois" in my book.

Compared to Panthers/King tigers Shermans and t34 have been much better designs. Many of you might think I am mad or something but first thing that makes a thing worth wile producing/servicing/transporting was and still is his reliability .
Cost of producing one king tiger was probably 10 times greater than T34 or sherman, Panters were probably 5 times more costly and their operational ability on battlefield was never greater than 50%. Literally about a hundred of Panthers were destroyed by Germans at the start of operation Balgration.

Best tank is one that is available when u need it and can do the job that is assigned for. It doesent matter how good it looks or how fast/gunned/ it is as long it gets the job done.

Both Late Shermans and t34/85 were perfectly capable of killing even rare Tigers/exploit the gap/cross rivers/travel on difficult terrain/easily cross bridges/give adequate support to advancing infantry/redeploy quickly. They were wonderful designs and generally/overall much better than anything Germans/Japan had.

I actually deleted what i commented on an article and will only point out that late Germans models were pure junk and never should have been mass produced. At best they were at beta state of development...

Considering the ressources and manpower available to the Germans, it did make sense to favor quality over quantity on
a grand strategic level. Frederik Lancaster does not tell you anything about economy of force, and he does not provide you with a guide
to maximise your ressources. He only tells you something about battlefield power relation without considering other elements.

So you are kind of missing Castor Troy's point.

Goran, your operation Bagration numbers are pure fantasy.

ORIGINAL: Gräfin Zeppelin

Goran, your operation Bagration numbers are pure fantasy.

Lets not make this topis about Bagration

ORIGINAL: goran007


Both Late Shermans and t34/85 were perfectly capable of killing even rare Tigers/exploit the gap/cross rivers/travel on difficult terrain/easily cross bridges/give adequate support to advancing infantry/redeploy quickly. They were wonderful designs and generally/overall much better than anything Germans/Japan had.

Some interesting counterpoints though- I was wondering why Sherman's always stuck to roads (like the Pz IVs) - their narrow tracks. After seeing the T-34 in action the Germans quickly copied their wide tracks. In fact the Tigers was so wide, the road tracks and road wheels had to be taken off for a set of rail ones when being transported (which made them difficult to strat move ).

Two surprising facts I did not know about the Tiger from http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger1.htm
"Much have been said about the Tiger's maneuverability, that the Tiger was a "lumbering monster", or that "it could barely move", but that is not exactly the truth. The Tiger I was very maneuverable for its weight and size, and superior to the Sherman in muddy terrain, despite its size and weight, as it had less ground pressure. This capability was provided by the the combat tracks of 755 mm width, which resulted in a ground pressure of 15.0 psi, or 1.05 kg/cm².

Tigers, like all German tanks, used regenerative steering, hydraulically operated - the separate tracks could be turned in opposite directions at the same time, so the Tiger I could neutral steer (pivoting in place) , and completely turn around in a distance of 3.44 meters (11.28ft). This used to take by surprise many unlucky enemy crews. As a result of all those facts, the reality is that the Tiger I was not slow at all: The Panzer IV road speed was 40 km/h. Cross country speed was 20 km/h. The Panzer III (Ausf E to N) road speed was 40 km/h. Cross country speed was 18 km/h. The Tiger I road speed was 38 km/h. Cross country speed was 20 km/h."

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

Sherman limitations were also due to the tank destroyer doctrine (they were supposed to avoid tank vs tank combat), and therefore carried initially a low velocity gun, adequate for infantry support role; and as already mentioned, once they added better guns (like 105mm) it became capable of taking care of T-55s and T-62s

Also important to mention that it was good enough against the most likely adversaries: Pz IV and StuG IIIs

Panthers and Tigers were super sophisticated, but difficult to mass produce, and therefore, only 6,500 and 2,000 were built (respectively)... that is a lot less than the 50,000 Shermans built. And in total war, quantity have intrinsic quality

Also, by 1944, air superiority was so vast that, assuming good weather, any panzer concentration would be destroyed from the air as soon as it was spotted

So, definitively not the best, but good enough to win the war

what shouldn't be forgotten though is how the kill rates of the tanks you quote were and what the nation, in this case Germany, was able to produce. Germany couldn't produce, let alone SUPPLY 50.000 Shermans. They could produce their Panthers and they also could supply them (the Panzer Divs weren't in a bad shape until the end of the war). If you leave everything else aside that could kill a tank, in the end, the 6500 Panthers you stated can kill the 50,000 Shermans and both sides would be out of tanks. Of course tanks are used for a lot more things than just tank vs tank warfare but for the German, their way was the right way, quality over quantity because they couldn't build and couldn't supply the quantity.

But that is the point, the US could build, supply dozen of thousands of Shermans, halftracks, trucks, planes, etc. Why should they restrict themselves to small number of sophisticate tanks that in normal conditions will suffer as many casualties as a simpler designes.
Battlefield losses: against tanks, tank destroyers, AT guns, bazookas, tactical bombers, heavy bombing, mines, etc.
Operational losses: like falling into a ditch, running out of gas, engine malfunction, etc.

The bocage country was a good example of heavy losses to both sides (and thus benefiting the one with the big numbers)

6,500 Panthers could not defeat 50,000 Shermans under battlefield conditions; who knows, maybe in a laboratory environment or through one of those complex computer models used by the History channel.
I don't know how many Germans tanks started in Normandy; but by the time of Operation Cobra, after 7 weeks, most were gone. There is were the breakthrough capabilities of the Sherman really shone.

Not sure how this is evolving to the German heavies vs. mass produced mediums but......

While there is no question Pz-VI (and V for that matter) were expensive, complex beasts to build....the ultimate bottleneck was the German economy itself....not these products. They exaserbated the situation, but didn't cause it. If the German 'model' so to speak was so wrong then the victorious nations postwar wouldn't have followed in their stead. (and the Soviet Union was already there with their JS series)

I'm sure Allied tankers are thankful so few Tigers were built given the toll they exacted despite their small numbers. Cooper's argument is that a nation like the US, so touted in threads....well like this one, (50,000 Shermans!!!!!!! yea us!) is that it had a good design in the Pershing and it could have been mass produced but a deliberate decision not too was made. The reasonology behind it is complex and can fuel a flame thread 45 pages long.

Back on topic....Japan vs. Russia. Japanese tanks are often maligned but the Japanese design spec stressed reliability which was important in the Theater they fought. By war's end they produced some good workhorses, outmatched by heavier "mediums" like the M4 and T-34 but the nations that built them had the luxury to build and the opponents that needed em. This didn't make the IJA helpless as even Auguest Storm demonstrated (i recall one notable battle off the top of my head in which a Soviet tank unit paid dearly trying to reduce a Japanese position that could not be bypassed) It was a disadvantage however. T-34's in 41, early 42...same thing. Along with the KV it put terror in the heart of German soldiers who's staple (which btw...is the REAL opponent statistically of the tank.....the AT gun) was incapable of taking them out under normal circumstances. Yet the Germans preservered.

side note: This btw is a real source of Cooper's argument. Yes he gave air to the fact that at best the newer M4 was a match roughly for the aging Pz-IV but that wasn't saying much given said age and before the advent of improved tracks the german tank was superior in mobility and had a harder hitting gun throughout. His real angst was that the Sherman was horribly vulnerable to the standard German AT Weapon of 44....the 75mm gun. as well as the newer Panzerfaust. The US fielded top contenders in naval and air design. Yet when the Sherman is discussed the apologists come flooding out with all sorts of reasons why it was better to produce what even Zaloga flatly called "an obsolecent design" by 1944 en mass vs. make the effort to promote a successor that was far more survivable on the modern battlefield......which was lethal despite the fact that in the West there wern't alot of enemy tanks....but there were alot of AT guns and ATrockets. As part of a huge industrial war machine...the Sherman succeeded....supported by generous arty and tacAir but alot of guys got killed and wounded in the process. Same can be said of the Soviets....by 44 the T-34 was horribly vulnerable protection wise, but the Soviet mindset was different than in the West. There was a far greater capacity to accept casualties. Despite the sophistication of the planning behind AS....the Soviets continued mass frontal attacks right up to Berlin.

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury


I don't know how many Germans tanks started in Normandy; but by the time of Operation Cobra, after 7 weeks, most were gone. There is were the breakthrough capabilities of the Sherman really shone.

We do however know that the 3rd Armored division started Cobra with 230 Shermans and lost about 1300 till May 1945 (half knocked out/half destroyed). And compared to the Panther it was the same speed and had less range (200km vs 250 km / 48km to 46 km) The T-34 had a 400 km range and a speed of over 50 km. I think the Israelis who have a lot of recent experience with tank warfare showed in their design philosophy the main component, by placing not just armor, but an engine in between the crew and potential harm (Merkava) You can almost always salvage a tank, but trained crews are priceless

Not sure how this is evolving to the German heavies vs. mass produced mediums but......

While there is no question Pz-VI (and V for that matter) were expensive, complex beasts to build....the ultimate bottleneck was the German economy itself....not these products.

first argument:
In the 1944 production of tanks peeked at 8k. If you consider they produced 1000 Tigar 1 and tigar 2 tanks, which used enough ressources for probably 5 times that of pz4 or 3 times that of panthers. If they have had standarised factories for production of only 2 models: stug and pz4 they would probably reach double the number they did and would outproduced USSR.

Its debated what was the price of tigar 1 some say 250.000 reich marks, some go to up 800.000, for comparison pz4 costed only 80k reich marks. I remember from somewhere that tigar 1 costed what was weekly pay for 30.000 workers.

So argument that Germans didnt have capability to produce more than anyone else, yes they did.

Hitler believed in wonder wepons that will win the war. That was illusion war is always about grinding your enemy down, just like in witp:)

second argument:
If you look at charts below you will notice how lil tanks they produced in 1939, 1940 and 1941. That is because Gemen made total war mobilisation only after initial defeats in russia, which is totally wierd

If they made total war mobilisation at 1939 like they did in 1942 production numbers of 1944 would probably be achieved at the start of 1942. That would mean much tougher fight for Russions and English in 1941. Who knows how would Russian campain look like if they had 1000 more tanks for Barbarossa???

Third argument
If they did commit fully in 1939 airplane production would be sufficient to had domination in air for much longer time, maybe forever... In any case even though they were heavily bombed in 1944 in that year alone they produced more 10 times more tanks than in 1939. This adds up what 30-40% more tanks in 1944.

With Russian ressources suddenly we are on what, possibility to produce 20k-30k tanks per year? That would be more than USSR and US combined... Scary thought...

production charts are here:
http://orbat.com/site/sturmvogel/GermAFVProd.html

The Allies did develop weapons to counter the Tiger’s impact on the battlefield.

Sherman firefly (2k produced till 1945) was capable of destroying Panthers and Tigars without closing, on regular combat distance which was about 1000 meters.
Brits offer the design of 17pdr anty tank gun to USA to mass produce it on Shermans. They didnt't want foreign gun on their tank so they landed in normandy with far inferir armament to what they could have as standart. (beyond words...)

They exaserbated the situation, but didn't cause it. If the German 'model' so to speak was so wrong then the victorious nations postwar wouldn't have followed in their stead. (and the Soviet Union was already there with their JS series)

Actually noone folowed Germans and certainly not russians. IS2 has nothing with German designs. Actually germans made Panthers as a copy of t34. (slopped armor)
Russians realised that the tank is not a bunker, if you want want build it from concrete and if you want anty tank capability dig in anty tank gun in the ground and you got a bunker (better armor) with same AT capabilty as any tank for 1/100 of a cost.
For some reason Germans lost/forgot principles of blitzkrieg somewhere 1943 and were building King tigers which were used as bunkers.
Anyway noone ever copied germans all tried to copy t34. By the end of war you had Perhing/Pattons design on one side and t54/t55 tank.
Those are highly mobile platforms with great guns and well slopped armor. They were all about 45 tons of weight.

I'm sure Allied tankers are thankful so few Tigers were built given the toll they exacted despite their small numbers.

German PAK 75mm anty tank gun could have destroyed 90% soviet tanks. Camuflaged they are virtually undectetable. Tankers could spot them only when they fired becouse of the dust they raised (usually digged in, near ground). They were especially nasty if there were lot of grass or was rainy day. In those conditions there was no dust and they could fire at you from very close range, tankers couldnt spot them. As said before their price was 1/100 of a tank, dont eat up fuel and are easy to maintain.

Tank is an offensive weapon just a thought that it was used for defence is beyond moronic (i apologise for harsh words). If you defend an area tanks are kept in reservs for counter offensive. Defender wet dream is for attacker to bleed on their infantry and anty tanks guns.

This didn't make the IJA helpless as even Auguest Storm demonstrated (i recall one notable battle off the top of my head in which a Soviet tank unit paid dearly trying to reduce a Japanese position that could not be bypassed) It was a disadvantage however.

Area size of western europe guarded by 1 mil strong army. Russians drove all the way to Korea, destroyed/captured Kwantun army for the loss of of only 9k men. I do call that helpless and hopeless army:) What was IJA using pee shoter:)

T-34 was horribly vulnerable protection wise, but the Soviet mindset was different than in the West. There was a far greater capacity to accept casualties. Despite the sophistication of the planning behind AS....the Soviets continued mass frontal attacks right up to Berlin.

Soviets after 1942 (stalingrad onward)never did stupid frontal attacks they improved blitzkrieg doctrine and aways did pincer movements.

Goran007, i agree they had the capability to mass produce, had they chosen PzIV / STUGs and started earlier

I believe their best choice would had been to go with something better than a Pz IV but lighter and less sofisticated than the Panther

But there is also the issue of oil supply... that was a scarce commodity for the Reich; which might be a reason they chose quality vs quantity

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

Goran007, i agree they had the capability to mass produce, had they chosen PzIV / STUGs and started earlier

I believe their best choice would had been to go with something better than a Pz IV but lighter and less sofisticated than the Panther

But there is also the issue of oil supply... that was a scarce commodity for the Reich; which might be a reason they chose quality vs quantity

yeah, pz4 was sound design just like sherman/t34 but with long german 75mm it had firepower of a firefly(1944) but in 1941. They could have slopped his armor and would have been awesome tank up to 1944 and only outgunned by JS2.
1944 something like Panther was needed but they had time test it properly and produce it tenth of thousands...

ORIGINAL: goran007

T-34 was horribly vulnerable protection wise, but the Soviet mindset was different than in the West. There was a far greater capacity to accept casualties. Despite the sophistication of the planning behind AS....the Soviets continued mass frontal attacks right up to Berlin.

Soviets after 1942 (stalingrad onward)never did stupid frontal attacks they improved blitzkrieg doctrine and aways did pincer movements.

More Cold War myths... And yet the Soviet Strategic [aka involving various fronts] Offensives tell us a whole different story...

1) bust a hole in two places and the two forces will converge aka surround the enemy: Stalingrad, Lvov, Yasko-Kishinev etc
2) bust various holes (more than two) and the forces will advance in divergent or parallel directions: Vistule and Oder operations

Add to this that many minor (and yet powerful) operations (to blind the enemy and thus inmobilize precious German reserves) were simultaneously launched... The Red Army offensive arsenal was really varied...

If some people think it was all about pushing the enemy all the way to Berlin, they haven't understood anything [8D] The many German divisions annihilated aka surrounded and then destroyed tell you the real story.

Just compare the Normandy battle to the one in White Russia which occured at the same
time. It is interesting to note, however, that the Wehrmacht withdrew powerful Panzer
forces from the eastern front and transfered them to Normandy..... in July. I always wondered about
that since the destruction of Army Group Centre was a much greater disaster than the
partial destruction of Seventh and Fifteenth Armies in Normandy. I do not know much about
what happened that summer on the Eastern front but I have been to Normandy and studied the
battlefield and the history a fair bit.
My friend Soojan is disappointed about the course of this thread since it has wandered far from
Manchuria where his cousin has a kitchen renovation shop that has savings of money and some benefits too.
cheers

ORIGINAL: danlongman
My friend Soojan is disappointed about the course of this thread since it has wandered far from
Manchuria where his cousin has a kitchen renovation shop that has savings of money and some benefits too.
cheers

To return to manchura...
Just comapare how big jump in army doctrine 'human wave' in Finland and 1941 to beautifull flanking move at slalingrad and there full mature army at Kursk and then to best organise/lead/blitzkrieg army in 1944 Sovets went through. In few years they transformed from peasant bunch to most deadly machine in the world.
On other hand IJA did aposlutely nothing to adopt obviously better way to conduct warfare and prepaire themselves fro onslaught they surely had to expect...

The japs had their hands full just trying to move around what gear they already had. They prolly reckoned if they didn't do well vs Britain an USA, fighting the r00skis would be m00t anyway.

Heavy/medium tanks would have hindered what they were trying to do, an even if they did manage to get heavy gear to hand they'd have got squished anyway. Their crappy tanks are prolly low on the list of reasons why they lost.

ORIGINAL: goran007
first - Thirdargument:

I'm guessing your saying that had Germany more standardized it's tank production and forgo'd Tiger I and Panther they would have radically altered the situation. Unfortunately the situation was more complex than that, which is why i said that building Tiger (Pz-VIe) and Panther exaserbated but did not cause failure from a logistical standpoint There were competing interests, resource and worker shortages and political factors involved.

Sherman firefly (2k produced till 1945) was capable of destroying Panthers and Tigars without closing, on regular combat distance which was about 1000 meters.
Brits offer the design of 17pdr anty tank gun to USA to mass produce it on Shermans. They didnt't want foreign gun on their tank so they landed in normandy with far inferir armament to what they could have as standart. (beyond words...)

The M4 Firefly was a stopgap, not a complete solution, as was the T-34/85 to a degree, and was bottlenecked by 17pdr production. Pershing was the better choice.

Actually noone folowed Germans and certainly not russians. IS2 has nothing with German designs. Actually germans made Panthers as a copy of t34. (slopped armor)

I am familiar with the history of the T-34 and Panther. I'm not talking about the Germans adopting the sloped armor of the former. The Panther was a close representation of what is known today as the MBT…a successor to the light/medium/heavy tank school of thought that was prevalent before and during WWII. A tank that could take on the heaviest beasts and have a good chance of survival along with a good spurt of mobility. The Soviets persisted with heavy tanks for a time but eventually discontinued them in favor of more MBT types.

Soviets after 1942 (stalingrad onward)never did stupid frontal attacks

Except in those situations where they did.

they improved blitzkrieg doctrine and aways did pincer movements.

Soviet battle tactics improved over time but problems continued. The Russians however could always rely on attrition tactics.

German PAK 75mm anty tank gun could have destroyed 90% soviet tanks. Camuflaged they are virtually undectetable. Tankers could spot them only when they fired becouse of the dust they raised (usually digged in, near ground).

battlefields are not absolutes. Fact remains a Pershing is more survivable vs. a 75 than an M4 in a variety of circumstances, not just one where the AT gun attacks from concealment at close range with increasingly rare Tungstun core ammo.

Area size of western europe guarded by 1 mil strong army. Russians drove all the way to Korea, destroyed/captured Kwantun army for the loss of of only 9k men. I do call that helpless and hopeless army:) What was IJA using pee shoter:)

The reality of Manchuria in 1945 is far more complex. At least its on topic however.

ORIGINAL: goran007

ORIGINAL: danlongman
My friend Soojan is disappointed about the course of this thread since it has wandered far from
Manchuria where his cousin has a kitchen renovation shop that has savings of money and some benefits too.
cheers

To return to manchura...
Just comapare how big jump in army doctrine 'human wave' in Finland and 1941 to beautifull flanking move at slalingrad and there full mature army at Kursk and then to best organise/lead/blitzkrieg army in 1944 Sovets went through. In few years they transformed from peasant bunch to most deadly machine in the world.
On other hand IJA did aposlutely nothing to adopt obviously better way to conduct warfare and prepaire themselves fro onslaught they surely had to expect...

They did learn their lesson though, their current self defense force's basic Principles of War is quite comprehensive and contains almost every variation of operational strategy.
http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/r ... _pwatj.asp

ORIGINAL: goran007

Level of organisation/expertise needed for defense where you cant be outmanuvered is very limited. Its very hard to judge capability of a force if it doesent conduct offense. Untrained old men and ladies could offer capable defense.

Competent army would find a way to occupy whole china before Perl in a matter where their forces would be free. They could find a way to emplace puppet regime and reduce the need for policing population. Something what they did earlier in Manchuria...

Competant army would have incite revolt in India and eventually take it over in 1942
Competant army would have taken Australia or at least secured flank by capturing Darwin.
They would help Germans and took Soviet provinces.

What you state is a proof of good army because of fighting in Burma i call huge blunder. In a time of British post 'Darkest hour', where convoys couldnt get through and Brits had skeleton force IJA was bogged down in Burma...

Only way to defeat determined landing force is and always was on beaches. Its beyond comprehension why they thought that by bleeding few tenths of thousands dead they would stop US by fighting inland...

They always thought they will be fighting russians, saw their tanks in Finland and German experience from 1941 and they did nothing/or even worse acchieved nothing in modernisation.

You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you?