tanker1408
Airman
- 13
- Mar 26, 2010
Juha, I think Tanker knows that Lafayette G Pool isn't GermanI believe he meant that Pool wasn't a US national hero, like Whitman and the other Germans.
guilty
Best Tank of WW2
- Thread starter carman1877
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
guilty
Hello Tanker
If you read the T-34 article in Ð"Ð»Ð°Ð²Ð½Ð°Ñ - THE RUSSIAN BATTLEFIELD, You'll find out that the picture which shows the armour thicknesses is that of A-20 prototype, which was designed as successor of the BT-series fast tanks, it was built with a heavier A-32 proto with 30mm armour and 76,2mm gun and later it was decided that heavier A-32 was the better one which went into production after it was uparmoured to 45mm standard and became T-34.
On kill statics, have you ever added all the kill claims of Tigers, Panthers, all other Panzers, StuGs, PzJgs, JgPzs, Paks, infantry with all kinds of weapons incl. Panzerfausts and -schrecks, those destroyed by mines and by artillery fire?
Quote:"From December 1943 to April 1944 the Germans destroyed 7,500 Soviets tanks against 2,000 of their own losses. 4 to 1 ratio."
4:1 seems reasonable loss ratio for tanks but how many were destroyed by other means than by enemy tanks. Soviet were attacking so larger part of their losses than those of Germans were because of A/T guns, StuGs/PzJgs/JgPzs, infantry weapons and mines. So what was the exchange rate in pure tank vs tank combat is more difficult to find out. Surely positive for Germans but what exactly?
You can find the turret front armour of PzKfw IVG, H and J from any decent book on German armour.
Sorry on Pool joke. I'm old dour Finn.
Juha
If you read the T-34 article in Ð"Ð»Ð°Ð²Ð½Ð°Ñ - THE RUSSIAN BATTLEFIELD, You'll find out that the picture which shows the armour thicknesses is that of A-20 prototype, which was designed as successor of the BT-series fast tanks, it was built with a heavier A-32 proto with 30mm armour and 76,2mm gun and later it was decided that heavier A-32 was the better one which went into production after it was uparmoured to 45mm standard and became T-34.
On kill statics, have you ever added all the kill claims of Tigers, Panthers, all other Panzers, StuGs, PzJgs, JgPzs, Paks, infantry with all kinds of weapons incl. Panzerfausts and -schrecks, those destroyed by mines and by artillery fire?
Quote:"From December 1943 to April 1944 the Germans destroyed 7,500 Soviets tanks against 2,000 of their own losses. 4 to 1 ratio."
4:1 seems reasonable loss ratio for tanks but how many were destroyed by other means than by enemy tanks. Soviet were attacking so larger part of their losses than those of Germans were because of A/T guns, StuGs/PzJgs/JgPzs, infantry weapons and mines. So what was the exchange rate in pure tank vs tank combat is more difficult to find out. Surely positive for Germans but what exactly?
You can find the turret front armour of PzKfw IVG, H and J from any decent book on German armour.
Sorry on Pool joke. I'm old dour Finn.
Juha
parsifal
Colonel
tigers did poorly in the Ardennes....in the critical battle supporting eiiper, over 45 were on strength when the offensive kicked off, ...i think seven returned in January.
Similar story for the panthers under Peipers direct control....though fuel became an increasingly important factor the Peiper, his tank formations were not achieving the great one sideded victories so often attributed to the Germans, even whilst mobile and largely unnaffected by airpower.
The really big killer for those that support the German tanks as the most advanced in WWII is their exorbitant cost....with an industrial index several time that of Russia, several years of extra fighting, and a huge potential in occupied europe, the Germans managed to produce something like 44000 AFVs (not including halftracks and the like). The Russians with a fraction of the industrial capacity, and fully 35% of her industry overrun produced at least twice that number. And the loss rates for Russian tanks after 1942, compared to those of germany, do not justify the lavish and overextravagant outlay on the german tanbk forces in thaqt time period....only by including the losses in the first half of the war, when the uber tanks were not available, can the Germans justify or corroborate their massive scores over the Russians. The exchange raters were still heavily in favour of the Germans, but this dis not offset the enormous costs per unit that the Germans were lumbered with
Similar story for the panthers under Peipers direct control....though fuel became an increasingly important factor the Peiper, his tank formations were not achieving the great one sideded victories so often attributed to the Germans, even whilst mobile and largely unnaffected by airpower.
The really big killer for those that support the German tanks as the most advanced in WWII is their exorbitant cost....with an industrial index several time that of Russia, several years of extra fighting, and a huge potential in occupied europe, the Germans managed to produce something like 44000 AFVs (not including halftracks and the like). The Russians with a fraction of the industrial capacity, and fully 35% of her industry overrun produced at least twice that number. And the loss rates for Russian tanks after 1942, compared to those of germany, do not justify the lavish and overextravagant outlay on the german tanbk forces in thaqt time period....only by including the losses in the first half of the war, when the uber tanks were not available, can the Germans justify or corroborate their massive scores over the Russians. The exchange raters were still heavily in favour of the Germans, but this dis not offset the enormous costs per unit that the Germans were lumbered with
Messy1
Master Sergeant
Tanker, the main advantage of the T-34, and the Sherman for that matter, was the ease of production, the numbers produced! I never said the T34 was a super tank, I said it was a good mix of the qualities needed in a tank. I would say Germany produced the best overall tanks, but if you are outproduced, 2:1, 3:1, etc. what the hell good it having the best tank if you cannot produce it in numbers enough needed?
michaelmaltby
Colonel
"... what the hell good it having the best tank if you cannot produce it in numbers enough needed".
And THAT is the point. The Russians and the Americans both understood that mass armour was the key. German tankers were Knights - damn fine knights but nonetheless - an elite.
MM
And THAT is the point. The Russians and the Americans both understood that mass armour was the key. German tankers were Knights - damn fine knights but nonetheless - an elite.
MM
I'd have to back Juha on this (not that he needs any really).
Any attacker using a lot of tanks vs. defender that has decent towed AT guns, need to reckon the tank force would suffer great deal. In the same time, attacker's towed AT guns would be rarely deployed.
When we count in the mines, AT ditches, hand-held AT means, attacker's forces would be dented notably.
Comrade Stalin had tanks to spare, so he said: What a heck, lets roll to Berlin.
The rest is history.
Last edited:
tanker1408
Airman
- 13
- Mar 26, 2010
Oh, ok thanks for clearing this up. the A-20 prototype confused me a litttle. As you see I'm just a human who makes mistakes sometimes too. I'll edit it in my previous posts, hope you don't mind. To improve my own statement, T34-76 as well as T34-85 had both 45mm front armor thickness at 60° sloped.
No. Panthers, Panzer IVs or Panzer IIIs or any other AFVs and anti tank guns were NOT involved, added or affected. Panthers did NOT serve in Heavy tank battalions since it was classified as a medium tank by the Germans. Only Tiger I and Tiger II served in Heavy tank battalions. So if we mention kill stats of any Tiger units then it means all these kills were ONLY caused by either Tiger I or King Tiger tanks, nothing other additional weaponry like tanks, guns, air force or anything else.
Tank losses in Tiger units include NOT only losses inflicted by enemy tanks because many Tigers were destroyed by their own crews due a lack of fuel or ammunition, thus the real tank-to-tank ratios got even worse. In other words, these stats are not pure tank vs tank stats. In addition, many Tigers were also killed by enemy anti tank guns, artillery, mines, aircraft etc.
etc.
"From December 1943 to April 1944 the Germans destroyed........."
This quote was referred to ALL German tank divisions together (including Panther, Panzer IV, Panzer III, STuG etc etc.)
All heavy tank battalions together have a total loss of 1,715 Tigers (including Tiger II). All together destroyed 9,850 enemy tanks in total (from 1942 - 1945). This is a 5.74 final kill-to-loss ratio of all known Tiger units.
Well, that's the point. We don't know how many Tiger tanks were exactly killed by enemy tanks, we know only how many Tigers were lost by the enemy. Only the kills alone are made by Tiger tanks this information is valid!
No problem sir, it's ok. you don't need to excuse, it's all fine and I didn't mind at all
Last edited:
tanker1408
Airman
- 13
- Mar 26, 2010
No, that's quite not true. I think all the time during ww2 German tank designers KNEW that numbers are the key for vitory. Blitzkrieg for example was a warfare in which Germans had only weak tanks compared to the heavy french Char B-1 tanks but the Germans won anyway because they had alot of more than the french. Many german weak tanks won over a few superior french heavy tanks only because they were more. But you have to consider, that Germany is a small country with small population compared to Russia. Germany DID NOT HAVE the industrial capability to produce as much tanks as the Soviet Union could do! Germans knew they COULD NEVER win a industrial war by numbers, that's why they decided to produce quality over quantity.
And God damnit, they were almost successful taking over the world by this tactic. Just take a Look where the Germans were in 1941, They were at the gates of Moscow!
It DID NOT MATTER if the Germans produced only Panzer IV or only Panthers, it also DID NOT MATTER what kind of tank they would have produced, since they were not able to massproduce any AFV comparable with Russia and the USA.
Again, it has not much to do only with the tank itself. It depends mostly on the country which produces the tank. I heard of a Russian factory were over 350,000 workers were busy on preoducing soviet tanks.
Compare this to a common german factory in which less than 50,000 slave workers were busy and many of them were killed in concentration camps.Another example, if the Russians decided to produce only the Tiger instead of T34, then they could also have MASSPRODUCED the Tiger as well. There is no point in arguing.
Last edited:
Hello Tanker
I suggested that it might be a good idea to count all German tank kill claims and compare the result to known Soviet losses from Krivosheev's book to see how far off the German claims were, of course one must also take into account what the LW claimed (Rudel's 517 etc) and what other Axis forces claimed even if they were a minor factors in tank kill calculations.
One must also remember that in 44 in the East Germans lost some some 4500 StuGs, StuHs, PzJgs, JgPzs and SP guns vs 6800 Soviet SUs.
On A-20 proto. Yes it is rather easy to confuse its info meaning T-34 on the Russian Battlefield site. I was helped on the fact that it was circa 45 years ago when I was on the first time on, in and around T-34/76
Juha
I suggested that it might be a good idea to count all German tank kill claims and compare the result to known Soviet losses from Krivosheev's book to see how far off the German claims were, of course one must also take into account what the LW claimed (Rudel's 517 etc) and what other Axis forces claimed even if they were a minor factors in tank kill calculations.
One must also remember that in 44 in the East Germans lost some some 4500 StuGs, StuHs, PzJgs, JgPzs and SP guns vs 6800 Soviet SUs.
On A-20 proto. Yes it is rather easy to confuse its info meaning T-34 on the Russian Battlefield site. I was helped on the fact that it was circa 45 years ago when I was on the first time on, in and around T-34/76
Juha
michaelmaltby
Colonel
"... they were almost successful taking over the world by this tactic. Just take a Look where the Germans were in 1941, They were at the gates of Moscow! " Very true - but no winter clothes.
The Germans are masters of both the deception/ambush and the staggered retreat - as Canadians know who fought them up the boot of Italy. Two or three Tiger tanks staged strategically would cost a tank-rich attacker heavily. Again and again the Germans achieved huge damage on Soviet forces (and UK-Canadian Shermans).
In the Battle of France I think that from the get-go the Germans out-fought, out-maneuvered and out-smarted the French. I know generalizations are not favored by some on the this post but - there it is. France (not every Frenchman) lacked the will.
MM
The Germans are masters of both the deception/ambush and the staggered retreat - as Canadians know who fought them up the boot of Italy. Two or three Tiger tanks staged strategically would cost a tank-rich attacker heavily. Again and again the Germans achieved huge damage on Soviet forces (and UK-Canadian Shermans).
In the Battle of France I think that from the get-go the Germans out-fought, out-maneuvered and out-smarted the French. I know generalizations are not favored by some on the this post but - there it is
. France (not every Frenchman) lacked the will.MM
schwarzpanzer
Senior Airman
- 662
- Aug 8, 2005
Hi tanker1408,
They produced the Stug III G Spater - which was a simple, reliable, easily produced and repaired AFV. It was also reasonably well armoured, and it's gun was still enough to deal with any threat, excepting perhaps the Churchill. However, the factory that made them was bombed, but the design was sound. The Panther was a very flawed, complicated, unreliable, labour and materiel-intensive and expensive vehicle, and also too much for the Sdkfz 9 FAMO to handle. However, Germany were short of crews, so I would say that what was needed was quality, not quantity.
No, it was tricky to mass-produce. Soviet designs were deliberately simple. Of course, a greater labour pool would have helped though. A quality of the Tiger was that it's armour quality always remained high. Soviet armour was hard, but brittle - which allowed spalling, and had no real advantages when facing APCBC projectiles.
They produced the Stug III G Spater - which was a simple, reliable, easily produced and repaired AFV. It was also reasonably well armoured, and it's gun was still enough to deal with any threat, excepting perhaps the Churchill. However, the factory that made them was bombed, but the design was sound. The Panther was a very flawed, complicated, unreliable, labour and materiel-intensive and expensive vehicle, and also too much for the Sdkfz 9 FAMO to handle. However, Germany were short of crews, so I would say that what was needed was quality, not quantity.
No, it was tricky to mass-produce. Soviet designs were deliberately simple. Of course, a greater labour pool would have helped though. A quality of the Tiger was that it's armour quality always remained high. Soviet armour was hard, but brittle - which allowed spalling, and had no real advantages when facing APCBC projectiles.
Hello all
If we looked 1944 main AFV losses at the Eastern Front; circa 9000 German Panzers, StuGs, StuHs, PzJgs, JgPzs and SP guns vs 23700 Soviet tanks and SUs without counting Romanian, Hungarian and Finnish losses and heavy Axis A/T gun losses it IMHO seems that Axis were, while still having clearly positive exchange rate, clearly loosing because of they were outproduced and after D-Day their losses against Western Allies also increased dramatically.
Hello schwarzpanzer
while I like StuGs and I'm not a big Panther fan IMHO you are too hard on Panther. Panther was more or less as expensive as Pz IV, of course it needed more material to produce, while having definitely better armour and armament and also better power to weight ratio. But as you wrote it was too heavy as a MBT for WM infrastructure and in 43, which was strategically most important year of its service, much too unreliable. What Germans would have needed from 43 onwards was much more like the original plans for Panther, circa 35 ton reliable medium tank with a very good gun and clearly adequate frontal armour but still much more easily recoverable and more suitable to available bridging etc equipment. Lighter weight would have made it easier for the running gear and powertrain to cope. 60mm frontal glacis would have been perfectly adequate in 43 and even a bit less powerful gun than the original L/60 would also have been perfectly adequate in 43.
Juha
If we looked 1944 main AFV losses at the Eastern Front; circa 9000 German Panzers, StuGs, StuHs, PzJgs, JgPzs and SP guns vs 23700 Soviet tanks and SUs without counting Romanian, Hungarian and Finnish losses and heavy Axis A/T gun losses it IMHO seems that Axis were, while still having clearly positive exchange rate, clearly loosing because of they were outproduced and after D-Day their losses against Western Allies also increased dramatically.
Hello schwarzpanzer
while I like StuGs and I'm not a big Panther fan IMHO you are too hard on Panther. Panther was more or less as expensive as Pz IV, of course it needed more material to produce, while having definitely better armour and armament and also better power to weight ratio. But as you wrote it was too heavy as a MBT for WM infrastructure and in 43, which was strategically most important year of its service, much too unreliable. What Germans would have needed from 43 onwards was much more like the original plans for Panther, circa 35 ton reliable medium tank with a very good gun and clearly adequate frontal armour but still much more easily recoverable and more suitable to available bridging etc equipment. Lighter weight would have made it easier for the running gear and powertrain to cope. 60mm frontal glacis would have been perfectly adequate in 43 and even a bit less powerful gun than the original L/60 would also have been perfectly adequate in 43.
Juha
parsifal
Colonel
No, that's quite not true. I think all the time during ww2 German tank designers KNEW that numbers are the key for vitory. Blitzkrieg for example was a warfare in which Germans had only weak tanks compared to the heavy french Char B-1 tanks but the Germans won anyway because they had alot of more than the french.
wrong! the french actually outnumbered the Germans, but they dissipated their armoured strength in penny packets and failed to provide adequate all arms support for their tank forces.
There are three principal elements to a balanced tank design....firepower, mobility and protection. All design decisions revolve around those three basics. The french designs, whilst superior in firepower and protection, lagged badly in mobility. They lacked radios to concentrate thjeir tanks, their tanks suffered low power to weight ratios and most of their tanks possessed very limited endurance. These factors rendered their tanks inneffective and vulnerable to the numerically inferior, and theoretically more vulnerable German tanks....but in fact the germans were abl;e concentrate at the decisive point and use mobility to make their tanks far less vuklnerable than they seemed. They seemed to forget these important elements to armoured warfare later in the war...
But you have to consider, that Germany is a smallomically in the world, country with small population compared to Russia. Germany DID NOT HAVE the industrial capability to produce as much tanks as the Soviet Union could do! Germans knew they COULD NEVER win a industrial war by numbers, that's why they decided to produce quality over quantity.
Another myth!!!! Germany in fact in 1938 was the second most powerful country economically with industrial potential several times (at least), that of the Soviet Union. The early victories in westren europr and in western russia in 1939 -41 only served to widen that gap. Yet by pure mismanagement of their resources the germans allowed themselves to be outproduced by a far more backward and less well developed nation. Part of that mismanagement was the choices made in the last half of the war in their tanks ....large, complicated heavy monsters with limited mobility was not what Germany needed....these are not my opinions....they are the opinions expressed by suchmen as Rommel and Speer, both of whom advocated cheaper, more easily produced and more readily aavailable types for germanys key defensive campaigns. They never won that argument, and Germany resisted less well than she could have as a result.
And God damnit, they were almost successful taking over the world by this tactic. Just take a Look where the Germans were in 1941, They were at the gates of Moscow!
It DID NOT MATTER if the Germans produced only Panzer IV or only Panthers, it also DID NOT MATTER what kind of tank they would have produced, since they were not able to massproduce any AFV comparable with Russia and the USA.
Wrong again...Germany won her battles to the end of 1941 with types that followed a completely diffrernt design philosophy to that which followed from 1942 to 1945. The mismanagement of germany's tank production was but one element to the overall failure....Germany could have made different choices in her military procurement machine, but Hitlers 9and others) mania to have the biggest, heaviest meanest tanks available doomed germany to chronic equipment shortages for the rest of the war.
Again, it has not much to do only with the tank itself. It depends mostly on the country which produces the tank. I heard of a Russian factory were over 350,000 workers were busy on preoducing soviet tanks. Compare this to a common german factory in which less than 50,000 slave workers were busy and many of them were killed in concentration camps.
Another example, if the Russians decided to produce only the Tiger instead of T34, then they could also have MASSPRODUCED the Tiger as well. There is no point in arguing.
Sheer speculation, and i believe fantasy! The tiger was an exorbitantly expensive pice of machinery, that I believe cost aboput eight time that of the T-34 to produce....If the russians had tried to opt for high quality, high cost items like the germans, their lower industrial potentials would have meant an even smaller production run in tanks than the Germans were able to manage. They would have suffrered the same problems as the germans only worse......
wrong! the french actually outnumbered the Germans, but they dissipated their armoured strength in penny packets and failed to provide adequate all arms support for their tank forces.
There are three principal elements to a balanced tank design....firepower, mobility and protection. All design decisions revolve around those three basics. The french designs, whilst superior in firepower and protection, lagged badly in mobility. They lacked radios to concentrate thjeir tanks, their tanks suffered low power to weight ratios and most of their tanks possessed very limited endurance. These factors rendered their tanks inneffective and vulnerable to the numerically inferior, and theoretically more vulnerable German tanks....but in fact the germans were abl;e concentrate at the decisive point and use mobility to make their tanks far less vuklnerable than they seemed. They seemed to forget these important elements to armoured warfare later in the war...
But you have to consider, that Germany is a smallomically in the world, country with small population compared to Russia. Germany DID NOT HAVE the industrial capability to produce as much tanks as the Soviet Union could do! Germans knew they COULD NEVER win a industrial war by numbers, that's why they decided to produce quality over quantity.
Another myth!!!! Germany in fact in 1938 was the second most powerful country economically with industrial potential several times (at least), that of the Soviet Union. The early victories in westren europr and in western russia in 1939 -41 only served to widen that gap. Yet by pure mismanagement of their resources the germans allowed themselves to be outproduced by a far more backward and less well developed nation. Part of that mismanagement was the choices made in the last half of the war in their tanks ....large, complicated heavy monsters with limited mobility was not what Germany needed....these are not my opinions....they are the opinions expressed by suchmen as Rommel and Speer, both of whom advocated cheaper, more easily produced and more readily aavailable types for germanys key defensive campaigns. They never won that argument, and Germany resisted less well than she could have as a result.
And God damnit, they were almost successful taking over the world by this tactic. Just take a Look where the Germans were in 1941, They were at the gates of Moscow!
It DID NOT MATTER if the Germans produced only Panzer IV or only Panthers, it also DID NOT MATTER what kind of tank they would have produced, since they were not able to massproduce any AFV comparable with Russia and the USA.
Wrong again...Germany won her battles to the end of 1941 with types that followed a completely diffrernt design philosophy to that which followed from 1942 to 1945. The mismanagement of germany's tank production was but one element to the overall failure....Germany could have made different choices in her military procurement machine, but Hitlers 9and others) mania to have the biggest, heaviest meanest tanks available doomed germany to chronic equipment shortages for the rest of the war.
Again, it has not much to do only with the tank itself. It depends mostly on the country which produces the tank. I heard of a Russian factory were over 350,000 workers were busy on preoducing soviet tanks.
Compare this to a common german factory in which less than 50,000 slave workers were busy and many of them were killed in concentration camps.Another example, if the Russians decided to produce only the Tiger instead of T34, then they could also have MASSPRODUCED the Tiger as well. There is no point in arguing.
Sheer speculation, and i believe fantasy! The tiger was an exorbitantly expensive pice of machinery, that I believe cost aboput eight time that of the T-34 to produce....If the russians had tried to opt for high quality, high cost items like the germans, their lower industrial potentials would have meant an even smaller production run in tanks than the Germans were able to manage. They would have suffrered the same problems as the germans only worse......
michaelmaltby
Colonel
"... Part of that mismanagement was the choices made in the last half of the war in their tanks ...."
Parsifal your point about economic mismanagement of the German economy is spot on. As history has shown time and again; in wartime producing guns AND butter is a magic act. A leader who claims he can do that is delusional. Germany didn't even mobilize women workers in the way UK, US, Canada, USSR and others did. The idea of Slave Labor building complicated weapons and ammunition is a travesty to those who would have to use them.
MM
Parsifal your point about economic mismanagement of the German economy is spot on. As history has shown time and again; in wartime producing guns AND butter is a magic act.
A leader who claims he can do that is delusional. Germany didn't even mobilize women workers in the way UK, US, Canada, USSR and others did. The idea of Slave Labor building complicated weapons and ammunition is a travesty to those who would have to use them.MM
Parsifal, very interesting summary there, and I have to say I think you are spot on.
I too find it interesting how Germany changed her philosophy after several years of war, when they already had a winning philosophy to begin with. If it is not broke, do not fix it...
I wonder if this change came about because of the quick and fast victories they sustained early on?
I too find it interesting how Germany changed her philosophy after several years of war, when they already had a winning philosophy to begin with. If it is not broke, do not fix it...
I wonder if this change came about because of the quick and fast victories they sustained early on?
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
I wonder how all my grandmothers aunties were either factory workers of flak helpers then
I recall reading that pre 42 Nazi ideology kept women out of factories because of a fixation that women were only meant to produce children not munitions. Perhaps your female relatives were only working in factories after that date.
Things were different in Britain. My great Aunt who was 21 in 1939 was conscripted as a war worker in late 1939. She spent the next 6 years working as a station clerk for the railways till the men were demobilised and came back to resume there jobs.
michaelmaltby
Colonel
"... I wonder how all my grandmothers aunties were either factory workers of flak helpers then"
No disrespect Riacrato to your grannies and aunts . Can you give us more details like what years? and what kind of factory work they performed? When I stated "Germany didn't even mobilize women workers in the way UK, US, Canada, USSR and others did." I didn't meant to imply that they (women) didn't contribute to the German war effort. Lots of air plotters I'm sure, and the flak helpers you mentioned. But the underlying question is WHEN did German economy become fully mobilized for war?
Can you provide some personal insights, please.
MM
No disrespect Riacrato to your grannies and aunts
. Can you give us more details like what years? and what kind of factory work they performed? When I stated "Germany didn't even mobilize women workers in the way UK, US, Canada, USSR and others did." I didn't meant to imply that they (women) didn't contribute to the German war effort. Lots of air plotters I'm sure, and the flak helpers you mentioned. But the underlying question is WHEN did German economy become fully mobilized for war?Can you provide some personal insights, please.
MM
Shortround6
Major General
It may have come about because of their combat experience. While they did win battles perhaps they thought they were losing too many tanks and tank crewmen with those thinly armored and not particularly well armed tanks. One can easily argue that they swung the pendulum too far the other way but neither the the MK III with it's 50-60mm vertical armor and 50mm gun or the MK IV with the short 75mm had much life left to them once they met the T-34 or KV tanks. depending on the Russians to keep building their 1941 tanks for another 4 years ( I know, hindsight) without a really new model might not have worked either. Canceling the Panther Tiger while hoping the upgraded MK IV will work against what ever the US comes up with after the M-4 Sherman (which never did show up) doesn't seem like the best planning.
schwarzpanzer
Senior Airman
- 662
- Aug 8, 2005
Late in the War German designers seemed to copy the French dsigns of 1940, rather than those of the Blitzkreig. it must be asked, why??
It needs to be remembered, that Germany had Durcbruchwagen (Breakthrough Vehicle) designs as early as 1936, but felt it didn't need them (which turned out to be right). One of these designs morphed into the Tiger and was used in the Sturer Emil.
As you know DerAdler, Blitzkrieg relies on 2 things: breakthrough and exploitation. Late war, the Germans had good Breakthrough, but poor exploitation tanks, whereas the Soviets were the opposite. This was reversed for Germany in the early war. Ironically, the Soviets had a great breakthrough tank in the KV-1 in the Winter War, but later on had a poor one, in the shape of the IS-2 (though the IS-3 was excellent).
Having heavy armour is no problem, so long as it's not overdone, but complicated mechanicals are what did it for German tanks IMO.
Hi Shortround6,
The Panzer IV was able to deal with any opposing tank in WW2. Though the Ausf J was a massive downgrade, this was due to the war situation more than anything. With APFSDS, the Panzer III may have been able to soldier on into 1945, hypothetically speaking. The Panzer III was also useful as the Stug III G Spater, in 1945.
Sorry, what didn't show up?
Hi Juha,
Sorry. It seems you like the Panther, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to be controversial and say that, although it is a popular contender for 'best tank of WW2', I believe it was the worst - and is what lost the war for Germany.
My reasonings are: It was unreliable. It was poorly protected. It didn't serve any real role well - not exploitation or breakthrough. Too fragile. Too tall, too complex, flawed design, too labour-intensive. These are even reasons that cover all variants, not going into each individual variant (like the AusfD).
Admittedly some variants were good, but these were: Panther II (which probably never saw action and was cancelled), the Ausf G Spater (too late? poorer crew quality) and the Ausf F (< 10 saw combat, and even then were probably only part Ausf Fs).
I do agree with your thought on the DB Panther contender though. The thing was though that it would have been targeted by PaK gunners, as it was too similar to the T-34 (Converted German T-34s suffered from this a lot).
Lighter weight wasn't the only thing in it's favour - the DB engine was far superior to the Maybach HL230, and could have later even be upgraded to be like the DB 605 and even 603 - allowing for some awesome heavy tanks.
Ever thicker armour was called for by Hitler, as was an L70 gun (he had to be talked down from an L100! - which proved to be poor anyway). His obsession with thickness length (oo-er!) led to a lot of problems.
I don't think even the L60 was needed. I believe the KwK 40 would have been more than adequate. It would also have allowed a 3-man turret crew (which the L60 made difficult) and would also help with logistics.
The leaf spring suspension would have allowed for easier maintenance, a lower silhouette, a floor escape hatch and slightly more side protection. I think torsion bars were selected just because they were trendy considered 'German'.
The DB design did have its problems though - for example a front-mounted hull. If the hull was central, or even rear mounted, it likely would have allowed for the L70 and might have caused less confusion with the T-34?
It would have been more upgradeable and less flawed than the Panther though, and allowed heavier versions - which IMO would outclass the Konigstiger.
It needs to be remembered, that Germany had Durcbruchwagen (Breakthrough Vehicle) designs as early as 1936, but felt it didn't need them (which turned out to be right). One of these designs morphed into the Tiger and was used in the Sturer Emil.
As you know DerAdler, Blitzkrieg relies on 2 things: breakthrough and exploitation. Late war, the Germans had good Breakthrough, but poor exploitation tanks, whereas the Soviets were the opposite. This was reversed for Germany in the early war. Ironically, the Soviets had a great breakthrough tank in the KV-1 in the Winter War, but later on had a poor one, in the shape of the IS-2 (though the IS-3 was excellent).
Having heavy armour is no problem, so long as it's not overdone, but complicated mechanicals are what did it for German tanks IMO.
Hi Shortround6,
The Panzer IV was able to deal with any opposing tank in WW2. Though the Ausf J was a massive downgrade, this was due to the war situation more than anything. With APFSDS, the Panzer III may have been able to soldier on into 1945, hypothetically speaking. The Panzer III was also useful as the Stug III G Spater, in 1945.
Sorry, what didn't show up?
Hi Juha,
Sorry. It seems you like the Panther, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to be controversial and say that, although it is a popular contender for 'best tank of WW2', I believe it was the worst - and is what lost the war for Germany.
My reasonings are: It was unreliable. It was poorly protected. It didn't serve any real role well - not exploitation or breakthrough. Too fragile. Too tall, too complex, flawed design, too labour-intensive. These are even reasons that cover all variants, not going into each individual variant (like the AusfD).
Admittedly some variants were good, but these were: Panther II (which probably never saw action and was cancelled), the Ausf G Spater (too late? poorer crew quality) and the Ausf F (< 10 saw combat, and even then were probably only part Ausf Fs).
I do agree with your thought on the DB Panther contender though. The thing was though that it would have been targeted by PaK gunners, as it was too similar to the T-34 (Converted German T-34s suffered from this a lot).
Lighter weight wasn't the only thing in it's favour - the DB engine was far superior to the Maybach HL230, and could have later even be upgraded to be like the DB 605 and even 603 - allowing for some awesome heavy tanks.
Ever thicker armour was called for by Hitler, as was an L70 gun (he had to be talked down from an L100! - which proved to be poor anyway). His obsession with thickness length (oo-er!) led to a lot of problems.
I don't think even the L60 was needed. I believe the KwK 40 would have been more than adequate. It would also have allowed a 3-man turret crew (which the L60 made difficult) and would also help with logistics.
The leaf spring suspension would have allowed for easier maintenance, a lower silhouette, a floor escape hatch and slightly more side protection. I think torsion bars were selected just because they were trendy considered 'German'.
The DB design did have its problems though - for example a front-mounted hull. If the hull was central, or even rear mounted, it likely would have allowed for the L70 and might have caused less confusion with the T-34?
It would have been more upgradeable and less flawed than the Panther though, and allowed heavier versions - which IMO would outclass the Konigstiger.
Last edited:
