Cause of German Tank Success

[ajay_ijn]

Hey, everyone talked about the success of the German and Russian tanks but what about the U.S. M26 Pershing Medium Tank, that tank could stand up to a panzer any day.

But I think that tank did not fight in ww2 so its not considered.

In my opinion the major Cause of german Tank Sucess is the Blitzkrieg Strategy implemented by the German panzer Commanders.
It was becoz of Blitzkreig Strategy german Army was known to be invincible during initial stages of ww2.

 

[Gremlin29]

The M26 Pershing was deployed in small numbers during the closing months of the war in europe. It proved to be up to the task of taking on the Panther and the Tiger II. The Pershing employed a gyro stabilized gun (most US tanks were, but crews refrained from using them) and the tankers had trained to fire on the move which was something that the German tanks could not cope with. As I said earlier, since the Pershing was not employed in serious numbers and it only fought for a few months it's effect was minimal to the overall land battle. My vote still goes to the Panther, it had excellent cross country characterisitics, was pretty reliable, excellent main gun and superior optics.

 

[nzbm]

Re: Cause German Tank Success

The main problems with the Geramans Tank force in Russia was the extreme cold. The tanks were so procisely machined that there was not alot of leway to accomidate the weather change, where as the russian tanks, being not as precisely machined had enough leway to operate in the environment.

I also noticed that no one has brought up the jagtiger, another german tank killer.

Also the fact that the German Army had little tracked transports, and their logistics got bogged down and slowed their advance when winter set in...

 

[ajay_ijn]

Also the fact that the German Army had little tracked transports, and their logistics got bogged down and slowed their advance when winter set in...

Helicopters might completely changed the fate of German Forces.

Germany delayed the operation barbarossa for about a month or so becoz their allies romania or someother country had join the invasion.

If they woulkd have started as soon as Winter ended then things could have been slightly different.

 

[ivan..the.great]

Hey guys i just got an account and quicly read what you were talking about so heres my 5 cents

As to the pershing tank it was grossly underpowered like tiger II and before you all mentioned that was tigerII's downfall.

When it comes to the question of a best tnk of WWII you must say how is it better. In one on one engagement tiget would beat the T34 but as a weapon an army needs T34 was better since it could be produced in incredible quantities. Quality wasnt hugely sacrificed for quantity. Some german generals wanted to copy and start producing the T34.

Germany was so succesfull in WWII because of its military doctrine and dedication of troops. Also germany lost the war because it became a global threat not only a regional one.

Well thats my opinion anyway.

 

[Hard Ball]

Though it only saw action late in the war the US M26 with its 90mm gun was the best tank in WW@ due to its combination of firepower, armor and mobility.

 

[quicksilver]

Finally someone agrees with me!! But i think the best would have to be the T-34, and a close 2nd the tiger. The Pershing would be up there with the rest, but like Ivan said: It was grossly underpowerd.

 

[Hard Ball]

It is worth noting that when T34/85s fought M26s in Korea the M26s won decisevly.

 

[quicksilver]

It is worth noting that when T34/85s fought M26s in Korea the M26s won decisevly.

After WW2 the M26 had hudge improvements, but in WW2 they had power problems.

 

[fockewulf190]

well what I consider best would be t34... just looks simple and very good. But any day, in the second world war, I would love to be a crew of Panzer Mk4 ausf F2 or ausf G, wit the 75mm. It just looks so classy. Thats my own openion.
regards.

 

[Gremlin29]

Calling the M26 underpowered is terribly misinformed. It had over 550 horsepower and actually packed more horsepower per pound than the M4. They barely saw action and there appearance was so late that it was of negligible impact on the war.

T-34/85 was hugely successful. Simple, robust and easy to produce. Doesn't make it the best however. Panther G had better armor, a way better gun and it's optics were a quantum leap ahead of the Russian rubbish. Tank for tank the Panther gave an impressive accounting for itself on both easthern and western fronts.

 

[crazypole]

In my opinion the best tank of the war in terms of it's actual "abilities" has to be the IS-3. This tank was the most powerful tank built in this era, and it is no surprise that it is this tank, which was most feared by the Western Allies once the relations between East and West had degenerated to the Cold War.

In terms of achievements, then the best tank was the T-34. This tank was the one of the most powerful platforms available by 1941. That it was also a relatively cheap and quick tank to manufacture only strengthens this tanks position as this then meant that the Soviet Union could churn out thousands of them. It is also, i believe, one of the few tanks to make it through to the end, i mean to last in front line operational use from 1941 to 1945( and beyond).

 

[veronius]

An irrelevant note here - for my money, the King Tiger was one sweet-looking piece of metal. Sehr photogenic!

 

[aaaditya]

An irrelevant note here - for my money, the King Tiger was one sweet-looking piece of metal. Sehr photogenic!

can you post some images of the tiger and the panzer tanks?how does it compare with the russian josef stalin tanks?
i believe one of the biggest factors behind the german tankers successes are the ability of their commanders(rommel)

 

[General_Conway]

In my opinion, it was not the individual model of the tank that the Nazis used that contributed to their success.
It was a combination of their Blitzkrieg tactics and the Eurpopeans over all unpreparedness.

 

[gf0012-aust]

In my opinion, it was not the individual model of the tank that the Nazis used that contributed to their success.
It was a combination of their Blitzkrieg tactics and the Eurpopeans over all unpreparedness.

agreed, in a lot of areas in the beginning of the war, the french actually had superior technology. they lost out due to a failure to adapt a quantum shift in warfighting.

 

[General_Conway]

agreed, in a lot of areas in the beginning of the war, the french actually had superior technology. they lost out due to a failure to adapt a quantum shift in warfighting.

That is very true... A prime example would be the French Maginot Line... They spend incredible amounts of time and rescources building a wall (basically). Granted, this wall had forts and tunnel systems built into it, then you look to the south and you have the Ardennes forest, which (according to Sun Tzu's scale) the French military elected was IMPASSIBLE by enemy forces. So, at the out break of the German offensive, the french have basic patrols watching the terrain in that sector. So, where does Hitler and his generals send their Panzers? Right through the Ardennes... you know the unpassible ground!
My point would have to be, the French in particular could have spent their time and rescources on something more efficient for the changing times... say, tanks... since the majority of their non-infantry units were calvary...

 

[Berserk Fury]

The French didn't have the means to do so.
By the time the war started... it was already near too late to mass produce armor as France itself was captured later on.
A good idea would have been to mine the Ardennes and the Maginot Line as it was pretty obvious to the French that the Germans had a better army, and amor and optics which was the German specialty ( that helped them a lot with their tanks etc).

 

[gf0012-aust]

The French didn't have the means to do so.
By the time the war started... it was already near too late to mass produce armor as France itself was captured later on.

The French had greater superiority in equipment in a lot of areas. The only means lacking was recognising that the way wars were being fought had changed. Unfortunately for the French they were the first Guinea Pigs of the opening shots...

A good idea would have been to mine the Ardennes and the Maginot Line as it was pretty obvious to the French that the Germans had a better army, and amor and optics which was the German specialty ( that helped them a lot with their tanks etc).

Why? The capture of Ebenmahl showed the futility of that. The Germans certainly didn't have better weapons and platforms, they had a better innovative doctrine and had made a quantum jump in tactics and methodology. In the opening stages of WW2 the Germans were furiously collecting French, Polish, Belgian and Czech weapons and weapons systems to incorporate into their own as they were in a lot of respects superior.

 

[Berserk Fury]

lol
I lose.

*waves the white flag* xP