Cause of German Tank Success
- Thread starter redsoulja
- Start date
Naknaradak
New Member
German AFVs
The success of German tanks is mostly due to the use they gave to their AFV's. The Allies, in the very beginning of the war had tanks designed from the concepts of WW1. They weren't meant for armored battles, but rather to "tag along" the infantry. That, and the excellent training the german crews had, even though they used Czech tanks, (Pzkfw 1 and 2 had little firepower in comparison).
Not to mention the unpreparedness of the allied countries. France counted on their stationary line defenses (Maginot), having well trained infantry, but escarse armored resources. Russia had the T34, one of the best tanks made during the conflict, but their crews had little or no combat experience, and the usage of AFV's by the russian commanders was no match to german tactics.
When it comes to the best tank of WW2, i think Panther and T34/85 are head to head (there are rumors that Panther was copied partially from T34 design, probably the hull). Panther had better armor, specially when the latest models were built with layered armor. Earlier T34s had 76.2mm cannon against the 75mm of Panther tanks. But due to the superior length of Panther cannon, the projectile had a greater initial speed, and thus, greater piercing damage. But when the T34/85, which had the 85mm cannon, was pressed into service, it set things straight. The russian tank bered less amount of ammunition than the Panther, mainly because of the larger caliber. T34s (500-520 HP) were underpowered in comparison to the Panther (700 HP), but had similar on and off road mobility, due to the greater weight of the german tank. The traverse speed of the turret was definitely in favor of russians in this case, 20 seconds against the 60 seconds of the Panther. Panther's fuel consumption was enormous, and it became a critical factor towards the end of the war, due to Germany's lack of gasoline.
Some people mentioned the IS-2 and IS-3, which had a massive cannon (122 mm) and superb plating (120 mm front, 90 mm sides, 60 mm rear), but had complex mechanisms. T34s had a better overall performance. Tiger 1 was a good tank overall, too, but had excessive amounts of mechanical problems, was very expensive to build, and took 5 or 6 times than to build a Pzkfw IV. The Königstiger was the last desperate attempt of the germans for the ultimate weapon, and it was in fact an excellent tank in every aspect. But it entered in production too late in war, when it was already clear that Germany was defeated.
The success of German tanks is mostly due to the use they gave to their AFV's. The Allies, in the very beginning of the war had tanks designed from the concepts of WW1. They weren't meant for armored battles, but rather to "tag along" the infantry. That, and the excellent training the german crews had, even though they used Czech tanks, (Pzkfw 1 and 2 had little firepower in comparison).
Not to mention the unpreparedness of the allied countries. France counted on their stationary line defenses (Maginot), having well trained infantry, but escarse armored resources. Russia had the T34, one of the best tanks made during the conflict, but their crews had little or no combat experience, and the usage of AFV's by the russian commanders was no match to german tactics.
When it comes to the best tank of WW2, i think Panther and T34/85 are head to head (there are rumors that Panther was copied partially from T34 design, probably the hull). Panther had better armor, specially when the latest models were built with layered armor. Earlier T34s had 76.2mm cannon against the 75mm of Panther tanks. But due to the superior length of Panther cannon, the projectile had a greater initial speed, and thus, greater piercing damage. But when the T34/85, which had the 85mm cannon, was pressed into service, it set things straight. The russian tank bered less amount of ammunition than the Panther, mainly because of the larger caliber. T34s (500-520 HP) were underpowered in comparison to the Panther (700 HP), but had similar on and off road mobility, due to the greater weight of the german tank. The traverse speed of the turret was definitely in favor of russians in this case, 20 seconds against the 60 seconds of the Panther. Panther's fuel consumption was enormous, and it became a critical factor towards the end of the war, due to Germany's lack of gasoline.
Some people mentioned the IS-2 and IS-3, which had a massive cannon (122 mm) and superb plating (120 mm front, 90 mm sides, 60 mm rear), but had complex mechanisms. T34s had a better overall performance. Tiger 1 was a good tank overall, too, but had excessive amounts of mechanical problems, was very expensive to build, and took 5 or 6 times than to build a Pzkfw IV. The Königstiger was the last desperate attempt of the germans for the ultimate weapon, and it was in fact an excellent tank in every aspect. But it entered in production too late in war, when it was already clear that Germany was defeated.
An interesting theory I heard somewhere was that if Germany devoted the resources used on these gas-guzzling, expensive supertanks to its airforce, it would have been much more successful. Like if the Luftwaffe was a capable fighting force at the time of the Normandy invasion. Or long-range heavy bombers were availabe on the Eastern Front.Naknaradak said:
Germany could have standardized on the Pz III and IV, rather than develop numerous incompatible and problematic models. Since King Tigers were mostly used for defense and as target practice for the US Air Force, the Germans could have used AT-guns and Pz.IV-based tank destroyers for this role instead. The Panther too could have probably been replaced with cheap tank destroyers using the same gun.
I'd say the Germans did so well because of tactics, training, and elan in their tank corp. They didnt have better tanks then the French and Tommies but they certainly used them better. That, and the PZk-ll and lll's were highly mobile and fast. But mostly the Germans used their tanks as an offensive weapon, not as infantry support,"as Im sure has already been mentioned".
The "real" tank war was in the east anyways. And in the east the Russians got good awfully fast, which was matched by tremendous ferocity and aggression in their tank corp. I believe the T34/85 was the best tank of the war. It was the first tank the Germans ran into that they couldnt out-slug.
The "real" tank war was in the east anyways. And in the east the Russians got good awfully fast, which was matched by tremendous ferocity and aggression in their tank corp. I believe the T34/85 was the best tank of the war. It was the first tank the Germans ran into that they couldnt out-slug.
Pursuit Curve
New Member
Aussie, yes I agree that German Engineering is excellent, but remember that the same excellent engineering is not necessarily good in actual combat conditions. Example is Kursk, and also the Normandy Campaign where there were significant numbers of Panthers and Tigers that were LOB because of mechanical breakdown.Aussie Digger said:
Yes, a Tiger or Panther could chose combat at will at long range, but there were so few available because of over engineering that they didn't have the numbers to win the war.
FutureTank
Banned Member
Just found this thread, and wanted to put my 2 cents worth.
The question is phrased in a way that suggests German tanks were dominant, that their doctrine was unique, or that they used them better then anyone else.
In fact none are true statements.
Clearly because the 3rd Reich lost the war, its tanks ultimately did not achieve dominance, and the doctrine did not allow victory.
To understand why, one needs to go beyond the gun/armour issues. Any AFV has several design parameters which, when combined, should create an employment balance. These are in the order of priority:
Ease and economy of production
Ease of crew training
Field maintainability (service freedom)
Fuel efficiency for a given range of unrefuelled movement (logistic feedom)
Mobility appropriate for terrain/environment (tactical flexibility)
Protection from expected enemy weapon systems
Firepower appropriate to expected enemy targets
Upgradeability of above
Now considering all these factors, it is VERY clear that the T-34 is a clear winner. By far the primary reason is the ease and economy of production. What many consider in German tanks to be appreciated, the engineering sophistication and quality of manufacture, were purposefully eradicated during production by Soviet designers and production engineers. Through ruthless elimination of superfluous features in the design, they were able to grossly outproduce the Germans. This also allowed easier crew training and field maintenance. Ultimately every kilogram of superfluous feature saved, enhanced fuel economy and range of the tank also. The wider tracks allowed greater mobility in a variety of environments and terrain of the theatre, and innovative use of armour geometry allowed greater protection using less armour. Lastly it had a good weapon which was upgraded mid-war without requiring introduction of a new vehicle design.
Consider German designs. Only the Pz IV was extensively modified during its production history, however it never achieved the production numbers of T-34, nor was it as serviceable as T-34 in the field or have the tactical manoeuvrability. It required 5 crew to T-34s 4, and it certainly did not achieve armour parity.
Now to doctrine.
Doctrine refers to many things, including methods of using forces at tactical, operational and strategic levels.
Blitzkrieg is simply the post-war name given to the German strategic use of mobile troops.
The strategic methodology was not developed by Germans, but is rather a culmination of theory based on WW1 operations and trials in part carried out in the Soviet Union during the late 20s and early 30s, and in part by the general European attempt to integrate mobility in general and tanks in particular (and aircraft, and use of radio) into its combat theory.
In strategic terms the Soviet methods were essentially same before, during and after the war.
Operationally speaking there was a need for formation of large mobile groupings. How different nations solved this is inconsequential because at the time (1930s) this was largely a logistic issue resolved at Army level.
Tactically speaking the development of tank tactics was rather basic because the only significant experiences for Germans to learn from had been in Spain and Finland. The Spanish experience was limited and largely consisted of infantry support. The Finish experience had been in unusual and non-tank friendly terrain.
On the other hand Soviets had invaluable experience against Japanese in ideal tank country, including allowing for cooperation with the air forces. In fact it was the Soviets that begun to substantially rethink application of their theories on use of armour in 1939 leading to redesign of combat structures, and design of the T-34 among others.
Method has a lot to do with structure of the forces.
Looking at the formation and unit structures of German tank forces before 1941 we see a very balanced approach that seeks to integrate different classes of tanks in same formation to allow tailored approach to different types of TACTICAL objectives and situations. However later in the war the structure changes to single tank class/type, and emphasis on simplified logistics and shock.
One may think this was to enhance tactical capability for penetrating enemy defences, but in fact by the time this change took place, the intent was in halting enemy penetrations because there were insufficient tank forces to achieve operational, never mind strategic breakthroughs. The Ardennes Offensive in the West was the last such attempt.
This suggests that method was short lived, and was closely related to inadequate production numbers.
The whole blitzkrieg doctrine.
The whole ‘blitzkrieg’ doctrine depended on short duration campaigns and interdependence of primary arm, the infantry, with mobile and air forces. However once the air superiority was lost, and armoured production was incapable of maintain parity with that of the enemy, the whole doctrine collapsed into tactical, operational and strategic retreats using very much WW1 infantry tactics, and only limited mobile defence.
Overall then, the Germany did not achieve dominance either because of their tanks being ‘very good’, or because of the doctrine they were used with. Other nations, USSR in the first instance, proved to have a superior doctrine and tools to dominate combat.
Much of the myth of German tank dominance was created after the war based on selective description of tactical engagements, often based on views of single crew or even an individual’s perspective.
Its hard to comment of French tanks and their potential within the scope of same analysis because of the very limited use they were put to during the war.
The Pershing was a close match to a Panther, but not by much.
The best tank by far in WW2 would have to go to the IS - 2, this tank was actually a medium tank model, It was fast, well armored, and had a maingun that could take out the Tiger 2 at 1200 meters. It`s only draw back was it`s ammunition which was 2 part, thus making it slow to reload.
Tiger 2 was impressive when used in a good defensive posture, offense it was poor due to the strain of it`s suspension, unreliable engine due to vehicle weight. Germany could of built almost 20 panther model G`s for just one of these monsters.
One Tiger 2 ace was recognized : Name was Boorgman.(hope I spelled it Right). He had over 33 tank kills to his credit.
There - just my input.
The German's took quite hit from the T34. When they introduced the Panther, their Panzer units were better off. Some tank historians consider a varaint of the Panther the best tank of the war. I don't aggree with that statement, but if the Nazi's had focused on building more Panthers then building bigger and bigger super tanks they could have delayed the outcome of the war.
The Nazi should have stopped producing Panzer IV's, Tiger I's, Tiger 2's, and made only Panthers and tank killers like the Jagdapanzer's.
The Nazi should have stopped producing Panzer IV's, Tiger I's, Tiger 2's, and made only Panthers and tank killers like the Jagdapanzer's.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
I have had similar thoughts. I would, however, keep the IV and Tiger I in production, as they had well established production lines. Efficient tanks that are produced in quantity - with the Panthers.
I would delete the Tiger II, Maus, Elephant and Jagdtiger.
Does a sloped armour (but otherwise same armour thickness), improved maintenance/suspension Tiger I variant sound attractive?
If you look at the Panther 2 model that they were working on, this would of been one heck of a tank, bigger gun, same successful mantlet found on tiger II plus a steroscopic range finder to boot.
Another important note that I would like to say is that the quality of the armor plating along with the turret and hull welds were of poor quality in the latter part of the war, this was the case of most German tank models.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Hmm. Interesting. But what is this 'infrared device' the site mentions?
http://www.achtungpanzer.com/panth2.htm
http://www.achtungpanzer.com/panth2.htm
They actually Tested this on the Panther G model, the maingun and tank commanders AA machine gun were hooked up to special infrared lenses mounted outside of the vehicle, giving them a engagement range of 200 meters at night, which isn`t bad technology considering the time frame.
I believe they tried it in combat but never found out if they had any tank combat kills with it.
I have heard the Panther G influenced the use the IR lights and sights on American Patton's during the Vietnam conflict. As far as I know IR technology didn't really make its way back into tanks until at least the 1960's. So the Panther G was really advance for its day, but it came really to late in the war to make any difference like so much other German technology.
FutureTank
Banned Member
I'm sure you'll agree that handling a 120mm round inside a tank turret is not for everyone. The IS model didn't have the ergonomics of the M1, and crews were converted from a variety of other tanks, including T-60/70, so there was consideration for crew able to handle the round with any sort fo speed at all under combat conditions. I suspect that is why the ammo was two-part. That and storage.
Other then that I would agree that it was a very good tank. They were around until 1989, and some chassis are still around in the shape of various specialist vehicles.
I would agree, most loaders are pretty brawn and short.
I know one important feature of German tanks throughout the war that many allies still agree on made their tanks superior to others was their optics. Though I know only a little about these optics, I have read quite a few stories from American, British, and Soviets tankers talking with envy about the sights used in German tanks. Many American believe if the Sherman's had the same qaulity sights they could have done a little better in combat.
Does anyone else know exactly how or in what ways that German optics were superior to the Allies?
Does anyone else know exactly how or in what ways that German optics were superior to the Allies?
Better field of view and better sight magnification, stadia retical lines were better slaved to the tanks mainguns. The Russians were closing the gap on this with the JS-2 but the T-34/85 still had technical quality control issues in regards to the sighting system, still a excellant tank for the job though.
Some misinformation was given earlier in this thread regarding US tanks. The M4 Shermans had the same gyro-stabilization unit on the main gun that the Pershings had. For whatever reason GI's did not trust them and insisted on stopping to fire. The M26 crews were trained to "trust" the gyro stabilization unit and utilized it to great effect. The M26 was an excellent tank that could have been fielded in significant numbers for D-Day but Patton insisted that it was too heavy and slow to fight the high mobility battle he expected in europe, boy was he wrong!
I still believe the Panther ausf G was the best all around tank of the war, it had the best combination of protection, weapon and mobility. The T-34 was an excellent tank as well but only rates "best" when "ease of manufacture and total numbers built" criteria get tossed in. Since when does ease of manufacture and production numbers making anything better? Based on that philosphy, a Plymouth Neon is better than a BMW 750i.
I still believe the Panther ausf G was the best all around tank of the war, it had the best combination of protection, weapon and mobility. The T-34 was an excellent tank as well but only rates "best" when "ease of manufacture and total numbers built" criteria get tossed in. Since when does ease of manufacture and production numbers making anything better? Based on that philosphy, a Plymouth Neon is better than a BMW 750i.
Thanks for the info eckherl about german sights.
Germlin, I wasn't even aware that Sherman's had such a system. One of the reasons I think tankers probably trust that system was because the M4 was so inferior in many ways to their German counterparts. The Sherman was so ill thought of, we forget the good aspects of the design.
Germlin, I wasn't even aware that Sherman's had such a system. One of the reasons I think tankers probably trust that system was because the M4 was so inferior in many ways to their German counterparts. The Sherman was so ill thought of, we forget the good aspects of the design.