German tanks in WW2. Were they really that bad?

page: 1
17
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 12:27 PM
link   
I'm curious to know why the German heavy tanks got such a bad reputation in WW2. I realize that the winners do write the history books, and the massive German armor has a bad reputation in that book. I challenge you, to watch these videos of restored German heavy tanks for yourself, and see just how bad these things really are.



Here is the tank that bares the weight of the most accusation. The Tiger 2 or King Tiger. It was regarded as heavy, slow, and hardly capable of moving across a battlefield. Judging by this video, it appears heavy, and even slow, but it also appears to moving just as well as any other tank. You be the judge.



This is a video of a restored Tiger 1. The second most accused tank of being less than mobile. As you can see from the video, even parading around for show, the tank appears just as nimble as any other. It's surprisingly quick and nimble for such a large early tank.



This is a video of the US heavy tank, the T-28/T-95 that never saw duty. It weighed 95 tons (more than the German tanks), and had 410 hp (much less than the German tanks). Notice it does not attempt to turn in the video.



This is a video of an IS-3 doing a demonstration for a crowd. It seems to have decent mobility but is not as fast or as nimble as the Tiger 1.



This is the obligatory video of the US tank that saw battle in WW2. Despite popular belief that it was a terrible tank, my Grandpa drove this, the m48, and the m60 in his time with the military, and the Sherman was his favorite. The reasoning behind his choice was that the Sherman was highly maneuverable and quick. In the European theater which was considered unfriendly territory, the Sherman could still do very well with the right driver. According to his accounts, four Shermans would get word of a Tiger or a Panther in the area, and simply flank them from all sides like a pack of wolves. He has been known to exaggerate, but he claims this was the best tactic against an incoming German tank, which were often seen completely alone.

I'm not a Nazi supporter or anything like that, but I do respect their ability to build excellent machines, whether it be cars or weapons. Here is a few interesting facts about the modernizations German tanks had.

First to use a conventional steering wheel like a car.
Always had the best main guns by far, and the company that designs our Abram's main gun, is the same one that designed the legendary Panther's gun.
Torsion bar suspension.
Infared sighting systems.

They invented the modern battle tank. What has the world done in the way of innovation lately?
edit on 25-10-2011 by Evolutionsend because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 12:33 PM
link   
Ok i've done no research here, but my understanding was that germany towards the end of the war actually had the best tanks(spec wise) but where so expensive that they could not turn them out fast enough.And as it was towards the end it was really to little to late. Also they were very heavy which made them bog down in the mud, and thus become easy prey.

EDIT: Who doesn't have a exaggerating grandpa?
edit on 25-10-2011 by Bixxi3 because: (no reason given)
edit on 25-10-2011 by Bixxi3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Evolutionsend
 





According to his accounts, four Shermans would get word of a Tiger or a Panther in the area, and simply flank them from all sides like a pack of wolves.


yes but without several Shermans flanking, they had no hope of taking that Tiger out because of it's armor, much better than the American tanks at the time, and the fact that it had a massive gun and was itself a "tank killer"

I seem to recall a story from one of the various WW2 documentaries I've watched about a single tiger (pretty sure it was a tiger but don't quote me) taking out an entire column of Allied tanks, single-handed.

I agree, the German equipment gets a bad rap in the history books, but at the time it was a marvel and really, it's amazing we beat them.




Also they were very heavy which made them bog down in the mud.


the germans lost countless tanks and other vehicles on the Eastern front. the were not equipped for a winter battle (like Iraq2.0 they expected to just waltz in and be finished by fall) and were completely unprepared for the spring when the entire frozen tundra thawed into horrible mud.

Actually the allies lost a ton of equipment in similar circumstances.

I believe once the allies started bombing factories in Occupied Europe, Germany was doomed. The russians were pumping out tanks faster than people post Elenin threads here, and once Germany was cut off from the Oil fields and had their production centers destroyed, they simply couldn't keep up.

Not to even mention the money, manpower and equipment stupidly (luckily) diverted to the "wonder weapons" program.
edit on 25-10-2011 by phishyblankwaters because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Bixxi3
 


According to most opinions, the Panther (not seen here) was a great tank. The Tiger series and earlier tanks have a terrible reputation. The general consensus on ranking is Panther > T-34 > the rest were trash. I do not believe that because the only other Heavy tank to see action, the IS-3, was not very capable. In fact, it was used much less than the T-34, which was it's little brother.

source



The German tank force was an amazing success due to tactical innovation more than tank quality. Many of their tanks outclassed allied armor, delivered more casualties than they took in most engagements due to the impressive training the German soldiers received, and the excellent tactics used by the German forces.


I challenge this statement and statements like it. What do tactics have to do with having a main gun that can poke a hole in anything on the battlefield? The other tank by contrast, the Sherman and the T-34/76 had to get within a very close range to have a chance of taking out a Panther or a Tiger. By my grandpa's account the Sherman was pretty good at this, and the Soviets weren't. Although he never served in any joint operations of anything. Just hearsay I guess.
edit on 25-10-2011 by Evolutionsend because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 12:38 PM
link   
There really has not been much inprovement in armor...unless you count.

Composite armor
Stabilized Weapons Systems.
Laser acquisition
Everyone now uses Diesel or JP8 as fuel nowadays
CBRNE protection systems
Some use autoloaders, but those systems are prone to failure
Then you have the ammunition itself, HEAT, SABOT, MPAT, etc. And they still have Beehive rounds, don’t let anyone tell ya different.

But nowadays, while they still have the fear factor going for them, a grunt with a Javelin can make them combat ineffective. I read of a story where a M1A2 was ambushed by the Iraqi Army in the early stages and was hit 20+ times by RPG-7's. The tank was destroyed, but the crew survived. (Probably deaf, but alive)
edit on 25-10-2011 by TDawgRex because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 12:38 PM
link   
German tanks were extremely dangerous, when they were operational *.

That's the catch, because they were 'over-engineered', they were prone to breakdown quite often, and this proved disastrous in many instances.

For example there were instances where Tiger tanks took out dozens of Allied tanks on their own.
But there are also instances where multiple Tigers were on a bridge and it collapsed, and all the tanks were lost.

Plus consider the economic issues, it took a long time to craft a operational Tiger tank, and a lot of resources. In comparison, Allied tanks like the Sherman were far cheaper to produce and came off the assembly line faster.

It was a battle between quantity vs quality, and as a result of air superiority and campaign bombing by the allies, quantity eventually overwhelmed the Nazis.

In the event that the Nazis had actually created 5,000 or 10,000 King Tiger or Jagdtigers, by 1943-44, had them on the front lines operationally and supplied, than it's pretty clear they would have had a great chance to have won the land battles.

The King Tiger and Jagdtiger were so heavily armored it would have taken siege artillery to handle them head on, or you would alternatively have to cut their supply chains and wait for them to stop on their own. Absolutely ferocious machines when they worked.

In fact, many aspects of modern main battle tank technology derives directly from some of these Nazi tank blueprints.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Must not have been that great if Germany lost.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 12:40 PM
link   
Not sure what idiot you have been talking to, and I say that with all respect....However, German tanks were in no way inferior to US tanks.....It was not the equipment that got the Germans...It was simple Command and Logistics. In the North African campaign, the Germans had a hard time with fuel lines. Yet, now that I remember all my military history courses, that is the Germans weak spot....but their tech was always better than ours, ask Rommel, his panzers would have wiped up the US if it wasn't for supply lines......They were moving to fast, doesn't indicate slow tank columns, does it?

I say the idiot you talked to...ie, I had never heard anyone say german tech was bad, so I am curious where this bad rap came from.
edit on 25-10-2011 by pointr97 because: Clarification
edit on 25-10-2011 by pointr97 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 12:43 PM
link   
I was always under the impression that the Tiger tanks where always a huge thorn in the side of the Allies advancements. Wasn't that why they drew the German Panzer divisions to Calais before the Allies assaulted Normandy?



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by pointr97
Not sure what idiot you have been talking to, and I say that with all respect....However, German tanks were in no way inferior to US tanks.....It was not the equipment that got the Germans...It was simple Command and Logistics. In the North African campaign, the Germans had a hard time with fuel lines. Yet, now that I remember all my military history courses, that is the Germans weak spot....but their tech was always better than ours.

I say the idiot you talked to...ie, I had never heard anyone say german tech was bad, so I am curious where this bad rap came from.
edit on 25-10-2011 by pointr97 because: Clarification


Yes exactly.

Had the Axis not suffered from severe logistical issues, and were able to keep supply chains open, than they would have fared far better than they did.

There is a very real possibility they would have won if that were the case.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by pointr97
 


Read the wiki. According to them they were not good tanks. The "idiot" I have firsthand information from was my Grandpa. He claims that although they were feared, a German tank could be picked off by a pack of Shermans. He also claims that they were cocky and had no problems being completely alone.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 12:45 PM
link   
You can blame the loss on the pitcher all you want, but when it comes down to it the team lost.
edit on 25-10-2011 by GringoViejo because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 12:50 PM
link   
Germany had some great tanks. I dunno where this idea that they had crap comes from? Near the end of the war their tanks were noisy due to the lack of proper bearings and other essential parts. With the Russians blowing up the majority of their tank production on the Eastern Front and the US/UK bombing the crap out of their factories it's surprising they were able to field tanks at all.

From my understanding their tanks were sophisticated compared to the Russians and the US. But that sophistication cost them as being unreliable. Not only that but Hitler also stuck his nose all too often into the designs and specifications. Instead of letting the people who knew better do their jobs. Also many near the latter half in Germany simply wanted to copy the Russian tank.

Some will be surprised where the Russians got the track system for them from
. Regarding the Sherman. It was a Medium tank not a heavy so it was much lighter and more maneuverable but it was nicknamed the "Ronson lighter" when hit it was guaranteed to light up and catch fire the first time. Not exactly the best reputation. But on the plus side they were cheap and easy to ship and repair.

In the Last few months of the war the US did introduce a heavy tank M26 Pershing which was more than a match for the best Germany had but by the time it arrived the fighting was all pretty much over.

WW2 US Tanks



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 12:51 PM
link   
This photograph from wikipedia should explain what one of the biggest issues with tanks like the Tiger really were.
photo
Read the caption.

A few examples of how if the machine worked properly and was commanded effectively, that it was capable of out-performing the Allies.


On 7 July 1943, a single Tiger tank commanded by SS-Oberscharführer Franz Staudegger from the 2nd Platoon, 13th Panzer Company, 1st SS Panzer Division Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler engaged a group of about 50 T-34s around Psyolknee (the southern sector of the German salient in the Battle of Kursk). Staudegger used all his ammunition and claimed the destruction of 22 Soviet tanks, while the rest retreated. For this, he was awarded the Knight's Cross.



Over 10 Tiger tank commanders claimed over 100 vehicle kills each, including Kurt Knispel with 168, Walter Schroif with 161, Otto Carius with 150+, Johannes Bölter with 139+, and Michael Wittmann with 138.


But things like this accident kept happening


Photograph shows the Tiger I tank that knocked out the first M26 Pershing tank in World War II. After knocking out the M26, the Tiger I backed up to escape but became stuck on a rubble pile. The crew abandoned the tank.


wiki



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 12:52 PM
link   
Dont forget the KING Tiger Tank that came out at the end of the war. There are only two left in the world and i found one of them in a small town out side of luxingburg when i was over there last. I will have to up load photos later. These guys were unstopable!

en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 25-10-2011 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)
edit on 25-10-2011 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Not only that but Hitler also stuck his nose all too often into the designs and specifications. Instead of letting the people who knew better do their jobs.


That was a huge problem.

Thankfully he did not listen to his trained military advisers and instead embarked on a campaign of stubborn stupidity.

Had he listened to his generals, admirals, and air marshals, they probably would have defeated us fairly swiftly.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by camaro68ss
 


I included a video of one of the few operational ones still in existence. Here's a claim to fame for you. The Tiger 2 or King Tiger is allegedly the only tank in the war that was never pierced by anything, anyone had.



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by camaro68ss
Dont for get the KING Tiger Tank that came out at the end of the war. There are only two left in the world and i found one of them in a small out side of luxingburg when i was over there last. I will have to up load photos later. These guys were unstopable!


Yes the King Tiger and also don't forget, the Jagdtiger.

The Jagdtiger was the largest tank from WW2. Bigger than King Tiger.

The Panzer VIII Maus was larger but it was never out of testing by the time it's facility was overtaken, by the Russians I believe. There may have been only 2 prototypes.
edit on 25-10-2011 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Evolutionsend
 


the one i seen took a tank round to the front of it and the dent it made was maybe 3/4 of an inch. the armor on that baby was thick!



posted on Oct, 25 2011 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


I'm not sure that was any fault of the tanks.
If you drive a heavy tank across a weak bridge, it doesn't take a genius to figure out what's going to happen.





new topics
top topics
 
17
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join