German tanks in WW2. Were they really that bad?

page: 10
17
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   
German armor always had one problem and that was we always tried to use artillery or aircraft to destroy them when possible

For the most part tanks need infantry to protect them from anti armor weapons systems.

My father was 2d armored div 41th armored infantry.

There job was to protect the tank from 88 mm anti tank guns and German infantry with anti tank weapons.

They also acted a spotters to find the German tanks before the German tanks spotted the US tanks.
This allowed the US tank to set ambushes for the German tanks.

Many time the Germans would try to use there tanks without infantry support and they paid the price.

Its call combined arms units
en.wikipedia.org...

The US also used a number of tank destroyers with guns up to 105mm that could damage or destroy the German tiger tanks and allow the US tanks to close in for the kill.
www.militaryphotos.net...
edit on 5-12-2011 by ANNED because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phoenix
Interesting topic,


Smart money would have been on producing a simple, easy to produce armored carrier for the incomparable 88mm gun tube in vast quantity known as the best anti-tank weapon of the war.

A country capable of designing the Volkswagen's simplicity should have also produced the "Volk's" tank in great numbers.





Yes the 88 was probably the most feared weapon around. Kinda scary that it started out as an anti aircraft gun, what exactly were they trying to shoot down with it, flying saucers?

If they would have created a some mobility for it. It could have very well been an offensive game changer. Properly setup 88's created killzones for any armor that crossed their path. A very mobile and adjustable 88 would have been even deadlier.



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by pavil
 


You are absolutely right Pavil. This is something the Germans realised towards the end of the Spanish Civil War when their little 5cm PaK 38 proved next to useless.

In 1939 they developed the Panzerabwehrkanone 40 or PaK 40. This gun formed the backbone of the anti-tank forces at the disposal of each battalion. It was slightly tapered bore of 7.5cm or 75mm and fired the APCBC projectile to an engagement range of 1800 metres. This weapon was also mounted on the Henschel Hs 129 anti-tank aircraft.

The logical upgrade of this superb weapon, was the 8.8 cm Panzerabwehrkanone 43 or 88mm PaK 43 later modified to the PaK 43/41 standard which was slightly cheaper to manufacture than the original PaK 43. It fired 3 types of ammunition, including the new HEAT round - again something the Germans developed ahead of the Allies and had an effective combat range of 4000 metres but a maximum range of 16000.

So effective was this anti-tank gun, that the Germans mounted the 2 versions ( PaK 43/KwK L43) on late war Tiger 1s, whilst the PaK 43/41 was mounted in the Tiger (King) II as the (PaK43/KwK L71). These guns were also mounted on the Jagd Panther as the KwK L43/3 and again on the Jagd Tiger due to a shortage of the huge 12.5 cm anti-tank guns.

edit on 6-12-2011 by luxbaclos1 because: Additional info on PaK 40



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 07:00 PM
link   
Yes they were that bad.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 02:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by randolphman Yes they were that bad.


Surely you can expand your one line post to encompass your reasons as to why you've come to this conclusion?



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 02:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by randolphman
Yes they were that bad.


They weren't that good. Obviously.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 03:57 AM
link   
reply to post by yourmaker
 


Then its obviously proven. People, move along. Nothing more to see here!

*facepalm* OBVIOUSLY?!



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 07:43 PM
link   
Everybody knows German armor was vastly superior to allied armor in every way except one; quantity. The T34's sloped armor was a great innovation, but overall the machine was sloppy and just crude. WW2 proved quantity over quality to be the rule when it comes to mobile armor.

The M4 and T32 simply overran and flanked the Nazi armor. Hell, if the Germans had 1 Tiger for every Sherman or T34 the war may have had a very different outcome. Allied tank casualties were roughly 4:1 in Europe. The US was fully aware of this and would ideally hit a Tiger with at least 3 Shermans to insure best outcome. They had to hit the Tiger in the rear with their smaller guns or the shells would bounce off. Hows that for crapping yourself in a grassy field, inside a steel coffin while the Tiger slowly turns toward you? Must have been like kicking a rhino and waiting for retaliation.


The Shermans were so many and quick. This was key to victory after the Soviets won Kursk and turned the tide. Germany suffering massive bombings just could not compete with Allied production. Their tanks were slower, but better built, better armed and had thicker armor. In a way, their being perfectionists with design and quality was the undoing. You cannot mass produce a work of art, right? You're always going to have less when you pay attention to every detail. War is purely a numbers game. Until the atom bomb I suppose.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Evolutionsend
 


It seems your grandpa told you a bunch of rubbish. You should do your own research first then come back on here. As many posters have said, German tanks were better than western/soviet tanks but they just hadn't enough of them.

And tactics do matter.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
reply to post by Evolutionsend
 


It seems your grandpa told you a bunch of rubbish. You should do your own research first then come back on here. As many posters have said, German tanks were better than western/soviet tanks but they just hadn't enough of them.

And tactics do matter.



I love those grandpas though! "sonny, those kraut tanks weren't nothin compared to our GM American might!"


Then there's the realistic grandpa. "Sonny, my prostate is a volleyball, I have stage 3 throat cancer and Im not scared of death. What I am scared of, still, are those damned Tiger tanks!"



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by spinalremain
 


That is very funny Spinalremain, thanks for making me laugh.

I must agree with the O.P., German tanks are such a marvel to look at and by no means inferior, I would love to hear the roar of a Tiger and a Panzer as they scratch and spit.

I hope this is not too off-topic, but I have had the great pleasure of climbing all over the first tank to be captured in warfare, she is a beautiful WW1 German tank located at the Brisbane museum in Australia, if you are ever near there then please, please take the time to stop and admire her. (I use the feminine "her" because....well....tanks are "sexy")

Krupp did not make crap.

Regards,

Jarrah.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 08:14 AM
link   
reply to post by spinalremain
 



Everybody knows German armor was vastly superior to allied armor in every way except one; quantity. The T34's sloped armor was a great innovation, but overall the machine was sloppy and just crude. WW2 proved quantity over quality to be the rule when it comes to mobile armor.

T34 was better then any German tank in 1941. In the middle of the war Tiger and Panther were better then competition,true. But in 1945 Soviets had IS-3 and T44 - compare it to German tanks and its the same level.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by GringoViejo
Must not have been that great if Germany lost.


any nation that fights on two fronts will lose.
as for the Sherman, yes, 'good' tank, but had a distressing trait of bursting into flames when hit, known to the Germans as 'the tommy cooker' and by the Brits as 'Ronsons' named after a cigarette lighter that was 'alight first time' the M4A3E8 sherman(known as the 'easy eight') was about the best for crew comfort, the Brits 'firefly' sherman with the 17pounder gun fitted was just about a match for the Panther.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeroKnowledge
reply to post by spinalremain
 



Everybody knows German armor was vastly superior to allied armor in every way except one; quantity. The T34's sloped armor was a great innovation, but overall the machine was sloppy and just crude. WW2 proved quantity over quality to be the rule when it comes to mobile armor.

T34 was better then any German tank in 1941. In the middle of the war Tiger and Panther were better then competition,true. But in 1945 Soviets had IS-3 and T44 - compare it to German tanks and its the same level.


That's debatable. The Mark IV was a great tank. It had great radio communication, comfort over other tanks, a great gun - 76.2 MM and decent armor. It was gasoline while the T34 was deisel.

I do not see how the T34 is so superior to the Mark IV other than the sloping armor, which saves weight and adds slight thickness. I actually believe the Panzer IV had 80mm armor that the T34 didn't always penetrate. Why do you see the T34 as a superior piece of equipment? Speed and mobility or other things?
edit on 13-1-2012 by spinalremain because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by spinalremain
Why do you see the T34 as a superior piece of equipment? Speed and mobility or other things?


It's production rates gave it the strategic edge. 57,000 built before the end of WWII (according to wikipedia).



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 


As I stated above in my first post I totally agree with that sentiment.

I was asking from an engineering aspect only though. Machine versus machine. The good stuff.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by spinalremain
 




I do not see how the T34 is so superior to the Mark IV other than the sloping armor, which saves weight and adds slight thickness. I actually believe the Panzer IV had 80mm armor that the T34 didn't always penetrate. Why do you see the T34 as a superior piece of equipment? Speed and mobility or other things?

Compare 1941 T34 and 1941 Panzer IV. 80mm armor appeared in later models (1942-43),the same for 76mm that could fight medium/heavy tanks - in 1941 German tank had short barrel and was intented to fight infantry and was useless against T34 , and its armor in thickest front was 50mm.
In armor,armament,speed and mobility in 1941 T34 was clearly better then any German tank.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeroKnowledge
reply to post by spinalremain
 




I do not see how the T34 is so superior to the Mark IV other than the sloping armor, which saves weight and adds slight thickness. I actually believe the Panzer IV had 80mm armor that the T34 didn't always penetrate. Why do you see the T34 as a superior piece of equipment? Speed and mobility or other things?

Compare 1941 T34 and 1941 Panzer IV. 80mm armor appeared in later models (1942-43),the same for 76mm that could fight medium/heavy tanks - in 1941 German tank had short barrel and was intented to fight infantry and was useless against T34 , and its armor in thickest front was 50mm.
In armor,armament,speed and mobility in 1941 T34 was clearly better then any German tank.


With respect,that wasn't the point,the true difference was in the quantities of tanks produced,quality needed to take a back seat at this stage in the conflict,the Germans tried to produce a quality product,but in adopting this philosophy were unable to produce enough tanks to have a serious impact on the result of the war on the Eastern front.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by pavil

Originally posted by Phoenix
Interesting topic,


Smart money would have been on producing a simple, easy to produce armored carrier for the incomparable 88mm gun tube in vast quantity known as the best anti-tank weapon of the war.

A country capable of designing the Volkswagen's simplicity should have also produced the "Volk's" tank in great numbers.





Yes the 88 was probably the most feared weapon around. Kinda scary that it started out as an anti aircraft gun, what exactly were they trying to shoot down with it, flying saucers?

If they would have created a some mobility for it. It could have very well been an offensive game changer. Properly setup 88's created killzones for any armor that crossed their path. A very mobile and adjustable 88 would have been even deadlier.


The 88 was produced in a mobile version,usually towed behind a half track,the problem with the 88 as with any artillery piece,is at some point it has to remain stationary in order for it to be able to fire,that's the time in which it becomes vulnerable to attack.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by nake13
 




With respect,that wasn't the point,the true difference was in the quantities of tanks produced,quality needed to take a back seat at this stage in the conflict,the Germans tried to produce a quality product,but in adopting this philosophy were unable to produce enough tanks to have a serious impact on the result of the war on the Eastern front.

In 1941 Soviets had both quantity and quality advantage in tanks over Nazi Germany and it did not help one bit. Thats because tanks are just a tool ,Germany lost WW2 not because they failed to spam lower-quality tanks (they had a serious fuel problem even with "small" amounts they did produce) but because Hitler started war on two fronts.
German economy and manpower simply could not cope. Allied and Soviet economy could always build and support more hardware and field more soldiers. Nazis could not produce more low quality tanks then Allies and Soviets did,and logistics of handling larger quantities would have overloaded the straining economy even more..
Of course side with best or even most tanks/aircraft at any given time is not the side that wins wars by default. But in long WW1/WW2 type of wars bigger economies win over smaller ones, as a "natural" law.



new topics
 
17
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join