It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
Originally posted by randolphman Yes they were that bad.
Originally posted by randolphman
Yes they were that bad.
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.
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.
Originally posted by GringoViejo
Must not have been that great if Germany lost.
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.
Originally posted by spinalremain
Why do you see the T34 as a superior piece of equipment? Speed and mobility or other things?
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?
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.
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.
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.