German tanks in WW2. Were they really that bad?

reply to post by pavil
yes that was a war of what if's what if the Panzer's would have been at Normandy? What if Rommel had finished the big gun's at Normandy what if the allies put off the invasion by one day. Would history be different?

reply to post by Evolutionsend





Thought this was interesting.........................


Although,OddBall might disagree......................




S&F

As mentioned already, it's not the equipment, it's the leadership and strategy that lost if for them. Look at the battle of Britain for example, the odds were far in favour of the Nazi's but they still lost.

Propaganda plays a big role in history. The amount of times I've heard how fantastic the Spitfire was in WW2, and how it won the war for the Allies. Yes it was and still is an impossibly beautiful aircraft, but fact is the Hurricane shot down far more enemy aircraft, but it was uglier and slower, blah blah.

History is a difficult thing to keep straight, thus this site.

My Grandad was an MP in the Wehrmacht for a Mechanized Panzer Division on the eastern front, part of battle Gruppe Sud(south) in the Ukraine.

The German tanks were over engineered making them near impossible to service in the field due to their complexity but they were also designed to not fail.

Many of the the reliability problems were a direct result of sabotage caused by the slave laborers used to manufacture components used in the tanks due to lack of manpower.

Not all Germans were Nazi Party members and only 30% voted for Adolph Hitler causing him to lose the national election. The German military actually made 3 attempts to assassinate Hitler.

Germany was taken over by war mongering Fascists via a false flag terrorist attack used to garner support for military action against the communists in retaliation for the attacks.

This emergency was then used to usurp German Constitutional law very much like we have experienced today in the USA with the Patriot Act as well as the formation of DHS and the TSA Police forces who have very little regard for the United States Constitution and the rights of American citizens.



Peace

reply to post by outsidethesquare


Just to get us back on topic here. The Tiger 1 and the Tiger 2 were considered slow, clunky, not very mobile tanks. When compared to the only other heavy tank that saw combat in WW2, the Tigers do not look too bad, and they're obviously miles ahead of the US prototype that never saw combat. If compared to the KV-1, the older Soviet heavy tank, the Tiger begins to look even better. Were the Tigers really bad tanks, or were heavy tanks at the time just not suited for the job at hand?

Well coming from a long line of US Marines, my Grandfather fought in the Pacific. Having said that I lived in Maryland for years and visited the Aberdeen proving grounds a few times during live fire excerize. Anyhoo, they have an open field museum there.

They have a King Tiger as part of their captured tank display. There, myself, my son and a visiting nephew saw it up close and personal. I can honestly say that the frontal slope of that was hit no less than 7 times from Shermans. The round impact looked like somebody took a giant Ice Cream scoops and gouged out carvings from the armor without penetration!

We looked for a few minutes to find the "Knock out" Punch location which we discovered was down low around it's track system where it's haul was thinnest.

reply to post by Evolutionsend


Okay, maybe I'm biased as a German engineer, but youself said that there was no comparable tank, neither on the west nor the east front - so why were the Tigers bad tanks? Because they could be taken by a pack of Shermans? Weeeeeell.. Give me 3 or 4 hunter-submarines and I could sink every aircraft-carrier - are carriers therefore bad ships?

No, they were designed for special tasks. And when confronted with different tasks, every machine has its drawbacks, I guess.
Tigers were alone on the prawl? Well, there were simply not enough Tigers there, they had to fight on both fronts and the western front was never intended for a massive-scale attack like D-Day. Tigers themselves were used as a support-weapon for the infantry, it was much cheaper to fight Shermans and other tanks using anti-tank-cannons like the PAK 38 to PAK 44.

Simply put the larger german tanks where good in theory but horrible in practice. They could be out manuevered by packs of russian armor and taken out, they where also for their time very high tech gear that couldnt be replaced easily by a country constantly losing more amd more of its logistic capabilities( mainly manufacturing). edit:stupid iphone

reply to post by TheDarkFlame


And when there would have been the same number of german tanks and allied tanks? Everything can be outnumbered.

But anyway, I'm pretty certain that it was not the German weapon technology which made us loose the war (and I'm relieved that we lost - the alternative would have been much too gruesome!).

It was the disadvantage of having less industrial capacity, less natural ressources like oil, far too long provision lines and having to fight on two different fronts while being attacked with full force - that where just the physical problems.

Problems with simply wrong and awful strategical decisions and peoples morale destroyed by airbombings while those were ignored by the official propaganda were a huge disadvantage, too.

I am baffled who told you that German tanks were bad, they were really, really good.

In on incident, a King Tiger sat on a bkey bridge and simply took down tank after tank after tank. Every shot it fired was a certain kill. The only reason it lost was because it ultimately ran out of ammunition and gas and so they finally surrendered.

Furthermore, consider teh rubbish the Allies had. The M3 was a bad joke. It;s big gun could only shoot to the right, so if you wanted to kill it, one merely approached ti from the left and it was helpless. Likewaise, the Sherman was nicknamed the "Ronson", because as the slogan on the advertisement for their lighters used to say, "Strike it right first time and it lights every time."

Originally posted by DarthMuerte
Thanks, but honestly much of your argument was flawed. The German's did not really have the best scientists and engineers; what they had was BUDGETS for those scientists and engineers.

Still, I would disagree. Certainly money played big role in development (and so did slave labor), but I honestly believe german technological thought had no match at the time, (hence Operation Paperclip). Most of the allied armament developments during WWII were counter-response to german stuff.

We talked bout jet engine and its american origins, but it was still gerries who deployed first jet fighter Me262 (too late, thanks gods). First assault rifle. First cruise missiles. They could also adapt pretty quick, on example of Panzerfausts and Panzerschrecks.
True is, as stated here before, if not certain circumstances, and leadership mistakes, our world map could look entirely different.

What Germany also had was, arguably, the best officer corps and the best land war doctrines. The French had better tanks at the beginning of the war; the Germans didn't even develop sloped armor until late war; they just used them wrong.

Of course, tank is as good and effective as it's crew is. We don't hear much about french tanks, because... well because they didn't really deploy them until it was too late.

My father was 2nd Armored Division 41st Armored Infantry Regiment

The tiger tanks had many problems they were good fighting the russians on open plains and open county.

They had major problems in fighting US and british units in the woods and towns.

They were well known for caving in small bridges.
There vision ports were not very good and only the tank comanders vision ports could see behind the tank or to the sides.
The steel on the bottom of the tiger tank was only 3/4 inch.
The main gun barrels were too long.(trees and narrow street of europe were a problem)

This gave the US infantry soft spots to go after.

First get the Germans to button up and have to use the vision blocks. this was done by Infantry sharpshooters(now called snipers) and squad machine guns.
Then they used smoke to make it harder for the Germans to see. 60mm mortars.
They the would then use a Bazooza(rocket propelled anti-tank weapon) to damage the tracks
Then it was trying to get a bag charge or mine with a burning type fuse under the immobile tank.

Later in the war they would use a M3 Half-Track 105mm Howitzer to finish the job.
www.timemoneyandblood.com...
or a American M18 Hellcat Tank Destroyer.
en.wikipedia.org...

There weren't many of them, they came too late in the war, and they were rushed from production to the battlefield. None of the Tigers made any impact in the largest tank battle in history, at Kursk, most of them broke down in transit before firing a shot.

Originally posted by ANNED
My father was 2nd Armored Division 41st Armored Infantry Regiment

The tiger tanks had many problems they were good fighting the russians on open plains and open county.

They had major problems in fighting US and british units in the woods and towns.

They were well known for caving in small bridges.
There vision ports were not very good and only the tank comanders vision ports could see behind the tank or to the sides.
The steel on the bottom of the tiger tank was only 3/4 inch.
The main gun barrels were too long.(trees and narrow street of europe were a problem)

This gave the US infantry soft spots to go after.

First get the Germans to button up and have to use the vision blocks. this was done by Infantry sharpshooters(now called snipers) and squad machine guns.
Then they used smoke to make it harder for the Germans to see. 60mm mortars.
They the would then use a Bazooza(rocket propelled anti-tank weapon) to damage the tracks
Then it was trying to get a bag charge or mine with a burning type fuse under the immobile tank.

Later in the war they would use a M3 Half-Track 105mm Howitzer to finish the job.
www.timemoneyandblood.com...
or a American M18 Hellcat Tank Destroyer.
en.wikipedia.org...

Sounds like any tactic to stop a tank. Blind it, stop it, bomb it till it's down.
Doesn't sound like a bad tank, just like normal warfare.

What would you do to stop a modern Leopard II? Or any other modern tank? Obviously, there are a limited number of possible tactics, these beasts are too damn well armored for one-shot-kills, except with highest-powered-antitank-weapons. Blind it, stop it, bomb it.

reply to post by TinfoilTP


still the russians lost almost six times as much tanks and more than four time as much men as the germans... who had the better weaponry?

----------------

Still I thought it was well known that the germans had the best tanks and at the end even used some sort of jet fighters in WWII. The russians only had more.

I play Axis & Allies Miniatures (its a tabletop historical battle scenario game).
The game uses accurate stats for the vehicles and soldiers.

In the game the German tanks are more powerful even though its made by an American company called Wizards of the Coast (they guys who make D&D and MTG).
They are usually so powerful that people who play it, WANT to be the Germans so they have a better chance of winning with tanks.
However, the German tanks do cost more points.

To put it simply, my friend could start with 4 US Shermans and 1 or 2 soldiers while I start with 2 German Panzers and 1 soldier... My chances of winning are MUCH better and I'll probably win by the 10th turn.


On the other hand, there is another similar game called Memoir '44.
This game is approved by the US vets and its damn near impossible to win with the Germans.

reply to post by stainlesssteelrat


The JET ENGINE had NO American Origins. Where did you get that idea from? The British gave the Jet Engine to the US.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
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.

I disagree with this assessment (I realise that its hypothetical, but still).

Just because the King Tiger was a monster of a tank, doesn't mean that they would be practical in large numbers. Especially if that cost of maintaining 10,000 King Tigers limits your anti-air capability.

You can have a supertank that outmatches everything, but it means nothing if you can't properly maintain it in the field or produce sufficient numbers or replacement parts for it. This is why the Ratte tank was abandoned during the early stages of prototype production.

Even if you can field 10,000 King Tigers, what is the point when you can build more cheaper Panthers/Panzer IVs that can still compete in tactical combat against T-34s or Shermans? Personally, if I was a Nazi armoured commander, I would rather field only a handful of elite King Tigers supported by more Tigers with more Panthers and even more Panzers. The different classes of these tanks meant they operated in varying roles which could be beneficially exploited with proper coordination.

It's a damn good way to sink your war chest, to invest in a "superarmy" composed primarily of top-of-the-line weapons. Doing so is really only good for the image of making your army look better, I guess being a morale advantage while also an initial fear factor for your less-equipped opponents. When it comes to combat, targeting the biggest and baddest weapons of the enemy is the key to victory because if they rely on such weapons to be the keystones of their strategy, then their strategy falls apart when they can't readily replace such losses. This is true for King Tigers and even modern US aircraft supercarriers (if you look at Japan during WWII, their whole schemes for a Pacific Empire collapsed when the US kept sinking their carriers).

This is why I admire the Soviet strategy. They believed more in numbers and general tactical reliability over "super-units" as being integral parts of a combat strategy. While the Soviet strategy was relatively less organized and less precise, it appeared to be hydra-like in practice (you can cut off one or two of its heads, but it'll still be standing).

The main weakness in the tigers and ktigers during the end was the welding quality i read that the russians got ahold of a broken down tiger and studied it i think 4 hits and the welds would crack and give in.

Germany produced some really good tanks in WWII. The Panther is/was considered by many to be the best tank in the world up into the 1950s because of maneuverability, design and sloped armour, and the powerful gun. And don't forget the old warhorse of the German Panzers.... the Pzkw IV... sadly overlooked, yet carried the brunt of the war effort on every front... and so many variations too.

The Tiger I is best remembered for the impact it made when it was introduced onto the battlefield... Invincible. However, it used up too many of the precious and limited resources the Germans had. One of the biggest drawbacks to the german design on it's heavy tanks were the overlapping road wheels of it's chassis... to replace one on the inside, you had to remove two to get to the damaged roadwheel.. not good when repair and turn around time is of the utmost importance.

Further, consider the analogy of well engineered, fine watches...take them out into the field and do bad things to them... see how easy they are to repair. Likewise, every extra moving part is a potential breakdown... and that goes for tanks, too. Many German tanks were taken out by mechanical failure, too many diverse parts, lack of parts due to bombing and logistics, and the inability of the typical soldier in the field to repair over engineered machinery.

Contrast that to the Sherman... 49,000 Shermans and variants were produced. Most all had the same or similar components. The design of the Sherman allowed adaptibility of engines...some were avaition engines, some diesel, some gas...all were pretty common and parts readily available. In fact, many of the components of the Sherman were the same as it's predecessors... the Grant tank and Lee tank. In many cases, the tanks were recovered from the field, the insides cleaned of blood and body parts, the holes in the hull literally patched and welded, the turret replaced if needed, and the tank repainted and ready for service again by a newly arrived crew.

Also consider that the tank components and motors were familiar to the farm boys in service from the mid-west and rural areas... it was basically like working on their daddy's tractor or truck with Case, International, John Deere,Ford, Dodge, and Chevy components.

Lastly, production... even as late as 1944... the Germans were still producing variations on the seriously antiquated Panzer II and III. A big waste of increasingly limited capacity. Further, instead of focusing on a design that worked, was for the most part easily produced, and improving and simplifying its design...like the Panther... The Germans wasted time, energy, industry producing the Tiger II, the Elephant, the Maus, and a host of wasted efforts and concepts.

The Germans had great tactics, great tanks, but poor decisions in mass production and use of materials. It took the loss of 4 Shermans to kill 1 Tiger... but they only had about 2000. Think about it...a 4 to 1 kill ratio. That meant to kill 2000 Tigers would have taken 8000 Shermans....that still left 41,000 Shermans. That pretty much sums it up.