German tanks in WW2. Were they really that bad?

For those interested in seeing these armored beasts, look up a local WWII show in your area. There is one in my area always around the weekend of June 6th at the Reading, Pa. airport. The have brought in the panzer and tiger replicas built for Saving Private Ryan. If I recall they used T-74 chasis to duplicate them.

Besides the armor, most shows include many planes, encampments of the military branches, including German and Russian. It is a true honor to listen to these Vets tell their stories. I have listened to quite a few from the Band of brothers, Germans and even a Russian that was in Stalingrad.
Fort Indiantown Gap used to do an armor show around Christmas(Battle of Bulge). it was stopped after 9/11. Worth checking into if they restarted it.

reply to post by alldaylong


So was night vision, jet propulsion, and many others. The fact you research it is great. But the idea of it came from somewhere. Of course, even Germany wasn't the first. But they were the first to make it into a formal weapon of war.

reply to post by bekod


It was years ago that I saw that documentary. Thanks for refreshing the memory. I knew it wasnt totally Russian. German engine tech and American running gear.

from what ive learned over the years functioning german heavy tanks were extremely feared in battle though all heavy tanks usually are.the germans did suffer from being too advanced/complex but when it was all working they had a lot of tank for you. id believe your grandfather he sounds very compatible with my reading/learning.

i believe what your trying to ask is that all heavy tanks were considered less than desired at that time. was a variety of reasons but one of the main was mud. and the heavy tanks tendency too get stuck which required a massive effort to get one free. the remaining reasons like amount of build time/cost/maintenence , supply fuel logistics, or fuel consumption also helped to make heavy tanks only good for defence. sort of artilery with wheels that you could run away at the last minute.

plus the weather during the german invasion of russia was reported to be one of the mudiest/coldest years in decades. in short they looked great on paper but in real world conditions they became giant paper weights from mud/lack of fuel/lack of repair. in the end it turns out that the american strategy of a light armored/small gun/cheap/easy to produce in large numbers tank paid off. the sherman was able to keep going in conditions that stoped heavier tanks. it could cross smaller weaker bridges also easier to build a bridge for. in the end the sherman had greater offensive potential than german heavy tanks(probably all) because it was much easier/likely to show up in big numbers ready for battle/supplied/fueled etc. yah on a perfect sunny day with perfect terrain fully supplied and ready you probably want to be in a german tank if you wernt out numbered by say more than two to one.

Originally posted by illuminnaughty
I recall seeing a documentary on the Tanks of WW11. I believe the T34 was an American tank or at least designed by them. It was given/sold to the Russians.

edit on 26-10-2011 by illuminnaughty because: (no reason given)

bekod-
spot on , right you are here is the story on the T34 www.historylearningsite.co.uk... from the link, it was also developed by Germany from the link
The T34 tank was developed by the Russians both before and during World War Two. The T34 revolutionised the way tanks were designed and made. Close up in battle, the T34 proved to be more than a match for the powerful Tiger tank. The T34 combined developments from both America and, ironically, Germany.
how ironic is that?

Surely you both jest?

The T-34 was designed by Americans? Yeah right. Taking design features from other tanks, does not mean your tank is the same as the tank that you're building from. With this argument, one can make many such accusations, such as every tank is British designed because the British Mark I was the first fielded back in WWI.

The T-34 was Soviet made. They incorporated some ideas from other tanks, such as the suspension system and tractor controls, but developed their own 76mm cannon and sloped armour. If the Americans developed the T-34, clearly superior to the Sherman Tommycooker, then they probably would have fielded it themselves

Evolutionsend-
A poster on ATS argued with me in another thread. I quote "German tanks were so heavy they could not leave roads." I thought the topic was worth it's own thread.

I don't recall saying that at all. I recall saying that late German tank designs (specifically I was talking about the Panther, but I really meant the King Tiger) were so overengineered and delicate that they had to stay on flat roads or risk serious malfunction or maintenance cost. Not to mention that they required a lot of fuel, not very practical after the Germans kept losing oilfield territory.

When it comes to war, it is strategy that defines victory, not technological superiority. The Panther may have been a powerful tank, but the T-34/Sherman definitely fit a better strategy.

Originally posted by Bixxi3
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)

Germany had the world whooped until they ran out of fuel. They had long range rockets and started to produce jet-planes, armored Panzer divisions..etc.., just no fuel. They relied on capturing allied fuel depots toward the end, and the allies got smart and started blowing up their own supplies.

reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


The T-34 was part of a series of Soviet armor evolved from the design of American engineer Walter Christie...

In 1939 the most numerous Soviet tank models were the T-26 light tank, and the BT series of fast tanks. The T-26 was a slow-moving infantry tank, designed to keep pace with soldiers on the ground.

The BT tanks were cavalry tanks, very fast-moving light tanks, designed to fight other tanks but not infantry...

...Both were Soviet developments of foreign designs from the early 1930s; the T-26 was based on the British Vickers 6-Ton, and the BT tanks were based on a design from American engineer Walter Christie.

T-34

The BT tanks were "convertible tanks". This was a feature designed by J. Walter Christie to reduce wear of the unreliable tank tracks of the 1930s. In about thirty minutes the crew could remove the tracks and engage a chain drive to the rearmost road wheel on each side, allowing the tank to travel at very high speeds on roads. In wheeled mode the tank was steered by pivoting the front road wheels. However, Soviet tank forces soon found the convertible option of little practical use in a country with few paved roads, and it consumed space and added needless complexity and weight. The feature was dropped from later Soviet designs.

BT tank

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

 

The T-34 was part of a series of Soviet armor evolved from...

So it was Soviet designed then? Why try to post information at me that I already know. It doesn't matter where the original designs came from because the T-34 was Soviet designed and made after a series of different production models. It wasn't made or designed in other countries, the tank that it was originally losely based off of was. See the difference?

EDIT:

Now this is certainly impressive: Soviet Teletanks

reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


The Panther had superior cross country mobility over the Sherman and many others. The T-34 is regarded as the most mobile tank of the war, probably leaving the Panther as the second best. The Panther was great cross country because it was a great deal bigger than the smaller Sherman and could roll over large obstacles with ease, another thing it was designed to do.

reply to post by GringoViejo


That is actually quite funny....you obviously don't remember ww2 at all...if you did, you would realise that if germany had not attacked Russia...the States and Western Europe would have been annihilated by the germans...I have little to no doubt about that one..I have always thought Hitler's greatest mistake was to attack Russia...Bad timing for him...great for the western world and it's privileged rights..(freedom of speech for example)..Privileged rights I say because that is what they truly are..we are truly blessed to have them...In Nazi germany, many people would have been killed for doing things they take for granted right now...

For the record...The tigers and panzer's were the most feared of all tanks during ww2 by the allies...I do not agree with anyone who says different...

reply to post by Evolutionsend


I was always taught in history that the Nazi tanks were the cream of the crop during WW2, plus they used a military tactic noone had seen before in the Blitzkrieg.

These videos confirm those teachings, thanks for sharing.

Germany has the best tanks during ww2, the problem was they where so expensive and needed so much material to build, the soviet and american tanks where mass produced, i think the americans by themselveshad more tanks that the germans, so the allies won by numbers not quality

Originally posted by Ex_MislTech
Germany lost because Hitler did the following:

1) stopped bombing british airfields

2) attacked Russia

3) sent rommel to north africa

4) didn't listen to his generals

5) As with 3. Fought the Italian campaign in Greece on behalf of the Italian army which was getting annihilated. Overall messing up Hitler's plans and delaying Barbarossa several crucial months. Mussolini was probably the cause of the Nazi failure in Russia.

6) Turned the Wehrmacht away from Moscow to go and secure the resources in the Ukraine. Probably snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. When the Germans returned to Moscow, an extremely cold winter faced them, and the Red Army was prepared.

7) To a lesser extent. Focusing on King Tiger and Jagdtiger production at the expense of a higher quantity of Panther and Jagdpanthers, which were more effective in battle and cheaper.

The sherman tank was and is a complete joke. German metal was incredibly superior to anything the allies had. The issue, as was brought up, is that they were overly complicated, hard to repair in the field and suffered from shortages of material later war.

The american tank doctrine was very simple. The M4A1 sherman is a tank, tanks are there to support infantry by killing other infantry. They are meant to spam high explosive rounds into trenches, bunkers, buildings, etc. They are not meant to engage tigers, kingtigers, panthers and any other tanks. They surely had to, and when they did, they'd almost surely fail. A common method of taking out just a single axis tank was to have a column of 4 tanks. The axis tank would take out the first tank, the second tank and the third but by the time it has had the chance to take out the last in the column, that tank would have been flanking and using its dead friends as a distraction. The only way to damage most of the axis tanks, with a sherman was from the side (Barring lucky shots that penetrated between the hull and the turret). The british were more intelligent with their creation of the Sherman Firefly which carried a 17 pounder gun and could actually engage heavy german armor frontally. That said, even that powerful gun had trouble dealing with the Kingtiger.

That said, the second part of american tank doctrine was the tank destroyer line. This group featured the super speedy m18 hellcat - a wonderful tank which would reach high speeds, quickly. It had a 76 mm gun which was, generally speaking, enough to take out tiger tanks (to the side). The m10 tank destroyer was also part of this group and was slower that the m18 but carried the same gun. Later war we saw the m36 jackson. This was actually a very good TD which could kill even the Kingtiger to the front without issue. This tank was quick and carried the 90 mm gun.

Quickly summed up, Shermans received the nickname Ronson, because they would get shot, penetrated, caught on fire and most crew were badly injured or dead on impact. The TDs, however, generally performed very admirably. Where the shermans would normally always fail, the TDs saw great success against german armor.

All this said, its important to understand that America's role in ww2 vs German was minimal, at best. Its more important to understand that if Hitler wasn't a complete dumbass and didn't attack Russia, we'd be in a much different world. When hitler decided to implement operation barbarosa, england was in shambles, america wasn't even on the cusp of joining the war and it all looked very bleak for the allied nations. However, because hitler wanted russia, he took 1/2- 2/3 of his army and sent them towards russia, including the most skilled divisions. What america, england, canada and friends fought in Europe were the left overs and not the entire army.

WW2 was an incredible war and the last epic tank battles. Learn about them, you'll be amazed, disgusted and intrigued.

reply to post by SteveR


8. Japanese attacked America at least 6 months ahead of the intended plan bringing the US into the war well ahead of the Nazi's intentions and ability to be ready for reinforcements on the western front.

reply to post by Evolutionsend


This is interesting because I play some tabletop miniature games here in Australia. I tend to stay away from WW2 simulations but I know some people who play them. Whenever I hear any of these guys or history buffs talk about German tanks they always talk them up.

My understanding is the Germans just simply had better tanks than us in every way except mobility.

Could this be a case of history propaganda? Is it accepted common knowledge in the US that the German tanks were bad? I only ask because its completely the opposite over here.

I'll throw in my perspective as an ex-tanker/Armor officer.

German tanks at the beginning of WWII really were crap.
The PzKw 1, II, III's were small, lightly armored and way under gunned.
Even the German officers were a bit worried about taking on France with it's Char Bis and Somua 35.
What the Germans did have was good training and the idea of using Combined arms.
Air support, artillery, tanks and infantry all working together. And good command and control.
Total air superiority didn't hurt either.

The North Africa campaign was made for tank warfare and Rommel used it to his advantage.
What really dominated that battlefield was the 88mm flak gun deployed as an anti tank weapon.
The British and Americans had a really hard time even getting with in range of the Germans without getting shot up.
Notice how nobody ever mentions Kasserine pass, That was major allied goat screw.
What screwed up for the Germans In Africa was logistics.
Thus the old army saying “Amateurs talk tactics, professionals talk about logistics”

When the Germans went into Russia they enjoyed a lot of success in the early phases. Even with only the under gunned PzKw III, and IV's.
But they knew they needed bigger guns and more armor on the tanks. Remembering how good the Flak 88 was some one came up with idea of sticking it in a tank. Problem was that Tank needed to be big to carry the dang thing.
The Panther was designed as a stop gap medium tank to counter the T-34s and fill the gap until the Tigers came along. Again they had control of the air and good command and control.

The Tigers and tigers II were the apex of tank development at that time.
But they were reaching the upper limits of how much armor and crap they could throw in a tank.
The tiger had 48 road wheels!! in the early models you had to remove 9 road wheels just to replace one on the inside.
I had to replace both tracks on a M1 Abrahams track one day. Took 9 hours in the freezing rain and it sucked. Can't imagine doing that with ticked off Russians shooting at you.

The big disadvantage the Germans had was the overall command never kept the Tigers together as a group. They would piece meal them out to support infantry and close gaps in the line.
If they had kept them together as a force and used them properly they would have done a lot more damage.

That's why American tanks were able to take out Tigers one at a time. Plus air superiority had shifted to the allies on the Western front by the closing of the WWII.

So the German tanks were Technically better if a bit too over engineered. But that plus good crew training and good Command and control made them better than anything on the field at the time.

Read these books if your interested:
Tigers in the Mud: The Combat Career of German Panzer Commander Otto Carius
Panzer Commander: The Memoirs of Colonel Hans von Luck
MICHAEL WITTMANN AND THE WAFFEN SS TIGER COMMANDERS OF THE LEIBSTANDARTE IN WWII

Just in case any one is wondering:
I think war sucks, You really want to screw a country over become a banker.

One other thing to keep in mind When thinking about WWII tanks.
Most of the time they were moved by train to the battle field. Long Road marches are rough on tanks, Even modern ones. The Tiger had two sets of tracks, narrow tracks so they could get onto train flat beds and the wider field ones.

When talking about mobility in WWII if you wanted to hit anything you pretty much had the bring the tank to a dead stop. So you could get around fast but unless you had an 88mm you had to get in knife fighting range to hit any thing much less do any damage.
Not real fun in a Sherman.

reply to post by mash3d


All true. There are so many pictures on the internet of WW2 tanks in various configurations that it's hard to tell exactly what they looked like. Little scrawny tracks for the train ride, busted or removed fenders, improvised devices attached to the outside.

reply to post by Evolutionsend


The history books say that anyone who went up against them learned to fear them especially when they placed the 88's on them. Sure some of the experimental ones were flops but the others earned a reputation as good tanks.
If there was a fault at all it was that they were sometimes too complex in design say as compared to the Russian T34. Though the T34 was the first to use slopped armour and it's wide tracks allowed it to deal with the Russian bog.