German tanks in WW2. Were they really that bad?

page: 8
17
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by mash3d
The Panther was designed as a stop gap medium tank to counter the T-34s and fill the gap until the Tigers came along.


The Tiger I came first. Although a lighter design, the Panther was more advanced because it incorporated the lessons learned on the eastern front. The Tiger II design applied those same advancements, such as sloped armour, on a larger scale. The similarity between the Panther and Tiger II is striking, they are both a generation ahead of the Tiger I.

I think the Panther was the best Axis tank of the war. Compared to the Tiger I, the Panther had better frontal armour, better gun penetration, it was faster, better over rough terrain and much cheaper to produce. Not to mention it was the most reliable design and broke down less than the Tigers. An army needs numbers, they should of focused on the Panther as the MBT of the Wehrmacht and abandoned the Tiger I and II designs, which both cost more than double the resources of a single Panther.
edit on 2011/10/27 by SteveR because: -




posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by evs490
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.


Very good point. Germany's allies caused more trouble than they were worth. If Germany had gone alone, who knows how successful they may of been.



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 01:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Evolutionsend
 
oh yes Hobart's funny's and the church hills the strange and odd tanks of WW2 www.strijdbewijs.nl... check out the crock, it would make toast.



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 01:48 AM
link   

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)


Well I'll tell you what. I learned alot about WW2 tanks when I was young. In fact I learned so much there was very little I didn't know, Actually my love of tanks was so much so that when I turned 18 I went into the army and, yep you bet, I served 6 years as a bucket head in the RAAC.

Not once did I ever read that the T34 was an American achievement. And believe me if it was an American success the whole world would have been told by 50 years worth of Americans.

The T34 was the result of technical development new and old and from several different countries but the T34 was a Russian designed and built legend of WW2.

In every weapon used in the war was the end product of many different countries and no single country can claim otherwise.

I suppose that now not only did the U.S save the western world , as we're always incorrectly being told, but it now saved the soviet union.



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 06:38 AM
link   
I am lead to understand that where as the US and UK were making tanks which were relatively simple to build and design, the Germans were building thier tanks in a very complicated fashion. Everything from the drive systems to the loading and firing of the guns was a much more mechanical and deliberate build. They were harder to maintain than other battle tanks of the time, and although tough, once damaged, complicated fixes would have to be achieved before normal operation of the damaged system could resume.

Mechanically the machines churned out by the Germans were supierior as an intellectual excersize, but inferior as weapons because of thier comparative complexity.



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 08:19 AM
link   
If you have the Military channel, they run a program called Great tank Battles. it is very informative.
The battle of Kursk was about the most armor assembled for a battle pitting at least 300 Tiger and Panzer tanks against 500 T-34's. The only way to slow down the Germans was a direct assault and sheer numbers to overwhelm the Germans. The Russians actually at one point used the T-34 to drive into the Tigers to disable them.
The Panther tank was also employed and was probably the Germans worst tank. It has inherent design and mechanical flaws, not many made it out of the battle for Kursk.
The rest of the series is also on on utube.

edit on 10/27/2011 by mugger because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 08:34 AM
link   
reply to post by steveknows
 


Yes I agree with you. But the running gear was American and the engine design was German. So the Russians supplied the sloping armour. Without the running gear and German engine tech it wouldnt have moved. I admit that I got it wrong, as I said it was a long time ago that I saw the documentary.



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by steveknows
I suppose that now not only did the U.S save the western world , as we're always incorrectly being told, but it now saved the soviet union.


Technically they did. The lend-lease act was a major factor in the Russian comeback. Even Stalin credited it with saving the war effort.


Originally posted by mugger
The Panther tank was also employed and was probably the Germans worst tank. It has inherent design and mechanical flaws, not many made it out of the battle for Kursk.


The Panther can't be judged by Kursk. It was rushed into battle before it's teething problems had been resolved. There was no time to even train the crews, so they were unfamiliar with it. These things lead to poor combat performance. The later models, Panther Ausf. D and G were far better.

The same is true of the Tiger.


The Tiger was first used in action on 23 September 1942 near Leningrad. Under pressure from Hitler, the tank was put into action months earlier than planned. Many early models proved to be mechanically unreliable; in this first action many broke down. Others were knocked out by dug-in Soviet anti-tank guns. One tank was captured largely intact, which allowed the Soviets to study it and prepare a response.



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR

Originally posted by steveknows
I suppose that now not only did the U.S save the western world , as we're always incorrectly being told, but it now saved the soviet union.


Technically they did. The lend-lease act was a major factor in the Russian comeback. Even Stalin credited it with saving the war effort.


Originally posted by mugger
The Panther tank was also employed and was probably the Germans worst tank. It has inherent design and mechanical flaws, not many made it out of the battle for Kursk.


The Panther can't be judged by Kursk. It was rushed into battle before it's teething problems had been resolved. There was no time to even train the crews, so they were unfamiliar with it. These things lead to poor combat performance. The later models, Panther Ausf. D and G were far better.

The same is true of the Tiger.


The Tiger was first used in action on 23 September 1942 near Leningrad. Under pressure from Hitler, the tank was put into action months earlier than planned. Many early models proved to be mechanically unreliable; in this first action many broke down. Others were knocked out by dug-in Soviet anti-tank guns. One tank was captured largely intact, which allowed the Soviets to study it and prepare a response.


I take it that you are aware that Britain and Canada also supplied Arms to Russia under Lend-Lease ?

ww2total.com...



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by alldaylong
I take it that you are aware that Britain and Canada also supplied Arms to Russia under Lend-Lease ?
ww2total.com...


Sure, but as your link even shows it was primarily from the United States. The US also provided the logistics equipment, even more critical to victory than arms, of which the Soviets had plenty of their own.



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by mugger
If you have the Military channel, they run a program called Great tank Battles. it is very informative.
The battle of Kursk was about the most armor assembled for a battle pitting at least 300 Tiger and Panzer tanks against 500 T-34's. The only way to slow down the Germans was a direct assault and sheer numbers to overwhelm the Germans. The Russians actually at one point used the T-34 to drive into the Tigers to disable them.
The Panther tank was also employed and was probably the Germans worst tank. It has inherent design and mechanical flaws, not many made it out of the battle for Kursk.
The rest of the series is also on on utube.

edit on 10/27/2011 by mugger because: (no reason given)



I think I've got this on DVD. Does it mentiona battle where the two sides came around a bend in a road and didn't know each other were coming and the tigers hammerd the T34's?



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by illuminnaughty
reply to post by steveknows
 


Yes I agree with you. But the running gear was American and the engine design was German. So the Russians supplied the sloping armour. Without the running gear and German engine tech it wouldnt have moved. I admit that I got it wrong, as I said it was a long time ago that I saw the documentary.



Actually the first time sloped armour was used on a tank it was French. I'm going to dig my old books out double check all this.

Anyway as I said before no one country invented 100% of any weapon used in WW2. It's not as if Germany and the U.S put the T34 together and sent them to the Russians. It smells of someone trying to lay claim to something that doesn't belong to them.

Using that logic is like saying that it was actually Germany who landed on the moon or the Assyrians were responsible for the tank as they invented iron. Hell whoever invented the wheel is the person who saved Russia then.
edit on 27-10-2011 by steveknows because: Add.



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by steveknows
 


You may want to read a bit deeper on the subject than you have, the U.S. roots of the Soviet BT lineage are well documented.


John Walter Christie (May 6, 1865 – January 11, 1944) was an American engineer and inventor. He is best known for developing the Christie suspension system used in a number of World War II-era tank designs, most notably the Soviet BT and T-34 series,



On April 28, 1930 Christie's company, the U.S. Wheel Track Layer Corporation, agreed to sell Amtorg two M1931 Christie-designed tanks at a total cost of $60,000 US, with the tanks to be delivered not later than four months from date of signing, together with spare parts to the purchased tanks for the sum of $4,000.

Rights were also transferred to the production, sale and use of tanks inside the borders of the U.S.S.R. for a period of ten years.[6] The two Christie tanks, falsely documented as agricultural farm tractors, were sold without prior approval of the U.S. Army or Department of State, and were shipped without turrets to the Soviet Union.

The Soviets later improved upon the basic Christie tank design, adopting its sloping front armor for its BT tank series of infantry tanks. The BT itself was further refined into the famous Soviet T-34 tank of World War II, retaining the sloping front armor design, now adopted for side armor as well ..


J. Walter Christie

Credit where it is due, even the sloping armor was a Christie innovation.


The sloping front hull (glacis plate) armor design of the Christie M1931 prototype was retained in later Soviet tank hull designs, later adopted for side armor as well.


BT tank



Christie M1931 prototype



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR

Originally posted by alldaylong
I take it that you are aware that Britain and Canada also supplied Arms to Russia under Lend-Lease ?
ww2total.com...


Sure, but as your link even shows it was primarily from the United States. The US also provided the logistics equipment, even more critical to victory than arms, of which the Soviets had plenty of their own.


The US did not supply all the logistic equipment to Russia. Read this:-

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot
reply to post by steveknows
 


You may want to read a bit deeper on the subject than you have, the U.S. roots of the Soviet BT lineage are well documented.


John Walter Christie (May 6, 1865 – January 11, 1944) was an American engineer and inventor. He is best known for developing the Christie suspension system used in a number of World War II-era tank designs, most notably the Soviet BT and T-34 series,



On April 28, 1930 Christie's company, the U.S. Wheel Track Layer Corporation, agreed to sell Amtorg two M1931 Christie-designed tanks at a total cost of $60,000 US, with the tanks to be delivered not later than four months from date of signing, together with spare parts to the purchased tanks for the sum of $4,000.

Rights were also transferred to the production, sale and use of tanks inside the borders of the U.S.S.R. for a period of ten years.[6] The two Christie tanks, falsely documented as agricultural farm tractors, were sold without prior approval of the U.S. Army or Department of State, and were shipped without turrets to the Soviet Union.

The Soviets later improved upon the basic Christie tank design, adopting its sloping front armor for its BT tank series of infantry tanks. The BT itself was further refined into the famous Soviet T-34 tank of World War II, retaining the sloping front armor design, now adopted for side armor as well ..


J. Walter Christie

Credit where it is due, even the sloping armor was a Christie innovation.


The sloping front hull (glacis plate) armor design of the Christie M1931 prototype was retained in later Soviet tank hull designs, later adopted for side armor as well.


BT tank



Christie M1931 prototype


And that is all old news but claiming the achievement of the T34 by proxy is arrogant to to the max and smells like yet another attempt to rewrite world history in favour of the U.S

You might want to research who first used sloped armour in a tank.

en.wikipedia.org...

edit on 27-10-2011 by steveknows because: typo



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by steveknows

Originally posted by illuminnaughty
reply to post by steveknows
 


Yes I agree with you. But the running gear was American and the engine design was German. So the Russians supplied the sloping armour. Without the running gear and German engine tech it wouldn't have moved. I admit that I got it wrong, as I said it was a long time ago that I saw the documentary.



Actually the first time sloped armour was used on a tank it was French. I'm going to dig my old books out double check all this.


I believe the WWI French designed Schneider CA1 was the first application of sloped armour?...




posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot

Originally posted by steveknows

Originally posted by illuminnaughty
reply to post by steveknows
 


Yes I agree with you. But the running gear was American and the engine design was German. So the Russians supplied the sloping armour. Without the running gear and German engine tech it wouldn't have moved. I admit that I got it wrong, as I said it was a long time ago that I saw the documentary.



Actually the first time sloped armour was used on a tank it was French. I'm going to dig my old books out double check all this.


I believe the WWI French designed Schneider CA1 was the first application of sloped armour?...










You're obviously choosing to not read where I said that no one country can lay claim from go to woe to inventing any weapon used in the war.
edit on 27-10-2011 by steveknows because: Typo



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by steveknows

And that is all old news but claiming the achievement of the T34 by proxy is arrogant to to the max and smells like yet another attempt to rewrite world history in favour of the U.S



As I said, the U.S. engineering lineage has been well established.

I would be careful tossing about accusations of revisionism while clearly knowing only part of the story yourself as it discredits your position to anyone reading along who has an interest in the subject matter as well.

Another attempt to rewrite history indeed....



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by steveknows
 


My apologies, was the Schneider_CA1 not the French design you referenced above?



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot

Originally posted by steveknows

And that is all old news but claiming the achievement of the T34 by proxy is arrogant to to the max and smells like yet another attempt to rewrite world history in favour of the U.S



As I said, the U.S. engineering lineage has been well established.

I would be careful tossing about accusations of revisionism while clearly knowing only part of the story yourself as it discredits your position to anyone reading along who has an interest in the subject matter as well.

Another attempt to rewrite history indeed....


Why should I be careful? Because you say so? How arrogant you are. This is a blatant attempt to claim the victory of the Russians as a American victory. Read my posts again and don't be selective.

Seem what you're saying is lets keep the peace my saying the U.S saved the day again. OK then the U.S saved the day again. It came to the party late, again!. And took on punch drunk enemies, again! And saved everyone, again!.

Unbelievable.
edit on 27-10-2011 by steveknows because: Typo





new topics
 
17
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join