German tanks in WW2. Were they really that bad?

page: 9
17
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot
reply to post by steveknows
 


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


Don't be smart. you said "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.'

And yoiu also said" Credit where it is due, even the sloping armor was a Christie innovation. " And you were wrong.


I was pointing out who first used sloped armour in tanks. And it was the French.
edit on 27-10-2011 by steveknows because: Typo




posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by steveknows

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot
reply to post by steveknows
 


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


Don't be smart. you said "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.'

And yoiu also said" Credit where it is due, even the sloping armor was a Christie innovation. " And you were wrong.


I was pointing out who first used sloped armour in tanks.
edit on 27-10-2011 by steveknows because: Typo


Excuse me?

Again...


The Soviets later improved upon the basic Christie tank design, adopting its sloping front armor for its BT tank series of infantry tanks.



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.


Here is an extensive article from Battlefield.RU specifically addressing Christie's design as the basis for the BT series...

Танки Кристи в СССР

Educate yourself.



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Evolutionsend
 


I have never been aware of bad talk of German tanks per say. I know that my Grandfather and Step-Father both said they had huge concerns about Nazi tanks in WWII. They were greatly feared and were the result of many lethal and fatal outcomes to the allied forces. The US did well with Sherman tanks indeed though. Heard a lot of good things about them. I am not a wizard when it comes to war weaponry though. I just spoke to a lot of my elder growing up about wartime.
edit on 10-27-2011 by Flint2011 because: Mispelling



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by alldaylong
 


I can tell you're new to ATS. Instead of just posting generalized links and moving on, it would be more useful to explain your position and reference it with facts.

Here is data that shows, by far, the logistics were supplied by the US. Further, it shows British and Canadian shipments were 8.71% of total lend-lease tonnage.
















posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by SteveR
 


I agree that the PzKpfw V was the best all around of the Axis designs and arguably the best medium tank of the second world war.

The Panther applied superior German industrial engineering to the tactically/logistically superior design theory of the T-34, the Panzer Korps were nearly guaranteed to have a winner.



Originally posted by SteveR
reply to post by alldaylong
 


Here is data that shows, by far, the logistics were supplied by the US. Further, it shows British and Canadian shipments were 8.71% of total lend-lease tonnage.


Good point.

There seems to be a current trend of poorly researched revisionism to marginalize the historic record of the U.S. contribution to the second world war under the guise of "correcting" perceived U.S. exaggerations.

Personally, I blame the history channel.


While Hollywood has done the historical record few favors, the role that U.S. industry alone played in preventing total defeat for both Britain and the U.S.S.R. (particularly so in the worst days of 1941/ early 1942, prior to large scale U.S. military commitment) is indisputable.



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Drunkenparrot
 


I agree. Must be payback for U-571 and so on.


It irks people to no end to say that the U.S. saved the Soviet Union from probable collapse, but it is true. American industrial capacity was the best in the world at the time.

If Stalin himself said it, it's going to be true. He's not exactly going to exaggerate foreign assistance in defeating the Nazis. The Russians are proud of the 'fact' they did the job themselves.



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 07:43 PM
link   
Interesting topic,

With history as I've learned it,

Individually German tanks like the Tiger I and II along with the Panther were superior fighting machines against most all if not all Allied tanks.

Any of the German tanks armed with the 88mm gun far out-ranged their opponents weapons.

The error I see in the history books is that the Germans faced with a turn of events in 43' of a Soviet Russia going over to the offensive choose to continue to build somewhat complicated and technical tanks rather than economizing for simplicity and quantity when called for. Hubris to say the least.

The story of German war production and inefficiencies seems worthy of a post all its own. This was true whether it was tank, fighter/bomber aircraft, naval ships and submarines and even small weapons.

The Germans didn't even fully mobilize their wartime production economy until 1943.

Arrogance, crony capitalism and disbelief brought on by propaganda doomed the Reich.

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.

The continued use of close tolerance drive trains requiring fine machining and regular intensive maintenance along with constant design/model changes with parts incompatibility were a logistical nightmare for the military. By mid-war the supply chain just fell apart under the weight of differing types in service, especially on the eastern front.

Russia and the allies by settling on just a limited number of designs was able to field far superior numbers of armored vehicles even though individually inferior which overwhelmed superior but fewer German tanks fielded.

It was a numbers and logistics game that the Germans lost.

I chalk it up to arrogance of the year's proceeding the war and a refusal to face facts mid-war.

Their leader was a WWI infantry soldier who dictated strategy, what got produced, and where it was used - what more do you need for a recipe for disaster?

I cite Guderian's desire to drive onto Moscow in 41' and Hitler's decision to send his tank army south instead as case in point about Hitler's decision making.

Arguing about lend-lease or who made the greatest sacrifice, which countries production of tanks won the war is moot in the face of Germany's own crippling faults as history shows.

Germany lost the war all of its own accord.



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 07:48 PM
link   
I have never heard of anyone bad mouthing ww2 German tanks. Those things were Satan incanted on the battlefied. They could take dozens of hits without so much as flinching. Our Sherman's would get ripped to shreds, it took about a 3-4 of them to even have a chance against a tiger.



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Phoenix
 


Excellent post. I think the point we're making is, even with the Axis blunders and hubris, they might still of pulled off a victory if it wasn't for behind the scenes support & logistics such as lend-lease. The Soviet war machine without doubt was hungry for the raw materials that lend-lease supplied, and they had the manpower to utilize every single one of the tens of thousands of war planes, tanks and guns that were shipped. The U.S. and to a lesser extent, the commonwealth, helped to create the Soviet colossus that the Germans felt so overwhelming.

Another point. While Hitler certainly made some major strategic errors, if Italy hadn't of been run by its own imbecile, the Wehrmacht would not of been in Greece or Africa. Buying time (months) and personnel (Afrika Korps) to make the assault on Moscow even after securing Ukraine.

It's not so simple to just blame Hitler.



Originally posted by Phoenix
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.


It is a good idea, the Germans did experiment with this concept and produced the relatively light 24 ton Nashorn. Of course they performed well but were made in limited numbers as heavier designs were favoured. They mainly shot out of range of the enemy tanks without penalty, but close up they were vulnerable due to the light armour.

However, in terms of a cheap, easy to produce assault gun, it would probably be more cost efficient to arm them with the Panther main gun instead, the 75mm KwK 42 L/70. The Panther gun was almost as good as the long L/71 version of the 88 used on the Tiger II and Nashorn, and even better penetration than the shorter barrelled 88s that were used on the Tiger I and AT guns.

The Germans just had a different philosophy. They intended their vehicles to be survivable under fire. They valued their soldiers more, gave them the best, and put tankers behind the protection of thick armour plate. The Russians on the other hand were happy to waste men in human wave attacks, for them it was never a question of quality and survivability, but what designs were most efficient and could be produced in the most quantities. The T-34, while incorporating good design elements, was overrated. It had half the frontal armour thickness of the uprated Panzer IV and compared to most German tanks it was inferior in reliability, ergonomics, sights and build quality. The turret was cast, while German designs used welded interlocking armour plate.
edit on 2011/10/27 by SteveR because: -



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 04:53 AM
link   
reply to post by steveknows
 





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?


Yep, the Germans had 2 T-34's that led the way into the Russian lines so the Russians could not hear the tigers.
the only reason the Germans called off the battle, the allies invaded Italy.
edit on 10/28/2011 by mugger because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 10:35 AM
link   
Early German tanks were totally outclassed by the Russian t34. That is where the Germans got the idea of using properly sloped armor in the later designs. Sadly, although good on paper the panther was rushed into combat too early. Once it was properly bug free it could outclass most other tanks until late in the war. Good ride from the suspension but the interleafed bogies very very time consuming to change (the inner ones requiring the removal of two outer to replace. Also this type of suspension used to freeze up on Russian winter mornings leading to the Soviet tactic of early morning attacks when the German heavies were immobile. So what makes a superior tank? I think we have to include reliability. For a surprising revelation about the quality of German tank armor check out a site called the Russian Battlefield which shows pics of a Tiger 2 gradually being cracked apart by hits from high calibre HE!



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by saf51
For a surprising revelation about the quality of German tank armor check out a site called the Russian Battlefield which shows pics of a Tiger 2 gradually being cracked apart by hits from high calibre HE!




Yeah but any other tank would have been ripped apart with one hit probably. Tiger II were movable (barely) pillboxes of death. The Jagdtiger was even more armed and armored but it was so heavy it couldn't operate well at all in the field.


However, he also recorded that a 128 mm projectile went through all the walls of a house and destroyed an American tank behind it.[6]


That's a nasty piece of equipment.



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 11:07 AM
link   
What I think happened was Germany was butthurt about WWI and its superior techs made it overconfident. Basically, Germany took on the world and lost. Nobody should be surprised. You can't attack the superpowers, even with an advantage, and expect much success. The german people got cabin fever or something. They saw in Hitler their resurgence. It's pathetic, really.

Look at it this way. A lot of us spend our time doing nothing, essentially. So much time is wasted. So you work? Who cares? Probably 90% of our economy is disposable and we could do without. We don't even know what's necessary anymore since we're so lost in the infinite perishables. If we directed our mental and physical efforts to military and supremacy and science, nothing would stand in our way. This is true for anybody on the planet. It's all about priorities.

But then again, we're not robots. Maybe impulsivity is human nature only -most- of the time. That's what makes us human. But we're always within reach of being inhuman and.. dangerous.

Watch for it. Every day, there're people that switch 'on'. Sometimes, even, nations will. And when this happens, they, with time, flower. And do not desire to breath the same air. At that point, the whole world may as well be your enemy. It's like being stuck in a room without an air supply.

It's always imagined that people have to be forced. But I think people switch 'on' all the time. They become rich or famous or remembered for what they do. Just ask yourself something: What if everything I did was meaningful and I wasted no time on trivial things? It's a stretch to say that this is what germany did. Hitler was a dictator, obviously. He did not allow for dissent. If somebody wanted to waste time, he'd kick them onto the street and shoot them. But the thing is, despite what people say, there was still a lot of support for Hitler from his own people. Some say he was just a good talker, but I think it goes deeper than that. Germany had cabin fever.

Maybe they just did the wrong thing. Maybe a different kind of Hitler really could have led Germany to something better. Or maybe greatness is just an illusion and always ends bad? Perhaps there is not right way to do anything. Maybe our inner imperfections will always ruin us, whether we're weak and vulnerable or in control and proud. Prejudice, racism and hatred.

It's hard to make sense out of it. I'm just tired of everybody fixing their eyes on Hitler every time somebody mentions Germany and WWII. I think it's misguided. If Hitler was a manifestation of his people rather than strictly a dictator who rules from the throne then our history books are wrong.
edit on 2-11-2011 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 05:42 PM
link   
Well History shows that every army navy and airforce in the world at the time had both modern and outdated technology so Germany didn't go to war with all the latest stuff and Poland, France, Belgium and England did have alot of modern weapons. It was the type of warfare that Germany was conducting that gave Germany the edge at the time. What actually caused the allies to fail on the continent was the outdated mentality of soldiering.
Germany encouraged indipendant thought from it's troops, rewarded initiative and had a far more humane approach to things such as combat fatigue,well not so much toward the end when all was lost and the country was out to destroy itself, As where the other European powers were bogged down in outdate rigid discipline and outdated tactics



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by saf51
a Tiger 2 gradually being cracked apart by hits from high calibre HE!


Well you have just plucked that fact out without understanding the context.

What do you expect when a tank is receiving direct hits from artillery shells, as they did in that test. The Axis war machine had run out of molybdenum needed for strong armour alloys, and started using vanadium instead (more prone to cracking). The Soviets noted that the metallurgy of the Tiger I and Panther was much superior, and withstood hits better than Tiger II despite having thinner armour.

However, even with these drawbacks, the Soviets noted that shots from their 85mm guns had no effect on the Tiger II at 300m. That's pretty impressive.



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 08:32 PM
link   
Sorry about my last post. I don't know WTH I was thinking. My mind was swimming in all of these things I've heard about Germany. I think there's a lot of myth and magic that's unwarranted.

It's just unreal that all of that happened. Millions of deaths. Hard to grasp.

My father's mother came from Germany in the 1920's about. I don't know a whole lot about it. On my mothers side, there's some german but i don't konw much about that either.

I will have to find out more. Just am so lazy with these things. Too much to be ignorant about.
edit on 2-11-2011 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2011 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by jonnywhite
 


Your post made some interesting points, but a little oversimplifying the Nazi movement and causes of the war. Economic terrorism perpetrated on Germany and the geopolitik issues arising from the Versailles treaty played major parts. It is a complex multifaceted issue.



posted on Nov, 3 2011 @ 12:17 PM
link   
I watched a History Channel show about tanks and German tanks are among the best rated. What they really had was a huge FEAR FACTOR!!! People were terrified of German tanks. They saw this massive mechanical monster and ran in fear.



posted on Nov, 3 2011 @ 07:27 PM
link   
I find this amusing because after thinking this thread was dead, I come back and it's 9 pages long.
Popular subject I suppose?



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 12:53 PM
link   
Without doubt, the Germans had two of the best tanks to see action during the Second World War, these being the Pz.Kpfw V and the Pz.Kpfw VI.

Whilst the Panther was probably the best medium tank in the world, the Tiger 1 suffered from being heavily over-engineered and also it needed to be run every hour (when static) to charge the batteries and keep the electrical systems working properly.

One other problem both tanks suffered from was the abysmal road wheel lay out. Whilst the torsion bar suspension helped spread the weight, if the wheels or track was damaged the tank was destined for the workshop.

Incidentally, crews make tanks superior, not designers nor factories. Most German tank crews were better trained than their adversaries with the exception of the Panther Mk 1 (Aus A) which was rushed in to service in ‘43.

There were plenty of German tank ‘aces’ such as Meyer, Barkhorn and Wittmann but the Allies had their own aces, Lafayette Pool - 12 tanks & 246 mixed vehs (US 3rd Armd Div), Sydney Radley-Walters - 18 tanks (Canadian 27th Armoured Regiment) and Dmitriy Lavrinenko - 57 tanks (Russian 1st Guards Tank Brigade).

Off topic. Jet engines were developed by two people - Frank Whittle (1930) and Dr. Hans von Ohain (1934 & 1936), who both patented their own designs. Whittle took his proposal to the RAF who did not offer funding so his patent expired but he found private funding and started working again from scratch, eventually producing a prototype aircraft.

Hans von Ohain’s engine powered the Heinkel He178 which first flew on August 27, 1939 beating Whittle’s aircraft which flew on May 15, 1941, flown by Flt Lt P.E.G Sayer by roughly 18 months.

Other German innovations. The Henschel Hs 293 anti-ship missile was used against the allies in the Med during 1943/44; the Rheinbote (Rhine Messenger) used against Antwerp in 1944; the infra-red guided Enzian SAM (not used operationally); the Wasserfall (Waterfall) SAM which was cancelled in Feb ‘45 and the R4M rocket, the world’s first true air to air missile deployed in ‘45 and used throughout the late 40s and early 50s.





new topics
 
17
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join