Cause of German Tank Success

[redsoulja]

Did germany achieve tank dominance becaus their tanks were really good or was it more of the doctrine that they used with the tanks
they used tanks in a better method than other powers the whole blitzkrieg doctrine
i think the french had better tanks
but the germans use d teh tanks in teh best possibel way

[Pathfinder-X]

Yes German tanks were superior to any other tanks at the time. Panzer and Tiger series are classic designs of the era.

They also have put an effective use of tank force in the early days of WWII. The lighting war, which they use hundreds of tanks to tear through enemy lines struck fear their enemy. But by the later days of the war, their industry could not keep up the production due to bombing of industrial zones and lack of experienced tank crew was one of the reason they came to a defeat.

[Pendekar]

There is a story During the normandy landing of how a single dug in tiger tank destroyed 25 allied tank, 14 half truck and several other vehicle

[Gremlin29]

German tanks are my #1 hobby!

From 1938 through 1941 German tank dominance is attributed to doctrine and tactics. When Germany invaded France they fielded more Czech 38t tanks than their own. The Panzer I and II were used extensively in Poland and France, with lesser numbers (between 2-300 IIRC) of the Panzer IV ausf D's. The Panzer IV ausf D was a decent tank compared to what the French, British and Polish forces were fielding but it's short 75mm cannon was no match for the Russians T-34/76 which was fielded in 1941. The French had the capability and military resources to easily repel the Germans, but the political chaos of 1940 France prevented their army from mounting any real and meaningful organized military defense. Also, the French at that time refused to consider the tank as an actual maneuvering element and as such, their tanks were relegated to infantry support only whereby they never achieved any sort of massed armor. Additionally, the Germans were the first army ever to grasp and implement the combined arms team and the air land battle. One other unique feature about the German armor formations is the fact that the Germans started the war from day one with armored infantry which accompanied the tanks in half tracks. It's now common knowledge but was not back then that tanks are useless without infantry support.

The Germans reallized that they had limited industry and resources and therefore opted to build quality vehicles in limited numbers. The Russians were the exact opposite, they had virtually unlimited resources in material and men and therefore opted to simply smother the Germans. The T-34 was an excellent design in it's time, but it didn't enter battle in meaninful numbers and formations until well into 1942. America chose to employ massive amounts of mediocre tanks. Statisitcally 4 Sherman tanks were destroyed for every Panther tank destroyed, the problem was that their were 10 Sherman tanks for every Panther tank, and America was able to churn them out none stop to infinity. America chose to send Shermans in numbers, they were decent tanks of the medium category, pitting them against heavy tanks... well that's why they were easy pickings for Panthers. Germany's biggest flaw was producing so many different types of tanks. In 1944 they were producing Panzer IV's, Stug IV's, Jagdpanzer IV's, Sturmpanzer IV's, Panthers, Jagdpanthers, Tiger's II, Sturmtigers II, Jagdtiger's II, and a whole host of lesser AFV's. It's been said that the Germans could have won the war by utilizing all of those resources building the Panzer IV's and variants there of. Ultimately Russia fielded the T-34/85 which was a superb tank, they also had the Josheph Stalin super heavy tanks and the monstrous IS-2's towards the end of the war. American fielded the M-26 in very limited numbers towards the end of the war, and it was superior to Panther in every respect.

So, to answer your question it was a combination of tactical excellence, decent machines and some really lousy opposition.

[Aussie Digger]

I daresay it had a bit to do with the renowned German excellence in Engineering. Even their tanks and armoured fighting vehicles today are amongst the very best in the world. Look at their other engineering efforts to in the automotive iindustry for example (BMW, Mercedes, Porsche, Audi etc)...

[redsoulja]

is today's usage of tanks very different from ww2 times or are they similiar
the doctrine did change significantly and the change was varied in different countries
correct me if im worng

[armage]

They probably changed due to all the new anti-tank weapons, planes, missiles.................

[Aussie Digger]

Depends on the terrain your fighting in. In the desert anmd European style grassy plains tank on tank battles will be very prominent in the land battle. In the jungle, tanks will be used mainly to provide a mobile fire support base for the infantry, some tank on tank battles might occur, but they would generally be few and far between due to the more limited numbers of tanks used in Jungle warfare....

[armage]

:help o what was the best tank inn WWII?

Admin: No more one liners!

[Pendekar]

The german manage to build a so called Konigstiger tank. It was said to be the most feared land weapons in WW2. Most of the time, enemy tankers can only watch as their shot bounce harmlessly when they hit the konigstiger tank armor and wait for imminent deadly countershot, or better still they never get in range before they were shot by Konigtigers.

[ajay_ijn]

The german manage to build a so called Konigstiger tank. It was said to be the most feared land weapons in WW2. Most of the time, enemy tankers can only watch as their shot bounce harmlessly when they hit the konigstiger tank armor and wait for imminent deadly countershot, or better still they never get in range before they were shot by Konigtigers.

Only 500 Konig tiger or Tiger-II's were bulit by germany and Most of them became victims of allied airforce.It came out too late to have any decisive effect on war.

It participated in 2 battles.
One was during battle of bulge when they abandoned becoz of no fuel.
It was slow and was not suited to the blitzkrieg strategy of germas.
Others participated with Against Soviet union in hungary where they were outnumbered by russian tanks.

Tiger-I was much better Tank than Tiger-II,even though tiger had some disadvantages but it performed much better than Tiger-II.

It was the Tiger-I(Panzer VI) that created fear among Allied soldiers of normandy and russian soldiers of kursk.

Men like Micheal wittman and otto carius will be remembered throughout the history as the best Tank commanders.
These are all Tiger-I commanders.

I don't remember any Tiger-II ace,I don't think there are any.

[ajay_ijn]

what was the best tank inn WWII?


undoubtly the Russia T-34.
It was the hero of soviet union during ww2.

Germans did not had any tank which could match T-34 when it was deployed in end of 1941.

Only Tiger and panther were superior in armor and firepower to T-34.

But panther and Tiger had very bad engines and frequent breakdowns while T-34 had some of the best engines,easy maintainence and good mobility.

If u compare the numbers pather-5000+ tiger(2000)=7000
But 48,000 T-34's were produced my Soviet Union.

[Gremlin29]

The Panther and in particular the Panther Ausf G was considered to be the best "tank" of WWII to be produced and employed in meaninful numbers. The Jagdpanther was actually even more formidable but it was a tank destroyer, not a tank. The American T-26 Pershing was slightly better than the Panther however just a handful saw action during the closing months of the war so it doesn't really count. No doubt the T-34 was an excellent design however one obstacle the Russians couldn't overcome was in producing quality optics. The T-34 never fully reallized it's potential because of this. The King Tiger (Tiger II/Konigstiger) had all sorts of mechanical problems and like the T-34 it's full potential was never fully reallized.

[Stanislaw]

The main problems with the Geramans Tank force in Russia was the extreme cold. The tanks were so procisely machined that there was not alot of leway to accomidate the weather change, where as the russian tanks, being not as precisely machined had enough leway to operate in the environment.

I also noticed that no one has brought up the jagtiger, another german tank killer.

[tatra]

I think the label 'best WWII tank' should be split between Panther and T34/85. Each has some advantages relative to the other but both are ball busters if in the right hands. On the western front, I'ld nominate the Sherman Firefly and Sherman 76 HVSS. The coolest WWII tanks are no doubt Tiger 2 and JS III. Sorry to say there's not a real equivalent tank to these on the western front.

[Stanislaw]

Well if they are being judged by appearance and options, the sherman 'Crab' and the Churchill 'crocodile' are pretty sweet. The Crab was fitted with a revolving bar, that had weighted changes welded to it that could be used to beat the ground in front of the tan k and the crocodile was fitted with a flame thrower that had a range of aproximatly 80 yards.

[kubai02]

In the early stages of WW2, the Germans fields tanks which are of equal or less quality than both the French and British. However, the allies were inflexible in their tactics. The germans with Blitzkreig and their combined arms approach of warfare (extensive use of stukas) won the day. Their tanks really improved during the war but it gets too "complicated" (i.e. tiger 2) at the later stages of it.

However, the germans lost WW2 not because of their lack of quality or soldiers' morale but they were overwhelmed by the allied war resources (R&D, quality, quantity and rapid tactical improvement).

And the fact that Hitler just lost control of himself.

[Pendekar]

yep! i say we can contribute large part of german failure to dictatorship. german at that time is home to some of the best military geniuses in the world (von runstedt, ) and the highly advance and dynamic war industries.

[Stanislaw]

well if Hitler hand't ordered a multi front war it is possible that they would have won.

[quicksilver]

Hey, everyone talked about the success of the German and Russian tanks but what about the U.S. M26 Pershing Medium Tank, that tank could stand up to a panzer any day.

[ajay_ijn]

Hey, everyone talked about the success of the German and Russian tanks but what about the U.S. M26 Pershing Medium Tank, that tank could stand up to a panzer any day.
But I think that tank did not fight in ww2 so its not considered.

In my opinion the major Cause of german Tank Sucess is the Blitzkrieg Strategy implemented by the German panzer Commanders.
It was becoz of Blitzkreig Strategy german Army was known to be invincible during initial stages of ww2.

[Gremlin29]

The M26 Pershing was deployed in small numbers during the closing months of the war in europe. It proved to be up to the task of taking on the Panther and the Tiger II. The Pershing employed a gyro stabilized gun (most US tanks were, but crews refrained from using them) and the tankers had trained to fire on the move which was something that the German tanks could not cope with. As I said earlier, since the Pershing was not employed in serious numbers and it only fought for a few months it's effect was minimal to the overall land battle. My vote still goes to the Panther, it had excellent cross country characterisitics, was pretty reliable, excellent main gun and superior optics.

[nzbm]

The main problems with the Geramans Tank force in Russia was the extreme cold. The tanks were so procisely machined that there was not alot of leway to accomidate the weather change, where as the russian tanks, being not as precisely machined had enough leway to operate in the environment.

I also noticed that no one has brought up the jagtiger, another german tank killer.
Also the fact that the German Army had little tracked transports, and their logistics got bogged down and slowed their advance when winter set in...

[ajay_ijn]

Also the fact that the German Army had little tracked transports, and their logistics got bogged down and slowed their advance when winter set in...
Helicopters might completely changed the fate of German Forces.

Germany delayed the operation barbarossa for about a month or so becoz their allies romania or someother country had join the invasion.

If they woulkd have started as soon as Winter ended then things could have been slightly different.

[ivan..the.great]

Hey guys i just got an account and quicly read what you were talking about so heres my 5 cents

As to the pershing tank it was grossly underpowered like tiger II and before you all mentioned that was tigerII's downfall.

When it comes to the question of a best tnk of WWII you must say how is it better. In one on one engagement tiget would beat the T34 but as a weapon an army needs T34 was better since it could be produced in incredible quantities. Quality wasnt hugely sacrificed for quantity. Some german generals wanted to copy and start producing the T34.

Germany was so succesfull in WWII because of its military doctrine and dedication of troops. Also germany lost the war because it became a global threat not only a regional one.

Well thats my opinion anyway.

[Hard Ball]

Though it only saw action late in the war the US M26 with its 90mm gun was the best tank in WW@ due to its combination of firepower, armor and mobility.

[quicksilver]

Finally someone agrees with me!! But i think the best would have to be the T-34, and a close 2nd the tiger. The Pershing would be up there with the rest, but like Ivan said: It was grossly underpowerd.

[Hard Ball]

It is worth noting that when T34/85s fought M26s in Korea the M26s won decisevly.

[quicksilver]

It is worth noting that when T34/85s fought M26s in Korea the M26s won decisevly.

After WW2 the M26 had hudge improvements, but in WW2 they had power problems.

[fockewulf190]

well what I consider best would be t34... just looks simple and very good. But any day, in the second world war, I would love to be a crew of Panzer Mk4 ausf F2 or ausf G, wit the 75mm. It just looks so classy. Thats my own openion.
regards.

[Gremlin29]

Calling the M26 underpowered is terribly misinformed. It had over 550 horsepower and actually packed more horsepower per pound than the M4. They barely saw action and there appearance was so late that it was of negligible impact on the war.

T-34/85 was hugely successful. Simple, robust and easy to produce. Doesn't make it the best however. Panther G had better armor, a way better gun and it's optics were a quantum leap ahead of the Russian rubbish. Tank for tank the Panther gave an impressive accounting for itself on both easthern and western fronts.

[crazypole]

In my opinion the best tank of the war in terms of it's actual "abilities" has to be the IS-3. This tank was the most powerful tank built in this era, and it is no surprise that it is this tank, which was most feared by the Western Allies once the relations between East and West had degenerated to the Cold War.

In terms of achievements, then the best tank was the T-34. This tank was the one of the most powerful platforms available by 1941. That it was also a relatively cheap and quick tank to manufacture only strengthens this tanks position as this then meant that the Soviet Union could churn out thousands of them. It is also, i believe, one of the few tanks to make it through to the end, i mean to last in front line operational use from 1941 to 1945( and beyond).

[veronius]

An irrelevant note here - for my money, the King Tiger was one sweet-looking piece of metal. Sehr photogenic!

[aaaditya]

An irrelevant note here - for my money, the King Tiger was one sweet-looking piece of metal. Sehr photogenic!
can you post some images of the tiger and the panzer tanks?how does it compare with the russian josef stalin tanks?
i believe one of the biggest factors behind the german tankers successes are the ability of their commanders(rommel):D

[General_Conway]

In my opinion, it was not the individual model of the tank that the Nazis used that contributed to their success.
It was a combination of their Blitzkrieg tactics and the Eurpopeans over all unpreparedness.

[gf0012-aust]

In my opinion, it was not the individual model of the tank that the Nazis used that contributed to their success.
It was a combination of their Blitzkrieg tactics and the Eurpopeans over all unpreparedness.

agreed, in a lot of areas in the beginning of the war, the french actually had superior technology. they lost out due to a failure to adapt a quantum shift in warfighting.

[General_Conway]

agreed, in a lot of areas in the beginning of the war, the french actually had superior technology. they lost out due to a failure to adapt a quantum shift in warfighting.

That is very true... A prime example would be the French Maginot Line... They spend incredible amounts of time and rescources building a wall (basically). Granted, this wall had forts and tunnel systems built into it, then you look to the south and you have the Ardennes forest, which (according to Sun Tzu's scale) the French military elected was IMPASSIBLE by enemy forces. So, at the out break of the German offensive, the french have basic patrols watching the terrain in that sector. So, where does Hitler and his generals send their Panzers? Right through the Ardennes... you know the unpassible ground!
My point would have to be, the French in particular could have spent their time and rescources on something more efficient for the changing times... say, tanks... since the majority of their non-infantry units were calvary...

[Berserk Fury]

The French didn't have the means to do so.
By the time the war started... it was already near too late to mass produce armor as France itself was captured later on.
A good idea would have been to mine the Ardennes and the Maginot Line as it was pretty obvious to the French that the Germans had a better army, and amor and optics which was the German specialty ( that helped them a lot with their tanks etc).

[gf0012-aust]

The French didn't have the means to do so.
By the time the war started... it was already near too late to mass produce armor as France itself was captured later on. The French had greater superiority in equipment in a lot of areas. The only means lacking was recognising that the way wars were being fought had changed. Unfortunately for the French they were the first Guinea Pigs of the opening shots...


A good idea would have been to mine the Ardennes and the Maginot Line as it was pretty obvious to the French that the Germans had a better army, and amor and optics which was the German specialty ( that helped them a lot with their tanks etc).

Why? The capture of Ebenmahl showed the futility of that. The Germans certainly didn't have better weapons and platforms, they had a better innovative doctrine and had made a quantum jump in tactics and methodology. In the opening stages of WW2 the Germans were furiously collecting French, Polish, Belgian and Czech weapons and weapons systems to incorporate into their own as they were in a lot of respects superior.

[Berserk Fury]

lol
I lose.

*waves the white flag* xP

[General_Conway]

lol
I lose.

*waves the white flag* xP

I think he got you on that one, and I would agree with parts of both your statements. The French could have done more to prepare for the off set of WWII, but the Germans had been, in SOME cases, illegally building up their military.
However, if I recall my history correctly, Hitler did not see Germany ready for full-scale war, much less on two/ three fronts. In fact, he wished to continue his Fonny War for as long as he could but was cut short by the English and French declaration of war.

[gf0012-aust]

I think he got you on that one, and I would agree with parts of both your statements. The French could have done more to prepare for the off set of WWII, but the Germans had been, in SOME cases, illegally building up their military.

Yes and no. The "allies" and Russia had known what Hitler was preparing to do ever since they set up their inland training facilities in Russia in the 1920's. The Russians (not being silly) had infiltrated the German comms and even though the Treaty of Rapollo was warm and friendly and fuzzy, they knew that Hitler was intent on other things. The problem being that even when you have all your eyesight, then you can still suffer from blindness (like Chamberlain)


However, if I recall my history correctly, Hitler did not see Germany ready for full-scale war, much less on two/ three fronts. In fact, he wished to continue his Fonny War for as long as he could but was cut short by the English and French declaration of war.

Nope, it was Hitlers Generals who were of the view that they were at least 2-3 years away from being properly prepared. The Grand Fleet as an example was in real terms a coastal navy. France and Italy had more more capable vessels. It just goes to show what good propaganda machines can do. If Hitler had not rolled into Poland, then France and the UK wouldn't have declared war. Hitlers foray into the Sudetenland was a a clue as to what he was intending. Germanys actions ever since they walked back into the Rhein/Ruhr in the 20's was also a pretty good indicator.

All in all, those in the "allies" who weren't clinically blind were politically, tactically and strategically "blind as a bat"

[General_Conway]

Yes and no. The "allies" and Russia had known what Hitler was preparing to do ever since they set up their inland training facilities in Russia in the 1920's. The Russians (not being silly) had infiltrated the German comms and even though the Treaty of Rapollo was warm and friendly and fuzzy, they knew that Hitler was intent on other things. The problem being that even when you have all your eyesight, then you can still suffer from blindness (like Chamberlain)

Nope, it was Hitlers Generals who were of the view that they were at least 2-3 years away from being properly prepared. The Grand Fleet as an example was in real terms a coastal navy. France and Italy had more more capable vessels. It just goes to show what good propaganda machines can do. If Hitler had not rolled into Poland, then France and the UK wouldn't have declared war. Hitlers foray into the Sudetenland was a a clue as to what he was intending. Germanys actions ever since they walked back into the Rhein/Ruhr in the 20's was also a pretty good indicator.

All in all, those in the "allies" who weren't clinically blind were politically, tactically and strategically "blind as a bat"

Like I mentioned, I wasnt sure of my facts completely, but I was not far off- most of what history see's as Hitler's moves, were actually the moves of his generals. I really agree. Germany's fleet was no where near ready for combat, escpecially against Britain and France. They would have also liked a larger sub-surface fleet.
Politics have always affected the actions of the military. It seems that most politics are blind to the needs of their generals.

[Lonewolf]

I've been studying ww2 for the past 20yrs, with emphasis on germany.

Fact: heh u americans will love this . Hitler did not declare war on france and england only Poland. England and france declared war on germany. So the escalation of WW2 was done by the allies not germany.

after the conquest of france hitler offered churchill a ceasefire ( he wanted to invade soviet union) but was turn down.

best tank, no particular one, Pershing was a tank destroyer not a tank per say. was mainly made because the shermans was not up to standard to put it mildly ( germans tank crew call it something like matchbox because it was so easy to kill and alway caught on fire).

nobody mentioned the Centurion, which was also made because of german supriority to allied tanks.

The Panther was used by france after the war, T34/85 was used until 1960/70's. Centurion was used by Singapore until 1990's, ( I may be wrong about the year but definetly close) .

I my personal opionan the best tank, in term of mobility, accuracy, weapon and armour would be the Panther. point to note the t34/85 did not even have a radio/ was very unconfortable for crew, but cheap and robust design.

The Pershing, centurion, JS3, jagdtiger only spent 2-3 months in the war so is not considered. All suffred from engine/design problems mainly from being rushed to the battle field. Besides in that type of terrian airpower was slowly taking over as King of the battle field.

The german MG42 was so good, that it is still being used today 2005 only rebored to take the nato 7.62 round. it was the first true GPMG.

I agree in that in the beginning of the WW2 the allied tanks were better then german's. their success was because of better training, tactics and Proffesionalism.

[veronius]

Couple more thoughts, from a complete amateur (i.e. I'm not pretending anything I say is based on meticulous research or superior knowledge!):

Wasn't the original T34 design based around a chassis developed by the American tank expert Christie (forget first name)? Also, in prewar visits to observe Soviet maneouvres, German generals at least claimed to be highly impressed with the armour that they saw. (Being diplomatic, maybe?)

Speaking about who attacked whom first in WWII, I seem to recall reading - probably in one of Len Deighton's books - that the first German bombs dropped on London were in fact jettisoned by a couple of German bombers trying to get away from British fighters who had intercepted them, and weren't deliberately dropped on the city. The incident did, if I recall the account correctly, give Churchill a pretext to hit back at German cities, thus launching the tit-for-tat that ultimately resulted in the Blitz on London and then the massive raids on Dresden, Hamburg etc.

Up to that point, were the Germans actually fairly careful to try to avoid hitting civilians?

Just wonderng...

[crazypole]

From memory, when the german officers saw the t-34 in development during those pre-war visits, they were very impressed. On the other hand, when Soviet officers were shown the german designs for their main battle tanks (pzIII, with pzIV as heavier support) the Soviets were disbelieving that nothing larger and more powerful was being developed, and even suspected the Germans as holding back in terms of showing them everything.

As far as the first load on London, I think you're right. As far as Luftwaffe not aiming for civilians this is not striclty true, they would happily target civilians in factories, and similar installations. But up until England hit Berlin in retaliation for the London bombing, the luftwaffe were bombing military targets, especially airfields.If it were not for Hitler ordering retaliatory bombings of other English cities, and therefore shifting the focus of the Luftwaffe, it is highly likely that the RAF would have lost the Battle of Britain.

[Lonewolf]

totaly agree, the luftwaffe were also attacking aircraft factories. point to note was that the spitfires were superior to the bf109e so much so that when Herman goaring asked adolf galland what he needed to win, he answered " a squadron of spitfires ". but we digress and way off topic.

I know I know my spelling sucks :rolleyes:

[Defcon 6]

Tiger II was the best tank in WW2 hands down.

[Lonewolf]

Tiger II was the best tank in WW2 hands down.

In terms of armour and weapon yes, but it was under powered and too slow, if they had a better engine and been produced more then the few hundreds that were produced, it might have even delayed the war. but that would mean that it would be facing more centurions and pershings too, Shermans should just run.

[turin]

Tiger II was the best tank in WW2 hands down.

Purely defensive tank with no use for quick moving operations. The Panther was a better allround-tank by a wide margin.

[Defcon 6]

In terms of armour and weapon yes, but it was under powered and too slow, if they had a better engine and been produced more then the few hundreds that were produced, it might have even delayed the war. but that would mean that it would be facing more centurions and pershings too, Shermans should just run.

Pershings had limited stopping power against the tiger 2's 180mm armor.

Under powered doesn't really mean anything. Tanks aren't bult to go fast, and no matter how fast they go they still won't outrun a well aimed tank round. The only thing that matters is defense and offense, and the tiger 2 is all about that. :gun

[Defcon 6]

Purely defensive tank with no use for quick moving operations. The Panther was a better allround-tank by a wide margin.

I disagree. Tanks in that era had no capability to accurately fire while moving. So tanks were always stationary. And no tank could kill the tiger 2, so who cares if its slow. There were reports of Tiger 2's taking up to 43 hits from sherman tanks and they just kept on rolling.

[Defcon 6]

http://www.military.cz/panzer/index_en.htm

a website on ww2 tanks. i use it for discussion ref. all the time.

[Lonewolf]

I disagree. Tanks in that era had no capability to accurately fire while moving. So tanks were always stationary. And no tank could kill the tiger 2, so who cares if its slow. There were reports of Tiger 2's taking up to 43 hits from sherman tanks and they just kept on rolling.

After serving with a armour regiment for 13 years ( 3 years active) let me tell you tanks are not always stationary, in ww2 they had to stop to fire then they had to move on. Blitzkreig ( lightning war ) cannot be done with stationary tanks.

Most probely it would have been the king of the battlefield in defensive warfare ( until the planes came) but at 38kmh top speed on road surface, off road will it would somthing like 20-30kmh ???? a man on a bycycle can go faster then that. that 180mm although impressive, is only for the frontal armour only not the back or top or even sides. because it was slow it would have been relatively easy to flank. Remeber the elepahnt tank during the battle of krusk, the russians just used infantry to outflank it.

If I was just fighting tanks I would take a tiger 2, but for a krumgruppen ( amoured battle group ) I would take a Panthers

[KGB]

The Panthers and the Tiger 2's had reliability and performance problems - right before Kursk for example some of the Panthers caught fire before the shooting started. It was the Tiger 1 that proved to be really usefull.

[turin]

Yes, but the problems were due to the fact that the first Panthers and Tiger IIs were rushed into service at a time when all the typical problems at introduction were not worked out properly. Its always the same when you force systems into operation that are more closely related to prototypes than versions fit for mass production.
The Panther was without such problems later on and proved to be a very effective design.

[ollieholmes]

The german engineering was of high quality. if they had spent more time making more tanks they could have done better i believe.

[Dr Phobus]

If the US Army had adopted the 17pdr gun en mass to upgrade there Shermans and started to manufacture it, along with with British. The allies would have had a very very large fleet of tanks capable of destroyer most of the german heavy armour and useful battle-field ranges. Te reason why the Russian tanks did so well, was they were more on a par with German firepower. However, the British and American's were frankly pathetic, with the 6 pdr, M-5 75mm. Thry did not listen to the experinces the russians where having on the eastern front with the spiral or firepower v armour. Hence, in the Normandy and French theathers of action to many brave men died.

my view :p:

[Lonewolf]

russian tanks were adequately armed and amoured with speed and wide tracks (for mobility on mud which the earlier german tanks had a problem with) , But were very uncomfortable had very bad optics which made them inaccurate as compared to the german tanks, had no radio aprt from the commanders tank and numerous blind spots.

The problem was the russians had about 20 tanks for every 1 german, by 1945 it was closer to 50.

source, Gunderian's book, han ulrich rudel's book ( sorry I forgot the titles )

[KGB]

The T-34 had good mobility, protection, and firepower. They were quite a nasty surprise when the Germans first encountered them. They were also noisy, and belive it or not, leaky. They kept bullets out but not rain. On paper the T-34 looks way better than the sherman, but russian tankers assigned to the sherman didn't complain - they appreciated the dry interior and comfortable seats. The Germans however used captured T-34's.

Lots of personal accounts at therussianbattlefield

[Patzek]

omgg
evrey program from the history channel is in front of my eyes here, almost word to word :OOO

the story about the tiger that destroyed 25 allies tank, was in the history channel as well, about the half trucks i dunno.

[Naknaradak]

The success of German tanks is mostly due to the use they gave to their AFV's. The Allies, in the very beginning of the war had tanks designed from the concepts of WW1. They weren't meant for armored battles, but rather to "tag along" the infantry. That, and the excellent training the german crews had, even though they used Czech tanks, (Pzkfw 1 and 2 had little firepower in comparison).
Not to mention the unpreparedness of the allied countries. France counted on their stationary line defenses (Maginot), having well trained infantry, but escarse armored resources. Russia had the T34, one of the best tanks made during the conflict, but their crews had little or no combat experience, and the usage of AFV's by the russian commanders was no match to german tactics.

When it comes to the best tank of WW2, i think Panther and T34/85 are head to head (there are rumors that Panther was copied partially from T34 design, probably the hull). Panther had better armor, specially when the latest models were built with layered armor. Earlier T34s had 76.2mm cannon against the 75mm of Panther tanks. But due to the superior length of Panther cannon, the projectile had a greater initial speed, and thus, greater piercing damage. But when the T34/85, which had the 85mm cannon, was pressed into service, it set things straight. The russian tank bered less amount of ammunition than the Panther, mainly because of the larger caliber. T34s (500-520 HP) were underpowered in comparison to the Panther (700 HP), but had similar on and off road mobility, due to the greater weight of the german tank. The traverse speed of the turret was definitely in favor of russians in this case, 20 seconds against the 60 seconds of the Panther. Panther's fuel consumption was enormous, and it became a critical factor towards the end of the war, due to Germany's lack of gasoline.

Some people mentioned the IS-2 and IS-3, which had a massive cannon (122 mm) and superb plating (120 mm front, 90 mm sides, 60 mm rear), but had complex mechanisms. T34s had a better overall performance. Tiger 1 was a good tank overall, too, but had excessive amounts of mechanical problems, was very expensive to build, and took 5 or 6 times than to build a Pzkfw IV. The Königstiger was the last desperate attempt of the germans for the ultimate weapon, and it was in fact an excellent tank in every aspect. But it entered in production too late in war, when it was already clear that Germany was defeated.

[Aussie]

The Königstiger was the last desperate attempt of the germans for the ultimate weapon, and it was in fact an excellent tank in every aspect. But it entered in production too late in war, when it was already clear that Germany was defeated.

An interesting theory I heard somewhere was that if Germany devoted the resources used on these gas-guzzling, expensive supertanks to its airforce, it would have been much more successful. Like if the Luftwaffe was a capable fighting force at the time of the Normandy invasion. Or long-range heavy bombers were availabe on the Eastern Front.

Germany could have standardized on the Pz III and IV, rather than develop numerous incompatible and problematic models. Since King Tigers were mostly used for defense and as target practice for the US Air Force, the Germans could have used AT-guns and Pz.IV-based tank destroyers for this role instead. The Panther too could have probably been replaced with cheap tank destroyers using the same gun.

[Rich]

I'd say the Germans did so well because of tactics, training, and elan in their tank corp. They didnt have better tanks then the French and Tommies but they certainly used them better. That, and the PZk-ll and lll's were highly mobile and fast. But mostly the Germans used their tanks as an offensive weapon, not as infantry support,"as Im sure has already been mentioned".

The "real" tank war was in the east anyways. And in the east the Russians got good awfully fast, which was matched by tremendous ferocity and aggression in their tank corp. I believe the T34/85 was the best tank of the war. It was the first tank the Germans ran into that they couldnt out-slug.

[Pursuit Curve]

I daresay it had a bit to do with the renowned German excellence in Engineering. Even their tanks and armoured fighting vehicles today are amongst the very best in the world. Look at their other engineering efforts to in the automotive iindustry for example (BMW, Mercedes, Porsche, Audi etc)...

Aussie, yes I agree that German Engineering is excellent, but remember that the same excellent engineering is not necessarily good in actual combat conditions. Example is Kursk, and also the Normandy Campaign where there were significant numbers of Panthers and Tigers that were LOB because of mechanical breakdown.

Yes, a Tiger or Panther could chose combat at will at long range, but there were so few available because of over engineering that they didn't have the numbers to win the war.

[FutureTank]

(A little rephrasing of the thread subject for clarity)
Did Germany achieve tank dominance because their tanks which were really good?
Was it more of the doctrine that they used with the tanks they used?
A better method than other powers?
The whole blitzkrieg doctrine?
I think the French had better tanks but the Germans use the tanks in the best possible way

Just found this thread, and wanted to put my 2 cents worth.

The question is phrased in a way that suggests German tanks were dominant, that their doctrine was unique, or that they used them better then anyone else.

In fact none are true statements.
Clearly because the 3rd Reich lost the war, its tanks ultimately did not achieve dominance, and the doctrine did not allow victory.

To understand why, one needs to go beyond the gun/armour issues. Any AFV has several design parameters which, when combined, should create an employment balance. These are in the order of priority:
Ease and economy of production
Ease of crew training
Field maintainability (service freedom)
Fuel efficiency for a given range of unrefuelled movement (logistic feedom)
Mobility appropriate for terrain/environment (tactical flexibility)
Protection from expected enemy weapon systems
Firepower appropriate to expected enemy targets
Upgradeability of above

Now considering all these factors, it is VERY clear that the T-34 is a clear winner. By far the primary reason is the ease and economy of production. What many consider in German tanks to be appreciated, the engineering sophistication and quality of manufacture, were purposefully eradicated during production by Soviet designers and production engineers. Through ruthless elimination of superfluous features in the design, they were able to grossly outproduce the Germans. This also allowed easier crew training and field maintenance. Ultimately every kilogram of superfluous feature saved, enhanced fuel economy and range of the tank also. The wider tracks allowed greater mobility in a variety of environments and terrain of the theatre, and innovative use of armour geometry allowed greater protection using less armour. Lastly it had a good weapon which was upgraded mid-war without requiring introduction of a new vehicle design.

Consider German designs. Only the Pz IV was extensively modified during its production history, however it never achieved the production numbers of T-34, nor was it as serviceable as T-34 in the field or have the tactical manoeuvrability. It required 5 crew to T-34s 4, and it certainly did not achieve armour parity.

Now to doctrine.
Doctrine refers to many things, including methods of using forces at tactical, operational and strategic levels.
Blitzkrieg is simply the post-war name given to the German strategic use of mobile troops.
The strategic methodology was not developed by Germans, but is rather a culmination of theory based on WW1 operations and trials in part carried out in the Soviet Union during the late 20s and early 30s, and in part by the general European attempt to integrate mobility in general and tanks in particular (and aircraft, and use of radio) into its combat theory.
In strategic terms the Soviet methods were essentially same before, during and after the war.

Operationally speaking there was a need for formation of large mobile groupings. How different nations solved this is inconsequential because at the time (1930s) this was largely a logistic issue resolved at Army level.

Tactically speaking the development of tank tactics was rather basic because the only significant experiences for Germans to learn from had been in Spain and Finland. The Spanish experience was limited and largely consisted of infantry support. The Finish experience had been in unusual and non-tank friendly terrain.
On the other hand Soviets had invaluable experience against Japanese in ideal tank country, including allowing for cooperation with the air forces. In fact it was the Soviets that begun to substantially rethink application of their theories on use of armour in 1939 leading to redesign of combat structures, and design of the T-34 among others.

Method has a lot to do with structure of the forces.
Looking at the formation and unit structures of German tank forces before 1941 we see a very balanced approach that seeks to integrate different classes of tanks in same formation to allow tailored approach to different types of TACTICAL objectives and situations. However later in the war the structure changes to single tank class/type, and emphasis on simplified logistics and shock.
One may think this was to enhance tactical capability for penetrating enemy defences, but in fact by the time this change took place, the intent was in halting enemy penetrations because there were insufficient tank forces to achieve operational, never mind strategic breakthroughs. The Ardennes Offensive in the West was the last such attempt.
This suggests that method was short lived, and was closely related to inadequate production numbers.

The whole blitzkrieg doctrine.
The whole ‘blitzkrieg’ doctrine depended on short duration campaigns and interdependence of primary arm, the infantry, with mobile and air forces. However once the air superiority was lost, and armoured production was incapable of maintain parity with that of the enemy, the whole doctrine collapsed into tactical, operational and strategic retreats using very much WW1 infantry tactics, and only limited mobile defence.

Overall then, the Germany did not achieve dominance either because of their tanks being ‘very good’, or because of the doctrine they were used with. Other nations, USSR in the first instance, proved to have a superior doctrine and tools to dominate combat.
Much of the myth of German tank dominance was created after the war based on selective description of tactical engagements, often based on views of single crew or even an individual’s perspective.

Its hard to comment of French tanks and their potential within the scope of same analysis because of the very limited use they were put to during the war.

[eckherl]

Hey, everyone talked about the success of the German and Russian tanks but what about the U.S. M26 Pershing Medium Tank, that tank could stand up to a panzer any day.

The Pershing was a close match to a Panther, but not by much.

[eckherl]

The success of German tanks is mostly due to the use they gave to their AFV's. The Allies, in the very beginning of the war had tanks designed from the concepts of WW1. They weren't meant for armored battles, but rather to "tag along" the infantry. That, and the excellent training the german crews had, even though they used Czech tanks, (Pzkfw 1 and 2 had little firepower in comparison).
Not to mention the unpreparedness of the allied countries. France counted on their stationary line defenses (Maginot), having well trained infantry, but escarse armored resources. Russia had the T34, one of the best tanks made during the conflict, but their crews had little or no combat experience, and the usage of AFV's by the russian commanders was no match to german tactics.

When it comes to the best tank of WW2, i think Panther and T34/85 are head to head (there are rumors that Panther was copied partially from T34 design, probably the hull). Panther had better armor, specially when the latest models were built with layered armor. Earlier T34s had 76.2mm cannon against the 75mm of Panther tanks. But due to the superior length of Panther cannon, the projectile had a greater initial speed, and thus, greater piercing damage. But when the T34/85, which had the 85mm cannon, was pressed into service, it set things straight. The russian tank bered less amount of ammunition than the Panther, mainly because of the larger caliber. T34s (500-520 HP) were underpowered in comparison to the Panther (700 HP), but had similar on and off road mobility, due to the greater weight of the german tank. The traverse speed of the turret was definitely in favor of russians in this case, 20 seconds against the 60 seconds of the Panther. Panther's fuel consumption was enormous, and it became a critical factor towards the end of the war, due to Germany's lack of gasoline.

Some people mentioned the IS-2 and IS-3, which had a massive cannon (122 mm) and superb plating (120 mm front, 90 mm sides, 60 mm rear), but had complex mechanisms. T34s had a better overall performance. Tiger 1 was a good tank overall, too, but had excessive amounts of mechanical problems, was very expensive to build, and took 5 or 6 times than to build a Pzkfw IV. The Königstiger was the last desperate attempt of the germans for the ultimate weapon, and it was in fact an excellent tank in every aspect. But it entered in production too late in war, when it was already clear that Germany was defeated.

The best tank by far in WW2 would have to go to the IS - 2, this tank was actually a medium tank model, It was fast, well armored, and had a maingun that could take out the Tiger 2 at 1200 meters. It`s only draw back was it`s ammunition which was 2 part, thus making it slow to reload.

Tiger 2 was impressive when used in a good defensive posture, offense it was poor due to the strain of it`s suspension, unreliable engine due to vehicle weight. Germany could of built almost 20 panther model G`s for just one of these monsters.

One Tiger 2 ace was recognized : Name was Boorgman.(hope I spelled it Right). He had over 33 tank kills to his credit.

There - just my input.:)

[LancerMc]

The German's took quite hit from the T34. When they introduced the Panther, their Panzer units were better off. Some tank historians consider a varaint of the Panther the best tank of the war. I don't aggree with that statement, but if the Nazi's had focused on building more Panthers then building bigger and bigger super tanks they could have delayed the outcome of the war.

The Nazi should have stopped producing Panzer IV's, Tiger I's, Tiger 2's, and made only Panthers and tank killers like the Jagdapanzer's.

[Grand Danois]

The German's took quite hit from the T34. When they introduced the Panther, their Panzer units were better off. Some tank historians consider a varaint of the Panther the best tank of the war. I don't aggree with that statement, but if the Nazi's had focused on building more Panthers then building bigger and bigger super tanks they could have delayed the outcome of the war.

The Nazi should have stopped producing Panzer IV's, Tiger I's, Tiger 2's, and made only Panthers and tank killers like the Jagdapanzer's.

I have had similar thoughts. I would, however, keep the IV and Tiger I in production, as they had well established production lines. Efficient tanks that are produced in quantity - with the Panthers.

I would delete the Tiger II, Maus, Elephant and Jagdtiger.

Does a sloped armour (but otherwise same armour thickness), improved maintenance/suspension Tiger I variant sound attractive?

[eckherl]

I have had similar thoughts. I would, however, keep the IV and Tiger I in production, as they had well established production lines. Efficient tanks that are produced in quantity - with the Panthers.

I would delete the Tiger II, Maus, Elephant and Jagdtiger.

Does a sloped armour (but otherwise same armour thickness), improved maintenance/suspension Tiger I variant sound attractive?

If you look at the Panther 2 model that they were working on, this would of been one heck of a tank, bigger gun, same successful mantlet found on tiger II plus a steroscopic range finder to boot.

Another important note that I would like to say is that the quality of the armor plating along with the turret and hull welds were of poor quality in the latter part of the war, this was the case of most German tank models.

[Grand Danois]

Hmm. Interesting. But what is this 'infrared device' the site mentions?

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/panth2.htm

[eckherl]

Hmm. Interesting. But what is this 'infrared device' the site mentions?

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/panth2.htm

They actually Tested this on the Panther G model, the maingun and tank commanders AA machine gun were hooked up to special infrared lenses mounted outside of the vehicle, giving them a engagement range of 200 meters at night, which isn`t bad technology considering the time frame.

I believe they tried it in combat but never found out if they had any tank combat kills with it.

[LancerMc]

I have heard the Panther G influenced the use the IR lights and sights on American Patton's during the Vietnam conflict. As far as I know IR technology didn't really make its way back into tanks until at least the 1960's. So the Panther G was really advance for its day, but it came really to late in the war to make any difference like so much other German technology.

[FutureTank]

The best tank by far in WW2 would have to go to the IS - 2, this tank was actually a medium tank model, It was fast, well armored, and had a maingun that could take out the Tiger 2 at 1200 meters. It`s only draw back was it`s ammunition which was 2 part, thus making it slow to reload.

I'm sure you'll agree that handling a 120mm round inside a tank turret is not for everyone. The IS model didn't have the ergonomics of the M1, and crews were converted from a variety of other tanks, including T-60/70, so there was consideration for crew able to handle the round with any sort fo speed at all under combat conditions. I suspect that is why the ammo was two-part. That and storage.
Other then that I would agree that it was a very good tank. They were around until 1989, and some chassis are still around in the shape of various specialist vehicles.

[eckherl]

I'm sure you'll agree that handling a 120mm round inside a tank turret is not for everyone. The IS model didn't have the ergonomics of the M1, and crews were converted from a variety of other tanks, including T-60/70, so there was consideration for crew able to handle the round with any sort fo speed at all under combat conditions. I suspect that is why the ammo was two-part. That and storage.
Other then that I would agree that it was a very good tank. They were around until 1989, and some chassis are still around in the shape of various specialist vehicles.

I would agree, most loaders are pretty brawn and short.

[LancerMc]

I know one important feature of German tanks throughout the war that many allies still agree on made their tanks superior to others was their optics. Though I know only a little about these optics, I have read quite a few stories from American, British, and Soviets tankers talking with envy about the sights used in German tanks. Many American believe if the Sherman's had the same qaulity sights they could have done a little better in combat.

Does anyone else know exactly how or in what ways that German optics were superior to the Allies?

[eckherl]

I know one important feature of German tanks throughout the war that many allies still agree on made their tanks superior to others was their optics. Though I know only a little about these optics, I have read quite a few stories from American, British, and Soviets tankers talking with envy about the sights used in German tanks. Many American believe if the Sherman's had the same qaulity sights they could have done a little better in combat.

Does anyone else know exactly how or in what ways that German optics were superior to the Allies?

Better field of view and better sight magnification, stadia retical lines were better slaved to the tanks mainguns. The Russians were closing the gap on this with the JS-2 but the T-34/85 still had technical quality control issues in regards to the sighting system, still a excellant tank for the job though.

[Gremlin29]

Some misinformation was given earlier in this thread regarding US tanks. The M4 Shermans had the same gyro-stabilization unit on the main gun that the Pershings had. For whatever reason GI's did not trust them and insisted on stopping to fire. The M26 crews were trained to "trust" the gyro stabilization unit and utilized it to great effect. The M26 was an excellent tank that could have been fielded in significant numbers for D-Day but Patton insisted that it was too heavy and slow to fight the high mobility battle he expected in europe, boy was he wrong!

I still believe the Panther ausf G was the best all around tank of the war, it had the best combination of protection, weapon and mobility. The T-34 was an excellent tank as well but only rates "best" when "ease of manufacture and total numbers built" criteria get tossed in. Since when does ease of manufacture and production numbers making anything better? Based on that philosphy, a Plymouth Neon is better than a BMW 750i.

[LancerMc]

Thanks for the info eckherl about german sights.

Germlin, I wasn't even aware that Sherman's had such a system. One of the reasons I think tankers probably trust that system was because the M4 was so inferior in many ways to their German counterparts. The Sherman was so ill thought of, we forget the good aspects of the design.

[eckherl]

Some misinformation was given earlier in this thread regarding US tanks. The M4 Shermans had the same gyro-stabilization unit on the main gun that the Pershings had. For whatever reason GI's did not trust them and insisted on stopping to fire. The M26 crews were trained to "trust" the gyro stabilization unit and utilized it to great effect. The M26 was an excellent tank that could have been fielded in significant numbers for D-Day but Patton insisted that it was too heavy and slow to fight the high mobility battle he expected in europe, boy was he wrong!

I still believe the Panther ausf G was the best all around tank of the war, it had the best combination of protection, weapon and mobility. The T-34 was an excellent tank as well but only rates "best" when "ease of manufacture and total numbers built" criteria get tossed in. Since when does ease of manufacture and production numbers making anything better? Based on that philosphy, a Plymouth Neon is better than a BMW 750i.

Good post on the Gyro stabilzation system on the Sherman, alot of the target reticle jump that the Sherman tank gunners experienced was due to the Sherman suspension, on the Pershing`s torsion bar suspension it was a perfect match making for a smoother shoot on the move capability.

[Gremlin29]

The Sherman was a terrible tank in reallity. The British much improved theirs with the 17 pounder which was at least up to the task of defeating the heavier German tanks. Good point eckherl, the Sherman suspension was crap for sure!

The Panther was not a copy of the T-34, but it was in fact a response to the excellent T-34 and the features that made the T-34 a successful tank were the features the Germans went after designing the Panther. The early design sketches of the Panther looked VERY MUCH like a T-34. The first version of the Panther (ausf D) had problems which were corrected on the ausf A (it's odd that the D came before the A but it did). Despite the fact that Germans had no chance of winning a war with the Russians their tank versus tank kill ratio is pretty impressive and speaks for the quality of the tanks, the training and tactical employment.

Regarding the IR Panthers, there were very few fielded and they were barely used. I don't believe any of the IR Panthers scored a night kill. Another wonder weapon that was too little too late to make any difference on the battlefield.

[FutureTank]

I still believe the Panther ausf G was the best all around tank of the war, it had the best combination of protection, weapon and mobility. The T-34 was an excellent tank as well but only rates "best" when "ease of manufacture and total numbers built" criteria get tossed in. Since when does ease of manufacture and production numbers making anything better? Based on that philosophy, a Plymouth Neon is better than a BMW 750i.

It seems to me the 'philosophy' applied to tank manufacture during major international conflicts is somewhat different to marketing cars :) However it is not out of place in peacetime marketing.

The object of the tank production is to achieve victory through combat dominance and eventually providing effective and flexible options to the commanders at different levels of responsibility.
Vehicle casualties were higher during WW2 then crew casualties, so it was desirable for the crews having a replacement vehicle to get back into combat. This allows retention of experience and prevents combat shock setting in, both very important factors in tank combat.
Much effort was made to return even the recovered vehicle casualties, and the Chrysler Detroit plant (for example) which manufactured a quarter of all US tanks also rebuilt 3,000 during the war.

Ease of manufacturing and production ensures this availability of replacement vehicles. It was dominant in Soviet manufacturing in general, and was embraced in United States also earlier in the war because it was expected that invasion of Europe may take place in 1942. However as the invasion was delayed, and experience with tanks was gained (US didn't have a Tank Corps until 1941), designs became more complex in part due to the British limited experience in North Africa.

There was still a desire in US to simplify the manufacturing, and the change over from riveting tanks together to welding of both armor plate and castings was complete in the US by 1943, and many of welding process refinements were learned and applied in Sherman tank assembly factories. Sherman was still a fairly simple and robust design, and those who designed it should be better known and heralded for what was essentially a T-34 equivalent in the West as far as the mainstay of the Western Allies are concerned. Having said that, the T6 was a direct derivative of the M3 in terms of design, but replaced the superstructure with a single larger turret. This was in part based on the consideration that there was already an existing production of the hulls in a very limited (at the time) tank production in the USA, so the changes in production that need to be made were made as painless as possible considering Presidential demands of 45,000 tanks by 1943 (never attained)!

Lastly, availability of numbers of tanks allows for greater tactical, operational and strategic flexibility to commanders. This is something that was increasingly denied to the Wehrmacht as the war went on due to their inability to field required numbers of tanks along the fronts.

The design criteria have been different in Soviet Union and the rest of Europe due to nature of defence industries. In the West tanks had to be paid for by governments at a cost that would allow a profit margin to the manufacturers. Because the budgets were limited, the designs were sought to have, what Americans call, "more bang for the buck". This philosophy however came from Germany where post-Depression recovery denied Hitler the funds to build a large enough tank park, so he was persuaded to instead opt for quality over quantity. This proved to be fairly easy for a personality ‘inspired’ by ‘super’ and ‘miracle’ weapons. This is known as the "engineer's" or ‘producer’ approach to AFV design.

The early Soviet approach had been impacted by the lack of qualified labour, and even greater need for recovery from the combined effects of WW1 and Civil War, coupled with the effects of Depression on Soviet exports. However doctrinal development in cooperation with Germans in late 20s and early 30s led Soviet designers to initiate production of designers based on specifications derived from doctrinal considerations, or the “client” approach to AFV design.

The doctrinal considerations however played a role in tank designs outside of USSR. German doctrine has always been defensive, even if aggressively so, while that of Soviet Union has always been offensive even if ostensively ‘defensive’ for political reasons. The ‘celebration’ of blitzkrieg tends to ignore this, but the reality is that analysis of tank fleets, as the most offensive part of the army, shows that Soviet Tank fleet was by far the larger (in recognition of larger casualties incurred by attacker), and included types which were explicitly made for offensive operations, i.e. the BT series. Impact of doctrine on design elsewhere produced tanks in France and the UK which emphasized infantry support, or were underpowered for true offensives.

Design in Germany was also influenced by the wartime lack of raw materials used in tank manufacture, and most importantly those for hardened steel. Inability to increase steel hardening without increasing volume of metal (face hardened steel initially used) forced German designers to use heavier plates, and consequently increased overall tank size due to need for a larger power-pack. Russians were able to retain their steel manufacturing technology, thus maintaining lower overall weight. Wartime Allied measurement in Brinnel Hardness shows that early war armour was around 200-300 BHN. However Soviet manufacturers were able to raise this to 400-450 BHN after 1943. Germany was never able to raise the hardness to above 375 BHN. This caused the Panther, intended to be a counterpart to the T-34 to effectively assume a heavy tank role with 45ton of combat weight compared to the 32ton T-34-85. It needs to be remembered that the T-34 was not developed to counter German tank types, but to replace T-26 and BT series tanks to fulfil specific doctrinal role.

In US after the war this ‘T-34’ role was recognized in the US Army.
“During 1946 the Tank Destroyer Command, the Armored Command and the Cavalry were merged as the Armored Cavalry because it was felt that tactical methods and objectives during World War II had been common to all three. The objectives insofar as vehicle design was concerned were to develop components which would make possible the replacement of the World War II M-24 Light Tank, the MA-A3-E8 Medium Tank and the M-26 Heavy Tank. In each class, emphasis was to be placed on lightness of weight consistent with the most powerful armament possible; parts standardization; reliability in extremes of temperature; simplicity of field maintenance in those extremes; and conservation of materials.” http://www.pattonhq.com/m47files.html
To summarise, the offensive doctrine, need for retaining large fleet reserves and ability to implement manufacturing and production change, all contributed to greater flexibility in use of tank forces as part of general Soviet strategy in WW2, and defined the T-34 as a superior design.
While Western Allied M4 design was also developed with same philosophy, the far more limited deployment of troops, and far less serious opposition they faced, as well as heavier reliance on air support, prevented development of a robust doctrine for what later became NATO tank forces, and led to later acceptance of German experience as doctrine model, and tank design guide within the context of market economies of the West.

After WW2 the Western Allies adopted a philosophy that relied on nuclear retaliation coupled with (mistaken) reliance on strategic bombing in an era which until late 50s can generally be called the ‘Air Force era’.
However own experience with German heavy tanks, and German experiences on the Eastern Front with Soviet heavy tanks (from 1941), convinced US and Britain to design heavy ‘main’ tanks because effects of radiation on troops were not yet understood, and because German impressions of Soviet use of tanks was downplayed, and vehicle survival emphasized. This was because of low availability of replacements to Wehrmacht, and because of significant reduction of tank building budgets in the peacetime West.
In US the M26 Pershing was redesignated as Medium tank (originally Heavy), and there begun a program to enhance the wartime design with medium designs abandoned (though light tanks continued). Eventually this culminated in the M46 which was essentially an M26 in basic design. In total 1160 M26s were rebuilt: 800 to the M46, 360 to the M46A1 standard (from a total of 2212 built). From there the M47/M48/60 designs represent redesign of the basic M26 rather then significant new design development due to change in doctrine or manufacturing change.
The M46/47 design suffered from the ‘German engineering affliction’ in that

The M-46 hull was better ballistically, at least in front. The T-42 turret was put into production. The M-46 hull and chassis was modified and the two were married. Thus this tank was considered an emergency vehicle created out of existing components, but even with the short cuts taken, the vehicle never became available for use in Korea.
It was a design which was put together without test and as could be expected, many "bugs" developed. Ordnance refused to accept them until the tanks could be classed as serviceable and considerable time elapsed until the necessary testing which should have been done first was done after production and the necessary corrections were made by the two producers, the Detroit Tank Arsenal and the American Locomotive Company. http://www.pattonhq.com/m47files.html

For the US tank production declined steadily through the Cold War
A total of 8,576 [8,676?] M47 were produced (including exports)
Some 11,703 M48s were built between 1952 and 1959 (including about 2,300 exports)
Over 15,000 M60s were built by Chrysler between 1961 and 1980 (including about 3,200? exports)
Initial Defense Department budget was for 7,058 M1s at a cost of roughly $19 billion (before exports)

This design thinking was still based on the nuclear strategy, but recognized that US and NATO troops may be used in ‘limited war’ scenarios where nuclear weapons would not be used. The philosophy was to increase crew survivability by enhancing tank systems. This philosophy was seen as substantiated by the Israeli experience.

The thinking was largely a continuation of the German philosophy of the heavy sophisticated tank due to absence of NATO operational doctrine outside of ‘flexible defence’ unlike that of Soviet breakthrough/exploitation developed during WW2.
In fact the M1 design owes its beginnings to the US/German co-design project begun in the late 70s for a heavy tank to (in German view) coexist with the Leopard 1 just entering service at the time (probably seen as the modern Panther role). The project ended with US and Germany abandoning cooperation due to differences of opinion reputedly on gun and engine to be used, as well as US looking for a Main Battle Tank (i.e. a tank purchasable in significant quantities like the M48/60) rather then a heavy tank following the M103 experience.

In Soviet Union there was a realization that the heavy Western tanks required a larger weapon to defeat their armour (just like the Tiger experience of WW2), but offensive doctrine still demanded medium tanks able to maintain rates of advance. This, coupled with the realization of the true effects of radiation on troops in early 50s led Soviet designers to produce the T-54/55 series with the 100mm weapon. This design was not judged able to defeat the next generation of heavy tanks being designed in the West, and the T-62 with 115mm gun was later put into production for limited deployment in selected areas of probable use.

However it was realized that guided weapon development increased range of engagement, and required heavier volume of tank fire, so designs to replace the T-55 were begun, and culminated with the T-64 and the T-72 from two separate design bureaus. These designs conformed to the development of offensive doctrine in USSR since 1936, but also included the ability to use guided weapons against targets at extreme ranges. These types, and their derivatives and modifications became the Soviet Main Battle Tanks while retaining the medium tank’s offensive doctrinal fit.

Germany meanwhile used car market marketing to capture the European market in tank fleets by offering the ‘locals’ Leopard II as a replacement for their Leopard Is (with exception of France and UK) which emphasized reliability and service :)

[Waylander]

The main "success" of the Leo II occured after the fall of the sovjets with the market being full of surplus Leo IIA4s from Germany, the Netherlands and Swiitzerland and with the Leopard IIA6EX being the main marketing argument.

Ok, maybe the reputation of our car manufacturers helped. :D

[LancerMc]

FutureTank, your absolutely right about the amount of M4's that were repaired and then sent back into combat. Chrysler repaired quite a few of those Sherman's in my home town. Though I don't know exactly how many were repaired in Evansville. I have seen many pictures of the Ammunition factory/Repair facility where the Shermans were repaired and sometimes even pics of M4's damaged again during repair trials because some ambitious driving.

[eckherl]

FutureTank, your absolutely right about the amount of M4's that were repaired and then sent back into combat. Chrysler repaired quite a few of those Sherman's in my home town. Though I don't know exactly how many were repaired in Evansville. I have seen many pictures of the Ammunition factory/Repair facility where the Shermans were repaired and sometimes even pics of M4's damaged again during repair trials because some ambitious driving.

The combat losses that my armor brothers sustained on the Sherman was appaling, we gave the Russians a few big batches of them armed with a 76mm gun and they nicknamed it a coffin for 5 brothers, they called the Grants that we sent them a coffin for seven brothers.
Another point I would like to make is that it did not handle worth a darn over soft muddy soil and getting stuck was a big issue with them. (thin tracks).
German tigers 1 and 2 along with Panthers had better cross country travel on this type of soil conditions.

[eckherl]

The main "success" of the Leo II occured after the fall of the sovjets with the market being full of surplus Leo IIA4s from Germany, the Netherlands and Swiitzerland and with the Leopard IIA6EX being the main marketing argument.

Ok, maybe the reputation of our car manufacturers helped. :D

Hey Waylander - why did the Spanish Army go with a more heavier armored version of the LEO2.:)

[LancerMc]

The tanks tread were a problem, and the Evansville Chrysler plant made "thresher" tracks. They replaced the old tracks and added an additional foot of ground placement for the M4. They still weren't good as Soviets or German wide angle tracks, but did help the Shermans in those muddy situations.

[FutureTank]

The tanks tread were a problem

They were a problem for Soviets also.
Its not widely known, but the many tanks Germans destroyed in first months of the was were destined for scrap because trials in 1939 showed they were useless in some of the worst climate conditions. War in Finland confirmed this when the ground went soft during a temporary warm weather.

BT series was great as long as the ground was firm or they were running on roads. The intention was (since 1934) to fight the Japanese and install the Communist party in China, but after Manchuria it was realised there were no roads in China!

Hence the T-34. Many people talk about armour, guns, ammo and engines because they are 'sexy', but tracks are like feet for a tank. Take care of yout feet ;) is rule number 1...even grunts know that :)

When the Spring set in in 1942, Soviet troops captured hundreds of German vehicles of all types including tanks which had been stuck in mud. Ground pressure is an engineering miscalculation, but can't be blamed in German designers since they were never asked to design tanks that could swim in mud :onfloorl: :onfloorl: :onfloorl:

[eckherl]

They were a problem for Soviets also.
Its not widely known, but the many tanks Germans destroyed in first months of the was were destined for scrap because trials in 1939 showed they were useless in some of the worst climate conditions. War in Finland confirmed this when the ground went soft during a temporary warm weather.

BT series was great as long as the ground was firm or they were running on roads. The intention was (since 1934) to fight the Japanese and install the Communist party in China, but after Manchuria it was realised there were no roads in China!

Hence the T-34. Many people talk about armour, guns, ammo and engines because they are 'sexy', but tracks are like feet for a tank. Take care of yout feet ;) is rule number 1...even grunts know that :)

When the Spring set in in 1942, Soviet troops captured hundreds of German vehicles of all types including tanks which had been stuck in mud. Ground pressure is an engineering miscalculation, but can't be blamed in German designers since they were never asked to design tanks that could swim in mud :onfloorl: :onfloorl: :onfloorl:

And this is where the christie suspension system will rule with the likes of the T-34, even newer model German tanks that came out after 1942 went to the same system but with inter weaved roadwheels that was a major weakness on the Panther series.

[FutureTank]

And this is where the christie suspension system will rule with the likes of the T-34, even newer model German tanks that came out after 1942 went to the same system but with inter weaved roadwheels that was a major weakness on the Panther series.

Yep! And I never trully understood why that was done :confused:

[eckherl]

Yep! And I never trully understood why that was done :confused:

One of the big reasons was the weight of the tanks, panther weight was 45 tons versus a T34/85 at 32 tons, also they felt that it gave them superior cross country capabilities.

One Russian tactic that was used on the Eastern front during fall and winter months was to attack panthers and tigers in the early morning hours due to the fact that there would be a good chance that they had frozen mud in between the roadwheels and tracks making the vehicle stuck or frozen in place.

[FutureTank]

One of the big reasons was the weight of the tanks, panther weight was 45 tons versus a T34/85 at 32 tons, also they felt that it gave them superior cross country capabilities.

One Russian tactic that was used on the Eastern front during fall and winter months was to attack panthers and tigers in the early morning hours due to the fact that there would be a good chance that they had frozen mud in between the roadwheels and tracks making the vehicle stuck or frozen in place.

Surely the posibility of encountering mud arise in the development process! Wider rubber coated whees would have prevented this problem (though rubber may have become brittle from cold). Carrying some wooden boards, or just putting some sapplings down would have prevented freezing.

I think somone just liked lots of wheels!

[gf0012-aust]

Does anyone else know exactly how or in what ways that German optics were superior to the Allies?

IIRC it was with respect to actual lens grinding capability.

[Waylander]

Hey Waylander - why did the Spanish Army go with a more heavier armored version of the LEO2.:)

The thought (As well as the swedes and greeks) that the uparmored hull is worth the money. And I totally agree with them. With the unprotected ammo right behind the frontal hull armor this is a weakpoint if you don't upgrade it. Money is the only reason why the other users of A5/A6s just uparmored the turret and not the hull.
If you would put everything into the Leo what KMW and Rheinmetall are offering with their Leopard IIA6EX package you can get a real beast and the Greece, Sweden and Spain nearly did that.
Especially when you look at the shrinking numbers of MBTs in the european countries this is a clever decision.

[powerslavenegi]

IIRC it was with respect to actual lens grinding capability.I concur and I guess likes of Carl Zeiss,Leica and Schneider hold a testimony to the same.

[eckherl]

IIRC it was with respect to actual lens grinding capability.

Thats not the only issue that was at hand, please don`t try and tell me that Russia did not have the capablitie to do this, it was matter of how many tanks that were being pumped out of the factories. (Massive production versus quality).

[eckherl]

The thought (As well as the swedes and greeks) that the uparmored hull is worth the money. And I totally agree with them. With the unprotected ammo right behind the frontal hull armor this is a weakpoint if you don't upgrade it. Money is the only reason why the other users of A5/A6s just uparmored the turret and not the hull.
If you would put everything into the Leo what KMW and Rheinmetall are offering with their Leopard IIA6EX package you can get a real beast and the Greece, Sweden and Spain nearly did that.
Especially when you look at the shrinking numbers of MBTs in the european countries this is a clever decision.

Huh - I was told that the Spanish version actually is more heavily armored than all the other versions.

[Waylander]

As long as I know it has the same upgraded armor on the turret like every other modernized Leo version + the uparmored hull which is implemented also in the Leopard IIHE and Strv 122 with the Strv 122 also having uparmored top turret armor.

[eckherl]

I concur and I guess likes of Carl Zeiss,Leica and Schneider hold a testimony to the same.

Let`s not forget Steiner optics either, yes Germany did make some darn good optics, still do, but a big portion of that played in to the quality control of making the sights and how they were installed in relation to the main gun, T - 34`s at target long ranges were not very accurate until they closed the target area to with in 800 meters, this changed when the JS2 rolled onto the scene due to the fact that Russia had better quality control standards, a JS2 could engage enemy vehicles at ranges over 1500 meters and have first round hit capability. Sight grinding is not the only issue that played into this.