Cause of German Tank Success

[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

 

[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 :

 

[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