German tanks in WW2. Were they really that bad?

reply to post by DarthMuerte


Thanks for correcting me.
Star for you

German tanks were almost always superior to their counterparts throughout the war. Panzer III's and IV's were good at the start of the war, but the T-34 and the Sherman were even foes for those tanks.

Panthers were a great combo of speed, firepower and armor. The Tigers were just beasts, many tanks couldn't even get through their frontal armor and they would shred enemy tanks with one shot. The Tigers weren't that maneuverable and prone to breaking down more, but even when immobilized, they still could take out lots of tanks before succumbing. Nothing really matched Panthers and Tigers in even fights.

What really did the Germans in was two major factors...... they lost most of their best tankers on the Eastern front in stupid attacks. The Kursk battle started the process and the Destruction of Army Group Centre sealed the deal. Strategically, Hitler made blunders that did them in. He ran the bulk of his Army into a Killzone in Kursk, a total departure from the Blitzkrieg indirect approach. The Soviets were waiting with massive defensive setups for the Germans to attack and they did, suffering fatal losses.

When used properly, German Tank Divisions were capable of feats that were never thought achievable. Operation Barbarossa in 1941 showed what the Germans could really do, till winter set in and Hitler goofed up his strategic objectives. The pace at which they moved would encircle whole army groups of the Soviets.

The Sherman was an average tank but they had overwhelming numbers on their side plus they used the flanking techinque on German tanks to take them out. In a company vs company battle, Shermans could not hang with top German Tanks.

The T34 was probably the second best overall tank in WWII. It was a good balance of Speed, Armor and firepower. It could hold it's own against Panzers but was out classed by Panthers and Tigers. Again like the Sherman, it just outproduced the Germans.

Numbers and stupid strategy are what did in the Panthers and Tigers, not the quality of the weapons platforms.

Germany's biggest problem in WWII was Adolf Hitler. If he would have left military strategy to the military...
For that matter if he would have waited until 41-43 to start the war like he promised Mussolini, the war might have had an entirely different outcome.

read the battle of the bulge, the fist true US vs German tank battles it was not fire power that did them in it was the lack of gas for the thirsty tanks, the second was the Second Battle of El Alamein where Rommel got his but kicked.not by fire power but by the lack of fuel and supply's. The Russian tank battle of ww2 some say the decisive battle was the battle of Kursk ww2db.com...

Kursk
4 Jul 1943 - 13 Jul 1943

to give you an idea of how big this was

To prepare for the defense, Zhukov summoned 300,000 civilians and built a series of defenses including tank traps, mine fields, and various defensive positions. Militarily, Zhukov wielded a strength consisted of 1,300,000 men, 3,600 tanks, 20,000 pieces of artillery, and 2,400 aircraft. On the other side, the Germans were about to attack with over 800,000 men (including three Waffen SS divisions), 2,700 tanks, and 1,800 aircraft.

that was some battle.

Exactly what I have been saying.....It wasn't the tech, it was leadership and logistics that killed the Nazis. Shoot, if Hitler hadn't started a eastern front with Russia until the west was secure, it would have gone down a totally different path. Hitler just got too cocky and ambitious, he had everything on his side and just made bad decisions.

Originally posted by stainlesssteelrat
reply to post by DarthMuerte

 

Thanks for correcting me.
Star for you

Thanks, but honestly much of your argument was flawed. The German's did not really have the best scientists and engineers; what they had was BUDGETS for those scientists and engineers. What Germany also had was, arguably, the best officer corps and the best land war doctrines. The French had better tanks at the beginning of the war; the Germans didn't even develop sloped armor until late war; they just used them wrong.
I think you are defining the "best" tank as the most advanced. The "best thing" about German tanks; aside from doctrines; was that they all had radios. The French, English, Czechs etc.... were all doing great if the senior officer had a radio in his tank. The radios made coordination much easier. The others were stuck in the Great War mindset until after the French surrender.

reply to post by bekod


Kursk was THE turning point of the Europe theater of WWII. No offense to the Battle of Britain, North Africa, Italy and Normandy. That battle was huge. Germany was never really an offensive threat after that battle. German Generals had realized they had lost the war then.

If Germany won Kursk, everything else changes in WWII.

Originally posted by pointr97
Exactly what I have been saying.....It wasn't the tech, it was leadership and logistics that killed the Nazis. Shoot, if Hitler hadn't started a eastern front with Russia until the west was secure, it would have gone down a totally different path. Hitler just got too cocky and ambitious, he had everything on his side and just made bad decisions.

Absolutely. If Seelowe(SeaLion) had been completed securing the western flank, many more divisions could have been used in Barbarosa. You can blame the Italians also though. The Germans had to bail them out in the Balkans.

reply to post by GringoViejo


The only reason Germany lost was the 2nd front. If they waited 1-2 years to attack Russia we would all be speaking German now. They had better tech training and one hell of a messed up imagination. They made the missile, the jet, they where also the first ones to make the tank(ww1). The winners write the history.

Originally posted by pavil
If Germany won Kursk, everything else changes in WWII.

I must respectfully disagree. More would have had to change aside from victory at Kursk. It was a hugely important battle, but Germany would still have suffered terribly at the hands of "general winter". Aside from that, The Germans just could not match American industry. What people just don't understand about the American war effort is that we never really even mobilized for the war. Not like other nations did. We sent a scant 90 divisions between both major theaters. Compared to other nations, Americans suffered no real privation. Most of the restrictions the American population did suffer were largely symbolic in nature. Even though we out produced the entire rest of the world combined for war material, we barely scratched the surface of our available industrial capacity. The Axis was severely "out classed" once the US entered the war.

Originally posted by warsight
reply to post by GringoViejo

 

The only reason Germany lost was the 2nd front. If they waited 1-2 years to attack Russia we would all be speaking German now. They had better tech training and one hell of a messed up imagination. They made the missile, the jet, they where also the first ones to make the tank(ww1). The winners write the history.

Do you know why Germany attacked Russia when they did? Russia was getting ready to attack Germany.

Tiger tanks failed because they were under powered for a 60 ton vehicle, they were complex and near impossible to repair in the field, many Tigers were actually abandoned due to mechanical failure.

The armor on a Tiger was good but not impenetrable, the power of a Tiger was it's 88mm kinetic kill system, the 88 was originally an anti-aircraft gun that could fire a round in a flat trajectory for several thousand meters.

The best German tank was the Panther, Germany should have up-gunned the Panther as the Soviets did with their T-34's, some of which by the end of the war were sporting 120mm and 150mm guns mounted on the same reliable body/chassis.

The Panther was Germany's response to the T-34 but it was never developed due to the interference of Hitler who was a tank fanatic and demanded something bigger, hence the Tiger and the King Tiger.

T-34's were faster, more maneuverable and just as tough when hit on the sloped front, also the turret turn speed of the Tigers was slow due to the massive weight.

The Tigers ultimate failing was the shear amount of resources required to build just one Tank, the equivalent of four Panthers.

T-34's on the other hand were being built in tractor factories and foundries, they were rough finished except those areas requiring precision,solid ,reliable,simple and easy to fix, made in tens of thousands.

So it's not that German tanks were bad, quite the contrary, the problem was manufacturing logistics and ill thought out development and interference from Der Fuhrer.

Cosmic...

I have to admit I have always been a fan of Germany's military machines from WW2. Agree with many posters about the tanks being over engineered, but amazing none the less. But now this right here was something amazing all in it's self, I have built several models of this in 1/35 scale and even scaled down it's quite large and just imagine the power!!! At 1/35 scale a little bigger than 14" long.


Karl Gerat 60 cm shell.

Originally posted by warsight
reply to post by GringoViejo

 

The only reason Germany lost was the 2nd front. If they waited 1-2 years to attack Russia we would all be speaking German now. They had better tech training and one hell of a messed up imagination. They made the missile, the jet, they where also the first ones to make the tank(ww1). The winners write the history.

Wrong. The Tank was a British invention.

en.wikipedia.org...

And so was the Jet engine

en.wikipedia.org...

As part of Lend-Lease Britain had to give the plans for the Jet Engine to the Americans.

Originally posted by warsight
reply to post by GringoViejo

 

The only reason Germany lost was the 2nd front. If they waited 1-2 years to attack Russia we would all be speaking German now. They had better tech training and one hell of a messed up imagination. They made the missile, the jet, they where also the first ones to make the tank(ww1). The winners write the history.

The key word in your response 'if."

The fact of the matter is they didn't wait, and they didn't win. We can talk about ifs all day long. If my aunt had a penis she would be my uncle. See? Ifs are irrelevant.

My point is that it doesn't matter if the tanks were better, they lost.

World War 2 tank battle was all about quantity versus quality an the Sherman's did adopt the "wolf pack" tactic because the weakest point in a German tank was the rear.

Frontal assault on any German tank was suicide so the tactic's have to change the next ideal attack would be top down attack which is still true today. The safety issues were atrocious during World War 2 for any side.

Had the pleasure in sitting in a Sherman and Pershing not a of creature comforts in the modern versions. Heat and cold was a severe problem even still today.

Sloped armored on the Russian t-34 and like was already said the christie suspension were radical improvement's over both the allies and the axies powers.

The best tank of all of World War 2 by design was the T-34 wasn't the German Tiger and Panzers Hitler made the fatal mistake of being out produced.

Much like how the current military is all about the most expensive "toys" both the Sherman and the Tiger were pron to fire the biggest danger to any tank crew.

The tanks of World War 2 bad? Depends on who you ask really.

Originally posted by alldaylong

Originally posted by warsight
reply to post by GringoViejo

 

The only reason Germany lost was the 2nd front. If they waited 1-2 years to attack Russia we would all be speaking German now. They had better tech training and one hell of a messed up imagination. They made the missile, the jet, they where also the first ones to make the tank(ww1). The winners write the history.

Wrong. The Tank was a British invention.

en.wikipedia.org...

And so was the Jet engine

en.wikipedia.org...

As part of Lend-Lease Britain had to give the plans for the Jet Engine to the Americans.

The Italian Campini is generally regarded as the inventor of the "pure"jet engine,this he achieved in 1931.

reply to post by Cosmic4life


Before you go making the T-34 into a legend on ATS, a few things you need to get straight about the T-34. The T-34/76 with a 76mm gun was not capable of taking out a Panther or a King Tiger, at all. The 85mm variant the T-34/85 did better, but they required close range and well placed shots. Secondly, the glorified slopped armor on the T-34 was cannon fodder for the Panther. The Panther main gun is underestimated because of it's deceptive 75mm size, but that gun used the same thinking that modern 5.56mm rounds use. Penetration over power. The 75mm gun on the Panther was more effective than the 88m gun on the Tiger.

By the end of the war, the best thing that the T-34/85 had going for it, wasn't the gun or the armor, it was the mobility and the mass production.

Originally posted by nake13

Originally posted by alldaylong

Originally posted by warsight
reply to post by GringoViejo

 

The only reason Germany lost was the 2nd front. If they waited 1-2 years to attack Russia we would all be speaking German now. They had better tech training and one hell of a messed up imagination. They made the missile, the jet, they where also the first ones to make the tank(ww1). The winners write the history.

Wrong. The Tank was a British invention.

en.wikipedia.org...




And so was the Jet engine

en.wikipedia.org...

As part of Lend-Lease Britain had to give the plans for the Jet Engine to the Americans.

The Italian Campini is generally regarded as the inventor of the "pure"jet engine,this he achieved in 1931.

Sir Frank Whitle is know as the inventor of the Jet Engine.

reply to post by pointr97


That sounds scary. He never mentioned meeting more than one German tank unexpectedly. If he had, he probably wouldn't have been able to tell me any stories.