German tanks in WW2. Were they really that bad?

reply to post by ANNED


Ah the M-18 Hellcat,...probably the best American tank of ww2.

...although it is a tank destroyer ...still a great piece of mechanized armor.

Cosmic...

reply to post by sceptredisle


A poster on ATS argued with me in another thread. I quote "German tanks were so heavy they could not leave roads." I thought the topic was worth it's own thread.

reply to post by Evolutionsend


ha!

Where were you told that? I was taught, from everyone I know, that Germany had the best, most pristine weaponry on the battlefield of WW2. That if you were an American, you knew that the highest priority was getting a German Gun, or a German equipment of some kind. That if you were a tank commander, you knew you needed 20 Shermans to take down just 5 panzers or tigers.

Fact is, most of the modern military of the US is directly descended from German technology of WW2.

reply to post by Gorman91

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
reply to post by Evolutionsend

 

Your Panther vs T-34 story is rather convenient. I've seen a lot of documentaries where German vets couldn't comprehend how T-34s outnumbered and outmatched them on the battlefield. Most high-end Nazi tanks were overengineered to the point where they couldn't even leave a flat road or risk serious malfunction and maintenance cost.

It's worth noting that the Panther was the purpose built counter weapon to the T-34. Convenient that two panthers took out 11 T-34s and scared of many more? Not really! It was a good weapon working as intended.

This was posted in another thread btw.

German tanks were bad?

Not true, German tanks were terrors and outclassed the allies badly.

Shermans were tissue paper.

here are some of the most known and lesser known tanks of WW2 battletanks.com... can spend hours looking at and reading about the steel beasts. enjoy

That's the first I've heard of bad German armament. I always thought they were at the top of the list in their technical advancement. They introduced the first jet plane, fortunately for us a little too late, and their Luftwaffe had quite a few really good planes. I know the Japanese Zero lacked a lot of things, including sufficient armor to protect their pilots, but I didn't know German tanks had a bad rep.

Originally posted by GringoViejo
Must not have been that great if Germany lost.

Germany lost because Hitler did the following:

1) stopped bombing british airfields

2) attacked Russia

3) sent rommel to north africa

4) didn't listen to his generals

WW2 could have ended VERY differently.

Hitler was insane, and some of his choices showed it.

As for the best tank of WW2:

The T-34 was a Soviet medium tank produced from 1940 to 1958. Although its armour and armament were surpassed by later tanks of the era, it has been often credited as the most effective, efficient and influential design of World War II.[4]

Ive researched quite alot about WW2 and tanks is one of those subjects.
A few people have posted very similar to what i would say,so there's no point me repeating it.

As far as i know,from which my research tells me,whether it be true or not.Is that,the Germans had great tanks and tactics,but lacked in organization and short/long term planning.

But,probably none of us were involved in WW2,so we can only speculate and base our opinions on what we have been taught and what we have been told is what happened,if its even true to begin with.

Past wars could have panned out a totally different way than we have been told.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Evolutionsend

 

ha!

Where were you told that? I was taught, from everyone I know, that Germany had the best, most pristine weaponry on the battlefield of WW2. That if you were an American, you knew that the highest priority was getting a German Gun, or a German equipment of some kind. That if you were a tank commander, you knew you needed 20 Shermans to take down just 5 panzers or tigers.

Fact is, most of the modern military of the US is directly descended from German technology of WW2.

I don't think CHOBHAM ARMOUR was anywhere near Germany during WWII. In facts it's British

reply to post by alldaylong


I forgot the linky thingy:-

Chobham Armour

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by alldaylong


MBT-70 was a German-British joint project.

I recall seeing a documentary on the Tanks of WW11. I believe the T34 was an American tank or at least designed by them. It was given/sold to the Russians.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by alldaylong

 

MBT-70 was a German-British joint project.

Wrong. It was a German-US joint project

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by alldaylong


And that's where your armor cam from... The British, Germans, and Americans all working together. The idea for most of this, however, comes from WW2 Germany.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by alldaylong

 

And that's where your armor cam from... The British, Germans, and Americans all working together. The idea for most of this, however, comes from WW2 Germany.

Chobham Armour has nothing to do with the Germans or the US. It was solely a British Invention. It's called Chobham Armour becuase it was researched and developed at The British Tank Research Centre at CHOBHAM COMMON, SURREY ENGLAND.

Sorry I have not read through the whole thread so I don't know if this was mentioned.
So for those interested.

www.lonesentry.com...

The German Mouse
The mouse weight 207 tons, the other heavy tanks were—the 50-ton Pershing, the 62-ton Tiger, the 75-ton Royal Tiger.
The glacis plate up front is approximately 8 inches thick.
For the main armament,a 150-mm piece 38 calibers in length. Instead of mounting a 7.9-mm machine gun coaxially, the Mouse was to have a 75-mm antitank gun 76 calibers in length next to the 128- or 150-mm gun.

reply to post by illuminnaughty
spot on , right you are here is the story on the T34 www.historylearningsite.co.uk... from the link, it was also developed by Germany from the link

The T34 tank was developed by the Russians both before and during World War Two. The T34 revolutionised the way tanks were designed and made. Close up in battle, the T34 proved to be more than a match for the powerful Tiger tank. The T34 combined developments from both America and, ironically, Germany.

how ironic is that?

still the biggest tank thought of was

The Landkreuzer P. 1500 Monster was a preprototype ultraheavy tank meant as a mobile platform for the Krupp 800mm Schwerer Gustav artillery piece, in fact, a mobile grand cannon.

If completed it would have easily surpassed the Panzer VIII Maus, and even the extremely large Landkreuzer P. 1000 Ratte in size, though it would only have enough power to reach up to speeds of 10-15 kph.

It would have been 42 m (138 ft) long, would have weighed 2500 tonnes, with a 250 mm hull front armor, 4 MAN U-boat (submarine) diesel engines, and an operating crew of over 100 men.

It would have been so heavy that it would have cracked pavement behind it and it would not have been able to cross bridges.

The main armament would have been an 800 mm Dora/Schwerer Gustav K (E) railway gun 10 times bigger in diameter than modern tank cannons, and a secondary armament of two 150 mm sFH 18/1 L/30 howitzers and multiple 15 mm MG 151/15 machine guns.

It's a good thing World War II ended when it did, because if it had lasted for another two or three years, no army in the world could have withstood the immense firepower of these giant tanks.

back in a sec with the link the above is from news.softpedia.com...

German tanks in the beginning of WW2 were good, only Russians had better. German tanks in the middle of that mess were the best. German tanks at the end of the war were more or less on the same level as allies - better at some parameters and worse at some.
IS-3 weighted 46+ tons and had a 122mm gun. 600 HP engine.
Tiger B (king tiger) weighted 68+ tons and had a 88mm gun. 600 HP engine.
M26 weighted 41+ tons ,had a 90mm gun and 500 HP.
So probably Tiger had more armor and better fire control. But try to plan moving few via bridges - not that many bridges can carry 68 tons beast. Logistics hell. It was also slowest since it had less horse powers per weight.
IS-3 had better gun and weighted less. Probably had poor conditions for the crew but certainly was more maneuverable and could operate better in problematic terrain. It actually served until 1990s.
US tank is probably the worse of three overall, but US also started WW2 with crappiest tanks of all.
By the way, most modern tanks weight 40-50 tons, Abrams is the heaviest i know of with 62.King Tiger weighted more.
Most modern tanks have 120mm guns. King Tiger had 88mm.
So i would not call late German tanks best. They were among the best. And i certainly would not call German tanks bad, they were ok even in early WW2.