Just watched the History Channel show bout German tanks...and learned the the Panzer tanks were best at ...retreat.

Damn...

kglack

Yeah, I liked the part where they were talking about the "exposed" gas tanks on the Panther and kept showing close-ups of the two tool boxes... Neat.

Shaun

What show was that. I think they had it a bit wrong unless they were talking about a particular time frame. It's funny how historians always want to focus on say 1943-45 when talking about German defeats, etc. What about the 6 years or so they kicked butt? Those panzers were good at something I think.

Btw...this is a History discussion so I am moving it to the History forum.

Jim

Jim,
This was the History Channel - Heavy Metal - Tanks.
What I thought was quite interesting was the dependance and integration of the FM radio into the German tanks while other armies still used semifore (flags).

All in all...at the end of the program...i gained alot of respect for German Tank crews.

Dang...i guess ima gonna haveto buy mea german tank or2.

kglack43

i liked how they had it in the german tankers perspective ya know... like actually had it from their words not just the U.S. that was cool how they showed aberdeen tewsting ground and all the tests they did. boy that was a good show

I guess kglack must of missed the beginning of the show where the Panzer divisions ran rampart over the French and then the Russians for 2 and a half years. The germans also had one of the best mobile defense plans. look what they did in France for two months after D-day

How about what germany is good at,has always been good at ,and is still good at to this day.Building vehicles !

They steam rolled over Europe in a quick war by June of 1940. Their ability to combine the aircraft, radio and armor was a trend setter. However, I submit that the Germans were not exactly at the top of their game in responding to new and emerging threats after 1940. The Russian T-34 was a nasty surprise to them. The KV-II gave them pause. They pushed the Panther into production and equipped units way before it proved to be a sound design (Kursk 1943). Their Tiger series is subject to question in terms of speed and cross country mobility. I would also add that their production base was stunted by the multitude of platforms placed on a given chassis system (anti-aircrfaft, panzer jagd, jagd series). Way too much diversification for that industrial capacity. They were good, but a long war never favored Germany. The depletion of resources (men, material, fuel) got them. Thank God.
DJ

Geeeze...you guys are picky...


i did...your right...




ok...the new M Class is built 80 miles away from me in Vance, Al.




Amen to that.

Now, may I go purchase a german tank model to go with the Dragon Wagon i'm working on?

kglack

Just reminder the line from the "Battle of the Bulge" The German Commander said that Germany was still good for one thing making toys.

I am ready to get my arse fried for the following post, so bear with me. I think there is an interesting trend nowadays among historians or amateur historians like us modelers, that is whoever won the war must have the greatest toy.

Just because Germany lost the war, so their panzers must be stupid, over designed, hence inferior, if the argument of them being too well designed, yet small in numbers, hence inferior to swamps of Shermans is true. Then what about the vast number of T72 compares to Ambrams or for that matter a challenger or a Leopard II, if god forbidden US lost a battle to the Russian, would one day Historian say...um.....hence T72 was a much better tank than an Abram.....

Makes one wonder.... There is a ancient chinese saying. Never never be a frog stuck in a well, because for that frog, the sky is rounded.....

Now, I am gonna get off my China Made, intensely Laboured, Rubbermaid Soapie Box... #:-)

Playing devil's advocate here,me I think that the German tanks were better than the Allied counterparts as far as a one on one basis Yes the Allies won the war Thank God for that I always wondered why at least the U.S. didn't put a better gun,ie the 90mm on the Sherman by the time of D-Day
As far as I know there was no armor proof against the 88 The allies could have at least put a better tank gun on their tanks I have a lot of respect for those sherman crews #:-) (++)

The materiel aspects of warfare are always a factor, but not the sole determinant in any battle/conflict. Show me how good the crews are and it does not make a difference who made the tank. The T-34 overwhelmed the Germans when used in a correct employment sequence. On the other hand, the Easy 8 Shermans clobbered the T-34/85 during the Korean War. The folks behind the gun sights make all the difference.

it is the victor that writes history

Uh...(he says even though he drives a West German auto)...but the Japanese build great cars and their WWII tanks sucked big-time.

#:-)

Jim

Good observation on the Japanese tanks. In the early thirties, they terrorized the Chinese and during the invasion of Burma they certainly gave the British a good deal of trouble. I am searching deep in the recesses of my pea sized brain and it seems to me that either at Tarawa or Guam they actually used tanks against the invading US troops. Outside of that vague recollections, I believe the Japanese used their tanks as stationary pill boxes. Anyone have anything on that point?
DJ

You are absolutely right 210 CAV. Japanese never did use their tanks the way German, or later in the war, Brits, Americans, or Russians did. Tanks for them, and to some extend to Chinese were weapons of infantry support, moving pillboxes. My grandpa was in the battle for Shanghai in 1937 when he just returned from Germany as a military cadet there. He was assigned to the Chinese forces that took Japan head on in that city, and the few Panzer I and T26 (if I remember correctly of the version) had gave both Japanese infantry and their Marine detachment some hard time. There was only one tank battle as far as my Grandpa remembers took place at then, and ended with both side withdrawl because some infantry guns were brought into play.

In short, at least in China, Japan never used the tanks group together to create a schwerepunkt.

Hi there - 210CAV has it right when he stated, "..it is the men behind the gun that makes the difference...", add such things as superior commuications, tactics, and operational techniques and you have why the Germans did so well. The Panther, argurably the first or second best mass-produced tank of WW2, allowed the Germans to survive the overwhelming numbers employed by the Russians.

During the German invasion of Western Europe in 1940, the French had better tanks, but they lacked radios in every tank, and their armored divisons were poorly employed. The Germans defeated the French thru superior massing of combat power and better manuever. The Russians were in much the same situation when they were invaded in 1941. They had good tanks, and more of them, but they lacked reliable communications, and commanders were severely restricted in their ability to manuever because of their countries political system.

By late 1944, early 1945, the Germans admitted that the US Army was better at mobile warfare than the German Army. The US Army, though equipped with a tank that had a weak gun and barely adequate armor, had a tank that was perfect for the US type of mobile warfare - it was fast, mobile, and reliable. The Russians were the only other country that built a tank that matched those qualities (and they had better armor configuration). The Germans for all their suppossed automotive skills, never built a reliable 6x6 truck, never had a "jeep", and their tanks, with possible exception of late-war Pz IVs, were automotively unreliable.

The lack of reliable tanks, a poor logistical tail, and a corrupt political system, lost the war for the Germans!

Almost forgot - how many types of tanks did the Germans have in combat in 1944/45?

Pz IF, PzII (late models and self-propelled guns), Pz III (command tanks, flame versions, Stugs), PZ IV (H&J gun tanks and several different SP chassis), Tiger I & II (with several special purchase chassis), Panthers (gun tanks & SP anti-tank), PZ 38t derivatives (SP guns & Hetzer), numeorus weapons in France, Balkans and Russian rear areas, built on captured French chassis. I would hate to be a German Division or Corps maintenance officer!!!!! Plus, just look at how many different trucks they used - almost all converted civilain 4x2 models.

What did the US take to war in Europe in 44/45: The M4 Sherman family, with only two basic engines (9-cylinder radial and Ford V-8), and by end of war the M4A3 became the standard. Light tanks consisted of the M5 & M5A1 to be replaced by the M24 (best light tank of the war). And finally, the one vehicle (made by several manufacturers, but basically the same) that won the war - The 2-1/2 ton, 6x6 cargo truck!!!!!! The US built so many that they were able to motorize all of their infantry divisions in NW Europe, plus those of the British and Canadians! Granted several infantry divisions were stranded in Normandy when their trucks were stripped to operate the Red Ball Express. The Russians could not have beat the Germans, as they did, without the thousands, and thousands of trucks supplied to them by the US.

The final line - the US and allies standardized and produced decent, reliable vehicles in quantity, while the Germans were flooded with unreliable civilian-based vehicles, unreliable armored vehicles requiring excessive repair parts inventories!! A logistician's nightmare!!

I will now get off of my "Made in USA" soap box!

just a few quick points

-the churchill had armour thicker than aa tiger, so could take an 88 round.
-my grandfather fought in burma, and has a very low opinion of jap tanks, a boys AT rifle would damage one, and a 25pdr would obliterate one.
he saw a type 97 take a hit from a six pounder head on and the round passed straight through, front to back and kept going!.
in comparison a six pounder would bounce of most german tanks at anything over 500 yards.
-german tanks were notoriously unreliable, the russians hated them, prefering most british or american designs to captured german tanks.
-thank god the germans didnt have tanks as good as some people seem to think they did!

cheers
joe

Once again Ranger 74 (my Ranger Buddy) brings up an interesting point. The logistical support system is a paramount concern here. The best vehicles in the world still need a support system to function properly. The German logistical system was literally horse drawn. I realize they did some nice battlefield recovery work in the desert, but I do not recall them winning praise for anything in Western Europe. While the initial question gets hip shot answers from us as we peel back the onion, there is a complex world of tactical, training and logistics that give us insights into the "quality" of an armored vehicle. Nice discussion.
DJ

210CAV brings up another valid point concerning problems relating to the German armor failure. Despite having outstanding metallurgy and the best tank cannon, the poor logistics of the German military contributed directly to there defeat, not even including strategic bombings effect upon oil production. The Germans maintained a civilian and military industrial base till 1944. They were still building vehicles for civilians while the military, minus the panzer/panzer grenadier divisions, had horse drawn logisitics, even their artillery!!! The first Russian winter did more than freeze the engine blocks of German tanks, it killed 100,000s of German horses, stranding artillery pieces, ambulances (yes even their ambulances were horse drawn), supply wagons and kitchen trailers.

I had some small experience dealing with multiple repair parts requirements: When I was a young tank company XO (and maintenance officer) in 1970-something, the Army was going thru a transistion from the "old" M60A1, to the "new" RISE powerpacks. When the 5th Infantry Division was activated each tank campany received only 16 of 17 authorized tanks. In my company I had 15 gun-tanks with T-142 track (removable rubber pads) while the blade tank had old T-97 track (the type on the original Tamiya M60A1 model). The two types of track cannot be mixed. The blade tank had side loading air cleaners (again same as on old Tamiya kit) while the 15 gun-tanks all had the then new top loading air cleaners, requiring the stockpiling of two kinds of spare filters. When the 17th tank was finally issued, it came with "armored" top-loading air cleaners, and the new AVDS-1790-2D RISE engine, while the other 16 tanks had a combination -2A, -2B & -2C engines (-2A & 2B engines were old technology, the -2C engines incorporated some RISE technology by during engine rebuild), requiring stocking of different fuel and oil filters and different removal and installation procedures. The RISE engine also had an oil-cooled alternator and some other improved components. My mechanics and repair parts clerk had to really know their jobs!!

Just as a side note: The AVDS-1790 (Aircooled/V-cyclinders/Diesel/Superturbo-charged, 1790 cubic inches) and the CD-850 cross-drive transmission in the M60A3 are direct descendants of the AV-1790 gasoline engine and CD-850 transmission found in the M-46!!

But at least the road wheels, wear plates, end connectors, center guides, gun sights, ammunition, etc., etc., were the same, as the 5th ID had only one basic type of tank!! A German panzer division could have 3 or 4 major different tank types each with different sub-types! Whew!!!

The US, after all, did develop mass-production and interchangeable parts!