I was looking through an old box of college papers and came across my thesis paper for history. A comparison of German versus Allied tanks during WWII.

After re-reading this work I am curious and would like to pose this to the historians here.

Germany for the most part hastened its ultimate defeat by not standardizing. During the war the German army fielded dozens of AFV's most of which needed their own specialized maintenance and ammo. Yet, the Germans refused to standardize and even at the end they were tinkering with a 100 ton monster MAUS a tank completely unneeded and which could not be supported by German Industry.

The Panzer IV was the "Sherman" of the German Army. By mid '44 it was fairly standard in its production, yet the Germans continued to build the Tiger I and King, and the Panther.

When you look at the total production for German tank in WWII it pales in comparison to the number of Shermans produced in one year. Although the Sherman wasn't a great tank it got the job done, was reliable and could be fielded in numbers sufficient to overwhelm.

Off the top of my head, from Normandy to the end of the war the Germans fielded.

Panzer IV
Stug III/IV
Tiger I
King Tiger
Panther
JadgPanther
JadgTiger
Brummbar
Sturmtiger
Marders
Wespe
Hetzer Hummel
Nashorns
And a whole host of flakpanzers etc.

The US had the SHERMAN...

So what do you think?

I agree that this contributed greatly to their problems. Much can be said about the benefit of standardization in any field. I think they lost a lot of production capability by having too many AFV types in production. Further more there should have been more standardization in the parts they used between each vehicle. The problems such varied parts inventories and ammunition supplies caused must have been immense.

i think if they would have developed more of the heavy tanks (tigers, panthers, ferdinands etc..), more of the jet planes and other heavy equipment earlier they would have had us beat landwise and airwise, now for the sea, if they had a lot more u-boats a lot more of the allied shipping effort would have been stopped to almost a halt.

who knows if the invasion of europe would have occured the way it did..

but i agree, standardization was prob. one of their greatest downfalls vehicle wise...

thats the way i see it

I thoroughly agree with the part of your thesis stating that the Germans had too many different vehicles, but it also applies to their light vehicles - particulary trucks. Spare parts management must have been a bear!!! Add the problem of mantaining all the foreign equipment and you have a logistical nightmare.

There is one problem with your thesis though, the turretless vehicles were developed as an answer to producing more costly and complicated gun tanks, especially when the they went onto the defensive. However, the STUG IV series were more than ample for a defensive vehicle and the STUG IV should have been able to handle better 75mm cannon carried by the Panther.

I can not agree with the comment by Mech-Mechanic, that more heavier tanks would have been better for the Germans. More Panthers would have been good for a counter attack force, but a larger force of STUG IVs and Panzer IVs to support the German infantry in the defense wuld have been better than fewer heavier vehicles. A couple reasons - Heavier tanks take more resources to build, are more difficult to transport by rail or truck, and more critically, use more fuel for same travel distance. Bigger ammo also requires more transport for same size number of rounds. Add slower tactical speeds for the Tigers and Ferdinands, wear and tear on roads and many bridges that will not support their weight and you have serious tactical restrictions.

I believe this was all because Hitler keep the German government and industry divided , so that no one else could threaten his rule. So little standardization was possible.