Best Tank of WW2

[parsifal]

One thing I should clarify about Germany. her principal weakness was not a lack of industrial potential, so much as inadequate manpower. Germany did not have the manpower reserves that were available to the Russians, and this did influence he production choices as the war progressed.

Shortrounds point about german perceptions on armoured warfare are well made, in my opinion. This was in no small measure due to the German early encounters with the Russian advanced armour designs in '41-2, principally the T-34 and KV-1s. Men like guderian could see that in the hands of an experienced crew, a T-34 or a KV-1 could get the better of a mkIII or an early Mk IV. Their reaction was to construct the heavy tanks like the tiger and panther

Whilst I believe the Tiger (both mks I and II) were a profligate waste of resources, the Panther was less so.....it took half the resources to build compared to a Tiger, and was more than adequate to deal with most armoured threats then in place. My opnion is that the heavy tank should have been solely built around the Panther, with no Mk IV, and supplemented by an increased output of SGIII s. It cost roughly 2/3 the cost of a Mk IV to build a SGIII, and the Stug was about as effective defensively as the bigger German tanks. I would also have increased the production of towed ATGs, concentrating on the 75mm calibre (forget the 88s), and not wasted time putting out the Luftwaffe field divs, or the SS formations to pay for that effort....but then i am digressing badly I guess

 

[schwarzpanzer]

Hi Parsifal,

I think that manpower shortages would require better armoured, and armed tanks - but they would still need to be reliable, and the crews would need to be well trained.

One thing I've always wondered though, is that could the Fug (?) radio be put in the turret, and operated by the Commander and/or loader - as in Allied tanks? - This would reduce the crew number to 4, rather than 5. Also, there were experiments with autoloaders - which would have further reduced the crew to 3.


It is not true that the T-34 and KV-1 led to the development of the Tiger - they just speeded it up (but they may have contributed to upgrades in its armour thickness - or that was just Hitler?).

The VK3001 and VK 3601 were originally to be used in the Blitzkrieg, and were the mechanical basis.

When the heavily armoured French tanks and especially the Matildas, were encountered in France, the Durchbruch designs were brought back - with the change that a weapon capable of defeating the Matilda, like the Flaks, an 88mm L56 was called for. Also, armour as thick as the Matilda IIs (80mm allround) was specified.


Of course you are right that the Soviet tanks could better PzIIIs and early PzIVs, but the best response would have been the Stuk40/Stug F and PzIV F2 'Special' IMO - not wasting resources making a brand-new, untested, complicated, expensive heavy tank.

The Panther was still flawed. When it first saw combat, it's thin side armour was easily defeated by any Soviet gun - even anti-tank rifles! Also, it had a shot-trap in the mantlet and plenty of openings in the glacis - and armour was a strong point! Its 75mm L70 KwK 42 was awesome though - perhaps a Hornisse-based Jagdpanzer mounting this weapon may have been a better bet?

The Panthers main problem IMO was its transmission, with fragile design and inferior quality. I think this was remedied with the Ausf G - which IIRC used the beefier transmission from the Jagdpanther, though this was offset, as the quality had slipped by then. The cancelled Panther II used the transmission of the Konigstiger too - which was a much better (albeit more expensive) design - and the Panther was intended for mass production. Though why you'd have a scrimped transmission and an over-complex and expensive suspension and engine is beyond me.

I also think that if the Panther had used the Tigers transmission, then that may have been OK?

The Pz IV was obsolete in 1943 I suppose, yet it's gun allowed it to take on any opponent even into 1945.

It cost roughly 2/3 the cost of a Mk IV to build a SGIII,

Thats some good info there, thanks!

and the Stug was about as effective defensively as the bigger German tanks.

I would say too that the Stug was as effective in an offensive breakthrough role. Some Ferdinands were used in this role, but it ended badly (they tried doing the exploitation part too, which they were not suited for).

I would also have increased the production of towed ATGs,

I had this idea before, based on Rommels musings. However, I have since learned that this tactic is easily overcome with artillery - unless those ATGs are in bunkers?...

concentrating on the 75mm calibre (forget the 88s),

The 88 was still necessary IMO. Infact, I would have simplified the Flak 88, or modified the KwK 36, and put them on an ATG carriage, rather than set up PaK 40 production.

and not wasted time putting out the Luftwaffe field divs, or the SS formations to pay for that effort....

Sorry, could you please explain that to me?

but then i am digressing badly I guess

We all do that. It's not on the threads topic, but the thread has digressed onto the subject we are talking about. This subject is also vital to the subject matter IMO - and has recently led to me considering the Panther Ausf A as probably the worst tank of WW2, rather than the best, as I felt previously.

 

[Njaco]

I don't think that I would rely on "tank vs tank" stats for a comparison. If I had one Tiger vs 50 T-34s, I would prpbably gain a 5:1 advantage before being knocked out totally with 45 T-34s still roaming about the place.

 

[tomo pauk]

Germany developed 3 (three) heavy tank designs in WW2, jet none of medium tanks. That was their undoing.
As for 7,5cm/70 vs. 8.8cm/56: they were throwing money when developing that 7,5cm, since 8,8 had no troubles to pierce anything in practice, while offering 50% bigger HE shell. The HE shell is important if your biggest land opponent produces 200 000 artillery pieces between 1935-45, fields millions of infantry and adores all kinds of fortifications.
As for concentrating at 7,5cm in towed form: the gun that weights 1,5 tons still needs a motorized transport. Therefore, if it's self propelled, it would've barely cost anything more than gun+mover combo, while being more maneuverable needing less crew - a main advantage for Germany.

 

[Shortround6]

Hi Shortround6,

The Panzer IV was able to deal with any opposing tank in WW2. Though the Ausf J was a massive downgrade, this was due to the war situation more than anything. With APFSDS, the Panzer III may have been able to soldier on into 1945, hypothetically speaking. The Panzer III was also useful as the Stug III G Spater, in 1945.

The MK IV wound up being able to "deal" MOST opposing tanks in WW2. Granted it wasn't until very late n the war with the bigger Russian heavies that it was in real trouble, Although the T-34-85 couldn't have been good for the morale of MK IV tankers. Being able to "deal" with an enemy tank by shooting it in the side is not the best solution, especially if your own mobility is no better or worse than the enemy tanks.
The MK III was toast and no amount of fancy ammo was going to save it. Since most tanks fired a lot more HE than they did AP ammo the 50mm simply didn't have enough HE capacity to be effective. Couple that with APDS (APFSDS is even later in timing) needing either tungsten, uranium, or some rather special steel alloys to work and it is pretty much a non-starter for the Germans in WW II.

A better bet for the MK III, if work had started earlier, would have been the enlarged 100mm smoothbore based on the PW 800(?).

Sorry, what didn't show up?

Basically the M-26.

The point being for the Germans, making decisions in 1942, to depend on your opponents NOT to develop better tanks in the next 2-3 years is not a smart decision even if, historically, that is what happened.

 

[Shortround6]

Germany developed 3 (three) heavy tank designs in WW2, jet none of medium tanks. That was their undoing.
As for 7,5cm/70 vs. 8.8cm/56: they were throwing money when developing that 7,5cm, since 8,8 had no troubles to pierce anything in practice, while offering 50% bigger HE shell. The HE shell is important if your biggest land opponent produces 200 000 artillery pieces between 1935-45, fields millions of infantry and adores all kinds of fortifications.
As for concentrating at 7,5cm in towed form: the gun that weights 1,5 tons still needs a motorized transport. Therefore, if it's self propelled, it would've barely cost anything more than gun+mover combo, while being more maneuverable needing less crew - a main advantage for Germany.

Good points.

 

[schwarzpanzer]

Hi Njaco,

True, but in the right circumstances, a Tiger would be a match for 25+ T-34s. I can't remember how many T-34s could be produced for a single Tiger (anyone?), but I doubt it is more than 10?

So, for 50 T-34s, in the right circumstances, 2 or 3 Tigers would be adequate.


Hi tomo,

Do you include the Panther as a heavy? It was apparently meant to be a medium, but I agree with what you're saying. It could be classs as an MBT, retroactively. It still had medium tank side armour though (less than the T-34s, infact).

A true medium tank may have been good, but I would have insisted on 60mm of armour, sloped @ 60 degrees allround, as someone else here suggested. I don't think a gun bigger than 75mm mattered too much, but good armour did, very much so. As you say though, an 88mm may have been vital?...

You make excellent points on the advantages on the 88mm, though complicating things further (curses!). Still, great food fr thought, thank you!

I think the 75mm may have been cheaper? There were also other advantages, such as shell storage.

The problem with using 88mm for firing HE shells is barrel wear. In my opinion, Guderians idea of a Battle and Support tank was sound (Panzers III IV). Rommel was very relieved when he heard that the Tiger was to have an anti-tank gun, rather than a super-calibre mortar. Thankfully,(in some circumstances) Hitlers obsession with gigantism extended to length, as well as width (again, oo-er!).

Was the 88mm shell 50% bigger than the 75mm's?

Was it good enough against fortifications?

I can see now the dilemmas the Germans had, as well as the sense in using an 88mm. They would not have been helped by Hitlers insistence on ever bigger guns though (though he was right on the PzIII initial design - so this may have caused him to be more pushy).

Yes, PaK 40s were often left behind. If youre going to have a heavy gun, may as well do it properly? I think the PaK 40 was in development in 1940 though - so may have been worth pursuing after all?

What type of self-propelled mover would you suggest?
Why would it need less crew - no seperate radio operator?
SPGs apparently need less training than tanks too...


Hi Shortround,

The Panzer IV was still able to del with IS-2s (dunno what version though, sorry) - because of it's KwK 40. Even the inferior PaK 39 on the Hetzer KO'd an IS-2 (or IS-2s) @ 1.5km IIRC (info on this Forum). Again, I'm afraid that I don't know what version of IS-2, the early ones were much inferior. That was from the front I'm pretty sure, not the sides. The Churchills armour would prove a problem, but it's pea-shooter of a gun wouldn't. If it had kept the 6pdr, firing SVDS though, then that might have been different...

Apart from the gun and sights though (the fitment of which also caused problems), the PzIV design was very dated. The T-34 and Cromwell being huge leaps over it.

The PzIII had a high fire rate. I even think that the 20mm on the PzII still had merit - see Saving Private Ryan to see what I mean. Also, the Bradley has a 30mm - and 50mm autocannons were in service with Germany in WW2.

Of course though, I believe these were obsolete, and needed replacing ASAP - but they were by no means useless.

I think Germany went straight to APFSDS? APDS may have been considered, but I think only briefly - and no rounds of this type were produced?

Plain old Manganese steel, as used in the standard PzGr 39, is good enough for long-range shooting (The usage I suggested for the 50 75mm's). Close range though, it wouldn't be much use though, especially against the IS-3 (unable to penetrate I think). Steel PzGr40's were produced though, and I think for the KwK 40? - and these were intended for close-range usage. Uranium was also used in some PzGr40s - so would allow even better performance (including after-penetration damage).

A better bet for the MK III, if work had started earlier, would have been the enlarged 100mm smoothbore based on the PW 800(?).

That might be a great idea, I'll have to check up on that. I also think the Puppchen might have been a good idea, or the autoloading Italian 40mm (with Effeto Pronto rounds) - or larger calibre versions of these weapons.

The M26? Ah, right. But I think that the KwK 40 would have even been able to deal with this threat. German designers were always either rushing to catch up, or dealing with threats that didn't exist (the 100-ton Soviet tank and magnetic mines, for exampe).

The PaK/KwK 40 design was in being in 1940 - before it was needed, the KwK 36 also (maybe only due to Hitlers size obsession though?). In 1942 the KwK 42 of the Panther was being developed, which was enough to deal with anything, including the M26 (though flawed IMO). America not developing the M6 Heavy tank helped, though if the US had introduced this tank in large numbers, then I'm pretty sure the PzIV would have been dropped. Every action has a reaction. If the M6 had turned up though, then this would likely have limited tank numbers in US service, at least/especially initially.

 

[tomo pauk]

Hi tomo,

Do you include the Panther as a heavy? It was apparently meant to be a medium, but I agree with what you're saying. It could be classs as an MBT, retroactively. It still had medium tank side armour though (less than the T-34s, infact).

Since Panther weighted 45+ tons, I'd consider it as heavy. And not so good heavy - it lacked tick armor and big gun of a proper heavy tank.

A true medium tank may have been good, but I would have insisted on 60mm of armour, sloped @ 60 degrees allround, as someone else here suggested. I don't think a gun bigger than 75mm mattered too much, but good armour did, very much so. As you say though, an 88mm may have been vital?...

If Russkies managed to handle the recoil of 85mm in a 32 ton tank, there is no reason that Germans wouldn't be able to do the same with 88mm, that had muzzle brake to reduce the recoil futrher.
As for armor - a tank of modest dimensions (like T-43 (no typo)) was armored as good as IS-2, so nothing out of capabilities of German designers.

You make excellent points on the advantages on the 88mm, though complicating things further (curses!). Still, great food fr thought, thank you!

I think the 75mm may have been cheaper? There were also other advantages, such as shell storage.

Perhaps it would've been cheaper per piece, but you need to take to account development costs vs. already developed 8,8cm KwK.
7,5cmL70 used different ammo than 7,5cmL43 L48 - full round was much closer in dimensions to the ammo Tiger used for it's 8,8cmL56.

The problem with using 88mm for firing HE shells is barrel wear. In my opinion, Guderians idea of a Battle and Support tank was sound (Panzers III IV). Rommel was very relieved when he heard that the Tiger was to have an anti-tank gun, rather than a super-calibre mortar. Thankfully,(in some circumstances) Hitlers obsession with gigantism extended to length, as well as width (again, oo-er!).

Why do you think Panther's gun was void of barrel wear when compared with Tiger's one?
As for reasoning of making both Pz-III Pz-IV, that really escapes me. Hardly any country could finance TWO 20-ton tank designs within couple of years, plus, there was really no reason that Pz-IV couldn't carry 37 50mm cannons.

Was the 88mm shell 50% bigger than the 75mm's?

9kg vs. 6 kg

Was it good enough against fortifications?

Nothing spectacular, but better than Panthers any time. And, I've said 'all kinds of fortifications' - not just Sevastopol-like ones.

I can see now the dilemmas the Germans had, as well as the sense in using an 88mm. They would not have been helped by Hitlers insistence on ever bigger guns though (though he was right on the PzIII initial design - so this may have caused him to be more pushy).

He was right about Pz-III - it doesn't take military academy to see 5cm was better gun.

Yes, PaK 40s were often left behind. If youre going to have a heavy gun, may as well do it properly? I think the PaK 40 was in development in 1940 though - so may have been worth pursuing after all?

It was a weapon up to the task for 95% of AFV it might have encountered, so nothing wrong with gun itself.

What type of self-propelled mover would you suggest?
Why would it need less crew - no seperate radio operator?
SPGs apparently need less training than tanks too...

Towed 7,5cm Pak had crew of 6, Marders StuGs had 4. Towed guns require much more manhandling.

As for what kind of SPG, well, Marders were just fine, Hetzer too, but this would be less pricey: Ardelt Waffentraeger.
The weapon at the pic is 8,8cm pak; hefty 6,5m barrel looks out of proportion, so 4m barrel of 7,5cm PaK would fit in nicely. (Of course, some kind of wheeled vehicle would be also nice).
Here is the Ardent Waffentraeger:

 

[Shortround6]

The problem with using 88mm for firing HE shells is barrel wear. In my opinion, Guderians idea of a Battle and Support tank was sound (Panzers III IV). Rommel was very relieved when he heard that the Tiger was to have an anti-tank gun, rather than a super-calibre mortar. Thankfully,(in some circumstances) Hitlers obsession with gigantism extended to length, as well as width (again, oo-er!).

Was the 88mm shell 50% bigger than the 75mm's?

the 88mm was around 22lbs for the projectile vs about 15lbs for the 75mm (or less?).

The cartridge case (and propellant) for the 88/56 was smaller/less than the 75mm/70.

What type of self-propelled mover would you suggest?
Why would it need less crew - no seperate radio operator?
SPGs apparently need less training than tanks too...

A 75mm AT gun might only need a 3 ton half-track or truck, an 88 may need a 5-8ton half track or very large truck. Towed anti-tank guns need larger crews to manhandle them into and out of firing positions (the tow vehicle can not always get them the last 10-30 ft into position. You also often need an extra ammo handler or two to get ammo from storage area (which is a number of feet away from the gun) to the gun breech.

The Panzer IV was still able to del with IS-2s (dunno what version though, sorry) - because of it's KwK 40. Even the inferior PaK 39 on the Hetzer KO'd an IS-2 (or IS-2s) @ 1.5km IIRC (info on this Forum). Again, I'm afraid that I don't know what version of IS-2, the early ones were much inferior. That was from the front I'm pretty sure, not the sides. The Churchills armour would prove a problem, but it's pea-shooter of a gun wouldn't. If it had kept the 6pdr, firing SVDS though, then that might have been different...

Depending on your enemy to use bad metallurgy or heat treatment is not good planning.

The PzIII had a high fire rate. I even think that the 20mm on the PzII still had merit - see Saving Private Ryan to see what I mean. Also, the Bradley has a 30mm - and 50mm autocannons were in service with Germany in WW2.

A high rate of fire does not mean a high rate of engagement (number of targets engaged per minute) if each target needs multiply hits to kill. As far as the PZ II goes, do not confuse movies with reality. PZ II 20mm guns used 10 round magazines instead of the AA guns 20 round magazines and most PZ IIs only carried 18 magazines (180 rounds) Once you figure in the AP ammo there wasn't a lot of HE to spray around. Auto loading 50mm guns were large, heavy and rather finicky. Reducing your crew to 3-4 men just means each man has to perform more hours of maintenance on the tank and if you add in the auto-loader maintenance the crew is really going to be over loaded. Poorly maintained tanks with tired crews do not perform well in combat.

Of course though, I believe these were obsolete, and needed replacing ASAP - but they were by no means useless.

Well, they were useful as tracked recon vehicles but that's about it.

I think Germany went straight to APFSDS? APDS may have been considered, but I think only briefly - and no rounds of this type were produced?

Not that I know of, care to give a source for this? They did use a few "arrow" shells but these were for very long range artillery and not anti-tank use but I could be wrong.

Plain old Manganese steel, as used in the standard PzGr 39, is good enough for long-range shooting (The usage I suggested for the 50 75mm's). Close range though, it wouldn't be much use though, especially against the IS-3 (unable to penetrate I think). Steel PzGr40's were produced though, and I think for the KwK 40? - and these were intended for close-range usage.

There were definite and well known impact velocity limits for plain steel (by plain I mean various alloys but uncapped.) which were raised by using capped shot/shell (APC) which was streamlined by using a pointed wind screen/ballistic cap (APCBC). Tungsten was used not only for it's weight but because it didn't shatter on impact. Certain substitutes worked by only in certain circumstances, like the round had to over match the target armour by a larger amount than a more conventional round or the tungsten round.

That might be a great idea, I'll have to check up on that. I also think the Puppchen might have been a good idea, or the autoloading Italian 40mm (with Effeto Pronto rounds) - or larger calibre versions of these weapons.

The Puppchen had neither the range or accuracy to be worthwhile as a tank gun and the size of the ammo vs the effect wasn't in it's favor either.

Got a source for the " Effeto Pronto rounds"? One source I say a while back listed the same penetration for ever single caliber the Italians used , from 47mm to 105mm and if you believe a 47mm shell will penetrate exactly what a 105 shell I hae got a large bridge in New York city to sell you, cheap.

The M26? Ah, right. But I think that the KwK 40 would have even been able to deal with this threat.

define " deal with this threat". While the M-26 certain wasn't invulnerable to the KwK 40, if used in large numbers fewer would have been knocked out per one hundred hits than Shermans and on the flip side MK IVs weren't going to stand up to 90mm hits anywhere near as well as they could stand up to 75mm hits from Shermans. Being able to knock out individual M-26s is one thing but having a rather large shift in the rate of exchange (how many American tanks knocked out per one hundred MK IVs lost)

The PaK/KwK 40 design was in being in 1940 - before it was needed, the KwK 36 also (maybe only due to Hitlers size obsession though?). In 1942 the KwK 42 of the Panther was being developed, which was enough to deal with anything, including the M26 (though flawed IMO). America not developing the M6 Heavy tank helped, though if the US had introduced this tank in large numbers, then I'm pretty sure the PzIV would have been dropped. Every action has a reaction. If the M6 had turned up though, then this would likely have limited tank numbers in US service, at least/especially initially.[/QUOTE]

The KwK 36 was already developed in the form of the AA cannon. Internal ballistics, a variety shells even range tables. A different recoil mechanism and a change of primer and it is ready to go, low risk--fast development.
THE American M6 was a bigger joke than the German Tiger. One can look at a Tiger and figure out pretty well what the Germans were thinking.
Take a good look at an M6. It looks like it was designed by a bunch of grade school kids. The 3in gun was OK but what is with the co-ax 37mm? Looks cool but how many more rounds of 3in could be carried if the 37mm is dropped. If the target needs a cannon shell it probably deserves a 3in.
The multiple .50 cal hull guns are another "looks and sounds cool" feature of dubious usefulness. Ground air cooled .50s overheat their barrels in very short order so long bursts are not used. guns are large and hard to aim and keep on target by one man using muscles alone. Ammo takes up much more space than .30 cal ammo so making the tank over large in order to carry a large amount. (6,900 rounds of .50cal? that is around 1 ton of .50 cal ammo)
some early models had a .50 cal located in the turret rear for AA use, see:
http://ww2photo.mimerswell.com/tanks/usa/heav/m6/03654.jpg

Again looks "cool" but how do you aim the thing and how does the .50 cal gunner traverse the turret to track an airplane? Might require extreme co-operation on the part of the airplane in order to get shot down?

On second thought maybe the US should have fielded the thing. Imagine the easy victories as the US tankers drive past the Germans who are rolling on the ground helpless with laughter

 

[Juha]

Hello Swartzpanzer
As I wrote I'm not a great fan of Panther but it had its good points. And while its side protection was weak for a tank of 45 tons, Schürtzen plates removed the problem with Soviet AT rifles, its frontal armour was excellent but the turret front, which was weaker than glacis. As I wrote in 43 Panther was all too unreliable but in 44 they got that more or less corrected BUT final drive, which was still too weak, at least for reverse on soft ground.
As I wrote a gun a little less powerful than 75mm L/60 would have been quite adequate in 43, and it would have been possible to upgun later. Tomo's idea of using 88mm L/56 is a good one but Army wanted a smaller calibre higher mv gun, IIRC they wanted Waffen 755, which might have been the tank gun version of 75/55mm Pak 41. IIRC one reason was to allow greater number of shells to be carried for given volume. I'm with the Tomo that Germans seemed to have been underestimated the need of powerful HE shell. KwK 40 was a good gun but with a new tank Germans needed to anticipate possible uparmouring of enemy tanks like it happened with Churchill VII and VIII with 152mm frontal armour and with JS 2, especially with its modified form.

IMHO the leaf spring suspension a la Pz IV was already old-fashioned but of course there was other possible solutions. Torsion bar suspension had its drawbacks but also Christie suspension (T-34 and British Cruisers incl Comet) ate precious armoured volume.

I think Germans had enough problems with a 45 ton tank, especially in Soviet Union, they didn't needed more heavy AFVs. IMHO Tiger I was OK, even if expensive and heavy, in 43-44. After all it was a vehicle for special units not a standard issue tank. But Ferdinand showed the problems with super heavy vehicles so IMHO King Tiger and JgTiger were mistakes. IMHO Panther in its 43-45 tons form was a mistake. What Germans would have needed was a circa 35 tons tanks a la T-34, M4 (76) or Comet.

Tiger transmission was not be used in Panther because lack of production capacity, it was OK for heavy tank but too complex for amount of production needed for medium tanks.

StuGs worked well in Russia but had problems in Normandy.

Juha

ADDITION: Some Churchills had kept their 6pdr guns in Normandy just for A/T support for theit 75mm gun brothers and had some Sabot ammo for special targets. According to the unit history at least in 6th Guards Tank Brigade they were not overly impressed by its effects against Panther's glacis but surely Pz IV would not have been a much a problem especially its turret front armour was inadequate in 44 (50mm)

 

[parsifal]

Hi Juha

Do you have any examples of Tigers performance in the east. I know their first use was around Novgorod in late '42, used offensively, they were not successful. They also were not outstanding in Kursk, but in the defensive battles that followed, they could at times prove deadly to advancing Soviet armour.

But details would be a great help

 

[Shortround6]

As I understand it the first use in the east used just a handful of Tigers (3-6?) and used them on bad ground so some of them bogged down.

 

[Juha]

Hello Parsifal
one project has kept and is still keeping me busy, so a late and short answer.
That the first use of Tiger, around Mga IIRC, was a failure isn't surprising. Use a small number of tanks attacking along a narrow soft forest track, so that a single file was the only possible formation was curting a disaster.

IMHO Tigers did well at Kursk, without them the breaching of numerous well prepared defensive lines with numerous and deep A/T minefields and very numerous A/T nests would have been much more difficult and much slower.

Juha

 

[Ferinx]

I don't think that I would rely on "tank vs tank" stats for a comparison. If I had one Tiger vs 50 T-34s, I would prpbably gain a 5:1 advantage before being knocked out totally with 45 T-34s still roaming about the place.

You are trying to make it seem as simple as in video games like Company of Heroes. But war is not a computer game my friend. In reality, it depends on many things and the situation, such as the area where the battle takes place (if open field or urban area - town/viallge/city) and it depends mostly on what T34 version it is. If we have 50 T34-85s with the 85mm gun, then sure a whole company of Tiger tanks can be taken out (when T34s are good camouflaged and the tankers are good skilled enough). But if we have only T34-76s (As seen in 1943 battle of Prokharovka) and adding open fields, then only one single Tiger can indeed knock out all of the 50 T34s in one encounter. There are dozzen of reports of Tiegers taking out 30 T34s and the rest escaped. If the Tiger wasn't running out of ammunition, then it would have knocked out even more of the withdrawing T34 tanks.

Same goes for the Shermans. Still in 1944 during battle of Bulge, most of the Shermans were still running with the weak 75mm gun which was ineffective against the Tigers armor at any good combat range. Only small numbers of a few Shermans were upgunned with the 76mm M3 gun but these were less than 20% of all Sherman variants at that time. Therefore very bad ground (narrow streets, bad terrain and hills) not good for such heavy tanks. There were more Tiger tanks abandoned int he Ardennes than on the Eastern front, for this reason. Tigers performance was significant better on the Eastern theatre of course!

regular Sherman (75mm gun) and T34 (76mm gun) were not only inferior to the Tiger and Panther, also Panzer IV ausf. G,H,F were all a little bit superior in proportion of armor protection and gun fire.

 

[Ferinx]

I think Germans had enough problems with a 45 ton tank, especially in Soviet Union, they didn't needed more heavy AFVs. IMHO Tiger I was OK, even if expensive and heavy, in 43-44. After all it was a vehicle for special units not a standard issue tank. But Ferdinand showed the problems with super heavy vehicles so IMHO King Tiger and JgTiger were mistakes. IMHO Panther in its 43-45 tons form was a mistake. What Germans would have needed was a circa 35 tons tanks a la T-34, M4 (76) or Comet.

You make the same mistakes as most other people. More but less powerful tanks wouldn't be helpful for Germany in WW2. Germany didn't have enough men to use all of their tanks, so even if they had massproduced only medium tanks in higeher numbers, they still couldn't use them all. What are many tanks good for if you can't even use them? lol. Heavy tanks were the best way they could go with. And it WAS the best way as battle reports prove. Yes, they have lost the war with heavy tanks, but they would have lost with 'only medium tanks' as well! Fighting against 3 Super powers + 50 other nations on 3 fronts at the same time can only go wrong, Hitler was dumb.

Back to topic. As can seen today how battle reports prove, the Ferdindand tank destroyer, was one of the most effective tank killer ever used on the battlefields in the world, togeteher with the Tiger I and Tiger II. in 1943 during the battle Kursk, only 84 Ferdindands were used by the 653. Jägerpanzerbattalion and 654. Jägerpanzerbattalion. both battalions destroyed 556 soviet tanks and 1,200 guns/artillery pieces! most Ferdindands were destroyed by their own crews after mechanical failures though.

It just needed a better engine and some more MGs for close defense, then it would have been the best AFV of WW2. the new Maybach HL230 engine was released in late 1944, if they had this engine 1 year before.... holy sh- i think we would speak all german now.

 

[Juha]

Hello Ferinx
Germany had some 10 million in arms at its peak strenght, IIRC, surely they could have man many more tanks than they did. During the last desparate months they could create several divisions from superflous Krigsmarine men for ex. So the limiting factor wasn't the number of men, it was more on how they allocated them.

And Germany had also its partners, it wasn't fighting alone.

Quote:"84 Ferdindands were used by the 653. Jägerpanzerbattalion and 654. Jägerpanzerbattalion. both battalions destroyed 556 soviet tanks and 1,200 guns/artillery pieces!"

Sorry, that is the number of what they claimed, its a different thing than what they really destroyed. And while Ferdinand was very effective long distance tank killer its weight made its operative use difficult as one can see from unit histories.

Juha

 

[Messy1]

I saw a episode on Tank Overhaul on the military channel maybe. The narrative stated that the Ferdinand was extremely unreliable, too heavy for most roads, and the lack of a rotating turret, and the lack of mobility was an extreme handicap. IMO, they were more of a terror weapon than a feasible tank destroyer

 

[parsifal]

Manpower was the limiting factor in the defensive battles that Germany had to fight, but the losses in manpower were exacerbated by the shortages of equipment, particulalry tanks, and fielding more tanks would have had a neglibilble additional effect on the manpower resources available to the germans, but would have enabled the catastrophic losses in manpower from July 43 onward to have been avoided or atleast reduced.

Fielding a few heavy tanks doesnt place heavy demands on the manpower resources, and wherever those heavy tanks were present, they did cause upsets for the Soviets......but the problem was that there were simply not enough of them to cover enough of the frontages in sufficient quantities to make a difference. Statistically, the German Heavy Tanks formations could kill about 3 Soviet tabks for every one loss of their own...in 1944, the Germans lost 9000 tanks to the Soviets 23000. This was simply not enough of a difference in the exchange rates to justify their added expense.

If the Germans had opted for say a Panther/StugIII tank park instead of thre menagerie of different tanks that they did, they might have fielded two to three times the tank numbers that they did. A Tiger cost twice as much to field as a Panther, and 5-6 times (roughly) that of a Stug. If the Germans had fielded twice as many tanks as they did, and also rationalized, and sped up the delivery of towed ATGs, as was suggested by Rommel in 1943, I believe they may have been able to blunt the Soviet steamrollwer that hit them after Kursk, and perhaps gained a respite that may have had far reaching consequences.

In any event, things could not have gone wmuch worse than they did....and contrary to the claims made by revionists in the modern age, this was not all Hitlers fault. hitler had a big influence on the failures, but it was still the German Army, and not just Hitler that fought these later campaigns, and lost....to an enemy that by all accounts should not have won.

 

[timshatz]

I saw a episode on Tank Overhaul on the military channel maybe. The narrative stated that the Ferdinand was extremely unreliable, too heavy for most roads, and the lack of a rotating turret, and the lack of mobility was an extreme handicap. IMO, they were more of a terror weapon than a feasible tank destroyer

A mobile anti-tank gun you didn't have to dig in or deploy.

 

[Juha]

Hello timshatz
or semi-mobile bunker for heavy A/T gun.

Juha