German Weaponology

[Njaco]

Never made the claim that the best weapons were in Germany. The Allies also had superior weapons but....

Did the Allies have their factories bombed day and night?
Did the Allies suffer large scale sabotage within those factories?
Did the Allies have to scatter their resources instead of keeping it efficently in one spot?

Germany faced all this to their design and production and were still able to produce weapons that could take on the Allies. But sometimes - sometimes - quality is lost in quanity. How many Shermans did it take to take-out a Tiger tank? Lets ask those chaps at Villiers Bocage how bad German tank design was.

Germany began re-arming in ernest in 1930-35, whereas the Allies (particularly the Americans) didn't get started re-arming until 1935-1940.

You forget the second part of introducing a new design - field trials. While the US and others were re-arming, Germany was getting the kinks straighened out in Spain.

You are correct, Kenny, you never said they were crap, but the tone of your post suggests that they didn't have adequate weapons. That is what I was responding to. And I have no idea how horse transport got in here. If thats a gauge, they ALL should have lost. Poland, Russia, even the UK (musta missed the Land Rover plowing through the jungle of Burma running over those horses and bicycles).

Germany had very high quality weapons - not always the best.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I dont believe that anyone said that the Germans were more advanced and superior in everything they built.

In some cases they were more advanced in other cases they were equal and in other cases they were inferior.

I am still trying to figure out your agenda mkenny...

 

[Juha]

Much of German weaponry was first class. For ex. their fighters, IMHO LW had the best fighters in 1941-42 and only possible equal to Bf 109E in 1939-40 was Spitfire Mk I. And up to 1945 German fighters were among the very best. LW medium bombers were very good but lacking in defensive firepower. Their navigational aids were the best in early war years. Their submarines, motor torpedo boats and minesweepers were top class and their tank guns from 42 onwards had best AP capabilities. Also many of their AFVs were very good, I specially like Pz IV and VIE and so on.

One of their problems was to make overcomplicated and so expensive to produce weapons because of their drive to technical excellence. For ex. their 50mm mortar was overengineered and I know that many will disagree with this but I still think that Panther was too complicated and too expensive as main medium tank.

Soviet didn't do that mistake, their 50mm mortar was extreme simple. And usually Soviet infantry weapons were simple and reliable. They understood better than westerners that one main requirement for infantry weapon was ability to function reliable in dirty battlefield conditions. Also their aircraft cannons were very good, light with high ROF. Pe-2 and Tu-2 were good bombers, La-5FN and -7 were excellent low level fighters and Il-2 was rather unique and innovative solution for ground attack, I'm not sure that it was the best solution but at least enemy infantry was rather helpless against it. Also I like T-34 series, it was rather ideal for Soviet needs, simple and rugged. Also it had good HE for 30 ton tank and SU needed tanks that were good to knock out mg-nests and A/T-guns more than Germans from 43 onwards.

Juha

 

[plan_D]

Njaco, Great Britain had to spread its factories about. Not as much as Germany in '43 - '45 but it certainly had to. I must also point out that Great Britain had the largest amount of motorised transport compared to any other military force in 1939. The motorised units had to be downgraded in the CBI because of the terrain; where motorised units were hinderance, not a help.

Certainly, Juha, one thing the Germans did do was over-engineer. They also had too many designs that were going beyond the drawing board. The Pz.Kpfw IV is often forgotten about but it was the Pz.Kpfw IV that was more likely to be met in battle. Often Allied and Soviet reports claim these to be Tigers, even when Tigers weren't about.
The Pz.Kpfw IV was a very, very good medium tank. The only problem was the lack of numbers! I have always wondered what their kill ratio was against Allied armour... I certainly consider it a superior machine to the Sherman and T-34.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Certainly, Juha, one thing the Germans did do was over-engineer.

And they still do it today, and not just in technology and manufacturing but also in paper work everything!

 

[plan_D]

I'd rather have German over-engineering than the now British non-engineering. And as for paperwork ... well, Britain loses all hers !

 

[m kenny]

M Kenny with all do respect read carefully again the history of WW2 from different sources before you go argument something.

Suprisingly I have already done that. Out of curiosity how many British accounts of WW2 do you consult?

First the U-boat thing:
Prime Minister Winston Churchill wrote "The only thing that really frightened me during the war was the U-Boat peril".
If Churchill was afraid of crappy submarines than Great Britain should be speaking German now...

Yes well the point was these 'superior' submarines were beaten. Allied counter-measures completely destroyed the U-Boats. Nothing wrong with being afraid when you have won. And I note the attempt to insert 'crappy submarines' into the debate. I never said that and it is your invention.

Second the BoB...well Njaco already said what had to be said...

?

Third the Russia thing:Russians won the war by large numbers and the constant interfering of Hitler in the strategy of the German army and Stalin was warned that Germans would attack.He did nothing and only the fact that Russia is a very very big country and the coming of winter stopped the Germans from annihilating the Red Army.

As I said earlier When the uber-weapons were bested the old excuses are dragged out to explain why it was not really a failure
Every failure is explained away. The only thing that is not admitted is that the Germans could have been outfought.

Never made the claim that the best weapons were in Germany. The Allies also had superior weapons but....

Did the Allies have their factories bombed day and night?
Did the Allies suffer large scale sabotage within those factories?
Did the Allies have to scatter their resources instead of keeping it efficently in one spot?

All this, and much more, applied to Russia in 1941-42.

How many Shermans did it take to take-out a Tiger tank?.

Perhaps you could inform us of this magic figure? Backed by a source I presume?

You are correct, Kenny, you never said they were crap, but the tone of your post suggests that they didn't have adequate weapons. That is what I was responding to

I responded to a claim that IR Panthers destroyed all before them and what a wonderful example of superior German weaponry they were. The whole claim about IR Panthers is fiction. It is not true. It did not happen. How many of you knew that? Not many I would guess.

And I have no idea how horse transport got in here. If thats a gauge, they ALL should have lost. Poland, Russia, even the UK (musta missed the Land Rover plowing through the jungle of Burma running over those horses and bicycles).

The least mechanised Army in WW2 was The German Army. As Maurice Micklewhite would say 'not a lot of people know that'.

I dont believe that anyone said that the Germans were more advanced and superior in everything they built.

In some cases they were more advanced in other cases they were equal and in other cases they were inferior.

I am still trying to figure out your agenda mkenny...

Have not got an 'agenda'. If someone makes a claim that simply is not true (i.e IR Panthers) then my aim is would be to point this out. Find me the post where I said all German weapons were inferior and I will understand what all the fuss is about. The thing that puzzles me is the endless list of excuses as to why Germany did not win WW2. This list never seems to admit they might have been outfought. Total war means using every means at your disposal. If you have the fastest firing MG in the world it is not much good if the poor horse that delivers your ammo is killed 50 miles away by an enemy that devotes a good chunk of its effort to developing a well rounded war machine. An enemy that has a fully functioning Army Navy and Aifrforce. If your airforce has a few magnificent aircraft it is not of much use against an enemy that has thousands of magnificent aircraft. A few dozen Panzer Divisions fully mobile and hundreds of Infantry Divisions who mostly walked everywhere is of little help when your enemies Infantry Divisions are fully mobile and have more tanks than your Panzer Divisions.
There is a lingering belief that if only the war had lasted a little longer all the fabulous German wonder weapons would have come on stream and beaten the Allies. For this to be true you have to ignore the A Bomb.

 

[glen]

Aircraft, for example, we can say that on paper the Ta 152 was the best but in reality it would have had no massive superiority over the P-51H or Spitfire F.21.

hmmmm. please tell me what's the advantge of Ta152H over P51H and spitfire XIV on paper?

Does anyone know the vast technolgy export from Britain/US to German Before 1939?

 

[Juha]

Plan D
"The Pz.Kpfw IV was a very, very good medium tank. "

Yes, it was. In 44-45 maybe a little light in protection but with good firepower. And above all tank which served with distinction from the first day of war to the last. Really amazing achievement. IIRC some Matildas served in 45 on some Pacific islands and maybe some BT-7s or was that -8s to 1945 but those were secondary types by then and Matilda was a newer design. So Pz IV's record was unique, and speaks much of the quality of its design.

Juha

 

[plan_D]

I wasn't saying that the Ta 152 was the best piston engined fighter, I was saying that it could be argued (and it has been). Admittedly the point wasn't laid down effectively, but the point was simply that no matter how many numbers you throw about the late war piston aircraft were all practically on the same field of play (all reaching the zenith of piston fighter development), glen.

Juha, I believe the Matilda II was the longest serving Allied tank in World War II - including both frontline and second line duty. The Matilda was still in frontline operations in Ukraine 1944; if not '45 in the Eastern Front as well as CBI. But that's not important ... as you say the Pz.Kpfw IV record speaks for itself... if only, if only...the Germans had produced more and made the Pz.Kpfw IV F/2 sooner. Imagine the damage done on the North African wastes in the early Afrika Korps days and the Eastern Front. The T-34 would not have had that nice time in '40 - '41.

I agree that the Pz.Kpfw IV was not armoured well, but I don't think it was too much trouble given the firepower of the machine that enabled it stay out of ...too much... trouble. It was never intended for infantry support, after all. Well ...the KwK40 L/43 versions weren't anyway.

 

[Konigstiger205]

Well if Germany was so weak and its technology so bad how did they manage to conquer almost the entire Europe and then hold back the entire world for so long?Wikipedia states that the Allies lost over 14,000,000 men and that the Axis lost over 8,000,000 men...if Germany didn't had some advantages how in Gods name did the Allies lost so many men since they had superior numbers over Germany?
Kenny you asked how many Shermans did it take to take out a Tiger...of course you have to know the story of Michael Wittman that attacked the famed Desert Rats with one Tiger:"In the Battle of Villers-Bocage, he destroyed over two dozen Allied vehicles including several tanks; and single-handedly held up the advance of the entire 7th armoured Division until his tank was knocked out and abandoned."
You want more:"On 8 August 1944, a single Tiger commanded by SS-Unterscharführer Willi Fey from the 1st Company of sSSPzAbt 102, engaged a British tank column, destroying some 14 out of 15 Shermans, followed by one more later in the day using his last two rounds of ammunition. sSSPzAbt 102 lost all of its Tigers during fighting in Normandy, but reported 227 Allied tanks destroyed in six weeks."

 

[glen]

Never made the claim that the best weapons were in Germany. The Allies also had superior weapons but....

Did the Allies have their factories bombed day and night?
Did the Allies suffer large scale sabotage within those factories?
Did the Allies have to scatter their resources instead of keeping it efficently in one spot?

LOL, Allies suffered a lot from the collaboration with Nazi before WWII.

Du Pont-GM Nazi collaboration, according to Snell, included the participation of Standard Oil of New Jersey (now Exxon) in one, very important arrangement. GM and Standard Oil of New Jersey formed a joint subsidiary with the giant Nazi chemical cartel, I.G. Farben, named Ethyl G.m.b.H. (now Ethyl, Inc.) which, according to Snell: "provided the mechanized German armies with synthetic tetraethyl fuel (leaded gas). During 1936-39, at the urgent request of Nazi officials who realized that Germany's scarce petroleum reserves would not satisfy war demands, GM and Exxon joined with German chemical interests in the erection of the lead-tetraethyl plants. According to captured German records, these facilities contributed substantially to the German war effort: 'The fact that since the beginning of the war we could produce lead-tetraethyl is entirely due to the circumstances that, shortly before, the Americans (Du Pont, GM and Standard Oil) had presented us with the production plants complete with experimental knowledge. Without lead-tetraethyl the present method of warfare would be unthinkable.'" (7)

Nazis in the Attic
It was Britain and US who wanted to rearm hitler germany, without the capital and technology from allies, Nazi would lose much military ability from the begining.

Well if Germany was so weak and its technology so bad how did they manage to conquer almost the entire Europe and then hold back the entire world for so long?Wikipedia states that the Allies lost over 14,000,000 men and that the Axis lost over 8,000,000 men...if Germany didn't had some advantages how in Gods name did the Allies lost so many men since they had superior numbers over Germany?

Allies lost over 14,000,000 men.......how many russian?

With the help of allies, hitler germany became one of the most mighty/modern countries in the world, but still not as good as U S in ecomomics and technology fields. .Would you check the US lose during WWII? Britain lost 1% of her population and US lost only 0.5% while Germany lost over 10% and russian lost more!

Britain industrialist,Arthur James Balfour admited on Oct. 1933: German will go to another war again? I am not surprised at all...believe that we must rearm germany in oder to watch out for Russian(bolshevik).....
For germany and russian, WWII was disastrous, anglo-american industrialist/financier/government should answer for the tragedy too.


If U S fights against the whole world, it's hard to say which side will win while Nazi only lasted 3 years after Pearl Harbor. German manage to conquer almost the entire Europe.......LOL US managed to "conquer" Britain and germany/Italy/France/North America/ south Anerica/ asia .........except eatern europe and russian in 1945.


American capital and technology also played a important role in soviet's industrialisation before WWII. It is said that 2/3 russian technology are from US at that time. For example ,T34's chassis. However, this is not opposed to such fact: soviet is the first launching artificial satellite. If I say duo to russian artificial satellite or better tanks in WWII, russian technology is better than US, does it sounds reasonable?

 

[m kenny]

Allied ORO Teams who analysed the tank wrecks in Normandy found that the PzIV was worse than a Sherman as regards penetrability. A Sherman wreck averaged 1.63 hits and 1.55 penetrations but the PzIV numbers were 1.2 hits and 1.2 penetrations.
82% of Shermans burnt when penetrated, 80% of Tigers/PzIV's and 63% of Panthers.
The samples were high on the Sherman numbers but low of the German side (110 tanks: 8 Tigers, 82 Panthers and 20 PzIV) but you get the picture. PzIV/Sherman were roughly equal.

 

[plan_D]

That doesn't show anything that we cannot already grasp from the armour values of the Pz.Kpfw IV. Just reading the paper values of the Pz.Kpfw IV vs. M4 show it to be thinner armour plate. However, that does not show it's effectiveness in combat given the fact that the KwK40 was a superior tank gun to the Shermans 75 and 76mm weapons.

All this infatuation with the burning of tanks has always confused me. The vast majority of tanks burnt when their armour bins were penetrated there's not much anyone can do to stop a tank from exploding and burning except stopping the ordnance getting through the armour.

Comparing the M4, T-34 and Pz.Kpfw IV shows that they are all certainly on a level playing field to an extent...however, I believe given the reality of mobile warfare - the Pz.Kpfw IV was the superior design. The T-34-85 would undoubtedly been the superior machine if fitted with German equipment. All three were excellent tanks, in my opinion ... fitted their roles perfectly...it just so happens that the Germans seemed to be able to fit their panzers to the needs better than the W.Allies did.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Have not got an 'agenda'. If someone makes a claim that simply is not true (i.e IR Panthers) then my aim is would be to point this out. Find me the post where I said all German weapons were inferior and I will understand what all the fuss is about. The thing that puzzles me is the endless list of excuses as to why Germany did not win WW2. This list never seems to admit they might have been outfought. Total war means using every means at your disposal. If you have the fastest firing MG in the world it is not much good if the poor horse that delivers your ammo is killed 50 miles away by an enemy that devotes a good chunk of its effort to developing a well rounded war machine. An enemy that has a fully functioning Army Navy and Aifrforce. If your airforce has a few magnificent aircraft it is not of much use against an enemy that has thousands of magnificent aircraft. A few dozen Panzer Divisions fully mobile and hundreds of Infantry Divisions who mostly walked everywhere is of little help when your enemies Infantry Divisions are fully mobile and have more tanks than your Panzer Divisions.
There is a lingering belief that if only the war had lasted a little longer all the fabulous German wonder weapons would have come on stream and beaten the Allies. For this to be true you have to ignore the A Bomb.

I dont believe that anyone has argued any different. Peoples arguements however are valid.

Germany was outfought in the end.

Germany was outnumbered in the end.

What is wrong with these facts?

 

[m kenny]

Kenny you asked how many Shermans did it take to take out a Tiger...of course you have to know the story of Michael Wittman that attacked the famed Desert Rats with one Tiger:"In the Battle of Villers-Bocage, he destroyed over two dozen Allied vehicles including several tanks; and single-handedly held up the advance of the entire 7th armoured Division until his tank was knocked out and abandoned."

Wrong. Wittmann did not attack 'alone'. He had several Tigers with him. He did not hold up an Armoured Division but 1 Squadron of 3rd CLY.
The whole Division consisted of:
3rd CLY
1st RTR
5th RTR
8th Hussars.

4 tank Regiments each of 3 Squadrons or 12 Squadrons. Wittman attacked one of these Squadrons (A)and was forced to retreat by the actions of the second (B)

The Division also had 3 Battalions on Infantry.
Thus Wittmann did not 'single handed' hold up an entire Armoured Division.
SS 101 and Pz Lehr engaged the 7th AD at Villers Bocage.
Truth rarely matches fiction.

You want more:"On 8 August 1944, a single Tiger commanded by SS-Unterscharführer Willi Fey from the 1st Company of sSSPzAbt 102, engaged a British tank column, destroying some 14 out of 15 Shermans, followed by one more later in the day using his last two rounds of ammunition. sSSPzAbt 102 lost all of its Tigers during fighting in Normandy, but reported 227 Allied tanks destroyed in six weeks."

Of course he did. 11th AD lost 23 Shermans that day. The Division had 4 tank Regiments in action. 23rd Hussars, 2nd Fife and Forfar Yeomanry, 3rd RTR and 2nd Northamptonshire Yeomanry with 200 tanks between them.
Will Fey. Alone in an open field. Attacked by bombers who disabled his tracks. With both MG's destroyed and a crew member wounded. Close to several other Tigers who never took any part in the action he destroyed 15 of the total of 23 Shermans lost in the whole days fighting. He did this as well as destroying carriers, trucks, armored cars and other vehicles that were 'impossible to tally'.
Not only that but he ran out of ammo and had to send a crewman over to the nearby Tigers (remember they did not help him though they were in sight) to borrow 2 rounds of ammo. Just as the crewman got the ammo to Willy the very last Sherman charged at the Tiger. Will fired a round and missed! With his very last round he aimed again and knocked out the very last Sherman!!!!!
The story is so full of holes. Only the gullible would take it at face value.
Like Fey's claimed late war award it is full of ambiguity

 

[m kenny]

.

Germany was outfought in the end.

Germany was outnumbered in the end.

What is wrong with these facts?

Nothing. They are both true .

 

[SoD Stitch]

Okay, just to throw a little more gasoline on the fire, I'm going to quote from Putnam's History of Aircraft: Aircraft of the Second World War, a chapter in that book entitled Armament Diversifies, by R. Wallace Clarke, to back up my above claim as to why the German armament was somewhat more advanced than the Allies':

The strength and ingenuity of the German armament industry since the turn of the century has provided its armed forces with weapons which often seemed one jump ahead of the opposition (my emphasis). In the First World War the aircraft, guns, and synchronising gear supplied to German aviators often gave them an advantage over their Allied opponents. When the Armistice was signed in November 1918 there were several new types of aircraft guns about to come into service. One of these was the revolutionary Gast gun, firing 1,600 rounds a minute; another was the STB Szakats 20mm aircraft cannon. The Dreyse model 1918 was an advanced rifle-calibre gun which was covertly developed after the war; it was to have a great influence on the design of later aircraft and ground service guns, the most important being the MG 15 and the MG 17 of 1934. These weapons, produced by Rheinmetall-Borsig, were recoil-operated, rifle-calibre guns, the free-mounted MG 15 being fed by a 75-round saddle-type magazine. The fixed MG 17 was belt-fed and was fired electrically by a solenoid. Designed in 1932, these guns were to be fitted to most Luftwaffe aircraft in 1939.

The general trend of aviation armament was towards larger-calibre guns with more striking power. As early as 1933 Rheinmetall commisioned a talented designer, Louis Strange, to design a 13mm automatic gun suitable for air use. This gun, the Rheinmetall-Borsig Model 131, was adopted by the Luftwaffe as the MG 131. It was in mass production by 1939, and was widely used on fighters and as a bomber defence weapon. Electrically fired, it was chambered for a special round fired at 750m/sec.

It was generally agreed that the ideal fighter gun would be a 20mm shell-firing weapon, and all the European powers adopted guns of this calibre for aircraft use. All such guns in use at the outbreak of the war were descended from the German Becker cannon of 1916 (my emphasis). The Swiss Oerlikon concern produced three automatic 20mm guns in 1935, all based on the Becker. One of these, the Type F, was adopted by the Luftwaffe in 1935 as the MG FF. It was manufactured under licence by Rheinmetall-Borsig, being used as a fixed fighter gun and as a movable weapon for bomber defence. It was operated by a blow-back action and fed by a 60-round drum.

 

[m kenny]

The Swiss Oerlikon concern produced three automatic 20mm guns in 1935, all based on the Becker. One of these, the Type F, was adopted by the Luftwaffe in 1935 as the MG FF. It was manufactured under licence by Rheinmetall-Borsig, being used as a fixed fighter gun and as a movable weapon for bomber defence. It was operated by a blow-back action and fed by a 60-round drum.

Following the same logic (i.e.we invented it thus all derivatives are ours) can we say that the Panzer was a British invention and thus no credit accrues to Germany for its use?
Wasn't the Bismark a development of the Dreadnaught?

 

[Njaco]

Wow, I still can seem to grasp exactly what the arguments are. Ken and Glen, you sound like Germany was bringing a knife to a gunfight.

The least mechanised Army in WW2 was The German Army. As Maurice Micklewhite would say 'not a lot of people know that'.

Can somebody then explain the concept of 'Blitzkreig' to me?

I can't argue about IR Panthers as I have absolutely no knowledge about that area. But I have read and I will try to find where its stated - by IIRC Sherman tank crews - that it usually took about 3 or 4 Shermans to effectively knock out a Tiger or Panther. Memory is a faulty source so am not going to argue the point. (BTW It was I that brought that up, not Kenny).

However, this is not opposed to such fact: soviet is the first launching artificial satellite.

And they did this all by their little lonesome?

Find me the post where I said all German weapons were inferior and I will understand what all the fuss is about.

well what is this then?

So why did their U-Boats lose the Battle of The Atlantic? Their submarines being the product of this 'very good' system they had?
Is it like the myth of IR Panthers destroying all before them?
Why did the 'superior' German aircraft fail to win The Battle Of Britain?
I suppose Russia was defeated by these 'excellent' tanks in 1941 when they were subject to a suprise attack?.....Nope, none of the above ......

Sure seems to me your'e saying that German weapons are inferior.

If this isn't true, then again I have a hard time trying to grasp your position. Many countries relocated factories - granted - but with as much trouble as the Germans were facing? This argument can go back and forth and like I said, for particulars on each weapon there are a multitude of threads that deal with these single issues. But as a whole Germany had excellent and in some cases advanced weaponery than any other country.

Name me one BB that the US, UK or Russian had that Germany had to mobilized almost its entire fleet to stop? Germany had the Bismarck.

Name me one aircraft became so famous that it attached a name to its speciality that the US, UK or Russia had? The Stuka wasn't the name of the aircraft but it became so, kinda like xerox.

Name me one aircraft that when introduced bested all that Germany had - so much so that secret ops were made to capture one and bring it back for evaluation. Fw 190 did just that. And if you want I'll give you the Mosquito for that one.

Name me a tank that when introduced on the battlefield, it had such an impact that it became a blanket term for almost any enemy tank. The Tiger caused quite a stir in North Africa and thereafter. And on this I'll give you the T-34 and KV-1 but somehow just ain't the same thing.

These so called 'inferior' weapons had to have something that shook the boots of the Allies.