Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
All tanks are maintenance intensive. That's a given. The only real advantage that, say, US tanks had was we only needed the three most important tools:
A tanker's bar
A sledge hammer
A roll of 100 MPH Tape.
That'll get you back to the motor pool
Yes, I've read that the Sherman was no more reliable than any other tank. The difference was the Americans had a massive spare parts supply chain and designed their tanks to be easily repaired in the field.All tanks are maintenance intensive. That's a given. The only real advantage that, say, US tanks had was we only needed the three most important tools:
A tanker's bar
A sledge hammer
A roll of 100 MPH Tape.
That'll get you back to the motor pool
I assume every German tanks positioned on the outskirts of Moscow, Stalingrad and Sevastopol had to drive there from the railhead in Germany or Poland. Even if repairs were needed enroute that's a good testament to reliability.A Sherman could drive 250 miles in a single stint. No German tank could accomplish that. One company of Tiger I tried to move 100km up the Italian peninsula. One out of 17 made it.
1940, stop Pzkw III production, move everything to Pzkw IV, with asap introduction of long barrel 75mm and up-armoured variants. That's it, no Tigers, Jadgpanzer, etc. Next, make as many 6x6 trucks, fuel and ammo carriers, half track infantry carriers and tractors as you can. Logistics wins wars..apples vs oranges, try it with Panzer III or IV
A gross oversimplification.1940, stop Pzkw III production, move everything to Pzkw IV, with asap introduction of long barrel 75mm and up-armoured variants. That's it, no Tigers, Jadgpanzer, etc. Next, make as many 6x6 trucks, fuel and ammo carriers, half track infantry carriers and tractors as you can. Logistics wins wars..
This wins wars…
View attachment 722529
Not this…
View attachment 722530
They couldn't do it either. The final drive on both vehicles weighs 800 pounds, and is not maintainable by the crew. It is built like a watch.apples vs oranges, try it with Panzer III or IV
Look at how few actually made it. At Briansk there were TWO Stugs. That's it.I assume every German tanks positioned on the outskirts of Moscow, Stalingrad and Sevastopol had to drive there from the railhead in Germany or Poland. Even if repairs were needed enroute that's a good testament to reliability.
How many did they start with?Look at how few actually made it. At Briansk there were TWO Stugs. That's it.
A battalion, they were from an independent Stug battalion. The 263rd is what my memory is dredging up, but I could be wrong about that.How many did they start with?
According to the source I read it was two. Granted, that is a forty year old memory.It was my understanding that there were six StuG IIIs at Bryansk and two were knocked out.
The 1950s American tanks were not the Shermans of WWII. The tanker force didn't like being outclassed by the German tanks so adopted a lot of the German philosophies. Lack of reliability was the trade off.I have no idea how many German tracked vehicles made to the end of the 1941 marches and how many of the ones than were there at end started somewhere in the middle as replacements and/or how many got major maintenance in the Field. I would be very much surprised if any of the ones still mobile in Nov/Dec of 1941 were the ones that started in June. At least not without major work.
However the same can be said for most other tanks. Matildas in parts of Africa were going through steering clutches in 600 miles. Most tanks could not make 1000 miles on a set tracks.
Valentines staggered into Tunisia with 1500 miles on some of them which amazed some people in the tank community. Some of them were running with missing bogie wheels and many of them had several (or more than several) links taken out of the tracks to try to keep them tight.
Early T-34s, despite the amazing performance of the prototype, were going through transmissions like a bowl of hot soup on Russian winter's day.
Less said about the KVs the better, poster child for performance in field not matching the proving ground, In part due to poor training of the drivers, poor design, poor implementation.
In the 1950s American M-48s were breaking down something like once every 40 miles or so?
Now there are minor breakdowns and there are major breakdowns and there are peacetime breakdowns (stop before something else breaks) and wartime breakdowns (keep going until it won't move anymore).
T-34s/KVs trannies had problems early on but most damage came from poorly trained crew. Those were used to drive ~8 tonne vehicles (if trained at all) and not these 30-40 tonne "monsters".
The Problem of Panzer III/IV was to have two very similar sized tanks existing instead of just one. Panzer III chassis was better on- and offroad but Panzer IV was the only one who could be adapted to use a long 75mm gun. They should have made the Panzer IV chassis with the Panzer III suspension and just vary the turret armament, it would have been a far better tank than the Panzer IV.
Panzer and Stug Bns should have had their own Tank workshop assigned. Small but with sufficient special equipment