German Tanks in WW2 - the wrong conception

No worries I'm not taking it personally. I'm no kind of expert on artillery or on armoured warfare.

It may well be that casualties are caused by hitting the fueling tankers, or the crews having a fag break, it might even be as basic as breaking the ground up so the tanks ground out, but I guess the point that having fewer better tanks is worse than more less good tanks would still apply, since all those factors are independent of the quality of the tank itself.

As for direct destruction, you do see pictures of tanks, inc heavy ones like the KV1, on their sides or even overturned by a shell, but whether it was common or very rare I have no idea.

Quote:

---

We are also getting too hung up on tank v tank battles. A lot of the tank's tasks were much more varied; assaulting infantry behind an AT screen, spreading out from a brealthrough, and so on. If you had to assault an AT screen, would you want 10 (fast) targets, 10 76.2mm guns chucking out HE shells and 20MGs, or one slower target, one 88 mm gun and 2 MGs? Seems a no brainer to me. OK, the Tiger or Panther is considerably harder to kill, but not THAT hard. Tigers could be taken out even by the British 6 Pdr (57mm) AT gun, if the gunners kept their nerve and held fire until the Tiger was under 500 yds or so.

---

This reminded me of Wittmann's adventures at Kursk. I wish the book i read it in was here so I could directly quote it.

Basically, Wittmann simply ran over a great number of German artillery pieces, destroying them instead of wasting ammo on them. He had an interesting tactic(which is in the book :shame: ) to get right up close to them without being targeted and just ran them over!

Another advantage of the Tiger.. brute strength! ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

This reminded me of Wittmann's adventures at Kursk. I wish the book i read it in was here so I could directly quote it.

Basically, Wittmann simply ran over a great number of German artillery pieces, destroying them instead of wasting ammo on them. He had an interesting tactic(which is in the book :shame: ) to get right up close to them without being targeted and just ran them over!

Another advantage of the Tiger.. brute strength! ~D

---

Hmmm... Interesting, when did the Germans convert him from the Russian side? ~;p

But you should remember that Wittmann was a very special case, he could read the ground, spot the guns and calculate a safe route to the gun's rear. Not all could that. But granted the Tiger did have the mass to do it, though it must be pointed out that the T-34 did similar things in Barbarossa.

I haven't seen pictures of upturned KV-1s, but as far as I know they had a nasty tendency to explode furiously, perhaps that is the reason for the upturned tanks.
The only pictures I have seen of upturned tanks are the propaganda shots of a Tiger on its side after a barrage of battleship shells.
It seems extremely unlikely that the few kilos of explosives in a 150mm shell could turn over a tank of over 40 tons.

LoL woops.. Those would be Russian artillery pieces he ran over. :rolleyes3:

El Alamein and the Battle of Britain have two things in common that the attacker went for the support infrastructure.

The British attacked the tank staging grounds and the Germans attacked the airfields. I think the Germans would have won the Battle of Britain had they continued to attack military infrastructure.

----

The Tigers had superior communications... command and control.

While the British in the BoB had radar... so they also had superior command and control.

----

Anyone know why the SAS are called the Special Air Service and what their role was?

----

Or the role of U-boats too.

----

So the role of tanks in some armies was to attack military infrastructure or engage in asymetric battles not other tanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

So the role of tanks in some armies was to attack military infrastructure or engage in asymetric battles not other tanks.

---

Yes, that's my understanding too. I think the reason most countries tanks were under-gunned for much of the war is that they were supposed to do other things apart from engage other tanks. The Germans were supposed to breakthrough and hit the infrastructure; the French/British were supposed to support infantry or do some strange cavalry charge thing; the Americans were supposed to leave the tanks to their tank destroyers.

However, I think gradually the armies discovered the best thing to battle a tank was another tank (or tank destroyer).

AT guns were too immobile and vulnerable. Infantry needed to get too close. Aircraft were not available in sufficient numbers. Artillery, as has been said, was pretty ineffective.

Hence the upgrading of tank guns and armour until you end up with the main battle tank concept, perhaps first fully realised in the Panther.

It finds its extreme in the contemporary Abrams, whose main gun is not even supposed to be fired at infantry (I wonder if the effectiveness of the heavy tank in combating infantry in urban Iraq is leading to a rethink of this?).

I would say the T-34 was the first of the real tank vs. tank tanks. Others had previously been made to combat tanks but this was the first that could do it all (and did it all).

The Abrams is lucky to have a nice compatriot in the Bradley, with a nice little group of infantry in tow. And of coruse the alltime biggest infanty killer, artillery is also nearby. The tank has become a shock-troop, rather than a true warrior, it is intended to roll on, and keep rolling. That is actually a return to the old tanks of early WWII, say a Pz II for isntance.

The Abrams does have HEAT shells as well as SABOT rounds, so in theory it could be used against infantry and I bet HEAT would be preferable for attacking buildings and other "soft" targets.

Re: The SAS in North Africa, their full title was the Special air service brigade, the idea being if any of them got caught and gave away their unit name the Germans would think there was a full airborne brigade in the North african theatre.. the name has stuck since. The Light vehicle raider group referred to is I imagine the LRDG (Long Range desert Group). IIRC The SAS only tried one airborne insertion(In North Africa), which ended in a sandstorm related disaster, after that the LRDG would show them the way to their targets using their specialist survivalist knowledge. They both (the LRDG and the SAS) wreaked textbook style commando havoc in North Africa.

To get back on topic however, my opinon on German tanks is that their training and motivation was supremely well handled. However the Later Tiger designs ignored the Blitzkrieg philosophy (This is understandable, they were under attack from all sides) The Tiger and Tiger II, and to a lesser extent the Panther, where mobile fortress' that couldn't go too far from their support lines. A May 1940 Blitzkrieg using Tigers would have stalled - they would have run out of fuel. The German army changed a lot between 39 and 44. The Army of 44 based its defense around Tank Fortress' of Tigers and Panthers that were superior to the opposing tanks, whilst the Wermacht of 39 to 42 used inferior tanks with superior command and control techniques to wreak havoc in the enemies rear areas.

Hear endeth my drunken rant.

RE: The SAS being support for the LRDG it was (IIRC) the other way round. The Lrdg, who predated the SAS, ended up calling them selves the long range taxi group, because their main role was to deliver the SAS to their targets and then show them the way home!

RabidGibbon you were a bit misleading, the SAS had excellent survival skills and often had to walk many miles (can remember a desert treck of 70 iirc specifically, it was the norm not the exception) and were famed for their harsh training and unbelievable endurance. I use the past tense as I do not know if all of that is still true, though I know their training is still famous for its harshness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

El Alamein and the Battle of Britain have two things in common that the attacker went for the support infrastructure.

The British attacked the tank staging grounds and the Germans attacked the airfields. I think the Germans would have won the Battle of Britain had they continued to attack military infrastructure.

---

Probably, but it would not have made any difference whatsoever in strategic terms. The Germans lacked a strategic bomber and could not have hammered British industry outside of the SW quadrant without hideous losses. Moreover, even air supremacy over the channel would not have enabled an invasion. The disparity in fleet units meant that, regardless of casualties, the RN could have stopped an invasion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

The Tigers had superior communications... command and control.

While the British in the BoB had radar... so they also had superior command and control.

---

Spot on, C-cubed-I is the key to success in modern war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Or the role of U-boats too.

---

The only tool at Germany's disposal that could have defeated Britain. Had Doenitz prevailed and all of the effort and tonnage devoted to Bizmarck, Tirpitz, Scharnhorst, Gneisnau, Graf Spee, Deutschland, et. al been channeled into the submarine program, giving him the hundreds he sought by 1939, the British economy may well have been crippled.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

So the role of tanks in some armies was to attack military infrastructure or engage in asymetric battles not other tanks.

---

The Blitzkrieg emphasized breakthrough and deep penetration to savage command, control and logistics. Part of that involved the ability to smash armored reserve formations, particularly if they could be caught off-balance, but that was secondary to inducing a strategic "shock" effect on the enemy formations. Once shock set in, fighting effectiveness went way down and - despite the bravery of many such units - defeat was almost inevitable. This was particularly true of armies that were relatively inflexible in doctrine and training such as Russia, France, and most of the "minor" combatants.

Seamus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kraxis

I would say the T-34 was the first of the real tank vs. tank tanks. Others had previously been made to combat tanks but this was the first that could do it all (and did it all).

---

I could make an argument for the Pzkw-3g, since I think it went operational first and the 50 was thought to be an excellent main gun for tank-to-tank at the time, but I have to agree that the T-34 was the first one designed from the first to do tank v. tank and penetration assault.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kraxis

The Abrams is lucky to have a nice compatriot in the Bradley, with a nice little group of infantry in tow. And of coruse the alltime biggest infanty killer, artillery is also nearby. The tank has become a shock-troop, rather than a true warrior, it is intended to roll on, and keep rolling. That is actually a return to the old tanks of early WWII, say a Pz II for isntance.

---

True, though there were a couple of phases in gulf 1 and gulf 2 where it functioned as the point of the spear in tank on tank fashion.

Seamus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

True, though there were a couple of phases in gulf 1 and gulf 2 where it functioned as the point of the spear in tank on tank fashion.

Seamus

---

Well, I didn't intend to say that it wouldn't fight tanks head on. It is obviously intended for first and foremost, given that 100% of its ammo is AP (either sabot or HEAT). But it has been learned that a tank doesn't need to be particularly effective against the soft targets, its shock-effect and the fact that it is rummaging in the rear is more than enough. The follow-up troops can clean the house, while the tanks roll on.

I think that it could be argued that the M1 A2 Abrams follows more the traditition of German tanks then Allied ones.It is also very heavily armored,has a very good gun and relyes wery much on hightech.It also consumes huge amount of gasoline.The tactics used by Abrams is also very much the same that was used with Tigers.Hit the enemy from so far away,that they doesnt even have the chance to penetrate your own armour.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kagemusha

I think that it could be argued that the M1 A2 Abrams follows more the traditition of German tanks then Allied ones.It is also very heavily armored,has a very good gun and relyes wery much on hightech.It also consumes huge amount of gasoline.The tactics used by Abrams is also very much the same that was used with Tigers.Hit the enemy from so far away,that they doesnt even have the chance to penetrate your own armour.

---

After burying way too many Sherman drivers and other crew between '42 and '54, US design efforts increasingly focused on creating a main battle tank that combined the mobility of the T-34 and M-4 series with the relative fighting power of the Pzkw-Vs and VI's. The Abrams is the culmination of these efforts. As Kraxis points out, in the attack the number one job is indeed the blitzkrieg shock effect, and the Abrams is fast and reliable enough to do it.

As to killing at range, engagement ranges in open terrain have been increasing for years -- the Abrams is not the only tank out there that can hit and kill at those ranges, just one of the better ones at doing the job. Optics, laser-sighting etc. have greatly increase potential tank engagement ranges over the WW2 era. You combine the those advantages with excellent training and then set an Abrams platoon against under-trained opponents in a tank whose basic design is 10-15 years older and has not/cannot be upgraded to modern electronic standard (the T-72) and the result is very nasty on the receiving end.

All tanks guzzle fuel. Given that an Abrams weighs in at around 63 English tons, and is designed to haul that weight off-road at 40+kph, it's mileage isn't bad. No AFV is going to compete with hybrids any time soon. ~:)

Seamus

I think you are right Seamus. :bow: But i feel there is one tank in the world wich maybe even better then Abrams series.Merkava 4 from Israel.It is a true multi-role vehicle.Ofcourse it´s main role is the main battle tank of Irael,but it is also an APC,since it can carry eight infantry soldiers inside it.It also has internal 60mm mortar system wich shoots also HE ammunation.Last it can shoot with high angles and its new EL OP fire control system that allows it to shoot even assault helicopters.Here is a link with some information about it. :bow:

It depends on where you will use, and how you will use, the Merkerva.

If we send it into a full battle on some plain in Europe or in the desert against a mobile enemy, it will show serious deficiencies. It is a tank that has been created for the very special needs of Israel. It needs to have infantry skintight, and to have a better chance of survival against unconventional weapons. Speed is not much of an issue when you are supposed to chase infantry around, nor when you are supposed to defend the border.

The Abrams was developed as a tank of maneuver. It was argued that the limited numbers of western tanks couldn't stand up to the hordes of Russian tanks in a normal battle. Thus the tank was supposed to shoot-and-scoot, staying away from major enemy formations while inflicting losses from afar. As we have seen, that has been rather successful, but then again the desert is the natural habitat for a tank like the Abrams, while the Russian tanks with their smaller size and in general better speed (though lesser stabilization) are perfect for the broken European terrain (a village here, a wood there, small river over there, little hill in front). In such terrain it would have a good chance of closing with the enemy, if he opted to stay in place. The endresult would be a matter of doctrine.

The Merkerva is more of a Tiger, while the Abrams is more of a T-34, though neither are great comparisons.

Krax' is spot on with that last post.

Seamus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kagemusha

I think you are right Seamus. :bow: But i feel there is one tank in the world wich maybe even better then Abrams series.Merkava 4 from Israel.It is a true multi-role vehicle.Ofcourse it´s main role is the main battle tank of Irael,but it is also an APC,since it can carry eight infantry soldiers inside it.It also has internal 60mm mortar system wich shoots also HE ammunation.Last it can shoot with high angles and its new EL OP fire control system that allows it to shoot even assault helicopters.Here is a link with some information about it. :bow:

---

The Merkava is a neat tank ~:) that is one of the few in service that was actually developed in war time and with a lot of input from tank crews being taken into consideration for its design. The Israelies knew how important a good tank crew was worth and designed it with maximum crew survivability in mind; it even includes an egress hatch in the rear for deploying those 8 troops or for the crew to make a quick escape if in danger. Good tank for its role but it isn’t really in the same league as the M1A1 or the Challenger, their armor and weapon systems are too advanced. :bow:

Artillery is a highly effective weapon against armor. It is a myth that you need to score a direct hit to destroy a tank. A 155mm HE round exploding within 30 meters of a tank of that era (as well as today) would have caused considerable damage, if not destroying it. You don't necessarily need to score direct hits to take a tank out of action. A tank's treads could easily be disabled by shrapnel, and an immobile tank is for all practical purposes a nearly useless one. Shrapnel can also disable gun sights, gun tubes, communication equipment ect.

Source(s) for this? Shrapnel has, historically, killed and injured a lot of soft fleshy bodies, but failed to cut wire or penetrate reinforced defenses. Yet you claim it can de-track a tank with a near miss? This is counterintuitive. The only artillery success versus armor I was able to swat up was with 88mm field guns against WW2 german tanks over open sights at 600 yards.

Seamus

.303 rifles could stop the tracks of tanks... I can't see why shrapnel could not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Franconicus

This thread may sound silly to you. German tanks were one of the best in WW2. Panther, Tiger, Tiger2 and many more outclassed their opponents. On the other side I think they were overdesigned. It took too many resources and menhours to build them. They were too susceptible against technical defects.

---

You are at least partially right. They did indeed have absolute geniuses working for them. That gave them great tanks. But from what I've heard from discussions on History International channel, the Soviets had much better tanks but were poorly upkept and it's crew poorly trained. How they got those tanks? Search me!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Derfasciti

...the Soviets had much better tanks but were poorly upkept and it's crew poorly trained. How they got those tanks? Search me!

---

Good question. The Russian tanks were not much better with the exception of the T-34[1], based on an American design that the US military rejected. But some Russian general must have had a good eye to pick up the design - clearly Stalin did not kill all the talent in the Red Army in the 1930s purges. Or is there a tragic story to this too?

[1]The KV-1 was also an amazingly powerful tank for the early war period - there's a story about the Germans spending a whole day trying to knock one out when they first encountered it. But it was not produced in the quantities to have the kind of war-affecting impact of the T-34.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Simon Appleton

Good question. The Russian tanks were not much better with the exception of the T-34[1], based on an American design that the US military rejected.

---

Suspension... The suspension was the part they kept of the Christie tank. The rest they came up with themselves. So it wasn't based on the Christie.

Personally I would say that the Russian designs were better. They were not individually as good as the German ones, but had the Russians had the same doctrine to tank warfare and had the same training and experience I believe we would have seen comparable losses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Longshanks

Artillery is a highly effective weapon against armor. It is a myth that you need to score a direct hit to destroy a tank. A 155mm HE round exploding within 30 meters of a tank of that era (as well as today) would have caused considerable damage, if not destroying it. You don't necessarily need to score direct hits to take a tank out of action. A tank's treads could easily be disabled by shrapnel, and an immobile tank is for all practical purposes a nearly useless one. Shrapnel can also disable gun sights, gun tubes, communication equipment ect.

---

I said almost the same thing, yet I was ignored by the posters.

Quote:

---

The best thing to fight tanks is tanks. AT artillery doesn't cut it.

---

I definitely disagree with these statements. AT artillery in WW2 was most certainly an effective counter-measure to tanks and had an important role in the tactical methods of all armies fighting at the time.

The idea of AT artillery is not that one gun or perhaps even two will defeat a high-quality tank, but that if you get enough pieces into a defensive line in concealed positions, and the enemy armor attacks them, they'll at least take out enough enemy tanks to allow friendly armor to finish the job later on.

What's more, AT artillery on many occasions in WW2 was enough to stop tanks cold, decimating their ranks and forcing them to call in support. This was especially true with German AT artillery vs Allied tanks, though even as a German panzer commander I would be very nervous using armor against a prepared, unsoftened defensive line.

Tanks in their proper use are for exploiting enemy weak points and operating in enemy flank and rear areas-- it is the infantry's job to take down strong defensive positions. This is best illustrated by the US Army's tactics during the First Gulf War-- Combat Engineers, supported by Helicopters, took on the Iraqi defensive wall; the tanks drove around and struck at the soft underbelly.

..

The reason that tank-vs.-tank effectiveness is so important is NOT because tanks are the best solution to kill tanks-- they most certainly are not. But if an enemy armored division breaks through your line, or comes around the rear, what else can you hope to counter it with?

And if you use your armor to break through your enemy's line, or come around their flank, what are your tanks most likely to face next?

Hence armor vs. armor.

DA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Longshanks

A 155mm HE round exploding within 30 meters of a tank of that era (as well as today) would have caused considerable damage, if not destroying it.

---

Quote:

---

a .303 round could take out tank tracks

---

COULD, theoretically, a .303 bullet or a piece of shrapnel from a shell that exploded a full 30m away disable a tank?

Maybe.

Is it likely? I would say that the body of historical and engineering evidence would say most definitely NO.

Near-hits from HE shells most certainly have been and are dangerous for tanks, but they would have to be much nearer than 30m to have a serious chance of disabling or destroying.

And while HE artillery barrages can indeed be effective against tanks, they are certainly less efficient than direct fire from appropriate weapons.

And while I'm sure that a .303 bullet could stop a tank track, or shoot the TC dead for that matter, the odds have gotta be slim, or they never would have invented AT rockets or any of that great jazz.

..

But I'll agree that there are alot of things that can go wrong with a tank, alot of ways to hurt it, and that's one of the reasons why infantry always was and continues to be so important.

DA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Simon Appleton

Good question. The Russian tanks were not much better with the exception of the T-34[1], based on an American design that the US military rejected. But some Russian general must have had a good eye to pick up the design - clearly Stalin did not kill all the talent in the Red Army in the 1930s purges. Or is there a tragic story to this too?

---

But of course there is tragedy, you are speaking of Stalinist Russia! The Soviets were, briefly the leaders in combined arms thinking -- Germany even sent folks there to train and observe -- including Guderian (Stolpi, "Hitler's Panzers East"). The key Ruski was a chap named Tukhachevskiy, who advocated the use of massed armored formations to achieve breakthrough followed by rapid exploitation. He assiduously backed the development and use of the Christie Suspension tanks (BT & T-34 series). His reward?

Quote:

---

n Soviet Russia, Thomas G. Mahnken describes the military's attitude towards tanks as "largely unencumbered by tradition". In fact while British commanders originally felt the need to separate tanks from infantry to preserve roles, Russian commanders viewed the tank within a combined arms context. As Mahnken describes, "a future battle would unfold in two phases. The first would consist of a massed, echeloned attack along a narrow front by mechanized divisions operating in conjunction with infantry, artillery, and aviation. Once through the front lines, this force would attempt to convert the tactical breakthrough into an operation success by penetrating into the enemy's rear areas, disrupting his command and control, and destroying his reserves." This description should seem hauntingly familiar, having heard the German concept of blitzkrieg. Unfortunately for the Soviets, Stalin was a major proponent of the cavalry and sought to protect that ancient tradition from encroachment. On June 12, 1937, Stalin executed Mikhail N. Tukhachevskiy and several other commanders who were at the forefront of combined arms advocacy.

---

Soviet Russia disbanded its large armored formations in 38 and 39, only going back to them in late 40 and early 41 when German success indicated that Tukhachevskiy had been right all along. Had he not gotten whacked, the Germans may not have been the ones launching an assault in 1941.

Seamus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Arroyo

I definitely disagree with these statements. AT artillery in WW2 was most certainly an effective counter-measure to tanks and had an important role in the tactical methods of all armies fighting at the time.

The idea of AT artillery is not that one gun or perhaps even two will defeat a high-quality tank, but that if you get enough pieces into a defensive line in concealed positions, and the enemy armor attacks them, they'll at least take out enough enemy tanks to allow friendly armor to finish the job later on.

What's more, AT artillery on many occasions in WW2 was enough to stop tanks cold, decimating their ranks and forcing them to call in support. This was especially true with German AT artillery vs Allied tanks, though even as a German panzer commander I would be very nervous using armor against a prepared, unsoftened defensive line....

The reason that tank-vs.-tank effectiveness is so important is NOT because tanks are the best solution to kill tanks-- they most certainly are not...DA

---

Del:

To both agree and disagree....

Yes AT guns were effective components of almost all of the defensive efforts in European and African combat in WW2. They produced a significant percentage of all tank kills recorded. So why were they phased out?

Answer = mobility & survivability. Towed AT guns, however powerful, were vulnerable to infantry and standard artillery response. As the war progressed, both the Soviets and the Germans, and to some extent the US/UK shifted to Assault guns because of their mobility and survivability. Towed AT weaponry even ended up being thrown away, as with the Sovs at Kursk, simply to slow an attack down a bit -- no transport provided, just shoot until overrun.

Assault guns, tanks, and tank destroyers were subsequently found to be funtionally interchangeable in practice, so why bother to build several types of AFV, just concentrate on a better battle tank.

AT guns weren't bad as guns, just superceded (though never entirely replaced, I'l admit) in practice.


As to the other artillery fans out there, I have yet to see any compelling sources provided for artillery used in an effective anti-tank role during WW2 unless firing over open sights at fairly close range. HE concussion and light-weight shrapnel do not seem likely to damage any but the lightest of AFV's.

Seamus