German Tanks in WW2 - the wrong conception

[IliaDN]

IMO it was just a part of the war competition.
They had to do it just because of the fact they could't breach several tanks armor with their previous armor.
Also they had to improve their tanks armor not to allow enemies breach it to easily.
Sorry if this is too messy.
P.S. E.G. Soviet IS 1 or 2 breached panther's ( if I am not mistaken) from quit a distance.

[econ21]

Yes, I think you have to look at cost-effectiveness. The Sherman, for example, is often looked down upon because tank for tank it was clearly inferior to the Panther. But technically, the Sherman was a pretty decent tank - for example, compared to the lauded T-34. And some writers have assessed it as more cost-effective than the Panther, if you factor in its lower cost of production.

As IllaDIN implies, I suspect our perception of WW2 tanks is rather influenced by the timing of development cycle in each country. Up until 1942, German tanks were not so superior in hardware. But no one noticed much, because they were used so effectively. What people focus on are the Tigers and Panthers rushed out to counter the T-34. In turn, by 1945 the Allied tanks were starting to benefit from the effort to counter the Tigers and Panthers. But it was pretty much all over by the time they (Pershing, Joseph Stalin series etc) came on in numbers.

[English assassin]

As I may have posted before, the unquestionable superiority of the Tiger over, say, the Sherman or T34 is put into some perspective when you realise that about 1400 Tigers were manufactured compared to more than 40,000 each of the Sherman and T34 (including an incredible 21231 Shermans in 1943, compare peak production of the Panther at 3777 in 1944). Even the British managed to make over 8000 of the not-very-good Valentine tank.

Another factor that can be overlooked is that to be any use you have to get a tank to a battlefield in working order. The T34, for instance, was tolerant of poor maintenance and bad conditions, important factors when it was being operated in a Russian spring thaw by troops and mechanics who may never have seen a motorised vehicle before. Both T34 and Sherman were also easier to transport than heavier tanks.

Final observation is that, possibly characteristic of a gangster regime, armoured vehicle design and production was factionalised. Guderian was most frustrated to find, when he was put in charge of overall design and production of all panzers, that this did NOT include SPGs (these being classified as artillery not as Panzers). Contrast this with the Russians efficient standardisation on two chassis only (T34 and KV, laterly used as the chassis for the JS heavy tanks) or the Americans equally efficient use of the M4.

Finally the tactical conception of the tank was different, in the American army at least. Tank-tank combat was primarily to be carried out with tank destroyers, tanks being used to make advances against enemy positions being held with infantry, AT guns and artillery. So, although this concept too was flawed, it would be a fairer comparison to compare an M10 or M36 with the Panther rather than the (clearly profoundly outclassed) Sherman.

[Kraxis]

I wouldn't say that the Germans did wrong in beginning to dabble with heavier tanks. After all the Tiger was a very old project that got up to speed due to the T-34, and the Panther was a direct counter, simply because the Germans had no counter to the T-34.
True the Pz IV was equipped with the long barreled 75mm, and it could thus do something about it, but that kind of tank wasn't available when the either project when ahead.
Also, the Germans knew they culdn't hope to outproduce the Russians when they were geared for war. Thus a slightly inferior tank was not the answer to countering hordes of enemy tanks.

One could argue that Hitler perhaps jumped the projects too much, and forced changes on both Tiger and Panther production. Initially the Panther was not meant to have been heavier than 30 tons (the same with the Tiger), and the 'T-34' version of the Panther (looks uncannily like a T-34) was in fact much lighter than the resulting Panther, but it was felt it was too obvious it was copied from the Russians.

[yesdachi]

I recently saw the show “Top Ten Tanks” on the military channel (I love TV ). The show ranked the Tiger #3 and noted that the tanks biggest weakness was that it was too complex to produce rapidly and in mass. It also noted that the Tiger was the first tank to have 2 way radios in each one. It would have been pretty tough to organize a good blitzkrieg without them.

There was a small part in the Tiger segment were they talk about the Tigers armor and actually show a Tiger that took IIRC 270+ hits from Shermans and wasn’t destroyed. They were definitely over-designed but what great crew survivability (at least against the shermans ).

Link to #3 of the top 10
http://military.discovery.com/conver...deshow_08.html

[Kraxis]

Odd ranking system... Fear factor included, which is a very strange thing as all tanks are very scary if haven't got the weapons to stop them.
Also, certain tanks are ranked lower because they weren't poduced in large numbers (Merkerva for instance), but that doesn't take into account that those that scored high on that were produced in war, meaning they had a good reason to use more assemblylines for tanks. And it doesn't take into account that the country might not want to build that many tanks, or can't due to limited industry.

While I agree with most of the list I find their way of handling it flawed.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

German Armored Superiority wasn't, for the most part, a product of their tanks.

1939-1942, their real success was in using those tanks in the aggressive and non-stop manner that maximizes the "shock" value of armor.

The Pz-Is and IIs of the Polish campaign were better than Polish tankettes, but not by much. About 25% of German armor were the Czech 35s and 38s, a very limited light tank (albeit a good one in its class).

The Pz-IIs and IIIs of the French campaign were, at best, equal to the French armor, and were inferior to the Char-1. British armor was inferior, except for the Matilda, which was almost invulnerable to German armor.

Soviet armor in '41 was often inferior to the Germans, aside from a handful of T-34a's, but they had something approaching 20-1 numbers.

In all 3 campaigns, the Germans tore their opponents apart because they used their armor en masse and for penetration -- the Blitzkrieg.

From 1942 on, Germany produced good tanks, and sometimes excellent tanks, but the number one factor in their success was the better artillery that they carried. The Long 50, Long 75, Extra Long 75, 88, and 88 Long weapons mounted by virtually every mark of German tank from mid-1942 on easily outclassed almost every tank or tank destroyer gun they faced until late 1944 or 1945, and they weren't really surpassed as tank weapons until the late 1950's.

German tanks were often labor intensive, and the early models suffered from teething problems which, during the press of war, were not ironed out before deploying them. German tank guns, however, whether mounted on an STG or a Pz-Vg, almost always grossly outshot their opponents and allowed the Germans to face ridiculous odds with some hope of success.

Allied tanks were often mechanically more reliable (the M4 and T-34 chasses famously so) and they were much cheaper to produce, but they had to be -- cause they got killed in much worse ratios as well. The First tank to have both a main gun and frontal armor that definitively outclassed the Pzkw-vG was the M-48. The penetration factor (key to a tank kill) of that extra long 75mm weapon was staggering. The Russian 100L and 122L and German 88L's were no better despite their better throw-weight.

Seamus

[Kraxis]

I would say that the IS-2 was better than the Panther in a one-shot situation. Better frontal armour, smaller size (though not much) and a much heavier gun (though not much better for the AP part). And that tank was definately on the scene prior to the M-48.

Also the 88mmL71 was definately superior to the 75mmL70 of the Panther. The L51 of the Tiger I was not much better, and in some cases it was slightly less effective than the 75mm of the Panther.