They were gonna copy the T 34, but instead they made the Panther, a dedicated T 34 killer. And there were a lot of problems with the early Panther, but the T 34 was even worse early on in its development. About 6 months in most of the major kinks with the Panther were gone and you had an efficient T 34 muncher, which is what they really needed at the time, and it only cost them slightly more than the Panzer IV to make per unit. They probably would have made more Panthers had they not been starving for fuel at the time, so they had to focus more on the less thirsty STUGs.
He's probably talking variants.
StuG 3 for example.
>I don't really know why they kept making panzer IVs later on in the war
Easier and chepaer to make then Panther?
Nah, the IV had a ton of angles.
Not easy to make at all. They probably didn't have the resources to retool every factory.
Pz4 was generally worse than the Sherman, which many wehraboos seem to tease
Cause the Sherman was a proper medium tank.
The original Panzer IV was lighter than a Chaffee and its springleaf suspension couldn't handle all the weight in later production runs.
The Panzer 3 handled the weight better but didn't have a big enough turret ring to fit a long 75.
hi is right, and hi dont mean stug, hi mean pancer 3
the t34 welding was so dogshit the armor would crack from a single hit from 50 mm
the t34 , the one that fought at war, had effective speed of 15 km/h , all the variants you see in russian made games are post war
the t34 was cramped and had one of the worst fatality % after getting hit , of all ww2 tanks (only 1 out of 5 crewman would survive an penetrating shoot)
Panzer IVs 75mm could defeat the frontal armor of a later T 34, but not reliably, and not at range. The longer 75mm on the Panther however was great for kill T 34 at extreme ranges, which was useful on the eastern plains. In addition, panzer IVs would get fricked by 85mm guns of later t 34, while the panther frontal armor could almost always deflect from that. Hell, I don't really know why they kept making panzer IVs later on in the war. I would have just made STUGs and Panthers.
[...]
The main weakness of the German tanks was their inconvenience of maintence. This wasn't as bad with the medium tanks up to the Panther, but it was horrendous with the heavy tanks. I'm sure a lot of their medium tanks and tank destroyers were very nice tanks, but I'm not so confident in their heavy tank doctrine, especially with stupid shit like the Jagdtiger. The only Allied tank I think that saw much combat in the war that really blows German tanks out of the water was the Pershing, but that thing was rushed into the war too late, and had similar teething problems to the Panther.
>le i got the knowlege from video game
any german 75 mm would destroy t34
50mm was enaugh for that
any 75 mm he would rip off t34 front plate
50 mm he would cause internal armor spalding , knocking off/killing crew
the 75 mm of t34 had only few mm more penetration than sherman 50mm,
the 85 mm of t34 had less penetrating power than shermans 75/76mm
on range of 1000 m + t34 75mm would not penetrate panzer4,
>(only 1 out of 5 crewman would survive an penetrating shoot)
what source are you using for this?
2 years ago
Anonymous
not him but the source seems to be from US assessments made based on the T-34/85 in the Korean War. I can't seem to find the original source. I think it is buried in the CIA engineering assessment of the tank but that shit is 500 pages long and isn't word searchable but it does seem to list every single technical issue with the T-34 (a post war production one too as far as I know) including the MMA welds seemingly done by someone with Parkinson's disease
2 years ago
Anonymous
i have the engineering analysis, and it is just that--an engineering analysis. it does not concern itself with combat casualty analysis
Not sure if that was accurate for the whole war or only the early years before the PzIVF2 with it's long barreled 75.
Although early on the PzIII did make up more than 50% of all T-34 kills.
Max and Moritz will always hold a special place in my heart.
Same
the Pershing didn't see much combat, iirc only about 25 even made it to Europe before the war ended. But yeah it was definitely better, gun and armor comparable to the Tiger I while being way lighter.
Would be disappointing if it weren't substantially better than one that started development before the war.
Pershing vs IS3 would have been interesting.
the most accurate german kill-count was at operation goodwood, where they claimed 500 tank kills (post-50% slash)
british did record 500 losses that day
now here comes the small print:
british have different casualty counting from the germans
only 150 tanks were written off, the other 350 tanks all re-entered service, some the very next day
Well of course that's how it works. From the german point of view they took out 500 tanks and that's it, they can't know which will be written of. It's the same way for everyone.
>From the german point of view they took out 500 tanks and that's it,
good wood was about as good as it got
at kursk, they claimed about 7000 kills, when 6000 soviet tanks were lost to all causes
both sides learned pretty quickly that claims were totally bogus and only really kept tallies for propaganda purposes
Yes, there's nothing they won't say to cope. Although coping about WW2 germany is old and not exclusively slavic.
It's roots began with just refuting german superweapon claims and ended in trashing everything german because you can't say positive things about nazis.
thats reality
nazi stuff was far from perfect, and in many cases was far behind allied technology
the only reason it seems advanced is because desperation pushed them to bring prototypes into service much earlier while allies could afford to win with things that worked
the absolute worst time was the 70s and 80s when extreme wehrabooism was at its peak
but thankfully the opening of the soivet archives for a brief moment in the 90s and the lack of a need to create credibility for the germans meant we can all talk openly about how bad german stuff actually was
>the only reason it seems advanced is because desperation pushed them to bring prototypes into service much earlier while allies could afford to win with things that worked
I'm not to sure how much of it is that.
Personally I think it was more with them correctly envisioning how "modern" war was fought/forcing everyone else to fight according to their understanding.
Well and things like their standing army being trained to lead a larger conscripted force, focus on initiative etc.
If I recall correctly most super nazi science claims came up in the years after the war, partially to excuse early mistakes.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Personally I think it was more with them correctly envisioning how "modern" war was fought/forcing everyone else to fight according to their understanding.
by the end of the war, pretty much every side was fighting a modern war
not because the nazis invented it, but because fighting a massive war leads to the dumb stuff getting weeded out early on
stuff the germans were working on were stuff the allies had begun working on at the same time or even earlier
really the only truly revolutionary thing the germans made that the allies scrambled to copy as soon as they could exactly how it was, was the jerry can, the only addition they added was an X on the side
otherwise, german tech was on par or really behind the allies in several key areas
german radar was still decimentric, german radios were still AM until 1944, german casting facilities too small to do anything bigger than a tank hatch
stuff they were genuinely unable or unwilling to bring up to par with the western equivelant, but because they got a jet fighter in the air first (by an extremely slim margin, the meteor was mere weeks from deployment) and they had a V2 rocket (that the allies honestly had no reason to build, and the V2 ended up fairly useless anyways) it gives the impression that the germans were mode advanced
they werent
>the only reason it seems advanced is because desperation pushed them to bring prototypes into service much earlier while allies could afford to win with things that worked >what are the 1930s
what a Black person you are
Panzer IVs 75mm could defeat the frontal armor of a later T 34, but not reliably, and not at range. The longer 75mm on the Panther however was great for kill T 34 at extreme ranges, which was useful on the eastern plains. In addition, panzer IVs would get fricked by 85mm guns of later t 34, while the panther frontal armor could almost always deflect from that. Hell, I don't really know why they kept making panzer IVs later on in the war. I would have just made STUGs and Panthers.
Germany couldn't win against so many powerful enemies, but it's not because of the tanks it used
the tanks may have been a bit worse than the Allied counterparts, but they could destroy most enemy gear too, so they did the job
The main weakness of the German tanks was their inconvenience of maintence. This wasn't as bad with the medium tanks up to the Panther, but it was horrendous with the heavy tanks. I'm sure a lot of their medium tanks and tank destroyers were very nice tanks, but I'm not so confident in their heavy tank doctrine, especially with stupid shit like the Jagdtiger. The only Allied tank I think that saw much combat in the war that really blows German tanks out of the water was the Pershing, but that thing was rushed into the war too late, and had similar teething problems to the Panther.
the Pershing didn't see much combat, iirc only about 25 even made it to Europe before the war ended. But yeah it was definitely better, gun and armor comparable to the Tiger I while being way lighter.
Yeah... maybe much combat was the wrong word. There were some later allied tanks that technically existed during the end of the war, but didn't even do their jobs as tanks. The Pershing actually did take out some Germany tanks. And it was more like 300 Pershings were in Europe before the end of the war.
>I don't really know why they kept making panzer IVs later on in the war. I would have just made STUGs and Panthers.
the plan was to make only panthers
but they could never make enough to fill demand, so panzer IV production lines were kept open and even expanded to fill the gaps >but the panther was easier to assemble
it was, which is why they could build so many despite entering service only in 1943
but they were still only able to provide 50% tank strength at peak-pantherness
and the panzer IV hull was used for specialist vehicles anyways, so its not like they could close panzer IV lines entirely
this is really just all symptoms of lack of foresight and proper management in the overall nazi warmachine
It has alot of things I really like. Lots of escape hatches, overall high survivability, periscopes for both commander AND gunner (looking at you Panther) and the stabilizer was nice even though most of the troops weren't properly educated in its use. It was definitey the best all around tank of the war when it first went into combat.
Downside was its armor was not adequate later in the war, and they focused too much on making the thing fit well on trains, which compromised it with a high profile and too narrow tracks. But they should have been pumping out a Panther like replacement by early 1944. Instead they stuck with their stupid doctrine of no heavies until it was proven clearly wrong in France. By then it was too late to rush in the Pershing. Oh well, it's not like any of that would have mattered in the long run if they did it. Might have saved some American lives though.
Downside was its armor was not adequate later in the war
they did publish a report on the possibility of uparmoring it
but they founf out even if the frontal armor was made thick enough to repel the 88mm and long 75, this would only translate to a 10% increase in protection
because a majority of enemy threats were medium L/46 and L/48 75mm and 5cm guns
and 60% of penetrations occured along the side hull
in any case, the M4 was not particularly badly armored, as the most produced german tank, the panzer IV, had worse armor, and the T-34 had comparable armor
>and they focused too much on making the thing fit well on trains, which compromised it with a high profile and too narrow tracks. But they should have been pumping out a Panther like replacement by early 1944.
this is part of the US systemic approach to warfare
focusing on the big picture and how the vehicle would interact with every other element of the war machine rather than solely on tactical performance
Instead they stuck with their stupid doctrine of no heavies until it was proven clearly wrong in France.
heavies were a stupid idea, and focusing on a streamlined production line of medium tanks was the best choice
The fact that the Germans were ever able to stop US armored pushes or even worse make major counter attacks in late 1944 should should show how effective their armor could be. The US tanks were successful against the Germans most of the time because they had immense numerical advantage, a frickton of air support, and pretty much every other advantage other than that the Germans had more skilled crews and better tanks.
It doesn't make much sense to me for the US to obsess about streamlining their production and transport. If you really want to streamline things, don't produce tanks at all. If you've already got humongous production capacity like the US did, why worry so much about it? If you're Germans, sure, but the US should have tried harder for the quality over quantity approach. The Soviets learned how important minmaxing could be with tanks the hard way, and I think the US did to, considering how radically different the Pershing was from the Sherman in philosophy. Simple fact is Sherman was yesterdays tank which could still do its job well and be upgraded to a point, but really whenever you develop a military vehicle you should begin seriously developing its replacement the moment it enters production. As an American, I'm rather butthurt that we didn't see Pershings or something like it fighting in Normandy, when we were entirely capable of building that.
BTW, I kind of do agree with you on the heavies were a stupid idea thing. Kind of. But the action on the Eastern Front proved that it really helps to have a breakthrough tank that can deflect most of what your enemy can throw at you while defeating whatever armor it encounters. And the Pershing, had the US really tried with it, would have been that PLUS it really didn't sacrifice mobility.
>The fact that the Germans were ever able to stop US armored pushes or even worse make major counter attacks in late 1944 should should show how effective their armor could be.
last german counter-attack at the ardennes was a massive failure that only succeeded due to poor weather grounding US air support
even then, US medium tanks and TDs were trading 1:1 against enemy king tigers and panthers
US armor actually performed well
earlier at arracourt, US armor massacred german panthers despite lacking air support
replacing M4s with M26s wouldnt have mattered at all, or would have reduced overall disposition by reducing local tank strenght and effective controlled space
1 tank is only 1/4th as effective as 2 tanks, and can only control half the space
>It doesn't make much sense to me for the US to obsess about streamlining their production and transport
because war is fought with logistics and industry
M26s could only be shipped at 1/2 or 1/3rd the capacity of M4s
and M26s were too slow and cumbersome for maneuver, so you would need M4s anyways
but M4s were succesfully capable of creating breakthrough anyways, leaving the M26 in something of a redundant position
it was only good at exactly one task >But the action on the Eastern Front proved that it really helps to have a breakthrough tank that can deflect most of what your enemy can throw at you while defeating whatever armor it encounters.
IS-2s had almost no real effect on the eastern front
the war was fought and won with medium tanks
breakthrough could and did be performed by T-34-85s
2 years ago
Anonymous
>The IS 2s had almost no real effect on the eastern front
I think you might be moronic. Also, who the hell told you there was no American air support at Arracourt? Because there was. Like, a lot.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Also, who the hell told you there was no American air support at Arracourt?
german armor advanced under fog to negate US air scouting and recon, which also prevented interdiction by CAS
with the exception of bazooka charlie, who was brave enough to fly his spotter plane with jury-rigged bazookas well below the cloud layer
tactical air command wasnt able to join in until after US armored elements had managed to make contact and inflict heavy losses on the germans
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Also, who the hell told you there was no American air support at Arracourt?
german armor advanced under fog to negate US air scouting and recon, which also prevented interdiction by CAS
with the exception of bazooka charlie, who was brave enough to fly his spotter plane with jury-rigged bazookas well below the cloud layer
tactical air command wasnt able to join in until after US armored elements had managed to make contact and inflict heavy losses on the germans
>German armor advanced under fog to negate US air scouting and recon
The mere presence of massive air superiority actually achieved a significant advantage for the US in Arracourt by this fact alone.
Having to advance into enemy positions without proper reconnaissance units (many destroyed by air support earlier) in fricking dense Fog no less is an advantageous position that was only achieved by virtue of their massive Air supremacy at that point in the war.
It was a massive blunder on the Germans behalf to even attempt such an operation, and credit still goes to the crews and fighting prowess of the Americans. But it was an unbalanced situation for the Germans from the outset, due mainly to airpower. Its a poor example IMO of American tanks being better on a 1 v 1 basis to German tanks.
People simply see that Americans Tanks rekt German tanks in a single engagement at relatively equal numbers, ignoring all other context. Similar results couldve been achieved with T-34s or just about any tanks with enough firepower to destroy Panzers. Defensive advantage, lack of enemy recon, and the disorganization and poor visibility that comes with advancing into FOG, and lesser trained/experienced late war German tank crews would take care of the rest either way.
All that aside 73 German tanks were destroyed or damaged by US air power in the battle anyway, so they had both a significant passive and decisive active role in the battle anyway.
>IS-2s had almost no real effect on the eastern front
I see what you're trying to get at with the "big scheme of things" angle, but as the other anon said that's still a silly statement.
IS-2s were a serious shock for the Germans and helped deal with German heavies that in battles where it would've otherwise have taken innumerable T-34s to achieve. Not to mention they were a decisive weapon in the heavy urban combat the Soviets engaged in during the later half of the war.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Its a poor example IMO of American tanks being better on a 1 v 1 basis to German tanks.
but it is an example of why the M26s deployment in europe was superfluous
they could already deal with existing german armor with existing weapons
and they already had about 200 jumbo shermans that did the exact same thing for the assault role without adding a new tank to the existing supply chain >IS-2s were a serious shock for the Germans and helped deal with German heavies that in battles where it would've otherwise have taken innumerable T-34s to achieve.
IS-2s werent specifically used against tanks and ultimately just proved everything wrong about heavy tanks
they were mostly just a win-more piece of equipment, something that just lets you win by a bigger margin than you were before
used for a relatively narrow role and would not really impact the balance of power
2 years ago
Anonymous
>The mere presence of massive air superiority actually achieved a significant advantage >IS-2s were a serious shock for the Germans and helped deal with German heavies that in battles where it would've otherwise have taken innumerable T-34s to achieve
Its starting to look like you're talking out of both sides of your mouth.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Almost like air superiority on the Western front is totally incomparable to the state of soviet air superiority on the eastern front?
I'm sure you sounded clever in your head though.
>Its a poor example IMO of American tanks being better on a 1 v 1 basis to German tanks.
but it is an example of why the M26s deployment in europe was superfluous
they could already deal with existing german armor with existing weapons
and they already had about 200 jumbo shermans that did the exact same thing for the assault role without adding a new tank to the existing supply chain >IS-2s were a serious shock for the Germans and helped deal with German heavies that in battles where it would've otherwise have taken innumerable T-34s to achieve.
IS-2s werent specifically used against tanks and ultimately just proved everything wrong about heavy tanks
they were mostly just a win-more piece of equipment, something that just lets you win by a bigger margin than you were before
used for a relatively narrow role and would not really impact the balance of power
[...] >German armor advanced under fog to negate US air scouting and recon
The mere presence of massive air superiority actually achieved a significant advantage for the US in Arracourt by this fact alone.
Having to advance into enemy positions without proper reconnaissance units (many destroyed by air support earlier) in fricking dense Fog no less is an advantageous position that was only achieved by virtue of their massive Air supremacy at that point in the war.
It was a massive blunder on the Germans behalf to even attempt such an operation, and credit still goes to the crews and fighting prowess of the Americans. But it was an unbalanced situation for the Germans from the outset, due mainly to airpower. Its a poor example IMO of American tanks being better on a 1 v 1 basis to German tanks.
People simply see that Americans Tanks rekt German tanks in a single engagement at relatively equal numbers, ignoring all other context. Similar results couldve been achieved with T-34s or just about any tanks with enough firepower to destroy Panzers. Defensive advantage, lack of enemy recon, and the disorganization and poor visibility that comes with advancing into FOG, and lesser trained/experienced late war German tank crews would take care of the rest either way.
All that aside 73 German tanks were destroyed or damaged by US air power in the battle anyway, so they had both a significant passive and decisive active role in the battle anyway.
>IS-2s had almost no real effect on the eastern front
I see what you're trying to get at with the "big scheme of things" angle, but as the other anon said that's still a silly statement.
IS-2s were a serious shock for the Germans and helped deal with German heavies that in battles where it would've otherwise have taken innumerable T-34s to achieve. Not to mention they were a decisive weapon in the heavy urban combat the Soviets engaged in during the later half of the war.
Yeah agree about the M26 statement. though if you wanna call IS-2s (over 3000+ produced before wars end not including ISU-122/152s) irrelevant on one hand then talk about 200 Jumbo Sherman's like it's worth mention... well I hope you get the picture.
>they were mostly just a win-more piece of equipment
With late 1943 equipment/designs the Soviets and Americans would've overwhelming won the war either way. You could write off all equipment and designs past that point as not relevant using the logic of "its just win more equipment they're destined to win anyway". I get what you're trying to say with the "big picture" angle on things but the way you're approaching it is flawed and contradictory.
I know everyone likes the idea of single decisive pieces of equipment that change the fortunes of war. But with a few notable exceptions most equipment is derivative and only sways the odds in one nations favor slightly.
The other side of the coin is none of these developments happen in isolation. Do IS-2s only provide a 4-5% (made up figure for argument) improvement to the capability of Soviet breakthroughs. Sure, but then add in the concurrent improvements of better trained infantry, better coordinated artillery, better plane designs, better logistic capabilities etc. etc. and now the Soviets are 100% more capable at breakthroughs then they were beforehand.
All new equipment and developments are part of far, far larger equations. They aren't the equations in of themselves. That's the true "bigger picture" perspective.
Dismissing all introduced equipment that isn't as decisive as the introduction of the Sherman, t-34, zero, p-51 etc. As not relevant is just plain stupid.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>though if you wanna call IS-2s (over 3000+ produced before wars end not including ISU-122/152s) irrelevant on one hand then talk about 200 Jumbo Sherman's like it's worth mention... well I hope you get the picture.
not saying the jumbo sherman was relevant
just that if they ever needed a heavy breakthrough vehicle for which the M26 would be used, they already had an existing good enough vehicle that uses existing M4 equipment
> I get what you're trying to say with the "big picture" angle on things but the way you're approaching it is flawed and contradictory.
RIP, youre actually right about that
i really need to look at more IS-2 readings now
>smissing all introduced equipment that isn't as decisive as the introduction of the Sherman, t-34, zero, p-51 etc. As not relevant is just plain stupid.
you got me good there
got too fixated
2 years ago
Anonymous
>though if you wanna call IS-2s (over 3000+ produced before wars end not including ISU-122/152s) irrelevant on one hand then talk about 200 Jumbo Sherman's like it's worth mention... well I hope you get the picture.
not saying the jumbo sherman was relevant
just that if they ever needed a heavy breakthrough vehicle for which the M26 would be used, they already had an existing good enough vehicle that uses existing M4 equipment
> I get what you're trying to say with the "big picture" angle on things but the way you're approaching it is flawed and contradictory.
RIP, youre actually right about that
i really need to look at more IS-2 readings now
>smissing all introduced equipment that isn't as decisive as the introduction of the Sherman, t-34, zero, p-51 etc. As not relevant is just plain stupid.
you got me good there
got too fixated
Stop touching yourself, you wanker!
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Almost like air superiority on the Western front is totally incomparable to the state of soviet air superiority on the eastern front?
By 1944 they both had an overwhelming advantage.
>All new equipment and developments are part of far, far larger equations. They aren't the equations in of themselves. That's the true "bigger picture" perspective.
Which makes saying it would require innumerable t-34 to deal with heavies as obnoxious as there shouldn't have been heavy tank production.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>By 1944 they both had an overwhelming advantage.
Still totally incomparable, you should really read some books about the conflict. Western air support was far, far more coordinated, active and effective then the Soviets.
It's like saying the Soviets had an overwhelming naval advantage over the Japanese when the fought them in 1945. Yes, technically true but not worth mention in comparison to the Western allies naval advantage.
>"In the first three days of February 1945, 2,000 vehicles and 51 tanks were claimed to be lost to German air attacks."
Guess which front this happened on? This isn't too say Soviet airpower was irrelevant, far from it. But it was less decisive factor in victories in the east compared to the west.
>Which makes saying it would require innumerable t-34 to deal with heavies as obnoxious as there shouldn't have been heavy tank production.
I don't understand what you're trying to say at all. There shouldn't have been heavy tank production? Innumerable T-34s to destroy heavies is an obnoxious statement? You need to explain why you think that, your argument seems a bit jumbled.
>though if you wanna call IS-2s (over 3000+ produced before wars end not including ISU-122/152s) irrelevant on one hand then talk about 200 Jumbo Sherman's like it's worth mention... well I hope you get the picture.
not saying the jumbo sherman was relevant
just that if they ever needed a heavy breakthrough vehicle for which the M26 would be used, they already had an existing good enough vehicle that uses existing M4 equipment
> I get what you're trying to say with the "big picture" angle on things but the way you're approaching it is flawed and contradictory.
RIP, youre actually right about that
i really need to look at more IS-2 readings now
>smissing all introduced equipment that isn't as decisive as the introduction of the Sherman, t-34, zero, p-51 etc. As not relevant is just plain stupid.
you got me good there
got too fixated
Well you can take another perspective without getting entrenched or shit flinging which puts you above 99% of this board. You got the right idea atleast, just gotta work on some specifics.
>Easier and chepaer to make then Panther?
panther was only slightly more expensive than a panzer IV despite weighing more than 10 tons
but constant shortages of everything meant that they had to keep panzer IV production lines active just to meet their quotas
so they were caught in a catch-22
stop building panzer IVs to focus on panthers (like what speed wanted) and lose out on production for the better part of a year to re-tool
or keep putting panzer IVs out to meet demand, and bottleneck future growth
I think MHS in his interview with zaloga summed up armament factories.
The main cost of the factories is that the specialized tooling procured. Now some of those tooling is next to impossible to reuse.
Better would be to continue the production to at least reach higher tank production. Whole it may cost "more" to produce panzer, but it would mean you're still utilizing the tooling which you've already invested such a large amount.
This is why American and Soviet tank production was much better. The US could reuse most of the tooling for the M4s to produce improved versions while at a much much lower sunk cost than the autistic Germans.
>Hell, I don't really know why they kept making panzer IVs later on in the war
Institutional inertia. Their autistic production web was very hard to change because you had to retool ALL of the factories involved to make something else. With the Americans and Soviets breathing down their necks, Germany didn't have time to do so. They had to keep making whatever they could as quickly as possible, even if it wasn't ideal. Meanwhile the factories are getting bombed every other day, depriving them of vital components. No ball bearings? Guess you're fricked and the parts from the other factories will sit there useless.
America didn't have this problem, they had the luxury of not being bombed all the time so they could change their factories as needed to make new kinds of things.
Daimler-Benz's Panther prototype wasn't a copy T-34, though it took the hull shape as inspiration.
If you're interested, here's a huge article about the development of both MAN and DB's Panther prototypes: https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2-germany-vk3002-prototypes-panther/
I really don't see how Germany could have won once the US really dedicated itself to destroying them. Maybe if they developed a good long range bomber to hit Soviet industrial centers far off? Maybe if Stalin got assassinated and his successors were really stupid? I mean, it could have gone better for them maybe if the Americans had been more reasonable and offered ally with the conservatives in exchanged for them giving over the Nazis. But really, how do people think the Germans would have won from 1943 onward? Absurd miracles would have been necessary.
Germany couldn't win against so many powerful enemies, but it's not because of the tanks it used
the tanks may have been a bit worse than the Allied counterparts, but they could destroy most enemy gear too, so they did the job
Russia wasn’t going to invade Poland without Germany starting a war first, just like he didn’t invade Finland until Britain was preoccupied with Germany.
They should've started work on the atom bomb a LOT sooner than they did
By 1945 they had at least one functional crude prototype but it was way too little too late since everything was going breasts-up already at that point
I don't know much about that. Did the Germans even think it was possible? I don't blame them for that, because the idea of a nuke was such a ridiculous and esoteric physics theory at time you would expect most reasonable people to discard it as absurd. Either way, to test one of those early nukes you would require a good uranium ore source and huge facilities to refine it to weapons grade. There was a reason the US developed the nuke first, they were the only one during the war that could spare the resources on such a weird idea.
Or not have 30 different fricking tanks being produced at once. Should have just scrapped the whole wonder weapon idea and focus solely on Panzer IV’s and to a lesser extent Tigers.
The only way they would have had a realistic chance in hell of winning is if they went straight for the Baku oil fields and not split up their army groups even more in a vain attempt at speeding things up, though of course there’s always the chance the Soviets as one last frick you could destroy all oil facilities there if that happened. Wouldn’t matter if you have the best tank ever made if you have nothing to fuel it. And even then it still wouldn’t matter since Hitler himself admitted on tape that both German intel and industry was completely behind by 1943.
They should've started work on the atom bomb a LOT sooner than they did
By 1945 they had at least one functional crude prototype but it was way too little too late since everything was going breasts-up already at that point
Some here will reeee about it but late post mid 1930’s NSDAP politics made that completely impossible, not to mention having no resources at all for even one full bomb such as heavy water. Germany was both autistic and completely mismanaged, which is a death sentence for getting anything done the second it faces the slightest amount of friction.
Germany lost on September 1st 1939. They lacked the manpower to subjugate thr USSR and the surface fleet to force Britain into submission in some fashion. Even if the US didn’t have a lend lease Germany would have just lost in 1948 instead of 1945.
>Firefly
no room in turret >34-85
they had to widen the hull to fit the larger turret
getting a bit 2 heavy for the engine to deal with
They were gonna copy the T 34, but instead they made the Panther, a dedicated T 34 killer. And there were a lot of problems with the early Panther, but the T 34 was even worse early on in its development. About 6 months in most of the major kinks with the Panther were gone and you had an efficient T 34 muncher, which is what they really needed at the time, and it only cost them slightly more than the Panzer IV to make per unit. They probably would have made more Panthers had they not been starving for fuel at the time, so they had to focus more on the less thirsty STUGs.
panther seems to be a stand off weapon
kind of like Tiger but worse
The T-34 was overhyped trash that has a cramped fighting compartment, no turret basket and had to be shifted with a hammer. It was shown in Korea to be inferior to western armor. Why anyone would want to copy that rubbish who wasn't a 3rd world dive is beyond me.
You mean where it did just fine against Stuarts and Shermans and then later on lost to Centurions and Pattons? Gee, a mid-WWII tank loses to Cold War designs? No way!
>You mean where it did just fine against Stuarts and Shermans
stuarts were never deployed to korea, chaffees were
shermans were deployed to korea where they did stellar work, destroying the bulk of NK tanks
> and then later on lost to Centurions and Pattons?
there were very few pattons in korea, only really getting into swing in the latter half of the war, by which point the chinese and north koreans effectively had no tanks left
the M26 pershing was about 4 times more effective than the M4 sherman in a 1:1 ratio, but shermans got way more kills in total due to the larger number deployed
in any case, the M4 sherman proved to be the T-34s superior in this case, knocking out way more than they were knocked out in turn
this would later be repeated when israeli M4s, armed with a mix of 75mm and 76mm guns, would destroy arab T-34s at an alarming rate
when upgunned to the M50 and M51 they were able to take on T-55s
there has not been any case where a T-34 was able to overcome the M4 in combat
partially due to client states receiving T-34s not actually fielding competent crews
but M4s have been successfully fielded against centurions and T-55s and succeeded
hey at least they took out a couple Cromwells the British used for recce. One was even captured and used it against Centurions in the battle of Gloster Hill.
There isn't a detailed play by play of the tank engagement but the gist seems to be that the chinks inside got turned into extra crispy peking duck by some HESH rounds.
That has more to do with the T-55 being a poorly designed weapon that the Soviets tried to replace shortly after its first active usage in combat than it does the Sherman's prowess, but the Sherman did have the T-34 beat in one very important field: bigger turret ring, meant it could upgrade to a bigger gun while the T-34 was left with the inadequate 85.
The gun itself wasn't innadequate, Soviet armor piercing shells were just shit throughout the war. The Post war "D" series of AP shells which were copies of German Pzgr 39 series has much better performance. A gun that fires a 9.2 kg AP she'll at 792m/s should be close in performance to the 88mm KwK 36 (10.2kg at 770m/s) not slightly better then The 75mm KwK 40 (6.8kg at 750m/s)
It has alot of things I really like. Lots of escape hatches, overall high survivability, periscopes for both commander AND gunner (looking at you Panther) and the stabilizer was nice even though most of the troops weren't properly educated in its use. It was definitey the best all around tank of the war when it first went into combat.
Downside was its armor was not adequate later in the war, and they focused too much on making the thing fit well on trains, which compromised it with a high profile and too narrow tracks. But they should have been pumping out a Panther like replacement by early 1944. Instead they stuck with their stupid doctrine of no heavies until it was proven clearly wrong in France. By then it was too late to rush in the Pershing. Oh well, it's not like any of that would have mattered in the long run if they did it. Might have saved some American lives though.
>periscopes for both commander AND gunner (looking at you Panther)
Check the chieftain's hatch videos. Pretty sure I spotted gunner periscopes in German tanks there, not sure if that goes for the panther as well though.
Commander visibility was great though because open-protected was all you ever needed and gave great vision in all directions. It was well protected enough that outside of being in the center of an artillery barrage there was no point in ever closing the panther hatch any further. The Irishman makes a point of pointing that out but once you see the open-protected hatch position it becomes self-evident.
The gunner in the Panther only had the gunsight, which had a narrow field of view at relatively high magnification, and essentially relied on the commander to guide him onto the target. It was one of the biggest weaknesses of the tank ergonomically.
Chieftain rags on how the Panther commander has a turret clock in his copula to show where the turret is pointing. I dont get why, it's clearly for directing the gunner into target. Yeah it's not a M1A2 with a hunter killer system, but it's far better the Sherman until the late variants
He's probably just too used to modern systems and protocols and didn't realize how useful it could be for a gunner if your commander can tell you exactly where to point your gun (or even just sight) to see the enemy. Gunners back then saw very little in every tank, because even if you had the luxury of a periscope, the field of view was still tiny.
I don't think any single german heavy tank was the problem as much as trying to make them all at once. When you are producing and maintaining 3 different heavy breakthrough tank hulls (with countless variants) all with different complicated logistics tails even after you are fighting the longest retreat in modern military history and a significant proportion of your heavy tank losses are due to being scuttled or captured due logistical failures lack of spare parts or being generally poor at forced road marches.
I honestly can't tell if Germany had some mass delusion about how good their industry was was (in reality Britain alone had more industrial output even before allied bombers cooked german arms workers into human currywurst) or if Albert Speer could just be outsmarted by a glass of water.
Actually 4 different heavy tank hulls because of the Ferdinand. The Ferdinand is a good example of the "throwing good money after bad tank designs" problem germany had:
>Porsche produces a Tiger I prototype that gets axed for being too heavy and having an unreliable drive train >the Henshel design becomes the Tiger I >due to immense moronation Porsche had already made 91 hulls before they even knew their design for the Tiger would be accepted >rather than just cut their losses Germany decides to commission a heavy SPG made on the hull that is even heavier than the rejected Tiger prototype >despite the fact the Ferdinand catches fire if it tries to climb hills they sent it to the eastern front >they perform poorly >"it's ok hans we can rework it and retrofit them" >it doesn't perform any better >at no point do they just decide that keeping a terrible low production SPG built on a failed tiger hull that needs its own unique logistics was a good idea >even sees combat in the fall of Berlin
>Korea
You mean where it did just fine against Stuarts and Shermans and then later on lost to Centurions and Pattons? Gee, a mid-WWII tank loses to Cold War designs? No way!
I think he means the unfavorable reports on how bad it was by captured korean crews. Notably that even 5'0 starving asiatics thought it was cramped
>>at no point do they just decide that keeping a terrible low production SPG built on a failed tiger hull that needs its own unique logistics was a good idea
the fact the Ferdinand catches fire if it tries to climb hills they sent it to the eastern front >>they perform poorly
Actually the Ferdinand performed well and the crews loved them which makes you lose all credibility.
are you going to cite some made up ancedotal kill stat of them killing 15000 T-34s with only 13 losses at Kursk? German tank kill claims are more crooked than soviet coal miner with rickets
the most accurate german kill-count was at operation goodwood, where they claimed 500 tank kills (post-50% slash)
british did record 500 losses that day
now here comes the small print:
british have different casualty counting from the germans
only 150 tanks were written off, the other 350 tanks all re-entered service, some the very next day
that's usually how it goes. Afaik German official losses only counted written off tanks. If a tank was disabled but recovered and repaired later it wouldn't be counted as a loss by Germany.
That autistic bald british norf guy covers all that in his excellent breakdown of Op Crusader.
Usually when looking at crew satisfaction with a vehicle, crew reports about their satisfaction tend to be a good thing to go by.
Less butthurt more facts next time, anons.
are you going to cite some made up ancedotal kill stat of them killing 15000 T-34s with only 13 losses at Kursk? German tank kill claims are more crooked than soviet coal miner with rickets
the most accurate german kill-count was at operation goodwood, where they claimed 500 tank kills (post-50% slash)
british did record 500 losses that day
now here comes the small print:
british have different casualty counting from the germans
only 150 tanks were written off, the other 350 tanks all re-entered service, some the very next day
that's usually how it goes. Afaik German official losses only counted written off tanks. If a tank was disabled but recovered and repaired later it wouldn't be counted as a loss by Germany.
That autistic bald british norf guy covers all that in his excellent breakdown of Op Crusader.
>That picture
God FRICKING DAMNIT. This website has fricking ruined me.
99% sure that's ArabianOdyssey1 on twitter, also posts their OF around /soc/ back when I was lurking. I'm sick of this place.
but yes that is Yahya aka Arabianilliad. He used to (or still does) post on PrepHole and /misc/. He gave me excellent hair care advice once from one curly haired twink to another which I will always be thankful for. He might be politically moronic but he is very cute. Someone should really hatefrick his moronic half-commie half-NATSOC half-Ba'athist political opinions out of him and flood his little nafri bussy with european cum but I would be content having him ride my face and sucking his toes.
I know you can't spoiler on /k/ but I felt I should maintain its status as a christian image board as best I can since I know most anons don't share my love of islamic femboys
fricktarded opinion, you have the guns, you have the hulls, why the shit would you not make use of them. they didn't build anything unique for the ferdi, just slapped together shit they had lying around because the goddamned russian army is stalemating you and you need MORE guns.
germany was fighting the 3 largest industrial powers on the planet (UK alone was able to out produce aircraft as early as the battle of britain) whose combined populations dwarfed their own. so if germany decided to copy the T34, they still wouldnt have been able to produce a fraction of the numbers needed, or train enough crews even to match russia, never mind the western allies. even if they managed to build and crew them, how would the fuel them? the only logical option was to build individually more powerful tanks that could take out multiple enemy tanks with ease. this didnt work because they still couldnt build enough, fuel or repair them.
Its also absolutely wrong and not backed by any source
Everyone from zaloga to hunnicutt are all in agreement that germanys inability to produce enough vehicles was the wrong decision
And makes absolutely no sense within german doctrine or actual production priorities
German doctrine was to use tanks in the exploitation role, they absolutely wanted to use more small tanks than fewer big ones in this role because
And this is seen in german production, the top 3 used tanks are the medium weight stug, panzer IV, and panther
/k/ is literally the only place that has gotten the idea that the germans ever prioritised quality over quantity, when in practice they definitely preferred the former over the latter
>Everyone from zaloga to hunnicutt are all in agreement that germanys inability to produce enough vehicles was the wrong decision
Do you even read your own drivel? That doesn't even make sense grammatically.
>Its also absolutely wrong and not backed by any source
You can literally google the population figures in 5 seconds. Well, you can't bc you're a moron. But everyone else can.
>German doctrine was to use tanks in the exploitation role, they absolutely wanted to use more small tanks than fewer big ones in this role because
100% wrong. They had different tanks with different roles. Breakthrough tanks for example.
>Do you even read your own drivel?
zaloga summarizes it thusly: germany building tigers and king tigers was a mistake
both post-war sentiment of german generals and other historians broadly back the same opinion
>You can literally google the population figures in 5 seconds.
stug and panzer IV were fairly typical vehicles, mid-20 ton vehicles with a 75mm gun
these made up the bulk of german forces
the panther was not chosen for its qualitative superiority, it was chosen because it offered superior performance to the panzer IV for the same price
>100% wrong. They had different tanks with different roles.
100% right, in fact
tanks were meant to be used
everything else were meant to be niche, limited run vehicles, for use in specialized tasks
the primary maneuver would have been carried out by medium-weight tanks
no historian has ever written or said "germany should have built more heavy tanks" because this at odds with post-war analysis and wartime doctrine
>zaloga summarizes it thusly: germany building tigers and king tigers was a mistake
This statement is directed at specific tanks, not "heavy" (actually breakthrough) tank generally and certainly doesn't say anything about the Panther.
>because it offered superior performance to the panzer IV for the same price
source?
>tanks were meant to be used
and?
>everything else were meant to be niche, limited run vehicles, for use in specialized tasks
1347 Tiger Is
6000 Panthers
498 Tiger IIs
"limited run"
2 years ago
Anonymous
>This statement is directed at specific tanks, not "heavy" (actually breakthrough) tank generally and certainly doesn't say anything about the Panther.
zaloga and hunicutt outright say that germany would have done better if all the efforts directed at heavy vehicles was instead used on
>source?
total man hours and dollar cost for the panther was only slightly higher than a panzer IV
this is why they chose it
because it offered good value for its price, not because of some institutional belief in quality over quantity, a belief which is never mentioned in any document or historian
>"limited run"
tiger and king tiger were definitely niche vehicles only issued to special heavy battalions and meant to be only used for a small portion of the operation
panther, as stated above, was meant to be a compromise between quantity and quality
but regular panzer divisions typically operated with a 50/50 ratio of panthers and panzer IVs
the medium weight stug outnumbered both vehicles by production as well
german army was held up primarily by medium weight vehicles, not the heavies, because their priority was the same as other countries, quantity first and foremost
2 years ago
Anonymous
>total man hours and dollar cost for the panther was only slightly higher than a panzer IV
That's not a source, just another claim.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>According to rough estimates the labour hours n in comparison to the Panzer III stood at approximately 1 to 1.25, i.e. four Panther vehicles for every five Panzer III tanks built. Cost (without weaponry) PzKpfw III RM 96,163; Panther RM 117,100.[22]
2 years ago
Anonymous
î quoted the wrong post.
1. Last post you were talking about Pz IV, not Pz III.
2. Labour cost =/= total man hours and dollar costs
3. You realize you are now agreeing with with the statement you were initially disagreeing with?
You were disagreeing with a guys saying they shouldn't have build T-34s and Shermans. Now you are advocating for the production of Panthers which are - in my book - not T-34s or Shermans.
2 years ago
Anonymous
1. Last post you were talking about Pz IV, not Pz III.
2. Labour cost =/= total man hours and dollar costs
3. You realize you are now agreeing with with the statement you were initially disagreeing with?
You were disagreeing with a guys saying they shouldn't have build T-34s and Shermans. Now you are advocating for the production of Panthers which are - in my book - not T-34s or Shermans.
>the panther was not chosen for its qualitative superiority, it was chosen because it offered superior performance to the panzer IV for the same price
so it was chosen for its qualitative superiority
2 years ago
Anonymous
It was chosen primarily because its shape was more conducive for mass production than the panzer IV, allowing for a more cost effective return on investment
It was not the literally best possible vehicle that could be stuffed into a single package that would destroy anything that the Soviets could field
That was the maus and it was a failure
2 years ago
Anonymous
>It was not the literally best possible vehicle that could be stuffed into a single package that would destroy anything that the Soviets could field
nobody was claiming thus
>it was chosen because it offered superior performance to the panzer IV for the same price
It was chosen primarily because its shape was more conducive for mass production than the panzer IV, allowing for a more cost effective return on investment
It was not the literally best possible vehicle that could be stuffed into a single package that would destroy anything that the Soviets could field
That was the maus and it was a failure
>It was chosen primarily because its shape was more conducive for mass production than the panzer IV
just keep on changing
Wasn't the based and iconic StuG III the single most produced German tracked thingy with guns and armor?
The weird cope about German heavy tank production being all according to entwerfen (TL note entwerfen means plan) as a way to outsmart the allies is that it ignores that the first and smartest idea would be not developing 3 different heavy tanks concurrently plus a medium tank and producing countless types of heavy tank destroyers all at the same. If you actually were trying to get the maximum bang for the small water load Germany had for heavy industry you would start with actually standardizing to a single design for each role (the US had 1 heavy tank in serial production. the UK had a few more but not concurrently made) not letting your engineers run rampant and having like 20 different tank destroyers all in the same role but with 6 different hulls and a shitload of different guns all produced and operated at the same time.
The actual way you maximize your war production is by standardizing a handful of designs, exploiting economy of scale and incrementally improving them not the stupid and made up German top secret master plan to build only heavy tanks to save on crew training costs only to get bitten in the ass by basic logistical concepts such as the 1/3 rule i.e if you have half as many tanks due to >muh heavies then you are going to feel maintenance downtime way more acutely than the man with a billion Shermans and every time one of your r/chonkers big cats throws a track, gets stuck or is captured then it's a much bigger issue than any number of shitty soviet tanks getting creamed.
>having like 20 different tank destroyers all in the same role but with 6 different hulls
Those tank Destroyers were a good use of resources considering that they were essentially obsolete hulls (like the 38t) with a PaK 40 or rechambered F-22 Soviet AT gun.
They needed little industrial and was far better then slugging a PaK 40 in the mud
>Everyone from zaloga to hunnicutt are all in agreement
That's not true and Nicolas Moran even made the opposite explicitly clear in one of his (recent? At least I watched it recently, probably a QnA) videos.
Why lie?
>everybody from x to y says z >2 guys say z
When you pull of stuff like that nothing else becomes believable anymore and no quote you give without a lot of context now is going to inspire any trust in the veracity of your statements.
I don't even think you're trying to be deceiving but at this point I wouldn't trust that you know the difference and didn't just misunderstand of extrapolate something and then tried to apply it to something else.
There's a stark difference between >heavy tanks were a waste of time
Which is debatable and would at the very least require some narrowing down based on which model we're talking about
And >focusing on quality instead of quantity was a waste of time and everybody agrees
Aside from the latter being untrue, see Nicolas Moran going "doesn't matter how many smaller cats you build if you can't feed them so trying to go for fewer but better was probably the right choice." That's also not actually an argument.
You seem to like hunicutt and zaloga in particular, I don't particularly like the latter due to sloppiness and moronation in some regards, but I'm still not willing to believe what you've presented in this thread (and that's the first post of mine you replied to), is as accurate as you think.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>You seem to like hunicutt and zaloga in particular,
even moving past them towards eastern front specialists like forczyk, you get the same overall opinion
that focusing on quality over quantity was a mistake, which is why most german produced vehicles were actually built with quantity in mind
and even looking past the 3 mentioned, the only time the idea that the germans made the right choice building tigers is ever brought up is on youtube
2 years ago
Anonymous
>That's not true
zaloga and hunicutt both literally say "germans should have focused on more numerous, smaller vehicles"
>Why lie?
what lie?
>Everyone from zaloga to hunnicutt are all in agreement
That's not true and Nicolas Moran even made the opposite explicitly clear in one of his (recent? At least I watched it recently, probably a QnA) videos.
Why lie?
I went back to the last 3 QnAs and didn't see any question that sounds like it would illicit that answer so I'm assuming the quote was part of the hatch videos I researched recently.
>You seem to like hunicutt and zaloga in particular,
even moving past them towards eastern front specialists like forczyk, you get the same overall opinion
that focusing on quality over quantity was a mistake, which is why most german produced vehicles were actually built with quantity in mind
and even looking past the 3 mentioned, the only time the idea that the germans made the right choice building tigers is ever brought up is on youtube
I don't think the tiger I was a bad investment, partially because man hours and cost don't lead to a 1 to 1 conversion to more or less vehicles based on different factors, partially due to the efficiency they showed (doesn't mean it couldn't have been much, much better with a couple of changes they probably would have thought of in 1944 but didn't in 41, but they still did impressive work despite being forced into a role it wasn't designed for).
But considering a lack of crews, lack of oil, lack of infrastructure at the eastern front that gets shit there without brute forcing it via trucks and to a lesser extent trains, both of which Germans lacked and the former of which they lacked fuel for in combination with no realistic ability to match allied or soviet production I think building as many good tanks (panthers, not t34s) was the right choice.
I believe that the ratio of quality to simplification could have certainly been improved and more tanks would have been better, but the basic idea of less, but better tanks instead of mass-tank warfare seems undeniably correct.
I also think you mix up the question of the viability of heavy tanks with the focus on more quality over quantity in general.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>hatch videos I researched recently.
*rewatched
Lmao
2 years ago
Anonymous
still not wholly convinced, but you do make really good points >I also think you mix up the question of the viability of heavy tanks with the focus on more quality over quantity in general.
RIP, yeah, i think i did
Pz4 was generally worse than the Sherman, which many wehraboos seem to tease
very early M4s and M4A1s, panzer IV F2 was slightly better, panzer IV D with its stubby gun isnt worth talking about
main production M4A1s was more equal against panzer Gs
panzer IV had better telescopic sight, long barreled gun, and a cuploa
sherman had better armor, faster turret traverse, and better periscopes (but no cupola)
late war sherman was undeniably better than late war panzer, but mostly because the panzer IV K was rejected without prototypes
2 years ago
Anonymous
>RIP, yeah, i think i did
That happens, if it makes it any better, despite thinking positively about the Tiger's worth in general, I think from a purely tactical standpoint it was probably closer to a wash in the cost-benefit analysis than to a decisive victory of German engineering. Still worth doing, particularly due to its efficiency in the exact opposite role of what the Germans wanted to use it for, but a lot less clear-cut than something like an stg-44.
The main reason why I don't think it was a bad choice despite the only mildly positive cost-benefit calculation in and of itself, are the secondary effects. The Tiger was huge for propaganda. Having a vehicle that can take 258 shots in a single battle and drive back home on its own (though obviously you couldn't fight with it anymore) is pretty huge for both sides. I'm not too familiar with the soviet sentiments, but Americans and bongs were famous for making every tank out to be a tiger and every gun an 88. While the good reputation of the t34 in early barbarossa partially stems from them thinking every new, unknown model is a t34, which led to a lot things experienced in regards to the KV being credited to the t34 during the period where Germans were still learning how to efficiently deal with such a heavy tank.
I can only imagine that the Russians had similar reactions to enemy tanks and guns as Germans and allies had. It's impossible to quantify the effect it had, but when reading through memoirs, field reports, troop diaries and the like, you often find examples of Russians fighting to the last man and Russians just bolting out immediately, even with supposedly highly trained or elite troops that should know better and were probably up-to date on tank capabilities.
Some of that probably happened because they saw a tank in front of them, thought it's a tiger and realized they had literally no way to penetrate it (despite facing a Pz4 they could have just punched through).
ITT: bunch of hoi4 players think that switching production from one tank to another just means losing a bit of efficiency, and a bunch of war thunder players think tanks win wars
theres a lot more factors at play here that make a tank good or bad. just spamming >MUH SUSPENSION >MUH TRANSMISSIONS >I SAID IT MOM LOOK!!!1!!
is straight moronic. every country got some of things right and wrong, and just copying another countries tank to make up for german tank shortcomings, would give you allied tank shortcomings
Everyone not the US actively resented automotive reliability. In contrast US civilian trucks were highly reliable by contemporary standards with many examples surviving today. That meant it was not difficult to mass produce maintainable tanks like the spectacularly successful Sherman.
Less then 2,000 (not a misprint or typo) enlisted members of US Armor Force died in the Second World War including accidents and troops killed outside their vehicles. Flying bombers was vastly more dangerous and infantry was a bloodbath.
>But we also copied absolutely everyhing after the war!
some thing were copied, but not a lot
and when it was copied, it was usually just because the design in question was borrowing elements from every side (M60 was partially inspired by the FG42 and MG42)
or only copying the principle, but making the actual piece of equipment on their own (GUPPY program was meant to copy type XXI underwater snorkel, but they did not use the XXIs themselves or build XXIs)
probably the only piece of german equipment that was wholly and totally copied on a massive scale was the jerry can
Yes, there's nothing they won't say to cope. Although coping about WW2 germany is old and not exclusively slavic.
It's roots began with just refuting german superweapon claims and ended in trashing everything german because you can't say positive things about nazis.
Even if the Germans had some wunderwaffen tank that can somehow miraculous be the best, wouldn't they still lose in the cause they'd be nuked by the Americans?
Even if the Germans standardized to Panthers and could field them in massive amounts, American Shermans in the late war all had guns that could penetrate them and if we really needed them we could have fielded our own heavy armor long range tank deleters in numbers.
>American Shermans in the late war all had guns that could penetrate them
well, yes but actually no
76mm gun could only defeat the turret face at close range with AP, and <1km with APCR and upper glacis at no distance
this wasnt the biggest deal because engagements tended to occur at about 30-60 degrees rather than head on, but this isnt all-aspect penetration > if we really needed them we could have fielded our own heavy armor long range tank deleters in numbers.
M26 probably wouldnt be fielded that quickly
they would have just phased out the M10 and M18 with the M36 and possibly pushed out M36Bs much sooner, but the M26 was still finnicky even in 1945
Yes. The war was never really winnable for Germany and it was surprising that the Axis managed to punch so far above their weight for as long as they did. By 1943, their fate was sealed. Even leaving the combined industrial power of the US, the Soviet Union and the then still fairly powerful British Empire aside. Germany surrendering when it did at least spared it from having several of its cities turned into nuclear craters.
Meanwhile lets not forget that while the Germans did tend to produce a lot of different types that weren't compatible, this argument only really applies to the USA as Britain and the USSR deployed many tanks and self propelled gun types. The Western Allies however made a frick ton of different aircraft throughout the war that did the same job.
Just a look at fighters where Germany standardized on the Bf-109 and FW190 >USAAF
P-38, P-39, P-40, P-47, P-51 >USN
F4F/FM-2, F4U, F6F >RAF
Hurricane, Spitfire, Typhoon, Tempest + P-40, P-47, P-51
>the USSR deployed many tanks and self propelled gun types.
USSR at least tried to keep things standardized to just 3 hulls
IS for heavy, with the ISU-152 built on its hull
the T-34 for medium, and the SU-100 and SU-122 built on its hull
and the T-70 for light, mostly replaced by the SU-76 later on as the light role was removed
maybe not to the same extent as the US, who used the sherman and M5 stuart for 90% of everything
but it was still a fair bit more standardized than the germans
>Deployed
Keyword, not manufactured, the USSR deployed thousands of lend lease tanks from Grant, Sherman, Valentine, Matilda which had nothing in common with local manufacture
And of course they had their own wierd low production stuff like the Su-76i which they manufactured and deployed nearly 200 of and were based on captured Panzer III chassis
only the sherman fought in front-line units where they could cause logistical problems
valentine was mostly used to shore up infantry divisions
while the grant, matilda, and all the other loser vehicles were sent to second-line fronts where there werent too many other types of tanks to begin with
Valentine was used in the same way as the T-70 in light cavalry regiments. I honestly don't know what you mean by second line. Matilda and such certainly saw plenty of action on the eastern front. The 5th Mechanized Corps which was completely equipped with British tanks in was effectively destroyed in heavy combat from December 1942 to Feb 43, and rebuilt with... More British tanks
>I honestly don't know what you mean by second line
matildas and M3s were mostly only used in frontline service until 1943, by 1944 they were really only using M4s in frontline service
2 years ago
Anonymous
And Valentine's, the Soviets very much liked the Valentine tank
In terms of SPGs the British did things in a smarter way than the Germans since instead of using whatever the latest ammo/gun/ configuration revealed to Ferdinand Porsche in a dream for each new tank destroyer they stuck with a single gun and only changed as needed. First it was the 25 pounder which was actually a lot better than a random arty gun fitted with a solid shot AP round should have been since it turns out in flat desert a direct firing artillery gun vs Panzer IIIs is like an MBA basketball player fighting Koksal Baba. The QF 17 replaced it and was a damn fine gun and was THE high velocity british gun used on everything simplifying logistics and making developing gucci ammo like Sabot very viable
>Bishop SPG (a Valentine hull with a bungalow housing a 25 pounder built on top) >Archer (a Valentine with a QF 17 mounted backwords) >Achilles (a M10 GMC with a QF 17) >bonus points for the Firefly, Comet, Challenger and Centurion which were all very good tanks which used it and the last 3 were an ascent of man meme for MBT development.
what can I say anon the western allies had the best tanks in the war by far. US tanks were the most solid due to the massive amount of testing and development they got before getting anywhere near the front line but at the same time there is something to be said about the British "by jove my boffin told me that if I drop special tin foil we can blind jerry's radar and also we can guide our bombs with beams. I don't know what any of it means but I'll test it out over Berlin" approach. Sometimes you get a piece of shit like a Covenanter but sometimes you get an amazing tank like a Centurion.
>. US tanks were the most solid due to the massive amount of testing and development they got before getting anywhere near the front line
US tanks were in that weird limbo where they were mechanically excellent but lacking in essentials
the US was a titan in automotive design but hadnt yet fought a war
leading to the very first M4 shermans being rugged, reliable, starting the first time every time but still lacking in a commanders cupola and even a gunners telescopis sight
whoops
although as it turned out, its easier to install good optics on a mechanically sound tank, than it is to give a tank with good optics a new transmission
which is why the M4 turned from lacking bare essentials at first
>Centurion: Design work started in 1943 - introduced in January 1945 >T-54: Design work started in 'late 1945'
The T-54/55 is definitely a post war tank, as its design was started after the war had ended. The Centurion was designed and introduced during the war, and it's not the tanks fault that there the Germans had collapsed to the point where it wasn't needed at the front by the time it left the factories.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>and it's not the tanks fault that there the Germans had collapsed to the point where it wasn't needed at the front by the time it left the factories.
Yeah but just because it's not the tank's fault doesn't mean it's a WWII tank.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Did you miss the part about it being 'DESIGNED AND BUILT' during the war?
They literally had Panzer IIIs/IVs capable of penning Shermans and T34s with AP ammo. The issue the Germans had was that their tank factories were constantly being bombed and they couldn't feasibly mass produce one particular kind of tank at any time.
yes but they give up some terminal effect
APCBC can do a bit more damage with its bursting charge "if" it penetrates
APCR and HEAT depend a bit more on hitting the right spots, and maybe a bit of spalling
T-34 was shit and its only advantage was being able to be made for cheap. Its reputation is exaggerated by the improved post war models that also didnt have any of the massive cost cutting simplifications that the war time ones did. Soviets managed to produce twice as many tanks as the germans and the germans were only able to destroy 1,7 times as many soviet tanks to their own losses so the german strategy of superior tanks vs superior number of tanks almost worked but there also was no point in germans producing more tanks than they did because they were barely able to supply fuel for the ones they really did produce. The fuel supply made it so that it made more sense for germans to have less but better tanks than to have lots of worse tanks.
G*rmans are too autistic for that
They were gonna copy the T 34, but instead they made the Panther, a dedicated T 34 killer. And there were a lot of problems with the early Panther, but the T 34 was even worse early on in its development. About 6 months in most of the major kinks with the Panther were gone and you had an efficient T 34 muncher, which is what they really needed at the time, and it only cost them slightly more than the Panzer IV to make per unit. They probably would have made more Panthers had they not been starving for fuel at the time, so they had to focus more on the less thirsty STUGs.
Weren't Panzer IV generally more then enough to kill T-34s?
The Panzer III killed more T-34s than any other German tank.
Killing T-34s wasn't exactly a challenge, though.
I doubt that
He's probably talking variants.
StuG 3 for example.
Nah, the IV had a ton of angles.
Not easy to make at all. They probably didn't have the resources to retool every factory.
Cause the Sherman was a proper medium tank.
The original Panzer IV was lighter than a Chaffee and its springleaf suspension couldn't handle all the weight in later production runs.
The Panzer 3 handled the weight better but didn't have a big enough turret ring to fit a long 75.
hi is right, and hi dont mean stug, hi mean pancer 3
the t34 welding was so dogshit the armor would crack from a single hit from 50 mm
the t34 , the one that fought at war, had effective speed of 15 km/h , all the variants you see in russian made games are post war
the t34 was cramped and had one of the worst fatality % after getting hit , of all ww2 tanks (only 1 out of 5 crewman would survive an penetrating shoot)
>le i got the knowlege from video game
any german 75 mm would destroy t34
50mm was enaugh for that
any 75 mm he would rip off t34 front plate
50 mm he would cause internal armor spalding , knocking off/killing crew
the 75 mm of t34 had only few mm more penetration than sherman 50mm,
the 85 mm of t34 had less penetrating power than shermans 75/76mm
on range of 1000 m + t34 75mm would not penetrate panzer4,
>(only 1 out of 5 crewman would survive an penetrating shoot)
what source are you using for this?
not him but the source seems to be from US assessments made based on the T-34/85 in the Korean War. I can't seem to find the original source. I think it is buried in the CIA engineering assessment of the tank but that shit is 500 pages long and isn't word searchable but it does seem to list every single technical issue with the T-34 (a post war production one too as far as I know) including the MMA welds seemingly done by someone with Parkinson's disease
i have the engineering analysis, and it is just that--an engineering analysis. it does not concern itself with combat casualty analysis
That's plausible, but only if you include Panzer IIIs AND their variants, namely the StuG III and StuH 42.
The T-34 killed more tank crews than any other tank of WWII but most of them were russian.
Not sure if that was accurate for the whole war or only the early years before the PzIVF2 with it's long barreled 75.
Although early on the PzIII did make up more than 50% of all T-34 kills.
Same
Would be disappointing if it weren't substantially better than one that started development before the war.
Pershing vs IS3 would have been interesting.
Well of course that's how it works. From the german point of view they took out 500 tanks and that's it, they can't know which will be written of. It's the same way for everyone.
>From the german point of view they took out 500 tanks and that's it,
good wood was about as good as it got
at kursk, they claimed about 7000 kills, when 6000 soviet tanks were lost to all causes
both sides learned pretty quickly that claims were totally bogus and only really kept tallies for propaganda purposes
thats reality
nazi stuff was far from perfect, and in many cases was far behind allied technology
the only reason it seems advanced is because desperation pushed them to bring prototypes into service much earlier while allies could afford to win with things that worked
the absolute worst time was the 70s and 80s when extreme wehrabooism was at its peak
but thankfully the opening of the soivet archives for a brief moment in the 90s and the lack of a need to create credibility for the germans meant we can all talk openly about how bad german stuff actually was
>the only reason it seems advanced is because desperation pushed them to bring prototypes into service much earlier while allies could afford to win with things that worked
I'm not to sure how much of it is that.
Personally I think it was more with them correctly envisioning how "modern" war was fought/forcing everyone else to fight according to their understanding.
Well and things like their standing army being trained to lead a larger conscripted force, focus on initiative etc.
If I recall correctly most super nazi science claims came up in the years after the war, partially to excuse early mistakes.
>Personally I think it was more with them correctly envisioning how "modern" war was fought/forcing everyone else to fight according to their understanding.
by the end of the war, pretty much every side was fighting a modern war
not because the nazis invented it, but because fighting a massive war leads to the dumb stuff getting weeded out early on
stuff the germans were working on were stuff the allies had begun working on at the same time or even earlier
really the only truly revolutionary thing the germans made that the allies scrambled to copy as soon as they could exactly how it was, was the jerry can, the only addition they added was an X on the side
otherwise, german tech was on par or really behind the allies in several key areas
german radar was still decimentric, german radios were still AM until 1944, german casting facilities too small to do anything bigger than a tank hatch
stuff they were genuinely unable or unwilling to bring up to par with the western equivelant, but because they got a jet fighter in the air first (by an extremely slim margin, the meteor was mere weeks from deployment) and they had a V2 rocket (that the allies honestly had no reason to build, and the V2 ended up fairly useless anyways) it gives the impression that the germans were mode advanced
they werent
>the only reason it seems advanced is because desperation pushed them to bring prototypes into service much earlier while allies could afford to win with things that worked
>what are the 1930s
what a Black person you are
Panzer IVs 75mm could defeat the frontal armor of a later T 34, but not reliably, and not at range. The longer 75mm on the Panther however was great for kill T 34 at extreme ranges, which was useful on the eastern plains. In addition, panzer IVs would get fricked by 85mm guns of later t 34, while the panther frontal armor could almost always deflect from that. Hell, I don't really know why they kept making panzer IVs later on in the war. I would have just made STUGs and Panthers.
The main weakness of the German tanks was their inconvenience of maintence. This wasn't as bad with the medium tanks up to the Panther, but it was horrendous with the heavy tanks. I'm sure a lot of their medium tanks and tank destroyers were very nice tanks, but I'm not so confident in their heavy tank doctrine, especially with stupid shit like the Jagdtiger. The only Allied tank I think that saw much combat in the war that really blows German tanks out of the water was the Pershing, but that thing was rushed into the war too late, and had similar teething problems to the Panther.
the Pershing didn't see much combat, iirc only about 25 even made it to Europe before the war ended. But yeah it was definitely better, gun and armor comparable to the Tiger I while being way lighter.
Yeah... maybe much combat was the wrong word. There were some later allied tanks that technically existed during the end of the war, but didn't even do their jobs as tanks. The Pershing actually did take out some Germany tanks. And it was more like 300 Pershings were in Europe before the end of the war.
>I don't really know why they kept making panzer IVs later on in the war. I would have just made STUGs and Panthers.
the plan was to make only panthers
but they could never make enough to fill demand, so panzer IV production lines were kept open and even expanded to fill the gaps
>but the panther was easier to assemble
it was, which is why they could build so many despite entering service only in 1943
but they were still only able to provide 50% tank strength at peak-pantherness
and the panzer IV hull was used for specialist vehicles anyways, so its not like they could close panzer IV lines entirely
this is really just all symptoms of lack of foresight and proper management in the overall nazi warmachine
Downside was its armor was not adequate later in the war
they did publish a report on the possibility of uparmoring it
but they founf out even if the frontal armor was made thick enough to repel the 88mm and long 75, this would only translate to a 10% increase in protection
because a majority of enemy threats were medium L/46 and L/48 75mm and 5cm guns
and 60% of penetrations occured along the side hull
in any case, the M4 was not particularly badly armored, as the most produced german tank, the panzer IV, had worse armor, and the T-34 had comparable armor
>and they focused too much on making the thing fit well on trains, which compromised it with a high profile and too narrow tracks. But they should have been pumping out a Panther like replacement by early 1944.
this is part of the US systemic approach to warfare
focusing on the big picture and how the vehicle would interact with every other element of the war machine rather than solely on tactical performance
Instead they stuck with their stupid doctrine of no heavies until it was proven clearly wrong in France.
heavies were a stupid idea, and focusing on a streamlined production line of medium tanks was the best choice
The fact that the Germans were ever able to stop US armored pushes or even worse make major counter attacks in late 1944 should should show how effective their armor could be. The US tanks were successful against the Germans most of the time because they had immense numerical advantage, a frickton of air support, and pretty much every other advantage other than that the Germans had more skilled crews and better tanks.
It doesn't make much sense to me for the US to obsess about streamlining their production and transport. If you really want to streamline things, don't produce tanks at all. If you've already got humongous production capacity like the US did, why worry so much about it? If you're Germans, sure, but the US should have tried harder for the quality over quantity approach. The Soviets learned how important minmaxing could be with tanks the hard way, and I think the US did to, considering how radically different the Pershing was from the Sherman in philosophy. Simple fact is Sherman was yesterdays tank which could still do its job well and be upgraded to a point, but really whenever you develop a military vehicle you should begin seriously developing its replacement the moment it enters production. As an American, I'm rather butthurt that we didn't see Pershings or something like it fighting in Normandy, when we were entirely capable of building that.
BTW, I kind of do agree with you on the heavies were a stupid idea thing. Kind of. But the action on the Eastern Front proved that it really helps to have a breakthrough tank that can deflect most of what your enemy can throw at you while defeating whatever armor it encounters. And the Pershing, had the US really tried with it, would have been that PLUS it really didn't sacrifice mobility.
>The fact that the Germans were ever able to stop US armored pushes or even worse make major counter attacks in late 1944 should should show how effective their armor could be.
last german counter-attack at the ardennes was a massive failure that only succeeded due to poor weather grounding US air support
even then, US medium tanks and TDs were trading 1:1 against enemy king tigers and panthers
US armor actually performed well
earlier at arracourt, US armor massacred german panthers despite lacking air support
replacing M4s with M26s wouldnt have mattered at all, or would have reduced overall disposition by reducing local tank strenght and effective controlled space
1 tank is only 1/4th as effective as 2 tanks, and can only control half the space
>It doesn't make much sense to me for the US to obsess about streamlining their production and transport
because war is fought with logistics and industry
M26s could only be shipped at 1/2 or 1/3rd the capacity of M4s
and M26s were too slow and cumbersome for maneuver, so you would need M4s anyways
but M4s were succesfully capable of creating breakthrough anyways, leaving the M26 in something of a redundant position
it was only good at exactly one task
>But the action on the Eastern Front proved that it really helps to have a breakthrough tank that can deflect most of what your enemy can throw at you while defeating whatever armor it encounters.
IS-2s had almost no real effect on the eastern front
the war was fought and won with medium tanks
breakthrough could and did be performed by T-34-85s
>The IS 2s had almost no real effect on the eastern front
I think you might be moronic. Also, who the hell told you there was no American air support at Arracourt? Because there was. Like, a lot.
>Also, who the hell told you there was no American air support at Arracourt?
german armor advanced under fog to negate US air scouting and recon, which also prevented interdiction by CAS
with the exception of bazooka charlie, who was brave enough to fly his spotter plane with jury-rigged bazookas well below the cloud layer
tactical air command wasnt able to join in until after US armored elements had managed to make contact and inflict heavy losses on the germans
>German armor advanced under fog to negate US air scouting and recon
The mere presence of massive air superiority actually achieved a significant advantage for the US in Arracourt by this fact alone.
Having to advance into enemy positions without proper reconnaissance units (many destroyed by air support earlier) in fricking dense Fog no less is an advantageous position that was only achieved by virtue of their massive Air supremacy at that point in the war.
It was a massive blunder on the Germans behalf to even attempt such an operation, and credit still goes to the crews and fighting prowess of the Americans. But it was an unbalanced situation for the Germans from the outset, due mainly to airpower. Its a poor example IMO of American tanks being better on a 1 v 1 basis to German tanks.
People simply see that Americans Tanks rekt German tanks in a single engagement at relatively equal numbers, ignoring all other context. Similar results couldve been achieved with T-34s or just about any tanks with enough firepower to destroy Panzers. Defensive advantage, lack of enemy recon, and the disorganization and poor visibility that comes with advancing into FOG, and lesser trained/experienced late war German tank crews would take care of the rest either way.
All that aside 73 German tanks were destroyed or damaged by US air power in the battle anyway, so they had both a significant passive and decisive active role in the battle anyway.
>IS-2s had almost no real effect on the eastern front
I see what you're trying to get at with the "big scheme of things" angle, but as the other anon said that's still a silly statement.
IS-2s were a serious shock for the Germans and helped deal with German heavies that in battles where it would've otherwise have taken innumerable T-34s to achieve. Not to mention they were a decisive weapon in the heavy urban combat the Soviets engaged in during the later half of the war.
>Its a poor example IMO of American tanks being better on a 1 v 1 basis to German tanks.
but it is an example of why the M26s deployment in europe was superfluous
they could already deal with existing german armor with existing weapons
and they already had about 200 jumbo shermans that did the exact same thing for the assault role without adding a new tank to the existing supply chain
>IS-2s were a serious shock for the Germans and helped deal with German heavies that in battles where it would've otherwise have taken innumerable T-34s to achieve.
IS-2s werent specifically used against tanks and ultimately just proved everything wrong about heavy tanks
they were mostly just a win-more piece of equipment, something that just lets you win by a bigger margin than you were before
used for a relatively narrow role and would not really impact the balance of power
>The mere presence of massive air superiority actually achieved a significant advantage
>IS-2s were a serious shock for the Germans and helped deal with German heavies that in battles where it would've otherwise have taken innumerable T-34s to achieve
Its starting to look like you're talking out of both sides of your mouth.
Almost like air superiority on the Western front is totally incomparable to the state of soviet air superiority on the eastern front?
I'm sure you sounded clever in your head though.
Yeah agree about the M26 statement. though if you wanna call IS-2s (over 3000+ produced before wars end not including ISU-122/152s) irrelevant on one hand then talk about 200 Jumbo Sherman's like it's worth mention... well I hope you get the picture.
>they were mostly just a win-more piece of equipment
With late 1943 equipment/designs the Soviets and Americans would've overwhelming won the war either way. You could write off all equipment and designs past that point as not relevant using the logic of "its just win more equipment they're destined to win anyway". I get what you're trying to say with the "big picture" angle on things but the way you're approaching it is flawed and contradictory.
I know everyone likes the idea of single decisive pieces of equipment that change the fortunes of war. But with a few notable exceptions most equipment is derivative and only sways the odds in one nations favor slightly.
The other side of the coin is none of these developments happen in isolation. Do IS-2s only provide a 4-5% (made up figure for argument) improvement to the capability of Soviet breakthroughs. Sure, but then add in the concurrent improvements of better trained infantry, better coordinated artillery, better plane designs, better logistic capabilities etc. etc. and now the Soviets are 100% more capable at breakthroughs then they were beforehand.
All new equipment and developments are part of far, far larger equations. They aren't the equations in of themselves. That's the true "bigger picture" perspective.
Dismissing all introduced equipment that isn't as decisive as the introduction of the Sherman, t-34, zero, p-51 etc. As not relevant is just plain stupid.
>though if you wanna call IS-2s (over 3000+ produced before wars end not including ISU-122/152s) irrelevant on one hand then talk about 200 Jumbo Sherman's like it's worth mention... well I hope you get the picture.
not saying the jumbo sherman was relevant
just that if they ever needed a heavy breakthrough vehicle for which the M26 would be used, they already had an existing good enough vehicle that uses existing M4 equipment
> I get what you're trying to say with the "big picture" angle on things but the way you're approaching it is flawed and contradictory.
RIP, youre actually right about that
i really need to look at more IS-2 readings now
>smissing all introduced equipment that isn't as decisive as the introduction of the Sherman, t-34, zero, p-51 etc. As not relevant is just plain stupid.
you got me good there
got too fixated
Stop touching yourself, you wanker!
>Almost like air superiority on the Western front is totally incomparable to the state of soviet air superiority on the eastern front?
By 1944 they both had an overwhelming advantage.
>All new equipment and developments are part of far, far larger equations. They aren't the equations in of themselves. That's the true "bigger picture" perspective.
Which makes saying it would require innumerable t-34 to deal with heavies as obnoxious as there shouldn't have been heavy tank production.
>By 1944 they both had an overwhelming advantage.
Still totally incomparable, you should really read some books about the conflict. Western air support was far, far more coordinated, active and effective then the Soviets.
It's like saying the Soviets had an overwhelming naval advantage over the Japanese when the fought them in 1945. Yes, technically true but not worth mention in comparison to the Western allies naval advantage.
>"In the first three days of February 1945, 2,000 vehicles and 51 tanks were claimed to be lost to German air attacks."
Guess which front this happened on? This isn't too say Soviet airpower was irrelevant, far from it. But it was less decisive factor in victories in the east compared to the west.
>Which makes saying it would require innumerable t-34 to deal with heavies as obnoxious as there shouldn't have been heavy tank production.
I don't understand what you're trying to say at all. There shouldn't have been heavy tank production? Innumerable T-34s to destroy heavies is an obnoxious statement? You need to explain why you think that, your argument seems a bit jumbled.
Well you can take another perspective without getting entrenched or shit flinging which puts you above 99% of this board. You got the right idea atleast, just gotta work on some specifics.
>I don't really know why they kept making panzer IVs later on in the war
Easier and chepaer to make then Panther?
>Easier and chepaer to make then Panther?
panther was only slightly more expensive than a panzer IV despite weighing more than 10 tons
but constant shortages of everything meant that they had to keep panzer IV production lines active just to meet their quotas
so they were caught in a catch-22
stop building panzer IVs to focus on panthers (like what speed wanted) and lose out on production for the better part of a year to re-tool
or keep putting panzer IVs out to meet demand, and bottleneck future growth
I think MHS in his interview with zaloga summed up armament factories.
The main cost of the factories is that the specialized tooling procured. Now some of those tooling is next to impossible to reuse.
Better would be to continue the production to at least reach higher tank production. Whole it may cost "more" to produce panzer, but it would mean you're still utilizing the tooling which you've already invested such a large amount.
This is why American and Soviet tank production was much better. The US could reuse most of the tooling for the M4s to produce improved versions while at a much much lower sunk cost than the autistic Germans.
>Hell, I don't really know why they kept making panzer IVs later on in the war
Institutional inertia. Their autistic production web was very hard to change because you had to retool ALL of the factories involved to make something else. With the Americans and Soviets breathing down their necks, Germany didn't have time to do so. They had to keep making whatever they could as quickly as possible, even if it wasn't ideal. Meanwhile the factories are getting bombed every other day, depriving them of vital components. No ball bearings? Guess you're fricked and the parts from the other factories will sit there useless.
America didn't have this problem, they had the luxury of not being bombed all the time so they could change their factories as needed to make new kinds of things.
Pz4 was generally worse than the Sherman, which many wehraboos seem to tease
Yeah. Many wartime T-34s had shit production quality.
Daimler-Benz's Panther prototype wasn't a copy T-34, though it took the hull shape as inspiration.
If you're interested, here's a huge article about the development of both MAN and DB's Panther prototypes: https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2-germany-vk3002-prototypes-panther/
upgunned Panzer IVs, StuGs and later Panthers were adequate
the different tanks that were fielded isn't what decided the war
I really don't see how Germany could have won once the US really dedicated itself to destroying them. Maybe if they developed a good long range bomber to hit Soviet industrial centers far off? Maybe if Stalin got assassinated and his successors were really stupid? I mean, it could have gone better for them maybe if the Americans had been more reasonable and offered ally with the conservatives in exchanged for them giving over the Nazis. But really, how do people think the Germans would have won from 1943 onward? Absurd miracles would have been necessary.
Germany couldn't win against so many powerful enemies, but it's not because of the tanks it used
the tanks may have been a bit worse than the Allied counterparts, but they could destroy most enemy gear too, so they did the job
They needed to wait for Russia to invade Poland first.
Russia invaded Poland in 1920. No one cared. The war wasn't actually about Polish sovereignty.
Russia wasn’t going to invade Poland without Germany starting a war first, just like he didn’t invade Finland until Britain was preoccupied with Germany.
They should've started work on the atom bomb a LOT sooner than they did
By 1945 they had at least one functional crude prototype but it was way too little too late since everything was going breasts-up already at that point
Germany didn't have the resources for it, and their bomb research was going down a dead end.
I don't know much about that. Did the Germans even think it was possible? I don't blame them for that, because the idea of a nuke was such a ridiculous and esoteric physics theory at time you would expect most reasonable people to discard it as absurd. Either way, to test one of those early nukes you would require a good uranium ore source and huge facilities to refine it to weapons grade. There was a reason the US developed the nuke first, they were the only one during the war that could spare the resources on such a weird idea.
Or not have 30 different fricking tanks being produced at once. Should have just scrapped the whole wonder weapon idea and focus solely on Panzer IV’s and to a lesser extent Tigers.
The only way they would have had a realistic chance in hell of winning is if they went straight for the Baku oil fields and not split up their army groups even more in a vain attempt at speeding things up, though of course there’s always the chance the Soviets as one last frick you could destroy all oil facilities there if that happened. Wouldn’t matter if you have the best tank ever made if you have nothing to fuel it. And even then it still wouldn’t matter since Hitler himself admitted on tape that both German intel and industry was completely behind by 1943.
Some here will reeee about it but late post mid 1930’s NSDAP politics made that completely impossible, not to mention having no resources at all for even one full bomb such as heavy water. Germany was both autistic and completely mismanaged, which is a death sentence for getting anything done the second it faces the slightest amount of friction.
Germany lost on September 1st 1939. They lacked the manpower to subjugate thr USSR and the surface fleet to force Britain into submission in some fashion. Even if the US didn’t have a lend lease Germany would have just lost in 1948 instead of 1945.
>gross Deutschland division
Holy shit I am reading “the forgotten soldier right now”. Weird coincidence
>Firefly
no room in turret
>34-85
they had to widen the hull to fit the larger turret
getting a bit 2 heavy for the engine to deal with
panther seems to be a stand off weapon
kind of like Tiger but worse
>they had to widen the hull to fit the larger turret
look up those widths again, anon
what if the Germans simply made reliable equipment
Should have copied tanks that were made afterwards?
Max and Moritz will always hold a special place in my heart.
Really should have just not fought stupid wars against everyone at once, tbphwyf
Stop thinking logically.
The T-34 was overhyped trash that has a cramped fighting compartment, no turret basket and had to be shifted with a hammer. It was shown in Korea to be inferior to western armor. Why anyone would want to copy that rubbish who wasn't a 3rd world dive is beyond me.
>Korea
You mean where it did just fine against Stuarts and Shermans and then later on lost to Centurions and Pattons? Gee, a mid-WWII tank loses to Cold War designs? No way!
Curiously, it did better against the Sherman than the T-54 did.
>You mean where it did just fine against Stuarts and Shermans
stuarts were never deployed to korea, chaffees were
shermans were deployed to korea where they did stellar work, destroying the bulk of NK tanks
> and then later on lost to Centurions and Pattons?
there were very few pattons in korea, only really getting into swing in the latter half of the war, by which point the chinese and north koreans effectively had no tanks left
the M26 pershing was about 4 times more effective than the M4 sherman in a 1:1 ratio, but shermans got way more kills in total due to the larger number deployed
in any case, the M4 sherman proved to be the T-34s superior in this case, knocking out way more than they were knocked out in turn
this would later be repeated when israeli M4s, armed with a mix of 75mm and 76mm guns, would destroy arab T-34s at an alarming rate
when upgunned to the M50 and M51 they were able to take on T-55s
there has not been any case where a T-34 was able to overcome the M4 in combat
partially due to client states receiving T-34s not actually fielding competent crews
but M4s have been successfully fielded against centurions and T-55s and succeeded
hey at least they took out a couple Cromwells the British used for recce. One was even captured and used it against Centurions in the battle of Gloster Hill.
There isn't a detailed play by play of the tank engagement but the gist seems to be that the chinks inside got turned into extra crispy peking duck by some HESH rounds.
That has more to do with the T-55 being a poorly designed weapon that the Soviets tried to replace shortly after its first active usage in combat than it does the Sherman's prowess, but the Sherman did have the T-34 beat in one very important field: bigger turret ring, meant it could upgrade to a bigger gun while the T-34 was left with the inadequate 85.
The gun itself wasn't innadequate, Soviet armor piercing shells were just shit throughout the war. The Post war "D" series of AP shells which were copies of German Pzgr 39 series has much better performance. A gun that fires a 9.2 kg AP she'll at 792m/s should be close in performance to the 88mm KwK 36 (10.2kg at 770m/s) not slightly better then The 75mm KwK 40 (6.8kg at 750m/s)
Easy eight >>>> firefly
most based tank of the war, dont even try to convince me otherwise
Named after America's craziest general.
these are all war thunder models in black and white. Either post them with the colours of use actual historical footage.
where the frick is the M4A3 75 you snail frick
It has alot of things I really like. Lots of escape hatches, overall high survivability, periscopes for both commander AND gunner (looking at you Panther) and the stabilizer was nice even though most of the troops weren't properly educated in its use. It was definitey the best all around tank of the war when it first went into combat.
Downside was its armor was not adequate later in the war, and they focused too much on making the thing fit well on trains, which compromised it with a high profile and too narrow tracks. But they should have been pumping out a Panther like replacement by early 1944. Instead they stuck with their stupid doctrine of no heavies until it was proven clearly wrong in France. By then it was too late to rush in the Pershing. Oh well, it's not like any of that would have mattered in the long run if they did it. Might have saved some American lives though.
>periscopes for both commander AND gunner (looking at you Panther)
Check the chieftain's hatch videos. Pretty sure I spotted gunner periscopes in German tanks there, not sure if that goes for the panther as well though.
Commander visibility was great though because open-protected was all you ever needed and gave great vision in all directions. It was well protected enough that outside of being in the center of an artillery barrage there was no point in ever closing the panther hatch any further. The Irishman makes a point of pointing that out but once you see the open-protected hatch position it becomes self-evident.
The gunner in the Panther only had the gunsight, which had a narrow field of view at relatively high magnification, and essentially relied on the commander to guide him onto the target. It was one of the biggest weaknesses of the tank ergonomically.
Chieftain rags on how the Panther commander has a turret clock in his copula to show where the turret is pointing. I dont get why, it's clearly for directing the gunner into target. Yeah it's not a M1A2 with a hunter killer system, but it's far better the Sherman until the late variants
He's probably just too used to modern systems and protocols and didn't realize how useful it could be for a gunner if your commander can tell you exactly where to point your gun (or even just sight) to see the enemy. Gunners back then saw very little in every tank, because even if you had the luxury of a periscope, the field of view was still tiny.
The Panther WAS the germans copying the T-34 incorporating slopped aromour and wide treads for snow/mud travel
I don't think any single german heavy tank was the problem as much as trying to make them all at once. When you are producing and maintaining 3 different heavy breakthrough tank hulls (with countless variants) all with different complicated logistics tails even after you are fighting the longest retreat in modern military history and a significant proportion of your heavy tank losses are due to being scuttled or captured due logistical failures lack of spare parts or being generally poor at forced road marches.
I honestly can't tell if Germany had some mass delusion about how good their industry was was (in reality Britain alone had more industrial output even before allied bombers cooked german arms workers into human currywurst) or if Albert Speer could just be outsmarted by a glass of water.
Actually 4 different heavy tank hulls because of the Ferdinand. The Ferdinand is a good example of the "throwing good money after bad tank designs" problem germany had:
>Porsche produces a Tiger I prototype that gets axed for being too heavy and having an unreliable drive train
>the Henshel design becomes the Tiger I
>due to immense moronation Porsche had already made 91 hulls before they even knew their design for the Tiger would be accepted
>rather than just cut their losses Germany decides to commission a heavy SPG made on the hull that is even heavier than the rejected Tiger prototype
>despite the fact the Ferdinand catches fire if it tries to climb hills they sent it to the eastern front
>they perform poorly
>"it's ok hans we can rework it and retrofit them"
>it doesn't perform any better
>at no point do they just decide that keeping a terrible low production SPG built on a failed tiger hull that needs its own unique logistics was a good idea
>even sees combat in the fall of Berlin
I think he means the unfavorable reports on how bad it was by captured korean crews. Notably that even 5'0 starving asiatics thought it was cramped
>>at no point do they just decide that keeping a terrible low production SPG built on a failed tiger hull that needs its own unique logistics was a good idea
*wasn't a good idea
the fact the Ferdinand catches fire if it tries to climb hills they sent it to the eastern front
>>they perform poorly
Actually the Ferdinand performed well and the crews loved them which makes you lose all credibility.
lmao
Lol
Usually when looking at crew satisfaction with a vehicle, crew reports about their satisfaction tend to be a good thing to go by.
Less butthurt more facts next time, anons.
are you going to cite some made up ancedotal kill stat of them killing 15000 T-34s with only 13 losses at Kursk? German tank kill claims are more crooked than soviet coal miner with rickets
the most accurate german kill-count was at operation goodwood, where they claimed 500 tank kills (post-50% slash)
british did record 500 losses that day
now here comes the small print:
british have different casualty counting from the germans
only 150 tanks were written off, the other 350 tanks all re-entered service, some the very next day
that's usually how it goes. Afaik German official losses only counted written off tanks. If a tank was disabled but recovered and repaired later it wouldn't be counted as a loss by Germany.
That autistic bald british norf guy covers all that in his excellent breakdown of Op Crusader.
frl frl this guys got it out for the ferdie. did a ferdie rape him?
>That picture
God FRICKING DAMNIT. This website has fricking ruined me.
99% sure that's ArabianOdyssey1 on twitter, also posts their OF around /soc/ back when I was lurking. I'm sick of this place.
"I RECOGNIZE THAT FEMBOY"
but yes that is Yahya aka Arabianilliad. He used to (or still does) post on PrepHole and /misc/. He gave me excellent hair care advice once from one curly haired twink to another which I will always be thankful for. He might be politically moronic but he is very cute. Someone should really hatefrick his moronic half-commie half-NATSOC half-Ba'athist political opinions out of him and flood his little nafri bussy with european cum but I would be content having him ride my face and sucking his toes.
I know you can't spoiler on /k/ but I felt I should maintain its status as a christian image board as best I can since I know most anons don't share my love of islamic femboys
no wonder fricking twinks is normal in islam if they look like that.
fricktarded opinion, you have the guns, you have the hulls, why the shit would you not make use of them. they didn't build anything unique for the ferdi, just slapped together shit they had lying around because the goddamned russian army is stalemating you and you need MORE guns.
germany was fighting the 3 largest industrial powers on the planet (UK alone was able to out produce aircraft as early as the battle of britain) whose combined populations dwarfed their own. so if germany decided to copy the T34, they still wouldnt have been able to produce a fraction of the numbers needed, or train enough crews even to match russia, never mind the western allies. even if they managed to build and crew them, how would the fuel them? the only logical option was to build individually more powerful tanks that could take out multiple enemy tanks with ease. this didnt work because they still couldnt build enough, fuel or repair them.
The only intelligent comment in this moron thread.
Its also absolutely wrong and not backed by any source
Everyone from zaloga to hunnicutt are all in agreement that germanys inability to produce enough vehicles was the wrong decision
And makes absolutely no sense within german doctrine or actual production priorities
German doctrine was to use tanks in the exploitation role, they absolutely wanted to use more small tanks than fewer big ones in this role because
And this is seen in german production, the top 3 used tanks are the medium weight stug, panzer IV, and panther
/k/ is literally the only place that has gotten the idea that the germans ever prioritised quality over quantity, when in practice they definitely preferred the former over the latter
>Everyone from zaloga to hunnicutt are all in agreement that germanys inability to produce enough vehicles was the wrong decision
Do you even read your own drivel? That doesn't even make sense grammatically.
>Its also absolutely wrong and not backed by any source
You can literally google the population figures in 5 seconds. Well, you can't bc you're a moron. But everyone else can.
>German doctrine was to use tanks in the exploitation role, they absolutely wanted to use more small tanks than fewer big ones in this role because
100% wrong. They had different tanks with different roles. Breakthrough tanks for example.
>Do you even read your own drivel?
zaloga summarizes it thusly: germany building tigers and king tigers was a mistake
both post-war sentiment of german generals and other historians broadly back the same opinion
>You can literally google the population figures in 5 seconds.
stug and panzer IV were fairly typical vehicles, mid-20 ton vehicles with a 75mm gun
these made up the bulk of german forces
the panther was not chosen for its qualitative superiority, it was chosen because it offered superior performance to the panzer IV for the same price
>100% wrong. They had different tanks with different roles.
100% right, in fact
tanks were meant to be used
everything else were meant to be niche, limited run vehicles, for use in specialized tasks
the primary maneuver would have been carried out by medium-weight tanks
no historian has ever written or said "germany should have built more heavy tanks" because this at odds with post-war analysis and wartime doctrine
>zaloga summarizes it thusly: germany building tigers and king tigers was a mistake
This statement is directed at specific tanks, not "heavy" (actually breakthrough) tank generally and certainly doesn't say anything about the Panther.
>because it offered superior performance to the panzer IV for the same price
source?
>tanks were meant to be used
and?
>everything else were meant to be niche, limited run vehicles, for use in specialized tasks
1347 Tiger Is
6000 Panthers
498 Tiger IIs
"limited run"
>This statement is directed at specific tanks, not "heavy" (actually breakthrough) tank generally and certainly doesn't say anything about the Panther.
zaloga and hunicutt outright say that germany would have done better if all the efforts directed at heavy vehicles was instead used on
>source?
total man hours and dollar cost for the panther was only slightly higher than a panzer IV
this is why they chose it
because it offered good value for its price, not because of some institutional belief in quality over quantity, a belief which is never mentioned in any document or historian
>"limited run"
tiger and king tiger were definitely niche vehicles only issued to special heavy battalions and meant to be only used for a small portion of the operation
panther, as stated above, was meant to be a compromise between quantity and quality
but regular panzer divisions typically operated with a 50/50 ratio of panthers and panzer IVs
the medium weight stug outnumbered both vehicles by production as well
german army was held up primarily by medium weight vehicles, not the heavies, because their priority was the same as other countries, quantity first and foremost
>total man hours and dollar cost for the panther was only slightly higher than a panzer IV
That's not a source, just another claim.
>According to rough estimates the labour hours n in comparison to the Panzer III stood at approximately 1 to 1.25, i.e. four Panther vehicles for every five Panzer III tanks built. Cost (without weaponry) PzKpfw III RM 96,163; Panther RM 117,100.[22]
î quoted the wrong post.
1. Last post you were talking about Pz IV, not Pz III.
2. Labour cost =/= total man hours and dollar costs
3. You realize you are now agreeing with with the statement you were initially disagreeing with?
You were disagreeing with a guys saying they shouldn't have build T-34s and Shermans. Now you are advocating for the production of Panthers which are - in my book - not T-34s or Shermans.
1. Last post you were talking about Pz IV, not Pz III.
2. Labour cost =/= total man hours and dollar costs
3. You realize you are now agreeing with with the statement you were initially disagreeing with?
You were disagreeing with a guys saying they shouldn't have build T-34s and Shermans. Now you are advocating for the production of Panthers which are - in my book - not T-34s or Shermans.
>the panther was not chosen for its qualitative superiority, it was chosen because it offered superior performance to the panzer IV for the same price
so it was chosen for its qualitative superiority
It was chosen primarily because its shape was more conducive for mass production than the panzer IV, allowing for a more cost effective return on investment
It was not the literally best possible vehicle that could be stuffed into a single package that would destroy anything that the Soviets could field
That was the maus and it was a failure
>It was not the literally best possible vehicle that could be stuffed into a single package that would destroy anything that the Soviets could field
nobody was claiming thus
>it was chosen because it offered superior performance to the panzer IV for the same price
>It was chosen primarily because its shape was more conducive for mass production than the panzer IV
just keep on changing
Wasn't the based and iconic StuG III the single most produced German tracked thingy with guns and armor?
The weird cope about German heavy tank production being all according to entwerfen (TL note entwerfen means plan) as a way to outsmart the allies is that it ignores that the first and smartest idea would be not developing 3 different heavy tanks concurrently plus a medium tank and producing countless types of heavy tank destroyers all at the same. If you actually were trying to get the maximum bang for the small water load Germany had for heavy industry you would start with actually standardizing to a single design for each role (the US had 1 heavy tank in serial production. the UK had a few more but not concurrently made) not letting your engineers run rampant and having like 20 different tank destroyers all in the same role but with 6 different hulls and a shitload of different guns all produced and operated at the same time.
The actual way you maximize your war production is by standardizing a handful of designs, exploiting economy of scale and incrementally improving them not the stupid and made up German top secret master plan to build only heavy tanks to save on crew training costs only to get bitten in the ass by basic logistical concepts such as the 1/3 rule i.e if you have half as many tanks due to >muh heavies then you are going to feel maintenance downtime way more acutely than the man with a billion Shermans and every time one of your r/chonkers big cats throws a track, gets stuck or is captured then it's a much bigger issue than any number of shitty soviet tanks getting creamed.
>having like 20 different tank destroyers all in the same role but with 6 different hulls
Those tank Destroyers were a good use of resources considering that they were essentially obsolete hulls (like the 38t) with a PaK 40 or rechambered F-22 Soviet AT gun.
They needed little industrial and was far better then slugging a PaK 40 in the mud
>Everyone from zaloga to hunnicutt are all in agreement
That's not true and Nicolas Moran even made the opposite explicitly clear in one of his (recent? At least I watched it recently, probably a QnA) videos.
Why lie?
>That's not true
zaloga and hunicutt both literally say "germans should have focused on more numerous, smaller vehicles"
>Why lie?
what lie?
>everybody from x to y says z
>2 guys say z
When you pull of stuff like that nothing else becomes believable anymore and no quote you give without a lot of context now is going to inspire any trust in the veracity of your statements.
I don't even think you're trying to be deceiving but at this point I wouldn't trust that you know the difference and didn't just misunderstand of extrapolate something and then tried to apply it to something else.
There's a stark difference between
>heavy tanks were a waste of time
Which is debatable and would at the very least require some narrowing down based on which model we're talking about
And
>focusing on quality instead of quantity was a waste of time and everybody agrees
Aside from the latter being untrue, see Nicolas Moran going "doesn't matter how many smaller cats you build if you can't feed them so trying to go for fewer but better was probably the right choice." That's also not actually an argument.
You seem to like hunicutt and zaloga in particular, I don't particularly like the latter due to sloppiness and moronation in some regards, but I'm still not willing to believe what you've presented in this thread (and that's the first post of mine you replied to), is as accurate as you think.
>You seem to like hunicutt and zaloga in particular,
even moving past them towards eastern front specialists like forczyk, you get the same overall opinion
that focusing on quality over quantity was a mistake, which is why most german produced vehicles were actually built with quantity in mind
and even looking past the 3 mentioned, the only time the idea that the germans made the right choice building tigers is ever brought up is on youtube
I went back to the last 3 QnAs and didn't see any question that sounds like it would illicit that answer so I'm assuming the quote was part of the hatch videos I researched recently.
I don't think the tiger I was a bad investment, partially because man hours and cost don't lead to a 1 to 1 conversion to more or less vehicles based on different factors, partially due to the efficiency they showed (doesn't mean it couldn't have been much, much better with a couple of changes they probably would have thought of in 1944 but didn't in 41, but they still did impressive work despite being forced into a role it wasn't designed for).
But considering a lack of crews, lack of oil, lack of infrastructure at the eastern front that gets shit there without brute forcing it via trucks and to a lesser extent trains, both of which Germans lacked and the former of which they lacked fuel for in combination with no realistic ability to match allied or soviet production I think building as many good tanks (panthers, not t34s) was the right choice.
I believe that the ratio of quality to simplification could have certainly been improved and more tanks would have been better, but the basic idea of less, but better tanks instead of mass-tank warfare seems undeniably correct.
I also think you mix up the question of the viability of heavy tanks with the focus on more quality over quantity in general.
>hatch videos I researched recently.
*rewatched
Lmao
still not wholly convinced, but you do make really good points
>I also think you mix up the question of the viability of heavy tanks with the focus on more quality over quantity in general.
RIP, yeah, i think i did
very early M4s and M4A1s, panzer IV F2 was slightly better, panzer IV D with its stubby gun isnt worth talking about
main production M4A1s was more equal against panzer Gs
panzer IV had better telescopic sight, long barreled gun, and a cuploa
sherman had better armor, faster turret traverse, and better periscopes (but no cupola)
late war sherman was undeniably better than late war panzer, but mostly because the panzer IV K was rejected without prototypes
>RIP, yeah, i think i did
That happens, if it makes it any better, despite thinking positively about the Tiger's worth in general, I think from a purely tactical standpoint it was probably closer to a wash in the cost-benefit analysis than to a decisive victory of German engineering. Still worth doing, particularly due to its efficiency in the exact opposite role of what the Germans wanted to use it for, but a lot less clear-cut than something like an stg-44.
The main reason why I don't think it was a bad choice despite the only mildly positive cost-benefit calculation in and of itself, are the secondary effects. The Tiger was huge for propaganda. Having a vehicle that can take 258 shots in a single battle and drive back home on its own (though obviously you couldn't fight with it anymore) is pretty huge for both sides. I'm not too familiar with the soviet sentiments, but Americans and bongs were famous for making every tank out to be a tiger and every gun an 88. While the good reputation of the t34 in early barbarossa partially stems from them thinking every new, unknown model is a t34, which led to a lot things experienced in regards to the KV being credited to the t34 during the period where Germans were still learning how to efficiently deal with such a heavy tank.
I can only imagine that the Russians had similar reactions to enemy tanks and guns as Germans and allies had. It's impossible to quantify the effect it had, but when reading through memoirs, field reports, troop diaries and the like, you often find examples of Russians fighting to the last man and Russians just bolting out immediately, even with supposedly highly trained or elite troops that should know better and were probably up-to date on tank capabilities.
Some of that probably happened because they saw a tank in front of them, thought it's a tiger and realized they had literally no way to penetrate it (despite facing a Pz4 they could have just punched through).
>Why lie?
Bc he's a loser from some shithole. These feelgood myths about the past are copium of the plebs.
T-34 was a piece of shit and is only hyped up because of how important the war was to Russians
ITT: bunch of hoi4 players think that switching production from one tank to another just means losing a bit of efficiency, and a bunch of war thunder players think tanks win wars
Tanks win battles which is good for winning wars.
theres a lot more factors at play here that make a tank good or bad. just spamming
>MUH SUSPENSION
>MUH TRANSMISSIONS
>I SAID IT MOM LOOK!!!1!!
is straight moronic. every country got some of things right and wrong, and just copying another countries tank to make up for german tank shortcomings, would give you allied tank shortcomings
Everyone not the US actively resented automotive reliability. In contrast US civilian trucks were highly reliable by contemporary standards with many examples surviving today. That meant it was not difficult to mass produce maintainable tanks like the spectacularly successful Sherman.
Less then 2,000 (not a misprint or typo) enlisted members of US Armor Force died in the Second World War including accidents and troops killed outside their vehicles. Flying bombers was vastly more dangerous and infantry was a bloodbath.
https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/Casualties/Casualties-2.html
>Less then 2,000 (not a misprint or typo)
Than not then
Fricking love ww2 threads on /k/. Its pretty much the only military related topic that you'll consistently get knowledgeable anons discussing things.
cold war air/naval threads usually are quite interesting and comfy excluding the occasional deluded vatnik
>German equipment was bad!
>But we also copied absolutely everyhing after the war!
propaganda victims are funny sometimes
>But we also copied absolutely everyhing after the war!
some thing were copied, but not a lot
and when it was copied, it was usually just because the design in question was borrowing elements from every side (M60 was partially inspired by the FG42 and MG42)
or only copying the principle, but making the actual piece of equipment on their own (GUPPY program was meant to copy type XXI underwater snorkel, but they did not use the XXIs themselves or build XXIs)
probably the only piece of german equipment that was wholly and totally copied on a massive scale was the jerry can
ever since /k/ got flooded with slavoids I noticed a massive increase in seething and coping about the Germans. are they really that obsessed?
Yes, there's nothing they won't say to cope. Although coping about WW2 germany is old and not exclusively slavic.
It's roots began with just refuting german superweapon claims and ended in trashing everything german because you can't say positive things about nazis.
Even if the Germans had some wunderwaffen tank that can somehow miraculous be the best, wouldn't they still lose in the cause they'd be nuked by the Americans?
Even if the Germans standardized to Panthers and could field them in massive amounts, American Shermans in the late war all had guns that could penetrate them and if we really needed them we could have fielded our own heavy armor long range tank deleters in numbers.
>American Shermans in the late war all had guns that could penetrate them
well, yes but actually no
76mm gun could only defeat the turret face at close range with AP, and <1km with APCR and upper glacis at no distance
this wasnt the biggest deal because engagements tended to occur at about 30-60 degrees rather than head on, but this isnt all-aspect penetration
> if we really needed them we could have fielded our own heavy armor long range tank deleters in numbers.
M26 probably wouldnt be fielded that quickly
they would have just phased out the M10 and M18 with the M36 and possibly pushed out M36Bs much sooner, but the M26 was still finnicky even in 1945
Yes. The war was never really winnable for Germany and it was surprising that the Axis managed to punch so far above their weight for as long as they did. By 1943, their fate was sealed. Even leaving the combined industrial power of the US, the Soviet Union and the then still fairly powerful British Empire aside. Germany surrendering when it did at least spared it from having several of its cities turned into nuclear craters.
Meanwhile lets not forget that while the Germans did tend to produce a lot of different types that weren't compatible, this argument only really applies to the USA as Britain and the USSR deployed many tanks and self propelled gun types. The Western Allies however made a frick ton of different aircraft throughout the war that did the same job.
Just a look at fighters where Germany standardized on the Bf-109 and FW190
>USAAF
P-38, P-39, P-40, P-47, P-51
>USN
F4F/FM-2, F4U, F6F
>RAF
Hurricane, Spitfire, Typhoon, Tempest + P-40, P-47, P-51
>the USSR deployed many tanks and self propelled gun types.
USSR at least tried to keep things standardized to just 3 hulls
IS for heavy, with the ISU-152 built on its hull
the T-34 for medium, and the SU-100 and SU-122 built on its hull
and the T-70 for light, mostly replaced by the SU-76 later on as the light role was removed
maybe not to the same extent as the US, who used the sherman and M5 stuart for 90% of everything
but it was still a fair bit more standardized than the germans
>Deployed
Keyword, not manufactured, the USSR deployed thousands of lend lease tanks from Grant, Sherman, Valentine, Matilda which had nothing in common with local manufacture
And of course they had their own wierd low production stuff like the Su-76i which they manufactured and deployed nearly 200 of and were based on captured Panzer III chassis
That's the sexiest tank I've ever seen.
I prefer the original
only the sherman fought in front-line units where they could cause logistical problems
valentine was mostly used to shore up infantry divisions
while the grant, matilda, and all the other loser vehicles were sent to second-line fronts where there werent too many other types of tanks to begin with
Valentine was used in the same way as the T-70 in light cavalry regiments. I honestly don't know what you mean by second line. Matilda and such certainly saw plenty of action on the eastern front. The 5th Mechanized Corps which was completely equipped with British tanks in was effectively destroyed in heavy combat from December 1942 to Feb 43, and rebuilt with... More British tanks
>I honestly don't know what you mean by second line
matildas and M3s were mostly only used in frontline service until 1943, by 1944 they were really only using M4s in frontline service
And Valentine's, the Soviets very much liked the Valentine tank
In terms of SPGs the British did things in a smarter way than the Germans since instead of using whatever the latest ammo/gun/ configuration revealed to Ferdinand Porsche in a dream for each new tank destroyer they stuck with a single gun and only changed as needed. First it was the 25 pounder which was actually a lot better than a random arty gun fitted with a solid shot AP round should have been since it turns out in flat desert a direct firing artillery gun vs Panzer IIIs is like an MBA basketball player fighting Koksal Baba. The QF 17 replaced it and was a damn fine gun and was THE high velocity british gun used on everything simplifying logistics and making developing gucci ammo like Sabot very viable
>Bishop SPG (a Valentine hull with a bungalow housing a 25 pounder built on top)
>Archer (a Valentine with a QF 17 mounted backwords)
>Achilles (a M10 GMC with a QF 17)
>bonus points for the Firefly, Comet, Challenger and Centurion which were all very good tanks which used it and the last 3 were an ascent of man meme for MBT development.
>defending British armor design
You're going to lead a difficult life, kiddo.
what can I say anon the western allies had the best tanks in the war by far. US tanks were the most solid due to the massive amount of testing and development they got before getting anywhere near the front line but at the same time there is something to be said about the British "by jove my boffin told me that if I drop special tin foil we can blind jerry's radar and also we can guide our bombs with beams. I don't know what any of it means but I'll test it out over Berlin" approach. Sometimes you get a piece of shit like a Covenanter but sometimes you get an amazing tank like a Centurion.
>. US tanks were the most solid due to the massive amount of testing and development they got before getting anywhere near the front line
US tanks were in that weird limbo where they were mechanically excellent but lacking in essentials
the US was a titan in automotive design but hadnt yet fought a war
leading to the very first M4 shermans being rugged, reliable, starting the first time every time but still lacking in a commanders cupola and even a gunners telescopis sight
whoops
although as it turned out, its easier to install good optics on a mechanically sound tank, than it is to give a tank with good optics a new transmission
which is why the M4 turned from lacking bare essentials at first
Let's not go calling a Centurion a WW2 tank unless T-55s are somehow now a WW2 tank
>Centurion: Design work started in 1943 - introduced in January 1945
>T-54: Design work started in 'late 1945'
The T-54/55 is definitely a post war tank, as its design was started after the war had ended. The Centurion was designed and introduced during the war, and it's not the tanks fault that there the Germans had collapsed to the point where it wasn't needed at the front by the time it left the factories.
>and it's not the tanks fault that there the Germans had collapsed to the point where it wasn't needed at the front by the time it left the factories.
Yeah but just because it's not the tank's fault doesn't mean it's a WWII tank.
Did you miss the part about it being 'DESIGNED AND BUILT' during the war?
The Firefly is completely overhyped.17-pdr is not suited to that turret, lacks HE, and the tank is overall outperformed by the E8
They literally had Panzer IIIs/IVs capable of penning Shermans and T34s with AP ammo. The issue the Germans had was that their tank factories were constantly being bombed and they couldn't feasibly mass produce one particular kind of tank at any time.
yes but they give up some terminal effect
APCBC can do a bit more damage with its bursting charge "if" it penetrates
APCR and HEAT depend a bit more on hitting the right spots, and maybe a bit of spalling
I mean Centurion Mk I is basically a British Panther in nearly ever characteristic except road top speed
Do any of you have the image of a Panzer 4 talking about the war and how he's the workhorse as things are getting worse?
T-34 was shit and its only advantage was being able to be made for cheap. Its reputation is exaggerated by the improved post war models that also didnt have any of the massive cost cutting simplifications that the war time ones did. Soviets managed to produce twice as many tanks as the germans and the germans were only able to destroy 1,7 times as many soviet tanks to their own losses so the german strategy of superior tanks vs superior number of tanks almost worked but there also was no point in germans producing more tanks than they did because they were barely able to supply fuel for the ones they really did produce. The fuel supply made it so that it made more sense for germans to have less but better tanks than to have lots of worse tanks.