So what tanks should the Germans have skipped, and what would have been the positive results?

[Redwolf]

One big question is the Tiger family in general, or rather heavy tanks in general.

Do you really need "breakthrough" tanks with as much side armor as other tanks have front armor and an oversized gun that has stronger HE and engages enemy armor at much longer range?

Sure you take them if they are offered to you but the cost is substantial, do you still take them if you could have more medium tanks? And if mobility and fuel consumption is bad?

The Germans thought so after Barbarossa, no doubt also influenced by the T-34 problems, but the concept of the breakthrough tank is based on heavy resistance in general, not one specific enemy tank model. So what do you do about stiff resistance? They didn't want to get bogged down. WW1 thinking also comes in.

In hindsight this is misguided. More SP guns with large HE throwers to support regular attacks would have been the way to go. The whole Tiger family was not worth it.

[Glubokii Boy]

22 minutes ago, Redwolf said:

The whole Tiger family was not worth it.

The Tiger 1 was sort of a panic respons...was it not ? They needed something to deal with the russian T34 and KV series and they needed it fast. Since the flak 88 performed so good against these russian heavies why not make a tank big enough to be able to support a simular gun ?

 

 

[Bulletpoint]

The Russians also produced heavy tanks. But the difference is that they were able to keep producing them and fuelling them.

[Glubokii Boy]

20 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

The Russians also produced heavy tanks. But the difference is that they were able to keep producing them and fuelling them.

Would something like 3 Pz IVs have required less fuel ? In the later parts of the war the germans could not fuel...anything (at a required level).

[Glubokii Boy]

And pretty much not in the early parts either...Atleast not ones Barbarossa got on the way...

 

[Redwolf]

47 minutes ago, Glubokii Boy said:

The Tiger 1 was sort of a panic respons...was it not ? They needed something to deal with the russian T34 and KV series and they needed it fast. Since the flak 88 performed so good against these russian heavies why not make a tank big enough to be able to support a simular gun ?

The thing I take issue with is the strong side armor which makes the vehicle expensive and heavy. You don't need that to fight tanks. They wanted it for creating a "breakthrough tank" that isn't primarily fighting tanks.

Dealing with T-34s and KV would be better served by upgunning a StuG with the 88mm L/56, but enclosed and with a good front shield. Basically a Brummbär with the "short" 88. And speaking of it, the Brummbär is a proper tool to facilitate breakthrough.

Then take the research and resources that went into the Tiger and make a better medium tank chassis than the kind of awful Pz IV chassis sooner.

[Vanir Ausf B]

The case could be made that ideally from early 1944 the Germans should have built nothing but Panthers and Jagdpanthers, but the war was lost in 1941.

[Sgt Joch]

As I recall, I believe Guderian when he was inspector-general tried to push the idea of just producing assault guns like Stug's, they were easy to build, could be mass produced and the main gun was almost as powerful as on a Panther.

Panthers and Tigers look cool, but required more man hours to build for not that much impact.  As I recall, most of the Big Cats were lost not through combat, but were abandoned when they broke down or ran out of gas.

[Duckman]

The Panther gets a lot of stick but not putting extra armour on it (apparently at Hitler's request) would have fixed a lot of the mechanical issues. It was also, unlike the Tiger I, well suited for mass  production. The Tiger I was the most expensive German tank, a real luxury item that nonetheless did get some results on the battlefield. However with so few produced I doubt they were a huge drag. The Tiger II was not a great project but at least suited for mass production (basically a bigger Panther). 

As others have noted there is a good case that the Germans should simply have stuck with the Panzer IV and StuG. That would probably have worked, but the bigger issue was manufacturing. Only one German tank factory - Nibelungenwerk in Austria, one of Göring's megaprojects - had a proper assembly line. The materials shortage also started to bite fairly early with e.g. lower quality steel having a substantial effect on actual  performance.

[chuckdyke]

True it was hard for a 75 mm to knock a Panther tank out. The King Tiger a very good tank but not very reliable.

[slysniper]

Ah, I will throw in a whole other concept here.

The Germans were their own worst enemy as to tank development.

We see in hindsight, what they could not see at the time for themselves.

They also had a leader taking them on design paths that likely they did not even agree on. Hilter was a great help to the Allies at times. 

Weapon design was part of it.

 

If Germany would have seen the obvious, when they first encountered the T34, I believe that tank had the Answers to the most needed tank design for that period of fighting.

I feel the Panther was the Germans answer to that design, using many of the same principles but then as all of their projects of the time, over engineered and made it more complex than needed.

I have this view that if the Germans would have just reversed engineered the T34, realize they needed to increase quantity over quality they might have had the perfect tank and in numbers that could have made an impact.

So a panther, but a panther built on simple systems that we see in the T34 design.

So the track system should have been based on a T34, and other similar steps.

Of course all production should have been reduced to just a few models - so a Panther tank should have been that choice, but only if they had simplified it.

 

With the mindset they had at the time, none of these concepts would have happened. But if I was a time traveler, and wanted them to succeed. they would of had only one tank in production and it would have been a cross between a T34 and a Panther with multi turret gun and turret configs like we see in today armies.

 

 

[civdiv]

51 minutes ago, slysniper said:

Ah, I will throw in a whole other concept here.

The Germans were their own worst enemy as to tank development.

We see in hindsight, what they could not see at the time for themselves.

They also had a leader taking them on design paths that likely they did not even agree on. Hilter was a great help to the Allies at times. 

Weapon design was part of it.

 

If Germany would have seen the obvious, when they first encountered the T34, I believe that tank had the Answers to the most needed tank design for that period of fighting.

I feel the Panther was the Germans answer to that design, using many of the same principles but then as all of their projects of the time, over engineered and made it more complex than needed.

I have this view that if the Germans would have just reversed engineered the T34, realize they needed to increase quantity over quality they might have had the perfect tank and in numbers that could have made an impact.

So a panther, but a panther built on simple systems that we see in the T34 design.

So the track system should have been based on a T34, and other similar steps.

Of course all production should have been reduced to just a few models - so a Panther tank should have been that choice, but only if they had simplified it.

 

With the mindset they had at the time, none of these concepts would have happened. But if I was a time traveler, and wanted them to succeed. they would of had only one tank in production and it would have been a cross between a T34 and a Panther with multi turret gun and turret configs like we see in today armies.

 

 

First, I would assume you mean T-34/85. While it was a good tank at the time the first T-34 had a major issue; a two man turret. So could they have crammed everything the Germans regarded as required into a T-34 chassis? Many countries did not go with the Christie suspension because it reduced hull volume. Sloped side armor makes it even more cramped. Now throw a radio in every tank and what else? 

[slysniper]

don't take it too literal. but you bring up a good point. How much lost lower hull space comparing the christie system to a panther system.

I don't have that answer.

but I never envisioned a Russian turret, It would have been a German turret laid out to accommodate their needs.

I can dream, cant I.  

The T34, taught the proper use of sloped armor, track width, simple suspension.

Add in German, better armor, Gun systems, optics, radios and the potential for a better built engine and transmission that could of equaled or improved beyond the Russian power train. I think it could have been done. 

[slysniper]

Face it, The Germans never once designed anything for the speed of production. 

They looked at the poor quality of Russian fabrication and it likely made them vomit.

But they learned the hard way about how it managed to get the job done.

 

Again the Germans were their own worst enemy

[Vergeltungswaffe]

The heavies actually performed fairly well, but the Germans were always so hellbent on attacking or counterattacking with their armor.

If they had husbanded it and used it defensively to a much greater degree, the advances on both sides would have been slower and more costly, but the Germans very helpfully served their best units up to be sliced and diced on offense.

[Glubokii Boy]

3 minutes ago, Vergeltungswaffe said:

The heavies actually performed fairly well, but the Germans were always so hellbent on attacking or counterattacking with their armor.

If they had husbanded it and used it defensively to a much greater degree, the advances on both sides would have been slower and more costly, but the Germans very helpfully served their best units up to be sliced and diced on offense.

I wounder how the Ferdinand would have performed as a defensive tool if it had not been wasted in some ill suited offensive actions.

[Vergeltungswaffe]

1 hour ago, Glubokii Boy said:

I wounder how the Ferdinand would have performed as a defensive tool if it had not been wasted in some ill suited offensive actions.

Pick good terrain and have some infantry to protect flanks and good lucking cracking that nut without a lot of heartache.

[danfrodo]

Great topic, great comments, good fun, Folks.  I'll preface my 2 cents by saying that there was no tank decision that would've changed the outcome, but at least they would maybe have been able to actually hold some of their defensive lines and wear down the russians.  The only thing that could've really changed things was Hitler putting the pistol in his mouth a lot earlier.  But I think the best decision would be the following:

Produce a single tank chassis, starting in 1942 (instead of say, tigers):  35 ton for turreted version, same chassis for tank destroyer & mobile arty thus making very simplified spare parts pipeline & maintenence;  Simple chassis w sloped thick frontal armor, neglecting side & rear armor;  Wide tracks; High velocity 75mm gun -- that gun could destroy anything on the battlefield until the russian heavies appeared;  good optics; LOTS of TDs  since cheaper & 4 man crew, like mentioned above via Guderian.  So basically this is a T34 w better gun & optics and crew fighting ability.  Or call it a lighter, simpler, cheaper and more reliable panther.  Or call it a sherman 76 that wasn't so tall and had better tracks. 

Next thing:  Don't lose men by the dozens or hundreds of thousands for no reason by constantly refusing to retreat so there's actually crewmen for those tanks (yeah, I'm looking at you, Hitler, you idiot.)

Of course, I could've not said anything here and just quoted what SlySniper said above

[chuckdyke]

German boilermaker apprentice and his teacher on his knees examines his first creation up to the window. See or everything is done to his required standards. If he sees one ray of sunlight his glasses slide to the tip of his nose and his eyes glares deep into the soul of his apprentice. These people are incapable of mass production by their very nature. 

[Sgt.Squarehead]

15 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

True it was hard for a 75 mm to knock a Panther tank out. The King Tiger a very good tank but not very reliable.

I'm a bit suspicious of the caption for that Kingtiger.....It doesn't appear to have a turret-ring splash-guard, zimmerit, or camo.  In fact it looks a lot like Bovington's 'Porsche' Kingtiger (formerly Black 300).  As explained in a video recently posted on this forum, that tank (& IMHO also the one in this image), were from an initial batch reserved for testing and training purposes.

[chuckdyke]

34 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

I'm a bit suspicious of the caption for that Kingtiger

Never examine a given horse they used to say. That book is a free download

[Vergeltungswaffe]

15 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

These people...

Pretty broad brush to paint a country with.

Those people made 33,984 Bf-109's.

[Probus]

19 hours ago, Glubokii Boy said:

I wounder how the Ferdinand would have performed as a defensive tool if it had not been wasted in some ill suited offensive actions.

True, but you can't win a war by defending all the time. I think Hitler's crew knew that if the war dragged out, they were doomed. 

They probably needed two main tank designs. An offensive (nasty) turreted tank to win the war, and a fast SPG 'tank' on the same chassis to run around and stop the hemorrhaging.

Playing CM, I really don't like the Pz-IVs. They don't hold up well. But honestly, with the way I play, the Panthers don't do much better.

[DerKommissar]

Panther had a teething period, like all machines. New drivers had very little experience. The punch line is that there was also a shortage of spare parts.

The result was that many of their tanks were sitting in workshops, including P. IV's.

Standardization of parts and chassis could allow for more operational vehicles. This could save time on retraining crews, too. If they also standardized their Axis allies, they could optimize manufacturing, training and maintenance, further.

I doubt even shipments of leo 2s could have saved the Third Reich. What they should have dropped was Hitler and his National Socialists.

[Redwolf]

1 hour ago, Probus said:

Playing CM, I really don't like the Pz-IVs. They don't hold up well.

The Pz IV never was that great. The suspension is substantially worse than the Pz III and the turret ring couldn't hold reasonable amounts of turret armor.