Really Really Stupid Question...

[Guy w/gun]

I ask you all this. If the Allies on the western front of WWII had tanks that were, in general, inferior to German armor, why did the Germans have an uncanny obscesion with fielding the Heavist (and most cumbersome) armor they possibly could?

Was this more in response to the armor that the Russians possesed on the eastern front which, again in general terms, was better matched to German armor?

[John Hough]

Desperation. And I think the being led by a madman thing had something to do with it as well.

------------------

sometimes i'd like to kick your f-ing head

but i guess you're just a human too

-EMBRACE, "SAID GUN"

[Guy w/gun]

Desparation? Desparation for what? To get there asses kicked? That thread about the 600mm gun takes the cake. Using that against tanks? Thats like using a tank against a fly!

Sorry if I've come off as a smart ass. I REALLY hope i didnt piss you off John. It just seems pretty obvious that any tank that can barely support it's own weight isn't going to work....especially when you only have the reasorces to make 3 of them.

[John Hough]

Well, when it becomes obvious that if you build a jillion Panthers, the US will build 3 jillion Shermans and the Soviet Union will build 5 jillion T-34s, you gotta do something, right? The answer, of course, if you're a crazed dictator, is to build the jillion ton Uberhampster, which is completely impervious to enemy weapons. Never mind that it can't move, or that its uberKanone can only fire once every 30 minutes, it can beat 10 jillion enemy panzers all by itself, right?

No, you didn't piss me off. Ne'er mind the aggro-pacifist lyrics in my sig.

-John

------------------

sometimes i'd like to kick your f-ing head

but i guess you're just a human too

-EMBRACE, "SAID GUN"

[Mark IV]

Partly because with limited resources and almost unlimited enemies, they had to try to do more with less.

Partly because the Western Front was only a rearguard action to the bulk of WWII, which was fought against Russia, and they were designing tanks to deal with the primary enemy, and couldn't just custom-build tanks to suit the foe in the West.

But mostly because they didn't. They were fielding thousands of PzMkIVs and Panthers main battle tanks in '44-45, and I'm not sure what leads you to "uncanny obsession with fielding the Heavist" as a peculiarly German phenomenon. Take a look at some of the Russian monstrosity designs that were actually in mass production. Check out the armor (and is there such a thing as a "cumber rating"?) on the Churchills.

And the US developed the atomic cannon....

[Stuka]

Hehe, yes the Atomic cannon You just gotta love those wacky, zany US military guys. I've also read of secret US plans from the 1950's(?) to detonate an Atomic device on the Moon. Keerist! What where they thinking?

Insanity was not just confined to the military of the US of A as I've read accounts of a Soviet plan to convert a sea going freighter into one gigantic Atomic bomb which they thought could be used to sail covertly to the US coast for detonation. The theoretical result of such a detonation the author claimed could have been enough to split the planet. Thats a big call but even so it does go to show the lunacy prevalent during the cold war and the fear of the 'Red peril'.

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

The Germans built and fielded a little less than 50,000 tanks and tank destroyers in WW II. The US built around 85,000. The Russians built 103,000. The Brits built a lesser number, but in the tens of thousands certainly. The Germans were therefore being outbuilt by 4 to 1.

And the Germans were not half as obsessed with heavy tanks and TDs as CM players are. The majority of the AFVs they were building in the last year, year and a half of the war, were StuG IIIs, Panzer IVs, the Panzer IV chassis Jadgpanzers, and Hetzers. They never took the Mark IV out of production because they knew there was no way they could make do numerically with the output of only the heavier types, and they could not afford the cost in vehicles built for downtime to retool factories to switch. The TDs also were nearly twice as easy to build as the heavy tanks.

The only heavier model they were committed to building in quantity was the Panther, which they issued and used as a medium tank. It was a great tank, obviously, and not a monster of giantism by any means.

The total number of Tiger Is produced in the whole war was perhaps 5% of German AFV production. The still heavier and rarer types where made in numbers with 3 digits, meaning 1-2% of the overall production effort.

As for the tanks they were facing on the eastern front, it is a little appreciated fact that the Germans faced heavier enemy tanks on essentially all fronts for the first 3 1/2 years of the war, about which coincided, incidentally, with the time they were winning. Facing the minor European powers - Poland, Yugoslavia, Greece - sure the Germans outclassed what they were facing in weight of metal terms. But not so against the French, British, or Russians in the early years of the war.

The Germans fought most of their victories using the humble Pz Mark III, which started out with a 37mm gun (like the one on the U.S. Stuart or M-8) and escalated as the war progressed to a short-barreled then a long-barrel 50mm. It could not hold a 75mm, which was the reason for the Pz IV. Pz IVs had been around for a while, but mounting short barreled, low velocity howitzers and used like the later Sherman 105s or British CS tanks. The armor on the Mk III was thinner than that one the Mk IV, although the overall protection of the two types was comparable.

Against these dinky tanks, the French fielded heavily gunned monsters twice their weight mounting a 75 howitzer *and* a 47mm antitank gun, plus other types with the 47s - the Brits fielded Matildas with 40mm (2-lber) guns comparable to the German ones but with much heavier armor that was proof against the main German guns from the front, and the Russians fielded T-34s and KV-1s that were armored much better, approaching a Tiger Is armor in the case of the heaviest KV series tanks, and mounting 76mm high velocity guns like those later sported by the Marder, Panzer IV, or U.S. Sherman 76s - in 1941.

The Germans defeated all of the above because they had a superior armor doctrine, and placed proper emphasis on combined arms, communications and mobility, alertness and manuever. The tanks worked with close infantry support while the Allied ones tended to run off alone. The Germans made a high art out of leading Allied tanks chasing them into ambush positions of concentrated German towed AT guns (the "PaK front"). The accompanied all their armored columns with regular artillery and provided everyone with radios to call in fire support and communicated information with each other rapidly. And they stood up, unbuttoned, in their turrets, so they could see what the heck was going on, while Allied tankers tended to button at the first sign of trouble (a tendency greatly furthered by the Germans having infantry around the tanks while the Allies often had none).

Compared to the situation in 1944 vs. the Americans, the German forces of 1939-1942 looked a lot more like the American forces. They had less front armor, smaller tank guns, but tons of support and combined arms and usually decent numbers, attained by smart operational handling that put high portions of their tank force up against smaller portions of the enemy's, at a time. The Germans also had control of the air and the scouting and road movement advantages that went with it.

The Germans fought against T-34s by up-gunning the Pz IV with a long 75 that could penetrate it - usually - while also being penetrable in turn. The developed the Panther to be able to beat T-34s, but the Russians were not idle and basically matched it with the T-34/85. The Panther's better optics gave it better range, but otherwise there is little to choose between the two, purely as pieces of equipment and discounting how well they were handled.

The Germans made all sorts of experiments with heavier armor to try to get an edge on the Russians, knowing by 1943 that the Russians were outproducing them in tanks alone, leave aside the Americans. The idea was to get something to the front that would do the work of 2-3 by being locally invunerable. But the Russians were basically level with them or ahead, in pure equipment terms, for almost the entire war - only brief windows between introduction of one model and its counter excepted. By the end of the war the Germans had the King Tiger design and made a few hundred, while the Russians were on the 3rd upgrade of the Stalin series, which was far and away the best all-around heavy tank of the war, and which they were turning out in thousands, not hundreds.

But the Russians mostly relied on a fleet of T-34s as easier to make and faster operationally than the monster tanks, just as the Germans made far more Panthers than heavyweight TDs and King Tigers.

While the quality of tanks deployed certainly mattered, it did not outweigh a difference in sound doctrine, combined arms teamwork, and crew and command skill. As the war progressed those things became more even between the countries, too, as people learned the early-war German tactics and adapted their own versions.

None of the fleeting material advantages the Germans had in the east could replaced the lost one-sided edge of being the only army to start the war with a sound combined-arms doctrine on the use of armor. Once everyone knew the trick, it was mostly numbers, which of course were strongly against the Germans. The Germans tried to tell themselves that quality would defeat quantity, but as Zukhov put it, "quantity has a quality all its own".

The American army perspective, as one sees in the official histories, is that they (the American officers, especially in armor but across the board) had learned in a German school but were applying the same successful German doctrines of the 1939-1942 period, against the Germans themselves. U.S. force compositions emphasized combined arms, mobility, communications, coordination, air superiority, etc. Which the American officers had identified (correctly, in my opinion) as the real cause of the early successes of the Germans, which the Americans (again correctly IMO) did not see as in any way due to some alleged superiority of the tanks or other armored equipment itself, but instead lay in how it was organized, coordinated, and used.

One man's opinions...

[Skott Karlsson]

Also since the dawn of time mankind has been fixated on the old theory that bigger is better. This has been borne out in warfare too. Seems like it wasnt until the latter half of this last century (2000) that mankind really got into micro sizing. Of course technology had to make this possible first.

~Skott~

P.S. Is Bigger Better?

[Guest Pillar]

Two Words:

Nano Warfare.

I'm looking into this concept, and the tactical and strategic implications it will bring.

[Guest Mr. Johnson-<THC>-]

Same reason the Pentagon and senate wastes billions of taxpayers dollars on building new super cool weapons instead of improving old weapons systems and training when Its quite obvious that a better pilot in a older plane can beat a newbie in the F-22 Raptor. What excactly that reason is, is up for debate. Maybe those in power just don't understand how things work at a military level.

BTW Nice opinions Jason Cawley. If thats your "real" name. lol

[Robert Olesen]

Jason,

Are you the same Jason Cawley who used to write tons of excellent articles on Stars! strategy? I really enjoyed those. The style and thoroughness is the same.

[Dan Robertson]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mr. Johnson-<THC>-:

Its quite obvious that a better pilot in a older plane can beat a newbie in the F-22 Raptor. What excactly that reason is, is up for debate. Maybe those in power just don't understand how things work at a military level. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Got to say that it would be very hard for the best pilot in the world to beat the F22 in a fight. The technology level is way a head of even the Eurofighter and the various prototypes the Russians come up with. Even if the F22 was readily detectible it still has the power and super cruise mean it's no escape zone is significantly smaller than fly any enemy plane, and the missiles at medium ranges make the difference. Not dog fighting.

By this argument you would prefere the US army to field M60's verses T80's or exported Challengers and Leclercs.

[von Lucke]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jasoncawley@ameritech.net:

One man's opinions...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And certainly well thought out and presented they are, too...

[Bruno Weiss]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Same reason the Pentagon and senate wastes billions of taxpayers dollars on building new super cool weapons instead of improving old weapons systems and training...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are two other reasons, one's called porkbarrel, the other is known as dementia.

------------------

"Gentlemen, you may be sure that of the three courses

open to the enemy, he will always choose the fourth."

-Field Marshal Count Helmuth von Moltke, (1848-1916)

[Shadow 1st Hussars]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stuka:

Hehe, yes the Atomic cannon You just gotta love those wacky, zany US military guys. I've also read of secret US plans from the 1950's(?) to detonate an Atomic device on the Moon. Keerist! What where they thinking?

Insanity was not just confined to the military of the US of A as I've read accounts of a Soviet plan to convert a sea going freighter into one gigantic Atomic bomb which they thought could be used to sail covertly to the US coast for detonation. The theoretical result of such a detonation the author claimed could have been enough to split the planet. Thats a big call but even so it does go to show the lunacy prevalent during the cold war and the fear of the 'Red peril'.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Russians made small nuclear bombs, placed them in breifcases and sent them to embassy's in western countries.

------------------

No bastard has ever won a war by dying for his country. They won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.

[Mark IV]

Nice post indeed, jason@.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Shadow 1st Hussars:

The Russians made small nuclear bombs, placed them in breifcases and sent them to embassy's in western countries.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really.

According to the documentation, what did these suitcases weigh?

[Dar]

Mark IV:

I'm reading your post as if you are skeptical about such bombs even existing, so correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm not sure what they weighed, but among other countries the US has also had suitcase "dial-a-yield" nukes. They are man-portable, and they contain a dial that lets you set how much of a yield you want (within a limited range, of course--i.e. we're not talking 20 megatons, but more like 5KT).

If I find some links, I'll post them.

------------------

Dar

[Tiger]

Well not to worry since the USA is getting rid of all their tanks and replacing them with armored cars for faster deployment. I just read an article in the USA Today which talked about this and the armor being merged with the infantry in the form of these armored cars built in Canada. Wasn't this how the US had things set up before WWII? The article went on about how the US was going to destroy enemy armor with remote controlled vehicles with super-weapons. It looked real silly because they had a master control vehicle (manned) and 2-3 other remote controlled vehicles, plus an airborne drone for spotting, all to do the work of a tank. Crazy.

Tiger

[Jeff Heidman]

Great post Jason, but I would argue the idea that the T-34/85 was the equal of the Panther.

The Panther had a superior gun, and superior frontal armor. Better mobility, higher speed, and was more agile.

The T-34 had better side armor, but both could be taken out from the side by the oppositions lighter AT guns (50mm German, 57mm Soviet), so that is kind of moot. The T-34 had a superior HE shell.

The 85mm gun used by the Soviets could not frontally penetrate the Panther at typical combat ranges, while the 75mm gun on the Panther could certainly penetrate the T-34/85 at any facing. Even the 75L48 could get frontal penetrations against the '85, although not reliably, while the Soviet 76mm AT gun had no chance against the front of the Panther.

The T-34/85 might have been superior when you factor in production costs, but was not a superior vehicle straight up. Of course, the Panther has something like 10 tons on the T-34.

I would compare the T-34/85 to a Sherman M4A3E8(76).

Jeff Heidman

[Runyan99]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Guy w/gun:

I ask you all this. If the Allies on the western front of WWII had tanks that were, in general, inferior to German armor, why did the Germans have an uncanny obscesion with fielding the Heavist (and most cumbersome) armor they possibly could?

Was this more in response to the armor that the Russians possesed on the eastern front which, again in general terms, was better matched to German armor? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes. German heavy tanks like the Panther and Tiger were built to compete with the Russian T-34, and other heavy Russian tanks.

[Guy w/gun]

Very informative post jason. And thanks to all. I asked this question because In my limited life span, I've observed a pattern.

Some guy builds the biggest and baddest weapon he can imagine, thinking it will be invincible. And then when war happens and the dung hits the fans, someone is able to completly screw over the "invincible" weapon using very un-invincible equipment and by exploiting a weakness the desighner never realized was there.

Even popular US culture has picked up on this. What defeated the Death Star? A precise fighter strike exploiting a critical weakness. How did earth blow up the alien ships in Independence Day (ugh)? Exploiting a weakness and using what they had.

It just seems that when people try to build "super-weapons", someone comes along and is able to destroy the whole thing with bubble gum and paper-clips.

Not to disrespect the allies and say it was really that easy however !!!!

[Banshee]

In the offense lighter tanks are used because they are faster/ more mobile. This enhances their effectiveness when exploiting breakthroughs, getting to points of decisions faster, etc.

In the defense, heavier tanks are better because you need to be able to absorb more punishment without having to give up your position. Mobility is important, but not nearly as much compared to offense (in WWII terms. An active mobile defense ,as opposed to a fixed defense with mobile reserves, requires communication and intelligence gathering that just didnt exist in WWII). So considering that Germany was outnumbered, and on the defensive, a heavier tank suited their needs. In the beginning years they went with lighter tanks because they needed the mobility.

------------------

Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

[Diceman]

Monster tanks like the King Tiger and Jagdtiger were just one of the many signs of Nazi Germany's out of control procurement system. The Jagdtiger was a personal desire of Hitler, and just one example of how Nazi politics wreaked havoc with war production.

It's amazing how successful the German Army was in light of the many logistical nightmares it had to overcome just to operate. A quick glance at a listing of German tank/anti tank armament will reveal eighteen different gun chamberings give or take, I'm not 100% sure of which guns did or did not have compatible ammo.

Then there were the numerous chassis that had to be dealt with. By late '44 the German Army had to manage supplies for seven different AFV chassis, not counting variants, compared to five basic chassis in the American camp, and three used by the Russians. When you start talking about soft skinned vehicles it gets even worse. It was an out of control system, run by an out of control political party, with an out of control man at the helm.

------------------

Pair-O-Dice

"Once a Diceman, Always a Diceman."

[The Commissar]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dan Robertson:

Got to say that it would be very hard for the best pilot in the world to beat the F22 in a fight. The technology level is way a head of even the Eurofighter and the various prototypes the Russians come up with. Even if the F22 was readily detectible it still has the power and super cruise mean it's no escape zone is significantly smaller than fly any enemy plane, and the missiles at medium ranges make the difference. Not dog fighting.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

On relation to next-gen fighters:

I read an article recently in one of the newest issues of Popular Mechanics magazine. They had a cover story of the newest Russian fighter being tested as we speak.

It's wings are facing the other direction, that is, a "Y" wing of a sort

Anyhow, the fighter is said to have superior agility, speed, and radar systems, and is being produced as the direct competition for the F-22. The Western experts who observed the tests were said to be "impressed" and thought the new fighter (gosh, I wish I could remember the name it had) was going to be at the very least as good as the F-22.

'fcourse, Russia is in a bit of a economical dilema right now, so the US has clear superiority in production.

Just wanted to share that little tidbit

Cheers!

------------------

"...Every position, every meter of Soviet soil must be defended to the last drop of blood..."

- Segment from Order 227 "Not a step back"

[The Commissar]

Oh, and as an addition to my last post, I would just like to add that IMHO, Russia should be concentrating its limited resources on training counter-guerilla units to fight the guerrillas in Chechnia.

I dont see the point of wasting millions on research and production of a new super-fighter while conscripted kids who were given AK-47's are being needlessly massacred by an experienced guerrilla army. I think the only chance Russia has of at least giving the Mujahadeen a run for their money is by better training, not super technology, which has almost no value in guerrilla warfare.

Cheers!

------------------

"...Every position, every meter of Soviet soil must be defended to the last drop of blood..."

- Segment from Order 227 "Not a step back"