I understand What you are saying mate, but the thing for me is that the Germans did design great tanks, but the engine’s of the King Tiger were very weak and the Tiger also had it’s problem and so did the Panther, but they were great tanks in there own respecs.
The allies had the mass production backing them up and the Germans not.
I love German tanks and I also love allies tanks and I must say great thanks for George for posting those pics thanks mate.
The German tanks very heany sun of a gun and this were not a good thing and the fact that they could not be mass produced and had so many problems.
I understand What you are saying mate, but the thing for me is that the Germans did design great tanks, but the engine’s of the King Tiger were very weak and the Tiger also had it’s problem and so did the Panther, but they were great tanks in there own respecs.
The allies had the mass production backing them up and the Germans not.
I love German tanks and I also love allies tanks and I must say great thanks for George for posting those pics thanks mate.
The German tanks very heany sun of a gun and this were not a good thing and the fact that they could not be mass produced and had so many problems.
Great stuff guys.
Henk[/quote]
You’re welcome Henk.
Yes, the Germans did suffer from low production numbers on their tanks. If I remember correctly the total production on their Tiger and Panther models was something like:
380 Tiger II (King Tiger)
1,500 Tiger I
5,500 Panther (plus or minus).
Great Britain alone produced more total numbers of tanks than Germany. And the United States produced more tanks than Britain and Germany combined.
By 1945 the United States had produced 28,919 light tanks, 57,027 medium tanks, and 2,330 heavy tanks. Among the total of 337,388 armored vehicles of all types produced by the United States from 1940-1945 were some 49,000 M4 Shermans in 20 versions. (Figures from: “Chariots of Iron - 50 Years of American Armor”, William Butler and William Strode, Harmony House, 1990, p 25).
In addition German industry was unable to adequately supply spare parts for existing tanks. This further reduced the number of available vehicles as a result of cannibalizing vehicles of the same type in order to keep them running.
The Germans also suffered from fuel shortages later in the war, which reduced the training time for new tank crew replacements. After the summer of 1944, the quality of their tank crews went on the decline while the quality of the American tank crews continued to improve.
The better trained and more experienced American crewmen also used innovative tactics to help overcome the technological advantage of tanks such as the Panther. “A popular tactic in experienced US tank battalions when encountering Panthers was to strike them first with white phosphorous smoke rounds. Inexperienced German crews would sometimes be forced out by the acrid smoke, drawn in through the tank’s ventilator. Even if these tricks did not work, the smoke prevented the Panthers from locating their opponents, giving the M4 tanks time to maneuver to the flanks or rear, where their 75mm gun could penetrate the Panther’s armor. This tactic was standard operating procedure in some units, including CCA, 4th Armored Division. Some US tank units preferred to fire high-explosive rounds at the Panther, finding that inexperienced German crews would simply abandon their tank.” (quoted from: “Lorraine 1944 Patton vs Manteuffel” by Steven J. Zaloga, Osprey, 2000, (p 27)
US tanks had speed, mechanical reliability, radio coordination, fast gun loading and turret speed on their side - as well as sheer numbers in the field. (From: “The U.S. Army in World War II”, by Mark R. Henry, Osprey, p 117).
In addition the Americans also had better and more modern communications systems and better artillery and air support. They fought as true combined-arms teams (armor, infantry, artillery and air-support coordinated by a superb communications network). “Luckily, there were never very many Panthers or more than a handful of Tigers on the battlefield. US armour commanders adapted by bringing the coordination of superior numbers, artillery and airpower to an unequalled level as a ‘force multiplier’. The provision of good radio communications should not be underestimated as a factor in this success: every US tank had a receiver (SCR 538), and leaders’ tanks - and by 1945 most others - had transmitters and receivers (SCR 508/528). The Sherman platoons maneuvered to ambush the Panzers, fired WP (white phosphorous) rounds to blind the enemy, flank- or back-shooting them from short range, playing cat and mouse in cover, and relying on speed and numbers in break-through battles to make the most of their equipment. It is a tribute to the American crews that they were able to fight the US tanks through the 1944/45 ETO campaign and win essentially every major battle. After the German retreat from France in late summer 1944 there was asteady shift, in the US Army’s favour, in the level of skills shown by German versus American tank crews.” (From: “The U.S. Army in World War II”, by Mark R. Henry, Osprey, pp 117-118 ).
From “Weapons of Patton’s Armies”, Michael and Gladys Green,MBI Publishing, 2000, (pp98-99)
From: “British and American Tanks of World War II”, by Peter Chamberlain and Chris Ellis, Arco Publishing Company, 1975, (p 206 )
Nice research mate. I think that the germans should have first done the same thing as the allies and build smaller tanks and then build them in great numbers and then try to build larger tanks, but the Germans did not do so and thus thought if they have larger tanks it would be better. IN the case of tanks you should rather have 30 medium tanks than 10 heavy tanks.
First have the small numbers then get your heavy stuff. The other thing is if you have medium or small tanks you should have artillary to support them or you are doomed.
I must say the Sherman also had its problem and so did a lot of allied tanks during WW2, but they still had the numbers to make up for their losses and another thing that helped the allies was air support.
At the end of the War the most numerous German Tank was still the PzIV and the Stugs of course. So the Germans did have the small to medium sized armour you are on about Henk?
Yes, Fireflly please read my post and you would understand what I am trying to say. If you do not I will explain it for you.
The Germans focused to much on the heavy tanks than on the smaller versions in the last years of the war.
Look at the tanks of the allies and you will see what I am meaning, like the Sherman and the T-34 and look at there success and there numbers, NUMBERS.
Aniway, going back to the original issue, honestly I don believe that the Sherman was a good tank, too tall for ambush too narrow tracks for bad terrain, too underpowered gun ( solved in the 76 mm even but not entirely), not particulary good armor.
The point in favor were the good reliabilily of his mechanical components, a releative good internal espace ( ruined in the british 17 pounder) and a very good speed in solid terrain.
Is not about santificate the german tanks they had their flaws also but with the amazing industrial capabilities of USA is quiet shocking to me that they fought with this inferior desing that late in the war and this fact allowed to the nazis to cause a high number of casualties between the american tankers.
Yes, true, I have in one book where a US shipyaurd build a transport ship in 4 days a few hours. It is thus shocking to think why they did not have greater tanks.
We seem to have lost the point that Shermans (except maybe the Firefly) were not designed to fight other Tanks, thats what the AT guns were for. Once the Allies broke out of Normandy Sherman losses fell considerable, Pattons drive across france was a good example of what the reliable Sherman could do, much like what the once reliable German Tanks did in 1940.
The Germans started the war with light fast and flexible armour that was ideal for Blitzkreig. By the end of the war they had turned this into a static lumbering defence force with superior tanks in many ways, but oh so unreliable and not enough of them.
In effect we are all right in some way here, but the end result was, unlike a lot of other German inventions, their tank designs do not seem to have influenced any postwar Allied armour at all.
Yes, I agree with you, but why did the US then use the Sherman against other tanks and not their stronger tanks?
Patton were a great man and his success were proven in North Africa and thus also in Europe. He learned from the Dessort Fox from his books about tanks war fare and then learned how to defeat his tanks.
I wholeheartedly disagree. The Sherman, while it did have inherent drawbacks such as a high silhouette, was a very flexible and adaptable weapons platform. The main problem was that virtually the same version was being produced from 1942 to 1944. Most M4s were outdated. If the Germans had kept using the 1940 vintage Panzer MkIV with no improvements, obviously they would have been obliterated. But they adapted it and place a high velocity gun and upgraded the armor.
Something similar should have done with the Sherman, earlier than it was… But the proof is in the pudding. This Israeli “Super-Sherman” is testament that the tank could upgraded and serve well into the 70’s effectively:
Is not about santificate the german tanks they had their flaws also but with the amazing industrial capabilities of USA is quiet shocking to me that they fought with this inferior desing that late in the war and this fact allowed to the nazis to cause a high number of casualties between the american tankers.
This I wholeheartedly agree with. It was a conscious choice since US tanks had to make it over the Atlantic in Liberty ships. So weight, economy, and size, as well as German U-Boats, were a consideration… The fact is that the M26 was available much earlier, but was decided to just produce more Shermans… A very bad error in retrospect.
wholeheartedly disagree. The Sherman, while it did have inherent drawbacks such as a high silhouette, was a very flexible and adaptable weapons platform. The main problem was that virtually the same version was being produced from 1942 to 1944. Most M4s were outdated. If the Germans had kept using the 1940 vintage Panzer MkIV with no improvements, obviously they would have been obliterated. But they adapted it and place a high velocity gun and upgraded the armor.
No kidding…compare the 75 mm gun sherman version with the lightest german tank of the period of Normandy, the Panzer IV H, this little AFV had more frontal armor ( 50mm+30mm aplique), and even the side armor does not protect it against any AP proyectile more larger that 23mm it had the spaced skirts wich were very effective against the allied shaped charges (Bazooka and russian hand trown grenade RPG), the Sherman could be penetrated for the most simple infantry AT weapons like the hand thrown grenade Panzerwurfmine o the Panzerfaust Klein both costing a few reichmarks.
And always the german industrial predispotition for large mass production is in dispute, but the german industrie reacted fast when encountered the T-34 menace in 1941. In july of 1942 they had the panzer IV F2 with the long 75 mm, wich by the way was more powerful than the 75/32 and a little below the US 76mm.
The Sherman had faced plunging german guns in the desert in 1942…no improvements were made until late 1944.
Pzkw IV F2 with 7.5cm L/43
total production March-July 1942 = 175 plus 25 converted from earlier F1
Production figures for Pzkw IV tanks from October 1937 - March 1945:
Pzkw IV Ausf A (with short 7.5cm L/24 gun) Oct 37 - Mar 38 = 35 vehicles
Pzkw IV Ausf B (with short 7.5cm L/24 gun) Apr - Sep 38 = 42 vehicles
Pzkw IV Ausf C (with short 7.5cm L/24 gun) Sep 38 - Aug 39 = 134 vehicles
Pzkw IV Ausf D (with short 7.5cm L/24 gun) Oct 39 - May 41 = 229 vehicles
Pzkw IV Ausf E (with short 7.5cm L/24 gun) Sep 40 - Apr 41 = 223 vehicles
Pzkw IV Ausf F1 (with short 7.5cm L/24 gun) Apr 41 - Mar 42 = 462 vehicles
note: 25 F1’s converted to F2 with longer 7.5cm L/43 gun
Pzkw IV Ausf F2 (with long 7.5cm L/43 gun) Mar - Jul 42 = 175 vehicles
Pzkw IV Ausf G (with long 7.5cm L/43 & L/48 guns) May 42 - Jun 43 = 1,687 vehicles
Pzkw IV Ausf H (with long 7.5cm L/48 gun) Apr 43 - Jul 44 = 3,774 vehicles
Pzkw IV Ausf J (with long 7.5cm L/48 gun) Jun 44 - Mar 45 = 1,758 vehicles
Total Production of all types Pzkw IV from October 1937 - March 1945 = 8,519 vehicles
During a period of about seven and a half years. (89 months)
Does not seem like much for a production run that long.
Figures from: “Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two - Revised Edition”, Peter Chamberlain and Hilary Doyle, Arms and Armour Press, 1993, (pp 95-99).
One thing that constrained the design of tanks in the UK was that they had to be transportable by our railway system - this placed restrictions on their overall weight & width, to the detriment of the fighting abilities.
Your data is correct, but I was refering to the fact that a superior 75 mm tank gun was designed in short time, the F2 model was merely a transitional one between the simple ausf. F and the very enhanced ausf. H.
The Stug III was armed in the same way.
One thing that constrained the design of tanks in the UK was that they had to be transportable by our railway system - this placed restrictions on their overall weight & width, to the detriment of the fighting abilities
.
The german vehicles too, with the exception of the Pz VII Maus.
I have seen clips of restored French tanks (S35 and Char B) giving demonstrations with more modern tanks like the LeClerc. Do you know if the Germans have done anything similar to their WWII era tanks?
.
