The Wehrmacht paid the T-34 the greatest praise by asking German industry to copy it. I wonder how a panther turret fitted on a T-34 body would have worked.
Really? Specifically how? Do tell…
He had no respect for the General Staff and their strategic vision. He refused the concept of the ‘Wehrmacht command’ that would have avoided unnessesary duplication and he dismissed the attempts to transition armaments production to massed production.
A blinding half-truth and a basic regurgitating of conventional wisdom mythologies prior to the 1970s. The “strategic vision” of the General Staff would never have allowed “Sichelschnitt” and Fall Gelb would have been a disadvantageous battle of attrition. Hitler may have disrespected the General Staff, but he also allowed those with talent to supplant the reactionaries, before being seduced and destroyed by the arrogance resulting from his initial successes…
Hitler scuttled the multi phase expansion programme already in place, for his 4 year plan in 1936. This seriously screwed up the German growth making the army build more horse infantry divisions based on a ‘limited war economy’, instead of transforming the exsiting stucture into a moderatly sized motorised-mechanised juggernaught backed up by a ‘total war economy’. Likewise the airforce was denyied the multi engined strategic bomber it badly needed in place for more and more medium bombers demanded by Hitler. Even the navy lost out; being forced to build a moderately sized ‘anti French’ fleet instead of going for a larger ‘anti British fleet’.
Complete dis-informative fantasy! Really? You think Hitler somehow intentionally handicapped the capacity of German industry? They Four Year Plan was little more than a slight undermining of the terms of the Versaille Treaty. And Germany had a plan for a strategic air force, but was limited to medium twin-engined bombers due the limited capacity of German industry.
The Kriegsmarine was never anticipating a show down with the Royal Navy and before 1948. As stated in Tooze, it was in fact Hitler’s ultra-aggressive foreign policy decisions that led to war far earlier than anticipated by his armed forces.
Remove Hitler from the equation and everything can change for Germany.
Then Germany wouldn’t have defeated France in six weeks. You can’t just re-fight WWII removing Hitler for the equation in some bizarre, hindsight adulation of the Wehrmacht…
With reference to the thread; I think the best strategy for Germany if it fails to secure a European empire by mid war; would be to adopt a defensive posture and utilize a ‘high low mix’ approach in the armed forces and transforme the force with the array of ‘special weapons’ developed prewar.
Um, isn’t that what Germany pretty much did?
Correct, … but exactly the way you describe it, Hitler never fully followed Guderian’s or Manstein’s striking ideas at some crucial points.
Remember Dunkirke … tactical / strategical withdrawals …
You think Hitler somehow intentionally handicapped the capacity of German industry?
No
But he was a at a certain point a self-confident poser, inflicting strategical injuries.
Then Germany wouldn’t have defeated France in six weeks. You can’t just re-fight WWII removing Hitler for the equation in some bizarre, hindsight adulation of the Wehrmacht…
agreed
Um, isn’t that what Germany pretty much did?
90% 
They might have asked just that, yes, but it was a psychological schock, not just logical thinking.
Where the T34 gave trouble, the KV was a real nightmare… “Iron roadblock” it was called.
A T-34 could be knocked out by pzIII and IV, at closer range… a KV not and this tank had no sloped armour. It was simply thick thicker thickest. So far the “slope religion”…
Note the layout of the KV: flat hatched glacis, steep rising front hull plate, turret, rear engine… exactly as the German mediums.
Except for the rear drive sprocket and a big big big diesel engine.
The KV didn’t go unnoticed: PzKpfw 756(r) German adaptation of the KV-1 with high velocity 75mm gun.
And suddenly the Germans had a real heavy tank !!! 
The most feared feature about both, however, was the gun.
Just as exagerated remarks are made as "why didn’t the Germans win then? when talking about pazner design, one can ask “why the Russians didn’t waste the Germans early in 1942-1943?” because of mass amounts of already modified T-34’s.
The answers is simple: the T-34 was cannon fodder. The armour of the first T34 was no more than the side armour of a Panther. Most armour upgrades were made to the turret only. German AP ammunition already was designed with ballistic and soft cap, reducing the effect of ricochet.
ausf H project spring 1943
Nick, Nick, Nick read some thing other than western Histories…please.
When you do you will see that history is in the eyes of the beholder, or is dependant on your POV.
If you actually read German histories you would know that Hitler fully expected the any invasion of France to end up just occupying Beligum Lux & Netherlands and then spend years battleing the French.“Sichelschnitt” was Manstein’s plan and only was adopted when enough time elapsed in delays to allow its implimentation. More to the point Hitler kept his general staff in the dark as to his real purpose convincing them that the main war with the big powers was going to be much later. Hitler convinced him self and his loyal leadership that actions in Eastern Europe were designed to accelerate the final phase of the expansion of the Wehrmacht before the major war occurred, since he was unwilling to wait the amount of time Hjalmar Schacht indicated it would take by peacefull means. No one was more surprised than he was when a European war exploded , when he invaded Poland.
Oh and sorry Tooze doesn’t count as a German historian. His POV is very English! Although his prewar material is helpful if not occasionally misguided, his war history is suitably twisted and flawed. He does makes an important point in one of his published papers that most history is based on oppinion and not fact, but then proceeds to fall into his own trap.
Every generation there is a new spokesman for each side of the on going debate about German history in and leading up to WW-II. As I said before you need to learn respect for the Historical process.
Two things:
Firstly: One must remember that Gen. Halder (who violently hated Hitler) had at least as much to do with successful implementation, and more importantly the conduct, of the plan–as the plan unfolded much faster than anyone believed possible and the German strategic penetration of France was more complete than thought possible. Furthermore, Fall Gelb (Case Yellow) was NOT a prime example of what was known as “Blitzkrieg”, but was an accidental unfolding of the strategy on the fly as the Heer’s rapid advance forced new logistical measures to be brought about…
Secondly, the Dunkirk “Halt!” order technically did not originate with Hitler, he merely concurred with his more skittish generals that something may have been afoot in the Allied camp, and the initially successful British attacks at Arras contributed to this fright. Secondly, there was no given that the panzers–devoid of infantry and storming a place not known as good tank country, and then engaging in urban fighting–would have necessarily wiped out the pocket. There was no guarantee of victory with the exhausted state of the Heer panzer crews and their breaking down tanks…
No
But he was a at a certain point a self-confident poser, inflicting strategical injuries.
agreed…
We do on this. Hitler certainly drove his country into war far in advance than the projected time tables the military had for rearmament…
Like what? Bundeswehr historian Karl Heinz Frieser’s The Blitzkrieg Legend which I’ve read and you clearly haven’t?
When you do you will see that history is in the eyes of the beholder, or is dependant on your POV.
Contentions of History has to be backed up with some chronological factual basis of documentation and support; not pulled out of our arseholes!
If you actually read German histories
Um, reread this post again!
…you would know that Hitler fully expected the any invasion of France to end up just occupying Beligum Lux & Netherlands and then spend years battleing the French.
Hitler wanted to invade as soon as possible in October of 1939, which would have been suicidal. However, the initial draft of Fall Gelb was Gen. Halder’s, not Hitler’s. Once Adolf was successfully bulwarked from attacking until spring, he is the one that pulled Manstein from near obscurity, then allowed Halder to make a stunning transformation from military reactionary to progressive and raise Manstein’s plan to fruition…
“Sichelschnitt” was Manstein’s plan and only was adopted when enough time elapsed in delays to allow its implimentation.
Agreed. But Sichelschnitt is analogous to being Manstein’s baby that was adopted by Halder and raised to manhood…
More to the point Hitler kept his general staff in the dark as to his real purpose convincing them that the main war with the big powers was going to be much later. Hitler convinced him self and his loyal leadership that actions in Eastern Europe were designed to accelerate the final phase of the expansion of the Wehrmacht before the major war occurred, since he was unwilling to wait the amount of time Hjalmar Schacht indicated it would take by peacefull means. No one was more surprised than he was when a European war exploded , when he invaded Poland.
Hitler had no real road map to war, he more or less blundered into it with miscalculations and an ultra-aggressive foreign policy. The start of WWII wasn’t the result of any staged, rational planning. But it also has to be stated that both Tooze and Frieser remark that there were SOME logical reasons for Hitler’s seemingly Mad Hatter actions, such as Operation Barbarossa being largely a reaction to the sheer industrial might of the United States…
…
Every generation there is a new spokesman for each side of the on going debate about German history in and leading up to WW-II. As I said before you need to learn respect for the Historical process.
I respect scholarship and documentations. May I ask if you are of German lineage living in Canada?
Chevan
You are mixing up the events a bit. Endeed the first monsters the Germans ever faced in WW2 was soviet Kv-1/2 in 1941. they got certain troubles also with hunting the T-34/76 in the early period of war. The entire Panther project was began as the GErman answer to “T-34” and initially the germans was going to make an “copy” for themself. But the Panther was just the improved the German vertion that , nevertheless had many common points to T-34.
The first Armoured ‘Monsters’ the Germans faced were the French Char B1/B1 bis and Matilda in 1940. Only the 88mm Flak could deal with either of them.
… which eventually led to hurry the 88 onto the Henschel Tiger tank, which was designed to be equiped with the 75/L70 gun.
A quick note: the Matilda was far much more a threath than the B1. Command and crew of UK matilda forces were superior and the war against the French ended way to soon to be a big trouble.
research on two-stroke diesels would have been a leap as well…, yielding higher power even at lower capacity engines than petrol
Something the British already had in stock
25-tonns Matilda was even more light then the early T-34. Yes it was well armored but…40-mm gun;)Not to mention two weak 95 h.p. diesels. That lets it move with fantastic 10km/h ;)Matilda remainds me the soviet idiocy - T-35 tank.
Hardly it has impressed the GErmans…
Try to look in perspective … we’re talking about the very beginning of the war. Of course the Matilda is weak when talking about Russian monsters. But even a IS-2 is weak next to a Leopard 2A6 … :neutral:
The 37mm and even 50mm guns had a hard time with the Matilda, which gun could easily knock out the panzers.
but russian monsters was developed and produced almost within the same period the Matilda was. The t-34 since 1940.Matilda was rather obsolet even for its time.
The 37mm and even 50mm guns had a hard time with the Matilda, which gun could easily knock out the panzers.
It can work only in african desert far open terrains. Where slow-moved Matilda has a chance to hit a somebody. In Eropean forest terrains this tank has no any real chances.That’s why germans panzers had not noticed or reported the battlles with Matilda - it never was a problem for them.
Why wouldn’t the matilda be elsewhere a problem just because of forests in Europe? :lol:
Chevan
The Matilda II was a problem for the German forces in 1940, they encountered them in a very small number in one major battle at Arras. They found that no weapon could stop them until in desperation they turned the 88mm onto them after the British had run riot along with the Matilda I. At the time the 2pdr was one of the most effective AT weapons that could destroy any German armoured vehicle (although it had a crap HE shell which was not issued).
It was part of the reason the Panzers stopped before Dunkirk.
The CharB1 bis was also a tank that was very effective against the German forces there use was terrible though, split up in penny packets instead of being concentrated. They were impervious to German AT weapons in 1940.
Part of the reason for the development of the Tiger I was due to encountering these tanks which they captured and could examine in detail for ways to knock them out. By the time the Germans encountered the Matilda II again in the western desert they had developed the 50mm towed AT and tank guns which could at least take on the Matilda which had 80mm frontal armour, 65mm side armour and 75mm turret armour. The main weapon to defeat the Matilda II though was still the 88mm in ambush.
Top speed of the Matilda was 16mph though (26kmh), which was its designed speed. It was built as an Infantry support tank and not as an anti-tank vehicle. Later models were fitted with a 6 pdr but it was too late for the old girls by then.
It IS already 80% of the “monumental Tiger” 's armour … :shock:
Later models were fitted with a 6 pdr but it was too late for the old girls by then.
which was an excellent gun actually
Well , i can agree here.
Part of the reason for the development of the Tiger I was due to encountering these tanks which they captured and could examine in detail for ways to knock them out. By the time the Germans encountered the Matilda II again in the western desert they had developed the 50mm towed AT and tank guns which could at least take on the Matilda which had 80mm frontal armour, 65mm side armour and 75mm turret armour. The main weapon to defeat the Matilda II though was still the 88mm in ambush.
Hmmn, sound stronger then armour of KV-1;)
However it had neither KV powerful engine nor even adequate gun. I do believe the 88 was the only siutable gun to hit matilda armour. Just in case itself didn’t stuck in the mud
Top speed of the Matilda was 16mph though (26kmh), which was its designed speed. It was built as an Infantry support tank and not as an anti-tank vehicle. Later models were fitted with a 6 pdr but it was too late for the old girls by then.
I believe the 26 km/h is the topest speed , moving from the slope;) Even Wiki get the average speed in desert no more then 6 Mph;) Probably it was more then enough for British army( which never moved faster in ww2;)) But it would be laughable for the dynamic tanks battles of Eastern front.Even KingTiger moved faster.
P.S. Just don’t think dear frieds , i want to hurt the british pride .The Centurion tank was IMO the best on its class. But eveything they done BEFORE Centurion - it would be better never to do.
Becouse battle in forests/hills terrain is a close-range battle. Where the slow tank is very vulnerable coz can’t maneuver effective.
I think my point didn’t come through… I ment: why can’t the matilda be called a problem in African campaign? Forests in Europe are no argument…