Achtung Panzer! Armor Discussion Thread

[Novus America]

Panzer 3 and Panzer 4 were contemporaries meant to compliment one another. The Panzer 4 was never a replacement for the Panzer 3 until it became apparent the 3 could not be sufficiently up gunned due to turret ring diameter. And this as 1942-1943.

Well sure, until it became apparent the III could not be up gunned. Hence why III production ceased and they were converted to other roles.
But neither was that great. It was more the employment of them more than anything, as they were designed before the war, while huge advancements in tank design happened during the war.

Both were also very slow with a short operational range. Both were grossly underpowered with undersized engines.

Had they been faster, had longer operational range and engines more suited for cold weather it is possible the war could have turned out differently. Maybe had they had better tanks (amongst many other things) they would not have lost.

[Dostanuot Loj]

Up gunning the 4 was always a stopgap though. The Panzer 5 was supposed to replace both as essentially an MBT. And while it sorted out its issues the 4 was kept. Germanys failing was waiting too long to replace both.

[Husseinarti]

Even by the late 1930s the Germans were already proving themselves to not be happy with the idea of two vehicles.

There was a series of designs beforehand, this project would become the Panther.

[Dostanuot Loj]

Even by the late 1930s the Germans were already proving themselves to not be happy with the idea of two vehicles.

There was a series of designs beforehand, this project would become the Panther.

This was probably their only real great contribution to tank development of the era: narrowing into a single main battle tank.
The Americans would stumble upon this by industrial economics alone.
The British would be forced into it by industrial economics.
The Russians would be forced into it at gunpoint by the British and Americans post-war.

And the Japanese, Italians, French, and other minor tank producers who did not start with this concept would simply be reeducated post war by the British, Americans, and Germans.

The interesting part of all of this is how the original divisions (pre-MBT) were broken down: weight or role or whatever. The Germans broke into a role that did not define drastic technical differences and both types could operate side by side. Only the Americans and Japanese came close to this.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

The Russians would be forced into it at gunpoint by the British and Americans post-war.

What.

[Dostanuot Loj]

The Russians would be forced into it at gunpoint by the British and Americans post-war.

What.

The USSR never abandoned the 3-5 tier system it fought WW2 with until forced to in the mid-late 1950s due to confrontations with the Western allies in Germany.

[Novus America]

What.

The USSR never abandoned the 3-5 tier system it fought WW2 with until forced to in the mid-late 1950s due to confrontations with the Western allies in Germany.

Changing to meet a new strategic environment and technological advances is not "forced into it at gunpoint".
The West never told the Soviets "adopt a MBT or we invade you".

[Austrasien]

Had they been faster, had longer operational range and engines more suited for cold weather it is possible the war could have turned out differently. Maybe had they had better tanks (amongst many other things) they would not have lost.

That is doubtful. They very nearly won the tank war in the east. Had all Panzers been concentrated on the eastern front they would likely have achieved armoured superiority. As late as May/June 1944 the Germans were basically neck and neck with the Soviets in terms of AFVs, and the Soviets suffered losses greater than 1-to-1 right up to the end of the war, but they were unable to concentrate them on one front.

But the general notion that the Soviets achieved decisive armoured superiority or that the Panzerwaffe was "destroyed" as an effective fighting force at some point (like Kursk or w/e) is wrong. Germany had basically as many AFVs in the east in 1944 as they did in 1941 and they were generally more capable. And tactically German armoured forces were [url=Lake Balaton Offensive]fighting effectively until the last months of the war[/url]. The superiority of Soviet artillery organization and tactics and the Germans loss of air superiority, which was a side effect of the bomber offensive, were probably the two biggest factors behind Germany's defeat in the east. And the west for that matter.

From the German perspective it often seemed like the Soviets had overwhelming superiority in armour. But this was mostly a mirage, at least after 1941. What the Soviets were really better at was concentrating large armoured forces at the decisive point and time. The rate of attrition they suffered was appalling though.

[Salus Maior]

Hi Rio! The answer to your question is that they good tanks when used by competent commanders.

I feel like that's just tanks in general

[Novus America]

Had they been faster, had longer operational range and engines more suited for cold weather it is possible the war could have turned out differently. Maybe had they had better tanks (amongst many other things) they would not have lost.

That is doubtful. They very nearly won the tank war in the east. Had all Panzers been concentrated on the eastern front they would likely have achieved armoured superiority. As late as May/June 1944 the Germans were basically neck and neck with the Soviets in terms of AFVs, and the Soviets suffered losses greater than 1-to-1 right up to the end of the war, but they were unable to concentrate them on one front.

But the general notion that the Soviets achieved decisive armoured superiority or that the Panzerwaffe was "destroyed" as an effective fighting force at some point (like Kursk or w/e) is wrong. Germany had basically as many AFVs in the east in 1944 as they did in 1941 and they were generally more capable. And tactically German armoured forces were [url=Lake Balaton Offensive]fighting effectively until the last months of the war[/url]. The superiority of Soviet artillery organization and tactics and the Germans loss of air superiority, which was a side effect of the bomber offensive, were probably the two biggest factors behind Germany's defeat in the east. And the west for that matter.

From the German perspective it often seemed like the Soviets had overwhelming superiority in armour. But this was mostly a mirage, at least after 1941. What the Soviets were really better at was concentrating large armoured forces at the decisive point and time. The rate of attrition they suffered was appalling though.

Well the Soviets for most of the war generally had twice as many of more tanks.
Sure the difference was not as much as often claimed but was significant.

Sure the Germans very nearly won the tank war. But had they had better tanks they might actually have won it. Had their tanks been faster, with better range, and better suited for Cold they might have taken Moscow. Getting there a month earlier would have made a big difference.

[Austrasien]

Well the Soviets for most of the war generally had twice as many of more tanks.
Sure the difference was not as much as often claimed but was significant.

In every year of the war the ratio of Soviet:German AFV production was lower than the ratio of Soviet:German losses. The Germans were actually winning the war of attrition, because higher Soviet production was more than offset by their extreme losses. By 1944 there were a bit under 2000 German AFVs in France, the low countries and Italy versus just over 4000 on the Eastern Front. Had those been available to resist the Soviets their numerical edge would have essentially disappeared.

Sure the Germans very nearly won the tank war. But had they had better tanks they might actually have won it. Had their tanks been faster, with better range, and better suited for Cold they might have taken Moscow. Getting there a month earlier would have made a big difference.

The Germans did not fail to take Moscow because the Panzers had mechanical problems. The Panzers were actually more or less unopposed in winter 1941 because the Russian armoured forces had been decimated. The German infantry simply were not able to hold the area around Moscow against the Russian counter attack.

[Novus America]

Well the Soviets for most of the war generally had twice as many of more tanks.
Sure the difference was not as much as often claimed but was significant.

In every year of the war the ratio of Soviet:German AFV production was lower than the ratio of Soviet:German losses. The Germans were actually winning the war of attrition, because higher Soviet production was more than offset by their extreme losses. By 1944 there were a bit under 2000 German AFVs in France, the low countries and Italy versus just over 4000 on the Eastern Front. Had those been available to resist the Soviets their numerical edge would have essentially disappeared.

Sure the Germans very nearly won the tank war. But had they had better tanks they might actually have won it. Had their tanks been faster, with better range, and better suited for Cold they might have taken Moscow. Getting there a month earlier would have made a big difference.

The Germans did not fail to take Moscow because the Panzers had mechanical problems. The Panzers were actually more or less unopposed in winter 1941 because the Russian armoured forces had been decimated. The German infantry simply were not able to hold the area around Moscow against the Russian counter attack.

Sure the US entering the war doomed Germany.

But logistical problems were huge for Germany. Tanks breaking down, running out of fuel, and being too slow hurt. Having better tanks would have been better.

[Novus America]

Well the Soviets for most of the war generally had twice as many of more tanks.
Sure the difference was not as much as often claimed but was significant.

In every year of the war the ratio of Soviet:German AFV production was lower than the ratio of Soviet:German losses. The Germans were actually winning the war of attrition, because higher Soviet production was more than offset by their extreme losses. By 1944 there were a bit under 2000 German AFVs in France, the low countries and Italy versus just over 4000 on the Eastern Front. Had those been available to resist the Soviets their numerical edge would have essentially disappeared.

Sure the Germans very nearly won the tank war. But had they had better tanks they might actually have won it. Had their tanks been faster, with better range, and better suited for Cold they might have taken Moscow. Getting there a month earlier would have made a big difference.

The Germans did not fail to take Moscow because the Panzers had mechanical problems. The Panzers were actually more or less unopposed in winter 1941 because the Russian armoured forces had been decimated. The German infantry simply were not able to hold the area around Moscow against the Russian counter attack.

Sure the US entering the war doomed Germany.

But logistical problems were huge for Germany. Tanks breaking down, running out of fuel, and being too slow hurt. Having better tanks would have been better.

[Austrasien]

Sure the US entering the war doomed Germany.

But logistical problems were huge for Germany. Tanks breaking down, running out of fuel, and being too slow hurt. Having better tanks would have been better.

The Russians had more problems maintaining their tanks than the Germans did. At the nadir in 1942 T-34s on the dusty southern front needed a total engine rebuild after an average drive of just 60km. This was a major factor in their extreme losses.

While it is true the German tanks suffered a lot of mechanical problems, this was not unique to the Germans. Soviet and British tanks were similarly inconsistent and problem prone. The US was the country in WWII that was able to produce a large number of consistently reliable motor vehicles and this was mostly a function of their superior industry.

[Novus America]

Sure the US entering the war doomed Germany.

But logistical problems were huge for Germany. Tanks breaking down, running out of fuel, and being too slow hurt. Having better tanks would have been better.

The Russians had more problems maintaining their tanks than the Germans did. At the nadir in 1942 T-34s on the dusty southern front needed a total engine rebuild after an average drive of just 60km. This was a major factor in their extreme losses.

While it is true the German tanks suffered a lot of mechanical problems, this was not unique to the Germans. Soviet and British tanks were similarly inconsistent and problem prone. The US was the country in WWII that was able to produce a large number of consistently reliable motor vehicles and this was mostly a function of their superior industry.

Sure, but a problem not being unique to you is still a problem. Being better is well better.
The Germans needed any adavantage they could get.

Also it should be noted Hitler's generals told him to wait on invading Poland as they knew Germany was not yet fully ready for the war that would ensue.

The lack of enough modern tanks was one reason.

[Austrasien]

The early war was also when Germany achieved its greatest armored successes. The tactical superiority of German tankers in the early war was more than sufficient to offset the inferior characteristics of their tanks. The relative performance of German armour declines as the war advances because better technology is offset by better armed opponents, and attrition eats into skilled tank crews.

It is true that the tanks (and everything else) could always have been better if more time had been spent developing them. But military power is relative, if Germany had delayed the war to improve the readiness of its forces it would also likely have faced more capable enemies. The relative balance may not have been any better, and it may well have been worse. As it was Germany's armoured forces were among it's best performing forces. It was not for want of a panzer that they lost.

If anything needed improvement it was the German surface fleet, fighter aviation and artillery. All of which under performed throughout the war with major knock-on effects for the war effort as a whole. The generally excellent performance of German infantry and armour was unable to make up for these deficits.

[Novus America]

The early war was also when Germany achieved its greatest armored successes. The tactical superiority of German tankers in the early war was more than sufficient to offset the inferior characteristics of their tanks. The relative performance of German armour declines as the war advances because better technology is offset by better armed opponents, and attrition eats into skilled tank crews.

It is true that the tanks (and everything else) could always have been better if more time had been spent developing them. But military power is relative, if Germany had delayed the war to improve the readiness of its forces it would also likely have faced more capable enemies. The relative balance may not have been any better, and it may well have been worse. As it was Germany's armoured forces were among it's best performing forces. It was not for want of a panzer that they lost.

If anything needed improvement it was the German surface fleet, fighter aviation and artillery. All of which under performed throughout the war with major knock-on effects for the war effort as a whole. The generally excellent performance of German infantry and armour was unable to make up for these deficits.

Well true, no matter what Germany was going to have a problem as their ambitions were too big for their capabilities.
As you point out German tanks were not that good for the most part, it was the us of them that was.

The surface fleet was irrelevant though, and a waste of money. They spent too much on it as is. Things like the Bismarck were just a waste of money.
It would have taken the Germans decades to build a fleet big enough, and far too many resources. For something they did not even need.

The big thing they needed more of though was more trucks, trains, and general logistical support. But tanks with better range would have improved the logistics situation.
A tank without fuel is worthless. They needed more fuel trucks, but tanks with better range would have helped.

The big thing the US understood more than anyone else was logistics. Trucks, mechanics, spare parts, food and fuel supplies are not sexy.
But without them you tanks will not work properly.

Soviet logistics were shit, but they had the US to make up for that. German logistics also insufficient, but they could not rely on the US providing whatever logistical support they needed.

[Dostanuot Loj]

The USSR never abandoned the 3-5 tier system it fought WW2 with until forced to in the mid-late 1950s due to confrontations with the Western allies in Germany.

Changing to meet a new strategic environment and technological advances is not "forced into it at gunpoint".
The West never told the Soviets "adopt a MBT or we invade you".

Adapt or die is forced at gunpoint, since they were literally on the line against the West.

[Novus America]

Changing to meet a new strategic environment and technological advances is not "forced into it at gunpoint".
The West never told the Soviets "adopt a MBT or we invade you".

Adapt or die is forced at gunpoint, since they were literally on the line against the West.

Not really, as the West was not attacking them militarily, and had no real interest in doing so. Even if they had not modified their armor doctrine the West would not have attacked. The West never planned to blitzkrieg the Soviets, simply to fight a defensive war IF the Soviets attacked first, and mostly with nuclear weapons.

And if that it the case than every military doctrinal change is "forced at gunpoint" as it is all in response to changing technology and requirements.

[San Marlindo]

Hi Rio! The answer to your question is that they good tanks when used by competent commanders.

I feel like that's just tanks in general

I think it can be safely argued that any weapon is only as good as its user.

[Uxupox]

I feel like that's just tanks in general

I think it can be safely argued that any weapon is only as good as its user.

Honestly yes.

[Dostanuot Loj]

Adapt or die is forced at gunpoint, since they were literally on the line against the West.

Not really, as the West was not attacking them militarily, and had no real interest in doing so. Even if they had not modified their armor doctrine the West would not have attacked. The West never planned to blitzkrieg the Soviets, simply to fight a defensive war IF the Soviets attacked first, and mostly with nuclear weapons.

And if that it the case than every military doctrinal change is "forced at gunpoint" as it is all in response to changing technology and requirements.

You're right, I forgot that the post war era was a time of absolute peace and deep, friendly relationships between the USSR and the West, and that everyone knew nobody was going to war again. The cold war never happened and nobody put any real money or effort into their conventional forces.

That's not how history works. You don't get to paint a brush of hindsight and assume what you know now somebody else did not think otherwise. We know both sides were extremely worried about the other side launching a conventional war, especially prior to the mid 1960s when he USSR was behind the West in nuclear capability. We know both sides expected it and prepared for it. Faced with a more efficient industrial approach the USSR was forced to wholesale abandon the concepts that they beat Germany with because unlike Germany the West was in a position to exploit those concepts. That's why there was a serious pairing down of in service machine types post war. Many of these machines were introduced or remained in service through the war because they were useful to the operational concepts of the time operational concepts that in detail were lacking.

[Hurdergaryp]

I think it can be safely argued that any weapon is only as good as its user.

Honestly yes.

Also it matters, especially when talking about tanks, if the weapon in question is a less sophisticated export version or the real deal.

[Uxupox]

Honestly yes.

Also it matters, especially when talking about tanks, if the weapon in question is a less sophisticated export version or the real deal.

Good training eliminates that element.

[San Marlindo]

Honestly yes.

Also it matters, especially when talking about tanks, if the weapon in question is a less sophisticated export version or the real deal.

Theoretically speaking, under certain conditions wouldn't even an older, inferior tank with an exceptionally well-drilled and experienced crew stand a chance of defeating a much more modern tank with an incompetent crew?

The better tank commanders and crews would know how to do more with less, and cultivate the conditions that would maximize their ability to compensate for their existing disadvantages. They would also have a much better understanding of armor tactics and how to use them effectively.

An incompetent crew can be lured into a textbook ambush, encircled, or otherwise forced to fight under conditions in which the advantage conferred by their superior armor and armament are much reduced. An idiot with a sophisticated toy is still an idiot. Plus, an incompetent crew will have a much poorer reaction speed. On a modern battlefield where "one shot, one kill" is the objective, this is a fatal shortcoming.

And if their morale or experience level is poor they may even abandon the tank and flee even if it's still in fighting condition and has only been damaged. This seems to be an especially common factor in some Middle Eastern wars, where slightly damaged but otherwise intact tanks are often videoed by triumphant insurgents who simply captured them when the crew members needlessly bailed out.