Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So most of the German tanks entering into the Eastern Front were indeed light Czech tanks and then some T-IV and T-III but neither was match to T-34.
The Czechs also deserve some credit as well. Skoda Works had, and has an earned reputation for producing quality weapons. Though the Czech tanks were light, they were also reliable, fast, and well armed. When paired with expert crews, they delivered alot of bang for their weight.
Apples and oranges. The Tiger is a heavy tank that weighs twice as much as the T-34. Even the Panther outweigh the T-34 or the Sherman so much that they would be categorized as heavy tanks in the allied armies.
I do admit that the tiger did have its issues . But in terms of armor, weapon systems and technology. It was superior in range , and armor . It actually was one of the first tanks with power steering . It was un-reliable and slow but given the right amount of time , I guarantee it would have been improved eventually leading to a less problematic in the future . The problem was it was too late ...
I do admit that the tiger did have its issues . But in terms of armor, weIpon systems and technology. It was superior range , and armor . It actually was one of the first tanks with power steering . It was un-reliable and slow but given the right amount of time , I guarantee it would have been improved eventually leading to a less problematic in the future . The problem was it was too late ...
The problem with the Tiger was it was far to costly.
While it was fearsome 1v1 the allies could afford to loose many t34s/m4s and still be on $ parity ignoring their production advantage.
Ontop of that the main threat to wwii tanks was at guns and infantry hand held at. The low cost of the t34/m4 meant that allied infantry divisions could often have more tanks supporting than german armoured divisons.
The Germans were probably better off making more Panthers then Tigers/King Tigers.
The Czechs also deserve some credit as well. Skoda Works had, and has an earned reputation for producing quality weapons. Though the Czech tanks were light, they were also reliable, fast, and well armed. When paired with expert crews, they delivered alot of bang for their weight.
And even when obsolete, many of the Czech chassis continued to give service as assault gun/tank destroyer chassis. While there's valid debate over the usefulness of the vehicle type, in the case of Germany with thousands of otherwise obsolete but functional tank chassis, it's better than much of what else could have been done with them. They could have left them intact as support tanks for infantry, I suppose, but I think the Germans understood that what they really needed was to get long guns into the mix well before they had the turrets to handle them, and tank destroyers posed a scoot-and-shoot threat even the Soviet armor had to respect.
And even when obsolete, many of the Czech chassis continued to give service as assault gun/tank destroyer chassis. While there's valid debate over the usefulness of the vehicle type, in the case of Germany with thousands of otherwise obsolete but functional tank chassis, it's better than much of what else could have been done with them. They could have left them intact as support tanks for infantry, I suppose, but I think the Germans understood that what they really needed was to get long guns into the mix well before they had the turrets to handle them, and tank destroyers posed a scoot-and-shoot threat even the Soviet armor had to respect.
I think assault guns were definetly the right choice for Germany when they were on the defensive. As you mentioned, their small size gave a lot of tactical advantages to a defender. In the strategic sense, were far easer to produce than flag ship model Panthers and Tigers. The naysayers aside, Germany probably got a lot of bang for the buck from their assault guns.
So much of this tank talk revolves around tank vs. tank in combat and not on a tank's role as an assault weapon and it's strategic abilities--speed, reliability, range and quantity. I think the best tank of the war was 5 Shermans.
It's like guys who argue which type of battleship was superior based on armor and guns when in fact the Iowas were the best, not because of their guns and armor, but because they had the speed to keep up with carriers and the most potent AA suites of any battleships--the Iowas were the battleships most capable of cooperating with aircraft and of defending against them. Aircraft decided what was the best battleship.
What I found funny is the german's Das Reich division actually captured enough T-34 tanks to form the III/Battalion SS Panzer Regiment 2 ... where they were using them against the soviets.
What I found funny is the german's Das Reich division actually captured enough T-34 tanks to form the III/Battalion SS Panzer Regiment 2 ... where they were using them against the soviets.
During the surprise counter offensive at Kharkhov, Waffen SS divisions captured an entire depot level maintenance yard. Soviet practice was not to do extensive repairs or salvage at the Army level. Instead, the damaged tanks were just written off and replaced with new ones. Follow on rear echelon forces would then recover the abandoned tanks.
As a result, the yard contained about 200 T-34s in various stages of repair, cannibalization or salvage. The SS divisions that captured the yard kept most of the T-34s that could be quickly returned to service. These tanks were then used at Kursk by those divisions.
I do admit that the tiger did have its issues . But in terms of armor, weapon systems and technology. It was superior in range , and armor . It actually was one of the first tanks with power steering . It was un-reliable and slow but given the right amount of time , I guarantee it would have been improved eventually leading to a less problematic in the future . The problem was it was too late ...
The "un-reliable" part wasn't necessarily true. The Tiger was rather mechanically reliable and the few early production mechanical reliability issues were ironed out. What was a constant issue was its track design, weight and excessive fuel consumption. I would point out though that the Tiger was introduced in 1942 and the general concept had been formulated as early as 1937. The issue with the Tiger was, as others have pointed out, cost and manufacturing complexity.
The real German "solution" to the T-34 question was the Panther. It was originally conceived to replace the Pz.III and Pz.IV chassis as a new medium tank. The Panther design was developed after the Germans studied the T-34. However, with the constant demands of Hitler for greater armor and a bigger gun, it eventually ballooned into a larger tank then was originally planned. Taking that into consideration, it was still a much better tank then the Tiger in terms of performance in everything but pure destructive power (in particular the Tiger had vastly better HE ammo since the Panther gun was heavily slanted towards AT performance).
Overall though, as everyone has been pointing out, it was about the performance of the tank as part of an overall weapons system. For that the comparison is really the T-34 vs. the M4 Sherman vs. the Pz.IV. Depending on the time and the version, these were all roughly equal in straight up combat and capable of taking each other out. They each had their flaws and drawbacks as well as their advantages.
This blog article (which is reasonably well sourced) make some great arguments against the "myth of the T-34"...
T-34/76 > Pz.III which was the most numerous tank it faced when first introduced.
T-34/76 < Pz.IV (75) which was the chassis the Germans adapted as best they could to fight the T-34/76.
T-34/85 = Pz.IV (75) with the German holding advantages in optics, radios, etc.
T-34/76 = Sherman M4 (75) with the American tank having better crew comfort, reliability, optics, etc.
T-34/85 = Sherman M4 (76) with the American tanks having better crew comfort, reliability, optics, etc.
Overall it's not that the T-34 was a great tank, it wasn't even that great of a weapons system when you really look at it. What it was was timely (being in production early in the war), reasonably upgradable and able to be produced fast enough to make an impact. Ultimately the shortcomings didn't matter since it wouldn't survive long enough to break down, etc.
The article loops back to (and I think there is a good argument for) the M4 Sherman being the all around best tank weapons system of the war.
The Tiger really only had 2 things going for it-a very good gun in the form of the 88mm Kwk36 L/56 cannon, and THICK armor. It also had decent optics for long range accuracy. The armor, while thick, was not a very sophisticated layout. It did not utilize any sloping, relying on pure thickness. This meant much heavier tank than others with similar protection.
It had several faults, as mentioned. Cost and complexity meant that it could not be produced in large numbers. It's weight grew considerably from what it's drive train was designed for. Transmission failures (both in it and in the Panther) were very common, since they were designed to handle a lighter load. Far more were lost due to breakdowns than due to enemy action. The gasoline fueled engine was fire-prone (both due to battle damage, as well as to chronic problems with fuel leaks). And it was prone to overheating. The tanks large size and weight limited it's mobility. It was too big and heavy for many bridges, and was far more prone to getting stuck than the T-34. Perhaps worse, the interleaved road wheels were prone to binding up when operating in muddy conditions, and when they suffered combat damage they were difficult to repair.
Additionally, the gunner was limited with a fixed (high) magnification gunsight. As anyone that has shot a rifle with a high magnification scope knows, the field of view is very limited, meaning that it often took German gunners a long time to find a target that the commander had identified. Other tanks offered variable magnification or a co-ax periscope to assist in finding targets. Flip side, the good optics and accurate, powerful gun meant it could hit and penetrate targets at long range. It also suffered from painfully slow turret traverse.
The Tiger was better suited as a defensive weapon than offensive. It's limited reliability and mobility, as well as fuel consumption, really limited it's usefulness on a rapidly moving offensive front.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
