What was the thinking behind..............

Why Germany kept building bigger tanks, granted the Tiger was a great tank but was there a need for the King Tiger and the Jadgtiger?

And there research went on with the Maus and E.100 super heavy weight tanks. It's seems there was no end to what they could do.

The King Tiger and Jadgtiger had fire power but speed was another matter. Would it had been better if they just built the Tiger and Panthers and not these big beasts?

 

Definitely the Germans needed a "standard" tank like the Red Army had T-34 but Germans/Hitler realized they were a bit late in production figures, I think, and decided to concentrate on " better wins it all" system. Now they ended up with new tanks with huge problems in getting them battle ready and also not enough of them ever.

I´d say more PZ IV upgrades and Tigers/Panthers.

 

Agreed. I would have stayed with the Panther. I also noticed that the Germans did not standardize their transport fleet. Too many different types of trucks and cars.

 

Not to mention the gasoline they'd use up. TheJagdpanther,like the StuG, were simpler to produce.
But I agree, it would have been better to produce more of one or two main tanks then to re-tool producing yet another so-and-so model.

 

I'm guessing the thinking behind going bigger is consistent with the nazi (or maybe just Hitler's) philosophy throughout the war. Sort of "go big or go home". The same reason the Germans had to have the Bismarck. And the same reason that they had to build the V2 rocket instead of something smaller and more accurate.

 

The problem for the Germans wasn't that they alone were developing such heavy vehicles or a plethora of experimental aircraft, or any other weapons system. The problems for them lay in how projects were selected; or the logistics behind the systems themselves.

Across the board the decision on what got produced in Germany lay primarily with three groups of individual:

1. The various military branch technical offices. These were usually staffed by non-technical officers in decision making positions. Ernst Udet is a perfect example. Here was a fighter pilot that knew absolutely nothing about the manufacture of aircraft.

2. Politicians like Hitler or Göring who often meddled in the selection process and sometimes forced really bad decisions on the military.

3. The manufacturers themselves. They were all acting in the best interests of their own company to the exclusion of other manufacturers. Krupp monopolized tungsten carbide for example.

This meant that parocial interests took precedent over standardization. It also meant that the military was able to make manufacturers introduce continious small improvements in production models restricting mass production. This is why there are so many different models of Pz III and IV for example.
The truck issue is no different. Every manufacturer made their own model. Even with the Schell program to rationalize production over 100 models of truck were still standard along with nearly as many models of motorcycle.

In the US, Britain, and Russia there was a centralized committee that made production decisions. These committees were made up of both military and civilian personnel who were usually technical experts in their field. The US for example had a central committe to make decisions on aircraft manufacture and openly share research and development. Buick's system of grading tungsten carbide was adopted in 15 grades among dozens of manufacturers. Compare this to just 3 grades and a single manufacturer in Germany.
In tanks, aircraft, trucks, and most other equipment the Allies did develop similar "stuff" to that of Germany. The difference was that they thoroughly tested their equipment and only introduced it when it could economically and industrially be produced with no negative impact on current production.
For Germany, "better" was always making a shortage for "good enough." In the end, good enough could not even be produced.

 

Germany, through both World Wars, had to contend with being outnumbered so they could never compete in terms of quantity and almost always went the way of quality over quantity. This wasn't just in armaments, however. German products of all sorts today are renowned for being top quality. However, that emphasis on quality means sacrificing quantity, and increases price. The opposite of the Wal-Mart mentality seen in the US.

The trend with tanks is quite obvious. As World War II progressed Germany found its early tanks being outgunned and their armor couldn't stand up to Allied anti-tank guns. So the trend was for increased armor and larger guns that could thus hit the enemy tanks from further away. This increased the weight of the machines, which required bigger engines, which yet further increased the weight etc. The Allies could get away with producing more tanks than the Germans and if these had less armor and weaker guns, they could easily make up for this one-on-one deficit in terms of sheer numbers and still win a given battle. The German trend towards bigger and bigger tanks had a rational basis and fit in perfectly with Germany's traditional quality over quantity mentality.

 

There is a diffence between quality construction and turning things out because of engineering concepts. In actuality, the Germans are less noted for quality than they are for engineering and gadgetry. If you look at automobiles today, the Germans put out fewer cars and have more quality issues due to the complex gadgets they go for. The Japanese are noted with combining engineering with production.

The problem with engineering, is that at some point, you have to stop engineering and settle on a design. The Germans never grasped that idea. With any design, it goes through several stages: concept, initial design, prototype, testing, redesign, decision, production. Many designs fail due to a need for one or more components that either fail to meet expectations, or are better suited for other applications. Numerous of the aircraft designs are examples of this. Those who relied on an engine that did not materialize or failed to meet goals, or those designs that required an engine that was deemed more valuable for another aircraft.

 

I can't say I agree with you on this. Germany IS noted for the quality of its products and has been for centuries. I am unaware of more recalls on German automobiles than on American or Japanese ones, for example.

You point to German planes but one thing I think you forget is that Germany in the latter part of the war was losing and was desperate. This is the reason for pushing through a lot of designs at that time that had not been through the whole process of concept -> design that you laid out. Germany had a number of pieces that had been designed before the war that were well tested and were produced and utilized throughout the war. The Bf 109, for example, was a good plane used pretty much up to the end of the war (although by then it had been superceded). Also consider the 88 AA gun that was used to successfully throughout the war.

 

The Germans are noted for putting out advanced engineering and investing heavily in highly skilled teams that build luxury cars. But they are not making the cut. The 2006 initial quality rankings show Mercedes at 139 defects, with the median being 124. They are behind Kia in ranking. Every American manufacturer, including Chrysler, is ranked ahead of them. And Volkswagen is ranked next to last. And another ranking of cars evaluated at 18 months, show Lincoln and Mercury in the top ten. It does not show Mercedes or VW.

I engineer for a living and have always appreciated the Germans engineering skills, but I also see a tendency to not know when to quit. No matter how good something is, it can be made better. If the Germans had concentrated on putting out a few quality models, it would have served them much better. As it was, they could not keep their vaulted weapons going due to lack of parts.

The Allies were able to take parts off of damaged weapons and use them to return more weapons into battle quicker. The 'hanger queens' were a vital source of parts. Look at the problems when there were not enough logistics to keep the weapons viable.

 

Look at it this way. The Germans fielded about 22 tanks and tank destroyer models. That does not account for all the variations of engines, armament, etc. The Russians had effectively five models after the start of the war. The United States had less than a half dozen vehicles, with the capacity to engage other armor, to see any real combat. You could include the M2 or the Pershing with them, but realistically, they did not see any significant combat.

 

I agree about German engineering. I keep hoping to see the Tiger I and II on the History Channel's "Engineering Disasters" program. Both of the Tigers were wonderful machines from an engineering standpoint. They were horrible from a production and sometimes a maintanance standpoint.

Who wants to change one of those interwoven wheels under fire? That was a stupid idea. You need to remove two outer wheels to get to one of the inner? Doh!

The Tigers didn't use many common parts. Sometimes parts couldn't be exchanged between varients (Panzer IV suffured from this as well). They we're over complicated too. Something German engineering is famous for.

I do give the Germans points for being able to recover so many Tigers and repair them. Much of that may be due to the dedicated mechanics. Tough work all around...

 

Now is there an advantage of having the wheels overlap?

 

Smoother ride and better weight distribution for a start, more wheel in contact with the track at any given time basically. But as nearly 70 years of vehicle development have since proven the advantages definitely don't outweigh the disadvantages, whether maintenance grief, frozen mud, stress in turns, etc.

Cheers,
Adam.

 

Thanks Adam. That makes sense.

 

Adding to what v.P. said, the more wheels the better the flotation, and the larger the wheel diameter the better too, so this wheel overlap idea was a way to combine both. There are problems however in practical world, as v.P. again pointed out. Imagine you discover you shredded the rubber rim in an inner wheel, you have to replace it, temp is -10ºC and you ran over wet mud which in the meantime froze solid? Yuk!

 

I love to talk to these old veterans at the museums and reunions.

One old American who got to test tanks from all over long ago defended the over-leaf wheels of the Germans. He said that you have no idea how much smoother the ride is. That it isn't so much the theory of firing while on the move, it was more how much all the bumpy ride tanks like my loveable T34 wore and tore not only on the crew physically, but mentally and emotionally too. The longer a battle wore on, more moving, the more the difference proved through.

His other point was 'survivability'. That the German crews were far more likely to survive their tank being taken out that Allied crews. This meant more experienced gained and retained. He also said it is a huge psychological effect on crews, how confident they are that even if defeated, they will survive to fight another day. "You can't buy that kind of confidence short of a Tiger."

Another point he made was just how much impact the very word 'Tiger' had on Allied tank squads. It's not that our boys are cowards, but we knew that one Tiger was rumoured to be exchanged for 6 Shermans. But that 1 or 2 of those 6 would get close enough or behind to knock it out. But who wants to charge in on those odds?

Again, he said you can't 'buy' that kind of confidence short of a Tiger.
We had longer training times for tank crews, the British had most of our experience, but the Germans survived so much more that unlike the Luftwaffe pilot quality, Panzer quality continued to hold if not increase. Confidence and experience came from survivability.

I'd also stay with the Panthers.
However, given that when on the defense you are waiting for the enemy to come to you, rather than you maneuvering on him in meeting engagements even, the Soviet JSII the Germans knew was coming, needed the Tiger VI or Jagdtiger to face them off and stop them.

It's ironic we criticise the German heavy battle tank theory, fewer but the biggest and best...when in fact today that's the American theory with the gaz guuuzzzzzzzzlllinnggggg engine that runs so hot with a jet engine even air-launched heat seeking missiles can lock on.

So today, the US is the Germany of WW2 when it comes to tank theory.

 

Is'nt that hindsight? That the US in relative peace time can hand-pick features that did and did'nt work with earlier armor.

 

Gas turbine tank engine was a British first (Conqueror).
We may have fannied about a bit building up to it but the Cent surely set the successful mould for todays behemoths more than any German design.

In Evolutionary terms Germany gave us some fine concepts, such as MBT and BFG.
As for running gear, engines, gearbox etc. How many underpowered overstressed & interleaved systems became regarded as postwar classics?
Like Framer says, as I'm picking and choosing then I'll disregard the fat cat's running gear thanks, it's daft and hugely overengineered. (c.5 hours of hard labour at each end to take off/replace the outer wheels and change the tracks for transportation?... genius... )

Cheers,
Adam.

 

Great point Poop.

Many have the impression the British, who invented the tank after-all, let the world pass them by after the Matilda(which really did need a howitzer ability, soft-target besides smoke shells).

But they were under immense pressure around the world and numbers were needed.

By the end of the war, the Centurion, though not the sloper one might hope, was, IMHO, the best tank in the world for the next 15 years or more.

A 'beasty' to drive I've heard/seen comments on, but it was the choice of international sales too.

British don't get enough credit here.

Yet another reason why some might argue the Germans needed more than just the Panther.