Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Germany and the heavy tank

Discussion in 'The Tanks of World War 2' started by Che_Guevara, Dec 18, 2007.

  1. sinissa

    sinissa New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2006
    Messages:
    570
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Master of air tank busting Hans-Ulrich Rudel had his own tactic of assaults. He fly behind enemy lines,and attack armor from rear,when it is thinner ,and in case to shoot him down,he can eject on frendly ground not on enemy.

    Heavy tanks had purpose ,but as much they can do,they was more then that limited ,usualy with under power, freq. breakdowns,off road mobility ( actualy T1 had great mobility considering his weight,same as panther,tnx to his excelent suspensions and gearbox) transport limites,fuel consumption,etc,etc,etc. There is know for one case when Soviet KV-2 blocked whole german division for whole day ,and they could not destroy it with nothing available then (1941.) eaven with multiple direct hit,but they did disable it by hitting the track. Crew was shoot till they had ammo,later they bailed out.
     
  2. TISO

    TISO New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,231
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    A wierd blue planet
    via TanksinWW2
    Village of Raseiniai in Lithuania.
    another short debate here ( also drawing of Kolobanov's feat near Krasnogvardeysk/Gatchina).
    http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=114584
    http://www.onthewayuk.com/gallery10/FrValerianKV-2.htm
     
  3. majorwoody10

    majorwoody10 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,898
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    ca.usa
    via TanksinWW2
    "quantity does have a quality " a thousand tanks that are good enough ie .shermans or t34s ,will beat 100 excellent tanks even if they are all crewed by capt .whittman clones .

    ww2 was won more on the production lines than on the battle lines , nonetheless , the whittmans ,hartmanns ,rudels ,barkhorns ,priens ect were imo ,a group of warriors that history will never be able to duplicate .i dont disparage the winners of the MOH, VC or ORDER OF LENIN but its hard to compare them with the uber soldiers of the reich ,its too bad they were on the wrong team .

    we have the fictional "dirty dozen "and "where eagles dare " the germans have skorzaeny and the glider raids on the dutch forts .we have our super aces with 20 to 40 career kills in the air and the LW has guys who shot down as many in a week or two .americas top tanker destroyed 6 or 8 panzers and a score of trucks ,whittman and barkhorn shot as many between breakfast and lunch and the list goes on and on , plus ,lets face it ,their uniforms were way cooler too .lol...
     
  4. me262 phpbb3

    me262 phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2004
    Messages:
    3,627
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Porter,TX
    via TanksinWW2
    that really sucks!!
    how come the enemy have the best aces and cooler uniforms?
    ( no to mention the best camo, assault rifles, e tc, e tc )
     
  5. sinissa

    sinissa New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2006
    Messages:
    570
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    WHell,actualy it is true that german was best in moust things in WW2....
    Best fighter Me-262
    Best MG MG-42
    Best AFV Just name them,u can pick...
    Best subs...whell,german subs,ovkors :D
    and u can go on long time. But yes,German loosed on quantity,not quality.
     
  6. Che_Guevara

    Che_Guevara New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2005
    Messages:
    1,109
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Davy Jones's locker
    via TanksinWW2
    Well, but not a single aircraft carrier :cry:
     
  7. Simonr1978

    Simonr1978 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2004
    Messages:
    3,392
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Kent, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Your choice for Best fighter is highly debatable to say the least.

    Let's see, best bomber, no Germany lose there, hands down.

    Best Battleship, hmm, no.

    Best SMG, again...

    Best Aircraft Carrier, well Che's already covered that one.

    Best Destroyer, nope...

    As for German crews scores I will say again Woody, opportunity and the quality of the opposition play a more than significant part. But we've been over this more than once. You're welcome to the opinion that Germany was populated by some sort of uber-humans, better than everyone else, I don't share it.
     
  8. sinissa

    sinissa New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2006
    Messages:
    570
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    MP-40 was not bad SMG at all,i may say. Best was Russian PPSH 43.

    German had few good battleships (bismark,tiripitz) but why germany need nawy at all? Tehy ports was closed by UK on the way exit,on range to ships,subs and Torpedo planes. As far i know they had good patrol boats,and that was enought. Aircraft carrier for what? Germany needed arcraft carrier same as Hungaria needed one.

    About long range bomber,germany had one good modell in development,but end of war prevented it to be produced in larger scale and to fix varius flails he did had...but again,we got topic here,that germans did not need large 4 engine bombers,do we?

    Germans based on things they needed moust on nawy,the subs. They can sneekout and attack.No larger fleet can do that.
     
  9. Roel

    Roel New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    12,678
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    Belgian forts...

    Sinissa: why did Germany need a navy? Precisely because Britain was trying to block their ports and choke them to death. Like every country that needs to provide its population and its armies with regular supplies of food and equipment, they needed to make sure they could dispatch trade and supply convoys to anywhere in the world. In order to do this they needed to knock out the British navy, which is why they needed a big navy of their own.

    They only chose to go for a huge submarine fleet because they realized they could never beat Britain in terms of surface ships. It was necessary evil for the Germans.
     
  10. Che_Guevara

    Che_Guevara New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2005
    Messages:
    1,109
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Davy Jones's locker
    via TanksinWW2

    Blah, blah, blah, you know it doesn´t matter if you fail in something, that´s just an incentive to be better the next time. :D :wink:

    Regards,
    Che.
     
  11. majorwoody10

    majorwoody10 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,898
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    ca.usa
    via TanksinWW2
    if all the steel and effort that went into bismark ,tirpitz et al ,went straight into uboat production ,i wonder if germany might have been able to tip the scales in the north atlatic ?
     
  12. FNG phpbb3

    FNG phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,359
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    not really. Germany could never sustain the crew loses even if they could replace the boats. A brand new boat is no replacement for an experienced captain and crew.

    Besides they were beaten by the overwhelming technology that the allies threw at the atlantic. By 44 air cover was near 100% and where land planes could not reach the convoys carried there own.

    Detection of the surfaced U boat had progressed to the point that they were just ducks on a mill pond to the allies and they could even detect them snorkeling.

    Finally, and this is the main cruel twist, the allies had access to the U boat orders as quickly as the U boat captains and command sent and received them. Unless the Germans ever caught on to this they were always going to be on the back foot.

    FNG
     
  13. Simonr1978

    Simonr1978 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2004
    Messages:
    3,392
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Kent, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Whether they needed these or not is irrelevant, I've used these examples to show that contrary to what seems to be much popular opinion Germany did not actually produce most of the best equipment.

    Germany built battleships, and whilst the Naval war is not my area by a long shot as I understand it they were actually pretty mediocre designs, they weren't bad but they certainly weren't anything special.

    Germany similarly built destroyers again as I understand it these were certainly nothing special, IIRC from other posters on here German destroyers actually had quite poor seakeeping characteristics.

    KMS Graf Zeppelin was similarly a poor design and IIRC had a very small airgroup for such a carrier.

    As for Jet fighters, the Lockheed P-80 Shooting star which flew over Italy prior to VE day was a superior aircraft to the Me262 in every respect other than sheer weight of firepower.

    Heavy Bombers, again whether Germany needed them or not (And I actually agree that Germany was better off concentrating on twin engine mediums and lights) is irrelevant, they tried to produce them and did so, but nothing that was anywhere near as capable as the B-29 which is easily the best heavy bomber of any nation of WWII in every respect and they didn't produce anything that was superior to its contemporaries.

    The MP40 as you've said wasn't bad at all, same could be said for a host of WWII SMGs though and whilst the UK didn't copy the MP-40 the same cannot be said in reverse.

    In a lot of respects this view that occasionally creeps in of Nazi Germany as being populated by all conquering uber-men who bested everyone else in practically every field just isn't the case.
     
  14. sinissa

    sinissa New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2006
    Messages:
    570
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Far i know P-80 newer sow combat so....it is in same class as IS-3,WW2 design but not used. B-29 was clearly best WW2 heawy bomber no doubt. I only say that they developed decent 4 engine bomber, same as Russia did,but why they need it? Concept of german bomber (sry i forget the name) was in front of time when they produce it,but they had warius child sicks ,and it is not fully tested and finished as reliable plane (just how long B-29 was in develop?) . Germany overall had moust advanced weapons in WW2,and certanly most advanced tactics in early stages of war. What about V-1 and V2? What about tanks? Complete airforce? U seriusly think that germany had chance to block UK on sea? UK had one of larger fleet on the world in that period. Germany was sea blocked b natural bariers,and biggest was GB islands.
    THey lost war on quantity not quality. Half of world needed 6 years to crack Germany and defeat it.
     
  15. Simonr1978

    Simonr1978 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2004
    Messages:
    3,392
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Kent, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    As far as the P-80 goes, the P-80 was flying sorties in hostile skies prior to the cessation of hostilities in Europe, the IS-3 only reached the front line after hostilities were over, the curse of ground over air but nonetheless, relevant. The P-80 was a superior plane to the Me262 in practically every respect. The German heavy bomber I really hate to break this to you, I'm assuming you mean the He277, simply wasn't in the same league as the B-29. Simple question, which design did Tupolev copy? What about complete airforce? Honestly now, propaganda aside, which airforce could compete with the US air forces for overall complete air force, which other air force had such a balance of fighter, attack, medium, heavy, carrier fighter, torpedo bomber, dive bomber, transport et all as the US had? Please don't hide behind the excuses that Germany was better off without heavies or a carrier force, in each case they tried and in each case their efforts were to say the least uninspiring. If you wish to discount the P-80 please point to a Luftwaffe heavy bomber that was actually dropping bombs in squadron service and which was even a equal to the B-29. The P-80 had at least progressed beyond service acceptance trials, something neiher the He277 nor the Me264 had.

    In what respect was the German navy superior in material quality exactly? I've said and I will repeat, it was not a simple matter that Germany was outnumbered on the waves, they tried to make superior surface vessels and on the whole failed.

    They tried to make good heavy bombers and on the whole failed to get reliable four engined heavy bombers into service, even those heavy bombers that saw service trials weren't even close to the B-29 in capability or crew comfort It doesn't matter how long the B-29 took to reach service (4 years from drawing board to flying combat missions IIRC from the top of my head), nothing that any other nation got into squadron service even came close.

    What about the V-1, it was really nothing that special, little more than long range artillery. The V-2 was the best in its class, but what was the competition exactly? You excuse the quality of the German navy as Germany didn't particularly need a navy, so what why did the allies need a direct opposite to the V-2? The US produced the Atomic bomb, Germany failed. If you were head of state and had the choice which would you have rather had, the V-2 or the A-bomb?

    Germany lost, not just because of lack of numbers but because of quality as well.

    Really? Remind me which half of the world the Soviet Union was on in 1939 please? I don't recall half the world attempting to crack Nazi Germany when they invaded Poland, nor later when they invaded the low countries later the following year, infact I seem to recall that a more than significant part of "half the world" actually invaded Poland in order to support the Nazis...

    No, "half the world" took at best 4 years to crack Germany, not 6. By comparison Germany started preparing for hostilities for at least 12 years before they finally surrendered. Half the world took 4 years to beat Germany, Germany took over 12 years to lose.
     
  16. Gunter_Viezenz

    Gunter_Viezenz New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2005
    Messages:
    1,838
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Windsor, Ontario
    via TanksinWW2
    Because they couldn't have heavy weapons so they had to start with a bran new stash :), none of the old crappy weapons on the 19th Century. The SS was also a new organization so they got unique uniforms, not based off old uniforms (Old generals seem to resistant to change).

    Destroyers are essentially only good for anti-submarine warfare. Plus in a naval battle I never heard of a destroyer doing anything spectcular, they are essentially targets to occupy the enemy while your Battleships take them out.

    Well Germany was close but, the production of ships in America created a netgain in transports. Donetz wanted I think 300 or 500 submarines to accomplish this I don't remember someone please point out the correct number.

    There is a quote from Churchill which he said "The only thing I feared was the U-boat threat", so clearly he had different opinion than you.
     
  17. Simonr1978

    Simonr1978 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2004
    Messages:
    3,392
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Kent, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    This may be true in a set piece battle although I am not entirely convinced that this represents to limits of usefullness of Destroyers, nonetheless I cannot recall a successfull navy of WWII that operated without its destroyers. I will reiterate, since I think it's an important point to those who seem to regard Germany as being able to do no wrong in terms of men or equipment, Germany tried to make good Destroyers and as I undestand it from this forum at least, those were somewhat lacking as warships compared to their contemporaries.
     
  18. sinissa

    sinissa New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2006
    Messages:
    570
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Actualy i pointed that they got good Submarine fleet,with best ships in that period,but somebody reply me that they did not had good battleships,destroyers,carriers...

    But i dont think that only submarines can block entire UK,area is just too large to cover,and anti submarine weapons becoming betther.
     
  19. me262 phpbb3

    me262 phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2004
    Messages:
    3,627
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Porter,TX
    via TanksinWW2
    if i can remember right, in churchil's memoirs, he point that the u-boots almost choke the vital supply to the island
     
  20. Notmi

    Notmi New Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2004
    Messages:
    1,958
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Suomi Finland Perkele
    via TanksinWW2
    About destroyers: Their task as a part of larger battlefleet is to protect battleships from enemy torpedoattacks and also to do torpedoattacks against enemy big units. During the battle of Jutland both forces were using destroyers like this.
    Also, in confined waters of Solomon Islands during WW2, there was many battles where destroyers of both sides gave good account of themselves, against enemy destroyers and also against heavier units.
    Using destroyers only against submarines is really wasting their abilities, cheaper corvettes and frigates can do the same.

    About german warships and their quality. These are much covered already but still...
    Battleships:
    Bismarck-class, while being larger than other designs from same period, aren't really better than rivals.
    Scharnhorst-class: Built to counter French Dunkerque-class but fail to be better than them.
    Heavy cruisers:
    Deutschland-class: Well, there isn't anything similar in allied inventories. I think it will give a good account of itself against any single allied heavy cruiser at the early parts of war.
    Hipper-class: Same as Bismarck + unreliable engines.
    Light cruisers: We all have read their spectacular archievements and successes, right? This is non-starter.
    Destroyers: Same as Hipper-class.

    Smaller crafts and submarines: There are so many of these that direct comparison is a bit hard but I believe that some German MTB's were very good.
     

Share This Page