T-34 for Tigers

The Germans were flat out maintaining both their man power and logistics from the out set of the war, let alone if they were to 'spam' the German army with even more tanks.

By using superior armour and better trained crews at the beginning of the war, they had no need for many tanks, considering that even had they been able to continue to build the tanks, they would simply had run out of fuel even faster then historically.

The Tiger was superior to virtually every tank in the field up until the last year or so, with exceptions for AT SPG's, and some of the heavier allied tanks. Why build 10 T-34's when 1 Tiger could achieve a similar result?

The last years of the war were already set in concrete due to the mistakes in the beginning, there was no way of changing the fate of Germany, there man power limits had already hit there peeks as well as trained crews, the German industry was built for quick wars not long drawn out ones unlike Russia and the USA.

 

yeah but when a tank gets knocked out thats just a huge waste of germanys resources

 

I sympathize with the Russian tankerman. With the awful two men turret, situational awareness is terrible. The early optics were next to useless, and the tanks often did not have a full compliment of shells. Many tanks carried only high explosives onboard and some others had only machine gun bullets. The early T-34 did not have any radio, reciever or transmitter, so coordinated movement was impossible. Usually, the company commander has the only functioning radio in the company so command and control was non-extant. The Germans almost always concentrated their fire on the point tank as it was the only place one can lead a formation; the command tank was usually found there and the rest of the unit simply followed the leader. Once the command tank was knocked out or immobalized, the surviving T-34s would become confused and mill about until all were knocked out in close combat with Pz. IIIs. The experience of the two Russian Tank Corps that fought two Panzer Divisions of the 4th Pazer Army in the viccinity of Stalingrad seem to confirm those problems; they were able to fight fiercely for days, but in the end both were destroyed by German formations of equal size.

I think only in 1942 did the T-34 became a viable tank killer, but by then, the Germans had the long barreled 50- and 75-mm high-velocity guns to kill them.

 

Btw, the Russian T-34s of 1941 vintage actually were machined to a very high standard compared to late war tanks. It was just for nothing when there were no functional radio or opitcs, and most importantly, minimally trained tankmen. Most of Kirponos' men, IIRC, had never fired a round from their tank's cannon, and the drivers at most had a couple of hours of hands-on driving. Killing the archaically equipped German infantry, on the other hand, was something the T-34-76 was more than adequate at...

 

Definitely T-34 had several huge advantages but during 41-42 many of these were lost like using tanks for protecting infantry and sending to battle "one by one" and not using as iron fist, no commander cupola and the stabilizer for the gun was missing so Germans had definite advantage on this once they had better and bigger guns to penetrate the T-34 armour.

 

bigger guns are,nt really better you need more penatration which would prompt the production of a skinnier shell for more penatration and plus there is usually only one way to deal with a tank that has good armor and thats trying to shoot the turret of the tank and that instantly makes a dead tank no gun no problem thats what the germans did not understand even the toughest tank can be rendered useless by a turret shot.

 

"The Tiger was superior to virtually every tank in the field up until the last year or so, with exceptions for AT SPG's, and some of the heavier allied tanks. Why build 10 T-34's when 1 Tiger could achieve a similar result"

I could not disagree with you more. I would definitely take the 10 T-34's. As said before, one on one, the Tiger was arguably the greatest tank, but that didn't translate in operational terms. The overly complicated Tiger (even early Panthers for that matter) was notorious for mechanical failures and only small units of Tigers were fielded among tank battles in the Eastern front that comprised of tens of thousands of tanks. I feel like it was a mismanagment of inexpendable resources on the German's part.

 

The Tiger Tank had its uses due to the fact that it was produced in small numbers. It was regularly inserted in tactical situations where Panzer IIIs/IVs would fail or suffer heavy losses. I think it had notable strategic significance on the Russian front in 1943 and was an important weapon in the 3rd Battle of Kharkov. At the very least, it made the Germans harder to defeat.

In 1943, German Tiger Kompanies destroyed T-34s with impunity. After 1943, the Tiger I was less dominant due to evolving Allied countermeasures and equipment.

 

General Raus talks about Tigers playing a key role in the 3rd Battle of Kharkov. In their first appearance in the battle, 2 Tigers destroyed 16 attacking T-34s on open ground. As the Soviet Armor retreated, the two Tigers counterattacked and destroyed 18 more T-34s. All of this was achieved in a single action.

 

During the Battle of the Third Kharkov, 1 SS Pz Gren Div spearheaded its advance with virtually just two Tigers followed by the rest of the division's tanks and haltracks in tow. There was no reconaissance, no air cover or anything like that. It was not uncommon for a handful of Tigers to provide the offensive backbone of a tank division. As an aside, I think Joachim Peiper was the lead element commander and Wittman was commanding the point tank.

 

Ace tanker Otto Carius talks about how his Tiger I was used for recon in 43'. It didn't matter if he got hit- the hits wouldn't penetrate and the enemy pak front would be revealed for later targeting..

 

It makes a bad habbit when the Soviets were finally countering the Tigers with 85s and 122s. Being in an invincible machine for too long in a war breeds over confidence. Still, it is easy to see why the commanders would push the Tigers to the outmost limits of its performance. Nothing the allies had in quanity could punch a hole through the Tiger at front and most attacks were ineffective on the side. The ten to one or five to one kill ratio bandied about on the internet was pure myth for the panzerwaffe in general, but in a good field of fire a Tiger could really do damage. One of the most memorable reads I have had about WWII was how an American Sherman platoon charged a Tiger from 2,000 down to 25 yards, and only the platoon sergeant's tank survived. The Tiger's armor was not penetrated--the spalling killed every last one of the German crew.

 

I get the impression that the mixed Tiger I/ Panzer III units were a better use of the Tiger compared to having them organized in homogeneous Tiger Battalions. It seems that these homogeneous units would of had inferior coordination since they would not have prior training and integration with the medium tanks. I'm not positive, though.

 

Naturally there was several types of tactics, some with lighter vehicles on the outer wing, then there was the panzerkeil where the Tiger´s heavy armour was used to push through the enemy line.

Panzerkeil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

If they produced T-34s they would have more tanks, right?
I beleive there would have been an even greater strain on their fuel reserves.
More tanks= more fuel consumption.

 

Those who fall back onto the fuel debate are WRONG on this point.

German tanks and other armoured vehicles ran almost exclusively on Petrol which come from fossil fuel such as Oil but the T-34's ran on Diesel which can be made out of any oil source. Also Albert Speer liked the T-34's due to their simplistic build and maintenance qualities but he could not bring himself to suggest to Adolf Hitler to begin mass production of these outstanding tanks, naturally they would be outfitted with the effective German PaK's. Just imagine the Germans having 30 to 40 fully equiped Panzer Divisions and that the Axis had them as well.

v.R

 

Guderian was shocked by the appearance of the T-34 and being a pragmatic sort and not particularly concerned about matters of national prestige when it came to equipment, urged that Germany needed to do exactly what you suggest - simply copy the T-34 since it was cheap, simple, and effective. Hitler and German ordnance had other ideas, and the Panther was their answer. It was a first-class tank but not really reliable enough, and too complicated especially compared to the humble T-34.

The numbers speak for themselves: the Germans were only able to build about 4,000 Panthers (and only 1,100 tigers) while the Russians built over 80,000 t-34/85 tanks alone. Every panther lost by the Germans was very hard for them to replace. while the Russian tank strength simply continued to grow as the war progressed, regardless of losses.