WWII Tank Development Questionaire

Hi, basically I am doing a major project for my last year of school on ‘The development of tanks during WWII’ and I have to conduct a survey. I figured the best results would be from a forum such as this as it has an array of people from different countries of different ages and knowledge levels. So if you could take the time to answer the questions in lots or little detail it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks heaps.

I have set up a online survey form here: https://spreadsheets.google.com/embeddedform?formkey=dE5hc0xTcjJTbEVmZlFaRlhldHRlZmc6MQ
or just copy past the questions below with a reply.

How has the technology that was developed and applied to land combat vehicles during WWII influenced the vehicles (both military and commercial) we have today?


How were the combat vehicles developed by the countries involved in WWII different, and how did these differences account for their success. Was this success due to the design or the amount of vehicles produced? (eg. Heavy Tanks)


How did tank prototypes designed during the war influence the development of military vehicles in the future?
Why did Germany's production numbers decrease towards the end of the war and what do you think the reasons were for that?


In relation to the previous question do you think had Germany been able to keep up production of their tanks could they have won the war or at the least been able to successfully defend themselves?


Oh and if I have posted this in the wrong place feel free to move it to where it needs to go. Thanks again.

If your answers are becoming long winded feel free to skip a few of the questions.
- Thanks again.

 

I answered your questions Jordan. Remeber, the answers I gave have the effect of being copyright which means you need to credit the source if you use them.

 

*****NOT A TANK EXPERT***** But i like testing my own knowledge.

As with alot of things WW2 - The early part of the war was very different to the end of the war in terms of technology.

Q1.The effect has been continuous...Late war2 tanks were taking shape (literally) with sloped sides, experiments with larger than 75mm rounds, high velocity rounds etc. The tanks have "evolved" from their WW2 counterparts. The big differences these days would be in group communication, target aquisition and targeting and semi or fully automated loading, upping the rate of fire. The engines themselves are more powerful with better fuel efficiency.

Q2. Success was usually down to design (WW1 a good example). Tanks like the Tiger tank are good examples of a great design. However, tanks like the T-34 or Sherman were more successful due to the numbers fielded and relative simple operational use. The tank "successes" were normally due to superior numbers. *French tanks show what a bad design can/cannot do.

Q3. A big question that probably should be split. The answer to the first part is similar to the first question. In my opinion, the biggest development to come out of late war tanks was the sloped sides idea...not first used then, but accepted by then. The need for support or combat independence also was a feature at this time.
My guess is that production numbers dwindled for the same reason production numbers dwindled on just about everything....The allies winning the war! Factories were being bombed, steel was at a premium and Germany was on the back-foot.

Q4. No. The tank war was won by the Russians...easily in the end - in terms of numbers fielded (And the T-34 was a nice tank!)...and would have continued that way increasingly. Quality, not quantity was Germany's only chance.

 

Question 1, Tanks developed before the war and employed in the first half of the conflict tended to be mission specific, i.e. Light tanks = scout reccon, Medium tanks = breakthough/exlpoitation, Heavy tanks = Infantry support. Few if any were seen as a primary tank killer in itself, that job was done by towed or self propelled anti-tank guns. By the end of the war all nations still active in tank development were moving to designs that placed tank killing ability/survivability as a primary concern. Post war nearly all designs are tank killers first. Support and reccon has been taken over by different types of AFV's.

Question 2, Design:

Germany Pre-war/early war designs were generaly lighter, faster and cheaper to produce. Mid to late war period designs heavier, less mobile, expensive and intended to counter enemy armor.

Russia Pre-war were generaly light and speedy with a small number of heavier designs. Mid/Late war heavier Tank killers.

France Pre-war Defensive and economical (small size and small crew). No chance to develop.

Britain Pre-war Light Reccon, Cruiser(exploitaion) and Heavy infantry support. As war progressed moving to what we would now call a Main Battle Tank.

United States Largely stuck with the Sherman as a solid general purpose tank and simply modified it to meet current needs. Used high speed self propelled anti-tank guns for the Tank killing role (Tank Destroyers)

In the end the numbers that could be put into the field, those actually built and thier reliability were the key to success. They did not need to be the best, just good enough.

Question 3A, As stated above designs moved towards tank killing as a tanks primary function, and remains the general standard today.

Question 3B, Gemany never altered thier way of producing tanks, so as they became heavier, and more complex the limits of production could only produce fewer numbers, not more. Germany also was the only major nation in europe who had the production capacity targeted by its opponents.

Question 4, Germany had a narrow window for victory and was almost sure to lose a long war against the combined might of the British Commonwealth, Soviet Union and United States. They would need to eliminate one of the first two to have any real chance. Germany also lost the war at sea and in the air, they would at least have to force a draw in these areas as well in tank production to succeed.

 

Read the wrong post first.........nothing to see here

 

Thankyou very much for your replys will of course refrence you for any answers I use in my final report.

 

Ok I'll take a shot here.

The simple answer would be that they are direct evolutionary decendents of it. The complex answer would be at least book length.

The development process in the individucal countries was an intricate interplay between designers, factions of the military, politicians, and the economies and science of the time. Books have been written that address just part of this interplay for a single country. Hard to address in just a paragraph or two. As for success I would argue that doctrine and training out weighted both design and numbers. Furthermore design and number are not independent variable but have significant impact on each other.

They added to the knowledge base and showed that some directions were worth more consideration and others weren't.

Her resources had become severly constrained. It's one of the things that happen when you are loosing a war.

No. Germany had many tanks sitting at the factories unused. The implication is that production exceeded their ability to put the tanks they did produce into service. Thus increased production would have no real pay off and indeed might make matters worse if you assume it's a zero sum game.