Sign in to follow this  
kunjuro

So... about German, Russian and American Armor

156 posts in this topic

Disclaimer: I am in no way an expert (or even that learned!) when it comes to engineering, metallurgy and deep discussions regarding historical documents and events. I've also no first-hand access to books by famous Historians like Jentz and I've read mostly accounts of tankers themselves through books (Like Tiger's in the Mud and Shermans in the Red Army) or memoirs and interviews. I've also read quite a bit of the various articles on the forums and by WG affiliated historians like the Chieftain.

With that set aside, hey guys. I'd like to ask something that I've often encountered when reading "For the Record' and "Tank Archives". According to articles like: http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/11/19/on-american-armour/, http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/11/19/on-american-armour/, and http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/01/18/ensigns-qa-20-special-edition/, Soviet and American armor were quite good during the war and German armor was... highly overrated. When I've dug more into the information in those two sites, I was shown pictures of Panzers that were badly mauled in testing against even "light" types of Soviet and American guns like the early-mid war Soviet 76mm F34. It seems that German armor was of "average to terrible quality". So my question is this:

1) Is this true? I believe that yes, the Germans heavily used propaganda to make their weapons look wunderbar. But was the disparity between that reputation of invincibility and the trials really that big?

 

2) If so, how did the Germans manage to succeed during the early-middle stages of the war? Was German training, tactics and morale really that good that it overcame their disadvantages? (IE: I know about how the Germans succeeded against the French even if their tanks had worse "hard stats" like armament, armor and such because they employed better tactics, were better coordinated and had the luxury of the radio).

Thank you guys :) I hope the discussion also remains civil! I am really hungry for knowledge about these things and would also be quite grateful if you could link me some more material to read (but please, don't link me stuff like Belton Cooper's book. I've read parts of it and know how inaccurate the claims are)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Topics about germans vs russians on the internet

 

9mykX.gifzW4cy.gif

 

not with a 10 foot pole

Well, I can hope - can't I? :smiledown:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know about against soviet armor, but I watched a documentary just a few days ago about american tanks vs german tanks in WW2. The overall consensuses was that German tanks were the best at the time, but their superiority was their downfall. They were hard to make, took too many resources, and multiple different factories were making them with different parts, so if one broke down, there were almost never any replacement parts for them. American tanks only triumphed over the german Tiger 1 because of a quality vs. quantity thing. Americans had an almost endless supply of tanks and 100% replaceable parts. If a tank broke down, it could be up and running again within a day. At the end of the documentary, both German and American tank men claimed that they would feel safer in the Tiger 1 than the Patton.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know about against soviet armor, but I watched a documentary just a few days ago about american tanks vs german tanks in WW2. The overall consensuses was that German tanks were the best at the time, but their superiority was their downfall. They were hard to make, took too many resources, and multiple different factories were making them with different parts, so if one broke down, there were almost never any replacement parts for them. American tanks only triumphed over the german Tiger 1 because of a quality vs. quantity thing. Americans had an almost endless supply of tanks and 100% replaceable parts. If a tank broke down, it could be up and running again within a day. At the end of the documentary, both German and American tank men claimed that they would feel safer in the Tiger 1 than the Patton.

Most documentaries insist on the traditional notion of "GERMAN TANKS SUPERIOR BUT ALLIES HAD NUMBERS". Alas, a lot of good books and documents (ones backed up with statistics no less) contradict that idea. Lots of articles have already discussed the faults of the Panther (150 km lifespan before you need to fix the drivetrain? jeez) and the Tiger II (Spalling, spalling everywhere). Plus the M4 itself is often underrated by a lot of people. Sure, if you're a tanker and you wanted to survive, you'd feel much safer inside the more thickly armored Tiger I or II. But if you were a combat commander and you were given a choice between commanding a group of Panthers or Shermans (and even Panzer IVs!), many would prefer the more reliable and trustworthy alternative.

 

 

I could write about how bad the Panther was. Fortunately, somebody else has already done a better job; http://forum.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/327199-our-problem-child-a-teardown-of-pzkpfw-v-panther/

Already read that one in the past - nice article but the amount of flaming in the comments section of the post was both laughable and depressing :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know about against soviet armor, but I watched a documentary just a few days ago about american tanks vs german tanks in WW2. The overall consensuses was that German tanks were the best at the time, but their superiority was their downfall. They were hard to make, took too many resources, and multiple different factories were making them with different parts, so if one broke down, there were almost never any replacement parts for them. American tanks only triumphed over the german Tiger 1 because of a quality vs. quantity thing. Americans had an almost endless supply of tanks and 100% replaceable parts. If a tank broke down, it could be up and running again within a day. At the end of the documentary, both German and American tank men claimed that they would feel safer in the Tiger 1 than the Patton.

 

The Tiger was difficult to make. The PzIV, the actual backbone of the Wehrmact from day one to its downfall, was not. The StuG III, the finest German vehicle according to the Soviets, was not. Sadly, they get none of the attention and everyone swoons over the useless Tiger and Panther.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Tiger was difficult to make. The PzIV, the actual backbone of the Wehrmact from day one to its downfall, was not. The StuG III, the finest German vehicle according to the Soviets, was not. Sadly, they get none of the attention and everyone swoons over the useless Tiger and Panther.

 

How true was the claim that the Stug III/IV destroyed more allied vehicles than any other type of German tank? And was this because they were given to the better trained artillery arm of the Wehrmacht?

Also, why is it that there are records showing that the Stugs could resist AP rounds better than same variant PZ IIIs? Was this because of the lack of quality control in the German production line?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How true was the claim that the Stug III/IV destroyed more allied vehicles than any other type of German tank? And was this because they were given to the better trained artillery arm of the Wehrmacht?

Also, why is it that there are records showing that the Stugs could resist AP rounds better than same variant PZ IIIs? Was this because of the lack of quality control in the German production line?

 

It was very true, I forget the exact details though. They were surprisingly effective in the antitank role.

 

http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/02/06/on-german-armour/ <- regarding the quality control (issues) of the German armor production industry. They were there from the very start.

 

Edit:

http://ftr.wot-news.com/2013/12/26/on-allied-tank-casualties-in-the-eto/ <- regarding the effectiveness of the StuG III, by far the most common of the various SPGs counted. Fully 1/4 of allied tank casualties were to SPGs, and 47.5% of those knocked out by gun fire went to SPGs. Compare that to the 14.5% of those knocked out by gun fire being attributed to actual tanks; while still a significant figure, it pails in comparison.

 

Also, you have to take into account that out of what Tigers and Panthers did kill in terms of the casualties to tanks category, they were so small in number that they likely made up less than half a percent of the tanks lost. That's over 50x less, from the vaunted symbols of "German engineering prowess", compared to a humble makeshift assault gun that was designed not even as its own project, but as a conversion from an older tank.

 

It's likely attributable to the principle of real life warfare in that "whoever gets the first shot wins", but the point still stands. The StuG was a far superior vehicle to the supposed "creme de la creme".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Topics about germans vs russians on the internet

9mykX.gifzW4cy.gif

not with a 10 foot pole

Being of Russian nationality myself.. I think propaganda is a big big part in war, and both sides used it to their advantage. However, the which side had better armor/guns/tactics/morale discussions need to be avoided at all costs. Enemies may be made. Bridges may be burned. That being said, I will continue and always have had great respect for Germans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Tiger was difficult to make. The PzIV, the actual backbone of the Wehrmact from day one to its downfall, was not. The StuG III, the finest German vehicle according to the Soviets, was not. Sadly, they get none of the attention and everyone swoons over the useless Tiger and Panther.

 

I wouldn't call either of the Tigers or the Panther completely useless. They still had a huge impact on the war. The fear factor behind those tanks has to count for something as well. They were formidable tanks to go up against on the battlefield, but in the big picture they were not as good.

 

In regard to the OP. I would say the answer is yes and no. German armor for the most part was superior when you look at it on the battlefield. It had better guns, better armor, and they were scary tanks. In the big picture they were not superior though. They had high maintenance costs, difficult and expensive to produce, horrible reliability, and were more restricted in movement (i.e. what bridges could support them). I think the fact the Germans fought two fronts was what really ended it for them. Going up against multiple countries is going to make it difficult to keep up with production of weapons (including armor) and the fact that we (the Americans) could pump out as many tanks as we did overwhelmed the Germans. So I think the bigger picture factors is what took the superiority of German armor away.

 

As far as early war I think you hit the nail on the head. The Germans had better tactics and better equipment compared to other countries' early war tanks. The Germans had invested much more into armored tactics while other countries did not see armor as valuable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who can forget this well sourced article, Panzerkampfwagen Tiger: Germany's White Elephant.

German armor for the most part was superior when you look at it on the battlefield. It had better guns, better armor, and they were scary tanks. In the big picture they were not superior though. They had high maintenance costs, difficult and expensive to produce, horrible reliability, and were more restricted in movement (i.e. what bridges could support them). I think the fact the Germans fought two fronts was what really ended it for them. Going up against multiple countries is going to make it difficult to keep up with production of weapons (including armor) and the fact that we (the Americans) could pump out as many tanks as we did overwhelmed the Germans. 
 
As far as early war I think you hit the nail on the head. The Germans had better tactics and better equipment compared to other countries' early war tanks. The Germans had invested much more into armored tactics while other countries did not see armor as valuable.

 

The Germans had allies too, it wasn't just them against the world. You have Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Italy all producing and or using their own tanks. On the otherhand America alone produced so much so that countries such as Canada and Australia gave up building cruiser/medium tanks all together with even Britain swallowing their pride and cutting down their own production. Keep in mind America was also fighting on two fronts on opposite sides of the world albeit the best Japanese tank could barely hold its own against the M3 Stuart.

 

That said the Sherman was definitely superior to anything the Germans had when it came out like the T-34 except not quite as shockingly early. The war was pretty much lost for the Germans when the ill conceived decision of ditching the VK 20 series bore fruit to the Panther anyway.

 

Well its not like those other countries wanted the war in the first place so of course their not going to be as prepared with interbellum era cost cutting proving incredibly detrimental to British and French armour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't call either of the Tigers or the Panther completely useless. They still had a huge impact on the war. The fear factor behind those tanks has to count for something as well. They were formidable tanks to go up against on the battlefield, but in the big picture they were not as good.

 

In regard to the OP. I would say the answer is yes and no. German armor for the most part was superior when you look at it on the battlefield. It had better guns, better armor, and they were scary tanks. In the big picture they were not superior though. They had high maintenance costs, difficult and expensive to produce, horrible reliability, and were more restricted in movement (i.e. what bridges could support them). I think the fact the Germans fought two fronts was what really ended it for them. Going up against multiple countries is going to make it difficult to keep up with production of weapons (including armor) and the fact that we (the Americans) could pump out as many tanks as we did overwhelmed the Germans. So I think the bigger picture factors is what took the superiority of German armor away.

 

As far as early war I think you hit the nail on the head. The Germans had better tactics and better equipment compared to other countries' early war tanks. The Germans had invested much more into armored tactics while other countries did not see armor as valuable.

 

Fear factor doesn't win wars. Peasant conscripts are going to be afraid of anything they're fighting, whether or not it actually exists on the battlefield for them to fight.

 

Better guns? Better how? Yes, the Panther had better penetration, let's say. So what? Its HE shell was abysmal. The "dreaded" 88 mm guns had penetration comparable to Allied guns of their class, also with inferior HE. Tanks spend most of their time fighting infantry, not other tanks. Having the longest and coolest gun makes no difference when you're fighting infantry in a forest, just gives them more surface to hang grenades from.

 

Superior armour? According to American trials, German armour thicker than 50 mm was abysmal in quality. Allied tanks never had a problem knocking any German tank out at realistic combat ranges from the side, for instance. Real life tank battles aren't jousting matches with lances. You're going to get flanked, and since you can't protect yourself from every direction (even the Maus was penetrable with Allied guns of the era), you might as well retain decent mobility, which is what Cold War era designs eventually went towards.

 

As for manufacturing, remember that it wasn't just the Germans against the world. They had the manufacturing power of Europe behind them, and an incredible amount of natural resources coming in. The low production of tanks is an organizational problem, not one of resources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who can forget this well sourced article, Panzerkampfwagen Tiger: Germany's White Elephant.

 

The Germans had allies too, it wasn't just them against the world. You have Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Italy all producing and or using their own tanks. On the otherhand America alone produced so much so that countries such as Canada and Australia gave up building cruiser/medium tanks all together with even Britain swallowing their pride and cutting down their own production. Keep in mind America was also fighting on two fronts on opposite sides of the world albeit the best Japanese tank could barely hold its own against the M3 Stuart.

 

That said the Sherman was definitely superior to anything the Germans had when it came out like the T-34 except not quite as shockingly early. The war was pretty much lost for the Germans when the ill conceived decision of ditching the VK 20 series bore fruit to the Panther anyway.

 

Well its not like those other countries wanted the war in the first place so of course their not going to be as prepared with interbellum era cost cutting proving incredibly detrimental to British and French armour.

Yes, but their allies relied mostly on German for armor. Not to mention their armies were not as large, well trained, or well lead as the German army. I wouldn't say that the Sherman was definitely superior to anything the Germans had. Shermans had their issues too and taking down a Tiger or Panther was no easy task for American armor.

 

Fear factor doesn't win wars. Peasant conscripts are going to be afraid of anything they're fighting, whether or not it actually exists on the battlefield for them to fight.

 

Better guns? Better how? Yes, the Panther had better penetration, let's say. So what? Its HE shell was abysmal. The "dreaded" 88 mm guns had penetration comparable to Allied guns of their class, also with inferior HE. Tanks spend most of their time fighting infantry, not other tanks. Having the longest and coolest gun makes no difference when you're fighting infantry in a forest, just gives them more surface to hang grenades from.

 

Superior armour? According to American trials, German armour thicker than 50 mm was abysmal in quality. Allied tanks never had a problem knocking any German tank out at realistic combat ranges from the side, for instance. Real life tank battles aren't jousting matches with lances. You're going to get flanked, and since you can't protect yourself from every direction (even the Maus was penetrable with Allied guns of the era), you might as well retain decent mobility, which is what Cold War era designs eventually went towards.

 

As for manufacturing, remember that it wasn't just the Germans against the world. They had the manufacturing power of Europe behind them, and an incredible amount of natural resources coming in. The low production of tanks is an organizational problem, not one of resources.

I never said fear factor wins wars, but it counts for something when you are looking at battles.

 

And what do you mean "so what" to having better penetration. That doesn't count for anything? Its main gun is not the only armament on it. It has machineguns and more importantly it has armor. Of course the side armor was bad, its bad on almost every tank. First you have to flank the tank. I'm pretty sure the Germans aren't just going to sit there and let someone have their side though. It just sounds like you are taking every strength of the tank and writing it off as completely useless. I can look at any tank and say that all its strengths are pointless too.

 

Where do you get your info for German resources during the war? It was the complete opposite. The Germans were hurting for resources especially as the war went on. Why do you think the Germans wanted to capture the Caucasus region from the Soviets so bad? It brought in oil for them. The reason for Germany's low production of tanks was very much due to lack of resources. There were other factors that played into it but in the end the lack of resources is what really hurt them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Germany equipment complexity was a boon and a curse at the same time.  Look at the real life Porsche produced Tiger (the Tiger(P) as we know it)? Some seriously ahead of time innovations in the drivetrain, but the production and implimentation of this during wartime was impossible and lead to all sorts of issues.  Tigers were fearsome opponents, but spent as much time being fixed as being used in combat because they were so complex. Same with a lot of the early German ME-262 jet fighters. The engine tech was so bleeding edge, basic things like maintenance were almost impossible.  Other things that were very basic they overlooked: I.E. your bleeding edge Tiger tank had pretty much flat armor everywhere when even the "low tech" Soviet T34s had angled front armor? How did the Germans miss that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Germans were so hurting for oil, then maybe they shouldn't have built colossal monstrosities like the Tiger and Tiger II. But then again, basic logic was never the Nazi's strong suit.

 

Yes, armor is important on a tank. Something the Germans seem to have forgotten when they made the Panther's sides able to be penetrated by a PTRD. (See also; "Do we need machine guns on our Ferdinands? Probably not, surely the Soviets wouldn't be so unsporting as to attack them with infantry.")

 

The 75mm guns on the Panzer IV (as well as the 88/L56) had enough penetration to deal with the vast majority of Soviet (and western) tanks at normal combat ranges. The 75/L70's problem isn't just that it has a lot of penetration, it's that it gets that peneteration at the cost of being able to do a tank's most important job.

 

 

Germany equipment complexity was a boon and a curse at the same time.  Look at the real life Porsche produced Tiger (the Tiger(P) as we know it)? Some seriously ahead of time innovations in the drivetrain, but the production and implimentation of this during wartime was impossible and lead to all sorts of issues.  Tigers were fearsome opponents, but spent as much time being fixed as being used in combat because they were so complex. Same with a lot of the early German ME-262 jet fighters. The engine tech was so bleeding edge, basic things like maintenance were almost impossible.  Other things that were very basic they overlooked: I.E. your bleeding edge Tiger tank had pretty much flat armor everywhere when even the "low tech" Soviet T34s had angled front armor? How did the Germans miss that?

 

The 262s issues were more along the lines of "the engines tend to explosively disassemble after less than 50 hours of usage."

 

Regarding the Tiger and sloping armor, the Tiger traces its lineage to the 30.01H and 36.01H, which were late 30s designs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said fear factor wins wars, but it counts for something when you are looking at battles.

 

Really? What does it count for? I haven't heard a single account of a battle that said "they used really scary tanks so we ran away". A unit that is afraid of tanks will run from anything, a unit that is properly trained and hardened won't run from Tigers any more than from PzIVs.

 

 

And what do you mean "so what" to having better penetration. That doesn't count for anything? Its main gun is not the only armament on it. It has machineguns and more importantly it has armor. Of course the side armor was bad, its bad on almost every tank. First you have to flank the tank. I'm pretty sure the Germans aren't just going to sit there and let someone have their side though. It just sounds like you are taking every strength of the tank and writing it off as completely useless. I can look at any tank and say that all its strengths are pointless too.

 

Penetration is a means to an end. What did the KwK 42 do that the KwK 40 couldn't? Penetrate IS-2s? Those are also relatively rare. Congrats, you gave up a very noticeable advantage against the thing you face most to have an advantage in combat against a very rare enemy. Sweet tactic.

 

The Germans aren't going to "sit there". If you attack, you're going to pass through an AT gun belt. This is a fact of life. If you make a 45 ton tank that can be knocked out through the side by a decade-old gun, this is a bad tank and you should not field it.

 

 

Where do you get your info for German resources during the war? It was the complete opposite. The Germans were hurting for resources especially as the war went on. Why do you think the Germans wanted to capture the Caucasus region from the Soviets so bad? It brought in oil for them. The reason for Germany's low production of tanks was very much due to lack of resources. There were other factors that played into it but in the end the lack of resources is what really hurt them.

 

http://www.combinedfleet.com/ParshallTankProduction.pdf

 

Take the Soviet side of things with a grain of salt, but the gist of the presentation is very relevant.

 

 

Germany equipment complexity was a boon and a curse at the same time.  Look at the real life Porsche produced Tiger (the Tiger(P) as we know it)? Some seriously ahead of time innovations in the drivetrain, but the production and implimentation of this during wartime was impossible and lead to all sorts of issues.  Tigers were fearsome opponents, but spent as much time being fixed as being used in combat because they were so complex. Same with a lot of the early German ME-262 jet fighters. The engine tech was so bleeding edge, basic things like maintenance were almost impossible.  Other things that were very basic they overlooked: I.E. your bleeding edge Tiger tank had pretty much flat armor everywhere when even the "low tech" Soviet T34s had angled front armor? How did the Germans miss that?

 

If you make a tank that eats several tons of a very expensive resource (copper), you made a bad tank. Engineering isn't about making the greatest and biggest thing, it's about making an effective solution to a problem. The Tiger (P) was not an effective solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About the 75mm L70, everyone says about the weak HE shell and i understand the reasons for it.
 
But couldn't have they just used less propelant and and a longer shell with more explosives and thus fired at a lower velocity? Like the russians did with their 45mm cannons.
 

UBRZ-243 AP Shell

 
p45mmAP.jpg
 

UO-243 HE Shell

 

p45mmHE.jpg

 

I mean, why did they settle for a high velocity HE shell?

 

Accuracy? Ease of production? Logistics? Something about cannon design i'm not aware of, as the british had similar issue with the 17pdr?
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? What does it count for? I haven't heard a single account of a battle that said "they used really scary tanks so we ran away". A unit that is afraid of tanks will run from anything, a unit that is properly trained and hardened won't run from Tigers any more than from PzIVs.

 

 

 

Penetration is a means to an end. What did the KwK 42 do that the KwK 40 couldn't? Penetrate IS-2s? Those are also relatively rare. Congrats, you gave up a very noticeable advantage against the thing you face most to have an advantage in combat against a very rare enemy. Sweet tactic.

 

The Germans aren't going to "sit there". If you attack, you're going to pass through an AT gun belt. This is a fact of life. If you make a 45 ton tank that can be knocked out through the side by a decade-old gun, this is a bad tank and you should not field it.

 

 

 

http://www.combinedfleet.com/ParshallTankProduction.pdf

 

Take the Soviet side of things with a grain of salt, but the gist of the presentation is very relevant.

 

 

 

If you make a tank that eats several tons of a very expensive resource (copper), you made a bad tank. Engineering isn't about making the greatest and biggest thing, it's about making an effective solution to a problem. The Tiger (P) was not an effective solution.

For some reason you keep picking my words apart. Nowhere do I say that fear is the single contributing factor to a battle or a war, but it does play a part. Have you heard of morale? If you tank crews know that the Tiger can get a penetrating shot 1 mile out while your Sherman basically can't penetrate the frontal armor at all then that is going to play a part in your crew's morale. Not to mention that all the reading I have done so far has indicated that the side armor on the Tiger I was 60mm and later upgraded to 80mm for increased protection making the sides of the Tiger I fairly good at deflecting side shots.

 

I don't see anything in the presentation you linked that says resources weren't an issue for the Germans. It talks about production methods and how ineffective they were, which I agree with, but nowhere does it say that the Germans had plenty of resources to do what they wanted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About the 75mm L70, everyone says about the weak HE shell and i understand the reasons for it.

 

But couldn't have they just used less propelant and and a longer shell with more explosives and thus fired at a lower velocity? Like the russians did with their 45mm cannons.

 

UBRZ-243 AP Shell

 

p45mmAP.jpg

 

UO-243 HE Shell

 

p45mmHE.jpg

 

I mean, why did they settle for a high velocity HE shell?

 

Accuracy? Ease of production? Logistics? Something about cannon design i'm not aware of, as the british had similar issue with the 17pdr?

 

 

I'm not entirely sure, but if I had to guess the Germans probably wanted the ballistics of both shells to be as close as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For some reason you keep picking my words apart. Nowhere do I say that fear is the single contributing factor to a battle or a war, but it does play a part. Have you heard of morale? If you tank crews know that the Tiger can get a penetrating shot 1 mile out while your Sherman basically can't penetrate the frontal armor at all then that is going to play a part in your crew's morale. Not to mention that all the reading I have done so far has indicated that the side armor on the Tiger I was 60mm and later upgraded to 80mm for increased protection making the sides of the Tiger I fairly good at deflecting side shots.

 

I don't see anything in the presentation you linked that says resources weren't an issue for the Germans. It talks about production methods and how ineffective they were, which I agree with, but nowhere does it say that the Germans had plenty of resources to do what they wanted.

 

Neither did I. I said that if your army falls apart at the mention of a tank, it's probably not a very good army.

 

60 upgraded to 80? Where did you read this? Please don't read that anymore. The Tiger I had 82 mm of armour on the side in the upper part, 62 mm in the lower part, past the wheels. This never changed during its production. This armour was easily penetrable from long ranges by 57, 75. and 76 mm guns.

 

As for resources, did you read the thing at all? There are many slides talking about how Germany dwarfs the USSR in production of resources such as coal and steel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neither did I. I said that if your army falls apart at the mention of a tank, it's probably not a very good army.

 

60 upgraded to 80? Where did you read this? Please don't read that anymore. The Tiger I had 82 mm of armour on the side in the upper part, 62 mm in the lower part, past the wheels. This never changed during its production. This armour was easily penetrable from long ranges by 57, 75. and 76 mm guns.

 

As for resources, did you read the thing at all? There are many slides talking about how Germany dwarfs the USSR in production of resources such as coal and steel.

You keep doing that too, oversimplifiying what I say. I never said that an entire army would fall apart at the mention of a tank. I'm not even going to bother continuing this discussion if you are just going to constantly twist my words.

 

I did read the slides but coal and steel are not the only resources needed to produce and maintain tanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, ok, so you're claiming that being feared gives the Germans some kind of intangible bonus that can't be observed or disproven then? Great arguing.

 

As for tank production, steel and coal are very, very important. Do you have another material that the Soviets had in excess and the Germans had a shortage of that you want to talk about? Or are you going to talk in very nebulous terms and let other people try to make your argument for you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, ok, so you're claiming that being feared gives the Germans some kind of intangible bonus that can't be observed or disproven then? Great arguing.

 

As for tank production, steel and coal are very, very important. Do you have another material that the Soviets had in excess and the Germans had a shortage of that you want to talk about? Or are you going to talk in very nebulous terms and let other people try to make your argument for you?

You act like all steel is steel and that there's no difference between "ballistics grade" and "boiler plate".

And for your second point, nickel and tungsten come to mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That doesn't seem to stop German tank production from increasing as the war goes on. I'm not saying they had unlimited wealth, but they didn't exactly have to scrape together sawdust and pencil shavings.

 

Everyone is constrained by resources. This is another parameter that a good engineer must consider. A well organized defense industry would take these shortages into account instead of building ridiculously wasteful giant monsters and wasting money on magic paste.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.